[cut: only the first 33554432 bytes of this file were read]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posthistory>
  <row Id="1" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="de9dd604-6f79-4e24-81d9-f4fb4a62ec7a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:34:44.490" UserId="36" Text="My own daughter asked - only two days ago - &quot;What is physics&quot;? While that may be a little too simple - there's plenty of definitions easily available - how simple can (or should) we go on this site? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="2" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="de9dd604-6f79-4e24-81d9-f4fb4a62ec7a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:34:44.490" UserId="36" Text="How basic is too basic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="3" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="de9dd604-6f79-4e24-81d9-f4fb4a62ec7a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:34:44.490" UserId="36" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="5" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="fa2b47e6-7e01-40c5-b799-a21df0a51e46" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:45:08.220" UserId="13" Text="I think it would be pretty difficult to create a question that is considered &quot;too basic&quot; from every perspective. After all, questions that on the surface look basic often pose much deeper questions. Physics, after all, is about the fundamentals. None other than Einstein spent much of his youth thinking about problems the average person would probably take for granted; and he gave us relativity theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What is physics?&quot; is actually a surprisingly pertinent question. Your average person certainly couldn't answer it well, and some physicists may even struggle to precise about it. &quot;The study of energy and matter&quot; is a common answer given, though somehow it doesn't fully justify it. Physics, especially these days, often blurs with mathematics at one end and philosophy at the other, not to mention chemistry and the more obvious ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="6" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="c34780fe-8aff-4248-8095-7e6a6d98841f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:46:36.437" UserId="56" Text="Half a section of the FAQ can be edited (just copied the image from math.SE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WW8oK.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was recommended we just include the on- and off-topic stuff, e.g. copied from [Super User](http://superuser.com/faq):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Super User is for computer enthusiasts and power users. If you have a question about …&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * computer hardware&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * computer software&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and it is **not about** …&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * videogames or consoles&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * websites or web services like Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * electronic devices, media players, cell phones or smart phones, except insofar as they interface with your computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * a shopping or buying recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … then you're in the right place to ask your question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions what to put there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW, just to be clear, we can also add extra sections in that area, like [cooking.SE](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq), but the last section must be followed by that &quot;Please look around...&quot; paragraph, making it hard to deviate from the on-/off-topic theme.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="7" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="c34780fe-8aff-4248-8095-7e6a6d98841f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:46:36.437" UserId="56" Text="What to put in the FAQ (the &quot;on-/off-topic&quot; section)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="8" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="c34780fe-8aff-4248-8095-7e6a6d98841f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:46:36.437" UserId="56" Text="|discussion|top-7|faq-proposed|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="9" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="dd56fc1e-c4ad-4320-a6f7-b46e30ecfc4f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:53:44.573" UserId="18" Text="Well, that's it. MathJax doesn't appear to be working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it hasn't been put in place yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="10" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="dd56fc1e-c4ad-4320-a6f7-b46e30ecfc4f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:53:44.573" UserId="18" Text="LaTeX not working? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="11" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="dd56fc1e-c4ad-4320-a6f7-b46e30ecfc4f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:53:44.573" UserId="18" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="12" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="765ebaf5-d363-4439-a8eb-8c9127825006" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:55:32.087" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="13" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="b4d2ca2a-6d46-4d3d-bf89-a636cbdbafc2" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:59:18.557" UserId="40" Text="So here is a variant of the question that I think the OP is asking: should this be more like MO level or MSE level? I personally committed on Area51 because I think the physics community should get in on the type of stuff that can happen on an MO type site. I doubt that I will be asking questions on here for very long simply because I expect most of my questions to be too basic. That is the way it should be. Simple questions should be left for another site, except that it took so long to get this beta underway it may be detrimental to the community to turn people away. A lot of people think that MO is a bit snobbish, but they are missing the point, the website is for research level questions only. Or at least something that you might wonder about after qualifiers or some such thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a better example of a basic question would be the following: &quot;I don't get free body diagrams, can someone please help?&quot; I think this should be considered too basic, but I am not even the type of person this place is for so... those are my thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: MO is Mathoverflow and MSE is Math.stackexchange. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="14" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="8c1bb474-8a2c-4b2e-a023-40744ec7289c" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:59:59.410" UserId="13" Text="Indeed, no LaTeX support/MathJax here either, it seems. Hopefully the implementation will be copied over from math.se soon, it will definitely be needed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="15" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="25af6f67-1e99-4a75-9605-81b8c8f58f3a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:00:03.143" UserId="36" Comment="Added tag &quot;allowed-questions&quot;" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="16" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="26562d3b-f81c-4186-a8b1-95ae986dff01" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:05:00.567" UserId="7" Text="Since we have a fairly broad definition for what is allowed for discussion, we'll probably end up with a number of variations on the standard physics subfield tags. What are some general rules we should devise for managing these tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. `particle-physics` or just `particle` with physics being redundant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a tag for `definition` already on the front page. Valid? I tend to think not... though an argument could be made for looking up all the definition posts we'll eventually have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="17" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="26562d3b-f81c-4186-a8b1-95ae986dff01" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:05:00.567" UserId="7" Text="Physics subfield tags and general tag rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="18" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="26562d3b-f81c-4186-a8b1-95ae986dff01" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:05:00.567" UserId="7" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="20" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="29d509d4-8fe6-45ea-a6d5-6b2db0e13f46" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:18:24.407" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Simple rule: if an answer can be provided by a simple Wikipedia query, it is too basic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="21" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="84ecfea5-b96c-40ba-820c-aa98a407c858" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:41:58.257" UserId="75" Text="The first thing that I noticed about *this* site was the irony of it's name. Surely I'm not the only one who would rather have the logo look like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![meta Physics, not Physics meta][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess this is a meta.meta.physics question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xtr60.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="22" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="84ecfea5-b96c-40ba-820c-aa98a407c858" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:41:58.257" UserId="75" Text="meta Physics, not Physics meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="23" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="84ecfea5-b96c-40ba-820c-aa98a407c858" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:41:58.257" UserId="75" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="24" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="0fc092fa-0026-4531-972f-cff3050c3c4c" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:45:22.277" UserId="54" Text="Disagree. From talking to users new to the Stack Exchange system, one of the things that confuses them the most is the purpose of the Meta complement site to each Stack Exchange site. Having these new users come to the Physics site, see the meta button at the top, click it, and then see metaphysics as the banner would confuse them even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="25" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="4817ae54-c6c9-4170-8e0f-fdcdf2d698bd" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:49:26.687" UserId="2" Text="If you wish to see LaTeX support please upvote this question.  We will revisit this in a few days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="26" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="7ccf6d81-4434-4170-b944-e4017787737d" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:57:11.253" UserId="74" Text="I have several physics questions, all of which are about the sloshing mode of water.  Should I ask all the questions in a single thread, or create separate threads?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="27" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="7ccf6d81-4434-4170-b944-e4017787737d" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:57:11.253" UserId="74" Text="Can I ask several related questions in a single thread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="28" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="7ccf6d81-4434-4170-b944-e4017787737d" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:57:11.253" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="29" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="ffc72835-2dea-49fd-930a-996187eae781" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:00:47.403" UserId="82" Text="My feeling is that we will have a lot of &quot;Basic explanation of xxx [theory | principle | ...&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your opinion about that ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mine is that we should not hesitate to point to wikipedia (or equivalent) and close. The question can then be asked again about a more specific point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we post long answer explaining basics things again and again, then we should better edit Wikipedia. This is a Q&amp;A site, not an encyclopedia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="30" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="ffc72835-2dea-49fd-930a-996187eae781" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:00:47.403" UserId="82" Text="Wikipedia like questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="31" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="ffc72835-2dea-49fd-930a-996187eae781" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:00:47.403" UserId="82" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="32" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="354db6ea-9781-4d30-8227-7910b398c20a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:02:48.940" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="It seems a lot users here will be from USA, but still SI units are standard in science-level physics and may encourage broader participation. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="33" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="354db6ea-9781-4d30-8227-7910b398c20a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:02:48.940" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Shall we force to use SI?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="34" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="354db6ea-9781-4d30-8227-7910b398c20a" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:02:48.940" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="35" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="9115667b-a42c-461a-a1ca-479423da0513" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:04:48.533" UserId="74" Text="May I ask questions that I know the answer to, but are puzzles?  For example, can I ask whether the level of water in a cup of ice water goes up or down while the ice melts?  This is a standard conceptual question in introductory physics and I know the answer, but can I ask such things (especially novel examples of this sort of question) just to promote people thinking about it and coming up with solutions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="36" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="9115667b-a42c-461a-a1ca-479423da0513" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:04:48.533" UserId="74" Text="Are &quot;Puzzle&quot; Questions Appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="37" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="9115667b-a42c-461a-a1ca-479423da0513" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:04:48.533" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|asking-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="38" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="da364e59-e5d1-4c85-9fce-a541817b3862" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:07:41.963" UserId="74" Text="Absolutely not!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical electromagnetism, CGS is more natural.  In other cases we might want to discuss things in units where c = 1 or hbar = 1, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="39" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="a8bb9269-796a-4512-b5d3-8f349feea27e" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:11:18.277" UserId="7" Comment="added a couple tags that I've modified" Text="Since we have a fairly broad definition for what is allowed for discussion, we'll probably end up with a number of variations on the standard physics subfield tags. What are some general rules we should devise for managing these tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. `particle-physics` or just `particle` with physics being redundant? I've added tags with `particle-physics` and `high-energy-physics` so far. I think it's more clear to have the -physics, even though it may be redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a tag for `definition` already on the front page. Valid? I tend to think not... though an argument could be made for looking up all the definition posts we'll eventually have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="40" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="bc24ca15-a578-4f89-8bb6-4a8fa5a3c11f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:11:45.873" UserId="4" Text="I'm doing Astronomy as a GCSE (at high/secondary school) and the teacher often goes above the course, and we (the students) often ask above what the course requires. But because its a GCSE there's a timeline, so sadly we can't spend a week on each subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia is great, but for things like physics, to understand an article you need to read all the articles it links to and so on, it doesn't give the straight forward explanations/answers that class and stack exchange sites do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically can astronomy questions be asked here?&#xD;&#xA;Such as 'Whats the difference between a neutron star and a pulsar?' or '[How] does the mass of a planet orbiting a star affect it's orbit?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="41" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="bc24ca15-a578-4f89-8bb6-4a8fa5a3c11f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:11:45.873" UserId="4" Text="Astronomy/Astrophyiscs related question here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="42" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="bc24ca15-a578-4f89-8bb6-4a8fa5a3c11f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:11:45.873" UserId="4" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="43" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="f0b762ba-0a7a-4696-a0a7-0172e27b40f9" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:13:10.510" UserId="67" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|featured|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="44" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="2281df1e-940a-4c95-aca8-6ec7d0f46180" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:16:51.023" UserId="67" Text="Each question should go in its own thread. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question per post allows users to answer each question individually with the proper comments and voting for each question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do not combine multiple inquiries into one question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="45" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="9d10a47d-5c5e-4fb9-ac57-315f1679d556" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:20:25.660" UserId="7" Text="My first reaction is that the first example doesn't belong and the second example does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reasoning isn't so solid but it goes like this: the first is sort of an astronomical classification issue, which should really go in the yet-to-be [astronomy stack site][1]. The second is more of a &quot;what is the physics behind this astronomical phenomenon?&quot; which is, of course, physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="46" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="f09f4491-2a16-4036-90e2-4c3fd10c68ad" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:24:37.767" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Simple rule: if a satisfactory answer can be provided by a simple Wikipedia query, it is too basic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="47" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="88ed719f-71ea-414c-8d23-9c88b30b10fa" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:31:16.700" UserId="4" Text="Actually this is not only a Q&amp;A site, but a source of knowledge that most people should access through search engines and arrive at the question directly that is relevant to their search term, so it is kind of a encyclopedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia is great if you already understand what your trying to learn. Many of the physics pages contain &quot;jargon&quot; which you must read the page about that which contains more &quot;jargon&quot; and you end up reading 30 pages to understand one page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an answer I think that the answer should just be a link to a wiki article, but a link to the wiki article followed by a relatively-basic explanation, to which the asker can comment on and ask for more clarification or more depth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="48" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="9605df27-cdca-47ff-9164-bfa490f21d31" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:34:34.040" UserId="82" Text="I think explanations should be independent from the units, and while giving specific examples or formulas, the units system should be made explicit ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, any European student would cry if you answer EM problems in CGS units..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="49" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="fc638134-b9b3-4aa7-8af1-0d49e6376e79" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:44:24.067" UserId="97" Text="We should encourage the assumption that SI units are used unless specified otherwise. I agree that HEP formulae with $\hbar=c=1$ look better, but that should be stated somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="50" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="540067c6-d07b-43cd-ac8f-ea560965046b" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:50:00.163" UserId="69" Text="Fortunately, no questions of this sort have been asked yet. I suppose it will happen *sometime*, but I have no idea how we should respond. We could simply mark for deletion, but this will only cause the original poster to ask why we did so and argue further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a short term member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/), I found quite a bit of flame wars between physicists and new users with warped ideas. Topics included optimization questions for their perpetual motion machine that would supposedly make them millions, hollow earth theorists, moon landing conspiracy theorists, and even people who were apparently from the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how can we handle these topics to avoid chaos threads?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="51" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="540067c6-d07b-43cd-ac8f-ea560965046b" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:50:00.163" UserId="69" Text="How do we deal with perpetual motion and other hoax questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="52" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="540067c6-d07b-43cd-ac8f-ea560965046b" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:50:00.163" UserId="69" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="53" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="5d75a37f-9787-496c-831c-8567db20b322" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:02:17.080" UserId="20" Text="How is this site conceived?  Math Overflow is a pretty valuable&#xD;&#xA;tool for research mathematicians.  There is a parallel site&#xD;&#xA;for undergraduate-level math.  If Physics Overflow/Area 51/Physics&#xD;&#xA;is to be about research-level physics, perhaps the design should convey this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="54" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="5d75a37f-9787-496c-831c-8567db20b322" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:02:17.080" UserId="20" Text="The design looks high school-y, don't you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="55" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="5d75a37f-9787-496c-831c-8567db20b322" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:02:17.080" UserId="20" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="56" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="c4fd3543-4ba4-41ab-a8fd-668f788e8c31" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:03:39.043" UserId="97" Text="I wouldn't automatically consider question about perpetum mobiles as hoax questions. If the question really includes a &quot;So, I considered [some facts], but I can't find a flaw. Why doesn't it work?&quot; it might be acceptable. But real hoax questions and &quot;Hey, I solved all problems in the world&quot; (&lt;- what's the question here?) should be closed as &quot;not a real question&quot;. We should keep them as a warning to jesters unless they take overhand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="57" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="7dc57878-9914-4b80-b1ca-ad63727285c8" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:05:28.013" UserId="97" Text="The design is the same for all site in the beta phase, Jin will give each site a unique design in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="58" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="6719a516-20aa-4ef1-b7f0-960d2e5adac2" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:06:00.197" UserId="4" Text="The sketchyness of the site is because the site is in beta and a design hasn't been discussed, let alone decided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is usually done after about 90-100 days of public beta, currently we are in private beta, and there are 5 days left of private beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Also this site [hopefully] won't be completely research-level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="59" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="3ae4e710-aec1-4d5c-9533-42e9b462c770" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:31:57.637" UserId="2" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="60" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="70bba291-42b4-437a-97ef-43fed549b5c7" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:34:14.993" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Research-level question&quot; = looking for research level answers, citing articles, giving an overview of articles/subfield, instead of repeating textbook/Wikipedia type knowledge and basic clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="61" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="70bba291-42b4-437a-97ef-43fed549b5c7" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:34:14.993" UserId="47" Text="Differentiate research-level questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="62" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="70bba291-42b4-437a-97ef-43fed549b5c7" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:34:14.993" UserId="47" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="63" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="5071c9bb-3198-446f-a90a-062980c0241f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:36:37.320" UserId="56" Text="How do you want to differentiate? If you need a &quot;research-level&quot; answer, just state that in the question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="64" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="af679795-5be2-4ecb-a52d-8cb47f02c9b5" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:49:34.340" UserId="4" Text="Let's just create a research-level tag then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="65" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="f9bfcafe-946c-4990-a231-e0a1c4c78b92" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:55:17.857" UserId="46" Text="Shouldn't this be clear from the phrasing of the question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="66" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="020966a5-d11d-45cf-943a-7efcf0de9cf5" CreationDate="2010-11-02T23:25:03.233" UserId="18" Text="Maybe it is implicit: Research level questions require research level answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="67" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="ed0659d1-7b17-4279-ac35-1d66aa65bf8f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T23:47:35.160" UserId="107" Text="Professional physicists often jealously guard their good ideas, since they are afraid that competing researchers might steal them and publish first. As a junior scientist, I am sometimes appalled by what lengths some colleagues go to to avoid collaboration, which is why I'm such an ardent supporter of websites such as this one that promote open and unreserved discussion of ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what should a hypothetical Physics user, who is also a researcher, do if a discussion on Physics leads to that spark of inspiration which ultimately results in a publication? Pride is easily wounded (especially other people's ;-) and we wouldn't want people withdrawing from discussions because they think their ideas are too good! Our hypothetical researcher would presumably like to give credit where credit is due.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will we see a new wave of papers in Physical Review Letters that say in the Acknowledgements section at the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The authors thank the community of physics.stackexchange.com for fruitful discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would people like to go about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="68" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="ed0659d1-7b17-4279-ac35-1d66aa65bf8f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T23:47:35.160" UserId="107" Text="How should we assign credit for ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="69" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="ed0659d1-7b17-4279-ac35-1d66aa65bf8f" CreationDate="2010-11-02T23:47:35.160" UserId="107" Text="|discussion|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="70" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="177f1333-66ff-4df9-b472-4877742d1810" CreationDate="2010-11-03T00:15:17.133" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="The license of everything here is clear: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/  &#xD;&#xA;Whatever you say, you keep the law of being attributed the author (profile has a place for your name and e-mail, so the real identity of an user can be usually justified when needed), but you allow others to use it as they wish.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the advances of open science will someday tend to situation you described, but yet many good ideas will be inevitably hidden. Still, this shouldn't drive this place totally useless (-;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="73" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="a8529574-cb47-468d-9dc9-1ffc7f7c96eb" CreationDate="2010-11-03T06:27:51.803" UserId="97" Text="Since each post (both questions and answers) provide a `link`, you can quote what helped you for example as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    mbq, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, user names may sound strange compared to real names we are used to, but that's the attribution required by the license (although I'm not certain how to link to the user profile as well without overcrowding).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note I cheated with the link: For questions, a shorturl à la `http://site.com/q/123/456` is the official link, where you can remove the last number if you need more space and don't need it to be referral link. For answers, you get something like `http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34/how-should-we-assign-credit-for-ideas/35#35`. Just pick the number at the end which identifies the answers post number and use the `site.com/q/35` shorturl. This is however not officially supported and might break one day..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="74" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="d83d76bc-6ae2-40d1-8930-c03816c676a8" CreationDate="2010-11-03T06:42:07.580" UserId="2" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|featured|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="75" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="5cde91fd-c51d-4459-a182-edcc5429ec4f" CreationDate="2010-11-03T07:20:44.083" UserId="46" Text="Many communities must deal with this question sooner or later, might as well get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How should we deal with homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that the Mathematics.StackExchange site is handling things well. Here are some links to their deliberations on these matters. As a frequent user of that site, I must say that we have been fairly successful of handling these questions well: both supportive, but not too helpful to be destructive to the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to deal with HW questions.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More policy about HW questions.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to not give complete solutions.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Homework tags.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/106/what-is-the-proper-way-to-handle-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/410/on-homework-and-extra-characters-to-satisfy-the-silly-15-character-requierement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415/homework-questions-avoiding-giving-a-complete-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/621/do-we-really-want-a-homework-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="76" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="5cde91fd-c51d-4459-a182-edcc5429ec4f" CreationDate="2010-11-03T07:20:44.083" UserId="46" Text="The canonical homework question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="77" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="5cde91fd-c51d-4459-a182-edcc5429ec4f" CreationDate="2010-11-03T07:20:44.083" UserId="46" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="78" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="3b5f4d67-ac80-45e6-a428-fccd596cbd03" CreationDate="2010-11-03T09:38:00.803" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="79" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="2c14e8bd-bdc4-499c-8ae3-6fc10ebfc2d4" CreationDate="2010-11-03T09:38:39.960" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="80" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="2a7af55d-c6a6-448a-b060-55e9fed0700a" CreationDate="2010-11-03T09:39:10.367" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="81" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="8ea52c74-ec0d-4e95-9851-90380e11e87c" CreationDate="2010-11-03T12:16:06.843" UserId="36" Text="Most people have enough of a sense of the concept of &quot;fair play&quot; that I'd like to think this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly going to come up, and we don't want people from legitimately using this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cribbing from [StackOverflow][1] - on which the Mathematics.StackExchange site builds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two principles involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;It is okay to ask about homework&lt;/b&gt;. For one, it would be impossible to stop it all even if we wanted to. Stack Overflow exists to help programmers learn and provide a standard repository for programming problems, both simple and complex, and this includes helping students.&lt;/li&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest&lt;/b&gt;. Therefore you might choose to treat homework questions differently than other questions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it'll be nigh-impossible to determine in advance which are homework questions 100% of the time. On the other hand, there will be those questions are going to stick out like a sore thumb as obvious homework. I don't think we want to get in the habit of providing homework answers directly, as that directly violates principle 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's wrong to inquire if a question is a homework or class-related question in the comments. If it is, the questioner ought to be willing to accept help in a form similar to what they might get from a reasonably accommodating professor or TA, and it should be our job to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, if we could get people with homework questions to **voluntarily** tag their questions appropriately, then everyone would benefit. Maybe this ought to be in our FAQs or guidelines somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/10811/homework-on-stackoverflow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="82" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="9ef60ecd-d51d-45f1-b845-8fbc18725566" CreationDate="2010-11-03T14:38:51.993" UserId="42" Text="Why don't we encourage posters to give a little bit of their background and their own thoughts?  That way, we can address answers to an appropriate level, and also remind ourselves that we once had similar &quot;basic questions&quot; as well..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="83" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="66576ab6-619a-4a70-b91a-0911c2ca0dc6" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:23:18.003" UserId="7" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. No question is too basic, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Current physics (why is the Large Hadron Collider 27km long?)&#xD;&#xA; - Physical phenomena (how are the northern lights produced?)&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics (why do physicists care about representations of Lie groups?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, you should expect a range of answers from highly technical to very basic, depending on how you phrase your question. Be specific if you want a specific type of answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work&#xD;&#xA; - *other common topics that have stack exchange sites*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a work in progress, any suggestions are welcome**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="84" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="b0ecb19b-d080-4d49-aade-ef13b0f81aee" CreationDate="2010-11-03T21:26:32.993" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Sorry for such pseudoquestion, but check it out:&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="85" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="b0ecb19b-d080-4d49-aade-ef13b0f81aee" CreationDate="2010-11-03T21:26:32.993" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Do you know there is a chat room for physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="86" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="b0ecb19b-d080-4d49-aade-ef13b0f81aee" CreationDate="2010-11-03T21:26:32.993" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="87" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="2a32b26d-711d-40fd-b183-281774456b81" CreationDate="2010-11-03T22:54:55.523" UserId="124" Text="I'm wondering whether questions such as these should be considered appropriate on this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/115/mathematica-to-help-for-an-hamiltonian-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107/conversion-from-fits-to-netcdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem like questions which are relevant to physicists (or some subset of physicists) but are really about computing rather than physics. In my view, just because the specific programs or file formats in question are typically used by physicists, it doesn't mean the question is necessarily appropriate here. Sometimes Super User might be a better fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="88" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="2a32b26d-711d-40fd-b183-281774456b81" CreationDate="2010-11-03T22:54:55.523" UserId="124" Text="Should we allow computational questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="89" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="2a32b26d-711d-40fd-b183-281774456b81" CreationDate="2010-11-03T22:54:55.523" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="90" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="b8361766-5700-4dd4-b8f3-7de8f03ea97c" CreationDate="2010-11-04T00:49:54.877" UserId="13" Text="I think I agree that these sorts of questions should generally be asked on Super User (if they are specifically related to how to use plotting/CAS/simulation/etc. software); or the Mathematics SE (if they relate to how to perform numerical integration, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are however some potential cases where computational questions would be quite valid here. For example, you might ask what approximations and numerical shortcuts could be made for simulating a given dynamical system. Or a more obvious example (though perhaps not quite what you mean) - quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest we judge relevance on a question by question basis, in any case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="91" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" CreationDate="2010-11-04T12:27:43.477" UserId="67" />
  <row Id="92" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" CreationDate="2010-11-04T12:27:43.477" UserId="67" />
  <row Id="93" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="d7a4558b-f51d-46b7-b272-f5c41e24294f" CreationDate="2010-11-04T23:59:15.217" UserId="82" Text="Another related question: what should we do with tags like `elevator` or such things. Should poeple able to edit tags try to retag question with a tag that is an actual physics field ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="94" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="16f0b962-4f63-4aff-9093-58e4605b4c2a" CreationDate="2010-11-05T05:31:17.957" UserId="163" Text="Have you considered using arxiv style tags? It's being used on both MathOverflow and CSTheory, and seems to make a lot of sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="95" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="22391d38-29b7-4cec-81e5-a104ae576a54" CreationDate="2010-11-06T19:00:39.903" UserId="78" Text="Is there going to be a way for me to make a very minor edit, e.g. punctuation, without pushing the question to the top of the activity date sort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="96" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="22391d38-29b7-4cec-81e5-a104ae576a54" CreationDate="2010-11-06T19:00:39.903" UserId="78" Text="Very minor edits, e.g. punctuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="97" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="22391d38-29b7-4cec-81e5-a104ae576a54" CreationDate="2010-11-06T19:00:39.903" UserId="78" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="98" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="7cf6ca61-b1f0-48b4-922c-86e6cc33bc4d" CreationDate="2010-11-06T21:22:23.120" UserId="56" Text="[No](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/26483/could-we-have-the-ability-to-mark-a-change-as-minor-in-questions-or-answers/26496#26496)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="99" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="00044217-6d27-46b2-acee-f916310c1de0" CreationDate="2010-11-07T03:53:54.483" UserId="121" Text="To increase the amount of knowledge on the site (in question and answer form), I am considering if I should write some specific questions that I could provide answers to myself, with others answering as they see fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny, the filter/matcher is telling me &quot;The question you're asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems in line with the purpose of the site and would provide material for Google searches. Of course, we need to work on getting more researchers and students to sign up (I still need to finish an explanation and invite for a professor, the SPS club, and some friends)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="00044217-6d27-46b2-acee-f916310c1de0" CreationDate="2010-11-07T03:53:54.483" UserId="121" Text="Is it okay with you to write &quot;seed&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="00044217-6d27-46b2-acee-f916310c1de0" CreationDate="2010-11-07T03:53:54.483" UserId="121" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="0d5c2654-1166-4429-910e-bb198d56bb1c" CreationDate="2010-11-07T04:44:21.760" UserId="124" Text="Sure, seeding is fine, but I would suggest trying to write the question as if you didn't know the answer, so that people who actually don't know the answer can identify with it. Also, I'd suggest not answering your own question right away, but rather giving other people a day or two to answer it. Afterwards, if you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer, then post your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. If the site is telling you that the question appears subjective, that's probably just because of some particular word you're using in the title, so don't worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="dc820e14-0e02-4b93-ad42-4eab1db6bc78" CreationDate="2010-11-07T08:20:52.340" UserId="124" Comment="tag as an &quot;essential 7&quot; question" Text="|discussion|tags|top-7|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="db2ce192-d836-47f7-ae75-69d94868fc46" CreationDate="2010-11-07T09:12:11.513" UserId="124" Text="I thought it might be useful, at least at the beginning of the site, to make a list of some canonical forms of subfield tags. Obviously it's impossible to create a comprehensive list of tags, but my idea is to have a set such that any question which is appropriate for the site could be tagged with at least one tag from the set. This will also help us out later when people get enough rep to vote on tag synonyms, since we'll already know what the community thinks the canonical forms of certain tags should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, these tags are already used on the site and I think they would make good subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `astrophysics`&#xD;&#xA;- `atmospheric-science` (physical aspects of meteorology and climatology)&#xD;&#xA;- `classical-mechanics` (when `lagrangian-mechanics` and `hamiltonian-mechanics` are too specific)&#xD;&#xA;- `cosmology`&#xD;&#xA;- `education` (could be renamed to `physics-education`)&#xD;&#xA;- `electro-magnetism` (needs to have the hyphen removed though)&#xD;&#xA;- `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `general-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `geophysics` (physical aspects of geology and seismology)&#xD;&#xA;- `hamiltonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `kinematics` (basic relationships between position, velocity, and acceleration)&#xD;&#xA;- `lagrangian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `magnetohydrodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `mathematical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `medical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `optics` (when `quantum-optics` is either too specific or inappropriate)&#xD;&#xA;- `particle-physics` (although this might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `physical-chemistry`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-field-theory`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-optics`&#xD;&#xA;- `rotational-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `special-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `string-theory` (also might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `thermodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `wave-theory`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have not been used on the site, but I think they would be appropriate subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `atomic-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `condensed-matter-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-gravity`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags in the following list are in use, and I can see how they *could* be good subject tags, but I think they're either too broad or too specific, or redundant with the preceding lists. Note that I am *not* advocating that these tags be renamed or deleted. They're fine as tags (well most of them are fine), but I just think that any question that uses them still should have a tag from one of the previous lists. Others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `mechanics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `climate-science`: subset of `atmospheric-science`&#xD;&#xA;- `applied-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `experimental-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `standard-model`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `aerodynamics`: subset of `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `gravity`: file under either `general-relativity` or `newtonian-gravity`&#xD;&#xA;- `sound`: typically equivalent to `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `philosophy`: probably off-topic, or there should be another applicable tag&#xD;&#xA;- `large-hadron-collider`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `accelerator-physics`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `software`: equivalent to `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-engineering`: equivalent to `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `material-science`: either equivalent to `condensed-matter-physics`, or the question may be off topic for this site&#xD;&#xA;- `electrostatics`: subset of `electromagnetism`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. I'm making this CW so it can be collaboratively edited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="1113f3e6-7bd1-4c8f-b043-6fa73198cd14" CreationDate="2010-11-07T09:25:26.357" UserId="124" Text="Question #7 of the [7 essential meta questions](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/the-7-essential-meta-questions-of-every-beta/) is about promotion: once the private beta ends, how do we get people, and especially _experts_, to sign up and start asking and answering questions? I thought it would be useful to have a meta question where we can coordinate or discuss our promotion ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few points to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What channels of communication can you use to make people aware of the site?&#xD;&#xA;- What incentive can we offer researchers and other experts to participate?&#xD;&#xA;- What distinguishes this site from other existing physics Q&amp;A sites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="1113f3e6-7bd1-4c8f-b043-6fa73198cd14" CreationDate="2010-11-07T09:25:26.357" UserId="124" Text="How should we promote the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="1113f3e6-7bd1-4c8f-b043-6fa73198cd14" CreationDate="2010-11-07T09:25:26.357" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|top-7|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="651e1b14-78f4-4834-b120-4a2c587deda6" CreationDate="2010-11-07T14:14:25.873" UserId="56" Text="##The Elevator Pitch &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't as easy as it sounds. Imagine the user who will never read your FAQ and you have two seconds to grab their attention. It should be catchy but descriptive. It should be thoroughly clear but painfully concise. **Make every... word... count.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some creative examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Gawker](http://gawker.com/): Daily Manhattan media news and gossip. Reporting live from the center of the universe. &#xD;&#xA;- [Gizmodo](http://gizmodo.com/): The gadget guide. So much in love with shiny new toys, it’s unnatural. &#xD;&#xA;- [Autoblog](http://www.autoblog.com/): We obsessively cover the auto industry. &#xD;&#xA;- [DumbLittleMan](http://www.dumblittleman.com/): So what do we do here? Well, it’s simple. 15 to 20 times per week we provide tips that will save you money, increase your productivity, or simply keep you sane. &#xD;&#xA;- [Needcoffee.com](http://www.needcoffee.com/): We are the Internet equivalent of a triple espresso with whipped cream. Mmmm…whipped cream. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use it as a Tagline &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A shorter elevator pitch *can* be used as a tagline&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;something you can display in the header at the top of the page. If it doesn't fit, consider shortening it or creating a separate tagline. Here are some great examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Slashdot](http://slashdot.org/): News for nerds. Stuff that matters. &#xD;&#xA;- [Lifehacker](http://www.lifehacker.com/): Don’t live to geek, geek to live! &#xD;&#xA;- [The Simple Dollar](http://www.thesimpledollar.com/): Financial talk for the rest of us. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Motto (don't forget your logo) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A logo begs for it own little, short tagline&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;like a motto. Maybe the tagline inspires the logo; Maybe it's the other way around. Mottos make good t-shirt, bumper stickers, and other marketing material. Either way, you'll recognize a good motto when you see it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Just do it. &#xD;&#xA;- Think Different. &#xD;&#xA;- The Uncola. &#xD;&#xA;- Intel inside. &#xD;&#xA;- Like a rock. &#xD;&#xA;- The king of beers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip;and perhaps all this leads to a proper name and domain for your site&amp;hellip; *eventually*. So let's start from the basics. **Come up with a killer elevator pitch, tagline, and/or motto!** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="651e1b14-78f4-4834-b120-4a2c587deda6" CreationDate="2010-11-07T14:14:25.873" UserId="56" Text="Write an Elevator Pitch / Tagline" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="651e1b14-78f4-4834-b120-4a2c587deda6" CreationDate="2010-11-07T14:14:25.873" UserId="56" Text="|discussion|top-7|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="ed500688-cf21-4568-bb81-6af3cd3ea8b2" CreationDate="2010-11-07T17:59:21.333" UserId="124" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="I thought it might be useful, at least at the beginning of the site, to make a list of some canonical forms of subfield tags. Obviously it's impossible to create a comprehensive list of tags, but my idea is to have a set such that any question which is appropriate for the site could be tagged with at least one tag from the set. This will also help us out later when people get enough rep to vote on tag synonyms, since we'll already know what the community thinks the canonical forms of certain tags should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, these tags are already used on the site and I think they would make good subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `astrophysics`&#xD;&#xA;- `atmospheric-science` (physical aspects of meteorology and climatology)&#xD;&#xA;- `classical-mechanics` (when `lagrangian-mechanics` and `hamiltonian-mechanics` are too specific)&#xD;&#xA;- `cosmology`&#xD;&#xA;- `education` (could be renamed to `physics-education`)&#xD;&#xA;- `electro-magnetism` (needs to have the hyphen removed though)&#xD;&#xA;- `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `general-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `geophysics` (physical aspects of geology and seismology)&#xD;&#xA;- `hamiltonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `kinematics` (basic relationships between position, velocity, and acceleration)&#xD;&#xA;- `lagrangian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `magnetohydrodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `mathematical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `medical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `optics` (when `quantum-optics` is either too specific or inappropriate)&#xD;&#xA;- `particle-physics` (although this might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `physical-chemistry`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-field-theory`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-optics`&#xD;&#xA;- `rotational-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `special-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `string-theory` (also might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `thermodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `wave-theory`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have not been used on the site, but I think they would be appropriate subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `atomic-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `condensed-matter-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-gravity`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags in the following list are in use, and I can see how they *could* be good subject tags, but I think they're either too broad or too specific, or redundant with the preceding lists. Note that I am *not* advocating that these tags be renamed or deleted. They're fine as tags (well most of them are fine), but I just think that any question that uses them still should have a tag from one of the previous lists. Others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `mechanics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `climate-science`: subset of `atmospheric-science`&#xD;&#xA;- `applied-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `experimental-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `standard-model`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `aerodynamics`: subset of `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `gravity`: file under either `general-relativity` or `newtonian-gravity`&#xD;&#xA;- `sound`: typically equivalent to `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `philosophy`: probably off-topic, or there should be another applicable tag&#xD;&#xA;- `large-hadron-collider`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `accelerator-physics`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `software`: equivalent to `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-engineering`: equivalent to `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `material-science`: either equivalent to `condensed-matter-physics`, or the question may be off topic for this site&#xD;&#xA;- `electrostatics`: subset of `electromagnetism`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. I'm making this CW so it can be collaboratively edited (although if you change something other than fixing a typo, please leave a comment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="4403ae0c-b2c6-454e-92ef-8562d55ea36c" CreationDate="2010-11-07T19:24:49.140" UserId="124" Comment="add another link and a position statement" Text="I'm wondering whether questions such as these should be considered appropriate on this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/115/mathematica-to-help-for-an-hamiltonian-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107/conversion-from-fits-to-netcdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207/matlab-simpowersystem-simple-generator-implementation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem like questions which are relevant to physicists (or some subset of physicists) but are really about computing rather than physics. In my view, just because the specific programs or file formats in question are typically used by physicists, it doesn't mean the question is necessarily appropriate here. Sometimes Super User might be a better fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As discussed in Noldorin's answer and Tobias's comment, we seem to be taking the position that questions about the interpretation or justification of an algorithm or its results, or about physically motivated algorithm design, are okay, but questions about how to accomplish &amp;lt;task&amp;gt; in &amp;lt;program&amp;gt; (or &amp;lt;programming language&amp;gt;) should generally go to Super User (or Stack Overflow, respectively)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="4337f494-576a-461e-bbcd-0032363a7c83" CreationDate="2010-11-07T22:22:16.500" UserId="124" Text="Just to get this barest seed of an idea out there, the phrase &quot;quantum of knowledge&quot; comes to mind. I'm not sure what we could do with it. If you have ideas, edit them in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="22cd55ab-6ab8-4e8e-b87f-cf00598bd734" CreationDate="2010-11-07T22:57:39.090" UserId="13" Text="I'm not too familiar with the process, so hopefully someone can clarify here. Do we need any moderators for the public beta, which seems to be coming up in less than 2 days? Will members of the official StackExchange team act as temporary moderators during this beta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="22cd55ab-6ab8-4e8e-b87f-cf00598bd734" CreationDate="2010-11-07T22:57:39.090" UserId="13" Text="Moderators for beta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="22cd55ab-6ab8-4e8e-b87f-cf00598bd734" CreationDate="2010-11-07T22:57:39.090" UserId="13" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="08b0046e-0b61-49bd-ade0-232bba393978" CreationDate="2010-11-08T01:41:45.050" UserId="124" Text="There are already members of the SE team who are registered on the site and have moderator powers, but I don't think they participate heavily in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator-choosing process is described in e.g. this [post on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site/58056#58056) but here's the gist: about a week after the public beta starts, temporary moderators will be chosen by the Stack Exchange team, based on community input. Then later on, toward the end of the beta period, there will be an election of permanent moderators - or rather, an election of moderator _candidates_ to indicate who the community prefers, but I'm sure the results will be reviewed by the SE team and the final choice is up to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="118" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="eaf0a177-7125-4726-9c4b-508fac3ad3cb" CreationDate="2010-11-08T02:30:21.697" UserId="13" Comment="edited title" Text="Moderators for beta. How does it work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="a014db25-f521-402a-9f59-228df0fa2e18" CreationDate="2010-11-08T06:39:41.343" UserDisplayName="user172" Text="I'd rather we don't force answerers to use units/unit systems that they aren't comfortable with, **but** they shouldn't object if their answer is edited to have the conversions in other (more convenient?) units, or if someone contributes a version of their answer with a different unit system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="120" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="c912ea1a-c9ba-43e8-8ac7-6ad367ba6a4a" CreationDate="2010-11-08T13:56:29.443" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="121" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" CreationDate="2010-11-08T15:12:02.817" UserId="67" />
  <row Id="122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="7a2bcd44-8b5f-4c6c-af91-14677c555cdd" CreationDate="2010-11-08T15:39:15.020" UserId="67" Text="It is simply ***not* a good idea for a new site** to &quot;seed&quot; it with questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blog post: [**Area 51: Asking the First Questions**](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/area-51-asking-the-first-questions/#comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are calling &quot;seeding&quot; isn't typically such a good idea. Users should be asking real questions about problems they actually have. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People love answering questions. But fewer people want to watch someone to talk to themselves and even fewer people want to be given homework assignments for the sake of busy work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you must, at least limit it to that *rare*, particularly *interesting* problem in the past where you wish you had this site to help you at the time. Or if you come across a good problem in your work, ask it&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;You don't *have* to answer it, even if you know the answer. But more times than not, if you're going to sit and simply *think up* some hypothetical &quot;problems&quot; to fill the site, it's going to look forced and pedestrian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="b6e3e67a-8020-4dfc-a7bf-94105c17223c" CreationDate="2010-11-08T15:43:09.750" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="There are already members of the SE team who are registered on the site and have moderator powers, but I don't think they participate heavily in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator-choosing process is described in e.g. this [post on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site/58056#58056) but here's the gist: about a week after the public beta starts, temporary moderators will be chosen by the Stack Exchange team, based on community input. Then later on, after the end of the beta period, there will be an election of permanent moderators - or rather, an election of moderator _candidates_ to indicate who the community prefers, but I'm sure the results will be reviewed by the SE team and the final choice is up to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="9fe31df4-41a6-4c4e-b513-64c3409c435a" CreationDate="2010-11-08T16:24:24.957" UserId="124" Comment="move &quot;gravity&quot; into tag list" Text="I thought it might be useful, at least at the beginning of the site, to make a list of some canonical forms of subfield tags. Obviously it's impossible to create a comprehensive list of tags, but my idea is to have a set such that any question which is appropriate for the site could be tagged with at least one tag from the set. This will also help us out later when people get enough rep to vote on tag synonyms, since we'll already know what the community thinks the canonical forms of certain tags should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, these tags are already used on the site and I think they would make good subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `astrophysics`&#xD;&#xA;- `atmospheric-science` (physical aspects of meteorology and climatology)&#xD;&#xA;- `classical-mechanics` (when `lagrangian-mechanics` and `hamiltonian-mechanics` are too specific)&#xD;&#xA;- `cosmology`&#xD;&#xA;- `education` (could be renamed to `physics-education`)&#xD;&#xA;- `electro-magnetism` (needs to have the hyphen removed though)&#xD;&#xA;- `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `general-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `geophysics` (physical aspects of geology and seismology)&#xD;&#xA;- `gravity` (when `general-relativity` and `newtonian-gravity` are too specific)&#xD;&#xA;- `hamiltonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `kinematics` (basic relationships between position, velocity, and acceleration)&#xD;&#xA;- `lagrangian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `magnetohydrodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `mathematical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `medical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `optics` (when `quantum-optics` is either too specific or inappropriate)&#xD;&#xA;- `particle-physics` (although this might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `physical-chemistry`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-field-theory`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-optics`&#xD;&#xA;- `rotational-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `special-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `string-theory` (also might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `thermodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `wave-theory`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have not been used on the site, but I think they would be appropriate subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `atomic-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `condensed-matter-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-gravity`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags in the following list are in use, and I can see how they *could* be good subject tags, but I think they're either too broad or too specific, or redundant with the preceding lists. Note that I am *not* advocating that these tags be renamed or deleted. They're fine as tags (well most of them are fine), but I just think that any question that uses them still should have a tag from one of the previous lists. Others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `mechanics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `climate-science`: subset of `atmospheric-science`&#xD;&#xA;- `applied-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `experimental-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `standard-model`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `aerodynamics`: subset of `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `sound`: typically equivalent to `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `philosophy`: probably off-topic, or there should be another applicable tag&#xD;&#xA;- `large-hadron-collider`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `accelerator-physics`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `software`: equivalent to `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-engineering`: equivalent to `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `material-science`: either equivalent to `condensed-matter-physics`, or the question may be off topic for this site&#xD;&#xA;- `electrostatics`: subset of `electromagnetism`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. I'm making this CW so it can be collaboratively edited (although if you change something other than fixing a typo, please leave a comment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="73ad8e54-c75c-4611-bab7-9ed18f1c55d2" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:34:17.530" UserId="124" Text="Looking at our [Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) I notice that it says about 10% of the users who committed to the site proposal have actually signed up. This is a little worrying given that the private beta is &lt;strike&gt;almost&lt;/strike&gt; now over. The equivalent number for all the other beta sites I checked was between 30% and 90%+. Anyone have an idea why our participation is so low? (I guess if you're reading this, you probably don't know the answer ;-p I just felt the need to rant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ideas about how to pull in more people, who didn't commit, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="73ad8e54-c75c-4611-bab7-9ed18f1c55d2" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:34:17.530" UserId="124" Text="Where are all our committed users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="73ad8e54-c75c-4611-bab7-9ed18f1c55d2" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:34:17.530" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="4cc64047-b63e-499c-8fe0-dfb06a21c9c9" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:49:19.567" UserId="82" Text="This is very strange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 234 users committed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10.3% signed up for beta&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0% fulfilled commitment &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly we were more than 23 during the private beta ... and I don't know what they mean with &quot;fulfilled commitment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="ff401cdd-0f8f-4539-83a1-135f267bf3e7" CreationDate="2010-11-09T21:50:52.130" UserId="173" Text="It seems to me that the physics community is highly accessible and well connected through the Internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Physicsforums.com][1] is a very popular Internet forum. If anyone is an active member of that community, perhaps they'd be willing to spread the word about this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Physics.org][2] (&quot;Your guide to physics on the web&quot;) happens to have a [Best Q&amp;A Site Award][3]. Working as a group, we should be able to make ourselves known on that site as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsforums.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physics.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.physics.org/toplistdetail.asp?id=11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="f2bbc029-faa3-40cb-acb9-ca4485b070b8" CreationDate="2010-11-10T03:04:56.870" UserId="124" Text="I came up with the following fairly generic &quot;sales pitch&quot; but I wanted to run it by some other eyes before sending it out into the world - I feel like this could really be written better. Please offer suggestions for improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hi everyone... I wanted to bring people's attention to a new physics Q&amp;A site that just opened up to the public recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The site is built on the same system that runs [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com), probably the most popular computer programming Q&amp;A site on the internet. It's a system that is specifically designed to facilitate the question-and-answer format, rather than extended discussions. Anyone can answer questions, and the best answers are voted to the top; registered members who consistently give good answers are rewarded with &quot;reputation&quot; and increased privileges on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everybody is welcome to contribute; in fact, you can ask and answer questions with no registration required! However, we are _most_ interested in attracting _experts_: researchers, graduate students and advanced undergraduates in physics or related fields. We want this site to be a place where anyone with a question about physics can come to find **quick, reliable answers**. (Note that although homework questions are allowed, the site is _not_ primarily a homework help site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hope to see you there!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="ac525d45-dc8a-419a-973b-5c0f66572cc9" CreationDate="2010-11-10T04:05:41.243" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 182 characters in body; deleted 79 characters in body; added 83 characters in body" Text="I came up with the following fairly generic &quot;sales pitch,&quot; with Ami's feedback incorporated. Please offer suggestions for improvement if you have any. And of course, feel free to use it, either as-is or in modified form, if you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hi everyone... I wanted to bring people's attention to a new physics Q&amp;A site that just opened up to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The site is built on the same system as [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com), the most popular computer programming Q&amp;A site on the internet. It's a system specifically designed for the question-and-answer format, rather than extended discussions. Anyone can answer questions, and the best answers are voted to the top; registered members who consistently give good answers are rewarded with &quot;reputation&quot; and increased privileges on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everybody is welcome to contribute; in fact, you can ask and answer questions with no registration required! But we're most interested in attracting _experts_: researchers, graduate students and advanced undergraduates in physics or related fields. We want this site to be a place where anyone with a question about physics can come to find **quick, reliable answers**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="c473a40a-abd6-4e62-9614-c46d4f86f399" CreationDate="2010-11-10T05:09:11.063" UserId="78" Text="This is from a meta level positive rant I temporarily appended to an answer to a question about performing the Cavendish experiment at home.    I realized how few lab type experiments we reference here, and how useful they would be for students.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Editorial (I'll move this positive rant to meta soon) - given the obviously widely varied audience on this site, I would very much like to see more questions like this one relating to amateur or home experiments.   The analysis of the data and possible sources of errors in these experiments is often subtle, and is very instructive.    To have real physicists and other clever students publicly criticize some aspect of an experiment that is actually being done at home or in a school lab provides something that many students may never get otherwise.   The social network framework will help many newcomers from different countries learn what real science is in a way that yet another dose of imperfectly understood theory never will.   And it's fun too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see my point?   Maybe we can make a &quot;doable experiment&quot; tag, and have sort of lab teams or something in chat rooms, making suggestions or something.    Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="c473a40a-abd6-4e62-9614-c46d4f86f399" CreationDate="2010-11-10T05:09:11.063" UserId="78" Text="This is currently a site for people at all levels.   Let's make something really positive from this - distributed labs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="c473a40a-abd6-4e62-9614-c46d4f86f399" CreationDate="2010-11-10T05:09:11.063" UserId="78" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="f18b0462-3259-4b46-aa6a-380158f69cd9" CreationDate="2010-11-10T05:34:29.620" UserId="78" Text="If you want stronger people on the site, I suggest asking the questions that are really puzzling you, for real." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="3ba4dc62-34dd-4c50-8654-8b39621db163" CreationDate="2010-11-10T08:53:28.257" UserId="232" Text="[What would be the real-world implications of the Kessler Syndrome?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/439/what-would-be-the-real-world-implications-of-the-kessler-syndrome) is essentially an engineering (applied physics) question. If we ignore the specifics of that question, should we accept applied physics questions here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To suggest another example in the same category: &quot;Can you use any semiconductor material to create a LED?&quot; - undoubtedly solid state physics, but not really academical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="3ba4dc62-34dd-4c50-8654-8b39621db163" CreationDate="2010-11-10T08:53:28.257" UserId="232" Text="Are engineering questions OK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="3ba4dc62-34dd-4c50-8654-8b39621db163" CreationDate="2010-11-10T08:53:28.257" UserId="232" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="fea28bdd-6335-4004-a73e-086ce7a13f50" CreationDate="2010-11-10T09:28:22.707" UserId="97" Text="I think one of the problems is the long time the site needed to reach beta. Look at http://area51.stackexchange.com/?page=13&amp;tab=newest, where you can see that the Physics proposal is one of the oldest proposals, and of these only two (Physics together with [Homebrewing](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1619/homebrewing-beer-wine-etc)) are currently in a beta with &lt; 10 days. All other older proposals are either already at the &gt; 90 days mark or still rather far from reaching beta. Maybe this was too long to wait for some, or they will join in later. Let's hope things improve during the next 83 days..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="5216e8ef-6ae6-4f1e-8585-84d07b35b81d" CreationDate="2010-11-10T15:01:28.303" UserId="67" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="67" RevisionGUID="f41cbf93-3ea3-4d15-9aaa-efa746eef383" CreationDate="2010-11-10T17:13:02.247" UserId="124" Text="Yes, of course, applied physics questions are allowed. But the questions should be specific enough to actually be about physics. The second example, about semiconductors and LEDs, certainly seems fine (although it could be interpreted as an electrical engineering question or as a solid state physics question), but the first one about the Kessler syndrome encompasses a whole range of topics: aerospace engineering, materials engineering, environmental science, and probably some fields that don't even really have names, in addition to just physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that engineering is not exactly synonymous with applied physics. At least, I think not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="142" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="2a9f81e3-49f5-46ff-8445-8b6ce879e518" CreationDate="2010-11-11T01:18:34.507" UserId="64" Comment="grammar" Text="Did you know there is a chat room for physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="4ff32e7c-61f0-4e21-9ebf-b52ba5bf1858" CreationDate="2010-11-11T01:55:36.783" UserId="124" Text="I'm looking at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/519/what-now-is-the-surface-temperature-of-the-neutron-star-which-was-formed-12-bil: part of the question was asked in Russian, which is the first time I can recall seeing a non-English question on a Stack Exchange site. Should we do something about questions in other languages? Edit a translation into the body of the question, perhaps? (Assuming someone is confident enough in their language skills to do the translation) Or do we just leave them as they are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="4ff32e7c-61f0-4e21-9ebf-b52ba5bf1858" CreationDate="2010-11-11T01:55:36.783" UserId="124" Text="Do we have a language policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="4ff32e7c-61f0-4e21-9ebf-b52ba5bf1858" CreationDate="2010-11-11T01:55:36.783" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="aced9063-349c-459d-84da-dc6078f4080a" CreationDate="2010-11-11T08:52:46.640" UserId="97" Text="The following is with respect to SO ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com), the site that started the whole SE business), which we are not but since it works good there we should at least think about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeff Atwood [stated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3774/add-meta-tag-to-support-internationalization/7320#7320) (regarding non-english posts on http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe programmers who speak only Mandarin, or French, or Spanish, are better off forming their own communities and centers of gravity. Shared language is one of the fundamental aspects of community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just visit Chinatown in nearby San Francisco to see what I mean.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some digging I found [this blog post from '07](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/) as a follow-up on the discussion [We need to help non-English-speakers somehow…](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/), and the faq-entry [Is English required on Stack Overflow?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/13676/146482)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, on SO the policy is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I say keep it in English. I'm not against diversity or other languages, I'm for us all being able to communicate under one. This isn't political, this isn't about smothering peoples cultures with Western ideologies. It is about being pragmatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that multiple languages on one site cause confusion. But we should not &quot;ban&quot; non-english speakers, so I suggest we do not vote on non-english posts (both questions and answers) and try to translate things to english as good as possible. As soon as the correctness of the translation is verified, the original text should be removed - it will still be available by clicking on the _edited by_ link. Maybe one can edit in a  &#xD;&#xA;    `[original version in russian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/519/revisions#rev3252802a-affc-499f-9316-3e44d8a4f81c)`  &#xD;&#xA;link or post that as comment, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="52b79db5-9c47-4abf-a88e-9d03ad7aeb33" CreationDate="2010-11-11T16:38:48.637" UserId="243" Text="Not an answer, but do we have an explanation of how to use LaTeX on this site somehwere? I couldn't seem to figure it out until now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="986904c0-fc2e-44c3-8ef0-3d6ba18e8290" CreationDate="2010-11-11T18:28:04.390" UserId="331" Text="Are specialized questions about some detail of a physics paper appropriate? (ie &lt;a href=&quot;http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4847&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="986904c0-fc2e-44c3-8ef0-3d6ba18e8290" CreationDate="2010-11-11T18:28:04.390" UserId="331" Text="Specialized questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="986904c0-fc2e-44c3-8ef0-3d6ba18e8290" CreationDate="2010-11-11T18:28:04.390" UserId="331" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="26e24105-5de9-481d-95ac-432fcd9d2071" CreationDate="2010-11-11T19:30:32.620" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="c766ec00-aaac-450c-b3d4-5949c230c86d" CreationDate="2010-11-12T02:13:08.263" UserId="124" Text="I'm not sure what the community's thoughts on this are but I'd be inclined to say yes, in general such questions are appropriate. Certainly there is nothing inherently wrong with asking a very specific question. Of course it's possible that nobody on the site will know the answer, but that should not discourage you from asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a question could be inappropriate for other reasons, of course. For example, if your question is about pure math that just happens to be used in a physics paper, it may get closed as off-topic, because the mathematics SE site would be a better place for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="cb4304b1-7ea8-46ca-be4d-de5e02dcbc38" CreationDate="2010-11-12T03:49:20.523" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="Given all the protections, there is still nothing to prevent any user from using an idea or solution method obtained from this or any other forum, in their own work without attribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A site like this is amazing and will lead to awesome new collaborations. However, as with all powerful tools, I guess a cautionary approach to using this site is probably prudent, especially for newbies - such as yours truly :-D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="33331942-a61f-484e-a50e-d696b28b934d" CreationDate="2010-11-12T08:16:24.510" UserId="97" Text="I'm all in favour of this, since the main intention of physics.SE was to be a  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q&amp;A site for active researchers, academics and students&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should include discussing details of publications, although I agree with David that pure math questions might be better off at math.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="adb31a66-2133-4923-98dc-7b7fdd94ded2" CreationDate="2010-11-12T11:02:07.077" UserId="97" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="I wouldn't automatically consider question about perpetum mobiles as hoax questions. If the question really includes a &quot;So, I considered [some facts], but I can't find a flaw. Why doesn't it work?&quot; it might be acceptable. But real hoax questions and &quot;Hey, I solved all problems in the world&quot; (&lt;- what's the question here?) should be closed as &quot;not a real question&quot;. We should keep them as a warning to jesters unless they take overhand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**update** First (valid) question: [What is the fallacy in this infinite motion machine?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/556/97)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="adea9c1e-b750-4aa8-ac24-705b7c178dc5" CreationDate="2010-11-12T11:16:25.283" UserId="20" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The level of questions (and answers) on Physics is not high enough.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying this snobbishly, but because if the answers are not&#xD;&#xA;high quality and accurate then the website does the community a&#xD;&#xA;disservice, contrary to its aims.  (Perhaps, in the end, the notion&#xD;&#xA;of reputation will remedy the deficits that appear at start-up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remedy, I think, is to attract higher-level users to the site.&#xD;&#xA;But this also requires that the community of users start rejecting&#xD;&#xA;homework-level and ill-posed questions.  Unless this is done,&#xD;&#xA;higher-level users will not be drawn to the site.  I think&#xD;&#xA;Math Overflow does this successfully (at least three Fields&#xD;&#xA;medalists figure prominently there) even though there are certainly&#xD;&#xA;problems of quality on that site, too.  And this much was basically&#xD;&#xA;true from day one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="adea9c1e-b750-4aa8-ac24-705b7c178dc5" CreationDate="2010-11-12T11:16:25.283" UserId="20" Text="Level of questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="adea9c1e-b750-4aa8-ac24-705b7c178dc5" CreationDate="2010-11-12T11:16:25.283" UserId="20" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="449b7462-459b-4f19-a26f-15202c56d9fc" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:17:21.133" UserId="364" Text="Personally, the graph paper design that is characteristic of many StackExchange sites, and currently is the background for Physics SE, is not pleasing to my eye. In fact, it has made me not feel as much like revisiting other StackExchange sites. I know that this is very subjective (and may stem from some deep-seated resentment of graph paper from school), but I find myself not wanting to visit sites as much that have graph paper or lined paper backgrounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be alone in preferring the plain background of Stack Overflow and Math Overflow. I'm not saying that this site should have the same site design as those sites, but do we need to have the same background as so many other SE sites? If you personally love the graph paper background, please state why rather than downvoting this question. If you would prefer something else, do you have any suggestions for an alternative background?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="449b7462-459b-4f19-a26f-15202c56d9fc" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:17:21.133" UserId="364" Text="Do we like the current background on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="449b7462-459b-4f19-a26f-15202c56d9fc" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:17:21.133" UserId="364" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="7633f417-ce45-4834-aed1-35febd33ba5d" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:21:38.260" UserId="124" Text="The graph paper design is used for all beta sites. It's only temporary. If we get promoted to a full SE site, we'll get our own individual design that will be created with community input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="367f8130-6e8e-4ed0-9358-5575d87ee5f5" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:32:10.257" UserId="67" Text="In the intervening time between now and when this system is filled with world-class physicists using this site in their daily work&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip;keep in mind that **only a small percentage** of the content of this site is questions. What you can offer today&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;right now&amp;hellip; with the talent you have right here&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;are **world-class, canonical *answers* to those questions**. Top tier researchers are not going to just start posting here out of blind faith. You have to consistently provide *awesome* content, with *every* question, no matter how simple or mundane. That's how you will gain the respect and recognition of an expert community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning: Boring Anectodote:** When I first started using Stack Overflow, I had 25 years of expert programming experience when I asked my first question ([link](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/941584/byte-byte-int-why)). Without getting too technical, I was asking about, quite literally, one of the most *basic* concepts of a programming language. Yet the *answer* provided some deep, insightful responses I never expected. One was from a lead engineer from Microsoft who wrote the compiler; The other from someone who literally wrote the book on the subject. Unmatched, expert-level answers to a canonical question; That's the level of response we've come to expect from Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when someone asks &quot;why do apples fall *down* to the earth,&quot; **provide that world-class, canonical answer** which can be improved upon indefinitely. Every time someone searches for an answer to their question, this site should have THE canonical answer on that subject&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;that, and every subject in physics. When an expert happens across this site, they should say, &quot;Woah! These guys know what they are talking about. This site is for me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the most highly-respected physicists in the world are teachers; answering Physics 201-level questions from rank-and-file students. Be a great teacher!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="d1ea64a7-5092-4544-b70f-78c85db8824e" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:45:34.853" UserId="124" Text="I know there are good tags and not-so-good tags, but this one in particular just irks me. Physics is not philosophy; philosophy is not physics, and if we have a &quot;philosophy&quot; tag on the site, it's going to motivate people to ask questions about abstract concepts that physics doesn't deal with. Like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the [list of questions tagged `[philosophy]`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/philosophy), I don't think we really need this tag. Other than the one I linked above, I think the `[philosophy]` questions aren't actually about philosophy and could have the tag removed. Some of those questions are about interpretation of physical results, so maybe we could have an &quot;interpretation&quot; tag, but I think we really need to push the message that philosophy itself is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone else agree?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="d1ea64a7-5092-4544-b70f-78c85db8824e" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:45:34.853" UserId="124" Text="Can we get rid of the &quot;philosophy&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="d1ea64a7-5092-4544-b70f-78c85db8824e" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:45:34.853" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="c4b365df-8171-4fde-a734-67e46d5a1e4c" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:57:03.697" UserId="67" Comment="added 473 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; added 10 characters in body" Text="I don't agree and my experience bares that out: You can show your expertise, even when answering the most basic questions. You don't legislate away easy questions as if top-tier experts are just going to just start filling the void. Sure, you have to ask great question. But you also have to consistently provide *awesome* content with *every* question, no matter how simple or mundane. That's how you will gain the respect and recognition of an expert community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the most highly-respected physicists in the world are teachers; answering Physics 201-level questions from rank-and-file students. Think about it. If you heard a seminar from someone like Einstein or Newton eloquently describing how gravity works when an apple falls to Earth, are you going to say &quot;Nah, that's baby stuff&quot; or do they somehow maintain that go-to source authority when it comes to areas of expertise. Be a great teacher!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the intervening time between now and when this system is filled with world-class physicists using this site in their daily work&amp;hellip; keep in mind that **only a small percentage** of the content of this site is questions. What you can offer today&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;right now&amp;hellip; with the talent you have right here&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;are **world-class, canonical *answers* to those questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning: Boring Anectodote&amp;mdash;** When I first started using Stack Overflow, I had 25 years of expert programming experience when I asked my first question ([link](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/941584/byte-byte-int-why)). Without getting too technical, I was asking about, quite literally, one of the most *basic* concepts of a programming language. Surprisingly, the *answer* provided some deep, insightful responses I never expected. One was from a lead engineer from Microsoft who wrote the compiler; The other from someone who literally wrote the book on the subject. Unmatched, expert-level answers to a canonical question; That's the level of response we've come to expect from Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when someone asks &quot;why do apples fall *down* to the earth,&quot; **provide that world-class, canonical answer** which can be improved upon indefinitely. Every time someone searches for an answer to their question, this site should have THE canonical answer on that subject&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;that, and every subject in physics. When an expert happens across this site, they should say, &quot;Woah! These guys know what they are talking about. This site is for me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="442a5691-63c8-4263-b89a-65670e72ec99" CreationDate="2010-11-12T18:02:15.460" UserId="67" Comment="added 1 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; deleted 5 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="I don't agree and my experience bares that out: You can show your expertise, even when answering the most basic questions. You don't legislate away easy questions as if top-tier experts are just going to start filling the void. Sure, you have to ask great questions. But you also have to consistently provide *awesome* content with *every* question, no matter how simple or mundane. That's how you will gain the respect and recognition of an expert community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the most highly-respected physicists in the world are teachers; answering Physics 201-level questions from rank-and-file students. Think about it. If you heard a seminar from someone like Einstein or Newton eloquently describing how gravity works when an apple falls to Earth, are you going to say &quot;Nah, that's baby stuff&quot; or do they somehow maintain that go-to source authority when it comes to areas of expertise. Be a great teacher!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the intervening time between now and when this system is filled with world-class physicists using this site in their daily work&amp;hellip; keep in mind that **only a small percentage** of the content of this site is questions. What you can offer today&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;right now&amp;hellip; with the talent you have right here&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;are **world-class, canonical *answers* to those questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning: Boring Anectodote&amp;mdash;** When I first started using Stack Overflow, I had 25 years of expert programming experience when I asked my first question ([link](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/941584/byte-byte-int-why)). Without getting too technical, I was asking about, quite literally, one of the most *basic* concepts of a programming language. Surprisingly, the *answer* provided some deep, insightful responses I never expected. One was from a lead engineer from Microsoft who wrote the compiler; The other from someone who literally wrote the book on the subject. Unmatched, expert-level answers to a canonical question; That's the level of response we've come to expect from Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when someone asks &quot;why do apples fall *down* to the earth,&quot; **provide that world-class, canonical answer** which can be improved upon indefinitely. Every time someone searches for an answer to their question, *this* site should have THE canonical answer on that subject&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;that, and every subject in physics. When an expert happens across this site, they should say, &quot;Woah! These guys know what they are talking about. This site is for me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="daf36f09-77c2-4650-8fcf-b85371b9f407" CreationDate="2010-11-12T21:35:32.603" UserId="13" Text="While I am not too bothered about the level of questions *per se* on this site so far, I am slightly disturbed by the lack of any quantitative questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existing range from high-school to undergraduate level, with a lot of 'enthusiasts' questions. They also tend to be very qualitative/overview-based, and either very narrow or in the odd case very wide-scoped questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder: where are the typical quantitative physics questions one might expect on a site like this? Exam questions, perhaps, or longer problem-solving based ones? Physics is a *quantitative science* (has been for over 400 years), and as such mathematics is highly important with in. I have however visited this site daily for the last week or so and seen astonishingly few &quot;proper&quot; (quantitative or semi-quanitative) questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone else noticed this issue; does anyone share this view? If so, what can we do about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="daf36f09-77c2-4650-8fcf-b85371b9f407" CreationDate="2010-11-12T21:35:32.603" UserId="13" Text="Quantative Questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="daf36f09-77c2-4650-8fcf-b85371b9f407" CreationDate="2010-11-12T21:35:32.603" UserId="13" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="62bb6c9a-0551-432e-973d-c7893903720a" CreationDate="2010-11-12T21:40:16.480" UserId="67" Comment="added 14 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="I don't agree and my experience bares that out: You can show your expertise, even when answering the most basic questions. You don't legislate away easy questions as if top-tier experts are just going to start filling the void. Sure, you have to ask great questions. But you also have to consistently provide *awesome* content with *every* question, no matter how simple or mundane. That's how you will gain the respect and recognition of an expert community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the most highly-respected physicists in the world are teachers; answering Physics 201-level questions from rank-and-file students. Think about it. If you heard a seminar from someone like Einstein or Newton eloquently describing how gravity works when an apple falls to Earth, are you going to say &quot;Nah, that's baby stuff&quot; or do they somehow maintain that go-to source authority when it comes to areas of expertise. Be a great teacher!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the intervening time between now and when this system is filled with world-class physicists using this site in their daily work&amp;hellip; keep in mind that **only a small percentage** of the content of this site is questions. What you can offer today&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;right now&amp;hellip; with the talent you have right here&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;are **world-class, canonical *answers* to those questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning: Boring Anectodote&amp;mdash;** When I first started using Stack Overflow, I had 25 years of expert programming experience when I asked my first question ([link](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/941584/byte-byte-int-why)). Without getting too technical, I was asking about, quite literally, one of the most *basic* concepts of a programming language. Surprisingly, the *answer* provided some deep, insightful responses I never expected. One was from a Microsoft senior developer on the team that designed the language; The other from someone who literally wrote the book on the subject. Unmatched, expert-level answers to a canonical question; That's the level of response we've come to expect from Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when someone asks &quot;why do apples fall *down* to the earth,&quot; **provide that world-class, canonical answer** which can be improved upon indefinitely. Every time someone searches for an answer to their question, *this* site should have THE canonical answer on that subject&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;that, and every subject in physics. When an expert happens across this site, they should say, &quot;Woah! These guys know what they are talking about. This is the site for me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="3eb3db11-e487-4f2f-8e07-6fa50a8d0e80" CreationDate="2010-11-13T00:23:31.983" UserId="67" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I don't agree and my experience bares that out: You can show your expertise, even when answering the most basic questions. You don't legislate away easy questions as if top-tier experts are just going to start filling the void. Sure, you have to ask great questions. But you also have to consistently provide *awesome* content with *every answer*, no matter how simple or mundane. That's how you will gain the respect and recognition of an expert community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the most highly-respected physicists in the world are teachers; answering Physics 201-level questions from rank-and-file students. Think about it. If you heard a seminar from someone like Einstein or Newton eloquently describing how gravity works when an apple falls to Earth, are you going to say &quot;Nah, that's baby stuff&quot; or do they somehow maintain that go-to source authority when it comes to areas of expertise. Be a great teacher!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the intervening time between now and when this system is filled with world-class physicists using this site in their daily work&amp;hellip; keep in mind that **only a small percentage** of the content of this site is questions. What you can offer today&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;right now&amp;hellip; with the talent you have right here&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;are **world-class, canonical *answers* to those questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning: Boring Anectodote&amp;mdash;** When I first started using Stack Overflow, I had 25 years of expert programming experience when I asked my first question ([link](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/941584/byte-byte-int-why)). Without getting too technical, I was asking about, quite literally, one of the most *basic* concepts of a programming language. Surprisingly, the *answer* provided some deep, insightful responses I never expected. One was from a Microsoft senior developer on the team that designed the language; The other from someone who literally wrote the book on the subject. Unmatched, expert-level answers to a canonical question; That's the level of response we've come to expect from Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when someone asks &quot;why do apples fall *down* to the earth,&quot; **provide that world-class, canonical answer** which can be improved upon indefinitely. Every time someone searches for an answer to their question, *this* site should have THE canonical answer on that subject&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;that, and every subject in physics. When an expert happens across this site, they should say, &quot;Woah! These guys know what they are talking about. This is the site for me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="d097358c-f903-468d-83b1-bcdf2cc9a8de" CreationDate="2010-11-13T03:14:38.653" UserId="78" Text="Mathoverflow has math.stackexchange to which to send people.   Maybe we could find and publicize a list of more didactic physics sites.   I think I will do this with &quot;What are some good didactic physics sites which are more appropriate for elementary misunderstandings?&quot;.   Any objections to putting this question on physics.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I also enjoy thinking about naive questions which point out my own unstated assumptions.   I can see that simple ignorance will soon get tiring, however.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="cf3dc0f9-96b1-4bd9-94ee-1234f1be7f2c" CreationDate="2010-11-13T08:01:31.247" UserId="74" Text="I'm much more likely to be able to answer a quantitative question on my own than a qualitative question.  If I can't solve a problem I'm trying to work through, I usually can look up the solution online or in a book, or can put it in Mathematica, or can simulate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I need humans for is when I have a conceptual question that I'm not sure how to get at.  What would be a decent model for XXX phenomenon?  How can we give a clear operational definition of XXX concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's fairly reasonable to have more of these conceptual questions than quantitative ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="4527a715-6f92-4e3a-9f9d-a78ff0decd33" CreationDate="2010-11-13T10:40:24.990" UserId="78" Text="What about using the tag &quot;soft question&quot;, as one does in math.stack exchange or mathoverflow?  It might be more precise and less aggrandizing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="e2239351-b356-4f08-9125-57f5f14ea1da" CreationDate="2010-11-13T17:22:26.977" UserId="163" Text="My feeling is this site has become analogous to math.se rather than MathOverflow, and there is little hope of transforming it into a research level website. Most of the questions here seem to me to be either at the pop sci level (with correspondingly pop  sci level answers) or basic undergraduate physics. I don't think there is much hope of making this site attractive to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution would then perhaps be to create a physics stack exchange which is research level only and strictly enforce this rule. Actually, I suspect a separate stackexchanges may be appropriate for research level in theoretical physics and experimental physics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="86" RevisionGUID="00e480bb-cf28-47ba-8594-1c0d3b257a61" CreationDate="2010-11-13T17:44:19.510" UserId="19" Text="I'm not sure how long I'll stick around this site. It's not analogous to MathOverflow, which has a remarkably high level of discourse. Still, this site could be useful for students, or people who have questions arising from popular books or TV shows. My worry, though, is that the average level of knowledge of the participants is quite low. People are accepting inferior answers to their questions, and in some cases better answers are getting voted down in favor of mistaken ones. In particular, just keeping up with all the questions about quantum mechanics and trying to explain the importance of decoherence for a correct understanding of what measurements are and how the classical world arises would take a significant amount of time, and if no one does it the answers will rapidly degenerate to the level of popular books (and even a lot of textbook accounts) that completely muddle the subject and make &quot;measurement&quot; out to be some mystical, poorly-understood, non-quantum process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="04163672-42c9-4095-af10-a9666ceec190" CreationDate="2010-11-13T18:12:26.050" UserId="163" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="My feeling is this site has become analogous to math.se rather than MathOverflow, and there is little hope of transforming it into a research level website. Most of the questions here seem to me to be either at the pop sci level (with correspondingly pop  sci level answers) or basic undergraduate physics. I don't think there is much hope of making this site attractive to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution would then perhaps be to create a physics stack exchange which is research level only and strictly enforce this rule. Actually, I suspect a separate stackexchanges may be appropriate for research level in theoretical physics and experimental physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: TP research-only stack exchange proposal [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="9e0f82e2-923e-42ff-b621-edd40f8cb1e1" CreationDate="2010-11-13T20:56:17.507" UserId="184" Text="I totally agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I enjoy answering simple questions and teaching other, I joined physics.stackexchange.com hoping for 'Mathoverflow for physicists'. The proposal says clearly 'Beta Q&amp;A site for active researchers, academics and students' - and we should cling to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of good textbooks, there is wikipedia*), there is number of other places. When there is a simple question it is easy to give an answer (it suffices to have any academician or even a good undergraduate/high-school student). Elementary questions often are good, but should go somewhere else (another stackexchange?). However, there is no place when researchers in physics can ask and answer high-end questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*) Some articles on wikipedia are too complicated for the beginner? Then edit it. Its much more beneficial than answering a question which has been already answered a dozen times on different fora or usenet groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah - but you need to invite your labmates, friends from conferences, active professors, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="b2d53e94-ab60-4c94-b82d-a36d59bfb300" CreationDate="2010-11-13T20:59:51.000" UserId="184" Text="I disagree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It often helps to understand if one asks about technical details of, for example, quantum measurement or &quot;What is &gt;the very meaning&lt; of a quantum measurement?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="f0b7f8e5-2954-459b-a794-1fefbd00a00a" CreationDate="2010-11-13T21:11:05.173" UserId="184" Text="Usually when you can formulate well a quantitative questions, then you can answer it as well. Of course there may be exceptions, but well, no one forbids to ask them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existence of a definitive answer should never be a criterium of asking a question in physics. It is not maths and the most fundamental thinks usually are such in which we do not even now if we are asking the right questions. Definite numerical answer is only guaranteed for some textbooks problems.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, sometimes quantative answers are natural, see e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/379/in-optics-how-does-the-vacuum-state-compare-to-thermal-radiation/446#446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="9272ccb6-b0c1-43ea-9e30-7d5cafaa0baf" CreationDate="2010-11-13T21:16:11.563" UserId="184" Comment="grammar" Text="I totally agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I enjoy answering simple questions and teaching others, I joined physics.stackexchange.com hoping for 'Mathoverflow for physicists'. The proposal says clearly 'Beta Q&amp;A site for active researchers, academics and students' - and we should cling to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of good textbooks, there is wikipedia*), there is a number of other places. When there is a simple question it is easy to give an answer (it suffices to have any academician or even a good undergraduate/high-school student). Elementary questions often are good, but should go somewhere else (another stackexchange?). However, there is no place when researchers in physics can ask and answer high-end questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*) Some articles on wikipedia are too complicated for the beginner? Then edit them. Its much more beneficial than answering a question which has been already answered a dozen times on different fora or usenet groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah - but you need to invite your labmates, friends from conferences, active professors, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="88e319bd-d4ad-4132-bf4f-1a63c7a55b7d" CreationDate="2010-11-13T22:48:31.350" UserId="307" Text="If this site aims at emulating the success of Math Overflow and CS Theory (i.e. providing a research level Q&amp;A site, as opposed to popular/undergrad level questions), it should be kept in mind that both sites from their very start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) as a rule, discouraged too basic/popular questions and stayed focused on grad level and above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) started with a &quot;seed&quot; core of dedicated users (in Math Overflow case, it was a group of grad students and researchers working in algebraic geometry and related fields); experts and &quot;big shots&quot; (Terry Tao etc.) were attracted very quickly (in CS Theory, almost from the first day of beta version!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for now, I see neither a clear policy as to the target level nor the seed group of dedicated users. Simply waiting for more users to get high quality material won't work (I think it's not possible to build a critical mass solely with &quot;casual users&quot;). Nobody will post an expert level question if he knows it's going to be swamped by stuff like basic mechanics problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="9e4cb852-53b6-41c5-9283-47c273c5e6fa" CreationDate="2010-11-14T02:49:15.230" UserId="74" Text="My position is somewhat intermediate.  I am not a research physicist; I'm applying to grad school now, and have only a general physics undergraduate knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, I tend to ask fairly basic questions, but ones that are not very simple or easy to answer.  These are attracting lots of bad answers (and some good ones).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A research-level site would be interesting to me, but only as an observer for the time being.  I would learn what sorts of things people are thinking about, but would not be able to participate in the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a &quot;pop-sci&quot; site is not very useful because there are too many uninformed responses for each good one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm really hoping to find is an online environment to replace the one I had as an undergrad, where I could go talk to people at roughly the same level (other students) or higher level (TA's and professors) than myself, but with a focus on understanding the nuances in the more fundamental material I'm learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it sounds like neither of the ideas being tossed around - a high-level site or researchers or a low-level site for the general public - are a place that I completely fit in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Cartaino's model, a site where experts still answer basic questions very well, is what I would like, but it looks like there are practical difficulties with implementing it because the most competent people are largely interested in research-level discussion only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="95d8899c-7d83-40d2-984a-335d348589b7" CreationDate="2010-11-14T04:15:14.923" UserId="7" Text="**&quot;Answers to the universes most basic questions. And some trivial ones too.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sold on the word 'trivial' though, suggestions welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="be262910-2c3b-4c62-8690-43718818f328" CreationDate="2010-11-14T08:21:17.740" UserId="126" Text="**Don't panic! Now the force is with you!** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy and StarWars combined :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="f5749f9d-d43a-4776-b048-fd1b6220e2d9" CreationDate="2010-11-14T11:19:19.647" UserId="174" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. No question is too basic, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Current physics (why is the Large Hadron Collider 27 km long?)&#xD;&#xA; - Physical phenomena (how are the northern lights produced?)&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics (why do physicists care about representations of Lie groups?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, you should expect a range of answers from highly technical to very basic, depending on how you phrase your question. Be specific if you want a specific type of answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work&#xD;&#xA; - *other common topics covered by other Stack Exchange sites*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A work in progress, any suggestions are welcome.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="193" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="700b7a9e-a025-4aa6-b9f1-1d2fba382850" CreationDate="2010-11-14T13:08:29.867" UserId="82" Comment="edited title" Text="Quantitative Questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="1abb007c-9703-4f7f-862b-bfd507c29619" CreationDate="2010-11-14T13:31:47.203" UserId="82" Text="There has been a lot of discussions about the level of the questions and the quality of the questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that we have a core group of users, that are following Physics SE from a long time, and that this group would prefer to have a Physics SE closer to mathoverflow than to Math SE as it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have this [new proposal for a theoretical physics SE][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is: what should we do now ? Could we try to move the center of mass of this site more on the &quot;research level&quot; side ? How could we do it ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we close more questions ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have quite a high number of questions, so slowing things down (by closing question) is not a problem I think. In addition we still have time to modify the way things are going, we are still a the begining of the beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another action would be to change the definition of the site to clearly reflect the expected level: is it possible ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we should give up now and consider the site &quot;dead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's your opinion about that ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="1abb007c-9703-4f7f-862b-bfd507c29619" CreationDate="2010-11-14T13:31:47.203" UserId="82" Text="Level of questions: what do we do now ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="1abb007c-9703-4f7f-862b-bfd507c29619" CreationDate="2010-11-14T13:31:47.203" UserId="82" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="68ad8241-5714-49ab-b4e1-e0b8f2924d77" CreationDate="2010-11-14T15:06:58.137" UserId="163" Text="My intention in creating the other proposal was not to kill off this site. It seems reading through a lot of the definition phase stuff that there was an intention all along to allow questions at the amateur and undergrad levels. I don't have a problem with this, and it is certainly a worthy cause to help answer physics questions in general. As I see it, concerns about the quality of answers aside, this site seems to be heading towards becoming a physics version of math.se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there seems to be (at least) two strong views held by different groups in the community. One group wants a physics version of MathOverflow, while the other wants a site where the scope and level is much more broadly defined. These two goals don't have to be mutually exclusive, but I do think they require separate SE sites. This current site has already fallen into the second role, whether that was intentional or not and I think it is unlikely that it can be changed. After all SE sites are run in a very democratic way, and are setup in such a way that a group within the community will find it very hard to change the direction of the site. That is why I proposed the TP site, to fill the gap left for a research level site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="87ca7f6b-0d6d-4e12-b40d-6d790959f904" CreationDate="2010-11-14T18:40:37.373" UserId="399" Text="I don't have enough reputation to post a comment, but I am very disappointed that not only are [simple mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24/does-leaning-banking-help-cause-turning-on-a-bike) not getting good answers, but the good answers aren't getting many more votes than the bad answers. (For those who care, Tristan's answer to the linked question is the one which is most accurate.) If you don't do something to increase the level of discussion here, this site will be in danger of becoming useless. If good answers don't get more votes than bad answers, I think the site is in serious trouble." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="05c2b5a5-a182-4424-91a8-90209ac525f7" CreationDate="2010-11-14T19:23:11.747" UserId="82" Comment="added 663 characters in body" Text="There has been a lot of discussions about the level of the questions and the quality of the questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that we have a core group of users, that are following Physics SE from a long time, and that this group would prefer to have a Physics SE closer to mathoverflow than to Math SE as it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have this [new proposal for a theoretical physics SE][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is: what should we do now ? Could we try to move the center of mass of this site more on the &quot;research level&quot; side ? How could we do it ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we close more questions ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have quite a high number of questions, so slowing things down (by closing question) is not a problem I think. In addition we still have time to modify the way things are going, we are still a the begining of the beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another action would be to change the definition of the site to clearly reflect the expected level: is it possible ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we should give up now and consider the site &quot;dead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's your opinion about that ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that &quot;research level&quot; is a bit too restrictive: as pointed by @Noldorin, questions related to (under)grad course are interesting as well, my idea is that such an undergrad student would not ask &quot;What is the most efficient way to destroy the universe?&quot; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that are not research level but coming from an (under)grad course can really benefit from answers coming from real physics practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion: in any way the level, at this moment, is too low and we should try to restrict the range of questions, and maybe even more importantly up vote good answers (which is easier to do if the questions are more interesting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="ea0c410a-84c6-4e96-b607-418e6466b337" CreationDate="2010-11-15T04:34:30.330" UserId="124" Text="My thought has been that increasing the level of the site is best done by _asking_ questions of an appropriate level. That way, newcomers will see examples of what kinds of questions we expect here and hopefully the expectation value of the question level will rise, without us having to close all that many of the more basic questions (which can still potentially generate good answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I certainly do agree that some questions we get should be closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="90d34996-df9a-4bbf-9f94-ce82682c0d25" CreationDate="2010-11-15T05:42:47.507" UserId="124" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="My thought has been that increasing the level of the site is best done by _asking_ questions of an appropriate level. That way, newcomers will see examples of what kinds of questions we expect here and hopefully the expectation value of the question level will rise, without us having to close all that many of the more basic questions (which can still potentially generate good answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I certainly do agree that some questions we get should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I've been trying to put this into practice by asking questions which are representative of what I would like to see on the site, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/814/how-do-you-calculate-the-anomalous-precession-of-mercury" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="5ddb5775-f036-4046-ac58-d4adba7893c4" CreationDate="2010-11-15T07:00:08.747" UserId="78" Text="@ David Z - This is too long for a comment, which is why it looks like a question.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really understand what you are trying to doing by asking your question at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/814/how-do-you-calculate-the-anomalous-precession-of-mercury ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you saying that you want a lot of standard textbook references for a standard advanced undergraduate/basic graduate course in relativity?    There is no really current research oriented theory question about your question, is there?   I mean there might have been 40 years ago when Dicke was asking whether the same precession could have been caused by unmeasured solar oblateness, but not now.   Are you asking for references to experimental error bars?   Probably not.   It just seems made up and sort of hokey, or a question on the history of physics.   So why would a researcher be interested, except didactically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, a current research oriented question along the same line might be asking about analytics related to gravitational recoil from black hole mergers, or recent evidence supporting GR in binary neutron star systems with very large precession, or whether precession is expected in the galactic center, or something else more modern, a question that requires a researcher to answer properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="297ca80a-1b08-42fc-b837-ef46b4a4339b" CreationDate="2010-11-15T10:17:24.857" UserId="97" Text="In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="297ca80a-1b08-42fc-b837-ef46b4a4339b" CreationDate="2010-11-15T10:17:24.857" UserId="97" Text="Nominate and elect our temporary moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="297ca80a-1b08-42fc-b837-ef46b4a4339b" CreationDate="2010-11-15T10:17:24.857" UserId="97" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="ec61f7dc-d567-4230-a03a-6f108f113564" CreationDate="2010-11-15T10:18:17.023" UserId="97" Text="I think it is time for an [election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/100/97)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="defc9fea-0c12-48af-9fda-72340f72f5fd" CreationDate="2010-11-15T10:34:20.623" UserId="13" Text="I would gladly nominate **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)** as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="684f2e1b-2137-4f27-ab90-c0994d56c25e" CreationDate="2010-11-15T10:41:35.690" UserId="13" Text="I'd also like to nominate **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)** for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="e3cb7866-5559-4bb4-a366-b265d1b2873c" CreationDate="2010-11-15T12:00:48.887" UserId="97" Text="When I proposed this site my intention was to have a site for researchers, but also for the discussion of thought experiments and other things not related to their own field. These are questions also undergrads should be interested and be able to take part in and that was whom I meant with students. &quot;Basic&quot; questions where intended to go to [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science?referrer=nwBIGRh-wRAN5QfMOt5KEg2). The problem is, pop-sci didn't take off at all, maybe being too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I agree with [Robert Cartaino's answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions/79#79). I didn't actually intend this site to become MO for physics, but also not &quot;only&quot; math.SE (personally, I like math.SE, but I sense some consider it not &quot;pure&quot; enough) but rather somewhere in between. If someone asks why a rainbow is coloured, either answer it professionally, or up-vote the correct answers, or skip that questions. I think first of all we need [moderators](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/100/97) to assist the community, but we also need everyone of us to actively help improving posts that have the potential to become good but just aren't well-posed right now. If questions are tagged and titled well, it should also be easy to skip questions of a level you don't like (at that time of the day that is...) and find the ones interesting / challenging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion:  &#xD;&#xA;Ask and answer questions of the level you desire,  &#xD;&#xA;vote on those you accept,  &#xD;&#xA;ignore those you consider wrong level but are still valid,  &#xD;&#xA;and vote to close the really bad ones or help improving them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="bf3c0427-350a-4e72-8e57-cff3b4ab667f" CreationDate="2010-11-15T12:41:08.630" UserId="82" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="I would gladly nominate **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)** as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** I am an Engineering student (specialized in Physics / Engineering Physics) from Brussels, Belgium. I am now starting a graduate program on Accelerator Physics and I am starting a PhD at CERN in the field of Accelerator Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already spent some time of Physics SE and I would appreciate to continue this experience as a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the [level of questions discussion][1] I think I am in the &quot;intermediate case&quot;: I hope the level will soon be higher than it is now, but I don't think we should restrict question to be at a pure &quot;research-level&quot; (see the discussion on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="213" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="ffe59de1-c55d-40c5-adc0-84101f93ac15" CreationDate="2010-11-15T13:04:13.557" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="214" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="846b72f9-3eb5-4535-a06e-9fd7fc166a29" CreationDate="2010-11-15T13:04:36.087" UserId="13" />
  <row Id="215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="68d5080b-0609-47ac-8f8c-83b9823c1503" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:02:50.053" UserId="184" Text="Among users of Physics SE there is a group of people who wants to have their 'Physicsoverflow', that is, a group oriented for research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost impossible to turn this SE into research level, for three main reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Physics SE was founded with purpose for general audience (see [definition phase of Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908?phase=definition)).&#xD;&#xA;- Simple (but not stupid) questions in physics are important (I never tried to discourage asking or answering them).&#xD;&#xA;- Now there is only a tiny fraction of research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is proposal of [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) with ambition to become 'physical Mathoverflow'. I like the idea very much, but with one (albeit strong) reservation: should it be restricted only to theoretical physics? I would much more like to participate in Physics Research SE, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most conferences I attended (in wave and quantum optics) had both theoretical and experimental lectures&amp;posters and it was stimulating.&#xD;&#xA;2. When asking research-level questions both theoretical and experimental answer would be appreciated (at least, for me).&#xD;&#xA;3. Good experimentalist need to know theory. Physics is immanently connected to experiment.&#xD;&#xA;4. Physics - pure maths - experiment = applied maths without an application. &#xD;&#xA;5. I am not afraid of abundance of experimentalists as it is somehow easier to ask theoretical question (&quot;what is wrong with my assumptions&quot; vs &quot;what is wrong with my experimental setup&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;6. Anyway, most of the users will be interested only in some questions. Even a factor of two won't break anything (and you can filter experimental questions if you really want).&#xD;&#xA;7. We need people to join - I doubt if there are by now too many physicist for the one research-level SE group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I do not know what percent of potential users of Theoretical Physics SE share similar attitude. Also, I think it is not the best to propose another SE without a proper consultation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [What to put in the FAQ (the “on-/off-topic” section)?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-to-put-in-the-faq-the-on-off-topic-section)&#xD;&#xA;- Discussion on [Theoretical Physics - Area 51 - Stack Exchange](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) (group proposal)&#xD;&#xA;- Post on [Joe Fitzsimons' Blog](http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Who of you are interested in having general Physics Research SE rather than Theoretical Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;* Are on Physics SE any experimentalist wanting to ask&amp;answer research-level questions? &#xD;&#xA;* In your opinion, should I propose Physics Research SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="68d5080b-0609-47ac-8f8c-83b9823c1503" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:02:50.053" UserId="184" Text="Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="68d5080b-0609-47ac-8f8c-83b9823c1503" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:02:50.053" UserId="184" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="706f2219-58b3-477f-b5a7-46b68a5e83d6" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:15:47.900" UserId="184" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Among users of Physics SE there is a group of people who wants to have their 'Physicsoverflow', that is, a group oriented for research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost impossible to turn this SE into research level, for three main reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Physics SE was founded with purpose for general audience (see [definition phase of Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908?phase=definition)).&#xD;&#xA;- Simple (but not stupid) questions in physics are important (I never tried to discourage asking or answering them).&#xD;&#xA;- Now there is only a tiny fraction of research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is proposal of [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) with ambition to become 'physical Mathoverflow'. I like the idea very much, but with one (albeit strong) reservation: should it be restricted only to theoretical physics? I would much more like to participate in Physics Research SE, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most conferences I attended (in wave and quantum optics) had both theoretical and experimental lectures&amp;posters and it was stimulating.&#xD;&#xA;2. When asking research-level questions both theoretical and experimental answer would be appreciated (at least, for me).&#xD;&#xA;3. Good experimentalist need to know theory. Physics is immanently connected to experiment.&#xD;&#xA;4. Physics - pure maths - experiment = applied maths without an application. &#xD;&#xA;5. I am not afraid of abundance of experimentalists as it is somehow easier to ask theoretical question (&quot;what is wrong with my assumptions&quot; vs &quot;what is wrong with my experimental setup&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;6. Anyway, most of the users will be interested only in some questions. Even a factor of two won't break anything (and you can filter experimental questions if you really want).&#xD;&#xA;7. We need people to join - I doubt if there are by now too many physicist for the one research-level SE group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I do not know what percent of potential users of Theoretical Physics SE share similar attitude. Also, I think it is not the best to propose another SE without a proper consultation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [What to put in the FAQ (the “on-/off-topic” section)?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-to-put-in-the-faq-the-on-off-topic-section)&#xD;&#xA;- Discussion on [Theoretical Physics - Area 51 - Stack Exchange](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) (group proposal)&#xD;&#xA;- Post on [Joe Fitzsimons' Blog](http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Who of you are interested in having general Physics Research SE rather than Theoretical Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;* Are on Physics SE any experimentalists wanting to ask&amp;answer research-level questions? &#xD;&#xA;* In your opinion, should I propose Physics Research SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="89b8ea4a-b3c9-424b-88be-3ba5f3d4e233" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:22:39.253" UserId="78" Text="I agree with your questions, but also struggle with the precise name.  &quot;Theoretical/Experimental&quot;?  Maybe just, &quot;Research Level Physics SE&quot;?    The current proposal is too good to waste, however, so maybe just start by proposing a few good experimental questions there.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="a0ac0aaf-3e1d-4a4f-85e2-7d4e2a8f0ff1" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:51:02.407" UserId="78" Text="It seems important not to be afraid of this good development.   Math.Stackexchange continues to have many interesting questions and answers.   Two sites are pretty clearly needed, so that there is someplace to refer the general questions.   It's just that in this case the general site was founded first.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="ab858a2d-d111-47e5-905c-2b983896de75" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:58:08.690" UserId="163" Text="I suggested the focus of the proposed site be on theory simply because when you combine both theory and experiment I suspect you get a field so broad that we would struggle to get consistently good answers. I would suggest that if you want to have an experimental physics site, that someone propose it, and at a later stage it is possible that the two sites would decide to merge (a process which has been done before on SE). However, for the moment I would suggest maintaining the restriction to questions with a theoretical bent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="e736df2b-e507-46b5-a67f-ac7e46500e0c" CreationDate="2010-11-15T18:25:48.577" UserId="82" Text="I don't think another site is a bad idea, but I still don't understand why you guys do not ask what you consider &quot;appropriate level&quot; on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this thing is based on the assumption that things cannot be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; That being said, the proposal is again based on another assumption: theory + experiment is too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what will be the next attempt to divide the community even more ? Apparently PSE spent a very long time before the beta, maybe we should try to understand why before proposing one or two more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="eef91cd4-9533-4a72-acac-2a34344febda" CreationDate="2010-11-15T21:28:13.873" UserId="82" Text="I would be very pleased to vote for **[Noldorin](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/102/revisions)** as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I saw since the private beta, Noldorin does have a useful knowledge of physics for this community. I think as a moderator he would be helpful as he can help make this SE site a very good high level physics site, with a good balance between the proverbial &quot;research-level&quot; and more basic aspects of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="774d1593-b31b-4564-84e0-5f9424609c9b" CreationDate="2010-11-15T23:11:18.270" UserId="124" Comment="added notes about myself" Text="I'd also like to nominate **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)** for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](http://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](http://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="225" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="e6dfd070-2912-4834-aecf-e6945f15eed4" CreationDate="2010-11-15T23:29:50.303" UserId="82" />
  <row Id="226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="00ddbb37-bfb0-4ba2-8d0f-5d4f728a1eed" CreationDate="2010-11-15T23:43:48.463" UserId="13" Comment="added 889 characters in body" Text="I would be very pleased to vote for **[Noldorin](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/102/revisions)** as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I saw since the private beta, Noldorin does have a useful knowledge of physics for this community. I think as a moderator he would be helpful as he can help make this SE site a very good high level physics site, with a good balance between the proverbial &quot;research-level&quot; and more basic aspects of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in the comments, I am grateful to receive this nomination, and will accept for the reason that I want to see this website and community develop and mature into something praiseworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit about myself: I'm currently an undergraduate (3rd year) student of (theoretical) physics in London, England. My knowledge is certainly no higher than intermediate in terms of the scope of users here (ranging from pre-college to research), though I am quite interested in a few fields in particular. I would like to think I represent well an questioning undergraduate type, and could be of general help here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal is to help get this site up to a solid undergraduate - graduate level at its core, and build a strong user base of skilled and active physicists/students. Both answering questions and communicating a &quot;vision&quot; for the site are important over the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="c584d18a-3045-4bf6-811b-b630955c3a34" CreationDate="2010-11-16T00:28:05.003" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I would propose [Tobias Kienzler][1]; he has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive Meta.SO record (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="228" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="d84f0d06-ad5b-44f3-a7d6-b474e57c6b6a" CreationDate="2010-11-16T01:17:46.773" UserDisplayName="user68" />
  <row Id="229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="8aff8cc3-8930-430b-b378-311d386b4595" CreationDate="2010-11-16T02:14:19.947" UserId="124" Text="I'll nominate [**KennyTM**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56), if he's interested in the position. He's been fairly active, more so than his current site reputation would suggest, in comments and making minor edits to posts on the main site. Also he is a well-established SO user so he's certainly familiar with the system and the use of the 10k tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="10561995-c9d7-4a1a-ba37-719eddbc5eaf" CreationDate="2010-11-16T04:43:21.763" UserId="124" Comment="add declined list" Text="In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="ba55ec84-28a2-4a41-ba1a-1f0d9e9238ac" CreationDate="2010-11-16T10:10:26.553" UserId="97" Comment="about me" Text="I would propose [Tobias Kienzler][1]; he has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="e376b760-86f6-4573-8076-a10300d3e146" CreationDate="2010-11-16T10:24:07.903" UserId="97" Text="One thing you should always keep in mind: Jeff et al. might at one point decide that one physics.SE is enough, so you shouldn't assume PR.SE will definitely be there one day. But if there will be one, there will almost certainly be a question migration path to here and vice versa. So why not ask research level questions here and _if_ PR.SE starts have them migrated or ask again? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="becf50cd-828a-458e-adf2-7a750381b350" CreationDate="2010-11-16T11:08:51.440" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I don't think it is a good idea; SE site needs mass (both in users and questions/answers) to be self-sustained; without it, it would become a chat place for a few people. Also many sites on a similar topic makes a migration hell and some inconvenience in using few sites at a time.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I don't see a reason why mixing trivial and complex questions may be harmful; SO is doing very well with both questions about merging strings in JS and optimizing Erlang code. Not to mention that sometimes it is harder to explain something plain than to cite something complex.  &#xD;&#xA;Broad scope is also not a problem; first of all one can always use tags to filter questions, second mixing fields tend to a creation of novel views on a problem. CV evolved from Q&amp;A for statistics to Q&amp;A for statistics, data mining, machine learning, visulisation and data-driven computing and nothing bad happened, even more, some communities stuck in Area started avid activity there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="03ab8514-e879-4fc8-b97b-a6b812982142" CreationDate="2010-11-16T11:22:34.803" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Everyone seems to set Mathoverflow/math.SE as a base example but this is not the whole story; for instance on CrossValidated.com we have both popular and research level questions and both classes gets their answers. Indeed, there wasn't even a discussion about question level.  &#xD;&#xA;Same holds for GIS and to some extent for E&amp;R, not to mention StackOverflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="5e2c4e80-8617-4686-a8c7-c80b6f0e5e12" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:33:36.043" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="As long as we don't have many hi-reps nor moderators, it is useful to have a place with list of candidates to close; at least it worked well on other betas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a link to the question in answer&#xD;&#xA; - Don't upvote&#xD;&#xA; - Downvote when your close vote closed the question, this will clear the list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="5e2c4e80-8617-4686-a8c7-c80b6f0e5e12" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:33:36.043" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="What questions should be considered to close by 500+ users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="5e2c4e80-8617-4686-a8c7-c80b6f0e5e12" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:33:36.043" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="f857c7fb-7683-4c44-b62b-b5aa592b1bcf" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:49:52.120" UserId="97" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](http://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](http://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="e72cfb37-aeb7-45c6-a220-aa65a3211c65" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:50:39.623" UserId="97" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I would gladly nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** I am an Engineering student (specialized in Physics / Engineering Physics) from Brussels, Belgium. I am now starting a graduate program on Accelerator Physics and I am starting a PhD at CERN in the field of Accelerator Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already spent some time of Physics SE and I would appreciate to continue this experience as a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the [level of questions discussion][1] I think I am in the &quot;intermediate case&quot;: I hope the level will soon be higher than it is now, but I don't think we should restrict question to be at a pure &quot;research-level&quot; (see the discussion on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="48d2660e-4a3c-4924-b0d7-99eb10a73c29" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:51:01.170" UserId="97" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I would be very pleased to vote for  &#xD;&#xA;#[Noldorin](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/102/revisions)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I saw since the private beta, Noldorin does have a useful knowledge of physics for this community. I think as a moderator he would be helpful as he can help make this SE site a very good high level physics site, with a good balance between the proverbial &quot;research-level&quot; and more basic aspects of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in the comments, I am grateful to receive this nomination, and will accept for the reason that I want to see this website and community develop and mature into something praiseworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit about myself: I'm currently an undergraduate (3rd year) student of (theoretical) physics in London, England. My knowledge is certainly no higher than intermediate in terms of the scope of users here (ranging from pre-college to research), though I am quite interested in a few fields in particular. I would like to think I represent well an questioning undergraduate type, and could be of general help here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal is to help get this site up to a solid undergraduate - graduate level at its core, and build a strong user base of skilled and active physicists/students. Both answering questions and communicating a &quot;vision&quot; for the site are important over the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="d0700cee-1db2-46f4-9b84-48eff02fa9eb" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:51:40.293" UserId="97" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[Tobias Kienzler][1]  &#xD;&#xA;he has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="2df4a646-116f-49bc-8113-04806f19e6d8" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:54:10.947" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="7f0fee84-a626-4bc4-8715-58098fe40346" CreationDate="2010-11-16T15:35:41.473" UserId="184" Text="People often ask general questions without even bothering to search Wikipedia (or Google). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it should firmly discouraged (votes down/closing/entry in FAQ) as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It reduces level of this SE.&#xD;&#xA;- It is simply wasting time of others.&#xD;&#xA;- When question is general it is difficult to choose the right level and focus on the part of the asker's interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, when someone finds Wikipedia article vague/complicated/not-existent or points to a specific part which (s)he do not understand - the question is relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="b7b85f0b-3d2a-456d-9d3c-97bdebac4811" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:06:29.713" UserId="184" Comment="grammar; added 2 characters in body" Text="People often ask general questions without even bothering to search Wikipedia (or Google). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it should be firmly discouraged (voting down/closing + writing this rule in FAQ) as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It reduces level of this SE.&#xD;&#xA;- It is simply wasting time of others.&#xD;&#xA;- When question is general it is difficult to choose the right level and focus on the part of the asker's interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, when someone finds Wikipedia article vague/complicated/not-existent or points to a specific part which (s)he does not understand - the question is relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="ea9ceb45-17ab-4ce7-840b-72d0292c48e7" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:25:25.543" UserId="13" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; added 6 characters in body" Text="I would be very pleased to vote for  &#xD;&#xA;#[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I saw since the private beta, Noldorin does have a useful knowledge of physics for this community. I think as a moderator he would be helpful as he can help make this SE site a very good high level physics site, with a good balance between the proverbial &quot;research-level&quot; and more basic aspects of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in the comments, I am grateful to receive this nomination, and will accept for the reason that I want to see this website and community develop and mature into something praiseworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit about myself: I'm currently an undergraduate (3rd year) student of (theoretical) physics in London, England. My knowledge is certainly no higher than intermediate in terms of the scope of users here (ranging from pre-college to research), though I am quite interested in a few fields in particular. I would like to think I represent well an questioning undergraduate type, and could thus be of general help here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal is to help get this site up to a solid undergraduate to graduate level at its core, and build a strong user base of skilled and active physicists/students. Both answering questions and communicating a &quot;vision&quot; for the site are important over the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="280abe96-1884-45dc-bd3d-1027ad199c61" CreationDate="2010-11-16T17:22:24.250" UserId="488" Text="I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="280abe96-1884-45dc-bd3d-1027ad199c61" CreationDate="2010-11-16T17:22:24.250" UserId="488" Text="Not getting 100 rep for associating accounts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="280abe96-1884-45dc-bd3d-1027ad199c61" CreationDate="2010-11-16T17:22:24.250" UserId="488" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="0f5f99ba-1ed6-4aa0-95ea-b742564ab7cf" CreationDate="2010-11-16T17:38:14.613" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="This is SE-wide bug; if you need this +100 now, create account on any other SE site, this should make the transfer here. Yet this will be fixed, hopefully soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sigh, I can't find a relative question on meta.SO...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="19c4bf6d-8328-46be-9599-4e28ba5aa298" CreationDate="2010-11-16T19:10:27.270" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="This is SE-wide bug; if you need this +100 now, create account on any other SE site, this should make the transfer here. Yet this will be fixed, hopefully soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta question: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/70147/account-association-not-giving-100/70149#70149&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="ac7bffae-42be-4de4-bca7-a6ef7ca45bed" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:33:49.957" UserId="488" Text="I have the same problem, so I can't put this as a comment on this question. Regardless of if I need the reputation, it's a bug, so I just wanted to mention I experienced it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - I've got 6 rep now, so I cross-posted a question in [meta][1] that links here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - xbones: I've got accounts at SO,SU,SF,Ubuntu,Gaming,DIY and others. For each of them, I've always gotten the +100 at the new site I'm using, not the site I'm linking to. If this has changed, then it's changed, but I hadn't heard anything about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122/not-getting-100-rep-for-associating-accounts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="dfe493d4-43ca-456b-9aa1-0383149a3ec2" CreationDate="2010-11-16T17:41:19.057" UserId="436" Text="When I made an account here, I got 100 rep at Stack Overflow, not here. You get the 'linking' rep at the other stack exchange website you're a part of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="8b09f702-ac97-4e48-be04-1fb3f3341470" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:16:16.197" UserId="487" Text="Thus, I can't ask this question in meta, since it takes at least 5 reputation. Can a mod transfer this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="8b09f702-ac97-4e48-be04-1fb3f3341470" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:16:16.197" UserId="487" Text="I didn't get my 100 starting reputation from associating this account to my other accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="8b09f702-ac97-4e48-be04-1fb3f3341470" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:16:16.197" UserId="487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="266" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="a60067ca-a8f9-4376-bd80-6621afcc8c12" CreationDate="2010-11-16T19:24:55.503" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other" Text="" />
  <row Id="268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="830c23ce-4109-414a-96d7-289f54d176f5" CreationDate="2010-11-16T19:31:19.273" UserId="436" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="When I made an account here, I got 100 rep at Stack Overflow, not here. You get the 'linking' rep at the other stack exchange website you're a part of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just happened to visit Physics.stackexchange again and this time, I got a notification that I got +100 for linking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="0628d18a-3529-4377-8cfa-82d0d93d2dce" CreationDate="2010-11-16T20:27:51.423" UserId="66" Text="I had the same problem. I fixed it by unlinking and then linking my profile a second time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="f72f012b-5c2c-417a-98e8-b814040fd1dc" CreationDate="2010-11-16T20:39:33.630" UserId="66" Text="I believe that there are two kinds of physicists, the ones that love the subject formula-wise, and the ones that love the subject meaning-wise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do believe that good physics teachers are more of the second sort. Probably researchers (especially theoretical ones) are more of the first kind. Both do physics and should be represented in this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are arguably many divulgative physics books (Brief history of time, etc.), which, although they are &quot;soft-physics&quot; they propose argumentations and discussions which are undoubtedly physical - assertions can be proven or disproven through experiment - and this makes these kinds of topics very different from abstract philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the question in your example is a bad question for many reasons, but it does have a very clear physical answer. Information is related to physics in some way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="891a42ad-0150-4172-8cec-ace9afcba4b3" CreationDate="2010-11-16T20:48:17.083" UserId="62" Text="Open source community has this problem ages ago. They have written comprehensive [how to ask question guides][1]. At first I would redirect poor questions to this link, which are in agreement with my opinions. But then I gave it another reading and found that I could revise it to make it less computer directed. [Here][2] is my initial effort, I will be slowly working on it. Some endorsement or contribution from the community would be very welcome so it show more legitimacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EDv67qWqJzeogBzH8gqwtW2YaLCJVqzfd3itiUACIn0/edit?hl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="bfe016ab-3f38-45cc-ae04-81883e8d7cda" CreationDate="2010-11-16T20:58:55.190" UserId="62" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="Open source community has this problem ages ago. They have written comprehensive [how to ask question guides][1]. At first I would redirect poor questions to this link, which are in agreement with my opinions. But then I gave it another reading and found that I could revise it to make it less computer directed. [Here][2] is my initial effort, I will be slowly working on it. Some endorsement or contribution from the community would be very welcome so it show more legitimacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I put about the effort in the question as I saw the asker did on making his question. I would probably put more if I find the question interesting and is not answered elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EDv67qWqJzeogBzH8gqwtW2YaLCJVqzfd3itiUACIn0/edit?hl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="8b383bd4-35af-4814-940d-e7af3e2019c0" CreationDate="2010-11-17T09:39:23.160" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="We should, because it tends to be a meta-tag (not in the meaning it is, but users use and will use it as so)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="c095c456-ae6e-41a2-b3be-9b7ea94b02a5" CreationDate="2010-11-17T12:47:10.107" UserId="474" Text="After a bit of time using the site I can see people using lots of nice equations. But there's nothing in the &quot;How to format&quot; help box (or in the &quot;full reference &gt;&gt;&quot; link) saying how to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got a couple of comments like &quot;use $$ around your equations&quot; but that didn't actually work. I guess I had the format slightly off or something. I've not used LaTeX before either so didn't naturally know what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be a great help (especially for newbies) to have a single line in the &quot;How to format&quot; section saying something like &quot;Enter formulas like this '$$ \pi $$' - see &lt;link&gt; for details of how to do this better&quot; with a link to a LaTeX reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current feature isn't very 'discoverable' unless you already know about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="c095c456-ae6e-41a2-b3be-9b7ea94b02a5" CreationDate="2010-11-17T12:47:10.107" UserId="474" Text="Is it possible to explain how to use LaTeX in questions / answers in the &quot;How to format&quot; help box?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="c095c456-ae6e-41a2-b3be-9b7ea94b02a5" CreationDate="2010-11-17T12:47:10.107" UserId="474" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="45207fac-2cbe-442b-8e08-1ee5d97faf7f" CreationDate="2010-11-17T13:55:09.873" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="It is already posted on Meta.SO by KennyTM, so all we can do is wait (or upvote the post on meta): http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/68388/there-should-be-universal-latex-mathjax-guide-for-sites-supporting-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="74ac0094-2618-47a3-9059-4cb64d4b110b" CreationDate="2010-11-17T17:27:07.967" UserId="488" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;I fixed my problem by unlinking and relinking the accounts, like people were advising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="11874655-a79c-49aa-8afc-1755027b4aff" CreationDate="2010-11-17T17:33:11.500" UserId="29" Text="I was disappointed that my [question about eigenfunctions of the fourier transform][1] was closed so quickly.  Given the ubiquity of the Fourier transform in physics, it seems like an excessively narrow view of &quot;physics&quot; to consider the question off-topic.  Or should we direct all 'math methods' questions to math.SE?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386/how-do-i-compute-the-eigenfunctions-of-the-fourier-transform-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="11874655-a79c-49aa-8afc-1755027b4aff" CreationDate="2010-11-17T17:33:11.500" UserId="29" Text="Mathematical methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="11874655-a79c-49aa-8afc-1755027b4aff" CreationDate="2010-11-17T17:33:11.500" UserId="29" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="c06ad77c-119e-4246-b2fd-15dcd7631d0f" CreationDate="2010-11-17T18:17:43.367" UserId="124" Text="Simply put, the Fourier transform itself is math, and there is already a site for math questions. The fact that it is widely used in physics doesn't necessarily make it anything more than pure math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="288" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="5ffcdbfd-e350-4bd8-a671-b854965adf84" CreationDate="2010-11-17T18:18:20.543" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="c190ee78-a7f2-4f56-9a2e-7921f7c3ea6f" CreationDate="2010-11-17T19:10:23.663" UserId="18" Text="I think that this site can benefit itself by allowing questions about mathematics which are directly related to physics. However, in the case of that particular question you're asking about a completely mathematical procedure in which the particular physics is not important to solve your problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="8f5d2b7e-4ebc-46ad-b601-729f13be72e8" CreationDate="2010-11-17T21:55:21.097" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I'd like to nominate myself,&#xD;&#xA;#[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a creative mixture of a physicist, computer scientist and molecular biologist. In the field of physics I'm mainly messing with CFD, currently quantum turbulence, but also with geophysics and molecular dynamics. I work for [ICM](http://icm.edu.pl), a hybrid of HPC centre and all-computational-sciences institute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably my biggest advantage and disadvantage is that I'm a veteran moderator of [CV](http://crossvalidated.com); I know how things work but I don't want to steal anyone's chance for a moderating adventure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a compulsory editor (beware, redundant spaces) and retagger, yet I think closing should be done by community and it is better to let things evolve and converge organically rather then make flame discussions about forcing some overcomplex policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the CET zone, yet as most academics I work/sleep in random hours. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="291" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="8f5d2b7e-4ebc-46ad-b601-729f13be72e8" CreationDate="2010-11-17T21:55:21.097" UserDisplayName="user68" />
  <row Id="292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="4d82957d-1a1a-438a-973b-737e9edae129" CreationDate="2010-11-18T00:16:11.873" UserId="124" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="My thought has been that increasing the level of the site is best done by _asking_ questions of an appropriate level. That way, newcomers will see examples of what kinds of questions we expect here and hopefully the expectation value of the question level will rise, without us having to close all that many of the more basic questions (which can still potentially generate good answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I certainly do agree that some questions we get should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I've been trying to put this into practice by asking questions which are representative of what I would like to see on the site, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/814/how-do-you-calculate-the-anomalous-precession-of-mercury&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339/how-can-i-determine-transmission-reflection-coefficients-for-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="92a482cb-47ab-4a5c-9294-47c4e419e86b" CreationDate="2010-11-18T02:26:53.987" UserId="329" Text="Although I am rather new to the site, I already took quite a liking to it. Nevertheless, the level is certainly low. Personally, I'd like to see the main target of the site being standard university physics courses level (i.e. undergradutate/graduate) which would put it somewhere between MO and math.SE (as Tobias suggests) instead of somewhere between high school and undergraduate (which is IMHO where math.SE is).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this certainly doesn't mean that I want to prohibit other kinds of questions. But some level should certainly be enforced (by moderators and the core group of users) in order to get a reasonable mean and variance for the distribution of the level of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, all of this was written with an implicit assumption that TP.SE takes off and become a second MO. If you think this is an unreasonable assumption and also want to have a place for some research then obviously standards for physics.SE would have to be set a lot higher. In particular, all undergrad-level questions and below should be closed immediately (and this is probably an unreasonable request). Also graduate-level and research-level question should have to be asked a lot (but here the question is: who will ask them?; and more importantly: who will answer them?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing as the previous doesn't appear to be very realistic, the first paragraph then seems a next best goal with respect to quality. Also, I think this goal is certainly attainable. In particular, I will start asking some graduate-level questions that have been interesting me lately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note regarding what Peter Shor was saying about the concept of good/bad answers not really working*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this might be a problem of communication. If there is an apparently wrong answer, don't just vote but **leave a comment** that says so. It may be clear to someone knowledgeable that the answer is wrong but other people might not see this (except as a downvote which can be lost if the question has a few upvotes already anyway). With the comment present, this can be resolved very quickly and it also gives a hint to others to be cautious around the answer. In the same spirit **leave a comment** letting the others know that some answer is good. I know this is not really democratic but this site has to be built by a core of knowledgeable users. Their votes must count more than votes of someone who knows next to nothing about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second thing I noticed is that OPs don't really care about accepting good answers. But why don't they accept it? Was it (in their opinion) not all that good and/or didn't they understand something? Well, then they should obviously **leave a comment** addressing the issue. Or do they think that no answer to their question is even coming close? Well, then they should **update the question so that everyone can see what's in their head**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, there must always appear an answer that is good enough to be accepted (given that the community knows enough about the topic and the question doesn't turn out to be an open problem; both of these conditions are usually satisfied). But if OP neither accepts an answer nor communicates then I take this as a complete ignorance of someone's work (especially when the answer is good). Why should anyone bother answering them? More importantly: why did the OP ask the question in the first place if they don't really care about getting an answer? This behavior appears quite worrisome to me. *And no, I am not talking about not getting 15 pts of rep, if anyone asked.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="c1cb94cb-b0c6-44c3-a7f1-7857959ceefd" CreationDate="2010-11-18T02:34:01.953" UserId="18" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I think that this site can benefit itself by allowing questions about mathematics which are directly related to physics. However, in the case of that particular question you're asking, it is a completely mathematical procedure in which the particular physics is not important to solve your problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="0b3d373b-2125-4c9c-8c1a-c7fa952e7d48" CreationDate="2010-11-18T10:49:13.730" UserId="97" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[Tobias Kienzler][1]  &#xD;&#xA;he has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="ba9487f5-bd25-4502-99c5-cd90b52e3042" CreationDate="2010-11-18T10:50:08.410" UserId="97" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="f4dbeee8-e712-4192-9f8c-285230fe2789" CreationDate="2010-11-19T01:23:31.183" UserId="520" Text="I like this idea. How about [tag:try-this-at-home]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the assumption that such experiments are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasonable safe, or at least have very obvious risks with straight forward mitigating strategies&#xD;&#xA;2. Require mostly equipment that is easily obtained (with perhaps one or two more specialized tools)&#xD;&#xA;3. Require limited---and clear---analysis of the results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="ac2b360f-1c01-454c-8cc1-ce8e43a9a2fd" CreationDate="2010-11-19T03:39:39.163" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="I like this idea. How about [tag:try-this-at-home]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the assumption that such experiments are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasonably safe, or at least have very obvious risks with straight forward mitigating strategies&#xD;&#xA;2. Require mostly equipment that is easily obtained (with perhaps one or two more specialized tools)&#xD;&#xA;3. Require limited---and clear---analysis of the results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="632f6159-9178-4704-86c2-b459a7f84a1b" CreationDate="2010-11-19T13:56:01.470" UserId="133" Text="How do we deal with wording that is wrong or ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;Particularly when the mistake is a very common one, or a widely miss-understood one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the question on water in a vacuum, someone said it would boil, when really it would evaporate. These two words mean different things in physics, but as a common miss-conception they are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we deal with this / correct it in a way that doesn't offend the people involve, but also doesn't perpetuate these miss-conceptions further? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="632f6159-9178-4704-86c2-b459a7f84a1b" CreationDate="2010-11-19T13:56:01.470" UserId="133" Text="How to deal with ambiguous / wrong wording in questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="632f6159-9178-4704-86c2-b459a7f84a1b" CreationDate="2010-11-19T13:56:01.470" UserId="133" Text="|discussion|questions|etiquette|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="986ed290-88ee-47fe-9d01-fe56fe09de44" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:07:35.520" UserId="238" Text="For example: reseach-level + particle-physics + quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="986ed290-88ee-47fe-9d01-fe56fe09de44" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:07:35.520" UserId="238" Text="Is it possible to select questions by two or more tags at once?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="986ed290-88ee-47fe-9d01-fe56fe09de44" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:07:35.520" UserId="238" Text="|feature-request|questions|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="9c2946db-b08b-4b81-a0d1-0021075648d9" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:42:35.563" UserId="140" Text="Yes, you can search for &quot; [research-level] [particle-physics] [quantum-field-theory] &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/particle-physics+quantum-mechanics&quot;&gt;[particle-physics] [quantum-mechanics]&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="e1d8d0b1-ec7a-4387-a19d-6fbc111e1aaa" CreationDate="2010-11-19T18:29:13.883" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Just edit. SE policy is that users are encouraged to improve posts, also by other users -- this is this wiki element mentioned in about page. Everyone is warned by FAQ that their posts can be edited, so there is no problem in offending anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that currently only 3 people can edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="312" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="99372ad0-9554-4a93-b0f9-93ac63097dde" CreationDate="2010-11-19T19:15:52.773" UserId="-1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[127],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:16,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kevin Montrose&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="b5c69b22-0c63-4acb-a879-7ebf9e509724" CreationDate="2010-11-19T19:15:52.897" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [I didn&amp;#39;t get my 100 starting reputation from associating this account to my other accounts.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;I fixed my problem by unlinking and relinking the accounts, like people were advising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="314" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="aa4b1f28-af87-4cf0-b74d-386dd9524358" CreationDate="2010-11-19T19:16:03.693" UserId="16" Comment="edited tags" Text="|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="58a172f6-add0-4a05-a503-523d78b610aa" CreationDate="2010-11-19T21:38:17.343" UserId="121" Text="**Good question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would like to include (correcting into) proper, understandable English** under &quot;wrong wording&quot; as well. I see too, too many questions on SO, Pr, and other sites that are not even phrased as questions, or simply need revision. The question headings are the face of the site, and a low standard reflects poorly on the site as a whole (and looks unprofessional, not that we are &quot;professionals&quot;, but we should strive for a high standard on *all* the sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As for the moderator problem:** I have suggested having &quot;voting drives&quot; where you can pledge, say, 3 votes per day or 10 per week (to me!), in exchange for special prizes or privileges (to be determined)! I was inspired by politicians and a local radio program. (A classical radio station was encouraging &quot;pledges&quot; in exchange for membership benefits and such). Wikipedia does this, but without direct benefits to the donors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="d6ba736f-daa5-4a9f-9748-d453cb09206f" CreationDate="2010-11-19T22:10:28.520" UserId="121" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="**Good question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I finished writing this without answering the question. &quot;MBQ&quot; makes a point I have to agree with. Editing, if done properly, can only help the site. I remember poor questions are improved by editors all the time on Stack Overflow. Additionally, imagine the distraction of correcting and discussing these items in the comments below the question or an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would like to include (correcting into) proper, understandable English** under &quot;wrong wording&quot; as well. I see too, too many questions on SO, Pr, and other sites that are not even phrased as questions, or simply need revision. The question headings are the face of the site, and a low standard reflects poorly on the site as a whole (and looks unprofessional, not that we are &quot;professionals&quot;, but we should strive for a high standard on *all* the sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As for the moderator problem:** I have suggested having &quot;voting drives&quot; where you can pledge, say, 3 votes per day or 10 per week (to me!), in exchange for special prizes or privileges (to be determined)! I was inspired by politicians and a local radio program. (A classical radio station was encouraging &quot;pledges&quot; in exchange for membership benefits and such). Wikipedia does this, but without direct benefits to the donors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="f82254f1-af44-47e8-afa3-4a478ee0a6ea" CreationDate="2010-11-19T22:36:33.410" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Just edit. SE policy is that users are encouraged to improve posts, also by other users -- this is this wiki element mentioned in about page. Everyone is warned by FAQ that their posts can be edited, so there is no problem in offending anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that currently only &lt;strike&gt;3&lt;/strike&gt; 4 (congrats, j.c.) people can edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="fc7d2de4-955c-4bf6-964d-9cf70b0aa3de" CreationDate="2010-11-22T03:35:10.400" UserDisplayName="user172" Text="I've been meaning to ask about the timeline of discovery of a certain physical phenomenon on the main site, but I thought I should probably ask a more general question here on meta to clear the air:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would questions on the history of physics be okay to ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That is, presuming of course that the questioner has already looked at Wikipedia and other places, and needs further clarification/explanation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="fc7d2de4-955c-4bf6-964d-9cf70b0aa3de" CreationDate="2010-11-22T03:35:10.400" UserDisplayName="user172" Text="Are history of physics questions allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="fc7d2de4-955c-4bf6-964d-9cf70b0aa3de" CreationDate="2010-11-22T03:35:10.400" UserDisplayName="user172" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="c065ea5d-275e-4832-8ce0-69e3650f7643" CreationDate="2010-11-22T06:11:06.867" UserId="124" Text="hmm... well, physics certainly does have a history, and it's useful to know something about that history, but as a rule, physicists tend not to care about it in the sense that a historian would. That is, the details of _when_ certain experiments were performed or when certain papers were published wind up being less important than the methodology and results of the experiments/papers themselves. So a question that just asks about the dates when certain things happened, or the order in which they happened, is probably off-topic here, but asking about the actual physics work that has been done in a particular area should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To provide an example (not the greatest), asking &quot;What events constitute the November Revolution?&quot; is not as good of a question as &quot;How did the experiment that discovered the $J/\psi$ meson work?&quot; (Of course both of these are well documented on Wikipedia and elsewhere.) Or, &quot;When was WMAP first proposed?&quot; is not as good as &quot;What made WMAP so much better than previous CMB probes?&quot; (although that last one may actually be more engineering than physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's sort of hard to tell in general. If you wanted a yes-or-no type answer, I'd say just ask the question, maybe with a link to this thread, and we'll see if it gets closed. (I promise not to downvote)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="c56a9156-c42c-42c3-8eff-934800bfb608" CreationDate="2010-11-22T08:16:24.307" UserId="97" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="fb5e7b4f-40eb-4356-9352-28626c890451" CreationDate="2010-11-22T19:05:21.267" UserId="520" Text="I think that questions like *&quot;What were some early explanations of [phenomena], and why were they discarded in favor of [later theory]?&quot;* are sufficiently focused on physics to be considered. Though there is some risk that the topic will be too broad to be effectively addressed in the Q&amp;A format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm less certain about questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the source of the appellation *&quot;barn&quot;* for the unit of nuclear cross-section?&#xD;&#xA;2. What is the significance and meaning of *&quot;Who ordered that?&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;3. Is it true that [Big Name] and [Famous Personality] had a bet about [Theory]? Who took which side? Who won?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of question has little physics content, but they are part of the culture of our discipline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="50a919ba-4ed1-4ae6-b696-d94351bb8a9a" CreationDate="2010-11-23T11:01:35.423" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="Dummy edit to jump question to the top." Text="In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="334" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" CreationDate="2010-11-23T22:11:40.333" UserId="67" />
  <row Id="335" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="065063c5-7a16-45ec-be65-e25817f7897f" CreationDate="2010-11-23T22:11:51.970" UserId="67" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="e78ac9c9-fd11-491c-99a6-88bfd3a4a40f" CreationDate="2010-11-25T14:28:03.803" UserId="605" Text="I just wonder whether numerical solution to structural dynamic question belongs here, or belongs to Math SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of such a question would be: What is [the stability of Newmark numerical method when applied to transient problems][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fs.cvut.cz/en/u2052/node113.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="e78ac9c9-fd11-491c-99a6-88bfd3a4a40f" CreationDate="2010-11-25T14:28:03.803" UserId="605" Text="Structural Dynamics Numerical Method Question: Does it Belong here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="e78ac9c9-fd11-491c-99a6-88bfd3a4a40f" CreationDate="2010-11-25T14:28:03.803" UserId="605" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="f8ed55a2-90c9-474a-9377-4fd1f9970bcb" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:04:12.330" UserId="605" Text="Does mathematical physics questions belong here, or on math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, for example, I wish to ask about [Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems][1]-- basically they are just the derivations and the solutions of Einstein gravitational field equations. Or I wish to ask about the existence and smoothness of navier-stokes equation ( talking about [clay institutes's millennium prize problem][2]). Should I post the question here, or on Math SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/navierstokes.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="f8ed55a2-90c9-474a-9377-4fd1f9970bcb" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:04:12.330" UserId="605" Text="Mathematical Physics: Does it Belong here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="f8ed55a2-90c9-474a-9377-4fd1f9970bcb" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:04:12.330" UserId="605" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="faf60583-22e3-4eea-9fcb-1331fe1086f5" CreationDate="2010-11-25T17:53:17.050" UserId="13" Text="If the question requires any physical insight/understanding, then you are best off posting it here I think. It is more appropriate and you will probably get higher quality answers. If, however, the question is purely relating to manipulating and solving complex equations that appear in physics, Math SE (or MathOverflow even) may be the better place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="acafabbb-786f-45cf-808b-7bf6890b4a2a" CreationDate="2010-11-25T17:58:05.023" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="347" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="292d29ec-cfbc-427e-8f69-0567e46e65e5" CreationDate="2010-11-25T17:58:44.727" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="44e2820b-e2c6-4451-9446-d55a4b31c9c9" CreationDate="2010-11-25T20:17:51.020" UserId="13" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="If the question requires any physical insight/understanding, then you are best off posting it here I think. It is more appropriate and you will probably get higher quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, the question is purely relating to manipulating and solving complex equations that happen to *appear* in physics, then Math StackExchange (or MathOverflow even) may be the better place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="70842a1e-d3fe-4770-9e4e-402e2c984cd7" CreationDate="2010-11-25T22:40:32.620" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Try it; since all numerics proposals are stuck in Area51, we could host some questions like this here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="28884df1-4b03-40b8-8ca3-4daa81232be3" CreationDate="2010-11-26T04:09:47.140" UserId="605" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Does mathematical physics questions belong here, or on math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, for example, I wish to ask about [Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems][1]-- basically they are just the theorems and the solutions of Einstein gravitational field equations. Or I wish to ask about the existence and smoothness of navier-stokes equation ( talking about [clay institutes's millennium prize problem][2]). Should I post the question here, or on Math SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/navierstokes.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="37c501c0-7bbc-4713-8cb3-147c80a75e63" CreationDate="2010-11-26T16:41:02.033" UserId="649" Text="This can help distinguish questions about specific problems and theoretical physics from &quot;practical&quot; ones that tend to generate interest in people that are less interested in science and math. I am not studying physics but I would love to follow these types of questions that answer how things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible questions that fall in this category:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; How does [insert musical instrument of choice] work?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; Why do rainbows form?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1326/why-do-earphone-pieces-repel-each-other-when-music-is-on&quot;&gt;Why do earphone pieces repel each other when music is on?&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; Why can't I put metal in the microwave?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; How do radar guns work?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's these types of questions that make Physics so interesting to me. A tag would be nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should the tag be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="37c501c0-7bbc-4713-8cb3-147c80a75e63" CreationDate="2010-11-26T16:41:02.033" UserId="649" Text="What tag should we use to indicate &quot;how does X work?&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="37c501c0-7bbc-4713-8cb3-147c80a75e63" CreationDate="2010-11-26T16:41:02.033" UserId="649" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="7aa1193c-0a78-4b00-876c-074b2df5ae29" CreationDate="2010-11-26T16:56:40.313" UserId="329" Text="I'd suggest &quot;what-makes-it-tick&quot;. Kind of long though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="8df4a705-a9ff-405a-808d-fea0cf230383" CreationDate="2010-11-26T17:33:17.900" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="This is a meta tag, so it shouldn't be used at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="ed0d276f-073e-4907-ad06-35217ae46654" CreationDate="2010-11-26T22:46:11.923" UserId="373" Text="Why not &quot;how does that work ?&quot;, taken straight from your question ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="1c7d8b4a-c541-48d5-a8c5-51bb93dd8cd7" CreationDate="2010-11-28T11:22:51.607" UserId="66" Text="I would suggest using &quot;classical-physics&quot; when appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="244f3b57-6dc8-4803-bcda-ecc3c4466902" CreationDate="2010-11-28T14:32:53.313" UserId="7433" Text="Please post here tag synonym proposals for voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="244f3b57-6dc8-4803-bcda-ecc3c4466902" CreationDate="2010-11-28T14:32:53.313" UserId="7433" Text="Tag synonyms for voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="244f3b57-6dc8-4803-bcda-ecc3c4466902" CreationDate="2010-11-28T14:32:53.313" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="a7119856-67bb-423a-9612-5fc98c57043f" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:36:47.807" UserId="619" Text="I nominate&#xD;&#xA;#[Sklivvz](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz)&#xD;&#xA;If he's interested in accepting position. His reputation and answers,(among others of course) are what keep me coming back to the site everyday to learn, to be awe-inspired.  :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="ad3efbe1-c180-4854-8395-ca2d64a98101" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:01:08.943" UserId="619" Text="I was really disappointed to see the [chemistry][1] site on area51 having just 32 followers compared to roughly 700 for [physics.stackexchange][2] and 3.5K+ on [math.stackexchange][3]. &#xD;&#xA;Isn't chemistry also &quot;up there&quot; among the top?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thought I'd raise this as an awareness question to drive the chemistry site into beta. Hoping it does not get down voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="ad3efbe1-c180-4854-8395-ca2d64a98101" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:01:08.943" UserId="619" Text="Is chemistry an abstracted subset of physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="ad3efbe1-c180-4854-8395-ca2d64a98101" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:01:08.943" UserId="619" Text="|particle-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="372" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="490ede85-e1a2-4c5e-8b51-e830a92ebf02" CreationDate="2010-11-28T22:48:50.137" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1397/is-chemistry-an-abstracted-subset-of-physics" Text="" />
  <row Id="373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="64ff1bf1-2494-43bb-b959-d71f3edc7334" CreationDate="2010-11-28T23:15:31.093" UserId="124" Comment="retag" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="cb71bf55-6c28-42f0-9007-d414827c4b30" CreationDate="2010-11-29T01:27:29.853" UserId="661" Text="In my opinion, it is close-minded to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... is just a subset of Medicine is just a subset of Biology is just a subset of Chemistry is just a subset of Physics is just applied Mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, sure, all chemical reactions ultimately break down to quantum mechanics and (quantum) thermodynamics. But is this a helpful view? I strongly disagree. When Chemists try to figure something out, I doubt that they start from the full Schrödinger equation for N electrons and M nuclei. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather, Chemistry is on another plane w.r.t complexity, and hence an entire new set of phenomena *emerge*. If you're interested in a better discussion of this, read the very famous essay &quot;More is different&quot; by P.A.W. Anderson. You should have no problem finding it using Google Scholar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="85a17424-296d-454e-9ca0-79ef7de89c48" CreationDate="2010-11-30T07:32:50.897" UserId="66" Text="I believe that chemistry is merely less *glamourous* than physics and biology, which are more open fields - physics &quot;claiming&quot; to aim to explain reality and biology having the &quot;claim&quot; to try to explain life and evolution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="0b24920e-aadf-4974-98d2-9bfc7dcddcc8" CreationDate="2010-12-02T20:45:48.683" UserId="139" Text="The wiki article on interpretation of quantum mechanics discusses 16 different interpretations. It is a subject that probably will continue to come up among users. And I personally think that the question itself is legitimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is linked to so many vague and confusing opinions that the question often raises irritation, also it may become boring, because everything has already been said many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it perhaps an idea to create one community wiki question for this subject - and refer other questions to it?&#xD;&#xA;E.g. What interpretation of quantum mechanics - or aspect of it - do you (dis)like the most and why? Please give arguments but keep your statement and arguments short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="0b24920e-aadf-4974-98d2-9bfc7dcddcc8" CreationDate="2010-12-02T20:45:48.683" UserId="139" Text="Interpretation of quantum mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="0b24920e-aadf-4974-98d2-9bfc7dcddcc8" CreationDate="2010-12-02T20:45:48.683" UserId="139" Text="|discussion|specific-question|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="02f3a9f0-80f1-4492-9afa-ae20a6e5b57c" CreationDate="2010-12-02T21:15:01.963" UserId="329" Text="Interpretation of quantum mechanics is not necessarily philosophical in nature. There are great many physical and mathematical questions about interpretations (obvious ones are: which interpretations are physical and which are mathematically consistent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's true many more are just layman, crackpot and philosophical questions that have nothing to do with science. So I think one should decide on a case-by-case basis. Here is my (quite non-exhaustive) list of good and bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In what interpretation is measurement *really* explained (as opposed to not cared about as in *shut up and calculate!* approach)?&#xD;&#xA;1. How is measurement realized in the Consistent Histories framework?&#xD;&#xA;2. What are the physical implications of EPR paradox?&#xD;&#xA;3. What is the resolution of Schroedinger's cat paradox in Many-Worlds interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;3. Where is the border between classical and quantum description and how does decoherence address this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad questions (I can't really think of many but I am sure there  are lots of them out there):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which interpretation makes QM easy to understand?&#xD;&#xA;2. Why is QM so hard?&#xD;&#xA;3. Why is nature not deterministic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="cd5d2170-1217-4866-a6ca-d6be766661f4" CreationDate="2010-12-03T14:42:52.540" UserId="373" Text="The current system is to add an answer to  [What questions should be considered to close by 500+ users?][1] for question to be closed, but it is not obvious what to do when the question are closed. The closed questions are then mixed with questions to be closed, which is impractical. Should we delete the closed questions ? Add another &quot;community wiki&quot; answer recording all closed questions ?  Use another system ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="cd5d2170-1217-4866-a6ca-d6be766661f4" CreationDate="2010-12-03T14:42:52.540" UserId="373" Text="How to deal with closed questions and questions to be closed ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="cd5d2170-1217-4866-a6ca-d6be766661f4" CreationDate="2010-12-03T14:42:52.540" UserId="373" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="a4f10770-edd5-492e-88f4-bf0483ef3860" CreationDate="2010-12-03T14:44:23.677" UserId="373" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="51292e22-0284-4f46-bb78-ff7d3f6a7075" CreationDate="2010-12-03T14:57:26.753" UserId="329" Text="Or maybe another possibility might be to forget about this ad-hoc system altogether, as there are now about 25 500+ users and many others are close to 500. I suppose this is enough to make the voting system work on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd suggest to start a new CW meta-question that would only be for users that don't yet have 500 rep. Because if you have 500 rep already you don't have to post about bad questions; just go ahead and vote to close directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although right now I thought about another related matter: cleanup of old questions. Probably another CW meta-question should be started for this. The rationale here being of getting attention of all the community to close old questions that went unnoticed and are unlikely to be spotted by enough people to close them anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="9144fb7e-f672-4bae-851e-ba0f35d12123" CreationDate="2010-12-03T23:05:54.803" UserId="40" Text="I think it would mostly depend on the field of the person asking the question. If it is a physics student they may want a more &quot;physics-y&quot; answer. If it is a math student maybe they want the insight of the Physics.SE community. Essentially, it should be asked wherever the OP decides to ask it. Maybe someone could suggest they try their hand at asking on MSE or MO if they are of the opinion they would get a better answer there. In general, I think each separate community will provide different insight, so why not allow it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="684dff7b-f5bd-4ee4-9534-3eb96fbe5e43" CreationDate="2010-12-04T07:24:35.260" UserId="353" Text="I was reading this question - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/961/why-is-the-nucleus-of-an-iron-atom-so-stable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two good answers. One explains in words, in a way that might be satisfying to those who have been wondering and come upon the question.  The other shows the math in enough detail that one can work the numbers and grind it out.  That too would be of interest to some who come upon the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter which kind of answer the OP sought; the value of a SE site like this is answering questions of visitors who come along after and find it's already been asked.    Some visitors will seek qualitative word answers, just wanting to know the essential point and are perhaps not themselves physicsts,  while other visitors will be hungry for the serious math .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just fantasizing... Could both of these good answers get the hallowed green checkmark? Or different colored checkmarks, say blue for the best mathematically detailed answer and orange for the best qualitative words only question?  Would that make sense for more than just a few questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="684dff7b-f5bd-4ee4-9534-3eb96fbe5e43" CreationDate="2010-12-04T07:24:35.260" UserId="353" Text="Best Qualitative Answer vs. Best Mathematical Answer - Choose Both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="684dff7b-f5bd-4ee4-9534-3eb96fbe5e43" CreationDate="2010-12-04T07:24:35.260" UserId="353" Text="|feature-request|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="961ac6e2-0a84-459c-99a4-c1546b8f9efb" CreationDate="2010-12-04T08:30:23.200" UserId="124" Text="I highly doubt that the SE people would change their software to allow us to mark two accepted answers, and in any case, I don't think it'd really be that good of an idea in general. It'd probably be more likely to confuse a lot of people (the &quot;non-regulars&quot;) than anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And besides, generally the best answer possible for a question includes both elements: qualitative explanation for people who want the big picture, as well as a calculation (or references to one) for people who want to go through the details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="4bedb95e-daf1-4ca8-a1db-40f11e283de5" CreationDate="2010-12-04T10:58:54.983" UserId="329" Text="First, is there a way to insert line-breaks into a comment? This is often frustrating me because the comments are sometimes quite unreadable without line-breaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be also nice if [Enter] didn't submit the comment; this still surprises me sometimes and makes me add unfinished comment. *(I don't believe it can be changed though).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, is there some nice FAQ or other resource where one can learn everything about the site's user interface?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="4bedb95e-daf1-4ca8-a1db-40f11e283de5" CreationDate="2010-12-04T10:58:54.983" UserId="329" Text="Some questions about the site's user interface." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="4bedb95e-daf1-4ca8-a1db-40f11e283de5" CreationDate="2010-12-04T10:58:54.983" UserId="329" Text="|support|user-interface|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="a3149b0c-cd37-4c3b-af98-65ee8a5b9573" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:08:46.617" UserId="56" Text="&gt; First, is there a way to insert line-breaks into a comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No there isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be also nice if [Enter] didn't submit the comment; this still surprises me sometimes and makes me add unfinished comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More generally, is there some nice FAQ or other resource where one can learn everything about the site's user interface?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask a [meta-tag:support] question in http://meta.stackoverflow.com/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="f8eddc28-21ee-4191-b8fb-e9511f8e07f1" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:09:20.953" UserId="13" Text="I think the theory is that if a 'comment' is long enough and has enough structure to require paragraphs (i.e. line breaks), then it should really be answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I quite like that it just takes [Enter] to submit comments. This is a recent change in the user interface of this site, and makes comment writing a bit quicker, in the case where one leaves many short comments (as I often do). [Shift-Enter] still gives you a normal line-break (only visible in the editor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [the set of `faq`-tagged questions on Meta StackOverflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/faq) you may find quite helpful. These are generally large community-wiki style questions detailing various aspects of StackExchange sites, dating back to the early days of StackOverflow (but updated a lot since)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="36d36447-d072-4c07-a389-bc9f39b415a1" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:14:03.460" UserId="13" Text="The question [*Sonic boom equivalent for speed of light barrier*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1307/sonic-boom-equivalent-for-speed-of-light-barrier) seems to have provoked much debate in terms of whether this question is appropriate, in level and content, for this StackExchange site. Views seem to range from &quot;definitely yes&quot; to &quot;definitely no&quot;, with some advocating that it belongs on the pop. sci. SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I thought I'd gauge the community (in particular the more active members) on whether this question really belongs here. Depending on feedback, it could potentially remain open as is, locked, closed, or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts? Please cast a vote on the appropriate answer and leave a comment with your brief explanation ideally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="36d36447-d072-4c07-a389-bc9f39b415a1" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:14:03.460" UserId="13" Text="Does this question belong on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="36d36447-d072-4c07-a389-bc9f39b415a1" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:14:03.460" UserId="13" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="711c9aa1-a121-486c-9d45-4c294c889574" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:14:28.357" UserId="13" Text="### Yes, this question belongs here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Up-vote if you agree, down-vote if you disagree. Please leave short explanation in either case.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="4e5e81d0-e84a-497f-a66e-0d9e4368e4ff" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:14:48.967" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="35801a64-d154-4b6f-a437-7301c4caed27" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:15:58.950" UserId="13" Comment="edited tags; added 1 characters in body" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="35801a64-d154-4b6f-a437-7301c4caed27" CreationDate="2010-12-04T16:15:58.950" UserId="13" Comment="edited tags; added 1 characters in body" Text="The question [*Sonic boom equivalent for speed of light barrier*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1307/sonic-boom-equivalent-for-speed-of-light-barrier) seems to have provoked much debate in terms of whether this question is appropriate, in level and content, for this StackExchange site. Views seem to range from &quot;definitely yes&quot; to &quot;definitely no&quot;, with some advocating that it belongs on the pop. sci. SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I thought I'd gauge the community (in particular the more active members) on whether this question really belongs here. Depending on feedback, it could potentially remain open as is, locked, closed, or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts? Please cast your desired vote on the answer (and leave a comment with your brief explanation ideally)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="9e7ec452-35d0-472b-bcbd-8e3d2f697ef3" CreationDate="2010-12-04T23:16:00.910" UserId="520" Text="The particular question in question is tricky. I was an early defender, but I am partially convinced by Daniel's arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Properly formed it is a *good* if rather basic question, and xenon provided a perfectly good if rather basic answer. Unfortunately the question (especially the original text) is a little shaky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This basically boils down to another crack at *&quot;What is the proper level of discourse on physics.se?&quot;*. Coming with a largely Stack Overflow background (note that I did not participate in the definition and commitment phases) I just dove in to answer it (and found I'd been beaten to the punch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My recommendation** for pop-sci questions that get at real physics: **edit the questions** to render it more sophisticated. NB: Don't render it into something that can't be answered without a lot of math, just strip off and Star Trekism and of pernicious pop-sci influences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us free to clobber junk science questions without ruling that amateurs are not welcome in our midst." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="3dfcf97c-0893-4ced-a324-4da8a41abb84" CreationDate="2010-12-05T00:38:48.547" UserId="520" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The particular question in question is tricky. I was an early defender, but I am partially convinced by Daniel's arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Properly formed it is a *good* if rather basic question, and xenon provided a perfectly good if rather basic answer. Unfortunately the question (especially the original text) is a little shaky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This basically boils down to another crack at *&quot;What is the proper level of discourse on physics.se?&quot;*. Coming with a largely Stack Overflow background (note that I did not participate in the definition and commitment phases) I just dove in to answer it (and found I'd been beaten to the punch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My recommendation** for pop-sci questions that get at real physics: **edit the questions** to render it more sophisticated. NB: Don't render it into something that can't be answered without a lot of math, just strip off any Star Trekism and other pernicious pop-sci influences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us free to clobber junk science questions without ruling that amateurs are not welcome in our midst." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="3695d3ee-d5ba-411f-90ab-5a72662bfdb0" CreationDate="2010-12-05T09:57:07.243" UserId="329" Text="I've suggested *subatomic* as a synonym for *particle-physics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/particle-physics/synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="f22936c6-4615-4654-84cd-d84a6171e03a" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:39:57.310" UserId="329" Text="Having gained 1500 reputation, I didn't lose any time and created a tag wiki for [classical-mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/classical-mechanics/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quickly found out that creating something useful isn't easy at all. Actually, I am not really sure what kind of information to include (there are some hints but I didn't really find them helpful).&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like this question become a place for a discussion of general format of the tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One suggestion per answer, please. *(Also I'd like to make this community wiki).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="f22936c6-4615-4654-84cd-d84a6171e03a" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:39:57.310" UserId="329" Text="What to do with tag wikis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="f22936c6-4615-4654-84cd-d84a6171e03a" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:39:57.310" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="636a5b30-f2ff-4538-a24c-cfb4343e01ac" CreationDate="2010-12-05T23:31:48.957" UserId="520" Text="Based on what we do on Stack Overflow;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First and foremost:** a description of what the tag means and what kinds of questions should be tagged that way (and what questions should *not* if there is confusion with a closely related tag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that it gets trickier, but consider &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* links to good introductory resources&#xD;&#xA;* links to particularly good questions currently on the site&#xD;&#xA;* acknowledgment of any particularly controversial aspects of the subject (i.e. the quantum mechanics tag wiki should say something about the epistemological questions surrounding the subject and the existence of multiple interpretations)&#xD;&#xA;* A (very!) brief history possibly listing the founding problems and or scientists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things that might be particular to physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some notes about notation or conventions (i.e. particle physics generally uses &quot;natural&quot; units and relativists typically employ the sum convention, etc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="1943a982-357b-4a21-b4e9-a316180b474d" CreationDate="2010-12-05T23:37:20.797" UserId="520" Comment="added 128 characters in body; added 51 characters in body" Text="Based on what we do on Stack Overflow (where the individual tag wikis vary considerable):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First and foremost:** a description of what the tag means and what kinds of questions should be tagged that way (and what questions should *not* if there is confusion with a closely related tag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that it gets trickier, but consider &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* links to good introductory resources&#xD;&#xA;* links to particularly good questions currently on the site&#xD;&#xA;* acknowledgment of any particularly controversial aspects of the subject (i.e. the quantum mechanics tag wiki should say something about the epistemological questions surrounding the subject and the existence of multiple interpretations)&#xD;&#xA;* A (very!) brief history possibly listing the founding problems and or scientists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things that might be particular to physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some notes about notation or conventions (i.e. particle physics generally uses &quot;natural&quot; units and relativists typically employ the sum convention, etc)&#xD;&#xA;* Currently outstanding problems&#xD;&#xA;* This physics is the underling principle that makes &amp;lt;spiffy everyday technology&amp;gt; work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="ba3c52f7-9ca4-455b-a06f-4e9783276611" CreationDate="2010-12-07T17:21:58.697" UserId="20" Text="I signed the petition and committed to participating in this website.  This pledge accounts for some of my involvement.  However, it seems clear from tracking the site statistics that Physics-Stack-Exchange is ill.  (A healthy sign would be exponential, or at least super-linear, growth.)  Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guesses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;2.  Quality.  &#xD;&#xA;3.  Nervousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  How many working physicists know about the site?  Probably not many, and I believe the answer is tied in with #2.&#xD;&#xA;2.  I understand that the community disfavors simply research-level questions.  However, without high-quality answers the site rambles through low-level questions with a high noise-to-signal ratio.  This state of affairs will not attract the attention of those who who can make the site better.  It's fun to ask about fans and cars and planes and sails, but modeling these things seriously to reveal deeper phenomena is formidable.  Instead, we get a mostly qualitative, hand-wavy argument about why things work.  That has value, but it is not academic physics.  (Maybe that's the goal?  If so, I [personally] would discontinue using the site after fulfilling my start-up commitment.)&#xD;&#xA;3.  I think some physicists *do* know about the site but are unwilling to reveal their uncertainties and insecurities.  This may be a physics-culture thing or it may not.  There is some similar phenonmenon in Math-Overflow, but at least postdocs seem very open to the Web exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solutions?  I don't know.  You?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="ba3c52f7-9ca4-455b-a06f-4e9783276611" CreationDate="2010-12-07T17:21:58.697" UserId="20" Text="Is the site working?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="ba3c52f7-9ca4-455b-a06f-4e9783276611" CreationDate="2010-12-07T17:21:58.697" UserId="20" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="bddeaded-a08c-46be-8a97-81eecfb8f26b" CreationDate="2010-12-07T18:21:56.903" UserId="329" Text="Are you really sure that the state of affairs is so bad? What did you compare the site statistics with? Looking at other SE proposals it seems to me that this site is doing quite well for a site 30 days in beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it will take some time to attract more knowledgeable people and maybe higher standards for questions should be probably encouraged (more onto this later), but I think on the whole, the site is fine. But if people like you (who are absolute top on this site, in my opinion) start to leave then the site obviously has a big problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to the level of questions. I think we have decided that the level should be higher. But apparently there are still lots of (or even most?) popular and high school level questions and we are doing nothing to stop that (I am not sure whether that's good or bad, just stating the obvious). But I guess if we would start to drastically close those questions many people would leave and although standards would be higher, there would be just few good physicists left and the site would collapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better approach (apart from starting a research level site like TP.SE) is to let these questions stay, let lots of people come to ask them and make the site popular. Because then also good physicist will discover the site (at least I believe so) and the level will slowly rise (hopefully). I honestly don't see any other way than this. In particular, I am not quite sure how to spread the word in a way that would attract established physicists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="e5dd05cf-f5ca-42e0-9f8a-72223c609e32" CreationDate="2010-12-08T20:23:05.943" UserId="124" Comment="change room URL" Text="Sorry for such pseudoquestion, but check it out:&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/135/physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_(edited to reflect new chat room)_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="435" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="8148be2d-ef12-4389-a830-dce12ed7b57d" CreationDate="2010-12-08T23:16:21.567" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="Rollback to [2a9f81e3-49f5-46ff-8445-8b6ce879e518]" Text="Sorry for such pseudoquestion, but check it out:&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="be978c56-a1a4-4d20-9e48-bbe1f795605a" CreationDate="2010-12-09T02:58:24.080" UserId="520" Text="Consider *&quot;[help with coefficient of friction][1]&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A basic physics 101 question, and a one-and-a-half step variety at that. As questions-that-students-have go there is nothing unusual about it, but there is little help that can be offered short of doing the problem for the student. I've offered a pointer in the comments, but how should the question treated on physics.se?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;// For amusement, check out the original tag...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1758/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="be978c56-a1a4-4d20-9e48-bbe1f795605a" CreationDate="2010-12-09T02:58:24.080" UserId="520" Text="Yet another &quot;What level?&quot; question. This time for physics 101 homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="be978c56-a1a4-4d20-9e48-bbe1f795605a" CreationDate="2010-12-09T02:58:24.080" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|content-level|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="c5b0dbce-54e7-4246-a9f8-5b32fab3ff39" CreationDate="2010-12-09T10:38:40.647" UserId="329" Text="I was just going to post a question about this one myself but from a different perspective. &#xD;&#xA;And I also have an answer how to treat this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Namely, I would close it at once. Level of the site will never rise if we allow these questions here. I think high-school questions are fine as long as they are clever. But high-school (or lower) homework? **No sir, thank you very much!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="3281529d-0772-491f-8fcd-3ddbbc6133cc" CreationDate="2010-12-09T11:22:49.990" UserId="97" Text="Quoting the [defintion phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908?phase=definition)'s most upvoted comment on what the level of this site should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll vote to close this question and every other one that simply asks &quot;how to insert these values I have into a formula - and which formula btw&quot;. Although in the latter case the OP should be asked to edit their question into a more useful &quot;which formula to use to ...&quot; which could then at least help other people visiting this site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="441" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="d66de4f0-d677-4165-9689-4cddeca0da65" CreationDate="2010-12-09T20:43:54.310" UserId="13" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:13,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Noldorin&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="695f5058-04df-4e9c-9fdf-276f492290cc" CreationDate="2010-12-09T22:17:46.930" UserId="66" Text="E.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that when most answers have 30+ comments, it becomes very hard to follow what is going on or have a constructive discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my answer I have at the moment 86 comments...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way of using the site in such cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="695f5058-04df-4e9c-9fdf-276f492290cc" CreationDate="2010-12-09T22:17:46.930" UserId="66" Text="Handling controversial, yet valid questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="695f5058-04df-4e9c-9fdf-276f492290cc" CreationDate="2010-12-09T22:17:46.930" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="7323a80c-215d-456f-a9b6-889e3a44a071" CreationDate="2010-12-09T22:57:07.653" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="If there is a lot of comments, only those highly upvoted show up at a first glance -- this of course make all comment conversations loose context. So, you can count that other people will upvote only relevant and valuable comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The better solution is to move discussions from comments to chat, but this may be hard to enforce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally the moderator can delete some comments in order to clean the view, but it doesn't seem common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="b07b7e67-df66-4e61-a540-8f2fbe9fff48" CreationDate="2010-12-10T00:15:38.167" UserId="13" Comment="edited title" Text="Too many comments on answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="e9188c56-43bc-41d2-a11d-cb70f6952a68" CreationDate="2010-12-10T00:16:02.223" UserId="13" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If there are a lot of comments, only those highly up-voted show up at a first glance -- this of course make all comment conversations loose context. So, you can count that other people will up-vote only relevant and valuable comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The better solution is to move discussions from comments to chat, but this may be hard to enforce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally the moderator can delete some comments in order to clean the view, but it doesn't seem common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="baf40d83-2375-4b79-b870-e32d1c27dd2f" CreationDate="2010-12-10T00:23:13.490" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="If there are a lot of comments, only those highly upvoted show up at a first glance -- this of course make all comment conversations loose context. So, you can count that other people will upvote only relevant and valuable comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The better solution is to move discussions from comments to chat, but this may be hard to enforce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally the moderator can delete some comments in order to clean the view, but it doesn't seem common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="21a10679-718d-41f8-8b5d-00383291fb3b" CreationDate="2010-12-10T10:31:54.457" UserId="562" Text="Currently, there is certainly a tiny amount of working physicist register here. Most of the registered user should be students. I guess there is only a quarter of them are graduate students and post-doc, maybe the same set of those 100 people committed in the TP.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough estimate of all working physicist should be around 50k. It is obvious that there is much room for improvements while it is comparing with the 800 people registered here. The grow of the registered user seems to be slowed down, so some form of advertisement may help this situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regard of the quality of questions, it should be fine if part of them are easier than the research level questions. Sometimes askers do want a deep answer for an easy question. You also need new questions to attract people coming back. It should be noticed that more questions itself is a good way to advertise because you can easily found the website in the google. I know the SO simply because it often appears in my search of programming topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high quality questions, it is likely to be asked by knowledgeable people in the particular field. Hence, the number of high quality questions is always much less than the number of low quality questions. So, why don't you try to ask difficult questions here to attract them. It may surprise you that there is person that can answer those questions. Those questions may need weeks of reading and consulting your supervisor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no single good ways for physicists to ask questions in the web and this site has a good system. So, hopefully, it should attract them slowly if we can keep the current quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="7475c8c8-e761-4e61-8052-3dedde66effc" CreationDate="2010-12-10T10:44:14.380" UserId="562" Comment="added 335 characters in body; added 30 characters in body" Text="Currently, there is certainly a tiny amount of working physicist register here. Most of the registered user should be students. I guess there is only a quarter of them are graduate students and post-doc, maybe the same set of those 100 people committed in the TP.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough estimate of all working physicist should be around 50k (see [number of physics author][1] and [the employment][2]). It is obvious that there is much room for improvements while it is comparing with the 800 people registered here. The grow of the registered user seems to be slowed down, so some form of advertisement may help this situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regard of the quality of questions, it should be fine if part of them are easier than the research level questions. Sometimes askers do want a deep answer for an easy question. You also need new questions to attract people coming back. It should be noticed that more questions itself is a good way to advertise because you can easily found the website in the google. I know the SO simply because it often appears in my search of programming topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high quality questions, it is likely to be asked by knowledgeable people in the particular field. Hence, the number of high quality questions is always much less than the number of low quality questions. So, why don't you try to ask difficult questions here to attract them. It may surprise you that there is person that can answer those questions. Those questions may need weeks of reading and consulting your supervisor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no single good ways for physicists to ask questions in the web and this site has a good system. So, hopefully, it should attract them slowly if we can keep the current quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: Regarding your last question, I have been surprised to see Peter Shor (shor algorithm of prime factorization) participating the discussion in the TCS.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.62.7557&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="cfac5730-5a9a-4dfa-8ce8-b121517aedb4" CreationDate="2010-12-10T11:59:15.297" UserId="97" Text="I use the [Greasemonkey script for displaying threaded comments](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/43055/146482) to get a better overview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://unicorn.&amp;#252;-wie-geek.de/threaded2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still have to click on `show more comments...` if necessary, and the heuristic is of course not always perfect, but I like it. Other useful greasemonkey scripts can be found in [this thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/3687/146482) and [that one](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/5188/146482) at meta.SO, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Show unread questions](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3687/greasemonkey-script-ideas-best-of-stackoverflow-greasemonkey-implementations/25927#25927)&#xD;&#xA;- [Highlight which tag is the interesting one, plus different shading if more than one tag is interesting](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/49704/double-intensity-shading-for-questions-with-1-interesting-tags/49724#49724)&#xD;&#xA;- [Script to add “reply” links to comments](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/38600/146482)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="de55e31c-a88d-48c5-8fd0-be2732f68a64" CreationDate="2010-12-10T13:37:51.963" UserId="562" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Currently, there is certainly a tiny amount of working physicist register here. Most of the registered user should be students. I guess there is only a quarter of them are graduate students and post-doc, maybe the same set of those 100 people committed in the TP.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough estimate of all working physicist should be around 50k (see [number of physics author][1] and [the employment][2]). It is obvious that there is much room for improvements while it is comparing with the 800 people registered here. The grow of the registered user seems to be slowed down, so some form of advertisement may help this situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regard of the quality of questions, it should be fine if part of them are easier than the research level questions. Sometimes askers do want a deep answer for an easy question. You also need new questions to attract people coming back. It should be noticed that more questions itself is a good way to advertise because you can easily found the website in the google. I know the SO simply because it often appears in my search of programming topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high quality questions, it is likely to be asked by knowledgeable people in the particular field. Hence, the number of high quality questions is always much less than the number of low quality questions. So, why don't you try to ask difficult questions here to attract them. It may surprise you that there is person that can answer those questions. Those questions may need weeks of reading and consulting your supervisor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no single good ways for physicists to ask questions in the web and this site has a good system. So, hopefully, it should attract them slowly if we can keep the current quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: Regarding your last question, I have been surprised to see Peter Shor (shor algorithm of prime factorization) participating the discussion in the TCS.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 2**: It also seems that people rarely asking questions about papers, which should be count toward research level question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.62.7557&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="cdc50b64-8d60-4299-b5d4-ea147ed7ce8f" CreationDate="2010-12-10T20:44:19.237" UserId="329" Text="If you look at the [universe](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/universe) and [space](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/space) tags you'll immediately notice that except for one or two of the questions the rest either has wrong tags, are closed or else are hugely down-voted (by the way, this is a good moment to take a look and vote to close some of them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I wonder what's the best strategy to go about these tags? Personally I'd remove the *space* tag completely (because space, in its most concrete meaning is either just a mathematical or a philosophical concept. No physics in that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *universe*, I am inclined to let it stay (in connection with cosmology and astrophysics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you think we should do with them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="cdc50b64-8d60-4299-b5d4-ea147ed7ce8f" CreationDate="2010-12-10T20:44:19.237" UserId="329" Text="What to do with 'universe' and 'space' tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="cdc50b64-8d60-4299-b5d4-ea147ed7ce8f" CreationDate="2010-12-10T20:44:19.237" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="1e6277cc-0b8f-47f2-9055-d06fcf3b6d47" CreationDate="2010-12-11T01:02:13.700" UserId="40" Text="I recently had a similar dilemma on Math.SE. I had asked a question about how the curvature of a manifold could affect the fundamental group, and I received two excellent answers. If it were possible to merge the two answers, I would gladly accept that one (one dealt with the case of positive curvature and the other negative curvature). I did pick a single answer because one of them answered more of the question I was thinking about than the other. It was more of the type of answer I was looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not only do I doubt that SE will not change their software, but I think that one answer will probably help the OP more than the other, and that is the one they should pick. Also, you can always comment on each answer about how pleasing you find each in order to reassure the answerer they are appreciated. While they won't get a boost in rep, they will probably feel appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="c9a0e3cd-2dc1-43fd-b048-3e08173245ff" CreationDate="2010-12-11T06:53:07.320" UserId="3" Text="This problem was [first reported][1] on Math.SE. I'm bring this to your attention since Physics.SE also uses Mathjax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the latest build of Firefox version 3.6.13 has a known issue of messing up Mathjax font(to the point where the font doesn't load). The devs of Mathjax are [aware of this][2], and are working on a fix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1323/slow-processing-different-look-to-math-processing-problem-with-fonts-is-it-me&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues#issue/22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="c9a0e3cd-2dc1-43fd-b048-3e08173245ff" CreationDate="2010-12-11T06:53:07.320" UserId="3" Text="Firefox 3.6.13 messes up Mathjax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="c9a0e3cd-2dc1-43fd-b048-3e08173245ff" CreationDate="2010-12-11T06:53:07.320" UserId="3" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="9fb6df07-23df-4d1f-9f04-ebf3e11ec7ad" CreationDate="2010-12-11T21:53:03.380" UserId="62" Text="Promote physics.stackexchange on physics conferences. Distribute flayers, make a showcase (ok, that is a bit expensive) I am definitely doing this next one I go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="76137ac4-aef4-4d4e-80f9-0b78f2c9d855" CreationDate="2010-12-12T01:53:13.103" UserId="40" Text="One thing that might entice serious physics researchers is if the questions were at a higher level. The signal to noise ratio is not good enough to get serious researchers on board. There is nothing wrong with low level questions, but there are some obviously half-baked questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no high level questions then no serious physicists will want to stay on the site. Also, sifting through nonsense isn't any fun, in the end it won't be worth their energy. I think that advertising the site before we have anything worth their time will have a negative effect on the impression of the quality of what is on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe we should try to close down the cranky questions more effectively. Do we have pro tem moderators yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="468" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="38516b86-5552-4a3a-95be-7e793d988c95" CreationDate="2010-12-12T07:22:25.027" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="6b5a3174-832b-4634-9e92-4e5f66a741fe" CreationDate="2010-12-12T07:23:03.013" UserId="113" Text="New OTF font files have been downloaded and applied to all installations where MathJax is used. If you are still having trouble clear your browser cache." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="dbc282ad-aaf3-48f9-9fc1-6043429e6b18" CreationDate="2010-12-12T11:11:09.853" UserId="66" Text="I think that both quantitative and qualitative answers are acceptable. Note that there are quantitative questions and qualitative questions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question in the example seems to be qualitative, so I think a qualitative answer is probably more in tone with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, using formulas to answer a qualitative question may not be the best way. The equations do not explain &quot;why something is so&quot;, it's the interpretation of them that does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then again, SO works in a simple way: the owner of the question should mark the one they feel answers best. Did the owner want a qualitative or quantitative answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The upvotes, in SO are merely a guide for the occasional visitor to quickly find the best answers (since the occasional visitor might be looking for something different from what the owner thinks is the best answer) - they also encourage people to give answers that find consensus in the community (so, typically, correct ones!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="bc5fde2e-e347-4e7e-8040-b76475faee38" CreationDate="2010-12-12T14:01:48.787" UserId="329" Text="I can't understand why I haven't thought of this before but actually there is a very simple way for every student: **post (lots of) posters at your school!**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this is simple only as long as there are any posters to post. I think David's text will do very well for starters. But in order to attract people's attention it would also be needed to have a nice design and perhaps a logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I'll try to come up with some reasonable poster later (and will update this question then). In any case, I am certainly doing this one way or another and I hope other people will too :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="41cf7614-e84e-422b-a6b6-a8a1dd656515" CreationDate="2010-12-12T14:52:47.563" UserId="358" Text="Dear Eric,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to give a little comment on the second part, the quality discussion.  &#xD;&#xA;Actually I think that it is no problem to have different kinds of quality on the page as long reputation does not play a major role. Answers and questions of different levels have different work load. You can get a lot of reputation by just answering simple questions and you get almost nothing with stuff that only a minority can actually understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this situation is not so uncommon. It is exactly the difference between fundamental and applied research. You simply cannot compare publishing behaviour of those two groups. So one might ask the question: If this site is ill, what will happen to TP.SE? Or are simply our definitions of &quot;illness of a beta&quot; not comparable between different areas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever will happen, I wish everybody a nice third advent :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="2e2dad9a-f9f5-44ff-9372-32160047c24e" CreationDate="2010-12-12T22:44:16.343" UserId="124" Text="Hmm... well, I think there are legitimate questions about the universe that could be tagged `[universe]` (probably along with either `[cosmology]` or `[astrophysics]`, or both). There _could_ even be some legitimate questions about space. ([Does anything exist in the intergalactic space?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/560/does-anything-exist-in-the-intergalactic-space) might be an example, but you could argue that that's an astronomy question, not really astrophysics.) But I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of `[space]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the `[space]` questions right now are either really about spacetime, or have nothing to do with space. I'll go through and retag some of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="a9835a2b-fa26-4a5a-a56f-7a026767d59c" CreationDate="2010-12-13T05:51:15.423" UserId="40" Text="I nominate Marek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="8a2dfb57-db6b-4804-844c-bc456ecfc9ef" CreationDate="2010-12-13T17:09:32.623" UserId="329" Comment="Provided a summary about myself." Text="I nominate [Marek](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/329/marek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thank you. I accept the nomination.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Something about my studies:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a theoretical physics grad student (I hope it's the correct term, but I am not really sure anymore; if so, please let me know and I'll fix it) working on my diploma thesis of [gradient Gibbs states](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0512502) (paper by my advisor, prof. Kotecký). My main interest lies in statistical physics but I am very open to all areas of modern theoretical physics and even more generally to any kind of physics (although my knowledge of other areas obviously ranges from rudimentary to non-existent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also great interest in pure mathematics. For one thing I enjoy reading about all of modern stuff like algebraic geometry, Langlands program, category theory, algebraic topology and K-theory to name a few (unfortunately my knowledge often doesn't extend beyond knowing the name of the subject...). For another (and one I actually know something more about), I am interested in group theory and representation theory and also in probability theory and stochastic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Something about me and this site:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it should be pretty obvious that I love this site. I try to provide answer anytime the topic sounds like it might be within my reach. Not sure whether this is an entirely correct approach because sometimes I necessarily give just a sketchy and basic answers. But I believe the voting system should take care of that (i.e. be sure to down-vote my bad answers ;-) ). I am also trying to sort tags out from to time and most recently am trying to come up with some graphics and posters (not sure how it will turn out though; I am a physicist in the end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for my attitude, in general I am trying to be friendly and helpful, but people probably already noticed that I do get carried away sometimes. Even to the point of being suspended by Noldorin yesterday (I think it's honest to let you know about this; no point in having a moderator you don't know anything about). But fortunately we were able to sort it out in the end and I think it helped me improve as a person and I'll try not make the sort of mistakes I made in the past. If I am elected a moderator I promise to have unbiased and purely rational attitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relating to the above, if I am elected a moderator, I would actually try to moderate as little as possible, letting community sort most of the stuff. I would only take care of really extreme cases of spamming and trolling (which fortunately haven't occurred yet). I am not really sure what the job is about yet but I'd try to be as helpful to the community as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="cfee357d-3e3f-418c-ac32-03a4998cbc22" CreationDate="2010-12-13T21:59:19.490" UserId="816" Text="I don't really see any reason to split the site. StackOverflow has somewhere around milion questions at all levels from basic to very advanced and only recently it split. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site has not even left beta and already it feels like splitting. Why that? Are you annoyed by stupid questions? Skip them! Are the quetions to simple and not intriguing enough? Spliting will not bring more or more interesting ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a theoretical-physics and research-level tags and filter the other questions. Otherwise it might end with one site with 20 bored PhD physicists with no questions and 200 students and enthusiasts with lots of questions but no answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I got involved in [leaking wagon] [1] discussion and even the top rated users still do not have a clear answer everyone would agree on (at least I cannot find it there)... And it would not turn better with less users. You don't raise the level of the site by deleting easy questions, bud by answering them correctly. The site needs some basement to grow on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="c7e6235c-20de-481c-971b-68b44343b0b0" CreationDate="2010-12-14T01:30:13.760" UserId="605" Text="[My question][1] on econophysics is closed for being 'off-topic'. But at this stage-- when there is no econophysics forum and the boundary of Physics SE is less defined and rigid-- it should *not* be closed. Also one must understand that econophysics is physics, with some economics bent. Much like how engineering physics is physics with engineering application bent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention closing a question when the answerer hadn't even done with his answer is plain-- how to put it nicely-- *rude*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't you feel that my question should remain open?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="c7e6235c-20de-481c-971b-68b44343b0b0" CreationDate="2010-12-14T01:30:13.760" UserId="605" Text="Should We Allowed Econophysics Questions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="c7e6235c-20de-481c-971b-68b44343b0b0" CreationDate="2010-12-14T01:30:13.760" UserId="605" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="db9f1b30-1b8f-49a8-81b1-34f2ffb32326" CreationDate="2010-12-14T04:10:00.013" UserId="67" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[&lt;strike&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/strike&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;(declined) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="dd349675-9eb9-4fa4-bc3b-7974878f31b4" CreationDate="2010-12-14T08:04:00.447" UserId="97" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="74e9feaa-d1e1-4d58-b47a-9d64030e3562" CreationDate="2010-12-14T08:04:54.503" UserId="97" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I nominate&#xD;&#xA;#[Marek](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/329/marek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thank you. I accept the nomination.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Something about my studies:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a theoretical physics grad student (I hope it's the correct term, but I am not really sure anymore; if so, please let me know and I'll fix it) working on my diploma thesis of [gradient Gibbs states](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0512502) (paper by my advisor, prof. Kotecký). My main interest lies in statistical physics but I am very open to all areas of modern theoretical physics and even more generally to any kind of physics (although my knowledge of other areas obviously ranges from rudimentary to non-existent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also great interest in pure mathematics. For one thing I enjoy reading about all of modern stuff like algebraic geometry, Langlands program, category theory, algebraic topology and K-theory to name a few (unfortunately my knowledge often doesn't extend beyond knowing the name of the subject...). For another (and one I actually know something more about), I am interested in group theory and representation theory and also in probability theory and stochastic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Something about me and this site:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it should be pretty obvious that I love this site. I try to provide answer anytime the topic sounds like it might be within my reach. Not sure whether this is an entirely correct approach because sometimes I necessarily give just a sketchy and basic answers. But I believe the voting system should take care of that (i.e. be sure to down-vote my bad answers ;-) ). I am also trying to sort tags out from to time and most recently am trying to come up with some graphics and posters (not sure how it will turn out though; I am a physicist in the end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for my attitude, in general I am trying to be friendly and helpful, but people probably already noticed that I do get carried away sometimes. Even to the point of being suspended by Noldorin yesterday (I think it's honest to let you know about this; no point in having a moderator you don't know anything about). But fortunately we were able to sort it out in the end and I think it helped me improve as a person and I'll try not make the sort of mistakes I made in the past. If I am elected a moderator I promise to have unbiased and purely rational attitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relating to the above, if I am elected a moderator, I would actually try to moderate as little as possible, letting community sort most of the stuff. I would only take care of really extreme cases of spamming and trolling (which fortunately haven't occurred yet). I am not really sure what the job is about yet but I'd try to be as helpful to the community as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="483" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="7a975a81-3c99-46bd-ab37-1a1f9f60dd16" CreationDate="2010-12-14T09:05:30.057" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="36662a59-b3fe-4d22-aca1-210eaa8add49" CreationDate="2010-12-14T15:36:47.823" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="As long as we don't have many hi-reps nor moderators, it is useful to have a place with list of candidates to close; at least it worked well on other betas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a link to the question in answer&#xD;&#xA; - Don't upvote&#xD;&#xA; - Downvote when your close vote closed the question, this will clear the list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Cleaned a bit (-; Ok, now as we have pro tem moderators I would say it is better to flag questions than post answers here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="8b5bd9c6-bbe2-4ca9-a2eb-35f4acf56929" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:22:41.957" UserId="67" Text="Throughout the beta, we need members from the site whose focus is to engage the community, both in community-building issues and site management. That's why we select a few members from each community to act as temporary, provisional Moderators. You can read about the program here: [**Moderators Pro Tempore**](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/moderator-pro-tempore/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am pleased to announce that these members have stepped up and generously volunteered their time to help us assure that each community’s issues are properly addressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text][1] ![alt text][2] ![alt text][3] ![alt text][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to make this site a huge success, and these members are great examples of exactly the type of people we need to make this site succeed. Please welcome them for the hard work and time they contribute.&#xD;&#xA;###Did I overlook anyone? &#xD;&#xA;Almost certainly. There are members who are actively involved and very deserving of recognition. My failure to account for everyone this early on is in *no way* a slight against them. Ideally, Moderators are elected by the community and that's why **you'll have your elections in several weeks.**&#xD;&#xA;Most of all, be respectful and understanding of the Moderators Pro Tem. Members of your community are volunteering their time and learning on the job. It’s a learning experience for everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jAeg3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YHv1c.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5JUlt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HoYCW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="8b5bd9c6-bbe2-4ca9-a2eb-35f4acf56929" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:22:41.957" UserId="67" Text="Moderator Pro Tem Announcement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="8b5bd9c6-bbe2-4ca9-a2eb-35f4acf56929" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:22:41.957" UserId="67" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="9f4b5a90-729c-45c8-85de-0b64ee6d7420" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:39:58.990" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="I was looking over the various badges the site has to offer, and noticed that a poster can earn a few of them for hitting a built-in upper limit for rep earned in a given day. That's fine, but I'm curious as to what that number is? I used the search here on the meta site and found nothing to indicate an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their names are: Epic, Legendary, and Mortarboard. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="9f4b5a90-729c-45c8-85de-0b64ee6d7420" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:39:58.990" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="Does the site have a cap on how many reputation points a poster can earn per day? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="9f4b5a90-729c-45c8-85de-0b64ee6d7420" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:39:58.990" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="23995e49-06e1-45ae-a79d-3ca0c4e00a78" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:55:41.573" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="At first, I was going to delete my question but then there is the small chance someone else has a little trouble finding the correct answer to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FAQ for the physics site (not the physics meta site) gives the answer: 200 points per day is the cutoff (although accepted answers and bounty awards are immune to this limit). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="47a64030-9854-43a0-9cb9-8d58b5c6ce35" CreationDate="2010-12-15T10:26:53.040" UserId="74" Text="I tagged [this question][1] as homework, and the user replied that it wasn't homework, but a practice problem for exam review.  In my view, exactly the same question could be asked as homework and exam review, and the purpose of the questions is exactly the same (i.e. teaching).  Hence, I think the homework tag should pull double-duty here.  Do you agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1942/does-the-cube-stay-on-the-loop-de-loop" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="47a64030-9854-43a0-9cb9-8d58b5c6ce35" CreationDate="2010-12-15T10:26:53.040" UserId="74" Text="Do practice problems encountered in independent study or exam review get the &quot;homework&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="47a64030-9854-43a0-9cb9-8d58b5c6ce35" CreationDate="2010-12-15T10:26:53.040" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="0b68bc2a-a611-4dc9-8ba9-cd47fd3b3281" CreationDate="2010-12-15T10:33:25.613" UserId="124" Text="Yes (I agree) ;-P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why is pretty much what you put in your comment on the linked question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My opinion is that the &quot;homework&quot; tag is there to say to answerers &quot;don't just give away the answer because then the questioner won't have to reason it through.&quot; For final exam review questions or homework questions, the goal is to give hints towards the answer and have you work towards the rest of it as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would say that `[homework]` applies to any question in which we shouldn't give a full explanation in the interest of letting the OP get full educational value out of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(However, I don't think this applies to the _specific_ question you identified, for reasons explained in my comment on that question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="7c935fa0-e222-4899-9bc5-bc93c8bf63a9" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:28:54.977" UserId="386" Text="Personally, I like the home-experiment topic very much. For me they are even more relevant to physics than any theoretical/mathematical stuff. I'm pretty sure that the roots of the &quot;[not even wrong][1]&quot; attitude to theoretical physics are in exactly this &quot;experimental nihilism&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can argue that &quot;this is a popular science&quot;, so what? What are the reasons to close such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="7c935fa0-e222-4899-9bc5-bc93c8bf63a9" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:28:54.977" UserId="386" Text="Why not &quot;home-experiment&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="7c935fa0-e222-4899-9bc5-bc93c8bf63a9" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:28:54.977" UserId="386" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="3a8b82cd-b166-47f5-821e-961895051311" CreationDate="2010-12-15T18:57:32.857" UserId="124" Text="Quite a few people have raised concerns about how well this site is doing, in terms of the number of new questions, new users, page views, etc. that we're getting each day. And indeed, if you look at our [proposal page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) on Area 51, some of the numbers are kind of low. That's okay, but I think **we can do better**. I feel like we haven't really made our best possible _actual_ effort to promote the site yet. If we want those numbers to improve, it's really up to us, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I was thinking we could use our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to hold a more active discussion about how we can get more people, more questions, more good answers, and generally more (and better) activity on the site. Of course, the room is always open, and you can leave messages there any time, but I'd like to try setting a time when as many active users as possible will be able to log on and contribute in near-real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try it like this: I'll put a time suggestion in an answer. If you would join in a chat session at that time, upvote the answer. If you'd like to participate but have a conflict, downvote the answer, and feel free to provide your own time suggestion as a different answer. If you think the whole chat thing is just a terrible idea, downvote the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="3a8b82cd-b166-47f5-821e-961895051311" CreationDate="2010-12-15T18:57:32.857" UserId="124" Text="How about a chat session to discuss site promotion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="3a8b82cd-b166-47f5-821e-961895051311" CreationDate="2010-12-15T18:57:32.857" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="508" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="212e5163-73a5-4dc4-9641-3f99a770a57f" CreationDate="2010-12-15T19:00:45.020" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="510" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="c195ceb2-1854-4019-aa16-51895a567cd1" CreationDate="2010-12-16T11:43:25.113" UserId="-1" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:56,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;KennyTM&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:373,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Frédéric Grosshans&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="963f5e73-73d1-4f09-b313-bacbbb38a75a" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:02:56.087" UserId="329" Text="Well, I guess that (once again) this has to do with what level the site is aiming at. Because at some point of sophistication, you can no longer really run experiments at home (you certainly can't run LHC at home, but also lots of other much simpler experiments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I personally think that the site should be aimed at least at the undergraduate level. So this means that it should be fine to allow experiments such as the ones that are being done in standard university courses. In other words, experiments with at least some degree of sophistication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for experiments that anyone with no experience in physics can do at home, I don't believe that such questions belong here. There is a proposal of [**Popular Natural Science**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science) which would be an ideal place for such questions. So if you want *home-experiment* go support that proposal!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone could suggest that we should leave such questions here at least until the PNS reaches beta but I think this would lower site's level and so I am reluctant to allowing that. Also, perhaps it would be useful to go over the older questions and close them as well. I know some people won't be happy, but I believe this site should have boundary. We don't do biology here. We don't do mathematics here. And we are definitely not doing elementary school physics here... The question is **are we doing home-experiments here?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="7d3ec8c6-624e-409f-a508-d2b4aa9680fa" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:07:20.263" UserId="562" Text="I have asked a questions about the definition of [average speed and its application][1] on this site, but it get closed. It should be acceptable, because physical quantities are the basic of mathematical analysis. Without it you can do nothing meaningful. So it is natural to seek their application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about if someone come up some special definition and want to know the application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How about if someone someday come up with the idea of spin-correlation and ask whether it may can show the phase transition of some models?&#xD;&#xA;* How about if they ask where can they apply the vortex-correlation?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the size of spin cluster has applications?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the average of loop length has any correlation to the magnetization, superconductivity, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why we cannot ask such kind of questions in this forum? This fit well here as physics questions, so we may seek the others opinions on the subject and someone might help each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is clear and the definition is unambiguously, don't you think that it should be allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/meaning-and-application-of-average-speed-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="7d3ec8c6-624e-409f-a508-d2b4aa9680fa" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:07:20.263" UserId="562" Text="Should we allow the &quot;definition and application&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="7d3ec8c6-624e-409f-a508-d2b4aa9680fa" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:07:20.263" UserId="562" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="36b0287e-766d-427a-bed9-21d24aa453e0" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:22:13.863" UserId="144" Text="As @Marek said, I think it really depends on what you think the site is for.  Let me see if I can summarize some of the reasons for avoiding these types of things that he left out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the people who will use this site the most (by far) are research level physicists.  I would say at least graduate school level, and most of the people _answering_ questions are probably postdoc or beyond.  (I myself am a graduate student, and I'll be the first to admit I don't have the breadth of knowledge to answer most of the _good_ questions on this site).  The problem is that the percentage of total internet users that are actually research level physicists is very, very small.  So statistically, even if a very small percentage of that internet using public visits this site and an even smaller percentage ask questions that are mostly relevant to non-physicists, we would still be inundated with questions that are not that interesting for academic, research-level physicists.  I believe there's a [post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/merging-season/) by the StackOverflow team that calls this the &quot;Yahoo answers effect&quot; (though you may disagree with me on the interpretation of this blog post; feel free to that's the purpose of the meta site).  It may seem rude, mean, or unfair to say so, but to be honest, this site really does a lot more good as a place for people to ask and answer questions pertaining to their _jobs_ rather than their hobbies, and it definitely does everyone a lot more good as a place to ask and answer high level questions rather giving out Physics 101 homework answers for free (I know that's not exactly the same thing that this question is about, but it falls into the same category in my mind).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope I didn't step on too many toes; if I did, I apologize in advance, particularly if they are the toes of any of the nice people who have taken the time to answer _my_ questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't get me wrong, I'm all for promoting physics education to the wider public; I just think that a popular science site or something like that would be a much better place for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="386d486f-2a59-4ded-bd3f-b5cd4c550bb2" CreationDate="2010-12-16T19:54:55.800" UserId="74" Text="Recently, Noldorin has closed three questions that I've noticed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a question about [using household devices to experiment with electromagnetism][1] , [econophysics][2], and [whether a certain definable quantity has a physical importance][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the asker of the question believed the question was appropriate for  the site.  None of these were trolling, spam, or other flagrant violations of the site's purpose.  My opinion is that moderators should only &quot;vote to close&quot; in such cases, rather than simply closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The econophysics question was reopened, but the other two are still closed as of right now.  We should be working to decide communally what the scope of the site is, and what questions are off-topic.  Instead, we have posters whose questions are being quickly shut down, even when there are a number of people here who believe they are relevant questions, and want to either provide and answer or at least follow the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this early stage of the site, moderators should only close questions that are advertisements (&quot;Why haven't you purchased my self-published pamphlet?&quot;, clear trolling (&quot;Why are all physicists so full of themselves?&quot;), or egregiously off-topic, (&quot;Who is your favorite Rainbow Brite character?&quot;).  Otherwise, please vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/application-of-mean-of-speed-distribution-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="386d486f-2a59-4ded-bd3f-b5cd4c550bb2" CreationDate="2010-12-16T19:54:55.800" UserId="74" Text="What guidelines should moderators use to decide whether to &quot;close&quot; or &quot;vote to close&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="386d486f-2a59-4ded-bd3f-b5cd4c550bb2" CreationDate="2010-12-16T19:54:55.800" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="1e39a4a9-c0a4-4bce-a317-484c4429bc90" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:15:28.593" UserId="74" Text="I think there's a difference between &quot;I tried to use PV = nRT to solve my homework and it didn't work!&quot; and &quot;How can I effectively demonstrate the ideal gas law at home?&quot;  For me, the difference is very clear - only one of these questions is interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having received an undergraduate physics education, I can answer questions on adiabatic expansion easily.  I am not sure, though, how close the air in this room is to being an ideal gas.  I'm not sure of a good way to build my own barometer or thermometer.  I have a basic idea of what these things are and how they could be constructed, but I think it's likely I could learn a great deal if knowledgable people were to answer the question about this simple experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean only that I would learn the sorts of things I'm supposed to learn in a shop class.  I mean I would learn actual physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there was one question a while back about [how one can measure Avogadro's number at home][1].  I already knew the answer about Brownian motion, but didn't know the one about creating a monolayer of oil on top of a body of water.  That answer was physically interesting to me because it led me to wonder why the oil would 1)spread out to a single layer and 2)stay contiguous once it had become a single layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of thinking  about, devising, and executing such simple home experiments is likely to be engaging and educational, even on the level of people who do have significant physics education, and is not equivalent to entry-level theoretical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for people who, unlike I, are already very skilled at experiment, I can guess it would be an interesting challenge to discover simple home experiments that demonstrate physical effects people are interested in observing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1075/home-experiment-to-estimate-avogadros-number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="bc886bb0-252c-41d5-a1e2-4f1af0264cfa" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:17:02.243" UserId="74" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Recently, Noldorin has closed three questions that I've noticed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a question about [using household devices to experiment with electromagnetism][1] , [econophysics][2], and [whether a certain definable quantity has a physical importance][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the asker of the question believed the question was appropriate for  the site.  None of these were trolling, spam, or other flagrant violations of the site's purpose.  My opinion is that moderators should only &quot;vote to close&quot; in such cases, rather than simply closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The econophysics question was reopened, but the other two are still closed as of right now.  We should be working to decide communally what the scope of the site is, and what questions are off-topic.  Instead, we have posters whose questions are being quickly shut down, even when there are a number of people here who believe they are relevant questions, and want to either provide an answer or at least follow the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this early stage of the site, moderators should only close questions that are advertisements (&quot;Why haven't you purchased my self-published pamphlet?&quot;, clear trolling (&quot;Why are all physicists so full of themselves?&quot;), or egregiously off-topic, (&quot;Who is your favorite Rainbow Brite character?&quot;).  Otherwise, please vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/application-of-mean-of-speed-distribution-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="b45e055f-f07d-4e28-bae8-b2658050b85e" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:29:39.290" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="This can't be done -- mods have only supervotes that close instantly. We have asked to give us normal votes also, but this was rejected by the SE team. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you disagree with the moderator decision, flag it! Then we would all try to settle such case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="1dd8589a-4a0d-4ed4-ab84-f7afd961b053" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:48:26.207" UserId="74" Comment="added 358 characters in body; edited title" Text="Recently, Noldorin has closed three questions that I've noticed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a question about [using household devices to experiment with electromagnetism][1] , [econophysics][2], and [whether a certain definable quantity has a physical importance][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the asker of the question believed the question was appropriate for  the site.  None of these were trolling, spam, or other flagrant violations of the site's purpose.  As David Zaslavsky and mbq have pointed out to me, moderators cannot &quot;vote to close&quot;, they can only close questions or leave them, and so their decisions are important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The econophysics question was reopened, but the other two are still closed as of right now.  We should be working to decide communally what the scope of the site is, and what questions are off-topic.  Instead, we have posters whose questions are being quickly shut down, even when there are a number of people here who believe they are relevant questions, and want to either provide an answer or at least follow the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this early stage of the site, moderators should only close questions that are advertisements (&quot;Why haven't you purchased my self-published pamphlet?&quot;, clear trolling (&quot;Why are all physicists so full of themselves?&quot;), or egregiously off-topic, (&quot;Who is your favorite Rainbow Brite character?&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators want to close questions that don't fall into these categories, I request they first post a comment explaining their desire to close, then wait twelve hours or so to hear if there are objections before closing, at least at this early stage of the site when we are not finished defining the site's scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/application-of-mean-of-speed-distribution-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="523" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="1dd8589a-4a0d-4ed4-ab84-f7afd961b053" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:48:26.207" UserId="74" Comment="added 358 characters in body; edited title" Text="What guidelines should moderators use to decide when to close questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="d6c04f8d-869b-4441-9461-842cb3e50df3" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:59:18.927" UserId="67" Text="First, moderator votes are always binding. There's no &quot;vote to close.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators have a difficult task, particularly early in the site's development. In philosophy, they are asked to act with great restraint, acting only as the [human exception handler](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) for egregious problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand &amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;particularly early on&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;moderators are asked to act quickly (as a sort of community self-moderation by proxy) when there are not enough members to perform routine decision making. I try&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;as best as I am able to determine these things&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;to pick users who have an above-average understanding of the philosophy that drives these sites. Most often moderators have to act decisively in the interest of keeping the site from going off in the wrong direction; fixing **broken windows** quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[Broken Window](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoting-or-how-hacker-news-gets-it-wrong/)**: It’s pretty clear now that the broken windows theory applies to community sites as well. The theory is that minor forms of bad behavior encourage worse ones: that a neighborhood with lots of graffiti and broken windows becomes one where robberies occur. I was living in New York when Giuliani introduced the reforms that made the broken windows theory famous, and the transformation was miraculous. And I was a Reddit user when the opposite happened there, and the transformation was equally dramatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But moderators are not perfect; they can make mistakes, misread the situation, or simply be on the minority side of an opinion. If a binding vote does not seem in the best interest of the site, raise the issue in meta. That is one of the primary purposes of meta. But be considerate and be respectful. Some issues simply have no wide-spread consensus, and sometimes you simply have to concede and agree to disagree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="26120211-1177-4be4-a929-980afc0a479c" CreationDate="2010-12-16T22:21:25.747" UserId="67" Comment="added 20 characters in body; added 18 characters in body" Text="First, moderator votes are always binding. There's no &quot;vote to close.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators have a difficult task, particularly early in the site's development. Philosophically speaking, they are asked to act with great restraint, acting only as the [human exception handler](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) for egregious problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand &amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;particularly early on&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;moderators are asked to act quickly and decisively (as a sort of community self-moderation by proxy) when there are not enough members to perform routine policing and cleanup duties. I try&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;as best as I am able to determine these things&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;to pick users who have an above-average understanding of the philosophy that drives these sites. Most often moderators have to act decisively in the interest of keeping the site from going off in the wrong direction; fixing **broken windows** quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[Broken Window](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoting-or-how-hacker-news-gets-it-wrong/)**: It’s pretty clear now that the broken windows theory applies to community sites as well. The theory is that minor forms of bad behavior encourage worse ones: that a neighborhood with lots of graffiti and broken windows becomes one where robberies occur. I was living in New York when Giuliani introduced the reforms that made the broken windows theory famous, and the transformation was miraculous. And I was a Reddit user when the opposite happened there, and the transformation was equally dramatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But moderators are not perfect; they can make mistakes, misread the situation, or simply be on the minority side of an opinion. If a binding vote does not seem in the best interest of the site, raise the issue in meta. That is one of the primary purposes of meta. But be considerate and be respectful. Some issues simply have no wide-spread consensus, and sometimes you simply have to concede and agree to disagree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="4c29fc95-6923-4d9d-8766-e5ed5d850227" CreationDate="2010-12-16T22:35:04.377" UserId="124" Text="&gt; When moderators want to close questions that don't fall into these categories, I request they first post a comment explaining their desire to close, then wait twelve hours or so to hear if there are objections before closing, at least at this early stage of the site when we are not finished defining the site's scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is practical. If a question should be closed, it's best to close it immediately so that everyone knows this is not the kind of question that goes on the site. Otherwise, people will answer it and discuss it and it'll start to look more legitimate than it really is. I'd rather have us define the scope of the site in advance, then moderators will know what questions can be closed as off-topic without stirring up so much controversy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="afb431c8-6b23-4273-b0b6-622e96365423" CreationDate="2010-12-16T22:52:32.317" UserId="667" Text="I think if you ask a home-experiment question on this site, there is no restriction on the sophistication of the answer, one can propose very suggest experiments which answer the question, one can argue theoretically or mathematically why the proposed home experiment would work etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you pose the same question on a basic level side, I think there should (and will) be (almost) also basic answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analogously for other &quot;basic&quot; questions. The point is, that it sould be possible to ask such questions without restrictions on the sophistication level of the answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="a548cc60-4a3e-4da0-85c7-ad5b669bc0f0" CreationDate="2010-12-17T06:05:01.090" UserId="74" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="Recently, Noldorin has closed three questions that I've noticed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a question about [using household devices to experiment with electromagnetism][1] , [econophysics][2], and [whether a certain definable quantity has a physical importance][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the asker of the question believed the question was appropriate for  the site.  None of these were trolling, spam, or other flagrant violations of the site's purpose.  As David Zaslavsky and mbq have pointed out to me, moderators cannot &quot;vote to close&quot;, they can only close questions or leave them, and so their decisions are important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The econophysics question was reopened, but the other two are still closed as of right now.  We should be working to decide communally what the scope of the site is, and what questions are off-topic.  Instead, we have posters whose questions are being quickly shut down, even when there are a number of people here who believe they are relevant questions, and want to either provide an answer or at least follow the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;At this early stage of the site, moderators should only close questions that are advertisements (&quot;Why haven't you purchased my self-published pamphlet?&quot;, clear trolling (&quot;Why are all physicists so full of themselves?&quot;), or egregiously off-topic, (&quot;Who is your favorite Rainbow Brite character?&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators want to close questions that don't fall into these categories, I request they first post a comment explaining their desire to close, then wait twelve hours or so to hear if there are objections before closing, at least at this early stage of the site when we are not finished defining the site's scope.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;After hearing comments from Robert and David, it seems appropriate for moderators to close questions quickly due to the &quot;broken window&quot; effect.  My request becomes one that I'm sure the moderators are already doing - just to stay abreast of the discussions on meta about which sorts of questions are appropriate and back of the consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/application-of-mean-of-speed-distribution-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="3097a789-48ba-492d-b3a0-5d81114985fd" CreationDate="2010-12-17T08:37:10.283" UserId="124" Text="Based on some of the information in the other answers, I have an idea. (It might even be a good idea but I don't want to jinx it :-P) Suppose we allow home experiment questions, but only if they meet particular guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Format:** A good home experiment question should invite answers that include a specific **procedure** and a specific method of **data analysis**. For instance, I like [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1845/1857#1857) to the question that prompted this discussion, because it reads like a (very short) lab manual, describing the steps to take to perform the experiment, the data that will be collected, and the method by which you can interpret the results to demonstrate the relevant phenomenon. I don't like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1845/1854#1854) or [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845/1881#1881).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Specificity:** Questions should ask about a specific **quantity** that can be measured, or a specific **physical principle** that can be demonstrated (although the latter type may be at slightly higher risk of being closed as too vague). For instance, &quot;How can I measure the resistance of the human body at home?&quot; would be okay (assuming it meets the other guidelines of course). Similarly, &quot;How can I demonstrate interference of light waves?&quot; should be fine. But something like &quot;What interesting demos can I do with a hair dryer?&quot; would be too unfocused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Materials:** Questions cannot be restricted to &quot;common household materials&quot; because if you limit yourself to the things that most people happen to have lying around the house, there's not that much you can do. It would be better to allow (and even encourage) answers describing experiments which use materials that can be purchased at a reasonable cost from, say, a hardware store or electronic supply store. Someone who is really interested in physics wouldn't mind spending a little bit of money to further their knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Level:** Questions should invite answers describing experiments that would be _interesting_ to a college undergrad majoring in physics, or someone at a higher level (grad student, professor). This doesn't always mean that the experiments should require a college-level physics education to pull off; in fact, a good description of an experiment will often (but not always) be clear enough for someone without any specialized training to follow it. But the experiment should be based on physics that is more substantial than introductory level, and ideally should allow someone with a physics education to figure out new and interesting ways to analyze the data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="43b3ca7f-b044-4694-a3d6-f37859284e98" CreationDate="2010-12-17T13:38:03.320" UserId="838" Text="My 2 cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Broad advertisement would be a bad idea right now because most professional physicists would take a look or two and not come back because of the low level of questions and answers. It would make sense to selectively recruit a few sympathetic people, perhaps some of the more physically inclined people from MO and anyone else who you think would raise the standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The quality of questions varies, but what disturbs me more is the low quality of some of the answers, many of which get lots of up votes in spite of being vague, misguided and sometimes plain wrong. I'd love to vote some of them down but don't have enough rep to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) There are a few legitimate reasons for anonymity, but by and large the reputation of the site will be higher the smaller the number of anonymous users. If you are going to put some effort into asking and answering good questions why not let the world know who you are? It might even help you get a job some day.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="4dbc11c0-35b8-4882-a905-4919e819134e" CreationDate="2010-12-17T19:50:24.230" UserId="18" Text="I added this site as a proposed URL into Google and Bing to increase its level of visibility. However, a proper way to do it (and one much more effective) would need administration privileges. Therefore, I encourage the administration to take those steps (if they haven't already). This concern arises from the fact that few searches return this site in a decent ranking (e.g. physics forum, physics Q&amp;A, etc) which is somewhat worrying. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="661178b7-955b-4047-9734-63cd40d57eb9" CreationDate="2010-12-18T18:43:29.647" UserId="520" Text="While I don't have a strong feeling on this a I will argue the contrary position just to have it down here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That's a finance question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really that's the whole argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking about using a particular tool, and the tool arose in a physics context and is taught almost exclusively to and by physicists, but it is still just a tool. If the business colleges every get around to teaching that math themselves putting questions like this in a physics context will look really silly in retrospect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, by historical accident physics forums are the place to find people who know the math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="efbb95c5-b013-4897-8f0b-66be77f66d9c" CreationDate="2010-12-19T14:28:27.090" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Should We Allow Econophysics Questions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="efbb95c5-b013-4897-8f0b-66be77f66d9c" CreationDate="2010-12-19T14:28:27.090" UserId="56" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="ec39baf5-6874-4a7f-aa5b-307c54ef9ab8" CreationDate="2010-12-20T03:04:27.127" UserId="124" Comment="mention first session; deleted 22 characters in body" Text="The first chat session is complete and we had some good ideas come up. There will be another one in a couple weeks or so. Stay tuned to the [chat room schedule](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=schedule) and/or this question for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few people have raised concerns about how well this site is doing, in terms of the number of new questions, new users, page views, etc. that we're getting each day. And indeed, if you look at our [proposal page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) on Area 51, some of the numbers are kind of low. That's okay, but I think **we can do better**. I feel like we haven't really made our best possible _actual_ effort to promote the site yet. If we want those numbers to improve, it's really up to us, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I was thinking we could use our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to hold a more active discussion about how we can get more people, more questions, more good answers, and generally more (and better) activity on the site. Of course, the room is always open, and you can leave messages there any time, but I'd like to try setting a time when as many active users as possible will be able to log on and contribute in near-real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try it like this: I'll put a time suggestion in an answer. If you would join in a chat session at that time, upvote the answer. If you'd like to participate but have a conflict, downvote the answer, and feel free to provide your own time suggestion as a different answer. If you think the whole chat thing is just a terrible idea, downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcripts&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;- [Site promotion chat #1](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=conversations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="444ab3e3-6bb0-428c-b93e-e778b80adb8f" CreationDate="2010-12-20T03:21:20.100" UserId="74" Text="[This recent question on an infinite resistor grid][1] is certainly interesting, but why should we include such questions on the site?  The question has already been asked and answered many times on the internet.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't we want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search?  Should we ask questions just to have them on this particular site?  If so, we could just ask someone to take a couple of problem books out of the library and start transcribing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I can think of to encourage this sort of question is that some users might not have seen it before, and will find it fun and amusing to think about.  But that's the only reason I have thought of, and doesn't seem like it's the primary goal of this site; there are other places online dedicated to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2072/on-this-infinite-grid-of-resistors-whats-the-equivalent-resistance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="444ab3e3-6bb0-428c-b93e-e778b80adb8f" CreationDate="2010-12-20T03:21:20.100" UserId="74" Text="Should we repeat common questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="444ab3e3-6bb0-428c-b93e-e778b80adb8f" CreationDate="2010-12-20T03:21:20.100" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="1b08e7c5-52ba-464b-b461-1296aeddff74" CreationDate="2010-12-20T03:29:37.413" UserId="74" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="[This recent question on an infinite resistor grid][1] is certainly interesting, but why should we include such questions on the site?  The question has already been asked and answered many times on the internet.  In fact, the question is asked simply by copying it being asked somewhere else, and it is answered (as of now) by linking to a solution somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't we want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search?  Should we ask questions just to have them on this particular site?  If so, we could just ask someone to take a couple of problem books out of the library and start transcribing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I can think of to encourage this sort of question is that some users might not have seen it before, and will find it fun and amusing to think about.  But that's the only reason I have thought of, and doesn't seem like it's the primary goal of this site; there are other places online dedicated to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2072/on-this-infinite-grid-of-resistors-whats-the-equivalent-resistance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="d0b3dbea-5a94-4208-9647-e2c2540b7fa3" CreationDate="2010-12-20T03:53:34.643" UserId="18" Text="I read the transcript, so I thought a list of the main ideas collected from the chat session would be useful. Furthermore, it could spark some debate about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Seed questions - not allowed but potentially useful.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Simple questions atract more people but discourage experts vs hard questions atract less people but hopefully experts.&#xD;&#xA; 3. 'The important thing is questions that can be answered in a high-quality way' (even if they are simple questions).&#xD;&#xA; 4. Upcoming posters for promotion.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Get promotion by getting relevant blogs and other sites to mention the site.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Rely on the Stack Exchange team to get needed support.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Maybe go over some of the better questions and improve their titles.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Asking elementary questions that require expert answers (how?).&#xD;&#xA; 9. A great answer could be not recognized as such by the asker (e.g. why the sky is blue? maybe the asker doesn't want to hear about the Rayleigh scattering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't make reference to whom the question originally &quot;belonged&quot; (as I found that a bit cumbersome and frankly unnecessary). As David already wrote in the original post, the [transcript][1] can be found easily, in case that information is needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71/2010/12/19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="998d19a1-d1ea-479e-9ac6-018d40ccdf44" CreationDate="2010-12-20T07:31:37.273" UserId="74" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; deleted 19 characters in body" Text="[This recent question on an infinite resistor grid][1] is certainly interesting, but why should we include such questions on the site?  The question has already been asked and answered many times on the internet.  In fact, the question is asked simply by copying it from somewhere else, and it is answered (as of now) by linking to a solution somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't we want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search?  Should we ask questions just to have them on this particular site?  If so, we should grab a couple of problem books out of the library and start transcribing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I can think of to encourage this sort of question is that some users might not have seen it before, and will find it fun and amusing to think about.  But that's the only reason I have thought of, and doesn't seem like it's the primary goal of this site; there are other places online dedicated to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2072/on-this-infinite-grid-of-resistors-whats-the-equivalent-resistance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="afc97b11-b049-4aee-a5b7-240241f2f06d" CreationDate="2010-12-20T08:34:00.693" UserId="329" Text="I think asking such questions is fine under the condition that the OP had already used google and didn't find other solutions satisfying or wants to hear about other strategies to solve the problem not found elsewhere. They should mention all of this already in the question statement. If it's not there and the solution is to be found on the internet, I would just close the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, answers that just link to other solutions and provide none genuine content should be discouraged (in particular, I don't like how Sklivvz's answer got 7 votes just because he knows how to search with google). We are not here to replace google. We are here to provide some good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are exceptions to the above because some content (although available) is not easily accessible or sometimes you just don't know where to start. One can imagine a good question polling for resources on a certain topic and an answer with such a collection and some explanations of why the references are good. But I believe these questions/answers are distinct enough from this [XKCD] question to be considered fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="d4cb70e5-adb8-41d1-ba56-c544106e1869" CreationDate="2010-12-20T08:48:59.967" UserId="329" Text="This has to do with this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2079/is-superstring-theory-dead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I raised my main concerns in the comments there. To summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the question as stated is too argumentative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. it is easily seen to have no real content and the answer need not be much longer than &quot;your question doesn't make sense because it's based on wrong assumptions&quot;. Namely, assumptions that science journalist know what they are writing about. In general you'll be on the safe side if you assume they don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not to say that there is no relevant physics going on. Just that the question completely misses the point. So what to do with them? Just close them or else encourage OP to rewrite them so that they ask for some real physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="d4cb70e5-adb8-41d1-ba56-c544106e1869" CreationDate="2010-12-20T08:48:59.967" UserId="329" Text="Should we allow ill-founded sensational questions [as found in newspapers]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="d4cb70e5-adb8-41d1-ba56-c544106e1869" CreationDate="2010-12-20T08:48:59.967" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="01acb1a7-7a84-48df-96f4-15ee04f51c7c" CreationDate="2010-12-20T08:57:54.020" UserId="124" Text="I already wrote this in a comment on the question in question, but I actually prefer to do both. Questions can be edited after they are closed, so I think we get the best of both worlds by closing the question temporarily and asking the OP to edit it into a more precise form. (Alternatively, 2k+ users and mods could edit it themselves if it is clear what needs to be done to fix it up... though I'm generally wary of making major changes to other peoples' posts without their consent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="ba5c63f0-1850-4a75-a84f-d460ee491474" CreationDate="2010-12-20T09:00:20.363" UserId="358" Text="Dear Marek,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that such questions can be a very nice starting point for a lively discussion. One should not assume that any person interested in physics has a (scientific) background giving him the chance to actually raise questions interesting for the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should give those people the chance to see what is wrong with the question and correct the (maybe hidden) wrong assumptions as you mentioned. I remember that the question concerning common false beliefs was really popular and I guess one can still give very nice and clear **answers** to questions that might be somehow conceptually wrong. Since those questions might arise often from the general public, they are, to my mind, welcome here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, I believe in the &quot;There is no stupid question, only stupid answers&quot;-paradigm :)&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="259" RevisionGUID="8e9e9a0d-7280-449e-bb2a-3b820ed89d8a" CreationDate="2010-12-20T09:03:00.570" UserId="124" Text="Well, in part we are trying to build a repository of physics knowledge (just like SO is trying to become - or has become - a repository of programming knowledge). So there isn't necessarily anything wrong with duplicating things that already exist elsewhere on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one could think of SE as a little like Wikipedia but where knowledge is indexed by the question you ask to find it rather than by the topic it's about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="69696875-1591-4827-b7df-b811fa5cba45" CreationDate="2010-12-20T15:56:46.073" UserId="701" Text="I don't know if the question was inspired by a recent [chat session][1] where David quoted this comic strip but I think that it can attract the right sort of people to this site through search engines. I would like to see if it becomes a Google magnet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="d60d740f-2a84-430d-9d30-380dbc093160" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:14:53.597" UserId="838" Text="I think we should encourage people to ask specific questions with specific answers and to&#xD;&#xA;try to avoid questions that are designed to lead to &quot;lively discussion.&quot; In my experience you can't have a productive discussion of an advanced physics topic (like string theory) in this kind of format. I would really like to avoid dragging this site into the String Wars and it seems this question is designed to do precisely that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="7974422a-6dc0-4842-a854-5767107a6e06" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:21:07.067" UserId="66" Text="I think we should be supporting the site and the community. What are the most important problems that we face?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my personal opinion, that we don't have enough questions, and that we don't have enough phd or postdoc users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think simple questions (whether they are google-able or not) are the problem here. There is pretty much space for everybody. I think the problem is that, for some, there are not enough high-level questions (high-level meaning phd or better level)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should do all that we can to support the still flimsy community on the site to grow. That includes supporting questions which are maybe not the best in the ideal world. We should be an inclusive community, encourage people to come to the site and become active users!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is not so good, help it improve, via comments for example. If an answer is not so good, help it improve, or even better, write a better one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Complaining, closing abruptly possibly valid or salvageable questions, making rude statements (and there's more than a few around) makes the site weaker - people leave because of that, and we can't afford it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my two cents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="221beb19-7657-488c-b7eb-bcfb1984fb40" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:42:09.837" UserId="724" Text="Here's what I think. Easy questions get answered all the time on the SE network, there's really nothing wrong with them. I agree 100% with David's answer, and I'd like to add a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of the site is to bring in anyone who's searching for an answer to a question about physics. If we restrict ourselves to answers that can't easily be found, we are narrowing our scope **a lot**. Just because an answer is already on Google, it doesn't mean this site won't be able to top the previous answer and become the new &quot;first result&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the whole point of a SE community is to get most of it's traffic from search engines eventually. And the questions most easy to find are usually the ones that most searched, so why would we ban them? They are as legit as any other question, and nobody is forced to answer them. Users who think it's a waste of their time can just ignore it. Not to mention, if the question really is easy, it will be a chance for less experienced users to contribute as well, which can only help the site grow. The site won't hold itself on phd's alone, it needs both. We should down vote questions that are not real questions, are not about physics, or are terribly phrased; but we should down vote or close questions that are easy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that the answer is not completely satisfactory. We should prefer answers with at least some content, instead of just links. Which is why I was waiting to accept an answer that brought some content with it. But that's not a reason to close the question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="452bbb0c-0059-4065-bd04-d23eec67ac4c" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:50:18.803" UserId="724" Comment="added 8 characters in body; added 127 characters in body" Text="Here's what I think:  &#xD;&#xA;**No, we don't want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search.**  &#xD;&#xA;Easy questions get answered all the time on the SE network, there's really nothing wrong with them. I agree 100% with David's answer, and I'd like to add a little. &#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;**And here's why:**  &#xD;&#xA;The point of the site is to bring in anyone who's searching for an answer to a question about physics. If we restrict ourselves to answers that can't easily be found, we are narrowing our scope **a lot**. Just because an answer is already on Google, it doesn't mean this site won't be able to top the previous answer and become the new &quot;first result&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the whole point of a SE community is to get most of it's traffic from search engines eventually. And the questions most easy to find are usually the ones that most searched, so why would we ban them? They are as legit as any other question, and nobody is forced to answer them. Users who think it's a waste of their time can just ignore it. Not to mention, if the question really is easy, it will be a chance for less experienced users to contribute as well, which can only help the site grow. The site won't hold itself on phd's alone, it needs both. We should down vote questions that are not real questions, are not about physics, or are terribly phrased; but we should **not** down vote or close questions that are easy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that the answer is not completely satisfactory. We should prefer answers with at least some content, instead of just links. Which is why I was waiting to accept an answer that brought some content with it. But that's not a reason to close the question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="5fba2fb0-b1c4-415e-8f99-f1fdc6662e13" CreationDate="2010-12-21T03:03:53.980" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="This is something I've been particularly concerned about so here are my 2 cents from the peanut gallery :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1201/linearity-of-quantum-mechanics-closed) by @andrea on the &quot;linearity of quantum mechanics&quot;. One of the comments is by @Peter Shor - who I'm sure (no pun intended) doesn't need introduction. He says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's wrong with this question? (Aside from being really difficult to answer properly.) – Peter Shor Nov 22 at 21:21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When questions such as @Andrea's are closed right away you are doing a disservice to the community, by cutting off any chance people have of expressing their views on it. Some will say that such questions belong to metaphysics or philosophy. However, physics is NOT mathematics. The word &quot;physics&quot; comes from the latin for &quot;Natural Philosophy&quot; - a point that most physicists seem to be unaware of! In physics the most intriguing and important questions often have some philosophical content and cannot be framed according to some algorithm or be answered by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site has the potential for becoming an **invaluable** tool for the physics community. Its revolutionary potential for encouraging contact among students and researchers around the world is self-evident. By adopting far too rigid a criterion for when a question should be closed we are keeping physics.se from fulfilling its potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to turn this more into an answer than a rant, here are some guidelines I'd suggest moderators use when deciding to close questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Err on the side of caution**: If you're not sure if you should close a question, don't close it. Instead note your objections in a comment and wait for a response from either another moderator or the questioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Be generous**: You are a moderator presumably because you have a good understanding of the basic notions of physics. This, by itself and barring any evidence to the contrary, puts you above most other users in terms of credibility and competence. Therefore use your position of power magnanimously. The question might sound nonsensical, but sometimes that is because the questioner is not able to frame the words correctly. And English is by no means native to the majority of physicists. Your duty is not to keep out &quot;the huddled masses yearning to break free&quot; (from the chains of official dogma), but to provide guidance to those in need of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Be Humble**: For every smart person in this world, there is someone smarter out there. Always be aware that your own understanding can *never* be complete. Always be aware of the limits of your knowledge and the depths of your ignorance. There is no such thing as a question that is &quot;too dumb&quot; to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Be Brave**: Sometimes the best of us ask the worst of questions. Do not base your decision to close on the reputation of the questioner. If having given the question the benefit of doubt according to guidelines #1,#2 and #3, if you still feel it should be closed, then do so regardless of the questioner's standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Be professional**: Nobody is immune to feeling slighted or being taken for granted. Physicists in particular are know to have large and sensitive egos. Do not base a decision to close on any personal feelings you might have about the questioner or the question. As Voltaire said: &quot;I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, in judging any question use restraint, generosity, humility, courage and professionalism. Is that too much to ask :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="320bada6-055b-46fa-9583-7d6d4cdb41fa" CreationDate="2010-12-21T04:56:58.467" UserId="40" Text="I think these kinds of questions are important and helpful. They have definite answers and are certainly informative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if i have much more to say about it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="fc06ee16-b939-4e9f-bf4d-a540d84c2035" CreationDate="2010-12-21T05:03:15.890" UserId="40" Comment="added 367 characters in body" Text="When I read the title, I thought &quot;hey, I can get on board with that!&quot; But then I read the question that started this meta thread, and I have to agree with Marek. Applications of average velocity do not seem at all appropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I will answer the question in your title:&#xD;&#xA;I think these kinds of questions are important and helpful if the level is appropriate. They have definite answers and are certainly informative. We keep on coming back to what is &quot;appropriate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if i have much more to say about it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="9e53ec83-f08d-4fc7-9bcb-ff8f1d617c6b" CreationDate="2010-12-21T05:40:29.320" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Comment="minor change in language shown by strikethrough" Text="This is something I've been particularly concerned about so here are my 2 cents from the peanut gallery :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1201/linearity-of-quantum-mechanics-closed) by @andrea on the &quot;linearity of quantum mechanics&quot;. One of the comments is by @Peter Shor - who I'm sure (no pun intended) doesn't need introduction. He says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's wrong with this question? (Aside from being really difficult to answer properly.) – Peter Shor Nov 22 at 21:21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When questions such as @Andrea's are closed right away you are doing a disservice to the community, by cutting off any chance people have of expressing their views on it. Some will say that such questions belong to metaphysics or philosophy. However, physics is NOT mathematics. The word &quot;physics&quot; comes from the latin for &quot;Natural Philosophy&quot; - a point that most physicists seem to be unaware of! In physics the most intriguing and important questions often have some philosophical content and cannot be framed according to some algorithm or be answered by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site has the potential for becoming an **invaluable** tool for the physics community. Its revolutionary potential for encouraging contact among students and researchers around the world is self-evident. By adopting far too rigid a criterion for when a question should be closed we are keeping physics.se from fulfilling its potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to turn this more into an answer than a rant, here are some guidelines I'd suggest moderators use when deciding to close questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Err on the side of caution**: If you're not sure if you should close a question, don't close it. &lt;strike&gt;Instead note your objections in a comment and wait for a response from either another moderator or the questioner.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Be generous**: You are a moderator presumably because you have a good understanding of the basic notions of physics. This, by itself and barring any evidence to the contrary, puts you above most other users in terms of credibility and competence. Therefore use your position of power magnanimously. The question might sound nonsensical, but sometimes that is because the questioner is not able to frame the words correctly. And English is by no means native to the majority of physicists. Your duty is not to keep out &quot;the huddled masses yearning to break free&quot; (from the chains of official dogma), but to provide guidance to those in need of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Be Humble**: For every smart person in this world, there is someone smarter out there. Always be aware that your own understanding can *never* be complete. Always be aware of the limits of your knowledge and the depths of your ignorance. There is no such thing as a question that is &quot;too dumb&quot; to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Be Brave**: Sometimes the best of us ask the worst of questions. Do not base your decision to close on the reputation of the questioner. If having given the question the benefit of doubt according to guidelines #1,#2 and #3, if you still feel it should be closed, then do so regardless of the questioner's standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Be professional**: Nobody is immune to feeling slighted or being taken for granted. Physicists in particular are know to have large and sensitive egos. Do not base a decision to close on any personal feelings you might have about the questioner or the question. As Voltaire said: &quot;I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, in judging any question &lt;strike&gt;use&lt;/strike&gt; exercise restraint, generosity, humility, courage and professionalism. Is that too much to ask :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="9e0194a1-bee6-4194-91ff-1031854f2616" CreationDate="2010-12-21T17:52:59.640" UserId="724" Comment="added 450 characters in body" Text="Here's what I think:  &#xD;&#xA;**No, we don't want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search.**  &#xD;&#xA;Easy questions get answered all the time on the SE network, there's really nothing wrong with them. I agree 100% with David's answer, and I'd like to add a little. &#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;**And here's why:**  &#xD;&#xA;The point of the site is to bring in anyone who's searching for an answer to a question about physics. If we restrict ourselves to answers that can't easily be found, we are narrowing our scope **a lot**. Just because an answer is already on Google, it doesn't mean this site won't be able to top the previous answer and become the new &quot;first result&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the whole point of a SE community is to get most of it's traffic from search engines eventually. And the questions most easy to find are usually the ones that most searched, so why would we ban them? They are as legit as any other question, and nobody is forced to answer them. Users who think it's a waste of their time can just ignore it. Not to mention, if the question really is easy, it will be a chance for less experienced users to contribute as well, which can only help the site grow. The site won't hold itself on phd's alone, it needs both. We should down vote questions that are not real questions, are not about physics, or are terribly phrased; but we should **not** down vote or close questions that are easy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that the answer is not completely satisfactory. We should prefer answers with at least some content, instead of just links. Which is why I was waiting to accept an answer that brought some content with it. But that's not a reason to close the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: All that said, I'll agree that manually filling up the site with hundreds of questions that any undergrad can easily find an answer for in under 5 minutes is bad. It will probably act as noise and cover up the good stuff in the site. Also, it will probably push away more experienced users from joining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, we need this questions, but we need the hard ones as well. It's a fine balance that will take some discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="c5fc79dd-216a-4e54-a5ab-1526ca543030" CreationDate="2010-12-22T06:19:47.327" UserId="18" Text="Until now there hasn't been any further discussion on the ideas drawn from the chat session. Therefore, I think it is time to begin such a discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will take the nine ideas I could catch from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics&quot;&gt;transcript&lt;/a&gt; (although, I think everyone is open to new ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Seed questions**. Apparently, seeding questions 'to fill the site' is frowned upon, however, a milder form of seeding can be quite interesting and useful. For example, take a problem you know the answer of, but ask for a cleverer solution. That can be potentially challenging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Simple questions vs Hard questions**. Well, frankly I don't see a conflict here. The site can maintain both easy and difficult questions. Hopefully experts will be attracted to the hard questions and novices can contribute to answer simple questions adding value to the site while, if they're interested, learning from some hard questions. However, let me be precise; obviously, hard questions for its own sake do not attract experts (or anyone, really), as the interest from people is based on particular topics or on certain kind of ideas. Therefore, we need simple and hard engaging questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **The important thing is questions that can be answered in a high-quality way**. It is a safe bet to assume we all agree on that. However, one question could be 'How can we assure that?'. As far as I know, the only way to manage the quality of the answers is by managing the quality of the questions. Of course, it would be great to hear other ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Posters for promotion**. That's a wonderful initiative. I think that the initial idea is to get those posters in universities, which is perfectly fine. Besides that, it could be very helpful trying to distribute them online. Where? As already was mentioned in the chat session, getting relevant blogs to mention the site is a great idea. Using a poster could be a less awkward way to promote the site for the blogger and a smoother way in social media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Get promotion by getting relevant blogs and other sites to mention the site**. I think I covered that part in the last point, so I leave it there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Using the Stack Exchange team to get support**. As this is very generic, it would be very nice to come up with particular ideas. For example, I mentioned to David that I found a bit worrisome to notice that the site doesn't appear in a decent ranking for general Google searches (such as 'Physics forum, Physics Q&amp;A, etc), even if some of the questions do appear when a search is very specific. I think this is one of the things in which the Stack Exchange team can be quite helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Improve the titles of the better questions in the site**. Well, I doubt very much that that can result in an appreciable boost in the site popularity. Nonetheless, it can be good in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. **Asking elementary questions that require expert answers**. Maybe someone else will chime in to offer a possible way to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. **A great answer could be not recognized as such by the asker**. I think that answers need to be targeted to the appropriate level of the asker, minimizing the possibility of having the OP unsatisfied, except when the quality of the question is not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="c5fc79dd-216a-4e54-a5ab-1526ca543030" CreationDate="2010-12-22T06:19:47.327" UserId="18" Text="Discussion on site promotion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="c5fc79dd-216a-4e54-a5ab-1526ca543030" CreationDate="2010-12-22T06:19:47.327" UserId="18" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="1330fc4e-20e9-4a2c-9597-2476ec9f31d5" CreationDate="2010-12-22T06:53:20.153" UserId="724" Text="**9.** I backup your opinion on this item. Many physicists (me included) have the habit of wanting to share all the knowledge they can. While the intention is good, the result is usually more harm than good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to add a short paragraph to your answer that gives some interesting extra information.&#xD;&#xA; - It's **not** OK to let yourself ago while writing and forget that you are actually *answering a question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, when someone asks for the solution of something specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to derive the specific solution, and then add the general case solution (and a reference link) at the end of your answer.&#xD;&#xA; - It's **not** OK to write a huge answer deriving the general case solution, when you could have answered the actual question in 4 or 5 steps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="f654180d-2583-4c70-bff7-bff8adf2dcc8" CreationDate="2010-12-22T11:50:23.833" UserId="724" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="**9.** I backup your opinion on this item. Many physicists (me included) have the habit of wanting to share all the knowledge they can. While the intention is good, the result is usually more harm than good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to add a short paragraph to your answer that gives some interesting extra information.&#xD;&#xA; - It's **not** OK to let yourself ago while writing and forget that you are actually *answering a question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, when someone asks for the solution of something specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to derive the specific solution, and then add the general case solution (and a reference link) at the end of your answer.&#xD;&#xA; - It's **not** OK to write a huge answer deriving the general case solution, when you could have answered the actual question in 4 or 5 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Small Edit**  &#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying we should down-vote or close these answers. I'm just saying that the person answering has to keep in mind that, if he goes over the top, than the asker might not care for his answer. Maybe it's even best if we had both, but there *needs* to be at least one answer that's tangible to the asker, otherwise we've lost another potential user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="7730d922-98b7-420a-b4ef-443e4d928d58" CreationDate="2010-12-22T11:59:39.663" UserId="724" Comment="added 571 characters in body" Text="**9.** I backup your opinion on this item. Many physicists (me included) have the habit of wanting to share all the knowledge they can. While the intention is good, the result is usually more harm than good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to add a short paragraph to your answer that gives some interesting extra information.&#xD;&#xA; - It's **not** OK to let yourself ago while writing and forget that you are actually *answering a question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, when someone asks for the solution of something specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to derive the specific solution, and then add the general case solution (and a reference link) at the end of your answer.&#xD;&#xA; - It's **not** OK to write a huge answer deriving the general case solution, when you could have answered the actual question in 4 or 5 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Small Edit**  &#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying we should down-vote or close these answers. I'm just saying that the person answering has to keep in mind that, if he goes over the top, than the asker might not care for his answer. Maybe it's even best if we had both, but there *needs* to be at least one answer that's tangible to the asker, otherwise we've lost another potential user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that we are used to rating solutions by how general or how complete it is. The most complete and general answer to a problem usually trumps all others. But that won't always be the case here. The point here is to provide the information asked for in terms the asker will understand. If the answer sacrifices easiness of understanding to improve generality and completeness, the asker might not care for that and might just accept the more simple answer. It's not a bad answer (I'd probably up-vote it), it's only a bad thing if that's the *only* answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="522afa0a-6334-47a8-96bc-6121cb27c1d5" CreationDate="2010-12-22T14:29:54.480" UserId="724" Comment="deleted 745 characters in body" Text="**9.** I backup your opinion on this item. Many physicists (me included) have the habit of wanting to share all the knowledge they can. While the intention is good, the result is could be more harm than good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ok to write complex and extremely high-level answers. In fact, I think we should encourage these answers, as they are the ones that might get expert users interested in this site. However, these questions might not help the OP. It will vary on a case-by-case basis: some people will love to see complete and general answers, others will be intimidated by them and prefer the simpler ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I think we need to encourage both. If every (interesting) question had two good answers, one that fully explores the *interestingness* of the question and one that answers it on a more basic level, than we would be giving different people the full amount of information they can take. (Though, if a single answer can do both roles, than that's awesome ;-). )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="dd6040ed-0066-4ce8-b4b9-6ffa32ef477d" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:10:07.513" UserId="325" Text="Is it off limits to ask where you can get a Tapered Roller Bearing capable of turning a whole 25,000 vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="dd6040ed-0066-4ce8-b4b9-6ffa32ef477d" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:10:07.513" UserId="325" Text="Questions about suppliers for basic mechanical parts off limits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="dd6040ed-0066-4ce8-b4b9-6ffa32ef477d" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:10:07.513" UserId="325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="6a4a50c3-bd40-41f4-a330-f5f324ac2e20" CreationDate="2010-12-22T22:40:08.630" UserId="329" Text="My feeling is that it is completely off limits. But this was never mentioned explicitly so it can't hurt to discuss it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am saying we are physics site, not physics supplies site. Up-vote this if you agree, provide separate answer if you disagree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="8894c512-d413-4ad8-a515-a81cd432ab9e" CreationDate="2010-12-22T22:51:00.253" UserId="325" Text="Seems as if with no better place to ask it, and with it being directly related to physics, it should be permissible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not just permit two new tags `[manufacturer]`, or `[supplier]` for questions of those sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `[supplier]` Where can I get a tapered bearing that can withstand 25,000 lbs?&#xD;&#xA;* `[manufacturer]` Where can I get a device a cheap device to demonstrate how a hovercraft works? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="573" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="da597eee-29ae-480e-805f-54cedc382afc" CreationDate="2010-12-25T00:31:54.110" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="0e867292-b6a0-436f-9506-0cb788b66641" CreationDate="2010-12-25T00:32:19.990" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="b7eb09a5-f26f-4d0e-9c70-dee11df3e78a" CreationDate="2010-12-25T20:00:57.133" UserId="18" Comment="Update" Text="**UPDATE (25 Dec 2010)**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone else want to discuss some idea or contribute with another one?. Maybe this is the wrong date to ask for it. We certainly can wait a few days but the time to finish the Public BETA is coming closer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Until now there hasn't been any further discussion on the ideas drawn from the chat session. Therefore, I think it is time to begin such a discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will take the nine ideas I could catch from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics&quot;&gt;transcript&lt;/a&gt; (although, I think everyone is open to new ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Seed questions**. Apparently, seeding questions 'to fill the site' is frowned upon, however, a milder form of seeding can be quite interesting and useful. For example, take a problem you know the answer of, but ask for a cleverer solution. That can be potentially challenging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Simple questions vs Hard questions**. Well, frankly I don't see a conflict here. The site can maintain both easy and difficult questions. Hopefully experts will be attracted to the hard questions and novices can contribute to answer simple questions adding value to the site while, if they're interested, learning from some hard questions. However, let me be precise; obviously, hard questions for its own sake do not attract experts (or anyone, really), as the interest from people is based on particular topics or on certain kind of ideas. Therefore, we need simple and hard engaging questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **The important thing is questions that can be answered in a high-quality way**. It is a safe bet to assume we all agree on that. However, one question could be 'How can we assure that?'. As far as I know, the only way to manage the quality of the answers is by managing the quality of the questions. Of course, it would be great to hear other ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Posters for promotion**. That's a wonderful initiative. I think that the initial idea is to get those posters in universities, which is perfectly fine. Besides that, it could be very helpful trying to distribute them online. Where? As already was mentioned in the chat session, getting relevant blogs to mention the site is a great idea. Using a poster could be a less awkward way to promote the site for the blogger and a smoother way in social media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Get promotion by getting relevant blogs and other sites to mention the site**. I think I covered that part in the last point, so I leave it there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Using the Stack Exchange team to get support**. As this is very generic, it would be very nice to come up with particular ideas. For example, I mentioned to David that I found a bit worrisome to notice that the site doesn't appear in a decent ranking for general Google searches (such as 'Physics forum, Physics Q&amp;A, etc), even if some of the questions do appear when a search is very specific. I think this is one of the things in which the Stack Exchange team can be quite helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Improve the titles of the better questions in the site**. Well, I doubt very much that that can result in an appreciable boost in the site popularity. Nonetheless, it can be good in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. **Asking elementary questions that require expert answers**. Maybe someone else will chime in to offer a possible way to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. **A great answer could be not recognized as such by the asker**. I think that answers need to be targeted to the appropriate level of the asker, minimizing the possibility of having the OP unsatisfied, except when the quality of the question is not acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="0038bfd8-2771-4aae-a7c4-1a501bf36b87" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:38:57.587" UserId="520" Text="Pursuant to David's comment on Evan's answer I'd like to bring up the topic of demo equipment and or student laboratory kit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a fair number of specialized demo toys and tools for student laboratories that don't have and use or demand outside of the physics classroom. If we were going to make an exception (to the general rule *&quot;This is not a shopping advice site&quot;* that Marek proposes) this would presumably be one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A clear plastic tube containing a nut and a down feather with vacuum valves at either end to allow a atmosphere-free Galilian-drop in the class room&#xD;&#xA;* Stirling engines which will run on the temperature gradient provided by a cup of coffee  &#xD;&#xA;* Air-tracks and spark tables&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="696f867f-4cc5-41d8-8122-1873f7f40dd8" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:49:51.437" UserId="520" Text="A point brought to my mind by [Evan's questions about shopping][1], is the place of demonstrations in our efforts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demos are effective teaching tools and can be powerful attractors for getting people (potential students, potential funders, general enthusiasts...) interested in what we do, and they can be surprisingly tricky to build and operate without letting small corrections &#xD;&#xA;detract from the rhetorical impact we'd like them to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are questions about the design, construction, care and operation of demonstration tools OK. I'll leave the question of acquisition of parts and/or whole apparatus to be discussed under Evan's topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/268/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="696f867f-4cc5-41d8-8122-1873f7f40dd8" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:49:51.437" UserId="520" Text="Are &quot;How to...&quot; questions for demos and try-this-at-home experiments on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="696f867f-4cc5-41d8-8122-1873f7f40dd8" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:49:51.437" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="0794ab6d-d893-4bf4-b7a8-e122e77c57f7" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:56:00.153" UserId="520" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="**Answer to the question title and body:** Yes. It *is* off limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side discussion:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pursuant to David's comment on Evan's answer I'd like to bring up the topic of demo equipment and or student laboratory kit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a fair number of specialized demo toys and tools for student laboratories that don't have and use or demand outside of the physics classroom. If we were going to make an exception (to the general rule *&quot;This is not a shopping advice site&quot;* that Marek proposes) this would presumably be one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A clear plastic tube containing a nut and a down feather with vacuum valves at either end to allow a atmosphere-free Galilian-drop in the class room&#xD;&#xA;* Stirling engines which will run on the temperature gradient provided by a cup of coffee  &#xD;&#xA;* Air-tracks and spark tables&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="a17eded7-a233-4815-ad87-1116b88e2ee9" CreationDate="2010-12-26T20:37:55.797" UserId="724" Text="That's it really. Not contesting anything, just asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="a17eded7-a233-4815-ad87-1116b88e2ee9" CreationDate="2010-12-26T20:37:55.797" UserId="724" Text="What is the [soft-question] tag for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="a17eded7-a233-4815-ad87-1116b88e2ee9" CreationDate="2010-12-26T20:37:55.797" UserId="724" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="55b7dee6-5f4f-4de5-bc33-c2c4195b5ab2" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:03:27.773" UserId="329" Text="This is probably an issue just because the site is young but I still keep coming to great older questions that I missed and that haven't received the attention they should've.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because I joined the site few weeks after it launched, so I missed some of those early questions. And so did lots of other people who joined later. Is there any direct mechanism for bringing these older questions into the front so that they can get attention (and in particular votes)? I can think of few procedures, but every one of them has certain problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I can edit either the question or some answer. But this is just a work-around and I am not sure it's polite towards other, newer questions (not to mention towards author of the post I am editing).&#xD;&#xA;2. I can provide a new answer. Again, this is not what I want to do in general: there might already be a good answer (or more of them) but I'd like more people to come and check them (and provide votes, most importantly).&#xD;&#xA;3. I can make the question featured. This feels again work-aroundish. Because I don't really want to award any bounty. I just want people to come and look at the question and answers already provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these three approaches I think 3. is the best but it doesn't really solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here are the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Do we want to get older questions that (lot of) people missed to the front?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If so, what is the best way to accomplish it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="55b7dee6-5f4f-4de5-bc33-c2c4195b5ab2" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:03:27.773" UserId="329" Text="Is it possible/good/worthwhile trying to get older questions to the front so that new users see them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="55b7dee6-5f4f-4de5-bc33-c2c4195b5ab2" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:03:27.773" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="c14f7e2e-de15-415c-ac95-6f7b518e364c" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:25:05.697" UserId="78" Text="I'm interested in answers to questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Took HS physics?   Physics or math major or minor?  Last class taken?  &#xD;&#xA;Teacher?  Researcher?  Published papers in Phys?&#xD;&#xA;Reads any phys journals?  Which?  Member APS or equiv. society? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Follows certain topics on arxiv?  Which? Occasionally?  often?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last few physics books read?  Understood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last few (semi)popular math/phys books read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People could post excerpts on their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments?  Other questions to add?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="c14f7e2e-de15-415c-ac95-6f7b518e364c" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:25:05.697" UserId="78" Text="How about a voluntary survey of physics education for users of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="c14f7e2e-de15-415c-ac95-6f7b518e364c" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:25:05.697" UserId="78" Text="|discussion|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="57a09b89-04ef-4d52-ae45-c3d566fc0ac7" CreationDate="2010-12-26T21:26:17.540" UserId="329" Text="As I understand it, these are questions on *how to do physics in general* rather than *how to solve a particular problem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions might ask about the list of literature for a certain subject. Or ask for general ideas useful in physics (or subject thereof). Or about history of a certain topic (but this is subtle: we'd in general like to have at least some physical content in the question, rather than just a historical). I guess you get the idea. Anyway, why don't you just [go look at those questions for yourself](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question)? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="5c654634-d71b-4725-a9ee-bbd867688645" CreationDate="2010-12-27T06:37:57.063" UserId="124" Text="The system actually does this automatically, to some extent - it randomly &quot;bumps&quot; an old question every once in a while. I don't remember the details of which questions are eligible or how often this happens, but I bet there's a post on MSO describing it. I'll edit in a link if I find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we really need to get old questions up to the front of the site that much, though. People can only focus on so much content at a time, and given that I think we'd rather have everyone's attention _mainly_ on the new questions which need to be answered. People will occasionally go back and browse old questions on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="076f9a67-482e-41dd-bfce-8adb2695f157" CreationDate="2010-12-27T06:54:41.923" UserId="78" Text="I recently put up a question about correcting myths in the history of Physics.  I point out that the same sorts of questions are accepted both in Mathoverflow and math.stackexchange and don't seem to do any harm there.   Suppose you are a HS kid or undergraduate somewhere, and wander onto this site.   This could be quite helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="1185987a-5cad-4dc8-8dee-8b7e30eda1c6" CreationDate="2010-12-27T07:00:55.803" UserId="78" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="I recently put up a question about correcting myths in the history of Physics, which was closed, hopefully only temporarily.  It referenced a lecture at the KITP, i.e. an audience of physicists.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also point out that the same sorts of questions are accepted both in Mathoverflow and math.stackexchange and don't seem to do any harm there.   I recall many such lectures in the Physics departments of several scientific institutions which were both very interesting and stimulating.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose you are a HS kid or undergraduate somewhere, and wander onto this site.   This could be quite helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="74f16fe0-82ee-416b-8d84-8c7049ec2035" CreationDate="2010-12-27T17:03:57.183" UserId="67" Text="Posting questions simply to poll the participants would not be an appropriate use for the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E.g. What is the last Physics class you took? [closed as off topic]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in the context of Q&amp;A, users sometime post *questions* that are little more than a survey of the participants. Usually, those questions are (or at least should be) closed as off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E.g. What do you think of this physics book? [closed as off topic]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are to provide canonical answers to *specific*, answerable questions. Polling might be useful (or even fun, for the curious), but it simply is not what we do here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="49c2b184-f924-45d4-bcb5-0fec58ba8ade" CreationDate="2010-12-28T18:05:23.107" UserId="724" Text="I was thinking of asking a question not directly related to physics, but to a physics journal. Do you guys think these kind of questions should be allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="49c2b184-f924-45d4-bcb5-0fec58ba8ade" CreationDate="2010-12-28T18:05:23.107" UserId="724" Text="Should we allow questions regarding a specific physics journal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="49c2b184-f924-45d4-bcb5-0fec58ba8ade" CreationDate="2010-12-28T18:05:23.107" UserId="724" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="15e04451-f01b-4c8b-a774-0994a1751a24" CreationDate="2010-12-28T20:39:04.827" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Get promotion by getting relevant blogs and other sites to mention the site. I think I covered that part in the last point, so I leave it there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll need to have an ample supply of link-worthy questions, since we're more likely to get bloggers etc. to link to specific questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using the Stack Exchange team to get support. As this is very generic, it would be very nice to come up with particular ideas. For example, I mentioned to David that I found a bit worrisome to notice that the site doesn't appear in a decent ranking for general Google searches (such as 'Physics forum, Physics Q&amp;A, etc), even if some of the questions do appear when a search is very specific. I think this is one of the things in which the Stack Exchange team can be quite helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll take this up with Robert Cartaino and see whether he or any of the other SE people have anything to offer us. I've been wondering a lot lately about what we can do to improve our search engine rankings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Improve the titles of the better questions in the site. Well, I doubt very much that that can result in an appreciable boost in the site popularity. Nonetheless, it can be good in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd imagine it can help us bring in clicks from Google (et al) searches of the type that people are likely to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="602" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="15e04451-f01b-4c8b-a774-0994a1751a24" CreationDate="2010-12-28T20:39:04.827" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="2bca71c5-a5f9-4853-84ac-0f3a6921a52a" CreationDate="2010-12-28T20:39:37.540" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="49df5c02-9083-4f29-b7a7-5411596e66e2" CreationDate="2010-12-28T22:24:19.263" UserId="724" Comment="added 295 characters in body; added 15 characters in body" Text="I was thinking of asking a question not directly related to physics, but to a physics journal. Do you guys think these kind of questions should be allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a .tex template for submissions to [said journal]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would [said-journal] accept a submission about [subject]? (where subject is similar but not exactly one of the jounrnal's areas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the correct (journal name) abbreviation to use when citing a paper from [said journal]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="3963c2c1-b497-4dee-9257-870bcf71bb51" CreationDate="2010-12-29T04:09:11.260" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is there a .tex template for submissions to [said journal]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Robert commented, you'd probably want to contact the journal. If you don't get anything from them, you could ask at tex.SE. I don't think it belongs here though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would [said-journal] accept a submission about [subject]? (where subject is similar but not exactly one of the jounrnal's areas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's okay (as long as the journal is a physics journal of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the correct (journal name) abbreviation to use when citing a paper from [said journal]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hm... now that isn't really about physics at all, although it is of interest to physicists. I think this is similar to the first one - it wouldn't go at tex.SE, of course, but I think if we allow the first one it'd make sense to allow this, and if we don't allow the first one it'd make sense not to allow this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="55db8079-1a87-4566-a86a-c8828d495595" CreationDate="2010-12-31T14:59:15.157" UserId="13" Text="It seems I can no longer comment on questions. (Using Firefox 4 Beta 8.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday, I could type a comment, then submitting would simply discard it. Today, &quot;Add Comment&quot; doesn't even work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone else experiencing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="55db8079-1a87-4566-a86a-c8828d495595" CreationDate="2010-12-31T14:59:15.157" UserId="13" Text="Commenting broken" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="55db8079-1a87-4566-a86a-c8828d495595" CreationDate="2010-12-31T14:59:15.157" UserId="13" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="c3e66ad5-e7be-4a0b-90c1-d5bba01bc13f" CreationDate="2010-12-31T19:00:36.563" UserId="13" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="It seems I can no longer comment on questions. (Using Firefox 4 Beta 8.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday, I could type a comment, then submitting would simply discard it. Today, &quot;Add Comment&quot; doesn't even work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone else experiencing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Jarrod: Thanks. Seems the problem with displaying the comment box is only sporadic, but the submitting problem is persistent. In fact, it seems AJAX is generally quite broken. Just realised post preview isn't working now too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="1f16d6e0-7556-41d2-b664-8c7eebf38470" CreationDate="2010-12-31T23:10:53.457" UserId="113" Text="Note that we don't support beta browsers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't see any other reports of commenting issues, so I'd try again in a released browser after clearing your cache." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="612" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="03652286-d39a-4efc-a8f8-c574d17ebfbf" CreationDate="2011-01-01T02:02:37.100" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="30013bd7-e975-4f93-804b-1a894f3b7c2b" CreationDate="2011-01-05T01:33:51.437" UserId="246" Text="I want to ask a question about a phenomenon from a science fiction movie I saw recently. I looked for existing questions related to science fiction and found a wide range of feedback. For example, here are three questions I found and their current status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Does Quantum Physics really suggests (sic) this universe as a computer simulation ? (sic)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/759/246): -2 votes.&#xD;&#xA; * [Could teleportation ever really happen?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1203/246): 4 votes.&#xD;&#xA; * [Time-travel and random events](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2460/246): 0 votes, closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I must ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Are questions based on science fiction off-topic? The question that got 4 votes was actually considered off-topic in the [Theoretical Physics Q&amp;A Area 51 proposal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics/23955#23955).&#xD;&#xA; * If asking about science fiction is not a problem, then what are the characteristics of an acceptable question and those of an unacceptable question?&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="30013bd7-e975-4f93-804b-1a894f3b7c2b" CreationDate="2011-01-05T01:33:51.437" UserId="246" Text="Are questions related to science fiction acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="30013bd7-e975-4f93-804b-1a894f3b7c2b" CreationDate="2011-01-05T01:33:51.437" UserId="246" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="ad5c96aa-e9ec-4b69-bbae-167342f632f0" CreationDate="2011-01-05T03:51:41.217" UserId="520" Text="I would say that questions related to the purported physics in speculative fiction are fine as long as they stick to *physics*. That is, it is OK to find your motivation in SF and even to reference a well known book, but not every plot element from a book that you find in the Sci. Fi. aisle is fair game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, anything that is based on a presumed breakthough (i.e. not found in current science) is going to be a bit shaky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I feel that you *must* describe the physics situation in enough detail that a reader need not go to the book to figure out what is being asked. That last bit is the biggest failing of [&quot;Orbital mechanics of Dragon's Egg&quot;][1] as I see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see from your examples that the consensus is not really tight just now. I am not a big fan of high speculative questions: there is no way to judge the correctness of answers (well, there may be ways to judge so really *incorrect*, but...) aside from simple popularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**side note**: The [theoretical physics][2] proposal is different from [this site][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1816/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="82ef5025-f246-4c1a-ac18-764e273041f4" CreationDate="2011-01-06T01:00:33.663" UserId="520" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I would say that questions related to the purported physics in speculative fiction are fine as long as they stick to *physics*. That is, it is OK to find your motivation in SF and even to reference a well known book, but not every plot element from a book that you find in the Sci. Fi. aisle is fair game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, anything that is based on a presumed breakthough (i.e. not found in current science) is going to be a bit shaky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I feel that you *must* describe the physics situation in enough detail that a reader need not go to the book to figure out what is being asked. That last bit is the biggest failing of [&quot;Orbital mechanics of Dragon's Egg&quot;][1] as I see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see from your examples that the consensus is not really tight just now. I am not a big fan of high speculative questions: there is no way to judge the correctness of answers (well, there may be ways to judge some really *incorrect*, but...) aside from simple popularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**side note**: The [theoretical physics][2] proposal is different from [this site][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1816/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="923465ce-107e-404c-a0b5-be67cf5b9176" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:44:04.240" UserId="124" Text="Now that the holidays are over, I think it's an opportune time to hold another chat session to discuss site promotion, and perhaps other issues that we think are important. Let's schedule and run it along similar lines to [the first one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/237/how-about-a-chat-session-to-discuss-site-promotion). I'll post an answer to suggest a time. If you would attend at that time, upvote it; if you have a conflict, downvote it and suggest a different time in a new answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="923465ce-107e-404c-a0b5-be67cf5b9176" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:44:04.240" UserId="124" Text="Time for another chat session?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="923465ce-107e-404c-a0b5-be67cf5b9176" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:44:04.240" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="e6dd8020-048e-4ddb-9bf0-0f3226e28a1d" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:45:03.070" UserId="124" Text="First suggestion: Monday, January 10, at 8:00 PM GMT (3:00 PM US Eastern time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="8781d5b3-316f-4047-b14c-84795d9b9a36" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:45:46.987" UserId="124" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="The first chat session is complete and we had some good ideas come up. We are now [trying to schedule another one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288/time-for-another-chat-session). Stay tuned to the [chat room schedule](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=schedule) and/or the first linked question for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few people have raised concerns about how well this site is doing, in terms of the number of new questions, new users, page views, etc. that we're getting each day. And indeed, if you look at our [proposal page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) on Area 51, some of the numbers are kind of low. That's okay, but I think **we can do better**. I feel like we haven't really made our best possible _actual_ effort to promote the site yet. If we want those numbers to improve, it's really up to us, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I was thinking we could use our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to hold a more active discussion about how we can get more people, more questions, more good answers, and generally more (and better) activity on the site. Of course, the room is always open, and you can leave messages there any time, but I'd like to try setting a time when as many active users as possible will be able to log on and contribute in near-real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try it like this: I'll put a time suggestion in an answer. If you would join in a chat session at that time, upvote the answer. If you'd like to participate but have a conflict, downvote the answer, and feel free to provide your own time suggestion as a different answer. If you think the whole chat thing is just a terrible idea, downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcripts&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;- [Site promotion chat #1](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=conversations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="77d9045d-ce72-4794-8a02-fab9bf6711b0" CreationDate="2011-01-10T17:47:24.080" UserId="724" Text="As it stands right now, I think the [mechanics] tag is useless in the best cases, and a little harmful in the worst cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that it way too broad to be considered a topic. The number of possible topics inside it (quantum, classical, statistical, ...) is very large, and they are very different from each other. So when someone uses the [mechanics] tags, one of two things happen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They also use a sub-mechanics tag (like [quantum-mechanics] or [classical-mechanics]), in which case the actual [mechanics] tag is completely useless.&#xD;&#xA; 2. They are led to believe that just the [mechanics] tag is enough, in which case it is actually harmful, because it almost the same as leaving it tagless. Just saying a question is about *mechanics* doesn't give the reader any clue at all of what he should expect to find in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [quick search][1] shows that this tag is being used both alone *and* with subtopics. So I say: *Consistency*. We should decide whether to get rid of it, or to encourage people to only use it with subtopics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My proposal**  &#xD;&#xA;Should we sart removing the [mechanics] tag, and replacing it (where necessary) with its subtopics? Or should we just add subtopics where missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="77d9045d-ce72-4794-8a02-fab9bf6711b0" CreationDate="2011-01-10T17:47:24.080" UserId="724" Text="Should we replace the [mechanics] tag with more specific ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="77d9045d-ce72-4794-8a02-fab9bf6711b0" CreationDate="2011-01-10T17:47:24.080" UserId="724" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="4b0f1263-5b22-40e9-9b12-a0cb78e08ecf" CreationDate="2011-01-10T21:26:30.953" UserId="325" Text="I've just noticed that [my question was closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2545/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-separate-egg-whites). Why is it off limits to propose a question asking for the best way to do something that would obviously require energy to be spent. I want to know what is the most efficient way to separate eggs. How is that any worse than [this stupid question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe), which is not just on the same lines but destructive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe in the future all closed questions for physics.stackexchange.com should be brought up in meta first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="4b0f1263-5b22-40e9-9b12-a0cb78e08ecf" CreationDate="2011-01-10T21:26:30.953" UserId="325" Text="Question closed before moderators could think about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="4b0f1263-5b22-40e9-9b12-a0cb78e08ecf" CreationDate="2011-01-10T21:26:30.953" UserId="325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="d2372a91-2ea7-4411-896f-b7bae21ecc61" CreationDate="2011-01-11T11:17:45.897" UserId="724" Text="I can see you put some effort into your question, that does not justify your behaviour. It is OK to appeal here when your question is closed, but you loose the right to be taken seriously when you start calling other questions stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is fairly good, in a grammatical sense, but is terrible in a physical sense. You didn't actually ask anything physical. In fact, it's not clear at all what you were asking. I only understood what you were looking for after reading the comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had given some examples in your answers (of what physics has to do with it, such as buoyancy or a centrifuge) it might have worked a little better. You can try editing it, but I can't guarantee that it'll be reopen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fact that it was closed without moderator assistance is not something to complain about, it just shows how &quot;off&quot; your question was. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="5f777ce8-51aa-46bd-8325-9c07bda9f3bd" CreationDate="2011-01-11T18:40:12.140" UserId="724" Text="An example question:  &#xD;&#xA;[Solution for the Finite 2D Potential Well - Rotational Symmetry][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is being voted to close as off-topic. Reading the comments, that seems to be because it the physics is basically done, all that's left is to solve a differential equation. That is true, but I wonder if it's really a problem.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;That question was just an example, let's focus on the general case. A lot of physics problems and exercises have very little physics and quite a lot of mathematics. Let us assume a question is asked where the physics is basically done, so that it is solvable through strictly mathematical procedures. The motivation is something like: the Lagrangian of a several body system, the velocity field of a fluid around a specific object, or the eigenstates of a QM system. Also assume the level is not too basic, so it is within our pre-established level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we consider such a question off-topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though the answer only requires mathematics, it looks like the kind of question a physics student might be interested in. Do we want to keep it here or move it to math.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/solution-for-the-finite-2d-potential-well-rotational-symmetry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="5f777ce8-51aa-46bd-8325-9c07bda9f3bd" CreationDate="2011-01-11T18:40:12.140" UserId="724" Text="Should we allow questions asking the mathematical solution to physics problems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="5f777ce8-51aa-46bd-8325-9c07bda9f3bd" CreationDate="2011-01-11T18:40:12.140" UserId="724" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="01dc52ff-86a3-4544-a58e-cdc38d5d415f" CreationDate="2011-01-12T13:00:32.593" UserId="948" Text="In [this post][1], after announcing the new Beta Pro Tem moderators, it said: &quot;Please respect their judgement but **also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta**.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of this statement, **consider this my reprimand of Noldorin here in meta**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently [this question][2] was reopened by 5 reopen votes from 5 members with more than 500 reputation points (including me) which at this point of the forum's history is quite a few votes. Only 38 members have enough reputation to vote to reopen so 5 is 13% of those eligible to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subsequently, Noldorin, who closed the question the first time closed it again with this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm sorry, I'm closing this again&#xD;&#xA;&gt; until the question is improved! –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noldorin♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why give us the right to reopen if a moderator is going to arbitrarily close it without discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this close which seemed to go against the spirit of the whole voting process itself, there was this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ummm ... bad call @noldorin. very bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; call. – space_cadet 4 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's that mean to mean? Speak&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English. Even better, shut up?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No-one's asking for your opinion. –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noldorin♦ 3 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I generally have a lot of respect for moderators. It is a lot of work and a fairly thankless job. I've done it before. In this case, Noldorin lost my respect and acted in a way that goes completely against the Stack Exchange spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are we to assume that our votes don't count? That our opinions don't count? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the guidelines for moderators overriding the reopen votes of the community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are moderators gods? Not to be questioned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do we get to vote for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100/nominate-and-elect-our-temporary-moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same-t/2570#2570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="01dc52ff-86a3-4544-a58e-cdc38d5d415f" CreationDate="2011-01-12T13:00:32.593" UserId="948" Text="When Should Moderators Override Community Vote to Reopen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="01dc52ff-86a3-4544-a58e-cdc38d5d415f" CreationDate="2011-01-12T13:00:32.593" UserId="948" Text="|discussion|moderators|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="8481f4aa-db93-44dd-b25e-218f1de708e9" CreationDate="2011-01-12T15:55:35.487" UserId="329" Text="Hello,&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether this has been discussed anywhere; if so, please point me to the right place. Still it shouldn't hurt to discuss it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the site growing there will be an increasing need for including images into answers (I find they help a huge deal in certain cases; one picture is worth a $10^3$ words, etc.). But what about copyright issues? I guess most of the authors (if they can be find, that is) wouldn't mind but it would still be correct to ask them, right (and not just because they might sue you)? On the other hand, it seems strange not to post an answer while waiting for a response from the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, is there any policy about these things? Or is it perhaps no big deal, with issues being solved a posteriori after author finds his copyright is being infringed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="8481f4aa-db93-44dd-b25e-218f1de708e9" CreationDate="2011-01-12T15:55:35.487" UserId="329" Text="Copyright issues with including images into answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="8481f4aa-db93-44dd-b25e-218f1de708e9" CreationDate="2011-01-12T15:55:35.487" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="296" RevisionGUID="026a8ffe-ee32-4c27-8f5a-bf1a1035d38c" CreationDate="2011-01-12T16:15:12.903" UserId="329" Text="At first I'd be tempted to move such questions over to the math sites (and I've voted to close some of those question myself in the past). But thinking more about it, sometimes physicists can give insight that mathematicians wouldn't provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I mean? Few (perhaps contrived) examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Trying to do computation in wrong coordinates (which don't make use of some symmetry, say). The calculation could still be carried out but will be tedious. Physicist will immediately set the OP straight by telling him &quot;think again about choosing the $z$ axis you moron&quot; (perhaps without the moron part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Trying to solve equations in Newtonian formalism. Again, doable in principle. But physicist will point out that, passing to Lagrangian formalism, there are two conserved quantities and there is actually nothing to solve anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Computing the tear of the space-time fabric. Brian Greene would recommend passing to the mirror dual Calabi-Yau (okay, I am just reading The Elegant Universe :-D).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am getting at is that are *physical* insights into purely mathematical problems. So we should move the questions only if its clear that they are too simple already. If the correct coordinates and formalism have been chosen already and all the symmetries and dualities exploited and there is nothing else left than tedious calculation then okay, let's move it over to math sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="296" RevisionGUID="95b25978-f277-4dbc-b6ed-646d9dca8ec5" CreationDate="2011-01-12T18:46:24.133" UserId="329" Comment="Added a clarification" Text="**Edit:** In case it seems like I am answering a different question: I am not. I am just saying that it's not always clear what it means *&quot;that physics is basically done&quot;*. This is because there are various ways physics can be done to reduce the problem to mathematical form and some of them are pretty bad resulting in horribly complex math problems that are completely unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH if by &quot;physics is basically done&quot; you meant that it was done in the right way and math is the only thing that remains to solve it then such problems are not welcome in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I'd be tempted to move such questions over to the math sites (and I've voted to close some of those question myself in the past). But thinking more about it, sometimes physicists can give insight that mathematicians wouldn't provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I mean? Few (perhaps contrived) examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Trying to do computation in wrong coordinates (which don't make use of some symmetry, say). The calculation could still be carried out but will be tedious. Physicist will immediately set the OP straight by telling him &quot;think again about choosing the $z$ axis you moron&quot; (perhaps without the moron part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Trying to solve equations in Newtonian formalism. Again, doable in principle. But physicist will point out that, passing to Lagrangian formalism, there are two conserved quantities and there is actually nothing to solve anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Computing the tear of the space-time fabric. Brian Greene would recommend passing to the mirror dual Calabi-Yau (okay, I am just reading The Elegant Universe :-D).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am getting at is that are *physical* insights into purely mathematical problems. So we should move the questions only if its clear that they are too simple already. If the correct coordinates and formalism have been chosen already and all the symmetries and dualities exploited and there is nothing else left than tedious calculation then okay, let's move it over to math sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="7d77cf1e-5dde-4610-9962-7b1faac2bbb1" CreationDate="2011-01-12T19:02:38.283" UserId="124" Text="As it happens, I read something about this very issue yesterday (only accessible to moderators, unfortunately). The SO team's policy is that any content reused on an SE site in violation of the appropriate license should be deleted without reservation. As a contributor, this means **do not reproduce any content from other sources unless you're sure it is permitted by the license or by copyright law**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the most common case is material posted on Wikipedia. That should always be safe to include, as long as you attribute it to the original source, because Wikipedia uses the same Creative Commons license as Stack Exchange sites. Obviously, the same applies to anything else covered under the same license (cc-by-sa). But in general, most content online is not safe to include without getting explicit permission from the copyright owner. Specifically, if a website does not list a license for its content, we can't use it, since under US copyright law (which I believe applies, since the company is located in the US), the right to distribute copies of a work is reserved to the copyright owner by default." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="a6d8f995-1002-4375-bab5-dce8434c7e44" CreationDate="2011-01-12T19:06:52.677" UserId="948" Comment="deleted 1110 characters in body" Text="Recently [this question][2] was reopened by 5 reopen votes from 5 members with more than 500 reputation points (including me) which at this point of the forum's history is quite a few votes. Only 38 members have enough reputation to vote to reopen so 5 is 13% of those eligible to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subsequently, Noldorin, who closed the question the first time closed it again with this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm sorry, I'm closing this again&#xD;&#xA;&gt; until the question is improved! –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noldorin♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why give us the right to reopen if a moderator is going to arbitrarily close it without discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the guidelines for moderators overriding the reopen votes of the community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same-t/2570#2570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="6faf6989-dcd6-4f51-b740-a3815fd94874" CreationDate="2011-01-12T19:09:48.317" UserId="124" Text="I would agree with your proposal to remove `[mechanics]` and replace it with subtopic tags. When tagging I like to work off the [list](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules/51#51) I came up with in the early days of the site - of course that's not an official policy or anything but it might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's possible that there might be some questions (either that have been asked or that could be asked) for which none of the mechanics subtopic tags would be appropriate. In a case like that, it'd be fine to leave `[mechanics]` on that question. But I'm sure those should be a very small minority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="e95e30ba-99c6-41fb-89e9-a8c090e5c18a" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:05:53.537" UserId="124" Text="This is a topic that we should definitely hash out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own view is that moderators should **almost never** override the community. The reasoning behind that is that, although moderators were presumably chosen because of their (our) ability to exercise good judgment on administrative matters, a moderator is still just one user. In general, I don't see any justification for the opinion of _one_ user to override the opinion of _five_ others who have expressed the opposite view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-driven website, and most of our decisions should be made by consensus. So when there is a clear disagreement between two groups of people, both with the ability to undo each others' actions (e.g. one moderator and five other users), we need to put things on hold, allow both sides to make their case, and determine which view has greater support. Once we reach a decision, everyone then needs to abide by it, but especially the moderators, since we have that unilateral power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In this case, that would entail starting a separate question on meta in which we decide whether the original question should be open or closed. Noldorin can present his case for closing and other people who think the question should be open can present their case for that. Perhaps I'll start that other question shortly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there _may_ be certain times in which it would be appropriate for a moderator to override a community close vote. I can't really think of a good example, but I just want to acknowledge the possibility that it may happen. This is probably not as much of an issue here as on Stack Overflow, though, where there are so many 10k+ users that a question can get 5 close votes even if a minority of people actually think it should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to downvote this if you don't agree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="301" RevisionGUID="5a9a22dd-536c-4bcf-a651-aa16f0a047f7" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:46:41.640" UserId="386" Text="My opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Moderators are human exception handlers.][1] Therefore they shouldn't override community vote to reopen, except for exceptional cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the particular case you are mentioning **is** exceptional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="15d3d407-17eb-4e01-ab00-787e757d5486" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:56:24.627" UserId="124" Text="[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same-t) has been causing a fair amount of controversy lately. Some people think it should be closed, some people think it should be opened. So I think we should get the community's input on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a light source that emits all wavelengths of visible light at the same time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should this be dealt with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The purpose of this meta question is _only_ to establish the community opinion on what to do with the original question.** This is _not_ the place to discuss whether it is correct for a moderator to override a community vote, and it is _not_ the place to discuss whether any of the comments posted or other actions taken were inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever opinion emerges from this meta question will be taken under advisement by the moderators (well, by me at least), but at this time I cannot _promise_ that the original question will be opened or closed in accordance with what we decide here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="15d3d407-17eb-4e01-ab00-787e757d5486" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:56:24.627" UserId="124" Text="Should the light source question be opened or closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="15d3d407-17eb-4e01-ab00-787e757d5486" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:56:24.627" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="40a26b17-2237-42ff-a625-e2f877089fb1" CreationDate="2011-01-12T21:28:08.750" UserId="329" Text="Two separate issues with that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's short. This is not necessarily a problem. Some questions just are short. In this case I think the question could benefit by being made more precise but it's perfectly well answerable as it stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But as pointed out by Sklivvz, it's a high school stuff. Well, perhaps not. Maybe it was intended an a research-level question asking about physical processes behind various sources of light (black bodies, QED and nuclear emission, properties of gases, semiconductors, whatever). But if so then *OP needs to make that clear*. Otherwise the answer is as short as, *yes, it's called lightbulb* and that's it. I don't think we need such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the question should remain closed until OP (or someone else) makes it clear that it's non-trivial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="6d447440-b012-4a0c-8997-5099f9a21b67" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:20:24.110" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="It is about time to start thinking about the final design of the site; please turn on your creativity and start posting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Colours, shapes, motifs, fonts... anything visual that you think is connected with physics (eg. &quot;Magenta Rutherford atoms!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Things you definitely don't want (eg. &quot;Everything except yet another Rutherford atom model!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Logo sketches/ideas (eg. &quot;The electons' orbits should form `Physics' in Comic Sans.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Catchy ideas for upvote/downvote buttons, tabs, badges, tags (eg. &quot;Downvoting should make it change into Thomson model.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Ideas for 404/Error/CAPTCHA pages (eg. &quot;404? Obviously a photo of dark energy!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as usual, upvoting ideas you like and downvoting things you don't like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="6d447440-b012-4a0c-8997-5099f9a21b67" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:20:24.110" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="What should our site look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="6d447440-b012-4a0c-8997-5099f9a21b67" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:20:24.110" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="656" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="6d447440-b012-4a0c-8997-5099f9a21b67" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:20:24.110" UserDisplayName="user68" />
  <row Id="657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="32a15578-e2ed-4fff-8f2a-e538e899be24" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:35:08.983" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="The original idea comes form CrossValidated (see [here](http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/674/first-cross-validated-journal-club) and [here](http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/685/second-cross-validated-journal-club)); basically, each month users propose and select in voting one not too specific, yet intriguing or simply interesting OpenAcess paper that is later discussed during a special chat session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think we should try to implement it on Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="32a15578-e2ed-4fff-8f2a-e538e899be24" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:35:08.983" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Physics Journal Club on chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="32a15578-e2ed-4fff-8f2a-e538e899be24" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:35:08.983" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|featured|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="3c889156-d15d-4da1-97a7-7291dee4480f" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:39:05.967" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="654a5f12-11e5-4d0b-a337-07fac4cc38d8" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:39:30.817" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="c951cfd3-a2e3-4386-80b2-7941f00355b4" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:39:44.670" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="c13042d9-af92-4030-ae2f-b5ba3f4938b7" CreationDate="2011-01-13T00:52:09.873" UserId="948" Text="The question is short but I don't see why that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Specific - It displays a knowledge of some physics, i.e. that light comes in waves and is characterized by the wavelength; and that visible light has a bounded range of wavelengths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) About Physics - One can argue whether or not the question is too simple, but it is clearly on topic. The emission of light is clearly within the domain of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Not Obvious - If you don't already know the answer, it is not obvious or deducible. If you happened to have just learned that photons come from electrons dropping energy levels which correspond to specific wavelengths of light, you might not yet realize that blackbodies (and light bulbs as one such example) emit a continuous spectra, or the reasons why they do this. This is not obvious physics even if it is generally taught in high-school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, at times, even an easy question can have interesting answers. As Colin K. noted, there are broadband coherent light sources as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we really want to close as &quot;off-topic&quot; questions that can be easily answered as too easy? What kind of message does that send to the asker? You're stupid? Don't ask dumb questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is a reason that particular question was never updated by the asker. It was closed as being off topic very quickly and probably before the asker even returned to check for answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this happened to me the first time I came here, I'd never bother coming back. I might just think to myself: &quot;Physicists are real jerks&quot; and never come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What possible harm is caused by questions of this sort? Are we saying that we don't want any high-school physics students here? Really?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about engineers and other professionals that are 20 years out of school, do we assume they remember everything from their high-school and college physics so they know what is &quot;trivial&quot; and what is an &quot;on-topic&quot; question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="9e3fe9fc-9aaf-4f1d-a6e2-765456e468fd" CreationDate="2011-01-13T06:47:29.583" UserId="124" Text="Sounds like a good idea. We might even be able to use it to bring people into the site, because these chat sessions might make good events to advertise (although I suppose it'd be a bit of a pain for someone who doesn't already have an SE account to get one just to participate in the chat). Also, if we are able to successfully invite any authors, we could perhaps make a good impression on them and gain their support for the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="e240c9a4-a7c4-4c2c-a7f4-c59fe2795b0a" CreationDate="2011-01-13T07:31:53.913" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="4b623ecb-f239-4015-9ac5-049cf70f1b21" CreationDate="2011-01-13T07:57:07.313" UserId="162" Text="Speaking on the &quot;chat&quot; side of things, I think that has much merit re community building - my thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - use a dedicated room for the purpose; not the local &quot;tavern&quot; room (if you see what I mean)&#xD;&#xA; - perhaps put up a scheduled event advert (the room owners can do this via the &quot;events&quot; tab)&#xD;&#xA; - note that *normally* anyone talking would need to have legitimately gained the nominal (it really is small) minimum rep&#xD;&#xA; - if there is a *legitimate* guest-speaker (i.e. the paper's author / experts etc), the system *does support* allowing them to talk, but this is now a moderator-only function - use sensibly please ;p And as you say, this may &quot;suck them in&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as part of general site advocacy I think I'd happily see things like this on a *range* of sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="ed21c30d-c90b-4df1-b2ed-6d39fe82ede6" CreationDate="2011-01-13T08:49:04.267" UserId="386" Text="Not another atom. Absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Maybe some logo with a $\Psi$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Energy for &quot;not found&quot;, of cource, will do. But I think the most ssuitable here would be the higgs boson (at lead up to now)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="8b42a322-22aa-4449-be42-033dd505817d" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:42:14.730" UserId="74" Text="I'm more than 99% sure the wrong answer was accepted here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2508/rotation-angle-of-a-giant-lily-when-a-child-crawls-on-its-rim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, I'm subject to significant bias saying this, since I submitted a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordinarily, if a wrong answer is accepted and a better answer exists, the better answer will still get a lot of up votes so that a user browsing the site can see the community's opinion.  In this case, I think the scenario is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect answer was originally a  correct answer to a simplified version of the problem.  That correct answer got a lot of upvotes.  Then the author generalized the answer incorrectly, resulting in an incorrect answer with a lot of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the incorrect answer has a lot of upvotes, and is marked accepted, even though I believe strongly that the community  as a whole would not support it as the correct answer.  Is there some course of action I can take to call the community's general attention to this situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="8b42a322-22aa-4449-be42-033dd505817d" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:42:14.730" UserId="74" Text="What do you do when you believe an incorrect answer is accepted, and the question needs community attention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="8b42a322-22aa-4449-be42-033dd505817d" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:42:14.730" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="034eacc9-c407-4be4-97c0-daf0c6b3c7f8" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:56:34.757" UserId="74" Comment="added 423 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm more than 99% sure the wrong answer was accepted here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2508/rotation-angle-of-a-giant-lily-when-a-child-crawls-on-its-rim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, I'm subject to significant bias saying this, since I submitted a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordinarily, if a wrong answer is accepted and a better answer exists, the better answer will still get a lot of up votes so that a user browsing the site can see the community's opinion.  In this case, I think the scenario is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect answer was originally a  correct answer to a simplified version of the problem.  That correct answer got a lot of upvotes.  Then the author generalized the answer incorrectly, resulting in an incorrect answer with a lot of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the incorrect answer has a lot of upvotes, and is marked accepted, even though I believe strongly that the community  as a whole would not support it as the correct answer.  Is there some course of action I can take to call the community's general attention to this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit&lt;/b&gt;: I'm not completely sure whether this is an &quot;honest&quot; meta question, or whether I'm actually just fishing for people to support my answer.  If this question gets a couple of downvotes, I'll take the hint and delete it.  On the other hand, behind my emotional desire to be validated, I really do want the correct answer to be accepted in general and think there is some actual validity to this meta question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="672" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="034eacc9-c407-4be4-97c0-daf0c6b3c7f8" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:56:34.757" UserId="74" Comment="added 423 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do you do when an accepted answer is changed from correct to incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="db6fd489-a798-4b4c-a2ef-06cfbc39adfd" CreationDate="2011-01-13T12:47:27.887" UserId="386" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Not another atom. Absolutely. Maybe some logo with a $\Psi$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Energy for &quot;not found&quot;, of cource, will do. But I think the most ssuitable here would be the higgs boson (at least up to now)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="feb5b2cd-b9b1-4580-9a3c-7b7a68c3d094" CreationDate="2011-01-13T13:26:17.317" UserId="329" Text="Good question. In my opinion, this shows the fundamental weakness of the StackExchange based approach. Everything is static and any change (either in question or answer) is not reflected at all and leads to inconsistencies. So assuming SE people won't change the engine underlying voting, one can only suggest that things *not* be changed unless absolutely necessary. It's fine to make the question/answer more precise but to change them completely is just bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this is an issue just for questions because changing them makes all the given answers invalid. But if someone wants to change the answer I suggest they just post a new one. This also suggest a solution to your problem: revert the accepted answer to the old, correct one (albeit simplified) and let ftiaronsem post a new answer with his new solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="73e4e47f-7cf4-4f3d-a4cf-18329ab26238" CreationDate="2011-01-13T16:07:12.747" UserId="838" Text="I don't like questions of this type, not because they are lacking in physics, but because they are such standard textbook problems. I'm sure I could find a couple of QM texts with this precise problem in the exercises. If we encourage questions like this it seems likely to me that we will start having people posting problems from their homework sets here and hoping to get answers and I think we should discourage that. Of course I am not saying that was the intention of the person who posted this question. It also reflects my opinion (which I'm sure not everyone agrees with) that it would be a good thing if this site had more emphasis on research level questions in physics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="f2231621-52ce-42f0-af1d-18eaede7a473" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:19:13.997" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="0da3ecce-5db8-4ba0-bfa4-a99fe949d25c" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:49:45.887" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Comment --  with good argument, this should make answerer correct the answer&#xD;&#xA;7. Downvote to enforce reading the comment&#xD;&#xA;7. If answerer is not responding (for instance lost interest in SE), edit the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the mutating question problem, this should be resolved by adding new question, not new answers. In SE philosophy, a question/accepted answer pair should later serve as instant-information page -- one Googles the question, reads the answer and has his problem solved; a clutter of answers to different stages of question evolution effectively masks any useful &#xD;&#xA;information. So, if you see this happening, ask the OP to make a new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="ab2d917b-c1b2-42de-affe-f1c8e1c8dbd1" CreationDate="2011-01-13T20:00:23.177" UserId="1065" Text="I actually love this look. The thing is that I've been around polished websites for so long that they glaze over my head. Looking at this page is just a sight for sore eyes. Let me tell you why. As someone who dabbles in design I think that sleek, sophisticated design is overrated. Simplicity isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now what you have is just an unpretentious page on which the content flows out. It's like a blank sheet of paper waiting to be explored. Waiting to be written upon. There's nothing there but pure nothingness. ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why dress it up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've seen the design for [Hacker|News][1] it looks so primitive at the start, but the fact is that it performs a function it acts as a barrier against the 4Chan/Digg crowd as there is nothing there on the site, but the content itself. No videos. No dressup. No &quot;social features&quot;. Just the content. What can be more beautiful than that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me that's the highest possible form of design. Paul Graham has tweaked it so that it actually encourages the participation of his target audience and acts as a repellent against the gremlins. What could be more beautiful than that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please keep our site like this. In fact, if you can remove the nifty design tricks that you've built into it. Just make a blank sheet of paper and we, the community, will do the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="f052c67c-3d38-49fb-8be7-5531ccd54efc" CreationDate="2011-01-13T21:44:19.337" UserId="358" Text="Dear Bruce,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the one putting up the question you mentioned I am willing to say something about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure it might be trivial and also sure that most people here (well, I might include myself here) can write down the solution instantaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why did I ask?  &#xD;&#xA;First of all since I am interested in similar systems and knowing good resources that provide **additional information** in the context of the question would have been nice (in the sense of [Marek's answer][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;Second, I thought it might be a nice idea since in on of the [threads concerning promotion][2], someone was suggesting to ask questions we know the answer of but it would be nice to have it answered on the site anyways, maybe from interesting perspectives (to create content, I suppose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually a little wondering about the reactions the post immediatly created regarding that a lot of the questions posted are actually on a High-School level. And, in turn, those seem to be the [most popular ones][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS.: I was the first to vote to close the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/293/should-we-allow-questions-asking-the-mathematical-solution-to-physics-problems/296#296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/266/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2605/358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="0de6f951-e88e-4f1a-9556-29111be89d28" CreationDate="2011-01-14T08:35:01.513" UserId="386" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="Not another atom. Absolutely. Maybe some logo with a $\Psi$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Energy for &quot;not found&quot;, of course, will do. But I think the most suitable here would be the higgs boson (at least up to now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've checked how other launched sites look like and I really don't like the look of some of them. Too many bright colors or too many tiny details are really distracting. I actually like the present &quot;scetchy&quot; look -- maybe one can adopt it from &quot;notebook scetchy&quot; to &quot;white/blackboard scetchy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="bb90263a-580b-4f66-bb93-cd0fcc42d959" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:44:07.950" UserId="124" Text="Since you mention upvote and downvote buttons, it would be neat if we could somehow tie them into the raising and lowering operators. But I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't be excessively nerdy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually kind of like the design for math.SE, with a few exceptions. The graph paper in the background I could do without, of course, and I don't think parentheses are enough to visually distinguish the tags, and I'd like the upvote and downvote buttons to be a little more colorful, and it wouldn't be that bad to have some faint colors to highlight some of the regions in the right sidebar. But I do like the general feel of simplicity, e.g. using a pure white background and simple, thin lines to separate sections of the pages, along with a bold logo and site title at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I think the logo for webmasters.SE is pretty nice. Of course we're all tired of classical atom models so I'm not saying I would have wanted that logo for this site, but I am a fan of the use of the three primary colors (which corresponding to quark colors, coincidentally enough), and the subtly highlighted globe which is unobtrusive against the blue background of that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually webmasters.SE has a pretty plain look as well. It's probably my favorite of all the SE site designs. My only real criticism is that it's a little too blue for my taste; I prefer to have just a tad more variety in the color scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="40e53804-f356-40c3-8a9f-3df840a34ffb" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:32:52.533" UserId="1315" Text="My chosen email address, which has worked for years at other Stack Exchange sites, was today rejected for a question here at Physics Stack Exchange, and again at the corresponding Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 3696][1] makes it plain that &lt;strong&gt;any printable character is valid in an email address&lt;/strong&gt;, given the protocol rules. So, for example an email address containing a punctuation character (`:`, `+`, `@`, `~`, etc.) in the local part is valid so long as it follows the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, in the local-part (the part before the final `@` character), *any* character may appear in a valid email address. It's not up to the sender to decide what is and isn't a valid local-part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Specifically][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hence, they should not be rejected in filtering routines&#xD;&#xA;    but, should instead be passed to the email system for&#xD;&#xA;    evaluation by the destination host.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696#section-3&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="40e53804-f356-40c3-8a9f-3df840a34ffb" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:32:52.533" UserId="1315" Text="The Stack Exchange software should not be rejecting valid email addresses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="40e53804-f356-40c3-8a9f-3df840a34ffb" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:32:52.533" UserId="1315" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="d3855d73-23fb-45f1-a105-3ffcf4f09ea3" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:39:01.220" UserId="1315" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="My chosen email address, which has worked for years at other Stack Exchange sites, was today rejected for a question here at Physics Stack Exchange, and again at the corresponding Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 3696][1] makes it plain that &lt;strong&gt;any printable character is valid in an email address&lt;/strong&gt;, given the protocol rules. So, for example an email address containing a punctuation character (`:`, `+`, `@`, `~`, etc.) in the local part is valid so long as it follows the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, in the local-part (the part before the final `@` character), *any* character may appear in a valid email address. It's not up to the sender to decide what is and isn't a valid local-part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Specifically][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hence, they should not be rejected in filtering routines&#xD;&#xA;    but, should instead be passed to the email system for&#xD;&#xA;    evaluation by the destination host.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please &lt;strong&gt;ensure the Stack Exchange software does not reject valid email addresses&lt;/strong&gt; chosen by the user for their notification address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696#section-3&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="2d3413f3-6446-40ac-9e97-4ba7087a2c3e" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:39:18.657" UserId="113" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="My chosen email address, which has worked for years at other Stack Exchange sites, was today rejected for a question here at Physics Stack Exchange, and again at the corresponding Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 3696][1] makes it plain that &lt;strong&gt;any printable character is valid in an email address&lt;/strong&gt;, given the protocol rules. So, for example an email address containing a punctuation character (`:`, `+`, `@`, `~`, etc.) in the local part is valid so long as it follows the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, in the local-part (the part before the final `@` character), *any* character may appear in a valid email address. It's not up to the sender to decide what is and isn't a valid local-part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Specifically][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hence, they should not be rejected in filtering routines&#xD;&#xA;    but, should instead be passed to the email system for&#xD;&#xA;    evaluation by the destination host.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please &lt;strong&gt;ensure the Stack Exchange software does not reject valid email addresses&lt;/strong&gt; chosen by the user for their notification address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696#section-3&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="9ee8cf4c-2f2f-45eb-9c7b-bc9b1abcaad1" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:39:50.127" UserId="1315" Comment="edited body" Text="My chosen email address, which has worked for years at other Stack Exchange sites, was today rejected for a question at Physics Stack Exchange, and again here at the corresponding Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 3696][1] makes it plain that &lt;strong&gt;any printable character is valid in an email address&lt;/strong&gt;, given the protocol rules. So, for example an email address containing a punctuation character (`:`, `+`, `@`, `~`, etc.) in the local part is valid so long as it follows the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, in the local-part (the part before the final `@` character), *any* character may appear in a valid email address. It's not up to the sender to decide what is and isn't a valid local-part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Specifically][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hence, they should not be rejected in filtering routines&#xD;&#xA;    but, should instead be passed to the email system for&#xD;&#xA;    evaluation by the destination host.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please &lt;strong&gt;ensure the Stack Exchange software does not reject valid email addresses&lt;/strong&gt; chosen by the user for their notification address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696#section-3&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="0442eb6a-f84f-4e43-98e5-0de1b14ff4b6" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:00:46.257" UserId="124" Text="I've been under the impression that &quot;solid state physics&quot; is just an older term for what is now commonly called &quot;condensed matter physics,&quot; but they refer to essentially the same types of physics. Is that actually true? (Or, perhaps I should say, is that view also common in the wider world outside my department?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that we have both a `solid-state-physics` tag and a `condensed-matter` tag. If the terms are actually synonymous, I'll merge the tags together; otherwise I think we should get started writing tag wikis that distinguish them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="0442eb6a-f84f-4e43-98e5-0de1b14ff4b6" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:00:46.257" UserId="124" Text="Is solid state physics the same as condensed matter physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="0442eb6a-f84f-4e43-98e5-0de1b14ff4b6" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:00:46.257" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="a2a453da-c4e8-4e2c-98d9-1124ed0fd8a0" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:24:05.500" UserId="1315" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="My chosen email address, which has worked for years at other Stack Exchange sites, was today rejected for a question at Physics Stack Exchange, and again here at the corresponding Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the email address is `bignose+stackoverflow@whitetree.org`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 3696][1] makes it plain that &lt;strong&gt;any printable character is valid in an email address&lt;/strong&gt;, given the protocol rules. So, for example an email address containing a punctuation character (`:`, `+`, `@`, `~`, etc.) in the local part is valid so long as it follows the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, in the local-part (the part before the final `@` character), *any* character may appear in a valid email address. It's not up to the sender to decide what is and isn't a valid local-part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Specifically][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hence, they should not be rejected in filtering routines&#xD;&#xA;    but, should instead be passed to the email system for&#xD;&#xA;    evaluation by the destination host.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please &lt;strong&gt;ensure the Stack Exchange software does not reject valid email addresses&lt;/strong&gt; chosen by the user for their notification address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3696#section-3&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="323dcd7c-3fb7-4a4e-874f-45ef17115384" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:31:45.453" UserId="124" Text="There's a banner that pops up when someone visits physics.SE without being logged in, which says, &quot;Welcome to a Q&amp;A site for active researchers, academics, and students of physics!&quot; or something like that. Someone made an interesting [comment](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/01/13/physics-stack-exchange/comment-page-1/#comment-152006) at Cosmic Variance about how this might discourage people who are not actually active researchers or students, but are interested in physics and capable of posting good questions and answers. Basically, the banner could give the impression that this site is _exclusively_ for the named groups of people, which is certainly not true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have the banner text changed to reflect the fact that anyone is welcome as long as they can make good contributions? If so, what should it say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="323dcd7c-3fb7-4a4e-874f-45ef17115384" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:31:45.453" UserId="124" Text="What should the text on the banner be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="323dcd7c-3fb7-4a4e-874f-45ef17115384" CreationDate="2011-01-15T04:31:45.453" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="3cff9b0f-16f3-473e-b476-62b48e46d76d" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:15:21.767" UserId="791" Text="Solid state physics is definitely a branch of condensed matter, but I was under the impression that we want subfield specific tags, no? So for questions on the general theory of solids (band structure, crystallography, semi-conductor physics) I think it's a good, descriptive tag to keep, even if it might always appear with the cond-mat tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="c5ce39ba-8809-443c-9af9-8acdb1f1634e" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:23:42.597" UserId="124" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I've been under the impression that &quot;solid state physics&quot; is just an older term for what is now commonly called &quot;condensed matter physics,&quot; i.e. that they refer to essentially the same types of physics. Is that actually true? (Or, perhaps I should say, is that view also common in the wider world outside my department?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that we have both a `solid-state-physics` tag and a `condensed-matter` tag. If the terms are actually synonymous, I'll merge the tags together; otherwise I think we should get started writing tag wikis that distinguish them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="b34193db-53d6-4454-a18b-d8e1d43baa69" CreationDate="2011-01-15T09:59:54.597" UserId="329" Text="I think it's alright to keep it as it is. It's obvious that there are already lots of people with no physics education whatsoever so that banner clearly hasn't discouraged *them*. Perhaps we might lose a valueable person here and there but I prefer that to lots of sci-fi and pop-sci fans joining in and overrunning the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to down-vote this if you disagree. I'd actually wouldn't have anything against modifying the banner if someone comes up with a clever slogan that supports the right kind of people but puts off the wrong kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="9611816c-7c0c-45bf-bdca-aaf68366ec51" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:00:11.107" UserId="113" Text="Plus addressing works fine, and has since forever. I can't reproduce this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We use plus addresses all the time internally too, so if it wasn't working, we would know..)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="9892e644-1e82-4349-a3d1-7da4a161ec00" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:00:24.320" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="49447d17-f8b0-464a-90ba-32cc14a8533e" CreationDate="2011-01-15T20:12:09.687" UserId="520" Text="If we're to have any graphical motifs there should be a Feynman diagram included. And something that references classical physics (Maxwell's equations? The classic Keplerian areal sweeps on an elliptical orbit? Ray optics?), and something that talks to experiment (a graph with real data including error bars/bands or an event display from a Fermi top quark event or ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets have a diverse set of representations. Physics is a *big* field, let's show it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="0cc3ab6b-bc02-4441-b022-d4adc47b3347" CreationDate="2011-01-15T20:17:38.373" UserId="520" Text="At least some of the time, the physics *isn't* done just because you've reduced the problem to math (even if you've done the best possible reduction to math)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...because, after you've cranked through the math you have to *interpret* the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;To be sure for the typical introductory mechanics question the interpretation is trivial, but for real physics that is rarely the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="b7abffeb-24fc-4dce-84e4-7dc90f1c465b" CreationDate="2011-01-15T22:41:19.660" UserId="520" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="If we're to have any graphical motifs there should be a Feynman diagram included. And something that references classical physics (Maxwell's equations? The classic Keplerian areal sweeps on an elliptical orbit? Ray optics?), and something that talks to experiment (a graph with real data including error bars/bands or an event display from a Fermi top quark event or ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets have a diverse set of representations. Physics is a *big* field, let's show it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tex.SE][1] header provides one template for how this might be done, but I confess to not liking the overall layout very much. I *do* like the ghostly figures in the header, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="9f5396a6-b976-4e87-8e47-9c76bdabfdbe" CreationDate="2011-01-16T09:52:10.820" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="First of all let me commit the crime and then plead innocence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently found out that the [**3rd Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry (QGQG3) School**](http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~kostecki/school3/index.html) is being held in **Zakopane, Poland** from **Feb 28 - March 11, 2011**. The list of speakers is wide-ranging and impressive. I especially encourage all my string theory friends on this site to attend so that you can hear the story from the horse's mouth, so to speak ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that we have a lively and growing community which has the potential to seed highly productive inter-disciplinary collaborations, it seems that there should be a bulletin board where we can share such announcements. This sort of arrangement could, along with the recent suggestion of a physics journal club, be one of the *adjunct* social functions this site could easily provide. Or maybe not so easily. It is easy to offer suggestions when you are not the one who has to dig into the entrails of the site's code to make changes :&gt;/ In the absence of any specialized tools we could, **by common consent**, make use of meta for such announcements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the community feel about this possibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="9f5396a6-b976-4e87-8e47-9c76bdabfdbe" CreationDate="2011-01-16T09:52:10.820" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="Can we use meta to share announcements regarding special schools and camps? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="9f5396a6-b976-4e87-8e47-9c76bdabfdbe" CreationDate="2011-01-16T09:52:10.820" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="a2cce34f-3242-4462-b005-d38abec32b0a" CreationDate="2011-01-16T11:59:39.193" UserId="329" Text="There are already few questions asking for e.g. PhD or postdoc positions. I don't see any reason why not creating also a CW big-list of winter/summer schools and conferences. Only thing to decide is how specific that question should be. Perhaps we should create one question for each topic (like quantum gravity) separately. Also, this doesn't belong to meta, it's perfectly relevant on the main site as a soft-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="829498f1-a4ba-4b44-9779-1e2328d05a0a" CreationDate="2011-01-16T22:03:55.373" UserId="520" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="At least some of the time, the physics *isn't* done just because you've reduced the problem to math (even if you've done the best possible reduction to math)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...because, after you've cranked through the math you have to *interpret* the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;To be sure for the typical introductory mechanics question the interpretation is trivial, but for real physics that is rarely the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I don't think that *&quot;reduced to math&quot;* is a good metric. What we are looking for is *&quot;there is still physics to do&quot;*, and this may require some intelligence to suss out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="e1f5edc8-356d-459f-b6b4-218cfade357d" CreationDate="2011-01-17T00:01:58.530" UserId="124" Text="The chat room sort of functions as a bulletin board when we use it infrequently. That might not be a bad place to post announcements about these sorts of things. It could be done in addition to announcing them on the main site (or meta) if we decide that that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I highly doubt that the SE team will change their software to add a specialized feature for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="9da456d3-f5e8-44d4-946f-1f24180760b5" CreationDate="2011-01-17T11:38:52.933" UserId="97" Text="I agree with Marek that this would be on topic at the main site, although I'm not sure how to put this into the SE engine. Maybe we&lt;sup&gt;+&lt;/sup&gt; should start a dedicated blog?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;+&lt;/sup&gt; I must admit by &quot;we&quot; I mean &quot;someone else&quot; since I wouldn't have the time to manage it...&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="552dae47-b893-408c-b564-9439bfef5bc7" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:57:49.733" UserId="124" Text="I just noticed that math.SE has the banner text &quot;Welcome to Q&amp;A for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields,&quot; which I kind of like. So I was thinking we could use something like that, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Q&amp;A for physics students, enthusiasts, and professionals in related fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although Marek makes a good point that we don't want to be overrun with uninformed popular science fans, who would probably consider themselves &quot;enthusiasts.&quot; So I'm not sold on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making this CW so anyone can edit in a better modification of the slogan if you can think of one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="330" RevisionGUID="5bad164f-94e5-408c-8385-aa3e805d5b0e" CreationDate="2011-01-18T22:28:05.680" UserId="329" Text="Things have changed in the past few days and I think it's about time it's being discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's great that we have lots of new people here (including few well-knows physicists) and to attract attention of the general public was naturally the goal from the very beginning, I couldn't help but to notice a great increase of bullshit (pardon my French ladies) answers left all over. Perhaps this is inevitable but I still don't like it (and other pages like MO do avoid it somehow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I am not sure whether I have a concrete question here (besides trying to stir up a discussion) but if there were one it would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What can we do to stop this site degenerating into another crackpot forum? Perhaps appointing more moderators might help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure. All I can say is that I don't like the site very much in the past few days (beside there being few very great questions and also few answers that I was happy to read) and it seems that also lots of other usual suspects (top 10--20 users, say) stopped contributing (me included). Perhaps this is natural and it's good that the site will pass into the hands of the community. All I fear is what kind of community that might become and whether we don't want to shape it a little." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="330" RevisionGUID="5bad164f-94e5-408c-8385-aa3e805d5b0e" CreationDate="2011-01-18T22:28:05.680" UserId="329" Text="Questions and answers they are a-changin'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="330" RevisionGUID="5bad164f-94e5-408c-8385-aa3e805d5b0e" CreationDate="2011-01-18T22:28:05.680" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="2d5c4981-09fd-4520-b8f5-ea435363a615" CreationDate="2011-01-18T22:57:41.650" UserId="724" Text="&gt;What can we do to stop this site degenerating into another crackpot forum? Perhaps appointing more moderators might help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvote bad answers, that's how the system works. If it doesn't work with us, than that probably means that the intended model for this site wasn't meant for the SE network anyway.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More moderators can certainly help. Ultimately though, the Mods can't (nor should) close every crap answer, they can only teach the community to downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(beside there being few very great questions and also few answers that I was happy to read)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is natural. Look at other successful SE sites. You won't see many great questions lying around the front page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and it seems that also lots of other usual suspects (top 10--20 users, say) stopped contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;True. I guess the influx of traffic has been overwhelming, and people will likely loose interest in keeping up with it. To be fair, it has been only a few days.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion,** I think the questions and answers really have gone down in quality here, and the reason is that we got a lot of new users in very little time. If the community grew more slowly, people would be more motivated to keep up and to educate new users.   &#xD;&#xA;**However,** I don't think that's a bad thing. In the most recent stats, quality of answers was abundant, it was traffic that we lacked. Right now we have all the traffic, we just need to keep it in by teaching users how to give better answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More moderators is probably a good idea, but the most important is that everyone downvotes bad answers and leave comments saying why they're bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="75d6a44c-0b25-47a2-b743-9219c5fd17b7" CreationDate="2011-01-19T03:41:34.753" UserId="19" Text="I agree, there's a real drop in signal-to-noise, after a brief period when the site seemed to be doing well. I think part of the problem is not so much the crackpots (although some of them are producing prodigious amounts of text) as with other people who seem to vote them up whenever they write anything that looks vaguely technical, apparently under the presumption that mathematical symbols imply competence. It's disappointing to see utter gibberish get upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="330" RevisionGUID="9a8a4069-1872-4a28-b305-679b47bf69b2" CreationDate="2011-01-19T08:35:23.917" UserId="329" Comment="Removed the confusing 'question' part from the title" Text="Answers they are a-changin'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="57d5798d-9cb6-40d7-9fc2-5e43b2ed6ff8" CreationDate="2011-01-19T11:33:28.547" UserId="1383" Text="I don't think its fair to ask people to come here to participate and then call them crackpots.  There are a number of mechanisms that are available to close questions, but I would distinguish between people who geniunely try to learn about physics through exchanges and those who want to simply increase the noise.  I for one admit to not being the best in physics, but that doesn't mean I don't take it seriously and try to improve my level of knowledge on a continuous basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I think there is an element of this discussion that is legitimate, I feel there is another element that is immature selfishness.  I am sorry to say so, but that is how I see it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="a0d33f28-725a-4c09-a13f-74e82205cd35" CreationDate="2011-01-19T13:57:53.760" UserId="1708" Text="What you should do if you see a bad answer, is to vote it down, post a comment explaining why its wrong, and _most importantly post a good answer and see it getting massively upvoted_, that is how the system is meant to work, and it works well for all the other SE sites! I have a huge doubt that any trolls or crackpots will have any higher chances of success at this site then any other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="e736bc90-fbb8-445e-a104-23b0de23f929" CreationDate="2011-01-19T14:03:58.733" UserId="1708" Comment="edited body" Text="What you should do if you see a bad answer, is to vote it down, post a comment explaining why its wrong, but _most importantly post a good answer and see it getting massively upvoted_, that is how the system is meant to work, and it works well for all the other SE sites! I have a huge doubt that any trolls or crackpots will have any higher chances of success at this site then any other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="1528f47a-4229-46a2-9625-baf32eb64d2a" CreationDate="2011-01-19T14:26:10.677" UserId="1708" Comment="added 36 characters in body; added 29 characters in body" Text="What you should do if you see a bad answer, is to vote it down, post a comment explaining why its wrong, but _most importantly post a good answer and see it getting massively upvoted_, that is how the system is meant to work, and it works well for all the other SE sites! I have a huge doubt that any trolls or crackpots will have any higher chances of success at this site then any other. Also ofcourse like you do, raise any concerncs at all on meta !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="bc9d49ee-5296-4b7c-93f5-8a71fe0a4f5b" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:41:22.837" UserId="18" Text="We all can agree that our FAQ is far from being satisfactory. However, I think it's our responsibility as a community to improve this FAQ or create a similar resource to address some issues which will begin to have an noticeable impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; posted by Marek, one of those issues is that possibly new users don't know what kind of answers or questions deserve upvotes or downvotes and under which conditions is appropriate to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that important? Well, we have seen an increase of questions and answers, however, some people have noticed that bad answers are being upvoted in a way that defeats the whole purpose of having a rating system. Presumably, experienced users don't exacerbate this problem. Therefore, we need to let new users know when is acceptable to upvote or downvote in such a way that the quality of the site doesn't suffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules should we follow regarding this issue?." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="bc9d49ee-5296-4b7c-93f5-8a71fe0a4f5b" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:41:22.837" UserId="18" Text="FAQ for upvoting and downvoting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="bc9d49ee-5296-4b7c-93f5-8a71fe0a4f5b" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:41:22.837" UserId="18" Text="|discussion|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="48d375b9-4c50-45f9-a197-05ccc480f518" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:46:24.313" UserId="18" Comment="typo" Text="We all can agree that our FAQ is far from being satisfactory. However, I think it's our responsibility as a community to improve the FAQ or create a similar resource to address some issues which will begin to have an noticeable impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; posted by Marek, one of those issues is that possibly new users don't know what kind of answers or questions deserve upvotes or downvotes and under which conditions is appropriate to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that important? Well, we have seen an increase of questions and answers, however, some people have noticed that bad answers are being upvoted in a way that defeats the whole purpose of having a rating system. Presumably, experienced users don't exacerbate this problem. Therefore, we need to let new users know when is acceptable to upvote or downvote in such a way that the quality of the site doesn't suffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules should we follow regarding this issue?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I expect that a notice for this post or an updated FAQ will appear on the main site from time to time in the same way that chat sessions are announced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="5e57001f-07a5-4a48-bc46-9553d4643cb2" CreationDate="2011-01-20T03:51:57.103" UserId="1272" Text="Why don't you have a lower limit on the number of up votes a person can make, at least until they have a higher reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="6f152c60-f42f-413a-beb3-c52417bcb62a" CreationDate="2011-01-20T04:10:44.507" UserId="1272" Text="The basic problem with obtaining good moderation is that the people who have the knowledge and skill have more productive ways to spend their time. The best you can hope for is to find people who understand enough about physics to eliminate obvious errors. But you have to ask yourself, &quot;why does someone who's so smart have so much time on their hands?&quot; Whatever you come up with as an answer for that question, if you're being realistic, it's not going to be very pretty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="a6bf0333-b134-4e20-a356-9b84062af86c" CreationDate="2011-01-20T04:16:50.833" UserId="1272" Text="You absolutely should split the site. The only reason I'm hanging around is because I've got time on my hands. That will end in the next few weeks. If there were a research level place I'd be happy to contribute, but to put research level questions here is a waste of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose (to a researcher) for having research level questions is to widen the number of people who are aware of a question. The problem with this site is that the level of the discourse is too low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that might help with a research level site is to require that the posters be actual researchers. A good requirement would be at least one peer reviewed article published in the past 2 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="728" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="37e54c2a-d764-468b-9507-7e1f4ea00018" CreationDate="2010-11-16T19:24:55.503" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" Text="" />
  <row Id="729" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="fb17a4ab-db91-43f5-90ab-e903daeb80c5" CreationDate="2010-11-16T19:24:55.503" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/938#938" Text="" />
  <row Id="730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="9efb7d3f-ab32-437b-9773-bb2e3b113542" CreationDate="2011-01-20T09:51:45.280" UserId="163" Text="It seems the bulk of questions being closed are being closed unilaterally by moderators or by agreement between moderators, and not by the &quot;vote to close&quot; mechanism. This is extremely irritating, as questions get closed suddenly and without any prior warning, meaning that you can spend a long time writing answer only to get a notification that you can no longer post it. Could the moderators please take a step back on borderline questions and let the community decide. They are of course free to vote to close, like anyone else with sufficient rep, but please please refrain from just closing questions (except for massive breaches of the site rules/faq). There is really no need for it, and it undermines the community driven nature of StackExchange. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="9efb7d3f-ab32-437b-9773-bb2e3b113542" CreationDate="2011-01-20T09:51:45.280" UserId="163" Text="Can we please let the community close questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="9efb7d3f-ab32-437b-9773-bb2e3b113542" CreationDate="2011-01-20T09:51:45.280" UserId="163" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="135f274d-5894-44bf-8dac-a9b6bc0903b3" CreationDate="2011-01-20T13:48:48.100" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="While some have noticed an apparent increase in the &quot;noise-to-signal&quot; ratio on this site, what concerns me is the rise in the &quot;incivility-to-civility&quot; ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us be clear about one thing - the word &quot;crackpot&quot; *is* an epithet. It is a label used all to easily to dismiss anything, anyone might have to say which is contrary established wisdom or which is in conflict with anybody's personal beliefs. Its liberal usage, especially by &quot;authority figures&quot; is disturbing and revelatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to deny that there are genuine &quot;trolls&quot; and &quot;crackpots&quot; in this world, whose purpose is not to discuss but to bludgeon ideologically  opposing viewpoints into the dust. However, a community, by its very definition, takes all kinds to grow and prosper. Opposing viewpoints are an *essential ingredient* of any community. Otherwise it becomes more of a cult or a country club than a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what does the community feel in this regard? My own personal opinion is that down-voting and critical commentary are more than sufficient to highlight perceived weaknesses in any questions or answers on this site **without resorting to disparaging particular individuals or particular lines of inquiry**. Obviously such etiquette is assumed to be present from the get-go in such an enterprise. However recently I have noticed a change for the worse in the tone which suggests that these &quot;rules of the road&quot; cannot be taken for granted. I hope that by highlighting this issue and encouraging its open discussion perhaps some balance can be restored to the force :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, let me clarify, this question is not intended as a personal attack (direct or indirect) on anyone. Everyone has their own way of speaking and their own style of doing physics and we would be poorer for censoring either this or that individual for their choice of words. If anything it is an assault on the common tendency to use words such as &quot;crackpot&quot; and on the overall tone that we should use in approaching viewpoints we strongly disagree with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="135f274d-5894-44bf-8dac-a9b6bc0903b3" CreationDate="2011-01-20T13:48:48.100" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="Discouraging the use of personal attacks and epithets such as &quot;crackpot&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="135f274d-5894-44bf-8dac-a9b6bc0903b3" CreationDate="2011-01-20T13:48:48.100" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="|discussion|etiquette|language|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="81c5d23a-759e-42a9-8011-ec83cc75488c" CreationDate="2011-01-20T14:03:15.273" UserId="329" Text="As this question is apparently about me (but perhaps you have more people in mind) I'll post an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is a grain of truth in what you write in that it can't hurt to be more civil, in general your question is just politically correct propaganda that makes me sick to my stomach. While it's true that the term crackpot can be abused sometimes, usually (at least when I use it) it *does* mean people that only produce bullshit more or less consistently and there is just *no* value for such people in the community. It doesn't make sense to criticize every individual answer of theirs and ignoring the real problem which is simply their presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to have an analogy, community, like democracy doesn't mean that everyone can do whatever they want. While it's consensus driven, when someone oversteps a line they are put in prison in real life or termed a crackpot here. What you are basically saying is that just because sometimes someone innocent is put in the prison we should disband justice altogether. Think about it ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="fbe2b051-fced-40ed-b9ec-5d6b4b8de912" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:02:58.533" UserId="18" Text="In case you're wondering what kind of draconian rules I'd like to see imposed, one rule could be stated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do not downvote or upvote in case you're not sure about the quality of the answer or question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="b65472b7-a3ea-4088-93ec-d20cf305a04f" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:20:25.590" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Could the moderators please take a step back on borderline questions and let the community decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with that is that the community closing process takes a long time to work, if it even works at all. We don't have anywhere near as many users with vote-to-close privileges as Stack Overflow, for example. I've actually tried your suggestion in the past, namely leaving more questions open and hoping that the community would close them. In most cases, it didn't happen; the questions just languish and collect bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current rate of closing questions is a direct reaction to recent posts on meta complaining about the decreasing quality of questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are of course free to vote to close, like anyone else with sufficient rep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually no, we don't have that ability. Moderator close votes are instantly binding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...meaning that you can spend a long time writing answer only to get a notification that you can no longer post it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're answering a question that you think might be closed, you could try posting a short placeholder answer to get it in before the question is closed. Once the answer is posted, you can edit it even after the question is closed, I believe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="55deba93-1c48-4067-b2bc-1fc6e77c1d2a" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:22:54.560" UserId="520" Text="Having had the misfortune to be seated with a known crank at a APS meeting dinner, I can assure you that there are people who are quite incapable of holding a meaningful conversation about something that most of us would recognize as &quot;physics&quot;. Or indeed of being diverted to less controversial subjects like partisan politics or college football ranking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, most of the questions we get about...erhm...non-standard physics are not put forth by actual cranks and crackpots. They're just aspiring amateurs who don't know any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't hurt to develop a gentle language for saying *&quot;Bollocks! Go read a textbook!&quot;*, and we should entertain challengers to accepted theories if they are marked as such. That is *&quot;How would long range modifications of the $1/r^2$ dependence of gravity deal with galactic rotation curves? Are these theories consistent with cluster dynamics?&quot;* ought to be allowed *even though* these theories are in the doghouse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="37590c0e-5f30-4ef5-9ab6-a2647f4f1a9e" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:30:08.920" UserId="520" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Having had the misfortune to be seated with a known crank at a APS meeting dinner, I can assure you that there are people who are quite incapable of holding a meaningful conversation about something that most of us would recognize as &quot;physics&quot;. Or indeed of being diverted to less controversial subjects like partisan politics or college football ranking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, most of the questions we get about...erhm...non-standard physics are not put forth by actual cranks and crackpots. They're just aspiring amateurs who don't know any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't hurt to develop a gentle language for saying *&quot;Bollocks! Go read a textbook!&quot;*, and we should entertain challengers to accepted theories if they are marked as such. That is *&quot;How would long range modifications of the $1/r^2$ dependence of gravity deal with galactic rotation curves? Are these theories consistent with cluster dynamics?&quot;* ought to be allowed *even though* these theories are in the doghouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But anyone who insists that we discuss his theory where energy means something different from *&quot;the orthodoxy&quot;* and *&quot;charge is an illusion&quot;* probably isn't going to find acceptance here. Because they are around the bend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="e2fd2c28-9be6-4341-b8b0-79692f369890" CreationDate="2011-01-20T20:14:31.877" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="f367525c-afa2-4e77-bd0c-d27b2915746f" CreationDate="2011-01-20T20:31:13.883" UserDisplayName="user566" Comment="added 537 characters in body" Text="I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(But I also noticed you comment above, advocating the viewpoint of a handful of people who believe, against the judgement of almost all cosmologists, that cosmic acceleration is not the explanation of WMAP data. Maybe they will end up being right, but in my mind it is misleading not to emphasize also that they are a tiny tiny minority, their work has well-known issues, and has not convinced the overwhelming majority of working cosmologists. So, it seems like we might have a genuine disagreement on what we want to discuss here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="877be851-cfb3-4e9b-a766-949be31c4fb1" CreationDate="2011-01-20T23:29:37.737" UserId="1335" Text="I, for one, have not problem in being called crackpot in a private exchange, or during the lenghtly progress of a public discussion. In such cases, it is used by one of the members of the discussion to call attention about some point, and it is just an emphasis, as tone or corporal language. The problem about epithets, either &quot;crackpot&quot; or &quot;genius&quot;, in short messages or as rethorical introductions is that they help to do &quot;groupthinking&quot;, in this case they can induce upvotes and downvotes without real analysis of the topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bloggers have this same problem in the contrary direction, they keep telling one another how good and nice they are, and sometimes they neglect to analyze the contents. Not to tell about microbloggers &quot;How excelent is this!&quot; &quot;This lecturer is a real luxury&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we could do a list of &quot;bad words&quot; and pay one reputation point for each use in a comment or reply :-D It will not be a big cost for the people in the thousands, and will avoid the entry level trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A marginally related question: am I right in assuming that deleting an entry clears all the positive and negative reputation gained/lost by the author of such entry? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="c12dad45-c69b-4235-84e4-47baaf7533a9" CreationDate="2011-01-21T01:17:50.167" UserDisplayName="user566" Comment="deleted 535 characters in body" Text="I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="4180c65a-acb1-4ad8-af80-5e7d677ae3b0" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:58:05.477" UserId="1383" Text="This is really a hard question, its very odd, I actually don't mind it so much if used when I know if I have been overly arrogant.  I think its a problem to call someone a crackpot when in instances the recipient isn't claiming knowledge but only proposing ideas in order to get better guidance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think it is partially excusable when someone takes a position that is clearly wrong and fails to strive to understand why they are wrong. I think someone who claims authoritatively that the earth is flat is clearly a crackpot, but someone who suggests it is flat out of ignorance, but is willing to accept it isn't when presented with proof is not a crackpot. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="40f07f86-2e7e-4afb-968e-0b2ba281c2b2" CreationDate="2011-01-21T05:08:03.253" UserId="1272" Text="The usual method in teaching is that the teacher asks the students questions. The students provide answers (guesses), and the teacher grades them. This works because the teacher is assumed to have more knowledge about the subject than the students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to turn this on its head. The &quot;student&quot; asks a question. The &quot;teacher&quot; provides an answer. Then the other students (i.e. readers) grade them. This kind of teaching method is suitable for subjects far simpler than physics. Physics is about learning how to make calculations. Stack Exchange is mostly about the transmission of data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shouldn't be too surprising that the result is kind of rough sometimes. You're letting the inmates run the asylum. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that something to the effect that democracy was a horrible system of government but seemed to work better than the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But really, why should it be such a horrible thing that a wrong answer, or even a complete crank answer, gets voted up and accepted by the questioner? It's not like someone is going to be executed as a result of the decisions made here. A student who relies on the internet for answers to their homework shouldn't be shocked when (a) they occasionally get wrong answers and (b) they usually don't learn anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to learn physics, reading answers is not going to help you. The people who are learning physics here are the ones answering the more difficult (for them!) questions, not the people reading other people's answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think things will work better if we all understand that the primary purpose of this site, just like the evening news, is entertainment, not truth. That said, I've had some good use out of this system and will likely continue to use it. I don't expect it to converge to the &quot;truth&quot; and won't lose any sleep over its failure to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="6db2ea08-ed28-4046-8cd3-5f9601d6d3d6" CreationDate="2011-01-21T05:56:10.293" UserId="1272" Text="I quit using Physics Forums because of a single case of moderation. I started a thread on the site to do a general relativity calculation in public. Along the way I was told by several respected posters that what I was doing was hopelessly wrong. Eventually a moderator closed it:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126996&amp;page=4&quot;&gt;Schwarzschild Orbits in Cartesian coordinates&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of my calculation was a paper that was the first amateur paper to win an honorable mention in the annual gravitation essay contest:&#xD;&#xA;http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem with allowing single people to close posts is that single individuals (heck, even groups of them) do not know enough about physics to distinguish between crank efforts and real physics. Sorry, physics is big and each of you, individually, is quite small. If you allow individuals to close threads you will eventually have this sort of problem drive people away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of a statement by Harry Collins (a sociologist specializing in physicists):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of my failings ... is that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot generate the levels of disdain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for physicists that one physicist can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate for another; I know what I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; missing because ... in my own field I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can readily generate such levels of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disdain for some of my fellow social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/harrycollins/sociology-of-science.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with disdain is that it is an emotion that can blind the reader. And the people most attracted to giving effort on Stack Exchange; do you think they're going to have LESS than the average level of disdain? I suggest that they're likely to be those who have more difficulty &quot;getting along with others&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the reason you should not have single moderators closing topics is the same reason physics journals use more than just a single person (the editor) when deciding whether a paper is worth publishing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="6db2ea08-ed28-4046-8cd3-5f9601d6d3d6" CreationDate="2011-01-21T05:56:10.293" UserId="1272" Text="On the subject of moderation by single individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="6db2ea08-ed28-4046-8cd3-5f9601d6d3d6" CreationDate="2011-01-21T05:56:10.293" UserId="1272" Text="|discussion|moderators|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="4d4b9470-1966-441f-8b67-e9782ddae5a4" CreationDate="2011-01-21T06:27:11.050" UserId="74" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="I'm more than 99% sure the wrong answer was accepted here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2508/rotation-angle-of-a-giant-lily-when-a-child-crawls-on-its-rim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, I'm subject to significant bias saying this, since I submitted a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; In the particular question I linked, the wrong answer's been changed, so I'm happy about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordinarily, if a wrong answer is accepted and a better answer exists, the better answer will still get a lot of up votes so that a user browsing the site can see the community's opinion.  In this case, I think the scenario is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect answer was originally a  correct answer to a simplified version of the problem.  That correct answer got a lot of upvotes.  Then the author generalized the answer incorrectly, resulting in an incorrect answer with a lot of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the incorrect answer has a lot of upvotes, and is marked accepted, even though I believe strongly that the community  as a whole would not support it as the correct answer.  Is there some course of action I can take to call the community's general attention to this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit&lt;/b&gt;: I'm not completely sure whether this is an &quot;honest&quot; meta question, or whether I'm actually just fishing for people to support my answer.  If this question gets a couple of downvotes, I'll take the hint and delete it.  On the other hand, behind my emotional desire to be validated, I really do want the correct answer to be accepted in general and think there is some actual validity to this meta question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="350" RevisionGUID="3150ebdf-e630-4f17-8000-0a38d2e06796" CreationDate="2011-01-21T07:39:07.263" UserId="1708" Text="If it is edited into an (not necessarily) incorrect answer, but a conflicting with the earlier, or critically stiuation changing details are added after the answer beeing accepted, a moderator should revert it to the earlier version and the user should be told to post instead a new answer, since these changes constitute the definition of a NEW answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="be5c225a-39a0-450d-891a-f6e64e2ca469" CreationDate="2011-01-21T07:59:31.027" UserId="1708" Text="I agree to this, when a question is not in 100% clear violation of the FAQ or site guidelines, the community shall decide, moderators should only enforce the written rules, not thin and vague complaints that some (one) person posted on meta long time ago, that would lead to chaos and need of moderation of moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="dd30752a-d4d1-4848-9ad7-3e388ef8b98d" CreationDate="2011-01-21T08:06:11.553" UserId="1708" Comment="added 41 characters in body; added 290 characters in body" Text="I agree to this, when a question is not in 100% clear violation of the FAQ or site guidelines, the community shall decide, moderators should only enforce the written rules, not thin and vague complaints that some (one) person posted on meta long time ago, that would lead to chaos and need of moderation of moderators, which I believe is tried to avoid on SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a situation where one needs to close lots of questions under short time, there should be added a rule to the FAQ that these questions violate, thus giving moderators power to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know anything about the process of forming the FAQ or site guidelines on SE ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="12585e56-fcef-4603-8475-5e6d68b55efb" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:02:14.953" UserId="1280" Text="My question on [wormhole time machines][1] is getting into complicated discussions. Comments are too short for responses (and don't support e.g. images, which I intend to use for clarification) and extending the original questions/answers loses continuity of discussion. [I extended my question to deal with various comments &amp; Lubos Motl's answer; Lubos has expanded his answer... I now need to address the Lubos Expansion in detail...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I proceed? TIA, Julian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2865/wormholes-time-machines-for-experts-in-gr-maths" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="12585e56-fcef-4603-8475-5e6d68b55efb" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:02:14.953" UserId="1280" Text="How do I manage postings in discussions on an ongoing complex question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="12585e56-fcef-4603-8475-5e6d68b55efb" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:02:14.953" UserId="1280" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="b43d8292-e3af-4054-9e21-ab49f601220e" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:38:30.057" UserId="1280" Text="As long as Stack Exchange provides a mechanism for complaints about copyright and is willing to take down copyright material as appropriately requested, I would have thought that widespread &quot;fair-use&quot; provisions would cover the use of even copyright material, particularly if the source is clearly acknowledged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect fair-use to apply if the item used is a small part of a larger work, but it is not prima facie obvious that reusing a single image would be &quot;fair use&quot; (that image might be one of a set of illustrations intended to be licensed for use individually). I would hope that a combination of common sense, reasonable efforts and fair-use would benefit all concerned. There is no guarantee that any re-use is necessarily valid (how do you know that the person you emailed for permission to reuse is in fact the copyright holder?), so why not strike a reasonable balance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="758" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="0f44cfbd-20c4-4b43-b59b-5b3f2f0a66b4" CreationDate="2011-01-21T18:08:22.490" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[339],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="6afa319d-8f51-4bd6-9e0e-77f443eee646" CreationDate="2011-01-21T18:08:22.630" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Can we please let the community close questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I quit using Physics Forums because of a single case of moderation. I started a thread on the site to do a general relativity calculation in public. Along the way I was told by several respected posters that what I was doing was hopelessly wrong. Eventually a moderator closed it:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126996&amp;page=4&quot;&gt;Schwarzschild Orbits in Cartesian coordinates&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of my calculation was a paper that was the first amateur paper to win an honorable mention in the annual gravitation essay contest:&#xD;&#xA;http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem with allowing single people to close posts is that single individuals (heck, even groups of them) do not know enough about physics to distinguish between crank efforts and real physics. Sorry, physics is big and each of you, individually, is quite small. If you allow individuals to close threads you will eventually have this sort of problem drive people away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of a statement by Harry Collins (a sociologist specializing in physicists):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of my failings ... is that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot generate the levels of disdain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for physicists that one physicist can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate for another; I know what I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; missing because ... in my own field I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can readily generate such levels of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disdain for some of my fellow social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/harrycollins/sociology-of-science.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with disdain is that it is an emotion that can blind the reader. And the people most attracted to giving effort on Stack Exchange; do you think they're going to have LESS than the average level of disdain? I suggest that they're likely to be those who have more difficulty &quot;getting along with others&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the reason you should not have single moderators closing topics is the same reason physics journals use more than just a single person (the editor) when deciding whether a paper is worth publishing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="a886e132-11aa-4359-a44c-18b101f445e3" CreationDate="2011-01-21T18:17:37.973" UserId="1341" Text="I've also seen a couple of questions closed today that I found quite thought provoking. They could have drawn interesting answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were &quot;Weight of earth&quot; and &quot;The vjazanka draw problem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly there were some problems in the English of the questions but those could have been fixed easily. The questions might have drawn answers about mass and energy in relativity, especially general relativity that would have been quite interesting and led to some nice insights for the question askers, but the moderators closed them very quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I wonder if the moderators know enough physics to understand the subtleties in those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they should at least wait for a few up/down votes before closing. It is very off-putting when you are thinking up an interesting answer and then the question is just closed without the moderators even giving an explanation about why they closed it other than &quot;not a proper question&quot;. Without an explanation it is difficult to dispute the closure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="0b1111a9-23cc-450e-b1aa-ea5425a85878" CreationDate="2011-01-21T20:51:49.593" UserId="1495" Text="If you over censor comments, the blog will lose its fun aspect and you get self-appointed censors controlling the content. Obvious insults should be removed by a moderator. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="ba3e3dc5-9ae5-4a7c-a660-eca69fa9749e" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:46:32.863" UserId="1272" Text="Let me put it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that a person knows that they're the smartest physicist on earth. Such a person would find it very frustrating that their votes on questions and answers can be canceled by a single vote by another individual. What's worse, + votes for answers count for +10 reputation points, while - votes only count for -2, I think. To repair this deficit in the system design the only logical thing to do is to arrange to have multiple accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there safeguards in the system for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="ba3e3dc5-9ae5-4a7c-a660-eca69fa9749e" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:46:32.863" UserId="1272" Text="Multiple Personality Disorder (sock puppetry)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="ba3e3dc5-9ae5-4a7c-a660-eca69fa9749e" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:46:32.863" UserId="1272" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="ad635a26-8a35-4d94-a2f2-a49ffc5aa0a4" CreationDate="2011-01-22T16:47:33.950" UserId="1268" Text="It is interesting to see if the community vote system SE is based upon is robust enough to avoid this forum to degenerate into what some refer to as 'crackpot forum'. If it isn't, something is wrong in the system, and 'more moderators' is not going to repair such a system flaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am relatively new here, and also this is my first experience with SE, but it seems to me that the up/down-vote bonus/malus is skewed to the extent that karma becomes a cumulative system. In other words, Karma seems to be dominated by quantity rather than quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it indeed the case that someone who receives as many downvotes as upvotes, if active enough, will bypass a person who only receives upvotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="692de078-3b34-4144-a273-dedfa262d2ac" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:47:06.543" UserId="1172" Text="Or should only substantive questions be allowed?  &#xD;&#xA;If not, is there another place to ask reference questions?  &#xD;&#xA;Actually, I would like to ask reference questions, so I will make this a feature-request,  &#xD;&#xA;even though it began as a simple request for information.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be quite happy if reference questions were kept in a separate location or category.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="692de078-3b34-4144-a273-dedfa262d2ac" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:47:06.543" UserId="1172" Text="Is asking for references OK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="692de078-3b34-4144-a273-dedfa262d2ac" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:47:06.543" UserId="1172" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="cdc23719-c11c-4d7e-bfb4-f06330e0b8e3" CreationDate="2011-01-22T18:02:38.160" UserId="1403" Text="Not to be too blunt about this, but I think it's clearly useful to be fairly harsh about obviously crackpotty statements.  We have to remember, most of the people asking questions here almost *by definition*, are not experts, and they can't distinguish between an Ed Witten and an Archimedes Plutonium (sadly, all too many professionals can't too, but that's beside the point).  Sometimes, the best thing to say is just &quot;no, that's stupid, let's move on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add details and discussion too, of course, but the typical non-expert is not going to know the difference between a polite argument about a legitimately unknown issue, and a polite &quot;argument&quot; on a topic that's been understood for a century.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can easily imagine asking a question on a topic I don't know much about, say, &quot;I just heard in the news that, according to quantum computing, experiment X can determine if P=NP,&quot; and would sincerely appreciate responses like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and that article contradicts everything about information theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;over a polite &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well you see the article refers to Bob's equation which says blah blah blah and you see that as a consequence of blah blah blah we know that, assuming ZFC such statements aren't decidable so the article's conclusion is fallacious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-expert, the second one could easily be interpreted to mean there are technical deficiencies, and it would be a legitimate research project to try to avoid them.  The first one clearly says: no, it's wrong and unfixable, and no sane person works on this.  Anyone who actually cares about the answer would certainly prefer the decisive answer. (Obviously both at once would be preferred, but I understand that the experts answering a question only have so much time, and that may not really be possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say downvoting accomplishes this, but that can be done for many reasons.  Say someone asks about the QCD beta function, and one response is correct, except that it has a minus sign error which causes it to come to the opposite conclusion.  So, okay, it gets downvoted by everyone because it comes to the obviously opposite conclusion, but it's still more valuable than the nonsense answer everyone *also* downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I do not see any problem with being harsh, or calling answers/theories crackpot ones.  The fact is, this is science, and there's really not a lot of opinion involved on if something is correct or not.  There is also a pretty sharp difference between *asking* a question that may not make sense, and *proposing* an answer that does not make sense, and the latter deserves less explanation than the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="b35ab704-3068-4d8f-8304-4312c81ce77f" CreationDate="2011-01-22T21:21:43.030" UserId="520" Text="Recently physics.SE has seem more users regularly including salutations and sign-off in their posts. That [behavior has been strongly discouraged on Stack Overflow][1] for a very long time, and I would prefer the same here. But I'm not ready to start a major editing campaign without polling the locals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="b35ab704-3068-4d8f-8304-4312c81ce77f" CreationDate="2011-01-22T21:21:43.030" UserId="520" Text="Are salutations, sigh-offs and other politese appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="b35ab704-3068-4d8f-8304-4312c81ce77f" CreationDate="2011-01-22T21:21:43.030" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="b19ee88d-9b20-4942-8e5e-92a19b4539df" CreationDate="2011-01-22T21:27:12.960" UserId="520" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="Recently physics.SE has seem more users regularly including salutations and sign-off in their posts. That [behavior has been strongly discouraged on Stack Overflow][1] for a very long time, and I would prefer the same here. But I'm not ready to start a major editing campaign without polling the locals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Editing for Brevity?][2] (Closed as a duplicate of the above, but much more recent and containing some additional discussion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/37439/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="774" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="d5a0203d-3156-41c7-8454-8e34a43a90d0" CreationDate="2011-01-22T23:25:18.703" UserId="520" Comment="edited title" Text="Are salutations, sign-offs and other politese appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="361" RevisionGUID="82d51496-8149-4c08-b1f3-17b3edb40f24" CreationDate="2011-01-23T00:04:46.540" UserId="124" Text="I haven't been particular about it so far, but if there are not vehement objections from the community, I would be fine going along with a plan to edit them out. We can then make this an `[faq]` question to refer people to in the future when they wonder why the greetings etc. have been stripped out of their posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="776" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="33afae92-749f-4bda-a295-0718b93bd006" CreationDate="2011-01-23T00:05:13.763" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="4881dc0a-ea9e-414c-960f-0eb6f4e9f4d5" CreationDate="2011-01-23T00:05:53.293" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="7052506e-8ba0-466d-99c9-815dc2981c33" CreationDate="2011-01-23T00:39:53.213" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Yes they are, and we are watching you all the time. When sock-puppet is detected, all cross-votes are invalidated and so the reputation earned this way vanishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, if one has real MPD, he/she can use multiple accounts -- the only crime is to vote on other personalities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="779" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="15745f48-2346-45bb-9a76-6509d8792d6f" CreationDate="2011-01-23T00:40:18.873" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited title" Text="Multiple Personality Disorder (sock puppetry)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="1cd5e5d4-bb36-437d-a07d-a3f54bcf4084" CreationDate="2011-01-23T01:17:45.863" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I was mentioned few times so I'll try to explain my actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not encouraging to bypass the community close voting, I proposed to flag questions witch cannot be closed in a normal mechanism for some reason (for instance the question is not frequently visited on requires specific knowledge to be recognized as junk).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet mods are also to enforce some standard SE policies and guard some basic site level -- thus, for instance, I try to close questions that are just too vague or too lame before they got zyllions of &quot;Dear X, there is something called conservation of energy...&quot;-like answers and later stand as a bad example for future askers. I know it may be irritating since they are good sources of easy reputation, but sorry -- we all really don't want another Yahoo answers here. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="4ed8a429-3e18-4a90-b1b9-1e7a4a3e86bc" CreationDate="2011-01-23T01:39:23.823" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="There was some positive feedback on [the previous question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat), so let's give it a try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief introduction:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Journal Club is intended to be a whole day meeting (with 3 meet-up sessions to seed the discussion) on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.  &#xD;&#xA;- The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting.  &#xD;&#xA;- We (mods) will try to invite the author(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please suggest papers (each in one answer) and/or upvote propositions you like. The deadline for voting is 1.28.2011 23:59UTC and the first approximation of the JC itself is 2.4.2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="4ed8a429-3e18-4a90-b1b9-1e7a4a3e86bc" CreationDate="2011-01-23T01:39:23.823" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Propose a paper for the first Physics SE Journal Club!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="4ed8a429-3e18-4a90-b1b9-1e7a4a3e86bc" CreationDate="2011-01-23T01:39:23.823" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="3c39089c-8997-44b3-bfe3-60ceed0ec431" CreationDate="2011-01-23T01:49:49.567" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="There was some positive feedback on [the previous question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat), so let's give it a try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief introduction:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Journal Club is intended to be a whole day meeting (with 3 meet-up sessions to seed the discussion) on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.  &#xD;&#xA;- The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting. It should be both interesting and understandable (at least in idea) for a broader audience.   &#xD;&#xA;- We (mods) will try to invite the author(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please suggest papers (each in one answer) and/or upvote propositions you like. The deadline for voting is 1.28.2011 23:59UTC and the first approximation of the JC itself is 2.4.2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="785" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="572d4e79-0a16-4beb-979e-432c1d8ae441" CreationDate="2011-01-23T06:59:56.907" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="61ed97a9-6af8-4d3d-bac1-f8ccadb97c6f" CreationDate="2011-01-23T07:00:41.540" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 141 characters in body" Text="As long as we don't have many hi-rep users, it is useful to have a place with list of candidates to close; at least it worked well on other betas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a link to the question in answer&#xD;&#xA; - Don't upvote&#xD;&#xA; - Downvote when your close vote closed the question, this will clear the list&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="d17fd59c-f195-4749-9fd7-2b5865ce3c61" CreationDate="2011-01-23T11:19:21.300" UserId="113" Text="see http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#signatures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Can I use a signature or tagline?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please don’t use signatures or taglines in your posts. Every post you make is already &quot;signed&quot; with your standard user card, which links directly back to your user page. Your user page belongs to you — fill it with information about your interests, links to stuff you’ve worked on, or whatever else you like!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is forbidden by the faq, and continuing to do it when politely being asked to refrain is grounds for timed suspension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="cd5aeda1-91a6-4166-9f9f-f7d8c1ee6146" CreationDate="2011-01-23T11:39:09.637" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Can we please let the community close questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quit using Physics Forums because of a single case of moderation. I started a thread on the site to do a general relativity calculation in public. Along the way I was told by several respected posters that what I was doing was hopelessly wrong. Eventually a moderator closed it:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126996&amp;page=4&quot;&gt;Schwarzschild Orbits in Cartesian coordinates&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of my calculation was a paper that was the first amateur paper to win an honorable mention in the annual gravitation essay contest:&#xD;&#xA;http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem with allowing single people to close posts is that single individuals (heck, even groups of them) do not know enough about physics to distinguish between crank efforts and real physics. Sorry, physics is big and each of you, individually, is quite small. If you allow individuals to close threads you will eventually have this sort of problem drive people away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of a statement by Harry Collins (a sociologist specializing in physicists):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of my failings ... is that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot generate the levels of disdain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for physicists that one physicist can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate for another; I know what I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; missing because ... in my own field I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can readily generate such levels of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disdain for some of my fellow social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/harrycollins/sociology-of-science.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with disdain is that it is an emotion that can blind the reader. And the people most attracted to giving effort on Stack Exchange; do you think they're going to have LESS than the average level of disdain? I suggest that they're likely to be those who have more difficulty &quot;getting along with others&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the reason you should not have single moderators closing topics is the same reason physics journals use more than just a single person (the editor) when deciding whether a paper is worth publishing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="cd5aeda1-91a6-4166-9f9f-f7d8c1ee6146" CreationDate="2011-01-23T11:39:09.637" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="On the subject of moderation by single individuals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="46610a5c-e830-4eb9-9fb1-4c6e78f2bace" CreationDate="2011-01-23T12:16:08.497" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="And in the voice of [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/349/on-the-subject-of-moderation-by-single-individuals)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This place is not a discussion forum**. Simply. The structure and mechanism are not optimized to this purpose and effectively change each discussion (regardless of the disputants' intentions) into a clutter of randomly voted statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to discuss something, use chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have built a working time machine out of slinky and rare-earth magnets and even managed to transport a living triceratops into the backyard, send a paper to Nature or Science rather than downvote someone's answer claiming it is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your own formulation of quantum mechanics that involves nanobubble dynamics and lemon trees, don't enlighten a student that wants to understand quantization of angular momentum before his exam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="3f38b055-39a3-4176-b743-1e148ef04bba" CreationDate="2011-01-23T12:19:44.110" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="b5866251-3df5-4d7e-b741-1229531e2abc" CreationDate="2011-01-23T23:40:45.110" UserId="1172" Text="I am very old and very old-school.  &#xD;&#xA;I like these pleasantries and think they help avoid flame wars.  &#xD;&#xA;I violated this rule on my first few posts out of ignorance.  &#xD;&#xA;But now I am trying to comply.  &#xD;&#xA;(I find this is a fairly complex and more than slightly intimidating site for a newbie, but maybe that's just me.)  &#xD;&#xA;Now I am strongly tempted to end with a complimentary close, and a signature,  but I won't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="59997ee0-9b04-44a7-a4bd-9779352218bd" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:58:38.093" UserId="1335" Text="Brouder, Christian (2000), &quot;Runge–Kutta methods and renormalization&quot;, Eur.Phys.J. C12: 521–534, [arxiv:9904014][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a &quot;so what&quot; paper, even if true one is left asking &quot;ok, and so what?&quot;. But by studying it we can link to all the series of Dirk Kreimer (and Connes-Kreimer) on perturbative renormalisation and eventualy to the rigorization of Renormalisation Group Methods. And if some people here comes from computer science, perhaps we could get some input on the real role of [Butcher group][2] in numerical methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9904014&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butcher_group" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="58346ac7-e4ad-4494-b816-a2962ca6f128" CreationDate="2011-01-24T03:34:40.663" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="I would like to suggest a trio of papers centered around the topics of **non-commutative field theory** and its relationship to the **quantum hall effect**. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  *The Quantum Hall Fluid and Non-Commutative Chern Simons Theory*, L. Susskind, [hep-th/0101029](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0101029).&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Quantum Hall states as matrix Chern-Simons theory*, A. Polychronakos, [hep-th/0103013](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103013)&#xD;&#xA;3.  *Quantum Hall physics = noncommutative field theory*, S. Hellerman and M. V. Raamsdonk, [hep-th/0103179](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103179)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="f2e94ef0-9710-4537-9e48-b5b81c3ea8d3" CreationDate="2011-01-24T09:04:37.253" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="**A critical overview of Loops and Foams** [arXiv:1009.4475](http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4475)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some great discussions on LQG on the main site. This paper is a very pedagogical explanation to some of the basic notions. It also happens to be written by two &quot;outsiders&quot; who are quite frank about the problems LQG faces and the work required to overcome them. In other words for those interesting in learning about the subject, but are understandably hesitant given the bad reviews of the subject floating around, this paper might provide an acceptable middle ground. To quote from the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A particular emphasis is given to the issue of diffeomorphism and local Lorentz symmetries at the quantum level and to the discussion of new spin foam models.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other words catnip for the curious mind :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="d4148c07-814e-43be-bdc6-023b54d3d3e2" CreationDate="2011-01-24T17:03:23.113" UserId="66" Text="I wonder if debunking of these claims falls within the scope of the site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/01/24/1550205/Italian-Scientists-Demonstrate-Cold-Fusion&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&amp;IA=IT2008000532&amp;DISPLAY=DOCS&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know CF == crackpottery, however would a &quot;how to debunk&quot; question be beneficial/on topic on the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="d4148c07-814e-43be-bdc6-023b54d3d3e2" CreationDate="2011-01-24T17:03:23.113" UserId="66" Text="Debunking cold fusion claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="d4148c07-814e-43be-bdc6-023b54d3d3e2" CreationDate="2011-01-24T17:03:23.113" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="fe4b6247-2554-4bef-b1fd-a478817254fb" CreationDate="2011-01-24T17:47:50.877" UserId="1708" Text="There are 4 cases to consider.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 1) Applying physics to the claim leads to contradiction.  &#xD;&#xA; 2) Claims are already self-contradictory.   &#xD;&#xA; 3) Claim is non-scientific.  &#xD;&#xA; 4) Claim is true within physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are certain that 1) or 4) applies, then my opinion is that its discussion is relevant for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="ec2f6134-9b1c-4f86-adcc-6cead288d487" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:05:44.533" UserId="520" Text="Rather than answer the question as asked I'll suggest a cold fusion related question that I think *is* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *What are the experimental realities that make Fleischmann-&amp;-Pons style cold fusions experiments easy to get wrong?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this is important because F&amp;P appear to have thought they really had something (i.e. it wasn't a knowing scam), and some of the other reputable scientist tried to reproduce their work had apparent success for some time afterward. So it is reasonable to ask *&quot;How could that be&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="502dd01d-7a28-49f3-952e-d2617c4c66f0" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:11:51.840" UserId="520" Comment="added 5 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="Rather than answer the question as asked I'll suggest a cold fusion related question that I think *is* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *What are the experimental realities that make Fleischmann-&amp;-Pons style cold fusions experiments easy to get wrong?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this is important because F&amp;P appear to have thought they really had something (i.e. it wasn't a knowing scam), and some of the other reputable scientists who tried to reproduce their work had apparent success for some time afterward. So it is reasonable to ask *&quot;How could that be?&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="375" RevisionGUID="99e000bf-0ffe-4a2e-b8a3-b5e79805eac9" CreationDate="2011-01-24T20:04:24.413" UserId="124" Text="I think it might be nice to have a question like &quot;Why is cold fusion considered bogus?&quot; to explain something about the reasons why nobody takes the idea of cold fusion seriously, hopefully in more detail than the Wikipedia article. But we shouldn't rush to debunk the recent claims of Rossi and Focardi, at least not before people have tried and failed to replicate their experiment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="872cf378-3182-4cd6-9fc0-b19874618d13" CreationDate="2011-01-25T02:54:11.410" UserId="838" Text="I'm amazed at the gentle treatment of F&amp;P in this discussion. I agree it wasn't a deliberate scam, but they did very shoddy work and their behavior during and after was very bad. Let's not forget that in spite of all the evidence that accumulated against their result they nonetheless continued their work and managed to extract many millions of dollars from the Toyota corporation before they too wised up and cut off the funding. The book &quot;Bad Science&quot; by Gary Taubes is an excellent and entertaining discussion of the whole cold fusion fiasco." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="6d5061e4-2eba-4230-87f4-10d170ebbdc3" CreationDate="2011-01-25T10:07:26.427" UserId="293" Text="This [answer about nanotubes][1] included a very interesting (at least to me) diagram. I thought the author really took the time to conjure up some TikZ magic. Eventually, I found this paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The electronic properties of graphene  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Castro Neto, F Guinea, N Peres, K Novoselov, A Geim (2009)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reviews of Modern Physics 81 (1) p. 109-162  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the exact same image was in Figure 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shall we have a policy regarding citing sources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, am preparing for graduate school, and I would like to learn how to find my way around the field I am applying to; so knowing which important papers to read would be very helpful for community members like me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I almost added a comment to the answer regarding citing the source, but I didn't know how to play the role of &quot;plagiarism police&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1572/how-to-determine-the-n-m-dimensions-of-a-carbon-nanotube/1573#1573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="d268f7e0-52a7-46ca-8424-352519002906" CreationDate="2011-01-26T19:02:28.240" UserId="1337" Text="I don't think it is a good idea if the SE system does not have a specific tool for that. The site is optimized for Q&amp;A but not for a poll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, despite agreeing that this would be very nice, I don't think that there is a way of implementing in in practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="db4d19ee-ab38-4dcc-8127-f50fcf3a79e3" CreationDate="2011-01-27T04:21:13.510" UserId="74" Text="Brahms' music is rich and interesting, but not easily accessible to a layman.  Justin Bieber's is not very interesting, but he gets downloaded from iTunes a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last week or two, there have been a lot more questions at the advanced and research levels, and a number of professional physicists have been answering them.  I almost never vote on these questions and their answers because I can't distinguish good from bad.  It seems to be a rough general trend that the more advanced the question, the less voting there will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be construed as a disincentive to post research-level questions and answers as compared to more broadly-accessible ones.  Someone who provides a lot of helpful, interesting answers to questions in their field might still wind up with low site reputation, especially compared to the high effort they put into answering technical questions.  (I'm personally the opposite of this - I answer mostly basic-level questions and don't have a field.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess that if you ask most individual users, they would say that this isn't a problem for them because they don't care about reputation, except maybe to have enough to get full participation privileges.  (That's what I would say, if you asked me.)  However, as a whole, the behavior of users of StackExchange must be affected somewhat by reputation, or it wouldn't be recorded, displayed, and put up on &quot;top user&quot; charts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this effect an issue that may affect the quality of the questions and answers?  If so, is there any particular thing we should do, or at least be cognizant of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="db4d19ee-ab38-4dcc-8127-f50fcf3a79e3" CreationDate="2011-01-27T04:21:13.510" UserId="74" Text="The Brahms vs. Bieber Effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="db4d19ee-ab38-4dcc-8127-f50fcf3a79e3" CreationDate="2011-01-27T04:21:13.510" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="fbba4909-3bfe-46f0-92d4-0ee5d7753d22" CreationDate="2011-01-27T10:51:58.490" UserId="113" Text="As an partial aside, we have noticed that our hard science sites tend to naturally striate into &quot;research-level advanced topics&quot; and &quot;typical entry college level topics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not entirely sure the needs of both audiences can be realized on a single site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="e698b51f-09c1-44f9-9a48-85dd6df7f468" CreationDate="2011-01-27T11:42:40.290" UserId="386" Text="I have a feeling that the problem is not in &quot;advanced vs basic&quot; dichotomy in the first place.  &#xD;&#xA;Nor it is about &quot;specialized vs broad&quot; or &quot;professional vs amateur&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that people tend to vote up &quot;fun&quot; posts. There are posts that have a lot of upvotes, while I doubt that there are many people (or at least *that* many people) that are able to assess the quality of these questions or answers. Posts about black holes or entanglement are more likely to be popular than about classical mechanics or RLC circuits. Also in your answer you can write a lot of nice &quot;bla-bla-bla&quot; around the topic without actually getting to the point. And you'll get much more than short and concrete answer on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Populism. Every community-driven site is affected by it. I think that it is unfair. And the only way to at least reduce this unfairness is to keep that in mind, when you vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me finally note that the idea behind the SE sites is *learning*. So if you feel that you have learnt something new -- why don't you vote it up?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="d3de7ada-2afd-4c9e-92ef-ee727fa68c9a" CreationDate="2011-01-27T12:18:14.487" UserId="1708" Text="This is only a problem if people care about their reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;BUT - for people that care, they will answer any question they can, so there is no problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a minor effect if people tend to prioritize answering easier question, I think the opposite is more true.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;A real concern that may degrade quality is that the fastest (and thus often not the best) answer tends to get mroe upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="bc3d00e1-0311-4832-8d39-30734d261014" CreationDate="2011-01-27T12:23:27.133" UserId="1708" Comment="added 19 characters in body; added 6 characters in body" Text="This is only a problem caused by people who really care about their reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;BUT - for people that really care, they will answer any question they can, so there is no problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a minor effect if people tend to prioritize answering easier question, I think the opposite is more true.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;A real concern that may degrade quality is that the fastest (and thus often not the best) answer tends to get mroe upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="d055d997-3e2a-433e-add0-b328f03da289" CreationDate="2011-01-27T17:47:18.447" UserId="1257" Text="**Is it spacetime or, is it space + time?** How sure we are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it space expansion or a matter shrinking scenario?** How sure we are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We assume that the atom sizes are absolute. This presumption is an obfuscation to understand the universe and time properties. This paper analyses the effects that arise from the perspective  of an 'instant observer', splitting spacetime into space + time.  The derivation of the Einstein Special relativity is presented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Cosmological Principle and Relativity - Part I**  (arxiv physics&#xD;&#xA;   0205033)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper extends on the consequences of the first one and it is easier to follow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**A relativistic time variation of matter/space fits both local and&#xD;&#xA;   cosmic data** (arxiv astro-ph&#xD;&#xA;   0208365)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm friend of the author Alfredo and, maybe, I can persuade him to appear.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0205/0205033v1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208365v1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="effc0345-417c-4369-bd71-e0a0f5186181" CreationDate="2011-01-28T07:34:10.833" UserId="97" Text="Since there is a now a [discussion site at area51](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com) I posted [one][1] there with the following suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as theoretical physics site does not even exist, **ask your toughest questions at physics.SE**. That way you gain rep to **help progressing commitment phase** for one thing, and, what is more important, you **help supporting physics.SE with high level questions**. In the hopefully occurring event that both sites make it out of beta, questions can still be migrated at a later point (and merged if cross-posted to seed TP.SE beta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/36/133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="86da3d46-f99f-4005-9a2a-1ca3c9705f4c" CreationDate="2011-01-29T11:47:52.683" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Do not ask such questions; they are just unmanageable in Q&amp;A system. Ask questions that can get simple, definite answers and move discussions to chat (for instance propose relevant paper for Journal Club) and other places." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="845dd7e3-158e-4739-ac03-7a29a61f46cb" CreationDate="2011-01-29T19:00:19.043" UserId="66" Text="I think that we need to focus on building a stronger community - clearly if advanced questions get less votes, it can only mean that we have still too few advanced users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the community thrives, inclusively, both kind of answers will get voted. However I do agree that we will see some striation of users. It doesn't worry me, because as soon as the community is strong, a more specialised site can emerge and succeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="c51b9f3d-ccd5-4882-8ed5-a63aa4f6d32d" CreationDate="2011-01-30T00:46:30.060" UserId="1272" Comment="added 797 characters in body" Text="I've changed my mind completely on this. I don't think you should split the site. I can navigate quite reasonably with the tags. And right now, the site is WAY TOO SMALL to split.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the number of questions becomes so large that I'm unable to read the day's new questions in 15 minutes it might be time to consider splitting, or some way of allowing a reader to get only a partial sample of the questions. For example, if all questions were required to carry one or more of three tags: &quot;Experimental Research&quot;, &quot;Theoretical Research&quot;, or &quot;Not Research&quot;, or something like that, then those only interested in a single factor could read that part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previously I had written the following which I will leave here for continuity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You absolutely should split the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The only reason I'm hanging around is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because I've got time on my hands.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That will end in the next few weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If there were a research level place&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd be happy to contribute, but to put&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research level questions here is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; waste of time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The purpose (to a researcher) for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having research level questions is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; widen the number of people who are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aware of a question. The problem with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this site is that the level of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discourse is too low.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One thing that might help with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research level site is to require that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the posters be actual researchers. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good requirement would be at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peer reviewed article published in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past 2 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="50af1ae1-c2a5-4587-ab53-a041ba217d17" CreationDate="2011-01-31T03:36:07.027" UserId="673" Text="I think we should enforce $\hbar=c=1$ and end of story. :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now seriously. I don't see the point of enforcing a unit system. If it's crucial to the question, the poster will inevitably make clear what is the unit system he's using. If he don't, then we can ask him to clarify the point. But most of the time the units will just be patently transparent..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="e502aad9-3893-4a99-9a74-cdf7656e2d9e" CreationDate="2011-01-31T09:32:55.230" UserId="358" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="2312688b-118f-4242-9029-197c69027ff8" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:25:50.503" UserId="174" Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="2312688b-118f-4242-9029-197c69027ff8" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:25:50.503" UserId="174" Text="Formatting Sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="2312688b-118f-4242-9029-197c69027ff8" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:25:50.503" UserId="174" Text="|support|markdown|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="fb6433a8-b379-40a4-9d74-fe36aee31e8d" CreationDate="2011-01-31T22:33:42.333" UserId="1272" Text="I think the community should aspire to standards of polite discourse. It's one of those things that is like pornography. I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="a9bb401a-41fb-45ab-beb8-31acf2dabba1" CreationDate="2010-11-13T03:28:37.060" UserId="78" Text="Mathoverflow can suggest math.stack exchange.   What are your favorite sites to which to refer students who need careful debugging?    I am only asking for references here.   Discussion should be on the meta site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="a9bb401a-41fb-45ab-beb8-31acf2dabba1" CreationDate="2010-11-13T03:28:37.060" UserId="78" Text="What are some good didactic physics sites which are more appropriate for questions embodying elementary misunderstandings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="a9bb401a-41fb-45ab-beb8-31acf2dabba1" CreationDate="2010-11-13T03:28:37.060" UserId="78" Text="|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="828" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="853d423c-262d-4fa5-97aa-238068b05dad" CreationDate="2011-02-01T00:24:40.300" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-are-some-good-didactic-physics-sites-which-are-more-appropriate-for-question" Text="" />
  <row Id="829" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="ca333375-8109-4797-a609-7ae288ddda76" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:23:13.560" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="03fb04ce-82c0-4105-8ccd-80fd4d2d6ade" CreationDate="2011-02-01T08:59:13.107" UserId="174" Text="Some apparent whitespace problems, 10 m/s ([original post][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations &#xD;&#xA;    is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, &#xD;&#xA;    about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Meta Stack Overflow does not seem to have the formula stuff that [Physics][2] has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2372/how-long-it-will-take-for-a-tree-to-fall-on-a-ground/2401#2401&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="ee2b79b2-3983-4a78-9f89-f7e6a7fc0670" CreationDate="2011-02-01T09:24:31.877" UserId="174" Comment="Corrected copy-paste error." Text="Some apparent whitespace problems, 10 m/s ([original post][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations &#xD;&#xA;    is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, &#xD;&#xA;    about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2372/how-long-it-will-take-for-a-tree-to-fall-on-a-ground/2401#2401&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="6a77aefc-4e21-4cbb-9616-0ef223a89430" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:25:38.350" UserId="1370" Text="Since yesterday there is an entry in my &quot;StackExchange&quot; inbox, &#xD;&#xA;coming from a thread about &quot;why is atomic density not linear...&quot; .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line reads :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Georg Given that this answer is in agreement with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I click on this entry, I get &quot;Page not found&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;But the thread does exist, although not this comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Georg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="6a77aefc-4e21-4cbb-9616-0ef223a89430" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:25:38.350" UserId="1370" Text="&quot;Page not found&quot; when clicking on  inbox item" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="6a77aefc-4e21-4cbb-9616-0ef223a89430" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:25:38.350" UserId="1370" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="836f3bd0-bd80-4480-b19a-c9df3df606ce" CreationDate="2011-02-02T02:23:12.097" UserId="113" Text="This is sometimes possible due to race conditions when someone adds a comment and then deletes it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="836" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="b145cbc1-60f0-41b6-986e-0184dc3db64c" CreationDate="2011-02-02T02:23:54.280" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|inbox|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="726ad379-fa17-4674-b60f-2c9fb7cba20c" CreationDate="2011-02-03T01:49:12.233" UserId="1272" Text="Out of 1000+ questions on physics stack exchange, only 7 have a -4 or worse count (this link is temporary):  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?page=78&amp;sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of these is a question I asked about asteroids and life on the planet:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could life survive if the earth's axis were knocked 70 degrees by an asteroid collision?&quot;  -4  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidently four people voted it down and none up and I don't have a clue why. It's a basic physics question, it can be answered with a simple calculation, and it's of interest to the general public. Comments on the question are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some people have evidently never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; played with a gyroscope or tried to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn a spinning bicycle wheel out of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plane with their hands. What mechanism&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is proposed to damp the ferocious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precession that would be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inevitable aftermath of twisting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; axis around like that? Bah! Humbug! –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dmckee 2 days ago&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What sort of asteroid could knock&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earth's axis off by 70 degrees without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ripping the planet to shreds, for that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter!? – Noldorin♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Noldorin: Yeah. I started trying to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; estimate the energies involved, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floundered when I realized there was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no impulse-like way to get from there&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to here. – dmckee yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some very simple calculation would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer this question. – Georg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, I answered my own question with the calculation I outlined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the only questions with a lower rating (i.e -5) are questions which, one way or another, do not make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If energy in a flat space is zero, are we saying that a flat space is isolated?&quot; -5  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4448/if-energy-in-a-flat-space-is-zero-are-we-saying-that-a-flat-space-is-isolated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why is there something rather than nothing? [closed]&quot; -5  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm wondering. Anyone have a clue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three other asteroid / meteor questions. This one also has to do with a life endangering asteroid:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Relativistic Object Impacts the Earth&quot;  +2  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3362/relativistic-object-impacts-the-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other questions:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Orbital mechanics of Dragon's Egg&quot;  +3&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1816/orbital-mechanics-of-dragons-egg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What would be the real-world implications of the Kessler Syndrome?&quot;  +0&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/439/what-would-be-the-real-world-implications-of-the-kessler-syndrome&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="726ad379-fa17-4674-b60f-2c9fb7cba20c" CreationDate="2011-02-03T01:49:12.233" UserId="1272" Text="Why did my asteroid question end up with -4 votes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="726ad379-fa17-4674-b60f-2c9fb7cba20c" CreationDate="2011-02-03T01:49:12.233" UserId="1272" Text="|discussion|reputation|voting|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="05715393-5c3d-4e76-a264-235ec8b2e721" CreationDate="2011-02-03T03:12:57.253" UserId="113" Text="I am no expert, but it strikes me as more of a science fiction &quot;what if?&quot; than an actual hard Physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask and in particular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if \_\_\_\_\_\_ happened?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="49aa5a92-9070-47e5-8bfa-b402fb52ca4a" CreationDate="2011-02-03T11:29:07.913" UserId="1236" Text="I didn't vote on this question of yours - but yes, it's mostly because I hadn't previously read it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make such a change, you need a nearly Moon-sized asteroids, and there aren't any in the Solar System, especially not those that are on collision course with Earth. Moreover, changes of some poles would clearly be the last worry if we were going to collide with a Moon-sized objects. Moreover, all the questions you are asking about this insanely unlikely scenario can be easily calculated by elementary mechanics. People just didn't think it was a question worth their time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="610dbfe6-c091-4fa9-9b6f-2393793f3854" CreationDate="2011-02-03T12:23:50.727" UserId="1704" Text="What's a more appropriate term? &quot;Reality deprived&quot;? &quot;Methodologically challenged&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="de43783c-956e-4df9-b1e4-e6cc316180f3" CreationDate="2011-02-03T16:14:07.133" UserId="701" Text="I think that is was a big mistake to begin your question with a ridiculous theory of your fellow. Even worse, the question itself is just the last two lines and the rest of the text is some nonsense that I would rather not read and that is why I downvoted your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="8ac5bd03-f6ab-4aea-9e38-b5abdfb30637" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:22:27.977" UserId="520" Text="I didn't vote it down, nor did I vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the proposed scenario is obvious tripe, because *any* impulse-like event that caused a large change in angular momentum like that would leave the body with a fearsome precession. Jumping Jebus, man! You don't even have a pure torque (what the engineers call a &quot;couple&quot;) in the problem, so there'd be a huge transfer of linear momentum as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your BOTE calculation is a brave attempt, but it doesn't model the proposed physics because it doesn't end with Earth having a small precession. That's why I didn't go ahead with a similar calculation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="b25a2e91-c024-424e-923d-175c72c0c774" CreationDate="2011-02-04T09:46:10.847" UserId="701" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="I think that is was a big mistake to begin your question with a ridiculous theory of your fellow. Even worse, the question itself is just the last two lines and the rest of the text is some nonsense that I would rather not read and that is why I downvoted your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: even worse, some naive person would read it and then remember that he saw a theory at Physics.SE about how oil was formed because of the asteroid impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="15e734f7-e38b-46fe-a531-a9426166ebc5" CreationDate="2011-02-04T18:43:47.033" UserId="1257" Comment="added: scale invariant and a few more words about the second paper" Text="**Is it spacetime or, is it space + time?** How sure we are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it space expansion or a matter shrinking scenario?** How sure we are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We assume that the atom sizes are absolute. This presumption is an obfuscation to understand the universe and time properties. This paper analyses the effects that arise from the perspective  of an 'instant observer', splitting spacetime into space + time.  The derivation of the Einstein Special relativity is presented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Cosmological Principle and Relativity - Part I**  (arxiv physics&#xD;&#xA;   0205033)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper extends on the consequences of the first one, and presents a model of our Universe that is scale-invariant (self-similar) where Dark Energy is not invited. This paper is easier to follow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**A relativistic time variation of matter/space fits both local and&#xD;&#xA;   cosmic data** (arxiv astro-ph&#xD;&#xA;   0208365)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm friend of the author Alfredo and, maybe, I can persuade him to appear.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0205/0205033v1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208365v1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="5f3bab5b-fb88-46fd-abae-f5cdd3deaea1" CreationDate="2011-02-05T14:03:09.730" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="4f1c189f-654b-4f97-918b-b3eda36e22e2" CreationDate="2011-02-05T15:25:54.753" UserId="1370" Text="Right now I have a comment in my &quot;inbox&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**comment on Water Pressure in Free Fall&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't get you differences in a single** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in that thread I do not see any comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Georg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="4f1c189f-654b-4f97-918b-b3eda36e22e2" CreationDate="2011-02-05T15:25:54.753" UserId="1370" Text="Missing comment " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="4f1c189f-654b-4f97-918b-b3eda36e22e2" CreationDate="2011-02-05T15:25:54.753" UserId="1370" Text="|bug|inbox|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="6d0dd5ca-1cf2-4316-b3fd-efb583212b60" CreationDate="2011-02-06T02:23:54.180" UserId="1345" Text="How easy would it be to alter the menu for questions at the top, so people could select how many levels of questions they want to appear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people posted, they would have to define the level of the question, with moderators moving questions to other levels if necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="00c61298-557e-4269-a87d-1e8c1d570003" CreationDate="2011-02-06T03:30:40.443" UserId="1172" Text="What do you do if you want to ask a second, related but different question?  &#xD;&#xA;(The original question can be your own question, or someone else’s question.)  &#xD;&#xA;Also, considerable time may have elapsed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start a new question?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in an answer box?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in a comment?  &#xD;&#xA;I see no good answer, but my intuition would be to ask a new question.  &#xD;&#xA;Advice, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="00c61298-557e-4269-a87d-1e8c1d570003" CreationDate="2011-02-06T03:30:40.443" UserId="1172" Text="Protocol for asking closely related, but different questions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="00c61298-557e-4269-a87d-1e8c1d570003" CreationDate="2011-02-06T03:30:40.443" UserId="1172" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="865" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="b983fe43-3f3b-4b5b-a654-2037eda44ce5" CreationDate="2011-02-06T03:39:34.337" UserId="1172" Comment="added tag" Text="|discussion|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="866" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="89496251-93a6-4b4b-93d4-c3c5bf82cdbb" CreationDate="2011-02-06T04:04:02.210" UserId="-1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[13],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:74,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mark Eichenlaub&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:113,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jeff Atwood&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="36f72683-de13-476d-bfa9-b3479d13093e" CreationDate="2011-02-06T04:04:02.333" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Can I ask several related questions in a single thread?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What do you do if you want to ask a second, related but different question?  &#xD;&#xA;(The original question can be your own question, or someone else’s question.)  &#xD;&#xA;Also, considerable time may have elapsed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start a new question?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in an answer box?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in a comment?  &#xD;&#xA;I see no good answer, but my intuition would be to ask a new question.  &#xD;&#xA;Advice, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="b44d7455-d565-4361-b51b-e638c43aab6b" CreationDate="2011-02-06T07:11:28.493" UserId="113" Text="Depending on the timing of the comment deletion, it may or may not show up in your network inbox." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="12d8ea4d-dc01-4bec-9f45-e5fb6f52271a" CreationDate="2011-02-06T07:11:37.230" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|inbox|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="8d999212-85dd-4638-9be5-403d56f6ee3d" CreationDate="2011-02-06T09:54:46.230" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="A few days ago I noticed that 50 reputation points vanished overnight from my total. This was particularly galling since I had just crossed the 2,000 mark and the difference left me back in the 1900s. Has anyone else had this happen to them and does anyone know of an explanation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen the threads on SO and the SE blog which discuss the mechanisms for &quot;correcting&quot; anomalous voting patterns and such. However, in the absence of any formal notification or transparency in this correction process, such a change is disturbing to say the least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if I inexplicably lost points some others might have inexplicably gained, possibly some because of the same underlying voodoo. However you should also be concerned. Tomorrow you could be on the receiving end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="8d999212-85dd-4638-9be5-403d56f6ee3d" CreationDate="2011-02-06T09:54:46.230" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="The case of the missing reputation points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="8d999212-85dd-4638-9be5-403d56f6ee3d" CreationDate="2011-02-06T09:54:46.230" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="0f160d0e-6517-40c4-82b6-5d39917989af" CreationDate="2011-02-06T10:08:48.077" UserId="113" Text="Did you go to http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation ? I recommend starting there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like there were some invalid votes on your account that got cleaned up by the daily vote anomaly process on Feb 2 UTC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="af4aaefb-ea80-4edf-b7ba-c3d2fe36f338" CreationDate="2011-02-07T02:55:50.867" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Not sure about the technicalities, but you might take comfort in the realization these numbers have no implications out there in the real world (and not much here, either)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="429fcb8f-fa45-4f2f-be52-a0d909aa663b" CreationDate="2011-02-07T05:16:05.583" UserId="1492" Text="Why is voting without a comment justifying the vote allowed ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see the usefulness of having a graded and changing answer list ( though sometimes it is a bit funny, getting an answer before the comment that gave rise to it). Also the usefulness of keeping all answers in the voting result  order: It gives what people consider the clearest answer top position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When anonymity is taken into account though, this can lead to a group think of people down voting people with whom they do not agree, even for answers that are reasonable and clear. If each voter justifies the vote ( unphysical, not clear enough, trivial, or whatever) it will give readers a rational reason for the down voting and provoke further thoughts to the one who wrote the answer. The judge should be open to judgment and moderation too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I saw a  down vote in a comment that said &quot;you have been told that this is not the place to talk of your own theories&quot;. This goes against the open format of this forum. If Nima Arkani-Hamed had been answering a question using his new twistor revolution concepts would one say &quot;this is not the place to talk of your own theories&quot; ? As long as it is clear that it is a new out of the beaten path proposal censorship should be avoided, imo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know that scientific questions are not decided by consensus but by physics and mathematics clearly stated. The concept of this forum is admirable, but I think that the voting procedure needs some tweaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="429fcb8f-fa45-4f2f-be52-a0d909aa663b" CreationDate="2011-02-07T05:16:05.583" UserId="1492" Text="Can voting anonymously and without comment lead to &quot;consensus science&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="429fcb8f-fa45-4f2f-be52-a0d909aa663b" CreationDate="2011-02-07T05:16:05.583" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="48de838b-1831-4e5d-b69c-2ba52563537f" CreationDate="2011-02-07T07:00:59.973" UserId="113" Text="We already show a reminder to those who downvote and are below 2k rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(don't worry, no posts were harmed in the creation of this screenshot)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rational way to *force* people to leave a comment explaining their downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have some free time and wish to read the weeks and weeks of discussion on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2263/require-comments-on-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/6521/allow-users-to-leave-an-anonymous-comment-when-voting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Linked&quot; and &quot;Related&quot; columns of those questions are voluminous and probably cover every possible permutation of this conversation we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzdqj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="a0b22464-6203-42d5-af15-ec8f9726eb23" CreationDate="2011-02-07T08:03:42.257" UserId="701" Text="Upvoting is more powerful than downvoting (+10 rep vs -2 rep) but nobody is worried by anonymous upvoting. It's simply our nature - nobody likes being criticized, but I believe that it is wrong to cut oneself of criticism, even anonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="5b6a1a62-eabb-46d4-9cb6-db87d148ee52" CreationDate="2011-02-07T13:41:44.363" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="This is not a research site, sadly. If it was, we could argue our reasoned opinions and worry about attempts to suppress discussion, because it is good to have a wide range of opinions. This is a site where people ask questions which, almost always, have one correct answer and many incorrect ones. The incorrect one can result from honest confusion, in which case short discussion is a good idea. It can also come from the rather small set of people who have their own alternative ideas on what physics is, and even though there are not too many of them they tend to dominate online discussions. You can believe me that you don’t have the time to get into a discussion with them, and changing their minds is not an option.&#xD;&#xA;When I identify this, The mechanism of downvoting is the only way I can help in directing any reader towards the correct answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="81e58fcc-26dc-4e59-aee9-4dbf65604e73" CreationDate="2011-02-07T15:40:56.820" UserId="701" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Upvoting is more powerful than downvoting (+10 rep vs -2 rep) but nobody is worried by anonymous upvoting&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. It's simply our nature - nobody likes being criticized, but I believe that it is wrong to cut oneself of criticism, even anonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; Upd: at least I have never seen a demand to comment an upvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="341471a7-a304-4802-836e-3f77596c5363" CreationDate="2011-02-07T21:59:03.617" UserId="1272" Text="From looking at the older StackExchange sites, it's clear that physics is still very young. Some of the older questions on other sites have several dozen up votes. I don't think there's any real need for the 24th person to comment on why they liked it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to help age physics, I've been getting rid of my 30 available votes per day by looking through old questions and upvoting them if they make sense. It seems to me that a lot of people are hanging on to their votes as if their objective was to have all questions and answers on the site carry a 0 except for the (future) answer which provides the succinct description of the unified field theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, I don't think it's necessary to comment on votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="0ab8ad06-ac6d-44bb-9066-ce9d14c51d5c" CreationDate="2011-02-08T15:58:34.227" UserId="386" Text="I have several things to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to promote ones theories. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone &quot;crackpot&quot; or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the &quot;theory&quot; was wrong. I just stated the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is about **what to downvote**. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third is about the **commenting the downvote**: I have an observation that &quot;people who promote their theories&quot; do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their &quot;theories&quot; to be &quot;discussed&quot;. Being rejected by standard &quot;discussion areas&quot; in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And &quot;not feeding the troll&quot; strategy: *silent downvoting* -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, about **this “consensus science” stuff**. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is you responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? I didn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="644a0fb3-7380-4d7a-a68a-47b682e88abb" CreationDate="2011-02-08T16:04:24.020" UserId="386" Comment="added 332 characters in body; added 64 characters in body" Text="I have several things to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to **promote** ones theories. Let me emphasise the word **promote** -- not &quot;talk&quot;. If your theory or method is accepted by scientific community and you think that it is relevant to the question -- do as you please. If you are twisting even the basic level questions eventually coming to the discussion of your own &quot;great discovery&quot; -- this is not the place. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone &quot;crackpot&quot; or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the &quot;theory&quot; was wrong. I just stated the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is about **what to downvote**. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third is about the **commenting the downvote**: I have an observation that &quot;people who promote their theories&quot; do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their &quot;theories&quot; to be &quot;discussed&quot;. Being rejected by standard &quot;discussion areas&quot; in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And &quot;not feeding the troll&quot; strategy: *silent downvoting* -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, about **this “consensus science” stuff**. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is you responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? Even if it wasn't accepted first due to the community rigidity? I didn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="4d4a1f31-e609-41c8-9e27-32dca99ab490" CreationDate="2011-02-08T20:23:52.980" UserId="386" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I have several things to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all -- this is my comment and I see nothing wrong with it. This site is obviously not a place to **promote** ones theories. Let me emphasise the word **promote** -- not &quot;talk&quot;. If your theory or method is accepted by scientific community and you think that it is relevant to the question -- do as you please. If you are twisting even the basic level questions eventually coming to the discussion of your own &quot;great discovery&quot; -- this is not the place. And the person in consideration was told about it several times. I didn't call anyone &quot;crackpot&quot; or some thing like this. I didn't tell that the &quot;theory&quot; was wrong. I just stated the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is about **what to downvote**. The answer is supposed to be downvoted if it is not helpful. It can be perfectly correct but not helpful. Such answers are to be downvoted. Again -- no abuse, nothing personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third is about the **commenting the downvote**: I have an observation that &quot;people who promote their theories&quot; do this everywhere for one and only reason -- they want their &quot;theories&quot; to be &quot;discussed&quot;. Being rejected by standard &quot;discussion areas&quot; in science they go to inappropriate places to fulfil their desire for communication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This behaviour is very similar to trolling -- any kind of feedback you give to them receives even bigger reaction. And &quot;not feeding the troll&quot; strategy: *silent downvoting* -- is best way do deal with this kind of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, about **this “consensus science” stuff**. Not only this site is community-driven -- whole science is community-driven. If you think that you have made a great discovery, which is not accepted by scientific community, then it is your responsibility to be as correct and clear and careful as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever seen any great physicists with real great discoveries, comparing themselves to Galileo Galilei? Even if the discovery wasn't accepted first due to the community rigidity? I haven't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="95dbc9f1-db16-4e2b-ba33-fa295cc227ee" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:46:53.687" UserId="838" Text="How do I reach just the moderators of physics stack exchange by email?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="95dbc9f1-db16-4e2b-ba33-fa295cc227ee" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:46:53.687" UserId="838" Text="Contacting physics stack exchange mods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="95dbc9f1-db16-4e2b-ba33-fa295cc227ee" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:46:53.687" UserId="838" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="dda9c641-59b1-4c56-94a2-1c7bc4aa08d5" CreationDate="2011-02-09T20:29:01.380" UserId="124" Text="You probably shouldn't. If you have an issue on the site that needs moderator attention, flag it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, for some reason other than that, you want to contact the moderators, either leave a message in the chat room or use an @-notification on a question or answer that one of us has posted or commented on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last resort, I do list an email address where I can be reached on my profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, other than flagging, there's no way to contact all the moderators as a group." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="b27246a6-f85a-400d-a53a-3c1d8cb0a5a5" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:54:49.107" UserId="107" Text="Something I think we should avoid is overly representing mathematics or equations in the design, so no Schroedinger equations or nablas. We should go for a physical phenomenon. My personal preference would be something actually visually observable, for example with the naked eye or under a microscope, not just a plot of something. My personal preference leans toward optics, so for example a diffraction pattern. Perhaps a standing wave pattern from acoustics made visible in some fashion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="fad741a0-5390-417f-a6bb-6dfd6f229a59" CreationDate="2011-02-11T08:54:58.570" UserId="1390" Text="I do not mind getting downvotes but I am here also to learn so I would love to understand my errors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="a3bbdce1-48dc-4062-b6b9-6b2af76fd492" CreationDate="2011-02-12T15:31:44.060" UserId="1782" Text="So far I posed one question at the Physics StackExchange. &#xD;&#xA;Since I really want to know the answer I offered a bounty of about 70% of my reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am sure that a good answer to this question will require quite some work (probably more than a week) - so maybe StackExchange is not the right platform, but let me ask you nevertheless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a time-scale of a week not way too short for some questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to provide some mechanism that extends the bounty-period?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps by increasing the bounty after some given time-period?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="a3bbdce1-48dc-4062-b6b9-6b2af76fd492" CreationDate="2011-02-12T15:31:44.060" UserId="1782" Text="Is the time scale for bounties too short on stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="a3bbdce1-48dc-4062-b6b9-6b2af76fd492" CreationDate="2011-02-12T15:31:44.060" UserId="1782" Text="|discussion|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="a183550a-660c-49a1-a568-320e3ec16bb6" CreationDate="2011-02-12T16:18:19.180" UserId="113" Text="The bounty period has always been 7 days. I can suggest a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bounties can be repeated indefinitely, so long as you have the reputation; try smaller bounties over a longer period of time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The site may need to grow larger to find the audience to answer your question, so you might try again in a few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some questions are fundamentally obscure / difficult / unanswerable. Bounties on these questions are not magical, they cannot solve everything. Consider, is there something you can do to make your question more clear, break it down or simplify it in any way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="79447967-515a-46ba-b3f0-d3bf4f18ad6d" CreationDate="2011-02-12T23:28:47.863" UserId="1655" Text="I think puzzles would be great for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Code golf&quot; questions pop on stackoverflow all the time. These questions challenge users to write code that successfully accomplishes a task in as few characters as possible. For example, [Write the shortest program that implements John H. Conway's Game of Life cellular automaton][1]. (Mathematica can do this in 151 characters, amazingly!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of thing actually can be very educational and interesting. Even seasoned programmers can learn a lot from seeing other people try to work out solutions to problems in novel ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, physicists shouldn't get too haughty and start to believe that they know everything, and certainly not that they know every method. You can learn a lot from seeing how other people approach problems. [Mechanics around a rail tank wagon][2] is an excellent example of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3499538/code-golf-conways-game-of-life&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="8adc38b0-b3d2-408b-9703-1aa36dc0ca91" CreationDate="2011-02-13T02:41:52.080" UserId="124" Text="I'd say no, don't ask a question to which you already know the answer. Not because there's some fundamental problem with doing so, but because if you know the answer to your own question it typically winds up being phrased badly. Also, if you ask something like your example, whether the level of water goes up or down as ice melts, you're going to get answers targeted at someone who legitimately doesn't know what the answer is, and they'll sound condescending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you know the answer to a problem but you're not entirely convinced, that's a different story, because in that case the real question you're asking is &quot;can anyone provide a more convincing justification for this?&quot; And that's a question you don't know the answer to. Those sorts of things can be decent puzzle questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="ce89e672-c9b2-4f63-99e3-9172049819fe" CreationDate="2011-02-13T06:37:44.170" UserId="520" Text="Note that we had [Mechanics around a rail tank wagon][1] which is more or less a puzzle question, but was sufficiently challenging to keep several quite good physicist arguing and muddling their way through before we arrived at an answer that I believe to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1683/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="92a6dd67-7281-432d-b6ea-cfc401e3c157" CreationDate="2011-02-13T12:38:10.733" UserId="386" Text="There are more and more questions, which are formulted like *&quot;Can you explain that without math?&quot;* or *&quot;I know that there is math, but is there an explanation in plain words?&quot;* or even *&quot;Can you tell without doing actual calculation?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel uneasy about them: mathematics is a language, it just helps to be rigorous and concrete, while we're asked not to use it. That is why such &quot;plain words explanations&quot; often lead to misunderstandings and even give rise new popular misconceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I'm not telling that one always must throw bunch of formulae in a poor fellow's face. I'm just against another extreme &quot;no mathematics at all&quot; means &quot;no physics at all&quot; as well. Maybe we should if not forbid, then at least discourage such kind of questions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="92a6dd67-7281-432d-b6ea-cfc401e3c157" CreationDate="2011-02-13T12:38:10.733" UserId="386" Text="&quot;No math, please&quot; questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="92a6dd67-7281-432d-b6ea-cfc401e3c157" CreationDate="2011-02-13T12:38:10.733" UserId="386" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="b18116b4-1264-419a-b685-0b0947e014bd" CreationDate="2011-02-13T15:52:29.103" UserId="520" Text="I, too, worry about these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, they're fine. I mean, Feynmann did a really amazing job explaining QED with no math, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Mathless explanations of non-trivial subjects are often are longer (sometimes *much* longer) than math enabled ones. This affects how &quot;big&quot; a topic can be handled in the Q&amp;F format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Without great care, explanation by analogy leads to follow-up question based on cases where the analogy breaks. In other words, physics by analogy is often misleading or outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To whatever extent we're trying to &quot;keep the level up&quot; here, this risk pulling it down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="65d135aa-4981-4914-8f80-005b7d22d1e2" CreationDate="2011-02-13T19:10:03.143" UserId="40" Text="It seems that http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3710/field-in-physics-vs-field-in-math was closed by the single vote of a moderator. This is unfortunate. There is an actual question there. While I do agree that it should not be tagged as math-physics it is rather rash to close a question asking for a clarification of terms. This is a question I once asked some of my friends in physics, and I believe I know a decent answer, which I alluded to in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also am bothered that this question was confused for a linguistic issue. On other SE sites it is not uncommon to see a question of the form &quot;Are X and X' related? The terminology suggests they are.&quot; This is hardly a linguistic issue since people picked the names of X and X'. They possibly did so because they thought that they were related, or know that they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I find the closure of such a good faith question by a single moderator who does not seem to understand the question very troubling. It can be seen that the question was closed 5 minutes after it was asked at the same time that the moderator left a comment saying why he was closing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this situation troubling. I know I haven't been here for a while, maybe I have missed some change in the FAQ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="65d135aa-4981-4914-8f80-005b7d22d1e2" CreationDate="2011-02-13T19:10:03.143" UserId="40" Text="Field in physics vs. Field in math" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="65d135aa-4981-4914-8f80-005b7d22d1e2" CreationDate="2011-02-13T19:10:03.143" UserId="40" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="89b0dd9d-76e5-4bc2-9bcb-49df2e79ee25" CreationDate="2011-02-13T19:14:25.497" UserId="113" Text="Why not support both types of answers? E.g., someone who is inclined to answer with math, could answer with math, and someone who is inclined to answer without math could answer without math?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="80364b18-9868-4c42-aa92-967993c3e5dd" CreationDate="2011-02-13T19:23:18.267" UserId="520" Text="I don't find that question very enlightening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between a physical field and a mathematical field is the same as the distinction between a physical scalar and a mathematical scalar: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The physics one is alleged to represent something in some sense *real*, and is assumed to be affected by a set of rules beyond those imposed by mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you haven't learned anything there, you've simply described physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="bff91799-9a39-4ac9-abaa-d1c9ec3dea9f" CreationDate="2011-02-13T21:12:19.880" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="I encountered the opposite issue: some people ask for precise definition, or mathematical exposition, or other technical sounding request, of some concept they clearly don’t understand. I tend to reply in words to that, despite the request. I think the problem with the “no math” request is more that it tends to accompany questions that are not well defined and potentially too elementary. This is an independent issue though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="851c1f17-155e-401f-8688-27d8bd812c28" CreationDate="2011-02-14T20:25:56.540" UserId="838" Text="I don't think we should encourage questions where the OP already knows the answer, puzzles or not, but I don't see anything wrong with a community wiki question asking for people to submit their favorite physics puzzles.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="76c794dd-75bc-4571-ac41-09d6405716b4" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:38:52.417" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="I think we already have an abundance of people who have clever things to say, whether or not those observations are related in any way to the discussion they are joining. This sort of thing will get out of control if they are encouraged to show their brilliance in the form of a puzzle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="1cc93ef1-784b-4e09-87d7-a43255f0a49e" CreationDate="2011-02-15T01:27:13.517" UserDisplayName="user566" Comment="added 184 characters in body; added 3 characters in body" Text="I think we already have an abundance of people who have clever things to say, whether or not those observations are related in any way to the discussion they are joining. This sort of thing will get out of control if they are encouraged to show their brilliance in the form of a puzzle. For an example where this can lead you can look at [this gem][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4827/is-the-total-energy-conserved-in-a-moving-reference-frame&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="e8bf5e22-f729-4dfb-989b-41b7ade0db72" CreationDate="2011-02-15T16:18:41.953" UserId="1916" Text="Math is itself no math, any math symbol or theorem can be ultimately explained without math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have more to say but I will stop now to avoid strange theories here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="69774e56-3ec3-412d-9030-092ad7e31bd4" CreationDate="2011-02-15T22:33:54.700" UserId="139" Text="Compare [this answer][1] on another physics-math related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People visiting the site are really looking for physical insight/understanding.  &#xD;&#xA;When the language is math, it may well be that mathematical rigorousness and exactness hides the fact that on a physical level one cannot really explain what is going on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, please note that I am not opposed to math or rigourness, on the contrary.  &#xD;&#xA;But I am even more interested in trying to understand what is &quot;really&quot; going on under the hood of math. And also in this physical field I am looking for &quot;exactness&quot; - please don't say its just math and one shouldn't try to understand physics. Its my personal opinion that that is the main challenge in theoretical physics today.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly this is a minority opinion, but I hope the site will also be a place for some of the minorities - would it be interesting enough otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164/mathematical-physics-does-it-belong-here&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="69943504-2b64-4a4b-9864-af4f87fce421" CreationDate="2011-02-16T04:30:35.857" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="I, too, worry about these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, they're fine. I mean, Feynmann did a really amazing job explaining QED with no math, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Mathless explanations of non-trivial subjects are often are longer (sometimes *much* longer) than math enabled ones. This affects how &quot;big&quot; a topic can be handled in the Q&amp;A format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Without great care, explanation by analogy leads to follow-up question based on cases where the analogy breaks. In other words, physics by analogy is often misleading or outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To whatever extent we're trying to &quot;keep the level up&quot; here, this risk pulling it down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="3931b147-7fdc-4a91-8f64-7b399e76691a" CreationDate="2011-02-16T10:52:09.703" UserId="1370" Text="In some cases I got anonymous downvotes I would have liked to know &#xD;&#xA;whether this was some &quot;revenge&quot; or some error in my answer. &#xD;&#xA;In extreme cases, knowing might allow to apply &quot;tit for a tat&quot; &#xD;&#xA;strategy, but- in general, downvotes are not a real problem, just &#xD;&#xA;think that world is not classic mechanics of work and reward, &#xD;&#xA;there is entropy too :=(&#xD;&#xA;Georg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="2b513909-fc09-4bc1-b651-cf2a39f2c183" CreationDate="2011-02-16T17:14:13.813" UserId="1382" Text="There is one instance in which I don't like the upvotes, although I believe that it is a right people can exercise. It is the case when people upvote posts which they like and would make a good bolg entry, but are actually not good answers. In fact in some cases, they are not answers at all. They are general explanations about topics related to the question, but don't answer any portion of the question, and usually give information that can be easily found on the web. In my opinion, and this is just an opinion, upvoting should be used only for good answers, not for good exposition in physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="c8350343-e95d-4372-8a34-f54cea1a9002" CreationDate="2011-02-16T17:52:02.963" UserId="1916" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="Math is itself no math, any math symbol or theorem can be ultimately explained without math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="6c49b0a0-7ae9-42dc-8e63-d1bf31fd7fb2" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:56:53.507" UserId="1272" Text="Is it appropriate to ask for criticism of an unpublished physics paper one is writing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure how such a question should be phrased. An example is &quot;What's the worst mistake I've made in this paper I'm planning on sending to a journal?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already asked questions about other's unpublished physics papers and it seemed to go okay. See:  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4986/could-ball-lightening-be-a-form-of-plasma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="6c49b0a0-7ae9-42dc-8e63-d1bf31fd7fb2" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:56:53.507" UserId="1272" Text="Is it appropriate to ask for criticism of a paper one is writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="6c49b0a0-7ae9-42dc-8e63-d1bf31fd7fb2" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:56:53.507" UserId="1272" Text="|discussion|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="442" RevisionGUID="d4ff7b88-9d39-4cad-a7fe-376828e10826" CreationDate="2011-02-17T04:36:06.917" UserId="113" Text="If it would genuinely and honestly be **of general interest and utility to others interested in Physics**, then perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what we want to avoid here is being &quot;too localized&quot;, e.g. a question that would only narrowly benefit your paper and you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="8cd24c25-deea-4631-96de-3e8e64cc6d95" CreationDate="2011-02-18T09:15:17.267" UserId="113" Text="How about a sketchy inspired chalkboard design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/images06/ChalkBoard01.jpg&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="18616e91-3f4c-436a-98e2-a2d863a7d01d" CreationDate="2011-02-18T09:54:57.270" UserId="701" Text="At the moment, the most popular question tags are _quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and general relativity_, so Schrödinger equation or Feynman diagrams are perfect elements for the site design. On the contrary, decorating the site with elementary pictures of interference, white light dispersion or pendulum motion would give Physics.SE an 'easy' look and would probably attract lower-level questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="00e003a4-d84d-4dfb-a0f4-d4a857dd4cf7" CreationDate="2011-02-18T15:43:45.807" UserId="386" Comment="added 119 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="Not another atom. Absolutely. Maybe some logo with a $\Psi$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Energy for &quot;not found&quot;, of course, will do. But I think the most suitable here would be the higgs boson (at least up to now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've checked how other launched sites look like and I really don't like the look of some of them. Too many bright colors or too many tiny details are really distracting. I actually like the present &quot;scetchy&quot; look -- maybe one can adopt it from &quot;notebook scetchy&quot; to &quot;white/blackboard scetchy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is what I made a minute ago, using my blackboard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Black board][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IIxMH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="db51303e-b7eb-4733-86c2-1cd005c7dc51" CreationDate="2011-02-18T15:52:25.327" UserId="386" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Not another atom. Absolutely. Maybe some logo with a $\Psi$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Energy for &quot;not found&quot;, of course, will do. But I think the most suitable here would be the higgs boson (at least up to now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've checked how other launched sites look like and I really don't like the look of some of them. Too many bright colors or too many tiny details are really distracting. I actually like the present &quot;scetchy&quot; look -- maybe one can adopt it from &quot;notebook scetchy&quot; to &quot;white/blackboard scetchy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is what I made a minute ago, using my blackboard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Black board][1]&#xD;&#xA;I tried to use ladder operators but they didn't look nice...  &#xD;&#xA;While I think that bra-s or ket-s (better ket-s) should be used for tags, don't they? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IIxMH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="e4c25845-3cb9-4020-aed2-512acbe29399" CreationDate="2011-02-18T20:03:24.623" UserId="869" Text="I believe that, most of the time, these questions are actually symptomatic of a different problem. A lot of us here tend to give answers in the most complicated and advanced language possible. This is a great disservice to anybody who asks a question here. I suspect that what the asker actually means is &quot;please answer this in a way that I can understand.&quot; When they say &quot;no math please&quot; I see it as an overreaction, intended to balance out our own tendency to explain simple things in complex terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, when somebody who is *clearly* at a high school or early undergraduate level comes around, asking something valid but simple, for example &quot;Why does a projectile follow a parabolic path,&quot; we really need to avoid the temptation to give an answer in terms of number theoretic symmetry groups, Lagrangian dynamics, and quantum field theory!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is room for the more advanced explanation, and it is often good to have that answer in addition to the simpler one. More advanced readers should be able to hope for something interesting in response to simple question, of course. Ultimately, though, if we want to stop people from asking for &quot;no math please&quot; then we have to stop trying to show off how much math we can throw at them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="5959434b-4275-4cec-bee6-7ad9c7d25d60" CreationDate="2011-02-18T22:20:15.797" UserId="869" Comment="Clarified a few points." Text="I believe that, most of the time, these questions are actually symptomatic of a different problem. A lot of us here tend to give answers in the most complicated and advanced language possible. This is a great disservice to anybody with less advanced mathematical abilities. I suspect that what the asker actually means is &quot;please answer this in a way that I can understand.&quot; When they say &quot;no math please&quot; I see it as an overreaction, intended to balance out our own tendency to explain simple things in complex terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, when somebody who is *clearly* at a high school or early undergraduate level comes around, asking something valid but simple, for example &quot;Why does a projectile follow a parabolic path,&quot; we really need to avoid the temptation to give an answer in terms of number theoretic symmetry groups, Lagrangian dynamics, and quantum field theory!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is room for the more advanced explanation, and it is often good to have that answer in addition to the simpler one. More advanced readers should be able to find a response at their level; I don't debate that. Ultimately, though, if we want to stop people from asking for &quot;no math please&quot; then we need people to feel that if they ask a question using intermediate level language, they will get at least one response that is both correct, and expressed at an intermediate level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I'd just like to clarify that I'm speaking here in generalities. I agree that there are plenty of cases where a &quot;no math please&quot; question cannot be properly answered without math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="c7fbe7fa-3da4-4b17-a782-a62512b22d7f" CreationDate="2011-02-18T22:46:36.320" UserId="3" Text="Hi all. I'm [Jin][1], and I'll be working on the designs for the Stack Exchange sites as they graduate from the beta phase. Each site will have its own unique theme that will reflect its topic. However, all sites will share quite a bit of common elements so they feel like they're part of the Stack Exchange family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to thank you for creating a [thread][2] on design ideas. It's helped me a great deal. After reading through all the suggestions, and researching on my own, I feel a blackboard theme would work well. It conveys a strong academic theme and has a personal touch, it also gives this community a distinctive character and identity. For those who are still in school learning and teaching, this theme creates a similar setting. For those outside of academia, it strikes a nostalgic feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, creating a dark themed design is always tricky. Bright text on flat black is harsh. But I believe when done right, a dark theme can be beautiful and sophisticated.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inspired by the above black board photo I found, as well as some photos submitted in the other [thread][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The design goal is to mimic the blackboard theme. It will have physics equations serving as visual decoration, but subtly so as to not get in the way of the main content. It needs to be simple and relatable to the site's audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the design concepts. *(click on image to see full resolution versions)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Home][5]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Question][6]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The faint grunge texture in the background is there to add to the blackboard effect. I've used some suggested equations/figures from the other thread as decorations, again, subtly. For the logo, I'm using the Mexican Hat. I think a geometric figure works well in the allotted space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equations I used are:  Feynman diagram, Maxwell's equation, Heliocentric coordinate system for Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Electronic properties of graphene. Of course, you are the physics experts, please let me know if I made any mistakes representing them. Also, if you feel there are certain equations that should be included to better serve the site(to reflect the level of questions), let me know. But do keep in mind, these equations are for decorative purpose only. I certainly don't want the entire background to be full of ghost marks. It would be hard to read the real content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the tag treatment, I'm keeping it simple. I believe a straightforward &quot;—&quot; feels more natural to how you'd write tags on a blackboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm keeping the number of colors very limited for this theme. They resemble traditional chalk colors: white, yellow and red(pink).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this design works for the goal intended. The dark theme really makes this site stand out, and the important content is easier to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping to get the site launched very soon. So an early congrats from me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T0yYR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="c7fbe7fa-3da4-4b17-a782-a62512b22d7f" CreationDate="2011-02-18T22:46:36.320" UserId="3" Text="Design for Physics-SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="c7fbe7fa-3da4-4b17-a782-a62512b22d7f" CreationDate="2011-02-18T22:46:36.320" UserId="3" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="b765fdc8-a349-4499-a752-ac793cf530d3" CreationDate="2011-02-19T01:57:10.750" UserId="520" Text="I'm generally skeptical of dark backgrounds, but the mock ups look good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I liked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The chalked in effect on the badges and the vote arrows&#xD;&#xA;* This semester I'm teaching on a blackboard for the first time in quite a while and you've also done a good job getting the grainy pastel feel of the colors&#xD;&#xA;* The chalkboard type face for the titles and other oddments&#xD;&#xA;* The &quot;Mexican hat potential&quot; logo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This I disliked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Nothing big.&#xD;&#xA;* I don't really like the way the question author block is set off.&#xD;&#xA;* The footer feels a little cramped (and, yeah, this is in conflict with my appreciation of the font choice...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I'm ambivalent about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Using the clean, sans serif typeface for the comments and post bodies is good for readability, but seems to detract a little from the theme. However, I have no suggestion for making it better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="937" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="d939bb9b-6c1f-491b-adb8-a381104ad394" CreationDate="2011-02-19T02:07:17.000" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="3810a34f-134d-4287-8013-281ddb116aef" CreationDate="2011-02-19T02:50:02.190" UserId="1335" Text="For answers, I like &quot;upvote if it is useful, downvote if it is wrong&quot;. Perhaps someone could change the arrows to mean than (instead of useful/not useful). A right but not useful answer, to me, is a zero but not a negative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unsure of the politics for questions. It is very subjetive, and perhaps in this case the reasons for downvoting could be done compulsory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People has said that upvoting is more powerful than downvoting, and it should be; I understand this is inspired in the previous experience of StackOverflow. But downvoting is more damaging: it tells the downvoted poster that it is not just uninteresting, that it is wrong or mad or unuseful or hated. And without a comment, the downvoted person can start to think that his posting is wrong when it is just mad, or the reverse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="939" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="019b504b-1290-4400-950f-e3b54ccac449" CreationDate="2011-02-19T10:16:41.250" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="bd8c432b-3aae-4dda-ac74-d71856ffb760" CreationDate="2011-02-19T10:22:24.133" UserId="329" Text="To be honest, to me it looks a little unprofessional.&#xD;&#xA;The idea itself and realization are interesting and I am sure you've put a lot of thought and work into it but IMO the underlying concept itself is somewhat flawed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I prefer clean simple designs, simple fonts, etc. I also don't particularly like black backgrounds (but I could deal with it if otherwise the design was a little more mature). What I particularly dislike are the chalky fonts. They remind me very strongly of Comic Sans and I think I've become allergic to anything similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the criticism. If the design was merely an art to be looked at, I'd like it very much. But if I am to use this site daily and will have to endure looking at those fonts all the time, I think it'll kill me sooner or later :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="451" RevisionGUID="f0cd57ba-d829-4052-a0c8-61245ead6b2b" CreationDate="2011-02-19T11:18:10.987" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Well, well done!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must admit that, as for a physics site, where no non-embarrassing nor non-controversial global symbols exists, the blackboard is a very good rejoinder (although it scared me at first because of my chalk-allergy ;-) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that the footer is too visible in handwrite, it definitely should go in the text font as on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="233ec104-eaf1-4457-a29f-7dbafe3fa80e" CreationDate="2011-02-19T15:28:36.737" UserId="1039" Text="If a dark background is hard to pull off properly, what about a whiteboard background, with colored marker pen fonts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="453" RevisionGUID="4333a363-ef97-4450-9a2a-93086b24ef9d" CreationDate="2011-02-19T15:31:42.133" UserId="1708" Text="I think white background is better. How about a scribbled notebook background? It could be an authentic notebook, with Einstein's handwriting or something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="359fbcf3-f8ad-4dc9-9924-2ca04797af8c" CreationDate="2011-02-19T18:48:11.860" UserId="701" Text="For those who dislike black background - make sure that you view the images at 100% zoom. Since the blackboard is not really black and the text is completely white, I find the contrast very comfortable. I like the idea of giving unique look to our site and I would like to see how the blackboard design works out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small remark: bright red color of **Add** buttons does not fit to the color scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="27c81e6f-3087-4bf2-924a-f92df75b5a5a" CreationDate="2011-02-19T22:39:08.673" UserId="1241" Text="Like Marek, I absolutely hate the chalkboard font. That's my only complaint -- I actually don't have strong feelings about the white-on-black design, for instance -- but I really don't like that font." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="2c1aa3c5-26d6-43c3-bb32-8f877373f8bf" CreationDate="2011-02-19T23:51:16.780" UserId="1588" Text="If your paper tells people something, then it's not a question. If there's something you're not happy with in a paper, then maybe it's not a paper, but looking for a way to make the issue you're not happy with into an interesting question will help even if you don't get interesting and useful answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you genuinely and honestly *think* it would be of **interest and utility to others interested in Physics**, then go ahead, ask a question that points to a paper. If others think the question has been asked in an interesting way, they'll give you the five Reps; if they're neutral, they'll leave it alone; if they hate the question or the paper, they'll say so and you'll lose some Reps &amp;mdash; or, if it's bad enough, you'll just lose some Reps. If you're making enough Reps elsewhere, answering questions in an interesting way, asking other questions that are interesting, then you can spend some of your credit. There's a danger that you'll become known as the crazy person who has somehow amassed lots of Reps, which likely would hurt your ability to amass Reps in the future, but if you care about that then only ask safe questions, or only ask difficult questions in safe ways. My sense of SE is that there's plenty of pressure to conform, so extra pressure on this particular issue is likely not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the number of papers that go through arXiv every day, there's a danger that SE could be overwhelmed if lots of people took this route, but I doubt that would happen in significant numbers and I think the bridge can be looked at if people cross it. SE would, however, be doing the Physics Community a favor if at least a few papers can be improved or weeded out before they're sent to a journal. Anything that finds disapprobation on SE would very likely not be sent to referees at many journals (though somewhere can be found for most anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, who cares about meta? &amp;mdash; just do it. If you're going to hate it if everyone dumps on you, do it carefully or do something else. If meta says you can do it, that's not going to stop people dumping on a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'd say that &quot;What's the worst mistake I've made in this paper I'm planning on sending to a journal?&quot; is not a great Question. But then, this isn't a great Answer, despite the time I've spent on it (too much, but hopefully I've learned a little from the stops and restarts along the way even if no-one else does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best wishes, Carl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="947" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="2f53054c-58ba-47c7-9e43-2a4694353f1d" CreationDate="2011-02-21T21:10:29.370" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="634c16f6-6ea3-4cc2-9768-7b9ceefdfb9e" CreationDate="2011-02-22T05:03:12.610" UserId="1272" Text="When I've got my laptop on my belly late at night, the only way I can find the keys is by the light emitted by the display. So a black background is quite inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="234b46bc-6313-413a-8d68-f549b55048fc" CreationDate="2011-02-22T09:44:19.563" UserId="97" Text="I like the idea - I actually had my screen colours inverted completely for some days. However...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at one white on black site for a while and then back at the usual black on white causes some uncomfortable afterimages for me, and while I like spending some time here I usually have Matlab/Mathematica/etc. on my screen and don't like to be distracted by funny colourful spots (that's also why I stopped using inverted colours, it didn't work on remote sessions). Maybe that's just me though...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could also interfere with accessibility issues, I'm afraid. But actually I like the style if you just invert the colours:  &#xD;&#xA;[![Inverted style][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;Amplifying the background a bit wouldn't hurt, too IMHO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also like the sketchy style and colour choice of e.g. [Crayon Physics  &#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot](http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/screenshots/crayon_shot_02.jpg)](http://www.crayonphysics.com/)  &#xD;&#xA;but that's probably giving the wrong idea to someone with &quot;advanced&quot; questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rFXZQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="c5a35ace-bdca-4160-868f-03ce1ea972ac" CreationDate="2011-02-22T09:50:02.970" UserId="97" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="I like the idea - I actually had my screen colours inverted completely for some days. However...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at one white on black site for a while and then back at the usual black on white causes some uncomfortable afterimages for me, and while I like spending some time here I usually have Matlab/Mathematica/etc. on my screen and don't like to be distracted by funny colourful spots (that's also why I stopped using inverted colours, it didn't work on remote sessions). Maybe that's just me though...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could also interfere with accessibility issues, I'm afraid. But actually I like the style if you just invert the colours:  &#xD;&#xA;[![Inverted style][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;Amplifying the background a bit wouldn't hurt, too IMHO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also like the sketchy style and colour choice of e.g. [Crayon Physics  &#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot](http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/screenshots/crayon_shot_02.jpg)](http://www.crayonphysics.com/)  &#xD;&#xA;but that's probably giving the wrong idea to someone with &quot;advanced&quot; questions. OTOH I can't help but smirk at the thought of a quite sophisticated discussion written down in wax colours :-7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rFXZQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="953" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="461" RevisionGUID="ceac64c4-7515-4b8d-bc36-109644e5c15c" CreationDate="2011-02-22T21:27:30.787" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5673/polymath-project-equivalent-for-physics/5680#5680" Text="" />
  <row Id="954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="461" RevisionGUID="35b26a1e-6113-4daa-aaca-b4acf1d8c84c" CreationDate="2011-02-22T21:13:49.793" UserId="329" Text="Well, first I have to say that I love the idea. I like problem solving and it seems that it has basically died out around here recently. But few months ago there were some neat problems going around that I liked thinking about and it could be great if we could revive that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we just have few problems to solve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to organize stuff? How will we decide what to work on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest everybody just propose some problem in this thread and let the voting sort it out. Then we will start working on it in the separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How hard should it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For starters I would suggest something relatively simple, or at least something we know should be solvable. Some nice problem from mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. If it works, we can move on to genuine research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to manage discussions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you followed Gower's blog then you know that discussions there are miles long. There's no way we can manage that here. Perhaps we'll be able to exploit the chat room. But I guess we can at least try to do this and see what happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add some problem I'd like to see solved later. Can't think of anything that isn't either too easy or too hard right now :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="023e453e-bcec-487a-87ed-f31cc83d3ad6" CreationDate="2011-02-22T19:33:07.403" UserId="1671" Text="See [here][1] and [here][2] if you wish to know about [Polymath][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one would love to be a part of some collaborative problem solving endeavor. Although it can be said that quite some physics research is already massively collaborative -the LHC- for example, but I am talking about some research level theoretical question. There are some issues that I thought about, and I would like to here your own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Lots of people are already working&#xD;&#xA;    on lots of problems individually,&#xD;&#xA;    for their thesis etc. An ideal&#xD;&#xA;    question should be somewhere between&#xD;&#xA;    an examination question and a thesis&#xD;&#xA;    report for such a project to be&#xD;&#xA;    feasible. (i.e too tough for an exam, but not big/exhaustive enough for an entire thesis)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. Some senior practicing&#xD;&#xA;    physicist(s) must mentor/administer such a&#xD;&#xA;    project. This is the only way to ensure that nonsensical things do not get accepted by some sort of crowd consensus.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 3. How is it different from physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;    This is where I have my greatest&#xD;&#xA;    apprehension. Here people post their&#xD;&#xA;    own solutions which are intended to&#xD;&#xA;    be complete. These are then judged&#xD;&#xA;    and voted accordingly as per their&#xD;&#xA;    accuracy and clarity, etc. I don't&#xD;&#xA;    see how this can be applied to physics problems, although it might be possible. For example, a Maths problem the collaborative effort usually goes like this.. people start by testing for trivial cases, trying induction, trying to reduce the problem to an easier or known one, etc. In physics, if we are to study some physical problem, we might have  to make simplifications to put it into an analyzable-framework. It then reduces to using known physical laws and applying it to the specifics of the problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how clear I have been, I would like to know what you all think about this. I am in no position qualified to start such a project, but I would have loved to participate if such a thing existed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/questions-of-procedure/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://polymathprojects.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="023e453e-bcec-487a-87ed-f31cc83d3ad6" CreationDate="2011-02-22T19:33:07.403" UserId="1671" Text="Polymath project equivalent for Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="023e453e-bcec-487a-87ed-f31cc83d3ad6" CreationDate="2011-02-22T19:33:07.403" UserId="1671" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="958" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="5f3f827f-8eaa-4610-9675-b08dd6455664" CreationDate="2011-02-22T21:27:30.787" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5673/polymath-project-equivalent-for-physics" Text="" />
  <row Id="959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="93616ed2-d129-440c-a63a-e2a463c3e49a" CreationDate="2011-02-23T01:21:45.227" UserId="1671" Comment="added 547 characters in body; edited tags; added 8 characters in body; added 13 characters in body" Text="See [here][1] and [here][2] if you wish to know about [Polymath][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one would love to be a part of some collaborative problem solving endeavor. Although it can be said that quite some physics research is already massively collaborative -the LHC- for example, but I am talking about some research level theoretical question. There are some issues that I thought about, and I would like to here your own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Lots of people are already working&#xD;&#xA;    on lots of problems individually,&#xD;&#xA;    for their thesis etc. An ideal&#xD;&#xA;    question should be somewhere between&#xD;&#xA;    an examination question and a thesis&#xD;&#xA;    report for such a project to be&#xD;&#xA;    feasible. (i.e too tough for an exam, but not big/exhaustive enough for an entire thesis)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. Some senior practicing&#xD;&#xA;    physicist(s) must mentor/administer such a&#xD;&#xA;    project. This is the only way to ensure that nonsensical things do not get accepted by some sort of crowd consensus.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 3. How is it different from physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;    This is where I have my greatest&#xD;&#xA;    apprehension. Here people post their&#xD;&#xA;    own solutions which are intended to&#xD;&#xA;    be complete. These are then judged&#xD;&#xA;    and voted accordingly as per their&#xD;&#xA;    accuracy and clarity, etc. I don't&#xD;&#xA;    see how this can be applied to physics problems, although it might be possible. For example, a Maths problem the collaborative effort usually goes like this.. people start by testing for trivial cases, trying induction, trying to reduce the problem to an easier or known one, etc. In physics, if we are to study some physical problem, we might have  to make simplifications to put it into an analyzable-framework. It then reduces to using known physical laws and applying it to the specifics of the problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how clear I have been, I would like to know what you all think about this. I am in no position qualified to start such a project, but I would have loved to participate if such a thing existed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notes:**&#xD;&#xA;from the comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Need a blog or an equivalent platform with commenting-type feature as the place to release problems to general public. Will anyone volunteer to host such a problem in his/her blog/website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. phy.SE might be the best place to propose problems. I beleive a problem has to be good enough to allow different kinds of approaches so that we may learn from different insights.  However, I guess some problem proposals here, even sketchy, might be a good idea to start.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/questions-of-procedure/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://polymathprojects.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="93616ed2-d129-440c-a63a-e2a463c3e49a" CreationDate="2011-02-23T01:21:45.227" UserId="1671" Comment="added 547 characters in body; edited tags; added 8 characters in body; added 13 characters in body" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="b1a88fc2-515d-4694-949a-3cf88fa35e64" CreationDate="2011-02-23T15:48:03.800" UserId="97" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I like the idea - I actually had my screen colours inverted completely for some days. However...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at one white on black site for a while and then back at the usual black on white causes some uncomfortable afterimages for me, and while I like spending some time here I usually have Matlab/Mathematica/etc. on my screen and don't like to be distracted by funny colourful spots (that's also why I stopped using inverted colours, it didn't work on remote sessions). Maybe that's just me though...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could also interfere with accessibility issues, I'm afraid. But I like the style if you just invert the colours, giving it an also nostalgic **pencil-calculations** look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Inverted style][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;Amplifying the background a bit wouldn't hurt, too IMHO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also like the sketchy style and colour choice of e.g. [Crayon Physics  &#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot](http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/screenshots/crayon_shot_02.jpg)](http://www.crayonphysics.com/)  &#xD;&#xA;but that's probably giving the wrong idea to someone with &quot;advanced&quot; questions. OTOH I can't help but smirk at the thought of a quite sophisticated discussion written down in wax colours :-7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rFXZQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="a3892da1-17a3-4c65-85e4-fb1f5b0d1c37" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:12:20.840" UserId="2192" Text="When posting an answer, I get a very white glow, can this be corrected? :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TkLjB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="60717e0c-0a77-4d84-8895-a5e0de945726" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:22:03.610" UserId="3" Text="Hi all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the new design is live, which means Physics-SE has been officially launched, and is no longer a Beta site! Congratulations! Also, thank you for the [feedback][1] on the design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided not to use the handwritten font as much I did in the mockups. I agree with you that they're a bit harder to read at a smaller size. I'm only using it for the top nav and header text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, please start a new post, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="60717e0c-0a77-4d84-8895-a5e0de945726" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:22:03.610" UserId="3" Text="New Design Launched" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="60717e0c-0a77-4d84-8895-a5e0de945726" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:22:03.610" UserId="3" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="c586396b-3757-485b-a65a-d9abd64166d3" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:32:44.487" UserId="3" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Hi all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the new design is live, which means Physics-SE has been officially launched, and is no longer a Beta site! Congratulations! Also, thank you for the [feedback][1] on the design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided not to use the handwritten font as much I did in the mockups. I agree with you that they're a bit harder to read at a smaller size. I'm only using it for the top nav and header text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still seeing the old favicons, load the follow two urls in your browser and hard refresh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physics/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physicsmeta/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, please start a new post, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="b445f0e7-de8e-4859-9565-e8cc57b18254" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:42:49.140" UserId="74" Text="This is an issue that I don't think anyone foresaw, but some old material uses images with transparency, and those images now can't be read.  For example, I just checked out an old post I wrote that copied an equation from Wikipedia as an image.  The black text of the image doesn't stand out against the background any more.  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5170/what-happens-when-you-cut-a-biconvex-lens-in-half/5173#5173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="968" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="bc9e00e3-0578-46f5-b0ec-e22ddd39d652" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:43:45.583" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited title" Text="Can voting anonymously and without comment lead to &quot;consensus science&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="3b26254b-6135-409e-9044-74045076408f" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:45:14.053" UserId="1655" Text="The small boxes on user pages that are supposed to show the number of votes just show blank green squares for me if the answer was accepted. Like this:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EAB4u.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it matters, I'm using Chrome on Ubuntu." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="3b26254b-6135-409e-9044-74045076408f" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:45:14.053" UserId="1655" Text="can't see number of votes on accepted answer in user pages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="3b26254b-6135-409e-9044-74045076408f" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:45:14.053" UserId="1655" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="2a9fe599-db7f-4010-83b8-d1456ff4feab" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:46:20.153" UserId="1449" Text="This is what I got on top of my screen when I first logged in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My eyesight isn't good, but I believe that's light yellow over light grey (mostly #FFF7CE over #F8FAF7), which is to say it's hardly visible at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cX6qy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="2a9fe599-db7f-4010-83b8-d1456ff4feab" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:46:20.153" UserId="1449" Text="&quot;Welcome back&quot; bar colour scheme" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="2a9fe599-db7f-4010-83b8-d1456ff4feab" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:46:20.153" UserId="1449" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="e2f88186-ddab-4fa0-8b8e-979b6d4db261" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:52:36.880" UserId="3" Text="The fix will be in the next deployment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="e02806e3-3c44-4078-88ec-47b449f4cc54" CreationDate="2011-02-24T22:57:48.773" UserId="1449" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="This is what I got on top of my screen when I first logged in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My eyesight isn't good, but I believe that's light yellow over light grey (mostly #FFF7CE over #F8FAF7), which is to say it's hardly visible at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Firefox 3, Vista (you only get to choose some things in the business world...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cX6qy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="180bf713-df87-40a8-9224-120a67033184" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:10:54.260" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="All the edit boxes are still white, and combined with dark design this is really eye-hurting. I think they should all look like the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW there are few issues of bright text on bright background in the moderator tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="180bf713-df87-40a8-9224-120a67033184" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:10:54.260" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Some bright backgrounds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="180bf713-df87-40a8-9224-120a67033184" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:10:54.260" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="5b073c84-328a-4876-bb92-fba1c35ea89c" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:14:29.733" UserId="1655" Text="One example of this is the &quot;share this hot question&quot; box:![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V9nF0.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That box near the mouse is supposed to say &quot;to earn the publicist badge.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="24af4f8c-0624-41db-8519-0faa16d18555" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:19:41.943" UserId="1495" Text="I find that it is difficult to concentrate for long trying to read white print on a black background. I do not like it at all and find that rather than being drawn to the stack, I want to navigate away from it. I hope it is not going to stay like this for long. You don't need &quot;cute&quot; design. The beta was fine.  Go to mathstack and look at it for clarity and readability, then come back here and tell me you prefer this and find it easier to focus on the ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="982" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="b9b3dd1b-c50f-42b5-a7cd-142b20f5cdd5" CreationDate="2011-02-25T01:52:27.623" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="81476101-0849-4f62-b9ba-8fb61d996615" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:10:51.107" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="With the background update, I seem to have lost access to moderation tools, and to the ability to vote on closing questions. Was that intentional? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="81476101-0849-4f62-b9ba-8fb61d996615" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:10:51.107" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="lost privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="81476101-0849-4f62-b9ba-8fb61d996615" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:10:51.107" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="27726504-1d1d-4b10-bcc6-e66c08ecb273" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:24:40.617" UserId="113" Text="Yes -- this is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/67054/can-we-grandfather-in-rep-abilities-as-sites-leave-beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more detail at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="99b7d5cd-5ace-490d-af92-1f46d8fef171" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:33:52.553" UserId="2179" Text="Newbie here, with a little story :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I found this *awsome* site and was really surprised that I've never heard about it. It seems so *different* from other and &quot;professional&quot; in almost all aspects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing I liked very, very, I mean very very much, was *nice clean design*. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Thanks god&quot;, I thought, &quot;finally one &quot;normal-looking&quot; discussion board, in oppose to bunch of awfull-looking kid-designed forums&quot;.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I am the one of those who hate black backgrounds on sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tonight I come here 2nd time, happy to find good answers to my question, happy to see a lot of other interesting questions and answers, happy with all concept of a site, full of motivation to participate in this remmember *normal-looking* site.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after one refresh black backgorund slap in my face! &#xD;&#xA;Can't beleive :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how long this site &quot;normaly&quot; (means with white background:) ) exist &quot;before me&quot;. But putting dark background right now, when I come here, I find as act of conspiracy :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest if this site has dark background when I come first time here, I will, in spite of content, never stay here more than time needed to see content of link which got me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, keep in mind that I am not talking about bad or good design. That's out of my scope of interest and competence. I appreciate effort of designers and his elaboration in justifying new design, and I am sorry for sort of criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as a user I prefere (if not demand) nice, clean, discrete and unobtrusive design, in which black/dark on white/light background, however it sounds fraky, is &quot;must&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="16d54baf-1559-45af-9f7d-50c0eeb9be43" CreationDate="2011-02-25T03:51:46.267" UserId="1108" Text="On tag pages such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/electromagnetism, the text &quot;tag has no wiki summary, would you like to&quot; is unreadably dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the &quot;help us create it?&quot; part looks good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="16d54baf-1559-45af-9f7d-50c0eeb9be43" CreationDate="2011-02-25T03:51:46.267" UserId="1108" Text="Unreadable dark text on tag pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="16d54baf-1559-45af-9f7d-50c0eeb9be43" CreationDate="2011-02-25T03:51:46.267" UserId="1108" Text="|bug|tags|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="6c610a69-6663-40cd-892d-86a7d6a78a4e" CreationDate="2011-02-25T07:51:26.873" UserId="1390" Text="The previous design was much more attractive to me.Especially irritating is now the blackboard background with not completely erased stuff. It looks at least dirty, foggy, and distracts attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="12df66ec-3522-4c97-9dc6-18269e86ee04" CreationDate="2011-02-25T08:32:45.760" UserId="97" Text="Thanks for the design. However I am not exactly pleased with what it does to the [highlight SOFU tag](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/49704/146482) greasemonkey script which made it easy to spot which and how many tags of a question actually are favourites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tagged][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QKYNb.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="4cdac778-f78b-4b3a-ae92-88bc5a1ce7cd" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:08:48.993" UserId="1065" Text="What's bothering me about this design is the usability aspect of it. White text on a black background isn't exactly eminently readable for me. Is there any way to use a whiteboard instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="994bc3ef-9ca8-4d5a-aafe-fb3138e47f6e" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:19:03.693" UserId="1065" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="What's bothering me about this design is the usability aspect of it. White text on a black background isn't exactly eminently readable for me. Is there any way to use a whiteboard instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the [white notebook look][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry, but I just find this design to straining for me eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se/459#459" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="ad4d4e3c-27ec-4328-a295-542b04d33377" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:48:28.627" UserId="1370" Text="Have You ever read something on readability of a design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart of the dark background this &quot;just vanishing&quot; &#xD;&#xA;things (physics on a blackboard?) are very &#xD;&#xA;irritating.  I am a &quot;quick&quot; reader, this design &#xD;&#xA;is distracting. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="34e28e3c-f7aa-4ed3-9bbf-1bfca555b5c8" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:59:45.503" UserId="1390" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="The previous design was much more attractive to me. Especially irritating is now the blackboard background with not completely erased stuff. It looks at least dirty, foggy, and distracts attention. The white font is not white but grey so the contrast decreased. Please, return the beta version. Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="19472d43-689c-4973-b9e5-5f22b0a0f7e3" CreationDate="2011-02-25T10:59:01.057" UserId="358" Text="Dear community,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think [Jin][1] has done a great Job for the community so far and comes up with very nice ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, as pointed out by a lot of people by now in [Design for Physics-SE][2] and [New Design Launched][3], it has severe drawbacks in **readability** and **usability**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tobias][4] [proposed][5] a very nice modification of the design which would still be in Jin's sense (I suppose) by just inverting colours which is to my mind much more feasible for our site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tobias design modification][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we please change the design to black-on-white in a manner as Tobias suggested?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/447/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/463/358&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se/459#459&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u3hk5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="19472d43-689c-4973-b9e5-5f22b0a0f7e3" CreationDate="2011-02-25T10:59:01.057" UserId="358" Text="Can we please change the design to black-on-white?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="19472d43-689c-4973-b9e5-5f22b0a0f7e3" CreationDate="2011-02-25T10:59:01.057" UserId="358" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="459df81d-febc-4d66-811b-63515e1a841a" CreationDate="2011-02-25T11:16:36.957" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I think it is rather a bad idea since the inverted scheme just looks ugly (and there is no substantial benefit form the fact that it can be apparently done fast -- it can't be, since it raises additional problems); the whiteboard scheme is taken, so the probably the best way to switch to back-on-white is a move to some notebook inspirations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there are users who like the way it is (for instance I think that after some fixes it may do the job -- the less comfort in reading may be even beneficial, for instance in silencing discursive threads). And I don't really know how to settle it minimizing blood runoff (=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="1c71fd5d-eb76-486f-ae92-beb753fa3a7b" CreationDate="2011-02-25T11:19:16.890" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="jQuery animation after answer is a white blast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1005" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="8cc910a0-62df-49f1-b160-50b06be36e41" CreationDate="2011-02-25T13:28:28.767" UserId="97" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="4c4ab181-8472-4af8-8059-c6637b3f5d62" CreationDate="2011-02-25T13:54:45.573" UserId="238" Text="Place for found bugs in design&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="4c4ab181-8472-4af8-8059-c6637b3f5d62" CreationDate="2011-02-25T13:54:45.573" UserId="238" Text="Found bugs in design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="4c4ab181-8472-4af8-8059-c6637b3f5d62" CreationDate="2011-02-25T13:54:45.573" UserId="238" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="4201db7d-694d-49fe-be0b-446567c12b2e" CreationDate="2011-02-25T15:00:33.163" UserId="838" Text="I thought I was going to like the white on black/grey design, but now that it has been implemented I find I really hate it to the point I don't want to spend much time here. I'm not sure that a simple reversal will do it, but I am strongly in favor of a change to a black on white design. When I go from what is here to a page with black on white I get a physical sense of relief." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="0f6b9bef-bf08-4a49-b391-61a910a6d78f" CreationDate="2011-02-25T16:08:35.393" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="I have precisely the same reaction as Jeff. Some websites have theme chooser options, maybe this is the way to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="4046bef2-59c3-4957-b621-15fd127506e4" CreationDate="2011-02-25T17:47:07.410" UserId="113" Text="We'll put together a user script at http://stackapps.com?tab=scripts for folks who really want the white layout -- in fact, we can probably put together a de-styler that converts any Stack Exchange design to a fairly minimalistic one for those that prefer it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="b0be61fb-4c32-4b5d-b0bd-96d0ae7f9fa3" CreationDate="2011-02-25T18:00:11.627" UserId="1495" Text="--something like:&#xD;&#xA;1. I want white lettering/black background&#xD;&#xA;2. I want black lettering/white background&#xD;&#xA;3. Something else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that quite a few people don't go to meta and that new members may not know&#xD;&#xA;what it is. Moderators could frame the poll question and tablulate votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="b0be61fb-4c32-4b5d-b0bd-96d0ae7f9fa3" CreationDate="2011-02-25T18:00:11.627" UserId="1495" Text="Is it possible to have a community wiki poll of members about the colors not just discussion on meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="b0be61fb-4c32-4b5d-b0bd-96d0ae7f9fa3" CreationDate="2011-02-25T18:00:11.627" UserId="1495" Text="|discussion|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="b2779a06-cb7d-4cbd-8e3d-a10ac960a186" CreationDate="2011-02-25T19:03:34.810" UserId="124" Text="The people in charge have often stated that poll questions are not welcome on Stack Exchange sites. So although it would be interesting to gather that information, a meta question wouldn't be the place to do it. Besides, I'm not sure how much flexibility there is to change the design now that the site has officially launched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to set up a poll, you could do so using an external poll site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="7bda8236-2e89-4313-827a-8532756aca1c" CreationDate="2011-02-25T20:09:42.333" UserId="520" Text="Don't clutter the main site with a meta topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to poll the users (and I'm not opposed, though I would suggest waiting another couple of days) lets ask for a **notification bar on the main site**, but **leave the poll on meta**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I'm waiting a while to decide if I get used to it, but am currently leaning toward asking for a redesign." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="26c3d65a-cf13-4bab-9ff1-e8ad5f725c8d" CreationDate="2011-02-26T02:54:50.310" UserId="98" Text="![](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/98.png)&#xD;&#xA;![](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/98.png?theme=clean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The default and clean theme for [user flairs][1] have unreadable font colors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="26c3d65a-cf13-4bab-9ff1-e8ad5f725c8d" CreationDate="2011-02-26T02:54:50.310" UserId="98" Text="Flair font color unreadable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="26c3d65a-cf13-4bab-9ff1-e8ad5f725c8d" CreationDate="2011-02-26T02:54:50.310" UserId="98" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="b19848a3-b823-4eb4-9c3f-e5edef3d2811" CreationDate="2011-02-26T03:29:42.967" UserId="3" Text="The fix will be in the next deployment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="235d56e0-307e-4f1a-9f57-8fadf92af957" CreationDate="2011-02-26T03:43:08.223" UserId="3" Text="The fix will be in the next deployment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1028" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="513fde8c-3214-46b8-809c-c2176487eb68" CreationDate="2011-02-26T04:31:09.870" UserId="1097" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1029" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="91d59499-2e43-4ab8-b690-60551769f401" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:49:17.817" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1030" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="50480cae-5f61-4822-af6e-a888a9b1951d" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:50:05.693" UserId="113" Comment="edited title; added 56 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Unreadable bounty message" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="50480cae-5f61-4822-af6e-a888a9b1951d" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:50:05.693" UserId="113" Comment="edited title; added 56 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Unreadable bounty message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![bounty message][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZcvA0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="50480cae-5f61-4822-af6e-a888a9b1951d" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:50:05.693" UserId="113" Comment="edited title; added 56 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="8f781020-acc0-4c1f-bf15-56c34e9115fa" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:51:00.593" UserId="113" Text="This is now fixed -- sorry about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1036" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="cabc9d11-da47-49c6-9c9e-0acd755b8bfe" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:53:10.480" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="055ed434-5c1c-4f37-805e-bd2b0cad4e0a" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:54:19.560" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="e4c8c756-9e66-46c5-ac00-8849f8f9ca37" CreationDate="2011-02-26T06:54:56.690" UserId="113" Text="Most of the bright input areas have been fixed, including the one mbq mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please try to open one item or *strongly* related item(s) per question, otherwise it's hard to process this stuff.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="5a7b441c-4124-46b9-97a8-6854fdffff78" CreationDate="2011-02-26T07:08:34.073" UserId="113" Text="I changed the default link color in this setting to `#888E84` which is based on the physics logo color." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1040" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="794d56ce-b089-43de-9f0f-1d72451b2ed8" CreationDate="2011-02-26T07:25:56.380" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="d15ef166-6793-41d8-9d9c-e931048b1c28" CreationDate="2011-02-26T10:51:03.740" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="deleted 100 characters in body" Text="I think it is rather a bad idea since the inverted scheme just looks ugly (and there is no substantial benefit form the fact that it can be apparently done fast -- it can't be, since it raises additional problems); the whiteboard scheme is taken, so the probably the best way to switch to back-on-white is a move to some notebook inspirations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there are users who like the way it is (for instance I think that after some fixes it may do the job). And I don't really know how to settle it minimizing blood runoff (=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="79101a06-940f-4890-ab21-edf16e138292" CreationDate="2011-02-26T11:05:24.870" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="There is a voting engine on board -- we used it on CV to vote on a site name. I feel it is really a good idea to use it in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet it must be set up by the SE team." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="00f294f7-8a71-469b-af15-4ab5c0383f2b" CreationDate="2011-02-26T14:13:14.397" UserId="1492" Text="I appreciated the blackboard effect and the faint equations shown in the background, but I agree that black on white background  is more restful, easier on the eyes and, more importantly, the psyche.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Many of us come from cultures where black is associated with  mourning and even language reflects it :&quot;black is the day I ...&quot;, &quot;I threw a black stone behind me&quot; meaning I &quot;will never come back&quot;, &quot;my soul turned black&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there is the little black dress :) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using Firefox, I just now went to Tools, options. content, colors and imposed my black on white. The page turned from black to white with letters black ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only argument from me comes on whether the default given by stackexchange is attractive to new users or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="41fefbbc-7821-4ff1-9e40-18b6001fc356" CreationDate="2011-02-26T14:34:12.257" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="deleted 179 characters in body" Text="I think it is rather a bad idea since the inverted scheme just looks ugly (and there is no substantial benefit form the fact that it can be apparently done fast -- it can't be, since it raises additional problems); the whiteboard scheme is taken, so the probably the best way to switch to back-on-white is a move to some notebook inspirations. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="b1cd770e-f621-4355-bcb7-148064ef9eb6" CreationDate="2011-02-26T16:14:20.080" UserId="1272" Text="Physics is an image and equation based subject. It is not something that you can jam into whatever color scheme you like. We may use blackboards for classroom demonstrations but we don't publish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what a standard Feynman diagram from wikipedia looks like in the new scheme, a big white light, not a good combination with dark background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg/287px-Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to use a symbol not supported by the site LaTeX such as. This is fairly common. Here's the gim symbol ![gim][2] used in a physics paper http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0505220 that now will look like heck every time it's inserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Black on white is incompatible with physics standards for text. This means that whenever we copy text from a physics book, Latex renderer, or other source we will have a big white square in the middle of our equations. Now when we copy a block of text from a paper (which can be much quicker than having to LaTeX it, especially if it's complicated), this is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![gimvec2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White on black is a great idea for a designer but is unsatisfactory for working physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ppCPl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZSYk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tGhtJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="b227df3e-8953-4912-b1e1-8cfa66cded3c" CreationDate="2011-02-26T16:45:44.790" UserId="386" Text="Well, It was expected that most complains would be about the &quot;white on black&quot;...  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But I must say that this is generally not true, that it is unusual setup for physicist. Or even that it is more more diffcult to read/write in this case. I personally spend a large part of my working time either using blackboard (which is black), either writing LaTeX/code in Vim in unix console (which is black). So for me there is no need to adapt to such a palette." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="10ff6b7c-eb6c-439b-839d-a4802c9a9d82" CreationDate="2011-02-26T18:41:02.440" UserId="159" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Physics, is a subject where lot of equations and other things are involved so the white design is a must. Infact, at the StackExchange community Mathematics, Physics along with statistics are the three sites which are going to make the use of LaTeX to the maximum extent. Atleast, for that a white design is a must." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="02c925e2-cebf-43ac-9247-28d0a4e7e762" CreationDate="2011-02-27T04:38:23.217" UserId="1272" Comment="edited body" Text="Physics is an image and equation based subject. It is not something that you can jam into whatever color scheme you like. We may use blackboards for classroom demonstrations but we don't publish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what a standard Feynman diagram from wikipedia looks like in the new scheme, a big white light, not a good combination with dark background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg/287px-Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to use a symbol not supported by the site LaTeX such as. This is fairly common. Here's the gim symbol ![gim][2] used in a physics paper http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0505220 that now will look like heck every time it's inserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White on black is incompatible with physics standards for text. This means that whenever we copy text from a physics book, Latex renderer, or other source we will have a big white square in the middle of our equations. Now when we copy a block of text from a paper (which can be much quicker than having to LaTeX it, especially if it's complicated), this is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![gimvec2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White on black is a great idea for a designer but is unsatisfactory for working physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ppCPl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZSYk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tGhtJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="c81519e8-e28f-4ef1-9c25-560944a79d7d" CreationDate="2011-02-27T04:47:47.320" UserId="124" Text="One for the SE team: can we get an official migration path for moving questions from physics.SE to math.SE? A non-negligible fraction of the off-topic questions we get here are purely mathematical in nature and mbq or I wind up moving them to the math site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="c81519e8-e28f-4ef1-9c25-560944a79d7d" CreationDate="2011-02-27T04:47:47.320" UserId="124" Text="Can we get a migration path opened to math.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="c81519e8-e28f-4ef1-9c25-560944a79d7d" CreationDate="2011-02-27T04:47:47.320" UserId="124" Text="|feature-request|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="1f1fba13-6c6b-4653-b096-bd6dc8add7fe" CreationDate="2011-02-27T15:10:44.020" UserId="1097" Text="In order to open up a migration path, we'd first like to see evidence that a significant number of closed questions have been manually migrated by moderators or should be migrated to the destination site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you / the community can create an answer here that points to a lot of examples.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="d81a5639-10e5-4af2-a4c8-e204f464279f" CreationDate="2011-02-27T18:36:23.840" UserId="124" Text="At Rebecca's request, I went over the last month's worth of closed questions and assembled this non-exhaustive list of questions that have been migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6034/vector-multiplication-with-scalars&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5987/derivation-of-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5694/prove-that-honeycomb-structures-are-the-most-geometrically-efficient-structure&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5391/derivation-of-fourier-series&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4714/what-is-the-current-status-of-vinay-deolalikars-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/vector-product-in-2-dimensions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could have been migrated, but as I recall it's so basic we figured it wasn't worth it, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to edit in additional examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="8e129a0a-fcff-4457-9474-ffc2988d0911" CreationDate="2011-02-27T19:15:23.700" UserId="124" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="At Rebecca's request, I went over the last month's worth of closed questions and assembled this possibly non-exhaustive list of questions that have been migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6034/vector-multiplication-with-scalars&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5987/derivation-of-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5694/prove-that-honeycomb-structures-are-the-most-geometrically-efficient-structure&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5391/derivation-of-fourier-series&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4714/what-is-the-current-status-of-vinay-deolalikars-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/vector-product-in-2-dimensions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could have been migrated, but as I recall it's so basic we figured it wasn't worth it, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to edit in additional examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="813dfc79-e32b-4ad9-a38c-3e71f9a62e6a" CreationDate="2011-02-28T18:22:53.390" UserId="2146" Text="Let's take a look at some successful templates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.physicsforums.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicsforums does have a theme to it, with the background a light grey, and hints of green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;http://terrytao.wordpress.com/&#xD;&#xA;http://gowers.wordpress.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three maths sites are black on white, with a soothing blueish theme and look the best, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://motls.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this has a theme similar to the one currently here, yet is pleasant on the eyes. It seems to be related to the overall brightness, which is nice and light, and an intelligent use of colour tones - blue on green looks good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the white on darkboard theme is OK in small doses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="2c73a2e1-5fd9-4a10-8512-1dd72a8f6e14" CreationDate="2011-02-28T18:26:22.983" UserId="838" Text="It is clear that most of the people providing content on this site don't like the current design and would like it changed to a black on white default. It would be nice to know that something is being done about this, even if it might take some time to implement. How about it @Jeff Atwood and co.? How about a response?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="2c73a2e1-5fd9-4a10-8512-1dd72a8f6e14" CreationDate="2011-02-28T18:26:22.983" UserId="838" Text="Is anybody there from the SE team?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="2c73a2e1-5fd9-4a10-8512-1dd72a8f6e14" CreationDate="2011-02-28T18:26:22.983" UserId="838" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="77150387-8855-4d7c-b110-ed75911e2141" CreationDate="2011-02-28T20:14:17.190" UserId="2325" Text="I've put together [a userscript][1] which is destyles an SE site to the basics. It's hosted on GitHub and has a [page on StackApps][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/MosheBerman/MinimalOverflow&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="49dbaf74-0222-43e5-a3e6-c6d64bfc9f1e" CreationDate="2011-03-01T00:01:05.870" UserId="4" Text="Their response is to make a userscript, which I think is very unsatisfactory, because not all browsers (mobiles) support userscripts. And in many browsers userscripts do not take effect immediately, so there will be a few seconds flash where the site is black each time the page loads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="d41f68cd-9d5a-4d3e-8f76-9fc52d1b915a" CreationDate="2011-03-01T00:22:42.507" UserId="4" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Their response is to make a userscript, which I think is very unsatisfactory, because not all browsers (mobiles) support userscripts. And in many browsers userscripts do not take effect immediately, so there will be a few seconds flash where the site is black each time the page loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides it seems pretty clear that most users dislike the black background and they will not even change it. this along with the two other physics sites on their out of area 51 means this site is likely to die. The thing I dislike about stackoverflow is the authoritarian control under the guise that they want to build communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will not be a banner on the main site linking to a poll on the meta site because they dong like polls and there has never been any publicity for meta sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's either like it or use the userscript no other way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="b00094d0-8ec8-4ed0-8bf1-9e23c268490f" CreationDate="2011-03-01T09:11:33.400" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="If you seek contact with the team, you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Contact us&quot; link in the footer&#xD;&#xA;2. Chat -- go to the [physics room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) and shout @RebeccaChernoff, @Jin or @RobertCartaino. With (not so much) one of them will come, especially in CT working hours. Since now, ***one*** opinion about the design appeared there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="6b253af9-456e-4811-ad65-848e5585a14c" CreationDate="2011-03-01T10:54:26.627" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="If you seek contact with the team, you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Contact us&quot; link in the footer&#xD;&#xA;2. Chat -- go to the [physics room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) and shout @RebeccaChernoff, @Jin or @RobertCartaino. With some (not so much) luck one of them will come, especially in CT working hours. Since now, ***one*** opinion about the design appeared there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="c74ba8e7-3cf6-4923-947c-d01be1e332f7" CreationDate="2011-03-01T15:16:56.860" UserId="1782" Text="I appreciate all the work that went into this, but the new white on black is fatal. I would not dream of recommending to my colleagues to visit this site as long as this horrible color scheme is in place. It looks unprofessional, unreadable and is a pain for my eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be converted to black on white (or something similar) as soon as possible; right now would be best - each day in this design will drive away potential visitors for a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to use the beta-version design in the meantime, until this issue is settled.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="06c04bf6-9045-4883-8ee4-4c1eed370353" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:55:43.817" UserId="4" Comment="added 502 characters in body" Text="Their response is to make a userscript, which I think is very unsatisfactory, because not all browsers (mobiles) support userscripts. And in many browsers userscripts do not take effect immediately, so there will be a few seconds flash where the site is black each time the page loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides it seems pretty clear that most users dislike the black background and they will not even change it. this along with the two other physics sites on their out of area 51 means this site is likely to die. The thing I dislike about stackoverflow is the authoritarian control under the guise that they want to build communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will not be a banner on the main site linking to a poll on the meta site because they dont like polls and there has never been any publicity for meta sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's either like it or use the userscript no other way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to add, is that when people first visit this site they will be greeted with an unreadable site. Userscripts can't be installed on public computers (or computers that aren't yours; eg at work/schools). The userscript has only been published on meta physics, not the main site, and the majority of users never visit meta, this means those users will be less active due to the readability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Swallow your pride and change it. It's not hard to change a background image and a font color!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="bc3bb7ba-e1c3-457d-adf2-bca688b4fb58" CreationDate="2011-03-01T18:32:52.040" UserId="184" Text="Personally, I would love to see more questions based on real research (and real publications). In fact, I can't imagine the better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, good one is asking if a proof can be simplified, or if there is a better function to fit certain data, or if one has to take into account additional phenomenon for the correct analysis etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad ones are only these which are to general or vague (e.g. ''What do you think of my paper?'', when it is not a 4 pages publication with very novel idea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I would prefer to receive bad research-level questions than bad (pre) high school ones (ofter already -&gt;well&lt;- answered on wikipedia or another googleable page). As questions with linked draft show that someone put at least some effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="d665f2b2-5811-432e-aad7-7eb1b149edb3" CreationDate="2011-03-01T19:34:46.997" UserId="113" Text="There is a user script to switch to any Stack Exchange design here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some improvements, that will be the officially supported method of changing for those that prefer not to use websites with dark background designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on mobile, we now serve a minimalistic greyscale theme to all mobile clients. Try it in your iPhone / Android, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're still working on this, so if you could be patient, that'd be appreciated. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="c4d6c3cd-9a22-46e3-ae61-d9e97247879e" CreationDate="2011-03-01T19:41:25.090" UserId="113" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="There is a user script to switch to any Stack Exchange design here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some improvements, that will be the officially supported method of changing for those that prefer not to use websites with dark background designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on mobile, we now serve a minimalistic greyscale theme to all mobile clients. Try it in your iPhone / Android, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're still working on this, so give us some time to get it worked out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="471479b4-b217-415c-a960-3dc3613da2a1" CreationDate="2011-03-01T19:57:43.093" UserId="113" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="There is a user script to switch to any Stack Exchange design here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some improvements, that will be the officially supported method of changing for those that prefer not to use websites with dark background designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on mobile, we now serve a minimalistic, low bandwidth, white background theme to all mobile clients. Try it in your iPhone / Android, etc. You can also [change your browser user agent][1] to &quot;iPhone&quot; if you want that theme immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're still working on this, so give us some time to get it worked out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/search?q=change+browser+user+agent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="6bd82669-e853-4515-8c8c-8a05abbad0cd" CreationDate="2011-03-01T20:50:28.340" UserId="184" Comment="minor" Text="Personally, I would love to see more questions based on real research (and real publications). In fact, I can't imagine the better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, good one is asking if a proof can be simplified, or if there is a better function to fit certain data, or if one has to take into account additional phenomenon for the correct analysis etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad ones are only these which are too general or vague (e.g. ''What do you think of my paper?'', when it is not a 4 pages publication with a very novel idea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I would prefer to receive bad research-level questions than bad (pre) high school ones (ofter already -&gt;well&lt;- answered on wikipedia or another googleable page). As questions with linked draft show that someone put at least some effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="683bae02-6803-4f55-aa66-3c936a72c7cd" CreationDate="2011-03-01T22:36:12.083" UserId="2330" Text="I am new to physics., but wanted to say i REALLY like the design. I think it looks great! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="de06b112-6d33-41f1-b7b4-543f36db73b6" CreationDate="2011-03-02T05:44:28.113" UserId="1670" Text="The new design looks good. I can't understand the comments about not being able to read &quot;white on black&quot;. Maybe you have neurological sensory issues or are color blind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thumbs up from me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1089" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="3e9f0222-7e28-4878-a6a7-6ba456538df4" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:19:40.897" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1090" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="306b8b4e-c6e4-4b4a-9138-11419a621c04" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:20:25.873" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="75e18842-894d-4333-8fb4-853bde204c0b" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:20:34.687" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1092" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="e6b09ca2-1737-4828-af50-cdb58abbe237" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:20:54.080" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1094" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="65f07390-a06e-41ed-9619-8b45eb27a8fa" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:21:43.673" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="fb605d7a-a474-42bd-b340-066926250d86" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:23:19.570" UserId="113" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="&lt;s&gt;We'll put together a user script at http://stackapps.com?tab=scripts for folks who really want the white layout -- in fact, we can probably put together a de-styler that converts any Stack Exchange design to a fairly minimalistic one for those that prefer it.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on extensive meta feedback, site design is withdrawn indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="3a71b020-62f8-4acd-a589-ce3d2275b3dc" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:24:06.197" UserId="113" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="There is a user script to switch to any Stack Exchange design here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some improvements, that will be the officially supported method of changing for those that prefer not to use websites with dark background designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on mobile, we now serve a minimalistic, low bandwidth, white background theme to all mobile clients. Try it in your iPhone / Android, etc. You can also [change your browser user agent][1] to &quot;iPhone&quot; if you want that theme immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're still working on this, so give us some time to get it worked out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: Based on extensive meta feedback, site design is withdrawn indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/search?q=change+browser+user+agent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="bab5082a-5ca9-478d-a031-92760c2c8d0d" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:24:52.187" UserId="113" Text="Based on extensive meta feedback, site design is withdrawn indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="2ad85acd-f598-4381-a02f-0e39faf9bb01" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:27:02.967" UserId="113" Text="edit: Based on extensive meta feedback, site design is withdrawn indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="0eb69239-ca21-47c9-906c-8ee46a7d56e7" CreationDate="2011-03-02T08:50:43.010" UserId="113" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Let's take a look at some successful templates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.physicsforums.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicsforums does have a theme to it, with the background a light grey, and hints of green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.stackexchange.com/  &#xD;&#xA;http://terrytao.wordpress.com/  &#xD;&#xA;http://gowers.wordpress.com/  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three maths sites are black on white, with a soothing blueish theme and look the best, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://motls.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this has a theme similar to the one currently here, yet is pleasant on the eyes. It seems to be related to the overall brightness, which is nice and light, and an intelligent use of colour tones - blue on green looks good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the white on darkboard theme is OK in small doses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1101" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="5817e936-13f5-4f95-862c-8fe690136e48" CreationDate="2011-03-02T10:44:02.083" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1102" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="296907dd-558d-4089-9160-21b7e4ea43ea" CreationDate="2011-03-02T10:45:46.827" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1103" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="eb4208e9-da6c-47cc-87e2-5b2124d7f1ee" CreationDate="2011-03-02T10:45:56.293" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1105" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="b4ae8432-8fd4-4d18-a462-4f8488e55a1b" CreationDate="2011-03-02T18:04:57.933" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="8f499c0d-2a0d-4538-98da-0bf7ced4fdb5" CreationDate="2011-03-03T05:26:29.230" UserId="429" Text="In explaining derivations and proofs, it is really handy to show terms that go to zero or cancel with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to include the [cancel package](http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/cancel.html) or something equivalent in the MathJax install?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="8f499c0d-2a0d-4538-98da-0bf7ced4fdb5" CreationDate="2011-03-03T05:26:29.230" UserId="429" Text="Include the cancel package for LaTeX" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="8f499c0d-2a0d-4538-98da-0bf7ced4fdb5" CreationDate="2011-03-03T05:26:29.230" UserId="429" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="6a46678b-c676-48e2-8fe2-e361a9179175" CreationDate="2011-03-03T11:13:41.847" UserId="97" Text="I just want to bring your attention to [the review site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) where you can see questions/answers posted by new users so we can assist them in getting to know the SE system and maybe improving their posts. (courtesy of [this](http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/q/1001/430) thread at meta.TeX)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="6a46678b-c676-48e2-8fe2-e361a9179175" CreationDate="2011-03-03T11:13:41.847" UserId="97" Text="Help reviewing new users' questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="6a46678b-c676-48e2-8fe2-e361a9179175" CreationDate="2011-03-03T11:13:41.847" UserId="97" Text="|discussion|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1112" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="6fe76429-6498-42d0-a5fd-50d8baf410d8" CreationDate="2011-03-03T11:37:36.687" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="Help reviewing new users' posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="fd09151b-2dbb-4b16-944c-d1d080ffaf3b" CreationDate="2011-03-03T11:44:56.167" UserId="184" Text="Idea is great, but good idea is not enough. You need to find the appropriate questions, efficient method of collaboration and get the critical mass of brains (no idea how much is enough).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, maybe it is good to ask questions on physicsSE, perhaps as community wiki for open questions. If you see that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there is some interest&#xD;&#xA;* _and_ two much discussion/reformulation is involved for the frames of SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_then_ it may be worth to start a blog/wiki/... Otherwise, the idea might be not as good as it seems.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Kinds of questions, which may be good (note that I am biased):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Short, well defined ones (e.g. quantum state engineering, wave optics). Stimuli: [one of my questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1110/which-qubit-states-are-accessible-with-linear-optics-operations) (though it did not get much attention).&#xD;&#xA;* Open questions, easily to solve or simulate, but more difficult to define _well_ (e.g. complex system - modeling human behaviour, simple models of seen phenomena). Stimuli: [Is That Seat Taken?](http://zia.hss.cmu.edu/econ/homework98.html) (or [more](http://zia.hss.cmu.edu/econ/homework10.html)), [International Young Physicists' Tournament](http://ptf.fuw.edu.pl/tmf.html) (click -&gt; problems; there are mostly experimental and for high school, but just interesting and open, so they show how to ask potentially good questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Problems in Physics Olympiad seems to be less profound (or rather: has less potential of being converted into something profound) than that of Mathematical Olympiad.&#xD;&#xA;* In general, in Mathematics it is simpler to define exactly a problem.&#xD;&#xA;* In physics, there are less conjectures and more open-defined questions (i.e. when asking the right question is crucial, using realistic approximations, including/excluding phenomena in meaningful way, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like to have the tool decentralizes - anyone can post problem, anyone up/down vote questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="ba251eac-df3e-404a-a92a-9a24fda871b8" CreationDate="2011-03-03T13:05:45.583" UserId="184" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Idea is great, but good idea is not enough. You need to find the appropriate questions, efficient method of collaboration and get the critical mass of brains (no idea how much is enough).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, maybe it is good to ask questions on physicsSE, perhaps as community wiki for open questions. If you see that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there is some interest&#xD;&#xA;* _and_ too much discussion/reformulation is involved for the frames of SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_then_ it may be worth to start a blog/wiki/... Otherwise, the idea might be not as good as it seems.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Kinds of questions, which may be good (note that I am biased):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Short, well defined ones (e.g. quantum state engineering, wave optics). Stimuli: [one of my questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1110/which-qubit-states-are-accessible-with-linear-optics-operations) (though it did not get much attention).&#xD;&#xA;* Open questions, easily to solve or simulate, but more difficult to define _well_ (e.g. complex system - modeling human behaviour, simple models of seen phenomena). Stimuli: [Is That Seat Taken?](http://zia.hss.cmu.edu/econ/homework98.html) (or [more](http://zia.hss.cmu.edu/econ/homework10.html)), [International Young Physicists' Tournament](http://ptf.fuw.edu.pl/tmf.html) (click -&gt; problems; there are mostly experimental and for high school, but just interesting and open, so they show how to ask potentially good questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Problems of the Physics Olympiad seems to be less profound (or rather: have less potential of being converted into something profound) than that of the Mathematical Olympiad.&#xD;&#xA;* In general, in Mathematics it is simpler to define exactly a problem.&#xD;&#xA;* In physics, there are less conjectures and more open-defined questions (i.e. when asking the right question is crucial, using realistic approximations, including/excluding phenomena in meaningful way, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like to have the tool decentralizes - anyone can post problem, anyone up/down vote questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="c4f1a7cf-cc88-4aa7-9008-d22714ae501a" CreationDate="2011-03-03T15:29:42.223" UserId="1916" Text="It's something special with negative numbers? &#xD;&#xA;there is something like an absolute zero for votes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't understand why zero is so important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like my question be seen in the list, I have totally reworded it, but there is no easy way someone could note that because is hidden..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To delete and create a new question perhaps is what one should do in this case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(but paradox, I can't delete a bounty question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="c4f1a7cf-cc88-4aa7-9008-d22714ae501a" CreationDate="2011-03-03T15:29:42.223" UserId="1916" Text="why negative voted questions are hidden from freatured list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="c4f1a7cf-cc88-4aa7-9008-d22714ae501a" CreationDate="2011-03-03T15:29:42.223" UserId="1916" Text="|feature-request|questions|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1118" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="652f3d48-0428-4185-8d7f-5487bf47c8f4" CreationDate="2011-03-03T17:04:29.760" UserId="1916" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1119" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="8e819fd8-9784-4897-8289-735816390188" CreationDate="2011-03-03T21:23:37.010" UserId="66" Comment="edited title" Text="why negative voted questions are hidden from featured list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="0fe9fe90-2e59-4053-a74a-db4f8d2df954" CreationDate="2011-03-03T21:32:12.073" UserId="520" Text="[Your question][1] is a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not stupid, nor necessarily wrong, but it conflates at least two problems and is riddled with imprecise statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is appeared on the &quot;featured&quot; list it would look as though physics.SE was endorsing something that we probably don't want to endorse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I find troubling about the question (i.e. things you could try fixing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You seem to have framed a question about the [&quot;measurement problem&quot;][2] in terms of the double slit experiment. That's unnecessary complication and can only distract from the issue at hand (and to tell the truth, I'm not sure which issue you really want addressed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Making a analogy to alpha--atom scattering in an attempt to understand photon--bulk-material interaction is deeply silly: they simply don't share enough physics for this to make sense. (The target in the Rutherford experiment was carefully prepared to have a thickness on order of a small integer number of atoms because alphas have very short ranges in matter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5241/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="7fab9f83-7a17-4f75-bd77-563ea948cf83" CreationDate="2011-03-04T00:10:43.387" UserId="520" Comment="added 136 characters in body; added 46 characters in body; deleted 147 characters in body" Text="First: You question appears in my browser:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you running a UserScript of some kind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, [your question][2] is a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not stupid, nor necessarily wrong, but it conflates at least two problems and is riddled with imprecise statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I find troubling about the question (i.e. things you could try fixing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You seem to have framed a question about the [&quot;measurement problem&quot;][3] in terms of the double slit experiment. That's unnecessary complication and can only distract from the issue at hand (and to tell the truth, I'm not sure which issue you really want addressed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Making a analogy to alpha--atom scattering in an attempt to understand photon--bulk-material interaction is deeply silly: they simply don't share enough physics for this to make sense. (The target in the Rutherford experiment was carefully prepared to have a thickness on order of a small integer number of atoms because alphas have very short ranges in matter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AMTGs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5241/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1122" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="072db56e-3a6c-446c-b2c9-a57179b272e2" CreationDate="2011-03-04T03:13:48.593" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6335/where-can-i-find-the-explanation-for-the-symbology-used-for-equations-in-physics/6336#6336" Text="" />
  <row Id="1123" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="c7b4cb8c-5c4a-4f34-b16e-1de18b2a61c6" CreationDate="2011-03-04T03:13:48.593" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6335/where-can-i-find-the-explanation-for-the-symbology-used-for-equations-in-physics/6337#6337" Text="" />
  <row Id="1124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="e045a891-b1ee-40f9-aea8-f9710d17cf19" CreationDate="2011-03-04T02:55:37.363" UserId="520" Text="It is essentially LaTeX. See [http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/][1]. The JavaScript tool that handles the translation is called [MathJax](http://www.mathjax.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="43dffe41-9c23-44e9-a612-25bb5f27dffd" CreationDate="2011-03-04T03:05:55.730" UserDisplayName="Michael Luciuk" Text="I had the same question, and found this site, with its examples, of value:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.andy-roberts.net/misc/latex/latextutorial9.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="54ba51c3-de5c-4ae7-b330-d06d9185d624" CreationDate="2011-03-04T02:52:26.080" UserDisplayName="user2376" Text="I'm trying to understand the answers given to the question:&#xD;&#xA;How long it will take for a tree to fall on a ground?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example how are the following to be interpreted&#xD;&#xA;$ $$  \  {  }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and what are:&#xD;&#xA;frac  mgh  mh  mathcal  partial  left  right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem unable to find any sort of &quot;introduction&quot; to  physics.stackexchange.  I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to ask this question on &quot;meta&quot; as directed - but found I need &quot;five reputation&quot; - &amp; can find nothing telling what this is and how to earn them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also please advise of all the faux pas made herein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, petercone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="54ba51c3-de5c-4ae7-b330-d06d9185d624" CreationDate="2011-03-04T02:52:26.080" UserDisplayName="user2376" Text="Where can I find the explanation for the symbology used for equations in physics.stackexchange.com?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="54ba51c3-de5c-4ae7-b330-d06d9185d624" CreationDate="2011-03-04T02:52:26.080" UserDisplayName="user2376" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1129" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="6490e4c0-ef82-483f-9da6-c8dcce66c60b" CreationDate="2011-03-04T03:13:48.593" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6335/where-can-i-find-the-explanation-for-the-symbology-used-for-equations-in-physics" Text="" />
  <row Id="1130" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="b802a7f1-d89b-403f-9949-cbe6525c930c" CreationDate="2011-03-04T03:31:16.580" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="57bf69e5-e09d-484c-be8f-ae62e0644490" CreationDate="2011-03-05T19:12:38.267" UserId="97" Text="If you actually see `$` signs instead of nicely rendered equations this means either that you have javascript disabled or that the post you're looking at contains errors. In the latter case flag for moderator attention so it gets fixed. For a test, look at [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26/velocity-of-object-from-electromagnetic-field/58#58) which contains a squareroot. If instead you see `$\sqrt` etc. you need to enable JavaScript." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="fc4ba30e-2b68-4e44-9be4-e6462b82e3d1" CreationDate="2011-03-06T22:28:45.670" UserId="4" Text="After the recent debate about the site design, I was wondering what would work. What about the blackboard as a background, but with paper &quot;stuck&quot; on so that all the text etc has a white background. So that you only see the blackboard at the edges, like the Home Improvement design, just with more rugged paper and a blackboard instead of blue blueprint background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a suggestion, because i thought the blackboard design **looked** good, but was impractical, which outweighed the looks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="fc4ba30e-2b68-4e44-9be4-e6462b82e3d1" CreationDate="2011-03-06T22:28:45.670" UserId="4" Text="Site design idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="fc4ba30e-2b68-4e44-9be4-e6462b82e3d1" CreationDate="2011-03-06T22:28:45.670" UserId="4" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="0750a8a7-f495-4d29-a0f2-5d30bf257aac" CreationDate="2011-03-06T23:05:02.033" UserId="329" Text="This is a followup to the [previous discussion](projecthttp://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/polymath-project-equivalent-for-physics) on starting a collaborative research project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've decided to start with a simpler (in the sense of being solvable) problems first, so here's a bunch of them and I'd like people to post an answer (and then up-vote it) for whichever one would they like to work on most (you can of course add a problem of your own). These problems are mostly taken from references Approximist has given last time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. In a container filled with a liquid, heat transport will occur when the bottom of the container is heated&#xD;&#xA;and the top surface is cooled. How does the phenomenon change when the container rotates about its&#xD;&#xA;vertical axis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you ride too slow, you fall over – as it is well known, if one rides the bicycle too slow, it is easy to capsize.&#xD;&#xA;Let us model this (in reality rather complicated) phenomenon by a single hoop of mass $m$ and radius $R$ (the&#xD;&#xA;mass of the hoop is concentrated on the very rim), which rolls vertically on a horizontal ground at velocity $v_0$&#xD;&#xA;without slipping. What is the minimal value of $v_0$ , if this motion is stable against small perturbations? What&#xD;&#xA;is the frequency of the vibrations (waggling) of the hoop, if it is slightly pushed out of its original motion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determine all the possible paths which a light beam can trace in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric&#xD;&#xA;body. Does any closed path exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Consider a one dimensional harmonic potential complemented with a power series beginning at a cubic term.&#xD;&#xA;How should one choose the all nonzero Taylor coefficients so that the exact period becomes independent of the&#xD;&#xA;amplitude? Try to guess the full potential function either from a few lower order coefficients, or, from other&#xD;&#xA;simple physical reasoning, and then show the constancy of the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. How far can an astronaut reach from Earth during his lifetime? Let us assume that such rocket technology is&#xD;&#xA;available which can provide constant acceleration for an arbitrarily long time! (The problems of rocket fuel and&#xD;&#xA;other disturbing details can be disregarded!) Let us choose reasonable parameters, such as 30 years of travel,&#xD;&#xA;acceleration equals to the terrestrial gravity! Also consider the recently mostly accepted Universe model with&#xD;&#xA;accelerating expansion (Lambda-CDM) with its presently known parameters!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Determine the energy levels of an electron confined in a box with the sides of the box given as a and b, height&#xD;&#xA;h, and a homogeneous vertical gravitational force acting on the electron! The sides of the box can be regarded&#xD;&#xA;as infinitely high potential walls. Study the high energy (semi-classical) limiting case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A model for phase diffusion of a simple harmonic oscillator is provided by the master equation ${{\rm d} \rho \over {\rm d} t}= −\Gamma [a^{\dagger} a, [a^{\dagger} a, \rho]]$&#xD;&#xA;Calculate the Fokker-Planck equation of the density matrix $\rho$ in $P$-representation. Determine the Langevin equations from the Fokker-Planck equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.S.: As this is not really about the site itself, could it be posted on the main site?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.P.S: also, it seems TeX isn't enabled here.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="0750a8a7-f495-4d29-a0f2-5d30bf257aac" CreationDate="2011-03-06T23:05:02.033" UserId="329" Text="What to work on in the &quot;polyphysics&quot; project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="0750a8a7-f495-4d29-a0f2-5d30bf257aac" CreationDate="2011-03-06T23:05:02.033" UserId="329" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="b5c889c9-fa1b-404f-abad-bc934f924449" CreationDate="2011-03-06T23:10:21.933" UserId="329" Text="I disagree. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I think blackboard just as a frame would look horrible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me a completely light design with just white background and decent colors is all I need. What we have now isn't bad but colors could definitely be improved (don't ask me how though) and I also dislike the squares." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="4eae3b22-3793-4347-a3ae-ddd94f73ae79" CreationDate="2011-03-07T03:07:58.520" UserId="142" Text="(3) Finding CTCs in Schwarzschild-like solutions (with or without angular momentum, ie, Kerr) is sort of a sexy problem — and, nowadays, can probably be done using Mathematica (or some other sort of symbolic computation software). In fact, this problem can possibly be readily generalized to that of the &quot;Twin Paradox&quot; in GR (as opposed to SR); which may lead to a nice discussion about homologies in GR (and their relation to curvature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6) Also sounds 'sexy' and can be done using SciPy (or [PyLab](https://www.scipy.org/PyLab)) to make the concepts very clear. Further, studying what happens to the solutions as 'b &amp;rarr; a' (or vice-versa, depending on who's larger: no loss of generality here) may give insights into the symmetries of the problem and of its solutions — and may open a nice door to discussing about Hermitian Complements of Operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my 2¢…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="81ae8cbb-304b-4cc6-b76d-25fcdcf82238" CreationDate="2011-03-07T08:22:57.667" UserId="329" Comment="Fixed a link" Text="This is a followup to the  [previous discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/polymath-project-equivalent-for-physics) on starting a collaborative research project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've decided to start with a simpler (in the sense of being solvable) problems first, so here's a bunch of them and I'd like people to post an answer (and then up-vote it) for whichever one would they like to work on most (you can of course add a problem of your own). These problems are mostly taken from references Approximist has given last time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. In a container filled with a liquid, heat transport will occur when the bottom of the container is heated&#xD;&#xA;and the top surface is cooled. How does the phenomenon change when the container rotates about its&#xD;&#xA;vertical axis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you ride too slow, you fall over – as it is well known, if one rides the bicycle too slow, it is easy to capsize.&#xD;&#xA;Let us model this (in reality rather complicated) phenomenon by a single hoop of mass $m$ and radius $R$ (the&#xD;&#xA;mass of the hoop is concentrated on the very rim), which rolls vertically on a horizontal ground at velocity $v_0$&#xD;&#xA;without slipping. What is the minimal value of $v_0$ , if this motion is stable against small perturbations? What&#xD;&#xA;is the frequency of the vibrations (waggling) of the hoop, if it is slightly pushed out of its original motion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determine all the possible paths which a light beam can trace in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric&#xD;&#xA;body. Does any closed path exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Consider a one dimensional harmonic potential complemented with a power series beginning at a cubic term.&#xD;&#xA;How should one choose the all nonzero Taylor coefficients so that the exact period becomes independent of the&#xD;&#xA;amplitude? Try to guess the full potential function either from a few lower order coefficients, or, from other&#xD;&#xA;simple physical reasoning, and then show the constancy of the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. How far can an astronaut reach from Earth during his lifetime? Let us assume that such rocket technology is&#xD;&#xA;available which can provide constant acceleration for an arbitrarily long time! (The problems of rocket fuel and&#xD;&#xA;other disturbing details can be disregarded!) Let us choose reasonable parameters, such as 30 years of travel,&#xD;&#xA;acceleration equals to the terrestrial gravity! Also consider the recently mostly accepted Universe model with&#xD;&#xA;accelerating expansion (Lambda-CDM) with its presently known parameters!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Determine the energy levels of an electron confined in a box with the sides of the box given as a and b, height&#xD;&#xA;h, and a homogeneous vertical gravitational force acting on the electron! The sides of the box can be regarded&#xD;&#xA;as infinitely high potential walls. Study the high energy (semi-classical) limiting case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A model for phase diffusion of a simple harmonic oscillator is provided by the master equation ${{\rm d} \rho \over {\rm d} t}= −\Gamma [a^{\dagger} a, [a^{\dagger} a, \rho]]$&#xD;&#xA;Calculate the Fokker-Planck equation of the density matrix $\rho$ in $P$-representation. Determine the Langevin equations from the Fokker-Planck equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.S.: As this is not really about the site itself, could it be posted on the main site?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.P.S: also, it seems TeX isn't enabled here.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="07c82269-5ca1-4bc1-b414-5ffcc5b596e3" CreationDate="2011-03-07T08:28:12.183" UserId="329" Text="Personally, I'd like to work on (7). It's always nice to derive something useful from microscopic laws. Not that I know much about this stuff but I think this is a good opportunity to learn more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="a0439a19-2dbd-4b7b-82b2-a5594489b741" CreationDate="2011-03-07T15:45:15.320" UserId="142" Text="[Following Marek's suggestion, i'm splitting my original answer in two.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Finding CTCs in Schwarzschild-like solutions (with or without angular momentum, ie, Kerr) is sort of a sexy problem — and, nowadays, can probably be done using Mathematica (or some other sort of symbolic computation software). In fact, this problem can possibly be readily generalized to that of the &quot;Twin Paradox&quot; in GR (as opposed to SR); which may lead to a nice discussion about homologies in GR (and their relation to curvature)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="7551c95f-3f63-4f5a-9b94-7d57c552a350" CreationDate="2011-03-07T15:45:31.903" UserId="142" Comment="deleted 440 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;(6) Also sounds 'sexy' and can be done using SciPy (or [PyLab](https://www.scipy.org/PyLab)) to make the concepts very clear. Further, studying what happens to the solutions as 'b &amp;rarr; a' (or vice-versa, depending on who's larger: no loss of generality here) may give insights into the symmetries of the problem and of its solutions — and may open a nice door to discussing about Hermitian Complements of Operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my 2¢…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="bf7c5c9f-59ee-44d9-99af-7d59657ab841" CreationDate="2011-03-07T17:23:05.030" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Without mentioning any names, I observe the following. Some answers given on the main site by certain individuals are consistently long and not really relevant to the question, instead giving inappropriate amount of minute and highly technical details related to keywords in the questions - without really addressing or answering the question, often not even showing any understanding of what is being asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My instinct is to identify this as a quick cut and paste job. Not to open a can of worms here, but I am wondering if answers are occasionally checked for this sort of thing. If I encountered this phenomena in an essay I gave as an assignment, I'd definitely run one of the standard tools to check for similarities to other texts out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="bf7c5c9f-59ee-44d9-99af-7d59657ab841" CreationDate="2011-03-07T17:23:05.030" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Plagiarism checks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="bf7c5c9f-59ee-44d9-99af-7d59657ab841" CreationDate="2011-03-07T17:23:05.030" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="ddb13b18-c444-4f8f-b4b0-da5e3c9b05c7" CreationDate="2011-03-07T18:18:16.810" UserId="1382" Text="I personally don't mind such answers, they give a bit of information even if it is not very relevant. I would prefer if this was explicitly pointed out in the answer. What annoys me is people upvoting such answers because they found them interesting or informative. I wish voting was based on how good the answer is as an answer to the question, not how much users liked it. After all, the votes next to the answer should indicate a good answer not a good blog post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About plagiarism, so that my answer is not one more example of answers not on topic, I don't find this as a problem. After all this is not a test, it is Q&amp;A site. If the information is copy-pasted or written in the user's own words it serve the same purpose. Of course elementary ethics requires people to cite their source.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="7ed2927d-d53a-4360-b510-4ba78960f0ef" CreationDate="2011-03-07T19:34:20.243" UserId="142" Text="Moshe,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a certain &quot;standard&quot; to &quot;flag&quot; an answer/post. In the case you're describing (borderline ethical, crackpot-ty, devoid of content, etc)... i usually flag it for review by the moderators: if they think it's a valid post, fine; otherwise, they know better what to do. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="9d4368dc-9029-485c-b382-fdbb29663222" CreationDate="2011-03-07T19:45:30.533" UserId="124" Text="To answer your question directly, there is no automatic plagiarism detection (as far as I know). Generally we rely on alert users to notice when something appears to be copied and pasted from another source. If you see something that you suspect might be plagiarized and you'd like to do something about it, pick out a distinctive phrase or two and run it through Google. If you have access to plagiarism detection software and you'd like to use it on the post, although that'd be a little more extreme, there's nothing wrong with doing so (assuming it doesn't violate the terms of your license to use that software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, by any method, you find a match from which the post content has been copied, flag it for moderator attention, including the source in the flag description. The policy is that content which is copied from another source in violation of the copyright needs to be immediately deleted, because otherwise SOIS is liable for illegally distributing copyrighted content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the problem with individual copied-and-pasted posts is strictly from a copyright standpoint. If someone copies content without attribution from a source which has placed it in the public domain, for example, that is technically acceptable because it's not a copyright violation, although it is ethically dubious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue is that, as you point out, posts which are copied verbatim from another source are unlikely to directly answer the question. If a user frequently does this sort of thing, even if it isn't a copyright violation, he/she may raise some flags for repeatedly posting low quality content. But that wouldn't be susceptible to the auto-delete policy we use on copyright violations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="63275d34-9230-4cc9-9cf6-e3e17cd2aee0" CreationDate="2011-03-08T14:50:13.037" UserId="142" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="[Following Marek's suggestion, i'm splitting my original answer in two.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Finding CTCs in Schwarzschild-like solutions (with or without angular momentum, ie, Kerr) is sort of a sexy problem — and, nowadays, can probably be done using Mathematica (or some other sort of symbolic computation software). In fact, this problem can possibly be readily generalized to that of the &quot;Twin Paradox&quot; in GR (as opposed to SR); which may lead to a nice discussion about &lt;strike&gt;homologies&lt;/strike&gt; holonomies in GR (and their relation to curvature)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="25516458-0a47-45be-a716-a914616f124f" CreationDate="2011-03-10T09:23:48.423" UserId="2461" Text="The Red button hurts my eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the black BG seems fine but the heading font choice does look kinda childish. Although I doubt a normal clean font will fit in with a blackboard. Font should be changed, But changed to What, I dont know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="170c7832-2e69-4279-8147-a6d90f7baf0c" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:15:33.067" UserId="1257" Text="This very useful question (community wiki) [list-of-freely-available-physics-books][1] is &#xD;&#xA;collecting a list of freely available resources that we find out there.  &#xD;&#xA;How to make it more organized, without transfer the work to some specific individual ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6157/list-of-freely-available-physics-books" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="170c7832-2e69-4279-8147-a6d90f7baf0c" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:15:33.067" UserId="1257" Text="How to organize a List of Free Resources in the conxtext of PSE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="170c7832-2e69-4279-8147-a6d90f7baf0c" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:15:33.067" UserId="1257" Text="|discussion|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="599b5af1-54b6-4b5d-bd3c-f43e7c810115" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:53:35.410" UserId="1492" Text="Today was the third time in the month and a half I have been participating here that by mistake instead of commenting, I answered. This happens when I want to comment on the last question, and right below the &quot;comment&quot; location is the nice open square of the &quot;your answer&quot; panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers cannot be simply deleted, and so I end up commenting my answer that it should be a comment, or leaving it without comment, if it is not too much off the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this happen to other people too, or is it just me, sort of old age dyslexia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe if &quot;your answer&quot; was also clickable, instead of a nice panel ready for writing, I would avoid the trap :). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that a lot of people have asked for a simple delete ( not a vote one ) choice in answers which has not been satisfied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="599b5af1-54b6-4b5d-bd3c-f43e7c810115" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:53:35.410" UserId="1492" Text="sending an answer by mistake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="599b5af1-54b6-4b5d-bd3c-f43e7c810115" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:53:35.410" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="d2935bdd-f878-4947-a661-11cfb6317c5c" CreationDate="2011-03-10T16:26:38.487" UserId="1382" Text="It hasn't happen to me, but I don't think it is such a big deal. I doubt that anyone would be unhappy and mind seeing a comment mistakenly written as an answer. For example I was ok with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="09f02184-f7ef-47bc-b237-3b3493d0879c" CreationDate="2011-03-10T17:03:13.493" UserId="124" Text="When that happens, you can either delete your answer or flag it for moderator attention. We have the ability to turn an answer into a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="58371648-0525-4cb7-a4e5-43887ad6ebfc" CreationDate="2011-03-10T18:15:25.007" UserId="124" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="When that happens, you can either delete your answer or flag it for moderator attention. We have the ability to turn an answer into a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_EDIT_: I thought you could always delete your own answers (unless they've been awarded a bounty or accepted, or something like that). Perhaps I'm wrong though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="d876eaf3-6723-44d3-af2e-35d1fbdeeaae" CreationDate="2011-03-11T09:31:23.840" UserId="113" Text="&gt; How to make it more organized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is community wiki, then just actively encourage everyone to edit it -- **make sure the post itself prominently says &quot;please edit me to make me better!&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also support anonymous peer reviewed edits as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/suggested-edits-and-edit-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="77fbc531-035d-4514-aa7b-aa77a44f9f34" CreationDate="2011-03-11T13:36:11.287" UserId="74" Text="If we are really going to make a list of all the free physics books out there, including things like readable sets of lecture notes, it will get unwieldy.  We might want to start separate threads for separate areas of physics and link them to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="57327f31-0413-4af5-a75d-a3482fa058cc" CreationDate="2011-03-13T15:32:03.097" UserId="1495" Text="I often see a comment that a questions should be a community wiki. What is this and how is it differentiated from a normal question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="57327f31-0413-4af5-a75d-a3482fa058cc" CreationDate="2011-03-13T15:32:03.097" UserId="1495" Text="What is a community wiki?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="57327f31-0413-4af5-a75d-a3482fa058cc" CreationDate="2011-03-13T15:32:03.097" UserId="1495" Text="|discussion|support|bug|request|freature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="8fbe1088-352c-4aa9-a108-2e5097434f18" CreationDate="2011-03-13T17:12:49.747" UserId="2451" Text="It seems that that a lot of unclear or ill-posed questions get premature answers, which may effectively &quot;freeze&quot; the question in its current bad formulation, instead of revealing a perhaps more profound question hiding underneath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6231/use-of-the-mathematical-concept-function-in-theoretical-physics NB: It is not my intention to discredit or debate this particular question or its answers; I take comfort in the fact that the question poser himself can laugh over the outcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps, in other cases, there is actually no real question at all, and the bad question should have been closed immediately instead of proliferating/cluttering the site with trivialities, misunderstandings, or duplicate entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose that questions, posed by users with less than X reputation points, cannot be answered for a Y hours curfew, in-which only comments, edits and chats are allowed. The philosophy is make the question perfect before an answer is attempted. This is to increase quality of both question and answers. Initially, one could, e.g., let X=500 and let Y=24. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="8fbe1088-352c-4aa9-a108-2e5097434f18" CreationDate="2011-03-13T17:12:49.747" UserId="2451" Text="A 24 hours answering curfew on some questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="8fbe1088-352c-4aa9-a108-2e5097434f18" CreationDate="2011-03-13T17:12:49.747" UserId="2451" Text="|discussion|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="ce9f9301-5f7a-486d-b2ec-e258e84a5a8a" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:38:52.263" UserId="124" Text="It's an interesting idea, but I think in order for this to make sense, it would have to be the case that a _majority_ of questions asked by users with less than X reputation (for some X) are bad in their submitted form - bad enough that they can't even be improved by editing without further input from the OP. I don't believe that's actually the situation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, not every problem has to have a technical solution. The site relies on its users (primarily the experienced, high-rep ones) to detect bad questions and deal with them. If you see a question of this sort that you think is not clear enough to answer, or is inappropriate for some other reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you think you can edit it to make it better, please do so! As long as there is enough information present to make the questioner's intent clear, there's no reason not to edit the question itself into a better form.&#xD;&#xA;2. Otherwise, you can flag the question as being of low quality (or flag for moderator attention, it works out to kind of the same thing). In this case it helps if you leave a comment explaining why you think the question is bad and what could be done to fix it. (You could also consider downvoting the question - that's what downvotes are for.) If a question really shouldn't be accumulating answers, a moderator can close it until it's improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="2d15f3c0-ac38-4761-afe0-79b604f8a050" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:57:44.377" UserId="2451" Comment="minor" Text="It seems that that a lot of unclear or ill-posed questions get premature answers, which may effectively &quot;freeze&quot; the question in its current bad formulation, instead of revealing a perhaps more profound question hiding underneath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6231/use-of-the-mathematical-concept-function-in-theoretical-physics NB: It is not my intention to discredit or debate this particular question or its answers; I take comfort in the fact that the question poser himself can laugh over the outcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps, in other cases, there is actually no real question at all, and the bad question should have been closed immediately instead of proliferating/cluttering the site with trivialities, misunderstandings, or duplicate entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose that questions, posed by users with less than X reputation points, cannot be answered for a Y hours curfew, in-which only comments, edits and chats are allowed. The philosophy is to make the question perfect before an answer is attempted. This is to increase quality of both question and answers. Initially, one could, e.g., let X=500 and let Y=24. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="0c3085ed-592f-4654-9806-2de817ea9a67" CreationDate="2011-03-13T22:10:39.000" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1172" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="27cc8b24-582b-4feb-9620-a518ab9e4a62" CreationDate="2011-03-13T22:11:10.247" UserId="124" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="c24df1e0-34a3-4ee0-9e87-2bdd717d1811" CreationDate="2011-03-14T06:40:53.277" UserId="113" Text="&gt; Or perhaps, in other cases, there is actually no real question at all, and the bad question should have been closed immediately instead of proliferating/cluttering the site with trivialities, misunderstandings, or duplicate entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this might be what you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the question has any merit at all, I can't imagine why &quot;locking&quot; it for a period of time would do anything but hinder the person asking, and those who wish to answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="010bd566-298e-4b38-a984-1885b1b1393a" CreationDate="2011-03-14T14:44:25.770" UserId="520" Text="This isn't fundamentally different from closing the question and commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current system has these features&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A close makes it clear that the question is sub-standard&#xD;&#xA;* The close reason give a hint why, and closers can leave detailed comments&#xD;&#xA;* The OP can still edit a closed question, to correct its deficiencies&#xD;&#xA;* Editing bumps the question to the top of the active queue, so it gets seen again.&#xD;&#xA;* If the OP *doesn't* fix it (the usual case) the question is in the proper place in its lifecycle: closed and ready to be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things the current system doesn't do correctly as a matter of course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Clear out the comment noise after the changes have been made---for that flag for moderator attention&#xD;&#xA;* Tell new users *explicitly* that they can get the question re-opened if they fix it---I use comments for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="43de0c8a-e905-4988-b011-ebd5223ff772" CreationDate="2011-03-15T23:08:04.777" UserId="29" Text="Any new thoughts on increasing the number of &quot;research-level questions&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="c3b67aaf-28e8-406a-bf40-78f419a5e9e1" CreationDate="2011-03-17T21:31:35.783" UserId="1370" Text="From time to time old (about 2 months) questions reappear anew, the last author &#xD;&#xA;named then is &quot;community&quot;. Is this a kind of routine? What is the idea behind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="c3b67aaf-28e8-406a-bf40-78f419a5e9e1" CreationDate="2011-03-17T21:31:35.783" UserId="1370" Text="old question reappearing after months" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="c3b67aaf-28e8-406a-bf40-78f419a5e9e1" CreationDate="2011-03-17T21:31:35.783" UserId="1370" Text="|discussion|questions|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="edcb48f9-c6a7-479f-bc5e-9d4e8c7e0ad9" CreationDate="2011-03-17T21:46:07.323" UserId="124" Text="The system automatically bumps old questions which don't have any (upvoted?) answers, under the guise of the &quot;Community&quot; user, in order to expose them to fresh eyes. See [this MSO question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/6981/why-does-a-question-appear-as-modified-by-the-community-user) for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="e608cacd-e6a3-4148-a11c-10b5f7beeaa3" CreationDate="2011-03-19T00:30:41.080" UserId="520" Text="It is worth checking out [the &quot;Community&quot; user page][1], BTW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you will learn that this is a automated process that takes care a various little jobs and &quot;owns&quot; all the needs an owner but should be be attributed to a real user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community exist on all the sites in the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="f99335eb-c46a-418a-8382-d4aeabf2a51d" CreationDate="2011-03-19T19:35:33.520" UserId="66" Text="I completely agree with Robert. I would also point out that our best questions - where best is defined as highest voted - are all interesting questions which are both accessible to laypersons and interesting for specialists to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to be **the** reference site for physics we **need** to be able to communicate, we **need** to be able to be authoritative by the breadth, depth and quality of our answers, and not merely by limiting the topics, audience and users to some elite few who speak lingo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this I do think we are lacking and we could improve massively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="8a551af4-6e6d-445e-875b-8453b8843d05" CreationDate="2011-03-20T14:15:20.633" UserId="2359" Text="The [Stack Overflow faq](http://stackoverflow.com/faq) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions have a bit of source code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [Physics Stack Exchange faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) should say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Physics Stack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange answers include external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen more than one completely incorrect answer accepted. I suspect this is because unlike coding, it's hard to immediately verify physics claims. For this reason, I think external citations to trusted sources are especially important for physics answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see more answers clearly indicate their logical foundation. Is your answer based on...&#xD;&#xA;1. Original research?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Predicted by peer-reviewed theory but unverified?  &#xD;&#xA;3. Indirectly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;4. Directly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;**Don't make us guess!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many answers here based on rock-solid, universally trusted theory. This is great! However, if experimental verification has not actually been cited, **this should be clear**. Experiment frequently lags behind theory, but has been known to expose flaws and loopholes in theory, and **very** occasionally, invalidates theory entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from my personal experience: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/can-i-levitate-an-object-without-using-an-electromagnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The initially accepted answer was basically &quot;No, because of Earnshaw's theorem&quot;. This was an excellent answer; Earnshaw's theorem is rock-solid, universally accepted theory. End of story? No, because this answer was also good enough to include an [external citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem). As the external citation made clear, there are loopholes in Earnshaw's theorem that make the correct answer 'yes', not 'no'. The correct answer is supported by a [picture of a levitating object](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aDiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg) - direct experimental verification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="8a551af4-6e6d-445e-875b-8453b8843d05" CreationDate="2011-03-20T14:15:20.633" UserId="2359" Text="Citations are the 'source code' of physics stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="8a551af4-6e6d-445e-875b-8453b8843d05" CreationDate="2011-03-20T14:15:20.633" UserId="2359" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|etiquette|faq-proposed|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="b4f807ac-fae3-4f93-82a8-d9157dae8e90" CreationDate="2011-03-20T14:55:15.140" UserId="2359" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The [Stack Overflow faq](http://stackoverflow.com/faq) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions have a bit of source code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [Physics Stack Exchange faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) should say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Physics Stack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange answers include external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen more than one completely incorrect answer accepted. I suspect this is because unlike coding, it's hard to immediately verify physics claims. For this reason, I think external citations to trusted sources are especially important for physics answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see more answers clearly indicate their logical foundation. Is your answer based on...&#xD;&#xA;1. Original research?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Predicted by peer-reviewed theory but unverified?  &#xD;&#xA;3. Indirectly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;4. Directly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;**Don't make us guess!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many answers here based on rock-solid, universally trusted theory. This is great! However, if experimental verification has not actually been cited, **this should be clear**. Experiment frequently lags behind theory, but has been known to expose flaws and loopholes in theory, and **very** occasionally, invalidates theory entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from my personal experience: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/can-i-levitate-an-object-without-using-an-electromagnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For months, the accepted answer was basically &quot;No, because of Earnshaw's theorem&quot;. This was an excellent answer; Earnshaw's theorem is rock-solid, universally accepted theory. End of story? No, because this answer was also good enough to include an [external citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem). As the external citation made clear, there are loopholes in Earnshaw's theorem that make the correct answer 'yes', not 'no'. The correct answer is supported by a [picture of a levitating object](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aDiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg) - direct experimental verification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="565" RevisionGUID="9a0cf932-7f2e-4af5-b894-8894d139d98e" CreationDate="2011-03-20T15:27:30.000" UserId="142" Text="I agree with this approach quite strongly: i think that every answer that can be backed by further &quot;evidence&quot; (as in references ranging from Wikipedia to scholarly published articles) should include those — in fact, i wish people would recognize earlier and earlier how *important* this *modus operandi* really is: you build your work on top of previous work — *ergo*, the relevance of the use of citations, references, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given Physics.SE's volume of answers, the rate of answers that have citations (of any sort) seems to me to be relatively low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, in all fairness, i think this is part of the reason of why the overall quality of answers is a bit below what some of us had expected. :-(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="74e3f089-7c3f-4c5d-acd8-059f266c1d98" CreationDate="2011-03-20T15:30:17.433" UserId="2359" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; added 43 characters in body; added 26 characters in body" Text="The [Stack Overflow faq](http://stackoverflow.com/faq) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions have a bit of source code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [Physics Stack Exchange faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) should say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Physics Stack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange answers include external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen more than one completely incorrect answer accepted on Physics Stack Exchange, which I have not seen on Stack Overflow. I suspect this is because unlike coding, it's hard to immediately verify physics claims. For this reason, I think external citations to trusted sources are especially important for physics answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see more answers clearly indicate their logical foundation. Is your answer...  &#xD;&#xA;1. Original research?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Predicted by peer-reviewed theory, but unverified?  &#xD;&#xA;3. Indirectly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;4. Directly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;**Don't make us guess!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many answers here based on rock-solid, universally trusted theory. This is great! However, if experimental verification has not actually been cited, **this should be clear**. Experiment frequently lags behind theory, but has been known to expose flaws and loopholes in theory, and **very** occasionally, invalidates theory entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from my personal experience: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/can-i-levitate-an-object-without-using-an-electromagnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For months, the accepted answer was basically &quot;No, because of Earnshaw's theorem&quot;. This was an excellent answer; Earnshaw's theorem is rock-solid, universally accepted theory. End of story? No, because this answer was also good enough to include an [external citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem). As the external citation made clear, there are loopholes in Earnshaw's theorem that make the correct answer 'yes', not 'no'. The correct answer is supported by a [picture of a levitating object](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aDiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg) - direct experimental verification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="f21dc153-1449-4211-9576-358303805b60" CreationDate="2011-03-20T18:37:44.660" UserId="1492" Text="[This][1] is the second time today that a naive question was closed, and this time even before arguments started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*closed as subjective and argumentative by mbq♦ 1 hour ago*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think that the simple answer that mathematics is necessary for learning physics is either subjective,  or argumentative. If physicists do not have a consensus on the need of mathematics we should all hand in our degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is good that an eye is kept on comments and answers that are bickering instead of offering information, one has to respect/check whether the questioner is young, as he must be in this case just by the way the question was formulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one incendiary comment  was not taken up in a response :*well, he could become a &quot;climate scientist&quot; and get honorary doctorates just like Al Gore... – jwenting 2 hours ago* .  The comment could have been deleted, as I have seen other comments deleted instead of closing the question. What if trolling becomes a problem, would the moderators close all trolled questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This high handedness on the part of moderators is not nurturing the young who want to become physicists, and should either be encouraged or *gently* discouraged. It is a question that students would be looking at after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unless students are to be discouraged in stating questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7294/do-you-really-need-to-be-a-math-whiz-to-succeed-in-physics-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="f21dc153-1449-4211-9576-358303805b60" CreationDate="2011-03-20T18:37:44.660" UserId="1492" Text="Is the precautionary closing of immature questions so very necessary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="f21dc153-1449-4211-9576-358303805b60" CreationDate="2011-03-20T18:37:44.660" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="3df44f4e-06f3-41c0-b86b-02527ce10947" CreationDate="2011-03-20T19:44:07.340" UserId="66" Text="The question is clearly off topic, and as such it's correctly been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's not subjective and argumentative. The closure and the comments are, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The comments are really, really pointless, unhelpful and arrogant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- No. If you have lousy math skill then you can't probably have good physics intuition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- well, he could become a &quot;climate scientist&quot; and get honorary doctorates just like Al Gore... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- You don't even need to be a math whiz to succeed in mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good, helpful and appropriate comment would have been:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Hi Myers, welcome to our site. Questions on this site should be about physical theories and not physics as a profession. Your question has been closed as off-topic for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why mbq chose not to leave such a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="7537a3e6-5cb2-47ed-acd3-e22c870247be" CreationDate="2011-03-20T20:30:09.480" UserId="113" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The [Stack Overflow faq](http://stackoverflow.com/faq) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions have a bit of source code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [Physics Stack Exchange faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) should say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Physics Stack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange answers include external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen more than one completely incorrect answer accepted on Physics Stack Exchange, which I have not seen on Stack Overflow. I suspect this is because unlike coding, it's hard to immediately verify physics claims. For this reason, I think external citations to trusted sources are especially important for physics answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see more answers clearly indicate their logical foundation. Is your answer...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Original research?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Predicted by peer-reviewed theory, but unverified?  &#xD;&#xA;3. Indirectly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;4. Directly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't make us guess!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many answers here based on rock-solid, universally trusted theory. This is great! However, if experimental verification has not actually been cited, **this should be clear**. Experiment frequently lags behind theory, but has been known to expose flaws and loopholes in theory, and **very** occasionally, invalidates theory entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from my personal experience: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/can-i-levitate-an-object-without-using-an-electromagnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For months, the accepted answer was basically &quot;No, because of Earnshaw's theorem&quot;. This was an excellent answer; Earnshaw's theorem is rock-solid, universally accepted theory. End of story? No, because this answer was also good enough to include an [external citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem). As the external citation made clear, there are loopholes in Earnshaw's theorem that make the correct answer 'yes', not 'no'. The correct answer is supported by a [picture of a levitating object](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aDiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg) - direct experimental verification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="4d02c37c-1060-441e-9606-8ce48a0f02fc" CreationDate="2011-03-20T20:44:46.000" UserId="113" Text="Sure -- this should be *de rigeur* on our harder science sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even on sites where the topic is much more subjective (SciFi, etc) we ask that opinions be backed up with facts and references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Great subjective questions insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references&lt;/b&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Opinion isn&amp;#8217;t &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; bad, so long as it&amp;#8217;s backed up with something other than &amp;#8220;because I&amp;#8217;m an expert&amp;#8221;, or &amp;#8220;because I said so&amp;#8221;, or &amp;#8220;just because&amp;#8221;. Use your specific experiences to back up your opinions, as above, or point to some research you&amp;#8217;ve done on the web or elsewhere that provides evidence to support your claims. We like you. We &lt;i&gt;want&lt;/i&gt; to believe you. But like wikipedia itself, {{citation needed}}. And good subjective questions make this clear from the outset: &lt;i&gt;back it up!&lt;/i&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="4077f295-f462-448f-a8d0-09450f661df1" CreationDate="2011-03-21T05:56:17.027" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Well, I sort of agree with the principle, and would endorse fully it if we had the type of questions that would make this site more interesting. But, for questions that either ask for an overview of textbook material, or sorting out some fairly straightforward confusion of the OP (or a majority of the existing answers, as the case may be), this etiquette is probably not necessary. From my experience, you rarely need to use or cite any specific research papers or experimental results from, say the last couple of decades. I agree that for specific questions like that a good answer should be clear on the source of the information, and the level of confidence one has in the answer. I really hope that at some stage a larger fraction of the questions would be at that level, where the worry you express is justified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="ae465254-9cb8-47fa-8379-4839e50c241b" CreationDate="2011-03-21T06:07:03.127" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="I think the level of the questions on the site currently leaves something to be desired. So, I for one be happy if more of the questions are closed on the “too elementary”  grounds, and the level of the site is somewhat elevated. On that question for example, I see a lively conversation developing involving lots of opinions and not that many facts, which describe many other venues on the internet. Here’s hoping this site does not turn into one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="96c66e23-ca2b-413e-9482-8f8066d53a29" CreationDate="2011-03-21T06:16:02.900" UserDisplayName="user566" Comment="added 16 characters in body; added 31 characters in body" Text="Well, I sort of agree with the principle, and would endorse fully it if we had higher level of questions, which would make this site generally more interesting. But, for questions that either ask for an overview of textbook material, or sorting out some fairly straightforward confusion of the OP (or a majority of the existing answers, as the case may be), this etiquette is probably not necessary. From my experience, you rarely need to use or cite any specific research papers or experimental results from, say the last couple of decades. I agree that for higher level questions which call for information like that a good answer should be clear on the source of the information, and the level of confidence one has in the answer. I really hope that at some stage a larger fraction of the questions would be at that level, where the worry you express is justified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="0730785b-af16-41d5-bd73-dc6ec3fdf55b" CreationDate="2011-03-21T12:29:28.780" UserId="1370" Text="Right, &#xD;&#xA;the most basic questions can be rather difficult to answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd recommend to make age a must-entry when applying for physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="32490238-12e6-4244-a915-00a8d2e770e5" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:32:07.577" UserId="1272" Text="I liked the [math stack exchange][1] design:  &#xD;&#xA;![Math StackExchange Image][2]  &#xD;&#xA;and think we can do something similar but different. I like how they keep the background clutter off of the questions and answers to improve readability. Thinking about something similar to graph paper (in terms of colors and easy on the eyes) but that is present in a lot of areas of physics, both experimental and theoretical, I came upon the idea of wave interference. So here's my contribution for a physics only design background (just a quick mock-up, not intended to be final in any way):  &#xD;&#xA;![WaveInterference][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I joined the math stack exchange a few minutes ago and now I'm experiencing envy. They get a lot more traffic. Things get voted up much more quickly. I wonder if that will last; surely people are more interested in the physical world than in a bunch of dusty dry theorems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hx761.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0DcBP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="32490238-12e6-4244-a915-00a8d2e770e5" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:32:07.577" UserId="1272" Text="Site design (Math stack exchange envy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="32490238-12e6-4244-a915-00a8d2e770e5" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:32:07.577" UserId="1272" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="13858dea-dd45-4a38-90b8-3ea996d77388" CreationDate="2011-03-22T08:57:38.253" UserId="329" Text="Sorry but I don't like your idea at all. All of these fancy schmunzy effects will start to bug you (after few days at most) and we'll be back where we were with black design. Moreover, I don't like this one even for just looking (which I did with black design).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, I have to repeat my sentiment of wanting to have plain white site with as simple design as possible and subtle use of colors. math.SE isn't that bad but I certainly don't envy them. For one thing they could also benefit from getting rid of that cartesian chart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="23846c91-32f0-410e-9288-ea4337141af9" CreationDate="2011-03-22T11:50:18.490" UserId="97" Text="I like it. But since taste is subjective, I still hope that [Allow individual SE theming settings](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/64697/allow-individual-se-theming-settings) will get accepted. Until then, those who don't like the current design can have a look [here](http://stackapps.com/questions/2113/beta-gaming-se-black-edition) for some inspiration how to manipulate this to one's individual pleasing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="0dd92c64-82de-455d-b098-c39f12050564" CreationDate="2011-03-22T15:57:06.283" UserId="2525" Text="Remember this site isn't for you - it's for the shareholders of SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim is to maximize number of visitors X quality of visitors, to sell to advertisers.&#xD;&#xA;Now unless Phys Rev Letters has a higher promotional budget than I think, then a site where 3 people discuss the same paper on loop quantum gravity isn't going to bring in the ad $$$$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly a site full of UFO and hollow earth cranks, or one full of the same grade school  question about paths of cannon balls (the problem with physicsforums) is also going to lack readership pretty soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The optimum is probably something like Scientific America/ Discovery channel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was also the launch model for SE. The stackoverflow site deals with relatively simple questions, then programmers.se for more 'professional' topics and cstheory for the 3 people in the world that are interested in computer science theory but aren't mathematicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the aim should be a mid-level site with a future proposal for an physics-research site if this site doesn't work for you. Remember you can use tags to filter out questions that are too simple or out of your field of interest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="12e60aa9-880a-4666-b670-216675faf106" CreationDate="2011-03-23T15:15:47.757" UserDisplayName="Eric Sokolsky" Text="My name is Eric Sokolsky and I do PR for Stack Exchange.  I came across a media opportunity that might be good for someone in the Physics community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reporter writes a regular career column for the national publication of the American Physical Society, APS News.  She is looking to interview people with physics degrees who are entrepreneurs. It doesn't matter whether you have a B.S., M.S., or Ph.D. in physics, but she wants to know how your physics degree has helped you launch your company. Early-stage to beyond IPO is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an ongoing column, but her next deadline is 7:00pm EST *TODAY* (March 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you fit the bill, please contact the reporter directly and put &quot;physicist entrepreneurs&quot; in the subject line.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be great if in your introduction you could plug Stack Exchange - something like:  &quot;Hi, my name is XXX, and my company is YYY, but I heard about this opportunity via Stack Exchange - a community-driven network of expert Q&amp;A sites where experts share knowledge and answer complex technical questions.  You should check out the Physics site (physics.stackexchange.com) as well as the other 45 Stack Exchange sites - perhaps you'll find some interesting content for future stories.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contact: &#xD;&#xA;Alaina Levine alaina@alainalevine.com &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="12e60aa9-880a-4666-b670-216675faf106" CreationDate="2011-03-23T15:15:47.757" UserDisplayName="Eric Sokolsky" Text="Journalist Looking For Physicist Entrepreneurs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="12e60aa9-880a-4666-b670-216675faf106" CreationDate="2011-03-23T15:15:47.757" UserDisplayName="Eric Sokolsky" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="67e21995-6a27-4458-8477-45cad469c66d" CreationDate="2011-03-23T17:26:05.173" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="6ee90fd5-92d5-4ed9-a8ef-e173c3c6b6f2" CreationDate="2011-03-24T01:52:24.087" UserId="2710" Text="Stop upvoting questions and answers that you don't think are valuable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason people post low end questions and answers is because they get upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that I hit the rep cap on the first day with a few half-hearted answers and a bit of googling should be eye opening.  Yes, I write in a style that appears authoritative, but I nearly flunked the two theoretical physics classes I had to take to get my engineering degree.  Love calculus.  Love physics.  Just couldn't wrap my head around mixing the two together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stop upvoting answers that aren't truly great.  That means you have to skip over posts that are *interesting* if that's all they have going for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, come to the conclusion that research X and practical X aren't simply two different levels of the same thing, they are actually fundamentally different topics.  I hope people get the theoretical physics site off the ground, in addition to this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even then, I hope people won't go around voting up every neat question or answer here - even low end questions and answers should have a minimum dress standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is the primary feedback loop that tells people what the community should look like.  Vote often, but vote carefully." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="8a908c1a-5689-4f66-8dec-2a19f17323f7" CreationDate="2011-03-24T10:19:31.043" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1219" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="a721a58f-ae34-415f-b4e6-36ba27d1e9c8" CreationDate="2011-03-24T10:19:55.223" UserId="113" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:113,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jeff Atwood&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="578" RevisionGUID="7c1552e4-d057-45bb-ab93-4963e5ff6dd3" CreationDate="2011-03-24T14:07:23.793" UserId="1460" Text="The explanation that is actually left with the closure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's impossible to objectively answer this question; questions of this type are too open ended and usually lead to confrontation and argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which seems appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think generalises Anna's point a little is that new users may not formulate their questions in an appropriate way and can get some unexpected treatment [including Closure] as a result. If these new users are also elementary students, then they will have received a certain discouragement from this site as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it is up to the moderators (and the PR team who seem to exist) to decide whether all this is OK, or whether some form of Site Tutoring is required for genuine students with basic career and study questions (e.g. which subjects do I need to study for physics? why get a physics degree?), etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="87a4b230-8975-4bef-b0e5-589a75e81cfd" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:16:35.763" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="I'm not seeing the styling that would indicate that this site is out of beta, I've tried hard refreshes, and using browsers that I've never used before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the design actually launched, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="87a4b230-8975-4bef-b0e5-589a75e81cfd" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:16:35.763" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="Why do I still see the &quot;beta&quot; CSS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="87a4b230-8975-4bef-b0e5-589a75e81cfd" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:16:35.763" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1224" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="4fcd1f6f-aad9-42b2-ab8c-9d542829c84a" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:43:14.343" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="1fdf81c4-eb38-4c63-b3b5-15110e04a468" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:43:48.463" UserId="113" Text="The design was launched and withdrawn based on community feedback. Browse the [meta-tag:design] tag for more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="943fa24f-894c-4cc5-80b3-cbbe00457bc4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:54:36.220" UserId="97" Text="I think [tag:everyday-life] is applicable for most of these" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="0bccab63-ea60-43dd-b678-edef9d561d54" CreationDate="2011-03-27T06:53:29.087" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Comment="added tag" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="73be8276-0e32-4f55-b0fa-518fea9e7c6b" CreationDate="2011-03-28T02:08:48.967" UserId="74" Text="In &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7680/artificial-gravity-on-a-rotating-space-stations/7687#7687&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; I cited some work I did a while ago.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what extent should we allow self-linking?  I have noticed in some cases there is self-linking that is only tangentially related to the question.  (I'll give the example I had in mind if need be, but if not it'd be nicer not to call the user out before we've discussed the issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What policy should we have to deal with cases of vanity-linking?  I would propose that any time a user puts a link to content they have generated (or participated in generating), they explicitly state that it's their content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="73be8276-0e32-4f55-b0fa-518fea9e7c6b" CreationDate="2011-03-28T02:08:48.967" UserId="74" Text="How do you cite yourself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="73be8276-0e32-4f55-b0fa-518fea9e7c6b" CreationDate="2011-03-28T02:08:48.967" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="a9efe8f7-0f9b-4947-90ff-ea55a39dadb4" CreationDate="2011-03-28T02:51:12.567" UserId="124" Text="I think that's a pretty general rule across SE sites, that you should disclose personal connections whenever you reference something you're involved with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, I don't see anything wrong with linking to (or otherwise referencing) your own content, as long as it's relevant to the question being asked or answered. For any given question, there's a decent chance that people who are qualified to answer it will already have done some work in the subject, and it'd be a shame if they weren't able to cite that work freely. Plus, it seems fair that people who contribute a lot to the site can be rewarded with the occasional opportunity to plug their own work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it certainly is possible to abuse the ability to post self-promotional links. When an established user does it once in a while, that's probably okay, but a newer user who links to their own content in a majority of their posts, regardless of disclosure (but _especially_ if they don't disclose a personal connection), could be considered to be spamming the site, which is not allowed. If you see that sort of thing happening, and if it's clear that it's not just an isolated incident, don't hesitate to flag it as spam or for moderator attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="604cfccd-8928-49dd-a24a-1bd52fc187e3" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:25:53.657" UserId="1186" Text="My question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7702/does-quantum-mechanics-prohibit-extraterrestrial-life-closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has been closed as &quot;off-topic&quot; with a reference to the FAQ (http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq). I have read the FAQ and found nothing that could prohibit that kind of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that the question is heavily based on the &quot;quantum immortality&quot; hypothesis which is not universally accepted, and I was attacked for referencing to this hypothesis as well as the Tegmark's interpretation of Quantum mechanics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I believe that &quot;quantum immortality&quot; hypothesis even if incorrect, still is a completely valid one, and supported by a number of prominent physicists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I oppose closing questions based on personal theoretic preferences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="604cfccd-8928-49dd-a24a-1bd52fc187e3" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:25:53.657" UserId="1186" Text="Why my question was closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="604cfccd-8928-49dd-a24a-1bd52fc187e3" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:25:53.657" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="a7f35a33-98ab-41fa-bc5e-315b60525d40" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:51:11.217" UserId="1186" Text="In just one minute I received 7 downvotes in 7 different questions. It is quite obvious to me that I am a victim of pursuit of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2   	21 mins ago  	downvote  	What is the difference between a measurement and any other interaction in quantum mechanics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2 	22 mins ago 	downvote 	Is Angular Momentum truly fundamental?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2 	23 mins ago 	downvote 	What is information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2 	23 mins ago 	downvote 	Do all massive bodies emit Hawking radiation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2 	23 mins ago 	downvote 	Popular depictions of electromagnetic wave: is there an error?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2 	24 mins ago 	downvote 	What do you think about teaching Standard Model in school?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2 	24 mins ago 	downvote 	What is the wavefunction of the observer himself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this type of behavior allowed in Stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="a7f35a33-98ab-41fa-bc5e-315b60525d40" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:51:11.217" UserId="1186" Text="It seems somebody pursuits me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="a7f35a33-98ab-41fa-bc5e-315b60525d40" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:51:11.217" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="586" RevisionGUID="11fc0f7e-7f89-4ec9-b6a2-0e337c82f2b0" CreationDate="2011-03-28T15:25:25.577" UserId="124" Text="Several people were in favor of closing your question, and I can't speak for all of them, but the original reason I closed it was that the &quot;quantum immortality&quot; idea you spoke of seemed like abstract speculation, not physics. The fact that you didn't link to any resources to give background information on your question certainly played a role in that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a second look, I searched the web for information and read a little more about this quantum immortality idea. Although I still have my doubts about whether it is legitimate physics, I decided to reclassify the closing as &quot;not a real question&quot; because I don't see how you're making a coherent argument. Questions on the interpretations of quantum mechanics are always iffy, and if you are not very careful to stick to rigorous arguments, it greatly increases the chance that your question will be closed. The question as it stands _might_ be appropriate for a philosophy site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that I'm not the only one who thought it was appropriate to close the question. Perhaps others will add their input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="adee1555-6111-4900-8638-1dddc8ad7dcb" CreationDate="2011-03-28T15:31:31.420" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is this type of behavior allowed in Stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it isn't. There are automatic algorithms in place to detect serial downvoting and reverse the votes cast. See [this Stack Exchange blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/more-voting-anomalies/) for more info." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1240" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="3e27b0ab-711e-4529-9e65-b46a0666e51f" CreationDate="2011-03-28T17:56:04.900" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="89de806c-e2a7-4dd5-bb61-f1515ce21149" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:03:23.380" UserId="2628" Text="Recently posted a question about [dangers of operating a thermonuclear reactor][1] and in the opening paragraph used a little bit of narration about importance of obtaining a sustainable source of energy such as nuclear fusion because of the climate change and the human suffering caused by fossil fuel wars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoning fossil fuels and obtaining&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sustainable, practically unlimited,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source of energy should be a prime&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goal of scientific research in physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because the climate change related to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of fossil fuels threatens the very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existence of this civilization, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the endless wars over oil cause&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immeasurable human suffering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was blasted and down-voted by a single user as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dominated by meaningless, tendentious,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and absurd ideology (about &quot;climate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this paragraph was afterwards edited out by another user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is my understanding that there is a broad consensus about the reality of climate change in the scientific community and therefore the comment was inappropriate and over the top on that level too, my basic question is if narration and subjective opinions should be allowed or even encouraged here @ Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, the purpose of that first paragraph of my question was to put the question in a perspective that a lot of people can relate to and that is why it made sense to have it there in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I see no harm in this approach, after all, the scientist who did most to popularize the science, like Carl Sagan, were heavy on narration and opinions and had the great ability to explain scientific concepts in terms understandable to a much wider audience than the scientific community alone. &#xD;&#xA;While I'm sure some purists would love that all communication here was within strict language of physics and dominated by equations and I see nothing wrong in majority of the questions being asked and answered in that manner, at the same time why would it be wrong to use some narration and subjective opinions to make the communication more interesting and approachable to people who are not physicists and cannot communicate at that level?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7539/is-there-any-inherent-danger-in-operating-a-thermonuclear-reactor&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="89de806c-e2a7-4dd5-bb61-f1515ce21149" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:03:23.380" UserId="2628" Text="Are narration and subjective opinions allowed on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="89de806c-e2a7-4dd5-bb61-f1515ce21149" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:03:23.380" UserId="2628" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="230683d4-aa43-4b42-bca3-93d808aa1784" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:16:42.390" UserId="329" Text="Quantum immortality is a silly idea and piling more layers of deductions (logically unsound too, by the way) upon it can't possibly lead to anything else than arguments and quarrels. And even if everything was logically sound and in the boundaries of reasonable theoretical physics, I still wouldn't see any real value in the question. I believe all of this gives plenty of reasons to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to have any chance of turning this into a normal question, you might ask about the nature of quantum immortality itself and how people view it (a bit subjective though). This would have at least some value of addressing some useless thought experiments and misconceptions arising from them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="13d2a0e5-a42b-4a8f-bcfc-ffd940f1b966" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:30:27.010" UserId="329" Text="Narration is fine as long as it adds some important background. But we obviously don't want off topic ramblings, not to mention ones soaked in propaganda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit subjective decision but I hope you can distinguish between useful information -- such as why is the question interesting, either to you or to a wider audience -- and between ramblings that have only marginal association with the real question. Asking about a box sliding with friction down the hill is a fine basic question. Adding that there will be some heat generation is kind of fine if that's what you are aiming for. But starting to talk about temperature increase of the planet and then AGW and that we should ban boxes, hills and friction is *not fine*. I hope you get the point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="7bcff621-3563-4ede-9db8-725af36addc1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:39:49.190" UserId="1492" Text="Dear Kzen,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not prone to blast people but at the same time I do also hold strong opinions about the specific *&quot;the climate change related to use of fossil fuels threatens the very existence of this civilization,&quot;* statement . I had upended a comment in my answer, and then deleted it when this paragraph was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not the only physicist who has delved into this famous anthropogenic global warming that has morphed into &quot;climate change&quot; ( as if the climate is ever stable) and is going into &quot;climate disruption&quot;. The past three years I have read up in depth on the subject, and am convinced that the whole thing is a red herring as far as the &quot;anthropogenic&quot; goes, and a lot is missing from the so called &quot;climate science&quot; .  Evidently there was a second physicist with the same opinions and probably many more might have chimed in if it had not been changed. This is not a place for climate wars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it behooves us as scientists on a science site to be as succinct and minimal in the formulation of our problems, to aid in getting an answer. Controversial opinions stated as acceptable premises by all will tend to create reactions. Physicists do not do physics by consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, introduction to difficult subjects is always useful, imo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1248" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="cb77dd5f-883a-4c66-9cd7-021f662161e6" CreationDate="2011-03-28T19:09:21.927" UserId="2628" Comment="edited title" Text="Are narration and subjective opinions acceptable on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="3e2dffa0-3361-415e-8171-7f7ef019c0d1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:38:39.283" UserId="-1" Text="The 2011 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderator elections have three phases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nomination phase&#xD;&#xA;2. Primary phase&#xD;&#xA;3. Election phase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most elections take between two and three weeks, but this depends on how many candidates there are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please visit the official election page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/election&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more detail, and to participate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="3e2dffa0-3361-415e-8171-7f7ef019c0d1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:38:39.283" UserId="-1" Text="2011 Community Moderator Election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="3e2dffa0-3361-415e-8171-7f7ef019c0d1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:38:39.283" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|featured|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="ced8cacf-cf79-479f-b3b6-8797897e1db2" CreationDate="2011-03-28T21:14:27.023" UserId="124" Text="Well... no. Kind of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons that I would say extended narration and subjective assertions are discouraged. Physics is a quantitative, logical subject: in the course of developing the science, we go to a great deal of trouble to pose questions in an objective manner and also to answer them in an objective manner. This is why we use math, so that we can reach conclusions that aren't dependent on the biases or preconceptions of the person doing the thinking. Besides, most subjective, opinion-based questions don't work very well within the SE model. As the FAQ says, &quot;we prefer questions that can be **answered**, not just discussed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you might point out that the subjectivity of your first paragraph had little to do with the question you were asking - in other words, you weren't asking a subjective question, just offering up some opinions to motivate it. Yes, _but_ an extended introduction in which you assert your opinion doesn't really contribute anything to the question. It's a question about hydrogen fusion, and there's no need to reference climate change to justify asking about fusion reactors. Plenty of people here, including especially the kinds of people who would take an interest in your question, find fusion power interesting on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I fully agree that the edit that removed your introduction helped make the question more focused, and I would think so even if it hadn't generated any controversy. (That doesn't mean you did anything wrong, by the way. Most people have a tendency to write more than they need to. It's difficult to tell that you're doing so when you're looking at your own writing; I'm sure the majority of questions on the site could benefit from being &quot;trimmed&quot; by someone other than the original poster.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why would it be wrong to use some narration and subjective opinions to make the communication more interesting and approachable to people who are not physicists and cannot communicate at that level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is certainly something to be said for not getting bogged down in math, keep in mind that this is a site mainly targeted at people who are interested in physics, enough to put in a bit of work to communicate using the language of the field. Besides, it's not necessary to be subjective to capture people's interest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="d00cc402-0e21-4765-bb29-2dd5a1cd982f" CreationDate="2011-03-28T23:34:45.933" UserId="113" Text="I think you should strive to avoid polemics and unrelated commentary, and stick to the science whenever possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling a story is great, but try to avoid proselytizing along the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="b1c6c472-0e6a-4e24-932a-d4093c40b9ea" CreationDate="2011-03-29T08:26:05.220" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="IMHO an analogy with food would of help here. Every question with its set of answers is like a dish prepared by the contributions of my cooks. Someone baked the crust, someone made the tomato sauce and a third person brought the anchovies (ok, ew :L). But the point in life is not just to eat healthy dishes. They should also have some *taste* and, if possible, *flair*. Without spice, without taste, cooking would be as empty and banal as life without music or movies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly questions and answers without *some* element of humor, wit, story-telling and other emotional flourishes are akin to boiled potatoes. Healthy and great for breakfast on occasion and when sick but add a little discussion, some context and even some amount of philosophizing and those boiled potatoes become something you ate at Applebee's [**context:** Applebee's is an American restaurant chain where I had my first black russian.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, by all means, discuss and converse and debate. But try to put some effort into your philosophizing and poetics so that this pot-luck we call physics.SE satisfies and nourishes one and all inquiring minds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="796310f7-f0bf-431b-a1d3-4e20589ad6b4" CreationDate="2011-03-29T10:26:09.307" UserId="1492" Comment="finally could not stand the upended :)" Text="Dear Kzen,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not prone to blast people but at the same time I do also hold strong opinions about the specific *&quot;the climate change related to use of fossil fuels threatens the very existence of this civilization,&quot;* statement . I had appended a comment in my answer, and then deleted it when this paragraph was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not the only physicist who has delved into this famous anthropogenic global warming that has morphed into &quot;climate change&quot; ( as if the climate is ever stable) and is going into &quot;climate disruption&quot;. The past three years I have read up in depth on the subject, and am convinced that the whole thing is a red herring as far as the &quot;anthropogenic&quot; goes, and a lot is missing from the so called &quot;climate science&quot; .  Evidently there was a second physicist with the same opinions and probably many more might have chimed in if it had not been changed. This is not a place for climate wars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it behooves us as scientists on a science site to be as succinct and minimal in the formulation of our problems, to aid in getting an answer. Controversial opinions stated as acceptable premises by all will tend to create reactions. Physicists do not do physics by consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, introduction to difficult subjects is always useful, imo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="6c6956ed-07b1-4cde-890e-ac7be018d5c4" CreationDate="2011-03-29T14:05:57.727" UserId="1460" Text="The question in the title is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are narration and subjective opinions acceptable on Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers are that any **narration** needs to add to the clarity of the question. So yes narration only so far as it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. adds to the clarity of the physics  &#xD;&#xA;    scenario to be answered;  &#xD;&#xA; 2. clarifies the level of physics&#xD;&#xA;    understanding of the OP;  &#xD;&#xA; 3. identifies the type of answer   &#xD;&#xA;    expected (for certain questions&#xD;&#xA;    where this needs explaining).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several Questions (and sometime repeated added comments) add narration that does not meet these conditions (except suggesting that the OP knowledge of physics or scientific procedure is low) and so is unhelpful and perhaps misleading to audiences who are expecting facts only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Subject opinions** should not be presented on Physics SE. This is not to be confused with the point that we all currently have subjective opinions about the value of given theories or data or the prospects of where research should go next etc. These opinions based often on our level of understanding of the inter-relationships between complex phenomena; how much physics we have actually studied etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me I dont care who believes in String Theory versus LQG: or who believes in fission power, fusion power or wave energy. I just want facts from those theories in answers to questions about those theories; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What causes problems also is that some questions (and the behaviour of the OP afterwards) suggest that this site is being used to promote specific idiosyncratic theories; as a general education mechanism; or as a physics and philosophy discussion group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may or may not be other sites for these latter topics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="9432c3d2-de87-438e-8efa-ceffe5aa7dd4" CreationDate="2011-04-03T02:36:11.310" UserId="770" Text="I see your point, but while the math.stackexchange design is subtle, it hurts my eyes a little.  If we are to go with graph paper, I like the [stats site][1] better.  Still subtle, but the touch of color makes it a bit easier to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stats.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="0baff21b-ad9c-4728-813b-ac78539cc09a" CreationDate="2011-04-03T09:16:50.900" UserId="124" Text="Still only 2 candidates :( There are definitely people who I think would make good candidates who haven't yet nominated themselves, especially in the mid-reputation range (1000-5000-ish). Don't be shy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way I know this should be a comment but I'm posting it as an answer as a last-ditch effort to draw some attention to the election." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="6a9fd5a4-a433-4c6a-8b4a-5c72d3545225" CreationDate="2011-04-03T14:56:57.487" UserId="66" Text="Latex and MathJax preview don't seem to work anymore when asking/editing/answering questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="6a9fd5a4-a433-4c6a-8b4a-5c72d3545225" CreationDate="2011-04-03T14:56:57.487" UserId="66" Text="Latex/MathJax is broken in preview" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="6a9fd5a4-a433-4c6a-8b4a-5c72d3545225" CreationDate="2011-04-03T14:56:57.487" UserId="66" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="1a572542-9fb5-4218-980f-099a6e7f892a" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:32:38.110" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="It is good that we are finally having elections. Of course given that we have three candidates for three posts this election will, most likely, not be terribly exciting. However, in general, it would be nice to have some sort of forum where users can pose questions to the candidates. A person's previous record can give us some idea of future behavior, but this can only be a very rough indicator of actual performance. The best way for users to be able to get to know candidates, and also to be able to select the best among them, would be by soliciting candidate responses to user-submitted questions. It is only such a public &quot;stress-test&quot; that can help reveal each candidate's best qualities and greatest flaws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggestion comes too late for us to do anything for this election. But perhaps this is something that we should keep in mind as we look to future elections which might turn out to be far more hotly contested than this one. What are the community thoughts about the desirability or feasibility of having such an arrangement for future elections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="1a572542-9fb5-4218-980f-099a6e7f892a" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:32:38.110" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="Moderator Nominee Debates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="1a572542-9fb5-4218-980f-099a6e7f892a" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:32:38.110" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="|discussion|elections|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="e7674bf1-f2d0-4ea4-98c0-7808fc0e5789" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:43:10.147" UserId="66" Text="I totally favour this in either of two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Questions on meta&#xD;&#xA;2. A Q&amp;A on the chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="dc01b1dc-7469-45da-acfe-6968e51ea50d" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:50:57.137" UserId="887" Text="If only three users would like to volounteer, there's not much point in this &amp;mdash; you can't force a diamond upon the unwilling. SE Inc. employee Rebecca Chernoff, however, normally holds Q&amp;A events on chat ([&quot;town hall chat&quot;s][1]) with moderator nominees to help people vote. [Here's, for example, Unix's.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=all&amp;sort=active&amp;filter=town%20hall&amp;nohide=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/610730#610730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="fbdec3f6-1c68-4f20-b75f-e5536a818eca" CreationDate="2011-04-03T16:56:11.017" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="There are rumors that the site redesign will happen soon, so I open this thread for some more suggestions, ideas and possible good points of previous design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="fbdec3f6-1c68-4f20-b75f-e5536a818eca" CreationDate="2011-04-03T16:56:11.017" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Site design, take 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="fbdec3f6-1c68-4f20-b75f-e5536a818eca" CreationDate="2011-04-03T16:56:11.017" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="de36348d-141b-4baa-9ee7-518c20d8e9a4" CreationDate="2011-04-03T17:15:53.340" UserId="1097" Text="An election getting 5 or 6 nominees is much better than struggling to get 3.  I'm surprised by the community not having people put themselves forward for nomination.  Having only 3 nominees means that the community is unable to voice its collective opinion and vote for the candidates they want to see elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been assisting communities put on Town Hall Chats so that the community can pose questions to the candidates to get a feel for different moderating styles.  Again, this really only makes sense if there is truly an election, but if there is, I am absolutely happy to try and put one together as quickly as I can.  Aside from that, the community is absolutely welcome to pose questions to the candidates here on meta with the [meta-tag:election] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this election, if people think it would help, we can extend the nomination phase by a couple days to see if anyone else steps forward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="7ed860c8-e514-4795-a755-836b9631bb27" CreationDate="2011-04-03T20:12:07.493" UserId="520" Text="Either very slow or broken on FF 3.6.16 on Mac OS, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it was working last night. Did something change recently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="6b320433-781c-45b5-bfd3-63e9d7c6b471" CreationDate="2011-04-03T20:14:56.683" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I really liked the font in the blackboard theme (the text one of course)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="e0fcbb8f-ebb7-4404-8ae3-c0213e92f993" CreationDate="2011-04-03T20:24:29.937" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="There is some support for cloning Math.SE; one thing I dislike most about it is this ugly space-waisting header:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO the standard one is way better:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pdtbe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x240K.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="6d65e441-a97e-4bc2-aec7-f47b54d21efe" CreationDate="2011-04-03T20:50:12.837" UserId="2" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="b4eea106-733b-48aa-b2a8-ef47be9546c2" CreationDate="2011-04-03T20:50:39.827" UserId="2" Text="This was a regression - the CDN version of MathJax wasn't wired up correctly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1277" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="0d543976-36a6-4775-822e-0f7c6d169bb3" CreationDate="2011-04-03T21:32:18.877" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="948427d1-cf4f-47ba-8455-5b0f9702371f" CreationDate="2011-04-03T23:57:04.043" UserId="1097" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I am working with the candidates to find a time that allows the most participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(**Candidates**: candidates on other sites have reported that my email has been placed in their spam folder. Please be on the lookout for an email from me!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the election phase, so I am looking at the 6th-9th.  As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidate regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, the transcript of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="948427d1-cf4f-47ba-8455-5b0f9702371f" CreationDate="2011-04-03T23:57:04.043" UserId="1097" Text="2011 Moderator Election - Town Hall Chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="948427d1-cf4f-47ba-8455-5b0f9702371f" CreationDate="2011-04-03T23:57:04.043" UserId="1097" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="16b581ac-c4ec-4d7b-a1cc-b9cda2d170a5" CreationDate="2011-04-04T00:12:02.113" UserId="1097" Comment="extended nomination phase and town hall chat" Text="An election getting 5 or 6 nominees is much better than struggling to get 3.  I'm surprised by the community not having people put themselves forward for nomination.  Having only 3 nominees means that the community is unable to voice its collective opinion and vote for the candidates they want to see elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been assisting communities put on Town Hall Chats so that the community can pose questions to the candidates to get a feel for different moderating styles.  Again, this really only makes sense if there is truly an election, but if there is, I am absolutely happy to try and put one together as quickly as I can.  Aside from that, the community is absolutely welcome to pose questions to the candidates here on meta with the [meta-tag:election] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this election, if people think it would help, we can extend the nomination phase by a couple days to see if anyone else steps forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I added 2 days to the nomination phase.  Maybe this will draw out a couple other nominations.  At the very least, since there are now more than 3 nominations, it gives a bit of a buffer for the [town hall chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/610/1097) to be scheduled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="d3162988-0dbd-4627-a2d9-ccd41adc55a9" CreationDate="2011-04-04T05:14:26.483" UserId="1492" Text="The present format is fine for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The white letters on dark background are not easy for formulae  and copyings. They get too much prominence. It would be OK if only the general background were dark but the answers and comments were black letters on white." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="09f81cdf-0ec0-4dd7-a939-b22a61f83afc" CreationDate="2011-04-05T06:39:45.887" UserId="1097" Comment="scheduled" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I am working with the candidates to find a time that allows the most participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Town Hall Chat will take place Wednesday the 6th at 9pm UTC, or 5pm EST on the 6th.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**view in other timezones**](http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=4&amp;day=6&amp;year=2011&amp;hour=21&amp;min=0&amp;sec=0&amp;p1=0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have coordinated with the candidates and done the best I could with a best fit match.  &lt;s&gt;I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the election phase, so I am looking at the 6th-9th.  As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  You can register for the event [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/406/physics-town-hall-chat?tab=schedule)&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidate regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, the transcript of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1284" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="09f81cdf-0ec0-4dd7-a939-b22a61f83afc" CreationDate="2011-04-05T06:39:45.887" UserId="1097" Comment="scheduled" Text="2011 Moderator Election - Town Hall Chat:  9pm UTC / 5pm EDT on the 6th" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="27aeac84-a765-42f5-9e84-bca9fd1aa5e9" CreationDate="2011-04-05T11:00:01.167" UserId="66" Text="**Not yet another question on &quot;level&quot; but on &quot;relevance&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we allow **specific** homework questions like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/homework-about-spinning-top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8045/i-lost-a-factor-of-two-in-the-electromagnetic-field-tensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or close them as &quot;Too Localized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are clearly other homework questions with a larger general value, like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should be kept as [discussed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16/are-puzzle-questions-appropriate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="27aeac84-a765-42f5-9e84-bca9fd1aa5e9" CreationDate="2011-04-05T11:00:01.167" UserId="66" Text="Specific homework questions - too localized to be of general interest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="27aeac84-a765-42f5-9e84-bca9fd1aa5e9" CreationDate="2011-04-05T11:00:01.167" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1292" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="fdebb809-b16c-4398-a845-e254e490276c" CreationDate="2011-04-05T17:03:43.100" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|top-7|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="5b6bb91e-8e01-4dbd-814b-bd37c199c534" CreationDate="2011-04-05T17:03:59.810" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="5decc9e0-ab89-4fba-bba9-98ce6df08c71" CreationDate="2011-04-05T17:23:41.157" UserId="520" Text="I favor &quot;Too localized&quot; for most basic homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, I will usually provide some hints, because I like to see people make some headway, but these &quot;questions&quot; suffer in at least two ways&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If we allow them we become a &quot;homework help site&quot; and the discourse here will be dominated by them&#xD;&#xA;* They rarely address things at the level of *principles* rather than the raw mechanics of churning through a problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="30861d41-a9c2-4038-9f41-e682810a6c64" CreationDate="2011-04-05T18:45:16.390" UserId="74" Text="I'm trying to post some code in [this answer][1], but only a portion of the code I've copied is showing up.  What's going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8074/why-is-the-earth-so-fat/8114#8114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="30861d41-a9c2-4038-9f41-e682810a6c64" CreationDate="2011-04-05T18:45:16.390" UserId="74" Text="Only a portion of code block displaying" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="30861d41-a9c2-4038-9f41-e682810a6c64" CreationDate="2011-04-05T18:45:16.390" UserId="74" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="b7795fb8-eca9-4f95-b37d-b21efb8564ac" CreationDate="2011-04-05T20:08:08.640" UserId="1492" Text="I think a close look at closed questions should come up with a list of no no's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Leading to arguments&quot;, for example has been used for closing, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="afbc44f8-9d8c-4b55-a5f7-2a7c3ddc15b8" CreationDate="2011-04-06T02:44:24.273" UserId="124" Text="Ah, I think I see what's going on: IIRC HTML is still interpreted inside a `&lt;pre&gt;` block, so the parser saw a less-than sign in your code and treated it as the start of an HTML tag. Another user edited the post to use indentation instead of a `&lt;pre&gt;` block, so now it displays correctly since HTML is not parsed within an indented Markdown code block." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="1cdbab6b-555f-42aa-bd0e-adaee42e6008" CreationDate="2011-04-06T04:51:23.927" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="11ce8ae0-b7ac-4f32-9bc4-27edbc49330c" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:06:05.163" UserId="2599" Text="I am a low-rep user with a faint grasp of physics. I recently asked a question (which itself was downvoted, no qualms) and in one of the answers was bombarded by references that pertain to interpretational aspects and did not appear to be mainstream. Now I had asked something which could be called a standard textbook doubt, and I have no desire to go anywhere beyond the operational utility of quantum mechanics. Should such philosophical answers be allowed?? I am not interested in reading stuff from people who push forward marginal opinions and speculative theories. Shouldn't such answers be somehow discouraged? Another issue is that these answers sometimes get upvoted, in my case by another user who said (s)he'll upvote as it cited a respected source, even though I have gained not much from it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the moderator elections this is my question.. what are the moderator's opinion on this kind of behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that I am wrong everywhere and that the answer is totally relevant and I am just assuming. In that case i would offer apologies. But how do I judge when I am bombarded by an answer that cites 5+ journal papers with the only explanations provided are highlighted abstracts.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="11ce8ae0-b7ac-4f32-9bc4-27edbc49330c" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:06:05.163" UserId="2599" Text="On irrelevant answers getting upvoted for irrelevant reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="11ce8ae0-b7ac-4f32-9bc4-27edbc49330c" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:06:05.163" UserId="2599" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="1a0ad083-cbc7-4033-a887-fccefe4159be" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:12:14.487" UserId="2599" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body" Text="I am a low-rep user with a faint grasp of physics. I recently asked a question (which itself was downvoted, no qualms) and in one of the answers was bombarded by references that pertain to interpretational aspects and did not appear to be mainstream. Now I had asked something which could be called a standard textbook doubt, and I have no desire to go anywhere beyond the operational utility of quantum mechanics. Should such philosophical answers be allowed?? I am not interested in reading stuff from people who push forward marginal opinions and speculative theories. Shouldn't such answers be somehow discouraged? Another issue is that these answers sometimes get upvoted, for whatever reasons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the moderator elections this is my question.. what are the moderator's opinion on this kind of behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that I am wrong everywhere and that the answer is totally relevant and I am just assuming. In that case i would offer apologies. But how do I judge when I am bombarded by an answer that cites 5+ journal papers with the only explanations provided are highlighted abstracts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="10b2bd0c-bebb-4ca9-921f-54d98dcc938c" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:31:09.097" UserId="2599" Comment="changed the title, etc; added 54 characters in body" Text="Should philosophical/speculative/non-mainstream answers be allowed to simple questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="10b2bd0c-bebb-4ca9-921f-54d98dcc938c" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:31:09.097" UserId="2599" Comment="changed the title, etc; added 54 characters in body" Text="I am a low-rep user with a faint grasp of physics. I recently asked a question (which itself was downvoted, no qualms) and in one of the answers was bombarded by references that pertain to interpretational aspects and did not appear to be mainstream. Now I had asked something which could be called a standard textbook doubt, and I have no desire to go anywhere beyond the operational utility of quantum mechanics. Should such philosophical answers be allowed?? I am not interested in reading stuff from people who push forward marginal opinions and speculative theories. Shouldn't such answers be somehow discouraged? Another issue is that these answers sometimes get upvoted, for whatever reasons (eg comment in an answer to my most recent question ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the moderator elections this is my question.. what are the moderator's opinion on this kind of behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that I am wrong everywhere and that the answer is totally relevant and I am just assuming. In that case i would offer apologies. But how do I judge when I am bombarded by an answer that cites 5+ journal papers with the only explanations provided are highlighted abstracts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="9812dfae-69a2-449c-a1bb-3c847599c7f5" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:33:07.847" UserId="1492" Comment="extensive additions" Text="There should be a section on the reasons for &quot;closed&quot; and maybe some links to show examples of closure: migrated to other boards, or the reasons. New users might be really discouraged from asking again if they get a close, and most of them read the FAQ, so they should be prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a close look at closed questions should come up with a list of no no's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Leading to arguments&quot;, for example has been used for closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link for such a closure: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/why-do-people-still-talk-about-bohmian-mechanics-hidden-variables-closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;*closed as subjective and argumentative* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;even though there were many answers, some reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another has *closed as too localized* because the problem was answered and no need for more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="ea895b73-b350-4d41-a30f-33f0ef46ed54" CreationDate="2011-04-06T05:50:13.073" UserId="2599" Comment="deleted 126 characters in body" Text="I am a low-rep user with a faint grasp of physics. I recently asked a question (which itself was downvoted, no qualms) and in one of the answers was bombarded by references that pertain to interpretational aspects and did not appear to be mainstream. Now I had asked something which could be called a standard textbook doubt, and I have no desire to go anywhere beyond the operational utility of quantum mechanics. Should such philosophical answers be allowed?? I am not interested in reading stuff from people who push forward marginal opinions and speculative theories. Shouldn't such answers be somehow discouraged? Another issue is that these answers sometimes get upvoted, for whatever reasons (eg comment in an answer to my most recent question ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that I am wrong everywhere and that the answer is totally relevant and I am just assuming. In that case i would offer apologies. But how do I judge when I am bombarded by an answer that cites 5+ journal papers with the only explanations provided are highlighted abstracts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="f11525a4-ce16-4e7a-81bc-a5308a8f4066" CreationDate="2011-04-06T06:33:14.440" UserId="124" Text="Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Robert Cartaino back in the early days of the beta period. (The bold formatting I just added; the links were originally there) Although I probably wouldn't write all the same things today, I think this could be relevant in refining our FAQ excerpt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the biggest issue that the physics site faces right now is publicity. But it's not just a matter of attracting as many people as possible to participate: we need to attract people who are going to ask the right kinds of questions, neither too low-level nor too high-level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On one hand, any physics Q&amp;A site has a tendency to attract a certain number of so-called &quot;crackpot&quot; questions, which are either **not well formulated or not answerable using established physics**. It can be a subjective determination, but I think [What is an &quot;Idea&quot; in terms of time space and matter?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter-closed) and [What is the most efficient way to destroy the universe?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe) and [Why is there something rather than nothing?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-closed) are decent examples (especially the last one). We've been reasonably lucky not to get a whole lot of these so far, but undoubtedly, as the site becomes more popular and reaches out to a wider user base, they'll become more and more frequent. I'll say up front that I don't want to see these kinds of questions tolerated on the site, since I think they misrepresent the scope of physics as a science. (Of course, if the community disagrees with that, I'll go along with them, but then I probably would not remain an active participant on the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although it's hard to characterize good physics questions in general, they typically ask about **the result of an actual experiment** that has been or could be performed ([How does one measure the mass of a galaxy? And other such large quantities.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123/how-does-one-measure-the-mass-of-a-galaxy-and-other-such-large-quantities)), or about **a calculation using a well-formulated theory** ([Deriving the speed of the propagation of a change in the Electromagnetic Field from Maxwell's Equations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1574/deriving-the-speed-of-the-propagation-of-a-change-in-the-electromagnetic-field-fr)), or about a **definition of a recognized physical concept or quantity** ([What is the definition of momentum when a mass distribution ρ(r,t) is given?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1419/what-is-the-definition-of-momentum-when-a-mass-distribution-rhor-t-is-given)). As I stated in [one of my answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) on Physics meta, I think the best way to &quot;enforce&quot; the kinds of questions we want to see on the site is by asking good questions, not by closing bad ones, thereby setting an example for people who come along to ask questions in the future.  And of course, in order to have a lot of good questions, we need to expand the community with more people who will ask good questions. That means that, generally speaking, the kinds of people who we most want to attract are college students who are studying physics or a related field, or people at a higher level of study in physics, up to and including full-fledged researchers. My sense is that most people who have not studied physics at the college level would not have a sense of what distinguishes a good physics question from a bad one, and although this certainly doesn't and shouldn't disqualify them from being able to ask questions, it does mean they're not the kinds of people that the site really needs in order to succeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="b5bcab74-dc83-4e90-ab3a-b014ce355a15" CreationDate="2011-04-06T06:43:23.057" UserId="2599" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="I am a low-rep user with a faint grasp of physics. I recently asked a [question][1] (which itself was downvoted, no qualms) and in one of the answers was bombarded by references that pertain to interpretational aspects and did not appear to be mainstream. Now I had asked something which could be called a standard textbook doubt, and I have no desire to go anywhere beyond the operational utility of quantum mechanics. Should such philosophical answers be allowed?? I am not interested in reading stuff from people who push forward marginal opinions and speculative theories. Shouldn't such answers be somehow discouraged? Another issue is that these answers sometimes get upvoted, for whatever reasons (eg comment in an answer to my most recent question ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that I am wrong everywhere and that the answer is totally relevant and I am just assuming. In that case i would offer apologies. But how do I judge when I am bombarded by an answer that cites 5+ journal papers with the only explanations provided are highlighted abstracts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8062/about-the-complex-nature-of-the-wave-function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="75cf7f70-432b-4525-a97b-46fa91a86bdb" CreationDate="2011-04-06T06:54:35.893" UserId="124" Text="The way to discourage answers is by downvoting them. So if you thought the answer was not helpful, just downvote it. (It's polite to leave a comment explaining why, as you did.) Keep in mind that a good answer will match the level of the question so that the asker can understand it. If an answer to your question is too complex or confusing, that can be a valid reason to downvote it even if it's technically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if other people find it useful and relevant, they can upvote it. That way each answer gets judged by the community. If the answer is totally relevant and you just don't see it, others probably will, and they'll upvote it, so your downvote won't matter so much. Conversely (actually contrapositively, I guess), if an answer does get a lot of downvotes then that probably means you weren't the only one who thought it wasn't helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the question asker, you also have the ability to accept an answer, which is a way of indicating which answer was most useful for your question specifically. So if you don't like an answer, don't accept it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're asking whether there should be more extreme measures than downvoting... well, no, at least not for this sort of case. There are moderator flags and the like but that's just for spam, or answers that are _completely_ irrelevant to the question, not even on the same topic at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="a1652660-c279-4bb6-91eb-0f5636960286" CreationDate="2011-04-06T20:51:49.863" UserId="1097" Comment="now!" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I am working with the candidates to find a time that allows the most participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Town Hall Chat will take place Wednesday the 6th at 9pm UTC, or 5pm EST on the 6th.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**view in other timezones**](http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=4&amp;day=6&amp;year=2011&amp;hour=21&amp;min=0&amp;sec=0&amp;p1=0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**join the chat**](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have coordinated with the candidates and done the best I could with a best fit match.  &lt;s&gt;I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the election phase, so I am looking at the 6th-9th.  As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  You can register for the event [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/406/physics-town-hall-chat?tab=schedule)&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidate regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, the transcript of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1322" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="a1652660-c279-4bb6-91eb-0f5636960286" CreationDate="2011-04-06T20:51:49.863" UserId="1097" Comment="now!" Text="2011 Moderator Election - Town Hall Chat:  9pm UTC / 5pm EDT on the 6th - now!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="624" RevisionGUID="a12088a1-19de-48f1-b6f8-f03c81c3a82c" CreationDate="2011-04-07T09:20:41.267" UserId="1370" Text="If I want to log in in a different SE forum, eg sceptics, &#xD;&#xA;do I need to log in there separately, with a new identity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="624" RevisionGUID="a12088a1-19de-48f1-b6f8-f03c81c3a82c" CreationDate="2011-04-07T09:20:41.267" UserId="1370" Text="Question on log-in on other SE forums" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="624" RevisionGUID="a12088a1-19de-48f1-b6f8-f03c81c3a82c" CreationDate="2011-04-07T09:20:41.267" UserId="1370" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="d8096c0c-588e-4599-ae2a-8cf758a219cd" CreationDate="2011-04-07T09:46:57.987" UserId="97" Text="You only have to log in once with the same openID to create the account, it will then be linked to your other accounts automatically (and, since you have &gt;200 rep here, you'll get a 100 rep start bonus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="16c39549-d911-4c86-be8a-20293b85d37a" CreationDate="2011-04-07T13:02:17.617" UserId="97" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="You only have to log in once with the same openID to create the account, it will then be linked to your other accounts automatically (and, since you have &gt;200 rep here, you'll get a 100 rep start bonus). **edit** You can also use two different openIDs in case you want the accounts to remain separated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 2.5" />
  <row Id="1328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="917423d9-ddfe-45e9-8ebd-6986ac47b1e8" CreationDate="2011-04-08T13:02:26.503" UserId="1460" Text="I have had a look at this question, which just seemed rather longwinded to me. I also learn that it once had a different form. There is an art to getting the right answers at the right level on SE (and generally I suppose). I am not sure what form of the question was answered by who.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with several physics topics (like foundational QM) is that there are different mathematical formulations of the same material, as well as different interpretations of some of it. What happened in this particular case is that the original question asked about the formulation in a standard textbook. Clearly that question can be answered. So also could be answered about other formulations which have certain advantages, or which some researchers like. Of course different mathematical formulations have to be shown to be equivalent, so assuming that, other formulations *are* relevant to the question in a sense. However you were not interested in non-standard (or at least non-textbook) answers to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in this case the person answering had only just learned of these techniques themselves and so could only provide references rather than explain anything line by line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that is what happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A broader issue (which was in another remark) was about the legitimacy of providing &quot;answers&quot; not appropriate for the OP, but which are appropriate in some broader SE sense. The quote was &#xD;&#xA;&gt;In general, even if it were suitable only for Albert Einstein it has to be posted here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quite like the quote, but I dont know what the SE policy is on this one. One can see both sides of the argument on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was stated because of the concern that any duplicate would be closed. Consequently even Albert Einstein would get his duplicate question closed in favour of yours, and so he would want to see all the other mathematical arguments presented as Answers to your question. On the other hand maybe Albert Einstein would also need to learn how to ask his duplicate question in a way that it doesnt get closed, by refering to your question and then saying &quot;I would like to see much more mathematics and philosophy than discussed in these answers.&quot; Maybe that wouldnt get closed, but you see the dilemma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="e8fbc2f2-14c4-4079-9f24-3825ae3d6eff" CreationDate="2011-04-08T18:46:26.000" UserId="66" Text="From time to time, the best answer will be decent, but not outstanding. It answers the question, but the question could have been answered in much greater depth. That's alright. You can't win them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, at other times, the highest answer is nothing but a sorry excuse for an answer. Rather than answering the question, it describes the author's opinion on the question or, even worse, his &quot;best guess&quot; as to what might be the right answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I call these pseudo-answers**, mainly because calling them low quality answers would be far too generous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tell-tale signs of a pseudo-answer are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. The whole answer is less than three lines long.&#xD;&#xA;4. There isn't a single link in the answer or reference, and it's several paragraphs long. &#xD;&#xA;5. The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why this matters ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's success depends on our ability to continually produce great answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High quality answers are the life and blood of our site. If we continually produce high quality content, we'll attract more experts who will want to help fellow physicists. On the other hand, if low quality dominates the site, an expert who visits the site will conclude this site is a waste of time and never come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers go against at goal in at least three ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a question does not have any answers with a score of at least 1, and has no accepted answer, it will show up in the Unanswered Questions tab. That's right, it's not enough for a question to have answers, it has to have positively voted answers to be considered answered. An upvoted pseudo-answers might be the reason why a question has not yet received a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;2. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers gives the impression that this is the kind of content we want. &#xD;&#xA;3. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers may reduce the visibility of good answers. If by the time a good answer is posted there are already a few upvoted bad answers, then it's less likely the great answer will be upvoted to the top. It may stay buried under a pile of bad answers, where few will ever see it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our goal is high quality answers, and it is, then **pseudo-answers are the enemy**.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers do, sometimes, make great contribution to the thread. However, Physics is not a forum. We are a question and answer site. Answers are meant to be answers, not replies. **If you have something to add and it's not actually an answer, then write it in the comment section.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How can I help? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to help us get rid of the pseudo-answers threat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Write good answers.** The best way to avoid the creation of pseudo-answers on a question is to write great answers. If an user learns by reading your answer, it is much less likely that he will feel the need to post an answer of his own. If this is done constantly on each answer, a new user will learn that this is the kind of answer his answer will compete with.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Downvote them, at least down to zero.** Downvoting pseudo-answers is paving the way for better, more informative answers: it makes sure that unanswered questions show up in the Unanswered Questions tab and gives more visibility to new questions.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Leave comments on infringing answers.** Downvoting sends a signal, for sure, but the lesson might not be clear. When downvoting, try to leave a comment explaining why. With luck, the author will persevere and learn from his mistake. &#xD;&#xA;4. **Flag them.** If you see a pseudo-answer, please flag it as &quot;low quality.&quot; If moderators agree, they might convert the question into a comment, delete it, or downvote it. &#xD;&#xA;5. **Write good questions.** A well-written question helps reduce the probability of pseudo-answers being written. It's not a miracle remedy, and sometimes a well-written question will receive several poorly written questions, but putting effort into your questions never hurts!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we work hard together, we can purge the site of pseudo-answers and the site will be much better for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Post freely adapted from [here](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/383/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy), where it lead to much rejoicing and puppy unicorns.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="e8fbc2f2-14c4-4079-9f24-3825ae3d6eff" CreationDate="2011-04-08T18:46:26.000" UserId="66" Text="Pseudo-answers are the enemy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="e8fbc2f2-14c4-4079-9f24-3825ae3d6eff" CreationDate="2011-04-08T18:46:26.000" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="c798f1ea-0d72-44f6-801b-11c1ef80ef3b" CreationDate="2011-04-08T20:24:16.083" UserId="124" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8276/optimal-technique-to-tear-perforated-paper-along-the-perforation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a question which is considered to be off topic by some members of the community, but on topic by others (as evidenced by the fact that they answered it). I'm not entirely sure which camp I'm in. At first, I thought it was off topic, but I've been closing a lot of questions recently and since at the time, nobody else objected to the question, I thought I would give it a chance. (Besides, there is physics involved in paper tearing at _some_ level.) However, now it's clear that there are people who consider this sort of question unambiguously off topic, and in many cases I'm inclined to agree with them. So we should make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions about practical phenomena that don't address the underlying reasons: on topic or off topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/272/are-how-to-questions-for-demos-and-try-this-at-home-experiments-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of these practical questions (all the ones I could find happen to be closed, but I think there are more out there that were less ambiguous; please comment or edit in links if you find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7681/extracting-water-out-of-silica-gel&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/what-materials-can-be-used-to-release-odours-when-wet-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="c798f1ea-0d72-44f6-801b-11c1ef80ef3b" CreationDate="2011-04-08T20:24:16.083" UserId="124" Text="Paper tearing and other practical questions: off topic or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="c798f1ea-0d72-44f6-801b-11c1ef80ef3b" CreationDate="2011-04-08T20:24:16.083" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="7ec7ed6e-e07e-481c-96de-cbda33f80f5d" CreationDate="2011-04-08T20:40:18.113" UserId="66" Text="I say **burn them from orbit** -- completely off topic. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that questions should be strictly about Physics, not the &quot;general physical world&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk is that we will end up with questions potentially overlapping with half of the other StackExchange sites! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head these sites as of today would overlap with those kinds of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (&quot;How does a car engine work?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Fitness and Nutrition (&quot;How are food calories measured?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Skeptics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantitative Finance (&quot;[The Concepts of Path Integral in Quantitative Finance](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance)&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Guitars (&quot;How do I calculate string tension for a baritone guitar?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Audio Recording and Production (&quot;How does a loudspeaker work?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Bicycles&#xD;&#xA;  - Photography&#xD;&#xA;  - Cooking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, some of these questions hold some interest (fun!) for this community. They just belong somewhere else, where they probably will receive far better answers.&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately we need to have a very clear and explicit &quot;scope&quot; so we can be a focused Q&amp;A site of physicists for physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Burn from orbit](http://www.digital-digest.com/blog/DVDGuy/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/low_orbit_ion_cannon.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="3779f512-f4a5-4f84-94aa-82735e08b879" CreationDate="2011-04-08T20:51:22.593" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8276/optimal-technique-to-tear-perforated-paper-along-the-perforation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a question which is considered to be off topic by some members of the community, but on topic by others (as evidenced by the fact that they answered it). I'm not entirely sure which camp I'm in. At first, I thought it was off topic, but I've been closing a lot of questions recently and since at the time, nobody else objected to the question, I thought I would give it a chance. (Besides, there is physics involved in paper tearing at _some_ level.) However, now it's clear that there are people who consider this sort of question unambiguously off topic, and in many cases I'm inclined to agree with them. So we should make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions about practical phenomena that don't address the underlying reasons: on topic or off topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/272/are-how-to-questions-for-demos-and-try-this-at-home-experiments-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of these practical questions (all the ones I could find happen to be closed, but I think there are others out there that weren't; please comment or edit in links if you find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7681/extracting-water-out-of-silica-gel&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/what-materials-can-be-used-to-release-odours-when-wet-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="efe21894-6759-46e3-9591-55f82d6cef79" CreationDate="2011-04-08T20:56:07.997" UserId="124" Text="In general, I agree with you that there are such things as pseudo-answers which don't belong on the site. But I think some of the details don't apply to physics.SE, at least not as well as they apply to Skeptics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is collaborative. It's perfectly valid to build off someone else's answer; we've produced a lot more thorough information that way than we could otherwise. In fact, based on experience I consider this a sign of a _good_ answer, as long as the original answer being referenced is also good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example from my own experience: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson/195#195&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's often difficult for one person to cover an issue completely. It's a good sign when they recognize that. Plus, this leaves open a good opportunity for someone else to step in to complete the job, with an answer of form #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The whole answer is less than three lines long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agreed, that is probably a sign of a bad answer. Or if not, it's a sign of a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There isn't a single link in the answer or reference, and it's several paragraphs long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see how this would be an issue on Skeptics, where it is absolutely critical to distinguish between facts and speculation by providing citations. But in physics, there is a body of general reference knowledge that is more or less universally accepted (basically the undergraduate physics curriculum, plus some other stuff). There's no need to support that with links (although answers with links are generally better than the same answers without links).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on more advanced physics, i.e. active research areas, then I definitely agree that links can be essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7877/pendulum-with-water-dripping-out/7878#7878&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that depends entirely on who's guessing. A good physicist knows how to extrapolate new information from what he or she knows, without stepping over the line into _unfounded_ speculation. So even an educated guess or a tentative thought can be good information, if it comes from someone who knows what they're doing. It's common knowledge that _scientists make mistakes_ sometimes, and it will help our site when people disclose their level of certainty in the conclusions they're drawing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I would agree that an answer that begins with &quot;In my opinion&quot; or &quot;Personally&quot; is quite likely to be a pseudo-answer. The paragraph above applies to the other phrases.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="f2450c05-2122-434e-ab9e-23b8be6c5763" CreationDate="2011-04-08T21:22:11.307" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body" Text="From time to time, the best answer will be decent, but not outstanding. It answers the question, but the question could have been answered in much greater depth. That's alright. You can't win them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, at other times, the highest answer is nothing but a sorry excuse for an answer. Rather than answering the question, it describes the author's opinion on the question or, even worse, his &quot;best guess&quot; as to what might be the right answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I call these pseudo-answers**, mainly because calling them low quality answers would be far too generous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tell-tale signs of a pseudo-answer are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. The whole answer is less than three lines long. &#xD;&#xA;4. The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why this matters ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's success depends on our ability to continually produce great answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High quality answers are the life and blood of our site. If we continually produce high quality content, we'll attract more experts who will want to help fellow physicists. On the other hand, if low quality dominates the site, an expert who visits the site will conclude this site is a waste of time and never come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers go against at goal in at least three ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a question does not have any answers with a score of at least 1, and has no accepted answer, it will show up in the Unanswered Questions tab. That's right, it's not enough for a question to have answers, it has to have positively voted answers to be considered answered. An upvoted pseudo-answers might be the reason why a question has not yet received a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;2. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers gives the impression that this is the kind of content we want. &#xD;&#xA;3. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers may reduce the visibility of good answers. If by the time a good answer is posted there are already a few upvoted bad answers, then it's less likely the great answer will be upvoted to the top. It may stay buried under a pile of bad answers, where few will ever see it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our goal is high quality answers, and it is, then **pseudo-answers are the enemy**.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers do, sometimes, make great contribution to the thread. However, Physics is not a forum. We are a question and answer site. Answers are meant to be answers, not replies. **If you have something to add and it's not actually an answer, then write it in the comment section.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How can I help? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to help us get rid of the pseudo-answers threat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Write good answers.** The best way to avoid the creation of pseudo-answers on a question is to write great answers. If an user learns by reading your answer, it is much less likely that he will feel the need to post an answer of his own. If this is done constantly on each answer, a new user will learn that this is the kind of answer his answer will compete with.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Downvote them, at least down to zero.** Downvoting pseudo-answers is paving the way for better, more informative answers: it makes sure that unanswered questions show up in the Unanswered Questions tab and gives more visibility to new questions.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Leave comments on infringing answers.** Downvoting sends a signal, for sure, but the lesson might not be clear. When downvoting, try to leave a comment explaining why. With luck, the author will persevere and learn from his mistake. &#xD;&#xA;4. **Flag them.** If you see a pseudo-answer, please flag it as &quot;low quality.&quot; If moderators agree, they might convert the question into a comment, delete it, or downvote it. &#xD;&#xA;5. **Write good questions.** A well-written question helps reduce the probability of pseudo-answers being written. It's not a miracle remedy, and sometimes a well-written question will receive several poorly written questions, but putting effort into your questions never hurts!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we work hard together, we can purge the site of pseudo-answers and the site will be much better for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Post freely adapted from [here](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/383/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy), where it lead to much rejoicing and puppy unicorns.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="56056f62-e2a5-44b9-b26f-85fa2ec536db" CreationDate="2011-04-08T21:30:18.447" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 433 characters in body" Text="**Pseudo-answers** are partial answers, which are mere speculation or irony or an addition to someone else's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers do, sometimes, make great contribution to the thread. However, Physics is not a forum. We are a question and answer site. Answers are meant to be answers, not replies. **If you have something to add and it's not actually an answer, then write it in the comment section.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why this matters ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's success depends on our ability to continually produce great answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High quality answers are the life and blood of our site. If we continually produce high quality content, we'll attract more experts who will want to help fellow physicists. On the other hand, if low quality dominates the site, an expert who visits the site will conclude this site is a waste of time and never come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers go against at goal in at least three ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a question does not have any answers with a score of at least 1, and has no accepted answer, it will show up in the Unanswered Questions tab. That's right, it's not enough for a question to have answers, it has to have positively voted answers to be considered answered. An upvoted pseudo-answers might be the reason why a question has not yet received a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;2. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers gives the impression that this is the kind of content we want. &#xD;&#xA;3. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers may reduce the visibility of good answers. If by the time a good answer is posted there are already a few upvoted bad answers, then it's less likely the great answer will be upvoted to the top. It may stay buried under a pile of bad answers, where few will ever see it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our goal is high quality answers, and it is, then **pseudo-answers are the enemy**.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The tell-tale signs of a possible pseudo-answer are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. The whole answer is less than three lines long. &#xD;&#xA;4. The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How can I help? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to help us get rid of the pseudo-answers threat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Write good, complete answers.** The best way to avoid the creation of pseudo-answers on a question is to write great answers. If an user learns by reading your answer, it is much less likely that he will feel the need to post an answer of his own. If this is done constantly on each answer, a new user will learn that this is the kind of answer his answer will compete with.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Downvote them, at least down to zero.** Downvoting pseudo-answers is paving the way for better, more informative answers: it makes sure that unanswered questions show up in the Unanswered Questions tab and gives more visibility to new questions.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Leave comments on infringing answers.** Downvoting sends a signal, for sure, but the lesson might not be clear. When downvoting, try to leave a comment explaining why. With luck, the author will persevere and learn from his mistake. &#xD;&#xA;4. **Flag them.** If you see a pseudo-answer, please flag it as &quot;low quality.&quot; If moderators agree, they might convert the question into a comment, delete it, or downvote it. &#xD;&#xA;5. **Write good questions.** A well-written question helps reduce the probability of pseudo-answers being written. It's not a miracle remedy, and sometimes a well-written question will receive several poorly written questions, but putting effort into your questions never hurts!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we work hard together, we can purge the site of pseudo-answers and the site will be much better for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Post freely adapted from [here](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/383/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy), where it lead to much rejoicing and puppy unicorns.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="8bd4a600-82be-44f1-9cb0-23cb89cb68d1" CreationDate="2011-04-08T22:11:41.127" UserId="124" Comment="update to reflect edits in question" Text="In general, I agree with you that there are such things as pseudo-answers which don't belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But based on my experience here, I think this is not as big of an issue on physics.SE as I imagine it is on Skeptics. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is collaborative. It's perfectly valid to build off someone else's answer, in the same way that you might build off a paper, blog post, or Wikipedia page (by citing it). We've produced a lot more thorough information that way than we could otherwise. In fact, based on experience I consider this a sign of a _good_ answer, as long as the original answer being referenced is also good and the new answer adds something substantive to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example from my own experience: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson/195#195&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could go either way. It's often difficult for one person to cover an issue completely, and I consider it a good sign when they recognize that and point out that there is more to be done, leaving an opening for someone else to come in and complete the explanation (either by editing the existing answer, or posting a new answer that builds on it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The whole answer is less than three lines long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agreed, that is probably a sign of a bad answer. (Or perhaps a sign of a bad question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;In my opinion&quot; or &quot;Personally,&quot; I agree. But for other phrases, it depends to some extent on who's guessing. A good physicist knows how to extrapolate new information from what he or she knows, without stepping over the line into _unfounded_ speculation. So even an educated guess or a tentative thought can be good information, if it comes from someone who knows what they're doing. It's common knowledge that _scientists make mistakes_ sometimes, and it will help our site when people disclose their level of certainty (or uncertainty) in the conclusions they're drawing - kind of like the verbal version of error bars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="cacabd56-4731-480a-b765-e89f4d7bf676" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:24:11.947" UserId="1097" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2011 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/610). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please add your replies to the chat room and comment here so they can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="cacabd56-4731-480a-b765-e89f4d7bf676" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:24:11.947" UserId="1097" Text="2011 Moderator Election - Town Hall Chat Digest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="cacabd56-4731-480a-b765-e89f4d7bf676" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:24:11.947" UserId="1097" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="53519e4e-978f-495e-9787-c396c70cb481" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:25:34.097" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793753#793753):* What do y'all see as the biggest challenge when it comes to moderating Physics-SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793763#793763):** @RebeccaChernoff It seems that there are some tensions in the community regarding people behaving &quot;like bullies&quot;. Also, it seems that some basic discussions weren't completed during Beta, like &quot;what should go in our FAQ&quot;, and that is making it difficult to know when to close questions. I think that this should be a happy community, but at the moment it looks the mood could improve. I'd like to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793766#793766):** Biggest challenge: Well two: Big, strong personalities who are used to being Right, and strongly held, very much off the mainstream, ideas (i.e. those which might get labeled as crank or crackpot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793771#793771):** @RebeccaChernoff Hmm... well, from what I've seen on the site so far, I think keeping arguments under control is the most challenging part of the job. As physicists we have a tendency to be pretty stubborn when our views are challenged (some people more than others) so it's easy for a simple disagreement to blow up and turn into insults being traded back and forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="716482e7-736f-438a-b55b-402efb06a406" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:26:36.310" UserId="1097" Text="## *![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793777#793777):* Official false modesty meter calibration query for all candidates: What do you believe is or will be your biggest weakness as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793790#793790):** @dmckee Tough one. I am not a professional physicist, grad level only -- I think there should be some other moderator with me with me with more physics knowledge. My strengths are in &quot;moderation art&quot; and I can also help with lower level question (I have 3000+ rep here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793797#793797):** I have a temper that occasionally shows through. Just yesterday @Sklivvz had to cleanup some too-strongly-state comments I left on Skeptics. I know better, and I usually walk away from the computer when that happens, but evidently not every time. That can't be allowed to happen whilst wielding the Power of the Diamond (tm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793801#793801):** @dmckee Ah, well I was thinking about a good way to say this and then Sklivvz popped up with the perfect wording: I've had the feeling my biggest weakness is &quot;moderation art,&quot; i.e. defusing debates, the ability to enforce boundaries without angering people. In practice, this often means I'll let things go (e.g. rude comments) when they should perhaps be deleted or dealt with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="879ef62b-afc9-47d1-868e-dd59e1e1734e" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:27:47.963" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793810#793810):* How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793834#793834):** @RebeccaChernoff Hardest possible scenario, huh? If they contribute to the comment noise, then cleaning up after them can be a warning. If that fails, a private email after consulting with other mods. The sin bin for a short time if they persist, but I'm thinking of Rich B. levels of persistent conflict generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793846#793846):** @RebeccaChernoff First of all, I would be present on the site and nuke flame wars from orbit. This is not where you come to fight. Aside, I would approach the user in chat first (using the new @@ tool, possibly) and try to reason. I would explain that the community is more important than any single user, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793854#793854):** @RebeccaChernoff If that fails, and the behaviour continues, then I would use a formal warning, and then repeated suspensions. The main point here is that one user can spoil everybody's fun. Even if they are high rep... Actually, especially if the are high rep, they should set the golden standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793856#793856):** @RebeccaChernoff First reaction: just reply to the comments asking everyone involved to keep a level head and avoid saying rude things. I might delete comments if they seem excessively bad and/or irrelevant to the question. If that fails after a few instances, then send an official warning (moderator message), then after that, suspensions of increasing length, starting with a day or two, until it's no longer a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793862#793862):** @RebeccaChernoff (continued) Contributing good answers can earn a user some leniency in the &quot;disciplinary&quot; process, but it's not an excuse to be rude and get away with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="ccb3ff58-5ab7-474a-bc77-2be04fb8db54" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:28:39.680" UserId="1097" Text="## ![Edward](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3f7473eceac532fa519415251e181c24?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Edward](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/11827/edward) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793850#793850):* What do you consider the purpose of the 'comments' section (what will you encourage / discourage)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793868#793868):** @Edward Comments on Physics.SE provide a place to discuss the limits, exceptions, special cases, and requirements that afflict most statements you can make in physics. It is rare that any of us write an absolutely true statement. Done well, this can clarify without generating conflict. Done badly it makes bruised egos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793874#793874):** @Edward Comments are second class citizens in the SE network. They should be used only for minor discussions related to the post. They should not be used as a forum. I think that physics needs to address this, as we are not using the tools we have in the best possible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793878#793878):** @Edward Good question :-) The primary purpose of comments on questions should be to ask for clarification, and comments on answers should be used to point out or ask about inconsistencies or errors in the answer posted. In both cases they basically function as a way to point out ways for the OP to improve the post through edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [replied](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793879#793879):** @Sklivvz I'd like to say &quot;Hear! Hear!&quot; to Sklivvz's line on the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="50e4e3c1-d8b6-4511-a710-377e9a4102cc" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:29:49.570" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793904#793904):* Do you think the Physics-SE community generally gets the SE engine? What is something you think the community still needs education on, and how can you help improve this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/406?m=793918#793918):** @RebeccaChernoff I think that the community could use some help. I've been involved in the SE network for 2 years 6 months now, and I believe I can say I've lived through the many changes, errors and corrections of the platform. I know how it should work, and that when it works it's possibly the best community platform available today. As how to make it happen, is through community building (continued)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793927#793927):** @RebeccaChernoff I can bring as an example, the Skeptics site I am moderating. It's a very tough gig, because our questions are on the extreme side of subjective. Similarly to Physics we attract &quot;eccentrics&quot; pretty much every other day and we have to deal with them while keeping the community in a happy place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793930#793930):** @RebeccaChernoff I believe the most commonly used term here is &quot;crackpots&quot; but it's possibly too evil :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793931#793931):** @RebeccaChernoff Not quite. One issue is that the quality of an answer on a hard science site needs to be judged by its correctness (that is, after all, why we call it hard science) and people don't always use that criterion. Another issue is that we tend to overuse the comment system, but then again questions in physics are often more discussion-intensive (or one could say argument-prone) than other topic areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued again](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793949#793949):** @RebeccaChernoff I think that down votes should also be used to judge the quality of the answers (not only the correctness). But I believe that the community should set a standard and follow it, not the moderators. We facilitate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="2ec8a033-8653-46ab-a58e-bfa2e69d15ea" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:30:15.340" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Edward](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3f7473eceac532fa519415251e181c24?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Edward](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/11827/edward) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793957#793957):* As a follow up then: If responses are to remain associated with a question, where do you feel 'non-minor' discussion of possible errors or follow up to an answer should go? Sometimes the most educationally useful stuff I've seen is when there are conflicting answers, and learning why a particular answer turned out to be wrong.  But previous answers regarding comments seem to want non-minor back and forth discussion reduced in comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793967#793967):** @Edward If it's going to be an extended discussion, the chat room can be good for that. But in many cases, I envision a cycle of &quot;comment, edit, delete the comment&quot; to improve the posts without cluttering up the comment section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793970#793970):** @Edward There are other better ways. First: post a better answer instead. Second: use tools like the chat that work way better than the comments. If the discussion is of a more general nature, bring it to meta. I know physicists are tough people with 150IQ! But believe me, nerdy programmers are just as tough - and the platform is built around helping community of opinionated geeks be happy and productive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794072#794072):** @Edward In 99% of the cases it's only necessary to point out why an answer is wrong once. You also have to remember that the answer might be wrong, but also the comment. So, surely you can point out things in comments if it's helpful. Remember that our AIM here is NOT to win a right-or-wrong contest, but it's to get the best possible answers, so don't point out errors in an unfriendly way but BE NICE and help improve the answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="d2c3f75a-4a9e-4de1-afe5-bbf5f4703d15" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:30:39.663" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793981#793981):* What can be done to bring more people to the community? Do you feel that's part of your responsibility as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793995#793995):** @RebeccaChernoff It's absolutely part of the job of a moderator. I can only say that, as a moderator, I managed to get Skeptics linked by Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) and successfully posted more than one question on HackerNews, bringing over 10,000 visitors in 2 days. See: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1700/does-more-monitor-real-estate-increase-productivity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794007#794007):** @RebeccaChernoff This was a major concern of mine at the beginning of the beta period. I think we have less of a problem with publicity now, but it's still something to think about. The best thing we can do in general, IMO, is build a reputation of giving people accurate answers. More short-term, we should be sharing interesting questions with influential bloggers and other &quot;trendsetters&quot; in the physics community. (TBC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794009#794009):** @RebeccaChernoff (cont.) I believe that the moderators can play a part in spurring this sort of action on, but it's not exclusively their responsibility. Site promotion is a project that the whole community can/should get involved in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794013#794013):** @RebeccaChernoff As a moderator you also need to be able to ask great questions, setting the standard. I have a couple of very very popular questions on StackOverflow. Here on physics my best one is Could gravity be an emergent property of nature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794018#794018):** A last thing. Moderators are the only users with direct access to stats. They must therefore play a major role in promotion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="c4a106a4-c544-4b32-97c7-f0a524b26174" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:31:02.890" UserId="1097" Text="## *![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794012#794012):* I have one that I guess only Sklivvz will be able to answer right now: For candidates who are also moderators of other SE sites, how do you expect your duties on the other site to affect your ability to moderate physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794030#794030):** @DavidZaslavsky Actually, I think it is a great advantage. First of all, moderators keep an eye most of the time. So it's a matter of being always present. Obviously I am already around because of Skeptics, so it's easy for me. Secondly, I think that seeing two different communities gives a great deal of experience that you can't have with a single site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794312#794312):** @DavidZaslavsky I'm a pro tem mod on CodeGolf right now. It's a easy gig, and I intend to give it up when they get around to elections right now. It means I've had a look at the tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="ddabc311-8626-4c3f-bf49-50da4105d240" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:31:23.173" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794063#794063):* How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794086#794086):** @RebeccaChernoff Great question. I can point out this question here that was closed last night on Skeptics. I opter for closing, and the other mod present disagreed. So this is what we did. We posted a question on meta, to let the community decide. In the meanwhile (continued)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794094#794094):** The question was quickly becoming problematic - a flame war. So to expedite the decision we went in Teacher's Lounge (a special chat room for all the moderators) and we asked for advice there. After some discussion we all agreed on closing. I believe that we avoided a bad flame war and pointless question without making the community unhappy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794088#794088):** @RebeccaChernoff I'd bring it up with the other moderator in the mods' chat room (or perhaps by email if that didn't work for some reason). If other people also shared my opinion, I would encourage them to bring it up on meta so the community can decide. But I wouldn't reverse another moderator's action unless they asked me to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794092#794092):** @RebeccaChernoff I think this answer I posted on physics meta might be relevant to that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794346#794346):** @RebeccaChernoff I think mods have to talk to one another in cases like that. Meta or chat should do. Teachers' Lounge is a secure place if the site's meta or general chat isn't appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="f85d2c06-7929-483c-a590-53a2e60c8e6b" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:31:43.420" UserId="1097" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794108#794108):* Perhaps some final thoughts from the candidates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794126#794126):** I really want to help here. I love physics. I come from a family of scientists, so I know them. On the other hand I am a community builder, I've been helping here but I also do it in my real life job. I help maintain an open source project, again, community. Here I can join two things I love :-) And, Bacon Waffles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794136#794136):** @RebeccaChernoff I think the questions covered it pretty well. This is not an easy site to moderate but I think we're doing a pretty good job of propagating good information despite the challenges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="642" RevisionGUID="3c9324ae-937c-4006-8c04-2301c633fca9" CreationDate="2011-04-09T02:43:34.190" UserId="74" Text="I'm in favor of closing practical questions and asking them to be rephrased as physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key is that with the questions you cited, the asker wanted to know something along the lines of &quot;what's the best way to...&quot;  This elicits practical, non-physics answers (the answers to the paper-tearing question simply talk about things like running pencils along a crease; they don't have significant physics content).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions, slightly modified but about the same topic, could read &quot;Why does such and such act this way...&quot;. If the paper question were phrased &quot;Does the angle you tear paper have an effect, and why?&quot;, it would elicit more physics-based answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example, I think [the question about why dust sticks to fans][1] is a fine question, but if it had been asked, &quot;What's the best way to keep my fan from accumulating dust?&quot;, it would be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1343/why-does-dust-stick-to-rotating-fan-propeller" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="73fed268-5cb1-4ad3-98d4-0f007081a978" CreationDate="2011-04-09T06:52:42.547" UserId="1708" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8179/how-can-a-point-particle-have-properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the parts that were open to criticism. It has 4 upvotes, and people who are trying to answer it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up for open, down for close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="73fed268-5cb1-4ad3-98d4-0f007081a978" CreationDate="2011-04-09T06:52:42.547" UserId="1708" Text="Why is my question closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="73fed268-5cb1-4ad3-98d4-0f007081a978" CreationDate="2011-04-09T06:52:42.547" UserId="1708" Text="|discussion|questions|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="d22eb19c-1dea-4920-a748-c9a0daf8cf20" CreationDate="2011-04-09T10:48:36.880" UserId="66" Text="Referring to this question in particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8312/is-a-work-life-balance-incompatible-with-becoming-an-international-scientist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to experts, in order to become an international scientist, you have to put in 80 hour weeks for a decade. Is becoming an international scientist incompatible with a work/life balance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="d22eb19c-1dea-4920-a748-c9a0daf8cf20" CreationDate="2011-04-09T10:48:36.880" UserId="66" Text="Are questions about general life on topic here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="d22eb19c-1dea-4920-a748-c9a0daf8cf20" CreationDate="2011-04-09T10:48:36.880" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="d2be7667-5e6b-45a1-a98d-893cf66798be" CreationDate="2011-04-09T10:55:19.137" UserId="66" Text="The question is **not pertinent to physics at all** and should probably fit in a personal help column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;According to experts, in order to become an `&lt;insert career of choice&gt;`, you have to put in 80 hour weeks for a decade. Is becoming an `&lt;insert career of choice&gt;` incompatible with a work/life balance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's only a variation of the more general: &quot;Is it worth it to put in 80 hour weeks for 10 years in order to become successful at work?&quot; which has nothing to do with physics, is subjective and, frankly, not the kind of question we should have here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="23bb5da8-1f63-4f09-bcba-2d3435dd306a" CreationDate="2011-04-09T16:02:07.560" UserId="66" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="The question is **not pertinent to physics at all** and should probably fit in a personal help column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with this hypothetical question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;According to experts, in order to become an `&lt;insert career of choice&gt;`, you have to put in 80 hour weeks for a decade. Is becoming an `&lt;insert career of choice&gt;` incompatible with a work/life balance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's only a variation of the more general: &quot;Is it worth it to put in 80 hour weeks for 10 years in order to become successful at work?&quot; which has nothing to do with physics, is subjective and, frankly, not the kind of question we should have here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="c8210274-d0bb-4c7b-bf7b-f170d3afc042" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:06:18.750" UserId="520" Text="When I read the title what came to mind was some blog post I read in the last few months. [FSP][1] and other bloggers have written about work/life balance issues for early career  professors, and about the possibly gender differentiated interpretation of choices that people face in these circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have several career related questions scattered around the site---though it is not clear that we have a consensus about when or even if those are OK:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What is an effective way to search for post-doc positions in physics?][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is there any reason to major in physics if you're certain you will never do a Ph.D?][5] [closed]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to work on physics independently outside academia?][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [What sort of jobs do physics graduates with B.Sc/M.Sc get?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also some question concerning the sociology or culture of physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Can a web community write papers?][8]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][9]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are all theoretical physicists like Sheldon Cooper?][10] [closed]&#xD;&#xA;* [What does it take to become a top physicist?][11]  &lt;== Note the relationship between this one and the one under discussion!&#xD;&#xA;* [Are collaborations needed to be productive in physics?][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on this particular question is much like Sklivvz: there is nothing physics specific there, but we want to have a set of clearly-articulated, easy-to-understand metrics for telling when career-related or sociological questions are or are not on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science-professor.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1779/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7477/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7491/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6582/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1599/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2343/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5495/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5930/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="e40315f0-3dc0-4385-b412-c46fda59e7f1" CreationDate="2011-04-09T23:10:38.403" UserId="124" Text="The reason I was keeping it closed was mostly because of this paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not only that, but it can also detect all fields without having any structure. Maybe it can check curvature of spacetime to account fo gravity, but how does it &quot;sense&quot; what the other fields-vectors are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particles are not alive. (I guess we don't know _for certain_ but the idea would be exceedingly difficult to support) They don't actively &quot;detect&quot; fields, they don't &quot;check&quot; or &quot;sense&quot; anything and then decide how to react.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, since nobody else seems to support having the question closed I reopened it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="9552a773-18b8-4e89-8763-944ef30a759d" CreationDate="2011-04-11T02:38:42.777" UserId="1272" Text="I've been wondering why there is so little activity on physics stack exchange compared with math stack exchange. It occurred to me that a contribution to the difference is that we may be closing too many questions as &quot;duplicates&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a liberal definition of &quot;duplicate&quot; means that there will be fewer questions available to answer and this reduces the likelihood that someone searching for an answer will be able to locate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us review official Stack Exchange policy on duplicates. From the blog, my emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeff Atwood, Nov 15, 2010 *Dr. Strangedupe: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love Duplication*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One thing I want to be clear about,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though, is that duplication is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessarily bad. Quite the contrary —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some duplication is desirable. There’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often ***benefit to having multiple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subtle variants of a question around,***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as people tend to ask and search using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; completely different words, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better our coverage, the better odds&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people can find the answer they’re&#xD;&#xA;&gt; looking for. And isn’t that, really,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the whole point of this exercise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/dr-strangedupe-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-duplication/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joel Spolsky, Jan 5, 2011, *The Wikipedia of Long Tail Programming Questions*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you’re going to close a user’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question as a duplicate, it has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a real duplicate. For example, if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user asks, “What does the IP address&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 128.0.1.1/24 mean?” it’s OK to close that as a duplicate of a more general&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question like “What do IP addresses of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the form a.b.c.d/e mean?” But it’s not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OK to close it as a duplicate of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-seven page guide to netmasks.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That’s the moral equivalent of saying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “[RTFM][1].” Stack Overflow is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meant to be a library of reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manuals. It’s supposed to contain the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; same information as a library of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference manuals, in the form of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; millions of questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Combined with Google, that gives us&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magical power of a library of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference manuals you never have to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read! It’s like, you got to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; library, and there’s a wizard there at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the door, and you ask your question,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, instead of being told to read a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; book, you just got (are you sitting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down?) the actual answer!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That’s why [we actually don’t mind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having several versions of every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question][2], where there are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; variations in wording or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances. The more chance that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; someone types a question into Google&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and finds their exact question already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answered, the better a job we’ve done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/the-wikipedia-of-long-tail-programming-questions/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we've reviewed official SE policy on duplicate, let's take a look at a question I posted that, as I write, has 3 votes to close based on &quot;duplicate&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8341/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose I'm on a non rotating planet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have two identical, perfect watches.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I synchronize them. Then I throw one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of them into the air and catch it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does the one I throw into the air gain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or lose time with respect to the one I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was holding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the question proposed as its duplicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8314&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You blast off in a rocket which has a clock on board, and there's a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clock on the ground. The idea is that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you have to be back when the clock on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ground says one hour has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you want it so that when you come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back, your clock is as far ahead as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. According to Einstein, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you go very high, your clock will go&#xD;&#xA;&gt; faster, because the higher something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is in a gravitational field, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; faster its clock goes. But if you try&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to go too high, since you've only got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an hour, you have to go so fast to get&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there that the speed slows your clock&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down. So you can't go too high. ***The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question is, exactly what program of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speed and height should you make so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that you get the maximum time on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clock?***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This assistant of Einstein worked on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it for quite a bit before he realized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the answer is the real motion of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter. If you shoot something up in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; normal way, so that the time it takes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the shell to go up and come down is an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hour, that's the correct motion. It's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fundamental principle of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Einstein's gravity--that is, what's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called the &quot;proper time&quot; is at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum for the actual curve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions are similar in that they begin on a planet and involve a time piece. But in the first posted the question is &quot;exactly what program of speed and height should you make so that you get the maximum time on your clock?&quot; In the other, the question is: &quot;Does the one I throw into the air gain or lose time with respect to the one I was holding?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I submit that (under the policy of Stack Exchange) it should be clear and obvious to all that these are not the same question. The first has to do with maximizing a time difference over a path that is not a geodesic (i.e. the rocket ship) as compared to a path that is on a planet's surface (and hence is not a geodesic). The second has to do with the relationship between two paths, one stationary on the planet's surface, the other a geodesic near the planet's surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's unfair to expect that a reader not already possessing an understanding of general relativity will see any relationship between these problems. Second, it's unlikely that they will locate the original post in searching for the problem. Third, it's unlikely that they will be able to work out the answer to the problem based on the answers given in the original post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'd like to point out that voting to close a question as duplicate has a tendency to suppress answers to the question. Why bother to write up an answer to a question that is going to be closed as a duplicate? For the question at hand, neither of the two answers give directly tell which watch gains and loses time. The best answer so far provided is: &quot;The &quot;stationary&quot; watch, which is actually accelerated, is following some other path and so must experience a shorter proper time.&quot; To someone seeking to understand general relativity this will be confusing at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RTFM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/dr-strangedupe-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-duplication/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="9552a773-18b8-4e89-8763-944ef30a759d" CreationDate="2011-04-11T02:38:42.777" UserId="1272" Text="Liberal definition of duplicate questions and the health of physics stack exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="9552a773-18b8-4e89-8763-944ef30a759d" CreationDate="2011-04-11T02:38:42.777" UserId="1272" Text="|discussion|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="2b1f458e-4406-49b9-8880-edf8af31baf8" CreationDate="2011-04-11T03:15:32.303" UserId="74" Text="Here's an attempt to define exact duplicate questions in physics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If understanding the answer to question A implies that you will immediately understand the answer to question B and vice versa, then questions A and B are exact duplicates.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with subtle differences could pass this test; I think the questions on watches are an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, if question B is closed as an exact duplicate of A, readers who find B through search will be redirected to A, read the answers to A, and, by definition, understand the answer to B." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="36d01cb9-4d03-49f3-b997-695b975c13db" CreationDate="2011-04-11T18:45:13.850" UserId="113" Text="I agree -- this tag has been removed, it can only be problematic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="a9aa897c-61fe-42b0-8726-52225513fed8" CreationDate="2011-04-11T18:45:21.463" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="332b17c2-1b37-4c11-88ea-e31ea71d4c62" CreationDate="2011-04-11T19:38:24.667" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="I think most people frequenting this site are not qualified to answer questions in the philosophy of science (which does not stop them from having strong opinions on the subject). So, that tag &quot;philosophy&quot; (as in hypothetical tags &quot;biology&quot; or &quot;dog breeding&quot;) is just a shorthand for &quot;off topic&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="ae0dff30-1091-4aee-bb5d-2fcaf496eb91" CreationDate="2011-04-11T20:26:58.523" UserId="124" Comment="tweak the list of allowed topics" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Explanations of observed physical phenomena ([Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/629/why-does-one-experience-a-short-pull-in-the-wrong-direction-when-a-vehicle-stops))&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental designs and results ([What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson))&#xD;&#xA; - Accepted and/or actively researched theories ([Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2051/why-do-we-think-there-are-only-three-generations-of-fundamental-particles))&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics ([Number theory in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should expect a range of answers from highly technical to very basic, depending on how you phrase your question. Be specific if you want a specific type of answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work&#xD;&#xA; - *other common topics covered by other Stack Exchange sites*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A work in progress, any suggestions are welcome.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="711809a4-93d9-4142-bba8-68ed475726d2" CreationDate="2011-04-12T01:38:45.377" UserId="113" Text="As long as it's **truly specific to *a career in physics*** and not generically applicable to, say, careers in other sciences.. or any career at all .. it can be OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also important that such questions don't become too dominant on the site; the focus should remain on hard(ish) Physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="60750120-32d6-40fa-aac9-8010cc31dd80" CreationDate="2011-04-12T05:26:49.153" UserId="113" Text="If it helps at all, I also think some level of duplication in answers (across multiple very similar questions) can be OK as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can often give answerers a chance to show off a different emphasis or some other aspect of an answer, or present it more clearly -- even if it was roughly &quot;the same&quot; as an answer on a duplicate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't want *too* much of this, of course, but **I believe that repetition is often helpful in learning** and clamping down too hard on the &quot;all duplication is bad!&quot; bandwagon is much more harmful to the health of your site than a few great semi-duplicate answers and questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. quality should be maintained in any case; a *bad* duplicate question or answer doesn't help anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. nobody should set out with the *intent* of duplicating work, unless they have strong reason to believe the existing stuff can be substantially improved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly be generous with the benefit of the doubt here and realize that for most folks, learning == repetition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="9c7d4216-e5a9-47cd-8da0-d7cc61de9f59" CreationDate="2011-04-12T17:27:16.330" UserId="124" Comment="remove some extraneous bits" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Explanations of observed physical phenomena ([Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/629/why-does-one-experience-a-short-pull-in-the-wrong-direction-when-a-vehicle-stops))&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental designs and results ([What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson))&#xD;&#xA; - Accepted and/or actively researched theories ([Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2051/why-do-we-think-there-are-only-three-generations-of-fundamental-particles))&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics ([Number theory in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A work in progress, any suggestions are welcome.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="8c08342a-9320-44d8-9af8-f907ebaef67f" CreationDate="2011-04-12T20:11:52.190" UserId="1370" Text="Never touch a running process. :=(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="3c292964-0286-470a-829b-cfce8287f7c5" CreationDate="2011-04-12T21:24:05.080" UserId="955" Text="Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some clarification; i didn't actually try to add a bounty to a question; i just noticed that in already answered questions (questions not created by me), the link for &quot;add a bounty&quot; is still available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this makes sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, i would think its great to be able to add bounties to already answered questions if i think the current answer is not satisfactory; however, it probably doesn't make any sense with the current stackexchange framework since i wouldn't be able to vote for a new answer since the question doesn't belong to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="3c292964-0286-470a-829b-cfce8287f7c5" CreationDate="2011-04-12T21:24:05.080" UserId="955" Text="why can i add a bounty to already answered questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="3c292964-0286-470a-829b-cfce8287f7c5" CreationDate="2011-04-12T21:24:05.080" UserId="955" Text="|discussion|bug|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="e55585b4-d902-4591-b312-f51ae050ac81" CreationDate="2011-04-12T21:32:04.250" UserId="66" Text="Bounties are assigned separately from accepted answers. You can add bounties to your questions or other people's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#bounty&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="663" RevisionGUID="57b32d53-e4ba-4015-994f-313623d3bddb" CreationDate="2011-04-12T21:33:11.520" UserId="1272" Text="It's clear that every problem involving gravity can be solved by understanding gravity. Therefore, we should have only one gravity question. It will be ***&quot;what is general relativity&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we can mark every other question about gravity as a duplicate of &quot;What is general relativity&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1398" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="17b94124-5f10-4c8c-a969-b4d85c2dbf94" CreationDate="2011-04-12T22:34:34.587" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="3236b513-a76b-4730-bf7b-fb82d33d3765" CreationDate="2011-04-12T22:59:58.893" UserId="7" Comment="Added more detail for questions that are not allowed" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Explanations of observed physical phenomena ([Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/629/why-does-one-experience-a-short-pull-in-the-wrong-direction-when-a-vehicle-stops))&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental designs and results ([What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson))&#xD;&#xA; - Accepted and/or actively researched theories ([Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2051/why-do-we-think-there-are-only-three-generations-of-fundamental-particles))&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics ([Number theory in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions (&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work (Don't link to your own site if you can avoid it)&#xD;&#xA; - Purely subjective questions (Often characterized by the word &quot;best&quot;, such as &quot;What is the best university for physics?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - Argumentative questions (&quot;3=2, who can prove me wrong?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A work in progress, any suggestions are welcome.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="475476f1-41e0-4fe3-be38-2cd17618cdaf" CreationDate="2011-04-13T06:41:05.533" UserId="2625" Text="There's way too many nonsense questions being asked, all starting with the word &quot;why&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It devalues the site greatly, making it appear more like a gathering of conspiracy theorists and other crackpots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly many of them will upvote each others' questions, so they don't get to a close treshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;this is partly tongue in cheek :) &gt;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="475476f1-41e0-4fe3-be38-2cd17618cdaf" CreationDate="2011-04-13T06:41:05.533" UserId="2625" Text="restric the word &quot;why&quot; in questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="475476f1-41e0-4fe3-be38-2cd17618cdaf" CreationDate="2011-04-13T06:41:05.533" UserId="2625" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="6a064da5-2a4e-46da-92b2-6d13295a1cdb" CreationDate="2011-04-13T07:17:12.650" UserId="74" Text="You are upset about bad questions, not about using the word &quot;why&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because many bad questions use the word &quot;why&quot; doesn't mean that questions using the word &quot;why&quot; will be bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="3a6cfd21-acdd-40ac-8882-c3ffe1304d32" CreationDate="2011-04-13T08:22:55.003" UserId="113" Text="If you believe the questions are nonsense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- downvote them&#xD;&#xA;- flag them for moderator attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make use of the tools  you have!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="69686dc8-3143-4215-9844-11d2e1cbfca2" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:20:23.493" UserId="113" Text="See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/improvements-to-bounty-system/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For additional context on the changes. There is *no* relationship between accepted answer and bounty now, at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="40c62a68-a2f6-4702-81ba-214131c7b6c3" CreationDate="2011-04-13T14:49:19.877" UserId="7" Comment="Removed stuff covered in the next faq topic" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Explanations of observed physical phenomena ([Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/629/why-does-one-experience-a-short-pull-in-the-wrong-direction-when-a-vehicle-stops))&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental designs and results ([What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson))&#xD;&#xA; - Accepted and/or actively researched theories ([Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2051/why-do-we-think-there-are-only-three-generations-of-fundamental-particles))&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics ([Number theory in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions (&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work (Don't link to your own site if you can avoid it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A work in progress, any suggestions are welcome.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="203f24a7-794d-4652-b5e8-a0ba273daef9" CreationDate="2011-04-13T17:34:15.690" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="What steps are needed to cancel one's account and annonymize the existing content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="203f24a7-794d-4652-b5e8-a0ba273daef9" CreationDate="2011-04-13T17:34:15.690" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Account management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="203f24a7-794d-4652-b5e8-a0ba273daef9" CreationDate="2011-04-13T17:34:15.690" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="98a2a30b-328e-4a7d-b5bf-b2410087d6a0" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:09:55.723" UserId="1345" Text="Since the site is for undergraduates to research questions, I hope they stick with the current practical theme, rather than changing to a theme that is childish and tacky in pretending to be something which it isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="4fd12013-c019-4d7b-a6c2-0a29dda6ec9a" CreationDate="2011-04-13T19:20:28.443" UserId="1403" Text="When is this going to happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I like the layouts at some of the other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stats.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is pretty plain, and has the graph paper background that lots of people like, though I don't like it in particular, but otherwise I like the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is also nice. It is a little cluttered, but not distracting, and doesn't have anything that would get in the way of math or diagrams. And I like the color scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://programmers.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks more readable to me, and has larger fonts, and less cluttered. I like the color scheme here better, but the gray background won't work with math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would be happy with anything that looks like any of these.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to see the most is: readable text, compatible with math and diagrams, not cluttered, and plain color scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="3c3b9c5a-783d-4744-9d52-210f862d6891" CreationDate="2011-04-13T20:14:56.167" UserId="124" Text="If you don't want your name associated with the site, just change your display name. That can always be done from your profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, you can always offer your feedback and try to keep the site from going in a direction you don't like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="98838117-8412-497c-9e58-76a8ba3357e8" CreationDate="2011-04-14T04:39:11.243" UserId="1492" Text="Where are the rules about suspension? Maybe they should be in FAQ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="98838117-8412-497c-9e58-76a8ba3357e8" CreationDate="2011-04-14T04:39:11.243" UserId="1492" Text="where are the rules of suspension posted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="98838117-8412-497c-9e58-76a8ba3357e8" CreationDate="2011-04-14T04:39:11.243" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="9ef7ccab-2978-45d6-9949-572953bd2dbd" CreationDate="2011-04-14T05:05:47.227" UserId="124" Text="Assuming you're asking about the rules governing when a user can be suspended: there is only one, &quot;don't be a jerk.&quot; This is intentionally vague. Suspensions are imposed at the discretion of the moderators. Generally they only occur after an official warning has been given but has not had the desired effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is discussed on [this MSO question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/23366/suspension-reasons), and [this MSO answer](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/23661/what-is-the-point-of-a-30-day-account-suspension/23681#23681) (though I'm not saying we're obligated to use that exact sequence on this site)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="647fb89c-fb50-4800-b8cc-dfe28f08b9a9" CreationDate="2011-04-14T06:01:22.817" UserId="66" Text="You can get your account deleted by asking the moderators in chat for example, or you can set your user name as &quot;please delete me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example try typing &quot;please delete me&quot; [here](http://stackoverflow.com/users)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="8858103e-6965-496d-8f66-4e5ca85ff5ed" CreationDate="2011-04-14T07:23:13.620" UserId="113" Text="Not exactly; the most common reasons are documented here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When users exhibit a pattern of either &amp;#8230;&lt;/p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;No effort to learn and improve over time&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This user does not put reasonable effort into the questions they ask of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is little or no evidence of this user learning over time, either in the topic itself or in the community norms on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This user intentionally spams the site with the same question or very similar questions, over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The user never gives anything back to the community, but only takes.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Disruptive behavior&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other users tend to react poorly to this user&amp;#8217;s contributions, posting negative responses in kind and generally causing a commotion.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a broad sense of community resentment over this user&amp;#8217;s behavior, and they are frequently cited in discussion about the community.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a dark storm cloud of &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/improved-flagging/&quot;&gt;moderator flags&lt;/a&gt; that seems to follow this user around wherever they go.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The moderators get email complaints about this user&amp;#8217;s behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This user makes overtly snide, rude, or hostile comments to their fellow users.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip; these problem behaviors &lt;i&gt;have&lt;/i&gt; to be dealt with. When they aren&amp;#8217;t, it takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something more productive &amp;#8212; and, even worse, these behaviors begin to &lt;b&gt;actively turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming everyone.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="9f4a0d19-4433-411b-aae8-81115cd45208" CreationDate="2011-04-14T08:16:03.847" UserId="97" Text="In case you want to now about these, [here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange) is a the thread at meta.SO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="9f4a0d19-4433-411b-aae8-81115cd45208" CreationDate="2011-04-14T08:16:03.847" UserId="97" Text="Recent feature changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="9f4a0d19-4433-411b-aae8-81115cd45208" CreationDate="2011-04-14T08:16:03.847" UserId="97" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="fb803e12-1aca-4aad-9393-48b60324dbbd" CreationDate="2011-04-14T10:16:26.537" UserId="97" Text="You can change your name and, if you _really_ want to, ask the team (team@stackexchange.com) to delete your account. It is however close to impossible to entirely anonymize your participation since that would require to modify/delete @replies by other users as well. It would be a shame to loose you as a valuable participant though!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="6600f77c-bce4-4a84-93a9-993ab0dcaf54" CreationDate="2011-04-15T03:40:11.627" UserId="113" Text="We're evaluating the feasibility of **sponsoring a member of the physics community to speak at a conference in 2011**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking is a relatively big &quot;ask&quot;, so this needs to be planned many months in advance. Let's get started! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'd like the community to establish **where** ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What relevant physics conferences are coming up in 2011 that have open speaker slots or calls for papers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and then **who**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which members of the community are strongly interested in being sponsored by Stack Exchange, Inc to speak at one of the above conferences in 2011?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="6600f77c-bce4-4a84-93a9-993ab0dcaf54" CreationDate="2011-04-15T03:40:11.627" UserId="113" Text="Possible Conference Speaking Sponsorships -- 2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="6600f77c-bce4-4a84-93a9-993ab0dcaf54" CreationDate="2011-04-15T03:40:11.627" UserId="113" Text="|discussion|speakers-bureau|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="de6a1fd3-8c71-44d2-83ad-57d2cbaca4ff" CreationDate="2011-04-15T15:35:49.400" UserDisplayName="Deepak Vaid" Text="Here are two links which contain comprehensive lists of conferences in high energy, string theory and related topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aei.mpg.de/~stefan/schools/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www-library.desy.de/conf.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The deadlines for abstract submission for many  of the conferences taking place in the first half of the year have already passed but there are a LOT of events on these two lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither one of the above lists mentions the Loops '11 (as in LQG) conference in Madrid from May 23 - 28." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="428bd3bd-084a-4440-8670-409460cc425c" CreationDate="2011-04-16T00:20:41.890" UserId="1272" Text="Any APS meeting will allow essentially anyone to give a 10 minute talk. You can sign up yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I had a conjecture on a new decomposition of unitary matrices proven on math stack exchange here: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/28413/8536 which I'm putting into a paper for Journal Math Physics. A version of the paper before adding the new proof is here: http://brannenworks.com/Gravity/qioumm_view.pdf I'm planning on presenting it at the NWAPS meeting in October at Oregon State: http://www.aps.org/units/nws/meetings/meeting.cfm?name=NWS11 To make a presentation you have to prepare a set of slides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These meetings come with a fee of about $50. If you slide me the fee, and maybe $100 for gasoline driving over there, I'd be happy to acknowledge you as a sponsor and to give the math and physics stack exchange a good word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1429" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="e3bc9bb2-e45e-44be-8bcd-7f826a449565" CreationDate="2011-04-17T00:50:37.463" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="ee5908f7-c57d-47e0-9d68-e6a9880538bb" CreationDate="2011-04-17T03:29:26.837" UserId="113" Comment="added 226 characters in body; edited tags" Text="We're evaluating the feasibility of **sponsoring a member of the physics community to speak at a conference in 2011**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking is a relatively big &quot;ask&quot;, so this needs to be planned many months in advance. Let's get started! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'd like the community to establish **where** ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What relevant physics conferences are coming up in 2011 that have open speaker slots or calls for papers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and then **who**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which members of the community are strongly interested in being sponsored by Stack Exchange, Inc to speak at one of the above conferences in 2011?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the speaker is free talk about anything he or she wants so long as it would be roughly on topic for this site -- with a quick acknowledgement of support from Stack Exchange and a mention of the community here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="ee5908f7-c57d-47e0-9d68-e6a9880538bb" CreationDate="2011-04-17T03:29:26.837" UserId="113" Comment="added 226 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|speakers-bureau|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="fcf93fca-b2b7-4e35-9dfa-63c7591bdc9b" CreationDate="2011-04-19T10:56:45.500" UserId="97" Text="Take e.g. `$\delta A$`, which is just δA in some other font. Why should it be rendered over and over again when it is sufficient to store the unicode text together with some `&lt;ThisIsAFormulaSoUseAMathFont&gt;`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="fcf93fca-b2b7-4e35-9dfa-63c7591bdc9b" CreationDate="2011-04-19T10:56:45.500" UserId="97" Text="If MathJax renders pure unicode, store that directly instead of re-rendering formulae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="fcf93fca-b2b7-4e35-9dfa-63c7591bdc9b" CreationDate="2011-04-19T10:56:45.500" UserId="97" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1435" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="5d224e5d-9c15-4e43-8f60-68a257c83b80" CreationDate="2011-04-19T18:29:24.117" UserId="67" Comment="edited title" Text="Restrict the word &quot;why&quot; in questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="e7e083ad-fd14-43ef-ad63-00d84ad85f03" CreationDate="2011-04-22T06:15:36.037" UserId="2599" Text="Im convinced an answer of mine is incorrect, or at least, not as correct as some other answers. I wish to delete it. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="e7e083ad-fd14-43ef-ad63-00d84ad85f03" CreationDate="2011-04-22T06:15:36.037" UserId="2599" Text="How do I delete an accepted answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="e7e083ad-fd14-43ef-ad63-00d84ad85f03" CreationDate="2011-04-22T06:15:36.037" UserId="2599" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="30eedf60-1833-42cc-884e-66a68abd9fa7" CreationDate="2011-04-22T07:14:22.670" UserId="2684" Text="Flag for moderator attention and explain the situation. You cannot delete it yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="514acce0-cacb-4461-a643-a1cab8a0cb13" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:05:22.340" UserId="1370" Text="The moderator elections are over, I think. Or is the election running still? &#xD;&#xA;Where do I find results?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="514acce0-cacb-4461-a643-a1cab8a0cb13" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:05:22.340" UserId="1370" Text="Election result" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="514acce0-cacb-4461-a643-a1cab8a0cb13" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:05:22.340" UserId="1370" Text="|support|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="78edf5e5-90f6-43de-b3cc-4040846b6a4d" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:13:50.527" UserId="520" Text="The *are* over, and you find the results at the [election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election). There was also a [more detailed, but unofficial breakdown][1] posted to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=832787#832787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="642fb642-aa49-4a38-a00b-486687d0a656" CreationDate="2011-04-23T11:35:02.847" UserId="1370" Comment="added 124 characters in body; deleted 124 characters in body" Text="The *are* over, and you find the results at the [election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election). There was also a [more detailed, but unofficial breakdown][1] posted to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=832787#832787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="1b7c95e9-bd59-4bd1-87c1-78a7865681ec" CreationDate="2011-04-23T11:35:42.817" UserId="1370" Comment="added 126 characters in body; added 8 characters in body" Text="The moderator elections are over, I think. Or is the election running still? &#xD;&#xA;Where do I find results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I concluded the election is over because David Zaslavski kills &#xD;&#xA;questions again using his special kind of &quot;reasoning&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="ca95c084-cafe-4d9c-b868-3b42d4df51f7" CreationDate="2011-04-24T21:18:34.823" UserId="1228" Text="I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I've noticed several times that an up-vote or a down-vote gets locked in (after 5 hours or something). Does the same thing happen with &quot;accept&quot;s as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhoo, I fail to see the logic behind this. Many times, I've been convinced prematurely by an answer or misinterpreted an answer so that I vote it the wrong way. I come back 5 hours later only to realize I can't change my opinion of the answer. What's the rationale behind having this lock-in time? Wouldn't it be a lot better to not have it at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a big issue really, but it would be neater to have &quot;correct&quot; answers at least look like they're popular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="ca95c084-cafe-4d9c-b868-3b42d4df51f7" CreationDate="2011-04-24T21:18:34.823" UserId="1228" Text="Is it reasonable to have a lock-in time for up-votes and down-votes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="ca95c084-cafe-4d9c-b868-3b42d4df51f7" CreationDate="2011-04-24T21:18:34.823" UserId="1228" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1450" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="4c37ada2-547a-49d0-88af-dafcf53bf28c" CreationDate="2011-04-24T21:32:03.953" UserId="520" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="d467d0de-262c-4c28-8770-ac4c7ef17ca2" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:08:56.550" UserId="91" Text="Hi all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a regular here, though I lurk a lot. I just wanted to drop a line to say that there is a [Area51 proposal on Chemistry][1], that entered the “commitment” phase recently. If you're interested in it, please feel free to go read there and maybe help us by committing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry?referrer=s30-Mjm5p4wYaNpjIO5Bmg2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="d467d0de-262c-4c28-8770-ac4c7ef17ca2" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:08:56.550" UserId="91" Text="Area51 proposal on Chemistry is in Commitment phase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="d467d0de-262c-4c28-8770-ac4c7ef17ca2" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:08:56.550" UserId="91" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="463d2ad9-307a-463d-987c-98fe0390bbb3" CreationDate="2011-04-27T16:49:20.810" UserId="1370" Text="They are at 11 % right now, any commitment would help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="48ddf09e-bd66-4f1e-9a0b-9c63eaddbad6" CreationDate="2011-04-30T23:37:19.347" UserId="2599" Text="A recent question perhaps subconsciously posted a he type question in the physics forums standard fkrmat, I.e equations used, attempt at a solution. I think that if such questions are gonna be asked anyway, why not include a format in the FAQ to see less poorly framed questions. I have noting against Hw questions but they can be interesting if presented the right way&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="48ddf09e-bd66-4f1e-9a0b-9c63eaddbad6" CreationDate="2011-04-30T23:37:19.347" UserId="2599" Text="Homework format" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="48ddf09e-bd66-4f1e-9a0b-9c63eaddbad6" CreationDate="2011-04-30T23:37:19.347" UserId="2599" Text="|support|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1458" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="b8f2228f-8e64-41eb-bc53-a00953b2e7ac" CreationDate="2011-05-01T00:37:53.247" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="7557a997-bba8-46e7-9fa3-9fb0adaf0aa1" CreationDate="2011-05-01T01:02:05.247" UserId="124" Text="I don't think we need a homework template here. The purpose of the template at Physics Forums is to try to enforce a bare minimum level of effort on the part of the questioner: basically it weeds out the equivalent of &quot;plz-send-teh-codez&quot; questions, where the poster is just trying to get someone to do the work for them. But here we have a somewhat stricter standard. We expect people asking about homework problems to narrow down the particular concept that is giving them trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer, and as a side effect it shows that they're willing to put in the appropriate amount of effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, once the questioner has identified the specific issue they're having trouble with, and phrased their question in terms of that, the question isn't so much a homework question anymore as it is a plain old physics question that happens to have arisen in the course of a homework assignment. So it shouldn't be treated that much differently than a normal question. The only significant difference would be that we would give a less complete answer than usual, so that we don't spoil the OP's chance to reason through it themselves (which is the value of doing homework)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="96e0e2fc-869b-45a6-b2b2-3a6bda223fc9" CreationDate="2011-05-01T05:06:48.293" UserId="74" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="A recent questioner (perhaps subconsciously) posted a homework-type question in the &quot;physics forums&quot; standard format, I.e equations used, attempt at a solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that if such questions are going to be asked anyway, why not include a format in the FAQ to see less poorly framed questions? I have nothing against Hw questions because they can be interesting if presented the right way&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="5d11c277-7e5d-45a7-adb9-2b5cc3b76aaf" CreationDate="2011-05-01T05:24:51.673" UserId="74" Text="I completely agree with David.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would go further; I prefer such questions be closed as too localized.  I want intro-to-physics level questions about pulleys, but I don't want to see twenty questions each with a slightly different combination of pulleys, inclined planes, scissors, floating balloons, bowling balls, cannons, cats and mice, magnifying glasses lighting candles, little alligators, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="0a176b7e-bf68-43b9-89e1-72503bdc7429" CreationDate="2011-05-03T18:01:38.303" UserId="1588" Text="IMO, this should be in the faq's. I find the system as it is moderately confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having downvoted a Question or an Answer, I believe I can reverse my downvote by clicking the downvote button again, provided it's been less than 5 minutes. Is that correct? After 5 minutes, I can't change my vote, no matter what, until after the Question or Answer has been changed. Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every time I get myself in this position, it always seems natural to click the upvote button, but as far as I can tell, clicking the upvote button in this situation changes my -1 to +1, a change of +2, and also immediately freezes my vote as +1, so I can't fix my mistake. Very Frustrating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the mechanics for reversing an upvote the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't downvote much, and I never downvote, as far as I remember, unless I can see a way to explain why. Precisely because I go to the trouble to explain, not infrequently I realize that the Question or Answer is not so bad, and I want to change my mind, but I find the mechanism for changing downvotes very unUseful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this is a feature-request if I ask for the upvote button and downvote buttons to go between -1,0,+1 by *addition* instead of as currently. For example, clicking upvote successively would cause the transitions $-1\mapsto 0\mapsto +1\mapsto +1\mapsto +1...$ (without time limitation, the reason for which I do not understand). However, this is a change to a fairly low-level aspect of the user interface, which I presume will not be implemented without better reason than I've given here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="0a176b7e-bf68-43b9-89e1-72503bdc7429" CreationDate="2011-05-03T18:01:38.303" UserId="1588" Text="Please can someone explain the precise mechanics of reversing a downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="0a176b7e-bf68-43b9-89e1-72503bdc7429" CreationDate="2011-05-03T18:01:38.303" UserId="1588" Text="|support|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="ced15993-1098-4a73-a55a-08a35a3ed012" CreationDate="2011-05-03T18:55:37.837" UserId="1588" Comment="brief explanation of vote to close." Text="IMO, this should be in the faq's. I find the system as it is moderately confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having downvoted a Question or an Answer, I believe I can reverse my downvote by clicking the downvote button again, provided it's been less than 5 minutes. Is that correct? After 5 minutes, I can't change my vote, no matter what, until after the Question or Answer has been changed. Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every time I get myself in this position, it always seems natural to click the upvote button, but as far as I can tell, clicking the upvote button in this situation changes my -1 to +1, a change of +2, and also immediately freezes my vote as +1, so I can't fix my mistake. Very Frustrating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the mechanics for reversing an upvote the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't downvote much, and I never downvote, as far as I remember, unless I can see a way to explain why. Precisely because I go to the trouble to explain, not infrequently I realize that the Question or Answer is not so bad, and I want to change my mind, but I find the mechanism for changing downvotes very unUseful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this is a feature-request if I ask for the upvote button and downvote buttons to go between -1,0,+1 by *addition* instead of as currently. For example, clicking upvote successively would cause the transitions $-1\mapsto 0\mapsto +1\mapsto +1\mapsto +1...$ (without time limitation, the reason for which I do not understand). However, this is a change to a fairly low-level aspect of the user interface, which I presume will not be implemented without better reason than I've given here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I (the questioner) have voted to close this Question. I see a very similar one that the search didn't find was only just asked and closed because something like this is off-topic here and should have been put on the main meta site. I come to meta too rarely to be able to use it effectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1466" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="7efa869e-763b-4365-a83d-7d8f524b0023" CreationDate="2011-05-04T00:19:14.417" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1588,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Morgan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="54373f22-442d-436d-b826-dc31868875cd" CreationDate="2011-05-04T15:54:24.847" UserId="2706" Text="(Shameless one-time call to participation to another S.E. site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tuesday, May 3rd was the first day for the public Beta of [music.SE][1], [**Music Practice and Performance**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many interesting **physics** questions are associated with musical instruments. Some fundamental physical concepts were born out of the investigation of sound, vibration, strings, tension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the current questions relevant to **physics** in music.SE is this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why are violin bows longer than viola bows, than cello bows, than double-bass bows ?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it would be nice that more questions about the physics of instruments and instrument playing be asked and answered on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe members from Physics.SE could valuably contribute to this new site, as physicists making this kind of questions and answers more precise and more informed and of course as musicians when this is the case, even as lurker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, Physics accounts holders with at least 200 points who create an associated account through OpenID on music.SE will have a 100 point starting bonus on the new site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you are [welcome][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://music.stackexchange.com/q/74/48&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://music.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="54373f22-442d-436d-b826-dc31868875cd" CreationDate="2011-05-04T15:54:24.847" UserId="2706" Text="The new Music StackExchange Beta site could benefit from the Physics community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="54373f22-442d-436d-b826-dc31868875cd" CreationDate="2011-05-04T15:54:24.847" UserId="2706" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1470" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="f72ebf91-3906-45c4-8b7d-576bca3011b5" CreationDate="2011-05-05T20:15:23.690" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1471" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="099b0720-6bee-47a6-8fe2-57c31cc7785e" CreationDate="2011-05-05T20:17:10.160" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1472" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="11e839a9-76c7-4849-992b-ac06c505cfb3" CreationDate="2011-05-05T20:18:11.330" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1474" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="637fb32a-c260-429b-97b0-a366770d1715" CreationDate="2011-05-06T12:42:55.247" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="37ae4b51-1c05-4fe6-962e-09b3bd823329" CreationDate="2011-05-10T03:42:40.477" UserId="1186" Text="My question has been closed by a moderator. I wonder, why and can it be re-opened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9651/new-kind-of-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="37ae4b51-1c05-4fe6-962e-09b3bd823329" CreationDate="2011-05-10T03:42:40.477" UserId="1186" Text="Why my question had been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="37ae4b51-1c05-4fe6-962e-09b3bd823329" CreationDate="2011-05-10T03:42:40.477" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="c4ad16c5-ed43-4582-b686-bc5b7e785e00" CreationDate="2011-05-10T04:20:45.747" UserId="124" Text="Although dmckee is the one who closed it, this case is obvious enough that I think I can answer: it was closed because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it wasn't formulated as an answerable question (you were just asking for opinions)&#xD;&#xA;2. it wasn't precise (you're asking how to do something which you haven't clearly defined)&#xD;&#xA;3. it's unsubstantiated (you allude to some silly-sounding claims about quantum mechanics without providing any believable references)&#xD;&#xA;4. it has nothing to do with physics (that stuff about probability control or that &quot;everybody-wins lottery&quot; sounds totally bogus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that you've attempted to address point #1, but that doesn't make it either an answerable question or on-topic. So no, it won't be reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="55481130-1fcd-4511-9a9e-54210c74f6f1" CreationDate="2011-05-13T17:45:07.497" UserId="2433" Text="In the list of &quot;related questions&quot;, is it possible to remove the links to closed questions, or at least demarcate them as closed in the list?  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:  &#xD;&#xA;Question X  &#xD;&#xA;Question Y  &#xD;&#xA;Question Z  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but CLOSED:  &#xD;&#xA;Question A  &#xD;&#xA;Question B  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="55481130-1fcd-4511-9a9e-54210c74f6f1" CreationDate="2011-05-13T17:45:07.497" UserId="2433" Text="Is it possible to move closed questions off of the &quot;related&quot; links?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="55481130-1fcd-4511-9a9e-54210c74f6f1" CreationDate="2011-05-13T17:45:07.497" UserId="2433" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="423f62a8-d41f-47c1-9aa4-31b1d87ecc16" CreationDate="2011-05-13T17:53:13.853" UserId="2433" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="In the list of &quot;related questions&quot;, is it possible to remove the links to closed questions, or at least demarcate them as closed in the list?  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:  &#xD;&#xA;Question X  &#xD;&#xA;Question Y  &#xD;&#xA;Question Z  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but CLOSED:  &#xD;&#xA;Question A  &#xD;&#xA;Question B  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that are closed are closed for good reason (off topic, complete duplicate), and having to come across questions that are already recognized as poor is time consuming.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="a4223cb9-f9a2-4bfe-b231-a9be4102aee6" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:16:34.917" UserId="2433" Text="Sponsoring a booth at a big conference like the APS meetings might have a better impact, and reach a broader audience.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the goal is to boost interest in the site and increase the reach, at a booth you could present the site as it appears, provided you have an internet connection available, and more time to work interactively with interested parties to show off the benefits.  Plus, at said conference, you could always combine efforts and have some speakers use a minute of their talk to plug the site and then to direct people to the booth for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I'm sure that sponsoring a booth is more expensive than a few well-placed plugs at the end of related talks, and nothing that comes with conferences is cheap, but it's something to consider.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="5c96c1a9-9372-48bd-86aa-35caa2e82ba4" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:23:21.040" UserId="2433" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="Sponsoring a booth at a big conference like the APS meetings might have a better impact, and reach a broader audience.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the goal is to boost interest in the site and increase the reach, at a booth you could present the site as it appears, provided you have an internet connection available, and more time to work interactively with interested parties to show off the benefits.  Plus, at said conference, you could always combine efforts and have some speakers use a minute of their talk to plug the site and then to direct people to the booth for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, sponsoring a booth is more expensive and requires more person-hours than a few well-placed plugs at the end of related talks (and nothing that comes with conferences is cheap), but it's something to consider.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able even to apply for an NSF grant for funding because this dovetails nicely into the &quot;broader impacts&quot; criterion of bringing science to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1494" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="77001a9a-5f4c-44d5-bcb1-e04b9a9bbbdc" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:48:07.560" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1496" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="92eac926-1889-44f9-b1ae-e616cc7281b7" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:48:07.340" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1497" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="70a9a1dc-5635-4004-b2dd-547537af2e75" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:52:23.697" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1498" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="da323c7d-7b59-4956-9e05-669d25f93762" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:52:35.223" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="84d436bb-286c-4060-80a2-33d2bd93535d" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:57:16.330" UserId="2451" Text="I observed in the last 24 hours the following two bugs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I did not get the usual red banner notification when the reputation count surpassed a privilege limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Also I by chance discovered a comment under a recent question, which was addressed in the standard way &quot;@user&quot; (without spelling-mistakes!) to me, but it did not show up in my &quot;response list&quot;, nor did I get the usual red notification icon on top of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are others having the same bug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="84d436bb-286c-4060-80a2-33d2bd93535d" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:57:16.330" UserId="2451" Text="Notifications suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="84d436bb-286c-4060-80a2-33d2bd93535d" CreationDate="2011-05-13T18:57:16.330" UserId="2451" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="28363ec9-b39d-4ff8-af15-86b4432ba4a4" CreationDate="2011-05-18T07:42:33.010" UserId="113" Text="We are not aware of any issues with responses at this time, and have no other reports of this network-wide AFAIK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1510" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="48f888bb-d834-434c-a5d4-cc183da7ea25" CreationDate="2011-05-18T07:42:40.983" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="15250b5a-4112-4881-ba2f-39a9d875f4b4" CreationDate="2011-05-19T15:08:54.923" UserId="126" Text="I down voted two days back on a closed question. Didn't lose any points.&#xD;&#xA;Today I down voted yet another not closed question. Didn't lose any points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the problem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="15250b5a-4112-4881-ba2f-39a9d875f4b4" CreationDate="2011-05-19T15:08:54.923" UserId="126" Text="I am down voting and still not losing reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="15250b5a-4112-4881-ba2f-39a9d875f4b4" CreationDate="2011-05-19T15:08:54.923" UserId="126" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="9ba33faa-92fa-44ed-8074-63c0c2cd4066" CreationDate="2011-05-19T15:12:47.697" UserId="520" Text="There has been a change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes on *questions* no longer cost the voter any reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes on *answers* still cost the caster 1 rep." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="65b75e0a-5daf-426c-847f-179813b95cc4" CreationDate="2011-05-19T16:10:39.510" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="5dae41db-a1be-437e-9c28-1ff1eb92e449" CreationDate="2011-05-21T04:35:01.660" UserId="2599" Text="In case you would be presenting Physics.SE to a mega meeting such as APS (people will come to the booth, no doubt. It stretches over days and has over a thousand particiapnts with lots of browsers who'll check out) I'd suggest someone sort of creates a pamphlet of sorts, compiling some of the best questions and answers. Seeing quality physics being exchanged on this server, lots of researchers might flood in. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="63b710aa-71fa-4a1c-b332-1a4482fb8f6d" CreationDate="2011-05-21T12:48:35.790" UserId="3460" Text="I guess I don't understand the stack exchange well, does one automatically get points in a different stack exchange if they have points from other stack exchanges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="63b710aa-71fa-4a1c-b332-1a4482fb8f6d" CreationDate="2011-05-21T12:48:35.790" UserId="3460" Text="How does someone get 50 points in physics stack exchange before asking or answering a single question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="63b710aa-71fa-4a1c-b332-1a4482fb8f6d" CreationDate="2011-05-21T12:48:35.790" UserId="3460" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="50977ba9-45a1-4dc5-bd0b-f6a041b07f39" CreationDate="2011-05-21T13:10:03.417" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Yes, If you have at least 200 rep on any of the SE sites you are registered to, you get a 100 rep bonus each time you register to new SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every new user gets 1 rep for registration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blog post about this: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/cross-site-account-associations/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="5b450152-41a4-4d08-9413-f609b67d7bd3" CreationDate="2011-05-22T08:34:36.100" UserId="3351" Text="It is rather strange, that question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9993/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-mathematics-in-physics that practically reproduces title of talk of (future - 4 years after the talk) Nobel Prize winner, Eugene Wigner  http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html caused such a negative reaction (immediately closed and -3 votes – so it is not only a moderator opinion). Beside that, it was printed in a serious and refereed journal. Poincare, Feynman, et. al. also wrote deep works about that. The question itself is only couple of lines long and practically only clarifies title, so some additional flaws most likely could not be inserted there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="5b450152-41a4-4d08-9413-f609b67d7bd3" CreationDate="2011-05-22T08:34:36.100" UserId="3351" Text="Closed question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="5b450152-41a4-4d08-9413-f609b67d7bd3" CreationDate="2011-05-22T08:34:36.100" UserId="3351" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="aa626a00-386d-413e-bc9a-bfa3ed9438ff" CreationDate="2011-05-22T08:38:27.547" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Your question is discussion-provoking, and such are prohibited because they don't fit the flow of this site. You are free to use [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to discuss about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="6e60f2c8-86b5-45c2-9980-1e2a4cb55624" CreationDate="2011-05-22T09:33:14.237" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="This question is discussion-provoking, and such are prohibited because they don't fit the flow of this site. You are free to use [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to discuss about the matter of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="36662d83-8e1b-4b01-972c-d4859cb93051" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:44:39.717" UserId="2433" Text="Some questions are appearing on the main page with a blue background - what does this mean?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="36662d83-8e1b-4b01-972c-d4859cb93051" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:44:39.717" UserId="2433" Text="Question appears &quot;blue&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="36662d83-8e1b-4b01-972c-d4859cb93051" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:44:39.717" UserId="2433" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="2ba90419-4e19-4971-97fa-1343458ac41c" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:49:23.467" UserId="520" Text="You have [encountered][1] the [&quot;frequented tags&quot;][2] feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't set any &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot; tags by hand the system will eventually attempt to guess what you are interested in from your history; these are your &quot;frequented tags&quot; and they are highlighted for you in the various question list views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make it go away by setting some tags as &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot;, though that will give you a different type of highlighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/74943/how-do-i-remove-a-frequented-tag&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1531" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="0657578a-30ed-4516-adb0-bba1f41b3cb3" CreationDate="2011-05-22T23:08:38.380" UserId="124" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="eb35ca2d-8f92-4acd-966f-031ecf147212" CreationDate="2011-05-22T23:09:45.680" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1533" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="3668668e-a4c2-499c-aec4-0e61c7843d38" CreationDate="2011-05-22T23:10:04.933" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="7286a30f-b45d-4907-8f2a-d2fcd71b031f" CreationDate="2011-05-24T20:16:52.337" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="4c70c596-e3fa-46a8-96a0-71a6b62c3c51" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:46:49.207" UserId="124" Text="What is the policy on asking homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;- Are homework questions allowed?&#xD;&#xA;- What should I include in a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;- Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="4c70c596-e3fa-46a8-96a0-71a6b62c3c51" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:46:49.207" UserId="124" Text="How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="4c70c596-e3fa-46a8-96a0-71a6b62c3c51" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:46:49.207" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="7f48bbcd-54e2-42a7-a285-39fda9e4b2a7" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:47:36.130" UserId="124" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1539" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="1c3d81ac-43c2-4a8c-ae92-76f5a0cedbbd" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:47:43.183" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1540" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="43776170-22e8-4eb9-9688-e4badaba53da" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:47:43.183" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="1541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="497f56c6-a695-4336-b60a-07076cb13cb1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:16:16.310" UserId="1671" Text="I recently asked a [question][1] which was closed for being off topic. I have been directed to two links by the moderator: ([1][2]) ([2][3]) . After going through both the links, I am posting a request here to reopen as they do not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][4] answer is from someone who has worked in a company involved with SciPy. He argued that  python is a lot less intimidating for physicists than C++. I stated that I already know C++ (all High Energy Physicists do, I guess) and asked if there are any additional benefits to learning Python. To give an example, Mark commented that if I use Sage then I am already using Python. Sage runs on the python platform but if I run into some functionality that is not in the library or need to customize, I should know python. What else might be the benefit, for physicists (i.e some important software is written in it, suited to some specific application, or simply no need to learn etc.) as opposed to compiled\interpreted, hardware specific\platform dependent etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues most of the answers discuss are version control and  bug tracking, etc. I think these are programmer oriented (I might be wrong) and and are not my concern presently. The second link discussed reproducibility, which after reading it I realize is important. However, that lies outside the scope of my question and present level. (I am just assimilating a rudimentary toolkit right now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question I asked was if there was any advantage of learning functional as opposed to an iterative programming language in physics. This is not answered by either of the links. This external [link][5] makes a case for haskell to mathematicians. Does it have some similar utility in physics? Moreover my interest was peaked when I overheard at a conference that it was best of implementation of quantum algorithms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone commented, if these are too many questions feel free to edit it in order to make it approporiate. I shall ask another question later if it is not answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10379/what-programming-languages-would-be-helpful-for-a-physicist-to-know&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2734157/reproducibility-in-scientific-programming&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment/100103#100103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/01/eleven-reasons-to-use-haskell-as.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="497f56c6-a695-4336-b60a-07076cb13cb1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:16:16.310" UserId="1671" Text="Requesting reopening of my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="497f56c6-a695-4336-b60a-07076cb13cb1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:16:16.310" UserId="1671" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1544" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="75527d42-e2b0-4b36-bf0a-ccafccee9ead" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:22:42.890" UserId="1671" Comment="edited title" Text="A request to reopen my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="b5a59b39-cf9d-40f6-a30f-0a6792b4f53f" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:39:35.127" UserId="1671" Comment="added 7 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="I recently asked a [question][1] which was closed for being off topic. I have been directed to two links by the moderator: ([1][2]) ([2][3]) . After going through both the links, I am posting a request here to reopen as they do not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][4] answer is from someone who has worked in a company involved with SciPy. He argued that  python is a lot less intimidating for physicists than C++. I stated that I already know C++ (all High Energy Physicists do, I guess) and asked if there are any additional benefits to learning Python. To give an example, Mark commented that if I use Sage then I am already using Python. Sage runs on the python platform but if I run into some functionality that is not in the library or need to customize, I should know python. What else might be the benefit, for physicists (i.e some important software is written in it, suited to some specific application, or simply no need to learn etc.) as opposed to compiled\interpreted, hardware specific\platform independent etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues most of the answers discuss are version control and  bug tracking, etc. I think these are programmer oriented (I might be wrong) and and are not my concern presently. The second link discussed reproducibility, which after reading it I realize is important. However, that lies outside the scope of my question and present level. (I am just assimilating a rudimentary toolkit right now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question I asked was if there was any advantage of learning functional as opposed to an iterative programming language in physics. This is not answered by either of the links. This external [link][5] makes a case for haskell to mathematicians. Does it have some similar utility in physics? Moreover my interest was peaked when I overheard at a conference that it was best for implementation of quantum algorithms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone commented, if these are too many questions feel free to edit it in order to make it approporiate. Then I can ask a narrower question later if it is not answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10379/what-programming-languages-would-be-helpful-for-a-physicist-to-know&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2734157/reproducibility-in-scientific-programming&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment/100103#100103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/01/eleven-reasons-to-use-haskell-as.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="316682a4-f5af-4ef5-b839-3eb4ad029050" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:45:22.347" UserId="520" Text="It was my close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am willing to be convinced that I have been overly hasty (or to be overruled by either of the other moderators if they disagree: feel free guys), but allow me to explain where I am coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you will forgive me if I argue in part by analogy with Stack Overflow (and I will accept that arguments about how Physics.SE could differ from SO are in play). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the early days of Stack Overflow we had a small user base, few of the tools available today and few rules. Consequently we saw a very wide variety of question many of which were not about &quot;programming&quot; as such, but about programmers and the lifestyle and behaviors of this strange creature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at times they threatened to drown the actual programming discussion, and there was a lively debate about their appropriateness. When the community close option was first introduces (with a quorum of one!) these programming-related questions were the subject of many a close-and-reopen battle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then followed an interval when not-quote-about-programming-as-such question were tolerated if they were community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They dominated the active board, the &quot;sort by votes&quot; tab showed almost nothing else for pages, and *every new user who dropped by tried to ask one*. Not withstanding that they had arrived from google following a link to a actual answer to a actual technical question, it *looked like Stack Overflow was about socializing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually Jeff and Joel were convinced that this represented a problem, and thus was [Programmers][1] (originally called &quot;Not Programming Related&quot; after the close reason) conceived and Stack Exchange 2.0  (the earlier, commercial version have had very limited success) started and the Network as we know and love it came to be. Somewhere in there came the blog post [Good Subjective, Bad Subjective][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was one of the [fun hating][3] spoil-sports all along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **long story short**: when I saw the post in question this morning my reaction went something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh noes! Here comes a flood of *&quot;What [noun] would be helpful for physicist to [verb]?&quot;* questions! Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I over-reacted. But I will ask you to convince me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps to convince David or mbq instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concerning the Stack Overflow links I left in the comments:** Those certainly were not intended to replace the question, but were offered up as potentially interesting tidbits because I am not hostile to the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aside:** Just because you have a question, even if it is a good question in some philosophical sense does not guarantee that it has a place on any particular site on the Stack Exchange Network or even on *any* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="f1adc840-0a24-444c-a333-311e65a395b9" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:51:08.507" UserId="520" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It was my close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am willing to be convinced that I have been overly hasty (or to be overruled by either of the other moderators if they disagree: feel free guys), but allow me to explain where I am coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you will forgive me if I argue in part by analogy with Stack Overflow (and I will accept that arguments about how Physics.SE could differ from SO are in play). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the early days of Stack Overflow we had a small user base, few of the tools available today and few rules. Consequently we saw a very wide variety of question many of which were not about &quot;programming&quot; as such, but about programmers and the lifestyle and behaviors of this strange creature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at times they threatened to drown the actual programming discussion, and there was a lively debate about their appropriateness. When the community close option was first introduces (with a quorum of one!) these programming-related questions were the subject of many a close-and-reopen battle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then followed an interval when not-quote-about-programming-as-such question were tolerated if they were community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They dominated the active board, the &quot;sort by votes&quot; tab showed almost nothing else for pages, and *every new user who dropped by tried to ask one*. Not withstanding that they had arrived from google following a link to a actual answer to a actual technical question, it *looked like Stack Overflow was about socializing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually Jeff and Joel were convinced that this represented a problem, and thus was [Programmers][1] (originally called &quot;Not Programming Related&quot; after the close reason) conceived and Stack Exchange 2.0  (the earlier, commercial version have had very limited success) started and the Network as we know and love it came to be. Somewhere in there came the blog post [Good Subjective, Bad Subjective][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was one of the [fun hating][3] spoil-sports all along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **long story short**: when I saw the post in question this morning my reaction went something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh noes! Here comes a flood of *&quot;What [plural noun] would be helpful for physicist to [verb]?&quot;* questions! Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I over-reacted. But I will ask you to convince me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps to convince David or mbq instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concerning the Stack Overflow links I left in the comments:** Those certainly were not intended to replace the question, but were offered up as potentially interesting tidbits because I am not hostile to the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aside:** Just because you have a question, even if it is a good question in some philosophical sense does not guarantee that it has a place on any particular site on the Stack Exchange Network or even on *any* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="74ac618d-1cbd-4dc2-bde2-ac7d3cd53849" CreationDate="2011-05-28T04:01:44.710" UserId="1671" Text="I have thought about it from an answerer's perspective, did a lot more google searches, and I realize it is more of a matter of personal taste for a physicist for learning what they want. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I read in a blog post of an experimentalist that he was doing some database management stuff out of neccisity to manage the experimental data in his lab, so he learnt whatever were the tools for it, discovered things could be made more efficient, wrote a modiefied program which was much improved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems it really is a learn-as-it-comes-up and I cannot think of any essential list of prerequisites that can be listed out. So the lesson I learnt: if something's interesting, try it out and see what you get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the patience of the moderators for considering my request and presenting their arguments in detail. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="a96e0588-553f-4f4d-9de2-6e51ddc45a10" CreationDate="2011-05-28T04:08:43.053" UserId="1671" Comment="added 759 characters in body; added 12 characters in body" Text="I have thought about it from an answerer's perspective, did a lot more google searches, and I realize it is more of a matter of personal taste for a physicist for learning what they want. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I read in a blog post of an experimentalist that he was doing some database management &quot;stuff&quot; (out of *neccisity* to manage the experimental data in his lab) so he learnt whatever were the tools for it, discovered things could be made more efficient, wrote a modiefied program which was much improved (his claim), etc. The point for me was, pursue whatever physics problem you're working on. Find out what what stuff's available, learn it, go on.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems it really is a learn-as-it-comes-up and I cannot think of any essential list of prerequisites that can be listed out. So the lesson I learnt: if something's interesting, try it out and see what you get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the patience of the moderators for considering my request and presenting their arguments in detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here answers to my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Python or C++?**: Donno. If I'm ever looking for something on Sage and dont get it, Ill learn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Functional programming better for physicists?**: I tried the first 10 euler problems (which I'd done earlier in C++) in python and im getting the hang and usefulness of it. I implement more and I'd develop some intuitioon which problem is better solved iteratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Do I need to learn scripting etc?** Just started reading a book on bash. Supposed to give a quick and exhaustive overview. I'll know if I ever need it once I do the exercises and know what its for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="4c7f7d80-9ab8-4b97-abcf-7d43696d5019" CreationDate="2011-05-28T04:14:00.580" UserId="1671" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="I have thought about it from an answerer's perspective, did a lot more google searches, and I realize it is more of a matter of personal taste and necessity for a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I read in a blog post of an experimentalist that he was doing some database management &quot;stuff&quot; (out of *neccisity* to manage the experimental data in his lab) so he learnt whatever were the tools for it, discovered things could be made more efficient, wrote a modiefied program which was much improved (his claim), etc. The point for me was, pursue whatever physics problem you're working on. Find out what what stuff's available, learn it, go on.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems it really is a learn-as-it-comes-up and I cannot think of any essential list of prerequisites that can be listed out. So the lesson I learnt: if something's interesting, try it out and see what you get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the patience of the moderators for considering my request and presenting their arguments in detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here answers to my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Python or C++?**: Donno. If I'm ever looking for something on Sage and dont get it, Ill learn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Functional programming better for physicists?**: I tried the first 10 euler problems (which I'd done earlier in C++) in haskell and I'm getting the hang and usefulness of it. I implement more and I'd develop some intuitioon which problem is better solved iteratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Do I need to learn scripting etc?** Just started reading a book on bash. Supposed to give a quick and exhaustive overview. I'll know if I ever need it once I do the exercises and know what its for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="d90df394-c2b9-4725-a0f5-3d62b256ea57" CreationDate="2011-05-28T05:57:10.577" UserId="1671" Comment="added 73 characters in body; added 5 characters in body; added 68 characters in body" Text="I have thought about it from an answerer's perspective, did a lot more google searches, and I realize it is more of a matter of personal taste and necessity for a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I read in a blog post of an experimentalist that he was doing some database management &quot;stuff&quot; (out of *neccisity* to manage the experimental data in his lab) so he learnt whatever were the tools for it, discovered things could be made more efficient, wrote a modified program which was much improved (his claim), etc. Ill have though dig through my browswe history to get the link. But the point for me was, pursue whatever physics problem you're working on. Find out what what stuff's available, learn it, go on.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems it really is a learn-as-it-comes-up thing and and an essential list of prerequisites doesn't exist at such a stage as I am. So the lesson learnt is: if something's interesting, try it out and see what you get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the patience of the moderators for considering my request and presenting their arguments in detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are answers to my question, according to what I've learnt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Python or C++?**: Donno. If I'm ever looking for something on Sage and dont get it, Ill learn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Functional programming better for physicists?**: I tried the first 10 euler problems (which I'd done earlier in C++) in haskell and I'm getting the hang and usefulness of it. I implement more and I'd develop some intuition as to which problem is better solved iteratively and which functionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Do I need to learn scripting etc?** Just started reading a book on bash. Supposed to give a quick and partially exhaustive overview. I'll know if I ever need it, once I do the exercises and know what its for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="53445790-377c-4076-a40b-a2f0962a8986" CreationDate="2011-05-28T06:09:45.093" UserId="1671" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I have thought about it from an answerer's perspective, did a lot more google searches, and I realize it is more of a matter of personal taste and necessity for a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I read in a blog post of an experimentalist that he was doing some database management &quot;stuff&quot; (out of *neccisity* to manage the experimental data in his lab) so he learnt whatever were the tools for it, discovered things could be made more efficient, wrote a modified program which was much improved (his claim), etc. Ill have though dig through my browswe history to get the link. But the point for me was, pursue whatever physics problem you're working on. Find out what what stuff's available, learn it, go on.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems it really is a learn-as-it-comes-up thing and and an essential list of prerequisites doesn't exist at such a stage as I am. So the lesson learnt is: if something's interesting, try it out and see what you get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the patience of the moderators for considering my request and presenting their arguments in detail (and the entertaining historical tidbit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are answers to my question, according to what I've learnt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Python or C++?**: Donno. If I'm ever looking for something on Sage and dont get it, Ill learn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Functional programming better for physicists?**: I tried the first 10 euler problems (which I'd done earlier in C++) in haskell and I'm getting the hang and usefulness of it. I implement more and I'd develop some intuition as to which problem is better solved iteratively and which functionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Do I need to learn scripting etc?** Just started reading a book on bash. Supposed to give a quick and partially exhaustive overview. I'll know if I ever need it, once I do the exercises and know what its for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="18db7b00-447a-4f8e-adfa-6077c316dabd" CreationDate="2011-05-28T18:03:10.727" UserId="18" Text="Given the fact that [Academia.SE][1] still is in the commitment phase, I'm asking this on a individual basis.  Hopefully it will be relevant (and interesting) enough to ask here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the way in which normally, when working in collaboration with other people, it is decided the authorship for a research paper?. Obviously, it varies widely, but it would be nice to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a fairer way to decide authorship or how would you like it to be decided? (In case you regard as the current standard way in your field, not so fair).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/16617/academia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="18db7b00-447a-4f8e-adfa-6077c316dabd" CreationDate="2011-05-28T18:03:10.727" UserId="18" Text="What is a fair way to assign authorship?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="18db7b00-447a-4f8e-adfa-6077c316dabd" CreationDate="2011-05-28T18:03:10.727" UserId="18" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1556" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="8ad06562-50fa-4d4d-9ec7-a758ee7498e9" CreationDate="2011-05-28T18:19:04.487" UserId="520" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="f0bffc43-411c-47f8-b366-1ebb55917859" CreationDate="2011-06-01T02:54:30.440" UserId="350" Text="A new Area 51 proposal [&quot;Experimental or Applied Physics&quot;](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) was recently created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I've looked at your FAQ, I don't know the field well enough to be comfortable making the call on my own—which brings me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can y'all review that proposal, and give your opinion here as to whether [their on-topic questions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588?tab=ontopic&amp;phase=definition#tab-top) would all be welcome on *this* site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="f0bffc43-411c-47f8-b366-1ebb55917859" CreationDate="2011-06-01T02:54:30.440" UserId="350" Text="Does the Area 51 proposal &quot;Experimental or Applied Physics&quot; duplicate this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="f0bffc43-411c-47f8-b366-1ebb55917859" CreationDate="2011-06-01T02:54:30.440" UserId="350" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="efa3f3f9-764e-49ff-9b6d-c4dca3368bcd" CreationDate="2011-06-01T04:25:00.463" UserId="520" Text="As the proposal is brand new it is hard to be sure, but my first inclination is to guess that everything (or at least very nearly everything) that is on-topic for the proposal will also be on-topic for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the two examples with one vote each &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will photoresist &lt;X&gt; work in process &lt;Y&gt;, and if not why? *(on-topic)*&#xD;&#xA;* What is your favorite way to bake a vacuum chamber? *(not a great example)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seem to in keeping with our practice on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will try to provide examples of several classes of experimental technique and applied physics questions from Physics.SE (and trying to select those that would be interesting to grad students and those further on in their careers in keeping with the proposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jargon (not generally discussed with undergrads)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [What's the difference between inclusive and exclusive decays?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumentation, calibration, and technique&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How 'pure' is liquid nitrogen?][2] (unanswered, however)&#xD;&#xA;* [Fairly Broad Spectrum Light Source Options][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Do high/low pass lenses exist?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [What properties of Germanium make it suitable for Dark Matter detectors?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data analysis &amp; Computation&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How small of a depletion signal can the best modern mass spectrometers detect?][6] (might have gone in instrumentation as well but the answers dwell on the statistics of the measurement; only partially answered)&#xD;&#xA;* [Efficiency of Metropolis algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collaboration skills and Culture&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How to communicate institutional knowledge in a big physics collaboration?][8]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][9]&#xD;&#xA;* [Publication Authorship Credits][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Education at the Graduate Level and Up&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly there is not as much there as I (an experimenter, after all) would have hoped, but I claim that we are welcoming of these matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't guess at akeshet's motive for opening a new proposal (I fear that he dropped by during one of our outbreaks of pop-sci-quantum-philosophers), but I think the questions he envisions would be welcome here and that we have some expertise in these matters already on-baord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1217/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9313/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2398/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10395/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3346/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5769/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8122/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1561" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="efa3f3f9-764e-49ff-9b6d-c4dca3368bcd" CreationDate="2011-06-01T04:25:00.463" UserId="520" />
  <row Id="1562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="efe9fe03-3dc2-4767-bb5c-12f33f795762" CreationDate="2011-06-01T04:32:56.187" UserId="520" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="As the proposal is brand new it is hard to be sure, but my first inclination is to guess that everything (or at least very nearly everything) that is on-topic for the proposal will also be on-topic for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the two examples with one vote each &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will photoresist &lt;X&gt; work in process &lt;Y&gt;, and if not why? *(on-topic)*&#xD;&#xA;* What is your favorite way to bake a vacuum chamber? *(not a great example)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seem to in keeping with our practice on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will try to provide examples of several classes of experimental technique and applied physics questions from Physics.SE (and trying to select those that would be interesting to grad students and those further on in their careers in keeping with the proposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jargon (not generally discussed with undergrads)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [What's the difference between inclusive and exclusive decays?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumentation, calibration, and technique&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How 'pure' is liquid nitrogen?][2] (unanswered, however)&#xD;&#xA;* [Fairly Broad Spectrum Light Source Options][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Do high/low pass lenses exist?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [What properties of Germanium make it suitable for Dark Matter detectors?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data analysis &amp; Computation&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How small of a depletion signal can the best modern mass spectrometers detect?][6] (might have gone in instrumentation as well but the answers dwell on the statistics of the measurement; only partially answered)&#xD;&#xA;* [Efficiency of Metropolis algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collaboration skills and Culture&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How to communicate institutional knowledge in a big physics collaboration?][8]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][9]&#xD;&#xA;* [Publication Authorship Credits][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Education at the Graduate Level and Up&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly there is not as much there as I (an experimenter, after all) would have hoped, but I claim that we are welcoming of these matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't guess at [akeshet][13]'s motive for opening a new proposal (I fear that he dropped by during one of our outbreaks of pop-sci-quantum-philosophers), but I think the questions he envisions would be welcome here and that we have some expertise in these matters already on-baord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1217/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9313/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2398/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10395/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3346/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5769/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8122/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2979/akeshet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="17301376-50a9-453e-9edb-1066cbceacf8" CreationDate="2011-06-01T17:50:33.690" UserId="2979" Text="I don't seem to have enough Physics reputation to make a &quot;comment&quot; here unfortunately, so I'll have to make it an &quot;answer&quot; (StackExchange's reputation system is nice an all, but it sure makes it hard to escape the initial cone of silence...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, thanks for being interested in the experimental physics proposal! I guess my main motive was that there are very few &quot;research-level&quot; questions at all on physics.SE. Which is fine, for a general-purpose general-public Q&amp;A site. I've seen a meta discussion here asking where research level questions should go (Theoretical Physics? but that seems to by definition exclude experimental research-level questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an experimentalist, my day-to-day work mostly involves tackling problems that would be utterly irrelevant and uninteresting to professional theoretical physicists, or to general public enthusiasts (Will this kapton tape outgassing be a problem in my vacuum chamber? How can I identify damage to the the AR coating on this lens? How should I remove rust/stains from my optics table without compromising its flatness?). Nevertheless, I think there are a lot of other experimentalists &quot;out there&quot; somewhere, maybe far from stackexchange, who could share answers to these ubiquitous if prosaic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could also try asking questions of that type here, and see what happens. But those example questions, though they are very relevant to experimentalists, hardly seem like &quot;Physics&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="d1744e28-55b9-41e9-b899-6a81fc36a637" CreationDate="2011-06-03T15:17:33.477" UserId="520" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="As the proposal is brand new it is hard to be sure, but my first inclination is to guess that everything (or at least very nearly everything) that is on-topic for the proposal will also be on-topic for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the original  two examples with one vote each &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will photoresist [X] work in process [Y], and if not why? *(on-topic)*&#xD;&#xA;* What is your favorite way to bake a vacuum chamber? *(not a great example)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seem to in keeping with our practice on Physics.SE. The newly added example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How should I remove rust/stains from my optics table without compromising its flatness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is well chosen to explore the possible seem between the two proposals. *I* would judge that to be on-topic on Physics&gt;SE, but I am an experimenter. How do other's feel about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I will try to provide examples of several classes of experimental technique and applied physics questions from Physics.SE (and trying to select those that would be interesting to grad students and those further on in their careers in keeping with the proposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jargon (not generally discussed with undergrads)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [What's the difference between inclusive and exclusive decays?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumentation, calibration, and technique&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How 'pure' is liquid nitrogen?][2] (unanswered, however)&#xD;&#xA;* [Fairly Broad Spectrum Light Source Options][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Do high/low pass lenses exist?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [What properties of Germanium make it suitable for Dark Matter detectors?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data analysis &amp; Computation&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How small of a depletion signal can the best modern mass spectrometers detect?][6] (might have gone in instrumentation as well but the answers dwell on the statistics of the measurement; only partially answered)&#xD;&#xA;* [Efficiency of Metropolis algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collaboration skills and Culture&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How to communicate institutional knowledge in a big physics collaboration?][8]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][9]&#xD;&#xA;* [Publication Authorship Credits][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Education at the Graduate Level and Up&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly there is not as much there as I (an experimenter, after all) would have hoped, but I claim that we are welcoming of these matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't guess at [akeshet][13]'s motive for opening a new proposal (I fear that he dropped by during one of our outbreaks of pop-sci-quantum-philosophers), but I think the questions he envisions would be welcome here and that we have some expertise in these matters already on-baord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1217/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9313/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2398/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10395/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3346/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5769/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8122/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2979/akeshet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="d2090180-a654-40cc-9abb-da897d2d52bc" CreationDate="2011-06-07T14:39:32.040" UserId="202" Text="    I am not only saying Lorentz Einstein and the 100,000 dead physicists and the&#xD;&#xA;    100,000 living physicists are wrong I am adding that the collective value of&#xD;&#xA;    relativity theory special and general and all of more than three dimensions based&#xD;&#xA;    physics is 1/2 rotten onion stinking onion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this question][1]. No Latex (ok, newbie here I guess), poor grammar, and the (I think) arrogant tone of that sentence makes me think this guy doesn't want real discussion on his ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10782/length-contraction-in-rotating-frame/10856#10856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="d2090180-a654-40cc-9abb-da897d2d52bc" CreationDate="2011-06-07T14:39:32.040" UserId="202" Text="Do we have a troll here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="d2090180-a654-40cc-9abb-da897d2d52bc" CreationDate="2011-06-07T14:39:32.040" UserId="202" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="64654019-826b-4cdc-af60-541e6104327e" CreationDate="2011-06-07T14:47:42.557" UserId="202" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="    I am not only saying Lorentz Einstein and the 100,000 dead physicists and the&#xD;&#xA;    100,000 living physicists are wrong I am adding that the collective value of&#xD;&#xA;    relativity theory special and general and all of more than three dimensions based&#xD;&#xA;    physics is 1/2 rotten onion stinking onion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this question][1]. No Latex (ok, newbie here I guess), poor grammar, and the (I think) arrogant tone of that sentence makes me think this guy doesn't want real discussion on his ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, his other answers don't seem to deal much with the questions being asked. In a discussion of Hooke's law he still irrelevantly brings up relativity and why it's wrong. Do you guys think he's just a troll/someone wanting to cause trouble here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10782/length-contraction-in-rotating-frame/10856#10856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="26e0f08c-d8dc-4053-8139-d4b698ca1fd6" CreationDate="2011-06-07T15:14:31.977" UserId="202" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="    I am not only saying Lorentz Einstein and the 100,000 dead physicists and the&#xD;&#xA;    100,000 living physicists are wrong I am adding that the collective value of&#xD;&#xA;    relativity theory special and general and all of more than three dimensions based&#xD;&#xA;    physics is 1/2 rotten onion stinking onion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this question][1]. No Latex (ok, newbie here I guess), poor grammar, and the (I think) arrogant tone of that sentence makes me think this guy doesn't want real discussion on his ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, his other answers don't seem to deal much with the questions being asked. In a discussion of Hooke's law he still irrelevantly brings up relativity and why it's wrong. Do you guys think he's just a troll/someone wanting to cause trouble here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: his answer has been deleted. Oh well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10782/length-contraction-in-rotating-frame/10856#10856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="39dcfb17-137f-42a4-bc0e-6259fcd2d6b7" CreationDate="2011-06-07T15:17:53.017" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="He certainly is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remind the official way of dealing with trolls:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Ignore -- don't try to talk with such people, it is useless and only makes them troll more.&#xD;&#xA;7. Downvote to notify other users about the quality of the post. Downvoting Qs is free, -1 for answer downvote have a great chance of being refunded (when the post is deleted).&#xD;&#xA;7. Flag if the post is useless junk without discussion and can be safely removed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="8918bf19-b1b1-461a-8f0b-17423e74b948" CreationDate="2011-06-09T20:25:59.210" UserId="1655" Text="Obviously, there's a lot of overlap between physics and astronomy. It would be good to have some guidelines for what goes where now that the [astronomy beta][1] is live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example questions for discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Why do we say that the earth moves around the sun?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Questions about the solar system][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [The final death of a black hole.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. [What is meant by positive and negative gravity/energy/spactimecurvature?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. [Would a submarine float in the atmosphere of Jupiter?][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. [What nonlinear deformations will a fast rotating planet exhibit?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm leaving out really obviously astronomy questions like [What is 656 Beagle?][8]. The big question marks are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Classical mechanics/dynamics questions that are principally about astronomical objects&#xD;&#xA; - Cosmology&#xD;&#xA; - General Relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where do those go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10933/why-do-we-say-that-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/questions-about-the-solar-system&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/the-final-death-of-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9201/what-is-meant-by-positive-and-negative-gravity-energy-spactimecurvature&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9456/would-a-submarine-float-in-the-atmosphere-of-jupiter&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10670/what-nonlinear-deformations-will-a-fast-rotating-planet-exhibit&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/what-is-656-beagle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="8918bf19-b1b1-461a-8f0b-17423e74b948" CreationDate="2011-06-09T20:25:59.210" UserId="1655" Text="What should be sent to astronomy.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="8918bf19-b1b1-461a-8f0b-17423e74b948" CreationDate="2011-06-09T20:25:59.210" UserId="1655" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="ad393594-4ca9-43be-a024-16a18cd2073e" CreationDate="2011-06-09T20:55:29.800" UserId="520" Text="My usual position is that questions that are well suited to either site stay where the OP puts them. This *does* have the side effect of creating duplicate question on the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will suggest some principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about *particular* astronomical objects (i.e. the X ray source in Cygnus as opposed to a general question about black hole emissions which could go to either site) belong on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about astronomical observations, instruments (again *&quot;How telescopes work?&quot;* is good on either, *&quot;What are the current limits on angular resolution of ground based optical telescopes&quot;* is astronomy specific) , and data sets belong on Astronomy. Likewise for questions about getting telescope time or other cultural issues (if you are accepting those).&#xD;&#xA;* Questions where the answer is in some sense wrapped up in the politics of the discipline (i.e. *&quot;What qualifies a body as a planet and why are these conditions important enough to justify demoting Pluto?&quot;*) got to Astronomy. {*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that there is a [*&quot;What should we do with questions which are really physics questions&quot;*][1] entry on meta.astronomy, and it already hosts some suggests for the kinds of questions that should be moved here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{*} Aside: I was lucky enough to talk to Clive Tombaugh a couple of times during the last years of his life. Seemed like a nice guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/16/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="c4cd2c65-7705-4e9a-851f-1e4937df68fd" CreationDate="2011-06-10T21:26:39.120" UserId="1370" Text="I saw this thread and (existence of &quot;theoretical&quot; in Area 51) only some days ago. I regret that very much, because this thread explains a lot of things I did not understand. I am not qualified to write in there, but I will read and hopefully learn something. &#xD;&#xA;This was my original intention here too, and I was very surprised that I could write here answers or correct even moderators in some cases. I learned too, but that was rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now with the thread above I understand more of the original intentions of this forum and &#xD;&#xA;the reality which took place. (And why I was silly to fight that). The &quot;poll&quot; above, including that of the two or three main advocates of mediocrity for allowing low leves questions, made everything clear. Good luck. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="8a954411-735d-4b1c-965c-af68fd2809b3" CreationDate="2011-06-12T23:38:03.543" UserId="3241" Text="Is this the right place or shall I wait for the chemistry proposal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="8a954411-735d-4b1c-965c-af68fd2809b3" CreationDate="2011-06-12T23:38:03.543" UserId="3241" Text="Can I ask question about electron configuration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="8a954411-735d-4b1c-965c-af68fd2809b3" CreationDate="2011-06-12T23:38:03.543" UserId="3241" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="b69a23bf-be6e-469b-b891-757089171037" CreationDate="2011-06-13T00:15:37.330" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I want to ask about Palladium atom. It has 18 electrons in the outer shell. Shouldn't it end with 17,1 instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that question should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough guideline is that questions about isolated atoms are about physics and are probably okay on this site. Questions about compounds (molecules) or mixtures are likely to be about chemistry and would probably be off-topic here. Of course that's only a rough guideline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="375ed2bc-f85f-4d5f-acdf-747bc95987b8" CreationDate="2011-06-13T01:43:16.253" UserId="124" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="&gt; I want to ask about Palladium atom. It has 18 electrons in the outer shell. Shouldn't it end with 17,1 instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that question should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough guideline is that questions about isolated atoms are about physics and are probably okay on this site. Questions about compounds (molecules) or mixtures are likely to be about chemistry and would probably be off-topic here. Of course that's only a rough guideline; the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="eacea3c1-f66f-44c1-a6c5-c948981cd0fd" CreationDate="2011-06-14T00:18:01.970" UserId="124" Text="In light of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures, I did a bit of searching for our policy on questions about units and measurement ([metrology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology))... but I don't think we really have one. So how should we handle these sorts of questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, units and measurement are topics of relevance to all sorts of science and engineering, not just physics. But on the other hand, they often seem to be associated with physics, as the &quot;most basic&quot; of the physical sciences. Do we allow them or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="eacea3c1-f66f-44c1-a6c5-c948981cd0fd" CreationDate="2011-06-14T00:18:01.970" UserId="124" Text="Should we allow questions about units and metrology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="eacea3c1-f66f-44c1-a6c5-c948981cd0fd" CreationDate="2011-06-14T00:18:01.970" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="69159a72-f808-4777-b670-252fc761c296" CreationDate="2011-06-14T00:29:57.773" UserId="520" Text="A few almost random thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Why were the SI base quantities chosen as such?][1] is [a history question][2]. I'm wishy-washy on it. The choice at any given time was wrapped up in the state of the science and especially the art of measurement; but it would require considerable writing to explain the tradeoff at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the SI Derived Unit of Brix?][3] is a one-google general reference question and turns out to be more relevant to chemistry or bio-chemistry than physics (though I suppose sugar solution are optically active).&#xD;&#xA;* This new one--[What is “International Service of Weights and Measures”?][4]--is bothering me because I think *&quot;What was [formerly very important organization]?&quot;* could possibly be relevant, but that this one is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/156/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="e18eae8b-acbc-4552-96ee-078ed32ad479" CreationDate="2011-06-14T15:00:36.183" UserId="847" Text="There are two duplicate tags,  &#xD;&#xA;solar.system  &#xD;&#xA;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="e18eae8b-acbc-4552-96ee-078ed32ad479" CreationDate="2011-06-14T15:00:36.183" UserId="847" Text="Correct duplicate tags - solar.system and solar-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="e18eae8b-acbc-4552-96ee-078ed32ad479" CreationDate="2011-06-14T15:00:36.183" UserId="847" Text="|bug|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="8b7148cc-54af-4bc2-b207-2d2bd682407b" CreationDate="2011-06-14T18:00:42.850" UserId="124" Text="Thanks for catching that. I merged the tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1594" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="2564c3d1-611f-42ad-b016-321a672a26be" CreationDate="2011-06-14T18:00:53.570" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="33bc7eea-7857-44a2-8359-bd4691cc5d7d" CreationDate="2011-06-17T14:28:10.990" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="I understand that designs take time, and that there are many SE sites that need designs, but I am baffled at why, four months after the original design was withdrawn, a new one hasn't been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like this will hinder the growth of the site, as we all know that sites without a finished design seem less credible here in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a plan as to when a second design might be implemented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="33bc7eea-7857-44a2-8359-bd4691cc5d7d" CreationDate="2011-06-17T14:28:10.990" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="Is physics.stackexhange being punished for negative design feedback?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="33bc7eea-7857-44a2-8359-bd4691cc5d7d" CreationDate="2011-06-17T14:28:10.990" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="6375b6ff-472d-4e69-bb6c-5e2a15b01436" CreationDate="2011-06-17T15:12:33.823" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="19358b5e-50cf-4165-9143-c2a92c003df3" CreationDate="2011-06-17T15:27:05.047" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="This is of course a question to the team, but I doubt that this is a punishment -- rather Jin is just busy. You may also try contributing constructively to the [design suggestion thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/604/site-design-take-2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="09fa1484-c4bc-4dc0-8f6e-c823dd49dfe6" CreationDate="2011-06-17T15:33:07.447" UserDisplayName="user2759" Text="At this point, I'm feeling like (almost) anything is better than the current &quot;nothing.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="20592b3a-79c5-4783-81d1-01aa9f349d57" CreationDate="2011-06-17T19:30:34.407" UserId="113" Text="No, there is no &quot;penalty&quot; -- it's just that I got the strong impression that the Physics community was happy with the sketchy design status quo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the Sketchy design a lot, so that's fine with me. I don't feel there are any negative implications to keeping this design for a while longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="81e5d07a-8394-417f-ad38-8e1190139d52" CreationDate="2011-06-20T18:59:51.623" UserId="124" Text="I just noticed that we have a new section on our [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) about notation and symbols. What should go in this section? Obviously we can't explain all the mathematical notation that physics uses, but are there any conventions peculiar to this site that we should include?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="81e5d07a-8394-417f-ad38-8e1190139d52" CreationDate="2011-06-20T18:59:51.623" UserId="124" Text="What notation and symbols are commonly used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="81e5d07a-8394-417f-ad38-8e1190139d52" CreationDate="2011-06-20T18:59:51.623" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="20085cb7-a376-4b1e-bc59-6290763551a3" CreationDate="2011-06-20T22:24:44.953" UserId="124" Text="Programmers.SE recently [adopted the following policy](http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/1457/how-do-our-moderators-and-community-members-feel-about-cleaning-up-comment-nois) on comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We moderators will now be actively cleaning up questions and answers that have extended discussion in comments: any additional information teased out in the comments should be re-incorporated back into the question or answer, not left as a comment. Any extended discussion should go to our awesome chat system, built from the ground up explicitly for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you see the original asker or answerer leave a comment instead of editing their post, you should edit it back in yourself: anyone can edit a post or suggest an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because comment deletions aren't very transparent, we will be leaving the following comment when comments are cleaned up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **Commenters:** comments are meant for seeking clarification, not for extended discussion. If you have a solution, leave an answer. If your solution is already posted, please upvote it. If you'd like to discuss this question with others, please use chat. See the FAQ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the following has been added to our FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  **Can I use comments to discuss the topic of a post?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  Comments are useful for getting clarifications, but extended discussions detract from the question and its answers. If you'd like to discuss anything related to programming with other expert programmers, please use our chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more or less reflects the way I've been handling comments on this site, namely that any information important enough to be preserved should be in the posts, not in the comments, but I don't think we've ever really had an official policy on it - that is, comments just got deleted sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring to the quoted post, should we make this, or something similar, an &quot;official&quot; policy on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="20085cb7-a376-4b1e-bc59-6290763551a3" CreationDate="2011-06-20T22:24:44.953" UserId="124" Text="Should we make an official policy out of cleaning up comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="20085cb7-a376-4b1e-bc59-6290763551a3" CreationDate="2011-06-20T22:24:44.953" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|comments|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="df0ff47d-8e18-4033-8789-cab5b1aefae2" CreationDate="2011-06-21T08:06:10.937" UserId="97" Text="We could try to settle for one convention where ambiguity exists, e.g. always using arrows for R³ vectors, * for complex conjugation etc. I don't know if editing posts with different conventions (e.g. **bold vectors**) should be encouraged though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ed1fa515-0530-44ca-a25e-4f339c18542d" CreationDate="2011-06-21T17:15:17.867" UserId="124" Text="There have been some arguments that the following two questions (and perhaps others like them) are off topic at this site and should be migrated to electronics.SE. What does the community think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11326/what-causes-hard-working-growling-sound-in-a-heavily-loaded-electric-motor&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11335/why-do-we-need-brushed-motors&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ed1fa515-0530-44ca-a25e-4f339c18542d" CreationDate="2011-06-21T17:15:17.867" UserId="124" Text="Are these electronics-related questions on topic here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ed1fa515-0530-44ca-a25e-4f339c18542d" CreationDate="2011-06-21T17:15:17.867" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="b5d3ba42-b98a-413f-93cf-5cc54e9ba88b" CreationDate="2011-06-21T18:11:03.783" UserId="520" Text="It might be worth getting some feedback from Electronics.SE. They certainly have more of an engineering/design feel to them, but both of these particular questions could have been asked before the discovery of the electron, and thus predate &quot;electronics&quot; as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll pop over to their chat and ask people to have a look." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ad75f1a5-a5d5-4c0c-9c03-23e24ee47858" CreationDate="2011-06-21T18:36:07.417" UserId="124" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="There have been some arguments that the following two questions (and perhaps others like them) are off topic at this site, and perhaps should be migrated to electronics.SE. What does the community think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11326/what-causes-hard-working-growling-sound-in-a-heavily-loaded-electric-motor&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11335/why-do-we-need-brushed-motors&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="746" RevisionGUID="0d12c505-6095-486e-ab87-204eeadbd758" CreationDate="2011-06-21T19:07:29.413" UserId="4123" Text="I for one wouldn't think of this kind of question as out of place on Electronics.SE.  I would see physics as more theoretical, and E.SE as more practical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="4c5e3a40-1770-4658-b5bc-66d3587fc00f" CreationDate="2011-06-21T21:22:52.617" UserId="113" Text="I would expect to see a lot less of that here than on programmers, which is very discussiony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't mind relevant information being placed in comments, it's a form of annotation of the post. If there are 4 or 5 mildly discussiony comments, **all with some nugget of information that enhances the post, even in some extremely small way,** that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do mind is *extended discussion* in comments where there are 10-15 comments going back and forth between 2 or 3 people. We actually have a reminder now to avoid this and offer to one-click kick things to chat, like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/1764/can-we-get-a-simple-way-to-initiate-a-chat/1766#1766&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="3fcd9f75-1d10-44fa-a2e9-7648d7467282" CreationDate="2011-06-23T18:10:09.847" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="528f6879-9b48-48f9-adef-43716400379e" CreationDate="2011-06-23T18:10:55.590" UserId="124" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="5d0d47b8-63c1-4a30-8286-f3840c8e5969" CreationDate="2011-06-23T18:31:10.073" UserId="124" Comment="add examples" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the majority of our questions are not homework questions, there are a few examples that are worth looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions are about as close as we get to that ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions are not appropriate for the site, primarily because they don't show any effort put into solving the problem and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="29d6a48f-07ee-406a-bf86-d3b74cce3fb4" CreationDate="2011-06-27T08:27:51.143" UserId="4131" Text="I have been asking fairly general questions in this site related basic 12th standard physics but could get very little answers. I got delayed responses and still could not get some really workable answers. Even the number of solutions are very less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think people here should discuss ways to increase the number of participants in this site at this stage. Is it possible to attract people from other Q&amp;A sites to this site? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="29d6a48f-07ee-406a-bf86-d3b74cce3fb4" CreationDate="2011-06-27T08:27:51.143" UserId="4131" Text="We need more people to participate in this site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="29d6a48f-07ee-406a-bf86-d3b74cce3fb4" CreationDate="2011-06-27T08:27:51.143" UserId="4131" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="3e1606f9-8db5-4669-bb58-c08f5b2a720d" CreationDate="2011-06-27T08:38:10.047" UserId="4131" Text="I guess physics is really a very broad subject. Many of us who end up here dont know if their question can be asked on this site( at least the first impression was that for me). I suggest we can have at least a drawing/picture on top carrying the site name along with mini snaps/sketches of variety of physical experiments so as to convey some information to the reader on what this site is about. We can have sketches of&#xD;&#xA;lasers, mirrors, hydron collider(mini), atom, solar system, Einstein(may be) etc. More can be added from different scopes of physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="279663b1-140f-4b1f-b2d8-45f26cc110a0" CreationDate="2011-06-27T08:42:13.390" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="You are welcome to support [Theorethical Phycics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) proposal, which will be a site 10.3x less crappy than this one, and thus will gather many more great answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="02cf2067-68d7-48e9-b588-9673f848129e" CreationDate="2011-06-27T09:39:37.910" UserId="4131" Text="Can we have email notifications similar to facebook? Its very hard to keep logged into stackexchange site waiting for relevant questions to come or to wait for answers for questions we post. Ultimately it may result in lowering of interest. Also all the time keeping logged in results in decreased productivity at work(I am kind of getting addicted). If we have a system of email notification(which may be controlled by proper settings), I think we will see increased response from people. People can select what subject( tags) they like to answer and chose them in the settings. This will inform them as soon as a question of their interest is posted on site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it will be great if we can answer/comment just by emailing (as done in fb). This will reduce the response time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="02cf2067-68d7-48e9-b588-9673f848129e" CreationDate="2011-06-27T09:39:37.910" UserId="4131" Text="Email notifications for updates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="02cf2067-68d7-48e9-b588-9673f848129e" CreationDate="2011-06-27T09:39:37.910" UserId="4131" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="41fcae64-af41-49d4-9047-258cd22e1997" CreationDate="2011-06-27T15:49:28.813" UserId="520" Text="There are limited email notification available already, and the topic has been [discussed heavily on the mother meta][1]. You will find that the official policy is to use email as a backup form of communication, not as a [substitute for visiting the site][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider using [the RSS feeds][3] (available at the bottom of most pages on the site) to follow sites/questions/tags/users that interest you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?tab=relevance&amp;q=email%20notification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/14555/notify-more-frequently-than-once-a-day/14600#14600&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/25224/email-notifications-for-new-questions-matching-specific-tags/25225#25225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="76150f27-8877-42de-b8e7-34e5f033b240" CreationDate="2011-06-27T15:59:14.827" UserId="520" Text="While I don't speak for anyone else, you questions o date have not been very interesting to me. I haven't felt any drive to answer them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Finding direction&quot; has an ill-specified title and can be answered out of an encycopedia, or with a few minutes doodling on a pad.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;How to place a mirror parallel to a wall&quot; ***[without doing the obvious thing and measuring or shimming it]*** just made be shrug. Without explaining you motivation it just seems silly.&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Is nature symmetric between particles and antiparticles?&quot; is general reference.&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;How to find the principal point in an image?&quot; *Finally!* This one is potentially interesting. But, I don't know the answer. *::sigh::*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="67e55206-2802-4556-9704-6888f6fb0e2a" CreationDate="2011-06-27T16:33:24.627" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="While I don't speak for anyone else, you questions to date have not been very interesting to me. I haven't felt any drive to answer them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Finding direction&quot; has an ill-specified title and can be answered out of an encycopedia, or with a few minutes doodling on a pad.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;How to place a mirror parallel to a wall&quot; ***[without doing the obvious thing and measuring or shimming it]*** just made me shrug. Without explaining you motivation it just seems silly.&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Is nature symmetric between particles and antiparticles?&quot; is general reference.&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;How to find the principal point in an image?&quot; *Finally!* This one is potentially interesting. But, I don't know the answer. *::sigh::*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1635" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="c8dc3851-f1f8-4bc4-890b-55c95f2d3311" CreationDate="2011-06-27T18:43:42.580" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1636" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="6d22b123-17a7-49ab-87b7-401f997eb293" CreationDate="2011-06-27T18:44:06.667" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="ce3dce10-2467-4098-957c-e4fa79852dff" CreationDate="2011-06-27T19:33:54.353" UserId="3636" Text="It seems that people of varied interests,calibers are members of the physics.stackexchange. The level of complexity (assuming that inclusion of mathematics adds to complexity of the discussion in general) of discussions (questions/answers) should match to that comprehensible to the median audience. (median of mean/median/mode)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="f21f6d4f-ae0d-4ca0-b551-f9ad2da626c3" CreationDate="2011-06-27T19:44:13.197" UserId="3636" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="It seems that people of varied interests,/calibers are members of the physics.stackexchange. The level of complexity, assuming that inclusion of mathematics adds to complexity of a discussion in general, of questions/answers should be matching to that of the median audience. (median of mean/median/mode). Ideal situation is most of questions are of &quot;popular science&quot; level, few questions below that level, few above, and yet a few of advanced or esoteric levels. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="743e6809-8e1c-4370-9027-9ba1236dc148" CreationDate="2011-06-27T21:29:25.853" UserId="4206" Text="For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the book ABC there is the derivation of SOMETHING as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think argument XY is wrong, do you agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this kind of question is okay, would you mention the title of the book in the question title?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="743e6809-8e1c-4370-9027-9ba1236dc148" CreationDate="2011-06-27T21:29:25.853" UserId="4206" Text="Is it appropriate to ask about possible errors of a specific book?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="743e6809-8e1c-4370-9027-9ba1236dc148" CreationDate="2011-06-27T21:29:25.853" UserId="4206" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="e43c1023-28a5-41dc-a7ab-328ca8158322" CreationDate="2011-06-27T22:12:04.803" UserId="520" Text="While I think that such questions are probably OK (modulo the kinds of changes to the text that David suggests) when there *is* an error, I hate to have a bunch of them cluttering up the site when the argument was correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Searching the internet for errata&#xD;&#xA;2. asking in chat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;before you commit yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are going to post I think that the title and version of the books are necessary, but that you should carefully transcribe the argument into the text of the question (including referenced equations from earlier in the book) so that it is not necessary for user to find the actual book before they can help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="46e10940-9cdf-4909-b6aa-ecc6f0866328" CreationDate="2011-06-27T22:12:11.867" UserId="124" Text="It depends. Generally speaking, yes, you can ask about what you think is an error in a book (or paper), but make sure you're asking an actual answerable question, rather than just looking for people to agree with you. The way you phrased the quote in your question, it falls under a couple of the [prohibitions in our FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask). In fact, as a rule, any question that ends with &quot;do you agree?&quot; is probably not a good fit for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you phrase it more like this, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Book ABC contains this derivation of XXXXX:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This doesn't seem to be correct because XXXXX. Is there an error in the book? If so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be fine. In particular, make sure you ask something more substantial than just whether you are right in identifying the error or not. If you know that the proof is wrong but can't identify why, you could ask what the error is, as I did in this example; or if you know what the error is, you could ask for a proof that doesn't exhibit the error. Or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, if you're asking about a particular argument in a particular book (or paper), you should definitely give a specific reference somewhere in the question. Exactly which details you need to include depend on the reference, but usually it'll be something like the title, author(s), publication date, edition, and page number - basically enough information for someone else to look up the exact passage you're talking about if they need to. Those details don't necessarily need to be in the _title_ of the question, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="4c2b5e1c-db26-4555-86f5-ddccc5e74960" CreationDate="2011-06-28T04:33:42.477" UserId="124" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="It depends. Generally speaking, yes, you can ask about what you think is an error in a book (or paper), but make sure you're asking an actual answerable question, rather than just looking for people to agree with you. The way you phrased the quote in your question, it falls under a couple of the [prohibitions in our FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask). In fact, as a &lt;strike&gt;rule&lt;/strike&gt; guideline, any question that ends with &quot;do you agree?&quot; is probably not a good fit for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you phrase it more like this, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Book ABC contains this derivation of XXXXX:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This doesn't seem to be correct because XXXXX. Is there an error in the book? If so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be fine. In particular, make sure you ask something more substantial than just whether you are right in identifying the error or not. If you know that the proof is wrong but can't identify why, you could ask what the error is, as I did in this example; or if you know what the error is, you could ask for a proof that doesn't exhibit the error. Or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, if you're asking about a particular argument in a particular book (or paper), you should definitely give a specific reference somewhere in the question. Exactly which details you need to include depend on the reference, but usually it'll be something like the title, author(s), publication date, edition, and page number - basically enough information for someone else to look up the exact passage you're talking about if they need to. Those details don't necessarily need to be in the _title_ of the question, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="a6dc93d8-0688-4a12-a0ba-cd6ca3b83dcd" CreationDate="2011-06-29T14:19:39.700" UserId="520" Text="After the migration of [Why do we need brushed motors?][1] from an electronics.SE moderator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question did alright, but Electronics.SE is about designing electronics and actually does not include mechanical issues such as motors except at a superficial level. We will see if that changes, but unless it is a good motor question, please do not migrate. – Kortuk &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have at least one rule about things to *not* migrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/11335/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="18297cb1-ea94-4835-a619-c295f7b461a5" CreationDate="2011-06-30T13:46:30.643" UserId="1255" Text="I really like the feature that Stack Exchange seems to let you do whatever.  Not only can you answer your own question, but you can answer it several times.  You can set bounties on things you've already selected an answer for, etc.  I believe you can even hold a bounty more than once for the same question.  I think it's nice that it doesn't *tell* you what to do and doesn't assume that one approach fits all things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure if this is the kind of contribution is intended for meta btw, let me know if it's not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="3bb492a5-9e39-4593-8ef9-8eb014ebdccb" CreationDate="2011-07-01T20:02:39.840" UserId="124" Text="We're still getting one of [these sorts of questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11779/whats-the-range-of-dimension-exponents-in-the-si-units-system) every once in a while and nobody seems to object to them too much, so it looks like we can say they're fine here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="f8b76b7a-384c-4dae-a96a-3c8883d16ef7" CreationDate="2011-07-04T16:09:13.110" UserId="431" Text="I have a question about obtaining a grad degree in the sciences and I was wondering if it fits on the site.  It's not a physics questions *per se*, but I would consider it a question best asked of a physics community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="f8b76b7a-384c-4dae-a96a-3c8883d16ef7" CreationDate="2011-07-04T16:09:13.110" UserId="431" Text="Are questions about obtaining a degree on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="f8b76b7a-384c-4dae-a96a-3c8883d16ef7" CreationDate="2011-07-04T16:09:13.110" UserId="431" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="1e021644-81ce-49cb-9aea-6390ca486acf" CreationDate="2011-07-04T16:57:34.360" UserId="124" Text="I'm sure other people will disagree, so don't consider this the official word just yet, but I would probably consider questions like that off topic. We've had a few in the past, but that was before the site really got into a groove. It might depend on exactly what your question is, though, so if you edit that into your post here, that would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, you're certainly welcome to bring it up in the chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="c5c2b424-a93f-4aac-b63a-5eedfc5e5b58" CreationDate="2011-07-04T18:21:45.470" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="It will be on topic on yet-to-come [Academia proposal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/16617/academia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, I agree that chat is a proper place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="cea2adee-655e-49d1-8c9c-fe5d2617b7ea" CreationDate="2011-07-05T03:39:26.577" UserId="124" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="I'm sure other people will disagree, so don't consider this the official word just yet, but I would probably consider questions like that off topic. We've had a few in the past, but that was before the site really got into a groove. It might depend on exactly what your question is, though, so if you edit that into your post here, that would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, you're certainly welcome to bring it up in the chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_EDIT_: I'll throw this out here for people who may be reading it in the future: when deciding if a question is on topic, the criterion we look at is &quot;Is this question about physics?&quot;, __not__ &quot;Are physicists the best people to answer this question?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="5e295c17-a260-4ef1-8a69-ad2abf481beb" CreationDate="2011-07-05T06:00:22.770" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Those do not mean the same of course, but AFAIK they are used interchangeably on this site (see [optics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/optics) and [light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do you agree the merge is justified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="5e295c17-a260-4ef1-8a69-ad2abf481beb" CreationDate="2011-07-05T06:00:22.770" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Shall we merge optics and light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="5e295c17-a260-4ef1-8a69-ad2abf481beb" CreationDate="2011-07-05T06:00:22.770" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="14acbe6d-d3de-46bd-a9a0-b06ae2f1258e" CreationDate="2011-07-05T12:00:11.337" UserId="520" Text="I'd say &quot;no&quot;, though it is clear that the tags need a little work (and I'll be too busy to do it for several days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not like to see [tag:optics] removed as it is a name with considerable history and a precise meaning to people working in the fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, we *do* serve beginners here, and they will mostly likely fell that their questions are about [tag:light]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="53793608-c975-4a12-80db-8b413cbc8b82" CreationDate="2011-07-06T13:10:32.490" UserId="869" Text="I would say that [tag:light] should be a synonym for [tag:optics]. I arrived at that position by asking, &quot;what possible question could there be that is about light, but is not an optics question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None, that I can think of, with one caveat: the most fundamental description of light comes from QED, which is way beyond my background. A question about the QED description of a photon could be called an optics question only in the most pedantic sense. However, in practice somebody asking a question about photons in QED would be better off with a tag like [tag:photon] or [tag:QED]. The term &quot;light&quot; generally refers to macroscopic phenomenon, so I don't think the overlap with QED is really an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As further justification I'd argue that by definition, any question about light in situations where QED is not required, even if some degree of quantum mechanics *is* required (eg. lasers or spectroscopy), falls under the domain of optics. As I said in the tag wiki for [tag:optics], &quot;Optics is the study of light, and its interaction with matter.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="9d7d6590-c2a3-4f6a-8ed6-18a6a68e71a2" CreationDate="2011-07-07T19:26:58.340" UserId="124" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Here is an incomplete list of questions that have been migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6034/vector-multiplication-with-scalars&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5987/derivation-of-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5694/prove-that-honeycomb-structures-are-the-most-geometrically-efficient-structure&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5391/derivation-of-fourier-series&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4714/what-is-the-current-status-of-vinay-deolalikars-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11976/fractal-dimension-after-nonlinear-transformation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/vector-product-in-2-dimensions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could have been migrated, but as I recall it's so basic we figured it wasn't worth it, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to edit in additional examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="3208b20c-4d7c-4bc6-92a3-34599cd63b15" CreationDate="2011-07-09T10:08:16.203" UserId="1172" Text="I asked a question about a month ago. After about a week, activity stopped.  Now suddenly it is near the top of the list and the box says &quot;active today&quot;.  But I can find nothing dated today, and no obvious changes.  I have noticed a similar phenomenon on other old questions suddenly reappearing at the top of the list with no detectable dated changes.  Is there any way to search for and find recent changes?  If not, I think this is a desperately needed new capability.  Alternatively, Questions should not be made active for trivial or invisible changes. Or every answer and comment should have two dates, one  for originally posted, and one for last modified.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="3208b20c-4d7c-4bc6-92a3-34599cd63b15" CreationDate="2011-07-09T10:08:16.203" UserId="1172" Text="How can I find recent changes, or what does active mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="3208b20c-4d7c-4bc6-92a3-34599cd63b15" CreationDate="2011-07-09T10:08:16.203" UserId="1172" Text="|bug|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="ed6bb9ec-6c22-45f3-9307-3e5550fd7242" CreationDate="2011-07-09T10:28:43.530" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Your question was unanswered, and such get poked randomly to give them another chance ([see Community user profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)). It may be prevented by accepting some answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for seeing all changes, you can click on the &quot;Edited...&quot; link (if the question was ever edited) or put its ID in such an URL `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/&lt;ID&gt;/revisions` to see recent changes. In case of the question I think you are asking about i it looks like [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/10551/revisions). However, as you can see, Community pokes are not visible there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="066ae8b6-fd94-4e44-b02d-c4fb24946d5f" CreationDate="2011-07-09T10:31:31.590" UserId="829" Text="It is by design. The StackExchange engine bumps questions up to front page periodically, if your question does not have answers with sufficient number of up-votes, and if your question does not have an accepted answer, and (if I remember correctly) if your question does not have a net negative vote. This is so that old questions may get exposed to new blood and maybe your question will receive an answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="775" RevisionGUID="023945ec-d81f-4eb3-ba97-b0318900ccf8" CreationDate="2011-07-12T10:25:42.083" UserId="4066" Text="I appreciate that &quot;alternative energy&quot; is common US usage, compared to the UK say, where &quot;renewable energy&quot; is more common; and that the predominant language of the SE sites is US English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'd like to nominate &quot;renewable-energy&quot; to be the primary tag, with &quot;alternative-energy&quot; as a secondary synonym, for the following reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Wikipedia][1] says (*not because I consider Wikipedia a reliable source, but because in this case, I think it's right, and it says it quite well*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alternative energy is an umbrella term that refers to any source of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usable energy intended to replace fuel sources without the undesired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequences of the replaced fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The term &quot;alternative&quot; presupposes a set of undesirable energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies against which &quot;alternative energies&quot; are contrasted. As&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such, the list of energy technologies excluded is an indicator of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which problems the alternative technologies are intended to address.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Controversies regarding dominant sources of energy and their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternatives have a long history. The nature of what was regarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternative energy sources has changed considerably over time, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; today, because of the variety of energy choices and differing goals of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their advocates, defining some energy types as &quot;alternative&quot; is highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, &quot;renewable energy&quot; is reasonably well-defined, constant over time, and its definition is, relative to &quot;alternative energy&quot;, less controversial. So, it's clearer, more descriptive, and is less sensitive to the passage of time and changes in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't know whether it's good etiquette here just to go ahead and create the tag and then discuss, or raise it here first. I've gone for the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="775" RevisionGUID="023945ec-d81f-4eb3-ba97-b0318900ccf8" CreationDate="2011-07-12T10:25:42.083" UserId="4066" Text="Can we make a new tag of renewable-energy, and make alternative-energy a secondary synonym to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="775" RevisionGUID="023945ec-d81f-4eb3-ba97-b0318900ccf8" CreationDate="2011-07-12T10:25:42.083" UserId="4066" Text="|discussion|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="1bdbd8cc-b9f2-4b62-aaf3-8b9c8adeddbb" CreationDate="2011-07-12T20:24:07.887" UserId="4474" Text="Hope this isn't closed without explanation...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites like JustAnswer.com where customers can pay for in-depth answers to their questions by validated experts.  The experts are typically lawyers, doctors, repairmen and the like.  Some customers like the speed, privacy and convenience of this.  My question is ... could this work with physicists and scientists in general?  If you are a physicist, would you be willing to do your best to answer a question, say by an entrepreneur or another scientist, for a fee of around $70?  Do you think there are customers out there for the service? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="1bdbd8cc-b9f2-4b62-aaf3-8b9c8adeddbb" CreationDate="2011-07-12T20:24:07.887" UserId="4474" Text="Is there a potential market for paid answers to physics questions? If not, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="1bdbd8cc-b9f2-4b62-aaf3-8b9c8adeddbb" CreationDate="2011-07-12T20:24:07.887" UserId="4474" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="45734df8-fa80-4cb2-b27f-c94cf06efeb1" CreationDate="2011-07-13T15:53:46.287" UserId="829" Text="[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12240/why-2-distributions-can-not-be-multiplied?noredirect=1) was closed by DZ and migrated to Math.SE 20 minutes ago (as of this writing). User Marek posted an answer to this question 15 minutes ago. I thought question closure/migration locks the quesion from being answerable? How did that happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="45734df8-fa80-4cb2-b27f-c94cf06efeb1" CreationDate="2011-07-13T15:53:46.287" UserId="829" Text="Posting an answer after a question is closed and migrated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="45734df8-fa80-4cb2-b27f-c94cf06efeb1" CreationDate="2011-07-13T15:53:46.287" UserId="829" Text="|bug|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="da35b52e-afbc-4c67-9621-ebc23c2f984a" CreationDate="2011-07-14T04:35:04.930" UserId="113" Text="Closing does not necessarily block the question from getting answered, in that the server will accept answers but the UI generally tries to discourage this. See here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/79434/why-was-an-answer-allowed-on-a-question-that-was-merged-into-another-one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Migration does, however, when the question is locked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1693" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="5b2e1a2a-3333-4df4-8dc3-b438d8bce505" CreationDate="2011-07-14T04:35:32.980" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="df863c70-9a11-4d16-8105-a42fb3037538" CreationDate="2011-07-14T10:59:49.583" UserId="113" Text="I don't think so, for the reasons here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/06/the-vast-and-endless-sea.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It turns out that traditional carrot-and-stick incentives are only useful for repetitive, mechanical tasks. The minute you have to do anything even slightly complex that requires even a little problem solving without a clear solution or rules -- those incentives not only don't work, they make things worse!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of research supporting this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="1fe876b2-a6fc-4827-b9de-ed6003323978" CreationDate="2011-07-14T15:50:58.973" UserId="2433" Text="Is there a mechanism to &quot;vote to answer&quot;?  Some questions appear unanswered, but in several cases for rather pedestrian reasons like the original poster never visited the site again, in spite of several good answers posted.  In a sense, the good answers are upvoted, so in a way, we're already doing this, so a logical extension is to allow voting to declare a question &quot;answered&quot;, perhaps after some time of inaction on the part of the OP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="1fe876b2-a6fc-4827-b9de-ed6003323978" CreationDate="2011-07-14T15:50:58.973" UserId="2433" Text="vote to answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="1fe876b2-a6fc-4827-b9de-ed6003323978" CreationDate="2011-07-14T15:50:58.973" UserId="2433" Text="|feature-request|questions|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="91bf158d-1221-4d3f-9f75-4d5973402b76" CreationDate="2011-07-14T17:18:11.233" UserId="124" Text="I merged the tags and created the synonym." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="bf38a3ae-e50b-4deb-b6c6-a545d3a14382" CreationDate="2011-07-14T17:35:54.860" UserId="520" Text="Two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accepting an answer does ***not*** indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular questions are not in any sense *&quot;open&quot;* or *&quot;unanswered&quot;* until there is a green checkmark and *&quot;closed&quot;* or *&quot;answered&quot;* afterwards. Note that [there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [formal definition of *&quot;unanswered&quot;* for the purposes of the unanswered tab][2] is *&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance][3] have [appeared][4] on the mother meta [many][5] [many][6] [times][7] without the team taking any action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="fc558948-e7e4-405d-a039-eefba4439a66" CreationDate="2011-07-14T17:41:48.467" UserId="520" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="Two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accepting an answer does ***not*** indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular questions are not in any sense *&quot;open&quot;* or *&quot;unanswered&quot;* until there is a green checkmark and *&quot;closed&quot;* or *&quot;answered&quot;* afterwards. Note that [there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [formal definition of *&quot;unanswered&quot;* for the purposes of the unanswered tab][2] is *&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense it is unfortunate that the site puts so much visual emphasis on accepted answers, because I prefer the current system but new users don't see a clear explanation of the meaning of acceptance and simply draw their own conclusions from the emphasis the site gives to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance][3] have [appeared][4] on the mother meta [many][5] [many][6] [times][7] without the team taking any action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="c6cd2a22-9671-42e2-8ef2-3b52c2bc2487" CreationDate="2011-07-18T03:47:14.930" UserId="124" Text="It's been (slightly) bugging me for a while that we have two tags for questions about reading material, [tag:books] and [tag:reference-request]. I've never been quite clear about what the difference is, or should be. Do we even need both these tags? If so, what exactly would each of them be for, and how do we distinguish between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="c6cd2a22-9671-42e2-8ef2-3b52c2bc2487" CreationDate="2011-07-18T03:47:14.930" UserId="124" Text="What are the meanings of &quot;books&quot; and &quot;reference-request&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="c6cd2a22-9671-42e2-8ef2-3b52c2bc2487" CreationDate="2011-07-18T03:47:14.930" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="11f421ec-a0c3-44fd-8748-7b22aed13b96" CreationDate="2011-07-18T03:47:27.317" UserId="124" Text="For reference, the meanings I've been using so far are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:books] is for questions asking &quot;What is a good book about X?&quot; or more generally, &quot;What should I read to learn about X?&quot;, typically where there is not a single authoritative reference. These sorts of questions have multiple answers and will acquire new answers as more books/papers are written on the subject, so they are almost universally community wiki material. Examples include anything listed at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:reference-request] is basically for questions of the form &quot;What paper explains effect X?&quot; ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11637/water-droplet-evaporation-due-to-humidity-and-temperature)) or &quot;Where can I find the derivation of X?&quot; ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10549/how-to-derive-the-karman-howarth-monin-relation-for-anisotropic-turbulence)) or &quot;What is the original source for X?&quot; ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10184/atomic-mass-of-copper-63)), etc... basically any question which is looking for one particular paper, or a short list of papers (or books). A decent but imperfect guideline seems to be that for these questions, all or nearly all of the references that could be posted as possible answers already exist at the time of the question being asked; we don't expect a steady increase in the number of valid answers as time goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm **not** saying that this _should_ be the distinction between the two tags, but it is one possibility. I'm aware that these rules are not always completely clear, which might be a reason to reevaluate the meanings of these tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go with this, an interesting borderline example would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10098/1-form-formulation-of-quantized-electromagnetism; I'd be curious to know which of the two tags concerned people would apply to that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="bce647ee-1a26-463b-a920-76ce1c7a04de" CreationDate="2011-07-18T18:13:14.057" UserId="67" Text="There has been a lingering Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split this Physics community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been watching carefully both  the [attached discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE. I can appreciate both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). After carefully watching the development of this site and that proposal, I strongly feel that splitting this community would be materially harmful to this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to your credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Theoretical proposal has been dragging out for over 8 months and it is my fear that it will just barely limp over the finish line under its own dying momentum. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposals and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="bce647ee-1a26-463b-a920-76ce1c7a04de" CreationDate="2011-07-18T18:13:14.057" UserId="67" Text="Disposition of Area 51 Proposal: Theoretical Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="bce647ee-1a26-463b-a920-76ce1c7a04de" CreationDate="2011-07-18T18:13:14.057" UserId="67" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="0f76f2f3-d7f4-4734-a7e2-ac15fbe1e6b1" CreationDate="2011-07-18T18:21:49.687" UserId="67" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There has been a lingering Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split this Physics community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been watching carefully both  the [attached discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE. I can appreciate both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). After carefully watching the development of this site and that proposal, I strongly feel that splitting this community would be materially harmful to this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to your credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Theoretical Physics proposal has been dragging out for over 8 months and it is my fear that it will just barely limp over the finish line under its own dying momentum. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposals and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="c3b71dff-26f3-40c0-ba62-83094506c996" CreationDate="2011-07-18T18:37:45.857" UserId="67" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Over the last 8 months, I have watched an Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split the [**Physics**](http://physics.stackexchange.com) community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can appreciate and understand both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). That's why I've been watching carefully over the last eight months (the [Area 51 discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE). The proposal has inched along slowly over 8 months while the Physics Stack Exchange continues to evolve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time, I feel strongly that splitting the field of physics between two separate sites would be materially harmful to both the proposed Theoretical site and the Physics SE. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to their credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I feel that **the scope of questions outlined in this proposal have a home on Physics SE.** That doesn't mean that we can never open another physics-based site. There may be a time where that makes sense. But I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposal and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="27744573-7494-4275-a3f5-73801c4866b6" CreationDate="2011-07-18T18:44:59.130" UserId="67" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="Over the last 8 months, I have watched an Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split the [**Physics**](http://physics.stackexchange.com) community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can appreciate and understand both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). That's why I've been watching carefully the [Area 51 discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE. The proposal has inched along slowly over 8 months while the Physics Stack Exchange continues to evolve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time, I feel strongly that splitting the field of physics between two separate sites would be materially harmful to both the proposed Theoretical site and the Physics SE. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to their credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I feel that **the scope of questions outlined in this proposal have a home on Physics SE.** That doesn't mean that we can never open another physics-based site. There may be a time where that makes sense. But I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposal and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="5030f397-1b11-4397-a4ed-a130f1ed2311" CreationDate="2011-07-18T19:21:41.840" UserId="520" Text="Not being a theorist I don't want to comment on the value *to the theory community* of a separate site, but I strongly agree that Physics.SE has barely enough participation to hang on. A big hit might kill us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the level of discussion thing is what has been driving the push for a separate site (just a conjecture on my part, BTW) then I am open to suggestions about how to encourage a higher level of discussion here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A conscience push to ask a lot of &quot;research level&quot; question in the course of a couple of week. Something like the [First Periodic Premier Programming Puzzle Push][1] I set up on CodeGolf.SE to considerable approval but mixed success.&#xD;&#xA;* Start pushing a culture of [backing up answer with literature citations][2] somewhat like the rule on Skeptics.SE. I imagine this would increase he average level of the discussion without ruling out fairly basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Would some meat-space get togethers help? Are they even practical given that we have circa 100 users with 500+ rep? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/298/78&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/868/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-answer/881#881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="5f67a571-7b1c-4adf-98fc-eda1ea5be95c" CreationDate="2011-07-19T02:56:04.607" UserId="67" Text="Most of the support in *favor* of a Theoretical Physics proposal is based on a perceived need to separate the communities. Somehow, the professional physics community would find the level of this site too basic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that assertion puzzling. Much of my hypothesis for bringing that proposal back into this community is based how successfully this Physics SE has become *one* tremendous all-inclusive Physics resource, welcoming to all level of questions. The top on-topic questions from that proposal seem to be perfectly welcome here. I keep hearing how effective the Physics community has been in successfully integrated all the levels of Physics questions into *this* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create a separate site, we would have to show that the bulk of question does not currently have a home on Stack Exchange. I read through the top on topic questions and the subjects seem to be doing fine on this site. I see no sign that questions are being put out based on these &quot;theoretical&quot; subjects and I don't find the level of question on this site an embarrassment to the professional community. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="75c88519-9e85-4de5-a2da-da93953042ea" CreationDate="2011-07-19T03:21:13.533" UserId="67" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I find that assertion that the level of physicists on this site are too low for professional physicists puzzling. Much of my hypothesis for bringing that proposal back into this community is based how successfully this Physics SE has become *one* tremendous, all-inclusive Physics resource, welcoming to all level of questions. The top on-topic questions from that proposal seem to be perfectly welcome here. I keep hearing how effective the Physics community has been in successfully integrated all the levels of Physics questions into *this* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create a separate site, we would have to show that the bulk of question from that proposal do  not currently have a home on Stack Exchange. I read through the top on topic questions and the subjects seem to be doing fine on this site. I see no sign that a more professional scope of question questions are being put out based on these &quot;theoretical&quot; subjects and I don't find the level of question on this site an embarrassment to the professional community. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="d0593d7f-2f66-420d-9b9b-0f20b560e57b" CreationDate="2011-07-19T04:14:20.373" UserId="67" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I find the assertion that the level of physics on this site ais too low to be attractive to  professional physicists puzzling. Much of my hypothesis for bringing that proposal back into this community is based how successfully this Physics SE has become *one* tremendous, all-inclusive Physics resource, welcoming to all level of questions. The top on-topic questions from that proposal seem to be perfectly welcome here. I keep hearing how effective the Physics community has been in successfully integrated all the levels of Physics questions into *this* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create a separate site, we would have to show that the bulk of question from that proposal do  not currently have a home on Stack Exchange. I read through the top on topic questions and the subjects seem to be doing fine on this site. I see no sign that a more professional scope of question questions are being put out based on these &quot;theoretical&quot; subjects and I don't find the level of question on this site an embarrassment to the professional community. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="0d1aef5f-d54f-4781-b9fe-d89f06e59ce7" CreationDate="2011-07-19T04:20:23.397" UserId="67" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="I find the assertion that the level of physicists on this site are too low to be professional  puzzling. Much of my hypothesis for bringing that proposal back into this community is based how successfully this Physics SE has become *one* tremendous, all-inclusive Physics resource, welcoming to all level of questions. The top on-topic questions from that proposal seem to be perfectly welcome here. I keep hearing how effective the Physics community has been in successfully integrated all the levels of Physics questions into *this* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create a separate site, we would have to show that the bulk of question from that proposal do  not currently have a home on Stack Exchange. I read through the top on topic questions and the subjects seem to be doing fine on this site. I see no sign that a more professional scope of question questions are being put out based on these &quot;theoretical&quot; subjects and I don't find the level of question on this site an embarrassment to the professional community. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="bef34b71-e812-419d-bc4a-a86804a7c0d7" CreationDate="2011-07-19T11:34:23.560" UserId="1876" Text="Chemist here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that chemistry suffers in this regard for being the 'central science', bridging the disciplines of physics and biology. I'm a (novice) computational chemist looking at enzymatic catalysis and potential inorganic and heterogeneous cognates, so I'm in this weird borderland between quantum physics, chemistry, biology, condensed matter and computer science. Jack of all trades, master of none. I've many times started writing a physics-oriented question here only to give up on it, knowing that the *chemical context* will probably see it shot down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Chemistry is like an octopus, with a tentacle in every faculty. A lot of chemists work on the tentacles, where they can easily get thrown into a 'redirect loop' of 'that's really a physics question' ↔ 'that's really a chemistry question' and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be why we have journals like *[Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.][1]*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it stands, I'm a bit concerned that when chem.se reaches beta, it will stagnate as users jump to more specific sites for answers to their specific queries. Chemistry is a vast topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/journals/journalissues/cp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="51c521a0-6aef-41d5-92e1-65316a2c96f0" CreationDate="2011-07-19T15:45:36.783" UserId="429" Text="Should we have tags indicating the level of mathematical sophistication wanted in answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (almost) &quot;no maths&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA; 2. high-school level maths. (Simple algebra, geometry and a little calculus).&#xD;&#xA; 3. Normal level questions / physics undergraduate level stuff.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Physics postgrad level maths.&#xD;&#xA; 5. I need to have a coffee plantation and a couple of life times to unpack that maths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is loosely related to the &quot;[“No math, please” questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/429/429)&quot; question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="51c521a0-6aef-41d5-92e1-65316a2c96f0" CreationDate="2011-07-19T15:45:36.783" UserId="429" Text="Tags for math level" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="51c521a0-6aef-41d5-92e1-65316a2c96f0" CreationDate="2011-07-19T15:45:36.783" UserId="429" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="8e3b34f8-328d-4adf-9af1-241094974b6e" CreationDate="2011-07-19T17:15:56.963" UserId="124" Text="I would say no, for a couple of reasons: first of all, tags are mostly supposed to indicate the _subject_ of a question. The point is that people can follow tag X to stay informed of new questions about X, and also that you can easily search for questions about X. Tags aren't supposed to give general meta-information about questions. Admittedly, there are a couple of examples of tags that break this guideline, like [tag:homework], but we'd like to avoid coming up with new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other reason is that I would expect the quality of the site to suffer if we have constraints on what kind of math to use. As Lubos and dmckee and others said in the question you linked to, sometimes it's necessary to use math of a certain level to give a proper explanation of something; for example, any explanation of the Higgs mechanism that doesn't mention gauge covariant derivatives probably isn't doing it justice. And other times, the math gets in the way more than it helps. In many cases, there are answers of both types that can be posted, and I don't think it's a good idea to restrict any of them; in fact, multiple answers to a question at different levels of mathematical sophistication can be much more informative than each of them would be alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other other reason is that if a questioner is looking for a particular kind of mathematical background, they can just say so in the question. Of course, as I was saying in the previous paragraph, we may not be able to follow that recommendation, but the point is that even when we can, there doesn't need to be a tag for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other other other reason is that a lot of people don't use tags they way they're intended anyway ;-) usually because they're new to the site and haven't been around long enough to know our tagging conventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="794" RevisionGUID="1049bd1f-d7ae-4df2-886d-be7ecb37249d" CreationDate="2011-07-19T17:25:05.150" UserId="520" Text="I think the network wide policy is well established in [The Death of Meta Tags][1], &quot;level&quot; tags don't say *what* the question is about so out they go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the level of the poster's preparation is often apparent from the way the write the question, and I have no qualms at all about writing my answer to the poster's needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="b672f598-7559-4392-b991-2e4cba449f76" CreationDate="2011-07-20T10:15:19.010" UserId="3694" Text="A question has arisen if the post http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12466/3694 is off-topic and should be kept closed. I realise that this is not a question _on physics_, but how does one otherwise ask the fellow physicists for this kind of information? Experimental physics _is_ to a large extent about choosing the right makers. Besides, the question is not just about _where to buy_ these liquids, but mainly about why they are so rare on the market. I have never worked with them, so do not know, and was asking for help. People experience in refractometry / microscopy might have been able to answer this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="b672f598-7559-4392-b991-2e4cba449f76" CreationDate="2011-07-20T10:15:19.010" UserId="3694" Text="Is a shopping advice request off-topic in any case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="b672f598-7559-4392-b991-2e4cba449f76" CreationDate="2011-07-20T10:15:19.010" UserId="3694" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|request|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="530af8ee-dddc-4994-ae24-a42bff3d122c" CreationDate="2011-07-20T10:43:27.837" UserId="113" Text="Shopping questions are generally disallowed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... however, all rules have exceptions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that some rare shopping questions *can* be on topic if they:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - are extremely specialized to your community&#xD;&#xA; - cover things that are difficult to find&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the utility and longevity of the question. Will this question be useful to someone in the US? the UK? South America? How about 5 years from now? This is where &quot;typical&quot; shopping questions fall apart, so if you can avoid those pitfalls, you're doing well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="6f0a6722-4fd7-4b37-b4e5-db8edc8fc8ea" CreationDate="2011-07-20T17:27:54.950" UserId="829" Text="I think questions about specialist equipment and materials is on topic. (Though I am not enough of a specialist to judge whether refractive index fluids are that special.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am not an experimentalist myself, I do have a few in my family and close friends. And for a lot of the truly specialist objects the number of suppliers in the entire world can be counted on one's fingers. In this case if your familiar supplier takes a (possibly permanent) vacation, it can become difficult to find replacements. Further more, since these suppliers cater to special interest, there's relatively little point for them to make large advertising efforts (in trade magazines, on the internet, etc), since their potential customer pool is so small. All these combined means that the existence of these suppliers often pass **by word of mouth**. In this case I would say none of the usual objections to &quot;shopping advice&quot; questions would apply, and in fact a Community-Wiki list for this may be a great use of the site and a great service to the community. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="7da51d96-1f4b-4fc4-a7d3-d81825b3b9d6" CreationDate="2011-07-20T23:00:54.003" UserId="163" Text="I have only just noticed this post since I stopped participating in this community after I had fulfilled my commitment. I strongly agree with Marek on this. The reason I no longer participate on this site is no secret: I simply have no faith that a question I ask will be answered correctly. The level of knowledge within the community as a whole is such that common misconceptions often become top answers, unless an opposing answer comes from Lubos. This isn't anyones fault, as far as I can tell, just an effect of the make-up of the community as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I don't quite understand the distinction you draw between academics and professionals in physics (in your answer and the comments). Most professional physicists *are* academics, with a smaller number working in industry. I find the current situation quite sad, because if you check my CSTheory profile you'll notice I'm one of the most active users (at least if rep is a measure of this), but I consider myself a physicist and would be in a far better position to contribute on a physics site. However, it's hard to put into words how off putting it is to see a correct answer heavily downvoted in favour of nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with trying to get this site to become a good venue for asking the type of questions that are likely useful to researchers is that because the site has such a large community interested in physics at a pop-sci or undergrad level, the number who can actually judge the merits of an answer to such a question is a very small fraction of the number of people voting on it (or even trying to answer it). Thus the basic premise of the good stuff floating to the top doesn't always hold for such questions. For this to work you need a community with a larger fraction of researchers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are people on here who I respect at a professional level. There simply aren't enough of them to for it to be worth me asking questions. (I don't mean to make this about me, I simply wanted to try to exlain how this looks from the position of someone who does fairly advanced physics for a living.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="083cdf7a-c964-4f0c-ba93-c1f1f89a715d" CreationDate="2011-07-20T23:22:51.787" UserId="124" Text="Since I closed the question in question, I figure I should say something: my reasoning is that this is a site for questions _about physics_. Asking where you can buy some product, regardless of what the product is, is not a question about physics. That's why I closed it. I wasn't thinking of the general prohibition on shopping recommendations on SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the proposal [Experimental or Applied Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) on Area 51 is intended for exactly these sorts of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community would like questions about obtaining lab equipment to on-topic here, I'm okay with that. It would represent a change from my existing moderation policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="389f99b3-99e9-40c3-8410-abddfa05ac7e" CreationDate="2011-07-21T15:05:51.497" UserId="2146" Text="PhysicsStackExchange and MathsStackExchange are approximately on the same level when it comes to questions and answers, so doesn't it follow that the users should therefore be of the same calibre? Browse the user profiles and it does look as if this is indeed the case with Arturo Magidin being to mathstackexchange what Lubos is to physicsstackexchange. You then have below them highly talented people at around PhD level in their 20s, together with the more experienced professionals in their 30s and 40s and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, questions at the cutting edge of research are not asked at mathstackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A physicsoverflow is needed to copy the success of mathoverflow and not another theoretical-physicsstackexchange to disintegrate a site that adequately performs a useful service as it is.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="d6cc7196-3b3c-4358-9596-61a151c4d6af" CreationDate="2011-07-23T18:29:44.870" UserId="2146" Text="I think lack of potential traffic at the proposed tp.se site is going to make it very difficult to keep alive even in the short term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make a crude prediction of likely traffic at tp.se based upon that which exists for math.stackexchange and mathoverflow.net. The number of new questions asked within six hours for the sites are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;math.stackexchange 22, mathoverflow 4, physics.stackexchange 4, tp.stackexchange ? = 4*4/22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which makes 3 high quality questions/day at the proposed site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="a02d1af2-1188-4dfb-bfd0-1bcbc0237118" CreationDate="2011-07-24T21:54:19.543" UserId="2146" Text="I find it irritating to see a closed question on the questions page. It shouldn't be there, it spoils the smooth running of the site. It makes me want to... trample all over it. Perhaps a &lt;closed&gt; tag could be put on the question and it put at the bottom of the questions queue so that people can find closed questions if they want. Perhaps there's another more elegant solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="a02d1af2-1188-4dfb-bfd0-1bcbc0237118" CreationDate="2011-07-24T21:54:19.543" UserId="2146" Text="What can be done about Closed Questions spoiling the questions page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="a02d1af2-1188-4dfb-bfd0-1bcbc0237118" CreationDate="2011-07-24T21:54:19.543" UserId="2146" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="5bc4ab70-9cd4-48bc-bd22-48c0e6246382" CreationDate="2011-07-24T23:07:19.487" UserId="520" Text="Closures can be reversed (by a moderator or by 5 users with 3k+ reputation) and they *do* happen error, so it is proper that they should receive some attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="450fe98c-0415-4b4d-8954-c5d382fa8c3e" CreationDate="2011-07-25T20:43:53.927" UserId="74" Text="I've seen a number of questions in which the moderators change html equations into LaTeX, or else people writing in the comments that the site supports LaTeX.  Do we have a standard place where we can point people so they can learn how to typeset equations on the message board?  There is a [short section in the FAQ][1], but it probably isn't detailed enough for most people to learn what to do if they're not already familiar with LaTeX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="450fe98c-0415-4b4d-8954-c5d382fa8c3e" CreationDate="2011-07-25T20:43:53.927" UserId="74" Text="Is there a standard place to point people to learn how to typeset their equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="450fe98c-0415-4b4d-8954-c5d382fa8c3e" CreationDate="2011-07-25T20:43:53.927" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="c64af1b2-491e-43b9-8d73-00410ce98bb1" CreationDate="2011-07-25T20:49:56.450" UserId="124" Text="I don't think so. The people at math.SE did come up with [something](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1773/do-we-have-an-equation-editing-howto) but it's not really a guide, just a pointer to some resources. I think if we developed a short (but not as short as the built-in help) LaTeX guide here, it would make a great [meta-tag:faq] question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="f4690368-15ce-426b-81aa-854193b5c546" CreationDate="2011-07-25T22:16:33.157" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="I found this page in Google once and it is quite good for a very start (it is *short* in the first place -- there is nothing better to convince someone that LaTeX is easy than a thousand-page user manual (= ): http://www.haptonstahl.org/latex/basics_mathmode.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="7c65bff7-1741-476d-af16-0c34d89fc2de" CreationDate="2011-07-26T12:25:52.823" UserId="1345" Text="I found the this wikibook very good http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="6daa01cf-c91a-4dd6-8dd6-d78965cb21f4" CreationDate="2011-07-28T00:43:46.097" UserId="1345" Text="When typing text with a lot of equations, the update is terribly slow in proportion to the number and complexity of the equations displayed. It even gets updated when typing in a single character. it's got to the point where I have to type the answer in a text editor and then pasted it into the text screen here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you get around this problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="6daa01cf-c91a-4dd6-8dd6-d78965cb21f4" CreationDate="2011-07-28T00:43:46.097" UserId="1345" Text="How do you deal with the slow update for text with large numbers of complex equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="6daa01cf-c91a-4dd6-8dd6-d78965cb21f4" CreationDate="2011-07-28T00:43:46.097" UserId="1345" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="13122505-16b9-4553-b4ee-796c09d6d9b7" CreationDate="2011-07-28T11:27:59.883" UserId="1696" Text="I think it's more likely to be slowed by the specific browser you're using rather than computer speed, installing the latest browser (of your choice) should help. MathJax was recently implemented and discussed on [this blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/testing-mathjax.html). You may find some of the post and/or comments there useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="7851fd1c-1f5c-4b43-96a0-0a2299a02bbe" CreationDate="2011-07-28T17:46:34.363" UserId="67" Text="*In reference to: [Disposition of Area 51 Proposal: Theoretical Physics](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The proposal for creating a &quot;[Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)&quot; site will *not* be closed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to the Physics SE community &amp;mdash; You made a persuasive argument for *keeping* the Theoretical Physics proposal alive and on course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found your arguments both convincing *and* refreshingly civil. It is my sincere hope that the dual Physics/Theoretical Physics community will become greater than the sum of its parts. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="7851fd1c-1f5c-4b43-96a0-0a2299a02bbe" CreationDate="2011-07-28T17:46:34.363" UserId="67" Text="The Theoretical Physic proposal is back underway!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="7851fd1c-1f5c-4b43-96a0-0a2299a02bbe" CreationDate="2011-07-28T17:46:34.363" UserId="67" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1767" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="0ae0aec4-c1f1-4d73-8f47-48bfe747255e" CreationDate="2011-07-28T17:47:36.453" UserId="67" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="0ae0aec4-c1f1-4d73-8f47-48bfe747255e" CreationDate="2011-07-28T17:47:36.453" UserId="67" Comment="edited tags" Text="###Update: The Theoretical Physics proposal will *not* be closed&#xD;&#xA;*See: [**The Theoretical Physic Proposal Back Underway!**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/816/theoretic-physic-proposal-back-underway)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the last 8 months, I have watched an Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split the [**Physics**](http://physics.stackexchange.com) community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can appreciate and understand both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). That's why I've been watching carefully the [Area 51 discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE. The proposal has inched along slowly over 8 months while the Physics Stack Exchange continues to evolve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time, I feel strongly that splitting the field of physics between two separate sites would be materially harmful to both the proposed Theoretical site and the Physics SE. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to their credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I feel that **the scope of questions outlined in this proposal have a home on Physics SE.** That doesn't mean that we can never open another physics-based site. There may be a time where that makes sense. But I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposal and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="36b34773-e0f5-40c4-8716-9f4624043640" CreationDate="2011-07-29T09:36:52.460" UserId="4066" Text="The rendering of the preview, and of the MathJax latex equations, is all on the browser, so as @David Zaslavsky says, it's all down to the browser's javascript engine, with Chrome's being the fastest at time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that could be done, is to tweak the javascript previewer so that it only fires if N seconds have passed without a keypress - there are standard javascript patterns to do that, using setTimeout and clearTimeout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it might be possible to implement that via a client-side script, in Greasemonkey or the Chrome / Opera user scripts, by hijacking the stackexchange preview function, building the delay in, and then handing back to the stackexchange javascript if the N seconds pass without further keypresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be straightforward for the stackexchange coders to do it in the javascript they serve up, if they saw community-wide benefit in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="f8ba0ded-4148-4b74-8f3d-3efed2a2d40d" CreationDate="2011-07-29T13:32:42.583" UserId="4066" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="The rendering of the preview, and of the MathJax latex equations, is all on the browser, so as @David Zaslavsky says, it's all down to the browser's javascript engine, with Chrome's being the fastest at time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that could be done, is to tweak the javascript previewer so that it only fires if N seconds have passed without a keypress - there are standard javascript patterns to do that, using setTimeout and clearTimeout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it might be possible to implement that via a client-side script, in Greasemonkey or the Chrome / Opera user scripts, by hijacking the stackexchange preview function, building the delay in, and then handing back to the stackexchange javascript if the N seconds pass without further keypresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be straightforward for the stackexchange coders to do it in the javascript they serve up, if they saw community-wide benefit in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudocode:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    var doPreview = false;&#xD;&#xA;    textarea.onkeypress(delayedPreview);    &#xD;&#xA;    function delayedPreview() {&#xD;&#xA;      if (doPreview) clearTimeout(doPreview);&#xD;&#xA;      doPreview=setTimeout(3000,actualPreview) }&#xD;&#xA;    );&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="013bb97d-55b8-4e1a-8425-4743bc10f3a0" CreationDate="2011-07-29T14:24:00.060" UserId="4066" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="The rendering of the preview, and of the MathJax latex equations, is all on the browser, so as @David Zaslavsky says, it's all down to the browser's javascript engine, with Chrome's being the fastest at time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that could be done, is to tweak the javascript previewer so that it only fires if N seconds have passed without a keypress - there are standard javascript patterns to do that, using setTimeout and clearTimeout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it might be possible to implement that via a client-side script, in Greasemonkey or the Chrome / Opera user scripts, by hijacking the stackexchange preview function, building the delay in, and then handing back to the stackexchange javascript if the N seconds pass without further keypresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be straightforward for the stackexchange coders to do it in the javascript they serve up, if they saw community-wide benefit in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudocode:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    var doPreview = false;&#xD;&#xA;    textarea.onkeypress(delayedPreview);    &#xD;&#xA;    function delayedPreview() {&#xD;&#xA;      if (doPreview) clearTimeout(doPreview);&#xD;&#xA;      doPreview=setTimeout(3000,actualPreview) }&#xD;&#xA;    );&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Edit*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just had a prod around in the javascript source code. It seems that when there are five or more equations, it will build in a small delay before rendering. So maybe if you've got 4 equations, add an extra empty equation or two, and then just keep typing and don't leave more than half a second between keypresses (NB I haven't tried this out, so it may not work! I've just gleaned what appears to be supposed to be happening, from the source)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*End edit*]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="ffecbfff-5b34-4a18-abce-f0abd13b6645" CreationDate="2011-07-30T18:17:25.883" UserId="1255" Text="I've notice a major difference between the physics SE and the other SE sites.  People here are mean!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparatively, the other sites feel like a smorgasbord of up-voting.  I understand that the number of up-votes is tied to the traffic itself and the number of users, but the higher frequency of the down-votes is not explained by this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like there are several workable explanations.  One is that it's possible to have an answer that has a singular fact that is objectively physically incorrect, so it's hard to speak correctly without a seemingly endless stream of qualifiers.  Another is that there is such a strong gradient of people with lots of experience and people with very little, but I generally don't believe this explication, and the reason is that I see so many people with lots of experience (it's not that hard to tell) with many down-voted answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are other users justifying this phenomenon to themselves?  One major take away I have is that the reputation number means something entirely different here than it does on other sites.  Looking at the bigger picture, is physics as a topic &quot;special&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="ffecbfff-5b34-4a18-abce-f0abd13b6645" CreationDate="2011-07-30T18:17:25.883" UserId="1255" Text="Are stingy ratings just due to the nature of physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="ffecbfff-5b34-4a18-abce-f0abd13b6645" CreationDate="2011-07-30T18:17:25.883" UserId="1255" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="ab27cbc8-71bb-4eaa-ad7c-4f75fa6bc5ee" CreationDate="2011-07-30T18:33:30.420" UserId="520" Text="&gt; People here are mean!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were you around for the early days of Stack Overflow? Back is those time misted days SO had a couple of strongly opinionated down-voting specialists. The current situation on physics does not seem so different to me. The moderation team is trying to hold our current crop of these guy to civil bounds, but we are *not* trying to dictate their evaluation of posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's possible to have an answer that has a singular fact that is objectively physically incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is. Perhaps more so than on Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we also have a couple of phenomena that are much less prevalent than in programming, system administration, and the other topics that were the original Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of enthusiastic amateurs whose whole education on the topic comes from popular books. Frankly this is a crowd that we love to have around (because we always happy to see people take an interest), but are a little wary of interacting with (because they are often *very* misguided; there is a limit to how much education one can pack into a comment when the intended recipient clearly has none of the mathematical preparation and is misusing the specialized vocabulary of the field).&#xD;&#xA;* A small but more persistent group of [people who are strongly committed to non-standard theories][1]. And very wordy on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/340/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="755195ab-aab9-4af8-9ca2-426063f1ffc1" CreationDate="2011-07-30T18:44:55.817" UserId="520" Comment="added 567 characters in body" Text="&gt; People here are mean!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were you around for the early days of Stack Overflow? Back is those time misted days SO had a couple of strongly opinionated down-voting specialists. The current situation on physics does not seem so different to me. The moderation team is trying to hold our current crop of these guy to civil bounds, but we are *not* trying to dictate their evaluation of posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's possible to have an answer that has a singular fact that is objectively physically incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is. Perhaps more so than on Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we also have a couple of phenomena that are much less prevalent than in programming, system administration, and the other topics that were the original Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of enthusiastic amateurs whose whole education on the topic comes from popular books. Frankly this is a crowd that we love to have around (because we always happy to see people take an interest), but are a little wary of interacting with (because they are often *very* misguided; there is a limit to how much education one can pack into a comment when the intended recipient clearly has none of the mathematical preparation and is misusing the specialized vocabulary of the field).&#xD;&#xA;* A small but more persistent group of [people who are strongly committed to non-standard theories][1]. And very wordy on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I'll list *my* upvote to downvote ratio on some of the sites I'm active on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stack Overflow   10:1&#xD;&#xA;    Super User       50:1&#xD;&#xA;    Physics           6:1&#xD;&#xA;    Unix             25:1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I'm more critical here than elsewhere. I'll note that my Stack Overflow ratio is up (from 8:1) after a multiple month effort to cast *more* upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the situation for me on physics is that without the option of casting a non-binding vote to close I have been substituting down votes on things that I was wishy-washy on closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/340/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="85cf2a33-2c5c-47aa-95f7-f52508126b09" CreationDate="2011-07-30T18:57:31.137" UserId="1255" Comment="gr" Text="I've noticed a major difference between the physics SE and the other SE sites.  People here are mean!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparatively, the other sites feel like a smorgasbord of up-voting.  I understand that the number of up-votes is tied to the traffic itself and the number of users, but the higher frequency of the down-votes is not explained by this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like there are several workable explanations.  One is that it's possible to have an answer that has a singular fact that is objectively physically incorrect, so it's hard to speak correctly without a seemingly endless stream of qualifiers.  Another is that there is such a strong gradient of people with lots of experience and people with very little, but I generally don't believe this explication, and the reason is that I see so many people with lots of experience (it's not that hard to tell) with many down-voted answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are other users justifying this phenomenon to themselves?  One major take away I have is that the reputation number means something entirely different here than it does on other sites.  Looking at the bigger picture, is physics as a topic &quot;special&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="820" RevisionGUID="333bf910-8886-4db8-b9e7-d1983242c7cc" CreationDate="2011-07-31T14:10:45.060" UserId="329" Text="Personally, I am downvoting only when the answer is wrong beyond repair and it is my opinion that we don't want such bogus answers around at all. If there are just technical mistakes or confusing statements that can be fixed, I point this out in comments (with possible down-vote that I remove upon correction). Do you consider this mean or do you have something else in mind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="741d9cb4-f213-4224-861e-228a05ab1d9d" CreationDate="2011-08-01T13:06:03.217" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 98 characters in body" Text="The rendering of the preview, and of the MathJax latex equations, is all on the browser, so as @David Zaslavsky says, it's all down to the browser's javascript engine, with Chrome's being the fastest at time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[edit]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that there used to be a 3-second delay between the end of typing and the re-rendering of the preview, and is now much shorter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how about changing the javascript preview, so that it actually times itself, measuring how long the whole preview-refresh takes, regardless of how many incidences of Mathjax markup there are? Then if it's slow, it can use the 3s delay ; if it's fast, it can use the 0.5s delay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[end edit]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it might be possible to implement a delay between the end of the last keypress, and a re-rendering of the preview, via a client-side script, in Greasemonkey or the Chrome / Opera user scripts, by hijacking the stackexchange preview function, building the delay in, and then handing back to the stackexchange javascript if the N seconds pass without further keypresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just had a prod around in the javascript source code. It seems that when there are five or more equations, it will build in a small delay before rendering. So maybe if you've got 4 equations, add an extra empty equation or two, and then just keep typing and don't leave more than half a second between keypresses (NB I haven't tried this out, so it may not work! I've just gleaned what appears to be supposed to be happening, from the source)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="3b733e4f-97a2-4bc7-9443-9ea8de20432b" CreationDate="2011-08-03T19:31:12.333" UserId="825" Text="I've seen some rather philosophical or interpretational questions pop up lately. These questions tend to get closed very quickly. I'm wondering if this is neccessary, since such questions can have interesting or enlightening answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples (albeit not always formulated in the best way):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13122/are-there-any-confirmed-examples-of-epiphenomenalism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8408/are-the-laws-of-physics-applied-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/is-the-wave-function-objective-or-subjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you find better examples, don't hesitate to append them / comment. I'm posting my opinion as an answer. If you disagree, please don't downvote this question, but the answer. Or better, post another answer. :-)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="3b733e4f-97a2-4bc7-9443-9ea8de20432b" CreationDate="2011-08-03T19:31:12.333" UserId="825" Text="Should we allow philosophical / interpretational questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="3b733e4f-97a2-4bc7-9443-9ea8de20432b" CreationDate="2011-08-03T19:31:12.333" UserId="825" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="ec8fac57-226b-4b68-b5f2-5eeff0f589a4" CreationDate="2011-08-03T19:31:53.533" UserId="825" Text="I'd vote for **keeping** such questions when in doubt - and if necessary editing them for clarification. My reasoning is the following: From a strictly positivist point of view, the only thing that counts it what I can calculate, and how well my models agree with my measurements. However, not every physicist subscribes to such a radical view. Discussions about whether e.g. wave functions are &quot;real&quot; or not might seem moot to some people, but are very important and interesting to others. It comes down to an argument between these two schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing a question makes a statement for one of these camps, without giving the other the opportunity to answer. I think such questions should not be decided on prematurely by an individual by the closing the question, but they should rather be debated in the answers. (*Debated* in a form appropriate for a stackexchange site of course: not forum-like, but with two or three well formulated answers, that may take different points-of-view. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, such questions can be very important for the didactics of physics, which I believe also belongs here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, such &quot;philosophical&quot; views actually do influence the development of physics. Think about the question, which view of classical mechanics is more &quot;fundamental&quot;: a description in terms of forces (Newton's axioms) or in terms of energies (Lagrangian mechanics). As long as you are only dealing with simple cases such as inclined slopes, both seem identical. However, the &quot;energetic&quot; point of view, which was regarded as more elegant, turns out to be generalizable to much more complex cases. Or take the cosmological principle, that says that the earth has no special or privileged position in space and time. What might be seen as a philosophical prejudice, actually has a lot of implications for astrophysics. I can think of a lot of examples that have been dismissed as &quot;philosophical&quot; at first but turned out to give deep insights into nature later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="b0868e7f-ba54-41c3-940b-9a649acbbccb" CreationDate="2011-08-03T19:57:50.220" UserId="825" Text="It can be sometimes be notoriously hard to find correct references. For example, I was going to mention a certain theory of extra dimensions in a paper (this is experimental particle physics). A colleague pointed out to me that the paper I was quoting was pretty derivative, and that there has been done equivalent, but more comprehensive work a couple of years earlier, although the theory had a different name back then. The newer paper wasn't quoting the older one (directly), and without expertise in this sub-field, I would have had a hard time finding the other papers. Now not everyone has a helpful colleague who seemingly knows all the literature, so I think this site can be a pretty good place to find references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd even go further and say, this site is pretty good to find *ideas*. I know *such-and-such*, but who said that and why is this so? This site helped me twice:&#xD;&#xA;[here][1] where I was pointed to a standard reference which I knew superficially, but didn't know that it answered my question, and [here][2] I had a silly idea, wondered if someone smarter had already thought about it, but I didn't know what to search for, and I got a tip that got me started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We just have to make sure that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This doesn't invite lazy people to let us do there homework for them ;-) and&#xD;&#xA;2. The references stay recent as the field develops and new papers come out. This can be done by posting new answers, or using the edit function (which seems rarely used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9258/why-are-the-third-generation-superpartners-lighter-than-the-other-sfermions-in-ms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11881/why-does-the-weak-force-distinguish-left-and-right-handedness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="09d7a5a7-a23c-4927-b7b6-3f7689b92414" CreationDate="2011-08-03T21:41:22.540" UserId="124" Text="I'm going to say **no, we should not allow philosophical questions** for the simple reason that philosophy is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, we need to make it very clear that there is a distinction between philosophy and physics, and that the former is off topic here. People who are not familiar with what physics really is sometimes tend to ask questions which I believe any of us would agree are actually philosophical in nature and which physics cannot address, for example [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for questions which are more closely related to physics, those of a philosophical nature tend not to have definite answers. Those are not the kinds of questions we want here, not only because Stack Exchange aims to exclude them by design, but also because physics as a subject does not handle those sorts of questions well - again, by design. It's often said that something that isn't experimentally falsifiable is not science. We've (unofficially?) adopted a version of that guideline on this site because it works well at distinguishing overly abstract questions which are likely to lead to discussions rather than answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="8cdd0f96-b5a1-45b6-8308-e1ea6f062176" CreationDate="2011-08-03T23:57:06.167" UserId="825" Comment="Included more examples for clarity" Text="I've seen some rather philosophical or interpretational questions pop up lately. These questions tend to get closed very quickly. I'm wondering if this is neccessary, since such questions can have interesting or enlightening answers. This is not about purely philosophical questions, nor about speculative or esoteric stuff, but rather about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- philosophy of physics/science&#xD;&#xA;- interpretational issues of physical theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and to a lesser extent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- epistemological and philosphical issues, as long as they are relevant for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why is the 'multiverse' critized as being non-physical?&#xD;&#xA;- Is Bayesian 'degree of belief' subjective? If so, how can it be justified?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the universe infinite? (spatially, or in time)&#xD;&#xA;- Why can't physics say something about X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some real examples (admittedly not the best):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Is the quantum measurement problem merely a word game?][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Are there any confirmed examples of epiphenomenalism?][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Are the laws of physics applied mathematics?][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [Is the wave function objective or subjective?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you find better examples, don't hesitate to append them / comment. I'm posting my opinion as an answer. If you disagree, please don't downvote this question, but the answer. Or better, post another answer. :-)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Edit: Added some fictional questions for clarity.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12137/825&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13122/are-there-any-confirmed-examples-of-epiphenomenalism&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8408/are-the-laws-of-physics-applied-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/is-the-wave-function-objective-or-subjective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="3de40fdc-884b-495f-b3f0-33ec3659e7e7" CreationDate="2011-08-04T00:29:18.573" UserId="825" Text="If we are trying to make this site useful for actual physics work - much like Stack Overflow for programming work - then I'd say we should allow such questions to a reasonable extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might get a good answer to a Maple or Gnuplot problem on SuperUser or SO, but I doubt I'd get much help with programs like ROOT, Pythia, Athena (to name a few of the less exotic programs used at my place). Another example I just thought about: How to get LabView to work with some rare physicistic equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this would belong better at **physicists**.stackexchange.com, but since that doesn't exist, this is the next best place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="b74bba12-0ccf-4e53-9580-146049290a1f" CreationDate="2011-08-04T00:58:16.537" UserId="825" Text="My first impression was the opposite: that the level of questions was *almost to high*. Granted, there are many silly questions, but there are also many daunting research-level questions. The problem is there is almost **nothing in between**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are very few university studies level questions (like what you would get as homework). These I could answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are almost no questions regarding actual day-to-day physics problems, say, of a grad student or a young postdoc. These I could answer, or use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then consider this: An good programming question can often be answered in a few minutes, and the answer easily applied. Some of the better physics questions around here - they tend to be hardcore quantum field theory - however seem to require weeks of research to answer, and an afternoon to understand, even for someone who works in a closely related field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we need is more people asking real day-to-day advanced questions, that someone who came along this problem before can answer in a few minutes, rather than big research frontier questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="0872a616-3958-40aa-9e79-7134ce7040c2" CreationDate="2011-08-04T16:20:21.590" UserId="1255" Text="Interestingly, I have been following the philosophy SE, which is still in beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly agree with jdm that philosophical views influence the development of physics.  I certainly have the impression that quantum physics, for instance, has profoundly strong philosophical underpinnings.  Not only that, but the global Lorentz invariance is an extremely philosophical concept, epically when put in the context that it rules out almost every loop-quantum gravity theory that represents the universe with a finite number of nodes.  The philosophy board is also entertaining questions about &quot;is the universe isomorphic to a Turning machine?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is obvious overlap and some amount of overlap should be expected, but let me just get it out there that I think the Physics SE can intelligently answer most of these questions way better than the philosophy SE could, epically if it's about something like *the philosophy of quantum physics*, a topic which I think would get closed quickly in the current state of things.  Thus my present vote would be that we **should** allow such questions.  The right balance is that of more philosophy than the current physics SE entertains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="2f4cba93-988a-4555-9c35-19a116679319" CreationDate="2011-08-05T03:40:46.443" UserId="1255" Text="I have some more thoughts to share.  At the same time that I seem to get considerable down votes, I seem to get the occasional answer that I thought was absolutely nothing special, and then everybody loves it.  I suppose this is the reality of democracy, but seriously, if it had been up to me to evaluate and compare my answers irrelevant of the community feedback, more than one answer with a net negative score would be in my own top 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's very important for people to have an emotional hold on the fact that things like this will happen, which is a major reason I want to write this answer as an olive branch to other people who have felt similar things.  One reason forums are good is the very fact that people can be mildly combative as well as well-reasoned and intelligent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I've been paying attention to this, I notice that there is strong divergence from the ratios expressed by dmckee depending on the users.  One editor in particular with &gt;6k rep I calculate to have a up:down vote ratio of 1:4.  It's important for users to recognize that such voters are out there and take it in stride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Without it affecting the ambition of future answers&#xD;&#xA; - Without it affecting their own hostility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To share some funny stories, I notice that there are questions that are quite popular, and almost entirely devoid of up votes.  For instance, the following one caught my eye.  I think very significant attention was paid to giving good answers, so what happened?  Maybe someone watches it and doesn't see what they came for.  Maybe there are lots of up and down votes.  Maybe it's just not the kind of question that leads to great answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13062/simple-friction-formula-for-a-car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my own answers, I am most baffled by votes on answers like the following one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11208/the-form-of-a-kettle/11359#11359&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feedback is good, but it's so easy to over analyze." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="a5e4e1fa-46dd-4614-abde-1b12d34979f0" CreationDate="2011-08-05T04:32:51.647" UserId="124" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the majority of our questions are not homework questions, there are a few examples that are worth looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12975/observed-angular-velocity&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions are about as close as we get to that ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions are not appropriate for the site, primarily because they don't show any effort put into solving the problem and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="a32802f5-7f4f-4fbc-86f9-e65cfc0b5d8a" CreationDate="2011-08-07T15:06:09.927" UserId="1492" Text="Since this came up once more, I have to say that I have only down voted once, an answer, though I have made negative comments. I guess I inherently believe in positive reinforcement rather than carrot and stick, which is the norm here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have down voted some of my answers too;  if I cannot find a mistake, I consider them deluded :) or partisan to  their own version of reality in physics, and put it down to experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="e73772c3-dc60-4cbd-8960-b042f44141c1" CreationDate="2011-08-08T14:42:54.080" UserId="399" Text="I would recommend that if there is any doubt about whether to close a philosophical question (and for some of the questions listed by the OP, I don't think there was any doubt - they were argumentative or biased and fishing for a specific answer), we should leave it open for a while. If there are no constructive answers after a reasonable period of time, and the question becomes a futile discussion, then we should close it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="74236d7c-9b3a-40f9-82d8-a0b72a11e11e" CreationDate="2011-08-08T17:18:13.653" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="What is the best way to handle a case where a question was asked a long time ago and received several incorrect answers but no correct ones? To be more concrete, this was the situation with this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum I've done the obvious things: (1) submitted a correct answer; (2) downvoted the incorrect answers; and (3) explained my downvotes in comments. However, the question is 9 months old, and one of the incorrect answers has been accepted and heavily upvoted. I would interpret this as a situation arising from the fact that physics.SE is relatively new, and is still in the process of attracting a critical mass of users. With a small number of users, someone can make an honest mistake in an answer and not have it corrected. The problem is that there are certain questions that are FAQs, and those FAQs got asked and answered early on. Now we're stuck with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, this is not about crackpottery, as discussed in this question: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin I'm talking about answers that are wrong, but not wrong in a crackpottish way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How have the older, more mature SE sites dealt with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that once a question has sat around for 6 or 12 months, nobody is likely to participate in it anymore. It's off everyone's radar, and if its answers are broken, they aren't going to get fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, Wikipedia has mechanisms where you can try to attract people's interest in improving an article that needs work. For instance, you can nominate it as a good article, which initiates a review process; you can tag it as needing attention from an expert; you can nominate it for deletion; etc. SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="74236d7c-9b3a-40f9-82d8-a0b72a11e11e" CreationDate="2011-08-08T17:18:13.653" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="old questions with incorrect answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="74236d7c-9b3a-40f9-82d8-a0b72a11e11e" CreationDate="2011-08-08T17:18:13.653" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|reputation|best-practices|accepted-answeer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="9c778518-fcd8-4439-8c27-f3fdd7c2a402" CreationDate="2011-08-08T17:23:51.257" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="What is the best way to handle a case where a question was asked a long time ago and received several incorrect answers but no correct ones? To be more concrete, this was the situation with this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum I've done the obvious things: (1) submitted a correct answer; (2) downvoted the incorrect answers; and (3) explained my downvotes in comments. However, the question is 9 months old, and one of the incorrect answers has been accepted and heavily upvoted. I would interpret this as a situation arising from the fact that physics.SE is relatively new, and is still in the process of attracting a critical mass of users. With a small number of users, someone can make an honest mistake in an answer and not have it corrected. The problem is that there are certain questions that are FAQs, and those FAQs got asked and answered early on. Now we're stuck with them. Students or other people without solid expertise of their own will come along and believe the incorrect answer, which has been upvoted and accepted and effectively frozen in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not about crackpottery, as discussed in this question: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin I'm talking about answers that are wrong, but not wrong in a crackpottish way. I'm sure the folks who gave these answers are competent at physics, but everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even people who are highly competent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How have the older, more mature SE sites dealt with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that once a question has sat around for 6 or 12 months, nobody is likely to participate in it anymore. It's off everyone's radar, and if its answers are broken, they aren't going to get fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, Wikipedia has mechanisms where you can try to attract people's interest in improving an article that needs work. For instance, you can nominate it as a good article, which initiates a review process; you can tag it as needing attention from an expert; you can nominate it for deletion; etc. SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="e9006997-578a-45cd-be20-6f28de1a3d21" CreationDate="2011-08-08T21:22:34.470" UserId="4554" Text="I came to physics.se after hanging out at math.se for a while.  Wow you guys are right this place is mean!  I posted a nice informative answer (with links and estimated errors) -- the answer was very quickly accepted but had a minor mistake at the end.  Rather than waiting for comments and then editing and correcting (which is what I have experienced at math.se) I got downvoted. This is not as fun at all!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At math.se there is meta discussion on encouraging junior members.  I think a number of us tend to more easily upvote questions and answers by junior members on purpose as those come back and stick with the community (stats even available on this by Qiaochu).  I have to admit I am getting no such warm fuzzy or welcoming feelings here ......   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="c01dbee0-9be7-4e00-a584-2490eea6ab68" CreationDate="2011-08-08T23:33:26.707" UserId="113" Text="&gt; SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure it does! You're using it right now. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- provide an alternative correct(er) answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- gently point out the problems with the incorrect answer in comments, perhaps also followed by a downvote -- to be removed once the problems are corrected, naturally -- to adjust the sort order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- raise the issue here on meta, as you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (optionally) edit the incorrect answer, if possible, to correct it; this will also naturally bump the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (optionally) flag the post for moderator attention, but that is unlikely to generate the votes you really need to correct the situation; I would only resort to mod flagging if the answer is *dangerously* wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="d0010255-f3d0-4842-9b0a-00490124ae19" CreationDate="2011-08-09T02:59:54.017" UserId="520" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="&gt; SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure it does! You're using it right now. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- provide an alternative correct(er) answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- gently point out the problems with the incorrect answer in comments, perhaps also followed by a downvote -- to be removed once the problems are corrected, naturally -- to adjust the sort order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- raise the issue here on meta, as you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (optionally) edit the incorrect answer, if possible, to correct it; this will also naturally bump the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (optionally) flag the post for moderator attention, but that is unlikely to generate the votes you really need to correct the situation; I would only resort to mod flagging if the answer is *dangerously* wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (possibly) Bring up the issue on the chat. With a little luck this puts in touch with some other experienced users, and it certainly provides you a forum to go back and forth until you figure out the exact nature of the error (and who has made it). Alas the physics is chat is often fairly dead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="e04f521f-ae2b-411a-b495-8cf10842c3fb" CreationDate="2011-08-09T09:42:48.863" UserId="4066" Text="A user has just [detagged][1] a question I tagged. I haven't retagged: I suspect that this user would be all too happy with an edit war. It seems terribly trivial, but I've bumped into this user's snarkiness on more than one occasion previously. There didn't really seem a flag that was appropriate, other than &quot;other&quot;, so I thought I'd solicit opinion here on the best way to deal with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4460/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="e04f521f-ae2b-411a-b495-8cf10842c3fb" CreationDate="2011-08-09T09:42:48.863" UserId="4066" Text="what's the best way to handle tag edit-warring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="e04f521f-ae2b-411a-b495-8cf10842c3fb" CreationDate="2011-08-09T09:42:48.863" UserId="4066" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="10c64292-5fd5-45cc-a2f9-3e1d327b4bc6" CreationDate="2011-08-09T13:02:09.713" UserId="520" Text="I find myself uncertain that the tag [tag:renewable-energy] has a lot place on a physics site, browsing the [current list of question so tagged][1] suggests that many of them are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Really technology questions with little physics content. Presumable they were asked here because their authors could find no better place.&#xD;&#xA;2. Often very basic.&#xD;&#xA;3. Only connected to renewable energy by motivation---I mean, the asker was &#xD;&#xA;thinking about a renewable energy application and that brought up a physics question but the question isn't about power generation as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we seem to be looking at conditions 2 and 3. The only part of the question that is not physics 101 work is getting an estimate of the solar magnetic field strength and variation in the neighborhood of Earth's orbit. Basically this is a blue sky speculation by someone with little formal preparation; fun but not very enlightening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question has a place here, but the tag is marginal on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/renewable-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="494fba42-f8c1-4feb-8458-9de9c3736d17" CreationDate="2011-08-09T15:07:14.760" UserId="1255" Text="As an answer to this question, I would suggest giving a little more attention to the answer that is accepted and upvoted.  Although it may seem obviously wrong to you, other people still see merit in it that you may or may not have addressed, and I think this question in particular is a good example of this general type of conundrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of how I use physics SE, I quite often find myself referencing and talking about other answers.  This is more of a personal thing, and honestly I don't think this site is the best format to have a really major discussion and hashing out of the details of a problem from two competing perspectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of this photon mass problem, as someone with a seemingly conflicting physical perspective than you, I'll try to articulate what I find to be missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a general notion in what you write that concepts of gravity can not be applied to a *photon's relativistic mass*.  This is exactly the question I asked previously here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if this discussion was off-topic then I would understand why we should *limit* the discussion to special relativity.  However, go back to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As an explanation of why a large gravitational field, such as a black hole, can bend light, I have heard that light has momentum. This is given as a solution to the problem of only massive objects being affected by gravity. However, momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so, by this definition, massless photons can not have momentum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question obviously shows interest in the relativistic mass of photons in the context of gravitational attraction, gravitational lensing, and that sort of thing.  Someone who wants to treat photons as gravitational attractors such as the questioner in this case, or myself, will be unsatisfied by limiting the problem to special relativity.  We want to know specifically why using $m= h / \lambda c$, and applying it in all other classical senses will screw things up.  I mean, I can take the above, say $F=dp/dt$, then plug and chug into Newtonian gravity all day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I go into this detail to show why I wouldn't even downvote the main answer, meaning I don't see what is wrong about it, in addition to the fact it's useful to what I want to know.  Hopefully I'm also helping you to identify what burden of proof you have to show why some concept *shouldn't* be applied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="ee9b9d95-daa0-4b4f-9ca7-74f355f5eb34" CreationDate="2011-08-09T16:19:29.633" UserId="4826" Text="Are you more interested in how to handle tag edit wars in general, or just this specific one? If you want in general, what you did was best - do *not* reciprocate or rollback, and start a Meta discussion to get things settled with proper discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want specific feedback, well, [dmckee has that for you](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/836/whats-the-best-way-to-handle-tag-edit-warring/837#837). ♪" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1814" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="9640320f-8942-4600-9bf1-49d517cfb572" CreationDate="2011-08-10T16:39:59.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/101331970059018240" />
  <row Id="1815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="afebbffc-c45e-41bd-b9a5-26ebcc719336" CreationDate="2011-08-10T17:23:15.973" UserId="520" Text="I noticed [tag:tidal.force] today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now clearly, that have a `.` where we expect a `-`, so it needs to be fixed, but what *should* the tag be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other existing tide related tag is [tag:tidal-effect] which has the right form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:tide]&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:tidal-force]&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:tidal-effect]&#xD;&#xA;* others??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more than one? If more than one what are the distinctions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="afebbffc-c45e-41bd-b9a5-26ebcc719336" CreationDate="2011-08-10T17:23:15.973" UserId="520" Text="What to do with tide related tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="afebbffc-c45e-41bd-b9a5-26ebcc719336" CreationDate="2011-08-10T17:23:15.973" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|tagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="79dd1b2f-c1c7-4819-b8e8-ff2b89752553" CreationDate="2011-08-10T18:50:08.770" UserId="124" Text="Physically, it seems like these are all referring to the same thing, so personally I'd be inclined to just merge them all into [tag:tidal-effect]. At least, I definitely wouldn't use [tag:tide] because that suggests ocean tides on the Earth, which is only one example of the tidal effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="8bbfb597-26bf-4a71-9b03-a083783abf95" CreationDate="2011-08-12T01:17:52.180" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1825" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="515db1d4-22b5-4a4c-bbc6-002b77c21f79" CreationDate="2011-08-12T04:21:26.790" UserId="4066" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|best-practices|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="cb68ff5f-d84f-4904-bb68-f10cc482d6d2" CreationDate="2011-08-12T20:28:53.557" UserId="1345" Text="One user called Noldorin on the first page of weekly reputation points has a score of 74, even though he hasn't asked/answered a question since July. Maybe people automatically get reputation points in proportion to how much they already have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="cb68ff5f-d84f-4904-bb68-f10cc482d6d2" CreationDate="2011-08-12T20:28:53.557" UserId="1345" Text="Why do some absent users get a weekly reputation of over 50?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="cb68ff5f-d84f-4904-bb68-f10cc482d6d2" CreationDate="2011-08-12T20:28:53.557" UserId="1345" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="5f0e4685-0edd-40fb-8b80-cb4054630ba1" CreationDate="2011-08-12T20:47:59.820" UserId="124" Text="The questions and answers a person posts can still get upvoted (thus earning them reputation) even if the person isn't active on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="4fed3a80-96ae-402f-9682-0f544210f41c" CreationDate="2011-08-12T21:05:54.820" UserId="520" Text="There is no &quot;automatic&quot; reputation, but these sites are meant to provide a repository of good questions and answers which people can search for help; and when people find them often vote for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1831" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="9b2899f3-1e2e-40e4-9a6a-553bee9ba9c2" CreationDate="2011-08-13T06:54:48.100" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="4460b456-b125-4f4f-a509-03b3ed1a30e7" CreationDate="2011-08-13T12:40:13.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/102358796852137984" />
  <row Id="1833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="f0b73d9e-0575-400a-9d5c-813929387dbd" CreationDate="2011-08-14T03:07:11.013" UserId="4570" Text="if not why would they devote so much time editing questions and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do they get in return for these services?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="f0b73d9e-0575-400a-9d5c-813929387dbd" CreationDate="2011-08-14T03:07:11.013" UserId="4570" Text="are the moderators such as dave zaslavensky paid to moderate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="f0b73d9e-0575-400a-9d5c-813929387dbd" CreationDate="2011-08-14T03:07:11.013" UserId="4570" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="4c078a90-975a-4971-9d6f-c47a6207c6dc" CreationDate="2011-08-14T03:09:07.130" UserId="520" Text="**Paid?** No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I get?** Well, aside from the thrill of power there is the warm glow of a job well done and they sent me a Stack Exchange Tee-shirt so that all may know me for the geek I am." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="29c2c337-8e57-47ed-b4e5-00e676eb854a" CreationDate="2011-08-14T04:25:25.763" UserId="113" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="If not why would they devote so much time editing questions and so forth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do they get in return for these services?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1838" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="29c2c337-8e57-47ed-b4e5-00e676eb854a" CreationDate="2011-08-14T04:25:25.763" UserId="113" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are moderators paid to moderate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="670da4f6-f1d4-4886-9027-9099f27543e7" CreationDate="2011-08-14T04:26:16.017" UserId="113" Text="![absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it also rocks absolutely.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(But seriously, remember that community moderators [are democratically elected][2]. See http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/12/stack-exchange-moderator-elections-begin/ for details on that. So you might well ask, &quot;why does anyone run for public office?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tBemt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1840" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="f37e2882-7a9f-46a6-ae55-ef6793c076fc" CreationDate="2011-08-14T04:40:15.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/102600398354911232" />
  <row Id="1841" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="c9ac4288-1366-4bd6-b10e-05569a3e2dd2" CreationDate="2011-08-14T06:40:16.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/102630598425849856" />
  <row Id="1842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="4d8ea051-c1f1-40fb-b4a3-c32a9f633018" CreationDate="2011-08-14T08:40:16.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/102660799352406016" />
  <row Id="1843" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="5c3856b6-7d44-4d71-9f39-86e929bfe043" CreationDate="2011-08-14T18:40:16.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/102811795185610752" />
  <row Id="1844" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="ddfa0384-3283-4109-9ed5-5b66df17663a" CreationDate="2011-08-14T20:40:17.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/102841994816135169" />
  <row Id="1845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="2f0e787a-5e62-462d-8111-82e7a8f72613" CreationDate="2011-08-14T23:43:07.540" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Is the software used to run stackexchange open source? I haven't found any info on this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stackexchange or http://stackexchange.com/about . A related question is the status of its data. I understand that everything is CC-BY-SA licensed (which is great!), and that, e.g., mathoverflow posts dumps periodically at http://dumps.mathoverflow.net/ . If SE turned out to be unprofitable and Union Square Ventures didn't come through with more money, could sites like physics.se have their data preserved and be rebuilt with different hosting, or could everything just vanish into a black hole? If the software is proprietary, would such a rebuilding involve recreating all the software from scratch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Found this http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2009/10/stackoverflow-shares-its-mojo.php , which seems to indicate that the software is being sold, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's closed-source (e.g., Red Hat sells a flavor of linux that's open source)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="2f0e787a-5e62-462d-8111-82e7a8f72613" CreationDate="2011-08-14T23:43:07.540" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Is stackexchange open source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="2f0e787a-5e62-462d-8111-82e7a8f72613" CreationDate="2011-08-14T23:43:07.540" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="9dafcfbc-1b6b-48d5-914f-1c3af9b70c7b" CreationDate="2011-08-14T23:57:16.330" UserId="124" Text="No, it is not open source. The _data_ is released under a CC license, but the software is proprietary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link you found and included in your edit refers to an old program known as &quot;Stack Exchange 1.0&quot; under which Stack Overflow Inc. would effectively rent out the use of its software to third parties to create their own sites. As far as I know, the software would still run on Stack Overflow's servers, so the third parties never got direct access to it in either binary or source form. Anyway, the Stack Exchange 1.0 program has since been discontinued and replaced by the current system, under which sites are created at [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If SE turned out to be unprofitable and Union Square Ventures didn't come through with more money, could sites like physics.se have their data preserved and be rebuilt with different hosting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, in principle, since SE releases &lt;strike&gt;monthly&lt;/strike&gt; periodic [data dumps](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/category/cc-wiki-dump/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the software is proprietary, would such a rebuilding involve recreating all the software from scratch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it would, although I believe there are a couple of open source projects that aim to create Stack Exchange &quot;clones&quot; which could, in principle, import data from one of the data dumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [this meta question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/62622/is-stack-overflow-open-source) or others like it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="51873347-9987-4465-aeb7-2f69536473b5" CreationDate="2011-08-15T07:56:43.707" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="As David said, it is proprietary. However, here is a list of [OpenSource clones](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-clones) of the engine. IMO the most advanced are [Shapado](http://shapado.com/) and [OSQA](http://www.osqa.net/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="9c6e0770-0fae-42e2-839a-e6e65ac4260c" CreationDate="2011-08-15T17:35:25.967" UserId="1739" Text="I'm writing a question which has two parts. The 1st part can be answered independently from the 2nd, and it is easier to formulate the 2nd one once the 1st part is answered. However, both parts together give a better context for the question and may invite unanticipated answers that do not split the problem into part 1, part 2 the way I see it. Should I post a single question or two questions (for each part)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="9c6e0770-0fae-42e2-839a-e6e65ac4260c" CreationDate="2011-08-15T17:35:25.967" UserId="1739" Text="A question with two parts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="9c6e0770-0fae-42e2-839a-e6e65ac4260c" CreationDate="2011-08-15T17:35:25.967" UserId="1739" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="855" RevisionGUID="19362655-7c84-42ae-821b-9007e6940265" CreationDate="2011-08-15T17:48:25.033" UserId="520" Text="**Does the second question depend on the answer to the first?** If so, I think you really have to wait until you have an answer to the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to wonder: **do you *know* the answer to the first question**; do you *think* you know it and simple want a reliable source? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="857" RevisionGUID="831393d7-5297-4a1a-b8ae-a1a3f3fafdc0" CreationDate="2011-08-18T20:36:02.987" UserId="1345" Text="Where and how would I ask a question such as: &quot;what do you consider to be the most profound question asked at stack.exchange.physics while you've been here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand I don't think it falls into the category of the sort of questions that should be asked since there is no right or wrong answer and is merely an opinion. Yet on the other hand, it seems to be similar to questions asked about book recommendations and could be tagged as wiki-community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would the moderators deal with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="857" RevisionGUID="831393d7-5297-4a1a-b8ae-a1a3f3fafdc0" CreationDate="2011-08-18T20:36:02.987" UserId="1345" Text="where should questions about questions asked at stack physics exchange be asked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="857" RevisionGUID="831393d7-5297-4a1a-b8ae-a1a3f3fafdc0" CreationDate="2011-08-18T20:36:02.987" UserId="1345" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="8e6d0643-879a-431a-ac8f-d2c929e4bf94" CreationDate="2011-08-18T20:46:06.433" UserId="124" Text="In general: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where should questions about questions asked at stack physics exchange be asked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta, i.e. right here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particular question you're asking about, though, is way too open-ended and not constructive, so it'd be a good candidate to get closed. Of course, we're not as active about &quot;policing&quot; meta questions as we are on the main site... still I think something like that would be best left in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="857" RevisionGUID="2b77ffe7-604f-45c0-b7f2-c4c134c6b803" CreationDate="2011-08-18T21:59:35.823" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="ae313ea1-4050-4933-90bb-9119341be8c6" CreationDate="2011-08-21T19:18:03.933" UserId="124" Text="This [(admittedly old) question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8231/are-answers-that-just-contain-links-elsewhere-really-good-answers) on meta.SO concerns the handling of answers which contain a link and essentially nothing else. There are some varied opinions on how to handle such answers, ranging from upvoting (the view that as long as the answer to the question can be found at the link, it's fine) to flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; (the view that &quot;outsourcing&quot; the burden of answering to another site is effectively useless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since physics is somewhat different from programming, it occurs to me that the discussion on meta.SO might not be _completely_ applicable to this site. **What does the physics.SE community think of link-only answers?** Do we upvote them, edit them, downvote them, flag them, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="ae313ea1-4050-4933-90bb-9119341be8c6" CreationDate="2011-08-21T19:18:03.933" UserId="124" Text="Are link-only answers acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="ae313ea1-4050-4933-90bb-9119341be8c6" CreationDate="2011-08-21T19:18:03.933" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|answers|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="860" RevisionGUID="041f6a99-d64f-4c15-aeac-28b0600cccbd" CreationDate="2011-08-21T22:51:48.990" UserId="520" Text="I've *never* been a fan a plain links. You need at least to summarize the gist of the what is on the other side, and if there is a figure, equation, table, or quote that is the main point *that content* should be copied locally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proceeding is something I believe to be true all over the Stack Exchange network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is another issue on Physics.SE...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...maybe I'm just suffering from confirmation bias, but I have this feeling that a greater fraction of bare links go to...*ahem*...unusual...*yeah*...theories than we see in posts whose content is local." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="a0f4f21f-ce22-44ba-8a23-1e80e6b7333e" CreationDate="2011-08-23T05:29:59.720" UserId="113" Text="No -- they're not acceptable for the reasons covered in http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-answer --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Provide context for links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A link to a potential solution is always welcome, but please add context around the link so your fellow users will have some idea what it is and why it’s there. Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to *follow* the link to get the core of the answer, that answer is ... really not a valid answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="9abbea07-d5dc-486b-936f-9c0287c2b3d8" CreationDate="2011-08-23T13:58:34.030" UserId="1255" Text="I have noticed an interesting thing on Physics SE, which is that someone will have a link that answers the question very well and then just put it as a comment.  These comments often contain some context for the link as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason you could come up with for hesitating to post an answer and just posting a comment is that you're not at risk for negative reputation.  I do think that getting more answers would be better though.  I've had to tell people to make their comment into an answer before, and I think this site would be better if there were more answers to choose from, as long as people are vigilant about distributing their votes to the most productive answers.  After all, that's the value of the voting system in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all said, yes, context should be provided.  At minimum an answer should have a sentence justifying why the content at the link answers the question.  This is often not the case and they need to justify themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="5903d9a5-7dee-48db-bf02-9a826a39e9f9" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:31:17.577" UserId="124" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13923/would-portal-style-portals-transmit-gravity was recently migrated from scifi.SE. Some people think it's off topic, some people don't, and I can kind of see both sides so I'm not quite sure what to do with it. On one hand, portals aren't real, and we can't meaningfully apply actual physics to a situation that can't arise. On the other hand, the physics of Portal is very _close_ to being real, enough so that we could perhaps offer useful insights as to how it _could_ work; plus, it's not unprecedented for answers to make a &quot;best guess&quot; explanation for things seen in science fiction (the example that comes to mind is [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10827/is-aluminium-magnetic/10832), because I posted it, though I believe there are others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do we close it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="5903d9a5-7dee-48db-bf02-9a826a39e9f9" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:31:17.577" UserId="124" Text="Question about transmitting gravity: on topic or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="5903d9a5-7dee-48db-bf02-9a826a39e9f9" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:31:17.577" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="2fe24465-7b39-4192-9a17-d08a2093a52b" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:41:25.060" UserId="520" Text="I closed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core problem is that the &quot;portals&quot; are not specified in physics. We don't know how they work, because no one ever bothered to figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This causes the question to be mathematically ill-posed: what is meant by &quot;transmit gravity&quot;? (Especially as in a GR picture gravity is the shape of space and that is the only possible mechanism for building a multiply-connected spacial topology.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1871" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="97dd715e-db47-4e7c-8142-2142c57b8452" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:02:48.723" UserId="124" Comment="edited title" Text="Questions about (barely) hypothetical scenarios: on topic or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="ba6ea363-7a14-433e-8dd6-011f2902ce82" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:34:52.820" UserId="520" Comment="added 868 characters in body" Text="I closed it (before I saw this post, not as a response to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core problem is that the &quot;portals&quot; are not specified in physics. We don't know how they work, because no one ever bothered to figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This causes the question to be mathematically ill-posed: what is meant by &quot;transmit gravity&quot;? (Especially as in a GR picture gravity is the shape of space and that is the only possible mechanism for building a multiply-connected spacial topology.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the questions of &quot;almost science&quot; or speculative questions, I think there is a place for these if they are sufficiently well defined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to think up a few example of things that are definitely &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dropping things (or people) through a bore-hole along a diameter of a planet (an old stand-by).&#xD;&#xA;* The consequences of discovering a magnetic monopoles and the technological implication of the same&#xD;&#xA;* Physics relating to quantum black holes massive enough to hand around for a while ([The Hole Man][1] or the Pluto solution in [The Golden Globe][2]).&#xD;&#xA;* We already have a question on [communication via modulated neutrino beams][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_Man&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Globe&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12834/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="73563312-9adc-41a7-89f3-373d1e1645bb" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:53:08.413" UserId="4864" Text="I downvote a lot, so I guess I should explain myself: there are places where you have a wrong answer accepted as correct, and with a billion up votes. I down vote and comment so that the original poster will pay attention that this is wrong, and irresponsible to leave up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some flat out wrong, ridiculously up-voted, accepted answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6086/how-does-this-thought-experiment-not-rule-out-black-holes/13781#13781&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13043/does-the-energy-catalyzer-generate-energy-by-converting-nickel-to-copper/13819#13819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some highly misleading answers, also ridiculously up-voted and accepted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7232/does-gr-provide-a-maximum-electric-field-limit/13906#13906&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13744/do-all-event-horizons-emit-radiation/13748#13748 &#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11039/what-does-it-mean-that-the-neutral-pion-is-a-mixture-of-quarks/13537#13537&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it is naughty to ask a question when you already know the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13217/shaping-a-wire-such-that-a-bead-sliding-on-it-has-exactly-isochronous-oscillation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that in physics there are objective answers, and wrong answers stick out sorely, much more than right answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="ad3c7a69-6d34-4aaa-9013-23aca26b17be" CreationDate="2011-08-27T03:56:56.493" UserId="4864" Text="I have this annoying tag attached to one of my questions, for which I have no interest in accepting the one inadequate answer, nor of starting a bounty. What makes this tag appear? Can you make it go away?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="ad3c7a69-6d34-4aaa-9013-23aca26b17be" CreationDate="2011-08-27T03:56:56.493" UserId="4864" Text="What's up with the &quot;Have you considered starting a bounty or accepting an answer&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="ad3c7a69-6d34-4aaa-9013-23aca26b17be" CreationDate="2011-08-27T03:56:56.493" UserId="4864" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="49b5d095-61d3-405b-af55-541730f0c578" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:14:08.980" UserId="2911" Text="[This message will automatically go away after 60 days.](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57707/a-suggestion-of-yes-no-button-in-front-of-this-have-you-considered-accepting-an)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if nothing worth accepting shows up in that time, you'll at least be rid of it that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="4c6c5721-a8c5-45a3-aedd-4726a654c82b" CreationDate="2011-08-28T00:46:07.283" UserId="4112" Text="My question is open and has a bounty. Nobody has attempted to answer it at the time of writing. I'm unable to answer it as it stands. Below you'll find a screenshot as I see it on mac os using the latest stable version of firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eZvvj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="4c6c5721-a8c5-45a3-aedd-4726a654c82b" CreationDate="2011-08-28T00:46:07.283" UserId="4112" Text="Why can't I answer my own question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="4c6c5721-a8c5-45a3-aedd-4726a654c82b" CreationDate="2011-08-28T00:46:07.283" UserId="4112" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="b6677087-f203-4888-b76d-a7e3fda5f931" CreationDate="2011-08-28T00:54:11.147" UserId="124" Comment="add link and mark as by design" Text="[My question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13367/theory-of-complex-spectra-applying-slater-condon-rules) is open and has a bounty. Nobody has attempted to answer it at the time of writing. I'm unable to answer it as it stands. Below you'll find a screenshot as I see it on mac os using the latest stable version of firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eZvvj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="e0bd4eeb-a954-4c21-9c49-515c867ad900" CreationDate="2011-08-28T00:56:44.183" UserId="124" Text="Ah, I see what's going on: you have to click the &quot;Answer Your Question&quot; button at the bottom. The site puts in that extra hurdle when you're viewing your own question because otherwise, new users tend to post comments or edits as answers to their questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="b6677087-f203-4888-b76d-a7e3fda5f931" CreationDate="2011-08-28T00:54:11.147" UserId="124" Comment="add link and mark as by design" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="8ae6949b-9bdb-4204-8c0e-fd3498a599f0" CreationDate="2011-08-28T20:27:53.997" UserId="1939" Text="I am doing a  lot of physics on Mathematica and am running into questions regarding the software. Are these ok to ask in the main section? Anywhere where they might be more appropriate?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="8ae6949b-9bdb-4204-8c0e-fd3498a599f0" CreationDate="2011-08-28T20:27:53.997" UserId="1939" Text="questions on mathematica permissable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="8ae6949b-9bdb-4204-8c0e-fd3498a599f0" CreationDate="2011-08-28T20:27:53.997" UserId="1939" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="6c5f6ab0-8364-416d-910f-d980cf51ac5f" CreationDate="2011-08-28T20:47:08.740" UserId="124" Text="No, questions on Mathematica in general aren't really appropriate for this site because Mathematica is just a tool used to do physics. I'd suggest going to [Super User](http://superuser.com), or if what you're trying to do with Mathematica is complex enough to qualify as programming, [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com). That being said, there are a few Mathematica-related questions that would be appropriate here, because they are actually about the physics that motivates the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like, you can bring this up in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) and someone can advise you on the best place to send your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="951471de-cf06-4e90-bc92-97be2b270cd7" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:41:57.770" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited title" Text="Questions on mathematica permissable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="32043c03-aa09-461e-b976-ad22de87a1da" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:43:30.517" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Note there is also [Mathematica proposal on Area](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/15787/mathematica). Yet in a very early stage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="b490aacf-5e26-46c3-a28c-230ab1f372da" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:45:27.723" UserId="4864" Text="Lubos Motl has fairly complained that the site has had an unfortunate number of questions which are of a pop-sci philsophical flavor (Why is there something rather than nothing? What came before the big bang?), and many homework style problems (What happens to this pully/weight system?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to allow these questions to get answers, but at the same time to allow people to ignore them, I had the following perhaps silly ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a question can be answered in one line and involves nothing beyond Wikipedia facts: like &quot;How to visualize the difference in scale between the nucleus and the atom&quot;, perhaps one can answer with one line, &quot;The same difference as between a football field and a small kernel of corn&quot;, and close the question?&#xD;&#xA;2. If a question cannot be given a logical positivist formulation, so that the answer is not clearly meaningful, perhaps it can be redirected to a different stackexchange, like philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;3. If a question is homework-ish, if its solution requires no concepts beyond what is standard in the undergraduate curriculum, it can be given the &quot;homework&quot; tag, and omitted from the site list by default (so that only users who choose specifically to see such questions will see them).&#xD;&#xA;4. If a question is pop-sci-ish (involving rubber sheets for General Relativity, or balloons for big bang), then tag it with &quot;pop-sci&quot; and omit it by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this website is more like &quot;math.stackexchange&quot; than &quot;math.overflow&quot;, but it is difficult to navigate the repetitive soup of pop-sci questions and homework. Perhaps it is possible to have one site which functions for all people, but I think that this means that the default questions you see should be the kinds of questions whose answer is not immediately obvious to all physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just throwing this out there, I am a new user, and this has probably been discussed before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="b490aacf-5e26-46c3-a28c-230ab1f372da" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:45:27.723" UserId="4864" Text="Improving signal/noise ratio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="b490aacf-5e26-46c3-a28c-230ab1f372da" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:45:27.723" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="bfa10292-2794-470c-ac2f-fd762b97bd3f" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:55:33.170" UserId="520" Text="* I can assure you that there will be no content omitted by default as this goes against our basic design (making it easy for people to find content). There is a working ignored-tags function for users who do not wish to see certain content.&#xD;&#xA;* You proposal for the use of [tag:homework] is consistent with the practice on Stack Overflow, and is fine by me, noting that we have already decided against allowing *&quot;solve this problem for me&quot;* type problems in favor of *&quot;explain this physics 101 concept&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:pop-sci] is also fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;* We've been trying to chase the worst of the philosophical stuff away. Could you provide some examples of still open question to which you believe this policy should be applied? Indeed, examples would be helpful in all categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there has always been some trouble with [tag:homework], in that some users object when it is applied to their question---either because they came by this particular pedagogical question in some other context or because they feel it is pejorative. I imagine we can expect the same from [tag:pop-sci] though I'd suggest that people asking them just get over it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="3e8da11a-28b0-4a0a-9238-c037c0f25da7" CreationDate="2011-08-28T22:03:48.267" UserId="520" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="* I can assure you that there will be no content omitted by default as this goes against our basic design (making it easy for people to find content). There is a working ignored-tags function for users who do not wish to see certain content.&#xD;&#xA;* You proposal for the use of [tag:homework] is consistent with the practice on Stack Overflow, and is fine by me, noting that w[e have already decided against allowing *&quot;solve this problem for me&quot;* type problems in favor of *&quot;explain this physics 101 concept&quot;*][1].[The use of [homework] is already policy][2].&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:pop-sci] is also fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;* We've been trying to chase the worst of the philosophical stuff away. Could you provide some examples of still open question to which you believe this policy should be applied? Indeed, examples would be helpful in all categories. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there has always been some trouble with [tag:homework], in that some users object when it is applied to their question---either because [they came by this particular pedagogical question in some other context][3] or because they feel it is pejorative. I imagine we can expect the same from [tag:pop-sci] though I'd suggest that people asking them just get over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/612/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/234/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="74cc51fa-f7cc-4cf8-b2e1-41e69747720d" CreationDate="2011-08-28T23:33:39.997" UserId="124" Text="I agree with what dmckee said, in particular that you should try the ignored tags feature. But to add to that:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that the site has had an unfortunate number of questions which are of a pop-sci philsophical flavor (Why is there something rather than nothing? What came before the big bang?)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions get closed pretty quickly, and people seem to be getting the idea that they are not appropriate here. We did have more of a problem of this in the early days of the site, but not so much any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and many homework style problems (What happens to this pully/weight system?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty much addressed by the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/520) dmckee linked to. Basically we don't exclude homework questions entirely, because this site is effectively a PR machine for physics (well, that's the goal anyway), but we have stricter requirements than something like Physics Forums in that homework questions asked here should be of some use to other people who aren't doing that particular problem. Right now homework questions do constitute a minority of the questions we get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question can be answered in one line and involves nothing beyond Wikipedia facts: like &quot;How to visualize the difference in scale between the nucleus and the atom&quot;, perhaps one can answer with one line, &quot;The same difference as between a football field and a small kernel of corn&quot;, and close the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is to be closed, it shouldn't be getting answers. The entire point of closing a question is to keep it from being answered (and more generally, from getting attention), so answering and then closing would be pretty useless. With some of these questions there can be useful things to say beyond just what one could look up in an encyclopedia, so I generally favor leaving them open and just not voting them up too much; of course, there aren't that many truly trivial questions on the site. If we had a lot more of them, I'd probably think differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question cannot be given a logical positivist formulation, so that the answer is not clearly meaningful, perhaps it can be redirected to a different stackexchange, like philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, we generally do that already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question is pop-sci-ish (involving rubber sheets for General Relativity, or balloons for big bang), then tag it with &quot;pop-sci&quot; and omit it by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look at these as an opportunity to explain things more accurately, to rid non-experts of some misconceptions they may have picked up due to these analogies. It fits into the role I see for the site as a PR thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1896" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="d307a736-a299-4536-a967-23d419c5d301" CreationDate="2011-08-28T23:33:55.487" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="1085b59f-f53e-448b-b140-60eb19de0db8" CreationDate="2011-08-29T01:35:39.457" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="* I can assure you that there will be no content omitted by default as this goes against our basic design (making it easy for people to find content). There is a working ignored-tags function for users who do not wish to see certain content.&#xD;&#xA;* You proposal for the use of [tag:homework] is consistent with the practice on Stack Overflow, and is fine by me, noting that w[e have already decided against allowing *&quot;solve this problem for me&quot;* type problems in favor of *&quot;explain this physics 101 concept&quot;*][1]. The [use of [homework] is already policy][2].&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:pop-sci] is also fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;* We've been trying to chase the worst of the philosophical stuff away. Could you provide some examples of still open question to which you believe this policy should be applied? Indeed, examples would be helpful in all categories. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there has always been some trouble with [tag:homework], in that some users object when it is applied to their question---either because [they came by this particular pedagogical question in some other context][3] or because they feel it is pejorative. I imagine we can expect the same from [tag:pop-sci] though I'd suggest that people asking them just get over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/612/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/234/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="9b866dd8-dd68-4dda-8403-b7023039d9b9" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:13:10.317" UserId="3715" Text="I totally agree with Lubos and this seems a general problem to me on scientific SE proposals. I asked this question on AREA51&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/2733/38770&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Signal/Noise Ratio is the perfect term, thats why we have peer-review in top journals. This way important questions and information is highlighted to the scientific community. Why can proven experts like Lubos not have a higher vote count than 30 rep points lawman here? Doenst make any sense to me. I mainly search questions on any SE site by number of votes, but with current system on scientific sites with much less dynamics and user like huge stackoverflow the 1 user 1 vote system doesnt work to filter out these questions. My time is limited...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question to me is not how to avoid pop-sci-fi questions, you get them anyway. But how to highlight top-notch questions** Currently this is not possible by votes sorting nor tag sorting!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1899" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="3cb7b19a-648a-4824-93b9-1667a544ffad" CreationDate="2011-08-30T09:40:59.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/108474285760323584" />
  <row Id="1900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="06fd68b7-93ec-4cf0-91f2-8d671c75236d" CreationDate="2011-08-30T17:40:00.160" UserId="1255" Text="&gt; Lubos Motl has fairly complained that the site has had an unfortunate number of questions which are of a pop-sci philsophical flavor &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little confused about this &quot;fair&quot; complaint when it seems that the entire point of stack exchange sites (altogether) is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's generally correct to note that better questions get higher ratings.  If someone wants to spend less of their time on this site while being more effective, why can't they just filter out all the the questions with below 5 votes or something like that?  If that sort of solution would be unacceptable, then I have to question if the problem is really a problem of site management or just a conflict of the knowledge levels of people using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed, btw, that many many physics and science oriented questions *have* been finding their way to the philosophy SE, although you might not notice b/c people have learned to ask over there in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="bec7fdc6-b2bd-4ba1-81e0-345e62016fe3" CreationDate="2011-08-30T18:52:13.617" UserId="2151" Text="I would support closed questions to be tagged as closed, so people can put them into their ignored tags. If the question is reopened, the tag can be removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1902" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="67718456-5f0f-4c0a-89d2-5fc9d435ef22" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:39:31.940" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14154/questionlist-regarding-current-status-of-lqg" Text="" />
  <row Id="1903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="e413a73f-8d6b-4f11-b7e8-e68bc51f027c" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:45:58.817" UserDisplayName="user5090" Text="on behalf of a small community of german scientists [physics &amp; astrophysics, astronomy, not insiders in QG] and interested laymen I would like to compile a rather short questionlist regarding current status of LQG. The list should reflect current research topics [general questions, recent advances, major problems and open questions]. Our intention is not to start an own research program, it's just to get a brief overview and to understand better some arxiv papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be OK for you a) to support us compiling such a list [suggestions from our side] and b) to answer the questions from your perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="e413a73f-8d6b-4f11-b7e8-e68bc51f027c" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:45:58.817" UserDisplayName="user5090" Text="Questionlist regarding current status of LQG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="e413a73f-8d6b-4f11-b7e8-e68bc51f027c" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:45:58.817" UserDisplayName="user5090" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="f54a552d-65a2-4c09-a298-87f5d3e5cc51" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:43:08.923" UserId="124" Text="I'm not sure I exactly understand what you have in mind. If you mean that you'd like to compile a list of questions and then get those questions answered on Physics Stack Exchange... it's certainly okay to ask the questions here (well, actually on [the main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com), not on this meta site), and hopefully people can answer them. But this would not be an appropriate place to post the list itself. You could, of course, compile a list of questions on a separate website if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing you could do is look at the [quantum-gravity tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-gravity), which is an easy way to see all the questions that have been asked about quantum gravity. When you ask a question of your own, as long as you specify that tag when you ask the question, your question will show up in that list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="fbd88ff6-66a7-44e4-90e7-c4cc719c1e60" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:27:32.113" UserId="2151" Text="I just answered this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14165/how-can-area-be-a-vector and included a couple of images. I think especially for novices a picture of what you just wrote can go a long way to explain the concept. I &quot;stole&quot; those from wikipedia. Is there a way to scale them down a bit from the original size, since they turned out a little too big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="fbd88ff6-66a7-44e4-90e7-c4cc719c1e60" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:27:32.113" UserId="2151" Text="Is there a way to scale images imported into answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="fbd88ff6-66a7-44e4-90e7-c4cc719c1e60" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:27:32.113" UserId="2151" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="a36e977f-32ab-4dd1-8553-b295f613f6d5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:35:56.480" UserId="520" Text="Good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think markdown provides any help, but perhaps including the images with html tags and size attributed would do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise you could copy the images to your machine, scale them with your favorite graphics tools and upload them from there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="5b74e52a-7695-4b1e-8a0e-26448c9f8fa9" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:09:43.007" UserId="3715" Text="A hypothesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spectrum of non-physical/-technical topics/proposals via AREA51 is exponentially growing. While this is a minor problem for insulated communities/topics, like programming/cstheory, popular scientific topics like phyiscs/philsophy attract alot hobby-interested lawmen (which is good!). BUT, assuming a similar growth rate (probably mainly determined by social sharing functions here and time scales of a year, not montly meta discussion of fluctuating quality here!) for the small number of graduated experts or physics students here and the the much more interested lawmen, the signal/noise ratio has to decrease with time, as a bigger number grows exp. faster than a smaller :( simple math.(probably the growth rate for new physics experts on SE is quite lower than average user if you look on progress off theophysics proposal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a 1 user - 1 upvote system IMHO this growth will induce serious signal/noise ratio problems here (lets face it, it gets like yahoo answers, digg, most other Q&amp;A sites). Of course one can still regualte and close bad and off-topic questions, but good modern questions attracting experts will just go under in lawmen votes. Not every lawmen can understand the implications of a top-notch question, if you explain it literally, the question gets so long, that no one will read it, so will always gain only a small number of expters upvotes. If you look on ArXiv, there are services like scirate.com to overcome this signal/noise ratio problem or citeulike.com. Rating of mainly experts or following expters. Or peer review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with this hypothesis and its consequences? Where are flaws and fallacies? I dont care in this question about the crucial point, if SE owner want a fast growth or higher quality than on other Q&amp;A sites. Thats anyway a matter of personal compromise we cant argue about. The question here is what minimum level of signal you can establish to keep experts (which make this a more interesting place than other Q&amp;A sites) and what tools/options you give them to filter growing noise. Experts with a phd/master/diploma dont care about their rep count (alot lawmen seem imho really addicted/biased to this game). They just leave when it gets a waste of time or you have to give them a insulated proposal like theophysics, cstheory or make migration places like http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science for lawmen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just looks to me that instead of solving this dilemma artificially by side-proposals it could be solved with SE own rating tools adapted to current state and topic of a community much easier, faster, better and more efficient. Pure democratic 1 user 1 vote works fine with only physicists/programmers(like stackoverflow) or people electing the political direction of a government. But for quality of a topic where serious long education/background knowledge is required &amp; self-teaching doesnt work, it just has to fail. This gap cannot be filled by current set up of SE voting/moderation, esp. with growing lawmen number in the long run...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dont worry, i will not hassle any more than this single time, cause it will basically define, if scientific proposals for experts&amp;lawmen on SE have a future for me. Personally i prefer this to experts only proposals, as there is more percolation of topics &amp; users and less divas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="5b74e52a-7695-4b1e-8a0e-26448c9f8fa9" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:09:43.007" UserId="3715" Text="Is the signal/noise ratio here inherently linked to overall growth of the SE network sites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="5b74e52a-7695-4b1e-8a0e-26448c9f8fa9" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:09:43.007" UserId="3715" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="70ea733a-3733-4838-8601-8477e11c67f0" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:35:29.500" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="Good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think markdown provides any help, but perhaps including the images with html tags and size attributes would do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise you could copy the images to your machine, scale them with your favorite graphics tools and upload them from there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="8fdffb0c-c728-4514-8813-1f32ef0e1bc7" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:13:32.283" UserId="3715" Comment="spelling, added info" Text="A hypothesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spectrum of non-physical/-technical topics/proposals via AREA51 is exponentially growing. While this is a minor problem for insulated communities/topics, like programming/cstheory, popular scientific topics like phyiscs/philsophy attract alot hobby-interested laymen (which is good!). BUT, assuming a similar growth rate (probably mainly determined by social sharing functions here and time scales of a year, not montly meta discussion of fluctuating quality here!) for the small number of graduated experts or physics students here and the the much more interested laymen, the signal/noise ratio has to decrease with time, as a bigger number grows exp. faster than a smaller :( simple math.(probably the growth rate for new physics experts on SE is quite lower than average user if you look on progress of theophysics proposal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a 1 user - 1 upvote system IMHO this growth will induce serious signal/noise ratio problems here (lets face it, it gets like yahoo answers, digg, most other Q&amp;A sites). Of course one can still regulate and close bad and off-topic questions, but good modern questions attracting experts will just go under in lawmen votes. Not every laymen can understand the implications of a top-notch question, if you explain it literally, the question gets so long, that no one will read it, so will always gain only a small number of expters upvotes. If you look on ArXiv, there are services like scirate.com to overcome this signal/noise ratio problem or citeulike.com. Rating of mainly experts or following expters. Or peer review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with this hypothesis and its consequences? Where are flaws and fallacies? I dont care in this question about the crucial point, if SE owner want a fast growth or higher quality than on other Q&amp;A sites. Thats anyway a matter of their personal compromise we cant argue about. **The question here is what minimum level of signal you can establish to keep experts (which make this a more interesting place than other Q&amp;A sites) and what tools/options you give them to filter growing noise.** Experts with a phd/master/diploma dont care about their rep count (alot laymen seem imho really addicted/biased to this game). They just leave when it gets a waste of time or you have to give them a insulated proposal like theophysics, cstheory or make migration places like http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science for laymen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just looks to me that instead of solving this dilemma artificially by side-proposals it could be solved with SE own rating tools adapted to current state and topic of a community much easier, faster, better and more efficient. Pure democratic 1 user 1 vote works fine with only physicists/programmers(like stackoverflow) or people electing the political direction of a government. But for quality of a topic where serious long education/background knowledge is required &amp; self-teaching doesnt work, it just has to fail. This gap cannot be filled by current set up of SE voting/moderation, esp. with growing laymen number in the long run...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there no technical option to implement something like user reputation &gt; 1000 = 2 upvotes per upvoted question, &gt; 10000 = 3 upvotes per upvoted question?** Voting strength for answers and downvoting questions keeps 1 for all users. Due to the commitment system you have much more experts here than on other Q&amp;A site, but with ongoing exp. growth its my strong belief you will loose them in the long run on popular scientific SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dont worry, i will not hassle any more than this single time, cause it will basically define, if scientific proposals for experts&amp;lawmen on SE have a future for me. Personally i prefer this to experts only proposals, as there is more percolation of topics &amp; users and less divas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="d601112c-4c77-4c89-bc6c-8cff29b93cb3" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:19:56.927" UserId="91" Text="The [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics?referrer=5_bBucz7A70DvVVb-6SmDQ2) is now rather close to launch, having a good number of participants committed. But, its *commitment score* is rather low, in part because people committed over a long period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to help it be launched?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - if you committed, please refresh your commitment: uncommit then re-commit&#xD;&#xA; - if you didn't commit, please consider it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="d601112c-4c77-4c89-bc6c-8cff29b93cb3" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:19:56.927" UserId="91" Text="Theoretical Physics is close to launch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="d601112c-4c77-4c89-bc6c-8cff29b93cb3" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:19:56.927" UserId="91" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="39c1ea3e-f422-48e7-9261-7b924ec13428" CreationDate="2011-09-04T01:06:16.393" UserId="124" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the majority of our questions are not homework questions, there are a few examples that are worth looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12975/observed-angular-velocity&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions are about as close as we get to that ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions are not appropriate for the site, primarily because they don't show any effort put into solving the problem and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="e1278e9c-c00e-4efc-9fa8-7bfe9aa633a1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T03:42:55.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/110196111200886784" />
  <row Id="1921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="0fcb2f6d-e85d-4a64-9a04-288012bc6a4f" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:04:49.153" UserId="91" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="The [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics?referrer=5_bBucz7A70DvVVb-6SmDQ2) is now rather close to launch, having a good number of participants committed. But, its *commitment score* is rather low, in part because people committed over a long period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to help it be launched?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - if you committed, please refresh your commitment: uncommit then re-commit&#xD;&#xA; - if you didn't commit, please consider it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2011-09-05 Edit:** thanks everyone, the commitment score is now much higher (gone from 76% to 90%), and we have a larger number of committers. We're gonna make it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Committers timeline][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nXPTv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="9d950d12-a0f1-43a5-864f-e2240863ec36" CreationDate="2011-09-05T20:51:55.873" UserId="520" Comment="Update a bit" Text="As the proposal is brand new it is hard to be sure, but my first inclination is to guess that everything (or at least very nearly everything) that is on-topic for the proposal will also be on-topic for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the original  two examples with one vote each &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will photoresist [X] work in process [Y], and if not why? *(on-topic)*&#xD;&#xA;* What is your favorite way to bake a vacuum chamber? *(not a great example)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seem to in keeping with our practice on Physics.SE. The newly added example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How should I remove rust/stains from my optics table without compromising its flatness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is well chosen to explore the possible seem between the two proposals. *I* would judge that to be on-topic on Physics&gt;SE, but I am an experimenter. How do other's feel about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I will try to provide examples of several classes of experimental technique and applied physics questions from Physics.SE (and trying to select those that would be interesting to grad students and those further on in their careers in keeping with the proposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jargon (not generally discussed with undergrads)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [What's the difference between inclusive and exclusive decays?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumentation, calibration, and technique&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How 'pure' is liquid nitrogen?][2] (unanswered, however)&#xD;&#xA;* [Fairly Broad Spectrum Light Source Options][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Do high/low pass lenses exist?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [What properties of Germanium make it suitable for Dark Matter detectors?][5]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Measuring concentration][6]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Cleaning Already Mounted Microspheres on an AFM][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data analysis &amp; Computation&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How small of a depletion signal can the best modern mass spectrometers detect?][8] (might have gone in instrumentation as well but the answers dwell on the statistics of the measurement; only partially answered)&#xD;&#xA;* [Efficiency of Metropolis algorithm][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collaboration skills and Culture&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How to communicate institutional knowledge in a big physics collaboration?][10]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [Publication Authorship Credits][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Education at the Graduate Level and Up&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][13]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly there is not as much there as I (an experimenter, after all) would have hoped, but I claim that we are welcoming of these matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't guess at [akeshet][15]'s motive for opening a new proposal (I fear that he dropped by during one of our outbreaks of pop-sci-quantum-philosophers), but I think the questions he envisions would be welcome here and that we have some expertise in these matters already on-baord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit 5-Sept-2011***: Since this discussion I have been trying to take note of those questions on Physics.SE that would be candidates for ExperimentalPhysics.SE (or whatever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [[experimental-technique][16]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[sample-preparation][17]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know what light this sheds on the proposal. Clearly we are still getting very few greasy-handed practical experimental questions; whether that means there&#xD;&#xA;are few that people want to ask the internet of Physics.SE has chased away everyone who wants to ask them I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1217/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9313/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2398/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10395/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13123/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14374/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3346/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5769/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8122/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2979/akeshet&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sample-preparation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="4920aa25-3786-463e-89bf-48ffd8006c81" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:01:45.323" UserId="520" Comment="added 508 characters in body" Text="As the proposal is brand new it is hard to be sure, but my first inclination is to guess that everything (or at least very nearly everything) that is on-topic for the proposal will also be on-topic for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the original  two examples with one vote each &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will photoresist [X] work in process [Y], and if not why? *(on-topic)*&#xD;&#xA;* What is your favorite way to bake a vacuum chamber? *(not a great example)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seem to in keeping with our practice on Physics.SE. The newly added example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How should I remove rust/stains from my optics table without compromising its flatness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is well chosen to explore the possible seem between the two proposals. *I* would judge that to be on-topic on Physics&gt;SE, but I am an experimenter. How do other's feel about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I will try to provide examples of several classes of experimental technique and applied physics questions from Physics.SE (and trying to select those that would be interesting to grad students and those further on in their careers in keeping with the proposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jargon (not generally discussed with undergrads)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [What's the difference between inclusive and exclusive decays?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumentation, calibration, and technique&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How 'pure' is liquid nitrogen?][2] (unanswered, however)&#xD;&#xA;* [Fairly Broad Spectrum Light Source Options][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Do high/low pass lenses exist?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [What properties of Germanium make it suitable for Dark Matter detectors?][5]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Measuring concentration][6]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Cleaning Already Mounted Microspheres on an AFM][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data analysis &amp; Computation&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How small of a depletion signal can the best modern mass spectrometers detect?][8] (might have gone in instrumentation as well but the answers dwell on the statistics of the measurement; only partially answered)&#xD;&#xA;* [Efficiency of Metropolis algorithm][9]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Fitting to a high density scatter plot][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collaboration skills and Culture&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How to communicate institutional knowledge in a big physics collaboration?][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][12]&#xD;&#xA;* [Publication Authorship Credits][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Education at the Graduate Level and Up&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][14]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly there is not as much there as I (an experimenter, after all) would have hoped, but I claim that we are welcoming of these matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't guess at [akeshet][16]'s motive for opening a new proposal (I fear that he dropped by during one of our outbreaks of pop-sci-quantum-philosophers), but I think the questions he envisions would be welcome here and that we have some expertise in these matters already on-baord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit 5-Sept-2011***: Since this discussion I have been trying to take note of those questions on Physics.SE that would be candidates for ExperimentalPhysics.SE (or whatever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [[experimental-technique][17]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[sample-preparation][18]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[data-analysis][19]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[laboratory-safety][20]] which has only been applied to a question that predates this discussion and *isn't* really a graduate+ level question, but the tag would be applicable to some questions that are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know what light this sheds on the proposal. Clearly we are still getting very few greasy-handed practical experimental questions; whether that means there&#xD;&#xA;are few that people want to ask the internet of Physics.SE has chased away everyone who wants to ask them I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1217/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9313/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2398/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10395/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13123/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14374/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3346/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5769/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13408/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8122/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2979/akeshet&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sample-preparation&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/data-analysis&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/laboratory-safety" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="ab9752a0-6d29-42bf-b986-c60ad8b82245" CreationDate="2011-09-07T16:39:42.000" UserId="4864" Text="Here is an example--- the answer claims that a black hole which is less dense than water (in terms of ratio of mass to volume of horizon exterior) will not float in water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5888/how-can-super-massive-black-holes-have-a-lower-density-than-water/14309#comment-34649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="ff6a99c3-ad70-4c7b-8989-550a8a886a8c" CreationDate="2011-09-07T16:48:56.197" UserId="4864" Comment="not true" Text="Here is an example--- the answer claims that a black hole which is less dense than water will not float in water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5888/how-can-super-massive-black-holes-have-a-lower-density-than-water/14309#comment-34649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="4e96d25b-1683-4e7e-81fb-beb72b1c86b0" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:53:03.533" UserId="2146" Text="There are some really bright, talented people here that I would love to know whether they have a PhD, teach etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to send someone a private message here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="4e96d25b-1683-4e7e-81fb-beb72b1c86b0" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:53:03.533" UserId="2146" Text="How do I send private messages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="4e96d25b-1683-4e7e-81fb-beb72b1c86b0" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:53:03.533" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="ec621f2f-ed75-44be-bf9f-d3a847bc1bdf" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:58:57.407" UserId="520" Text="There is [no][1] private [messaging][2] system, [nor will there every be][3]. The team has been [quite firm][4] on this. The mantra is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is not a social network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Options that are available to you][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in a comment (which you should probably delete afterwards)&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in chat&#xD;&#xA;* Looking in the user's profile: people who want to be contacted out-of-band can provide the means there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/4830/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/57203/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/85255/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/431/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57537/how-do-i-contact-other-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="1ad2ceb9-2840-45f0-925d-67a14917e804" CreationDate="2011-09-10T17:39:06.043" UserId="520" Text="Recently we have entertained a new use on Physics.SE (and notably on Astronomy.SE) who has four times posted identical (or nearly so) question to both Physics and Astronomy in short order. (Not that this question is meant to pick on the user in question, just that seeing these posts has brought the situation to the forefront of my attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [I've been known to defend the cross-site duplication of content][1] in the past, but this feels distinctly different to me and offends sensibilities developed many years ago on the Usenet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole I feel we should discourage such intentional duplication, but I am interested to hear what other have to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Remnant of a supernova][2] and [remnant of a supernova][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Rainbow around Sun][4] and [Rainbow around Sun][5]&#xD;&#xA;* [the collision of Phobos][6] and [The collision of Phobos][7]&#xD;&#xA;* [two distant galaxies seen from earth][8] and [Galaxies seen from earth][9] (despite the difference in titles the text is the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/725/what-should-be-sent-to-astronomy-stackexchange/726#726&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14524/remnant-of-a-supernova&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1194/211&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14254/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1138/211&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14212/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1134/211&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1127/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="1ad2ceb9-2840-45f0-925d-67a14917e804" CreationDate="2011-09-10T17:39:06.043" UserId="520" Text="Should users be cross-posting questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="1ad2ceb9-2840-45f0-925d-67a14917e804" CreationDate="2011-09-10T17:39:06.043" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="9cba1412-d579-4aa8-bf1e-291adc16f9db" CreationDate="2011-09-11T22:16:05.230" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="cd5e3b86-d215-4bd0-87ae-b9c36079be0f" CreationDate="2011-09-12T00:08:23.783" UserId="124" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="4d910195-e962-4c4d-8fef-7e96c40e185a" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:34:24.057" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="b8bcf6a6-b50d-4cea-bd9b-8c9af8de3da2" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:35:11.170" UserId="520" Text="Nine questions were tagged [tag:color].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these [seven related to the perceptual values of different frequencies of visible light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/color), and [two related to the characteristic charge of the strong nuclear force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/color-charge). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the time being I have re-tagged the latter as [tag:color-charge], but I am interested in alternate opinions on the correct tagging. Does perceptual color have a well defined place in physics, and if not should we reserve [tag:color] for the quantum number of the quarks? Or is the casual usage so strongly fixed that we should keep the perceptual tag to avoid confusion for beginners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="b8bcf6a6-b50d-4cea-bd9b-8c9af8de3da2" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:35:11.170" UserId="520" Text="Ambiguity in the [color] tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="b8bcf6a6-b50d-4cea-bd9b-8c9af8de3da2" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:35:11.170" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|tags|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="3a4a26b0-8243-4eaf-a1d9-e0ba9048968b" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:44:19.613" UserId="124" Text="Personally I would be in favor of keeping [tag:color] to refer to the optical concept, mostly because doing otherwise is going to confuse the heck out of a lot of people who aren't familiar with QCD. Also, questions about SU(3) color charge usually can be identified well enough with [tag:quantum-chromodynamics], although I wouldn't be opposed to keeping [tag:color-charge] around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope this is not the only answer to be posted)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="567d5d9d-f521-4e29-a77a-b6aeb947c9a1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T04:21:12.513" UserId="1255" Text="I have noticed there is a clear anomaly in how the site counts whether or not you've &quot;visited&quot; in a given day, as displayed on profiles in the visited xx days, xx consecutive part.  Some days that I visit the site it doesn't include it in the count.  Lately I've noticed a calender that shows specifically what days you did and didn't visit - and sure enough - there are recent days I went to the Physics SE bookmark and it didn't register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried this on other SE sites.  I made a bookmark folder that had SE sites for several accounts, and even though I'll visit them all, they will all read &quot;1 consecutive&quot; the next day.  However, if I click through several things and do several things, it registers the activity.  I do not know what it requires in order to count it or not count it and I'd like to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine some people hoping for the gold badge for 100 days visiting might be sourly surprised by site behavior on this account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="567d5d9d-f521-4e29-a77a-b6aeb947c9a1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T04:21:12.513" UserId="1255" Text="How does SE decide to count user visits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="567d5d9d-f521-4e29-a77a-b6aeb947c9a1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T04:21:12.513" UserId="1255" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1943" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="d8819122-7e65-419f-83c3-eae8cb1d2725" CreationDate="2011-09-12T05:54:04.183" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="0a6dda72-8147-47fc-9763-78f76d471d28" CreationDate="2011-09-12T06:35:15.520" UserId="113" Text="- homepage visits are not counted toward this, you must visit an &quot;interior&quot; page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- our day is UTC 00:00:00 to UTC 23:59:59" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="962af9c2-c2f1-49c5-a05a-be163a55c2ee" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:32:10.907" UserId="4864" Text="This question is obvious spam--- it is written by a phony user, it is phrased in an obvious attempt to grab attention, using silly profane acronyms that you have to decipher, and is probably affiliated with the blog it is advertising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10961/gdiwtfu-with-lattice-qcd-and-the-5th-dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be closed, or answered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar questions can be asked about obvious commercial spam (answered, in this case, and probably of interest, but clearly written by an advertizing department):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14502/plenoptic-camera-and-display&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="962af9c2-c2f1-49c5-a05a-be163a55c2ee" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:32:10.907" UserId="4864" Text="This question is obvious spam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="962af9c2-c2f1-49c5-a05a-be163a55c2ee" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:32:10.907" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="18c89625-e59f-4dd3-8d92-1a38ad0b5537" CreationDate="2011-09-12T15:06:25.450" UserId="4864" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This question is spam, it is written by a phony user, it is phrased in an obvious attempt to grab attention, using silly profane acronyms that you have to decipher, but it is asking a legitimate question, and there are interesting things to say about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10961/gdiwtfu-with-lattice-qcd-and-the-5th-dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be closed, or answered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar questions can be asked about obvious commercial spam (answered, in this case, and probably of interest, but clearly written by an advertizing department):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14502/plenoptic-camera-and-display&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="a1fb89e1-1c57-4572-8f8e-0f2e818be77d" CreationDate="2011-09-12T15:57:24.997" UserId="520" Text="Hmmm...I had missed the money quote when I view this previously:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I buy a shirt that says: 5DLQCD or STFU?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="a7c266f4-f866-42ee-8ce6-09111b466aa8" CreationDate="2011-09-12T19:59:23.383" UserId="124" Text="I don't think the question in question is obvious spam, it's just not particularly well written. In a case like this I'd say edit it to clarify it (e.g. expand the acronyms, maybe remove some of the &quot;flowery&quot; language) and answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is so badly written that you can't even make sense of it, then voting to close it is probably more appropriate. If a question contains a completely irrelevant link or URL, use a spam flag instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="127ddbf2-5d1a-4778-9c8e-5f8182bb4ca9" CreationDate="2011-09-13T03:28:55.710" UserId="113" Text="Cross-posting questions across Stack Exchange sites is strongly discouraged. See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/64068/is-it-possible-to-post-questions-across-a-couple-of-the-sites-because-its-debata/64073#64073&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Allowing cross-posting [across the Stack Exchange network] is a slippery slope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you might have slightly better odds of getting an answer by posting it on two sites, well, by gum, why not maximize your odds by posting it on *twenty sites!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some questions which fall into grey areas between sites, and I think it's OK to **ask and delete, then re-ask** if you feel you have asked on the wrong site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But as a general rule, do not cross-post questions, please. Pick a site and go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also ok to ask *two different versions* of a question but you MUST tailor it to the audience on that site. Copying and pasting would put you on the road to account suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there's also the issue of cross-posting on multiple websites that aren't Stack Exchange sites.. so long as you're willing to be *responsible* for the question everywhere you asked it, this can be ok-ish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="8ff69975-0dea-44c4-a535-e58855083696" CreationDate="2011-09-13T20:22:38.917" UserId="2146" Text="Do the moderators have any idea why the user [Marek][1] has suddenly stopped contributing to physics stack exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really miss his brilliant answers and I'm just wondering if Lubos posting about him and Ron in a disrespecful way some time ago on his [blog][2] might have had something to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/329/marek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/unity-and-uniqueness-of-string-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="8ff69975-0dea-44c4-a535-e58855083696" CreationDate="2011-09-13T20:22:38.917" UserId="2146" Text="Why has Marek stopped contributing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="8ff69975-0dea-44c4-a535-e58855083696" CreationDate="2011-09-13T20:22:38.917" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="db6986ac-6e95-4ec7-9c28-f9c09d1c6561" CreationDate="2011-09-14T08:06:16.937" UserId="329" Text="Because I am busy with quite a lot of stuff. But I might get back when things settle down a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Luboš, I don't mind in the slightest since I have been familiar with his overaggressive (at least on the internet) personality for some time now. But this is totally OT, just saying 'cause you asked ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="868032c5-6d9b-40da-ab65-d72b72282f5f" CreationDate="2011-09-14T15:29:26.440" UserId="2525" Text="Now that the how-things-work site has been closed and in spite of some people wishing to raise the standards (ie. make this a meta for Phys Rev Letters) there are a number of questions about the physics of how things such as common machines and appliances work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any consensus on a &quot;how things work&quot; tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps Not really a dupe of http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work - I'm intending this for a &quot;how does an air conditioner work&quot; not a &quot;how does gravity work&quot; type question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="868032c5-6d9b-40da-ab65-d72b72282f5f" CreationDate="2011-09-14T15:29:26.440" UserId="2525" Text="&quot;how things work&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="868032c5-6d9b-40da-ab65-d72b72282f5f" CreationDate="2011-09-14T15:29:26.440" UserId="2525" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="b5c82dd3-216d-4869-a6e3-ecf9c7cdb9d4" CreationDate="2011-09-14T15:41:49.213" UserId="2525" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="Now that the how-things-work site has been closed and in spite of some people wishing to raise the standard, there are a number of questions about the physics of how things such as common machines and appliances work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any consensus on a &quot;how things work&quot; tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps Not really a dupe of http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work - I'm intending this for a &quot;how does an air conditioner work&quot; not a &quot;how does gravity work&quot; type question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="901" RevisionGUID="6acb213c-b582-4a51-a9c1-1bcbac6acad9" CreationDate="2011-09-14T19:10:53.507" UserId="124" Text="Some (many?) of these questions will likely be off topic, in which case the tags probably don't matter... but for the rest, we do have an [tag:everyday-life] tag that I think should cover it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="902" RevisionGUID="eba4c4d5-f54a-4f9c-8598-b8994ea5fac6" CreationDate="2011-09-15T00:01:36.403" UserId="1186" Text="My question has been deleted. Please post it here so I could copy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember the name, but it was about scientific method and boundaries of science and selective measurement that makes the result to appear differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="902" RevisionGUID="eba4c4d5-f54a-4f9c-8598-b8994ea5fac6" CreationDate="2011-09-15T00:01:36.403" UserId="1186" Text="Please recover my closed question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="902" RevisionGUID="eba4c4d5-f54a-4f9c-8598-b8994ea5fac6" CreationDate="2011-09-15T00:01:36.403" UserId="1186" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="9fa62a72-6651-450b-ac88-48f64ea3507a" CreationDate="2011-09-15T00:07:53.320" UserId="124" Text="Here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion natural science is a collectivist tool of research,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invented to improve human's ability to understand nature. Science&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gives people two main advantages which are impossible with other means&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of learning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) The possibility to share and exchange knowledge between researchers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The possibility to construct advanced research instruments which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be impossible or difficult to construct individually or by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; individual's funding.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus the natural science provides huge advantages to the researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it seems that its collectivist nature actually limits its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicability and scope. Even more, there can be situations where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific method leads to controversial and paradoxical results.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, imagine the following setting:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a group of researchers prepared to conduct an experiment with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throwing a coin. But before the experiment each researcher is covertly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cloned: an exact copy of him is created.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then all researchers perform the experiment: a coin is thrown and they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measure to which side the coin fell.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the experiment one clone of each researcher in killed, depending&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on which throwing outcome they observed with those who observe the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coin to fall to side A killed more often than those who observed the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coin to fall to side B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the experiment all survived copies of the researchers meet to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discuss the results. Not knowing that they were cloned they would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conclude that the coin has a potential field that makes it fall to one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side more often than the other. They even can claim it is a new law of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nature based on their experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the assumption that the potential field exists they can calculate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the potential energy of any configuration that involves the coin. But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the cloning of the researchers stops, the researchers will discover&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the disappearance on the apparent field and the violation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conservation of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So my questions are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) How from the point of view of the above-mentioned researchers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explain the apparent violation of the conservation of energy?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Does the potential possibility of the above-mentioned&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result-censoring manipulation invalidate the trust into scientific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) How can we know that the fields and laws which we observe do in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fact exist and are not actually illusions due to result selection?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Namely, can we be confident that the second law of thermodynamics or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statistical properties of radioactive decay are actually laws of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nature rather than a systematic error due to proper selection of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outcomes?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) Does the very ineradicable fact that any quantum measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affects the observer undermine the viability of the scientific method&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on the consensus on the researchers at least in quantum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mechanics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the future, if a question of yours gets closed I suggest you copy the text so you don't have to keep asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="42dfd5e8-8f55-4119-8315-462e30342072" CreationDate="2011-09-17T19:57:37.753" UserId="4541" Text="I have a question about research careers, or rather PhD programmes but I'm not sure if it is on or off topic. From several threads here on meta I gathered that there is no general consensus on these sort of questions yet and that the chat is a good place to ask first before posting a possibly off-topic question. Since however the chat is rather slow at the moment and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/16617/academia&quot;&gt;academia proposal&lt;/a&gt; had not launched yet, I repost my question here. I would suggest posting answers to the question itself in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics&quot;&gt;chat&lt;/a&gt; and answers as to wether my question is on or off topic in this thread.&#xD;&#xA;*(This is my first question on meta. I hope I'm doing this right.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm currently working on my Master's thesis in the field of Heavy Ion Physics. I did some work on a statistical model and am now learning about parton distribution functions, fragmentation functions and a tiny bit about the Color Glass Condensate framework. The goal is to try and apply that knowledge to Pb-Pb collisions. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am very much interested in doing a PhD after I finnish. I would like to do my PhD in a country where I would be required to pay tuition and thus need a specific scholarship. I would be unable to do a PhD in that country without said (or equivalent) scholarship. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My question is: how common it is for physicists to 'change fields' (within physics) between their Master's degree and their PhD degree? I am of course looking for positions where I could do something similar to what I'm doing now. However, I'm open to alternatives. Would it be weird (*read: would it look weird on my application*) to apply for a scholarship for a PhD in e.g. early universe cosmology? I have heard a lecture on GR and one on basic cosmology, but nothing deeper than that. The topic sounds interesting however and I would certainly be willing to learn the required methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="42dfd5e8-8f55-4119-8315-462e30342072" CreationDate="2011-09-17T19:57:37.753" UserId="4541" Text="Questions concerning a career in research on or off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="42dfd5e8-8f55-4119-8315-462e30342072" CreationDate="2011-09-17T19:57:37.753" UserId="4541" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="02dad07e-ce87-4cad-94e2-e43a6e65d730" CreationDate="2011-09-17T20:05:59.497" UserId="520" Text="We have a number of career related questions on the site already, mostly in [tag:soft-questions] and [tag:physics-careers]. They are a bit of mixed bag in terms of being open/closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm of mixed mind about them. I've answered several of them myself, but I would not like to see them become a regular feature of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towards you question, if your country of interest is the USA then many (most?) positions in Ph.D. programs come with tuition support and/or a stipend of some kind or another. (Mind you, *I* didn't have any support for the first year of my graduate studies, but that's on account of my undergrad GPA...) I think much of Europe is similar, though there seems to be considerable variation from country to country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="1d4fc620-1836-4451-a051-dba448003c67" CreationDate="2011-09-20T02:18:25.520" UserId="124" Text="We've had some [sporadic discussions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18/astronomy-astrophyiscs-related-question-here) about how to determine the topic boundary between Astronomy.SE and Physics.SE and what kinds of questions should be transferred over to the astro site. They've also had some discussions on the same topic. So we thought it would be a good idea to get everyone together and work out how to draw the boundary between the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be a chat event in the Astronomy chat room this Friday at 1600 UTC (noon EDT). If you're free at that time, please consider dropping in!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/815/colloquium?tab=schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="1d4fc620-1836-4451-a051-dba448003c67" CreationDate="2011-09-20T02:18:25.520" UserId="124" Text="Astronomy / Physics discussion on topic distinction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="1d4fc620-1836-4451-a051-dba448003c67" CreationDate="2011-09-20T02:18:25.520" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1976" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="24864d8d-2608-42fe-bf81-020ceba81311" CreationDate="2011-09-20T04:00:10.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/115998658822021120" />
  <row Id="1977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="b75aa652-b0e4-4a29-a426-3144efff231c" CreationDate="2011-09-20T21:01:21.267" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|featured|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="0bfa85ae-8e1a-45d8-874b-85a1926b462d" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:00:28.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/116270528343457792" />
  <row Id="1979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="5a2e9c8b-d91c-4907-ac27-9df5b4117df4" CreationDate="2011-09-23T20:26:37.293" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="e177e56a-7611-4828-be1f-c0efbd002328" CreationDate="2011-09-24T01:34:45.077" UserId="4485" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1bnuF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the physics behind this joke?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="e177e56a-7611-4828-be1f-c0efbd002328" CreationDate="2011-09-24T01:34:45.077" UserId="4485" Text="The bar tender says we don't serve tachyons around here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="e177e56a-7611-4828-be1f-c0efbd002328" CreationDate="2011-09-24T01:34:45.077" UserId="4485" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1983" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="7743cbd6-175e-490d-9528-5dc2274497c4" CreationDate="2011-09-24T03:43:34.167" UserId="124" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="d1cd5d64-76b0-48f4-8f36-6942433431e6" CreationDate="2011-09-24T12:37:21.387" UserId="4485" Comment="added 201 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why was [a tachyon walks into a bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;closed? To me is seemed on topic because it asked about the physics in a joke that only physicists would appear to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/the-bar-tender-says-we-dont-serve-tachyons-around-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1985" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="d1cd5d64-76b0-48f4-8f36-6942433431e6" CreationDate="2011-09-24T12:37:21.387" UserId="4485" Comment="added 201 characters in body; edited title" Text="why was this question closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1986" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="bf353ea5-e75a-4cdb-8902-19c64ee2bc44" CreationDate="2011-09-24T18:18:12.990" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="1d6388a9-7b6d-41c5-8602-941c17c7817f" CreationDate="2011-09-24T18:26:43.993" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="2ebcb7b7-57d6-4aa6-ae6d-c1e1bc3cc3d9" CreationDate="2011-09-24T18:29:31.337" UserId="124" Text="To be honest, it seems on topic to me. Not the most insightful question, to be sure, but it does take some knowledge of physics to provide a correct answer. I would like to know why dmckee chose to close it in the first place though (foul mood or not, everything gets done for some reason :-P)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="b770d875-4f28-40f9-8fd8-8aeaba6f9092" CreationDate="2011-09-24T19:40:51.307" UserId="124" Text="Yesterday we had a question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15017/probablistic-problems-in-physics, which I initially closed, but (as Ron pointed out) perhaps I shouldn't have. My reasoning was that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. these questions, or at least their answers, become out of date quickly as the problems are solved (as opposed to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems, student-level problems can't be all that difficult, so they don't last that long)&#xD;&#xA;2. we should at least keep these lists organized and limited in number, to make it clear that these aren't the kinds of questions we want dominating the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that if we allow questions about &quot;open problems in X&quot; for _any_ X it leads to a proliferation of questions, so there should be some limited set of topics that people can ask these questions about (kind of like how the [book recommendations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) are organized by specific subject areas). Probability in physics seems unlikely to be one of those areas. We could have just one big list question for student-level problems in all areas, but it seems like that might be hard to search, especially for someone who has an idea of what area they want to work in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I wanted to get a few more people's input:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the fact that open problems won't be open all that long (my point #1) a reason to disallow &quot;open problems&quot; questions on the site?&#xD;&#xA;- Should we be controlling the number of them by limiting them to certain broad subfields of physics? Or is it just anything goes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="b770d875-4f28-40f9-8fd8-8aeaba6f9092" CreationDate="2011-09-24T19:40:51.307" UserId="124" Text="Questions about student-level problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="b770d875-4f28-40f9-8fd8-8aeaba6f9092" CreationDate="2011-09-24T19:40:51.307" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="a762c3e8-8992-433f-8d89-a7c1c0575dd3" CreationDate="2011-09-25T08:03:54.577" UserId="4864" Text="The reason I thought it should stay open is because the listing of interesting _easy_ open problems is something that the usual literature is very bad at, because people tend to publish difficult conjectures, and just solve the easier ones. But some &quot;easy&quot; problems are very time consuming to solve, because they require simulation, or they require tedious exploration of phase spaces or models with huge case enumeration, and these problems tend to vanish in the literature muck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can serve a useful purpose by listing such problems, and giving people a heads-up where there is interesting work that can be done by someone who is not an expert. There are tons of such problems, they are everywhere around us, but they are hard to see with the blinders that come from years of specialization. So I think these type of questions are useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they are open-ended, but I don't see why that is a problem--- you can make them community wiki, and let them grow naturally, like &quot;common false beliefs&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="83b8d6a1-2b09-4c99-bdb4-e05d9cde3c49" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:21:23.910" UserId="4864" Text="David Zaslavsky has gone about wanting to delete substantive discussions in the comments surrounding certain answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14939/does-godel-preclude-a-workable-toe&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15088/reproducing-the-opera-result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has decided that these discussions are somehow not appropriate. I don't agree with this assessment, but I also feel that it is annoying to delete comments that are not spam or completely off topic. Can somebody trusted decide to get rid of anything? Is this usual policy here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="83b8d6a1-2b09-4c99-bdb4-e05d9cde3c49" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:21:23.910" UserId="4864" Text="Deleting comments without consensus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="83b8d6a1-2b09-4c99-bdb4-e05d9cde3c49" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:21:23.910" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="2ad0c263-e401-4029-ba8a-7de54b81c77d" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:55:37.143" UserId="124" Text="I'll link to the same thing I pointed out in chat and in one of the comment threads in question: as far as I know, this [post from Robert Cartaino](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/614/how-can-we-improve-our-guidance-about-the-comment-practices/617#617) on Christianity Meta details the Stack Exchange policy on comments. In particular, this paragraph is relevant here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But on Stack Exchange, routine cleanup of comments helps enforce the purpose of comments. Comments are there to discuss improvements to the post. When their purpose has been served, they are deleted. When comments drift into conversations, they should be deleted. **It's all part of discouraging comments from becoming mini chat systems...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, unless the people in charge come here and post otherwise, comments are fair game for being deleted after a short time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that the comment threads in question are prone to deletion simply because they developed into extended discussions, not because of any problem with their content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="6d388629-ef1f-4d3d-808f-5e89bfb5408e" CreationDate="2011-09-28T04:56:40.137" UserId="67" Text="Trying to preserve &quot;substantive discussions&quot; in comments goes against the grain of how Stack Exchange is designed. Stack Exchange is designed specifically to make discussions difficult as part of its core functionality. The Physics Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;A site, not a discussion forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some intriguing point is raised in the discourse of a comment thread, sure, you can pursue the question&amp;hellip; but it should be ask as part of another post. **Stack Exchange is not about on-going, unbounded, threaded discussion&amp;hellip; and certainly not in comments.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderators (and community) are acting properly when deleting those comment discussions. But to understand *why* comments are so transient and expendable, you have to understand the core *purpose* of Stack Exchange's behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After someone asks a question, members of the community propose answers. Others vote on those answers. Very quickly, the best answers rise to the top. **You don’t have to read through a lot of discussion to find the best answer.** If an answer can be improved, users can edit the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments help facilitate that wiki-style editing by allowing us to ask for a bit of clarification or otherwise help improve that post. *That's* what comments are for. Period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When users start adding important, useful, and interesting information in the commentary, you break down that structure of &quot;one question, best answer.&quot; You have to comb through all the commentary for import addendums and corrections and partial answers and important bits of information spread throughout. That entirely defeats the purpose of having a Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing inherently wrong with communities that that want free, open-ended discussion and back-and-forth debate. If traditional forums are your choice, there are certainly enough of them out there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on Stack Exchange, routine cleanup of comments helps enforce the *purpose* of comments. Comments are there to discuss improvements to the post. When their purpose has been served, they are deleted. When comments drift into conversations, they should be deleted. And, as @David quoted in his post, it's all part of discouraging comments from becoming mini chat systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are asking simply is not what we do here&amp;hellip; and most like it that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4fef7530-66a8-42dd-90a2-0f063bccd1fc" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:42:53.923" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12502/biology)&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Computational Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/computational-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Congnitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4fef7530-66a8-42dd-90a2-0f063bccd1fc" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:42:53.923" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Consider supporting proposals of other SE science sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4fef7530-66a8-42dd-90a2-0f063bccd1fc" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:42:53.923" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2001" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4fef7530-66a8-42dd-90a2-0f063bccd1fc" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:42:53.923" UserDisplayName="user68" />
  <row Id="2002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="81130da1-8597-452c-baf4-9b8296ab2b80" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:33:30.290" UserId="5450" Text="Just like to drop a note on who I am and what my team does. I'm Seth, a member of the CHAOS (community development and evangelism) team at SE headquarters in New York. We're in the SE sites learning about how awesome the communities are. Much of our efforts are directed towards promoting the site and growing the community in a high quality and organic way. Personally, I have a background in psychology and am excited about tech startups, social psych and progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will post in the meta with ideas we have for promoting Physics and engaging new users. Feel free to send me a note any time with ideas for community events, promotions, problems or lunch ideas. Also, I will pop in to chat regularly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="81130da1-8597-452c-baf4-9b8296ab2b80" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:33:30.290" UserId="5450" Text="Who is this person with a Ψ character and what is the CHAOS team?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="81130da1-8597-452c-baf4-9b8296ab2b80" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:33:30.290" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2005" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="43b49864-7d89-4d07-9080-0a7b8bcaaa62" CreationDate="2011-09-28T22:02:26.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/119170122177978368" />
  <row Id="2006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="5909917a-aa97-4d58-82ea-eba73bbe45ba" CreationDate="2011-09-28T22:20:31.630" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12502/biology)&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Computational Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/computational-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Cognitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="efb6031c-45ee-4dc7-9c43-da9ee34d281f" CreationDate="2011-09-29T09:39:06.507" UserId="97" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12502/biology)&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Computational Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/computational-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Cognitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics)&#xD;&#xA;- [Numerical Modelling and Simulation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1907/numerical-modeling-and-simulation)&#xD;&#xA;- [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="29ffa6ee-3edd-46e8-9708-6d579762245d" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:06:29.897" UserId="5450" Text="StackExchange is looking for students and teachers who might be interested in helping us kick off/formalize a university pizza ambassador-type program. Physics.StackExchange would like to sponsor university students (college or graduate) and faculty members who are excited about Physics, Stack Exchange and free food. Contact Seth Rogers for more details about the program and to get involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="29ffa6ee-3edd-46e8-9708-6d579762245d" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:06:29.897" UserId="5450" Text="Introducing Physics.SE University Ambassadors Program: calling students and teachers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="29ffa6ee-3edd-46e8-9708-6d579762245d" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:06:29.897" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="e02e0319-086c-4412-8325-3357399ee348" CreationDate="2011-09-29T18:22:19.500" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2012" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="8af833a1-b5d2-4826-9730-3ee7a6fefb99" CreationDate="2011-09-29T18:22:35.600" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2013" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="a2d0dbb9-8d53-4e2d-8ee4-fcc53925925e" CreationDate="2011-09-29T19:02:32.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/119487238588473345" />
  <row Id="2014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="75817293-8614-4f2d-889f-e291259a60c2" CreationDate="2011-09-30T01:48:22.263" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="7265ab59-afba-40d6-85b0-62035b1d8a72" CreationDate="2011-09-30T06:30:46.757" UserId="4066" Comment="adding the Green Energy science &amp; engineering site proposal" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12502/biology)&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Computational Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/computational-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Cognitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Green Energy](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy)&#xD;&#xA;- [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics)&#xD;&#xA;- [Numerical Modelling and Simulation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1907/numerical-modeling-and-simulation)&#xD;&#xA;- [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="014de234-a6cf-4b4e-a376-a8b3b1b76d4f" CreationDate="2011-10-02T05:33:17.723" UserId="1492" Text="The questioner chooses what he considers answers his/her question with a tick. In my opinion, though the option of answering ones own question is good, because it allows for clarifications and new thought, the possibility of [choosing your own answer][1] as the best, seems to me, defeats the purpose of the blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly when the chosen answer is being only down voted by the community, while there is a highly approved other answer: it turns the whole thing into a farce. I think ticking one's own answer should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14939/does-godel-preclude-a-workable-toe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="014de234-a6cf-4b4e-a376-a8b3b1b76d4f" CreationDate="2011-10-02T05:33:17.723" UserId="1492" Text="Ticking own question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="014de234-a6cf-4b4e-a376-a8b3b1b76d4f" CreationDate="2011-10-02T05:33:17.723" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="0e01e3c3-4f01-4de7-bf28-337d82b694cc" CreationDate="2011-10-02T06:37:10.377" UserId="124" Text="First of all, it's not a blog, it's a Q&amp;A site. And self-answers should not be used for clarification or new thoughts; that's what the ability to edit is for. Answering a question is only for when you actually have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of having an accepted answer is to indicate how the problem posed in the original question can be solved, for the benefit of future visitors. Sometimes it is the case that you're the first/only one to discover a working solution. In these cases, you have to be able to accept your own answer, otherwise it diminishes the usefulness of the page. Admittedly, this logic applies more readily to programming questions and the like, where problems are more specific to an individual situation and it's easy for the OP to verify whether an answer works or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that when you answer your own question, no reputation is awarded, and it doesn't affect placement of the answer in the list.  So there's no side benefit to self-answering, and in cases when it happens, future visitors to the page will still see the highest voted answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="f97651cf-31b1-455f-a474-a085ebbe4416" CreationDate="2011-10-02T07:09:24.113" UserId="1492" Comment="changed blog to question and answer" Text="The questioner chooses what he considers answers his/her question with a tick. In my opinion, though the option of answering ones own question is good, because it allows for clarifications and new thought, the possibility of [choosing your own answer][1] as the best, seems to me, defeats the purpose of the question and answer forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly when the chosen answer is being only down voted by the community, while there is a highly approved other answer: it turns the whole thing into a farce. I think ticking one's own answer should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14939/does-godel-preclude-a-workable-toe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2021" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="955d31bb-ea5c-4c8d-b1a6-12c661620671" CreationDate="2011-10-03T19:03:00.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/120936908548345856" />
  <row Id="2022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="f0d3bd44-48da-4fdc-872c-1fff0626edb0" CreationDate="2011-10-03T19:21:09.303" UserId="5450" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="StackExchange is looking for students and teachers who might be interested in helping us kick off/formalize a university pizza ambassador-type program. Physics.StackExchange would like to sponsor university students (college or graduate) and faculty members who are excited about Physics, Stack Exchange and free food. Contact Seth Rogers (email seth at stackexchange or drop a note in chat) for more details about the program and to get involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Students at all levels learn from these type of gatherings; interesting questions help Physics as a discipline and Stack Exchange as a growing resource." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="920" RevisionGUID="b0b91c2f-8cb0-433d-a9ae-9b55be37cd9b" CreationDate="2011-10-07T02:28:44.923" UserId="5070" Text="@Herb, physics is a natural science which studies processes whereby substances do not undergo change in their identity. For instance, melting ice is a physical process because it dies not change the identity of the substance water. You can go back and forth from water to ice and back without changing the identity of the substance water. You can even turn it into steam and then condense it back into liquid water. Identity is preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not so when chemical processes take place. Take for instance paper. You can burn it and what you get are ashes which are of a completely different identity compared to the paper you started with. No need to say that you can't convert ashes back to paper. Thus, chemistry is a natural science which studies processes which lead to change in the identities of substances unlike what happens as a result of physical processes.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="3f8ef80f-1abd-498a-b376-5467d8d668b6" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:02:19.507" UserId="124" Text="One area that I've noticed that is missing from our FAQ is an item about computational physics, and use of computers in doing physics research. So far we've been taking the view that general questions about computing are off topic here and should be sent to SO or SU, but that there are certain computing-related questions that [would be on topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions). I'd like to add something to the FAQ to reflect that. Can anyone suggest a good wording that, as clearly as possible, delineates what kinds of computation-related questions we will accept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="3f8ef80f-1abd-498a-b376-5467d8d668b6" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:02:19.507" UserId="124" Text="Computational science in the FAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="3f8ef80f-1abd-498a-b376-5467d8d668b6" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:02:19.507" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="2f209bc1-96e1-469b-a2d3-037e8ffcb3fb" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:18:24.400" UserId="184" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage the most to ask question directly related to one's scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="2f209bc1-96e1-469b-a2d3-037e8ffcb3fb" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:18:24.400" UserId="184" Text="Theoretical Physics SE - a place for research-level questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="2f209bc1-96e1-469b-a2d3-037e8ffcb3fb" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:18:24.400" UserId="184" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2030" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="387c236f-32aa-44cd-9733-ace70dcdf607" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:19:04.633" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="caa372c4-767e-442f-9213-fa668d85b0d5" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:43:01.127" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="In fact those topics do not fit too well on any current SE -- on SO there is a little place for science, on Physics/Stats/Maths is too little place for programming, for TCS this is waaay to trivial and SU is rather for how-to-turn-my-computer-ON questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why there is an [Area proposal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/computational-science), currently half-way in commitment. Since it is quite likely it will get to beta within few months, I think we should just wait -- those Qs are not making enough harm to be in rush." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2032" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="f649f468-b719-4ee7-b401-0566e9ebcdf0" CreationDate="2011-10-07T13:03:34.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/122296003096358914" />
  <row Id="2033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="fe544c11-c986-47a1-965d-f2333d556ede" CreationDate="2011-10-07T18:04:35.287" UserId="74" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="28a6af7e-0e35-497c-93aa-cc37de783c0b" CreationDate="2011-10-07T19:27:57.787" UserId="5450" Text="Stack Exchange will be introducing a Fellowship Program awarding grants for original and independent research projects. Undergraduate Honors Theses, Independent Study Projects, Masters Theses, and Dissertations are eligible projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prospective fellows will be asked to demonstrate a commitment to the discipline, approval or guidance of faculty adviser, two page proposal of the project and abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before officially introducing the Fellowship Program and calling for applications, we need experienced community members to volunteer to review applicants' two page proposals and abstracts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange Fellows will be in the following subjects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Statistics&#xD;&#xA; - Linguistics&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy&#xD;&#xA; - English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested in being a reviewer? Contact Seth Rogers (seth at stackexchange dot com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="28a6af7e-0e35-497c-93aa-cc37de783c0b" CreationDate="2011-10-07T19:27:57.787" UserId="5450" Text="Stack Exchange Fellowship and Grant Program: Looking for reviewers to assess thesis proposals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="28a6af7e-0e35-497c-93aa-cc37de783c0b" CreationDate="2011-10-07T19:27:57.787" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="2955da1c-1257-4261-add5-bab8bb4b3873" CreationDate="2011-10-10T01:06:38.737" UserId="3715" Text="I made a proposal about future studies/futurology (forecasting roughly within 100 years range)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/34955/futurology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;based on personal interest and imho missing place on SE to ask questions concerning climate models (but hopefully climate modeling will just be on sub-topic of this site). It is not intended to ask questions, whether global warming exists etc. But to ask questions about underlying models of environmental/economic/demographic scenarios and assumptions (not more, not less) for forecasting of future developments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there wouldnt be math physics theophys sites on SE, i wouldnt have proposed it, as it would probably get a speculative mess with very low quality. So i would highly appreciate if some of the experts here would participate and help defining the site and draw the scope of answerable and good questions. Its hard, but imho for this topic can only work with a Q&amp;A site with voting system. Ive posted a list of questions, feel free to copy paste some you agree with, so people can vote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im not sure how **theoreticalphysics.SE** will deal with climate modeling theories/math. So maybe this gets a good place to migrate some questions and keeping tp.SE clean ;) from such (political) debates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your interest and input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2038" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="79e2a499-5707-4215-a480-3087155969a8" CreationDate="2011-10-10T01:06:38.737" UserId="3715" />
  <row Id="2039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="3e447e3b-b9cf-4882-8708-faf37ac265c2" CreationDate="2011-10-11T09:37:16.703" UserId="4066" Comment="added Climate Change proposal" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12502/biology)&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Climate Change](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change)&#xD;&#xA;- [Computational Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/computational-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Cognitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Green Energy](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy)&#xD;&#xA;- [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics)&#xD;&#xA;- [Numerical Modelling and Simulation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1907/numerical-modeling-and-simulation)&#xD;&#xA;- [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="abb8a276-8464-4778-b2bf-cecc13e7d527" CreationDate="2011-10-12T19:38:35.630" UserId="5450" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Stack Exchange will be introducing a Fellowship Program awarding grants for original and independent research projects. Undergraduate Honors Theses, Independent Study Projects, Masters Theses, and Dissertations are eligible projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prospective fellows will be asked to demonstrate a commitment to the discipline, approval or guidance of faculty adviser, two page proposal of the project and abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before officially introducing the Fellowship Program and calling for applications, we need experienced community members to volunteer to review applicants' two page proposals and abstracts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange Fellows will be in the following subjects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Statistics&#xD;&#xA; - Linguistics&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy&#xD;&#xA; - English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested in being a reviewer? Contact Seth Rogers (seth at stackexchange dot com). Reviewers are honored as Committee Members and receive a small gift as our way of saying thank you. Keep in mind that this will not take significant amounts of your time as we are very respectful of everyone's busy schedule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="0ed9fc79-0ee8-4dcf-9926-b105304bf4ef" CreationDate="2011-10-13T19:33:35.733" UserId="1255" Text="I think something is too basic if a reasonably-informed Google search will turn up a valid answer on the first page.  I often wonder myself if some of my questions are too basic, like my last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15678/is-mid-water-bouyancy-a-classic-example-of-a-balanced-but-unstable-system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I wrote that, I discovered that Wikipedia does, in fact address it.  But the thing is, it's not addressed specific to what I had in mind, it's not as expansive or detailed as what I was asking for, and it would be hard for someone looking for it to find.  Because of this, I think there's still a lot of value coming out of my question.  But the question of whether or not something is too basic does occur to me a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="9361df79-a48a-4a51-a60c-aa0874264156" CreationDate="2011-10-13T19:36:41.877" UserId="1255" Text="I don't see what's wrong with cross-disciplinary questions, as long as someone is able to make a strong case for the relevance to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="122f46c2-f0bd-497e-9e62-2222e03be17c" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:04:44.137" UserId="5450" Text="What do people think about Physics.SE engaging in some type of partnership with Physicsforums.com? Physics forums has over 3 million posts and 300,000 users and contains a great deal of relevant and high-level threads. SE allows for to the point and census-driven answers to targeted questions in an efficient way- conversely, the forums allow for discussion. Do you have any suggestions for a mutually beneficial relationship or object to the idea? Suggestions perhaps could include a chat room for physics forums users (I don't believe they have chat rooms) that would be non-invasive yet introduce individuals to Physics.SE or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions, objections, no opinion? Of course, what everyone in the community wishes will rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="122f46c2-f0bd-497e-9e62-2222e03be17c" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:04:44.137" UserId="5450" Text="Site partnership proposal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="122f46c2-f0bd-497e-9e62-2222e03be17c" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:04:44.137" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="146151d3-c93b-4998-a4e8-698aa57fa383" CreationDate="2011-10-18T17:47:24.150" UserId="124" Text="We actually [considered](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site/61#61) reaching out to PF early in the site's development, but we got shut down by their moderators. Their opinion appears to be that any mention of a competing site constitutes an advertisement, which is against the rules there. If we could think of some way to create a partnership that they would actually be interested in, I'd certainly love to see that happen, but we haven't had any ideas that seem promising. Even so, I do occasionally send people over to PF when they have particularly discussion-y questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Forums does have a chat room of some sort (I've never participated), but they only open it up for a few hours at a time every few weeks because of the stress it puts on their server." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2047" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="305ad54c-115c-4d40-a2c4-691acb4816d5" CreationDate="2011-10-18T23:25:24.010" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="305ad54c-115c-4d40-a2c4-691acb4816d5" CreationDate="2011-10-18T23:25:24.010" UserId="124" Comment="added 1124 characters in body" Text="We actually [considered](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site/61#61) reaching out to PF early in the site's development, but we got shut down by their moderators. Their opinion appears to be that any mention of a competing site constitutes an advertisement, which is against the rules there. If we could think of some way to create a partnership that they would actually be interested in, I'd certainly love to see that happen, but we haven't had any ideas that seem promising. Even so, I do occasionally send people over to PF when they have particularly discussion-y questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Forums does have a chat room of some sort (I've never participated), but they only open it up for a few hours at a time every few weeks because of the stress it puts on their server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I've been thinking of a couple of things we could possibly offer Physics Forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As in my comment, every once in a while I'll see someone asking a question on PF which is addressed quite well by a question on Physics.SE. In those cases it would be great to be able to post a link to the relevant PSE question in the PF thread.&#xD;&#xA;- PF occasionally gets people who, though not trained physics researchers, have ideas they are interested in publishing and are looking for feedback on the work. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541503)) Ever since their Independent Research subforum was shut down, there is no appropriate place on their site for those kinds of discussions, but some of them can be accommodated here. In particular, either this site or theoreticalphysics.SE could accept questions about what prior research has been done in a particular field, and our chat room could be a good place for people who are legitimately interested in getting feedback about their ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making this community wiki so that other people can add items to the list as they think of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="e8ec79de-8ddd-4169-93b2-23b7be3eac61" CreationDate="2011-10-18T23:37:53.337" UserId="124" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="We actually [considered](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site/61#61) reaching out to PF early in the site's development, but we got shut down by their moderators. Their opinion appears to be that any mention of a competing site constitutes an advertisement, which is against the rules there. If we could think of some way to create a partnership that they would actually be interested in, I'd certainly love to see that happen, but we haven't had any ideas that seem promising. Even so, I do occasionally send people over to PF when they have particularly discussion-y questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Forums does have a chat room of some sort (I've never participated), but they only open it up for a few hours at a time every few weeks because of the stress it puts on their server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I've been thinking of a couple of things we could possibly offer Physics Forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As in my comment, every once in a while I'll see someone asking a question on PF which is addressed quite well by a question on Physics.SE. In those cases it would be great to be able to post a link to the relevant PSE question in the PF thread.&#xD;&#xA;- PF occasionally gets people who, though not trained physics researchers, have ideas they are interested in publishing and are looking for feedback on the work. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541503)) Ever since their Independent Research subforum was shut down, there is no appropriate place on their site for those kinds of discussions, but some of them can be accommodated here. In particular, either this site or theoreticalphysics.SE could accept questions about what prior research has been done in a particular field, and our chat room could be a good place for people who are legitimately interested in getting feedback about their ideas.&#xD;&#xA;- The General Discussion forum gets a number of non-physics-related questions that are (or could be) addressed by other Stack Exchange sites. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541776), would be great for money.SE) Once people at PF are aware of the Stack Exchange network through this site, they might also be interested in making use of other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making this community wiki so that other people can add items to the list as they think of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="fe6712b7-92ba-4959-8ff0-e4bd65c2c9b0" CreationDate="2011-10-20T16:58:48.427" UserId="1255" Text="I have no Earthly what you are proposing, technically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, of course I'm in favor.  I'll go make an account right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="0f02227d-03ed-4c79-8f75-ca7486d7c5ac" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:07:08.180" UserId="1255" Text="Many of you should be familiar with the theoretical physics stack exchange (and current beta), and are probably familiar with the arguments against that proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone who's focused basically on classical physics, myself, I've been wondering if there *is* a better way to break things up.  Firstly, a large part of the problem is that we have so many remedial level questions and homework questions.  I wonder if the needs for such a breakup could be better served by leaving *this* physics SE as the &quot;theoretical&quot; physics SE (and by many accounts, I think this is already the best term to describe it), and create a new stack exchange focused around exchanging and answering physics problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By doing this, we could expand the scope of physics in stack exchange (something I think is missing in the other proposal), meaning that we could loosen the acceptance criteria for physics problems.  I think that a physics problems stack exchange would have great utility to teachers as a problem bank, for students in classes, and for practice in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="0f02227d-03ed-4c79-8f75-ca7486d7c5ac" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:07:08.180" UserId="1255" Text="How about a &quot;physics problems&quot; stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="0f02227d-03ed-4c79-8f75-ca7486d7c5ac" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:07:08.180" UserId="1255" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="41364847-f053-42a0-87fe-dd23c7d3ca2d" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:49:45.983" UserId="124" Text="I don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The physics community at Stack Exchange is already fragmented, and introducing a whole new site will just divide people's attention further. Alternatively, if one of this site or TP.SE is going to disappear, it's going to be this one.&#xD;&#xA;- The kinds of problems you're talking about treating at this new site, namely homework-like problems, are really just not suitable for the Stack Exchange format, unless they're carefully written. Homework-like problems usually require a discussion, because students tend to be unsure of their work and you have to give them step-by-step hints and explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you say that we have a problem of too many remedial-level questions, but I don't think that's true. I look at the front page of the question list and I see very few questions which I'd consider &quot;remedial&quot; (i.e. so basic that they are of essentially no value). If you want to say that we have some low-level questions, then sure, we do, but that's not a problem. One of the goals of this site from day one has been that physics questions of any level are acceptable as long as they're well formulated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2055" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="7226dd9d-9907-47b8-8ac7-afff7908247e" CreationDate="2011-10-20T23:27:26.587" UserId="5450" Comment="edited title" Text="Site partnership suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="ed600dbe-65e5-4e32-9d4a-5493870de4e8" CreationDate="2011-10-21T00:47:30.277" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="885218b9-f35c-4d5f-8c06-9500a5e01371" CreationDate="2011-10-21T00:53:57.880" UserId="2911" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="What do people think about Physics.SE engaging in some type of partnership with Physicsforums.com? Physics forums has over 3 million posts and 300,000 users and contains a great deal of relevant and high-level threads. SE allows for to the point and consensus-driven answers to targeted questions in an efficient way- conversely, the forums allow for discussion. Do you have any suggestions for a mutually beneficial relationship or object to the idea? Suggestions perhaps could include a chat room for physics forums users (I don't believe they have chat rooms) that would be non-invasive yet introduce individuals to Physics.SE or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions, objections, no opinion? Of course, what everyone in the community wishes will rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="cd2aa540-c78c-458a-bc00-44db6a05da6b" CreationDate="2011-10-21T14:11:25.907" UserId="4491" Text="Questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16005/what-is-the-potential-difference-between-point-x-and-point-y/16010#16010) are potentially on-topic on Electrical Engineering. However, that question is a little too basic for most of our users, and we don't get a lot of homework questions as it seems you do per [this meta post on homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [&quot;no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework/211#211).  We do occasionally get questions which seem to be from people learning about electricity in physics classes, though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an example of a good, on-topic question on Physics?  Where do you draw the line between questions like this (which is just a voltage divider attached to some voltage sources) and off-topic problems better suited for another site like Electrical Engineering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want us to refer questions like this to your site, or do you want to refer questions like this to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a heads up: that question just got [tweeted](http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/127370402174472192), so make sure it's nice and pretty according to your standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="cd2aa540-c78c-458a-bc00-44db6a05da6b" CreationDate="2011-10-21T14:11:25.907" UserId="4491" Text="Is this an example of a good electrical question on Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="cd2aa540-c78c-458a-bc00-44db6a05da6b" CreationDate="2011-10-21T14:11:25.907" UserId="4491" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="7c0da402-767d-47a6-9e66-f556d3a69821" CreationDate="2011-10-21T14:25:35.947" UserId="4491" Text="I saw an ad in the top banner when I visited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could just as easily be an ad for this site.  If Physicsforums.com is an important site, sponsoring an ad there would be a good way to drive traffic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps [CHAOS](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/100137/what-is-the-meaning-of-chaos-is-it-related-to-the-psi-character) should get involved in this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gsdMM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="9cae55d4-7194-43d8-a4a7-4a69e60a6ab2" CreationDate="2011-10-22T22:09:53.640" UserId="124" Text="Seeing as how nobody else has piped in here: a question like this is **on topic** at this site, but **not a good question**, at least not as of revision 2 (before I edited it just now). It was one of those questions which presents a homework problem and then basically says &quot;I'm confused&quot; without any attempt to explain what exactly is causing the confusion. My edit (based on information the OP provided in a comment) improves it enough to save it from being close-worthy IMO, but it's still not great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been my understanding that EE.SE is mostly for questions about building and analyzing systems out of complex electronic components, not just simple circuits. Given that simple circuits are discussed in most introductory electromagnetism (physics) classes, I would say it's generally fine for you to migrate questions about them over here. If they wind up having quality problems such that we need to edit them or close them, that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, by &quot;simple circuits&quot; I mean anything involving only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- batteries&#xD;&#xA;- generators or other AC sources&#xD;&#xA;- resistors (including devices which act as resistors, such as light bulbs)&#xD;&#xA;- capacitors&#xD;&#xA;- inductors&#xD;&#xA;- ammeters and voltmeters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, diodes and transistors are not treated in most physics classes, at least not as circuit elements. Questions about how those components work at the subatomic level are on topic here at PSE, but questions about the behavior of circuits which include transistors or diodes are likely not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any question which refers to a specific make and model of electronic component is also almost certainly off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about something, you can always leave a message in [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="0637ff43-882a-435c-9177-ebb878f3c956" CreationDate="2011-10-22T22:17:25.333" UserId="124" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Seeing as how nobody else has piped in here: a question like this is **on topic** at this site, but **not a good question**, at least not as of revision 2 (before I edited it just now). It was one of those questions which presents a homework problem and then basically says &quot;I'm confused&quot; without any attempt to explain what exactly is causing the confusion. My edit (based on information the OP provided in a comment) improves it enough to save it from being close-worthy IMO, but it's still not great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been my understanding that EE.SE is mostly for questions about building and analyzing systems out of complex electronic components, not just simple circuits. Given that simple circuits are discussed in most introductory electromagnetism (physics) classes, I would say it's generally fine for you to migrate questions about them over here. If they wind up having quality problems such that we need to edit them or close them, that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, by &quot;simple circuits&quot; I mean anything involving only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- batteries or other DC sources (though in physics &quot;battery&quot; is used to refer to a generic DC source)&#xD;&#xA;- generators or other AC sources&#xD;&#xA;- resistors (including devices which act as resistors, such as light bulbs)&#xD;&#xA;- capacitors&#xD;&#xA;- inductors&#xD;&#xA;- ammeters and voltmeters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, diodes and transistors are not treated in most physics classes, at least not as circuit elements. Questions about how those components work at the subatomic level are on topic here at PSE, but questions about the behavior of circuits which include transistors or diodes are likely not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any question which refers to a specific make and model of electronic component is also almost certainly off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about something, you can always leave a message in [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="918d2209-0191-4b03-9082-6c925cc649ba" CreationDate="2011-10-24T02:16:24.447" UserId="5834" Text="Today I had a question closed, about some researches of Dr. Bruce de Palma, in &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16092/depalma-free-energy-fields&gt;. The reason of closing the question was &quot;This work bears all the hallmarks of being completely bogus, and accordingly I think this needs to be closed as off topic. If people disagree, this can be discussed on Physics Meta.&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think the question should not be closed, due to what I really desired to discover is if these researches are or not false. There are uncountable unformal references to N-Machine by De Palma, but it's difficult to find formal references online in scientific databases (and sure they could be offline hidden in universities papers). Maybe I did not write the question clearly, so I could re-write it. So, is this site the right place for asking this kind of thing? Thank you for you time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="918d2209-0191-4b03-9082-6c925cc649ba" CreationDate="2011-10-24T02:16:24.447" UserId="5834" Text="Question about a not well-known researcher (Depalma Free Energy fields)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="918d2209-0191-4b03-9082-6c925cc649ba" CreationDate="2011-10-24T02:16:24.447" UserId="5834" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="937" RevisionGUID="ba13fc77-376d-437c-afd2-11125c696d9e" CreationDate="2011-10-24T03:02:16.167" UserId="520" Text="I've never heard of of this person nor this machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That in and of itself means almost nothing, but combined with the web sites which appear to be self citations and the rather strong claim of &quot;free energy&quot; I am skeptical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toward finding reputable references&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Try arXiv.com for recent papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the arXiv is not peer reviewed and has only the weakest of gate-keeping, so if you find some papers there look to see if they have attached publication data pointing to a reputable, peer reviewed journal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also look at the cited-by list to find links from peer reviewed papers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="30c79062-b561-454b-ba06-3d9a32a87121" CreationDate="2011-10-24T14:56:03.523" UserId="2146" Text="Yes, that's a good question because there's a lot of physics in a good answer to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - what is potential difference?&#xD;&#xA; - how do we measure it?&#xD;&#xA; - How does a charge lose energy travelling through a resistance?&#xD;&#xA; - can a charge be taken through a battery?&#xD;&#xA; - why do we sum voltages to find the total voltage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="f349ea1a-959a-468e-92ff-54350e2e6690" CreationDate="2011-10-24T22:59:58.483" UserId="5810" Text="Can I report someone for going to each question I asked and downvoting then, because every question on every site I have asked has gotten down voted with in 5 minutes of each other.I mean just saying that if i even get a single more downvote on a question i'll probably lose the privlege of asking questions on some stuff  need help with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="f349ea1a-959a-468e-92ff-54350e2e6690" CreationDate="2011-10-24T22:59:58.483" UserId="5810" Text="spamming users with downvotes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="f349ea1a-959a-468e-92ff-54350e2e6690" CreationDate="2011-10-24T22:59:58.483" UserId="5810" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="32806c4e-6785-496e-9911-053f47fc24e7" CreationDate="2011-10-24T23:07:55.753" UserId="124" Text="To copy from the comment I left you: the Stack Exchange system automatically reverses runs of apparent &quot;revenge downvoting&quot;. If the downvotes don't disappear within 36 hours, send an email to team@stackexchange.com identifying the questions that are still downvoted. There isn't anything that we (moderators) can do about it, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in more detail on the main meta site, for example [this answer](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/23005/preventing-users-from-downvoting-good-answers-to-bad-questions/23010#23010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you can't lose the privilege of asking questions due to reputation. All users, even those with 1 reputation, can ask questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="7a0b871f-6e1f-4143-9d7c-fde285852d94" CreationDate="2011-10-25T19:26:16.683" UserId="124" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific physics questions answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="2bc6d520-bd3a-45d9-a1b5-1150855a4f10" CreationDate="2011-10-26T14:59:47.797" UserId="1255" Text="I have plenty of physics jokes to share myself, unfortunately, this isn't in the physics SE scope.  Your link doesn't work, but don't you have it backwards?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bartender says &quot;we don't serve tachyons in this bar&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tachyon walks into a bar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="d492518c-ea55-4377-88e0-ef1929d98caa" CreationDate="2011-10-26T15:19:13.717" UserId="5450" Text="The mission of Stack Exchange is to make the internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. The Stack Exchange Fellowship Program aims to support students conducting research in subjects related to our academic Q&amp;A sites in order to (a) increase the quality of information in a particular subject and (b) facilitate the exchange of information between experts in the field. Individual awards range from 250 to 1000 dollars (USD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants should be advanced undergraduate, graduate students or professionals pursuing research related to one the following Stack Exchange sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - English&#xD;&#xA; - Linguistics&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Statistics  &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical Computer Science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis starting immediately. For more details and to apply, check out the [application][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are also accepting volunteers from the community to help review applications. Volunteers should have some level of expertise in the subject area (professors and those who have or are pursuing advanced degrees are ideal candidates). Following the first wave of submissions, those selected to be Stack Exchange Fellows will be asked to review 3 to 4 new applications. To facilitate the review process, reviewers will rate applications on several scales instead of making judgments on funding. You can find the Reviewer Form [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers and successful candidates are encouraged to customize the &quot;about me&quot; section of the user profile by including information on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Area of expertise and current occupation &#xD;&#xA; 2. Key academic goals/milestones&#xD;&#xA; 3. Role in the Fellowship program (applicant, reviewer, fellow, both)&#xD;&#xA; 4. SE grant project, if applicable &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions regarding the Fellowship Program, or would like more information about applying or becoming a reviewer, please email *academics@stackexchange.com*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/SE%20Fellowship%20Application.docx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/Reviewer%20Sheet.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="d492518c-ea55-4377-88e0-ef1929d98caa" CreationDate="2011-10-26T15:19:13.717" UserId="5450" Text="Introducing Stack Exchange Research Support and Fellowship Program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="d492518c-ea55-4377-88e0-ef1929d98caa" CreationDate="2011-10-26T15:19:13.717" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="a366ac0f-5e21-41fe-9995-05f936dea51f" CreationDate="2011-10-26T21:49:26.930" UserId="4485" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Why was [we don't serve tachyons around here][1]&#xD;&#xA;closed? To me is seemed on topic because it asked about the physics in a joke that only physicists would appear to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15021/the-bar-tender-says-we-dont-serve-tachyons-around-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="ffb705a2-2e97-4223-9389-dfd111e5c714" CreationDate="2011-10-27T16:41:54.080" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Every now and again we get good questions in the new theoretical physics site, which are nevertheless not part of our mandate. Those are questions that are not directly research-related, perhaps they are related to standard textbook material, or popular science articles or books, or something else which I feel (as a moderator) are outside the scope of our site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I judge a question to be interesting and well-formed, but otherwise inappropriate, I'd like to be able to direct it to this site, and hope it will be treated well. I've done that once thus far, with this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16149/what-are-some-predictions-from-string-theory-that-say-some-crystalline-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which received no answers and one strange comment, but it is only a sample of one so far. Apparently, when I direct questions here they appear immediately, without the local moderator input. Therefore, before I continue to add to this site potentially unwanted material, I'd like some feedback from this community whether directing questions here in the future is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="ffb705a2-2e97-4223-9389-dfd111e5c714" CreationDate="2011-10-27T16:41:54.080" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="Shall I direct questions here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="ffb705a2-2e97-4223-9389-dfd111e5c714" CreationDate="2011-10-27T16:41:54.080" UserDisplayName="user566" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="b6fb5f76-7275-4828-8ca6-9c800785e95a" CreationDate="2011-10-27T16:50:43.427" UserDisplayName="user566" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Every now and again we get good questions in the new theoretical physics site, which are nevertheless not part of our mandate. Those are questions that are not directly research-related, perhaps they are related to standard textbook material, or popular science articles or books, or something else which I feel (as a moderator) are outside the scope of our site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I judge a question to be interesting and well-formed, but otherwise inappropriate, I'd like to be able to direct it to this site, and hope it will be treated well. I've done that once thus far, with this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16149/what-are-some-predictions-from-string-theory-that-say-some-crystalline-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which received no answers and one strange comment, but it is only a sample of one so far. Apparently, when I direct questions here they appear immediately, without the local moderator input. Therefore, before I continue to add to this site potentially large amount of unwanted material, I'd like some feedback from this community whether directing questions here in the future is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="4abd1896-9c63-4052-93d9-8014efc40f2d" CreationDate="2011-10-27T17:04:45.723" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Go on, but don't expect migrates in the opposite direction, since this site is still for questions from all levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="c6dac379-c509-4a9d-9d0b-a2d835773aec" CreationDate="2011-10-27T17:22:57.623" UserId="5450" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The mission of Stack Exchange is to make the internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. The Stack Exchange Fellowship Program aims to support students conducting research in subjects related to our academic Q&amp;A sites in order to (a) increase the quality of information in a particular subject and (b) facilitate the exchange of information between experts in the field. Individual awards range from 250 to 1000 dollars (USD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants should be advanced undergraduate, graduate students or professionals pursuing research related to one the following Stack Exchange sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - English&#xD;&#xA; - Linguistics&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Statistics  &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical Computer Science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis starting immediately. For more details and to apply, check out the [application][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are also accepting volunteers from the community to help review applications. Volunteers should have some level of expertise in the subject area (professors and those who have or are pursuing advanced degrees are ideal candidates). Following the first wave of submissions, those selected to be Stack Exchange Fellows will be asked to review 3 to 4 new applications. To facilitate the review process, reviewers will rate applications on several scales instead of making judgments on funding. You can find the Reviewer Form [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers and successful candidates are encouraged to customize the &quot;about me&quot; section of the user profile by including information on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Area of expertise and current occupation &#xD;&#xA; 2. Key academic goals/milestones&#xD;&#xA; 3. Role in the Fellowship program (applicant, reviewer, fellow, both)&#xD;&#xA; 4. SE grant project, if applicable &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions regarding the Fellowship Program, or would like more information about applying or becoming a reviewer, please email *academics@stackexchange.com*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited: Applications accepted on a rolling basis until December 31, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/SE%20Fellowship%20Application.docx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/Reviewer%20Sheet.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="fba346ea-8ee8-485a-a247-7af9a5262b9a" CreationDate="2011-10-27T17:51:41.580" UserId="124" Text="In general, I'd say you can safely go ahead and migrate them. Since the domain of TP.SE is a subspace of that of Physics.SE, anything that is only slightly off topic on your site will almost certainly be on topic here. Honestly, from what I've seen so far on TP.SE I suspect it will be very rare that anything posted there will actually be inappropriate for migration to Physics (except for spam or obvious nonsense, which you can of course recognize as such).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, if you do migrate something that for some reason is not appropriate, it's not hard to deal with; we can just close it, or reverse the migration by deleting the question here and clearing the migration history on TP. If there's something you're not sure about, you can always ask in [chat], or migrate it and flag the migrated question here on Physics for moderator attention. (I usually flag questions that I migrate to other sites as a courtesy to the moderators there, but it's not required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The one question you migrated so far seems perfectly fine here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="481486b5-b0f1-45ec-8f52-92f3b40d9272" CreationDate="2011-10-27T18:07:08.597" UserId="124" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="In general, I'd say you can safely go ahead and migrate them. Since the domain of TP.SE is a subspace of that of Physics.SE, anything that is only slightly off topic on your site will almost certainly be on topic here. Honestly, from what I've seen so far on TP.SE I suspect it will be very rare that anything posted there will actually be inappropriate for migration to Physics (except for spam or obvious nonsense, which you can of course recognize as such).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, if you do migrate something that for some reason is not appropriate, it's not hard to deal with; we can just close it, or reverse the migration by deleting the question here and clearing the migration history on TP. If there's something you're not sure about, you can always ask in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics), or migrate it and flag the migrated question here on Physics for moderator attention. (I usually flag questions that I migrate to other sites as a courtesy to the moderators there, but it's not required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The one question you migrated so far seems perfectly fine here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="946" RevisionGUID="afdcb55f-fbeb-4705-b0a8-387455e99161" CreationDate="2011-10-27T23:41:12.720" UserId="124" Text="I've been thinking about this and I haven't really been able to justify the closing to myself particularly well, so I went back and reopened it, but with some edits to clarify the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to questions about bogus research, even just to ask whether the claims make sense. On one hand any mention of such research that isn't shut down immediately can be exploited by the crackpots to try to increase their legitimacy, but on the other hand it is nice to be able to inform people about the true nature of these claims. Ordinarily I've been on the side of letting the questions stay, but the way yours was written, it seemed especially iffy... I'm not sure exactly why though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="2d17e415-c7b6-4f51-9ab2-20066115b2e3" CreationDate="2011-10-28T15:38:51.073" UserId="5450" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="The mission of Stack Exchange is to make the internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. The Stack Exchange Fellowship Program aims to support students conducting research in subjects related to our academic Q&amp;A sites in order to (a) increase the quality of information in a particular subject and (b) facilitate the exchange of information between experts in the field. Individual awards range from 250 to 1000 dollars (USD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants should be advanced undergraduate, graduate students or professionals pursuing research related to one the following Stack Exchange sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [English][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Linguistics][2]&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Statistics][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Physics][4]  &#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis starting immediately. For more details and to apply, check out the [application][6]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are also accepting volunteers from the community to help review applications. Volunteers should have some level of expertise in the subject area (professors and those who have or are pursuing advanced degrees are ideal candidates). Following the first wave of submissions, those selected to be Stack Exchange Fellows will be asked to review 3 to 4 new applications. To facilitate the review process, reviewers will rate applications on several scales instead of making judgments on funding. You can find the Reviewer Form [here][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers and successful candidates are encouraged to customize the &quot;about me&quot; section of the user profile by including information on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Area of expertise and current occupation &#xD;&#xA; 2. Key academic goals/milestones&#xD;&#xA; 3. Role in the Fellowship program (applicant, reviewer, fellow, both)&#xD;&#xA; 4. SE grant project, if applicable &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions regarding the Fellowship Program, or would like more information about applying or becoming a reviewer, please email *academics@stackexchange.com*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited: Applications accepted on a rolling basis until December 31, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/q/2077/13231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/202/344&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/q/988/6064&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/SE%20Fellowship%20Application.docx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/Reviewer%20Sheet.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="f46e7525-4c04-4ff4-b9a5-908e81cfa954" CreationDate="2011-10-31T05:43:40.947" UserId="2433" Text="I don't downvote much - I think the comment interface is very useful in pointing out errors and what can be sorted in improving the question or answer.  Most of my downvotes come in response to a flagrant violation of the FAQ, or a very poorly formatted or researched " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="367a3323-6f99-41ca-a1b7-524aaa29d8fd" CreationDate="2011-10-31T05:54:06.223" UserId="2433" Comment="added rest of answer!" Text="I don't downvote much - I think the comment interface is very useful in pointing out errors and what can be sorted in improving the question or answer.  Most of my downvotes come on questions in response to a flagrant violation of the questioning rules, or a very poorly formatted or researched question, and this is mostly to attempt to correct the behavior of the questioner.  It is perhaps &quot;mean,&quot; but we work in a field where people are tasked with shooting us down all of the time, so we better get used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other side, I don't upvote very often either.  I try to limit my upvoting to only those answers which I could have answered myself.  When I first starting coming to SE, it seemed like quite a lot of the questions lived in string theory or high energy particle topics, which I have not studied, and am not expert in, so except in the clearest cases, I simply do not know without substantial side research (that I do not have time to conduct!) if someone is correct or not.  With physics becoming increasingly specialized, it becomes difficult to accrue points if others are not expert in your topic, and can't say with confidence if you are correct or not, and therefore don't upvote.  So, presuming others think like I, this could be a reason.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="55331c02-ae91-4669-9003-9b55383ea175" CreationDate="2011-10-31T21:12:21.270" UserId="124" Text="I've been thinking a Feynman diagram of Higgs decay or neutrinoless double beta decay would be _great_ for the 404 page, if we get to customize it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Higgs to 4l decay via a top quark loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Higgs to 4l decay][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neutrinoless double beta decay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![neutrinoless double beta decay](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Double_beta_decay_feynman.svg/500px-Double_beta_decay_feynman.svg.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the former is my own creation, the latter is public domain from Wikipedia, so either of these could be used directly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark matter or a magnetic monopole would also be decent possibilities but I can't think of a visual representation of either that carries as much &quot;punch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sYvph.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2092" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="a73eacf2-c2cb-4644-a991-dfae033e619a" CreationDate="2011-10-31T21:12:21.270" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="bd072111-61e9-4678-b5c8-2d5911852a48" CreationDate="2011-11-01T16:00:42.073" UserId="2735" Text="What is the favicon of the site supposed to represent? My initial impressions are that it looks like a partially unrolled condom. I'm not trying to be a troll, but I just don't see it making a good first impression. Am I missing something obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="bd072111-61e9-4678-b5c8-2d5911852a48" CreationDate="2011-11-01T16:00:42.073" UserId="2735" Text="what is the Favicon supposed to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="bd072111-61e9-4678-b5c8-2d5911852a48" CreationDate="2011-11-01T16:00:42.073" UserId="2735" Text="|discussion|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="87eb7047-db03-4110-9e77-535332c5f1e4" CreationDate="2011-11-01T16:12:41.900" UserId="520" Text="I believe that it is intended to be [the so-called *&quot;Mexican hat&quot;* potential][1] that plays an important role in [Goldstone style spontaneous symmetry breaking][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Mathematical_example:_the_Mexican_hat_potential&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_boson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="7c2c8e1c-bbea-4c05-be61-8586bfea0d5b" CreationDate="2011-11-02T21:34:48.653" UserId="124" Text="A recent question on the site, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16474/is-there-any-anti-gravity-material, has been generating a lot of controversy as to whether it is appropriate or not. I'm personally a little torn on how a question like this should be handled, so I would like to pose the following questions to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the question _as currently written_ inappropriate for the site? Should it be closed? If so, which of the existing close reasons (exact duplicate, off topic, not constructive, not a real question, too localized) applies to it, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes, how could the question be written differently so that it _would_ be acceptable? Or do you think we should not allow any questions about the possibility of a material that responds negatively to gravity? And why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="7c2c8e1c-bbea-4c05-be61-8586bfea0d5b" CreationDate="2011-11-02T21:34:48.653" UserId="124" Text="Asking about anti-gravity: what is the problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="7c2c8e1c-bbea-4c05-be61-8586bfea0d5b" CreationDate="2011-11-02T21:34:48.653" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="01d0c925-5da4-4ea7-a159-b909586367c9" CreationDate="2011-11-02T22:41:58.250" UserId="520" Text="I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with t[he Logo turtle question][1] and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xD;&#xA;But recently [Jeff disagreed][2], and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained [some][3] questions [about][4] physics for which there is [sparse][5] experimental evidence or [theoretical support][6]. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputation (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="9ce42922-0e48-4ca2-a9c7-ac38a4295306" CreationDate="2011-11-03T01:19:10.410" UserId="5827" Text="Categorizing a question as &quot;too simple&quot; is not the way to go. Along the same lines, thumbing down somebody for a poorly formulated question is also not cool. If you don't want to answer, leave it alone, why berate somebody who is just here to learn? Some people don't do their homework, so what? Just point them in the right direction and call it a day. The question posed does allude to dubious experiments and dodgy science, but that does not mean that the question should not be explored? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would request re-opening that thread and editing the question if need be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="4d7274df-b48f-40fa-8ebc-7b90a36cd67d" CreationDate="2011-11-03T16:13:42.387" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with t[he Logo turtle question][1] and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xD;&#xA;But recently [Jeff disagreed][2], and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained [some][3] questions [about][4] physics for which there is [sparse][5] experimental evidence or [theoretical support][6]. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputable (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="a2913174-b383-421c-a24e-b6645c1dc4a2" CreationDate="2011-11-04T13:27:42.857" UserId="5931" Text="Maybe too simple is not quite the right category to exclude the question about anti-gravity. If the the problem is simple or not mostly depends on your level of knowledge in physics which can range almost from zero to graduate studies level. &lt;p&gt;Looking at the question the person asking it writes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am thinking of making flying vehicles which is made up of anti-gravity material so that it will not experience any gravity on it and can easily take off and more fuel efficient. Is there any such thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is implied that some thought went into this, but that is simply not true. Just typing &quot;anti-gravity&quot; into Google or Wikipedia and the first hit is a nice and well written article mentioning that no such material has been found and that there is currently a reward of 1 million US dollars for anybody finding such a material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion it is an abuse of this site to ask questions where it is obvious that no own thought or effort went into it at all. This is similar to the current disapproval of homework-like questions without any own effort. The physics part of stackexchange is in this aspect not so different to the other stackexchange sites. A question like &quot;I am thinking of creating my own OS but have trouble finding a processor which has a Ruby compiler builtin, is there a workaround?&quot; would certainly be downvoted or deleted because it clearly shows that you did not read anything at all about an operating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be added to the FAQ of this site that question with show no own research effort will be closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="153679c2-dd48-431e-b5ef-f491d7781b9c" CreationDate="2011-11-07T08:37:09.997" UserId="350" Text="Similar to my question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site &lt;sub&gt;(which could still use a consensus—hint, hint …)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an Area 51 proposal named [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I've looked at your FAQ, I don't know the field well enough to be comfortable making the call on my own—which brings me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can y'all review that proposal, and give your opinion as to whether it overlaps with or duplicates this site or [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="153679c2-dd48-431e-b5ef-f491d7781b9c" CreationDate="2011-11-07T08:37:09.997" UserId="350" Text="Does the Area 51 proposal “High Energy Physics” overlap with this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="153679c2-dd48-431e-b5ef-f491d7781b9c" CreationDate="2011-11-07T08:37:09.997" UserId="350" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="8fa631ad-f6be-4f43-9d87-3c38fe74ce66" CreationDate="2011-11-07T10:22:39.630" UserId="124" Text="Thanks for bringing this up, I'd actually wondered about it a while back... at this stage, I'm inclined to say **yes**, the High Energy Physics proposal overlaps with both this site and Theoretical Physics. A large fraction of the sample questions at that proposal - _at least_ 9 of the top 11, not counting the one closed as off topic - would be on topic here, and several of those would likely also be on topic at Theoretical Physics. The remaining 2 of the top 11 might be on topic here, and in any case they would almost certainly be on topic at the [Scientific Computing](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/scientific-computing-was-computational-science) proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="b85b27e2-5228-45e9-8987-bb8889bad4c7" CreationDate="2011-11-07T10:25:26.803" UserId="124" Text="Since the existing answers are perhaps a little unclear, let me post one that is and people can vote on it as necessary: **no**, the Experimental and Applied Physics proposal does not duplicate this site. E&amp;AP would be for questions about the tools and devices used to do experiments in physics, whereas this site is about the physical principles that underlie the experiments. We have closed a few questions here which I think would be right at home at E&amp;AP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="14cf8da1-6d33-402a-bc0d-d91fe6dd6d84" CreationDate="2011-11-07T18:21:52.717" UserId="520" Text="I largely second [David's comments][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if there are a few leftover topics then they must be the sort that would also fit on the still pending [Experimental or Applied Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that the HEP proposal is further along, but I think that dividing into  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High level theoretical &#xD;&#xA;* Nitty gritty experimental reality&#xD;&#xA;* Everything else physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is more defensible that suggesting that every significant sub-field should have it's own site. Not only does that break the Stack Overflow model (where c, perl, haskel, postscript, c#, etc get along just fine on one site) but it reduces the possibility for useful cross-fertilization of skills between the disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I'm not entirely happy with three sites, but I certainly think that it is better than HEP and solid state and optics and AMO and...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/956/does-the-area-51-proposal-high-energy-physics-overlap-with-this-site/957#957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="eefa91c7-8987-422b-966d-cf5067618566" CreationDate="2011-11-07T22:25:35.027" UserId="124" Comment="add a list" Text="Thanks for bringing this up, I'd actually wondered about it a while back... at this stage, I'm inclined to say **yes**, the High Energy Physics proposal overlaps with both this site and Theoretical Physics. Out of the top 20 non-closed example questions for the HEP proposal, 13 and a half could be asked here on Physics (and several of those could also be asked on Theoretical Physics). The other 6 and a half seem like they would be good fits for [Scientific Computing](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/scientific-computing-was-computational-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm procrastinating, here are the specifics (at least in my personal judgment of what is on- and off-topic here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any robustly understood examples of theories that dynamically break a chiral symmetry but do not confine? (The opposite is well-known.)&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can someone give a summary of current phenomenological constraints for neutrino mass?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are good references to learn about Seiberg duality and its applications to particle physics?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I interface Pythia 8 with Rivet?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here, but probably a good fit for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is the W boson mass measured at hadron colliders?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much the PDF's uncertainties affect the LHC SUSY discovery potential?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a &quot;jet energy scale correction&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How does one calculate the baryon- and lepton-number violation coming from instanton effects?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are the differences between analytical resummation and parton shower approximation?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a sufficiently general ansatz for \Gamma_k in the exact renormalization flow equation of the standard model?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a CAS which supports anticommuting variables like spinors or Grassmann variables?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here, but probably a good fit for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What LHC luminosity is needed to confirm/refute the standard model Higgs?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any other first-principles calculations for QCD other than lattice QCD? For lattice QCD, are there any algorithms better than Metropolis?&lt;br/&gt;part 1 **on topic** here, part 2 **off topic** but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are the &quot;Van der Meer scans&quot; used to get collider luminosity normalisation?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can I run MC@NLO events through Herwig++?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I configure madevent/madgraph to simulate color octet scalars?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do underlying event, pile up and initial state radiation differ, both in their conception and their observable effects?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I implement finite collinear terms from the dipole subtraction?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing or Stack Overflow (depends on what exactly the question asks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How can I build CERNLIB on [a modern machine]?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here but probably appropriate for either Scientific Computing or Super User, depending on the specifics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have any plausible direct experimental searches for a QCD axion with ~GUT-scale decay constant been proposed?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="e6ec7346-a349-4832-8e6e-aea6e51f07cf" CreationDate="2011-11-07T22:44:03.460" UserId="124" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Thanks for bringing this up, I'd actually wondered about it a while back... at this stage, I'm inclined to say **yes**, the High Energy Physics proposal overlaps with both this site and Theoretical Physics. Out of the top 20 non-closed example questions for the HEP proposal, 13 and a half could be asked here on Physics (and several of those could also be asked on Theoretical Physics). The other 6 and a half seem like they would be good fits for [Scientific Computing](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/scientific-computing-was-computational-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm procrastinating, here are the specifics (at least in my personal judgment of what is on- and off-topic here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any robustly understood examples of theories that dynamically break a chiral symmetry but do not confine? (The opposite is well-known.)&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can someone give a summary of current phenomenological constraints for neutrino mass?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are good references to learn about Seiberg duality and its applications to particle physics?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I interface Pythia 8 with Rivet?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here, but probably a good fit for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is the W boson mass measured at hadron colliders?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much the PDF's uncertainties affect the LHC SUSY discovery potential?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a &quot;jet energy scale correction&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How does one calculate the baryon- and lepton-number violation coming from instanton effects?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are the differences between analytical resummation and parton shower approximation?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a sufficiently general ansatz for \Gamma_k in the exact renormalization flow equation of the standard model?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a CAS which supports anticommuting variables like spinors or Grassmann variables?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here, but probably a good fit for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What LHC luminosity is needed to confirm/refute the standard model Higgs?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any other first-principles calculations for QCD other than lattice QCD? For lattice QCD, are there any algorithms better than Metropolis?&lt;br/&gt;part 1 **on topic** here, part 2 **off topic** (well, borderline) but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are the &quot;Van der Meer scans&quot; used to get collider luminosity normalisation?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can I run MC@NLO events through Herwig++?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I configure madevent/madgraph to simulate color octet scalars?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do underlying event, pile up and initial state radiation differ, both in their conception and their observable effects?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I implement finite collinear terms from the dipole subtraction?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing or Stack Overflow (depends on what exactly the question asks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How can I build CERNLIB on [a modern machine]?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here but probably appropriate for either Scientific Computing or Super User, depending on the specifics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have any plausible direct experimental searches for a QCD axion with ~GUT-scale decay constant been proposed?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="6b035010-7dde-4c28-b74e-ee406a7c8019" CreationDate="2011-11-08T15:18:07.070" UserId="3622" Text="The question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I write a paper where I am the sole author, and the only person I have discussed the research with before publication is my non-physicist partner, is it appropriate to acknowledge my partner in the same way I would normally acknowledge a colleague? I.e. I thank *name* for useful discussions. Or similar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, if the answer is no to the above question, does it look bad if I have no acknowledgements at all? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a question about actual physics, though it is relevant to physicists. I've asked a few people 'offline' and no-one is sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="6b035010-7dde-4c28-b74e-ee406a7c8019" CreationDate="2011-11-08T15:18:07.070" UserId="3622" Text="Is the question &quot;Who is it appropriate to acknowledge in a journal paper?&quot; OK to go on the Physics Stack Exchange site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="6b035010-7dde-4c28-b74e-ee406a7c8019" CreationDate="2011-11-08T15:18:07.070" UserId="3622" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="21998a16-0e9b-4590-a2ef-9947b699c273" CreationDate="2011-11-08T15:33:40.937" UserId="3622" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="The question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I write a paper where I am the sole author, and the only person I have discussed the research with before publication is my non-physicist partner, is it appropriate to acknowledge my partner in the same way I would normally acknowledge a colleague? I.e. I thank *name* for useful discussions. Or similar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, if the answer is no to the above question, does it look bad if I have no acknowledgements at all? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a question about actual physics, though it is relevant to physicists. I've asked a few people 'offline' and no-one is sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should clarify: If I discuss the *physics* with a non-physicist, is it OK to acknowledge them? (I don't mean acknowledge them for support or anything like that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="0dc65b83-a9e7-42cc-8f77-3d6fa2a06297" CreationDate="2011-11-08T19:25:59.487" UserId="520" Text="On the basis of [Are collaborations needed to be productive in physics?][1], [Can a web community write papers?][2] and [Publication Authorship Credits][3], I'd asy that we *have been* entertaining such question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly this is a matter of culture that is specific to the physics community (other sciences have the same problem, but they (may) have different cultures to some degree, and therefore different answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that we might want a tag for this. Perhaps [tag:authorship].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question: as this is a fairly &quot;soft&quot; topic would it be appropriate to suggest that these questions should be Community Wiki? (Compare to book and journal recommendations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1599/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="15bf9775-c7ee-4517-b935-9f4e6102dd97" CreationDate="2011-11-08T22:22:40.937" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="On the basis of [Are collaborations needed to be productive in physics?][1], [Can a web community write papers?][2] and [Publication Authorship Credits][3], I'd say that we *have been* entertaining such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly this is a matter of culture that is specific to the physics community (other sciences have the same problem, but they (may) have different cultures to some degree, and therefore different answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that we might want a tag for this. Perhaps [tag:authorship].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question: as this is a fairly &quot;soft&quot; topic would it be appropriate to suggest that these questions should be Community Wiki? (Compare to book and journal recommendations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1599/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="4f48df60-0d5a-4122-9e63-e820385ef852" CreationDate="2011-11-08T22:44:38.043" UserId="124" Text="Just to provide an alternative to dmckee's answer, I'll put forth the position that **no**, this would not be an on-topic question for the main site, since it does not relate to actual physical principles in any way. If this is our position, then the other questions dmckee linked to would probably be off topic under the same criterion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="aaef0348-2e76-4b02-a038-9842f6fa61ac" CreationDate="2011-11-10T21:21:28.687" UserId="5450" Text="As the new monthly issues of your favorite journals are published, we want to remind you to ask those burning questions that pop into your head as you read through *novel approaches, methods and cutting edge or controversial findings*. Stack Exchange consists of remarkably bright and talented researchers and our community benefits greatly from more current and relevant questions. **When you flip through your favorite journal and are downright astonished by some findings or perplexed by a method, share that curiosity here.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Staying up to date in the field betters your own expertise and sharing those quandaries with your peers furthers the discipline as a whole. To encourage good ole fashioned journal reading (*winks at open access*) **users who ask questions about the current issues of whatever journal they like on the Stack are eligible for a drawing to win a year long subscription to a journal** of their choosing (excluding obscure journals only in print in Kazakhstan with a zillion dollar fee). Before Christmas, all posts referencing (denoted with &quot;citation&quot;) a current publication will be entered in the drawing and a random winner of all winners will be announced (plus secondary prizes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="aaef0348-2e76-4b02-a038-9842f6fa61ac" CreationDate="2011-11-10T21:21:28.687" UserId="5450" Text="Upcoming journal editions: read 'em and ask on the Stack (and get prizes)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="aaef0348-2e76-4b02-a038-9842f6fa61ac" CreationDate="2011-11-10T21:21:28.687" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="8a83ef11-b4eb-4c77-8852-64d7eb817db4" CreationDate="2011-11-11T18:37:08.850" UserId="5450" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="As the new monthly issues of your favorite journals are published, we want to remind you to ask those burning questions that pop into your head as you read through *novel approaches, methods and cutting edge or controversial findings*. Stack Exchange consists of remarkably bright and talented researchers and our community benefits greatly from more current and relevant questions. **When you flip through your favorite journal and are downright astonished by some findings or perplexed by a method, share that curiosity here.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Staying up to date in the field betters your own expertise and sharing those quandaries with your peers furthers the discipline as a whole. To encourage good ole fashioned journal reading (*winks at open access*) **users who ask questions about the current issues of whatever journal they like on the Stack are eligible for a drawing to win a year long subscription to a journal** of their choosing (excluding obscure journals only in print in Kazakhstan with a zillion dollar fee) or support to attend a conference. Before Christmas, all posts referencing (denoted with &quot;citation&quot;) a current publication will be entered in the drawing and a random winner of all winners will be announced (plus secondary prizes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tag the post with &quot;citation&quot; and 'journal name/source'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="da253396-f656-4f18-8284-3a7c15a737a0" CreationDate="2011-11-13T13:41:22.650" UserId="1335" Text="Due probably to the policy rule &quot;if you downvote, please explain&quot;, I find that downvoted or trivial questions in the site are actually answered in the comments to the question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is the contrary to &quot; http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy &quot;. Real answers should be answers, no comments. But on other hand, it is arguable that a person actually wanting to downvote a question and suggest the OP to delete it, does not want to give an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in some cases I find that people just answer in comments just because they think their answer is too short or too humble." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="da253396-f656-4f18-8284-3a7c15a737a0" CreationDate="2011-11-13T13:41:22.650" UserId="1335" Text="Answering in comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="da253396-f656-4f18-8284-3a7c15a737a0" CreationDate="2011-11-13T13:41:22.650" UserId="1335" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="a0147169-4704-41f3-9e6f-ce9fc632c73d" CreationDate="2011-11-13T22:00:31.213" UserId="1335" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Due probably to the policy rule &quot;if you downvote, please explain&quot;, I find that downvoted or trivial questions in the site are actually answered in the comments to the question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is the contrary to &quot; http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy &quot;. Real answers should be answers, no comments. But on other hand, it is arguable that a person actually wanting to downvote a question and suggest the OP to delete it, does not want to give an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in some cases I find that people just answer in comments just because they think their answer is too short or too humble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: So my questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find that answers in comments are a problem? If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="966" RevisionGUID="8d9a5bb0-b651-43d0-9bc5-b265ac866ccd" CreationDate="2011-11-15T04:24:47.400" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Do you find that answers in comments are a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Any time &quot;answering information&quot; is posted as a comment instead of as an answer, it makes it more difficult for people to find, and we also lose access to the mechanism of voting as an indicator of the quality of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever you see someone post something as a comment that seems like it should be an answer, ask them to make it an answer. Or post it as an answer yourself.&#xD;&#xA;- Sometimes people post answering information, especially links, in a comment because they don't have time to make a full-fledged answer out of it. We should encourage people to make these posts as answers instead:&#xD;&#xA; - If you have a partial answer or just a link, post it with a note that you'll come back and edit more detail in when you have time. (And of course, actually come back and edit more detail in when you have time)&#xD;&#xA; - If you see that someone else has posted a link-only answer which does not include a notice of that sort (or if the OP seems to have abandoned it), as long as it seems relevant and not spammy, don't downvote it for just being a link. Instead, edit the answer to contain the relevant material from the link.&#xD;&#xA; - Don't downvote answers for being sparse on detail or incomplete, as long as they are factually correct.&#xD;&#xA;- On the moderators' side, we will continue deleting comment threads that become chatty or argumentative, or just too long. So if you post answering information as a comment, be aware that it may not stick around forever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="038b77df-1d50-4651-a2ce-b578cc67adec" CreationDate="2011-11-16T08:11:56.253" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Thanks for bringing this up, I'd actually wondered about it a while back... at this stage, I'm inclined to say **yes**, the High Energy Physics proposal overlaps with both this site and Theoretical Physics. Out of the top 20 non-closed example questions for the HEP proposal, 13 and a half could be asked here on Physics (and several of those could also be asked on Theoretical Physics). Several others seem like they would be good fits for [Scientific Computing](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28815/scientific-computing-was-computational-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm procrastinating, here are the specifics (at least in my personal judgment of what is on- and off-topic here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any robustly understood examples of theories that dynamically break a chiral symmetry but do not confine? (The opposite is well-known.)&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can someone give a summary of current phenomenological constraints for neutrino mass?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are good references to learn about Seiberg duality and its applications to particle physics?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I interface Pythia 8 with Rivet?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here, but probably a good fit for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is the W boson mass measured at hadron colliders?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much the PDF's uncertainties affect the LHC SUSY discovery potential?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a &quot;jet energy scale correction&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How does one calculate the baryon- and lepton-number violation coming from instanton effects?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are the differences between analytical resummation and parton shower approximation?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a sufficiently general ansatz for \Gamma_k in the exact renormalization flow equation of the standard model?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a CAS which supports anticommuting variables like spinors or Grassmann variables?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here, _possibly_ on topic at Super User&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What LHC luminosity is needed to confirm/refute the standard model Higgs?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any other first-principles calculations for QCD other than lattice QCD? For lattice QCD, are there any algorithms better than Metropolis?&lt;br/&gt;part 1 **on topic** here, part 2 **off topic** (well, borderline) but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are the &quot;Van der Meer scans&quot; used to get collider luminosity normalisation?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can I run MC@NLO events through Herwig++?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I configure madevent/madgraph to simulate color octet scalars?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do underlying event, pile up and initial state radiation differ, both in their conception and their observable effects?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I implement finite collinear terms from the dipole subtraction?&lt;br/&gt;probably **off topic** here but appropriate for Scientific Computing or Stack Overflow (depends on what exactly the question asks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How can I build CERNLIB on [a modern machine]?&lt;br/&gt;**off topic** here but probably appropriate for either Scientific Computing or Super User, depending on the specifics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have any plausible direct experimental searches for a QCD axion with ~GUT-scale decay constant been proposed?&lt;br/&gt;**on topic** here&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="044d1cae-327d-4775-ad73-0a78301dd169" CreationDate="2011-11-16T14:21:06.283" UserId="5450" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="As the new monthly issues of your favorite journals are published, we want to remind you to ask those burning questions that pop into your head as you read through *novel approaches, methods and cutting edge or controversial findings*. Stack Exchange consists of remarkably bright and talented researchers and our community benefits greatly from more current and relevant questions. **When you flip through your favorite journal and are downright astonished by some findings or perplexed by a method, share that curiosity here.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Staying up to date in the field betters your own expertise and sharing those quandaries with your peers furthers the discipline as a whole. To encourage good ole fashioned journal reading (*winks at open access*) **users who ask questions about the current issues of whatever journal they like on the Stack are eligible for a drawing to win a year long subscription to a journal** of their choosing (excluding obscure journals only in print in Kazakhstan with a zillion dollar fee) or support to attend a conference. Before Christmas, all posts referencing (denoted with &quot;citation&quot;) a current publication will be entered in the drawing and a random winner of all winners will be announced (plus secondary prizes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tag the post with &quot;citation&quot; and 'journal name/source'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Updated: Includes article preprints from arxiv or any similiar source. Award may include conference support instead of subscription." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2139" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="976f3eb0-05b5-46b3-a13a-f2e85b8fd464" CreationDate="2011-11-23T11:22:28.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/139302790412517376" />
  <row Id="2140" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="506c7d37-d04e-4e75-8ee9-e379a6230920" CreationDate="2011-11-23T14:22:28.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/139348092511203328" />
  <row Id="2141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="717a3298-220f-4981-b795-23fcd9314aed" CreationDate="2011-11-25T17:13:06.353" UserId="6221" Text="A late answer, I know, but I feel that it is important. Most of the discussion has been around signal to noise in questions, but the same is true of answers. I've noticed a worrying trend that *longer* answers are sometimes assumed to be true, and it seems that a few up-votes can generate a runaway effect in this SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be worthwhile setting some guidelines for a good answer. One thing in particular is that the single most important piece of advice I gave in my years as a TA, especially to the younger ones, was to **draw a massive diagram**. It sounds silly, but a picture says a thousand words and it takes a few minutes to knock up a diagram in whatever package you favour. Even the most hardcore texts on field theory and the newest research papers use diagrams, so there is no excuse not to have them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there could also be general guidelines on how to formulate a long answer when one is *absolutely necessary*. This would be useful for the writers and editors to bring things into a format that can be understood and digested with less effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="0dac6f75-411f-44cd-993c-4f7c506ab641" CreationDate="2011-11-26T12:05:51.943" UserId="4521" Text="Some users have excellent answers and one likes to look for all their answers about any question they replied to. That is easy, but sometimes their answers is in form of comments, or sometimes they give interesting comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find all the comments written by a certain user? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="0dac6f75-411f-44cd-993c-4f7c506ab641" CreationDate="2011-11-26T12:05:51.943" UserId="4521" Text="How to find all the comments written by some user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="0dac6f75-411f-44cd-993c-4f7c506ab641" CreationDate="2011-11-26T12:05:51.943" UserId="4521" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="7fd69c89-2218-4969-afcf-e9003616d531" CreationDate="2011-11-26T16:32:33.277" UserId="1255" Text="Go to their profile, next to &quot;info&quot; you see the &quot;activity&quot; tab.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic?tab=activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has edits, answers, questions, and comments as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to pick on you specifically Qmechanic!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="c40d33b7-a520-4d7a-9c1b-ce2e6bec7054" CreationDate="2011-11-27T13:38:35.003" UserId="2751" Text="What does it mean that certain questions are highlighted by a transparent green background when I scroll on the main page through the &quot;active&quot; or &quot;newest&quot; list? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="c40d33b7-a520-4d7a-9c1b-ce2e6bec7054" CreationDate="2011-11-27T13:38:35.003" UserId="2751" Text="&quot;Highlighted&quot; Questions in the recent or newest list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="c40d33b7-a520-4d7a-9c1b-ce2e6bec7054" CreationDate="2011-11-27T13:38:35.003" UserId="2751" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="11064480-be4c-4ca8-b370-39d4ba583fa7" CreationDate="2011-11-27T13:43:46.373" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Those are the ones tagged with one of the tags you selected as favorite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="d0643387-0bd3-460e-b089-fa84303328f5" CreationDate="2011-11-27T15:33:01.113" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Question appears &amp;ldquo;blue&amp;rdquo;?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/712/question-appears-blue)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What does it mean that certain questions are highlighted by a transparent green background when I scroll on the main page through the &quot;active&quot; or &quot;newest&quot; list? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2151" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="28fe780f-5c1b-46b9-8991-d24b11c575d9" CreationDate="2011-11-27T15:32:58.693" UserId="520" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[712],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="36201529-bf8a-4b91-8d81-3a074473e5ca" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:22:35.503" UserId="5450" Text="The [SE Research Support and Fellowship Program][1] launched recently with our very own, experienced and highly respected users reviewing fellowship applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the program a success, we need your help. Announce the program and request for proposals on your blog, website or listserv. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let us know (academics@stackexchange.com) if you intend to call for applications so we can follow your announcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/942/5450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="36201529-bf8a-4b91-8d81-3a074473e5ca" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:22:35.503" UserId="5450" Text="Help us call for proposals for the SE Fellowship on your blog, site or listserv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="36201529-bf8a-4b91-8d81-3a074473e5ca" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:22:35.503" UserId="5450" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="575a6ef9-88d1-4d41-9e62-f9b7a0ffc03d" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:35:15.513" UserId="5450" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The [SE Research Support and Fellowship Program][1] launched recently with our very own experienced and highly respected users reviewing fellowship applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the program a success, we need your help. Announce the program and request for proposals on your blog, website or listserv. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let us know (academics@stackexchange.com) if you intend to call for applications so we can follow your announcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/942/5450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="973" RevisionGUID="cf9047dd-445c-4ffc-8d06-51931be16869" CreationDate="2011-11-29T16:18:07.717" UserId="520" Text="Two recent questions from one user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What are some interesting calculus of variation problems?][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [What are some interesting coupled harmonic oscillators problems?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my point of view these are &quot;make a list&quot;, so should certainly be Community Wiki, but moreover they don't seem to contribute very much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They don't seem to fit any of the explicitly allowed categories, nor are they *&quot;practical, answerable questions based on actual problems&quot;*. Instead the run to open-ended, collecting a book's worth of examples with no unifying theme, and they are a reasonable if inexact match for the *&quot;every answer is equally valid&quot;* category of bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the generic formulation suggests that there will be no end to them and even if there are a few interesting ones, most will be pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments on their on-topicness and or Community Wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17552/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17624/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="973" RevisionGUID="cf9047dd-445c-4ffc-8d06-51931be16869" CreationDate="2011-11-29T16:18:07.717" UserId="520" Text="Are &quot;What are some intersting Foo problems?&quot; questions off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="973" RevisionGUID="cf9047dd-445c-4ffc-8d06-51931be16869" CreationDate="2011-11-29T16:18:07.717" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|scope|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="0f1548da-e7d8-4e3d-98a5-bc4b4a651b6c" CreationDate="2011-11-29T16:43:41.420" UserId="5223" Text="Why exclude them? They sound pretty interesting to me. They tend to be low-level, but we were all low-level once (&amp; some still are :)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="32a9c47e-4829-47f2-ad78-34549478ff3d" CreationDate="2011-11-29T21:50:03.393" UserId="124" Text="On one hand I can understand how these questions can be useful to people. But on the other hand, they strike me as _forum_ topics. They have value, but they are not a good fit for the Stack Exchange model. (It is important to remember that SE is not trying to become a repository for every bit of useful information on the internet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been thinking about these questions, and at this point I'm inclined to just close them as off topic. Perhaps we can refer the questioners to [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com), which would be better able to accommodate these sorts of requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these questions do wind up remaining open here, I don't particularly care whether they are CW or not. The point of making list questions CW is so that they don't contribute to reputation, because the answers typically don't require much knowledge of physics, but I'm not sure if that is necessarily the case here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="a95510b9-bf02-4311-bbac-8d3d18a51084" CreationDate="2011-11-30T22:32:22.793" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Does physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon - His user blurb on SE states: &quot;I have no PhD, I am almost entirely self taught. I like physics, but I think the professionals are, for the most part, completely incompetent. I have a lot of my own personal theories about physics which I like to spread online. I am unemployed.&quot; He is extremely prolific poster, to the point where the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lawrence B. Crowell - (We have the same last name but are not related AFAIK.) He has co-authored books and papers with well-known infinite-energy kooks Myron Evans, Robert Betts, and Tom Bearden. His user blurb on SE is blank, and I don't know if he has any formal qualifications in physics, but his publications list him as being affiliated with &quot;Alpha Institute of Advanced Study, Hungary&quot; -- not to be confused with Myron Evans's &quot;Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies.&quot; LB Crowell appears to be the only member of the Hungarian one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helder Velez - His SE blurb states that he is an engineer and declares his affiliation with cosmology kook Alfredo G. Oliveira.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three of these folks have high reputation scores on SE; Maimon's is extremely high, probably partly because he is apparently an unemployed guy who spends all his time on SE. All of them, with the possible exception of Ron Maimon, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with Ron Maimon, in particular, has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones like Ron Maimon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="a95510b9-bf02-4311-bbac-8d3d18a51084" CreationDate="2011-11-30T22:32:22.793" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="physics.SE's inability to deal with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="a95510b9-bf02-4311-bbac-8d3d18a51084" CreationDate="2011-11-30T22:32:22.793" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="1591e12e-28ca-4673-94e7-7761851c541f" CreationDate="2011-11-30T22:48:19.720" UserId="520" Text="Not surprisingly the primary tool is voting them down; plus giving better answer and explaining *why* they are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such  a user *who has a decent knowledge of conventional physics* can collect a lot of point making *correct* answers to basic questions so it is easy for them to stay ahead. At least some of these troubling users do that very thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of at least one of these users I don't know enough about the areas he claims to be expert in to debate him on most things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'd like to go off on a mini-rant, if I may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see the biggest offender have their pet theories in the realms of theory most distant from experimental verification. Perhaps giving so much respect to ideas that are beyond testing for the foreseeable future is not such a great idea, eh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I don't thing that string theorist---to pick a random example---aren't engages in the scientific endeavor in some way; just that they should spend a bit more time figuring out how to bootstrap feasible science into some limits on their discipline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another rantlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The establishment of TheoreticalPhysics.SE seems to have moved some of our users better suited to talking to these people to put more energy in over there. Not sure what can be done about, not that they would agree that anything *should* be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="0106f41b-2334-42c8-aa8c-10c63af08ba9" CreationDate="2011-11-30T22:56:06.657" UserId="520" Comment="Strip out names" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="b5c8cd68-b4b8-4839-8ee1-50c8bfaf5009" CreationDate="2011-11-30T23:01:15.920" UserId="520" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="Not surprisingly the primary tool is voting them down; plus giving better answer and explaining *why* they are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noticed, such  a user *who has a decent knowledge of conventional physics* can collect a lot of point making *correct* answers to basic questions so it is easy for them to stay ahead, and at least some of these troubling users do that very thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of at least one of these users I don't know enough about the areas he claims to be expert in to debate him on most things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not be enough, but I don't have an outline for how to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'd like to go off on a mini-rant, if I may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see the biggest offender have their pet theories in the realms of theory most distant from experimental verification. Perhaps giving so much respect to ideas that are beyond testing for the foreseeable future is not such a great idea, eh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I think that string theorist---to pick a random example---aren't engaged in the scientific endeavor in some way; just that they should spend a bit more time figuring out how to bootstrap feasible experiments into some limits on their discipline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you go to string theory talks you never here someone say *&quot;that's ruled out by...&quot;*, it is always *&quot;what assumptions did you have to make that allow that?&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*::sigh::*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another rantlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The establishment of TheoreticalPhysics.SE seems to have moved some of our users better suited to talking to these people to put more energy in over there. Nor sure what can be done about, not that they would agree that anything *should* be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="4d98ba0f-abf1-4d81-8c58-a416efcac65d" CreationDate="2011-11-30T23:07:24.437" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Not surprisingly the primary tool is voting them down; plus giving better answer and explaining *why* they are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noticed, such  a user *who has a decent knowledge of conventional physics* can collect a lot of point making *correct* answers to basic questions so it is easy for them to stay ahead, and at least some of these troubling users do that very thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of at least one of these users I don't know enough about the areas he claims to be expert in to debate him on most things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not be enough, but I don't have an outline for how to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'd like to go off on a mini-rant, if I may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see the biggest offenders have their pet ideas in the realms of theory most distant from experimental verification. Perhaps giving so much respect to ideas that are beyond testing for the foreseeable future is not such a great idea, eh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I think that string theorists---to pick a random example---aren't engaged in the scientific endeavor in some way; just that they should spend a bit more time figuring out how to bootstrap feasible experiments into some limits on their discipline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you go to string theory talks you never here someone say *&quot;that's ruled out by...&quot;*, it is always *&quot;what assumptions did you have to make that allow that?&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*::sigh::*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another rantlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The establishment of TheoreticalPhysics.SE seems to have moved some of our users better suited to talking to these people to put more energy in over there. Nor sure what can be done about, not that they would agree that anything *should* be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="4698e791-81e2-4586-8d76-cfcb910b215d" CreationDate="2011-11-30T23:13:07.383" UserId="520" Comment="I'll get the grammar cleansed up by and by.." Text="Not surprisingly the primary tool is voting them down; plus giving better answer and explaining *why* they are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noticed, such  a user *who has a decent knowledge of conventional physics* can collect a lot of point making *correct* answers to basic questions so it is easy for them to stay ahead, and at least some of these troubling users do that very thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of at least one of these users I don't know enough about the areas he claims to be expert in to debate him on most things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not be enough, but I don't have an outline for how to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'd like to go off on a mini-rant, if I may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see the biggest offenders have their pet ideas in the realms of theory most distant from experimental verification. Perhaps giving so much respect to ideas that are beyond testing for the foreseeable future is not such a great idea, eh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I think that string theorists---to pick a random example---aren't engaged in the scientific endeavor in some way; just that they should spend a bit more time figuring out how to bootstrap feasible experiments into some limits on their discipline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you go to string theory talks you never here someone say *&quot;that's ruled out by...&quot;*, it is always *&quot;what assumptions did you have to make that allow that?&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*::sigh::*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another rantlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The establishment of TheoreticalPhysics.SE seems to have moved some of our users better suited to talking to these people to put more energy in over there. Not sure what can be done about, nor that they would agree that anything *should* be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="c3f2b112-3d3c-4b45-b8c3-81b0c19fb644" CreationDate="2011-11-30T23:53:50.077" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="e2f9435d-2545-47eb-b270-c227cc98f0aa" CreationDate="2011-12-01T01:49:30.303" UserId="124" Text="I really sympathize with this, but I'm not sure what to do about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem is that the &quot;kooks&quot; accuse the legitimate scientists of being wrong as much as the other way around, and even among qualified scientists, there are arguments in which various groups will accuse each other of spouting complete nonsense. And even though I may have a strong hunch as to who is correct and who isn't, as a moderator, I can't take sides in this sort of debate based merely on that hunch. So I can't, say, suspend one user just because another user accuses the first user of being a crank. I'd need to have overwhelming evidence, which means either a strong response from the community (typically in the form of large numbers of downvotes and flags), or I would have to personally be able to evaluate the posts in question to see that they are nonsense getting passed off as fact, and in many fields of physics I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderation aside, I could cast a lot of downvotes, but it doesn't feel appropriate to downvote something unless I understand something about why it's wrong. Besides, the system detects when one user casts a lot of downvotes against another and reverses the votes under certain conditions. That sort of behavior is frowned upon anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a post that is incorrect, the best thing to do is to downvote it, and better yet comment on it so that other people will know that the post is incorrect. It is indeed a major shortcoming of the site that we don't have enough people who are knowledgeable enough to evaluate answers in many of the &quot;specialty&quot; subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="d4a370e5-d545-4b3b-9f32-24ffd52406a3" CreationDate="2011-12-01T05:23:11.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/142111478718267392" />
  <row Id="2172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="86e81459-e22f-48b0-b53f-eca6b0b2cfea" CreationDate="2011-12-01T19:47:46.460" UserId="4864" Text="You are partly talking about me, and you do so without posting any links to any answer you think is wrong. Usually when somebody has a gripe about content they tell you what the content is. Point directly to bad content if you have a problem, don't make vague accusations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you are not qualified to judge the content, you just have a feeling that it must be wrong, because it sounds so different from what you believe. But those people who _are_ qualified to judge the content tell you that it is ok, and this is causing distress to you, because you have a PhD, and I do not, and you believe physicists are generally competent, and I am positive that they are mostly dimwits, and so my answers must be wrong, and yet they are upvoted and this is causing you distress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, get used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, somebody ignorantly downvoted this answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17494/who-first-realized-the-uncertainty-principle-allows-for-virtual-particle-pair-pr/17496#17496 , without stating a reason. I think that a downvote should come with an explanation. In this case, the explanation is most likely &quot;I feel that something in here must be wrong, but I can't say exactly what it is, -1.&quot; If you downvote, say why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody here upvotes because they don't understand. In fact, most of the best answers, which are the most technically challenging, have a paucity of upvotes because nobody feels qualified to vote it up, because maybe there's a subtle error. This drives away people who are technically competent. When an answer has a lot of upvotes (at least nowadays), you can be sure that the people who voted it up actually read it _and understood it_. There were times when any answer with formulas in it got upvotes automatically. No more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### pseudotensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This whole thing began when you disagreed with my description of the stress energy pseudotensor in General Relativity. You claimed that the stress energy tensor of matter is the definition of stress energy in GR (which is only true in a locally freefalling frame) and that there is no other definition. I told you Einstein's definition was the pseudotensor, and you said it was not. This only tells me that you haven't read Einstein's papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein in 1917 or thereabouts published the pseudotensor for stress energy in the gravitational field, including the gravitational field energy. It was one of Einstein's boldest ideas--- using a coordinate dependent pseudotensor for stress energy, and it was severely criticized by Schrodinger and others as completely wrongheaded, because it is coordinate dependent. It was never fully accepted. To this day, people are confused about stress-energy in GR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pseudotensor $t$ has the property that it is _coordinate_ conserved, meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\partial_\nu t^{\mu\nu} = 0 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is _not_ covariantly conserved. This means that the conserved quantity is the coordinate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\int d^3x t^{\mu0} $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is strange. The pseudotensor gives weird conservation laws, for flows of coordinate dependent stress energy across surfaces, but it is the right concept. The construction is partly explained in the Wikipedia page on Infraparticle, where Noether's theorem is applied to a gauge symmetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pseudotensor only works fully for asymptotically flat spacetime, where you can identify the asymptotic translations with actual physical translations. But when you have cosmological solution, this doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know anything about this, just ask a question. People will be happy to answer it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2173" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="9fd3376e-ab19-4fe3-88ba-d98761564374" CreationDate="2011-12-01T20:19:40.137" UserId="4864" Comment="Rollback to [0106f41b-2334-42c8-aa8c-10c63af08ba9]" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2174" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="06f09bb9-7411-47fc-9716-c785096d39fd" CreationDate="2011-12-01T20:21:22.677" UserId="4864" Comment="Rollback to [a95510b9-bf02-4311-bbac-8d3d18a51084]" Text="Does physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon - His user blurb on SE states: &quot;I have no PhD, I am almost entirely self taught. I like physics, but I think the professionals are, for the most part, completely incompetent. I have a lot of my own personal theories about physics which I like to spread online. I am unemployed.&quot; He is extremely prolific poster, to the point where the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lawrence B. Crowell - (We have the same last name but are not related AFAIK.) He has co-authored books and papers with well-known infinite-energy kooks Myron Evans, Robert Betts, and Tom Bearden. His user blurb on SE is blank, and I don't know if he has any formal qualifications in physics, but his publications list him as being affiliated with &quot;Alpha Institute of Advanced Study, Hungary&quot; -- not to be confused with Myron Evans's &quot;Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies.&quot; LB Crowell appears to be the only member of the Hungarian one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helder Velez - His SE blurb states that he is an engineer and declares his affiliation with cosmology kook Alfredo G. Oliveira.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three of these folks have high reputation scores on SE; Maimon's is extremely high, probably partly because he is apparently an unemployed guy who spends all his time on SE. All of them, with the possible exception of Ron Maimon, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with Ron Maimon, in particular, has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones like Ron Maimon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="15f5f10f-51cd-4bf3-964f-d889e1d8b56b" CreationDate="2011-12-01T20:24:28.413" UserId="4864" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="### Regarding The first version&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to state how ridiculous your statement is. The reason I have so many upvotes is because I answer questions that nobody else here is competent to answer. I don't make mistakes often, and when I do, I correct them or delete the answer. Just read my answers, they are not vague, usually they say precise things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Regarding the general question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are partly talking about me, and you do so without posting any links to any answer you think is wrong. Usually when somebody has a gripe about content they tell you what the content is. Point directly to bad content if you have a problem, don't make vague accusations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you are not qualified to judge the content, you just have a feeling that it must be wrong, because it sounds so different from what you believe. But those people who _are_ qualified to judge the content tell you that it is ok, and this is causing distress to you, because you have a PhD, and I do not, and you believe physicists are generally competent, and I am positive that they are mostly dimwits, and so my answers must be wrong, and yet they are upvoted and this is causing you distress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, get used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, somebody ignorantly downvoted this answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17494/who-first-realized-the-uncertainty-principle-allows-for-virtual-particle-pair-pr/17496#17496 , without stating a reason. I think that a downvote should come with an explanation. In this case, the explanation is most likely &quot;I feel that something in here must be wrong, but I can't say exactly what it is, -1.&quot; If you downvote, say why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody here upvotes because they don't understand. In fact, most of the best answers, which are the most technically challenging, have a paucity of upvotes because nobody feels qualified to vote it up, because maybe there's a subtle error. This drives away people who are technically competent. When an answer has a lot of upvotes (at least nowadays), you can be sure that the people who voted it up actually read it _and understood it_. There were times when any answer with formulas in it got upvotes automatically. No more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### pseudotensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This whole thing began when you disagreed with my description of the stress energy pseudotensor in General Relativity. You claimed that the stress energy tensor of matter is the definition of stress energy in GR (which is only true in a locally freefalling frame) and that there is no other definition. I told you Einstein's definition was the pseudotensor, and you said it was not. This only tells me that you haven't read Einstein's papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein in 1917 or thereabouts published the pseudotensor for stress energy in the gravitational field, including the gravitational field energy. It was one of Einstein's boldest ideas--- using a coordinate dependent pseudotensor for stress energy, and it was severely criticized by Schrodinger and others as completely wrongheaded, because it is coordinate dependent. It was never fully accepted. To this day, people are confused about stress-energy in GR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pseudotensor $t$ has the property that it is _coordinate_ conserved, meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\partial_\nu t^{\mu\nu} = 0 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is _not_ covariantly conserved. This means that the conserved quantity is the coordinate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\int d^3x t^{\mu0} $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is strange. The pseudotensor gives weird conservation laws, for flows of coordinate dependent stress energy across surfaces, but it is the right concept. The construction is partly explained in the Wikipedia page on Infraparticle, where Noether's theorem is applied to a gauge symmetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pseudotensor only works fully for asymptotically flat spacetime, where you can identify the asymptotic translations with actual physical translations. But when you have cosmological solution, this doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know anything about this, just ask a question. People will be happy to answer it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2176" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="0945ae2a-170e-45c0-bf08-f054d41068aa" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:14:52.023" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [c3f2b112-3d3c-4b45-b8c3-81b0c19fb644]" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2177" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="9757a6b7-0548-40cc-adb6-82e4d89e6854" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:18:13.407" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2178" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="bdc63a00-f81e-4abf-82a0-17d3e4cd69cf" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:18:13.470" UserId="124" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="2179" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="e8a4f843-8552-495d-9d36-6fa7f3750493" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:19:09.380" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2180" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="8adc279c-d405-450d-81fb-db524dd5a559" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:19:09.427" UserId="124" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="2181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="aa3203fd-64a0-4fba-ad96-bb6d163de16f" CreationDate="2011-12-02T12:20:38.953" UserId="4826" Text="### What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is Going On Here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR -- put images and links in the answers. If they get voted up enough, they will appear on the main site as community promotion ads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### But whyyyyyyy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- interesting physics blogs or reads&#xD;&#xA;- the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA;- cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA;- anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. And to click on it for great justice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently 6) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="aa3203fd-64a0-4fba-ad96-bb6d163de16f" CreationDate="2011-12-02T12:20:38.953" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 1H 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="aa3203fd-64a0-4fba-ad96-bb6d163de16f" CreationDate="2011-12-02T12:20:38.953" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2184" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="aa3203fd-64a0-4fba-ad96-bb6d163de16f" CreationDate="2011-12-02T12:20:38.953" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="2185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="1d4ad6f6-ac2a-4786-bf12-47771870fcd7" CreationDate="2011-12-02T15:45:15.827" UserId="3253" Text="I don't know how those other relatively innocuous posters got lumped in to this discussion, but I'd really like to address the question of Ron Maimon. Is he being persecuted because he unselfconsciously posts a biography which lables him as an outsider? Yes, I find Ron Maimon to be at times annoying but certainly not obnoxious in the manner of such classic personalities as Jim Carr and ZapperZ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing about Ron Maimon is he definitely comes here to talk about physics. I personally can't get into discussions with him for two reasons: first, he's so single-minded in his own point of view that you can't really communicate with him back and forth; secondly, the structure of this forum is simply not conducive to extended discussions. But he sometimes posts things that are so coherently argued and with such intricate detail that even if I can't understand them myself, I just can't believe he's simply pulling this stuff out of his ass. Consider his answer to the question of [Why do we not have particles of spin greater than 2?][1] A guy who can write that is either (a) a genius or  (b) a total faker. I'm no fan of Ron Maimon but I think it's got to be (a), not (b). You just can't make that stuff up if it doesn't come from somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone thinks Ron Maimon is a crank, then let him argue Ron down face-to-face on his actual physics. Don't tell me that Ron is unemployed and has no PhD. That doesn't prove anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14932/why-do-we-not-have-spin-greater-than-2/15164#15164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="45fc1c81-5cec-4269-ba31-a4251fd21d3c" CreationDate="2011-12-02T22:27:50.910" UserId="5827" Text="I'm still new here and unfamiliar with the dynamics of the place/people/personalities. I would like to point out that folks here are a lot more touchy and on the edge than other forums. This drives away (new) members. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="4e6714bc-8981-4357-88d0-8d606b58ed49" CreationDate="2011-12-02T23:28:56.623" UserId="113" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2188" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="82d1ec04-7e22-4ac1-b227-7376d6823fe5" CreationDate="2011-12-04T06:54:31.530" UserId="1492" Comment="Rollback to [0106f41b-2334-42c8-aa8c-10c63af08ba9]" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2189" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="a79441c5-814b-4111-ad8a-3fadb9fb4a55" CreationDate="2011-12-04T06:55:39.843" UserId="1492" Comment="Rollback to [06f09bb9-7411-47fc-9716-c785096d39fd]" Text="Does physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon - His user blurb on SE states: &quot;I have no PhD, I am almost entirely self taught. I like physics, but I think the professionals are, for the most part, completely incompetent. I have a lot of my own personal theories about physics which I like to spread online. I am unemployed.&quot; He is extremely prolific poster, to the point where the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lawrence B. Crowell - (We have the same last name but are not related AFAIK.) He has co-authored books and papers with well-known infinite-energy kooks Myron Evans, Robert Betts, and Tom Bearden. His user blurb on SE is blank, and I don't know if he has any formal qualifications in physics, but his publications list him as being affiliated with &quot;Alpha Institute of Advanced Study, Hungary&quot; -- not to be confused with Myron Evans's &quot;Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies.&quot; LB Crowell appears to be the only member of the Hungarian one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helder Velez - His SE blurb states that he is an engineer and declares his affiliation with cosmology kook Alfredo G. Oliveira.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three of these folks have high reputation scores on SE; Maimon's is extremely high, probably partly because he is apparently an unemployed guy who spends all his time on SE. All of them, with the possible exception of Ron Maimon, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with Ron Maimon, in particular, has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones like Ron Maimon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2190" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="8205818b-2c5f-405a-80ae-efc692aaa98e" CreationDate="2011-12-04T06:57:36.627" UserId="1492" Comment="Rollback to [9fd3376e-ab19-4fe3-88ba-d98761564374]" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any way to have a meaningful discussion of this issue without specifying some users I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="a698f3c7-1209-4bd1-ac07-533af7120e97" CreationDate="2011-12-05T00:44:29.060" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="Does Physics.SE's have any way of dealing with users who are highly persistent, have kook beliefs, and sound impressive? Some of these folks seem to be very successful at racking up reputation points on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The characteristics that I've noticed include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim to be self-educated, some to work in other professions and some to be physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim that the physics community is incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some have publication links to well known advocates of poorly received theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some claim affiliation with bodies that are named rather like highly respected organs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some are highly prolific posters. In the worst case the site often seems to be a forum for dialog between him and the people who correct his mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All three of these folks have high reputation or respectable scores on SE; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them, occasionally provide correct answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All of them are skilled at stringing together impressive-sounding terminology in a way that makes them sound as though they are experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim to know everything about physics, but I do have a PhD in the subject, I teach it for a living, and usually I know enough to know what it is that I don't know. Dealing with these users has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for participating in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, SE's design, which made it a killer app in some fields (software and math) simply doesn't work well for physics. I would guess that it works more poorly for physics than for software simply because there are far more people out there who are experts at programming and/or computer science than there are who are experts in general relativity or quantum field theory. We did at one time have relativist Ted Bunn, for example, as an active member of physics.SE, but it appears that he is no longer active (hasn't posted since Oct 13). Physics.SE seems to have found the perfect recipe for driving away competent people like Ted Bunn, while retaining destructive ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="e161101e-dbf7-42ba-9ac7-9c85dbb7be52" CreationDate="2011-12-05T13:08:55.017" UserId="6345" Text="It seems to be too easy to gain reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you ask good questions, you gain reputation, but does that qualify you to give good answers? I think &quot;No.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you give good answers to questions in some fields, does that qualify you to give good answers to questions in other fields? I think &quot;No.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion for solving this isue is displaying modified reputation scores besides answers and comments (tooltip). This modified reputation score should only include reputation gained on answers in the main tag of the question. There would have to be the concept of a main tag in order to avoid gaining reputation on subtags, which you are knowledgeable in, without having a clue about the main tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes should subtract at least as much reputation as gained with upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="856c9d35-26ad-4abc-9bab-7f0f5d28563d" CreationDate="2011-12-06T08:42:03.630" UserId="124" Comment="added 450 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="57296c9f-018b-4f3f-8d20-05d2e220ab40" CreationDate="2011-12-07T07:22:13.323" UserId="4864" Text="The questions are important for teaching, because they give a list of examples for classes. This is a pain to come up with. The difference in quality of teaching, assuming the instructor knows the material, is mostly in the richness and depth of the examples. If anyone thinks these problems are low-level, give an answer! It's not so easy to do. This is why teaching is hard, and this site is primarily a teaching area, not a research area (now that theoreticalphysics exists).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="390d097b-6b0e-4a22-b345-e386abc561e0" CreationDate="2011-12-07T14:54:26.710" UserId="4826" Comment="Changing to a yearly cycle. Example ad to come soon, too!" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="b1fbbbee-13a0-47de-bcaa-cad5d6e2bf13" CreationDate="2011-12-08T15:34:28.223" UserId="4826" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/#!/stackphysics&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5E3rC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2197" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="9309439a-8dc8-4fc7-a2b1-a7dd015e83b5" CreationDate="2011-12-08T15:34:28.223" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="2198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="1b1be5de-7d90-4118-813e-c38095490ecc" CreationDate="2011-12-10T20:09:25.057" UserId="1335" Text="This is sort of meta, so here it is: Have admins noticed, in the last three weeks, an increasing of traffic into StackExchange coming from searches for higgs related topics? And a subtopic of it, could be, is there an increase on specific searches (say &quot;two photon decay&quot;) from research institutions as cern.ch, .edu, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="1b1be5de-7d90-4118-813e-c38095490ecc" CreationDate="2011-12-10T20:09:25.057" UserId="1335" Text="Are Higgs rumours increasing the traffic in physics websites, particulatly SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="1b1be5de-7d90-4118-813e-c38095490ecc" CreationDate="2011-12-10T20:09:25.057" UserId="1335" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2201" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="f98346fc-953b-4ac4-8465-279a5c6dc648" CreationDate="2011-12-10T20:16:42.783" UserId="1335" Comment="edited title" Text="Are Higgs rumours increasing the traffic in physics websites, particularly SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="45d323da-4e1a-41e9-bc6d-ffbd8763d1f0" CreationDate="2011-12-10T20:32:37.953" UserId="1335" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="This is sort of meta, so here it is: Have admins noticed, in the last three weeks, an increasing of traffic into StackExchange coming from searches for higgs related topics? And a subtopic of it, could be, is there an increase on specific searches (say &quot;two photon decay&quot;) from research institutions as cern.ch, .edu, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that google [trends][1] and [insights][2] are already detecting the news impact of the rumours; I would expect that the details of search engine hits into physics websites will have more detail, perhaps even some searches with &quot;xxx GeVs&quot; or &quot;yyy channel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://trends.google.com/trends?q=higgs,%20LHC,%20lepton,%20dilepton,%20cern&amp;ctab=0&amp;geo=all&amp;date=mtd&amp;sort=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=higgs,%20LHC,cern,%20dilepton,higgs%20boson&amp;date=today%201-m&amp;cmpt=q" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2203" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="62a53f4e-0277-4034-9c8a-0de1e7a2c46b" CreationDate="2011-12-11T02:19:26.807" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="2193d19a-f2f3-42b6-866f-7f90832948ff" CreationDate="2011-12-11T02:42:54.497" UserId="124" Text="Interesting question! We (moderators) don't have access to traffic information in enough detail to determine whether the Higgs search is increasing traffic, but my best impression is that any such increase for this site at least is fairly small. In the list of searches that we get hits from, anything relating to the Higgs is pretty far down the list, and besides, the overall traffic level for the site has been pretty steady, or _slowly_ growing, over the past several months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way we can get a bigger piece of the action is to increase the number of questions on the site that relate to the Higgs boson. So if you have any ideas, ask away!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="203fdfb3-765b-4804-8e64-9284a6371928" CreationDate="2011-12-11T03:06:02.203" UserId="124" Comment="added 729 characters in body" Text="On one hand I can understand how these questions can be useful to people. But on the other hand, they strike me as _forum_ topics. They have value, but they are not a good fit for the Stack Exchange model. (It is important to remember that SE is not trying to become a repository for every bit of useful information on the internet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been thinking about these questions, and at this point I'm inclined to just close them as off topic. Perhaps we can refer the questioners to [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com), which would be better able to accommodate these sorts of requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these questions do wind up remaining open here, I don't particularly care whether they are CW or not. The point of making list questions CW is so that they don't contribute to reputation, because the answers typically don't require much knowledge of physics, but I'm not sure if that is necessarily the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** We just had [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18098/real-world-examples-for-projectile-trown-upwards-or-downwards) posted on the main site, which I consider to be very well written and which I am reluctant to close despite it being an example of a question looking for a list of interesting problems. Perhaps the distinction in my mind is this: a question which is looking for a list of problems about X needs to explain in detail what qualifications the problems should have (i.e. don't just say &quot;interesting,&quot; explain what you consider to be interesting) and explain why existing problems about X are insufficient for the asker's purposes. I would welcome comments about this idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="0e9a4b06-de50-4738-80cc-9f36624cee38" CreationDate="2011-12-14T03:50:32.370" UserId="5827" Text="Why do you down-vote a question? [For example][1]. In my view, the so called &quot;bad&quot; questions are due to misconceptions of the OP. They may be ill-formulated, but I feel it is more productive to edit the question and elicit some clarity from the OP. Who knows, this could generate an insightful answer or two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is far off base or simply an attempt to troll, by all means lock it down. Hell, I will report it for admin review!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18250/how-do-physicists-justify-using-c2-in-equations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will never down-vote a question. Ever. What is your take on the issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="0e9a4b06-de50-4738-80cc-9f36624cee38" CreationDate="2011-12-14T03:50:32.370" UserId="5827" Text="Down-voting questions: Please state your rationale" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="0e9a4b06-de50-4738-80cc-9f36624cee38" CreationDate="2011-12-14T03:50:32.370" UserId="5827" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="cd580c63-63ce-4d18-986e-41dd97f6f6de" CreationDate="2011-12-14T23:14:19.243" UserId="520" Text="While it is often more ***useful to the site*** to accompany a down-vote with a comment this is *not required*.{*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down votes are just as important as upvotes in making this site useful. Physics has it's share of bogus information and, indeed, of people pushing nonsense for their own reasons. A visitor coming to this site and finding material that she knows to be crap accepted will not be impressed, and visitors who *don't* know may be led astray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of down-votes you can signal the difference between only two levels of quality (say between good and not-particularly good). With down-votes you can now signal three classes of material (say good, unremarkable, and poor). More discriminating power ***makes the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I find that down-votes cast due to a single detail in an otherwise good post are the best candidates for comments because the writer can easily fix the problem an the caster then rescind the vote and perhaps even award at up-vote instead. Note that this process contributes to ***making the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also sometimes comment when casting a down-vote on posts that are unrepairablly bad in hopes that the author will prefer to delete them---thus ***making the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular example you selected the OP wrote a question that a number of people found to be rude. Perhaps they cast down-votes out of pique. Well, that's what happens. Vote are plenary as long as you don't focus on another user as user and don't maintain sock-puppet accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;{*} Feature requests to require this have been turned down on the mother meta more time than I care to count, and for good reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="850341d6-0e68-444f-846e-4cf51f15b245" CreationDate="2011-12-14T23:19:55.687" UserId="520" Comment="added 691 characters in body" Text="While it is often more ***useful to the site*** to accompany a down-vote with a comment this is *not required*.{*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Down-votes are just as important as up-votes in making this site useful.][1] Physics has it's share of bogus information and, indeed, of people pushing nonsense for their own reasons. A visitor coming to this site and finding material that she knows to be crap accepted will not be impressed, and visitors who *don't* know may be led astray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of down-votes you can signal the difference between only two levels of quality (say between good and not-particularly good). With down-votes you can now signal three classes of material (say good, unremarkable, and poor). More discriminating power ***makes the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I find that down-votes cast due to a single detail in an otherwise good post are the best candidates for comments because the writer can easily fix the problem an the caster then rescind the vote and perhaps even award at up-vote instead. Note that this process contributes to ***making the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also sometimes comment when casting a down-vote on posts that are unrepairablly bad in hopes that the author will prefer to delete them---thus ***making the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular example you selected the OP wrote a question that a number of people found to be rude. Perhaps they cast down-votes out of pique. Well, that's what happens. Vote are plenary as long as you don't focus on another user as user and don't maintain sock-puppet accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I should, perhaps, remark that this consideration *do* apply to questions as well as to answers. Visitors to the site's main page will see questions before they see answers and if they see a lot of poorly written, ill-thought out, derogatory, questions they may conclude that this site has little to offer them before they ever see how we *answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users with the (quite modest) required rep who think that they can improve questions are *encouraged to do so* (there is even a little bit of rep in it until you reach 2000), as this is a ***better way to improve the site*** than casting down-votes, but down-voting is still better than allowing a bad question to pass unremarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;{*} Feature requests to require this have been turned down on the mother meta more time than I care to count, and for good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoting-or-how-hacker-news-gets-it-wrong/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="a6b77bf2-f75e-49fa-b301-1942578ad852" CreationDate="2011-12-14T23:24:58.090" UserId="520" Comment="added 691 characters in body" Text="While it is often more ***useful to the site*** to accompany a down-vote with a comment this is *not required*.{*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Down-votes are just as important as up-votes in making this site useful.][1] Physics has it's share of bogus information and, indeed, of people pushing nonsense for their own reasons. A visitor coming to this site and finding material that she knows to be crap accepted will not be impressed, and visitors who *don't* know may be led astray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of down-votes you can signal the difference between only two levels of quality (say between good and not-particularly good). With down-votes you can now signal three classes of material (say good, unremarkable, and poor). More discriminating power ***makes the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I find that down-votes cast due to a single detail in an otherwise good post are the best candidates for comments because the writer can easily fix the problem an the caster then rescind the vote and perhaps even award at up-vote instead. Note that this process contributes to ***making the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also sometimes comment when casting a down-vote on posts that are unrepairablly bad in hopes that the author will prefer to delete them---thus ***making the site better***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular example you selected the OP wrote a question that a number of people found to be rude. Perhaps they cast down-votes out of pique. Well, that's what happens. Vote are plenary as long as you don't focus on another user as user and don't maintain sock-puppet accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I should, perhaps, remark that this consideration *do* apply to questions as well as to answers. Visitors to the site's main page will see questions before they see answers and if they see a lot of poorly written, ill-thought out, derogatory, questions they may conclude that this site has little to offer them before they ever see how we *answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users with the (quite modest) required rep who think that they can improve questions are *encouraged to do so* (there is even a little bit of rep in it until you reach 2000), as this is a ***better way to improve the site*** than casting down-votes, but down-voting is still better than allowing a bad question to pass unremarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;One final remark: please do not cast votes on the basis of the current score (either pile-on votes or pity votes), but restrict yourself to making *your* best evaluation of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read the tooltips for the voting arrows, they provide clear and simple guidance on when and how to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;{*} Feature requests to require this have been turned down on the mother meta more time than I care to count, and for good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoting-or-how-hacker-news-gets-it-wrong/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="4c422c22-49ec-46a7-bd5a-4da6d5cbe095" CreationDate="2011-12-15T19:30:43.300" UserId="6693" Text="At electronics.SE we received this question: [Representing charges in computer programming][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the question comes from this paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can electric charges be represented in terms of programming? Do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you have to simulate each and every ion or are there overall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; principles so you can calculate with &quot;whole&quot; charges? I could imagine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Circuit simulations already implement some calculations with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this community think it might fit in here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/23761/representing-charges-in-computer-programming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="4c422c22-49ec-46a7-bd5a-4da6d5cbe095" CreationDate="2011-12-15T19:30:43.300" UserId="6693" Text="Do questions about modeling charges in programming fit here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="4c422c22-49ec-46a7-bd5a-4da6d5cbe095" CreationDate="2011-12-15T19:30:43.300" UserId="6693" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="991" RevisionGUID="92babcc0-6ab9-4bff-a3d0-86c026df0f92" CreationDate="2011-12-15T19:38:16.820" UserId="124" Text="I don't know much of anything about neuroelectrodynamics specifically, so I can't say for sure, but personally, my first impression is that it would not fit particularly well here. The question seems to be about representing a system in software, which is really more of a programming issue than a physics issue. There's a _chance_ it would fit on the beta [scientific computation](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) site, or perhaps on Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would suggest waiting a little while to see if someone with more knowledge in the field chimes in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="f6bb82c6-1b3f-4216-8aaf-a89a43a7f34f" CreationDate="2011-12-17T16:43:37.707" UserId="5827" Text="I feel it can fit here because there is some physics involved. Most people who run simulations in the bio-physics area use coarse grained models where a complex molecule such as RNA is divided into coarser sub-units based on physical principles. A full molecular dynamics simulation is extremely intensive to perform. The physics comes in when you decide how to coarse grain your model? I am not an expert in the field, but from what little I know, the objective usually is to predict conformational changes or time evolution of structural features. They discuss this as a classical mechanics problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="592320f9-98a8-4955-8e12-c52fcdc78c58" CreationDate="2011-12-17T20:43:03.920" UserId="124" Text="[tag:paradox] doesn't help characterize the physics content of a question. Sure, there are some questions that deal with (apparent) paradoxes, but I think it's enough that the question title or body mentions the paradox in question; there's no real need to make a tag out of it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone else see a good use for this tag and would care to argue for keeping it? Or should we get rid of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="592320f9-98a8-4955-8e12-c52fcdc78c58" CreationDate="2011-12-17T20:43:03.920" UserId="124" Text="Can we burninate the &quot;paradox&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="592320f9-98a8-4955-8e12-c52fcdc78c58" CreationDate="2011-12-17T20:43:03.920" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="94557d95-cd1e-4b5e-939c-8e13a2f67299" CreationDate="2011-12-19T11:27:26.103" UserId="4066" Comment="removing sites that have now left commitment phase" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Climate Change](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change)&#xD;&#xA;- [Cognitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Green Energy](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy)&#xD;&#xA;- [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics)&#xD;&#xA;- [Numerical Modelling and Simulation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1907/numerical-modeling-and-simulation)&#xD;&#xA;- [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;- [Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2221" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="e92a09b8-2d2f-48fc-94e4-133c00091448" CreationDate="2011-12-19T16:27:22.237" UserId="5450" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="7503b37d-cc3a-4dc4-840a-0bcb00a3305a" CreationDate="2011-12-19T20:03:12.243" UserId="5651" Text="I just came across this post: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon and think it would make a great science fair project for elementary and middle school students.  Are there other physics stackexchange questions that would serve a similar purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(also, I think this fits under meta since it is discussing questions but not physics directly, but I admit I don't know if it is really appropriate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="7503b37d-cc3a-4dc4-840a-0bcb00a3305a" CreationDate="2011-12-19T20:03:12.243" UserId="5651" Text="What are the best questions that could be turned into science fair projects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="7503b37d-cc3a-4dc4-840a-0bcb00a3305a" CreationDate="2011-12-19T20:03:12.243" UserId="5651" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="477573c5-87bf-49e1-8eb3-a8032521d682" CreationDate="2011-12-20T00:08:11.680" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="698ea79c-64ed-4c79-af2a-cdae628983e0" CreationDate="2011-12-20T20:45:03.600" UserId="869" Text="Kill it with fire. Definitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="f8d3ddc1-4e6a-48dd-a583-d4d6fe62f22d" CreationDate="2011-12-21T22:49:53.830" UserId="124" Text="This [question about exercises relating to nuclear bomb design](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18568/any-undergrad-exercises-about-nuclear-bomb-design) prompted a couple of complaints about the kind of attention it might bring to the site. I wanted to open a question for community input on this issue. What should our policy be toward questions that involve or relate to potentially illegal or unethical activities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a parallel on the programming-related sites of the SE network, in that people will occasionally ask about software exploits. We can draw on their experience in deciding on our own policy. I'll add to this list as I find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ask Ubuntu](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/2246/questions-seeking-how-to-bypass-security-off-topic)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="f8d3ddc1-4e6a-48dd-a583-d4d6fe62f22d" CreationDate="2011-12-21T22:49:53.830" UserId="124" Text="What is our stance on questions about legally or ethically questionable activities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="f8d3ddc1-4e6a-48dd-a583-d4d6fe62f22d" CreationDate="2011-12-21T22:49:53.830" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="848f144b-a07b-4caf-b17f-484d4705274b" CreationDate="2011-12-21T23:03:18.207" UserId="124" Comment="add links" Text="This [question about exercises relating to nuclear bomb design](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18568/any-undergrad-exercises-about-nuclear-bomb-design) prompted a couple of complaints about the kind of attention it might bring to the site. I wanted to open a question for community input on this issue. What should our policy be toward questions that involve or relate to potentially illegal or unethical activities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a parallel on the programming-related sites of the SE network, in that people will occasionally ask about software exploits. We can draw on their experience in deciding on our own policy. I'll add to this list as I find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ask Ubuntu](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/2246/questions-seeking-how-to-bypass-security-off-topic)&#xD;&#xA;- [Super User](http://meta.superuser.com/questions/2290/legal-basis-for-restriction-of-discussions) ([#2](http://meta.superuser.com/questions/533/handling-questions-clearly-trying-to-break-some-kind-of-policy-tos-etc))&#xD;&#xA;- [Server Fault](http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/1659/handling-illegal-immoral-questions-and-answers)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="736fd643-fe10-4dc8-bcde-515e2cd6b9b6" CreationDate="2011-12-22T14:34:45.513" UserId="1492" Text="As I was one of the people observing that a serious answer to such a question would draw unnecessary attention to the site, maybe I should expand on my ppoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my life I have lived in Greece. Living in Greece is not an intellectual exercise only, though not as dangerous as living in Syria or Egypt at the moment. Living in Athens has meant that ordinary middle class people were caught and suffocated by a fire in a bank, started by a molotov bomb during demonstrations last year. And things will be getting worse rather than better. Now one cannot stop the hot blooded bent on vengeance in making a molotof bomb, since the exercise is simple. But Jeff's question raised the specter for me: how would it be if those masked misguided or guided  operators, who intervene in all peaceful demonstrations and turn them into mayhem, could &quot;easily&quot; make a nuclear gun? and instead of five dead people have hundreds and  entire suburbs contaminated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that in most countries it would be illegal to give an instruction manual of point by point creation of a nuclear weapon, the question is also ethical, if somebody used the instructions in the answers provided by the site which resulted in some death and destruction. I think such questions should be closed as not pertaining to physics but to weapons design, and kick the can to another board, engineering or weapons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point:&#xD;&#xA;Any self respecting  government terrorist-hunting organization will be googling such terms and checking on who reads what in this free internet age. Jeff gave a link to an amazon.com book. I am sure all addresses and addressees are carefully scrutinized by somebody that we do not even suspect, from China to North Korea to US. Even Turkey. Can you imagine the Kurdish resistance with a nuclear gun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The insidious role of the question asked by Jeff is that it asks for a student exercise. An exercise will have numbers and brass tacks, which one cannot find in the run of the mill webpages on nuclear weapons: they waffle and talk of stuff any nuclear physicist knows, not the stuff that needs years of research and tests. Thus the question gave me the impression that it was asked masking a real intention of getting hands on construction instructions of such weapons. That is not innocent or naive. Hence my questioning whether his identity was hacked. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="128a2b1e-0410-4be0-b8ac-5753cdc7e0f2" CreationDate="2011-12-22T16:31:44.033" UserId="2525" Text="It's pretty unlikely that any organisation with the access to materials, technology and fabrication facilities to manufacture a *device* would be seeking intro physics guidance on SO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another physics based forum had a strict rule on not explaining things that people could hurt themselves with, Van der Graff generators, electromagnetic rail guns, penny squeezers, etc - and that they could reasonably build.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course letting the enemy have any knowledge at all is dangerous - if we'd kept the invention of the steam locomotive secret Geordies would rule the world!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2233" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="cb9394ef-46c9-4851-be2d-e4e493bd0820" CreationDate="2011-12-25T07:07:30.153" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="b30de88e-69ec-411e-b00a-83a4486b63e8" CreationDate="2011-12-26T01:12:40.100" UserId="5827" Text="I seriously doubt anybody on this forum can even begin to comprehend the complexities involved in making a nuclear bomb, let alone make one! As Ron Miamon stated, entire nations, with their wealth and connections have been unsuccessful trying on their own. I would be very surprised if somebody made a bomb based on the expertise of SE:Physics. Perhaps, the only casualties by allowing the question would be those among us who die laughing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just remember that the jokers who are determined to cause mischief and mayhem will do so regardless of whether we ban them or not. Perhaps it is better served to let people who ask know that they are wasting their time on a ridiculous endeavor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree with Anna that some discussions such as making bombs from home chemicals (a la Steven Segal in Under Seige) are best left unanswered, or closed, or bumped off to SE:Chemistry. Those are not Physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the site admin has to decide on liability issues as there are always morons who try to sue at the drop of a hat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="c2983fa9-9183-40a0-906a-914d706531db" CreationDate="2012-01-02T07:01:30.593" UserId="124" Text="I've been noticing that we get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an _inherently_ bad thing; after all, there are many people on this site who can ask perfectly valid questions even if the title is not phrased as a question. However, I think it's good to **encourage especially new posters to pose their titles as questions** for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more descriptive. You get a specific sense of what the poster actually wants to know by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic the question concerns.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as (reasonably descriptive) questions, and editing the titles of posts by new posters to also be questions when necessary. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="c2983fa9-9183-40a0-906a-914d706531db" CreationDate="2012-01-02T07:01:30.593" UserId="124" Text="Let's make our question titles actual questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="c2983fa9-9183-40a0-906a-914d706531db" CreationDate="2012-01-02T07:01:30.593" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="42fb43ad-258a-47c1-b800-0a06d16586c3" CreationDate="2012-01-02T11:50:13.563" UserId="1492" Text="Happy New Year , David.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I agree on that the title should be a question. Maybe one could program the requirement of a question mark for acceptance of the title?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for closed questions. I would be happy if there were a qualifier next to the word &quot;closed&quot; in the main list. For example &quot;closed/duplicate&quot; in the main list encourages people to open the question and find the link to the duplicate. &quot;closed, not a question&quot;, or &quot;closed, FAQ&quot;, will allow to skip in good conscience. &quot;closed/migrated&quot; would encourage opening the question to see where, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="9d813ad5-4e75-4bca-a8eb-c1df0a143aa7" CreationDate="2012-01-03T00:08:39.803" UserId="2451" Text="Very good initiative! Titles should be informative. When a user reads the [frontpage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but it is more important that it is informative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="7fe6cd9c-8ded-499c-b0fe-c3d18849f68d" CreationDate="2012-01-03T00:16:22.677" UserId="2451" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Very good initiative! Titles should be informative. When a user reads the [frontpage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but it is more important that it is informative about the physics topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="8f7e438f-7ad5-43ba-a5ae-f70c64d6ad43" CreationDate="2012-01-03T13:17:10.550" UserId="2451" Comment="added 879 characters in body" Text="1) Very good initiative! First of all, titles should be _informative_ about the physics question. When a user reads the [frontpage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but ultimately it is more important that it is informative about the physics topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Moreover, avoid _abbreviations_ in the title. If an abbreviation is only explained in the question formulation, one still have to click it to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) In the question formulation, if you are reading a book, and there is something in that book you don't understand and you want to ask about, please give the _reference!_ This may sound obvious, but for some reason Physics.SE is dotted with examples of questions where no reference is initially provided. Just because one book defines a physical notion in a certain way, it does not necessarily mean that it is universally accepted and every author uses the same definition. In fact, in different areas of physics, notions can mean completely different things! By providing a reference, you ensure that the answers will be much more focused and useful to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="e7207eae-a7dd-4134-9fd8-b9db007d34cf" CreationDate="2012-01-03T16:13:03.757" UserId="2451" Comment="added 593 characters in body" Text="1) Very good initiative! First of all, titles should be _informative_ about the physics question. When a user reads the [frontpage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but ultimately it is more important that it is informative about the physics topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Moreover, avoid _abbreviations_ in the title. If an abbreviation is only explained in the question formulation, one still have to click it to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is not directly related to the opening post, but rather a couple of scattered thoughts on how to write questions (which someone in the future may write up as, say, an extended version of the [faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#howtoask) on _how to ask questions_ ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) In the question formulation, if you are reading a book, and there is something in that book you don't understand and you want to ask about, please give the _reference!_ This may sound obvious, but for some reason Physics.SE is dotted with examples of questions where no reference is initially provided. Just because one book defines a physical notion in a certain way, it does not necessarily mean that it is universally accepted and every author uses the same definition. In fact, in different areas of physics, notions can mean completely different things! By providing a reference, you ensure that the answers will be much more focused and useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) When linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page rather than the pdf file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) When linking to other questions/answers on Physics.SE, use their perma-links to prevent [link rot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link rot can e.g. happen if the title of the linked question is changed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="123f1099-ecb3-4489-bdf5-940b9d169ab7" CreationDate="2012-01-04T12:06:32.327" UserId="2451" Comment="removed one sentence because of comment by Tobias Kienzler" Text="1) Very good initiative! First of all, titles should be _informative_ about the physics question. When a user reads the [frontpage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but ultimately it is more important that it is informative about the physics topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Moreover, avoid _abbreviations_ in the title. If an abbreviation is only explained in the question formulation, one still has to click it to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is not directly related to the opening post, but rather a couple of scattered thoughts on how to write questions (which someone in the future may write up as, say, an extended version of the [faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#howtoask) on _how to ask questions_ ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) In the question formulation, if you are reading a book, and there is something in that book you don't understand and you want to ask about, please give the _reference!_ This may sound obvious, but for some reason Physics.SE is dotted with examples of questions where no reference is initially provided. Just because one book defines a physical notion in a certain way, it does not necessarily mean that it is universally accepted and every author uses the same definition. In fact, in different areas of physics, notions can mean completely different things! By providing a reference, you ensure that the answers will be much more focused and useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) When linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page rather than the pdf file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) When linking to other questions/answers on Physics.SE, use their perma-links to prevent [link rot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2247" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="27aaa9d3-1a5a-4591-8d26-0d87affc15ec" CreationDate="2012-01-04T14:27:37.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/154569671209795585" />
  <row Id="2248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="b353e561-54bf-442f-bbf7-d911cb740a5d" CreationDate="2012-01-05T19:58:41.893" UserId="113" Text="There are really two types of question titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Good titles that describe the content of the question in an accurate way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want #1, and definitely not #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to get there, but you *don't* want to start arbitrarily forcing everyone to prefix their questions with &quot;How do I..&quot; because that would actually harm the titles. See the excellent guidelines here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/10648/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR -- you want *good, descriptive* titles, a question title in the formal tone of a question can be every bit as bad as one that isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="b7ad2913-de00-4052-8e41-47641517866b" CreationDate="2012-01-05T20:21:46.333" UserId="124" Text="There is a question on Stack Overflow, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8728759/need-some-help-to-understanding-the-formula, which is off topic there and is being considered for migration to Physics. Would it be appropriate on this site? I ask because, although the pinhole camera model itself could be classified under physics, the mathematical language which the question uses is decidedly _not_ something we use in physics (as far as I know). The math seems to be fairly standard for computer image processing, and since the question is asking about interpreting that math, I believe it would be best treated at a site where computer image processing is on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do you think?** Should this question, and more generally anything about the pinhole camera model regardless of what mathematical language it is phrased in, be on topic (or off topic) here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="b7ad2913-de00-4052-8e41-47641517866b" CreationDate="2012-01-05T20:21:46.333" UserId="124" Text="Is this question about the pinhole camera model appropriate for us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="b7ad2913-de00-4052-8e41-47641517866b" CreationDate="2012-01-05T20:21:46.333" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="47215cf6-1e2e-4135-b036-8e24a9693dbd" CreationDate="2012-01-05T22:25:08.577" UserId="520" Text="I don't see it as particularly good for Physics.SE: all the physics has already been done and the question is about the meaning of a particular mathematical notation that is very common in computer graphics circles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better on Math.SE, or just kept on Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="cbc2240f-f3d3-4444-aac3-e719908a49ab" CreationDate="2012-01-06T01:17:30.717" UserId="124" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 700 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E4Rt6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2254" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="c3d3df24-b86b-4031-adf5-ab8dd0a9dafd" CreationDate="2012-01-06T01:17:30.717" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="608c6941-de79-47ae-a498-e8b054cd4d32" CreationDate="2012-01-06T01:17:59.547" UserId="124" Comment="feature question" Text="|discussion|featured|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2256" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="2753b686-cdac-4a24-9b5c-b4df1bb79be6" CreationDate="2012-01-06T08:27:54.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/155203924759035905" />
  <row Id="2257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="e979450d-19e2-4c29-a4db-ef3eeff50a76" CreationDate="2012-01-06T09:55:11.673" UserId="124" Text="[![INSPIRE -- literature database search for high-energy physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPxBl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://inspirehep.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2258" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="7e2322be-ad40-4758-afb5-95aba1fa2934" CreationDate="2012-01-06T09:55:11.673" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4e688965-2d36-41ea-9d81-b01c31e94865" CreationDate="2012-01-06T11:30:49.913" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 290 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry) 49%&#xD;&#xA;- [Climate Change](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change) [Definition]&#xD;&#xA;- [Cognitive Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/cognitive-science) 88%&#xD;&#xA;- [Green Energy](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy) 23%&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;strike&gt;[High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics)&lt;/strike&gt; [Merged into [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)]&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;strike&gt;[Numerical Modelling and Simulation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1907/numerical-modeling-and-simulation)&lt;/strike&gt; [[Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) is in beta]&#xD;&#xA;- [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science) 21%&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;strike&gt;[Psychology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3431/psychology)&lt;/strike&gt;  [Merged into Cognitive Science]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2260" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4e688965-2d36-41ea-9d81-b01c31e94865" CreationDate="2012-01-06T11:30:49.913" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 290 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="8d5ee751-ef26-4bd3-bbdd-34410465e4cc" CreationDate="2012-01-06T22:46:23.187" UserId="124" Comment="rephrase after Jeff's input" Text="We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often _tend_ to be [better](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) than the ones that are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by **encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions**. I think it's good for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that **in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question**, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm **not** saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm also **not** saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does _nothing_ to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is _really_ asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="8d5ee751-ef26-4bd3-bbdd-34410465e4cc" CreationDate="2012-01-06T22:46:23.187" UserId="124" Comment="rephrase after Jeff's input" Text="Let's make (more of) our question titles actual questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="66229883-58f6-4b71-843b-36cd83bda6dd" CreationDate="2012-01-07T04:25:30.607" UserId="3064" Text="Is it just me? I keep getting this error when I open physics.stackexchange.com (and, for that matter, it also happens in math.stackexchange.com):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MathJax no longer loads a default configuration file; you must specify such files explicitly. This page seems to use the older default config/MathJax.js file, and so needs to be updated. This is explained further at&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mathjax.org/help/configuration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that I can't see equations. Why is this happening? What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="66229883-58f6-4b71-843b-36cd83bda6dd" CreationDate="2012-01-07T04:25:30.607" UserId="3064" Text="MathJax crashes in every page with equations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="66229883-58f6-4b71-843b-36cd83bda6dd" CreationDate="2012-01-07T04:25:30.607" UserId="3064" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="5f0a1846-faa0-45d1-a880-36d74a6fd239" CreationDate="2012-01-07T06:58:20.700" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="87c3ac59-34bc-4465-b8ca-c3136800219a" CreationDate="2012-01-07T17:55:31.483" UserId="3064" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Is it just me? I keep getting this error when I open physics.stackexchange.com (and, for that matter, it also happens in math.stackexchange.com):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MathJax no longer loads a default configuration file; you must specify such files explicitly. This page seems to use the older default config/MathJax.js file, and so needs to be updated. This is explained further at&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mathjax.org/help/configuration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that I can't see equations. Why is this happening? What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I have had this issue with Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer 8, and Firefox 7.0.1. Perhaps I should also mention that my internet connection is dial-up (slow @ ~ 33kbps). However, I have no problems with other websites, such as Wikipedia, which is also heavy on equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="ed7f04e3-a903-4d87-977c-27db04d52a39" CreationDate="2012-01-07T19:56:09.030" UserId="2451" Comment="removed a couple of unnecessary sentences" Text="1) Very good initiative! First of all, titles should be _informative_ about the physics question. When a user reads the [frontpage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but ultimately it is more important that it is informative about the physics topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Moreover, avoid _abbreviations_ in the title. If an abbreviation is only explained in the question formulation, one still has to click it to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is not directly related to the opening post, but rather a couple of scattered thoughts on how to write questions (which someone in the future may write up as, say, an extended version of the [faq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#howtoask) on _how to ask questions_ ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) In the question formulation, if you are reading a book, and there is something in that book you don't understand and you want to ask about, please give the _reference!_ In fact, in different areas of physics, notions can mean completely different things! By providing a reference, you ensure that the answers will be much more focused and useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) When linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page rather than the pdf file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) When linking preferably use perma-links if possible to prevent [link rot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2269" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="e2715321-6510-4f4a-8a1a-07b0ec7739e2" CreationDate="2012-01-08T03:02:27.620" UserId="399" Comment="I couldn't resist, and so made the title a question." Text="Shouldn't we make (more of) our question titles actual questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="1070aad7-9c4f-46d7-be3b-53661e5a041b" CreationDate="2012-01-08T03:42:57.193" UserId="3715" Text="I want to answer on 2 things you asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what to do: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance the users and community atmosphere, and SE is already doing this by limiting daily rep to 200 for exactly this reasons and personalities you list in your question. You can go further to limit rep gainable in a week/month, something I would recommend here. Does this site really need user who play this site and invests time in it like such one addicted 24/7 world or warcraft gamer? There would be enough other user to anwer questions if the rep-payout would only drive those people to write every 1 days only 1 answer here. For big sites like SO there are enough competitors and questions niches that the 200 limit works, but here and on small betas even more, dominance of very few rep-gamers makes many sites here uninteresting to me, for small topics you get much better and more perspectives on topics over at reddit or quora. That are the 2 sides of reputation, attracting egos like Motl or Ron clashing from time to time and yielding high quality answers by competition via the rep-voting system. But it is evident that discussions about phyics are on SE much harder then on other questions sites because of this system. Still I think SE should start to begin adapting at least rep-limit or voting strentgh on SE sites with diff. topics and community size. I have surfed for a while philosophy, history and economics.SE and it are always the same 2-3 user earning all rep or even voting themselves, these sites are so one-dimensional in their views and boring to read that you wish all high rep users where only allowed to answer 1 question a week simply to make more people contributing to such sites. It kills pretty much any community dynamics and the AREA51 only works if they set up the min. amount of commiters so that more competition exists in the first beta-months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what I feel as a physicist when reading Ron's arrogant insulting Bio:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I wouldn't recommend a site to colleagues where (probably soon) the top-rep poster has such a arrogant Bio and insults all Physicists building the high-technology you use at the moment as completely incompetent. It's awkward that the mods here are obviously not willing to make this guy either changing his incomplete Bio or deactivating his account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Ron insults guys like me I may counter: Somebody unemployed with 38 sitting whole day in front of a PC to answer basic physics questions and dubbing others with his Real Name as idiots obviously failed pretty much in a social way in the research group after his graduation. Not able to work in a team or respect other people not wasting 70 hours a week on physics. Not able to understand that science more than ever is a social process of strengthening and falsifying paradigms instead of genius-like theoretical visions in these times. He lacks patience and tranquility obviously to work as a scholar, so sites like this are the only places to pet his ego, he writes answers longer than wikipedia articels and probably socially failed there too as a author in the discussions. He &quot;likes to spread his theories everywhere&quot;, well maybe he should enlighten then theophysics.SE and the whole scientifc community with some arxiv papers to boost scientific progress how only he can do it and less game this site, but probably the users over there are even more incompetent to understand his genius-like truths than here. If he completes his Bio with these unmentioned points I'm fine and he should keep it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why the mods here don't request the bio change, Georg account was deactivated for some months afaik for insulting comments (I agree with this, while I'm pretty direct and critical too I'm not dubbing people as embarrassing or incompetent) Ron's Bio is even more insulting to me and visible as a constant poster and high-rep user here. And with such users waiting on their RSS-feed to bombard this site with their knowledge or google-wizardry (which many physics graduate with so much time could easily do too), it becomes less and less interesting or valuable to contribute to this site. I'm not interested in the mostly correct views of one person on physics, I want competition, many answers and views (otherwise there is wiki or scholarpedia or personal blogs), without anti-thesis for the pure purpose, scientific progress ends. Too much of those rep-gamers and such sites or forums become a cabinet of vanities. That's why there is the 200 rep limit. And for physics this obviouly has to be adapted, the rate of  graduates thinking of themselves as omiscient is esp. in physics pretty high compared to other branches, explains why so many physicists write blogs. Thats a evident psychological pattern on many physicists I know. A rep system just perfectly matches the ego of such guys, writing wikipia articles as answers, so any prof. physicist will never try answer a qestion on his own lacking time. There is not really a chance and need to compete on attention with such fast appearing long answers, so prof. experts leave. It's of course hard to balance his, but I prefer rather a lot competition on lower quality and detail of answer than views of always the same 3-4 gamer here on top of every question. There is a voting-bias to such guys and I will personally more trust a heavy discussed wikipedia article than a single omniscient completely competent user, esp. in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="ca8e339c-7480-4358-9f0a-84bd51ef9ded" CreationDate="2012-01-08T13:03:03.270" UserId="6671" Text="In the FAQ it is said that &quot;do my homework&quot; questions are not welcome on physics.stackexchange. So far I was sure that I know what are that questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Formulation of some non-conceptual problem: &quot;given A, find B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  2. No attempts to solve the problem or understand the conditions are shown in the post.&#xD;&#xA;  3. The question is &quot;what is B?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have flagged 4 questions using these criteria. The flags for two questions have been declined. These questions got some up-votes and answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. [What would be pressure of 1 kg of photon gas at room temperature put in a volume of 1 liter?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18942/what-would-be-pressure-of-1-kg-of-photon-gas-at-room-temperature-put-in-a-volume) - looks like it was just copied from some textbook without any editions. Criteria: 1, 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;  2. [Rolling resistance and static friction](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19245/rolling-resistance-and-static-friction) - some useless &quot;I'm confused&quot; introduction and an exercise from another textbook. Criteria: 1 and 3 for sure. An attempt to avoid criterion 2 (IMHO, not successful).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are not worth neither the up-votes nor the good answers they got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something is wrong for sure in my criteria since those questions are neither edited nor closed.  &#xD;&#xA;What is wrong? What are the correct criteria?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="ca8e339c-7480-4358-9f0a-84bd51ef9ded" CreationDate="2012-01-08T13:03:03.270" UserId="6671" Text="Objective criteria of &quot;do my homework&quot; questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="ca8e339c-7480-4358-9f0a-84bd51ef9ded" CreationDate="2012-01-08T13:03:03.270" UserId="6671" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="2cd32284-f80e-4446-8a85-71676116e779" CreationDate="2012-01-08T13:55:13.113" UserId="124" Text="1. I wasn't the one who declined that flag, so I can't give you the full story, but that question was asked by a user who has contributed many answers and non-homework questions to the site, and who presumably knows our policies on homework well enough to tag a question as homework if the tag does indeed apply. With that in mind, I elected to give the user the benefit of the doubt and not close it for being a &quot;do-my-homework&quot; question (even though it admittedly does look like one). That may have been a mistake. If so, it is at least an isolated incident. If you flag similar questions in the future, it's unlikely those flags will be declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I don't agree that this problem meets criterion #1. Yes, the question could be better explained, but the poster is looking for an explanation of the underlying concept, namely the difference between the causes of rolling and static friction, and is merely posting the questions about FBDs and forces as a way to elucidate that difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I think you have the right criteria in mind, you just happened to get unlucky in flagging a couple of borderline cases. But also wait to see what the other moderators have to say, if anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the past I've closed a lot of do-my-homework questions as &quot;off topic,&quot; but lately I tend to use &quot;too localized&quot; more so as not to give out the automatic downvote (which tends to discourage new users).&#xD;&#xA;- For future reference, if a question is essentially conceptual but just seems to have a few too many details, enough that it piques your &quot;homework question sense&quot; (as I suppose was the case in example #2 in your question), one thing you can do is edit out the specific details and make the question a little more generic, rather than flagging it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you're concerned about your flag weight, (1) don't be, nobody cares around here ;-) (2) as far as I'm concerned you can flag a couple things for nonsense reasons and I'll mark them valid.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="9f184cba-4152-45cc-95be-586f7e23b77f" CreationDate="2012-01-09T11:17:14.010" UserId="6671" Text="Recently I had some questions and was going to post them here. While trying to find the best formulation for them I've found the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting questions with immediate answers is welcome e.g. on [Stack Overflow](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/), but this site is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure my questions are interesting and the answers can be useful for other people. Should I post them here? If yes, how to do that in the best way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is similar to [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/49/is-it-okay-with-you-to-write-seed-questions) but I think the linked question is more about site promotion while mine is about knowledge sharing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to flood the site with question&amp;answers invented specially to &quot;farm&quot; reputation. There are some problems that were puzzling me. If I was able to find the answers myself, so what? Should I just wait for other people to ask the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers given to the question linked above are essentially &quot;Pretend to not know the answer. People like answering questions&quot;. Well, I like answering questions too. Why not answer my own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, should I...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ... post such questions?&#xD;&#xA; 2. ... indicate that I already know the answer?&#xD;&#xA; 3. ... post my own answer?&#xD;&#xA; 4. ... give other people some time to answer the questions before posting my own answer?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="9f184cba-4152-45cc-95be-586f7e23b77f" CreationDate="2012-01-09T11:17:14.010" UserId="6671" Text="Should I post a question if I know the answer? Should I answer my own questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="9f184cba-4152-45cc-95be-586f7e23b77f" CreationDate="2012-01-09T11:17:14.010" UserId="6671" Text="|discussion|scope|best-practices|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="088e4966-5aad-434b-89ec-e734c5c56aa8" CreationDate="2012-01-09T11:43:45.807" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Seeding the site with questions is not ok, because it makes it grow artificially; now, when the site is a grown-up, it is perfectly ok, unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- you ask serious questions,&#xD;&#xA;- you won't flood the site with tens of them,&#xD;&#xA;- you will be fair with accepting best answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="4c8a4266-c6f7-408d-ab91-55c89f1c8815" CreationDate="2012-01-09T19:28:39.293" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Seeding the site with questions is not ok, because it makes it grow artificially; now, when the site is a grown-up, it is perfectly ok, as long as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- you ask serious questions,&#xD;&#xA;- you won't flood the site with tens of them,&#xD;&#xA;- you will be fair with accepting best answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="8afb212b-6523-4fae-9c6c-253f18ab4ef4" CreationDate="2012-01-10T17:35:08.343" UserId="3715" Text="There is the same discussion on biology BETA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO if you know you have solved a problem **of general interest** correctly it's ok, but wait with accepting the answer. If you know there is no single answer to that question, wait before answering yourself, otherwise it will often look like rep-gaiming and more important kill competition and therefore number and quality of answers. Someone may find a even better answer than yours, if the question is still open. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="07bcad48-0261-48c1-808f-7d2e7d3d127b" CreationDate="2012-01-11T16:12:10.017" UserId="2751" Text="I want to ask just what is in the title: How can I undo an accidental upvote of a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="07bcad48-0261-48c1-808f-7d2e7d3d127b" CreationDate="2012-01-11T16:12:10.017" UserId="2751" Text="How can I undo an upvote of a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="07bcad48-0261-48c1-808f-7d2e7d3d127b" CreationDate="2012-01-11T16:12:10.017" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="918075c2-7c20-44d6-92c3-270b1d80f348" CreationDate="2012-01-11T17:44:29.020" UserId="3" Text="I'd like to present the community with a new final site design I've been working on. The goal is to keep the site clean and minimalistic, but at the same time give our physics site a unique branding. I gave the layout some extra spacing and line height for readability, also the colors have been tested for color blindness. I apologize for the first design, I learned my lesson the [hard way][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Below are the mockups, please click on the images to see full resolution versions.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Home Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png&quot;&gt;![Physics Homepage][2]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/19fbD.png&quot;&gt;![Physics Question page][3]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community approves this design, I'll be converting it to CSS and hopefully launch the design next week. Also, I'll be creating top user swag (T-Shirt and stickers) and moderator cards soon. Below is a mockup of the shirt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Physics T-Shirt][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/19fbD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Iqkbf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="918075c2-7c20-44d6-92c3-270b1d80f348" CreationDate="2012-01-11T17:44:29.020" UserId="3" Text="New Site Design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="918075c2-7c20-44d6-92c3-270b1d80f348" CreationDate="2012-01-11T17:44:29.020" UserId="3" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="319ea3f0-508e-4f85-8f95-04b2428a5ac6" CreationDate="2012-01-11T18:53:06.963" UserId="124" Text="Unfortunately there is no way to do this. It has been proposed as a feature request [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/1170/should-i-be-able-to-cancel-my-up-vote-on-a-comment) and declined. Comments don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things anyway, so try not to worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2290" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="9ed798d2-25a8-41a4-baef-3027e175f2ed" CreationDate="2012-01-11T19:12:53.810" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2291" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="019d4829-541c-4c0b-87c8-a0ee853ec2ff" CreationDate="2012-01-11T20:28:43.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/157197266170556416" />
  <row Id="2292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="ced541b4-0273-4e9e-aa9c-371d53916397" CreationDate="2012-01-12T01:33:05.750" UserId="124" Text="I've been thinking over this today, and yep, I still like it ;-) It reminds me that [the first time through](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like), there were a lot of suggestions about cute ways to work physics concepts and notation into the design, but I think we'll be better off with a design like this that just gets out of the way, so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I'd be quite happy with the exact design you've posted screenshots of, but I do have a few speculative thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The page footer seems insufficiently distinguished from the rest of the page. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be nice to have some visual indication that the main content of the page has ended and that you're now looking at a generic footer. What about putting the same grid and gradient you use in the header, or perhaps a faded version of it, as a background for the footer?&#xD;&#xA;- Same goes for the right sidebar; it seems insufficiently distinguished from the main content of the page, though more so on the question list than the individual question page. Of course I'm not suggesting using the grid/gradient background for the sidebar, but perhaps there's something subtle that could be done there, like giving it a faint left border, or a slightly off-white background color, or fading the text, or whatever tricks you have up your sleeve for this sort of thing ;-)&#xD;&#xA;- Regarding the vertical alignment of the text of the site name and the page tabs on the right (questions, tags, etc.): when I look at it closely I do see that the baselines are aligned, but if I'm not focusing on that alignment specifically, it qualitatively seems just a little off. I'm wondering what it would look like if the names of those tabs were raised up by just a couple of pixels.&#xD;&#xA;- The tags also seem to blend into the background a bit. What would you think about putting a thin border of a marginally darker shade on the left side of each tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do we get a custom image on the 404 page? That's one place I think we could get away with having some cute physics joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1021" RevisionGUID="1a280efa-6725-4386-82b3-430e57da35dd" CreationDate="2012-01-12T02:41:54.640" UserId="791" Text="Elegant and visually pleasing, but as David notes it &quot;gets out of the way&quot; -- absolutely perfect for the site. On the other hand could we restart the search for a proper logo? I actually like the mexican hat favicon, but for the main image it's just a bit... lacking. Maybe it's just me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="c51e64c4-2f9c-44de-929c-fb29a73596ef" CreationDate="2012-01-12T06:09:11.927" UserId="124" Text="In conjunction with the [new site design](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design) Jin has proposed, we may get to choose images to put on the 404 error and captcha pages. (I'm not sure if there are any other pages there are that we can customize, but if so, I hope someone else will edit them in.) The main theme is pretty clean and not very physics-specific, but these error pages are a good chance to work some inside jokes and physics references into the site design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few possibilities for the 404 page were proposed on the [original design thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like) (though [one of them](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) may not be 404 material much longer :-P). We can reconsider those, and also collect new ones if anyone has them. So, what ideas do we have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="c51e64c4-2f9c-44de-929c-fb29a73596ef" CreationDate="2012-01-12T06:09:11.927" UserId="124" Text="Ideas for 404/error/captcha pages, take 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="c51e64c4-2f9c-44de-929c-fb29a73596ef" CreationDate="2012-01-12T06:09:11.927" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="0e6d2f2c-fdf7-4ade-9db8-a1e55c4b153a" CreationDate="2012-01-12T08:28:46.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/157378474301063168" />
  <row Id="2298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="66fb4bc0-fe6c-4d1b-a812-d2e44e4a1aeb" CreationDate="2012-01-12T21:02:51.203" UserId="3864" Text="Rons got a reputation of over 10,000 is that gulling to a professional physicist who have got lazy enough to not spend all day, arguing obscure points about physics. I'm sure it is. I was arguing Everett and QM in sci.physics and sci.physics.research back when I was undergrad and gradute getting his PhD, and me Ron where most on the same side then. I don't doubt that 20 years of learning and practicing arguing about physics will make you very strong at gaining rep on services like stack exchange. &#xD;&#xA;Its a pity in fact that his gaining reputation isn't making him money. That lack of a PhD, probably means its very hard for him to get published on ArXiv, Journals or as a science Author. Stack Exchange works better than Technorati for reputation I think. 100 plus articles and I'm zero there, dispite having friends over at science 2.0, and a public name check by Lubos, I've still the Technorati authority of newbie, and only google love from SEO gaming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perphaps I'm a crank. I've followed 20+ years of arXiv (many phys-ph),  and generate occasional new theories, obviously this time clashes with being programmer, and social life. Imagine a professional physicist of 20 years, post doc to marriage to steady university position (one in who many PhDs) , have had there interesting new ideas cut down by collegues, and fail in practice, or its famous name whos working on it, so regularly they solidly conservative now. In fact zero people have cut down my new idea yet, apart from the rejection letter from Astroparticle physics, for being to constructive or it being well known, (notice not your math fails here, or reference to where else it was tried, not even for it being more than one step beyond current ideas. I.e. the principle that your allowed one new particle or force, but when you have to invoke two at time without a common prinicple, your pushing Bayes belief toward infinitessimal squared. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do your want public development of physics to go onwards, outside universities? These days I see much fewer undergrads using the net. You could quite easier destroy scientic development with a few reputation winners recanting on they're own subject. Not Even Wrong, and all. I went down the best student book shop in London yestaday, and the books on supersymmetry and supergravity had disappeared from the selves. This is very important sociologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did pick up, [TITLE]Orbiting the moons of pluto[/TITLE] at the bookshop though, solving Maxwells, Dirac and Schoedigers equations in 8d metrics (3,3i,-1,i) and 12d (3,3i, -3, 3i) and the sort of pheno that made me laugh out loud in several places. That's the sort of work that would disappear because of Stack Exchange. Lubos and Ron and other would probably down slap down with 3 time dimensions, your states will all be negative norm, and they'd be probilities would be ghosts. (And they'd say that without knowing the five BDOA loopholes what allow it to succeed in a perfect theory), and in a hundred years, they'd still probably believe it had failed where it could have been sucessful, just due to repetition gaming. I'm too lazy to check those loop holes, probably, and the world is very not encoraging. I here they's a bar mans job going somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="7f58c30b-cfcc-4ddf-9ff4-b9f0eee39e71" CreationDate="2012-01-13T06:39:16.713" UserId="124" Text="Idea for 404 page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **We couldn't find that page. Maybe it's hiding in these extra dimensions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or, try searching for... _[here goes the standard 404 page stuff]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Calabi-Yau manifold](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Calabi_yau.jpg/460px-Calabi_yau.jpg)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calabi_yau.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="8ca2deb1-121d-4f10-ac7a-c8597f6bdb55" CreationDate="2012-01-13T07:35:26.263" UserId="124" Text="It seems to have become de facto policy that questions about fictional physics are off topic, unless they're sufficiently precisely written. I recently realized that wasn't mentioned in our [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions) so I added the following blurb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Questions about physics of fictional worlds&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;&quot;Could warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Most questions about fictional physics are not addressed by existing theories or experiments, so we do not have the ability to answer them by applying physical laws. If your question falls under this category, it may be on topic at &lt;a href=&quot;http://scifi.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Science Fiction &amp;amp; Fantasy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Exception:&lt;/i&gt; if a question is formulated specifically enough in terms of modifications to existing theories, it may be okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we keep this, delete it, rewrite it, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="8ca2deb1-121d-4f10-ac7a-c8597f6bdb55" CreationDate="2012-01-13T07:35:26.263" UserId="124" Text="What's our official position on fictional physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="8ca2deb1-121d-4f10-ac7a-c8597f6bdb55" CreationDate="2012-01-13T07:35:26.263" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="4d4a600a-b867-44e7-ac6b-42322ab91bea" CreationDate="2012-01-13T19:21:12.737" UserId="520" Text="Riffing off the Higg's answer, other no-see-ems include magnetic monopoles, sterile neutrinos, squarks and sleptons, gravitons, the many kinds of quasi-particles that inhabit particle physics books (reggions, instatons, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building an amusing graphical motif out of these critters is a little tricky, however..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="c1f07d84-fe03-466e-ad36-02afe49aa786" CreationDate="2012-01-14T15:50:49.193" UserId="1492" Text="As this as become focused on a specific person's bio, I have to say that as a retired physicist I do not find very offensive a statement like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think the professionals are, for the most part, completely incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though I would not use &quot;completely incompetent&quot; but rather &quot;civil service minded&quot;: pensions, perks, grants and schooling for children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was a student, physics was a vocation, it was a burning desire for answers to questions and I was not alone, that is what most of the students of my graduate classes were feeling. We would spend enormous time discussing solutions of quantum mechanics problems, fighting about who was correct. Maybe I was lucky to be with a clutch of dedicated young physicists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first shock came when I was describing the research of our group to an audience of aspiring for a graduate scholarship students, and I got the first question &quot;and what is the insurance plan?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been inflation in the number of people studying physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not incompetence I would accuse  many  current physicists of, but with lack of vocation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, considering that experiments need something like 3000 people to get going it is evident that a civil service mentality can keep such systems working. Vocation is left for the group leaders, but often they are not inspiring enough, having come up from the hoi polloi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look forward to the time when a true physicist will be sitting at his/her computer and carry out experiments with robots :) . maybe in 300 years, if we do not blow ourselves up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="fa03af0c-5132-48b5-a397-21dfd2636b77" CreationDate="2012-01-14T15:56:51.260" UserId="1492" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="As this has become focused on a specific person's bio, I have to say that as a retired physicist I do not find very offensive a statement like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think the professionals are, for the most part, completely incompetent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though I would not use &quot;completely incompetent&quot; but rather &quot;civil service minded&quot;: pensions, perks, grants and schooling for children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was a student, physics was a vocation, it was a burning desire for answers to questions and I was not alone, that is what most of the students of my graduate classes were feeling. We would spend enormous time discussing solutions of quantum mechanics problems, fighting about who was correct. Maybe I was lucky to be with a clutch of dedicated young physicists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first shock came when I was describing the research of our group to an audience of aspiring for a graduate scholarship students, and I got the first question &quot;and what is the insurance plan?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been inflation in the number of people studying physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not incompetence I would accuse  many  current physicists of, but with lack of vocation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, considering that experiments need something like 3000 people to get going it is evident that a civil service mentality can keep such systems working. Vocation is left for the group leaders, but often they are not inspiring enough, having come up from the hoi polloi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look forward to the time when a true physicist will be sitting at his/her computer and carry out experiments with robots :) . maybe in 300 years, if we do not blow ourselves up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="ab3f7789-c1cd-4bbb-af7f-e024fadc0e1b" CreationDate="2012-01-15T02:28:02.647" UserId="6290" Text="Many other StackExchange sites have a name for their chatroom.  MSO has &quot;The Tavern,&quot; SU has &quot;Root Access,&quot; SF has &quot;The Heap,&quot; etc.  Our chatroom here is &quot;Physics.&quot;  Lame.  We need a better name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose &quot;The h Bar.&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="ab3f7789-c1cd-4bbb-af7f-e024fadc0e1b" CreationDate="2012-01-15T02:28:02.647" UserId="6290" Text="What should we name our chat room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="ab3f7789-c1cd-4bbb-af7f-e024fadc0e1b" CreationDate="2012-01-15T02:28:02.647" UserId="6290" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="1e9312a3-f25a-4a50-bb8f-8760a0918ea3" CreationDate="2012-01-15T18:23:36.970" UserId="4864" Text="This question has lain dormant for months. It wasn't bumped, nothing happened. Suddenly, I get three downvotes (and one up vote) within a 24 hour period. How can I be sure somebody isn't meat puppeting or sock puppeting? Can an admin review the votes and assure me that it was a legitimate coincidence? Is it even possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16119/which-subjects-in-physics-should-i-choose-if-i-want-to-help-tackling-todays-ene/16138#16138&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is cold fusion related, and it was at a (suprising) +1 before the current episode. It is possible that you have community vigilante patrols looking for oddball answers, I don't know. But it is not plausible that three votes come on a long dormant answer in a few hours. That has never happened before, and is unlikely considering the reduced traffic on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="1e9312a3-f25a-4a50-bb8f-8760a0918ea3" CreationDate="2012-01-15T18:23:36.970" UserId="4864" Text="Sock puppetting? Meat puppetting? Vigilante Mobs? What's up here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="1e9312a3-f25a-4a50-bb8f-8760a0918ea3" CreationDate="2012-01-15T18:23:36.970" UserId="4864" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="74dc768d-053a-46d0-9a47-c64f40beece9" CreationDate="2012-01-15T20:11:19.297" UserId="2715" Text="Sometimes I personally just wander about the site aimlessly.  And if I find a question that has had no traffic, or very little traffic, I may do some actions which will drive the question up on the land page (where questions are ordered by activity).  Once there, many other people may have seen it.  Actions such as an edit, an answer, or even a vote can put the question into an area of visibility that it may not have had for a while.  If you just answered that question, it popped up for notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, overall, due to the low quality of other question/answer sites, I think StackExchange is getting more and more users.  Having that happen now may have been part of what got it the votes.  And then if someone sees a -1 vote on a question, human nature would have others follow the leader in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, looking at your answer, it was not really one that is deserving of +1 votes.  The entire cold fusion fiasco was just that, a fiasco!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="366ace28-469d-4a82-a183-f79feec24fc3" CreationDate="2012-01-16T00:29:56.760" UserId="429" Text="[![Contribute to a Physics Wikibook][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YftRV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2314" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="9ed5ab79-2555-409b-ac06-045e111b83e5" CreationDate="2012-01-16T00:29:56.760" UserId="429" />
  <row Id="2320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="b7998138-c14c-42c2-aa7e-0b3b0c6520d0" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:08:22.117" UserId="3" Text="The &quot;new new design&quot; just went live, thanks for the [feedback][1]!. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, **please start a new post**, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now I'm using generic 404 and error images. I plan to make final ones based off [your ideas][2]. So please feel free to submit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="b7998138-c14c-42c2-aa7e-0b3b0c6520d0" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:08:22.117" UserId="3" Text="New New Design Launched" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="b7998138-c14c-42c2-aa7e-0b3b0c6520d0" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:08:22.117" UserId="3" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="62993bff-ee5d-493b-8998-30f87de78414" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:28:46.620" UserId="1345" Text="I've given a wrong answer to a question and I'm not too sure how to correct it. Should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Acknowledge the correctness of the comments and completely re-edit it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Delete it and give a new correct answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Add another answer, acknowledging the incorrecness of my existing one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="62993bff-ee5d-493b-8998-30f87de78414" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:28:46.620" UserId="1345" Text="Should wrong answers be edited or replaced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="62993bff-ee5d-493b-8998-30f87de78414" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:28:46.620" UserId="1345" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="e31c9fd7-409d-4a42-b75f-fb12a041ae54" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:30:21.563" UserId="1255" Text="I think that the meta color scheme is better and I'd rather see that as the main site design.  Then it would be about perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my 2 cents!  Good job getting this done.  Any design is better than the standard one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1037" RevisionGUID="66349688-d054-4753-ad9f-042b3943a75c" CreationDate="2012-01-17T22:03:39.147" UserId="520" Text="I don't see any point is leaving an answer you know to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delete it or edit it to be correct. If you want to leave a visible trail f bread crumbs to explain the comments that is OK, but you don't have to...there is always the edit history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="f069fbde-d735-40dc-b460-75211394748a" CreationDate="2012-01-17T23:28:14.930" UserId="3" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="643fb1ef-ac82-4e02-9dbe-758c0ad691f6" CreationDate="2012-01-17T23:29:08.503" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An idea for error page, a bit inspired by Opera result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aNMaZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="e43c86a3-7988-4c29-ad1b-7d7691bcc6b3" CreationDate="2012-01-18T02:03:12.257" UserId="5379" Text="Good job! Overall I love the clean look of the new design, the color scheme, all of it.  The only criticism I have is that the color seem to have lower contrast now, specifically the light brown text. This makes it a little difficult (though not impossible!) for older eyes like mine to view the site with comfort. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="9e850675-403d-4d53-990c-3d499741116e" CreationDate="2012-01-18T02:13:32.807" UserId="5379" Comment="meta" Text="Good job! Overall I love the clean look of the new design, the color scheme, all of it.  The only criticism I have is that the color on meta seem to have lower contrast now, specifically the light brown text. This makes it a little difficult (though not impossible!) for older eyes like mine to view the site with comfort. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2332" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="0961ecf2-9e82-4067-a2d8-071e1061675c" CreationDate="2012-01-18T02:29:22.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/159462353442848768" />
  <row Id="2333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="cd828306-1331-4784-b7ba-698f171fc391" CreationDate="2012-01-18T07:32:38.507" UserId="1492" Text="I am a bit confused. At present I see a changed current format already. In this one my only comment is that the yellow/gold used for links and names  is too faint for my laptop screen . The faded feeling does not attract clicking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mock up gives better contrast to the yellow and is fine as it uses little yellow/gold (none?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="6ad1b73f-b909-4413-abc1-ed7f37e12ff5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:21:21.300" UserId="2751" Text="How can it happen that I suddenly lose an upvote on this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19537/2751 (I had 3) together with 5 reputation points? Upon clicking &quot;reputation&quot; on my profile I see no downvotes or any other reason for this ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="6ad1b73f-b909-4413-abc1-ed7f37e12ff5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:21:21.300" UserId="2751" Text="Mysterious disappeance of an &quot;upvote&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="6ad1b73f-b909-4413-abc1-ed7f37e12ff5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:21:21.300" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2337" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="4ed7eaa5-dd61-45d4-a089-571fa7d20690" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:26:21.370" UserId="2751" Comment="oops" Text="Mysterious disappearance of an &quot;upvote&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="91eccc52-8f4a-42a0-acda-ae5e90e0ab64" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:34:38.750" UserId="124" Text="My guess would be that somebody upvoted you and then later reversed the upvote. Votes can be reversed either within 5 minutes (I think) of their original casting, or any time after the post is edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd gotten a downvote you would have lost 2 rep, not 5, and it would show up on your profile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="5759a04e-a9a9-44c7-9fa7-8ad9f5801ec7" CreationDate="2012-01-18T18:38:16.113" UserId="2433" Text="I was going to put this in the chat room, but SE seems to miss my login credentials when I go to the chat room, so please spirit this to the chat room if possible and appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to encourage the members of the PhysicsSE community that are from the USA to consider writing to their congressional delegations or to sign one of the many petitions circulating the internet today in regards to the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) or PIPA (Protect IP Act).  As written, these bills are vague, and potentially harmful to the internet as a whole.  [Wikipedia][1], perhaps the most linked to site on this very SE, has gone dark in protest. The [EFF has identified a number of potential consequences][2], including potential severe restrictions on software distribution, and collaborative sites like this one.  I would challenge members of the community to consider what would happen to a site like PhysicsSE, and to consider the impact on your research and studies were these bills to become law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="5759a04e-a9a9-44c7-9fa7-8ad9f5801ec7" CreationDate="2012-01-18T18:38:16.113" UserId="2433" Text="Chat refuses to log me in; SOPA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="5759a04e-a9a9-44c7-9fa7-8ad9f5801ec7" CreationDate="2012-01-18T18:38:16.113" UserId="2433" Text="|discussion|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="56ce4f59-e0cd-41e1-af3b-f0eea6dd3ca5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T18:43:43.750" UserId="2433" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I was going to put this in the chat room, but SE seems to miss my login credentials when I go to the chat room, so please spirit this to the chat room if possible and appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to encourage the members of the PhysicsSE community that are from the USA to consider writing to their congressional delegations or to sign one of the many petitions circulating the internet today in regards to the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) or PIPA (Protect IP Act).  As written, these bills are vague, and potentially harmful to the internet as a whole.  [Wikipedia][1], perhaps the most linked to site on this very SE, has gone dark in protest. The [EFF has identified a number of potential consequences][2], including potential severe restrictions on software distribution, and collaborative sites like this one.  I challenge members of the community to consider what would happen to a site like PhysicsSE, and the impact on your research and studies if these bills become law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="d4e4017c-9743-41e9-8620-3eccfd24a8a6" CreationDate="2012-01-19T12:53:19.547" UserId="5374" Text="As far as I'm concerned, the contrast of the main page is far to low. Why not make the titles of the question a little darker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="46e5b760-510d-4974-9533-25f80b364643" CreationDate="2012-01-25T22:30:01.710" UserId="124" Text="Back in the early days of the site, there was [a question about letting the community close questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions) through the normal 5-votes-to-close mechanism. That was a little impractical at the time because we had very few high-rep users, and three of those were moderators (whose close votes are automatically binding), so if we (moderators) left questions to be closed by the normal mechanism, it would take forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, though, things are different; we have 24 users with over 3000 reputation, the threshold required to vote to close questions, and several other users are close to reaching 3000 rep. So I would like to encourage high-rep members of the community to step up and vote to close questions that need to be closed. I know I close a lot of questions myself but I have been and will be trying to back off on that, to allow the normal community closure mechanism to work more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at it, I'm curious about why it is that I don't see a whole lot of nonbinding close votes. Is it just that the moderators have been too quick to close questions, so other high-rep users don't get to vote on them? Or do high-rep users just not inclined to bother with that sort of thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="46e5b760-510d-4974-9533-25f80b364643" CreationDate="2012-01-25T22:30:01.710" UserId="124" Text="Community, help us close questions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="46e5b760-510d-4974-9533-25f80b364643" CreationDate="2012-01-25T22:30:01.710" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2350" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="f066d0b1-cd3b-4d5e-ada6-3521fd1bc09f" CreationDate="2012-01-26T14:30:11.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/162542857452920833" />
  <row Id="2351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="a927e022-131b-4814-b1ee-40f7477637c4" CreationDate="2012-01-26T19:17:29.947" UserId="4826" Comment="Revised to be clear and be rid of that awful &quot;TL;DR&quot; nonsense from the original revision of these threads." Text="### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA;- useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA;- interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA;- cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA;- anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently 6) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="4cc0c994-15a7-48c4-95cc-caf1f85b6213" CreationDate="2012-01-26T20:38:01.063" UserId="1492" Text="David I just tried to vote to close as duplicate a [recent question][1] and could not do it after submitting the duplicate link. It was not possible to click on a link to finish the suggestion. The links to duplicate questions  are in the comments of Lubos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20047/is-the-stability-of-the-nucleus-due-to-pions-or-gluons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="ed482d76-f620-4d11-ab1f-9c8a8a9b3449" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:48:29.913" UserId="124" Text="So one thing that came out of &lt;s&gt;our recent chat meeting&lt;/s&gt; the [call to close questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions) was that some of our high rep members have been reluctant to cast close votes because it has been more or less unnecessary. Now that we're trying to get the community more involved in closing, I'm going to take this opportunity to &lt;s&gt;write up a guide here on meta&lt;/s&gt; blatantly rip off a guide to closing from [Ninefingers' post on Cryptography meta](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/129/a-guide-to-moderating-crypto-stackexchange-yourself-close-voting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="ed482d76-f620-4d11-ab1f-9c8a8a9b3449" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:48:29.913" UserId="124" Text="A guide to moderating Physics Stack Exchange yourself: close voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="ed482d76-f620-4d11-ab1f-9c8a8a9b3449" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:48:29.913" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|faq-proposed|vote-to-close|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2356" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="097999d6-366c-4966-b8df-48b31719ef4b" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:48:54.420" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="b43f7dde-d066-4a41-b2ff-c401f51268dc" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:50:56.250" UserId="124" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Adapted from [Cryptography meta](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/a/130), originally posted by [Ninefingers](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/users/46/ninefingers)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale: why do we close questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are really two ways to do moderation. If you've been on any of the `.moderated` newsgroups you'll be well aware that to get a post on there, it needs to undergo a review process first and be accepted. The aim is to keep problem discussions from arising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE is slightly different - it works the other  way. *Anyone* can ask a question on SE and closing a question is the equivalent of putting that question *back into review/improve mode*. It's a feedback mechanism designed to react to problem cases only, so the usual business of asking and answering good questions can just... *happen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do we close a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The philosophy of SE is that each site handles questions on *problems you face* or things you are trying to understand. The [don't ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask) section of the FAQ gives you a good overview of things that don't work - to summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions invite arguments or extended debate that suck up time when members could be helping other people.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions are too broad, too narrow or have other content problems.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions belong elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been worked out over time and with a lot of experience from Stack Overflow and are, *broadly speaking* true. Sometimes, exceptions are made - it is always a case-by-case thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is closing like deletion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Actually, deletion is a different concept on SE. Closed questions are put &quot;into improve mode&quot; if you like, and are still visible for *anyone* to improve. That's the idea. Deleted questions are different - they have a red background and are invisible to all but high reputation users. So deletion is different and solves a slightly different problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the requirements for closing a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 500 reputation on the site currently, or 3000 reputation on a graduated site, you can vote to close any question for the reasons above. More on that in a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not have this level of reputation, you will find that under the flag menu, you have an option &quot;this question does not belong here&quot;. That will raise a flag for users who can vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why can anyone vote to close/reopen**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, anyone can vote to close or reopen (or flag as such) because it is *your site*. This is really important - it's about expressing what you feel works and doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are moderators different?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderator close votes complete the required vote count immediately, no matter how many people have voted. This applies for both close/reopen votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, as the reputation requirement rules out many users, you will see moderators doing most of the closing to guide the site and look after the content. As you gain in reputation, you get to join in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ok, so how does it work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example close button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, the important piece. Voting to close works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Underneath the question, there will be a close link. When you click on this, you will be presented with a list of options from which you can pick a close reason most appropriate to the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close vote reasons dialog][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * If other people have voted, you will see blue numbers against the reason they chose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Other votes][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The exact duplicate page takes you to a page that allows you to specify a question to close as an exact duplicate against.&#xD;&#xA; * The &quot;off topic&quot; page will present you with two options - one to migrate here, to meta, and one just off topic. On SE betas, only moderators can send questions elsewhere, so feel free to cast a vote here and flag if you have a target in mind.&#xD;&#xA; * The other options are straight out closes.&#xD;&#xA; * Once you pick your option and click &quot;close&quot;, your vote is registered. You cannot retract it at this stage, but nobody else, including moderators, will know it was you who voted.&#xD;&#xA; * If five people agree, the question will be closed. You've seen the effect of these before.&#xD;&#xA; * Your name, and the name of other closers, will appear on the bottom of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close banner][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does vote to re-open work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A closed question has a &quot;reopen&quot; link underneath it. If you click this, a dialog box will ask you if you are sure - click yes and your vote will be registered to re-open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below, you can see an example of the re-open link with two votes registered for re-opening (out of five).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Re-open link][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happens if I make a mistake?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't worry! Unless five people agree, or a moderator agrees, the question won't be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I've seen a closed question and I disagree. What can I do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, one option is to use your re-open vote! You can also always raise a discussion here on meta to seek clarification on why a question is closed and hopefully either a resolution will be reached, or you will get an explanation for the closure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My name appears on the bottom - isn't this going to cause problems with other users?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, surprisingly few closed questions generate any response at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you experience difficulties as a result of closing a question, you can and should contact a moderator via the flag mechanism (which is anonymous). We can then take any necessary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I find questions I might need to close? What about re-opens?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually there are two tools for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Review][6]. Here, there are a number of options for seeing things that might need say editing. One of these is a tab for all questions with close votes. You are then free to look at the question and decide if you agree.&#xD;&#xA; * [Tools][7]. Commonly referred to as the &quot;10k tools&quot;, this page let's you see even more information - certain anonymous flags, re-open votes, delete votes etc. The important one for this is the re-open page. Here, you can see questions that might have been closed incorrectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qogGL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THms0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/69Kak.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3F4V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/syw4O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2358" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="ebcf9e6c-d00f-469b-92ed-797ddf433371" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:50:56.250" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="e99fd214-f46c-4892-bc2c-d64252a5a117" CreationDate="2012-01-26T22:55:46.040" UserId="520" Comment="remove beta related language that does not apply." Text="&lt;sub&gt;Adapted from [Cryptography meta](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/a/130), originally posted by [Ninefingers](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/users/46/ninefingers)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale: why do we close questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are really two ways to do moderation. If you've been on any of the `.moderated` newsgroups you'll be well aware that to get a post on there, it needs to undergo a review process first and be accepted. The aim is to keep problem discussions from arising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE is slightly different - it works the other  way. *Anyone* can ask a question on SE and closing a question is the equivalent of putting that question *back into review/improve mode*. It's a feedback mechanism designed to react to problem cases only, so the usual business of asking and answering good questions can just... *happen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do we close a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The philosophy of SE is that each site handles questions on *problems you face* or things you are trying to understand. The [don't ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask) section of the FAQ gives you a good overview of things that don't work - to summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions invite arguments or extended debate that suck up time when members could be helping other people.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions are too broad, too narrow or have other content problems.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions belong elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been worked out over time and with a lot of experience from Stack Overflow and are, *broadly speaking* true. Sometimes, exceptions are made - it is always a case-by-case thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is closing like deletion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Actually, deletion is a different concept on SE. Closed questions are put &quot;into improve mode&quot; if you like, and are still visible for *anyone* to improve. That's the idea. Deleted questions are different - they have a red background and are invisible to all but high reputation users. So deletion is different and solves a slightly different problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the requirements for closing a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 3000 reputation on the site you can vote to close any question for the reasons above. More on that in a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not have this level of reputation, you will find that under the flag menu, you have an option &quot;this question does not belong here&quot;. That will raise a flag for users who can vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why can anyone vote to close/reopen**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, anyone can vote to close or reopen (or flag as such) because it is *your site*. This is really important - it's about expressing what you feel works and doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are moderators different?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderator close votes complete the required vote count immediately, no matter how many people have voted. This applies for both close/reopen votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, as the reputation requirement rules out many users, you will see moderators doing most of the closing to guide the site and look after the content. As you gain in reputation, you get to join in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ok, so how does it work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example close button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, the important piece. Voting to close works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Underneath the question, there will be a close link. When you click on this, you will be presented with a list of options from which you can pick a close reason most appropriate to the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close vote reasons dialog][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * If other people have voted, you will see blue numbers against the reason they chose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Other votes][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The exact duplicate page takes you to a page that allows you to specify a question to close as an exact duplicate against.&#xD;&#xA; * The &quot;off topic&quot; page will present you with two options - one to migrate here, to meta, and one just off topic. On SE betas, only moderators can send questions elsewhere, so feel free to cast a vote here and flag if you have a target in mind.&#xD;&#xA; * The other options are straight out closes.&#xD;&#xA; * Once you pick your option and click &quot;close&quot;, your vote is registered. You cannot retract it at this stage, but nobody else, including moderators, will know it was you who voted.&#xD;&#xA; * If five people agree, the question will be closed. You've seen the effect of these before.&#xD;&#xA; * Your name, and the name of other closers, will appear on the bottom of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close banner][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does vote to re-open work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A closed question has a &quot;reopen&quot; link underneath it. If you click this, a dialog box will ask you if you are sure - click yes and your vote will be registered to re-open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below, you can see an example of the re-open link with two votes registered for re-opening (out of five).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Re-open link][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happens if I make a mistake?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't worry! Unless five people agree, or a moderator agrees, the question won't be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I've seen a closed question and I disagree. What can I do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, one option is to use your re-open vote! You can also always raise a discussion here on meta to seek clarification on why a question is closed and hopefully either a resolution will be reached, or you will get an explanation for the closure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My name appears on the bottom - isn't this going to cause problems with other users?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, surprisingly few closed questions generate any response at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you experience difficulties as a result of closing a question, you can and should contact a moderator via the flag mechanism (which is anonymous). We can then take any necessary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I find questions I might need to close? What about re-opens?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually there are two tools for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Review][6]. Here, there are a number of options for seeing things that might need say editing. One of these is a tab for all questions with close votes. You are then free to look at the question and decide if you agree.&#xD;&#xA; * [Tools][7]. Commonly referred to as the &quot;10k tools&quot;, this page let's you see even more information - certain anonymous flags, re-open votes, delete votes etc. The important one for this is the re-open page. Here, you can see questions that might have been closed incorrectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qogGL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THms0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/69Kak.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3F4V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/syw4O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="6adf9c9a-2d77-4729-9893-5c7d3ac1b533" CreationDate="2012-01-31T15:04:04.877" UserId="2751" Text="After a clarifying discussion I see that my downvote was not necessary ...&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to wait untill the post is edited and then upvote or is there another possibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="6adf9c9a-2d77-4729-9893-5c7d3ac1b533" CreationDate="2012-01-31T15:04:04.877" UserId="2751" Text="How can I remove a downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="6adf9c9a-2d77-4729-9893-5c7d3ac1b533" CreationDate="2012-01-31T15:04:04.877" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="d5171d8d-0d97-4829-9857-50cd835e7686" CreationDate="2012-01-31T16:09:49.880" UserId="124" Text="Unless you catch it within 5 minutes of making the vote, yes, you have to wait until the post is edited. If you see something that can be improved about the post, you can suggest an edit yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="238065b3-e836-4438-b2ba-664faad0725d" CreationDate="2012-02-06T03:38:31.533" UserId="124" Text="There are a couple of recent questions (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The network overlords have considered implementing [a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/) to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was [too easily abused](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason) to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just leave these kinds of questions alone&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave the ones about physics _concepts_ alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&#xD;&#xA;3. Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&#xD;&#xA;4. Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that **no physics topic is too elementary to ask about**. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="238065b3-e836-4438-b2ba-664faad0725d" CreationDate="2012-02-06T03:38:31.533" UserId="124" Text="Should &quot;general reference&quot; questions be closed on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="238065b3-e836-4438-b2ba-664faad0725d" CreationDate="2012-02-06T03:38:31.533" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="983fd3f2-f0b4-489d-a2c3-dfd015708454" CreationDate="2012-02-06T04:20:09.330" UserId="124" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of recent questions ( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The network overlords have considered implementing [a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/) to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was [too easily abused](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason) to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just leave these kinds of questions alone&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave the ones about physics _concepts_ alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&#xD;&#xA;3. Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&#xD;&#xA;4. Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that **no physics topic is too elementary to ask about**. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="910ab7d2-86a3-4b49-9fd3-de4549ea3398" CreationDate="2012-02-06T04:21:45.407" UserId="7433" Text="I like proposal (4), with a modification. Before closing, we must make sure that the explanation is *easily* available on the Net, and is *something the reader can understand*. For example, the enwiki page for FBD is pretty easy to understand for a neophyte. On the other hand, some pages are full of jargon that confuses the reader. What we can do is provide a link to the relevant page, and *then* close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MgSO4 question on permeability actually may be something we should keep, because I was not able to find any data on the Net. Maybe the asker wanted someone with access to this data (people with access to journals/&amp;c). Now I'm new here so I don't know if those types of qns are wanted or not, but it;s something to think about..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="7cddd438-e750-4c4b-b02a-e0ba4721b932" CreationDate="2012-02-06T04:23:51.387" UserId="520" Text="I think that closing the &quot;It a single lookup&quot; type questions would be a reasonable---but not absolutely obvious---extension of our homework policy; as with the homework situation we need a way to distinguish allowed from un-allowed content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose something like *&quot;If the answer would be a single [number|word|phrase]&quot;* it is probably a bad question, but if it calls for a paragraph it is probably a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that rule, I think the free-body-diagram question is OK: you have to tells them to draw all the parts, and place and label arrows for vector forces acting on/between all the parts you are trying to analyze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that rule the magnesium sulfate question is probably out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="95fd4918-c14e-46c9-a7f2-6265b141ba06" CreationDate="2012-02-06T11:26:17.230" UserId="4066" Comment="removed sites that have now launched. And removed percentages, as they change continuously." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;- [Climate Change](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change) [Definition]&#xD;&#xA;- [Green Energy](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy)&#xD;&#xA;- [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="e849e23a-fcca-4cfd-bd8c-867cdb8c025b" CreationDate="2012-02-06T20:41:44.577" UserId="124" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="There are a few recent questions ( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20622/how-to-compute-resting-position-given-initial-position-initial-velocity-and-dec) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The network overlords have considered implementing [a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/) to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was [too easily abused](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason) to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just leave these kinds of questions alone&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave the ones about physics _concepts_ alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&#xD;&#xA;3. Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&#xD;&#xA;4. Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that **no physics topic is too elementary to ask about**. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="d86c47c3-ac21-4ca6-ab27-83c1fdd85168" CreationDate="2012-02-07T14:13:42.170" UserId="7433" Text="I'm new to physics.SE, but I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a while. Now, Wikipedia has a space for people to ask questions: the [Reference desk][1]. I was wondering if we could collaborate with [the science reference desk][2]. By collaborate, I mean that we should also check for unanswered questions over there, while they may do the same for us (Ill ask there if we reach a decision here). Aside from that, we can detour out-of-scope questions to each other. I myself was introduced to stackexchange when my question was ignored at RDS and I was told to try SE. Aside from that, RDS gets a lot more discussion on more interesting conundrums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RDS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="d86c47c3-ac21-4ca6-ab27-83c1fdd85168" CreationDate="2012-02-07T14:13:42.170" UserId="7433" Text="Collaboration with WP:RDS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="d86c47c3-ac21-4ca6-ab27-83c1fdd85168" CreationDate="2012-02-07T14:13:42.170" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="17a8a7be-aeeb-496b-abeb-40899b3565de" CreationDate="2012-02-07T18:22:15.457" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="4310933f-7d94-41a7-861f-ac7dbdbb481a" CreationDate="2012-02-07T18:22:44.287" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="3ce71686-bb37-46c7-8549-fa5e8e876135" CreationDate="2012-02-07T18:23:17.203" UserId="124" Text="Interesting idea. Our ability to set up an official collaboration is limited because (like Wikipedia) everyone who contributes here does so on a volunteer basis. However, we could certainly add RDS to the list of places that we can send people whose questions are too discussion-y here, and we could also encourage contributors here to also check out RDS from time to time and see if they can offer input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good first step while we figure out what else to do might be to create a [community promotion ad](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012) for RDS to raise awareness among contributors to this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2378" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="893378f1-171f-4ed0-8a93-9f579a2675d2" CreationDate="2012-02-08T06:14:26.503" UserId="7186" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7186,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anna Lear&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="0db3bbe9-b2b4-4627-a985-f92bc66cf8f8" CreationDate="2012-02-10T19:33:05.183" UserId="124" Text="It's been almost a year since Physics Stack Exchange graduated from beta status - February 24, 2011, to be precise. Since we're coming up on our anniversary, it would be a great chance to do something special to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- celebrate nearly a year and a half of helping the internet with physics&#xD;&#xA;- bring in more new posters to the site so our next year can be even better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, we (moderators) are short on ideas for what a fitting way to celebrate our anniversary would be, and besides the ideas should come from you, the community. Other sites often run [contests](http://blog.superuser.com/2011/08/19/super-users-2nd-birthday-super-contest/) around the time of their anniversaries, but we could do anything practical, and if we come up with a good idea, we can get some support (financial or otherwise) from Stack Exchange to make it happen. So with that in mind, **what are your ideas?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="0db3bbe9-b2b4-4627-a985-f92bc66cf8f8" CreationDate="2012-02-10T19:33:05.183" UserId="124" Text="What would be a good celebration of Physics SE's graduation anniversary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="0db3bbe9-b2b4-4627-a985-f92bc66cf8f8" CreationDate="2012-02-10T19:33:05.183" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2382" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="3b98abf7-ac10-4af2-89b4-5f3e162ab1d3" CreationDate="2012-02-10T20:47:33.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/168073641685295104" />
  <row Id="2383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="cb36cc85-06cf-4540-a1e4-437a2e6b087f" CreationDate="2012-02-12T07:27:42.070" UserId="124" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="It's been almost a year since Physics Stack Exchange graduated from beta status - February 24, 2011, to be precise. Since we're coming up on our anniversary, it would be a great chance to do something special to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- celebrate nearly a year and a half of helping the internet with physics&#xD;&#xA;- bring in more new posters to the site so our next year can be even better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, we (moderators) are short on ideas for what a fitting way to celebrate our anniversary would be, and besides the ideas should come from you, the community. Other sites often run [contests](http://blog.superuser.com/2011/08/19/super-users-2nd-birthday-super-contest/) around the time of their anniversaries, but we could do anything practical, and if we come up with a good idea, we can get some support (financial or otherwise) from Stack Exchange to make it happen. So with that in mind, **what are your ideas?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If nobody posts feedback here, our anniversary may well pass without any recognition whatsoever..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="555af2f4-8193-439f-9af6-0d9ca60f8517" CreationDate="2012-02-13T05:11:31.600" UserId="124" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="Back in the early days of the site, there was [a question about letting the community close questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions) through the normal 5-votes-to-close mechanism. That was a little impractical at the time because we had very few high-rep users, and three of those were moderators (whose close votes are automatically binding), so if we (moderators) left questions to be closed by the normal mechanism, it would take forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, though, things are different; we have 24 users with over 3000 reputation, the threshold required to vote to close questions, and several other users are close to reaching 3000 rep. So I would like to encourage high-rep members of the community to step up and vote to close questions that need to be closed. I know I close a lot of questions myself but I have been and will be trying to back off on that, to allow the normal community closure mechanism to work more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at it, I'm curious about why it is that I don't see a whole lot of nonbinding close votes. Is it just that the moderators have been too quick to close questions, so other high-rep users don't get to vote on them? Or do high-rep users just not inclined to bother with that sort of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;We do have a [meta question for candidate closures](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users) that we could use to list questions for 3000+ users to vote to close. I'll start posting some links there in lieu of actually voting to close myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="6c71255a-16a1-4547-9bca-3e901e5d295f" CreationDate="2012-02-14T09:03:27.587" UserId="124" Text="Just to start throwing ideas out: I would kind of like to see a contest with prizes for the best _new users_ especially. This could include recognition of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- best question posted by a new user&#xD;&#xA;- most upvotes accumulated on answer posted by a new user&#xD;&#xA;- highest standing in the rep leagues for a new user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. Of course this wouldn't exclude also doing something to recognize the people who have been contributing for a long time as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="6d0e4588-6fe3-4773-8d33-a6dab16da4dd" CreationDate="2012-02-14T09:08:27.893" UserId="124" Text="An option might be having some kind of reward for people who go out and promote the site by posting links on other forums or social sites (Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Reddit, Digg, etc.). Perhaps just have a meta question to collect links, and give out a small reward to whoever posts one (and yes, I know this system is easily gamed, so maybe this isn't such a great idea)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="b29e0b79-48f4-4adb-8387-9bb7992c49cb" CreationDate="2012-02-14T14:24:51.217" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="More awesome." Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An idea for error page, a bit inspired by OPERA result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xc1cL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="ebe46ec0-a5a3-4fd8-91af-80fd2b0f02f3" CreationDate="2012-02-16T06:12:42.317" UserId="1255" Text="I was also an avid Wikipedian for quite a while.  My area of contribution, however, was not physics, and of what I contribute here wouldn't have a place on Wikipedia in fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That actually brings me to an important point.  Wikipedia and physics SE *could* duplicate a large amount of effort.  Our equations are in almost the exact format needed for Wikipedia.  This brings even more points to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What license are contributions to Physics SE covered under?  Would it be technically possible to copy work from here to Wikipedia articles?  Would it then be admissible under Wikipedia policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My imagination is that the answer is certainly &quot;no&quot;, although it's interesting to consider since presumably the questions here are asked precisely because they can't be found on Wikipedia or other online texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I've skirted the actual proposal which is about help, I think.  I imagine the people at Wikipedia told you to take your questions *about physics* to the physics SE because generally, a discussion page on Wikipedia is devoted to discussion about an article or project, as opposed to the subject matter of the article.  Similarly, the meta site here is for talking about the direction of the Physics SE site, not physics itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, a pet peeve of mine is that Wikipedia is too limited in focus.  If I went to WP:RDS, what would I find as the current goals?  The WP:OR policy in particular was frustrating to me.  It's hard to get a match between what people want and what people are willing to provide on Wikipedia, and I think that SE answers that very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I've rambled enough.  It is an interesting thing to bring up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="40693190-0dca-4434-bb40-7013664ad556" CreationDate="2012-02-16T06:32:45.490" UserId="4066" Comment="I've added the fancy graphics from Area51, which dynamically shows the progress for each proposed site" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4964.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry)&#xD;&#xA;[![Green Energy]](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/5167.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy)&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences]](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4955.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences]](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33197.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33197/theoretical-and-applied-robotics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change]](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change)&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Science]](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="3d6487ba-1c50-4e3a-93d4-00ddc27f21a2" CreationDate="2012-02-16T06:41:28.023" UserId="4066" Comment="I've added the fancy graphics from Area51, which dynamically shows the progress for each proposed site" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Green Energy][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences][6]][5]&#xD;&#xA;[![Theoretical and Applied Robotics][8]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][10]][9]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Science][12]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4964.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/5167.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4955.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33197/theoretical-and-applied-robotics&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33197.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="3188116d-49ff-4e0d-be5e-e8bbd80e0134" CreationDate="2012-02-16T06:43:52.920" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="There was a proposal about future studies/futurology (forecasting roughly within 100 years range), but it has now been removed due to inactivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposer had said about it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is based on personal interest and imho missing place on SE to ask questions concerning climate models (but hopefully climate modeling will just be on sub-topic of this site). It is not intended to ask questions, whether global warming exists etc. But to ask questions about underlying models of environmental/economic/demographic scenarios and assumptions (not more, not less) for forecasting of future developments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there wouldnt be math physics theophys sites on SE, i wouldnt have proposed it, as it would probably get a speculative mess with very low quality. So i would highly appreciate if some of the experts here would participate and help defining the site and draw the scope of answerable and good questions. Its hard, but imho for this topic can only work with a Q&amp;A site with voting system. Ive posted a list of questions, feel free to copy paste some you agree with, so people can vote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im not sure how **theoreticalphysics.SE** will deal with climate modeling theories/math. So maybe this gets a good place to migrate some questions and keeping tp.SE clean ;) from such (political) debates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="ae0bd628-0480-4f61-ae9f-8fe4bd544e7f" CreationDate="2012-02-16T06:51:09.290" UserId="4066" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence &amp; Robotics][8]][7]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Green Energy][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences][6]][5]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][10]][9]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Science][12]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4964.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/5167.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4955.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36600/artificial-intelligence-robotics&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36600.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="09ac00a3-9b4d-46fe-96bd-09e40fd23e38" CreationDate="2012-02-16T06:59:22.913" UserId="7433" Text="&#xD;&#xA;This is what I'm thinking of for the community promotion ad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Idea][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the fonts and drawing could be improved (any vector graphics whiz around?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQIff.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="142a6c5d-cbcf-4b16-a828-3ebb270973f1" CreationDate="2012-02-17T05:29:56.693" UserId="7433" Text="[![Wikipedia Science Reference Desk][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hVVSp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2401" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="1d803575-5f0d-4a70-8ef3-b01a0e0af1f8" CreationDate="2012-02-17T05:29:56.693" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="2402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="1b24f0b6-1542-408f-a393-4d61b8e220fc" CreationDate="2012-02-18T04:22:17.113" UserId="7433" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Wikipedia Science Reference Desk][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gpp7T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="b2a392eb-cfb4-4590-bc74-dffa9934dc0f" CreationDate="2012-02-19T16:47:51.147" UserId="7744" Text="Questions that may fit this: [1][1], [2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a number of sources (e.g. [1][3], [2][4], [3][5]) that claim to teach (some part of) physics, some of which seem questionable.  If they are on-topic, should there be a tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6446/7744&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7506/7744&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://www.khanacademy.org/#physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="b2a392eb-cfb4-4590-bc74-dffa9934dc0f" CreationDate="2012-02-19T16:47:51.147" UserId="7744" Text="Is asking about the credibility of an (online) physics course/tutorial on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="b2a392eb-cfb4-4590-bc74-dffa9934dc0f" CreationDate="2012-02-19T16:47:51.147" UserId="7744" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="6e1807ff-efe3-4328-ab39-fda906a82d67" CreationDate="2012-02-19T17:30:14.323" UserId="791" Text="I think asking about the credibility of *specific, individual results* is fine (of course, if it's someone clearly trying to publicize their own cranky work then it should be closed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For specific results, there can be specific claims to support or strike down those results. On the other hand, the Khan academy videos claim to be teaching basic high-school physics and I doubt they are wrong -- if one has a question about a particular claim in one of the videos that's fine, but I don't think it's useful to ask about their credibility as a whole... Other than the assumed credibility of printed material, it's not so different from having a question for every textbook: &quot;Is Shankar's QM a credible resource?&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="8034d6ca-5a8a-44a0-9452-3898f696afc1" CreationDate="2012-02-19T21:11:33.803" UserId="2146" Text="Using IE8, I don't see the login link at the top to enable me to log in, but with Chrome and Firefox I can. Anyone else have this problem and a solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="8034d6ca-5a8a-44a0-9452-3898f696afc1" CreationDate="2012-02-19T21:11:33.803" UserId="2146" Text="Cannot log in using IE 8?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="8034d6ca-5a8a-44a0-9452-3898f696afc1" CreationDate="2012-02-19T21:11:33.803" UserId="2146" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="69eb0d89-2ecb-4d4f-b9aa-59a3ed539112" CreationDate="2012-02-19T21:21:21.200" UserId="520" Text="IE8 generates [a fair number of complaints on the mother meta][1], but I don't see one exactly like this. The closest I've got is [Autologin working sporadically?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this started recently after it was working for a while? The team does tinker with the code and this could be a regression if it is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=IE8&amp;submit=search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/109618/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="bf910f6c-e602-4919-9552-cf4686764887" CreationDate="2012-02-22T03:27:07.283" UserId="124" Text="With our site's [&quot;birthday&quot; coming up](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary) in 3 days, I thought it would be kind of neat to put a candle on the site logo for the day, because the Mexican hat potential kind of looks like a cake if you don't think about it too hard. Can the SE design overlord (hi Jin) make this happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="bf910f6c-e602-4919-9552-cf4686764887" CreationDate="2012-02-22T03:27:07.283" UserId="124" Text="Can we have a candle on our logo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="bf910f6c-e602-4919-9552-cf4686764887" CreationDate="2012-02-22T03:27:07.283" UserId="124" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="59158238-c3f3-4c1c-8646-ae34fb1eb754" CreationDate="2012-02-22T20:49:10.793" UserId="124" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21224/how-to-denote-a-larger-distance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2415" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="f081f46c-17e7-474e-9c97-7a3c3b486615" CreationDate="2012-02-22T20:49:10.793" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="49ce276d-96a5-41d1-94bd-5ea7024c03b9" CreationDate="2012-02-23T18:55:10.613" UserId="2451" Comment="Added second example" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21224/how-to-denote-a-larger-distance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These are language questions and they may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="82978b1f-05ca-4071-8db7-09b964b78e37" CreationDate="2012-02-23T19:38:27.897" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 89 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="b6dce28d-7732-467c-b071-144f886ac6e5" CreationDate="2012-02-24T00:06:37.463" UserId="2451" Text="You could try and post them (one item per answer) in one of our lists for online lectures, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/679/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10021/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and let people vote them up or down, or comment. That should give you a hint about their credibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="4f591eb3-91b0-429f-afe3-ee545169fad1" CreationDate="2012-02-24T17:10:58.830" UserId="124" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21413/generating-and-comparing-research-topics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Not constructive, I think" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2420" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="33bf96f5-4494-4120-8e3d-9ca6fd180c8f" CreationDate="2012-02-24T19:14:22.670" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="1ffaee40-287f-4e49-ad92-4f661795728a" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:00:34.073" UserId="1097" Text="We do not do small design tweaks for things like this.  Google might be able to do daily fun doodles, but it would get out of hand we did that here given the number of sites we have (and we keep growing!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the birthday celebrations, we're looking for the communities to come together with the initiative to put something together.  It isn't really for the purpose of just sending swag just to send swag.  We do that for other things already... (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2422" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="046f43f0-c6ee-48f9-ba5c-9c57598651e8" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:02:33.680" UserId="1097" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="b74e933c-95b0-45e1-b842-e08a7e7b358b" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:09:50.177" UserId="1097" Text="As a thank you for *being awesome*, if you have at least 1340 reputation (as of Feb 24) and are on page 1 or page 2 of &amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip; we'll be sending you a little care package shortly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Physics Stack Exchange t-shirt in your size&#xD;&#xA;- Physics Stack Exchange die-cut, vinyl stickers&#xD;&#xA;- [Stack Exchange sharpie][1] &#xD;&#xA;- [Stack Exchange pen][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Stack Exchange stickers][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can expect to get an email soon with details on how to confirm and provide your mailing address and size preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The t-shirt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![physics.stackexchange.com Tshirt][t]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The sticker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![physics.stackexchange.com sticker][s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the items you can view in the [Stack Exchange store][4] &amp;mdash; direct links to [sharpie][5], [pens][6], [stickers][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(for anyone else who wants this swag, but isn't on page 1 or page 2 of the all time top users -- the limited edition t-shirts and stickers will be available for purchase from the store as soon as we're able)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [t]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DKQzD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [s]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gYAZI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/collections/show/products/stack-exchange-sharpie&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-pens&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-network-stickers&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://shop.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/collections/show/products/stack-exchange-sharpie&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-pens&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-network-stickers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="b74e933c-95b0-45e1-b842-e08a7e7b358b" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:09:50.177" UserId="1097" Text="Physics swag for top users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="b74e933c-95b0-45e1-b842-e08a7e7b358b" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:09:50.177" UserId="1097" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="bc9c5bc3-e260-49e9-870b-fa8a596aa58c" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:30:46.820" UserId="67" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="We do not do small design tweaks for things like this.  Google might be able to do daily fun doodles, but it would get out of hand we did that here given the number of sites we have (and we keep growing!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the birthday celebrations, we're looking for the communities to come together with the initiative to put something together.  It isn't really for the purpose of just sending swag just to send swag.  [**We do that for other things already**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1072/67)... (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2427" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="866c2646-6dd2-4cdc-9911-667000060fc5" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:49:06.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/173147460691165184" />
  <row Id="2428" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="2b3e1ce5-97f4-4cdb-be0d-516efa073409" CreationDate="2012-02-24T20:52:38.937" UserId="2451" Comment="spelled out title" Text="Collaboration with Wikipedia Reference Desk for Science (WP:RDS)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="fedcf82b-af18-4c8e-bb05-5044d88c4a33" CreationDate="2012-02-26T16:34:20.137" UserId="124" Text="The [2012 International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects](http://www.dis2012.uni-bonn.de) in Bonn (Germany) is coming up at the end of next month. I'm scheduled to give a talk there, but my adviser has asked me to look for external sources of funding to cover the trip. So naturally I thought of Stack Exchange and its [speakers' bureau program](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is this of interest to the community?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIS 2012 will be attended by a lot of accomplished high-energy physicists. In particular, representatives of the major experiments at CERN and elsewhere will be presenting their latest results, so anyone who follows the latest trends in high-energy physics will be interested to know what is presented at the conference. I can write up daily updates and post them on my personal blog, and I can also make an effort to ask relevant questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the benefit to Stack Exchange?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the physicists there also have teaching duties, and there will also be graduate students and postdocs giving presentations (at least, I assume I won't be the only one there who's not a professor). Even if these people may not be the type to ask questions on this site, they _are_ in a great position to recommend us to their students or members of the public. So this is an opportunity to get more people aware of this site. I can also mention other related SE sites which may be of more interest to the conference attendees - I'm specifically thinking of [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I need?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned at the top, I'm looking for any funding sources that can replace some of the grant money that (I assume) I can get through my university. Since the potential benefit to SE is not as great as if I were going to a conference _specifically_ to promote this site, I wouldn't presume to ask for a full sponsorship of the trip, but even, say, a contribution toward the cost of the hotel would be helpful. I already plan to acknowledge selected Stack Exchange sites in my presentation, but I think the acknowledgement might carry more weight if I could say &quot;_sponsored_ by Stack Exchange, Inc.&quot; People's ears tend to perk up when they hear that money might be available somewhere ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicists don't go to conferences expecting to collect T-shirts, but if I had some small things to hand out like business cards, pens or pencils, or maybe even stickers, I could probably send a few people home with reminders of our network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does the community think about this? Is it worthwhile? If not (or even if it is), I think we should keep in mind the possibility of sending someone as a representative of PSE to a more high-impact conference like next year's APS general meetings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Random idea I just had while writing this up: the APS April meeting in Atlanta starts the day after DIS 2012 ends. Although the opportunity for registering an official presentation or booth has passed, in principle I could extend my trip to go there and try to hand out some swag. The April meeting is more of a general-purpose meeting so T-shirts and such might be better received. Though I think that would be pretty tough to pull off on such short notice and pushed so close against another trip." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="fedcf82b-af18-4c8e-bb05-5044d88c4a33" CreationDate="2012-02-26T16:34:20.137" UserId="124" Text="DIS 2012 sponsorship proposal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="fedcf82b-af18-4c8e-bb05-5044d88c4a33" CreationDate="2012-02-26T16:34:20.137" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|speakers-bureau|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="b8e73d55-bd5b-4f1e-a987-6c48b3a43512" CreationDate="2012-02-28T04:18:07.800" UserId="124" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="The [2012 International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects](http://www.dis2012.uni-bonn.de) in Bonn (Germany) is coming up at the end of next month. I'm scheduled to give a talk there, but my adviser has asked me to look for external sources of funding to cover the trip. So naturally I thought of Stack Exchange and its [speakers' bureau program](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is this of interest to the community?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIS 2012 will be attended by a lot of accomplished high-energy physicists. In particular, representatives of the major experiments at CERN and elsewhere will be presenting their latest results, so anyone who follows the latest trends in high-energy physics will be interested to know what is presented at the conference. I can write up daily updates and post them on my personal blog, and I can also make an effort to ask relevant questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the benefit to Stack Exchange?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the physicists there also have teaching duties, and there will also be graduate students and postdocs giving presentations (at least, I assume I won't be the only one there who's not a professor). Even if these people may not be the type to ask questions on this site, they _are_ in a great position to recommend us to their students or members of the public. So this is an opportunity to get more people aware of this site. I can also mention other related SE sites which may be of more interest to the conference attendees - I'm specifically thinking of [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I need?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned at the top, I'm looking for any funding sources that can replace some of the grant money that (I assume) I can get through my university. Since the potential benefit to SE is not as great as if I were going to a conference _specifically_ to promote this site, I wouldn't presume to ask for a full sponsorship of the trip, but even, say, a contribution toward the cost of the hotel would be helpful. I already plan to acknowledge selected Stack Exchange sites in my presentation, but I think the acknowledgement might carry more weight if I could say &quot;_sponsored_ by Stack Exchange, Inc.&quot; People's ears tend to perk up when they hear that money might be available somewhere ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicists don't go to conferences expecting to collect T-shirts, but if I had some small things to hand out like business cards, pens or pencils, or maybe even stickers, I could probably send a few people home with reminders of our network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does the community think about this? Is it worthwhile? If not (or even if it is), I think we should keep in mind the possibility of sending someone as a representative of PSE to a more high-impact conference like next year's APS general meetings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the way, if this sort of thing is going to happen, either now or for any later conference, we're going to need more than just upvotes to convince SE that it's a worthy endeavor!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Random idea I just had while writing this up: the APS April meeting in Atlanta starts the day after DIS 2012 ends. Although the opportunity for registering an official presentation or booth has passed, in principle I could extend my trip to go there and try to hand out some swag. The April meeting is more of a general-purpose meeting so T-shirts and such might be better received. Though I think that would be pretty tough to pull off on such short notice and pushed so close against another trip." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="0b7ace67-5322-4056-a7ac-a1f0ec02b296" CreationDate="2012-02-28T10:58:01.923" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="9fe5b606-6a96-49ba-be56-e99c793abecd" CreationDate="2012-02-28T10:58:01.923" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="fb8ae8b6-e9e0-4d0c-ae87-2e9954dbee88" CreationDate="2012-02-28T11:09:32.107" UserId="7433" Text="I'm not sure what Deep Inelastic Scattering is, but physics.SE could *definitely* do with some promotion (I dunno about the other sites, but a little promotion never hurt anyone). Compared to the other SEs, we have much less activity. And we need more specialists, as is evident from [this][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="378e1e1e-ba0a-45fc-9054-e46a8375a7b5" CreationDate="2012-02-28T18:16:54.727" UserId="7433" Comment="I oughta write more, but I just want to add the main info that took some digging to find." Text="Requests for SE sponsorship to conferences. http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2437" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="378e1e1e-ba0a-45fc-9054-e46a8375a7b5" CreationDate="2012-02-28T18:16:54.727" Comment="Proposed by 7433 approved by 124 edit id of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="f595c7af-5df4-4347-8d63-c7dbde3c0baf" CreationDate="2012-02-28T18:16:57.270" UserId="7433" Comment="I oughta write more, but I just want to add the main info that took some digging to find." Text="See [blog post][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;List of all speakers-bureau tagged questions [here][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/filters/18816/meta-speakers-bureau" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2439" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="f595c7af-5df4-4347-8d63-c7dbde3c0baf" CreationDate="2012-02-28T18:16:57.270" Comment="Proposed by 7433 approved by 124 edit id of 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="1180b4c4-5727-419e-9be6-7dda90187762" CreationDate="2012-02-29T01:46:48.240" UserId="124" Text="I just noticed that in several places, the tops of square root signs are missing. This behavior is almost, but not completely, consistent, e.g. in the screenshot below, the top of the symbol on sqrt(2) is fine, but the other two square roots are not - unfortunately that is exactly where the top of the symbol is most needed. Is anyone else seeing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System info: Chromium 17.0.963.56 on Kubuntu 11.10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![erroneous square root][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xhqfy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="1180b4c4-5727-419e-9be6-7dda90187762" CreationDate="2012-02-29T01:46:48.240" UserId="124" Text="Square root top does not display" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="1180b4c4-5727-419e-9be6-7dda90187762" CreationDate="2012-02-29T01:46:48.240" UserId="124" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="4dafce6e-7048-4f48-802b-39777281cc92" CreationDate="2012-02-29T08:43:36.287" UserId="7433" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="I just noticed that in several places, the tops of square root signs are missing. This behavior is almost, but not completely, consistent, e.g. in the screenshot below, the top of the symbol on sqrt(2) is fine, but the other two square roots are not - unfortunately that is exactly where the top of the symbol is most needed. Is anyone else seeing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System info: Chromium 17.0.963.56 on Kubuntu 11.10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![erroneous square root][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Origin of screenshot for a test case: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/14702/7433&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xhqfy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="9ddf44db-070e-4a23-b3ab-fda286ea4d7f" CreationDate="2012-02-29T13:56:31.377" UserId="7901" Text="It looks like one of the fonts didn't load properly for you.  (The letters are not in italics as they should be and things like the + and - are in the wrong font -- note that the minus is a little too high, for example.)  But MathJax must *think* the font is available, otherwise it would have switched over to image fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without that font, the browser will fall back on some other font (probably your browser's default font), but MathJax doesn't know the sizes of those characters, so it is still using the bounding-box information for its own fonts.  MathJax creates clipping regions based on those bounding boxes, so if they don't correspond to the actual fonts, things can go wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that MathJax uses the minus sign to construct the line over the square root.  But we've already seen that the minus is a little higher than the minus in the usual MathJax font, and that means that the minuses are probably being generated, but are slightly above the clipping rectangle that MathJax uses for the square root, and so they are being cut off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, why aren't you getting the right font?  If this is something that is repeatable, would you right-click on the typeset equation to get the MathJax contextual menu and select &quot;About MathJax&quot;?  Let me know what font mode is listed just below the MathJax title and version number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then enter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    javascript:alert(MathJax.Message.Log())&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the URL location type-in area (and press RETURN) and let me know what this says.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if you have installed any of the MathJax fonts in your local fonts folder.  If you haven't put them all in place, that could account for this behavior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="398feff2-3843-4a0a-8192-dfe57b4f7576" CreationDate="2012-02-29T19:38:50.890" UserId="124" Comment="add more info" Text="I just noticed that in several places, the tops of square root signs are missing. This behavior is almost, but not completely, consistent, e.g. in the screenshot below, the top of the symbol on sqrt(2) is fine, but the other two square roots are not - unfortunately that is exactly where the top of the symbol is most needed. Is anyone else seeing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Chromium 17.0.963.56 on Kubuntu 11.10 (same behavior occurs with Chromium 18.0.1025.39 on Gentoo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;About MathJax&quot; box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; MathJax v2.0&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; using local STIX fonts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Log message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        javascript:alert(MathJax.Message.Log())&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/config/TeX-AMS_HTML.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/STIX/fontdata.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/STIX/fontdata-1.0.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/STIX/General/Regular/BBBold.js&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![erroneous square root][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Origin of screenshot for a test case: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/14702/7433&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xhqfy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="8abe7e73-8ef2-4fd8-ac72-52d909ab3028" CreationDate="2012-03-01T02:16:39.127" UserId="7433" Text="A month ago, when I right-clicked on mathjax equations, I was able to see the TeX source window. Now, a window does get opened (I see it in the taskbar), but I can't switch to it; no matter what I try. Alt-tab, clicking it, using taskmanager all don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this happen to others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Chrome+Windows 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I have fiddled around with mathjax recently, and installed it on the same machine in my Apache folder. But I doubt that that should make a difference, physics.SE mathjax gets its stuff from the mathjax site, not my computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="8abe7e73-8ef2-4fd8-ac72-52d909ab3028" CreationDate="2012-03-01T02:16:39.127" UserId="7433" Text="MathJax hidden window on viewing TeX commands?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="8abe7e73-8ef2-4fd8-ac72-52d909ab3028" CreationDate="2012-03-01T02:16:39.127" UserId="7433" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="d7a9fdb1-4a77-4d69-95b1-59b46ce8059e" CreationDate="2012-03-01T07:32:48.180" UserId="7433" Text="MathJax allows the use of `\newcommand` in TeX. For example, this command:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\newcommand{\lorentz}[1]{\frac{#1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be pretty useful in lots of situations. If this was placed somewhere in the body (AFAIK before it is called), then `\lorentz{m_0}` would give the expression for relativistic mass. `\lorentz{1}` would give the normal lorentz factor. `lorentz{m_0c^2}` gives us the expression for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this, I can think up quite a lot of TeXcodes that are tedious to type, but crop up often. `\frac{1}{2}` and `\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}` are some (smaller and less tedious) examples. A few more commands that quickly give expressions for the nabla operator, div, grad, curl would be nice as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, is there any way that we can have a user-dictated commandset? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, it's easy to code it, just keep &quot;$$ *insert commands here* $$&quot; at the top of the `&lt;body&gt;` tag. Less easy to code would be the way to make it user-dictated, but I'm thinking something akin to the way http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012 works would be easy to implement, as the code is already there. Just modify it so that it takes all the mathjax in the body of an answer with enough upvotes and appends it to some div in the beginning of the body tag (set display:none just to be safe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Suggestions? Rants? Cookies?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="d7a9fdb1-4a77-4d69-95b1-59b46ce8059e" CreationDate="2012-03-01T07:32:48.180" UserId="7433" Text="MathJax custom commands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="d7a9fdb1-4a77-4d69-95b1-59b46ce8059e" CreationDate="2012-03-01T07:32:48.180" UserId="7433" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2453" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="c55c9c8f-b6dc-4abe-8d17-36c973604ebc" CreationDate="2012-03-01T11:49:42.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/175186042545119234" />
  <row Id="2454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="2ead6599-7f9f-4a7f-9528-a79c647e158e" CreationDate="2012-03-01T16:55:32.420" UserId="520" Text="You face a significant problem here in that notation varies across sub-disciplines. In particular I can assure you that the Lorentz factor is `$\frac{1}{sqrt{1 - v^2}}$` because everyone knows that `$c$`---like `$G$` and `$\hbar$`--is a dimensionless unit constant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="6bb86bb0-93d0-427b-bbdb-43c5bb4a6373" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:42:53.767" UserId="124" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited title" Text="As long as we don't have many hi-rep users, it is useful to have a place with list of candidates to close; at least it worked well on other betas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a link to the candidate for closure in the top answer&#xD;&#xA; - Explanation of why it needs closing is optional&#xD;&#xA; - Delete it from the answer if you see that the question is closed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2456" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="6bb86bb0-93d0-427b-bbdb-43c5bb4a6373" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:42:53.767" UserId="124" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited title" Text="What questions should be considered to close by 3000+ users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="ec5f2f65-ccaa-496a-a909-783c969b79d2" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:43:31.817" UserId="124" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21698/am-i-forever-doomed-to-work-beneath-my-potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="72ec6422-7497-4184-8874-51c977789fd2" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:48:33.867" UserId="124" Text="This is prompted by http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21376/what-is-the-origin-of-the-naming-convention-for-position-functions, which asks why _s_ is used as the letter for position. We've had a few other questions like this; feel free to edit in more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions on topic? They're not really about physical concepts, but they are about matters that are fairly specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="72ec6422-7497-4184-8874-51c977789fd2" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:48:33.867" UserId="124" Text="Are physics-related notation and terminology questions on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="72ec6422-7497-4184-8874-51c977789fd2" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:48:33.867" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="10ee576d-5747-47d0-9fd4-fdac9b7fb5d2" CreationDate="2012-03-01T20:54:16.327" UserId="124" Text="If you have a set of commands you use frequently, perhaps just save `$ insert commands here $` in a text file and copy it into the top of your post whenever you need it (I'm not sure if that works, but it's worth a try).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the SE people are amenable to site-specific customizations, though, I do have a [LaTeX package of physics symbols](http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/physymb) that contains a few things we might consider for inclusion. These would be a limited number of highly standardized notations, like `\ket{x}` for `|x\rangle`, for instance, or `\ud{y}{x}` for the derivative `\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}x}`. It would also be fantastic to have the `\SI` command from [siunitx](http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/siunitx), though admittedly that is a large and complex package that is probably not practical to implement in MathJaX (at least not in a way that faithfully reproduces the original typesetting, though that wouldn't necessarily be a requirement)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="0e7c5728-96a6-4014-aa1b-1461df545490" CreationDate="2012-03-02T08:40:14.390" UserId="4066" Comment="it pains me to say it, but this PV question has very little physics in it, and so is probably off-topic" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21702/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="7424c761-1450-456b-8f8b-c7b3e7a51f6a" CreationDate="2012-03-02T09:09:34.090" UserId="4066" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;Space&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;left-arrow&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1086" RevisionGUID="894c8a33-ac6b-4438-a02e-ff3ddc10ce46" CreationDate="2012-03-02T14:10:27.923" UserId="7433" Text="Ideally, they should go to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since chat requires 20 rep, then I think that they should be allowed. math.SE seems to be fine with them (judging by a question about the various dels I asked there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shouldn't waste too much time answering them (hypocrisy on my part; I did a bit of Googling to get some details on the question you mentioned). If you know the answer, answer it. If you don't, don't research it yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, physics.SE is, among other things, a way to connect with people in sync with the physics world. If you don't have a friendly neighborhood physicist, this place is great for finding answers to little stuff that only these people know. I doubt anyone I know would have known that distance comes from *strecke*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="ba746dde-d138-4405-903a-5429bb766893" CreationDate="2012-03-03T02:48:13.383" UserId="2819" Text="I'm looking for a book that would be appropriate for advanced elementary school aged kids describing basics of physics (for those fluent in Russian, an English equivalent of the book &quot;почему вода мокрая&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not quite sure where to ask this - Literature.SE seems a bit far away expertise wise, and Physics SE may consider it off-topic. Thus this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="ba746dde-d138-4405-903a-5429bb766893" CreationDate="2012-03-03T02:48:13.383" UserId="2819" Text="Would the question about physics books recommendation for younger kids be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="ba746dde-d138-4405-903a-5429bb766893" CreationDate="2012-03-03T02:48:13.383" UserId="2819" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="e8ec45a4-66cd-4ca1-ac18-f9b7983c4fad" CreationDate="2012-03-03T03:13:41.253" UserId="520" Text="Within some limits of being well-specified we've been allowing these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [examples in our tag][1] [tag:reference-request] and the meta-question [What are the meanings of “books” and “reference-request”?][2] (I believe the &quot;books&quot; tag has been merged).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/786/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="f119f317-7459-4ccd-a455-1863ed2ea08f" CreationDate="2012-03-03T03:29:33.603" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="Within some limits of being well-specified we've been allowing these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [examples in our tag][1] [tag:books] and the meta-question [What are the meanings of “books” and “reference-request”?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/786/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="5fc86031-5a44-41cd-b56a-431a734da5de" CreationDate="2012-03-03T13:53:07.723" UserId="5157" Text="I am a member of physics stack exchange and amm able to access my acount in it. But after chat was enabled on my account i could not log in as it said my account didn't exist. At the same time i am already logged in in the physics site of stack exchange&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="5fc86031-5a44-41cd-b56a-431a734da5de" CreationDate="2012-03-03T13:53:07.723" UserId="5157" Text="Hot to log in in chat with existing account" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="5fc86031-5a44-41cd-b56a-431a734da5de" CreationDate="2012-03-03T13:53:07.723" UserId="5157" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1090" RevisionGUID="907ab937-09d0-462e-936e-dee94a874b5c" CreationDate="2012-03-03T17:06:55.907" UserId="7433" Text="Which login type do you use? OpenID? SE account? Google account? Which?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="4344ea25-1b8c-4001-8d5f-5bafc93af9f7" CreationDate="2012-03-03T17:57:25.287" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil stuff" Text="I am a member of physics stack exchange and am able to access my account in it. But after chat was enabled on my account I could not log in as it said my account didn't exist. At the same time I am already logged in in the physics site of stack exchange&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2475" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="4344ea25-1b8c-4001-8d5f-5bafc93af9f7" CreationDate="2012-03-03T17:57:25.287" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil stuff" Text="How to log in in chat with existing account" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="1c30f599-5a51-4df7-8bbf-3f6f39114b37" CreationDate="2012-03-03T18:00:18.310" UserId="520" Text="You seem to have [the requisite reputation][1] (and had it at the time this question was posted, too), so it should just work. Can you try again. Possibly the chat system didn't notice right away that you had enough rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that fails I'm out of my depth and we'll look for someone who knows more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="f3baefb6-34b3-4fb3-99ab-43416d4885af" CreationDate="2012-03-03T18:13:20.793" UserId="7433" Text="I've noticed that the system user 'Community' bumps up un-accepted questions quite often. Now, the issue is that most of these questions have satisfactory answers, and the OP may even have indicated as in the comments that the question has been satisfactorily answered (example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19000/how-do-i-find-the-tension-in-additional-strings-in-this-problem). The OP just hasn't clicked the accept button (maybe it wasn't obvious to them?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions clutter up the main page and push new questions downwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose that moderators(or xyz rep users) be allowed to semi-accept an answer that is most probably correct, it just hasn't been accepted by an inactive OP. The semi accept shouldn't have a rep bonus, its only functionality is to stop Community from bumping. Maybe we can have a flag option for semi accept. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="f3baefb6-34b3-4fb3-99ab-43416d4885af" CreationDate="2012-03-03T18:13:20.793" UserId="7433" Text="Semi-accept answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="f3baefb6-34b3-4fb3-99ab-43416d4885af" CreationDate="2012-03-03T18:13:20.793" UserId="7433" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="041db1fd-d5f0-45bb-8aa9-3b59c3b4bbcc" CreationDate="2012-03-03T18:20:28.883" UserId="520" Text="Notes from other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Shog9 tells me that it is already the case that questions with upvoted answers get the low rate of Community bumps, not the high rate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="d204ef35-0333-4579-b63f-14cbf2f9b84a" CreationDate="2012-03-03T19:34:36.613" UserId="124" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21783/which-areas-of-physics-are-most-demanding-of-good-intuition-or-physical-insight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21702/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2482" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="3a7ecd13-faa4-4156-9220-72c0a70b51b6" CreationDate="2012-03-03T19:34:46.660" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="c0bcfadd-c5f9-417c-b264-08df8ba9c47a" CreationDate="2012-03-04T00:02:23.737" UserId="7924" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#reputation says ''You can earn a maximum of 200 reputation per day.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just curiuos: does this mean no more than 200 in any 24h time window, or in a specific one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter case, it might be useful for strategically minded people to know when this time window begins and ends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="c0bcfadd-c5f9-417c-b264-08df8ba9c47a" CreationDate="2012-03-04T00:02:23.737" UserId="7924" Text="when does a reputation day begin and end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="c0bcfadd-c5f9-417c-b264-08df8ba9c47a" CreationDate="2012-03-04T00:02:23.737" UserId="7924" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="04c44f08-d0bb-40e8-a11f-6455e5753b7f" CreationDate="2012-03-04T00:14:32.957" UserId="520" Text="The &quot;day&quot; is defined by midnight-to-midnight UTC for all purposes on Stack Exchange sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="ca64e7a9-1e98-4d53-893f-e72c8e59e547" CreationDate="2012-03-04T02:49:16.940" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="e612698c-aaa2-4654-8733-cd5ed1f0e315" CreationDate="2012-03-05T00:05:14.380" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21871/what-are-the-frameworks-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possibly not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21848/new-theories-and-publications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21702/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="8dcb7cad-e2a6-4c66-ae22-e742e649d100" CreationDate="2012-03-05T04:49:48.687" UserId="7951" Text="I'm a newbie here and I've noticed that a lot of the questions are at a pretty high level. (I'm just starting a masters program in physics). Does this site have a philanthropic goal of speeding up the research process or is it merely an experiment in social media? Is it a site that aims to impact the way researchers work or is it like a hobby site, where you get what you want out of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience has been &quot;so far so good&quot; but I'm curious as to how far I can go with this. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="8dcb7cad-e2a6-4c66-ae22-e742e649d100" CreationDate="2012-03-05T04:49:48.687" UserId="7951" Text="What is the ultimate purpose of physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="8dcb7cad-e2a6-4c66-ae22-e742e649d100" CreationDate="2012-03-05T04:49:48.687" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="b74ec076-12e4-440e-925f-0d957a41e8c0" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:00:13.407" UserId="7924" Text="I find it a big nuisance that line feeds in writing a comment end the comment and post it. I habitually make many line feeds - then an incomplete comment is posted and I must hurry to fix it in the short time allowed for editing an already submitted comment. I like to have time to think about what I write in my comments. If I make a second or third line feed this is iterated and costs more valuable time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to treat the line feed like any other character, so that this kind of frequent ''surprises'' ino longer happens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="b74ec076-12e4-440e-925f-0d957a41e8c0" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:00:13.407" UserId="7924" Text="line feeds in comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="b74ec076-12e4-440e-925f-0d957a41e8c0" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:00:13.407" UserId="7924" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="2dd6b0d2-70fe-4f6b-b64d-d2f6db600b93" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:14:57.570" UserId="124" Text="This has already been proposed [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form). The way things are going, it seems unlikely to be implemented any time soon, but you should definitely add your vote to that proposal on MSO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2496" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="934493de-70c4-4955-8d16-5316cd3ee3ec" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:29:22.467" UserId="1097" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="ef3b3b1f-a1da-40ed-b284-5eabce102dde" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:52:44.603" UserId="7951" Text="I think the concept of reputation should be made more multidimensional. It is useful to have a frame of reference for how trustworthy a user is on this site, but it is also nice to have a frame of reference for how knowledgeable a person is in physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I post a question and receive an answer, I'd like to know the educational/technical background of the person so I have a fair idea of how authoritative their answer might be. An answer shouldn't bubble up to the top simply by virtue of how popular it is. It promotes a false sense of security in the answer. Some balance is crucial here, I think. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="ef3b3b1f-a1da-40ed-b284-5eabce102dde" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:52:44.603" UserId="7951" Text="More mandatorily-required user details would be useful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="ef3b3b1f-a1da-40ed-b284-5eabce102dde" CreationDate="2012-03-05T06:52:44.603" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="afdaa0c0-49ff-49fb-a9c1-7aba83ee3901" CreationDate="2012-03-05T07:36:11.600" UserId="1097" Text="Every user is able to provide whatever details they would like in the &quot;about me&quot; section of his/her profile. The full text can be viewed by visiting the user's profile.  If the user has earned enough Rep, we will show a summary of their profile when their usercard is hovered over as part of a user.  With this, we highlight more about a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange, and its voting system is designed such that the &quot;right&quot; answer floats to the top.  We focus on the content.  We don't really care about the background of a user, simply the content of their post. Vote based on that, and the best answers will continue to float to the top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2501" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="58feea4e-5d92-4f95-97cb-cfda1d3f2a24" CreationDate="2012-03-05T07:36:42.127" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited title" Text="Line feeds in comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="a57eb447-587d-4ef2-8e34-298fab232269" CreationDate="2012-03-05T07:54:25.803" UserId="520" Text="To add to Rebecca's comments, the systems can be used to a very high degree by completely anonymous users. This is by design and has been true since the Beta of Stack Overflow (the model site which gave rise to the whole Stack Exchange network)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="8a1a2266-744b-4985-95e6-55e8c83507bd" CreationDate="2012-03-05T08:02:46.933" UserId="520" Text="The Stack Exchange sites are run by a for-profit company. Their ultimate goal is to make money by providing a service on the internet. The service is host question-&amp;-answer sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of each site depends to some degree on decisions made by the user base. [Stack Overflow][1] (the original model) accepts questions starting from a very low, [but not trivial level][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics.SE is pitched just a little higher than that: we discourage basic pedagogical questions (things that look like &quot;homework&quot;) in favor of a conceptual approach to the foundations of our discipline. Note that there is also [Theoretical Physics][3] which is targeted at &quot;research level&quot; theoretical and mathematical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other sites in the network, see the bottom of the page and [area51][4] (the place where *user input* defines and launches new sites, and where you can find all the beta sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="0d87f534-2d16-4e13-b193-5e341ad50f66" CreationDate="2012-03-05T08:03:30.567" UserId="520" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="To add to Rebecca's comments, the systems can be used to a very high degree by completely anonymous users. This is by design and has been true since the Beta of Stack Overflow (the model site which gave rise to the whole Stack Exchange network).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By design this is not a social network; it's not about the users it's about the content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="d959d9fe-5f75-4097-a45e-e066c4deb6c7" CreationDate="2012-03-05T09:06:36.853" UserId="7433" Text="Usually we (OK, me atleast) don't up/down vote an answer based on the person behind it; we do so based on whether or not it seems correct. Anyways, most of the users have their background in their usercard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out users ranked by [all-time reputation][1]. Extremely few of them on the first page have a usercard without any details on their background. Mine clearly states that I'm an engineering student so you shouldn't trust anything I say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that answers are seen by quite a few people, of which a large percentage are physicists (or physics students). If they see something wrong or incomplete, they'll downvote, comment, and/or make an edit. I've [had][2] [all][3] [three][4] happen to me. OK, the third one wasn't corrected by a physicist, but I hope you get the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20464/testing-conservation-laws-experimentally/20475#20475&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21407/what-barriers-exist-to-prevent-us-from-turning-a-baryon-into-a-anti-baryon/21410#comment49654_21410&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21572/whats-the-importance-of-noethers-theorem-in-physics/21574#comment50032_21574" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="a40454f9-bac1-4c56-b9cd-2456a6230b05" CreationDate="2012-03-06T22:10:09.963" UserId="124" Text="In recent days, we've had a bunch of new (and not-so-new) users making great contributions to the site, and there has been a distinct uptick in meta activity. So I thought it would be a neat idea to capitalize on this by having a brief chat session where we - or at least, whoever's available - can all get together and share the latest news in the physics world and also hear updates about what is going on with the Stack Exchange network. Additionally, this will be a great chance for any new users to ask any questions about how the site works or anything you may want to know from the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I went ahead and scheduled an event for this Thursday, March 8, at 22:00 UTC (5 PM EST). This is listed on the [chat room schedule](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=schedule), where you may register for the event - but that's totally optional, it's fine if you just pop into the chat room without registering in advance! I realize that time may not work for everyone, but I thought it'd be best to just get something scheduled. If this is a success, we could make it a repeating event, perhaps monthly, and in that case we'd vary the times so that different people can show up. Of course you can always post in the chat room at any time, and usually someone will get back to you after a few hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, since I don't have much of a plan for this first chat session, and I should probably make this a question, **what do you want to talk about?** If you have anything that you would like brought up during the chat session, feel free to post it as an answer or comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: You need to have 20 reputation on any one site in the SE network to join the chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="a40454f9-bac1-4c56-b9cd-2456a6230b05" CreationDate="2012-03-06T22:10:09.963" UserId="124" Text="Chat Event: News and Discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="a40454f9-bac1-4c56-b9cd-2456a6230b05" CreationDate="2012-03-06T22:10:09.963" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="9854f69b-ae0d-4d02-af0d-a7695fe026bc" CreationDate="2012-03-07T01:17:39.310" UserId="7433" Text="(I may or may not be able to come--depends; but I'll try)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss some unanswered questions&#xD;&#xA; - How should we retain new users?&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss developments in physics (&quot;Oh darn; it was just a faulty cable!&quot; and all that =D )&#xD;&#xA; - How else can we build up chat activity?&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe some of us can talk about their current research?&#xD;&#xA; - Puzzles! Yes, I know, we're not math.SE; but there are quite a few interesting conundrums to think about at varying levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also take a peek at other SE chat sites and see what they do. Math.SE seems to do random stuff. There are so many SO chat rooms; most of them are doing general computer banter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="d3358896-597e-466f-a4d8-193179f50fff" CreationDate="2012-03-08T02:59:24.757" UserId="7896" Text="What other Physics Q&amp;A sites are there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you compare them to stackexchange? (Level of questions, size of user base, etc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="d3358896-597e-466f-a4d8-193179f50fff" CreationDate="2012-03-08T02:59:24.757" UserId="7896" Text="Comparison of Q&amp;A Sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="d3358896-597e-466f-a4d8-193179f50fff" CreationDate="2012-03-08T02:59:24.757" UserId="7896" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="c4a3d924-0264-41e6-816a-a4c288600e29" CreationDate="2012-03-08T05:53:33.520" UserId="7951" Text="What exactly is the point of having badges? Do we get any special privileges with certain badges? Or is it a feature that may be used in the future? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="c4a3d924-0264-41e6-816a-a4c288600e29" CreationDate="2012-03-08T05:53:33.520" UserId="7951" Text="Do badges result in any privileges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="c4a3d924-0264-41e6-816a-a4c288600e29" CreationDate="2012-03-08T05:53:33.520" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="df740c7f-ee5e-4db2-8e7f-fcb7a354d095" CreationDate="2012-03-08T06:51:46.583" UserId="7433" Text="No real point; there isn't any rep or anything. It's just something to strive for. You see all those badges and think &quot;I should get some more&quot;. Getting a badge on asking/answering a question (which is the first thing you do when you join) is a way to introduce the concept of badges. A new user sees that he got a badge, and investigates. He feels like getting more badges, so he works towards some of them. It benefits the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges are used by many online communities. It's a way of setting goals for the users; and helps retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/17853/how-do-badges-work as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1111" RevisionGUID="b8ffdf8c-092f-47c8-ba8b-00c2f2227a7f" CreationDate="2012-03-08T14:09:25.747" UserId="5827" Text="First, I've removed a down-vote by adding a +1 to the question. It is a bit silly to down-vote a question in this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, I would not be comfortable in revealing anything about myself on the internet. If the OP's proposal becomes a requirement, I will leave and never come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, dmckee's last statement exactly echo's my feelings. Let me also add that just having a PhD is meaningless. I've seen plenty of PhD's who are nothing more than glorified calculators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice to the OP would be to judge the answer on its own merit. Taking everything written here as the absolute truth is not the way to go. Use the answer as a guideline and do your own research/study. Don't believe anything without checking it for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="782c63ea-0764-40ed-89de-03725821dc80" CreationDate="2012-03-09T06:13:18.120" UserId="7951" Text="What exactly is the point of accepting an answer? Once all the answers are up, its a bit meaningless to say that you accept one particular answer. Perhaps the only reason to have an accept button is to close the question and put it in a &quot;resolved&quot; category. Is this its purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'd appreciate it if someone could explain the whole dynamics behind this. Perhaps the person whose answer is accepted gets his/her reputation bumped-up? Etc..)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="782c63ea-0764-40ed-89de-03725821dc80" CreationDate="2012-03-09T06:13:18.120" UserId="7951" Text="Why &quot;accept&quot; an answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="782c63ea-0764-40ed-89de-03725821dc80" CreationDate="2012-03-09T06:13:18.120" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="eba14d75-965e-4553-acef-2398db9ac3e8" CreationDate="2012-03-09T06:50:06.677" UserId="124" Text="The intent of this feature is that you accept the answer which actually solves your problem. This originated on Stack Overflow, and it makes sense there because for programming questions, it's easy for the original poster to try out various solutions and unambiguously determine which one actually works. For physics questions, on the other hand, the OP may not be in a position to judge which answer (if any) is correct, so accepting doesn't always make quite as much sense for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, it does offer a way to show that you've gotten a satisfactory answer, and so accepting an answer can be thought of as a way to mark a question as &quot;resolved.&quot; It's not resolved in the sense you might see the term elsewhere, though - if a question has an accepted answer, that shouldn't discourage you from posting your own answer if you think it adds value. Questions with accepted answers should certainly **not** be considered &quot;closed&quot; in any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you accept an answer to your question, the person who posted the answer gets 15 reputation, and you get 2 reputation. This is meant to encourage people to accept answers to their questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see [this question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work) on Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="35bd7e3c-dc8b-419e-ab96-e16c141f6e4c" CreationDate="2012-03-09T23:44:48.360" UserId="1695" Text="Is there a way to undelete a question? I deleted it, and now when I try to re-post it, I cannot as the system recognizes it as a duplicate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="35bd7e3c-dc8b-419e-ab96-e16c141f6e4c" CreationDate="2012-03-09T23:44:48.360" UserId="1695" Text="Is it possible to undelete a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="35bd7e3c-dc8b-419e-ab96-e16c141f6e4c" CreationDate="2012-03-09T23:44:48.360" UserId="1695" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1115" RevisionGUID="12859838-0c09-4f92-8075-eae25ae97e21" CreationDate="2012-03-09T23:47:27.857" UserId="124" Text="Ask a moderator ;-) I undeleted your question for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe you can do so yourself, though, because the system doesn't let you see deleted questions. If you could see them, I _think_ you would be able to undelete them. (Something to look forward to when you get 10k rep perhaps?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="05630699-eab8-43df-ad0f-dee52e8e1606" CreationDate="2012-03-12T02:20:50.750" UserId="7433" Text="(I was going to ask this as a separate meta-question, but the helpful title box told me that someone had already done half the work for me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have a standard (not compulsory) set of notations to follow. One of the main benefits would be that instead of writing a whole paragraph explaining which standard symbols are which, we can link to an extensive list of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since symbols vary between fields, I'd say that we have a question with a separate CW answer for each field. I guess the question would be better placed on the main site as meta doesn't support mathjax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="e3b11507-40c1-4de7-a351-737d6972b455" CreationDate="2012-03-12T10:16:25.013" UserId="124" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22256/what-will-be-the-relative-speed-of-the-fly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possible duplicate as linked in comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21871/what-are-the-frameworks-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possibly not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21848/new-theories-and-publications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21702/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="12d91b42-26ea-42f2-9141-7c95e4ed61ed" CreationDate="2012-03-12T11:48:56.897" UserId="6835" Text="(On a laptop, to someone who is red/green color-blind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;answered&quot; checkmark should take on a distinctly different color from the up/down arrows, to avoid confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="12d91b42-26ea-42f2-9141-7c95e4ed61ed" CreationDate="2012-03-12T11:48:56.897" UserId="6835" Text="The color difference between the &quot;answered&quot; checkmark and the &quot;unanswered&quot; one is barely discernable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="12d91b42-26ea-42f2-9141-7c95e4ed61ed" CreationDate="2012-03-12T11:48:56.897" UserId="6835" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2540" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="d16ecce6-427a-4d55-86f9-25a1237ea731" CreationDate="2012-03-12T12:35:51.957" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="be287de3-8588-4b06-88a2-eafd5637b9d8" CreationDate="2012-03-12T12:46:13.960" UserId="4066" Comment="removing closed proposal" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Green Energy][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences][6]][5]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][10]][9]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Science][12]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4964.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/5167.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4955.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36600/artificial-intelligence-robotics&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36600.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="2e25150e-4bf9-46b9-978a-11d7d6f8e074" CreationDate="2012-03-12T13:06:44.960" UserId="7433" Text="Rather hackish, makes it into a dark green box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;javascript:$(&quot;.vote-accepted-on&quot;)[0].style.background=&quot;green&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put this in a bookmarklet (create a new bookmark with this code as the location), and click it on every phy.SE answer page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to click the bookmarklet on every page, then you may want to set it up as a userscript.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="a1ae195e-04b9-4a5e-9c3c-15ee92b3637a" CreationDate="2012-03-12T13:31:11.403" UserId="7433" Comment="added 889 characters in body" Text="Rather hackish, makes it into a dark green box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;javascript:$(&quot;.vote-accepted-on&quot;)[0].style.background=&quot;green&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put this in a bookmarklet (create a new bookmark with this code as the location), and click it on every phy.SE answer page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to click the bookmarklet on every page, then you may want to set it up as a userscript. Copy this to notepad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      // ==UserScript==&#xD;&#xA;      // @match http://*physics.stackexchange.com/*&#xD;&#xA;      // ==/UserScript==&#xD;&#xA;     function with_jquery(f) {&#xD;&#xA;         var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;         script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;         script.textContent = &quot;(&quot; + f.toString() + &quot;)(jQuery)&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;         document.body.appendChild(script);&#xD;&#xA;     };&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     with_jquery(function($){&#xD;&#xA;     		var acceptbutton=$(&quot;.vote-accepted-on&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;      		if(acceptbutton.length!=0){&#xD;&#xA;      		  acceptbutton[0].style.background=&quot;green&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      		}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     	});&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Save as `prominentaccept.user.js` or something. Drag-drop this file into your browser. You will need to install [Greasemonkey][1] on Firefox. On chrome, it will prompt you and work straight out-of-the-box on physics.SE and meta.physics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="983f0300-cc71-4a93-be23-2005dc1ccfc5" CreationDate="2012-03-13T12:53:39.737" UserId="7433" Text="Should/Can we have MathJax on meta? It would be useful to implement stuff like [this proposal][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *do* know the argument that it makes pageloading slow, so I propose that it only be enabled if a post has `$turn_mathjax_on$` or something on it. I wrote a simple script that accomplishes this. There are two versions: http://jsfiddle.net/2tccA/1/ (only gives the turn-mathjax-on ability for posts), and http://jsfiddle.net/2tccA/2/ (has an uncommentable option to enable it for comments as well). For some reason, the mathjax main server is down atm, so neither of these are currently working. They should work when http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js no longer shown an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, neither of these scripts work for the editing auto-update preview. I don't think it should be too hard to code it, though..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, any comments or arguments for/against?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/1116/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="983f0300-cc71-4a93-be23-2005dc1ccfc5" CreationDate="2012-03-13T12:53:39.737" UserId="7433" Text="MathJax on Meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="983f0300-cc71-4a93-be23-2005dc1ccfc5" CreationDate="2012-03-13T12:53:39.737" UserId="7433" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="b4c25a5a-d1de-4e0a-9832-ba29b47dad60" CreationDate="2012-03-15T02:01:29.393" UserId="124" Comment="update on progress" Text="The [2012 International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects](http://www.dis2012.uni-bonn.de) in Bonn (Germany) is coming up at the end of next month. I'm scheduled to give a talk there, but my adviser has asked me to look for external sources of funding to cover the trip. So naturally I thought of Stack Exchange and its [speakers' bureau program](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is this of interest to the community?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIS 2012 will be attended by a lot of accomplished high-energy physicists. In particular, representatives of the major experiments at CERN and elsewhere will be presenting their latest results, so anyone who follows the latest trends in high-energy physics will be interested to know what is presented at the conference. I can write up daily updates and post them on my personal blog, and I can also make an effort to ask relevant questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the benefit to Stack Exchange?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the physicists there also have teaching duties, and there will also be graduate students and postdocs giving presentations (at least, I assume I won't be the only one there who's not a professor). Even if these people may not be the type to ask questions on this site, they _are_ in a great position to recommend us to their students or members of the public. So this is an opportunity to get more people aware of this site. I can also mention other related SE sites which may be of more interest to the conference attendees - I'm specifically thinking of [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I need?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned at the top, I'm looking for any funding sources that can replace some of the grant money that (I assume) I can get through my university. Since the potential benefit to SE is not as great as if I were going to a conference _specifically_ to promote this site, I wouldn't presume to ask for a full sponsorship of the trip, but even, say, a contribution toward the cost of the hotel would be helpful. I already plan to acknowledge selected Stack Exchange sites in my presentation, but I think the acknowledgement might carry more weight if I could say &quot;_sponsored_ by Stack Exchange, Inc.&quot; People's ears tend to perk up when they hear that money might be available somewhere ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicists don't go to conferences expecting to collect T-shirts, but if I had some small things to hand out like business cards, pens or pencils, or maybe even stickers, I could probably send a few people home with reminders of our network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does the community think about this? Is it worthwhile? If not (or even if it is), I think we should keep in mind the possibility of sending someone as a representative of PSE to a more high-impact conference like next year's APS general meetings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Success! Stack Exchange will be partially sponsoring my trip to Bonn and I will do my best to involve the Physics.SE community, perhaps including posting updates on this meta question. More details will be coming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="97cf6769-c263-4933-9418-25329ae0320c" CreationDate="2012-03-16T21:37:31.363" UserId="6860" Text="The pale blue colour used for the question titles is pretty hard to read.  It looks great but needs to be darkened a little bit in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and one for the meta-meta: the colour used for the question titles used here on the meta site is worse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="97cf6769-c263-4933-9418-25329ae0320c" CreationDate="2012-03-16T21:37:31.363" UserId="6860" Text="Question title colour tough to read" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="97cf6769-c263-4933-9418-25329ae0320c" CreationDate="2012-03-16T21:37:31.363" UserId="6860" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="6f1d370d-3349-4956-a94c-d30987377d75" CreationDate="2012-03-17T03:48:14.950" UserId="1814" Text="Just wondering: what is the longest answer ever given in physics.stackexchange.com ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible candidate: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy/6439#6439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="6f1d370d-3349-4956-a94c-d30987377d75" CreationDate="2012-03-17T03:48:14.950" UserId="1814" Text="Longest answer ever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="6f1d370d-3349-4956-a94c-d30987377d75" CreationDate="2012-03-17T03:48:14.950" UserId="1814" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="f73ef8cc-e93e-4f71-9122-a700d6fd3e8b" CreationDate="2012-03-17T04:00:37.977" UserId="124" Text="Actually that comes in at #13. You're looking for [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18605/variation-of-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/18612#18612).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/64341/the-longest-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="2dc77bdf-5102-46f0-b629-3eb89fd24836" CreationDate="2012-03-18T21:22:17.983" UserId="7924" Text="It would be nice if given a tag one could find related tags (either subfields, superfields, or intersecting fields), especially if one needs to search for an appropriate tag from a large list. Thus it should be possible to define links in a related-graph, and be able to follow these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="2dc77bdf-5102-46f0-b629-3eb89fd24836" CreationDate="2012-03-18T21:22:17.983" UserId="7924" Text="links to related tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="2dc77bdf-5102-46f0-b629-3eb89fd24836" CreationDate="2012-03-18T21:22:17.983" UserId="7924" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="c2ab0baf-f2f1-4fb9-94a1-f9aa86f5fcbc" CreationDate="2012-03-18T23:09:52.873" UserId="2751" Text="I`d just like to know what other people generally think about this ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="c2ab0baf-f2f1-4fb9-94a1-f9aa86f5fcbc" CreationDate="2012-03-18T23:09:52.873" UserId="2751" Text="Is it &quot;rude&quot; to delete my own answer if it has a (physics)  discussion below it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="c2ab0baf-f2f1-4fb9-94a1-f9aa86f5fcbc" CreationDate="2012-03-18T23:09:52.873" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="6cfc431d-11c0-4c00-a347-3d19d60aec0b" CreationDate="2012-03-19T00:01:57.457" UserId="124" Text="Well, if you want to delete your answer, I suppose it might be considered nice to wait until people stop posting comments... but really, you have no obligation to do so. If people want to have a discussion, they should be doing it on chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up: officially, there is nothing wrong with doing what you're asking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="6ce14ca8-774a-46c8-aea8-c8c26314a9ab" CreationDate="2012-03-19T06:16:30.197" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Mainly in reference to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22398/direction-of-rotation-of-proton-in-magnetic-field-opposite-to-a-dipole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently asked a paradox question, and I got multiple answers that conflicted each other. The issue is that each one has good arguments that make sense, and the community seems undecided. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(barring my CW answer), the vote counts are thus: (+3-2),(+2-1),(+1-1). Note that I had upvoted each answer as it came in, since while reading it it immediately made sense, though not so much later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from offering a bounty (which I shall do tomorrow or something), what else can one do in such a case? After all, there is no Grand Poohbah of physics on P.SE, or indeed anywhere. Neither is there a &quot;manual&quot;. So how can one know which answer is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, what is the admissibility of such &quot;paradox&quot; questions on this site? Paradoxes(-xi?) usually have multiple resolutions, but all the resolutions boil down to the same issue, so I personally feel that they aren't subjective. But I don't know what others' opinions are on this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="6ce14ca8-774a-46c8-aea8-c8c26314a9ab" CreationDate="2012-03-19T06:16:30.197" UserId="7433" Text="What should one do when the community is undecided on a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="6ce14ca8-774a-46c8-aea8-c8c26314a9ab" CreationDate="2012-03-19T06:16:30.197" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="4aa3eb76-e8e5-4998-b87e-99f80a26e460" CreationDate="2012-03-19T07:48:40.123" UserId="124" Text="If you're not satisfied that any of the answers is correct, that's fine, just leave the question without an accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for paradox questions, what do you mean by that category? All the best questions on this site arise from some apparent contradiction in the laws of physics, so I don't see why it matters whether you call it a paradox or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="28f88d2f-d1ee-42db-9573-45e314116c00" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:27:43.460" UserId="8232" Text="Am I the only one who thinks the physics logo says &quot;sombrero&quot; louder than it says &quot;physics&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="28f88d2f-d1ee-42db-9573-45e314116c00" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:27:43.460" UserId="8232" Text="Physics logo sending confusing signals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="28f88d2f-d1ee-42db-9573-45e314116c00" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:27:43.460" UserId="8232" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="1b236658-badb-4798-aac6-2cb099b65f71" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:47:43.657" UserId="124" Text="So far the scope of Physics Stack Exchange has been defined to exclude experimental technology questions, which are those questions about the devices that one uses to do physics, rather than about the physical principles they use. Some of these questions fit on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), and there was a proposal on [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) that would have been a great home for these questions. However, that proposal is no more, and given that this site is well established with a steady flow of physical principles questions, **is it time that we start to allow the questions about experimental technology?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example that prompted this question: &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/good-electronic-filters-against-50hz-mains-hum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="1b236658-badb-4798-aac6-2cb099b65f71" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:47:43.657" UserId="124" Text="Experimental technology questions: on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="1b236658-badb-4798-aac6-2cb099b65f71" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:47:43.657" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="32abec01-f750-4b15-8e46-88c5ad208073" CreationDate="2012-03-20T02:05:00.180" UserId="124" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="The [2012 International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects](http://www.dis2012.uni-bonn.de) in Bonn (Germany) is coming up at the end of next month. I'm scheduled to give a talk there, but my adviser has asked me to look for external sources of funding to cover the trip. So naturally I thought of Stack Exchange and its [speakers' bureau program](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is this of interest to the community?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIS 2012 will be attended by a lot of accomplished high-energy physicists. In particular, representatives of the major experiments at CERN and elsewhere will be presenting their latest results, so anyone who follows the latest trends in high-energy physics will be interested to know what is presented at the conference. I can write up daily updates and post them on my personal blog, and I can also make an effort to ask relevant questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the benefit to Stack Exchange?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the physicists there also have teaching duties, and there will also be graduate students and postdocs giving presentations (at least, I assume I won't be the only one there who's not a professor). Even if these people may not be the type to ask questions on this site, they _are_ in a great position to recommend us to their students or members of the public. So this is an opportunity to get more people aware of this site. I can also mention other related SE sites which may be of more interest to the conference attendees - I'm specifically thinking of [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I need?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned at the top, I'm looking for any funding sources that can replace some of the grant money that (I assume) I can get through my university. Since the potential benefit to SE is not as great as if I were going to a conference _specifically_ to promote this site, I wouldn't presume to ask for a full sponsorship of the trip, but even, say, a contribution toward the cost of the hotel would be helpful. I already plan to acknowledge selected Stack Exchange sites in my presentation, but I think the acknowledgement might carry more weight if I could say &quot;_sponsored_ by Stack Exchange, Inc.&quot; People's ears tend to perk up when they hear that money might be available somewhere ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicists don't go to conferences expecting to collect T-shirts, but if I had some small things to hand out like business cards, pens or pencils, or maybe even stickers, I could probably send a few people home with reminders of our network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does the community think about this? Is it worthwhile? If not (or even if it is), I think we should keep in mind the possibility of sending someone as a representative of PSE to a more high-impact conference like next year's APS general meetings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Success! Stack Exchange will be partially sponsoring my trip to Bonn and I will do my best to involve the Physics.SE community, perhaps including posting updates on this meta question. More details will be coming.&#xD;&#xA;- Swag has arrived :-) I have some stickers, pens, and markers to hand out at the conference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="2fc08c9d-5dbf-4529-bc01-80ef99f9a565" CreationDate="2012-03-20T12:54:39.877" UserId="7433" Text="The mains hum one was a relatively simple EE problem, which was simple enough to stay on the scope of physics (AC rejector circuits seem pretty OK to me). But yes, it would have found a better home on EE.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that these should stay on topic. Multiple reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is the best place for them. (Experimental) physicists here will be familiar with experimental tech, and can provide detailed answers.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics is a large part of Physics. Experimental tech does not focus on any concept, but neither does experimental physics. We can not afford to ignore experimental physics/tech on a *physics* site.&#xD;&#xA; - The general question of feasibility of a setup is a great one, and experimental tech is a large part of feasibility.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="b8e84dc9-d85f-46ee-b9e3-555bbcd58a38" CreationDate="2012-03-20T13:27:55.780" UserId="7433" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="The mains hum one was a relatively simple EE problem, which was simple enough to stay on the scope of physics (AC rejector circuits seem pretty OK to me). But yes, it would have found a better home on EE.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that these should stay on topic. Multiple reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is the best place for them. (Experimental) physicists here will be familiar with experimental tech, and can provide detailed answers.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics is a large part of Physics. Experimental tech does not focus on any concept, but neither does experimental physics. We can not afford to ignore experimental physics/tech on a *physics* site.&#xD;&#xA; - The general question of feasibility of a setup is a great one, and experimental tech is a large part of feasibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I have created  [tag:experimental-technology] to hold such questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="6fd73ebc-1a90-4b9e-a238-d1489fd72f2e" CreationDate="2012-03-20T13:38:51.693" UserId="7433" Text="It's the well known (among physicists and enthusiasts) as the [Mexican hat potential][1]. It's involved in the mechanism of the Higgs Boson/God Particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it looks like a sombrero...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, I've never seen a sombrero made of green mesh.. IMO, *anything* that looks meshy is probably a graph. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about what most laymen would think, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_hat_potential#A_pedagogical_example:_the_Mexican_hat_potential" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="9701e244-40ee-49b5-bc51-d98ead274950" CreationDate="2012-03-21T01:42:01.790" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="f95f2de0-8876-4819-b5d9-9cb23dc2b7e0" CreationDate="2012-03-21T01:42:16.237" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="b9620fae-973f-4586-88b6-058f39917c3e" CreationDate="2012-03-21T04:33:36.090" UserId="7433" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="&gt; Sort of crossposted to http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/3845/mathjax-custom-commands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax allows the use of `\newcommand` in TeX. For example, this command:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\newcommand{\lorentz}[1]{\frac{#1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be pretty useful in lots of situations. If this was placed somewhere in the body (AFAIK before it is called), then `\lorentz{m_0}` would give the expression for relativistic mass. `\lorentz{1}` would give the normal lorentz factor. `lorentz{m_0c^2}` gives us the expression for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this, I can think up quite a lot of TeXcodes that are tedious to type, but crop up often. `\frac{1}{2}` and `\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}` are some (smaller and less tedious) examples. A few more commands that quickly give expressions for the nabla operator, div, grad, curl would be nice as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, is there any way that we can have a user-dictated commandset? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, it's easy to code it, just keep &quot;$$ *insert commands here* $$&quot; at the top of the `&lt;body&gt;` tag. Less easy to code would be the way to make it user-dictated, but I'm thinking something akin to the way http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012 works would be easy to implement, as the code is already there. Just modify it so that it takes all the mathjax in the body of an answer with enough upvotes and appends it to some div in the beginning of the body tag (set display:none just to be safe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Suggestions? Rants? Cookies?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2592" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="c7b03c96-89b2-488b-940a-9c8e50791d30" CreationDate="2012-03-21T05:51:19.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/182343611596288001" />
  <row Id="2601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="ad84c8aa-35d6-488a-b36a-646602ca52cf" CreationDate="2012-03-22T12:02:10.150" UserId="1255" Text="(merging from other meta thread I made about this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My area is not physics.  However, this was the best thing that Stack Exchange had to offer me, and I decided I really liked it, so I've been active here for a number of months (I mostly used the username zassounotsukushi).  Lately I started to think it might be worthwhile to make an Area 51 attempt for Nuclear Engineering, which is what I do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have a tag for it!  At 25 questions it's not much, but most nuclear questions are blatantly not relevant to Physics SE anyway, so I figure, who knows what you would get if you invited questions about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet, but I recognize that in order for the proposal to succeed I would need to plaster it around nuclear related listserves, message boards, maybe use fliers, and get other people to help it go viral as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could make arguments for why this may or may not work, but I could see it working.  The Electrical Engineering SE comes to mind, which is funny because I never found that to be very useful, just because the knowledge is so incredibly specific to the application and broad as well.  Nuclear is much more narrow, but if you allow fairly practical and specific (to regulations, designs, etc) then there's certainly no end to the obscurity of questions you could encounter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I would love to see lots of people from this site share what they think at the proposal.  I'm wondering if 200 people is more than we could hope to recruit, or if we could ever have a high enough volume of questions.  But the entire point of stack exchange kind of feels like controlled anarchy anyway, so might as well start it out and see what happens, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2602" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="a17866b2-ad28-418e-a017-de8e96fb4569" CreationDate="2012-03-22T12:02:10.150" UserId="1255" />
  <row Id="2603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="3908175d-4041-4337-86f6-10ea6b222ef2" CreationDate="2012-03-22T17:46:47.303" UserId="3715" Comment="added 1633 characters in body" Text="I want to answer on 2 things you asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what to do: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance the users and community atmosphere, and SE is already doing this by limiting daily rep to 200 for exactly this reasons and personalities you list in your question. You can go further to limit rep gainable in a week/month, something I would recommend here. Does this site really need user who play this site and invests time in it like such one addicted 24/7 world or warcraft gamer? There would be enough other user to anwer questions if the rep-payout would only drive those people to write every 1 days only 1 answer here. For big sites like SO there are enough competitors and questions niches that the 200 limit works, but here and on small betas even more, dominance of very few rep-gamers makes many sites here uninteresting to me, for small topics you get much better and more perspectives on topics over at reddit or quora. That are the 2 sides of reputation, attracting egos like Motl or Ron clashing from time to time and yielding high quality answers by competition via the rep-voting system. But it is evident that discussions about phyics are on SE much harder then on other questions sites because of this system. Still I think SE should start to begin adapting at least rep-limit or voting strentgh on SE sites with diff. topics and community size. I have surfed for a while philosophy, history and economics.SE and it are always the same 2-3 user earning all rep or even voting themselves, these sites are so one-dimensional in their views and boring to read that you wish all high rep users where only allowed to answer 1 question a week simply to make more people contributing to such sites. It kills pretty much any community dynamics and the AREA51 only works if they set up the min. amount of commiters so that more competition exists in the first beta-months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what I feel as a physicist when reading Ron's arrogant insulting Bio:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I wouldn't recommend a site to colleagues where (probably soon) the top-rep poster has such a arrogant Bio and insults all Physicists building the high-technology you use at the moment as completely incompetent. It's awkward that the mods here are obviously not willing to make this guy either changing his incomplete Bio or deactivating his account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Ron insults guys like me I may counter: Somebody unemployed with 38 sitting whole day in front of a PC to answer basic physics questions and dubbing others with his Real Name as idiots obviously failed pretty much in a social way in the research group after his graduation. Not able to work in a team or respect other people not wasting 70 hours a week on physics. Not able to understand that science more than ever is a social process of strengthening and falsifying paradigms instead of genius-like theoretical visions in these times. He lacks patience and tranquility obviously to work as a scholar, so sites like this are the only places to pet his ego, he writes answers longer than wikipedia articels and probably socially failed there too as a author in the discussions. He &quot;likes to spread his theories everywhere&quot;, well maybe he should enlighten then theophysics.SE and the whole scientifc community with some arxiv papers to boost scientific progress how only he can do it and less game this site, but probably the users over there are even more incompetent to understand his genius-like truths than here. If he completes his Bio with these unmentioned points I'm fine and he should keep it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why the mods here don't request the bio change, Georg account was deactivated for some months afaik for insulting comments (I agree with this, while I'm pretty direct and critical too I'm not dubbing people as embarrassing or incompetent) Ron's Bio is even more insulting to me and visible as a constant poster and high-rep user here. And with such users waiting on their RSS-feed to bombard this site with their knowledge or google-wizardry (which many physics graduate with so much time could easily do too), it becomes less and less interesting or valuable to contribute to this site. I'm not interested in the mostly correct views of one person on physics, I want competition, many answers and views (otherwise there is wiki or scholarpedia or personal blogs), without anti-thesis for the pure purpose, scientific progress ends. Too much of those rep-gamers and such sites or forums become a cabinet of vanities. That's why there is the 200 rep limit. And for physics this obviouly has to be adapted, the rate of  graduates thinking of themselves as omiscient is esp. in physics pretty high compared to other branches, explains why so many physicists write blogs. Thats a evident psychological pattern on many physicists I know. A rep system just perfectly matches the ego of such guys, writing wikipia articles as answers, so any prof. physicist will never try answer a qestion on his own lacking time. There is not really a chance and need to compete on attention with such fast appearing long answers, so prof. experts leave. It's of course hard to balance his, but I prefer rather a lot competition on lower quality and detail of answer than views of always the same 3-4 gamer here on top of every question. There is a voting-bias to such guys and I will personally more trust a heavy discussed wikipedia article than a single omniscient completely competent user, esp. in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a edit to show that Ron noticed/responded to this answer, and &quot;changed&quot; his bio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we all know physicists have their very own sense of humour (big bang theory) and worldviews. But, Ron, something to consider: I dont buy from you that you are unaware of how much reputation points your bio costs you. Many user here &quot;non-vote&quot; you because of this IMHO. The average vote sum on our answers seems to be significantly below lubos or other users. Its evident when I look on your christianity or ELU profiles where, funnily, you have the same bio :) and earn alot of downvotes, because user there dont get this kind of &quot;humour&quot; or dont know why you insult physicists (having a high standing on SE this way) on a non-physicist site. You could probably already have 30k rep here without that bio (now it makes probably not really a difference if you remove/change it or not). You can also replace physicists with biologists, priests, creationists,... Funnily here the physicists defend you while your earn downvotes on other sites. I will stop trying to understand this...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know psychology is a pseudo-scientifc topic and not as interesting as physics, but I dont think understanding humour and human reactions is a matter of incompetence/ignorance. Your bio is just not that funny, more looks like tragedy or a crackpot-theorist (having no big standing on SE ;) )  I dont really want to continue that discussion, I just dont get how somebody so interested in rep and feedback can choose such a counter-productive bio. Maybe I should ask on cognitivesciences.se, but this seems to be a very special case..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="0ad5eac1-40e1-4d88-9730-26c154e33f13" CreationDate="2012-03-22T18:28:51.470" UserId="4066" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Green Energy][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences][6]][5]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][10]][9]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Science][12]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4964.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/5167.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4955.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36600/artificial-intelligence-robotics&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36600.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="58e898c1-0d34-41b3-8ea1-d4e7147d98ba" CreationDate="2012-03-23T18:22:07.570" UserId="1186" Text="It seems somebody pursues me, downvoting all my questions and answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	28 mins ago 	downvote 	Is Mach's Principle Wrong?&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	31 mins ago 	downvote 	Is it possible for information to be transmitted faster than light?&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	32 mins ago 	downvote 	Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	34 mins ago 	downvote 	What do you think about teaching Standard Model in school?&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	35 mins ago 	downvote 	Is solar wind positively charged?&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	35 mins ago 	downvote 	Popular depictions of electromagnetic wave: is there an error?&#xD;&#xA;    -2 	36 mins ago 	downvote 	Do all massive bodies emit Hawking radiation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether such behavior should be filtered out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="58e898c1-0d34-41b3-8ea1-d4e7147d98ba" CreationDate="2012-03-23T18:22:07.570" UserId="1186" Text="Attack on my account" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="58e898c1-0d34-41b3-8ea1-d4e7147d98ba" CreationDate="2012-03-23T18:22:07.570" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1140" RevisionGUID="d43dadc3-6758-4231-a325-f598059f07f3" CreationDate="2012-03-24T05:04:54.313" UserId="4864" Text="I went through the answers and questions that were downvoted by hostile anon, and upvoted the ones I thought deserved it. This type of thing generally leads people to do the same, and is counterproductive for the downvoter. I like your questions and answers (even when they're wrong), because they have original critical thinking, and this is a precious resource. Hope you decide to stick around, despite the unavoidable occasional hostility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="03946f63-5351-41e9-b538-a6b155da7fc5" CreationDate="2012-03-25T14:34:43.820" UserId="7924" Text="Trying to login at&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/login&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;via StackExchange (leftmost item) gives the error message: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Third Party Cookies Appear To Be Disabled&#xD;&#xA;This site depends on third-party cookies, please add an exception for https://openid.stackexchange.com/.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to add such an exception? (I am working with Mozilla Firefox 11.0 for Ubuntu canonical - 1.0.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="03946f63-5351-41e9-b538-a6b155da7fc5" CreationDate="2012-03-25T14:34:43.820" UserId="7924" Text="problem logging in at meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="03946f63-5351-41e9-b538-a6b155da7fc5" CreationDate="2012-03-25T14:34:43.820" UserId="7924" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="faf609fe-70b6-4c10-b598-15717034b8d2" CreationDate="2012-03-25T15:02:42.130" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Trying to login at&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/login&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;via StackExchange (leftmost item) gives the error message: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Third Party Cookies Appear To Be Disabled&#xD;&#xA;This site depends on third-party cookies, please add an exception for https://openid.stackexchange.com/.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to add such an exception? (I am working with Mozilla Firefox 11.0 for Ubuntu canonical - 1.0.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2618" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="faf609fe-70b6-4c10-b598-15717034b8d2" CreationDate="2012-03-25T15:02:42.130" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="problem logging in at meta stack overflow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="72bce7b3-c596-48e1-851f-90402b09685a" CreationDate="2012-03-25T17:19:19.440" UserId="520" Text="I think you open the &quot;preferences&quot; (Mac) or &quot;options&quot; (Windows) tool, and look on the &quot;Privacy&quot; tab." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="b9006287-108a-4193-be2d-fcd37c607cb5" CreationDate="2012-03-25T18:50:47.297" UserId="124" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="The [2012 International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects](http://www.dis2012.uni-bonn.de) in Bonn (Germany) is coming up at the end of next month. I'm scheduled to give a talk there, but my adviser has asked me to look for external sources of funding to cover the trip. So naturally I thought of Stack Exchange and its [speakers' bureau program](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is this of interest to the community?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIS 2012 will be attended by a lot of accomplished high-energy physicists. In particular, representatives of the major experiments at CERN and elsewhere will be presenting their latest results, so anyone who follows the latest trends in high-energy physics will be interested to know what is presented at the conference. I can write up daily updates and post them on my personal blog, and I can also make an effort to ask relevant questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the benefit to Stack Exchange?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the physicists there also have teaching duties, and there will also be graduate students and postdocs giving presentations (at least, I assume I won't be the only one there who's not a professor). Even if these people may not be the type to ask questions on this site, they _are_ in a great position to recommend us to their students or members of the public. So this is an opportunity to get more people aware of this site. I can also mention other related SE sites which may be of more interest to the conference attendees - I'm specifically thinking of [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I need?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned at the top, I'm looking for any funding sources that can replace some of the grant money that (I assume) I can get through my university. Since the potential benefit to SE is not as great as if I were going to a conference _specifically_ to promote this site, I wouldn't presume to ask for a full sponsorship of the trip, but even, say, a contribution toward the cost of the hotel would be helpful. I already plan to acknowledge selected Stack Exchange sites in my presentation, but I think the acknowledgement might carry more weight if I could say &quot;_sponsored_ by Stack Exchange, Inc.&quot; People's ears tend to perk up when they hear that money might be available somewhere ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicists don't go to conferences expecting to collect T-shirts, but if I had some small things to hand out like business cards, pens or pencils, or maybe even stickers, I could probably send a few people home with reminders of our network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does the community think about this? Is it worthwhile? If not (or even if it is), I think we should keep in mind the possibility of sending someone as a representative of PSE to a more high-impact conference like next year's APS general meetings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Success! Stack Exchange will be partially sponsoring my trip to Bonn and I will do my best to involve the Physics.SE community, perhaps including posting updates on this meta question. More details will be coming.&#xD;&#xA;- Swag has arrived :-) I have some stickers, pens, and markers to hand out at the conference.&#xD;&#xA;- I'll be mainly posting updates on [my blog](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/tagged/DIS%202012.html) and on [Twitter](http://www.twitter.com/ellipsix), but I'll also add summaries to an answer to this meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="d9ed3635-16e7-4d85-9596-17c4a7997a63" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:12:15.123" UserId="124" Text="At Shog9's request, I'll be posting some updates here as I put things up on my blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [What is Deep Inelastic Scattering?](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/what-is-deep-inelastic-scattering.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting with a post that explains in basic terms what deep inelastic scattering is, as well as why it's important enough to have a conference named after it even if much of the subject matter of that conference is not directly related.&#xD;&#xA;2. Summary of plenary sessions&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The conference starts tomorrow with plenary sessions, large talks that everyone is (well, can be) attending. They concern not only the current state of DIS research, but the frontiers of Tevatron and LHC data and QCD theory. I'll have updates up tomorrow!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="cdb0f8a5-d3b8-47aa-9559-3a75bbc6f859" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:13:38.200" UserId="2751" Text="I know that I did not like it too much as it happend without explanation to me; but I promise that I will leave a corresponding comment. The comment is actually already there ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is do I have to click the upward arrow again or do I have to click the downward arrow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="cdb0f8a5-d3b8-47aa-9559-3a75bbc6f859" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:13:38.200" UserId="2751" Text="How do I retract an upvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="cdb0f8a5-d3b8-47aa-9559-3a75bbc6f859" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:13:38.200" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1146" RevisionGUID="25dcc6fc-40e1-438e-b133-db7af9ca3e61" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:18:24.090" UserId="520" Text="You click the up-arrow again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you will not be allowed to retract a vote after a relatively short time unless the post has been edited in the interim (there was a problem with people gaming the voting system on Stack Overflow that resulted in this policy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are also asked not to edit a post solely so that you can retract a vote, though editing for that purpose is condoned if you substantially improve the post in some way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1147" RevisionGUID="b1963d90-d1ff-424b-8d5e-db94b07d2448" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:21:39.000" UserId="520" Text="The team has investigated the situation, and concluded that it does not constitute an &quot;attack&quot; under the current criteria. We have taken steps that should prevent this from being an on-going issue and are keeping an eye on the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="b0ca4eed-6d7d-42a3-bced-2c5c9bb37e9c" CreationDate="2012-03-25T20:23:05.910" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-deferred|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="5afcf248-9dfd-4246-8b21-e1847db1e0f1" CreationDate="2012-03-26T00:38:21.607" UserId="1186" Text="I wonder whether it was deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember the name, but it included a statement that the computers will be never capable to model and predict the behavior of all people, thus the suggested scenario of technological singularity is impossible because computers will not ever surpass all humans in intellect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="5afcf248-9dfd-4246-8b21-e1847db1e0f1" CreationDate="2012-03-26T00:38:21.607" UserId="1186" Text="I cannot find my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="5afcf248-9dfd-4246-8b21-e1847db1e0f1" CreationDate="2012-03-26T00:38:21.607" UserId="1186" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="9fedd48c-595a-428f-97ff-d5390bb5565b" CreationDate="2012-03-26T01:58:56.687" UserId="1186" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I wonder whether it was deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember the name, but it included a statement that the computers will be never capable to model and predict the behavior of all people, thus the suggested scenario of technological singularity is impossible because computers will not ever surpass all humans in intellect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The question asked about apparent worldlines of other people being an envelope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="b231993c-f7f8-476b-b411-43484e790a48" CreationDate="2012-03-26T21:21:08.813" UserId="124" Text="Yes, that question was deleted, although as I'm not the one who deleted it I can't comment on the reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="9609f454-4603-4925-a923-8945c2d768b9" CreationDate="2012-03-27T02:24:49.730" UserId="124" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="UPDATE: Here's an idea I just came up with. In honor of the conference, I'll be putting bounties on between zero and two more DIS-related questions this week to increase their visibility and/or reward those who post good answers (with a preference toward new or low-rep users). So if you have a question on any topic related to the conference, this is the time to ask it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At Shog9's request, I'll be posting some updates here as I put things up on my blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [What is Deep Inelastic Scattering?](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/what-is-deep-inelastic-scattering.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting with a post that explains in basic terms what deep inelastic scattering is, as well as why it's important enough to have a conference named after it even if much of the subject matter of that conference is not directly related.&#xD;&#xA;2. [Summary of plenary sessions](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/day-1-plenary-sessions.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've posted an overview of some of the plenary session talks, including recent results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="2ad9c535-d6ec-44aa-9b9e-bbdc521b979b" CreationDate="2012-03-29T05:44:53.577" UserId="7433" Text="One of the great things about P.SE is that [in the process of writing answers, I learn a lot][1]. In this spirit, I've posted [many answers][2] which I'm not completely sure about, along with a hatnote stating the same and &quot;Comments appreciated&quot;. Many of these have been extremely helpful to me; and I've learned lots of new stuff by posting such answers. But there's no guarantee that such answers are beneficial to the community--after all, they are more of a supplementary question at times. I know the argument &quot;ask it as a question instead&quot;, but I feel that it won't cover everything--I tend to have small misconceptions in my knowledge, which would be impossible to find via a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I just wanted to get a feel of what the community thinks of such answers and/or their (in)appropriateness according to policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3778089#3778089&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=comments%20appreciated%20user:7433&amp;submit=search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="2ad9c535-d6ec-44aa-9b9e-bbdc521b979b" CreationDate="2012-03-29T05:44:53.577" UserId="7433" Text="How appropriate are &quot;I'm not sure of this&quot; posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="2ad9c535-d6ec-44aa-9b9e-bbdc521b979b" CreationDate="2012-03-29T05:44:53.577" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="25e679d1-178a-4365-931b-d2a0d3f74c30" CreationDate="2012-03-29T14:47:45.717" UserId="2751" Text="I just tried to post a (certainly not too long) comment but as I tried to submit it, the number of characters left turned negative and red and the submission failed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/m515w.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does this happen to me? &#xD;&#xA;Control C, delete the comment, and reinsert it with Control V did not change anything. And I am logged in of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this is not because I`m too chatty sometimes :-) ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="25e679d1-178a-4365-931b-d2a0d3f74c30" CreationDate="2012-03-29T14:47:45.717" UserId="2751" Text="Why am I not able to post a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="25e679d1-178a-4365-931b-d2a0d3f74c30" CreationDate="2012-03-29T14:47:45.717" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1152" RevisionGUID="0d6f2597-6487-4f1b-a61d-c0b1944d614d" CreationDate="2012-03-29T15:03:28.050" UserId="7433" Text="Think of it as SE's implementation of Twitter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a 500(iirc) character limit on comments. Its to prevent too much chattiness and stuff in comments, but its not directed solely at you ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either splice it intomultiple comments or post it in chat and link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="b0a48585-e396-4ccc-985e-cca4b0ac9412" CreationDate="2012-03-29T16:11:16.920" UserId="2751" Comment="Clarified, removed too funny comment" Text="I just tried to post a (certainly not too long) comment but as I tried to submit it, the number of characters left turned negative and red and the submission failed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/m515w.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does this happen to me? &#xD;&#xA;Control C, delete the comment, and reinsert it with Control V did not change anything. And I am logged in of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;number of characters left&quot; was negative (-15) from the beginning before any character was typed into the comment ... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="b0a48585-e396-4ccc-985e-cca4b0ac9412" CreationDate="2012-03-29T16:11:16.920" UserId="2751" Comment="Clarified, removed too funny comment" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="66fbacb9-7dd2-4de9-b05d-0e8ef914b1ab" CreationDate="2012-03-30T03:38:58.380" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; [Related chat snippet][1]([s][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple times, I see a question and feel &quot;oh, `&lt;xyz&gt;` would be able to post a brilliant answer to this one&quot;. Quite a few nice questions get pushed down; out of the notice of the specialists. Sometimes I may want `&lt;xyz&gt;`s advice on a particular answer that I've seen. Aside from that, there are numerous other reasons where you may want to contact a specific user. For this, I [proposed a feature at MSO][3], but it probably won't go through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what I propose is this:&#xD;&#xA;A meta question, on which a user can post their username and specialties as a separate answer. A user need not be a specialist in anything(eg, me) to post. Maybe the question can be tagged [meta-tag:featured] so that everyone gets a look-see at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of such a post will be to allow anyone to ping that user with P.SE related comments. It should be entirely opt-in, nobody's forcing anyone :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are spam issues and other stuff, so I want to see some of your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3751540#3751540&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/3754680#3754680&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/127333/allow-users-to-opt-in-to-being-superpinged-in-chat-by-anyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="66fbacb9-7dd2-4de9-b05d-0e8ef914b1ab" CreationDate="2012-03-30T03:38:58.380" UserId="7433" Text="List of users with specialities who are willing to be pinged--should we do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="66fbacb9-7dd2-4de9-b05d-0e8ef914b1ab" CreationDate="2012-03-30T03:38:58.380" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="0eff9d82-a4f0-41a2-bf6a-2580722f14c1" CreationDate="2012-03-30T03:58:51.790" UserId="520" Text="Related suggestions have been made on the mother meta many times, the official position is that user who wish to be contactable put contact information in the *About Me* field of their profile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="92158d1a-eb72-4053-9ffb-4abcef4dd359" CreationDate="2012-03-30T04:05:05.620" UserId="520" Comment="added 651 characters in body" Text="Related [suggestions][1] have [been made][2] on [the mother][3] meta [many][4] times, the official position is that user who wish to be contactable put contact information in the *About Me* field of their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintaining a list of such users would, of course, be fine--a question here on meat.physics would be perfect for that purpose--but the system isn't going to support your getting their attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/41474/request-a-specific-expert-on-a-subject-to-answer-your-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/30564/how-to-ask-a-question-to-a-particular-user-of-stackoverflow-com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/113561/asking-specific-people-to-answer-my-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/16757/how-do-you-contact-a-stackoverflow-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2649" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="abb4f74c-5f8c-4867-980b-aba4f9338a46" CreationDate="2012-03-30T08:51:20.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/185650403612958720" />
  <row Id="2650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="ba90afb1-9cc5-4396-86ff-784776233ba8" CreationDate="2012-03-30T09:01:20.253" UserId="2751" Text="As I understand it there is nothing wrong with putting into an answer what you know about the topic asked and then improve it in the course of a discussion with other users. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="e5d70c05-82bb-4d7e-93c6-19824a693f24" CreationDate="2012-03-30T19:22:08.143" UserId="124" Text="Sure, having a meta question where people can &quot;register&quot; their interest in being pinged sounds fine - at least, there's no rule against it. It wouldn't hurt to try it and see if it helps at all. It wouldn't be [meta-tag:featured] forever, but we could probably put [meta-tag:faq] on it if you word it the right way (e.g. &quot;How can I ask someone specific to answer a question?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would encourage anyone who would be interested in participating in such a system to also do the following three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Include your areas of expertise (those in which you would like to be &quot;pinged&quot; if a pinging system were available) in your profile text blurb. If you have enough reputation to have a &quot;user card&quot; (the thing that pops up when the mouse hovers over your gravatar), then make sure your areas of expertise show up there.&#xD;&#xA;2. Also include those areas in your chat profile.&#xD;&#xA;3. Stay logged into [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) as much as possible, and check it periodically to see if you've been &quot;requested.&quot; Let's make that the central place to recruit people to help with specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the best way to use the existing system to accomplish the goal here - and at worst, it's not going to interfere with the meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="36d6bdd2-fe94-456c-9441-6a4f8af89c98" CreationDate="2012-03-30T19:51:44.473" UserId="124" Text="For answers, I guess it's fine. If you post something you're not quite sure of, you run the risk of it being wrong and then it gets downvoted, but in that case the system takes care of it; we don't need an official policy on top of that. In fact, if we required that you have to be sure of everything you write, there are a lot of answers of mine that would never have been posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the things that differentiates us from e.g. Skeptics, because on that site you have to provide references to support everything you write, but such a requirement would not be reasonable here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="0b942197-a348-48af-a09f-509ee4bfa165" CreationDate="2012-03-30T20:08:36.620" UserId="124" Comment="add text of question" Text="Yes, that question was deleted, although as I'm not the one who deleted it I can't comment on the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_EDIT_ text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In [this work][1] Thomas Breuer has shown that each observer will not see himself obeying the usual physical laws however a theory is. He also proved that the behavior of a system that contains observer himself is unpredictable for the observer because the initial states cannot be distinguished from each other by any measurement. The theorems concerning self-reference by Breuer are quite similar to Goedel's incompleteness theorem.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    This leads to some far reaching implications.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    1. The observer will see his own behavior not obeying the usual statistical patterns derived from studying the behavior of other people.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. Even if there possible to construct a computer that would predict the behavior of other people (at least statistically), a computer that predicts the behavior of the observer himself is impossible however powerful the computer is.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    The first thesis leads to a conclusion that even if we assume existence of several intelligent observers (as in Many-Worlds interpretation), and even assume they somehow occur in the same world, their worldlines will diverge just the next moment because their observations about themselves will be different. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    This means that the apparent behavior of another person which an observer observes is not actually an intelligent behavior of conscious observer, but envelope of worldlines of a series of intelligent observers which is tangent to the worldlines of some slightly different intelligent observers each moment, but always to a different one.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    This leads to a conclusion that the apparent behavior of other people **is not** the normal behavior of a conscious observer as if it behaved the same way as you do, the apparent behavior does not correspond to any intelligent(in the meaning described below) person whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    The second thesis means that the machines will never excel in imitating all people. However good a computer is designed to imitate people, still will be at least one person (the observer himself for each observer) whom it could  neither predict nor imitate to the level of indistiguishability (or such imitation would need a hypercomputer, a hypothetical device exploiting the laws beyound the normal physical theory).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    That said we come to two concepts of &quot;intelligence&quot;. The first is just mechanical intelligence which CAN be imitated or predicted by a computer and which we also observe as **apparent** behavior of other people (actually observing only an envelope of natural worldlines of truly intelligent persons). &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    The second concept is the &quot;true intelligence&quot;, i.e. the intelligence of the observer himself sees his own behavior. An object of such kind of intelligence is unique in the uneverse as observed by any given observer. This kind of intelligence cannot be imitated or predicted by a machine however powerful it is (unless a hypothetical hypercomputer or some help from outside of physical world is employed).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    So, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Whether this work and its implications really mean that the machines will be never made more intelligent than all people, other than by means involving hypothetical hypercomputing?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Whether the apparent world-lines of others are actually unnatural and differ from the behavior of an intelligent observer logging his own behavior from first-person perspective?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;      [1]: https://homepages.fhv.at/tb/cms/?download=tbDISS.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="2cbd9274-3e82-4785-9dec-865d71d653ea" CreationDate="2012-03-30T23:25:01.540" UserId="124" Comment="added 543 characters in body" Text="UPDATE: Here's an idea I just came up with. In honor of the conference, I'll be putting bounties on between zero and two more DIS-related questions this week to increase their visibility and/or reward those who post good answers (with a preference toward new or low-rep users). So if you have a question on any topic related to the conference, this is the time to ask it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At Shog9's request, I'll be posting some updates here as I put things up on my blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [What is Deep Inelastic Scattering?](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/what-is-deep-inelastic-scattering.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting with a post that explains in basic terms what deep inelastic scattering is, as well as why it's important enough to have a conference named after it even if much of the subject matter of that conference is not directly related.&#xD;&#xA;2. [Summary of plenary sessions](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/day-1-plenary-sessions.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've posted an overview of some of the plenary session talks, including recent results.&#xD;&#xA;3. [Midweek report: Parallel Sessions](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/midweek-report-parallel-sessions.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here I just pointed to some potentially interesting presentations, but I'll have to come back and do analysis later.&#xD;&#xA;4. [Day 5: plenary sessions (again!)](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/day-5-plenary-sessions-again.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is a _lot_ to summarize from this conference, but for now I've posted a quick overview of some of the relatively general-interest points brought up at the concluding summary talks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="ec6bb655-ecf3-4aee-bd84-679fcd996b4f" CreationDate="2012-03-31T10:45:49.880" UserId="124" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="e2b5c57a-daa4-47f9-bb18-df878c402c6e" CreationDate="2012-04-01T11:24:02.580" UserId="7433" Text="Still doesn't work in Chrome (beta), but it does work in canary. Meh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="9119316e-b795-4517-8b81-d7d203806892" CreationDate="2012-04-01T11:48:52.033" UserId="7433" Text="`Under construction`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA; - `More?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To ping a user, just comment on their post below with your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="9119316e-b795-4517-8b81-d7d203806892" CreationDate="2012-04-01T11:48:52.033" UserId="7433" Text="How can I ask someone specific to answer a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="9119316e-b795-4517-8b81-d7d203806892" CreationDate="2012-04-01T11:48:52.033" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="06caa704-c1cd-4cc5-bec0-90ca297f5924" CreationDate="2012-04-01T12:08:41.447" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="d5708804-7264-4a47-b227-465d731c3473" CreationDate="2012-04-01T12:08:58.590" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="f58be606-f2a4-4973-9f40-4c618b550fda" CreationDate="2012-04-01T12:09:44.050" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2663" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="98991918-0d45-480f-b493-a4f1dc55ebfb" CreationDate="2012-04-01T12:10:13.050" UserDisplayName="user68" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mbq&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="8c2662d6-7391-40e9-a622-f9e4c79ae1ae" CreationDate="2012-04-01T12:22:10.387" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- -  More? --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To ping a user, just comment on their post below with your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2665" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="8c2662d6-7391-40e9-a622-f9e4c79ae1ae" CreationDate="2012-04-01T12:22:10.387" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Please consider opting in to being always-pingable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="584cdee6-d7ce-4298-a2ae-2e25f715c6a2" CreationDate="2012-04-01T13:48:53.837" UserId="7433" Text="[Manishearth][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities: None.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: Stuff in layman's terms; and other stuff requiring analogies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually on chat anyways, but its better to keep this here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2667" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="05fc9dfa-5d73-45cb-8d6d-4ffb68e6a83d" CreationDate="2012-04-01T20:51:20.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/186556375009210368" />
  <row Id="2668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="75c60f59-5972-42a5-b370-8d16caec7649" CreationDate="2012-04-01T23:58:18.183" UserId="7901" Text="It looks like Chrome 18 has changed how it handles allowing javascript to resize a window (there are security issues with this), and so MathJax's window no longer opens properly.  I'm looking into it to see what can be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="bce07ae0-f03f-4f82-935f-d658a1afef70" CreationDate="2012-04-02T04:41:17.170" UserId="7433" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23149/worksheets-for-khan-academy &#xD;&#xA;Off topic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22256/what-will-be-the-relative-speed-of-the-fly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possible duplicate as linked in comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21871/what-are-the-frameworks-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possibly not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21848/new-theories-and-publications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21702/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="45a3cac5-c9bb-42a2-bff7-69a8f9d9e3e2" CreationDate="2012-04-02T12:44:33.193" UserId="373" Text="[Frédéric Grosshans][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities (research level): Quantum information (more specifically, quantum communication, quantum cryptography and quantum entanglement) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: beyond the above, I have an interest in the links between physics and information theory, and I love to give original answer to general physics question, but I do not always have time to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/373/frederic-grosshans&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="23c9bbf9-45cb-4ce1-8aca-da35f9f91f0e" CreationDate="2012-04-03T01:32:31.570" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|status-norepro|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="9b0adc2f-5b96-43fa-9584-d0d84f9f5dcd" CreationDate="2012-04-03T07:53:47.493" UserId="4066" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4066/energynumbers&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/339125.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for EnergyNumbers on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; title=&quot;profile for EnergyNumbers on Stack Exchange&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pingable on: human uses of non-food energy. e.g. [tag:renewable-energy] [tag:electricity] [tag:photovoltaics] [tag:power] [tag:building-physics] [tag:climate-science]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="6e744c48-0751-4e56-a410-2b2b3cccf090" CreationDate="2012-04-04T04:45:53.047" UserId="124" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="UPDATE: Here's an idea I just came up with. In honor of the conference, I'll be putting bounties on between zero and two more DIS-related questions this week to increase their visibility and/or reward those who post good answers (with a preference toward new or low-rep users). So if you have a question on any topic related to the conference, this is the time to ask it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At Shog9's request, I'll be posting some updates here as I put things up on my blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [What is Deep Inelastic Scattering?](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/what-is-deep-inelastic-scattering.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting with a post that explains in basic terms what deep inelastic scattering is, as well as why it's important enough to have a conference named after it even if much of the subject matter of that conference is not directly related.&#xD;&#xA;2. [Summary of plenary sessions](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/day-1-plenary-sessions.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've posted an overview of some of the plenary session talks, including recent results.&#xD;&#xA;3. [Midweek report: Parallel Sessions](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/midweek-report-parallel-sessions.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here I just pointed to some potentially interesting presentations, but I'll have to come back and do analysis later.&#xD;&#xA;4. [Day 5: plenary sessions (again!)](http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2012/03/day-5-plenary-sessions-again.html)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is a _lot_ to summarize from this conference, but for now I've posted a quick overview of some of the relatively general-interest points brought up at the concluding summary talks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did manage to get the word out about Stack Exchange to a few people at the conference! I gave out a few pens and markers (the stickers were less appreciated, though)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="27ea0e0e-340e-437b-bdbb-af0e20f848ff" CreationDate="2012-04-04T05:15:14.227" UserId="7433" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- -  More? --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;First, check if that user is on [chat][2]. Start typing their username in chat, and if it pops up, then notify them there. It's always preferable to use chat for such notifications. If the user is not on chat, _just comment on their post below with your message_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-coupling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="eff2a32b-9be4-42ea-8b36-c40e7f68a663" CreationDate="2012-04-04T15:54:46.210" UserId="7433" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- -  More? --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;First, check if that user is on [chat][2]. Start typing their username in chat, and if it pops up, then notify them there. It's always preferable to use chat for such notifications. If the user is not on chat, _just comment on their post below with your message_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to delete the comment once you have recieved indication that the user has seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-coupling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1165" RevisionGUID="2f5eb61a-ae00-4837-b68c-f1394b11e251" CreationDate="2012-04-06T13:16:34.087" UserId="91" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/48307&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/48307.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for F&amp;#39;x on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; title=&quot;profile for F&amp;#39;x on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities: physical chemistry, thermodynamics, statistical physics of molecular systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="4e88cc7c-b39f-4af7-ba51-f02b70e2ad35" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:26:49.127" UserId="7433" Text="I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="4e88cc7c-b39f-4af7-ba51-f02b70e2ad35" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:26:49.127" UserId="7433" Text="Tag cleanup--[light]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="4e88cc7c-b39f-4af7-ba51-f02b70e2ad35" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:26:49.127" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="481e2b0a-df93-4fe3-9bd9-0fc7cda69a8f" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:32:34.417" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="f088c591-1e6f-4171-82fc-e955e344edae" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:34:12.160" UserId="7433" Text="Working my way from [the back][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always try to improve the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/daylight-saving&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2683" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="3a018382-b55c-4de2-8985-f84d7bfaa296" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:34:12.160" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="2684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="190a222f-cdc3-4739-a5f5-3ff16712b5b1" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:44:21.570" UserId="7433" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also vote for the synonym here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(that's the final destination of this cleanup)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="d08f014e-9733-4dee-adc0-1fe711fc4df2" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:47:26.933" UserId="7433" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always try to improve the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/daylight-saving&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left [tag:biophysics] as well&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do (Keep with [tag:optics], look for telescope-related tag)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="9da00ca5-1724-44e3-9a99-fc12c366c777" CreationDate="2012-04-06T16:16:26.787" UserId="7433" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always try to improve the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/daylight-saving&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left [tag:biophysics] as well&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do (Keep with [tag:optics], look for telescope-related tag)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="0fd7fb1a-d2fa-49ef-b83f-8ce4c771198c" CreationDate="2012-04-06T16:16:43.853" UserId="7433" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also vote for the synonym here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(that's the final destination of this cleanup)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="a8785a1a-e961-401c-959a-11cb3303a242" CreationDate="2012-04-06T16:54:51.047" UserId="7433" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final destination is this synonym: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to vote for it, a mod will synonymify it once the retagging is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="7b671492-ce9a-4b8c-9af6-8306ae7983b5" CreationDate="2012-04-06T17:30:21.283" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always try to improve the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do (Keep with [tag:optics], look for telescope-related tag)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="5b736e29-ffba-4f1a-8f5e-b9f0a5a4665c" CreationDate="2012-04-07T00:26:41.313" UserId="7433" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do (Keep with [tag:optics], look for telescope-related tag)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="0d6e4d1b-3ecd-47ff-a071-26ebc0669a2c" CreationDate="2012-04-07T05:59:40.283" UserId="126" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/23431/pratik-deoghare&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/23431.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for Pratik Deoghare on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; title=&quot;profile for Pratik Deoghare on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no specialities. But I am interested in (almost) everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="392c02d0-e94a-4706-b83e-7f288f33b335" CreationDate="2012-04-07T10:15:08.690" UserId="7433" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do (Keep with [tag:optics], look for telescope-related tag)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="d319ea02-84b0-4b7f-bd6a-b5ae99bd14ab" CreationDate="2012-04-07T23:44:05.973" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="0900f17b-97d2-4b72-bcd6-b618a74988f7" CreationDate="2012-04-08T09:15:15.597" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4066/energynumbers&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/339125.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for EnergyNumbers on Physics.SE&quot; title=&quot;profile for EnergyNumbers on Physics.SE&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Ping me on human uses of non-food energy:   &#xD;&#xA;[tag:building-physics] [tag:climate-science] [tag:electricity] [tag:photovoltaics] [tag:power]  [tag:renewable-energy] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="231edfbb-b477-4bc7-bc7c-a58fd9889445" CreationDate="2012-04-08T13:12:33.743" UserId="4887" Text="I was thinking that user in Physics.SE or other SE sites should know the current status for their eligibility for a badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For eg. say the gold badge [Marshall][1], which has a silver counterpart [Deputy][2]. But as i don't know the my current status that after how many useful flags, I need more to get the badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can such a feature be enabled in SE sites? I believe such a thing will be able to push users further to achieve their target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="231edfbb-b477-4bc7-bc7c-a58fd9889445" CreationDate="2012-04-08T13:12:33.743" UserId="4887" Text="badges: current status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="231edfbb-b477-4bc7-bc7c-a58fd9889445" CreationDate="2012-04-08T13:12:33.743" UserId="4887" Text="|feature-request|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1170" RevisionGUID="b92c081a-5828-4d73-9267-e2d3d691c948" CreationDate="2012-04-08T13:48:42.293" UserId="4887" Text="People, please let's celebrate the essence of Physics. Science doesn't discriminate between whether you are a college educated person or a self educated. Either doesn't makes you more knowledgeable, rather an open and inquisitive mind does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself am an engineer in Computer Science, but does that makes me less credible than a physics graduate?? I really don't think so...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and about kooks, isn't it needed in a community to have diversity? Don't get boggled up when others have different idea or opinions. Diversity is what makes physics interesting, rather do-able. I agree some things in physics are called &quot;sci-fi&quot; and &quot;fringe-science&quot;, but excluding those, rest of them deserve credibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2702" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="3a38a969-524c-44ad-af76-b585666ae9b0" CreationDate="2012-04-08T14:51:21.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/189002494137995265" />
  <row Id="2703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="9d60b133-afaa-4f59-923b-c85cb3ef6f99" CreationDate="2012-04-08T15:35:22.620" UserId="520" Text="Variations of this request [have been made on the mother meta many times][1] (or I'd migrate this there because this request is not specific to physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hunt around on [the Data Explorer][2], you will find queries to report your progress on many badges, though I don't know if Deputy and Marshal are something that can be found that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Deputy and Marshal in particular, your [user profile][3] shows how many helpful flags you have made:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(freehand circles coming)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=badge%20progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4887/vineet-menon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/edR5R.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="9b014b7e-0e46-402e-bb87-f61b3dade2c2" CreationDate="2012-04-08T15:51:35.720" UserId="520" Comment="Freehand cicles! Whee!" Text="Variations of this request [have been made on the mother meta many times][1] (or I'd migrate this there because this request is not specific to physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hunt around on [the Data Explorer][2], you will find queries to report your progress on many badges, though I don't know if Deputy and Marshal are something that can be found that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Deputy and Marshal in particular, your [user profile][3] shows how many helpful flags you have made:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=badge%20progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4887/vineet-menon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DU5fW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="d7ea6aae-16bb-4c45-9cba-ea38b434a280" CreationDate="2012-04-08T17:51:48.550" UserId="520" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="Variations of this request [have been made on the mother meta many times][1] (or I'd migrate this there because this request is not specific to physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hunt around on [the Data Explorer][2], you will find queries to report your progress on many badges, though I don't know if Deputy and Marshal are something that can be found that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Deputy and Marshal in particular, your [user profile][3] shows how many helpful flags you have made:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have [access to the review tools][5] you can find information about your progress towards Strunk &amp; White, Reviewer, Copy Editor, and Electorate (and possibly others) in the sidebar of the &quot;review&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=badge%20progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4887/vineet-menon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DU5fW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/new-user&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jd1Pl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2706" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="2d1567b4-d356-4d37-a9c4-cf75f5f6e95e" CreationDate="2012-04-08T19:25:27.600" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="20dbe965-cebb-4117-b474-4303937a761a" CreationDate="2012-04-08T19:46:04.543" UserId="7433" Text="In additon to dmckee's post, it's always better to have an air of mystery around the badges. Otherwise, you'll end up working for the badges instead of the posts. Strive for the badges, but don't obsess about them. If you want a badge, work towards it, not for the badge, but for the site. The badge will follow on it's own :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2710" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="966d95c6-38b1-40c9-978c-3eb6ffc55dec" CreationDate="2012-04-09T00:42:48.053" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-deferred|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="ea11e59e-7199-42d5-8601-de7dfb589109" CreationDate="2012-04-09T00:51:13.393" UserId="124" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/#!/stackphysics&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5E3rC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="632626c9-946b-4cae-b79b-afac25933e15" CreationDate="2012-04-09T08:32:14.323" UserId="7433" Comment="Only 3 for now" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="98545218-eaa6-4754-8743-5e7b2b732c54" CreationDate="2012-04-09T11:20:13.537" UserId="7433" Comment="Might as well.." Text="[Manishearth][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities: None.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: Stuff in layman's terms; and other stuff requiring analogies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually on chat anyways, but its better to keep this here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1212053.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="c98f096b-5783-4f92-8a67-6fb1c7e149e5" CreationDate="2012-04-09T11:25:43.357" UserId="7433" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="373d2961-09d5-4169-9938-e09f163d5505" CreationDate="2012-04-10T06:53:23.563" UserId="7433" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA; -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="fef2d116-8372-4045-b82e-2bdd25dfd619" CreationDate="2012-04-10T09:52:04.513" UserId="1325" Text="I seem to be answering a lot of questions about basic ideas in physics. I get the impression that a lot of these come from people with no physics background who may have seen something on a TV science show and want to know a bit more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to answer these as I'm keen to encourage interest in physics and likewise to avoid discouraging it. But I wonder how appropriate such questions are for this forum, and if we need a tag to distinguish such questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="fef2d116-8372-4045-b82e-2bdd25dfd619" CreationDate="2012-04-10T09:52:04.513" UserId="1325" Text="Beginners/non-physicists questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="fef2d116-8372-4045-b82e-2bdd25dfd619" CreationDate="2012-04-10T09:52:04.513" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="813d354a-a36b-457f-9a1f-9f197a49d64c" CreationDate="2012-04-10T11:39:03.320" UserId="1325" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I seem to be answering a lot of questions about basic ideas in physics. I get the impression that a lot of these come from people with no physics background who may have seen something on a TV science show and want to know a bit more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to answer these as I'm keen to encourage interest in physics and likewise to avoid discouraging it. But I wonder how appropriate such questions are for this &lt;s&gt;forum&lt;/s&gt; site, and if we need a tag to distinguish such questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="600e33e3-f5cb-45c0-bf8a-48f4f9951f80" CreationDate="2012-04-10T12:23:02.993" UserId="7433" Text="Some random points that I came up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Usually TV shows proliferate misconceptions. They may not be _saying_ wrong stuff, but lots of things are implied. Yes, it creates a nuisance but I feel that we should have a part in fixing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) We should always encourage interest in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) [Meta-tags are bad][1]. So no [tag:layman], please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to the actual question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're OK. As long as we can give good conceptual answers, they fit our site. We don't want to be shunning the lower level questions--they surprisingly turn up good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though obvious freaky questions should still be closed. I guess it's more on a per-question basis on what we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="e7005567-499b-4547-bd1b-dea6dafcba02" CreationDate="2012-04-10T17:55:17.830" UserId="7433" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="Some random points that I came up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Usually TV shows proliferate misconceptions. They may not be _saying_ wrong stuff, but lots of things are implied. Yes, it creates a nuisance but I feel that we should have a part in fixing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) We should always encourage interest in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) [Meta-tags are bad][1]. So no [tag:layman], please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to the actual question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're OK. As long as we can give good conceptual answers, they fit our site. We don't want to be shunning the lower level questions--they surprisingly turn up good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though obvious freaky questions should still be closed. I guess it's more on a per-question basis on what we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12386/relativity-in-real-life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post isn't exactly physics-related--it's a tad on the psychology side. But its gotten some great answers! And it does provide some nifty concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="2cbdc2c8-5262-468e-bd36-453b1725fc33" CreationDate="2012-04-10T21:11:59.893" UserId="124" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="4c8f65aa-132e-4d9d-8ff0-e8e9630adc79" CreationDate="2012-04-11T02:02:11.763" UserId="124" Text="Recently we've had some efforts to clean up the tags on the site ([example](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light)), so I've created a chat event to collect any input that the community - that's you - may want to offer. It's scheduled for this Friday at 20:00 UTC (though I'm open to changing that if you speak up soon), and you can see the details and &quot;register&quot; by going to the chat room's [schedule page](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-coupling?tab=schedule). Hope to see you there!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is not a question in any way, just an announcement, but seeing as how there's no other way to get the word out, I thought it would be important.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="4c8f65aa-132e-4d9d-8ff0-e8e9630adc79" CreationDate="2012-04-11T02:02:11.763" UserId="124" Text="Tag cleanup chat session" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="4c8f65aa-132e-4d9d-8ff0-e8e9630adc79" CreationDate="2012-04-11T02:02:11.763" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|chat|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="894def06-7320-4e8d-b654-000f8eed1860" CreationDate="2012-04-11T03:13:55.217" UserId="7433" Text="I myself live in IST, so 1:30 Saturday morning is a _tad_ too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I don't think I have much input on this anyway--not found any strange tags recently. I'll look through the taglist and find vague stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: We could use this to create tagwikiexcerpts. There are lots of vague tags that I've come across (I'll look for them), that lack excerpts. Since the excerpt tells you waht sort of questions belong there, you can't write the excerpts without, well, _knowing_ the excerpt :/. So it would be nice if the tag scopes are discussed as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="04dfd14b-3f87-4993-8afd-ebdf1912f1b9" CreationDate="2012-04-11T03:30:04.197" UserId="7433" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="e29123e8-45f4-4cc7-8784-5749f04951d6" CreationDate="2012-04-11T05:49:24.670" UserId="124" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Recently we've had some efforts to clean up the tags on the site ([example](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light)), so I've created a chat event to collect any input that the community - that's you - may want to offer. It's scheduled for this Friday at &lt;s&gt;20:00&lt;/s&gt; 15:00 UTC (though that could be changed if more people speak up soon), and you can see the details and &quot;register&quot; by going to the chat room's [schedule page](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-coupling?tab=schedule). Hope to see you there!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is not a question in any way, just an announcement, but seeing as how there's no other way to get the word out, I thought it would be important.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="43dabcfb-22e9-493e-bf3d-30d13906f49d" CreationDate="2012-04-11T06:49:07.167" UserId="7433" Comment="added 827 characters in body" Text="I myself live in IST, so 1:30 Saturday morning is a _tad_ too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I don't think I have much input on this anyway--not found any strange tags recently. I'll look through the taglist and find vague stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: We could use this to create tagwikiexcerpts. There are lots of vague tags that I've come across (I'll look for them), that lack excerpts. Since the excerpt tells you waht sort of questions belong there, you can't write the excerpts without, well, _knowing_ the excerpt :/. So it would be nice if the tag scopes are discussed as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Dumping ground#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll use this place to dump any tag-related stuff I find in the meantime--we can discuss these if necessary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Merges##&#xD;&#xA;[tag:astronomy]--&gt;[tag:astrophysics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:atmosphere]--&gt;[tag:atmospheric-sciences]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:aircraft]&lt;--[tag:airplanes]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:rotational-dynamics]/[tag:rotational-kinematics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:lagrangian-mechanics]/[tag:lagrangian-formulism]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:electric-circuits]--&gt;[tag:electrical-engineering] ([synonym as well][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Burninate##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] (dunno about this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:beam]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In need of tagwikiexcerpt##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Split [tag:radiation] into [tag:electromagnetic-radiation],[tag:thermal-radiation], and [tag:radioactivity] (with an option for [tag:alpha-decay]/[tag:beta-decay])&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/electrical-engineering/synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="4a81f315-ee8f-47fc-88bc-97e972be6a17" CreationDate="2012-04-11T10:29:36.507" UserId="7433" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="I myself live in IST, so 1:30 Saturday morning is a _tad_ too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I don't think I have much input on this anyway--not found any strange tags recently. I'll look through the taglist and find vague stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: We could use this to create tagwikiexcerpts. There are lots of vague tags that I've come across (I'll look for them), that lack excerpts. Since the excerpt tells you waht sort of questions belong there, you can't write the excerpts without, well, _knowing_ the excerpt :/. So it would be nice if the tag scopes are discussed as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Dumping ground#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll use this place to dump any tag-related stuff I find in the meantime--we can discuss these if necessary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Merges##&#xD;&#xA;[tag:astronomy]--&gt;[tag:astrophysics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:atmosphere]--&gt;[tag:atmospheric-sciences]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:aircraft]&lt;--[tag:airplanes]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:rotational-dynamics]/[tag:rotational-kinematics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:lagrangian-mechanics]/[tag:lagrangian-formulism]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:electric-circuits]--&gt;[tag:electrical-engineering] ([synonym as well][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Burninate##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] (dunno about this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:beam]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:sign-convention] -- Sort of a meta tag; sign conventions can be anywhere. Dunno about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also lots of tiny tags like [tag:escape-velocity]. If you look backwards from [here][2], you get quite a few of them.  Only one question, and probably won't be needed again. We may want to discuss what do do with these. I say we destroy them all :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In need of tagwikiexcerpt##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Split [tag:radiation] into [tag:electromagnetic-radiation],[tag:thermal-radiation], and [tag:radioactivity] (with an option for [tag:alpha-decay]/[tag:beta-decay])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/electrical-engineering/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags?page=18&amp;tab=popular" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="770c3fac-967e-4d5f-baac-10c8d0029343" CreationDate="2012-04-12T08:02:12.397" UserId="91" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm not a regular here, though I lurk a lot. I just wanted to drop a line to say that the [Area51 proposal on Chemistry][1] is nearing launch (91% commitment). If you're interested in it, please feel free to go read there and maybe help us by committing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964/chemistry?referrer=s30-Mjm5p4wYaNpjIO5Bmg2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2732" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="770c3fac-967e-4d5f-baac-10c8d0029343" CreationDate="2012-04-12T08:02:12.397" UserId="91" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body; edited title" Text="Area51 proposal on Chemistry is nearing launch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="e60df6ec-720c-47b0-b569-ea0c89ed05fe" CreationDate="2012-04-13T07:03:11.283" UserId="7433" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I myself live in IST, so 1:30 Saturday morning is a _tad_ too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I don't think I have much input on this anyway--not found any strange tags recently. I'll look through the taglist and find vague stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: We could use this to create tagwikiexcerpts. There are lots of vague tags that I've come across (I'll look for them), that lack excerpts. Since the excerpt tells you waht sort of questions belong there, you can't write the excerpts without, well, _knowing_ the excerpt :/. So it would be nice if the tag scopes are discussed as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Dumping ground#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll use this place to dump any tag-related stuff I find in the meantime--we can discuss these if necessary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Merges##&#xD;&#xA;[tag:astronomy]--&gt;[tag:astrophysics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:atmosphere]--&gt;[tag:atmospheric-sciences]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:aircraft]&lt;--[tag:airplanes]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:rotational-dynamics]/[tag:rotational-kinematics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:lagrangian-mechanics]/[tag:lagrangian-formulism]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:electric-circuits]--&gt;[tag:electrical-engineering] ([synonym as well][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Burninate##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] (dunno about this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:beam]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:sign-convention] -- Sort of a meta tag; sign conventions can be anywhere. Dunno about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:matrix-elements]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also lots of tiny tags like [tag:escape-velocity]. If you look backwards from [here][2], you get quite a few of them.  Only one question, and probably won't be needed again. We may want to discuss what do do with these. I say we destroy them all :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In need of tagwikiexcerpt##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Split [tag:radiation] into [tag:electromagnetic-radiation],[tag:thermal-radiation], and [tag:radioactivity] (with an option for [tag:alpha-decay]/[tag:beta-decay])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/electrical-engineering/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags?page=18&amp;tab=popular" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2736" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="76aaaee0-2763-4fc0-ae0e-7cf1c7300b90" CreationDate="2012-04-13T23:51:21.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/190950330530410496" />
  <row Id="2737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="aca8ad90-f3b0-4485-be32-4952c4e5582c" CreationDate="2012-04-15T23:38:10.730" UserId="1588" Text="There is multidimensionality on PhysicsSE insofar as one can look up what types of questions a person has answered. One can look at the tags section of the user page, click on a tag that is relevant to you (for a particular question, perhaps), and look, for example, at both the first page and last page of the answer list associated with that tag. If today you look at my page, you'll find that I've answered lots of questions on QM, with 15, 10, 7 upvotes at the head of the list, and with three -1's. In other words, I can sometimes be unconventional, but on elementary questions about technical matters I can usually answer a question on QM well enough. For someone else for a specific tag, you may find that their answers never have an aggregate number of downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is a newbie, there's nothing for it but to assess their answer for yourself and/or wait to see whether they get up-votes or down-votes and/or comments from other people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tooltips on the tags page for a user gives numbers of questions and answers and the total reputation gathered, which gives faster but slightly less detailed clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not be a social network site, but one certainly gets to know and respect the strengths and weaknesses and views of some of the main questioners/answerers after a while, although user pages may be more or less completed. I think of this as a social endeavor site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="54c73870-54a9-44ec-9ceb-5a2d2d717b9a" CreationDate="2012-04-16T07:17:11.740" UserId="7924" Text="Specialties: quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, Lie algebras in physics, statistical physics, foundations of physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="a3f4491b-f6fd-486a-a164-bbcd25ad5d70" CreationDate="2012-04-16T09:06:55.553" UserId="8570" Text="I am wathing science programmes on Discovery and such regularly and I see that translations to local language **are often wrong**!  I tried to contact translation companies, to no avail.  I would be prepeare to check translations **for free**, but nobody cares." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="658d8d78-b061-4987-9c73-6a712ae0a96d" CreationDate="2012-04-18T18:44:26.887" UserId="6789" Text="I have a question (well, multiple questions, it is for a school project) about chemistry, and have committed to the proposal on Area 51.  Only catch is, it is for school, and needs to be asked soon.  Is Physics the correct place to ask a chemistry question before the actual chemistry site reaches beta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="658d8d78-b061-4987-9c73-6a712ae0a96d" CreationDate="2012-04-18T18:44:26.887" UserId="6789" Text="Question about Chemistry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="658d8d78-b061-4987-9c73-6a712ae0a96d" CreationDate="2012-04-18T18:44:26.887" UserId="6789" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1184" RevisionGUID="5c0382ae-bfbe-4889-b217-ea9a3a813274" CreationDate="2012-04-18T19:05:28.883" UserId="520" Text="Physics.SE is the correct place for *physics* questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is some overlap between chemistry and physics in the study of the electron structure of atoms (and in some specialized place that of molecules) and in the discipline that we call *&quot;thermodynamics and statistical mechanics&quot;* and the chemist call *&quot;physical chemistry&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are welcome to ask the kinds of chemistry question that are *also* physics questions, but please don't ask questions that are *not* physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no guarantee that there is a correct place on the Stack Exchange network for any particular question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1184" RevisionGUID="593295be-a6d2-41e3-93c5-0b2773c938c2" CreationDate="2012-04-18T19:27:43.970" UserId="520" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Physics.SE is the correct place for *physics* questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is some overlap between chemistry and physics in the study of the electron structure of atoms (and in some specialized places that of molecules) and in the discipline that we call *&quot;thermodynamics and statistical mechanics&quot;* and the chemists call *&quot;physical chemistry&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are welcome to ask the kinds of chemistry question that are *also* physics questions, but please don't ask questions that are *not* physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no guarantee that there is a correct place on the Stack Exchange network for any particular question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="cc13408e-e1ca-4a83-91ff-1a91122edf37" CreationDate="2012-04-18T19:53:59.483" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is Physics the correct place to ask a chemistry question before the actual chemistry site reaches beta?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same thing dmckee said, but just to put it a different way: chemistry questions are not appropriate for Physics Stack Exchange, unless they are also physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think your question might be a physics question, then you can of course go ahead and ask it; just don't be too surprised if it gets closed as off topic. Consider it constructive feedback, not a personal insult - we won't think you're a terrible person or anything like that if you ask a question that gets closed. (If you repeatedly ask questions that get closed, then that's a different story, but just one or two borderline questions isn't a problem.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="76bf7f7b-e53c-47f6-9d9e-49973510cc74" CreationDate="2012-04-20T06:04:38.450" UserId="7433" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] DONE##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out for neatness' sake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light] ##&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light] DONE##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both? DONE##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="93b2a13d-7e77-48b7-94f9-17151c7ad08f" CreationDate="2012-04-20T06:12:05.477" UserId="7433" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I (and DavidZaslavsky) have finished retagging all posts on this page, will dig up more from the tag list and add another CW answer (to keep it neat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out for neatness' sake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="a0355513-1e62-4f43-861f-6d5f11cf626c" CreationDate="2012-04-20T06:32:14.843" UserId="7433" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2749" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="eba545e9-ecda-4f57-b1ed-a0702f8efe20" CreationDate="2012-04-20T06:32:14.843" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="2754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="6c8adf7a-3612-4a58-8d7e-1fbfef49e47a" CreationDate="2012-04-22T09:59:15.913" UserId="4066" Comment="Chemistry now 100% and preparing for launch, so removed from list" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Green Energy][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Sciences][6]][5]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][10]][9]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Natural Science][12]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/green-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/5167.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/4955.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36600/artificial-intelligence-robotics&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36600.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="670bbbf1-81ee-4735-8ff0-d79ee4fbc376" CreationDate="2012-04-23T05:25:36.557" UserId="7433" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1188" RevisionGUID="9b89f765-6556-405c-8e56-dfca7430ec3a" CreationDate="2012-04-23T19:04:41.130" UserId="7465" Text="Well, I'm new on &quot;Physics.SE&quot; and, I'd like to learn if we're allowed to ask, discuss and learn about the &quot;Atomic Structure&quot; and &quot;Electrons&quot; on the &quot;Physics&quot;? If so, I'd love to give it a try very soon and start to enjoy it... :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1188" RevisionGUID="9b89f765-6556-405c-8e56-dfca7430ec3a" CreationDate="2012-04-23T19:04:41.130" UserId="7465" Text="Questions about &quot;Atomic Structure&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1188" RevisionGUID="9b89f765-6556-405c-8e56-dfca7430ec3a" CreationDate="2012-04-23T19:04:41.130" UserId="7465" Text="|discussion|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1189" RevisionGUID="6ab07131-ce86-4c35-8669-cd8db6c9af45" CreationDate="2012-04-23T20:16:47.217" UserId="124" Text="and welcome to the site! Generally speaking, atomic structure and electrons are within the scope of the site, so you can certainly go ahead and ask your questions. Of course, we can only tell whether any given question is appropriate on a case-by-case basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="42167abb-f4c6-4d60-be2b-b19c9f31791a" CreationDate="2012-04-24T01:41:57.653" UserId="8154" Text="Here are some guidelines on what type of questions are generally acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="876316a3-0f4d-464b-85d3-148e88e663d4" CreationDate="2012-04-24T04:50:20.510" UserId="7433" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="c9bcdcab-da76-44bb-ae19-3b3f0ef43755" CreationDate="2012-04-24T04:59:08.863" UserId="7433" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="6df10005-07dd-4bbf-bea2-0290c6b6edca" CreationDate="2012-04-24T11:01:25.350" UserId="7433" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="c81674c0-509c-4b89-afc2-01cf1120313e" CreationDate="2012-04-24T15:27:21.920" UserId="5931" Text="I am trying to help Cyberike to define the problem given in http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24028/how-do-i-calculate-dc-motor-speed-for-a-given-load#comment56280_24028 so that there is a definite answer. As the discussion might take another few posts I wanted to move it to chat but the site says that this is not possible due to Cyberike's low reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other way? Should I just stick to the comments or what would you suggest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="c81674c0-509c-4b89-afc2-01cf1120313e" CreationDate="2012-04-24T15:27:21.920" UserId="5931" Text="Move discussion to chat not possible because of reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="c81674c0-509c-4b89-afc2-01cf1120313e" CreationDate="2012-04-24T15:27:21.920" UserId="5931" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1192" RevisionGUID="331cd201-fb6b-4a92-be20-542d21c3b1b5" CreationDate="2012-04-24T15:33:04.600" UserId="124" Text="Unfortunately the system doesn't allow those with less than 20 reputation to participate in chat. If it's just a matter of one upvote to get someone to that 20-rep mark, then you can just upvote the question (as long as it doesn't suck) and take it to a chat room. Otherwise, just stick to the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see Cyberike now has 21 rep so you should be good to go with a chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2768" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="04629116-be67-45f1-b3ff-d2d1b0b159e5" CreationDate="2012-04-24T20:24:04.673" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="d9755f48-fc09-470a-94f9-e826beb46685" CreationDate="2012-04-25T08:56:38.060" UserId="7433" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="c319a79a-4899-454a-8ba4-d7cea0957d0b" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:10:46.353" UserId="1236" Text="the younger brother &quot;Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange&quot; will abolished in a week or so, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/245/theoretical-physics-is-closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;due to the low traffic figures and a general shortage of interest. The overall administrators are able to easily migrate all questions from the defunct Theoretical Physics SE site to Physics SE site but they think it could be viewed as an impolite step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally believe that when it comes to the quality and the degree of relevance, pretty much all questions on the Theoretical Physics SE website are &quot;enough&quot; for Physics SE. Do the moderators of Physics SE agree with me? If they do, could you please agree about some common position, and if you happen to agree with me that the 413 Theoretical Physics SE questions should be uniformly saved, could you please go to the page above and inform the meta-moderators of Stack Exchange that you consider the Theoretical Physics SE questions on the exodus to be welcome at Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really believe that there are many questions and answers whose value is vastly higher than those at Physics SE and they could be lost which would be unfortunate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="c319a79a-4899-454a-8ba4-d7cea0957d0b" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:10:46.353" UserId="1236" Text="Full migration of Theoretical Physics SE questions to Physics SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="c319a79a-4899-454a-8ba4-d7cea0957d0b" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:10:46.353" UserId="1236" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="3180c5be-5898-487f-bcf5-d016ec9542fb" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:16:16.050" UserId="1236" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="The younger brother &quot;Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange&quot; will abolished in a week or so, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/245/theoretical-physics-is-closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;due to the low traffic figures and a general shortage of interest. The overall administrators are able to easily migrate all questions from the defunct Theoretical Physics SE site to Physics SE site but they think it could be viewed as an impolite step because the questions from a differently focused site could be viewed as &quot;intruders&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally believe that when it comes to the quality and the degree of relevance, pretty much all questions on the Theoretical Physics SE website are &quot;enough&quot; for Physics SE. Do the moderators of Physics SE agree with me? If they do, could you please agree about some common position, and if you happen to agree with me that the 413 Theoretical Physics SE questions should be uniformly saved and given asylum on Physics SE, could you please go to the page above and inform the meta-moderators of Stack Exchange that you consider the Theoretical Physics SE questions on the exodus to be welcome at Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really believe that there are many questions and answers whose value is vastly higher than those at Physics SE and they could be lost which would be unfortunate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="d9645ac8-282e-48e9-b981-6fdec30096df" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:28:05.723" UserId="520" Text="I've not been following Theoretical Physics as I'm an experimenter, but I can't see how questions that qualified as good, research-level question on theoretical physics could fail to qualify as good questions on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of issues that might need consideration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Tagging** Are there many tags on Theoretical Physics that are more specific than the ones on Physics? If so should we import them, or re-tag to something more general Also, are there some tags that should be added wholesale to question for Theoretical Physics because there indicated something about the question (i.e. that's it is a theory question) that was assumable on Theoretical Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Duplicates** How many will we generate if we simply import the whole Theoretical Physics question base? Of those how many are have really good answers on both sites and need merging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="54f42f46-dd1b-4c2c-8fd7-86e41d965f3b" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:02:59.623" UserId="7433" Text="More of a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest we &lt;s&gt;steal&lt;/s&gt; salvage stuff from Astro.SE as well.  A quick look-see turns up some good questions that could survive on P.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have a way to solve @dmckee's issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag all migrated questions as such (astro or TP), and we can later work through them at our leisure, looking for dupes/etc. Maybe keep a meta-post full of 'em, similar in principle to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone notified TP and astro meta yet? If so, please do. We'll need full cooperation for this (I would post, but typing on a phone is annoying :/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="8906d076-5796-4356-a146-9ee0d913e62f" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:26:00.910" UserId="4066" Text="How about, as a default, migrating over all the questions that are **open**: i.e. those that are neither closed nor deleted, from tp.SE to p.SE, and from astro.SE to p.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only do that, at the end of the 1-week grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And use the 1-week grace period on those sites to close any questions that, for one reason or another, shouldn't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could always have a (whisper it) **temporary** meta tag for migrated questions, to enable post-migration clean-up and duplicate-spotting.  Yes, I know meta-tags are taboo, but every rule needs its exceptions ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="8a28eb15-fd41-42fd-9272-723f9e108f6d" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:41:49.613" UserId="124" Text="It was recently announced that [several SE sites are closing](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/), including Theoretical Physics and Astronomy. Given that our scope here is basically a superset of the scope of Theoretical Physics and that there is a lot of overlap between the sites, there is considerable support for [migrating the entire content of that site to Physics Stack Exchange](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also been mentioned in several places that there is a fair amount of overlap between Astronomy Stack Exchange and this site as well. Indeed, we get quite a few astronomy and cosmology questions posted here, and looking at the astronomy site I see a decent number of astrophysics-related questions. Certainly those questions can find a good home here. But since physics and astronomy are such closely related subjects, I think even the other, less physical questions from the astronomy site might be of interest to our audience. This raises the possibility of incorporating Astronomy.SE into this site as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously any such change would be contingent on the approval of the Stack Exchange team. But I would also like to see whether there is community support for the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="8a28eb15-fd41-42fd-9272-723f9e108f6d" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:41:49.613" UserId="124" Text="If it's possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="8a28eb15-fd41-42fd-9272-723f9e108f6d" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:41:49.613" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="c459cc60-51cb-4c1d-a4d9-e695d1676407" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:45:39.887" UserId="6749" Text="Astronomy.SE is [closing][1]l and this SE seems like it could be a natural home for a significant fraction of the questions asked there.  Before taking the time to flag anything for migration the question of what would/not be accepted here needs to be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/170/astronomy-is-closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="c459cc60-51cb-4c1d-a4d9-e695d1676407" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:45:39.887" UserId="6749" Text="Would astronomy or astrophysics questions be considered on topic here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="c459cc60-51cb-4c1d-a4d9-e695d1676407" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:45:39.887" UserId="6749" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="96038a14-89f2-4375-8c71-049a07b219b6" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:50:04.387" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [If it&amp;#39;s possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Astronomy.SE is [closing][1]l and this SE seems like it could be a natural home for a significant fraction of the questions asked there.  Before taking the time to flag anything for migration the question of what would/not be accepted here needs to be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/170/astronomy-is-closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2784" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="48807c73-34e0-49c7-a600-54ba1409640d" CreationDate="2012-04-25T19:50:03.467" UserId="520" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1197],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="03ab51dc-33e7-4ebe-8ff8-bbe84dd02d8c" CreationDate="2012-04-25T20:08:00.157" UserId="2751" Text="*Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yep :-)**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="0db37aeb-6799-4571-bd7d-9335792e4c40" CreationDate="2012-04-25T20:14:18.353" UserId="4066" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="How about, as a default, migrating over all the questions that are **open**: i.e. those that are neither closed nor deleted, from tp.SE to p.SE, and from astro.SE to p.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only do that, at the end of the 1-week grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And use the 1-week grace period on those sites to close any questions that, for one reason or another, shouldn't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could always have a (whisper it) **temporary** meta tag for migrated questions, to enable post-migration clean-up and duplicate-spotting.  Yes, I know meta-tags are taboo, but every rule needs its exceptions ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to clarify, I'm not proposing delaying anything. What I'm proposing is that, starting now, any questions that shouldn't be migrated on tp.SE should be closed. And, at the end of the grace period, an automated migration should take place of all questions are still open (i.e. neither closed nor deleted)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="2d06bd9a-7ec6-4f28-9591-4299bdb7584b" CreationDate="2012-04-25T20:34:34.087" UserId="4066" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="How about, as a default, migrating over all the questions that are **open**: i.e. those that are neither closed nor deleted, from tp.SE to p.SE, and from astro.SE to p.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only do that, at the end of the 1-week grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And use the 1-week grace period on those sites to close any questions that, for one reason or another, shouldn't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could always have a (whisper it) **temporary** tag for migrated questions, to enable post-migration clean-up and duplicate-spotting.  Yes, I know meta-tags are taboo, but every rule needs its exceptions ... and thinking about it further, the tag in question would be [tag:research-level], which already exists, and has just four questions that use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to clarify, I'm not proposing delaying anything. What I'm proposing is that, starting now, any questions that shouldn't be migrated on tp.SE should be closed. And, at the end of the grace period, an automated migration should take place of all questions are still open (i.e. neither closed nor deleted)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="8b475074-c067-4b8b-97d3-d2a891cb34c2" CreationDate="2012-04-25T23:11:21.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/195288919523336192" />
  <row Id="2789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1200" RevisionGUID="89d2e03f-41c5-4811-ad84-53e34fea9417" CreationDate="2012-04-26T04:41:34.417" UserId="7433" Text="*Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nope :O**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2790" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1200" RevisionGUID="89d2e03f-41c5-4811-ad84-53e34fea9417" CreationDate="2012-04-26T04:41:34.417" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="2791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="9474866c-1412-4261-83ee-e93eb6575357" CreationDate="2012-04-26T04:52:43.357" UserId="124" Comment="clarify question" Text="It was recently announced that [several SE sites are closing](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/), including Theoretical Physics and Astronomy. Given that our scope here is basically a superset of the scope of Theoretical Physics and that there is a lot of overlap between the sites, there is considerable support for [migrating the entire content of that site to Physics Stack Exchange](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also been mentioned in several places that there is a fair amount of overlap between Astronomy Stack Exchange and this site as well. Indeed, we get quite a few astronomy and cosmology questions posted here, and looking at the astronomy site I see a decent number of astrophysics-related questions. Certainly those questions can find a good home here. But since physics and astronomy are such closely related subjects, I think even the other, less physical questions from the astronomy site might be of interest to our audience. This raises the possibility of incorporating Astronomy.SE into this site as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, what I am proposing is that this site would transform into **Physics and Astronomy Stack Exchange**. Its scope would include anything that is currently on topic for Astronomy SE (including the non-physics-related questions) _as well as_ anything that is currently on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this change were to happen, it might be appropriate to alter the name and/or design of the site accordingly. Obviously, for this reason, the change in scope would be contingent on the approval of the Stack Exchange team. But I would also like to see whether there is community support for the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="fcf99a15-8373-4113-9140-02c7cfef4972" CreationDate="2012-04-26T16:49:57.700" UserId="6973" Text="It's hot accent color on accent color action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KiYZq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="fcf99a15-8373-4113-9140-02c7cfef4972" CreationDate="2012-04-26T16:49:57.700" UserId="6973" Text="Physics logo is almost invisible on the Site Rooms button in chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="fcf99a15-8373-4113-9140-02c7cfef4972" CreationDate="2012-04-26T16:49:57.700" UserId="6973" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="0e5ad739-c45a-49a4-9ca2-b8bfcbc32a34" CreationDate="2012-04-26T19:14:35.107" UserId="8139" Text="Would it be possible (and useful) for the site to maintain LaTeX preferences/short-cuts, similar to style files, attached to usernames or topics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Or even better, to allow users to create a list of different &quot;style files&quot; which could be selected when answering any particular question. As an example, if a user wanted to write a long answer to a quantum mechanical question, they could select &quot;Dirac-Notation&quot; and then use handily created short-cuts like *\expectation{Operator}* or *\state{indices}*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would allow answerers to stop worrying about left and right brackets and pipes and various things: and therefore removing another barrier to giving fuller and clearer replies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All comments welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="0e5ad739-c45a-49a4-9ca2-b8bfcbc32a34" CreationDate="2012-04-26T19:14:35.107" UserId="8139" Text="User/Subject - specific LaTeX Customisation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="0e5ad739-c45a-49a4-9ca2-b8bfcbc32a34" CreationDate="2012-04-26T19:14:35.107" UserId="8139" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="e570c5a5-2cb9-4258-bb61-fcfc20296a14" CreationDate="2012-04-26T19:17:01.243" UserId="6973" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="It's hot accent color on accent color action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See it in the top right corner of [chat][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KiYZq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-coupling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="6a34e39f-95db-461a-a9a6-4bb285ffd45e" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:18:41.210" UserId="3970" Text="Well, theoretical physics has failed (the site, not the discipline). We should make some effort to recapture whatever interest and audience it had. The easiest way to do that would be to introduce a &quot;research-grade&quot; tag. This idea has been raised many times before. It allows people who do not want to see pop-physics or physics 101 questions to subscribe only to this tag.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest we go forward with it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact idea I would suggest is  **a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum**.  I think that this is basically the right criteria, rather than trying to say something about &quot;current research&quot; or the like. Remember, the point of this tag is to filter out questions that would  be pure chaff to an active researcher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag would be policed aggressively, but erring on the side of being over-inclusive, since there is little harm in that. It would also have to be added aggressively to appropriate looking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggested tag description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;research-grade:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any question requiring beyond an undergraduate level of physics understanding to answer. Questions involving summaries of current research for the lay audience are not appropriate. Please attempt to find an answer to your question in textbooks, wikipedia and arxiv before using this tag.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm honestly not very happy with that description, but the main idea is just to scare people away from using tags for questions like &quot;What if there is no Higgs boson?&quot;, &quot;What if dark matter is (*crazy idea*)&quot;.  These questions involve current research, so the asker might be tempted to use a &quot;research&quot; tag, but are almost exactly what people would want filtered out. I would be glad for other suggestions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate, the only questions on the front page that would obviously  qualify for this on the front page at the moment are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauge invariance and form of the vacuum polarization tensor][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What areas of physics should a mathematician learn to understand TQFT][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note these are not very hard questions. The idea is not to collect the world's hardest physics questions, which would be useless since no one could answer them. The idea is only  filter out the obvious chaff from the perspective of an active researcher, for those who would like such a filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag could also be reasonably to high level &quot;engineering-type&quot; questions such as &#xD;&#xA;[Why are turbines built differently when a change of entropy or temperature is involved?][3] &#xD;&#xA;. (I actually don't understand what that question is asking, but you get the idea). They are probably not what a lot of the theoreticalphysics crowd want, but it would be good for them to remember there is a real world. So I'm fine with that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's genuinely unclear to me why theoreticalphysics failed, when mathoverflow and cstheory have succeeded so well. Therefore I can't say that this tag will definitely be productive. It may simply be that no physicists want a Q&amp;A site.  However, the effort required to put such a tagging system in place is small, so it should be tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. Hopefully we can develop a consensus quickly and put something in place soon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24423/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24453/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24436/3970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="6a34e39f-95db-461a-a9a6-4bb285ffd45e" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:18:41.210" UserId="3970" Text="Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="6a34e39f-95db-461a-a9a6-4bb285ffd45e" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:18:41.210" UserId="3970" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="de0f404c-3276-4c7f-8051-1303b6d60337" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:20:05.237" UserId="520" Text="[tag:research-level] would [be a meta-tag.][1] These are strongly discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="450bf052-a441-4ce9-9ec0-92e5bbd71347" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:34:16.707" UserId="3970" Comment="added 843 characters in body" Text="Well, theoretical physics has failed (the site, not the discipline). We should make some effort to recapture whatever interest and audience it had. The easiest way to do that would be to introduce a &quot;research-grade&quot; tag. This idea has been raised many times before. It allows people who do not want to see pop-physics or physics 101 questions to subscribe only to this tag.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest we go forward with it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact idea I would suggest is  **a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum**.  I think that this is basically the right criteria, rather than trying to say something about &quot;current research&quot; or the like. Remember, the point of this tag is to filter out questions that would  be pure chaff to an active researcher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag would be policed aggressively, but erring on the side of being over-inclusive, since there is little harm in that. It would also have to be added aggressively to appropriate looking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggested tag description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;research-grade:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any question requiring beyond an undergraduate level of physics understanding to answer. Questions involving summaries of current research for the lay audience are not appropriate. Please attempt to find an answer to your question in textbooks, wikipedia and arxiv before using this tag.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm honestly not very happy with that description, but the main idea is just to scare people away from using tags for questions like &quot;What if there is no Higgs boson?&quot;, &quot;What if dark matter is (*crazy idea*)&quot;.  These questions involve current research, so the asker might be tempted to use a &quot;research&quot; tag, but are almost exactly what people would want filtered out. I would be glad for other suggestions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate, the only questions on the front page that would obviously  qualify for this on the front page at the moment are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauge invariance and form of the vacuum polarization tensor][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What areas of physics should a mathematician learn to understand TQFT][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note these are not very hard questions. The idea is not to collect the world's hardest physics questions, which would be useless since no one could answer them. The idea is only  filter out the obvious chaff from the perspective of an active researcher, for those who would like such a filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag could also be reasonably to high level &quot;engineering-type&quot; questions such as &#xD;&#xA;[Why are turbines built differently when a change of entropy or temperature is involved?][3] &#xD;&#xA;. (I actually don't understand what that question is asking, but you get the idea). They are probably not what a lot of the theoreticalphysics crowd want, but it would be good for them to remember there is a real world. So I'm fine with that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's genuinely unclear to me why theoreticalphysics failed, when mathoverflow and cstheory have succeeded so well. Therefore I can't say that this tag will definitely be productive. It may simply be that no physicists want a Q&amp;A site.  However, the effort required to put such a tagging system in place is small, so it should be tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. Hopefully we can develop a consensus quickly and put something in place soon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Added** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As dmckee points out this would be a meta-tag, which is [frowned upon by the stackexchange system][4]. But I believe this situation is exceptional as evidenced by the fact that there were two separate physics sites in the stackexchange system.  If you read the comments to that post it is clear that they are not against meta-tags if they are performing a valid function. After all, if the meta-tags are performing a valid function, why shouldn't they be used? Further we actually have the meta-tag &quot;homework&quot;, which is an extremely important and useful tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the concern is that stackexchange would actively prevent the creation of such a tag, I find that unlikely, especially if there is some consensus about the issue. But that is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24423/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24453/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24436/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="dba756d1-8799-4c93-9237-ce5e6df589e4" CreationDate="2012-04-26T21:27:47.313" UserId="124" Text="As you may have heard, [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) will shortly be closing, and we are considering absorbing their questions into this site. We will soon be having a chat session (or perhaps multiple sessions) to discuss these potential merges, probably either Sunday or Monday. There are two questions I would like to pose here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What needs to be discussed?&#xD;&#xA;2. When should we have the chat session?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1, please put any ideas of what should be discussed in the chat session in answers. If you have a preference for time, please leave a comment on this question saying what times you could attend. I will figure out what a good time is tomorrow and update this question accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know this isn't really a proper meta question, I'm just trying to collect some information in the quickest way possible.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="dba756d1-8799-4c93-9237-ce5e6df589e4" CreationDate="2012-04-26T21:27:47.313" UserId="124" Text="Chat session on merging sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="dba756d1-8799-4c93-9237-ce5e6df589e4" CreationDate="2012-04-26T21:27:47.313" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="deff2eaa-71ee-400c-b6c8-2d949d09948e" CreationDate="2012-04-26T22:03:30.870" UserId="3970" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Well, theoretical physics has failed (the site, not the discipline). We should make some effort to recapture whatever interest and audience it had. The easiest way to do that would be to introduce a &quot;research-grade&quot; tag. This idea has been raised many times before. It allows people who do not want to see pop-physics or physics 101 questions to subscribe only to this tag.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest we go forward with it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact idea I would suggest is  **a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum**.  I think that this is basically the right criteria, rather than trying to say something about &quot;current research&quot; or the like. Remember, the point of this tag is to filter out questions that would  be pure chaff to an active researcher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag would be policed aggressively, but erring on the side of being over-inclusive, since there is little harm in that. It would also have to be added aggressively to appropriate looking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggested tag description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;research-grade:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any question requiring beyond an undergraduate level of physics understanding to answer. Questions involving summaries of current research for the lay audience are not appropriate. Please attempt to find an answer to your question in textbooks, wikipedia and arxiv before using this tag.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm honestly not very happy with that description, but the main idea is just to scare people away from using tags for questions like &quot;What if there is no Higgs boson?&quot;, &quot;What if dark matter is (*crazy idea*)&quot;.  These questions involve current research, so the asker might be tempted to use a &quot;research&quot; tag, but are almost exactly what people would want filtered out. I would be glad for other suggestions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate, the only questions on the front page that would obviously  qualify for this on the front page at the moment are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauge invariance and form of the vacuum polarization tensor][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What areas of physics should a mathematician learn to understand TQFT][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note these are not very hard questions. The idea is not to collect the world's hardest physics questions, which would be useless since no one could answer them. The idea is only  filter out the obvious chaff from the perspective of an active researcher, for those who would like such a filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag could also be reasonably applied to high level &quot;engineering-type&quot; questions such as &#xD;&#xA;[Why are turbines built differently when a change of entropy or temperature is involved?][3] &#xD;&#xA;. (I actually don't understand what that question is asking, but you get the idea). They are probably not what a lot of the theoreticalphysics crowd want, but it would be good for them to remember there is a real world. So I'm fine with that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's genuinely unclear to me why theoreticalphysics failed, when mathoverflow and cstheory have succeeded so well. Therefore I can't say that this tag will definitely be productive. It may simply be that no physicists want a Q&amp;A site.  However, the effort required to put such a tagging system in place is small, so it should be tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. Hopefully we can develop a consensus quickly and put something in place soon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Added** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As dmckee points out this would be a meta-tag, which is [frowned upon by the stackexchange system][4]. But I believe this situation is exceptional as evidenced by the fact that there were two separate physics sites in the stackexchange system.  If you read the comments to that post it is clear that they are not against meta-tags if they are performing a valid function. After all, if the meta-tags are performing a valid function, why shouldn't they be used? Further we actually have the meta-tag &quot;homework&quot;, which is an extremely important and useful tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the concern is that stackexchange would actively prevent the creation of such a tag, I find that unlikely, especially if there is some consensus about the issue. But that is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24423/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24453/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24436/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="90ddceb4-e02f-4b6b-97e3-f26e9c3e37ff" CreationDate="2012-04-26T23:11:52.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/195651437034881024" />
  <row Id="2809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="0b0bcf05-b67f-47cf-9607-9580274745d9" CreationDate="2012-04-27T03:49:12.717" UserId="871" Text="There seems to be a fair bit of decent, so I'm going to put forward the third proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take most of the questions, but filter out the ones that really aren't on topic. Basically, don't take equipment, observational help, etc. I suspect that around 80% of the questions fit into this category, but there might be a few that get left behind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some that I suspect should be left behind (All stolen from my own questions, so as to not offend anyone else;-): But most of them should be brought here, for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1573/71&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1901/71&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1434/71&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/93/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1207" RevisionGUID="6913ae6d-a270-420d-b351-12b494dc7482" CreationDate="2012-04-27T03:56:34.813" UserId="871" Text="As far as Astronomy, there's only one thing that I think is even a point. Do we want to take stuff that relations to observations? Black holes, planets, etc all seem to be very much on topic here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think a chat is the best way to handle this in any case, unless it is somewhat of a work session to filter through questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1207" RevisionGUID="ee4a1ba0-6378-48b7-a425-5a2d1baf3854" CreationDate="2012-04-27T04:03:34.133" UserId="871" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="As far as Astronomy, there's only one thing that I think is even a point. Do we want to take stuff that relations to observations? Black holes, planets, etc all seem to be very much on topic here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think a chat is the best way to handle this in any case, unless it is somewhat of a work session to filter through questions. Meta tends to be much better at that kind of stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="a0e6db75-7c7a-47c0-b62b-1fcad30cd4cd" CreationDate="2012-04-27T04:11:32.830" UserId="7433" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="8b799831-9407-48d0-9292-7befee061e95" CreationDate="2012-04-27T04:17:59.700" UserId="7433" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2814" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="7f3fd77e-c29b-4695-9477-990364b01692" CreationDate="2012-04-27T05:11:38.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/195741974291161089" />
  <row Id="2815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="4cbd8565-d27f-43e2-ace4-817438bcba25" CreationDate="2012-04-27T09:02:38.517" UserId="2751" Text="Maybe we can assess which tasks have to be done &quot;manually&quot; in the course of the merging processes and recrute some volunteers for getting stuff done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="20852e93-329e-4449-b076-1b45d11282c8" CreationDate="2012-04-28T07:43:06.757" UserId="124" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="As you may have heard, [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) will shortly be closing, and we are considering absorbing their questions into this site. We will soon be having a chat session (or perhaps multiple sessions) to discuss these potential merges, probably either Sunday or Monday. There are two questions I would like to pose here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What needs to be discussed?&#xD;&#xA;2. When should we have the chat session?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1, please put any ideas of what should be discussed in the chat session in answers. If you have a preference for time, please leave a comment on this question saying what times you could attend. I will figure out what a good time is tomorrow and update this question accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know this isn't really a proper meta question, I'm just trying to collect some information in the quickest way possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tentative update: **5-6 PM EDT (9-10 PM UTC) Monday** seems the most promising time so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="dc3dbd6d-6775-4221-828e-582361335b4b" CreationDate="2012-04-28T10:13:17.110" UserId="8889" Text="That's it... I can't get the option in the context menu that says (show source code) to work. Neither MathML nor TeX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No ad-blocking...&#xD;&#xA;- Pop-up window showing only momentarily...&#xD;&#xA;- Google Chrome 18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="dc3dbd6d-6775-4221-828e-582361335b4b" CreationDate="2012-04-28T10:13:17.110" UserId="8889" Text="&quot;Show Code&quot; features (MathML/TeX) in the context menu don't work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="dc3dbd6d-6775-4221-828e-582361335b4b" CreationDate="2012-04-28T10:13:17.110" UserId="8889" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="e56bec55-468d-4196-a408-44d12e86937a" CreationDate="2012-04-29T06:50:43.773" UserId="124" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="As you may have heard, [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) will shortly be closing, and we are considering absorbing their questions into this site. We will soon be having a chat session (or perhaps multiple sessions) to discuss these potential merges, probably either Sunday or Monday. There are two questions I would like to pose here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What needs to be discussed?&#xD;&#xA;2. When should we have the chat session?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1, please put any ideas of what should be discussed in the chat session in answers. If you have a preference for time, please leave a comment on this question saying what times you could attend. I will figure out what a good time is tomorrow and update this question accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know this isn't really a proper meta question, I'm just trying to collect some information in the quickest way possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: it's official, **5-6 PM EDT (9-10 PM UTC) Monday** is the time! I'd encourage anyone who plans on being there to register on the [chat room schedule page](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-coupling?tab=schedule)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="c9039497-29a0-458a-bd96-df12d8e5094d" CreationDate="2012-04-29T19:17:05.947" UserId="2146" Text="In the space of 5 mins, two of my answers from other questions have been upvoted and all because I asked a [good question][1] today. It's very flattering, I must admit, but are there safe guards in place to prevent someone upvoting too many questions for one person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24596/is-the-converse-of-noethers-first-theorem-true-every-conservation-law-has-a-sy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="c9039497-29a0-458a-bd96-df12d8e5094d" CreationDate="2012-04-29T19:17:05.947" UserId="2146" Text="benevolent attack on my account" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="c9039497-29a0-458a-bd96-df12d8e5094d" CreationDate="2012-04-29T19:17:05.947" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="dfe049f8-75c6-4bb3-b7e7-59dfbd2fa67c" CreationDate="2012-04-29T19:23:24.287" UserId="520" Text="There is a script that attempts to identify vote fraud (both for and against you) and will reverse any that it detects. If your fan has over-done it or has acted too quickly (i.e. without reading the answers) these votes may be removed when the script runs later today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details of what constitutes &quot;fraud&quot; from the scripts point of view are not public information, but the hints I've gotten from the team suggest that they are not as simple as &quot;counting&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [Attack on my account][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1139/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="8f5dbdcc-85df-4d39-a755-b154b262a9fb" CreationDate="2012-04-29T20:02:29.387" UserId="6973" Text="See [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serial upvoting is handled automatically and you don't need to get a moderator/Meta involved. In this case it's just two votes though, so I doubt it would be detected as fraud (it's usually many votes when fraud occurs, but there cut off isn't publicly known). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, don't worry about it. In this case it's doubtful they had any ill or improper intent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="8d4e0a65-44f0-48d3-b7f6-56e26c37d691" CreationDate="2012-04-30T02:22:09.483" UserId="124" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="As you may have heard, [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) will shortly be closing, and we are considering absorbing their questions into this site. We will soon be having a chat session (or perhaps multiple sessions) to discuss these potential merges, probably either Sunday or Monday. There are two questions I would like to pose here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What needs to be discussed?&#xD;&#xA;2. When should we have the chat session?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1, please put any ideas of what should be discussed in the chat session in answers. If you have a preference for time, please leave a comment on this question saying what times you could attend. I will figure out what a good time is tomorrow and update this question accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know this isn't really a proper meta question, I'm just trying to collect some information in the quickest way possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: it's official, **5-6 PM EDT (9-10 PM UTC) Monday** is the time! I'd encourage anyone who plans on being there to register on the [chat room schedule page](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-coupling?tab=schedule).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I've just realized I can't be there until about 5:30, so whoever shows up will have to start without me. Some of the things we need to discuss are listed in the answers to this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="ad327713-f410-4c25-8668-ca1ea53e484a" CreationDate="2012-04-30T12:34:21.570" UserId="7924" Text="When a particular contribution made me curious of the author, I often look up what else the author contributed, and of course finding something valuable there makes me vote accordingly. Thus there is nothing wrong with upvoting questions or answers to items one gets to read only because one first read another question or answer of an author. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the upvotes should be deserved, but this can easily be judged by the upvoter within 5 minutes, so one need not be suspicious of two upvotes so close in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="7a23a28f-b449-4231-873d-70765c226c30" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:12:03.763" UserId="8889" Comment="added 612 characters in body" Text="***Definition:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I right click on a piece of rendered LaTeX, there's an option for showing source-code. One for MathML (the internal rendering language, I believe) and another for classic TeX. Neither opens a window that remains on screen for reading and neither have a preview on their task-bar buttons on Win7; the previews only show a white background leading me to believe the window was never rendered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Steps:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Right click any block/line of rendered math on any page and request either MathML or TeX source code for the rendering.&#xD;&#xA;- A window flashes. An icon appears and remains on the taskbar. No window in view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No ad-blocking...&#xD;&#xA;- Pop-up window showing only momentarily... It disappears from the screen but remains as a button on the taskbar.&#xD;&#xA;- Google Chrome 18; Windows 7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="7cfb41dd-8ef0-412c-b03c-3704d6bb7fbb" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:20:13.657" UserId="8889" Text="Is it possible to publish/link to/include a guide or a reference to a preferred guide to writing LaTeX on the site so that (if possible) searching by formula would be easier?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty much it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="7cfb41dd-8ef0-412c-b03c-3704d6bb7fbb" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:20:13.657" UserId="8889" Text="Standardizing $\latex$ use on the site to facilitate formula searches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="7cfb41dd-8ef0-412c-b03c-3704d6bb7fbb" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:20:13.657" UserId="8889" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="56f1bb52-3ccd-4e1f-845e-d1aea510768d" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:27:20.233" UserId="8889" Text="Since this site -mostly- works in a wiki-fashion. I thought that having an index of quality, conceptual questions tagged by mod-exclusive tags. Perhaps an &quot;Approved&quot; tag or something similar. Furthermore, there can be a &quot;Proposal&quot; tag for users who think the question they're asking should be added to the index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples are when a beginner in a specific field of Physics asks a conceptual question that gets thorough answers and could be considered a good starting point for this concept (the one the user asked about).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry but my head's been bad lately so my writing might be... not so good ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="56f1bb52-3ccd-4e1f-845e-d1aea510768d" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:27:20.233" UserId="8889" Text="Proposing a &quot;Wiki&quot; or &quot;Wiki-Approved&quot; mod-only tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="56f1bb52-3ccd-4e1f-845e-d1aea510768d" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:27:20.233" UserId="8889" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="3983bf64-4192-4ae7-a321-d871912d98c8" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:27:56.113" UserId="124" Comment="add a note about name change" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2841" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="2def57a3-2296-47aa-bec9-316c423a75e8" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:39:35.193" UserId="8889" Comment="Made The Title Clearer" Text="Proposing a &quot;Wiki&quot; or &quot;Wiki-Approved&quot; mod-only tag for quality-conceptual questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2842" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="71936481-4871-43c5-9758-24ee16bcb11c" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:40:21.840" UserId="8889" Comment="Made The Title Clearer" Text="Standardizing $\latex$ use on the site to make searching for formulas easier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1219" RevisionGUID="1a82eb7c-5452-48af-949f-4af14b69b350" CreationDate="2012-04-30T18:58:43.297" UserId="8966" Text="I joined the site just to answer you. :) If I got it correctly, you're willing to have an index for Wiki questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, there is no need for a tag. Simply type `wiki:1` in the search bar, et voilà! Same applies to closed questions, `closed:1`, and if you can see them, deleted questions, `deleted:1`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the &quot;request&quot;... You can **flag your question for moderator attention**, then choose **other** and type your request; something like &quot;This should be a Community Wiki&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the CW tool is not for questions that otherwise would be Off Topic, Not Constructive, etc... But only for questions that deserve a special treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helped!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="8ece76a6-4a54-4d8e-a0c0-88d8b85deb50" CreationDate="2012-04-30T19:40:02.140" UserId="8889" Comment="Made the whole text clearer! I hope..." Text="The idea is simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a &quot;Quality&quot; or &quot;Approved&quot; tag for questions complete with full, quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A user (a beginner in physics, maybe) a basic question and get answers that (as a whole) would make for a good starting point on the concept. The mod-only tag would designate these questions as complete, high-quality and accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe also a tag to put it into attention if the user has asked what s/he believes a question fitting the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Example:*** A question about velocity (maybe) and how it differs in Vacuum from on Earth. Why velocity captures the direction beside the speed. And why a force on Earth's surface wouldn't always translate to a tangible acceleration because other factors speed-down the body; so force does actually increase the velocity of a body but not necessarily sustain its current one in all cases akin to what's visible to the layman here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^That's a pretty basic question and would as an excellent introduction to velocity. Furthermore, since it's so basic, it's unlikely that a similarly phrased question might need different answers than one already asked. A tag to designate these questions would make a very good index (of all questions tagged as such) for basic concepts as explained above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2845" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="8ece76a6-4a54-4d8e-a0c0-88d8b85deb50" CreationDate="2012-04-30T19:40:02.140" UserId="8889" Comment="Made the whole text clearer! I hope..." Text="Proposing a &quot;Quality-Question&quot; or &quot;Complete-Concept&quot; mod-only tag for quality-conceptual questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="a8593e4e-d816-4a7f-8c44-be63d4926aeb" CreationDate="2012-04-30T20:07:01.747" UserId="8889" Comment="Another clarity edit... Why down-voted?" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The idea is simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a &quot;Quality&quot; or &quot;Approved&quot; tag for questions complete with full, quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A user (a beginner in physics, maybe) a basic question and get answers that (as a whole) would make for a good starting point on the concept. The mod-only tag would designate these questions as complete, high quality and accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe also a public tag to put a question into the attention of mods if the user has asked what s/he believes a question fitting the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Example:*** A question about velocity (maybe) and how it differs in Vacuum from on Earth. Why velocity captures the direction beside the speed. And why a force on Earth's surface wouldn't always translate to a tangible acceleration because other factors speed-down the body; so force does actually increase the velocity of a body but not necessarily sustain its current one in all cases akin to what's visible to the layman on Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^That's a pretty basic question and would as an excellent introduction to velocity. Furthermore, since it's so basic, it's unlikely that a similarly phrased question might need different answers than one already asked. A tag to designate these questions would make a very good index (of all questions tagged as such) for basic concepts as explained above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2847" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="a8593e4e-d816-4a7f-8c44-be63d4926aeb" CreationDate="2012-04-30T20:07:01.747" UserId="8889" Comment="Another clarity edit... Why down-voted?" Text="Proposing a &quot;Quality-Question&quot; or &quot;Complete-Concept&quot; mod-only tag for high quality-conceptual questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="e842b6e0-ba74-4f47-9773-9b4d4dae2eab" CreationDate="2012-05-01T01:44:26.863" UserId="124" Text="If I understand correctly, this is not a bad idea for a resource to have on the internet, but it has [already been done elsewhere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Yes, Stack Exchange does have the goal of creating a body of reference information that will be easily usable by others, but it is always question-driven. If we go beyond answering questions to trying to provide general reference information, then we are going beyond the scope of the Stack Exchange network and running up against other resources which are already established in that area, and there's no need for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="c08b451b-cee3-489f-a231-30108d4c4bf8" CreationDate="2012-05-01T18:09:50.000" UserId="4463" Text="The argument of the StackExchange folks against meta tags is reasonable in most cases, but it doesn't apply here in my opinion. Jeff Atwood quoted 2 arguments against meta tags [here][1], but neither applies very well to this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shog9 wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the [subjective] tag is useless at best and actively harmful at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Useless, because for all the talk about filtering by or filtering out subjective questions using that tag, it’s a poor tool for the job simply because the criteria for its use are, well, subjective. I can tell you what a poll is, or a FAQ, or a list, or a getting-to-know-you (GTKY) question… But where the border lies for subjective I cannot say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And harmful, because there are some users who actually believe that, like community wiki, it’s some sort of magic that allows you to ignore the normal posting standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It’s been used pejoratively and defensively, without any real consistency, for a long long time now. Time to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not apply, because what is and is not research level is generally well-known to a large number of people. There's nothing subjective about it. There are borderline cases, but regardless of how these are treated, it would be useful for filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might claim that it will lead to a lot of mistags that mods will have to deal with, but I don't think this is a good argument. People incorrectly tag other things all the time. For example, I can think of a fair number of times on Math.SE where questions tagged as algebraic geometry were actually about high school level geometry. I can't see how this would be any different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aaronut wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There’s been a major uptick recently in tags that are not useful and just add noise. I want to stress that these are usually added in good faith, and I am not questioning anybody’s motivation – I know that they all mean well. But this particular category of tags is one that has been historically referred to as meta-tags on MSO, and these tags cause a lot of problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that one can tag a question with a so-called meta tag and nothing else. I can't imagine that this would be common with a research-level tag. TP.SE hasn't had any problems with undertagging, and if someone is at the level where they are asking research level questions, which require a lot of time to type, they are pretty invested in the question and will likely spend the extra few seconds to add descriptive tags, as unlike with low-level questions it actually does improve the chances of getting an answer quickly. The fact that tagging was rarely an issue on TP.SE should be enough evidence that the subset of people who would use a research-level tag would be responsible with it, which is already more than can be said for the homework meta-tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="fe3b3211-793c-487c-80d3-e9f8ce721e9b" CreationDate="2012-05-01T22:40:58.533" UserId="4463" Comment="Better grammar &amp; phrasing" Text="The argument of the StackExchange folks against meta tags is reasonable in most cases, but it doesn't apply here in my opinion. Jeff Atwood quoted 2 arguments against meta tags [here][1], but neither applies very well to this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shog9 wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the [subjective] tag is useless at best and actively harmful at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Useless, because for all the talk about filtering by or filtering out subjective questions using that tag, it’s a poor tool for the job simply because the criteria for its use are, well, subjective. I can tell you what a poll is, or a FAQ, or a list, or a getting-to-know-you (GTKY) question… But where the border lies for subjective I cannot say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And harmful, because there are some users who actually believe that, like community wiki, it’s some sort of magic that allows you to ignore the normal posting standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It’s been used pejoratively and defensively, without any real consistency, for a long long time now. Time to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not apply, because what is and is not research level is generally well-known to a large number of people. There's nothing subjective about it. There are borderline cases, but regardless of how these are treated, it would be useful for filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might claim that it will lead to a lot of mistags that mods will have to deal with, but I don't think this is a good argument. People incorrectly tag other things all the time. For example, I can think of a fair number of times on Math.SE where questions tagged as algebraic geometry were actually about high school level geometry. I can't see how this would be any different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aaronut wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There’s been a major uptick recently in tags that are not useful and just add noise. I want to stress that these are usually added in good faith, and I am not questioning anybody’s motivation – I know that they all mean well. But this particular category of tags is one that has been historically referred to as meta-tags on MSO, and these tags cause a lot of problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that one can tag a question with a so-called meta tag and nothing else. I can't imagine that this would be common with a research-level tag. TP.SE hasn't had any problems with undertagging. If someone is at the level to ask research-level questions, which require a lot of time to ask and answer, they are pretty invested in the question and will likely spend the extra few seconds to add descriptive tags. Unlike with low-level questions it actually does improve the chances of getting an answer quickly. The fact that tagging was rarely an issue on TP.SE should be enough evidence that the subset of people who would use a research-level tag would be responsible with it, which is already more than can be said for the homework meta-tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="5579b2a9-4261-421d-980d-0f1601edf0f6" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:39:44.533" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related chat : http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have decided to take all Astro questions, _including_ observational astro (though we are shunting astrophotography to photo.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the rest of the astro questions (all of them astrophysics questions) fall well within our scope and title, observational astro questions do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of this, let's discuss whether or not we should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Change the title to Physics&amp;astro&#xD;&#xA; - Explicitly add astrophysics and observational astro to our faq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the final decision will be made _after_ the merger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="5579b2a9-4261-421d-980d-0f1601edf0f6" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:39:44.533" UserId="7433" Text="Change name/faq to Physics&amp;Astro?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="5579b2a9-4261-421d-980d-0f1601edf0f6" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:39:44.533" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="b9181c3e-94a2-4eda-be55-0b71277db13a" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:40:50.577" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2855" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="bd928a69-98eb-40f2-a034-b914a36ab2a9" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:41:08.053" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2856" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="509aa3b0-8209-4180-be1e-ecafc5d3801e" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:41:30.830" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|chat|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2857" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="42c82d0c-1364-4672-b7f9-b1ba7898a626" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:41:59.320" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="f91c20b4-ce77-46d8-b579-14787502a145" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:42:15.437" UserId="7433" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [If it&amp;#39;s possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Astronomy.SE is [closing][1]l and this SE seems like it could be a natural home for a significant fraction of the questions asked there.  Before taking the time to flag anything for migration the question of what would/not be accepted here needs to be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/170/astronomy-is-closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2859" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="f91c20b4-ce77-46d8-b579-14787502a145" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:42:15.437" UserId="7433" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="0918d9f1-f937-4188-9b1c-aa6da50a8af5" CreationDate="2012-05-02T12:51:58.393" UserId="2751" Text="I think changing the name is not needed because astrophysics (including the observational and experimental techniques) **IS** physics ... ;-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But expanding or updating the faq accordingly is probably a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="d7c8a9e5-c7f8-4527-916b-ce6726d54265" CreationDate="2012-05-02T13:00:14.630" UserId="6749" Text="In the chat transcript I found several tags with ~50-100 questions that appeared to be similarly far from &quot;core physics&quot; as observational astronomy is from astrophysics.  For that reason I don't think a renaming is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="6d0063ee-ca40-4a5a-9793-4acb39df8e8f" CreationDate="2012-05-02T13:07:15.043" UserId="6749" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="In the chat transcript I found several tags with ~50-100 questions that appeared to be similarly far from &quot;core physics&quot; as observational astronomy is from astrophysics.  For that reason I don't think a renaming is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples I listed during the chat were:  education (100 questions); electric circuits (48 questions), or computational physics (41 questions).  The latter two straddle the gap between electrical engineering and the various cs/programming SE's.  If there was a teaching SE, the same would be true of the first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="f4b9e212-263f-4e57-a3c5-50fe97b02b48" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:02:46.817" UserId="7433" Comment="added 134 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related chat : http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have decided to take all Astro questions, _including_ observational astro (though we are shunting astrophotography to photo.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the rest of the astro questions (all of them astrophysics questions) fall well within our scope and title, observational astro questions do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of this, let's discuss whether or not we should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Change the site name to Physics &amp; Astronomy. Maybe keep physics.SE,astro.SE, and physicsandastronomy.SE as URL aliases (I'd say physics.SE should stay as the main one)&#xD;&#xA; - Explicitly add astrophysics and observational astro to our faq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the final decision will be made _after_ the merger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2864" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="f4b9e212-263f-4e57-a3c5-50fe97b02b48" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:02:46.817" UserId="7433" Comment="added 134 characters in body; edited title" Text="Change name/faq to Physics&amp;Astronomy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="fdf927e4-a6fe-43ab-9870-a802e46e592f" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:18:12.787" UserId="4551" Text="There's currently a lot of [talk][1] [about][2] Physics.SE absorbing [ThPhys.SE][3] and [Astro.SE][4].  How is this carried out? Who decides, and where, on what policy is to be executed?  Once it's decided, where, how and when is it carried out? Is there a top-down decision or is there a &quot;suggestions box&quot; of some sort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't seem to find any similar mass-migrations that have happened before, so apologies if this information is sitting in an obvious place I missed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="fdf927e4-a6fe-43ab-9870-a802e46e592f" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:18:12.787" UserId="4551" Text="How are merges with other SEs executed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="fdf927e4-a6fe-43ab-9870-a802e46e592f" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:18:12.787" UserId="4551" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2868" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="c587d8bc-453d-4055-8062-16a82b45104e" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:32:22.490" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1226" RevisionGUID="97e28766-7b76-46db-8027-ab4bf4799515" CreationDate="2012-05-02T14:39:02.963" UserId="7433" Text="The SE team secretly decides in their underground hideout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, though, they are taking input on _what_ is to be done, though probably not on ipthe internal details. Just ask on http://meta.stackoverflow.com (or here if it is Phy.SE related), and they ought to come by. If you're quick enough, @GraceNote is currently online on Physics chat, so you can ask her. Otherwise, you can probably find @Shog9 on the MSO Tavern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The changes will be discussed by the Phy.SE community, but the final decision rests in the hand of SE. But they (usually) listen to us, so practically &quot;we decide&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="9bf712c7-c1d9-4e25-824c-05037b65e501" CreationDate="2012-05-02T15:51:50.237" UserId="1576" Text="If the Physics Stack Exchange is renamed into the Physics and Astronomy Stack Exchange, I actually would wonder - how much &quot;damage&quot; would be done if we also migrated over the questions related to equipment and observation help? Since the Astronomy SE was pretty much dead for a long time, I don't think that those questions would really clog up the Physics SE feed, and I'd hate to lose some of the good discussions that were on equipment/observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(am saying this as someone who didn't post anything related to equipment/observation help, as my interests in astronomy are purely theoretical). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="3c855d14-d039-48f5-abde-4ff0b482d0aa" CreationDate="2012-05-02T15:55:14.737" UserId="124" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="It was recently announced that [several SE sites are closing](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/), including Theoretical Physics and Astronomy. Given that our scope here is basically a superset of the scope of Theoretical Physics and that there is a lot of overlap between the sites, there is considerable support for [migrating the entire content of that site to Physics Stack Exchange](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also been mentioned in several places that there is a fair amount of overlap between Astronomy Stack Exchange and this site as well. Indeed, we get quite a few astronomy and cosmology questions posted here, and looking at the astronomy site I see a decent number of astrophysics-related questions. Certainly those questions can find a good home here. But since physics and astronomy are such closely related subjects, I think even the other, less physical questions from the astronomy site might be of interest to our audience. This raises the possibility of incorporating Astronomy.SE into this site as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, what I am proposing is that this site expands its scope to include anything that is currently on topic for Astronomy SE (including the non-physics-related questions) _as well as_ anything that is currently on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this change were to happen, it might be appropriate to alter the name and/or design of the site accordingly. This is being addressed by a [separate question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-faq-to-physicsastronomy). Obviously, for this reason, the change in scope would be contingent on the approval of the Stack Exchange team. But I would also like to see whether there is community support for the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="12050fa9-2358-43aa-ac77-10fdd64a35df" CreationDate="2012-05-02T15:59:59.947" UserId="7433" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related chat : http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have decided to take all Astro questions, _including_ observational astro (though we are shunting astrophotography to photo.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the rest of the astro questions (all of them astrophysics questions) fall well within our scope and title, observational astro questions do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of this, let's discuss whether or not we should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Change the site name to Physics &amp; Astronomy. Maybe keep physics.SE,astro.SE, and physicsandastronomy.SE as URL aliases (I'd say physics.SE should stay as the main one)&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;s&gt; Explicitly add astrophysics and observational astro to our faq &lt;/s&gt;(this has already been addressed in the related question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the final decision will be made _after_ the merger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="12050fa9-2358-43aa-ac77-10fdd64a35df" CreationDate="2012-05-02T15:59:59.947" UserId="7433" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited title" Text="Change name to Physics&amp;Astronomy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="854b31ab-f42d-4f91-8094-f42e54f8eac9" CreationDate="2012-05-02T16:00:03.217" UserId="124" Text="To present the alternate viewpoint from what others have addressed: the important thing is whether people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title, or not. I believe not. (At least, I would not expect a site that is just named &quot;physics&quot; to incorporate astronomy.) That's why I'm in favor of the name change. Probably very little would be involved, just adding a word to the site logo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2875" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="60b2a4bd-3b88-437c-b7e7-8211b1a87246" CreationDate="2012-05-02T18:16:59.743" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="91e51c6e-3f09-4894-bdc4-513459320d56" CreationDate="2012-05-02T19:04:12.947" UserId="124" Text="If you're reading this, you've probably heard that the [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sites, among others, will be [shutting down this week](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/). Since these two sites have a large overlap in scope with Physics, we are going to be &quot;adopting&quot; the entire content of both [TP](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se) and [Astro](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono). Over the past week, the details of the migration have been discussed [on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) and [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event). I'm creating this post to address the important questions that the people involved should know about in the last few days before the migration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How will the migration happen?&#xD;&#xA;- What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;- As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;- How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;- What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;- What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="91e51c6e-3f09-4894-bdc4-513459320d56" CreationDate="2012-05-02T19:04:12.947" UserId="124" Text="What do you need to know about the upcoming mass migration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="91e51c6e-3f09-4894-bdc4-513459320d56" CreationDate="2012-05-02T19:04:12.947" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|faq|featured|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="fe4853f9-3954-4141-af92-29cabac19b19" CreationDate="2012-05-02T19:05:31.337" UserId="124" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will not be making a final decision on the usage of this tag until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be possible for all such questions to be migrated here with a tag designating the original source. In that case, we can use that tag to maintain a list of which questions need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2880" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="fe4853f9-3954-4141-af92-29cabac19b19" CreationDate="2012-05-02T19:05:31.337" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2881" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="91e51c6e-3f09-4894-bdc4-513459320d56" CreationDate="2012-05-02T19:04:12.947" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="2882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="d480c634-3423-42af-9581-545fa71c5162" CreationDate="2012-05-02T20:03:23.983" UserId="3970" Comment="added 3413 characters in body" Text="Well, theoretical physics has failed (the site, not the discipline). We should make some effort to recapture whatever interest and audience it had. The easiest way to do that would be to introduce a &quot;research-grade&quot; tag. This idea has been raised many times before. It allows people who do not want to see pop-physics or physics 101 questions to subscribe only to this tag.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest we go forward with it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact idea I would suggest is  **a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum**.  I think that this is basically the right criteria, rather than trying to say something about &quot;current research&quot; or the like. Remember, the point of this tag is to filter out questions that would  be pure chaff to an active researcher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag would be policed aggressively, but erring on the side of being over-inclusive, since there is little harm in that. It would also have to be added aggressively to appropriate looking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggested tag description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;research-grade:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any question requiring beyond an undergraduate level of physics understanding to answer. Questions involving summaries of current research for the lay audience are not appropriate. Please attempt to find an answer to your question in textbooks, wikipedia and arxiv before using this tag.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm honestly not very happy with that description, but the main idea is just to scare people away from using tags for questions like &quot;What if there is no Higgs boson?&quot;, &quot;What if dark matter is (*crazy idea*)&quot;.  These questions involve current research, so the asker might be tempted to use a &quot;research&quot; tag, but are almost exactly what people would want filtered out. I would be glad for other suggestions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate, the only questions on the front page that would obviously  qualify for this on the front page at the moment are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauge invariance and form of the vacuum polarization tensor][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What areas of physics should a mathematician learn to understand TQFT][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note these are not very hard questions. The idea is not to collect the world's hardest physics questions, which would be useless since no one could answer them. The idea is only  filter out the obvious chaff from the perspective of an active researcher, for those who would like such a filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag could also be reasonably applied to high level &quot;engineering-type&quot; questions such as &#xD;&#xA;[Why are turbines built differently when a change of entropy or temperature is involved?][3] &#xD;&#xA;. (I actually don't understand what that question is asking, but you get the idea). They are probably not what a lot of the theoreticalphysics crowd want, but it would be good for them to remember there is a real world. So I'm fine with that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's genuinely unclear to me why theoreticalphysics failed, when mathoverflow and cstheory have succeeded so well. Therefore I can't say that this tag will definitely be productive. It may simply be that no physicists want a Q&amp;A site.  However, the effort required to put such a tagging system in place is small, so it should be tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. Hopefully we can develop a consensus quickly and put something in place soon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Added** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As dmckee points out this would be a meta-tag, which is [frowned upon by the stackexchange system][4]. But I believe this situation is exceptional as evidenced by the fact that there were two separate physics sites in the stackexchange system.  If you read the comments to that post it is clear that they are not against meta-tags if they are performing a valid function. After all, if the meta-tags are performing a valid function, why shouldn't they be used? Further we actually have the meta-tag &quot;homework&quot;, which is an extremely important and useful tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the concern is that stackexchange would actively prevent the creation of such a tag, I find that unlikely, especially if there is some consensus about the issue. But that is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added 5/01/12**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added this as a response to David's comment and just to clarify.  Although the tag is being called &quot;research-level&quot; or &quot;research-grade&quot; that is *not* is a good description of its function. The function of the tag is to specify questions that might be of interest to *researchers*.  To that end, I have suggested a very specific criterion for the use of tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This definition is based on the one fact unifying the community of researchers - mastery of the core of known physics. The criterion is sufficiently precise, and definitely excludes the vast majority of questions on the site. It definitely includes the two questions I have linked, even though the answer to first one is contained in textbooks and is not a question under active research, and even though the second one is a purely pedagogical question. They are both not obvious to all researchers. That is the only criterion.  I agree there is some ambiguity in the criterion with the definitions of &quot;blindingly obvious&quot; and &quot;graduate core&quot;, but I would simply suggest that we be err on the side of inclusiveness since there is no cost to a small amount of overtagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also agree that the tag description and tag name do not suitably capture what I have suggested. I had a lot of trouble coming up with something. I would be glad for improved suggestions, but keep in mind the main function of the tag name and description would be to discourage low level questions from being tagged by the asker, simply because they thought it involved some aspect of current research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm here, let me take a step back and try to argue why we would want such a tag, and justify the criterion I suggested. I realize that in the initial post I simply jumped straight into the specifics of the suggestion without explanation. I should put it writing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason is simply pragmatic. There is a group of very smart people who at least say they would like to contribute to a stackexhange site, but who do not like the crosstalk from the lay audience. Their participation in the site would be very good. Therefore the creation of a tag tailored to the &quot;researcher audience&quot; might bring them into the site at very low cost, and therefore such a tag should be tried. Moreover, even for those who don't mind the jumble of questions of all levels such a tag would be very useful. So why not introduce it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underlying the pragmatic reason are a set of issues that were discussed heavily when theoretical physics was proposed. The physics site has multiple audiences crammed together (lay people interested in physics, undergraduate homework solvers, and researchers). Using tags to help separate these audiences is entirely consistent with the philosophy of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, this post has received 11 upvotes as of 5/01, which indicates at least some support. I have not seen any fatal objections raised to the idea. I'll give it another 24 hours to stew. If nothing has changed by that point I will simply change the description of the existing research-level tag and start retagging old questions as appropriate. I believe that those changes will need to be approved because of my low reputation. Hopefully the mods will respect my initiative and let the idea play out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24423/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24453/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24436/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="cd7570f8-b880-4e3e-bbb0-971cb92a9649" CreationDate="2012-05-02T22:16:54.427" UserId="124" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will not be making a final decision on the usage of this tag until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be possible for all such questions to be migrated here with a tag designating the original source. In that case, we can use that tag to maintain a list of which questions need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="12b20b16-ad6e-4703-ac35-a347591cfab8" CreationDate="2012-05-02T22:19:16.033" UserId="124" Text="The gist of it is as follows: on Friday, SE will automatically migrate all non-closed questions from TP and Astro to Physics, and then will take those other sites offline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The migrated questions will presumably have to be retagged by us, which is going to be an extended effort we'll have to get into after the migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2889" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="f87b6f9d-bcd3-442f-a6a1-6bf5228cd96b" CreationDate="2012-05-02T23:14:24.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/197826402597343232" />
  <row Id="2890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="de816216-bd38-4776-b5fc-173f7a91d6cd" CreationDate="2012-05-02T23:36:57.403" UserId="124" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be possible for all such questions to be migrated here with a tag designating the original source. In that case, we can use that tag to maintain a list of which questions need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="91fc13f9-a575-4e9f-8da7-5d4702152dd4" CreationDate="2012-05-03T03:46:57.760" UserId="7433" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will probably keep vote-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be possible for all such questions to be migrated here with a tag designating the original source. In that case, we can use that tag to maintain a list of which questions need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="9f02b7c7-6e1e-40c5-8aee-64d96342cbab" CreationDate="2012-05-03T10:24:09.773" UserId="7433" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be possible for all such questions to be migrated here with a tag designating the original source. In that case, we can use that tag to maintain a list of which questions need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="ab9b84c6-e82c-48ca-b52d-7d6855739f24" CreationDate="2012-05-03T15:34:01.667" UserId="7433" Text="After having to add dollar signs and format SI  units countless times in the review section, I finally got fed up and wrote a script.{*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It basically adds buttons to enclose the selected text in dollar symbols and `\mathrm` SI unit formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's the userscript](http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons). Installation instructions are there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*With some urging from chem.SE.people, otherwise it was going to be indefinitely in my todo list :P&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="ab9b84c6-e82c-48ca-b52d-7d6855739f24" CreationDate="2012-05-03T15:34:01.667" UserId="7433" Text="Math and SI formatting buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="ab9b84c6-e82c-48ca-b52d-7d6855739f24" CreationDate="2012-05-03T15:34:01.667" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="9ac3faa8-cb7d-4727-87bb-a87af5550c46" CreationDate="2012-05-03T20:25:42.850" UserId="8889" Text="I can't comment (literally, I can't post comments) but I can say that although it's a bit limited in features, it's definitely a step forward for the editor!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the link you provided has dead download sub-links :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="a86714fe-8010-4b05-acf2-9c1c15799ee1" CreationDate="2012-05-04T00:44:16.057" UserId="7433" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be possible for all such questions to be migrated here with a tag designating the original source. In that case, we can use that tag to maintain a list of which questions need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="ecb6687d-b01b-4dc8-aec0-55a469008fd0" CreationDate="2012-05-04T02:19:11.280" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="24262a8a-0621-4b1d-a958-38cc740d33c4" CreationDate="2012-05-04T17:20:06.863" UserId="7433" Text="Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Try to improve the post as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="24262a8a-0621-4b1d-a958-38cc740d33c4" CreationDate="2012-05-04T17:20:06.863" UserId="7433" Text="How should we go about retagging the salvaged posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="24262a8a-0621-4b1d-a958-38cc740d33c4" CreationDate="2012-05-04T17:20:06.863" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="0c909f67-46ec-4d02-8983-95f2effde18d" CreationDate="2012-05-04T18:36:49.270" UserId="7433" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="07dfa90e-36a5-4d1b-be2e-2e10fdfba55d" CreationDate="2012-05-04T20:38:47.333" UserId="8889" Comment="Updates" Text="***Explanation of issue:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The option to &quot;Show Source Code&quot; of rendered math blocks/lines doesn't work as expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Steps to reproduce:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Right click on any block/line of rendered math on any page and request either the MathML or TeX source code behind the rendering.&#xD;&#xA;- A window flashes. An icon appears and remains on the taskbar. No window in view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*As per request (May 4th '12)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No ad-blocking... &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Google Chrome 18; no extensions concerning JS or MathJaX&#xD;&#xA;- Windows 7 32-bit; SP1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Additional Info:* &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I can bring the pop-up on screen by 'maximizing' it via task-manager then 'snapping' (in Win7) it to either half of the screen. I can't resize it however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PS.* I'm waiting for a solution but in the mean time, I don't see any reason to go after the issue so, apart from informing the SE team in the unlikely event the issue has roots in the engine, I thank you humbly for your help and I don't need anything else. If anyone wishes to add anything then it's their call." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="7a724d54-0fb2-47f7-aa06-46ce86587b53" CreationDate="2012-05-04T21:01:20.410" UserId="8889" Text="Right now *(May 4th '12 20:58 UTC),* the main page either remains as I first open it to continues to 'update' with tens of questions **each second** coming to the top of the list. Once I refresh, it's gone and everything is back to how it was when I first opened it; a minute later and the same behavior shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Update:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The posts that come up are mostly dated between *May '11* and *Nov. '11* if that helps..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="7a724d54-0fb2-47f7-aa06-46ce86587b53" CreationDate="2012-05-04T21:01:20.410" UserId="8889" Text="The main page acting strange and inconsistently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="7a724d54-0fb2-47f7-aa06-46ce86587b53" CreationDate="2012-05-04T21:01:20.410" UserId="8889" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="9a0aee79-f2f6-421d-ad7a-330e49724d73" CreationDate="2012-05-04T21:14:32.750" UserId="8889" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Right now *(May 4th '12 20:58 UTC),* the main page either remains as I first open it to continues to 'update' with tens of questions **each second** coming to the top of the list. Once I refresh, it's gone and everything is back to how it was when I first opened it; a minute later and the same behavior shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Update:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The posts that come up are very old (mostly dated between *May '11* and *Nov. '11*) if that helps...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It only happens when I stay on the main page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="14322b4c-1f3c-4949-aafc-80327afae13c" CreationDate="2012-05-04T21:17:17.440" UserId="6749" Text="What you're seeing is apparently noise from the mass imports from astronomy and theoretical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/what-do-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-mass-migration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what you described apparently the mass import process was adding questions and then pulling them off the front page, instead of adding them in a way they never appeared there in the first place.  That's less than ideal; but for a very rarely used feature putting effort into fine tuning it probably doesn't make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="f101d5b2-6f3b-4463-a807-020c09366ec5" CreationDate="2012-05-04T21:52:43.607" UserId="8889" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Right now *(May 4th '12 20:58 UTC),* the main page either remains as I first opened it or continues to 'update' with tens of questions **each second** coming to the top of the list. Once I refresh, it's gone and everything is back to how it was when I first opened it; a minute later and the same behavior shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Update:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The posts that come up are very old (mostly dated between *May '11* and *Nov. '11*) if that helps...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It only happens when I stay on the main page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="fa3b0981-3c88-42f8-8ce7-9b9f339b1b0e" CreationDate="2012-05-04T22:09:19.723" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1238" RevisionGUID="cb733bf4-823c-4105-9331-05ff1ccf8495" CreationDate="2012-05-04T22:11:58.097" UserId="2911" Text="Over a thousand questions were imported from the now-closed Astronomy and Theoretical Physics sites. We did this as quickly and unobtrusively as possible, but for a short while there simply were a huge number of new posts entering the site and the activity monitor reacted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is now completed, you should see no unusual activity... At least until folks start [retagging](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/how-should-we-go-about-retagging-the-salvaged-posts)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="fabd130c-b010-4840-8bc2-c8e563336fca" CreationDate="2012-05-05T00:49:28.930" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="cd3ad5c0-124c-4a80-9499-ead523c593d1" CreationDate="2012-05-05T11:55:48.703" UserId="3598" Text="I see that Astronomy beta was merged into Physics, however, many of my questions are now untagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way we can get all the tags on Astronomy moved over to Physics and applied to the questions that were migrated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="cd3ad5c0-124c-4a80-9499-ead523c593d1" CreationDate="2012-05-05T11:55:48.703" UserId="3598" Text="Astronomy tags were not merged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="cd3ad5c0-124c-4a80-9499-ead523c593d1" CreationDate="2012-05-05T11:55:48.703" UserId="3598" Text="|bug|tags|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="70e71fab-eb37-4f6c-96bd-9d2eb480510f" CreationDate="2012-05-05T13:47:24.017" UserId="520" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged] ([list of questions that are &quot;untagged&quot;][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="dc74337a-e6bb-43b0-b4ce-8aa38316ca0c" CreationDate="2012-05-05T13:47:36.090" UserId="520" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="I see that Astronomy beta was merged into Physics, however, [many of my questions are now untagged][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way we can get all the tags on Astronomy moved over to Physics and applied to the questions that were migrated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="865477fd-8335-4e35-99c1-7109655cc5f9" CreationDate="2012-05-05T15:55:34.370" UserId="7433" Text="##Note to users who installed it before 5/5/12 (3:51 PM UTC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The script no longer needs to be updated (most updates include the addition of more sites/buttons and tweaks like tooltips). It auto-fetches the updates now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you uninstall/reinstall it to run this one-time update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to uninstall:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chrome: Settings&gt;Tools&gt;Extensions. Find the script and delete it&#xD;&#xA; - Firefox: Open the GM settings and remove the script&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then re-install normally ([click here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/Manishearth/Manish-Codes/raw/master/StackExchange/MathJaxButtons.user.js" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="0508b4c9-128e-43cd-9ff9-cb329b6df1c8" CreationDate="2012-05-05T17:15:03.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/198823132679766018" />
  <row Id="2921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="5726e4c0-4ccc-4d1f-8909-c5092d11d87a" CreationDate="2012-05-06T15:55:19.570" UserId="7433" Text="We're having a slight problem on chem.SE--we aren't getting many questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was suggested on the meta that we ask Phy.SE and bio.SE for people willing to late-join the private beta. I can provide invites (I'll need your email address--alternatively you can send me a blank email on `manishearth[at]toolserver[dot] o r g`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how useful this post will be--I guess we already got all the chem experts from Physics. But it's worth a shot :/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="5726e4c0-4ccc-4d1f-8909-c5092d11d87a" CreationDate="2012-05-06T15:55:19.570" UserId="7433" Text="Chemistry.SE private beta invites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="5726e4c0-4ccc-4d1f-8909-c5092d11d87a" CreationDate="2012-05-06T15:55:19.570" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="4499b1fa-dee9-47cd-9f39-4f6656b38761" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:33:46.813" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24850/best-periods-to-observe-magellanic-clouds&quot;&gt;Best periods to observe Magellanic Clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24934/do-all-black-holes-have-a-singularity&quot;&gt;Do all black holes have a singularity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25019/what-does-f-4-6-mean-in-a-telescope-and-how-important-is-this-value&quot;&gt;What does f/4.6 mean in a telescope and how important is this value?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24944/what-is-the-typical-career-path-to-become-a-professional-astronomer&quot;&gt;What is the typical career path to become a professional Astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25024/lenses-refractor-or-mirrors-reflector-telescope&quot;&gt;Lenses (refractor) or mirrors (reflector) telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector refractor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25191/what-is-exactly-a-dobsonian-and-what-are-the-differences-when-compared-with-sch&quot;&gt;What is exactly a Dobsonian, and what are the differences when compared with Schmidt-Casse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24912/can-the-apparent-equal-size-of-sun-and-moon-be-explained-or-is-this-a-coincidenc&quot;&gt;Can the apparent equal size of sun and moon be explained or is this a coincidence?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25159/how-can-i-judge-a-globular-cluster-on-the-shapley-sawyer-scale&quot;&gt;How can I judge a globular cluster on the Shapley &amp; Sawyer scale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters visual-astronomy classification &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24859/which-is-the-strongest-meteor-shower-expected-in-the-next-years-in-the-northern&quot;&gt;Which is the strongest meteor shower expected in the next years in the Northern hemisphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24876/for-observing-planets-what-kind-of-telescope-offers-the-best-view&quot;&gt;For observing planets what kind of telescope offers the best view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy eyepieces reflector refractor planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25046/why-is-m42-red-in-the-pictures-but-green-when-observed-at-the-eyepiece&quot;&gt;Why is M42 red in the pictures, but green when observed at the eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/why-dont-modern-spacecraft-use-nuclear-power&quot;&gt;Why don't modern spacecraft use nuclear power?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager spacecraft exploration satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25175/how-are-cepheids-used-to-evaluate-their-distance&quot;&gt;How are Cepheids used to evaluate their distance?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24919/what-age-to-start-kids-with-astronomy&quot;&gt;What age to start kids with astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25162/what-is-the-current-status-of-pluto&quot;&gt;What is the current status of Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets pluto &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24965/what-are-good-resources-for-someone-looking-to-become-an-amateur-astronomer&quot;&gt;What are good resources for someone looking to become an amateur astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24987/what-objects-look-best-in-an-o-iii-filter&quot;&gt;What objects look best in an O-III filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy filters planetary-nebulae&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24993/where-can-i-find-public-domain-astronomical-pictures&quot;&gt;Where can I find public domain astronomical pictures?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24942/a-method-to-estimate-the-relative-magnitude-of-a-star-using-nearby-stars&quot;&gt;A method to estimate the relative magnitude of a star using nearby stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25145/observing-lunar-lander-and-footprints-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;Observing lunar lander and footprints on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes the-moon aperture&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25228/can-we-observe-changes-in-the-fine-structure-constant&quot;&gt;Can we observe changes in the fine-structure constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24990/what-causes-millisecond-pulsars-to-speed-up&quot;&gt;What causes millisecond pulsars to speed up?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars pulsars gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25248/how-do-the-hot-jupiter-planets-get-so-close-to-their-host-star&quot;&gt;How do the â€œhot Jupiterâ€ planets get so close to their host star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets extrasolar-planets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25264/why-dont-more-rocky-planets-moons-have-appreciable-atmospheres&quot;&gt;Why don't more rocky planets/moons have appreciable atmospheres?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets atmosphere moons mercury &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25087/scientific-value-of-timing-total-lunar-occultations&quot;&gt;Scientific value of timing total lunar occultations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25157/what-tools-do-i-need-to-track-an-orbit-of-a-mystery-object&quot;&gt;What tools do I need to track an orbit of a mystery object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25070/why-can-we-see-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb&quot;&gt;Why can we see the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25153/why-is-uranuss-axis-of-rotation-tilted&quot;&gt;Why is Uranus's axis of rotation tilted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets cosmology uranus orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24869/what-is-dark-energy-and-how-was-it-discovered&quot;&gt;What is Dark Energy, and how was it discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25260/what-is-a-backlit-ccd-sensor-and-why-might-i-prefer-it-to-other-kinds&quot;&gt;What is a backlit CCD sensor, and why might I prefer it to other kinds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25181/what-is-a-spectrometer-and-why-are-they-so-useful-in-science&quot;&gt;What is a spectrometer, and why are they so useful in science?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25044/how-important-is-a-camera-with-improved-hydrogen-alpha-sensitivity-to-astrophoto&quot;&gt;How important is a camera with improved Hydrogen Alpha sensitivity to astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography planetary-nebulae color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24857/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-german-equatorial-mount-vs-a-fork-mount&quot;&gt;What are the pros and cons of a german equatorial mount vs. a fork mount?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25241/what-open-source-n-body-codes-are-available-and-what-are-their-features&quot;&gt;What open-source n-body codes are available and what are their features?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25133/do-all-narrowband-filters-tint-the-field-of-view&quot;&gt;Do all narrowband filters tint the field of view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;filters observation color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24951/is-there-any-evidence-for-the-claim-that-the-moon-was-once-part-of-the-earth&quot;&gt;Is there any evidence for the claim that the moon was once part of the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis&quot;&gt;Why does each celestial object spin on its own axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity spin rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24904/resources-and-requirements-for-amateur-spectroscopy&quot;&gt;Resources and requirements for amateur spectroscopy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24907/does-earth-have-a-code-name&quot;&gt;Does Earth have a code name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;catalog&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Who should I contact if I see an unknown object in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25105/is-it-possible-to-see-fraunhofer-lines-with-amateur-equipment&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see Fraunhofer lines with amateur equipment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment spectroscopy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25244/how-does-a-spacecrafts-orientation-get-determined&quot;&gt;How does a spacecraft's orientation get determined&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25137/after-the-space-shuttle-is-retired-how-will-the-new-sections-of-iss-will-be-lau&quot;&gt;After the Space Shuttle is retired, how will the new sections of ISS will be launched?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;shuttle launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24958/how-can-a-black-hole-emit-x-rays&quot;&gt;How can a black hole emit X-rays?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/scopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&quot;&gt;Scopes to avoid as a beginner?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner advice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25110/why-are-orbits-elliptical&quot;&gt;Why are orbits elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit planetary-motion gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24973/when-taking-a-sequence-of-exposures-for-stacking-coaddition-what-dither-pattern&quot;&gt;When taking a sequence of exposures for stacking/coaddition, what dither patterns are most&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes observation software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25120/optimal-angular-field-of-view-afov&quot;&gt;Optimal Angular Field of View (AFOV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123/how-to-determine-what-size-telescope-to-buy&quot;&gt;How to determine what size telescope to buy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25151/what-allows-the-modified-urca-process-to-work-at-lower-density-than-direct-urca&quot;&gt;What allows the modified Urca process to work at lower density than direct Urca in neutron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25198/can-any-telescope-be-used-for-solar-observing&quot;&gt;Can any telescope be used for solar observing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes sun solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable&quot;&gt;What are the prerequisites for considering any other planet to be habitable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets planetary-habitability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/when-will-the-moon-reach-escape-velocity&quot;&gt;When will the Moon reach escape velocity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25098/how-to-nail-focus-for-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How to nail focus for DSLR astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/why-does-the-moon-sometimes-appear-giant-and-a-orange-red-color-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Why does the moon sometimes appear giant and a orange red color near the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="9d32ee4a-8aac-45dd-88dd-5e9ff4344dba" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:33:56.670" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26555/what-if-our-sun-were-located-in-the-middle-of-a-globular-cluster&quot;&gt;What if our Sun were located in the middle of a globular cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26046/how-could-i-translate-a-field-of-view-value-into-a-magnification-value&quot;&gt;How could I translate a field of view value into a magnification value?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26443/why-dont-we-have-a-better-telescope-than-the-hubble-space-telescope&quot;&gt;Why don't we have a better telescope than the Hubble Space Telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26323/planets-capable-of-life-dead-or-still-alive&quot;&gt;Planets capable of life: dead or still alive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25978/two-planets-in-same-orbit-not-planets&quot;&gt;Two planets in same orbit - not planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25766/what-would-happen-if-the-polar-ice-caps-of-mars-melted&quot;&gt;What would happen if the polar ice caps of Mars melted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25997/could-two-colliding-comets-near-earth-cause-devastation&quot;&gt;Could two colliding comets near Earth cause devastation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet speculative impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25749/what-was-the-apparent-magnitude-of-the-june-15th-2011-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;What was the apparent magnitude of the June 15th 2011 lunar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25544/is-it-possible-to-make-a-hydrogen-alpha-solar-scope&quot;&gt;Is it possible to make a hydrogen-alpha solar scope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26334/why-are-binary-objects-so-critical-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why are binary objects so critical to astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26011/has-everything-we-see-happened-in-the-past&quot;&gt;Has everything we see happened in the past?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25414/color-variation-in-rr-lyrae&quot;&gt;Color Variation in RR Lyrae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25290/what-is-a-trojan-moon&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;Trojan Moon&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26378/what-does-a-planet-look-like-in-the-infrared&quot;&gt;What does a planet look like in the infrared?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26110/could-dark-energy-be-the-effect-of-gravity-at-great-distances&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be the effect of gravity at great distances?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics amateur gravity dark-energy dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/study-of-exoplanets-reaching-saturation-point&quot;&gt;Study of exoplanets reaching saturation point&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25338/space-interferometry-mission-sim-cancellation&quot;&gt;Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) cancellation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26630/lack-of-exoplanet-missions-in-the-decadal-survey&quot;&gt;Lack of exoplanet missions in the decadal survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25332/how-would-you-describe-a-black-hole-to-a-complete-layman&quot;&gt;How would you describe a black hole to a complete layman?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26216/how-to-find-the-andromeda-galaxy-without-using-a-go-to-telescope&quot;&gt;How to find the Andromeda galaxy without using a go-to telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How exactly does time slow down near a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity time theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25650/why-is-the-universe-map-shaped-like-an-oval&quot;&gt;Why is the universe map shaped like an oval?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26549/why-is-the-universe-so-big&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so big?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26588/advice-sought-on-choosing-a-camera-for-a-meade-lx10&quot;&gt;Advice sought on choosing a camera for a Meade LX10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26704/what-happens-to-light-and-mass-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light and mass in the center of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove the Earth is round?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solar solar-system education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25834/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25939/why-is-the-surface-of-venus-so-hot&quot;&gt;Why is the surface of Venus so hot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26242/how-can-one-predict-the-length-of-the-synodic-month-why-is-it-irregular&quot;&gt;How can one predict the length of the Synodic month? Why is it irregular?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon the-moon time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26040/what-is-the-official-difference-between-a-planet-and-a-dwarf-planet&quot;&gt;What is the official difference between a planet and a dwarf planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25806/is-there-a-consensus-on-the-fate-of-our-universe&quot;&gt;Is there a consensus on the fate of our universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26435/given-that-matter-cannot-escape-a-black-hole-how-did-the-big-bang-produce-the-u&quot;&gt;Given that matter cannot escape a black hole, how did the big bang produce the universe we&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25877/do-days-and-months-on-the-moon-have-names&quot;&gt;Do days and months on the Moon have names?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26136/mass-of-a-galaxy-via-luminosity&quot;&gt;Mass of a galaxy via luminosity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883/why-is-there-still-radiation-left-from-the-big-bang-now&quot;&gt;Why is there still radiation left from the Big Bang now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25387/is-there-evidence-of-a-larger-universe&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of a larger universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/curiosity-rover-msl-specification-dimensions&quot;&gt;Curiosity Rover (MSL): specification / dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26605/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-how-does-it-cause-a-black-hole-to-evaporate&quot;&gt;What is Hawking radiation and how does it cause a black hole to evaporate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26271/how-can-a-population-iii-star-be-so-massive&quot;&gt;How can a Population III star be so massive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26413/what-is-the-strongest-evidence-that-anti-matter-exists&quot;&gt;What is the strongest evidence that anti-matter exists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="20bb7e60-b7d1-4b5b-bad6-8572debccc6c" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:34:03.613" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25739/a-fermi-question-are-there-more-stars-than-grains-of-sand&quot;&gt;A Fermi-question: Are there more stars than grains of sand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe calculations approximation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25741/what-objects-states-of-objects-with-absolute-magnitude-do-we-know-of&quot;&gt;What objects/states of objects with absolute magnitude do we know of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance luminosity object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26169/could-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-map-be-used-as-a-backup-f&quot;&gt;Could the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) map be used as a backup for GPS nav&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26519/vision-vs-limiting-magnitude&quot;&gt;Vision vs. limiting magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy optics apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25770/software-for-creating-custom-star-charts&quot;&gt;Software for Creating Custom Star Charts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26702/would-the-time-dilation-from-being-in-low-orbit-around-a-black-hole-delay-slow-t&quot;&gt;Would the time dilation from being in low orbit around a black hole delay/slow the effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25888/all-significant-objects-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;All significant objects in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object object classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26510/why-is-oxygen-the-third-most-abundant-element&quot;&gt;Why is oxygen the third most abundant element?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26521/how-did-micrometeorite-flux-change-with-the-age-of-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How did micrometeorite flux change with the age of the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25787/is-co2-really-a-potent-greenhouse-gas-for-planets-around-m-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Is CO2 really a potent greenhouse gas for planets around M dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25382/how-can-we-be-sure-that-liquid-iron-titanium-droplets-can-form-around-particulat&quot;&gt;How can we be sure that liquid iron/titanium droplets can form around particulates on hot &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26278/what-is-the-mass-of-the-lego-figurines-being-launched-with-spacecraft-juno&quot;&gt;What is the mass of the LEGO figurines being launched with spacecraft Juno?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter nasa launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26021/how-does-the-average-mars-jupiter-distance-compare-with-the-average-earth-jupite&quot;&gt;How does the average Mars-Jupiter distance compare with the average Earth-Jupiter distance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&quot;&gt;Can we model gravitation as a repulsive force?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26148/how-are-interplanetary-trajectories-found&quot;&gt;How are interplanetary trajectories found?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/meteorites-from-mars&quot;&gt;Meteorites from Mars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26157/is-there-any-way-to-judge-whether-a-bolide-might-produce-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Is there any way to judge whether a bolide might produce a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/are-telescopes-with-a-concave-lens-useful-for-astronomy&quot;&gt;Are telescopes with a concave lens useful for astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26418/computing-period-semi-major-axis-of-binary&quot;&gt;Computing period, semi-major axis of binary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="de101672-647d-44ef-8327-b7b8e1531fb2" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:34:51.727" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25869/stellar-evolution-simulation-engine-or-software&quot;&gt;Stellar evolution simulation engine or software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software star-formation simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25336/reverse-sun-position-algorithm&quot;&gt;Reverse Sun position algorithm?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25634/illumination-calculations&quot;&gt;Illumination calculations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25435/formula-for-getting-time-of-sunrise-at-a-particular-location&quot;&gt;Formula for getting time of sunrise at a particular location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26643/why-arent-saturns-rings-clumping-into-moons&quot;&gt;Why Aren't Saturn's Rings Clumping into Moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25860/how-do-you-transform-between-theoretical-hertzsprung-russell-diagrams-and-colour&quot;&gt;How do you transform between theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell Diagrams and Colour-Magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25626/why-isnt-sunset-time-in-sync-with-solstice&quot;&gt;Why isn't sunset time in sync with solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sunset solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25275/why-is-this-radio-telescopes-reflector-spherical-and-not-parabolic&quot;&gt;Why is this radio telescope's reflector spherical and not parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26670/atmospheric-interference-and-ground-based-stellar-observations&quot;&gt;Atmospheric interference and ground based stellar observations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25579/why-do-clusters-of-stars-eventually-dissipate&quot;&gt;Why do clusters of stars eventually dissipate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity stars globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25417/why-does-jupiter-emit-more-energy-than-it-receives&quot;&gt;Why does Jupiter emit more energy than it receives?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25283/does-mercury-have-a-balmy-spot&quot;&gt;Does Mercury have a balmy spot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26370/is-it-true-that-our-solar-system-belongs-to-another-galaxy-which-collides-with-t&quot;&gt;Is it true that our solar system belongs to another galaxy which collides with the milky w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies 2012&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25512/what-is-a-good-introductory-text-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;What is a good introductory text to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25533/creating-downloading-a-large-galaxy-dataset&quot;&gt;Creating/Downloading a large Galaxy Dataset&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26240/whats-the-most-accepted-theory-for-blue-stragglers-these-days&quot;&gt;What's the most accepted theory for Blue Stragglers These Days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars globular-clusters blue-supergiants&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/is-there-any-way-to-anticipate-exceptional-aurora-borealis-viewing-conditions&quot;&gt;Is there any way to anticipate exceptional Aurora Borealis viewing conditions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25930/2012-is-there-some-astronomical-event-happening&quot;&gt;2012: Is there some astronomical event happening?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-beam-radiant-intensity-distribution&quot;&gt;Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26080/how-bright-will-an-asteroid-be&quot;&gt;How bright will an asteroid be?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26566/where-can-i-find-a-list-of-when-i-can-see-something-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Where can I find a list of when I can see something in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25937/are-there-trends-in-the-number-of-meteors-in-a-shower-year-on-year&quot;&gt;Are there trends in the number of meteors in a shower year on year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from&quot;&gt;Is the CMB rest frame special? where does it come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26356/transit-of-mercury-how-did-he-see-it&quot;&gt;Transit of Mercury: how did he see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26362/difference-between-baryonic-inertial-and-gravitational-mass-and-relation-to-d&quot;&gt;Difference between baryonic, inertial and gravitational mass? (and relation to dark matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25372/where-does-the-dust-on-the-moon-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the dust on the moon come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25964/use-of-advanced-mathematics-in-astronomy-like-topology-abstract-algebra-or-ot&quot;&gt;Use of advanced mathematics in astronomy, like topology, abstract algebra, or others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universe equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26102/how-do-i-find-the-time-for-pleiades-to-be-at-zenith-today&quot;&gt;How do I find the time for Pleiades to be at Zenith today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26530/how-to-concisely-explain-apparent-retrograde-motions-of-planets&quot;&gt;How to concisely explain apparent retrograde motions of planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets visual-astronomy orbit retrograde-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26061/why-did-population-iii-stars-lack-planets&quot;&gt;Why did population III stars lack planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26619/best-time-of-the-year-to-see-the-star-alpha-centauri-in-chile-santiago&quot;&gt;Best time of the year to see the star Alpha Centauri in Chile, Santiago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars visual-astronomy observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26584/does-anybody-actually-do-astrometry-in-the-21st-century&quot;&gt;Does anybody actually do astrometry in the 21st century?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars planets time observational-techniques instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26570/shadow-of-a-jovian-moon-over-the-great-red-spot&quot;&gt;Shadow of a Jovian moon over the Great Red Spot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25571/what-is-the-physical-origin-of-scintillation&quot;&gt;What is the physical origin of scintillation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/liquid-water-in-mid-ice-on-europa-mechanism&quot;&gt;Liquid Water in &quot;mid-ice&quot; on Europa. Mechanism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter europa exo-geology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26354/what-would-the-universe-look-like-if-it-started-out-without-any-irregularities&quot;&gt;What would the universe look like if it started out without any irregularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/could-a-neutron-star-be-active-fusioning-neutrons-into-something-more-dense-and&quot;&gt;Could a neutron star be active, fusioning neutrons into something more dense and releasing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25498/the-sun-as-a-gravitational-lens&quot;&gt;The Sun as a gravitational lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25681/is-the-apophis-asteroid-a-concern&quot;&gt;Is the Apophis asteroid a concern?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25645/comet-versus-asteroids-versus-meteors&quot;&gt;Comet versus asteroids versus meteors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26562/if-we-were-to-travel-through-space-sci-fi-style-how-close-to-the-false-color&quot;&gt;If we were to travel through space (sci-fi style), how close to the false-color images wou&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies space-flight color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25539/do-we-have-an-idea-about-the-amount-of-matter-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;Do we have an idea about the amount of matter in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26315/detecting-dim-objects&quot;&gt;Detecting dim objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25535/if-a-hot-jupiter-was-not-tidally-locked-then-are-there-any-specific-cases-where&quot;&gt;If a hot Jupiter was not tidally locked, then are there any specific cases where its wind &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26310/why-dont-any-of-the-gas-giants-have-moons-of-earths-mass-or-greater-that-orb&quot;&gt;Why don't any of the gas giants have moons of Earth's mass (or greater) that orbit them? I&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25295/raising-altitude-by-using-magnetic-torquer-and-reaction-wheels&quot;&gt;Raising Altitude by using Magnetic Torquer and Reaction Wheels&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25962/what-is-lighting-up-space-shuttle-endeavours-main-engines&quot;&gt;What is lighting up Space Shuttle Endeavour's main engines?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object ssme&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25915/what-proportion-of-a-stars-hydrogen-is-consumed-in-its-life&quot;&gt;What proportion of a star's hydrogen is consumed in its life?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophysics sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25652/sun-moon-earth-anomaly&quot;&gt;sun-moon-earth anomaly&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="8e217dd6-1c43-4871-a0e2-7dc1e5aadd82" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:35:03.130" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25947/identifying-objects-for-dummies&quot;&gt;Identifying objects, for dummies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25784/how-big-is-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How big is the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26023/do-all-the-individual-stars-that-we-can-see-in-the-night-sky-belong-to-milky-way&quot;&gt;Do all the individual stars that we can see in the night sky belong to Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26221/what-will-we-see-between-the-cmb-and-the-current-oldest-object-seen&quot;&gt;What will we see between the CMB and the current oldest object seen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25490/have-sterling-engines-been-used-in-outer-space&quot;&gt;Have Sterling Engines Been Used In Outer Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26470/how-to-adjust-feather-touch-focuser-for-collimation&quot;&gt;How to adjust feather touch focuser for collimation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian collimation secondary-mirror focuser laser&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25909/missing-radio-source-coordinates-in-g-t-measurement-technique-itu-r-s-733-2&quot;&gt;Missing radio source coordinates in G/T measurement technique ITU-R S.733.2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25365/agn-accretion-disk-vs-torus&quot;&gt;AGN accretion disk vs. torus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25573/how-to-make-a-moondial&quot;&gt;How to make a moondial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26145/need-help-buying-binoculars-online-for-astronomy-10x50&quot;&gt;Need help buying binoculars online for astronomy (10x50)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25577/stability-of-moons-around-tidally-locked-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Stability of moons around tidally locked exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26662/what-is-the-orbital-path-of-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What is the orbital path of Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way local-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26650/biggest-crater-in-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;Biggest crater in the Solar System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars crater collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25977/was-aristarchos-method-to-compute-earth-sun-distance-ever-rediscovered-in-medie&quot;&gt;Was Aristarchos' method to compute Earth-Sun distance ever rediscovered in medieval or mod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26172/how-much-detail-can-telescopes-actually-provide&quot;&gt;How much detail can telescopes actually provide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25542/emission-line-width-units&quot;&gt;Emission line width units&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25728/galaxies-that-are-newer-than-our-own-one&quot;&gt;Galaxies that are newer than our own one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26066/why-is-there-a-limit-to-the-intensity-of-cosmic-rays-at-low-energies&quot;&gt;Why is there a limit to the intensity of cosmic rays at low energies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26120/from-computational-astrophysics-to-finance&quot;&gt;From Computational Astrophysics to Finance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25548/why-are-there-not-many-detectable-supernovas&quot;&gt;Why are there not many detectable supernovas?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova stars galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26774/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-127mm-5-f-1500-synscan-go-to-maksutov-cassegrain&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skymax-127 (AZ) 127mm (5&quot;) f/1500 SynScan GO-TO Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26343/why-does-omega-centauri-have-a-distinct-chemical-signature-from-the-rest-of-the&quot;&gt;Why does Omega Centauri have a distinct chemical signature from the rest of the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way globular-clusters dwarf-galaxies metallicity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/how-is-it-that-some-nebulae-are-rotating-and-others-are-not&quot;&gt;How is it that some nebulae are rotating and others are not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics physics nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/double-image-in-binoculars&quot;&gt;Double image in binoculars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binoculars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26261/is-there-such-a-thing-as-north-in-outerspace&quot;&gt;Is there such a thing as &quot;North&quot; in outerspace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26401/have-scientists-been-able-to-find-an-example-of-a-possible-white-hole&quot;&gt;Have scientists been able to find an example of a possible White Hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25319/whats-the-best-way-to-start-out-with-astrophotography-on-a-tight-budget&quot;&gt;What's the best way to start out with astrophotography on a tight budget?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25890/convert-eci-coordinates-to-latitude-longitude&quot;&gt;Convert ECI coordinates to latitude/longitude?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25362/how-can-i-determine-if-my-telescope-mirror-is-parabolic&quot;&gt;How can I determine if my telescope mirror is parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25722/computing-planetary-positions&quot;&gt;Computing Planetary Positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26159/existing-photometry-data-of-the-open-star-cluster-cepheus-ob3&quot;&gt;Existing photometry data of the open star cluster Cepheus OB3?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26269/why-do-we-need-the-concept-of-dark-energy-to-explain-the-expansion-of-the-univer&quot;&gt;Why do we need the concept of dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26212/what-would-happen-to-earth-if-saturn-were-to-exit-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;What would happen to Earth if Saturn were to exit the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system earth saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26153/what-makes-a-supermassive-black-hole-move-through-space&quot;&gt;What makes a supermassive black hole move through space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26017/what-is-the-weekly-average-of-coronal-mass-ejections-the-sun-sends-out&quot;&gt;What is the weekly average of coronal mass ejections the sun sends out?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25397/is-there-any-site-place-which-gives-access-to-astronomical-signals-acquired-from&quot;&gt;Is there any site/place which gives access to astronomical signals acquired from space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26533/what-is-a-hot-flow-anomaly-and-can-we-see-the-terrestrial-ones&quot;&gt;What is a Hot Flow Anomaly, and can we see the terrestrial ones?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-wind magnetosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26317/is-it-possible-to-see-satellites-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see satellites with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26345/can-cmes-disturb-a-planet-orbit&quot;&gt;Can CMEs disturb a planet orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25726/where-will-new-horizons-go-after-sailing-past-pluto&quot;&gt;Where will New Horizons go after sailing past Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system spacecraft kuiper-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25689/predicting-solar-storms&quot;&gt;Predicting solar storms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;light solar-system solar-wind&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26560/accuracy-and-assumptions-in-deriving-the-tully-fisher-relation&quot;&gt;Accuracy and assumptions in deriving the Tully-Fisher relation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxies distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/how-to-draw-a-star-chart&quot;&gt;How to draw a star chart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25825/can-you-damage-your-eyes-viewing-venus&quot;&gt;Can you damage your eyes viewing Venus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26684/may-20th-annular-eclipse-duration-from-vancouver&quot;&gt;May 20th Annular Eclipse - Duration from Vancouver?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25585/what-is-behind-the-cosmological-horizon-barrier&quot;&gt;What is behind the cosmological horizon barrier?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25582/figuring-out-which-moons-of-jupiter-i-saw-through-my-telescope&quot;&gt;Figuring out which moons of Jupiter I saw through my telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moon jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26087/at-what-distance-could-you-see-andromeda-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25918/falling-into-saturn-or-jupiter-would-we-pass-through-it-until-we-hit-the-nucleu&quot;&gt;Falling into Saturn or Jupiter, would we pass through it until we hit the nucleus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25556/can-we-see-a-spaceship-falling-into-a-black-hole-and-entering-the-event-horizon&quot;&gt;Can we see a spaceship falling into a black hole and entering the event horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26515/what-is-exactly-the-density-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated&quot;&gt;What is exactly the density of a black hole and how can it be calculated?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25683/impact-location-that-created-the-moon&quot;&gt;Impact location that created the moon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon formation collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25595/io-turned-inside-out&quot;&gt;Io - Turned inside out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit jupiter moons io&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25271/can-we-prove-that-the-universe-is-finite-or-infinite&quot;&gt;Can we prove that the universe is finite or infinite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/ring-height-stats&quot;&gt;Ring height stats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/are-we-going-to-be-able-to-travel-trough-space-deforming-the-space-time&quot;&gt;Are we going to be able to travel trough space deforming the space-time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&quot;&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25353/where-does-the-light-of-the-big-bang-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the light of the Big Bang come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang light pulsars deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26603/how-can-you-calculate-the-exact-position-of-the-earth-taking-into-account-the-gr&quot;&gt;How can you calculate the exact position of the Earth taking into account the gravitationa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26734/can-extraterrestials-detect-our-messages&quot;&gt;Can extraterrestials detect our messages?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2929" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="c7e9ed39-51b5-4979-8fee-e31be6ee13fa" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:41:02.403" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2930" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="baf4b264-a492-4ad5-ad26-2998c9582c0b" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:41:07.553" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2931" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="d6bf17ae-cb4e-4faa-ac29-b7cf4e66432a" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:41:10.593" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2932" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="164b4a78-48a7-4987-adff-360c2bc5ad3c" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:41:13.573" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2933" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="1b29e831-ca99-4f8e-9c92-8dd54ad5adc7" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:41:17.223" UserId="2911" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="f02349b2-9e5d-422d-ae5b-427dbb44043b" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:45:21.323" UserId="2911" Text="In the answers below, you'll find links to all of the questions recently imported from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy, along with the tags they had on those sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imported questions retain only the tags that already exist on the destination site. Tags that do not exist may not be appropriate - please review before re-adding. Other changes may also be necessary. Take your time...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The raw data can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Astronomy exports (not just to Physics):** https://docs.google.com/a/stackoverflow.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnuSKH8sLqgjdHBMRnZqQmNwRHNmVENmM3JNRVhZb1E#gid=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Theoretical Physics exports (not just to Physics):** https://docs.google.com/a/stackoverflow.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnuSKH8sLqgjdGRKUWhPMzZKQVlVYmJ5WnQwdDU0NEE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="f02349b2-9e5d-422d-ae5b-427dbb44043b" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:45:21.323" UserId="2911" Text="Questions imported from Astronomy and Theoretical Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="f02349b2-9e5d-422d-ae5b-427dbb44043b" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:45:21.323" UserId="2911" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|migration|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="33317712-27ed-4565-b75c-fae53953f1b6" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:46:00.323" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24850/best-periods-to-observe-magellanic-clouds&quot;&gt;Best periods to observe Magellanic Clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24934/do-all-black-holes-have-a-singularity&quot;&gt;Do all black holes have a singularity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25019/what-does-f-4-6-mean-in-a-telescope-and-how-important-is-this-value&quot;&gt;What does f/4.6 mean in a telescope and how important is this value?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24944/what-is-the-typical-career-path-to-become-a-professional-astronomer&quot;&gt;What is the typical career path to become a professional Astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25024/lenses-refractor-or-mirrors-reflector-telescope&quot;&gt;Lenses (refractor) or mirrors (reflector) telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector refractor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25191/what-is-exactly-a-dobsonian-and-what-are-the-differences-when-compared-with-sch&quot;&gt;What is exactly a Dobsonian, and what are the differences when compared with Schmidt-Casse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24912/can-the-apparent-equal-size-of-sun-and-moon-be-explained-or-is-this-a-coincidenc&quot;&gt;Can the apparent equal size of sun and moon be explained or is this a coincidence?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25159/how-can-i-judge-a-globular-cluster-on-the-shapley-sawyer-scale&quot;&gt;How can I judge a globular cluster on the Shapley &amp; Sawyer scale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters visual-astronomy classification &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24859/which-is-the-strongest-meteor-shower-expected-in-the-next-years-in-the-northern&quot;&gt;Which is the strongest meteor shower expected in the next years in the Northern hemisphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24876/for-observing-planets-what-kind-of-telescope-offers-the-best-view&quot;&gt;For observing planets what kind of telescope offers the best view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy eyepieces reflector refractor planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25046/why-is-m42-red-in-the-pictures-but-green-when-observed-at-the-eyepiece&quot;&gt;Why is M42 red in the pictures, but green when observed at the eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/why-dont-modern-spacecraft-use-nuclear-power&quot;&gt;Why don't modern spacecraft use nuclear power?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager spacecraft exploration satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25175/how-are-cepheids-used-to-evaluate-their-distance&quot;&gt;How are Cepheids used to evaluate their distance?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24919/what-age-to-start-kids-with-astronomy&quot;&gt;What age to start kids with astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25162/what-is-the-current-status-of-pluto&quot;&gt;What is the current status of Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets pluto &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24965/what-are-good-resources-for-someone-looking-to-become-an-amateur-astronomer&quot;&gt;What are good resources for someone looking to become an amateur astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24987/what-objects-look-best-in-an-o-iii-filter&quot;&gt;What objects look best in an O-III filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy filters planetary-nebulae&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24993/where-can-i-find-public-domain-astronomical-pictures&quot;&gt;Where can I find public domain astronomical pictures?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24942/a-method-to-estimate-the-relative-magnitude-of-a-star-using-nearby-stars&quot;&gt;A method to estimate the relative magnitude of a star using nearby stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25145/observing-lunar-lander-and-footprints-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;Observing lunar lander and footprints on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes the-moon aperture&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25228/can-we-observe-changes-in-the-fine-structure-constant&quot;&gt;Can we observe changes in the fine-structure constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24990/what-causes-millisecond-pulsars-to-speed-up&quot;&gt;What causes millisecond pulsars to speed up?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars pulsars gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25248/how-do-the-hot-jupiter-planets-get-so-close-to-their-host-star&quot;&gt;How do the â€œhot Jupiterâ€ planets get so close to their host star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets extrasolar-planets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25264/why-dont-more-rocky-planets-moons-have-appreciable-atmospheres&quot;&gt;Why don't more rocky planets/moons have appreciable atmospheres?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets atmosphere moons mercury &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25087/scientific-value-of-timing-total-lunar-occultations&quot;&gt;Scientific value of timing total lunar occultations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25157/what-tools-do-i-need-to-track-an-orbit-of-a-mystery-object&quot;&gt;What tools do I need to track an orbit of a mystery object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25070/why-can-we-see-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb&quot;&gt;Why can we see the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25153/why-is-uranuss-axis-of-rotation-tilted&quot;&gt;Why is Uranus's axis of rotation tilted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets cosmology uranus orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24869/what-is-dark-energy-and-how-was-it-discovered&quot;&gt;What is Dark Energy, and how was it discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25260/what-is-a-backlit-ccd-sensor-and-why-might-i-prefer-it-to-other-kinds&quot;&gt;What is a backlit CCD sensor, and why might I prefer it to other kinds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25181/what-is-a-spectrometer-and-why-are-they-so-useful-in-science&quot;&gt;What is a spectrometer, and why are they so useful in science?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25044/how-important-is-a-camera-with-improved-hydrogen-alpha-sensitivity-to-astrophoto&quot;&gt;How important is a camera with improved Hydrogen Alpha sensitivity to astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography planetary-nebulae color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24857/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-german-equatorial-mount-vs-a-fork-mount&quot;&gt;What are the pros and cons of a german equatorial mount vs. a fork mount?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25241/what-open-source-n-body-codes-are-available-and-what-are-their-features&quot;&gt;What open-source n-body codes are available and what are their features?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25133/do-all-narrowband-filters-tint-the-field-of-view&quot;&gt;Do all narrowband filters tint the field of view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;filters observation color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24951/is-there-any-evidence-for-the-claim-that-the-moon-was-once-part-of-the-earth&quot;&gt;Is there any evidence for the claim that the moon was once part of the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis&quot;&gt;Why does each celestial object spin on its own axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity spin rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24904/resources-and-requirements-for-amateur-spectroscopy&quot;&gt;Resources and requirements for amateur spectroscopy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24907/does-earth-have-a-code-name&quot;&gt;Does Earth have a code name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;catalog&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Who should I contact if I see an unknown object in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25105/is-it-possible-to-see-fraunhofer-lines-with-amateur-equipment&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see Fraunhofer lines with amateur equipment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment spectroscopy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25244/how-does-a-spacecrafts-orientation-get-determined&quot;&gt;How does a spacecraft's orientation get determined&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25137/after-the-space-shuttle-is-retired-how-will-the-new-sections-of-iss-will-be-lau&quot;&gt;After the Space Shuttle is retired, how will the new sections of ISS will be launched?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;shuttle launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24958/how-can-a-black-hole-emit-x-rays&quot;&gt;How can a black hole emit X-rays?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/scopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&quot;&gt;Scopes to avoid as a beginner?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner advice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25110/why-are-orbits-elliptical&quot;&gt;Why are orbits elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit planetary-motion gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24973/when-taking-a-sequence-of-exposures-for-stacking-coaddition-what-dither-pattern&quot;&gt;When taking a sequence of exposures for stacking/coaddition, what dither patterns are most&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes observation software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25120/optimal-angular-field-of-view-afov&quot;&gt;Optimal Angular Field of View (AFOV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123/how-to-determine-what-size-telescope-to-buy&quot;&gt;How to determine what size telescope to buy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25151/what-allows-the-modified-urca-process-to-work-at-lower-density-than-direct-urca&quot;&gt;What allows the modified Urca process to work at lower density than direct Urca in neutron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25198/can-any-telescope-be-used-for-solar-observing&quot;&gt;Can any telescope be used for solar observing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes sun solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable&quot;&gt;What are the prerequisites for considering any other planet to be habitable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets planetary-habitability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/when-will-the-moon-reach-escape-velocity&quot;&gt;When will the Moon reach escape velocity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25098/how-to-nail-focus-for-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How to nail focus for DSLR astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/why-does-the-moon-sometimes-appear-giant-and-a-orange-red-color-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Why does the moon sometimes appear giant and a orange red color near the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2938" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="c795dcc8-e5d6-449d-9a38-eba4930235a6" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:46:00.323" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="931480cc-d08b-45f7-af90-3eb82847d543" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:46:28.590" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26555/what-if-our-sun-were-located-in-the-middle-of-a-globular-cluster&quot;&gt;What if our Sun were located in the middle of a globular cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26046/how-could-i-translate-a-field-of-view-value-into-a-magnification-value&quot;&gt;How could I translate a field of view value into a magnification value?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26443/why-dont-we-have-a-better-telescope-than-the-hubble-space-telescope&quot;&gt;Why don't we have a better telescope than the Hubble Space Telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26323/planets-capable-of-life-dead-or-still-alive&quot;&gt;Planets capable of life: dead or still alive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25978/two-planets-in-same-orbit-not-planets&quot;&gt;Two planets in same orbit - not planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25766/what-would-happen-if-the-polar-ice-caps-of-mars-melted&quot;&gt;What would happen if the polar ice caps of Mars melted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25997/could-two-colliding-comets-near-earth-cause-devastation&quot;&gt;Could two colliding comets near Earth cause devastation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet speculative impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25749/what-was-the-apparent-magnitude-of-the-june-15th-2011-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;What was the apparent magnitude of the June 15th 2011 lunar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25544/is-it-possible-to-make-a-hydrogen-alpha-solar-scope&quot;&gt;Is it possible to make a hydrogen-alpha solar scope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26334/why-are-binary-objects-so-critical-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why are binary objects so critical to astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26011/has-everything-we-see-happened-in-the-past&quot;&gt;Has everything we see happened in the past?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25414/color-variation-in-rr-lyrae&quot;&gt;Color Variation in RR Lyrae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25290/what-is-a-trojan-moon&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;Trojan Moon&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26378/what-does-a-planet-look-like-in-the-infrared&quot;&gt;What does a planet look like in the infrared?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26110/could-dark-energy-be-the-effect-of-gravity-at-great-distances&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be the effect of gravity at great distances?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics amateur gravity dark-energy dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/study-of-exoplanets-reaching-saturation-point&quot;&gt;Study of exoplanets reaching saturation point&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25338/space-interferometry-mission-sim-cancellation&quot;&gt;Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) cancellation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26630/lack-of-exoplanet-missions-in-the-decadal-survey&quot;&gt;Lack of exoplanet missions in the decadal survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25332/how-would-you-describe-a-black-hole-to-a-complete-layman&quot;&gt;How would you describe a black hole to a complete layman?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26216/how-to-find-the-andromeda-galaxy-without-using-a-go-to-telescope&quot;&gt;How to find the Andromeda galaxy without using a go-to telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How exactly does time slow down near a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity time theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25650/why-is-the-universe-map-shaped-like-an-oval&quot;&gt;Why is the universe map shaped like an oval?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26549/why-is-the-universe-so-big&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so big?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26588/advice-sought-on-choosing-a-camera-for-a-meade-lx10&quot;&gt;Advice sought on choosing a camera for a Meade LX10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26704/what-happens-to-light-and-mass-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light and mass in the center of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove the Earth is round?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solar solar-system education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25834/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25939/why-is-the-surface-of-venus-so-hot&quot;&gt;Why is the surface of Venus so hot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26242/how-can-one-predict-the-length-of-the-synodic-month-why-is-it-irregular&quot;&gt;How can one predict the length of the Synodic month? Why is it irregular?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon the-moon time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26040/what-is-the-official-difference-between-a-planet-and-a-dwarf-planet&quot;&gt;What is the official difference between a planet and a dwarf planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25806/is-there-a-consensus-on-the-fate-of-our-universe&quot;&gt;Is there a consensus on the fate of our universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26435/given-that-matter-cannot-escape-a-black-hole-how-did-the-big-bang-produce-the-u&quot;&gt;Given that matter cannot escape a black hole, how did the big bang produce the universe we&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25877/do-days-and-months-on-the-moon-have-names&quot;&gt;Do days and months on the Moon have names?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26136/mass-of-a-galaxy-via-luminosity&quot;&gt;Mass of a galaxy via luminosity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883/why-is-there-still-radiation-left-from-the-big-bang-now&quot;&gt;Why is there still radiation left from the Big Bang now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25387/is-there-evidence-of-a-larger-universe&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of a larger universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/curiosity-rover-msl-specification-dimensions&quot;&gt;Curiosity Rover (MSL): specification / dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26605/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-how-does-it-cause-a-black-hole-to-evaporate&quot;&gt;What is Hawking radiation and how does it cause a black hole to evaporate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26271/how-can-a-population-iii-star-be-so-massive&quot;&gt;How can a Population III star be so massive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26413/what-is-the-strongest-evidence-that-anti-matter-exists&quot;&gt;What is the strongest evidence that anti-matter exists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2940" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="24d6067d-46da-49f0-9ca2-eac48c03dd3a" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:46:28.590" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="7b74df62-28bf-416d-830b-b7dd658c9607" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:46:49.557" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25739/a-fermi-question-are-there-more-stars-than-grains-of-sand&quot;&gt;A Fermi-question: Are there more stars than grains of sand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe calculations approximation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25741/what-objects-states-of-objects-with-absolute-magnitude-do-we-know-of&quot;&gt;What objects/states of objects with absolute magnitude do we know of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance luminosity object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26169/could-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-map-be-used-as-a-backup-f&quot;&gt;Could the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) map be used as a backup for GPS nav&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26519/vision-vs-limiting-magnitude&quot;&gt;Vision vs. limiting magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy optics apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25770/software-for-creating-custom-star-charts&quot;&gt;Software for Creating Custom Star Charts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26702/would-the-time-dilation-from-being-in-low-orbit-around-a-black-hole-delay-slow-t&quot;&gt;Would the time dilation from being in low orbit around a black hole delay/slow the effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25888/all-significant-objects-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;All significant objects in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object object classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26510/why-is-oxygen-the-third-most-abundant-element&quot;&gt;Why is oxygen the third most abundant element?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26521/how-did-micrometeorite-flux-change-with-the-age-of-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How did micrometeorite flux change with the age of the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25787/is-co2-really-a-potent-greenhouse-gas-for-planets-around-m-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Is CO2 really a potent greenhouse gas for planets around M dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25382/how-can-we-be-sure-that-liquid-iron-titanium-droplets-can-form-around-particulat&quot;&gt;How can we be sure that liquid iron/titanium droplets can form around particulates on hot &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26278/what-is-the-mass-of-the-lego-figurines-being-launched-with-spacecraft-juno&quot;&gt;What is the mass of the LEGO figurines being launched with spacecraft Juno?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter nasa launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26021/how-does-the-average-mars-jupiter-distance-compare-with-the-average-earth-jupite&quot;&gt;How does the average Mars-Jupiter distance compare with the average Earth-Jupiter distance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&quot;&gt;Can we model gravitation as a repulsive force?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26148/how-are-interplanetary-trajectories-found&quot;&gt;How are interplanetary trajectories found?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/meteorites-from-mars&quot;&gt;Meteorites from Mars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26157/is-there-any-way-to-judge-whether-a-bolide-might-produce-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Is there any way to judge whether a bolide might produce a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/are-telescopes-with-a-concave-lens-useful-for-astronomy&quot;&gt;Are telescopes with a concave lens useful for astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26418/computing-period-semi-major-axis-of-binary&quot;&gt;Computing period, semi-major axis of binary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="e3545603-e6e2-414c-a6a5-0e1c442184c8" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:47:08.357" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25869/stellar-evolution-simulation-engine-or-software&quot;&gt;Stellar evolution simulation engine or software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software star-formation simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25336/reverse-sun-position-algorithm&quot;&gt;Reverse Sun position algorithm?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25634/illumination-calculations&quot;&gt;Illumination calculations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25435/formula-for-getting-time-of-sunrise-at-a-particular-location&quot;&gt;Formula for getting time of sunrise at a particular location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26643/why-arent-saturns-rings-clumping-into-moons&quot;&gt;Why Aren't Saturn's Rings Clumping into Moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25860/how-do-you-transform-between-theoretical-hertzsprung-russell-diagrams-and-colour&quot;&gt;How do you transform between theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell Diagrams and Colour-Magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25626/why-isnt-sunset-time-in-sync-with-solstice&quot;&gt;Why isn't sunset time in sync with solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sunset solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25275/why-is-this-radio-telescopes-reflector-spherical-and-not-parabolic&quot;&gt;Why is this radio telescope's reflector spherical and not parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26670/atmospheric-interference-and-ground-based-stellar-observations&quot;&gt;Atmospheric interference and ground based stellar observations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25579/why-do-clusters-of-stars-eventually-dissipate&quot;&gt;Why do clusters of stars eventually dissipate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity stars globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25417/why-does-jupiter-emit-more-energy-than-it-receives&quot;&gt;Why does Jupiter emit more energy than it receives?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25283/does-mercury-have-a-balmy-spot&quot;&gt;Does Mercury have a balmy spot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26370/is-it-true-that-our-solar-system-belongs-to-another-galaxy-which-collides-with-t&quot;&gt;Is it true that our solar system belongs to another galaxy which collides with the milky w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies 2012&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25512/what-is-a-good-introductory-text-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;What is a good introductory text to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25533/creating-downloading-a-large-galaxy-dataset&quot;&gt;Creating/Downloading a large Galaxy Dataset&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26240/whats-the-most-accepted-theory-for-blue-stragglers-these-days&quot;&gt;What's the most accepted theory for Blue Stragglers These Days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars globular-clusters blue-supergiants&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/is-there-any-way-to-anticipate-exceptional-aurora-borealis-viewing-conditions&quot;&gt;Is there any way to anticipate exceptional Aurora Borealis viewing conditions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25930/2012-is-there-some-astronomical-event-happening&quot;&gt;2012: Is there some astronomical event happening?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-beam-radiant-intensity-distribution&quot;&gt;Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26080/how-bright-will-an-asteroid-be&quot;&gt;How bright will an asteroid be?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26566/where-can-i-find-a-list-of-when-i-can-see-something-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Where can I find a list of when I can see something in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25937/are-there-trends-in-the-number-of-meteors-in-a-shower-year-on-year&quot;&gt;Are there trends in the number of meteors in a shower year on year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from&quot;&gt;Is the CMB rest frame special? where does it come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26356/transit-of-mercury-how-did-he-see-it&quot;&gt;Transit of Mercury: how did he see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26362/difference-between-baryonic-inertial-and-gravitational-mass-and-relation-to-d&quot;&gt;Difference between baryonic, inertial and gravitational mass? (and relation to dark matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25372/where-does-the-dust-on-the-moon-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the dust on the moon come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25964/use-of-advanced-mathematics-in-astronomy-like-topology-abstract-algebra-or-ot&quot;&gt;Use of advanced mathematics in astronomy, like topology, abstract algebra, or others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universe equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26102/how-do-i-find-the-time-for-pleiades-to-be-at-zenith-today&quot;&gt;How do I find the time for Pleiades to be at Zenith today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26530/how-to-concisely-explain-apparent-retrograde-motions-of-planets&quot;&gt;How to concisely explain apparent retrograde motions of planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets visual-astronomy orbit retrograde-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26061/why-did-population-iii-stars-lack-planets&quot;&gt;Why did population III stars lack planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26619/best-time-of-the-year-to-see-the-star-alpha-centauri-in-chile-santiago&quot;&gt;Best time of the year to see the star Alpha Centauri in Chile, Santiago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars visual-astronomy observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26584/does-anybody-actually-do-astrometry-in-the-21st-century&quot;&gt;Does anybody actually do astrometry in the 21st century?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars planets time observational-techniques instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26570/shadow-of-a-jovian-moon-over-the-great-red-spot&quot;&gt;Shadow of a Jovian moon over the Great Red Spot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25571/what-is-the-physical-origin-of-scintillation&quot;&gt;What is the physical origin of scintillation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/liquid-water-in-mid-ice-on-europa-mechanism&quot;&gt;Liquid Water in &quot;mid-ice&quot; on Europa. Mechanism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter europa exo-geology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26354/what-would-the-universe-look-like-if-it-started-out-without-any-irregularities&quot;&gt;What would the universe look like if it started out without any irregularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/could-a-neutron-star-be-active-fusioning-neutrons-into-something-more-dense-and&quot;&gt;Could a neutron star be active, fusioning neutrons into something more dense and releasing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25498/the-sun-as-a-gravitational-lens&quot;&gt;The Sun as a gravitational lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25681/is-the-apophis-asteroid-a-concern&quot;&gt;Is the Apophis asteroid a concern?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25645/comet-versus-asteroids-versus-meteors&quot;&gt;Comet versus asteroids versus meteors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26562/if-we-were-to-travel-through-space-sci-fi-style-how-close-to-the-false-color&quot;&gt;If we were to travel through space (sci-fi style), how close to the false-color images wou&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies space-flight color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25539/do-we-have-an-idea-about-the-amount-of-matter-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;Do we have an idea about the amount of matter in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26315/detecting-dim-objects&quot;&gt;Detecting dim objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25535/if-a-hot-jupiter-was-not-tidally-locked-then-are-there-any-specific-cases-where&quot;&gt;If a hot Jupiter was not tidally locked, then are there any specific cases where its wind &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26310/why-dont-any-of-the-gas-giants-have-moons-of-earths-mass-or-greater-that-orb&quot;&gt;Why don't any of the gas giants have moons of Earth's mass (or greater) that orbit them? I&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25295/raising-altitude-by-using-magnetic-torquer-and-reaction-wheels&quot;&gt;Raising Altitude by using Magnetic Torquer and Reaction Wheels&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25962/what-is-lighting-up-space-shuttle-endeavours-main-engines&quot;&gt;What is lighting up Space Shuttle Endeavour's main engines?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object ssme&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25915/what-proportion-of-a-stars-hydrogen-is-consumed-in-its-life&quot;&gt;What proportion of a star's hydrogen is consumed in its life?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophysics sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25652/sun-moon-earth-anomaly&quot;&gt;sun-moon-earth anomaly&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="80589686-ea7d-4b90-a522-09cbfbbeea14" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:47:22.117" UserId="2911" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25947/identifying-objects-for-dummies&quot;&gt;Identifying objects, for dummies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25784/how-big-is-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How big is the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26023/do-all-the-individual-stars-that-we-can-see-in-the-night-sky-belong-to-milky-way&quot;&gt;Do all the individual stars that we can see in the night sky belong to Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26221/what-will-we-see-between-the-cmb-and-the-current-oldest-object-seen&quot;&gt;What will we see between the CMB and the current oldest object seen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25490/have-sterling-engines-been-used-in-outer-space&quot;&gt;Have Sterling Engines Been Used In Outer Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26470/how-to-adjust-feather-touch-focuser-for-collimation&quot;&gt;How to adjust feather touch focuser for collimation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian collimation secondary-mirror focuser laser&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25909/missing-radio-source-coordinates-in-g-t-measurement-technique-itu-r-s-733-2&quot;&gt;Missing radio source coordinates in G/T measurement technique ITU-R S.733.2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25365/agn-accretion-disk-vs-torus&quot;&gt;AGN accretion disk vs. torus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25573/how-to-make-a-moondial&quot;&gt;How to make a moondial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26145/need-help-buying-binoculars-online-for-astronomy-10x50&quot;&gt;Need help buying binoculars online for astronomy (10x50)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25577/stability-of-moons-around-tidally-locked-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Stability of moons around tidally locked exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26662/what-is-the-orbital-path-of-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What is the orbital path of Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way local-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26650/biggest-crater-in-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;Biggest crater in the Solar System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars crater collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25977/was-aristarchos-method-to-compute-earth-sun-distance-ever-rediscovered-in-medie&quot;&gt;Was Aristarchos' method to compute Earth-Sun distance ever rediscovered in medieval or mod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26172/how-much-detail-can-telescopes-actually-provide&quot;&gt;How much detail can telescopes actually provide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25542/emission-line-width-units&quot;&gt;Emission line width units&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25728/galaxies-that-are-newer-than-our-own-one&quot;&gt;Galaxies that are newer than our own one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26066/why-is-there-a-limit-to-the-intensity-of-cosmic-rays-at-low-energies&quot;&gt;Why is there a limit to the intensity of cosmic rays at low energies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26120/from-computational-astrophysics-to-finance&quot;&gt;From Computational Astrophysics to Finance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25548/why-are-there-not-many-detectable-supernovas&quot;&gt;Why are there not many detectable supernovas?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova stars galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26774/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-127mm-5-f-1500-synscan-go-to-maksutov-cassegrain&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skymax-127 (AZ) 127mm (5&quot;) f/1500 SynScan GO-TO Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26343/why-does-omega-centauri-have-a-distinct-chemical-signature-from-the-rest-of-the&quot;&gt;Why does Omega Centauri have a distinct chemical signature from the rest of the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way globular-clusters dwarf-galaxies metallicity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/how-is-it-that-some-nebulae-are-rotating-and-others-are-not&quot;&gt;How is it that some nebulae are rotating and others are not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics physics nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/double-image-in-binoculars&quot;&gt;Double image in binoculars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binoculars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26261/is-there-such-a-thing-as-north-in-outerspace&quot;&gt;Is there such a thing as &quot;North&quot; in outerspace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26401/have-scientists-been-able-to-find-an-example-of-a-possible-white-hole&quot;&gt;Have scientists been able to find an example of a possible White Hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25319/whats-the-best-way-to-start-out-with-astrophotography-on-a-tight-budget&quot;&gt;What's the best way to start out with astrophotography on a tight budget?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25890/convert-eci-coordinates-to-latitude-longitude&quot;&gt;Convert ECI coordinates to latitude/longitude?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25362/how-can-i-determine-if-my-telescope-mirror-is-parabolic&quot;&gt;How can I determine if my telescope mirror is parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25722/computing-planetary-positions&quot;&gt;Computing Planetary Positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26159/existing-photometry-data-of-the-open-star-cluster-cepheus-ob3&quot;&gt;Existing photometry data of the open star cluster Cepheus OB3?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26269/why-do-we-need-the-concept-of-dark-energy-to-explain-the-expansion-of-the-univer&quot;&gt;Why do we need the concept of dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26212/what-would-happen-to-earth-if-saturn-were-to-exit-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;What would happen to Earth if Saturn were to exit the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system earth saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26153/what-makes-a-supermassive-black-hole-move-through-space&quot;&gt;What makes a supermassive black hole move through space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26017/what-is-the-weekly-average-of-coronal-mass-ejections-the-sun-sends-out&quot;&gt;What is the weekly average of coronal mass ejections the sun sends out?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25397/is-there-any-site-place-which-gives-access-to-astronomical-signals-acquired-from&quot;&gt;Is there any site/place which gives access to astronomical signals acquired from space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26533/what-is-a-hot-flow-anomaly-and-can-we-see-the-terrestrial-ones&quot;&gt;What is a Hot Flow Anomaly, and can we see the terrestrial ones?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-wind magnetosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26317/is-it-possible-to-see-satellites-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see satellites with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26345/can-cmes-disturb-a-planet-orbit&quot;&gt;Can CMEs disturb a planet orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25726/where-will-new-horizons-go-after-sailing-past-pluto&quot;&gt;Where will New Horizons go after sailing past Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system spacecraft kuiper-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25689/predicting-solar-storms&quot;&gt;Predicting solar storms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;light solar-system solar-wind&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26560/accuracy-and-assumptions-in-deriving-the-tully-fisher-relation&quot;&gt;Accuracy and assumptions in deriving the Tully-Fisher relation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxies distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/how-to-draw-a-star-chart&quot;&gt;How to draw a star chart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25825/can-you-damage-your-eyes-viewing-venus&quot;&gt;Can you damage your eyes viewing Venus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26684/may-20th-annular-eclipse-duration-from-vancouver&quot;&gt;May 20th Annular Eclipse - Duration from Vancouver?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25585/what-is-behind-the-cosmological-horizon-barrier&quot;&gt;What is behind the cosmological horizon barrier?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25582/figuring-out-which-moons-of-jupiter-i-saw-through-my-telescope&quot;&gt;Figuring out which moons of Jupiter I saw through my telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moon jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26087/at-what-distance-could-you-see-andromeda-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25918/falling-into-saturn-or-jupiter-would-we-pass-through-it-until-we-hit-the-nucleu&quot;&gt;Falling into Saturn or Jupiter, would we pass through it until we hit the nucleus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25556/can-we-see-a-spaceship-falling-into-a-black-hole-and-entering-the-event-horizon&quot;&gt;Can we see a spaceship falling into a black hole and entering the event horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26515/what-is-exactly-the-density-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated&quot;&gt;What is exactly the density of a black hole and how can it be calculated?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25683/impact-location-that-created-the-moon&quot;&gt;Impact location that created the moon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon formation collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25595/io-turned-inside-out&quot;&gt;Io - Turned inside out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit jupiter moons io&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25271/can-we-prove-that-the-universe-is-finite-or-infinite&quot;&gt;Can we prove that the universe is finite or infinite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/ring-height-stats&quot;&gt;Ring height stats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/are-we-going-to-be-able-to-travel-trough-space-deforming-the-space-time&quot;&gt;Are we going to be able to travel trough space deforming the space-time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&quot;&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25353/where-does-the-light-of-the-big-bang-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the light of the Big Bang come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang light pulsars deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26603/how-can-you-calculate-the-exact-position-of-the-earth-taking-into-account-the-gr&quot;&gt;How can you calculate the exact position of the Earth taking into account the gravitationa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26734/can-extraterrestials-detect-our-messages&quot;&gt;Can extraterrestials detect our messages?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="cf81cb56-462b-4be8-9793-373555ceeea0" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:49:17.417" UserId="2911" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27751/what-is-known-about-the-classification-of-n-4-scfts-with-central-charge-6&quot;&gt;What is known about the classification of N=4 SCFTs with central charge 6?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26875/superhiggs-mechanism-on-different-backgrounds-compactifications&quot;&gt;SuperHiggs Mechanism on different Backgrounds &amp; Compactifications&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27384/are-possible-gauge-fields-in-a-lagrangian-theory-always-determined-by-the-struct&quot;&gt;Are possible gauge fields in a Lagrangian theory always determined by the structure of the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gauge-theory symmetry quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26939/models-of-higher-chern-simons-type&quot;&gt;models of higher Chern-Simons type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27468/renormalization-group-for-non-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Renormalization Group for non-equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27780/theoretical-penetration-limit-for-evanescent-waves&quot;&gt;Theoretical penetration limit for evanescent waves&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-electrodynamics uncertainty-principle optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27143/applications-of-delay-differential-equations&quot;&gt;Applications of delay differential equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27262/mermin-wagner-theorem-in-the-presence-of-hard-core-interactions&quot;&gt;Mermin-Wagner theorem in the presence of hard-core interactions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27453/technical-naturalness-of-yukawa-couplings&quot;&gt;Technical naturalness of Yukawa couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27776/do-gauge-theories-cfts-have-phase-transitions-as-the-t-hooft-coupling-is-vari&quot;&gt;Do Gauge Theories (CFTs) Have Phase Transitions as the 't Hooft Coupling is Varied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26838/connections-and-applications-of-sle-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections and applications of SLE in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics conformal-field-theory probability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27125/hypersingular-boundary-operator-in-physics&quot;&gt;Hypersingular Boundary Operator in Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27565/status-of-local-gauge-invariance-in-axiomatic-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Status of local gauge invariance in axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26804/what-is-the-current-state-of-research-into-v-representability&quot;&gt;What is the current state of research into $v$-representability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor&quot;&gt;The Role of Rigor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph history-overview &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27398/onsagers-regression-hypothesis-explained-and-demonstrated&quot;&gt;Onsager's Regression Hypothesis, Explained and Demonstrated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26950/extensions-of-dhr-superselection-theory-to-long-range-forces&quot;&gt;Extensions of DHR superselection theory to long range forces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&quot;&gt;What is the use of a Universal-NOT gate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/an-entropy-of-the-wigner-function&quot;&gt;An entropy of the Wigner function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph uncertainty-principle entropy wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/sampling-typical-clusters-between-distant-points-in-subcritical-percolation&quot;&gt;Sampling typical clusters between distant points in subcritical percolation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27593/which-is-the-coupling-between-the-photon-and-the-su2xu1-gauginos-before-sym&quot;&gt;Which is the coupling between the photon and the SU(2)xU(1) gauginos, before symmetry brea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27286/metric-interpretation-of-self-adjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Metric interpretation of self-adjoint extensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics non-commutative-geometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/systematic-approach-to-deriving-equations-of-collective-field-theory-to-any-orde&quot;&gt;Systematic approach to deriving equations of collective field theory to any order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26915/can-the-cpt-theorem-be-valid-if-lorentz-invariance-is-only-spontaneously-broken&quot;&gt;Can the CPT theorem be valid if Lorentz invariance is only spontaneously broken?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="d6417b8a-7b3b-4dba-a96d-03977936a0ec" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:50:03.093" UserId="2911" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27760/advanced-topics-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Advanced topics in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27072/derivation-of-the-basic-equation-for-witten-diagrams&quot;&gt;Derivation of the basic equation for Witten diagrams&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory adscft quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27419/wilson-loops-in-chern-simons-theory-with-non-compact-gauge-groups&quot;&gt;Wilson Loops in Chern-Simons theory with non-compact gauge groups&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th reference-request topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27361/readable-books-on-advanced-topics&quot;&gt;Readable books on advanced topics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27356/torsion-and-gauge-invariant-em-kinetic-term&quot;&gt;Torsion and gauge invariant EM kinetic term&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26887/stability-of-the-vacuum-state-of-interacting-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;Stability of the vacuum state of interacting quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory thermal-qft classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27740/how-to-prove-equivalence-of-rg-flow-of-qft-coupling-constant-and-diagrammatic-re&quot;&gt;How to prove equivalence of RG flow of QFT coupling constant and diagrammatic resummation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27549/modular-invariance-for-higher-genus&quot;&gt;Modular invariance for higher genus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27581/pohlmeyer-reduction-of-string-theory-for-flat-and-ads-spaces&quot;&gt;Pohlmeyer reduction of string theory for flat and AdS spaces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory adscft quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27168/how-can-one-build-a-multi-scale-physics-model-of-fluid-flow-phenomena&quot;&gt;How can one build a multi-scale physics model of fluid flow phenomena?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-thermodynamics simulation fluid-dynamics lattice-boltzmann&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26849/values-of-sm-parameters-at-one-certain-scale&quot;&gt;Values of SM parameters at one certain scale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry standard-model renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27291/povms-that-do-not-require-enlargement-of-the-hilbert-space&quot;&gt;POVMs that do not require enlargement of the Hilbert space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27636/functional-representations-of-free-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;functional representations of free quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27032/time-reversal-symmetry-and-t2-1&quot;&gt;Time reversal symmetry and T^2 = -1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27393/significance-of-massive-states-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Significance of massive states in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27198/relativistic-center-of-mass&quot;&gt;Relativistic center of mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&quot;&gt;Many body quantum states analyzed as probabilistic sequences&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-information spin-model locc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26844/intuitive-sketch-of-the-correspondence-of-a-string-theory-to-its-limiting-quantu&quot;&gt;Intuitive sketch of the correspondence of a string theory to its limiting quantum field th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27382/reduced-density-matrices-for-free-fermions-are-thermal&quot;&gt;Reduced density matrices for free fermions are thermal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement thermal-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26914/random-matrix-ensembles-from-bmn-model&quot;&gt;random matrix ensembles from BMN model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27045/interesting-topics-to-research-in-mathematical-physics-for-undergraduates&quot;&gt;Interesting topics to research in mathematical physics for undergraduates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27229/spectrum-of-a-quantum-relativistic-distance-squared-operator&quot;&gt;Spectrum of a quantum relativistic &quot;distance squared&quot; operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27611/string-theoretic-significance-of-extended-cft&quot;&gt;String-theoretic significance of extended CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27620/different-kinds-of-s-matrices&quot;&gt;Different kinds of S-matrices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="f84108e1-b0ad-432f-84fd-2007a478ca7e" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:50:47.073" UserId="2911" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&quot;&gt;Master Equations and Operator Sum Form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&quot;&gt;Accurate quantum state estimation via &quot;Keeping the experimentalist honest&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information quantum-estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&quot;&gt;Operator norm directly from phase space representation of photonic quantum operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-information optics wigner-function norms&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;CHSH violation and entanglement of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information nonlocality entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27414/which-arguments-for-m-u-approx-0-are-still-in-the-market&quot;&gt;Which arguments for $m_u \approx 0$ are still in the market?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27785/what-compactifications-of-the-poincare-group-have-been-studied&quot;&gt;what compactifications of the Poincare group have been studied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;compactification poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27492/rigorous-proof-of-bohr-sommerfeld-quantization&quot;&gt;Rigorous proof of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27783/how-does-one-geometrically-quantize-the-bloch-equations&quot;&gt;How does one geometrically quantize the Bloch equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27584/convexity-reference-request&quot;&gt;Convexity -- reference request&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27217/is-this-a-simple-lie-algebra&quot;&gt;Is this a simple Lie algebra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27441/pauli-villars-regularisation-breaks-supersymmetry-how-to-see-that&quot;&gt;Pauli-Villars regularisation breaks supersymmetry. How to see that?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27388/tree-level-qft-and-classical-fields-particles&quot;&gt;Tree level QFT and classical fields/particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering classical-limit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27149/charged-black-holes-in-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Charged black holes in equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity black-hole einstein-maxwell&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27425/rigorous-justification-for-rotating-wave-approximation&quot;&gt;Rigorous justification for rotating wave approximation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27470/superconformal-multiplet-calculus-in-6d&quot;&gt;Superconformal Multiplet Calculus in 6D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27508/optimality-of-the-chsh-strategy&quot;&gt;Optimality of the CHSH strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement history-overview&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27618/conformal-qfts-for-d-2&quot;&gt;Conformal QFTs for D &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27660/solution-to-the-schrodinger-equation-for-periodically-time-dependent-hamiltonian&quot;&gt;Solution to the Schrodinger equation for periodically time dependent Hamiltonians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26972/what-are-some-ways-to-approximately-symbolically-diagonalize-hamiltonian-opera&quot;&gt;What are some ways to (approximately) symbolically diagonalize Hamiltonian operator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27038/what-hermitian-operators-can-be-observables&quot;&gt;What Hermitian operators can be observables?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-measurement hilbert-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&quot;&gt;Can the concurrence be calculated in terms of the entanglement of formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2947" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="bdb3910e-8786-4da0-8fc3-08e77ab29912" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:50:47.073" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2948" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="7b74df62-28bf-416d-830b-b7dd658c9607" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:46:49.557" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2949" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="e3545603-e6e2-414c-a6a5-0e1c442184c8" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:47:08.357" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2950" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="80589686-ea7d-4b90-a522-09cbfbbeea14" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:47:22.117" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2951" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="cf81cb56-462b-4be8-9793-373555ceeea0" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:49:17.417" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2952" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="d6417b8a-7b3b-4dba-a96d-03977936a0ec" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:50:03.093" UserId="2911" />
  <row Id="2953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1257" RevisionGUID="872242f1-4fb4-4a7b-b2fe-d0e042edf3a0" CreationDate="2012-05-06T18:00:58.947" UserId="2911" Text="Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do this - the migration process *intentionally* strips tags that don't exist on the destination, to avoid polluting that site with tags that do not belong. In fact, questions currently marked [tag:untagged] would normally *fail migration* without moderator intervention due to the lack of any tag overlap on the destination site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've previously noted, all of these questions will need to be reviewed eventually - that's a huge job, but there's no way around it: for as much overlap as they might have had, Astronomy and Theoretical Physics were separate sites with separate cultures and styles; integrating those questions is key to avoiding confusion for future readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to make this a *little* easier though, by providing lists of all migrated questions *along with their original tags*. I highly suggest splitting these up into &quot;bite-sized&quot; tasks and tackling them one by one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="bb425242-9ac9-4860-b546-c05c812164b2" CreationDate="2012-05-07T03:20:53.763" UserId="7433" Text="looks like the [tag:quantum-computing] questions from TP&gt;SE made their way out here by accident (I think they were supposed to be hand-flagged and migrated which may not have worked out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't know much about this topic, so I dunno which of them ought to be migrated. Also, we may want to consider migrating the non-TP questions in [tag:quantum-computing] while we're at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods, here ya go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="bb425242-9ac9-4860-b546-c05c812164b2" CreationDate="2012-05-07T03:20:53.763" UserId="7433" Text="Quantum computing questions from TP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="bb425242-9ac9-4860-b546-c05c812164b2" CreationDate="2012-05-07T03:20:53.763" UserId="7433" Text="|support|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="802a797d-5b85-4d0a-bbb4-4b502dd8ef0e" CreationDate="2012-05-07T04:02:04.930" UserId="7433" Comment="added 3170 characters in body" Text="Looks like the [tag:quantum-computing] questions from TP&gt;SE made their way out here by accident (I think they were supposed to be hand-flagged and migrated which may not have worked out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't know much about this topic, so I dunno which of them ought to be migrated. Also, we may want to consider migrating the non-TP questions in [tag:quantum-computing] while we're at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Looks like there are [tag:quantum-information] questions as well. SInce there are 33-is QI questions migrated from TP, I used jQuery on the migrated questions list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    s=&quot;&quot;;$('pre')&#xD;&#xA;      .contents()&#xD;&#xA;      .filter(function() {&#xD;&#xA;        return this.nodeType == Node.TEXT_NODE;&#xD;&#xA;      }).filter(function(){return !!this.data.match(/(quantum-computing)|(quantum-info)/ig)}).prev().each(function(){s+=this.href+&quot;\n\n&quot;;});&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods, here's the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="c2dea36b-76e2-44ae-ae77-09448200d29d" CreationDate="2012-05-07T05:32:42.133" UserId="124" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Looks like the [tag:quantum-computing] questions from TP&gt;SE made their way out here by accident (I think they were supposed to be hand-flagged and migrated which may not have worked out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't know much about this topic, so I dunno which of them ought to be migrated. Also, we may want to consider migrating the non-TP questions in [tag:quantum-computing] while we're at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Looks like there are [tag:quantum-information] questions as well. SInce there are 33-is QI questions migrated from TP, I used jQuery on the migrated questions list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    s=&quot;&quot;;$('pre')&#xD;&#xA;      .contents()&#xD;&#xA;      .filter(function() {&#xD;&#xA;        return this.nodeType == Node.TEXT_NODE;&#xD;&#xA;      }).filter(function(){return !!this.data.match(/(quantum-computing)|(quantum-info)/ig)}).prev().each(function(){s+=this.href+&quot;\n\n&quot;;});&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods, here's the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money &lt;/s&gt; [MIGRATED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1259" RevisionGUID="fa574abd-ff70-42a0-bbb8-908347b0e88f" CreationDate="2012-05-07T07:04:58.617" UserId="124" Text="Of the questions identified, I think these ones are likely suitable for migration to TCS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and these ones should remain with us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and these are miscellaneous cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;probably off topic for us, not sure if this should go to TCS or Computational Science or neither&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;off topic for us but appropriate for Computational Science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;off topic for us but appropriate for Computational Science&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="6c1243ce-77ce-49b5-811a-f1587ac37b93" CreationDate="2012-05-07T07:05:48.100" UserId="124" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Looks like the [tag:quantum-computing] questions from TP&gt;SE made their way out here by accident (I think they were supposed to be hand-flagged and migrated which may not have worked out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't know much about this topic, so I dunno which of them ought to be migrated. Also, we may want to consider migrating the non-TP questions in [tag:quantum-computing] while we're at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Looks like there are [tag:quantum-information] questions as well. SInce there are 33-is QI questions migrated from TP, I used jQuery on the migrated questions list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    s=&quot;&quot;;$('pre')&#xD;&#xA;      .contents()&#xD;&#xA;      .filter(function() {&#xD;&#xA;        return this.nodeType == Node.TEXT_NODE;&#xD;&#xA;      }).filter(function(){return !!this.data.match(/(quantum-computing)|(quantum-info)/ig)}).prev().each(function(){s+=this.href+&quot;\n\n&quot;;});&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods, here's the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money &lt;/s&gt; [MIGRATED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons &lt;/s&gt; [MERGED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="ccc63189-5b14-4d78-a3c5-c84b7f60d775" CreationDate="2012-05-07T07:11:05.473" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-declined|tags|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2962" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="f7d43c2b-f995-4dca-a7e0-6c1269bda86c" CreationDate="2012-05-07T07:11:34.677" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|site-salvage|migration|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2963" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="07ca87f5-f2f8-4994-85e9-9e9bfd74f69e" CreationDate="2012-05-07T07:11:45.630" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="6925fae4-4ec2-488d-a23d-00595c3133b8" CreationDate="2012-05-07T08:15:01.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/199412006330187776" />
  <row Id="2965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="7d8e6b3a-515e-4f76-932c-f9eb539767b0" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:51:15.807" UserId="124" Text="In the wake of the migration from Astronomy, there are a couple of questions that may or may not be appropriate on this site, which I would like to get the community's feedback on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky#question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite#question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="7d8e6b3a-515e-4f76-932c-f9eb539767b0" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:51:15.807" UserId="124" Text="Are these questions appropriate here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="7d8e6b3a-515e-4f76-932c-f9eb539767b0" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:51:15.807" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="769696cb-96d0-4bdf-b636-de44aadd6aa4" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:51:42.733" UserId="4864" Text="This question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27968/how-is-it-possible-that-we-see-light-from-shortly-after-the-big-bang originally presented a wrong theory bordering on nonsense, and asked &quot;what's wrong with this theory&quot;. no complaints, this is a tough call what to do with this stuff, but I thought this edit might work, and you locked the post before I had a chance to do it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Title: Is the idea of a point explosion generating everything consistent with big-bang cosmology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought of the big bang as a point of infinite energy, which I theorize about using something I call &quot;m&quot; point. As &quot;energy&quot; is lost from this point, a bang occurs, converting lower forms of energy into matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At this instant the &quot;energy&quot;at lower levels moves faster than &quot;light as light has no mass. In-turn this bang creates a &quot;slope of increasing mass&quot;(space) moving in all directions(over time). I believe this explains both why we &quot;see&quot; light from the past from the same event that created us as light moved slower (was less likely to move away from the central point of energy than lower forms of energy that create mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this consistent with what is known?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is borderline, since the theory has no merit, but explaining why the idea has no merit allows you to explain some misconceptions about the light from the big bang. The question as rewritten does not get the main misconception across, it just asks &quot;how can we see light from the explosion that created us?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could be ok with the rephrased question, but what's up with the quick locking? The edit to the short question changed the subject entirely, and made my answer a non-sequitor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="769696cb-96d0-4bdf-b636-de44aadd6aa4" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:51:42.733" UserId="4864" Text="Hey, David, what's up with locking this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="769696cb-96d0-4bdf-b636-de44aadd6aa4" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:51:42.733" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="07a4c601-24b3-4c6a-8092-073db05c376c" CreationDate="2012-05-08T03:55:36.940" UserId="4864" Text="I think I agree with you that both are good for what it's worth. The closing of Astro means we need to pick up the slack, and that includes some pure astro questions. I didn't realize it was a migration due to site closing, so I said something else originally in comments, but I think that they are appropriate now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1263" RevisionGUID="40a51956-f874-4424-967e-7d55931f9c74" CreationDate="2012-05-08T04:03:33.980" UserId="124" Text="Quick locking is standard procedure in the case of an &quot;edit war&quot; as they're called. The intent is that we come to meta and work things out, exactly as we're doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I don't think the edit you're proposing would be appropriate, precisely because the theory it presents is not defined well enough to be evaluated. Basically, it's still a nonsensical question. As I said, if you'd like this question to appear on the site, you can ask it yourself (phrased in such a way that it _is_ a sensible question, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will note that Argus edited his question down from the original version posted, which reflects his intent not to ask for a review of his original theory anymore, but rather to ask a simpler question which may help in understanding - as seen in revision 3 of the edit history. That simpler question is definitely much closer to being acceptable, and I thought it could be perfectly fine with basically just a change to the title and tags, and a grammar fix or two. That's the extent of the edits I made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the lock expires, then if Argus wants to revert the question to the original form, he's free to do that, though if that happens I _would_ vote to close it. (I wouldn't &quot;block&quot; your edit in that case.) Bottom line, though, it needs to be Argus's decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2973" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="723120c6-dc70-40a9-a139-e6d546728ba2" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:07:28.887" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27980/observation-of-my-recent-questions-and-answers" Text="" />
  <row Id="2974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="161e1435-d57e-4a0b-b4ec-b631d1e7139d" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:03:09.937" UserId="9082" Text="It seems as if there is no flexability to any questions I have asked. Lameness example I say in the example I am submerged in water that is so dense that I would be dead just by being there. I want to measure how much resistance this water would create for my arm. Instead of saying something like fluid resistance uses this equation *****+***=resistance. I get you could never be there to try and move your arm.  theory is all I am useing if I say the question wrong than the answer would be what you think I am asking and possible examples or not saying it could never happen. I believe nobody can ever stand at the center of a star but I can imagine that happening for the point of referring to energy escaping the star as you watch it from inside the star.. if I am out of line I guess I will just discontinue posting my questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="161e1435-d57e-4a0b-b4ec-b631d1e7139d" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:03:09.937" UserId="9082" Text="observation of my recent questions and answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="161e1435-d57e-4a0b-b4ec-b631d1e7139d" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:03:09.937" UserId="9082" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="f8c6695b-b88e-469e-be61-2b5d09cbb4db" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:13:07.787" UserId="124" Text="I'm not sure if this is what you're asking about, but there is a provision in our [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions) that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    _&quot;Could warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any question which is based on an impossible or nonsensical premise will probably not be well received here, because if the setup is forbidden by the laws of physics, then you can't use physics to answer the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="1e93167d-617c-4d22-bb4d-42a7fc49ee43" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:13:23.277" UserId="9082" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="It seems as if there is no flexability to any questions I have asked. Lameness example I say in the example I am submerged in water that is so dense that I would be dead just by being there. I want to measure how much resistance this water would create for my arm. Instead of saying something like fluid resistance uses this equation *****+***=resistance. I get you could never be there to try and move your arm.  theory is all I am useing if I say the question wrong than the answer would be what you think I am asking and possible examples or not saying it could never happen. I believe nobody can ever stand at the center of a star but I can imagine that happening for the point of referring to energy escaping the star as you watch it from inside the star.. if I am out of line I guess I will just discontinue posting my questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I retract as Anna v has given a very awesome answer in a way that takes the question at face value. Very impressed as I have jumped to conclusions not only in my theories but as to the imagination of possible responders" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="38c5c78b-5468-4725-ad73-e0996e492968" CreationDate="2012-05-08T06:25:45.447" UserId="4864" Text="Your question about standing at the center of a black hole misunderstands the nature of space and time inside a black hole. The problem is not that our imagination is lacking in not being able to imagine you standing there, it is that your imagination does not allow for the center of the black hole to be so _different_ from the exterior that the radial direction is the direction of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are standing near r=0, you would be straddling different values of r in your imagination, say you stick your left leg out along r, this is like saying &quot;what if I kick my left leg into yesterday, and kick you yesterday in the shin. This is not possible--- you don't move in time directions, you move in spatial directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This failure of imagination is what leads you to believe that your questions are not getting a fair answer--- you are missing something fundamental, that in the interior of the black hole the radial direction is timelike." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="019bbbc2-b508-4cec-9f55-951f2d619e74" CreationDate="2012-05-08T07:11:58.387" UserId="7433" Text="The bottom of the [notation][1] section contains this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please look around to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be [here][2] or [here][3] or [here][4]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I came across this since I wanted to reuse the section for Chem.SE, of course expanding it for the `\ce{...}` thingy, which lots of people are confused about.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#howtoask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="019bbbc2-b508-4cec-9f55-951f2d619e74" CreationDate="2012-05-08T07:11:58.387" UserId="7433" Text="Misplaced line in faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="019bbbc2-b508-4cec-9f55-951f2d619e74" CreationDate="2012-05-08T07:11:58.387" UserId="7433" Text="|bug|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="99029315-cf7a-4a97-b234-573c16518147" CreationDate="2012-05-08T08:01:22.720" UserId="8154" Text="Yes, that is out of place. It looks like it should be at the end of &quot;What kind of questions can I ask here?&quot;, just above the &quot;notation&quot; section. That's the first of the three options you presented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="457983b2-a2b8-463e-8333-7609e39a5d9a" CreationDate="2012-05-08T08:36:22.300" UserId="8154" Text="From what I can see, both of these questions seem on topic for astro. This question:[if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono][1] seems to indicate that essentially all of astro is now within scope (with the exception of astrophotography). Is this correct? I haven't looked at chat sessions or anything, and it's quite possible that I missed another meta question related to this. If so, a pointer would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a final policy or at least rough consensus on what the new scope is? Is it (Physics U Astro) or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="13afa468-0754-4668-8cb5-a5f77e04f52f" CreationDate="2012-05-08T13:53:55.493" UserId="7433" Text="Test post to test something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2986" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="48b3c036-ccfd-422b-80b8-fb77a949891d" CreationDate="2012-05-08T13:53:55.493" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="2987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="ca631fc5-35ca-4a57-b551-6a8b3e6b56b0" CreationDate="2012-05-08T14:09:02.353" UserId="7433" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1259" RevisionGUID="7f605ac6-6ddc-4cee-bcca-27a37692b69d" CreationDate="2012-05-08T15:34:32.823" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body" Text="Of the questions identified, I think these ones are likely suitable for migration to TCS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and these ones should remain with us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and these are miscellaneous cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;probably off topic for us, not sure if this should go to TCS or Computational Science or neither&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;off topic for us but appropriate for Computational Science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;off topic for us but appropriate for Computational Science&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="e2e2ef02-13f0-43ff-b434-84ebcb0d2965" CreationDate="2012-05-08T15:35:02.820" UserId="124" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Looks like the [tag:quantum-computing] questions from TP&gt;SE made their way out here by accident (I think they were supposed to be hand-flagged and migrated which may not have worked out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't know much about this topic, so I dunno which of them ought to be migrated. Also, we may want to consider migrating the non-TP questions in [tag:quantum-computing] while we're at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Looks like there are [tag:quantum-information] questions as well. SInce there are 33-is QI questions migrated from TP, I used jQuery on the migrated questions list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    s=&quot;&quot;;$('pre')&#xD;&#xA;      .contents()&#xD;&#xA;      .filter(function() {&#xD;&#xA;        return this.nodeType == Node.TEXT_NODE;&#xD;&#xA;      }).filter(function(){return !!this.data.match(/(quantum-computing)|(quantum-info)/ig)}).prev().each(function(){s+=this.href+&quot;\n\n&quot;;});&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods, here's the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money &lt;/s&gt; [MIGRATED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form &lt;/s&gt; [MIGRATED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons &lt;/s&gt; [MERGED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="ba122897-2cbc-49fd-bd27-76b3f7a3987a" CreationDate="2012-05-08T15:59:01.420" UserId="4864" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="ba122897-2cbc-49fd-bd27-76b3f7a3987a" CreationDate="2012-05-08T15:59:01.420" UserId="4864" Text="Who's the other diamond?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="ba122897-2cbc-49fd-bd27-76b3f7a3987a" CreationDate="2012-05-08T15:59:01.420" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="9adadd84-6894-4e42-9a1b-bfb1acf51d06" CreationDate="2012-05-08T16:00:16.377" UserId="124" Text="All those answers are at http://physics.stackexchange.com/election&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mbq is the third moderator and we were all elected in April 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1273" RevisionGUID="c00f518a-f3bb-4c6a-b75e-b44df0b62ff9" CreationDate="2012-05-08T17:08:23.090" UserId="2451" Text="Btw, near the _Please look around to see if your question has been asked before_ in the FAQ, perhaps there should be a link to a (preferably automatically updated) list of old Physics.SE questions, such that the first question on the list has caused the biggest number of other Physics.SE questions to be closed as duplicates because of it, and so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="ab3313bb-2eba-45e7-b4fe-1d449471a937" CreationDate="2012-05-08T22:36:43.870" UserId="4864" Comment="add deleted stuff" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the borderline crackpot question, we agreed on that, but after that was finished, David went back to an old answer where I wanted to preserve a discussion, and deleted the discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24729/worlds-branching-or-diverging-in-many-worlds-interpretation/24738#comment62303_24738 , and locked the post. This was extremely annoying, and a bit of show of power, and I don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his favor, the erasure was probably in line with general policy on stackexchange, but I really think enforcing policy takes maturity and judgement, and should not be based on personal issues. Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties. This came up before, regarding deleting comments, and I just preserved those comments up by copying into the body of the answer up to this point. But it seems that David changed his mind on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like it. I think it shows immature judgement, and I don't have confidence that this is a neutral application of policy, nor that it is a good idea for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the deleted material, so you can judge for yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Short discussion on positivism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positivism is extremely counterintuitive, and this makes a lot of people reject it. This was a discussion in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrodinger's Ghost: Not sure if I agree, have you read the papers? Divergent MWI explicitly states that whether I will see a X spin or Y spin has been determined since the big bang. I will not see both, only either X or Y and if it happens to be Y then thats because I was on the Y branch. In this view advocated by Saunders and Wilson we are in a separate parallel universe, there is no branching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon: I have not read the papers. The &quot;determined&quot; aspect is creating a fictious observer selection a postiori from the results of the measurements, and is only different in ontology from standard MWI. What &quot;you&quot; are is a computational entity, and computations don't embed in QM straightforwardly, since they require irreversible measurements, so you need a large-system limit, and decoherence. Whether you embed yourself in a branch that you back-propagate to the big-bang or that you back-propagate to the measurement is up to you, it doesn't change your perception or anyone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: But there is obviously a objective difference. In one view, the overlap branching view, you are numerically identical, you are part of the other worlds pre-branching. In the divergent view, you are only qualitatively identical, but the atoms that make up you exist on their own, seperate from the identical ones in another branch.... So for instance quantum suicide works in branching, but not in divergence. When you die in divergence, you really die, just as in a single universe interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The difference is imagined. How do you know your perception is only stuck to one branch? Why can't it jump to another? Why do you think you don't really die if you die in a branching interpretation? Why do you attach your consciousness to you only, maybe your consciousness is located in North Dakota in the basement of some guy's house. These questions need to be formulated in a positivistic way to see which ones are meaningless, and in this case, all these questions, and the question of &quot;existence&quot; itself, are meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, the difference is not imagined, why would it be? If you clone yourself, do you magically become the clone? No. You are the consciousness that arise from the neurons in your brain, it doesn't matter if there exist identical ones, you don't magically jump from body to body, that would require a soul, which is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: What if you clone by splitting your brain down the middle, and making a copy of the other half. Which way do you go? What if you clone by replacing half your neurons higgeldy-piggledy with electronic parts, and put these neurons in a new body, with different electronic parts replacing the other half? When you are cloned, you have a chance of jumping to the other body, the evidence is that if you ask the other body what happened, it would say &quot;I jumped!&quot; What the probability is is only determinable from the outside. This is only a &quot;soul&quot; to the extent that software is soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: These are all well known &quot;conundrums&quot; in philosophy surrounding personal identity, but even in your thought experiments there is no &quot;jumping&quot;, you simply create 2 consciousnesses from 1 brain. We know this from split-brain experiments... I fail to see how your argument supports the idea that you could jump between branches? Imagine in our single universe there is another identical solar system with a identical planet Earth. Do we &quot;jump&quot; between them because there exist 2 identical people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: How can you tell if there is jumping on not? In any circumstance where &quot;jumping&quot; is allowed, the two minds are exactly the same (if even there are two of them). This is the point--- when the two consciousnesses are the same, it is a meaningless question to ask if there are two or one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, there is no physics that allows magical &quot;jumping&quot;... There are 2 worlds separate, how is this so hard to understand for you? Just because something is identical does not merge them into 1 thing wtf??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The reason it is &quot;hard to understand&quot; is because the notion of whether there are two &quot;consciousnesses&quot; or only one is not physics, it's pure philosophy. What experiment could tell me if jumping were occuring or not occuring? The only cases where jumping could be occuring, the two brains are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Why would jumping occur? Does 2 identical photons become 1? It's not pure philosophy, if the fact is that the branches all exist premeasurement, that is a objective fact about reality. You are making the claim of magic soul jumping, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. First prove the soul, then prove jumping mechanism, collect a ton of nobel prizes and I'll concede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: It is not the same as photons, because there is a test which will tell you when you have two photons. What test can tell you if two branches &quot;exist&quot; before they diverge? There is no answer, even in principle, because there is no existence-meter which flashes when it sees existing stuff. So &quot;exist&quot; is not a useful word. I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of the soul in the same way I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of firefox (the program), even though what the &quot;firefox&quot; on my computer is exactly is not clear, nor if there is 1 or 2 copies, especially when the OS puts a copy in cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Yes, you are right that there is no experiment that can answer it, so we have to resort to metaphysics. If divergence is better than branching as a theory, then it's rational to assume that divergence is most likely the true representation of reality. ...But you do then accept that although we can't determine the fact, there is a fact about which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No I don't accept that. There is no fact about the matter, there is no fact, there is no matter. The question is meaningless, you are asking nonsense. This is what &quot;positivism&quot; means. Two options are observationally identical means there is no difference between them, and it is a matter of convention which one you say when you speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: So you don't comprehend the difference between NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL worlds and QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL ? You are the first person I've discussed this with who has not grasped this concept...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: I &quot;grasp&quot; the concept, I am telling you it is incoherent. There is no meaning to a question of pure metaphysics, you can make up whatever you like, there are no differences in observation, so by definition the two positions are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No. That's like saying solipsism and realism is identical because we can't do a experiment to verify which is correct... How the hell can you do science with such a mindset?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Solipsism and realism are identical! Indeed this is a puzzling but true consequence of positivism. It remains to see how you can translate ethical arguments, like &quot;I should buy life insurance&quot; into the solipsist perspective. That this can be done is surprising and weird. This is how you do science, positivism is essential. I should admit that philosophers don't like positivism, because it moots their favorite questions, and ethicists find it hard to swallow that any ethical argument must be persuasive to a solipsist too (although this is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG:I reject positivism, I thought most people abandoned that way of thinking in the 80s, wtf ? Anyways, there is no way you can claim that solipsism and realism are identical. ONE has to be true. Do you believe I am conscious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Nearly all people abandoned positivism in the 70s-80s, and this was a terrible step backwards. The positivism was still working its magic in physics, to produce holography. I believe they are identical--- I don't even know if I am conscious, or if you take my internal sense of myself to be primitive, I don't know a sure meaning to the statement that I was conscious three minutes ago. I know there was an internal computation going on in myself, I can see the effects of it, and I can see that there is an internal computation going on in you. That's enough for all purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: I think it was a correct step and I would hate to see us step back to positivism. You are talking about computations taking place inside you and me, but then you are assuming realism. None of those concepts make sense in a solipsistic existence. You seem to have a rather radical way of interpreting the world. According to you the theory of gravity should not be preferred on any grounds (not even occam razor) to for instance a LSD induced idea of invisible gnomes pulling objects down to earth with invisible strings &quot;because they produce the same outcome they are identical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;... I think we are done actually. In conclusion: Ron Maimon consider anything that can't be proven or disproven identical, including solipsism and realism. So the question I have posed is obviously, to him, incoherent. Hopefully someone else will respond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everyone else in physics thinks the same way. Mach was the father of positivism, and Einstein and Bohr (and everyone after with a brief interlude from 1974-1995) embraced Mach's philosophy. This idea was central to relativity, quantum mechanics, S-matrix theory/string-theory, and everything else. It is not reasonable to ask whether there are little gnomes, you can introuce the little gnomes, or not introduce them, and there is no difference observationally. If the gnomes are useful as a figure of speech, go ahead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...: I think your position has merit, by the way, it is very difficult to fix up philosophy to be correct for positivism. You need an ethics that doesn't care whether God exists or not, that doesn't care whether other people exist or not, that gives the same answers regardless of metaphysics, and this makes strong constraints. The solution to this is the theory of superrationality, proposed by physicist turned cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, which gives a positivistically meaningful metaphysics neutral definition of ethical behavior compatible with religious ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You claim everyone in physics thinks the same way. How is it then that this question I am asking here has been asked by several physicists? Not to mention the entire debate on Quantum Interpretations, since they all yield the same result, according to you: THEY ARE IDENTICAL. So why do you adhere to Everett instead of say...transactional interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: &quot;Transactional&quot; is mathematically incoherent to date, so perhaps the right question is &quot;Everett&quot; vs. &quot;Copehagen&quot;. There is very little positive difference between Everett and Copenhagen, the way I see it, exactly zero, so the two are identical, and this is the major reason interpretation of quantum mechanics is not discussed in physics anymore--- people accept that the formulations are generally identical. Bohm is different, because the mathematical structure has &quot;little gnomes&quot; which are the particle positions which might become physically identifiable in a new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Well, Bohm gives same outcome, so if you are really as dedicated to your philosophy as you claim, it too is identical. As for interpretation not discussed in physics anymore? Wrong It's discussed now more than ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everett's intepretation is important, however, for establishing that there is no paradox possible for large systems in using quantum mechanics as is. This is not clear in Bohr, where the outcomes of experiments are by classical variables which are not present in the microscopic theory. In Everett interpretation, these variables become the branch selectors, so they get different &quot;little gnomes&quot;. At the end of the day, the two ideas are completely identical, although Everett is clearer psychologically for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Bohm is identical as formulated, so I do consider it not new, as formulated. But Bohm is useless and obviously wrong as formulated, since it picks out a frame and a basis for Hilbert space. But a future theory could start with Bohm and modify it to make a new theory, and since the mathematical structure has gnomes, the particle positions, the modified gnomes would be different than the modified no-gnome theory. The wavefunction might become an average of particle position properties, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Everettians also has to pick a preferred basis, decoherence doesn't solve this. My main point is that you clearly recognize the differences in 2 ideas, but due to the inability to verify which is correct, you assume it's worthless to even ask. But you DO agree that divergence and branching can obviously not BOTH be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Decoherence doesn't solve it, but it says that it is consistent to do it. A theory consists of a mathematical formalism, and a map from the formalism to experience. You can modify the formalism, and modify the map, but if the result is the same experience, it's the same theory. The divergence and branching are equivalent so they are both true, in that you can believe one or the other, but you generally don't want to use the language of one when thinking about the other, because they have incompatible language, so you shouldn't speak in the two frames simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;... It's exactly like coordinate rotation: do you agree that if the x-axis is along the north-south direction, this is different than the x-axis along the current Earth sun direction? I mean, in one case, the planets change x and in the others not. So you can use any axes, just as long as you are consistent, and two axes are equivalent. The same way: use any metaphysics, your metaphysics is your coordinate system, and the results are the same if the sense-perceptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="0c08182f-c090-47bf-87e4-edcb5415618b" CreationDate="2012-05-08T22:45:47.010" UserId="4864" Comment="link" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the borderline crackpot question, we agreed on that, but after that was finished, David went back to an old answer where I wanted to preserve a discussion (see this for a previous case: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/912/deleting-comments-without-consensus ), and deleted the discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24729/worlds-branching-or-diverging-in-many-worlds-interpretation/24738#comment62303_24738 , and locked the post. This was extremely annoying, and a bit of show of power, and I don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his favor, the erasure was probably in line with general policy on stackexchange, but I really think enforcing policy takes maturity and judgement, and should not be based on personal issues. Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties. This came up before, regarding deleting comments, and I just preserved those comments up by copying into the body of the answer up to this point. But it seems that David changed his mind on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like it. I think it shows immature judgement, and I don't have confidence that this is a neutral application of policy, nor that it is a good idea for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the deleted material, so you can judge for yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Short discussion on positivism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positivism is extremely counterintuitive, and this makes a lot of people reject it. This was a discussion in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrodinger's Ghost: Not sure if I agree, have you read the papers? Divergent MWI explicitly states that whether I will see a X spin or Y spin has been determined since the big bang. I will not see both, only either X or Y and if it happens to be Y then thats because I was on the Y branch. In this view advocated by Saunders and Wilson we are in a separate parallel universe, there is no branching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon: I have not read the papers. The &quot;determined&quot; aspect is creating a fictious observer selection a postiori from the results of the measurements, and is only different in ontology from standard MWI. What &quot;you&quot; are is a computational entity, and computations don't embed in QM straightforwardly, since they require irreversible measurements, so you need a large-system limit, and decoherence. Whether you embed yourself in a branch that you back-propagate to the big-bang or that you back-propagate to the measurement is up to you, it doesn't change your perception or anyone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: But there is obviously a objective difference. In one view, the overlap branching view, you are numerically identical, you are part of the other worlds pre-branching. In the divergent view, you are only qualitatively identical, but the atoms that make up you exist on their own, seperate from the identical ones in another branch.... So for instance quantum suicide works in branching, but not in divergence. When you die in divergence, you really die, just as in a single universe interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The difference is imagined. How do you know your perception is only stuck to one branch? Why can't it jump to another? Why do you think you don't really die if you die in a branching interpretation? Why do you attach your consciousness to you only, maybe your consciousness is located in North Dakota in the basement of some guy's house. These questions need to be formulated in a positivistic way to see which ones are meaningless, and in this case, all these questions, and the question of &quot;existence&quot; itself, are meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, the difference is not imagined, why would it be? If you clone yourself, do you magically become the clone? No. You are the consciousness that arise from the neurons in your brain, it doesn't matter if there exist identical ones, you don't magically jump from body to body, that would require a soul, which is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: What if you clone by splitting your brain down the middle, and making a copy of the other half. Which way do you go? What if you clone by replacing half your neurons higgeldy-piggledy with electronic parts, and put these neurons in a new body, with different electronic parts replacing the other half? When you are cloned, you have a chance of jumping to the other body, the evidence is that if you ask the other body what happened, it would say &quot;I jumped!&quot; What the probability is is only determinable from the outside. This is only a &quot;soul&quot; to the extent that software is soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: These are all well known &quot;conundrums&quot; in philosophy surrounding personal identity, but even in your thought experiments there is no &quot;jumping&quot;, you simply create 2 consciousnesses from 1 brain. We know this from split-brain experiments... I fail to see how your argument supports the idea that you could jump between branches? Imagine in our single universe there is another identical solar system with a identical planet Earth. Do we &quot;jump&quot; between them because there exist 2 identical people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: How can you tell if there is jumping on not? In any circumstance where &quot;jumping&quot; is allowed, the two minds are exactly the same (if even there are two of them). This is the point--- when the two consciousnesses are the same, it is a meaningless question to ask if there are two or one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, there is no physics that allows magical &quot;jumping&quot;... There are 2 worlds separate, how is this so hard to understand for you? Just because something is identical does not merge them into 1 thing wtf??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The reason it is &quot;hard to understand&quot; is because the notion of whether there are two &quot;consciousnesses&quot; or only one is not physics, it's pure philosophy. What experiment could tell me if jumping were occuring or not occuring? The only cases where jumping could be occuring, the two brains are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Why would jumping occur? Does 2 identical photons become 1? It's not pure philosophy, if the fact is that the branches all exist premeasurement, that is a objective fact about reality. You are making the claim of magic soul jumping, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. First prove the soul, then prove jumping mechanism, collect a ton of nobel prizes and I'll concede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: It is not the same as photons, because there is a test which will tell you when you have two photons. What test can tell you if two branches &quot;exist&quot; before they diverge? There is no answer, even in principle, because there is no existence-meter which flashes when it sees existing stuff. So &quot;exist&quot; is not a useful word. I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of the soul in the same way I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of firefox (the program), even though what the &quot;firefox&quot; on my computer is exactly is not clear, nor if there is 1 or 2 copies, especially when the OS puts a copy in cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Yes, you are right that there is no experiment that can answer it, so we have to resort to metaphysics. If divergence is better than branching as a theory, then it's rational to assume that divergence is most likely the true representation of reality. ...But you do then accept that although we can't determine the fact, there is a fact about which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No I don't accept that. There is no fact about the matter, there is no fact, there is no matter. The question is meaningless, you are asking nonsense. This is what &quot;positivism&quot; means. Two options are observationally identical means there is no difference between them, and it is a matter of convention which one you say when you speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: So you don't comprehend the difference between NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL worlds and QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL ? You are the first person I've discussed this with who has not grasped this concept...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: I &quot;grasp&quot; the concept, I am telling you it is incoherent. There is no meaning to a question of pure metaphysics, you can make up whatever you like, there are no differences in observation, so by definition the two positions are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No. That's like saying solipsism and realism is identical because we can't do a experiment to verify which is correct... How the hell can you do science with such a mindset?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Solipsism and realism are identical! Indeed this is a puzzling but true consequence of positivism. It remains to see how you can translate ethical arguments, like &quot;I should buy life insurance&quot; into the solipsist perspective. That this can be done is surprising and weird. This is how you do science, positivism is essential. I should admit that philosophers don't like positivism, because it moots their favorite questions, and ethicists find it hard to swallow that any ethical argument must be persuasive to a solipsist too (although this is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG:I reject positivism, I thought most people abandoned that way of thinking in the 80s, wtf ? Anyways, there is no way you can claim that solipsism and realism are identical. ONE has to be true. Do you believe I am conscious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Nearly all people abandoned positivism in the 70s-80s, and this was a terrible step backwards. The positivism was still working its magic in physics, to produce holography. I believe they are identical--- I don't even know if I am conscious, or if you take my internal sense of myself to be primitive, I don't know a sure meaning to the statement that I was conscious three minutes ago. I know there was an internal computation going on in myself, I can see the effects of it, and I can see that there is an internal computation going on in you. That's enough for all purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: I think it was a correct step and I would hate to see us step back to positivism. You are talking about computations taking place inside you and me, but then you are assuming realism. None of those concepts make sense in a solipsistic existence. You seem to have a rather radical way of interpreting the world. According to you the theory of gravity should not be preferred on any grounds (not even occam razor) to for instance a LSD induced idea of invisible gnomes pulling objects down to earth with invisible strings &quot;because they produce the same outcome they are identical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;... I think we are done actually. In conclusion: Ron Maimon consider anything that can't be proven or disproven identical, including solipsism and realism. So the question I have posed is obviously, to him, incoherent. Hopefully someone else will respond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everyone else in physics thinks the same way. Mach was the father of positivism, and Einstein and Bohr (and everyone after with a brief interlude from 1974-1995) embraced Mach's philosophy. This idea was central to relativity, quantum mechanics, S-matrix theory/string-theory, and everything else. It is not reasonable to ask whether there are little gnomes, you can introuce the little gnomes, or not introduce them, and there is no difference observationally. If the gnomes are useful as a figure of speech, go ahead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...: I think your position has merit, by the way, it is very difficult to fix up philosophy to be correct for positivism. You need an ethics that doesn't care whether God exists or not, that doesn't care whether other people exist or not, that gives the same answers regardless of metaphysics, and this makes strong constraints. The solution to this is the theory of superrationality, proposed by physicist turned cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, which gives a positivistically meaningful metaphysics neutral definition of ethical behavior compatible with religious ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You claim everyone in physics thinks the same way. How is it then that this question I am asking here has been asked by several physicists? Not to mention the entire debate on Quantum Interpretations, since they all yield the same result, according to you: THEY ARE IDENTICAL. So why do you adhere to Everett instead of say...transactional interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: &quot;Transactional&quot; is mathematically incoherent to date, so perhaps the right question is &quot;Everett&quot; vs. &quot;Copehagen&quot;. There is very little positive difference between Everett and Copenhagen, the way I see it, exactly zero, so the two are identical, and this is the major reason interpretation of quantum mechanics is not discussed in physics anymore--- people accept that the formulations are generally identical. Bohm is different, because the mathematical structure has &quot;little gnomes&quot; which are the particle positions which might become physically identifiable in a new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Well, Bohm gives same outcome, so if you are really as dedicated to your philosophy as you claim, it too is identical. As for interpretation not discussed in physics anymore? Wrong It's discussed now more than ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everett's intepretation is important, however, for establishing that there is no paradox possible for large systems in using quantum mechanics as is. This is not clear in Bohr, where the outcomes of experiments are by classical variables which are not present in the microscopic theory. In Everett interpretation, these variables become the branch selectors, so they get different &quot;little gnomes&quot;. At the end of the day, the two ideas are completely identical, although Everett is clearer psychologically for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Bohm is identical as formulated, so I do consider it not new, as formulated. But Bohm is useless and obviously wrong as formulated, since it picks out a frame and a basis for Hilbert space. But a future theory could start with Bohm and modify it to make a new theory, and since the mathematical structure has gnomes, the particle positions, the modified gnomes would be different than the modified no-gnome theory. The wavefunction might become an average of particle position properties, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Everettians also has to pick a preferred basis, decoherence doesn't solve this. My main point is that you clearly recognize the differences in 2 ideas, but due to the inability to verify which is correct, you assume it's worthless to even ask. But you DO agree that divergence and branching can obviously not BOTH be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Decoherence doesn't solve it, but it says that it is consistent to do it. A theory consists of a mathematical formalism, and a map from the formalism to experience. You can modify the formalism, and modify the map, but if the result is the same experience, it's the same theory. The divergence and branching are equivalent so they are both true, in that you can believe one or the other, but you generally don't want to use the language of one when thinking about the other, because they have incompatible language, so you shouldn't speak in the two frames simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;... It's exactly like coordinate rotation: do you agree that if the x-axis is along the north-south direction, this is different than the x-axis along the current Earth sun direction? I mean, in one case, the planets change x and in the others not. So you can use any axes, just as long as you are consistent, and two axes are equivalent. The same way: use any metaphysics, your metaphysics is your coordinate system, and the results are the same if the sense-perceptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="8aa5a15e-2835-433f-a0cf-9574ce5a06a3" CreationDate="2012-05-09T04:08:58.250" UserId="5430" Text="&gt; Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the truest thing you said in your post above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange just isn't the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to check out [Dropbox](http://dropbox.com) or [Simple Note](http://simplenoteapp.com/) for free online text storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="cceb0404-0fa4-4c9b-81d2-28ec3077ee1d" CreationDate="2012-05-09T06:39:01.153" UserId="7433" Text="While we're at it, we can copy [this mathjax tutorial][1] to meta.Phy, request a mathjax enable, and add a link to it in the notation faq..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also change the [link in the editor help][2]  to it, the [current one][3] [is too intimidating][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-we-use-math-chemistry-formatting-out-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/82/tex-tutorial-too-intimidating-extensive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="4f412cc5-fc2d-499d-9f3f-e095ecfaa685" CreationDate="2012-05-09T10:11:50.583" UserId="91" Text="Just a quick word to let you know that [Chemistry.SE](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) has now launched into public beta!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="4f412cc5-fc2d-499d-9f3f-e095ecfaa685" CreationDate="2012-05-09T10:11:50.583" UserId="91" Text="Chemistry.SE is now in public beta!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="4f412cc5-fc2d-499d-9f3f-e095ecfaa685" CreationDate="2012-05-09T10:11:50.583" UserId="91" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="4e402bc8-8a22-47a1-a973-cba0ba7c971b" CreationDate="2012-05-10T03:20:05.010" UserId="9082" Comment="added 619 characters in body" Text="It seems as if there is no flexability to any questions I have asked. Lameness example I say in the example I am submerged in water that is so dense that I would be dead just by being there. I want to measure how much resistance this water would create for my arm. Instead of saying something like fluid resistance uses this equation *****+***=resistance. I get you could never be there to try and move your arm.  theory is all I am useing if I say the question wrong than the answer would be what you think I am asking and possible examples or not saying it could never happen. I believe nobody can ever stand at the center of a star but I can imagine that happening for the point of referring to energy escaping the star as you watch it from inside the star.. if I am out of line I guess I will just discontinue posting my questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I retract as Anna v has given a very awesome answer in a way that takes the question at face value. Very impressed as I have jumped to conclusions not only in my theories but as to the imagination of possible responders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The path to a theory of everything closed for being too broad in scope.  All I wanted was enough chat to merit opening an actual discussion. The dimpliest form of my question would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What technologies and advances in current mathematical theory will be necessary to predict quantum probability with 100% Certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28040/how-to-communicate-properly-in-this-q-a-if-i-am-sitting-in-a-newtonian-world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since without 20 rep I can not open a proper discussion in chat I was forced to pose my &#xD;&#xA;Discussion as a question as I learned it was much harder than I thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="ac79a14b-e240-4231-a384-780840094968" CreationDate="2012-05-10T03:35:48.767" UserId="9082" Text="What technologies and advances in current mathematical theory will be necessary to predict quantum probability with 100% Certainty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not is this off topic in a specific way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the way this question is stated imply &quot;sci-fi&quot; technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the &quot;technologies&quot; part need to be left out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="ac79a14b-e240-4231-a384-780840094968" CreationDate="2012-05-10T03:35:48.767" UserId="9082" Text="Any advice on how to modify or improve my question for improved clarity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="ac79a14b-e240-4231-a384-780840094968" CreationDate="2012-05-10T03:35:48.767" UserId="9082" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="61597641-5d37-45cb-8e2d-2464c4822a2e" CreationDate="2012-05-10T03:50:25.177" UserId="9082" Text="@Ron Maimon, As I have recently learned how to ask for help before asking questions to prevent myself from seeming like a looney tunes character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my original was asked correctly but under the wrong conditions it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we see light from the explosion that created us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To specify please do not give me the opposite answer: such as you can not detect light from the creation event because etc. etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be a reasonable and acceptable question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, would I edit the original or have to open a new question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="4ce4f88a-8725-4621-811d-766c140d636e" CreationDate="2012-05-10T06:20:21.020" UserId="124" Text="Yeah, this site is for questions about physical principles, not specific technologies. We make these judgments on a case-by-case basis, so you may see some technology-related questions on the site that are perfectly fine, but this would not be one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I would have to wonder what you mean by &quot;predict quantum probability with 100% certainty.&quot; Are you asking about the ability to completely predict the behavior of a quantum system? That is impossible, so asking how to do it wouldn't be appropriate. (Although you can certainly ask _why_ it is impossible.) Are you asking about the ability to predict the wavefunction? That we can already do, although it's impossible to compare it with measurements because you can't measure a wavefunction, at least not on a _single_ quantum system. That's another one where you shouldn't ask how to do it, but you can ask why we can't measure a wavefunction on a single system. Or are you asking something about the accuracy of calculations in perturbation theory? In that case you would have to be more specific, and say what physical system you are talking about, because some of them can be solved and some of them can't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="d2a49aa0-5ee7-4f05-82b4-a4274297bc8c" CreationDate="2012-05-11T05:42:02.450" UserId="4864" Text="Since the site closed, perhaps we can revive its usefulness by adding a &quot;theoretical physics&quot; tag and adding it to all questions which would be suitable for that site. This is already so for astronomy. This will make a defacto subset of the problems screenable for professionals, who will be put off by the elementary questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a &quot;layman&quot; tag, but the opposite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="d2a49aa0-5ee7-4f05-82b4-a4274297bc8c" CreationDate="2012-05-11T05:42:02.450" UserId="4864" Text="Can we make a theoretical-physics tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="d2a49aa0-5ee7-4f05-82b4-a4274297bc8c" CreationDate="2012-05-11T05:42:02.450" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="52bdb0fc-b515-4915-b090-428207e9e23d" CreationDate="2012-05-11T06:15:55.027" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Since the site closed, perhaps we can revive its usefulness by adding a &quot;theoretical physics&quot; tag and adding it to all questions which would be suitable for that site. This is already so for astronomy. This will make a defacto subset of the problems screenable for professionals, who will be put off by the elementary questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a &quot;layman&quot; tag, but the opposite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3016" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="b770448b-5b04-4c4f-9369-362cbaaa48e6" CreationDate="2012-05-11T06:15:54.013" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1203],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="13e37390-15aa-4f51-9e90-dcd0be823a62" CreationDate="2012-05-12T17:18:47.783" UserId="4864" Text="David Zaslavsky is at it again: he has moved the (short) comment discussion here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28174/are-gravitomagnetic-monopoles-hypothesized/28199#comment62829_28199 which he called &quot;inappropriate&quot;. I thought he deleted them, but he moved them to chat here: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3410/discussion-between-mark-beadles-and-ron-maimon .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the comments say that a (completely wrong) answer is completely wrong, and are important, so that people will know why the answer is wrong, so it won't get upvoted more than it is, and so that it will get fixed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to be reverse-agist, but you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power. They are no good at this, as they lack maturity and are rule-oriented. Please make _old people_ diamonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also lack judgement and maturity, but at least I don't have any power. Also can some other diamond restore the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="13e37390-15aa-4f51-9e90-dcd0be823a62" CreationDate="2012-05-12T17:18:47.783" UserId="4864" Text="David Zaslavsky moved comments, no good" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="13e37390-15aa-4f51-9e90-dcd0be823a62" CreationDate="2012-05-12T17:18:47.783" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="fc800f2d-e866-437f-803f-e912d1d299e6" CreationDate="2012-05-12T21:13:12.357" UserDisplayName="user2437" Text="&gt;[David] has moved the (short) comment discussion here: Are gravitomagnetic monopoles hypothesized? which he called &quot;inappropriate&quot;. I thought he deleted them, but he moved them to chat here: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3410/discussion-between-mark-beadles-and-ron-maimon .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Incorrect**. Moderators cannot move comments. Your discussion chain got too long that the engine offered you both to take it to chat and one of you clicked the link. There's no other way this could've happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment thread doesn't look like a civil discussion at all. Look at some of your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1: [...] Your whole answer is full of nonsense, please delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2: [...] This answer is a summary of things you obviously don't understand, please delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3: [...] It cannot be fixed, and you are being dishonest that you claimed otherwise. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are clearly being belligerent and abusive towards the other user, who repeatedly told you that you cannot make demands — if it's wrong, say so and downvote it and move on. If you want to rub it in their face, then do so by providing a better and factually correct answer and let the community decide. By launching an attack on him, the discussion spiralled into one that was argumentative and unfruitful. Going by Mark's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] (replacing a comment that was a bit argumentative): [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing there were other inappropriate comments either by him or you that were deleted voluntarily. Given these red flags, David was highly justified in deleting them from under the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given your attitude here, towards the other user and your overall behaviour on the network, I would highly recommend that you be suspended for a while so that you can cool down and reflect on your actions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1284" RevisionGUID="6b88f3d4-8cda-4362-80cf-8d6facd71203" CreationDate="2012-05-12T22:07:31.517" UserId="1345" Text="Ron, no disrespect meant to you but I feel far more at ease with David helping to moderate the site than you, regardless of age or knowledge. The problem is to do with your interpersonal skills here, rather than David's moderating skills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you do have this tendency sometimes to make comments such as: &quot;this is nonsense, please delete this answer!&quot;, or &quot;how did this answer get upvoted? it's completely wrong!&quot;. In your comments with Mark Beadles you comment: &quot;Your whole answer is full of nonsense, please delete it.&quot;, &quot;You have misidentified and misinterpreted every bit of work in this area&quot;. Abusive, intimidating comments like that serve only the destructive personality of the one making them and that's probably why David moved them as inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise you didn't conclude [our][1] discussion; either admitting you're wrong, explaining why you think I'm still wrong, or politely saying you don't have the time. It gives the impression that your 20k points has gone to your head and you think your demonstration of intellectual competence means you can trample all over the views of others without explaining yourself in a respectful way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I honestly hope you take on board what I've said and don't end up being suspended like another very competent guy that used to post here  because I've learnt a lot from most of your answers. But no one person is more important than the running of this site, regardless of the number of points they have by their name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3321/discussion-between-john-mcvirgo-and-ron-maimon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="f9813ab6-81d8-4fdc-b584-0713c0e4f55c" CreationDate="2012-05-13T00:56:50.540" UserId="4864" Comment="add message" Text="David Zaslavsky is at it again: he has moved the (short) comment discussion here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28174/are-gravitomagnetic-monopoles-hypothesized/28199#comment62829_28199 which he called &quot;inappropriate&quot;. I thought he deleted them, but he moved them to chat here: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3410/discussion-between-mark-beadles-and-ron-maimon .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the comments say that a (completely wrong) answer is completely wrong, and are important, so that people will know why the answer is wrong, so it won't get upvoted more than it is, and so that it will get fixed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to be reverse-agist, but you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power. They are no good at this, as they lack maturity and are rule-oriented. Please make _old people_ diamonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also lack judgement and maturity, but at least I don't have any power. Also can some other diamond restore the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### EDIT: I got this message from David&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing in reference to your Physics - Stack Exchange account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've noticed that you have a pattern of engaging in lengthy discussions in comments, frequently consisting of responses involving multiple, back-to-back posts. Comments are intended as brief messages to provide feedback or ask for clarification on the content of the post. Lengthy clarifications should be edited into the post itself or posted separately as a new question or answer, and extended discussions should be taken to chat. Extensive comment threads tend to be a distraction for other readers. These lengthy discussions are often hard to follow, and can easily hide critical information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preferring to argue with other users in comments over revising your questions and answers to address their concerns is a red flag to moderators, indicating you may not fully understand the purpose of Stack Exchange: our goal is to provide readers with expert questions and answers, not host discussion or debate. If you desire conversation, stop into the site's chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope that you can work with the community on achieving our goals by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking specific, researched, relevant, on-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;Providing clear, useful, accurate and well-researched information in answers&#xD;&#xA;Treating others with respect and civility&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;David Zaslavsky&#xD;&#xA;Physics - Stack Exchange moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="fe34a3a7-8b8b-4089-ba28-ac87d274829e" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:04:41.200" UserId="9082" Text="Internet explorer for windows and Konqueror for Linux support overlaying a solid background in there template area in setting. Just in-case assuming IE Open your Internet Options (either from the Tools menu in Internet Explorer, or from the Control Panel), then click the Colors and Accessibility buttons at the bottom to adjust the default colors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="a26db8a3-cb32-460b-a35c-e32986901025" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:11:29.523" UserId="9082" Comment="have to be fair to linux" Text="Internet explorer for windows and Konqueror for Linux support overlaying a solid background in there template area in setting. Just in-case assuming IE Open your Internet Options (either from the Tools menu in Internet Explorer, or from the Control Panel), then click the Colors and Accessibility buttons at the bottom to adjust the default colors. And for any Linux buffs http://www.google.com/url?q=http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kde-baseapps/konqueror/menubar.html&amp;sa=U&amp;ei=8BevT5WDNsXMtge79-DYCA&amp;ved=0CB0QFjAD&amp;usg=AFQjCNHB4xLlylBUmBXf8-ge7h2VP7yRkg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1287" RevisionGUID="22c70977-904c-4773-900c-849b53672392" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:24:45.187" UserId="5379" Text="I only add to *this* discussion with hesitation, since as I judge the discussion it's not about me, or about my answer. However, I would like to note, regarding the comments action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of Stack Exchange is that anyone can ask and anyone can answer. Upvotes and downvotes are the sole mechanisms for judging the answers. This works because a user's reputation score reflects how they've participated as &quot;judger&quot; or &quot;judgee&quot; of others in turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But comments don't participate in the reputation system, and so are not self-correcting. The sole automated control of comments seems to be the system offering to &quot;take a discussion to chat&quot;. I see there was some confusion about that, so to set the matter straight, I did click the offered link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the lack of self-correcting automated controls on comments, it makes sense to me that moderators may need to step in from time to time with human judgment.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="649d28e2-dfe7-470d-9e8e-f6de1eeff361" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:34:55.390" UserId="9082" Text="Possible duplicates:&#xD;&#xA; http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1281/can-we-make-a-theoretical-physics-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cane we capture the I was reading or I was watching a video and question crowd with a &quot;new idea&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="649d28e2-dfe7-470d-9e8e-f6de1eeff361" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:34:55.390" UserId="9082" Text="Can we make a &quot;new idea&quot; tag possible duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="649d28e2-dfe7-470d-9e8e-f6de1eeff361" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:34:55.390" UserId="9082" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="ae694757-9b54-44d8-9a6d-98434b4a913a" CreationDate="2012-05-13T05:29:43.183" UserId="1492" Text="When does that happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [a 4+ in my sum][1]  and tried to see for what, and got &quot;user was removed&quot; instead of a link to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="ae694757-9b54-44d8-9a6d-98434b4a913a" CreationDate="2012-05-13T05:29:43.183" UserId="1492" Text="user was removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="ae694757-9b54-44d8-9a6d-98434b4a913a" CreationDate="2012-05-13T05:29:43.183" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="f1a43e4f-9103-404e-a64f-08e9d589dde0" CreationDate="2012-05-13T05:31:54.190" UserId="124" Text="That's explained at http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130122/more-descriptive-user-was-removed-explanation. Basically, when another user's account is deleted, any votes they may have cast for you are reverted and your reputation can change accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="65eefc3a-5129-4b4f-a4c3-4910252e8700" CreationDate="2012-05-13T06:39:55.757" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|user-accounts|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="e3bceb5e-bb12-47c4-a773-9d92647d2bf3" CreationDate="2012-05-13T06:49:08.023" UserId="2911" Comment="Link to a slightly simpler explanation of this phenomenon" Text="That's explained in [What does &quot;user was removed&quot; mean and why did my reputation change because of it?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it). Basically, when another user's account is deleted, any votes they may have cast for you are reverted and your reputation can change accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="00a7d3bb-758c-43eb-8d35-aa425d3f2663" CreationDate="2012-05-13T10:04:52.180" UserId="2751" Text="I`m just noting that since about yesterday, a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics, abuse the meta part of physics.SE to persecute Ron Maimon, see for example this [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/1283/2751) and the comments below. &#xD;&#xA;They abuse the possibility to register here and having 101 points of reputation from the start try to potronize OUR community and screw up the picture of how WE would like to deal with certain issues.&#xD;&#xA;Answers, votes, comments, etc represent no longer the opinion and preferences of our physics community since these intruders started to meddle with things which are not their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want the intruders to go away, leave us and all members of our community (including Ron!) alone, and mind their own business." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="00a7d3bb-758c-43eb-8d35-aa425d3f2663" CreationDate="2012-05-13T10:04:52.180" UserId="2751" Text="Abuse of our Meta by people from other SE sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="00a7d3bb-758c-43eb-8d35-aa425d3f2663" CreationDate="2012-05-13T10:04:52.180" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|policy|spam|stackexchange|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="ddf506eb-de08-4562-b348-74b762cc5a5a" CreationDate="2012-05-13T10:55:30.147" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Ron has brought up topics which are SE-wide (David's possible abuse of his mod powers and the mechanics of comment management), thus he got a *feedback* from SE-wide moderator community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, one of the basis of this network is that everybody can post both on sites and metae, thus your request cannot be realized. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="5e573042-da96-4b61-814a-056594b63102" CreationDate="2012-05-13T11:27:10.933" UserId="8966" Text="There are several misunderstandings in your question, I'd like to answer (*without sarcasm*) to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abuse of our Meta by people from other SE sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abuse? The system explicitly gives me the right to respond there, so where is the abuse? I gained the reputation to have the 101 rep on other sites, I deserve the right to have and use it. Again, I see no abuse, personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I`m just noting that since about yesterday, a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics, abuse the meta part of physics.SE to persecute Ron Maimon, see for example this answer and the comments below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;number of people&quot; you talk about are moderators and a SE Team member. Maybe we're not interested in Physics, and that's why I'm not posting on the Main site, for example, but Meta is not at all related to physics the subject, rather it's related to Physics **the site**. Furthermore, I don't think I'm persecuting Ron; I would have posted regardless of the user fi the conditions were the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] and screw up the picture of how WE would like to deal with certain issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are network-wide... Actually, the [Netiquette][1] is Internet-wide and exists since long time, long before the SE I think. But let's talk about the SE sites: the rules about proper behavior are not a site-specific issue, so you don't get your personal rules about behavior. The FAQ concerning that part is common to all SE sites, and for a simple reason: it's common for all sites. (It's a repetition eheh.) The content of Ron's answers is not being judged: I don't think I would have any clue of what he states in his answers that is physics-related, and the same goes for the other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain, again with no sarcasm, some mechanisms. Across the SE network, the system is users -&gt; moderators -&gt; Team members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users gain privileges through reputation, even *moderation privileges*. Then you find moderators, with have more powers in their site but none in other sites, *although* moderators  have mod-privileges across the Chat network. This means that I can mod even in this site chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you have Team members. They have more powers than anyone. They are moderators everywhere and they also have more powers than common moderators. So it's not that they have to &quot;mind their own business&quot;. This *is* their own business, and if this thing has repercussions in other sites or if it's not a subject-related issue, also mods get to come here. Because this issues unavoidably attract the moderators' attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the Physics mods are perfectly good at their job and I wouldn't never tell them what to do, but I don't think they consider me as an intruder if I post or if a Team member decides to weigh in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="63da2c42-1cd2-435b-bdd4-cc6bb4f33e47" CreationDate="2012-05-13T11:32:58.710" UserId="8929" Text="&gt; What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing. If you don't want the visibility and exposure, don't post on Meta. This is a public Q&amp;A site, not an exclusive country club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in [a comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1282/david-zaslavsky-moved-comments-no-good/1283#comment3075_1283) to the post you're citing specifically, this is not a physics-specific issue. It requires absolutely no knowledge of the subject domain. Rather, this is something that concerns the Stack Exchange engine that runs all of these sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These aren't physics-specific issues we're talking about. They're first and foremost ***social*** issues, and secondly, issues regarding the operation and ideology of the Stack Exchange network, on which this site operates. The fact its topic is physics is quite irrelevant to any discussion of its policies and procedures. As someone who is a diamond moderator on 2 sites, and holds upwards of 10k reputation on 2 sites, not the least of which being Meta Stack Overflow, the Q&amp;A site for the Stack Exchange engine itself, I'd say that yoda is perfectly qualified to be answering this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your position appears to be that only the &quot;expert&quot; users who participate on the main site should be eligible for commenting on the meta site. In fact, I'd argue that you have that backwards. **The &quot;experts&quot; on a meta site are those people who are experts on the Stack Exchange engine and the policies, procedures, and norms that apply across the entire network.** I'm not sure where else you'd look for those people except for SE staff members and community moderators on other sites in the network. Objectively speaking, we're *precisely* the people whom you should want to weigh in on these types of discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth pointing out that the fact that experienced Stack Exchange moderators and members of the community team weighed in on this discussion does not in any way *prevent* regular members of the physics site from expressing their own opinions. The engine allows you to post multiple answers to a question for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the concern that someone is going to &quot;take wrong actions against users&quot; on the physics site is misplaced. The only people who have power to take these actions across the entire network are community team members, and they'll have a diamond after their user names even here. These, of course, *are* &quot;powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network&quot;, although they try not to interfere with individual communities by taking direct action except in cases where it is overtly warranted or where the elected community moderators ask them to step in. However, it is worth noting that moderators on various sites talk to one another. If a user is creating problems on *one* site in the network, then they are very likely to show up on our radar. There's nothing sinister about that; it's quite clear from all aspects of this site down to the URL itself that it is a member of the Stack Exchange network, and therefore subject to its policies, practices, and community norms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="385763a8-be9c-44f9-9c0d-dcec3601b0e5" CreationDate="2012-05-13T11:40:27.610" UserId="8929" Comment="added 920 characters in body" Text="&gt; What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing. If you don't want the visibility and exposure, don't post on Meta. This is a public Q&amp;A site, not an exclusive country club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in [a comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1282/david-zaslavsky-moved-comments-no-good/1283#comment3075_1283) to the post you're citing specifically, this is not a physics-specific issue. It requires absolutely no knowledge of the subject domain. Rather, this is something that concerns the Stack Exchange engine that runs all of these sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These aren't physics-specific issues we're talking about. They're first and foremost ***social*** issues, and secondly, issues regarding the operation and ideology of the Stack Exchange network, on which this site operates. The fact its topic is physics is quite irrelevant to any discussion of its policies and procedures. As someone who is a diamond moderator on 2 sites, and holds upwards of 10k reputation on 2 sites, not the least of which being Meta Stack Overflow, the Q&amp;A site for the Stack Exchange engine itself, I'd say that yoda is perfectly qualified to be answering this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your position appears to be that only the &quot;expert&quot; users who participate on the main site should be eligible for commenting on the meta site. In fact, I'd argue that you have that backwards. **The &quot;experts&quot; on a meta site are those people who are experts on the Stack Exchange engine and the policies, procedures, and norms that apply across the entire network.** I'm not sure where else you'd look for those people except for SE staff members and community moderators on other sites in the network. Objectively speaking, we're *precisely* the people whom you should want to weigh in on these types of discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth pointing out that the fact that experienced Stack Exchange moderators and members of the community team weighed in on this discussion does not in any way *prevent* regular members of the physics site from expressing their own opinions. The engine allows you to post multiple answers to a question for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the concern that someone is going to &quot;take wrong actions against users&quot; on the physics site is misplaced. The only people who have power to take these actions across the entire network are community team members, and they'll have a diamond after their user names even here. These, of course, *are* &quot;powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network&quot;, although they try not to interfere with individual communities by taking direct action except in cases where it is overtly warranted or where the elected community moderators ask them to step in. However, it is worth noting that moderators on various sites talk to one another. If a user is creating problems on *one* site in the network, then they are very likely to show up on our radar. There's nothing sinister about that; it's quite clear from all aspects of this site down to the URL itself that it is a member of the Stack Exchange network, and therefore subject to its policies, practices, and community norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you specifically call out philosophy in your question, and I'm a moderator there, I can only assume that I'm one of the protagonists in your tale of abuse. Therefore, I'm not sure where and how you get the idea that I'm &quot;not in the slightest interested in physics&quot;, or even the impression that I don't know anything about physics. I haven't shared my qualifications or background with you because I don't think that's relevant. Stack Exchange doesn't have a qualification process for *users*, it has one for *answers*—voting. If I were answering physics questions and my answers were wrong, you should downvote them. Likewise, If I'm answering meta questions and my answers are wrong, you should also downvote them. But let's not make assumptions about people you don't know, okay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="ad24d49d-15b0-4369-8e8b-c0227ada9503" CreationDate="2012-05-13T15:35:30.690" UserId="3715" Text="there are many factual and insightful things you write, but then from time to time cringe-worthy statements I wouldn't expect from a student (&quot;you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power&quot;). I had a similar start like you on SE, some sites here like skeptics.se or philosophy.se don't fit at all my level of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. I left such sites instead of trying to improve them, it's pointless trying to yield my desired level on it by contributing q&amp;a. [I explained here ](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/130542) why some proposal work and some not. The quality/level of a single site is strongly linked to the amount of experts attracted during area51 process. You can only make minor improvments to such sites by clever moderation and attracting more experts afterwards (**e.g. theophys user don't want to participate here for the same reasons you try to improve this site**). The level of necessary background knowledge is just to different among user to waste here their time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have a usenet-background, I too. That is unfiltered anarchy, thats also the system most uni's run in my experience innofficially. But SE is democracy, hierarchy, filtering, ranking, sorting (**why do you think there are no downvotes/rep for comments? To stop endless discussion and force competition and several answers. This is the most important non-feature of SE**), elections of poor and good mods,..... you know all this stuff that happens in democracy too. It's a imperfect system for imperfect people. But have you seen a better one for big communities? Why did you stop posting on usenet, wikipedia and joined this system. Ask and answer this yourself and I'm sure we all can save a lot meta time and useless discussion with/about you here. I already told you that your bio's (while entertaining on christianity and philosophy :D ) are not really productive for you. Also yelling for new mods on physics.se and phil.se is really naive, what do you expect. &quot;Hey our german 38 year old  vice-chancellor is  in my opinion not qualified for his job. Can we please try somebody else (I really think this)&quot;. But he was elected by the majority. Just stop this, how can a smart guy like you think this can/will work??? You're biting on granite and wasting your and our time here. Invent a better system. Contribute answers here, discuss in forums like usenet of physicsforums.com. There are physicists who don't like for mentioned reasons usenet (too much spam and crackpot-theorists), q&amp;a boards (moderation, no discussion), forums (too lengthy discussions)... **There is no perfect system that fits everybody's needs and philosophy of communication.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look to me like on a crusade. Trying to correct all bad answers on SE sites whichs seems at a first glance admirable and worth supporting ) but also pretty naive if one knows a little bit about human and group psychology and has participated in internet discussions since a decade. [The problems of wikipedia authoring are well-known](http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed), lenghty discussions with arrogant mods, SE resolves this problem by competing answers. **And with all your comments &amp; corrections you are trying to re-introduce this wikipedia editing style here again**. Maybe unconsciously as you are still in your trained usenet and wikipedia modus operandi. Well, quit this, or you end like Georg. I'm sure a physics.se site with 10-20 Ron Maimons and Georg's wouldn't work (most agreed that tolerating the escapades of one Ron Maimon is ok) and would end in even worse overall level of tolerance and respect than on usenet and wikipedia due to the rep thing and real names, thats why I asked user here to think about if such bios are really helpful. You see how fast people can change their mind and ask you to calm down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made quite some meta posts on science SE sites recently. Because I would like to see open science really working and I'm interested if and how super-moderation of  autarchic communities can work, when become things uncommunicable, how can meta user and mods find common set of values, level and scope of a site (we make a similar experiment in germany currently, direct democracy with liquid feedback community software in the pirates party). SE and Quora are a important steps here. Maybe there will come even better hybrid systems. If you want to create high quality communities, you need a clever system like here (area51, voting, meta, filtering), ranting about content, bad and wrong answers here a lot is a drop in the bucket and even more in forums, usenet and wikipedia, where users like you already failed with their demands. **I come to SE to read different views by different users, not wikipedias common denominator stuff, commenting or editing an answer towards subjective &quot;correct&quot; content here is the huge misconception you seemingly have and brought over here from your wikipedia days.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you aren't blogging. Well I'm aware without publications, university position, PHD a physics blog doesn't attract a lot of comments/views nowadays anymore. You probably too. Without credentials only few would read Motl's blog imho. So this is probably the best place to invest your time. Nonetheless I'm still wondering why you didn't participate more in theophys.se if the quality of some answers here is so terrible? I begin to think you are trying to find out how much power your rep here gives you and the responses you get are not really surprising. May be start a Ron Maimon proposal? The SE system allows this ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="95ca2974-0660-4828-8344-b72c99e0155f" CreationDate="2012-05-13T15:55:49.463" UserId="7433" Text="I saw the &quot;DavidZ moved comments&quot; meta post first, and was appalled by the whole drama that's been unfolding. (I'm off the Internet for a _day_ and I come back to see some drama on both meta.physics _and_ meta.chemistry? Wonderful.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I was slightly disturbed by your comments, telling SE members to basically get lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While physics.SE should be run by its community members, everyone has a say--including &quot;outsiders&quot;. Now, these &quot;outsiders&quot; usually don't &quot;meddle&quot; in our normal site-building decisions on meta, and it's no biggie if they do. Everyone's opinion is useful. But, when there is a general, non-physics issue--especially a serious one regarding moderator/user conduct. They probably swooped down on us because David must've asked for some guidance in the Teacher's Lounge. Or, it may be due to Ron's post on MSO(saw it a few days back, but it's deleted now). Anyway, these guys have a full right to put forth their opinions on matter of user conduct. Also, they're quite qualified to be taken seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cody Gray(The Establishment on MSO) is someone I've stumbled across on MSO quite often, and I respect his views (usually agree with him) He deals with a lot of user conduct issues on MSO(all the active users do), and has a nice approach to it. Additionally, he's a mod on Philosophy, so has some experience modding and knows what it's like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stumbled across yoda as well--though not that often--and again, he's(she?) of the same sort. Plus he's a double mod and ought to have enough experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So my question is: What can we do about this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing. Neither _should_ we do anything about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not being &quot;screwed up&quot;. User conduct is a seperate issue from the &quot;needs of the community&quot;. While I do agree that some issues are dealt with differently here, we still need to have the same rough rules as an SE site. Long time SE users like Cody and yoda know this and haven't gotten nitpicky--they've stuck to the rules that _all_ SE sites abide to while advising in their posts/comments/whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, they can't take any action. Except for Shog9, and he would probably consult our mods first. The others are in a purely advisory capacity, and have zero powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the community thingy, see the above snippet. Our needs aren't too different from the rest of the sites. Also, these posts had nothing to do with the needs of our community, rather they were discussing user conduct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="0c666367-4897-4283-8cfa-52188ec46613" CreationDate="2012-05-13T16:34:55.073" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed the last sentence because, I`m no longer THAT angry after things are cleared up a bit ..." Text="I`m just noting that since about yesterday, a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics, abuse the meta part of physics.SE to persecute Ron Maimon, see for example this [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/1283/2751) and the comments below. &#xD;&#xA;They abuse the possibility to register here and having 101 points of reputation from the start try to potronize OUR community and screw up the picture of how WE would like to deal with certain issues.&#xD;&#xA;Answers, votes, comments, etc represent no longer the opinion and preferences of our physics community since these intruders started to meddle with things which are not their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1297" RevisionGUID="d36deee6-aeb9-4484-bf49-f6d17fd12292" CreationDate="2012-05-13T18:13:20.360" UserId="9082" Text="I have no mod experiance and if you take a peek at most of my post I tend to be wrong but being wrong and intentionally trying to mislead someone are two seperate issues. I can be wrong all day I can even copy and past true information in a way that makes it seem correct but it is actually not again mostly intent if you do it on purpose a mod has to &quot;step in&quot; that is there job. Do determined malice and intentionally misleading information the mod does not &quot;care&quot; who says the information weither it be a mod or someone higher up on the food chain. It is a good policy not to single out individuals except in extreme cases. I often mis-state correct information and the response is not drastic all you need is downvote the answer and make an Answerer of your own. Every step David has taken since I have been a member seems slightly reserved that is he does not jump straight to throwing the book at someone he gives benifit of the doubt and usually gets input from experianced &quot;rule enforcing&quot; SE Members we are part of a larger community this is a team of SE sites working toward a common goal equality in spreading our &quot;opinion&quot; as long as our opinion is not stated as FACT.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="8671de79-84d8-46be-a1f1-056b46eadb42" CreationDate="2012-05-14T06:00:34.583" UserId="6129" Text="My last two revisions on the posting &quot;Is the Graveyard really so Serious?&quot; at [physics.stackexchange.com/Questions] has not figured in the TOP questions list to be accessed through the link: physics.stackexchange.com. One is 3 hours old and the other is about 10/12 minutes old. Five hour hold revisions/postings of other posters are there. I have reloaded the page .But it is not working? Is there some serious problem with the software? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="8671de79-84d8-46be-a1f1-056b46eadb42" CreationDate="2012-05-14T06:00:34.583" UserId="6129" Text="Is it a Software Problem'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="8671de79-84d8-46be-a1f1-056b46eadb42" CreationDate="2012-05-14T06:00:34.583" UserId="6129" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="5105ccbf-67f1-419b-b232-3a76f3750511" CreationDate="2012-05-14T06:07:23.357" UserId="6129" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="My last two revisions on the posting &quot;Is the Graveyard really so Serious?&quot; at [physics.stackexchange.com/Questions] has not figured in the TOP questions list to be accessed through the link: physics.stackexchange.com. One is 3 hours old and the other is about 10/12 minutes old. Five hour hold revisions/postings of other posters are there. I have reloaded/refreshed the page several times .But this is not showing results------the revised posting/question has not shown up amongst the top questions. Is there some serious problem with the software? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="1c44b049-0c44-4df4-90fd-824d81ef01fb" CreationDate="2012-05-14T11:15:15.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/201994076013346817" />
  <row Id="3064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="a3fee3ba-f5eb-46eb-a13a-d90907bbe229" CreationDate="2012-05-14T13:06:51.303" UserId="520" Text="Because the question currently has a net score below -3 it will not appear on the  front page (http://physics.stackexchage.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an authoritative source just now, but this is alluded to in http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/62769/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="7300bcb7-bae6-4b47-8442-26e636e3dabd" CreationDate="2012-05-14T16:34:48.157" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3076" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="89e9eabb-0ede-4979-8f8a-8d14950a4d34" CreationDate="2012-05-15T18:47:28.747" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="dca8b2b2-eb17-445b-b020-961df7021746" CreationDate="2012-05-15T19:22:08.560" UserId="9082" Comment="originally i stated what i did to change my background withe explicity answering question fixed that implication by stating my answer and how i resolved it." Text="I definately do not like the background it seems too busy for my taste that is why i used this little trick to overlay a plain old solid background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet explorer for windows and Konqueror for Linux support overlaying a solid background in there template area in setting. Just in-case assuming IE Open your Internet Options (either from the Tools menu in Internet Explorer, or from the Control Panel), then click the Colors and Accessibility buttons at the bottom to adjust the default colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any Linux buffs http://www.google.com/url?q=http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kde-baseapps/konqueror/menubar.html&amp;sa=U&amp;ei=8BevT5WDNsXMtge79-DYCA&amp;ved=0CB0QFjAD&amp;usg=AFQjCNHB4xLlylBUmBXf8-ge7h2VP7yRkg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3079" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="d7d2b812-9e84-496d-b4bb-af6eecaec103" CreationDate="2012-05-15T19:45:48.897" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3080" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="1f75a821-df7e-41b7-b553-ba36dee309c5" CreationDate="2012-05-16T04:05:52.413" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="84cef756-7032-488e-827d-50917d5b1ae9" CreationDate="2012-05-16T11:52:06.697" UserId="6129" Comment="added 894 characters in body" Text="My last two revisions on the posting &quot;Is the Graveyard really so Serious?&quot; at [physics.stackexchange.com/Questions] has not figured in the TOP questions list to be accessed through the link: physics.stackexchange.com. One is 3 hours old and the other is about 10/12 minutes old. Five hour hold revisions/postings of other posters are there. I have reloaded/refreshed the page several times .But this is not showing results------the revised posting/question has not shown up amongst the top questions. Is there some serious problem with the software? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had sent an email at team+physics@stakexchange.com, informing them of the situation that the revised posting did not appear in the TOP question's list. The answer came:Ahh. Chances are you're just seeing a lag in the cache updating. It happens, and it can appear slow. Sometimes a refresh is all that is needed, sometimes it takes a bit more. I assure you, sir, that what you saw was likely perfectly normal.&#xD;&#xA;However, should you spot it again, please take note and report it to us again. Repeated issues may well be a bug lurking in our midst!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, thank you for your diligence. It is users like you who help us keep the Stack Exchange Network working at full steam. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Warmest regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange Team&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;That was 14th May 10:54 AM,Indian standard time.Later on further queries I was informed by email that low sore questions are not shown.That was 15 May,11:51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="844bae18-b226-4d85-bc58-7d405717aed0" CreationDate="2012-05-16T18:16:40.420" UserId="2433" Text="I had posted on question to TP:SE, and the question was merged, but I don't seem to have the additional reputation points added (admittedly a small number).  My only evidence of missing the reputation is that I knew I was at a certain rep value for a long time because I was relatively inactive, and that value has only changed with one upvote (very recently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, the question is: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My account was correctly associated between the two sites (as evidenced by the fact that I was properly associated with the question when it was merged)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="844bae18-b226-4d85-bc58-7d405717aed0" CreationDate="2012-05-16T18:16:40.420" UserId="2433" Text="Reputation missing from TP merge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="844bae18-b226-4d85-bc58-7d405717aed0" CreationDate="2012-05-16T18:16:40.420" UserId="2433" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="037e7a1b-0108-43e8-a66b-f3bd72d13d80" CreationDate="2012-05-16T18:45:07.763" UserId="124" Text="You can see a complete history of your reputation on your profile, using the &quot;reputation&quot; tab. In particular, if you look [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2433/jen?tab=reputation&amp;StartDate=2011-12-23), you will see all eight upvotes on that question explicitly accounted for. Now, if you know your pre-merge reputation and you're certain that it's the same as your post-merge reputation, I can't account for that. You could, in principle, go through the entire list on the reputation tab and verify that every vote you've received is accounted for there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="2107e866-ada8-415e-8737-f0483dd5e122" CreationDate="2012-05-16T20:21:08.503" UserId="124" Comment="add examples" Text="To present the alternate viewpoint from what others have addressed: the important thing is whether people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title, or not. I believe not. (At least, I would not expect a site that is just named &quot;physics&quot; to incorporate astronomy.) That's why I'm in favor of the name change. Probably very little would be involved, just adding a word to the site logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: since the merger I have seen at least these three examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all. How many potential questions are we driving away because our site name is misleading?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3087" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="2bd63219-3704-4716-bdd6-1333499b8463" CreationDate="2012-05-16T20:21:31.280" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="76c53d89-3725-4df9-81e4-32657ebf45bf" CreationDate="2012-05-17T02:15:15.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/202945344126984193" />
  <row Id="3089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="e034fe63-209f-4143-b5fc-8e7955d9cf52" CreationDate="2012-05-17T04:56:12.970" UserId="1492" Text="My only hesitation on physics&amp;astronomy is that &quot;Physics&quot; includes many subsets much larger than &quot;astronomy&quot; and putting it in the title sort of gives it a large weight in proportion to its phase space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="fb00f82b-ba93-4f09-aad0-d6e4322287e8" CreationDate="2012-05-17T05:39:03.337" UserId="1492" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="My only hesitation on physics&amp;astronomy is that &quot;Physics&quot; includes many subsets much larger than &quot;astronomy&quot; and putting it in the title sort of gives it a large weight in proportion to its phase space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit after comment: what about **Physics&amp;Astro** which would include astrophysics and astronomy in the code, and remind &quot;ad astris&quot; :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="9fc1066c-c0a8-4fd9-8035-0fdf540d898d" CreationDate="2012-05-17T06:29:21.013" UserId="1492" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="My only hesitation on physics&amp;astronomy is that &quot;Physics&quot; includes many subsets much larger than &quot;astronomy&quot; and putting it in the title sort of gives it a large weight in proportion to its phase space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit after comment: what about **Physics&amp;Astro** which would include astrophysics and astronomy in the code, and bring to mind &quot;ad astris&quot; :). Also the &quot;eye impression&quot; phase space is more proportional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="66e3c3e5-8ad8-4646-a573-a74837f58b3d" CreationDate="2012-05-17T12:43:45.457" UserId="1492" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="My only hesitation on physics&amp;astronomy is that &quot;Physics&quot; includes many subsets much larger than &quot;astronomy&quot; and putting it in the title sort of gives it a large weight in proportion to its phase space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit after comment: what about **Physics&amp;Astro** which would include astrophysics and astronomy in the code, and bring to mind &quot;ad astris&quot; :). Also the &quot;eye impression&quot; phase space is more proportional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit2 after @Holowitz  What about like the PHYSICSmeta, have the log as PHYSICSfromAtoZ, with fromAtoZ in smaller fonts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3093" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="c4952cad-3738-4d6c-bcca-098c672af137" CreationDate="2012-05-19T01:49:52.153" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="d4ed7a70-bd36-4856-8600-a7f8853162ec" CreationDate="2012-05-20T18:34:47.493" UserId="4760" Text="Is there any condensed info on site usage, bulk statistics on new questions/votes/comments/users over time just like on a user page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="d4ed7a70-bd36-4856-8600-a7f8853162ec" CreationDate="2012-05-20T18:34:47.493" UserId="4760" Text="site usage, bulk statistics on new questions/votes/comments/users over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="d4ed7a70-bd36-4856-8600-a7f8853162ec" CreationDate="2012-05-20T18:34:47.493" UserId="4760" Text="|feature-request|site-enhancement|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="26e1184a-d349-46e4-a7dc-94958d4ce510" CreationDate="2012-05-20T19:12:01.150" UserId="520" Text="There is in the moderator tools. It is not made public on a on-going basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd have to do a little reading to recall what the policy on answering analytics questions is, but if there is something specific you're interested in knowing it would help if you would say what." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="ba2c5f06-d953-4fbc-b22b-07efe8e671c7" CreationDate="2012-05-20T19:24:16.873" UserId="5844" Text="My question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28633/how-do-we-recognize-hardware-used-in-accelerator-physics&#xD;&#xA;has been closed. It is true, that no answer in closed form can be given. -but I still feel that it is a interesting question, and I was really looking forward to see some answers. -so sad..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="ba2c5f06-d953-4fbc-b22b-07efe8e671c7" CreationDate="2012-05-20T19:24:16.873" UserId="5844" Text="Why is weak questions not allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="ba2c5f06-d953-4fbc-b22b-07efe8e671c7" CreationDate="2012-05-20T19:24:16.873" UserId="5844" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1310" RevisionGUID="aac01a20-b2aa-42cb-8331-0ef5ca0b349a" CreationDate="2012-05-20T19:26:44.543" UserId="520" Text="This is a make-a-list question and is ill-suited to the question and answer format of Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should have chosen &quot;Not constructive&quot; as the close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is not a good fit to our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1310" RevisionGUID="98f6d835-2047-4ef7-a5b4-81d00988bddb" CreationDate="2012-05-20T20:30:16.767" UserId="520" Comment="links" Text="This is a make-a-list question and is ill-suited to the question and answer format of Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should have chosen &quot;Not constructive&quot; as the close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is not a good fit to our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [is a Stack Exchange wide policy][1] and is encoded in the FAQ [section entitled &quot;What kind of questions should I not ask here?&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  avoid asking subjective questions where [...] every answer is equally valid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/real-questions-have-answers/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="8fe79066-0785-47cd-8389-04e4a114cdf4" CreationDate="2012-05-20T20:46:50.827" UserId="520" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="There is in the moderator tools. It is not made public on a on-going basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd have to do a little reading to recall what the policy on answering analytics questions is, but if there is something specific you're interested in knowing it would help if you would say what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should say that you can do a lot of your own analysis with [the data dumps][1] and/or the [data explorer][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/09/creative-commons-data-dump-sep-11/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="1bd079c7-8421-49b5-b4d5-d5ea53c5a79b" CreationDate="2012-05-21T02:02:30.923" UserId="1272" Text="In accepting an answer for a question, I just ended up pressing the &quot;accept&quot; button several times in a row as I didn't detect an obvious change in color. Admittedly I was doing other things at the time on other web pages, but I think this would be easier to use if the button would change to a new color more different from the previous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the marking as it stands:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of marking that will be obvious even to old people like me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pFcCq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KrLa9.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="1bd079c7-8421-49b5-b4d5-d5ea53c5a79b" CreationDate="2012-05-21T02:02:30.923" UserId="1272" Text="accepted answer indication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="1bd079c7-8421-49b5-b4d5-d5ea53c5a79b" CreationDate="2012-05-21T02:02:30.923" UserId="1272" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3109" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="4412537a-d0c8-4744-8e73-29ffbda913b0" CreationDate="2012-05-21T02:04:03.013" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="67aa27d2-b009-49af-a9c7-012b2ddbf5e4" CreationDate="2012-05-21T18:03:54.380" UserId="4864" Text="In [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27973/newtons-law-of-gravitation-gauss-law-and-gr) I made a quick comment that there is an analog of &quot;Gauss's law&quot; for GR at large distances, that it is called the definition of the &quot;Hawking mass&quot;. Further, I commented that it is not reasonable to expect Gauss's law to work in general, because the group is not commutative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I went back to turn this comment into an answer. I suspect David erased it. How am I supposed to know what else is being erased without me knowing about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the explanation for the missing comment? Somebody deleted it, and I don't think it was me. I wanted to have it as notes for a future answer, and now the future is here, and it's gone (although I remember what it said)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="67aa27d2-b009-49af-a9c7-012b2ddbf5e4" CreationDate="2012-05-21T18:03:54.380" UserId="4864" Text="Has David (or someone else) been deleting my comments without warning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="67aa27d2-b009-49af-a9c7-012b2ddbf5e4" CreationDate="2012-05-21T18:03:54.380" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1313" RevisionGUID="f173c60f-e032-4b80-948c-efdad973de13" CreationDate="2012-05-21T18:14:53.920" UserId="520" Text="Browsing the recent [1] history of moderation actions I don't find *any* action on that post at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possibly you're looking at the wrong post? Or could the comments been deleted quite some time ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] I don't seem to have a full list, but it goes back at least to the beginning of May for the most active moderator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1313" RevisionGUID="f83d8314-e384-45e9-bf01-a927808a08ac" CreationDate="2012-05-21T19:06:29.533" UserId="520" Comment="added 776 characters in body" Text="Browsing the recent [1] history of moderation actions I don't find *any* action on that post at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possibly you're looking at the wrong post? Or could the comments been deleted quite some time ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] I don't seem to have a full list, but it goes back at least to the beginning of May for the most active moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following Fabian's helpful comment, I have found deleted comments. Not sure how I missed them before and now I have to go idiot check myself. Your comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1: This is a good question, the &quot;Gauss law&quot; of GR is often presented in the Weak field limit as the definition of the &quot;Hawking mass&quot; of a gravitating system. I am not sure about the inverse-square law, didn't check. Is there a link to the full unpublished paper? If you are looking for an &quot;integral form&quot; of Einstein's equations, it will be generally impossible, because even the nonabelian gauge field equation doesn't allow an integral form because of the non-abelian group is not commutative, so you don't get additive stuff over a big surface. This is a bit of a block to some geometrical ideas.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="30b1e029-f9ae-4fd6-82d6-ff655b6259af" CreationDate="2012-05-24T07:36:15.240" UserId="124" Text="[![Mathematica at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NddzD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3116" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="efc2a67c-c23f-4898-a48b-e9854d4f9f65" CreationDate="2012-05-24T07:36:15.240" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="3117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="72217bc1-e261-4d97-9709-bfec608f0d62" CreationDate="2012-05-25T17:55:10.620" UserId="9426" Text="I know this may seem like an odd suggestion, but over at [Biblical Hermeneutic.SE][1] we are running a [challenge][2] to ask new questions about astronomy in the Bible.  Like many [Ancient Near East][3] cultures, the Hebrews were fascinated with the movement of planets and watched the stars for signs of great import such as supernova and comets.  This interest in the sky carried over to the early Christians who used astronomical phenomena as symbols and signs of what they believed would soon happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of the sort of questions we are looking for (and to see if you can provide answers to help us understand the Bible) take a look at the questions tagged with [astronomy][4].  We are generally open to all sorts of interpretations, but we do take the idea of understanding what the Bible means seriously.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do you have any questions about the Bible and/or have any answers for the questions we've already raised?  If so, come on over!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/331/68&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astronomy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="72217bc1-e261-4d97-9709-bfec608f0d62" CreationDate="2012-05-25T17:55:10.620" UserId="9426" Text="Invitation to ask/answer astronomy-related Bible questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="72217bc1-e261-4d97-9709-bfec608f0d62" CreationDate="2012-05-25T17:55:10.620" UserId="9426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3120" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="98f1a9c2-7bf9-438d-8368-4bb86fad9d82" CreationDate="2012-05-25T23:15:16.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/206161542142636033" />
  <row Id="3121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="42885876-cf59-40bf-ab07-068c0e807929" CreationDate="2012-05-28T17:47:50.483" UserId="9082" Text="i have recently recieved a few rejections to proposed edits that i think are exactly the same &quot;value&quot; as other proposals with exactly the same amount and type of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a peer review process planned or being discussed or already rejected for these situations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize the sheer amount of edit reviews that need to be looked over are overwhelming. Is there a way to spread this burden out amoung the community or perhaps a post-review process for specific proposals that are in question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="42885876-cf59-40bf-ab07-068c0e807929" CreationDate="2012-05-28T17:47:50.483" UserId="9082" Text="Add the ability to have rejected &quot;edit proposals&quot; reviewed independantly or by vote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="42885876-cf59-40bf-ab07-068c0e807929" CreationDate="2012-05-28T17:47:50.483" UserId="9082" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="71b80b23-8d73-4f69-bc3c-438d9e92cfa2" CreationDate="2012-05-28T22:51:42.920" UserId="9082" Text="my browser keeps saying there is an error displaying the webpage and it puts it into compatibility mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once in compatibility mode my entire control area ie login chat main about faq all dissapear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I can do to fix this problem i am useing IE 8 with WinXP&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="71b80b23-8d73-4f69-bc3c-438d9e92cfa2" CreationDate="2012-05-28T22:51:42.920" UserId="9082" Text="Browser Forced into compatibilty mode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="71b80b23-8d73-4f69-bc3c-438d9e92cfa2" CreationDate="2012-05-28T22:51:42.920" UserId="9082" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1318" RevisionGUID="88c360b5-c7f3-4d3c-b378-cc98d032e41e" CreationDate="2012-05-28T23:11:59.643" UserId="520" Text="&gt; Is there a way to spread this burden out amoung the community or perhaps a post-review process for specific proposals that are in question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewing edits is [a power enabled for all users with at least 5000 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits). Currently that is 15 users on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus one moderator not included in that count and any team members who drop by and decide to put in a little work on our site in particular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3128" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="7b06442f-65cf-485c-ab88-0a7e3ba6caf8" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:53:49.643" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|site-salvage|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3129" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="f1b53d24-3992-4d96-9868-59d68441ed2b" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:54:12.840" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3130" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="d5b3858f-fedb-4f37-abda-b6dddc499e74" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:54:47.177" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3132" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="1030bfa7-d7a9-4c33-ba6b-dbe5a372056e" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:55:01.700" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3133" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="539a30b7-08e3-4235-b791-80b8fc580e33" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:55:09.093" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3134" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="092d7f4a-4faf-4938-8994-7d8984a48142" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:55:15.460" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="9aa41753-8942-40b0-a3b9-f9402f1a86f8" CreationDate="2012-05-29T18:01:33.313" UserId="124" Comment="add details on how we're doing this" Text="**UPDATE**  from D.Z.: I'm hijacking Manishearth's question to organize the tag cleanup effort, because most of the links are already posted here. Here's how this is going to work: whenever you have time and feel so inclined, go through the lists below and pick out a few questions (maybe no more than 5 at a time) that you want to review. Make sure the tags are appropriate, edit them if not, and try to make any other improvements that are warranted. When retagging, keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a tag that was originally on the question doesn't exist here at Physics, but you think it would be appropriate (which it usually should be) check and see if we have a different tag with the same meaning. If not, feel free to recreate the same tag. If you don't have enough rep to create tags, just leave that post, or flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;- We have a list of [subfield tags](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules) of which each post should probably have at least one. The list may be a little out of date, so consider it a guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each time you review a question and finish any edits necessary, delete it from the list below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged] ([list of questions that are &quot;untagged&quot;][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="7a30a5d5-1146-4b61-a7bf-2bbf5c17f0dd" CreationDate="2012-05-30T00:18:09.973" UserId="6835" Text="It's virtually impossible (at least on my LCD laptop screen) to tell the difference between an &quot;accepted&quot; checkmark and an &quot;unaccepted&quot; one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="7a30a5d5-1146-4b61-a7bf-2bbf5c17f0dd" CreationDate="2012-05-30T00:18:09.973" UserId="6835" Text="&quot;Accept&quot; contrast draws a vacuum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="7a30a5d5-1146-4b61-a7bf-2bbf5c17f0dd" CreationDate="2012-05-30T00:18:09.973" UserId="6835" Text="|bug|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="cebda827-9aba-4728-a9fa-b1aff688c428" CreationDate="2012-05-30T00:34:48.163" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [The color difference between the &amp;ldquo;answered&amp;rdquo; checkmark and the &amp;ldquo;unanswered&amp;rdquo; one is barely discernable](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1117/the-color-difference-between-the-answered-checkmark-and-the-unanswered-one-i)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;It's virtually impossible (at least on my LCD laptop screen) to tell the difference between an &quot;accepted&quot; checkmark and an &quot;unaccepted&quot; one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3140" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="5edf14f9-2562-4313-b6e5-126d7cc257a4" CreationDate="2012-05-30T00:34:46.057" UserId="520" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1117],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="71363c95-a0e2-4dd6-ae48-d3a59fff81d2" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:24:43.597" UserId="520" Text="I opened [a question on this topic on meta.photography.se][1] so that the proposed recipients can weight in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/q/2293/7441" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="71363c95-a0e2-4dd6-ae48-d3a59fff81d2" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:24:43.597" UserId="520" Text="On possibily migrating astrophotography questions from Physics.SE to Photography.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="71363c95-a0e2-4dd6-ae48-d3a59fff81d2" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:24:43.597" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3144" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="24c4a74e-a75a-40e6-918e-6419a473803e" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:25:15.187" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3145" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="bad45fcc-0c6c-429c-bc0b-b01e29010365" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:25:15.407" UserId="520" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="3146" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="0b6c1cbd-1fec-4b1f-a1d1-15ab17650b5e" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:25:31.163" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3147" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="77dc717b-c527-476f-a6f8-0f31a797159b" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:25:31.240" UserId="520" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="3148" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="ca05e2c5-4b6b-46a1-9e20-50fb32e30ab5" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:26:05.967" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3149" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="536bde48-4bb4-4e07-855b-e7776f167ee4" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:26:05.983" UserId="520" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="3150" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="21da7f1a-ae3f-4fe2-a77f-19c577ac2d54" CreationDate="2012-05-30T15:26:23.347" UserId="-1" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="3151" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="73e8bf18-423e-413b-9f1b-ca50d460ba61" CreationDate="2012-05-30T15:26:23.363" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3155" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="2dbd67dc-3e67-49c3-9c43-bd13de55d9a5" CreationDate="2012-05-31T05:15:16.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/208064079527550976" />
  <row Id="3157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="0af95cce-fa1b-49b0-946d-8a3ed41f9ff6" CreationDate="2012-05-31T17:15:16.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/208245272894119939" />
  <row Id="3158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="493b1583-63e2-4a50-9164-491c0819e4a8" CreationDate="2012-06-01T05:21:36.463" UserId="7433" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1322" RevisionGUID="22a17791-e564-4710-8cd5-f2d71a7af9ae" CreationDate="2012-06-02T02:20:58.780" UserId="9082" Text="I am retagging the salvaged posts. I may not have the know how to edit the meat of the questions but I give it my best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I just stop before I reach my denial limit and lose the ability altogether?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1322" RevisionGUID="22a17791-e564-4710-8cd5-f2d71a7af9ae" CreationDate="2012-06-02T02:20:58.780" UserId="9082" Text="Should I stop trying to retagg the salvaged posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1322" RevisionGUID="22a17791-e564-4710-8cd5-f2d71a7af9ae" CreationDate="2012-06-02T02:20:58.780" UserId="9082" Text="|discussion|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1323" RevisionGUID="8044e65b-6a2c-464a-af9e-193a434ac22d" CreationDate="2012-06-02T04:38:30.477" UserId="124" Text="Denial limit? You mean the edit ban? Well, you could stop editing, but then you'd be imposing an edit ban on yourself... all in all, I don't see any reason for you to stop editing unless you want to. Editing is optional, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3163" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="08df3a79-5e86-4f71-ba13-a5522f223d8f" CreationDate="2012-06-05T01:33:43.307" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29530/assumed-level-of-safety-on-the-home-experiment-tag" Text="" />
  <row Id="3164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="994f045f-0402-48fb-a8c8-76a0024c22d6" CreationDate="2012-06-05T01:28:56.323" UserId="9082" Text="In our comments and Answers Should we assume a proper level of safety precautions being taken?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="994f045f-0402-48fb-a8c8-76a0024c22d6" CreationDate="2012-06-05T01:28:56.323" UserId="9082" Text="Assumed level of safety on the Home Experiment Tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="994f045f-0402-48fb-a8c8-76a0024c22d6" CreationDate="2012-06-05T01:28:56.323" UserId="9082" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="e309153c-fd76-4e2d-90b7-b15666331242" CreationDate="2012-06-05T01:38:21.740" UserId="520" Text="I've been trying to keep in mind my own mixture competence and insane lack of regard for personal safety around my fourteenth birthday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically I look for work that *can* be done safely in a home environment and I try to specify what safety gear you should wear and/or have on hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1326" RevisionGUID="a1b67e15-8ffb-4872-bcb2-fbe0784fcafe" CreationDate="2012-06-05T02:02:07.370" UserId="124" Text="It's not our job to explain safety precautions to people, if that's what you're wondering. The answers here, when they describe experiments, are meant to be read as &quot;this is basically how X might be done&quot; rather than &quot;here is how to do X&quot; - in other words, we're just conveying knowledge about what is involved in running a particular experiment, not providing instructions on how to actually do it. If someone wants to carry out an experiment described in an answer, it's their responsibility to do whatever additional research is necessary to find or develop a proper set of instructions, including safety precautions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As sort of a corollary to that, if someone asks whether some particular procedure or effect is safe, or about how to do something safely, it's off topic for the site. We can answer questions about the effects of a certain amount of a physical phenomenon, though. For example, &quot;What are the effects of running current through a human body?&quot; is a fine question, but &quot;How much current can safely run through a human body?&quot; is not. If someone asks in a comment whether something is safe or not, it's best to either not answer, or just say you can't address that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1327" RevisionGUID="2b8bf5d6-3ecf-42c6-a578-a0b0b428d60c" CreationDate="2012-06-05T10:10:24.707" UserId="8563" Text="I don't know if this has been asked before (or possibly in other SEs), but a quick search didn't turn up anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14182/8563) or [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3309/8563) are questions that ask about, roughly, what recent developments mean in the grand scheme, or about what the state of the art is in some particular problem. Following on that line, I feel it could be productive add the tag [tag:State-of-the-art] to questions asking things like &quot;what's the best current ...&quot;, to put a marker on questions that will probably use a number of improved answers as time progresses and more physics is developed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1327" RevisionGUID="2b8bf5d6-3ecf-42c6-a578-a0b0b428d60c" CreationDate="2012-06-05T10:10:24.707" UserId="8563" Text="State-of-the-art tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1327" RevisionGUID="2b8bf5d6-3ecf-42c6-a578-a0b0b428d60c" CreationDate="2012-06-05T10:10:24.707" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="572580ea-f41e-4555-b305-17d97906e8ec" CreationDate="2012-06-05T18:34:29.237" UserId="124" Text="I would not be in favor of this. It is the nature of a Stack Exchange site that all questions are open to improved answers as time progresses. Besides, this tag sounds like a &quot;meta tag,&quot; meaning that it doesn't really classify the content of the question, and we try to keep such tags to a minimum. There are a few that have become established through usage or necessity, like [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], and [tag:soft-question], but we should carefully consider the benefits before introducing new ones, and I just don't think this tag would do enough to justify its existence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="817dbd8d-08d1-4393-a1a7-edc4ae1f6ef3" CreationDate="2012-06-06T10:09:52.050" UserDisplayName="user8784" Text="Normally it is enough just to write \dag like this \hat A^{\dag} but it doesn't work here!.&#xD;&#xA;$$\hat A^{\dag}$$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="817dbd8d-08d1-4393-a1a7-edc4ae1f6ef3" CreationDate="2012-06-06T10:09:52.050" UserDisplayName="user8784" Text="Problem with the Hermitian adjoint of an operator $\dagger$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="817dbd8d-08d1-4393-a1a7-edc4ae1f6ef3" CreationDate="2012-06-06T10:09:52.050" UserDisplayName="user8784" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="0f0ab19f-0f19-4dfc-bdb2-94e5516cdc0b" CreationDate="2012-06-06T16:40:35.087" UserId="124" Text="Not all LaTeX commands are supported. We use [MathJax](http://www.mathjax.org) for LaTeX rendering, and the list of macros that are implemented is given on their website. In this case you can use `\dagger` instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3178" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="5936562f-e5d8-49c2-8eeb-f388aa82849c" CreationDate="2012-06-06T16:40:59.220" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1331" RevisionGUID="5856fa60-6b75-4dbf-979d-165ddbd5f147" CreationDate="2012-06-07T09:43:06.743" UserId="373" Text="If you type $\newcommand\dag\dagger$ at the beginning of your post, you can type $$a^\dag$$ and $$b^\dag$$ later. It will work as expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually use $\newcommand\ket[1]{\left| #1 \right&gt;}$ quite often in quantum physics related posts, so I can confirm it works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="ec7a9011-58d8-4014-b359-41bca1fcc7d2" CreationDate="2012-06-09T05:14:00.157" UserId="7433" Text="[![Chemistry - Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QXWWu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3186" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="8050d941-8193-410d-934b-694b5b8e53e2" CreationDate="2012-06-09T05:14:00.157" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="3188" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="cf8bb2d6-2253-459a-9cc4-18a62333c483" CreationDate="2012-06-11T16:12:02.797" UserId="6973" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="600f67a1-caab-4a6d-9231-2b5a2163e3a6" CreationDate="2012-06-11T23:46:48.927" UserId="5878" Text="Parts of the user account pages on physics.SE are &quot;out of alignment&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect appears to me on accounts other than my own, too, but only here on physics.SE (account pages on math.SE, for example, look fine). I'm using Chrome 19.0.1084.52 on Windows 7 64-bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2qzA6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="600f67a1-caab-4a6d-9231-2b5a2163e3a6" CreationDate="2012-06-11T23:46:48.927" UserId="5878" Text="User account pages seem to be slightly broken" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="600f67a1-caab-4a6d-9231-2b5a2163e3a6" CreationDate="2012-06-11T23:46:48.927" UserId="5878" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3192" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="bdda89a5-4665-4ec1-abc3-45fc42853d1c" CreationDate="2012-06-11T23:56:52.860" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1337" RevisionGUID="edefc6b5-b8c8-4da2-b40f-60fafd07e52d" CreationDate="2012-06-11T23:57:16.323" UserId="124" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="e3c8457d-a7c2-4e3a-8bb7-8912d28711cd" CreationDate="2012-06-11T23:57:16.323" UserId="124" Text="Feedback relating to the appearance of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="131fbb9d-a7f6-4afd-a439-f2cdc60d0daa" CreationDate="2012-06-12T13:14:27.003" UserId="5878" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Parts of the user account pages on physics.SE are &quot;out of alignment&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect appears to me on accounts other than my own, too, but only here on physics.SE (account pages on math.SE, for example, look fine). I'm using Chrome 19.0.1084.52 on Windows 7 64-bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem is [now being reported on SciFi.SE, IT Security.SE, and Bicycles.SE](http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/q/1905/2285).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2qzA6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="29aa78e3-41a7-4b5f-a3f4-b52719e302da" CreationDate="2012-06-12T15:22:22.070" UserId="5878" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Parts of the user account pages on physics.SE are &quot;out of alignment&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect appears to me on accounts other than my own, too, but only here on physics.SE (account pages on math.SE, for example, look fine). I'm using Chrome 19.0.1084.52 on Windows 7 64-bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem is [now being reported on SciFi.SE, IT Security.SE, and Bicycles.SE](http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/q/1905/2285). I also see it on Electronics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2qzA6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="371bef53-56ea-4769-8a61-544aa4f93414" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:32:41.107" UserId="124" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27751/what-is-known-about-the-classification-of-n-4-scfts-with-central-charge-6&quot;&gt;What is known about the classification of N=4 SCFTs with central charge 6?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26875/superhiggs-mechanism-on-different-backgrounds-compactifications&quot;&gt;SuperHiggs Mechanism on different Backgrounds &amp; Compactifications&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27384/are-possible-gauge-fields-in-a-lagrangian-theory-always-determined-by-the-struct&quot;&gt;Are possible gauge fields in a Lagrangian theory always determined by the structure of the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gauge-theory symmetry quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26939/models-of-higher-chern-simons-type&quot;&gt;models of higher Chern-Simons type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27468/renormalization-group-for-non-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Renormalization Group for non-equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27780/theoretical-penetration-limit-for-evanescent-waves&quot;&gt;Theoretical penetration limit for evanescent waves&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-electrodynamics uncertainty-principle optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27143/applications-of-delay-differential-equations&quot;&gt;Applications of delay differential equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27262/mermin-wagner-theorem-in-the-presence-of-hard-core-interactions&quot;&gt;Mermin-Wagner theorem in the presence of hard-core interactions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27453/technical-naturalness-of-yukawa-couplings&quot;&gt;Technical naturalness of Yukawa couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27776/do-gauge-theories-cfts-have-phase-transitions-as-the-t-hooft-coupling-is-vari&quot;&gt;Do Gauge Theories (CFTs) Have Phase Transitions as the 't Hooft Coupling is Varied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26838/connections-and-applications-of-sle-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections and applications of SLE in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics conformal-field-theory probability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27125/hypersingular-boundary-operator-in-physics&quot;&gt;Hypersingular Boundary Operator in Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27565/status-of-local-gauge-invariance-in-axiomatic-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Status of local gauge invariance in axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26804/what-is-the-current-state-of-research-into-v-representability&quot;&gt;What is the current state of research into $v$-representability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor&quot;&gt;The Role of Rigor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph history-overview &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27398/onsagers-regression-hypothesis-explained-and-demonstrated&quot;&gt;Onsager's Regression Hypothesis, Explained and Demonstrated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26950/extensions-of-dhr-superselection-theory-to-long-range-forces&quot;&gt;Extensions of DHR superselection theory to long range forces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&quot;&gt;What is the use of a Universal-NOT gate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/an-entropy-of-the-wigner-function&quot;&gt;An entropy of the Wigner function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph uncertainty-principle entropy wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/sampling-typical-clusters-between-distant-points-in-subcritical-percolation&quot;&gt;Sampling typical clusters between distant points in subcritical percolation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27593/which-is-the-coupling-between-the-photon-and-the-su2xu1-gauginos-before-sym&quot;&gt;Which is the coupling between the photon and the SU(2)xU(1) gauginos, before symmetry brea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27286/metric-interpretation-of-self-adjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Metric interpretation of self-adjoint extensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics non-commutative-geometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/systematic-approach-to-deriving-equations-of-collective-field-theory-to-any-orde&quot;&gt;Systematic approach to deriving equations of collective field theory to any order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26915/can-the-cpt-theorem-be-valid-if-lorentz-invariance-is-only-spontaneously-broken&quot;&gt;Can the CPT theorem be valid if Lorentz invariance is only spontaneously broken?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="ae48c67b-0d17-4f0d-8348-e1f1ef694450" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:33:13.790" UserId="124" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27760/advanced-topics-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Advanced topics in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27072/derivation-of-the-basic-equation-for-witten-diagrams&quot;&gt;Derivation of the basic equation for Witten diagrams&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory adscft quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27419/wilson-loops-in-chern-simons-theory-with-non-compact-gauge-groups&quot;&gt;Wilson Loops in Chern-Simons theory with non-compact gauge groups&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th reference-request topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27361/readable-books-on-advanced-topics&quot;&gt;Readable books on advanced topics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27356/torsion-and-gauge-invariant-em-kinetic-term&quot;&gt;Torsion and gauge invariant EM kinetic term&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26887/stability-of-the-vacuum-state-of-interacting-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;Stability of the vacuum state of interacting quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory thermal-qft classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27740/how-to-prove-equivalence-of-rg-flow-of-qft-coupling-constant-and-diagrammatic-re&quot;&gt;How to prove equivalence of RG flow of QFT coupling constant and diagrammatic resummation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27549/modular-invariance-for-higher-genus&quot;&gt;Modular invariance for higher genus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27581/pohlmeyer-reduction-of-string-theory-for-flat-and-ads-spaces&quot;&gt;Pohlmeyer reduction of string theory for flat and AdS spaces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory adscft quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27168/how-can-one-build-a-multi-scale-physics-model-of-fluid-flow-phenomena&quot;&gt;How can one build a multi-scale physics model of fluid flow phenomena?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-thermodynamics simulation fluid-dynamics lattice-boltzmann&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26849/values-of-sm-parameters-at-one-certain-scale&quot;&gt;Values of SM parameters at one certain scale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry standard-model renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27291/povms-that-do-not-require-enlargement-of-the-hilbert-space&quot;&gt;POVMs that do not require enlargement of the Hilbert space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27636/functional-representations-of-free-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;functional representations of free quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27032/time-reversal-symmetry-and-t2-1&quot;&gt;Time reversal symmetry and T^2 = -1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27393/significance-of-massive-states-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Significance of massive states in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27198/relativistic-center-of-mass&quot;&gt;Relativistic center of mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&quot;&gt;Many body quantum states analyzed as probabilistic sequences&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-information spin-model locc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26844/intuitive-sketch-of-the-correspondence-of-a-string-theory-to-its-limiting-quantu&quot;&gt;Intuitive sketch of the correspondence of a string theory to its limiting quantum field th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27382/reduced-density-matrices-for-free-fermions-are-thermal&quot;&gt;Reduced density matrices for free fermions are thermal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement thermal-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26914/random-matrix-ensembles-from-bmn-model&quot;&gt;random matrix ensembles from BMN model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27045/interesting-topics-to-research-in-mathematical-physics-for-undergraduates&quot;&gt;Interesting topics to research in mathematical physics for undergraduates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27229/spectrum-of-a-quantum-relativistic-distance-squared-operator&quot;&gt;Spectrum of a quantum relativistic &quot;distance squared&quot; operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27611/string-theoretic-significance-of-extended-cft&quot;&gt;String-theoretic significance of extended CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27620/different-kinds-of-s-matrices&quot;&gt;Different kinds of S-matrices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="42dace3c-45be-4b30-9f22-d47f0259c009" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:33:46.067" UserId="124" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&quot;&gt;Master Equations and Operator Sum Form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&quot;&gt;Accurate quantum state estimation via &quot;Keeping the experimentalist honest&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information quantum-estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&quot;&gt;Operator norm directly from phase space representation of photonic quantum operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-information optics wigner-function norms&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;CHSH violation and entanglement of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information nonlocality entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27414/which-arguments-for-m-u-approx-0-are-still-in-the-market&quot;&gt;Which arguments for $m_u \approx 0$ are still in the market?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27785/what-compactifications-of-the-poincare-group-have-been-studied&quot;&gt;what compactifications of the Poincare group have been studied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;compactification poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27492/rigorous-proof-of-bohr-sommerfeld-quantization&quot;&gt;Rigorous proof of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27783/how-does-one-geometrically-quantize-the-bloch-equations&quot;&gt;How does one geometrically quantize the Bloch equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27584/convexity-reference-request&quot;&gt;Convexity -- reference request&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27217/is-this-a-simple-lie-algebra&quot;&gt;Is this a simple Lie algebra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27441/pauli-villars-regularisation-breaks-supersymmetry-how-to-see-that&quot;&gt;Pauli-Villars regularisation breaks supersymmetry. How to see that?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27388/tree-level-qft-and-classical-fields-particles&quot;&gt;Tree level QFT and classical fields/particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering classical-limit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27149/charged-black-holes-in-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Charged black holes in equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity black-hole einstein-maxwell&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27425/rigorous-justification-for-rotating-wave-approximation&quot;&gt;Rigorous justification for rotating wave approximation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27470/superconformal-multiplet-calculus-in-6d&quot;&gt;Superconformal Multiplet Calculus in 6D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27508/optimality-of-the-chsh-strategy&quot;&gt;Optimality of the CHSH strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement history-overview&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27618/conformal-qfts-for-d-2&quot;&gt;Conformal QFTs for D &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27660/solution-to-the-schrodinger-equation-for-periodically-time-dependent-hamiltonian&quot;&gt;Solution to the Schrodinger equation for periodically time dependent Hamiltonians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26972/what-are-some-ways-to-approximately-symbolically-diagonalize-hamiltonian-opera&quot;&gt;What are some ways to (approximately) symbolically diagonalize Hamiltonian operator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27038/what-hermitian-operators-can-be-observables&quot;&gt;What Hermitian operators can be observables?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-measurement hilbert-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&quot;&gt;Can the concurrence be calculated in terms of the entanglement of formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1342" RevisionGUID="5ccf8d9e-7c52-4f42-8e80-38b0a8e538a4" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:37:56.403" UserId="124" Text="Since our chat room has been named &quot;The Coupling&quot; for a little while, I'm adding that as an option. Vote away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="4ca30704-9261-40f4-a8b6-43a25b598dd9" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:41:41.393" UserId="124" Text="I'd like to set up a regular series of chat sessions, to allow us to discuss events on the site or in the world of physics, and to boost our community spirit. Or something like that. Anyway, what time works for people? Please upvote any times that work for you, downvote any that don't, and if nothing works, post a suggestion as a new answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="4ca30704-9261-40f4-a8b6-43a25b598dd9" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:41:41.393" UserId="124" Text="When should we have regular chat sessions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="4ca30704-9261-40f4-a8b6-43a25b598dd9" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:41:41.393" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1344" RevisionGUID="35d53c18-f3c8-4f43-8d72-e7f00af01e4e" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:43:59.970" UserId="124" Text="Suggestion: 4-5 PM UTC on Tuesdays (noon-1 PM EST). Upvote if this works for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="fb0a48fc-39ec-4eba-8b74-4b90c1f02fe5" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:20:12.040" UserId="91" Comment="Fix" Text="[![Chemistry - Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1347" RevisionGUID="d7825582-a84e-49e8-8766-a22a7fa360ed" CreationDate="2012-06-16T22:51:24.003" UserId="6441" Text="I want to add the tag category theory or cateogorical quantum mechanics or something like categorical physics.  How can I ask to have this tag added?  There is a huge group at Oxford, there's Isham and Doering, and so many others.  We should add a tag so that we can just post to the general idea of using category theory in physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1347" RevisionGUID="d7825582-a84e-49e8-8766-a22a7fa360ed" CreationDate="2012-06-16T22:51:24.003" UserId="6441" Text="How do we add a tag or vote for a new tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1347" RevisionGUID="d7825582-a84e-49e8-8766-a22a7fa360ed" CreationDate="2012-06-16T22:51:24.003" UserId="6441" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="09126231-e9d6-4d17-99a3-6e97ffa1c704" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:01:16.910" UserId="124" Text="As long as you have at least 300 reputation, you can just add the tag to any questions that should have it. There's an &quot;edit tags&quot; link that will appear (I think) if you hover your mouse just to the right of the existing tags, or you can just use the regular &quot;edit&quot; link if you have it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="25747429-2dc8-4ff3-bab7-cf2b20bef0b0" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:16:41.123" UserId="520" Comment="link to privileges page" Text="As long as you have [at least 300 reputation][1], you can just add the tag to any questions that should have it. There's an &quot;edit tags&quot; link that will appear (I think) if you hover your mouse just to the right of the existing tags, or you can just use the regular &quot;edit&quot; link if you have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/create-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1350" RevisionGUID="74cb8474-adc9-498c-81df-5bbc3962ea8b" CreationDate="2012-06-19T08:38:55.323" UserId="373" Text="I add your excellent suggestion &quot;the h-bar&quot;, so that people can vote for it :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##　**ℏ**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="3fe55052-e3ba-4fa7-a82e-0ab273a982a5" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:45:50.973" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="I'd really like to fix a typo in this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/30433/2963&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for some reason only the 'link' and 'flag' options are visible to me (no 'edit' or 'retag'). I've looked around the SO faq a bit, but nothing jumped out at me as to why this is the case, can anyone explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="3fe55052-e3ba-4fa7-a82e-0ab273a982a5" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:45:50.973" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="What determines if a post is editable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="3fe55052-e3ba-4fa7-a82e-0ab273a982a5" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:45:50.973" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="7a1d1386-82b7-4a09-b13f-4f301f420c42" CreationDate="2012-06-20T21:55:42.990" UserId="9082" Text="Related: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How do I determine what user was removed.   &#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to have the related up/down-votes listed to see what questions comments were effected?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="7a1d1386-82b7-4a09-b13f-4f301f420c42" CreationDate="2012-06-20T21:55:42.990" UserId="9082" Text="user removed, rep change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="7a1d1386-82b7-4a09-b13f-4f301f420c42" CreationDate="2012-06-20T21:55:42.990" UserId="9082" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="8567710e-38e2-4e3d-b49e-4cce1bcee8eb" CreationDate="2012-06-20T22:19:09.253" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="You can't -- one of the most fundamental rules of SE is that voting is confidential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can only see when and from what posts you gain/lose reputation, [in your profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9082/argus?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3224" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="87a396cf-1906-480d-8b3e-c96994fe3b92" CreationDate="2012-06-22T04:35:01.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/216026480860336128" />
  <row Id="3225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1354" RevisionGUID="338fd4ae-5cd7-4fce-b2c1-000825c80777" CreationDate="2012-06-24T13:33:18.527" UserId="1588" Text="It would be useful, I think, if comments that are directed *to* me could turn up in the RSS feed that is associated with my user page, because then my RSS reader would notify me that there is a comment on SE. Comments *by* me are there already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, is there already a way to be notified by SE of incoming comments (other than by e-mail every three hours or daily, which I don't want to do)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1354" RevisionGUID="338fd4ae-5cd7-4fce-b2c1-000825c80777" CreationDate="2012-06-24T13:33:18.527" UserId="1588" Text="Can the &quot;user&quot; RSS feed include comments that respond to that user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1354" RevisionGUID="338fd4ae-5cd7-4fce-b2c1-000825c80777" CreationDate="2012-06-24T13:33:18.527" UserId="1588" Text="|feature-request|rss|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="d3755be5-6d7b-43ca-8353-4614a2335fc6" CreationDate="2012-06-26T08:20:56.017" UserId="7433" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final destination is this synonym: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to vote for it, a mod will synonymify it once the retagging is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There now is a userscript for this https://gist.github.com/2994348 (full details [here](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/121541) ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="ecd8845d-6376-4c78-baa2-fbca3c0e9d35" CreationDate="2012-06-26T09:31:27.037" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final destination is this synonym: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to vote for it, a mod will synonymify it once the retagging is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There now is a userscript for this https://gist.github.com/2994654(full details [here](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/121541) ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="5df2fcc2-a831-40c2-b3dc-674d0d797bcf" CreationDate="2012-06-26T14:24:32.173" UserId="3018" Text="Relatively frequently on this site there are questions of the general form &quot;How do I learn X knowing Y&quot; (X being things like &quot;[Quantum Mechanics][1],&quot; &quot;[General Relativity][2],&quot; [etc][3] and Y being things like &quot;[lots of math][4],&quot; &quot;[no math][5],&quot; &quot;[some physics][6],&quot; &quot;no physics,&quot; [etc][7]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I generally don't like this questions since they go against the [principle][8] of &quot;only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions do have some value. Perhaps a community wiki tag would work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30670/study-quantum-mechanics-without-physics-background &quot;Quantum Mechanics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28573/where-do-i-start-with-non-euclidean-geometry?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16119/which-subjects-in-physics-should-i-choose-if-i-want-to-help-tackling-todays-ene?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30731/what-would-be-the-requirement-to-learn-matrix-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20641/book-for-learning-about-constructing-correct-physical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9935/should-i-begin-to-study-quantum-mechanics-or-wait-until-i-have-a-stronger-base-o?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="5df2fcc2-a831-40c2-b3dc-674d0d797bcf" CreationDate="2012-06-26T14:24:32.173" UserId="3018" Text="&quot;How do I learn X knowing Y&quot; and other user specific type questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="5df2fcc2-a831-40c2-b3dc-674d0d797bcf" CreationDate="2012-06-26T14:24:32.173" UserId="3018" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="deb6a6ba-cd20-4e98-b452-cf463b8976d7" CreationDate="2012-06-27T04:00:50.620" UserId="124" Text="On one hand, these questions aren't about specific physics concepts, so I agree with you that having a large enough proportion of these questions does diminish the usefulness of the site. On the other hand, the questions themselves are useful to the people asking them, and perhaps to others who come along later. And they're not as chatty and open-ended as some other questions that show up from time to time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me say just this: community wikification does not give a question license to be inappropriate anymore. Either a question is on topic and constructive, or it isn't. (Having a certain tag also doesn't make a question appropriate when it otherwise wouldn't be.) And in fact, we don't actually make questions CW anymore, except for the rare _possible_ case where a question's content is actually going to be &quot;community owned&quot; (whatever that means).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning these questions, I'm not really sure what to do. As long as they come in small enough numbers that they're not significantly displacing more substantive conceptual questions, I don't really have a problem with them in general. But we can always decide to close on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps have stricter standards for what sorts of &quot;learn X knowing Y&quot; questions are acceptable than for other questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, if you think a question is off topic, vote to close it and/or flag it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3234" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="01ae12f5-a8f1-4f7d-90d4-9528f3e6794f" CreationDate="2012-06-27T19:35:05.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/218064928660140032" />
  <row Id="3235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1357" RevisionGUID="6e5c9995-eb82-462a-9bef-f4cd24fd2e75" CreationDate="2012-06-27T22:32:18.603" UserId="3621" Text="While I am a huge fan of stackexchange for some types of questions (ie: computer programming, Mathematica, latex), I still go to physicsforums.com for physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the volume of questions and answers on this physics stackexchange site compare to that of physicsforums.com?  Is this site attracting enough of a following that people are &quot;defecting&quot; from physicsforums?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1357" RevisionGUID="6e5c9995-eb82-462a-9bef-f4cd24fd2e75" CreationDate="2012-06-27T22:32:18.603" UserId="3621" Text="How does the volume of questions and answers on this site compare to physicsforums.com?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1357" RevisionGUID="6e5c9995-eb82-462a-9bef-f4cd24fd2e75" CreationDate="2012-06-27T22:32:18.603" UserId="3621" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1358" RevisionGUID="920f0b83-23eb-4f13-b730-7e8989be6c3f" CreationDate="2012-06-27T22:41:51.110" UserId="124" Text="As a rough estimate, it seems like Physics Forums gets about 500 threads per day, although not all of those are physics questions. On this site we get around 20 questions a day, or perhaps a few more. So I'd say PF has roughly 20 times the meaningful traffic that we do. However, it's worth keeping in mind that most of the questions there are simplistic homework questions of the sort that we generally discourage here. If you wonder about the figure of how many questions are asked at PF that we would like to have asked here, I'm sure it's significantly less than 20 times this site's activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether people are &quot;defecting&quot; from PF to come here, but there's really no reason they need to - nothing stops someone from contributing to more than one Q&amp;A site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="50965d8c-6c6b-4c20-a9d0-913bd31a925a" CreationDate="2012-06-29T04:00:33.200" UserId="124" Comment="added 216 characters in body; added 161 characters in body" Text="I'd like to set up a regular series of chat sessions, to allow us to discuss events on the site or in the world of physics, and to boost our community spirit. Or something like that. Anyway, what time works for people? Please upvote any times that work for you, downvote any that don't, and if nothing works, post a suggestion as a new answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** in case you're too lazy to scroll down (I'm not judging!): the suggestion seems to have enough support, so we will be starting regular biweekly chat sessions _next_ Tuesday, July 3, at [4 PM UTC](http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20120626T17). An event will be added to the room's schedule soon (not yet, due to technical problems)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="0ade4028-6258-4da4-8c93-04100d231317" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:18:35.507" UserId="2751" Text="I just wanted to change my avatar picture into something nicer, but I did not succeed because this Gravatar thing is so annoying (I could not create an account/log in applying my usual login data, word press told me my user name is not available, etc ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could physics SE do something to simplify the procedure? I mean such that one can just upload a picture from the local desktop to replace the default Gravatar picture that was dished out to a new user as he first registered to physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;It would be nice if there were a simplified alternative to using Gravatar in order to creat/change the avatar picture without need to register somewhere else ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="0ade4028-6258-4da4-8c93-04100d231317" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:18:35.507" UserId="2751" Text="Simplified method to change the avatar picture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="0ade4028-6258-4da4-8c93-04100d231317" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:18:35.507" UserId="2751" Text="|support|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1360" RevisionGUID="8392952d-2e37-499f-b01f-ea24f0cbab05" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:57:51.117" UserId="124" Text="No, there's nothing we can do. The avatars are provided by Gravatar, which is a separate site that has no connection at all to Stack Exchange. Any problems you may have relating to changing your avatar, you'll have to take up with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Gravatar is the simplified alternative to SE managing the profile pictures itself, not the other way around. All you need to do is provide your email address." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1344" RevisionGUID="b87ca37e-ff96-4c69-a44b-6456f844c41e" CreationDate="2012-06-30T05:04:54.653" UserId="124" Comment="edited body" Text="Suggestion: 4-5 PM UTC on Tuesdays (noon-1 PM EDT). Upvote if this works for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="33189cf3-bf68-4942-9828-2ba459b653fd" CreationDate="2012-06-30T05:05:56.650" UserId="124" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I'd like to set up a regular series of chat sessions, to allow us to discuss events on the site or in the world of physics, and to boost our community spirit. Or something like that. Anyway, what time works for people? Please upvote any times that work for you, downvote any that don't, and if nothing works, post a suggestion as a new answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** in case you're too lazy to scroll down (I'm not judging!): the suggestion seems to have enough support, so we will be starting regular biweekly chat sessions _next_ Tuesday, July 3, at [4 PM UTC](http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20120626T17). It's now listed on the [chat room's schedule](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule). If you're going to be there, feel free to click the link and register!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1361" RevisionGUID="193ef7e6-31ff-47a6-b91d-0bb8f0ecc133" CreationDate="2012-07-01T18:08:16.013" UserId="9082" Text="To Stop compatibility view from recovering from page layout errors the Solution is simple.(although it took me awhile to figure out were the option was)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open &quot;Tools&quot; menu then go to &quot;Internet Options&quot;. Under the &quot;Advanced setting&quot; tab scroll down to The &quot;Browsing&quot; Section and Uncheck the option &quot;Automatically Recover From page layout errors with Combatibility View&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will not fix the layout incompatibilty with IE proprietary browsing visualization but there will be no unwanted loss of your individual Menu Items." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="cb97bd2d-fbd7-4645-95cb-8ae1c05fe95b" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:25:32.037" UserId="124" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final destination is this synonym: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to vote for it, a mod will synonymify it once the retagging is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There now is a userscript for this https://gist.github.com/2994654 (full details [here](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/121541) ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="78ee8d92-a737-4be6-9775-2477ad71372f" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:09:01.407" UserId="124" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="7a27afcc-795b-4943-af3f-c06fe0f22ab1" CreationDate="2012-07-04T01:41:20.087" UserId="9082" Text="The current procedure for a closed as exact duplicate automatically insert the link to the question in duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link is denoted as &quot;Possible Duplicate&quot; should this say &quot;Exact Duplicate&quot; as the question was peer reviewed and the decision to close was reached." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="7a27afcc-795b-4943-af3f-c06fe0f22ab1" CreationDate="2012-07-04T01:41:20.087" UserId="9082" Text="Exact duplicate(closed) questions and automatic link insertion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="7a27afcc-795b-4943-af3f-c06fe0f22ab1" CreationDate="2012-07-04T01:41:20.087" UserId="9082" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="82202fb2-21e0-416c-b61f-4a03e6f2a3e7" CreationDate="2012-07-04T04:43:05.533" UserId="7433" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="6d513548-74a2-46de-a8f5-e60a48547bf4" CreationDate="2012-07-04T12:13:58.163" UserId="623" Text="I would like to be able to see a display such as computer screen or mobile phone display in sunlight. This question is more about engineering so have to refine this somehow. It consists of novel ideas such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. get a display that I can use in sun -light &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. develop glasses that helps to see in sunglight (no need to modify then displays). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. develop hat that blocks sun-light and somehow helps to see colors better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. perhaps some nano-processed material that absorb certain frequency better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. have the display in your glasses but reflection/aberration/etc problem still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. other ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hacks such as [here](http://www.amazon.com/Compushade-Laptop-Notebook-Screen-Shade/dp/B000FX4Z44) but I would like to find a better solution. I am not sure whether it exist. How can I break this issue into parts to make it more appropriate to Physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="6d513548-74a2-46de-a8f5-e60a48547bf4" CreationDate="2012-07-04T12:13:58.163" UserId="623" Text="&quot;Develop method by which to see electronic display in sun-light&quot;, help me to make this engineering question into physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="6d513548-74a2-46de-a8f5-e60a48547bf4" CreationDate="2012-07-04T12:13:58.163" UserId="623" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="96d3a910-4009-4e0c-bd55-1cc0bd07b962" CreationDate="2012-07-04T12:22:31.027" UserId="623" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I would like to be able to see a display such as computer screen or mobile phone display in sunlight. This question is more about engineering so have to refine this somehow. It consists of novel ideas such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **[?]** get a display that I can use in sun -light &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **[optics, mechanics, other?]** develop glasses that helps to see in sunglight (no need to modify then displays). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **[optics]** develop hat that blocks sun-light and somehow helps to see colors better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **[nano-technology, other?]** perhaps some nano-processed material that absorb certain frequency better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **[aberraction, reflection, optics, other?]** have the display in your glasses but reflection/aberration/etc problem still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. other ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hacks such as [here](http://www.amazon.com/Compushade-Laptop-Notebook-Screen-Shade/dp/B000FX4Z44) but I would like to find a better solution. I am not sure whether it exist. How can I break this issue into parts to make it more appropriate to Physics.SE? Please, add fields in brackets to which the ideas may be related, thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="06765202-a6cb-4a1a-a063-1a7892c897b2" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:27:27.443" UserId="9922" Text="I was going to ask about definition of word &quot;*bias*&quot;. But I am wondering if it is a right question for Physic forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the part of [FAQ][1] describing what type of questions should be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  **Experimental designs and results**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Accepted and/or actively researched theories**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Mathematics and physics**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Number theory in physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, my question does not belong to any of these categories. So maybe I should rather ask at [English Language &amp; Usage][2] section since I am going to ask about a definition of a word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However what I seek is more like ***practical example in physic for better understanding of the word.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which section is more suitable for such questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="06765202-a6cb-4a1a-a063-1a7892c897b2" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:27:27.443" UserId="9922" Text="Are questions about practical definition alowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="06765202-a6cb-4a1a-a063-1a7892c897b2" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:27:27.443" UserId="9922" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="6df59529-4671-4f7f-95ed-1a2747bd1ef0" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:35:38.027" UserId="9922" Comment="fixed grammer" Text="I was going to ask about definition (explanation) of the word &quot;*bias*&quot;. But I am wondering if it is a right question for Physic forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the part of [FAQ][1] describing what type of questions should be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  **Experimental designs and results**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Accepted and/or actively researched theories**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Mathematics and physics**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Number theory in physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, my question does not belong to any of these categories. So maybe I should rather ask at [English Language &amp; Usage][2] section since I am going to ask about a definition of a word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However what I seek is more like ***practical example in physic for better understanding of the word.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which section is more suitable for such questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3261" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="2971daf1-a7e5-4057-8e85-44863d1984c0" CreationDate="2012-07-05T10:55:08.313" UserId="9922" Comment="edited title" Text="Are questions about practical definition allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1365" RevisionGUID="7e89bd65-a303-46a4-80b0-b5433931bbfa" CreationDate="2012-07-05T10:55:09.553" UserId="124" Text="Unless your question is _really_ specific (which it probably isn't), try the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, yes, EL&amp;U would be a better place to ask about a definition of such a general term - but they would expect you to check a dictionary and encyclopedia first, and to explain why the information you find there doesn't answer your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1366" RevisionGUID="5463de32-c220-45c9-abcb-541bb5cb7236" CreationDate="2012-07-05T14:04:10.413" UserId="8563" Text="I get the feeling that there's been a marked increase in new questions, particularly about the Higgs - no surprise there - but also on other topics, which may be associated with an influx of people coming here to ask Higgs questions and sticking around for at least some more while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then again, maybe I'm imagining things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd therefore like to ask the people with access to that kind of statistics - is it real? if so, then maybe it's a good time to use this as a community to make a concerted effort at making sure as many newcomers as possible stick around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1366" RevisionGUID="5463de32-c220-45c9-abcb-541bb5cb7236" CreationDate="2012-07-05T14:04:10.413" UserId="8563" Text="Did site activity just grow noticeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1366" RevisionGUID="5463de32-c220-45c9-abcb-541bb5cb7236" CreationDate="2012-07-05T14:04:10.413" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|site-statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1367" RevisionGUID="e19d1e1b-f292-45ae-8e53-64ddc44e2fa3" CreationDate="2012-07-05T14:08:26.537" UserId="124" Text="We're actually just seeing a bunch of Higgs questions in the last 12 hours or so, not really much earlier than that. In any case, up to yesterday, the site's activity has been nearly constant (perhaps very _slowly_ growing) for quite a while. So no, the statistics don't reflect such a period of growth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1368" RevisionGUID="8511a8ac-3f77-496e-8b0a-1f4e4b9286e7" CreationDate="2012-07-05T14:37:35.157" UserId="520" Text="Our pageviews are not significantly up suggesting that this is a transient phenomena associated with the CMS and Atlas announcements, but it could bring in more regular viewers. Only time will tell because right now we don't really have enough statistics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1369" RevisionGUID="cba64281-1eef-4494-a5b1-a301ee569bd2" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:33:13.610" UserId="9719" Text="&quot;Bias&quot; is a funny word. There is an everyday meaning. There is a technical meaning in statistics. And there is a technical meaning in some areas of physics. There might be other fields that use the word, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning it has in physics relates to an underlying physical phenomenon, so I would expect that to be on topic here. The statistics meaning is completely different, but is sometimes used in physics. There is an important statistics concept underlying it, so it might be on topic there. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="0d5aee20-c0f1-4d2d-9218-ae9716865ec5" CreationDate="2012-07-06T07:17:00.410" UserId="2170" Text="I deleted this question because I thought its irrelevant: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31434/why-did-standard-model-never-sense-a-requirement-to-include-gravitational-quantu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, [someone](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v) from community told me that its reasonable. So, I want to undelete it. Unfortunately, I am unable to see it as I don't have 10k reputation.. so no luck in getting to undelete link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please undelete it if you have its permission?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="0d5aee20-c0f1-4d2d-9218-ae9716865ec5" CreationDate="2012-07-06T07:17:00.410" UserId="2170" Text="Please undelete this question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="0d5aee20-c0f1-4d2d-9218-ae9716865ec5" CreationDate="2012-07-06T07:17:00.410" UserId="2170" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="77abb4e7-c451-429f-81ce-e32d73038cc2" CreationDate="2012-07-06T16:16:27.120" UserId="124" Text="Sure, I undeleted it. ................." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="c3c682a0-25f2-4982-a1c7-e8ef99751556" CreationDate="2012-07-06T19:27:40.983" UserId="8609" Text="It's pretty obvious when someone upvotes your question or answer they like it and the physics is reasonable or correct - but when someone downvotes its often ambiguous if they have a legitimate concern about the physics, or perhaps you just didn't answer their original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anyway we could requite someone to write a short explanation if they downvote? Perhaps anonymously if they wish?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example sometimes if you are getting upvotes and downvotes on a single answer, its very unclear what the real response it got from the community - do people like it overall and there are a few other un-informed downvoters? Or visa-versa ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A huge part of physics (and science, art in general) is getting feedback and I for one would like to see something like this in place, or try something like it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="c3c682a0-25f2-4982-a1c7-e8ef99751556" CreationDate="2012-07-06T19:27:40.983" UserId="8609" Text="Is there anyway we can requite a person to write something to explain a downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="c3c682a0-25f2-4982-a1c7-e8ef99751556" CreationDate="2012-07-06T19:27:40.983" UserId="8609" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="120b9013-1fdb-4f7b-85f7-a8f90c5cc3c3" CreationDate="2012-07-07T06:59:33.173" UserId="2170" Text="I have seen &quot;soft-question&quot; tag on main site. I want to know its purpose. And, why is it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="120b9013-1fdb-4f7b-85f7-a8f90c5cc3c3" CreationDate="2012-07-07T06:59:33.173" UserId="2170" Text="When should I use &quot;soft-question&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="120b9013-1fdb-4f7b-85f7-a8f90c5cc3c3" CreationDate="2012-07-07T06:59:33.173" UserId="2170" Text="|support|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="b0f48962-d616-401f-9919-65b294c70987" CreationDate="2012-07-07T08:17:49.830" UserId="6848" Text="I posted a question and later found a comment related to my question in another post, so I'd like to invite the comment-maker to say more in my post. So if I @ that user, will he/she be notified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="b0f48962-d616-401f-9919-65b294c70987" CreationDate="2012-07-07T08:17:49.830" UserId="6848" Text="If I @ a user not in the post, will that user be notified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="b0f48962-d616-401f-9919-65b294c70987" CreationDate="2012-07-07T08:17:49.830" UserId="6848" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="4444585f-ce45-441b-a0c3-54a30115bb62" CreationDate="2012-07-09T03:46:59.437" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [What is the \[soft-question\] tag for?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273/what-is-the-soft-question-tag-for)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I have seen &quot;soft-question&quot; tag on main site. I want to know its purpose. And, why is it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3283" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="35350ee7-d4be-47f6-baa8-467a7f48c4a4" CreationDate="2012-07-09T03:46:57.550" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[273],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2170,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sachin Shekhar&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1375" RevisionGUID="96064e45-a20e-49a0-9023-6f30c7743696" CreationDate="2012-07-09T21:42:18.670" UserId="9719" Text="I read through a few of the threads that @dmckee linked to, and I'm happy to see that what makes sense to me seems to be the consensus. I only recently earned enough rep to even cast downvotes, so I only have a few downvotes (including the one that spawned this question). So while I agree with the reasons given for not requiring that a comment accompany a downvote, I think it is often good policy to include a comment explaining what is wrong with an answer. My primary concern is whether that comment will help make the answer better. If it will, then I'll leave it. If there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage the answer, I will simply cast the downvote with no comment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3285" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="037aee3a-0c0d-4579-89f7-21c06d9d559b" CreationDate="2012-07-10T00:52:48.743" UserId="8609" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there anyway we can require a person to write something to explain a downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="913f7c8a-2928-4f99-a141-697fae748bd4" CreationDate="2012-07-10T16:37:42.397" UserId="10048" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What violation caused this suspension? May I know the reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZCJj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="913f7c8a-2928-4f99-a141-697fae748bd4" CreationDate="2012-07-10T16:37:42.397" UserId="10048" Text="What violation caused this suspension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="913f7c8a-2928-4f99-a141-697fae748bd4" CreationDate="2012-07-10T16:37:42.397" UserId="10048" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="a9fe8b3e-05ec-4d9e-a8d7-370461fa178e" CreationDate="2012-07-10T17:22:10.220" UserId="520" Text="No, you may not. At least not from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of privacy for the affected person. The suspended account-holder was contacted by email and by notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The affected individual can bring the matter up on meta after the suspension expires or they may contact the team directly and they will investigate what the moderation team has done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="384b1a1c-296e-4f88-9771-8ce172c1b81b" CreationDate="2012-07-10T19:20:13.333" UserId="4864" Text="This was a ridiculous suspension--- it was to do with the back and forth between me and Sachin Shekhar over the last two days, where the other fellow said some insulting things (like &quot;you don't know anything!&quot; &quot;Who the heck are you&quot; blah blah) and I responded to try to get him to answer questions properly and not troll. I never insulted him, but I did say he was factually wrong here and there a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then both me and this trolling user were suspended for 24hrs. I imagine it was an issue of symmetry, why suspend one party be suspended and not the other? But I don't think a single comment of mine was inappropriate, although perhaps a few of the other guy's were (but they didn't bother me, and I would prefer if there was no administrative action against him). I renounce any privacy to anything--- what could possibly be private here? All the comments are up for all to see (none have been deleted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the email I got from dmckee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing in reference to your Physics - Stack Exchange account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This account has been involved in several extended and acrimonious discussions in the comments recently. It seem that the style of interaction you employ in the comments invites conflict; often through sly implications that the other party is too stupid of ignorant to bother with. I am treating this as a violation of the &quot;Be nice&quot; injunction in the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am issuing a one day suspension so that all parties to the most recent instance can cool down, and will be removing many comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;dmckee&#xD;&#xA;Physics - Stack Exchange moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a comment to the above, I never make any implication, neither sly nor direct, that the party is too ignorant to bother with--- that would only be the case if I didn't say anything at all. I just wanted to make sure that Shekhar knew that people here don't just put up random gibberish, but they read and _understand_ what they write, and they are careful, and I asked him to do the same. I don't think I made any comment at all that disparaged him, beyond saying &quot;what you wrote in these answer is wrong, please fix it or delete the answer&quot;. I told him that he is capable to contributing honestly, and urged him to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1380" RevisionGUID="d816c077-6ce9-41cc-a170-bc10765d0830" CreationDate="2012-07-10T20:52:16.883" UserId="6973" Text="You have to make a &quot;Hey @poster&quot; comment on a post they've been on; just reply directly to their comment. you can't &quot;ping&quot; people that are have never touched a question (because it would be annoying and lead to lots of false positives if you were to &quot;@John&quot; and notify all Johns on the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, @user never works in questions/answers, only comments. Questions/answers aren't directed at specific users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1381" RevisionGUID="2c8bf635-bd1b-4016-8972-bea2cb408510" CreationDate="2012-07-11T03:52:25.077" UserId="9162" Text="Ron's answers are always interesting. A bit of ego and edge makes science more fun. The suspension was unjust. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="a420ea50-5a6c-4428-9f20-d432ff77c69c" CreationDate="2012-07-12T04:13:55.877" UserId="9719" Text="[This question][1] was asked recently. @dmckee and I both noted that it might work on [chem.SE][2] as well as here. I then stared reading through the physical-chemistry tag, found a few questions, including [this one][1], which were (appropriately) closed as off topic. So I'm wondering, is there a good way to port these over there? I can't find a flag that I can use. Is there a good way to ping the user who asked the question? Is it acceptable for me to simply copy the question and ask it at Chem.SE if I understand it well enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24817/a-quick-method-for-separating-liquids&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31851/the-antibonding-orbital-with-shrinking-interatomic-distance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="a420ea50-5a6c-4428-9f20-d432ff77c69c" CreationDate="2012-07-12T04:13:55.877" UserId="9719" Text="How do I flag questions to move them to Chem.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="a420ea50-5a6c-4428-9f20-d432ff77c69c" CreationDate="2012-07-12T04:13:55.877" UserId="9719" Text="|feature-request|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1383" RevisionGUID="0c87614f-d97e-4bd6-8023-d23fda7e0bd9" CreationDate="2012-07-12T04:43:12.677" UserId="520" Text="The general way to get a question migrated is to flag for moderator attention or bring it up on meta. Subject to these rules to some customary limits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We won't migrate without approval of the mods on the remove site unless we know that site very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In the case of a beta site we also rarely migrate open questions without the positive say-so of the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coping a closed question to a better site is not a problem, but migration is better insofar as it leaves a trail of breadcrumbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of 24817, I'll ask the Chem mods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1383" RevisionGUID="e794b38e-1b68-4b1c-a2d9-db59d3af9882" CreationDate="2012-07-12T04:52:53.683" UserId="520" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="The general way to get a question migrated is to flag for moderator attention or bring it up on meta. Subject to these rules to some customary limits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We won't migrate without approval of the mods on the remove site unless we know that site very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In the case of a beta site we also rarely migrate open questions without the positive say-so of the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coping a closed question to a better site is not a problem, but migration is better insofar as it leaves a trail of breadcrumbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of 24817, I'll ask the Chem mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the Chem mod says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just a note, we don't exactly include chemE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but still accepted it for migration. Done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1383" RevisionGUID="869ab530-0909-4165-8903-8a8d5bbbb1f0" CreationDate="2012-07-12T05:23:21.380" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The general way to get a question migrated is to flag for moderator attention or bring it up on meta. Migration is subject to some customary limits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We won't migrate without approval of the mods on the remove site unless we know that site very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In the case of a beta site we also rarely migrate open questions without the positive say-so of the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coping a closed question to a better site is not a problem, but migration is better insofar as it leaves a trail of breadcrumbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of 24817, I'll ask the Chem mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the Chem mod says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just a note, we don't exactly include chemE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but still accepted it for migration. Done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="f3344aec-667a-4d36-bba8-6da02d3f436b" CreationDate="2012-07-12T17:30:19.143" UserId="2911" Text="Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in [Dilaton's MSO thread][1], so please allow me to set the record straight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site *temporarily* to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, [moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension/1377#1377).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that moderators don't have a &quot;ban&quot; button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and [read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When users exhibit a pattern of either …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###No effort to learn and improve over time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...*OR*...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Disruptive behavior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and *walk away*. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: *&quot;Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/139349/why-are-there-drastic-moderator-actions-that-take-effect-immediately-when-execut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="d1d44ffb-4992-4677-81f0-364607a73cb9" CreationDate="2012-07-15T14:00:56.533" UserId="7951" Text="I really like the idea of using this site and its battery of questions as a way to check my own understanding of the physics that I am learning. However, the big problem is that I can't seem to filter out questions from high school, junior-undergrad, senior-undergrad, graduate and research-level questions. I think it would be a huge plus to have such a filtering mechanism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it.. you could simply log in to stackexchange and pick out all senior-undergrad level questions in QM or classical physics and have a ball of a time the night before your exam. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look into this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="d1d44ffb-4992-4677-81f0-364607a73cb9" CreationDate="2012-07-15T14:00:56.533" UserId="7951" Text="Can we have a level-of-question tag please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="d1d44ffb-4992-4677-81f0-364607a73cb9" CreationDate="2012-07-15T14:00:56.533" UserId="7951" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1388" RevisionGUID="a1cba0bc-b232-4d71-ae09-a5816d16b6da" CreationDate="2012-07-15T15:31:52.597" UserId="7433" Text="No, that would be a meta tag. See http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1389" RevisionGUID="9b78fdd5-6d60-4bf6-980f-729c7c5b0ca8" CreationDate="2012-07-15T17:00:09.620" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="Meta-tagness is enough, but there is also a practical problem with maintaining it -- making up for missing or wrong level labels is a lot of work and may lead to numerous redundant discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="dfe46b30-3fb3-4442-bd1c-a6c5258252b3" CreationDate="2012-07-17T17:01:37.843" UserId="124" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="9a0d8ba7-ad18-4b57-b639-c874723686df" CreationDate="2012-07-18T01:17:28.513" UserId="7433" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="b9b4f84f-b582-4ae4-b752-3ed82d12cbfe" CreationDate="2012-07-18T20:01:56.377" UserId="5874" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Mathematica at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d64R1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="01153bd7-286d-43f7-aa24-4359bbdb320d" CreationDate="2012-07-19T15:05:48.680" UserId="4485" Text="&quot;I am treating this as a violation of the &quot;Be nice&quot; injunction in the FAQ&quot;. Well dmckee should be congratulated for doing the right thing, although I wish He left the comments on so I and others can have a laugh at Ron going mad at people muddying the intellectual atmosphere of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have a link to the comments that were deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1391" RevisionGUID="7a1a70c2-8b5c-42bf-a57a-a1a537ac2240" CreationDate="2012-07-21T19:02:13.667" UserId="3715" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I pretty much gave up reading her at all with so much reddit oneliner alike badly tagged redundant highschool questions. On biology.se the community agreed to downvote and close such questions. Here it becomes more and more pointless even to find interesting stuff via votes or tags sorting. Seems the theoreticalphysics qsqa project was abandoned too. I welcome undergraduate student and good detailed high school questions, but reddit oneliners is the content that drives me away definitely" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="74ba1ca5-4eb7-49fe-8fd9-0df598dafeb9" CreationDate="2012-07-23T04:34:10.733" UserId="124" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and lots more...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="650db497-a04e-4572-a1c3-edadae3cfc94" CreationDate="2012-07-23T19:52:24.207" UserId="124" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and lots more...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="09c9ac1f-48cd-4feb-a587-96fb2867860e" CreationDate="2012-07-23T19:53:49.213" UserId="124" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final destination is this synonym: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to vote for it, a mod will synonymify it once the retagging is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There now is a userscript for this https://gist.github.com/2994654 (full details [here](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/121541) ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** the synonym has been created, so the link [tag:light] doesn't work anymore. Use [this Data.SE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/75871/posts-tagged-light) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="f4bb1f2f-2f14-496a-96d3-935e439201de" CreationDate="2012-07-24T18:52:12.650" UserId="1492" Text="In a question I asked a while ago, somebody set a bounty of 200 and awarded it to an answer. I can now not find who it was since it was awarded, and my memory is not so good on who set the bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it would be good to keep the name of the one offering the bounty by the answer chosen by him/her, next to the price, so that it is clear that  the original questioner did not set the bounty and the choice. It looks funny to have an answer awarded a bounty and not chosen by the questioner. Now it seems that the questioner has set the bounty awarded it and not chosen the awarded question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="f4bb1f2f-2f14-496a-96d3-935e439201de" CreationDate="2012-07-24T18:52:12.650" UserId="1492" Text="When a bounty is awarded where can one find who set the price after it has been awarded i?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="f4bb1f2f-2f14-496a-96d3-935e439201de" CreationDate="2012-07-24T18:52:12.650" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="4259dbe2-9839-4388-a9b0-b781ac38b6f4" CreationDate="2012-07-24T18:57:14.640" UserId="1492" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="In a [question I asked a while ago][1], somebody set a bounty of 200 and awarded it to an answer. I can now not find who it was since it was awarded, and my memory is not so good on who set the bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it would be good to keep the name of the one offering the bounty by the answer chosen by him/her, next to the price, so that it is clear that  the original questioner did not set the bounty and the choice. It looks funny to have an answer awarded a bounty and not chosen by the questioner. Now it seems that the questioner has set the bounty awarded it and not chosen the awarded question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11800/can-energy-be-taken-out-of-the-qft-vacuum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="3543f36f-da05-4f53-8756-79595485d171" CreationDate="2012-07-24T19:09:58.323" UserId="124" Text="If you mouse over the bounty symbol (the +200) a tooltip will pop up showing who awarded the bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="3c31f400-9cfc-4091-aacb-65819b41f7d3" CreationDate="2012-07-25T12:37:52.820" UserId="5374" Text="I figured you're not satisfied with the answers so far and so I actually set the bounty because you didn't choose and answer. When the week was over I awarded the answer with the most votes among the new answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="a081cabe-724f-4425-9ee4-d8edbf5bbd9b" CreationDate="2012-07-25T13:54:53.973" UserId="7670" Text="Just curious: Is someone gaming the point system a bit here? I just got two rapid-fire down votes for recommending a very relevant section from Feynman's QED book, on a question about whether complex math is required for quantum physics. Even if you don't agree with Feynman's perspective, you'd certainly think that a Nobel prize winner's very clear opinion on the topic might be relevant! And no explanatory comments, hmm! Fascinating dynamics, that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is some case of aggressive gaming, is there a mechanism to moderate it? I don't know how often this problem arises, but it's an interesting one. If relevant references get fast-zinged on a regular basis, that can't be good for the overall answer quality of the group." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="a081cabe-724f-4425-9ee4-d8edbf5bbd9b" CreationDate="2012-07-25T13:54:53.973" UserId="7670" Text="Is someone gaming the point system for some reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="a081cabe-724f-4425-9ee4-d8edbf5bbd9b" CreationDate="2012-07-25T13:54:53.973" UserId="7670" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="95ae6b00-eb9f-4d41-bffe-6b3831b278de" CreationDate="2012-07-25T15:10:48.530" UserId="520" Text="The [timeline][1] for the relevant post shows only one recent downvote (2 points, natch) and no particular evidence of a misuse of the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the voting on that question is turning on the *interpretation* of words like &quot;fundamental&quot; and &quot;naturalness&quot; or somesuch. Makes me wish I'd closed it as &quot;not a real question&quot; which used to be labeled &quot;subjective and argumentative&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to be a case for moderator intervention here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW-- The &quot;timeline&quot; url is a a general construction that can be applied to any question to see what happened when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/32422/timeline" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="7c0bd638-f6b2-45f9-9ae2-5f4433d0c77d" CreationDate="2012-07-25T15:30:53.340" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 160 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Sustainable Living][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][10]][9]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33364/sustainable-living&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33364.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36600/artificial-intelligence-robotics&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36600.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/12194/popular-natural-science&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/12194.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="464826cd-92a5-4734-b68f-c34a4651848e" CreationDate="2012-07-26T09:09:06.023" UserId="2751" Text="This question did get wrongly and prematurely closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32806/can-physics-get-rid-of-the-continuum#comment72857_32806&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a good and valuable question that fits in perfectly with the (more theoretical) content and purpose of our site, and has already some nice answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial mistagging (soft question only) or too much discussion are NOT legitimate reasons to close the question itself! A better way would have been to retag the question appropriately, move the comments to chat if needed, and then leave it alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can it be reopened please?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="464826cd-92a5-4734-b68f-c34a4651848e" CreationDate="2012-07-26T09:09:06.023" UserId="2751" Text="Can this question be reopend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="464826cd-92a5-4734-b68f-c34a4651848e" CreationDate="2012-07-26T09:09:06.023" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1400" RevisionGUID="04ecfae7-dfce-48b8-a1f2-2835ded153b6" CreationDate="2012-07-26T09:11:20.563" UserId="2751" Text="Yes, it should be reopened !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I write this as an answer because I do not have the priviledge to cast votes to reopen directly ...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="951c019e-d62d-43f6-b475-13ccab435095" CreationDate="2012-07-26T12:47:48.207" UserId="2751" Comment="elaborated a little bit why it is a good and valuable question" Text="This question did get wrongly and prematurely closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32806/can-physics-get-rid-of-the-continuum#comment72857_32806&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a good, valuable, and CONSTRUCTIVE question that fits in perfectly with the (more theoretical) content and purpose of our site, and has already some nice answers. The answers already there and the interesting discussions in the comments show that the question hits active research areas at the inteface between mathematics and physics. Asking such questions is often very beneficial to make progress, in particular in theoretical physics. It is neither &quot;off topic&quot; nor &quot;not consutructive&quot; or what else one could invoke as a pretext to close it. &#xD;&#xA;But maybe the question could (and should ?) be shortened and put straight a little bit as Ron suggests in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial mistagging (soft question only) or too much discussion are NOT legitimate reasons to close the question itself! A better way would have been to retag the question appropriately, make suggestions for improvements (as Ron did for example), move the comments to chat if needed, and then leave it alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can the question be reopened please?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1401" RevisionGUID="bff6e614-32c9-406b-9309-f5ed945cd171" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:21:50.210" UserId="520" Text="No&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Read the text that accompanies the closure reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this question will likely solicit [...] extended discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the section of the FAQ referenced in my comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;That fact that the question is a good and interesting one does not mean that it is well suited to the Stack Exchange format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way Stack Exchange orders and organizes posts and comments works very poorly for an extended back-and-forth, and that is exactly what was developing there. And it would only have gotten worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1401" RevisionGUID="39824aab-249c-4721-bea8-47b38d37f2e8" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:37:42.267" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="No&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Read the text that accompanies the closure reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this question will likely solicit [...] extended discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the section of the FAQ referenced in my comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the question is a good and interesting one does not mean that it is well suited to the Stack Exchange format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way Stack Exchange orders and organizes posts and comments works very poorly for an extended back-and-forth, and that is exactly what was developing there. And it would only have gotten worse.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="446dfa12-ca1a-4530-9d79-b8bb9ecc221b" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:12:16.143" UserId="7951" Text="I'm curious to see what topics the wikis cover, but I don't know how to access them. I tried doing a tag search for &quot;community-wiki&quot; but it didn't show up anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="446dfa12-ca1a-4530-9d79-b8bb9ecc221b" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:12:16.143" UserId="7951" Text="How do I access community wikis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="446dfa12-ca1a-4530-9d79-b8bb9ecc221b" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:12:16.143" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="f3d10f67-8391-4e5c-af5b-9edefcefd8b3" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:15:27.297" UserId="520" Text="Do you mean the *tag wikis* (which are different)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Community wiki&quot; means a state of a post (question or answer) that makes it easier for other users to edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tag wikis&quot; are  special posts that are attached to particular tags. To access them, click on a tag (either under a question, in the sidebar, or in the &quot;TAGS&quot; tab) and then select the link in the little box at the top.![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oBPSK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="17615bff-eece-4e3a-8342-75e23892cd16" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:21:12.843" UserId="520" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="Do you mean the *tag wikis* (which are different)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Community wiki&quot; means a state of a post (question or answer) that makes it easier for other users to edit. To search for wiki posts [use the `wiki:1` search modifier][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tag wikis&quot; are  special posts that are attached to particular tags. To access them, click on a tag (either under a question, in the sidebar, or in the &quot;TAGS&quot; tab) and then select the link in the little box at the top.![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oBPSK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1404" RevisionGUID="f9cf5a83-e513-4a45-b3b3-03133ceceac0" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:36:06.600" UserId="124" Text="After editing I've reopened the question, although if it does turn out to generate inappropriate activity, it will be closed again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="860881f0-11a0-4ca9-971d-9a4c31783642" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:37:54.427" UserId="10822" Text="Reading from the moderator's justification of the closure of the question, he seems to argue about two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Extended discussion and back-and-forth among answers are not suitable to the SE _format_ ;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which  promote an engaging discussion are explicitly forbidden (FAQ cite).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are pretty weak, because the only _intrinsic_ thing about a soft question is its lack of a technical, openly recognizable, single &quot;right&quot; answer, mainly because **it's background its too general** and/or it involves assuming premises **not yet settled by the scientific community as a hole**. The fact that the non-uniqueness of answers it may generate could induce further discussion among users, and also that this discussion may take place where the answers are written (and that this is not suited to the site format), is extrinsic to the question itself. Otherwise you should not allow more than a single answer per question for soft ones and eliminate the possibility of explicit non-agreement (and get it removed iff it is recognized as flawed, which would in principle be absurd by definition, unless the answer involves plain crackpottery); or allow nothing more than technical, &quot;textbook&quot; questions and answers, and eliminate the &quot;soft question&quot; tag entirely (even though, it's my personal opinion that there's nothing better than a textbook if you are looking for a textbook answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every mild stance about this, coupled with this kind of ad hoc moderation procedure, will probably involve arbitrary closing some questions and leaving others opened depending on the moderator's judging of _how much discussion and typing_ it may generate among users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I retagged the question and shortened the main body of the text, so as to make it more concise according to what I was advised by some good will users. But as the background -not the form- of the question wasn't changed, and this is what was actually criticized and qualified as unsuitable, I suppose that won't fit the bill either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="f75220ad-0c72-4302-9c3f-ffb5f5c9866c" CreationDate="2012-07-28T23:58:56.487" UserId="3715" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I made [here](http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/a/293) a short analysis on why chemistry stats look bad (3rd bullet point). I believed with bio and phy.se existing, chemistry as connecting branch and huge overlap in research would be able to reach the **critical mass** of user and questions for a self-sustaining growth by user on bio/phy.se joining the site. But it looks very bad compared to a other science sites I observed since its start, I don't see many bio/phy user registered at all on chem.se. I also [asked on MO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/141518/163173), what can be done to help those science sites. The main reason is probably that many commiters left the site (lasted nearly 2 years, which is of course too long). But if it gets closed, because it doesnt grow, and I start to believe sites that never reach the critical mass ever yield a substantial growth to establish a community, thats a huge downer. No chemistry on SE?! I mean, really. &quot;Waiting for further growth&quot; when older sites like cognitivesciences.se or linguistics.se didn't grow for months looks like desperation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be done? A lot of the chemistry questions are very specialized and localized, as most of the underlying theory belongs to physics, but this makes me even more wondering why many of the probably existing chem students reading physics.se dont take notice of chem.se or ask/answer questions there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="f75220ad-0c72-4302-9c3f-ffb5f5c9866c" CreationDate="2012-07-28T23:58:56.487" UserId="3715" Text="Is there anything physics.se can do to help chemistry.se growing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="f75220ad-0c72-4302-9c3f-ffb5f5c9866c" CreationDate="2012-07-28T23:58:56.487" UserId="3715" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="d3a79cf3-3637-4c10-a711-97f954a5bc2a" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:00:25.167" UserId="3715" Text="As theoreticalphysics.se was closed and obviously isn''t continued further outside of SE, I was asking myself, how much experts (bachelor/master/phd) can a site like physics.se have **at the same time** contributing  and therefore competing on reputation. I think this graduated established SE site has currently reached a limit of qestions/day (maybe increasable to 40questoins/day but thats probably the maximum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expert user compete on reputation (gamification), gainable reputation per day is limited of course by questions/day and amount of competitors. If the average amount of rep a user can gain during, say 1-3 months, is low and he therefore slowy gains privileges and reputation (moving the ladder up like in a scientific community), he decides to either only read ( take for example me lacking time as a professional and family father and always too late seeing a unanswered question here (most seem to be well answered within 1-2 hours which is excellent community property), comment here and there, leave the site, or gaiming it :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all fine, no critics, thats how SE was designed, while there are probably thousands of java experts in the world, probably only 100-1000 game on stackoverflow (the majority is passive), as there arent more questions and rep to feed all. But the question I asked myself therefore is, does that mean, that the diversification and level of very specialized java and physics questions (research, practical, laboratory questions) is therefore also limited to a maximum value and very highly specialized sites like theoreticalphysics or theoreticalbiology cannot work per se, as you can never attract the amount of experts and their expertise on measurement techniques etc. It needs to be able to answer very specialized questions in such fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The explanation of the SE masters for closing appliedphysics, nanotechnology, experimental physics proposals was, this topic already exists because of physics.se.** But following the reasoning above, I dont see how  **enough** professional experts and expertise will ever contribute to phyiscs.se competing on reputation to answer very tricky and localized question with the current growth and reputation model. I was against moving astronomy and astrophysics in physics.se. **Most of the top astronomy.se user left the site, didnt register to phyiscs.se which affirms my hypothesis above,** theoreticalcomputerscience.se wouldn't work and attract so much experts when integrated as tagged-only questions into SO. More competitors and limit of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this, I dont see how such questions and subfields can organically grow on physics.se due to limited rep, experts and attention these topics get. Resolving this problem by better and level-tagging also doesnt work. area51 proposals are closed. So take open-source SE software clone and do it yourself like biostar, mathoverflow or artificalintelligence.osqa? I think there is limit of thematic broadness, when you can reach only higher quality by starting a smaller specialized community, feeded by experts coming from the established site like SO --&gt; TCS. But for much more broader and trickier fields like physics, funnily this is forbidden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="d3a79cf3-3637-4c10-a711-97f954a5bc2a" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:00:25.167" UserId="3715" Text="Is there a possible way within the SE network for highly localized and specialized questions in the field of physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="d3a79cf3-3637-4c10-a711-97f954a5bc2a" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:00:25.167" UserId="3715" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="4388caaa-1427-42df-b24a-9f8e9bf5b44c" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:02:02.310" UserId="3715" Text="just wanted to report this, probably gets deleted here immediately, but is there a way to keep such &quot;questions&quot; spam out of rss feed too, maybe delay time, till questions is added to front page and rss feed. Ironically, this is the first time I see spam in a SE feed/site, wondering how such a popular site managed it to delete all spam so fast, but felt remembered on old usenet days visiting my SE feed today :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="4388caaa-1427-42df-b24a-9f8e9bf5b44c" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:02:02.310" UserId="3715" Text="sex spam and offenses of user in my rss feed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="4388caaa-1427-42df-b24a-9f8e9bf5b44c" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:02:02.310" UserId="3715" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="f8181ae6-274f-4ac2-8637-34600404837e" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:28:23.510" UserId="520" Text="I can't agree that there is any kind of limit to the number of questions the site can manage in a day--just look at Stack Overflow--but there is a limit to the number the current *user base* can manage in a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise the problem with getting answers to highly specialized questions is one of having *users who know that topic*. Stack Overflow has managed that for a great many topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I know of no general strategy for bringing in users but time and *good questions and answers* so that we can creep up in Google's relevance metrics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="0f8b8122-027d-461e-8e29-3dae67a922ad" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:36:08.523" UserId="4864" Text="Here is a question which is vaguely comprehending, but bordering on nonsense: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33082/is-the-chern-simons-integral-of-gauge-fields-over-black-hole-singularities-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a total nonsense answer and mutual upvoting. Are Sprechen and les-trace independent accounts? This is a flag for mods, I don't need an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="0f8b8122-027d-461e-8e29-3dae67a922ad" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:36:08.523" UserId="4864" Text="Sprechen and les-trace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="0f8b8122-027d-461e-8e29-3dae67a922ad" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:36:08.523" UserId="4864" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="e9d550cd-4bac-47ce-bdf1-f2530f56f170" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:58:53.383" UserId="520" Text="Neither of these accounts has voting privileges as yet, so the votes are coming from elsewhere.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The account *could* be sockpuppets, but I don't feel we have enough evidence to act: we don't want to do something drastic to real users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; There are times when I think we have some users on the site who vote up anything they don't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1412" RevisionGUID="d09d4a45-fab4-4650-863c-00ffdc51b2a1" CreationDate="2012-07-31T11:11:59.867" UserId="90" Text="If you delayed the appearance of posts, then how could the community review them and take the appropriate action? If nobody sees it, then nobody flags as spam or offensive, and it'll eventually appear anyway, only to *then* be flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all users who saw the question you call &quot;sex spam&quot; (which it wasn't, but that doesn't make it any better) flagged it as offensive, so it was deleted automatically pretty quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that you rarely see something like this on the Stack Exchange sites &amp;ndash; despite it being posted; it turns out there are quite a few idiots on the internet &amp;ndash; is that the community has the tools to take care of these posts pretty quickly, without having to rely on a moderator being available immediately. The larger the site is (and thus the more crap it attracts), the more people there are that see the post and flag it as offensive, and thus the quicker it gets killed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow (which is orders of magnitude larger), a post like the one in question here has a pretty good chance of being deleted in under 60 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that our automatic protection against spam *bots* works pretty well; the problem is actual *humans* littering on the site, and for those, technical solutions obviously only work so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On websites that allow user-generated content, we have to live with the fact that stupid people exist; all we can do is make sure the community is able to react quickly. Hiding new posts would be counterproductive to that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1412" RevisionGUID="67ca45c8-2f92-4c44-9d2c-83af573e293d" CreationDate="2012-07-31T11:20:43.290" UserId="90" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="If you delayed the appearance of posts, then how could the community review them and take the appropriate action? If nobody sees it, then nobody flags as spam or offensive, and it'll eventually appear anyway, only to *then* be flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all users who saw the question you call &quot;sex spam&quot; (which it wasn't, but that doesn't make it any better) flagged it as offensive, so it was deleted automatically pretty quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that you rarely see something like this on the Stack Exchange sites &amp;ndash; despite it being posted; it turns out there are quite a few idiots on the internet &amp;ndash; is that the community has the tools to take care of these posts pretty quickly, without having to rely on a moderator being available immediately. The larger the site is (and thus the more crap it attracts), the more people there are that see the post and flag it as offensive, and thus the quicker it gets killed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow (which is orders of magnitude larger), a post like the one in question here has a pretty good chance of being deleted in under 60 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that our automatic protection against spam *bots* works pretty well; the problem is actual *humans* littering on the site, and for those, technical solutions obviously only work so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On websites that allow user-generated content, we have to live with the fact that stupid people exist; all we can do is make sure the community is able to react quickly. Hiding new posts would be counterproductive to that, in addition to also punishing the vast majority of new posts that are legitimate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="3590da35-015d-4ff1-b48b-2de7b9782a00" CreationDate="2012-08-01T15:37:42.497" UserId="7951" Text="I'd like to know what the health of physics.stackexchange is in comparison to the other stackexchange sites. And other relevant details like is it continuing to grow? Etc.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The reason I'm asking this question is because I have to study a pretty tough physics curriculum to take an exam and I've been using this site to have my questions answered. It's been fantastic so far, and I'd like to know if I can count on it to stay around.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="3590da35-015d-4ff1-b48b-2de7b9782a00" CreationDate="2012-08-01T15:37:42.497" UserId="7951" Text="What's the health of physics.SE? And what does the future look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="3590da35-015d-4ff1-b48b-2de7b9782a00" CreationDate="2012-08-01T15:37:42.497" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="cbb9d1e9-626f-417d-9d66-1be881a1d42c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T16:31:55.173" UserId="7951" Text="Could we have some advanced filters for subscribing to multiple tags? For example, I want to subscribe to &quot;[classical-mechanics] AND [lagrangian-mechanics]&quot; (I'm talking about a logical AND operation) but not to either of them individually. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'd like to subscribe to specific keywords if possible. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="cbb9d1e9-626f-417d-9d66-1be881a1d42c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T16:31:55.173" UserId="7951" Text="Advanced filter for subscription to multiple tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="cbb9d1e9-626f-417d-9d66-1be881a1d42c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T16:31:55.173" UserId="7951" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1415" RevisionGUID="c1694a81-147f-4535-9527-76fb7ab15648" CreationDate="2012-08-01T16:33:13.427" UserId="520" Text="The site has existed since November 2010 and we graduated from beta in February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were strong on all the Area51 metrics when we graduated, which is a good place to start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;July 2012 approximate&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; change with respect to January 2012 for a few tracked quantities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions: even&#xD;&#xA;* Answers: even&#xD;&#xA;* Total views: +33%&#xD;&#xA;* Number of visits: +25%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're getting more hits from Google than from all other tracked source&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; which is important as Stack Exchange site don't take off unless they have a good search  profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We got more than 40 new registered users last month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken on the whole the site appears to be growing slowly but steadily. A lot of our metrics show a spiky aspect with a underling modest, linear growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; *Very* approximate. I eyeballed them off the analytics data available to moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; This includes &quot;direct traffic&quot; which is presumably our regular users who come in on bookmarks and the like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="24b6aede-b048-46c7-a211-ed925040611b" CreationDate="2012-08-02T20:05:58.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/231118665574150145" />
  <row Id="3385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1418" RevisionGUID="531fd44d-8d8c-4471-b2f8-4f0603f03b0c" CreationDate="2012-08-04T06:48:22.213" UserId="238" Text="In addition to @dmckee answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was 2 175 members of Physics.SE after beta, and now - about 8 000 users.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1419" RevisionGUID="1678d596-8365-4300-8e9c-a57206bda449" CreationDate="2012-08-05T13:52:10.427" UserId="2751" Text="When asking a question, only the body of the text is shown in the preview below the window where one enters the text.&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have the title of the question included in the preview, such that it can be debugged easier too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be done or are there technical and / or other reasons that make such an extension of the preview for questions not feasable ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1419" RevisionGUID="1678d596-8365-4300-8e9c-a57206bda449" CreationDate="2012-08-05T13:52:10.427" UserId="2751" Text="Preview the title when asking a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1419" RevisionGUID="1678d596-8365-4300-8e9c-a57206bda449" CreationDate="2012-08-05T13:52:10.427" UserId="2751" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1420" RevisionGUID="6ca29e28-4dc8-4c70-8c82-2f5ba845007a" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:00:53.540" UserId="4556" Text="Well, my [question][1] about car crash is off topic or it is so stupid that no one would answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is so important to keep only one question in a question so that we can't answer question with different scenario, should we split the question in 3?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if I split the question in 3, are question okay? Wouldn't it be pretty stupid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33462/which-position-in-bus-we-sit-that-we-receive-least-damage-upon-accident#comment73953_33462" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1420" RevisionGUID="6ca29e28-4dc8-4c70-8c82-2f5ba845007a" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:00:53.540" UserId="4556" Text="Do I need to split the question in 3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1420" RevisionGUID="6ca29e28-4dc8-4c70-8c82-2f5ba845007a" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:00:53.540" UserId="4556" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="e4fcb7af-382c-4072-b2bd-af850d6edf78" CreationDate="2012-08-05T17:07:46.773" UserId="124" Text="No, a question probably wouldn't get closed if it simply needed to be split. I believe that question is actually off topic, in that it can't be answered using physical principles. Any question about car crashes that would be appropriate on this site would have to be much more specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="7dde6561-185e-4a12-95e7-5d696c80a8af" CreationDate="2012-08-05T18:08:32.880" UserId="8884" Text="As a young student, I have decided to learn some Physics independently, before I get any higher-education. I love Stack Exchange, so I would like to use this site as my main source to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, how can I use this site to learn basic and intermediate Physics at a structured pace without overwhelming myself? Basically, in what ways can I use this site as a structured learning tool?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="7dde6561-185e-4a12-95e7-5d696c80a8af" CreationDate="2012-08-05T18:08:32.880" UserId="8884" Text="Learning by using the site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="7dde6561-185e-4a12-95e7-5d696c80a8af" CreationDate="2012-08-05T18:08:32.880" UserId="8884" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="7558b2d8-4d79-46d3-9272-eccf848733e7" CreationDate="2012-08-06T00:34:06.133" UserId="124" Text="To be honest, what you're trying to do is probably not going to work very well. The main reason is that Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;A site, not an online tutorial. We don't arrange to have questions on the site covering all the material you would need to learn in an intro physics class. The focus here is on filling the gaps in what the standard resources have to offer, not rehashing the same material that you would find in those standard resources. This is why we ask people to do some prior research (e.g. searching Google and Wikipedia) before asking a question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue is that Stack Exchange sites cater to an expert-level audience. What this means, in our case, is _not_ that you need to have a degree in physics to ask a question, but generally, you do need have to have a basic understanding of the framework of the topic you're asking about. To put it another way, it comes back to the same point about prior research. Suppose you have a question about electromagnetism, maybe something like showing that traveling waves are solutions to Maxwell's equations. Before asking about it on this site, we'd expect you to look in a textbook or an equivalent website. If you don't understand what you find there at all (e.g. if you don't know what a differential equation is), then the question you'd be asking would probably not qualify as expert-level. If you were to attempt to teach yourself physics from this site alone, you would be asking a lot of those kinds of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me summarize it like this. There are three components of a traditional physics class:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A textbook (or notes), which is your primary reference for learning the material&#xD;&#xA;- Office hours and study sessions where you can ask your teacher or your fellow students questions, which are your secondary reference for learning the material&#xD;&#xA;- Homework problems to reinforce your understanding of the material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Stack Exchange site aims to be part of the second component, _not_ the first. For that you will need something like a textbook or lecture. I'd recommend checking out some of the suggestions in our [book recommendation list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations), or you can also look for online courses and/or videos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="ad50c32f-1859-4fae-a67e-8d67990a75fc" CreationDate="2012-08-06T04:11:15.520" UserId="7433" Text="I'm planning of putting up some A4 chem.SE posters in my institute, and I though that it would be useful if I had some for Physics as well (more useful, in fact, since I'm in the Physics  department)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster I'm using is this one (click to enlarge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taken from http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/131/how-do-we-promote-our-shiny-new-site.Use it for inspiration if you need any :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone feel up to making a similar poster for Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stuff to keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't forget a QR code! There are some easy QR generators online, just Google it.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't know if we are allowed to put the Phy.SE logo onto posters, etc--it's copyright, though this may count as fair use. You may have to ask on the mother meta, or just use a different image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tn0Za.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tn0Zam.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="ad50c32f-1859-4fae-a67e-8d67990a75fc" CreationDate="2012-08-06T04:11:15.520" UserId="7433" Text="Make a poster!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="ad50c32f-1859-4fae-a67e-8d67990a75fc" CreationDate="2012-08-06T04:11:15.520" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="a0966ac3-8f0c-4e0a-bbdc-aa66db844e48" CreationDate="2012-08-06T14:24:26.803" UserId="8884" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="As a young student, I have decided to learn some Physics independently, before I get any higher-education. I love Stack Exchange, so I would like to use this site as my main source to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, how can I use this site to learn basic and intermediate Physics at a structured pace, without overwhelming myself? Basically, in what ways can I use this site as a structured learning tool?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="8f04c4d7-7764-4fbd-a214-7a3de6c1f365" CreationDate="2012-08-06T22:08:01.973" UserId="8884" Text="It's possible for a Stack Exchange site to get a community powered blog, as done so by many sites seen on [Blog Overflow][1]. To get our own, what we first need is _community support_, since the blog will be run only by this site's users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this post is to answer the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Does the Physics.SE community want their own blog?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to this is yes, the next things we need to address are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Who would be willing to contribute?&#xD;&#xA; - What would the blog be about?&#xD;&#xA; - What would our schedule be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These, of course, will come in later discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I love the idea of a Stack Exchange site having a community blog. It helps in so many ways e.g. publicity. I am &quot;Blog Overlord&quot; over at [Programmers.SE][2], and we've got an awesome blog going over there. The best part is, users from the community are the ones writing the posts, developing the scope, and editing to reflect the view of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So once again, before we go into details, ***does the Physics.SE community want their own blog?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Blog Overflow - Getting Started][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Stack Exchange Blog - Blog Overflow][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.blogoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.programmers.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://blogoverflow.com/getting-started/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/06/blog-overflow/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="8f04c4d7-7764-4fbd-a214-7a3de6c1f365" CreationDate="2012-08-06T22:08:01.973" UserId="8884" Text="What's the possibility of a Physics.SE blog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="8f04c4d7-7764-4fbd-a214-7a3de6c1f365" CreationDate="2012-08-06T22:08:01.973" UserId="8884" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1427" RevisionGUID="e7a00748-481f-4a08-ab68-c162efcbd7df" CreationDate="2012-08-09T05:33:48.673" UserId="1492" Text="I for one will not be interested in a physics blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) I find it time consuming enough to follow the physics papers that [Lubos][1] puts up in his blog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)Physics is not literature. One has to spend grey cell time in deciphering the blog offers, and  I do not feel like investing effort in run of the mill physics  contributions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the negativity.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://motls.blogspot.gr/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1428" RevisionGUID="24c1824d-c1cc-4494-9ccc-0d6d3a38aa7d" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:24:13.470" UserId="4485" Text="Yeah, the Physics.se community would benefit from one but there aren't enough people that do physics as a profession here, compared to the vast number of people that do programming for a living at Programmers.SE. You therefore aren't going to get good quality regular blogs worth reading, where the blogger speaks with authority. It will end up like the creation of theoreticalphysics.se in initially being supported with enthusiasm, only to slowly die over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="77331b74-7489-4df1-ad24-b33e0df83abf" CreationDate="2012-08-10T16:51:07.393" UserId="9173" Text="Very strange to upvote questions and then going back to vote sorting tab to see question which is one year old. It would be best to see good questions from past day, days week month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in current form upvoting a question makes no sense. To me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for thinking about this message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="77331b74-7489-4df1-ad24-b33e0df83abf" CreationDate="2012-08-10T16:51:07.393" UserId="9173" Text="Best questions (by vote) from last day, days, week" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="77331b74-7489-4df1-ad24-b33e0df83abf" CreationDate="2012-08-10T16:51:07.393" UserId="9173" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1430" RevisionGUID="bbb6fdd0-76a0-4128-9136-c7c8ed520b56" CreationDate="2012-08-11T04:08:13.340" UserId="520" Text="If you can tolerate a less that fully up-to-date picture of the site, you can construct arbitrary queries on the [data explorer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="0aa579be-30e8-4f5d-b36c-60ba27788853" CreationDate="2012-08-12T09:36:04.960" UserId="9173" Text="Fundamental question for this site. I propose to get rid from reputation by by by making it INVISIBLE to other users :) What do you say? I think it will be better then now in many aspects. What should be visible i think is medals, badges and unlocked features. Reputation can stay there but should be invisible as a number. Something to think about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="0aa579be-30e8-4f5d-b36c-60ba27788853" CreationDate="2012-08-12T09:36:04.960" UserId="9173" Text="Possiblty FAQ question - Getting rid from reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="0aa579be-30e8-4f5d-b36c-60ba27788853" CreationDate="2012-08-12T09:36:04.960" UserId="9173" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1432" RevisionGUID="0845b578-fec7-4fb1-b1c1-65e692c1f0b5" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:13:02.147" UserId="4066" Text="There's a lot of evidence across the StackExchange network that sites with publicly-visible reputation have produced a lot of useful content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say that hiding rep would be better, is an extraordinary claim, and so would require extraordinary evidence. To date, I've seen none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3418" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="2169b9dc-3bee-4451-9d9e-4e14a6e3d6e0" CreationDate="2012-08-13T00:21:48.793" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1433" RevisionGUID="083aa1ab-b6e2-4e65-bf6b-a20ebcf1fcf1" CreationDate="2012-08-13T11:48:23.073" UserId="6029" Text="Especially in fields (like physics, but also languages) where it is easy to make up a lot of bollocks that could be wrong or misleading to non-experts, but sounds like it *could* be correct, reputation is a valuable indicator how reliable you can expect an answer to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for sites like StackOverflow where answers are often easy (well, easier) to verify (even for people with little domain knowledge) reputation is very helpful in determining credibility. But here; It's vital." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="7471ef4b-64c4-4a5c-a4c0-1a5a0b126fc4" CreationDate="2012-08-14T02:05:47.163" UserId="1255" Text="I would have dismissed this question, but then I discovered the list of stack exchange community blogs.  It seems that many of them are working to quite a productive ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stackexchange.com/blogs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question at hand, I draw upon my experience as a Wikipedia editor.  The crucial lesson I learned is this: anything you create is only as good as the effort your content creators are willing to put into it.  In short, I would be perfectly supportive of the idea of a blog if there were a mass of physics enthusiasts wanting to write for it.  The rest of this discussion is a matter of perception of evidence, and I would currently maintain that sufficient enthusiasm for a blog does not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still think it's a good possibility to bring up, since I've seen rather good work done in other SE network blogs, so I would suggest that we consider it tabled for now.  If someone has some good suggestions for the type of content Physics.SE would have on a blog, meta is the place to share it.  I, for one, don't see much added value over the current QA, but that's only because I'm not interested in putting in the effort ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3421" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="0eee5fa0-11fe-4119-a524-d759ba06b592" CreationDate="2012-08-14T02:53:03.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/235207377283063808" />
  <row Id="3422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="bef4c635-e0ab-4766-a0b5-3aed69aba4fd" CreationDate="2012-08-14T21:30:18.717" UserId="520" Text="In looking at a new question today I found it tagged [tag:accelerator-physics], which I removed as my understanding is that the phase is universally used to discuss the physics of beams in accelerators and of the accelerating devices themselves, but *not* of experiments done using beams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the tag currently has no tag wiki and I find [many questions tagged in what I would describe as the wrong way][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions from the floor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accelerator-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="bef4c635-e0ab-4766-a0b5-3aed69aba4fd" CreationDate="2012-08-14T21:30:18.717" UserId="520" Text="Can we have a consensus on the meaning of [accellerator-physics]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="bef4c635-e0ab-4766-a0b5-3aed69aba4fd" CreationDate="2012-08-14T21:30:18.717" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="a8c6b3a8-df7f-401d-862d-489a82f7a56e" CreationDate="2012-08-14T21:43:48.113" UserId="520" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="In looking [at a new question][1] today I found it tagged [tag:accelerator-physics], which I removed as my understanding is that the phase is universally used to discuss the physics of beams in accelerators and of the accelerating devices themselves, but *not* of experiments done using beams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the tag currently has no tag wiki and I find [many questions tagged in what I would describe as the wrong way][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions from the floor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34193/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accelerator-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3426" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="c6a8e60a-1009-4441-83b8-c2f8b7f4b709" CreationDate="2012-08-14T23:12:12.267" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Can we have a consensus on the meaning of the [accelerator-physics] tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1436" RevisionGUID="16514a11-6fad-4853-84d9-2191f02d30c3" CreationDate="2012-08-15T13:24:58.347" UserId="19" Text="Right. Questions like &quot;Could LEP II have discovered a 125GeV Higgs?&quot; might be &quot;collider physics&quot; or &quot;high-energy physics&quot;, but they're not &quot;accelerator physics&quot; despite being tagged as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1437" RevisionGUID="b90744e5-8d23-434f-961b-a8ba75442b44" CreationDate="2012-08-16T01:32:02.733" UserId="520" Text="I have written a tag wiki that reflect my understanding of the usage of the term:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [tag:accelerator-physics] is appropriate for questions dealing with the physics of beams in accelerators; the ways in which beams are generated; the accelerating, bending and focusing equipment; and the intrinsic limits that arise in trying to manipulate beams. This tag should not generally be applied to questions that concern the use of the particle beams once they arrive in the experimental hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and will begin working on the tagged question a few at a time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="97a29350-9273-4c7b-8c50-38dfaa9db927" CreationDate="2012-08-17T14:55:32.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/236476361512996865" />
  <row Id="3433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="ec94ca9e-a3ad-4220-9101-e261dfe043cb" CreationDate="2012-08-20T17:32:24.997" UserId="124" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen at least these three examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simple a rough idea of what I'm proposing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="ec94ca9e-a3ad-4220-9101-e261dfe043cb" CreationDate="2012-08-20T17:32:24.997" UserId="124" Text="Can we have &quot;Astronomy&quot; added to the logo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="ec94ca9e-a3ad-4220-9101-e261dfe043cb" CreationDate="2012-08-20T17:32:24.997" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="e4fedda0-80b2-412c-92d0-28f9a46d9bc7" CreationDate="2012-08-20T17:32:24.997" UserId="124" Text="This will be the official &quot;poll&quot; answer: vote this up if you agree with the logo change, down if you disagree. In the latter case it would be great if you can express your reasons for disagreeing perhaps in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, a rough conception of what the modified logo could look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Rough logo](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="4a7191ad-90c0-4f25-9a9e-95786a200c4b" CreationDate="2012-08-20T20:40:45.477" UserId="124" Comment="added 185 characters in body; edited body; deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This will be the official &quot;poll&quot; answer: vote this up if you agree that the logo should be changed, down if you disagree. In the latter case it would be great if you can express your reasons for disagreeing in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough conception of what the modified logo _could_ look like is provided in the question. This is _not_ a finalized design, so please do _not_ vote based on whether you like the way it looks. **Your vote should _only_ indicate whether you agree or disagree with adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="dec31fa2-20e4-4704-bbd3-ee47e1f673b0" CreationDate="2012-08-20T20:43:07.717" UserId="124" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen at least these three examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="8472a8d8-1b71-458d-b85c-9d24a011b66e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T22:59:22.520" UserId="4521" Text="Some users have in their info that they are faculty or post docs or working in other fields, other users have no info. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to locate/list all those users who are physics faculty/postdocs in academic institutions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in reading the answers written by them.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="8472a8d8-1b71-458d-b85c-9d24a011b66e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T22:59:22.520" UserId="4521" Text="Which users are faculty/postdoc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="8472a8d8-1b71-458d-b85c-9d24a011b66e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T22:59:22.520" UserId="4521" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1442" RevisionGUID="091dcbc7-138d-415e-a7a8-427d7eb82cf6" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:04:36.473" UserId="4521" Text="In many occasions, one find more than one correct answer, or that 2 answers complete each others in such a way that both answer the question posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such situations one tend to mark both of them as accepted answers, unfortunately the system is designed to allow only 1 accepted answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can that be changed to allow 2 accepted answers instead of 1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1442" RevisionGUID="091dcbc7-138d-415e-a7a8-427d7eb82cf6" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:04:36.473" UserId="4521" Text="Why not make it possible to accept 2 answers instead of 1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1442" RevisionGUID="091dcbc7-138d-415e-a7a8-427d7eb82cf6" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:04:36.473" UserId="4521" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="417dd229-d86b-45ca-8f3c-44ad34ec929a" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:04:58.757" UserId="520" Text="Users who want you to know that about them can (and I suppose generally will) put that information in their profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases you may be able to deduce their present employment somehow. For instance, you could find my current situation pretty easily by following the link in profile that leads to the inspire listing of my publications and working from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I do not wish to be contacted out of band which is why there is no explicit information about that in my profile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="0ec0f647-269b-4163-a4c8-87181ac3bc61" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:10:08.820" UserId="4521" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="Some users have in their info that they are faculty or post docs or working in other fields, other users have no info. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to locate/list all those users who are physics faculty/postdocs in academic institutions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in reading the answers written by them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;Let me be clear about a few points:&#xD;&#xA;1-I am looking only for users who said in their info that they are physics post docs or faculty&#xD;&#xA;2-I do not want to contact them, I only want to read the answers they post, since their posts will be more authentic (on average) than other users.&#xD;&#xA;3-I just thought that there is a way in the site by which one can search for users by being an academic or not&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="89433cfa-16d7-43cc-a1ab-6f4c83bb9416" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:16:25.410" UserId="4521" Comment="added 114 characters in body; added 6 characters in body" Text="Some users have in their info that they are faculty or post docs or working in other fields, other users have no info. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to locate/list all those users who are physics faculty/postdocs in academic institutions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in reading the answers written by them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;Let me be clear about a few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-I am looking only for users who said in their info that they are physics post docs or faculty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-I do not want to contact them, I only want to read the answers they post, since their posts will be more authentic (on average) than other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-Since I cannot look at the info of every single user to see if he is an academic or not, that would take forever, I just thought that there is a way in the site by which one can search for users by being an academic or not&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="f1217c55-5cd0-4682-8222-b1bf1fa71a5e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:24:01.347" UserId="520" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="Users who want you to know that about them can (and I suppose generally will) put that information in their profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases you may be able to deduce their present employment somehow. For instance, you could find my current situation pretty easily by following the link in profile that leads to the inspire listing of my publications and working from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I do not wish to be contacted out of band which is why there is no explicit information about that in my profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The team are unlikely to provide support for this use case beyond making the data available in the data dumps/data-explorer because the focus is always on questions and answer rather than on users. The mantra here is *&quot;Stack Exchange is not a social network&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="ae7b57e6-3513-4158-99f1-24a65cc6637a" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:34:11.247" UserId="4521" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Some users have in their info that they are faculty or post docs or working in other fields, other users have no info. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to locate/list all those users who are physics faculty/postdocs in academic institutions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in reading the answers written by them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;Let me be clear about a few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-I am looking only for users who said in their info that they are physics post docs or faculty, do not care about his/her name or about the name of their institution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-I do not want to contact them, I only want to read the answers they post, since their posts will be more authentic (on average) than other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-Since I cannot look at the info of every single user to see if he is an academic or not, that would take forever, I just thought that there is a way in the site by which one can search for users by being an academic or not&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="7e3cc666-faea-425d-b1ed-32c793cc8553" CreationDate="2012-08-21T19:44:44.640" UserId="124" Comment="added 111 characters in body; edited title" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen at least these three examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a reason not to add &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, please mention it either in a comment or answer!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="7e3cc666-faea-425d-b1ed-32c793cc8553" CreationDate="2012-08-21T19:44:44.640" UserId="124" Comment="added 111 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can we have &quot;Astronomy&quot; added to the logo? If not, why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1444" RevisionGUID="8421c240-4322-4f8b-929d-c3771832abc5" CreationDate="2012-08-22T08:04:53.787" UserId="4864" Text="I am afraid that David will delete comments of 'tHooft, and others, on threads where he has participated. I don't like to see any of 'tHooft's writing go anywhere, at least not for a long time, so please can he hold his horses? Same goes for other comment threads, which are actively going on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trigger-happy deletion has caused some consternation to users in the past. It is only reasonable for stale discussions, not for active things that are still being sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1444" RevisionGUID="8421c240-4322-4f8b-929d-c3771832abc5" CreationDate="2012-08-22T08:04:53.787" UserId="4864" Text="Deleting 'tHooft's comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1444" RevisionGUID="8421c240-4322-4f8b-929d-c3771832abc5" CreationDate="2012-08-22T08:04:53.787" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="ba0e86e2-abcc-4777-a248-c31537dfd4cf" CreationDate="2012-08-22T08:08:15.390" UserId="124" Text="As I have said, you're free to copy the comments to your own notes or to a separate web page, or to any other arena where you want to continue the discussion (subject to the Creative Commons license). That way you can keep his writing as long as you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment system doesn't exist to support extended discussions. That doesn't change no matter what credentials the poster has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1446" RevisionGUID="ba6779c7-0b99-4a1b-bb22-48095f5af95c" CreationDate="2012-08-22T10:43:40.817" UserId="2751" Text="To me personally it was always clear that astronomy (containing observational and theoretical astrophysics for example) IS physics, such that it would not be necessary to add it to the logo of physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But after rethinking and discussing this a bit with my office mate (he is an astrophysicist), I'm no longer too opposed to adding astronomy to the logo since&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) I like it to see astronomy questions and people interested in it being around here :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Looking at how astronomy is implemented in the academic landscape it is not the case everywhere that astronomy is treated as a subfield of physics. Here in Germany for example, we have universities with institutes explicitely named &quot;physics and astronomy&quot;, sometimes there exist distinct departments for physics and astronomy, or astronomy is listed as a part of the &quot;mathematical and natural sciences&quot; faculty, etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) so people from places in the world where astronomy is not treated as a subfield of physics generally might need some encouragement to ask astronomy questions here. Adding the word to the logo can be a nice way to do this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="e2543e89-15e2-4741-8d0b-5cb30bc1c194" CreationDate="2012-08-22T13:26:04.977" UserId="520" Text="If they persist long enough they will get included in a Data Dump." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1448" RevisionGUID="5fd65205-e1e0-4052-ae18-86945f67e6e0" CreationDate="2012-08-22T16:27:50.143" UserId="4864" Text="Whether the answer comes from a postdoc or a professional is only mildly statistically correlated with the correctness and completeness of the answer. You could probably extract a positive correlation coefficient, but it's not overwhelming, and this is not the useful criterion by which to judge things as correct. You need to read it and make up your mind. There are users who usually say completely wacky things that have on occasion come up with original and interesting observations, and great physicists who made a mistake here or there. I don't see any authority filter which is helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="aa727941-3da6-4aa1-a8c6-4388a496689d" CreationDate="2012-08-22T20:12:16.463" UserId="124" Text="OK, on the advice of others in the SE network, I'll refrain from deleting those comment discussions in their entirety right away. Some of the comments posted have no useful physics content, and those will be deleted as normal, but the rest I'll leave alone at least until there has been ample time to incorporate any relevant physics into the questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I would like to remind everyone that the comment section isn't really meant for extended discussions like these. Ideally, the discussions should have been moved to a chat room before they got so long. Discussions that take place in chat are always preserved forever. Let's try to keep that in mind for the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="850a8dfe-dadb-4167-9d62-5783a0fd7dd7" CreationDate="2012-08-22T20:56:21.410" UserId="124" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="OK, on the advice of others in the SE network, I'll refrain from deleting those comment discussions in their entirety right away. Some of the comments posted have no useful physics content, and those will be deleted as normal, but the rest I'll leave alone at least until there has been ample time to incorporate any relevant physics into the questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I would like to remind everyone that the comment section isn't really meant for extended discussions like these. Ideally, the discussions should have been moved to a chat room before they got so long - it's as simple as posting `Let's take this to [chat]` after the first 6 or 7 messages. Discussions that take place in chat are always preserved forever. Let's try to keep that in mind for the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1450" RevisionGUID="a1f98e60-58f4-423f-8560-ce6fb7b2ead5" CreationDate="2012-08-24T21:54:30.817" UserId="4485" Text="I use three methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Browse the difficult looking questions on the main page and look at the profiles of people with up-voted answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- click on USERS on the main page and order them according to yearly, monthly, weekly votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- click BADGES on the main page, then gold/silver on the right, then &quot;good answer&quot; on the left, which will list users with outstanding answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do a Google search on the filtered user info using the above and you'll find there's one Nobel Laureate, a few teaching/researching at world class universities, a few ex-academics with PhDs/Masters etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="51537bd6-6519-485d-8d86-fdb2e751dd52" CreationDate="2012-08-25T18:36:38.947" UserId="2451" Comment="It seems OP means access -&gt; find. Dear Joebevo, if u don't like my changes pls roll back or use the parts u like." Text="I'm curious to see what topics the wikis cover, but I don't know how to find/locate them. I tried doing a tag search for &quot;community-wiki&quot; but it didn't show up anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3463" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="51537bd6-6519-485d-8d86-fdb2e751dd52" CreationDate="2012-08-25T18:36:38.947" UserId="2451" Comment="It seems OP means access -&gt; find. Dear Joebevo, if u don't like my changes pls roll back or use the parts u like." Text="How do I find community wikis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="ec28d87a-1eec-4abc-b553-971c264c34e8" CreationDate="2012-08-26T16:24:29.510" UserId="4485" Text="There's a lot of unnecessary comments to my [answer][1] which ideally should all be deleted IMO. So how do I do this or flag it for attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33542/why-are-radians-more-natural-than-any-other-angle-unit/33567#33567" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="ec28d87a-1eec-4abc-b553-971c264c34e8" CreationDate="2012-08-26T16:24:29.510" UserId="4485" Text="How do I flag a question or answer for comment pruning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="ec28d87a-1eec-4abc-b553-971c264c34e8" CreationDate="2012-08-26T16:24:29.510" UserId="4485" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1452" RevisionGUID="e666ef8d-e54f-4395-8dce-c8263a3084a3" CreationDate="2012-08-26T17:28:51.903" UserId="124" Text="Click the &quot;flag&quot; link that you should find just below your answer, and you can write in the &quot;other&quot; field that the comments should be deleted. Or you can flag one of the comments and use the &quot;other&quot; option similarly. (&quot;too chatty&quot; could also work)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you do this, of course, I strongly suggest going through the comment thread to make sure that anything you might want to incorporate into your answer (or question), such as a clarification, has been taken care of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="7413d080-017c-4e29-aa5e-76fd9d289651" CreationDate="2012-08-27T03:30:17.423" UserId="4864" Text="You can just ask the other users involved to delete their comments, and then delete yours. This way it doesn't require outside intervention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1454" RevisionGUID="98f597b8-3c81-4886-a0dc-a88f5d840078" CreationDate="2012-08-27T15:44:42.750" UserId="1172" Text="I think the &quot;deleting&quot; feature, however it works, is one of the biggest &quot;bugs&quot; on Stack Exchange.  In addition to the current controversy, in the past it has deleted very valuable references from the answers to some of my questions.  Now I cannot recover them.  I am highly displeased, to say the least. If there was an edit trail, or something, it might be tolerable.  &#xD;&#xA;This kind of delete without memory should be reserved for abusive comments and the worst kind of spam, in my opinion.  It should never be applied to debates with significant physical content. Move, yes if you must. Even hide, if absolutely necessary. Delete without memory, only in the most flagrant cases.  &#xD;&#xA;My very passionate two cents worth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="ad80da74-1825-41e0-b440-b746cdc177d6" CreationDate="2012-08-28T11:56:47.143" UserId="1247" Text="I have asked 31 questions on this site, and I have to say that the most valuable answers/insight (for me at least) are more often than not contained in the comments. This is because often (and I do not think I am alone in this), those who answer cannot read my mind, and so the answers that are given leave out some crucial insights that are at the core of my misunderstanding. I often have to &quot;tease out&quot; that answer in the comments. It would be great if always, once this happened, the author would edit their answer to reflect the additional clarifying details, but often they do not, and the real answer to my question, the thing I wish to return to if I ever look the question up again, is in the comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Me:** &quot;Why is A?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer:** &quot;Because of B!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Me:** &quot;But what about C?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer:** &quot;Ah, that is because of D!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Me:** &quot;Aha! Thank you! That was my sticking point!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I find it greatly distressing to learn that some of these comments might be deleted. It just seems to be fighting against all that is good and useful about this site. It seems, in practice, anti-educational." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="d12860df-c188-4cb1-88d0-b74b9bbcb0e3" CreationDate="2012-08-28T15:40:16.647" UserId="5477" Text="The following comment got a lot of upvotes, so I'm posting it as an answer so it will be preserved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;I have to say I often hesitate to move discussions to chat because it's a much worse experience than comments. Primarily this is because of the lack of LaTeX, but also you get no information about whether you've crossed the character limit; if you come up with a new point a few days later you find you can't add it because the chat session has been frozen (why, why, why?); and while chat sessions are in theory preserved forever, I find it almost impossible to find old ones. Finally, it's an extra click away, meaning that other people are less likely to read it and weigh in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Jerry Schirmer added, &quot;I would also argue that I often find the comments threads on posts more enlightening than the posts themselves.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="5bf5af25-1549-41ec-8944-e0de15fef1fb" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:59:09.270" UserId="4020" Text="I bet you have noticed that recent outburst of [metaphysics tagging][1] by Anixx. Unfortunately the tag lacks description. What does 'metaphysics' tag mean? Does it have the same meaning as 'metamathematics'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I feel a bit uncomfortable about it, I want clarification on its purposes and why do we need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/metaphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="5bf5af25-1549-41ec-8944-e0de15fef1fb" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:59:09.270" UserId="4020" Text="Metaphysics tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="5bf5af25-1549-41ec-8944-e0de15fef1fb" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:59:09.270" UserId="4020" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="f7d367fd-51cc-4ba5-b989-23af3981ecf3" CreationDate="2012-08-29T11:04:12.210" UserId="4020" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I bet you have noticed that recent outburst of [metaphysics tagging][1] by Anixx. Unfortunately the tag lacks description. What does 'metaphysics' tag mean? Does it have the same meaning as 'metamathematics'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I feel a bit uncomfortable about it, I want a clarification on its purposes and why do we need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/metaphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="4ddcd609-964f-4280-a687-6b18885c883d" CreationDate="2012-08-29T12:49:15.907" UserId="2451" Comment="added wiki links" Text="I bet you have noticed that recent outburst of [metaphysics tagging][1] by Anixx. Unfortunately the tag lacks description. What does '[metaphysics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)' tag mean? Does it have the same meaning as '[metamathematics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics)'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I feel a bit uncomfortable about it, I want a clarification on its purposes and why do we need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/metaphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1459" RevisionGUID="43686ea4-1dd1-4f09-9a62-79533a3851a0" CreationDate="2012-08-29T14:55:00.540" UserId="124" Text="My default thought would be that [tag:metaphysics] means &quot;off topic for this site.&quot; I would say the best thing to do is review the questions that have been assigned that tag and in each case, either remove the tag or close the question. I'll take a look at the list of questions later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1460" RevisionGUID="6bfcfd1c-1827-47d5-b57b-0e7d3a1ade20" CreationDate="2012-08-29T15:02:49.960" UserId="520" Text="The [wikipedia says of metaphysics][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which does not sound promising in terms of being on-topic. That said a little later it clarifies things a bit with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which appears to lay claim to some areas of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, my observation is that mostly questions in metaphysics do not have answers, rather they are invitations to discuss. Discussions are not what we do here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="233c7db7-3b09-415a-adeb-d32635e8090b" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:28:11.787" UserId="4066" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Sustainable Living][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics Research][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33364.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33364/sustainable-living&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/29987.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/29987/robotics-research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="c06e66ff-9483-4890-9f49-dd498ab92440" CreationDate="2012-08-30T12:52:15.167" UserId="1186" Text="Here is how metaphysiscs is defined in *Metaphysics* texbook by Peter van Inwagen (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Metaphysics attempts to tell the ultimate truth about the World, about&#xD;&#xA;    everything. But what is it we want to know about the World? What are the ques-&#xD;&#xA;    tions whose answers would be the ultimate truth about things? There are, I sug-&#xD;&#xA;    gest, three such questions:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    1. What are the most general features of the World, and what sorts of things&#xD;&#xA;       does it contain? What is the World like?&#xD;&#xA;    2. Why does a World exist—and, more speciﬁcally, why is there a World hav-&#xD;&#xA;       ing the features and the content described in the answer to Question 1?&#xD;&#xA;    3. What is our place in the World? How do we human beings ﬁt into it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why I tagged those questions that asked, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What the cause the world exists and could it be different, what features of the world necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions related to Anthropic principle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions related to when was the beginning of time or whether time axis infinite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of these questions are not physics, but since they were not deleted they should be properly tagged. It should be noted that metaphysics questions are not very welcome in Phylosophy.SE by their community and they often advise to ask in Physics.SE for a reason unknown to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why all those tags were removed. Please restore them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="2c9498b2-fa17-42ac-b4fe-52753a198a49" CreationDate="2012-08-30T13:06:37.953" UserId="1186" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Here is how metaphysiscs is defined in *Metaphysics* texbook by Peter van Inwagen (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Metaphysics attempts to tell the ultimate truth about the World, about&#xD;&#xA;    everything. But what is it we want to know about the World? What are the ques-&#xD;&#xA;    tions whose answers would be the ultimate truth about things? There are, I sug-&#xD;&#xA;    gest, three such questions:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    1. What are the most general features of the World, and what sorts of things&#xD;&#xA;       does it contain? What is the World like?&#xD;&#xA;    2. Why does a World exist—and, more speciﬁcally, why is there a World hav-&#xD;&#xA;       ing the features and the content described in the answer to Question 1?&#xD;&#xA;    3. What is our place in the World? How do we human beings ﬁt into it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why I tagged those questions that asked, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What the cause the world exists and could it be different, what features of the world necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions related to Anthropic principle, whether observer is needed for things to exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions related to when was the beginning of time or whether time axis infinite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of these questions are not physics, but since they were not deleted they should be properly tagged. It should be noted that metaphysics questions are not very welcome in Phylosophy.SE by their community and they often advise to ask in Physics.SE for a reason unknown to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why all those tags were removed. Please restore them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="3961891a-d507-4c7e-a827-8121413f900a" CreationDate="2012-08-31T10:11:52.893" UserId="1186" Text="It seems to me that metaphysics questions are allowed, but tagging them as such sparks protests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice seems inconsistent to me. I will re-tag the questions with a metaphysics tag if there are no better proposals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="3961891a-d507-4c7e-a827-8121413f900a" CreationDate="2012-08-31T10:11:52.893" UserId="1186" Text="So what's on with the metaphysics questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="3961891a-d507-4c7e-a827-8121413f900a" CreationDate="2012-08-31T10:11:52.893" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="04620b4d-a10e-4917-bec9-a4b29798e582" CreationDate="2012-08-31T10:18:49.327" UserId="1186" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that metaphysics questions are allowed, but tagging them as such sparks protests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice seems inconsistent to me. I will re-tag the questions with a metaphysics tag if there are no better proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions I mean to tag are those&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About anthropic principle, possible worlds and existence of things without an observer. This includes hypotheses about quantum immortality and alike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About general properties of time, determinism/indeterminism, existence of the present, past, future, causality loops and eternity of the universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About self-reference, existence of universally-walid theories, predictability of the future and subjective decoherence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About limits of applicability of scientific method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="73fc2db5-034e-4c13-9fe1-23bea5d0e284" CreationDate="2012-08-31T11:36:34.677" UserId="4485" Text="I think the main problem is reaching a consensus upon what metaphysics is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most would agree that metaphysics is a branch of **philosophy** from the past that came before the development of science. It looked at those properties of the world that are immaterial such as being, love etc and tried to answer questions such as: Is there a purpose to the world? Does the world exist because I look at it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are modern books that give metaphysics a modern flavour such as: The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory by Henry Krips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a better idea would be to ask whether any philosophical questions on physics are allowed here, and if they are, then to propose the philosophy-of-physics tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="f2cd14ed-a111-45a0-842c-76bab001e37e" CreationDate="2012-08-31T12:01:07.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/241505897703165953" />
  <row Id="3490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="3dea6c03-9467-400a-9dfc-50db7ab1ba69" CreationDate="2012-08-31T12:44:11.480" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that metaphysics questions are allowed, but tagging them as such sparks protests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice seems inconsistent to me. I will re-tag the questions with a metaphysics tag if there are no better proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions I mean to tag are those&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About anthropic principle, fine tuning, possible worlds and existence of things without an observer. This includes hypotheses about quantum immortality and alike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About general properties of time, determinism/indeterminism, existence of the present, past, future, causality loops and eternity of the universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About self-reference in measurement theory, existence of universally-walid theories and subjective decoherence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About limits of applicability of scientific method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1464" RevisionGUID="404beb5d-730f-4dde-8ea5-3a9aa6cfad0b" CreationDate="2012-08-31T12:51:06.493" UserId="1492" Text="When I was younger I  read a lot of modern metaphysics, including occult literature, from Castaneda to Seth to Emanuel to ... I forget now. Also physics of consciousness and the implicate and explicate order of Bohm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I do not support a metaphysics discussion on this board is that one of course can play with metaphysics, but one has to have very clear in one's head what is physics and what is metaphysics. Metaphysics borders science fiction, and would be science fiction if it were not that we, as conscious beings, are still inexplicable by our standard theories of physics: *we are born, we live, we propagate, we die.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a board like this, which is followed among others by confused teenagers and disoriented  nerds from all disciplines to give a metaphysics tag brings these fuzzy questions on par with the logical, rational and provable physics statements. This should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people are interested so much in metaphysics per se, they should ask for a separate board." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="2df2e0ce-119c-40d3-a838-3d01373693e1" CreationDate="2012-08-31T12:56:29.667" UserId="1186" Comment="added 2761 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that metaphysics questions are allowed, but tagging them as such sparks protests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice seems inconsistent to me. I will re-tag the questions with a metaphysics tag if there are no better proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions I mean to tag are those&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About anthropic principle, fine tuning, possible worlds and existence of things without an observer. This includes hypotheses about quantum immortality and alike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About general properties of time, determinism/indeterminism, existence of the present, past, future, causality loops and eternity of the universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About self-reference in measurement theory, existence of universally-walid theories and subjective decoherence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* About limits of applicability of scientific method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;As there is certain confusion about what the definition, here is how metaphysics destinguished and related to physical sciences by Peter van Inwagen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another sort of aid in understanding what is meant by ‘metaphysics’ is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided  by distinguishing metaphysics from the things it might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confused with. First, metaphysics must be distinguished from the most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; general and all-embracing of the physical sciences: cosmology and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics of elementary particles. (...) These two ﬁelds of study have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turned out to be closely connected and have, since the 1960s, produced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; results that are of the deepest signiﬁcance for metaphysics. Let us&#xD;&#xA;&gt; give the name “physical cosmology” to those scientiﬁc investigations&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that intimately involve both cosmology and the physics of elementary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particles. Here is an example of the metaphysical sig- niﬁcance of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physical cosmology. Physical cosmology seems to show that the phys-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ical universe had a beginning in time (about fourteen thousand million&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years ago)—or at least that it does not have an inﬁnite past&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout which it has been much the same as it is now. If this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correct, all metaphysical speculations that pre- suppose an inﬁnite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past during which the components of a universe much like the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; universe have been eternally rearranging themselves—our second set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an- swers to our three metaphysical questions provides one important&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example of spec- ulations that make this presupposition—are incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this by itself is sufﬁcient to show the relevance of physical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cosmology to metaphysics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     But if physical cosmology is of the deepest signiﬁcance for metaphysics, it nevertheless does not and cannot answer all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions metaphysics poses. For one thing, it cannot answer the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question, Why does the World exist? (...) Physical cosmology,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moreover, does not and cannot tell us whether the physical universe is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all there is—whether there is more to the World than the physical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; universe. Scientists sometimes assert that the World is identical with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the physical universe, as a famous astronomer, the late Carl Sagan,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did in the opening words of his popular television series Cosmos, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the assertion is a metaphysical, not a scientiﬁc, assertion. It is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certainly possible to argue that science will someday explain all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; observable phenomena and that one should therefore believe that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; World is identical with the physical universe, since one should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe that nothing exists beyond those things science postulates in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the course of giving its explanations. But this argument is—and any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; argument for the same conclusion will be—a metaphysical, not a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientiﬁc, argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="09376719-5ba2-4017-a87d-6443a931f18c" CreationDate="2012-08-31T14:03:09.477" UserId="7433" Text="I personally feel that the word &quot;metaphysics&quot; can be interpreted in many ways, which is probably causing this confusion in the first place. A lot of metaphysics would be off-topic here IMO, but quite a bit of it may not be. For example, I feel that certain questions about the anthropic principle would be fine here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, if you are doing a mass retagging (mass= &gt;10 posts), it may be better to ask first. In this case, its even more crucial, since metaphysics is dicey when it comes to discussing on-topicness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems to me that metaphysics questions are allowed, but tagging them as such sparks protests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because a question isn't closed doesn't mean it's allowed. I would say that we need to first sort out if it is on-topic, which doesn't seem to be done yet (Let's see what David turns up after looking through those questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I will re-tag the questions with a metaphysics tag if there are no better proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't do that _until_ we have reached consensus. Let's not start a tag war." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="9674aa10-9def-49c4-81a6-e71946c7b952" CreationDate="2012-08-31T16:53:39.620" UserId="2751" Text="It is high time now that somebody with a clear voice of reason stops this horrible attack on fundamental physics Anixx has started. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think physics SE should not let it happen, that a single very obstinate user starts to mess up with (by the community long ago accepted and answered) fundamental physics questions or succeeds in making future questions about fundamental physics off topic just for philosophical reasons. Physics is NOT a subfield of philosophy, so what is on/off topic here on physics SE should not be determined by philospohers but by real serious phyicists ...!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already explained in previous comments, by fundamental physics I mean theoretical physics (!) topics the [Milner Prize](http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/about.html) is targeted at for example, which **can** be and **are** addressed by (non fringe) theoretical physicists at present (or in the very near future)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1467" RevisionGUID="1398caa7-144f-4d50-9022-217a3800a8fc" CreationDate="2012-08-31T17:10:56.237" UserId="124" Text="I think other people are saying the same thing in more detail, but my position is that metaphysics questions are not appropriate on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="338438b3-ad43-460c-abd0-95c853ec509e" CreationDate="2012-08-31T17:14:16.460" UserId="2751" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="It is high time now that somebody with a clear voice of reason stops this horrible attack on fundamental physics Anixx has started by insisting on either tagging valid questions as metaphysics or deleting/closing/migrating them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think physics SE should not let it happen, that a single very obstinate user starts to mess up with (by the community long ago accepted and answered) fundamental physics questions or succeeds in making future questions about fundamental physics off topic just for philosophical reasons. Physics is NOT a subfield of philosophy, so what is on/off topic here on physics SE should not be determined by philospohers but by real serious phyicists ...!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already explained in previous comments, by fundamental physics I mean theoretical physics (!) topics the [Milner Prize](http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/about.html) is targeted at for example, which **can** be and **are** addressed by (non fringe) theoretical physicists at present (or in the very near future)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="8f6c218c-b91c-41df-a78c-5bdf18d68288" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:03:11.450" UserId="1186" Text="Below I will post several questions about whether a certain philosophical topic should be allowed in Physics.SE. Please vote up to keep the questions belonging to a topic and vote down to close or migrate the questions belonging to the topic from Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a vote for general acceptability of certain topics. The questions can be still sorted out on case by case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="8f6c218c-b91c-41df-a78c-5bdf18d68288" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:03:11.450" UserId="1186" Text="Philosophical questions voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="8f6c218c-b91c-41df-a78c-5bdf18d68288" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:03:11.450" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1469" RevisionGUID="638b3800-1127-4151-ba22-d9e649612747" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:03:38.577" UserId="1186" Text="1. Questions, related to Anthropic principle, Final anthropic principle, quantum immortality, Boltzman brains, nececity of an observer &#xD;&#xA;for things to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is the only diffeomorphism invariant anthropic principle the final anthropic principle?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30989/is-the-only-diffeomorphism-invariant-anthropic-principle-the-final-anthropic-pri&#xD;&#xA;* Why aren't we Boltzmann brains in an infinite universe?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32979/why-arent-we-boltzmann-brains-in-an-infinite-universe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="902eb82c-063a-42de-9d2d-63bc82779740" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:04:27.687" UserId="1186" Text="2. Questions, related to the ultimate nature of time, presentism, eternalism, endurantism, perdurantism, &#xD;&#xA;causation, infinity of time in past and future directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How can something happen when time does not exist?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24018/how-can-something-happen-when-time-does-not-exist&#xD;&#xA;* Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&#xD;&#xA;* How was time created?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23148/how-was-time-created&#xD;&#xA;* Is 'now' smeared over time?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16688/is-now-smeared-over-time&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1471" RevisionGUID="ef26a908-ad95-40ac-8d62-62d1d68e5d99" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:10:23.933" UserId="1186" Text="Questions, related to self-reference in measurement theory, existence of universally-valid theories, subjective decoherence and limits of scientific method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is the wavefunction of the observer himself?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4841/what-is-the-wavefunction-of-the-observer-himself" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="82683873-ee72-4208-868a-3c59d96764bb" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:10:47.787" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Questions, related to the ultimate nature of time, presentism, eternalism, endurantism, perdurantism, &#xD;&#xA;causation, infinity of time in past and future directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How can something happen when time does not exist?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24018/how-can-something-happen-when-time-does-not-exist&#xD;&#xA;* Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&#xD;&#xA;* How was time created?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23148/how-was-time-created&#xD;&#xA;* Is 'now' smeared over time?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16688/is-now-smeared-over-time&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1469" RevisionGUID="4344d201-d86c-4eaf-b2e1-13f0dee667fb" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:11:01.577" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Questions, related to Anthropic principle, Final anthropic principle, quantum immortality, Boltzman brains, nececity of an observer &#xD;&#xA;for things to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is the only diffeomorphism invariant anthropic principle the final anthropic principle?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30989/is-the-only-diffeomorphism-invariant-anthropic-principle-the-final-anthropic-pri&#xD;&#xA;* Why aren't we Boltzmann brains in an infinite universe?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32979/why-arent-we-boltzmann-brains-in-an-infinite-universe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="df2b0566-5666-4dcd-99da-adae5acac79b" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:25:11.597" UserId="1186" Text="Questions about choice between mathematically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is the wave function objective or subjective?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/is-the-wave-function-objective-or-subjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1471" RevisionGUID="2a71bcfc-c19e-431f-872f-a04337400697" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:26:03.423" UserId="1186" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Questions, related to self-reference in measurement theory, existence of universally-valid theories, subjective decoherence and limits of scientific method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is the wavefunction of the observer himself?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4841/what-is-the-wavefunction-of-the-observer-himself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Certainty in science&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31068/certainty-in-science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="9529490a-7eff-4d12-9429-3f082d884850" CreationDate="2012-09-02T01:12:49.403" UserId="5827" Text="There is an easy solution to this. Why not display the most voted comment and have the reader click a link to unravel the rest of the comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1471" RevisionGUID="3dfb3c9f-0eda-4ae3-bc9c-4a4410921040" CreationDate="2012-09-02T13:21:31.893" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body" Text="Questions, related to self-reference in measurement theory, existence of universally-valid theories, subjective decoherence and limits of scientific method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4841/what-is-the-wavefunction-of-the-observer-himself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31068/certainty-in-science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="ee0560ed-81e7-4009-9d37-8657ad667103" CreationDate="2012-09-02T13:21:40.893" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="Questions about choice between mathematically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/is-the-wave-function-objective-or-subjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="ae1f257d-fcc6-4366-b520-56cfcfbcbc49" CreationDate="2012-09-02T13:22:04.730" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 173 characters in body" Text="Questions, related to the ultimate nature of time, presentism, eternalism, endurantism, perdurantism, &#xD;&#xA;causation, infinity of time in past and future directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24018/how-can-something-happen-when-time-does-not-exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23148/how-was-time-created&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16688/is-now-smeared-over-time&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1469" RevisionGUID="b5ee56ac-2b4e-49a3-b57d-4424bd25602f" CreationDate="2012-09-02T13:22:19.597" UserId="1186" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body" Text="Questions, related to Anthropic principle, Final anthropic principle, quantum immortality, Boltzman brains, nececity of an observer &#xD;&#xA;for things to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30989/is-the-only-diffeomorphism-invariant-anthropic-principle-the-final-anthropic-pri&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32979/why-arent-we-boltzmann-brains-in-an-infinite-universe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="bd28c0a5-1a51-4be9-a7d4-e7b39b651e27" CreationDate="2012-09-05T01:51:17.983" UserId="11062" Text="In these sites, down-voting has become a passion to prove *intelligence*. Yesterday, I got two upvoted answers **downvoted simultaneously** (Someone has down-voted both within 1 min). I think they're too busy in leaving comments and reading [Etiquette](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#etiquette)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why isn't there a rule: &quot;For Downvoting upvoted posts, comments are must&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The posted users don't know &quot;For which silly reason, they've been downvoted...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Then, how would we correct the answers? Only one choice left out: &quot;Answers must be deleted&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="bd28c0a5-1a51-4be9-a7d4-e7b39b651e27" CreationDate="2012-09-05T01:51:17.983" UserId="11062" Text="Down-voting and no comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="bd28c0a5-1a51-4be9-a7d4-e7b39b651e27" CreationDate="2012-09-05T01:51:17.983" UserId="11062" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="951cb2d4-b102-4bbc-b92f-2a0c634a16b7" CreationDate="2012-09-05T05:05:52.290" UserId="124" Text="The reasons you're not required to leave a comment when downvoting, and why that is not going to change, are explained in detail in many questions on Meta Stack Overflow ([example](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you downvote a post, you're _encouraged_ (but never required) to explain what can be improved about it. Of course, this is also encouraged even if you don't downvote the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming at it from the other direction, when your post is downvoted and/or someone suggests an improvement, you have no obligation to do anything about it. Correcting the answer or deleting it are not your only choices. You can just leave it alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="df2c8093-d7f7-4044-ae34-c962b795873a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T05:06:04.663" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="1ba5922e-d621-4146-943d-ece2579b0a4f" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:19:52.847" UserId="1186" Text="I think questions like this http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down (which is pure geometry) should be moved to Mathematics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="1ba5922e-d621-4146-943d-ece2579b0a4f" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:19:52.847" UserId="1186" Text="Purely mathematical questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="1ba5922e-d621-4146-943d-ece2579b0a4f" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:19:52.847" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="ad3bae6f-009e-4168-946a-44d0267de47d" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:00:39.373" UserId="124" Text="Some other sites in the SE network have recently been moving toward eliminating the [tag:homework] tag. I think this would be useful for us to consider as well, particularly in light of questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35748/how-to-add-two-perpendicular-2d-vectors) - if you look at the comments, the OP says &quot;Also there is a homework tag so I assumed it does allow homework questions.&quot; That's one of the main arguments for removing the tag, both here and on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the homework tag would not change our policy on what sorts of questions can be asked here. Specifically, it is now and will continue to be OK to ask a conceptual question that arises in the context of a homework assignment. Also our [existing homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be more or less unchanged, except that we would no longer ask posters to use the tag [tag:homework] for homework or self-study questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we go ahead with removing the tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="ad3bae6f-009e-4168-946a-44d0267de47d" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:00:39.373" UserId="124" Text="Should we get rid of the homework tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="ad3bae6f-009e-4168-946a-44d0267de47d" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:00:39.373" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1478" RevisionGUID="07c32345-137b-4d25-9983-a8d1790b14e2" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:32:56.577" UserId="520" Text="I have mixed feeling about [tag:homework]. I personally answer pedagogical question in a leading manner and consider such answers to be *better* than complete answers in that context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to cause an inordinate amount of strife and hardfeelings so I wouldn't cry if we saw it go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="fb90cd6d-39da-4a17-9efe-47304613868f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T20:45:25.763" UserId="2146" Text="Yes, I think the homework tag should be removed because www.physicsforums.com already provides homework help brilliantly and so doesn't need to be encouraged here, given that physics.stackexchange.com wasn't designed to compete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, its straight foward to word a homework question in a way which is general and therefore compatible with the types of questions that the intended audience here will find interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="6a869782-535e-48b1-aeb8-59dbdb21c62a" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:00:33.433" UserId="4066" Text="We could remove it, once the FAQ is updated to reflect the underlying issues around homework-type questions, and once we're sure that most active answerers understand the policy of giving leading, conceptual, hint-rich, non-explicit answers to questions that look like homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to me that that won't happen, and the homework tag, and its associated wiki-tip and FAQ entry, are the cleanest and simplest way to communicate the policy on homework questions: a policy that, as I understand it, would remain the same with or without the homework tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="e7b58684-602a-4bfb-847f-d43dbd75268c" CreationDate="2012-09-07T15:38:11.593" UserId="124" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Some other sites in the SE network have recently been moving toward eliminating the [tag:homework] tag. I think this would be useful for us to consider as well, particularly in light of questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35748/how-to-add-two-perpendicular-2d-vectors) - if you look at the comments, the OP says &quot;Also there is a homework tag so I assumed it does allow homework questions.&quot; That's one of the main arguments for removing the tag, both here and on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the homework tag would not change our policy on what sorts of questions can be asked here. Specifically, it is now and will continue to be OK to ask a conceptual question that arises in the context of a homework assignment. Also our [existing homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be more or less unchanged, except that we would no longer ask posters to use the tag [tag:homework] for homework or self-study questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we go ahead with removing the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what exactly is the purpose of keeping it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="e21b2dd4-9251-4023-a020-3eda7f5b04d0" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:36:06.697" UserId="124" Text="I don't mean to pollute the site with more discussion of [tag:metaphysics] questions, but I'm genuinely confused by the community's response to this and I want to figure out what is going on. There were a couple of questions ([this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1458/metaphysics-tag) and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1462/so-whats-on-with-the-metaphysics-questions)) asking about whether metaphysics questions were appropriate on this site, and in each case, the votes are clearly in favor of &quot;**no**, metaphysics questions are not appropriate.&quot; But when the specific questions that prompted that discussion were named, the [community has voted that they are on topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting). So what's going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like for us to resolve this one way or another - either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the [tag:metaphysics] tag for good. (I _strongly_ support the first option.) Which shall it be, and why were the votes inconsistent in the earlier questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="e21b2dd4-9251-4023-a020-3eda7f5b04d0" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:36:06.697" UserId="124" Text="Once and for all, what is up with the metaphysics questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="e21b2dd4-9251-4023-a020-3eda7f5b04d0" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:36:06.697" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="afd72ac3-f7d5-4672-975c-ff2a1f4a0707" CreationDate="2012-09-09T06:01:09.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/244676801421516800" />
  <row Id="3531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="7fff02fe-f282-4f7a-b003-28aef8b9e36e" CreationDate="2012-09-09T07:40:46.897" UserId="2751" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep usders have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so please leave things alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="6ac90e53-0453-43b5-a343-c032d6e64268" CreationDate="2012-09-09T07:52:10.030" UserId="2751" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep usders have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so please leave things alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="4fec18af-4e3b-41aa-b7bf-88a705983dd7" CreationDate="2012-09-09T08:05:31.287" UserId="2751" Comment="Did not want to be rude to David ..." Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep usders have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="8acd55b1-f390-4bab-88b2-27017b9c1892" CreationDate="2012-09-09T09:21:51.517" UserId="2451" Text="I) In 99 percent of the cases, the [tag:homework] tag runs smoothly and as intended. In a few cases, OP do not agree with labeling his question with the [tag:homework] tag; often it's a new user that hasn't read the [wiki description](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) or the site policy, but sometimes OP is right and the [tag:homework] tag is removed again from the question with no further discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) In the early days of Phys.SE, whenever there was posted a homework question without the [tag:homework] tag, the moderators would politely ask OP if this was homework or not? Typically, a couple of full answers to the homework were posted and accepted before the issue of whether or not adding the [tag:homework] tag was settled. Thus OP would succeed in getting a homework solution from our site, which in other respect is mainly dedicated to just _conceptional_ physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In the last year or so, the tagging practice was changed, and users with tagging privileges would now often add the [tag:homework] tag whenever they felt it was appropriate _without_ first asking OP. The answers were now typically just hints, advices, outlines, etc., instead of full solutions. So the [tag:homework] tag clearly had the desired effect. Moreover, this new practice didn't seem to spur repeated back-and-forth edit war over the [tag:homework] tag. Typically it became clear to everybody whether or not the [tag:homework] tag would apply in a given case or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV) _If it ain't broke, don't fix it._ I fear that by banning the [tag:homework] tag, we in practice loose a useful user-based moderation option, and effectively turn this site into a homework help service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V) Another aspect is that many of our readers use the [tag:homework] tag to decide whether or not to read a post. This goes both ways. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="968fa473-4e1f-4261-8baf-5624363bd3c6" CreationDate="2012-09-09T11:07:08.517" UserId="2751" Comment="whoops" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep users have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1484" RevisionGUID="7eb4c2a3-370c-4dd3-8fe7-162f9429bc72" CreationDate="2012-09-09T20:24:01.447" UserId="5827" Text="Downvoting without a reason is plain stupid. I **will** upvote every single downvoted question that has no justification. For example, check this question--&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35928/a-different-lasing-medium/35936#35936&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the OP has a few misconceptions about Laser systems, so what? I tried to interpret the question as best as I could, but of course the motherfunkers who probably downvoted the OP downvoted me as well. Hazard of the internet I guess. You need to sort this out bro..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="2506cf22-c3e7-4f5a-aeee-410771b9b040" CreationDate="2012-09-09T21:09:57.877" UserId="2751" Comment="edited comment in, just in case ..." Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep users have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to consider is that refering to fundamental physics questions, that are investigated by serious theoretical physicists today, as &quot;metaphysics&quot; or even worse condemning them as off topic here on physics SE would lend support to people who attack fundamental physics not only in the internet but actively try to prohibit research into it even in the &quot;real world&quot; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="9a7a1e6a-4c93-4feb-8495-67047663d23b" CreationDate="2012-09-09T21:47:01.567" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to improve the title;" Text="The questioner chooses what he considers answers his/her question with a tick. In my opinion, though the option of answering ones own question is good, because it allows for clarifications and new thought, the possibility of [choosing your own answer][1] as the best, seems to me, defeats the purpose of the question and answer forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly when the chosen answer is being only down voted by the community, while there is a highly approved other answer: it turns the whole thing into a farce. I think ticking one's own answer should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14939/does-godel-preclude-a-workable-toe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3539" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="9a7a1e6a-4c93-4feb-8495-67047663d23b" CreationDate="2012-09-09T21:47:01.567" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to improve the title;" Text="Ticking/Accepting own question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="19b3e0df-357c-4982-8a38-cfba6f9729d6" CreationDate="2012-09-10T09:59:36.453" UserId="2751" Comment="Taken into account David's comment that there are  generally never enough close/delete votes on physics SE" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes or sparked a huge number of complaining flags and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep users have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to consider is that refering to fundamental physics questions, that are investigated by serious theoretical physicists today, as &quot;metaphysics&quot; or even worse condemning them as off topic here on physics SE would lend support to people who attack fundamental physics not only in the internet but actively try to prohibit research into it even in the &quot;real world&quot; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="9294d8c5-6b42-4a47-8b9c-c60f1d2a4ab2" CreationDate="2012-09-10T14:52:46.293" UserId="11375" Text="I searched a bit to see if this had been asked before, but couldn't find it. Is there a way to customize the color that a question is shaded when it is tagged with one of my &quot;favorite tags?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it is just me, but when I scroll down through the front page of questions, the shading is so light that I often miss them. I find this shading color infuriating. I often tilt my laptop to an absurd angle just so I can tell which ones are shaded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="9294d8c5-6b42-4a47-8b9c-c60f1d2a4ab2" CreationDate="2012-09-10T14:52:46.293" UserId="11375" Text="Favorite tag color" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="9294d8c5-6b42-4a47-8b9c-c60f1d2a4ab2" CreationDate="2012-09-10T14:52:46.293" UserId="11375" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1486" RevisionGUID="0d81c5ab-57f1-4ff8-bcc2-e90076d491ac" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:27:42.777" UserId="11062" Text="What would happen to closed questions..? (Are they deleted after some period?) I know that we could delete it after 2 days. But what if it has answers, It can't be deleted still..? How would I delete the closed question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1486" RevisionGUID="0d81c5ab-57f1-4ff8-bcc2-e90076d491ac" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:27:42.777" UserId="11062" Text="How to Delete Closed Questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1486" RevisionGUID="0d81c5ab-57f1-4ff8-bcc2-e90076d491ac" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:27:42.777" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1487" RevisionGUID="676a2794-a510-4c80-818e-882bd04f4293" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:11:57.413" UserId="4864" Text="The reason this is not a good idea is because there is a lot of mathematical thinking which is done outside the mathematical community, because it has not acquired the proper rigorous embedding into standard axiomatic systems. Fluctuating quantum field theory is an example, but so is statistical theory of fields (like turbulence), mathematical topological models (like the topological field theories, which are easier to make mathematics because they have a smaller Hilbert space, but the embedding to mathematics is still not complete), and various cases where the best mathematical solution is not the most useful physical solution, for example, the flow of a fluid in a square duct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The physics approach to mathematical problems is to make whatever approximations work best given the physical context, so an exact solution, like the exact solution of the quadratic equation, is often inferior to a linearized solution. The mathematics site looks to the answer which gives the most insight into the formal structure of the problem, not the answer which gives the most insight to the physical structure of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would even tolerate pure math questions where physicists and mathematicians disagree on the best answers, because the disagreements reflect a different point of view regarding what are the important aspects of a well posed mathematical problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="783cee36-e240-4e82-8980-657482e5ccb4" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:39:50.283" UserId="124" Text="There is no way to do this directly on the site, but you can do it using a user style sheet, which requires a browser extension like Stylish (for Firefox at least). You would need to set the `background-color` property for the `tagged-interesting` CSS class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been discussed a bit on MSO, e.g. [here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/78849/allow-custom-colorization-of-tags) and [here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/68853/choose-background-and-text-color-on-so)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="2b73106b-c540-4a58-a423-f9b0da92b80e" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:52:43.170" UserId="4066" Text="Is Mathjax rendering broken on the main site, or is it just me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is cdn.mathjax,org timing out for others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="2b73106b-c540-4a58-a423-f9b0da92b80e" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:52:43.170" UserId="4066" Text="Mathjax broken? Is it just me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="2b73106b-c540-4a58-a423-f9b0da92b80e" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:52:43.170" UserId="4066" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1490" RevisionGUID="04ea3e03-2cc2-44bb-b22d-cce0acbd995e" CreationDate="2012-09-10T20:21:20.107" UserId="1486" Text="&quot;when the specific questions that prompted that discussion were named, the community has voted that they are on topic. So what's going on? ... I would like for us to resolve this one way or another - either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the metaphysics tag for good.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a coherent policy of closing metaphysics questions requires that you have a coherent definition of what is and what isn't metaphysics. There is no prospect of any such consensus. I believe the policy should be, no metaphysics *tag*, and questions are closed or not on a case-by-case basis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1490" RevisionGUID="5351b031-d5b4-4d5f-bf86-4fc5fb9a4ed7" CreationDate="2012-09-10T20:35:30.177" UserId="1486" Comment="if we must have a tag, make it &quot;philosophy&quot;, not &quot;metaphysics&quot;" Text="&quot;when the specific questions that prompted that discussion were named, the community has voted that they are on topic. So what's going on? ... I would like for us to resolve this one way or another - either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the metaphysics tag for good.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a coherent policy of closing metaphysics questions requires that you have a coherent definition of what is and what isn't metaphysics. There is no prospect of any such consensus. I believe the policy should be, no metaphysics *tag*, and questions are closed or not on a case-by-case basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is to be a philosophy tag, it should be &quot;philosophy&quot;, not &quot;metaphysics&quot;. Metaphysics (or ontology) is a term of art in philosophy, and it makes no sense to have technical philosophical jargon in the tags on a physics Q&amp;A forum. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="13784db8-9ded-4da1-b9e3-1b2faf832b93" CreationDate="2012-09-10T20:56:24.013" UserId="1186" Text="I think that while some questions may be philosophical in essence, they still are bordering some of the phisical tipics such as quantum mechanics, cosmology and measurement theory. As such, it is more productive for these questions to be asked in Physics.SE so I support the second option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that are pure philosophy such as &quot;why there should be anything at all?&quot; should be moved to Philosophy.SE though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1490" RevisionGUID="5cbb0b7e-a0a0-4c3c-ad1f-4f75505db570" CreationDate="2012-09-10T21:07:41.057" UserId="1486" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="&quot;when the specific questions that prompted that discussion were named, the community has voted that they are on topic. So what's going on? ... I would like for us to resolve this one way or another - either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the metaphysics tag for good.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a coherent policy of closing metaphysics questions requires that you have a coherent definition of what is and what isn't metaphysics. There is no prospect of any such consensus. I believe the policy should be, no metaphysics *tag*, and questions are closed or not on a case-by-case basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is to be a philosophy tag, it should be &quot;philosophy&quot;, not &quot;metaphysics&quot;. Metaphysics (or ontology) is a term of art in philosophy, and it makes no sense to have technical philosophical jargon in the tags on a physics Q&amp;A forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. By the way, there is a user who has posted ravings about the anthropic principle and reality under at least a dozen different identities, most recently &quot;Curious boy&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="a4b88794-e5c1-43b6-afaf-0c60db2a2089" CreationDate="2012-09-10T21:14:54.823" UserId="1186" Comment="edited body" Text="I think that while some questions may be philosophical in essence, they still are bordering some of the phisical topics such as quantum mechanics, cosmology and measurement theory. As such, it is more productive for these questions to be asked in Physics.SE so I support the second option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that are pure philosophy such as &quot;why there should be anything at all?&quot; should be moved to Philosophy.SE though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1492" RevisionGUID="efdb0c1d-bf94-4c04-b918-e2adce827402" CreationDate="2012-09-10T22:24:00.287" UserId="5374" Text="&gt;TeX might not render (GoDaddy was hacked) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is what is says on the Math SE page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Daddy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Daddy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On 10 September 2012 Go Daddy was hit by a severe denial-of-service attack (DoS) that caused all of its services to become unavailable for several hours. A member of the Anonymous claimed responsibility for the attack that caused outages of thousands of websites*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their Twitter says they are working on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1493" RevisionGUID="2aeec084-0277-41f4-887a-decd0cfb9663" CreationDate="2012-09-11T00:37:47.943" UserId="124" Text="Closed questions are not automatically deleted. They can be deleted by moderators, but we don't generally do that because, honestly, it doesn't seem like the best use of our time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are different types of closed questions; in particular, there are questions which are unsuitable in their current form but are close to being fine, and then there are questions which are entirely inappropriate for the site. When we close a question of the first time, we do so with the hope that it will be edited into a form that makes it suitable for reopening. But questions of the second sort, e.g. those that are egregiously off topic or completely nonsensical, we don't hold out much hope for - in other words, once closed, we pretty much expect that they are going to stay closed. Those questions are the ones that would be more appropriate for deletion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="96d0b3f4-adb9-4229-9014-5ec3753c2be2" CreationDate="2012-09-11T16:26:03.823" UserId="11529" Text="If it's a philosophical question that depends on or is closely related to a physical theory then it should be allowed I think. It should be up to the poster of the question to relate the question to physics. So, my take is those questions where no attempt has been made to reasonably relate them to physics should be out, but otherwise should be allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that philosophical debates often spark really important discoveries about physics, such as nonlocality and copleteness of quantum physics which started out as a philosophical debate but has now reached the point where it actually has technical applications. We should therefore not stifle debate of philosophical issues unless it is clear that they are not in any way related to physics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="a54c381d-d425-4ded-9243-7548856a7560" CreationDate="2012-09-11T16:41:04.687" UserId="1492" Text="There should be no either/or duality :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the metaphysics tag for good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The degree of offense is what should be the criterion, and the voting and comments should help you as a moderator to gauge that. If some are offended it is OK, one cannot please everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This philosophical definition of metaphysics that Anixx is introducing is confusing and disorienting to the purpose of this board. As physicists philosophy is optional and should not be a required prerequisite to understand the discussions on physics. So I am against a metaphysics tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as I said elsewhere many students visit this site and it would be a pity to disorient them with fluff, as far as physics goes. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="b8cbb80b-c8fc-4bfc-8998-cf0a71745dcd" CreationDate="2012-09-11T16:43:54.823" UserId="11529" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="If it's a philosophical question that depends on or is closely related to a physical theory then it should be allowed I think. It should be up to the poster of the question to relate the question to physics. So, my take is those questions where no attempt has been made to reasonably relate them to physics should be out, but otherwise should be allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that philosophical debates often spark really important discoveries about physics, such as nonlocality and copleteness of quantum physics which started out as a philosophical debate but has now reached the point where it actually has technical applications. We should therefore not stifle debate of philosophical issues unless it is clear that they are not in any way related to physics. It is better to err on the side of openness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="896a5101-8176-40ab-9b43-543858e6eeeb" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:35:30.490" UserId="11529" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="If it's a philosophical question that depends on or is closely related to a physical theory then it should be allowed I think. It should be up to the poster of the question to relate the question to physics. So, my take is those questions where no attempt has been made to reasonably relate them to physics should be out, but otherwise should be allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that philosophical debates often spark really important discoveries about physics, such as nonlocality and completeness of quantum physics which started out as a philosophical debate but has now reached the point where it actually has technical applications. We should therefore not stifle debate of philosophical issues unless it is clear that they are not in any way related to physics. It is better to err on the side of openness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1496" RevisionGUID="1a6adaec-214d-4b08-b775-7fb095b38c71" CreationDate="2012-09-12T14:07:56.683" UserId="11062" Text="When and Why is an account not allowed to suggest edits..? (Not in META) Is there any limit for a day..? that after crossing it, the account wouldn't be allowed to suggest edits. Anyway most of the suggested edits are no accepted... Some get rejected and are edited by someone who reviews it..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1496" RevisionGUID="1a6adaec-214d-4b08-b775-7fb095b38c71" CreationDate="2012-09-12T14:07:56.683" UserId="11062" Text="Why my account is locked from suggesting edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1496" RevisionGUID="1a6adaec-214d-4b08-b775-7fb095b38c71" CreationDate="2012-09-12T14:07:56.683" UserId="11062" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="e990788b-89bd-47f9-9c71-38c0667172d2" CreationDate="2012-09-12T14:10:28.660" UserId="11062" Text="This happens many times (to me) in meta... (Now, it happened 5 times) What does it mean by &quot;Oops! This question cannot be submitted because, It doesn't meet our quality standards&quot;. And, at last, it's verifying me for a Robot? (Doesn't this irritate for comparing a humanoid?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's your quality standard? I mean, Is there any rules for asking &quot;Help Me..&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="e990788b-89bd-47f9-9c71-38c0667172d2" CreationDate="2012-09-12T14:10:28.660" UserId="11062" Text="Quality standard... What is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="e990788b-89bd-47f9-9c71-38c0667172d2" CreationDate="2012-09-12T14:10:28.660" UserId="11062" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="3b7ed533-c6a5-488f-a50d-c39c03674e54" CreationDate="2012-09-13T05:06:24.737" UserId="11696" Text="I think a much more established concept is &quot;philosophy of science&quot; rather than &quot;metaphysics&quot;.  It has a whole swath of discourse within journaled philosophy, and should not be controversial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1499" RevisionGUID="e793c6b7-f506-4d93-b526-bc7087e849f6" CreationDate="2012-09-13T08:18:07.450" UserId="347" Text="The thing that makes me pretty angry about Ron's behaviour is that he does not distinguish between common consensus belief and his own private research--this makes evaluating his claims hard for a third party not familar with physics.  I'm not going to make a definitive statement on his private conclusions, but they are decidedly non-orthodox, and a layperson is not necessarily clear on this.  This is magnified by the fact that the non-orthodox views are supported by what an academic would consider to be wildly insufficient claims to support the strength of the provided arguments.  Saying &quot;Newtonian physics supports the theory of planetary motion&quot; requires different evidence than &quot;all string theorists are stupid idiots who deserve no attention.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that stackexchange is not a forum that is suited to extensive citation, this is a problem--there's no natural system for citation, and the detail of your answer is as much as you want it to be, and the veracity of it is only as great as the people voting on it, which can be heavily influenced by a play to the audience.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="fe05931d-9873-495d-80d4-331dc7795a73" CreationDate="2012-09-13T08:41:45.643" UserId="90" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="026a3a51-8016-4da4-8e9e-d0e767d7e1b3" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:15:07.857" UserId="11062" Text="Why doesn't this question about [Supernova remnants](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35528/particular-detail-about-supernovae-remnant) get a helpful answer even though the bounty is awarded..? Don't anyone like this? or Is it that due to &quot;The question is silly and waste of time&quot;..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="026a3a51-8016-4da4-8e9e-d0e767d7e1b3" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:15:07.857" UserId="11062" Text="Bounty fails for Non-sense question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="026a3a51-8016-4da4-8e9e-d0e767d7e1b3" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:15:07.857" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="70c00582-aa40-4650-a397-fa7428717af1" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:19:40.380" UserId="124" Text="There's always the risk that nobody will provide a helpful answer when you set a bounty. After all, it's only an extra incentive to answer, not a requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I'm just seeing your question now but I'm not really sure what you're asking. It's quite possible that other people declined to answer for the same reason, i.e. because they thought your question was unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3576" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="e8e4ff5f-98a8-4bce-a23f-528286e8b693" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:21:10.347" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="b803f25e-09bf-403d-85e4-af5a6479db91" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:23:09.113" UserId="124" Text="This is described [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/92074/what-can-i-do-when-getting-it-does-not-meet-our-quality-standards). Here's the gist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Make sure your question has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a clear title&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a reasonable explanation of what your question is, sharing your research on the matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - correct use of English and actual sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's not an exhaustive list of what makes a good (or rather, non-bad) question, just some general guidelines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="25b96738-9675-420c-a548-da4e9974eb6b" CreationDate="2012-09-14T01:24:59.733" UserId="124" Text="All the relevant information on suggested edits can be found at [this question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work) and [this one](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled) at Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1504" RevisionGUID="cefc2791-9725-4094-a8da-ca4ad623d0f6" CreationDate="2012-09-14T12:58:28.677" UserId="4020" Text="I don't know why it was downvoted without the comments, though it is indeed a bit unclear. I personally know nothing about the problem and I just skipped it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has an answer, twice upvoted. A possible reason why it doesn't have another is because other people thought it is already answered, since you haven't provide any feedback to state your dissatisfaction with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should counteract with answerers more to improve and clarify things. As a bonus, editing question and answer will pop the question to the top, showing your efforts, attracting attention of other people. That doubles the effect of the bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="e5b4d021-9b0c-4adb-b0a3-703841f82d21" CreationDate="2012-09-14T15:42:07.443" UserId="11375" Text="Based on clicking links from the links everyone else provided, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/66592/define-your-own-color-of-tagged-interesting&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; accepted answer to be the only thing that actually helped me change it. I'm essentially CSS illiterate, so I needed it spelled out a little more thoroughly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="e6256393-dfb8-401d-92b6-7c072ed468ff" CreationDate="2012-09-15T02:38:28.420" UserId="11547" Text="A question was closed because:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there is always a need for civility, what does it profit the community if debate and extended discussion is automatically discouraged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="e6256393-dfb8-401d-92b6-7c072ed468ff" CreationDate="2012-09-15T02:38:28.420" UserId="11547" Text="Is debate bad when it relates to physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="e6256393-dfb8-401d-92b6-7c072ed468ff" CreationDate="2012-09-15T02:38:28.420" UserId="11547" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1507" RevisionGUID="9d184ba9-d5de-472c-b36e-300fc8f02e67" CreationDate="2012-09-15T02:51:35.000" UserId="520" Text="This is a question with a long, *long* history first on Stack Overflow and then over the &quot;trilogy&quot; and now over the Stack Exchange network as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic position is that Stack Exchange sites are *Question &amp; Answer* site, not a forum or a discussion site, and this decision was made way back in 2008 when Stack Overflow were conceived. Since then they have been designed, tweaked, twiddled and fixed to be really good at questions that have answers that the crowd can see are *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the engine is not very good at supporting discussion---a fact that is blaringly obvious every time meta.stackoverflow has a big argy-bargy---and we try to keep things on point.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="c5bee27b-71df-4516-ac13-f4b40b845bbc" CreationDate="2012-09-15T20:03:28.233" UserId="955" Text="there seems to be a problem going on with the site, list of questions are not being updated, and some of them are dissapearing, like this one: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37516/does-positronium-have-a-stable-crystalline-phase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="c5bee27b-71df-4516-ac13-f4b40b845bbc" CreationDate="2012-09-15T20:03:28.233" UserId="955" Text="can't post to physics SO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="c5bee27b-71df-4516-ac13-f4b40b845bbc" CreationDate="2012-09-15T20:03:28.233" UserId="955" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="ed8e9453-1577-44b9-8185-daa1c9365e4e" CreationDate="2012-09-15T20:17:15.660" UserId="520" Text="There is some maintanance of the Stack Exchange servers going on. There were notices on the sites for a while. Presumably everything hasn't gone perfectly smoothly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1510" RevisionGUID="4f1e28ca-b054-4840-befc-e9ff062d90e0" CreationDate="2012-09-16T03:32:00.030" UserId="7186" Text="This was a side-effect of our database migration. We had to rebuild a few services after it, so things were down for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should be all good now!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="b89eb46b-a781-401e-8947-3229c5e881d5" CreationDate="2012-09-16T03:32:06.037" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3591" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="12c6591f-6216-422e-87c0-efcfbff4fae9" CreationDate="2012-09-16T03:32:09.623" UserId="7186" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7186,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anna Lear&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="b39a6900-a137-4a2a-9b86-7908e29e3643" CreationDate="2012-09-17T04:18:12.247" UserId="12145" Text="How to hide personal information like email address in one's profile, since I do not want my email to be seen by others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="b39a6900-a137-4a2a-9b86-7908e29e3643" CreationDate="2012-09-17T04:18:12.247" UserId="12145" Text="How to hide personal information like email address in one's profile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="b39a6900-a137-4a2a-9b86-7908e29e3643" CreationDate="2012-09-17T04:18:12.247" UserId="12145" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="88e11028-ae00-449c-974b-2166094bae21" CreationDate="2012-09-17T04:32:09.323" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="6855f02c-b5b4-4e16-918c-886dbec5ad4b" CreationDate="2012-09-17T04:36:16.447" UserId="124" Text="This is detailed in several questions on Meta Stack Overflow, for example [this one](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/144553/account-privacy-and-search-engines).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the way to hide personal information is simply by not entering that information in the first place. Most fields of the profile are optional, so you enter only what you want people to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The email address is one of several exceptions. Your email address will never be visible to anyone except moderators. (And the SE moderator code of conduct prohibits us from revealing that information to anyone else.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="cd504487-dee8-4953-b5d1-14fbce35d6f4" CreationDate="2012-09-17T07:24:27.267" UserId="1492" Text="When I try to get &quot;All Questions&quot; at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions I get only the ones with a bonus flag. I use firefox and am logged in. With Chrome and IE  not logged in the same link gives all questions.  I logged in at IE and got again only the bounty questions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whats up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="cd504487-dee8-4953-b5d1-14fbce35d6f4" CreationDate="2012-09-17T07:24:27.267" UserId="1492" Text="why when I am logged in I cannot go to &quot;all questions&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="cd504487-dee8-4953-b5d1-14fbce35d6f4" CreationDate="2012-09-17T07:24:27.267" UserId="1492" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1514" RevisionGUID="5ed61559-47f8-465e-997f-de5defc9b8ab" CreationDate="2012-09-17T09:11:41.580" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="There is a bar like this just below the header: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you are likely on the featured tab. Change it to active to get the default filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IvtRE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="a5962a0f-941e-4ec4-9d5b-9779cad6c87c" CreationDate="2012-09-17T10:27:36.550" UserId="4020" Text="The question [&quot;Are “here” and “now” diffeomorphism invariant concepts?&quot;][1] is being bumped from time to time by new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect users [Multiverse Philosopher][2], [Nonsensical ranter][3], [Naughty problem child][4], [Childish boy][5] being the same person registering, leaving answers to his own question and unregistering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a policy on such a behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35851/are-here-and-now-diffeomorphism-invariant-concepts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12013/multiverse-philosopher&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12228/nonsensical-ranter&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12295/naughty-problem-child&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12077/childish-boy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="a5962a0f-941e-4ec4-9d5b-9779cad6c87c" CreationDate="2012-09-17T10:27:36.550" UserId="4020" Text="User constantly registering and unregistering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="a5962a0f-941e-4ec4-9d5b-9779cad6c87c" CreationDate="2012-09-17T10:27:36.550" UserId="4020" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1516" RevisionGUID="dedfb2f4-cc81-4509-8a1d-53394e95afbb" CreationDate="2012-09-17T17:51:28.480" UserId="124" Text="As long as the answers are all useful, it's not really a problem. There's nothing wrong with a single user having multiple accounts as long as they don't use those accounts to vote for each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you think you see something like this happening, flag it for moderator attention and we'll take a look at it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3605" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="865974a5-4552-41ba-8566-bbe0502e5fad" CreationDate="2012-09-17T17:51:47.463" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="9d486646-bb61-4e6d-bdbc-dacf380f8356" CreationDate="2012-09-17T20:57:03.930" UserId="871" Text="[![Space Exploration and Technology][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LwCGY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/space-exploration-and-technology?referrer=xkTq6YaEeCR2lHaAoMu3_A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3607" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="47c56e15-1688-4346-ac9a-ccbcf9e04f22" CreationDate="2012-09-17T20:57:03.930" UserId="871" />
  <row Id="3608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="710f46b9-d9b6-43be-bf25-66679f269edf" CreationDate="2012-09-18T19:50:20.427" UserId="43" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1518" RevisionGUID="47064258-ffbe-4d78-bbff-d710820ca52b" CreationDate="2012-09-19T10:24:35.880" UserId="10833" Text="[![Why String Theory? A Layman's Journey to the Frontiers of Physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HE69T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://whystringtheory.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3610" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1518" RevisionGUID="1997c2b8-5355-488c-8078-ddaf276d8f48" CreationDate="2012-09-19T10:24:35.880" UserId="10833" />
  <row Id="3611" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1519" RevisionGUID="5100b3a3-a6f3-4262-9072-7353961b6092" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:19:44.880" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37945/very-subjective-this-is-now-closed" Text="" />
  <row Id="3612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1519" RevisionGUID="0017d4b9-e500-42c7-a53f-855df7d9e19b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:04:36.443" UserDisplayName="user12414" Text="i thought this was a physics forum open to all,but it is very elitist and moderated to suit,your way or no way.i may not be able to speak the language of science naming certain &quot;laws and formulas&quot; but i understand most of what i read and find that with all your &quot;schooled learning&quot; you have lost the ability to think outside the box.i came here hopeing for some kind of input but got closed down,i thought &quot;science&quot; was open to everyone but it seems it is a closed circle here.does it hurt to give help to others who have no where else to go or perhaps helpful guidance?once you define something you put it in a box where it then loses its ability to grow.i am sorry to post this but i see this trend of group snobbery is growing into many areas and saddens me,i have time for everyone whoever or whatever they are.i am not closed to anything,without one piece you have an incomplete picture....i've had my say sorry again for polluting this ivory tower. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1519" RevisionGUID="0017d4b9-e500-42c7-a53f-855df7d9e19b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:04:36.443" UserDisplayName="user12414" Text="&quot;VERY SUBJECTIVE&quot; this is now closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1519" RevisionGUID="0017d4b9-e500-42c7-a53f-855df7d9e19b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:04:36.443" UserDisplayName="user12414" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="a2aa00e0-fab2-40a7-9fc5-cad4798cf0ab" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:43:50.170" UserId="520" Text="All I can do for you is direct you to the [FAQ][1]. In particular, I recommend to you the parts where [it says that you should not post questions][2] that are *&quot;[p]itches for your own personal theories or work&quot;*, where it [says that you should stick to][3] *&quot;practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face&quot;*, and of course the part where it talks about [why some questions are closed][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site *is* open to all---and indeed to anonymous use for writing questions and answers--but we reserve the right to police it to maintain a focused and useful environment for other users. We have a community here that has done a lot of work to create a useful resource for getting physics questions answered. We'd like to keep it that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#close" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1521" RevisionGUID="1313efb0-c4dd-428d-91e0-5534c273da1e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:46:23.963" UserId="124" Text="First, it's not a forum, it's a Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more importantly: while this site is open to everyone, in the sense that we don't require any particular academic or other qualifications to join, it is an expert level site. That means that we expect contributors to understand the physics relevant to the question they want to ask. In other words, when you want to contribute you have to do so using the language of science, or something close enough to it that we can understand what you're talking about. (See points 1 and 2, especially, of [this blog post](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/) for a more in-depth discussion of what I'm getting at.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is a problem, there are some other physics sites on the web (e.g. [Reddit Physics](http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics) and [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com)) which _might_ have different standards for what they expect of contributors, so it's _possible_ that you may get more useful feedback there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="2cf3c710-a1cb-41e4-864e-0a76de896294" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:01:43.810" UserId="11547" Text="Mark, I can understand your frustration, and physics is sometimes very difficult even for trained professionals.  I would agree that sometimes the comments made could be done in softer tones, however, there are reasons why people who love physics get defensive.  First of all, knowledge is perishable, even in this day in age of instantaneous answers, noise can frequently obscure what has been shown as fact within certain structures of logical reasoning.  At some level that is what physics is, a structure of logical reasoning about the world.  I think most physicists actually strive everyday to be able to think of something new to say about the world, however they need to be respectful of all the facts that have been determined before.  My only word of advice is to not be discouraged.  I think if you really want to learn, people will do their best to help, however, their are certain things that people have shown actually work and have studied intensely and will not accept certain answers they know are wrong.  Just keep moving and eventually a lot of this will make sense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="87f77d47-7539-4edd-9180-eb5f287dc03d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T04:02:03.537" UserId="11547" Comment="edited body" Text="Mark, I can understand your frustration, and physics is sometimes very difficult even for trained professionals.  I would agree that sometimes the comments made could be done in softer tones, however, there are reasons why people who love physics get defensive.  First of all, knowledge is perishable, even in this day in age of instantaneous answers, noise can frequently obscure what has been shown as fact within certain structures of logical reasoning.  At some level that is what physics is, a structure of logical reasoning about the world.  I think most physicists actually strive everyday to be able to think of something new to say about the world, however they need to be respectful of all the facts that have been determined before.  My only word of advice is to not be discouraged.  I think if you really want to learn, people will do their best to help, however, there are certain things that people have shown actually work and have studied intensely and will not accept certain answers they know are wrong.  Just keep moving and eventually a lot of this will make sense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="358d08b6-754f-4ed3-8cb6-f27230b67c0b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T09:17:51.863" UserId="2751" Text="I just adjusted the tags of one of my recent questions since from reading the answer, I understand now better what I was talking about than before asking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now I'm not sure if this was right since it bumpded the question without having added much to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally when is it appropriate to adjust the tags of a question and when should one better refrain from retagging because it adds no additional value but just bumps the question ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="358d08b6-754f-4ed3-8cb6-f27230b67c0b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T09:17:51.863" UserId="2751" Text="When is it appropriate to adjust the tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="358d08b6-754f-4ed3-8cb6-f27230b67c0b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T09:17:51.863" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|tags|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1524" RevisionGUID="a950faa6-20b4-4fba-9f65-ec5d51210312" CreationDate="2012-09-23T13:40:01.743" UserId="520" Text="If the new tagging better characterized the question then it is a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to see a pattern of re-tagging a lot of question without a clear improvement to the description of then we might ask you to quit bumping, but an honest deeper understanding isn't going to come every day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="91b6497a-5e38-48c3-8f74-3b9584941957" CreationDate="2012-09-23T13:55:33.183" UserId="12377" Text="who is moderator of this website, because my account is under attack&#xD;&#xA;im pretty sure its just one person sending me these [too much vote down](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12377/muster-mark?tab=reputation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="91b6497a-5e38-48c3-8f74-3b9584941957" CreationDate="2012-09-23T13:55:33.183" UserId="12377" Text="my account is under vote down attack" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="91b6497a-5e38-48c3-8f74-3b9584941957" CreationDate="2012-09-23T13:55:33.183" UserId="12377" Text="|discussion|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1526" RevisionGUID="4f45abe1-8ab1-428a-99c4-38fe43de7476" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:53:23.520" UserId="520" Text="As no single account can cast more than one down vote on any particular post it is clear that more than one person feels that some of your posts are not *&quot;useful and clear&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one person is engaging in a pattern of arbitrary downvoting it will likely be reverse by an automatic process that exists for that exact purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="aab60d53-2010-4ed4-a7ca-441831e2d2b1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T03:22:05.743" UserId="1492" Text="In [this question][1], the questioner by misremembering used &quot;quark&quot; instead of &quot;strange&quot;.  This was edited by a third party after my reply, and the admission in the comments by the questioner that a slip was made, and made my reply completely irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to delete my answer, because it was not wrong within the previous framework of the question. I am not familiar with &quot;strange matter&quot; and in any case it is an entirely different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the protocol on this? In my opinion the question should be deleted by the owner and resubmitted in the correct format. This would delete any answers of course, which would be  hard if someone had worked hard on an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38113/what-star-processes-throw-strange-matter-into-space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="aab60d53-2010-4ed4-a7ca-441831e2d2b1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T03:22:05.743" UserId="1492" Text="what are the rules for complete edit of title and purpose of question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="aab60d53-2010-4ed4-a7ca-441831e2d2b1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T03:22:05.743" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="f8a0dd78-3e24-4695-ba8e-d1f4474739cc" CreationDate="2012-09-24T03:51:28.010" UserId="1492" Comment="eplained further" Text="In [this question][1], the questioner by misremembering used &quot;quark&quot; instead of &quot;strange&quot;.  This was edited by a third party after my reply, and the admission in the comments by the questioner that a slip was made, and made my reply completely irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to delete my answer, because it was not wrong within the previous framework of the question. I am not familiar with &quot;strange matter&quot; and in any case it is an entirely different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the protocol on this? In my opinion the question should be deleted by the owner if there are answers that will become irrelevant, and resubmitted in the correct format. This would delete any answers of course, which would be  hard if someone had worked hard on an answer. If there are no answers of course editing is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38113/what-star-processes-throw-strange-matter-into-space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="41c3ced7-f288-4ee7-a3fe-355484c1b650" CreationDate="2012-09-24T05:58:33.650" UserId="124" Text="In general, when a question is edited such that your answer no longer applies, you have the following options, in decreasing order of preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Edit your answer such that it actually does answer the updated question (recommended)&#xD;&#xA;- Delete your answer (recommended if you don't feel that you can adequately answer the updated question)&#xD;&#xA;- Ask the questioner if they would be willing to revert the edit&#xD;&#xA;- Leave your answer in place, but in this case you run the risk of the answer being downvoted because it doesn't address the question in its current form&#xD;&#xA;- Revert the edit yourself (not recommended unless the OP okays it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In _some_ cases, when a question is edited such that one or more answers no longer apply, if the edit is exceptionally disruptive, it would be appropriate to revert it. What counts as &quot;exceptionally disruptive&quot; is a judgment call made on a case-by-case basis, but in making that decision some of the factors that should be taken into account include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how much the edit changed the meaning of the question&#xD;&#xA;- whether the edit reflects a change in what the poster _intends_ the question to mean&#xD;&#xA;- whether the edit was prompted by comments asking for clarifications&#xD;&#xA;- the quality of the original question&#xD;&#xA;- the number of answers that would be invalidated by the edit&#xD;&#xA;- the quality of the answers that would be invalidated by the edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rough guideline, what I would consider &quot;exceptionally disruptive&quot; is something like: the OP has changed their mind about what they want to ask, _and_ the question's meaning is changed significantly, _and_ the original question was good quality, _and_ multiple upvote-worthy answers would be invalidated by the change. I've seen situations like this come up occasionally on the site, and I've reverted edits in those cases, but it's very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr: in this situation specifically, deleting your answer seems like the most appropriate course of action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1529" RevisionGUID="166bc2a1-3240-45f3-a3fa-10e33d89018b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T13:32:39.893" UserId="520" Text="If you want to go with David's fourth option (leave the answer and run the risk), you might edit a prominent header onto you answer explaining what happened (i.e. *&quot;this was written as an answer to a early version of the question and does not apply to the current version&quot;*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="c1391f65-5cce-4bcf-921b-a6a6d4aa39e8" CreationDate="2012-09-24T23:13:42.563" UserId="124" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="In general, when a question is edited such that your answer no longer applies, you have the following options, in decreasing order of preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Edit your answer such that it actually does answer the updated question (recommended)&#xD;&#xA;- Delete your answer (recommended if you don't feel that you can adequately answer the updated question)&#xD;&#xA;- Ask the questioner if they would be willing to revert the edit, and perhaps post the new version of the question as its own post&#xD;&#xA;- Leave your answer in place, but in this case you run the risk of the answer being downvoted because it doesn't address the question in its current form&#xD;&#xA;- Revert the edit yourself (not recommended unless the OP okays it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In _some_ cases, when a question is edited such that one or more answers no longer apply, if the edit is exceptionally disruptive, it would be appropriate to revert it. What counts as &quot;exceptionally disruptive&quot; is a judgment call made on a case-by-case basis, but in making that decision some of the factors that should be taken into account include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how much the edit changed the meaning of the question&#xD;&#xA;- whether the edit reflects a change in what the poster _intends_ the question to mean&#xD;&#xA;- whether the edit was prompted by comments asking for clarifications&#xD;&#xA;- the quality of the original question&#xD;&#xA;- the number of answers that would be invalidated by the edit&#xD;&#xA;- the quality of the answers that would be invalidated by the edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rough guideline, what I would consider &quot;exceptionally disruptive&quot; is something like: the OP has changed their mind about what they want to ask, _and_ the question's meaning is changed significantly, _and_ the original question was good quality, _and_ multiple upvote-worthy answers would be invalidated by the change. I've seen situations like this come up occasionally on the site, and I've reverted edits in those cases, but it's very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr: in this situation specifically, deleting your answer seems like the most appropriate course of action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="0eef8280-be3e-4b47-8998-de6f15494a5a" CreationDate="2012-09-25T02:27:02.130" UserId="11696" Text="Philosophy has a well-developed arena for such questions, whole journals devoted to the topic.  Let them be placed there, and let the physics site keep a strict boundary of matter-energy/time-space relations.  If physicists want to speculate on such matters they can go to philosophy.stackexchange.com and debate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="df426d9c-420b-4e5e-9b23-91a6e59eaad9" CreationDate="2012-09-25T14:56:23.933" UserId="11696" Comment="abbreviaed web addrss" Text="Philosophy has a well-developed arena for such questions, whole journals devoted to the topic.  Let them be placed there, and let the physics site keep a strict boundary of matter-energy/time-space relations.  If physicists want to speculate on such matters they can go to philosophy.SE and debate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="ccff2777-c9f3-40da-9f15-23c7136c5aad" CreationDate="2012-09-25T18:03:59.443" UserId="7924" Text="A tag ''metaphysics'' is misleading, generally meaning ''non-physics''. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose to use &#xD;&#xA;&lt;LI&gt;''foundations of physics'' (a physics journal has this name), or &#xD;&#xA;&lt;LI&gt;''philosophy of science'' (The Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) http://www.aip.org/pacs/ has a classifier 01.70.+w for this area.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite interested in thinking about serious questions in this area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="bfaac2e0-b007-4fec-bcde-75029cbc6e24" CreationDate="2012-09-27T15:08:40.430" UserDisplayName="user12567" Text="i recommend to open a site for free blogging in physics&#xD;&#xA;for example:&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogs.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogger.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogging.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched the whole internet but can not find a suitable site to blogging in physics.&#xD;&#xA;i try to test wordpress and blogspot they are Too Complicated!. Furthermore, there are no reader! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="bfaac2e0-b007-4fec-bcde-75029cbc6e24" CreationDate="2012-09-27T15:08:40.430" UserDisplayName="user12567" Text="stackexchange site for free blogging in physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="bfaac2e0-b007-4fec-bcde-75029cbc6e24" CreationDate="2012-09-27T15:08:40.430" UserDisplayName="user12567" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="ac2b209a-263c-4687-b421-21be12790b9b" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:18:24.347" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="ad6f6331-4c77-488a-aab8-16b953a1d524" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:18:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [What&amp;#39;s the possibility of a Physics.SE blog?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;i recommend to open a site for free blogging in physics&#xD;&#xA;for example:&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogs.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogger.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogging.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched the whole internet but can not find a suitable site to blogging in physics.&#xD;&#xA;i try to test wordpress and blogspot they are Too Complicated!. Furthermore, there are no reader! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3646" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="a3612b85-102c-42f0-ae1b-05443b00a4ba" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:18:31.603" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1426],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="c80a0b42-7ef5-4196-b79e-55be9b364acb" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:17:11.700" UserId="4485" Text="This question was recently posted: [How to find poles of transfer function by looking at the step response?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38439/how-to-find-poles-of-transfer-function-by-looking-at-the-step-response&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that it needs to be migrated to signal processing stack exchange because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the community there will benefit more from the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- contains little physics content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is being asked by someone probably doing a module in signal processing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other reasons why it should/should-not be asked here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="c80a0b42-7ef5-4196-b79e-55be9b364acb" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:17:11.700" UserId="4485" Text="Should this question be migrated to signal processing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="c80a0b42-7ef5-4196-b79e-55be9b364acb" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:17:11.700" UserId="4485" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1535" RevisionGUID="7e8c9a84-a13e-4263-ba33-3f4217b14398" CreationDate="2012-09-29T23:29:33.227" UserId="124" Text="Actually, only your reason #2 is really a valid reason to migrate. That being said, nobody else seemed to have much of an opinion either way, so I went ahead and migrated it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="4dfcdb0e-a637-45bd-a6eb-c4f56db7c864" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:47:56.890" UserId="6822" Text="If I like answers posted by a user on stackexchange... is there a way to follow the user ... like for example, set an alert so that whenever he asks a question or replies to a question, it is notified to my gmail account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="4dfcdb0e-a637-45bd-a6eb-c4f56db7c864" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:47:56.890" UserId="6822" Text="how to follow a user on stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="4dfcdb0e-a637-45bd-a6eb-c4f56db7c864" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:47:56.890" UserId="6822" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="0fdbda49-dff4-4c1f-9025-8c0fb8376297" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:12:07.863" UserId="520" Text="There is no internal concept of &quot;following&quot; a user because (all together now) this [is not a social network][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, all is not lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are RSS feeds for users (and tag and question feeds). Click on the username to get to their profile page and look at the bottom right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/110958/can-we-finally-have-some-social-networking-features-on-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1538" RevisionGUID="134e449b-4ad6-4989-8870-ac2e082b88d6" CreationDate="2012-10-04T05:10:47.580" UserId="12502" Text="I am unable to edit any question in physics stackexchange. Will you tell me what should i do or what is happening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1538" RevisionGUID="134e449b-4ad6-4989-8870-ac2e082b88d6" CreationDate="2012-10-04T05:10:47.580" UserId="12502" Text="Unable to edit any question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1538" RevisionGUID="134e449b-4ad6-4989-8870-ac2e082b88d6" CreationDate="2012-10-04T05:10:47.580" UserId="12502" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1539" RevisionGUID="3a2281ec-a3f8-4186-8930-98e05a2c2d16" CreationDate="2012-10-04T13:30:05.300" UserId="520" Text="As your account still seems to be the owner of your earlier questions my first guess would be that you have some corrupted javascript in your cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try either &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [a forced refresh of cached material][1]&#xD;&#xA;* clearing your caches outright&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible culprit is any userscripts you may have running. Try disabling those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all else fails, try a different browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still not working? Get back to us with your OS and browser stuff, and we'll pass it on to the team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.refreshyourcache.com/en/cache/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="9ec8fc7c-898f-44a1-a8a9-36e0d511844a" CreationDate="2012-10-05T08:30:29.407" UserId="2751" Text="I'd like to move an existing discussion, that consists so far of just a few comments, to chat instead of deleting the comments that are off topic to the issue of the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can something like this be done? And if so how does it work? Or should I just flag the first comment I´d like to move for moderator attention and ask the mods to move the discussion starting with this comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It once happend that a discussion I was taking part in was *automatically* moved to chat but now I'd like to know if it can be done *manually* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="9ec8fc7c-898f-44a1-a8a9-36e0d511844a" CreationDate="2012-10-05T08:30:29.407" UserId="2751" Text="How can I &quot;manually&quot; move an existing discussion to chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="9ec8fc7c-898f-44a1-a8a9-36e0d511844a" CreationDate="2012-10-05T08:30:29.407" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|support|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="cd18e1e6-14a7-4bd5-8a94-b97e80700769" CreationDate="2012-10-05T08:41:39.453" UserId="124" Text="No, it cannot be done manually, not even by moderators, despite being a popular request on MSO ([1](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/100967/should-move-to-chat-be-provided-on-demand-as-a-button-perhaps), [2](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/93444/provide-a-tool-for-moderators-to-migrate-comments-to-chat), etc.). Unless and until we get this feature implemented, you have a couple of options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Just post a comment asking to continue the discussion in the chat room (you can either use the site's main chat room or create a new chat room)&#xD;&#xA;- Or keep the discussion going in the comments until the system gives you the automatic &quot;move to chat&quot; option. After you do that you can flag the first comment for a moderator to delete them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="714a2885-b5a8-4c86-86df-d4b79eb6ebd4" CreationDate="2012-10-05T23:58:00.353" UserId="12350" Text="I recently posted an interesting and specific question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39129/velocity-of-glass-bottle-in-space-after-contents-are-released, which had generated 2 upvotes (therefore interesting to some members of the community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which was inspired by a users comment on another post, who thought the above question was interesting:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23588/if-i-take-a-bottle-of-air-into-space-and-open-it-where-does-it-go?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the question was closed as being too specific.  So are questions that are specific in nature, but illustrate interesting concepts off-topic on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="714a2885-b5a8-4c86-86df-d4b79eb6ebd4" CreationDate="2012-10-05T23:58:00.353" UserId="12350" Text="Are interesting, but specific questions off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="714a2885-b5a8-4c86-86df-d4b79eb6ebd4" CreationDate="2012-10-05T23:58:00.353" UserId="12350" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="f1126426-89d0-465e-9a6a-1f34498fb714" CreationDate="2012-10-06T00:05:45.140" UserId="124" Text="Questions which instruct people to solve a problem without showing any work are not appropriate as per our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). That's why your question was closed. I used the &quot;too localized&quot; close reason out of habit, but &quot;off topic&quot; would apply equally well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably turn your question into something appropriate by going on to say something like &quot;I tried to solve this by doing XXX then YYY, but after that I got stuck because I don't see any way to calculate ZZZ from YYY. Is it possible to do this, and how?&quot; That makes it a conceptual question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="612c3464-dd74-407e-a8de-724403245ec0" CreationDate="2012-10-07T01:49:22.137" UserId="74" Text="I noticed a sign error in an old answer of mine. I wanted to fix it, but I don't really want to bring this old question to the top of the stack when there's fundamentally nothing new to read there. Is there a workaround for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="612c3464-dd74-407e-a8de-724403245ec0" CreationDate="2012-10-07T01:49:22.137" UserId="74" Text="Is there a way to make minor edits on old answers w/o bringing them to top of stack?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="612c3464-dd74-407e-a8de-724403245ec0" CreationDate="2012-10-07T01:49:22.137" UserId="74" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="06877d38-b128-4e59-9623-959e19e7070c" CreationDate="2012-10-07T05:32:53.927" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Very minor edits, e.g. punctuation](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47/very-minor-edits-e-g-punctuation)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I noticed a sign error in an old answer of mine. I wanted to fix it, but I don't really want to bring this old question to the top of the stack when there's fundamentally nothing new to read there. Is there a workaround for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3671" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="f892afee-b252-4bdf-9599-9df7091c0b89" CreationDate="2012-10-07T05:32:53.927" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[47],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:74,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mark Eichenlaub&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1545" RevisionGUID="307656a6-1ef3-4b19-a690-38e4e1c8b20d" CreationDate="2012-10-07T14:49:54.800" UserId="4864" Text="It's hard to answer this because it's a whole field--- the main thing you are missing is gravitational wave emission--- this has simulation data for the two black hole case now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are papers going back decades, it is very active now in astrophysics, and you need someone who is familiar enough with the literature to make comprehensive accurate summary. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. I have a vague idea of this stuff, but personally I wouldn't feel comfortable pontificating on it-- I need to know where all the folklore results come from and their limitations and confidence intervals. The question is just too ambitious, and it would probably get an answer if separated into smaller questions separately for neutron stars, black holes, and neutron star and black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that two neutron stars would be able to merge without making a black hole, since they are close to the limit, but this is just a feeling.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1546" RevisionGUID="81e585c5-2577-4804-b4ff-d45dc89df297" CreationDate="2012-10-07T18:44:13.950" UserId="2525" Text="I think a homework tag is much less necessary here than on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A homework question is normally obvious. It typically includes specific numbers, a ball of mass m falls .... rather than asking about the path of a falling object. It's upto the individual members here to decide if they want to answer it with a simple answer, a hint or an explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicsforums is better at homework since you can have a discussion with the questioner and lead them to an answer - the SO model doesn't work for teaching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework tag is very very useful on SO and I really don't understand why it was banned. If somebody asks eg. how to reverse a string - the 'correct' software engineering answer is to call the library function. But if the question is homework then the answer is different. Without the tag you have no way of knowing if they want the software engineering answer or the homework answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="ed21daaf-8d74-4c42-8e5c-a3c932c898d4" CreationDate="2012-10-07T18:58:55.610" UserId="2451" Comment="added link;" Text="I) In 99 percent of the cases, the [tag:homework] tag runs smoothly and as intended. In a few cases, OP does not agree with labeling his question with the [tag:homework] tag; often it's a new user that hasn't read the [wiki description](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) or the [site policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/2451), but sometimes OP is right and the [tag:homework] tag is removed again from the question with no further discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) In the early days of Phys.SE, whenever there was posted a homework question without the [tag:homework] tag, then the moderators would politely ask OP if this was homework or not? Typically, a couple of full answers to the homework were posted and accepted before the issue of whether or not to add the [tag:homework] tag was settled. Thus OP would succeed in getting a homework solution from our site, which in other respect is mainly dedicated to just _conceptional_ physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In the last year or so, the tagging practice was changed, and users with tagging privileges would now often add the [tag:homework] tag whenever they felt it was appropriate _without_ first asking OP. The answers were now typically just hints, advices, outlines, etc., instead of full solutions. So the [tag:homework] tag clearly had the desired effect. Moreover, this new practice didn't seem to spur repeated back-and-forth edit war over the [tag:homework] tag. Typically it became clear to everybody whether or not the [tag:homework] tag would apply in a given case or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV) _If it ain't broke, don't fix it._ I fear that by banning the [tag:homework] tag, we in practice loose a useful user-based moderation option, and effectively turn this site into a homework help service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V) Another aspect is that many of our readers use the [tag:homework] tag to decide whether or not to read a post. This goes both ways. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="38585b91-ad46-4ce9-9b7a-8d21e7038098" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:48:16.247" UserId="11547" Text="I was wondering if there were anyway to have automatic stats on points/answer, points/question, etc on the site.  I didn't see it, so apologies if its there, but I think it would be beneficial to introduce some metrics into the user profiles.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="38585b91-ad46-4ce9-9b7a-8d21e7038098" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:48:16.247" UserId="11547" Text="Metrics for questions and answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="38585b91-ad46-4ce9-9b7a-8d21e7038098" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:48:16.247" UserId="11547" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1548" RevisionGUID="b00a3437-754b-46eb-9d0a-f38425625cb6" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:59:21.607" UserId="124" Text="It's not automatic, but you can get numbers like this from the [SE Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com). For example, I have a [query for top users by average answer score](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/47595/top-users-by-average-answer-vote), and you can also browse other queries that people have created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, try checking [MSO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com) to see if this has been requested there - it wouldn't surprise me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1549" RevisionGUID="3d47f408-4190-46d9-97cb-66c9b2c0f801" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:30:12.167" UserId="520" Text="The [Stack Exchange user leagues][1] provide a limited contestesque view of user activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/leagues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1555" RevisionGUID="e5ef132f-8646-4f09-8610-3b79c78ec3c6" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:39:50.680" UserId="5971" Text="I wanted to write that uncertainty $\Delta x$ is 12 angstroms. I wanted to use the symbol for angstrom instead of spelling it out entirely. How to write SI units on this website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried the following and that doesn't work.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;$\Delta x = \SI{12}{\angstrom}$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1555" RevisionGUID="e5ef132f-8646-4f09-8610-3b79c78ec3c6" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:39:50.680" UserId="5971" Text="How to write units in latex code for this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1555" RevisionGUID="e5ef132f-8646-4f09-8610-3b79c78ec3c6" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:39:50.680" UserId="5971" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1556" RevisionGUID="2490ea9b-41eb-47fc-a16d-c2801af82f18" CreationDate="2012-10-11T23:55:33.153" UserId="124" Text="We use [MathJax](http://www.mathjax.org/) for mathematical rendering on this website, and most LaTeX packages and commands (including siunitx) are not implemented in MathJax. You will need to use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \overset{\circ}{A}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to get an Angstrom symbol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1557" RevisionGUID="d4920d0d-cfec-433e-a81e-1cb7b475ec44" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:22:02.883" UserId="3404" Text="I'm talking about http://what-if.xkcd.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One one hand, the FAQ stands against them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where … we are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there is precedent, such as my own &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9456/would-a-submarine-float-in-the-atmosphere-of-jupiter&quot;&gt;Would a submarine float in the atmosphere of Jupiter?&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: Why wasn't my submarine question closed and/or deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1557" RevisionGUID="d4920d0d-cfec-433e-a81e-1cb7b475ec44" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:22:02.883" UserId="3404" Text="Are outlandish XKCD style What If questions welcome here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1557" RevisionGUID="d4920d0d-cfec-433e-a81e-1cb7b475ec44" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:22:02.883" UserId="3404" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1558" RevisionGUID="89fdd23e-0407-43c4-923a-7f3c04058d51" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:36:14.237" UserId="124" Text="If you literally just ask &quot;What if X happened?&quot;, that's too open ended - it's not asking for something specific, it's just inviting speculation. And if X is something that isn't physically possible, it'd also be too hypothetical. But your submarine question is not of that type. It's looking for a specific answer based on a physical argument, which makes it okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, the XKCD blog has looser standards than we do for what is acceptable, but many of the questions addressed on there would probably be okay here, as long as they are phrased properly. For example, a question phrased as &quot;[What if everyone on Earth pointed a laser at the moon?](http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/)&quot; would be inappropriate here, but asking &quot;If everyone on Earth pointed a laser at the moon, would it look different?&quot; is fine. (And &quot;How much light would we need to shine at the moon to make it visibly brighter?&quot; would probably be even better.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="b44c52ee-7711-400b-ab09-a7437ffbfbf8" CreationDate="2012-10-14T12:47:05.983" UserId="2751" Text="I just edited [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39712/2751) question as suggested by David Zaslavsky and Qmechanic to remove the topic of information since the consensus was it is better to ask it in a different post. Removing the information stuff would the presently closed question make appropriate for physics SE and it should be reopened after the edit as David Zaslavsky suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But EnergyNumbers **wrongly** [rejected](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/4609) it, probably because he did not read the comments below the question, that suggested this edit and say that the OP agrees with it, since he was not sure about the importance of the term information in this context anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can my edits still be approved by a more reasonable reviewer or will I have to redo them ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="b44c52ee-7711-400b-ab09-a7437ffbfbf8" CreationDate="2012-10-14T12:47:05.983" UserId="2751" Text="Edits of a questions wrongly rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="b44c52ee-7711-400b-ab09-a7437ffbfbf8" CreationDate="2012-10-14T12:47:05.983" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1561" RevisionGUID="fe32c955-99f3-444b-9e44-373a3fcefaa6" CreationDate="2012-10-14T13:23:16.000" UserId="4066" Text="We don't need to re-open all closed questions. Often, closed questions can just stay closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to ask a question just about emergent phenomena, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP asked about book recommendations for **information and emergent phenomena**. There is no quota on the number of questions that can be asked, so I rejected your edit, because there was no good reason for you to hijack someone else's question to turn it into a different question, as I explained in the rejection note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, open-ended book questions are a pretty poor fit to a Q&amp;A site that specialises in finding single, objective answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat could be a good place for these sorts of questions about book recommendations. It's also the right place for the extended discussion that clutters up this question, and others. And it would be the right place if you want to discuss this answer. Or indeed anything else. Q&amp;A is not the place for discussion, chat is. Main Q&amp;A and meta Q&amp;A are for questions and answers. Chat is for chat &amp; discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="278e449c-86b5-4e18-ae4e-c7031c55aca9" CreationDate="2012-10-14T16:00:35.320" UserId="2751" Comment="Edited title" Text="I just edited [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39712/2751) question as suggested by David Zaslavsky and Qmechanic to remove the topic of information since the consensus was it is better to ask it in a different post. Removing the information stuff would the presently closed question make appropriate for physics SE and it should be reopened after the edit as David Zaslavsky suggested. After the question is reopened, I wanted to put my answering comments into a propper answer and notice mods to remove the no longer needed, at the moment a bit cluttering, comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But EnergyNumbers prohibited this procedure on which I agreed with David Zaslavsky, Qmechanic, and the OP himself by **wrongly** [rejecting](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/4609) my edits, probably because he did not read the comments below the question, wherein the OP agrees with the question being edited in this way. Since he was never completely sure about the importance of the term &quot;information&quot; in this context, he even said that he wants it to leave for someone else to make these edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can my edits still be approved by a more reasonable reviewer or will I have to redo them ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="278e449c-86b5-4e18-ae4e-c7031c55aca9" CreationDate="2012-10-14T16:00:35.320" UserId="2751" Comment="Edited title" Text="My edits of a questions are wrongly rejected, what can be done about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="52e76358-4c76-4215-890c-1c03edaaa4db" CreationDate="2012-10-14T16:09:52.407" UserId="2751" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="I just edited [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39712/2751) question as suggested by David Zaslavsky and Qmechanic to remove the topic of information since the consensus was it is better to ask it in a different post. Removing the information stuff would the presently closed question make appropriate for physics SE and it should be reopened after the edit as David Zaslavsky suggested. After the question is reopened, I wanted to put my answering comments into a propper answer and notice mods to remove the no longer needed, at the moment a bit cluttering, comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But EnergyNumbers prohibited this procedure on which I agreed with David Zaslavsky, Qmechanic, and the OP himself by **wrongly** [rejecting](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/4609) my edits, probably because he did not read the comments below the question, wherein the OP agrees with the question being edited in this way. Since he was never completely sure about the importance of the term &quot;information&quot; in this context, he even said that he wants it to leave for someone else to make these edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can my edits still be approved by a more reasonable reviewer, will I have to repeat  them, or is this case completely lost now because EnergyNumbers has prohibited the agreed on procedure ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="1aacca97-f23d-41f0-846b-3cf81347caa6" CreationDate="2012-10-14T17:20:43.480" UserId="124" Text="On its own merits, i.e. without taking into consideration the comments on the question, that would have been an inappropriate edit. So we can't really blame EnergyNumbers for rejecting it - it's certainly not an abuse of the power to review edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it is a good idea to look at the comments on a question before deciding to reject an edit. When one does take the comments into account... in this case it could go either way. One could definitely argue that it should be the OP's prerogative whether to edit the question. But one could also argue that the OP can just revert any edit he/she doesn't like. Personally, in light of the comment discussion, I suppose I would have approved that edit, but it's not like it would be a great question either way so I don't feel we have suffered too much of a loss by not having the question edited and reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="e9aa53c1-2dcb-453d-b5a0-53a1a11f60a1" CreationDate="2012-10-14T19:44:30.370" UserId="124" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="On its own merits, i.e. without taking into consideration the comments on the question, that would have been an inappropriate edit. So we can't really blame EnergyNumbers for rejecting it - it's certainly not an abuse of the power to review edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it is a good idea to look at the comments on a question before deciding to reject an edit. When one does take the comments into account... in this case it could go either way. One could definitely argue that it should be the OP's prerogative whether to edit the question. But one could also argue that the OP can just revert any edit he/she doesn't like. Personally, in light of the comment discussion, I suppose I would have approved that edit, but it's not like it would be a great question either way so I don't feel we have suffered too much of a loss by not having the question edited and reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the OP can always make that edit and then the question would presumably be reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="39d0f452-406d-4458-9e4f-070b9042d99e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:57:48.480" UserId="11547" Text="If the author of a question ever selected an answer that was clearly wrong can a moderator ever de-select the wrong answer?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="39d0f452-406d-4458-9e4f-070b9042d99e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:57:48.480" UserId="11547" Text="Just out of curiousty, can moderators ever deselect a wrongly selected answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="39d0f452-406d-4458-9e4f-070b9042d99e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:57:48.480" UserId="11547" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1564" RevisionGUID="e9307579-46d0-4ec7-b567-600a51e432e9" CreationDate="2012-10-16T13:02:26.657" UserId="2684" Text="Moderators cannnot change the accepted answer, but they can delete an accepted answer. In general, choosing the accepted answer is the decision of the user asking the question alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="20c4fd20-953a-47bf-9d05-9a18f19ed7ef" CreationDate="2012-10-17T20:23:14.770" UserId="124" Comment="add another example" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen _at least_ these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; four examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/41059/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a reason not to add &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, please mention it either in a comment or answer!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="a1ff58d7-32f6-4751-af9f-65e73ce3008d" CreationDate="2012-10-19T01:04:03.620" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="I have looked around and haven't seen anything specifically addressing my question so please kindly point me in the right direction if I have overlooked anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the official policy for answers to astronomy and physics questions that include mention of, and/or results from, and experience in, astronomy and physics education? I have seen, and have experienced, some hostility toward educational issues here and I get the feeling that these matters are treated mostly as matters of personal opinion rather than as research-based problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know once and for all whether such answers are welcome. I have seen some patently incorrect answers given and marked as correct, but containing terminology errors and/or conceptual errors. If such answers are not welcome, that's fine. I just need to know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="a1ff58d7-32f6-4751-af9f-65e73ce3008d" CreationDate="2012-10-19T01:04:03.620" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="Official policy on astronomy and physics education cited in answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="a1ff58d7-32f6-4751-af9f-65e73ce3008d" CreationDate="2012-10-19T01:04:03.620" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="4f766bcf-a570-4749-a6c3-fe6ee44a3a3b" CreationDate="2012-10-19T02:22:53.907" UserId="520" Text="Astronomy questions and answers are explicitly on topic. For a while there was a Astronomy.SE beta site and while it lived we did attempt to make a distinction between those question the definitely belonged on one site or the other (and necessarily recognized that some would be on topic on both). However, astro.se was ruled to be dying; it's content was moved here and the site was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The matter of how people react to personal experience answers is entirely up to the people casting the votes. That's the deal with crowd-sourced evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not quite sure what you mean by &quot;physics education&quot; in this context---are you talking about &quot;physics education research&quot; (PER) in a formal sense, about the experience gained in teaching physics, or about the usual progression of the education of a physicist (bachelor's degree, grad school, maybe a some postdoctoral work...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We don't have a explicit policy on PER questions at this time. Now, I attend quite a few talks and seminars given by these guys because I find the topic fascinating and would really like some guidance from them; however there are a fair number of questions in PER that I (speaking personally rather than as a moderator) would *not* classify as on-topic here (and many that I *would* classify as on-topic---it depends on how much *physics* there is in the matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your personal experience as a teacher may be relevant, and you are welcome to answer on that basis. But see my point above about people being free to vote as they will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We have a number of existing questions on the normal (and sometimes abnormal) education of physicists. Some have been well received and some have not. Many are closed for not meeting the usual guidelines with respect to *having answers* and not being polls or discussion topics. A few have been made community wiki as a kind of compromise position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen some patently incorrect answers given and marked as correct, but containing terminology errors and/or conceptual errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I trust that have downvoted these and left comments explaining how they are wrong? Oh, good. Because that is about all any one person can do about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you want to bring them up on chat, which might be worth a try as this is a low traffic site, and when we do get bursts of activity stuff can fall off the front page pretty quickly. Then some questions can be missed by those users who only check in occasionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="ffa7f468-3e80-4fa7-9233-fea3718cde38" CreationDate="2012-10-19T03:12:51.893" UserId="520" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Astronomy questions and answers are explicitly on topic. For a while there was a Astronomy.SE beta site and while it lived we did attempt to make a distinction between those question the definitely belonged on one site or the other (and necessarily recognized that some would be on topic on both). However, astro.se was ruled to be dying; it's content was moved here and the site was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The matter of how people react to personal experience answers is entirely up to the people casting the votes. That's the deal with crowd-sourced evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not quite sure what you mean by &quot;physics education&quot; in this context---are you talking about &quot;physics education research&quot; (PER) in a formal sense, about the experience gained in teaching physics, or about the usual progression of the education of a physicist (bachelor's degree, grad school, maybe a some postdoctoral work...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We don't have a explicit policy on PER questions at this time. Now, I attend quite a few talks and seminars given by these guys because I find the topic fascinating and would really like some guidance from them; however there are a fair number of questions in PER that I (speaking personally rather than as a moderator) would *not* classify as on-topic here (and many that I *would* classify as on-topic---it depends on how much *physics* there is in the matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your personal experience as a teacher may be relevant, and you are welcome to answer on that basis. But see my point above about people being free to vote as they will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We have a number of existing questions on the normal (and sometimes abnormal) education of physicists. Some have been well received and some have not. Many are closed for not meeting the usual guidelines with respect to *having answers* and not being polls or discussion topics. A few have been made community wiki as a kind of compromise position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen some patently incorrect answers given and marked as correct, but containing terminology errors and/or conceptual errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I trust that have downvoted these and left comments explaining how they are wrong? Oh, good. Because that is about all any one person can do about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you want to bring them up on chat, which might be worth a try as this is usually a low traffic site; when we *do* get bursts of activity stuff can fall off the front page pretty quickly. Then some questions can be missed by those users who only check in occasionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="b0ceaf7c-0739-4b4e-b382-744486f5c59e" CreationDate="2012-10-21T16:27:34.087" UserId="1255" Text="I think the difference is pretty well definable.  The xkcd comics are a good case-in-point, because they are fun to read precisely because the author *doesn't just* answer the question.  Most of what is written is, in fact, a tangent.  Let's look at examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How long would the Sun last if a giant water hose were focused upon it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a perfectly valid question for Physics SE (and nice that the intuition is wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if you exploded a nuclear bomb (say, the Tsar Bomba) at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not really a valid question.  The cynical obvious answer is &quot;a large bomb goes off in the Marianas Trench&quot;.  More to the point, there is no clear answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if a rainstorm dropped all of its water in a single giant drop?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good case where both the question and the answer aren't really appropriate for Physics SE.  There are physics peppered in there, but at one point, I think it was talking about the lore and terror people were living in after the great kinematic destruction of a town by the giant raindrop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not the only problem.  Perhaps the *biggest* problem is that the author had to *fill in* so much about the question.  Physics requires good definition.  We are better off demanding solid definition (and thus quality) in the questions with our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone was crystal clear that they were talking about a giant spherical ball of water with volume equal to a rainstorm materializing instantly above suburban America, then... I suppose we would have to allow it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="ecaf5208-2e4e-49d4-9b94-5f78448600d8" CreationDate="2012-10-22T18:20:08.253" UserId="1255" Comment="link" Text="I think the difference is pretty well definable.  The xkcd comics are a good case-in-point, because they are fun to read precisely because the author *doesn't just* answer the question.  Most of what is written is, in fact, a tangent.  Let's look at examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [How long would the Sun last if a giant water hose were focused upon it?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a perfectly valid question for Physics SE (and nice that the intuition is wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [What if you exploded a nuclear bomb (say, the Tsar Bomba) at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not really a valid question.  The cynical obvious answer is &quot;a large bomb goes off in the Marianas Trench&quot;.  More to the point, there is no clear answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [What if a rainstorm dropped all of its water in a single giant drop?][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good case where both the question and the answer aren't really appropriate for Physics SE.  There are physics peppered in there, but at one point, I think it was talking about the lore and terror people were living in after the great kinematic destruction of a town by the giant raindrop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not the only problem.  Perhaps the *biggest* problem is that the author had to *fill in* so much about the question.  Physics requires good definition.  We are better off demanding solid definition (and thus quality) in the questions with our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone was crystal clear that they were talking about a giant spherical ball of water with volume equal to a rainstorm materializing instantly above suburban America, then... I suppose we would have to allow it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://what-if.xkcd.com/14/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://what-if.xkcd.com/15/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://what-if.xkcd.com/12/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="1345a830-2829-4109-a89e-5a2fe437fc18" CreationDate="2012-10-23T05:42:02.453" UserId="6735" Text="What is the common practise for commenting users with their first questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some links (something except faq?). Or useful answers on Meta site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="1345a830-2829-4109-a89e-5a2fe437fc18" CreationDate="2012-10-23T05:42:02.453" UserId="6735" Text="Common practise for first-time questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="1345a830-2829-4109-a89e-5a2fe437fc18" CreationDate="2012-10-23T05:42:02.453" UserId="6735" Text="|discussion|etiquette|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1571" RevisionGUID="7b414645-1a14-467a-82cc-f70ec39c8cc6" CreationDate="2012-10-23T07:09:30.717" UserId="91" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pDDLv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://academia.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3729" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1571" RevisionGUID="91aad646-9eba-448f-9654-a31c8a335d9a" CreationDate="2012-10-23T07:09:30.717" UserId="91" />
  <row Id="3730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="979c118b-b35a-40ec-b64f-d74c656c3e10" CreationDate="2012-10-23T15:35:51.330" UserId="14295" Text="If this StackExchange existed before the suggestion of photons, many of the answers would be different, and they would be up-voted. This is unlike a Computer programming question regarding a specific protocol, where the design is known -- created by someone/people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome trying Science-related SEs because they fill a huge gap in learning online. But inherently many of the answers are subjective -- something that is notoriously refused when recognized on SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think Science-related SEs will work, and if so how, and if not what might we be able to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="979c118b-b35a-40ec-b64f-d74c656c3e10" CreationDate="2012-10-23T15:35:51.330" UserId="14295" Text="Science answers are unlike human-made answers, do you think this SE will work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="979c118b-b35a-40ec-b64f-d74c656c3e10" CreationDate="2012-10-23T15:35:51.330" UserId="14295" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="c55018b5-6fd6-4139-b3e7-0724cdac831e" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:21:03.857" UserId="520" Text="Stack Exchange originates with Stack Overflow where the domain is programming---another field that is not static. Just in *my* Stack Overflow tags, the last four years have seen new versions of c, c++ and python all of which have changed the best answer to some questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine has coped with this just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that it will cope with the march of physics well, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1574" RevisionGUID="c9554c80-9a1c-48c3-850a-98a0b3e5464d" CreationDate="2012-10-23T18:42:45.503" UserId="1492" Text="I think you have a false impression of science. Science builds on previous data continuously. The tools may change, the theories may change but it is a matter of expanding knowledge, not a drastic demolition and rebuilding process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know about the photon since last century, and the knowledge was built on the knowledge of the century before that with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, and the one before that where Newton postulated the corpuscular nature of light ( photons really).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the science is based on data and is not science fiction ( imaginary and manipulated data) it remains as part of the foundation, even though it might be outdated. The (in) famous epicycles are still there, in the planetarium programs when the geocentric system is assumed. Because they were an accumulation of observations fitted to a theory of that time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For scientific disciplines the SEs are useful to excite the interest and imagination of young new scientists entering the field, a forum for discussions of physics in our case and an opportunity to keep on learning, even after retirement or change of occupation due to work needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1575" RevisionGUID="25e0f5b5-034e-4df5-ad4e-06bb9abdc068" CreationDate="2012-10-25T01:14:48.227" UserId="124" Text="There isn't really any common practice. If you would like to leave a comment welcoming a new user to the site, that's fine, but it's not obligated or expected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1571" RevisionGUID="87d8cb6d-f2fe-4de6-811f-fa849dbda5e2" CreationDate="2012-10-26T08:21:49.060" UserId="91" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QlIlq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://academia.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="57c4d3aa-c175-431e-b270-ec9aa7eee4bf" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:06:29.437" UserId="1172" Text="Really, two related questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, there is great interest, and substantial disagreement about fundamental, foundational issues.  These questions are at least sometimes deep and subtle.  A tag such as foundations-of-physics or fundamental-question or just &quot;foundations&quot; might be appropriate for questions related to these issues. What is the best tag for this type of question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But I am more concerned about a second, somewhat different sort of basic question.  In particular, I am concerned about very basic questions concerning basic concepts and definitions, or elementary procedures.  You would think that these questions would be easily answered by googling or consulting an elementary text book.   But I find it is amazing how many very elementary questions I cannot answer by those means, and so I turn to Physics SE.  These questions are not homework, and should not be treated as homework (i.e. hints instead of clear answers).  Often the purpose of the question is to clear up a misconception.  So the homework tag is very inapropriate for this type of question.  Perhaps basic-question would be an appropriate tag or even simpler-than-homework or some other such tag. I don't know how many others do, but I certainly feel the need for a tag of this type.  Comments and suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I just read the following, based on the automated suggestion, and have not changed my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/566/is-the-precautionary-closing-of-immature-questions-so-very-necessary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="57c4d3aa-c175-431e-b270-ec9aa7eee4bf" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:06:29.437" UserId="1172" Text="New tag(s) for very basic questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="57c4d3aa-c175-431e-b270-ec9aa7eee4bf" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:06:29.437" UserId="1172" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1577" RevisionGUID="9334dcd3-96c4-44ca-93ba-8abf04aeb56f" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:27:09.650" UserId="124" Text="I don't think it's necessary to have a tag to identify these types of questions. These types of tags (which give general metadata about a question instead of characterizing its subjects) are called &quot;meta tags,&quot; and there is plenty of discussion on [Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com) (and even some on this meta site) about why they should be avoided. (In fact I personally think we could do without the [tag:homework] tag, but the community seems to like it and it's too well-entrenched to get rid of now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions themselves, of course, are fine; I just don't think they need to be tagged in the way you're talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1579" RevisionGUID="4454f20f-cfa7-4bdf-964f-b649a2d9b831" CreationDate="2012-10-31T15:29:09.997" UserId="184" Text="There is already tag [tag:foundations] (and it's not meta by any means). Just it is not used that much (yet?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem you are addressing is very real, as _most_ of simple questions can be asked on totally different grounds, from a newbie to the most knowledgable person on that topic. See e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics where I got some newbie answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:basic-question] is a meta tag plus I guess that most of questions would need it, so it is a bad idea to introduce it (even though my approach to meta tags is very liberal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="be2a8afd-c6e8-43e9-9ee5-5b69b8268b18" CreationDate="2012-11-01T13:49:37.607" UserId="184" Text="I've just made a map of tags for **Physics.SE**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: tag size is related to tag popularity and edges are related to tag co-occurrences in questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me it looks as a &quot;snapshot&quot; of topics and scope of this SE site. So if you want to you it in any way to promote Physics.SE - feel free!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have comments how to improve its usefulness or niceness to our community, I would appreciate them (but bear in mind that I have no color esthetics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tag Map for Physics.SE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Links:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [An entry for StackExchange vis competition at Kaggle](https://www.kaggle.com/c/predict-closed-questions-on-stack-overflow/prospector#211) (please vote if you like it :), it ends on Nov 3)&#xD;&#xA;* [Recipe, code and images at GitHub](https://github.com/stared/tag-graph-map-of-stackexchange) (e.g. tweak the plot to your taste; feel invited to co-develop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V41Z6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="be2a8afd-c6e8-43e9-9ee5-5b69b8268b18" CreationDate="2012-11-01T13:49:37.607" UserId="184" Text="Map of 64 Tags from Physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="be2a8afd-c6e8-43e9-9ee5-5b69b8268b18" CreationDate="2012-11-01T13:49:37.607" UserId="184" Text="|discussion|tags|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3748" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="09ce0bdf-6d99-47ca-a289-41baa00f0c5a" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:56:30.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/264214395343749120" />
  <row Id="3749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="f97f04a4-7238-4189-8f72-bd8bd6fc4d6e" CreationDate="2012-11-04T05:26:53.633" UserId="4864" Text="Is it possible to get an answer as to why Jed Rothwell's answer to this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion was deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure that this is somewhat borderline, since the web page is his own, and there might be some conflict of interest, but in cases where you have hundreds of papers ignored by the mainstream community, with obvious political pressure you can _feel_, and no sound arguments beyond nonsense estimates from idiots, I think one must bend over backwards to avoid censorship and let people get heard (and perhaps downvoted, but that doesn't matter) without politics getting in the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One must be mindful that censorship is the enemy of science. The question is: is it appropriate to delete Rothwell's answer? Perhaps it may be undeleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="f97f04a4-7238-4189-8f72-bd8bd6fc4d6e" CreationDate="2012-11-04T05:26:53.633" UserId="4864" Text="Jed Rothwell's answer to cold fusion question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="f97f04a4-7238-4189-8f72-bd8bd6fc4d6e" CreationDate="2012-11-04T05:26:53.633" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="388860a0-a144-4ca3-8dbb-97bede4db2b8" CreationDate="2012-11-04T07:13:47.437" UserId="1492" Text="To start with the question should be reopened. I would have given a + to get it out of the danger zone ( if it happens automatically) but was asleep at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the list, not in depth. The papers in the usual journals for physics were theoretical papers. I did not find experimental papers except within their inner circle of conference publications. ( I may be wrong, and if you can give a link to a Nuclear Physics B or physics letters etc I will read it carefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I accept that the field has been painted with a &quot;crackpot physics&quot; brush and it will be hard for an experimentalist to publish in the usual journals. That is why it is important not to censor the subject in this forum. An open mind to sincere search should be kept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was around when cold fusion hit the news. I do not know an experimental  physicist in my institute who did not drop everything and start to read about this for a few days. Some even experimented. People were excited and then felt let down, and turned against it when it was not consistently repeatable ( a lynch pin of experimental physics) and the energies not commensurate with fusion energies, though larger than run of the mill. I believe this disappointment is what turned the crowd against research in this field, and not the lack of theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in my answer there are now two commercial products down the pipe. If they are selling snake oil, it will become evident soon. If it is gold ( and better) that will also be transparent and a lot of people will eat their hats. Let us not make this site a hat eating site :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="35613ba6-166e-494f-9a88-3da316fbbc33" CreationDate="2012-11-04T07:14:55.813" UserId="124" Text="Deletion by Community indicates that it was automatically removed due to spam or offensive flags (in this case likely the former). The answer could be reposted if Jed makes it clear that he is linking to his own site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="a0731825-db34-402f-8b23-cc6f08bd2870" CreationDate="2012-11-04T15:09:18.227" UserId="1492" Comment="clarification" Text="To start with the closed  answer to the question should be reopened. I would have given a + to get it out of the danger zone ( if it happens automatically) but was asleep at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the list, not in depth. The papers in the usual journals for physics were theoretical papers. I did not find experimental papers except within their inner circle of conference publications. ( I may be wrong, and if you can give a link to a Nuclear Physics B or physics letters etc I will read it carefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I accept that the field has been painted with a &quot;crackpot physics&quot; brush and it will be hard for an experimentalist to publish in the usual journals. That is why it is important not to censor the subject in this forum. An open mind to sincere search should be kept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was around when cold fusion hit the news. I do not know an experimental  physicist in my institute who did not drop everything and start to read about this for a few days. Some even experimented. People were excited and then felt let down, and turned against it when it was not consistently repeatable ( a lynch pin of experimental physics) and the energies not commensurate with fusion energies, though larger than run of the mill. I believe this disappointment is what turned the crowd against research in this field, and not the lack of theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in my answer there are now two commercial products down the pipe. If they are selling snake oil, it will become evident soon. If it is gold ( and better) that will also be transparent and a lot of people will eat their hats. Let us not make this site a hat eating site :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="a186029f-1b48-4a6f-9bce-cd396a9466f7" CreationDate="2012-11-04T15:27:10.227" UserId="2751" Text="If I remember it correctly, unsuccessfully flagged regular posts appear explicitly in my flagging history, (marked as declined) and a message is left by the person who handled it, saying why the flag is declined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems not to happen for declined flags on comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I learn why a comment flag is declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="a186029f-1b48-4a6f-9bce-cd396a9466f7" CreationDate="2012-11-04T15:27:10.227" UserId="2751" Text="How can I see why my comment flag was declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="a186029f-1b48-4a6f-9bce-cd396a9466f7" CreationDate="2012-11-04T15:27:10.227" UserId="2751" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1586" RevisionGUID="f4a11ccc-9b7a-451c-b1c4-b1b18371ee48" CreationDate="2012-11-04T17:02:43.850" UserId="7433" Text="IIRC, comment flags add to your count, but they're not explicitly displayed in your flag list*. Furthermore, there is no option for mods to put a decline reason-- there's just a dialog asking &quot;helpful?&quot; or something similar. So, to find out what happened, your best bet would be to ask a mod :/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sup&gt;not only that, they're a bit masked on the mod side as well--certain comment flags are anonymous, and they show up with less details in the post flags page&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="0d524e26-eb5f-4120-b700-42659854930c" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:12:40.947" UserId="11062" Text="Ok, Guys. Recently, I poked into this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41814/ asked by @Michael which is *pretty good*. As it didn't get enough attention, I started a bounty on it. Seems like it doesn't get attention now either. I don't think, these *Physics guys* are bored of seeing such a question. At the same time, we shouldn't expect equal interests from others. But, Is there any other reason for this question - *not getting  attention*..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(I think It'd get attention at least in meta :-)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="0d524e26-eb5f-4120-b700-42659854930c" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:12:40.947" UserId="11062" Text="Bounty for attention (though it's a good question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="0d524e26-eb5f-4120-b700-42659854930c" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:12:40.947" UserId="11062" Text="|support|questions|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1588" RevisionGUID="43a387ed-e67e-4901-90d3-843efc179fdf" CreationDate="2012-11-05T02:37:29.050" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="This Q is +10 so it got quite a lot of attention and appreciation -- the fact that it has no answers is more connected to the fact it is a pretty tough question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1589" RevisionGUID="32a87217-4b98-4c7a-a585-7835446b3cfa" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:46:24.767" UserId="520" Text="I've asked on the moderator's chat group about the handling of requests to undelete material that was killed by spam flags, and the consensus seems to be that the default answer is &quot;No.&quot;, and that exceptions should be made only for answer that clearly add a lot of value to site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jed's answer is little more than a link, and such answers are mostly discouraged in any case, so I'm going to leave things as they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="672256ee-0ce9-4bad-a641-ebc07b901313" CreationDate="2012-11-05T16:41:41.783" UserId="8563" Text="I find it weird that QM is all alone in that corner there. Are there really so many QM-QI links to dwarf, say the QM-photons, light, QFT, etc., edges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="2e3ceccd-e60c-4813-89f8-a83dcf59bb13" CreationDate="2012-11-05T18:15:36.580" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 169 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Sustainable Living][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33364.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33364/sustainable-living&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="b7228167-5590-4212-b72b-4bf3d1f8565d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:54:25.200" UserId="6456" Text="I just had a [discussion][1] on the chat as one user mythealias helped figure out some of my issues related with my question. I feel like there are some valuable information from our back and forth. Should it be brought back to the question? Is the link to the chat in the comments sufficient? Should we just star the good bits? Part of my desire to bring things back is to either upvote or reward some of the material. But obviously, if I do it, I cannot upvote my summary, that would defeat the purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6385/discussion-between-frenchkheldar-and-mythealias?highlights=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="b7228167-5590-4212-b72b-4bf3d1f8565d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:54:25.200" UserId="6456" Text="What is the standard practice to bring back valuable information from the chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="b7228167-5590-4212-b72b-4bf3d1f8565d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:54:25.200" UserId="6456" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="3a7fd960-c89c-42a8-a9cd-42f6af37c2a8" CreationDate="2012-11-09T23:19:41.767" UserId="1255" Text="Let me speak about the rare exception and my thoughts on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen both my questions and other people's questions fall into the trap of the homework tag due to the way it was asked, even though it was nothing of the sort.  The reason this happened (in the cases I'm thinking of) was because numbers were included in order to define the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An experienced editor will then see a new or relatively new user ask a question with numbers, and develop the expectation that the user asking wants to get an answer to complete an assignment.  Most of the time this is the case... but sometimes questions will get the homework tag even when it's completely absurd.  For example, problems that are so involved one couldn't expect an answer to return a value, or problems that simply don't have a straightforward answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with communication IMO is that it's often hard to tell *why the person is asking*.  Sometimes it's for the purpose of advancing the person's general knowledge, sometimes it's for a class, and sometimes the person is literally building a heat exchanger in their backyard and wants to get dimensions to cut (!!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The special cases are something to keep in mind, but the homework tag effectively serves a very important purpose most of the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="08b6334e-dcfb-4797-a917-34562f3c8433" CreationDate="2012-11-09T23:33:01.567" UserId="2751" Text="Maybe a summary of the good stuff can be put into a new answer to the question. I think a user can give more than one answer to a question. With this the good stuff would be better visible to everybody than in a poorly titled chatroom and it would be upvotable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2596" RevisionGUID="b7d8cd87-2fea-4222-89c0-b1537fa52e96" CreationDate="2012-11-10T23:06:03.783" UserId="124" Text="If the discussion in the chat room gives you ideas as to how to clarify your question, then do so by editing the question, and you can incorporate the content of the discussion that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the discussion in the chat room constitutes an answer to the question, or leads you to figure out an answer, then turn it into an answer and post it. Or you could ask that one of the other participants in the discussion post the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the discussion helps clarify an existing answer, then you could leave a comment pointing the author of that answer to the chat transcript, so they can incorporate the material if they want. Or you could post a separate answer with the clarified version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. When I say &quot;turn it into an answer&quot; I don't mean that you should copy and paste the chat transcript into an answer. That'd be inappropriate. I mean that you should write an answer motivated by the things that were discussed in chat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="f36bff44-f590-4701-aa9d-d9d31632660e" CreationDate="2012-11-12T07:34:23.073" UserId="124" Text="There have been a few questions asked about cold fusion on this site, especially in recent days. Invariably they lead to extended arguments, which is not healthy for the site - the whole Stack Exchange system is built around avoiding that sort of content. Plus, as our FAQ says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the conclusion that cold fusion is bogus, whether right or wrong, is firmly established in mainstream physics. So I am proposing that we disallow cold fusion as a topic of posting on this site (unless and until it becomes established mainstream physics). We already have one [good reference question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus) about cold fusion, and I think that's enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are some users who have already made their feelings on this issue well known, but I'm interested in hearing arguments either way from the rest of the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="f36bff44-f590-4701-aa9d-d9d31632660e" CreationDate="2012-11-12T07:34:23.073" UserId="124" Text="What should be the status of cold fusion on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="f36bff44-f590-4701-aa9d-d9d31632660e" CreationDate="2012-11-12T07:34:23.073" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="bf545130-23b1-40aa-9f87-6d49c4cd5b3c" CreationDate="2012-11-12T08:10:04.020" UserId="1492" Text="David, I have been following from afar the subject ever since it appeared. As I have said at that time most solid state and nuclear physicists were scrambling to understand and some reproduce the results. There was great disappointment in the community that the results could not be consistently reproduced ( which is the norm for accepting something in physics) and the marginalization of the field is a backlash to that initial enthusiasm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless there are a number of interesting and solid physical effects in the experiments connected with Low Energy Nuclear Fusion . T[here is something going on][1] that may [not be chemical][2] as we know it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think censorship should not be imposed apriori, because physics is about thinking outside the box. If one forces everything into the box physics will stagnate, let alone this site. There is always an element of uncertainty in research. True, cold fusion seems a misleading path, but there are experimental effects that need an explanation by physicists. By no means should we close our minds to possibilities outside the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that if the moderators are aware and delete comments if they become incendiary or  even combative that is sufficient to keep a good level of discussion on this site. After all 3 or four questions have come up during the year and a half I have been following this here, that is not a great burden .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossthermaland.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="cb468888-e02a-4086-b477-51c9eb2527c6" CreationDate="2012-11-12T08:17:33.457" UserId="1492" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="David, I have been following from afar the subject ever since it appeared. As I have said at that time most solid state and nuclear physicists were scrambling to understand and some reproduce the results. There was great disappointment in the community that the results could not be consistently reproduced ( which is the norm for accepting something in physics) and the marginalization of the field is a backlash to that initial enthusiasm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should give the complete quote of the FAQ on physics.se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably not appropriate at this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless there are a number of interesting and solid physical effects in the experiments connected with Low Energy Nuclear Fusion . T[here is something going on][1] that may [not be chemical][2] as we know it, many  studies are published in reputable places, peer reviewed etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think censorship should not be imposed apriori, because physics is about thinking outside the box. If one forces everything into the box physics will stagnate, let alone this site. There is always an element of uncertainty in research. True, cold fusion seems a misleading path, but there are experimental effects that need an explanation by physicists. By no means should we close our minds to possibilities outside the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that if the moderators are aware and delete comments if they become incendiary or  even combative that is sufficient to keep a good level of discussion on this site. After all 3 or four questions have come up during the year and a half I have been following this here, that is not a great burden .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossthermaland.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="3775f425-2acc-4bb5-825a-dc7a1e6ce09a" CreationDate="2012-11-12T14:28:34.123" UserId="4864" Text="You are asking for censorship, and this is not consistent with science. We do not prohibit &quot;non mainstream&quot; questions--- we answer them! I suppose you are annoyed because here is a &quot;non mainstream&quot; question which is _not_ easily rebutted. That's how you know when mainstream is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with censorship in the strongest terms: in case you haven't noticed from my pattern of questions/answers, the non-censored treatment of cold fusion is the only reason I participate on this site. I came here by googling for cold-fusion, I answered a few non cold fusion questions to establish credentials (I was worried my account would be summarily deleted), then I answered the cold fusion question with a completely novel theory, and to my surprise, people didn't delete my answer, or censor it, just up/down votes (lots and lots of each), and questions, and thinking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if this is adopted, or even seriously considered, I'm outta here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="aecfa024-b410-4c13-b27d-15c66acce16d" CreationDate="2012-11-12T20:33:13.287" UserId="1492" Comment="added 905 characters in body" Text="David, I have been following from afar the subject ever since it appeared. As I have said at that time most solid state and nuclear physicists were scrambling to understand and some reproduce the results. There was great disappointment in the community that the results could not be consistently reproduced ( which is the norm for accepting something in physics) and the marginalization of the field is a backlash to that initial enthusiasm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should give the complete quote of the FAQ on physics.se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably not appropriate at this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless there are a number of interesting and solid physical effects in the experiments connected with Low Energy Nuclear Fusion . T[here is something going on][1] that may [not be chemical][2] as we know it, many  studies are published in reputable places, peer reviewed etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think censorship should not be imposed apriori, because physics is about thinking outside the box. If one forces everything into the box physics will stagnate, let alone this site. There is always an element of uncertainty in research. True, cold fusion seems a misleading path, but there are experimental effects that need an explanation by physicists. By no means should we close our minds to possibilities outside the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that if the moderators are aware and delete comments if they become incendiary or  even combative that is sufficient to keep a good level of discussion on this site. After all 3 or four questions have come up during the year and a half I have been following this here, that is not a great burden .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** in response to David's comment below who said :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whatever unexplained experimental evidence there is in favor of cold fusion can certainly be discussed and explained in the research community, but I don't believe there is any obligation for us to do so here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the following is not talking about research, what is it talking about?&#xD;&#xA;From the FAQ on &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental designs and results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex: What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could paraphrase :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; what is needed to claim the discovery of cold fusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is just expectations and probabilities in our heads that make the first question legitimate and the last one iffy. Fashion. But who determines the probabilities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this forum it seems to me  the voting system  determines naturally  the probabilities on  how far from the standard physics model/expectations of the community a question is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossthermaland.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="edc7222e-41c7-4bf5-8bb3-c7590c1c7e6a" CreationDate="2012-11-13T00:09:58.193" UserId="66" Text="If it's good enough for NASA it has to be good enough for us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The next consideration is &quot;What is real? What is happening?&quot; For NASA Langley, the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory. **It is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley.** The theory appears to explain nearly all the various and often variegated experimental observations and shifted the LENR theoretical focus from some way of &quot;fooling&quot; Particle Nuclear Physics/The Strong Force to Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics, Collective Effects, The Weak Force and &quot;Heavy Electrons.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand - trite polemics, crackpots, &amp;c. should be dealt with as usual, downvotes and deletion if spam/flamebait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allow the topic, moderate the (unacceptable) behaviours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="b2a92959-d181-4e52-9b4c-7b50a9e52190" CreationDate="2012-11-14T06:10:38.163" UserId="9174" Text="Perhaps I am too junior to have a solid opinion, but I feel like I should say something. Regardless of what organization recognizes the topic at hand, and regardless how I may feel about it, I think it would be heavy handed to stop all conversation on it. I agree with @Sklivvz that we should merely delete unacceptable behavior. While it is extra work for the moderators, it is also ensuring that all things can be discussed in the SE setting. I thought this is what moderators were for, but I do understand it is quite the burdan for a single topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see that the topic is not in mainstream physics, and for reasons already addressed. I do not see the reason why it can not be discussed. I will say, if it starts to dominate the site (I highly doubt it) or if it becomes incredibly inflammatory and becomes more of a problem for the community, I think the heavy handed censorship can be brought up again for consideration; and adding a note to the FAQ about what 'main stream physics' is, topics we stay away from due to historical problems, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say try measures to control off hand discussion and discussion clearly off base about the topic, within Physics SE guidelines. If it does not work, I would say we should reconsider. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="da16e846-b320-4e8b-909b-b3c73aac2dae" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:31:21.980" UserId="11062" Text="This is not a great problem. While poking into a question yesterday, I thought I might answer (as it didn't get a lot of attention though). Today (I mean, NOW) I see my post [under &quot;community wiki&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/44174). I saw the revision history specifically saying, &quot;Post made community wiki by Crazy Buddy&quot;. I haven't done anything as such. I must agree that I try to &quot;type in&quot; fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any keyboard letter that triggers community wiki or could anyone trigger it except me?&#xD;&#xA; - I know that community wiki votes are earned by the &quot;-1&quot; user. Would the *accepted answer* vote also goes to him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing special with that question and my answer though. Just a curiosity (maybe for later use - *like that*) But, I have a suspicion that I would've done something *crazy*. Machines don't lie. Do they? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="da16e846-b320-4e8b-909b-b3c73aac2dae" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:31:21.980" UserId="11062" Text="The problem with community wiki" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="da16e846-b320-4e8b-909b-b3c73aac2dae" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:31:21.980" UserId="11062" Text="|support|accepted-answer|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="cee1782a-2570-4636-8ae6-b6bd2e86c246" CreationDate="2012-11-14T12:42:45.683" UserId="520" Text="Wiki flag removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems likely that you accidental clicked the community wiki check box on the edit screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, be aware that too many edits will force a post in wiki mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the threshold is currently 10 *logged* revisions (there is a five minute grace eriod under which revisions are lumped together as one for this purpose)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="11ca57d3-4266-42e0-82af-33d401301ab8" CreationDate="2012-11-14T12:45:58.253" UserId="11062" Comment="minor edit - corrected tht &quot;p&quot;" Text="Wiki flag removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems likely that you accidental clicked the community wiki check box on the edit screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, be aware that too many edits will force a post in wiki mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the threshold is currently 10 *logged* revisions (there is a five minute grace period under which revisions are lumped together as one for this purpose)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="c4d8dcd9-8fce-41da-87f8-b41319d79014" CreationDate="2012-11-16T11:02:10.657" UserId="2751" Text="[This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44300/2751) question, asking about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string, has been wrongly and brutally closed before it was even an hour old for no good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is absolutally **NOT** a duplicate of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44130/2751) question which deals only with quanta in QM mechanics. Conversely, it is a very different and quite good (as one can see by the 4 (neglecting the stupid automatic downvote) upvotes and 3 favoted stars) specific string theory question.&#xD;&#xA;I yesterday tried to explain this to dmckee but it was in vain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can this question please be reopened, such that finally interesting answers can start to turn in (and the very stupid undeserved automatic downvote gets hopefully removed too ...) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="c4d8dcd9-8fce-41da-87f8-b41319d79014" CreationDate="2012-11-16T11:02:10.657" UserId="2751" Text="Can this wrongly as a duplicate closed question be reopened" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="c4d8dcd9-8fce-41da-87f8-b41319d79014" CreationDate="2012-11-16T11:02:10.657" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4797" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="85145fbc-f60b-46d2-92df-c12ab315e845" CreationDate="2012-11-16T11:14:03.407" UserId="2751" Comment="question mark added in the title" Text="Can this wrongly as a duplicate closed question be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="e13581c8-5ab8-4166-8eff-809fe168eb02" CreationDate="2012-11-16T12:09:02.633" UserId="2751" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="[This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44300/2751) question, asking about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string, has been wrongly and brutally closed before it was even an hour old for no good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is absolutally **NOT** a duplicate of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44130/2751) question, which deals only with the general properties of quanta in quantum mechanics. Conversely, it is a very different and quite good (as one can see by the 4 (neglecting the stupid automatic downvote) upvotes and 3 times marked as a favorite) specific string theory question.&#xD;&#xA;I yesterday tried to explain this to dmckee, but it was in vain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can this question please be reopened, such that finally interesting answers can start to turn in (and the very stupid undeserved automatic downvote gets hopefully removed too ...) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2606" RevisionGUID="0a1d2cb3-77c6-4b77-9805-8f65079a8aa8" CreationDate="2012-11-16T15:00:49.673" UserId="1504" Text="I downvoted that question, because I thought it was a lousy question.  No evidence at all that the OP had done his homework. Reads like the OP is developing his own private language.  Generally not the sort of question I want to see more of on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="a357f435-a0e5-4507-8f5e-a123773d724a" CreationDate="2012-11-16T20:22:10.830" UserId="1492" Text="Dilaton, I am sorry to say that I agree with @user1504, Ron's hamster. Neo does not seem to understand what a quantum is. He/she thinks it is an entity like a particle I guess, at least from the way he/she uses the word in his/her last edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In one word i'm asking about possibility of **Quantum-String duality**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also shows that he/she did not understand or bother to understand my answer to his/her previous question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You think he/she is asking &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in my opinion he/she  is just enamored by the vocabulary of &quot;quantum&quot; .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="eeaa8946-dbf7-4397-a412-2febb503fc8e" CreationDate="2012-11-17T03:54:09.437" UserId="5563" Comment="update vote counts" Text="[This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44300/2751) question, asking about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string, has been wrongly and brutally closed before it was even an hour old for no good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is absolutally **NOT** a duplicate of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44130/2751) question, which deals only with the general properties of quanta in quantum mechanics. Conversely, it is a very different and quite good (as one can see by the 7 upvotes (and only 1 downvote) and 4 times marked as a favorite) specific string theory question.&#xD;&#xA;I yesterday tried to explain this to dmckee, but it was in vain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can this question please be reopened, such that finally interesting answers can start to turn in (and the very stupid undeserved automatic downvote gets hopefully removed too ...) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="e2181beb-6d2f-43cd-8e19-3c372c0cdcfb" CreationDate="2012-11-17T09:37:26.260" UserId="1492" Comment="question for downvoters" Text="Dilaton, I am sorry to say that I agree with @user1504, Ron's hamster. Neo does not seem to understand what a quantum is. He/she thinks it is an entity like a particle I guess, at least from the way he/she uses the word in his/her last edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In one word i'm asking about possibility of **Quantum-String duality**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also shows that he/she did not understand or bother to understand my answer to his/her previous question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You think he/she is asking &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in my opinion he/she  is just enamored by the vocabulary of &quot;quantum&quot; .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit after noticing** 3 up and 2 down votes on my reply and 4 up 3 down in Ron's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meta is supposed to exist so we can thresh out any disagreements, at least know where we disagree. It is not useful just down voting here. Is the disagreement on a matter of principle *&quot;all questions that are not incoherent should be left open&quot;* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be good to know if people see no problem with leaving questions which add apples to oranges as long as one could deduce a real question out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please leave a comment if you down vote. It is not terrible.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4805" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="f36a7586-5bf3-48e0-ad0f-f62a9996d673" CreationDate="2012-11-17T15:05:26.187" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44413/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed" Text="" />
  <row Id="4806" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="e31c258c-f14f-440f-8895-3b03fa7892a0" CreationDate="2012-11-17T15:05:26.187" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44413/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed/44416#44416" Text="" />
  <row Id="4807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="9161dd3d-4b55-4870-b690-7d81423c4120" CreationDate="2012-11-17T11:02:05.550" UserId="2751" Text="Yep ask here, we like theoretical physics too ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that have been on the former theoretical physics SE site or new ones, that would have been appropriate for it, are labeled with the &quot;research-level&quot;  [tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2751) you can see (beside the Astronomy questions which we have saved too) a list of all the TP.SE questions that were imported. We have successfully saved all of them I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What went wrong with TP.SE was discussed for example at our meta by questions marked with the [tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) &quot;site-salvage&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the basic proplem was that the SE network does not allow for smaller, high quality content sites, which are of interest to a smaller community and therefore have lower, traffic, a slower growth rate, etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="e659358f-4f9c-415b-ab51-279a182966b0" CreationDate="2012-11-17T10:04:53.697" UserDisplayName="user16046" Text="I tried to ask a Theoretical Physics question then i found that The Theoretical Physics stackexchane site has been closed! .&#xD;&#xA;now what should i&#xD;&#xA; do!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="e659358f-4f9c-415b-ab51-279a182966b0" CreationDate="2012-11-17T10:04:53.697" UserDisplayName="user16046" Text="Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="e659358f-4f9c-415b-ab51-279a182966b0" CreationDate="2012-11-17T10:04:53.697" UserDisplayName="user16046" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="db4ef6ce-3fd4-48d2-9d80-4e1e544fd0d2" CreationDate="2012-11-17T15:08:29.237" UserId="520" Text="Please read [the Stack Exchange blog post &quot;When a Site Grows Quiet&quot;][1] about the fate of TheoreticalPhysics.SE and Astronomy.SE. If, you still have questions, then meta, not the main site is the place to bring them up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="f5b521e8-b08d-40d5-a2bc-07af2f9530ef" CreationDate="2012-11-17T15:34:06.827" UserId="520" Text="Despite the impassioned defense of the question as a sophisticated inquiry into the foundations of advanced physics, it still reads to me like a jumble of concepts from pop-sci presentation thrown together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that there are interesting question to be asked about string theory and about how the modes of strings might interact, but taking the language in the question at face value this is not a good question. No longer a duplicate of the OP's earlier question it is now a badly misinformed mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really recommend that the interesting question I identified in the comments be pulled out and re-asked without the baggage in the rest of the text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="91be1039-0047-48b5-bd1b-06c8d915b75f" CreationDate="2012-11-17T16:12:26.717" UserId="4864" Text="Theoretical physics was a site which attempted to produce a class-structure of &quot;high end&quot; and &quot;low end&quot; questions, so that people who are professionals won't have to mix with the hoi-polloi of students and laypeople. It is both taxing in terms of time and humiliating in terms of standing for professionals to be on an equal level with all others. They don't like it, as they spend a large fraction of their lives trying to acquire some sort of social standing that makes their proclamations more attention-worthy than that of the average person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like this, it really doesn't sit well with me. I think the social mechanism is no longer necessary, now that people can easily answer easy questions and easily discuss the tough ones. The best questions of a theoretical sort are often those which are so outlandish, that only outsiders are allowed to ask them at first. &quot;Is light a particle?&quot; would have been such a question in 1905, and Einstein's early realization that this is an important line of investigation made him a bit of a pariah for 15 years, as nobody else was able to see through the fog of political rejection of this idea, left over from the 18th/19th century form of the debate, which was closed by Fresnel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The openness has its problems, there are always more annoying questions which are not particularly informed, but it has the advantage of no political hierarchy to censor things, and the gains are greater than the loss in my opinion. This is why it is not a disaster that TP was closed, and it is also part of the reason I always felt uncomfortable there: there was a lot of throwing around of fancy terms on that site, although much of the topics overlapped. Also, it was _hard to write_ on that site, as the requirement of separation from this site required you to have something abstruse in an answer, so that you don't muck up the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is academic conventions for writing, and it is not really compatible with free exchange of ideas. Generally, it doesn't harm physics too much, since people eventually get the hang of the calculations and jargon, and then blend into a field. But this merging with the herd of professionals comes at the cost of intellectual independence, and there is this constant tension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So TP was closed, and merged with this site. Nearly all the professional physicists left. This is sad, but one can soldier on. The only thing is to arrange the upvotes appropriately, so that difficult research questions have a large number of upvotes, while easy homework questions are answered with a one-liner or closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="82e25112-f580-4eb2-b282-d654e7af31c5" CreationDate="2012-11-17T23:16:14.413" UserId="2751" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="c6407454-1149-4aa0-ac1b-d60fcbae59a2" CreationDate="2012-11-18T18:43:51.070" UserId="2451" Text="I have a (possible bad) habit of sometimes making a prime superscript in LaTeX with a 'hat' character in between, e.g.,  $x^'$ rather than  $x'$.  The LaTeX/MathJax rendering has worked fine either way for more than a year, right up to around yesterday, where I became aware that $x^'$ is not displayed correctly. See e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/33713/2451). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What causes this problem to emerge now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Was there a recent change to MathJax? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there a way to fix this problem without having to edit each and every post separately by hand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="c6407454-1149-4aa0-ac1b-d60fcbae59a2" CreationDate="2012-11-18T18:43:51.070" UserId="2451" Text="A prime superscript in LaTeX/MathJax not displayed correctly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="c6407454-1149-4aa0-ac1b-d60fcbae59a2" CreationDate="2012-11-18T18:43:51.070" UserId="2451" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2615" RevisionGUID="2884e481-ca00-48ba-afc6-acde9e6a385d" CreationDate="2012-11-18T20:02:08.357" UserId="2911" Text="[As of Oct. 23rd](http://www.mathjax.org/2012/10/22/news/mathjax-v2-1-now-available/), MathJax 2.1 should be in use. I suspect (but haven't verified) that [bug fixes](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/278) to how primes and superscripts are handled may have caused the change in behavior you're seeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turns up only 7 posts illustrating this problem - I've listed them below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38983/galilean-relativity-in-projectile-motion&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28912/galilean-transformation-of-wave-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33713/condition-for-circular-orbit&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35003/scattering-problem-finding-the-speed-of-the-scatterer-after-collision&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37833/relativistic-doppler-effect/37848#37848&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35573/calculating-two-particle-position-and-velocity-with-each-other/35602#35602&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38709/what-does-psi-jr-i-mean/38717#38717&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="5cdb366c-8f65-416e-937c-27e6d5377b92" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:56:40.200" UserId="16058" Text="My primary interest is in the philosophy of science, with an emphasis on science. I thought it would potentially be a good idea to link relevant philosophy.SE posts to questions on your board. I was going to do this by appending these links, sparingly, to the bottom of physics.SE questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first attempt was rejected. Here are the questions I tried to link: [Is Newton's Law of Gravity consistent with General Relativity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89/is-newtons-law-of-gravity-consistent-with-general-relativity) on physics.SE and [Have there really been paradigm shifts?](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2602/have-there-really-been-paradigm-shifts) on philosophy.SE. The latter addresses the case of one theory being rejected for another--are the theories necessarily incompatible, and if they are not, what is their relationship to one another? Newtonian mechanics and GTR are referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that sharing a link is not a standard edit, but thought that the benefit to members of both communities would outweigh this (of course, lacking the requisite reputation points, I was not able to place it in the comments section like a normal person). Cross-pollination of ideas between forums is always interesting, and I think providing relevant &quot;exolinks&quot; would facilitate it. Would the physics.SE community reconsider allowing me to make such edits? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="5cdb366c-8f65-416e-937c-27e6d5377b92" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:56:40.200" UserId="16058" Text="Adding relevant links to other forums onto questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="5cdb366c-8f65-416e-937c-27e6d5377b92" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:56:40.200" UserId="16058" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="b454763f-ebb7-45eb-9c1e-a94dddca574f" CreationDate="2012-11-19T05:21:30.833" UserDisplayName="user16064" Text="e.g.  I reply to &quot;jim124&quot; by writing &quot;@jim124: Thank you for you answer, but… &quot;.  However, the result is &quot;Thank you for you answer, but… &quot; ignoring &quot;@jim124 &quot;. Is there anything wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="b454763f-ebb7-45eb-9c1e-a94dddca574f" CreationDate="2012-11-19T05:21:30.833" UserDisplayName="user16064" Text="Why am I not able to use @ to reply to some person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="b454763f-ebb7-45eb-9c1e-a94dddca574f" CreationDate="2012-11-19T05:21:30.833" UserDisplayName="user16064" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="5153e348-1fa4-4ca6-b166-6cb7467418a9" CreationDate="2012-11-19T06:42:15.083" UserId="10655" Text="Emphatic yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is it is discouraging when you are confused enough about something to come on and ask and nobody will help because someone has jumped on your post and tagged it as homework but also because this is primarily a question and answer site.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of questions on the physics stack exchange demonstrate that it is overly dominated by advanced questions. In my view it is not currently all that friendly to less advanced questions and users and I think this has a lot to do with the homework tag or at least, the way it is getting used at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="aae18c4e-025c-4d5c-8212-f9fcbe7e4897" CreationDate="2012-11-19T07:20:28.360" UserId="7433" Text="You need not @reply to a person while commenting on their posts. The owner of the post is always notified of a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="42b43c03-0f88-4d4b-b9cd-6f658ab10057" CreationDate="2012-11-19T07:26:01.407" UserId="7433" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My primary interest is in the philosophy of science, with an emphasis on science. I thought it would potentially be a good idea to link relevant philosophy.SE posts to questions on your board. I was going to do this by appending these links, sparingly, to the bottom of physics.SE questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first attempt was rejected. Here are the questions I tried to link: [Is Newton's Law of Gravity consistent with General Relativity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89/is-newtons-law-of-gravity-consistent-with-general-relativity) on physics.SE and [Have there really been paradigm shifts?](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2602/have-there-really-been-paradigm-shifts) on philosophy.SE ([suggested edit][1]). The latter addresses the case of one theory being rejected for another--are the theories necessarily incompatible, and if they are not, what is their relationship to one another? Newtonian mechanics and GTR are referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that sharing a link is not a standard edit, but thought that the benefit to members of both communities would outweigh this (of course, lacking the requisite reputation points, I was not able to place it in the comments section like a normal person). Cross-pollination of ideas between forums is always interesting, and I think providing relevant &quot;exolinks&quot; would facilitate it. Would the physics.SE community reconsider allowing me to make such edits? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/6133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="87f30b4a-dc36-4b64-b17b-fe5aa9749907" CreationDate="2012-11-19T07:34:51.417" UserId="7433" Text="First, a note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally in-site cross linking can be done by putting a hatnote (using `&gt;`), which makes the post look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Related: link link link&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blah blah post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I guess the main issue here was the fact that you tried linking Physics and Philosophy. Sure, they're related and relevant -- but generally we don't go into metaphysics while dealing with physics. I really see no viable link between the two questions myself -- the philosophy one may mention the two theories, but the answer there isn't really helpful if one wants to understand the _physics_ of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, such &quot;related:&quot; headers are better posted in comments unless the relationship is clear-cut (and it's on the same site). It's not too hard to get 50 rep :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2621" RevisionGUID="87d069ce-8bf2-4674-a310-9a7abe225866" CreationDate="2012-11-19T17:16:23.623" UserId="124" Text="Links of this nature are appropriate in comments, but inappropriate to be edited into the post itself. (Except that the original poster can always add any links or make any other edits they like.) So you will just have to wait until you get enough reputation to comment on any post - 50 rep I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is different from adding a link that clarifies (rather than adds to) the question. For example, converting a technical term used in the question into a link to the Wikipedia page for that term is generally okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="2269876c-a934-4afc-b84c-5449506780f4" CreationDate="2012-11-19T17:45:04.953" UserId="7433" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="You need not @reply to a person while commenting on their posts. The owner of the post is always notified of a comment. So the system strips off the @reply in certain cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="6ec02660-40c5-48f7-9283-c9eeb4c9dcd2" CreationDate="2012-11-20T10:02:08.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/270829610038603777" />
  <row Id="4833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="44031c3e-3754-4bc8-9243-131a780c1ae5" CreationDate="2012-11-20T12:51:57.817" UserDisplayName="user16064" Text="I can't find the 'comment' button when i want to comment on others' questions or answers. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="44031c3e-3754-4bc8-9243-131a780c1ae5" CreationDate="2012-11-20T12:51:57.817" UserDisplayName="user16064" Text="I can't find the 'comment' button, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="44031c3e-3754-4bc8-9243-131a780c1ae5" CreationDate="2012-11-20T12:51:57.817" UserDisplayName="user16064" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="2e84c307-e55d-4a34-b353-ae2fd6951ed7" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:10:54.013" UserId="2684" Text="You need [50 reputation to comment on posts other than your own](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment). That is the reason why you don't see the comment link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="21b84485-7fdc-4f84-892e-0abbd6081821" CreationDate="2012-11-20T22:26:47.083" UserId="124" Comment="update broken link" Text="No, it is not open source. The _data_ is released under a CC license, but the software is proprietary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link you found and included in your edit refers to an old program known as &quot;Stack Exchange 1.0&quot; under which Stack Overflow Inc. would effectively rent out the use of its software to third parties to create their own sites. As far as I know, the software would still run on Stack Overflow's servers, so the third parties never got direct access to it in either binary or source form. Anyway, the Stack Exchange 1.0 program has since been discontinued and replaced by the current system, under which sites are created at [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If SE turned out to be unprofitable and Union Square Ventures didn't come through with more money, could sites like physics.se have their data preserved and be rebuilt with different hosting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, in principle, since SE releases &lt;strike&gt;monthly&lt;/strike&gt; periodic [data dumps](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/category/cc-wiki-dump/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the software is proprietary, would such a rebuilding involve recreating all the software from scratch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it would, although I believe there are a couple of open source projects that aim to create Stack Exchange &quot;clones&quot; which could, in principle, import data from one of the data dumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, you can search on [Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com) where this has already been asked a number of times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="4dae96b1-90dd-4cb7-9ac7-afff6f5e1491" CreationDate="2012-11-22T00:28:03.783" UserId="10655" Comment="stray comma" Text="Emphatic yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is it is discouraging when you are confused enough about something to come on and ask and nobody will help because someone has jumped on your post and tagged it as homework but also because this is primarily a question and answer site.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of questions on the physics stack exchange demonstrate that it is overly dominated by advanced questions. In my view it is not currently all that friendly to less advanced questions and users and I think this has a lot to do with the homework tag, or at least the way it is getting used at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2624" RevisionGUID="416958bd-fadc-45e3-8f8e-d33121d128ff" CreationDate="2012-11-22T00:31:50.163" UserId="9058" Text="This is not answer but a hopeful comment: Maybe some of the most active individuals from the defunct Theoretical Physics stackexchange could form a similar page outside the .stackexchange domain, just like MathOverflow.net. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2624" RevisionGUID="0775c2c5-3eb5-4d99-ade5-1d652a46006a" CreationDate="2012-11-22T00:39:29.793" UserId="9058" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is not an answer but a hopeful comment: Maybe some of the most active individuals from the defunct Theoretical Physics stackexchange could form a similar page outside the .stackexchange domain, just like MathOverflow.net. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="36a5aed3-a7f5-4abb-b8fd-dfb8ac9b74fd" CreationDate="2012-11-22T08:28:08.867" UserId="358" Text="TP.se was closed because of low traffic. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **.com** - it's about the $, not the \hbar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="8a69f41f-be4d-4367-9943-ed5e54da9ba1" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:09:25.543" UserId="14182" Text="Some answers in physics.stackexchange seem to me so extremely brilliant! I would like to join some of the best ones in a single document by copy-paste. How can I do that, preserving the LaTeX code?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some of the gems happen even in very innocent questions... I don't know how many people have I already told about in the last weeks, about that answer to the question &quot;why the kinetic energy goes as $v^{2}$ &quot; involving two pieces of clay and a thermometer...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="8a69f41f-be4d-4367-9943-ed5e54da9ba1" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:09:25.543" UserId="14182" Text="How can I copy-paste questions/answers with the latex symbols intact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="8a69f41f-be4d-4367-9943-ed5e54da9ba1" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:09:25.543" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="7cd3f903-a987-4569-92b3-18e7f1fb348f" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:14:33.523" UserId="14182" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Some answers in physics.stackexchange seem to me so extremely brilliant! I would like to join some of the best ones in a single document by copy-paste. How can I do that, preserving the LaTeX code?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some of the gems happen even in very innocent questions... I don't know how many people have I already told in the last weeks, about that answer to the question &quot;why the kinetic energy goes as $v^{2}$ &quot; involving two pieces of clay and a thermometer...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="48472d18-9b67-4b8b-8728-c55d3ce995ec" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:50:05.863" UserId="7433" Text="Direct copy-paste works if it's an HTML document in Word. Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, here's a trick: open `about:blank` (URL bar), type `javascript:document.body.contentEditable=true` in the URL bar and hit &lt;kbd&gt;Enter&lt;/kbd&gt;. Now, copy-paste the LaTeX-formatted stuff. It ought to work. You can type and modify stuff as well. Then, save the HTML document and/or print to pdf. [This userscript may help in cleaning up posts for better copy-pasting][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you should attribute the owner of each post (see [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3307/print-this-post&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="001d9172-139c-427b-9d11-571d804a502d" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:42:11.763" UserId="12502" Text="In last few days, I edited some questions and did re-tagging. But they were rejected though they are  right.&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me what is happening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="001d9172-139c-427b-9d11-571d804a502d" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:42:11.763" UserId="12502" Text="Tagging is not accepted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="001d9172-139c-427b-9d11-571d804a502d" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:42:11.763" UserId="12502" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="b7f2d6f0-0e8a-4745-b8aa-2360525d1a28" CreationDate="2012-11-23T01:35:30.127" UserId="7433" Text="It's probably because your edits are too minor. Whenever you make a suggested edit, two people have to go through it. It becomes quite a waste of time when this scales up, so minor suggested edits are discouraged. If you are going to edit the post, try to fix as much as possible. If you think there's only a small fix or two, then don't suggest the edit. Note that if you LaTeXify a post that needs it, it is _generally_ considered as a major edit, even if that's all you do. Though again, try and look for other parts which may be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, at 500 rep you'll be able to retag posts without going through the suggested edit system, so this will be less of a problem to you..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="0effd172-8b14-4a58-81f8-203e6d208068" CreationDate="2012-11-23T06:27:35.340" UserId="6974" Text="Just my two cents. I think it would be a good idea to &quot;disallow cold fusion as a topic of posting on this site (unless and until it becomes established mainstream physics).&quot; If somebody strongly believes cold fusion is good science, why doesn't (s)he raise money and produce electricity commercially, getting fabulously rich in the process? Cold fusion is no hot fusion, so (if true) it probably does not need gigantic installations. I cannot understand why people who hate censorship would visit a moderated forum. For example, I go to moderated forums because I do appreciate that moderators filter out noise for me: noise can actually kill any site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="bd432de2-19a7-4a73-b690-d4fe87954a97" CreationDate="2012-11-23T13:02:09.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/271961835241103360" />
  <row Id="4853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="acd07538-d6b7-43a4-ad11-e7314fbb2235" CreationDate="2012-11-23T14:13:40.033" UserId="1172" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think SE prefers a single question that can be answered to a long discussion, or a stream of multiple related questions in a single post.  Questions are rated on whether they are &quot;clear&quot;.  But questions are also rated on whether they show research effort.  These two requirements are often at loggerheads, especially if the reseach has been inconclusive or confusing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is more important, a simple, clear question, or showing research effort, even if the research results are inconclusive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="acd07538-d6b7-43a4-ad11-e7314fbb2235" CreationDate="2012-11-23T14:13:40.033" UserId="1172" Text="Short, clear questions vs. Show your work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="acd07538-d6b7-43a4-ad11-e7314fbb2235" CreationDate="2012-11-23T14:13:40.033" UserId="1172" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="1c4525ba-0576-4ae4-bdc7-cae66f515da2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T14:16:06.570" UserId="7433" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Direct copy-paste works if it's an HTML document in Word. Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, here's a trick: open `about:blank` (URL bar), type `javascript:document.body.contentEditable=true` in the URL bar and hit &lt;kbd&gt;Enter&lt;/kbd&gt;. Now, copy-paste the LaTeX-formatted stuff. It ought to work. You can type and modify stuff as well. Then, save the HTML document and/or print to pdf. [This userscript may help in cleaning up posts for better copy-pasting][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you should attribute the owner of each post (see [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want un-mathified LaTeX source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For individual equations: right click, `show math as`&gt;TeX commands&#xD;&#xA; - For the whole post: Click &quot;edit&quot;, copy-paste the source code to [here][3], see the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3307/print-this-post&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="b62cd04c-13b6-4a45-a820-0ad50eb30006" CreationDate="2012-11-23T15:26:26.750" UserId="15741" Text="I was wondering how to completely leave this community ? Please guide me. I have gone through FAQ section but no use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="b62cd04c-13b6-4a45-a820-0ad50eb30006" CreationDate="2012-11-23T15:26:26.750" UserId="15741" Text="How to quit physics.stackexchange.com forum completely" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="b62cd04c-13b6-4a45-a820-0ad50eb30006" CreationDate="2012-11-23T15:26:26.750" UserId="15741" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2633" RevisionGUID="d86ef593-e32a-4fc0-acdb-dfff7020b2ef" CreationDate="2012-11-23T15:55:59.843" UserId="7433" Text="Go to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly why do you want to delete the account, though? Don't get discouraged due to a few downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="97251bf9-4317-46e0-80df-de684e7a434f" CreationDate="2012-11-23T15:59:32.800" UserId="12513" Text="If you want to left only the Physics Stackexchange site then you should go &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and enter some of the reasons or problem due to which you are quitting it. After submit check your inbox and confirm the submission and this is how your account will be deleted. But do say good bye to all who had helped you in physics difficult questions. If there is any problem then you can comment on my answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2633" RevisionGUID="53f43070-f060-46b9-ad9d-f2e6652d2fee" CreationDate="2012-11-23T16:27:34.077" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Go to http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly why do you want to delete the account, though? Don't get discouraged due to a few downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="cde662fb-f1db-4202-8228-adbf3ef94c69" CreationDate="2012-11-23T18:51:56.433" UserId="2451" Comment="Changed link 3 from meta to main site since there is no MathJax on meta." Text="Direct copy-paste works if it's an HTML document in Word. Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, here's a trick: open `about:blank` (URL bar), type `javascript:document.body.contentEditable=true` in the URL bar and hit &lt;kbd&gt;Enter&lt;/kbd&gt;. Now, copy-paste the LaTeX-formatted stuff. It ought to work. You can type and modify stuff as well. Then, save the HTML document and/or print to pdf. [This userscript may help in cleaning up posts for better copy-pasting][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you should attribute the owner of each post (see [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want un-mathified LaTeX source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For individual equations: right click, `show math as`&gt;TeX commands&#xD;&#xA; - For the whole post: Click &quot;edit&quot;, copy-paste the source code to [here][3], see the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3307/print-this-post&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2635" RevisionGUID="e57bfe3d-b3a6-40dd-9a20-10ba1adfaa0c" CreationDate="2012-11-23T19:58:11.300" UserId="520" Text="To a large extent each user chooses for him- or her- (or its-) self what criteria are most important to them. Neither the moderators nor the team enforce any voting limits beyond the detection and reversal of voting rings and possible sockpuppets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I find that a little formatting emphasis on a *&quot;In short my question is...&quot;* type line can help with clarity when you feel the need to write a lot describing how you came to the question. Make it stand out so that if I start to fade out on the wall of text I can *find* the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="4ce88434-c424-4842-995e-f7a7b10da321" CreationDate="2012-11-24T01:07:06.450" UserId="8520" Text="I was wondering if 'text' games are allowed in any form on Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;POSTER describes a physicist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LOOP:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 -&gt; $n$ people guess. $n_i$ gets it right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;$n_i$ describes a physicist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought it would be a nice/fun way to learn about new physicists besides just reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="4ce88434-c424-4842-995e-f7a7b10da321" CreationDate="2012-11-24T01:07:06.450" UserId="8520" Text="Text Game allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="4ce88434-c424-4842-995e-f7a7b10da321" CreationDate="2012-11-24T01:07:06.450" UserId="8520" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="309d99f6-0670-4e0f-9d79-6a70ef2e4794" CreationDate="2012-11-24T01:23:27.660" UserId="520" Text="I'd say no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that we are building a catalog of answered questions about physics: a resource for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kind of game you are suggesting would be a good fit for chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2638" RevisionGUID="0b3cc6c4-e0a8-406a-b317-6788f5f37618" CreationDate="2012-11-24T04:49:32.840" UserId="7670" Text="I vote for keeping and maintaining (not completely freezing) a very small number of canonical answers. I do not think this particular forum will ever be able to provide a convergent answer regarding the various experiments loosely labeled under &quot;cold fusion.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had some wonderful opportunities to communicate and talk directly with solid researchers in this topic, at government-only facilities that I trust and respect. These are solid folks with strong publication records in unrelated materials science fields. I am familiar in particular with work done by good folks at both SPAWAR and NRL, who rather ironically do not always see eye to eye even with each other's published results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider Rob Duncan of Mizzou a personal friend and someone whose opinion I respect, although I have not interacted with him much since we co-presented a few years back on the physics of &quot;cold fusion.&quot; I have interacted with other players. Some I refuse to have anything to do with because they are quacks, by which I mean simply that they rely on marketing techniques over experimental evidence to promote their particular views. For the record, Ron Maimon's theorizing here in Physics SE is straightforward and honest, even if Ron can be rather adamant and tends to favor conspiracy theories a bit much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two reasons why this issue will never be resolved in this forum: (1) A certain subset of the reported results are quite real. I've talked to too many solid researchers who are getting data that makes no sense according to either chemistry or nuclear science, yet the data they are getting is self-consistent and detailed in ways that indicate that unknown underlying mechanisms more subtle than just &quot;making heat&quot; or &quot;fusing nuclei.&quot; (2) This subset of scientifically interesting results cannot be explained using any combination of known physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catch that second part? This is not complicated. You can theorize all you want about how to design a meter-wide wooden box capable of containing a nuclear explosion, but guess what? It won't work. Scale that down to atomic size and there is your problem for any theory that tries to combine chemical heat with nuclear reactions. The more persuasive reported results combine far too much energy release with too few ways to capture it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When that sort of situation occurs in science -- and it does more often than you might expect -- it tends not to resolve itself very quickly. The emergence of quantum physics was arguably one of the most conspicuous and unexpected examples. Mechanical and electromagnetic theory were very mature around 1900, so they just did not have much obvious room for new ideas. However, a number of annoying experiments kept giving results that made no sense according to that same mature body of theory. It took two or three decades of bumbling around, often very ineptly at first, to finally get a clear handle on what was really going in those exceptions. It's a good thing they bothered, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, such situations in science always get very personal and sometimes quite nasty. There was a great story in the early history of molecular gases where one prominent figure accused another of &quot;sloppy experiments&quot; when the experimenter did not get results that match theory. This is the norm for such situations, not the exception, and it's not much fun for anyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, am I seriously suggesting that that some kind of dramatic revolution in fundamental physics will be needed to explain some of these results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, sure. But I cannot suggest where the opportunity for that resolution may lie. As in the 1900s for the narrower range of mechanics and electromagnetics, our understanding at the moment of the physical universe is very beautifully and quite elegantly buttoned down for just about every aspect and scale of our universe *except* these annoying excess heat results. Even tougher, any new theory must explain such odd results without discarding or distorting any significant aspect of current physical theory, since that theory is after all extraordinarily effective at describing our universe. Quantum theory in the early 1900s was a very non-intuitive extension of known mechanical and electromagnetic theory, *not* a replacement for it. The distinction between extension and replacement is critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be fun to watch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: A forum like Physics SE is about the worst possible forum for trying to resolve such an issue, because *the resolution does not yet exist*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please, don't try to resolve this mess here, because it just won't happen. Attempting to do so will only cause a lot more distress to everyone, again for the simple reason that you cannot entice someone to contribute an answer that does not yet exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, maintaining a small number of canonical answers describing why the problem refuses to go away is probably about the best that SE Physics can do. That's honest, and it minimizes the danger of this forum from turning into a racquetball court for lobbing new theories at bystanders." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="d01b338b-2eda-4568-a793-a7d974010d98" CreationDate="2012-11-24T16:46:44.173" UserId="124" Text="To quit, all you need to do is to stop visiting the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to quit and also have your account deleted (which is permanent, by the way!), then you use [the page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion) other answers have mentioned. I'm not sure exactly what benefits deletion gets you; it's possible that SE will discard some of your account data after some time, but I'm not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="e664130f-2c13-4078-8d3e-6ae99f48e49e" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:19:36.157" UserId="7951" Text="I would like to ask the following question, and would like to know if it is allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What are the books similar to the books by David Griffiths, but in the following areas:&#xD;&#xA;Classical Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Mathematical Methods, Solid State, Atomic and Molecular Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the style of Griffiths, and would like to learn the basics of every area with the least pain possible.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just wondering if it is appropriate for physics.SE or if I should post this in physics forums." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="e664130f-2c13-4078-8d3e-6ae99f48e49e" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:19:36.157" UserId="7951" Text="Is this question on book recommendations allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="e664130f-2c13-4078-8d3e-6ae99f48e49e" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:19:36.157" UserId="7951" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2641" RevisionGUID="0f6a3c4c-a959-441b-913e-5c71cded3824" CreationDate="2012-11-25T21:14:05.377" UserId="124" Text="Nope, too specific for this site. As the answer to [the recommendation question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It should be of the form &quot;What are good books to learn/study [subject] at [level]?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is not of that form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you could do, though, is check the book recommendation questions for the subjects you're asking about and see if anyone has mentioned about anything being in a similar style to Griffiths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="0ec300e6-785b-4294-b462-aacfac09890e" CreationDate="2012-11-25T21:43:29.533" UserId="124" Text="Stack Exchange is doing an event this year in which... well, let me just use Aarthi's words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; # Winter Bash 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Last year, on our Gaming site, we hosted an event called Hat Dash, where users earned &quot;hats&quot; for their gravatars by completing certain tasks (analogous to badges). Certain actions would trigger the user receiving a hat, which their gravatar could then &quot;wear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, editing a post would yield an editor-themed hat (fedora with pen) to the editor. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This year, we're expanding the promotion to all sites which choose to participate, and redesigning the hat selection to be more appropriate to the entire network (no severed Wampa heads). Some of it is holiday-themed, some of it is a bit silly, and all of it is (hopefully) fun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; # Some Nitty-Gritty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This event will run from 19 December 2012 to 4 January 2013. Users will be able to see their entire hat collection on http://winterba.sh. That site will also have a landing page, explaining the rules and other details of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Individual users who don’t want to participate, don’t want to see hats, and/or are generally  anti-hat will have an &quot;I hate hats&quot; option available, just as we had on Gaming last year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The only visual change to the site itself will be the presence of the hats and the &quot;I hate hats&quot; button in the footer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot from last year's Hat Dash on Gaming SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the message says, this can be disabled for each individual site and for each individual user. So if this is something you individually would not be interested in, you can just opt out, but if it's something the whole community would be uninterested in, we can just decide as a site not to participate. What do people think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8MFua.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="0ec300e6-785b-4294-b462-aacfac09890e" CreationDate="2012-11-25T21:43:29.533" UserId="124" Text="Do we like hats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="0ec300e6-785b-4294-b462-aacfac09890e" CreationDate="2012-11-25T21:43:29.533" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="ac26caf6-5249-4225-8391-9dacdf8f1aeb" CreationDate="2012-11-26T06:50:10.197" UserId="6713" Text="I think the current policy of allowing questions on cold fusion makes your site invaluable.  Your adopting a policy that would restrict discussion on the topic to a narrow set of canonical questions would be a mistake in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little about me and why I feel this way:  I'm a software engineer whose last physics class was an introductory one in college.  It was a rigorous class, and I did well.  But my exposure to physics has been so limited in the interim that I struggle not to confuse the Augur process with internal conversion, and the only way I would even suspect that I was looking at a quantum field theory equation would be if I saw an H or bra-ket notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw a video about Rossi on the Internet about a year ago, I thought it was a great laugh; it looked exactly like what the production of a charlatan would look like.  But it piqued my interest in the general topic, and when I began to delve into the matter more, I started to have significant doubts that the book had been closed on the subject. The more I looked, the more I started to lose confidence in mainstream physics; it started to seem to me like something might have broken down in 1989 and hadn't been fixed yet.  Articles like [this one][1] did not increase my confidence -- what I saw there was the emphatic promulgation of a set of a priori arguments that cold fusion was impossible, and little attempt to address the experimental evidence.  What I was looking for were cogent arguments that tackled specific empirical claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Articles like that one eventually brought me to physics.SE.  I wanted to see a more serious engagement of specific details, rather than pabulum that was intended to get the flock back onto the straight and narrow.  What I appreciate about physics.SE is that there is a good mix of views for and against cold fusion.  Both those arguing for it and those arguing against it must defend their positions.  For whatever reason, it is very difficult to find this kind of engagement elsewhere on the Internet at this time.  Your site is practically the only one I have found where there is any kind of real discussion taking place between competent parties whose views span the full spectrum of positions.  In all other instances, the competent people are sequestered away with others of their kind.  I am an active participant on Vortex-L, for example, and I find the discussion there very interesting, but there are few there who will take a strong position against cold fusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some here who appear to become distressed at the thought of countenancing discussion on this and other heretical subjects, perhaps in part for fear of giving the wrong impression to people like me or young physics students that such topics are now becoming mainstream. I think the vigorous responses and the comments leave little doubt as to the tendentious status of these subjects. In other words, giving the wrong impression about the position of mainstream physics on cold fusion is not something to be worried about. Similarly, I see little harm in questions about N-Rays and polywater being addressed here, and I would not imagine that they were for that reason being accepted into mainstream physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been argued that this site is not the place to try to sort out such a broad question as cold fusion, and that this is really something that should be dealt with elsewhere.  Even if this is true, I see no harm done and much to be gained in allowing questions on specific points to be raised and their assumptions refuted if necessary.  Everyone will learn more physics in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="af2b79f9-46d0-49db-937e-f414d35903ab" CreationDate="2012-11-26T07:51:22.123" UserId="6713" Comment="make more accurate" Text="I think the current policy of allowing questions on cold fusion makes your site invaluable.  Your adopting a policy that would restrict discussion on the topic to a narrow set of canonical questions would be a mistake in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little about me and why I feel this way:  I'm a software engineer whose last physics class was an introductory one in college.  It was a rigorous class, and I did well.  But my exposure to physics has been so limited in the interim that I struggle not to confuse the Augur process with internal conversion, and the only way I would even suspect that I was looking at a quantum field theory equation would be if I saw an H or bra-ket notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw a video about Rossi on the Internet about a year ago, I thought it was a great laugh; it looked exactly like what the production of a charlatan would look like.  But it piqued my interest in the general topic, and when I began to delve into the matter more, I started to have significant doubts that the book had been closed on the subject. The more I looked, the more I started to lose confidence in mainstream physics; it started to seem to me like something might have broken down in 1989 and hadn't been fixed yet.  Articles like [this one][1] did not increase my confidence -- what I saw there was the emphatic promulgation of a set of a priori arguments that cold fusion was impossible, and little attempt to address the experimental evidence.  What I was looking for were cogent arguments that tackled specific empirical claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Articles like that one eventually brought me to physics.SE.  I wanted to see a more serious engagement of specific details, rather than pabulum that was intended to get the flock back onto the straight and narrow.  What I appreciate about physics.SE is that there is a good mix of views for and against cold fusion.  Both those arguing for it and those arguing against it must defend their positions.  For whatever reason, it is very difficult to find this kind of engagement elsewhere on the Internet at this time.  Your site is practically the only one I have found where there is any kind of real discussion taking place between competent parties whose views span the full spectrum of positions.  In all other instances, the competent people are sequestered away with others of their kind.  I am an active participant on Vortex-L, for example, and I find the discussion there very interesting, but there is no one there who will take a strong position against cold fusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some here who appear to become distressed at the thought of countenancing discussion on this and other heretical subjects, perhaps in part for fear of giving the wrong impression to people like me or young physics students that such topics are now becoming mainstream. I think the vigorous responses and the comments leave little doubt as to the tendentious status of these subjects. In other words, giving the wrong impression about the position of mainstream physics on cold fusion is not something to be worried about. Similarly, I see little harm in questions about N-Rays and polywater being addressed here, and I would not imagine that they were for that reason being accepted into mainstream physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been argued that this site is not the place to try to sort out such a broad question as cold fusion, and that this is really something that should be dealt with elsewhere.  Even if this is true, I see no harm done and much to be gained in allowing questions on specific points to be raised and their assumptions refuted if necessary.  Everyone will learn more physics in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2644" RevisionGUID="37c0fb39-dede-416b-9886-6f7eaa3827c6" CreationDate="2012-11-26T09:05:01.193" UserId="5374" Text="Do we choose what takes get reputation, or is it just an extension of the general upvote system? *If* it's combined with some improvement of the sites questions, I'm for it. Some threads could get a clear up, or some closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(What should be our hats though? I know Hilbert was wearing a prominent hat. Who else? Well there is of course [Feynamn wearing a hat](http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/2/25/42e726a5-d173-446e-96d8-d337612c0508.png).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="b81a57fe-c823-4a0b-837a-3efa1da96bcd" CreationDate="2012-11-26T20:03:31.083" UserId="-1" Text="The 2012 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderator elections have three phases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nomination phase&#xD;&#xA;2. Primary phase&#xD;&#xA;3. Election phase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most elections take between two and three weeks, but this depends on how many candidates there are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please visit the official election page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/election&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more detail, and to participate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="b81a57fe-c823-4a0b-837a-3efa1da96bcd" CreationDate="2012-11-26T20:03:31.083" UserId="-1" Text="2012 Community Moderator Election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="b81a57fe-c823-4a0b-837a-3efa1da96bcd" CreationDate="2012-11-26T20:03:31.083" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4902" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="ecde8844-f4da-4762-b44d-e1d61e5d582c" CreationDate="2012-11-27T01:02:09.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/273230195501199361" />
  <row Id="4903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="cf9b13d1-4c89-4cea-821a-8741ce2ece78" CreationDate="2012-11-27T01:52:40.260" UserId="6713" Comment="drop inflammatory sentence" Text="I think the current policy of allowing questions on cold fusion makes your site invaluable.  Your adopting a policy that would restrict discussion on the topic to a narrow set of canonical questions would be a mistake in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little about me and why I feel this way:  I'm a software engineer whose last physics class was an introductory one in college.  It was a rigorous class, and I did well.  But my exposure to physics has been so limited in the interim that I struggle not to confuse the Augur process with internal conversion, and the only way I would even suspect that I was looking at a quantum field theory equation would be if I saw an H or bra-ket notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw a video about Rossi on the Internet about a year ago, I thought it was a great laugh; it looked exactly like what the production of a charlatan would look like.  But it piqued my interest in the general topic, and when I began to delve into the matter more, I started to have significant doubts that the book had been closed on the subject. The more I looked, the more I started to lose confidence in mainstream physics; it started to seem to me like something might have broken down in 1989 and hadn't been fixed yet.  Articles like [this one][1] did not increase my confidence -- what I saw there was the emphatic promulgation of a set of a priori arguments that cold fusion was impossible, and little attempt to address the experimental evidence.  What I was looking for were cogent arguments that tackled specific empirical claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Articles like that one eventually brought me to physics.SE.  I wanted to see a more serious engagement of specific details.  What I appreciate about physics.SE is that there is a good mix of views for and against cold fusion.  Both those arguing for it and those arguing against it must defend their positions.  For whatever reason, it is very difficult to find this kind of engagement elsewhere on the Internet at this time.  Your site is practically the only one I have found where there is any kind of real discussion taking place between competent parties whose views span the full spectrum of positions.  In all other instances, the competent people are sequestered away with others of their persuasion.  I am an active participant on Vortex-L, for example, and I find the discussion there very interesting, but there is no one there who will take a strong position against cold fusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some here who appear to become distressed at the thought of countenancing discussion on this and other heretical subjects, perhaps in part for fear of giving the wrong impression to people like me or young physics students that such topics are now becoming mainstream. I think the vigorous responses and the comments leave little doubt as to the tendentious status of these subjects. In other words, giving the wrong impression about the position of mainstream physics on cold fusion is not something to be worried about. Similarly, I see little harm in questions about N-Rays and polywater being addressed here, and I would not imagine that they were for that reason being accepted into mainstream physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been argued that this site is not the place to try to sort out such a broad question as cold fusion, and that this is really something that should be dealt with elsewhere.  Even if this is true, I see no harm done and much to be gained in allowing questions on specific points to be raised and their assumptions refuted if necessary.  Everyone will learn more physics in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2652" RevisionGUID="7ca33f29-9fad-4f1b-b954-f3c4a14964c6" CreationDate="2012-11-27T12:04:42.780" UserId="14473" Text="I would say that research effort doesn't necessarily mean a tonne of equations to write out. If the answer is easily (for example) wikipedia-able, then that would show poor research effort. But if it's not one of those questions (like [this][1] one) which show that the OP has thought about it, but hasn't reached any consensus, that's fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I think physics.SE is looking to see that the person asking the question isn't using us as a tool to think. If it seems clear that he/she/them have thought about it, then that should be an acceptable question, regardless of how long/short it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, suggestions could be made to provide more/less detail, but as a rule of thumb this is valid, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="02dd6644-64b6-45b9-b3b6-f12773beb709" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:03:37.637" UserId="11062" Text="As the moderator election 2012 is on its progress, users (above 300 rep.) are invited to nominate themselves in the election. So, there's also a probability for users to think, &quot;Could I become a moderator?&quot; I strongly believe that these four lines don't necessarily clear their doubts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A moderator&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- is patient and fair&#xD;&#xA;- leads by example&#xD;&#xA;- shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&#xD;&#xA;- is open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is the basic need for physics users to become a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should they be an expert in atleast one of the fields in Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp; badges)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp; be elected as a mod. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;A votes), etc. **count** during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="02dd6644-64b6-45b9-b3b6-f12773beb709" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:03:37.637" UserId="11062" Text="What are the basic things for becoming a PHYSICS moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="02dd6644-64b6-45b9-b3b6-f12773beb709" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:03:37.637" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|moderators|election|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="2a74179e-f8e4-4b5c-815b-2468483c4439" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:24:29.747" UserId="2751" Text="If I were a mathematician, I would say that the pre-conditions stated in the grey box are neccessary but not sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a science site, such as Physics SE for example, I think that it is important too that the moderators are knowledgable enough in the topic the site is about. The moderator team as a whole should be able to reasonably and in accordance with the current state of the mainstream art decide about what questions fit to the desirable content of the site, what is too fringe or even crackpot stuff, etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, moderators should have a good enough intuition for what the community likes and needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is just how I see it :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="1cbd4fed-01bb-4ce1-b14f-f7f6f94ba3af" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:28:09.803" UserId="16314" Text="Being a moderator of another SE site I might be able to tell from my experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moderator has to make some difficult decisions that cannot be handled by the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- find users who are trying to cheat the system (multiple accounts, voting rings)&#xD;&#xA;- handle flags&#xD;&#xA;- contact users privately if there are any problems that cannot be solved otherwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important part is understanding the informal rules of the system and put them into practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing physics (or whatever the topic of the site is) is not that important. Sure, it helps, but the decision if a question is on topic should be made by the community anyway via close votes, not primarily by moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta participation and the flag count are indeed good indicators for that. They show how much the users cares already about the site and how familiar s/he is with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="1c52844e-682a-442a-be72-d34399e914f0" CreationDate="2012-11-27T15:38:05.227" UserId="7433" Text="I was in a similar position during the time of the Chemistry pro tem moderator appointments. I clearly stated my unease with not having more than an advanced high-school level understanding of Chemistry, and I was told (repeatedly) that it wouldn't matter much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as my experience moderating Chem goes, not being familiar with the ins and outs of Chem doesn't harm my effectiveness as a moderator. It's never really needed. In cases where there's a question that I don't understand at all and have no clue what to do with (happened once or twice), I just ask the other two mods. But generally, even if I don't know enough chemistry to understand the question fully, I can still determine whether or not it's a good fit for the site. The other moderator tasks (flagging, etc) require even less knowledge of the topic, so no troubles there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, Chemistry is a much smaller site. So there _may_ be a need to have a good enough level of Physics to be effective as a moderator here. Since the moderators here don't unilaterally close questions as much, not much Physics knowledge is required on the &quot;closing&quot; front. While resolving content disputes, one may need to have an expert-level understanding of the topic involved. The few content disputes I've seen here _that require mod attention_ were of a pretty esoteric topic--there's a low probability _any_ moderator would be proficient in that zone. So, my conclusion is still that we don't need _experts_ to be moderators--just people familiar enough with the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more important is that the users are familiar with the site policies and have been around for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should they be an expert in atleast one of the fields in Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp; badges)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answered above. Also, rep/badges!=expertise, rep is a rough measure of community trust and participation. Which is actually what I feel we need in moderators -- but this doesn't mean that you should vote by rep (Remember, rep is a _rough_ measure). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp; be elected as a mod. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iffy. If the user is active on meta, that's pretty good. If the user has been active (&gt;2k) on some other sites (not including SO), then the user is probably knowledgeable of SE policies. So, a 300 rep user can make a good mod, as long as s/he is familiar enough with the SE model and policies. Though &lt;1k rep generally does mean that the user is probably not that familiar with the local site rules and community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;A votes), etc. count during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of sorting:no. During nomination, the users are sorted by &quot;time nominated&quot;, most recent at the top. During the next two phases, the posts are sorted randomly on reload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These stats are there to help voters rank the nominees at a glance. Meta participation and flags show the user's participation in community building and cleanup, which is pretty essential for a mod. A more robust version of these stats can be found [here](http://elections.stackexchange.com/#physics.stackexchange)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="7a8259fc-037b-433c-a29d-82ff517e3dc4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T16:04:26.420" UserId="16314" Comment="added some links" Text="Being a moderator of another SE site I might be able to tell from my experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moderator has to make some difficult decisions that cannot be handled by the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- find users who are trying to cheat the system (multiple accounts, voting rings)&#xD;&#xA;- handle flags&#xD;&#xA;- contact users privately if there are any problems that cannot be solved otherwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important part is understanding the informal rules of the system and put them into practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing physics (or whatever the topic of the site is) is not that important. Sure, it helps, but the decision if a question is on topic should be made by the community anyway via close votes, not primarily by moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta participation and the flag count are indeed good indicators for that. They show how much the users cares already about the site and how familiar s/he is with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recommended reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Cheat Sheet][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Who are the diamond moderators, and what is their role?][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Blog][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/75189/who-are-the-diamond-moderators-and-what-is-their-role&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://moderator.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="e20feba8-e365-44d4-9284-2d8f30051899" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:46:32.210" UserId="124" Text="A good moderator will be someone who does the behind-the-scenes tasks like editing, flagging, and leaving helpful comments, even when it gets in the way of answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good moderator knows the community well enough to know who is knowledgeable and who isn't, and use the former people's comments (along with input from other moderators) to guide decisions. You can often read the response to a post to get a pretty good idea of whether it's on topic/appropriate or not, even without necessarily knowing the topic of the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good moderator recognizes the importance of rules, and has the self-control not to go around breaking them even when it seems like the right thing to do in the moment. (At least not unilaterally.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good moderator cares about stopping or preventing disruptive behavior, not punishing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good moderator is a good communicator and knows how to be non-confrontational at all times (in public at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good moderator tries to make their own job unnecessary - as in teaching the community how to moderate itself (here I mean editing etc. not just dealing with disruptive behavior).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While anyone with 300 reputation can nominate themselves, I don't know that a user with 300 reputation would know the community well enough to be effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the statistics presented like flags and meta participation show whether any individual user has a history of taking the kinds of actions that most of the moderation job consists of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="6501fa78-7d77-45b5-adfe-5da89fb0583a" CreationDate="2012-11-27T18:19:48.653" UserId="2911" Text="Meta participation and flag counts are there for informational purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, moderating a Q&amp;A site on The Internet is not a particularly glamorous job. You don't get money for nothing, or chicks for free. You might get a branded Sharpie. You'll probably get insulted by folks who don't see 90% of what you do and think you're hanging around just to pick on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags are, for the most part, invisible. Meta participation is only visible to folks who bother reading meta. Both represent the sort of dirty, boring janitorial work that makes up most of what moderators spend their time doing: responding to cries for assistance and providing help and support to others in the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are, when you go to vote you'll vote for the folks with a big Reputation number next to their name. This is understandable. It's also somewhat misguided: why would you ask someone who's doing a great job answering questions to drop that and spend their time settling squabbles? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags and meta posts give you some other numbers... You might also be interested in: http://elections.stackexchange.com/#physics.stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4922" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="f083cc3f-c84a-492d-a94f-b370343399b5" CreationDate="2012-11-28T10:02:09.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/273728479084818432" />
  <row Id="4923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="b9b5972c-3d0d-4ced-a55f-97b42a59969b" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:43:39.473" UserId="11062" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="As the moderator election 2012 is on its progress, users (above 300 rep.) are invited to nominate themselves in the election. So, there's also a probability for users to think, &quot;Could I become a moderator?&quot; I strongly believe that these four lines don't necessarily clear their doubts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A moderator&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- is patient and fair&#xD;&#xA;- leads by example&#xD;&#xA;- shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&#xD;&#xA;- is open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is the basic need for physics users to become a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should they be an expert in atleast one of the fields in Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp; badges)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp; be elected as a mod. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;A votes), etc. **count** during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read all the answers. All are *amazing*. I got some new *facties*. Thanks to all guys. I believe that the [moderator cheat sheet](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet) would be very much useful for a new moderator..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="16060f2e-a108-410d-8cf7-41be41d0c2ac" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:21:02.157" UserId="8966" Text="I posted a question today with a link... which was barely visible, even for me who posted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we change the color scheme so both **new** and **visited** link are more visible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this screenshot there is a link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![link screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you get it at first glance? I suppose not. Even knowing where it is still remains hard to be seen. In a Beta site, it's much more visible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Beta site][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FYvf3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7CsTI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="16060f2e-a108-410d-8cf7-41be41d0c2ac" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:21:02.157" UserId="8966" Text="Can links be made more visible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="16060f2e-a108-410d-8cf7-41be41d0c2ac" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:21:02.157" UserId="8966" Text="|feature-request|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="5166da5f-4a03-4ced-8a52-3fec46317957" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:28:05.407" UserId="8966" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|design|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="04609994-a4d9-4ce4-9003-2829817dd80f" CreationDate="2012-11-28T19:03:10.597" UserId="1504" Text="Look into your web browser's configuration.  You can probably customize this for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="1e6851a1-aa4c-4532-8e35-691cd3459a8a" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:52:25.463" UserId="14182" Text="I am an astrophysicist, but I don't like at all the idea of having a separate site for astrophysics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, in astrophysics more than in any other branch, contents are strongly related to other fields. Just to mention a few of them: spectroscopy, plasma physics, numerical modelling, fluid dynamics, nuclear physics, Newtonian dynamics, General Relativity, Thermodynamics, particle physics... And so I am very interested in showing my questions to physicists from other branches. Cross-feeding is a source of richness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nearly absurd, and the moderators would have to be always deciding if the questions belong to the site or not... Nearly all branches of physics are related or directly involved in one or another topic in astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, although there are many users in physics SE, very few are high-level physicists. More fragmentation means loss of quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A separate site for Astrophysics? No, thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4934" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="9ffadc85-99f4-4c00-988b-3e3d123479df" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:52:25.463" UserId="14182" />
  <row Id="4935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="3dd8607f-0269-45b8-9597-f53b9e7066c1" CreationDate="2012-11-29T02:28:24.103" UserId="11062" Text="This is a follow-up to my [previous question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2654)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the second election for moderators in Physics.SE. As Larian and Manish (and several others including *me*) are also nominating, I believe that we'd definitely have a lot of competition. Why is the community assigning only two positions for new moderators? (Not more than that?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it because, Physics.SE has low users, less attentions, few questions (but a lot answers), etc. like that? Or, Are there some other reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="3dd8607f-0269-45b8-9597-f53b9e7066c1" CreationDate="2012-11-29T02:28:24.103" UserId="11062" Text="Why so less moderators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="3dd8607f-0269-45b8-9597-f53b9e7066c1" CreationDate="2012-11-29T02:28:24.103" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="ce878629-5e5d-473d-ac7a-dda4d94bce90" CreationDate="2012-11-29T04:39:24.813" UserId="2911" Text="Why so *many* moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, the *first* election on a site is for three moderators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elected moderators aren't *replaced* unless they don't want to be moderators anymore (or, rarely, violate the moderator agreement or just stop showing up for whatever reason). So subsequent elections need only add enough new moderators to handle increasing demand for moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That usually means one, but can also mean (and in this case *does* mean) two. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="112ed415-2cb6-4ada-a585-8a272e12f478" CreationDate="2012-11-29T15:16:07.757" UserId="4826" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I will be working with candidates to determine a time for the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;**Candidates:**  please be on the lookout for an email from me! ♪&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the primary phase.  This means that I am looking at the 3rd-5th of December. As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates to find a best fit based on availability, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  I will update this post with a direct link to the chat room once the event is scheduled.&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidates regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority for scheduling is generally towards the greatest number of candidate openings as well as the earliest. Candidates who cannot show up during the live event will still be able to answer all questions posted, they will just do so at their earliest convenience.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, a digest of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="112ed415-2cb6-4ada-a585-8a272e12f478" CreationDate="2012-11-29T15:16:07.757" UserId="4826" Text="2012 Moderator Election: Town Hall Chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="112ed415-2cb6-4ada-a585-8a272e12f478" CreationDate="2012-11-29T15:16:07.757" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="facd4a6e-5bd3-493c-897c-00c6e9f083d9" CreationDate="2012-11-30T01:56:15.100" UserId="11062" Comment="added space exploration too" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Sustainable Living][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration &amp; Technology][13]](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/43283.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33364.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33364/sustainable-living&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="775e9d05-47da-4a00-b95f-88c2ced39443" CreationDate="2012-11-30T22:02:12.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/274634461512081408" />
  <row Id="4952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="09b00a2a-1bb5-4898-8c32-f2827b31ce18" CreationDate="2012-12-01T04:57:08.317" UserId="11062" Text="I heard that the astronomy site finally merged with Physics.SE after private beta. But, the *now-developing* Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics.SE is under a *hot progress*. One question and it enters the commitment phase. We have two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It succeeds the beta and the site is launched - If this would happen, should we have to move (migrate) the astronomy, astrophysics and other related tags along with the questions over there ? I think it would be a *lot-of-work*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On the other hand, it fails. (I strongly believe that this would happen) Then, do we have to migrate the posts from there to here. Its perhaps a dirty situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** I still support Astrophysics because I really like it. But as Eduardo says in the previous post, it wouldn't survive (compete) with Physics. What about migration then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="09b00a2a-1bb5-4898-8c32-f2827b31ce18" CreationDate="2012-12-01T04:57:08.317" UserId="11062" Text="Do we really need to concern about Astrophysics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="09b00a2a-1bb5-4898-8c32-f2827b31ce18" CreationDate="2012-12-01T04:57:08.317" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2672" RevisionGUID="177e66e7-7fcd-4239-9ca5-aede44a8f96f" CreationDate="2012-12-01T05:18:33.703" UserId="124" Text="This is the first I'm hearing about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm surprised that that proposal still exists - in general, proposals which duplicate existing SE sites are closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="71203507-18ee-4ca5-a814-d16fb3527ecb" CreationDate="2012-12-02T03:55:56.763" UserId="6713" Comment="sharpen point" Text="I think the current policy of allowing questions on cold fusion makes your site invaluable.  Your adopting a policy that would restrict discussion on the topic to a narrow set of canonical questions would be a mistake in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little about me and why I feel this way:  I'm a software engineer whose last physics class was an introductory one in college.  It was a rigorous class, and I did well.  But my exposure to physics has been so limited in the interim that I struggle not to confuse the Augur process with internal conversion, and the only way I would even suspect that I was looking at a quantum field theory equation would be if I saw an H or bra-ket notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw a video about Rossi on the Internet about a year ago, I thought it was a great laugh; it looked exactly like what the production of a charlatan would look like.  But it piqued my interest in the general topic, and when I began to delve into the matter more, I started to have significant doubts that the book had been closed on the subject. The more I looked, the more I started to lose confidence in mainstream physics in this particular area; it started to seem to me like something might have broken down in 1989 and hadn't been fixed yet.  Articles like [this one][1] did not increase my confidence -- what I saw there was the emphatic promulgation of a set of a priori arguments that cold fusion was impossible, and little attempt to address the experimental evidence.  What I was looking for were cogent arguments that tackled specific empirical claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Articles like that one eventually brought me to physics.SE.  I wanted to see a more serious engagement of specific details.  What I appreciate about physics.SE is that there is a good mix of views for and against cold fusion.  Both those arguing for it and those arguing against it must defend their positions.  For whatever reason, it is very difficult to find this kind of engagement elsewhere on the Internet at this time.  Your site is practically the only one I have found where there is any kind of real discussion taking place between competent parties whose views span the full spectrum of positions.  In all other instances, the competent people are sequestered away with others of their persuasion.  I am an active participant on Vortex-L, for example, and I find the discussion there very interesting, but there is no one there who will take a strong position against cold fusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some here who appear to become distressed at the thought of countenancing discussion on this and other heretical subjects, perhaps in part for fear of giving the wrong impression to people like me or young physics students that such topics are now becoming mainstream. I think the vigorous responses and the comments leave little doubt as to the tendentious status of these subjects. In other words, giving the wrong impression about the position of mainstream physics on cold fusion is not something to be worried about. Similarly, I see little harm in questions about N-Rays and polywater being addressed here, and I would not imagine that they were for that reason being accepted into mainstream physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been argued that this site is not the place to try to sort out such a broad question as cold fusion, and that this is really something that should be dealt with elsewhere.  Even if this is true, I see no harm done and much to be gained in allowing questions on specific points to be raised and their assumptions refuted if necessary.  Everyone will learn more physics in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4957" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="e4bd42f2-0ffd-4961-bf56-1c8d43c9af2e" CreationDate="2012-12-02T10:02:13.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/275178043851554818" />
  <row Id="4958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="8d8d5215-411a-4376-83d1-daacba0b4597" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:11:11.333" UserId="12094" Text="I know this issue raised a lot, anyway this is just a suggestion, because I think it is very un encouraging to be down voted for nothing, especially if after that multiple up voting happens (for the same question), it's seems to be a strange behavior of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that writing down the reasons for down voting for each silly/illogical question is not an interesting approach, thus why we not add simply a drop down menu of famous reasons of down voting so one can has some idea for the reason of community action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="8d8d5215-411a-4376-83d1-daacba0b4597" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:11:11.333" UserId="12094" Text="Suggestion: Down voting with strictly classified reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="8d8d5215-411a-4376-83d1-daacba0b4597" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:11:11.333" UserId="12094" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="20c9fb84-ab6c-4e5c-8f32-b737df0fee7b" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:34:59.263" UserId="124" Text="There's already a popup notification reminding people to leave comments. Given that that doesn't exist, I kind of doubt that having a menu of possible reasons would help that much, and more importantly I don't think downvote reasons can be classified that well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, this is not something we can do on the site itself, it's something that the SE team would have to implement, so this is probably better proposed (if it hasn't already been) on [MSO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="f0c1b52d-c8f0-4543-b852-ae27b1bafb0b" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:35:54.050" UserId="4066" Comment="fixed the linked image for space explo. Note that the bracketed link numbers have to be entered manually - it usually fails if you use the toolbar buttons" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Sustainable Living][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nuclear Engineering][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration &amp; Technology][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/33364.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/33364/sustainable-living&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/38647.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/43283.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="d791a3b8-0d34-4e4e-a0ec-08eafdf8c85d" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:43:03.377" UserId="12094" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="I know this issue raised a lot, anyway this is just a suggestion, because I think it is very un encouraging to be down voted for nothing, especially if after that multiple up voting happens (for the same question), it's seems to be a strange behavior of the community, and this makes voting similar to Facebook, the concept I believe far away of it's targeted purpose here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that writing down the reasons for down voting for each silly/illogical question is not an interesting approach, thus why we not add simply a drop down menu of famous reasons of down voting so one can has some idea for the reason of community action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="2c77887d-a2bf-49d5-9c89-1a078b4e8b47" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:52:08.450" UserId="12094" Text="I just noticed that my reputation in &quot;Physics Meta&quot; is differs from &quot;Physics&quot; (slightly lower) is this a bug or I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="2c77887d-a2bf-49d5-9c89-1a078b4e8b47" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:52:08.450" UserId="12094" Text="Inconsistancy between Meta and Origianl reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="2c77887d-a2bf-49d5-9c89-1a078b4e8b47" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:52:08.450" UserId="12094" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4967" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="0fbacd3d-75df-4967-8ba7-1f1e87a7d6ad" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:56:03.637" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="8911058a-bd57-4299-a3a1-b1ac50dea34a" CreationDate="2012-12-02T20:56:42.280" UserId="124" Text="Reputation is copied over from the main site to the meta site once per hour, it isn't always kept in sync. So this is to be expected, and the number will catch up soon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="c2fb82bf-38d2-4108-920a-76ff00539748" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:04:38.377" UserId="2751" Text="What can I do  if I observe that a wrong and misleading answer is the most upvoted one among all the answers to a question and commenting, downvoting, and writing a better answer does not help and the OP of the wrong answer insists in being right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="c2fb82bf-38d2-4108-920a-76ff00539748" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:04:38.377" UserId="2751" Text="Wrong upvoted answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="c2fb82bf-38d2-4108-920a-76ff00539748" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:04:38.377" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="d3d217bd-0a7f-416c-957b-b2426619d8c9" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:41:16.790" UserId="7433" Text="Comment on it, and downvote. Post it in chat/meta if you feel it needs more scrutiny/discussion. DO NOT flag, flags aren't for wrong posts. Also, put a comment on the main question, asking the OP not to accept it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's already accepted, ask the OP to unaccept. But you can't do much more than that. This has come up [multiple times][1] on the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=accepted%20answer%20wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2679" RevisionGUID="cb12b991-bf35-4e64-94b6-d2ffc93f37cc" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:44:45.460" UserId="7433" Text="If you want, you can use [this script](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) and load it with comments relevant to downvoting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE has made it pretty clear that they aren't going to add any more obstacles to the process of downvoting. It's for the better--one should feel as free to downvote as possible, otherwise less people will downvote. And downvotes are integral to SE's sorting mechanism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="5ed0d3e5-f9ad-4f3a-b45a-f3a4e4d4cb0f" CreationDate="2012-12-02T23:09:26.157" UserId="12094" Comment="Clarified anonymos thing, and included Ron suggestion." Text="I know this issue raised a lot, anyway this is just a suggestion, because I think it is very un encouraging to be down voted for nothing, especially if after that multiple up voting happens (for the same question), it's seems to be a strange behavior of the community, and this makes voting similar to Facebook, the concept I believe far away of it's targeted purpose here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that writing down the reasons for down voting for each silly/illogical question is not an interesting approach, thus why we not add simply a drop down menu of famous reasons of down voting so one can has some idea for the reason of community action? and in the same time preserve the golden rule that voting should be anonymous..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S&#xD;&#xA;As suggested Ron in comments, this may be applied for up voting too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4975" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="5ed0d3e5-f9ad-4f3a-b45a-f3a4e4d4cb0f" CreationDate="2012-12-02T23:09:26.157" UserId="12094" Comment="Clarified anonymos thing, and included Ron suggestion." Text="Suggestion: Voting with strictly classified reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="0ed31230-1711-416b-923f-31f62e4fb0c4" CreationDate="2012-12-03T00:29:08.373" UserId="124" Text="When you see that an answer is wrong, you can downvote and leave a comment explaining why it's wrong, and of course write your own answer (not as a response to the other answer). But that's pretty much it. In particular, if you go to chat or meta and ask people to downvote it outright, that's not really appropriate. You can use the chat room to discuss it with other people, and explain your reasoning for why you think it's wrong, but don't send messages like &quot;This answer is wrong, you should downvote it.&quot; You're not forbidden to tell people how they should vote, but doing so is rather rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking the OP to unaccept the answer is likewise inappropriate, although it's sort of a gray area depending on how you phrase it. For example, if you post a comment saying &quot;Please unaccept this answer, it's wrong,&quot; that's not okay, but if you say &quot;I don't think this should be the accepted answer because &lt;reasons&gt;,&quot; that would probably be okay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="50feeb79-f8a9-4200-b675-78454e957806" CreationDate="2012-12-03T05:07:24.813" UserId="6129" Text="My last posting relating to the finite/infinite content of the universe has been deleted without informing me.At least I can't find it.Its not there on the user page also.My current posting incidentally is &quot;On Parallel Transport&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="50feeb79-f8a9-4200-b675-78454e957806" CreationDate="2012-12-03T05:07:24.813" UserId="6129" Text="This is Quite Strange!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="50feeb79-f8a9-4200-b675-78454e957806" CreationDate="2012-12-03T05:07:24.813" UserId="6129" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4980" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="496d878a-29ef-460f-8c4c-3fee3d01106e" CreationDate="2012-12-03T10:02:13.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/275540434082729986" />
  <row Id="4981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="06320b45-666e-4cb8-abd4-f9a325eec323" CreationDate="2012-12-03T13:55:29.567" UserId="520" Text="It appears that [the question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/42011/520) may have been the victim of an automated &quot;bad question&quot; reaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall the qualification for automatic removal are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* one month old&#xD;&#xA;* negative vote total on the question and&#xD;&#xA;* no upvoted answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not that I'm stumped as it does not appear to have been done by anyone (including Community who get the &quot;credit&quot; for closure due to spam flags)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="d583bbfe-cd4a-434c-9ec2-d8b6bff687da" CreationDate="2012-12-03T14:20:26.663" UserId="520" Comment="Add link to automated remove qualifications on meta.stackoverflow" Text="It appears that [the question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/42011/520) may have been the victim of an automated &quot;bad question&quot; reaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall the [qualification for automatic removal][1] are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* one month old&#xD;&#xA;* negative vote total on the question and&#xD;&#xA;* no answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not that I'm stumped as it does not appear to have been done by anyone (including Community who get the &quot;credit&quot; for closure due to spam flags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/92006/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="5913410d-aa00-47e0-90e8-f5e473b41d92" CreationDate="2012-12-03T15:07:03.747" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="This very response will probably get me downvoted, but I don't care. I can say that after being shouted down for posting patently correct answers/explanations and essentially being accused of incompetence, I have decided to stop pointing out incorrect answers when I see them. The shouting down usually comes from one of two sources: grad students or researchers, neither of whom really take the time to think through better explanations to even the simplest of questions. There is far less subjectivity in explaining some things than we all want to believe or admit, and getting that point across is a struggle. Word choice matters because words influence thoughts, and that's where misconceptions can arise. I sometimes use anonymous examples from this site in class to illustrate such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, crowdsourcing correct answers by popular vote results in sites like this becoming unreliable resources for students (nevermind that the site may not have been conceived as being a reliable resource for students...we all know students at all levels come here). Although I'll stick around and use the site as a resource, I can never recommend it to even my best students.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="d32d79dd-7905-4e95-a5a4-05832cc51cc3" CreationDate="2012-12-03T18:41:37.447" UserId="4826" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I will be working with candidates to determine a time for the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The Town Hall Chat will take place Wednesday the 5th at 01:00:00Z UTC / This is on Tuesday the 4th at 8:00 PM EST.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[view in other timezones](http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=12&amp;day=5&amp;year=2012&amp;hour=1&amp;min=0&amp;sec=0&amp;p1=0)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[register here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/406/physics-town-hall-chat?tab=schedule)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[join the room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the primary phase.  This means that I am looking at the 3rd-5th of December. As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates to find a best fit based on availability, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  I will update this post with a direct link to the chat room once the event is scheduled.&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidates regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority for scheduling is generally towards the greatest number of candidate openings as well as the earliest. Candidates who cannot show up during the live event will still be able to answer all questions posted, they will just do so at their earliest convenience.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, a digest of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="bb3972fe-d297-46db-b0e5-71e3f1d28764" CreationDate="2012-12-03T18:46:52.050" UserId="16" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="1fe6a539-869e-404f-a3b9-d56b6065f47b" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:47:51.497" UserId="4864" Text="I confused MKB for mbq, and voted for him ignorantly. Also, I cannot make a personal comment about Larian LeQuella --- namely that he is unfit for any sort of leadership position--- without it getting deleted by mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't have an election without comments on the candidates, otherwise, you just get authority manipulating things behind the scenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I wanted to change my vote so that the order reads:&#xD;&#xA;1. Qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;2. Manishearth&#xD;&#xA;3. user1504&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I have some reservations about the 3rd choice (he calls himself my hamster), at least he knows some physics, unlike Larien.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't vote for Larien LeQuella. He knows no physics, and his only joy is deleting &quot;unreferenced&quot; answers from sites, meaning all the good stuff here. I am not allowed to say more pointed things, thereby making the election meaningless. He has banned me from skeptics, and considers me a crackpot, and has said so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="1fe6a539-869e-404f-a3b9-d56b6065f47b" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:47:51.497" UserId="4864" Text="How do I change my vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="1fe6a539-869e-404f-a3b9-d56b6065f47b" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:47:51.497" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="15ef113b-0eef-459b-ba44-d0f4ccef059c" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:54:19.540" UserId="124" Comment="remove off-topicness" Text="I confused MKB for mbq, and voted for him ignorantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't have an election without comments on the candidates, otherwise, you just get authority manipulating things behind the scenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I wanted to change my vote so that the order reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;2. Manishearth&#xD;&#xA;3. user1504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="3466375f-fabf-4127-ba3c-0a3a0982b695" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:56:44.393" UserId="124" Text="You can still go back to the election page and click on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice buttons of other candidates to change your vote. It won't let you undo a vote entirely to vote for less candidates than you already have, but you can _change_ your votes all you like until the election ends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="0011d7a4-d7da-42ad-bf5d-91ed617cf11c" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:24:05.993" UserId="4864" Text="Larian LeQuella is an authoritarian non-scientist who does not belong as moderator. I don't know where one can make this statement visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the appropriate place to post this today? Where does it go? Not a week ago. I checked the meta and the main a week ago, and I didn't see his name on the nominations list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is not appropriate, he should not be running. he considers me a crackpot, and is an authoritarian source-requiring nightmare, who will ban all considered critiques of existing literature from the site. He must be opposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there is no place to do so. Where is the proper place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To not split votes: vote 1. qmechanic 2. manishearth 3. whoever you want, but not Larien LeQuella. Please, I am pleading with you. He will wreck the site for sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="0011d7a4-d7da-42ad-bf5d-91ed617cf11c" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:24:05.993" UserId="4864" Text="Where is the place for negative comments on candidates like Larian LeQuelia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="0011d7a4-d7da-42ad-bf5d-91ed617cf11c" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:24:05.993" UserId="4864" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="b5a757d1-0167-4a5d-9636-6077a2575c76" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:26:18.263" UserId="1504" Text="There is an election oriented chat tonight (Tuesday) at 8pm EST." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2690" RevisionGUID="378f37d3-ae9a-4e30-93fe-d91fa0a19383" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:44:14.653" UserId="2498" Text="I guess if you wanted to create a place for negative comments, you would have to also create a place for positive comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anyone** can run for this - I even considered it. You **do not** need to be a specialist in your field to be a moderator. You simply need to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- be able to listen&#xD;&#xA;- support the wider community (not necessarily a vocal individual)&#xD;&#xA;- take actions when they are required&#xD;&#xA;- carry out janitorial tasks &#xD;&#xA;- and generally help the community get along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say he considers you a crackpot. You consider him an authoritarian. Both these views could be true (or maybe not - I don't know). Does this mean you should create a post attacking that individual? I don't think so!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will get to ask questions during the Town Hall tonight (or whenever it is in your timezone) but again - be polite while asking!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="0d199415-35ca-4197-a30a-137af82e79d4" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:47:11.953" UserId="124" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="You can still go back to the election page and click on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice buttons of other candidates to change your vote. You can do this as many times as you want before the election period ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also vote for one candidate with more than one of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, if you don't want to vote for 3 different people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="40dacb67-ac78-4e3c-aaf7-e8bf96084dda" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:48:31.973" UserId="124" Comment="remove propaganda" Text="I have a negative comment to make about a candidate. Where is the appropriate place to post this today? Where does it go? Not a week ago. I checked the meta and the main a week ago, and I didn't see his name on the nominations list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5005" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="40dacb67-ac78-4e3c-aaf7-e8bf96084dda" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:48:31.973" UserId="124" Comment="remove propaganda" Text="Where is the place for negative comments on candidates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5006" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="40dacb67-ac78-4e3c-aaf7-e8bf96084dda" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:48:31.973" UserId="124" Comment="remove propaganda" Text="|discussion|support|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="c64dfb4a-a6fb-4355-bbe0-d394ceca6421" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:56:20.203" UserId="124" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="You can still go back to the election page and click on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice buttons of other candidates to change your vote. You can do this as many times as you want before the election period ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to vote for 3 different people, you can also select the same candidate for more than one of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. (It doesn't make your vote count any more than it would normally.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="f3ad4049-5be3-4a87-a2a6-5c4d09f667e6" CreationDate="2012-12-04T17:31:12.207" UserId="2911" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="There is an election oriented chat tonight (Tuesday) at 8pm EST.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summary of the questions and answers will be posted to Meta following the conclusion of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the summary is limited to the questions directed at the candidates and direct answers by the candidates, since collecting those is the entire purpose of the event. For more info, see: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="2e7064ef-afa4-4efb-84c2-c7d70409bf6f" CreationDate="2012-12-04T18:08:32.430" UserId="124" Comment="edit specific voting information out" Text="I confused one candidate for another, and voted for him ignorantly.&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to change my vote. How do I do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="dd1b9e2b-dc62-4f60-8d74-f9731906bce8" CreationDate="2012-12-04T19:35:54.417" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="I agree with Ron's point of view and I'm a bit troubled by this whole election process. &#xD;&#xA;There are finally enough decent candidates that I hope it will turn out well, but a few days ago I would not have liked to see any set of two new moderators chosen from what was available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have serious concerns about the future of the site if our new moderators turn out to be people with little knowledge of physics, reputation or time spent in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if someone with 40,000 reputation (earned by being a valuable contributing member to the site) has criticisms of a candidate, I think it would be smart to listen to him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="19fd7642-cbc9-4fc1-a2d4-f954fc2b0477" CreationDate="2012-12-04T19:51:35.913" UserId="2684" Text="There are several ways to express your opinion of a specific candidate. The first one you missed, it happens during the nomination period where every Physics user can comment on the nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second major opportunity to critically examine the candidates is during the townhall meeting, which takes place in a few hours. Of course not everyone can attend, but if you have a specific question you want to ask the candidates, just post it in Physics chat and request that someone else asks your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you're after something else, you're not critically examining the history of a candidate on this site and asking them for their opinion on subject important to this site. You're trying to shout your opinion about this candidate at every opportunity you get, in chat on meta and even on the main site. Just because you're the loudest one right now doesn't mean your opinion deserves special consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the accusations of censorship, as already mentioned by SE employees, you're free to express your opinion as long as you don't resort to personal attacks and insults. You can criticize the actions and statements of a candidate as much as you want, but you don't get to just insult them. You're just plain wrong when you say that &quot;being a dick&quot; is required to have an honest discussion, you can be blunt and direct without ever insulting anyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are concerned about a specific candidate, ask targeted questions about your concerns at the town hall, or if you can't attend ask someone else to do that for you. Make it about actual concerns, not about your own opinion of the candidate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="7c4b0f59-9b65-473a-962a-35014ab4b5ec" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:54:56.977" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="So I am shocked to see that anyone with 150 reputation can cast a vote for moderator elections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the 100 rep bonus for linking another SE account, this is pretty much equivalent to allowing anyone at all to vote, and given how tiny the community is and how few users probably pay attention to elections it seems like it's asking to be gamed by users from other sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See for instance the recent influx on meta of non-physics users here to argue with Ron).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it be more sensible to restrict voting to 'Established' users (&gt;1000 rep)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="7c4b0f59-9b65-473a-962a-35014ab4b5ec" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:54:56.977" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="Why is the required reputation for moderator voting so low?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="7c4b0f59-9b65-473a-962a-35014ab4b5ec" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:54:56.977" UserDisplayName="user2963" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2701" RevisionGUID="61fd94de-1931-43da-9b35-7fe8613bf62a" CreationDate="2012-12-04T21:07:25.050" UserId="1504" Text="It seems to me that 150 is OK.  Earning the additional reputation still takes a bit of effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Raising the bar to 1000 would be rather undemocratic.  Some of our candidates would be unable to vote for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The restriction you want could be more cleanly achieved by requiring that the user have actively participated in the site at least a month before the election." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="9fc6bfa5-69aa-4f44-92cf-43bf828561fd" CreationDate="2012-12-04T21:59:28.090" UserId="955" Text="I totally agree with this. There should be at least a minimum of 500 Rep to cast a vote. It is at the moment too easy to vote for moderators by people that have hardly any interaction or contribution to the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="804163c0-901d-4bb0-b7f8-a47575b35193" CreationDate="2012-12-04T22:36:28.240" UserId="9719" Text="If you want to go this direction, you should also take into account recent activity. I just compared my recent activity to yours. Based on that, I think I have more of a right to vote than you do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="36794143-926d-4532-9a41-6b502d6126f4" CreationDate="2012-12-04T23:24:31.130" UserId="2751" Text="I absolutely agree with Zephyr's concerns (though a barrier of 1000 rep seems a bit too hight to me), the new moderators should be voted exclusively by the genuine active Physics SE community. With the low amount of additional reputation needed to vote, in addition to the association bonus, this is absolutely not guaranteed, on the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observing the huge amount of moderators and people from other parts of the SE network suddenly flooding our (meta) site scares me and makes me fear that indeed the outcome of this election will not be determinded by our Physics SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="b2f30ae5-bf16-4e62-8a80-9d8c0ab5876b" CreationDate="2012-12-04T23:59:46.390" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I absolutely agree with Zephyr's concerns (though a barrier of 1000 rep seems a bit too high to me), the new moderators should be voted exclusively by the genuine active Physics SE community. With the low amount of additional reputation needed to vote, in addition to the association bonus, this is absolutely not guaranteed, on the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observing the huge amount of moderators and people from other parts of the SE network suddenly flooding our (meta) site scares me and makes me fear that indeed the outcome of this election will not be determinded by our Physics SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="89dea60c-9679-4fd7-b2e9-8fc05759ad67" CreationDate="2012-12-05T00:11:25.560" UserId="2751" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I absolutely agree with Zephyr's concerns (though a barrier of 1000 rep seems a bit too high to me), the new moderators should be voted exclusively by the genuine active Physics SE community. With the low amount of additional reputation needed to vote, in addition to the association bonus, this is absolutely not guaranteed, on the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observing the huge amount of moderators and people from other parts of the SE network suddenly flooding our (meta) site scares me and makes me fear that indeed the outcome of this election will not be determinded by our Physics SE community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And reading the vigorous discussions I observe that it is mostly them who very vocally disagree with what people of our community, such as Ron, User1504, Zephyr, etc are saying ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2706" RevisionGUID="6febff91-a5d8-47b2-a393-316bc22c9e81" CreationDate="2012-12-05T02:47:13.963" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I'm very concerned about this, because if it goes through there will be a direct competitor to Physics.SE.  Every time I look, the proposal has more support. Yet right now 4 of their top 5 example questions fit well within the scope of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already suffer from low traffic here, and a site solely dedicated to astronomy has proven to not be viable (probably because there are hundreds of good resources for amateur astronomy already out there, offering interactive sky charts, photo galleries, and day-to-day distillations of recent publications). Yet here they are trying to carve off a piece of physics to make another attempt, and it's not clear why. Note that I am in astrophysics, and I enjoy &quot;amateur&quot; activities more than most people in my field, but I can't condone driving a further wedge between Earth-based physics and everything that happens off this planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So regarding (1), donating material to the fledgling site, as charitable as it may seem, would be shooting ourselves in the foot. And as dmckee rightly points out, this probably won't be an issue anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (2), I suppose we should recover anything that fits within our scope that we don't already have, and I'd gladly help out. That said, it seems a little much for the powers that be to expect us to clean up for a *second* time after the same experiment fails again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'd like to know if there's any way to formally bring these concerns to the SE powers, via a petition or something. (I never fully understood the enigmatic forces behind this whole network, but that says more about my ignorance than anything else.) Of course, if no one agrees with my concerns, I'm willing to go with the flow of an informed populace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[End rant fueled by years of exposure to passive-aggressiveness between physicists and astronomers.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="31e66938-1951-4907-acef-aaebfe3debee" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:11:12.887" UserId="10522" Text="To all candidates to moderator: what are you going to do regarding Ron's suspension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="31e66938-1951-4907-acef-aaebfe3debee" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:11:12.887" UserId="10522" Text="Candidates: What are you going to do regarding Ron's suspension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="31e66938-1951-4907-acef-aaebfe3debee" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:11:12.887" UserId="10522" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5058" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="1ab850f3-3459-49b9-aaa2-6bf92a78cd01" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:22:14.207" UserId="124" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5059" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="1bd65097-df79-4a19-8c69-f3427a27bcc3" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:22:31.167" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5060" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="721f3225-72d6-41c0-8114-364c4b1a615a" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:22:36.937" UserId="124" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="fce10b20-9bde-45c0-844f-9fc4dff9f61e" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:45:49.577" UserId="10522" Text="Where is the place for respectful questions and comments on candidates to moderator *during these 5 days*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="fce10b20-9bde-45c0-844f-9fc4dff9f61e" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:45:49.577" UserId="10522" Text="Where is the place for respectful questions and comments on candidates to moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="fce10b20-9bde-45c0-844f-9fc4dff9f61e" CreationDate="2012-12-05T07:45:49.577" UserId="10522" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="650a6391-b475-4e18-84bd-35e20a5d2fb1" CreationDate="2012-12-05T08:09:28.820" UserId="124" Text="As Mad Scientist said in a comment, you can pose questions to people [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). However, be aware that not all candidates visit the chat room, and so it may be impossible to get their attention that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also leave a comment somewhere where it'll get the candidate's attention, asking them to join you in the chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="a3ea0cbb-12e4-4b9e-80f9-3671772c9744" CreationDate="2012-12-05T11:33:49.150" UserId="14182" Text="&gt; But as Eduardo says in the previous post, it wouldn't survive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (compete) with Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgive me if, as a non-native speaker, I may be not understanding this sentence well. But I don't say that Astrophysics.SE wouldn't survive with Physics. What I am trying to state is that the existence of Astrophysics.SE will be harmful for both Physics.SE and Astrophysics.SE itself. Because there is too much overlapping. Astrophysics touches nearly every field in physics, and so I consider very confusing to have two separate sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, for instance, that I have a question about General Relativity that arises in the context of FLRW Cosmology. Should I post it twice, in the two different sites simultaneously, so that I am sure that both cosmology astrophysicists and theoretical physicists will read my question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is pretty easy to select only astronomy questions at a first sight in the list of Physics.SE. At the same time, every time I enter Physics.SE I read about questions and answers from other fields in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a waste of human resources. Your question will be less likely to be answered by someone competent, if you have two different sites. Let me quote here a chunk from my latter answer in the other post, I think it is relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In astrophysics more than in any other branch, contents are strongly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; related to other fields. Just to mention a few of them: spectroscopy,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plasma physics, numerical modelling, fluid dynamics, nuclear physics,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Newtonian dynamics, General Relativity, Thermodynamics, particle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics... And so I am very interested in showing my questions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physicists from other branches. Cross-feeding is a source of richness.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be nearly absurd, and the moderators would have to be always&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deciding if the questions belong to the site or not... Nearly all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; branches of physics are related or directly involved in one or another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topic in astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And, although there are many users in physics SE, very few are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-level physicists. More fragmentation means loss of quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="f276599c-fc30-4812-98ee-7a5d06bb0219" CreationDate="2012-12-05T15:57:21.510" UserId="1504" Text="I'm withdrawing from the election.  I entered initially because I was concerned that we didn't have enough candidates who had a history of participation in the site and an adequate background in physics.  This is clearly no longer the case, so I don't need to be a candidate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be pretty obvious which candidates have a philosophy of moderation which is similar to mine.  If you were considering voting for me, please vote for them instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt anyone is concerned, but no, I'm not leaving the site.  I'll continue participating.  And I will be more active in the future in flagging unconstructive questions and homework, cleaning up ones with potential, and helping to educate new users about our social norms.  Keeping this site healthy is everyone's responsibility, not just the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, while I have the microphone, a comment about the 'community vs outsiders' issue that's arisen during this election.  I think SE's employee's do genuinely have the best interests of the community at heart; their incentives are aligned with ours.  It's not completely clear to me that the same can be said for the volunteer moderators from other sites who've shown up during the Maimon-LeQuella kerfluffle.  But if you're worried about this sort of thing, the only recourse you have is to vote and continue participating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="f276599c-fc30-4812-98ee-7a5d06bb0219" CreationDate="2012-12-05T15:57:21.510" UserId="1504" Text="Withdrawing from the election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="f276599c-fc30-4812-98ee-7a5d06bb0219" CreationDate="2012-12-05T15:57:21.510" UserId="1504" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2735" RevisionGUID="eb124493-aa2c-4a62-818c-dc1ee5fba200" CreationDate="2012-12-05T16:11:25.740" UserId="7186" Text="Thanks for letting us know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't remove your nomination at this stage of the election, but we will withdraw it when it comes the time to tally things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I said earlier, I'm sorry to hear about your decision, but I'm glad that you're sticking around on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="c2e839bb-089a-4070-9ce2-2435451ce738" CreationDate="2012-12-05T19:02:17.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/276401123521355776" />
  <row Id="5113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2739" RevisionGUID="1b3a9f85-3c79-45e0-84fa-d56cdf12ceb9" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:22:12.933" UserId="16251" Text="I have more than twenty reputation points though unable to post messages on chat rooms.Can anyone help me out? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2739" RevisionGUID="1b3a9f85-3c79-45e0-84fa-d56cdf12ceb9" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:22:12.933" UserId="16251" Text="Problem with loging in chat room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2739" RevisionGUID="1b3a9f85-3c79-45e0-84fa-d56cdf12ceb9" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:22:12.933" UserId="16251" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="7a1f40f1-592f-47c8-a9fa-4fd07d001643" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:35:38.960" UserId="12808" Text="An hour or so ago I suggested an edit for [this question about heat-conductance in diamonds](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45910/diamond-excellent-heat-conductor-due-to-phonons-explain). When I now browse to said question, I don’t see the block ‘your edit is being reviewed’ anymore, nor does it appear in [the list of my suggestions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12808/claudius?tab=activity&amp;sort=suggestions) where it definitely was listed half an hour ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened to this suggestion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="7a1f40f1-592f-47c8-a9fa-4fd07d001643" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:35:38.960" UserId="12808" Text="Edit Suggestion disappeared" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="7a1f40f1-592f-47c8-a9fa-4fd07d001643" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:35:38.960" UserId="12808" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5123" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="7a8558a4-1b76-49dd-89d8-c7fc670af8a5" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:31:11.003" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157774/in-moderator-elections-selection-option-should-be-visually-more-clear" Text="" />
  <row Id="5124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="68b2da1c-2a95-4d5b-bf7c-67919c3c129a" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:03:30.790" UserId="6319" UserDisplayName="gerrit" Text="I was just voting in community moderator elections over on Physics SE and looking through what I chose so far, and I think the layout is not very clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![screenshot from community moderator elections][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlwFp.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A green bar around a blue button; my eyes are good, and I can see it, but it's not very easy to spot when quickly scrolling through the page. Can we have a visually better representation of the selected choice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="68b2da1c-2a95-4d5b-bf7c-67919c3c129a" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:03:30.790" UserId="6319" UserDisplayName="gerrit" Text="In moderator elections, selection option should be visually more clear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="68b2da1c-2a95-4d5b-bf7c-67919c3c129a" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:03:30.790" UserId="6319" UserDisplayName="gerrit" Text="|feature-request|design|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="2271a861-c83e-4226-88f8-9ba8b29c0ed4" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:32:14.170" UserId="3948" Text="If the site does launch then there is absolutely no need to migrate existing astronomy and astrophysics questions to the site. There are several reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They are still on topic for Physics.&#xD;&#xA;2. Migrating old (&gt; 60 day old) questions is no longer possible - not even for moderators.&#xD;&#xA;3. Dumping a whole load of questions onto a new site is not a nice thing to do to the new site. It distorts the reputation of the users on the site and potentially creates a bunch of high rep users who have no interest in using the site in the future.&#xD;&#xA;4. If they questions were off topic in the past they are still off topic and should just remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happened with Programmers and old questions from Stack Overflow and it wasn't pleasant I can tell you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the astronomy and astrophysics site does look like it's going to succeed then we can have a discussion about tweaking the scope of Physics - but even then the rule about migrating old questions still applies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="3349decb-632b-4bd9-85d9-ba3ed64d156e" CreationDate="2012-12-06T09:06:53.080" UserId="4066" Comment="added link to area51 proposal" Text="I heard that the astronomy site finally merged with Physics.SE after private beta. But, the *now-developing* [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics.SE][1] is under a *hot progress*. One question and it enters the commitment phase. We have two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It succeeds the beta and the site is launched - If this would happen, should we have to move (migrate) the astronomy, astrophysics and other related tags along with the questions over there ? I think it would be a *lot-of-work*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On the other hand, it fails. (I strongly believe that this would happen) Then, do we have to migrate the posts from there to here. Its perhaps a dirty situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** I still support Astrophysics because I really like it. But as Eduardo says in the previous post, it wouldn't survive (compete) with Physics. What about migration then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="c48dba34-e011-4d5f-a86f-a11673256bc6" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:50:13.507" UserId="7924" Text="As recent events showed, there is a need for a mechanism that allows a ban of a very active community member to be reversed if it is deemed important by enough community members &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2716/7924, bmike asked me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;I&gt;I'm asking for where you'd draw the line when someone repeatedly and vocally attacks another person (clearly making it about them and not their actions). Also - I'm not saying you are wrong until I hear what you propose. I'd like to know where you would draw the line. Do you vote on who gets to ignore the rules? Do you set it at a certain reputation? Do you give someone a free shot at a different person for each 1k reputation? Make a proposal we can debate if you'd like to change the rules.&lt;/I&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here my request (slightly modified compared to my reply there):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be possible to undo a ban upon the intervention of 5 users with enough reputation to merit the priviledge of reversing a ban. This could for example taken to be at the level of 250 reps where one earns the privilege of voting to close, or at 2000 reps where one also earns the privilege to vote on edits; any other threshold would be ok, too. 	 &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the ban should be undone if 5 people paying a ransom of perhaps 500 reps (or any other reasonable amount, perhaps an amount proportional to the banning time) to show that they are serious about the need to have someone back. This would mean that the sin has been paid for, so justice has been done, as in ordinary life. If less ransom comes in, the ban time should be shortened according to the fraction received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="c48dba34-e011-4d5f-a86f-a11673256bc6" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:50:13.507" UserId="7924" Text="Request for establishing a new privilege: to undo a ban" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="c48dba34-e011-4d5f-a86f-a11673256bc6" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:50:13.507" UserId="7924" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="56adf828-af28-497b-b959-d032725f52c5" CreationDate="2012-12-06T15:00:41.760" UserId="2684" Text="Suspensions are private, and in some cases like vote fraud most of the details have to remain private at all times. The users voting to undo a suspension don't have access to all the information about the incident, how are they supposed to make a reasoned judgement without knowing what exactly happened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a user is suspended, a lot of the information that is based on is not available to regular users. This are e.g. deleted posts (which are available, but you can't find them easily), deleted comments, annotations about previous behaviour and information related to the vote fraud and sock puppet detection tools. You need all this information to judge whether the suspension is warranted, and most of this information can't be made public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="958642e3-97f0-4203-ac1a-2b619b82c04b" CreationDate="2012-12-06T15:12:47.790" UserId="7433" Text="With all of the other vote-controlled mechanisms on SE, you have every bit of information you need to vote. For example, wrt closing and reopening, you can see the post and all the comments. You're not making a blind decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the suspension details (the warnings, the exact offence, etc) are private and only viewable by moderators (and the suspended party). Due to the [moderator agreement][1], this information cannot be released by the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without full knowledge of the situation, an un-ban would be a blind decision. Moderators are [human exception handlers][2], they're the ones meant to deal with this. And they already have. There is no point (IMO) asking them to undo this, the ban was enacted by a community team member (according to Ron), and it was regarding network policy--upheld by the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/legal/moderator-agreement&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5137" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="db8f54da-d77d-46e2-acb8-961a929b249b" CreationDate="2012-12-06T15:54:57.820" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [9b014b7e-0e46-402e-bb87-f61b3dade2c2]" Text="Variations of this request [have been made on the mother meta many times][1] (or I'd migrate this there because this request is not specific to physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hunt around on [the Data Explorer][2], you will find queries to report your progress on many badges, though I don't know if Deputy and Marshal are something that can be found that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Deputy and Marshal in particular, your [user profile][3] shows how many helpful flags you have made:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=badge%20progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4887/vineet-menon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DU5fW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="e704c107-883d-4172-9ca8-1b96abec684a" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:14:34.727" UserId="12808" Text="In order to avoid the problem that voting users don’t know why a person was banned, I would suggest giving the banned user a possibility to ‘Appeal to Community’, which would make the details of the ban public (at least to the users eligible to vote on the appeal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could take this a little further by first requiring one of these users to vouch for the banned person and then giving the banned person a choice to appeal publicly, appeal without making details public or not appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest the reputation threshold required to vote on such appeals to be at least 2k." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="e99381cd-e028-42e8-9c72-d2489a3720bb" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:33:24.387" UserId="4485" Text="Bans and suspensions need to be carried out by moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no correlation between someone's ability to answer/ask physics questions and their social intelligence. Moderators, on the other hand, are usually judged by a community over a long period of time as possessing a character which enables them to consistently deal with people in a calm, fair and detached manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing stopping a person on the receiving end of abuse to appeal for the suspension to be lifted or reduced using the meta page anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="af93046c-5377-48ea-a3c4-0e8ff6aab7e9" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:38:31.357" UserId="7924" Text="When reviewing edits there is text inviting to improve the edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$~~~$ Approve, reject, or improve edits suggested by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I see buttons only for approve, reject, ans skip. How to improve the edit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="af93046c-5377-48ea-a3c4-0e8ff6aab7e9" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:38:31.357" UserId="7924" Text="On reviewing edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="af93046c-5377-48ea-a3c4-0e8ff6aab7e9" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:38:31.357" UserId="7924" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="27f9bbad-b711-49bc-a129-fd49a75aaaf9" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:43:23.823" UserId="520" Text="Ah! I think I figured it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queues have recently been changed to include some known bad posts as honeypots for detecting users who were mechanically reviewing in an effort to get the badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that [these are currently detectable due to differences in the UI][1]. Presumable the team is working on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmmm ... what I see is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the improve button right in the middle of the cluster on the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you getting something different? On just one suggested edit or consistently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/157808/reviewing-low-quality-posts-that-are-baits-do-not-let-you-improve-edit-them&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xIgl5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="7ed87c19-2cbd-4206-ab94-da43e56c618a" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:47:07.390" UserId="7924" Comment="expanded what I see, added details on browser" Text="When reviewing edits there is text inviting to improve the edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$~~~$ Approve, reject, or improve edits suggested by users. (less)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Approve edits you know are correct&#xD;&#xA;    Reject those you know are wrong&#xD;&#xA;    Skip if you are not sure and want to go to the next suggested edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I see buttons only for approve, reject, ans skip. How to improve the edit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it makes a difference: I am using Firefox 16.0.2 (Mozilla Firefox Unbuntu canonical - 1.0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="7b0ab849-8e7c-4a37-be83-926bc7f7b371" CreationDate="2012-12-06T18:06:20.083" UserId="2911" Text="You're probably looking at an edit suggested to a *tag wiki*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you have [the ability to *vote to approve*][1] these edits, you haven't yet earned [the right to edit them *directly*][2] - so the &quot;improve&quot; button is unavailable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dmckee, as a moderator][3], has all the rights and so sees the &quot;improve&quot; button regardless of his reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and yes, just removing/disabling the button is a bit weird, but the alternative would allow you to create a sort of chain of suggestions that would all have to be approved or rejected)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/trusted-user&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/on-reviewing-edits/2752#2752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="a187605c-d784-4564-acfe-0dd17c9065aa" CreationDate="2012-12-06T20:46:34.240" UserId="7924" Comment="corrected spelling and grammar" Text="As recent events showed, there is a need for a mechanism that allows a ban of a very active community member to be reversed if it is deemed important by enough community members &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2716/7924, bmike asked me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;I&gt;I'm asking for where you'd draw the line when someone repeatedly and vocally attacks another person (clearly making it about them and not their actions). Also - I'm not saying you are wrong until I hear what you propose. I'd like to know where you would draw the line. Do you vote on who gets to ignore the rules? Do you set it at a certain reputation? Do you give someone a free shot at a different person for each 1k reputation? Make a proposal we can debate if you'd like to change the rules.&lt;/I&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here my request (slightly modified compared to my reply there):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be possible to undo a ban upon the intervention of 5 users with enough reputation to merit the privilege of reversing a ban. This could for example taken to be at the level of 250 reps where one earns the privilege of voting to close, or at 2000 reps where one also earns the privilege to vote on edits; any other threshold would be ok, too. 	 &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the ban should be undone if 5 people pay a ransom of perhaps 500 reps (or any other reasonable amount, perhaps an amount proportional to the banning time) to show that they are serious about the need to have someone back. This would mean that the sin has been paid for, so justice has been done, as in ordinary life. If less ransom comes in, the ban time should be shortened according to the fraction received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="337a11d3-1ee8-4e55-8bd1-1599bd8dc4d2" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:52:46.060" UserId="6634" Text="Let's say I have an answer to a question ([like this one for example][1]) where the explanation can have effectively two speeds: plain english, and very math heavy. I would like a way to do both at once, similar to the way [Wikipedia hides these derivations][2] or even something as simple as the &quot;show more&quot;/&quot;show less&quot; links on the [FAQ][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do either of those styles to help keep the answer short, concise, and as plain-english as possible but still provide the technical details for those interested? If not, can there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46131/does-a-wing-in-a-potential-flow-have-lift&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law#Derivation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="337a11d3-1ee8-4e55-8bd1-1599bd8dc4d2" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:52:46.060" UserId="6634" Text="Adding collapsable fields to answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="337a11d3-1ee8-4e55-8bd1-1599bd8dc4d2" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:52:46.060" UserId="6634" Text="|feature-request|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2755" RevisionGUID="54bcd5f0-6455-485b-b54e-2d873479e2e0" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:57:47.047" UserId="520" Text="AFAIK, no mechanism currently exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, I present a cheap hack: MathJax in spoiler-boxes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! This is some spoiler text $$E = mc^2 .$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, it doesn't work, and even if it did the vertical space would be present all the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="06f41dd2-7ebe-43c4-b6b1-112d1835a94e" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:57:54.007" UserId="955" Text="the title says it all really. I know other SE sites are using the blog feature, but i don't understand yet what is the process for submission of articles. I don't see a physics blog site anywhere so i assume that needs to be deployed first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="06f41dd2-7ebe-43c4-b6b1-112d1835a94e" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:57:54.007" UserId="955" Text="how do we submit articles for physics.SE blog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="06f41dd2-7ebe-43c4-b6b1-112d1835a94e" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:57:54.007" UserId="955" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="0ab70fa6-0ea4-48a8-86bb-9920fc02dc26" CreationDate="2012-12-06T22:01:23.350" UserId="6634" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="Let's say I have an answer to a question ([like this one for example][1]) where the explanation can have effectively two speeds: plain english, and very math heavy. I would like a way to do both at once, similar to the way [Wikipedia hides these derivations][2] or even something as simple as the &quot;show more&quot;/&quot;show less&quot; links on the [FAQ][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do either of those styles to help keep the answer short, concise, and as plain-english as possible but still provide the technical details for those interested? If not, can there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46134/6634&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law#Derivation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="27a71e54-32fb-4336-a78e-92255d274ea7" CreationDate="2012-12-06T22:10:37.917" UserId="124" Text="There isn't a Physics SE blog, and you can't really submit articles to something that doesn't exist ;-) So there is no way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possibility of starting a site blog has been [previously discussed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog) but there was not enough support for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="bc63671d-1ea3-405c-a51a-f8ce7a0b7efc" CreationDate="2012-12-07T04:42:05.030" UserId="124" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="There isn't a Physics SE blog, and you can't really submit articles to something that doesn't exist ;-) So there is no way (for now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possibility of starting a site blog has been [previously discussed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog) but there was not enough support for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="15399c8b-8072-4ad5-bd4d-0f6804dc7959" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:44:26.613" UserId="7924" Text="The recent suspension of Ron is for an unreasonably long time.&#xD;&#xA;The previous time&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it was for a day, now it is for a month. I would have understood his suspension for the duration of the election (the cause of all the trouble), but not for a single day longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are suspension times determined?&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/ &lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;says it can be anywhere from 1 to 365 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But unlike in real life, no rules are given for what penalty to expect for which kind of offence, or for repetition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the escalation scale first one day, then one month, then one year, then permanently? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="15399c8b-8072-4ad5-bd4d-0f6804dc7959" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:44:26.613" UserId="7924" Text="How are suspension times determined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="15399c8b-8072-4ad5-bd4d-0f6804dc7959" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:44:26.613" UserId="7924" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="539ea725-fad1-418f-b077-2eff6beebf12" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:54:43.497" UserId="2684" Text="The guidelines from SE are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7 days for the first offense&#xD;&#xA;- 30 days for the second offense&#xD;&#xA;- 365 days for the third offense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the predefined values available in the suspension dialog, but moderators can choose any other value if they want to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="c60bfc30-1c94-4036-b2db-5c1ac0965abe" CreationDate="2012-12-07T11:16:33.707" UserId="2684" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="The guidelines from SE are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7 days for the first offense&#xD;&#xA;- 30 days for the second offense&#xD;&#xA;- 365 days for the third offense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no permanent suspension, one year is the maximum. If a user misbehaves again after a year-long suspension, they are suspended again for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the predefined values available in the suspension dialog, but moderators can choose any other value if they want to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="7e4628f0-1f4f-4c9c-99e7-e3b5b0197855" CreationDate="2012-12-07T11:26:47.033" UserId="2684" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="Suspension is in most cases not the first response to misbehavour by a user. The first steps are contacting the user and telling them what they are doing wrong, this can be formally via a moderator message or informally in a comment or chat message. For serious incidents, this might be skipped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines from SE on suspension lengths are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7 days for the first offense&#xD;&#xA;- 30 days for the second offense&#xD;&#xA;- 365 days for the third offense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no permanent suspension, one year is the maximum. If a user misbehaves again after a year-long suspension, they are suspended again for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the predefined values available in the suspension dialog, but moderators can choose any other value if they want to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="4050ca5e-d476-4185-9ba6-3a1795033810" CreationDate="2012-12-07T11:58:05.703" UserId="2684" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Suspension is in most cases not the first response to misbehavour by a user. The first steps are contacting the user and telling them what they are doing wrong, this can be formally via a moderator message or informally in a comment or chat message. For serious incidents, this might be skipped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines from SE on suspension lengths are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7 days for the first offense&#xD;&#xA;- 30 days for the second offense&#xD;&#xA;- 365 days for the third offense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no permanent suspension, one year is the maximum. If a user misbehaves again after a year-long suspension, they are suspended again for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the predefined values available in the suspension dialog, but moderators can choose any other value if they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of the suspension part of the moderator message tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UrGmc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="111c837e-6297-42fd-a976-0b794e222b4c" CreationDate="2012-12-07T13:21:09.653" UserId="2684" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Suspension is in most cases not the first response to misbehavour by a user. The first steps are contacting the user and telling them what they are doing wrong, this can be formally via a moderator message or informally in a comment or chat message. For serious incidents, this might be skipped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines from SE on suspension lengths are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7 days for the first offense&#xD;&#xA;- 30 days for the second offense&#xD;&#xA;- 365 days for the third offense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no permanent suspension, one year is the maximum generally used (though it is possible to suspend for longer). If a user misbehaves again after a year-long suspension, they are suspended again for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the predefined values available in the suspension dialog, but moderators can choose any other value if they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of the suspension part of the moderator message tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UrGmc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="61f31ae9-a275-4257-b157-083b6f74541c" CreationDate="2012-12-07T13:35:52.660" UserId="7924" Comment="moved part of the original text into a comment" Text="&#xD;&#xA;How are suspension times determined?&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/ &lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;says it can be anywhere from 1 to 365 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But unlike in real life, no rules are given for what penalty to expect for which kind of offence, or for repetition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the escalation scale first one day, then one month, then one year, then permanently? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="01fd8599-fff2-4ffd-921b-ea1ee419b5dc" CreationDate="2012-12-07T16:02:18.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/277080601398497280" />
  <row Id="5172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2761" RevisionGUID="2480fdda-a91c-47fe-b77b-d5210729652b" CreationDate="2012-12-07T16:42:33.083" UserId="6973" Text="As a stylistic work around, you can use headings and thematic breaks (horizontal lines) to define clear sections for deep/shallow answers like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Plain English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a quick, to the point explaination. It's at the top so people see it before the potentially overwhelming part to avoid &quot;tl;dr&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;##In Depth explaination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the part with lots of quotes, tiny details, formulas and whathaveyous. The horizontal bar and heading clearly separate it from the simpler explaination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add headings by placing # before the text on a line and three --- on one line to make thematic breaks, or you can use the editing icons to insert them automatically. You can also make sub-headings by varying the number of #s before a line to make big headings for short/long sections, but you can keep subheadings for the longer explanation if the need arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer this to spoiler text as spoilers aren't as discoverable and it's harder to edit a spoiler well. Plus they reduce contrast a bit due to the block quote style that's applied to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2761" RevisionGUID="3ebb39ca-29ea-4cd9-9274-edbc166ebfbc" CreationDate="2012-12-07T17:26:08.597" UserId="6973" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="As a stylistic work around, you can use headings and thematic breaks (horizontal lines) to define clear sections for deep/shallow answers like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Plain English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a quick, to the point explaination. It's at the top so people see it before the potentially overwhelming part to avoid &quot;tl;dr&quot;. It can also be useful to get the high-level overview before diving into the details even for people who want to read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;##In Depth explaination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the part with lots of quotes, tiny details, formulas and whathaveyous. The horizontal bar and heading clearly separate it from the simpler explaination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add headings by placing # before the text on a line and three --- on one line to make thematic breaks, or you can use the editing icons to insert them automatically. You can also make sub-headings by varying the number of #s before a line to make big headings for short/long sections, but you can keep subheadings for the longer explanation if the need arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer this to spoiler text as spoilers aren't as discoverable and it's harder to edit a spoiler well. Plus they reduce contrast a bit due to the block quote style that's applied to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="45c06bb3-298a-4216-bbf1-4b0980309ba4" CreationDate="2012-12-07T18:49:23.543" UserId="124" Comment="fix title and formatting and add tags" Text="When reviewing edits there is text inviting to improve the edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Approve, reject, or improve edits suggested by users. (less)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Approve edits you know are correct  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reject those you know are wrong  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Skip if you are not sure and want to go to the next suggested edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I see buttons only for approve, reject, and skip. How to improve the edit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it makes a difference: I am using Firefox 16.0.2 (Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu canonical - 1.0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5175" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="45c06bb3-298a-4216-bbf1-4b0980309ba4" CreationDate="2012-12-07T18:49:23.543" UserId="124" Comment="fix title and formatting and add tags" Text="Why don't I see a button for &quot;improve&quot; on tag wiki edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="45c06bb3-298a-4216-bbf1-4b0980309ba4" CreationDate="2012-12-07T18:49:23.543" UserId="124" Comment="fix title and formatting and add tags" Text="|support|editing|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5177" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="7c3148c4-2cd3-41ee-b82f-da7b2877fbdd" CreationDate="2012-12-07T19:02:18.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/277125899508408320" />
  <row Id="5178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="e1335cad-11a9-428e-b3de-d75d942a1955" CreationDate="2012-12-07T19:59:27.570" UserId="9719" Text="User profile pages currently indicate the user's location, if they have added one. I've thought recently that it would be convenient to know what time it is for another user. If they mention the time, or I know their location, I can figure it out. But it would be simpler for me if this was calculated by the server and displayed on their page. Obviously, this would only exist if the user set their location (or maybe this could be implemented as a separate field for timezone). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be similar to the way ages are automatically calculated and displayed, while not displaying a user's actual birth date or year. I also know that this is done in email notifications I get regarding chat sessions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="e1335cad-11a9-428e-b3de-d75d942a1955" CreationDate="2012-12-07T19:59:27.570" UserId="9719" Text="Can user profiles indicate the current time in that user's location?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="e1335cad-11a9-428e-b3de-d75d942a1955" CreationDate="2012-12-07T19:59:27.570" UserId="9719" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5181" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="ba19d629-534b-4668-b48b-d95a2004a6b3" CreationDate="2012-12-07T22:02:18.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/277171198398435328" />
  <row Id="5182" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="b57458db-0056-4e9a-a78a-c721cc1147d5" CreationDate="2012-12-07T22:16:13.843" UserId="66" Comment="edited title" Text="Inconsistancy between Meta and Main reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="593feb4f-5f12-497d-a509-2ab475dc4576" CreationDate="2012-12-07T22:17:57.430" UserId="4826" Text="The location field is neither necessarily the user's actual location, nor is it force-validated. For example, my own personal location is listed as &quot;6&quot;, which is an in-joke from my first days on Meta Stack Overflow. This is probably less of an issue overall on Physics, as there's probably a greater portion of users who have valid locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We once did an attempt last year to standardize location strings across profiles. [That didn't go over too well](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/88217/location-in-profile-was-changed-without-edit-or-knowing/88220#88220), although it gave us the means to suggest [a standardized format](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/88306/where-is-the-documentation-for-the-correct-format-of-the-user-profiles-location) (as opposed to forcing it on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chat timezone is not derived from your location field. Rather, it is derived from your machine itself, through JavaScript, and reflects what time your machine thinks it is. This lets it give you &quot;local&quot; time for you where-ever you are, no matter how much you may travel. We don't actually store this information, which prevents us from a proper means to relay these times to other users who would be, say, stopping at your profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think for now, the simplest implementation is that a user who opts to want their time zone known to others can add it into the &quot;About Me&quot; section of their profile. Or, even, right into the location field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="c9ff8c54-1362-4ab5-9bc5-b7d11cc740a7" CreationDate="2012-12-07T22:19:08.757" UserId="66" Comment="grammar/punctuation/formatting" Text="As the moderator election 2012 is in progress, users (above 300 rep.) are invited to nominate themselves in the election. So, some users will ask themselves, &quot;Could I become a moderator?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly believe that these four lines don't necessarily answer their questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A moderator&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- is patient and fair&#xD;&#xA;- leads by example&#xD;&#xA;- shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&#xD;&#xA;- is open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are the basic needs for physics users to become moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should they be experts in at least one of the fields of Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp; badges)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp; be elected as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;A votes), etc. **count** during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read all the answers. All are *amazing*. I got some new *facts*. Thanks to all, guys. I believe that the [moderator cheat sheet](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet) would be very useful for a new moderator..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5185" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="c9ff8c54-1362-4ab5-9bc5-b7d11cc740a7" CreationDate="2012-12-07T22:19:08.757" UserId="66" Comment="grammar/punctuation/formatting" Text="What are the basic characteristics for becoming a physics.SE moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="e648fe95-4017-4ab6-a32f-77ac310fcc84" CreationDate="2012-12-08T03:24:23.190" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The folks over at Math.SE have put together a [brief summary of what you can do with MathJax](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the only thing left out for people completely new to TeX-style markup is *emphasizing* that all math is done in &quot;math mode&quot; delimited by one or two dollar signs. (Actually, I suppose `\begin{} ... \end{}` environments are recognized too, but details...) Aside from that and a somewhat dense layout, I think it suffices for showing the basics. Plus, it's already on the SE network, so the MathJax implementation is (presumably) the same as ours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="a54133a1-8dd5-4bf0-b827-f27c38088f36" CreationDate="2012-12-08T08:49:22.207" UserId="14182" Text="It is not that I loose sleep because of this, but I am curious. I posted an answer and it collected 4 upvotes yesterday, but my reputation hasn't changed. Am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="a54133a1-8dd5-4bf0-b827-f27c38088f36" CreationDate="2012-12-08T08:49:22.207" UserId="14182" Text="Why my recent upvotes haven't changed my reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="a54133a1-8dd5-4bf0-b827-f27c38088f36" CreationDate="2012-12-08T08:49:22.207" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="de4f1f07-7e88-4f6e-a23b-110c0d56d310" CreationDate="2012-12-08T08:59:33.660" UserId="520" Text="Presumably you are discussing [your answer][1] to [*How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has happened is that [you edited it so many times that it was automatically . converted to a &quot;community wiki&quot; post][3]. Note the different format of the user-card at the bottom right of the post:![enter image description here][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the automatic conversion feature is to (1) prevent the original poster for benefiting from a post that has been extensively edited by others and to discourage frivolous edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to de-wiki this one for you, but this is not something that you should count on happening again in the future. It is generally recommended that you work on your posts offline so that you will only make a few edits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46210/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46189/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msEif.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="e85e09f7-0184-48bd-bd27-631cf6c9686d" CreationDate="2012-12-08T10:52:26.933" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Presumably you are discussing [your answer][1] to [*How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has happened is that [you edited it so many times that it was automatically converted to a &quot;community wiki&quot; post][3]. Note the different format of the user-card at the bottom right of the post:![user card example][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the automatic conversion feature is to (1) prevent the original poster for benefiting from a post that has been extensively edited by others and to discourage frivolous edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to de-wiki this one for you, but this is not something that you should count on happening again in the future. It is generally recommended that you work on your posts offline so that you will only make a few edits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46210/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46189/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msEif.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="8b1e15f1-e4ea-485b-9e17-b8b2cb64da57" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:20:38.203" UserId="6634" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="8b1e15f1-e4ea-485b-9e17-b8b2cb64da57" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:20:38.203" UserId="6634" Text="Distribution of answers and questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="8b1e15f1-e4ea-485b-9e17-b8b2cb64da57" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:20:38.203" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="79c3c2c4-dfe7-4bf5-bc01-f3a31294970c" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:26:34.463" UserId="6634" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the [Data Explorer][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e11cdf39-6b29-404e-9415-d72563cd7d6d" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:59:49.953" UserId="16673" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2012 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please @GraceNote or @TimStone [in the chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat) and let us know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e11cdf39-6b29-404e-9415-d72563cd7d6d" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:59:49.953" UserId="16673" Text="2012 Moderator Election - Town Hall Chat Digest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e11cdf39-6b29-404e-9415-d72563cd7d6d" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:59:49.953" UserId="16673" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="e78b2b24-7db0-412a-ac1b-35e3477259f1" CreationDate="2012-12-08T11:59:49.953" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132706#7132706):* **What do you believe is or will be your biggest weakness as a moderator?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132712#7132712):**  My lack of indepth physics knowledge to the point of most of the questions that are discussed here.  My field (in terms of physics) is astronomy/cosmology.  That said, I take my cues from the community, not by what I personally think is a right or wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132713#7132713):**  For one, I am only an undergrad student of physics. This means that I may not have the expertise to fully understand all posts. As a moderator, I know that I generally don't have to deal with such things, but if I do have to do with it, I may need the aid of a theory-savvy mod/community member&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132717#7132717):**  In deciding when to delete comments and how many to be cleaned up but still preserve the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132718#7132718):** My weakness - Lets see... One big thing is I'm still an undergrad.  Several comments responded to my nomination, Rory's comment is good. Detecting good/bad questions. &quot;I see a question - I like it and vote it up. There's a probability for other users to vote it down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132722#7132722):**  How would I detect it? Maybe I have to discuss with someone about it...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132721#7132721):**  I'm likely to have a low tolerance for crackpot questions.  I've seen other physics discussion forums over the years have their signal to noise ratio degraded by too many crank questions, and I'd like to avoid that here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="2dec48bf-ca0a-464f-9f9d-cebb87c4d6e6" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:02:16.740" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132714#7132714) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella):* **Do you think it is sufficient to listen to a mob to determine what photon rho mixing is? Or should you find out for yourself before moderating such a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132724#7132724):**  I would of course research it.  While I don't have indepth knowledge on a subject, I know where to find good information, and in this particular case I would discuss with the other mods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="cc58dd02-1b6a-47fa-9361-715e7c047de9" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:05:11.127" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132723#7132723):* **What is one contribution you feel demonstrates that you can be a good moderator?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [asked for clarification](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132728#7132728):**  Could you clarify: What do you mean by contribution?  As in an answer to the site, or a trait that I would bring?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [clarified](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132731#7132731):**  Either way works. Whatever you think you bring to the table that best represents your capability as a great moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132736#7132736):**  (1) My activity on the [mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/178438/manishearth) and multiple child metas (Phy, Chem)--I like discussing policy and community building. (2) My moderatorship on Chem.SE -- no hitches till now :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132744#7132744):**  I'll always be around. Rather than cleaning up messes, helping other users, I have just now entered into *community-building*. Like I say everytime, I'll follow the Etiquette and help with new users. I generally prefer not to vote down new guys&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132749#7132749):**  My knowledge of physics and use of rigor in math, coupled to my nit-picking of tags and not having people demand homework solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [remarked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132762#7132762):**  I like that policy on homework! We get a lot of intro/freshman physics questions, with no thought added too them! No work, no conceptual questions! I've been guilty of answering a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132750#7132750):**  My experience modding Skeptics and Astronomy as far as having familiarity with the tools.  Also, I have a laize faire attitude to many types of mod activities as long as actual community standards are not violated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132755#7132755):**  I think you'll see if you look at my comments and contributions to meta that I try to calm down angry discussion while still helping to ensure that unpopular points of view are heard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="299eb799-8b1a-435e-b4df-853376081cd7" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:07:19.837" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132727#7132727):* **How important is it to you that people with absolutely no social skills are heard and protected from mob harassment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132732#7132732):**  Irrelevant.  The answers should stand for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132766#7132766):**  Well, it depends on the &quot;mob harassment&quot; in question. Generally, these things ought to be locked and discussed on meta, calling a community team member in if necessary. In the end, it depends on which party is breaking the rules. If it is a content dispute (I'm right! No, *I* am!), then the dispute ought to be migrated to chat with possible post locking. Escalate to meta if it gets worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132787#7132787):**  I think it's important that they are heard when there's real content in their rantings.  There are some participants who add nothing though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2773" RevisionGUID="dc29156a-6a77-4653-9171-b36486d9545f" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:09:29.883" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132746#7132746) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella):* **Can you explain to us what your background in Astronomy and Cosmology is?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [added](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132746#7132746):** I think what expertise you DO have will be useful here; we see questions on astronomy, cosmology and orbital mechanics with decent frequency. We see we have a few passionate undergraduates here; I would like to be familiar with what your base knowledge is. I don't mean this as an inflammatory question; I think you can contribute and through this maybe you could answer some people's doubts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132768#7132768):**  Undergradutae level with some graduate courses along with a storng hobbyist level&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [remarked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132781#7132781):**  that sounds great. I think concerns about your prep may not be valid; you are at a level with many other candidates I would think! I'm satisfied, thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="75046068-4062-4fa7-a4b3-6f0baf8c1819" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:11:31.253" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132747#7132747) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella):* **Is it sufficient to listen to a cross section of opinion to determine scientific truth, or must you understand it deeply yourself? If you don't understand it yourself, would you *butt out completely*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132757#7132757):**  If I have no understanding of the subject matter, yes I will butt out.  If communityy standards are violated (i.e. You're being an unmitigated jerk) then I will take community level standard actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="72c90fd8-f10a-4b1e-9767-8031692dab54" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:13:33.533" UserId="16673" Text="## *![zephyr](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ddd2b0d8390a1e4976cf46abdf29f4?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [zephyr](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29219/zephyr) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132758#7132758) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella):* **What would your moderatorship bring to the community which would compensate for the potential loss of our 2nd most active member?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132775#7132775):**  I don't intend to do anything to drive Ron away.  Again, I never look at his questions or answers unless they are flagged by the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2776" RevisionGUID="0be006ed-2913-4130-8e08-cd8672e73ca1" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:15:35.500" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132759#7132759):* **Of the other candidates, who is the one user you think would be most qualified for the position of moderator, and why?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132761#7132761):**  Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132773#7132773):**  OK.. QMechanic (or Manish)... After seeing many comments - I wouldn't stand a chance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132778#7132778):**  EASY: Manishearth!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132784#7132784):**  Qmechanic, he is an active theoretical physicist, and has already been doing a lot of janitorial work in the past. A lot. After that, Larian, due to his experience on Skeptics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2777" RevisionGUID="e1cd822e-6e2c-4e7e-9903-8304fd3eb8dd" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:17:37.903" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132779#7132779) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth):* **What do you think of a *hands off policy*, where you do nothing unless absolutely required?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132792#7132792):**  Depends on what you mean by &quot;absolutely required&quot;. If a comment discussion gets heated, there's nothing that bad about migrating to chat. If people are concerned about the voting till the dispute is resolved (&quot;The wrong answer may get upvoted!&quot;), I'd be happy to templock the post. I would only voluntarily (without being asked) lock a post in the context of a content dispute if absolutely required--if the participants in the dispute aren't willing to move to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132805#7132805):** Why move them to chat at all? Why not ignore them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132840#7132840):**  Well, SE policy dictates that comments are not for discussion (the medium is anyway inadequate). Chat manages this better. And keeps it off the main question. Remember, we still have to hold up SE policy, unless we are allowed to use a different site-only policy (ask meta for that)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="b597d4b2-694e-43e0-ad2d-b3a456afd89b" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:19:41.167" UserId="16673" Text="## *![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132788#7132788):* **For candidates who are also moderators of other SE sites, how do you expect your duties on the other site to affect your ability to moderate physics.SE, especially with regard to the time commitments involved?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132798#7132798):**  Please excuse me. I'm not discouraging this. But, other moderators - I say, They've already got their chance. Why greedy for more? If they're becoming, what would other users do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132804#7132804):**  I figure that it will actually help.  It will give me more familiarity with tools and procedures.  Also, it will motivate me to check around more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [remarked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132817#7132817):**  Good point. I was thinking more with respect to time, if you have any comment on that (I edited my post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132822#7132822):**  As @Manishearth said, mod actions are much easier than answering questions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132815#7132815):**  I doubt it will affect it in any negative manner. Moderating Chem goes like this: Check front page, fix stuff, possibly close stuff, lurk. (And some discussion with other mods in the mod room). It takes very little time, so it won't interfere right now. If it does interfere later, I'll have to balance the two. A positive effect is that (1) I already am used to moderating a science site, (2) I can steal chemistry questions (j/k)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="c9b49604-2183-4418-8b2c-47c1d0e4a2fc" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:21:43.900" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132819#7132819):* **Suppose every other moderator agrees a question should be closed, but you think it should be reopened. Will you reopen after they all tell you not to?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132836#7132836):**  I doubt that would ever happen. But the desired answer is 'no', as I am probably misunderstanding the legitimate reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132865#7132865):**  Discuss with them in chat, if I haven't done that already. Maybe ask the  community via chat/meta. We will have 5/4 mods on this site--enough to be able to hash out a resolution. If I still disagree, I would ask meta, like I said, but I wouldn't go directly against their collective decision. That being said, I have reverted mod actions on Chem a few times--but that was after leaving a note to the other mod (and asking him/her to discuss it with me if necessary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132929#7132929):**  No. We don't because we have meta, a private discussion zone (for moderators only) like that. What's that for? Maybe we'd discuss there and try not to reopen..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="3293c4ba-f997-450e-b643-1d9aefdb6589" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:23:44.900" UserId="16673" Text="## *![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132824#7132824) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella):* **I can see from your history that your activity in physics pretty much stopped after May 5.  Where have you been?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132841#7132841):**  Astronomy SE closed back then, and it broke my heart.  I have been weeping quietly in a small celestial corner.  ;)  (In all seriousness, I actually was just taking a break for a while)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="2ee3648e-be3b-4a64-b6af-4627eab5e9ba" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:25:47.053" UserId="16673" Text="## *![random](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/b0bad23e2b52443f8d2595e53c10f691?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [random](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/998/random) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132825#7132825):* **How would you handle a user who has a personal grudge against you and runs around with their hands in the air no matter what you do just for the sake of calling you out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132850#7132850):**  In most cases, I would ask the user to take a break.  I'd ask other moderators if they saw the same problem I did.  In Ron's case, I'd be somewhat more careful.  He does control my food supply after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132851#7132851):**  hehe, does this have any specific meaning?  In all seriousness, I would need to confer with the other mods on something like that, and perhaps escalate it to the community directors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132858#7132858):**  Maybe, trying to talk with him. But, a chit chat wouldn't work for a &quot;grudged&quot; guy. Talk with other moderators personally. Then handle him rightfully. Well, I believe moderators do have a lot weapons. They have the utmost power you know... Put him under a timed bin, etc. like that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132888#7132888):**  I wouldn't. I'd let the other mods handle it, making a statement of my own if necessary. In such cases, I would take off my moderator hat and act like a normal user in the context of that meta discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="e17bc6ca-7aec-4f15-a75b-f3f60235598e" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:27:49.677" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132861#7132861):* **In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to using the privileges available after reaching 10k or 20k rep?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132864#7132864):**  Simply because I won't reach 10k in a desired time interval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132885#7132885):**  Moderators don't require privilege because they are the ones who contribute themselves towards community-development. This means they are far more than &quot;trusted users&quot;. They've to do the clean-ups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132894#7132894):**  I think my focus is not so much on answering questions here, but rather giving back to the community by keeping it useful (as opposed to a Yahoo!Ask setting).  Thus I doubt that I would get to those point levels.  I am a fan of the SE community, and as such want to give back to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132933#7132933):**  I'm not sure that moderator powers would make me particularly more effective than having earned 20k+ reputation.   The moderator diamond conveys a little authority, but not as much as having earned the respect of your community.   In any case, the question is moot for me.  I'm not going to hit 10k any time soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132951#7132951):**  Well, I am rather familiar with SE policy, like I said, so I can help enforce and build upon it as a moderator. I don't *have* 10/20k tools yet--and if I did,I still wouldn't be that effective with them--there are a lot of restrictions on those tools that make them useful only if used by all the &amp;gt;10ks. I don't think that's happening currently (I hope we can change that)--a lot of the 10k+s have no interest in cleaning up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="6f8597e1-d85c-4e4a-845e-07bc90b5085e" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:29:55.670" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132915#7132915):* **Which of the mods is willing to buck the other mods on conscience, while being the odd man out? Anyone?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132943#7132943):**  Since I wouldn't be discussing the content of an answer, but rather community standards, I would be more inclined to say that the rules themselves would determine my actions, not me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133128#7133128):**  I'm not sure there's any point in doing this.  It's wasted effort if you lose the final vote anyways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2784" RevisionGUID="852535e1-935c-4849-868d-361bb5d7e3c2" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:32:01.227" UserId="16673" Text="## *![random](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/b0bad23e2b52443f8d2595e53c10f691?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [random](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/998/random) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132928#7132928) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504):*  **As Ron Maimon's pet hamster, is there any collusion with his running around hammering another candidate again and again? Simply put, is he your Super PAC?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132956#7132956):**  No, I do not collude with Ron.  My biography is meant to indicate my respect for him and in particular for the anti-authority, judge-for-yourself principles he espouses.  However, you should not believe anyone's claims about their identity on the internet.  I might well be a dog." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="e46d3771-2cc7-4f81-afcb-06130060137d" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:34:03.787" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132959#7132959):* **Do you agree that rules are bullshit, and that you need judgment and bending over backwards to make sure people aren't silenced?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132978#7132978):**  Ron, rules exist for a reason.  You can't arbitrarily disregard or dismiss them for one person's sake.  However, i understand that you and I have a &quot;history&quot; and am totally fine with not touching any of your questions or answers, no matter how many flags pop up...  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [remarked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132989#7132989):**  That is a bad decision, a wrong decision, a stupid decision, and a decision that implies you should not be a moderator. QED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133041#7133041):**  While not a discussion it's something I cleared with Grace earlier.  I don't want to drive Ron away, and he is displaying a &quot;I'll take my ball and go home attitude towards me personally.  I have no feelings one way ort another towards Ron, but he appears to display a persecution complex in regards to anything I do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [replied](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133067#7133067):**  No, you could never have cleared this with Grace because it goes against the flow and purpose of SE. No one gets off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Shog9](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4f0af2dc52e6ff228e4d69f7e1e8aa5a?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Shog9](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/3435/shog9) [noted](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133075#7133075):**  That's why there's more than one moderator per site...And also us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [added](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133090#7133090):**  Moderators often agree to lay off users for a while in order to avoid the appearance of a personal grudge...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![dmckee](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9100fb18460057e68cadc6132add0f7f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [dmckee](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/2015/dmckee) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133096#7133096):** We are trying to *moderate* and letting things get personal is counter productive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [replied](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133106#7133106):**  Which is precisely why it is your duty to be objective and don't ignore a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![zephyr](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e2ddd2b0d8390a1e4976cf46abdf29f4?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [zephyr](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29219/zephyr) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133055#7133055):** Does that not bother you? Doesn't it seem like the judgement of such a prominent community member should be given some weight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133100#7133100):**  No it doesn't really bother me because I have no stake in this.  There are rules and standards, and we are supposedly civilized human beings.  If someone has a personal problem with me, it is on their conscience, not mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [remarked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133081#7133081):**  This is totally unacceptable.  You're calling Ron a crackpot because gets a few points on a list that John Baez wrote for laughs?   Do you really think his physics answers are incorrect?  If so, you have no business moderating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133020#7133020):**  I think rules are very useful tools.  Some level of judgement is always required in applying them.  In the case of one user, a question probably deserves closure as &quot;not a real question&quot;.  In the case of another user, we may have a newbie struggling to ask a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133024#7133024):**  Well, as  moderators we have to uphold the rules, so we can't really do that... If by &quot;people being silenced&quot;, you mean suspensions--then I must say I don't like suspending a user unless absolutely necessary. That being said, I do think that a few rules aren't that good (as you said, bullshit). I still will uphold these, though I will probably try to get a policy change via meta/MSO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [replied](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133077#7133077):** By people being silenced, I mean, some crazy guy asking a -11 voted question which asks &quot;does regge theory of linear trajectories explain why space time is curved?&quot; who has 20 knowledgable people saying that he is a crackpot. This is Joel Scherk. I want to know if you will you make sure the *theory is protected from deletion*, and the comments and answers preserved, no matter how stupid and crazy it sounds?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133137#7133137):**  In such cases, I'd ask for the help of the other mods and act after a group discussions. Remember, posting your own theories can be considered off topic (see the &quot;mainstream physics&quot; part of the faq). Such things ought to be locked, moved to chat for the time being, and unlocked when they get resolved. Maybe closed if they aren't mainstream" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="ea39a199-322d-4b3f-88ea-44a7111ac614" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:36:04.897" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132984#7132984):* **How will you try to deal with the flow of strictly homework questions from Freshman physics?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132992#7132992):**  Like David does always, I'm doing it still... Perhaps, indicate them our homework policy, making them aware of closing questions, explain them how should they ask, etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133005#7133005):**  It is immediately closed until they have demonstrated their attempts and confusions. And then the responders must not simply reveal the answer, but should only provide sufficient hints. QED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133007#7133007):**  Which goes to my Yahoo!Answers comment earlier.  I think those should be closed due to the community standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133063#7133063):**  Let it pass as long as they are conceptual questions; worry about it only if there are just too many. &quot;Solve this&quot; homework dumps should be commented on and closed (maybe with a time gap, though that's not really necessary since closing is a temporary state for improvement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133104#7133104):**  In most cases, I'd leave a warning that the question will be closed if it is not rewritten to very high standards.  Most of those homework questions are indistinguishable from spam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="2b844a2b-951e-4fd4-aaa6-4d4342e72471" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:38:07.380" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133029#7133029):* **A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133042#7133042):**  Meaningless, and hence don't care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133073#7133073):**  I tend to be someone that is more lighthearted than most.  I figure it will at least make things more fun.  :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133079#7133079):**  Maybe the old-time moral - you'll get every thing for what you have done :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133227#7133227):**  I've certainly said some less temperate things in my time here.  If someone asked about them, I'd point out that the moderators would have been within their rights to close the egregious ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="fd9c6f9b-310c-4720-b7e5-94185c21f0b6" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:40:14.980" UserId="16673" Text="## *![random](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/b0bad23e2b52443f8d2595e53c10f691?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [random](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/998/random) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133139#7133139):* **How do you educate users who use the site as their own blog when they cling to a notion of freedom of speech to justify posting anything and everything regardless of scope and topic based on having a registered account?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133161#7133161):**  This is a stupid question. He by definition gets kicked off for not adhering to the scope and topic-based structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133165#7133165):**  Try to advice them - through chat or somewhere - even a private message... Warn them of their activity. If not - WEAPONS away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133193#7133193):**  It would be time for using moderator tools (i.e. the mod chat) to make sure that I am not misconstruing some community action.  I keep saying that I am liaze fiare (i.e. I leave things alone) unless there are flags.  In that case, I would probably defer to a community manager on grievous violations.  I don't do or take anything personally, but there could be appearances of that on anyone who has a persecution complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133221#7133221):**  Discuss, notify via chat, notify via mod message, suspend if it continues. It's completely OK if the content is on topic, though..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2789" RevisionGUID="53f18e14-9f3d-4ac6-b07e-91a46352eea8" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:42:20.800" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133169#7133169):* **As a moderator, what areas of site cleanup/site building do you plan to focus on?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133190#7133190):**  As stressed already, appropriate (de)tagging and appropriate steps to posting HW questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133212#7133212):**  Astronomy and cosmology in terms of content.  Otherwise edits for grammar and spelling.  Also, if there are references, prevent link rot and quote relevant information, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133284#7133284):**  I'd love to see the duplicate questions more quickly closed.  We spend a lot of time answering the same questions.  I'd also like to deal with a certain set of cranks who've been making a lot of noise lately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="d4705cd5-d584-4b03-a9e1-1183d36e64d3" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:44:24.050" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133171#7133171):* **What can we expect new candidates to bring to our community in terms of answers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [added](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133171#7133171):** I'm interested in what the candidates will bring to our community. They will be on more and will hopefully also answer more questions along with their mod duties. I think @LarianLeQuella will add answers to astro and cosmo, @ChrisGerig to mathematical phys questions and perhaps heavy math quantum stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133200#7133200):**  I doubt it matters much--my answers will be on basic undergrad physics. As a moderator, I personally would keep at my current pace of answering, maybe improve it to what it used to be. Remember that on the main site, the diamond *means nothing* on an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133218#7133218):**  Astronomy answers, like I did before my precious site was eaten.  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133332#7133332):**  I think our moderator duties are largely separate from answering questions.  But since you didn't include me in the list:  I know quite a bit about QM, QFT, stat mech, particle physics, and string theory.  I'm particularly interested in the mathematical details of these subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2791" RevisionGUID="45062b61-0039-4758-a064-12606b2e68b1" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:46:29.310" UserId="16673" Text="## *![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133186#7133186) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy):* **If I remember correctly, you've said that you are not (yet!) a fluent English speaker. Do you think there is a chance of you misunderstanding people's comments while moderating, and if so, how would you prevent this from causing problems?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133210#7133210):**  Yes, David. sometimes, I'd definitely get a misunderstanding. Just Maybe - I could ask help from other mods **privately** like you or dmckee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="121e8f97-e259-42d0-ba28-05975f68eabd" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:49:01.700" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133207#7133207) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth):*  **Would you disallow non-mainstream thoughts from the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133236#7133236):**  Not sure... I probably would disallow such thoughts if it becomes a big issue (too many comment wars, etc). Otherwise, the community already handles these pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133244#7133244):**  Would you censor cold fusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133277#7133277):**  Since I am not too knowledgeable about it, I have not expressed any views upon it on meta yet--they have too little weight in this case. These decisions are best left to those mods/community members who know the topic well. My own opinion on the matter (which I haven't voiced yet, since it has little weight) is that these should be handled on a per-case basis. If the community objects OR if there is heated discussion, then worry about them, otherwise just keep a watch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133289#7133289):**  If the community comes to a clear consensus on this, I shall follow the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [added](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133281#7133281):**  I know not meant for me, but I don't censor answers or questions based on the subject. Remember, community standards.  Topics aren't really dictated by community standards as long as ON TOPIC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [replied](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133301#7133301):**  If there is consensus that all cold fusion should be deleted from the site, and everyone agrees, will you buck them all and say &quot;no way&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133326#7133326):**  Nope. Unless there are arguments for keeping the *specific* case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="5aa49930-a408-41a2-b368-4540f9c49e94" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:51:04.853" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Ron Maimon](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/706ad14d2e33372b999b059ed544031d?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Ron Maimon](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23715/ron-maimon) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133228#7133228):* **Are any of you willing to say &quot;I will allow all thoughts, mainstream or not mainstream, to be heard without prejudice, determined only by technical accuracy inasmuch as I can determine for myself?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133251#7133251):**  Ron, you don't dictate community  standards.  I cannot state that unequivocally.  I take it you have read the FAQ here, and there will be instances where rudeness and threats (and the like) will not be tolerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133253#7133253):**  Another stupid question. The point is, if there is no math there to back it up, then it is likely (and justified) to be prejudiced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="5d32ad98-0d2a-4f8b-8fd7-6a3df90d83e9" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:53:07.180" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Art Brown](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d47f855753f4f7f0876c7676035d5499?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Art Brown](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/41770/art-brown) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133260#7133260):* **Any thoughts on linking questions to relevant previous questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Art Brown](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d47f855753f4f7f0876c7676035d5499?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Art Brown](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/41770/art-brown) [added](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133260#7133260):** I have a terrible time finding old stuff here.  I've noticed qmechanic does a lot of linking.  I suppose it requires wide domain knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133285#7133285):**  Just takes patience, and is obviously a good idea for those interested/willing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133288#7133288):**  we'd just need to follow flags and do cleanups. Linking is perhaps not necessary. Many would flag for us. If we have got some knowledge in the field, we'd be happy to do the relating job. Even the SE engine shows related questions in side bar. Moreover - who are we? we are the members. We should've read several related questions already...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133305#7133305):**  I wish that SE had a function like the old (old) Digg site did when you submitted stories.  That would make it easier to do that.  In the case that I could find the linked question, I would allow that, however it may need a refresh on an answer, so keeping repeats open could be beneficial.  Again, community standards would drive the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133311#7133311):**  Well, there's always the &quot;linked&quot; and &quot;related&quot; sidebars that do most of the work for you. I sometimes get some deja vu, and then do a search to find related questions to link/CV-dupe. But it';s a great idea that we should focus on crosslinking more, I may look into that the next time I check out new questions here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="a44f6b02-a5f9-4601-bc0d-a64203296a90" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:55:18.540" UserId="16673" Text="## *![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133310#7133310):* **Is there something you think the current moderation team is doing wrong, that you would try to get changed if elected?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133327#7133327):**  The awareness of people simply answering homework-style questions, defeating the purpose of homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133339#7133339):**  Do you mean we should allow people to answer homework-like questions? Or are we not as strict about shutting them down as you think we should be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133343#7133343):**  Latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133341#7133341):**  Not really. I would prefer if we were stricter regarding one-liner/link only answers, and maybe mandate that answers should have some concepts involved. (We already sorta do, but there are a lot of tiny answers in the LQ queue. No problem in deleting them, but our current policy disallows it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133345#7133345):**  I don't think the current mod team is doing anything wrong.  I am surprised they aren't running again (or is there a rule against that, I haven't been a mod that long on Skeptics).  As for changes, isn't that handled by the community directors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133353#7133353):**  **NO**. I bet you're still doing the job. Once, I had a negative thought on dmckee. (seen through his harsh comments) the first time I joined (about some 3 months ago), but now - I give respect to his comments. So, No - I think current moderators are a good fit. They are **physicists**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133389#7133389):**  Generally, I think they're doing a fine job.  I've indicated elsewhere that I'd be a little more aggressive with some of the crank questions I've spotted, but other than that, I have no real complaints." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2796" RevisionGUID="c28eb314-b57b-4ab6-b430-0ecf77527052" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:57:20.977" UserId="16673" Text="## *![drake](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/51bd0bf617a17a869d8cd77d96565667?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [drake](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/44543/drake) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133406#7133406):* **What do you think about the number of questions which are posted? Too many, too few?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133422#7133422):**  Too many not-so-conceptual ones, too few really good ones. We nee to improve quality. Our community may not be able to handle more quantity yet. As graduated SE sites go, we're still pretty small, though...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![drake](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/51bd0bf617a17a869d8cd77d96565667?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [drake](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/44543/drake) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133441#7133441):** Are you going to do anything to improve the quality? What?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [responded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133450#7133450):**  Commenting on new questions, asking that they clarify what concepts they are asking about and emphasize those. *Maybe* move meta for stricter restrictions on qs. Though my primary focus (in the context of quality) would be on non-conceptual/tiny answers--like I said, current policy allows them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133435#7133435):**  I have been absent for a while, so I can't fairly answer that question.  However, a quick perusal, I find myself in agreement with Manishearth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133444#7133444):**  I'd like to see more high quality questions, and about the same number of questions overall at the moment.   I want to see questions which attract helpful and knowledgeable users, so that the community becomes stronger as it grows.   On the flip side, I'd like to see fewer questions which turn off these users.  None of which makes me unique." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2797" RevisionGUID="55097abd-e6b1-44a9-93a9-8e82c88e4c28" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:59:24.583" UserId="16673" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133296#7133296):* **Parting thoughts from the candidates?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133324#7133324):**  I love the whole SE concept and community!  I am here to give back.  That is my only stated purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7133527#7133527):**  If elected I will serve.  But you should consider voting for Chris Gerig or Manishearth.  I've been impressed by their answers tonight.  Chris, in particular, seems to have put a good deal of thought into how to deal with unconstructive questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5229" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="27c125e1-1390-4397-a95e-64d070f17541" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:02:18.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/277442989243121666" />
  <row Id="5230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="78983888-d73a-4fc4-92ec-053f3644c92f" CreationDate="2012-12-08T17:32:26.333" UserId="12808" Text="This would not only be useful for answers, but also for questions. For example, [this question on an ‘inverted HO’](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46289/12808) would IMHO look a _lot friendlier_ if it only showed the Hamiltonian and the three questions at the bottom per default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested users could then expand the boxes and see that the OP actually did quite some work (rather than asking for a homework problem without any effort), while not having to meddle through what feels like twenty pages of algebra." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5231" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="06de2f91-534f-4b02-b8e8-254aba3339de" CreationDate="2012-12-08T19:02:18.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/277488288095408128" />
  <row Id="5232" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="d68ebe90-6d9e-499d-8ac1-1fedd1319c27" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5234" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="8ff40d20-c9be-4461-8b50-de0536c74cb6" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5235" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="e04410c0-9f4a-47f6-8d12-7c450ae27099" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5236" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="6e25d849-f0d1-410b-afb7-06f03b796ce1" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5237" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="34e7185b-c5cb-4ddb-a602-112d596a0310" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5238" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="20fb7438-8118-47d5-8fb3-7762e8080aee" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5239" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="1ddfa779-a7d4-446c-8c62-8f21cbb7732c" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5240" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="5110338e-f366-4ead-802c-ba9b46797a14" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5241" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="b535cd5a-3743-4176-96fd-d6aaab7eea12" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:01:51.893" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="5242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="28c76634-09d8-41fe-b39e-d5fff8ee13fd" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:22:00.387" UserId="6634" Comment="added 689 characters in body" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the [Data Explorer][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I created a simple scatter plot to see what data we would be dealing with, the X axis is questions asked and Y is answers given. I'm looking for techniques on how to show all the different scales of data: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades but it will give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, should anybody want to play around with the data and see what they can come up with, the query is http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user It pulls out comments too, maybe there's a cool way to incorporate that information. Cooler than just doing a 3D scatter anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="87e0e9dd-8712-44c2-be82-217a50008161" CreationDate="2012-12-09T07:41:05.840" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 5 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25766/what-would-happen-if-the-polar-ice-caps-of-mars-melted&quot;&gt;What would happen if the polar ice caps of Mars melted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25997/could-two-colliding-comets-near-earth-cause-devastation&quot;&gt;Could two colliding comets near Earth cause devastation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet speculative impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25749/what-was-the-apparent-magnitude-of-the-june-15th-2011-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;What was the apparent magnitude of the June 15th 2011 lunar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25544/is-it-possible-to-make-a-hydrogen-alpha-solar-scope&quot;&gt;Is it possible to make a hydrogen-alpha solar scope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26334/why-are-binary-objects-so-critical-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why are binary objects so critical to astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26011/has-everything-we-see-happened-in-the-past&quot;&gt;Has everything we see happened in the past?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25414/color-variation-in-rr-lyrae&quot;&gt;Color Variation in RR Lyrae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25290/what-is-a-trojan-moon&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;Trojan Moon&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26378/what-does-a-planet-look-like-in-the-infrared&quot;&gt;What does a planet look like in the infrared?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26110/could-dark-energy-be-the-effect-of-gravity-at-great-distances&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be the effect of gravity at great distances?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics amateur gravity dark-energy dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/study-of-exoplanets-reaching-saturation-point&quot;&gt;Study of exoplanets reaching saturation point&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25338/space-interferometry-mission-sim-cancellation&quot;&gt;Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) cancellation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26630/lack-of-exoplanet-missions-in-the-decadal-survey&quot;&gt;Lack of exoplanet missions in the decadal survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25332/how-would-you-describe-a-black-hole-to-a-complete-layman&quot;&gt;How would you describe a black hole to a complete layman?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26216/how-to-find-the-andromeda-galaxy-without-using-a-go-to-telescope&quot;&gt;How to find the Andromeda galaxy without using a go-to telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How exactly does time slow down near a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity time theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25650/why-is-the-universe-map-shaped-like-an-oval&quot;&gt;Why is the universe map shaped like an oval?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26549/why-is-the-universe-so-big&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so big?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26588/advice-sought-on-choosing-a-camera-for-a-meade-lx10&quot;&gt;Advice sought on choosing a camera for a Meade LX10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26704/what-happens-to-light-and-mass-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light and mass in the center of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove the Earth is round?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solar solar-system education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25834/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25939/why-is-the-surface-of-venus-so-hot&quot;&gt;Why is the surface of Venus so hot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26242/how-can-one-predict-the-length-of-the-synodic-month-why-is-it-irregular&quot;&gt;How can one predict the length of the Synodic month? Why is it irregular?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon the-moon time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26040/what-is-the-official-difference-between-a-planet-and-a-dwarf-planet&quot;&gt;What is the official difference between a planet and a dwarf planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25806/is-there-a-consensus-on-the-fate-of-our-universe&quot;&gt;Is there a consensus on the fate of our universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26435/given-that-matter-cannot-escape-a-black-hole-how-did-the-big-bang-produce-the-u&quot;&gt;Given that matter cannot escape a black hole, how did the big bang produce the universe we&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25877/do-days-and-months-on-the-moon-have-names&quot;&gt;Do days and months on the Moon have names?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26136/mass-of-a-galaxy-via-luminosity&quot;&gt;Mass of a galaxy via luminosity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883/why-is-there-still-radiation-left-from-the-big-bang-now&quot;&gt;Why is there still radiation left from the Big Bang now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25387/is-there-evidence-of-a-larger-universe&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of a larger universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/curiosity-rover-msl-specification-dimensions&quot;&gt;Curiosity Rover (MSL): specification / dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26605/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-how-does-it-cause-a-black-hole-to-evaporate&quot;&gt;What is Hawking radiation and how does it cause a black hole to evaporate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26271/how-can-a-population-iii-star-be-so-massive&quot;&gt;How can a Population III star be so massive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26413/what-is-the-strongest-evidence-that-anti-matter-exists&quot;&gt;What is the strongest evidence that anti-matter exists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="6496fdbc-ff81-437f-99d2-881f1a14b4a5" CreationDate="2012-12-09T15:35:41.637" UserId="12808" Text="While editing a little bit in the tag wiki lately, I noticed that the preview for MathJax is somewhat…strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- it takes much longer for the preview to update in the tag wiki edit than in answer/question edits&#xD;&#xA;- `$\{$` is not shown in the tag wiki preview&#xD;&#xA;- it chokes when there appears to be markdown in a formula, such as in `$A_{ij} B_{kl}$`; the `_` are interpreted as meant to emphasise `{ij} B`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a particular reason the tag wiki behaves differently from the rest of PSE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using Opera 12.11 build 1661 on Debian Wheezy (amd64)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="6496fdbc-ff81-437f-99d2-881f1a14b4a5" CreationDate="2012-12-09T15:35:41.637" UserId="12808" Text="MathJax in Tag Wiki" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="6496fdbc-ff81-437f-99d2-881f1a14b4a5" CreationDate="2012-12-09T15:35:41.637" UserId="12808" Text="|support|tags|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5247" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="c6a45d6b-fcec-419c-b3a8-a25c13924cef" CreationDate="2012-12-09T15:37:26.170" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|tags|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="53a576d6-aa95-45d0-9efa-ba83933a25a3" CreationDate="2012-12-09T15:37:51.030" UserId="9198" Text="Note, it doesn't require just the &gt; 3K users of the site to help out in this endeavor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users that have less than 3K rep can flag the post for moderator attention if they believe that the post should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, this means that there are only *two* votes that are being used to close a question (the flag is in essence is a vote, as well as the moderator's vote that closes it), so it places a little more responsibility on the moderator making the call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note with this, while flagging isn't transparent to the entire community, it *is* logged (as well as the moderator's action for the flag).  SE staff and other moderators can see the results, so nothing is lost in the case of a contentious flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other benefit of this is that moderator flags don't decay, while close votes do, so if there's a question that *really* needs it, but not enough &gt; 3K users active to close it, other users can contribute to this effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="bb9142b8-bda2-4092-83ae-5d40b73b29db" CreationDate="2012-12-09T19:08:09.853" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|tags|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="19ae78b9-879b-469c-8d47-ae7061ce91f0" CreationDate="2012-12-09T20:54:41.000" UserId="6634" Comment="Removed questions already retagged" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt; (Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26334/why-are-binary-objects-so-critical-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why are binary objects so critical to astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26011/has-everything-we-see-happened-in-the-past&quot;&gt;Has everything we see happened in the past?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25414/color-variation-in-rr-lyrae&quot;&gt;Color Variation in RR Lyrae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25290/what-is-a-trojan-moon&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;Trojan Moon&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26378/what-does-a-planet-look-like-in-the-infrared&quot;&gt;What does a planet look like in the infrared?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26110/could-dark-energy-be-the-effect-of-gravity-at-great-distances&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be the effect of gravity at great distances?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics amateur gravity dark-energy dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/study-of-exoplanets-reaching-saturation-point&quot;&gt;Study of exoplanets reaching saturation point&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25338/space-interferometry-mission-sim-cancellation&quot;&gt;Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) cancellation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26630/lack-of-exoplanet-missions-in-the-decadal-survey&quot;&gt;Lack of exoplanet missions in the decadal survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25332/how-would-you-describe-a-black-hole-to-a-complete-layman&quot;&gt;How would you describe a black hole to a complete layman?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26216/how-to-find-the-andromeda-galaxy-without-using-a-go-to-telescope&quot;&gt;How to find the Andromeda galaxy without using a go-to telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How exactly does time slow down near a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity time theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25650/why-is-the-universe-map-shaped-like-an-oval&quot;&gt;Why is the universe map shaped like an oval?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26549/why-is-the-universe-so-big&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so big?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26588/advice-sought-on-choosing-a-camera-for-a-meade-lx10&quot;&gt;Advice sought on choosing a camera for a Meade LX10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26704/what-happens-to-light-and-mass-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light and mass in the center of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove the Earth is round?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solar solar-system education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25834/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25939/why-is-the-surface-of-venus-so-hot&quot;&gt;Why is the surface of Venus so hot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26242/how-can-one-predict-the-length-of-the-synodic-month-why-is-it-irregular&quot;&gt;How can one predict the length of the Synodic month? Why is it irregular?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon the-moon time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26040/what-is-the-official-difference-between-a-planet-and-a-dwarf-planet&quot;&gt;What is the official difference between a planet and a dwarf planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25806/is-there-a-consensus-on-the-fate-of-our-universe&quot;&gt;Is there a consensus on the fate of our universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26435/given-that-matter-cannot-escape-a-black-hole-how-did-the-big-bang-produce-the-u&quot;&gt;Given that matter cannot escape a black hole, how did the big bang produce the universe we&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25877/do-days-and-months-on-the-moon-have-names&quot;&gt;Do days and months on the Moon have names?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26136/mass-of-a-galaxy-via-luminosity&quot;&gt;Mass of a galaxy via luminosity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883/why-is-there-still-radiation-left-from-the-big-bang-now&quot;&gt;Why is there still radiation left from the Big Bang now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25387/is-there-evidence-of-a-larger-universe&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of a larger universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/curiosity-rover-msl-specification-dimensions&quot;&gt;Curiosity Rover (MSL): specification / dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26605/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-how-does-it-cause-a-black-hole-to-evaporate&quot;&gt;What is Hawking radiation and how does it cause a black hole to evaporate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26271/how-can-a-population-iii-star-be-so-massive&quot;&gt;How can a Population III star be so massive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26413/what-is-the-strongest-evidence-that-anti-matter-exists&quot;&gt;What is the strongest evidence that anti-matter exists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="198817bc-3522-43b4-b8cd-28a4ab3f03dc" CreationDate="2012-12-09T20:59:44.403" UserId="6634" Comment="Removed questions already retagged" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt; (Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;(Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26378/what-does-a-planet-look-like-in-the-infrared&quot;&gt;What does a planet look like in the infrared?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26110/could-dark-energy-be-the-effect-of-gravity-at-great-distances&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be the effect of gravity at great distances?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics amateur gravity dark-energy dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/study-of-exoplanets-reaching-saturation-point&quot;&gt;Study of exoplanets reaching saturation point&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25338/space-interferometry-mission-sim-cancellation&quot;&gt;Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) cancellation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26630/lack-of-exoplanet-missions-in-the-decadal-survey&quot;&gt;Lack of exoplanet missions in the decadal survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25332/how-would-you-describe-a-black-hole-to-a-complete-layman&quot;&gt;How would you describe a black hole to a complete layman?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26216/how-to-find-the-andromeda-galaxy-without-using-a-go-to-telescope&quot;&gt;How to find the Andromeda galaxy without using a go-to telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How exactly does time slow down near a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity time theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25650/why-is-the-universe-map-shaped-like-an-oval&quot;&gt;Why is the universe map shaped like an oval?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26549/why-is-the-universe-so-big&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so big?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26588/advice-sought-on-choosing-a-camera-for-a-meade-lx10&quot;&gt;Advice sought on choosing a camera for a Meade LX10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26704/what-happens-to-light-and-mass-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light and mass in the center of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove the Earth is round?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solar solar-system education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25834/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25939/why-is-the-surface-of-venus-so-hot&quot;&gt;Why is the surface of Venus so hot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26242/how-can-one-predict-the-length-of-the-synodic-month-why-is-it-irregular&quot;&gt;How can one predict the length of the Synodic month? Why is it irregular?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon the-moon time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26040/what-is-the-official-difference-between-a-planet-and-a-dwarf-planet&quot;&gt;What is the official difference between a planet and a dwarf planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25806/is-there-a-consensus-on-the-fate-of-our-universe&quot;&gt;Is there a consensus on the fate of our universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26435/given-that-matter-cannot-escape-a-black-hole-how-did-the-big-bang-produce-the-u&quot;&gt;Given that matter cannot escape a black hole, how did the big bang produce the universe we&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25877/do-days-and-months-on-the-moon-have-names&quot;&gt;Do days and months on the Moon have names?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26136/mass-of-a-galaxy-via-luminosity&quot;&gt;Mass of a galaxy via luminosity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883/why-is-there-still-radiation-left-from-the-big-bang-now&quot;&gt;Why is there still radiation left from the Big Bang now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25387/is-there-evidence-of-a-larger-universe&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of a larger universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/curiosity-rover-msl-specification-dimensions&quot;&gt;Curiosity Rover (MSL): specification / dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26605/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-how-does-it-cause-a-black-hole-to-evaporate&quot;&gt;What is Hawking radiation and how does it cause a black hole to evaporate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26271/how-can-a-population-iii-star-be-so-massive&quot;&gt;How can a Population III star be so massive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26413/what-is-the-strongest-evidence-that-anti-matter-exists&quot;&gt;What is the strongest evidence that anti-matter exists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="5cb77f35-2467-48a7-89b1-ebe343e4f9a7" CreationDate="2012-12-09T21:34:17.833" UserId="6634" Comment="Removed questions already retagged" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt; (Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;(Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;(Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;(Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="bf6833cf-895a-4d06-aa71-62155fd278b5" CreationDate="2012-12-09T21:53:19.193" UserId="12808" Text="We currently have three tags (and many others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:electromagnetism]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:classical-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:quantum-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, [tag:classical-electrodynamics] should be a synonym to [tag:electromagnetism], covering everything that is governed by the classical Maxwell equations, such as the Lorentz force, magnets and most other things you can think of. It would include the Lorentz invariant treatment of electromagnetism and the first introduction of electromagnetism to quantum mechanics as classical fields. This fits what one gets when searching [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) for ‘Electromagnetism’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would leave [tag:quantum-electrodynamics] as the clear counterpart for the QED approach arising from QFT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags [tag:electric-engineering] and [tag:electric-circuits] (there is currently a synonym suggestion for them) would be unchanged, of course, and still make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="bf6833cf-895a-4d06-aa71-62155fd278b5" CreationDate="2012-12-09T21:53:19.193" UserId="12808" Text="tag:classical-electrodynamics and tag:electromagnetism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="bf6833cf-895a-4d06-aa71-62155fd278b5" CreationDate="2012-12-09T21:53:19.193" UserId="12808" Text="|discussion|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="f167c309-5d86-4ce8-8fd5-6ef9832c2dbc" CreationDate="2012-12-09T22:36:11.043" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Tag synonyms for voting](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We currently have three tags (and many others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:electromagnetism]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:classical-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:quantum-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, [tag:classical-electrodynamics] should be a synonym to [tag:electromagnetism], covering everything that is governed by the classical Maxwell equations, such as the Lorentz force, magnets and most other things you can think of. It would include the Lorentz invariant treatment of electromagnetism and the first introduction of electromagnetism to quantum mechanics as classical fields. This fits what one gets when searching [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) for ‘Electromagnetism’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would leave [tag:quantum-electrodynamics] as the clear counterpart for the QED approach arising from QFT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags [tag:electric-engineering] and [tag:electric-circuits] (there is currently a synonym suggestion for them) would be unchanged, of course, and still make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5260" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="69eb8ede-c522-4ee6-8a3d-6ff1af2db3d1" CreationDate="2012-12-09T22:36:11.043" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[175],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="c602df59-5508-464f-a757-239046a7d3f4" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:04:03.493" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="d9969c86-21d7-4c4e-8fcc-4ebec5983d82" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:04:25.100" UserId="2911" Text="Physics's [second moderator election][1] has come to a close, the votes have been tallied, and the new moderators are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Qmechanic][2]][3] &#xD;&#xA;[![Manishearth][4]][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They'll be joining [the existing crew][6] shortly — please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice as they learn the ropes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details on how the voting played out, you can download the election results [here][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/2451.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/7433.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/about#moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="d9969c86-21d7-4c4e-8fcc-4ebec5983d82" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:04:25.100" UserId="2911" Text="2012 Community Moderator Election Results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="d9969c86-21d7-4c4e-8fcc-4ebec5983d82" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:04:25.100" UserId="2911" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="5da98da4-ade3-4ccc-8fc0-cadf5548b0f2" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:08:26.503" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="While going through some of the old astro.SE questions, I've noticed some astrobiology questions among them. They were certainly on-topic there, and I've seen threads that indicate most of what was on-topic there is to be taken as on-topic here, but there might be objections that it is more in the realm of biology than physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see three cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Astrobiology is decidedly *on*-topic.&#xD;&#xA; - Astrobiology is decidedly *off*-topic.&#xD;&#xA; - This is best handled case-by-case. For instance, questions about [non-carbon-based life](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life) are better handled by biologists, while [other questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable) might deal more with the temperatures and solar winds we'd expect exoplanets to experience in certain environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions? Was this already discussed elsewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="5da98da4-ade3-4ccc-8fc0-cadf5548b0f2" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:08:26.503" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What is our stance on astrobiology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="5da98da4-ade3-4ccc-8fc0-cadf5548b0f2" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:08:26.503" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="e08a143e-f6dd-402e-9223-b6eb0ca6b9eb" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:21:54.673" UserId="66" Text="Congratulations to the new community mods and *best of luck*!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2806" RevisionGUID="77f44ea1-2854-48f1-8623-4f0dea0a23c3" CreationDate="2012-12-10T00:25:39.043" UserId="6634" Text="If what I have learned about this history of the merger is correct, then anything that is on-topic for astronomy is on-topic here. Which to me means [tag:astrobiology] is on-topic here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as always there are places that it might be more on topic if it doesn't deal with astronomy specifically. Life in microgravity isn't specific to astronomy per se and the biology world does extensive research on it here on Earth. So I think it may be like many of the &quot;How do I write a program to help me solve this complicated physics problem&quot; where it could be on topic here because it may relate to modeling but it might get more traffic on CompSci or StackOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For existing questions the best choice may be to leave in place as on-topic. For new questions, it may be a judgment call because it is on-topic here but they might get a better answer on Biology. So it might be worth leaving a comment suggesting that but otherwise leaving it untouched." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="d87bd9c4-bfaf-426f-bbd4-18edb4cc3245" CreationDate="2012-12-10T01:25:32.807" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 1 post that was reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25947/identifying-objects-for-dummies&quot;&gt;Identifying objects, for dummies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25784/how-big-is-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How big is the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26023/do-all-the-individual-stars-that-we-can-see-in-the-night-sky-belong-to-milky-way&quot;&gt;Do all the individual stars that we can see in the night sky belong to Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26221/what-will-we-see-between-the-cmb-and-the-current-oldest-object-seen&quot;&gt;What will we see between the CMB and the current oldest object seen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25490/have-sterling-engines-been-used-in-outer-space&quot;&gt;Have Sterling Engines Been Used In Outer Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26470/how-to-adjust-feather-touch-focuser-for-collimation&quot;&gt;How to adjust feather touch focuser for collimation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian collimation secondary-mirror focuser laser&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25909/missing-radio-source-coordinates-in-g-t-measurement-technique-itu-r-s-733-2&quot;&gt;Missing radio source coordinates in G/T measurement technique ITU-R S.733.2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25365/agn-accretion-disk-vs-torus&quot;&gt;AGN accretion disk vs. torus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25573/how-to-make-a-moondial&quot;&gt;How to make a moondial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26145/need-help-buying-binoculars-online-for-astronomy-10x50&quot;&gt;Need help buying binoculars online for astronomy (10x50)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25577/stability-of-moons-around-tidally-locked-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Stability of moons around tidally locked exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26662/what-is-the-orbital-path-of-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What is the orbital path of Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way local-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26650/biggest-crater-in-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;Biggest crater in the Solar System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars crater collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25977/was-aristarchos-method-to-compute-earth-sun-distance-ever-rediscovered-in-medie&quot;&gt;Was Aristarchos' method to compute Earth-Sun distance ever rediscovered in medieval or mod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26172/how-much-detail-can-telescopes-actually-provide&quot;&gt;How much detail can telescopes actually provide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25542/emission-line-width-units&quot;&gt;Emission line width units&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25728/galaxies-that-are-newer-than-our-own-one&quot;&gt;Galaxies that are newer than our own one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26066/why-is-there-a-limit-to-the-intensity-of-cosmic-rays-at-low-energies&quot;&gt;Why is there a limit to the intensity of cosmic rays at low energies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26120/from-computational-astrophysics-to-finance&quot;&gt;From Computational Astrophysics to Finance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25548/why-are-there-not-many-detectable-supernovas&quot;&gt;Why are there not many detectable supernovas?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova stars galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26774/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-127mm-5-f-1500-synscan-go-to-maksutov-cassegrain&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skymax-127 (AZ) 127mm (5&quot;) f/1500 SynScan GO-TO Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26343/why-does-omega-centauri-have-a-distinct-chemical-signature-from-the-rest-of-the&quot;&gt;Why does Omega Centauri have a distinct chemical signature from the rest of the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way globular-clusters dwarf-galaxies metallicity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/how-is-it-that-some-nebulae-are-rotating-and-others-are-not&quot;&gt;How is it that some nebulae are rotating and others are not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics physics nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/double-image-in-binoculars&quot;&gt;Double image in binoculars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binoculars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26261/is-there-such-a-thing-as-north-in-outerspace&quot;&gt;Is there such a thing as &quot;North&quot; in outerspace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26401/have-scientists-been-able-to-find-an-example-of-a-possible-white-hole&quot;&gt;Have scientists been able to find an example of a possible White Hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25319/whats-the-best-way-to-start-out-with-astrophotography-on-a-tight-budget&quot;&gt;What's the best way to start out with astrophotography on a tight budget?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25890/convert-eci-coordinates-to-latitude-longitude&quot;&gt;Convert ECI coordinates to latitude/longitude?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25362/how-can-i-determine-if-my-telescope-mirror-is-parabolic&quot;&gt;How can I determine if my telescope mirror is parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25722/computing-planetary-positions&quot;&gt;Computing Planetary Positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26159/existing-photometry-data-of-the-open-star-cluster-cepheus-ob3&quot;&gt;Existing photometry data of the open star cluster Cepheus OB3?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26269/why-do-we-need-the-concept-of-dark-energy-to-explain-the-expansion-of-the-univer&quot;&gt;Why do we need the concept of dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26212/what-would-happen-to-earth-if-saturn-were-to-exit-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;What would happen to Earth if Saturn were to exit the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system earth saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26153/what-makes-a-supermassive-black-hole-move-through-space&quot;&gt;What makes a supermassive black hole move through space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26017/what-is-the-weekly-average-of-coronal-mass-ejections-the-sun-sends-out&quot;&gt;What is the weekly average of coronal mass ejections the sun sends out?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25397/is-there-any-site-place-which-gives-access-to-astronomical-signals-acquired-from&quot;&gt;Is there any site/place which gives access to astronomical signals acquired from space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26533/what-is-a-hot-flow-anomaly-and-can-we-see-the-terrestrial-ones&quot;&gt;What is a Hot Flow Anomaly, and can we see the terrestrial ones?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-wind magnetosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26317/is-it-possible-to-see-satellites-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see satellites with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26345/can-cmes-disturb-a-planet-orbit&quot;&gt;Can CMEs disturb a planet orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25726/where-will-new-horizons-go-after-sailing-past-pluto&quot;&gt;Where will New Horizons go after sailing past Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system spacecraft kuiper-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25689/predicting-solar-storms&quot;&gt;Predicting solar storms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;light solar-system solar-wind&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26560/accuracy-and-assumptions-in-deriving-the-tully-fisher-relation&quot;&gt;Accuracy and assumptions in deriving the Tully-Fisher relation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxies distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/how-to-draw-a-star-chart&quot;&gt;How to draw a star chart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25825/can-you-damage-your-eyes-viewing-venus&quot;&gt;Can you damage your eyes viewing Venus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26684/may-20th-annular-eclipse-duration-from-vancouver&quot;&gt;May 20th Annular Eclipse - Duration from Vancouver?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25585/what-is-behind-the-cosmological-horizon-barrier&quot;&gt;What is behind the cosmological horizon barrier?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25582/figuring-out-which-moons-of-jupiter-i-saw-through-my-telescope&quot;&gt;Figuring out which moons of Jupiter I saw through my telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moon jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26087/at-what-distance-could-you-see-andromeda-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25918/falling-into-saturn-or-jupiter-would-we-pass-through-it-until-we-hit-the-nucleu&quot;&gt;Falling into Saturn or Jupiter, would we pass through it until we hit the nucleus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25556/can-we-see-a-spaceship-falling-into-a-black-hole-and-entering-the-event-horizon&quot;&gt;Can we see a spaceship falling into a black hole and entering the event horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26515/what-is-exactly-the-density-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated&quot;&gt;What is exactly the density of a black hole and how can it be calculated?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25683/impact-location-that-created-the-moon&quot;&gt;Impact location that created the moon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon formation collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25595/io-turned-inside-out&quot;&gt;Io - Turned inside out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit jupiter moons io&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25271/can-we-prove-that-the-universe-is-finite-or-infinite&quot;&gt;Can we prove that the universe is finite or infinite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/ring-height-stats&quot;&gt;Ring height stats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/are-we-going-to-be-able-to-travel-trough-space-deforming-the-space-time&quot;&gt;Are we going to be able to travel trough space deforming the space-time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&quot;&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25353/where-does-the-light-of-the-big-bang-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the light of the Big Bang come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang light pulsars deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26603/how-can-you-calculate-the-exact-position-of-the-earth-taking-into-account-the-gr&quot;&gt;How can you calculate the exact position of the Earth taking into account the gravitationa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="36dcfd2e-c314-4cf6-a84f-9111264840f6" CreationDate="2012-12-10T03:48:36.577" UserId="2715" Text="Indeed, congratulations to the two new moderators!  I had a suspicion that this is exactly how it would turn out.  Makes all the drama seem rather silly in the end.  ;)  I think the community made the perfectly correct choices in this, and I am very happy with the final result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="2ddd2ec7-7e0e-48c8-812d-de14d7e8e592" CreationDate="2012-12-10T04:10:17.200" UserId="7433" Text="Since we had the Astro merge, anything on topic there is on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT, we may not have that good a bio/astrobiology community here, and these may get neglected. I propose we look at the questions case-by-case. We can't close as off topic, BUT, if they do not have too many votes, we may migrate&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. New questions on astrobiology, if any, probably should be migrated off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first choice for migration would be Bio. Chem...eh...not that much&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. [This question][1], for example, is &quot;borderline&quot;. I would personally be reluctant to accept it, but I would discuss it with the other two mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It isn't that good an idea to migrate posts with too many votes to beta sites. But it is up to the receiving site's mods whether or not to accept a question in the end.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Posts older than 6 months can't be migrated anyway. Generally it is better to only migrate new posts.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. This is my official stance as a Chem mod.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="46623011-c642-4dcd-82d0-e67537eafaaa" CreationDate="2012-12-10T04:29:02.447" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 6 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25869/stellar-evolution-simulation-engine-or-software&quot;&gt;Stellar evolution simulation engine or software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software star-formation simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25336/reverse-sun-position-algorithm&quot;&gt;Reverse Sun position algorithm?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25634/illumination-calculations&quot;&gt;Illumination calculations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25435/formula-for-getting-time-of-sunrise-at-a-particular-location&quot;&gt;Formula for getting time of sunrise at a particular location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26643/why-arent-saturns-rings-clumping-into-moons&quot;&gt;Why Aren't Saturn's Rings Clumping into Moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25860/how-do-you-transform-between-theoretical-hertzsprung-russell-diagrams-and-colour&quot;&gt;How do you transform between theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell Diagrams and Colour-Magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25626/why-isnt-sunset-time-in-sync-with-solstice&quot;&gt;Why isn't sunset time in sync with solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sunset solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25275/why-is-this-radio-telescopes-reflector-spherical-and-not-parabolic&quot;&gt;Why is this radio telescope's reflector spherical and not parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26670/atmospheric-interference-and-ground-based-stellar-observations&quot;&gt;Atmospheric interference and ground based stellar observations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25579/why-do-clusters-of-stars-eventually-dissipate&quot;&gt;Why do clusters of stars eventually dissipate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity stars globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25417/why-does-jupiter-emit-more-energy-than-it-receives&quot;&gt;Why does Jupiter emit more energy than it receives?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25283/does-mercury-have-a-balmy-spot&quot;&gt;Does Mercury have a balmy spot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26370/is-it-true-that-our-solar-system-belongs-to-another-galaxy-which-collides-with-t&quot;&gt;Is it true that our solar system belongs to another galaxy which collides with the milky w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies 2012&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25512/what-is-a-good-introductory-text-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;What is a good introductory text to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25533/creating-downloading-a-large-galaxy-dataset&quot;&gt;Creating/Downloading a large Galaxy Dataset&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26240/whats-the-most-accepted-theory-for-blue-stragglers-these-days&quot;&gt;What's the most accepted theory for Blue Stragglers These Days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars globular-clusters blue-supergiants&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/is-there-any-way-to-anticipate-exceptional-aurora-borealis-viewing-conditions&quot;&gt;Is there any way to anticipate exceptional Aurora Borealis viewing conditions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25930/2012-is-there-some-astronomical-event-happening&quot;&gt;2012: Is there some astronomical event happening?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-beam-radiant-intensity-distribution&quot;&gt;Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26080/how-bright-will-an-asteroid-be&quot;&gt;How bright will an asteroid be?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26566/where-can-i-find-a-list-of-when-i-can-see-something-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Where can I find a list of when I can see something in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25937/are-there-trends-in-the-number-of-meteors-in-a-shower-year-on-year&quot;&gt;Are there trends in the number of meteors in a shower year on year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from&quot;&gt;Is the CMB rest frame special? where does it come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26356/transit-of-mercury-how-did-he-see-it&quot;&gt;Transit of Mercury: how did he see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26362/difference-between-baryonic-inertial-and-gravitational-mass-and-relation-to-d&quot;&gt;Difference between baryonic, inertial and gravitational mass? (and relation to dark matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25372/where-does-the-dust-on-the-moon-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the dust on the moon come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25964/use-of-advanced-mathematics-in-astronomy-like-topology-abstract-algebra-or-ot&quot;&gt;Use of advanced mathematics in astronomy, like topology, abstract algebra, or others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universe equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26102/how-do-i-find-the-time-for-pleiades-to-be-at-zenith-today&quot;&gt;How do I find the time for Pleiades to be at Zenith today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26530/how-to-concisely-explain-apparent-retrograde-motions-of-planets&quot;&gt;How to concisely explain apparent retrograde motions of planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets visual-astronomy orbit retrograde-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26061/why-did-population-iii-stars-lack-planets&quot;&gt;Why did population III stars lack planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26619/best-time-of-the-year-to-see-the-star-alpha-centauri-in-chile-santiago&quot;&gt;Best time of the year to see the star Alpha Centauri in Chile, Santiago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars visual-astronomy observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26584/does-anybody-actually-do-astrometry-in-the-21st-century&quot;&gt;Does anybody actually do astrometry in the 21st century?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars planets time observational-techniques instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26570/shadow-of-a-jovian-moon-over-the-great-red-spot&quot;&gt;Shadow of a Jovian moon over the Great Red Spot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25571/what-is-the-physical-origin-of-scintillation&quot;&gt;What is the physical origin of scintillation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/liquid-water-in-mid-ice-on-europa-mechanism&quot;&gt;Liquid Water in &quot;mid-ice&quot; on Europa. Mechanism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter europa exo-geology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26354/what-would-the-universe-look-like-if-it-started-out-without-any-irregularities&quot;&gt;What would the universe look like if it started out without any irregularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/could-a-neutron-star-be-active-fusioning-neutrons-into-something-more-dense-and&quot;&gt;Could a neutron star be active, fusioning neutrons into something more dense and releasing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25498/the-sun-as-a-gravitational-lens&quot;&gt;The Sun as a gravitational lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25681/is-the-apophis-asteroid-a-concern&quot;&gt;Is the Apophis asteroid a concern?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25645/comet-versus-asteroids-versus-meteors&quot;&gt;Comet versus asteroids versus meteors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26562/if-we-were-to-travel-through-space-sci-fi-style-how-close-to-the-false-color&quot;&gt;If we were to travel through space (sci-fi style), how close to the false-color images wou&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies space-flight color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25539/do-we-have-an-idea-about-the-amount-of-matter-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;Do we have an idea about the amount of matter in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26315/detecting-dim-objects&quot;&gt;Detecting dim objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="f0946b3b-d50d-420a-89e9-4c88c104a729" CreationDate="2012-12-10T05:37:31.210" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2809" RevisionGUID="6d77c582-dc96-4f69-acdb-f87ce334b065" CreationDate="2012-12-10T07:26:42.893" UserId="3099" Text="Good result.  Well done folks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="516832a2-3aea-446f-a389-b0b674bf6dcc" CreationDate="2012-12-10T07:58:27.020" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 10 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25382/how-can-we-be-sure-that-liquid-iron-titanium-droplets-can-form-around-particulat&quot;&gt;How can we be sure that liquid iron/titanium droplets can form around particulates on hot &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26278/what-is-the-mass-of-the-lego-figurines-being-launched-with-spacecraft-juno&quot;&gt;What is the mass of the LEGO figurines being launched with spacecraft Juno?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter nasa launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26021/how-does-the-average-mars-jupiter-distance-compare-with-the-average-earth-jupite&quot;&gt;How does the average Mars-Jupiter distance compare with the average Earth-Jupiter distance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&quot;&gt;Can we model gravitation as a repulsive force?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26148/how-are-interplanetary-trajectories-found&quot;&gt;How are interplanetary trajectories found?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/meteorites-from-mars&quot;&gt;Meteorites from Mars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26157/is-there-any-way-to-judge-whether-a-bolide-might-produce-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Is there any way to judge whether a bolide might produce a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/are-telescopes-with-a-concave-lens-useful-for-astronomy&quot;&gt;Are telescopes with a concave lens useful for astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26418/computing-period-semi-major-axis-of-binary&quot;&gt;Computing period, semi-major axis of binary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="e0e6a3de-4855-4504-9057-482947f43372" CreationDate="2012-12-10T11:28:28.997" UserId="4826" Comment="Adding digest link." Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I will be working with candidates to determine a time for the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The Town Hall Chat took place Wednesday the 5th at 01:00:00Z UTC / This is on Tuesday the 4th at 8:00 PM EST. A digest is available [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the primary phase.  This means that I am looking at the 3rd-5th of December. As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates to find a best fit based on availability, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  I will update this post with a direct link to the chat room once the event is scheduled.&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidates regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority for scheduling is generally towards the greatest number of candidate openings as well as the earliest. Candidates who cannot show up during the live event will still be able to answer all questions posted, they will just do so at their earliest convenience.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, a digest of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="a7fee2af-f298-4851-b15f-b11b2def3ab0" CreationDate="2012-12-10T12:15:04.643" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 205 characters in body" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25382/how-can-we-be-sure-that-liquid-iron-titanium-droplets-can-form-around-particulat&quot;&gt;How can we be sure that liquid iron/titanium droplets can form around particulates on hot &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26278/what-is-the-mass-of-the-lego-figurines-being-launched-with-spacecraft-juno&quot;&gt;What is the mass of the LEGO figurines being launched with spacecraft Juno?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter nasa launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26021/how-does-the-average-mars-jupiter-distance-compare-with-the-average-earth-jupite&quot;&gt;How does the average Mars-Jupiter distance compare with the average Earth-Jupiter distance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&quot;&gt;Can we model gravitation as a repulsive force?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26148/how-are-interplanetary-trajectories-found&quot;&gt;How are interplanetary trajectories found?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/meteorites-from-mars&quot;&gt;Meteorites from Mars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26157/is-there-any-way-to-judge-whether-a-bolide-might-produce-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Is there any way to judge whether a bolide might produce a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26418/computing-period-semi-major-axis-of-binary&quot;&gt;Computing period, semi-major axis of binary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="df0ded61-78cb-487d-814a-15aca4f4a6c2" CreationDate="2012-12-10T12:40:00.850" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed 6 retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27143/applications-of-delay-differential-equations&quot;&gt;Applications of delay differential equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27262/mermin-wagner-theorem-in-the-presence-of-hard-core-interactions&quot;&gt;Mermin-Wagner theorem in the presence of hard-core interactions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27453/technical-naturalness-of-yukawa-couplings&quot;&gt;Technical naturalness of Yukawa couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27776/do-gauge-theories-cfts-have-phase-transitions-as-the-t-hooft-coupling-is-vari&quot;&gt;Do Gauge Theories (CFTs) Have Phase Transitions as the 't Hooft Coupling is Varied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26838/connections-and-applications-of-sle-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections and applications of SLE in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics conformal-field-theory probability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27125/hypersingular-boundary-operator-in-physics&quot;&gt;Hypersingular Boundary Operator in Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27565/status-of-local-gauge-invariance-in-axiomatic-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Status of local gauge invariance in axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26804/what-is-the-current-state-of-research-into-v-representability&quot;&gt;What is the current state of research into $v$-representability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor&quot;&gt;The Role of Rigor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph history-overview &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27398/onsagers-regression-hypothesis-explained-and-demonstrated&quot;&gt;Onsager's Regression Hypothesis, Explained and Demonstrated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26950/extensions-of-dhr-superselection-theory-to-long-range-forces&quot;&gt;Extensions of DHR superselection theory to long range forces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&quot;&gt;What is the use of a Universal-NOT gate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/an-entropy-of-the-wigner-function&quot;&gt;An entropy of the Wigner function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph uncertainty-principle entropy wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/sampling-typical-clusters-between-distant-points-in-subcritical-percolation&quot;&gt;Sampling typical clusters between distant points in subcritical percolation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27593/which-is-the-coupling-between-the-photon-and-the-su2xu1-gauginos-before-sym&quot;&gt;Which is the coupling between the photon and the SU(2)xU(1) gauginos, before symmetry brea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27286/metric-interpretation-of-self-adjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Metric interpretation of self-adjoint extensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics non-commutative-geometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/systematic-approach-to-deriving-equations-of-collective-field-theory-to-any-orde&quot;&gt;Systematic approach to deriving equations of collective field theory to any order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26915/can-the-cpt-theorem-be-valid-if-lorentz-invariance-is-only-spontaneously-broken&quot;&gt;Can the CPT theorem be valid if Lorentz invariance is only spontaneously broken?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="c67a2e10-6e39-42a4-8803-38a6efbf5b86" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:15:16.070" UserId="4826" Text="As it is December 2012, we are now going to reset our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/2810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="c67a2e10-6e39-42a4-8803-38a6efbf5b86" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:15:16.070" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="c67a2e10-6e39-42a4-8803-38a6efbf5b86" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:15:16.070" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5287" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="c67a2e10-6e39-42a4-8803-38a6efbf5b86" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:15:16.070" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="5288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="3f76cb82-5604-4268-96d5-74bf776616aa" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:15:37.427" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Community Promotion Ads - 2013](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2810/community-promotion-ads-2013)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA;- useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA;- interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA;- cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA;- anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently 6) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5289" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="2a456538-922b-43b4-b383-6ed191b1a8a9" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:15:37.427" UserId="4826" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2810],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4826,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Grace Note&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="31787877-1317-4950-98ae-89c481053b68" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:19:19.223" UserId="7433" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 700 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/W4xr2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5293" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="5eb35d1a-40d7-4148-8b5e-1d6b871de881" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:19:19.223" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="8d225f7f-9384-4595-a159-da4078d70a64" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:19:29.660" UserId="7433" Text="[![Chemistry - Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5295" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="80cbccd0-9d7e-4bd9-b82f-f3be47aa2122" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:19:29.660" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="7ce2152b-eeb5-4ab3-b25e-639f693b9706" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:20:04.513" UserId="7433" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QlIlq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://academia.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5297" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="f419213e-1794-40ba-b138-1016a3feea57" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:20:04.513" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="7bd6bc7a-1547-46cf-96cd-d4289016cf60" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:20:23.297" UserId="7433" Text="[![Mathematica at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d64R1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5299" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="10daf9c7-8fdc-422c-a63e-2b1c3a6c2557" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:20:23.297" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5300" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="5f2f41d6-6819-4a20-906b-3a5b1371f5f4" CreationDate="2012-12-10T16:02:19.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/278167769420279808" />
  <row Id="5301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="e6af7fcb-1133-4b64-9c91-3d02f4338c4b" CreationDate="2012-12-10T17:33:31.517" UserId="12808" Text="[tag:photon] → [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:photons] → [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:virtual-photons] → [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice if all things related to propagating electromagnetic fields would be covered by [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]. Additional tagging with [tag:electromagnetism] and [tag:quantum-electrodynamics] could then be used to distinguish between the classical and QFT description, with [tag:particle-physics] for the [HEP](http://example.net &quot;High Energy Physics&quot;) questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasoning here is that [tag:photon] is not sufficient to distinguish between a classical and QFT treatment either. [tag:thermal-radiation] would still be a strict and helpful subset of [tag:electromagnetic-radiation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="3644942a-ff4a-49dc-b732-715d2c266dbf" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:17:49.133" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 7 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26418/computing-period-semi-major-axis-of-binary&quot;&gt;Computing period, semi-major axis of binary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="c7cc08d8-569d-44aa-91af-45e8272a68ee" CreationDate="2012-12-10T21:10:33.173" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed 5 retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27125/hypersingular-boundary-operator-in-physics&quot;&gt;Hypersingular Boundary Operator in Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27565/status-of-local-gauge-invariance-in-axiomatic-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Status of local gauge invariance in axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26804/what-is-the-current-state-of-research-into-v-representability&quot;&gt;What is the current state of research into $v$-representability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor&quot;&gt;The Role of Rigor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph history-overview &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27398/onsagers-regression-hypothesis-explained-and-demonstrated&quot;&gt;Onsager's Regression Hypothesis, Explained and Demonstrated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26950/extensions-of-dhr-superselection-theory-to-long-range-forces&quot;&gt;Extensions of DHR superselection theory to long range forces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&quot;&gt;What is the use of a Universal-NOT gate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/an-entropy-of-the-wigner-function&quot;&gt;An entropy of the Wigner function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph uncertainty-principle entropy wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/sampling-typical-clusters-between-distant-points-in-subcritical-percolation&quot;&gt;Sampling typical clusters between distant points in subcritical percolation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27593/which-is-the-coupling-between-the-photon-and-the-su2xu1-gauginos-before-sym&quot;&gt;Which is the coupling between the photon and the SU(2)xU(1) gauginos, before symmetry brea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27286/metric-interpretation-of-self-adjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Metric interpretation of self-adjoint extensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics non-commutative-geometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/systematic-approach-to-deriving-equations-of-collective-field-theory-to-any-orde&quot;&gt;Systematic approach to deriving equations of collective field theory to any order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26915/can-the-cpt-theorem-be-valid-if-lorentz-invariance-is-only-spontaneously-broken&quot;&gt;Can the CPT theorem be valid if Lorentz invariance is only spontaneously broken?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="0ac925f3-614b-4268-a549-5c7fb118268a" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:28:13.337" UserId="10655" Text="Inspired by the fact I got downvoted for [this][1] answer and cannot tell exactly why given the question was pretty vague and I don't think the OP was the one doing it either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am starting to think that it should be mandatory to comment on your downvotes. Now I am not saying I have never downvoted without a comment but that said, I do wonder whether sneaky downvoting is really in the spirit of improvement when it is not always obvious why it has been done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it ever constructive to just downvote people and not even tell them why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44426/what-is-the-best-tool-for-simulating-vacuum-and-fluids-together/45159#45159" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="0ac925f3-614b-4268-a549-5c7fb118268a" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:28:13.337" UserId="10655" Text="Should downvoters have to comment on why they did it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="0ac925f3-614b-4268-a549-5c7fb118268a" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:28:13.337" UserId="10655" Text="|discussion|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="fc75642a-1a65-494e-b413-0c960227a30f" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:48:42.627" UserId="7433" Text="No, they should not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Privacy&#xD;&#xA;Votes are supposed to be _private_. If a comment is forced on a downvote, it's pretty easy to figure out who did it by looking through the comments. And users can get pretty vengeful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On StackOverflow, over a span of two days, I once downvoted ~50 bad posts, leaving a comment. I had 4-5 cases of revenge downvotes, 1-2 cases of enough &quot;revenge voting&quot; to trigger the auto vote invalidator, and a bunch of angry comments. Users should be free to vote without having to be afraid of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Smoothness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is integral to the SE system, thus the process of downvoting needs to be smooth. A user need not have to jump through hoops to downvote, people will downvote less if it takes more time to do. And we can't have that, people _need_ to downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your answer that was voted down, it really should be a comment (I converted it). A few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Really short answers are discouraged here, it's always better to provide an intuitive explanation&#xD;&#xA; - Answers that only provide a link are even more discouraged--due to concerns of link rot/etc. You should summarize the link in your own words (few paragraphs-is) so that the answer can stand alone.&#xD;&#xA; - Comments asking for improvement should go in the comments to the question. Click &quot;add comment&quot; out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="a0b097cf-3025-475d-97ce-d81f4034b004" CreationDate="2012-12-10T23:14:57.650" UserId="7433" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="No, they should not. It is _encouraged_ you leave a comment (and undownvote if/when the user improves their post). But it is never mandated--and I really doubt it ever will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Privacy&#xD;&#xA;Votes are supposed to be _private_. If a comment is forced on a downvote, it's pretty easy to figure out who did it by looking through the comments. And users can get pretty vengeful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On StackOverflow, over a span of two days, I once downvoted ~50 bad posts, leaving a comment. I had 4-5 cases of revenge downvotes, 1-2 cases of enough &quot;revenge voting&quot; to trigger the auto vote invalidator, and a bunch of angry comments. Users should be free to vote without having to be afraid of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Smoothness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is integral to the SE system, thus the process of downvoting needs to be smooth. A user need not have to jump through hoops to downvote, people will downvote less if it takes more time to do. And we can't have that, people _need_ to downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your answer that was voted down, it really should be a comment (I converted it). A few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Really short answers are discouraged here, it's always better to provide an intuitive explanation&#xD;&#xA; - Answers that only provide a link are even more discouraged--due to concerns of link rot/etc. You should summarize the link in your own words (few paragraphs-is) so that the answer can stand alone.&#xD;&#xA; - Comments asking for improvement should go in the comments to the question. Click &quot;add comment&quot; out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2819" RevisionGUID="434398f3-e788-4a06-9e36-4050005227bf" CreationDate="2012-12-10T23:17:30.127" UserId="1255" Text="Am I allowed to post data from the results here?  I thought I might save other people some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is a total count of the number of votes cast for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice for each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;		            	1	2	3	all&#xD;&#xA;	Chris Gerig	    	9	15	25	49&#xD;&#xA;	Qmechanic	      	134	38	11	183&#xD;&#xA;	Manishearth	    	23	79	28	130&#xD;&#xA;	user1504	       	5	11	19	35&#xD;&#xA;	Larian LeQuella		10	20	35	65&#xD;&#xA;	Crazy Buddy	    	4	8	25	37&#xD;&#xA;	MKB	            	5	4	10	19&#xD;&#xA;	Total votes	    	190	175	153	518&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this misses the cross-correlations, which would be important for runoffs, but your method wouldn't matter much for this election.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average voter cast a vote for 2.726 candidates.  Total of 190 people voted, reflected in the first choice column because you can't vote without casting a first choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="7039219a-c503-41ab-bf60-275625387e79" CreationDate="2012-12-11T08:47:16.160" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 14 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25533/creating-downloading-a-large-galaxy-dataset&quot;&gt;Creating/Downloading a large Galaxy Dataset&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26240/whats-the-most-accepted-theory-for-blue-stragglers-these-days&quot;&gt;What's the most accepted theory for Blue Stragglers These Days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars globular-clusters blue-supergiants&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/is-there-any-way-to-anticipate-exceptional-aurora-borealis-viewing-conditions&quot;&gt;Is there any way to anticipate exceptional Aurora Borealis viewing conditions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25930/2012-is-there-some-astronomical-event-happening&quot;&gt;2012: Is there some astronomical event happening?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-beam-radiant-intensity-distribution&quot;&gt;Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26080/how-bright-will-an-asteroid-be&quot;&gt;How bright will an asteroid be?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26566/where-can-i-find-a-list-of-when-i-can-see-something-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Where can I find a list of when I can see something in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25937/are-there-trends-in-the-number-of-meteors-in-a-shower-year-on-year&quot;&gt;Are there trends in the number of meteors in a shower year on year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from&quot;&gt;Is the CMB rest frame special? where does it come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26356/transit-of-mercury-how-did-he-see-it&quot;&gt;Transit of Mercury: how did he see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26362/difference-between-baryonic-inertial-and-gravitational-mass-and-relation-to-d&quot;&gt;Difference between baryonic, inertial and gravitational mass? (and relation to dark matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25372/where-does-the-dust-on-the-moon-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the dust on the moon come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25964/use-of-advanced-mathematics-in-astronomy-like-topology-abstract-algebra-or-ot&quot;&gt;Use of advanced mathematics in astronomy, like topology, abstract algebra, or others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universe equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26102/how-do-i-find-the-time-for-pleiades-to-be-at-zenith-today&quot;&gt;How do I find the time for Pleiades to be at Zenith today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26530/how-to-concisely-explain-apparent-retrograde-motions-of-planets&quot;&gt;How to concisely explain apparent retrograde motions of planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets visual-astronomy orbit retrograde-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26061/why-did-population-iii-stars-lack-planets&quot;&gt;Why did population III stars lack planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26619/best-time-of-the-year-to-see-the-star-alpha-centauri-in-chile-santiago&quot;&gt;Best time of the year to see the star Alpha Centauri in Chile, Santiago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars visual-astronomy observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26584/does-anybody-actually-do-astrometry-in-the-21st-century&quot;&gt;Does anybody actually do astrometry in the 21st century?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars planets time observational-techniques instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26570/shadow-of-a-jovian-moon-over-the-great-red-spot&quot;&gt;Shadow of a Jovian moon over the Great Red Spot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25571/what-is-the-physical-origin-of-scintillation&quot;&gt;What is the physical origin of scintillation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/liquid-water-in-mid-ice-on-europa-mechanism&quot;&gt;Liquid Water in &quot;mid-ice&quot; on Europa. Mechanism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter europa exo-geology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26354/what-would-the-universe-look-like-if-it-started-out-without-any-irregularities&quot;&gt;What would the universe look like if it started out without any irregularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/could-a-neutron-star-be-active-fusioning-neutrons-into-something-more-dense-and&quot;&gt;Could a neutron star be active, fusioning neutrons into something more dense and releasing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25498/the-sun-as-a-gravitational-lens&quot;&gt;The Sun as a gravitational lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25681/is-the-apophis-asteroid-a-concern&quot;&gt;Is the Apophis asteroid a concern?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25645/comet-versus-asteroids-versus-meteors&quot;&gt;Comet versus asteroids versus meteors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26562/if-we-were-to-travel-through-space-sci-fi-style-how-close-to-the-false-color&quot;&gt;If we were to travel through space (sci-fi style), how close to the false-color images wou&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies space-flight color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25539/do-we-have-an-idea-about-the-amount-of-matter-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;Do we have an idea about the amount of matter in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26315/detecting-dim-objects&quot;&gt;Detecting dim objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5318" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="64062ef9-84bf-4342-977e-d02ac6f53c35" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:02:19.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/278439560533389312" />
  <row Id="5319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="e721c58e-81ec-4199-a764-22dc114e8c4b" CreationDate="2012-12-11T11:17:53.747" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&quot;&gt;What is the use of a Universal-NOT gate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/an-entropy-of-the-wigner-function&quot;&gt;An entropy of the Wigner function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph uncertainty-principle entropy wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/sampling-typical-clusters-between-distant-points-in-subcritical-percolation&quot;&gt;Sampling typical clusters between distant points in subcritical percolation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27593/which-is-the-coupling-between-the-photon-and-the-su2xu1-gauginos-before-sym&quot;&gt;Which is the coupling between the photon and the SU(2)xU(1) gauginos, before symmetry brea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27286/metric-interpretation-of-self-adjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Metric interpretation of self-adjoint extensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics non-commutative-geometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/systematic-approach-to-deriving-equations-of-collective-field-theory-to-any-orde&quot;&gt;Systematic approach to deriving equations of collective field theory to any order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26915/can-the-cpt-theorem-be-valid-if-lorentz-invariance-is-only-spontaneously-broken&quot;&gt;Can the CPT theorem be valid if Lorentz invariance is only spontaneously broken?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="a15bf312-d57f-424b-973a-7e5731eb3680" CreationDate="2012-12-11T13:21:27.493" UserId="6634" Text="I'll start by saying that I really despise encouraging participation in things by awarding prizes, especially money. That to me is over the top, especially for things that are supposed to be community driven like this site. I was poking around several different meta's on the sites where I typically lurk and some of the smaller ones ran Topic of the Week contests to drive up participation and/or expand the scope of the site by encouraging questions on less-frequently used tags ([UX][1], [SciFi][2], [Cooking][3]). The one on [Judiasm][4] works without any prizes at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly am not advocating prize money, I think that's a terrible idea. And this site doesn't need it really. But would it be something worth doing/entertaining to have a Topic of the [time period] type of recurring event? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I would say to a prize would be recognizing the questions and answers under the topic that got the highest votes during the time period -- the high voting gives rep points which is essentially the only reward system in place on the site. Or if individual sites can award unique badges, then a badge could be given for best answer/question under a specific topic contest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.ux.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/topic-of-the-week-contest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1138/topic-of-the-week-contest-updated-august-29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/the-end-of-a-contest-and-beginning-of-something-else&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1215/weekly-topic-challenge-5772-41-week-of-pinchas-5772-rashi?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="a15bf312-d57f-424b-973a-7e5731eb3680" CreationDate="2012-12-11T13:21:27.493" UserId="6634" Text="Topic of the week &quot;contest&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="a15bf312-d57f-424b-973a-7e5731eb3680" CreationDate="2012-12-11T13:21:27.493" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="99b86809-f140-41f7-80f9-c201d7cf3825" CreationDate="2012-12-11T15:24:32.097" UserId="7433" Text="&#xD;&#xA;##A bit on those contests&#xD;&#xA;Those guys running the TOTW contests are SE Inc employees, part of the group known as CHAOS. These guys are assigned some sites and they help promote them (only a few sites have a CHAOS member assigned).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Prizes?&#xD;&#xA; Though cash prizes aren't a good idea, sometimes SE swag is a great way to motivate people to participate in contests. For example, see [the webapps second anniversary contest][1]. But, we may want to hold off on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Contest for us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm, I really like the idea. And I'd be willing to help organize it. BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We need to have a sizeable portion of the community willing to participate in this.** To that end, we'll probably have to gauge the comminity's response to this post. Most of our community isn't that active on meta, so getting such things started may take time..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, sites can't award unique badges :/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/1250/webapps-second-anniversary-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="f7b5bdfa-3461-4792-80a2-3e080f1eab6a" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:03:12.967" UserId="7433" Text="I recently migrated away [a Mathematica question][1]. Now, our faq does not explicitly allow software questions so I assumed that it was off topic, and sent it away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT--it seems like this question _may_ be better suited for Physics.SE, since it deals with higher-end physics that most Mathematica.SE community members will not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we allow such questions? If not, should we allow them? Maybe add a line to the faq to that end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46583/feynrules-vs-feyncalc-or-anything-else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="f7b5bdfa-3461-4792-80a2-3e080f1eab6a" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:03:12.967" UserId="7433" Text="Should we allow software questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="f7b5bdfa-3461-4792-80a2-3e080f1eab6a" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:03:12.967" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|scope|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2826" RevisionGUID="9413d591-aa06-499f-b7a4-6ceca3551dbb" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:16:02.247" UserId="520" Text="The FAQ includes *&quot;Computational questions&quot;* in the *&quot;kinds of questions should not be asked here&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I generally try to sort out if SciComp or Stack Overflow would be best. Or I encourage the author to be clear if it is the physics or the computation that (s)he is asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wishy-washy about the one you've linked to. In a lot of ways it looks like a &quot;save me having to read the docs&quot; question, but I know from personal experience that that it is not always clear from the docs exactly where the limits of a complicated package may lie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, it is definitely not a physics question, but it is a question about physics tools. On Stack Overflow programming tools are on topic, but I don't know if we have a really clearly stated policy on this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="8c321b5d-af3a-4c9d-a5a0-5f86a386795b" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:29:43.753" UserId="2751" Text="I think about the physics questions involving computation should be decided case by case by giving the people knowledgable in the physics topics concerned some time to notice the question and see what they think about it, since they are the experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="2afc087b-934a-4376-832b-20b027242649" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:44:50.287" UserId="12808" Text="I would prefer to allow both computational as well as software questions as long as their origin is purely physical, or, in other words, as long as it can be assumed that someone completely disconnected from physics (say, in financial maths) could not answer them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, numerical integration sticks up its ugly head basically everywhere and is hence better of on CompSci, but _nobody who is not a physicist_ will even think about Feynman diagrams and ways on how to calculate them. Hence the former should be migrated on sight, whereas the latter should stay here (and made explicitly on-topic in the FAQ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To restate the criterium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_If it is sensible to assume that someone who is not part of a physics department, or similar institution focused on physics, will encounter a given, clearly computational/tools-related, question in his day-to-day work, then the question should be migrated to CompSci (or Mathematica)._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="086febe2-8b66-4a35-b3bf-cee105aeae9a" CreationDate="2012-12-11T21:01:10.993" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="0443c2da-b510-40a1-b2d1-3c4ca1567ddf" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:05:33.263" UserId="16432" Text="What is the proper way of punctuating block formulae? There seem to be variance from “a mathematical text is, before everything else, a text” ([qtd. via MathOverflow][1]), to confusion whether parenthetically numbered equations follow the same rules, to publications like my current American physics textbook which uses none.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I used to punctuate my formulae, just like I separate statements in my algebra and my programming with semi-colons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that in practical application within LaTeX environment, some insist that punctuation, as part of the text, should be styled like the rest of the text, and be outside, whereas formulae have their own styling. But on Physics.SE MathJAX pushes outside punctuation into the next paragraph (it parses formula as a separate `&lt;div&gt;` breaking up the flow of text regardless of carriage returns?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/6675/periods-and-commas-in-mathematical-writing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="0443c2da-b510-40a1-b2d1-3c4ca1567ddf" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:05:33.263" UserId="16432" Text="Punctuation in block formulae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="0443c2da-b510-40a1-b2d1-3c4ca1567ddf" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:05:33.263" UserId="16432" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="b98a42d0-2565-4299-a1fe-5b378a0f6618" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:16:20.113" UserId="520" Text="The rule I was taught was that equations are just part of the text and that punctuation should never stand on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a block formatted equation comes immediately before punctuation you put the punctuation at the end of the formula. That means when I end a sentence with the quadratic equation I write `$$ x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} .$$` That won't render on meta, but [you can see how it looks in the Physics.SE FAQ][1]. Notice that the full stop occurs *inside* equation markup delimiters (`$$`). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a little OCD bonus you could use `$$ x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} \text{.}$$`, but I don't generally bother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid confusion this necessitates not using periods as mathematical operators and being careful about where how you use commas in formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="2833da20-5928-49f6-bb21-24ff154cdc61" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:19:15.903" UserId="124" Text="There isn't a single proper way to do it - at least, for this site, there is no enforced or recommended convention. The only thing I would suggest is that you not put punctuation after a display-style MathJax formula, like `$$x = y$$.`, because that spoils the flow of the text. But whether you include punctuation, `$$x = y.$$`, or don't, `$$x = y$$`, is up to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="0acc7831-4695-42bc-9d44-748d8420915f" CreationDate="2012-12-12T02:00:16.987" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 15 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25533/creating-downloading-a-large-galaxy-dataset&quot;&gt;Creating/Downloading a large Galaxy Dataset&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26619/best-time-of-the-year-to-see-the-star-alpha-centauri-in-chile-santiago&quot;&gt;Best time of the year to see the star Alpha Centauri in Chile, Santiago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars visual-astronomy observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26584/does-anybody-actually-do-astrometry-in-the-21st-century&quot;&gt;Does anybody actually do astrometry in the 21st century?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars planets time observational-techniques instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26570/shadow-of-a-jovian-moon-over-the-great-red-spot&quot;&gt;Shadow of a Jovian moon over the Great Red Spot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25571/what-is-the-physical-origin-of-scintillation&quot;&gt;What is the physical origin of scintillation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/liquid-water-in-mid-ice-on-europa-mechanism&quot;&gt;Liquid Water in &quot;mid-ice&quot; on Europa. Mechanism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter europa exo-geology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26354/what-would-the-universe-look-like-if-it-started-out-without-any-irregularities&quot;&gt;What would the universe look like if it started out without any irregularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/could-a-neutron-star-be-active-fusioning-neutrons-into-something-more-dense-and&quot;&gt;Could a neutron star be active, fusioning neutrons into something more dense and releasing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25498/the-sun-as-a-gravitational-lens&quot;&gt;The Sun as a gravitational lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25681/is-the-apophis-asteroid-a-concern&quot;&gt;Is the Apophis asteroid a concern?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25645/comet-versus-asteroids-versus-meteors&quot;&gt;Comet versus asteroids versus meteors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26562/if-we-were-to-travel-through-space-sci-fi-style-how-close-to-the-false-color&quot;&gt;If we were to travel through space (sci-fi style), how close to the false-color images wou&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies space-flight color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25539/do-we-have-an-idea-about-the-amount-of-matter-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;Do we have an idea about the amount of matter in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26315/detecting-dim-objects&quot;&gt;Detecting dim objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5340" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="2d84503c-b51d-4a6a-872f-8e8198e95555" CreationDate="2012-12-12T13:02:19.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/278847246999638020" />
  <row Id="5341" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="55a638d5-d015-4107-b57a-44123e556b62" CreationDate="2012-12-12T19:02:19.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/278937844213506050" />
  <row Id="5342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="47efb17f-a661-4a00-b9eb-7ce6fcd7589c" CreationDate="2012-12-12T19:48:01.230" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="0e9701f3-3a51-4294-a063-22454b8555db" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:03:52.263" UserId="7433" Text="Finals are going on for many, and we've had quite a few instances where a student posts a question from a take-home final exam (or something similar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How ought we deal with this? Should we close these? Currently, we have no compulsion to close these unless they have other problems, though we _can_ squeeze them under &quot;too localized&quot; at times. Delete them? Lock? Or not worry about at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note: While we moderators have access to IP addresses and email IDs of users, we cannot, under any circumstances, reveal them. So, while we may report the incident to the professor conducting the course, we cannot help him/her verify the identity of the poster by providing these details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="0e9701f3-3a51-4294-a063-22454b8555db" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:03:52.263" UserId="7433" Text="How should we deal with academic dishonesty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="0e9701f3-3a51-4294-a063-22454b8555db" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:03:52.263" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="c106b147-613c-41b2-a63f-cf605fef6ac4" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:03:52.263" UserId="7433" Text="I feel that moderators should _not_ be obliged to help uphold the rules of other institutions, and we should not use any on-site powers to deal with such issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I feel we should do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be stricter and more vigilant in enforcing the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a comment linking to the paper that it is from.&#xD;&#xA; - Downvote (?)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Fire off an email to the relevant professor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The identification issue _can_ be circumvented, to a degree. There is a way to _verify_ if a user has a given email address (the URL of the avatar contains the md5 hash of the email), though this is not exactly reliable, as the email used to enter the gravatar can be changed without having to re-verify it. Also, it's complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="825e0439-f99b-413f-8d84-371886a02615" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:20:12.923" UserId="124" Text="Let me put up the counterpoint to Manishearth's answer: while we're certainly not required by Stack Exchange to do anything about questions which violate a course policy, it's in the interest of our site to do so, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the community has been quite clear that we want to encourage insightful conceptual questions. We do not want this to become known as a place to get homework answers, and accordingly we have what I think is one of the [stricter policies on homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) in the SE network. Similarly, we don't want this to become known as a place where people can easily cheat on their exams or other projects. So when we find out that someone is violating an academic policy, it's appropriate to take reasonable actions to prevent them from doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm proposing is mostly the same as Manishearth, actually: if you see a question which relates to a current exam or some other project _in violation of the policies for that project_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Add a comment linking to the evidence: **both** the paper containing the original question, _and_ the statement of policy that forbids use of Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;- Downvote&#xD;&#xA;- Fire off an email to the relevant professor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but additionally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention, so that one of us can close it at least until the exam period is over" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="009a941d-a17b-4559-99b3-b8839cb1871d" CreationDate="2012-12-13T11:42:20.957" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5350" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="5765e5c3-257e-47ee-bbce-b8895bb28144" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:02:22.523" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/279209648790327296" />
  <row Id="5351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="4b2c0499-abc1-4fbd-ab34-79406c333169" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:17:28.627" UserId="5374" Text="No worldly authority should be in the position to impose any regulation on an independend website on the internet. It's dangerous to reinforce to an academic or governmental imperative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems which come from being known to provide answers to exam questions are worked out in David Zaslavskys answer. I agree with the points there. Nevertheless, no StackExchange user is obliged to answer any question, and other user can point out the source about a question in the comments. But if the question is about physics and in accordance with the estabilshed policies quality wise, then the question should be allowed to be answered. It's physics, not capitalism, not politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, downvoting would be rude - merely an indicator of the sites emerging normative moral system. Calling someone out for cheating goes to far, we have no responsibility to conform to any institution more to a user. I wouldn't even call it &quot;academic dishonesty&quot;, that's a suggestive term. Some users might go to a particular university, some might be member of the russian military. Should the community follow the code of honesty of both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="e4a25a95-2283-43ee-8347-a8320c79daaa" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:22:54.860" UserId="5374" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="No worldly authority should be in the position to impose any regulation on an independend website on the internet. It's dangerous to reinforce to an academic or governmental imperative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems which come from being known to provide answers to exam questions are worked out in David Zaslavskys answer. I agree with the points there. Nevertheless, no StackExchange user is obliged to answer any question, and other user can point out the source about a question in the comments. But if the question is about physics and in accordance with the estabilshed policies quality wise, then the question should be allowed to be answered. It's physics, not capitalism, not politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, downvoting would be rude - merely an indicator of the sites emerging normative moral system. Calling someone out for cheating goes to far, we have no responsibility to conform to any institution. I wouldn't even call it &quot;academic dishonesty&quot;, that's a suggestive term. Some users might go to a particular university, some might be member of the russian military. Should the community follow the code of honesty of both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="74adde6c-fbb5-4ffc-849d-8dd18e3a69a1" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:46:43.453" UserId="5374" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="No worldly authority should be in the position to impose any regulation on an independend website on the internet. It's dangerous to reinforce an academic or governmental imperative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems which come from being known to provide answers to exam questions are worked out in David Zaslavskys answer. I agree with the points there. Nevertheless, no StackExchange user is obliged to answer any question, and other users can point out the source about a question in the comments. If the question is about physics and in accordance with the estabilshed policies quality wise, then the question should be allowed to be answered. It's physics, not capitalism, not politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, downvoting would be rude - merely an indicator of the sites emerging normative moral system. Calling someone out for cheating goes to far, we have no responsibility to conform to any institution. I wouldn't even call it &quot;academic dishonesty&quot;, that's a suggestive term. Some users might go to a particular university, some might be member of the russian military. Should the community follow the code of honesty of both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="dc149a60-399f-47b3-a1e9-1edc324b3bbb" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:53:13.940" UserId="5374" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="No worldly authority should be in the position to impose any regulation on an independend website on the internet. It's dangerous to reinforce an academic (or governmental, for what it's worth) imperative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems which come from being known to provide answers to exam questions are worked out in David Zaslavskys answer. I agree with the points there. Nevertheless, no StackExchange user is obliged to answer any question, and other users can point out the source about a question in the comments. If the question is about physics and in accordance with the estabilshed policies quality wise, then the question should be allowed to be answered. It's physics, not capitalism, not politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, downvoting would be rude - merely an indicator of the sites emerging normative moral system. Calling someone out for cheating goes to far, we have no responsibility to conform to any institution. I wouldn't even call it &quot;academic dishonesty&quot;, that's a suggestive term with a bias. Some users might go to a particular university, some might work for the apple company, some might be member of the russian military. Should the community follow the code of honesty of all of these? Is any of these worth more? Should we pic out particular users and consider their personal take on what's fair?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="6a4f540f-d517-4e0a-a7b2-571861a0cd20" CreationDate="2012-12-13T15:07:26.133" UserId="7433" Comment="added 476 characters in body" Text="Finals are going on for many, and we've had quite a few instances where a student posts a question from a take-home final exam (or something similar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How ought we deal with this? Should we close these? Currently, we have no compulsion to close these unless they have other problems, though we _can_ squeeze them under &quot;too localized&quot; at times. Delete them? Lock? Or not worry about at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To be clear, I'm asking what we should do, as a community and as moderators, if we _already know_&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that a post is part of a take-home exam (or something similar given to students under a honor code)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note: While we moderators have access to IP addresses and email IDs of users, we cannot, under any circumstances, reveal them. So, while we may report the incident to the professor conducting the course, we cannot help him/her verify the identity of the poster by providing these details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. and this information has been obtained using tools not exclusive to moderators --in other words, the method of obtaining this information does not conflict with [SE's privacy policy][1]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal/privacy-policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="4a4ad696-f7bc-4f4b-8794-8130b4bee03f" CreationDate="2012-12-13T17:37:32.057" UserId="1492" Text="I think that a professor who gives a take home exam on the honor system in this day and age of the internet is either very old or very naive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Repeating the &quot;warning&quot; that *this site does not solve homework problems* but it is allowed to show progress of work and show where one is stuck, is within the honor system, because books are allowed in take home exams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers should give no more than what can be found in a book. So the instruction should be mainly for us who answer such questions. If we see that the problem is progressing well and the student is just stuck at a blind spot, one should answer with the appropriate question to unstick  from the blind spot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think the professors should be alerted, they have taken their chances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="8d656dc3-6845-49bb-8fb0-faf73a1f3503" CreationDate="2012-12-13T23:29:34.997" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="05898c7a-1cd2-4a58-9ca2-9c4e45f4b85a" CreationDate="2012-12-14T00:59:26.490" UserId="124" Comment="clarify the proposal and tweak some things" Text="Let me put up the counterpoint to Manishearth's answer: while we're certainly not _required_ by Stack Exchange to do anything about questions which violate a course policy, it's in the interest of our site to do so, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the community has been quite clear that we do not want this site to be known as a place where people can take the easy way out of learning. We try to encourage insightful conceptual questions and discourage do-my-homework questions, and accordingly we have what I think is one of the [strictest nontrivial policies on homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) in the SE network. Similarly, we don't want this to become known as a place where people can easily cheat on their exams or other projects. So when we find out that someone is violating an academic policy, it's consistent with our overall vision to make it difficult for them to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I propose. If you see a question which seems to come from a current take-home exam or some equivalent project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you find the policy on outside help for the exam and it _does allow_ help from Q&amp;A sites like this one,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that allows outside help from Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you find the policy for the exam and it _does **not** allow_ help from sources like SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that forbids use of Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, close it and let the rest of us know in mod chat.)&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;s&gt;Downvote&lt;/s&gt; (actually I don't care about this, your votes are your business)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you cannot find the policy on outside help for the exam, or if you do find it but you can't tell whether it allows or forbids help from Q&amp;A sites,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to the exam paper and saying that you couldn't find a relevant policy on outside help&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, let the rest of us know in mod chat, but don't necessarily close it right away.)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter two cases, I would definitely encourage people to be proactive about emailing the professor of the course. I say &quot;optional&quot; only because we can't and won't _make_ anyone do it, but the professor is really the best person to deal with these incidents. And it doesn't have to be a moderator who lets them know. None of our special mod powers are particularly relevant when it comes to informing a professor about academic dishonesty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="f4d4873c-b44a-4676-b5ea-97090b71927a" CreationDate="2012-12-14T07:37:45.817" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 11 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26662/what-is-the-orbital-path-of-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What is the orbital path of Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way local-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26650/biggest-crater-in-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;Biggest crater in the Solar System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars crater collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25977/was-aristarchos-method-to-compute-earth-sun-distance-ever-rediscovered-in-medie&quot;&gt;Was Aristarchos' method to compute Earth-Sun distance ever rediscovered in medieval or mod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26172/how-much-detail-can-telescopes-actually-provide&quot;&gt;How much detail can telescopes actually provide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25542/emission-line-width-units&quot;&gt;Emission line width units&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25728/galaxies-that-are-newer-than-our-own-one&quot;&gt;Galaxies that are newer than our own one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26066/why-is-there-a-limit-to-the-intensity-of-cosmic-rays-at-low-energies&quot;&gt;Why is there a limit to the intensity of cosmic rays at low energies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26120/from-computational-astrophysics-to-finance&quot;&gt;From Computational Astrophysics to Finance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25548/why-are-there-not-many-detectable-supernovas&quot;&gt;Why are there not many detectable supernovas?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova stars galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26774/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-127mm-5-f-1500-synscan-go-to-maksutov-cassegrain&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skymax-127 (AZ) 127mm (5&quot;) f/1500 SynScan GO-TO Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26343/why-does-omega-centauri-have-a-distinct-chemical-signature-from-the-rest-of-the&quot;&gt;Why does Omega Centauri have a distinct chemical signature from the rest of the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way globular-clusters dwarf-galaxies metallicity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/how-is-it-that-some-nebulae-are-rotating-and-others-are-not&quot;&gt;How is it that some nebulae are rotating and others are not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics physics nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/double-image-in-binoculars&quot;&gt;Double image in binoculars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binoculars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26261/is-there-such-a-thing-as-north-in-outerspace&quot;&gt;Is there such a thing as &quot;North&quot; in outerspace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26401/have-scientists-been-able-to-find-an-example-of-a-possible-white-hole&quot;&gt;Have scientists been able to find an example of a possible White Hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25319/whats-the-best-way-to-start-out-with-astrophotography-on-a-tight-budget&quot;&gt;What's the best way to start out with astrophotography on a tight budget?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25890/convert-eci-coordinates-to-latitude-longitude&quot;&gt;Convert ECI coordinates to latitude/longitude?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25362/how-can-i-determine-if-my-telescope-mirror-is-parabolic&quot;&gt;How can I determine if my telescope mirror is parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25722/computing-planetary-positions&quot;&gt;Computing Planetary Positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26159/existing-photometry-data-of-the-open-star-cluster-cepheus-ob3&quot;&gt;Existing photometry data of the open star cluster Cepheus OB3?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26269/why-do-we-need-the-concept-of-dark-energy-to-explain-the-expansion-of-the-univer&quot;&gt;Why do we need the concept of dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26212/what-would-happen-to-earth-if-saturn-were-to-exit-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;What would happen to Earth if Saturn were to exit the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system earth saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26153/what-makes-a-supermassive-black-hole-move-through-space&quot;&gt;What makes a supermassive black hole move through space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26017/what-is-the-weekly-average-of-coronal-mass-ejections-the-sun-sends-out&quot;&gt;What is the weekly average of coronal mass ejections the sun sends out?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25397/is-there-any-site-place-which-gives-access-to-astronomical-signals-acquired-from&quot;&gt;Is there any site/place which gives access to astronomical signals acquired from space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26533/what-is-a-hot-flow-anomaly-and-can-we-see-the-terrestrial-ones&quot;&gt;What is a Hot Flow Anomaly, and can we see the terrestrial ones?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-wind magnetosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26317/is-it-possible-to-see-satellites-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see satellites with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26345/can-cmes-disturb-a-planet-orbit&quot;&gt;Can CMEs disturb a planet orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25726/where-will-new-horizons-go-after-sailing-past-pluto&quot;&gt;Where will New Horizons go after sailing past Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system spacecraft kuiper-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25689/predicting-solar-storms&quot;&gt;Predicting solar storms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;light solar-system solar-wind&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26560/accuracy-and-assumptions-in-deriving-the-tully-fisher-relation&quot;&gt;Accuracy and assumptions in deriving the Tully-Fisher relation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxies distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/how-to-draw-a-star-chart&quot;&gt;How to draw a star chart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25825/can-you-damage-your-eyes-viewing-venus&quot;&gt;Can you damage your eyes viewing Venus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26684/may-20th-annular-eclipse-duration-from-vancouver&quot;&gt;May 20th Annular Eclipse - Duration from Vancouver?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25585/what-is-behind-the-cosmological-horizon-barrier&quot;&gt;What is behind the cosmological horizon barrier?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25582/figuring-out-which-moons-of-jupiter-i-saw-through-my-telescope&quot;&gt;Figuring out which moons of Jupiter I saw through my telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moon jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26087/at-what-distance-could-you-see-andromeda-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25918/falling-into-saturn-or-jupiter-would-we-pass-through-it-until-we-hit-the-nucleu&quot;&gt;Falling into Saturn or Jupiter, would we pass through it until we hit the nucleus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25556/can-we-see-a-spaceship-falling-into-a-black-hole-and-entering-the-event-horizon&quot;&gt;Can we see a spaceship falling into a black hole and entering the event horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26515/what-is-exactly-the-density-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated&quot;&gt;What is exactly the density of a black hole and how can it be calculated?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25683/impact-location-that-created-the-moon&quot;&gt;Impact location that created the moon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon formation collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25595/io-turned-inside-out&quot;&gt;Io - Turned inside out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit jupiter moons io&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25271/can-we-prove-that-the-universe-is-finite-or-infinite&quot;&gt;Can we prove that the universe is finite or infinite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/ring-height-stats&quot;&gt;Ring height stats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/are-we-going-to-be-able-to-travel-trough-space-deforming-the-space-time&quot;&gt;Are we going to be able to travel trough space deforming the space-time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&quot;&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25353/where-does-the-light-of-the-big-bang-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the light of the Big Bang come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang light pulsars deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26603/how-can-you-calculate-the-exact-position-of-the-earth-taking-into-account-the-gr&quot;&gt;How can you calculate the exact position of the Earth taking into account the gravitationa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5361" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="89d4866b-0e21-486f-95b0-ea8325df5e5a" CreationDate="2012-12-14T10:02:23.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/279526741918240769" />
  <row Id="5362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="74823696-9b6a-4b5a-9145-9be34a5be591" CreationDate="2012-12-15T02:32:11.623" UserId="2146" Text="A certain valuable contributor in this community has been suspended for a month, partly because it was his second warning, perhaps there were other factors unknown to the rest of us. It's my hope that he won't have this second suspension hanging around his neck for the whole time while he's on here, since another outburst is almost inevitable sometime in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how long must a user be on good behaviour before past suspensions are wiped clean, and the user can start afresh with zero suspensions against their name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="74823696-9b6a-4b5a-9145-9be34a5be591" CreationDate="2012-12-15T02:32:11.623" UserId="2146" Text="How often are past suspensions wiped clean for users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="74823696-9b6a-4b5a-9145-9be34a5be591" CreationDate="2012-12-15T02:32:11.623" UserId="2146" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="e723938f-bc33-4ad2-8ae6-4d822a49fb5a" CreationDate="2012-12-15T03:02:50.093" UserId="124" Text="Suspensions are never wiped clean in the sense that I think you mean. In other words, when moderators are determining how to handle some situation, we are not required to ignore suspensions older than X for any length of time X. We can and generally do take into account a user's entire history of activity on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say &quot;entire history,&quot; that means good behavior too, though. The next suspension after, say, a 7 day suspension doesn't automatically _have_ to be a 30 day suspension. We use common sense. If a user has consistently exhibited good behavior for a long time, then the moderators can always downgrade a suspension from the length that would be recommended based on the number of prior suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me also mention that there is no _public_ record of suspensions. The information about a user's suspension history is not visible to anyone except moderators. So for any purpose _other_ than future disciplinary action, a user's suspension history is wiped clean the moment their suspension is up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="eca340ff-f94f-465c-a9aa-ebb0591e839a" CreationDate="2012-12-15T04:42:28.037" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 12 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25175/how-are-cepheids-used-to-evaluate-their-distance&quot;&gt;How are Cepheids used to evaluate their distance?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24919/what-age-to-start-kids-with-astronomy&quot;&gt;What age to start kids with astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25162/what-is-the-current-status-of-pluto&quot;&gt;What is the current status of Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets pluto &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24965/what-are-good-resources-for-someone-looking-to-become-an-amateur-astronomer&quot;&gt;What are good resources for someone looking to become an amateur astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24987/what-objects-look-best-in-an-o-iii-filter&quot;&gt;What objects look best in an O-III filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy filters planetary-nebulae&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24993/where-can-i-find-public-domain-astronomical-pictures&quot;&gt;Where can I find public domain astronomical pictures?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24942/a-method-to-estimate-the-relative-magnitude-of-a-star-using-nearby-stars&quot;&gt;A method to estimate the relative magnitude of a star using nearby stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25145/observing-lunar-lander-and-footprints-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;Observing lunar lander and footprints on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes the-moon aperture&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25228/can-we-observe-changes-in-the-fine-structure-constant&quot;&gt;Can we observe changes in the fine-structure constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24990/what-causes-millisecond-pulsars-to-speed-up&quot;&gt;What causes millisecond pulsars to speed up?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars pulsars gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25248/how-do-the-hot-jupiter-planets-get-so-close-to-their-host-star&quot;&gt;How do the â€œhot Jupiterâ€ planets get so close to their host star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets extrasolar-planets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25264/why-dont-more-rocky-planets-moons-have-appreciable-atmospheres&quot;&gt;Why don't more rocky planets/moons have appreciable atmospheres?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets atmosphere moons mercury &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25087/scientific-value-of-timing-total-lunar-occultations&quot;&gt;Scientific value of timing total lunar occultations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25157/what-tools-do-i-need-to-track-an-orbit-of-a-mystery-object&quot;&gt;What tools do I need to track an orbit of a mystery object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25070/why-can-we-see-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb&quot;&gt;Why can we see the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25153/why-is-uranuss-axis-of-rotation-tilted&quot;&gt;Why is Uranus's axis of rotation tilted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets cosmology uranus orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24869/what-is-dark-energy-and-how-was-it-discovered&quot;&gt;What is Dark Energy, and how was it discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25260/what-is-a-backlit-ccd-sensor-and-why-might-i-prefer-it-to-other-kinds&quot;&gt;What is a backlit CCD sensor, and why might I prefer it to other kinds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25181/what-is-a-spectrometer-and-why-are-they-so-useful-in-science&quot;&gt;What is a spectrometer, and why are they so useful in science?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25044/how-important-is-a-camera-with-improved-hydrogen-alpha-sensitivity-to-astrophoto&quot;&gt;How important is a camera with improved Hydrogen Alpha sensitivity to astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography planetary-nebulae color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24857/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-german-equatorial-mount-vs-a-fork-mount&quot;&gt;What are the pros and cons of a german equatorial mount vs. a fork mount?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25241/what-open-source-n-body-codes-are-available-and-what-are-their-features&quot;&gt;What open-source n-body codes are available and what are their features?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25133/do-all-narrowband-filters-tint-the-field-of-view&quot;&gt;Do all narrowband filters tint the field of view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;filters observation color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24951/is-there-any-evidence-for-the-claim-that-the-moon-was-once-part-of-the-earth&quot;&gt;Is there any evidence for the claim that the moon was once part of the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis&quot;&gt;Why does each celestial object spin on its own axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity spin rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24904/resources-and-requirements-for-amateur-spectroscopy&quot;&gt;Resources and requirements for amateur spectroscopy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24907/does-earth-have-a-code-name&quot;&gt;Does Earth have a code name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;catalog&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Who should I contact if I see an unknown object in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25105/is-it-possible-to-see-fraunhofer-lines-with-amateur-equipment&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see Fraunhofer lines with amateur equipment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment spectroscopy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25244/how-does-a-spacecrafts-orientation-get-determined&quot;&gt;How does a spacecraft's orientation get determined&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25137/after-the-space-shuttle-is-retired-how-will-the-new-sections-of-iss-will-be-lau&quot;&gt;After the Space Shuttle is retired, how will the new sections of ISS will be launched?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;shuttle launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24958/how-can-a-black-hole-emit-x-rays&quot;&gt;How can a black hole emit X-rays?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/scopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&quot;&gt;Scopes to avoid as a beginner?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner advice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25110/why-are-orbits-elliptical&quot;&gt;Why are orbits elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit planetary-motion gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24973/when-taking-a-sequence-of-exposures-for-stacking-coaddition-what-dither-pattern&quot;&gt;When taking a sequence of exposures for stacking/coaddition, what dither patterns are most&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes observation software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25120/optimal-angular-field-of-view-afov&quot;&gt;Optimal Angular Field of View (AFOV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123/how-to-determine-what-size-telescope-to-buy&quot;&gt;How to determine what size telescope to buy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25151/what-allows-the-modified-urca-process-to-work-at-lower-density-than-direct-urca&quot;&gt;What allows the modified Urca process to work at lower density than direct Urca in neutron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25198/can-any-telescope-be-used-for-solar-observing&quot;&gt;Can any telescope be used for solar observing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes sun solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable&quot;&gt;What are the prerequisites for considering any other planet to be habitable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets planetary-habitability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/when-will-the-moon-reach-escape-velocity&quot;&gt;When will the Moon reach escape velocity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25098/how-to-nail-focus-for-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How to nail focus for DSLR astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/why-does-the-moon-sometimes-appear-giant-and-a-orange-red-color-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Why does the moon sometimes appear giant and a orange red color near the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="97a9f193-fca7-494a-9d22-30bf9bcbd80f" CreationDate="2012-12-15T08:40:50.043" UserId="6634" Comment="deleted 7348 characters in body" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25585/what-is-behind-the-cosmological-horizon-barrier&quot;&gt;What is behind the cosmological horizon barrier?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25582/figuring-out-which-moons-of-jupiter-i-saw-through-my-telescope&quot;&gt;Figuring out which moons of Jupiter I saw through my telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moon jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26087/at-what-distance-could-you-see-andromeda-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25918/falling-into-saturn-or-jupiter-would-we-pass-through-it-until-we-hit-the-nucleu&quot;&gt;Falling into Saturn or Jupiter, would we pass through it until we hit the nucleus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25556/can-we-see-a-spaceship-falling-into-a-black-hole-and-entering-the-event-horizon&quot;&gt;Can we see a spaceship falling into a black hole and entering the event horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26515/what-is-exactly-the-density-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated&quot;&gt;What is exactly the density of a black hole and how can it be calculated?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25683/impact-location-that-created-the-moon&quot;&gt;Impact location that created the moon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon formation collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25595/io-turned-inside-out&quot;&gt;Io - Turned inside out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit jupiter moons io&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25271/can-we-prove-that-the-universe-is-finite-or-infinite&quot;&gt;Can we prove that the universe is finite or infinite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/ring-height-stats&quot;&gt;Ring height stats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/are-we-going-to-be-able-to-travel-trough-space-deforming-the-space-time&quot;&gt;Are we going to be able to travel trough space deforming the space-time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&quot;&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25353/where-does-the-light-of-the-big-bang-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the light of the Big Bang come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang light pulsars deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26603/how-can-you-calculate-the-exact-position-of-the-earth-taking-into-account-the-gr&quot;&gt;How can you calculate the exact position of the Earth taking into account the gravitationa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="2be9df08-369b-44d8-beb6-89fe114d8923" CreationDate="2012-12-15T11:48:56.733" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="c6e975cb-8b36-43ec-9300-f618a6e6d508" CreationDate="2012-12-15T12:57:13.603" UserId="7951" Text="Let's say I have 10 new messages. The inbox icon lights up with &quot;10&quot;. Now, when I click into the inbox to read the first message, this lighting disappears. I have to manually keep track of how many I've read, because it doesn't show me unread messages separately. Can this please be fixed? It should show all unread messages marked clearly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="c6e975cb-8b36-43ec-9300-f618a6e6d508" CreationDate="2012-12-15T12:57:13.603" UserId="7951" Text="Inbox needs to be fixed: Unread messages should be marked clearly until read" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="c6e975cb-8b36-43ec-9300-f618a6e6d508" CreationDate="2012-12-15T12:57:13.603" UserId="7951" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="e8db62d6-c51d-4d27-ad07-4d04e4a46458" CreationDate="2012-12-15T15:04:27.710" UserId="7433" Text="I agree with this as well, it seems like a rather useful feature to have. And I've fallen afoul of this a few times before -- I don't notice some inbox messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My workaround is to just open all the inbox messages in new tabs, give them a precursory glance and deal with them one by one, closing tabs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you can just use [this Chrome Extension][1] that does the checking for you:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3778/stackinbox-a-chrome-firefox-extension-that-preserves-new-stack-exchange-inbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="d92426ac-fd9c-4368-8f72-9ce56d20abd3" CreationDate="2012-12-15T15:39:56.427" UserId="2383" Text="[![SciFi &amp; Fantasy][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP1sD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5378" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="fbc34c4f-1524-4cde-8808-42836790e3f9" CreationDate="2012-12-15T15:39:56.427" UserId="2383" />
  <row Id="5379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="a1590687-fa13-4a8b-8e26-20e2b193d691" CreationDate="2012-12-15T15:40:37.737" UserId="2383" Text="[![SciFi &amp; Fantasy][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lvw9q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5380" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="46c597d9-28e9-432b-9b7b-33900182d363" CreationDate="2012-12-15T15:40:37.737" UserId="2383" />
  <row Id="5381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="5f43d8bc-ce11-4c9c-bdaa-cc4ed4eaf9fc" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:22:58.893" UserId="11062" Text="&gt; Please don't mistake me as *crazy*. I was just wondering if other users have seen about this case...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the start (for a day), I had 2980 rep. I just returned now, answered a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46927) here. The user up-voted me and chosen it as his answer. Then, I blinked at my user card showing 3005 rep. Then, something bugged the author (maybe a *formula*), he deselected mine and selected the other one. Then, I see my rep. still showing 2980 and not 2990 as my answer still has the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** That 10 rep. is not a great deal though. But, I'm curious whether users have seen such a *thing* (bug) around in SE..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="5f43d8bc-ce11-4c9c-bdaa-cc4ed4eaf9fc" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:22:58.893" UserId="11062" Text="Are there any bugs in SE engine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="5f43d8bc-ce11-4c9c-bdaa-cc4ed4eaf9fc" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:22:58.893" UserId="11062" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="3961d7c5-2330-49d4-b223-a5afc7f9e7d7" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:31:14.347" UserId="7433" Text="Try this: Go [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation), scroll down, hit the &quot;trigger rep recalc&quot; button. That might fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, check that you have the &quot;show removed posts&quot; box ticked at the bottom of http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy?tab=reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will show posts which have been deleted as well (deleted posts you had downvoted on/your deleted posts that others had voted on). This may account for the discrepancy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both of these don't work, it's probably a bug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFa7g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5385" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="c5dad371-e4c1-4c40-8034-583f4d387e20" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:45:25.087" UserId="7433" Comment="edited title" Text="Incorrect reputation being displayed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="2754eece-5008-4daf-8de3-fcc2130fa562" CreationDate="2012-12-15T19:49:51.890" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="a1ee00df-c5eb-4be1-9688-f64f39ece604" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:58:30.587" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 24 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis&quot;&gt;Why does each celestial object spin on its own axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity spin rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24904/resources-and-requirements-for-amateur-spectroscopy&quot;&gt;Resources and requirements for amateur spectroscopy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24907/does-earth-have-a-code-name&quot;&gt;Does Earth have a code name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;catalog&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Who should I contact if I see an unknown object in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25105/is-it-possible-to-see-fraunhofer-lines-with-amateur-equipment&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see Fraunhofer lines with amateur equipment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment spectroscopy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25244/how-does-a-spacecrafts-orientation-get-determined&quot;&gt;How does a spacecraft's orientation get determined&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25137/after-the-space-shuttle-is-retired-how-will-the-new-sections-of-iss-will-be-lau&quot;&gt;After the Space Shuttle is retired, how will the new sections of ISS will be launched?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;shuttle launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24958/how-can-a-black-hole-emit-x-rays&quot;&gt;How can a black hole emit X-rays?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/scopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&quot;&gt;Scopes to avoid as a beginner?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner advice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25110/why-are-orbits-elliptical&quot;&gt;Why are orbits elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit planetary-motion gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24973/when-taking-a-sequence-of-exposures-for-stacking-coaddition-what-dither-pattern&quot;&gt;When taking a sequence of exposures for stacking/coaddition, what dither patterns are most&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes observation software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25120/optimal-angular-field-of-view-afov&quot;&gt;Optimal Angular Field of View (AFOV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123/how-to-determine-what-size-telescope-to-buy&quot;&gt;How to determine what size telescope to buy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25151/what-allows-the-modified-urca-process-to-work-at-lower-density-than-direct-urca&quot;&gt;What allows the modified Urca process to work at lower density than direct Urca in neutron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25198/can-any-telescope-be-used-for-solar-observing&quot;&gt;Can any telescope be used for solar observing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes sun solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable&quot;&gt;What are the prerequisites for considering any other planet to be habitable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets planetary-habitability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/when-will-the-moon-reach-escape-velocity&quot;&gt;When will the Moon reach escape velocity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25098/how-to-nail-focus-for-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How to nail focus for DSLR astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/why-does-the-moon-sometimes-appear-giant-and-a-orange-red-color-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Why does the moon sometimes appear giant and a orange red color near the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="4a10ad2e-7a8b-4584-a0c5-2a1f490f140f" CreationDate="2012-12-16T04:56:01.483" UserId="5827" Text="It is not the job of the moderators or members to act as parents or policemen. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="8ec77288-76fd-4143-9798-85fa764fabd7" CreationDate="2012-12-16T06:16:10.707" UserId="11062" Text="This is also not a BIG issue (same as that of my previous question along with *disclaimer*...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, this is some *mysterious* problem regarding **[my flairs](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy/flair)**..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dark theme shows 49 badges while my other themes show 50. I know that my flair updates every now &amp; then. But, what calc made it go mad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Flair](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5kZe.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="8ec77288-76fd-4143-9798-85fa764fabd7" CreationDate="2012-12-16T06:16:10.707" UserId="11062" Text="How to recalc a Flair bug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="8ec77288-76fd-4143-9798-85fa764fabd7" CreationDate="2012-12-16T06:16:10.707" UserId="11062" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="fb919b9c-16ed-4172-ba43-6bc7341fea69" CreationDate="2012-12-16T06:29:05.270" UserId="11062" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="This is also not a BIG issue (same as that of my previous question along with *disclaimer*...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2845 - where Manish explained me about *recalc'ing* rep. But, there is some *mysterious* problem regarding **[my flairs](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy/flair)** now..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dark theme shows 49 badges while my other themes show 50. I know that my flair updates every now &amp; then. But, what calc made it go mad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Flair](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5kZe.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5393" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="9c7e3009-e650-4c07-b850-5af132b62c39" CreationDate="2012-12-16T07:02:23.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/280206219749253120" />
  <row Id="5394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="aada564c-dfb0-4a89-9919-ee38c539ac08" CreationDate="2012-12-16T07:48:30.300" UserId="11062" Text="I get into these *inactive* questions sometime when I get bored (especially during the daytime of my **IST**). So, I poke a lot of posts which have typos and erroneous tags, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is now I've got a suspicion that,  &#xD;&#xA;**Could normal users edit posts that are inactive for over an year..?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="aada564c-dfb0-4a89-9919-ee38c539ac08" CreationDate="2012-12-16T07:48:30.300" UserId="11062" Text="Could we users do some job?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="aada564c-dfb0-4a89-9919-ee38c539ac08" CreationDate="2012-12-16T07:48:30.300" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2850" RevisionGUID="8d1e5d40-05f3-4d8a-b5fd-dfc4fb8b69d1" CreationDate="2012-12-16T07:59:27.813" UserId="7433" Text="This time it's caching on your side. Your computer has saved a copy of the image locally so it doesn't have to download it again and again, it may download it only once a day or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my side I see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, most others can see 50 in your badge count, and it'll probably update for you sooner or later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JUnlB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="c4b40983-f1ab-4b66-aa99-69759d485934" CreationDate="2012-12-16T08:04:20.627" UserId="7433" Text="Yep, you can. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _please_, when making any edits to a post not near the top of the main page, try to improve as much as possible. Especially if the post has answers and all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="b7206588-a7b6-438d-b446-9ab71d329023" CreationDate="2012-12-16T08:22:32.637" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 14 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="d015ed33-72e1-45c7-ba6d-00f62824355d" CreationDate="2012-12-16T10:10:54.710" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="fc34f335-32e0-42bb-9fc5-072323f208a9" CreationDate="2012-12-16T17:08:51.950" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="ecf781eb-bc08-4d4b-8aff-76b21b844e75" CreationDate="2012-12-16T20:32:37.633" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 12 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="a541aeb6-a535-4b6c-a357-c0e8256ccda8" CreationDate="2012-12-17T12:30:40.393" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="ba6d3d03-b307-4ae9-951a-a8098d538bb3" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:13:38.027" UserId="10833" Text="[![Why String Theory? A Layman's Journey to the Frontiers of Physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HE69T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://whystringtheory.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5412" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="8221b25d-068a-47ca-b535-cdfda7c00463" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:13:38.027" UserId="10833" />
  <row Id="5413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="9d89b59a-1a33-45d0-a4bf-1d42635cea49" CreationDate="2012-12-17T19:27:35.330" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="3aecfe82-7c43-4e39-9289-6a3ede1457a8" CreationDate="2012-12-17T22:48:37.147" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 21 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5415" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="31925c49-f3a5-4b95-96c8-3af5ff6c2e0d" CreationDate="2012-12-18T09:43:36.240" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|homework-and-exercises|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5416" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="44d16b5c-26f9-4234-bddc-c2f3e5bb7a50" CreationDate="2012-12-18T10:02:27.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/280976308824068097" />
  <row Id="5417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="485f46be-18b4-4567-afb3-a9ee8b540194" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:02:10.680" UserId="14214" Text="I checked the FAQs to look for an answer without any luck. Forgive me if it is there and I overlooked it. I recently asked a question with the title: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47124/causality-in-a-gedanken-experiment-on-the-hydrogen-atom, and John Rennie commented on it. In my response I simply put his name in the *text*. I mean it was like &quot;Yes, John Rennie ...&quot; instead of &quot;@John Rennie Yes ...&quot; I have observed that the latter is pretty standard on this forum and I would like to learn how to do that. Could someone please tell me how that is done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="485f46be-18b4-4567-afb3-a9ee8b540194" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:02:10.680" UserId="14214" Text="Replying to a specific person's comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="485f46be-18b4-4567-afb3-a9ee8b540194" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:02:10.680" UserId="14214" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="1421190f-d7b5-46b4-a3d8-b97bc505e1c9" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:18:08.863" UserId="124" Text="As dmckee wrote in a comment, the full details are at [this question on MSO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work), but I'll reproduce a rule of thumb here: all you have to do is put `@` before the name, and omit the spaces. You don't need to put it at the beginning of the comment. So to reply to John Rennie you could write `Yes @JohnRennie` and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also omit characters after the first three. So `@Joh`, `@John`, `@JohnR`, etc. all work equivalently to `@JohnRennie`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="0c49421c-502d-4850-a63f-e61ad7dff83e" CreationDate="2012-12-19T08:25:37.233" UserId="12350" Text="I think it is a bit over the top to inform a Professor. It's not in the site's interest to do so. It would just be a case of the site not minding their own business. It also allows for &quot;imposters&quot; to frame their peers by creating fake accounts in their peer's names." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="eb9346c3-bc48-4ebd-b6c7-3e8053263aaf" CreationDate="2012-12-19T08:31:03.297" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 13 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="540e12b8-a850-41a8-8376-e45a3206ade9" CreationDate="2012-12-19T09:00:22.227" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Having just crossed the 2k rep milestone, I decided to help out by using the new reviewing powers someone thought to grant noobs like me. &quot;Perhaps,&quot; I said to myself, &quot;I can help relieve that enormous backlog of low quality posts that never seems to vanish.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much to my surprise, most of these seem to have been reviewed, since I see comments left by high-rep people asking the author to reword the post. It seems, though, that often we get a one-time visitor who will never return to elaborate. I can't read minds, so I can't edit these to make them better. Yet they are not good enough to be accepted and cleared from the queue as-is. The third option is to delete (or vote to delete? I'm not sure how it works), but that seems a little harsh, especially as others have looked at this post and not deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: **Is there anything for me to do here?** Or do we just wait indefinitely for users to make posts better? Also: **Is there any way to segregate posts a reviewer has commented on from those no one has seen?** (Of course I expect the answer to that last one is &quot;no,&quot; but I ask it for discussion purposes anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="540e12b8-a850-41a8-8376-e45a3206ade9" CreationDate="2012-12-19T09:00:22.227" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What's with the low quality posts in perpetual limbo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="540e12b8-a850-41a8-8376-e45a3206ade9" CreationDate="2012-12-19T09:00:22.227" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="5dffd1f6-05fa-42de-88d8-7cbc1239f0c2" CreationDate="2012-12-19T09:13:05.340" UserId="7433" Text="Technically, we can't _delete_ things which _answer the question_ (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). At least, not by current rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can _always_ downvote those posts. Also, you may flag as &quot;very low quality&quot;, and we moderators will deal with it (note: do _not_ use flags to indicate wrong answers). _Never_ be afraid to flag. It's not too bad if you have a few declined flags, as long as the majority is &quot;helpful&quot; flags.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there any way to segregate posts a reviewer has commented on from those no one has seen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/history . This lists the posts that people have seen. Not exactly what you wanted, though. It's still productive at times to sift through the list, re-checking things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, my _personal_ opinion is that posts like [this][1] and [this][2] ought to be deleted if not improved. (Yes, I keep tabs on the posts I've commented on that may need attention later ^.^). But we'd probably need a separate meta post for that&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The queues are separate for everyone-- what looks like a &quot;backlog&quot; to you is a cleared queue to me :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain actions in a queue --&quot;leave open&quot; in the close queue, &quot;no action needed&quot; (I think), &quot;Looks good&quot;, etc have the power to remove posts from a queue for everyone, but that only happens if 2-3 users select it for the same post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. You can check you flag history [here][4]. On your profile, there is a link underneath your email/etc to the number of helpful flags--if you have any declined flags, there will be a red number next to it. Whenever a flag is declined, go to the list of your flags, see the decline reason, and learn from it--but never be afraid to flag in the first place :)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I was planning on one to outline what can and can't be deleted, but I haven't had the time to draft it out. Feel free to do so yourself.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46951/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/47050/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMwiD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="f941875b-d18f-4c44-b607-175f1d06bb3d" CreationDate="2012-12-19T10:40:04.023" UserId="8966" Text="I wanted to ask a question about how a room temperature changes in certain conditions, but before asking I wanted to be sure of some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it on topic? I suppose so since the main point is temperature, but I want to be sure.&#xD;&#xA; 2. What data should I provide in the question? I was thinking of: room size, shape, position of heater, position of door (and windows). Should I also include room position in the building? Other things?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Anything I'm forgetting? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="f941875b-d18f-4c44-b607-175f1d06bb3d" CreationDate="2012-12-19T10:40:04.023" UserId="8966" Text="Some advice on a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="f941875b-d18f-4c44-b607-175f1d06bb3d" CreationDate="2012-12-19T10:40:04.023" UserId="8966" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="d64c45aa-52c6-4539-99fd-75a9fd51f973" CreationDate="2012-12-19T11:12:43.177" UserId="4066" Text="The trick is to ask about physics **concepts**.  So set out the relevant concepts that you **do** understand, and then ask about **one** of the concepts that you **don't** understand" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="83940b98-ad04-439c-8546-10fe13998fd0" CreationDate="2012-12-19T11:13:24.087" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="1f68c147-45e5-488e-b9c2-fe80e1f4861f" CreationDate="2012-12-19T11:46:24.367" UserId="1325" Text="I saw the comment anyway because I tend to keep an eye on questions where there is an unresolved issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you type @ then start typing the name you should get a little popup suggesting a name. Click on the pop-up and it will fill in the correct name. I'm not sure how these names are created: for me just omit the space so type &quot;@JohnRennie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW did you look at John Baez's article? I see you have a couple of answers, but it doesn't seem to me that either of them really address your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="93c0f18f-01ef-46ea-b519-ae0ba0ea2c4c" CreationDate="2012-12-19T11:54:00.353" UserId="1325" Text="A question was asked in a recent chat whether the Physics SE was getting ruder and/or unfriendlier. My immediate reaction was that it wasn't but then I was surprised to be criticised (in a constructive way) for being unfriendly in a comment. I had suggested I thought the question was a homework problem when it turned out not to be, but I didn't realise I'd given offence. Anyhow I'd be interested in whether people feel the site is welcoming or not, and if not whether we need to do something about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the people most likely to feel intimidated are new members, many of whom won't read the meta so it may be the people I really need to hear from won't see this question. Still, I would be interested in people's overall impression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="93c0f18f-01ef-46ea-b519-ae0ba0ea2c4c" CreationDate="2012-12-19T11:54:00.353" UserId="1325" Text="Are we a basically friendly lot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="93c0f18f-01ef-46ea-b519-ae0ba0ea2c4c" CreationDate="2012-12-19T11:54:00.353" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="aa2db89a-9b69-4c96-8739-c8191edcdbc0" CreationDate="2012-12-19T12:23:53.793" UserId="1492" Text="Your question resonates. When I first joined this forum I felt that people were not considerate enough of the young. I usually make a point of checking the profile and am much more lenient with the young and wish that others would be too. Maybe newbies should be encouraged to give their age in the profiles and old hands encouraged to read the profile if they intent to jump on somebody or downvote with a strict comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that you have brought this up I will mention that I am wondering why there are so few women physicists joining our questions and answers. I know that in some countries a large percentage of physicists are women. So this could be one of the reasons, since women take things more to heart, so to speak, even in this virtual reality. Of course there are other reasons too for the gender difference : children and grandchildren occupy  women's extra curricular time very much. If my grandchildren lived close by I would have much rather spent my time teaching them physics and playing scientific games , as a woman colleague, also retired, does with her grandson." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="5cd8287a-f24e-4732-9db0-b96099939d28" CreationDate="2012-12-19T13:13:32.177" UserId="6634" Text="After hearing that homework questions are far too common one too many times, I decided to take the initiative and try to prove whether homework questions are now the primary new content of the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote a [query in the Data Explorer][1] engine to pull out the number of questions asked each day with and without the [tag:homework] tag that are still open (as in, not closed). Then I plotted those counts per day. The results are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plot was made in R, the code to repeat is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    library(ggplot2)&#xD;&#xA;    library(reshape2)&#xD;&#xA;    data &lt;- read.csv('QueryResults.csv')&#xD;&#xA;    data$Date &lt;- as.Date(data$Date, &quot;%Y.%m.%d&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    melted &lt;- melt(data[,c('Date','Homework','NotHomework')],id.vars=1)&#xD;&#xA;    ggplot(melted, aes(x = Date, y=value, fill=factor(variable))) + geom_bar(stat=&quot;identity&quot;) + ylab(&quot;Number of Questions&quot;) + scale_x_date(breaks = seq(min(melted$Date), max(melted$Date), 15)) + theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle=45, hjust=1, vjust=1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summary of the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; summary(data)&#xD;&#xA;          Date               Homework       NotHomework   &#xD;&#xA;      Min.   :2010-08-24   Min.   :0.0000   Min.   : 1.00  &#xD;&#xA;      1st Qu.:2011-05-12   1st Qu.:0.0000   1st Qu.:11.00  &#xD;&#xA;      Median :2011-11-22   Median :1.0000   Median :15.00  &#xD;&#xA;      Mean   :2011-11-22   Mean   :0.9717   Mean   :15.56  &#xD;&#xA;      3rd Qu.:2012-06-03   3rd Qu.:1.0000   3rd Qu.:19.00  &#xD;&#xA;      Max.   :2012-12-15   Max.   :9.0000   Max.   :39.00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what did I learn? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Homework questions are trending upwards. **But so are non-homework questions.** So more questions of all types is a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;2. There are noticeable spikes in the data that seem to correspond to the beginning and ending of semesters, when people need the most help. &#xD;&#xA;3. Without data to back up statements, it's just wasted time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a Q&amp;A site, let me get to my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What do you conclude from this data?&#xD;&#xA;2. Can we please stop saying that homework questions are swamping out non-homework questions since the data doesn't support it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/89343/homework-and-non-homework-tagged-question-counts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/alrt2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="5cd8287a-f24e-4732-9db0-b96099939d28" CreationDate="2012-12-19T13:13:32.177" UserId="6634" Text="Are homework questions becoming more common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="5cd8287a-f24e-4732-9db0-b96099939d28" CreationDate="2012-12-19T13:13:32.177" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="bcfbbd47-0db7-4fad-b1db-411cc64a252e" CreationDate="2012-12-19T15:28:38.373" UserId="520" Text="Temperature and heat are fundamentally physics concepts. Oh, we let the chemists and engineer's play with our toys, but you are fine there...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big restriction is tht we don't like to answer anything that looks like it might have been copied from a homework assignment or out of a introdutory physics text. We *do* want to talk about the basic concepts there,  but we don't propose to work your exercise for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="625cea3f-0b6c-4823-aa90-eb88c23e5663" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:39:37.687" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 1360 characters in body" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="c2fa346e-a516-4310-858d-40fd31913e44" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:01:00.960" UserId="9719" Text="In my opinion, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47215/where-can-i-learn-about-transforming-uniform-random-distribution-into-other-dis?noredirect=1 is on topic here. That exact question is asked and answered in courses titled &quot;Computational Physics&quot; when they discuss Monte Carlo methods. Anyone interested in that question is vastly more likely to be a physicist than a statistician. Finally, the question received two very answers from physicists. The probabilities involved in the problem are not particularly difficult." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="c2fa346e-a516-4310-858d-40fd31913e44" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:01:00.960" UserId="9719" Text="Can we un-migrate this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="c2fa346e-a516-4310-858d-40fd31913e44" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:01:00.960" UserId="9719" Text="|discussion|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2868" RevisionGUID="d9bc90c0-38b7-46b0-b861-f1f75df4203a" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:04:42.440" UserId="124" Text="What makes a question on topic here is not whether it is _of interest to physicists_, but whether it is _about physics_. I don't see any way in which that question is about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I would think that much (not all) of the content of a typical computational physics course, including Monte Carlo methods, would actually fall under the scope of [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="6864ab9c-b89b-4e2b-bfef-3c275e981dee" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:34:10.963" UserId="4066" Comment="added 666 characters in body" Text="The trick is to ask about physics **concepts**.  So set out the relevant concepts that you **do** understand, and then ask about **one** of the concepts that you **don't** understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you shouldn't expect is a calculation unique to your room, because that would be too limited, too narrow in scope for our readership's interest (too localised, in the site parlance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you will get, all being well, is an explanation of how to use particular principles for you to do the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given what you've written above, I think the two best answers to your question are going to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (best answer): do the experiment, and record the empirical data yourself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (second-best answer): model the room in a building physics simulation model such as [EnergyPlus][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="d0beda96-cb32-4603-88f6-91ee997fea52" CreationDate="2012-12-19T23:08:10.733" UserId="9719" Comment="clarifiied my argument." Text="In my opinion, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47215/where-can-i-learn-about-transforming-uniform-random-distribution-into-other-dis?noredirect=1 is on topic here. That exact question is asked and answered in courses titled &quot;Computational Physics&quot; when they discuss Monte Carlo methods. Anyone interested in that question is vastly more likely to be a physicist than a statistician. Finally, the question received two very answers from physicists. The probabilities involved in the problem are not particularly difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, I think it is a physics question because it is about a commonly-used physics tool. As a comparison, I use a differential refractometer in my research. A question about the internal functioning of a refractometer would clearly be on-topic. I see questions about the internal functioning of Monte Carlo methods to be on the same level: a question about how a particular physics tool works. I agree, though, that it is on-topic for SciComp; if it's off-topic here, it would be better there than anywhere else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="f8f33703-7fc8-4276-bbf0-7c817980b1ca" CreationDate="2012-12-20T00:09:35.337" UserId="520" Text="We have generally---though admittedly not always---directed questions about the mathematical tools of physics to Math.SE when the phrasing of the question is divorced from it's physical context. Now I see sampling as a computational tool for doing physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such I would personally suggest SciComp.SE, Math.SE or Stats.SE (and note that the general answer has been given repeated on StackOverflow in the context of many specific questions) in that order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="e41e15c9-9a40-44df-9c62-5fc6d56a8264" CreationDate="2012-12-20T01:02:30.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/281565201898278913" />
  <row Id="5455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="f6751daa-fa58-4604-9993-1cb9f52b0002" CreationDate="2012-12-20T10:44:49.700" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 12 posts that were reviewed; done with this set" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing! The original list can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1253)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="d219c71d-75e7-4b78-8226-351f3e47211d" CreationDate="2012-12-20T12:02:31.173" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 185 characters in body" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="5333c315-61aa-4176-a4c6-5339f0dcaa10" CreationDate="2012-12-20T13:45:14.473" UserId="5076" Text="I think the whole Larian vs Ron fiasco highlighted something about this community as well.  While Ron was a fantastic contributor for physics, his personality (to put it _kindly_) was abrasive at best, and incredibly rude to anyone who had the audacity to disagree with him in the slightest.  Becuause of his high reputation, it seemed that the community tolerated him, and then even coddled him, letting him continue to get away with behavior that just isn't socially acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time progressed, I think his kind of bahvor started to get viewed as acceptable by other members, and it devolved from there.  Tone is actually a very important aspect of any community, and he was setting it for you.  I think that is one of the reasons I have really stopped coming here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This criticism aside, the StackExchange sites are a damn sight better than any Q&amp;A sites I have ever seen.  The quality of questions and answers here are great.  However, there is a risk of becoming cliqueish.  Having a clear FAQ for new users to become familiar with a site, as well as ensuring _everyone_ on the site is held to the same rules should make it at least understandable to new folks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, mods could perhaps be community welcomers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="afb2b84a-18f4-4bf1-9e47-8d7032f66b0a" CreationDate="2012-12-20T22:14:54.663" UserId="4485" Text="This is a Q&amp;A site and isn't meant to be used to socialise with people, so I don't think there is a need to be friendly, nor rude for that matter. There is also a hierachy defined by the community which is sensitive to attention seekers hogging the resource in a negative way. But that aside, I think the moderators are very generous when it comes to allowing people to make personal comments in the comments section, despite them not being there for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think the &quot;unfriendliness&quot; comes from people familiar with the running of this site, using chat and the comments in a strictly cold Q&amp;A format which is very different to other forums. There you can set up a profile which can display public messages received such as thanks and general small talk, to say nothing of the answers becoming a social discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="cfc65e02-d542-4e76-818a-c47518a4ad3d" CreationDate="2012-12-21T10:16:40.997" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 14 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5462" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="8714c06e-516f-4e43-8343-595eca9b17e1" CreationDate="2012-12-21T13:02:32.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/282108793058373632" />
  <row Id="5463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="eb78e968-3b3b-446b-8693-c161f23e786b" CreationDate="2012-12-21T23:38:39.307" UserId="7433" Text="Well, some of us definitely _try_ to be friendly. But it's never possible to phrase a comment about a question closing/etc in a manner that you can be 100% sure that nobody will take offence to. The SE system isn't like normal forums, and it takes some time getting used to it. Something that's not really a serious issue on SE may be interpreted as one elsewhere (eg closing--on a traditional forum, closing means the death of a question. On SE, it's a temporary state for many posts.). So I wouldn't be too worried if some of my comments rubbed people the wrong way, though I certainly wouldn't _like_ it. And of course I try to tailor my comments so that newbies can understand them better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me share my experience when I joined Phys.SE: I had recently gotten disillusioned with Wikipedia; there had been some pretty brutal meta-discussion on some policies&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Quite a few of the users I'd admired were participating in it, some were being constructive, some...not so constructive. I was disheartened by the whole episode, and I started (subconsciously, I didn't know it at the time) distancing myself from the 'pedia -- meta discussion and writing userscripts was what I mainly did, and seeing that side of meta discussion hit me hard. Of course, it didn't help that I had a lot of other commitments at that time, mainly academics. Nowadays I poke around sometimes&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I had come across physics.SE a few months later after a suggestion on [the science reference desk](http://enwp.org/WP:RDS) that I ask my question here (I couldn't get any satisfactory answers then). So I did, and after browsing around, I got hooked :) Part of the reason behind this was that the community here (or what I had experienced of it at the time), was pretty helpful and nice. I became quite active here after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if the community hadn't been friendly and had instead been rather rude), then I would have not stayed on after my question got answered. Maybe it's because I'm not a physicist. Maybe the Wikipedia issues had made me sensitive. Maybe I am sensitive in general. Either way, I'm pretty sure that I would have been scared off by this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not saying that I am a valuable member of the community. Nor am I saying that my contributions are any good. I am saying objectively that if, at the time, I got , you would have lost one user, who has gained 5k+ rep with 200+ answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, I make two conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Friendliness is a must-have for our site. Lack of civility can scare users off. Not everyone has a thick skin, and more importantly, people without thick skins are prospective contributors as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. We seem to be a by-and-large friendly lot. Most of the comments I see on flagged/closevoted posts are pretty OK (though they could be better). The improvements we ought to make are to tailor our comments/etc so that new users have little chance to feel offended. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I was not a direct participant in these (except maybe a few comments here and there), just a fly on the wall. Quite a few people had gone into semi-retirement because of it. Looking back, I can't even remenber the specific issues--but there was a variety of them, being discussed more or less simultaneously.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. A year ago (or was it two?) I did participate extensively in the cleanup of [the Wikipedia India Education program fiasco](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program), though. I still love Wikipedia--its goal and its community--but I have just moved on to what I feel is a &quot;better&quot; place for me personally to learn and grow. I&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="1fd9aa7a-1993-40c8-a469-9539567ae719" CreationDate="2012-12-22T06:52:41.117" UserId="8143" Text="As a rank amateur, I can safely state from experience that even a question that could have been answered by one's own self with some effort (I lied when I said that I could not find the answer myself) is not laughed out of court on sight. Helpful people -- experts -- are on hand to patiently give explanations and clarify upon request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do find troubling is vicious commentary such as [here][1] with no action taken by moderators. I am also troubled by the personal attack on this page directed at a currently suspended contributor who has no means of responding to set the record straight (again, no action taken by moderators).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, I could feel comfortable with a general hands-off approach from moderators and staff... if it were applied fairly and evenhandedly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty/2837#comment6158_2837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="5c68c247-de6b-4e9c-b407-916998e3b102" CreationDate="2012-12-22T12:53:50.760" UserId="1492" Text="I have noticed once or twice that a question that I have read in the morning, during the progress of the day appears with a different questioner. Example this [recent one][1].&#xD;&#xA;It started with a newbie user  Neo ( there have been several starters with this handle) and now it is Dirac. I do not know whether it will still be that by the time your read this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this be done, i.e. change the identity of the questioner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="5c68c247-de6b-4e9c-b407-916998e3b102" CreationDate="2012-12-22T12:53:50.760" UserId="1492" Text="change of identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="5c68c247-de6b-4e9c-b407-916998e3b102" CreationDate="2012-12-22T12:53:50.760" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="8396a852-184b-439a-aa6d-68d94187c690" CreationDate="2012-12-22T13:10:09.757" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="This is likely due to the fact that OP changed his profile info (username and email which determines the avatar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="66b43854-af45-4d29-ba00-faa41e334cb6" CreationDate="2012-12-22T14:30:35.913" UserId="520" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="**Paid?** No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I get?** Well, aside from the thrill of power there is the warm glow of a job well done and they sent me a Stack Exchange Tee-shirt so that all may know me for the geek I am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update Dec, 2012** StackExchange is [making charitable donations in the names of community moderators](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/12/stack-exchange-gives-back-2011/), which feels like a kind of compensation to me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="d05e998d-f4c0-413c-b93b-8e5aa4010612" CreationDate="2012-12-22T14:33:29.307" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1207 characters in body" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="f773c733-9dc9-4eda-a673-a300de9b65e8" CreationDate="2012-12-22T16:04:44.423" UserId="66" Text="I personally don't think this community is as friendly as it could be. I have been a high rep user in the initial period of the site, but became disenfranchised with the site after about a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasons are various:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lengthy, pointless, sometimes rude, but always annoying discussions in comments. Moderators do not care at all about cleaning them, and actually sometimes become a major part of the problem with them. I did not come to SE to have a chat in the comments. Comments are solely to discuss how to improve answers.  &#xD;&#xA;[Random example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3631/66), [another random example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34217/why-do-people-categorically-dismiss-some-simple-quantum-models), [big list here](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/89664/posts-with-many-comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* At times, I've spent considerable time answering a question, with some research behind it, and presented a comprehensive answer based on objective facts, just to be dissed and down voted by people who favour academic qualifications over factual correctness and would down vote anything they don't like or sounds wrong to them. Such episodes of fanboi-ism are quite jarring.  &#xD;&#xA;  [Random example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/21345/66)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* General ineffectiveness of the community and its moderators to, well, moderate. Questions which are obviously off topic do not get closed, flags are handled in days and happily refused, even the Ron fiasco was... telling.  &#xD;&#xA;[Random example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6157/list-of-freely-available-physics-books), [another random example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is)....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This said, I'd love to come back and help this community rebuild, but not unless there is some understanding of the problems and commitment to improve :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="acd9add7-a8c7-4454-8f14-07b1824c5f27" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:20:59.183" UserId="55" Text="I created a proposal in Area 51 for a research library type of site. Just thought I'd tell you since I've done some here and also ask if you think you could benefit from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Research Library Proposal - Area 51][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/48790/research-library?referrer=qfyY-JC7d58N5QfMOt5KEg2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="acd9add7-a8c7-4454-8f14-07b1824c5f27" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:20:59.183" UserId="55" Text="Could a Research Library SE be useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="acd9add7-a8c7-4454-8f14-07b1824c5f27" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:20:59.183" UserId="55" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5477" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="dfca19a2-7ccb-41e7-8b68-824788f5cb70" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:41:54.677" UserId="2451" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5478" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="aff70887-a792-4544-a268-bafce936bc8c" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:51:35.730" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Change of user identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="2c1c6883-a294-460e-b12b-768551d79642" CreationDate="2012-12-23T00:14:49.933" UserId="2715" Comment="Took out personal attacks." Text="I think the whole Larian vs Ron fiasco highlighted something about this community as well.  While Ron was a fantastic contributor for physics, his personality can be seen as abrasive by some, and others have said he is incredibly rude to them.  Because of his high reputation, it seemed that the community tolerated him, and then even coddled him, letting him continue to get away with behavior that just isn't socially acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time progressed, I think his kind of bahvior started to get viewed as acceptable by other members, and it devolved from there.  Tone is actually a very important aspect of any community, and he was setting it for you.  I think that is one of the reasons I have really stopped coming here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This criticism aside, the StackExchange sites are a damn sight better than any Q&amp;A sites I have ever seen.  The quality of questions and answers here are great.  However, there is a risk of becoming cliquish.  Having a clear FAQ for new users to become familiar with a site, as well as ensuring _everyone_ on the site is held to the same rules should make it at least understandable to new folks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, mods could perhaps be community welcomers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2881" RevisionGUID="a8d82a25-3746-4a81-91df-c1b994b2ddef" CreationDate="2012-12-23T01:22:03.267" UserId="5827" Text="This is one of the rudest and most cynical boards I have ever been a part of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="89ecadc1-a51e-491c-9567-a1fc78310ad6" CreationDate="2012-12-23T01:46:57.870" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 11 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25120/optimal-angular-field-of-view-afov&quot;&gt;Optimal Angular Field of View (AFOV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123/how-to-determine-what-size-telescope-to-buy&quot;&gt;How to determine what size telescope to buy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25151/what-allows-the-modified-urca-process-to-work-at-lower-density-than-direct-urca&quot;&gt;What allows the modified Urca process to work at lower density than direct Urca in neutron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25198/can-any-telescope-be-used-for-solar-observing&quot;&gt;Can any telescope be used for solar observing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes sun solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable&quot;&gt;What are the prerequisites for considering any other planet to be habitable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets planetary-habitability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/when-will-the-moon-reach-escape-velocity&quot;&gt;When will the Moon reach escape velocity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25098/how-to-nail-focus-for-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How to nail focus for DSLR astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/why-does-the-moon-sometimes-appear-giant-and-a-orange-red-color-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Why does the moon sometimes appear giant and a orange red color near the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="246f2d9d-0102-4cfe-b8bf-87cd7f6a98e6" CreationDate="2012-12-23T05:38:57.830" UserId="11062" Text="I asked a layman question regarding string theory -&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/37766 several months ago (just a month after joining SE) - when I was completely new to this field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I definitely accept that it is pretty hard for some rude ***physicists*** here to agree with my *very basic* question. But, I didn't argue, chat or ask something wrong. It just came to my mind. After getting the responses, I just ignored the [tag:string-theory] tag..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, @Skliwz - after enjoying his revision to my post, stated that it isn't understandable. (He didn't respond to me in chat either) Then, Why did he do it? The question should've existed in its old cupboard. What the problem is - I get a lot of downvotes today. I think raged guys are just poking my old questions and downvote it. An example is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38561/magnetic-field-lines/38570#38570. I have a thought that these downvotes would continue still.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do someone have rage or hatred with me? - Please respond now..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="246f2d9d-0102-4cfe-b8bf-87cd7f6a98e6" CreationDate="2012-12-23T05:38:57.830" UserId="11062" Text="Why so much drive-by's? What's wrong with Curiosity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="246f2d9d-0102-4cfe-b8bf-87cd7f6a98e6" CreationDate="2012-12-23T05:38:57.830" UserId="11062" Text="|support|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="9424828f-b0e0-4606-8e80-2d8efa83282c" CreationDate="2012-12-23T06:37:54.780" UserId="520" Text="In the end drive by downvotes are just part of the deal with Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user will judge foo themselves if a post shows effort is useful and clear or if it fails that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an excess of attention (good or bad) directed at any single user will trip the vote fraud detection resulting in all votes along that graph edge being invalidated (and potentially attraction moderation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the old questions, they never become to old to attract voting and users are allowed to use your profile to find you old stuff. In principle they should, of course, treat each post as an individual artifact and vote the content not the user; but there isn't any mechanism to enforce that beyond the vote fraud detection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="b56b20a8-db86-4dd6-bc20-72494b165532" CreationDate="2012-12-23T08:43:00.570" UserId="7433" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I think the whole Larian vs Ron fiasco highlighted something about this community as well.  While Ron was a fantastic contributor for physics, his personality can be seen as abrasive by some, and others have said he is incredibly rude to them.  Because of his high reputation, it seemed that the community tolerated him, and then even coddled him, letting him continue to get away with behavior that just isn't socially acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time progressed, I think his kind of behavior started to get viewed as acceptable by other members, and it devolved from there.  Tone is actually a very important aspect of any community, and he was setting it for you.  I think that is one of the reasons I have really stopped coming here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This criticism aside, the StackExchange sites are a damn sight better than any Q&amp;A sites I have ever seen.  The quality of questions and answers here are great.  However, there is a risk of becoming cliquish.  Having a clear FAQ for new users to become familiar with a site, as well as ensuring _everyone_ on the site is held to the same rules should make it at least understandable to new folks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, mods could perhaps be community welcomers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2884" RevisionGUID="180870bc-a370-4e72-8004-415bd649b29f" CreationDate="2012-12-23T11:25:46.927" UserId="66" Text="You mispelled my name which is `Sklivvz` and not `Skliwz`. I didn't get any ping!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question: I've edited it to the point I could understand it, but there were just too many questions there, hence the close vote. It puzzles me that you also voted to close it, so I don't understand the disagreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the down votes: I am not sure what you expect me to say, there? I am not down voting you on purpose, but I did go through the site at length yesterday, cleaning up stuff and voted extensively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not vote based on the person who answers so I don't really know if I voted on your answers and if I did, whether the vote was up or down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2884" RevisionGUID="0e42983d-09c4-4b7a-8d90-53cde77f316c" CreationDate="2012-12-23T11:33:53.293" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Regarding the question: I've edited it to the point I could understand it, but there were just too many questions there, hence the close vote. It puzzles me that you also voted to close it, so I don't understand the disagreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the down votes: I am not sure what you expect me to say, there? I am not down voting you on purpose, but I did go through the site at length yesterday, cleaning up stuff and voted extensively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not vote based on the person who answers so I don't really know if I voted on your answers and if I did, whether the vote was up or down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not see your ping in chat btw. I would have answered otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="f6b02cf8-dd9b-4db0-85d8-a9594c3a41eb" CreationDate="2012-12-23T13:33:34.343" UserId="14473" Text="Considering both the users name and email ID can both be hidden very easily on this site, informing the professor won't (in most cases) achieve anything other than alerting him/her to the fact that **a** student has broken the honour code. If the student is smart, both the name and email ID will be hidden. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, as @Nick Kidman said in her answer here - The purpose of this site is to answer physics based questions. We already have a strict homework policy, and homework-sounding questions are routinely closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the easiest way around this is to just be careful to strictly enforce the no-homework question policy. If the user is asking a conceptual question that is related to a question on the take home exam (and since it isn't a homework question) closing it will be in violation of our policy. I think it will be overstepping our boundary as a third party to inform the professor in such a case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely useful to be on the lookout for &quot;suspicious&quot; looking homework questions, and generally be more strict/careful/aware/other-relevant-adjective with closing said homework questions. But informing the professor in question is going too far in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S - I don't know if closing a question prevents people from commenting on it as well... so perhaps we should consider preventing comments also on the suspicious questions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="b01e931f-a484-41da-8a0b-277f7d04f5fc" CreationDate="2012-12-23T15:52:24.690" UserId="5223" Text="I was a professor (of computer science). I also have children and grandchildren. Because of this, I take the function of tutelage and encouragement very seriously. The name of the site is &quot;physics&quot;, not &quot;physics for experts only&quot;. When someone asks a question, it is because they want to learn something. When I ask a question, it is because I want to learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, I almost never downvote. All it does is discourage someone, and I only want to encourage. If someone gives an answer that I disagree with or I think is wrong, I try to enlighten them, while also telling them where I think they are right, and *never* in a discouraging tone. There was an aphorism posted in my son's high school: &quot;Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can *really* hurt me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;StackExchange is a marvelous invention, full of remarkable people. I consider it a privilege to be able to learn and contribute here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="b45d9475-724c-46e2-9216-0c9a5782d940" CreationDate="2012-12-23T15:57:33.403" UserId="11822" Text="Is it possible to number equations when posting questions at physics stack exchange, or any other stack exchange site enabled with MathJax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried /begin{equation} /end{equation}." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="b45d9475-724c-46e2-9216-0c9a5782d940" CreationDate="2012-12-23T15:57:33.403" UserId="11822" Text="Latex/MathJax question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="b45d9475-724c-46e2-9216-0c9a5782d940" CreationDate="2012-12-23T15:57:33.403" UserId="11822" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="8ad7e342-a95f-41cb-8ce3-4cb85c52e381" CreationDate="2012-12-23T15:58:54.783" UserId="2451" Text="Yes there is a \tag{} command. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ \tag{1} 1+1=2 $$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="ef0a7af7-5d8e-4723-8957-f62fb183377d" CreationDate="2012-12-23T16:06:18.023" UserId="2451" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is a \tag{} command. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ \tag{1} 1+1=2 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Well, MathJax doesn't work on meta so copy-paste the above equation into [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) to see how it renders.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="146f7c38-3741-4441-873c-12e78f73a49e" CreationDate="2012-12-23T16:08:53.017" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil" Text="In the end drive by downvotes are just part of the deal with Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user will judge for themselves if a post shows effort is useful and clear or if it fails that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an excess of attention (good or bad) directed at any single user will trip the vote fraud detection resulting in all votes along that graph edge being invalidated (and potentially attraction moderation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the old questions, they never become too old to be voted on and users are allowed to use your profile to find yout old stuff. In principle they should, of course, treat each post as an individual artifact and vote the content not the user; but there isn't any mechanism to enforce that beyond the vote fraud detection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="dc868306-199d-4ce7-a7ea-bc9f45ea4842" CreationDate="2012-12-23T17:33:57.873" UserId="66" Text="I am trying to navigate our main site to find question and answers to improve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Edit posts which I can fix&#xD;&#xA;* Up and down vote what I can&#xD;&#xA;* Vote to close or reopen&#xD;&#xA;* Flag those lengthy comment threads and other broken windows for mod attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there seem to be no easy way of finding a &quot;random&quot; selection of posts to review holistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a script I can use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="dc868306-199d-4ce7-a7ea-bc9f45ea4842" CreationDate="2012-12-23T17:33:57.873" UserId="66" Text="A user script to improve the site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="dc868306-199d-4ce7-a7ea-bc9f45ea4842" CreationDate="2012-12-23T17:33:57.873" UserId="66" Text="|support|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="8ed0a7a3-9b4f-42e9-8821-41940974cadb" CreationDate="2012-12-23T17:33:57.873" UserId="66" Text="Yes, why, I am surprised you asked! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the very efficient *Random Post v0.1&amp;trade;* user script!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Install the user script available [as a gist here](https://gist.github.com/raw/4364586).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Go fetch any [Physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Notice the die on the top right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Click on the die to go to a completely random post!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hUNdR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="3fdbf57d-ad9f-4496-a776-0aef7b47f8ba" CreationDate="2012-12-23T18:17:05.713" UserId="6126" Text="So I come on the site today to see even more reputation docked off without reason, and then in my small activity window it says &quot;user was removed&quot;. This was nonetheless &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, who actually started going on my other posts and randomly docking points -- I am currently at 996 but was at 1006, corresponding to 5 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I just have to endure this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="3fdbf57d-ad9f-4496-a776-0aef7b47f8ba" CreationDate="2012-12-23T18:17:05.713" UserId="6126" Text="What happened to me -- user suspended but docks my reputation repeatedly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="3fdbf57d-ad9f-4496-a776-0aef7b47f8ba" CreationDate="2012-12-23T18:17:05.713" UserId="6126" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="d4e587f2-c2b6-495e-b3df-a21410664250" CreationDate="2012-12-23T19:20:02.060" UserId="653" Text="This can happen, though rarely as a race condition in the accept and upvote saving to the database at the same time.  This is an artifact of your reputation update being `=` and not `+=`, and the base amount loaded in overlapping requests.  This can't really go away completely until we get rid of Linq2SQL completely and that's a huge task we have to stop and do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, this *does* get cleaned up at night since the new reputation history table, a log of every single event *doesn't* suffer from this symptom.  This allows us to do a summation and comparison every night, if there's a difference it'll fix your rep up, it's not perfect but it does ensure cases like this don't go ignored." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5505" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="8a498cab-d474-4d24-b92c-a70110e6955d" CreationDate="2012-12-23T19:20:09.547" UserId="653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="bb7b980e-c32c-49d5-9753-b4b6582123e4" CreationDate="2012-12-23T20:37:59.830" UserId="6126" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="So I come on the site today to see even more reputation docked off without reason, and then in my small activity window it says &quot;user was removed&quot;. This was nonetheless &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, who actually started going on my other posts and randomly docking points -- I am currently at 996 but was at 1006, corresponding to 5 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I just have to endure this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: There has been further reputation docked by someone else on a few of my answers just now, some sort of emotional attack. **This is outright inappropriate**. These include (just now):  &#xD;&#xA;1) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19127/can-a-system-entirely-of-photons-be-a-bose-einsten-condensate/19128#19128  &#xD;&#xA;2) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45653/newtons-third-law-why-does-anything-move-at-all/45656#45656  &#xD;&#xA;3) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46506/how-can-these-fluid-dynamical-smoke-ring-phenomena-be-explained/46518#46518" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5510" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="7adc3f34-b6fa-4eae-93a2-ee0311e1e8fd" CreationDate="2012-12-23T20:42:22.550" UserId="66" Comment="edited title" Text="A &quot;random page&quot; user script useful to improve the site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="ad01f8d4-ba2d-4e3c-8397-0b21dbd9b6a2" CreationDate="2012-12-23T21:24:37.897" UserId="66" Text="What happened is that a user got deleted (normally this happens by their own request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All their recent votes, given within a set number of days are undone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if overall they gave you reputation, it is taken away&#xD;&#xA;* if they overall took reputation from you, it is restored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my case, for example, I had (I assume) one up vote and two down votes from the user, giving me a +6 of reputation. Today I have a `-6 user was removed` message in my rep log.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the other 3 down votes, it looks like they are serial, however it's just three votes, I wouldn't get too upset about it :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the obligatory &quot;don't do that&quot; post is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/125740/dont-throw-away-all-votes-when-a-user-is-deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="a9385302-86de-4682-859c-2629edea20d3" CreationDate="2012-12-23T21:32:37.443" UserId="9198" Text="While not a script, you can get much more targeted results through the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are weekly refreshes, so if you're looking for anything less than a week old, it won't show up in the query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you want to use the [`newid()` function in SQL][1] to order by.  A new [GUID][2] is produced for every single row (this expression is not evaluated one time and then cached).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means that you can get a completely random set of questions every time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add the `[Post Link]` and then you get a list of URLs that you can use to navigate to the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I've created the following query to be forked][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    select&#xD;&#xA;        p.Id as [Post Link],&#xD;&#xA;        p.* &#xD;&#xA;    from&#xD;&#xA;        Posts as p with (nolock)&#xD;&#xA;    where&#xD;&#xA;        --- Just questions for now&#xD;&#xA;        p.PostTypeId in (1) &#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;        --- Add new filter criteria here&#xD;&#xA;        --- to suit your needs.&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;    order by &#xD;&#xA;        --- Randomize each time.&#xD;&#xA;        newid()&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the `--- Add new filter criteria here to suit your needs.` comment.  You should adjust the filter in order to target the posts that you specifically want.  For example, you might check the `ClosedDate` column is null to filter out closed posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that you can change this query to work on *any* site by selecting &quot;Switch sites&quot; on by the &quot;Run Query&quot; button:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Switch sites option on Stack Exchange Data Explorer][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190348.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/89715/105782/random-questions-on-a-site&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7JdFf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="d208eea7-152f-4a26-bc62-d135c3d37587" CreationDate="2012-12-23T21:46:11.047" UserId="653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="ec18f383-5c29-48cd-b8f5-fbea44afe9c6" CreationDate="2012-12-23T21:47:19.877" UserId="653" Text="We cache these at a few levels in some cases for up to 3 days, this is normal and expected.  We may optimize how flair works a bit later as some of the avatar discussions progress internally, we'll update meta.so with that if it any changes are made to improve user flair overall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="629da0a6-c011-47d8-86ef-682ee2095fbe" CreationDate="2012-12-23T23:03:46.187" UserId="6126" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="So I come on the site today to see even more reputation docked off without reason, and then in my small activity window it says &quot;user was removed&quot;. This was nonetheless &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, who actually started going on my other posts and randomly docking points -- I am currently at 996 but was at 1006, corresponding to 5 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I just have to endure this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: There has been further reputation docked by someone else on a few of my answers just now, some sort of emotional attack. **This is outright inappropriate**. These include (just now):  &#xD;&#xA;1) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19127/can-a-system-entirely-of-photons-be-a-bose-einsten-condensate/19128#19128  &#xD;&#xA;2) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45653/newtons-third-law-why-does-anything-move-at-all/45656#45656  &#xD;&#xA;3) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46506/how-can-these-fluid-dynamical-smoke-ring-phenomena-be-explained/46518#46518&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: As you can see in the comments, user &quot;AnnieCannon&quot; has also been participating igniting this problem. He has just randomly docked reputation off on posts as you can view in my reputation-activity window.  Actually, this is the same user &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, thanks to his comment: *&quot;I'm talking about the original downvote I gave to your shitty answer to this question physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47279/…, and your shitty attitude about it. – AnnieCannon 1 min ago&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="3c01a4e1-8c0f-4ec5-9e01-dd2301fa7631" CreationDate="2012-12-23T23:09:17.270" UserId="6126" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="So I come on the site today to see even more reputation docked off without reason, and then in my small activity window it says &quot;user was removed&quot;. This was nonetheless &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, who actually started going on my other posts and randomly docking points -- I am currently at 996 but was at 1006, corresponding to 5 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I just have to endure this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: There has been further reputation docked by someone else on a few of my answers just now, some sort of emotional attack. **This is outright inappropriate**. These include (just now):  &#xD;&#xA;1) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19127/can-a-system-entirely-of-photons-be-a-bose-einsten-condensate/19128#19128  &#xD;&#xA;2) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45653/newtons-third-law-why-does-anything-move-at-all/45656#45656  &#xD;&#xA;3) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46506/how-can-these-fluid-dynamical-smoke-ring-phenomena-be-explained/46518#46518&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: As you can see in the comments, user &quot;AnnieCannon&quot; has also been participating igniting this problem. He has just randomly docked reputation off on posts as you can view in my reputation-activity window.  &#xD;&#xA;  Actually, this is the same user &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, thanks to his comment: *&quot;I'm talking about the original downvote I gave to your shitty answer to this question physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47279/…, and your shitty attitude about it. – AnnieCannon 1 min ago&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5517" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="4f332bf3-ae33-4c0d-ac75-6519d6454375" CreationDate="2012-12-23T23:31:26.317" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [bb7b980e-c32c-49d5-9753-b4b6582123e4]" Text="So I come on the site today to see even more reputation docked off without reason, and then in my small activity window it says &quot;user was removed&quot;. This was nonetheless &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, who actually started going on my other posts and randomly docking points -- I am currently at 996 but was at 1006, corresponding to 5 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I just have to endure this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: There has been further reputation docked by someone else on a few of my answers just now, some sort of emotional attack. **This is outright inappropriate**. These include (just now):  &#xD;&#xA;1) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19127/can-a-system-entirely-of-photons-be-a-bose-einsten-condensate/19128#19128  &#xD;&#xA;2) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45653/newtons-third-law-why-does-anything-move-at-all/45656#45656  &#xD;&#xA;3) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46506/how-can-these-fluid-dynamical-smoke-ring-phenomena-be-explained/46518#46518" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="4d4a70d5-3363-4215-80a2-64622ed98615" CreationDate="2012-12-24T02:08:55.687" UserId="11062" Comment="removed 8 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="a64418e0-b7da-423e-942f-1021d9a31d23" CreationDate="2012-12-24T04:44:38.767" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 19 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="e15d21c3-344c-4f75-b996-9de2844dfe15" CreationDate="2012-12-24T06:19:43.523" UserId="124" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions) like this one. Should we bend our policy to keep this question (and others like it) which were migrated from Astro or TP around, or just close it in accordance with the pre-existing policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="e15d21c3-344c-4f75-b996-9de2844dfe15" CreationDate="2012-12-24T06:19:43.523" UserId="124" Text="Should we allow migrated software questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="e15d21c3-344c-4f75-b996-9de2844dfe15" CreationDate="2012-12-24T06:19:43.523" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="5d3bf1fd-4ccd-42ba-a499-5421ab2aaf35" CreationDate="2012-12-24T09:51:01.197" UserId="2751" Text="In my opinion (and others said so in the corresponding comments too) [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10361/2751) question, asking about some difficulties that occur in investigating the string theory landscape (such as the measurement problem for example) has wrongly been closed. It asks about a valid topic in mainstream theoretical physics, which is actively investigated by esteemed physicists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as David Zaslavsky suggested in the comments to clarify the issue on meta, my question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this question (after improvements if needed?) be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="5d3bf1fd-4ccd-42ba-a499-5421ab2aaf35" CreationDate="2012-12-24T09:51:01.197" UserId="2751" Text="Can this string theory question be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="5d3bf1fd-4ccd-42ba-a499-5421ab2aaf35" CreationDate="2012-12-24T09:51:01.197" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="e94caa33-c9fd-4e58-a7d4-c7e7b19247b9" CreationDate="2012-12-24T09:51:55.833" UserId="2751" Text="Yes it should be reopened, it is a valid question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="e8174d16-9c28-4322-bbf9-236bda5f9572" CreationDate="2012-12-24T10:10:33.153" UserId="11062" Text="Of course. We don't allow such questions. While, I was revising [Astronomy imports](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/1245#1245), I arrived at that one. I thought it was off-topic (and *indeed*, the flag was mine). So, I voted to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need such questions. Because they're dealing with some kinda measuring instruments, *data-based* things - stuffs that we don't do. I think most of the users also won't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could close it... I don't think a prepoll would be of so much importance :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="092c74b0-47c2-4f4e-9ce2-6e307a74a188" CreationDate="2012-12-24T10:41:07.160" UserId="8966" Text="First of all, allow me to remind you that usually in &quot;reopening requests&quot; it is asked that who posts the question should explain the reasoning why the question must be reopened. I mean, bring forth your arguments as to why it should be reopened (you have to convince the mods and the community after all and using arguments is your best bet). Your request will have more chances to be successful if you provide those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't really understand the topic of the question but it's clear, also considering the close reason, that it's certainly on topic for the site. So that's not the problem. But thanks to my moderator experience I can see at least a major one with the question: it has too many questions. There are 9 in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem because it makes the question too broad to be answered. According to the standard FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in my opinion this is the problem with the question. The question-points might be legit and all, but the question should be scoped. Also consider the answerers: In order to fully address the question, you have to answer 9 points completely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answerers won't answer all of them. You'll have users focusing on some points, others focusing on other points, and most of the users ignoring the rest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question need to be scoped, so who answers will address any point of the question. While now it almost looks like a questionnaire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens in my sites, I usually suggest to split the question in multiple parts, grouping the questions that are related. So for example, 2/3 questions are highly related? Then ask a new question with those. If the questions are consequent, so that one question is based on the answer of the previous one, then those should better be asked in that order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't answer why it was closed as Not Constructive, but I hope this helps. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="e2f49c2d-4636-47fc-a95c-a2c86a5b9b32" CreationDate="2012-12-24T10:55:11.723" UserId="2751" Comment="added 640 characters in body" Text="In my opinion (and others said so in the corresponding comments too) [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10361/2751) question, asking about some difficulties that occur in investigating the string theory landscape (such as the measurement problem for example) has wrongly been closed. It asks about a valid topic in mainstream theoretical physics, which is actively investigated by esteemed physicists. The question adresses several points that highlight difficulties in investigating the string theory landscape. However, these points are so closely related that the whole set can easily be addressed by a single answer. These subquestions just give the details the OP is interested in and they can easily be adressed by a single coherent answer. The mere existance of such closely related subquestions in a post should not be a reason to close. I have seen tons of questions which eplained the topic they are interested in by closely related subquestions, and there was (rightly so) no need to close them; they got nice upvoted answers, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as David Zaslavsky suggested in the comments to clarify the issue on meta, my question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this question (after improvements if needed?) be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2903" RevisionGUID="febee342-0d0c-445f-858a-de7602de900d" CreationDate="2012-12-24T11:04:53.863" UserId="3099" Text="I've voted for a re-open, because I think it *is* a mainstream cosmology topic (regardless of people's opinion on this sort of field in cosmology).  However I agree that there are too many questions embedded.  I would just stop at the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  Maybe some subset of the others could be raised as separate questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="05f2321f-0bed-45a6-b773-34c97c94cdfe" CreationDate="2012-12-24T11:07:21.707" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="87cdde44-570d-40db-b892-66993f857235" CreationDate="2012-12-24T11:35:46.627" UserId="66" Text="Closure is just a stop gap to get a question fixed, it's not a way to prevent a question from happening. In fact, it's still there, and we are debating it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the question salvageable? Yes, by all means! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* by restricting it to the parts which are TP and not mere maths or philosophy&#xD;&#xA;* by reducing the scope to a reasonable size, one or two not overly broad questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did I vote to close and flag in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question had many parts but a very, very partial, completely mathematical answer. It was clearly not working on this site.&#xD;&#xA;* When a user asks so many questions it's really hard to restrict by editing if you are not the one asking the questions, so I couldn't just fix it myself!&#xD;&#xA;* Closure prevents further random answers while we debate and fix the question. If we decide to fix we will re-open with a better question. If we decide not to fix, we will eventually delete, but *closure is not deletion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, let's debate how to improve the question and *do it*. There is no censorship or let alone some risible plan to shut down all TP questions (seriously?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="d328fb71-9342-4f6c-bc54-ca41336e2ec8" CreationDate="2012-12-24T12:03:46.440" UserId="11062" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Of course, we shouldn't allow such questions. While, I was revising [Astronomy imports](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/1245#1245), I arrived at that one. I thought it was off-topic (and *indeed*, the flag was mine). So, I voted to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need such questions. Because they're dealing with some kinda measuring instruments, *data-based* things - stuffs that we don't do. I think most of the users also won't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could close it... I don't think a prepoll would be of so much importance :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="78c5f209-20a8-4001-ad3a-8892afeeda78" CreationDate="2012-12-24T13:11:12.453" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Of course, we shouldn't allow such questions. While, I was revising [Astronomy imports](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/1245#1245), I arrived at that one. I thought it was off-topic (and *indeed*, the flag was mine). So, I voted to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need such questions. Because they're dealing with some kinda measuring *data-collection*-like stuffs that we don't like. I think most of the users also won't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could close it... I don't think a prepoll would be of so much importance :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="82eaae6f-3b49-4a47-8ee0-59e1d0ae0c79" CreationDate="2012-12-24T15:15:06.613" UserId="66" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="Closure is just a stop gap to get a question fixed, it's not a way to prevent a question from happening. In fact, it's still there, and we are debating it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the question salvageable? Yes, by all means! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* by restricting it to the parts which are TP and not mere maths or philosophy&#xD;&#xA;* by reducing the scope to a reasonable size, one or two not overly broad questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did I vote to close and flag in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question had many parts but a very, very partial, completely mathematical answer. It was clearly not working on this site.&#xD;&#xA;* When a user asks so many questions it's really hard to restrict by editing if you are not the one asking the questions, so I couldn't just fix it myself!&#xD;&#xA;* Closure prevents further random answers while we debate and fix the question. If we decide to fix we will re-open with a better question. If we decide not to fix, we will eventually delete, but *closure is not deletion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, let's debate how to improve the question and *do it*. There is no censorship or let alone some risible plan to shut down all TP questions (seriously?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question has now been edited and is valid. Whilst it's still to wishy-washy for my taste, I don't think it's a valid reason for closure so I've voted to reopen!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For future reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Original Version: http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/10361/1&#xD;&#xA;* Corrected Version: http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/10361/6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2905" RevisionGUID="f6a3b5d0-1b6b-461e-ae94-eee8c29c95af" CreationDate="2012-12-24T16:36:24.487" UserId="520" Text="We have accepted questions relating to the meaning of software objects in the [particle physics Monte Carlo generator Pythia](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=pythia), and my feeling at the time was that this was a tool by- for- and of-physicists and of no interest to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question here becomes &quot;Is this JSkyCat thing of interest or use to anyone other than astronomers?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;No.&quot; then it is certainly a question for us. If the answer is yes, then we have to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is it, any way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5541" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="04e177c1-8d58-4bcb-8a6b-34553b31ab3a" CreationDate="2012-12-24T19:56:15.247" UserId="7433" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="024e7a4f-1cbc-438f-aeda-fdcfe9fecf38" CreationDate="2012-12-24T23:20:19.597" UserId="124" Comment="generalize" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions) like this one. ([see also this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions)) But as dmckee pointed out, there are some software questions about tools very specific to physics which would not get any useful reception on another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we adjust our policy to keep this question (and others like it) about specialized software questions, or just close it in accordance with the existing policy? Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5543" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="024e7a4f-1cbc-438f-aeda-fdcfe9fecf38" CreationDate="2012-12-24T23:20:19.597" UserId="124" Comment="generalize" Text="Should we allow software questions? (take 2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="89cf793d-95d0-4dea-8762-240c21c54da5" CreationDate="2012-12-25T05:24:56.070" UserId="7433" Text="I personally feel that we should not allow any software questions -- I feel that our site ought to be mainly conceptual.  So I am completely against `Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?`. Questions about software that is just related (and not confined to) physics are better asked on SU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I don't mind if we allow software qs on software that is only of use to physicists/astronomers/students of the two disciplines. But we should be careful about these, many such qs can bee too localized. And they may detract from the site if there are too many of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="95ee5320-de0b-42cd-8665-a8a3f756be70" CreationDate="2012-12-25T10:56:09.433" UserId="2751" Text="I exactly agree with Dmckee, who says that questions about spezialized software used and of interest only for physicists should be kept and allowed, and therefore the Physics SE policy adjusted a little bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the Monte Carlo simulation example of such a spezialised program, [Prof Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/08/15/from-string-theory-to-the-large-hadron-collider/#more-4244) explains what the [Black Hat](http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3705) program does, which is used to calculate the standard model background in different evaluations of LHC data. It takes advantage of the new [twistor methods](http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/twistor-minirevolution-goes-on.html) to calculate amplitudes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure there could be found other exmples of such important spezialized programs needed by physicists in astronomy and other subfields of physics generally. It would not make sense to ask questions about these at a random programming/computational site, where people are by no means familiar (and probably not strongly interested in) with the physics context wherein such software is applied. So such questions about specialized software exlusively applied by physicists and no one else, should be allowed here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="09379522-4a3f-407f-bd9c-1a2a2fbe474c" CreationDate="2012-12-25T12:32:49.380" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2908" RevisionGUID="77d61b4f-4064-4dfb-b2f1-28dbed52c234" CreationDate="2012-12-25T13:36:48.740" UserId="14473" Text="I think it's a good idea to allow these kinds of questions, as long as they are local enough to physics. A few people have said that it is &quot;off topic&quot; and not relevant. But since this isn't an only theoretical physics site, I think questions relevant to the acquisition and storage of data are relevant. When most data analysis is performed on the computer, some questions which are 'software related' are bound to arise, and as dmckee pointed out, no one else can really answer them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing an example from experience... Astronomers tend to use a file format called FITS. Now there exists extensive documentation about FITS files, but unfortunately not about one tiny aspect of FITS files local to radio astronomy, and I had to extensively hunt through the web to figure it out. If a question like that is asked now, I don't think it should be closed. Frankly, I don't think anyone else apart from astronomers will be able to answer it accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that questions like this are very specific to one branch of physics... but as a contrary, plenty of theoretical physics questions are relevant to only that branch of physics (For example, [this][1] question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in favour of letting a (very narrow) range of software-related questions be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5548" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="8242ec38-0609-4ef3-bf16-a03ec65792e4" CreationDate="2012-12-25T14:36:17.837" UserId="7433" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="b233067d-6ebb-4596-8843-d1d456f1edbe" CreationDate="2012-12-25T15:20:34.830" UserId="11062" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="Of course, we shouldn't allow such questions. While, I was revising [Astronomy imports](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/1245#1245), I arrived at that one. I thought it was off-topic (and *indeed*, the flag was mine). So, I voted to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need such questions. Because they're dealing with some kinda measuring *data-collection*-like stuffs that we don't like. I think most of the users also won't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could close it... I don't think a prepoll would be of so much importance :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I really agree with dmckee's answer. Questions which are more likely *supporting* Physics could be allowed. But, not the question which you've pointed out. It seems like It'd be understood and responded only by some 10s or 20s out of 16k users. I think we don't need such questions (like the above)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="30197c40-f937-4614-b4b8-23bafc4a1657" CreationDate="2012-12-25T21:31:54.037" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I personally feel that we should not allow any software questions -- I feel that our site ought to be mainly conceptual.  So I am completely against `Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?`. Questions about software that is just related (and not confined to) physics are better asked on SU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I don't mind if we allow software qs on software that is only of use to physicists/astronomers/students of the two disciplines. But we should be careful about these, many such qs can be too localized. And they may detract from the site if there are too many of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5551" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="97188442-2fc6-4d09-a89b-9bd3b82d4781" CreationDate="2012-12-25T22:02:45.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/283694292915064832" />
  <row Id="5552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="06846a9a-5123-49a2-b5bb-162f9a0d31f5" CreationDate="2012-12-26T07:11:24.263" UserId="5477" Text="It seems to me that the spirit of the original [meta question][1] you linked to wasn't so much &quot;should we allow software questions?&quot; as &quot;should we allow questions that are *only about computation*, without any specific physics content?&quot; The answer to that question was &quot;no&quot;, but that doesn't mean we need a blanket &quot;no computation questions&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the FAQ says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If your question is about writing a simulation or other program, and it concerns the algorithms, execution, or presentation of the results (rather than the underlying physics), it is probably more appropriate at Computational Science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a reasonable policy, but it should be interpreted such that questions are on topic if they're about software but *aren't* just concerned with algorithms, execution, or presentation of results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view the [JSkyCat][2] question should be allowed because although it isn't strictly about the physics as such, it's asking for knowledge that's quite specific to physicists (or rather astronomers) and for me that's enough to make it not just about algorithms, execution or presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="7676109f-52d4-4bb5-b277-9084dfeedef3" CreationDate="2012-12-26T07:54:54.937" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 13 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="c69df301-cf4c-4398-bb02-73453260e8c9" CreationDate="2012-12-26T12:30:22.483" UserId="11062" Comment="5 reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="27afcdeb-1798-4dc1-aeab-b8a7a8444a76" CreationDate="2012-12-26T13:07:15.110" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2910" RevisionGUID="580ebf87-2404-4484-9795-ebe0871535a9" CreationDate="2012-12-26T14:31:05.837" UserId="5827" Text="Most software questions are better off on StackOverflow and other related sites. The folks over there are far more knowledgeable about such things, even if the software employed is specialized. Migrating such questions would actually be more helpful to the user. Maybe asking the OP before moving the question would be the way to go. This gives the OP a heads-up and a chance for clarification if need be. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="14534888-9561-4e76-9543-cd512eaea8de" CreationDate="2012-12-27T00:29:18.960" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="e1911f9c-c4e1-4832-be5d-0827bf340668" CreationDate="2012-12-27T02:55:11.303" UserId="124" Comment="add another example" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions) like this one. ([see also this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions)) But as dmckee pointed out, there are some software questions about tools very specific to physics which would not get any useful reception on another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we adjust our policy to keep this question (and others like it) about specialized software questions, or just close it in accordance with the existing policy? Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Here is an example of the kind of question I would like us to decide about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47670/visualization-of-dynamics-of-a-scale-free-network-of-ising-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update to the update: actually it's not such a great example, because this is really a software _recommendation_ question, and recommendation questions of all sorts are generally off topic (except for a particular set of book recommendations). But it's still worth discussing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="2270c127-03e1-4eee-bb6e-a861c03604b4" CreationDate="2012-12-27T05:23:55.587" UserId="2146" Text="Suppose a community member uses another site to abuse another community member, but using links to this site, such as to posts and profiles etc. Should that member be brought to the attention of the moderators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="2270c127-03e1-4eee-bb6e-a861c03604b4" CreationDate="2012-12-27T05:23:55.587" UserId="2146" Text="Are community members disciplined over abusing other community members elsewhere using links to this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="2270c127-03e1-4eee-bb6e-a861c03604b4" CreationDate="2012-12-27T05:23:55.587" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="d8b9917f-f617-4ef6-94bb-8f48db8770cc" CreationDate="2012-12-27T05:30:54.733" UserId="124" Text="No, there isn't any particular reason to do that. When we're considering disciplinary action, we don't care about anything that has happened outside this site (`physics.stackexchange.com` and `meta.physics.stackexchange.com` and any associated chat rooms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if someone is linking to this site, that doesn't make it any business of ours. We can't and don't control what people link to from elsewhere on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, there isn't a general rule _against_ bringing up a member's behavior elsewhere. But given that we (mods) don't care about it, I'm not sure what good it could do, so I would probably advise against it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="c71b216b-0055-4fb7-8174-88df68a06dfe" CreationDate="2012-12-27T08:29:33.930" UserId="124" Comment="reword for clarity" Text="No. When we're considering disciplinary action, we don't care about anything that has happened outside this site (`physics.stackexchange.com` and `meta.physics.stackexchange.com` and any associated chat rooms). Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the authorities on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if someone is linking to this site, that doesn't make it any business of ours. We can't and don't control what people link to from elsewhere on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it isn't against the rules just to bring up a member's behavior elsewhere. But if you're doing so in an attempt to shame the person whose behavior on another site is being discussed, that may qualify as a personal attack, which is definitely not appropriate here. And if you're not attempting to shame the person, I have a hard time imagining why it might be necessary to bring up their behavior on another site. So generally speaking, I'd advise against it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="0104d48b-9f65-4260-a33c-3efcd4e40f2a" CreationDate="2012-12-27T09:48:27.997" UserId="66" Text="I think you should absolutely report it, but keep in mind that, as David says, mods can only take action for whatever happens on the site and not for what happens outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is obvious that people having arguments off-site is likely to have consequences on-site, and any warning is useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: if one person accuses another off site of having sock puppets here, it's still relevant to *us*! If someone is a known troll outside of this community, it's still relevant to *us*! Etcetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is, warn mods or [contact support](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/help/other) if you think that something bad is happening out the site but about the site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5569" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="fe944a84-3883-4f28-9a9e-d9bda7ea0590" CreationDate="2012-12-27T10:40:11.757" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5573" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="165a12b1-b8d9-4e3a-bda0-1025a32be034" CreationDate="2012-12-27T10:40:11.757" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5589" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="2449e8d0-4613-4a24-bf58-99a6fd8a5c4e" CreationDate="2012-12-27T10:40:11.757" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="5592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="105adea5-0662-4f7e-8837-0baad0f70d50" CreationDate="2012-12-27T10:50:57.567" UserId="66" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I think you should absolutely report it, but keep in mind that, as David says, mods can only take action for whatever happens on the site and not for what happens outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is obvious that people having arguments off-site is likely to have consequences on-site, and any warning is useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: if one person accuses another off site of having sock puppets here, it's still relevant to *us*! If someone is a known troll outside of this community, it's still relevant to *us*! Etcetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is, warn mods *in private*, via a flag or in a private chat room, or [contact support](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/help/other) if you think that something bad is happening out the site but about the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post on meta though, to avoid unnecessary drama." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="94d1ff9a-dc3d-4081-b1c5-3f7174645948" CreationDate="2012-12-27T10:57:40.307" UserId="7433" Text="Users will not be disciplined for activities off-site. As David said,  `Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the authorities on that site.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is nothing wrong with bringing it to our notice, as long as it is done _privately_ (custom flag a post of theirs or use [this form][1]). Bringing it up on meta will cause unnecessary drama, and may be considered as a personal attack; an attempt to shame the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issues between two users on other sites may have repercussions here, so bringing it to our notice lets us investigate the situation on this side of the fence (look for revenge voting, offensive comments, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Off-site activities alone do not merit any punishment, but you should bring them to our notice privately so we can investigate it on this site.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="e061f10e-6d60-4c49-b84c-60147d038158" CreationDate="2012-12-27T11:18:01.943" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 17 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="850748d3-05df-4320-b172-2cec112409a8" CreationDate="2012-12-27T12:34:24.813" UserId="14473" Text="I've seen [this][1] meta question already, but that deals with a slightly different case I think.&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if questions like [this][2] should be allowed. Specifically, I'm wondering if requests for papers and/or reviews on something should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this strikes me as &quot;easily googleable&quot; more so because someone looking for a review is (most probably) affiliated to some institution or the other, and hence will presumably have *some* journal access. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1052/should-general-reference-questions-be-closed-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="850748d3-05df-4320-b172-2cec112409a8" CreationDate="2012-12-27T12:34:24.813" UserId="14473" Text="Do we allow paper/reference requests?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="850748d3-05df-4320-b172-2cec112409a8" CreationDate="2012-12-27T12:34:24.813" UserId="14473" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="4a52c847-5b88-43c2-9ba5-b5506a376bb7" CreationDate="2012-12-27T12:37:34.797" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="2d776f3c-12d4-4b63-b1a8-f2ee5e825e4e" CreationDate="2012-12-27T12:45:44.077" UserId="2751" Text="Paper and reference request questions have always been allowed and they should be allowed in the future too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the answers to such questions should not just contain a link or the result of a google search, but roughly explain what is in the papers and references the answerer suggests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So such questions are legitimate, valid, valuable, and useful, in particular for people who want to familiarize themself with a new topic or who are doing research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disallowing new such questions suddenly or even start closing down the exixting ones would be wrong and a disfavor to the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="a4cf3d25-54af-4114-a180-915ef1259b73" CreationDate="2012-12-27T20:30:10.057" UserId="7433" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Users will not be disciplined for activities off-site. As David said,  `Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the authorities on that site.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is nothing wrong with bringing it to our notice, as long as it is done _privately_ (custom flag a post of theirs or use [this form][1]). Bringing it up on meta will cause unnecessary drama, and may be considered as a personal attack; an attempt to shame the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issues between two users on other sites may have repercussions here, so bringing it to our notice lets us investigate the situation on this side of the fence (look for revenge voting, offensive comments, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While bringing it to our notice, you need not even mention the site where you saw the user abusing the others, it's better if you just mention which two users are being talked about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Off-site activities alone do not merit any punishment, but you should bring them to our notice privately so we can investigate it on this site.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="bb4a515a-5d58-4690-af3d-9e6d8cd19416" CreationDate="2012-12-27T22:10:21.393" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="995d4f81-5eae-435a-a04b-7357793bca7e" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:10:36.493" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first discovered community moderation on this site, I was pretty excited, but I noticed that very few users ever participated in it. Now, as a moderator, I'm on the other side of the fence. From here, I can see that this is still a big issue for our site, and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to encourage users to participate in community moderation, as well as introduce them to the basics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do not be intimidated by the length of this post**, you may know about most of the stuff here already. Read the first section (and then maybe the section on flagging), and skim through the rest, looking for what you don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="995d4f81-5eae-435a-a04b-7357793bca7e" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:10:36.493" UserId="7433" Text="Community, help us moderate the site!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="995d4f81-5eae-435a-a04b-7357793bca7e" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:10:36.493" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|faq|featured|moderation|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="afe52b68-8206-44e7-a96c-f25681901dc0" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:10:36.493" UserId="7433" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation--not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (eg getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet -- an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in -- you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning/etc, and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Commenting&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; -- which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for downvoted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users(in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have, and the red number lists the number of declined flags. If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags necessarily a bad thing-- if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others -- one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better(tm) with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these qs via the close vote review queue as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot;--the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counterflagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete downvoted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of downvoted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - Policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of on-topicness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the faq and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about ...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though--remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible--it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better(tm). This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions -- if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework qs. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) -- the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, downvote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and downvoted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their afilliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the faq][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted--they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Finding posts that need attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though -- the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue--if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, upvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post -- fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a closeable post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without blockquoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Participate on meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for downvoted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="9700cc8f-c143-49ea-b657-bc0426b409fe" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:12:08.757" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="26ce5e69-4716-4eaa-8d98-34df1bb05c28" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:12:14.747" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="10aea0dd-18e9-4e5d-b12e-332ff8363a07" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:16:10.460" UserId="7433" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation--not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (eg getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet -- an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in -- you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning/etc, and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**The basics of the community moderation tools**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Commenting&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; -- which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for downvoted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users(in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have, and the red number lists the number of declined flags. If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing-- if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others -- one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better(tm) with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these qs via the close vote review queue as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot;--the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counterflagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete downvoted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of downvoted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - Policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of on-topicness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the faq and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about ...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though--remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible--it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better(tm). This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions -- if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework qs. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) -- the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, downvote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and downvoted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their afilliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the faq][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted--they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Finding posts that need attention**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though -- the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue--if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, upvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post -- fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a closeable post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without blockquoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Participate on meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for downvoted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="1257644c-eddb-4b25-9383-0222a64de0d0" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:33:07.220" UserId="7433" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation--not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (eg getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet -- an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in -- you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning/etc, and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**The basics of the community moderation tools**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Commenting&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; -- which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for downvoted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users(in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have, and the red number lists the number of declined flags. If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing-- if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others -- one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better(tm) with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these qs via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot;--the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counterflagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete downvoted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of downvoted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - Policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of on-topicness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the faq and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about ...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though--remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible--it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better(tm). This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions -- if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework qs. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) -- the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, downvote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and downvoted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their afilliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the faq][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted--they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Finding posts that need attention**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though -- the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue--if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, upvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post -- fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a closeable post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without blockquoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Participate on meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for downvoted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="5bb3b9ff-6ae3-4b38-8159-8adbb25060f1" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:37:54.113" UserId="2751" Text="I would prefer it rather to see the community doing good questions and answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such an increase or additional amount of moderation by activities like closing, flagging, hunting systematically posts that could be not quite apprropriate etc really needed here ...? I think it would be better to concentrate on good physics, until really bad things happen that need action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have noticed that the closing business for example was going a bit too well recently, since some good and appropriate questions were victims of this increased closings frequency too. Having to struggle that (wrongly) closed questions get reopend distracts one from doing and enjoying physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought physics is the main topic and purpose of this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="c0f73dc4-8344-4dbc-aca6-8acc72610a1b" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:43:41.850" UserId="124" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="e39adba9-03f1-4aef-b520-ee7fdca8ff79" CreationDate="2012-12-27T23:57:42.253" UserId="2751" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I would prefer it rather to see the community doing good questions and answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such an increase or additional amount of moderation by activities like closing, flagging, hunting artifically posts that could be not quite apprropriate etc really needed here ...? I think it would be better to concentrate on good physics, until really bad things happen that need action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have noticed that the closing business for example was going a bit too well recently, since some good, appropriate, and interesting questions were victims of this increased closings frequency too. Having to struggle that (wrongly) closed questions get reopend distracts one from doing and enjoying physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought doing physics is the main topic and purpose of Physics SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="71043ecd-f6ae-481e-b842-67f557bc7286" CreationDate="2012-12-28T08:54:01.173" UserId="4020" Text="I'm not a native speaker and I have this question for some time now. What articles and when should be placed with physical and mathematical concepts? General Rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a/the force&#xD;&#xA; - a/the manifold&#xD;&#xA; - a/the flux of a/the/() field&#xD;&#xA; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be better to ask here rahther than on english.stackexchange.com because I believe here people know all the variants and cases of using the terminology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="71043ecd-f6ae-481e-b842-67f557bc7286" CreationDate="2012-12-28T08:54:01.173" UserId="4020" Text="The proper use of articles (a/the) with physical concepts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="71043ecd-f6ae-481e-b842-67f557bc7286" CreationDate="2012-12-28T08:54:01.173" UserId="4020" Text="|discussion|language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="7109d090-729d-4488-b10a-1ca400956d04" CreationDate="2012-12-28T11:27:36.927" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Finished !&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="3b0f89a5-faa0-4a8f-8dd3-7e229dfb0f29" CreationDate="2012-12-28T13:08:33.660" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Well, this could go on english.SE imo, but the big users there are pretty ardently against questions from non-native speakers these days. They don't want to clutter their site with lowbrow questions from people not tenured in the humanities. (Okay end of rant, I promise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, articles in English are very context dependent, and there are very few terms that are consistently preceded by one form or another. The definite article *the* comes before any nouns somehow uniquely defined by the situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The force in this particular case...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the indefinite article *a/an* precedes nouns that are particular instances where more variety can be imagined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; There is probably an electromagnetic field of some sort worth considering...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used properly, articles can very well distinguish between unspecified instances of abstract notions and specific, well-defined examples of those notions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; While a manifold is just a topological space locally homeomorphic to R^n, the manifold we will consider is the unique one-dimensional, compact, connected manifold without boundary (i.e. the circle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There really aren't any better general rules, even for specific things in physics. (Sorry - I've heard English is one of the hardest languages to learn and master, and even as a native speaker I believe it.) That said, on the internet even native speakers (myself included) slip up in more egregious ways than using the wrong article, so I wouldn't worry too much about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="bb4940fe-db57-4eda-b4cf-f2d6bb03c24d" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:25:35.657" UserId="14473" Text="I'm trying to flag a comment for removal on my answer to [this][1] question. The comment (made by Anna V) is obsolete, because I successfully managed to flag the other comments on the thread (the thread was about how to upload an image in an answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I originally upvoted her comment, and now I'm unable to flag for deletion. Is this a bug or a &quot;feature&quot; (:P)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44820/could-dark-energy-be-heat-could-dark-matter-be-stuff-that-is-not-seen-because-o" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="bb4940fe-db57-4eda-b4cf-f2d6bb03c24d" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:25:35.657" UserId="14473" Text="Deleting an upvoted comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="bb4940fe-db57-4eda-b4cf-f2d6bb03c24d" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:25:35.657" UserId="14473" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="dc2d6fd8-8b04-45cf-9f7d-31927dc15fe4" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:42:59.063" UserId="66" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to flag [a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44820/could-dark-energy-be-heat-could-dark-matter-be-stuff-that-is-not-seen-because-o#comment92237_44825) for removal on my answer to [this][1] question. The comment (made by Anna V) is obsolete, because I successfully managed to flag the other comments on the thread (the thread was about how to upload an image in an answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I originally upvoted her comment, and now I'm unable to flag for deletion. Is this a bug or a &quot;feature&quot; (:P)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44820/could-dark-energy-be-heat-could-dark-matter-be-stuff-that-is-not-seen-because-o" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="0ff081f1-054b-4564-88a9-796856f264f2" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:45:08.037" UserId="7433" Text="Looks like it's a bug, but it's not really worth it to fix. See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/29160/flagging-a-comment-which-was-upvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have three courses of action: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unupvote the comment (note that you can't reupvote if you do this)&#xD;&#xA; - Flag the post with a custom flag asking for comment deletion.&#xD;&#xA; - Complain on meta about the comment being unflaggable ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_comment removed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5629" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="4b724c25-2529-4eb5-9760-23b4fb631113" CreationDate="2012-12-28T16:02:47.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/284690871948017664" />
  <row Id="5630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="408a4a4e-8346-4ef9-a24b-196aae2de374" CreationDate="2012-12-28T16:12:51.290" UserId="7433" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Looks like it's a bug, but it's not really worth it to fix. See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/29160/flagging-a-comment-which-was-upvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have three courses of action: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unupvote the comment (note that you can't reupvote if you do this). You can only unupvote if you've recently upvoted the comment&#xD;&#xA; - Flag the post with a custom flag asking for comment deletion.&#xD;&#xA; - Complain on meta about the comment being unflaggable ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_comment removed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="c82d8e29-67b7-4f00-9f34-39511a8c98ca" CreationDate="2012-12-28T21:28:23.327" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27549/modular-invariance-for-higher-genus&quot;&gt;Modular invariance for higher genus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27581/pohlmeyer-reduction-of-string-theory-for-flat-and-ads-spaces&quot;&gt;Pohlmeyer reduction of string theory for flat and AdS spaces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory adscft quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27168/how-can-one-build-a-multi-scale-physics-model-of-fluid-flow-phenomena&quot;&gt;How can one build a multi-scale physics model of fluid flow phenomena?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-thermodynamics simulation fluid-dynamics lattice-boltzmann&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26849/values-of-sm-parameters-at-one-certain-scale&quot;&gt;Values of SM parameters at one certain scale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry standard-model renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27291/povms-that-do-not-require-enlargement-of-the-hilbert-space&quot;&gt;POVMs that do not require enlargement of the Hilbert space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27636/functional-representations-of-free-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;functional representations of free quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27032/time-reversal-symmetry-and-t2-1&quot;&gt;Time reversal symmetry and T^2 = -1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27393/significance-of-massive-states-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Significance of massive states in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27198/relativistic-center-of-mass&quot;&gt;Relativistic center of mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&quot;&gt;Many body quantum states analyzed as probabilistic sequences&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-information spin-model locc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26844/intuitive-sketch-of-the-correspondence-of-a-string-theory-to-its-limiting-quantu&quot;&gt;Intuitive sketch of the correspondence of a string theory to its limiting quantum field th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27382/reduced-density-matrices-for-free-fermions-are-thermal&quot;&gt;Reduced density matrices for free fermions are thermal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement thermal-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26914/random-matrix-ensembles-from-bmn-model&quot;&gt;random matrix ensembles from BMN model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27045/interesting-topics-to-research-in-mathematical-physics-for-undergraduates&quot;&gt;Interesting topics to research in mathematical physics for undergraduates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27229/spectrum-of-a-quantum-relativistic-distance-squared-operator&quot;&gt;Spectrum of a quantum relativistic &quot;distance squared&quot; operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27611/string-theoretic-significance-of-extended-cft&quot;&gt;String-theoretic significance of extended CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27620/different-kinds-of-s-matrices&quot;&gt;Different kinds of S-matrices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="769afa86-8ab9-49df-a7c2-b2ab35b2f0da" CreationDate="2012-12-28T22:16:59.373" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 13 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="4e6150ab-d307-49c7-a5f1-34e4f64dda36" CreationDate="2012-12-29T05:36:36.043" UserId="11062" Comment="6 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="f14f6ea8-bb78-4612-8dc9-c8c04914b03f" CreationDate="2012-12-29T08:38:23.773" UserId="7433" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation--not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (eg getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet -- an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in -- you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning/etc, and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**The basics of the community moderation tools**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Commenting&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; -- which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for downvoted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users(in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing-- if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others -- one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better(tm) with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these qs via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot;--the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counterflagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete downvoted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of downvoted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - Policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of on-topicness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the faq and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about ...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though--remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible--it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better(tm). This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions -- if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework qs. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) -- the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, downvote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and downvoted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their afilliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the faq][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted--they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Finding posts that need attention**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though -- the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue--if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, upvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post -- fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a closeable post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without blockquoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Participate on meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for downvoted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="448f0b36-e890-41c2-967f-0451e16a47d1" CreationDate="2012-12-29T11:20:51.067" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27032/time-reversal-symmetry-and-t2-1&quot;&gt;Time reversal symmetry and T^2 = -1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27393/significance-of-massive-states-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Significance of massive states in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27198/relativistic-center-of-mass&quot;&gt;Relativistic center of mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&quot;&gt;Many body quantum states analyzed as probabilistic sequences&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-information spin-model locc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26844/intuitive-sketch-of-the-correspondence-of-a-string-theory-to-its-limiting-quantu&quot;&gt;Intuitive sketch of the correspondence of a string theory to its limiting quantum field th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27382/reduced-density-matrices-for-free-fermions-are-thermal&quot;&gt;Reduced density matrices for free fermions are thermal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement thermal-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26914/random-matrix-ensembles-from-bmn-model&quot;&gt;random matrix ensembles from BMN model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27045/interesting-topics-to-research-in-mathematical-physics-for-undergraduates&quot;&gt;Interesting topics to research in mathematical physics for undergraduates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27229/spectrum-of-a-quantum-relativistic-distance-squared-operator&quot;&gt;Spectrum of a quantum relativistic &quot;distance squared&quot; operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27611/string-theoretic-significance-of-extended-cft&quot;&gt;String-theoretic significance of extended CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27620/different-kinds-of-s-matrices&quot;&gt;Different kinds of S-matrices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="6c1118f7-fab0-4943-a750-b03777c147ec" CreationDate="2012-12-29T16:16:07.887" UserId="66" Comment="Fixed typography; added link to comment privilege FAQ; spelling; entities" Text="#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better$trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="0ae6a174-854b-48ec-ad55-126a86a709e0" CreationDate="2012-12-29T16:25:00.977" UserId="66" Comment="edited body" Text="#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="4f432d04-100a-408b-8798-67349f90f2e5" CreationDate="2012-12-29T16:31:22.287" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="16999320-bf6f-480a-a3dd-e0e2f4a1dc1b" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:08:05.723" UserId="7527" Text=" I have found few old posts in P SE in which asked questions are not clear. So no one has answered it or it has ambiguous answers in it. Is it possible for someone else other than the author to modify the contents of the post and re post it, so it can be useful to others. The reason I am asking this is- I don't think it is considered to be a good practice to change the content of the post without the permission of the author. But with little modification of the corresponding post it would be helpful to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am not talking about edits for punctuation or grammar etc.. I am talking about the main content of the post. By asking 'Is it possible' I don't mean 'Is it possible?' I am asking the validity according to the etiquette." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="16999320-bf6f-480a-a3dd-e0e2f4a1dc1b" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:08:05.723" UserId="7527" Text="Reposting an old post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="16999320-bf6f-480a-a3dd-e0e2f4a1dc1b" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:08:05.723" UserId="7527" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="aeb7a4bf-27fa-4b99-96d1-aecafaf7d2ce" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:11:58.753" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is it possible for someone else other than the author to modify the contents of the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is possible and encouraged when appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and re post it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible, yes, but don't do that. It'll get closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like an old question to get attention, surely you can find something to improve in it. Fixing punctuation or grammar is always a good idea, of course; you can also check the tags, improve the title, etc. Very few (if any) questions are &quot;perfectly&quot; written. Making any edit of this sort will bump the question up to the front page so it can get renewed attention. Just make sure your edit actually improves the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also set a bounty on a post you would like to see get more attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="711a101c-8494-47ba-8258-191a6d925bd3" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:12:02.327" UserId="14473" Text="I was going through some old questions, where the accepted answers aren't usually the most thorough/best ones (in my opinion), which leads me to my suggestion - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible for other users to vote to change the &quot;correct&quot; answer? I can't seem to find the couple of questions I was looking at that spawned this idea, but I'll link to them once I find it. If more than some number of users think the right answer should be changed to something else, then we could award rep to the new accepted answer without taking it away from the original accepted answer (or something like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically because then the actual &quot;best&quot; answer will come up first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="711a101c-8494-47ba-8258-191a6d925bd3" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:12:02.327" UserId="14473" Text="Voting to change correct answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="711a101c-8494-47ba-8258-191a6d925bd3" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:12:02.327" UserId="14473" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="25200aae-4602-4ad4-8357-eace328fa5b3" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:13:57.033" UserId="124" Text="Nope. This or something like it has been brought up many times on MSO ([example](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature)) and repeatedly declined, so you can be pretty confident it's not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see it being useful in some cases, but honestly, we're stuck with the way the system works here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5647" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="95e353bd-48da-4777-b387-c8f6ee9ee69d" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:14:09.453" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="aa9ebf01-fcfc-4ff5-8d73-6238d4c32806" CreationDate="2012-12-29T19:15:08.223" UserId="7433" Text="If they're really old, go ahead and clarify them via edits. The edit will bump it to the front page, where it will get some attention. If the post is a closed post, flag it with a custom message asking for a reopen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get more attention for them, you may want to [place a bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still afraid of editing, you _may_ re-ask, make sure to link to the original in the comments and say that it isn't that well phrased. In such a case, we may close the older one (if it has no valuable answers) as a dupe of the new one. But I discourage doing this -- it should only be in cases where the question is extremely vague (and thus unclarifiable by anyone but the OP) and the answers are worthless. In this case, remember to flag the old question as `It doesn't belong here`&gt;`Not A Real Question` if it isn't closed already. (Actually, any vague/ambiguous/incomplete question you see should be flagged as such if you're not editing it)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="04c749f0-68f5-4cc5-aacb-88253c843a17" CreationDate="2012-12-29T20:06:11.983" UserId="14473" Comment="added 1146 characters in body" Text="I was going through some old questions, where the accepted answers aren't usually the most thorough/best ones (in my opinion), which leads me to my suggestion - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible for other users to vote to change the &quot;correct&quot; answer? I can't seem to find the couple of questions I was looking at that spawned this idea, but I'll link to them once I find it. If more than some number of users think the right answer should be changed to something else, then we could award rep to the new accepted answer without taking it away from the original accepted answer (or something like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically because then the actual &quot;best&quot; answer will come up first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** After going through the Meta-SO questions, I eventually found (after stumbling on hundreds of [Jon Skeet][1] questions) several threads relating to re-ordering of the questions based on votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This one][2] (about changing the accepted answer)&#xD;&#xA; - [This other one][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Also this][4] (Reordering the answers)&#xD;&#xA; - [And finally this][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one seems to have really reached any form of a consensus on this issue (about re-ordering the questions). I doubt it's going to get resolved, but I thought I'd add these links here for anyone else who's interested in going through the debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=jon%20skeet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24403/should-the-system-automatically-modify-the-accepted-answer-when-another-answer-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/7572/why-do-incorrect-answers-keep-getting-accepted&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/95635/should-there-be-a-tab-to-see-anwers-with-much-higher-votes-than-the-accepted-ans&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/36195/accepted-answer-most-upvoted-answer-discrepancy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="ea9705b1-bf90-474e-bf4d-0000e5ddcdd9" CreationDate="2012-12-29T21:21:06.367" UserId="124" Comment="added 398 characters in body" Text="Nope. This or something like it has been brought up many times on MSO ([example](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature)) and repeatedly declined, so you can be pretty confident it's not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see it being useful in some cases, but (perhaps unfortunately), we're stuck with the way the system works here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the accepted answer is actually outright _wrong_ or completely useless, then you can downvote it, and even post a link in chat to ask other people to review it. You can state your objections to it and ask people to vote as they see fit, but don't go as far as _telling_ people how to vote on a post - while it might not _technically_ be against the rules, it is bad etiquette." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="fd8eac5f-e621-4bb1-be2a-c96ffa583913" CreationDate="2012-12-29T22:00:40.520" UserId="520" Text="As [David says][1], we are in some sense stuck with this concept in a context where it doesn't make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Stack Exchange system started with [Stack Overflow][2] which is for *programming questions*, and the interpretation put on acceptance there was the asker stating *'I used this solution to my problem'*. As such it is clear that acceptance is *entirely* in the gift of the asker because it simply means the accepted solution is the one the asker used, and the fact that they might choose a second best solution isn't a really big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on physics are questions are not often of the *'I've hit a snag in my work, what are my options'* kind that Stack Overflow specializes in (though experimental technique questions could be of that kind) so that *this is what I did* contotation doesn't often make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less, acceptance should not be interpreted as indicating correctness: it only indicates the asker's selection and one can take some comfort in the fact that these people are not always in the best position to select a correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do however, have [a (gold!) badge for giving answers that the community prefers very much in comparison to a decent accepted answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="ee724d2f-26a8-4daf-bca4-d98b25b43354" CreationDate="2012-12-29T22:23:11.690" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 17 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="c114892a-7784-4990-801b-36d894f57764" CreationDate="2012-12-30T12:09:17.483" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26914/random-matrix-ensembles-from-bmn-model&quot;&gt;random matrix ensembles from BMN model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27045/interesting-topics-to-research-in-mathematical-physics-for-undergraduates&quot;&gt;Interesting topics to research in mathematical physics for undergraduates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27229/spectrum-of-a-quantum-relativistic-distance-squared-operator&quot;&gt;Spectrum of a quantum relativistic &quot;distance squared&quot; operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27611/string-theoretic-significance-of-extended-cft&quot;&gt;String-theoretic significance of extended CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27620/different-kinds-of-s-matrices&quot;&gt;Different kinds of S-matrices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="2981309f-2537-4198-9be7-f5b7ce5ebc2c" CreationDate="2012-12-30T12:28:58.990" UserId="7433" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="817adb04-5a15-4e63-86be-66a79a85fb20" CreationDate="2012-12-30T16:19:50.490" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1428 characters in body" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Completed reviewing. The original set could be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/1251)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="09a2084f-5c35-4ec7-85d9-f7cdcb370200" CreationDate="2012-12-30T17:54:55.863" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="4499e6d4-d8bb-4610-a71a-24fd88d3f3dd" CreationDate="2012-12-31T08:13:18.677" UserId="1325" Text="There doesn't seem much point in downvoting questions and answers that are deliberately offensive. Surely this is just drawing attention, which is probably what the troll wants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't remember what the reputation requirement is for flagging questions as not welcome, but there are enough of us around that you can be sure an offensive post will be rapidly flagged." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="4499e6d4-d8bb-4610-a71a-24fd88d3f3dd" CreationDate="2012-12-31T08:13:18.677" UserId="1325" Text="Downvoting deliberately offensive questions/answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="4499e6d4-d8bb-4610-a71a-24fd88d3f3dd" CreationDate="2012-12-31T08:13:18.677" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="88a3d648-4304-4259-b0ae-70da1fc9e310" CreationDate="2012-12-31T08:46:09.417" UserId="7433" Text="For one, IIRC a spam/offensive flag gives an auto downvote (this also happens if a q is closed as off topic, NC, NARQ I _think_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 6 spam/offensive flags, the post is locked, deleted, and the user loses 100 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On sites where I don't moderate, I still downvote posts that I flag for deletion. I get the rep back later. I really didn't think about it as &quot;the troll got attention&quot;. But you do have a point there :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree, a flag ought to be enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note: as a 10k user, you can see most flags and counterflag them [here][1]. (you'll get a little yellow bubble on your topbar when the number of flags exceeds 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2938" RevisionGUID="074b0b2c-7511-47af-8536-b0253fb444c0" CreationDate="2012-12-31T08:46:20.373" UserId="124" Text="It takes 15 reputation to be able to flag a post or comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I don't think downvoting really draws attention to a post. It doesn't bump the question, for example. Downvoted answers are pushed to the bottom of the list in the default viewing order, and sufficiently downvoted questions (score of -3 I think, or perhaps -5) are prevented from showing up on the main page of the site. But of course the best thing to do is always to flag an offensive post as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="e9529afb-bd57-44fa-81c0-5691fe0e3f1b" CreationDate="2012-12-31T11:11:21.610" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="7f759d1a-89ac-43b0-889e-3b4231d43ae9" CreationDate="2012-12-31T12:07:46.477" UserId="7433" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="92bb987f-07bc-4543-b0b5-ef5d11e6065b" CreationDate="2012-12-31T13:23:25.713" UserId="14473" Text="[tag:observational-astronomy] → [tag:astronomy]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5683" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="4a3215c5-1612-4baa-bc7a-2358fca9efc1" CreationDate="2012-12-31T13:23:25.713" UserId="14473" />
  <row Id="5685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="c549aecd-e650-4349-9d56-9c8f9beda2a2" CreationDate="2012-12-31T18:08:43.163" UserId="11062" Comment="removed 8 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="a93532dd-b788-4f75-b67c-0a7372ba24f8" CreationDate="2012-12-31T21:56:19.620" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="f241ff79-d823-4042-9300-83e95fc9458f" CreationDate="2013-01-01T07:29:54.227" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="I'm trying to find a question involving GR that I'm positive I read on or around Dec. 22 and wanted to refer back to it but I can't find it now. It asked about an &quot;exact&quot; expression for either gravitational force or gravitational potential energy. It is NOT [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47783/what-is-the-exact-gravitational-force-between-two-masses-including-relativistic) because it was asked after I read the question I'm looking for and none of the answers is the answer to the question I'm looking for. So, have any GR questions been deleted recently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="f241ff79-d823-4042-9300-83e95fc9458f" CreationDate="2013-01-01T07:29:54.227" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="Have any GR questions been deleted since about Dec. 22?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="f241ff79-d823-4042-9300-83e95fc9458f" CreationDate="2013-01-01T07:29:54.227" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="a6312e85-7061-4dbf-8153-8fce97af6554" CreationDate="2013-01-01T07:35:41.057" UserId="520" Text="I presume that you are aware that you can get [a tag specific list of questions][1] to sort through by clicking on the tag anywhere you find it or by specifing `[general-relativity]` in the search box? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Combining tag search with searching for &quot;exact&quot;][2] might get you closer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20exact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="2bf39fac-d683-472c-a69b-0ec186a90292" CreationDate="2013-01-01T07:42:02.120" UserId="520" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="I presume that you are aware that you can get [a tag specific list of questions][1] to sort through by clicking on the tag anywhere you find it or by specifing `[general-relativity]` in the search box? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Combining tag search with searching for &quot;exact&quot;][2] might get you closer (and three undeleted and none pending ... we have such a placid site most of the time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Checking [the 10k-tools page for deletions in the last 30 days][3] reveals only three such posts (questions and answers), none of which appear to involve general relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20exact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=delete&amp;daterange=last30days" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="e4e39817-23ea-4142-b4ed-8d700c6c3645" CreationDate="2013-01-01T08:01:56.917" UserId="562" Text="You read the question around Dec. 22 does not mean that this question was asked on this day. If you are using the default &quot;active&quot; view, then it might be asked much earlier than this date. There are many people retagging questions these days, so the old questions pop up often. What you might have seen might be questions being retagged. The retagging is not very professional, so you might not see general-relativity as a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the questions your read is pretty high level, then it might probably be tagged as `[research-level]`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="f1b19e55-1d4a-4b16-9629-652fd4ec4f61" CreationDate="2013-01-01T08:17:14.717" UserId="520" Text="Just a heads up for those of you who have access to the so-called moderator tools (10k+), you can see [various statistics][1] related to the [anonymous feedback mechanism][2] (i.e. that from persons of no account), and also see list of those post which recive better or worse anonymous feedback then votes and those that simple recieve very positive or negative anonymous feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit surprised today when I noticed that we have recieved more than 12k such votes which averages more than one per question and is almost 10% of the more usual sort of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that can't see it right now, it is running about 2:1 positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition [sam.saffron][3] has provided a [data explorer][4] [query that can extract this data on a per user basis][5] (which I believe gets around the 10k limit for the on-site pages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/post-feedback/summary?filter=all&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130095/anonymous-user-feedback-about-my-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/users/1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/60668/feedback-on-my-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="f1b19e55-1d4a-4b16-9629-652fd4ec4f61" CreationDate="2013-01-01T08:17:14.717" UserId="520" Text="We have more than 12,000 anonymous feedback votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="f1b19e55-1d4a-4b16-9629-652fd4ec4f61" CreationDate="2013-01-01T08:17:14.717" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|site-statistics|post-feedback|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="48a2f038-080e-4ebb-b43f-ae8cfce7818e" CreationDate="2013-01-01T10:55:40.973" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="07411de2-1073-41d1-a02e-7c8585bd8938" CreationDate="2013-01-01T16:05:26.307" UserId="5477" Text="It seems to me that the Physics.SE FAQ is slightly outdated and could do with a little revision. Many questions by new users on this site are closed, and the various mismatches between the FAQ and the site's actual policy as practiced might be part of the reason for this. It would also be nice to have an up-to-date FAQ so that users could reference it in order to learn why their question was closed and what they can do about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below I have listed a few places where the FAQ seems in need of updating. I hope that this thread can serve to turn up any others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The FAQ does not mention book recommendation questions. (These seem to be treated as in-principle off-topic by the moderators.)&#xD;&#xA;* The FAQ (question 1) holds up [a &quot;big list&quot; question][1] as an exemplar of an on-topic question. (These are also usually closed nowadays.)&#xD;&#xA;* The FAQ does not mention questions on observational astronomy. (When the astronomy.SE questions were merged into physics there was a consensus to allow such questions as on topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've held off on suggesting specific changes to the text because I'm not that active on meta and I'm not 100% sure what the most recent consensus on these issues actually is - but if the policy is clear and people can post links to the appropriate discussions, I'll be happy to contribute to writing them up in FAQ form if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="07411de2-1073-41d1-a02e-7c8585bd8938" CreationDate="2013-01-01T16:05:26.307" UserId="5477" Text="Can we update the FAQ to match current policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="07411de2-1073-41d1-a02e-7c8585bd8938" CreationDate="2013-01-01T16:05:26.307" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="ac8e27ae-2cc6-4728-9477-675b7902e243" CreationDate="2013-01-01T16:48:41.117" UserId="7433" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Just a note: Not all off-topic on-topic policy rules need to be in the faq. They may also be on meta (or on the main meta)..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention book recommendation questions. (These seem to be treated as in-principle off-topic by the moderators.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be covered by http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask , specifically the &quot;every answer is equally valid&quot; part. I recall seeing a request on the mother meta to update this to explicitly include &quot;make a list&quot; questions, but I can't find it right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current book recommendation policy allows such qs as long as they talk of a specific subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ (question 1) holds up a &quot;big list&quot; question as an exemplar of an on-topic question. (These are also usually closed nowadays.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you're talking about. Look closely ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention questions on observational astronomy. (When the astronomy.SE questions were merged into physics there was a consensus to allow such questions as on topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a suitable example to add right now, suggestions welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've held off on suggesting specific changes to the text because I'm not that active on meta and I'm not 100% sure what the most recent consensus on these issues actually is - but if the policy is clear and people can post links to the appropriate discussions, I'll be happy to contribute to writing them up in FAQ form if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, just suggest it. We can edit the top two sections of the faq, editing the ones below that takes some work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="c3509202-a3ea-4c88-a99f-b26474e2c96b" CreationDate="2013-01-01T17:17:18.667" UserId="7433" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Just a note: Not all off-topic on-topic policy rules need to be in the faq. They may also be on meta (or on the main meta)..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention book recommendation questions. (These seem to be treated as in-principle off-topic by the moderators.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be covered by http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask , specifically the &quot;every answer is equally valid&quot; part. I recall seeing a request on the mother meta to update this to explicitly include &quot;make a list&quot; questions, but I can't find it right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current book recommendation policy allows such qs as long as they talk of a specific subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ (question 1) holds up a &quot;big list&quot; question as an exemplar of an on-topic question. (These are also usually closed nowadays.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you're talking about. Look closely ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention questions on observational astronomy. (When the astronomy.SE questions were merged into physics there was a consensus to allow such questions as on topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is already covered by `Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena` and `Experimental designs and results`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've held off on suggesting specific changes to the text because I'm not that active on meta and I'm not 100% sure what the most recent consensus on these issues actually is - but if the policy is clear and people can post links to the appropriate discussions, I'll be happy to contribute to writing them up in FAQ form if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, just suggest it. We can edit the top two sections of the faq, editing the ones below that takes some work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="5dcd8f85-b898-42ba-83c7-914a3a66e40f" CreationDate="2013-01-01T17:34:22.497" UserId="7433" Comment="added 404 characters in body" Text="Just a note: Not all off-topic on-topic policy rules need to be in the faq. They may also be on meta (or on the main meta)..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention book recommendation questions. (These seem to be treated as in-principle off-topic by the moderators.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be covered by http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask , specifically the &quot;every answer is equally valid&quot; part. I recall seeing a request on the mother meta to update this to explicitly include &quot;make a list&quot; questions, but I can't find it right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current book recommendation policy allows such qs as long as they talk of a specific subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about we add (under &quot;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&quot;), the following point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Recommendation questions*: Questions asking for recommendations are off topic, unless there are enough criteria defining what a &quot;good&quot; recommendation is. Book recommendations are only on-topic if they are about a specific subtopic, and ask for a specific level (high school/undergrad/grad/etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ (question 1) holds up a &quot;big list&quot; question as an exemplar of an on-topic question. (These are also usually closed nowadays.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you're talking about. Look closely ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention questions on observational astronomy. (When the astronomy.SE questions were merged into physics there was a consensus to allow such questions as on topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is already covered by `Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena` and `Experimental designs and results`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've held off on suggesting specific changes to the text because I'm not that active on meta and I'm not 100% sure what the most recent consensus on these issues actually is - but if the policy is clear and people can post links to the appropriate discussions, I'll be happy to contribute to writing them up in FAQ form if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, just suggest it. We can edit the top two sections of the faq, editing the ones below that takes some work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="87a253e0-5f6b-49d7-8d57-947f344513d1" CreationDate="2013-01-01T19:02:56.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/286185755745845248" />
  <row Id="5704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="e8bec3eb-c1a4-4c2d-bf6e-e9f68d0b393e" CreationDate="2013-01-01T21:14:21.593" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="4806cc2e-9b93-4caf-9d3b-3ee884514f24" CreationDate="2013-01-01T22:45:02.033" UserId="520" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="The Stack Exchange sites are run by a for-profit company. Their ultimate goal is to make money by providing a service on the internet. The service is host question-&amp;-answer sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of each site depends to some degree on decisions made by the user base. [Stack Overflow][1] (the original model) accepts questions starting from a very low, [but not trivial level][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics.SE is pitched just a little higher than that: we discourage basic pedagogical questions (things that look like &quot;homework&quot;) in favor of a conceptual approach to the foundations of our discipline. Note that there &lt;s&gt;is&lt;/s&gt; also *used to be* [Theoretical Physics][3] which &lt;s&gt;is&lt;/s&gt; *was* targeted at &quot;research level&quot; theoretical and mathematical physics *but was deemed to be diying and merged with this site, look for [tag:research-level] to find that and related content*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other sites in the network, see the bottom of the page and [area51][4] (the place where *user input* defines and launches new sites, and where you can find all the beta sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="966e00aa-e77c-4fd7-bf22-7d483468a4ca" CreationDate="2013-01-02T18:21:42.943" UserId="14473" Text="[This][1] really cool graph was posted onto meta.SO early December. Dunno how many over here have seen it... I thought it was super-fancy, so I'm sharing it here as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="966e00aa-e77c-4fd7-bf22-7d483468a4ca" CreationDate="2013-01-02T18:21:42.943" UserId="14473" Text="Tree of StackExchange Sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="966e00aa-e77c-4fd7-bf22-7d483468a4ca" CreationDate="2013-01-02T18:21:42.943" UserId="14473" Text="|discussion|site-statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="1b3ea005-f79a-49c6-9f0e-4f5335224045" CreationDate="2013-01-02T18:24:45.027" UserId="7433" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="[This][1] really cool graph was posted onto meta.SO early December. Dunno how many over here have seen it... I thought it was super-fancy, so I'm sharing it here as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaTIA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="94244195-e6b6-4abd-ba06-095923c92229" CreationDate="2013-01-02T23:06:38.633" UserId="6634" Text="I'm sure the examples you have in mind are offensive and there isn't much question, but it still helps to downvote and flag because a flag could be rejected and then your downvote is still important. You're still saying you don't think the question is a good one or belongs, which is why votes exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I like to do both in case a flag is rejected. I still get to express my opinion on the question quality. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="59c3faba-6faf-477d-897c-f288cb9d49d2" CreationDate="2013-01-03T11:49:44.867" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 6 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="3925a7a0-e015-4bc7-9f64-7a49808660bf" CreationDate="2013-01-03T12:43:47.910" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="8f412427-c67d-4890-9c6e-5c4a7722374f" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:15:08.930" UserId="11062" Comment="7 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="86c1d9ce-0647-487d-a560-04061e958e91" CreationDate="2013-01-03T20:58:11.000" UserId="520" Text="Brought up by the flag and comments on [*How to determine whether a large container is air-tight?&quot;*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to address question in which the OP has run into a roadbump in build/calibrating/operating a piece of experimental apparatus, and the question is well defined in terms of fixing the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that this particular question is not a great example because the OP is not building an experiment,** but I would ask that the case for experimentaly realted question be examined separately from the fate of this particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Sklivvz flagged suggesting that this particular case is an engineering problem and asks for a open ended list of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* David Z comments that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do think it's not constructive, as it's just asking for a list, not asking a specifically defined question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to argue below that this is exactly the kind of question which the Stack Excahnge engine is good at answering and should be explictly allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also note that [attmepts to open a experimentally specific Stack have not been successful][2] (you'll see that I argued that most such question *are* on-topic for Physics.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vaguely related: [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44784/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="86c1d9ce-0647-487d-a560-04061e958e91" CreationDate="2013-01-03T20:58:11.000" UserId="520" Text="Should &quot;How do I solve this experimental problem?&quot; questions be on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="86c1d9ce-0647-487d-a560-04061e958e91" CreationDate="2013-01-03T20:58:11.000" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="cdad72b3-2326-46bd-b922-da10dc94de0b" CreationDate="2013-01-03T21:27:03.657" UserId="520" Text="I want to follow two threads in arguing that such questions are **very well suited to Physics.SE**: firstly that stack exchange is well suited to these kinds of questions and secondly that these *are* physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Proto-typical questions that are well suited to are engine here have a small or medium number of distinct answer that are not wrong and can be well evaluted by users who are familiar with the question domain. Such questions can be either outright objective or [&quot;good subjective&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Yes, there is going to be a list of answers. There are lists of answers to questions on Stack Overflow and to most of those on the main site (in fact many of o[ur most highly voted questions][2] have 10 or more answers that take several approaches to answering the problem), but these list are characterized by a domain expert being able to say to each answer *&quot;this is correct&quot;* or *&quot;this is incorrect&quot;*, and any subjectivity that may enter is in terms of which answer is clearer or easier or more scalable or more pedogoically useful.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Managing, maintaining and running experimental apparatus constitutes a spefic domain of knowledge in which experts *will know which answer are good, which might work and which are nonsense*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Experiment is, obviously, a pillar of the scientific inquiry co-equal with theory and phenomenolgy, and a substantial fraction of working scientists would describe themselves as an &quot;experimenter&quot; rather than a &quot;theorist&quot; or a &quot;phenomenlogist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  And the actual work of an experimenter includes a lot of things from the design, construction, calibration, operation of experiments though data acquisition and analysis as well as writing up the results. In my personal experience a scientist in his or her early carreer will spend a substantial fraction of his or her time tinkering with and swearing over some piece of apparatus that *almost* works or simple isn't working at all.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  **These are problems encountered and solved by physicists**, and because they revolve around experimental apparatus they are specific to the profession or to a small set of related professions. (Yes, I recognise that the leak test question is rather broader than that.)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Finally, to exclude the kinds of questions that experimental gradstudents spend a lot of time on from consideration here send a message that expreiment is not valuable to the physics community. Do we really want that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="7ffb504f-800d-4c37-9e49-fc161833f3c9" CreationDate="2013-01-03T22:50:45.860" UserId="2751" Text="I exactly agree with Dmckee, questions that deal with issues specific to smaller or larger physics experiments or the analysis of experimental physics data should be in principle allowed and encouraged here. They are not just engineering questions! After all, physics SE is for the whole subject of physics; experimental, phenomenological, and theoretical question are equally good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And question with a countably finite number of answers, whose content can be evaluated if it is physically or scientifically right, are certainly not a problem either. The fact that a question has multiple answers (which have all there merit and right to be there) is not a reason to close it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="00888e8e-e776-4c7c-a24b-48b636be3e88" CreationDate="2013-01-04T00:07:33.363" UserId="66" Text="I agree that questions about building experiments, if specific to our subject, should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, until they are about *physics*. A question about &quot;what type of concrete should I use to build my atom smasher&quot; is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key point here is this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that work are questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* which are *best asked* to a physicist (an experimental physicist in this case, but not a engineer or a mathematician)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* whose answers are *best judged* by a physicist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we fail to realise this and stick to it the obvious consequences are going to be poor answers and bad answers being voted. Furthermore it will be unlikely to self correct because it requires competence to determine poor answers (e.g. If someone answers with the wrong kind of concrete, to the example above, who would know better?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, that particular question is poor on many levels. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="3a4370b6-4a1b-4b4d-90a8-0ea8289e6d53" CreationDate="2013-01-04T00:15:31.273" UserId="66" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="I agree that questions about building experiments, if specific to our subject, should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, until they are about *physics*. A question about &quot;what type of concrete should I use to build my atom smasher&quot; is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key point here is this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that work are questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* which are *best asked* to a physicist (an experimental physicist in this case, but not a engineer or a mathematician)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* whose answers are *best judged* by a physicist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we fail to stick to this (obvious) principle, the consequences are going to be poor answers being given and bad answers being up voted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore the problem will struggle to self correct because it requires competence to determine poor answers. If someone answers with the wrong kind of concrete, to the example above, who would know better, or that we have a problem at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, that particular question is poor on many levels. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="0f6ea35b-59d7-4c56-8f17-a52b5982c586" CreationDate="2013-01-04T03:05:41.157" UserId="7433" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="ec577082-195b-4a1b-a459-ba10d5e80af4" CreationDate="2013-01-04T04:31:37.240" UserId="520" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Brought up by the flag and comments on [*How to determine whether a large container is air-tight?&quot;*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to address question in which the OP has run into a roadbump in build/calibrating/operating a piece of experimental apparatus, and the question is well defined in terms of fixing the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that this particular question is not a great example because the OP is not building an experiment,** but I would ask that the case for experimentaly realted question be examined separately from the fate of this particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A user has flagged suggesting that this particular case is an engineering problem and asks for a open ended list of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* David Z comments that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do think it's not constructive, as it's just asking for a list, not asking a specifically defined question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to argue below that this is exactly the kind of question which the Stack Excahnge engine is good at answering and should be explictly allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also note that [attmepts to open a experimentally specific Stack have not been successful][2] (you'll see that I argued that most such question *are* on-topic for Physics.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vaguely related: [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44784/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="8efb9066-e074-45a1-a1b5-efd1d90b10e2" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:01:23.037" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="b1521f8f-22a8-4701-88fc-a25ac23161d1" CreationDate="2013-01-05T10:50:39.190" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="31647eca-2f09-41d1-b4b5-ece6f1547952" CreationDate="2013-01-05T17:37:23.470" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 10 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="ec3f4025-189b-4509-bc17-48ed28723bf9" CreationDate="2013-01-05T20:28:44.363" UserId="124" Comment="clarify about associated chat rooms" Text="No. When we're considering disciplinary action, we don't care about anything that has happened outside this site ([Physics Stack Exchange](http://physics.stackexchange.com/), [Physics Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com), the [main site chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71), and possibly but not necessarily any other associated chat rooms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the authorities on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if someone is linking to this site, that doesn't make it any business of ours. We can't and don't control what people link to from elsewhere on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it isn't against the rules just to bring up a member's behavior elsewhere. But if you're doing so in an attempt to shame the person whose behavior on another site is being discussed, that may qualify as a personal attack, which is definitely not appropriate here. And if you're not attempting to shame the person, I have a hard time imagining why it might be necessary to bring up their behavior on another site. So generally speaking, I'd advise against it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="19295249-f396-44d3-8118-f18f0c6d09bc" CreationDate="2013-01-05T21:25:21.810" UserId="2146" Text="I'm scratching my head over this, but it says I need to be logged in, in order to send messages, although I can log in to read the messages!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any clues as to why this might be so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="19295249-f396-44d3-8118-f18f0c6d09bc" CreationDate="2013-01-05T21:25:21.810" UserId="2146" Text="Why can't I send messages in chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="19295249-f396-44d3-8118-f18f0c6d09bc" CreationDate="2013-01-05T21:25:21.810" UserId="2146" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2954" RevisionGUID="c3ec579e-7f63-4f12-bbcf-49a4752f5f38" CreationDate="2013-01-05T21:42:15.163" UserId="7433" Text="Chat is public (well, the parts _you_ see anyway), so anyone can read messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, you can be logged in to physics.SE but not chat.SE. You need to log in from [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/login/global). If that doesn't work, you can see if your browser is incompatible(try the GlobalAuth test link on the page).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, you can first log in normally [here](http://stackexchange.com/users/login?returnurl=%2fusers%2fchat-login), and then open chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5735" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="f2d7cc7f-e79a-446f-b139-39bc1b0b8986" CreationDate="2013-01-05T22:23:51.573" UserId="124" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="3e07ad96-7f8d-44f4-be28-94da6f85dfc3" CreationDate="2013-01-06T00:37:32.233" UserId="16685" Text="I am not an active or knwoledgable user of SE Physics, but as person with a light form of color blindness (actually green/blue weakness), I wanted to bring this to Meta's attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Color scheme, while certainly pleasing, relies heavily on subtle hues and I have difficulty in discerning these differences.&#xD;&#xA;I just clicked the &quot;accepted&quot; button for an answer five times because I have been unable to see a change, only the ALT-Text told me.&#xD;&#xA;This is an extreme example, but if it affects me (I hardly ever have problems with colors) I guess that users with a stronger form of color blindness will even be more challenged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could probably be fixed easly by not only changing hues, but also changing the brightness of the color. It would make for a far mor readable experienced for us spectrally challenged folks ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all I have to say. Have a good day!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I found the old question, but I explicitly wanted to state that it is not only the Accept Button I'm having problems with" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="3e07ad96-7f8d-44f4-be28-94da6f85dfc3" CreationDate="2013-01-06T00:37:32.233" UserId="16685" Text="Color scheme and the colorblind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="3e07ad96-7f8d-44f4-be28-94da6f85dfc3" CreationDate="2013-01-06T00:37:32.233" UserId="16685" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5739" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="648c8f7d-449a-418b-8314-3cc2abea5da6" CreationDate="2013-01-06T01:00:09.653" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="05b6492c-371d-42f3-bb29-58d803d11df9" CreationDate="2013-01-06T01:18:12.230" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to make the title and question more precise" Text="I'm scratching my head over this, but it says I need to be logged in, in order to write messages/comments, although I can go to chat and read the messages!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any clues as to why this might be so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5741" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="05b6492c-371d-42f3-bb29-58d803d11df9" CreationDate="2013-01-06T01:18:12.230" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to make the title and question more precise" Text="Why can't I write messages/comments in chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="1bce459d-0668-4f06-ac74-689e299acdbb" CreationDate="2013-01-06T11:01:30.893" UserId="12623" Comment="Retagged (or, more precisely, checked tags) of the deleted questions" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&quot;&gt;Master Equations and Operator Sum Form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&quot;&gt;Accurate quantum state estimation via &quot;Keeping the experimentalist honest&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information quantum-estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&quot;&gt;Operator norm directly from phase space representation of photonic quantum operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-information optics wigner-function norms&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;CHSH violation and entanglement of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information nonlocality entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27414/which-arguments-for-m-u-approx-0-are-still-in-the-market&quot;&gt;Which arguments for $m_u \approx 0$ are still in the market?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27785/what-compactifications-of-the-poincare-group-have-been-studied&quot;&gt;what compactifications of the Poincare group have been studied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;compactification poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27492/rigorous-proof-of-bohr-sommerfeld-quantization&quot;&gt;Rigorous proof of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27783/how-does-one-geometrically-quantize-the-bloch-equations&quot;&gt;How does one geometrically quantize the Bloch equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27584/convexity-reference-request&quot;&gt;Convexity -- reference request&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27217/is-this-a-simple-lie-algebra&quot;&gt;Is this a simple Lie algebra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27441/pauli-villars-regularisation-breaks-supersymmetry-how-to-see-that&quot;&gt;Pauli-Villars regularisation breaks supersymmetry. How to see that?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27388/tree-level-qft-and-classical-fields-particles&quot;&gt;Tree level QFT and classical fields/particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering classical-limit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27149/charged-black-holes-in-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Charged black holes in equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity black-hole einstein-maxwell&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27470/superconformal-multiplet-calculus-in-6d&quot;&gt;Superconformal Multiplet Calculus in 6D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27508/optimality-of-the-chsh-strategy&quot;&gt;Optimality of the CHSH strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement history-overview&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27618/conformal-qfts-for-d-2&quot;&gt;Conformal QFTs for D &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="67aa0d1e-adb8-4156-8cef-8ee620086027" CreationDate="2013-01-07T01:24:59.603" UserId="3" Text="I have updated the accepted checkmark green color. The change will be rolled out to live server after our next production build (maybe after midnight EST or sometimes tomorrow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a preview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Check mark icon change][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I typically use [Sim Daltonism][2], a color blind test app for OSX to make sure the colors show up well. I just tested the new green color using it, under both Protanopia and Deuteranopia settings. But from experience, it's not bullet proof, since it doesn't take account for discrepancies in people's monitor gamma settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know if the new green is better for you! thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q5q3Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://michelf.ca/projects/sim-daltonism/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="afa8fad5-1cfb-49be-975b-c1e193f493aa" CreationDate="2013-01-07T02:10:01.630" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Color scheme and the colorblind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2955/color-scheme-and-the-colorblind)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;(On a laptop, to someone who is red/green color-blind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;answered&quot; checkmark should take on a distinctly different color from the up/down arrows, to avoid confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5745" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="c17561e0-c567-4b60-95c0-220a110e75a1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T02:10:01.630" UserId="124" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2955],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="7eb85517-a5d2-4f7b-99f1-6916f2f9aaab" CreationDate="2013-01-07T12:49:53.563" UserId="653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="c6d0f1ce-4f61-4be5-8552-36ee520c7752" CreationDate="2013-01-07T13:43:48.240" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 9 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="b1863a17-79be-48ca-8032-3b23eab11eb8" CreationDate="2013-01-07T15:30:16.587" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm scratching my head over this, but it says I need to be logged in, in order to write messages/comments, although I can access the chat page and read it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any clues as to why this might be so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="8b1991a4-c135-4fae-808c-1b35b5f46c6d" CreationDate="2013-01-07T17:50:15.697" UserId="6634" Text="Along the lines of [this question][1] and the links to others within, there is some acceptance amongst the community when it comes to paper reference requests on a specific topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would questions related to good/representative *journals* in a given field also be on topic? In some instances, for broad fields, the answer of &quot;What journals are good and why?&quot; are easily determined by things like the impact factor and number of citations. But for sub-fields, there is often a different set of journals that are better representative but are harder to find in the noise of the superset field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would a question like &quot;What are the highest quality journals in numerical weather/atmospheric simulation?&quot; be on-topic? It would need to be more than just a list-of-journals question of course. Some analysis would need to be done and say &quot;Well X is good at numerical methods, while Y is good for understanding physics and Z has papers on forecasting. In the area of hurricanes, journal A is cutting-edge...&quot; and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2918/do-we-allow-paper-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="8b1991a4-c135-4fae-808c-1b35b5f46c6d" CreationDate="2013-01-07T17:50:15.697" UserId="6634" Text="Are journal requests on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="8b1991a4-c135-4fae-808c-1b35b5f46c6d" CreationDate="2013-01-07T17:50:15.697" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2958" RevisionGUID="90f46ae8-eb42-458a-b700-f6cfc3867897" CreationDate="2013-01-07T18:24:16.883" UserId="1492" Text="I think they they should be on topic. Googling does not give value judgements and somebody who answers should do that. Value judgements with high scores would be useful for future users looking for similar sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="260e9421-1b31-4968-9a69-5f9984dca050" CreationDate="2013-01-07T18:36:18.117" UserId="124" Text="As I see it, journal requests are basically equivalent to book recommendations, for a different kind of &quot;book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The official position of SEI is that such recommendation questions are not appropriate for Stack Exchange sites, and I kind of agree, because they can easily get out of hand. Right now, we do allow some book recommendations on the site, which hasn't caused problems because they are tightly controlled - we aggressively close those that don't fit into a particular pattern, or those that duplicate existing book recommendation questions. But having the book recommendations at all is really meant to be a temporary measure until we can transfer the information to the corresponding tag wikis, which is the best place for book lists. With that in mind, I think the tag wikis would also be the ideal place for listing journals. In the long term, each subfield tag could have sections for a list of books and a list of relevant journals within the field, and we can direct anyone looking for recommendations there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, my proposed answer is to not allow journal request questions, and just put the relevant information directly in the tag wikis from the start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I'm talking about requests of the form &quot;What journals are good for [topic]?&quot; Other, more specific forms of questions asking about journals, like &quot;Is [journal] a reliable source on [topic]?&quot; seem OK to me with the [tag:soft-question] tag, as long as we don't get swamped with them (which seems unlikely)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="c13146a3-dd36-4db5-8268-58eb6f881ca5" CreationDate="2013-01-08T00:24:58.300" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="4326f70f-9de1-4261-8ed1-11649bb2901c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T12:36:38.050" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="2d073b4a-4dfb-4325-85a8-27e8af4b3d4c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T13:46:42.477" UserId="6136" Text="I asked this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48298/how-to-calculate-the-effect-of-the-earths-magnetic-field-on-a-hze-particle/48319#48319&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which after some more research I realized is at best unclear and at worst unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point if I reform the question the existing answer won't make sense. Should I delete it and ask a new one? or is it preferable to edit the existing question? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="2d073b4a-4dfb-4325-85a8-27e8af4b3d4c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T13:46:42.477" UserId="6136" Text="How to best to correct a poorly asked question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="2d073b4a-4dfb-4325-85a8-27e8af4b3d4c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T13:46:42.477" UserId="6136" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="e003fe53-7e59-4fa9-b412-9f9093ab655f" CreationDate="2013-01-08T13:52:59.570" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body" Text="I asked this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48298/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which after some more research I realized is at best unclear and at worst unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point if I reform the question the existing answer won't make sense. Should I delete it and ask a new one? or is it preferable to edit the existing question? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5760" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="08d85ba5-c1c2-4004-b9cb-8ad916a394b3" CreationDate="2013-01-08T16:03:11.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/288677238889668610" />
  <row Id="5762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="8648a919-bb59-4314-9a18-6d7d76a47ad3" CreationDate="2013-01-08T16:15:31.110" UserId="520" Text="You generally should not edit questions so as to change their nature. Especially after they have attracted answers. A new post is in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you won't be able to delete the existing question on your own authority because it has an upvoted answer. If you *really* want to delete it I can do that with my moderator superpowers, but I would suggest instead that you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ask a new question.&#xD;&#xA;2. Edit the existing on to put a prominant pointer to the new question at the top&#xD;&#xA;3. Make the old one Community Wiki if you are worried about future downvotes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="b8aba969-5b16-4007-856f-3d6a2c4e3b7a" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:32:07.497" UserId="124" Text="Here is (or was?) my understanding on how things are supposed to work: when editing, the key rule is **don't change the main point of the question**. So whenever you want to make an edit, think about whether it would change the core of what the question is asking. If it would, then you should make a new question instead of editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this has nothing to do with whether you might invalidate the existing answers; you're not obligated to make your question conform to the answers that are posted. What happens reasonably often is that someone reads your question, doesn't correctly understand what you were asking (either because your question was unclear or they just misinterpreted it), and posts an answer that doesn't actually give you the information you wanted. In that case it's perfectly fine and highly encouraged to edit the question to make it clear what you were looking for and why the existing answer doesn't cut it. As always, the key is that you're _clarifying_ the question, not changing what it's asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens, it's really best if you stay on top of things and make the edits as soon as possible after the misinterpreting answer is posted, so that the poster of the answer can edit it, and so that future answerers won't do the same thing. If you let the question sit around with an inaccurate answer for more than a couple days, people are less likely to come back to it after you edit. And in that case, it might just be better to edit the question to ask what the answer answers, or perhaps request to have the question deleted (but we sort of shy away from that), and then post a new question with the clearer version of what you originally intended to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2964" RevisionGUID="34ba2024-9e86-4528-94a4-bae1a80bec27" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:22:03.047" UserId="2451" Text="Besides what dmckee and David Zaslavsky have said, OP could also add his own answer, explaining why the opening question cannot be satisfactorily answered in its current form, thereby completing the Q&amp;A cyclus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(OP could make the answer a Community Wiki if he wishes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="aceaf6d2-36c5-4d8d-81d3-f9506a1d4244" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:41:44.247" UserId="66" Text="We seem very undecided on main on whether magnetic monopole do, in fact, exist or not, or whether this question is settled at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem correct to me that to such a basic EM question we would give different answers all the time. The answers on main should be uniform and clear &amp;mdash; especially when the answers come from our top users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can't be all correct at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, if this difference of opinion is justifiable, then the only possibly acceptable answer is &quot;we don't know/we are undecided&quot;: I have no reason to doubt the good faith and competence of all our esteemed answerers, however they can't all be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4792&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4785&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4814&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5575&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34162&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/22754&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles do not exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48659&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4813&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1406&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5585&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34133&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/44867&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/41681&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Undecided&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48658&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4786&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should be done in this case? What is the correct approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="aceaf6d2-36c5-4d8d-81d3-f9506a1d4244" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:41:44.247" UserId="66" Text="Contradicting answers on magnetic monopoles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="aceaf6d2-36c5-4d8d-81d3-f9506a1d4244" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:41:44.247" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="012206c4-735a-4659-9eab-69b6431d1fc6" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:59:27.653" UserId="66" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="We seem very undecided on main on whether magnetic monopole do, in fact, exist or not, or whether this question is settled at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem correct to me that to such a basic EM question we would give different answers all the time. The answers on main should be uniform and clear &amp;mdash; especially when the answers come from our top users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, if this difference of opinions is justifiable, then the only possibly acceptable answer should be &quot;*we don't know, we are not undecided*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I have no reason to doubt the good faith and competence of all our esteemed answerers, however they can't all be correct at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the below answers as an example (some may be miscategorized):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4792&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4785&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4814&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5575&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34162&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/22754&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles do not exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48659&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4813&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1406&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;del&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5585&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34133&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/44867&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/41681&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Undecided&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48658&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4786&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should be done in this case? What is the correct approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="1fad4b57-4424-491b-9622-0f7a6f1c3b4c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:02:49.447" UserId="520" Text="The situation is actually pretty clear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There have been exactly *zero* observations that people believe. Read the comments on http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403/520 and you'll hear about one possible observation with a machine still being commissioned, which does make for fun speculation.&#xD;&#xA;* There are several distict ways in which their actual existence would be &quot;beautiful&quot;, and many people carry some level of belief that they do exist.&#xD;&#xA;* Only a few people in the know use strong langauge in stating their belief, but [such people *do* exist][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that are interested my personal position is a kind of weakly committed optimism, tempered with the knowledge that it doesn't matter unless we can get a hold of a few to play with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="0837466c-4bb9-464b-bb42-778429a7896b" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:30:00.880" UserId="520" Comment="added 978 characters in body" Text="The situation is actually pretty clear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There have been exactly *zero* observations that people believe. Read the comments on http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403/520 and you'll hear about one possible observation with a machine still being commissioned, which does make for fun speculation.&#xD;&#xA;* There are several distict ways in which their actual existence would be &quot;beautiful&quot;, and many people carry some level of belief that they do exist.&#xD;&#xA;* Only a few people in the know use strong langauge in stating their belief, but [such people *do* exist][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that are interested my personal position is a kind of weakly committed optimism, tempered with the knowledge that it doesn't matter unless we can get a hold of a few to play with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the linked answers are correct in that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;no&quot;s are addressing *observation* and say so&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;yes&quot;s are most in the subjunctive mood reling on some theory or state that they represent a preference rather than outrigt knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;* a lot of the &quot;undecided&quot;s try to express the sublties of the situation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do?&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Well, what I do is downvote and comment on things that are outright wrong, but more or less the only thing that would qualify is a claim that there are confirmed observations of magnetic monopoles, and just comment on things that I think are too strongly stated (mostly claims that it is a theoretical certainty or conversely claims that the zero on the RHS of $\nabla B = 0$ proves that there are no monopoles rather than expressing the non-observation of them to date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is wrong, downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is misleading a comment or alternate answer should be used to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="01ff7004-5799-4a48-b6a4-f57bc7f3a6dd" CreationDate="2013-01-08T23:18:14.343" UserId="520" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The situation is actually pretty clear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There have been exactly *zero* observations that people believe. Read the comments on http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403/520 and you'll hear about one possible observation with a machine still being commissioned, which does make for fun speculation.&#xD;&#xA;* There are several distict ways in which their actual existence would be &quot;beautiful&quot;, and many people carry some level of belief that they do exist.&#xD;&#xA;* Only a few people in the know use strong langauge in stating their belief, but [such people *do* exist][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that are interested my personal position is a kind of weakly committed optimism, tempered with the knowledge that it doesn't matter unless we can get a hold of a few to play with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the linked answers are correct in that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;no&quot;s are addressing *observation* and say so&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;yes&quot;s are most in the subjunctive mood relying on some theory or state that they represent a preference rather than outright knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;* a lot of the &quot;undecided&quot;s try to express the sublties of the situation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do?&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Well, what I do is downvote and comment on things that are outright wrong, but more or less the only thing that would qualify is a claim that there are confirmed observations of magnetic monopoles, and just comment on things that I think are too strongly stated (mostly claims that it is a theoretical certainty or conversely claims that the zero on the RHS of $\nabla B = 0$ proves that there are no monopoles rather than expressing the non-observation of them to date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is wrong, downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is misleading a comment or alternate answer should be used to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="a1271fd5-0f9d-4723-b32a-4330ae867719" CreationDate="2013-01-08T23:21:34.557" UserId="2751" Text="Magneic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="3a7f39e1-9147-45d4-88a7-99d2f6b13a5a" CreationDate="2013-01-09T00:02:41.673" UserId="2751" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="Magneic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am strongly against any special treatment of questions and answers about magnetic monopoles, other BSM physics, certain cosmological topics, etc here on physics SE. We should trust the judgement of the community and let thing happen by votes exactly as it has always been done up to now. Just let things be as it is and as it has always been, these actively researched topics belong to the well accepted mainstream theoretical physics so they should not be singled out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="ab0e35e1-3b33-4e33-ad54-bcba16b91435" CreationDate="2013-01-09T01:19:31.930" UserId="2451" Text="As paradoxically as it may sound, the apparent discrepancy (on whether [magnetic monopoles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole) exist or not) may to a large extend boil down to semantics and use in different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- are we discussing the actual universe, or are we discussing a model?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- by the word [existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), do we e.g. mean 1) have been experimentally observed, 2) have in principle a non-zero (but so-far unobserved) abundance, or 3) could under the right conditions be created?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, so far magnetic monopoles (and more generally dyons) have not been experimentally seen. On the other hand, many theoretical physicists have very little doubt that they exists. For instance, J. Polchinski writes in the conclusions in [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304042) paper that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[...] the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen._&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="521ecce1-bd5c-4e1c-97fe-24faf27fc456" CreationDate="2013-01-09T01:38:05.880" UserId="2451" Comment="minor" Text="As paradoxically as it may sound, the apparent discrepancy (on whether [magnetic monopoles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole) exist or not) may to a large extend boil down to semantics and use in different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- are we discussing the actual universe, or are we discussing a model?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- by the word [existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), do we e.g. mean 1) have been experimentally observed, 2) have in principle a non-zero (but so-far unobserved) abundance, or 3) could under the right conditions be created?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, so far magnetic monopoles (and more generally dyons) have not been experimentally seen. On the other hand, many theoretical physicists have very little doubt that they exists. For instance, J. Polchinski writes in the conclusions of [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304042) paper that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[...] the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen._&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="0a3a2cca-2460-409d-9ac3-588f17ab5f21" CreationDate="2013-01-09T03:12:21.500" UserId="2451" Comment="minor;" Text="As paradoxically as it may sound, the apparent discrepancy (on whether [magnetic monopoles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole) exist or not) may to a large extend boil down to semantics and the use in different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- are we discussing the actual universe, or are we discussing a model?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- by the word [existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), do we e.g. mean 1) have been experimentally observed, 2) have in principle a non-zero (but so-far unobserved) abundance, or 3) could under the right conditions be created?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand,  magnetic monopoles (and more generally dyons) have so far not been experimentally seen. On the other hand, many theoretical physicists have very little doubt that they exist. For instance, J. Polchinski writes in the conclusions of [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304042) paper that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[...] the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen._&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5780" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="5c113232-d183-4c2f-bd1d-5b081fc9c13b" CreationDate="2013-01-09T08:15:17.010" UserId="66" Comment="edited title" Text="Please review our answers on magnetic monopoles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="68e1ae44-899a-445d-9c78-68230a9b17ea" CreationDate="2013-01-09T09:19:03.530" UserId="7433" Text="To me, this seems to be a subset of a larger question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;What do we consider as &quot;true&quot; on physics.SE?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, here I see that some of BSM physics is considered to be perfectly valid by most theoretical physicists, while others feel that the absence of any experimental evidence means that they ought to be portrayed as &quot;postulated&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally feel that we should not put any policy regarding this. There is no strict &quot;boundary&quot; delineating &quot;open&quot; and &quot;settled&quot; questions in physics, people have different beliefs about this. Magnetic monopoles are an example of this. Even black holes are an example of this, at a stretch -- we have objects in the universe which we _think_ are BHs, but we can't be 100% sure. Should we stop letting people say that BHs exist on this site? Certainly not. The same goes with magnetic monopoles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making our site adhere to a certain picture of &quot;truth vs hypothesis&quot; would be destructive for the site -- we generally strive to be agnostic in these matters when dealing with mainstream physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, what I suggest is the following. It is not a policy, it is just a courtesy that I suggest others follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When dealing with topics that are not widely accepted by the entire physics community in general, try avoiding absolute statements like &quot;magnetic monopoles exist&quot;. Instead, say that &quot;MMs have been postulated to exist, due to `&lt;reason&gt;`. Assuming they exist, `&lt;rest of answer&gt;`&quot;. This makes the answer clearer to others, and prevents misconceptions of its tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="248731a6-dcc7-4355-9432-380168ed9d7d" CreationDate="2013-01-09T09:31:50.120" UserId="2751" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Magneic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am strongly against any special treatment of questions and answers about magnetic monopoles, other BSM physics, certain cosmological topics, etc here on physics SE. We should trust the judgement of the community and let thing happen by votes exactly as it has always been done up to now. Just let things be as it is and as it has always been, these actively researched topics belong to the well accepted mainstream theoretical physics so they should not be singled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary: Absolutely nothing has to be or should done, it is absolutely natural for questions about open issues to have such a spectrum of answers as Lubos, Dmckee, and Qmechanic have explained.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="a8e43d19-2fbc-4609-a0c7-35cef208ac7c" CreationDate="2013-01-09T09:42:57.790" UserId="2751" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Magneic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am strongly against any special treatment of questions and answers about magnetic monopoles, other BSM physics, certain cosmological topics, etc here on physics SE. We should trust the judgement of the community and let thing happen by votes exactly as it has always been done up to now. Just let things be as it is and as it has always been, these actively researched topics belong to the well accepted mainstream theoretical physics so they should not be singled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary: Absolutely nothing has to be or should be done, it is absolutely natural and legitimate for questions about open issues to have such a spectrum of answers as Lubos, Dmckee, and Qmechanic have explained.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="e368aeec-fd10-4aeb-9f9a-628e148b216d" CreationDate="2013-01-09T12:56:06.863" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="86537f80-e9f7-48ba-a0ed-092249c4b68e" CreationDate="2013-01-09T14:26:52.390" UserId="8143" Text="Speaking as one amateur, not only am I **not** confused by conflicting answers about physics at the forefront of research, I **welcome** them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Experts may disagree. This is true for horticulture, philately, linguistics, medicine... why should it be different for physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Disagreement sparks efforts by proponents of a particular approach to clarify and amplify their reasoned point of view. This is a good thing.&#xD;&#xA; - Experts give **opinions**, they do not demand that their word be taken as the gospel truth or else. An expert witness giving courtroom testimony is not dictating the outcome of a trial, she or he is offering an opinion to the best of her knowledge and belief. It is up to the jury or judge hearing the testimony to weigh the testimony of this and any other expert witnesses and make up their own mind. However, this is not a courtroom and no verdict is required, hence the supposed &quot;problem&quot; is pretty much a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is possible that some visitors to a Q&amp;A site come here expecting to find out only uncontested, &quot;official&quot; Answers (or alternatively, that any Answer not uniformly held by the expert community be prefaced by a qualifier such as &quot;speculative&quot;), this is an unreasonable expectation. On the contrary, the opportunity to find out that such naive expectations cannot be fulfilled is a valuable learning experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence I propose that this question be **closed** as unproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="66b6cc09-a51f-4272-a8d3-decdcd15cc52" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:03:36.187" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 118 characters in body" Text="We seem very undecided on main on whether magnetic monopole do, in fact, exist or not, or whether this question is settled at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem correct to me that to such a basic EM question we would give different answers all the time. The answers on main should be consisten and clear &amp;mdash; especially when the answers come from our top users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I missing something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I have no reason to doubt the good faith and competence of all our esteemed answerers, however they can't all be correct at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we please review the answers to make sure they are correctly worded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4792&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4785&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4814&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5575&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34162&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/22754&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles do not exist&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48659&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4813&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1406&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;del&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5585&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34133&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/44867&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/41681&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Undecided&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48658&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4786&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should be done in this case? What is the correct approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="520ab5eb-0071-4030-ba14-34b92aee71e0" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:31:53.697" UserId="1345" Text="Within the past two hours, this [user][1] has been downvoted nine times, twice on the same question. It looks to me that someone has an agenda against this person, so why hasn't this anomalous voting pattern been detected and nulled by the system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="520ab5eb-0071-4030-ba14-34b92aee71e0" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:31:53.697" UserId="1345" Text="Why didn't the amomalous voting detection algorithm seem to work for this user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="520ab5eb-0071-4030-ba14-34b92aee71e0" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:31:53.697" UserId="1345" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2973" RevisionGUID="da6ab8aa-d75f-467c-9dd4-8a2182dcafcc" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:34:37.110" UserDisplayName="user68" Text="It is not (yet?) significantly anomalous pattern according to the criteria used by the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="566f9a69-6057-4cc4-a52d-45dcb5132ffd" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:47:30.133" UserId="11062" Text="The engine would definitely detect this serial voting and will also reverse it for sure...  &#xD;&#xA;But, it takes up to a maximum of 24 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still have a doubt, you could have a look at my [profile](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GOzJn.png). I was a bit confused on that *serial-upvoted* day. The reversing thing made me laugh on the next day :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2975" RevisionGUID="460f4a09-747f-490d-96ca-cf79e7d6c2c6" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:49:04.290" UserId="2684" Text="The script runs at night (in the UTC timezone), so it hasn't run yet. Wait for tomorrow, then it should have run and likely invalidated the votes, if they are actual serial downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="d16479c3-f0d3-4763-82ab-bdb791c3d359" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:02:00.883" UserId="2451" Comment="minor" Text="As paradoxically as it may sound, the apparent discrepancy (on whether [magnetic monopoles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole) exist or not) may to a large extend boil down to semantics and the use in different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are we discussing 1) a model? 2) the actual universe? 3) only our local vicinity of the universe? 4)...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- By the word [existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), do we e.g. mean 1) have been directly experimentally observed? 2) have in principle a non-zero (but so far unobserved) abundance? 3) could under the right conditions be created? 4)...?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, magnetic monopoles (and more generally dyons) have so far not been experimentally seen. On the other hand, many theoretical physicists have very little doubt that they exist. For instance, J. Polchinski writes in the conclusions of [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304042) paper that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[...] the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen._&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="0fb09233-bdb5-4058-af6a-845ba7d0ced6" CreationDate="2013-01-09T17:19:43.683" UserId="520" Text="Because the user in question has had a lot of votes already it will be a while before any new concerted effort will show up in the moderator tools. I'll look into it anyway, but I'm not optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the script runs at pretty low frequency and we are advised to tell worried uses to wait two days before asking us to esculate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="67ab0a1d-fb0d-44c7-86a9-0bdb4ea7fd4c" CreationDate="2013-01-09T17:33:01.877" UserId="66" Comment="edited body" Text="Because the user in question has had a lot of votes already it will be a while before any new concerted effort will show up in the moderator tools. I'll look into it anyway, but I'm not optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the script runs at pretty low frequency and we are advised to tell worried uses to wait two days before asking us to escalate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="b9555014-cad5-404a-b69f-435d3ce672e2" CreationDate="2013-01-09T21:48:05.030" UserId="2451" Comment="extend -&gt; extent" Text="As paradoxically as it may sound, the apparent discrepancy (on whether [magnetic monopoles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole) exist or not) may to a large extent boil down to semantics and the use in different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are we discussing 1) a model? 2) the actual universe? 3) only our local vicinity of the universe? 4)...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- By the word [existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), do we e.g. mean 1) have been directly experimentally observed? 2) have in principle a non-zero (but so far unobserved) abundance? 3) could under the right conditions be created? 4)...?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, magnetic monopoles (and more generally dyons) have so far not been experimentally seen. On the other hand, many theoretical physicists have very little doubt that they exist. For instance, J. Polchinski writes in the conclusions of [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304042) paper that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[...] the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen._&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="9adac8c2-3696-4dc6-b46a-c3f02f9e09ec" CreationDate="2013-01-10T06:39:07.293" UserId="6634" Text="I'm late to the party here but I've had a chance to read through everything and here is my take on it...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, first, something seems to be lost in translation. Yes, this particular topic is about magnetic monopoles. But I think that just happens to be used as an example -- I can make a list of questions about &quot;why do airplanes fly&quot; and there will likewise be contradictory answers, some of which are incorrect or speculative. I think this was chosen as an example of questions with contradictory answers and shouldn't be read-into as anything more than that. It's not an attack on theoretical physics, or cutting-edge science, or issues with BSM. It's just making a list that highlights a question that deserves some further thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, I see nothing wrong when a user finds a series of questions that have seemingly contradictory answers with that user posting a question just like this in meta and asking for a review from experts. The system is set up so good answers get upvoted, bad ones get downvoted, and experts answer the questions asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is absolutely no harm with posting a list of questions and saying &quot;Could somebody who knows what they are doing review these because they are not consistent.&quot; And people who know can go through and review, up/down vote accordingly, or post new, more correct, more up-to-date answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's no different from the &quot;re-tag old questions&quot; style of post that asks users to look at old questions and verify the tags are correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want a policy, my suggestion is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across a series of questions on a similar topic and you think they present contradictory information, post in meta the list of questions and ask for review by experts. These experts should review the questions and will let the system work the way it should work and all will be right in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No use trolling, or flaming anybody, or accusing people of attacks on a particular subject. That gets us nowhere as individuals or a community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="776b5ffe-7612-4eff-90c9-2478c6b7c59f" CreationDate="2013-01-10T12:45:32.700" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3976" RevisionGUID="866c2510-c6ff-49fc-a2f6-f0c6f0995f04" CreationDate="2013-01-10T18:01:12.413" UserId="7527" Text="I just want to know, usually at what time the most number of people come online, so I can have more interaction with them?When I am typing , I found very less people answering questions. People who uses this website are not equally distributed all over the globe. So there should be sometime where most of them are active in this website. Someone might be having this statistics. Share if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3976" RevisionGUID="866c2510-c6ff-49fc-a2f6-f0c6f0995f04" CreationDate="2013-01-10T18:01:12.413" UserId="7527" Text="What is the peak time when most number of people are online in PSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3976" RevisionGUID="866c2510-c6ff-49fc-a2f6-f0c6f0995f04" CreationDate="2013-01-10T18:01:12.413" UserId="7527" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3977" RevisionGUID="23f337bf-f534-4970-bec2-01ebf46aca24" CreationDate="2013-01-10T18:09:13.907" UserId="4066" Text="For real-time interaction, it's chat you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not this meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But chat. That's what it's there for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on the [chat info page][1] for the chat room you're interested in (e.g. the main physics chat room), you can find statistics about number of visitors by hour of the day, and by day of the week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3978" RevisionGUID="b49a034b-044e-4089-b1ae-e63139801856" CreationDate="2013-01-10T20:00:51.130" UserId="124" Text="You can get information on the time of day when questions and answers are posted from the Stack Exchange Data Explorer, using e.g. [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/91524/activity-by-utc-hour#graph). Based on this metric, the most active time is around 1600 UTC. It should also be possible to add in the times when comments are posted if you're interested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no data available on page views with better than daily resolution, at least not through the tools SE provides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3979" RevisionGUID="5f80e51e-df98-487f-9ec3-f366ec416c73" CreationDate="2013-01-10T20:15:56.243" UserId="7433" Text="As a side note to David's answer: Trying to figure out when most people are online isn't really the best way to get answers to your questions. If you ask really nice questions, more people will vote/answer. You may want to read [how to ask][1] to help improve your questions :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="31d74a62-c70a-44e0-8589-395da924e948" CreationDate="2013-01-11T02:51:58.453" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 10 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="458ec0e3-19fb-431a-aca3-a5322ae3e9a6" CreationDate="2013-01-11T03:36:44.597" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Why not “home-experiment” questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/236/why-not-home-experiment-questions)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;A point brought to my mind by [Evan's questions about shopping][1], is the place of demonstrations in our efforts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demos are effective teaching tools and can be powerful attractors for getting people (potential students, potential funders, general enthusiasts...) interested in what we do, and they can be surprisingly tricky to build and operate without letting small corrections &#xD;&#xA;detract from the rhetorical impact we'd like them to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are questions about the design, construction, care and operation of demonstration tools OK. I'll leave the question of acquisition of parts and/or whole apparatus to be discussed under Evan's topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/268/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6806" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="645ae379-77d5-472e-8432-e6bda640573a" CreationDate="2013-01-11T03:36:44.597" UserId="520" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[236],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="b2f926b7-67ce-485e-8328-bb9c45d45754" CreationDate="2013-01-11T03:59:48.103" UserId="520" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Because the user in question has had a lot of votes already it will be a while before any new concerted effort will show up in the moderator tools. I'll look into it anyway, but I'm not optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the script runs at pretty low frequency and we are advised to tell worried uses to wait two days before asking us to escalate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked the team to look into it. They report nothing actionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was an attack involved and the responsible party continues it will eventually show up on some of our tracking tools. I'll keep an eye on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6808" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="a217ba80-e360-4d96-8ad8-f5cb8eab1285" CreationDate="2013-01-11T04:00:35.467" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [67ab0a1d-fb0d-44c7-86a9-0bdb4ea7fd4c]" Text="Because the user in question has had a lot of votes already it will be a while before any new concerted effort will show up in the moderator tools. I'll look into it anyway, but I'm not optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the script runs at pretty low frequency and we are advised to tell worried uses to wait two days before asking us to escalate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6809" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="1d47f6c9-f68e-4837-a73e-5e5bfbd500c8" CreationDate="2013-01-11T04:03:02.673" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [b2f926b7-67ce-485e-8328-bb9c45d45754]" Text="Because the user in question has had a lot of votes already it will be a while before any new concerted effort will show up in the moderator tools. I'll look into it anyway, but I'm not optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the script runs at pretty low frequency and we are advised to tell worried uses to wait two days before asking us to escalate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked the team to look into it. They report nothing actionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was an attack involved and the responsible party continues it will eventually show up on some of our tracking tools. I'll keep an eye on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="b619fa5b-7e31-4962-91c4-c950c2f08015" CreationDate="2013-01-11T15:18:13.913" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="22be8fee-667f-428c-8c8c-cf4dc296a50d" CreationDate="2013-01-11T16:20:12.310" UserId="11062" Comment="sorry for that... Today I gtg within 2 posts" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="8afb7982-3aa7-49da-aea6-ec6d260f6a64" CreationDate="2013-01-12T04:16:11.740" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 5 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="3d4e4521-5ff9-4f31-b876-d94f16efe552" CreationDate="2013-01-12T09:36:08.833" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="c20b4eab-da67-43f4-aaca-12b3c3628eba" CreationDate="2013-01-12T20:50:42.623" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 8 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="84883236-21e4-4313-bdde-0b87fc99e8ca" CreationDate="2013-01-13T01:28:19.330" UserId="6634" Text="So it was alluded to in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2 that software recommendation questions are *generally* off-topic but as pointed out by @dmckee on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling there is no clear policy regarding whether recommendations for physics-based software for a specific problem is considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General topics (ie. fluid dynamics) would become a list answer and should be off-topic. Book, and from the direction of the answers [on my other question][1], journal recommendations about general problems are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is [this question][2] off-topic? Can we develop a clear policy on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more research shows that David closed as off-topic the following recommendation questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5086/software-for-simulating-supersonic-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39541/how-does-this-problems-are-solved-modeling-simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this one remains open:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11246/what-software-can-i-use-to-simulate-supersonic-gas-particle-flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="84883236-21e4-4313-bdde-0b87fc99e8ca" CreationDate="2013-01-13T01:28:19.330" UserId="6634" Text="Should we allow software questions? (take 3)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="84883236-21e4-4313-bdde-0b87fc99e8ca" CreationDate="2013-01-13T01:28:19.330" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3981" RevisionGUID="5320818c-4b69-4bb4-9484-2c6a6b602d4e" CreationDate="2013-01-13T02:21:44.063" UserId="124" Text="I think it is off topic - as evidenced by the fact that I've closed it ;-) You're right, recommendation questions are not on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last question on your list hadn't been touched since mid-2011, whereas the other two were closed in late 2012. So I think this is a case of our policies being vague in the early days of the site and then getting pinned down over time. I agree that the last question is another recommendation question and so I've closed that one as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="35e39cdd-2ca7-4fc6-9af5-bd5e108ab8bc" CreationDate="2013-01-13T02:28:06.720" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Very minor thing here. These two questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48574/how-can-a-black-hole-produce-sound&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21075/why-does-a-window-at-night-become-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference each other under the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar. I thought that was curious, since they have nothing to do with one another. I searched both questions, and yet I could not find a link in the posts or comments of either one to the other. Am I just blind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (probably wrong) understanding is that a question is listed under &quot;linked&quot; if and only if either there is a link inserted somewhere to that one, or somewhere on that page there is a link back to the question you are looking at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **is this a bug**, or **is there some other mechanism for linking**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="35e39cdd-2ca7-4fc6-9af5-bd5e108ab8bc" CreationDate="2013-01-13T02:28:06.720" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Why are these questions linked to each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="35e39cdd-2ca7-4fc6-9af5-bd5e108ab8bc" CreationDate="2013-01-13T02:28:06.720" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|bug|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3983" RevisionGUID="2d190ead-bd89-4327-a036-e372688e1149" CreationDate="2013-01-13T02:31:03.297" UserId="520" Text="The &quot;Linked&quot; sidebar lists all the other questions for which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there is an outgoing link in to the question, answers or comments.&#xD;&#xA;* there is an incoming link in from the question, answers or comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only way to know is to find the link that genertated the entry in the Linked sidebar and understand the context. Users being users these will often be relevant but *could* be really off the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmmm...so far I haven't found such a link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, now I've searched the respective page sources and still not found the link. Very interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3984" RevisionGUID="fb27ddb8-1573-434c-b3ed-9100c2d17049" CreationDate="2013-01-13T02:33:08.273" UserId="124" Text="There was a comment on [the first question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48574/how-can-a-black-hole-produce-sound), now deleted, which linked to [the second question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21075/why-does-a-window-at-night-become-a-mirror). That's why those questions were added to each others' Linked sidebars in the first place. As for why the links are still there, I can only imagine that the list of linked questions is cached, and the cache has not been updated in the past few days since the comment was deleted. I'm not sure whether that is the expected behavior or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, your understanding of the linking mechanism is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3985" RevisionGUID="99dcb2a1-4425-4d0e-b135-4f144cd452ac" CreationDate="2013-01-13T05:56:49.083" UserId="6634" Text="Since thought-experiments are so common in physics, is [tag:thought-experiment] something we should create?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3985" RevisionGUID="99dcb2a1-4425-4d0e-b135-4f144cd452ac" CreationDate="2013-01-13T05:56:49.083" UserId="6634" Text="Is a thought-experiment tag appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3985" RevisionGUID="99dcb2a1-4425-4d0e-b135-4f144cd452ac" CreationDate="2013-01-13T05:56:49.083" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="77d047fb-aa43-40e1-8bec-4783fd35171e" CreationDate="2013-01-13T06:15:32.750" UserId="520" Text="I think I'm against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasoning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:thought-experiment] wouldn't give you any data about the type of physics being considered, you'd still have to do a good job tagging the question with the *kind* of physics you are talking about that. In that sense this would be a meta-tag.&#xD;&#xA;* It *would*, however be very attractive the kind of poster whose entire understanding of physics comes from a couple of pop-sci books on quantum mechanics, black holes and cosmology. Indeed, I think that we'd get a a great many question tagged with *only* that tag. While I try not to get miffed by these posters I feel that their questions are rarely very good, and I have a vague hope that if they have to think to find some tags they may have to formulate their thoughts  little more clearly. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="e6428ae5-5f5f-4086-bf60-751ebd1faaa7" CreationDate="2013-01-13T11:17:18.903" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="8fc12448-2244-49af-b4db-5ceeb8056c7f" CreationDate="2013-01-13T18:38:04.220" UserId="66" Comment="spelling" Text="Magnetic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am strongly against any special treatment of questions and answers about magnetic monopoles, other BSM physics, certain cosmological topics, etc here on physics SE. We should trust the judgement of the community and let thing happen by votes exactly as it has always been done up to now. Just let things be as it is and as it has always been, these actively researched topics belong to the well accepted mainstream theoretical physics so they should not be singled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary: Absolutely nothing has to be or should be done, it is absolutely natural and legitimate for questions about open issues to have such a spectrum of answers as Lubos, Dmckee, and Qmechanic have explained.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="a4dacbdb-2682-41f3-b7d4-f3c5e3964c72" CreationDate="2013-01-13T18:38:59.243" UserId="66" Comment="spelling" Text="The situation is actually pretty clear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There have been exactly *zero* observations that people believe. Read the comments on http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403/520 and you'll hear about one possible observation with a machine still being commissioned, which does make for fun speculation.&#xD;&#xA;* There are several distinct ways in which their actual existence would be &quot;beautiful&quot;, and many people carry some level of belief that they do exist.&#xD;&#xA;* Only a few people in the know use strong language in stating their belief, but [such people *do* exist][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that are interested my personal position is a kind of weakly committed optimism, tempered with the knowledge that it doesn't matter unless we can get a hold of a few to play with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the linked answers are correct in that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;no&quot;s are addressing *observation* and say so&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;yes&quot;s are most in the subjunctive mood relying on some theory or state that they represent a preference rather than outright knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;* a lot of the &quot;undecided&quot;s try to express the subtleties of the situation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do?&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Well, what I do is downvote and comment on things that are outright wrong, but more or less the only thing that would qualify is a claim that there are confirmed observations of magnetic monopoles, and just comment on things that I think are too strongly stated (mostly claims that it is a theoretical certainty or conversely claims that the zero on the RHS of $\nabla B = 0$ proves that there are no monopoles rather than expressing the non-observation of them to date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is wrong, downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is misleading a comment or alternate answer should be used to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="898f4635-210f-46d7-bd51-cac0abc91ef6" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:13:41.040" UserId="66" Text="We have a lot of posts on the LCH - however, the experiments are still on-going and it's possible that some answers that were right at the time are now outdated. It's also possible that some *questions* are now too localised (because they are very specific to a situation and a *past* time) and need to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;Finally some questions are explicitly &quot;What if...&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What to do?&#xD;&#xA;* Vote according to the quality of the posts&#xD;&#xA;* Edit the answers if possible and if needed to include updated information&#xD;&#xA;* VTC questions which are completely obsolete (if you find any)&#xD;&#xA;* Flag completely obsolete answers for moderation attention or vote to delete&#xD;&#xA;* I've noticed some comments are obsolete too (delete them if yours or flag for a mod to delete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Example posts to review&#xD;&#xA;I'm including a few examples below, but the full list is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=lhc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6379/lhc-big-bang-temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13462/could-the-lhc-blind-a-satellite&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45203/higgs-boson-in-lhc&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6482/what-if-lhc-finds-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46236/impact-of-lhc-on-other-science-and-technologies-in-particular-on-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1014/how-relevant-is-lhc-to-quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="898f4635-210f-46d7-bd51-cac0abc91ef6" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:13:41.040" UserId="66" Text="Please review our posts on the LHC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="898f4635-210f-46d7-bd51-cac0abc91ef6" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:13:41.040" UserId="66" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6839" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="e536ce2a-27c9-40a3-88c8-0114575d5078" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:23:00.483" UserId="124" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6840" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="5e5b998a-a3be-487a-bd25-1e4eb0e7588e" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:23:13.883" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6841" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="cc43ba23-658f-4ee6-9f49-e32689e02192" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:23:13.883" UserId="124" Comment="6" />
  <row Id="6845" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="2a6468b2-f4f1-45d3-b27d-de5e855ae362" CreationDate="2013-01-13T22:03:25.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/290579830725029888" />
  <row Id="6846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3990" RevisionGUID="50f7e2b5-ce9d-4d90-aad3-11ca8342d133" CreationDate="2013-01-13T22:05:37.583" UserId="2751" Text="There  is absolutely nothing wrong with these questions and answers. They are commpletely valid and legitimate and absolutely nothing has to be done. They all are still relevant and interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3990" RevisionGUID="1d0d9b80-89fb-4cb7-8791-517239576acf" CreationDate="2013-01-13T22:16:10.480" UserId="2751" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="There  is absolutely nothing wrong with these questions and answers. They are commpletely valid and legitimate and absolutely nothing has to be done. They all are still relevant and interesting.&#xD;&#xA;The ones listed are still relevant at present and even if their should be others which are no longer completely up to date, they may still be worth reading and having them around is a godd thing. They do not hurt and no actions have to be taken." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="4594a1a1-0ad9-40a4-8627-c2a779cd91b7" CreationDate="2013-01-13T22:59:48.377" UserId="66" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="We have a lot of posts on the LCH - however, the experiments are still on-going and it's possible that some answers that were right at the time are now outdated. It's also possible that some *questions* are now too localised (because they are very specific to a situation and a *past* time) and need to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;Finally some questions are explicitly &quot;What if...&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What to do?&#xD;&#xA;* Vote according to the quality of the posts&#xD;&#xA;* Edit the answers if needed and possible to include updated information&#xD;&#xA;* Provide new answers if they need one&#xD;&#xA;* VTC questions which are completely obsolete (if you find any)&#xD;&#xA;* Flag completely obsolete answers for moderation attention or vote to delete&#xD;&#xA;* I've noticed some comments are obsolete too (delete them if yours or flag for a mod to delete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Example posts to review&#xD;&#xA;I'm including a few examples below, but the full list is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=lhc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6379/lhc-big-bang-temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13462/could-the-lhc-blind-a-satellite&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45203/higgs-boson-in-lhc&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6482/what-if-lhc-finds-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46236/impact-of-lhc-on-other-science-and-technologies-in-particular-on-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1014/how-relevant-is-lhc-to-quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="915f5eaa-5ce2-4696-a802-bfd0fd211353" CreationDate="2013-01-14T03:15:20.953" UserId="4864" Comment="for dilaton" Text="Magnetic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am strongly against any special treatment of questions and answers about magnetic monopoles, other BSM physics, certain cosmological topics, etc here on physics SE. We should trust the judgement of the community and let thing happen by votes exactly as it has always been done up to now. Just let things be as it is and as it has always been, these actively researched topics belong to the well accepted mainstream theoretical physics so they should not be singled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary: Absolutely nothing has to be or should be done, it is absolutely natural and legitimate for questions about open issues to have such a spectrum of answers as Lubos, Dmckee, and Qmechanic have explained.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ron Wrote this about it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is a roundabout way of saying the following: Ron Maimon is certain monopoles exist, therefore, he is not in the middle of the socially acceptable opinion in physics, since no one else is so certain, and therefore he should be downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly how politicians think scientists evaluate science. It is exactly the opposite of how science is evaluated. People read the argument and evaluate on its merits, and this drives politicians nuts, because they can't evaluate this stuff using social skills, it is only possible using technical skills. Sorry, them's the breaks. You can't evaluate science using social mechanisms, you need to know the technical content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Sklivvz is checking here, politically, to see if I am blathering. He is using the one place where he feels I _must_ be blathering, because he can clearly see a big discrepancy between my answer and the other answers, and between my answer and stuff in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not blathering. I am just explaining another politically suppressed argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we haven't observed monopoles directly, how sure you are that they are there depends on the degree to which you trust your theories. One can acquire theoretical certainty without direct evidence, just by verifying quantitative predictions of theories that predict monopoles as a side effect. None of the theories that are established to predict monopoles have been confirmed experimentally, so it seems that one should not be certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the three closely related arguments which predict monopoles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dirac's string.&#xD;&#xA;* The t'Hooft-Polyakov GUT monopole&#xD;&#xA;* The monopoles in this or that string-theory vacuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these are fully convincing in isolation, without a new ingredient. You don't need to buy Dirac's string, because you can say that there is some small-distance problem that forbids the monopole defect, due to some property of small scale physics. You don't need to buy GUT monopoles, because maybe there's no GUT. The string monopoles require that you buy the whole of string theory, and further, you need to be sure that they occur in every vacuum with a compact U(1) (they do, but that's the argument below), otherwise it's just a property of this or that string vacuum, not of physics necessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So people evaluating the evidence based on the published arguments come to this conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Monopoles are interesting, they are theoretically elegant, but they are not required by the laws of physics as we know it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a _perfectly valid conclusion_, it is what is supported by the open literature, and there is nothing wrong with saying this in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the theorists are more certain that this. If you ask Ed Witten to tell you what the probability that monopoles don't exist is, he would say &quot;0 percent&quot;. If you ask Polchinski, you'll get a similar answer. A politician sees this situation and says &quot;Ah ha! Politics. This is just a political position.&quot; But this is not what's going on. What's really going on is that they have an argument which is fully convincing, but which is not in the literature, an argument _they aren't telling you about_, and they expect you to figure it out for yourself. This happens all the time in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have this situation--- theorists believe something which is not experimentally confirmed, namely the existence of monopoles, and to an outsider, it looks like it must be due to social forces or peer pressure, or conformity, not to reason, because you don't find the exact precise convincing argument in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the argument is not in the literature is because it is _hokey_ and _qualitative_, like all other physical arguments, and _obvious_. There is no chance it would pass peer review, not because it is wrong, but because the referee would already know it by discovering it for himself or herself, and get annoyed at you. This argument is so simple that all those who heard about Hawking radiation eventually stumbled upon it, and it is a folklore open secret in high energy physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the argument as it should be presented pedagogically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you make a lattice gauge theory, you can see that you can have monopole defects at any lattice cutoff. The reason is that you can place a Dirac string between the plaquettes, the link variables are everywhere regular. But the monopole has a little singular spot at one location which needs to be stabilized, because it is a knot, so it is forbidden in the pure gauge theory. You need to somehow unknot the knot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The normal way to regulate and stabilize the core is using a GUT. In any GUT that breaks to a (necessarily compact) U(1), you can see that the core is stable, in an argument presented in Coleman's _Aspects of Symmetry_: it's essentially Derrick's scaling argument for scalar field configurations collapsing to zero size, coupled with the existence of finite energy scalar fields which make a hedgehog monopole, as described by Polyakov and t'Hooft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point which becomes clear in 1976, after Hawking radiation, is that you don't need a GUT! You can stabilize the core of the monopole gravitationally, by compressing the core enough so that it collapses to a black hole. This argument doesn't require any assumptions on unknown physics, so it moves monopoles from &quot;possible&quot; to &quot;certain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This argument is certainly known to Witten, and to Polchinski, but they hide simple stuff like this for political reasons, because they know it makes bad politics to tell people the hokey sounding reasons they believe what they believe, because then people like Sklivvz come along and say &quot;This argument is full of crap!&quot; and it's difficult to defend, because it's easy enough for anyone to understand, even a politician. This is how S-matrix theory was killed. There's also no real place to publish this, other than a textbook, because this black hole stuff was current in the 1970s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; General Relativity allows solutions where you have the magnetic monopole singularity hidden behind a black hole horizon. This means that it is impossible to forbid magnetically charged holes by any local rules in General Relativity coupled to a compact U(1) gauge field, because you can make a Dirac string outside the horizon and a singularity inside the horizon, and you wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with the exterior solution locally, patch by patch, so it should make sense in the classical theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The problem with this is that you would never _form_ a magnetically charged hole classically, if you don't have monopoles to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is where Hawking radiation comes in. Hawking radiation not only explained that black holes radiate, it also showed that black holes can _snap_, although this is something that people don't talk about in the literature all that often. Sidney Coleman used to explain this, in talking about baby-universe models--- his intuition was that if you have a handle, it can snap, even though the topology change is forbidden, because it's the last stage of decay of a Hawking wormhole. The context was not great, the wormholes are probably figments of the imagination, but the snapping is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can understand the snapping as follows: apply a strong electric field, and the black hole polarizes on the surface to positive charged and negative charged regions, and elongates somewhat. As the field gets stronger, the black hole is now unstable to snapping into opposite charged holes. This is classically forbidden, but it must be possible by tunnelling, since you can imagine a configuration where the big black hole emitted a medium size or small charged black hole through thermal fluctuations. If you make the size bigger, it smoothly turns into snapping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So you have this snapping phenomenon which you can exploit with magnetic fields too. So if you have a black hole in a magnetic field, it will stretch and eventually it can snap into two oppositely magnetically charged black holes, with the singularity hidden behind the horizon, and the Dirac string produced behind a horizon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The only way to evade monopoles is then to have nonlocal implausible gravitational physics that forbids certain configurations because of their global nature, not due to local field equations. This is just ridiculous based on physical intuition, but it is logically possible in the same way that lots of things are logically possible, like energy conservation being violated. It's not reasonable. But it means that you should look for experimental confirmation, not just trust theoretical reasoning. But the theoretical reasoning is kind of as airtight as it gets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The identification of black holes with string excitations in modern string theory allows you to identify the electric magnetic duality as a generic feature of all string vacua, for the reason that the magnetic objects always occur in string theory. The fact that they occur is determined by mathematical consistency, you see you need NS branes and D-branes that come in magnetically dual pairs (the higher dimensional analogs of magnetic duality in 4d). But the physical argument is essentially the same as the one above, because of the identity of brane physics and black hole physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if the argument establishes the existence of monopoles, it should actually give an upper bound on their mass. The reason is that if you can make monopoles arbitrarily heavy, then the snapping is forbidden by energy conservation. But the fact that strings need to match up with classical GR means that they can't have monopoles arbitrarily heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The precise bound is through the inequality between mass and charge which appears in a well-known paper coauthored by Lubos Motl published in 2006. This inequality tells you that the lightest monopole must be less massive than the imaginary extremal black hole with a unit of magnetic charge. This principle is _also_ hokey and physical, not mathematically established with rigorous precision, but it completes the argument for monopoles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer I gave to the OP: &quot;black holes can be magnetically charged, and they can snap to opposite charged monopoles in a strong magnetic field&quot; is a _summary_ and _explanation_ of the string literature for the past 20 years. It's said in a way that is completely accessible to any lay person, and this pisses everybody off. But I think it is necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I suspect that Sklivvz sudden interest in monopoles is motivated mostly by personal animosity, due to past arguments on skeptics, I took the time to explain why my answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* is different from all the other answers.&#xD;&#xA;* is more theoretically correct than all the other answers.&#xD;&#xA;* isn't found in the literature (but it's still widely known as folklore).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly the type of thing that it is important to get out on public websites. This is why I gave the answer I did. But because it is weird sounding, and it doesn't mention the usual stuff, and it is more certain about monopoles than most people are willing to publicly be, it is politically weak. Weak or not, it's still right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind downvotes, but at least understand it before downvoting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6851" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="28dd1727-0e8e-4e7e-8790-a7a4ea28f3d6" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:27:56.967" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [8fc12448-2244-49af-b4db-5ceeb8056c7f]" Text="Magnetic monopoles are among the many beyond the standard model predictions of certain theories, which are at present not directly experimentally established but they are not experimentally ruled out either. In principle, they can exist even if it is (at present) not (by our technical means today) possible to detect them directly. Not the important difference between direct and indirect detection of beyond the standard model physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a natural thing that experimental physicists are often more sceptic about beyond the standard model physics, such as magnetic monopoles, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other things then theoretical physicists. This explains the wide spectrum of different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a wide spectrum of answers about not yet settled down issues. Finally, nature will tell us what is right and what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, absolutely nothing should be done about the different answers concerning magnetic monopoles and other beyond the standard model physics. Of course, trolling about such topics and attacking people who work experimentally and theoretically beyond the standard model physics should not be allowed on a serious physics question and answer site as Physics SE is supposed to be. However questioning such ideas for physical reasons is a good and healthy thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am strongly against any special treatment of questions and answers about magnetic monopoles, other BSM physics, certain cosmological topics, etc here on physics SE. We should trust the judgement of the community and let thing happen by votes exactly as it has always been done up to now. Just let things be as it is and as it has always been, these actively researched topics belong to the well accepted mainstream theoretical physics so they should not be singled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary: Absolutely nothing has to be or should be done, it is absolutely natural and legitimate for questions about open issues to have such a spectrum of answers as Lubos, Dmckee, and Qmechanic have explained.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6852" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="3375b14c-7e8e-4e0c-803c-eb25d59de428" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:35:21.500" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6853" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="8c67352c-68f1-4c95-a560-fc47eac93ea7" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:35:21.500" UserId="124" Comment="7" />
  <row Id="6854" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="f21eb428-d681-42be-a9e5-bfdc73997ee2" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:35:30.237" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6855" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="c4a54461-5892-46fd-946c-67330a8757eb" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:35:30.237" UserId="124" Comment="8" />
  <row Id="6856" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="44b57b18-35f6-439c-9006-64810a4b9e23" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:05.260" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6857" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="72c7852e-9457-4425-aef1-729314eb38ca" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:05.260" UserId="124" Comment="9" />
  <row Id="6858" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="8bbd830b-9c60-4ed9-81aa-cc833202f1b9" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:12.297" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6859" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="3f362f73-98c8-49eb-b78b-f0a1ef26e228" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:12.297" UserId="124" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="6862" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="4e7628b1-8b10-4f03-b8d6-8d6f235ac227" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:20.143" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6863" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="c2fb1f68-9476-471f-837f-1b1c39be46f1" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:20.143" UserId="124" Comment="12" />
  <row Id="6864" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="12c53e52-c438-45df-87df-2aecbe3eb694" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:27.897" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6865" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="c63d5861-8b6e-4185-abc6-592d3c8aa504" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:27.897" UserId="124" Comment="13" />
  <row Id="6866" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="a0819d62-cee1-4e68-a336-f3cc6c0865dc" CreationDate="2013-01-14T05:36:29.927" UserId="7433" Comment="14" />
  <row Id="7850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3990" RevisionGUID="c3060238-05b4-42db-a444-c933fc96d473" CreationDate="2013-01-14T11:55:53.847" UserId="2751" Comment="Included an addition inspired by comments I agree with" Text="There  is absolutely nothing wrong with these questions and answers. They are commpletely valid and legitimate and absolutely nothing has to be done. They all are still relevant and interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones listed in this meta question are still relevant at present and even if their should be others which are no longer completely up to date, they may still be worth reading and having them around is a godd thing. They do not hurt and no actions have to be taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it is highly unlikely that questions and answers, which have initially been considered as legitimate, acceptable, or even good, have now suddenly turned closeworthy or have suddenly become so distracting and disturbing that even deleting them would be justified. Provided that the laws (or policies) on Physics SE have not suddenly changed drastically in the course of time ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="80f60f31-e18f-4074-bf2d-93900eebf295" CreationDate="2013-01-14T12:38:02.993" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="6678c080-b8c3-4488-b3dc-25aaa7ca04b4" CreationDate="2013-01-14T15:44:21.617" UserId="98" Comment="OVER 800 000!" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 800 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fQztJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="c75569cd-8e9f-4979-a4a5-b10842ae80ac" CreationDate="2013-01-14T16:47:01.260" UserId="7433" Comment="edited body" Text="We have a lot of posts on the LHC - however, the experiments are still on-going and it's possible that some answers that were right at the time are now outdated. It's also possible that some *questions* are now too localised (because they are very specific to a situation and a *past* time) and need to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;Finally some questions are explicitly &quot;What if...&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What to do?&#xD;&#xA;* Vote according to the quality of the posts&#xD;&#xA;* Edit the answers if needed and possible to include updated information&#xD;&#xA;* Provide new answers if they need one&#xD;&#xA;* VTC questions which are completely obsolete (if you find any)&#xD;&#xA;* Flag completely obsolete answers for moderation attention or vote to delete&#xD;&#xA;* I've noticed some comments are obsolete too (delete them if yours or flag for a mod to delete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Example posts to review&#xD;&#xA;I'm including a few examples below, but the full list is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=lhc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6379/lhc-big-bang-temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13462/could-the-lhc-blind-a-satellite&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45203/higgs-boson-in-lhc&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6482/what-if-lhc-finds-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46236/impact-of-lhc-on-other-science-and-technologies-in-particular-on-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1014/how-relevant-is-lhc-to-quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="4d125ebc-efb2-4c7a-96a3-0fb8db6dac60" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:17:11.197" UserId="1492" Text="Moderators please realize that if there is one aspect that will make this physics.se site useful for the future is its historical snapshots. It will be a **grave mistake** to start deleting or modifying even answers which at the time the community accepted as valid by up voting them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take as an example the bruhaha with the neutrino faster than light business. A sociologist could write a masters thesis on these data and the reaction of the wider physics community :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The experiment was corrected, but it will be wrong to go back in time and delete the history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format here is open, new questions can be asked and the matter set straight easily without deleting history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not forget that people who ignore history are bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. History should be left as registered as long as at the time it was correct physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paritcularly the LHC is a running experiment on a global scale and should not be retouched for cosmetic purposes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="4b67231e-69e4-4c7b-b608-4ae48233f792" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:22:41.083" UserId="1492" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Moderators please realize that if there is one aspect that will make this physics.se site useful for the future is its historical snapshots. It will be a **grave mistake** to start deleting or modifying even answers which at the time the community accepted as valid by up voting them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take as an example the bruhaha with the neutrino faster than light business. A sociologist could write a masters thesis on these data and the reaction of the wider physics community :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The experiment was corrected, but it will be wrong to go back in time and delete the history. In any case, anybody who feels strongly about changed results from old answers can also provide a new answer. There is no &quot;date by&quot; on ability to answer as far as a I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format here is open, new questions can be asked and the matter set straight easily without deleting history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not forget that people who ignore history are bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. History should be left as registered as long as at the time it was correct physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paritcularly the LHC is a running experiment on a global scale and should not be retouched for cosmetic purposes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="a97be56a-4bc5-406d-866a-bffbe6f5951c" CreationDate="2013-01-15T08:57:16.313" UserId="66" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="We have a lot of posts on the LHC - however, the experiments are still on-going and it's possible that some answers that were right at the time are now outdated. It's also possible that some *questions* are now too localised (because they are very specific to a situation and a *past* time) and need to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;Finally some questions are explicitly &quot;What if...&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What to do?&#xD;&#xA;* Vote according to the quality of the posts&#xD;&#xA;* Edit the answers if needed and possible, according to normal policy, to include updated information&#xD;&#xA;* Provide new answers if they need one&#xD;&#xA;* VTC questions which are completely obsolete (if you find any)&#xD;&#xA;* Flag completely obsolete answers for moderation attention or vote to delete&#xD;&#xA;* I've noticed some comments are obsolete too (delete them if yours or flag for a mod to delete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Example posts to review&#xD;&#xA;I'm including a few examples below, but the full list is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=lhc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6379/lhc-big-bang-temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13462/could-the-lhc-blind-a-satellite&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45203/higgs-boson-in-lhc&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6482/what-if-lhc-finds-susy&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46236/impact-of-lhc-on-other-science-and-technologies-in-particular-on-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;* http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1014/how-relevant-is-lhc-to-quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3993" RevisionGUID="485233dd-3e33-41f7-85c0-56ade384d230" CreationDate="2013-01-15T09:58:27.543" UserId="11062" Text="While retagging, I get confused a lot as: &quot;which is which&quot;. This is bugging me for a while...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, the tag wiki definition of astronomy -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Astronomy** is a natural science that deals with the study of celestial objects (such as stars, planets, comets, nebulae, star clusters and galaxies) and phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth (such as cosmic background radiation). It is concerned with the evolution, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and motion of celestial objects, as well as the formation and development of the universe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, for astrophysics -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Astrophysics:** Physics related to astronomical objects: stars, galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, clusters and super-clusters of galaxies, white dwarf stars, neutron stars and pulsars, black holes, the inter-stellar medium, non-terrestrial planets, ring systems, MACHOs, the inter-galactic medium, the great voids, quasars, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like both the tags are having the same definition except that Astronomy is having additional objects like &quot;planets&quot; and Astrophysics is not... From the current definition of both tags, I see that [tag:astronomy] is dealing with a lot of things than [tag:astrophysics]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at cosmology now...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The study of the large-scale structure, history, and future of the universe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, we could give this kind of definition from the last sentence of astronomy wiki def. Because, it covers the history and future with a single word `evolution`. So,  &#xD;&#xA;[tag:astrophysics] + [tag:cosmology] = [tag:astronomy]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;But, I don't like these tags to be inter-linked with each other. Each should have an unique definition. So, I've got three choices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We can use astronomy for observational purposes by merging [tag:astronomy] under [tag:observational-astronomy] and **not** the other way round. Now, Astrophysics and cosmology could be set free. I mean, all would've got different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;- If we wanna keep [tag:observational-astronomy], then - we should necessarily merge the other two (astrophysics &amp; cosmology) **under** astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;- This is the best choice I like. We redefine all the tags, or atleast astrophysics and astronomy and *finally* arrive at a definition for the [tag:observational-astronomy]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3993" RevisionGUID="485233dd-3e33-41f7-85c0-56ade384d230" CreationDate="2013-01-15T09:58:27.543" UserId="11062" Text="More or less - same definition for both tags..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3993" RevisionGUID="485233dd-3e33-41f7-85c0-56ade384d230" CreationDate="2013-01-15T09:58:27.543" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="9462155c-5588-4856-b806-0ea501691432" CreationDate="2013-01-15T10:37:18.790" UserId="11062" Comment="7 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3994" RevisionGUID="c4c2cd5e-e0a5-43b5-b270-24577d8f3a3d" CreationDate="2013-01-15T12:14:27.870" UserId="7433" Text="It is perfectly fine to have tags which are subtags of another tag. The purpose of tags is to allow easy categorization, searching, and filtering of questions. For example, if a user is interested in [tag:astronomy], they should only have to favorite [tag:astronomy]. If, on the other hand, they are interested in [tag:observational-astronomy] and nothing else, then they can favorite that tag. If [tag:astronomy] was merged into [tag:observational-astronomy], then someone wanting to favorite/search for [tag:astronomy] questions will have to find all the &quot;subtags&quot; ([tag:observational-astronomy], [tag:cosmology], [tag:astrophysics], etc). That makes it much harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to me, the current system is OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="3c01212b-d75f-4a45-9927-3318972e9a7c" CreationDate="2013-01-15T13:26:01.967" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="b2df3d3d-0fe8-48d4-af9d-11e3f02ad6ae" CreationDate="2013-01-15T14:29:53.913" UserId="10635" Text="Ideally the posters should be applying the homework tags themselves, but if I see a question that looks like a homework question what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="b2df3d3d-0fe8-48d4-af9d-11e3f02ad6ae" CreationDate="2013-01-15T14:29:53.913" UserId="10635" Text="What should I do if I see a homework question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="b2df3d3d-0fe8-48d4-af9d-11e3f02ad6ae" CreationDate="2013-01-15T14:29:53.913" UserId="10635" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3996" RevisionGUID="2bc95545-f569-43a7-bab9-74174a636706" CreationDate="2013-01-15T14:39:03.523" UserId="7433" Text="The [tag:homework] tag isn't that important, really (add it if you have &gt;500 rep, though). The important thing is that if the post looks homeworky to you, then check if it obeys [the homework policy][1] (it should show some effort on the OP's side, highlight the concept, and mention the OP;s level of understanding). If it doesn't, flag as &quot;too localized&quot;, and leave a comment telling the OP how to make it fit the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the comment I generally leave (with an optional &quot;Welcome to Physics.SE!&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's a more moderator-y message, so I suggest you try something akin to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Could you please edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3996" RevisionGUID="d932a7f3-f8b9-490a-8993-1473900093fa" CreationDate="2013-01-15T17:06:27.863" UserId="7433" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="You may edit in the [tag:homework] tag (suggested edit if you don't have the rep) if you see a post like this. The important thing is that if the post looks homeworky to you, then check if it obeys [the homework policy][1] (it should show some effort on the OP's side, highlight the concept, and mention the OP;s level of understanding). If it doesn't, flag as &quot;too localized&quot;, and leave a comment telling the OP how to make it fit the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the comment I generally leave (with an optional &quot;Welcome to Physics.SE!&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's a more moderator-y message, so I suggest you try something akin to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Could you please edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3997" RevisionGUID="096636d2-19d1-4a95-b1e7-eba13abda51f" CreationDate="2013-01-16T00:44:50.510" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Historically, the astro community has not necessarily been clear on astronomy vs. astrophysics vs. cosmology, but from my perspective in the field, the trend that is emerging is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Astrophysics** is the application of physical *theory* to celestial systems. For example, this includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stellar evolution - what are the stages?&#xD;&#xA; - Neutron stars - what is the equation of state of such matter?&#xD;&#xA; - Nucleosynthesis - what processes make new elements?&#xD;&#xA; - Galactic dynamics - what forces act in spiral vs. elliptical galaxies?&#xD;&#xA; - Orbital mechanics - how does the Kozai mechanism cause planet migration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Astronomy** is more on the *observational* side of things - saying *what* is out there rather than speculating about *how* or *why*. This includes questions about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stellar evolution - what is this &quot;main sequence&quot; thing?&#xD;&#xA; - Neutron stars - what detections of their radii do we have?&#xD;&#xA; - Nucleosynthesis - what cosmic abundances do we see?&#xD;&#xA; - Galactic dynamics - which is more common, spirals or ellipticals?&#xD;&#xA; - Orbital mechanics - why can't I see Saturn until the Spring?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cosmology** is the study of the &quot;big questions&quot; - how did the universe get to be like this, where will it end up, etc. There are different approaches to cosmology, though if you ask a cosmologist &quot;what is cosmology&quot; you are likely to only get one of the following as a response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics/QFT/strings applied to the early universe at energy scales we can never test experimentally (as a high-energy physicist would say)&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity and the expansion (or contraction) of spacetime on the largest of scales (as a GR person would say)&#xD;&#xA; - Imprinting and growth of structure - CMB, halo occupation number, even galaxy formation at high redshifts (this from an astrophysicist)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end there can certainly be overlap, but some questions only fall into one category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions about how to use a telescope are not [tag:astrophysics] or [tag:cosmology].&#xD;&#xA; - Questions about the neutrino-producing processes in core-collapse supernovae are better in [tag:astrophysics] than [tag:astronomy] and certainly don't belong in [tag:cosmology].&#xD;&#xA; - Dark matter and energy often apply to [tag:cosmology] (though questions about &quot;can we ever see dark matter?&quot; go to [tag:astronomy], and questions about &quot;can dark matter scattering cool stellar cores?&quot; go to [tag:astrophysics]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there's the perennially frustrating tag [tag:observational-astronomy]. Honestly, if you have the astronomy/astrophysics distinction in place as I've described, then pretty much all of astronomy is observational by definition. Certainly the astronomy/astrophysics distinction is more important to make (analogous to experiment/theory in most fields of physics) than astronomy/observational-astronomy. Therefore I propose either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make [tag:observational-astronomy] a synonym for [tag:astronomy] (in the sense that the former gets silently replaced to be the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Keep them, but only bother with the [tag:observational-astronomy] tag if the question is *really, honestly, actually* about getting your hands dirty with equipment and *taking* observations (either professionally or as an amateur I don't know) as opposed to just using the *data* from observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I very much agree that the tag descriptions can use some tweaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7871" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="404377f0-9dea-4bfe-a170-433947dd347e" CreationDate="2013-01-16T01:03:27.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/291349915676839937" />
  <row Id="7872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="9dda0984-bea3-4977-8cc4-22436a480f55" CreationDate="2013-01-16T10:23:26.660" UserId="11062" Comment="6 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="8248c1e6-5dc5-427a-96e3-8574ca594125" CreationDate="2013-01-16T12:09:48.550" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3998" RevisionGUID="baf26aae-571c-4bf3-bb2c-32fcb3ebf14c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T05:52:07.787" UserId="11062" Text="Today, I accidentally went through the questions under [tag:telescopes] tag and all questions confused me *totally*. Looks like, there are many questions that seem to me like *off-topic*. I've listed several questions (There are more). They're confusing me a lot... (on-topic or off-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Could someone suggest me how they are ON (or OFF) and why..?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052  &#xD;&#xA;2) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037  &#xD;&#xA;3) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123 (I'm wondering how this is on-topic even after my VTC)  &#xD;&#xA;4) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892 (This is *too ridiculous*)  &#xD;&#xA;5) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502  &#xD;&#xA;6) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All are not *necessarily* off-topic or not constructive. Maybe someone could explain about the on-topic..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3998" RevisionGUID="baf26aae-571c-4bf3-bb2c-32fcb3ebf14c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T05:52:07.787" UserId="11062" Text="What if we clean several shopping questions..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3998" RevisionGUID="baf26aae-571c-4bf3-bb2c-32fcb3ebf14c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T05:52:07.787" UserId="11062" Text="|support|scope|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="44caa3b2-627b-4b04-bc08-78bf0ce21b80" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:28:33.317" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finished !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3999" RevisionGUID="2a5f1435-786f-4563-a8bb-24e1b312170d" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:54:15.363" UserId="1255" Text="I notice a some questions that might be better for Photography.  These might be a justified merge, or is it?  Do we feel this fits with the Astronomy part of Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/telescopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one I know would just be closed if it did get migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my understanding correct that if you think it would be closed in another site, then it should just be closed as it stands?  I still find the review options confusing, since it seems that to &quot;flag&quot; something is to bring it up on meta, and the close options only give &quot;off topic&quot; as an option if it's too old to migrate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3999" RevisionGUID="2a5f1435-786f-4563-a8bb-24e1b312170d" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:54:15.363" UserId="1255" Text="Flag question to migrate to Photography?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3999" RevisionGUID="2a5f1435-786f-4563-a8bb-24e1b312170d" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:54:15.363" UserId="1255" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4001" RevisionGUID="3a02c9c9-6476-4d62-ba06-84555645ca0f" CreationDate="2013-01-17T19:34:00.807" UserId="124" Text="These questions were presumably on topic on Astronomy, and since we absorbed their scope, I think there is a solid argument to be made that they are on topic here. But the community can decide that they are off topic if desired - if enough people vote to close these questions, that effectively makes them off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't actually have vote-to-migrate enabled on this site (except for migrating to meta I think), so if you think something is off topic, just close it. You can leave a comment saying that you think the question might be appropriate on e.g. Photography, and if it's closed by a moderator, we'll check the comments and decide to migrate if it's appropriate. We don't really have to decide on our end whether the question is actually on topic for the target site, since once it's migrated, they get to review it and if it's off topic for them, they just close it there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, to &quot;flag&quot; something means to actually cast a flag on it, not to bring it up on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="5e03d6f2-54c5-4987-a4f2-f48815824eb1" CreationDate="2013-01-18T06:15:57.553" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 873 characters in body" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed reviewing..! The original version can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1249)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4002" RevisionGUID="4162b6a4-0e92-43bf-ab3e-0b1d20a73b7e" CreationDate="2013-01-18T11:41:33.383" UserId="7433" Text="I don't think that photography.se will take them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As documented [here][1], when Astro.SE was getting closed they did a migration of astrophotography questions over to Photo.SE, and any posts that photo.se would accept were migrated off. Astro.SE didn't have that many posts, so I believe the posts were individually reviewed and migrated. These weren't migrated, so I don't think we can do it now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, (1) and (2) are Not Constructive anyway, so they shouldn't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from _that_, we _can't_ migrate posts older than 60d.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though if any new questions come up on astrophotography, I personally have no issue with allowing them as long as they don't have other issues (NC/NARQ/etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you &quot;flag&quot; something, you click the &quot;flag&quot; button and choose an option (the flag gets forwarded to mods). Bringing stuff up on meta is fine, but if your flag can achieve it, then that's easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/130342/178438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="483da8d3-4c9d-4178-a9cc-944b917c606b" CreationDate="2013-01-18T12:02:25.610" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27492/rigorous-proof-of-bohr-sommerfeld-quantization&quot;&gt;Rigorous proof of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27783/how-does-one-geometrically-quantize-the-bloch-equations&quot;&gt;How does one geometrically quantize the Bloch equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27584/convexity-reference-request&quot;&gt;Convexity -- reference request&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27217/is-this-a-simple-lie-algebra&quot;&gt;Is this a simple Lie algebra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27441/pauli-villars-regularisation-breaks-supersymmetry-how-to-see-that&quot;&gt;Pauli-Villars regularisation breaks supersymmetry. How to see that?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27388/tree-level-qft-and-classical-fields-particles&quot;&gt;Tree level QFT and classical fields/particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering classical-limit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27149/charged-black-holes-in-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Charged black holes in equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity black-hole einstein-maxwell&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27470/superconformal-multiplet-calculus-in-6d&quot;&gt;Superconformal Multiplet Calculus in 6D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27508/optimality-of-the-chsh-strategy&quot;&gt;Optimality of the CHSH strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement history-overview&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27618/conformal-qfts-for-d-2&quot;&gt;Conformal QFTs for D &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="45eb3367-baed-4ea9-9552-243db92d38b0" CreationDate="2013-01-19T12:36:18.960" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27388/tree-level-qft-and-classical-fields-particles&quot;&gt;Tree level QFT and classical fields/particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering classical-limit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27149/charged-black-holes-in-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Charged black holes in equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity black-hole einstein-maxwell&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27470/superconformal-multiplet-calculus-in-6d&quot;&gt;Superconformal Multiplet Calculus in 6D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27508/optimality-of-the-chsh-strategy&quot;&gt;Optimality of the CHSH strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement history-overview&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27618/conformal-qfts-for-d-2&quot;&gt;Conformal QFTs for D &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="7c198616-7976-457c-9830-dc62518a9569" CreationDate="2013-01-19T19:46:21.340" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="fixed broken link" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed reviewing..! The original version can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1249#1249)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="95cc51d0-ed31-4627-bde0-467269edd5d5" CreationDate="2013-01-19T20:02:44.710" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 4 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;(Flagged as OT)&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="c46f6453-7ab6-4188-9007-ec0bc1f3a080" CreationDate="2013-01-20T10:51:18.303" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7891" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="83c2cc67-b33e-44a2-9685-ccc1a07a456b" CreationDate="2013-01-20T20:33:15.547" UserId="-1" Comment="6" />
  <row Id="7892" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="906e0869-a17f-4bc4-866d-546ff99733ef" CreationDate="2013-01-20T20:33:15.547" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7893" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="4d88b52c-fd5a-4510-ae01-42a50e2b6ac0" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Comment="7" />
  <row Id="7894" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="bd36b366-4e7d-4832-93a0-73d0bd747cd1" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7895" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="dcaf1544-6bdc-4478-909c-9d7fd3f2bb18" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Comment="8" />
  <row Id="7896" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="d6c50fab-0273-4c20-9706-4c48c35db7ec" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7897" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="62b16e84-25f2-4a84-9987-8469d4d50287" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Comment="9" />
  <row Id="7898" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="80e4d5b2-fe70-4a4a-a573-17b9537aafc2" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7899" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="72413627-2a2e-409a-bf09-a36f5223c727" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="7900" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="29b83eb7-4eec-479d-b3d1-641c0e727b1e" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7901" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="1da92399-2672-42a2-b47b-48ef2eb533ad" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Comment="12" />
  <row Id="7902" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="6b348d74-3afa-46fb-9040-31359c655057" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7903" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="06face10-2210-4e70-85c1-3c2889bfcd57" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Comment="13" />
  <row Id="7904" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="23a13f73-9e82-4786-a74e-c6d133e850f4" CreationDate="2013-01-21T06:00:17.260" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="c8d699a9-e6a4-4ee2-ac1e-e7443c1230ad" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:23:56.310" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="149b87fa-56a5-4660-a328-75bc2a5282c6" CreationDate="2013-01-22T12:00:25.523" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="bd7bf2d9-3a99-48b2-811b-520d9e879c91" CreationDate="2013-01-22T12:06:22.797" UserId="2451" Comment="retagged;" Text="Ideally the posters should be applying the [homework tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) themselves, but if I see a question that looks like a homework question what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7910" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="bd7bf2d9-3a99-48b2-811b-520d9e879c91" CreationDate="2013-01-22T12:06:22.797" UserId="2451" Comment="retagged;" Text="What should I do if I see a homework-like question with no homework tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7911" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="bd7bf2d9-3a99-48b2-811b-520d9e879c91" CreationDate="2013-01-22T12:06:22.797" UserId="2451" Comment="retagged;" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="d30f19e6-0194-4041-9723-bbada0d6514c" CreationDate="2013-01-23T04:46:17.557" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 11 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="adb3299f-87bd-492d-9825-a9ccc2705e2c" CreationDate="2013-01-23T11:34:38.723" UserId="90" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="a425868f-1abc-4bff-b6ec-eb89a2f74323" CreationDate="2013-01-23T11:59:45.587" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4003" RevisionGUID="c36b6fd2-4f5f-46ac-8e6a-56205dd36f4a" CreationDate="2013-01-23T12:48:31.000" UserId="14182" Text="Yes, I click on &quot;edit&quot; and then copy the code. But it is full of problems... All I want to do is having an answer copied to a latex document, that I can then export to .pdf, copy, keep in my personal collection of documents... Isn't there any simple thing I can add to the header of the document, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\usepackage{document.from.stackexchange}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\documentclass[brilliant.and.funny.answer.from.stackexchange]{whatever}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so that the document compiles with all the stuff, formulas, links, etc ? This is frustrating...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4003" RevisionGUID="c36b6fd2-4f5f-46ac-8e6a-56205dd36f4a" CreationDate="2013-01-23T12:48:31.000" UserId="14182" Text="Horrible time when trying to copy-paste an answer to a LaTeX document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4003" RevisionGUID="c36b6fd2-4f5f-46ac-8e6a-56205dd36f4a" CreationDate="2013-01-23T12:48:31.000" UserId="14182" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4004" RevisionGUID="7edfea56-a614-4eb7-be7a-4015e8206117" CreationDate="2013-01-23T12:53:11.567" UserId="7433" Text="I personally use [this userscript](http://stackapps.com/q/3307/10098) when I want to make a PDF. I first click the &quot;print&quot; button, then I print to pdf (In chrome, do &lt;kbd&gt;Ctrl&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;P&lt;/kbd&gt; and the &quot;PDF&quot; or &quot;print to file&quot; option should be there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, you can Google &quot;MarkDown to LaTeX converter&quot; and use one of those. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4005" RevisionGUID="d61669e9-3594-4f9f-90c1-1a2a46936849" CreationDate="2013-01-24T06:46:05.653" UserId="562" Text="I use [ScrapBook][1] addon to achieve these webpages. You can have (almost) exact local copy of them without the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you need to copy of the equation, you can click the edit and copy the latex equation, provided that the questions/answers have not deleted on the server. Even they are deleted, you still have the full information for you to type the equation yourself. I guess you wont need to copy their text as your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrapbook/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="829c52ac-de51-42d9-82fc-3aa018c94f26" CreationDate="2013-01-24T10:37:15.257" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 19 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="5e4e0c41-7062-4a7d-9a4e-9a86eebe5e9d" CreationDate="2013-01-24T14:10:06.803" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4006" RevisionGUID="d939ad13-f2ae-4572-9687-2255c1e4ebe2" CreationDate="2013-01-24T19:09:45.217" UserId="20209" Text="[![writeLaTeX.com - great for explaining physics, and works on your iPad too!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ip3i5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.writelatex.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7923" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4006" RevisionGUID="fe49cebe-2180-4c3a-b9a0-c634cd8e4a7f" CreationDate="2013-01-24T19:09:45.217" UserId="20209" />
  <row Id="7924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="68acb0a5-7eb6-45b2-963e-5a43c59f93ad" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:02:13.920" UserId="9058" Text="Best with an example: there is a tag in the Physics Stack called &quot;wavefunction&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any one who actually works on &quot;wavefunctions&quot;? Questions related to wavefunctions are questions about the Schrodinger equation or quantum mechanics (both of which have their own tags already). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more examples like this one in the tags repertoire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="68acb0a5-7eb6-45b2-963e-5a43c59f93ad" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:02:13.920" UserId="9058" Text="are there too many and/or specific tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="68acb0a5-7eb6-45b2-963e-5a43c59f93ad" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:02:13.920" UserId="9058" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="09e2d717-fffe-40ac-b849-0740bbc802f0" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:12:22.093" UserId="2451" Text="There is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose synonyms. In the concrete case, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many upvotes a moderator will create the new synonym." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="0dddbe65-91da-4993-b321-21a23cb51e5b" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:17:23.977" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="There is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In the concrete case, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many upvotes a moderator will create the new synonym." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="890deb6d-63ab-4e0d-a887-9d0907626e11" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:26:01.243" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="1) It is possible to directly propose tag synonyms if one have enough reputation in the corresponding  master tag. In the concrete case, e.g. that would be [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In the concrete case, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many upvotes a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="d43781d4-cd12-422a-8ff2-ea82ec1512a7" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:31:01.990" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="1) It is possible to directly propose tag synonyms if one has enough reputation in the corresponding  master tag. In the concrete case, e.g. that would be [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In the concrete case, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many upvotes a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="4b8dcbe3-d4de-41f2-a176-4fb5aa546b75" CreationDate="2013-01-25T01:37:00.437" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="1) If one has enough reputation points, it is possible to directly propose tag synonyms. (In particular, reputation points in the corresponding master tag are needed.) In OP's concrete example, one should go e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, if one doesn't have enough reputation points, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In OP's concrete example, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many upvotes a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="81090b5e-de2c-4130-8e46-62abc95c2b03" CreationDate="2013-01-25T05:17:31.197" UserId="124" Text="&gt; are there too many and/or specific tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, no, I don't think so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take this specific example, it doesn't matter whether anyone works on wavefunctions. That's not the criterion for what makes a proper tag. It's entirely plausible that someone might want to look through the questions we have about wavefunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4010" RevisionGUID="021225ef-2f5e-4b8c-b4ef-548f0ff86baf" CreationDate="2013-01-25T08:55:38.307" UserId="6073" Text="I just got a nice answer to [one of my questions][1], and it occurs to me that it might be awesome if, when answering a question, someone could build simple animations.  I've never seen anything like this before and it would tend to increase the quality of experience for both askers and answerers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be willing to work on something like that, sort of like a mini Flash Editor but only in JavaScript, **if** it doesn't already exist for free that is (hard to have an original thought in this world), but the question is a) do others think its a good idea b) would something like that have a chance of going live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could work on something like this for fun obviously, but it would be more motivating if I thought the result might get deployed on a site like this....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52135/confusion-about-time-shift-in-special-relativity/52147#52147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4010" RevisionGUID="021225ef-2f5e-4b8c-b4ef-548f0ff86baf" CreationDate="2013-01-25T08:55:38.307" UserId="6073" Text="what about enahanced functionality to allow answers to have richer educational content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4010" RevisionGUID="021225ef-2f5e-4b8c-b4ef-548f0ff86baf" CreationDate="2013-01-25T08:55:38.307" UserId="6073" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4011" RevisionGUID="3cd6bad5-9830-4e88-9f69-d06e0543003c" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:09:22.030" UserId="124" Text="It could be useful, but I have my doubts that it would be deployed here because the SE team has been quite reluctant to add heavy Javascript dependencies. We already have one on the site, namely MathJax, so I don't think they would put in another. But I couldn't say for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, the way to get people talking about doing that would be to actually make it, and once you have a working demonstration, then ask whether it could be added to the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="a7cdbaf8-578a-4025-b603-2a40a1010a69" CreationDate="2013-01-25T12:14:09.857" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7938" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="f65d6c54-cb04-4219-8c8b-2fdd768b8333" CreationDate="2013-01-25T12:58:18.503" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there too many and/or specific tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7939" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="f65d6c54-cb04-4219-8c8b-2fdd768b8333" CreationDate="2013-01-25T12:58:18.503" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="6b679baf-4015-4189-abed-b594315b9fa6" CreationDate="2013-01-25T22:03:40.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/294928549117296640" />
  <row Id="7941" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="e6d6e18b-81de-4acd-b4ff-fa34ff543dd4" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:05:36.837" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52221/a-request-for-the-moderators-please" Text="" />
  <row Id="7942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="99c60426-c9f9-48dd-8f66-196a825cb3a9" CreationDate="2013-01-26T01:20:16.797" UserId="18777" Text="my question on is the [classical world an illusion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/50051/2451) is depressing me. I made a mistake in asking it and the replies are getting me down. Could the moderators please for me, delete the question or close it down. I asked it, I got a number of answers and now I want them to end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you for your appreciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee Hudson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="99c60426-c9f9-48dd-8f66-196a825cb3a9" CreationDate="2013-01-26T01:20:16.797" UserId="18777" Text="a request for the moderators please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="99c60426-c9f9-48dd-8f66-196a825cb3a9" CreationDate="2013-01-26T01:20:16.797" UserId="18777" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="4269be14-4873-4fb4-b318-26479fd46230" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:44:26.693" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 7 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7946" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="2817fe62-98ec-4645-a8ee-1f7967fd535c" CreationDate="2013-01-26T03:00:52.007" UserId="124" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7947" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="4ca158aa-45e2-4ee9-9ff1-333ee3c42eed" CreationDate="2013-01-26T03:00:52.007" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="03e48378-fdd7-47fd-ada1-4cbaed239099" CreationDate="2013-01-26T10:45:59.887" UserId="2751" Text="Many people have tried in one way or onother to ask about the mathematical prerequisits to study or understand string theory, but all their (upvoted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;String theory is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisits and where one can find good introductary material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from people alreay working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair change to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisits to understand string theory, which includes some pointers to good introductions be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="03e48378-fdd7-47fd-ada1-4cbaed239099" CreationDate="2013-01-26T10:45:59.887" UserId="2751" Text="Why is it not allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisits to understand string theory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="03e48378-fdd7-47fd-ada1-4cbaed239099" CreationDate="2013-01-26T10:45:59.887" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="62745342-3443-4c1a-848e-b7403fa8ff7c" CreationDate="2013-01-26T10:51:12.607" UserId="2751" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Many people have tried in one way or onother to ask about the mathematical prerequisits to study or understand string theory, but all their (upvoted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;String theory is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisits and where one can find good introductary material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from people alreay working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair change to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisits to understand string theory, which includes some pointers to good introductions, be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="b903757a-01b1-4960-bf12-05b435d93b34" CreationDate="2013-01-26T13:44:27.553" UserId="2751" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Many people have tried in one way or onother to ask about the mathematical prerequisits to study or understand string theory, but all their (upvoted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;String theory is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisits and where one can find good introductary material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from people alreay working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisits to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="0a09d772-aa8d-4ca1-9f26-e7025a9eb252" CreationDate="2013-01-26T13:49:35.687" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="83f6187c-f36e-46bd-a80c-0cc510a2cfe0" CreationDate="2013-01-26T17:13:24.983" UserId="2751" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Many people have tried in one way or onother to ask about the mathematical prerequisits to study or understand string theory, but all their (upvoted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;String theory (and generally large parts of modern fundamental and theoretical physics) is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisits and where one can find good introductary material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from people alreay working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic itself too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisits to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="58639e2e-0f63-4753-aec5-dd493ce675b5" CreationDate="2013-01-26T17:30:21.293" UserId="2751" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Many people have tried in one way or onother to ask about the mathematical prerequisits to study or understand string theory, but all their (upvoted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;String theory (and generally large parts of modern fundamental and theoretical physics) is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisits and where one can find good introductary material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from physicists alreay working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic itself too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisits to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4015" RevisionGUID="961c5f3b-7a2c-481a-93b3-2e6776d65675" CreationDate="2013-01-26T20:47:39.303" UserId="6634" Text="What about putting the math requirements in the tag wiki? &quot;Study of string theory requires a strong background in X, Y, Z&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same solution that has been presented for what books/journals/papers are good in a field, why not pre-requisites for understanding the subject too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="830437a6-e4f1-4974-9315-c91b3b6ba69e" CreationDate="2013-01-27T10:27:02.363" UserId="66" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Many people have tried in one way or another to ask about the mathematical prerequisites to study or understand string theory, but all their (up voted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;String theory (and generally large parts of modern fundamental and theoretical physics) is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisites and where one can find good introductory material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from physicists already working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic itself too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisites to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7961" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="830437a6-e4f1-4974-9315-c91b3b6ba69e" CreationDate="2013-01-27T10:27:02.363" UserId="66" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is it not allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisites to understand string theory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7962" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="0e1df480-e864-4e92-b178-b5e634870cd7" CreationDate="2013-01-27T10:33:41.937" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7963" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="34b6a9c9-a348-43c2-bc41-4c7228c1320a" CreationDate="2013-01-27T10:34:05.387" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4016" RevisionGUID="c9b63c30-7589-46f7-8fcf-402c343681bf" CreationDate="2013-01-27T10:37:01.563" UserId="7433" Text="Sorry, this site isn't _just_ for you to get answers. The answers should be availible to others to read, and people should be able to contribute their own answers if they feel like something is missing. So we won't delete a good post just because you're finished with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _can_ delete your own question if it has no positively voted answers, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, could you elaborate why you want it to be deleted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="2f879c29-bc87-4703-be8f-c331e991bbc0" CreationDate="2013-01-27T15:44:57.853" UserId="11547" Text="I have noticed a substantial uptick in questions relating to practical implementation of physics in video game development.  Some of these appear to be homework related, some of them border on crowdsourcing.  Just wondering what the thoughts of the community are on these sorts of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="2f879c29-bc87-4703-be8f-c331e991bbc0" CreationDate="2013-01-27T15:44:57.853" UserId="11547" Text="Game development questions, are they homework?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="2f879c29-bc87-4703-be8f-c331e991bbc0" CreationDate="2013-01-27T15:44:57.853" UserId="11547" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="cf02e9ed-ab89-4484-b0a7-e2b5027fa73b" CreationDate="2013-01-27T16:07:23.097" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="aa1290d6-d1cc-4f2c-8cff-34fd4c28d6b9" CreationDate="2013-01-27T16:15:16.363" UserId="2451" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="I have noticed a substantial uptick in questions relating to practical implementation of physics in video game development.  Some of these appear to be homework related, some of them border on [crowdsourcing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing).  Just wondering what the thoughts of the community are on these sorts of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7970" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="aa1290d6-d1cc-4f2c-8cff-34fd4c28d6b9" CreationDate="2013-01-27T16:15:16.363" UserId="2451" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="4808915f-5744-4811-8a03-a75f9aa3fc25" CreationDate="2013-01-27T16:30:33.357" UserId="11547" Comment="edited title" Text="Should we allow game development questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="2eda0801-5482-4142-a65d-762110efb56c" CreationDate="2013-01-27T17:09:05.260" UserId="2451" Comment="added search link;" Text="I have noticed a substantial uptick in questions relating to practical implementation of physics in video game development. [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aquestion+game) is a search link. Some of these appear to be homework related, some of them border on [crowdsourcing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing).  Just wondering what the thoughts of the community are on these sorts of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4018" RevisionGUID="abdb6e8a-c9bd-402d-8163-66fe416c1891" CreationDate="2013-01-27T17:23:07.327" UserId="7433" Text="The ones asking for code are off topic and ought to be migrated to gamedev.se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones which are just in the _context_ of writing a game are generally on topic (flag if unsure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT, the HW policy _does_ apply to crowdsourcing questions like [these][1]. The HW policy is about the type of question, not the context in which it crops up. Thus, if it doesn't follow the HW policy, it ought to be closed (or migrated if possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52235/calculating-impulse-propagation-through-a-rigid-body-after-a-collision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4019" RevisionGUID="b1527423-884d-4e7f-92b7-0d88c9de72f2" CreationDate="2013-01-27T17:29:42.563" UserId="520" Text="I'm going to suggest some possible limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We only answer questions about *physics*. Implementation questions go elsewhere. Likewise questions about software toolkits.&#xD;&#xA;2. We only answer questions about *real* physics, but we include the various approximations that are common in physics teaching: neglecting friction, neglecting air resistance, linearizing nearly everything, simple impulse collisions, etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  It is the asker's responsibility to identify the approximation regime they want to know about, and we don't advise them on how these decision will affect their implementation.&#xD;&#xA;3. We answer only about physics in the general sense and do not solve individual instances of problems--this is in keeping with out homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;4. We police these *rigorously* for duplicates, and identify those on the basis of the &quot;Same answer?&quot; criteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="670bd75d-7820-4b0d-9c3f-a1d25087da78" CreationDate="2013-01-27T17:39:40.717" UserId="2451" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I have noticed a substantial uptick in questions relating to practical implementation of physics in video game development. ([Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aquestion+game) is a search link for such questions.) Some of these appear to be homework related, some of them border on [crowdsourcing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing).  Just wondering what the thoughts of the community are on these sorts of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="4a6958c8-eda5-4243-8469-953687cf130e" CreationDate="2013-01-27T20:48:29.873" UserId="14182" Text="I somehow tapped somewhere by mistake, and a list appeared with all the IP numbers and dates of my recent logins. Where can I find that again? It seems interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="4a6958c8-eda5-4243-8469-953687cf130e" CreationDate="2013-01-27T20:48:29.873" UserId="14182" Text="How can I see the list of IP numbers I have been logging in with in recent times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="4a6958c8-eda5-4243-8469-953687cf130e" CreationDate="2013-01-27T20:48:29.873" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4021" RevisionGUID="fb5f2915-537d-464c-8c75-27f95e607f2d" CreationDate="2013-01-27T23:57:30.540" UserId="124" Text="This site is for conceptual questions about physics, and asking what the mathematical prerequisites for something are is not a conceptual physics question. Asking what some particular piece of notation means is fine, as is asking for an explanation of how a particular result is derived (though these questions are sometimes better placed on Math SE), but just a general request for mathematical prerequisites is too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As tpg2114 said, general information about mathematical prerequisites would be just fine in the tag wikis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="04b2efc0-de38-4dc1-92bd-8f4102bdebc3" CreationDate="2013-01-28T12:27:52.110" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="96d632a7-6372-473c-927c-85fcffe53ad1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T11:57:54.373" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="4db5a941-8269-46fb-9567-2cc0b9e29dbf" CreationDate="2013-01-29T12:13:29.017" UserId="2751" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="Many people have tried in one way or another to ask about the mathematical prerequisites to study or understand string theory, but all their (up voted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;String theory (and generally large parts of modern fundamental and theoretical physics) is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisites and where one can find good introductory material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from physicists already working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic itself too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisites to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this](http://www.joshphysics.com/) newly emerging and very friendly physics blog, information about mathematical and physical prerequisits to study high energy theoretical physics, as well as hints to useful books will be made available in the course of time. Suggestions about topics of interest and questions are highly welcome there too; I guess this will become a great, helpful and nice site :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4022" RevisionGUID="9db4d18c-5ea5-47e2-9630-f7d0bc595b4d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T06:47:37.230" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I stumbled across [this recent meta question](http://meta.scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/323/policy-on-homework?) on the computational science site. What struck me was one of the community associates pretty much declaring that the [tag:homework] tag should be abolished, since it is a &quot;meta&quot; tag that deals with the style of the question itself, not its objective content. He links [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) about getting rid of such tags, but that post was very specifically about [tag:subjective], [tag:best-practices], and [tag:beginner] on the original SO sites, with no mention of [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **do we like having the homework tag to set apart questions** for pedagogical reasons? (Note this is independent of whether we like the quality of such questions; this is framed in the immutable context of such questions being allowed.) Also, **is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged** for their... impurity... or something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4022" RevisionGUID="9db4d18c-5ea5-47e2-9630-f7d0bc595b4d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T06:47:37.230" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Just to be clear, we do support the homework tag, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4022" RevisionGUID="9db4d18c-5ea5-47e2-9630-f7d0bc595b4d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T06:47:37.230" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="1622b101-4f9b-40fe-9a72-995601dd7124" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:14:36.733" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 12 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="a9f5a3db-7fd8-4936-8c91-67c8d14f7ff1" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:33:05.100" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration &amp; Technology][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Big Data][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40518.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40518/big-data&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/43283.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7988" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="e3e18b40-e1da-4bd8-b3f5-f22616789577" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:38:43.140" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [830437a6-e4f1-4974-9315-c91b3b6ba69e]" Text="Many people have tried in one way or another to ask about the mathematical prerequisites to study or understand string theory, but all their (up voted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;String theory (and generally large parts of modern fundamental and theoretical physics) is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisites and where one can find good introductory material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from physicists already working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic itself too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisites to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4023" RevisionGUID="c5ae728e-7817-43b7-9364-41e40609690d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:09:51.890" UserId="1492" Text="From what i know community is a bot, no human observes and decides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this inarticulate edit http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52530/difference-betwddddddddddddddddd  and content &quot;pls help&quot; I sincerely hope that no real call for help has been denied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to add a comment to the effect &quot;go to a hospital emergency if you need help&quot; but am unable to do so now. It may be that the user had ingested some of those substances he listed in the first version of the question and really needed help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4023" RevisionGUID="c5ae728e-7817-43b7-9364-41e40609690d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:09:51.890" UserId="1492" Text="closed by community and deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4023" RevisionGUID="c5ae728e-7817-43b7-9364-41e40609690d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:09:51.890" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4024" RevisionGUID="4a085020-19a2-438f-8b28-cf5b2ec1a0b7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:16:21.793" UserId="7433" Text="That was a spam flag deletion: someone flagged it as spam, and I counterflagged. Spam flags lead to the post being deleted/locked by Community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think he ingested anything -- I've seen this often on other sites -- a user defaces his own post after it is closed :/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4025" RevisionGUID="a7f636cf-e7d7-4f7c-96cc-d4471b34d0fe" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:22:54.063" UserId="7433" Text="**Current** Physics.SE policy is to allow it (http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag). The reason for using it is simple -- it basically is a sign for the answerers, saying &quot;don't post full answers, otherwise your answer will be deleted&quot;, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recently [posted on meta.chem][1], I *personally* am ambivalent to removing the tag (on both sites). On one hand, it is an easy way to teach new users about the HW policy (&quot;see that tag there? If you see that on a question, don't post&quot;) -- remember, what constitutes an HW problem isn't that evident to most, especially since homeworky problems which aren't HW are also considered [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [it is a meta tag][2], explicitly disallowed across all sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We might get rid of it on chem soon, not sure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Also, is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged for their... impurity... or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly. The community is probably still in support of the tag. We might be able to discuss this with the community team later. I plan to do so, just to find out _why_ the HW tag is &quot;bad&quot; -- unlike the other meta tags, it has a _purpose_. Depending on the response I get, we can work forward from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/203/22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4026" RevisionGUID="20d63cae-b89a-4792-a589-789895a711f8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:22:02.670" UserId="9794" Text="Some days ago I asked [this question][1] involving quantum proposition. It have been closed by moderator for assuming new physics. However in fact it is a misunderstanding and I think I have clarified this. So could it be reopened now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52322/can-superluminal-communication-be-made-via-quantum-telepathy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4026" RevisionGUID="20d63cae-b89a-4792-a589-789895a711f8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:22:02.670" UserId="9794" Text="Application for reopen a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4026" RevisionGUID="20d63cae-b89a-4792-a589-789895a711f8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:22:02.670" UserId="9794" Text="|discussion|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="3d031de9-6563-44ba-bbf8-f2d1e4deb575" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:33:31.387" UserId="124" Text="I don't see that you've clarified anything; you never edited the question after its original posting. Without editing, whatever problems there were with the original question still remain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, the way you've framed the question puts it outside the scope of mainstream physics. In particular, when you talk about mental states being entangled, and in general the idea of the mind being represented by a quantum state, that is something that (I think) we don't deal with on this site. I can't make any guarantees, but if you reframe the question in terms of entangled single-particle states only, it would probably look a lot better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="d7793dc7-eb09-4cb1-8e5b-d1886b28db91" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:20:29.027" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="6545e4f0-a961-4ae6-b27e-4c227685a1df" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:25:05.047" UserId="124" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="I don't see that you've clarified anything; you never edited the question after its original posting. Without editing, whatever problems there were with the original question still remain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, the way you've framed the question puts it outside the scope of mainstream physics. In particular, when you talk about mental states being entangled, and in general the idea of the mind being represented by a quantum state, that is something that (I think) we don't deal with on this site. I can't make any guarantees, but if you reframe the question in terms of entangled single-particle states, or in terms of entangled states with known behavior, it would probably look a lot better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4026" RevisionGUID="9624c554-1a90-4a4b-8375-bac37b95f8b3" CreationDate="2013-01-31T08:09:09.930" UserId="9794" Comment="typo" Text="Some days ago I asked [this question][1] involving quantum teleportation. It have been closed by moderator for assuming new physics. However in fact it is a misunderstanding and I think I have clarified this. So could it be reopened now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52322/can-superluminal-communication-be-made-via-quantum-telepathy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="33f2621b-1f90-4000-b62d-dabdf80fd3c1" CreationDate="2013-01-31T12:22:05.863" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="f32a9a2b-f6c3-479d-9d3d-17d302ffa1c8" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:10:43.993" UserId="14182" Text="Yes, McMahon's QFT demystified has lots of erratas... Suddently, an equation is compatible with $c=1$ units, and in the next line another one appears with a factor $\frac{1}{c^2}$. I am not any more sure if a changed sign is an errata or if I have made a mistake when solving the exercise. But is worth the effort of correcting them, I think it is a fantastic introductory text for non-theoretical physicists, with very simple but illustrating solved problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this site a good place to open a wiki-question, so that anybody can post the typos he/she finds? Perhaps can anybody put me in the right track of where and how to open something like a blog for that purpouse? I ask first here in meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="f32a9a2b-f6c3-479d-9d3d-17d302ffa1c8" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:10:43.993" UserId="14182" Text="Any suggestion on how to make a cooperative effort for an errata sheet for this book? [probably closed soon]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="f32a9a2b-f6c3-479d-9d3d-17d302ffa1c8" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:10:43.993" UserId="14182" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="e9014985-9c8e-4812-8f88-0f42a1563578" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:15:51.580" UserId="14182" Comment="edited body" Text="Yes, McMahon's QFT Demystified has lots of erratas... Suddenly, an equation is compatible with $c=1$ units, and in the next line another one appears with a factor $\frac{1}{c^2}$. I am not any more sure if a changed sign is an errata or if I have made a mistake when solving the exercise. But is worth the effort of correcting them, I think it is a fantastic introductory text for non-theoretical physicists, with very simple but illustrating solved problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this site a good place to open a wiki-question, so that anybody can post the typos he/she finds? Perhaps can anybody put me in the right track of where and how to open something like a blog for that purpose? I ask first here in meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please notice how 'not-localized' I have made the question: errata for physics books in general...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4030" RevisionGUID="f7730e97-cb1c-4756-b97b-fc7a8328326b" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:16:12.110" UserId="7433" Text="No, the site wouldn't be. The scope of that &quot;question&quot; is waaay too broad. Instead, create a chat room if you'd like and collaborate with others (You may want to use Google Docs or something for the draft). That would be an interesting project." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8013" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="e9014985-9c8e-4812-8f88-0f42a1563578" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:15:51.580" UserId="14182" Comment="edited body" Text="Any suggestion on how to make a cooperative effort for errata sheets for physics books? [probably closed soon]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8014" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="c26afedf-24d2-4849-b817-3f778fdea2b2" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:42:07.147" UserId="2451" Comment="Please avoid qquare bracket in title as they usually indicate moderator action. " Text="Any suggestion on how to make a cooperative effort for errata sheets for physics books? (probably closed soon)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8015" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="9150317a-a2f6-404d-b7cd-18b1f4473ffa" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:43:05.613" UserId="14182" Comment="edited title" Text="Any suggestion on how to make a cooperative effort for errata sheets for physics books?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="49dee560-7137-4ccb-8fad-8b12fb79b03f" CreationDate="2013-01-31T15:14:49.527" UserId="14182" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="Yes, McMahon's QFT Demystified has lots of erratas... Suddenly, an equation is compatible with $c=1$ units, and in the next line another one appears with a factor $\frac{1}{c^2}$. I am not any more sure if a changed sign is an errata or if I have made a mistake when solving the exercise. But is worth the effort of correcting them, I think it is a fantastic introductory text for non-theoretical physicists, with very simple but illustrating solved problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this site a good place to open a wiki-question, so that anybody can post the typos he/she finds? Perhaps can anybody put me in the right track of where and how to open something like a blog for that purpose? I ask first here in meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please notice how 'not-localized' I have made the question: errata for physics books in general...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I have just created this blog:&#xD;&#xA;https://mcmahondemystifiederrata.wordpress.com&#xD;&#xA;for posting errata, not only in QFT, but also for the other McMahon books (GR, QM and String Theory demystified). I have no idea on how to rule it, if it is visible, etc, it is the first time I create a blog, and I don't want to spend much time on it. I welcome any suggestions and help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8019" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="2ebd7138-a4ab-40d2-b96f-77ba240da80c" CreationDate="2013-01-31T22:08:56.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/297104203833303041" />
  <row Id="8020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="08814a46-8536-4b4e-bab0-d817337d25b5" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:18:11.350" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 7 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="8dd932bb-c260-4cec-a444-1ee426785bd1" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:01:42.397" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4034" RevisionGUID="23f63473-530f-47cf-983d-fcb148f4af7f" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:15:38.733" UserId="124" Text="I'll just go ahead and post my opinion here: I would not mind seeing [tag:homework] eliminated from the site. If the community agrees, we can get rid of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Manishearth said, when we've discussed this in the past, the community has been in favor of keeping the tag, so that is our current policy. In most cases I don't think it's egregiously harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please don't upvote this unless you support eliminating the [tag:homework] tag from the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="5961eb6c-99c9-4585-bbea-ece0f1c0580f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:36:50.697" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4035" RevisionGUID="2cc6755a-33e3-4a85-aca5-887dabf094e1" CreationDate="2013-02-02T11:28:08.527" UserId="2751" Text="Information about mathematical prerequisits to study physics topics and subfields should be gathered in a new big list, in the same way as it has been done for useful [books]((and accept) ) at different levels. The two lists should be adequately curated and updated, as new questions are coming in and get answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Simultanously**, as the (new) information about books and mathematical prerequisits accumulates, it can be smoothly transfered from the two big lists into the corresponding tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solution would avoid the **catch-22 problem** of the current practice, namely demanding that the tag wikis get **DIRECTLY** edited whereas all question on the main page asking about books and mathematical prerequisits get closed immediately, no new information about these issues will ever be available to people who need it on this site, because obviously **nobody** starts to write this information into the tag wikis without being asked to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That information about books and mathematical prerequisits is urgently needed by and very useful to (emerging) physicists can be seen from observing that people come here again and again to ask about it on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4015" RevisionGUID="393fa782-4e76-44ed-a352-96f61ef4d046" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:17:24.323" UserId="6634" Comment="added 1217 characters in body" Text="What about putting the math requirements in the tag wiki? &quot;Study of string theory requires a strong background in X, Y, Z&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same solution that has been presented for what books/journals/papers are good in a field, why not pre-requisites for understanding the subject too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People are asking questions about the math required for string theory. This is off-topic and shouldn't be allowed but it highlights that the tag is missing information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No tags should be missing information. All of them should have this background material covered so there is no need to ask questions about it. So the people who do know information need to go through and edit the tag wikis, **regardless of whether somebody has asked a question about it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of things to include in the tag wiki [has already been discussed][1] and this is merely expanding it slightly to include pre-requisite background information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If somebody who knows a lot about something comes on the site, they should take some time each day to edit a wiki. Just like we ask them to review questions and edits, check the tagging on migrated questions, etc.. So it falls on everybody in the community to take the action needed to populate the tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need to wait for somebody to ask about it. We should preemptively fill in the information **so nobody has to ask the question to begin with.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-to-do-with-tag-wikis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4035" RevisionGUID="a55ef305-d785-4586-afda-7823d8817e5c" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:54:15.347" UserId="2751" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Information about mathematical prerequisits to study physics topics and subfields should be gathered in a new big list, in the same way as it has been done for useful [books](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/2751) at different levels. The two lists should be adequately curated and updated, as new questions are coming in and get answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Simultanously**, as the (new) information about books and mathematical prerequisits accumulates, it can be smoothly transfered from the two big lists into the corresponding tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solution would avoid the **catch-22 problem** of the current practice, namely demanding that the tag wikis get **DIRECTLY** edited whereas all question on the main page asking about books and mathematical prerequisits get closed immediately, no new information about these issues will ever be available to people who need it on this site, because obviously **nobody** starts to write this information into the tag wikis without being asked to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That information about books and mathematical prerequisits is urgently needed by and very useful to (emerging) physicists can be seen from observing that people come here again and again to ask about it on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4036" RevisionGUID="705e2f6e-7269-4f68-83aa-4131089a695d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T00:41:34.387" UserDisplayName="user16682" Text="Why is this site so inactive? In hours, a few questions pop up. Other SE sites are relatively active. Considering how wide physics is and how active other SE sites are, this seems terribly slow to me at least. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel so because I know, pretty high profile people were here. This must be a pretty thriving community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it because there is some pick hour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a comment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the question, is there any way, we can **grow** this community? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4036" RevisionGUID="705e2f6e-7269-4f68-83aa-4131089a695d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T00:41:34.387" UserDisplayName="user16682" Text="Just a comment-Why is this site so inactive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4036" RevisionGUID="705e2f6e-7269-4f68-83aa-4131089a695d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T00:41:34.387" UserDisplayName="user16682" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4037" RevisionGUID="e0002a2f-0950-4745-a375-c00930f5ce8e" CreationDate="2013-02-03T01:48:18.243" UserId="124" Text="Actually, we get on average 36 questions per day, which is typical or a bit above the median for [all sites in the SE network](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). I don't see much support for the assertion that most other SE sites are more active than this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, growing the site is always something to think about, regardless of how well we are already doing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="f64bedeb-22bd-4f71-8aa5-920c7f5e3f99" CreationDate="2013-02-03T02:33:35.110" UserId="11062" Comment="7 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="d1da11d0-a953-44de-927e-adfd0c5ad792" CreationDate="2013-02-03T12:35:47.603" UserId="7433" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="75a025af-cda8-4701-b7df-0a4685e4e424" CreationDate="2013-02-03T12:47:49.340" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged TP questions from the list" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="13caed1a-af0e-45ac-9a07-b82250c6dcef" CreationDate="2013-02-03T14:59:52.117" UserId="20270" Text="I seem to have a split account. My user name has 2 addresses with 2 different profiles. User 20397 and 20270.&#xD;&#xA;Can someone fix this for me please or let me know how I can fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the two links. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/20397/jitter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/20270/jitter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="13caed1a-af0e-45ac-9a07-b82250c6dcef" CreationDate="2013-02-03T14:59:52.117" UserId="20270" Text="Split account question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="13caed1a-af0e-45ac-9a07-b82250c6dcef" CreationDate="2013-02-03T14:59:52.117" UserId="20270" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4039" RevisionGUID="1fd5be38-47ea-4b48-bcbe-a8494a3a70b9" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:29:53.320" UserId="520" Text="Merged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your earlier account was unregistered, which means that Stack Exchange was keeping track of it by way of browser cookies which is fragile. Now that you have registered this should not happened again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For future reference you could have flagged any one of your questions (from either account), used the &quot;other&quot; reason and explained there rather than opening a meta question. Not that this has done any harm, but it is a transient problem and there is no need for a public record." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="0e784992-1c22-4607-b4bd-6caf45232e26" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:36:09.947" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4040" RevisionGUID="a42c1b06-c96e-4ce0-8cfb-da90ee4046c5" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:21:00.617" UserId="955" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I want to make a question about state-of-the-art mirror technology and beam divergence for space and astronomy applications. Since engineering questions seem to be, if not considered off-topic, at least frowned upon by the moderation (beats me why). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i'm wondering what would be the best way to ask that question that would be deemed acceptable. Since the question has relationship with astronomy and space applications, i'm wondering if i can rely on that for making the question on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4040" RevisionGUID="a42c1b06-c96e-4ce0-8cfb-da90ee4046c5" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:21:00.617" UserId="955" Text="state of the art technology questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4040" RevisionGUID="a42c1b06-c96e-4ce0-8cfb-da90ee4046c5" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:21:00.617" UserId="955" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4040" RevisionGUID="d4ebf2df-ca79-498a-8250-ab0c9179ea19" CreationDate="2013-02-04T18:57:49.973" UserId="955" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="I want to make a question about state-of-the-art mirror technology and beam divergence for space and astronomy applications. Since engineering questions seem to be, if not considered off-topic, at least frowned upon by the moderation (beats me why). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i'm wondering what would be the best way to ask that question that would be deemed acceptable. Since the question has relationship with astronomy and space applications, i'm wondering if i can rely on that for making the question on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;link to the question in main: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/53048/955" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4041" RevisionGUID="af6ddf76-fc3e-4e89-b502-3317b3111015" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:05:53.043" UserId="5705" Text="I often see people write stuff like `$cos(\theta)$`, were I'd like to a `\`. The system does not let me make such a tiny edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it so that the peer review queue is not filled with so many edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4041" RevisionGUID="af6ddf76-fc3e-4e89-b502-3317b3111015" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:05:53.043" UserId="5705" Text="Why are one letters edits frowned upon? I often have single letter fixes for LaTeX code" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4041" RevisionGUID="af6ddf76-fc3e-4e89-b502-3317b3111015" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:05:53.043" UserId="5705" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4042" RevisionGUID="59a3ba37-a7d6-46e0-b7a9-3fcf7380f10b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:46:08.360" UserId="124" Text="On the larger sites, i.e. the original trilogy, then yes, that is probably the reason. On this site, it doesn't matter so much, but all the sites use the same code, and I don't think the team considers this important enough to allow one-letter edits here. In any case, there should always be something else you can edit at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="af6b1d4c-540f-4cbe-91ed-f7c29543aa0d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T12:20:10.107" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="43b3b381-fa74-42cd-ac12-2cea9542914b" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:36:55.217" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="41630c16-b3f0-49bf-970a-2af100ebbe8e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T14:10:18.177" UserId="11062" Comment="6 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4043" RevisionGUID="92669b27-9543-494b-b476-f84eb435ca84" CreationDate="2013-02-07T00:33:43.000" UserId="1255" Text="Tumbleweed is a wonderfully worded &quot;forever alone&quot; badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Asked a question with no votes, no answers, no comments, and low views for a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to celebrate my accomplishment, and I thought it would be applicable to this question.  So I went to the badge page and copied them all into Excel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the data I just teased out a list of dates.  It then follows that a single tumbleweed was awarded in the course of every interval between one time stamp and the next.  What people really like to see is graphs with time as the x-axis, so we just add one tumbleweed to the total to get the total number of tumbleweeds at each time stamp value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tumbleweeds][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting!  What a unique metric the tumbleweeds are.  In a simple since, this represents the number of questions that fall by the wayside.  It's very much a &quot;long tail&quot; sort of occurrence, so I don't know that it really reflects anything about the user number or activity.  It's its own very unique thing.  It is interesting that the slope seemed to change sharply (like a 'hockey stick' graph) around the middle of 2012.  Sorry the years are a little bit difficult to read.  This graph's regions represent 2011, 2012, and 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at total traffic volume to compare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.quantcast.com/physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![traffic volume][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting, this also seems to show a behavior change around the middle of 2012.  You need to mentally shift your time scale to directly compare them.  How does this compare to the tumbleweeds?  It could be said to be consistent.  After all, if the number of questions went up around that time, the tumbleweeds might have followed proportionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So traffic is up.  However, these combined data sets suggest a novel explanation for the observation in the OP.  Maybe, while traffic is strong, attention to individual questions hasn't improved, and maybe some people feel like they get an echo when they throw something into the void.  I can imagine that people felt similar things when Stack Overflow was growing.  It seems like a contradiction, but it might make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x5BOu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qj4d5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="777e3499-8313-4cbe-b5f9-46b38c792a89" CreationDate="2013-02-07T11:51:28.460" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="4eb4d72b-86ca-450c-b82e-bb93c1f0a169" CreationDate="2013-02-08T09:53:09.153" UserId="8563" Text="A recent question of mine got quickly [migrated to maths.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/297807/), partly for being mathsy and partly for being a big-list question. I'm not contesting the fact, but I must say that - having been warned by the [tag:big-list] tag description that these questions are discouraged - I looked in both the FAQ and this meta for specific guidelines and reasons for the policy, to no avail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the FAQ have a specific section on this? The policy on it should surely be immediately available by searching &quot;big list&quot; on both the FAQ and this meta, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="4eb4d72b-86ca-450c-b82e-bb93c1f0a169" CreationDate="2013-02-08T09:53:09.153" UserId="8563" Text="Why exactly are big-list questions discouraged? Shouldn't the FAQ say this prominently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="4eb4d72b-86ca-450c-b82e-bb93c1f0a169" CreationDate="2013-02-08T09:53:09.153" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="9d975dad-9bda-4af5-938c-ae1575d632cf" CreationDate="2013-02-08T10:14:36.970" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 10 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4045" RevisionGUID="740b2d18-b73e-4b5f-8c04-0f9fef416dcb" CreationDate="2013-02-08T10:30:09.660" UserId="124" Text="&gt; The policy on it should surely be immediately available by searching &quot;big list&quot; on both the FAQ and this meta, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. While it is convenient, there isn't any reason the policy _has to_ be available by searching for a particular keyword. And if there was, it wouldn't be &quot;big list.&quot; The thing to search for would probably be &quot;list question,&quot; and you'd probably get results by doing it on [Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why these questions are not allowed, here are some [clues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ultimately, the reason they're not allowed is that they break the Stack Exchange model. List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4046" RevisionGUID="3e74042b-7b54-4724-85e5-cca5e7b22307" CreationDate="2013-02-08T12:28:19.213" UserId="1492" Text="and a new one appeared of similar content http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53380/inteaction-of-high-energy-particles .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No edits evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was there two hours ago and had a -2 when I added a comment. Usually because of my high reputation I can see the deleted posts off colored. This has completely disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Whats up?puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4046" RevisionGUID="3e74042b-7b54-4724-85e5-cca5e7b22307" CreationDate="2013-02-08T12:28:19.213" UserId="1492" Text="a question that has disappeared completely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4046" RevisionGUID="3e74042b-7b54-4724-85e5-cca5e7b22307" CreationDate="2013-02-08T12:28:19.213" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="db509693-34df-4960-aeee-2e79100a5c7d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T12:34:22.353" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed retagged question from Theoretical Physics imports" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finished !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4047" RevisionGUID="1038a661-2748-4f4d-bc2f-60ba27ea4d3a" CreationDate="2013-02-08T12:47:46.040" UserId="7433" Text="He deleted the question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53368/interaction-of-high-energy-particles-with-matter (10k+ only, should be visible to you), and then he re-posted it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="9ea86b7e-3f8d-4855-b609-dfbfe98f0693" CreationDate="2013-02-09T09:33:13.000" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 8 posts that were reviewed; finished!" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing. The original list can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1250)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="ef3cf2cf-f29d-45cc-9d90-b0675c95c5c2" CreationDate="2013-02-09T11:11:18.913" UserId="7433" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed DONE&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4048" RevisionGUID="e08bc0c8-0b01-4235-bb76-870e5509b485" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:10:52.603" UserId="2146" Text="I can see why adding visibility of users who down vote is bad for the site-- it leads to down voting wars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about adding visability of users who up vote?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked some recent questions where some of the answers have got very high up votes for good technical content, even though they don't answer my questions at all. I find it intriguing to know who these up voters are, and whether they're respected users who know what they're up voting for, or simply users who can't read the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4048" RevisionGUID="e08bc0c8-0b01-4235-bb76-870e5509b485" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:10:52.603" UserId="2146" Text="Can we add visibility of users who upvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4048" RevisionGUID="e08bc0c8-0b01-4235-bb76-870e5509b485" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:10:52.603" UserId="2146" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="5cd41465-09b2-42e3-be5f-a49c8725fbb2" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:25:20.820" UserId="14182" Text="&gt; I've asked some recent questions where some of the answers have got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; very high up votes for good technical content, even though they don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer my questions at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least from July until now, the only question you have made in which there is any unaccepted answer with some votes (although I wouldn't say &quot;very high up votes&quot;) is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant/52980#52980&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers can judge by themselves if that answer responds well to your question or not. I definitely think it does, and perfectly indeed. That is why it is receiving upvotes. Not only that, the very long and numerous comments below it reinforce the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say that it doesn't answer your question at all... Another matter is that the same user (me) happens to have contradicted some other *physical* statements in other posts by you (see for example [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14410/how-does-a-pressure-difference-cause-a-force/14432#14432)) and you don't like that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a social network, we try not to insult anybody but, apart from that, it is **very good** for this site that there are downvotes and people who discuss and contradict other's statements. That is what gives quality and sort of credibility to the answers. There is no referee here... all we have is our ability to reason and correct to each other, so that we learn. I encourage anybody who sees something wrong in my answers, to tell it in the comments, and to downvote the answer. It is not the first time it happens to me, and that has helped me learning what was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find it intriguing to know who these up voters are, and whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they're respected users who know what they're up voting for, or simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users who can't read the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how are you judge who is a &quot;respected user&quot; or somebody &quot;who can't read the question&quot;? Well, Gerard 't Hooft has a profile with his explicit name, but there aren't many more examples like that. You can perfectly have one day Edward Witten amusing himself here, in front of you under a false name, recently registered with barely 40 points... Would that be a &quot;respected user&quot; by your standards? There is no social status here, the answers are good or bad for their physics contents. It is fun to receive the points, but for example I have often seen wrong answers (and good ones too) from one of the most voted users here (although I don't want to enter into that question now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the point in knowing the name of the upvoters. The anonimity of the votes is one of the good things here (in Quora, for example, it is not the case, and it is sometimes very annoying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you suspect that somebody is downvoting you sistematically, it is very easy to guess. Every downvote subtracts points to the downvoter. By being aware of the reputation of whoever you suspect is taking the effort of systematically downvoting you (instead of having a life) in real time, you can get to know that. *I sometimes do it, and it is very funny. I could call the attention of moderators, but I simply don't care.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="c37c3d34-a2e5-41f0-b672-a411687321c2" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:30:36.807" UserId="14182" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; I've asked some recent questions where some of the answers have got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; very high up votes for good technical content, even though they don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer my questions at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least from July until now, the only question you have made in which there is any unaccepted answer with some votes (although I wouldn't say &quot;very high up votes&quot;) is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant/52980#52980&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers can judge by themselves if that answer responds well to your question or not. I definitely think it does, and perfectly indeed. That is why it is receiving upvotes. Not only that, the very long and numerous comments below it reinforce the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say that it doesn't answer your question at all... Another matter is that the same user (me) happens to have contradicted some other *physical* statements in other posts by you (see for example [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14410/how-does-a-pressure-difference-cause-a-force/14432#14432)) and you don't like that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a social network, we try not to insult anybody but, apart from that, it is **very good** for this site that there are downvotes and people who discuss and contradict other's statements. That is what gives quality and sort of credibility to the answers. There is no referee here... all we have is our ability to reason and correct to each other, so that we learn. I encourage anybody who sees something wrong in my answers, to tell it in the comments, and to downvote the answer. It is not the first time it happens to me, and that has helped me learning what was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find it intriguing to know who these up voters are, and whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they're respected users who know what they're up voting for, or simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users who can't read the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how are you judge who is a &quot;respected user&quot; or somebody &quot;who can't read the question&quot;? Well, Gerard 't Hooft has a profile with his explicit name, but there aren't many more examples like that. You can perfectly have one day Edward Witten amusing himself here, in front of you under a false name, recently registered with barely 40 points... Would that be a &quot;respected user&quot; by your standards? There is no social status here, the answers are good or bad for their physics contents. It is fun to receive the points, but for example I have often seen wrong answers (and good ones too) from one of the most voted users here (although I don't want to enter into that question now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the point in knowing the name of the upvoters. The anonimity of the votes is one of the good things here (in Quora, for example, it is not the case, and it is sometimes very annoying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you suspect that somebody is downvoting you sistematically, it is very easy to confirm it. Every downvote subtracts points to the downvoter. By being aware of the reputation of whoever you suspect is taking the effort of systematically downvoting you (instead of having a life) in real time, you can get to know that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="563b2410-4a7c-4009-be97-5861006ae8ce" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:33:58.780" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 5 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8083" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="acbd6989-06fa-488a-b030-2877723e2779" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:59:12.863" UserId="14182" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14182,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eduardo Guerras Valera&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="a920dd7b-9fb4-4311-92bb-931d70f7487a" CreationDate="2013-02-11T02:01:43.033" UserId="14182" Comment="deleted 1397 characters in body" Text="&gt; I've asked some recent questions where some of the answers have got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; very high up votes for good technical content, even though they don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer my questions at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least from July until now, the only question you have made in which there is any unaccepted answer with some votes (although I wouldn't say &quot;very high up votes&quot;) is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant/52980#52980&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers can judge by themselves if that answer responds well to your question or not. I definitely think it does, and perfectly indeed. That is why it is receiving upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find it intriguing to know who these up voters are, and whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they're respected users who know what they're up voting for, or simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users who can't read the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how are you judge who is a &quot;respected user&quot; or somebody &quot;who can't read the question&quot;? You can perfectly have one day Edward Witten amusing himself here, in front of you under a false name, recently registered with barely 40 points... Would that be a &quot;respected user&quot; by your standards? There is no social status here, the answers are good or bad for their physics contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the point in knowing the name of the upvoters. The anonimity of the votes is one of the good things here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you suspect that somebody is downvoting you sistematically, it is very easy to confirm it. Every downvote subtracts points to the downvoter. By being aware of the reputation of whoever you suspect is taking the effort of systematically downvoting you (instead of having a life) in real time, you can get to know that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8085" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="f47680ed-1c91-4b77-badc-a9eaeaad2548" CreationDate="2013-02-11T02:01:48.477" UserId="14182" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14182,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eduardo Guerras Valera&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="4d623dcb-e756-485b-9b3f-55c59ebdc06e" CreationDate="2013-02-12T08:30:10.017" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 10 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4052" RevisionGUID="a741aefa-2fd9-4f3b-9d7e-b7c6b6e74f3e" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:22:27.567" UserId="11547" Text="So social media websites allow people to &quot;follow&quot; each other.  There are some people who post answers that are of considerable quality and its sometimes hard to keep track when there is a particularly good answer, is there any thought at stack exchange to give people the ability to &quot;follow&quot; each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4052" RevisionGUID="a741aefa-2fd9-4f3b-9d7e-b7c6b6e74f3e" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:22:27.567" UserId="11547" Text="Automating the ability to &quot;follow&quot; posters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4052" RevisionGUID="a741aefa-2fd9-4f3b-9d7e-b7c6b6e74f3e" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:22:27.567" UserId="11547" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4053" RevisionGUID="ec257cca-26b0-4d35-857f-7ced73dcc3a1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:31:42.207" UserId="124" Text="Yes, this has been brought up many times [on MSO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/886/a-friends-list-on-stack-overflow-would-be-nice) and you can read there all about why it won't be implemented. Basically, Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;A site, not a social network. (For the details you may have to read through the comments in the linked question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4052" RevisionGUID="c8d56e86-caf9-4c42-bc88-75d354eb591e" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:31:50.287" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="8f10f1d6-e608-40fd-868e-d7c17ebf4684" CreationDate="2013-02-14T09:19:47.857" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 13 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="b9c02954-6f83-49cd-bfc4-d6bdd47e04b9" CreationDate="2013-02-14T21:59:52.720" UserId="6432" Text="Is there any way to get rid of the hyphens in the tags? If it is impossible to have spaces, could we not at least have the traditional underscores? This use of hyphens is a violation of modern English usage, although I see it all the time in papers written by foreigners, especially from the Continent, where it has to be corrected before publication...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="b9c02954-6f83-49cd-bfc4-d6bdd47e04b9" CreationDate="2013-02-14T21:59:52.720" UserId="6432" Text="Germanic use of hyphens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="b9c02954-6f83-49cd-bfc4-d6bdd47e04b9" CreationDate="2013-02-14T21:59:52.720" UserId="6432" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="caff7a7b-a576-404f-8fd9-bc0e1f22dd35" CreationDate="2013-02-14T22:20:04.430" UserId="124" Text="Tags are not meant to be interpreted as single English words, so it's not a violation of modern English usage. Rather, a tag is an example of a &quot;slug,&quot; a condensed representation of a title or phrase used in a situation where a limited character set is allowed. The hyphen is the traditional word separator for slugs on websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the set of allowed characters in a tag is lowercase letters, digits, `+`, `-`, `#`, and `.`. Underscores are not permitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="4ce43434-ae42-46c4-96e1-348f837b8d36" CreationDate="2013-02-15T07:44:34.023" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 15 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="c9c3ca98-6071-4e39-96fa-e134fcd54cbc" CreationDate="2013-02-16T05:54:22.843" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 10 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8109" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="855aff4d-5221-41f1-b63e-0444ce7c2ec1" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:32:32.177" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8110" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4048" RevisionGUID="649353b2-a5db-4199-afbb-d817ddd8b15d" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:33:07.047" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="6dfe603a-6348-49f7-a863-d1ab0a1e08f6" CreationDate="2013-02-17T03:12:38.660" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 16 posts that were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="bc19b272-82ad-4fce-b7a5-75c4fb65f155" CreationDate="2013-02-17T03:34:44.770" UserId="11062" Comment="5 posts were reviewed" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="45a0cf5d-4f56-4e41-97ff-9683cd4f2d7d" CreationDate="2013-02-17T10:09:22.633" UserId="1492" Text="Sometimes some old questions appear and are called &quot;active today&quot; , without any visible signs how they [were activated][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I thought activation could happen by editing or community rotating it forward. What is the other method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case no edits and no community; the questioner has not been seen since the days of his question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43610/question-about-de-broglie-waves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="45a0cf5d-4f56-4e41-97ff-9683cd4f2d7d" CreationDate="2013-02-17T10:09:22.633" UserId="1492" Text="when does &quot;active today&quot; appear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="45a0cf5d-4f56-4e41-97ff-9683cd4f2d7d" CreationDate="2013-02-17T10:09:22.633" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="8f271d23-4cec-4a7c-8f8f-6e1fc29b0fd4" CreationDate="2013-02-17T10:17:39.343" UserId="7433" Text="Our good friend [Community ♦][1] bumps old posts that are &quot;unanswered&quot;. An &quot;answered&quot; post is one that has at lease one answer with at least one upvote (or accept)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/19739/178438 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4059" RevisionGUID="505378e7-9016-4fc0-b043-99d2c48a0ffd" CreationDate="2013-02-17T16:45:13.550" UserId="11547" Text="I was wondering about the feasibility of getting messages anytime an upvoted answer has been changed.  This would help if there is a substantial change in the answer, whether you would still want to keep it upvoted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4059" RevisionGUID="505378e7-9016-4fc0-b043-99d2c48a0ffd" CreationDate="2013-02-17T16:45:13.550" UserId="11547" Text="Changes in answers you have upvoted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4059" RevisionGUID="505378e7-9016-4fc0-b043-99d2c48a0ffd" CreationDate="2013-02-17T16:45:13.550" UserId="11547" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4060" RevisionGUID="2d57409d-8db7-43c5-a53e-aafce9e6647d" CreationDate="2013-02-17T16:50:04.437" UserId="7433" Text="If you [star a post][1], then all edits to the post and its answers will be visible in your &quot;favorites&quot; tab (the tab gets an indicator on it whenever there are any changes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding inbox notifications, that has been proposed many times ([example][2], [another one][3]) on the main meta, for various similar features. It's been declined most of the time, since it can get too noisy for active users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/53585/how-do-favorite-questions-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/68106/notify-me-of-edits-to-posts-ive-voted-on&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/16662/add-notification-when-someone-comments-in-the-same-post-than-me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="2b7ea905-10d8-45ed-a1f3-3a0ad6ad1cd1" CreationDate="2013-02-17T20:01:14.993" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="removed 13 posts that were reviewed; finished" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Last batch of astro imports completed! The original list can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1252#1252)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8127" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="18ef2e61-2395-4119-83f3-80cca201524f" CreationDate="2013-02-19T09:06:30.143" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|site-salvage|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4062" RevisionGUID="c1580571-3832-43b8-963b-052d9808baf1" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:03:01.560" UserId="11833" Text="I recommend getting or making a third party extension instead of asking Stackexchange to provide an additional feature. For example, I wanted to hide other peoples reputation and my own reputation when veiwing stackexchange/stackoverflow etc. and I solved this using a tampermonkey script. You might even ask someone to make you a script if you don't know how to make one, probably you could ask in stackoverflow or something. Enjoy! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="1bfbff3a-a384-424e-8e75-40cabedcc54b" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:30:36.653" UserId="2451" Text="It depends on the question. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a question of the form  _What does this notation/terminology mean?_ is on-topic if it cannot immediately be answered by a simple Google search/Wikipedia lookup.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a question of the form _What is the standard notation for this quantity?_ is off-topic/not constructive, and should go to chat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: If the site gets swamped by notational/terminology soft-questions instead of conceptional physics questions, we might want to rethink this policy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="bd03e0d0-4bf0-417e-be3c-4972650f1cf6" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:41:34.937" UserId="16660" Text="At least in classical mechanics, SI units really are the only way to go in my eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand people using CGS for EM problems. Though I've seen both SI and CGS in different courses here in Belgium and I can confirm that this causes the occasional confusion. This is why I think a universal system of units is vital for fluid communication. (not just on this website, also in the rest of society) However, for EM it's understandable to use CGS instead of SI, as long as it is always clear what system of units you're using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particle physics, natural units are the more natural (no pun intended) to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it depends on the branch of physics you're talking about and I wouldn't *force* a system of units, **but** I *would* argue to try and use the dominant system in the particular branch of physics your question relates to. I think this is also clear from my discussion above: I would try to use SI in classical mechanics and preferably also in EM, natural units in particle physics, if desired CGS in EM, ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="0753d081-abb7-418c-a744-0a412dc85c80" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:59:33.690" UserId="8563" Text="I have seen some posts show up on more than one category of the review panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, say a new user posts a one-line answer to an old question. This will flag the post for the Late Answers and Low Quality Posts review queues (and maybe also First Posts). I might then deal with it as part of sorting the Late Answers queue, and _also_ as part of the Low Quality Posts one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand and support that these posts get put on all relevant queues, I find it a bit weird and slightly annoying to be asked to deal with the same post more than once. (It doesn't help that such posts are usually annoying and/or hard to deal with.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this by design or can it be avoided? i.e. could posts I've already taken action on be removed from my review queues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm aware that this may be more suited to the mother meta, and [it has come up already](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/153406/posts-come-up-in-multiple-review-queues) with no answers, hence my asking here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="0753d081-abb7-418c-a744-0a412dc85c80" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:59:33.690" UserId="8563" Text="Why do some posts show up in more than one review queue? Could we stop it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="0753d081-abb7-418c-a744-0a412dc85c80" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:59:33.690" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|bug|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="5674fc42-c38e-460a-992f-5937da44a2c8" CreationDate="2013-02-24T15:02:39.243" UserId="1492" Text="[This soft question][1] was migrated to academia.SE. As a result, comments are impossible at physics.se, and  I find comments to my answer that are not alerting me, and also I cannot reply to them . I emphatically do not want to register on another site and I see that the questioner also cannot act there unless he/she registers. This is quite annoying and unnecessary for such a simple question. And I do not agree that this is a general question for academia. It is different for lawyers, for example, and all the money gathering disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody who is registered there add to the citation request  for my statement that &quot;most original ideas come before the age of thirty&quot;, the names of Newton, Maxwell and Feynman , as a start ?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54825/i-was-rejected-from-my-dream-graduate-school-what-should-i-do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="5674fc42-c38e-460a-992f-5937da44a2c8" CreationDate="2013-02-24T15:02:39.243" UserId="1492" Text="can a comment be transfered to academia.se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="5674fc42-c38e-460a-992f-5937da44a2c8" CreationDate="2013-02-24T15:02:39.243" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="d82e321d-b366-49ee-af0c-ac16e217b5c4" CreationDate="2013-02-24T16:22:29.127" UserId="1492" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="[This soft question][1] was migrated to academia.SE. As a result, comments are impossible at physics.se, and  I find comments to my answer that are  alerting me, but I cannot reply to them . I emphatically do not want to register on another site and I see that the questioner also cannot act there unless he/she registers. This is quite annoying and unnecessary for such a simple question. And I do not agree that this is a general question for academia. It is different for lawyers, for example, and all the money gathering disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody who is registered there add to the citation request  for my statement that &quot;most original ideas come before the age of thirty&quot;, the names of Newton, Maxwell and Feynman , as a start ?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54825/i-was-rejected-from-my-dream-graduate-school-what-should-i-do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="ef0e463a-a07e-43ce-b08c-05dc8f84ca11" CreationDate="2013-02-24T16:30:44.413" UserId="1492" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="[This soft question][1] was migrated to academia.SE. As a result, comments are impossible at physics.se, and  I find comments to my answer that are  alerting me, but I cannot reply to them . I emphatically do not want to register on another site and I see that the questioner also cannot act there unless he/she registers. This is quite annoying and unnecessary for such a simple question. And I do not agree that this is a general question for academia. It is different for lawyers, for example, and all the money gathering disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody who is registered there add to the citation request  for my statement that &quot;most original ideas come before the age of thirty&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the names of Newton, Maxwell and Feynman , as a start ?. This series of biographies of physicists also supports my statement: http://www.phy.pmf.unizg.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54825/i-was-rejected-from-my-dream-graduate-school-what-should-i-do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4067" RevisionGUID="4f6884f1-53a6-41e0-8e4b-fe1b6542d96a" CreationDate="2013-02-24T21:41:00.033" UserId="124" Text="&gt; and I find comments to my answer that are alerting me, but I cannot reply to them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be happening, as the system no longer &quot;knows&quot; it was you who posted that answer. You'll still get notifications for comments made on your answer before it was migrated, but that should be all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if you consider it annoying to have to register on another site to comment there, you can do that, but it _is_ necessary. The alternative is either allowing unregistered users to comment, which is intentionally not the case for obvious reasons, or unifying the account system for all SE sites so that anyone with an account on one of them automatically has an account on all, which was a (reasonable IMO) design decision on the part of the SE team. Comments cannot be migrated, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether it's a general question for academia, that's up to the Academia.SE community to figure out. What we know is that it is not a question for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="8627514e-4387-417c-a188-075d450970b8" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:34:32.913" UserId="14182" Text="I have had a nice and pedagogical idea to add to [this answer of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant/52980#52980) but I am afraid that, by doing an additional edit now, it may turn into a wiki-thing, as once happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to do one additional edit. How can I know that? Yes, I know it is the policy of this site, but I prefer (as a personal taste I am not interested in discussing) not to edit it any more if it is going to be converted into an open answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="8627514e-4387-417c-a188-075d450970b8" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:34:32.913" UserId="14182" Text="How can I know if an additional edit is going to turn my answer into an open wiki-engendre?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="8627514e-4387-417c-a188-075d450970b8" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:34:32.913" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="2afd81c8-985d-4cfa-88c1-9796d81c187e" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:37:43.663" UserId="7433" Text="See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, it will turn into CW at your next edit. Don't worry, if you want to un-CW-ify it just flag it (or reply to this post). CW is only when you want collaboration, just let us know whenever you get hit on the head with the 10-edit thing :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4070" RevisionGUID="11c485db-9075-4e6a-8ec6-5e2b44833154" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:42:13.833" UserId="520" Text="You can look at [the edit history][1] (get there by clicking the time stamp on the &quot;edited&quot; block beside your usercard) and compare to [the rules for automatic how community wiki works][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance it appears that a further edit *will* tip your answer into wiki status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/52980/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/11741/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="c61dfaa5-d909-4df0-9922-3ffdea44be22" CreationDate="2013-02-25T16:25:36.773" UserId="7433" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, it will turn into CW at your next edit. Don't worry, if you want to un-CW-ify it just flag it (or reply to this post). CW is only when you want collaboration, just let us know whenever you get hit on the head with the 10-edit thing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, try to batch up your edits, constant bumping to the main page isn't something we really want -- leads to clutter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="e2dde830-5d28-4c12-9c80-9d766d33406f" CreationDate="2013-02-26T02:10:23.087" UserId="14182" Text="Why is [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/10943/14182) in grey colour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if I erase any of my answers, nobody will see it anymore, is that right? I hope it is not shown in grey...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Third question: is there any way to completely erase, smash, destroy, pulverize, thermalize, dissociate, cause information loss forever in, one of my answers?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="e2dde830-5d28-4c12-9c80-9d766d33406f" CreationDate="2013-02-26T02:10:23.087" UserId="14182" Text="Why is that answer in grey colour? And, are erased answer invisible (I hope)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="e2dde830-5d28-4c12-9c80-9d766d33406f" CreationDate="2013-02-26T02:10:23.087" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="50448e1e-e409-4601-82a7-f837c4711e4e" CreationDate="2013-02-26T02:14:40.983" UserId="520" Text="Answer that are sufficiently far into negative score territory are grayed out (lowlighted?) as a visual indication that they crowd considers them unreliable. I believe that -3 is the threshold for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="3ec792bc-e1f1-4753-8264-7ee2f154725b" CreationDate="2013-02-26T02:51:54.283" UserId="124" Text="As dmckee said, posts voted down to -3 or lower are shown desaturated. It has nothing to do with deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you delete a question or answer using the &quot;delete&quot; link on the site, it's soft-deleted, which means it still exists in the database and can be seen by 10k users and moderators, but nobody else. It's also not included in the data dump, if I remember correctly. It may be accessible via [SEDE](http://data.stackexchange.com) after some time, I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post includes sensitive information, such as a person's real name, address, phone number, email address, etc. (if they have chosen not to reveal that information publicly on the site), or information which is subject to a separate nondisclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement, it _can_ in principle be removed permanently. To do so, edit the post to remove the sensitive information, then email the team (team@stackexchange.com) with a link to the revision that contains the information and ask them to remove it permanently. Or you can flag it for moderator attention and we'll make the edit and request for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that, while you can _request_ to have information permanently removed, as far as I know Stack Exchange is not obligated to grant the request, because the CC license under which all content is submitted is irrevocable. (Check the terms of service, linked in the site footer, to be sure.) So be careful what you submit!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="e7d914cc-d05f-4a2b-93cc-508cfe2c87e9" CreationDate="2013-02-27T01:44:09.647" UserId="124" Comment="add note about people who can see deleted content" Text="As dmckee said, posts voted down to -3 or lower are shown desaturated. It has nothing to do with deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you delete a question or answer using the &quot;delete&quot; link on the site, it's soft-deleted, which means it still exists in the database and can be seen by 10k users and moderators, but nobody else. (There are currently around 20 people in this category, including a number of SE employees who basically never visit the site.) It's also not included in the data dump, if I remember correctly. It may be accessible via [SEDE](http://data.stackexchange.com) after some time, I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post includes sensitive information, such as a person's real name, address, phone number, email address, etc. (if they have chosen not to reveal that information publicly on the site), or information which is subject to a separate nondisclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement, it _can_ in principle be removed permanently. To do so, edit the post to remove the sensitive information, then email the team (team@stackexchange.com) with a link to the revision that contains the information and ask them to remove it permanently. Or you can flag it for moderator attention and we'll make the edit and request for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that, while you can _request_ to have information permanently removed, as far as I know Stack Exchange is not obligated to grant the request, because the CC license under which all content is submitted is irrevocable. (Check the terms of service, linked in the site footer, to be sure.) So be careful what you submit!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="1f959872-d8d5-4ef3-9e08-c20a1fcfa436" CreationDate="2013-02-27T15:46:58.057" UserId="20967" Text="thedreedictionary.com has the following usage note under 'phenomenon':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Usage Note: Phenomenon is the only singular form of this noun;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phenomena is the usual plural. **Phenomenons may also be used as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is &quot;extraordinary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; things, occurrences, or persons&quot;**: They were phenomenons in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; history of music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps then the tag 'phenomenons' should be renamed to 'phenomena'? I couldn't find a way to do that myself, I can only edit the wiki, not the tag name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="1f959872-d8d5-4ef3-9e08-c20a1fcfa436" CreationDate="2013-02-27T15:46:58.057" UserId="20967" Text="is tag 'phenomenons' really appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="1f959872-d8d5-4ef3-9e08-c20a1fcfa436" CreationDate="2013-02-27T15:46:58.057" UserId="20967" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4075" RevisionGUID="24e88dc2-8e4b-476f-8606-434515f357ea" CreationDate="2013-02-27T16:00:11.903" UserId="520" Text="Pure dreck, chosen because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the author didn't know the term for the subject they want to talk about  or&#xD;&#xA;2. [an abominable big-list question][1] that is a poster boy for why those things should be killed with fire on sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no one argues, I will remove the tag and close the list. Now that it has Terry's extensive answer I suppose I shouldn't delete it, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54392/are-there-still-everyday-phenomena-unexplained-by-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4075" RevisionGUID="3cd379a6-edb4-4f04-bcbb-5ff0e5b72772" CreationDate="2013-02-27T20:43:06.887" UserId="520" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Pure dreck, chosen because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the author didn't know the term for the subject they want to talk about  or&#xD;&#xA;2. [an abominable big-list question][1] that is a poster boy for why those things should be killed with fire on sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no one argues, I will remove the tag and close the list. Now that it has Terry's extensive answer I suppose I shouldn't delete it, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Done. In a couple of days the tag will disappear from the list of tags used by the auto-completion system, and hopefully that will be that. If we want a actual ban we'd have to convince the team that it was needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54392/are-there-still-everyday-phenomena-unexplained-by-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="62f37304-66b6-49e2-95af-b1214f856643" CreationDate="2013-02-27T20:43:16.357" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="bf479097-50f0-48ab-9168-54ad280f7be3" CreationDate="2013-02-27T22:43:11.620" UserId="20967" Comment="edited body" Text="thefreedictionary.com has the following usage note under 'phenomenon':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Usage Note: Phenomenon is the only singular form of this noun;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phenomena is the usual plural. **Phenomenons may also be used as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is &quot;extraordinary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; things, occurrences, or persons&quot;**: They were phenomenons in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; history of music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps then the tag 'phenomenons' should be renamed to 'phenomena'? I couldn't find a way to do that myself, I can only edit the wiki, not the tag name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4077" RevisionGUID="0393f526-cff5-4e0a-b44e-1945377422c0" CreationDate="2013-02-28T04:36:57.823" UserId="20513" Text="Another point:  astronomers and astrophysicists commonly use CGS units for general quantities when they aren't using other standard length/mass/energy measures (Such as $R_{sun}$, $M_{sun}$ $L_{sun}$).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In gravitational physics, geometric units where G=c=1 are commonly used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think units should be explicitly stated, but *certainly* not enforced to one global standard.  I think enforcing one standard of units within a question could be a good idea, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4079" RevisionGUID="942102e1-52e0-4f3b-8fd8-43d5cb52e9b4" CreationDate="2013-03-01T05:33:25.630" UserId="10655" Text="I suspect you are using a dodgy preamble. It is very hard to know without a minimal example of the kind of tex file you tried to compile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why don't you try asking this on [tex][1] with an example of what you have tried?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tex.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="fb55cde7-f22f-4eb7-bdce-973fe55a0a3c" CreationDate="2013-03-02T21:55:10.617" UserId="21549" Text="I just found this site today and I asked a few questions but I didn't know how to use the latex syntax, so my questions were difficult to understand. Can anyone tell me how to use this Latex program? thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="fb55cde7-f22f-4eb7-bdce-973fe55a0a3c" CreationDate="2013-03-02T21:55:10.617" UserId="21549" Text="How to input using Latex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="fb55cde7-f22f-4eb7-bdce-973fe55a0a3c" CreationDate="2013-03-02T21:55:10.617" UserId="21549" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="36bb91df-5077-4330-b00f-23a0dacee64f" CreationDate="2013-03-02T22:53:07.433" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Expanding on Dilaton's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site (and most other stackexchange sites where such is appropriate) use the exact same implementation of [MathJax][1] for Latex markup. Basically, just enclose tex within `$` (inline) or `$$` (set apart equations). Most basic commands work, like `\frac` and `\sin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also begin some Latex environments without dollar signs. For example `\begin{align}...\end{align}` is a valid construct that will have its contents parsed by the tex parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to use Latex itself, independent of this site, well that is a large enough topic to have [its own stackexchange site][2]. For basic stuff to get started, try [this other FAQ topic][3]. For site-specific abilities, I can think of no better guide than what they have over at math.SE, found [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can always click the `Edit` button on any post to see how it was written. You are not committed to making any edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mathjax.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/804/is-there-a-standard-place-to-point-people-to-learn-how-to-typeset-their-equation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="1268c608-fd1b-46d0-8b8d-cd24b985da39" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:29:22.553" UserId="2751" Text="Today I've spotted once again a question, that I thought I could write an answer to, but now it has already an accepted answer (which I quite like and +1ed by the way). So I am again thinking about the issue under what conditions it would be reasonable or &quot;constructive&quot; to add my new answer anyway. I guess it could in principle be not completely pointless to add a new answer if it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - brings in alternative valid points of view or explanations&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - complements the accepted answer by mentioning additional points&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - gives more (technical) details about what is already said in the accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it often happend to me that when adding a new answer because one or more of the points mentiond above apply, it got no votes which I interpret as it has not been useful for anybody, which makes me feel like a fool. I then think I should at most have left a complementary comment and better delete the useless answer again ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do other people think about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="1268c608-fd1b-46d0-8b8d-cd24b985da39" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:29:22.553" UserId="2751" Text="When does it make sence to add an additional answer to a question which has already an accepted answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="1268c608-fd1b-46d0-8b8d-cd24b985da39" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:29:22.553" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="08d76de4-084e-4ab3-8580-349494b99090" CreationDate="2013-03-03T11:08:49.643" UserId="124" Text="&gt; it got no votes which I interpret as it has not been useful for anybody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the wrong way to think about it. Just because an answer doesn't get voted on, it doesn't necessarily mean it was not useful to anyone - and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't mean it will not be useful to anyone in the future. If you post answers solely to get votes, you're on this site for the wrong reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can answer a question in a way that doesn't just duplicate an existing answer, then go ahead and post it as an answer. Don't post such things as comments, because that's not what comments are for. (They are limited in length and prone to deletion, remember.) And also, don't go back and delete answers just because they haven't been voted on. As I said, they may be useful to people in the future. There are preventative measures that the system will take against people who delete too many answers, for precisely that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="aa78819f-9296-4861-bfe4-7bcb12a73f83" CreationDate="2013-03-03T22:51:49.263" UserId="11833" Text="It's really frustrating to have -1 and -3 voted answers sit on top of a +99 voted answer. ([this question][1]).&#xD;&#xA;Please provide individual users the option to automatically arrange answers according to &#xD;&#xA;number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="aa78819f-9296-4861-bfe4-7bcb12a73f83" CreationDate="2013-03-03T22:51:49.263" UserId="11833" Text="Option to arrange answers according to vote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="aa78819f-9296-4861-bfe4-7bcb12a73f83" CreationDate="2013-03-03T22:51:49.263" UserId="11833" Text="|feature-request|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4085" RevisionGUID="442d1250-9210-4b4a-9da3-99f287394e09" CreationDate="2013-03-03T23:32:25.610" UserId="12350" Text="Yes I agree that the top up-voted answers should be positioned before the answers with less up-votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="867aa185-2503-4726-9cbe-985c6a6445b9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:20:18.313" UserId="5477" Text="Today I received replies to two comments I'd made on different questions, but I didn't get a red &quot;1&quot; next to my inbox as usually happens. The notifications are there in my inbox, if I go to it by clicking on &quot;StackExchange&quot; and then &quot;inbox&quot;, but they appear as if they've already been read. Has something about this feature been changed recently, or is the problem on my end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="867aa185-2503-4726-9cbe-985c6a6445b9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:20:18.313" UserId="5477" Text="Inbox notifications seem to have stopped" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="867aa185-2503-4726-9cbe-985c6a6445b9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:20:18.313" UserId="5477" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="1848cc2c-3ab8-4122-be99-55985dc90f71" CreationDate="2013-03-04T11:59:41.483" UserId="8563" Text="I recently reviewed a suggested edit to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55817/8563), and it told me that it needs additional reviews for this to go through. I have been reviewing suggested edits for some time and this is the first time I see this. Did this change recently? Is it applicable to all posts, or what are the criteria? What's the rationale for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="1848cc2c-3ab8-4122-be99-55985dc90f71" CreationDate="2013-03-04T11:59:41.483" UserId="8563" Text="Why do some edits need more than one reviewer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="1848cc2c-3ab8-4122-be99-55985dc90f71" CreationDate="2013-03-04T11:59:41.483" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="394a7e75-6220-4917-82b4-5a68919cc635" CreationDate="2013-03-04T14:21:30.753" UserId="7433" Text="[This was changed last October][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange/117903#117903 (see the October entry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current suggested edit algorithm for Physics.SE is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is the post author, their action is binding&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is a mod, his action is binding (yay)&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewers are neither mods nor original authors, then the _first_ decision (approve/reject) to reach two supporters is taken into account.&#xD;&#xA; - However, using the &quot;improve&quot;/&quot;edit&quot; button lets one bypass the double approval ([example][2] -- Community♦ steps in as a reviewer here) -- though you have to make an extra change to the post to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at your history, you seem to have come across the &quot;requires another approval&quot; block in the past [here][3] and [here][4]. You probably didn't notice the &quot;needs another approval&quot; banner , that's all:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/151536/it-takes-two-to-tango/151586#151586&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9584&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9578&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/12651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="54c1fc6a-7e37-455d-8d0a-276a9ac2e368" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:02:09.737" UserId="21595" Text="Is there any way for moderators to either promote a comment which contains an answer to an &quot;answer&quot;? I ask because of questions like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23383/light-ray-entropy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only been on this site formally for two days but I've browsed it for a few weeks and I've seen this happen several times. It would be nice if there was a clean way to move these out of &quot;Unanswered&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked around in the meta, but I didn't find anything directly about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please redirect me if there IS already a discussion on this, though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think I have flagging rights yet, is this an option for a flag or could it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="54c1fc6a-7e37-455d-8d0a-276a9ac2e368" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:02:09.737" UserId="21595" Text="&quot;Unanswered Questions&quot; with several comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="54c1fc6a-7e37-455d-8d0a-276a9ac2e368" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:02:09.737" UserId="21595" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="be47a89c-9f8f-433b-a950-c4c08ea59c65" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:09:52.527" UserId="124" Text="Nope, we can't convert comments into answers, only the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed the same thing: people will often post something as a comment that really should be posted as an answer. When I see this, I usually leave a comment in reply suggesting that the original commenter post an answer. (Something like &quot;@person That would make a pretty good answer&quot;) Or, if it's an old question and the commenter is likely to be long gone or not to care, you can just take the content of the comment and post it as an answer yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you have the option of doing something about it yourself, this isn't a problem that needs moderator attention, so I'd say don't bother to flag it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8190" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="b0dff84f-89dc-4ce9-b5a0-15310562686d" CreationDate="2013-03-05T07:31:05.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/308842084410982400" />
  <row Id="8191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4091" RevisionGUID="743be94a-b482-4481-a2db-1051910b616e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T14:53:18.653" UserId="8563" Text="I only just realized this, but if you hover over the progress badge of a review task, a &quot;badge progress&quot; pop-up appears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dk2Y6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="0de584eb-2992-4178-9f98-436a9f0cc97a" CreationDate="2013-03-06T02:20:35.160" UserId="21679" Text="I came over to Physics SE on a lark from clicking a link in the sidebar on another SE site I spend time on. In Stack Overflow, I often will answer already questions with accepted answers to help add my point of view. Specifically, I'm Googling for something and the question and answer help me figure out my situation. So, I'll add my answer in the event someone comes back to the question for the same reason you have. I have found my own answers helpful before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'm here now because I saw this in the sidebar to a question I am debating internally whether to answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="f6e7b6e8-64eb-4cf2-9160-a417a032092d" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:46:32.860" UserId="20168" Text="Link to question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56027/why-do-bullets-in-a-magazine-go-up-instead-of-down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this question acceptable or not? The answers seem to suggest it is only based off of ergonomic choices, and I&quot;m not sure if this is the right site for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how should I tag it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="f6e7b6e8-64eb-4cf2-9160-a417a032092d" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:46:32.860" UserId="20168" Text="Is this question on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="f6e7b6e8-64eb-4cf2-9160-a417a032092d" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:46:32.860" UserId="20168" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4094" RevisionGUID="9ff616d7-4c8f-4cd7-acac-72d18b63afbc" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:55:14.893" UserId="124" Text="Personally, I don't think it's on topic here. It's not asking about a physics concept. But multiple people have posted answers and not VTC'd or flagged the question, indicating that they think it's on topic. We'll have to have some community discussion to figure this one out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the fact that you're not finding good tags for the question is probably a sign that it may not be on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="3334a292-47dd-45d0-b78b-25f902f25b19" CreationDate="2013-03-08T00:34:28.787" UserId="43" Text="This is fixed now. You should no longer see the same post in the First Posts, Late Answers, and Low Quality review queues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still possible to come across the same post in the other queues though. For example, you might see something in Suggested Edits, and then later in the Reopen queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8198" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="0d82ea88-8bf2-42cd-b525-362804063c57" CreationDate="2013-03-08T00:34:33.907" UserId="43" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|status-completed|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="67c8c688-833f-4152-b1f1-db583d8af03c" CreationDate="2013-03-08T18:21:36.130" UserId="6605" Text="As noted elsewhere, I have personally discontinued use of Physics.SE, since it seems to me that it no longer acts as a forum for research based physics Q&amp;A. Over the past 12 months there has in my opinion been an ongoing deterioration, to the point that the site has almost been taken over by interested amateurs, semi-cranks, and overzealous moderators, that appear to prioritize forceful administration and control over intellectual inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This stands in contrast to MathOverflow, which continues to grow, with very active participation from leading researchers across most branches of mathematics. On MO you will see leading researchers, sometimes even Fields medalists, ask questions at the edge of human knowledge, almost always quickly receiving highly qualified answers. This simply does not happen on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting Physics.SE/About: &quot;Physics [.SE] is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy&quot;. As I see it, this mission statement is no longer being fulfilled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please answer with recommendations for concrete measures to significantly improve Physics.SE as a Q&amp;A forum for researchers, academics and students of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="67c8c688-833f-4152-b1f1-db583d8af03c" CreationDate="2013-03-08T18:21:36.130" UserId="6605" Text="What can be done to improve Physics.SE as an active forum for physics researchers and student's?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="67c8c688-833f-4152-b1f1-db583d8af03c" CreationDate="2013-03-08T18:21:36.130" UserId="6605" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="fd95947c-f818-4886-881d-c4a8056e9959" CreationDate="2013-03-08T20:35:15.727" UserId="1504" Text="I think the OP has a point.  Many of the questions we get here about advanced topics (say, late undergrad and higher) are pretty low quality.  Some of the could be answered by a simple google search, some of them ask the reader to fill in elementary steps in research papers, some of them are so full of muddled thinking that one wonders if the person asking the question has a prayer of understanding the answer, some of them come from crackpots wanting attention,...   Really nice conceptual questions about high level physics seem to be few and far between.  This is unfortunate, because it means that people looking for a good place to ask &amp; answer the kind of questions we (I, at least) want may not think that this looks like a good place to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I agree, the signal to noise ratio could be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said:  I don't agree that the moderators are imposing an unpleasant atmosphere.  It looks to me like they are generally doing the right thing, by closing lousy questions.  (If anything, I think they are too lenient about leaving bad questions open.  I'd be happier if the standard was &quot;would it be embarassing to ask this question at department tea?&quot;.)  What we need are more and better questions.  If you have any, please ask them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4098" RevisionGUID="20651eac-f537-41b4-a6b8-58549cf38889" CreationDate="2013-03-08T21:59:11.410" UserId="520" Text="As long as users reward simple questions, simple questions will continue to be asked. It's as simple as that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now the user base is rewarding physics 101 questions and ill-informed speculations from a pop-sci foundation. Give me a consensus that those question don't belong and I'd be happy to close many of them.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A particularly pernicious (and [unsolved)][1] problem on Stack Exchange sites is established users answering duplicate questions because this is simply easier than finding the duplicates and the rep system rewards them for it; my unscientific observation is that this occurs most on very basic questions. Getting these questions closed without answers would go some way to convincing users that it was worth their while to search first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Math Overflow has had a strong ethic for research level question from the beginning. Math.StackExchange did not (and in fact exists explicitly to be a place for lower-level math questions). They are both healthy, active sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no fundamental reason why a site (or this one in particular) needs to function at a highly esoteric level to be successful as a site.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things any particular user can do include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Open a discussion on meta to try and reach a new consensus on what types of questions are off topic. Personally I am bored to tears by people &#xD;&#xA;* Vote uniformed speculation down, and cote to close if there is a plausible reason under the current rules&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ask some good questions.*** That is harder then it sounds, but the only way to make people believe that there are good questions here is to get some good questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;* Put some time and effort into providing ***good answer to good questions***. To make it worth other peoples time to post good questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the mean time, I'm a little confused that I seem to be accused simultaneously of over-moderating and of letting all the crap in. (I agree that we field a lot of very basic questions and that quite of few of them are crap---but when I vote those down people write comments about how unfair that is and, it seems, up vote just to counter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And in fact our analytics continue to look good. We are getting steadily stronger on page views, questions per day, answers per day, new users and so on and retaining our answers to questions ratio. In particular I note that there is no detectible change about December 2012 or Jan 2013. In terms of quantity that brewhaha was a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a site with a future we are doing fine. It just may not be the site you want it to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=reward%20finding%20duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4098" RevisionGUID="dfdf9543-0f71-4f6d-b0bb-32a78ef76e16" CreationDate="2013-03-09T03:32:50.300" UserId="520" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="As long as users reward simple questions, simple questions will continue to be asked. It's as simple as that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now the user base is rewarding physics 101 questions and ill-informed speculations from a pop-sci foundation. Give me a consensus that those question don't belong and I'd be happy to close many of them.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Personally I am bored to tears by people by the pure number of people who believe that they have discovered a erstwhile unnoticed inconsistency in special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A particularly pernicious (and [unsolved)][1] problem on Stack Exchange sites is established users answering duplicate questions because this is simply easier than finding the duplicates and the rep system rewards them for it; my unscientific observation is that this occurs most on very basic questions. Getting these questions closed without answers would go some way to convincing users that it was worth their while to search first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Math Overflow has had a strong ethic for research level question from the beginning. Math.StackExchange did not (and in fact exists explicitly to be a place for lower-level math questions). They are both healthy, active sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no fundamental reason why a site (or this one in particular) needs to function at a highly esoteric level to be successful as a site.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things any particular user can do include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Open a discussion on meta to try and reach a new consensus on what types of questions are off topic. &#xD;&#xA;* Vote uniformed speculation down, and cote to close if there is a plausible reason under the current rules.&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ask some good questions.*** That is harder then it sounds, but the only way to make people believe that there are good questions here is to get some good questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;* Put some time and effort into providing ***good answer to good questions***. To make it worth other peoples time to post good questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the mean time, I'm a little confused that I seem to be accused simultaneously of over-moderating and of letting all the crap in. (I agree that we field a lot of very basic questions and that quite of few of them are crap---but when I vote those down people write comments about how unfair that is and, it seems, up vote just to counter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And in fact our analytics continue to look good. We are getting steadily stronger on page views, questions per day, answers per day, new users and so on and retaining our answers to questions ratio. In particular I note that there is no detectible change about December 2012 or Jan 2013. In terms of quantity that brewhaha was a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a site with a future we are doing fine. It just may not be the site you want it to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=reward%20finding%20duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="0dd191e9-36ea-4d38-b374-4f10fa116118" CreationDate="2013-03-09T16:34:34.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/310428408028987392" />
  <row Id="8208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="0eb31c64-d753-4f90-b856-f47a93b68e8d" CreationDate="2013-03-10T17:30:59.230" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="Excellent question and I think the downvotes speak volumes. I see several issues here. One is that sometimes, posters either do not or cannot discern when the question they have asked has been answered. Here is a superb example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56014/parallel-circuits-overall-resistance-decreases-with-additional-resistor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster accepted an &quot;answer&quot; that did nothing more than restate the question in mathematical terms. There is at least one other really correct answer but no other was marked as accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suspect that one (of many) reasons for this is that users see reputation as the end all to authority. It isn't, but I've seen other example of people saying things that while not technically wrong, are misleading and yet those answers are selected as the correct ones while other, more enlightening answers, are sometimes even downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem here I've seen is that certain questions are closed as being off topic except when a moderator chooses to declare it on topic even if it's off topic. One supposed reason is that the closed question is &quot;likely to solicit debate.&quot; Well, if that's true then most EVERY question must be closed for the very same reason. Correct answers do exist, you know. Every answer that isn't identical to someone (everyone?) else's must be considered a matter of &quot;debate&quot; and therefore the question MUST be closed. Silly? Yep. It speaks great volumes when &quot;experts&quot; can't agree on trivially simple answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem I see here is that too many students have the say so on what gets closed. That shouldn't happen. Students are....students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying very hard to like this site but there are too many inconsistencies in how it works for me to completely trust it or to recommend it to anyone else, especially my own students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="c3b8015a-6668-4e20-a80e-71840eb249fc" CreationDate="2013-03-10T17:38:00.343" UserDisplayName="user11266" Comment="minor spelling errors" Text="Excellent question and I think the downvotes speak volumes. I see several issues here. One is that sometimes, posters either do not or cannot discern when the question they have asked has been answered. Here is a superb example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56014/parallel-circuits-overall-resistance-decreases-with-additional-resistor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster accepted an &quot;answer&quot; that did nothing more than restate the question in mathematical terms. There is at least one other really correct answer but no other was marked as accepted. (Disclaimer: I know one of the other answerers VERY well. LOL)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suspect that one (of many) reason for this is that users see reputation as the end all to authority. It isn't, but I've seen other examples of people saying things that while not technically wrong, are misleading and yet those answers are selected as the correct ones while other, more enlightening answers, are sometimes even downvoted. These people collect more reputation, and the cycle repeats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem here I've seen is that certain questions are closed as being off topic except when a moderator chooses to declare it on topic even if it's off topic. One supposed reason is that the closed question is &quot;likely to solicit debate.&quot; Well, if that's true then most EVERY question must be closed for the very same reason. Correct answers do exist, you know. Every answer that isn't identical to someone (everyone?) else's must be considered a matter of &quot;debate&quot; and therefore the question MUST be closed. Silly? Yep. It speaks great volumes when &quot;experts&quot; can't agree on trivially simple answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem I see here is that too many students have the say so on what gets closed. That shouldn't happen. Students are....students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying very hard to like this site but there are too many inconsistencies in how it works for me to completely trust it or to recommend it to anyone else, especially my own students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="4560bfdd-2841-404f-8888-982214f6502c" CreationDate="2013-03-10T20:00:49.687" UserId="20333" Text="The question I'm asking is mathematical in content, but I suspect a physicist is more likely to know the answer. I've already asked the question in the math stackexchange, but I'd like physicists to see it. Is it reasonable to ask the question again in the physics stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="4560bfdd-2841-404f-8888-982214f6502c" CreationDate="2013-03-10T20:00:49.687" UserId="20333" Text="If I ask a question in the math stackexchange, but I feel it is more likely to get an answer in physics, should I also ask it in physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="4560bfdd-2841-404f-8888-982214f6502c" CreationDate="2013-03-10T20:00:49.687" UserId="20333" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="72ae4914-8116-415a-aa5d-3b3ca6286cd8" CreationDate="2013-03-10T20:18:10.010" UserId="124" Text="No, don't do that. Cross-posting the same question to multiple SE sites is highly discouraged, and besides, questions which are essentially about math are off topic here, so your question would just get closed as such. What you can do is post a link to your question on math.SE in our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) to point people to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if the question is judged off topic at Math SE, but is on topic for us, then it's fine to have it on this site - but even in that case, it should be migrated, you shouldn't repost it here. (You might occasionally have to flag the question on Math to ask for migration, but usually they'll catch it themselves.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="a84c885a-d154-4ba6-b0bf-a64597630dea" CreationDate="2013-03-10T20:18:20.380" UserId="2451" Text="The preferred procedure is to not make simultaneous cross-postings, since it may waste potential answerer's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. if e.g. the post hasn't received an acceptable answer after, say, a couple of days, OP could flag for migration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. or e.g. if the question is on-topic on both sites, and OP wants a second opinion from the second site, he could, say, after a couple of days, make a cross-post on the second site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If OP cross-post, he should as a minimum mention the cross-post in links (on both sites!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="7789d3b4-414a-4834-b773-8c544ae91b13" CreationDate="2013-03-12T12:41:15.200" UserId="8563" Text="I recently saw [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/56639/8563) which (apart from being not very good and even slightly spammy) has an email address for further contact. I have seen this before in other posts and it's always made me squirm a bit. Is this sort of thing OK? Should I flag the posts for moderator attention? Should I edit the email out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="7789d3b4-414a-4834-b773-8c544ae91b13" CreationDate="2013-03-12T12:41:15.200" UserId="8563" Text="Should email addresses be allowed in posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="7789d3b4-414a-4834-b773-8c544ae91b13" CreationDate="2013-03-12T12:41:15.200" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4105" RevisionGUID="9bde5937-ca44-4690-9577-2aa065abf094" CreationDate="2013-03-12T12:55:50.100" UserId="7433" Text="While it's not disallowed per se,  you are well within your limits if you choose to remove it. (Flagging this was the right action--when in doubt, flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I highly doubt that that's mainstream physics (rather hard to tell, since I'm not entirely clear on what the user is trying to say -- and I haven't had time to read those links). If that is indeed the case, I (or another mod) can remove the post. For the time being I've added a `[citation needed]` post notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for bringing this to our attention! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="a17d4efa-5651-4179-9398-941fc3ab271d" CreationDate="2013-03-12T17:53:13.503" UserId="124" Text="To address the more general issue of including email addresses in posts: this has come up several times on MSO, for example [this question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/132117/what-should-i-do-if-a-user-posts-sensitive-information-as-part-of-a-question-or), and also see the &quot;Linked&quot; section in the sidebar. The gist of those answers is that, although there's technically no rule against having an email address in a post, there is no good reason for it to be there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you see an email address in a post, but the content of the post is otherwise worth keeping, I'd say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Edit it out&#xD;&#xA;2. Flag the post for moderator attention so we can have the revision with the email address deleted from the revision history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's some debate on MSO as to whether you should leave a comment suggesting to the OP that they shouldn't put sensitive information like email addresses in their posts. It could be argued that it draws attention to the email, but I don't think that's such a big issue on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if the content of the post is not worth keeping, just treat it accordingly. Flag it for moderator attention, or as spam, if it looks like spam; and/or vote to close or delete it if you have enough reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="8ca10c48-0830-4933-8878-dbd60d4d86dc" CreationDate="2013-03-13T10:25:41.537" UserId="2751" Comment="Whoops" Text="When does it make sense to add an additional answer to a question which has already an accepted answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="b809fe66-ab39-45e0-9398-2573e8e5bd27" CreationDate="2013-03-13T17:51:29.733" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="Once again, arbitrary &quot;moderation&quot; has risen. A perfectly on-topic question was asked but was then moved inappropriately to another board. If I could formally register a complaint, I would, but I've seen here that people are usually punished for speaking out. This forum consistently shows a disdain for anything related to educational aspects of physics and astronomy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unfathomable that a topic for which a tag exists can be considered topic. It is just as unfathomable that moderators can choose to ignore the established framework and throw out questions that they personally don't like or personally don't agree with. Simply.....staggering.....there is no stronger word I can think of for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also seems to be a consistent bias toward users with sky high reputations even though they give bad answers. It's very difficult around here for newcomers to establish reputation amidst the bias and arbitrariness and willingness to accept any answer without even knowing whether it answers the question that was asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="b809fe66-ab39-45e0-9398-2573e8e5bd27" CreationDate="2013-03-13T17:51:29.733" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="moderator's personal opinions are irrelevant, or should be" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="b809fe66-ab39-45e0-9398-2573e8e5bd27" CreationDate="2013-03-13T17:51:29.733" UserDisplayName="user11266" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="ff3a0a4d-91ac-4563-b0fc-32b2b8df0a57" CreationDate="2013-03-13T18:43:24.657" UserId="124" Text="Here's why this wasn't an example of arbitrary moderation: there were four people who expressed opinions that the question was off topic, another who was ambivalent about it, and one who strongly stated a belief that the question was on topic. If your definition of &quot;arbitrary moderation&quot; includes a consensus decision by four well-established users, it's a pretty useless definition. And what happened here is pretty nearly the _opposite_ of moderators ignoring the established framework and closing questions because of a personal disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say that the opinions - not actions, but merely opinions - of some of those well-established users should be discarded simply because they happen to be moderators, well, that just doesn't make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If I could formally register a complaint, I would,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can. Email team@stackexchange.com to provide feedback to Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I've seen here that people are usually punished for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, I can't recall a single instance where that has happened. Sometimes people are punished based on _how_ they say what they say (i.e. rudeness), but never simply for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This forum consistently shows a disdain for anything related to educational aspects of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, yeah. (It's not a forum, but) This is a site for conceptual physics questions; education questions are sort of a fringe topic. [Some of them are okay and some aren't](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/official-policy-on-astronomy-and-physics-education-cited-in-answers). And in some cases, the question is unacceptable for reasons unrelated to whether it's on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="ab04bfa4-11ef-447a-a0a5-9ffe37590b22" CreationDate="2013-03-13T19:36:47.297" UserId="520" Text="I wish I'd stuck my nose in earlier, though I would not have argued strongly against the migration. Still there are a few points that need to be made one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many physics departments now have programs in the field known as &quot;Physics Education Research&quot; (PER), and professors hired for their skill in that discipline are called &quot;physics professors&quot; (and indeed they generally have Ph.Ds in physics).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That said, no one argues that the discipline is *physics*, it is clearly a field in the study of education. You can go to their talk or chat them up in the hallway and come to understand that very well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   The reason PER is not in the College of Education is that those people have spectacularly failed us for generations. They have been unable to address the specific needs of technical disciplines in general and physics in particular. Not to mention a widespread feeling that their approach is not very scientific and a lot of their doctrine is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The PER people *are* trying to understand the value and costs of particular turns of phase as well as pedagogical approaches (things like *&quot;Is following the historical lines of development of physics useful or and unnecessary distraction?&quot;* and *&quot;math separately or as you go along?&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  However, they actually have very sparse concrete answer in those parts of their field. Their place where they made the most reliable and helpful advances are in things like the structure of instruction. Clickers and demos to break up the presentation and re-focus the students; investigative rather than follow the steps lab; more lab and less lecture; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to say that the original questions *isn't* about what it says in the title, because physics *isn't* taught using the phrases that the OP singles out for interest. Physics is conveyed in a general and non-technical way to the interest lay public using those words and metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That may seem like arguing of semantics, but I think it is important because popular science and science education have different audiences and different goals. You always tune your message to the audience and what you expect them to take away, and pop-sci is aimed and intelligent non-specialist and overview of the results and the flavor of the theory; it is not intended to enable them to do physics at that level. Notwithstanding that a lot of us got *engaged* and started down the road to being scientist from exactly such entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, personally, I'd have left it where it was. The answer to the question are not going to be *physics* answers, but to the extent that there *are* actual authoritative answer they will come from physicists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="ae10bb9d-fb0a-466f-a4b0-ae776818339c" CreationDate="2013-03-13T19:55:33.980" UserId="520" Comment="added 841 characters in body" Text="I wish I'd stuck my nose in earlier, though I would not have argued strongly against the migration. Still there are a few points that need to be made one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many physics departments now have programs in the field known as &quot;Physics Education Research&quot; (PER), and professors hired for their skill in that discipline are called &quot;physics professors&quot; (and indeed they generally have Ph.Ds in physics).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That said, no one argues that the discipline is *physics*, it is clearly a field in the study of education. You can go to their talk or chat them up in the hallway and come to understand that very well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   The reason PER is not in the College of Education is that those people have spectacularly failed us for generations. They have been unable to address the specific needs of technical disciplines in general and physics in particular. Not to mention a widespread feeling that their approach is not very scientific and a lot of their doctrine is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The PER people *are* trying to understand the value and costs of particular turns of phase as well as pedagogical approaches (things like *&quot;Is following the historical lines of development of physics useful or and unnecessary distraction?&quot;* and *&quot;math separately or as you go along?&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  However, they actually have very sparse concrete answers in those parts of their field. The place where they've made the most reliable and helpful advances is in the structure of instruction. Clickers and demos to break up the presentation and re-focus the students; investigative rather than follow the steps lab; more lab and less lecture; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to say that the original questions *isn't* about what it says in the title, because physics *isn't* taught using the phrases that the OP singles out for interest. Physics is conveyed in a general and non-technical way to the interest lay public using those words and metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That may seem like arguing of semantics, but I think it is important because popular science and science education have different audiences and different goals. You always tune your message to the audience and what you expect them to take away, and pop-sci is aimed at giving the intelligent non-specialist an overview of the results and the flavor of the theory; it is not intended to enable them to do physics at that level. Notwithstanding that a lot of us got *engaged* and started down the road to being scientist from exactly such entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, personally, I'd have left it where it was. The answer to the question are not going to be *physics* answers, but to the extent that there *are* actual authoritative answer they will come from physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ws don't have a fixed policy on PER questions that I'm aware of, and I don't have a sense of what would be a good one. It is a murky business where many of the topics of investigation are of generally applicability (sometimes to all technical subjects and sometimes to learning in general). We don't want to open the door to *any* question about educational technique as long as it has &quot;in teaching physics&quot; appending (those of you who were around in the early days of Stack Overflow may remember the &quot;[boat programming](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/19487/2509)&quot; question). But these means that allowing PER questions becomes a nightmare of trying to articulate well drawn lines. What fun that will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Acedamia.SE does a good job of answer that kind of question then it might be best to ship all there just for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="8d2f3bd4-609b-4bba-a156-f4be8f21b1f1" CreationDate="2013-03-13T21:18:19.653" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="I wish I'd stuck my nose in earlier, though I would not have argued strongly against the migration. Still there are a few points that need to be made one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many physics departments now have programs in the field known as &quot;Physics Education Research&quot; (PER), and professors hired for their skill in that discipline are called &quot;physics professors&quot; (and indeed they generally have Ph.Ds in physics).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That said, no one argues that the discipline is *physics*, it is clearly a field in the study of education. You can go to their talk or chat them up in the hallway and come to understand that very well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   The reason PER is not in the College of Education is that those people have spectacularly failed us for generations. They have been unable to address the specific needs of technical disciplines in general and physics in particular. Not to mention a widespread feeling that their approach is not very scientific and a lot of their doctrine is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The PER people *are* trying to understand the value and costs of particular turns of phase as well as pedagogical approaches (things like *&quot;Is following the historical lines of development of physics useful or and unnecessary distraction?&quot;* and *&quot;math separately or as you go along?&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  However, they actually have very sparse concrete answers in those parts of their field. The place where they've made the most reliable and helpful advances is in the structure of instruction. Clickers and demos to break up the presentation and re-focus the students; investigative rather than follow the steps lab; more lab and less lecture; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to say that the original questions *isn't* about what it says in the title, because physics *isn't* taught using the phrases that the OP singles out for interest. Physics is conveyed in a general and non-technical way to the interest lay public using those words and metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That may seem like arguing of semantics, but I think it is important because popular science and science education have different audiences and different goals. You always tune your message to the audience and what you expect them to take away, and pop-sci is aimed at giving the intelligent non-specialist an overview of the results and the flavor of the theory; it is not intended to enable them to do physics at that level. Notwithstanding that a lot of us got *engaged* and started down the road to being scientist from exactly such entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, personally, I'd have left it where it was. The answer to the question are not going to be *physics* answers, but to the extent that there *are* actual authoritative answer they will come from physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have a fixed policy on PER questions that I'm aware of, and I don't have a sense of what would be a good one. It is a murky business where many of the topics of investigation are of generally applicability (sometimes to all technical subjects and sometimes to learning in general). We don't want to open the door to *any* question about educational technique as long as it has &quot;in teaching physics&quot; appending (those of you who were around in the early days of Stack Overflow may remember the &quot;[boat programming](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/19487/2509)&quot; question). But these means that allowing PER questions becomes a nightmare of trying to articulate well drawn lines. What fun that will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Acedamia.SE does a good job of answer that kind of question then it might be best to ship all there just for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="bc935059-a4fc-411b-b3a3-8c678dd77ab0" CreationDate="2013-03-14T15:21:21.643" UserId="3064" Text="I am reading about  exciton transfer between molecules in this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volkhard May, Oliver Kühn - *Charge and Energy Transfer Dynamics in Molecular Systems*, 2nd Edition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about section 8.2, &quot;The Exciton Hamiltonian&quot;. I've been thinking about posting a question here, and I've been thinking really hard about what I can do to make the post as general as possible, so that it isn't specific to this book but rather a question about the theory used to describe intermolecular exciton transfer. But I don't know how to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be ok to ask the question, referring to the specific paragraphs in the book that I am having trouble with, so that someone else, more qualified than me, could edit the question into something more general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="bc935059-a4fc-411b-b3a3-8c678dd77ab0" CreationDate="2013-03-14T15:21:21.643" UserId="3064" Text="How do I make a question about something I don't understand in a book I am reading?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="bc935059-a4fc-411b-b3a3-8c678dd77ab0" CreationDate="2013-03-14T15:21:21.643" UserId="3064" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="a074f759-6863-4913-b056-ecbd83079527" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:25:46.537" UserId="1504" Text="I think you should just ask the question.  Try to focus on the physics which is confusing you, but don't worry too much about generalizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, please do your best to keep the question self-contained. Better to type out a few equations than to ask your audience to read several pages off-site.  For one thing, the process of choosing what to include in the question can help you figure out exactly what's confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4112" RevisionGUID="b965c272-ed5c-4586-8751-0b09b92024c5" CreationDate="2013-03-16T00:56:28.287" UserId="21402" Text="User1504's answer is great.  I would only add that you can (and should) continue to credit the author and book, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;Charge and Energy Transfer Dynamics in Molecular Systems&quot;, 2nd Edition, authors Volkhard May and Oliver Kühn write that ....  They state that....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="f54e5e51-82ad-4663-b9e1-26c3cc1aaac5" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:10:50.407" UserId="7433" Text="A moderator closed/migrated/deleted a post, and I disagree with this. How should I proceed in getting this reversed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This post is basically meant to be an expansion of [this comment of mine][1] and [this chat message][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/moderators-personal-opinions-are-irrelevant-or-should-be#comment9212_4107&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8525711#8525711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="f54e5e51-82ad-4663-b9e1-26c3cc1aaac5" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:10:50.407" UserId="7433" Text="How do I dispute a moderator's action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="f54e5e51-82ad-4663-b9e1-26c3cc1aaac5" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:10:50.407" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|faq|closed-questions|moderators|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="a0ca2de3-7c05-43f2-b5f0-3603a78ede7f" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:10:50.407" UserId="7433" Text="##Posting on meta&#xD;&#xA;If a post gets closed/migrated/deleted, write up a meta post for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Link to the post in question&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why the post is on topic for our site&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why you disagree with the comments supporting the closing, if any&#xD;&#xA; - Link to this meta post in the comments on the post in question, if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the ensuing discussion reaches a consensus that the action should be reversed, then we will reverse it for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few things to remember while participating in such discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The existence of a tag does not make a post on topic&#xD;&#xA; - The amount of votes on a question does not make it on topic&#xD;&#xA; - Closing isn't the end of the world. If a question can be edited to be clearer and on topic, it can easily be reopened. Closing is meant to be an &quot;on hold&quot; state&#xD;&#xA; - Physics.SE doesn't try to cater to all the types of questions which will be useful to physicists. While some things (like some types of recommendation questions) may be useful, Physics.SE isn't the place for them (however, many of these can be put into tag wikis).&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which are not about physics concepts but would be best answered by physicists are not necessarily on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Don't make it a political issue &#xD;&#xA;Recently, there have been quite a few posts where a user hotly complains about a moderator action ([example][1]), and focuses the post on maligning the moderator in question. Such posts rarely are constructive, and end up getting downvoted and sparking lots of drama. While the core of the post &quot;Should this action have been done?&quot; is a good meta post, the extra baggage hinders the post in getting a good, constructive decision/consensus on the actual closing/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting [myself][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess one thing that folks haven't really thought of is that most mod actions are reversible. Posts of the form &quot;Moderator closed/migrated/deleted X. Bad moderator, go to your kennel.&quot; keep cropping up on meta, and drama tags along. Whereas a simple post of the form &quot;Should X be closed?&quot; will lead to a constructive discussion, and if the community agrees, we usually will reverse the action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, _a moderator action is not necessarily the &quot;last word&quot; on the matter_.  Mod actions are reversible. If a moderator closes a post, he will happily reopen it if there are good enough arguments made on meta. A mod closing is no different from a 5-close-vote closing in this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/moderators-personal-opinions-are-irrelevant-or-should-be&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8525711#8525711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8240" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="c91d30eb-12ed-457e-a335-deadb64062eb" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:11:05.687" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="8241" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="1eb1e554-7c51-4b99-9d62-68f3eb59a6ae" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:11:05.687" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="8242" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="640ad1ef-9de7-47d7-bb02-322d76dd65e8" CreationDate="2013-03-17T11:11:15.127" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="2c27238f-fc04-4152-b88d-52ced9173ad1" CreationDate="2013-03-17T16:31:20.197" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="A moderator closed/migrated/deleted a post, and I disagree with this. How should I proceed in getting this reversed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/moderators-personal-opinions-are-irrelevant-or-should-be#comment9212_4107&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8525711#8525711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="1ebb25e1-bdc7-4f39-9adb-c7797bb83f01" CreationDate="2013-03-17T16:32:06.753" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 328 characters in body" Text="##Posting on meta&#xD;&#xA;If a post gets closed/migrated/deleted, write up a meta post for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Link to the post in question&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why the post is on topic for our site&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why you disagree with the comments supporting the closing, if any&#xD;&#xA; - Link to this meta post in the comments on the post in question, if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the ensuing discussion reaches a consensus that the action should be reversed, then we will reverse it for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few things to remember while participating in such discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The existence of a tag does not make a post on topic&#xD;&#xA; - The amount of votes on a question does not make it on topic&#xD;&#xA; - Closing isn't the end of the world. If a question can be edited to be clearer and on topic, it can easily be reopened. Closing is meant to be an &quot;on hold&quot; state&#xD;&#xA; - Physics.SE doesn't try to cater to all the types of questions which will be useful to physicists. While some things (like some types of recommendation questions) may be useful, Physics.SE isn't the place for them (however, many of these can be put into tag wikis).&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which are not about physics concepts but would be best answered by physicists are not necessarily on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Don't make it a political issue &#xD;&#xA;Recently, there have been quite a few posts where a user hotly complains about a moderator action ([example][1]), and focuses the post on maligning the moderator in question. Such posts rarely are constructive, and end up getting downvoted and sparking lots of drama. While the core of the post &quot;Should this action have been done?&quot; is a good meta post, the extra baggage hinders the post in getting a good, constructive decision/consensus on the actual closing/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess one thing that folks haven't really thought of is that most mod actions are reversible. Basically, _a moderator action is not necessarily the &quot;last word&quot; on the matter_.  Mod actions are reversible. If a moderator closes a post, he will happily reopen it if there are good enough arguments made on meta. A mod closing is no different from a 5-close-vote closing in this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/moderators-personal-opinions-are-irrelevant-or-should-be&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8525711#8525711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="8d576ef2-49a6-456e-af49-bdf6fdf8b80c" CreationDate="2013-03-17T17:10:23.750" UserId="7433" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="##Posting on meta&#xD;&#xA;If a post gets closed/migrated/deleted, write up a meta post for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Link to the post in question&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why the post is on topic for our site&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why you disagree with the comments supporting the closing, if any&#xD;&#xA; - Link to this meta post in the comments on the post in question, if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the ensuing discussion reaches a consensus that the action should be reversed, then we will reverse it for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few things to remember while participating in such discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The existence of a tag does not make a post on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - The amount of votes on a question does not make it on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - Closing isn't the end of the world. If a question can be edited to be clearer and on-topic, it can easily be reopened. Closing is meant to be an &quot;on hold&quot; state&#xD;&#xA; - Physics.SE doesn't try to cater to all the types of questions which will be useful to physicists. While some things (like some types of recommendation questions) may be useful, Physics.SE isn't the place for them (however, many of these can be put into tag wikis).&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which are not about physics concepts but would be best answered by physicists are not necessarily on-topic.&#xD;&#xA; - **The best meta posts lay out useful guidelines for the future**, rather than  getting caught up on past cases (which may not be the norm, and may be based on an outdated policy). Keeping this in mind while formulating a meta post goes a long way towards improving our policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Don't make it a political issue &#xD;&#xA;Recently, there have been quite a few posts where a user hotly complains about a moderator action, and focuses the post on maligning the moderator in question. Such posts rarely are constructive, and end up getting downvoted and sparking lots of drama. While the core of the post &quot;Should this action have been done?&quot; is a good meta post, the extra baggage hinders the post in getting a good, constructive decision/consensus on the actual closing/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess one thing that folks haven't really thought of is that most mod actions are reversible. Basically, _a moderator action is not necessarily the &quot;last word&quot; on the matter_.  Mod actions are reversible. If a moderator closes a post, he will happily reopen it if there are good enough arguments made on meta. A mod closing is no different from a 5-close-vote closing in this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/moderators-personal-opinions-are-irrelevant-or-should-be&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8525711#8525711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8246" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="71bd0a71-ca50-456b-923a-b02e32c90e7b" CreationDate="2013-03-18T05:16:44.107" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="ceede264-6f1f-4a9c-990e-edbf2207058b" CreationDate="2013-03-18T05:17:10.673" UserId="7433" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="##Posting on meta&#xD;&#xA;If a post gets closed/migrated/deleted, write up a meta post for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Link to the post in question&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why the post is on topic for our site&#xD;&#xA; - Explain why you disagree with the comments supporting the closing, if any&#xD;&#xA; - Link to the meta post you just created in the comments on the post in question, if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the ensuing discussion reaches a consensus that the action should be reversed, then we will reverse it for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few things to remember while participating in such discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The existence of a tag does not make a post on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - The amount of votes on a question does not make it on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - Closing isn't the end of the world. If a question can be edited to be clearer and on-topic, it can easily be reopened. Closing is meant to be an &quot;on hold&quot; state&#xD;&#xA; - Physics.SE doesn't try to cater to all the types of questions which will be useful to physicists. While some things (like some types of recommendation questions) may be useful, Physics.SE isn't the place for them (however, many of these can be put into tag wikis).&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which are not about physics concepts but would be best answered by physicists are not necessarily on-topic.&#xD;&#xA; - **The best meta posts lay out useful guidelines for the future**, rather than  getting caught up on past cases (which may not be the norm, and may be based on an outdated policy). Keeping this in mind while formulating a meta post goes a long way towards improving our policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Don't make it a political issue &#xD;&#xA;Recently, there have been quite a few posts where a user hotly complains about a moderator action, and focuses the post on maligning the moderator in question. Such posts rarely are constructive, and end up getting downvoted and sparking lots of drama. While the core of the post &quot;Should this action have been done?&quot; is a good meta post, the extra baggage hinders the post in getting a good, constructive decision/consensus on the actual closing/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess one thing that folks haven't really thought of is that most mod actions are reversible. Basically, _a moderator action is not necessarily the &quot;last word&quot; on the matter_.  Mod actions are reversible. If a moderator closes a post, he will happily reopen it if there are good enough arguments made on meta. A mod closing is no different from a 5-close-vote closing in this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/moderators-personal-opinions-are-irrelevant-or-should-be&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8525711#8525711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="a44c5ea8-fed9-4d2a-b2b2-f6b5926f49f4" CreationDate="2013-03-18T05:36:46.477" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|featured|closed-questions|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8249" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="9cf89177-edee-480e-bf37-179500da7641" CreationDate="2013-03-18T16:43:16.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/313692086023114753" />
  <row Id="8250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="b38e89fb-7f94-4ffe-be60-a49742bbb309" CreationDate="2013-03-19T10:23:11.917" UserId="10881" Text="I do that a lot and I find that putting &quot;Author Book title Eq. number&quot; in the title together with modern search engines is a great way of keeping track of all the posts I had on specific questions. Many people read the same book on a subject and will recognize the implied question by the title + Eq. number. It even occurred once that the author of the book himself replied to a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="7d46b4b3-da80-41c4-b5ad-3d09e5fd1ea0" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:30:31.733" UserId="1325" Text="This is a follow-up to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I disagree with the motivation behind that question it does seem to me that there are a lot of frivolous and lazy questions at the moment. By this I mean questions that are either copied and pasted from homework texts, that would be answered by a quick Google or that would score high on John Baez's index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site members can already vote to close a question, but we can't vote to delete (though we can flag for moderator attention). I wonder if we should have a facility to vote to delete in the way we can vote to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="7d46b4b3-da80-41c4-b5ad-3d09e5fd1ea0" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:30:31.733" UserId="1325" Text="Should we delete questions more frequently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="7d46b4b3-da80-41c4-b5ad-3d09e5fd1ea0" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:30:31.733" UserId="1325" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4117" RevisionGUID="e0bd7894-230a-44ad-bd6b-fb799a5aa6b4" CreationDate="2013-03-20T10:15:19.527" UserId="124" Text="I'd also like to see more frequent deletion of closed questions which are not going to be improved. Unfortunately, as the comments have mentioned, the system imposes very stringent rep requirements for this. It means that in practice, deletions can only really be done by moderators (until we get more high-rep users), and I for one am trying to be more hands-off. I don't like to make questions disappear unilaterally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess for now, the two things I would recommend are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you see a closed question where it seems very unlikely that the OP will come back and fix it up for reopening, either because it's old or because it's just a bad question that can't be fixed up, just flag it for a moderator to delete. That way we know at least one other person agrees on the deletion.&#xD;&#xA;2. Upvote lots! (when warranted, of course) That way, eventually more people will have the 10k rep required to cast delete votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="24fb4b0e-19cc-4dec-a549-cc78710e6e3f" CreationDate="2013-03-20T10:48:30.913" UserId="1325" Text="It seems to me this site can fulfil two roles. Firstly it can encourage collaboration between active researchers (postgrads, postdocs and academic staff) and secondly it can educate we lowly ones (undergrads, interested amateurs and the general public).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think both roles are laudable, but the first role on its own is not going to sustain the site, as the closure of the Theoretical Physics SE shows. The majority of the activity is going to be educational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you accept this, I don't see why the educational role should be restricted to undergraduates. If the Physics SE had been available when I was a schoolchild I would have used it enthusiastically. I'd probably have asked some silly questions but that would have stemmed from over-enthusiasm not indolence, and surely this is forgivable as long as it doesn't become excessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also find great curiosity about physics from non-physicist friends of mine. At dinner parties I'm frequently asked about some aspect of physics that has been on the news, a Horizon programme or Brian Cox's latest broadcast. Since I get invited back I assume the interest is real :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do get excessive numbers of frivolous and lazy questions (as defined [here][1]) but I think the best way to deal with these is more active participation by site members. I very rarely see a question that is closed due to five votes to close by site members. Typically two to three of us can be bothered to VTC and we leave it to the poor old moderators to close the question. I would like site members to be able to vote to delete more easily, but that's out of our hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarise, I agree with the OP that it would be nice to make the forum better for researchers and students, but the way to do this is not to discourage Physics 101 questions from people who don't fall into these categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="80c97f39-62cf-4b2c-8a6d-98b003730b48" CreationDate="2013-03-20T12:12:45.463" UserId="7743" Text="Mainly I'm thinking of the type of questions that pop up there every week: http://what-if.xkcd.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, which other SE site do you think it's appropriate for them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="80c97f39-62cf-4b2c-8a6d-98b003730b48" CreationDate="2013-03-20T12:12:45.463" UserId="7743" Text="Are 'what would happen if' type questions appropriate for this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="80c97f39-62cf-4b2c-8a6d-98b003730b48" CreationDate="2013-03-20T12:12:45.463" UserId="7743" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="3c5fb570-d913-4620-bd67-25b94c4d1067" CreationDate="2013-03-20T12:16:55.577" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4120" RevisionGUID="239e5a46-226b-48c9-b3b2-8bdbe6ded804" CreationDate="2013-03-20T13:41:45.080" UserId="7433" Text="Yes, we should, for some types of questions. See the [Broken Windows Theory][1]. Questions which are *unsalvageable* (no way to fix) can easily be deleted. Leave a delete vote on them and we'll get rid of them (flag as well if you want&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). Normal users: If you see a closed question with no way to be salvaged, flag it with a custom message asking for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For salvageable questions, wait a while. Encourage the OP to fix the question in a comment, and tell them how to fix it. If an old, salvageable question is closed, see if you can fix it yourself (this is for when it's obvious that the OP isn't coming back). If you can't, vote to delete/flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've heard that making per site changes to the privilege system is a _very_ non trivial thing for SE, and we can safely assume that it won't happen. Flagging works well enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I check out the posts with delete votes now and then in `/tools`, but this is rare&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8261" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="4baa184f-3793-463f-a1d4-6910ffbf173d" CreationDate="2013-03-20T16:44:58.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/314417292198952961" />
  <row Id="8262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4121" RevisionGUID="5cbad6ff-9ae8-4922-8b57-bc9236bb6430" CreationDate="2013-03-20T18:22:23.423" UserId="124" Text="If the question is literally just &quot;What if X?&quot; then no, it's not on topic here, or on any other SE site I can think of. A question like that is _very_ open-ended; it's not asking anything specific, and it invites a whole slew of speculative answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you were to ask a _specific_ question about an unusual situation, it should be fine. This week's what-if, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if you somehow managed to make a stereo travel at twice the speed of sound, would it sound backwards to someone who was just casually sitting somewhere as it flies by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be an acceptable question for us. But if you want to ask a question like that, make it clear that you've looked into it and done some prior research yourself, or at least thought about it. If you just posted the question as I quoted it above, it would be only so-so, but posting it as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if you somehow managed to make a stereo travel at twice the speed of sound, would it sound backwards to someone who was just casually sitting somewhere as it flies by? I would think so, but then it occurred to me that _blah blah blah blah_ so maybe it wouldn't. I can't find anything about this online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(for example) makes it much better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="3ef841da-7a7c-43b5-983d-3c76fef53351" CreationDate="2013-03-20T19:55:09.363" UserId="9719" Text="I do not yet have the Vote to Close privilege. As a result, whenever I come across a question that I would VTC, I have to flag it for moderator attention. What actually happens when my flag is accepted as useful? I've been assuming that it is only addressed by moderators; is that the case? When a moderator accepts the flag as useful, does the system then apply a close vote to the post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="3ef841da-7a7c-43b5-983d-3c76fef53351" CreationDate="2013-03-20T19:55:09.363" UserId="9719" Text="What happens when I flag a post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="3ef841da-7a7c-43b5-983d-3c76fef53351" CreationDate="2013-03-20T19:55:09.363" UserId="9719" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="be6f4da2-10fc-4316-93fc-2b474b745db3" CreationDate="2013-03-20T19:59:25.427" UserId="520" Text="If we act on your flag (actually on any flag on that question at the same time) it is automatically accepted as helpful. We can also decline to do anything but nonetheless mark it helpful because we approve of your bringing the situation to our attention and want you to continue flagging in that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, sometimes *nothing* happens except that one or more of us looked at the post you flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we mark a flag as unhelpful we have to provide a comment (either from a list or custom). These comments are available in the flag list you can from your profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just click the number after &quot;Helpful flags:&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d2J4H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="c4009895-2692-4029-b07a-757d3c485640" CreationDate="2013-03-21T04:37:02.103" UserId="7433" Text="No, this isn't the case. For vote to close flags, if any 3k+ user votes to close, it gets marked as helpful. Otherwise, mods may manually mark as helpful (even if we take no action -- there are cases where we agree that the question is &quot;iffy&quot; but don't think it should be closed). If a post is closed/deleted (by a moderator or otherwise), all flags on it get auto marked as &quot;helpful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that flagging to close will push the flag to the close vote review queues (and we have at least 3 regulars there), so it generally accumulates a fair amount of close votes (and the flag is marked as helpful in the process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we decline a flag, we'll leave a message as mentioned in dmckee's post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="6d6c7396-321b-48f4-b068-f2b988ae5712" CreationDate="2013-03-21T06:35:59.393" UserId="7433" Comment="added 1467 characters in body" Text="No, this isn't the case. For vote to close flags, if any 3k+ user votes to close, it gets marked as helpful. Otherwise, mods may manually mark as helpful (even if we take no action -- there are cases where we agree that the question is &quot;iffy&quot; but don't think it should be closed). If a post is closed/deleted (by a moderator or otherwise), all flags on it get auto marked as &quot;helpful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that flagging to close will push the flag to the close vote review queues (and we have at least 3 regulars there), so it generally accumulates a fair amount of close votes (and the flag is marked as helpful in the process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we decline a flag, we'll leave a message as mentioned in dmckee's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the flow for various flag types. Note that only mods can see who flagged what; 10k users only see the flag. Mods see all flags in their queue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Custom moderator flags: Only mods can see these in the main mod flag queue&#xD;&#xA; - VLQ/NAA flags: These go to the 10k queue as well as the mod queue. 10k users can see these flags, and vote to delete, counterflag as invalid, and/or counterflag with another flag of the same type or a custom flag or a spam flag. If three 10k users vote to delete (they can only do so on closed questions and downvoted answers), it gets marked as helpful. Counterflagging will push it up in priority in the mod queue (doesn't matter much, the mod queue is usually quite small). If a flag is counterflagged as invalid, it gets marked as &quot;disputed&quot;, and mods may make the final call on the post (however, we cannot mark these as helpful or declined)&#xD;&#xA; - Flag to close: These are pushed to the 10k queue and the close vote queue, and 10k users can counterflag/mark as invalid/vote to close in the 10k queue. A single vote to close will mark these as helpful, however this will not remove them from the close vote queue.&#xD;&#xA; - Spam/offensive: These go to the 10k queue, where users can counterflag as well as vote to delete. In addition, 3 spam flags banish a question from the main page). 6 spam flags (on a question or answer) lock the post, delete it, and give the user a hefty rep penalty (100 or 500, I forgot which). These are marked as helpful only when the post is deleted or a mod decides to mark them as helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8269" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="2efe29d8-02ed-450b-b753-4e6a4b42a157" CreationDate="2013-03-21T08:35:55.313" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57558/is-it-appropriate-for-a-moderator-to-close-a-question-under-pretence-off-topic" />
  <row Id="8270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="c5eb70a3-3368-4e8b-9e70-4cbf3f676bc1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T08:33:22.897" UserId="22181" Text="On March 19 2013 I asked a legitimate question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57378) about the scientific theoretical validity of Quantum Mechanics. This question was backed up with a scientific article, on which the moderator, nor Nobel laureate Prof. ‘t Hooft nor any other physicist was ever able to point out a falseness/error/mistake or whatever incorrectness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that scientists do not appreciate that their knowledge is questioned, but this cannot be used, and is certainly not a scientific argument, to suppress questions that point out possible mistakes in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can omissions in science be eliminate, when scientists do not allow substantiated articles or questions to be published?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="c5eb70a3-3368-4e8b-9e70-4cbf3f676bc1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T08:33:22.897" UserId="22181" Text="Is it appropriate for a moderator to close a question under pretence “off topic”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="c5eb70a3-3368-4e8b-9e70-4cbf3f676bc1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T08:33:22.897" UserId="22181" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8273" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="59f91e98-0b5f-480c-ae1a-9991e707ebb5" CreationDate="2013-03-21T08:40:27.460" UserId="7433" Comment="edited title" Text="Should this question have been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="06d74c4c-8d89-4873-b8f2-955d1499135c" CreationDate="2013-03-21T09:18:17.007" UserId="20750" Text="I think you should mainly look at the comment of Qmechanic which points to the [FAQ][1]. The FAQ states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pitches for your own personal theories or work** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not appropriate at this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key here is actually not on the latter part about mainstream physics (although many people would be inclined to look at that as well),  but on the first part about pitching your own work. You post the question as if it is `just a paper' but in fact it is YOUR paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4127" RevisionGUID="7b078652-54e0-41da-9a0f-48e10b1b9fd2" CreationDate="2013-03-21T09:58:52.930" UserId="1325" Text="The fact your question was closed doesn't mean it isn't a valid question, it just means it's not appropriate for this site. The big difference between us and the myriad of physics forums out there is that this is not a discussion site. We restrict ourselves to well focussed questions that have a well focussed answer. Your post did not fit this criterion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="86706fca-419f-437f-aefa-24239e7b51f2" CreationDate="2013-03-21T12:45:34.567" UserId="1492" Text="This site is not a peer review site  for new theories and research results. It is a site where questions about current physics knowledge are addressed with references and links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is too much to ask of people here to review a paper purporting to change the current physics model, to the level of peer reviewing a paper. This is done in submissions to physics journals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also submissions to the [arxiv][1] where there is no peer review, but the papers are checked for consistency. There is also [vixra][2] where off the beaten track papers are accepted as long as they are coherent, and might draw the interest of similar researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a particle physics experimentalist I can see contradictions in your model: you use classical electrodynamics on particles, when particles are par excellence quantum mechanical entities. The only reason we know there are particles is because we can analyze their behavior with the rules of quantum mechanics, not of classical mechanics and electrodynamics which you are using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you are asking for a peer review, and this site is not appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arxiv.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vixra.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4129" RevisionGUID="dc7d2cfb-eb42-41a0-ab0a-5e58a4059622" CreationDate="2013-03-21T13:11:56.887" UserId="1504" Text="This website's policy prevents us from giving your work the review it deserves.  However, I'm sure that if you ask for comment at [The Reference Frame][1], then Lubos will give you an accurate and honest assessment of your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:  http://motls.blogspot.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4133" RevisionGUID="79c7c6a0-6c52-46a6-9281-cf2a946ada07" CreationDate="2013-03-24T14:13:31.290" UserId="20731" Text="Recently I asked [this question][1] and given the number of upvotes and comments I think that there are quite some people interested. However, it seems from the comments and the lack of answers that the question might have a more chemical answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be ok to cross-post it on chemistry.SE and report the answers (if any) on physics.SE as well? Or should I perhaps flag for migration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I am wondering about cross-posting is that, given the interest on physics.SE, it seems a bit illogical to migrate the questions, because the users at physics.SE can nog longer find the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56800/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4133" RevisionGUID="79c7c6a0-6c52-46a6-9281-cf2a946ada07" CreationDate="2013-03-24T14:13:31.290" UserId="20731" Text="Should I cross-post this question in chemistry.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4133" RevisionGUID="79c7c6a0-6c52-46a6-9281-cf2a946ada07" CreationDate="2013-03-24T14:13:31.290" UserId="20731" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="822464fd-abc6-441c-bb8d-e590dbf863f9" CreationDate="2013-03-24T15:11:55.070" UserId="7433" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="2d43b130-134f-4bed-b22c-b8489c0d559c" CreationDate="2013-03-24T22:30:32.437" UserId="16689" Text="I'm wondering if this post is well published here. Well, it's a feedback after all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm killing my eyes reading the questions and answers on this website. I'm not sure, maybe I'm the only one to ask for this, but could be really fine if the presentation change to a fluid one instead of a static layout, such that I can make shorter lines with bigger letters, as on Wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I want to be able to reflow the text of this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I do that ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="2d43b130-134f-4bed-b22c-b8489c0d559c" CreationDate="2013-03-24T22:30:32.437" UserId="16689" Text="An other presentation for the posts ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="2d43b130-134f-4bed-b22c-b8489c0d559c" CreationDate="2013-03-24T22:30:32.437" UserId="16689" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="0d5b523b-ecfb-462c-b012-ffe2e6841e30" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:01:16.520" UserId="2146" Text="I have an answer voted -5 to this [question][1], and I'm not sure if I should delete it. On the one hand, it's completely wrong and ludicrous. Yet on the other, there's useful comments and links that explain why my answer is sheer nonsense, and therefore possibly helpful. Yet, it's got one of the lowest ratings ever :|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="0d5b523b-ecfb-462c-b012-ffe2e6841e30" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:01:16.520" UserId="2146" Text="When should authors voluntarily delete a post once it gets negative votes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="0d5b523b-ecfb-462c-b012-ffe2e6841e30" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:01:16.520" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4137" RevisionGUID="71a204de-3262-4db1-ba46-e13f65ebf8a7" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:09:17.393" UserId="124" Text="As long as we're not talking about something that a moderator would delete (e.g. doesn't answer the question, is spam) - and you wouldn't post those things in the first place anyway - then it's really your call. You're not required to delete a post just because of its vote total, no matter how low that vote total may get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would delete the answer if I had become convinced that it was wrong and couldn't be fixed by editing. I wouldn't worry about preserving comments, because comments are meant to be transient. If you think there is useful information in the comments, edit it into your answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="79839d44-988e-4e9b-92fb-c1ebd19202b2" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:09:26.613" UserId="16689" Text="below a list of (more or less motivated) possible improvements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a starting tautology, if you want more research-inspired question, attract more researchers ! When I read some of you claiming they want pure theoretical discussion, I'm horrified. Physics is a science, and science means models AND experiments. Could be really fine to discuss more about experiments. I don't know how to do that, but restraining to pure theory of course restrain to less than the half of the physics community ! Note that attracting more experimental discussion may oblige experimentalist to discuss about their setups, and may resolve a lot of problem associated with this main-stream envy to publish only Science and Nature papers which usually do not contain enough materials for an experiment to be reproducible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've the feeling that this site is spoiled (certainly the word is too much offending, sorry for that, I don't know a better one) by high energy physicists. I'm a condensed matter physicist interested in quantum field theory, and most of the time the answer I read about QFT sounds inconclusive and of pure semantic polemics. The questions I read in quantum information and condensed matter topic (topics that I know better indeed), looks for me much more friendly and pedagogical. Still the level of the question is not amazingly high in average. Maybe a good point to have better question is first to have better answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the modo should be a little bit less stringent regarding the rules at the beginning of a new question (examples: &quot;you should add this in your answer, not as a post&quot;, &quot;this is not a new answer, this is a comment of the previous one&quot;, &quot;this is not a new question&quot; ..., which sounds time consuming for them and not really helpful I believe). A perfect (and pedagogical) method for me would be to let people answering the way they want at the beginning (in post, answer, comment or whatever, just sending a reference or starting calculating from scratch, stopping a calculation, coming back latter for improvement, etc... well in a messy way, as almost all physicist desks are, isn't it ?). When the author of the question understands the point, HE / SHE writes HIMSELF / HERSELF the answer. It obliges to 1) know better how the site works technically (i.e. how long and boring it is to write on a small 10-lines box a long answer :-), 2) be responsible for getting the answer, 3) improve the presentation and pedagogy of the site, since the author's answer can be displayed at the beginning of all the answer. Also, this method helps in cleaning the post. Of course it is not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I understand what you want. Do you want open problem question ? Sure, I can do that. It will take me an entire afternoon each time to write correct presentation of the problem(s), to type all the maths and correct them. But sure I can do that ! Will result long unanswered posts for sure. Is that what you want ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer for myself discuss with colleagues around me first, then discuss with friends in conferences, then think hard for years before saying I can not resolve a problem. I will always use this web-site for question that I know some of you can answer better than what I found so far in non-specific literature, to clarify a specific point, ... well, I'm using Physics.SE for pedagogical reason, to discover a new subject for instance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="63c274f3-53fa-4dee-b0e3-e2917f6729f1" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:27:23.797" UserId="2451" Text="In addition to what David Zaslavsky wrote in his answer, if on one hand you are worried about your total reputation, and on the other hand you really want to keep the down-voted answer, then making it a Community-Wiki (CW) may be a solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="af0d5789-b5fb-4f42-a691-6cb7e4b4dd19" CreationDate="2013-03-25T07:00:59.803" UserId="11062" Text="As David says, there are only 4 things to keep in mind: your answer isn't *offensive*, isn't a spam, it's answering the question, it is of very good quality. (Well, *flagging an answer* states only 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as QMech says, you can always revert your post to a CW if you want so that your reputation (*score*) may not be affected in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rule that says, you **should** delete your answer. It's your wish, unless you're raged by a bunch of guys always against you (happens around SO everyday). You're saying that the comments are useful. So, you've got your point. *Don't delete it* if you don't want to. After all, it's worth a rep. score equivalent to a single answer. You can get it in the future, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, There are a lot of users who've got [more downvotes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=439&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ano%20score%3a-10) than you, and some users were lucky that their answer was [accepted](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=172&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ayes%20score%3a-10). While on the other hand, **there are** users who've deleted their 10+ voted answers when they got **shot** by an investigation on [their cat art](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/83955/plagiarism-should-be-addressed-specifically-in-the-faq/134715#134715). Some mods should've seen a lot of voted answers deleted by this...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** I've deleted many of my answers, due to these downvotes. In fact, I got raged by a guy *once* and when he's gone, I got all my score back. But now, I can't search where my deleted answers are. The reason I deleted my answers, I didn't want a guy to search my profile and downvote my *downvoted* post. But now, I don't delete my answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="aad72540-189c-4bcd-8958-123310e9f4f5" CreationDate="2013-03-25T08:17:58.903" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="In addition to what David Zaslavsky wrote in his answer, if on one hand you are worried about your reputation count, and on the other hand you really want to keep the down-voted answer, then making it a Community-Wiki (CW) may be a solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="8b929f39-c11d-4210-aecd-3cfaa7a4cfa7" CreationDate="2013-03-25T08:34:21.090" UserId="7433" Text="You can write your own user stylesheet (using Stylish or another such browser plugin). While such a feature may be useful to some, I don't see a pressing need for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion: Use [this script of mine][1] (which takes a post and trips out everything surrounding it so that it can be printed). Then, use Ctrl-+ or Ctrl-Scroll to zoom in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3802/punch-a-user-button" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="a5e4668f-2a8d-4944-bbe5-01c7e4aa9425" CreationDate="2013-03-25T09:18:55.793" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="You can write your own user stylesheet (using Stylish or another such browser plugin). While such a feature may be useful to some, I don't see a pressing need for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion: Use [this script of mine][1] (which takes a post and trips out everything surrounding it so that it can be printed). Then, use Ctrl-+ or Ctrl-Scroll to zoom in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/q/3307/10098" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="3c34a996-c196-413d-9564-1f48dad5ca5d" CreationDate="2013-03-25T15:35:33.383" UserId="16689" Comment="improvment of some ideas, found excessive before" Text="below a list of (more or less motivated) possible improvements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a starting tautology, if you want more research-inspired question, attract more researchers ! When I read some of you claiming they want pure theoretical discussion, I'm horrified. Physics is a science, and science means models AND experiments. Could be really fine to discuss more about experiments. I don't know how to do that, but restraining to pure theory of course restrain to less than the half of the physics community ! Note that attracting more experimental discussion may oblige experimentalist to discuss about their setups, and may resolve a lot of problem associated with this main-stream envy to publish only Science and Nature papers which usually do not contain enough materials for an experiment to be reproducible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: The next two paragraphs have been edited, after discussions with Dilaton who pointed their excessive (even insulting) character that I apologize for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've the feeling that some of the answers are not at the level of the questions. It seems to me -- especially in the field of QFT that I don't know well but I'm trying to learn more -- that the answers are sometimes too technical. I'm a condensed matter physicist interested in quantum field theory, and most of the time the answer I read about QFT sounds inconclusive and of pure semantic polemics. The questions I read in quantum information and condensed matter topic (topics that I know better indeed), looks for me much more friendly and pedagogical. Still the level of the question is not amazingly high in average. Maybe a good point to have better question is first to have better answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still regarding the different topics related to different communities: I've the feeling that the level of the questions crucially depends on the topic. For instance (and this might well be once again because I'm poorly knwoledged in QFT) it sounds for me that some post in condensed matter are really good, instructive and well documented. In few words, the condensed matter topic might well be still preserved from the deseases mentionned in the above question. The question still remains on how to get higher standard of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the modo should be a little bit less stringent regarding the rules at the beginning of a new question (examples: &quot;you should add this in your answer, not as a post&quot;, &quot;this is not a new answer, this is a comment of the previous one&quot;, &quot;this is not a new question&quot; ..., which sounds time consuming for them and not really helpful I believe). A perfect (and pedagogical) method for me would be to let people answering the way they want at the beginning (in post, answer, comment or whatever, just sending a reference or starting calculating from scratch, stopping a calculation, coming back latter for improvement, etc... well in a messy way, as almost all physicist desks are, isn't it ?). When the author of the question understands the point, HE / SHE writes HIMSELF / HERSELF the answer. It obliges to 1) know better how the site works technically (i.e. how long and boring it is to write on a small 10-lines box a long answer :-), 2) be responsible for getting the answer, 3) improve the presentation and pedagogy of the site, since the author's answer can be displayed at the beginning of all the answer. Also, this method helps in cleaning the post. Of course it is not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I understand what you want. Do you want open problem question ? Sure, I can do that. It will take me an entire afternoon each time to write correct presentation of the problem(s), to type all the maths and correct them. But sure I can do that ! Will result long unanswered posts for sure. Is that what you want ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer for myself discuss with colleagues around me first, then discuss with friends in conferences, then think hard for years before saying I can not resolve a problem. I will always use this web-site for question that I know some of you can answer better than what I found so far in non-specific literature, to clarify a specific point, ... well, I'm using Physics.SE for pedagogical reason, to discover a new subject for instance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="b01525a1-7764-40fd-b407-72ef32f3238b" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:26:20.833" UserId="2451" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Speaking in general about a down-voted post, i.e. not necessarily about OP's actual post: If on one hand, one is worried about further deterioration of one's reputation tally, and if on the other hand, one really want to keep the down-voted answer, then making it a Community-Wiki (CW) may be a solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="8847d7e0-8a4b-4204-bbca-3fb484c0bebb" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:59:34.203" UserId="16725" Text="The FAQ states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bit is highlighted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence has an obvious meaning, which is wrong. Almost none of the questions here deal with practical questions about actual problems that the OP faced. Rather, this bit is boilerplate text common to various stackexchange sites. On many of those sites the obvious meaning may well be appropriate, but here we should say something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct? If so, what should it really say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="8847d7e0-8a4b-4204-bbca-3fb484c0bebb" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:59:34.203" UserId="16725" Text="What &quot;practical&quot; physics problems do you &quot;actually&quot; face?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="8847d7e0-8a4b-4204-bbca-3fb484c0bebb" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:59:34.203" UserId="16725" Text="|discussion|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="497f4377-d46a-4ab7-85a3-01a65e6ea2e9" CreationDate="2013-03-25T18:39:44.800" UserId="7433" Text="I think my answer [here][1] says it all (and some of the other answers as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's a rule that makes sense for the SOFU trilogy, and not for science sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="7824d9e3-c0b8-432c-927c-6ea6a5fda9d4" CreationDate="2013-03-26T14:08:01.187" UserId="11062" Text="When we close **or** flag a question as *off-topic*, we have an option called `belongs to meta.physics.SE`. We're also receiving questions that belong to Math.SE or Electronics.SE most of the time. So, it'd be easy for migration if there is a choice for `belongs to Math.SE` and `belongs to Electronics.SE`. Well, other sites do have that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, we can take Android.SE. It's having a choice for `belongs to SO`. I think superuser is also having such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0mmnG.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="7824d9e3-c0b8-432c-927c-6ea6a5fda9d4" CreationDate="2013-03-26T14:08:01.187" UserId="11062" Text="Additional choices for migration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="7824d9e3-c0b8-432c-927c-6ea6a5fda9d4" CreationDate="2013-03-26T14:08:01.187" UserId="11062" Text="|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="969b37df-5349-4dee-8ae3-c9941ee8ad5a" CreationDate="2013-03-26T15:38:15.167" UserId="7433" Text="IIRC we need to display a major need for such a closing path. Currently, we don't even have enough active close voters, so mods have to intervene in migrations anyway. Also, we get ~one migration every day on average. That's not much. I don't think that's enough to convince SE to give us the migration paths. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we _were_  to get migration paths, I'd suggest Math, SciComp, EE, and Academia. Maybe not Academia. Nobody on Physics has managed to decipher their FAQ, so it's better to leave it out of the fray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a snapshot of the migration stats ([link for 10k users][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/posts/migrated/stats&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M0mI6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="9149607b-e455-4c0d-b217-7df384b69add" CreationDate="2013-03-26T20:56:27.567" UserId="520" Text="[Of][1] &#xD;&#xA;course, &#xD;&#xA;[us][3] &#xD;&#xA;experimental&#xD;&#xA;[types][5] &#xD;&#xA;can&#xD;&#xA;[have][7] &#xD;&#xA;[practical][8] &#xD;&#xA;physics &#xD;&#xA;[questions][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's&#xD;&#xA;[because][10]&#xD;&#xA;we're &#xD;&#xA;[practical][11]&#xD;&#xA;people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Take][2] &#xD;&#xA;that &#xD;&#xA;[you][4]&#xD;&#xA;smarty-pants&#xD;&#xA;[people][6]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28935/amount-flow-rate-of-n2-needed-to-cool-substrate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15469/how-to-guess-the-correct-fitting-function-to-some-data&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/strategies-against-50hz-mains-hum-on-detector-signals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13408/fitting-to-a-high-density-scatter-plot&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56074/laymans-method-to-sharpen-a-wire-stm-tip&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52805/improvements-on-a-makeshift-dessicator&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34193/how-are-the-masses-of-unstable-elementary-particles-measured&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47304/experimental-technique-for-measuring-temperature-of-an-ant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38859/how-to-properly-bake-a-ultra-high-vacuum-chamber&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52105/ways-to-create-controlled-small-bubbles-in-water-within-plastic-tubing&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44784/how-to-determine-whether-a-large-container-is-air-tight" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="52dd1239-579c-49bc-895d-66938f6e1e06" CreationDate="2013-03-26T21:12:00.610" UserId="520" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="[Of][1] &#xD;&#xA;course, &#xD;&#xA;[us][2] &#xD;&#xA;experimental&#xD;&#xA;[types][3] &#xD;&#xA;can&#xD;&#xA;[have][4] &#xD;&#xA;[practical][5] &#xD;&#xA;physics &#xD;&#xA;[questions][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That's][7]&#xD;&#xA;because&#xD;&#xA;[we're][8]&#xD;&#xA;practical&#xD;&#xA;[people][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Take][10] &#xD;&#xA;that &#xD;&#xA;[you][11]&#xD;&#xA;smarty-pants&#xD;&#xA;[people][12]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28935/amount-flow-rate-of-n2-needed-to-cool-substrate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/strategies-against-50hz-mains-hum-on-detector-signals&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56074/laymans-method-to-sharpen-a-wire-stm-tip&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34193/how-are-the-masses-of-unstable-elementary-particles-measured&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47304/experimental-technique-for-measuring-temperature-of-an-ant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38859/how-to-properly-bake-a-ultra-high-vacuum-chamber&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52105/ways-to-create-controlled-small-bubbles-in-water-within-plastic-tubing&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44784/how-to-determine-whether-a-large-container-is-air-tight&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2160/physical-vapor-deposition-of-sio2&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15469/how-to-guess-the-correct-fitting-function-to-some-data&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13408/fitting-to-a-high-density-scatter-plot&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52805/improvements-on-a-makeshift-dessicator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8318" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="5be4f88c-58cd-451c-8a2f-a7b006fbeb17" CreationDate="2013-03-27T13:51:58.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/316910470932099072" />
  <row Id="8319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="dfb2902b-0e34-4111-93ed-7d597c1a0415" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:51:58.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/317001065700667393" />
  <row Id="8320" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="d97222a7-8918-42b3-8a6d-105f4e06ed76" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:52:53.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/317273085504000000" />
  <row Id="8321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="1ec603d4-bbd6-41ea-9e89-e5f556ea02e7" CreationDate="2013-03-28T17:27:15.963" UserId="16725" Comment="link &quot;practical&quot; and &quot;actual&quot; as per comments" Text="The FAQ states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bit is highlighted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence has an obvious meaning, which is wrong. Almost none of the questions here deal with [practical](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practical) questions about [actual](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actual) problems that the OP faced. Rather, this bit is boilerplate text common to various stackexchange sites. On many of those sites the obvious meaning may well be appropriate, but here we should say something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct? If so, what should it really say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="7b58f450-421c-4488-b5d6-f02003900852" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:54:49.370" UserId="22354" Text="Here is one thing that really annoyed me about science-related forums: The constant change of the topic by a person, who obviously just afraid that he'll look ignorant, incompetent or lazy if he'd admit that his problem was, in fact, solved. Everything turns into unpleasant &quot;ego battle&quot;, that obviously has nothing constructive and with learning quality approaching zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, the &quot;StackExchange paradigm&quot; is [supposed][1] to deal with such a disruptive behavior? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't want to point fingers, but my first attempt to participate in this (great, I must admit) site led to exactly the same kind of problems. After my answer, the question was totally changed. Also I was downvoted by the guy who asked -- not to complain, just to note that it is obviously just another &quot;ego issue&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there are a lot of people who somehow make the site running without facing such issues. So I might conclude that the problem is actually in me, and the only thing that suits me is blogging.  Alternatively, maybe someone faced similar situation and thinks that it could be useful to have a restriction on the amount of re-editing of questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="7b58f450-421c-4488-b5d6-f02003900852" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:54:49.370" UserId="22354" Text="Should we disallow vast (self-)editing of a question, completely changing it's meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="7b58f450-421c-4488-b5d6-f02003900852" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:54:49.370" UserId="22354" Text="|discussion|questions|editing|etiquette|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="cef2e952-e212-42b3-a257-e82a6c564d97" CreationDate="2013-03-29T21:03:55.620" UserId="2684" Text="The general rule is that you should not edit the question in a way that invalidates the existing answers. Doing that causes a lot of problems and is rather unfair to the early answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exceptions, e.g. if the question would otherwise be closed it can be justified to perform some radical edits even if they invalidate existing answers. Or if the question was too broad in the beginning and the OP provides more information later, this can also invalidate existing answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a user completely changes the question in a fundamental way, just revert the edit. If the user does not accept that, flag for moderator attention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="8b276c86-e813-49d5-8202-22a69f05fe9d" CreationDate="2013-03-29T21:05:33.807" UserId="1637" Text="There can be many reasons why one would want to do it for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the author framed the question in some weird way and hence it led to some unproductive conversations/answers but over time when the author understands the topic better it looks awkward to have that old naively framed question still available on the net.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="8b276c86-e813-49d5-8202-22a69f05fe9d" CreationDate="2013-03-29T21:05:33.807" UserId="1637" Text="Shouldn't there be a mechanism to allow the author to delete questions even after there are answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="8b276c86-e813-49d5-8202-22a69f05fe9d" CreationDate="2013-03-29T21:05:33.807" UserId="1637" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="6c8124c2-c5c2-46ce-b1f9-74c0e3942a58" CreationDate="2013-03-29T21:09:12.580" UserId="2684" Text="There is a mechanism for that: flag for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators can delete questions with upvoted answer, but they will require a good reason to do so. Being embarrassed about the question is not a good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts on SE sites are licensed under the CC licence, so you can't just take them back whenever you want. As an alternative you can request your post to be anonymized, so that your user name no longer appears as the author." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="31655ffc-7209-4e64-af88-196844756052" CreationDate="2013-03-29T21:25:51.000" UserId="520" Text="The short answer is ***&quot;Not if that would mean deleting a valuable answer&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why you can delete your own question as long as it has no answer with a positive total score." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="e522f856-75da-488a-991e-92d72dc4a73e" CreationDate="2013-03-30T14:49:02.693" UserId="6389" Text="The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Has there been a proposed explaination to the observation of wave-particle duality?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/59448)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has been closed as not a real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the posting isn't particularly well formulated, the question itself can be meaningfully answered as various interpretations of quantum mechanics *do* give explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the existing answers and comments lead to the impression that the question is either a philosophical one and thus off-topic, or that existing theories do not provide explanations, both of which I disagree with under the assumption that interpretations of QM are on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I've also written an answer I wanted to post but no longer can ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="e522f856-75da-488a-991e-92d72dc4a73e" CreationDate="2013-03-30T14:49:02.693" UserId="6389" Text="Should /q/59448 be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="e522f856-75da-488a-991e-92d72dc4a73e" CreationDate="2013-03-30T14:49:02.693" UserId="6389" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4155" RevisionGUID="222c0593-b058-4a7a-b913-241bfa6dc348" CreationDate="2013-03-30T15:36:57.650" UserId="7433" Text="Well, the question was unclear for many people (and philosophical for others), so I closed it. If you think that there's a better way of phrasing the question so that it is clearer/unambiguously not philosophical, please go ahead, I'll reopen it then. The easiest way to do this is to look at your answer draft and think &quot;What question does this answer?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the meta community/other mods feel that it should be reopened, I don't mind that either :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="18f782da-7ab6-4fec-9ddb-2fc971a92c41" CreationDate="2013-03-30T16:16:32.277" UserId="6389" Comment="edit proposal" Text="The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Has there been a proposed explaination to the observation of wave-particle duality?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/59448)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has been closed as not a real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the posting isn't particularly well formulated, the question itself can be meaningfully answered as various interpretations of quantum mechanics *do* give explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the existing answers and comments lead to the impression that the question is either a philosophical one and thus off-topic, or that existing theories do not provide explanations, both of which I disagree with under the assumption that interpretations of QM are on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I've also written an answer I wanted to post but no longer can ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is my proposal for a re-write that's hopefully less confusing but still captures Outlier's intent and main points:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are there theories that _explain_ wave-particle duality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused by the famous wave-particle duality mystery:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a particle is left unobserved, it acts like a wave and can explore all classically available particle trajectories simultaneously. By looking at it, you force it to decide on a single trajectory, like going through the left or right slit, or like Schrödinger's cat that ends up being either dead or alive; the wave-like characteristics are lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there theories that actually _explain_ this behaviour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Should I go ahead and rewrite the question?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8343" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="92975652-810e-4ba2-9636-02f6a2aa383d" CreationDate="2013-03-30T16:38:45.587" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="fdd526c3-8cd4-475f-bd6e-1ca13c6ab19e" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:20:57.553" UserId="2751" Text="How can I constructively dispute a declined flag, if I think that my flag was really legitimate and should not have been declined? I am interested to know what can be done generally in this case, but I would like to resolve the issues that concretely instigated some of my recent flags which were declined and therefore lead to my meta question, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/6600/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does&#xD;&#xA;   not even try to answer the question asked, but tries in a very&#xD;&#xA;   confrontational manner to start a nonconstructive discussion. The OP&#xD;&#xA;   of this answer states in a very subjective manner his general&#xD;&#xA;   negative opinion about the physics subject of the question instead of&#xD;&#xA;   answering the question. It is not an answer and should at most have&#xD;&#xA;   been a comment, but I think such nonconstuctive off topic comments&#xD;&#xA;   should not be allowed here either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6086/2751) the same user&#xD;&#xA;   tries to advertice his own personal non mainstream theory which says&#xD;&#xA;   general relativity is wrong etc, without being really interested in&#xD;&#xA;   an answer the knowledgable people here could give him. So this&#xD;&#xA;   question is first of all off topic, since physics SE deals only with&#xD;&#xA;   mainstream physics and NOT with personal fringe theories of users,&#xD;&#xA;   and it is not a real question,&#xD;&#xA; - ... ,as can be see from the fact that the OP only accepted his own&#xD;&#xA;   wrong [answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6086/2751) which&#xD;&#xA;   advertises his personal theory further and denies and dismisses all&#xD;&#xA;   of the physics arguments people have given him in the other answers&#xD;&#xA;   taking advantage of mainstream physics. Having such a bad and wrong&#xD;&#xA;   accepted (!) answer on a question that is off topic and not a real&#xD;&#xA;   question does make Physics SE looking not good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="fdd526c3-8cd4-475f-bd6e-1ca13c6ab19e" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:20:57.553" UserId="2751" Text="How can I dispute a declined flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="fdd526c3-8cd4-475f-bd6e-1ca13c6ab19e" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:20:57.553" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|moderation|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="18c2772a-d23d-4570-863b-4a42e40f9a71" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:35:21.657" UserId="2751" Comment="edited body" Text="How can I constructively dispute a declined flag, if I think that my flag was really legitimate and should not have been declined? I am interested to know what can be done generally in this case, but I would like to resolve the issues that concretely instigated some of my recent flags which were declined and therefore lead to my meta question, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/6600/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does&#xD;&#xA;   not even try to answer the question asked, but tries in a very&#xD;&#xA;   confrontational manner to start a nonconstructive discussion. The OP&#xD;&#xA;   of this answer states in a very subjective manner his general&#xD;&#xA;   negative opinion about the physics subject of the question instead of&#xD;&#xA;   answering the question. It is not an answer and should at most have&#xD;&#xA;   been a comment, but I think such nonconstuctive off topic comments&#xD;&#xA;   should not be allowed here either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6086/2751) the same user&#xD;&#xA;   tries to advertise his own personal non mainstream theory which says&#xD;&#xA;   general relativity is wrong etc, without being really interested in&#xD;&#xA;   an answer the knowledgable people here could give him. So this&#xD;&#xA;   question is first of all off topic, since physics SE deals only with&#xD;&#xA;   mainstream physics and NOT with personal fringe theories of users,&#xD;&#xA;   and it is not a real question,&#xD;&#xA; - ... ,as can be see from the fact that the OP only accepted his own&#xD;&#xA;   wrong [answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6086/2751) which&#xD;&#xA;   advertises his personal theory further and denies and dismisses all&#xD;&#xA;   of the physics arguments people have given him in the other answers&#xD;&#xA;   taking advantage of mainstream physics. Having such a bad and wrong&#xD;&#xA;   accepted (!) answer on a question that is off topic and not a real&#xD;&#xA;   question does make Physics SE looking not good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="487fafa3-9ab9-488f-b81a-fad5330f329a" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:41:46.627" UserId="7433" Text="In general, pinging one of the mods in chat if they're around may make more sense before going off to meta :) But it's OK to ask directly on meta as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I declined those flags, mostly because I thought that you were just calling the posts wrong. &quot;The answer is wrong&quot; is not something to delete an answer by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding point 1: That was a mistake on my part--there were three flags from you on the same user, I went back and declined the wrong flag (which _now_ explains why there was one flag extra on the same post that I thought that I had dealt with). Sorry about that, the answer has been deleted now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding that question/answer, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _question_ is entirely within its limits. It's perfectly OK to post a well-phrased thought experiment on Phys.SE and ask why it is wrong. This doesn't go against our guidelines on mainstream physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _answer_ ... eh, it's debatable. There isn't always a clear distinction between &quot;non-mainstream physics pushing&quot; and &quot;wrong answer&quot;. In this case, it's not as much a &quot;fringe theory&quot; as it is just an &quot;answer with wrong assumptions&quot;. To me, the OP has asked this in good faith, so I let it be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't had time to read all the comments and the other answers his rebuttal addresses, though. Also, I'm not well-versed with GTR, though I'm able to understand the question and answers well enough. So hopefully another mod will have a look at this as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="999e623e-322f-4961-af3d-2d434896bc31" CreationDate="2013-03-30T23:00:35.093" UserId="2751" Comment="corrected link" Text="How can I constructively dispute a declined flag, if I think that my flag was really legitimate and should not have been declined? I am interested to know what can be done generally in this case, but I would like to resolve the issues that concretely instigated some of my recent flags which were declined and therefore lead to my meta question, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/6600/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does&#xD;&#xA;   not even try to answer the question asked, but tries in a very&#xD;&#xA;   confrontational manner to start a nonconstructive discussion. The OP&#xD;&#xA;   of this answer states in a very subjective manner his general&#xD;&#xA;   negative opinion about the physics subject of the question instead of&#xD;&#xA;   answering the question. It is not an answer and should at most have&#xD;&#xA;   been a comment, but I think such nonconstuctive off topic comments&#xD;&#xA;   should not be allowed here either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6086/2751) the same user&#xD;&#xA;   tries to advertise his own personal non mainstream theory which says&#xD;&#xA;   general relativity is wrong etc, without being really interested in&#xD;&#xA;   an answer the knowledgable people here could give him. So this&#xD;&#xA;   question is first of all off topic, since physics SE deals only with&#xD;&#xA;   mainstream physics and NOT with personal fringe theories of users,&#xD;&#xA;   and it is not a real question,&#xD;&#xA; - ... ,as can be see from the fact that the OP only accepted his own&#xD;&#xA;   wrong [answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/6383/2751) which&#xD;&#xA;   advertises his personal theory further and denies and dismisses all&#xD;&#xA;   of the physics arguments people have given him in the other answers&#xD;&#xA;   taking advantage of mainstream physics. Having such a bad and wrong&#xD;&#xA;   accepted (!) answer on a question that is off topic and not a real&#xD;&#xA;   question does make Physics SE looking not good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="bb96d07f-e38f-46f6-bf2b-e70dc27d224c" CreationDate="2013-03-31T04:09:51.810" UserId="11062" Text="We've got this new option called &quot;No Action needed&quot;. I think this got rid of two things. I've got no evidence. But, *I think*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Skip:** I use this when I don't know what the post actually means. For example, I hate to look in [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:string-theory], etc. So, I usually skip those posts, except if there's some spam / *wasting-time* answers which we can easily recognize. Now, my usage of &quot;Skip&quot; has been drastically reduced by the introduction of this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Upvoting:** A few months ago (before this option came into existence), I noticed that there was a *cruel upvoting* by some guys (I think, it's from some reviewers). We can notice it in the first posts. When we're reviewing, we can see that it has already been upvoted. I don't think those answers deserve an upvote. But if the upvoter believes that it deserves, then I've got another point. Whenever there's a first post, it gets upvoted. And, we can notice that while reviewing. And now, there aren't posts with so *cruel upvotes*. I had a chat with @tpg regarding that Okay, that's just a minor discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the definition of this option doesn't satisfy me. My question is: &quot;When do I use this option? Is there something wrong if I use it excessively?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;No action needed&quot; means - *&quot;It needs no action from me&quot;* (which is somewhat rude, because many posts will go like that) or as it states as a popup - *&quot;This answer seems to be valid&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both definition bugs me. Can someone point me an MSO post regarding that option, or atleast tell me,  &#xD;&#xA;*Is my reviewing OKAY?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="bb96d07f-e38f-46f6-bf2b-e70dc27d224c" CreationDate="2013-03-31T04:09:51.810" UserId="11062" Text="How should I use &quot;No Action Needed&quot; while reviewing in &quot;Physics.SE&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="bb96d07f-e38f-46f6-bf2b-e70dc27d224c" CreationDate="2013-03-31T04:09:51.810" UserId="11062" Text="|support|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="8c43ad3b-06bd-49ee-88be-e45d01a97b2c" CreationDate="2013-03-31T05:06:12.913" UserId="7433" Text="[Been there, done that][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Late Answers and First Posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[....]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In these queues, you can edit the post, flag it, upvote or downvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment.  When you take one of these actions, the **I'm Done** button becomes enabled, allowing you to complete review. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always click the **No Action Needed** button. If you're unsure about the post, *please* use the **Skip** button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues/161391#161391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8354" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="010cd168-87e1-4fcb-9199-4d1ec9fdb884" CreationDate="2013-03-31T16:54:10.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/318405872130850816" />
  <row Id="8355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="eb096e99-2960-4f31-93c8-1237de6fa2aa" CreationDate="2013-04-01T00:38:47.460" UserId="353" Text="Write a new answer.  Give the correct reason for the phenomenon, based on your new understanding.  Then add a paragraph describing the wrong reason, and why  it's wrong, based on those comments from the earlier bad answer.   Explaining why frequently believed misinformation is wrong, is indeed educational.  After the new answer is in place, delete the older wrong answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="cdd9ca88-638b-480e-b3b1-ac9c0962d8a1" CreationDate="2013-04-01T02:22:32.273" UserId="8521" Text="An oddly large number of articles are titles with, or include in their opening line, a phrase like '*I have a doubt regarding gravity*'; see the articles at the bottom, for examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, it doesn't seem that the OP actually '*doubts*' that the physics in question are true.  Instead, they seem to mean that they are generally *confused*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a particular language which this usage transliterates from?  Possibly a particular thesaurus entry leading people astray?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58148/intuition-behind-work  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57907/electric-field-lines-for-continuous-distribution  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57436/doubt-in-kinematics  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59628/why-propagation-of-uncertainty-is-linear  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="cdd9ca88-638b-480e-b3b1-ac9c0962d8a1" CreationDate="2013-04-01T02:22:32.273" UserId="8521" Text="Why do so many posts use the term 'in doubt' or 'have a doubt' regarding established physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="cdd9ca88-638b-480e-b3b1-ac9c0962d8a1" CreationDate="2013-04-01T02:22:32.273" UserId="8521" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="456f80b1-d58b-4a82-b894-08bfcfc0ee81" CreationDate="2013-04-01T02:42:55.583" UserId="7433" Text="It's a phrase, common to Indian English (and some other Asian dialects), that means &quot;I am confused&quot;. The word &quot;doubt&quot; is used as a noun here to mean &quot;a confusion&quot; or &quot;an issue&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's fine if you edit this out, just don't proactively go looking for this to take it out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="61e157e5-2864-4cae-a7cd-c37721d412e7" CreationDate="2013-04-01T11:34:13.713" UserId="4066" Text="The best synonym for this use of &quot;doubt&quot;, common in the Indian sub-continent, in British / American English is &quot;question&quot;: - &quot;I have a doubt&quot; is equivalent to &quot;I have a question&quot;. As such, it's padding, and should be edited out of questions, as part of a more substantial edit that removes chatty stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="5a7d692f-5efd-4b98-bb64-9e53bfc6a461" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:41:17.013" UserId="5686" Text="After visiting a question I had posted on this site a few months back, I had noticed something strange with this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the bottom right corner appeared a black rectangle (respecting the general design of the site), that said &quot;Chat with an expert&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened it up out of curiosity, and connected with the &quot;expert&quot; itself: just as I had expected, it was a bot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was exactly going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wild guess: is Stackoverflow at it again? (As in, doing some tests with various AI algorithms, which had already happened before.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="5a7d692f-5efd-4b98-bb64-9e53bfc6a461" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:41:17.013" UserId="5686" Text="&quot;Chat with an expert&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="5a7d692f-5efd-4b98-bb64-9e53bfc6a461" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:41:17.013" UserId="5686" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="68c562a6-d8d4-4b14-bd87-af6e2d054e37" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:43:21.120" UserId="7433" Text="This is a bot based on [ELIZA][1], as an April Fools' Day joke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/174407/what-is-chat-with-an-expert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="a1c02f0c-019b-47d0-bf45-8c9baf5eb9dd" CreationDate="2013-04-02T16:46:48.453" UserId="6287" Text="How can i make a sum symbol to ask a math related physics question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean Riemann Sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the short cut of Riemann sum or how can i ask a question that has mat symbols, formulas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="a1c02f0c-019b-47d0-bf45-8c9baf5eb9dd" CreationDate="2013-04-02T16:46:48.453" UserId="6287" Text="Some Symbols to Ask Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="a1c02f0c-019b-47d0-bf45-8c9baf5eb9dd" CreationDate="2013-04-02T16:46:48.453" UserId="6287" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="23dcca54-f4ee-43ff-8ab5-e2c252d13514" CreationDate="2013-04-02T17:03:52.800" UserId="520" Text="You start with [the section in the FAQ on symbols and notation][1], and then search the web for [help with LaTeX's mathmode symbols][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can find a post that *has* the symbol you're looking for and use the &quot;edit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;button to get a look at the source ans see what they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=LaTeX%20math%20symbols" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4168" RevisionGUID="8b249348-3cc7-48e4-8651-a6a596777a3d" CreationDate="2013-04-02T18:10:58.490" UserId="6982" Text="Or, you can try [Detexify][1]. Just draw the symbol you are looking for, and this website will look it up in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="75408803-673b-46a5-be1b-6b74c2b46b75" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:54:14.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/319175964825354242" />
  <row Id="8371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="0d1b7164-b0ea-49d2-92c7-9b2b8b0c1cec" CreationDate="2013-04-03T05:41:43.247" UserId="20731" Text="I have recently asked [a question][1] about the surface energy of solids when only the [tag:surface-tension] tag was still available. Now there is also a [tag:surface-energy] tag which is, in my opinion a more broad term which also includes effects in solids, but pretty much equivalent to surface-tension for liquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a good idea to merge the tags in to 1 [tag:surface-energy] tag, or make them synonyms?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55264/how-to-measure-a-solid-solid-surface-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="0d1b7164-b0ea-49d2-92c7-9b2b8b0c1cec" CreationDate="2013-04-03T05:41:43.247" UserId="20731" Text="When can tags be merged or made synonym?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="0d1b7164-b0ea-49d2-92c7-9b2b8b0c1cec" CreationDate="2013-04-03T05:41:43.247" UserId="20731" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4170" RevisionGUID="2cffac68-ea6c-4d2e-9d50-7391001ea145" CreationDate="2013-04-03T07:30:03.660" UserId="7433" Text="I would just merge [tag:surface-energy] --&gt;[tag:surface-tension] with a synonym. No need for two tags talking about more or less the same phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll wait for anyone who wants to object for now)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="6b9ca2e8-0113-4f67-860f-260dfedabe93" CreationDate="2013-04-03T08:53:19.860" UserId="7433" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="bbc6ec94-3402-4232-aaed-76d49a2e2f5b" CreationDate="2013-04-03T12:51:51.193" UserId="22413" Text="The following question has been closed and has been marked as inappropriate for this forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Free online study materials and codes for Monte Carlo simulation in statistical mechanics ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59869/free-online-study-materials-and-codes-for-monte-carlo-simulation-in-statistical)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this question can be **immensely** helpful to students who work in this field of **Monte Carlo simulation in statistical physics**. For example, a similar and very useful question is this one .. [List of freely available physics books](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6157/list-of-freely-available-physics-books), which was not marked as inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another user who also opposes the moderator's decision and posted comments in support of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I request you to reconsider your decision. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="bbc6ec94-3402-4232-aaed-76d49a2e2f5b" CreationDate="2013-04-03T12:51:51.193" UserId="22413" Text="Question marked as inappropriate and closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="bbc6ec94-3402-4232-aaed-76d49a2e2f5b" CreationDate="2013-04-03T12:51:51.193" UserId="22413" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="e6fd5d41-853f-4cdf-8f5e-0ae6edbc21cb" CreationDate="2013-04-03T13:00:15.910" UserId="7433" Text="The book question has been grandfathered in, that's all. Otherwise such questions are more or less off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendation questions are off topic network wide (some reasons are given [here][1] -- basically they have caused problems in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics.SE does not try to be a resource for everything useful for physics students. We try to focus on closed-ended, conceptual questions here. You may want to try Quora or a similar website for that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/174286/178438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="5bf6c07f-e071-4a2e-973e-d1da5148f556" CreationDate="2013-04-03T13:22:43.487" UserId="2751" Text="Yes, I do not agree with the reference request/books/study material policy here either, but unfortunately nothing can be done about it. [Reference requests](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/358/2751) should in principle be [allowed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2918/2751) whereas asking for books is absolutely not, but the [definitions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/786/2751) of what is a book or valid reference request are applied in a random and unpredictable manner. Valid reference request questions can get retagged and closed as book requests etc. It is a big shame that serious people are (no longer) allowed to ask for any material to (self) study/research physics of more or less advanced and well localized topics at different levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="bb0947c9-61ee-4388-b82a-6fb1f40344bd" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:31:05.377" UserId="4066" Text="This question is a broken window:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it asked today, it should get closed as Not a Real Question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's being used to justify the asking of other bad open-ended questions : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4171/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we fix this broken window?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="bb0947c9-61ee-4388-b82a-6fb1f40344bd" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:31:05.377" UserId="4066" Text="A broken window that we should fix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="bb0947c9-61ee-4388-b82a-6fb1f40344bd" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:31:05.377" UserId="4066" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="faabe973-931f-43a9-9392-5c35734f1929" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:31:05.377" UserId="4066" Text="I propose that that question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/4066  be closed and locked; and that we move the answers' contents to a tag wiki, after which the question should be deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="8d0de9a7-90a3-4963-bcc0-790252e474a3" CreationDate="2013-04-04T22:54:20.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/319946064796987392" />
  <row Id="8386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="61d84b13-5821-4f0a-90ec-b546dfc17bc4" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:01:38.187" UserId="2751" Text="No, I absolutely disagree with both, EnergyNumbers question and his answers and the from MSO imported term &quot;broken window&quot; he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited number of such big list questions about important study material for students and researchers should just be well curated, since the site should be useful for students and researchers who often have to familiarize themself with new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on spezialized and/or well defined by the targetted level or otherwise localized study material (including books if needed), such as about [twistors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36359/gentle-introduction-to-twistors) or other minor subjects such as [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15803/2751) for example, for which not a large pedagogical literature and tons of books exist (as it is the case about broad topics such as statistical physics, quantum mechanics, qlassical mechanics, etc) exists, should be allowed and tolerated as it has always been the case until the end of 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only issue (in fact a non-issue!) is, that somebody should take care of adding the new specialized questions about such study material to the corresponding lists, such that things are systematically ordered and well organized. I could do this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="623849e4-dac3-4dd8-be22-99ce699bb432" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:07:59.043" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="No, I absolutely disagree with both, EnergyNumbers question and his answer and the from MSO imported term &quot;broken window&quot; he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited number of such big list questions about important study material for students and researchers should just be well curated, since the site should be useful for students and researchers who often have to familiarize themself with new topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on spezialized and/or well defined by the targetted level or otherwise localized study material (including books if needed), such as about [twistors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36359/gentle-introduction-to-twistors) or other minor subjects such as [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15803/2751) for example, for which not a large pedagogical literature and tons of books exist (as it is the case about broad topics such as statistical physics, quantum mechanics, qlassical mechanics, etc) exists, should be allowed and tolerated as it has always been the case until the end of 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only issue (in fact a non-issue!) is, that somebody should take care of adding the new specialized questions about such study material to the corresponding lists, such that things are systematically ordered and well organized. Apart from this, there is absolutely nothig to &quot;fix&quot;. I could curate and regularly update the lists of study material and I would do it if it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="26a52c36-2db6-4b0f-a17c-b0a379c8c2c3" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:16:53.190" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="No, I absolutely disagree with both, EnergyNumbers question and his answer and the from MSO imported term &quot;broken window&quot; he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited number of such big list questions about important study material for students and researchers should just be well curated, since the site should be useful for students and researchers who often have to familiarize themself with new topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on spezialized and/or well defined by the targetted level or otherwise localized study material (including books if needed), such as about [twistors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36359/gentle-introduction-to-twistors) or other minor subjects such as [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15803/2751) for example, for which not a large pedagogical literature and tons of books exist (as it is the case about broad topics such as statistical physics, quantum mechanics, qlassical mechanics, etc) exists, should be allowed and tolerated as it has always been the case until the end of 2012. Such well defined requests for study material are neither bad (their answer is helpful for many peopl) nor open-ended as EnergyNumbers claimes, since there simply to not exist that many books / turorials / lecture notes / introductions on Arxiv etc, that fit as answer to a well localized question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only issue (in fact a non-issue!) is, that somebody should take care of adding the new specialized questions about such study material to the corresponding lists, such that things are systematically ordered and well organized. Apart from this, there is absolutely nothig to &quot;fix&quot;. I could curate and regularly update the lists of study material and I would do it if it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="47edc96e-ddb6-4822-a728-5de7b0508d72" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:24:32.393" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="No, I absolutely disagree with both, EnergyNumbers question and his answer and the from MSO imported term &quot;broken window&quot; he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited number of such big list questions about important study material for students and researchers should just be well curated, since the site is intended to be useful for students and researchers (according to what is written in the [Abaout](http://physics.stackexchange.com/about)) who need to learn things and often have to familiarize themself with new topics in the course of their live as active and flexible researchers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on spezialized and/or well defined by the targetted level or otherwise localized study material (including books if needed), such as about [twistors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36359/gentle-introduction-to-twistors) or other minor subjects such as [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15803/2751) for example, for which not a large pedagogical literature and tons of books exist (as it is the case about broad topics such as statistical physics, quantum mechanics, qlassical mechanics, etc) exists, should be allowed and tolerated as it has always been the case until the end of 2012. Such well defined requests for study material are neither bad (their answer is helpful for many peopl) nor open-ended as EnergyNumbers claimes, since there simply to not exist that many books / turorials / lecture notes / introductions on Arxiv etc, that fit as answer to a well localized question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only issue (in fact a non-issue!) is, that somebody should take care of adding the new specialized questions about such study material to the corresponding lists, such that things are systematically ordered and well organized. Apart from this, there is absolutely nothig to &quot;fix&quot;. I could curate and regularly update the lists of study material and I would do it if it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="9c035c23-dc2e-4dce-b7f4-411c740266d1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T00:13:31.507" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="No, I absolutely disagree with both, EnergyNumbers question and his answer and the from MSO imported term &quot;broken window&quot; he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited number of such big list questions about important study material for students and researchers should just be well curated, since the site is intended to be useful for students and researchers (according to what is written in the [About](http://physics.stackexchange.com/about)) who need to learn things and often have to familiarize themself with new topics in the course of their live as active and flexible researchers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on spezialized and/or well defined by the targetted level or otherwise localized study material (including books if needed), such as about [twistors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36359/gentle-introduction-to-twistors) or other minor subjects such as [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15803/2751) for example, for which not a large pedagogical literature and tons of books exist (as it is the case about broad topics such as statistical physics, quantum mechanics, qlassical mechanics, etc) exists, should be allowed and tolerated as it has always been the case until the end of 2012. Such well defined requests for study material are neither bad (their answer is helpful for many peopl) nor open-ended as EnergyNumbers claimes, since there simply to not exist that many books / turorials / lecture notes / introductions on Arxiv etc, that fit as answer to a well localized question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only issue (in fact a non-issue!) is, that somebody should take care of adding the new specialized questions about such study material to the corresponding lists, such that things are systematically ordered and well organized. Apart from this, there is absolutely nothig to &quot;fix&quot;. I could curate and regularly update the lists of study material and I would do it if it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="7d33f55d-294b-4e8a-93fd-3e732006a313" CreationDate="2013-04-05T15:16:20.990" UserId="4066" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="This question is a [broken][1] [window][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it asked today, it should get closed as Not a Real Question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's being used to justify the asking of other bad open-ended questions : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4171/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we fix this broken window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/08/pragmatic-programming.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/06/the-broken-window-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="12f24f38-474a-47e1-9ae3-b42c0d64f5f1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T18:15:35.223" UserId="17623" Text="When you ask a research level question, don't you expect a research level answer.  Why would I ask a question that I could answer from a standard text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="12f24f38-474a-47e1-9ae3-b42c0d64f5f1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T18:15:35.223" UserId="17623" Text="Why ask research level questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="12f24f38-474a-47e1-9ae3-b42c0d64f5f1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T18:15:35.223" UserId="17623" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4178" RevisionGUID="1b80f12d-7f85-4e16-8eab-601f0d679d1b" CreationDate="2013-04-05T19:14:20.207" UserId="7433" Text="I don't really see what you mean here. (Assuming you're talking about http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60150/is-the-spectral-pattern-for-hydrogen-related-to-how-the-sun-bends-or-gravitation#question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting the [FAQ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably not appropriate at this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this site, we ask and answer questions about established physics. &quot;According to X theory, how does Y work?&quot; is OK. &quot;I have theory X, is it correct?&quot; is not OK. We don't _do_ research here; we only give information on established physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is more or less of that form (this is made clearer by seeing the comments) where you have a theory and you want the site to expand/validate it. That's not what Physics.SE is for :s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="6d0f40c1-e0da-4439-8632-417a246a1ac1" CreationDate="2013-04-06T06:37:25.423" UserId="7433" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="It's a phrase, common to Indian English (and some other Asian dialects), that means &quot;I am confused&quot;. The word &quot;doubt&quot; is used as a noun here to mean &quot;a confusion&quot; or &quot;an issue&quot; or &quot;a question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's fine if you edit this out, just don't proactively go looking for this to take it out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="8c2be164-7450-4b27-995a-7d978dbffd9c" CreationDate="2013-04-06T07:32:47.153" UserId="22494" Text="I'm new to Physics.SE and StackExchange in general.  I've been using the site for several days now and even answered a few questions.  By almost any measure though I'm amateur interested in physics but with no particular expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm not an expert, there are many questions where I think I can provide a nearly complete answer, especially when sophisticated math isn't needed for the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm trying to gauge is how &quot;useful&quot; I can be attempting to answer questions even when I know my answer isn't 100% complete.  I can tell some folks don't answer unless the question is in their specific area of expertise and others attempt to answer almost everything, even when their answer is often very incomplete or even slightly wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I start off answers with &quot;I'm not an expert but...&quot; or &quot;This doesn't completely address your question but...&quot; and then provide links and information for further research will I be providing any value to the community or should I simply not attempt to respond?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three example answers I've provided that demonstrate my non-expert answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60192/what-would-be-the-effect-of-an-excess-of-up-quarks-on-stellar-formation/60193#60193&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59438/how-do-you-calculate-power-at-the-focal-point-of-a-mirror/59441#59441&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57871/how-do-permanent-magnets-manage-to-focus-field-on-one-side/59258#59258&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, should non-experts avoid answering unless they can come very close to a complete and correct answer?  Or is it considered okay to provide answers similar to the three I linked above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="8c2be164-7450-4b27-995a-7d978dbffd9c" CreationDate="2013-04-06T07:32:47.153" UserId="22494" Text="Guaging prefered expertise level for answering questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="8c2be164-7450-4b27-995a-7d978dbffd9c" CreationDate="2013-04-06T07:32:47.153" UserId="22494" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4180" RevisionGUID="5dd8dd32-6a44-4d9b-baef-519bbc3320f7" CreationDate="2013-04-06T07:48:39.877" UserId="124" Text="Fundamentally, the only criterion to use when judging whether you should post an answer is this: can you answer the question asked? If so, then go ahead and post your answer. I know that's a pretty nebulous criterion, but it's kind of hard to define what makes a postable answer to any greater precision, and we don't want to have a complicated set of rules in place that stops people from answering any more than necessary. (For other things, there might be complicated rules, but asking and answering should be pretty straightforward.) Certainly, you don't have to be an expert in the field to post an answer. If your answer isn't correct, you'll probably get downvoted, but otherwise, no harm done. If your answer isn't complete, that's not ideal, but it's still probably okay to post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say this: if all you can do is post a link to a web page that contains the answer, or that would be a starting point for research that would get the OP to the answer, that link doesn't constitute an answer by itself. So if you find a relevant web page, if you can extract and quote or summarize the part that actually answers the question, then do so, but otherwise, that's material for a comment, not an answer. I think the [last of the three answers you posted](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57871/how-do-permanent-magnets-manage-to-focus-field-on-one-side/59258#59258) probably falls under this criterion, and thus probably would have been better off as a comment. (But it's accepted now, so no big deal.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two of your answers that you linked are probably fine. Although for the first one, the question seems ill-defined to me and so I personally wouldn't answer it at all until it got edited, but that's just me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="02ba31b0-b153-4f14-a2e2-173e8014a122" CreationDate="2013-04-06T07:54:36.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/320444411421011970" />
  <row Id="8403" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="e2033650-e286-4b00-946f-d0e3cb229e7d" CreationDate="2013-04-06T16:59:28.383" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Gauging prefered expertise level for answering questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8404" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="e2033650-e286-4b00-946f-d0e3cb229e7d" CreationDate="2013-04-06T16:59:28.383" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="6a60ff5a-bdf5-4a7c-af00-ab3def9752c7" CreationDate="2013-04-08T05:33:43.363" UserId="10655" Text="[This question][1] is probably one of the best answers I have received on physics.stackexchange and I think the question itself was clear enough too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator who closed it for being &quot;too localised&quot;, simply says it is because he received a flag. Is that reason enough? Surely flags are just there to get a moderator to look at it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not consider it to be &quot;localised&quot; as it's quite a bog standard Lagrangian free particle problem. Perhaps I am wrong. What about this question is localised?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39226/lagrangian-dynamics-with-initial-conditions-motion-of-free-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="6a60ff5a-bdf5-4a7c-af00-ab3def9752c7" CreationDate="2013-04-08T05:33:43.363" UserId="10655" Text="What makes this question too localised?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="6a60ff5a-bdf5-4a7c-af00-ab3def9752c7" CreationDate="2013-04-08T05:33:43.363" UserId="10655" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="71b0c3a0-af1b-4855-b368-ab24f365406f" CreationDate="2013-04-08T05:49:15.703" UserId="7433" Text="My opinion after skimming through it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's really nothing more than a homework-type problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. You may want to see our [homework policy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to show what you have tried and your level of understanding before asking a homework problem. The &quot;too localised&quot; reason is just used as a proxy for &quot;does not follow homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;Opinion after reading it in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking closer, it seems like the question was more or less absurd. It was clear that you were confused about Lagrangian mechanics; but the _question_ was not exactly answerable. It was basically like &quot;how do I add numbers in General Relativity&quot;. That's a localized question -- nobody else will ask that. It doesn't matter if the answer _may_ contain a lot of conceptual details -- this counts as &quot;accidental&quot; learning. Visualize the bare minimum answer (which is &quot;just like how you add numbers in normal arithmetic&quot;; or, in your case &quot;just like in Newtonian mechanics&quot;), and ask yourself if it really is useful. If it isn't -- well, it's too localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that since there's already a good answer, closing doesn't change much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods don't _have_ to listen to flags. However, in this case, the flag was a sensible one that made the problem with the post clear. (Unfortunately I can't tell you the details of the flag itself, that's private information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Note that it doesn't have to be homework, it's just the type that matters&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I'm not entirely sure if it really _is_ of the homework type. But it has other problems as well, see the next section&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="11e43667-0ef7-4a57-a53b-7088b57fa141" CreationDate="2013-04-08T06:53:00.827" UserId="10655" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="[This question][1] probably has one of the best answers I have received on physics.stackexchange and I think the question itself was clear enough too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator who closed it for being &quot;too localised&quot;, simply says it is because he received a flag. Is that reason enough? Surely flags are just there to get a moderator to look at it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not consider it to be &quot;localised&quot; as it's quite a bog standard Lagrangian free particle problem. Perhaps I am wrong. What about this question is localised?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39226/lagrangian-dynamics-with-initial-conditions-motion-of-free-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="8d935258-9481-4db7-b887-94815284e41c" CreationDate="2013-04-08T06:58:41.433" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="*Disclaimer: as the only person involved in answering the question so far, I may have some bias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question is a good one. It is asking how Lagrangians are actually *applied* to real problems, plain and simple, without all the clutter of conservation laws and phase spaces and other things that get theorists excited but don't always have a use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reworded the question to emphasize this interpretation and submitted it for reopening, which will require either a mod or (I think) a consensus of some low number of high rep users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="7133958f-0fa1-468f-9d2b-82b6db771100" CreationDate="2013-04-08T07:10:45.833" UserId="7433" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="Update: @ChrisWhite's edits make it much better, I reopened it. After all, closing is a temporary state that can usually be escaped by editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion after skimming through it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's really nothing more than a homework-type problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. You may want to see our [homework policy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to show what you have tried and your level of understanding before asking a homework problem. The &quot;too localised&quot; reason is just used as a proxy for &quot;does not follow homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;Opinion after reading it in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking closer, it seems like the question was more or less absurd. It was clear that you were confused about Lagrangian mechanics; but the _question_ was not exactly answerable. It was basically like &quot;how do I add numbers in General Relativity&quot;. That's a localized question -- nobody else will ask that. It doesn't matter if the answer _may_ contain a lot of conceptual details -- this counts as &quot;accidental&quot; learning. Visualize the bare minimum answer (which is &quot;just like how you add numbers in normal arithmetic&quot;; or, in your case &quot;just like in Newtonian mechanics&quot;), and ask yourself if it really is useful. If it isn't -- well, it's too localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that since there's already a good answer, closing doesn't change much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods don't _have_ to listen to flags. However, in this case, the flag was a sensible one that made the problem with the post clear. (Unfortunately I can't tell you the details of the flag itself, that's private information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Note that it doesn't have to be homework, it's just the type that matters&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I'm not entirely sure if it really _is_ of the homework type. But it has other problems as well, see the next section&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="e17cf667-9551-4a2a-9730-03ddbc8d6fdf" CreationDate="2013-04-08T08:09:33.117" UserId="7433" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="Update: @ChrisWhite's edits make it much better, I reopened it. After all, closing is a temporary state that can usually be escaped by editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion after skimming through it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like a homework-type problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. You may want to see our [homework policy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to show what you have tried and your level of understanding before asking a homework problem. The &quot;too localised&quot; reason is just used as a proxy for &quot;does not follow homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinion after reading it in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking closer, it seems like the question didn't make much sense. It was clear that you were confused about Lagrangian mechanics; but the _question_ was not exactly answerable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a question of a similar type where the problem is very, _very_ accentuated: &quot;How do I add numbers in General Relativity?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a localized question; nobody else will ask that. It doesn't matter if the answer _may_ contain a lot of conceptual details -- this counts as &quot;accidental&quot; learning. The bare minimum answer to the numbers question is &quot;just like in normal arithmetic&quot;. Which isn't really useful to anyone. Similarly, the bare minimum answer to yours is &quot;just like in Newtonian mechanics&quot; -- not too helpful an answer. This is basically why it was too localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that since there's already a good answer, closing doesn't change much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since your main goal is to understand how to replace NM with LM, asking _that_ question (which @ChrisWhite did in his edit) may make it reopenable :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods don't _have_ to listen to flags. However, in this case, the flag was a sensible one that made the problem with the post clear. (Unfortunately I can't tell you the details of the flag itself, that's private information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Note that it doesn't have to be homework, it's just the type that matters&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="dc9d2acb-91f3-47d8-9aa6-0ef5dc92e2cf" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:44:45.860" UserId="8521" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="An oddly large number of articles are titles with, or include in their opening line, a phrase like '*I have a doubt regarding gravity*'; see the articles at the bottom, for examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, it doesn't seem that the OP actually '*doubts*' that the physics in question are true.  Instead, they seem to mean that they are generally *confused*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a particular language which this usage transliterates from?  Possibly a particular thesaurus entry leading people astray?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58148/intuition-behind-work  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57907/electric-field-lines-for-continuous-distribution  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57436/doubt-in-kinematics  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59628/why-propagation-of-uncertainty-is-linear  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  See also (thanks to @Yrogirg)  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/3200/what-exactly-might-non-native-speakers-mean-by-doubt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="5feb7c0b-edc8-42e1-812d-b5d12298539b" CreationDate="2013-04-09T11:47:37.207" UserId="8563" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="[This question][1] probably has one of the best answers I have received on physics.stackexchange and I think the question itself was clear enough too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator who closed it for being &quot;too localised&quot;, simply says it is because he received a flag. Is that reason enough? Surely flags are just there to get a moderator to look at it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not consider it to be &quot;localised&quot; as it's quite a bog standard Lagrangian free particle problem. Perhaps I am wrong. What about this question is localised?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: question is now open again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39226/lagrangian-dynamics-with-initial-conditions-motion-of-free-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8419" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="fbec7202-7580-44f1-92df-f991d19b369a" CreationDate="2013-04-09T14:54:29.777" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="2e14b1bc-b705-4ec4-a75c-207910454a9f" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:03:46.293" UserId="14473" Text="Are the tag wikis accessible via a search engine? Because as of now, I imagine there are plenty of people who find the answer to this question after googling it or whatever. So if you put it into a tag wiki and it isn't easily findable that seems to defeat the purpose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, you could just lock the question, but still keep it there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="abf51a0e-332e-4004-b02f-a312e190b6d8" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:55:25.767" UserId="19979" Text="In [this][1] section of the FAQ the Mathjax code is missing the `$` symbols ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="abf51a0e-332e-4004-b02f-a312e190b6d8" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:55:25.767" UserId="19979" Text="Minor typo(ish) in the non-meta FAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="abf51a0e-332e-4004-b02f-a312e190b6d8" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:55:25.767" UserId="19979" Text="|bug|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="38a0a557-0e23-4f86-871c-130a2a06dd02" CreationDate="2013-04-10T18:01:53.660" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="32f2463c-5b87-47f0-8ca6-29b4b8ce82f6" CreationDate="2013-04-10T18:03:22.903" UserId="7433" Text="[Fixed][1]. In retrospect, I should have remembered that the Chem FAQ was copied from the Physics FAQ (by me!) when I fixed [this][2] and fixed it here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/11361/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/220/typo-in-the-faq-list#comment344_221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="54a39bfb-2c09-4251-ba41-2616a3fcabdf" CreationDate="2013-04-11T07:33:58.683" UserId="16689" Text="Is there a way to cite a StackExchange question, in a way similar to arXiv.org for instance ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For arXiv, I can just write **arXiv:1303.6666** for the article at link http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6666 and this is easier. I'm wondering if I can use something like **physics.SE:60738** for the question at link http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60738/ ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Of course, I do not want to cite a SE question inside SE, but outside, on a paper, in a presentation or during a lecture for instance. Sorry for the possible confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="54a39bfb-2c09-4251-ba41-2616a3fcabdf" CreationDate="2013-04-11T07:33:58.683" UserId="16689" Text="How can I cite a question in SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="54a39bfb-2c09-4251-ba41-2616a3fcabdf" CreationDate="2013-04-11T07:33:58.683" UserId="16689" Text="|discussion|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="fa24cbbc-f855-4e30-8bee-3061fdd507f5" CreationDate="2013-04-11T07:40:30.307" UserId="7433" Text="Click the &quot;share&quot; link on any post on Math.SE ([example][1]), and there should be a cite button which shows the format in BibTeX and amsrefs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Link to the post&#xD;&#xA; - Mention the username and link to their profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the posts on SE are owned by SE, they are attributed to you under a CC-BY-SA license. Citing such a post requires a mention of the author's username. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/a/358028/24293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="b39e0dcb-69f8-4c5b-9d4a-06dce96ba500" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:29:10.393" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/how-can-i-cite-a-question-in-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE][1] has a citation tool. Basically, if you click &quot;share&quot; on a post, there's a little &quot;cite&quot; link:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking that, you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets one properly cite a Physics.SE post in a document by the attribution rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want this? While it may not be so useful for formal journal articles, I see how it could be useful for miscellaneous documents (remember, visitors can use it too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0OrDR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yEnCA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="b39e0dcb-69f8-4c5b-9d4a-06dce96ba500" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:29:10.393" UserId="7433" Text="Do we want the citation tool from Math.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="b39e0dcb-69f8-4c5b-9d4a-06dce96ba500" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:29:10.393" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8435" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="93ed62a7-fafa-4fee-ab41-583f0a5f954f" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:30:39.807" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60765/stackexchange-general-login-problem-meta" />
  <row Id="8436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="fbfc12b0-7163-4254-abfd-689eb19947ed" CreationDate="2013-04-11T12:10:18.520" UserDisplayName="user23032" Text="I can not login through mobile view of stackexchange website.&#xD;&#xA;when i click over login, why there is no login option through some mobile browsers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="fbfc12b0-7163-4254-abfd-689eb19947ed" CreationDate="2013-04-11T12:10:18.520" UserDisplayName="user23032" Text="Stackexchange General login problem (meta)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="fbfc12b0-7163-4254-abfd-689eb19947ed" CreationDate="2013-04-11T12:10:18.520" UserDisplayName="user23032" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8443" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="6d1a5b53-d6e2-46f6-b207-64c380cb42f2" CreationDate="2013-04-11T16:32:00.250" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="83c774a1-80d3-4970-8dc8-29c0fb5fcc86" CreationDate="2013-04-11T19:41:31.033" UserDisplayName="user16035" Text="Absolutely. I've only been helped a few times now, but I would want to professionally acknowledge some of the most interesting answers and posters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a practical point of view, it is also very useful. Say, for example, one of my audience members wants to dwell deeper to an answer that I cite. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="4e635a6f-5834-4c50-8f79-eb3caaab0b3d" CreationDate="2013-04-11T19:45:30.083" UserId="20629" Text="absolutely! This will encourage people to present their sources which is very very important imo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="c35440d4-c54a-4932-b76a-88a1012ba3e8" CreationDate="2013-04-12T01:54:51.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/322528206831902720" />
  <row Id="8450" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="c33eebc3-f9cc-4dbb-a39f-583b9cc76bb9" CreationDate="2013-04-12T08:48:34.267" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="bcab4527-a147-4fc4-895a-39ed1f9ae149" CreationDate="2013-04-12T13:14:56.643" UserId="16689" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="Is there a way to cite a StackExchange question, in a way similar to arXiv.org for instance ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For arXiv, I can just write **arXiv:1303.6666** for the article at link http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6666 and this is easier. I'm wondering if I can use something like **physics.SE:60738** for the question at link http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60738/ ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Of course, I do not want to cite a SE question inside SE, but outside, on a paper, in a presentation or during a lecture for instance. Sorry for the possible confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RELATED QUESTION: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4191/ Here we wonder if it exist a way to format citation without writing the full link, for instance to cite a question during a lecture or a presentation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="64888976-b648-4ac3-9c0b-1411f3820c7b" CreationDate="2013-04-13T09:42:17.237" UserId="22150" Text="I have seen that tags have synonyms of it under it's description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I suggest a tag synonym?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="64888976-b648-4ac3-9c0b-1411f3820c7b" CreationDate="2013-04-13T09:42:17.237" UserId="22150" Text="How can we suggest synonyms to tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="64888976-b648-4ac3-9c0b-1411f3820c7b" CreationDate="2013-04-13T09:42:17.237" UserId="22150" Text="|support|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="495a8f0b-2757-4500-9f04-6759bf7024ce" CreationDate="2013-04-13T09:45:08.387" UserId="7433" Text="[You need 2500 reputation][1] to create and vote on tag synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's generally much easier to ping a mod in chat or propose it [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting?rq=1), since nobody really monitors the synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/suggest-tag-synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="4aeea8fa-354c-4111-95cc-d351845d544c" CreationDate="2013-04-13T20:18:12.303" UserId="1727" Text="I think this is a great idea. There are lots of places besides a journal article where a proper citation is appropriate, and there are lots of reasons to cite good discussions even if they don't contain &quot;original physics&quot;. For instance, I might cite a derivation given on SE in a set of review notes, or I might provide students with a reference to a post where the author did a really good job of asking for help with a homework problem. Attribution makes SE a better resource for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="1350a1f2-e438-4893-a574-d5de6eb9d47e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T03:25:16.003" UserId="10655" Text="What makes this [closed question][1] less worthy than [this very similar question][2] that did not get closed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both questions are broad and open ended yet one gets a load of upvotes and the other gets shut down.  I personally can't see a point in closing either of these questions, but the lack of consistency here, is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60391/how-to-teach-myself-physics-needed-at-undergraduate-electrical-engineer-level/60401#60401&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234/how-should-a-physics-student-study-mathematics?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="1350a1f2-e438-4893-a574-d5de6eb9d47e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T03:25:16.003" UserId="10655" Text="Yes another closed question, question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="1350a1f2-e438-4893-a574-d5de6eb9d47e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T03:25:16.003" UserId="10655" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4201" RevisionGUID="86d19890-2621-497d-a8ba-c6a468ab4c27" CreationDate="2013-04-14T03:32:41.810" UserId="124" Text="Two and a half years of evolution in site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open question was asked in November 2010, early in our beta period, when the site was undergoing its initial burst of activity and its scope was still very much in flux. So it got a bunch of upvotes and then got forgotten. Since we don't go back and review old questions for closure, it just sat there until you noticed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question falls far short of being appropriate on the site according to our modern standards, and accordingly I've closed it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="89a03b02-9d4d-411c-8eff-dcf578dd5fed" CreationDate="2013-04-14T08:57:07.067" UserId="2751" Text="I think we should reconsider if the old standard, where some reasonable (not too broad and open ended) educational questions and well defined (by topic, level, targetted audience) and localized questions about study material / references were accepted, is not still reasonable and appropriate for our site. Why do this policies have to change after all, who is/are the drive(r) behind this?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From observeations during the past few months I got the impression that the driver behind these changes towards new policies is in particular David Zaslavsky (who for some reason has always been against any study material / educational questions, which is his personal right but is this attitude a good one as a moderator), Manishearth who strongly represents the overal SE point of view, and a few other people (some are not even physicists), such as EnergyNumbers who are more interested in policies and installing new rules then learning physics themself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly doubt that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which are orthogonal to the original much more reasonable and helpful policies and rules physics SE followed up to some months ago and which worked well for almost two years, are what the large majority of the community wants. The much more restrictive and intolerant &quot;new standards&quot;, which look almost hostil towards people interested in learning new physics topics, are absolutely not needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May claim thatwhat David Zaslavsky and just a few very vocal people are doing is does not have to be what the whole community (including the many people who are exclusively active on the main page because they are interested only in learning physics, instead of policies and therefore hardly ever look on meta or chat) is suported by the changing results when looking at [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4174/2751) question and the fact that people ofte disagree on the main page with the current null tolerance policies. Other people seem now to be are no chiming in at EnergeNumbers post by voting and posting, that are more active on the main page and have therefore seen it only recently. One can see that there is no community consensus towards the by a few people advocated &quot;new standards&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst thing one can do now is (what unfortunately seems to have been started by the advocates of new policies) going back and closing all these good and helpful questions, that were very valuable once and are appreciated as very helpful by most people learning physics still today. Instead, people in power should refrain or stop hardcore enforcing these &quot;new standards&quot;, which may not be supported by the large majority of the community (including people active only on the main page!),  by hardcore null tolerance policies until the consensus is really settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which make the site much less helpful and partly even hostil towards people interested in seriously learning physics, are not needed at all. Everything has been well with the original much more reasonable and helpful point of view and policies until recently and I dont see a reason why these things absolutely have to change. In my opinion there is none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="07332a6c-334f-4220-b52b-d3f1f26272c4" CreationDate="2013-04-14T09:15:25.397" UserId="2751" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think we should reconsider if the old standard, where some reasonable (not too broad and open ended) educational questions and well defined (by topic, level, targetted audience) and localized questions about study material / references were accepted, is not still reasonable and appropriate for our site. **Why do this policies have to change after all, who is/are the drive(r) behind this?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From observeations during the past few months I got the impression that the driver behind these changes towards new policies is in particular David Zaslavsky (who for some reason has always been against any study material / educational questions, which is his personal right but is this attitude a good one as a moderator), Manishearth who strongly represents the overal SE point of view, and a few other people (some are not even physicists), such as EnergyNumbers who are more interested in policies and installing new rules then learning physics themself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly doubt that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which are orthogonal to the original much more reasonable and helpful policies and rules physics SE followed up to some months ago and which worked well for almost two years, are what the large majority of the community wants. The much more restrictive and intolerant &quot;new standards&quot;, which look almost hostil towards people interested in learning new physics topics, are absolutely not needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May claim thatwhat David Zaslavsky and just a few very vocal people are doing is does not have to be what the whole community (including the many people who are exclusively active on the main page because they are interested only in learning physics, instead of policies and therefore hardly ever look on meta or chat) is suported by the changing results when looking at [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4174/2751) question and the fact that people ofte disagree on the main page with the current null tolerance policies. Other people seem now to be are no chiming in at EnergeNumbers post by voting and posting, that are more active on the main page and have therefore seen it only recently. One can see that there is no community consensus towards the by a few people advocated &quot;new standards&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst thing one can do now is (what unfortunately seems to have been started by the advocates of new policies) going back and closing all these good and helpful questions, that were very valuable once and are appreciated as very helpful by most people learning physics still today. Instead, people in power should refrain or stop hardcore enforcing these &quot;new standards&quot;, which may not be supported by the large majority of the community (including people active only on the main page!),  by hardcore null tolerance policies until the consensus is really settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which make the site much less helpful and partly even hostil towards people interested in seriously learning physics, are not needed at all. Everything has been well with the original much more reasonable and helpful point of view and policies until recently and I dont see a reason why these things absolutely have to change. In my opinion there is none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="ab6fef9b-39b6-4baf-b8ea-bcfd3ac534eb" CreationDate="2013-04-14T11:24:03.853" UserId="17609" Text="**I wanted to upvote [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/60672/17609) and so I did. However, half an hour later the upvote was registered to [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/28216/17609). I upvoted the intended answer again. Then this appeared, suggesting I upvoted yet [another answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/20391/17609).**&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This time I didn't do anything and after a while, coming back, I got this.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I've encountered this problem before. I'm using Safari 6.0.3 (on a Mac with OS X 10.8.3) and have AdBlock 2.5.61 installed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E1bWo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tSX3S.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="ab6fef9b-39b6-4baf-b8ea-bcfd3ac534eb" CreationDate="2013-04-14T11:24:03.853" UserId="17609" Text="Why are my upvotes displaced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="ab6fef9b-39b6-4baf-b8ea-bcfd3ac534eb" CreationDate="2013-04-14T11:24:03.853" UserId="17609" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="0768f25f-b10f-47ff-9255-8faf126916aa" CreationDate="2013-04-15T00:21:02.323" UserId="960" Text="I was looking through questions on the home page, and I noticed this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61126/does-entanglement-not-immediately-contradict-the-theory-of-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it's obvious from the way the poster posed his original question that the top answer is going to make almost no sense to him whatsoever; it's far too in depth and technical (there are ways of answering the question that are more Feynman-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet for someone who already knows a bit of physics, the answer is going to be too shallow.  There's nothing new there that a graduate student, or even most undergraduates wouldn't know (possibly the no-go theorem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... who is the target audience of this answer?  I must admit; it's well written and looks like a lot of thought went into it.  I'm just confused who is going to get value out of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="0768f25f-b10f-47ff-9255-8faf126916aa" CreationDate="2013-04-15T00:21:02.323" UserId="960" Text="Who is the target audience for these answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="0768f25f-b10f-47ff-9255-8faf126916aa" CreationDate="2013-04-15T00:21:02.323" UserId="960" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="1c5cd5d0-6fbd-4841-9d52-a3cbfc429f8e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T17:48:25.887" UserId="11962" Text="[It has been said](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/564/citations-are-the-source-code-of-physics-stackexchange) that &quot;citations are the source code of Physics.SE&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we recognize good citation practices via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a badge after a fixed number of answers, voted to N-score, each with at least X citations&#xD;&#xA;- a badge when total citations in all answers exceed Y&#xD;&#xA;- when a moderator awards Q or A with subjectively-good ('policy') citations.&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="1c5cd5d0-6fbd-4841-9d52-a3cbfc429f8e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T17:48:25.887" UserId="11962" Text="Should we have a badge / recognition of well-cited answers? Questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="1c5cd5d0-6fbd-4841-9d52-a3cbfc429f8e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T17:48:25.887" UserId="11962" Text="|feature-request|tags|reputation|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="702ef306-06a6-4e8b-979f-5245c575494e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T18:03:59.450" UserId="11962" Comment="clarity on counting" Text="[It has been said](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/564/citations-are-the-source-code-of-physics-stackexchange) that &quot;citations are the source code of Physics.SE&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we recognize good citation practices via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a badge after a fixed number of answers, voted to N-score, each with at least X citations&#xD;&#xA;- a badge when total citations in all answers exceed Y&#xD;&#xA;- when a moderator awards Q or A with subjectively-good ('policy') citations.&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'counting citations', I mean &quot;counting the number of links that are included in the body of the question or answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="9831cbf4-423f-4403-aab0-6d754a3e6efd" CreationDate="2013-04-15T18:11:36.003" UserId="11962" Comment="updated language to 'references' since that is a more objective term for UX" Text="[It has been said](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/564/citations-are-the-source-code-of-physics-stackexchange) that &quot;citations are the source code of Physics.SE&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References are how citations are added to a posting.  Should we recognize good citation/reference practices via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a badge after a fixed number of answers, voted to N-score, each with at least X references&#xD;&#xA;- a badge when total citations in all answers exceed Y&#xD;&#xA;- when a moderator awards Q or A with subjectively-good ('policy') references.&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'counting citations', I mean &quot;counting the number of links that are included in the body of the question or answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="7d7726c4-dbcd-4a0e-8a8d-2d6870b4ebd0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:55:38.103" UserId="2751" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="I think we should reconsider if the old standard, where some reasonable (not too broad and open ended) educational questions and well defined (by topic, level, targetted audience) and localized questions about study material / references were accepted, is not still reasonable and appropriate for our site. **Why do this policies have to change after all, who is/are the drive(r) behind this?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From observeations during the past few months I got the impression that the driver behind these changes towards new policies is in particular David Zaslavsky (who for some reason has always been against any study material / educational questions, which is his personal right but is this attitude a good one as a moderator), Manishearth who strongly represents the overal SE point of view, and a few other people (some are not even physicists), such as EnergyNumbers who are more interested in policies and installing new rules then learning physics themself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly doubt that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which are orthogonal to the original much more reasonable and helpful policies and rules physics SE followed up to some months ago and which worked well for almost two years, are what the large majority of the community wants. The much more restrictive and intolerant &quot;new standards&quot;, which look almost hostil towards people interested in learning new physics topics, are absolutely not needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May claim thatwhat David Zaslavsky and just a few very vocal people are doing is does not have to be what the whole community (including the many people who are exclusively active on the main page because they are interested only in learning physics, instead of policies and therefore hardly ever look on meta or chat) is suported by the changing results when looking at [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4174/2751) question and the fact that people ofte disagree on the main page with the current null tolerance policies. Other people seem now to be are no chiming in at EnergeNumbers post by voting and posting, that are more active on the main page and have therefore seen it only recently. One can see that there is no community consensus towards the by a few people advocated &quot;new standards&quot; at all. The whole thing has become some kind of a &quot;ruling meta community&quot; against the &quot;main page physics community&quot; issue, since many people active on the main page consider things powerful meta people want to dissalow still useful and essential to studying and researching physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst thing one can do now is (what unfortunately seems to have been started by the advocates of new policies) going back and closing all these good and helpful questions, that were very valuable once and are appreciated as very helpful by most people learning physics still today. Instead, people in power should refrain or stop hardcore enforcing these &quot;new standards&quot;, which may not be supported by the large majority of the community (including people active only on the main page!),  by hardcore null tolerance policies until the consensus is really settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which make the site much less helpful and partly even hostil towards people interested in seriously learning physics, are not needed at all. Everything has been well with the original much more reasonable and helpful point of view and policies until recently and I dont see a reason why these things absolutely have to change. In my opinion there is none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="94e2b9a8-c834-433c-8c17-3da63518b5d7" CreationDate="2013-04-17T07:55:05.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/324430800177201153" />
  <row Id="8482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="6a89434e-fe00-477b-86d2-3c2a405af98a" CreationDate="2013-04-17T09:36:34.330" UserId="1325" Text="I suspect tracking external citations would be impractical, but I quite like the idea of an internal citation count. Having said this, frequently cited questions tend to attract high scores so the author gets credit that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@NewAlexandria: you shouldn't interpret all the comments as a *hit-storm. Rather the reverse actually, as if a question attracts a lot of discussion it usually means it's a good question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="68f72313-f05d-4545-8065-a1ca68dd351a" CreationDate="2013-04-17T09:46:04.230" UserId="1325" Text="When I'm writing an answer I'm conscious that the answer is going to be read by lots of people over the years, so it isn't just an answer to the OP. Of course the answer needs to answer the OP's question, but I generally try to provide as broad an answer as possible to increase its interest to other people as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I think there is a limit to how simple you can make an answer. Quantum physics is hard, and if you try to answer at too simple a level you end up being misleading or you fall into the [it all happens by magic][1] trap that too many TV documentaries fall into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd probably agree that Ben Crowell's answer to the question you link was too advanced to be easily understood by the OP, but the answer and the comments to it would at least provide a starting point for the OP to do some reading around. Not answering is a far bigger sin that writing too hard an answer. Whether Ben's answer was too complicated is debatable, but it's far better that he answered than if he had shrugged and moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/776.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8484" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="838667c7-707d-4602-be10-cae3fdf8c2b8" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:37:25.717" UserId="6410" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="8842c9b2-003d-401b-b2f3-7854ebc31710" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:37:41.290" UserId="6410" Text="This has been turned on for your site and is currently live. Cheers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8486" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="c472e43c-6bf7-4ae5-b3f1-62bfe5168210" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:43:59.693" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq-proposed|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="18b23798-2d33-4982-9882-eaab0c127b88" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:49:24.843" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="Click on the &quot;share&quot; button underneath a post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then click &quot;cite&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you'll get the BiBTeX and amsrefs source for citing a post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HiB5v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F9cp7.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Aj9Z.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8488" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="a816b770-8d5a-45fa-89b7-8dcd48b241de" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:49:42.160" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="32c1b049-d58a-4834-ae6a-4c8f96227893" CreationDate="2013-04-18T04:13:41.787" UserId="22632" Text="In theory, I like @manishearth's rule of thumb.   In practice, I put up an answer that was inadequate (not wrong, but not well cited/quantified - eg, bad but fixable), and got downvoted so quickly that I pulled it before it took all my rep.   As I'm a new user, I'm now below most privs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Would have added this as a comment below Mains, but guess what ...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="a5a4abcc-a61b-4723-9a49-9aa4cb7d390a" CreationDate="2013-04-18T04:20:17.027" UserId="22632" Comment="correct a name" Text="In theory, I like @manishearth's rule of thumb.   In practice, I put up an answer that was inadequate (not wrong, but not well cited/quantified - eg, bad but fixable), and got downvoted so quickly that I pulled it before it took all my rep.   As I'm a new user, I'm now below most privs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Would have added this as a comment below @manishearth, but guess what ...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8491" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="de4dec4a-f348-473a-8bb9-b3d0db48c7c0" CreationDate="2013-04-18T22:41:43.857" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8492" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="8cd95f7d-f6ab-45f7-8278-8ef1f2e3bedf" CreationDate="2013-04-18T22:42:28.170" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8493" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="fa415f55-5ef1-460b-a400-8d700e0c7d12" CreationDate="2013-04-20T00:00:27.180" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|faq|closed-questions|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="c52f9496-d0e2-44a6-99b0-cbf30a25dc5b" CreationDate="2013-04-20T01:52:32.817" UserId="124" Comment="update policy" Text="To answer your question directly, there is no automatic plagiarism detection (as far as I know). Generally we rely on alert users to notice when something appears to be copied and pasted from another source. If you see something that you suspect might be plagiarized and you'd like to do something about it, pick out a distinctive phrase or two and run it through Google. If you have access to plagiarism detection software and you'd like to use it on the post, although that'd be a little more extreme, there's nothing wrong with doing so (assuming it doesn't violate the terms of your license to use that software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, by any method, you find a match from which the post content has been copied, flag it for moderator attention, including the source in the flag description. The policy is that content which is copied from another source needs to be immediately deleted. Plagiarism is not tolerated on the site as an ethical matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that moderators are only authorized to handle cases of plagiarism, not copyright violations. When you cast your flag, make sure to say &quot;plagiarism,&quot; not &quot;copyright violation&quot; (because if you do the latter, there are potentially tricky legal implications). If you do want to report content as a copyright violation, not as an instance of plagiarism, you will need to go through the DMCA takedown process described on the [legal page](http://stackexchange.com/legal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="77d6f3c2-4c90-493d-be5e-bba0350ff611" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:17:53.787" UserId="16873" Text="There is a couple of (probable) improvements I would like to suggest for this fantastic site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Moving closed questions *with a high number of up votes* (for example $&gt;10$) to a dedicated StackExchange site, where they would receive a single tag indicating the site where they come from (in this case, the tag would be Physics). There, the question would be alive and could receive new answers, points, etc, together with (highly voted) closed questions from the other StackExchange sites. That would be a solution for certain questions that very clearly interest us (this nobody can deny, and that's what upvotes are saying) like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read) (incidentally, I have read one of the recommended papers in the first answer, and it has nearly changed my life for good, both as researcher and as physics student -which you never stop being- as well).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Downvoters should be forced to leave an *anonymous* comment, otherwise the vote should only have a value of 0.2 points or similar. Only downvotes with an anonymous comment should have full consideration. That would improve the quality of bad answers, sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question/answer is really crap, it receives anyway a rainfall of downvotes (well, not always) whereas sometimes somebody drops a -1 with no explanations like a passing bird leaving an excrement, and the OP has no clue of what he/she could improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received for example a downvote [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61547/what-is-the-mathematical-justification-for-the-quadratic-approximation-to-the-en). I don't give a damn as long as my reputation stays above a dozen of points so that I am able to post images, and also I am using an anonymous profile. But what I find annoying is not having the less clue of what could be wrong with the question... &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="77d6f3c2-4c90-493d-be5e-bba0350ff611" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:17:53.787" UserId="16873" Text="Two suggestions to improve the quality of this fantastic site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="77d6f3c2-4c90-493d-be5e-bba0350ff611" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:17:53.787" UserId="16873" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8498" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="86e5c872-ef1a-43ad-b297-471227a0db6a" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:26:49.450" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="7c6e562d-0d91-4551-9ba9-84ee69b53413" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:44:57.220" UserId="7433" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="d51442d2-4153-4648-be76-36bed604b81b" CreationDate="2013-04-22T11:35:17.620" UserId="22150" Text="When should this community wiki button be ticked while answering or edit?![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Avun.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="d51442d2-4153-4648-be76-36bed604b81b" CreationDate="2013-04-22T11:35:17.620" UserId="22150" Text="When to use Community Wiki option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="d51442d2-4153-4648-be76-36bed604b81b" CreationDate="2013-04-22T11:35:17.620" UserId="22150" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="997ef6ea-612e-4b1c-852a-dd3965f7b630" CreationDate="2013-04-22T11:40:11.790" UserId="7433" Text="See http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/community-wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##When should I make my answers Community Wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. When you want to enhance the &quot;wiki&quot; aspect of your post, so that it can be a continually evolving source of good information through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; repeated editing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. When you feel your post would benefit from less concern about voting affecting the reputation of those participating in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, when you want the post to be a collaborative one. Creating a CW post basically invites radical changes and additions -- unlike normal posts, where the wiki aspect is more in grammar/formatting/small tweaks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="95ecb728-bd5e-47de-96c0-a19a92ea362c" CreationDate="2013-04-22T14:14:40.493" UserId="11062" Text="The CW scheme is just when you want other users to help in revision of your post. *Not for formatting,etc.* which is already done by the fellow users - but, for improving (additional information) of your post which shouldn't be normally done by fellow users. They can edit the post for clarification. But, they can't change the post by adding additional info. There's also this historical lock (which a mod can put on a post) for the prevention of edit wars...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The influences: When a post goes beyond 10 edits, it's automatically reverted to a CW. When the post is marked by CW, additional (+) or (-) votes doesn't influence *your* precious reputation. Be sure to check out the [**-1**'d user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)..! Well, he's **the** -1 in every site. He owns the CWs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;If you've got some time, consider reading http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/11740/205334 and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/55888/205334 which are themselves CWs..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="f6a7b2fb-17fd-42bd-98ba-6856d04d57f2" CreationDate="2013-04-22T20:24:47.067" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The other day this topic came up in chat, so I thought it would be good to have it settled officially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, if any, internet protocol should be encouraged for users inserting links into their posts? Each option has pros and cons, some of the most relevant being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - `http` is the old standard, most likely to work for a variety of users. It is less likely to run into trouble for non-techie users behind corporate firewalls for instance.&#xD;&#xA;  - `https` is newer (but not cutting-edge). It is more secure in the sense that you are more sure that you are receiving data from a trusted source. At the same time, it can be *slightly* slower.&#xD;&#xA;  - Of course, anyone pro enough to actually know how their browser works under the hood (yes, you, Manishearth) can easily have their own preferences override what the link says, or do all sorts of other black magic to dodge this problem altogether (and steal my credit card at the same time, no doubt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't think anyone believes so strongly as to mandate one or the other, and I don't even see the issue as big enough to warrant changing old posts *en masse*. I'm just wondering if there is a preferred style I should be using. If there is, I can also edit links accordingly while making other, more substantive changes to posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="f6a7b2fb-17fd-42bd-98ba-6856d04d57f2" CreationDate="2013-04-22T20:24:47.067" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Link preferences: http vs. https" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="f6a7b2fb-17fd-42bd-98ba-6856d04d57f2" CreationDate="2013-04-22T20:24:47.067" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="a4e5a618-c9e3-43cc-b3c3-4a4716e2eea8" CreationDate="2013-04-23T03:40:57.420" UserId="7433" Text="Firstly, note that very few sites offer _both_ HTTP and HTTPS. There's only one that I can think of -- Wikipedia. GMail used to; but we don't link to GMail on Phys.SE and it's pure HTTPS now anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is HTTPS, and how does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this post][1] if you're interested to know more. Or, y'know, Google it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is simply a protocol that prevents snooping and manipulation by intermediate entities on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens is that when you ask for an https website, the first thing it does is hand you a certificate. The certificate basically says &quot;I am who I am&quot;, and is generally digitally &quot;signed&quot; by some trusted entity that your browser knows(many times there are intermediate signing entities). Note that due to the signing path, this cannot be spoofed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certificate forms the basis of all the coming cryptography -- it acts as an initial transfer of public keys. Any further transfer of data will be hidden (except for the URLs you access) using this certificate and a prime number you generated as keys. Each party has a public and private key: Using _my_ private key and (say) _Wikipedia's_ public key, I can encrypt a message that can only be decrypted using my public key and Wikipedia's private key. The reverse works as well. Since the intermediate parties only have the public keys, they cannot send fake messages, nor can they read the messages being sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##When is it necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information you're receiving to be modified: For example if I'm downloading Chrome, I wouldn't want an attacker to sit in the middle of my connection with Google, pretend to be Google, and hand me their version of Chrome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information being sent to be snooped/modified: The easiest example of this is credit card/bank details. If I submit a form containing these details, I probably should only do so on a trusted HTTPS connection where I trust the site, and they have a security certificate verifying their identity (Most browsers display a green lock and the title of the company in the address bar). If it's not on a trusted connection, my ISP, proxy servers, and other entities in between can read these and steal my money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Is it necessary for https Wikipedia links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really, no. Unless you are blindly going to use the information given on Wikipedia to do something (run some code or mess around with chemicals: you don't want Wikipedia urging you to add [FOOF][2] to your baking soda and vinegar experiment), there isn't much point in using https when you are just reading stuff. URLs are visible to men in the middle anyway, so if your government hates Wikipedia, they'll still come to know. (You can bypass this using SSH tunneling or web proxies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia HTTPS is really meant for those who edit/contribute to Wikipedia: They are submitting passwords and other stuff and would like it to stay secure. Plus, there are those with access to privately identifying information like IPs nad emails for whom it is a matter of trying to keep private info private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some [other uses][3] as well. Generally, those who use HTTPS for these reasons know how to tack an s onto the URL themselves :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Does https have any problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep. Firstly, as you noted, it's slightly slower. Not enough to make a difference while browsing Wikipedia, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, not all proxy servers like it. Using HTTPS over an HTTP proxy (which is what most institutes and workplaces use -- SOCKS proxies are rare) requires  a protocol-switching thing known as HTTP CONNECT, and not all proxies allow that on port 443 (where HTTPS runs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those behind such proxies *usually* know how to deal with this -- just chop the s right out of the URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should our policy be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I mentioned, those who need https know how to enable it for Wikipedia.  The reverse doesn't always work, since when https wikipedia fails to work behind a proxy, to many it just looks like Wikipedia is down (&quot;Oh no! how will I ever complete my project now!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while we shouldn't go actively editing https out, it's great if you try to use https in your Wikipedia links. And if you are editing a post, it's fine if you replace the https as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies only for Wikipedia -- most sites do not have both HTTP and HTTPS at the same time, so editing a link to HTTP may break it (always check)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://security.stackexchange.com/a/20833/7497&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4624/please-explain-why-dioxygen-difluoride-is-so-dangerous&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HTTPS#But_still_very_useful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="e0b5082e-db9d-4dd6-b658-fc8395468b0f" CreationDate="2013-04-23T05:05:46.537" UserId="5477" Text="It's a drag having to type things like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$1.38 \times 10^{-23} \, \mathrm{JK^{-1}}$` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all the time. Would it be possible to have the `siunitx` package installed on this site? Then we could get the same effect with just &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$\SI{1.38e-23}{J.K^{-1}}$` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$\SI{1.38e-23}{\joule\per\kelvin}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;instead, which is more readable, easier to type, and gets all the spacing right first time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="e0b5082e-db9d-4dd6-b658-fc8395468b0f" CreationDate="2013-04-23T05:05:46.537" UserId="5477" Text="siunitx LaTeX package?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="e0b5082e-db9d-4dd6-b658-fc8395468b0f" CreationDate="2013-04-23T05:05:46.537" UserId="5477" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="06bb614e-ea9b-485e-8687-30af4c6777c2" CreationDate="2013-04-23T06:28:35.010" UserId="22494" Text="The site is using MathJax which is LaTeX in JavaScript.  This question has been asked several times on several different StackExchange sites.  It just isn't an option right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="4f484935-5062-4386-a724-b0654427b8c1" CreationDate="2013-04-23T07:37:05.377" UserId="7433" Text="Mathjax doesn't seem to allow the `siunitx` extension (there are a couple of pachages like `mhchem` which can be enabled)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for SI units, I use [this userscript][1]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="b4b10ce8-9a47-49b1-8f85-02a28212f344" CreationDate="2013-04-23T08:13:09.950" UserId="7433" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Mathjax doesn't seem to allow the `siunitx` extension (there are a couple of pachages like `mhchem` which can be enabled)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for SI units, I use [this userscript][1]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also put a feature-request [here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/447" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8524" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="5da7619f-45ae-4b3a-86e3-acc02e901b84" CreationDate="2013-04-23T08:13:23.793" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-deferred|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="fb4f0fd6-4ccd-472a-a14b-d390eb7d6150" CreationDate="2013-04-23T15:38:47.590" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Firstly, note that very few sites offer _both_ HTTP and HTTPS. There's only one that I can think of -- Wikipedia. GMail used to; but we don't link to GMail on Phys.SE and it's pure HTTPS now anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is HTTPS, and how does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this post][1] if you're interested to know more. Or, y'know, Google it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is simply a protocol that prevents snooping and manipulation by intermediate entities on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens is that when you ask for an https website, the first thing it does is hand you a certificate. The certificate basically says &quot;I am who I am&quot;, and is generally digitally &quot;signed&quot; by some trusted entity that your browser knows(many times there are intermediate signing entities). Note that due to the signing path, this cannot be spoofed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certificate forms the basis of all the coming cryptography -- it acts as an initial transfer of public keys. Any further transfer of data will be hidden (except for the URLs you access) using this certificate and a prime number you generated as keys. Each party has a public and private key: Using _my_ private key and (say) _Wikipedia's_ public key, I can encrypt a message that can only be decrypted using my public key and Wikipedia's private key. The reverse works as well. Since the intermediate parties only have the public keys, they cannot send fake messages, nor can they read the messages being sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##When is it necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information you're receiving to be modified: For example if I'm downloading Chrome, I wouldn't want an attacker to sit in the middle of my connection with Google, pretend to be Google, and hand me their version of Chrome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information being sent to be snooped/modified: The easiest example of this is credit card/bank details. If I submit a form containing these details, I probably should only do so on a trusted HTTPS connection where I trust the site, and they have a security certificate verifying their identity (Most browsers display a green lock and the title of the company in the address bar). If it's not on a trusted connection, my ISP, proxy servers, and other entities in between can read these and steal my money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Is it necessary for https Wikipedia links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really, no. Unless you are blindly going to use the information given on Wikipedia to do something (run some code or mess around with chemicals: you don't want Wikipedia urging you to add [FOOF][2] to your baking soda and vinegar experiment), there isn't much point in using https when you are just reading stuff. URLs are visible to men in the middle anyway, so if your government hates Wikipedia, they'll still come to know. (You can bypass this using SSH tunneling or web proxies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia HTTPS is really meant for those who edit/contribute to Wikipedia: They are submitting passwords and other stuff and would like it to stay secure. Plus, there are those with access to privately identifying information like IPs nad emails for whom it is a matter of trying to keep private info private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some [other uses][3] as well. Generally, those who use HTTPS for these reasons know how to tack an s onto the URL themselves :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Does https have any problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep. Firstly, as you noted, it's slightly slower. Not enough to make a difference while browsing Wikipedia, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, not all proxy servers like it. Using HTTPS over an HTTP proxy (which is what most institutes and workplaces use -- SOCKS proxies are rare) requires  a protocol-switching thing known as HTTP CONNECT, and not all proxies allow that on port 443 (where HTTPS runs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those behind such proxies *usually* know how to deal with this -- just chop the s right out of the URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should our policy be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I mentioned, those who need https know how to enable it for Wikipedia.  The reverse doesn't always work, since when https wikipedia fails to work behind a proxy, to many it just looks like Wikipedia is down (&quot;Oh no! how will I ever complete my project now!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while we shouldn't go actively editing https out, it's great if you try to use http in your Wikipedia links. And if you are editing a post, it's fine if you replace the https as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies only for Wikipedia -- most sites do not have both HTTP and HTTPS at the same time, so editing a link to HTTP may break it (always check)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://security.stackexchange.com/a/20833/7497&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4624/please-explain-why-dioxygen-difluoride-is-so-dangerous&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HTTPS#But_still_very_useful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="cce1bf71-9709-435d-959a-c68d884251cc" CreationDate="2013-04-23T21:33:25.913" UserId="14182" Text="Tell me this isn't happening... The [Astronomy and Astrophysics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy) site is in the commitment phase at 65%. That site is going to bring fragmentation and general loss of quality to the Physics site. Just have a look at some of the Top Example Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What happens if two black holes collide?&#xD;&#xA; - Why do sunspots appear dark?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) prove the Big Bang?&#xD;&#xA; - How are extrasolar planets detected?&#xD;&#xA; - Why can't light escape from a black hole?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the Lagrangian (libration) points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When that site reaches 100% support and is created, what will happen with such questions? Will they be migrated there? Who will **wrongly** decide that the collision between two black holes is not for theoretical physicists but for astrophysicists? What is wrong with this site we have now, for such questions? Why that fragmentation? Hey, and I am myself an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what can be my contribution in order to help that separate site not to be created. I can see there only options to join the supporters, but I want to do the opposite..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="cce1bf71-9709-435d-959a-c68d884251cc" CreationDate="2013-04-23T21:33:25.913" UserId="14182" Text="How can I downvote or counteract in any (democratic) sense the creation of the Astronomy and Astrophysics site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="cce1bf71-9709-435d-959a-c68d884251cc" CreationDate="2013-04-23T21:33:25.913" UserId="14182" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="6e482426-e5a8-47f7-98f6-36dd5c60251b" CreationDate="2013-04-23T21:46:33.643" UserId="14182" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Tell me this isn't happening... The [Astronomy and Astrophysics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy) site is in the commitment phase at 65%. That site is going to bring fragmentation and general loss of quality to the Physics site. Just have a look at some of the Top Example Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What happens if two black holes collide? (this is the top one!)&#xD;&#xA; - Why do sunspots appear dark?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) prove the Big Bang?&#xD;&#xA; - How are extrasolar planets detected?&#xD;&#xA; - Why can't light escape from a black hole?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the Lagrangian (libration) points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When that site reaches 100% support and is created, what will happen with such questions? Will they be migrated there? Who will **wrongly** decide that the collision between two black holes is not for theoretical physicists but for astrophysicists? What is wrong with this site we have now, for such questions? Why that fragmentation? Hey, and I am myself an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what can be my contribution in order to help that separate site not to be created. I can see there only options to join the supporters, but I want to do the opposite..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="beda4e5f-4b86-48c0-9684-74dba20d7c00" CreationDate="2013-04-23T22:13:23.947" UserId="7433" Text="&#xD;&#xA;##A bit about site overlaps&#xD;&#xA;Firstly: Sites can have overlap regions. In such cases, posts only get migrated if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The OP asks for migration&#xD;&#xA; - The question does not get (good) answers for some number of days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a mod on both Physics and Chem, I come across this fairly regularly &amp;mdash; there are posts which are on topic on two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this isn't a matter of _overlap_ of scope, it is a matter of being a complete _subset_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Do such sites succeed?&#xD;&#xA;Depends. [Mathematica.SE][1] succeeded even though it was a subset site because there were a staggeringly huge number of MMA users on SO who had no interest in the rest of SO. But [TheoreticalPhysics][2] (and, more recently, [Arduino][3]) didn't. There are a lot of situation-specific reasons for these failures, though. However, when there's an established place where you can ask stuff, there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the last Astro.SE was not a full subset of Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Will Astro.SE succeed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know. Last time it failed due to low activity, and there's a high chance it will this time as well. Physics is a much larger site and tends to attract people better. I personally predict that it will be closed in private beta, but I could be grossly wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Is it a threat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, not really. If it does succeed, it wouldn't really harm our site. Our scope would not change, so questions asked here would stay here. Maybe the number of questions we receive in the topic would be halved. Not much of an issue -- though the astronomy subcommunity (@ChrisWhite, you, etc) may be split. (When Mathematica.SE was launched in beta, the whole SO community moved over. This did not happen with Arduino or TheoreticalPhysics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's something that you, as an astrophysicist, may even want to look forward to. Currently it is not immediately clear that Astronomy is on topic for Physics.SE. Astrophysics &amp;mdash; yes, but astronomy is not really a part of physics (in the minds of the general public). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it fails, Physics.SE would be happy to accept their posts as we did the last time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Can we do anything about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I posted [this][4]. Not that I want the site to fail, but if that was enough justification for the proposal to be closed (before it wasted a lot of time), so be it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The banner you see on the top is because one of us pinged a community team member about the scope subset&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would help test if the site will be able to stand on it's own later -- if Physics.SE is a more lucrative option for those willing to commit, then this makes the site less likely to succeed. The community team is good at helping sites succeed, but they also are good at identifying ones which won't. They generally give such iffy cases a chance: they at least let them have a week of private beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not much more we _can_ do: You can always post your own answer on that discussion thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://arduino.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/a/8345/52181&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xArjj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8533" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="6af64fb3-f392-47c6-a2b7-fbd2014fe1be" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:05:52.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/326834335309246465" />
  <row Id="8534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="ff068f7c-7ae5-49d0-882e-129c5a88c328" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:16:56.863" UserId="14182" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="Tell me this isn't happening... The [Astronomy and Astrophysics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy) site is in the commitment phase at 65%. That site is going to bring fragmentation and general loss of quality to the Physics site. Just have a look at some of the Top Example Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What happens if two black holes collide? (this is the top one!)&#xD;&#xA; - Why do sunspots appear dark?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) prove the Big Bang?&#xD;&#xA; - How are extrasolar planets detected?&#xD;&#xA; - Why can't light escape from a black hole?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the Lagrangian (libration) points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When that site reaches 100% support and is created, what will happen with such questions? Will they be migrated there? Who will **wrongly** decide that the collision between two black holes is not for theoretical physicists but for astrophysicists? What is wrong with this site we have now, for such questions? Why that fragmentation? Hey, and I am myself an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what can be my contribution in order to help that separate site not to be created. I can see there only options to join the supporters, but I want to do the opposite...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Later:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the suggestion of @Manishearth, I have made my contribution, by posting my opinion [there in Area 51](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/6222/why-wouldnt-this-just-be-part-of-the-existing-physics-stackexchange/10195#10195). Perhaps this helps convincing some potential supporters. You are encouraged to post your opinions there too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4225" RevisionGUID="7d5c333f-70a3-487c-a8bc-431260af8bf6" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:43:13.847" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="*[What follows is support for the OP's concerns. If it is answers you seek, I have none to give, but if you seek to know more about this issue from an astrophysicist's perspective, read on.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what is irking Eduardo, and certainly what irks me, about this proposal is how it splits off **astrophysics** from **physics**. Sure, there can be a site about amateur observing, naming constellations, etc., assuming it succeeds. But if you want answers about the **science**, then that is a subset of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure there are plenty of hobbyists who are interested in the underlying physics of all the pretty pictures. But professional **astrophysics** *and* **astronomy**&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; should be handled in a professional forum if one exists. [**And one already does.**][1] You don't need to be an amateur hobbyist to tell people what a black hole is or explain the CMB. In fact, most people who understand these concepts *don't know how to work a personal telescope*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem was there used to be a site that focused on amateur issues, with the occasional hard science question asked there that should have been asked here instead. It failed due to low popularity. Instead of accepting that the Stackexchange platform just wasn't right for that group,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; they decided to steal subject matter from this site to expand their scope. How is this anything other than direct, adversarial competition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By what logic is this proceeding anyway? Do the powers-that-be really think better answers will come from a non-general-physics site? **Perhaps we should split off string theory while we're at it** - after all, string theorists are less likely than astrophysicists to reside in their university's physics department. Wouldn't want any cross-contamination or exchange of ideas from other branches of physics, now would we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of two possible justifications. Either (1) there is a belief that astronomy and astrophysics are somehow at the fringes of physics proper, not really belonging, which *as an astrophysicist* I can tell you is absurd, or (2) there is a belief that astro questions would get better answers on their own site. Yet if anything this new site would lean toward the pop-sci level of explanations, which we here at physics are constantly having to refute. If you want a place for really popular questions that attract hoards of people who prefer entertaining answers to factually grounded ones, well [there is a site already dedicated to that][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, this isn't an answer to the question of &quot;how do I oppose this?&quot; I myself am seeking that answer. But indeed I don't think the outrage has been voiced quite enough. I hope at the very least I've shown why this new site is something that should be opposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yes, both. Astronomy is to astrophysics as particle experiment is to particle theory, as condensed matter experiment is to condensed matter theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; My guess is this is probably due to the fact that there are already a large number of very enthusiastic amateur groups on and off the internet, so there is a crowding-out effect in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.quora.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="f8afc056-a47b-46c4-ade7-c39cfb075c13" CreationDate="2013-04-24T01:36:06.367" UserId="14182" Text="Adding the word astronomy might dis... disencourage(?) (sorry, no spell checker in the phone, I'll change it tomorrow) stuff from other branches, but perhaps the Feynman diagram and the hut potential could be changed into a drawing of Saturn with the rings, or any other explicitely astronomical thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="d69d7f2f-7b47-4f6e-a0d1-b8b8049d94c8" CreationDate="2013-04-24T01:42:22.190" UserId="14182" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Adding the word astronomy might dis... discourage(?) (sorry, no spell checker in the phone, I'll change it tomorrow) stuff from other branches, but perhaps the Feynman diagram and the hut potential could be changed into a drawing of Saturn with the rings, or any other explicitely astronomical thing. That would probably be enough, to attract all that people that could be unsecure about posting astronomy questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is now, the logo is nice but not very useful. Nobody interested in the Higgs is going to doubt whether a site called PHYSICS is the appropiate place..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8538" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="a15c0209-ff34-43f7-93c0-4637095c4fe7" CreationDate="2013-04-24T01:42:51.560" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="35e3e093-5bc1-47d1-9ab0-bfa66083a264" CreationDate="2013-04-24T08:45:23.730" UserId="14182" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="Adding the word *Astronomy* might perhaps discourage people posting stuff from other branches, but perhaps the Feynman diagram and the hut potential could be substituted by a drawing of Saturn with the rings, or any other explicitly astronomical thing. That would be enough to confirm people who are insecure about posting astronomy questions, that here is right place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is now, the logo is nice but not very useful. Nobody interested in the Higgs is going to doubt whether a site called PHYSICS is the appropriate place..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="6b265473-a9ba-4cf7-b311-ed7292c8cd1a" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:44:26.697" UserId="22150" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the question in the mid colored pink?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been watching this from about an hour or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IXZxi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="6b265473-a9ba-4cf7-b311-ed7292c8cd1a" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:44:26.697" UserId="22150" Text="Why do i see a question in pink color?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="6b265473-a9ba-4cf7-b311-ed7292c8cd1a" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:44:26.697" UserId="22150" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="7841a7f0-408c-4604-ba02-d59ef1927355" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:47:12.440" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the question in the mid colored pink?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been watching this from about an hour or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IXZxi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="7841a7f0-408c-4604-ba02-d59ef1927355" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:47:12.440" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="430a9526-af9e-453c-8473-2ec97b019f4d" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:49:39.110" UserId="7433" Text="It's probably one of your favorited or frequented tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have any favorite tags, it will auto-choose your frequented tags(I think this was fixed, not sure). Auto favorite a nonexistant tag (I do [tag:frequentedtagsfail]) if you want the pink to go away.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y4I7N.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="6610bdf0-7132-4463-b99c-d5220997a72b" CreationDate="2013-04-26T11:44:08.330" UserId="22150" Text="#NO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About page already states that it is for [Physics and Astronomy Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/about) and also have a tag `Astronomy`. So, no need to change the logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics must remain Physics, Just **Physics**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="35fc96f0-421b-458f-81c0-aa88e07525d0" CreationDate="2013-04-26T16:08:06.673" UserId="14182" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Adding the word *Astronomy* might discourage people posting stuff from other branches, but perhaps the Feynman diagram and the hut potential could be substituted by a drawing of Saturn with the rings, or any other explicitly astronomical thing. That would be enough to confirm people who are insecure about posting astronomy questions, that here is the right place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is now, the logo is nice but not very useful in that sense: Nobody interested in the Higgs is going to doubt whether a site called PHYSICS is the appropriate place, whereas I can understand that somebody with a question concerning, say, celestial mechanics or simply a change of coordinates from equatorial to horizontal, can think of the Maths site as more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="3df029bb-17ca-47ce-9e32-5e3c70ea58f0" CreationDate="2013-04-27T13:53:55.033" UserId="16114" Text="I tried $I = 1 v * R$ but v looks like a factor rather than unit of measurement. Does tex work in meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="3df029bb-17ca-47ce-9e32-5e3c70ea58f0" CreationDate="2013-04-27T13:53:55.033" UserId="16114" Text="How do I format a physical quantity (unit of measurement + numerical value)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="3df029bb-17ca-47ce-9e32-5e3c70ea58f0" CreationDate="2013-04-27T13:53:55.033" UserId="16114" Text="|discussion|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="3c992dbf-1a8d-4833-9f95-9f9da10f33f6" CreationDate="2013-04-27T14:00:56.520" UserId="7433" Text="I use `\:\mathrm{&lt;units go here&gt;}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$E=120\:\mathrm{kgm^2s^{-2}}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also use [this userscript][2]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want mathjax on meta, upvote http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/mathjax-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WqfPo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="8f8dabad-d0ee-48d7-a6ca-22e6136b5231" CreationDate="2013-04-27T14:05:05.313" UserId="16114" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I tried $I = 1 v / R$ but v looks like a factor rather than unit of measurement. Does tex work in meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8565" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="8f8dabad-d0ee-48d7-a6ca-22e6136b5231" CreationDate="2013-04-27T14:05:05.313" UserId="16114" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="How do I format a physical quantity (unit of measurement + numerical value)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4236" RevisionGUID="b6940641-55fa-4615-8860-71c51c4318bb" CreationDate="2013-04-27T23:51:13.317" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="As a complement to Manishearth's answer, I'll note that there are 4 standard small amounts of space available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - `$\,$` is 3/16 of a &quot;quad&quot; (more or less the width of `M`, or at least that was the original idea),&#xD;&#xA;  - `$\:$` is 4/16 of a quad,&#xD;&#xA;  - `$\;$` is 5/16, and&#xD;&#xA;  - `$\⊔$` (that's a backslash + space) is something like 6/16 and generally agrees the best with the local interword spacing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO this last option is easiest to type, makes the source look less cluttered, and leads to smoothly flowing spacing. But all options are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For multiple units, you probably want to separate implicit multiplications, e.g. `$\mathrm{kg\:m/s^2}$` or `$\mathrm{kg{\cdot}m/s^2}$`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides units, manual spacing most often comes up when separating the &quot;dx&quot; part of the integral, especially for people like me who use upright d's. `$\int x^2\ \mathrm{d}x$` tends to render well on this site, though some prefer a smaller space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="ac43368d-348e-42f2-9dab-4fa59d1076a3" CreationDate="2013-04-28T07:39:22.393" UserId="16114" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I tried `$I = 1 v / R$` but v looks like a factor rather than unit of measurement. Does tex work in meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4237" RevisionGUID="61fc575b-7c4e-449b-a5cd-60d83fa1822b" CreationDate="2013-04-28T08:55:34.110" UserId="16689" Text="I don't understand the point between *social network* and *following an user* actually. Is there a commonly accepted definition for a *social network* ? I've gone on this reference [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network ] and I found nothing about the use of email address for instance. Or I badly read this long page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I also would like to be able to *follow* some other users. I propose to do that the same way it is implemented for the *favourite tags* for instance: we have a list somewhere (actually in the right of the screen) and we can filter the questions clicking on a specific tag. That would be enough for me. Moreover, I've the feeling this has nothing to do with a social activity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a social activity for instance would be to ask some questions to some other people, and they answer you... well, what a discussion is about, isn't it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="eca309b4-fa43-4268-b625-448e7b061bb9" CreationDate="2013-04-28T09:09:51.523" UserId="16689" Text="I partially resolved this problem using an external LaTex compiler (console, whatever it's name, I'm using Lyx actually, which is free, open source and simple to use) to write my posts in SE before submitting them. It does not entirely solve the problem in the sense that the further edits are more complicated to implement that way though..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8574" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="3069f5cd-0b34-490a-b017-36ae9ae574bf" CreationDate="2013-04-28T19:28:24.643" UserId="7433" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1081],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:11062,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Crazy Buddy&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4239" RevisionGUID="11cbd0dd-4cff-44d1-b2f9-4133c4114d89" CreationDate="2013-04-29T05:05:40.433" UserId="955" Text="I strongly support this, but i ask a bit more; some stylist design updates, that includes something related to astrophysics. We have the Mexican Hat potential, but we need at least something else that suggests 'space'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4240" RevisionGUID="2059c489-1b96-4a0a-ae1b-b51ac67e7f0a" CreationDate="2013-04-30T13:30:08.893" UserId="825" Text="I don't think it's necessary to change the logo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We shouldn't single out astronomy. I personally would say that it's a regular sub-discipline of physics. Some universities do have separate astronomy departments, but by the same logic we should also add &quot;geology&quot; or&quot;geophysics&quot; to the logo, because it's an organisationally separate department at my university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I don't think many people will be deterred from asking questions, just because it is not in the logo. If anything, people tend to post a lot *broader* questions than the moderators would like, and the mods then close them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I wanted to post the following as a joke, but the more I think about it, the more I fear it might be true: If we make the label &quot;astronomy&quot; more prominent, people might think &quot;oh, astrology!&quot; and start posting questions about horoscopes. (I wonder if we get many metaphysics questions on meta.physics.SE?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="5667f72b-979e-4433-8a07-0aa299e4d56d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:03:36.093" UserId="825" Text="There have been a couple of controversial suspensions or bans now on this site. Current rules prevent the moderators from giving details of suspensions. This is bad, because it raises suspicions and undermines the community's trust in the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not contesting any concrete suspension, but I believe such a drastic measure should only be applied completely transparently, for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm proposing the following change of rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In case of a suspension, the reasons of suspension must be clearly stated. Any posts that lead to the suspension shall be archived and publicly displayed, unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * They contain strongly insulting, inflammatory or illegal content.&#xD;&#xA;    * The suspended member wishes them to be removed (to respect his/her privacy).&#xD;&#xA;    * Another person mentioned or involved wishes to be redacted from the posts.&#xD;&#xA;* The accused user should be allowed a statement to be posted together with the reasons of suspension.&#xD;&#xA;* Ideally, all of this should be displayed on the suspended user's profile.&#xD;&#xA;* As long this is not implemented in the SE software, a meta post shall be made in prominent cases, or on request of another SE user.&#xD;&#xA;* The new procedure can be waived in cases of minor suspensions (not more than a few days), or quick bans (e.g. spam bots).&#xD;&#xA;* If this conflicts the moderation agreement or any other document, that document shall be modified accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I know that this might be in conflict with the moderation agreement. Still, if you sympathize with my suggestion, please upvote this. Rules can be changed. If you are a moderator, and *in principle* support this suggestion, but feel bound by the moderation agreement at the moment, please state that you think so in a comment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this change is necessary for a more civil and democratic atmosphere especially on the meta site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="5667f72b-979e-4433-8a07-0aa299e4d56d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:03:36.093" UserId="825" Text="Change of policy: Make reasons for suspensions public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="5667f72b-979e-4433-8a07-0aa299e4d56d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:03:36.093" UserId="825" Text="|discussion|policy|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="262afe61-246c-431a-8b5b-9def894dad56" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:17:34.497" UserId="825" Text="The question is indeed broken. It's locked, so we can't add new books. Also we can't vote on them. How to fix it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Break up the giant community wiki answer into multiple answers.&#xD;&#xA;* Split it up into different questions per topic.&#xD;&#xA;* Unlock the question so people can add new content.&#xD;&#xA;* Let people vote on what they recommend. Good stuff floats towards the top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="f9cd7e04-c647-4092-a6cf-ab3867825e9b" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:18:55.270" UserId="2911" Text="So basically, you want everyone who makes a mistake and has to have their access blocked for a while to be publicly pilloried for the amusement of passers-by? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds like fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for folks you'd actually like to see return to the site in good standing, it's probably a bad idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="67d5587a-2d0c-4be8-a71a-d5ee1ddbb898" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:41:54.130" UserId="825" Comment="added 694 characters in body" Text="There have been a couple of controversial suspensions or bans now on this site. Current rules prevent the moderators from giving details of suspensions. This is bad, because it raises suspicions and undermines the community's trust in the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not contesting any concrete suspension, but I believe such a drastic measure should only be applied completely transparently, for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm proposing the following change of rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In case of a suspension, the reasons of suspension must be clearly stated. Any posts that lead to the suspension shall be archived and publicly displayed, unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * They contain strongly insulting, inflammatory or illegal content.&#xD;&#xA;    * The suspended member wishes them to be removed (to respect his/her privacy).&#xD;&#xA;    * Another person mentioned or involved wishes to be redacted from the posts.&#xD;&#xA;* The accused user should be allowed a statement to be posted together with the reasons of suspension.&#xD;&#xA;* Ideally, all of this should be displayed on the suspended user's profile.&#xD;&#xA;* As long this is not implemented in the SE software, a meta post shall be made in prominent cases, or on request of another SE user.&#xD;&#xA;* The new procedure can be waived in cases of minor suspensions (not more than a few days), or quick bans (e.g. spam bots).&#xD;&#xA;* If this conflicts the moderation agreement or any other document, that document shall be modified accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I know that this might be in conflict with the moderation agreement. Still, if you sympathize with my suggestion, please upvote this. Rules can be changed. If you are a moderator, and *in principle* support this suggestion, but feel bound by the moderation agreement at the moment, please state that you think so in a comment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this change is necessary for a more civil and democratic atmosphere especially on the meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note this is not meant to be a public shaming or pilloring of the suspended user.** Quite the contrary, the idea is to give the user his or her voice back, and let them make a plea for there case. Of course, they have the option of keeping it low profile, and have the reasons for suspension remain undisclosed (as it's handled currently). But, they also have the option to state their point of view (and let users decide what they think), or even - god forbid - write an apology or something reconciling, if the dispute has been settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of putting the reasons out in the open by default is that it prevents toxic speculation and suspicion about the reasons of suspension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="8e952271-11f2-4a11-8cd2-098d23db1f04" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:06:24.830" UserId="2451" Comment="tried to make title more informative. Dear EnergyNumbers, if u don't like my changes please roll back or use the parts u like." Text="Question 6157 is a [broken][1] [window][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it asked today, it should get closed as Not a Real Question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's being used to justify the asking of other bad open-ended questions : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4171/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we fix this broken window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/08/pragmatic-programming.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/06/the-broken-window-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8584" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="8e952271-11f2-4a11-8cd2-098d23db1f04" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:06:24.830" UserId="2451" Comment="tried to make title more informative. Dear EnergyNumbers, if u don't like my changes please roll back or use the parts u like." Text="Question 6157: 'List of freely available physics books' -- A broken window that we should fix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8585" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="2406803e-9359-4380-9351-44252515fe12" CreationDate="2013-04-30T23:05:57.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/329371069876150273" />
  <row Id="8586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="31737fda-860c-4a99-835d-3f8dc190cada" CreationDate="2013-05-01T00:56:55.243" UserId="16660" Text="I've seen questions about how to study physics or how physics should be taught being dealt with in a variety of ways. Some get downvoted, some get closed by moderators while others are even answered by moderators. Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19852/16660&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5508/16660&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/20619/16660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, and no doubt to new users, this is confusing and I think it might hold people back from asking a particular question. As a matter of fact, this meta question was inspired by exactly such an experience: I was thinking about the course on non-linear dynamics I took this semester and how insightful it was. It got me wondering why we spend so much time in our physics curriculum linearizing everything and then hoping to capture the interesting non-linear physics through methods like perturbation theory. Non-linear dynamics should - in my opinion - at least be touched on at the Bachelor level (no idea what that level is called in countries like the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was on the verge of asking a question on this subject, probing for reasons why linearity is made so important in physics education, while there is no objective reason for nature to behave that way and indeed it rarely does (well I know one reason: we can solve linear problems analytically, non-linear problems are usually too difficult mathematically). But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that it can be hard to distinguish between an acceptable question that cannot have a truly objective answer and a question that is just effectively pointless. It's a fine line to tread. One way to solve the problem is not to tread the line at all and steer away from all such questions. Another way is to define more clearly what *is* allowed and what *isn't*. The [FAQ][1] section does a good job of this already, but it's arguable that these guidelines are not follow strictly (see the examples above). So perhaps more clarity is needed and that's why I've created this question. I'm sorry for the long intro, but here's the summary of it all: precisely what is the difference between a good `[education]` question and a bad one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently some questions have also been migrated to the academia beta, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8586&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly do we draw the line between their territory and ours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="31737fda-860c-4a99-835d-3f8dc190cada" CreationDate="2013-05-01T00:56:55.243" UserId="16660" Text="What kind of `[education]` questions should we allow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="31737fda-860c-4a99-835d-3f8dc190cada" CreationDate="2013-05-01T00:56:55.243" UserId="16660" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="2305c5ff-5d87-4ce7-8b3b-d2f9b079e130" CreationDate="2013-05-01T15:43:53.177" UserId="520" Text="I can understand why you want this: without it there is a lack of transparency and you have to take the good intentions and allegedly judicious meditations of the moderators on trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while I could simply refer you to the team as our oversight that only pushes the problem back a level, which is exactly the whole *&quot;Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?&quot;* dilemma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are at least two reasons I disagree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To defend our actions would (at least sometimes) require making public *other things that are usually handled on the QT: flags mostly, but sometime deleted comments and user's responses to moderator messages (and the messages themselves for that matter). So the request becomes one for complete openness. Which brings me to my other source of disagreement &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My understanding of the job of a moderator includes *moderating* the discussion. Calming things down. Smoothing over the roughest edges.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That task is not well served by bringing up past conflicts or actions taken by users in the heat of the moment. At some point to keep an on-going interaction civil requires forgetfulness of old slights. And the moderators help that along with our editing and deletion super-powers and sometimes by first asking users to participate and then by giving enforced time to think it over.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Asking us to defend those action in public will have the side effect of defeating the very purpose of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really see a way to satisfy you that won't be as bad as the disease it is meant to cure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point soon my life is going to get more complicated, and I may take a hiatus from moderation, and which time it may be necessary to elect some more &lt;s&gt;suckers&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;willing idiots&lt;/s&gt; janitors. Perhaps you'll get the opportunity to see the sausages being made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Always a problem with physicists who are at home with fairly frank and robust exchanges of views." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="5eb6e1e4-894b-4625-93ef-3b60d5fc8305" CreationDate="2013-05-01T15:57:40.017" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I can understand why you want this: without it there is a lack of transparency and you have to take the good intentions and allegedly judicious meditations of the moderators on trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while I could simply refer you to the team as our oversight that only pushes the problem back a level, which is exactly the whole *&quot;Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?&quot;* dilemma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are at least two reasons I disagree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To defend our actions would (at least sometimes) require making public *other* things that are usually handled on the QT: flags mostly, but sometime deleted comments and user's responses to moderator messages (and the messages themselves for that matter). So the request becomes one for complete openness. Which brings me to my other source of disagreement &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My understanding of the job of a moderator includes *moderating* the discussion. Calming things down. Smoothing over the roughest edges.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That task is not well served by bringing up past conflicts or actions taken by users in the heat of the moment. At some point to keep an on-going interaction civil requires forgetfulness of old slights. And the moderators help that along with our editing and deletion super-powers and sometimes by first asking users to participate and then by giving enforced time to think it over.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Asking us to defend those action in public will have the side effect of defeating the very purpose of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really see a way to satisfy you that won't be as bad as the disease it is meant to cure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point soon my life is going to get more complicated, and I may take a hiatus from moderation, and which time it may be necessary to elect some more &lt;s&gt;suckers&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;willing idiots&lt;/s&gt; janitors. Perhaps you'll get the opportunity to see the sausages being made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Always a problem with physicists who are at home with fairly frank and robust exchanges of views." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="ba735b95-d5d8-43cc-9e94-dfe0af0dccb7" CreationDate="2013-05-01T17:48:27.523" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4246" RevisionGUID="187655d6-ffd6-4f1e-83ca-f06b26181917" CreationDate="2013-05-01T17:49:38.043" UserId="2911" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4247" RevisionGUID="dedb1191-485c-4936-8450-8662bbf5ece6" CreationDate="2013-05-01T17:49:38.043" UserId="2911" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Defining what is on- and off-topic for the site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8594" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="4a51c891-4912-433a-8138-e6c3da6966e2" CreationDate="2013-05-03T11:06:06.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/330277078740135936" />
  <row Id="8595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="74cf4585-9145-44d8-81dd-181d185785ef" CreationDate="2013-05-03T22:21:20.820" UserId="2146" Text="The key sentence in what you wrote is: &quot;But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So those education questions that have a realistic chance of being answered objectively should be allowed, meaning people can investigate the correctness of an answer independent of the view of the person who gave the answer in the first place. Using your example, an acceptable question would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the motives behind the teaching of linear physical models as opposed to non-linear ones?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People can then up-vote the answers given by actual teachers who can give their motives, and down-vote those who haven't a clue why, but love to see their ignorant opinion on screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the questions under the [education][1] tag to get an idea of how to ask successfully here, such as mine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can electromagnetic momentum be introduced at pre-university level as for electromagnetic energy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/education" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="371ad682-5090-499e-9f7f-98e59b2c6964" CreationDate="2013-05-03T23:24:44.257" UserId="8563" Comment="tag formatting." Text="I've seen questions about how to study physics or how physics should be taught being dealt with in a variety of ways. Some get downvoted, some get closed by moderators while others are even answered by moderators. Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19852/16660&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5508/16660&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/20619/16660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, and no doubt to new users, this is confusing and I think it might hold people back from asking a particular question. As a matter of fact, this meta question was inspired by exactly such an experience: I was thinking about the course on non-linear dynamics I took this semester and how insightful it was. It got me wondering why we spend so much time in our physics curriculum linearizing everything and then hoping to capture the interesting non-linear physics through methods like perturbation theory. Non-linear dynamics should - in my opinion - at least be touched on at the Bachelor level (no idea what that level is called in countries like the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was on the verge of asking a question on this subject, probing for reasons why linearity is made so important in physics education, while there is no objective reason for nature to behave that way and indeed it rarely does (well I know one reason: we can solve linear problems analytically, non-linear problems are usually too difficult mathematically). But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that it can be hard to distinguish between an acceptable question that cannot have a truly objective answer and a question that is just effectively pointless. It's a fine line to tread. One way to solve the problem is not to tread the line at all and steer away from all such questions. Another way is to define more clearly what *is* allowed and what *isn't*. The [FAQ][1] section does a good job of this already, but it's arguable that these guidelines are not follow strictly (see the examples above). So perhaps more clarity is needed and that's why I've created this question. I'm sorry for the long intro, but here's the summary of it all: precisely what is the difference between a good [tag:education] question and a bad one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently some questions have also been migrated to the academia beta, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8586&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly do we draw the line between their territory and ours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="77ffb471-058c-4086-aee2-d15c0400e754" CreationDate="2013-05-05T04:00:55.527" UserId="21436" Text="This is probably a useless plug since most of Physics.SE's users do not come from China, but in China the government packet-filters all *unencrypted* overseas links, doing slow string-searching on them for keywords and RSTing the connection when sensitive stuff is detected. Obviously this big string-searching is the huge bottleneck on all the Chinese network gateways. HTTPS Wikipedia is *far* faster for me in China than the HTTP version, and won't suddenly get its connection dropped by a firewall due to some obscure thing mistaken for an anti-government word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="f78ac4b4-e665-4c02-adc0-7d0eca99c924" CreationDate="2013-05-05T06:56:37.803" UserId="10655" Text="I wrote an answer to a question about temperature and dimensional analysis. I am skeptical about the motivations. I cannot see at the moment if it was not just a random downvote by someone having fun. However, if I have overlooked something an broken some vital law it would get appreciated if someone with a good eye for thermo could point that out to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is just because someone does not like the style of answer I can live with that. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to answer below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45785/dimensional-analysis/63324#63324&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="f78ac4b4-e665-4c02-adc0-7d0eca99c924" CreationDate="2013-05-05T06:56:37.803" UserId="10655" Text="Why did this post get downvoted? Dodgy Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="f78ac4b4-e665-4c02-adc0-7d0eca99c924" CreationDate="2013-05-05T06:56:37.803" UserId="10655" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="d0eb6816-75c0-43e1-b58a-53759995ad8e" CreationDate="2013-05-05T07:04:39.750" UserId="17609" Text="The name 't Hooft is quite often misspelled on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At least 12 questions/answers with tHooft&#xD;&#xA; - At least 51 questions/answers with t'Hooft or T'Hooft&#xD;&#xA; - At least 4 questions/answers with Hooft or hooft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynmann occurs in at least 23 questions/answers. Feinman once. Fynman once. Einstien five times. Hawkins (not a Nobel laureate) four times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should something be done about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="d0eb6816-75c0-43e1-b58a-53759995ad8e" CreationDate="2013-05-05T07:04:39.750" UserId="17609" Text="Should something be done about the misspelling of (e.g., Nobel laureate's) names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="d0eb6816-75c0-43e1-b58a-53759995ad8e" CreationDate="2013-05-05T07:04:39.750" UserId="17609" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8607" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="c11e993d-e9a0-4d19-86ab-a27f12f7452c" CreationDate="2013-05-05T07:44:17.700" UserId="17609" Comment="fixed my own spelling :)" Text="Should something be done about the misspelling of (e.g., Nobel laureates') names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="52958b21-be70-4bf2-9f21-3ca9cf7c64eb" CreationDate="2013-05-05T08:37:40.020" UserId="124" Text="Sure, just edit in the correct spelling, along with any other fixes required. (In most cases a question's title also stands to be improved, or a tag can be added, so that the edit is not just the spelling correction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not specific to Nobel laureates' names, by the way - it goes for any spelling corrections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="6a422f60-3669-4db1-b57a-aa407122aa76" CreationDate="2013-05-05T08:41:18.837" UserId="124" Text="It's just one downvote. That is hardly reason to conclude that you have &quot;broken some vital law&quot; or any such thing. Perhaps someone just thought your answer was unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself getting 4 or 5 downvotes with no explanatory comments, then perhaps it's worth asking here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="2d8b8cea-93b3-446b-b591-9bb94ae5bfde" CreationDate="2013-05-06T00:34:55.233" UserId="66" Text="&gt; Note this is not meant to be a public shaming or pilloring of the suspended user. Quite the contrary, the idea is to give the user his or her voice back, and let them make a plea for there case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that suspending and unsuspending a user is a mod-only decision, allowing the whole community to debate the issue doesn't make any sense. It only satisfies some form of morbid curiosity, potentially results in shaming the suspended users and potentially enables mobbing of the community moderators by a clique of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user has a full voice already. They can reply to the relevant users that can help them, community managers and the moderators, and ask their case to be reevaluated if they think they have been mistreated. In rare cases suspensions *have* been shortened after discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that suspensions often involve more than one user. There may be a victim. There may be more than one user suspended, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="85474623-35d4-42a7-a533-e68dbfada089" CreationDate="2013-05-06T04:39:34.080" UserId="7433" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="The name 't Hooft is quite often misspelled on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 12 questions/answers with tHooft][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 51 questions/answers with t'Hooft or T'Hooft][2]&#xD;&#xA; - At least 4 questions/answers with Hooft or hooft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynmann occurs in at least 23 questions/answers. Feinman once. Fynman once. Einstien five times. Hawkins (not a Nobel laureate) four times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should something be done about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=tHooft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=t%27Hooft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="112a5d3d-f67b-4996-8991-3d6b75b6c0ee" CreationDate="2013-05-06T04:50:28.320" UserId="7433" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="The name 't Hooft is quite often misspelled on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 12 questions/answers with tHooft][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 51 questions/answers with t'Hooft or T'Hooft][2]&#xD;&#xA; - At least 4 questions/answers with Hooft or hooft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynmann occurs in at least 23 questions/answers. Feinman once. Fynman once. Einstien five times. Hawkins (not a Nobel laureate) four times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should something be done about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a query][3] that should be able to find most of these. Note that it runs on data dumps, so fixing a post on the site will not guarantee its removal from this list for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=tHooft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=t%27Hooft&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/112362/misspellings-of-t-hooft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="25d80483-37a2-4eea-b3df-65a0734627fb" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:33:46.993" UserId="2751" Text="I agree with the question and disagree with the notion that spurious, capricious, not (by physics reasons) explained downvotes are just a &quot;nonissue&quot; here because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many people have noticed them recently and asked about them on meta, see for example [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4211/2751) question. The number of capricious potentially not by physics reasons explainable downvotes HAS increased this year and can not be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Capricious not explained downvotes on perfectly good sometimes even technical posts discourage new users or people who have not a large impenetrable self confidence from posting on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvotes of from a physics point of view correct posts bias the general picture of the site concerning what is a correct and legitimate question or answer. Admittedly, the same is true for upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving votes of any sign without comments is a somehow intended feature of the system, even though explaining the downvote by pointing out the error or what is otherwis wrong with the post such that it can be corrected is encouraged I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice for people who get such unexplained downvotes, is to ask on chat or meta a broader audience about what is wrong with the point from a physics point of view. If anything is wrong with with the post after all ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="13c23287-5f9f-4324-91c7-68a0724d73e6" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:38:50.313" UserId="2751" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I agree with the question and disagree with the notion that spurious, capricious, not (by physics reasons) explained downvotes are just a &quot;nonissue&quot; here because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many people have noticed them recently and asked about them on meta, see for example [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4211/2751) question. The number of capricious potentially not by physics reasons explainable downvotes HAS increased this year and can not be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Capricious not explained downvotes on perfectly good sometimes even technical posts discourage new users or people who have not a large impenetrable self confidence from posting on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvotes of from a physics point of view correct posts bias the general picture of the site concerning what is a correct and legitimate question or answer. Admittedly, the same is true for upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving votes of any sign without comments is a somehow intended feature of the system, even though explaining the downvote by pointing out the error or what is otherwis wrong with the post such that it can be corrected is encouraged I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice for people who get such unexplained downvotes, is to ask on chat or meta a broader audience about what is wrong with the question or answer from a physics point of view. If anything is wrong with the post after all ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="1d97dc15-4484-42c8-9171-d584026e03fc" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:58:55.993" UserId="2751" Text="What can I do, if I note that perfectly good questions are closevoted but still open, and I dont have access to the reopen / close queues? Having access to these higher rep review queues, I could simply review it and say &quot;leave open&quot;. But what can people do who have not enough rep for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my head I see just the following possible things one could do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Flag the question to leave open&quot; explaing why I think it is a good and legitimate question which should not be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Explain in a comment below the question explaining why it should not get closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Start a chat or mete discussion, which might however be a bit premature if the question is still open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do other people think what lower rep users can do best in this case, to state the opinion that the question should be left open? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="1d97dc15-4484-42c8-9171-d584026e03fc" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:58:55.993" UserId="2751" Text="What can I do if I note closevotes on a perfectly good question but have no access to the reopen / close queues?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="1d97dc15-4484-42c8-9171-d584026e03fc" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:58:55.993" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="06a9685d-9f85-4608-accb-d7cf67769a58" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:00:34.050" UserId="2751" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I agree with the question and disagree with the notion that spurious, capricious, not (by physics reasons) explained downvotes are just a &quot;nonissue&quot; here because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many people have noticed them recently and asked about them on meta, see for example [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4211/2751) question. The number of capricious potentially not by physics reasons explainable downvotes HAS increased this year and can not be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Capricious not explained downvotes on perfectly good sometimes even technical posts discourage new users or people who have not a large impenetrable self confidence from posting on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvotes of from a physics point of view correct posts bias the general picture of the site concerning what is a correct and legitimate question or answer. Admittedly, the same is true for upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving votes of any sign without comments is a somehow intended feature of the system, even though explaining the downvote by pointing out the error or what is otherwise wrong with the post such that it can be corrected is encouraged I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice for people who get such unexplained downvotes, is to ask on chat or meta a broader audience about what is wrong with the question or answer from a physics point of view. If anything is wrong with the post after all ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="c8a69ab6-93d4-4378-a5e0-bbfc618ae0eb" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:06:26.937" UserId="2684" Text="Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is actually a perfectly good question, the chances are high that the close votes will decay and it won't be closed. Any action would be premature in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is actually closed, you have all the usual tools from flags, reopen votes to meta posts at your disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if the question is fundamendally a good question, but maybe written in an unfortunate or easily misunderstood way, editing it to make it clearer can help a lot with preventing any further close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is not really appropriate as moderators can only reset close votes by using the very ugly workaround of closing and immediately reopening a question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="c247bafa-1405-4f2f-976d-a5c585c65da4" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:04:36.070" UserId="17609" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="The name 't Hooft is quite often misspelled on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 12 questions/answers with tHooft][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 51 questions/answers with t'Hooft or T'Hooft][2]&#xD;&#xA; - At least 4 questions/answers with Hooft or hooft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynmann occurs in at least 23 questions/answers. Feinman once. Fynman once. Einstien five times. Hawkins (not a Nobel laureate) four times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should something be done about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a query][3] that should be able to find most of these. Note that it runs on data dumps, so fixing a post on the site will not guarantee its removal from this list for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/ap.html) are some remarks on his name by 't Hooft. [9491 Thooft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9491_Thooft) is a notable exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=tHooft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=t%27Hooft&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/112362/misspellings-of-t-hooft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="21e4bb9d-f4c1-4376-87e0-086e1e4bb861" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:27:30.337" UserId="17609" Comment="inserted quote from the head" Text="&gt;I enjoy having this name. It makes me feel proud if someone handles it right.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name 't Hooft is quite often misspelled on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 12 questions/answers with tHooft][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 51 questions/answers with t'Hooft or T'Hooft][2]&#xD;&#xA; - At least 4 questions/answers with Hooft or hooft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynmann occurs in at least 23 questions/answers. Feinman once. Fynman once. Einstien five times. Hawkins (not a Nobel laureate) four times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should something be done about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a query][3] that should be able to find most of these. Note that it runs on data dumps, so fixing a post on the site will not guarantee its removal from this list for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;[Here](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/ap.html) are some remarks on his name by 't Hooft. [9491 Thooft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9491_Thooft) is a notable exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=tHooft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=t%27Hooft&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/112362/misspellings-of-t-hooft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="81e81da5-4af3-4b1d-b6af-2745e9bea497" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:41:54.187" UserId="22150" Text="&gt;##Post linked with [this MSO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/179167/can-we-have-a-graphing-tool-for-math-se-and-physics-se ) post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphing tool is very important for answering and asking some questions in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;Graphing tool must include the function plotting and **drawing some free shapes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This post is for further discussion on this and getting the comments and suggestions on this of Physics.SE users especially. As CrisF ♦  asked to post that on Site Meta. .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="81e81da5-4af3-4b1d-b6af-2745e9bea497" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:41:54.187" UserId="22150" Text="Can we have a graphing tool for Physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="81e81da5-4af3-4b1d-b6af-2745e9bea497" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:41:54.187" UserId="22150" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="ff660dfe-0851-4511-825e-66446f0fab7b" CreationDate="2013-05-06T21:46:47.307" UserId="2751" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I agree with the question and disagree with the notion that spurious, capricious, not (by physics reasons) explained downvotes are just a &quot;nonissue&quot; here because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many people have noticed them recently and asked about them on meta, see for example [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4211/2751) question. The number of capricious potentially not by physics reasons explainable downvotes HAS increased this year and can not be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Capricious not explained downvotes on perfectly good sometimes even technical posts discourage new users or people who have not a large impenetrable self confidence from posting on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvotes of from a physics point of view correct posts bias the general picture of the site concerning what is a correct and legitimate question or answer. Admittedly, the same is true for upvotes of wrong posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving votes of any sign without comments is a somehow intended feature of the system, even though explaining the downvote by pointing out the error or what is otherwise wrong with the post such that it can be corrected is encouraged I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice for people who get such unexplained downvotes, is to ask on chat or meta a broader audience about what is wrong with the question or answer from a physics point of view. If anything is wrong with the post after all ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="1cdc444b-deab-4b68-bc28-9549a0b7099e" CreationDate="2013-05-07T02:01:14.710" UserId="66" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; Note this is not meant to be a public shaming or pilloring of the suspended user. Quite the contrary, the idea is to give the user his or her voice back, and let them make a plea for there case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that suspending and unsuspending a user is a mod-only decision, allowing the whole community to debate the issue doesn't make any sense. It only satisfies some form of morbid curiosity, potentially results in shaming the suspended users and potentially enabling mobbing of the community moderators by a clique of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user has a full voice already. They can reply to the relevant users that can help them, community managers and the moderators, and ask their case to be reevaluated if they think they have been mistreated. In rare cases suspensions *have* been shortened after discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that suspensions often involve more than one user. There may be a victim. There may be more than one user suspended, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="13e96e80-b919-4c15-8a23-2925e0f9a37a" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:33:45.617" UserId="1492" Text="The past days spam appears under variable user names. Is there no way to block it? IP addresses? phone numbers in content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just got a response when i tried to post only the first sentence that :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This post does not meet our quality standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could those stupidities pass quality standards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="13e96e80-b919-4c15-8a23-2925e0f9a37a" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:33:45.617" UserId="1492" Text="is there no way to block spam coming from variable new users with the same nonsense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="13e96e80-b919-4c15-8a23-2925e0f9a37a" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:33:45.617" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="1974ca3c-f96d-4a16-8dd1-1387069dc6d7" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:39:14.063" UserId="7433" Text="Well, I just woke up and saw this wall of spam. I'm killing it with fire now, and I've requested blacklisting/IP banning (whichever the comm team deems necessary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the quality standards are more lenient for longer posts. A short post is more likely to fail the quality standards. They probably _should_ catch such posts, but these are after all just computer algorithms, and have limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to help, just spam flag these (6 spam flags leads to an auto deletion), or post in chat. I'll try to get as many as I can myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="368530cd-98e3-428d-be59-08b8750f96c2" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:19:26.717" UserId="825" Text="I have a little dilemma. There is simple question that came up in my actual research that I'd like to ask, but I think it's forbidden by stackexchange rules, because it has more than one correct answer. The question (from exp. particle physics) would be something along:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What data-driven methods are there to estimate the QCD multijet background?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two, max. three methods that are well-known and can be described succinctly (and with references). But there might be more methods I don't know of, and these would probably be even more useful to me. I don't know all the techniques - otherwise I wouldn't be asking - so I don't know the total number of answers. But it's not open ended, in the sense that there is a small, finite number of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usually, I'd just reformulate the question slightly and pretend I didn't know the question had multiple answers**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to estimate the QCD multijet background from data?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does *the technique* work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's of course silly, and it makes the question less useful because I have to play dumb and can put less information in it. Someone will post an answer saying I have a misconception and explain two methods, and somebody else might post the third, so I'll eventually get what I want. I see this on Stackoverflow all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A third option: demand that the correct answer contains *all* techniques known to mankind. This is true to the word of the law, since there is only *one* right answer, but it's even more silly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this question and its potential answer(s) are useful, yet I fear it will be closed and downvoted quickly. **So, what should I do?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="368530cd-98e3-428d-be59-08b8750f96c2" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:19:26.717" UserId="825" Text="Question with two, three right answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="368530cd-98e3-428d-be59-08b8750f96c2" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:19:26.717" UserId="825" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="15b645bb-9919-4ce7-8ac7-c07e3c67eec1" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:44:36.773" UserId="124" Text="There's nothing wrong with a question having more than one answer. Many questions on SE sites do. The problem is with open-ended, soft questions, where there's a large and expanding or unbounded set of possible answers, and there is no metric to judge one against another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend asking your question like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to estimate the QCD multijet background from data?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _(in question body)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know of method X, Y, and Z, but these don't work for me because _(details)_. Is there a method that gets around that problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a more accurate way to estimate the QCD multijet background from data?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know of method X, Y, and Z, but those give large uncertainties. _(details)_ Is there another method that does better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or some such thing - basically, identify why you're not satisfied with existing methods and ask for a better one. The trick is to phrase it so that you're looking for a solution to a problem you have, as opposed to phrasing it as though you're just trying to collect a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you were to ask &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What data-driven methods are there to estimate the QCD multijet background?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it'd probably be more or less okay because there is a small set of methods which could be described or summarized in one answer. Note that you don't have to require that an answer contain _all_ known methods. Someone can provide an incomplete answer listing some methods, and other people can then post their own answers that build on that one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="99db1091-0ca0-4e33-85c0-eabcb58d0a37" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:06:21.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/331862589007081473" />
  <row Id="8639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="d025cba1-1003-49f1-b787-bb3e89510c98" CreationDate="2013-05-08T04:11:50.173" UserId="16689" Comment="add two related questions about the mobile version" Text="I'm wondering if this post is well published here. Well, it's a feedback after all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm killing my eyes reading the questions and answers on this website. I'm not sure, maybe I'm the only one to ask for this, but could be really fine if the presentation change to a fluid one instead of a static layout, such that I can make shorter lines with bigger letters, as on Wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I want to be able to reflow the text of this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I do that ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Apparently, the mobile version of StackExchange allows to read more easily. So far, I've been unable to notice the difference in the address (like the *m* in front of the usual Wikipedia page for the mobile version for instance). So two other question: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Does the mobile version really allow to reflow the text ?  &#xD;&#xA; -  Is there a way to force the mobile version of SE on a computer   ?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8640" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="d025cba1-1003-49f1-b787-bb3e89510c98" CreationDate="2013-05-08T04:11:50.173" UserId="16689" Comment="add two related questions about the mobile version" Text="An other presentation for the posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="14509f1f-abf5-4bb7-9578-96f92be6aa7d" CreationDate="2013-05-08T06:30:13.040" UserId="10655" Comment="Adding to question." Text="I wrote an answer to a question about temperature and dimensional analysis. I am skeptical about the motivations. I cannot see at the moment if it was not just a random downvote by someone having fun. However, if I have overlooked something an broken some vital law it would get appreciated if someone with a good eye for thermo could point that out to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is just because someone does not like the style of answer I can live with that. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to answer below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45785/dimensional-analysis/63324#63324&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: and another one... Unexplained. Must be a gift!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28212/how-is-the-dynamic-equilibrium-nature-of-fermi-dirac-distribution-of-particles-f/63724#63724&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8642" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="14509f1f-abf5-4bb7-9578-96f92be6aa7d" CreationDate="2013-05-08T06:30:13.040" UserId="10655" Comment="Adding to question." Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="d9af3abb-4d21-4839-add3-cb8cc706230f" CreationDate="2013-05-08T11:14:33.030" UserId="1325" Text="We seem to be getting a rush of spam this morning. I see the spams quickly earn lots of downvotes but remain present. Since only 6 spam flags are required to delete the post I'm a bit surprised they manage to attract e.g. 10 downvotes without a corresponding number of spam flags. Maybe we should consider lowering the reputation necessary to flag posts as spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does downvoting a spam post actually achieve anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="d9af3abb-4d21-4839-add3-cb8cc706230f" CreationDate="2013-05-08T11:14:33.030" UserId="1325" Text="What reputation is needed to flag as spam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="d9af3abb-4d21-4839-add3-cb8cc706230f" CreationDate="2013-05-08T11:14:33.030" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="44f16215-0eaf-46a9-916d-2c541cbea0b5" CreationDate="2013-05-08T11:25:19.900" UserId="7433" Text="Everyone who can downvote (125 rep) [certainly can flag posts][1] (15 rep).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I _think_ that spam flags are accompanied by a free automatic downvote (which is different from the downvote one can choose to apply). I am not sure of this. Closing works similarly, certain close reasons (off topic and NARQ if memory serves me right) carry an automatic -1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with a certain negative score (or 3 spam flags) disappear from the main page. That's all that is really important -- an invisible spam post is harmless and can be deleted at leisure. Note that as a 10k user you can still find unhandled spam posts (and other flags) [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="11b67462-052b-4d50-99ad-7e4a5e97d56b" CreationDate="2013-05-08T11:34:33.173" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="Everyone who can downvote (125 rep) [certainly can flag posts][1] (15 rep).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spam flags are accompanied by a free automatic downvote (which is different from the downvote one can choose to apply).  Closing works similarly, certain close reasons (off topic and NARQ if memory serves me right) carry an automatic -1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with a certain negative score (or 3 spam flags) disappear from the main page. That's all that is really important -- an invisible spam post is harmless and can be deleted at leisure. Note that as a 10k user you can still find unhandled spam posts (and other flags) [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="a2e5999a-49b0-4d0c-96f6-a70b649313ca" CreationDate="2013-05-08T22:23:43.367" UserId="23669" Text="When an answer provides a link to a document , website , etc. that includes a **complete and exact** treatment of the problem, but the answer itself has nothing in it's body (just the link), should I accept it? As an example , see [this][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63692/modelling-the-movement-and-jumps-of-a-chalk-while-drawing-a-dashed-line-on-a-bla/63803#63803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="a2e5999a-49b0-4d0c-96f6-a70b649313ca" CreationDate="2013-05-08T22:23:43.367" UserId="23669" Text="Should I accept an answer that merely includes a link to a source for the (exact and detailed) solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="a2e5999a-49b0-4d0c-96f6-a70b649313ca" CreationDate="2013-05-08T22:23:43.367" UserId="23669" Text="|support|answers|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="f94cc032-487f-4484-87e4-7709a773558c" CreationDate="2013-05-08T22:31:33.173" UserId="124" Text="If the answer really is _just_ a link: no, you shouldn't accept it. Answers are supposed to be self-contained, in that the content of the answer itself should be enough to answer the question without making you follow any links. If you see a link-only answer, flag it as not an answer, and a moderator will convert it to a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nobody is going to _stop_ you from accepting a link only answer, or punish you if you do so. But if you care about keeping the site a good place to get questions answered, it's best not to encourage link-only answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the example you linked to counts as a link-only answer is another issue. I suppose it is, technically, but it does include _something_ beyond just the link. With an answer like that, it's probably best if the poster edits some of the content of the link into the answer. If the poster is unwilling to do so, then it could be converted to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="fa0b07aa-00cf-4f5f-a5a0-3be0f49084b4" CreationDate="2013-05-08T23:33:14.063" UserId="124" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="If the answer really is _just_ a link: no, you shouldn't accept it. Answers are supposed to be self-contained, in that the content of the answer itself should be enough to answer the question without making you follow any links. (No matter how good the solution presented in the link, it is still behind a link, and is not part of the answer.) If you see a link-only answer, flag it as not an answer, and a moderator will convert it to a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nobody is going to _stop_ you from accepting a link only answer, or punish you if you do so. But if you care about keeping the site a good place to get questions answered, it's best not to encourage link-only answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the example you linked to counts as a link-only answer is another issue. I suppose it is, technically, but it does include _something_ beyond just the link. With an answer like that, it's probably best if the poster edits some of the content of the link into the answer. If the poster is unwilling to do so, then it could be converted to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="38bc1db9-8872-412b-ab22-28742e36af35" CreationDate="2013-05-09T09:33:29.250" UserId="11062" Text="Nowadays, there is a big wave of questions from black-magic spammers. What if there could be an option like `auto-delete user` or `prevent-spammer` as he tries to post phrases like *&quot;black-magic, +91 (number), love, marriage&quot;*, etc. (and a few more can be gathered) in his spam. I know that mods delete such user accounts at the instant when they see. But, is there any other way to prevent them from posting or gather a few more phrases because, mods are not around sometime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know that it takes a bunch of algorithm add-ups to the engine's clockwork. But, the cloud of spam has surrounded SE (I don't know about other sites) and there are atleast 5 spams per day flooding the active list (in the front page). *I don't think this would be good in MSO*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="38bc1db9-8872-412b-ab22-28742e36af35" CreationDate="2013-05-09T09:33:29.250" UserId="11062" Text="Auto-delete spam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="38bc1db9-8872-412b-ab22-28742e36af35" CreationDate="2013-05-09T09:33:29.250" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|feature-request|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="a54e5f7e-3f43-47c6-ae30-9fdfeb893317" CreationDate="2013-05-09T09:49:52.457" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-planned|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="45d8b1f2-da22-4b30-aa6b-06b890671174" CreationDate="2013-05-09T09:50:08.150" UserId="7433" Text="There already is a feature like this, known as blacklisting (not available to mods). SE has been notified, they're trying to deal with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4272" RevisionGUID="c9f73c35-d3cc-48f2-87df-59bf3867feef" CreationDate="2013-05-09T09:53:59.980" UserId="2751" Text="**It is up to you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which answer you want to accept. You are completely free and even encouraged to accept the answer that fits best your needs, helps you most, and you like best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the link given in the answer makes you perfectly happy and perfectly fits your needs, just accept this answer ;-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as David said it is generally better if answers explain a bit what can be found behind the link too, but it is not a prerequisit for an answer to get upvoted and accepted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8663" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="e5fbee93-28d1-4bca-8aa6-42377aca36fc" CreationDate="2013-05-09T20:06:49.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/332587481612566529" />
  <row Id="8664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="81df3f2b-6e2f-4595-baf0-99f73ba1e01b" CreationDate="2013-05-10T04:11:14.230" UserId="22150" Text="Here is the ***[BETA][1]*** badge which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Actively participated in the private beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the active here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/16/beta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="81df3f2b-6e2f-4595-baf0-99f73ba1e01b" CreationDate="2013-05-10T04:11:14.230" UserId="22150" Text="What is defination of ACTIVE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="81df3f2b-6e2f-4595-baf0-99f73ba1e01b" CreationDate="2013-05-10T04:11:14.230" UserId="22150" Text="|discussion|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="e0f468c0-e305-4d95-bdb5-b7da92e5113a" CreationDate="2013-05-10T04:32:17.300" UserId="124" Text="Exact requirements are listed [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Beta&#xD;&#xA;- silver; awarded once&#xD;&#xA;- Participate actively in a site's private beta phase&#xD;&#xA;  - Not just 3 bronze badges anymore, but the exact requirements not disclosed to prevent users from just doing the bare minimum.&#xD;&#xA;- Not awarded on Meta sites, including Meta Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;- Source: [Jeff's comment to his own answer to &quot;Why are beta badges awarded at all?&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/86/why-are-beta-badges-awarded-at-all/#comment-44251)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, for this site it's a moot point as we are no longer in private beta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="55916678-8f19-4a45-9aa9-8ef97e343e43" CreationDate="2013-05-10T14:03:42.847" UserId="14182" Text="Yes, the most voted answer floats to the top. But somehow the green mark is indirectly telling the (specially casual, unregistered) reader something like &quot;this one is better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be good to have another mark, say in blue, adding to the most voted answer that sort of &quot;visual quality mark&quot; that the green mark adds to the elected answer. You all know that it is not uncommon that the best answer (from the point of view of the reliability and correctness of the contents) is not the one that the OP elected, but the most voted. The fact that the most voted answer appears on top of the list merely enhances its visibility, but somehow I feel that this not &quot;validating&quot; enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am talking about something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the green text would better be &quot;Accepted by the OP&quot;. But that is more or less the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8LRfa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="55916678-8f19-4a45-9aa9-8ef97e343e43" CreationDate="2013-05-10T14:03:42.847" UserId="14182" Text="A distinctive mark for the most voted answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="55916678-8f19-4a45-9aa9-8ef97e343e43" CreationDate="2013-05-10T14:03:42.847" UserId="14182" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="503021f0-23df-4ecc-8cce-c25fc3f8db11" CreationDate="2013-05-10T20:06:50.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/332949873164943360" />
  <row Id="8674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="fd79d954-ad01-4da2-b677-5f5629aba64e" CreationDate="2013-05-10T20:13:28.403" UserId="21817" Text="Is it correct to a ask a question in PSE and in other sites like Physics Forums?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that there shouldn't be any problem, but I can be thought as favouring the competence, althought Physics doesn't distinguish this trivialities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about asking a question also in MathSE if it's very related to Physics and Maths?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="fd79d954-ad01-4da2-b677-5f5629aba64e" CreationDate="2013-05-10T20:13:28.403" UserId="21817" Text="Asking in several sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="fd79d954-ad01-4da2-b677-5f5629aba64e" CreationDate="2013-05-10T20:13:28.403" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="9090f823-c097-42a7-91c3-deb65064648c" CreationDate="2013-05-10T20:24:55.950" UserId="124" Text="You shouldn't ask the same question on multiple Stack Exchange sites at the same time. If you have what seems like a crossover question, figure out what site it fits best and ask it there. If, after several days, you're not getting a good response and the question is on topic for another site, then you can post it to that other site as well, but make sure to link both &quot;versions&quot; of the question to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside the SE network, it doesn't really matter. I suppose the same procedure is useful for getting your questions answered (i.e. post it to one place first), but it's not like anybody checks. If you post a question here which has already been asked on e.g. Physics Forums, it would be useful to link to the PF thread from your post on this site. (But not the other way around, because last I checked they don't want people posting links to PSE on PF - they consider it advertising.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="e2afccb4-cdbc-410a-a05b-d036ee086b66" CreationDate="2013-05-11T14:15:17.743" UserId="14182" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Yes, the most voted answer floats to the top. But somehow the green mark is indirectly telling the (specially casual, unregistered) reader something like &quot;this one is better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be good to have another mark, say in blue, adding to the most voted answer that sort of &quot;visual quality mark&quot; that the green mark adds to the elected answer. You all know that it is not uncommon that the best answer (from the point of view of the reliability and correctness of the contents) is not the one that the OP elected, but the most voted. The fact that the most voted answer appears on top of the list merely enhances its visibility, but somehow I feel that this not &quot;validating&quot; enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am talking about something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the green text would better be &quot;Accepted by the OP&quot;. But that is more or less the idea.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Eventually this is equivalent to a system of badges (though quite simple) for the answers, with different colors: accepted, most voted, and perhaps: more than X votes, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8LRfa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="c3bfbd47-c039-4507-a84a-764f5b9df5de" CreationDate="2013-05-11T16:50:30.510" UserId="16873" Text="I very often feel the need of posting a comment to simply say thanks for some idea in a comment, like a nice reference or a pedagogic suggestion, or simply to remark that the answer I accepted was the best one but anyway the other answer was helpful too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That comments are not physics, strictly speaking they are sort of noise. Provided that one tries to restrict them to a discreet minimum, are they bad and should be avoided? (Note that I already know that comments can be upvoted, though anonymously)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tha... sorry. You see? It's difficult..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="c3bfbd47-c039-4507-a84a-764f5b9df5de" CreationDate="2013-05-11T16:50:30.510" UserId="16873" Text="Should I avoid posting comments to simply say &quot;Thanks&quot; or &quot;It has been helpful (+1)&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="c3bfbd47-c039-4507-a84a-764f5b9df5de" CreationDate="2013-05-11T16:50:30.510" UserId="16873" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="d900034c-4c16-41bb-a439-8f8ff9c3e31d" CreationDate="2013-05-11T17:20:51.237" UserId="7433" Text="The purpose of comments is to induce improvement into the answer. If a comment has no potential to do , it's deletable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So try to  _avoid_ posting thank-yous willy nilly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I personally encourage leaving nice comments on an answer you  find particularly exceptional (unless there already are a bunch of such comments on said answer). I've received a couple of these on answers that I thought of as ordinary. Besides givng me a warm and fuzzy feeling, they have given me insights on how to write better answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So restricting them to a discreet minimum seems OK to me :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="1e09ac41-0363-42ad-82c0-a2a8f6228715" CreationDate="2013-05-11T17:28:33.013" UserId="2751" Text="Some people dont like such comments and say it is noise because Physics SE is not a social network, etc. etc. indeed; but I personally think they make the site more friendly, human, nice and welcoming to everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking around at Meta Stack Overflow, many people consider being friendly to each other by posting some additional nonessential nice comments (and even reading them) a waste of time, nuisance, etc. If I get it right this is related to the awful term &quot;Big City Problem&quot;, by which these people justify having not the time to be nice, helpful, and patient to each other by reasoning that the site is no longer a small village and related arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy that this (in my eyes unfriendly) attitude and way of thinking has not taken over here up to now, and I hope it never will. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, comments saying thanks for helpful things and more generally being friendly to each other by a few nonessential additional comments should not be restricted or even forbidden. Too long (off topic) discussions can go to chat as usual of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="939c3a64-8106-40a4-a377-c79f78930f31" CreationDate="2013-05-11T17:37:27.107" UserId="2751" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Some people dont like such comments and say it is noise because Physics SE is not a social network, etc. etc. indeed; but I personally think they make the site more friendly, human, nice and welcoming to everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking around at Meta Stack Overflow I note that some people consider being friendly to each other by posting some additional nonessential nice comments (and even reading them) a waste of time, nuisance, etc. If I get it right this is related to the awful term &quot;Big City Problem&quot;, by which these people justify having not the time to be nice, helpful, and patient to each other by reasoning that the site is no longer a small village and related arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy that this (in my eyes unfriendly) attitude and way of thinking has not taken over here up to now, and I hope it never will. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, comments saying thanks for helpful things and more generally being friendly to each other by a few nonessential additional comments should not be restricted or even forbidden. Too long (off topic) discussions can go to chat as usual of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="3c16a682-661d-492c-98d7-33f104403fa9" CreationDate="2013-05-11T20:54:43.590" UserId="17609" Text="Trying it out on @Manishearth's answer, I came to the following rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post a &quot;thank you&quot;-like comment if it is &quot;upvoteable&quot;, that is, if you consider it a comment that you might &quot;upvote&quot; yourself if it was posted by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: You _might_ &quot;upvote&quot; (because you felt the same way), and therefore _may_ post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;+1 This is absolutely f***ing brilliant! Jeez, I never thought about it this way! You rule!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas you probably won't &quot;upvote&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 Thanks, that solved my problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="a3c50ecb-d34e-4618-8b5b-60ba3c194d46" CreationDate="2013-05-11T20:59:59.787" UserId="17609" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Trying it out on @Manishearth's answer, I came to the following rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post a &quot;thank you&quot;-like comment if it is &quot;upvoteable&quot;, that is, if you consider it a comment that you might &quot;upvote&quot; yourself if it was posted by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: You _might_ &quot;upvote&quot; (because you felt the same way), and therefore _may_ post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 This is absolutely f***ing brilliant! Jeez, I never thought about it this way! You rule!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas you probably won't &quot;upvote&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 Thanks, that solved my problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="952d68bc-46d1-4890-b88f-6017cccd9244" CreationDate="2013-05-11T21:05:56.253" UserId="17609" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Trying it out on @Manishearth's answer, I came to the following rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post a &quot;thank you&quot;-like comment if it is &quot;upvoteable&quot;, that is, if you consider it a comment that you might &quot;upvote&quot; yourself if it was posted by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: You _might_ &quot;upvote&quot; (because you felt the same way), and therefore _may_ post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 This is absolutely f***ing brilliant! Jeez, I never thought about it this way! You rule!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas you probably won't &quot;upvote&quot; (and therefore probably _shouldn't_ post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 Thanks, that solved my problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="5cd12bbd-411a-412d-bb85-cea3ffbf787f" CreationDate="2013-05-11T21:15:29.447" UserId="1255" Text="The social aspect is always there, and a polite collaborative environment will make people stick around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means that you need to *package* your comments with physics.  If it's a fantastic answer then perhaps say &quot;this is a great answer, I had not even considered applying method X to the problem in the Y reference frame when I asked the question.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, I see the value in wrapping up a discussion.  If someone fixes the issue you had, it's good to leave a message explaining exactly how it wrapped it up and thank the person.  Think of comments as messages for whoever will be doing housekeeping.  You can help by clearly pointing them to what is important and not important.  It may also be helpful to say why you selected it as the answer or upvoted.  For instance &quot;I was really looking for Z method here, and this answer is the only one that provides it to the full extent&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="842dc3e0-66c6-4649-9c40-5f437aa8e552" CreationDate="2013-05-11T21:17:49.267" UserId="17609" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Trying it out on @Manishearth's answer, I came to the following rule.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Post a &quot;thank you&quot;-like comment if it is &quot;upvoteable&quot;, that is, if you consider it a comment that you might &quot;upvote&quot; yourself if it was posted by somebody else._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: You _might_ &quot;upvote&quot; (because you felt the same way), and therefore _may_ post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 This is absolutely f***ing brilliant! Jeez, I never thought about it this way! You rule!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas you probably won't &quot;upvote&quot; (and therefore probably _shouldn't_ post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+1 Thanks, that solved my problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; This being meta, the community can upvote or downvote on this answer, depending on whether they like this rule or not.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="7c95e64c-9cdb-4849-9f93-d656bfa7adcb" CreationDate="2013-05-12T10:40:51.217" UserId="825" Text="It should be definitely allowed to ask such questions. This is a kind of question that works well on stackexchange - where the answers are mostly objective, with a dash subjectiveness that is experience, not opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be argued that such a question is too subjective or argumentative. But in that case, a tag wiki would be a even worse place for it, since there you can't comment / vote / post alternatives. Also tag wikis are completely indiscoverable for people who want the information, and give no incentive for contributing to people who have the information as Dilaton pointed out - but thats a different discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no harm in allowing questions like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What math do I need to understand X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What courses should I take before Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site will not be swamped with millions of such questions. It will not turn into Yahoo Answers. The world will not end, and Mr. Atwood will not seek bloody revenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the site might prove a valuable resource for a young person somewhere who is trying to learn a new field. That should be our main goal when deciding policy - to make the site a most useful resource for physicists and physics students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="29d16018-be46-4d78-b4c8-59cd6927b05c" CreationDate="2013-05-12T11:50:53.973" UserId="16660" Comment="Added further thoughts on the subject" Text="I've seen questions about how to study physics or how physics should be taught being dealt with in a variety of ways. Some get downvoted, some get closed by moderators while others are even answered by moderators. Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19852/16660&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5508/16660&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/20619/16660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, and no doubt to new users, this is confusing and I think it might hold people back from asking a particular question. As a matter of fact, this meta question was inspired by exactly such an experience: I was thinking about the course on non-linear dynamics I took this semester and how insightful it was. It got me wondering why we spend so much time in our physics curriculum linearizing everything and then hoping to capture the interesting non-linear physics through methods like perturbation theory. Non-linear dynamics should - in my opinion - at least be touched on at the Bachelor level (no idea what that level is called in countries like the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was on the verge of asking a question on this subject, probing for reasons why linearity is made so important in physics education, while there is no objective reason for nature to behave that way and indeed it rarely does (well I know one reason: we can solve linear problems analytically, non-linear problems are usually too difficult mathematically). But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that it can be hard to distinguish between an acceptable question that cannot have a truly objective answer and a question that is just effectively pointless. It's a fine line to tread. One way to solve the problem is not to tread the line at all and steer away from all such questions. Another way is to define more clearly what *is* allowed and what *isn't*. The [FAQ][1] section does a good job of this already, but it's arguable that these guidelines are not follow strictly (see the examples above). So perhaps more clarity is needed and that's why I've created this question. I'm sorry for the long intro, but here's the summary of it all: precisely what is the difference between a good [tag:education] question and a bad one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently some questions have also been migrated to the academia beta, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8586&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly do we draw the line between their territory and ours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After considering the answer by Larry Harson and the comments by David Zaslavsky and Manishearth, I have slightly adjusted my thoughts on the subject. (I apologize for making this question even longer, but I think it's necessary to include my own thoughts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think questions asking for **book recommendations** or methods for **studying** physics should probably be discouraged *here*. In general, questions specific to one person/situation are already discouraged as &quot;not constructive&quot; so that's consistent. There are other places to ask those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a platform *should* exist for questions on how physics should (not) be **taught**. Whether or not that platform is Physics.SE remains a tough question to answer in general, but I think most of those questions *are* on topic. They are definitely questions that need to be asked, because the way physics is taught greatly affects both the amount of people that get interested in physics *and* the level of understanding that the physicists of tomorrow have. In a very significant way, it defines the direction we take in our investigation of the physical world. So for that reason, I certainly don't think we can disallow those questions in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, (the most important) questions about how physics should be taught would probably spark debates, which is a good thing by itself but unfitting of this site's format. Therefore, the acceptable questions are probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **not purely hypothetical**: &quot;should&quot;-questions like &quot;Should we do B?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - but instead **argumentably comparative**: &quot;why&quot;-questions like &quot;Why is A preferred over B?&quot;. (not &quot;Why *don't* we do B?&quot; since that's just a hypothetical question in disguise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are still intermediary cases with questions like &quot;Is it realistic/useful to teach some elementary quantum mechanics at the high-school level?&quot;. This *can* be answered with some level of objectivity by teachers, but it doesn't really have a 'right' answer. Then again, the &quot;why&quot;-questions I mentioned earlier don't *necessarily* have one either, they're just (slightly?) less subjective than the &quot;should&quot;-questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is a clear and consistent distinction between good and bad [tag:education] questions even possible? And if my above assessment constitutes a reasonable distinction, what to do with the intermediary cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8698" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="d3f50817-d395-433a-8fe5-f11ee11ac564" CreationDate="2013-05-12T20:06:57.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/333674678294032384" />
  <row Id="8699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="299b65fe-cf35-472e-830c-2e968ab6876e" CreationDate="2013-05-13T09:29:50.153" UserId="825" Text="I think we can have many of these questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking about classic excercises you find on problem sheets, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Movement of a bead on a wire (Lagrangian mechanics)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prove that angular momentum is conserved in two-body problem&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Gravitational field of a hollow spherical-symmetric shell &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Electromagnetic field of a certain charge configuration&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Calculate the density of states in 3D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These tend to be well-formulated problems. They have canonical answers that are not trivial, but not too long. Every physics student encounters them in their studies. But they are not &quot;trade secrets&quot;, since they are documented in many books, so posting them here will not do harm to the students or their tutors. Questions like this are an easy way to generate some quality content for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While yes, in principle there could be another site (like code golf for stackoverflow), I agree with David that there are not enough contributors, and not enough questions to carry two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not arguing to open the gates on all homework-type questions. We shouldn't allow &quot;do my work&quot; questions, but rather have people ask about the specific problems they're stuck with, as we do know. But there's a big difference between &quot;do my homework&quot; questions which tend to be sloppily written and too localized, and &quot;here is an interesting problem&quot;-type questions, that are polished and have an insightful and useful answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4287" RevisionGUID="25fff7d1-3730-449b-bdef-78a800b263dc" CreationDate="2013-05-14T10:39:53.060" UserId="8966" Text="I'm not sure I agree with this being necessary but let me do a premise: The accepted answer does not mean that &quot;this answer is better&quot;, but rather that it's the one that helped the OP in his question/problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean it's the best answer? Maybe, but maybe there's a solution the community likes more and that gets upvoted more. This doesn't mean the OP is compelled to accept it. He could but the other one is what probably solved the problem best. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinctive mark is not a bad idea per se, but I think it would just add clutter to the interface. The most voted answer is usually listed second (when sorting by score) after the accepted one. I think this makes it pretty visible to users. Note that this is not true with self-accepted answers. In that case, the sorting is done purely by votes (ignoring the check mark).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most voted answer is already easy to locate: it has the most votes. So this is why I'm not really convinced an extra mark would add that much or solve a problem (which I don't see).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to &quot;mark&quot; the most voted answer, I'd say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. This feature should be automatically done by the system. If another answer gets upvoted more, you don't want to be there to change the mark *every time*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A not intrusive way could be thought. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is: if the community really wants it and it gets implemented. But I'm not convinced it's really needed. **What issue would it address? Would it really get rid of confusion without adding *more* of it in other ways?** Those are the questions I'd answer before adding the feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="fe1f0998-390c-4e38-9b24-34f4d1753c81" CreationDate="2013-05-14T13:47:13.590" UserId="7182" Text="I have answered a question [here][1]. It is the only answer to a reasonably up-voted question (+7), but it has not been selected as the correct one. Short of tracking down the original poster, is there any way to 1) get it marked correct or 2) increase the chances of it getting marked correct in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism/27030#27030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="fe1f0998-390c-4e38-9b24-34f4d1753c81" CreationDate="2013-05-14T13:47:13.590" UserId="7182" Text="How to get the only answer marked as correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="fe1f0998-390c-4e38-9b24-34f4d1753c81" CreationDate="2013-05-14T13:47:13.590" UserId="7182" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="3794eb1e-a01c-4e82-a774-f320d9c67176" CreationDate="2013-05-14T14:08:51.727" UserId="7433" Text="Nope. Especially since the OP deleted his/her account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about that; but the only person who can mark an answer as accepted is the OP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="a65aa138-8a4d-4c22-90e9-6e8506c0d7c2" CreationDate="2013-05-14T16:02:15.490" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="cdb6125c-7ab1-405c-84c0-d98f52ca2087" CreationDate="2013-05-14T16:59:14.960" UserId="2911" Text="&quot;Accept&quot; - that little checkmark - does *not* mean &quot;this answer is correct.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just means the author of the question accepted it. Hence the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Folks *accept* all kinds of things. Things they find helpful, or reassuring, or funny, or insightful, or don't like but are convinced are unavoidable...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, folks accept the truth. But there's no guarantee that something is true just because someone accepts it. In particular, if there's no [actual problem being solved][1], the asker's opinion on answers means very little. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, the asker isn't the only arbiter. Anyone with a bit of useful participation on the site can vote on answers. If your answer is getting up-voted, that probably means a lot more than the checkmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="e8713f41-ae9d-4f00-ab67-2e72a99b84a0" CreationDate="2013-05-15T04:46:03.540" UserId="2911" Text="There's nowhere on the site itself that you can find this information. It is logged internally, but not exposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you use Stack Exchange's own OpenID provider to log in (which you do), you can view your login history there: https://openid.stackexchange.com/user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different authentication provider (such as Google or Facebook), you'll have to turn to them to find your login history and associated IPs (I know Google provides this information in some fashion; not sure about anyone else)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8708" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="369e15bb-f08f-43f6-9150-8e8ac01ce985" CreationDate="2013-05-15T04:46:29.777" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|login|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="be96f2ee-f954-463f-b3cb-10657f4029ba" CreationDate="2013-05-18T14:07:15.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/335758485268594689" />
  <row Id="8711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="0237feb3-7721-4ac2-b386-dfc022ec7f77" CreationDate="2013-05-19T01:38:03.093" UserId="8563" Text="You know, the logo on the tabs. It starts to shimmer and look a bit more green for tabs on the main page when left too long. Is this an intentional design change? Or am I just sleep-deprived?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="0237feb3-7721-4ac2-b386-dfc022ec7f77" CreationDate="2013-05-19T01:38:03.093" UserId="8563" Text="Is it me or is the favicon shimmering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="0237feb3-7721-4ac2-b386-dfc022ec7f77" CreationDate="2013-05-19T01:38:03.093" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="b1bb148e-773e-4bef-894a-5c058a0a8ee5" CreationDate="2013-05-19T02:00:17.610" UserId="7433" Text="I doubt it's intentional, you're just sleep-deprived ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="89adac03-21d3-4e4e-b003-8558a3c92279" CreationDate="2013-05-19T02:01:04.907" UserId="22494" Text="It's just you.  I just checked the file and it's really just a static bitmap, not an animated icon.  Only one icon in the file too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="8e75697a-bd11-4de5-9f87-a958d504bcb2" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:33:23.597" UserId="2751" Text="I have just noted that we have a popular science tag. What is its purpose? Does it mean that the answers are expected to be pop science level, that just the question is pop science but the answers can nevertheless be techical for people other than the OP, or is it meant to characterize questions that are popular level and should attain exclusively popular level answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this tag meant to be the converse of the research-level tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I like this tag, it will depend on its purpose ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="8e75697a-bd11-4de5-9f87-a958d504bcb2" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:33:23.597" UserId="2751" Text="what is the purpose of the popular science tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="8e75697a-bd11-4de5-9f87-a958d504bcb2" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:33:23.597" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="301353f6-bccb-47e7-b545-c1f8d9af0bf8" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:34:26.837" UserId="124" Comment="link to tag" Text="I have just noted that we have a [tag:popular-science] tag. What is its purpose? Does it mean that the answers are expected to be pop science level, that just the question is pop science but the answers can nevertheless be techical for people other than the OP, or is it meant to characterize questions that are popular level and should attain exclusively popular level answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this tag meant to be the converse of the research-level tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I like this tag, it will depend on its purpose ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="723bc2f8-73a5-4fa7-8f36-7694eb3a77c0" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:49:54.200" UserId="2751" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="I have just noted that we have a [tag:popular-science] tag. What is its purpose? Does it mean that the answers are expected to be pop science level, that just the question is pop science but the answers can nevertheless be techical for people other than the OP, or is it meant to characterize questions that are popular level and should attain exclusively popular level answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this tag meant to be the converse of the research-level tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I like this tag, it will depend on its purpose ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we really nead this tag or should we dispense with it? An additional thought is that Physics SE is not meant to serve a lay audience explicitely, it is according to the faq targetted at academics, researchers, and students of physics and astronomy ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="c4c98afd-6caa-41bb-8847-0ae4045f5a93" CreationDate="2013-05-20T11:18:42.780" UserId="7433" Text="It's a meta tag, I think it can be safely removed (I'll get to work on it later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An additional thought is that Physics SE is not meant to serve a lay audience explicitely, it is according to the faq targetted at academics, researchers, and students of physics and astronomy ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, while we aim to serve higher level physics, this is not an argument to not allow lower physics. Otherwise topics like [tag:suvat-equations] and [tag:home-experiment] would be off topic. We do not _aim_ for a large number of low level questions, but neither do we shun them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="091539e2-b09c-47ea-b309-462eaad9ad49" CreationDate="2013-05-20T16:03:12.647" UserId="2751" Comment="debugged" Text="I have just noted that we have a [tag:popular-science] tag. What is its purpose? Does it mean that the answers are expected to be pop science level, that just the question is pop science but the answers can nevertheless be technical for people other than the OP qho can stomach them, or is it meant to characterize questions that are popular level and should attain exclusively popular level answers too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this tag meant to be the converse of the research-level tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I like this tag, it will depend on its purpose ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we really nead this tag or should we dispense with it? An additional thought is that Physics SE is not meant to serve a lay audience explicitely, it is according to the faq targetted at academics, researchers, and students of physics and astronomy ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="091539e2-b09c-47ea-b309-462eaad9ad49" CreationDate="2013-05-20T16:03:12.647" UserId="2751" Comment="debugged" Text="What is the purpose of the popular-science tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="ce3e8322-4564-410f-a22e-3056d63e2bfc" CreationDate="2013-05-21T07:49:45.327" UserId="1492" Text="Would it not make life easier for moderators if a banner were displayed on the right requesting users to flag spam, making clear that six flags would get rid of the offending entry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="ce3e8322-4564-410f-a22e-3056d63e2bfc" CreationDate="2013-05-21T07:49:45.327" UserId="1492" Text="adding a spam flag statement on the community collumn on the right" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="ce3e8322-4564-410f-a22e-3056d63e2bfc" CreationDate="2013-05-21T07:49:45.327" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="870d1913-fcb0-4fbb-abed-25febd353944" CreationDate="2013-05-21T08:01:51.857" UserId="124" Text="We don't get much actual spam here, so even if all spam was flagged by the community, it would only relieve a _tiny_ bit of the burden on moderators. While it certainly doesn't hurt to remind people to flag things, a notice about spam flagging specifically would be taking up space that I personally think is better used for other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(What would really help is having more 3k users casting close votes, when appropriate of course, so that when questions need to be closed, it can be done by the community without moderator intervention more often.)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="83be58b1-24df-4330-bfcf-d41a3f059920" CreationDate="2013-05-21T13:57:31.417" UserId="2451" Text="It seems that the [popular-science tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/popular-science) has mostly been non-systematically attached to questions, where either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. OP explicitly asked for a simplified layman explanation, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. OP's question was spurred after reading/watching a pop-sci source of information (i.e.  different from a physics textbook or  physics journal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far less than 20 question has be tagged [tag:popular-science]. I don't feel strongly about the tag either way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="6235cc3e-c5d1-44d8-8ace-a854f63eed22" CreationDate="2013-05-22T00:55:19.883" UserId="2751" Text="I edited [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24409/2751) question to remomve the reference request issue and think it should be reopend now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a first look, one could think that the question still asks too many things in a too incoherent manner, but Mitchell Porter was able to correctly understand the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, asking about two nearly related enough concepts such as operator mixing and anomalous dimension, giving an example of what one wants to better understand from knowing these concepts (the equation in the paper), plus investigating if these two concepts are known under other names in the literature (which could be confusing) too, is legitimate and makes a lot of sense to me too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can the question be reopend as it is, I think it should?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="6235cc3e-c5d1-44d8-8ace-a854f63eed22" CreationDate="2013-05-22T00:55:19.883" UserId="2751" Text="Can this question about anomalous dimensions and operator mixing be reopend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="6235cc3e-c5d1-44d8-8ace-a854f63eed22" CreationDate="2013-05-22T00:55:19.883" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8732" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="df43768f-713c-4e3a-9ed1-9b5f4ccc6fd7" CreationDate="2013-05-22T00:57:30.267" UserId="2751" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8733" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="fa2577ff-3c1c-4cdd-a14e-881c4f886457" CreationDate="2013-05-22T00:57:38.330" UserId="2751" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="44e257ee-e862-4cd5-94fe-4be5099df44d" CreationDate="2013-05-22T01:01:28.120" UserId="124" Text="I'll copy my reasoning here: while it's certainly better than it was as a resource recommendation, the question is still unfocused. It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am looking for an explanation about the idea of &quot;operator mixing&quot; and its associated concept about when anomalous dimension has to be thought of as a matrix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it does not specify what about operator mixing needs to be explained. What about operator mixing and anomalous dimensions does the OP want to know? The definitions? What they are used for? Some particular aspect of how they are used? Etc. We're waiting for clarification from the OP about what exactly he/she wants to ask.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="c1ff445e-0fa5-4aec-a055-7359066ed3d3" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:50:07.250" UserId="7433" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing/Reopening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may **vote to reopen** (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="ba418a20-4cec-49d5-b96d-59b0b19b76d4" CreationDate="2013-05-22T09:01:56.923" UserId="2751" Comment="Removed reasoning why to reopen from the question, such that people who do not agree with the reasoning dont have to downvote the question itself" Text="I edited [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24409/2751) question to remomve the reference request issue and think it should be reopend now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="912799ed-95a5-4509-8ce0-dc01f32f2810" CreationDate="2013-05-22T09:02:58.600" UserId="2751" Text="At a first look, one could think that the question still asks too many things in a too incoherent manner, but Mitchell Porter was able to correctly understand the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, asking about two nearly related enough concepts such as operator mixing and anomalous dimension, giving an example of what one wants to better understand from knowing these concepts (the equation in the paper), plus investigating if these two concepts are known under other names in the literature (which could be confusing) too, is legitimate and makes a lot of sense to me too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="640122e5-8de2-4e43-9424-187b6661becc" CreationDate="2013-05-22T12:26:37.333" UserId="12798" Text="I think that a problem corner inside the Main Physics Stack Exchange Site will be extremely useful and Convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is, The same people who particle in the Physics Stack Exchange will also be interested in Homework problems also, And it is not aimed at different audiences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no issues with people asking Homework Problems, Barring the fact that It would end up turning into a site where Assignments will be solved, and will dilute the purpose of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site as it currently works most homework like problems end up being closed, unless the user demonstrates he has attempted to solve the question and has got stuck at some place, criterion fairly arbitrary in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I feel that the community would benefit from questions based on homework like problems, But it is possible that it would distract from the Main activities of the site. Therefore I feel something like a &quot;Problem Corner&quot; which is a part of the Main Site but still separated by a link, would be a nice addition. It would keep questions segregated, and as Homework problems form a fair chunk of the site, It is a pity to see them closed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="7baafd65-8b91-4cda-91a2-03ece5b2e0ba" CreationDate="2013-05-22T12:33:10.470" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I think that a problem corner inside the Main Physics Stack Exchange Site will be extremely useful and convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is, The same people who particle in the Physics Stack Exchange will also be interested in Homework problems also, And it is not aimed at a different audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no issues with people asking Homework Problems, Barring the fact that It would end up turning into a site where Assignments will be solved, and will dilute the purpose of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site as it currently works most homework like problems end up being closed, unless the user demonstrates he has attempted to solve the question and has got stuck at some place, criterion fairly arbitrary in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I feel that the community would benefit from questions based on homework like problems, But it is possible that it would distract from the Main activities of the site. Therefore I feel something like a &quot;Problem Corner&quot; which is a part of the Main Site but still separated by a link, would be a nice addition. It would keep questions segregated, and as Homework problems form a fair chunk of the site, It is a pity to see them closed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="dac6d5df-17dc-478e-980b-c721238984ff" CreationDate="2013-05-22T12:58:24.440" UserId="22057" Text="Are we allowed to ask questions that pertain to the application of physics on this site? For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Bowstring Truss Bridge?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there a different Stack Exchange Site for more engineering-oriented questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="dac6d5df-17dc-478e-980b-c721238984ff" CreationDate="2013-05-22T12:58:24.440" UserId="22057" Text="Can we ask applied Physics questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="dac6d5df-17dc-478e-980b-c721238984ff" CreationDate="2013-05-22T12:58:24.440" UserId="22057" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="0e2f8128-deb1-44b0-9df9-5cf5f3e978e8" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:09:38.277" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="2b7e61ec-19dd-4cd1-8b04-e003938aefc3" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:32:43.993" UserId="12798" Comment="Better Organization " Text="I think that a problem corner inside the Main Physics Stack Exchange Site will be extremely useful and convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasons being&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The same people who participate in the Physics Stack Exchange will also be interested in Homework problems, And it is not aimed at a different audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I have no issues with people asking Homework Problems, barring the fact that it would end up turning into a site where Assignments will be solved, and will dilute the purpose of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The site as it currently works most homework like problems end up being closed, unless the user demonstrates he has attempted to solve the question and has got stuck at some place, criterion that is fairly arbitrary in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Personally I feel that the community would benefit from questions based on homework like problems, But it should be done in way so that it does not cause a distraction from the main activities of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I feel something like a &quot;Problem Corner&quot; inside the Main Site, would be a nice addition. It would keep questions segregated and As Homework problems are a fair chunk of this site, It is a pity to see them closed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="5b62ac2f-ef44-48f2-8982-dc50a18311e0" CreationDate="2013-05-22T15:29:04.893" UserId="520" Text="At a minimum the question must reduce to *physics*. That is, when striped of context it must be answerable in terms of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That implies that there are a lot of engineering questions which probably should not be on physics.se. Some examples of these would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about regulatory issues. Legality and limits of various parameters.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about cost or cost/other-metric issues.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about engineering tradeoffs, as these necessarily involve decisions beyond physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does leave room for some engineering/design questions. Strength to weight rations, buckling limits, maximum deflection and so on. However, such questions have generally received little attention in the past. Most of our users have had limited exposure to the complexities of real-world analysis in favor of deeper understanding of microscopic physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say most of us are physicists rather than engineers and though we share a lot of common preparation there is a big difference. Heck, there is a big difference even between the real-world preparation of you garden variety experimenter and a bog-standard theorist and the engineers and machinists I work with are always careful--when they first meet me to--to probe how much I know about the real world because they've met enough physicist who are simply *dumb* about real-world stuff to be wary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="78c09549-c045-4d7d-b519-b86f5369ae68" CreationDate="2013-05-22T19:40:46.580" UserId="22494" Comment="Fixed rations to ratios (I make the same typo ALL THE TIME!)" Text="At a minimum the question must reduce to *physics*. That is, when striped of context it must be answerable in terms of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That implies that there are a lot of engineering questions which probably should not be on physics.se. Some examples of these would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about regulatory issues. Legality and limits of various parameters.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about cost or cost/other-metric issues.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about engineering tradeoffs, as these necessarily involve decisions beyond physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does leave room for some engineering/design questions. Strength to weight ratios, buckling limits, maximum deflection and so on. However, such questions have generally received little attention in the past. Most of our users have had limited exposure to the complexities of real-world analysis in favor of deeper understanding of microscopic physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say most of us are physicists rather than engineers and though we share a lot of common preparation there is a big difference. Heck, there is a big difference even between the real-world preparation of you garden variety experimenter and a bog-standard theorist and the engineers and machinists I work with are always careful--when they first meet me to--to probe how much I know about the real world because they've met enough physicist who are simply *dumb* about real-world stuff to be wary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="ad907494-b809-4560-84a0-c0ddcbfb6bd0" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:50:43.210" UserId="21817" Text="Should I answer old questions (over a year), even if they have been already answered? I think that this practice is correct, but since in many forums it is discouraged I'm not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="ad907494-b809-4560-84a0-c0ddcbfb6bd0" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:50:43.210" UserId="21817" Text="Answering old questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="ad907494-b809-4560-84a0-c0ddcbfb6bd0" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:50:43.210" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="fcd62947-a47e-45ec-930a-755bc22f01ae" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:59:52.437" UserId="124" Text="Stack Exchange sites are not forums, and many of the rules which are conventional among forums don't apply here. The rule against answering old questions is one of them. So yes, you can and should answer old questions when you feel you have something to contribute, just as you would do with new questions. (Even if a question already has an accepted answer, don't let that stop you from posting another answer of your own.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, one of the guiding principles behind the design of the Stack Exchange software is to allow old questions to receive new answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="704667f6-b706-4b16-9dcc-b401d27901b4" CreationDate="2013-05-24T17:07:31.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/337978177865535488" />
  <row Id="8752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="0d089372-80d1-4e5a-8c0d-d488a02fa638" CreationDate="2013-05-26T09:20:25.157" UserId="16941" Text="I observed math SE is more active than physics SE. They don't close problems. I think Physics SE should encourage problem solving. Moderator should not close homework problem. This will help community to think about harder one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="0d089372-80d1-4e5a-8c0d-d488a02fa638" CreationDate="2013-05-26T09:20:25.157" UserId="16941" Text="Physics SE should emphasis on problem solving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="0d089372-80d1-4e5a-8c0d-d488a02fa638" CreationDate="2013-05-26T09:20:25.157" UserId="16941" Text="|bug|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8755" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="ff1cfc95-97f5-4d13-a85f-7d708806e59a" CreationDate="2013-05-26T11:46:25.933" UserId="11062" Comment="Please have a look at the tag-definiton of bug..." Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="635682e4-0c3a-42a9-bc07-3383cc0b046f" CreationDate="2013-05-26T12:03:04.687" UserId="11062" Text="*Precisely, they've stopped closing homeworks and our HWs are quite less compared to Math.SE and we've got enough active users (especially me) and actively rushing mods to close those things...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Over there in Math.SE...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I observed math SE is more active than physics SE. They don't close problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you haven't observed it right. In fact, they have [their policy](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/70397) which is more or less very [similar to ours](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/11062). They also do expect work from users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Show your work:* You should definitely include any partial work you have done. This will help bolster your claim that you are not just coming here asking other people to do your homework for you, and it will help the answerers to give more clinical responses. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, we will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Math.SE is huge (populated to around 50k users) and over 140k questions (where 14k are homeworks) How good can 8 mods and 400 users (who ***can*** VTC) manage those questions. I mean, how many users are there who wait for someone to post a *discouragable* homework so that they can close it? We also don't know how many users are always interested like mods (for example, in Physics.SE - users who have VTC privileges don't participate in closing questions except some 10 guys). [They have another discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9201/70397) which says that they &lt;s&gt;don't&lt;/s&gt; won't encourage questions which directly restates the problem statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that they support homework questions which ask politely without just *ordering* users to solve the problem. How do they support? They provide a simple **Hint** (which can be seen in bold for HWs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither do they close (I think this is the important point). Mostly all are possibly asking direct questions and the important thing - all are giving *hints*, because they've &quot;They don't provide direct answers&quot;..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How we differ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think Physics SE should encourage problem solving. Moderator should not close homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've told us that *we should encourage*. But, you didn't say ***How?*** Like, if someone asks *&quot;Tell me this formula, Explain step-by-step&quot;*, etc... then, we shouldn't close it and just do it for him..? Then, this isn't the site for the homework author. The reason for us to close direct HW questions and expect work from users is because we think we should be a barrier to the asker's creative thinking. If we're doing his work, they there's no necessity for institutions to give HWs. We can forget that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you've expressed in your question makes me feel that we're guilty and merciless that we don't reopen it again and downvote it rudely. **NO, WE DO FEEL FOR IT**. If you don't know before, I'll quote the words of Manish: *&quot;The actions of moderators are reversible&quot;* (unless they're user deletions and suspensions). I have seen many question authors (after closing their HW) editing and pinging us and we **have** reopened those. For instance, have a look at [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/47071/11062) and [its revisions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/47071/revisions).  &#xD;&#xA;You can see my VTC &amp; my VTR...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2 more to go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We don't have so many users interested in answering HW questions (for example, we aren't interested to check the answers to HW too i.e. we neither encourage nor discourage the answers) All that we are interested is in conceptual Physics. We often **do** encourage basic questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/58136/11062 Because, In math (no offense), but that is what they all do - **calculation**. Mostly, we keep ourselves out of calculations (as far as I've seen) unless it's an interesting topic (something like this) - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62222/11062&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To the **comparison:** Physics.SE is small, totaling to users around 14k and questions around 20k (where only 2k or so are HWs - 1:7). Because of the diffuse number of uninterested HWs and active VTC users, we're closing HW questions.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="4edd479a-c107-41f6-94e4-5b6677928321" CreationDate="2013-05-26T13:57:12.280" UserId="520" Text="Let me draw your attention to the first sentence of [the &quot;About&quot; page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of the site is defined as being interesting to serious students of the discipline,and has been that way since its inception on Area51. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This level of professionalism is similar to that maintained at Stack Overflow for programming, and they don't have any problems with scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, many people feel that the current state is *too* permissive of basic questions. I can promise you that most of these people are not interested in thrashing over the basics again and again. Indeed, many of us do some (or a lot) of that in our &quot;real&quot; life. I, personally, would not be interested in participating in the site you envision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, Physics is the third or fourth largest and most active Stack Exchange site in the &quot;Science&quot; group (including Math.SE) and growing steadily. We regularly feature in the network wide &quot;hot questions&quot; tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="231db217-e846-49d2-b9a4-fa357b3cbea5" CreationDate="2013-05-26T14:05:14.410" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="a2696626-6bfb-45a0-ab38-01f98063ef30" CreationDate="2013-05-27T23:22:26.080" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="I stopped participating in math.SE precisely because it was being overwhelmed with homework questions. Sometimes people will post stuff on mathoverflow that's a little short of research-level, and the response is often that that's OK, because the alternative would be math.SE, which is unusable because of the huge volume of homework questions. Homework questions are allowed on physics.SE, so I don't understand the complaint. If anything, I wish I could filter them out completely so I would never see them (not just dimmed but invisible)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="17f57823-b981-4742-abd2-899e79e3ee44" CreationDate="2013-05-30T13:43:35.520" UserId="8143" Text="I received the &quot;Critic&quot; badge for my first downvote on Main, but I am quite sure I haven't downvoted any posts yet. Glitch in the system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="17f57823-b981-4742-abd2-899e79e3ee44" CreationDate="2013-05-30T13:43:35.520" UserId="8143" Text="&quot;Critic&quot; badge without downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="17f57823-b981-4742-abd2-899e79e3ee44" CreationDate="2013-05-30T13:43:35.520" UserId="8143" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="f4bc695c-fe55-47e3-b42c-2b46abb875bf" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:59:24.160" UserId="2751" Text="I am interested in understanding better what it needs for a question to be removed from the close queue for good, apart from the obvious closing or deleting it. I have heard about several things vaguely but I do not understand it wll enough. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Close votes seem to have a finite lifetime, such that they can decay and do nothing in the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A moderator is probaly able to remove questions from the close queue ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I guess &quot;leave open&quot; statements and &quot;close&quot; statements somehow counteract each other. Do they exactly balance each other, such that 1 &quot;leave open&quot; statement annihilates 1 &quot;close&quot; statement? If the number of &quot;close&quot; statements equals the number of &quot;leave open&quot; statements, does the question then get removed from the close queue? And related, what happens if a question has 5 &quot;close&quot; statments and say 3 &quot;leave open&quot; statements, does it then get closed? I think it should not, because the &quot;close&quot; and &quot;leave open&quot; statements should have equal weight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, what are the mechanisms that can remove a question from the close queue?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="f4bc695c-fe55-47e3-b42c-2b46abb875bf" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:59:24.160" UserId="2751" Text="What are the mechanisms to remove a question from the close queue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="f4bc695c-fe55-47e3-b42c-2b46abb875bf" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:59:24.160" UserId="2751" Text="|support|vote-to-close|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="d9ef5af4-2f55-435f-a1ff-044f427298fb" CreationDate="2013-05-31T12:44:58.387" UserId="2751" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="I am interested in understanding better what it needs for a question to be removed from the close queue for good, apart from the obvious closing or deleting it. I have heard about several things vaguely but I do not understand it wll enough. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Close votes seem to have a finite lifetime, such that they can decay and do nothing in the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A moderator is probaly able to remove questions from the close queue ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I guess &quot;leave open&quot; statements and &quot;close&quot; statements somehow counteract each other. Do they exactly balance each other, such that 1 &quot;leave open&quot; statement annihilates 1 &quot;close&quot; statement? If the number of &quot;close&quot; statements equals the number of &quot;leave open&quot; statements, does the question then get removed from the close queue? And related, what happens if a question has 5 &quot;close&quot; statments and say 3 &quot;leave open&quot; statements, does it then get closed? I think it should not, because the &quot;close&quot; and &quot;leave open&quot; statements should have equal weight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, what are the mechanisms that can remove a question from the close queue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW the same question(s) could be asked concerning the reopen queue, what removes question from it, how the &quot;reopen&quot; and &quot;leave closed&quot; statements counteract each other there, etc&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="2ab08f13-572a-4941-8c77-7f421779cde8" CreationDate="2013-05-31T13:54:20.197" UserId="22150" Text="Probably you've downvoted a post and removed it quickly within the grace period/ removed it after the post was improved, you'll get the critic badge for clicking that down button:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; while your profile shows 0 downs .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges are never removed once awarded,so your [`critic`] badge doesn't go away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qs844.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="f0095b9c-9fda-45f7-ba87-9abe030b987a" CreationDate="2013-05-31T14:22:42.967" UserId="11062" Text="1. A single VTC (or more) staying for more than a few days (left unnoticed) would disappear away and the VTC'd user won't be able to VTC on the same question again...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. AFAIK, they can't. Because, VTC queues are filled when someone starts a close vote on the question. If they are able to remove the questions from review queues, either the question should be unnoticed (as in 1.) or, they should be able to remove the close votes of users (which also seems very unreasonable...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. AFAIK, a leave-open is just similar to `No Action Needed` in other review queues. It just needs no action from the reviewer. It doesn't cancel other VTCs. It's like asking, whether a downvote cancels an upvote (like you get +5 due to upvote and -5 due to downvote). It's not like that and no known mechanism (AFAIK) exists for cancelling a close vote *other than* closing the question itself or leaving it unnoticed ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="542bbd32-0840-4186-871c-d5f25d8ff2f9" CreationDate="2013-05-31T21:02:43.097" UserId="2911" Comment="Correct inaccuracies. " Text="1. Close votes can [age away](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away), at which point the voter won't be able to VTC on the same question again...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators can remove questions from the queue by closing them or selecting &quot;Leave Open&quot;. In the latter case, the outstanding close votes remain on the question until the question is closed or the votes age away (see #1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If a certain number (currently three) of &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses are garnered in review, the question is removed from the queue without being closed, and the outstanding close votes become eligible for aging as described in #1. A given question will be dequeued as soon as it receives *either* 3 &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses or 5 &quot;Close&quot; votes. Since close votes are not immediately deleted, it is possible for a question to be dequeued via Leave Open responses and then closed anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions will be removed from the queue if a reviewer opts to edit them. Questions can also be removed from the queue if a bounty is added, if they are locked, or if they are deleted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="d3fd5bda-6647-4300-8b01-da339ab95052" CreationDate="2013-06-01T12:12:28.353" UserId="2751" Text="I recently improved some closed questions and flagged them to reopen after the edits. Looking at my flagging history, I observe that the number of flags waiting for review has decreased but the number of helpful and declined flags have stayed the samme. And of course, not a single question has been reopend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can these flags just have disappeared? Can they evaporate without any impact as close / reopen votes can? Or is there a possibility for moderators to &quot;actively ignore&quot; them leading to this strange behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I appreciate it if flags to reopen do not count as declined flags, but this behavior still seems strange and I'd like to know what is happening here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="d3fd5bda-6647-4300-8b01-da339ab95052" CreationDate="2013-06-01T12:12:28.353" UserId="2751" Text="How can flags to reopen just &quot;disappear&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="d3fd5bda-6647-4300-8b01-da339ab95052" CreationDate="2013-06-01T12:12:28.353" UserId="2751" Text="|support|flagging|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8780" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="5dd2da3f-df18-443b-83ad-e0b3047d98d0" CreationDate="2013-06-01T12:19:22.767" UserId="2451" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8781" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="d3619278-b3b8-4adc-adbc-b5294d73913c" CreationDate="2013-06-01T12:53:35.480" UserId="2751" Comment="edited title" Text="How can flags to reopen just &quot;disappear&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="6f2f05bc-d1cd-4245-9cb6-6b3d69e17c24" CreationDate="2013-06-01T13:52:53.803" UserId="22150" Text="[Luboš Motl][1] has become the first ever user on Physics.Stackexchange to get a Gold Badge for  a particular topic . He has earned the Gold Badge for [tag:quantum-mechanics] , [all time top user][2] in the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers for his great achievement !!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Luboš Motl,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thanks for your incomparable contribution to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1236/lubos-motl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/topusers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="6f2f05bc-d1cd-4245-9cb6-6b3d69e17c24" CreationDate="2013-06-01T13:52:53.803" UserId="22150" Text="Congratulations Luboš Motl !!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="6f2f05bc-d1cd-4245-9cb6-6b3d69e17c24" CreationDate="2013-06-01T13:52:53.803" UserId="22150" Text="|discussion|specific-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="aa4dd776-0cee-4f1b-8476-2db7ca79fccc" CreationDate="2013-06-01T14:01:07.447" UserId="22150" Comment="added 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="[Luboš Motl][1] has become the first ever user on Physics.Stackexchange to get a [Gold Badge for  a particular topic][2] . He has earned the Gold Badge for [tag:quantum-mechanics] , [all time top user][3] in the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers for his great achievement !!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Luboš Motl,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thanks for your incomparable contribution to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1236/lubos-motl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges?tab=tags&amp;filter=gold&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/topusers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8786" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="aa4dd776-0cee-4f1b-8476-2db7ca79fccc" CreationDate="2013-06-01T14:01:07.447" UserId="22150" Comment="added 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="Congratulations Luboš Motl?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="544def22-cfb7-4c30-a672-5b532a2cbed6" CreationDate="2013-06-01T15:10:09.783" UserId="22150" Comment="edited title" Text="Congratulations Luboš Motl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="08979f4a-8483-42c4-bf5b-8c2f93115dcd" CreationDate="2013-06-01T17:09:14.017" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="084ec89d-0a4e-43c9-9c0d-ef263ed6fec9" CreationDate="2013-06-01T19:17:04.440" UserId="2684" Text="Moderators can't make flags vanish, and neither can the flagging user himself. Once a flag is cast, there is no way to remove it. Moderators can either decline the flag or declare it as helpful. Either way there should be an entry for that flag in your flagging history with a notice on how the flag was handled exactly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8790" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="b373d06f-5cc7-4fbc-8612-c3e9b1f97fa3" CreationDate="2013-06-02T17:07:46.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/341239731666964480" />
  <row Id="8791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="67d021d0-24b2-4c18-91c0-e53fb69cbbe9" CreationDate="2013-06-02T17:32:52.760" UserId="1236" Text="Thanks a lot for your warm and kind words, colleagues and e-pals. I hope that there will also be contributions in the future and many people will also be made happy and fewer people will be provoked by my (and other) answers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And congratulations to quantum mechanics for having earned the gold badge – this sometimes underappreciated princess of the 20th century physics deserves it and it's really her achievement, too. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4323" RevisionGUID="babb5e46-d899-4f9a-a3eb-d518641bcb85" CreationDate="2013-06-03T02:28:52.420" UserId="24774" Text="When a tag has no questions related, or misspelled, or is not about physics, what can we do about it? Is there a way to flag it? Or to ask for deletion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: mechancis, quant-ph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4323" RevisionGUID="babb5e46-d899-4f9a-a3eb-d518641bcb85" CreationDate="2013-06-03T02:28:52.420" UserId="24774" Text="What to do with unused, misspelled, or off-subject tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4323" RevisionGUID="babb5e46-d899-4f9a-a3eb-d518641bcb85" CreationDate="2013-06-03T02:28:52.420" UserId="24774" Text="|support|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4323" RevisionGUID="75b1bc08-f84e-4a4d-a5bf-c8088bbcc2a5" CreationDate="2013-06-03T03:04:18.813" UserId="22150" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="When a tag has no questions related, or misspelled, or is not about physics, what can we do about it? Is there a way to flag it? Or to ask for deletion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: [tag:mechancis],[tag:quant-ph]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4323" RevisionGUID="708e43a7-378d-4b98-9001-8cf9a30c58b1" CreationDate="2013-06-03T03:20:21.650" UserId="24774" Comment="added one line" Text="When a tag has no questions related, or misspelled, or is not about physics, what can we do about it? Is there a way to flag it? Or to ask for deletion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: [tag:mechancis],[tag:quant-ph]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: the mechancis tag seems to have been removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="cad8b346-7449-4357-a005-fa88cb75c4dd" CreationDate="2013-06-03T03:30:06.997" UserId="124" Text="If a tag is misspelled or otherwise inappropriate (e.g. not about physics) and is only on one question, just suggest an edit that changes the tag to the correct spelling, or removes it, or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an inappropriate tag is on two or three questions, you can just edit them all accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a misspelled tag, or a tag which needs to be _changed_ (not removed) for some other reason is on a lot of questions, there is a process by which you can suggest a tag synonym, and the community can vote on it. But that process is fairly well hidden. So in practice, the easiest thing to do is flag one of the questions for mod attention with a custom message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a tag needs to be removed outright from a large number of questions, without any replacement, that needs mod attention. So definitely flag in that case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="113e9fed-bcfb-4fe8-a7cd-e8ae64de0360" CreationDate="2013-06-03T07:48:49.270" UserId="23263" Text="well I am having this problem while trying to write delta symbol in the question box. I have tries using two $ signs and delta between them. but nothing happened. Please help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="113e9fed-bcfb-4fe8-a7cd-e8ae64de0360" CreationDate="2013-06-03T07:48:49.270" UserId="23263" Text="how to write delta symbol in a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="113e9fed-bcfb-4fe8-a7cd-e8ae64de0360" CreationDate="2013-06-03T07:48:49.270" UserId="23263" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="a95fd661-ab54-4e17-a0b4-67a23323c27e" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:51:27.777" UserId="22150" Text="It is like `$delta$` or `$Delta$` for capital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation for details .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="cfd402dd-d3b5-4896-aeee-abeb942fe42d" CreationDate="2013-06-03T18:48:41.390" UserId="124" Comment="put in backslashes" Text="It is like `$\delta$` or `$\Delta$` for capital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation for details .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="afe7b92a-f8fa-466f-9d79-8a7ef81f02c3" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:10:03.967" UserId="124" Comment="add example" Text="Here is an incomplete list of questions that have been migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6034/vector-multiplication-with-scalars&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5987/derivation-of-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5694/prove-that-honeycomb-structures-are-the-most-geometrically-efficient-structure&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5391/derivation-of-fourier-series&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4714/what-is-the-current-status-of-vinay-deolalikars-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11976/fractal-dimension-after-nonlinear-transformation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question probably would have been migrated if we had the migration path open, as it was closed by 5 community votes, but as it is I had to reopen it and migrate it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66468/uniqueness-of-the-vector-in-mathbbrn-specified-by-the-curl-divergence-and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/vector-product-in-2-dimensions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could have been migrated, but as I recall it's so basic we figured it wasn't worth it, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to edit in additional examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="09dffde3-7355-43b8-b6dd-999ad6ec75eb" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:19:02.933" UserId="17609" Text="What applies to [Gödel](http://meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1555/changing-the-godel-tag),&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; may also apply to two Schrödinger tags: [tag:schrodinger-equation] and [tag:non-linear-schrodinger]. The third one, [tag:schroedingers-cat], being &quot;right&quot; already. So, whatever you may think of the umlaut, as it is now, it is being used inconsistently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a good use case for a tag synonym. Should we standardize on `oe` or `o`? It probably should be the former, of course, but we could run into an issue with tag length. (I think not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, after a while, a mod may make a tag synonym and merge the tags into the properly spelled ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Ignore the comments over there.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="09dffde3-7355-43b8-b6dd-999ad6ec75eb" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:19:02.933" UserId="17609" Text="schrodinger or schroedinger tags: please standardize" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="09dffde3-7355-43b8-b6dd-999ad6ec75eb" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:19:02.933" UserId="17609" Text="|feature-request|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="824bc833-955e-40c0-9425-45a40a11dc59" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:53:35.213" UserId="17609" Text="Apparently, it's [Gauss's law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law), not (the) Gauss Law. I'm relying on Wikipedia here (and elsewhere), which sticks adamantly to the former. Please correct me in a comment if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that to be consistent with all other such tags, e.g., [tag:coulombs-law], [tag:greens-functions], [tag:machs-principle], [tag:fermis-golden-rule], [tag:braggs-law], it should be tagged by [tag:gausss-law], not the current [tag:gauss-law].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks a bit funny though. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Please downvote ([tag:gauss-law]) or upvote ([tag:gausss-law]) if you have an opinion._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="824bc833-955e-40c0-9425-45a40a11dc59" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:53:35.213" UserId="17609" Text="gauss-law or gausss-law tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="824bc833-955e-40c0-9425-45a40a11dc59" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:53:35.213" UserId="17609" Text="|feature-request|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="4d256b10-f185-4c44-bdf9-e694f42316bf" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:53:57.990" UserId="17609" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="What applies to [Gödel](http://meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1555/changing-the-godel-tag),&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; may also apply to two Schrödinger tags: [tag:schrodinger-equation] and [tag:non-linear-schrodinger]. The third one, [tag:schroedingers-cat], being &quot;right&quot; already. So, whatever you may think of the umlaut, as it is now, it is being &quot;translated&quot; inconsistently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a good use case for a tag synonym. Should we standardize on `oe` or `o`? It probably should be the former, of course, but we could run into an issue with tag length. (I think not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, after a while, a mod may make a tag synonym and merge the tags into the properly spelled ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Ignore the comments over there.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4331" RevisionGUID="6650c5ca-8122-45fe-afb7-4dc0a02b3fb5" CreationDate="2013-06-03T22:45:56.683" UserId="10531" Text="Could we use Wolfram Alpha as a widget embedded in answers? is that legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to avoid multiple hits of the Wolfram website, an image cache would be generated and stored on the SO server, and updated upon edit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8822" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="307f6407-3dde-4a3a-9871-4369bdb67f50" CreationDate="2013-06-04T00:20:10.637" UserId="2451" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:22150,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;userØØ7&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:11062,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ϛѓăʑɏ βµԂԃϔ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4332" RevisionGUID="5c05e505-ac35-4e46-a715-06f26fdcf306" CreationDate="2013-06-04T03:36:38.957" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Let's standardize with `oe`. Vote up if you agree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="2a29a2b2-f33e-4350-9bf3-cc58dd783625" CreationDate="2013-06-04T03:38:09.117" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Let's standardize with `o`. Vote up if you agree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="7fbeddd6-d283-4257-9564-53c07f882e24" CreationDate="2013-06-04T03:40:07.953" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="We should push to have `ö` enabled in tags so that we can standardize with that. Vote up if you agree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="06a4a44d-dd00-45a3-8579-e4e411e34311" CreationDate="2013-06-04T03:55:50.473" UserId="22150" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="It is like `$\delta$` or `$\Delta$` for capital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation for details .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And  **http://web.ift.uib.no/Teori/KURS/WRK/TeX/symALL.html**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="4ec6995d-a553-4acc-b9b8-2dce979dd609" CreationDate="2013-06-04T04:15:29.250" UserId="124" Text="This has been thought of before. The tag is spelled as it is because it looks funny the other way, that's all. Of course if apostrophes were allowed in tag names, it would be a whole different matter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="f985e97f-7f60-45e4-aeb8-f83250b6d42f" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:46:24.793" UserId="17609" Text="This has been thought of before! The tag should be spelled [tag:gausss-law] because 1) apostrophes and spaces aren't allowed in tag names and 2) it looks funny. That's all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="88a1b64a-805f-4273-894e-38c85cf966bf" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:48:56.997" UserId="2751" Text="Since quite some time, the amount of new incoming higher level questions is decaying and the number of very basic ones is increasing, but the current inflood of bad homeworks (the good ones I appreciate and upvote) and very basic questions of non physicists and people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, is unprecedented I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67008/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67012/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55965/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67017/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66976/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66941/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67022/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66938/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66918/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66856/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66855/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66829/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66700/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66580/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66460/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66422/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66434/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66449/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66358/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66261/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66225/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66209/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66208/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65471/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65475/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65491/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65519/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65439/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65568/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65570/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65669/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23294/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56014/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65772/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65795/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65899/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65953/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65951/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62260/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65972/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66041/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66070/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62324/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66052/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66058/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66030/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66073/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66077/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66109/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66165/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66210/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, parts of them get closed or migrated, if they are just posted on the wrong site here etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the really worrying thing is that a not negligible part of these homework and very low level questions get (even highly) upvoted and answered by very basic answers which are upvoted too by the present population of Physics SE, and sometimes even flags saying that these questions should not be here for the one or the other reason, get declined!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The About of Physics SE still says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physics is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople quetions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that similar questions have been asked over and over again here on Physics meta. But obviously the issue has never been seriously adressed which is, as I guess, among the possible reason for the currend flood of really low level stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who ask these low level questions seem to be less knowledgable than the visitors of [Prof Strassler's](http://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/) the purpose explicitely is which is to explaine (particle) physics to laypeople. And the atmosphere of the site starts to be &quot;Quora-like&quot;, as (almost only) short, basic, equation free, and in popular language formulated posts get high upvotes, activity, and attendance whereas higher level more sophisticated advanced and in particular technical posts almost [tumpleweed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed) with low views, low votes, no answers, etc ... these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, if the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="88a1b64a-805f-4273-894e-38c85cf966bf" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:48:56.997" UserId="2751" Text="What can be done about the (current) flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="88a1b64a-805f-4273-894e-38c85cf966bf" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:48:56.997" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="7248a072-4f56-451f-85ac-ebad92e5efd4" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:57:44.353" UserId="2751" Comment="added 591 characters in body" Text="Since quite some time, the amount of new incoming higher level questions is decaying and the number of very basic ones is increasing, but the current inflood of bad homeworks (the good ones I appreciate and upvote) and very basic questions of non physicists and people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, is unprecedented I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67008/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67012/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55965/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67017/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66976/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66941/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67022/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66938/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66918/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66856/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66855/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66829/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66700/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66580/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66460/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66422/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66434/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66449/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66358/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66261/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66225/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66209/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66208/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65471/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65475/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65491/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65519/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65439/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65568/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65570/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65669/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23294/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56014/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65772/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65795/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65899/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65953/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65951/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62260/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65972/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66041/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66070/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62324/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66052/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66058/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66030/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66073/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66077/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66109/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66165/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66210/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, parts of them get closed or migrated, if they are just posted on the wrong site here etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the really worrying thing is that a not negligible part of these homework and very low level questions get (even highly) upvoted and answered by very basic answers which are upvoted too by the present population of Physics SE, and sometimes even flags saying that these questions should not be here for the one or the other reason, get declined!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The About of Physics SE still says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physics is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople quetions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that similar questions have been asked over and over again here on Physics meta. But obviously the issue has never been seriously adressed which is, as I guess, among the possible reason for the currend flood of really low level stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who ask these low level questions seem to be less knowledgable than the visitors of [Prof Strassler's](http://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/) the purpose explicitely is which is to explaine (particle) physics to laypeople. And the atmosphere of the site starts to be &quot;Quora-like&quot;, as (almost only) short, basic, equation free, and in popular language formulated posts get high upvotes, activity, and attendance whereas higher level more sophisticated advanced and in particular technical posts almost [tumpleweed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed) with low views, low votes, no answers, etc ... these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad side effect of the current state is that if this keeps going, the site will be governed by people who like and prefer this increasing basic Q&amp;A, because it is them who are gaining the most rep so it will be them who have the power to closevote and access to other moderation privilages, even if they have no (deep enough) physics knowledge of their own to decide what is a good legitimate physics question and what not for example, what the (intended to be community of physicists and students) needs, etc. whereas the initially targetted audience and their needs gets pushed back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, if the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="a7585de7-b6ed-4e9b-9a80-65be541d0807" CreationDate="2013-06-04T12:01:03.497" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="I can see it from both sides of the fence, as a teacher of Physics (high school) as well as being a PhD atmospheric physics student (finishing this year).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what little my view is worth, allowing basic questions may spurn continued interest in those just starting out in physics, *on the other hand*, I can see what you mean regarding the higher level questions are often not answered - I mean, it took me putting a bounty on my question for any answer to come about (and I still don't have the full picture).  Please note, I am not saying that my question was particularly 'high level'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some food for thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="667dd577-fdc7-4d2b-ba54-26b799878453" CreationDate="2013-06-04T12:08:50.393" UserId="2751" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Since quite some time, the amount of new incoming higher level questions is decaying and the number of very basic ones is increasing, but the current inflood of bad homeworks (the good ones I appreciate and upvote) and very basic questions of non physicists and people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, is unprecedented I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67008/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67012/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55965/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67017/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66976/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66941/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67022/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66938/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66918/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66856/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66855/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66829/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66700/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66580/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66460/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66422/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66434/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66449/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66358/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66261/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66225/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66209/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66208/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65471/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65475/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65491/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65519/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65439/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65568/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65570/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65669/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23294/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56014/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65772/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65795/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65899/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65953/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65951/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62260/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65972/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66041/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66070/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62324/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66052/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66058/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66030/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66073/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66077/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66109/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66165/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66210/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, parts of them get closed or migrated, if they are just posted on the wrong site here etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the really worrying thing is that a not negligible part of these homework and very low level questions get (even highly) upvoted and answered by very basic answers which are upvoted too by the present population of Physics SE, and sometimes even flags saying that these questions should not be here for the one or the other reason, get declined!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The About of Physics SE still says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physics is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople quetions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that similar questions have been asked over and over again here on Physics meta. But obviously the issue has never been seriously adressed which is, as I guess, among the possible reason for the currend flood of really low level stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who ask these low level questions seem to be less knowledgable than the visitors of [Prof Strassler's](http://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/) site the purpose of which is explicitely to explaine (particle) physics to laypeople. And the atmosphere of the site starts to be &quot;Quora-like&quot;, as (almost only) short, basic, equation free, and in popular language formulated posts get high upvotes, activity, and attendance whereas slightly higher level, more sophisticated, advanced topic, and in particular technical posts almost [tumbleweed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed) meaning the get low views, low votes, no answers, etc ... these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad side effect of the current state is that if this keeps going, the site will be governed by people who like and prefer this increasing basic Q&amp;A, because it is them who are gaining the most rep so it will be them who have the power to closevote and access to other moderation privilages, even if they have no (deep enough) physics knowledge of their own to decide what is a good legitimate physics question and what not for example, what the (intended to be community of physicists and students) needs, etc. whereas the initially targetted audience and their needs gets pushed back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, if the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="e8fa0924-45a8-4a24-bb41-41cfd4c8bd6b" CreationDate="2013-06-04T12:30:19.593" UserId="2751" Text="This is just something I have just recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework], at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these to features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="41c3f651-8b63-4d37-8449-cedfd9f0b33b" CreationDate="2013-06-04T12:39:11.373" UserId="2751" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Since quite some time, the amount of new incoming higher level questions is decaying and the number of very basic ones is increasing, but the current inflood of bad homeworks (the good ones I appreciate and upvote) and very basic questions of non physicists and people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, is unprecedented I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67008/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67012/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55965/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67017/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66976/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66941/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67022/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66938/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66918/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66856/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66855/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66829/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66700/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66580/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66460/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66422/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66434/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66449/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66358/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66261/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66225/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66209/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66208/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65471/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65475/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65491/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65519/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65439/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65568/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65570/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65669/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23294/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56014/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65772/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65795/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65899/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65953/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65951/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62260/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65972/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66041/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66070/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62324/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66052/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66058/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66030/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66073/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66077/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66109/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66165/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66210/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, parts of them get closed or migrated, if they are just posted on the wrong site here etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the really worrying thing is that a not negligible part of these homework and very low level questions get (even highly) upvoted and answered by very basic answers which are upvoted too by the present population of Physics SE, and sometimes even flags saying that these questions should not be here for the one or the other reason, get declined!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The About of Physics SE still says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physics is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople quetions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that similar questions have been asked over and over again here on Physics meta. But obviously the issue has never been seriously adressed which is, as I guess, among the possible reason for the currend flood of really low level stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who ask these low level questions seem to be less knowledgable on physics or maths than the visitors of [Prof Strassler's](http://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/) site the purpose of which is explicitely to explaine (particle) physics to laypeople. And the atmosphere of the site starts to be &quot;Quora-like&quot;, as (almost only) short, basic, equation free, and in popular language formulated posts get high upvotes, activity, and attendance whereas slightly higher level, more sophisticated, advanced topic, and in particular technical posts almost [tumbleweed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed) meaning they get low views, low votes, no answers, etc ... these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad side effect of the current state is that if this keeps going, the site will be governed by people who like and prefer this increasing basic Q&amp;A, because it is them who are gaining the most rep so it will be them who have the power to closevote and access to other moderation privilages, even if they have no (deep enough) physics knowledge of their own to decide what is a good legitimate physics question and what not for example, what the (intended to be community of physicists and students) needs, etc. whereas the initially targetted by the site audience and its needs gets pushed back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, if the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="b9ed51a1-f099-4223-b59c-94405efc9a29" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:06:10.200" UserId="22150" Text="This will not solve much problem but can be taken into account for HW askers, if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding an additional box as soon as OP adds [tag:homework] asking to &quot;add the specific doubt along with the work they've done&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KRSpF.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**The major problem I've seen till now is in the cases when OP don't use HW tag and someone else add it afterwards. Then it would create much problem!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;hr&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="bdeea5cf-d515-48fa-a343-d26e456c5ed0" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:57:03.603" UserId="8563" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="43f2a3a2-f607-46a2-9ab3-b54cadb94b81" CreationDate="2013-06-04T16:03:28.960" UserId="8563" Text="As regards the [tag:quant-ph] tag, I see a link with a MathOverflow policy which [asks all users to tag their questions using at least one arXiv subject area](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/ask). While we don't have any such policy, I suspect some MathOverflow user applied the tag once, and it stuck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4343" RevisionGUID="741b522f-35be-49e2-be23-044a28aaed61" CreationDate="2013-06-04T16:20:48.367" UserId="8563" Text="As regards free-body diagrams and the like, I think users will be better off with a client-based simulator as the range of possible requirements is probably too broad for a web-based tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23676/8563) has good links to physics simulators. I have used Algodoo and it seems to work well (plus, it's free).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4344" RevisionGUID="b9a74bf4-0178-4947-8907-836e385ab021" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:05:24.670" UserId="2146" Text="Just go to the main page, click questions, newest, and compare the current page one with other pages from the past. I certainly see no evidence of &quot;(current) flooding&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose there's a flooding of the questions you want to see here with the ones that have always been encouraged in the FAQ and are of use to others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="86f15701-7f87-4fe2-87b8-e63ddb282bbf" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:52:17.330" UserId="8143" Text="I am impressed at the saintly patience shown by Physics SE moderators and regulars to some of the homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question, can't find it right now, gave zero evidence that the asker had tried anything. It was just a verbatim reproduction of the assignment. And to top it off, they added &quot;Due tomorrow&quot; at the bottom. The sheer gall of it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe such questions should be ignored, meaning no answers and no comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't stop the influx of &quot;do my homework&quot; people, though. Maybe a split of your Stackexchange is in order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4346" RevisionGUID="55b3e4ff-fcfc-4d90-9a77-6cfff9b15322" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:17:42.193" UserId="12951" Text="As someone that has provided answers to at least one of the questions in your list, I'd say I'm fine with unsuitable questions being closed sooner rather than later than they are currently being closed.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="628d703f-0b03-453f-83cd-d32b497ed4c1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:25:27.240" UserId="8007" Text="Sorry if everyone else knows about this stuff, but I can't find any information about it anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see occasional comments about one user putting something on another user's &quot;talk page&quot;.  I have some questions for a particular user that don't rise to the level of an official question (but it's not a private matter), so I'd like to use this feature.  But I can't find it anywhere.  What is it?  Does it just mean that someone has opened a chat and invited or tagged the other user or something like that?  (If so, are there best practices for that?)  Or are they friends in some other venue?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="628d703f-0b03-453f-83cd-d32b497ed4c1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:25:27.240" UserId="8007" Text="User talk pages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="628d703f-0b03-453f-83cd-d32b497ed4c1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:25:27.240" UserId="8007" Text="|support|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="54aa8d05-412c-4639-b56f-898e5750cf13" CreationDate="2013-06-04T21:43:09.900" UserId="124" Text="Talk pages exist on Wikipedia, but not here. So I'm not sure what the comments you're talking about might have been referring to. If they actually said &quot;talk page&quot; they are using the wrong terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the Stack Exchange system is designed to keep communication public and exposed to the entire community as much as possible. If you have a question for a particular user, consider posing it to the community at large instead, for example in our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="82eb4cd7-5aab-4c1b-8e9d-fed1f80677fe" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:13:05.993" UserId="8007" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="Sorry if everyone else knows about this stuff, but I can't find any information about it anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see occasional comments about one user putting something on another user's &quot;talk page&quot;.  I have some questions for a particular user that don't rise to the level of an official question (but it's not a private matter), so I'd like to use this feature.  But I can't find it anywhere.  What is it?  Does it just mean that someone has opened a chat and invited or tagged the other user or something like that?  (If so, are there best practices for that?)  Or are they friends in some other venue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;My reason for asking this is that I really like one person's formalism and want to ask that particular person for references the she/he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I understand that chat exists, but I particularly want this one person's input, and it looks like chat doesn't really have a mechanism for that.  I certainly don't mind if other people chime in with their opinions about references, but I would like to ask one person in particular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8849" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="82eb4cd7-5aab-4c1b-8e9d-fed1f80677fe" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:13:05.993" UserId="8007" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="User &quot;talk pages&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="18310b33-a339-447f-b398-bbbf22ebf4a7" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:31:44.080" UserId="2751" Comment="Proofread post" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="9e9b160c-3552-4527-b83d-fd27dc350856" CreationDate="2013-06-04T23:11:12.320" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="It might be helpful to look at what physicsforums does: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=686781 . They have a specific template for homework problems. They also segregate the homework in a separate area of the site's hierarchy of topics, which unfortunately probably can't be done in SE's FIFO stack design. Many people who fall within &quot;academics&quot; and &quot;active researchers [...] of physics and astronomy&quot; will probably be immediately turned off by the huge number of homework questions. One can filter out the homework questions, but newcomers don't know that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, it might make sense to split physics.SE into two parts, like math.SE and mathoverflow. However, the site is still quite small, so this might be like trying to propagate a tiny sprout by taking cuttings from it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="214303dd-a5a7-4981-86d7-ebffe70e4e8a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:07:49.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/342100414700847104" />
  <row Id="8853" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="2e4d26bd-cd46-4e4c-a029-2612cb0ed42f" CreationDate="2013-06-05T03:00:22.070" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:24901,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Damien Igoe&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="68d8e097-ca1a-45bf-8366-05e751492dd3" CreationDate="2013-06-05T07:22:04.103" UserId="24705" Text="physics is asking questions about nature and giving mathematical models to explain it. Philosophy is asking questions about nature and giving abstract models to explain it. In the end its about asking the right questions and giving the right answers. Since both ask questions about nature, I think they are two sides of the same coin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8855" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="97d62272-87ad-4016-9c99-8fa22fb869ec" CreationDate="2013-06-05T07:48:42.040" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:24901,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Damien Igoe&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="f75b30e4-c0b9-433a-b0d8-a69b14f892c1" CreationDate="2013-06-05T10:40:45.983" UserId="7433" Text="Firstly, you're asking _two_ separate questions that need to be dealt with differently. One question has to do with HW posts, and another has to do with basic posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The Data&#xD;&#xA;Now for [the data][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't cook up a query that reliably separates basic and non-basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last data point is incomplete (data.SE lags behind by ~a week, and anyway June just started), so it can be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another caveat is that downvoted closed questions get deleted after 6 months or so (and can't be queried by normal means), so we probably can increase the data from before 2012 by at least 50% to account for this (most HW questions seem to get closed/downvoted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind there seems to just be a local exam-time jump (if you look closely at the data this happens every year around May), not really a net increase. This has happened in the past, and levels returned to normal afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the number of deleted HW posts may not be as I predicted above. In such a case, this data is probably not analyzable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Is there a need for something to be done, and, if so, what can be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, a clarification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Clarification of the About:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The line in the About says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and **students** of physics and astronomy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It applies to students of all levels, not just grad students and above. A 8th grader is still a student of physics. Also, this is the _target_ audience. We hope for a large number of high-level questions, yes, but we will _never_ discourage low-level questions or questions targeted towards the layperson. There is a _huge_ difference between _preferring_ that a level of question is less prominent on the site and actively making it go away. The about is all about what we prefer. We won't actively discourage an audience outside of the one listed in the about only because it has the misfortune of not being there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put clearly, **the about cannot be used as a reason to discourage a type of question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should we do something about homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether or not HW is on the increase, I'd always prefer a reduction in such questions. Not because of the about, but because they tend to be less conceptual. HW seems to be around 15%±5% (counting deleted questions). I'd prefer for it to be around 5% (with a better question quality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One simple thing to do is to solve the [broken windows problem][4] of HW qs. Currently, the main page does show up a handful of HW questions (at times, it is much more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that have a score of -3 or less disappear from the main page. So one thing that can be done is that there can be more proactive downvoting of HW posts. Try not to downvote those that follow the policy (these are rather few), but, of course, it's your choice in the end. And of course, vote/flag to close were necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, we could try being a bit more quicker in deleting HW questions where the OP is obviously not coming back. A week ought to be OK. (This may remove HW from the popular tags list)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solutions is to get rid of the HW tag altogether. Not the policy, just the tag (IIRC some sites like CS.SE have done this). This will remove it from the popular tags list in a much cleaner manner. We won't lose much functionality, really -- the HW tag is just for keeping track AFAICT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should we do something about basic questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not directly. As mentioned before, the about isn't a reason to stop accepting basic questions. It's not even a reason to _worry_ about basic questions. Of course, this site has much more value when it has a good amount of high-level activity. And we should try to maintain and improve this activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this should be done in a constructive manner. **Not by reducing the number of basic questions, but by attempting to increase the number of high-level questions independently**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the number of basic questions has an on-paper benefit; that's it. There was an increase in the theoretical-to-basic ratio on the site on paper, but we haven't improved on the theoretical bit at all. And in the process we have lost a portion of the audience that was contributing constructively to the site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. One could argue that this isn't a constructive contribution -- I myself don't know what to say to that unless a reason was given. From what I've seen, Physics.SE provides one of the best sources of conceptual explanations at all levels on the Internet. Quora does provide a lot of layman's explanations, but Phys.SE goes above and beyond layman's explanations even for basic questions.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/117932/hw-vs-non-hw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nHZct.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/16lq8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="c5f4da6d-5d39-4350-8d84-55a7c01f8a3a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:02:21.407" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="Now that I am convinced that my post is not a 'homework' type, I am preparing an answer that will take some information from references found.  But, my question is, as it is relevant to my answer, is it allowable (or pretentious) to include a link to one of my own published papers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="c5f4da6d-5d39-4350-8d84-55a7c01f8a3a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:02:21.407" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="including own published papers in answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="c5f4da6d-5d39-4350-8d84-55a7c01f8a3a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:02:21.407" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="|discussion|etiquette|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="97629760-700a-4f8c-8e64-78fa54de8eff" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:04:41.723" UserId="8563" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="f2587d0f-b298-471a-b58b-485a189869b4" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:05:30.767" UserId="7433" Text="See [the relevant section of the FAQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as your post doesn't look like one big advertisement or pitch for your work, and you disclose your affiliation, it's OK :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8862" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="acdcc439-b76e-4b1e-a680-5236f30c8d4d" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:07:50.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/342236313262620672" />
  <row Id="8863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4354" RevisionGUID="8c9cf659-8ab3-4183-b8a8-c730e51cb746" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:11:07.063" UserId="8563" Text="I don't see anything wrong with it. I would encourage you to make it clear on the post if you have written (or have other connections, i.e. personal, financial or otherwise, with) any of the resources you reference, but I would definitely encourage you to include any and all references you feel are relevant to the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you should avoid self-promotion, and if it comes across as that then the community is likely to downvote you, as Manishearth points out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="ba6d9405-b57c-4773-a485-8dff7a7a2d9c" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:18:44.823" UserId="2451" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="See [the relevant section of the FAQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must explicitly disclose your affiliation in your answers. E.g. it is not enough that your name is mentioned in the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as your post doesn't look like one big advertisement or pitch for your work, and you disclose your affiliation, it's OK :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="5da974b8-3628-41e0-a844-34836227b8a0" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:39:54.933" UserId="7433" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="See [the relevant section of the FAQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must [explicitly] disclose your affiliation in your answers. [E.g. it is not enough that your name is mentioned in the link.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as your post doesn't look like one big advertisement or pitch for your work, and you disclose your affiliation, it's OK :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="d303ce57-40e4-4241-8c9f-612ae825f9cd" CreationDate="2013-06-05T15:05:41.560" UserId="23473" Text="This discussion is mainly intended to focus on supporting good answerers. There are already a decent amount of question badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking that we could introduce a bronze, silver, and gold badge that's intended to reward those that consistently provide good answers. The specifics are up for discussion, but I was thinking that we would reward the badge if someone has given 20/100/500 (numbers are really only an example) answers and X% of them have a score of, say, 5 or higher. Alternatively, we could look at average or total score over all those answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hope is that this will dissuade answers from people who don't actually know what they are talking about. Or at least, it might encourage people to be more informed when posting an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My secondary hope is that this might allow people to recognize who has a history of providing good answers. If you see someone with a gold badge for consistent good answers, it gives you extra incentive to trust their answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I see people like our beloved QMechanic who have some ridiculously high number of answers (and 0 questions in his case, which makes it more impressive) and most of them are highly voted. I feel that they should be rewarded for always knowing what they're talking about and only answering when they're sure of it and can back up their claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of these things can also be applied to people that ask consitently good questions, but I don't like the idea of discouraging someone from asking a question because they think it won't be voted high enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does everyone else think? Would giving out badges for having consistently good answers be a good idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="d303ce57-40e4-4241-8c9f-612ae825f9cd" CreationDate="2013-06-05T15:05:41.560" UserId="23473" Text="Should we have badges supporting consistently good answerers/askers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="d303ce57-40e4-4241-8c9f-612ae825f9cd" CreationDate="2013-06-05T15:05:41.560" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="477d8fb2-692f-4153-9dee-fff679724120" CreationDate="2013-06-05T15:28:21.770" UserId="8563" Text="There are already Nice/Good/Great Answer badges, given at 10, 25 and 100 votes respectively, which can be earned multiple times on multiple questions. Users with multiple such badges can be trusted to be &quot;consistently good answerers&quot; and have already been rewarded as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also [tag badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges?tab=tags), which are relatively rare and which are awarded at 100/400/1000 upvotes on 20/80/200 answers with the relevant tag. I have a lot of respect for anyone with a silver tag badge or with multiple bronze tag badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore don't see a need to institute new badges. A possibility along the direction you're asking about is to highlight a user's tag badges when they answer questions on those tags. I would give a cautious &quot;no&quot; vote to that; I feel it would needlessly clutter a neat interface that works well as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, the concept that you'd trust better (and therefore maybe upvote and accept) answers by salient users sounds like an [appeal to authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) fallacy to me. Good answerers are that because their answers are good, and they should (continue to) earn their upvotes, rep and badges by producing good answers and having them critically evaluated by the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="f0e5a813-8f2b-4f4b-8cf1-03191f29dab5" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:30:00.283" UserId="8563" Comment="Horrible typo." Text="Here is the ***[BETA][1]*** badge which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Actively participated in the private beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is &quot;active&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/16/beta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8871" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="f0e5a813-8f2b-4f4b-8cf1-03191f29dab5" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:30:00.283" UserId="8563" Comment="Horrible typo." Text="What is definition of &quot;active&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="b218a9ef-4d1c-4b71-9fc9-a1c7eeca986d" CreationDate="2013-06-05T21:30:42.147" UserId="2751" Comment="added 1178 characters in body" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="3314999b-290f-491b-ac65-2ecd850661b3" CreationDate="2013-06-05T21:37:08.230" UserId="2751" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="b0a44aba-64c3-4337-b678-3b42d3d227a0" CreationDate="2013-06-06T02:43:31.050" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Firstly, you're asking _two_ separate questions that need to be dealt with differently. One question has to do with HW posts, and another has to do with basic posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The Data&#xD;&#xA;Now for [the data][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't cook up a query that reliably separates basic and non-basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last data point is incomplete (data.SE lags behind by ~a week, and anyway June just started), so it can be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another caveat is that downvoted closed questions get deleted after 6 months or so (and can't be queried by normal means), so we probably can increase the data from before 2012 by at least 50% to account for this (most HW questions seem to get closed/downvoted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind there seems to just be a local exam-time jump (if you look closely at the data this happens every year around May), not really a net increase. This has happened in the past, and levels returned to normal afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the number of deleted HW posts may not be as I predicted above. In such a case, this data is probably not analyzable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Is there a need for something to be done, and, if so, what can be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, a clarification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Clarification of the About:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The line in the About says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and **students** of physics and astronomy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It applies to students of all levels, not just grad students and above. A 8th grader is still a student of physics. Also, this is the _target_ audience. We hope for a large number of high-level questions, yes, but we will _never_ discourage low-level questions or questions targeted towards the layperson. There is a _huge_ difference between _preferring_ that a level of question is less prominent on the site and actively making it go away. The about is all about what we prefer. We won't actively discourage an audience outside of the one listed in the about only because it has the misfortune of not being there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put clearly, **the about cannot be used as a reason to discourage a type of question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should we do something about homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether or not HW is on the increase, I'd always prefer a reduction in such questions. Not because of the about, but because they tend to be less conceptual. HW seems to be around 15%±5% (counting deleted questions). I'd prefer for it to be around 5% (with a better question quality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One simple thing to do is to solve the [broken windows problem][4] of HW qs. Currently, the main page does show up a handful of HW questions (at times, it is much more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that have a score of -3 or less disappear from the main page. So one thing that can be done is that there can be more proactive downvoting of HW posts. Try not to downvote those that follow the policy (these are rather few), but, of course, it's your choice in the end. And of course, vote/flag to close were necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, we could try being a bit more quicker in deleting HW questions where the OP is obviously not coming back. A week ought to be OK. (This may remove HW from the popular tags list)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solutions is to get rid of the HW tag altogether. Not the policy, just the tag (IIRC some sites like CS.SE have done this). This will remove it from the popular tags list in a much cleaner manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People use the tag for filtering, however, so this may not be a great idea..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should we do something about basic questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not directly. As mentioned before, the about isn't a reason to stop accepting basic questions. It's not even a reason to _worry_ about basic questions. Of course, this site has much more value when it has a good amount of high-level activity. And we should try to maintain and improve this activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this should be done in a constructive manner. **Not by reducing the number of basic questions, but by attempting to increase the number of high-level questions independently**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the number of basic questions has an on-paper benefit; that's it. There was an increase in the theoretical-to-basic ratio on the site on paper, but we haven't improved on the theoretical bit at all. And in the process we have lost a portion of the audience that was contributing constructively to the site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. One could argue that this isn't a constructive contribution -- I myself don't know what to say to that unless a reason was given. From what I've seen, Physics.SE provides one of the best sources of conceptual explanations at all levels on the Internet. Quora does provide a lot of layman's explanations, but Phys.SE goes above and beyond layman's explanations even for basic questions.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/117932/hw-vs-non-hw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nHZct.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/16lq8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="e035af99-d05f-44c3-ac26-5ba5723e345f" CreationDate="2013-06-06T04:18:33.303" UserId="11062" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, we also have a problem with personal theories and book recommendation questions (which are somewhat relatively rare, but it's worthy to add in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding lines like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Personal theories may lead to non-constructive debates &amp; discussions and hence, they can (will) not be encouraged here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Currently, we have a lot of recommendation questions on [tag:books]. They're off-topic now...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8876" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="769c2884-570b-4f82-b818-6ac0b3e63162" CreationDate="2013-06-06T05:14:16.780" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [97629760-700a-4f8c-8e64-78fa54de8eff]" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="1f391c06-93be-4b06-8f99-3c4f240e95fe" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:57:06.933" UserId="2751" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have asked a corresponsing [question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/183321/184300) on MSO if the frontpage presented to anonymous or not logged in users could be made configurable, in order to be able to exchange tags and questions in the corresponding lists. Any support for this feature request on MSO would be highly welcome and urgently needed I think :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="801076f1-9c8e-47b1-b8f5-a6a8d10b2b2a" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:37:52.840" UserId="8563" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="801076f1-9c8e-47b1-b8f5-a6a8d10b2b2a" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:37:52.840" UserId="8563" Text="Can we include homework guidance in the How to Ask sidebar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="801076f1-9c8e-47b1-b8f5-a6a8d10b2b2a" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:37:52.840" UserId="8563" Text="|feature-request|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="2e10a5dc-40e9-435d-8187-525c7c062db8" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:39:19.613" UserId="8563" Text="**Yes**, I agree that this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(Obviously, upvote if you agree and downvote if you don't.)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="1be5a3e0-ec7d-406a-9b7b-b7ad662a9247" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:40:13.650" UserId="8563" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="This answer has been posted as a separate feature request [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4357/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="b6f40e20-5559-4ec3-a04d-8c0402f73496" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:56:53.343" UserId="7433" Text="I'm all for the general idea, but the current text is a bit ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 put it, someone looking at this may think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not all homework questions are allowed&quot; ... ok; does that apply to my homework question? Naw, probably just other peoples'. Those guys homework questions are awful; they don't help me at all. Good job, site, disallowing those homework questions so folks can focus on mine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you wish to ask a homework question, be sure to [include your work and highlight your conceptual confusion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly better one (credit Shog9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Include your work and highlight the concept confusing you][2] when asking homework-related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="534df338-2af6-4ce7-807d-3fd2981c4963" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:09:10.217" UserId="7433" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I'm all for the general idea, but the current proposed text is a bit ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 put it, someone looking at this may think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not all homework questions are allowed&quot; ... ok; does that apply to my homework question? Naw, probably just other peoples'. Those guys homework questions are awful; they don't help me at all. Good job, site, disallowing those homework questions so folks can focus on mine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you wish to ask a homework question, be sure to [include your work and highlight your conceptual confusion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly better one (credit Shog9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Include your work and highlight the concept confusing you][2] when asking homework-related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="357ccb0b-8069-42d3-9051-c1749a528c6b" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:14:10.930" UserId="2751" Comment="edited body" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have asked a corresponding [question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/183321/184300) on MSO if the frontpage presented to anonymous or not logged in users could be made configurable, in order to be able to exchange tags and questions in the corresponding lists. Any support for this feature request on MSO would be highly welcome and urgently needed I think :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="124d2052-3158-4c95-b9b5-72826f50c6d0" CreationDate="2013-06-06T17:56:55.360" UserId="8563" Text="Something with a bit more &quot;teeth&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non-conceptual homework questions are likely to be closed. Please [read the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8889" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="134c179d-b5c8-429c-8a2b-494a4232d5e7" CreationDate="2013-06-06T19:15:06.720" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="What is definition of &quot;active&quot; during private beta phase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8890" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="e6f58e23-5afa-477f-a589-f7ba8ca984de" CreationDate="2013-06-06T20:07:54.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/342734616232353793" />
  <row Id="8891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="742ccdfc-0b3e-4620-996d-867c6b95b3d6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:04:22.520" UserId="17556" Text="I am asking because I have seen a couple misconceptions floating around on Physics.SE, but in a way so that it would be semi off-topic to address in answers to the post, and it is a bit too complex to get into in the comments (and also frustrating to do repeatedly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the best way to treat this would be to post a well-designed question, provide a  thorough and cited answer and then be able to link to that when the question pops up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would of course hold out on accepting my own answer as a spur to others to provide better answers, but it would at least give the option to link to a more thorough discussion on SE. Would this be frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is similar to [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1013/should-i-post-a-question-if-i-know-the-answer-should-i-answer-my-own-questions) but different enough that I think it can still bear a little talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="742ccdfc-0b3e-4620-996d-867c6b95b3d6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:04:22.520" UserId="17556" Text="Should I post a question with the intent to answer it myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="742ccdfc-0b3e-4620-996d-867c6b95b3d6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:04:22.520" UserId="17556" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="4cbcc663-96f2-400e-b709-2fce5251948b" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:31:11.020" UserId="66" Text="It's [perfectly fine to do so](http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/self-answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a question that you already know the answer to, and you would like to document that knowledge in public so that others (including yourself) can find it later, it's perfectly okay to ask and answer your own question on a Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact you can post a question and its answer all at once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/05/encyclopedia-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/henRC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="ce25b2a4-952e-4b9b-a793-093820b5799d" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:44:22.820" UserId="23119" Text="I realised that suddenly, Physics.SE and meta have both gone plain text! Even LaTeX support has disappeared! What has happened? Is this a bug or was this done for a reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="ce25b2a4-952e-4b9b-a793-093820b5799d" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:44:22.820" UserId="23119" Text="Why is Physics Stack Exchange now plain text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="ce25b2a4-952e-4b9b-a793-093820b5799d" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:44:22.820" UserId="23119" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="536b2e35-c993-46c8-aa9c-2be2ffb3c111" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:47:12.567" UserId="7433" Text="CDN may have failed for your location. Or your net connection is unstable. Or your JS/CSS cache got corrupted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing that can be fixed on our side, usually waiting it out for a while works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="2f26e425-4dae-48a4-8f7c-13382ae4b91c" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:54:12.860" UserId="23119" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="I realised that suddenly, Physics.SE and meta have both gone plain text! Even LaTeX support has disappeared! What has happened? Is this a bug or was this done for a reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It is fine now. It had been like that for around half an hour, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="6e377ed1-fc9b-4c8c-8435-3b61cd0d81d8" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:16:46.383" UserId="23119" Text="I just realised that the questions on the site are too mixed up together. On the main page, a question about Newtonian Mechanics is often side-by-side with a question on the standard model/general relativity/string theory etc. I think this is quite messy so a classification would be quite good. Not by tags, but by categories. According to me, the following would be a good classification (but by no means am I suggesting to be final):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Non-Relativistic Classical Mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Newtonian Mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;   - Maybe statistical mechanics?&#xD;&#xA;   - Optics&#xD;&#xA;   - Wave mechanics and oscillators&#xD;&#xA;   - Hamiltonian Mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Lagrangian Mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Newtonian Gravitation&#xD;&#xA;   - Maxwellian Electromagnetism&#xD;&#xA; - Relativity&#xD;&#xA;   - Special Relativity&#xD;&#xA;   - General Relativity&#xD;&#xA;   - Alternatives to General Relativity (Einstein-Cartan theory, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Old Quantum Theory&#xD;&#xA;   - Heisenberg Matrix mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Schrodinger Wave mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Feynman Path Integral mechanics&#xD;&#xA;   - Scattering&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Field Theory&#xD;&#xA;   - Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Klein-Gordon Equation, Weyl Equation, Dirac Equation, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;   - Quantum Chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;   - Electroweak theory&#xD;&#xA;   - Quantum Electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;   - Higgs theory&#xD;&#xA;   - Standard model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Gravity and Unification theories&#xD;&#xA;   - String theory &#xD;&#xA;   - Loop Quantum Gravity&#xD;&#xA;   - Maybe Kaluza-Klein?&#xD;&#xA;   - etc. (GUTs, preon models, and other attempts to Quantum Gravity)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="6e377ed1-fc9b-4c8c-8435-3b61cd0d81d8" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:16:46.383" UserId="23119" Text="Classification of the questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="6e377ed1-fc9b-4c8c-8435-3b61cd0d81d8" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:16:46.383" UserId="23119" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="6dde161a-d989-426e-a058-05c504b5c5c0" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:22:53.617" UserId="16531" Text="I use firefox (latest version) with add-on programs like no-script and adblockplus for security reasons. The problem is that I am unable to see equations written in latex in Physics stack exchange. Even if I let no-script &quot;temporarily allow&quot; the current page, I am unable to see the latex equations in mathematical symbols, only the latex commands are seen like &quot;\sqrt{...}&quot;. Please suggest how I should configure no-script so that I can see the equations properly. Thanks.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="6dde161a-d989-426e-a058-05c504b5c5c0" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:22:53.617" UserId="16531" Text="How do I see equations in latex with certain add-on softwares with firefox?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="6dde161a-d989-426e-a058-05c504b5c5c0" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:22:53.617" UserId="16531" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="3cd45c2a-beaf-48e6-a0a3-d29a1fe9609a" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:33:16.240" UserId="520" Text="Not gonna happen. The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* difficult to categorize questions &#xD;&#xA;* questions that span disciplines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use the [Favorite and Ignored tags][1] mechanism&#xD;&#xA;* Use [tag subscriptions][2] or the  [RSS feeds][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Search by tag][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/21756" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="227e33a4-6128-4df8-8add-6ac9b11616e3" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:38:30.217" UserId="520" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Not gonna happen. &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* difficult to categorize questions &#xD;&#xA;* questions that span disciplines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use the [Favorite and Ignored tags][1] mechanism&#xD;&#xA;* Use [tag subscriptions][2] or the  [RSS feeds][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Search by tag][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/21756" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="d2c4a522-b444-46c1-ae2f-582150cacd06" CreationDate="2013-06-07T06:34:25.647" UserId="520" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="Not gonna happen. &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* difficult to categorize questions &#xD;&#xA;* questions that span disciplines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use the [Favorite and Ignored tags][1] mechanism, and view the [front page][2] rather than the [questions page][3] because the front page is weighted by your favorite tags (or by your [frequented tags][4] if you haven't specified your favorites)&#xD;&#xA;* Use [tag subscriptions][5] or the  [RSS feeds][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [Search by tag][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/108224/documentation-for-frequented-tags-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8913" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="3621bb3c-b907-4253-88d4-3ca31fb70f2e" CreationDate="2013-06-07T08:07:55.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/342915812832718850" />
  <row Id="8914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="ed85833a-84bd-4f39-9eb2-bfa8694d86c8" CreationDate="2013-06-07T09:54:30.597" UserId="23263" Text="I am trying to comment on people's question but there is no such option of doing so. Do I need higher reputation ? If yes then how much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="ed85833a-84bd-4f39-9eb2-bfa8694d86c8" CreationDate="2013-06-07T09:54:30.597" UserId="23263" Text="What is required for commenting in someone's question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="ed85833a-84bd-4f39-9eb2-bfa8694d86c8" CreationDate="2013-06-07T09:54:30.597" UserId="23263" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="c44c4071-5107-4f1e-8037-293d94d87bc5" CreationDate="2013-06-07T09:56:12.843" UserId="7433" Text="You need [50 reputation][1] to comment everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="cf460240-31cf-4d66-bbed-fd6e9c6eb8ef" CreationDate="2013-06-07T10:39:24.133" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="I see you are at 46 rep points, so what you need to do is to post an well thought out post, demonstrating what you have found so far on the particular topic with a clear and interesting question, and hope someone upvotes it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="311bab4c-338c-483c-942b-3ca48c7e7be5" CreationDate="2013-06-07T12:47:53.180" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="Not sure how this idea will go down - but maybe with homework questions, we could provide a basic link (to HyperPhysics etc), and suggest that they bookmark those type of pages (just as I did [here][1]. Then close if necessary if they do not meet the requirements as per the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much providing them with the tools, a gentle but definite hint to use the tools to help them.  All the time, not doing their homework for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67357/from-the-top-of-a-400-m-high-rock-by-the-sea-a-ball-is-shot-out-in-the-horizont/67359#67359" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="b539b514-2f54-4e65-8c9c-f21670540e04" CreationDate="2013-06-07T22:17:54.123" UserId="124" Text="You will need to allow scripts from `stackexchange.com`, which is controlled by Stack Exchange, and from `mathjax.org`, which is controlled by the MathJax developers, in order to see equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page also uses scripts from `sstatic.net`, which is also controlled by Stack Exchange, and `ajax.googleapis.com`, which is controlled by Google (but is not directly part of their tracking infrastructure). You don't need these for the equations to appear, but they do enable other functionality on the page so I recommend allowing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="2147e436-2f02-4d6c-b216-0248b9702691" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:22:36.793" UserId="2751" Text="Just a most recent example (I could give many more posted by other users too), [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/18679/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does not anser the question, brings up confused rhetoric intended to troll about fundamental physics generally, and the only logical interpretation of the link in this &quot;answer&quot; is that it is meant to troll about string theory, which is not even the topic of the question. This user states in his profile, that he is a &quot;aether wave theorist&quot; which clearly says that he has his own by mainstream physicists not accepted personal nonsense theory, which he advertises indeed here on Physics SE as one can see when looking at his other &quot;not a real answers&quot; he posts to fundamental physics questions. From physics blogs, such as [Prof Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/), [Resonaances](http://resonaances.blogspot.de/), [Cosmic Variance](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/), [Philip Gibbs](http://blog.vixra.org/), etc as well as from his comments below popular news articles about fundamental physics, this particular user is well known for his [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) and [flaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29) to interrupt serious physics discussions and for his attack against mainstream physicists and their work as well as promoting his personal fringe theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples of questions, where people abuse the answer feature in the same way, as can for example be seen by looking at the answers with negative score of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2751) question where the [&quot;answer&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19089/2751) of a user who calls himself Albert Z, another troll well known in the physics blogosphere, is even upvoted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I flag such posts, because they do not answer the question, are trolling about accepted mainstream physics and/or advertize personal nonsense theories, or because the particular user posts such things repeatedly at different questions too, my flags are often decline by a moderator who says &quot; A moderator has looked at it but there is no evidence&quot; or something along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As the corresponding flags are declined, what else can I do to indicate that there is a problem with these posts and maybe even with a particular user who posts such &quot;not a real answers&quot; to different question about particular topics on the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declining these flags and denying that there is a problem with these posts/user gives the (I really hope wrong!) impression that Physics SE tolerates and even protects (!) such a behavior. This impression is reinforced by noting that we have a not negligible number of people who even upvote such posts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought that Physics SE is for doing physics seriously, and that in contrast to some blogs, forums, discussions below popular news articles, etc where it is ok for people to rather state their personal wrong/bad informed opinions, attack mainstream physics, advertize personal fringe theories, to troll and flame, etc should be kept out from Physics SE such that people seriously interested in learning about all (!) topics of physics can do so undisturbed by such negative, nonconstructive, and disruptive behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I getting wrong here? Is Physics SE really tolerating this bad behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are trolling questions too sometimes, but they can be flagged as not constructive, not a real question, offensive if they are really bad etc, but equivalent flagging options to point out such inappropriate behaviour are missing..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="2147e436-2f02-4d6c-b216-0248b9702691" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:22:36.793" UserId="2751" Text="What can I do if I note that answers are abused to troll, flame, and/or advertise personal nonsense theories?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="2147e436-2f02-4d6c-b216-0248b9702691" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:22:36.793" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|policy|best-practices|etiquette|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="83927663-4eb4-4abd-b6a9-32cf43d8b8bf" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:34:27.650" UserId="2751" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Just as a most recent example (I could give many more posted by other users too), [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/18679/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does not answer the question, brings up confused rhetoric intended to troll about fundamental physics generally, and the only logical interpretation of the link in this &quot;answer&quot; is that it is meant to troll about string theory, which is not even the topic of the question. This user states in his profile, that he is a &quot;aether wave theorist&quot; which clearly says that he has his own by mainstream physicists not accepted personal nonsense theory, which he advertises indeed here on Physics SE as one can see when looking at his other &quot;not a real answers&quot; he posts to fundamental physics questions. From physics blogs, such as [Prof Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/), [Resonaances](http://resonaances.blogspot.de/), [Cosmic Variance](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/), [Philip Gibbs](http://blog.vixra.org/), etc as well as from his comments below popular news articles about fundamental physics, this particular user is well known for his [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) and [flaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29) to interrupt serious physics discussions and for his attack against mainstream physicists and their work as well as promoting his personal fringe theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples of questions, where people abuse the answer feature in the same way, as can for example be seen by looking at the answers with negative score of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2751) question where the [&quot;answer&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19089/2751) of a user who calls himself Albert Z, another troll well known in the physics blogosphere, is even upvoted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I flag such posts, because they do not answer the question, are trolling about accepted mainstream physics and/or advertize personal nonsense theories, or because the particular user posts such things repeatedly at different questions too, my flags are often decline by a moderator who says &quot; A moderator has looked at it but there is no evidence&quot; or something along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As the corresponding flags are declined, what else can I do to indicate that there is a problem with these posts and maybe even with a particular user who posts such &quot;not a real answers&quot; to different question about particular topics on the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declining these flags and denying that there is a problem with these posts/user gives the (I really hope wrong!) impression that Physics SE tolerates and even protects (!) such a behavior. This impression is reinforced by noting that we have a not negligible number of people who even upvote such posts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought that Physics SE is for doing physics seriously, and that in contrast to some blogs, forums, discussions below popular news articles, etc where it is ok for people to rather state their personal wrong/bad informed opinions, attack mainstream physics, advertize personal fringe theories, to troll and flame, etc should be kept out from Physics SE such that people seriously interested in learning about all (!) topics of physics can do so undisturbed by such negative, nonconstructive, and disruptive behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I getting wrong here? Is Physics SE really tolerating this bad behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are trolling questions too sometimes, but they can be flagged as not constructive, not a real question, offensive if they are really bad etc, but equivalent flagging options to point out such inappropriate behaviour in answers are missing..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="f2f81de4-520b-4bd6-8962-a7304a9f198d" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:45:46.923" UserId="2751" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Just as a most recent example (I could give many more posted by other users too), [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/18679/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does not answer the question, brings up confused rhetoric intended to troll about fundamental physics generally, and the only logical interpretation of the link in this &quot;answer&quot; is that it is meant to troll about string theory, which is not even the topic of the question. This user states in his profile, that he is a &quot;aether wave theorist&quot; which clearly says that he has his own by mainstream physicists not accepted personal nonsense theory, which he advertises indeed here on Physics SE as one can see when looking at his other &quot;not a real answers&quot; he posts to fundamental physics questions. From physics blogs, such as [Prof Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/), [Resonaances](http://resonaances.blogspot.de/), [Cosmic Variance](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/), [Philip Gibbs](http://blog.vixra.org/), etc as well as from his comments below popular news articles about fundamental physics, this particular user is well known for his [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) and [flaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29) to interrupt serious physics discussions and for his attack against mainstream physicists and their work as well as promoting his personal fringe theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples of questions, where people abuse the answer feature in the same way, as can for example be seen by looking at the answers with negative score of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2751) question where the [&quot;answer&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19089/2751) of a user who calls himself Albert Z, another troll well known in the physics blogosphere, is even upvoted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I flag such posts, because they do not answer the question, are trolling about accepted mainstream physics and/or advertize personal nonsense theories, or because the particular user posts such things repeatedly at different questions too, my flags are often decline by a moderator who says &quot; *A moderator has looked at it but there is no evidence* &quot; or something along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As the corresponding flags are declined, what else can I do to indicate that there is a problem with these posts and maybe even with a particular user who posts such &quot;not a real answers&quot; to different question about particular topics on the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declining these flags and denying that there is a problem with these posts/user gives the (I really hope wrong!) impression that Physics SE tolerates and even protects (!) such a behavior. This impression is reinforced by noting that we have a not negligible number of people who even upvote such posts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought that Physics SE is for doing physics seriously, and that in contrast to some blogs, forums, discussions below popular news articles, etc where it is ok for people to rather state their personal wrong/bad informed opinions, attack mainstream physics, advertize personal fringe theories, to troll and flame, etc should be kept out from Physics SE such that people seriously interested in learning about all (!) topics of physics can do so undisturbed by such negative, nonconstructive, and disruptive behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I getting wrong here? Is Physics SE really tolerating this bad behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are trolling questions too sometimes, but they can be flagged as not constructive, not a real question, offensive if they are really bad etc, but equivalent flagging options to point out such inappropriate behaviour in answers are missing..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="6e7ed574-5bbc-4064-92d4-b25407085fb0" CreationDate="2013-06-08T12:06:06.493" UserId="2751" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Just as a most recent example (I could give many more posted by other users too), [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/18679/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does not answer the question, brings up confused rhetoric intended to troll about fundamental physics generally, and the only logical interpretation of the link in this &quot;answer&quot; is that it is meant to troll about string theory, which is not even the topic of the question. [This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6032/zephir) user states in his profile, that he is a &quot;aether wave theorist&quot; which clearly says that he has his own by mainstream physicists not accepted personal nonsense theory, which he advertises indeed here on Physics SE as one can see when looking at his other &quot;not a real answers&quot; he posts to fundamental physics questions. From physics blogs, such as [Prof Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/), [Resonaances](http://resonaances.blogspot.de/), [Cosmic Variance](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/), [Philip Gibbs](http://blog.vixra.org/), etc as well as from his comments below popular news articles about fundamental physics, this particular user is well known for his [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) and [flaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29) to interrupt serious physics discussions and for his attack against mainstream physicists and their work as well as promoting his personal fringe theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples of questions, where people abuse the answer feature in the same way, as can for example be seen by looking at the answers with negative score of [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2751) question where the [&quot;answer&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19089/2751) of a user who calls himself Albert Z, another troll well known in the physics blogosphere, is even upvoted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I flag such posts, because they do not answer the question, are trolling about accepted mainstream physics and/or advertize personal nonsense theories, or because the particular user posts such things repeatedly at different questions too, my flags are often decline by a moderator who says &quot; *A moderator has looked at it but there is no evidence* &quot; or something along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As the corresponding flags are declined, what else can I do to indicate that there is a problem with these posts and maybe even with a particular user who posts such &quot;not a real answers&quot; to different question about particular topics on the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declining these flags and denying that there is a problem with these posts/user gives the (I really hope wrong!) impression that Physics SE tolerates and even protects (!) such a behavior. This impression is reinforced by noting that we have a not negligible number of people who even upvote such posts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought that Physics SE is for doing physics seriously, and that in contrast to some blogs, forums, discussions below popular news articles, etc where it is ok for people to rather state their personal wrong/bad informed opinions, attack mainstream physics, advertize personal fringe theories, to troll and flame, etc should be kept out from Physics SE such that people seriously interested in learning about all (!) topics of physics can do so undisturbed by such negative, nonconstructive, and disruptive behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I getting wrong here? Is Physics SE really tolerating this bad behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are trolling questions too sometimes, but they can be flagged as not constructive, not a real question, offensive if they are really bad etc, but equivalent flagging options to point out such inappropriate behaviour in answers are missing..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4376" RevisionGUID="9b331697-d9fa-429f-a66a-741bbf06b1a2" CreationDate="2013-06-08T13:00:55.580" UserId="7433" Text="If someone is advertising a non-mainstream theory with their posts, flag it with a custom message. While it is not the job of moderators to sift correct from wrong, we do indeed delete material that advertises pet theories as per our faq.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the &quot;line of thought&quot; answer: It doesn't look like trolling to me, but it seems deletable (or converted to a comment) as not an answer. The xkcd comic is not an indication of trolling. I'll wait for input from the other mods on this one before doing anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Albert Z's answer, again, it's not trolling. While his point may be tongue-in-cheek, it doesn't immediately come off as an attempt to troll. Of course, if you have come across this user before and know that he is a troll, your perception will be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try not to let a users behavior off-site dictate how we deal with them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same &quot;disprove string theory question&quot;, I deleted an answer that basically said &quot;no, because we'd need huge accelerators first&quot;. I didn't delete [this][1] because it may be wrong, but it isn't trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because a post is against a theory that you approve of doesn't make it trolling. In this case, it's not propagating non-mainstream physics, it is simply casting doubt on String theory. Perfectly OK, as long as it doesn't start a flamewar. I recall that you had complained about another question before as trolling, just because it partially casted doubt on the framework of physics. Simply casting doubt or attempting to understand by exposing weak points is NOT trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/41112/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="bdae2249-9780-4b7d-b436-452a5cc84432" CreationDate="2013-06-08T18:05:30.450" UserId="520" Text="I think I should point out that one of the canned reasons for declining a flag is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should vote wrong answers down. If this kind of nonsense is buried with net scores far into the negative range it simply doesn't matter if this guy is at all serious because no one will mistake the site for endorsing the material contained there in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="6f1d84a6-4a70-4ac8-98bd-6075c2c4b9da" CreationDate="2013-06-09T02:11:32.273" UserId="12798" Text="I made some points about a separate problem section, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not wanting to repeat I will summerize, I think that a separated problem(Homework) section will, keep the site better organized. From Mannisheath graphs point to, percentage of Homework Question has crossed over 20 pc and likely to Increase Further. I would like it to be separated from the Main site, to avoid clutter and the people who arnt interested Text Book like questions can safely skip them. Ofcourse, It does not make sense to start a new site for homework questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="07a89c82-acf8-4cc4-8498-29278d22be61" CreationDate="2013-06-09T02:17:15.107" UserId="12798" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I made some points about a separate problem section, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not wanting to repeat I will summerize, I think that a separated problem(Homework) section will, keep the site better organized. From Mannisheath graphs point to, percentage of Homework Question has crossed over 20 pc and likely to Increase Further. I would like it to be separated from the Main site, to avoid clutter and the people who arnt interested Text Book like questions can safely skip them. Ofcourse, It does not make sense to start a new site for homework questions, as it does not a address very different audience. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="de5d0ef6-a6e9-49a0-b394-d37597339361" CreationDate="2013-06-09T12:54:35.980" UserId="12798" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I made some points about a separate problem section, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not wanting to repeat I will summerize, I think that a separated problem(Homework) section will, keep the site better organized. From Mannisheath graphs point to, percentage of Homework Question has reached roughly 20 pc and likely to Increase Further. I would like it to be separated from the Main site, to avoid clutter and the people who arnt interested Text Book like questions can safely skip them. Ofcourse, It does not make sense to start a new site for homework questions, as it does not address a very different audience. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="a398a56a-1241-475c-96e1-4e23b45ce876" CreationDate="2013-06-09T14:52:47.413" UserId="2751" Text="As things stand at present, questions of people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, who are looking for help in solving a particular problem (homeworky), are mixed up with questions of physics students (university level) up to research level questions on Physics SE, so things have become too messy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably due to the fact, that two differenc kinds of audiences have developed on this site in the course of time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the one hand we have nicely curious people who are not physicists, but who are interested to learn at a rather popular equation free level what physics is about, people who like to find answers to some applied everyday problems from a physics point of view, younger (not yet university level) students who have just started to build up a basic physics knowledge, and people who are looking for help in solving concrete problems they face (homeworky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, there is an audience consisting of university level physics students, academics, and researchers, who like to do physics at a more advanced technical, mathematical, up to research level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these two &quot;subaudiences&quot; seems to be very happy with the present situation since&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. People more interested in popular, basic Q&amp;A of physics and problem solving, see their questions often closed and not that well recieved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To people more interested in higher level, technical, up to research level questions, the site looks cluttered with too basic posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That this is a real issue by now can be seen from relatively recent meta questions such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4308/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/931/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and most recently this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4337/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So can there, just for Physics SE, something like an internal tag filtered minisite* be implemented, to better structure and improve the perception and experience of the site for both of the two audiences?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That &quot;subaudience&quot;, which makes up the larger part of the present overall community, could take the role of the main Physics SE, whereas the smaller &quot;subaudience&quot; could be sent to the internal minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such an internal minisite implemented into Physics SE, people interested in more technical, higher level Q&amp;A could focus on exactly this without having to dig through a large amount of posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the criteria on allowed problem (or homework) questions, and the previous knowledge expacted to come here could be relaxed for the other group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the present overall community is probably not large enough to be splitted into two full SE sites, the minisite approach would in my opinion be **the perfect solution** to better serve both of the two audiences we now have on Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS: I am not too sure how such a minisite works technically. Manishearth gave this short explanation of an example:  Basically: It's one minisite. Facebook had an agreement with SE that their developers would also help on questions regarding the FB API. With this agreement, SE made a tag-filtered [facebook*](facebook.stackoverflow.com) website, so that FB devs could get their own place. If it works by putting everything with a certain tag on the minisite, it is hopfully not so complicated to implement this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="a398a56a-1241-475c-96e1-4e23b45ce876" CreationDate="2013-06-09T14:52:47.413" UserId="2751" Text="Feature request: An internal minisite to help Physics SE better serve the two different audiences it now has" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="a398a56a-1241-475c-96e1-4e23b45ce876" CreationDate="2013-06-09T14:52:47.413" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="649e417b-d631-45e0-a1f1-4a4eb1d28596" CreationDate="2013-06-09T18:24:47.773" UserId="7433" Text="Once again, there are two requests here. One is for a minisite separating basic questions from high level ones, and one is just a nohomework.physics.SE minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of &quot;basic&quot; questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within SE rules, this isn't possible. tags like [tag:basic] and [tag:advanced] are not allowed, as they are [meta tags][1]. Even if it were allowed, it would involve massive retagging efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it within the current tag system is not possible as topics can't easily be separated into &quot;basic&quot; &quot;non basic&quot;. Besides, the border is very fuzzy, and it varies from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think this can be realistically implemented. A hidden [tag:minisite] tag could work, but it would require non-trivial changes from the devs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you mean that there will be a no-homework sub-site. I personally hope that a combination of minor changes (proactively deleting old closed HW, being a bit stricter on the policy, etc) may mitigate the issue enough without a subsite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A few more thoughts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me of some of the discussions [here][2] and [here][3]. Separating the communities can seem elitist to many, and I myself don't think that it's an ideal way to solve the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the flaws with this is that it gives off the impression that we are leaving the basic portion of the community to die as we go off to greener pastures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am really wary of splitting the communities in any manner, even if its by minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="809f94f0-9bf5-49be-92ef-3c70fc23e382" CreationDate="2013-06-09T18:59:58.003" UserId="12798" Text="There is a lot of discussion about splitting the of communities, and I personally am not in favor of split communities. I would however like better organisation within the site itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The so called elementary questions are very important to address. Each of you would have asked elementary questions in the past else you will not be in a position to answer more advanced questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is of concern is, the site is getting disorganized. The elementary questions are not getting enough attention and/or getting closed. I think every question that is well posed and precise must have a place in this Site, however elementary or advanced it maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, It is an unpleasant sight to see questions of the nature &quot;How does one derive keplers laws from newtons laws of gravitation?&quot;, which is a very valid and precise, mixed with current research topics. but if there is a clear segregation between more advanced and text book level questions that would help organization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, the intention is not to split the community, But rather to keep it together. I think  what will come out is elementary questions will be addressed with lot of patience from interested people. It would be really bad idea to split to community as people who can answer so called elementary question are the same ones who can answer the advanced questions. It an issue of organization of clutter in my opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="7b33a809-8dbb-480b-9033-7f431de38acf" CreationDate="2013-06-09T19:28:10.070" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="There is a lot of discussion about splitting of communities, and I personally am not in favor of split communities. I would however like better organisation within the site itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The so called elementary questions are very important to address. Each of you would have asked elementary questions in the past else you will not be in a position to answer more advanced questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is of concern is, the site is getting disorganized. The elementary questions are not getting enough attention and/or getting closed. I think every question that is well posed and precise must have a place in this Site, however elementary or advanced it maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, It is an unpleasant sight to see questions of the nature &quot;How does one derive keplers laws from newtons laws of gravitation?&quot;, which is a very valid and precise, mixed with current research topics. but if there is a clear segregation between more advanced and text book level questions that would help organization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, the intention is not to split the community, But rather to keep it together. I think  what will come out is elementary questions will be addressed with lot of patience from interested people. It would be really bad idea to split to community as people who can answer so called elementary question are the same ones who can answer the advanced questions. It an issue of organization of clutter in my opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="ab9c221c-de38-48d0-a145-5214f10c9abc" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:29:42.637" UserId="12798" Text="There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) &#xD;&#xA;like &#xD;&#xA;[1][1] [2][2] [3][3] [4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4308/physics-se-should-emphasis-on-problem-solving&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4367/classification-of-the-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4379/feature-request-an-internal-minisite-to-help-physics-se-better-serve-the-two-di&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2)&#xD;&#xA;And they do not get the attention they deserve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is, The site is getting cluttered. On an average day it sees, ~40 questions and tends go get very cluttered, and many interesting questions do not stay long enough for people to take notice.(Link 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some suggestions including my own( Link 3,4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think physics stack exchange will scale as time passes? Do you think it will be able to handle say twice or thrice the amount of traffic, Which is only a matter of time.(There has been a 3 fold increase in questions since 2011) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find the site to be getting cluttered? If so, Can Something be done about it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="ab9c221c-de38-48d0-a145-5214f10c9abc" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:29:42.637" UserId="12798" Text="Is Physics Stack Exchange getting Cluttered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="ab9c221c-de38-48d0-a145-5214f10c9abc" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:29:42.637" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="a653142c-19ed-422e-805a-ea6163c08432" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:35:15.523" UserId="2451" Comment="changed to permalinks so the links show up in the margin" Text="There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) &#xD;&#xA;like &#xD;&#xA;[1][1] [2][2] [3][3] [4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4337/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4308/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4367/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4379/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2)&#xD;&#xA;And they do not get the attention they deserve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is, The site is getting cluttered. On an average day it sees, ~40 questions and tends go get very cluttered, and many interesting questions do not stay long enough for people to take notice.(Link 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some suggestions including my own( Link 3,4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think physics stack exchange will scale as time passes? Do you think it will be able to handle say twice or thrice the amount of traffic, Which is only a matter of time.(There has been a 3 fold increase in questions since 2011) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find the site to be getting cluttered? If so, Can Something be done about it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="68d19c6d-8c78-4a85-b2f5-6fbe6364eece" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:38:53.523" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) &#xD;&#xA;like &#xD;&#xA;[1][1] [2][2] [3][3] [4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4337/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4308/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4367/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4379/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2)&#xD;&#xA;And they do not get the attention they deserve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is, The site is getting cluttered. On an average day it sees, ~40 questions and tends get very cluttered, and many interesting questions do not stay long enough for people to take notice.(Link 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some suggestions including my own( Link 3,4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think physics stack exchange will scale as time passes? Do you think it will be able to handle say twice or thrice the amount of traffic, Which is only a matter of time.(There has been a 3 fold increase in questions since 2011) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find the site to be getting cluttered? If so, Can Something be done about it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="a880c656-297e-4682-8bbf-08c7fbbe4bb8" CreationDate="2013-06-09T21:58:16.903" UserId="6634" Text="I think the clutter issue falls on the end user. By choosing favorite tags and ignored tags (and hiding the ignored tags if it pleases you), it's very easy for me to find what I would like, even though my interest area doesn't have many questions that come in ([tag:fluid-dynamics]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one suggestion I would make is getting the &quot;Interesting&quot; tab on the physics.SE site (and honestly, on all of them) like there is on SO. This tab only pulls in questions that I would be interested in based on my tags and history. If that could be added to all SE sites, it should solve the problem provided end users set up their preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first issue you raised, the idea that too many homework problems are being closed, I think the community has already resolved that. The link you posted is heavily downvoted indicating the community disagrees with the idea that more basic questions should be encouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not here to help with homework problems. We are here, however, to assist people in understanding the concepts that are the foundation of all aspects of physics. So, some homework questions are allowed. But only if they show considerable effort on the part of the person asking, and only if they are limited to asking for help understanding the underlying physical principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="3d4777bc-e4c1-4b8e-8ef2-3245e88d7631" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:41:03.240" UserId="6634" Text="StackOverflow has a tab for questions entitled &quot;Interesting&quot; that is based on favorited tags and history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interesting tab][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get said tab on physics.SE based on recent discussions such as http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4382/is-physics-stack-exchange-getting-cluttered in order to help users organize the questions better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uhYv2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="3d4777bc-e4c1-4b8e-8ef2-3245e88d7631" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:41:03.240" UserId="6634" Text="Add &quot;Interesting&quot; questions tab to front page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="3d4777bc-e4c1-4b8e-8ef2-3245e88d7631" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:41:03.240" UserId="6634" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="7f13090e-8518-4ff2-886d-d2fb2e85179d" CreationDate="2013-06-10T04:09:54.393" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-deferred|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="21de3da8-a5e8-4eb1-aa00-48c3a154390a" CreationDate="2013-06-10T04:18:16.917" UserId="2911" Text="The current setup for the &quot;interesting&quot; tab looks at the last 3,000 posts, using [various user- and post-specific metrics][1] to display 90 personalized posts; that makes sense, since Stack Overflow gets over twice that every day. We could look at less than that, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...At 42 questions per day, Physics.SE's homepage already displays most recent activity on the site... to *everyone*. The logic used for the &quot;interesting&quot; tab as it's currently set up wouldn't accomplish much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been looking at different ways to customize the homepage; [this is still very much experimental][2], but at some point we hope to have something better than either the current home page or SO's &quot;interesting&quot; tab. Until then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kevinmontrose.com/2013/05/22/your-future-on-stack-overflow/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8956" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="f7813286-d7b9-4864-aa91-469d23c43c7c" CreationDate="2013-06-10T17:59:53.267" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8957" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="ee7f5bd1-339b-4035-a5e1-301bda6c2b96" CreationDate="2013-06-11T11:25:23.923" UserId="2751" Comment="edited title" Text="What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8958" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="e68a24e6-38af-4e23-84a1-8510d596a125" CreationDate="2013-06-11T14:08:02.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/344455989162033152" />
  <row Id="8959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="c7e5d3bc-af69-4084-a474-19c87bd72e15" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:33:44.063" UserId="11062" Text="I've noticed a sudden increment in the close vote queue (minimum 10 per day, upto 15 or so) from the past few days. Maybe people (except a few) haven't noticed that mods are having a vacation. I can feel their absence in the active page. They haven't informed anything about this to the community...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manish told [me](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9811294#9811294) and [Chris](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9825883#9825883) that they're off to see if the community is interested in reviewing close votes. As far as I've seen, only a few users are interested in reviewing close votes and even less members in reviewing reopen votes (as it requires somewhat deeper look into the post). They are right about the evaluation of community. As it looks like a good decision, I honor it. But, for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they doing now? (*Actually, where are they?* :D) Is this some kind of *secret spying?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="c7e5d3bc-af69-4084-a474-19c87bd72e15" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:33:44.063" UserId="11062" Text="Moderators enjoying their vacation? (especially without any message)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="c7e5d3bc-af69-4084-a474-19c87bd72e15" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:33:44.063" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|moderators|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="d05b6dca-784f-4723-98af-a29efe5a08d7" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:43:31.473" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I've noticed a sudden increment in the close vote queue (minimum 10 per day, upto 15 or so) for the past few days. Maybe people (except a few) haven't noticed that mods are having a vacation. I can feel their absence in the active page. They haven't informed anything about this to the community...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manish told [me](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9811294#9811294) and [Chris](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9825883#9825883) that they're off to see if the community is interested in reviewing close votes. As far as I've seen, only a few users are interested in reviewing close votes and even less members in reviewing reopen votes (as it requires somewhat deeper look into the post). They are right about the evaluation of community. As it looks like a good decision, I honor it. But, for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they doing now? (*Actually, where are they?* :D) Is this some kind of *secret spying?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="889e2b44-0ee9-474c-a77f-35f74a06b471" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:53:31.250" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I've noticed a sudden increment in the close vote queue (minimum 10 per day, upto 15 or so) for the past few days. Maybe people (except a few) haven't noticed that mods are having a vacation. I can feel their absence in the active page. They haven't informed anything about this to the community...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manish told [me](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9811294#9811294) and [Chris](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9825883#9825883) that they're off to see if the community is interested in reviewing close votes. As far as I've seen, only a few users are interested in reviewing close votes and even less members in reviewing reopen votes (as it requires somewhat deeper look into the post). They are right about the evaluation of community. As it looks like a good decision, I honor it. But, for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they doing now? (*Actually, where are they?* :D) Is this some kind of *secret spying?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;And, a humble message to my fellow users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##C'mon guys, Please spend a few minutes reviewing...  &#xD;&#xA;[We don't just ask &amp; answer. We can help it grow](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2921/11062) ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="980c4856-7ed0-4ce8-b88e-28c8ecf04262" CreationDate="2013-06-11T16:15:12.260" UserId="7433" Text="I used to be one of the more active mods in the queues. When I went on my 1.5 week vacation, my binding vote was lost and thus many posts in the CV queues stayed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, it seems that the others withdrew a bit more from CVing. We've always tried to &quot;wait for a couple of CVs to trickle in&quot;; nothing new in that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that there was any communication on this; it was more of a coincidence. I was away for that time, and one other mod was also quite busy. That may be enough to account for the jump of the queue to 40 when I got back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, after coming back I noticed that there had been quite a few community closes and a bunch of 4 vote qs as well. Which is quite good, I hadn't expected that. So I continued to ignore the CV queue. I would visit it now and then to take out a few questions, and I would sometimes act on some flags. But that's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the other mods looked at it in the same manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wasn't really a communicated decision of the mods. If necessary, I don't have an issue with returning to the queue. I already am keeping it at a manageable level and completing 4-community-vote closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this wasn't a communicated decision, &quot;how long&quot; isn't really known. It would be good to see how many community closes we can get in another week, IMO. If questions are taking less than a day to get community closed, then we may not need to actively VTC at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if the community really feels that we should just actively close everything that needs to be, I personally don't mind doing it. Just that it will be harder to scale as the site grows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, it's a mods job to handle what the community can't. On most sites, closing is not done by mods, it is instead (mostly) done by the community. If we can get there, the mod can then focus on more important things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, we're still here. Doing various things -- there are other things to deal with than closing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="15f88367-85c6-478e-90af-3d1f3bb142c0" CreationDate="2013-06-11T18:13:31.643" UserId="124" Text="We're not on vacation (well, Qmechanic is this week, but that's unrelated). And this has actually been going on for more than a few days. It was actually a few weeks ago that I noticed, as did the other mods (I presume), that we started getting some questions closed with three, four, or five community votes. So we're backing off the closing intentionally, to push the burden of closure on to the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="77bfc942-8ca7-4a85-bc74-82dc96fa3123" CreationDate="2013-06-11T18:33:52.793" UserId="124" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="We're not on vacation (well, Qmechanic is this week, but that's unrelated). And this has actually been going on for more than a few days. It was actually a few weeks ago that I noticed, as did the other mods (I presume), that we started getting some questions closed with three, four, or five community votes. So we're backing off the closing intentionally, to push the burden of closure on to the community. (To some extent. It's a gradual process.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="0da607e0-c3f8-4e1f-bc7d-dd15d595b7ad" CreationDate="2013-06-12T06:43:44.457" UserId="23339" Text="Is it possible to add the small ['slashed'](http://mirror.unl.edu/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/carlisle/slashed.sty) package to the SE latex environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="0da607e0-c3f8-4e1f-bc7d-dd15d595b7ad" CreationDate="2013-06-12T06:43:44.457" UserId="23339" Text="Addition of '\slashed{}' to Latex engine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="0da607e0-c3f8-4e1f-bc7d-dd15d595b7ad" CreationDate="2013-06-12T06:43:44.457" UserId="23339" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="6fa2be75-32c0-4833-a588-8df748d92bdd" CreationDate="2013-06-12T07:18:02.537" UserId="7433" Text="This is not under our control. You can submit a new feature request for MathJax [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8971" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="51110289-c134-4c7f-8ceb-446aeff7e0f7" CreationDate="2013-06-12T07:18:09.617" UserId="7433" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="cea248f8-565d-4022-a915-6db6933d055a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T08:27:51.290" UserId="21536" Text="I have asked a question regarding a solution to a differential equation I came to when trying to solve the motion equation of a single body in a gravitational potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/415467/how-to-solve-the-differential-equation-for-the-motion-equation-of-a-body-in-a-gr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I wanted to ask that question here, but since the tag [tag:mathematical-physics] arges to use Math.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DO	NOT USE THIS TAG just because your question involves math! If your question is on simplification of a mathematical expression, please ask it at math.stackexchange.com Mathematical physics is the application of mathematics to problems in physics and mathematical methods suitable for such applications [...]. It also includes the study of problems inspired by physics within a mathematically rigorous framework [...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked the question in Math.SE, but the quaestion over-there isn't answered and doesn't get a lot of attention, I believe that it'll get better (any) answers here. Should I migrate the question from Math.SE to Physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="cea248f8-565d-4022-a915-6db6933d055a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T08:27:51.290" UserId="21536" Text="should I migrate my question from Math.SE here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="cea248f8-565d-4022-a915-6db6933d055a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T08:27:51.290" UserId="21536" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4392" RevisionGUID="8ed54a03-5b38-4cac-a68d-bfaa45bfa596" CreationDate="2013-06-12T09:04:47.490" UserId="7433" Text="No. You seem to have managed the physics part, so the question is just asking for a solution to a given D.E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, &quot;how do I solve this&quot; is sort of off topic on Physics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insted, I suggest you place a bounty on the question on MSE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="beff67b1-7c0c-45f5-bb82-40c8432ef6c1" CreationDate="2013-06-12T17:02:55.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Extremely niche thing here that hardly affects anyone at all, but seems worth reporting to someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was reviewing a suggested edit (number 3 in the [revision history][1]) in side-by-side mode. One of the fixes had changed the source from something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $x = 3$ and $y = 5$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$x = 3$$ and $$y = 5$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The side-by-side display seems to miss the second and third `$$` symbols, concatenating both equations and the `and` into a single equation, which makes it somewhat difficult to see what the change is doing. At first glance it looks like the edit ruined everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more dramatic effect can be seen in the second revision, where the side-by-side display thinks entire sentences are inside math mode and so makes everything look like line noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this display mode is trying to strike a tricky balance between displaying changes in source and showing things as formatted where possible, but in cases like this, it doesn't help at all in the review process. Is there any fix for the parsing so that the segregation between text and math is respected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/67765/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="beff67b1-7c0c-45f5-bb82-40c8432ef6c1" CreationDate="2013-06-12T17:02:55.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Parsing of revisions involving insertion of dollar signs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="beff67b1-7c0c-45f5-bb82-40c8432ef6c1" CreationDate="2013-06-12T17:02:55.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|bug|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="23af2788-c272-4c55-b79d-6107f94a9787" CreationDate="2013-06-12T18:40:36.733" UserId="16689" Text="I've seen that a tag *polarization* exists. There is no definition associated with it. Unfortunately, it refers to a lot of different mechanisms, almost all of them having to do with classical electromagnetism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we fix this problem ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, most of the time the meaning is clear from the context. But it's still unsatisfactory, isn't it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="23af2788-c272-4c55-b79d-6107f94a9787" CreationDate="2013-06-12T18:40:36.733" UserId="16689" Text="About the polarization tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="23af2788-c272-4c55-b79d-6107f94a9787" CreationDate="2013-06-12T18:40:36.733" UserId="16689" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="c70530b8-d040-481b-b799-bb3c91763b81" CreationDate="2013-06-12T18:47:22.283" UserId="520" Text="With enough rep (can't find how much right now), you can (and are encouraged to: there's [a badge for that][1]) suggest a text for tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click the badge, then click the &quot;help us create it?&quot; link in the box at the top of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why don't you give us a definition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/53/tag-editor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="bec9782c-8782-4171-ac1d-0c7f588fa83c" CreationDate="2013-06-12T18:55:17.327" UserId="16689" Comment="more motivation" Text="I've seen that a tag *polarization* exists. There is no definition associated with it. Unfortunately, it refers to a lot of different mechanisms, almost all of them having to do with classical electromagnetism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we fix this problem ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, most of the time the meaning is clear from the context. But it's still unsatisfactory, isn't it ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, can we decide which tag's definition is the best ? I would vote for Polarization in the sense of light polarisation, like in this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves) And Maybe add a tag Polarizability for the creation of dipolar moment ? Or keep the tag Dipole moment (which already exists) for this last one ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you ok with this ? (vote up if you are for instance, or comment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="b735a28b-3533-4379-996e-2475b7d8b18e" CreationDate="2013-06-12T20:58:44.203" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="You can (and are encouraged to: there's [a badge for that][1]) suggest a text for tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click the badge, then click the &quot;help us create it?&quot; link in the box at the top of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why don't you give us a definition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/53/tag-editor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4396" RevisionGUID="147340c2-55d9-4ff4-ba7f-1706e5bd2c48" CreationDate="2013-06-12T21:13:13.953" UserId="16689" Text="Ok, done. Needs a referring.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your participation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="3eaeb327-346a-4230-bd68-7d7d8b182363" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:38:46.240" UserId="12798" Text="It would be very convenient to edit comments any time you want" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="3eaeb327-346a-4230-bd68-7d7d8b182363" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:38:46.240" UserId="12798" Text="Why do comments have a 5 minute time window for editing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="3eaeb327-346a-4230-bd68-7d7d8b182363" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:38:46.240" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="85045af5-9d4b-4be9-a559-772a3a909f5a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:56:31.103" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or does we need to come up with something from scratch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="85045af5-9d4b-4be9-a559-772a3a909f5a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:56:31.103" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What will our list of close reasons look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="85045af5-9d4b-4be9-a559-772a3a909f5a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:56:31.103" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="ec660a21-3db1-4ff4-8c37-550b196d1088" CreationDate="2013-06-13T00:00:11.773" UserId="520" Text="Comments are not intended to be permanent, important or prominent. Allowing arbitrary editing would require keeping a edit history and making it available to people trying to sort out why the comments now seem to be confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are intended to be a lightweight mechanism for requesting clarification and suggesting minor corrections. Yes, they are used for other purposes, but the team have been adamant that those are off label uses that have no official status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="9f4d6fd7-e07b-4f6f-9624-c1d20f5640be" CreationDate="2013-06-13T00:14:53.503" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added sentence; fixed typo" Text="As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8994" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="f1a15392-f960-4e80-a05d-56d44c2d8a92" CreationDate="2013-06-13T00:22:34.110" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added tag" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="0ea5e14c-8cd9-4877-b083-a9e10b985d4c" CreationDate="2013-06-13T07:00:25.477" UserId="7433" Text="The top two close reasons ( _real_ reasons, not the system reasons) that don't fit in unclear/broad/primarily-opinion-based (Great, now I have to remember new acronyms :S ) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Homeworky (frequency: a bajillion times a day): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433) expects homework and homework-like problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Please edit your question to explain what you have tried and highlight the concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I prefer &quot;We expect&quot;, but I can't think of a place to stick the policy link without making it too long)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream physics(frequency: a batch every ~week. Usually a single user asks many such questions):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other common OT thing which seems to be around twice a week is pure math questions (or physics questions that seem to be clear on the physics) being asked. But these get migrated, so there's no need for a separate OT reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, I can't think of any reason that's frequently needed. For edge cases we have the custom OT close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="b0cc14b9-f175-4734-a902-e33761482fef" CreationDate="2013-06-13T13:35:22.017" UserId="16689" Text="What is the general policy for completing an answer from an other user ? Should I prefer to start an other answer, just saying &quot;As user:xxx said, blabbla, BUT I would like to add blabla...&quot; or should I edit the previous answer, with the possibility to severely annoy its author ? After all, that's her/his answer... so is it well accepted to edit the others' answers ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, part of the answer should be wrong. Should I delete this part by myself, or make a comment to the author ? (I obviously prefer the second option, but the first one, if it become more accepted, could be time saving I believe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, an answer could be full of doubtful remarks like &quot;I believe that $x=y$... &quot;, but I know this is for sure. Should I edit the answer such that only &quot;$x=y$&quot; appears ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there are much more possibilities, I'm asking for your experience and knowledge about the edit of someone else's answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="b0cc14b9-f175-4734-a902-e33761482fef" CreationDate="2013-06-13T13:35:22.017" UserId="16689" Text="Which policy to complete an answer made by someone else ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="b0cc14b9-f175-4734-a902-e33761482fef" CreationDate="2013-06-13T13:35:22.017" UserId="16689" Text="|discussion|editing|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="537a2b43-3d87-44cd-934b-24905fa9f18b" CreationDate="2013-06-13T13:41:35.817" UserId="7433" Text="This has been asked [multiple][1] [times][2] on the main meta. In this case I'll just copy [my answer][3] over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If its just a bit of more info (read:a paragraph), add it and leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If it's a completely new bundle of stuff, but is based on stuff gleaned from the answer, write an addendum answer as described above.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hat it with &quot;This is in addition to @JonSkeet's answer&quot;. You may also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment on the original answer and ask the poster to incorporate your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer if s/he wishes--and then delete your answer once the deal is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; done ([Something smilar could have happened here][1], though it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; didn't).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22303/factors-affecting-torque-and-rpm-of-a-motor/22317#22317&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23197/how-can-one-imagine-curled-up-dimensions/23205#23205&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22125/penetration-versus-frequency/22134#22134&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23824/will-an-emf-be-induced-across-the-ends-of-a-stationary-metal-rod-placed-in-a-tim/23895#23895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of wrong answers (or parts of answers), leave a comment. Try not to make radical changes in edits -- you can tell the OP in a comment to make them himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/28817/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/129513/edit-an-existing-answer-or-incorporate-existing-answer-into-a-new-one&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/129515/178438&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="f3fbd12a-bb05-485a-a3c7-17d09a47385c" CreationDate="2013-06-13T17:08:02.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/345226066098524161" />
  <row Id="9001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="1c965914-fa1a-48a5-8923-89fb1d143570" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:27:24.257" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="As well as Environmental physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would these topics be considered on topic here - specifically, I am looking at instrumentation for monitoring and evaluation, as well as, for example - a comparison of UVA and UVB energy on the human skin and eyes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="1c965914-fa1a-48a5-8923-89fb1d143570" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:27:24.257" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="Would topics of biophysics and medical physics be on topic here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="1c965914-fa1a-48a5-8923-89fb1d143570" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:27:24.257" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="dd1c1415-6637-4b98-b723-309b475d74f6" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:34:49.363" UserId="7433" Text="Possibly, it depends on the question. However, note that [Biology.SE][1], [Chemistry.SE][2], and [the Sustainable Living SE][3] exist too. Look at their respective help centers (&quot;help&quot; link up top, see the &quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot; sections) and try to determine which site your question belongs on. If you end up asking on the wrong site, don't worry, it can be migrated (or improved to fit that site better).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you ask the question first and link to it in this post. Usually one deals with choosing the right site for interdisciplinary questions on a per-case basis. Note that some questions can be on topic for more than one site; in which case you can ask on either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it looks like your question would be better on Biology.SE. It could be on topic here; but I doubt that you would get an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biology.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="f1b9124d-5455-4a3f-b665-0a9847efa71e" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:38:43.720" UserId="16689" Text="I realized there is no tag about soft-matter, the branch of condensed matter / statistical physics. Would be great to add it, isn't it ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="f1b9124d-5455-4a3f-b665-0a9847efa71e" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:38:43.720" UserId="16689" Text="Creation of a soft-matter tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="f1b9124d-5455-4a3f-b665-0a9847efa71e" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:38:43.720" UserId="16689" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4406" RevisionGUID="7571ca1f-396e-4b05-93d5-951f271c3f59" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:45:45.060" UserId="7433" Text="If you find a fair number of questions that belong to the topic, sure, go ahead! To create the tag just add it to the questions. (if there are many such questions don't do it all at once to avoid flooding the main page)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="1e8f6cd8-4bad-4bf5-ba13-ab0cca98c46a" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:45:56.170" UserId="124" Text="Yeah, but you don't have to ask on meta to create a tag. Just put it on a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="7cd1208c-3af0-4584-89fa-8303d9816d1b" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:00:58.907" UserId="124" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Yeah, but you don't have to ask on meta to create a tag. Just put it on a few questions. (Ones where it belongs, of course.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9011" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="7c178fe8-55ee-4017-9793-6a56fb88989b" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:50:09.590" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68043/are-humorous-but-sincere-questions-for-non-scoentists-not-welcome-here" />
  <row Id="9012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="476edc2c-5de6-4f0f-ab8d-28613c420765" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:36:41.253" UserDisplayName="user25812" Text="My first ever question on this site was shut down before I could answer apparent objections to it so I am posting my reply to the moderator here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discovered this site when I googled a question regarding the physics of chemistry this morning and was enjoying surfing the various questions and answers my question had sparked when it occurred to me this might be the group to answer a REAL question I had from watching the Big Bang Theory, which claims it tries to get its physics right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion of scientist and engineers has always been very high and although I know some to be humor and satire-challenged, I nevertheless thought my question could be considered at least fun to speculate about. Much as Trekkers debate the physics of that show (with more than one book written on the subject by physicist). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am disappointed the reaction to my question was so instantly negative and, to a newbie non-scientist, kind of insulting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your explanation, Sir, and I understand the goal of your site. But come on, can you all lighten up just a little. Are you telling me none of you has ever challenge the science behind a movie or television show before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, iIf anyone is willing to shake this up a bit, my question still hasn't been answered. Is Sheldon Cooper's physics cutting edge? Could his theories win a Nobel Prize?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="476edc2c-5de6-4f0f-ab8d-28613c420765" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:36:41.253" UserDisplayName="user25812" Text="Are Humorous But Sincere Questions for Non-Scoentists Not Welcome Here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="476edc2c-5de6-4f0f-ab8d-28613c420765" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:36:41.253" UserDisplayName="user25812" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="6f327b38-85e3-4547-90a1-7e1889ee7dc2" CreationDate="2013-06-14T18:15:20.143" UserId="7433" Text="It's not that the users of this site are humor and satire challenged. Most of us enjoy humor just as much as the next guy. In fact, I watch TBBT myself, and enjoy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, the Q&amp;A portion of the site is meant for serious physics. &quot;Fun&quot; questions are OK, but they need to still be about physics. Your question was asking for an opinion of whether or not a scientist (of whom we know very little when it comes to his research) would win the Nobel prize. Three problems with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's opinion-based; such questions are disallowed more or less network wide.&#xD;&#xA; - We don't really know much about Sheldon, so there's no way to really form an informed opinion on this&#xD;&#xA; - The requirements for Nobel prizes aren't on topic here (we deal with the concepts of physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a TV show ever talked about correct physics (or partially correct physics), a question about that would be welcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing against humor here either, just that it's very hard to write a humorous but _valid_ question on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're welcome to discuss such things in  [chat][1] though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="bb500ab6-2a2e-40e9-a8ad-21bc471f35b4" CreationDate="2013-06-17T10:30:41.737" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="I try to answer as many questions as I can, and when I am not doing that, I am going to the 'review' section and doing what I can there and when that is done, I read through as many questions as possible (flagging if necessary, commenting as necessary) - is there anything else I can do to help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="bb500ab6-2a2e-40e9-a8ad-21bc471f35b4" CreationDate="2013-06-17T10:30:41.737" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="Is there any more I can do to help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="bb500ab6-2a2e-40e9-a8ad-21bc471f35b4" CreationDate="2013-06-17T10:30:41.737" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="bb48b911-2160-4451-9458-bddde2a708b6" CreationDate="2013-06-17T10:46:49.213" UserId="7433" Text="If you have time to waste, you may want to read [this guide I wrote to helping moderate the site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you already are commenting/flagging things and going to /review, then you probably have that covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to try editing posts to improve grammar/formatting as well (I think you already do this too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the best thing to do is look for more questions to answer (or ask some good ones yourself!). Sometimes, scouring through [the back end unanswered section sorted by votes][2] helps; there are many good questions that got neglected by accident there in the later pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're also welcome to participate in [chat][3]. This doesn't help the site, but it's fun :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2920/community-help-us-moderate-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?page=47&amp;tab=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="68cf60c1-37be-49a1-8512-a3f672e174dc" CreationDate="2013-06-17T15:27:35.283" UserId="25833" Text="My answer was posted twice by mistake, but I am allowed only to &quot;vote&quot; for deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;is it because I dont have enough reputation? Why can't  I delete my answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="68cf60c1-37be-49a1-8512-a3f672e174dc" CreationDate="2013-06-17T15:27:35.283" UserId="25833" Text="why can't I delete my answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="68cf60c1-37be-49a1-8512-a3f672e174dc" CreationDate="2013-06-17T15:27:35.283" UserId="25833" Text="|support|moderators|reputation|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="59ed8f93-0e62-4db9-b9c8-6459235a03d0" CreationDate="2013-06-17T16:15:23.183" UserId="7433" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks deleted to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users have a binding vote when it comes to deleting their own answers (it's a bit more complicated for questions). Similarly, they have a binding undelete vote _if_ they were the ones who deleted it in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WRJqj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9024" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="91ea8d72-d14f-4e60-8480-5303551a4178" CreationDate="2013-06-17T17:29:33.843" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|answers|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9025" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="5f21f462-f313-4819-a115-2c1137910926" CreationDate="2013-06-17T18:57:40.670" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="ff8a8635-be1e-437e-a6b0-5f43985f0039" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:51:09.443" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="[This question about the sun's circumference][1], I answered with what I *thought* was a helpful answer - it seems that a couple of others found it useful (2 upvotes), but I am getting grief about the answer being &quot;while strictly correct, but is enormously unsatisfying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not then, if an answer is &quot;enormously unsatisfying&quot;, post n alternative answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What have I done wrong this time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68120/how-is-suns-equatorial-circumference-measured/68125#68125" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="ff8a8635-be1e-437e-a6b0-5f43985f0039" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:51:09.443" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="What is wrong with my reply here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="ff8a8635-be1e-437e-a6b0-5f43985f0039" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:51:09.443" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4415" RevisionGUID="0d79314e-447b-4359-a93e-56ec1969f6ff" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:01:06.027" UserId="7433" Text="I guess the unsatisfying bit is the inclusion of &quot;Distance from Earth to the Sun&quot; in the formula.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that the question is a bit unclear in this aspect; I think it's trying to ask &quot;how was the Sun's diameter _first_ measured&quot;. From this point of view, talking about the E-S distance just raises another question &quot;how was the E-S distance calculated?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a rough analogy&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, this is similar to being asked &quot;How can I calculate the circumference of the Earth&quot;, and answering &quot;Multiply the diameter by $\pi$&quot;. Again, this is strictly correct, but not really satisfying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I've tried to make the issue clearer in this analogy by exaggerating the situation. I've found that folks sometimes easily get offended by such exaggerated analogies, so I'm just mentioning that I don't mean to offend here :)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="1025ace9-6b49-43c5-9544-fec9b4d25a5c" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:01:40.153" UserId="124" Text="Nobody downvoted your answer. That indicates that nobody thought it was unhelpful; on the other hand, two people thought it _was_ helpful. So honestly, your complaint is without merit. If people actually think something is wrong with your answer, they'll downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that posting an unsatisfying (or unhelpful, wrong, etc.) answer is not technically _wrong_, in the sense that it's not against the rules here. So you haven't _done_ anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, keep in mind that if e.g. I find another person's answer unsatisfying, inadqeuate, wrong, or so on, that has no bearing on whether I should post my own answer. The argument &quot;don't criticize me if you can't do better&quot; holds no water on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="cf7c2a72-0107-4962-b980-bbe15b708422" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:20:35.797" UserId="520" Text="I can only repeat what I wrote before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your answer is strictly correct.&#xD;&#xA;2. But you have assumed the hard part of the historical problem has already been solved and answered with a basic geometric identity so I found your answer to be uninteresting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and emphasize that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I did not vote your answer down.&#xD;&#xA;* No one else had voted your answer down.&#xD;&#xA;* A couple of people had found it useful enough to vote up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm having a hard time understanding how you get from a +2/-0 result on an answer to understanding that you have &quot;done [] something wrong&quot; or &quot;stuffed up&quot;. You are ahead with that answer and there is no reason to expect that you will ever be behind---the answer is correct as far as it goes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="f73f18a1-643d-4db1-9981-f996927cc896" CreationDate="2013-06-17T21:05:29.203" UserId="1255" Text="I confess to being one of those people.  I agree completely that you didn't need to delete your answer.  The pinhole camera suggestion meaningfully added to the discussion.  Reason is that you can't just take a protractor and measure the angle subtended by the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the criticism was that we don't have a measurement of the distance to the sun.  I hope that you don't take this to mean that *you didn't contribute* to answering the question, because you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the root of the quibbling, however, was the fact that someone asked a fairly low level question that has an extremely difficult answer.  Why do you think no one else has added an answer after that discussion?  Probably several people looked into it and quickly realized the problem is more difficult than they thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using references on Earth, how do you establish an astronomical length scale?  That question is **insanely** hard.  But is that what was asked?  To be nit-picky, yes, it was.  It was a simple question that stumbled on a really advanced and difficult question.  To answer that advanced question, one would still start out where you started out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="675f177f-a976-49a6-b306-a4a2c6e74c3b" CreationDate="2013-06-18T07:33:43.083" UserDisplayName="user11151" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by dmckee♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="675f177f-a976-49a6-b306-a4a2c6e74c3b" CreationDate="2013-06-18T07:33:43.083" UserDisplayName="user11151" Text="Wrong decisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="675f177f-a976-49a6-b306-a4a2c6e74c3b" CreationDate="2013-06-18T07:33:43.083" UserDisplayName="user11151" Text="|support|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9041" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="26dec94b-53be-4733-918a-172b1741327a" CreationDate="2013-06-18T07:42:11.897" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="edited title" Text="I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9042" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="bbe23c50-1174-4dbd-a5d4-a5ff4d905250" CreationDate="2013-06-18T08:58:18.967" UserId="124" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11062,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ϛѓăʑɏ βµԂԃϔ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Zaslavsky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="7f8efea6-22f0-4616-9a43-1cb0180c50da" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:08:12.143" UserId="16660" Text="I've noticed that - while browsing through questions and answers - I regularly come across an interesting question/answer but reading and understanding the answer or answering the question would take quite some time. That's fine, but we all have other things to do as well, don't we? So it happens that I think to myself: I should remember to come back here and fully try to understand this answer or write up an answer to this question when I have more time. (or even adjust an answer following a comment) However, I rarely do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is possible (and I have done this before) at the moment is to favourite such questions, but I don't think that's what the 'favourite' option is there for, is it? If it is, this is mostly a suggestion to alter some of its functionality (and add it next to answers as well). If it isn't, here's what I think we could use: something like a reminder, a literal note-to-self. Perhaps a 'Revisit' button, which gives you a similar alert to when people have mentioned you in a comment or something, only that the alert doesn't go away until you have removed it yourself by unclicking the 'Revisit' button for that particular question/answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="7f8efea6-22f0-4616-9a43-1cb0180c50da" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:08:12.143" UserId="16660" Text="Can a reminder-type concept be introduced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="7f8efea6-22f0-4616-9a43-1cb0180c50da" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:08:12.143" UserId="16660" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="e0cba905-1559-44d1-a825-3033f397f510" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:19:22.450" UserId="66" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by a particular moderator yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want said moderator's closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9047" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="e0cba905-1559-44d1-a825-3033f397f510" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:19:22.450" UserId="66" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want a particular moderator's closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9048" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="16da0715-03f9-4c2f-9e6c-1fae48a11305" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:37:40.650" UserId="16660" Comment="Edit title to not only ask if it can be done, but (what's more important) if it should be done" Text="Can/should a reminder-type concept be introduced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9049" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="a2661c7e-c3b5-45b8-be4e-eec157744213" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:01:01.377" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="Rollback to [26dec94b-53be-4733-918a-172b1741327a]" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by dmckee♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9050" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="a2661c7e-c3b5-45b8-be4e-eec157744213" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:01:01.377" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="Rollback to [26dec94b-53be-4733-918a-172b1741327a]" Text="I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9051" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="11910505-d88a-4c50-a627-0899c083a867" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:05:17.837" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [e0cba905-1559-44d1-a825-3033f397f510]" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by a particular moderator yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want said moderator's closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9052" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="11910505-d88a-4c50-a627-0899c083a867" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:05:17.837" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [e0cba905-1559-44d1-a825-3033f397f510]" Text="I want a particular moderator's closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9053" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="d56f63f9-fb29-4c2f-af08-3bb99ab42896" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:10:16.967" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="Rollback to [a2661c7e-c3b5-45b8-be4e-eec157744213]" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by dmckee♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9054" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="d56f63f9-fb29-4c2f-af08-3bb99ab42896" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:10:16.967" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="Rollback to [a2661c7e-c3b5-45b8-be4e-eec157744213]" Text="I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9055" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="2d76f2f5-70d8-45ad-a6ae-88dfed8d9d33" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:12:52.253" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [11910505-d88a-4c50-a627-0899c083a867]" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by a particular moderator yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want said moderator's closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9056" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="2d76f2f5-70d8-45ad-a6ae-88dfed8d9d33" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:12:52.253" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [11910505-d88a-4c50-a627-0899c083a867]" Text="I want a particular moderator's closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9057" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="1593a797-d272-4e38-ab5d-879c9cd0292f" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:13:04.440" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9058" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="b337635b-d7ea-43f8-b22e-41c70c566d63" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:13:04.440" UserId="7433" Comment="1007" />
  <row Id="9059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="58917845-515a-44e6-abc8-27baaf1341ed" CreationDate="2013-06-18T11:40:04.737" UserId="7433" Text="The &quot;favorite&quot; feature is one that you can (ab)use as much as you want without any problems. When you favorite a question, you get updates delivered to the [favorites tab on your profile.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quora has a nice &quot;save draft&quot; feature, which adds the question to an &quot;unanswered questions&quot; tab. I'd be happy if that were implemented, though I don't see that happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [this has been proposed before][2]. It's not [meta-tag:status-declined], so not officially declined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/16660/wouter?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/4719/add-answer-later-tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9060" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="877acbee-4d70-4678-94d2-8d0f6569cb82" CreationDate="2013-06-18T12:49:13.007" UserId="-1" Comment="1007" />
  <row Id="9061" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="99a3e64e-d3c7-4e80-8c73-08d466f74295" CreationDate="2013-06-18T12:49:13.007" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9062" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="b2174aad-bdf9-4c1e-a009-4c605b8ee2a8" CreationDate="2013-06-18T17:34:52.280" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="Rollback to [d56f63f9-fb29-4c2f-af08-3bb99ab42896]" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by dmckee♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9063" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="b2174aad-bdf9-4c1e-a009-4c605b8ee2a8" CreationDate="2013-06-18T17:34:52.280" UserDisplayName="user11151" Comment="Rollback to [d56f63f9-fb29-4c2f-af08-3bb99ab42896]" Text="I want dmckee♦'s closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="80272bfb-ff6a-44a3-8a07-7fb98e8cb95c" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:51:31.840" UserId="25833" Text="I have 33 points in physics SE. Not much but enough to make upvotes. I recently had a question on chemistry SE. What I found that Points don't  add up between the two sites so I can't upvote.  But as I know the two websites are linked.  In what way are they linked and how." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="80272bfb-ff6a-44a3-8a07-7fb98e8cb95c" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:51:31.840" UserId="25833" Text="why aren't the points added up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="80272bfb-ff6a-44a3-8a07-7fb98e8cb95c" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:51:31.840" UserId="25833" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9069" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="bf9b9dc8-e4d6-45a8-a85e-894be034071e" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:54:49.913" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="79de283c-5b5a-4538-b90f-267931152405" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:58:21.087" UserId="520" Text="The purpose of reputation on Stack Exchange sites is mostly to codify the degree to which each site trusts each user. because the detailed rules differ from site to site rep is not transitive or transferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, because the most basic features of the engine are the same from site to site, users that pass a basic threshold (200 rep) on one site can associate accounts to get a small bonus (100 rep) on all sites that will allow basic actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9071" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="84cc7d29-0876-4338-937c-bcf8d9cbce96" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:59:01.167" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [2d76f2f5-70d8-45ad-a6ae-88dfed8d9d33]" Text="I asked http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by a particular moderator yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want said moderator's closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9072" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="84cc7d29-0876-4338-937c-bcf8d9cbce96" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:59:01.167" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [2d76f2f5-70d8-45ad-a6ae-88dfed8d9d33]" Text="I want a particular moderator's closing rights to be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="b6e1d353-f596-4e05-a539-90e7c178a10f" CreationDate="2013-06-18T19:03:06.807" UserId="7433" Text="The sites are on the same network of sites -- the Stack Exchange network. Your accounts are linked network-wide as well; when you create a new account on another site using the same credentials; it gets added to your network account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, reputation doesn't add up. The communities on each site are separate, and so are the reputation values. Reputation is tied to the privilege system, which includes community moderation tools. Someone who knows the policies on closing question on Physics may not know the policies on Chemistry&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that once you get 200 reputation on any site, you get a +100 bonus on all sites you have an account on. In addition to that, if you join another site, you will start with 101 reputation (thus bypassing most new user restrictions -- you'll be able to upvote and comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as a Chemistry moderator, welcome to Chemistry.SE! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. That being said, in this case the two sites follow almost identical policies. But that won't apply for a pair of random network sites.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9074" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="e11431be-936d-4cfb-921f-fde04c98b8dd" CreationDate="2013-06-18T19:21:47.183" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9075" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="25246fc6-244c-4448-b39e-35c7f271205f" CreationDate="2013-06-18T19:21:47.183" UserId="7433" Comment="1008" />
  <row Id="9076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="87acb191-f926-4b8f-b4d9-5f3ff18c4937" CreationDate="2013-06-18T20:52:36.923" UserId="12798" Text="As the activity on Physics Stack exchange is increasing and steadily, It is getting difficult to browse through questions. Roughly ~ 9 hours or so, the questions disappear from the main page. One is forced to search either using tags, which is somewhat inconvenient and one is likely to miss interesting stuff as one cannot cover every tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly is there a way access older questions(~1-3 days) from the main page in an easy way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, I propose adding previous and next buttons to the active section of the main page(and perhaps others ), preferably along with numbered pages(roughly covering a weeks activity) that will allow the user to access older questions with ease." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="87acb191-f926-4b8f-b4d9-5f3ff18c4937" CreationDate="2013-06-18T20:52:36.923" UserId="12798" Text="Previous next buttons on the main page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="87acb191-f926-4b8f-b4d9-5f3ff18c4937" CreationDate="2013-06-18T20:52:36.923" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="64e0b573-a587-4a3c-ae2f-61331faf0f62" CreationDate="2013-06-18T20:56:08.200" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Firstly is there a way access older questions(~1-3 days) from the main page in an easy way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Questions tab, sorted by &quot;active&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secondly, I propose adding previous and next buttons to the active section of the main page(and perhaps others ), preferably along with numbered pages(roughly covering a weeks activity) that will allow the user to access older questions with ease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pagination is already there on the Questions tab (no particular need for forward/back buttons imo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a particular need for this, besides, once you reach the end of the main page you already are presented with this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=active&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GtuIX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="526c65b2-0245-4a14-a487-7183f4ae5d3b" CreationDate="2013-06-18T21:35:38.573" UserId="2146" Text="&gt; What have I done wrong this time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially being too sensitive to fair, constructive criticisim of your answer, that replaced one measurement with another, without explaining how the new measurement was to be carried out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did you do right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking on board the criticism in the comments and improving the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9081" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="652e93ec-fa6f-477c-a2d9-80a01d6d9295" CreationDate="2013-06-19T04:02:04.520" UserId="25992" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="f8f9dfe6-3b90-4b38-8bbb-eb23d503621c" CreationDate="2013-06-19T05:15:42.910" UserId="23119" Text="I have noticed some &quot;non-mainstream&quot; (it may be rude to say crackpot) questions and answers recently such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68508/mass-term-in-the-minkowski-metric-and-an-oscillation-model-in-lorentz-group&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68503/help-me-test-and-prove-this-theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16227/what-is-the-kinematics-of-a-particle-with-complex-mass/18678#18678&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18645/plausible-explanations-for-3-local-space-dimensions/18666#18666&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17939/what-if-we-could-give-photons-some-mass/18676#18676&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1869/what-reasons-are-there-to-suspect-string-theory-may-be-an-incorrect-theory/16655#16655 (an instance of calling rather mainstream theory, string theory as fringe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results/26909#26909&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I am flagging these as &quot;spam&quot; because they are pretty much like advertisements but isn't it better to have a more specific flag associated with these, like &quot;Non-mainstream&quot;? Since &quot;Spam&quot; usually refers to answers like &quot;me too! I would like to thank so and so website for leading me here&quot; or &quot;me too! So and so company can help you!&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, has this &quot;Non-mainstream&quot; -flag been proposed before? And what are your thoughts about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="f8f9dfe6-3b90-4b38-8bbb-eb23d503621c" CreationDate="2013-06-19T05:15:42.910" UserId="23119" Text="A &quot;non-mainstream&quot; flag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="f8f9dfe6-3b90-4b38-8bbb-eb23d503621c" CreationDate="2013-06-19T05:15:42.910" UserId="23119" Text="|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="1b25b3a4-90e6-4542-bcc1-bea71918b057" CreationDate="2013-06-19T05:27:42.960" UserId="124" Text="Yep, this has already been proposed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4400/124), and it'll be implemented as soon as we have custom close reasons enabled. That might be happening later this week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the spam flag should only be used for actual spam, by which I mean purely promotional posts with no relevance to the site. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CIALIS VIAGRA PRON xxx.example.com!!!!1!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, I'm not very good at writing spam, but you get the idea. Posts about non-mainstream theories are not spam (in the sense of the flag) unless they link to some crackpot website promoting the theory and the purpose of the post is clearly nothing more than promotion of the site. Without that link, if non-mainstream posts are questions, flag them as off topic; if they are answers, downvote them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4433" RevisionGUID="617b6924-0242-4eee-8c9b-9468c94a2217" CreationDate="2013-06-19T05:48:43.617" UserId="2751" Text="Since Physics SE is about mainstream physics, you can flag such questions as off topic and it is best to clearly state in a comment on the question, that and maybe why you are sure it is not mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning answers containing non mainstream physics, it is a bit more complicated since for answers there is no off topic flag reason. In this case I always chose the flag option to call for moderator attention and say in the text field that this answer promotes non mainstream physics and is therefore off topic. Leaving a comment below the answer does not hurt too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9087" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="67a83236-3071-4bde-8262-bb35e1ad2f35" CreationDate="2013-06-19T23:09:13.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/347491286590291969" />
  <row Id="9088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="3f93b383-9a0d-42a9-bfe6-7568bb3c0e14" CreationDate="2013-06-20T09:39:53.393" UserId="11376" Text="I recently posted this question over [here][1] , It was currently closed as off topic, I posted this question in order to know the impacts/effects related to physics while we using the mobile phones inside airplanes, so i choosed physics.se and posted it over here, Can anyone explain why my question is off topic here, as it basically covers about the physical effects while using phones inside airplanes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks In advance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68571/why-cant-you-use-your-cellphone-on-an-airplane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="3f93b383-9a0d-42a9-bfe6-7568bb3c0e14" CreationDate="2013-06-20T09:39:53.393" UserId="11376" Text="Why My question over here considered as off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="3f93b383-9a0d-42a9-bfe6-7568bb3c0e14" CreationDate="2013-06-20T09:39:53.393" UserId="11376" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="420f8bb0-2ed2-41f3-8a4e-340d9a9b28ac" CreationDate="2013-06-20T10:12:32.687" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; [In the end this is a question about policy and technology not about physics as such][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question is partly electronics and partly bureaucracy. A pure physics answer would just be able to say &quot;there's a possibility of interference&quot;; there's not much more we can give here. Explaining the interference would be more of an electronics issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And all of this would require a deep understanding of how the plane communication systems and sensors work. That's engineering, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's not something that can be adequately answered here. If you look at the current answer, there's almost no physics involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you have a look at [this page and the references therein][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68571/why-cant-you-use-your-cellphone-on-an-airplane#comment138625_68571&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="5b0bc2f7-583c-4ca9-a1eb-78354ea183d3" CreationDate="2013-06-20T21:29:57.003" UserDisplayName="user24901" Text="Okay, it seems I am not even flagging right... that, on top of still not being sure whether to reply to a question as stated or what we perceive the question is asking, I will just do lead-in comments (unless I am screwing them up as well) and edits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="1cf0f2b0-1d68-4d29-bc08-dccecb9b6b95" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:05:43.577" UserId="520" Text="What demonstrates a complete rejection of an idea better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A unilateral decision by a moderator to delete a answer&#xD;&#xA;* A hail of downvotes from the community placing the answer deep in negative score territory. (And with questions a hail of downvotes plus a community close.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, given the number of times a week one moderator or another is accused of &quot;doing it wrong&quot; do you really want to encourage a culture in which we are aggressive about deleting content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have a class of users who regularly offer correct answer to basic questions generating some rep for their account. Downvoting rather than deleting their off-the-mainstream answers also serves to hold their rep down lest it fool a naive reader (*&quot;Oh look that guy has a pretty good rep, he must be on to something&quot;*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="08d1defb-edbe-4854-ad3e-fb005af7c25e" CreationDate="2013-06-21T20:49:31.223" UserId="520" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="What demonstrates a complete rejection of an idea better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A unilateral decision by a moderator to delete a answer&#xD;&#xA;* A hail of downvotes from the community placing the answer deep in negative score territory. (And with questions a hail of downvotes plus a community close.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, given the number of times a week one moderator or another is accused of &quot;doing it wrong&quot; do you really want to encourage a culture in which we are aggressive about deleting content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have a class of users who regularly offer correct answer to basic questions generating some rep for their account while at the same time promoting some--shall we say--&quot;unusual&quot; point of view on a more advanced topic. Downvoting rather than deleting their off-the-mainstream answers also serves to hold their rep down lest it fool a naive reader (*&quot;Oh look that guy has a pretty good rep, he must be on to something&quot;*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="e4bfc1b9-67c7-4132-b840-334579325ad4" CreationDate="2013-06-22T14:04:29.070" UserId="1492" Text="My example is this [drastic editing to the question][1] I had replied, which is a drastic rewrite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the original questioners asked to approve of the change even though their reputation is below 10?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68790/conceptual-doubts-in-em-waves-and-old-quantum-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="e4bfc1b9-67c7-4132-b840-334579325ad4" CreationDate="2013-06-22T14:04:29.070" UserId="1492" Text="are there limits to editing questions by third parties?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="e4bfc1b9-67c7-4132-b840-334579325ad4" CreationDate="2013-06-22T14:04:29.070" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="5700878f-0225-47a4-89dc-93bd6ad58c6c" CreationDate="2013-06-22T14:09:21.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/348442586303832066" />
  <row Id="9104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="48f27e39-4483-4ff3-ae13-e036b410198a" CreationDate="2013-06-22T14:14:01.870" UserId="7433" Text="Regarding that particular question, it's not been drastically edited. Formatting and grammar has been improved, that's pretty much it. (look closely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general, radical edits get rejected as &quot;too radical&quot;. Note that the OP gets a notification of an edit or a suggested edit, so s/he can always rollback or reject it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="99b7226b-8ed5-46c1-ad21-d14fb15e7d30" CreationDate="2013-06-22T18:09:41.867" UserId="66" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="My example is this [drastic edit to the question][1] I had replied to, which is a drastic rewrite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the original questioners asked to approve of the change even though their reputation is below 10?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68790/conceptual-doubts-in-em-waves-and-old-quantum-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9107" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="99b7226b-8ed5-46c1-ad21-d14fb15e7d30" CreationDate="2013-06-22T18:09:41.867" UserId="66" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there limits to editing questions by third parties?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9108" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="99b7226b-8ed5-46c1-ad21-d14fb15e7d30" CreationDate="2013-06-22T18:09:41.867" UserId="66" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9109" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="a3a7daf7-d87a-4861-85f9-b34a6768605d" CreationDate="2013-06-22T19:59:39.623" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9110" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="f7c7fc9d-c69e-47da-a01d-c0ad7838269b" CreationDate="2013-06-22T20:00:40.877" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="c89d8ad6-8d45-4960-8892-250036785426" CreationDate="2013-06-23T07:02:31.360" UserId="23119" Text="I have noticed that often, when I flag questions, they are marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, but the question never gets closed, nor does it get any &quot;vote to close&quot; from those with $\geq 3000 \operatorname{rep}$. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this? Are the flags accidentally marked as &quot;helpful&quot;? But it seems too much of a coincidence that there are so many flags like that! Or maybe, the reviewers changed their mind later on ? And most of these questions are really questions that are very harmful to the site..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, sometimes, the converse is true. The flag is declined at first but the question is closed. That is good however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="c89d8ad6-8d45-4960-8892-250036785426" CreationDate="2013-06-23T07:02:31.360" UserId="23119" Text="Flags marked &quot;helpful&quot; but question not closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="c89d8ad6-8d45-4960-8892-250036785426" CreationDate="2013-06-23T07:02:31.360" UserId="23119" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="4437d115-5b6d-408f-b325-1862df471fc1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T07:54:47.060" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have noticed that often, when I flag questions, they are marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, but the question never gets closed, nor does it get any &quot;vote to close&quot; from those with &gt;3k rep. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this? Are the flags accidentally marked as &quot;helpful&quot;? But it seems too much of a coincidence that there are so many flags like that! Or maybe, the reviewers changed their mind later on ? And most of these questions are really questions that are very harmful to the site..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, sometimes, the converse is true. The flag is declined at first but the question is closed. That is good however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9115" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="4437d115-5b6d-408f-b325-1862df471fc1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T07:54:47.060" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="462b186c-6969-4925-ad20-5d01b3f67840" CreationDate="2013-06-23T11:16:08.957" UserId="7433" Text="See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/105391/why-does-flag-marking-as-helpful-declined-not-always-correlate-with-moderator-ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when the moderator sees a flag and has to think for a while over the flag, reading the post carefully (i.e., the action that should be taken is not immediately obvious), the flag gets marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, even if the post doesn't get closed/deleted. &quot;Helpful&quot; means &quot;While it may not have applied for this post, don't stop flagging posts for similar reasons&quot;. After all, each post is different, and we don't want to discourage you from flagging a similr post (where the flag may be valid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, IIRC a close flag gets marked as helpful on the first close vote a post receives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your specific flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe: While popular science-y, this is neither unclear nor off topic IMO. However, similar questions may tend to be of the same type.&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear This isn't off topic, questions about standards are OK here _as long as they aren't too localized_&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe#question In my opinion, this probably can be closed as non-mainstream since it effectively proposes a theory and asks for evaluation. However, I'll let the handling moderator deal with this.&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision Your flag here was marked as &quot;helpful&quot; by [Community ♦](http://physics.stackexchang.com/users/-1), so it got [voted to close][1] by a few users (the votes have now expired). I personally would have declined the flag: While the question does talk of a possibly crackpot theory, it is asking for evaluation of one point within the theory, and it's to a sufficient degree physical. (Of course, it would have helped if he replaced &quot;all life&quot; with &quot;most life&quot;, but that is clear from the context)&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is You seemed to want it deleted, not just closed. There's no reason to do that; downvoted closed posts get auto-deleted anyway, and there' no particular need to wipe such posts off Physics.SE (they don't show up on the main page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/17508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="cb416de6-c202-4d68-a0f4-b4bb24f1f9af" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:57:47.167" UserId="7911" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the research-level tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of popular tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that `popular`, `research-level`, and `homework` are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research-level tag was proposed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a `research-level`/`homework`/`popular` distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, `research-level` and `popular` tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the `homework` tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the `popular` tag would be mutually exclusive with `homework` and `research-level`, it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="cb416de6-c202-4d68-a0f4-b4bb24f1f9af" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:57:47.167" UserId="7911" Text="Can we encourage the &quot;research-level&quot; meta tag? What about a &quot;popular&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="cb416de6-c202-4d68-a0f4-b4bb24f1f9af" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:57:47.167" UserId="7911" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="a3aa94cf-5658-44e1-bcf1-65958927978e" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:32:12.393" UserId="2751" Text="I exactly agree with the nice and helpful suggestions in this question. Categorizing the questions as suggested by [tag:homework], [tag:popular-science], and [tag:research-level] could very nicely help making the site better for people interested in all of these three mutually exclusive categories of questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People could then not only filter topics they are interested in, but also the level of the posts they enjoy to read. I am quite sure this would help releasing a lot of the accumulated tension between the different groups with different knowledge and background on physics we now have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe people who know what a research-level questions in certain topics is could start attaching that tag as they see fit, people interested in obtaining nontechnical equation free answers could use the popular-science tag, and the homework tag is already getting put where appropriate anyway. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="766effd0-7709-4af7-a7ce-59e5460c3d77" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:55:21.993" UserId="7911" Comment="&quot;popular&quot; --&gt; &quot;popular-science&quot;" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="b71d0b3a-e25d-4308-9683-150dd8c85ebd" CreationDate="2013-06-25T00:24:46.937" UserId="7911" Comment="Expanded discussion of popular-science tag" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton has pointed out that we already have a [tag:popular-science] tag.  Currently, it only has 14 questions tagged.  I claim we should emphasize this tag just like we should emphasize [tag:research-level].  Furthermore, it is important that we develop a reasonably objective definition.  (@Manishearth worries that this tag might determined more by subjective *tone* rather than content.)  I propose this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular-science questions are accessible to a layman with minimal physics training.  They would be appropriate in a newspaper article or non-academic magazine.  Such question are distinct from research-level questions, which are of professional interest to physicists.  They are also distinct from homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suggested this as the tag wiki excerpt, which is the short-definition of this tag and which appears as a tooltip when someone hovers over the tag. (Someone with 20k is needed to approve it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9130" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="b4eef5c6-3c56-4a93-b447-8d381270030e" CreationDate="2013-06-25T00:52:45.840" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="2e89ece7-87e0-4df0-9ae4-25ecc868d4d0" CreationDate="2013-06-25T11:42:12.983" UserId="7433" Text="For the [tag:research-level] tag, I think there are two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We haven't defined what exactly constitutes research level. Solution: Define it better by discussing on meta. (I don't know enough to contribute to that discussion)&#xD;&#xA; - We don't have enough people patrolling the main page retagging. Solution: Whenever you see a research level question on the main page, quickly retag it. That goes for everyone :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding [tag:popular]: I am against this, for multiple reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, its a meta tag. Not exactly allowed in the first place. [tag:research-level] exists to better accomodate the TP community (and it's not exactly a meta tag in the first place, just a broad tag). [tag:homework] exists because the site will experience withdrawal symptoms if removed (a lot of people rely on it already).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, it's a very unclear and subjective matter if something is popsci. Take a look at the current stuff tagged [tag:popular-science] and you'll see what I mean. Popsci is usually confined to introductory relativity, String theory (and M theory), and QM explained in layman's terms. However, a lot of posts asked by laymen which have to do with other physics with have been tagged with this. So it's currently being used as a tag which denotes &quot;layman's terms&quot;. Too broad, and a complete meta tag. If we use it to mean the topics listed by me above, that could work, but I don't see much use of it then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, a lot of it depends on the tone the post is asked in. Tags should be on the basis of topic, not tone.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="eea4ead4-2fde-4503-873a-0224732b0a99" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:50:18.543" UserId="7433" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="One for the SE team: can we get an official migration path for moving questions from physics.SE to math.SE? A non-negligible fraction of the off-topic questions we get here are purely mathematical in nature and mbq or I wind up moving them to the math site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current stats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 90 days, 25 questions have been migrated from Phy.SE to Math.SE, with a 4% rejection rate (that's [1 rejected migration][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could we have this now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60331/what-does-the-following-statement-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="d197ee5f-17d0-4db3-9180-6cbf56ec5afe" CreationDate="2013-06-26T00:26:02.800" UserId="7433" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="Update from Manishearth: Now that migration to Math.SE seems to be reasonably high, I'm bumping this to see if we can get the migration path now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One for the SE team: can we get an official migration path for moving questions from physics.SE to math.SE? A non-negligible fraction of the off-topic questions we get here are purely mathematical in nature and mbq or I wind up moving them to the math site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current stats (26 June, 2013):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 90 days, 25 questions have been migrated from Phy.SE to Math.SE, with a 4% rejection rate (that's [1 rejected migration][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could we have this now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60331/what-does-the-following-statement-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9134" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="45fdd775-3ff8-480d-bac5-ec0418f9c60f" CreationDate="2013-06-26T05:09:36.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/349756306250403840" />
  <row Id="9135" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="cc8438de-6786-40de-9c78-5e6632c95f49" CreationDate="2013-06-26T13:05:26.177" UserId="7433" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9136" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a7499f4e-1d6a-4ab3-8e87-8b7a8667982a" CreationDate="2013-06-26T13:05:33.163" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="4f89cf4e-6327-4530-b93c-69e37250c3e9" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:55:51.587" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="You know the one I mean, T&lt;sub&gt;μν&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Is it the stress-energy tensor, or the energy-momentum tensor? This is for the purposes of tags, where having both is redundant. This was brought up in [chat][1], and there is a [proposal][2] on our little-visited tag synonyms page. However, it was pointed out there that the idea of just combining everything into [tag:stress-energy-momentum-tensor] won't work due to character limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I dare anyone to claim with a straight face that they would *actually* say &quot;stress-energy-momentum tensor&quot; in conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose that **one** of [tag:stress-energy-tensor] or [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] be taken to be &quot;standard,&quot; with the other made a synonym. My understanding is that either tag can then be applied, with the synonym silently being replaced, no harm done, no retagging effort necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than proposing a synonym on my own, only to have no one look at that page anyway,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I figure this proposal should get some community consensus as to which way the replacement should go. I personally grew up learning that &quot;stress-energy&quot; was a tensor and &quot;energy-momentum&quot; was a 4-vector, but perhaps I'm in the minority, or perhaps there's good reason to differentiate as much as possible the stress-energy tensor of relativity from the stress tensor of mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote below as you see appropriate, or add your own original thoughts in another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yes, I am fully aware that string of symbols refers to an unspecified *component* of a tensor, and not an actual tensor. Mathematically precise people, please don't hurt me. Everyone else, I still reserve the right to admonish you for conflating these two things :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; There are [plenty of other suggestions there][3] - interested users should vote on them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9961168#9961168&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4446&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9140" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="4f89cf4e-6327-4530-b93c-69e37250c3e9" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:55:51.587" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="That tensor from GR - what do we call it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9141" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="4f89cf4e-6327-4530-b93c-69e37250c3e9" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:55:51.587" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="c266e83a-7da9-4e49-aa67-f99d0478d8fc" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:55:51.587" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Let's go with [tag:stress-energy-tensor] as the preferred version and administer the synonymization [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] → [tag:stress-energy-tensor]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="b7bc1a31-e268-4ef6-b33e-90862e2b3576" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:57:02.483" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Let's go with [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] as the preferred version and administer the synonymization [tag:stress-energy-tensor] → [tag:energy-momentum-tensor]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9147" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="36bbc898-05e3-4e86-8789-18cf80ec9d80" CreationDate="2013-06-27T11:09:37.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/350209294035193856" />
  <row Id="9148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="e142cf20-1da0-4c08-9aad-3297cd6fbe59" CreationDate="2013-06-27T11:20:38.017" UserId="2451" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Let's go with [tag:stress-energy-tensor] as the preferred version and administer the synonymization [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] → [tag:stress-energy-tensor].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Number of unfiltered Google hits](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22stress%E2%80%93energy+tensor%22): About 117,000 hits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="ff292ff0-8418-4407-9652-227d76107482" CreationDate="2013-06-27T11:21:39.503" UserId="2451" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Let's go with [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] as the preferred version and administer the synonymization [tag:stress-energy-tensor] → [tag:energy-momentum-tensor].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Number of unfiltered Google hits](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22energy-momentum+tensor%22): About 1,560,000 hits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="eae96913-892d-44d6-ba99-79ddabd2f4d9" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:04:04.050" UserId="23119" Text="The tag [tag:research-level] is supposed to be applied to questions which are not popular-science, which want technical answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think the name is very deterring to those who want to ask such questions. I (and I'm sure many others) haven't used the tag at all simply because it seems like a tag that means something on the lines of orignal-research. I have often been tempted to (but I didn't) remove the tag from other questions because it seemed like a misuse of the word &quot;research&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only yesterday did I see that it really refers to technical (i.e. non-popular-science) questions after reading http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this tag should be renamed first, so that users are encouraged to use it. Here are some proposals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:technical-question]&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:actual-physics-question]&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:advanced-physics-question]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="eae96913-892d-44d6-ba99-79ddabd2f4d9" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:04:04.050" UserId="23119" Text="Changing the name of the [tag:research-level] tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="eae96913-892d-44d6-ba99-79ddabd2f4d9" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:04:04.050" UserId="23119" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4461" RevisionGUID="511f737b-2090-4d4d-9c52-a96d5b62740b" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:09:56.240" UserId="7433" Text="[tag:technical] and [tag:advanced] are even more ambiguous, and [tag:actual] is demeaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Only yesterday did I see that it really refers to technical (i.e. non-popular-science) questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is wrong. It refers to _research level_ physics, the kind that was allowed on the erstwhile TheoreticalPhysics.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="33e28d5a-df46-434f-8cb4-718fdcac2c8f" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:44:29.850" UserId="2751" Text="I think when we use [tag:research-level] as defined in the **tag-wiki** which says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The research-level tag applies to questions that arise in graduate and post-secondary work. These questions often require domain-specific knowledge and could not be answered from a general source or may be beyond the level typically covered by Wikipedia and other popular sources. research-level questions should not require new or groundbreaking research and results to answer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it can quite reasonably be used to mark higher-level / advanced / technical questions as it has been done up to now. These questions do not have to be about ground breaking original research." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="588a0c3d-c629-43ab-b24a-92ab6ad5cc65" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:53:03.347" UserId="2751" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="I think when we use [tag:research-level] as defined in the **tag-wiki** which says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The research-level tag applies to questions that arise in graduate and post-secondary work. These questions often require domain-specific knowledge and could not be answered from a general source or may be beyond the level typically covered by Wikipedia and other popular sources. research-level questions should not require new or groundbreaking research and results to answer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it can quite reasonably be used to mark higher-level / advanced / technical questions as it has been done up to now. These questions do not have to be about ground breaking original research. TP.SE was not primarly about original research either (even though it happend that people discussed what is in their actual new arxiv papers too sometimes) , but about high-level questions concerning theoretical physics topics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="b8aed112-0e57-4b30-9663-06bd620fd5f0" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:35:39.777" UserId="23473" Text="A little while ago I answered this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66599/what-is-the-suns-spectral-series/66604#66604.  For whatever reason (I'm not exactly sure), I went well outside what was expected in answering it; I provided a lot of un-asked-for information. Personally, I'm quite proud of myself for the level of detail I put into it. However, I now feel that this answer would be better suited for a question that more directly asks for that information. I considered modifying the current question to better suit my answer, but that would change the essence of the question too much if you ask me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I want to know is if I can ask my own question that is tailored to this answer and can I (with some minor tweaks) re-post this answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to do this, would my question just be flagged as a duplicate? I fully intend to make a different enough question, but the answer would be more or less the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a win-win scenario here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="b8aed112-0e57-4b30-9663-06bd620fd5f0" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:35:39.777" UserId="23473" Text="Can I use one of my previous answers to answer another separate, but related question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="b8aed112-0e57-4b30-9663-06bd620fd5f0" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:35:39.777" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|answers|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4464" RevisionGUID="644e57e9-899a-4fa0-a55b-39ab656b2459" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:41:18.907" UserId="124" Text="If the new question you would ask is similar enough to the old question that the same answer (verbatim) would apply to it, it would probably be a duplicate. So I would say no, don't make a new question for the express purpose of reposting your answer. The information in your answer already exists on the site, there's no reason to invent an excuse to put up another copy of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone else happens to post a new question to which your old answer would apply, you're technically within your rights to copy it and post it again. But I would suggest not actually doing that. Instead, post a new answer that refers to it - you could start out saying &quot;This is covered by [this other answer that I wrote](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4464/124),&quot; and then go on to describe the relevant parts of your earlier answer. (As always, make sure a person doesn't _have_ to click the link just to get the point of your answer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="40e52a8f-e514-4e48-9247-b2f3f77c5699" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:49:45.830" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I think there is ambiguity stemming from that [linked post][1]. It could be interpreted as asserting that **all** questions here should fall into exactly one of three categories: [tag:research-level], [tag:popular-science], and [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation however is that this is not the case. There are non-homework questions that seek technical answers (rather than &quot;please explain the universe without math&quot;) but could be answered by just about any practicing physicist who puts some thought into it, and thus are not restricted to those with advanced knowledge in one specific subfield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the two questions I have asked on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; fall into this category. They *should not* be tagged with any of those three tags (and I will rollback any edits that attempt to do so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the benefit of allowing different coarseness of filtering. You can choose to *only* look at [tag:research-level], or you could choose to simply block [tag:popular-science] and [tag:homework] so that you see both domain-specific and generic, not-too-simple physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion:** Feel free to use [tag:research-level] if you want to restrict answers to the level you would get if you asked the question of a specialist in the field. You yourself don't need to be publishing papers on the topic. After all, this sort of tag is more for the level of answers you want than the level of the question. (If the question were at the very cutting edge of research, why then by definition *no one* would have an answer, and moreover anyone with the answer would publish a paper before posting to this site.) If you don't use the tag, no one is forcing your question to be relegated to popular science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [Neutrinos vs. Photons: Who wins the race across the galaxy?][2] and [Mars just collided with Earth! A question of eccentricity][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68306/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="31494466-77cd-493f-abd8-8cdb440155d2" CreationDate="2013-06-27T23:23:13.373" UserId="3970" Text="I want to note the criterion I suggested for research-level when I proposed the tag way back when:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Excluding any question whose answer is *obvious to someone who has completed a standard graduate curriculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually think this is the right criterion. It is the right criterion because (i) logically the graduate curriculum is more or less the common denominator amongst physics researchers (who are the target audience) and (ii) it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that it cannot be made the tag wiki for reasons of niceness, objectivity and so on.. But it is something to keep in mind. And maybe the tag wiki is should be somehow rewritten, since as it stands a question from Jackson would count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="b49adcc0-2f6e-454b-a39d-8bba15254c94" CreationDate="2013-06-28T19:04:38.053" UserId="12798" Text="The problem of Physics stack exchange not being conducive for research have been bought up time and again. I don't think any good solutions/suggestions have been put forth yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I don't that that reorganizing the site based on homework, popular science, and research level is an ideal solution. Firstly the categories are very broad and highly ill defined(this will also be a subject to a lot of debate). Secondly Retagging effort will be massive and would require a community involvement at a level unprecedented, and the transition could be messy. Lastly, Even if the community would be willing to put the effort in retagging, my feeling is that end result may not be as useful. The main reason is &quot;what is research level&quot; is a rather ill defined, in its strictest definition of research level, well understood but advanced questions(like &quot;Why is the commutator of a field operators outside the light cone zero&quot; OR &quot;How does one derive the geodesic equation form least action principle?&quot;) will not be included. So what purpose will a research level tag serve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am highly in favor of separation homework section from the main site, as it forms a fair chunk of the site, and is needed to avoid flooding. Beyond that, I have no useful ideas, I hope something is done about this problem however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="40278e22-9110-4255-b19d-dc198141999a" CreationDate="2013-06-28T22:29:16.480" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The problem of Physics stack exchange not being conducive for research have been bought up time and again. I don't think any good solutions/suggestions have been put forth yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I don't think that reorganizing the site based on homework, popular science, and research level is an ideal solution. Firstly the categories are very broad and highly ill defined(this will also be a subject to a lot of debate). Secondly Retagging effort will be massive and would require a community involvement at a level unprecedented, and the transition could be messy. Lastly, Even if the community would be willing to put the effort in retagging, my feeling is that end result may not be as useful. The main reason is &quot;what is research level&quot; is a rather ill defined, in its strictest definition of research level, well understood but advanced questions(like &quot;Why is the commutator of a field operators outside the light cone zero&quot; OR &quot;How does one derive the geodesic equation form least action principle?&quot;) will not be included. So what purpose will a research level tag serve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am highly in favor of separation homework section from the main site, as it forms a fair chunk of the site, and is needed to avoid flooding. Beyond that, I have no useful ideas, I hope something is done about this problem however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="3ae6b6b5-016c-4230-91fa-2b5cffa35c81" CreationDate="2013-06-28T22:53:00.897" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 530 characters in body" Text="The problem of Physics stack exchange not being conducive for research have been bought up time and again. I don't think any good solutions/suggestions have been put forth yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I don't think that reorganizing the site based on homework, popular science, and research level is an ideal solution. But, retagging could help organization and segregation. And calling research level as graduate level physics and above should be reasonable definition. It would certainly help, but I don't know if it would necessarily solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am highly in favor of separation homework section from the main site, as it forms a fair chunk of the site, and is needed to avoid flooding. Beyond that, I have no useful ideas, I hope something is done about this problem however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="34ca14ea-8a45-40fb-8f7a-baaacba873cc" CreationDate="2013-06-28T22:58:44.387" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 530 characters in body" Text="The problem of Physics stack exchange not being conducive for research have been bought up time and again. I don't think any good solutions/suggestions have been put forth yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I don't think that reorganizing the site based on homework, popular science, and research level is an ideal solution. But encouraging tagging could help organization and segregation. And defining research level as graduate level physics and above should serve us well. It would certainly help, but I don't know if it would necessarily solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am highly in favor of separate homework section from the main site, as it forms a fair chunk of the site, and is needed to avoid flooding. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="fd63b22c-bbe5-41d9-88d4-fe6c7d0a62a4" CreationDate="2013-06-29T03:55:42.113" UserId="6432" Text="It's still wrong to hyphenate it that way.  It should be &quot;stress-energy tensor&quot;....sigh{{Citation needed}}" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="e1de6a99-fc92-4a8d-90f0-2c1b16627c66" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:14:47.173" UserId="2751" Text="In [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69436/2751) question, the OP asks about a statement concerning a particle physics topics, taken from a certain well known website. The answer nicely clarifies why this statement is wrong from a physics point of view, so far so good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the owner of this website is not an expert in the funtamental physics topics by training or education (particle physics, some cosmology, and reltated things), he often writes about, even though he often manages to pose as an expert in popular media such as newspagers, magazines, etc by deluding too gulible science journalists which lets him successfully negatively biase the view and percetption of fundamental physics in the public. [Prof. Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/) for example continuisly has to correct the from a physics point of view wrong, exagerated, biased, and otherwise inappropriate claims this blogger is cited for in popular mass media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real experts who actually work on the topics the website cited in the question often talks about, know that the aim of this site is not to deliver correct reliable physics information (it is even explicitely stated on that site that its purpose is not to discuss physics!), but the owner has an agenda to harm research he dislikes and obviously does not properly understand not only by instigating flame wars in the internet, but to prevent that it gets properly funded in the real world too by making himself seen and heard in the media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are all comments pointing out that there is a general problem with the credibility and appropriateness of such websites for exctracting correct physics informations, deleted by I moderator? Why is it generally not allowed to judge the credibility of sources people take the information from to ask questions on physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To physicists, it is well known that not all sources where one can find information about physics, are equally good and reliable and if certain sources mentioned are systematically problematic it should not even be allowed to point this out, Physics SE should even &quot;feel obliged&quot; to uncover these issues, if being a good place to learn about correct physics is still among its main goals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="e1de6a99-fc92-4a8d-90f0-2c1b16627c66" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:14:47.173" UserId="2751" Text="Why is it not allowed to point out certain sources that are not appropriate to retrieve correct physics information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="e1de6a99-fc92-4a8d-90f0-2c1b16627c66" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:14:47.173" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|policy|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9181" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="dde99006-8c69-4bc8-ba4a-894f821cd21f" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:23:33.743" UserId="2751" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is it not allowed to point out problems with the credibility of sources that are not appropriate to retrieve correct physics information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="67c459ef-2f1d-40e7-bf77-d0c89e0a0fa8" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:40:07.647" UserId="2751" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69436/2751) question, the OP asks about a statement concerning a particle physics topics, taken from a certain well known website. The answer nicely clarifies why this statement is wrong from a physics point of view, so far so good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the owner of this website is not an expert in the funtamental physics topics by training or education (particle physics, some cosmology, and reltated things), he often writes about, even though he often manages to pose as an expert in popular media such as newspagers, magazines, etc by deluding too gulible science journalists which lets him successfully negatively biase the view and percetption of fundamental physics in the public. [Prof. Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/) for example continuisly has to correct the from a physics point of view wrong, exagerated, biased, and otherwise inappropriate claims this blogger is cited for in popular mass media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real experts who actually work on the topics the website cited in the question often talks about, know that the aim of this site is not to deliver correct reliable physics information (it is even explicitely stated on that site that its purpose is not to discuss physics!), but the owner has an agenda to harm research he dislikes and obviously does not properly understand not only by instigating flame wars in the internet, but to prevent that it gets properly funded in the real world too by making himself seen and heard in the media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are all comments pointing out that there is a general problem with the credibility and appropriateness of such websites for exctracting correct physics informations, repeatedly deleted by I moderator? Why is it generally not allowed to judge the credibility of sources people take the information from to ask questions on physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To physicists, it is well known that not all sources where one can find information about physics, are equally good and reliable and if certain sources mentioned are systematically problematic it should not even be allowed to point this out, Physics SE should even &quot;feel obliged&quot; to uncover these issues, if being a good place to learn about correct physics is still among its main goals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="7df31dbf-d0de-4168-a0ba-126514f924fd" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:42:29.790" UserId="7433" Text="Firstly, comments are for improvements and possible clarifications of a post. Commenting &quot;The link you use is not reliable&quot; doesn't fit in to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the statements you were making were libelous. That's not allowed here. Unless the post is effectively promoting a crank blog, we don't care about the reliability of the sources there. It's OK to say that &quot;the blog is wrong in this case&quot; -- that's fine. It's not OK to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Call the entire blog &quot;unreliable&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sweeping, libelous assumptions about &quot;the only purpose of his blog, book, maybe his life&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine what you would say if you saw similar comments directed towards Lenny Susskind or Terry Tao (Or even Motl for that matter) or some other great contemporary scientist with an Internet presence. It's safe to say that you'd want it removed. (And someone did take offence to your comments and ask for removal via a flag)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't judge the correctness of anything, including external resources. Thus, _any_ such comments will be deleted. I don't care if it's correct or wrong, libel is libel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that you feel that &quot;The laypeople reading physics SE should properly be warned to not put any trust into this website&quot;. However, _this is not a platform_ for your views against a blog. If you wish to broadcast your views on this blog, do it elsewhere. Libel will not be tolerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note: If you feel that the source in an _answer_ is not too reliable, you are free to ask for a different source, saying that you personally (or many people) don't trust it. This happend with w3schools links on SO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="d604c699-19d3-4a0f-adc2-4f0badc76202" CreationDate="2013-06-29T10:06:51.133" UserId="66" Text="Why are you so concerned with the deletion of comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments *are deleted at will*. They are fifth class citizens. Disposable. Nukable. Here today, gone tomorrow!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no *FSM-given right* of any comment to live, at a fundamental level. Comments are only meant for discussing a post and how to improve it, and are typically deleted after they are addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did you know that originally *there were no comments*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't put anything in there you wouldn't want deleted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If a comment answers the question, make it an answer&#xD;&#xA;* If it's a faux-answer, or a meta-answer: Physics SE is *not* the place to discuss this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, these kinds of discussions have a place and a value, but not here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a QUESTION and ANSWERS site. &lt;-- We like QUESTIONS and ANSWERS.&#xD;&#xA;* This is NOT a forum &lt;-- We don't like comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your contributions to the site are mainly comments, you are not helping the site grow that much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People come here with questions and want answers. If a question is valid, they don't want to be engaged in comments, they want an answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, future visitors will typically come from a search engine, with a similar question. They really, really won't care about a debate (or even less, a rant) on how appropriate an external link is *in general*. They simply want to know an answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recipe of Stack Exchange, and the reason why we are reasonably successful, is to let the community should focus on *that* by making everything else less important/nukeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We realize it's a recipe, an opinion. However, that's how we roll - there are plenty of forums, other QA sites, blogs and wikis if one wants to contribute differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I totally understand that in other places the law of the land is different, but you have been on this site for long enough to know better than this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="40c20d0b-3f88-46fc-9f6e-19447a2e523f" CreationDate="2013-06-29T12:44:44.990" UserId="2751" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="In [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69436/2751) question, the OP asks about a statement concerning a particle physics topics, taken from a certain well known website. The answer nicely clarifies why this statement is wrong from a physics point of view, so far so good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the owner of this website is not an expert in the funtamental physics topics by training or education (particle physics, some cosmology, and reltated things), he often writes about, even though he often manages to pose as an expert in popular media such as newspagers, magazines, etc by deluding too gulible science journalists which lets him successfully negatively biase the view and percetption of fundamental physics in the public. [Prof. Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/) for example continuisly has to correct the from a physics point of view wrong, exagerated, biased, and otherwise inappropriate claims this blogger is cited for in popular mass media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real experts who actually work on the topics the website cited in the question often talks (or more appropriately rants) about, know that the aim of this site is not to deliver correct reliable physics information (it is even explicitely stated on that site in the text that describes what kind of comments are welcome, that its purpose is not to discuss physics!), but the owner has an agenda to harm research he dislikes and obviously does not properly understand not only by instigating flame wars in the internet, but to prevent that it gets properly funded in the real world too by making himself seen and heard in the media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are all comments pointing out that there is a general problem with the credibility and appropriateness of such websites for exctracting correct physics informations, repeatedly deleted by I moderator? Why is it generally not allowed to judge the credibility of sources people take the information from to ask questions on physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To physicists, it is well known that not all sources where one can find information about physics, are equally good and reliable and if certain sources mentioned are systematically problematic it should not only be allowed to point this out, Physics SE should even &quot;feel obliged&quot; to uncover these issues, if being a good place to learn about correct physics is still among its main goals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="08180d01-b76f-41f0-864b-c2904545fb0b" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:22:55.223" UserId="8007" Text="Thanks to [an answer of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69449/8007) that I'm a little surprised to find that anyone even noticed, I just discovered ([as it says on the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation)) that there is a daily cap of 200 rep.  Which meant that ~16 upvotes on that answer did not accrue to my reputation.  This doesn't really bother me much, because I don't care about rep that much, and I'm mostly super happy to find that people liked my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am left wondering what possible rationale there might be for that cap.  Why is it useful in any way?  It seems - if anything - to diminish the motivation for writing really good answers, or participating on a given day after you've reached the cap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="08180d01-b76f-41f0-864b-c2904545fb0b" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:22:55.223" UserId="8007" Text="What is the logic behind the daily reputation cap of 200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="08180d01-b76f-41f0-864b-c2904545fb0b" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:22:55.223" UserId="8007" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="f586f8c4-1642-4bf8-9e0f-092a1211226f" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:30:57.517" UserId="520" Text="Reputation's may use in the site mechanics (as opposed to getting you addicted) is as a measure of the trust the system puts in you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we have a complicated system here and it takes time to learn it no matter how good you are at writing questions and answers. The rep cap throttles privilege advancement bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also levels out the huge differences in accrued rep that can appear if a question get link on a popular website and attract more attention than might otherwise be the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="c011d736-ca2c-430b-a820-bed764d41ba8" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:38:05.313" UserId="520" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="Reputation's may use in the site mechanics (as opposed to getting you addicted) is as a measure of the trust the system puts in you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we have a complicated system here and it takes time to learn it no matter how good you are at writing questions and answers. The rep cap throttles privilege advancement bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also levels out the huge differences in accrued rep that can appear if a question get link on a popular website and attract more attention than might otherwise be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note that acceptances and bounties can accrue above the daily rep cap. The most successful users on Stack Overflow are able to maintain daily rep gains in the neighborhood of 300 points day in and day out on that basis. And yes, that means that you could reach 10000 (for [access to the &quot;moderator tools&quot;][1] which are not exactly the tools given to the elected ♦-enabled moderators) in about one month!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="b4e233f6-28e8-4a73-b6a5-a1c00b095bd7" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:47:05.400" UserId="520" Text="A certain population of this site has taken to writing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;not mainstream physics&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as if those words were a magic wand that entitles the wielder to demand actions from the moderator and to ignore the (already very loose) civility requirements on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that kooks, cranks, wannabes and other species of attention seekers *do* try to use Physics.SE as a platform to further their views, but the way to indicate to the public what we think of those views is not by asking a privileged minority to silence them but by voting them into oblivion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application of moderator powers to remove kooky content will not make the kooks go away and it will not leave a trail that says *&quot;we as a community have judged this to be nonsense&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation team is not (and is not expected to be) expert in all sub-fields and corners of physics. Our job is not to sort the wheat from the chaff: that is what the voting mechanism is for. *Vote.* **Vote.** ***Vote!*** Both up *and* down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particular comments were deleted because, by attributing motives to another poster (and later to the moderators, again!) they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Took the focus off of physics and onto people.&#xD;&#xA;* Invited personal response and further conflict of personalities instead of ideas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderators job *does* include moderating the discussion, which means removing exactly that sort of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will notice that other comments disputing the physics and not maligning the person were left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="4a5afbba-343f-482b-939a-ec892cb56319" CreationDate="2013-06-29T16:17:33.663" UserId="520" Comment="speling" Text="Reputation's main use in the site mechanics (as opposed to getting you addicted) is as a measure of the trust the system puts in you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we have a complicated system here and it takes time to learn it no matter how good you are at writing questions and answers. The rep cap throttles privilege advancement bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also levels out the huge differences in accrued rep that can appear if a question get link on a popular website and attract more attention than might otherwise be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note that acceptances and bounties can accrue above the daily rep cap. The most successful users on Stack Overflow are able to maintain daily rep gains in the neighborhood of 300 points day in and day out on that basis. And yes, that means that you could reach 10000 (for [access to the &quot;moderator tools&quot;][1] which are not exactly the tools given to the elected ♦-enabled moderators) in about one month!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="de6ad007-130c-4bbc-bfb4-912dd85c18bf" CreationDate="2013-06-29T16:30:03.797" UserId="16689" Text="It's stupid (that's my feeling of course) to change the name of an existing tag. Perhaps I could agree on adding some synonyms if you really feel it's important. Maybe something like a *researcher-to-researcher* tag, *professional question*, or even *researcher*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4477" RevisionGUID="b1bb4175-8c8a-4bc0-84bd-a0dd01e36cae" CreationDate="2013-06-29T16:46:28.677" UserId="16689" Text="I think this tag could be used also for all these questions we really enjoy to resolve, like everyday paradoxes (the tea leafs paradox (unfortunately duplicated [here][1], [here][2] and [there][3]) is one of such paradox I discovered recently with a particular joy for instance), physics of toys (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12305/help-understanding-a-magnetic-levitation-physics-toy among a lot of examples that can be easily found), ... to give some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that any other question asking for a popularisation of complicated concept (like [this question about Higgs][4]) deserve a specific tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- popular-science tag is absolutely not a pejorative tag at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- popularising science is what every researcher should do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very happy if a scientific journalist for instance cites a popular-science answer from physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3244/vortex-in-liquid-collects-particles-in-center&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8918/mixing-a-cup-of-tea-and-break-of-centrifugal-force/8920#8920&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69122/what-forces-are-at-work-causing-sand-to-migrate-to-the-centre-of-a-spinning-buck&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4477" RevisionGUID="dc054495-a41b-4654-8f53-6bf24407f689" CreationDate="2013-06-29T16:59:17.063" UserId="16689" Comment="more details" Text="I think this tag could be used also for all these questions we really enjoy to resolve, like everyday paradoxes (the tea leafs paradox (unfortunately duplicated [here][1], [here][2] and [there][3]) is one of such paradox I discovered recently with a particular joy for instance), physics of toys (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12305/help-understanding-a-magnetic-levitation-physics-toy among a lot of examples that can be easily found), ... to give some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that any other question asking for a popularisation of complicated concept (like [this question about Higgs][4]) deserve a specific tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the main interest of a *popular* tag is that it attracts and encourage *people* ! It's fine for me to have some questions from the *civil society*, say (I do not know if there's a better english word), like [this one][5] for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- popular-science tag is absolutely not a pejorative tag at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- popularising science is what every researcher should do sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- science is good for people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very happy if a scientific journalist for instance cites a popular-science answer from physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PS:* At the time of writing, I obviously put all the examples I gave under the pop-science banner ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3244/vortex-in-liquid-collects-particles-in-center&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8918/mixing-a-cup-of-tea-and-break-of-centrifugal-force/8920#8920&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69122/what-forces-are-at-work-causing-sand-to-migrate-to-the-centre-of-a-spinning-buck&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11154/why-is-there-a-scarcity-of-lithium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="e62c04d3-9360-481f-82f6-c0c7e9f4837d" CreationDate="2013-06-29T17:06:21.537" UserId="66" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Why are you so concerned with the deletion of comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments *are deleted at will*. They are fifth class citizens. Disposable. Nuke-able. Here today, gone tomorrow!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no *FSM-given right* of any comment to live, at a fundamental level. Comments are only meant for discussing a post and how to improve it, and are typically deleted after they are addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did you know, for example, that originally *there were no comments*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the morale is: don't put anything in there you wouldn't want deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If a comment answers the question, make it an answer&#xD;&#xA;* If it's a faux-answer, or a meta-answer: Physics SE is *not* the place to discuss this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, these kinds of discussions have a place and a value, but not here on SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a QUESTION and ANSWERS site. &lt;-- i.e. we like QUESTIONS and ANSWERS.&#xD;&#xA;* This is NOT a forum &lt;-- i.e. we don't like comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one person contributes to the site are mainly comments, they are not helping the site grow that much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People come here with questions and want answers. If a question is valid, they don't want to be engaged in comments, they want an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, future visitors will typically come from a search engine, with a similar question. They really, really won't care about a debate (or even less, a rant) on how appropriate an external link is *in general*. They simply want to know an answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recipe of Stack Exchange, and the reason why we are reasonably successful, is to let the community focus on *that* by making everything else less important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We realize it's a recipe, an opinion. However, that's how we roll - there are plenty of forums, other Q&amp;A sites, blogs and wikis if one wants to contribute differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I totally understand that in other places the law of the land is different, but you have been on this site for long enough to know how this site works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="36cc85ad-3ff0-4843-9572-c44f9e2dbdbe" CreationDate="2013-06-29T18:31:41.037" UserId="8007" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited title" Text="Thanks to [an answer of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69449/8007) that I'm a little surprised to find that anyone even noticed, I just discovered ([as it says on the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation)) that there is a daily cap of 200 rep (excepting bounties and accepts).  Which meant that ~16 upvotes on that answer did not accrue to my reputation.  This doesn't really bother me much, because I don't care about rep that much, and I'm mostly super happy to find that people liked my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am left wondering what possible rationale there might be for that cap.  Why is it useful in any way?  It seems - if anything - to diminish the motivation for writing really good answers, or participating on a given day after you've reached the cap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9198" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="36cc85ad-3ff0-4843-9572-c44f9e2dbdbe" CreationDate="2013-06-29T18:31:41.037" UserId="8007" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the logic behind the daily reputation cap of 200?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="fa64ab39-351e-426e-a5fb-7a6f477b7403" CreationDate="2013-06-30T07:00:33.973" UserId="23119" Text="I was trying to edit the post &quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28984/big-bang-anybody?lq=1&quot; by adding a [tag:popular-science] tag to it.. While until now, even if I didn't edit the body of the post, I could still edit the tags. However, it seems like from today onwards, to edit the tags, I also need to add 6 characters to the text! At  first,  I thought of simply adding the followsing text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\mbox{ }$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I realised that then the edit would be rejected (since it is too trivial) and so will the tag edits . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why do we need to modify the text body just to edit the tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="fa64ab39-351e-426e-a5fb-7a6f477b7403" CreationDate="2013-06-30T07:00:33.973" UserId="23119" Text="Editing tags not allowed because not 6 characters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="fa64ab39-351e-426e-a5fb-7a6f477b7403" CreationDate="2013-06-30T07:00:33.973" UserId="23119" Text="|support|editing|tags|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="423a14e4-1955-415d-8f74-41bc34a16d26" CreationDate="2013-06-30T16:16:27.967" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-norepro|editing|tags|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="dbefd010-34c2-4648-8845-c244f919e5d1" CreationDate="2013-06-30T17:59:12.920" UserId="66" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Why are you so concerned with the deletion of comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments *are deleted at will*. They are fifth class citizens. Disposable. Nuke-able. Here today, gone tomorrow!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no *FSM-given right* of any comment to live, at a fundamental level. Comments are only meant for discussing a post and how to improve it, and are typically deleted after they are addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did you know, for example, that originally *there were no comments*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the morale is: don't put anything in there you wouldn't want deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If a comment answers the question, make it an answer&#xD;&#xA;* If it's a faux-answer, or a meta-answer: Physics SE is *not* the place to discuss this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, these kinds of discussions have a place and a value, but not here on SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a QUESTION and ANSWERS site. &lt;-- i.e. we like QUESTIONS and ANSWERS.&#xD;&#xA;* This is NOT a forum &lt;-- i.e. we don't like comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one person contributes to the site mainly with comments, they are not helping the site grow that much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People come here with questions and want answers. If a question is valid, they don't want to be engaged in comments, they want an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, future visitors will typically come from a search engine, with a similar question. They really, really won't care about a debate (or even less, a rant) on how appropriate an external link is *in general*. They simply want to know an answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recipe of Stack Exchange, and the reason why we are reasonably successful, is to let the community focus on *that* by making everything else less important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We realize it's a recipe, an opinion. However, that's how we roll - there are plenty of forums, other Q&amp;A sites, blogs and wikis if one wants to contribute differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I totally understand that in other places the law of the land is different, but you have been on this site for long enough to know how this site works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="3c15d194-ec05-4daf-bdae-34eec32876b0" CreationDate="2013-06-30T19:07:17.910" UserId="10362" Text="I want to ask a question about how light from an LED can be (and is often) diffused evenly across a surface, for example, as in back-lit LCD displays, or lit-up (shaped) panels of electrical appliances and so on. I want to know what materials, structures and design techniques (or generally, what solutions) are used to solve these kinds of problems. Would this be an acceptable question for physics.stackexchange.com?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="3c15d194-ec05-4daf-bdae-34eec32876b0" CreationDate="2013-06-30T19:07:17.910" UserId="10362" Text="Can I ask what solutions exist for design problems of a physical product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="3c15d194-ec05-4daf-bdae-34eec32876b0" CreationDate="2013-06-30T19:07:17.910" UserId="10362" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="eb5387f4-357b-4351-b4d7-050cfee6f771" CreationDate="2013-06-30T23:09:39.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/351477661484331009" />
  <row Id="9212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="cf1addb2-8d3d-4402-96b2-dffdbc9e33d6" CreationDate="2013-07-01T00:18:11.917" UserId="6634" Text="My view is **no**, as this is more of an engineering question than a physics question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you found out that material X somehow diffused the light and you wanted to ask *why* material X diffused the light, that would be on topic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="42e45e03-ff6f-49ce-acf3-2be27336a77e" CreationDate="2013-07-01T02:48:56.507" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="c6436f86-a2e7-4d06-85a3-75c1b56f8aad" CreationDate="2013-07-01T06:43:16.183" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="An alternative wording I've found useful for certain HW's so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm noting this in case people think it should be one of our three. Its benefit is that this particular catch in the HW policy is somewhat buried, and may be missed by a cursory glance through the meta page. Note though that it is only for a *strict subset* of closeable homework - those questions that *do* have work put in, but ultimately are just asking for verification of the symbol manipulation. As such, it is not general enough to work in all HW cases, and so may be too specific to warrant taking up one of three slots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, any and all are invited to copy/paste this and use/modify it as they see fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="4ee2c01c-2805-44dc-9bb6-42114b817ebc" CreationDate="2013-07-01T11:54:10.753" UserId="7433" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/507/can-we-get-a-migration-path-opened-to-math-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we close **or** flag a question as *off-topic*, we have an option called `belongs to meta.physics.SE`. We're also receiving questions that belong to Math.SE or Electronics.SE most of the time. So, it'd be easy for migration if there is a choice for `belongs to Math.SE` and `belongs to Electronics.SE`. Well, other sites do have that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, we can take Android.SE. It's having a choice for `belongs to SO`. I think superuser is also having such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0mmnG.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9219" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="d158150c-90f6-4544-a246-17f39571900c" CreationDate="2013-07-01T13:33:37.477" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9220" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="1d04a1b3-61dc-4eb0-a5cd-807aafcebb5f" CreationDate="2013-07-01T13:33:37.477" UserId="7433" Comment="1009" />
  <row Id="9221" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="dff91399-2c58-43a5-9906-02a563bddb34" CreationDate="2013-07-01T13:33:52.320" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9222" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="642f46e9-7431-4cf1-9944-c1952c41de84" CreationDate="2013-07-01T13:33:52.320" UserId="7433" Comment="1009" />
  <row Id="9223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="c70723c1-bdea-4f7e-ad71-e7454aadae0c" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:26:54.427" UserId="12798" Text="Being subjective and rather vague, I propose that the intuition tag be done away with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="c70723c1-bdea-4f7e-ad71-e7454aadae0c" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:26:54.427" UserId="12798" Text="Why do we have an intuition tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="c70723c1-bdea-4f7e-ad71-e7454aadae0c" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:26:54.427" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="a95eb14e-6b74-4c9f-a47d-2116e998b761" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:36:44.570" UserId="23119" Text="[This][1] question was tagged as [tag:dimensional-analysis] by the OP although it has nothing to do with dimensional analysis. All the tags tagged with [tag:dimensional-analysis] have something to do with units, and that is how it should be. Therefore, I edited the post to remove the tag. However, it appears that the OP apparently reverted the edit even though I had stated in the edit reason that I did it because dimensional analysis is about manipulating units to obtain stuff *. However, since this edit reason is not visible publicly (since I only edited the tags), naturally, the OP did not understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not add in the tag again because I didn't want to cause an edit war, which is very common on Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is do be done in such a situation? Do I just flag the question and inform the moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;*I couldn't write  a more specific word because it could be obtaining equations, constants etc.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69682/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="a95eb14e-6b74-4c9f-a47d-2116e998b761" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:36:44.570" UserId="23119" Text="[This][1] question and [tag:dimensional-analysis]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="a95eb14e-6b74-4c9f-a47d-2116e998b761" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:36:44.570" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|support|editing|tags|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9229" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="96e7932f-69f5-4027-86ce-138a3a677ab1" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:39:29.797" UserId="520" Comment="edited title" Text="Proper meaning of the dimensional-analysis tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="f0729c29-019c-40ff-bfa8-4477ae65d3d5" CreationDate="2013-07-01T15:00:45.387" UserId="7433" Text="Yes please. It's a meta tag, and a very vague one at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once this gets consensus we'll see about getting it burninated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="6db5b3e7-becd-4ddb-b8e0-307537e0c931" CreationDate="2013-07-01T15:05:18.827" UserId="7433" Text="Removed. In such cases, leave  a comment explaining the issue to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a user persists in reverting your edits, flag for mod attention. We can give a more stern &quot;Stop it!&quot; comment and temporarily lock the post if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of an ambiguity, meta is the place to discuss it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dimensional analysis&quot; is universally understood as pertaining to units, so the [tag:dimensional-analysis] is used in that context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added a wiki excerpt (not a very good one), feel free to improve it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="aaaf533a-ef8f-47b5-8574-a16508e8c388" CreationDate="2013-07-01T16:52:18.907" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="db50cf01-a447-46d7-a9e5-8eff0f2ba058" CreationDate="2013-07-01T16:54:09.977" UserId="2911" Text="This is done. The volume of migrations isn't *huge*, but there are enough of them to demonstrate a reasonable amount of overlap - so, no need to have to bother the moderators about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![the migrate to math.se option][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wnJ9U.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="327897b1-fd86-4c9b-85c9-95e9a950dc14" CreationDate="2013-07-01T20:17:39.373" UserId="6634" Text="Okay, so I've flagged two questions now that I felt were off-topic but none of the reasons we have in the list fit. We need to expand the list some... In both cases, the question was not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homework&#xD;&#xA; - About math&#xD;&#xA; - Outside the mainstream&#xD;&#xA; - Belonged on another SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, none of the reasons fit. But none of the other options fit either because it was very clear what was being asked, this just wasn't the correct place for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69347/isnt-this-wikipedia-equation-of-navier-stokes-actually-wrong &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was clear, but not something that could be answered really on our network or anywhere else in SE, it was up to Wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69738/which-alloys-hold-up-under-extreme-high-temperature-best&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is primarily an engineering question (except the last question posed as I said in my comment). So it's clear, not homework, not math, definitely mainstream, not overly broad, but it doesn't belong on another SE site (engineering.SE doesn't exist yet). So I'm left stumped for what to flag it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we need a normal, plain old &quot;Off-topic because it doesn't fit in the scope of the site&quot; still. We can't come up with every edge case for questions that don't meet the other criteria so we still need something to default to, some kind of &quot;Other...&quot; option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="00ea72f1-82b3-4247-8332-a3e5d14ff0ad" CreationDate="2013-07-02T14:41:47.510" UserId="8563" Text="We occasionally get &quot;find me a PDF&quot; requests, where a user knows exactly the paper she needs and (presumably because of a paywall) asks how to obtain an electronic copy of it. This has typically been considered off-topic, and I agree that a site built around how to get behind paywalls is not a good thing to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this question of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27503/8563), which asked the former Theoretical Physics site about how one might obtain _any_ copies of a particularly hard-to-obtain paper, has been accused of being off topic* for this reason. I argued in the comments, and I repeat it here, that this is a question that requires an good knowledge of the physics literature and that future questions like this should definitely be allowed. If I am desperate to find a given paper, have the exact reference, and have looked everywhere, then I would be glad to be able to voice it in a gathering of physicists. I feel banning questions like this would devalue this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we decide to allow this, then we also need to define where to draw the line. If you (dis)agree on the general principle, (down)up-vote the main answer to this question, and voice your ideas for appropriate criteria!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*or at least that's what I make of the &quot;put on hold&quot; message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="00ea72f1-82b3-4247-8332-a3e5d14ff0ad" CreationDate="2013-07-02T14:41:47.510" UserId="8563" Text="How should we handle how-to-find-a-reference requests?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="00ea72f1-82b3-4247-8332-a3e5d14ff0ad" CreationDate="2013-07-02T14:41:47.510" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="37650f3c-513b-4aa1-87f9-4a9c0a8eb10b" CreationDate="2013-07-02T14:41:47.510" UserId="8563" Text="Yes, I agree with the general principle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="ab4550a8-ec5e-4437-9f8c-04d97358614f" CreationDate="2013-07-02T15:27:26.147" UserId="23119" Text="Most of the questions tagged [tag:theory] are either closed (because they are advertisements of non-mainstream ideas) or tagged very irrelavantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people like to pick on meta-tags, I've realised. But as for [tag:theory], It is not *even* a meta-tag. I know it is supposed to describe theoretical questions, but since &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most of the questions here are theoretical anyway (and in my opinion, that's how it should be).&#xD;&#xA;2. [tag:theory] is not a very good description since it makes people think that this is a very good site to come advertise their own non-mainstream ideas, which is not good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not get rid of it? Or rename it as something like [tag:theoretical-physics] but that isn't as useful as as the tag [tag:experimental-physics], since most questions are theoretical anyway, so it just reduces the limited number of  a maximum of 5 tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="ab4550a8-ec5e-4437-9f8c-04d97358614f" CreationDate="2013-07-02T15:27:26.147" UserId="23119" Text="Getting rid of the [tag:theory] tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="ab4550a8-ec5e-4437-9f8c-04d97358614f" CreationDate="2013-07-02T15:27:26.147" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="cc1f34b4-be51-4c43-a7a7-ea3eeac894ca" CreationDate="2013-07-02T15:51:17.943" UserId="6634" Text="I think &quot;how do I find this paper,&quot; no matter the subject, probably has very similar answers. And most likely, it would be &quot;Go to a university library and talk to the librarian.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know in the US at most institutes, one could get any paper desired through the library. If they don't have it electronically or in print, through the Inter-Library Loan system, they'll get a copy from another library that does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would argue that even if the paper is about physics, from a physics journal, etc., this is really a question better suited elsewhere. I would think something like that would be at home on academia.SE, provided it's more general than &quot;How do I get the paper titled X&quot; as that's too localized on any site really." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="baea5c0b-fd58-47ad-b345-eccb1d687f1f" CreationDate="2013-07-02T17:34:32.773" UserId="23119" Text="Some options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\operatorname{N}=\frac{\operatorname{m}^2}{\operatorname{s}^2}\operatorname{kg}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no fractions/superscripts/subscripts (which require a smaller/larger font), then &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\mbox{kg m}\frac{1}{\mbox{s}}=\mbox{J s}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could use Fbox, given you don't mind boxes over everything you write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\fbox{This is a very foolish way of writing units.}=\fbox{Nonsense}=\fbox{Hello0}=\fbox{kg}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the ever-confusing mathrm environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\mathrm{Confusion}=c_0^2;\Rightarrow\left[\mathrm{Confusion}\right]=\frac{\mathrm{m}^2}{\mathrm{s}^2}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use mathbf, if you don't mind everything getting bolded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\mathbf{K}=\mathbf{J}-\mathbf{k}\mathbf{j}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same annoying result can be achieved using bf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\bf{K}=\bf{donkey},.!$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also uase the text environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\text{A very long chunk of text} = \text{kg}\text{m}\text{s}^{-3+2+\left(-1)\right}_\mathbf{0}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="321c3e40-f98d-43e9-ae18-6e4acfe59f73" CreationDate="2013-07-02T18:23:41.223" UserId="1255" Text="Click on the &quot;stack exchange&quot; dropdown menu in the upper left of your screen (meta of main, doesn't matter).  If you're not already there, click on the &quot;hot questions&quot; menu item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those hot questions get hotter because they're listed there.  This reflects an issue in the global dynamics of all Stack Exchange - that users with an established account in one subject can vote on questions in other subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is a criteria for it to get listed in the hot questions to begin with, but it's not very good.  Once it starts to pick up steam and get referrals from the global network, it's popularity is then *dictated by relative non-experts*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of my most upvoted answers aren't very good.  They're subject matter that appeals better to a layman.  That's why the 200 cap makes sense.  For physics, at least, there's basically no way to hit that limit on a single question with votes from the regular physics users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    161  avid users&#xD;&#xA;    2,175  total users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the number of votes on a question or answer is in the neighborhood of 10 or so, that number stops giving much relevant information.  The traffic from regular users just isn't high enough to push it further, because we can all only vote once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I personally agree with it being a limit on user reputation in a day, because if you want to write 50 answers in one day, I don't see anything wrong with that.  But the cap approximates the issue I'm talking about sufficiently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="47198e86-3fdc-429f-a2a3-9bde45918d65" CreationDate="2013-07-02T18:59:07.213" UserId="1255" Comment="grammar" Text="Click on the &quot;stack exchange&quot; dropdown menu in the upper left of your screen (meta of main, doesn't matter).  If you're not already there, click on the &quot;hot questions&quot; menu item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those hot questions get hotter because they're listed there.  This reflects an issue in the global dynamics of all Stack Exchange - that users with an established account in one subject can vote on questions in other subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is a criteria for it to get listed in the hot questions to begin with, but it's not very good.  Once it starts to pick up steam and get referrals from the global network, its popularity is then *dictated by relative non-experts*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of my most upvoted answers aren't very good.  They're subject matter that appeals better to a layman.  That's why the 200 cap makes sense.  For physics, at least, there's basically no way to hit that limit on a single question with votes from the regular physics users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    161  avid users&#xD;&#xA;    2,175  total users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the number of votes on a question or answer is in the neighborhood of 10 or so, that number stops giving much relevant information.  The traffic from regular users just isn't high enough to push it further, because we can all only vote once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I personally agree with it being a limit on user reputation in a day, because if you want to write 50 answers in one day, I don't see anything wrong with that.  But the cap approximates the issue I'm talking about sufficiently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="90f46ff3-2d7c-4c43-9356-c91599cc0edd" CreationDate="2013-07-02T19:13:00.900" UserId="8563" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Yes, we should allow some how-to-find-a-reference questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="e820e82d-6ea0-44e2-aed5-17fca5b3e4bb" CreationDate="2013-07-02T19:32:26.447" UserId="1255" Comment="grammar" Text="Click on the &quot;stack exchange&quot; dropdown menu in the upper left of your screen (meta or main, doesn't matter).  If you're not already there, click on the &quot;hot questions&quot; menu item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those hot questions get hotter because they're listed there.  This reflects an issue in the global dynamics of all Stack Exchange - that users with an established account in one subject can vote on questions in other subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is a criteria for it to get listed in the hot questions to begin with, but it's not very good.  Once it starts to pick up steam and get referrals from the global network, its popularity is then *dictated by relative non-experts*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of my most upvoted answers aren't very good.  They're subject matter that appeals better to a layman.  That's why the 200 cap makes sense.  For physics, at least, there's basically no way to hit that limit on a single question with votes from the regular physics users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    161  avid users&#xD;&#xA;    2,175  total users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the number of votes on a question or answer is in the neighborhood of 10 or so, that number stops giving much relevant information.  The traffic from regular users just isn't high enough to push it further, because we can all only vote once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I personally agree with it being a limit on user reputation in a day, because if you want to write 50 answers in one day, I don't see anything wrong with that.  But the cap approximates the issue I'm talking about sufficiently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9256" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="29bc668d-936d-432e-a4ad-cfe3cc3809e0" CreationDate="2013-07-02T20:09:40.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/352157145309003779" />
  <row Id="9259" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="184bc97e-2423-4484-b3b6-1f3ecb2555e0" CreationDate="2013-07-02T23:09:41.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/352202443242745857" />
  <row Id="9260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="05750767-79c5-4626-86f5-a33971f73d88" CreationDate="2013-07-03T01:12:08.527" UserId="24773" Text="I do not know how I am supposed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the help system,http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that , I am supposed to ask here to have my answer undeleted by vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an answer to question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69726/does-trade-affect-earths-rotation&#xD;&#xA;At the time I wrote the answer the page contained several humorous comment.&#xD;&#xA;Some have been deleted since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This induced me to write my answer in kind, though it was actually a serious answer as it was suggesting the most efficient way (not yet given by others) to actually do what the question asked. It is possible that my humor was too cryptic, as it was not understood, as the answer was deleted as irrelevant. Not knowing the system I did not try to edit it (as the help mentions that only for self-deletion), and I tried to explain in comments the problem and the meaning of the answer to have it undeleted.  Without any success, when a final remark made me understand, after several hours, that I was supposed to edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did, and I do believe it is a sensible and useful answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69746/revisions. It was edited 15 hours ago, but nothing is happening. I understand that some users can vote on this. Can you help.   Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion: it should be said more clearly on the help page that a question is supposed to be edited before it can be undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="05750767-79c5-4626-86f5-a33971f73d88" CreationDate="2013-07-03T01:12:08.527" UserId="24773" Text="How can I get my answer undeleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="05750767-79c5-4626-86f5-a33971f73d88" CreationDate="2013-07-03T01:12:08.527" UserId="24773" Text="|discussion|feature-request|answers|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="e839e63d-d06f-4bd5-8d0d-6e42db365b27" CreationDate="2013-07-03T01:16:42.670" UserId="520" Text="You would need to bring it's edited condition to the attention of the moderators. A flag would have done, but this post will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future a flag is preferred as there is no real reason to leave a public trail for this kind of day-to-day thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9264" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="3955b5a3-9b62-4c91-884a-81a6ae520c5a" CreationDate="2013-07-03T01:17:59.207" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-bydesign|answers|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="8fe81fe9-c7ff-4dee-8b62-3ed16fc7a1c1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T12:35:00.923" UserId="23119" Text="Yes we should get rid of the [tag:theory] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote down if you agree. Leave it like that if you disagree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="0040a7e0-4f98-44dc-ae30-396d9a2ab8ab" CreationDate="2013-07-03T12:36:04.743" UserId="23119" Text="No, the [tag:theory] tag should stay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote down if you agree, leave it like that if you disagree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="5569d0ef-676a-43ac-84cb-ad2ad1932379" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:01:26.853" UserId="11062" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Most of the questions tagged [tag:theory] are either closed (because they are advertisements of non-mainstream ideas) or tagged very irrelevantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people like to pick on meta-tags, I've realised. But as for [tag:theory], It is not *even* a meta-tag. I know it is supposed to describe theoretical questions, but since &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most of the questions here are theoretical anyway (and in my opinion, that's how it should be).&#xD;&#xA;2. [tag:theory] is not a very good description since it makes people think that this is a very good site to come advertise their own non-mainstream ideas, which is not good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not get rid of it? Or rename it as something like [tag:theoretical-physics] but that isn't as useful as as the tag [tag:experimental-physics], since most questions are theoretical anyway, so it just reduces the limited number of  a maximum of 5 tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9268" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="5569d0ef-676a-43ac-84cb-ad2ad1932379" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:01:26.853" UserId="11062" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Getting rid of &quot;theory&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="a86cb6db-6ed4-4696-84cc-395ddbcd2675" CreationDate="2013-07-03T16:24:50.713" UserId="23119" Comment="computational origami may be a nice site too..." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration &amp; Technology][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Big Data][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami?referrer=fO8dAW_YEcLPxcPqde7HtA2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Computational Origami&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[!Computational Origami][15]][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40518.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40518/big-data&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/43283.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="9dfd2e18-3696-4040-b995-5444374e4354" CreationDate="2013-07-03T19:21:48.427" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body" Text="Yes we should get rid of the [tag:theory] tag.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="aa59f093-c03e-4fb4-9851-d295437e9920" CreationDate="2013-07-03T19:21:58.537" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="No, the [tag:theory] tag should stay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="92f16632-2c7d-441e-8638-e50e0070ff87" CreationDate="2013-07-04T03:08:15.620" UserId="6634" Text="I have come across several questions along the lines of &quot;How do I complete this derivation?&quot; where the answer sometimes is just mathematical, but generally they need some sort of physical insight to go from the original equation to the final one where the authors of the book/paper/etc pull the classic &quot;And so it's obvious that...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more recent example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69953/solving-the-tov-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69309/vertical-wind-gradients-in-the-atmospheric-boundary-layer is actually an example that probably should be OT since it's purely a math question and no extra physical insight was needed... but I was feeling friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we tag these as [tag:homework]? And more importantly, do we treat them as such and not provide the solution while also expecting the OP to include their work so far and where specifically he/she is stuck? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="92f16632-2c7d-441e-8638-e50e0070ff87" CreationDate="2013-07-04T03:08:15.620" UserId="6634" Text="Are &quot;Help solve this equation&quot; questions [tag:homework]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="92f16632-2c7d-441e-8638-e50e0070ff87" CreationDate="2013-07-04T03:08:15.620" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="7f05e1d3-a668-4a58-8e32-ce66649d3d5c" CreationDate="2013-07-04T03:56:42.197" UserId="124" Text="Actually, both these examples are suitable for migration to Math.SE. (I think so, anyway.) And in general, most questions where the OP is asking for help solving an equation should be migrated to Math, because the fact that they are asking about solving an equation means they've already done the physics which gets them to the equation. What's left is just math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is if someone is specifically interested in a way to constrain or find the solution using physical arguments, like scaling behavior or dimensional analysis, _not_ using normal mathematical methods. In those cases, the [tag:homework] tag is usually not needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="191e8ba6-2934-43f2-bc2d-fc326db5f1ce" CreationDate="2013-07-04T07:06:12.733" UserId="7433" Text="We have a bunch of proposed close reasons [here][1], and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's &quot;engineering&quot; close reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16:00UTC (same timing as our regular biweekly chat session, though we don't have that next week). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agenda of the event is to discuss close reasons, and settle on a final set of three close reasons and their wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the timings are inconvenient, lease let me know. I'm open to changing it if enough people ask for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK if you have some points to make but won't be able to make it into the room. You can post those points on the [close reasons thread][2], and we'll try to include that in our assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can register for the discussion [here][3] (it also lists what time it will at in your timezone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="191e8ba6-2934-43f2-bc2d-fc326db5f1ce" CreationDate="2013-07-04T07:06:12.733" UserId="7433" Text="Chat session to discuss and possibly finalize close reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="191e8ba6-2934-43f2-bc2d-fc326db5f1ce" CreationDate="2013-07-04T07:06:12.733" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|featured|vote-to-close|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9279" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="c2c8a82c-8af6-48e1-be39-550ccb3028a6" CreationDate="2013-07-04T07:44:11.583" UserId="11062" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;Help solve this equation&quot; questions &quot;homework&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="a63719c9-4bdd-4b7c-8ad8-b79a4dd14591" CreationDate="2013-07-04T20:09:46.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/352881945350381568" />
  <row Id="9284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4509" RevisionGUID="c2c21dad-f107-4c82-9ec5-b95b75ef83b5" CreationDate="2013-07-05T10:50:36.480" UserId="7433" Text="Edited the tag wiki to add&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is also for requests for where to find a resource when it has been demonstrated that that pdf has been hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question reopened (unless anyone has any objections), since it follows this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we need to follow a few caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One per question. Don't dump your reading list and expect Physics.SE to gopher it for you.&#xD;&#xA; - The paper must demonstrably be hard to find (you need to include more details on that in the question -- &quot;it's in journal X which is out of print&quot; or some such&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). In other words, asking for a pdf of the EPR paper is not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, we need to work out what happens with paywalls. Should we allow requests that ask for de-paywalling of an obscure paper? Or is it OK to link to the paywal landing page and be done with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO we shouldn't allow requests that ask for de-paywalling, however a request that asks for an obscure artcle which eventually is found hiding behind a paywall is OK as long as the answers link to the paywall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think requests for a book/article in a _nearby_ library  should not be allowed as it's just too localized. There's a _vary_ slim chance that someone else from that locality will be looking for the same resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Emilio's question doesn't demonstrate this thoroughly, but it's OK. The main point is that the paper should be hard to get, and there should be a bit explaining why.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="10c15e9d-8137-43ea-b7f5-4919601f2b67" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:05:03.403" UserId="8563" Text="[This question on the Euler beta function](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/70051/revisions) shows a number of edits 'suggested' by Community. What exactly does this mean? Who made the edit/edit suggestions? Why is their name not displayed? If it is possible to anonymously suggest edits, how is this done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="10c15e9d-8137-43ea-b7f5-4919601f2b67" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:05:03.403" UserId="8563" Text="What does it mean if an edit is attributed to Community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="10c15e9d-8137-43ea-b7f5-4919601f2b67" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:05:03.403" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|editing|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="4fe8e27c-41a0-490f-8f65-d86e88a66976" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:12:23.000" UserId="6634" Text="I asked this question in a comment not too long ago and QMechanic responded...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means it's an edit suggested anonymously by somebody not logged in or not signed up for the site. If you log out and go to any question/answer, you can suggest edits. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="653a6cb3-62dc-4f44-97dd-97d5a1081fc0" CreationDate="2013-07-05T17:37:16.727" UserId="24773" Text="I am in the habit of often specifying the license on what I write, for&#xD;&#xA;many reasons.  This license is usually The Creative Commons license CC&#xD;&#xA;BY-SA. It does not create any conflict with StackExchange because that&#xD;&#xA;is precisely the license that is needed for StackExchange as specified&#xD;&#xA;in the [Terms of Service][1]. So the operation of StackExchange can in no way be disrupted by such a&#xD;&#xA;license on a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing in the Terms of Service, or anywhere that I could&#xD;&#xA;see, that prohibits this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand that having a license on each little bit of&#xD;&#xA;information can be bothersome for users of the site, and is not very&#xD;&#xA;meaningful anyway. Hence I am refraining from using it on smaller&#xD;&#xA;pieces of writing. On a larger piece, it is small enough that it is&#xD;&#xA;hardly noticeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do I want to do it ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first reason is that a lot of people will copy a document without&#xD;&#xA;thinking further about copyright issues.  They will usually keep the&#xD;&#xA;license if it is there, but will not bother when it is implicit. Given&#xD;&#xA;that I am using a pseudo, that quickly makes an orphan work with no&#xD;&#xA;license on the web, which some people could appropriate through&#xD;&#xA;specific legislations, and I do not want that. I have no certainty&#xD;&#xA;that anyone, other than myself or close relatives, will want and have&#xD;&#xA;the right in the future to preserve open access to what I write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second reason is educational. It is important in the digital world&#xD;&#xA;that people understand the existence of licenses, and their role. It&#xD;&#xA;is apparent to me that users of StackExchange do not. Licenses may&#xD;&#xA;protect the rights and income of authors in some cases, but they may&#xD;&#xA;also protect works and the right of all people to access and use them.&#xD;&#xA;That form of awareness is socially extremely important, and scientists&#xD;&#xA;should more than all others be aware of it as it is crucial for their&#xD;&#xA;work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I remind the users of this community that the [open access&#xD;&#xA;movement][2] is nowadays championned by the academic world in general, and&#xD;&#xA;is [supported by the best universities and research centers][3] in the&#xD;&#xA;world (including several I worked for). In addition, its origins are&#xD;&#xA;to be traced to the physics community and the work of physicist Paul&#xD;&#xA;Ginsparg who created [arXiv][4], the first open archive, at the Los Alamos&#xD;&#xA;National Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This historical role of the physics community makes it all the more&#xD;&#xA;worrisome to find out that many of its current members do not&#xD;&#xA;understand the role and effect of the appropriate use of licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last reason is simply to say thank you to people like Lawrence Lessig&#xD;&#xA;and the whole Creative Commons community, and indirectly to Richard&#xD;&#xA;M. Stallman who invented the type of licenses now used in&#xD;&#xA;StackExchange and many other places to preserve everyone's access to&#xD;&#xA;knowledge, éducation and culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is customary, and even required, in the academic community to give&#xD;&#xA;references to the works we have been using. We do use these licenses&#xD;&#xA;all the time, and our work owes them more and more. It seems only&#xD;&#xA;fitting to mention them regularly, without abusing it on minor&#xD;&#xA;contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why am I saying this ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My remarks about the fact that many members of this community do not&#xD;&#xA;understand the meaning and role of licenses is based on the exchange of comments&#xD;&#xA;when I did include a license with one or two of my posts (I do spend&#xD;&#xA;significant time on some). One user went so far as to edit my post to&#xD;&#xA;remove the license, arguing that it was controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being controversial does not seem to me a sufficient reason to erase&#xD;&#xA;something. Controversy is an essential ingredient of creation and&#xD;&#xA;advancement of knowledge. Free speech was actually an academic&#xD;&#xA;creation, and some universities still maintain an age-old tradition of&#xD;&#xA;having (now symbolic) bodyguards for people defending their doctoral&#xD;&#xA;dissertation, so that they can speak freely. Free speech is supposed&#xD;&#xA;to be the rule, unless a clear problem can be identified, to say&#xD;&#xA;things as loosely as possible. This was just this user's opinion&#xD;&#xA;against mine, and though he may be a trusted user, that is obviously&#xD;&#xA;not his kind of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, erasing a license or any kind of copyright&#xD;&#xA;information from a work is generally an offense punishable by&#xD;&#xA;law, probably in his country, certainly in mine, in the USA and in&#xD;&#xA;most countries in the world. I do not mean this as any kind of threat,&#xD;&#xA;but only as an example of general illiteracy in those matters, which&#xD;&#xA;actually justifies my position above, especially in regard to&#xD;&#xA;education. Actually he would have a good defense, the only possible&#xD;&#xA;one: this is the license demanded on this site, so that he was not&#xD;&#xA;really changing anything. But if that is the case, why erase it ? It&#xD;&#xA;obviously is not controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 from the author][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="653a6cb3-62dc-4f44-97dd-97d5a1081fc0" CreationDate="2013-07-05T17:37:16.727" UserId="24773" Text="About the inclusion of a license in a post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="653a6cb3-62dc-4f44-97dd-97d5a1081fc0" CreationDate="2013-07-05T17:37:16.727" UserId="24773" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="daa20801-2a9d-4263-a63e-a9f98be4d005" CreationDate="2013-07-05T17:45:29.807" UserId="25247" Text="Gentlemen,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who can explain me the strange things that happen all the way with [my question about the Mendeleev table][1] here? At the beginning I could not edit it or make comments after it. That's why I tried to give my own answers to it, but my first answer was deleted. I wrote another one, and today somebody deleted the chain of comments after it (my talk with the users with names dimension10 and Mitchell Porter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to find out, what is the idea? If the person who does this wants to inspire me with something, I suggest him to do this openly. If I violate some rules, or do something wrong, it will be much more honest to tell me this directly, than to compel me to catch anonymous hints. If not, then I believe there is a very interesting explanation of this phenomena, that resembles discrimination so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="daa20801-2a9d-4263-a63e-a9f98be4d005" CreationDate="2013-07-05T17:45:29.807" UserId="25247" Text="What happens with &quot;the explanation of the Mendeleev table&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="daa20801-2a9d-4263-a63e-a9f98be4d005" CreationDate="2013-07-05T17:45:29.807" UserId="25247" Text="|discussion|editing|etiquette|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="e3d8e0d6-00cf-4976-a13a-a464475808a7" CreationDate="2013-07-05T18:09:53.493" UserId="7433" Text="It's not that we don't understand the need for licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two issues with having an explicit CC-BY-SA license on the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's completely unnecessary. The footer mentions CC-BY-SA 3.0. The people who actually follow licenses will look for it there. The people who ignore them, well, they would ignore it anyway  wherever you keep the license (of course you can put up a takedown request or ask SE to do so if you find improperly attributed material).&#xD;&#xA; - It's misleading. It gives the impression that users are allowed to specify any license they want -- this is false, all of the content _must_ be CC-BY-SA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a matter of fact, erasing a license or any kind of copyright information from a work is generally an offense punishable by law, probably in his country, certainly in mine, in the USA and in most countries in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except that the license wasn't erased. The license was already there, in the footer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My remarks about the fact that many members of this community do not understand the meaning and role of licenses is based on the exchange of comments when I did include a license with one or two of my posts (I do spend significant time on some)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you are basing your &quot;fact&quot; on [this comment exchange][1]: I (and most pobably the others) do indeed understand how licensing works, and have been using CC-BY-SA for a while now. We also know that SE _already_ licenses all material as CC-BY-SA (3.0), so there was no need for the license blurb (and as mentioned above, it can be harmful too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69245/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="76ea7848-6dcf-46d8-b833-05405e4fac03" CreationDate="2013-07-05T18:29:03.180" UserId="7433" Text="The post had been migrated from TheoreticalPhysics.SE, and there must have been some glitch in the user account reassociation. That's why you couldn't comment initially (which was fixed later when this was brought to my attention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your deleted post wasn't an answer, it was a remark, which is why it wa deleted. It should have been a comment or an edit to the question. Of course, at the time, you could do neither (you'll find that you can do both now), so it's understandable that this frustrated you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment thread was getting long and wasn't so constructive, which is probably why it got deleted. Your stance there was a bit aggressive as well, you seemed to be asserting that nobody but a mathematician would understand what you meant, which can be taken as offensive. This may have contributed to the reason for deletion. Please be nice on this network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are _not_ for discussion. If you see something wrong or want to suggest an improvement, you use a comment. If a comment thread is becoming a discussion, or if you wish to hold one, you go to chat. On Stack Exchange, comments are considered third-class citizens -- can be deleted without reason. In this case, the bulk of the conversation had already been [moved to chat][1], so there shouldn't have been an issue deleting them. _Usually_, comments are deleted when they can no longer serve their purpose, that is, they can no longer result in improvements to the post. This can happen if the author either incorporates the suggestions (or corrects the mistakes), or gives a refusal to do so&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the &quot;correction in tone&quot; [here][2], that was my fault: Someone had flagged the comment, and I felt that it was best to tone it down a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. There's nothing wrong with refusing changes or corrections. However, many a time it renders the comments useless, so these things get deleted.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9405/discussion-between-dimension10-and-sergei-akbarov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics#comment142792_16648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="1523e19a-1257-422a-b09d-fc80f829f532" CreationDate="2013-07-06T02:09:47.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/353334934137618433" />
  <row Id="9299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="26a09b45-cafa-4ea7-8287-fec55560d968" CreationDate="2013-07-06T03:45:12.753" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="I'm using the latest version of RSSOwl and the tag [general-relativity] does not load any questions. The feed sits next to the other feeds I have and actually looks for questions every time I try to update the feed, but no questions are loaded in the browser. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="26a09b45-cafa-4ea7-8287-fec55560d968" CreationDate="2013-07-06T03:45:12.753" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="Tag for 'general-relativity' does not load in rss feeder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="26a09b45-cafa-4ea7-8287-fec55560d968" CreationDate="2013-07-06T03:45:12.753" UserDisplayName="user756" Text="|bug|tags|rss|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="4d2e378b-52d6-4a18-9b45-5e2e0b37565e" CreationDate="2013-07-06T14:01:58.973" UserId="8143" Text="I wish that physics.SE users would give as much thought to the copyright of third-party content as they do to this discussion. When I flagged the embedding of a photograph protected by copyright into a post, my flag was classified as &quot;helpful&quot; yet the image remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there should be regular reminders that only content from Wikimedia Commons (or equivalent websites if they exist) may be freely embedded into posts. For all other content protected by copyright, the right way to go about this is to put a link to the web page on which it resides. It's an inconvenience because readers then have to click on the link to view the content, but it's the only way to be sure that one does not run afoul of copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fair Use&quot; is probably O.K. for quoting brief excerpts of a text, but I doubt it is O.K. as a justification for embedding a photograph or illustration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="44576924-b451-4f79-8632-904e2c3835c5" CreationDate="2013-07-06T15:48:24.700" UserId="520" Text="As [Manishearth notes][1], the [Terms of Service][2] are quite clear on how material on the site is licensed. If you don't want the material licensed that way they don't post it to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the copyright holder, you are obviously free to offer the material under another license if you want (the Creative Commons licenses being non-exclusive), but you don't get to do that on Stack Exchange's dime (by posting that offer on their websites); instead you should make that second offer in another venue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4514/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="ecfed212-c94b-4ad6-bec6-6c5552b85f11" CreationDate="2013-07-06T17:59:23.910" UserId="9162" Text="Ive been viewing the physics stack for a year but recently I've been unable to log in using iPad safari. I can on the same device using skyfire. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="ecfed212-c94b-4ad6-bec6-6c5552b85f11" CreationDate="2013-07-06T17:59:23.910" UserId="9162" Text="Difficulty gouging in w safari on iPad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="ecfed212-c94b-4ad6-bec6-6c5552b85f11" CreationDate="2013-07-06T17:59:23.910" UserId="9162" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="9e2ef592-6679-489d-9357-96528de554b3" CreationDate="2013-07-06T18:17:51.700" UserId="7433" Comment="http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com" Text="I've been viewing the physics stack for a year but recently I've been unable to log in using iPad Safari. I can on the same device using skyfire. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="9e2ef592-6679-489d-9357-96528de554b3" CreationDate="2013-07-06T18:17:51.700" UserId="7433" Comment="http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com" Text="Difficulty logging in with safari on iPad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="54013e38-7cc8-4e2b-be93-2c408f5fdce4" CreationDate="2013-07-06T21:26:35.843" UserId="124" Comment="remove superfluous license text" Text="I am in the habit of often specifying the license on what I write, for&#xD;&#xA;many reasons.  This license is usually The Creative Commons license CC&#xD;&#xA;BY-SA. It does not create any conflict with StackExchange because that&#xD;&#xA;is precisely the license that is needed for StackExchange as specified&#xD;&#xA;in the [Terms of Service][1]. So the operation of StackExchange can in no way be disrupted by such a&#xD;&#xA;license on a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing in the Terms of Service, or anywhere that I could&#xD;&#xA;see, that prohibits this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand that having a license on each little bit of&#xD;&#xA;information can be bothersome for users of the site, and is not very&#xD;&#xA;meaningful anyway. Hence I am refraining from using it on smaller&#xD;&#xA;pieces of writing. On a larger piece, it is small enough that it is&#xD;&#xA;hardly noticeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do I want to do it ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first reason is that a lot of people will copy a document without&#xD;&#xA;thinking further about copyright issues.  They will usually keep the&#xD;&#xA;license if it is there, but will not bother when it is implicit. Given&#xD;&#xA;that I am using a pseudo, that quickly makes an orphan work with no&#xD;&#xA;license on the web, which some people could appropriate through&#xD;&#xA;specific legislations, and I do not want that. I have no certainty&#xD;&#xA;that anyone, other than myself or close relatives, will want and have&#xD;&#xA;the right in the future to preserve open access to what I write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second reason is educational. It is important in the digital world&#xD;&#xA;that people understand the existence of licenses, and their role. It&#xD;&#xA;is apparent to me that users of StackExchange do not. Licenses may&#xD;&#xA;protect the rights and income of authors in some cases, but they may&#xD;&#xA;also protect works and the right of all people to access and use them.&#xD;&#xA;That form of awareness is socially extremely important, and scientists&#xD;&#xA;should more than all others be aware of it as it is crucial for their&#xD;&#xA;work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I remind the users of this community that the [open access&#xD;&#xA;movement][2] is nowadays championned by the academic world in general, and&#xD;&#xA;is [supported by the best universities and research centers][3] in the&#xD;&#xA;world (including several I worked for). In addition, its origins are&#xD;&#xA;to be traced to the physics community and the work of physicist Paul&#xD;&#xA;Ginsparg who created [arXiv][4], the first open archive, at the Los Alamos&#xD;&#xA;National Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This historical role of the physics community makes it all the more&#xD;&#xA;worrisome to find out that many of its current members do not&#xD;&#xA;understand the role and effect of the appropriate use of licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last reason is simply to say thank you to people like Lawrence Lessig&#xD;&#xA;and the whole Creative Commons community, and indirectly to Richard&#xD;&#xA;M. Stallman who invented the type of licenses now used in&#xD;&#xA;StackExchange and many other places to preserve everyone's access to&#xD;&#xA;knowledge, éducation and culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is customary, and even required, in the academic community to give&#xD;&#xA;references to the works we have been using. We do use these licenses&#xD;&#xA;all the time, and our work owes them more and more. It seems only&#xD;&#xA;fitting to mention them regularly, without abusing it on minor&#xD;&#xA;contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why am I saying this ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My remarks about the fact that many members of this community do not&#xD;&#xA;understand the meaning and role of licenses is based on the exchange of comments&#xD;&#xA;when I did include a license with one or two of my posts (I do spend&#xD;&#xA;significant time on some). One user went so far as to edit my post to&#xD;&#xA;remove the license, arguing that it was controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being controversial does not seem to me a sufficient reason to erase&#xD;&#xA;something. Controversy is an essential ingredient of creation and&#xD;&#xA;advancement of knowledge. Free speech was actually an academic&#xD;&#xA;creation, and some universities still maintain an age-old tradition of&#xD;&#xA;having (now symbolic) bodyguards for people defending their doctoral&#xD;&#xA;dissertation, so that they can speak freely. Free speech is supposed&#xD;&#xA;to be the rule, unless a clear problem can be identified, to say&#xD;&#xA;things as loosely as possible. This was just this user's opinion&#xD;&#xA;against mine, and though he may be a trusted user, that is obviously&#xD;&#xA;not his kind of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, erasing a license or any kind of copyright&#xD;&#xA;information from a work is generally an offense punishable by&#xD;&#xA;law, probably in his country, certainly in mine, in the USA and in&#xD;&#xA;most countries in the world. I do not mean this as any kind of threat,&#xD;&#xA;but only as an example of general illiteracy in those matters, which&#xD;&#xA;actually justifies my position above, especially in regard to&#xD;&#xA;education. Actually he would have a good defense, the only possible&#xD;&#xA;one: this is the license demanded on this site, so that he was not&#xD;&#xA;really changing anything. But if that is the case, why erase it ? It&#xD;&#xA;obviously is not controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="4b1d60fd-4b69-4260-986a-300cfb32fa82" CreationDate="2013-07-07T16:37:44.960" UserId="21843" Text="I am trying to get most out of stackexchange by asking and answering, and as a human, I do go wrong. I am sure that the right way to point it out is by a downvote, and/or a comment, but then looking up my history, past answers, and downvoting them sequentially is a source of demotivation. I do not want to disclose the name in public, but what I do want to know is how do I get in touch with the right people, and seek help regarding this issue? I do think if this continues, it will be difficult to continue using this very excellent resource....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="4b1d60fd-4b69-4260-986a-300cfb32fa82" CreationDate="2013-07-07T16:37:44.960" UserId="21843" Text="How do I Report Stalking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="4b1d60fd-4b69-4260-986a-300cfb32fa82" CreationDate="2013-07-07T16:37:44.960" UserId="21843" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="f2800c0e-89cc-4d7e-bb3f-de3293000ea9" CreationDate="2013-07-07T16:41:44.047" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; How do I Report Stalking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Custom flagging one of your own posts and mentioning the details is enough. This works too, however it is best to do these things in private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  but then looking up my history, past answers, and downvoting them sequentially is a source of demotivation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not exactly stalking, though serial downvoting will be reversed. If the comments are constructive, if is OK, but if they are rude or otherwise non constructive, this is not good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rest assured, I am looking into it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="8b4735f8-e4c6-4d44-a378-8fc4c0e090c7" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:31:02.840" UserId="2751" Text="If I dont want to take the credit (reputation) for a question, but answerer should still obtain the reputation they deserve, is there some kind of a &quot;question-only community wiki&quot; option I can invoke?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing which comes to my mind that would serve the purpose is disassociating the question from my account after asking, but I have heard that people are not very fond of doing this without stringent reasons ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="8b4735f8-e4c6-4d44-a378-8fc4c0e090c7" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:31:02.840" UserId="2751" Text="How can I ask a &quot;community wiki&quot; question such that the answerers can still earn reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="8b4735f8-e4c6-4d44-a378-8fc4c0e090c7" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:31:02.840" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="2dce5f26-b2f2-4c24-9167-f1d207c06d4c" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:36:54.303" UserId="7433" Text="Nope. Why would you want this though?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, question-only CW will not be used for this. (For that matter, try not to use answer CW for this either, but it's not that bad a thing if you do)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="4aa1f201-fe49-49e5-8e8a-98ae19330d0b" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:42:01.067" UserId="2751" Text="Is there a way to save a draft of a not yet finished answer I am writing, such that I can shut down my computer and continue working on it later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My not obtimal sulotion for far for this problem is to &quot;hide&quot; the unfinished answer for users with &lt;10000 rep, work on it as long as it takes me, and redisplay it for the full audience when I have finished it. But the bumping of the question with each edit even of hidden answers is some kind of annoying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there a better solution supported by Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="4aa1f201-fe49-49e5-8e8a-98ae19330d0b" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:42:01.067" UserId="2751" Text="Is there a way to save a not yet finished answer such that I can shut down my PC and contimue working on it later?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="4aa1f201-fe49-49e5-8e8a-98ae19330d0b" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:42:01.067" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4528" RevisionGUID="05b6529f-70b2-4bd2-8494-2098c50bdabb" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:46:29.880" UserId="7433" Text="Drafts are automatically saved every few minutes; if you visit the page again the text will be available to you. IIRC you can only have one question draft and one answer draft at a time, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9335" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="ef001d9a-0155-47b8-86ce-60c5296f4824" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:43:09.903" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9336" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="49f0a3b3-8f5b-4419-802c-9a2f38b00345" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:43:54.250" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="2f4bb8d3-171d-4b52-a022-6e64c276d092" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:46:07.213" UserId="2911" Text="This tag is gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BURNINATED](https://i.stack.imgur.com/M2qer.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Please care for the widows and orphans](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="508c0389-d508-42e1-860e-cf0978483e5c" CreationDate="2013-07-08T12:09:29.833" UserId="2451" Comment="update" Text="**May 21st 2013:** So far less than 20 questions have be tagged [tag:popular-science]. It seems that the [popular-science tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/popular-science) has mostly been non-systematically attached to questions, where either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. OP explicitly asked for a simplified layman explanation, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. OP's question was spurred after reading/watching a pop-sci source of information (i.e.  different from a physics textbook or  physics journal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update July 8th, 2013:** So far around 80 question have be tagged [tag:popular-science]. It is a meta tag still without a precise unanimous definition yet. Different users seem to have different opinion about what it means. Some user seems to use it to brand/mark questions negatively. Moreover, [tag:popular-science] retagging activity is beginning to be disruptive to the main site front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these issues are not properly addressed, I recommend that the [tag:popular-science] tag is burninated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="9b898b5b-e20a-46bb-b082-dac19869e9f6" CreationDate="2013-07-08T20:53:20.330" UserId="6634" Text="I got in the habit on SO of removing thanks and signature lines (and greetings) during edits because they don't add to the question and are relatively unneeded. I think we should adopt the same policy here and remove them from questions where they appear (and ideally not include them when writing new questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind going through and editing questions to remove them, but I would like it to be something everybody does so when they re-tag or edit questions for other reasons, they can remove these lines too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find questions of this sort by searching:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    thanks closed:no is:question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where you can replace thanks with whatever other words that could bring up things like greetings and signatures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, here is the MSO discussion on the same topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="9b898b5b-e20a-46bb-b082-dac19869e9f6" CreationDate="2013-07-08T20:53:20.330" UserId="6634" Text="Removing thanks/signature lines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="9b898b5b-e20a-46bb-b082-dac19869e9f6" CreationDate="2013-07-08T20:53:20.330" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="c40b36a6-bdc7-4b99-b5b3-43be5c1d5601" CreationDate="2013-07-08T21:04:23.193" UserId="520" Text="The stock answer is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes, we like to remove greetings and sign offs but we prefer edits to address more than one issue at a time. Just removing the 'Thanks,' is a small edit and those are generally discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, sometime it is hard to find other things to improve, which puts you (and the edit reviewers) in a bit of a bind. That may be the case with some of the ones you have pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I have nothing better than the stock answer to offer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="e7cc6578-9a9f-4593-af94-0de11f45eb44" CreationDate="2013-07-09T13:05:28.787" UserId="825" Text="I don't care either way. It's unneccessary to remove thanks and greetings, but it's also unneccessary to include them. I wouldn't encourage anyone to search for them to delete them. If you're editing the post anyway, you're free to remove them and streamline the writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cases where I would encourage editing out the bylines is when they become overly prosaic or distracting. In small doses however, they do no harm, and can make the tone friendlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side remark: I often feel compelled to include a little &quot;thank you&quot; or similar, because I don't want the tone of the question to be demanding or unthankful. (From a utilitarian POV, I think you also get better answers if you ask nicely.) Because I know people are strange about salutations here, I often write something like &quot;any ideas&quot; or &quot;I'd appreciate&quot;, and wrap it in the middle of a sentence, so it's hard to edit out. I end up spending way to much time thinking about stuff like this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I'd like a no-intervention policy on &quot;thank you&quot;s. Let them stand as the author wrote them, unless they are distracting. Feel free to remove elaborate &quot;Hello, I'm new here and let me as a question&quot;-introductions, and forum-style signatures. But while you're at it, try to improve the *actual question*, because that's what's important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="151b36fb-a5ce-494f-a03a-f8ffe156f304" CreationDate="2013-07-09T17:01:39.370" UserId="7433" Text="Reason #1: Homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="69473df2-e9e3-4922-9b21-e57970c4d72d" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:01:26.927" UserId="7433" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Reason #1: Homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10262347#10262347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="85ae17e5-c0bf-433e-b1c1-14800c505924" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:05:23.400" UserId="7433" Text="Reason #2: Non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10263804#10263804&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with **mainstream physics** here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Physics Meta](http://meta.physicsstackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Physics Meta bit will link to a specific [meta-tag:faq] postonce we have that written." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="b112463a-5ecc-4e8e-bb0d-38024de1b8e5" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:16:22.887" UserId="7433" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Reason #1: Homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat converation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="ffe89811-d5e6-410d-adc2-471ad244e997" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:18:05.373" UserId="7433" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Reason #2: Non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with **mainstream physics** here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Physics Meta](http://meta.physicsstackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Physics Meta bit will link to a specific [meta-tag:faq] post once we have that written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/non-mainstream-physics-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="99302bfb-cb96-4c09-a2fd-aa97b4a890c7" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:23:52.453" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Often we get questions of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;How to build this particular device?&quot; or&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Why was this design implemented in such-and-such product?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions appropriate for Physics Stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="99302bfb-cb96-4c09-a2fd-aa97b4a890c7" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:23:52.453" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="99302bfb-cb96-4c09-a2fd-aa97b4a890c7" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:23:52.453" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|scope|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="2f4e8c15-3296-41d7-a060-3a33a0d8c7f8" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:23:52.453" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;- How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;- How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple engineering sites on the Stackexchange Network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9353" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="1a2a4fc0-d1f1-473e-95bd-3317ab2018cf" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:24:24.657" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9354" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="fa98759e-4654-41ad-9636-b7ade1a7a265" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:24:24.657" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="57c1c1f3-c6ff-4cfa-9e2e-c44f51be0d33" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:29:09.880" UserId="7433" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&gt; Under Construction. [Relevant query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/123548)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often we get questions of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;How to build this particular device?&quot; or&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Why was this design implemented in such-and-such product?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions appropriate for Physics Stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="60a68df0-d4a5-48a3-b41b-94f8985c6348" CreationDate="2013-07-09T19:34:14.310" UserId="7433" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;- How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;- How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple engineering sites on the Stackexchange Network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Robotics][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="2ab070e4-1569-445a-b9b5-cc6b9621dcfd" CreationDate="2013-07-09T20:00:58.687" UserId="7433" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of studying how the natural world works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="b55091e0-7d43-43c2-b2f6-fc30c6fb2e31" CreationDate="2013-07-09T20:13:59.870" UserId="7433" Comment="added 697 characters in body" Text="We have a bunch of proposed close reasons [here][1], and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's &quot;engineering&quot; close reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16:00UTC (same timing as our regular biweekly chat session, though we don't have that next week). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agenda of the event is to discuss close reasons, and settle on a final set of three close reasons and their wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the timings are inconvenient, lease let me know. I'm open to changing it if enough people ask for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK if you have some points to make but won't be able to make it into the room. You can post those points on the [close reasons thread][2], and we'll try to include that in our assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can register for the discussion [here][3] (it also lists what time it will at in your timezone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat session over: [Part 1][4], [Part 2][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have elected to remove the Math close reason, as we nw have a migration path to Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three proposed close reasons are below. If you would like to improve them or feel that they are counterproductive, please comment below them. (I suggest you check the bookmarked sub-discussion before commenting, the point may have been brought up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the majority of the community feels that they are OK, these will probably be locked in tomorrow-ish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="750d6df1-0ae5-4894-bad1-74ea64d7be72" CreationDate="2013-07-09T20:14:16.183" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="5680bdb4-135c-4cd7-a4e6-9d689b31317f" CreationDate="2013-07-09T20:15:31.160" UserId="7433" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="8a097984-6ca6-4521-83f4-152ac6693bc2" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:13:40.897" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Under construction&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note: This is not a new policy, just a meta post about the old one. It will be linked to in the new close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA; - What defines non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA; - What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="8a097984-6ca6-4521-83f4-152ac6693bc2" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:13:40.897" UserId="7433" Text="Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="8a097984-6ca6-4521-83f4-152ac6693bc2" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:13:40.897" UserId="7433" Text="|support|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9364" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="d3c166d4-23ff-4f9d-9b77-2762aa6faf49" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:13:40.897" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="520b7ce8-4e17-4317-82fe-63cdb1ba1ee7" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:13:40.897" UserId="7433" Text="##Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What defines non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9366" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="a33971fe-9b66-4d35-a19d-b6e37585e17b" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:13:40.897" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="a2c5a314-f4fe-4662-a32f-f9b7e2b7ef4e" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:20:34.003" UserId="7433" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;- How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;- How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Robotics][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Reverse Engineering][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9368" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="932e32a7-e419-4dcc-8bc2-0ce1f2432333" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:21:54.943" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="0b35d1b0-0227-4766-8808-6da35e5d9ca3" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:29:43.733" UserId="7433" Comment="added 871 characters in body" Text="##Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, questions and answers about non mainstream physics are not allowed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any post that attempts to work within the bounds of what we have determined to be &quot;mainstream physics&quot; is considered on topic for this site. A question that proposes a new concept, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed. On the other hand, if a question or answer uses a non-mainstream theory as its premise and attempts to go forward in that direction, it can be safely deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, they question will need to &#xD;&#xA;be specific in order to fit this format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What defines non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="6e386b9a-741f-42d8-820c-6110646dbcee" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:39:01.217" UserId="7433" Comment="reorder" Text="##Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, questions and answers about non mainstream physics are not allowed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, they question will need to be specific in order to fit this format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What defines mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of questions and answers are disallowed by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any post that attempts to work within the bounds of what we have determined to be &quot;mainstream physics&quot; is considered on topic for this site barring any other issues. For example, a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if a question or answer uses a non-mainstream theory as its premise and attempts to go forward in that direction, it can be safely closed or deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, be certain that it is indeed off topic by the above rules. Note that if a post is simply _wrong_, leave a constructive comment explaining why, and downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is indeed non mainstream, leave a comment stating the fact and linking to this meta post. For questions, flag or vote to close as non mainstream. For answers, use a custom moderator flag mentioning that it is non mainstream." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="46d05925-8592-441c-8799-f8246d205d86" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:51:56.163" UserId="7433" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="&gt; Under construction&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note: This is not a new policy, just a meta post about the old one. It will be linked to in the new close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;- What defines non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;- What sort of questions and answers are disallowed by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;- What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="2ab0215b-58b3-450d-b572-c3b6c0561e7a" CreationDate="2013-07-10T03:01:45.667" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="changed out engineering site" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;  - How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;  - How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network. Your question may be suitable at one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Electrical Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Robotics][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="2ce6da2f-4517-48a1-9192-f44588218952" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:21:04.893" UserId="6634" Text="Given the discussion related to whether [Engineering questions are on topic][1], we also need to consider whether the [tag:engineering] tag has any reason to exist. We discussed it in the chat room using the most recent questions, the transcript of which can be found at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/discussion-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the [tag:engineering] tag exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="2ce6da2f-4517-48a1-9192-f44588218952" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:21:04.893" UserId="6634" Text="What is the fate of the engineering tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="2ce6da2f-4517-48a1-9192-f44588218952" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:21:04.893" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="d8046290-2ff1-47cc-a1fe-1c740aa57520" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:22:17.257" UserId="6634" Text="I do not think the [tag:engineering] should remain. It does not add information to the questions that are very important for answering/categorizing it. Additionally, the existing questions that are on-topic don't need the tag while the ones that would rely on the tag are off-topic based on our discussions about engineering. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="df495f04-5964-464d-969c-b37d652dc597" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:26:45.073" UserId="6634" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;  - How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;  - How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad. Questions about the physical reasoning and analysis that lead to design decisions are on topic; questions seeking help designing or building something is off topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network. Your question may be suitable at one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Electrical Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Robotics][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="f80f8069-9aa0-4e03-8e9d-2e67ce451c74" CreationDate="2013-07-10T07:10:55.647" UserId="24705" Text="OK. I am an Engineering Physicist. And in my just-above-zero engineering experience, the application of Physics is of paramount importance. That being said, asking questions like &quot;how to build this device? &quot;should be off topic. However, questions related to engineering where questions pertain to a physical concept that has to be used, should be welcomed. After all, that is the goal of physics-making things that don't exist and improving things that exist for the good of mankind ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9379" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="3af1f089-a8d7-4afd-a637-0181c96ac05b" CreationDate="2013-07-10T07:10:55.647" UserId="24705" />
  <row Id="9380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="76f6afc8-8b4f-4e12-ba60-ae1b574bcd8e" CreationDate="2013-07-10T08:01:49.163" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9382" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="1a317333-ea31-48f5-8205-cd877a0de8d5" CreationDate="2013-07-10T08:33:52.543" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="65835b5a-7a92-4491-84f4-c69e93edb025" CreationDate="2013-07-10T13:23:30.140" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|tags|rss|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="dd492b19-2a04-4b57-b1da-c9c81fff61ff" CreationDate="2013-07-10T14:09:53.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/354965703931080704" />
  <row Id="9386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="0ef9e27d-5a7c-4f2c-a411-986f54b4d464" CreationDate="2013-07-10T15:44:15.170" UserId="7433" Comment="[status-completed]" Text="Reason #2: Non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with **mainstream physics** here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/non-mainstream-physics-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="4e3ac2be-8a0c-463e-a510-e8dd78e9fd51" CreationDate="2013-07-10T15:45:02.143" UserId="7433" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/7433)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="b8488598-4486-4e3b-8160-65665cea919c" CreationDate="2013-07-11T15:25:37.863" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-planned|featured|vote-to-close|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="ab860279-8d8e-4613-9591-8b5b6a40d14e" CreationDate="2013-07-11T15:43:18.590" UserId="7433" Comment="Character limit -_-" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/7433).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="652cb184-3bb2-4657-bc5f-b6efdce0a1d6" CreationDate="2013-07-11T20:47:04.990" UserId="6634" Text="[tag:coordinate-systems] -&gt; [tag:reference-frame]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9391" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="123c6258-3c34-4b11-92aa-cb58e8526b38" CreationDate="2013-07-11T20:47:04.990" UserId="6634" />
  <row Id="9394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="5acb1149-58f4-4795-88c6-3edb652f45ed" CreationDate="2013-07-12T06:55:51.973" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|vote-to-close|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="f4aedc06-90f4-49d3-8403-0b09d818decc" CreationDate="2013-07-12T06:57:52.607" UserId="7433" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="&gt; The close reasons have been finalized and implemented [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/), please direct requests for new close reasons to a separate meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="41db7e93-2127-4310-88d4-61ce40591e4e" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:10:57.563" UserId="16689" Text="[Here an other post][1] with a huge amount of comments below each post. I'm feeling annoyed by this: or I have to clic to let them appear if I want to read them all, or I have to scroll a lot for nothing if I do not care about the comments. Is there a way to overcome this issue ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose some ways to resolve the problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - allow some posts (especially in the meta part) to be more forum-like (no comment allowed for instance). That could be something like the *Wiki community* option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a small floating on the bottom of the page link going to the next answer (for those who knows Gmail, a link like *go to the next discussion message* on Gmail)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a link to expand / discard *all* the comment of a given page (close to  the *comment, edit, share* buttons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or eventually all of these options ! Please tell me what you think about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="41db7e93-2127-4310-88d4-61ce40591e4e" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:10:57.563" UserId="16689" Text="About the long comment list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="41db7e93-2127-4310-88d4-61ce40591e4e" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:10:57.563" UserId="16689" Text="|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="20cd4100-35bb-4d84-844a-16e7339962c3" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:36:21.293" UserId="11062" Text="First, Metas have their heart buried in comments. That's why the system doesn't disturb you often to *go to chat* while commenting in meta. Second, our meta is barely flooded. I suggest you to go to [MSO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at some upvoted question, it will be flooded with comments. Moderation over there is very difficult due to their over-population. I don't say that we don't need it. But, mods will definitely take some action if they see obsolete/offensive comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's just a discussion. So, we can keep it as it is. It isn't that much annoying..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="fa484b51-f808-46fc-b9fd-b9d1df268372" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:37:47.007" UserId="7433" Text="In the case of the main site, there shouldn't be long comment discussions in the first place. If you see this happening, just flag it and ask the participants to move the discussion to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of the meta site, a &quot;hide comments&quot; feature would be useful (also the &quot;next post --I like that idea&quot; , but IMO on meta comments are something that need reading too, sometimes they contain vauable points. Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW I think that the amount of comments by default shown on that meta post is ridiculous, usually only 5 or so get shown and the rest are hidden. Maybe it's because the comments are longer than usual that I'm noticing this , but usually the bulk of the comments are well hidden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="d66ce223-7cef-472b-9b3b-8cd4ef2bf588" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:46:02.773" UserId="9173" Text="My comment got deleted in the topic &quot;Aspiring scientist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It got deleted - fine. But i don't see who did it? &#xD;&#xA;Is it normal here, is it norm?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be aware of moderators who do that without leaving a comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="d66ce223-7cef-472b-9b3b-8cd4ef2bf588" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:46:02.773" UserId="9173" Text="Deleted comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="d66ce223-7cef-472b-9b3b-8cd4ef2bf588" CreationDate="2013-07-12T08:46:02.773" UserId="9173" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="76c07712-1b70-4de0-8f05-96261f2d8994" CreationDate="2013-07-12T09:05:26.890" UserId="7433" Text="Comments are ephermal, in general they can be deleted without explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the link was possibly non mainstrean and had been flagged (we disallow non mainstream physics here), and besides it had no potential of improving the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please only use comments to point out mistakes, ask for clarification, or suggest improvements. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9405" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="4dbbe336-987e-40bc-9a49-0d97c17028ae" CreationDate="2013-07-12T09:25:32.570" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="5d89bfe4-956d-4877-b930-042600c16721" CreationDate="2013-07-12T11:20:50.523" UserId="2451" Comment="added 43 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My comment got deleted in the topic [Aspiring scientist](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70808/2451). It got deleted - fine. But I don't see who did it? Is it normal here, is it norm? I would like to be aware of moderators who do that without leaving a comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="5d89bfe4-956d-4877-b930-042600c16721" CreationDate="2013-07-12T11:20:50.523" UserId="2451" Comment="added 43 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9408" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="ac8df149-3260-4155-9ea6-49b347054a82" CreationDate="2013-07-12T11:23:28.233" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9409" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="4c614305-4688-46e0-8955-851eb9927c37" CreationDate="2013-07-12T11:24:39.707" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|status-declined|down-votes|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="e9010679-2ec1-464b-9312-5301dd0c350f" CreationDate="2013-07-12T11:25:58.070" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="6f4c4167-45ac-4f2f-a9e4-3d7cd2d57b7f" CreationDate="2013-07-12T14:23:13.463" UserId="9789" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="3a99094d-1b21-404b-98a8-d8bf9746ce78" CreationDate="2013-07-12T14:24:29.813" UserId="9789" Text="Done. The tag has been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![stupidest game I ever played][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is now in the tag blacklist.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zm85C.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="48eec36f-77cf-434f-acfb-ef9d2df532ba" CreationDate="2013-07-12T17:04:35.867" UserId="7433" Comment="TEST2" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberishwaE RscSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......qawr ASDCSaASFAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4550" RevisionGUID="c9b707f6-b756-4f04-b9c2-e44f6aa583be" CreationDate="2013-07-13T03:40:03.087" UserId="6974" Text="Let me just comment on a very limited, but possibly important aspect of this issue. I don't think we should mess with copyright, but articles that are behind the paywall often have copies on the Internet that are posted legally: a lot of journals allow the authors to post copies (sometimes slightly modified) of their articles at the author's site, at the author's institution's site, or in the arxiv. For example, there are a couple of my articles at my personal site, and they are posted there in compliance with the policies of the journals. I guess (requests for) links to such copies should be allowed at Physics.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="7073d9f8-1206-42a3-9b94-52ee1b47c299" CreationDate="2013-07-13T13:47:44.387" UserId="11062" Text="I have a thought that this question is off-topic. But...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the day I joined here, I was active (though I had low-quality answers, I was still actively answering) for almost 8 months. Then, I had a vacation (can't use internet that much) when I stopped answering. I (am) still visited (visiting) each day, read &amp; voted a lot of posts. Once I came back, I can't participate actively like I did before. A few days later, I had another vacation when internet was sufficiently available. At that time, I can't control myself from answering questions. So, I started again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I had a terrible 1 month (diffusely avail. internet) vacation, when I stopped answering again. I don't know why I'm getting tired (bored) of answering stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still read many interesting Q&amp;As, vote many posts, edit &amp; review a few things, etc. But, I can't get back into the lane of answering questions. Does this happen to users often? or, Am I spending more time starring at these font over-and-over again which got me bored? (I can't figure this out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I have an opinion: For the first few months, I was giving utmost priority to rep. score, visiting the users list many time finding my position in the list (pardon me, but I did do that). Maybe that's why I answered a lot. Now, I don't even care to look at the &quot;just-another-number&quot; in my profile. I had figured out (at the start of this year) that rep. isn't determining how much knowledge someone has. Maybe, that could be a reason why I stopped answering. But, I do feel guilty for stopping my answers. I'm very much aware that no one is gonna worry for someone stopping answering questions. Still, I can't find a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a discussion. I need a few opinions and advice from users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="7073d9f8-1206-42a3-9b94-52ee1b47c299" CreationDate="2013-07-13T13:47:44.387" UserId="11062" Text="Is it true that Physics.SE gets bored often?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="7073d9f8-1206-42a3-9b94-52ee1b47c299" CreationDate="2013-07-13T13:47:44.387" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4552" RevisionGUID="2f315347-0644-44ce-9ca0-58f6032d413b" CreationDate="2013-07-13T15:37:52.043" UserId="6634" Text="It's not just boredom. My participation tends to ebb and flow with my research workload, and in particular the way I participate depends on what other work I have to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waiting for something to compile? I'll edit or flag questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waiting for some files to transfer? I'll look around for questions I can comment on to help either figure out what the person is asking or to help list out what I think would make a good answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoiding working all together because I have so much it's overwhelming? I'll hop into the chat, edit a whole bunch of tag wikis, and answer questions (ie. the past week). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately your participation is up to you. We each have an objective in participation. For some it's to learn; others to teach. I personally would like to get enough rep to cast close and reopen votes to help relieve some of the moderators' workload. I most often only have time to help moderate and improve posts rather than contributing original content, but right now I can only do that by flagging (and until recently, I could only suggest edits). I'm not a fan of pushing my work onto others to act on and would rather be able to do it directly. But getting the rep is hard because I don't have the time to generate original content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C'est la vie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the point is, don't feel guilty, don't feel like you're obligated to participate one way or another. You do what you want to do, what you have time for, and what you enjoy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="45140741-12c9-4e7a-81ea-21791eae5da6" CreationDate="2013-07-13T21:38:57.717" UserId="21944" Text="I recently answered a question with a bounty [Floating a ping pong ball in the air just using a pen!](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69731/floating-a-ping-pong-ball-in-the-air-just-using-a-pen/70371#70371), received 4 upvotes, and was awarded the bounty; I got +150 karma from the bounty as usual, but have not got any karma from the upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a bug, or a feature limiting karma from upvotes that I missed reading about in the FAQ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="45140741-12c9-4e7a-81ea-21791eae5da6" CreationDate="2013-07-13T21:38:57.717" UserId="21944" Text="No karma from upvotes - is this a bug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="45140741-12c9-4e7a-81ea-21791eae5da6" CreationDate="2013-07-13T21:38:57.717" UserId="21944" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="4308ef83-13c2-4a71-ae9b-f9b032cf64e0" CreationDate="2013-07-13T22:33:32.233" UserId="7433" Text="Firstly, it's &quot;reputation&quot;, not &quot;karma&quot; ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, that post is in [Community Wiki mode][1]. It does not accrue reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="c2e1b0ed-9368-4c7a-873c-f9cc0703f87e" CreationDate="2013-07-13T22:53:52.327" UserId="7433" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Firstly, it's &quot;reputation&quot;, not &quot;karma&quot; ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, that post is (was) in [Community Wiki mode][1]. It does not accrue reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="d1fb23cb-7767-433f-ada5-fdbc4f7f512d" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:18:00.507" UserId="11062" Text="[![Astrobites][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jaRuC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astrobites.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9426" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="38fb6bb8-1926-4ea4-a791-8be0dbcd34eb" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:18:00.507" UserId="11062" />
  <row Id="9428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="7a5fad67-2a3a-4513-96b8-3372569a26ec" CreationDate="2013-07-14T12:20:01.637" UserId="2751" Text="I have just noted that when writing a technical [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71056/2751) on the main page, a blue popup window appears telling me that the question I am writing is too subjective and will probably be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What distracting nonsense is this? Can this unneeded new feature be turned of on Physics SE? At least should the algorithm used to recognize inappropriate questions while they are written be debugged, such that it is not triggered when people are for example writing technical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People on sites like MathOverflow, CS Theory, etc will not be happy about such new features too I guess" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="7a5fad67-2a3a-4513-96b8-3372569a26ec" CreationDate="2013-07-14T12:20:01.637" UserId="2751" Text="Distracting popup window that appears when writing a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="7a5fad67-2a3a-4513-96b8-3372569a26ec" CreationDate="2013-07-14T12:20:01.637" UserId="2751" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="a6e38f7f-693d-4232-8d34-f64c489c69c3" CreationDate="2013-07-14T12:33:49.400" UserId="7433" Text="I've come across it a couple of times too -- it has very few false alarms, and usually comes up when you _are_ asking for opinions (Type &quot;what do you think&quot; in the topbar). I don't see why it's so annoying, it has a very useful feature and the couple of times you come across it, you can check your question for subjectiveness and _then_ post it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a new feature. It's always been there, afaict. The fact that you, a user who has asked 80-odd questions, have _just_ noticed it is testament to it not having too many false alarms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I doubt it will be turned off because it is extremely good at catching subjective questions (at least, ones I can come up with to test against it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, it's saying this (it's _not_ calling your question as &quot;too subjective&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question you're asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a &quot;maybe&quot; statement, and all it's saying is that there's a chance that the question is subjective. It basically tells newbies that subjective questions are disallowed -- many don't know about that. If you think your question isn't subjective, go ahead and post it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="51110a20-01b9-4620-a0f1-fef0b2aa9fa2" CreationDate="2013-07-14T13:42:12.527" UserId="21944" Comment="karma --&gt; *reputation*" Text="I recently answered a question with a bounty [Floating a ping pong ball in the air just using a pen!](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69731/floating-a-ping-pong-ball-in-the-air-just-using-a-pen/70371#70371), received 4 upvotes, and was awarded the bounty; I got +150 karma from the bounty as usual, but have not got any *reputation* from the upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a bug, or a feature limiting *reputation* from upvotes that I missed reading about in the FAQ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9433" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="51110a20-01b9-4620-a0f1-fef0b2aa9fa2" CreationDate="2013-07-14T13:42:12.527" UserId="21944" Comment="karma --&gt; *reputation*" Text="No *reputation* from upvotes - is this a bug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="2e2fc00b-4a7f-45c2-a8ae-198fd3f8728b" CreationDate="2013-07-14T13:47:42.693" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="d1561fd2-adf4-46e5-bd2a-cf898172ea44" CreationDate="2013-07-14T15:22:48.000" UserId="16371" Text="There is currently a proposal for a mathematical modeling stackexchange on Area51:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling?referrer=B5TWQ70QNWlDGxDR-o9vQA2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intended to have no overlap with physicsSE; questions that are on-topic on one site should be off topic on the other. With that said, the site is still in the definition phase, so it needs people to post suggested mathematical modeling questions that they would like to see answered in the future. These questions can then be voted on by others (a 5 vote limit) to decide what the site should be about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should help with any questions that are too experience based for MathSE and too mathematical or too localized for PhysicsSE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="d1561fd2-adf4-46e5-bd2a-cf898172ea44" CreationDate="2013-07-14T15:22:48.000" UserId="16371" Text="Mathematical modeling stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="d1561fd2-adf4-46e5-bd2a-cf898172ea44" CreationDate="2013-07-14T15:22:48.000" UserId="16371" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9438" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="62c4f589-ef3f-4944-b19d-e9af30add71e" CreationDate="2013-07-14T23:05:49.863" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="b90d9b5a-722d-4ca1-b06a-0ec6bacbf096" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:31:43.890" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I was putting a bounty on a [question][1] for the first time, and the text window started bugging out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![bounty error][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, some of the prompt is cut off on the left-hand side (the &quot;E&quot; in &quot;Enter&quot;, the &quot;Ar&quot; in &quot;Are&quot;). More frustratingly, *my* text was altered in the middle of typing. What I actually typed began &quot;This is a great question&quot; and ended &quot;based on&quot;, but the substitutions `T` → `(` and `b` → `w` occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change seemed to be associated with the linewrap in the text box. Also, the final version came out fine, it was just my display that was wrong at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, this occurred running Firefox 22.0 on a Windows machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62918/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IR0v4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="b90d9b5a-722d-4ca1-b06a-0ec6bacbf096" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:31:43.890" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Cut-off display and wrong displayed text in posting bounty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="b90d9b5a-722d-4ca1-b06a-0ec6bacbf096" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:31:43.890" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|bug|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="52f5f9fd-419a-4894-b405-64615ab67360" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:26:16.123" UserId="5477" Text="The Stack Exchange model does not work well for &quot;big list&quot; questions, and these are banned network-wide for good reason. However, many of the other stack exchange sites allow or even encourage list questions that do not fall under the &quot;big list&quot; category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Physics.SE currently has a *de facto* policy against list questions of any kind, even if they are quite limited in scope and technical in nature. I know I'm not the only user who finds this frustrating, and so I would like to open this policy up for discussion. In particular, I would like to propose that we make a distinction between unhelpful &quot;big list&quot; questions and more productive &quot;good list&quot; questions that should be allowed on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good starting point for this is the &quot;[good subjective, bad subjective][1]&quot; post on the Stack Exchange blog. Although it doesn't mention lists specifically, it makes the helpful point that subjectivity in itself does not make a question unsuitable for the Stack Exchange model, and if a subjective question follows an appropriate set of guidelines then it can be productive. I believe the same to be true of list questions. In fact many of the guidelines for subjective questions in general could be carried over to list questions in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;good subjective, bad subjective&quot; blog post gives the following set of guidelines for subjective posts. I think this will need some modification beyond just replacing &quot;subjective&quot; with &quot;list&quot;, but it gives us a start in coming up with a suitable set of guidelines for list questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Great subjective questions inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;2. Great subjective questions tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;3. Great subjective questions have a constructive, fair, and impartial tone&#xD;&#xA;4. Great subjective questions invite sharing experiences over opinions&#xD;&#xA;5. Great subjective questions insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references&#xD;&#xA;6. Great subjective questions are more than just mindless social fun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For list questions on physics I think the most important requirements should be that they are based on **facts and not opinions**, and that they be sufficiently **limited in scope**, i.e. not likely to produce and endless string of answers, none of which is any better than the others. Of course, the latter is a judgement call, and we need to discuss the criteria used to make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good list questions could include (for example) lists of applications of a particular theory; references to support a particular claim; or ways to determine a particular empirical quantity. In each case we have to be careful about scope (&quot;What are some applications of Newton's second law?&quot; would be a bad list question), but appropriately restrictive list questions of these kinds could be a useful and productive thing to have on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very grateful if anyone would like to update this question with some links to examples. [Here][2] is a recent one that sparked some [discussion][3], but I know there have been many other good examples over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71019/apart-from-turbulence-what-is-the-most-important-unsolved-problems-in-plasma-ph&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9648/discussion-between-david-zaslavsky-and-dilaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="52f5f9fd-419a-4894-b405-64615ab67360" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:26:16.123" UserId="5477" Text="Good list, bad list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="52f5f9fd-419a-4894-b405-64615ab67360" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:26:16.123" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="4ad6eec7-e204-4524-8399-36bb87bdcbce" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:40:06.480" UserId="6634" Text="My take on this, and I'll expand it some more when I think about it more, is that there is a very clear good list/bad list distinction. But most of the questions people argue are good lists, I don't agree are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what makes a bad list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A single answer is unlikely to be complete on its own. The question you cited that prompted this post also falls on the bad subjective side -- what one considers an &quot;important problem&quot; in the field may not be what others consider.&#xD;&#xA; 1. An answer must be continually updated. Again, the cited question falls in this category. Even if somehow we determined a complete list of &quot;important problems,&quot; that could change tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of things that fall outside of those two primary issues I think would be good lists. But I'm a bit hard-pressed to come up with what those would be, and I don't recall any questions that I think would fall in that category, but that's not to say they aren't out there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as we discussed with [finding journals][1] with the [tag:reference-request] tag, I think questions like the one you cited are best posed in chat or on meta to **indicate the tag-wiki needs to be updated to reflect the answer**. For instance, the tag-wiki on [tag:plasma-physics] could be updated to reflect current research areas, including key papers, journals, and reviews. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for a question/answer, that's what the tag wiki's should be used to communicate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="edb941f8-4cc6-4907-85f0-2598953c561f" CreationDate="2013-07-15T06:43:51.287" UserId="23119" Text="I am currently editing the [tag:string-theory] tag wiki, and am adding some links to good books, which are downloadable from open-source resources, like http://gen.lib.rus.ec/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is this considered a violation of copyright/bla-bla-bla policy? Is it allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="edb941f8-4cc6-4907-85f0-2598953c561f" CreationDate="2013-07-15T06:43:51.287" UserId="23119" Text="Is linking to open-source sites for books a violation of copyright here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="edb941f8-4cc6-4907-85f0-2598953c561f" CreationDate="2013-07-15T06:43:51.287" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|support|tags|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="62adde59-b5e3-4968-863f-1e4db23a1fe7" CreationDate="2013-07-15T07:00:01.450" UserId="124" Text="I won't address the legal issues (because I'm not qualified), but in general, it's not a violation of any SE policy to _link_ to anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the interest of maintaining professionalism, I would _suggest_ that if you want to identify a specific book, you should link to the Amazon product page or some similar canonical identifier, not to a site that offers the book's content for download. The exception is if the file is made available at no cost (and with no login requirements or other access restrictions) by the copyright holder (author or publisher), then you can link to the page where this authorized copy is available for download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a courtesy to users of the site, you should link not to a PDF file itself, but to a &quot;landing page&quot; which includes a link to the actual PDF file. (Or whatever the actual file is, if it's not a PDF.) This is analogous to how, when linking to papers on arXiv, you always link to the abstract page, not the PDF." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="2a2d8e78-6fca-4c1e-894e-9c90c979ac08" CreationDate="2013-07-15T07:16:15.323" UserId="520" Text="Since my comment may have been part of sparking this I should probably say a few more words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sympathetic to the position that carefully limited, actively curated, reasonably objective list questions can be a good thing (tm) for the site. I really am. But I don't believe that those conditions can be reliably met and I know from bitter experience that allowing list questions to proliferate pollutes a good Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my opinion---personal not speaking *ex cathedra* here---is to shut them all down with extreme prejudice. Kill them with fire kind of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None-the-less I will stand by a community decision--like I did during the period when [tag:books] was on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let me register my pleas that if you will have these &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* that limits be set and enforced that keep us from having an endless procession of make-a-list-like-that-other-list-question-but-with-one-more-adjective-or-restriction questions&#xD;&#xA;* that subjective ideas like &quot;important&quot; be kicked to the side of the road (and *yes* this means kill that stupid important-plasma-problems-not-including-the-most-important-plasma-problem question not just with fire, but with bolt after bold of highly ionized gas)&#xD;&#xA;* that we not accept every list question that someone who has read a couple of pop-sci books can think up, nor even those that will occur to an average undergrad: those things are *very* well covered in endless books and will be treated in any course of study&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there you have my list of fun-hating conditions, and now you can all get off my lawn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="ebae54ca-5694-4826-b241-a4df1fd46e8c" CreationDate="2013-07-15T09:59:49.153" UserId="2751" Text="I exactly agree with Nathaniel that good lists reasonably defined as has started doing it in this meta question should be allowed on Physics SE, as it is done on other sites in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the good points already made, when considering if a list is too big or good and reasonably narrowed in scope it would be appropriate to judge things from a physics point of view too, instead of focusing on some language issues that could hint (if one wants to interpret the question like this) to a too big list. To give an example for what I mean, [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56918/2751) question got first closed as a (big) list question because of such language issues, even though when looking at and thinking about it from a physics point of view, it is clear that there simply can not be an infinite or big number of ways the uncertainty principle can be modified in accordance with the the current experimental and theoretical physics knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the two points brought up in tpg2114's answer constitute no obstruction to allow good list questions as defined in Nathaniel's question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning point 1, even many conceptual and technical questions can have more than one answer for good reasons, for example there exist complementary ways to look at or understand a physics issue. Looking at things from different points of view is not a bad thing in physics, on the contrary as many well known physicists agree it furthers a deeper understanding of the problem at hand and is therefore a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning point 2, I think Physics SE should model itself on other sites in the network, which are targetted exclusively or inclusively at an audience of researchers. For example on Mathoverflow, CS Theory, and the former Theoretical Physics SE, questions about the current state or actual problems of a well defined enough topic or subject have always been allowed and never deemed problematic, they are even supported and appreciated by the communities of researchers there. So this second point should not constitute an obstruction to allow good list questions either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary I am all for an adjustment of the current list question policy as suggested by Nathaniel's nice post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="a08eb6fc-ad3a-436c-9503-9655023a8fee" CreationDate="2013-07-15T10:06:53.190" UserId="2751" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I exactly agree with Nathaniel that good lists reasonably defined as has started doing it in this meta question should be allowed on Physics SE, as it is done on other sites in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the good points already made, when considering if a list is too big or good and reasonably narrowed in scope it would be appropriate to judge things from a physics point of view too, instead of focusing on some language issues that could hint (if one wants to interpret the question like this) to a too big list. To give an example for what I mean, [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56918/2751) question got first closed as a (big) list question because of such language issues, even though when looking at and thinking about it from a physics point of view, it is clear that there simply can not be an infinite or big number of ways the uncertainty principle can be modified in accordance with the the current experimental and theoretical physics knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the two points brought up in tpg2114's answer constitute no obstruction to allow good list questions as defined in Nathaniel's question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning point 1, even many conceptual and technical questions can have more than one answer for good reasons, for example there exist complementary ways to look at or understand a physics issue. Looking at things from different points of view is not a bad thing in physics, on the contrary as many well known physicists agree it furthers a deeper understanding of the problem at hand and is therefore a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning point 2, I think Physics SE should model itself on other sites in the network, which are targetted exclusively or inclusively at an audience of researchers. For example on Mathoverflow, CS Theory, and the former Theoretical Physics SE, questions about the current state or actual problems of a well defined enough topic or subject have always been allowed and never deemed problematic, they are even supported and appreciated by the communities of researchers there. So this second point should not constitute an obstruction to allow good list questions either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So in summary I am all for an adjustment of the current list question policy as suggested by Nathaniel's nice post**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="d75c98ec-f97e-458d-8882-f81ad1589de9" CreationDate="2013-07-15T10:33:35.483" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="3dc3b549-8c88-4fcc-bfa2-f6296be7c9f6" CreationDate="2013-07-15T10:46:10.423" UserId="7433" Comment="added 475 characters in body" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="88d88193-cbb0-470c-9a5e-ec08a7fd6a76" CreationDate="2013-07-15T10:59:22.357" UserId="7433" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="e384edfb-64e5-4a69-bf92-0433984ef8a9" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:00:24.490" UserId="23119" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was too great so this Loperator aninhilated his post.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author has killed his post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was massless, so it was killed by D' Alembert.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Loperator&quot; is what one of my string theory sources used to describe this operator. Don't know its reall name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="e384edfb-64e5-4a69-bf92-0433984ef8a9" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:00:24.490" UserId="23119" Text="How about a better 404 page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="e384edfb-64e5-4a69-bf92-0433984ef8a9" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:00:24.490" UserId="23119" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9467" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="68c5b4b6-310c-4044-970e-da5be5175d9b" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:34:58.280" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="923ca21c-4e3a-43fd-b953-a3933c894345" CreationDate="2013-07-15T13:07:53.390" UserId="23119" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was too great so this Loperator aninhilated his post, which is a state.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was in a massless state, so it was killed by D' Alembert.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Loperator&quot; is what one of my string theory sources used to describe this operator. Don't know its reall name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="9f33ee7f-cc61-45c2-b9a7-81c1f7219fb4" CreationDate="2013-07-15T13:12:59.207" UserId="23119" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was non-zero so this Loperator aninhilated his stated post.*  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was in a massless state, so it was killed by D' Alembert.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Loperator&quot; is what one of my string theory sources used to describe this operator. Don't know its reall name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or... we could put text saying &quot;LQG&quot;,  since LQG is ill-defined ? : )    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="c14c63e6-fa79-4303-9bea-30592dc31659" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:03:50.050" UserId="11053" Text="I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="c14c63e6-fa79-4303-9bea-30592dc31659" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:03:50.050" UserId="11053" Text="Question self-destruction: why don't experts ask more questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="c14c63e6-fa79-4303-9bea-30592dc31659" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:03:50.050" UserId="11053" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4572" RevisionGUID="8e8b62b9-6386-4b9e-a36e-cdc9635feb9a" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:29:48.280" UserId="124" Text="I think you identified the reason already:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a &quot;middle class&quot; of questions where the person asking doesn't have the expertise to answer them, but somebody else does, but in order to make such questions &quot;profitable&quot; to ask on the site, we need to have a wide variety of topical experts, many many more than we do now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="08254ea4-32b8-4163-9bf2-942d4ad75043" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:33:31.490" UserId="7433" Text="Because writing a good question is _hard_. New users post questions that aren't so good -- not as much effort is put into it, etc etc. Veteran users are more careful about what they ask because they know hat it's like to be on the other side and will want to ask a question well-tailored to get answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm no expert, I certainly have my times hen I get a physics question and I'm like &quot;I'd better post this on SE&quot;. But I first sit and mull over how I'd phrase it. And then I make sure that I'v tried all I can to solve it by myself. In doing so, I usually solve the question on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be beneficial is if experts self-answer tough, relevant conceptual confusions that they encounter and solve on their own. Instead of encouraging them to ask questions, which isn't exactly feasible due to what I mentioned above, we can encourage them to make more use of the &quot;answer own question&quot; feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I almost did that with [this answer][1]. I and my friends had been discussing the apparent paradox, and later on I worked it out on my own. I was thinking of self-answering this, except my friend (to whom I had recommended the site), posted the question first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, there's always the uncertainty that a question won't _get_ an answer (See @DavidZaslavsky's answer). This doesn't apply to me as much as it applies to the experts here -- I'm reasonably certain that any questions I ask here would get a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/23895/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="d7bc7602-1a57-462b-907a-b6c2aa5ce071" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:14:18.820" UserId="6634" Text="For me, if I have a question, I usually do the research myself and since I'm in grad school, I can use my library to get any paper I want to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other side of the coin is that I'm **paid** to ask questions and answer them. That's what research is about. And in my field, the competition for money is fierce and we have to be very careful to protect not just our results but the questions we are thinking about so we don't get sniped by our competition. So I **can't** ask my questions here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so I resort to answering questions rather than asking them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9479" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="bcfc2e2b-8c4c-4321-b952-586127891309" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:57:30.033" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="|support|formatting|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4576" RevisionGUID="0433ef0a-4068-4caa-b647-1b3794cbfad4" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:07:29.663" UserId="3099" Text="I think many (most?) people here approach the participation like I do, namely as a hobby.  Like all hobbies, sometimes you have a lot of time for it, sometimes not, so your participation/enthusiasm naturally changes with time.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rep thing is just a bit of fun.  It doesn't earn you any more money and it won't influence your chances of getting an academic post.  So not to be taken too seriously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="275dfd7e-7ab1-4b65-95c7-50ab2fb8a190" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:24:40.177" UserId="24791" Text="In order to improve [this post][2], I was trying to add [this picture][1](it doesn't load here either) to it ; but what I get is:&quot;For security reasons, framing is not allowed; click OK to remove the frames.&quot; And then I'm redirected to another page with a big *Oops* in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean? I thought it might be because of the descriptions below the photo, so I removed them and tried again, without any success. Can anyone help me with this regard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KCN0vmahqCw/UZq0xvR6D4I/AAAAAAAAAe4/KKYHhD2jwEY/w800-h800/INKrGUS.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47141/name-of-experiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="275dfd7e-7ab1-4b65-95c7-50ab2fb8a190" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:24:40.177" UserId="24791" Text="Adding picture, what is framing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="275dfd7e-7ab1-4b65-95c7-50ab2fb8a190" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:24:40.177" UserId="24791" Text="|support|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="c3de49da-89a7-446f-aeef-39d577e8b34c" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:44:28.503" UserId="24791" Comment="added some pictures" Text="In order to improve [this post][1], I was trying to add [this picture][2](it doesn't load here either) to it ; but what I get is:&quot;For security reasons, framing is not allowed; click OK to remove the frames.&quot; And then I'm redirected to another page with a big *Oops* in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean? I thought it might be because of the descriptions below the photo, so I removed them and tried again, without any success. Can anyone help me with this regard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will upload some pictures of the sequence of what happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47141/name-of-experiment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KCN0vmahqCw/UZq0xvR6D4I/AAAAAAAAAe4/KKYHhD2jwEY/w800-h800/INKrGUS.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZO0hX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qM4DD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fH5Fp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3XfX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="6e38f50f-2850-4989-8110-2ca8ab4cba24" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:46:01.210" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9488" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="f19b3ba0-e1ba-4cf2-b09b-a55224dbc4bd" CreationDate="2013-07-15T19:52:49.990" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-reproduced|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4579" RevisionGUID="c1b45906-4e71-4486-ae61-51e538fe3e20" CreationDate="2013-07-15T20:26:45.847" UserId="27112" Text="A view from the other side: why *did* I ask [a question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71184/are-quantum-effects-significant-in-lens-design) here? As with others, I am/was an &quot;expert&quot; (PhD in astrophysics, although that was 10 years ago and I left academia directly after it). However, that doesn't mean I know everything about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore when an interesting (to me, anyway) debate was occurring on Photography.SE about classical vs quantum optics, the obvious thing to do was to send it over here, where people who are better at optics than I am would be able to help out. Sure, I probably *could* have done the research myself (and I had a strong suspicion as to the answer), but if there are friendly, clever folk here who will help me to confirm my thoughts, why not take advantage of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, it probably helps that I both have a more than passing knowledge of the subject matter and am also an experienced user across other bits of Stack Exchange, so writing a &quot;good&quot; question was relatively easy for me. However, I'm not going to be unique in this - there are going to be other physicists who want answers to a question from a different area of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="ff6a305d-4eb4-471d-a602-b7bf1b69b558" CreationDate="2013-07-15T20:47:38.180" UserId="7433" Text="Apparently it throws this exception on large animated GIFs. I took a screencap of a certain anime I'm watching and converted it to a GIF [here][1]. It's over 7 megabytes and gives the same error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chrome Stable on Ubuntu 13.04&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://manishearth.anapnea.net/anim.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="cab39c08-925c-4bc0-8155-99e8d7a237fb" CreationDate="2013-07-15T20:55:02.237" UserId="7433" Comment="added 909 characters in body" Text="Apparently it throws this exception on large animated GIFs. I took a screencap of a certain anime I'm watching and converted it to a GIF [here][1]. It's over 7 megabytes and gives the same error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chrome Stable on Ubuntu 13.04&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this exception comes from a [frame buster][2] used to prevent [clickjacking][3], [CSRF][4], and the like. Basically, it prevents you from putting an SE site within an HTML frame on a different domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image uploader does indeed use iframes, the response is delivered in a same-domain iframe which then calls a callback function in the parent frame&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. However, being same-domain, that error should not get thrown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the large image is breaking something, causing the inner page to seem to load on a different domain (abut:blank maybe, that's what it looks like)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I'm not entirely sure why they haven't used a simple POST request here, but they probably have their reasons.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://manishearth.anapnea.net/anim.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="f2f8a5e5-357e-4bdb-97f9-f27bafabefc7" CreationDate="2013-07-15T20:59:30.337" UserId="7433" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - These should be made CW. Reasons? See [Chris' comment][2]&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="da0da7d0-3ec5-4274-8b15-592228e37c30" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:59:14.877" UserId="1255" Text="I believe I am in the minority of [high rep][1] users who ask a lot of questions.  I've asked 65 questions, and this is high compared to the next 5 users ahead of me, who've asked 3, 2, 20, 29, and 2 questions.  When someone writes 200 answers and asks 2 questions, then after all the time they've spent on the site, it's pretty obvious to call it a pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why do so many advanced users ask few, if any, questions?  And why am I an exception?  Easy - I'm an engineer, not a physicist.  Ok, I'm sure we have plenty of engineers and otherwise non-professional physicists here, and among the ranks of the high rep users.  Myself, I've just always had pent up angst against physics, since I started out excelling in it, but specialized in more lucrative directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about my working theory for why high rep users don't ask questions... it's because **you can never form a question that can't be improved**.  If we lived in a world with limited resources this wouldn't be true, but this site isn't like asking your colleague a quick question.  You are offering a typed question (with access to LaTeX and formatting) to be immortalized forever in Google results.  The browser you already have up has the capability for further research.  But let's say you're at the extent of available resources.  You've found an equation in a textbook that might have something wrong, but might not.  Even if you ask the perfect question, almost no one will be able to answer it!  By the time your question reaches the state of perfection, you're probably the most qualified person to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a random thought experiment I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/why-arent-gas-planets-and-stars-fuzzy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In retrospect, it's fairly trivial.  But yet, it's a highly upvoted question.  If you share a curiosity with a genuine technical basis, other people will find it interesting.  Being extremely difficult to answer isn't a requirement for questions here.  If you're not willing to occasionally throw your hands up and say &quot;why not, I'll do a question&quot;, then you'll rarely ever post one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experts would ask more questions if it was more &quot;banter&quot; than questions because their thoughts can be expanded on by all parties.  Of course that has issues of scope.  Stack Exchange Q&amp;A format is a way of enforcing good structure and scope, and even so, we go outside that scope all the time.  New questions are often answered by an answer on an old question that went off topic... and thus answered the new question.  Seriously, it can get to be a problem with close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="417428b1-b607-4d16-8493-1217241b1bfe" CreationDate="2013-07-16T02:06:12.140" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added more on where to go if a question is off topic" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;  - How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;  - How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad. Questions about the physical reasoning and analysis that lead to design decisions are on topic; questions seeking help designing or building something is off topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network. Your question may be suitable at one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Electrical Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Robotics][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, that list does not cover all forms of engineering. You can always propose a new Stackexchange site or support a proposal over at [Area 51][5]. For a quicker response, users with at least 20 reputation can always bring up a question in [our chat room][6]. Note that there is no guarantee that anyone there has any input, and The h Bar is not a Q&amp;A unto itself, but still we physics enthusiasts tend to like problem solving in general, as well as interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="47fa5b5f-f3e8-4d9f-b854-68db2b2ce9e9" CreationDate="2013-07-16T09:24:51.207" UserId="23119" Text="This post is about Zephir's answer [here][1].  To quote him,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In AWT (dense aether model)** all particles have **complex mass terms due the quantum fluctuations.** A the case of **photons and neutrinos the complex mass becomes pronounced**. With respect to high density of atom nuclei the mesons are have complex mass too. These particles are doing **tachyonic &quot;jumps&quot;** in space-time and they undergo quantum decoherence and oscillations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the bolded words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The idea he is basing his claims on is &quot;AWT&quot;, Aether Wave Theory, a non-mainstream idea. . If you check his profile, he is the one who started this non-mainstream busisness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The post is clearly a promotion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The logic is fully flawed, and non-mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I flagged it (a long time back) as non-mainstream. However, the flag was declined (during my suspension, or just before, so I couldn't refute earlier.) saying that I was pointing  out &quot;technical innacuracies in the post&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this supposed to indicate? That the answer was mainstream? I would like an explanation for how advertising one's own non-mainstream ideas is mainstream, or acceptable? Does this mean that non-mainstream ideas in answers are acceptable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is clear from his profile, that Zephir has only come here to advertise his own non-mainstream ideas (perhaps he's a bot.). Why is he not banned? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16227/what-is-the-kinematics-of-a-particle-with-complex-mass/18678#18678" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="47fa5b5f-f3e8-4d9f-b854-68db2b2ce9e9" CreationDate="2013-07-16T09:24:51.207" UserId="23119" Text="Zephir's answer for complex mass particle kinematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="47fa5b5f-f3e8-4d9f-b854-68db2b2ce9e9" CreationDate="2013-07-16T09:24:51.207" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|scope|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9502" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="3770e90f-262a-4dbf-a4a3-66d1af89c10a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T09:31:25.587" UserId="7433" Comment="edited title" Text="A non mainstream answer for complex mass particle kinematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="69baad50-ad5b-4da8-ae76-9d6af072f1dc" CreationDate="2013-07-16T09:38:45.870" UserId="7433" Text="This makes sense, deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this may have been during the period of time when a couple of members of this site (you included) were generating a lot of incorrect non-mainstream flags (about wrong posts, not non mainstream posts). Basically it was a &quot;crying wolf&quot; situation. At first glance this does indeed look like a &quot;wrong&quot; post if you don't know that AWT is non mainstream. I'm going through Zephir's profile now and checking for more such posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He hadn't been suspended till now because what had been brought to our attention were some of his _wrong_ posts over which there was considerable unnecessary drama, and not his AWT posts. I'll be checking with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="6970ddab-ff18-4935-85b0-db780d7f104a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T10:01:26.750" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="|support|formatting|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9505" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="a28f34ea-76b1-48b3-aa3c-e1259de88bdc" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:15:26.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/357096128870748161" />
  <row Id="9508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="12603de1-e161-42d8-8360-0412dca40220" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:13:24.817" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 162 characters in body" Text="This post is about Zephir's answer [here][1].  To quote him,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In AWT (dense aether model)** all particles have **complex mass terms due the quantum fluctuations.** A the case of **photons and neutrinos the complex mass becomes pronounced**. With respect to high density of atom nuclei the mesons are have complex mass too. These particles are doing **tachyonic &quot;jumps&quot;** in space-time and they undergo quantum decoherence and oscillations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the bolded words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The idea he is basing his claims on is &quot;AWT&quot;, Aether Wave Theory, a non-mainstream idea. . If you check his profile, he is the one who started this non-mainstream busisness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The post is clearly a promotion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The logic is fully flawed, and non-mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I flagged it (a long time back) as non-mainstream. However, the flag was declined (during my suspension, or just before, so I couldn't refute earlier.) saying that I was pointing  out &quot;technical innacuracies in the post&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this supposed to indicate? That the answer was mainstream? I would like an explanation for how advertising one's own non-mainstream ideas is mainstream, or acceptable? Does this mean that non-mainstream ideas in answers are acceptable? &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16227/what-is-the-kinematics-of-a-particle-with-complex-mass/18678#18678" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="ec56e385-42f8-41cf-9511-8bb205f6e28e" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:14:21.133" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 219 characters in body" Text="This makes sense, deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this may have been during the period of time when a couple of members of this site (you included) were generating a lot of incorrect non-mainstream flags (about wrong posts, not non mainstream posts). Basically it was a &quot;crying wolf&quot; situation. At first glance this does indeed look like a &quot;wrong&quot; post if you don't know that AWT is non mainstream. I'm going through Zephir's profile now and checking for more such posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="17bd52a2-73f7-4172-8802-7fa432f6e6ac" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:05:48.613" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="5b1e0b64-9955-4604-89c8-b24d2d864f5c" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:55:09.127" UserId="11053" Text="Question header more or less sums it up. If I had in mind that I wanted a question to be visible to a google search using particular keywords, would it be sufficient to just include those words in a question body? Is there anything on the SE end that affects this? Or is it purely up to the search engine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="5b1e0b64-9955-4604-89c8-b24d2d864f5c" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:55:09.127" UserId="11053" Text="What affects visibility of a question on google?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="5b1e0b64-9955-4604-89c8-b24d2d864f5c" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:55:09.127" UserId="11053" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="7052610a-9b97-4583-9766-0ad18458df49" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:58:48.833" UserId="7433" Text="SE does some search engine optimization by including a relevant tag in the page title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, yes, just use the keywords in the post. The search engine does the rest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="2356f4bb-c2fc-45e3-8312-5942b52aae06" CreationDate="2013-07-16T16:11:09.090" UserId="124" Text="The declining of the flag was supposed to indicate that answers which are wrong (including not being about non-mainstream physics) should be downvoted, not flagged. It didn't have a link or otherwise recommend a book or website etc., so it's not spam; it's merely wrong, and wrong answers shouldn't get deleted simply for being wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9517" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="d51cfa73-4842-4402-85aa-60342c095006" CreationDate="2013-07-16T17:15:14.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/357186674922491904" />
  <row Id="9518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="c4d3ce36-5688-4a4e-be8c-3a7eff6a04ce" CreationDate="2013-07-16T19:36:10.823" UserId="12798" Text="If you have reputation to spare, and notice good questions, throw a bounty. It saves the good questions from being lost in the flood. Currently there is only one bounty, which unusually low activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably will also eventually earn back your bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="c4d3ce36-5688-4a4e-be8c-3a7eff6a04ce" CreationDate="2013-07-16T19:36:10.823" UserId="12798" Text="Use bounties more often" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="c4d3ce36-5688-4a4e-be8c-3a7eff6a04ce" CreationDate="2013-07-16T19:36:10.823" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="f0393a0b-46d0-4b58-ac4b-524b5026951a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T20:09:11.657" UserId="9173" Text="I voted post up it became +3 then i changed my mind &#xD;&#xA;and decided to remove my vote -- it became 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please fix it. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="f0393a0b-46d0-4b58-ac4b-524b5026951a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T20:09:11.657" UserId="9173" Text="Bug with voting up and then down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="f0393a0b-46d0-4b58-ac4b-524b5026951a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T20:09:11.657" UserId="9173" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="30f3d2bd-bf55-4cbc-98cd-963bdd21b78d" CreationDate="2013-07-17T02:25:10.820" UserId="12798" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If you have reputation to spare, and notice good questions, throw a bounty. It saves the good questions from being lost in the flood. Currently there is only one bounty, which is unusually low activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably will also eventually earn back your bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="e0fbdbe7-c386-481c-a6d7-01f76983ec4b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T09:01:35.400" UserId="1325" Text="This is the expected behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have upvoted, then to clear your upvote click the upvote button again i.e. it acts as a toggle. If you click the downvote button it (a) undoes the upvote then (b) registers a downvote. Hence the -2 change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9527" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="1aa5a968-1521-465c-aa24-51432f609e95" CreationDate="2013-07-17T12:37:59.207" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="d39aeafd-f344-44c1-8fa5-63c9b6a7b28b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T16:39:26.727" UserDisplayName="user17607" Text="I actually experience something remarkably similar to what you describe here, and i have found a few points that may be worth keeping in mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My most important point is **Don't do anything differently!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first noticed i sometimes dropped off a lot, being reclusive to just the chat but still reviewing and answering only in bursts on the workplace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried analyzing what i answered to find out if i only answered specific questions or questions about specific problems, i found some false positives (mainly because i tend to only answer thing i know about so that correlation was due to my knowledge, not to my activity) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After spotting this i realized a pattern, it fit almost perfectly into the way i play games, read books or watch TV. In bursts, sporadically, when the fancy takes me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arming myself with this knowledge i noticed that you don't need to be answering constantly, it is a creative process, trying to force yourself into always answering wont work, this isn't a job that you need to work at 24/7. You don't need to answer every question, that's why this is a community, we work together to achieve what one person couldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say its because it has 'become boring' or because the quality is changing or the community is changing, it seems perfectly natural, and is something i've seen happen to hundreds of users on just about every one of these sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is true that physics get bored often, but it is also true for stack overflow, the workplace, academia, gamedev...etc. Because answering questions in an informative manner is a creative process its like painting, or writing a book, you don't do it 100% of the time your entire life, you go where your creativity takes you and accept that you sometimes need downtime to try other things&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="bbb2c5f2-9aa1-4075-8eab-35c176e9414a" CreationDate="2013-07-17T17:01:53.297" UserId="7433" Comment="filling in for Peter Mortensen" Text="I actually experience something remarkably similar to what you describe here, and i have found a few points that may be worth keeping in mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My most important point is **Don't do anything differently!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first noticed i sometimes dropped off a lot, being reclusive to just the chat but still reviewing and answering only in bursts on The Workplace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried analyzing what i answered to find out if i only answered specific questions or questions about specific problems, i found some false positives (mainly because i tend to only answer thing i know about so that correlation was due to my knowledge, not to my activity) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After spotting this i realized a pattern, it fit almost perfectly into the way i play games, read books or watch TV. In bursts, sporadically, when the fancy takes me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arming myself with this knowledge i noticed that you don't need to be answering constantly, it is a creative process, trying to force yourself into always answering wont work, this isn't a job that you need to work at 24/7. You don't need to answer every question, that's why this is a community, we work together to achieve what one person couldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say its because it has 'become boring' or because the quality is changing or the community is changing, it seems perfectly natural, and is something i've seen happen to hundreds of users on just about every one of these sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is true that physics get bored often, but it is also true for Stack Overflow, The Workplace, Academia, Gamedev...etc. Because answering questions in an informative manner is a creative process its like painting, or writing a book, you don't do it 100% of the time your entire life, you go where your creativity takes you and accept that you sometimes need downtime to try other things&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="73270f68-1bfa-413e-99a0-364d661fbcc6" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:21:11.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/357641155808202752" />
  <row Id="9531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="90a36a8f-3020-4682-98f8-b9bc7f8d9656" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:43:03.497" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="I have a PhD in physics and teach the subject at a community college, so I guess I would count as an expert. However, my expertise is concentrated in a couple of areas. My Q:A ratio is 29:262. Sometimes I ask questions about subjects I don't know as much about, e.g., field theory. Sometimes I ask questions and get zero answers, which is discouraging. I recently offered a small bounty on a question and still got zero answers. Other times I'm very, very happy with the answers I get, e.g.: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65068/radio-antennas-that-are-much-shorter-than-the-wavelength and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62619/what-determines-the-angle-of-the-cushion-on-a-pool-table . (In the latter, the answer was given in a comment -- this seems to happen more with nontrivial questions, maybe because people are less sure their answers are right.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="e03088ec-9c24-4298-b93c-52a4b83e536e" CreationDate="2013-07-18T01:16:08.270" UserId="24773" Text="There are many things that make me uncomfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First I would like to have more exchanges, but with email, not chat. I&#xD;&#xA;want time to think.  Exchanging through comments is very inconvenient,&#xD;&#xA;and answers are not meant for that.  But email seems a no for most&#xD;&#xA;people, even when I give mine. Once a problem is sorted out, it can go&#xD;&#xA;online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the systems discourages repeating questions. Why not. But the&#xD;&#xA;problem is old questions hardly interest anyone.  I spent considerable&#xD;&#xA;time answering old questions (not so much on physics) on which I do&#xD;&#xA;have expertise.  I consider myself lucky when I have one reader.&#xD;&#xA;Workng with no feed back is discouraging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one can get lots of rep with fast answers.  But that is no way to&#xD;&#xA;work decently.  But if I try to pursue a topic that did attract much&#xD;&#xA;interest, to get something out of it, the heat is down and I find&#xD;&#xA;myself alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are answers that get upvoted though they include serious&#xD;&#xA;mistakes. I do not even see the point of downvoting. I do point out&#xD;&#xA;the mistake though, with little effect. I make mistakes too, but I do&#xD;&#xA;correct (visibly if useful) any mistake I am aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do learn some stuff, and it can be fun, even though I am not a&#xD;&#xA;physicist. I do what I can ... from what memories I have left.&#xD;&#xA;And I like to understand and explain.&#xD;&#xA;But I get tired of useless efforts for serious contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I am responsible and not listening enough. I wonder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="701c761b-7754-4434-a36b-912ce71358f0" CreationDate="2013-07-18T04:37:46.397" UserId="23119" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was non-zero so this Loperator aninhilated his stated post.*  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sorry! D' Alembert has killed the page, perhaps because it was in a massless state.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Loperator&quot; is what one of my string theory sources used to describe this operator. Don't know its reall name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or... we could put text saying &quot;LQG&quot;,  since LQG is ill-defined ? : )    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="66777dd9-9ae9-48dd-8124-397da2f943c7" CreationDate="2013-07-18T09:54:14.120" UserId="23119" Text="On Wiki Pedia, for example, when you make an edit (to the source) , there is a box called &quot;Common edit summaries.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Edit Summaries][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also minor edit summaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Minor Edit Summaries][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that many common edits can be given quick summaries, to save time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that important at Wiki (since edit summaries aren't compulsoury), but I guess it would be ***very useful here at Physics.SE***.  Not just for edits, but for comments, also. For example, I find that I'm often repeating the same comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Homework Policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Please show more effort while asking homework questions. Don't expect anyone to do your work for you.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Non-mainstream questions are not allowed here.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Does your &quot;theory&quot; have any mathematics? What does it predict? What can I calculate with it? Please don't promote your own non-mainstream ideas here.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice question!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice answer!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Huh? This is very unclear?! What are you even talking about?&quot; . &#xD;&#xA;  / . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means coming to meta ($ \geq $ 1 min waiting time), searching for [faq] ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time), then clicking ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time),  Linking to it and parsing the link and adding the text ($ \geq 1 $ minute typing time), which amounts to 4 minutes. Well, that's not that long, but this same process is repeated for multiple, multiple posts. So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 1.*** Could there be a feature &quot;Common coments&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the edits. Till recently,  I would just write something like, because its quick: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SNJDSJDWIEE21!!!!S';DSDJSJDJUQJIDUFDNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111........    &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something like that. Recently, for some reason, I got bored of typing nonsense, so I just type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added homework tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added popular-science tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Corrected LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Don't use big-list tag.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It seems as if the homework tag applies even if it isn't real homework.&quot; (Yup, that's copied from Qmechanic.)     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tags.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant reference-request tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string-theory tag. This is a kinematics question.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string theory tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant research-level tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed unnecessary Controversial statements.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fixed grammar.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And such things. It is quite monotonous to repeatedly write this, so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 2:*** Could the same feature as requested in Q1 be applied to Edit Summaries too? (It would be even better if the system would detect the tags which have been changed, like if I add a pop-sci tag, for e.g., then it has in the common edit summaries, &quot;Added Popular-Science tag.&quot;, but perhaps that's just too much.)    .&#xD;&#xA; . &#xD;&#xA;Thanks. ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o35Es.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ox2Ti.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="66777dd9-9ae9-48dd-8124-397da2f943c7" CreationDate="2013-07-18T09:54:14.120" UserId="23119" Text="How about common edit summaries and common comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="66777dd9-9ae9-48dd-8124-397da2f943c7" CreationDate="2013-07-18T09:54:14.120" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|feature-request|editing|comments|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="262eeca6-932c-49f3-886f-fd097e4d34b5" CreationDate="2013-07-18T10:14:11.567" UserId="7433" Text="For &quot;common comments&quot;, you can use [this userscript][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never really felt the need for edit summaries when I was a &lt;2k user. Wikipedia has a _much_ larger need as you have a few thousand edits in a question history and finding a particular edit can be annoying. (FWIW the &quot;common edit summaries&quot; feature wasn't there a year ago). Over here, the purpose of the summary is to explain to the reviewer what you are doing. In this case, it is better to be verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have, but, again, I don't see much of a need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the proposal for automatically adding a tag edit summary for the case of tag-only edits. Till recently, users with 5k rep could edit tags without approval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="0c87c03d-b5c2-471d-a117-2565119f7db5" CreationDate="2013-07-18T11:02:06.893" UserId="1325" Text="I see regular questions that could be answered by some basic Googling. Examples would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71406/in-a-large-city-how-much-hotter-on-average-is-it-outside-due-to-the-air-conditio and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71475/quantum-annealing-computing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be charitable, newcomers to physics may not know where to start and what terms to search for, and a suitable answer might be to point them at a few introductory articles. However in many cases it looks as if the OP simply can't be bothered to put any effort in. Do we have a policy for closing (or not closing) such questions. For homework we have the &quot;off topic/need to show some effort&quot; reason, but most of the questions of this sort aren't obviously homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I just being excessively grumpy? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="0c87c03d-b5c2-471d-a117-2565119f7db5" CreationDate="2013-07-18T11:02:06.893" UserId="1325" Text="Questions that show insufficient effort by the OP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="0c87c03d-b5c2-471d-a117-2565119f7db5" CreationDate="2013-07-18T11:02:06.893" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="52f5d394-a72b-494f-b129-b7594efc2eb1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T16:14:46.053" UserId="2146" Text="I'm under the impression that a user may post a question with as many questions inside the main post as they wish, providing they're relevant to the main question. However, I've come across recent comments stating that posting more than four questions within a post is against the rules here. So just one question for now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many questions may a user ask within one post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="52f5d394-a72b-494f-b129-b7594efc2eb1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T16:14:46.053" UserId="2146" Text="How many questions may a user ask within one post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="52f5d394-a72b-494f-b129-b7594efc2eb1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T16:14:46.053" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="c7854771-c6de-4c6d-b60e-e35bae030eb4" CreationDate="2013-07-18T16:47:50.373" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="There is **no hard limit**. The only policy is that **sufficiently unrelated questions should be asked in separate posts**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;sufficiently unrelated&quot; mean here? Basically, questions should only be grouped together if you can reasonably imagine someone else who has one of those questions in mind would likely be *simultaneously* wondering about the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone asks a question about neutrino absorption cross sections in lead, it is reasonable that they ask about the cross sections for each of the three generations of neutrinos. However, if some student just lists five thoughts that occurred to them while taking intro EM this past semester, that would probably warrant splitting into separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that a good discriminant is whether or not the questions are (or could easily have been) formatted into a bullet-point list. A list of questions is unlikely to have a strong conceptual underpinning uniting them, and is probably a sign that the questions are not sufficiently alike to be kept together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, multiple questions that flow with the problem statement are often good - they tend to ask about the same underlying physics from different angles. For instance, [one of my questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851) has 5 question marks spread throughout the body, but they are all driving at the same underlying issue. Answering just one would be insufficient for settling the matter, and it would be difficult to answer one without simultaneously answering the others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="444bf33b-a28d-43fe-bf2b-720eae403626" CreationDate="2013-07-18T17:15:53.930" UserId="124" Text="&gt; How many questions may a user ask within one post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just **one**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is some flexibility in how you define a &quot;question.&quot; I'm not saying that you can only have one question mark in a post, or anything like that. It's fine to ask about different aspects of what is essentially the same underlying problem. But everything in your post should be about one conceptual issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good guideline is that you should be able to pose one question as the post title, and everything in the body should relate to that one question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="ec8f197f-7526-45fd-8f0e-d4120f384da8" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:19:27.027" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="If you hover your mouse over the downvote button, you get this tip: &quot;This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.&quot; The help section [&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;][1] does not say anything about insufficient research effort. This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO there is nothing wrong with having questions and answers that cover exactly the same information that's available somewhere else like Wikipedia. WP is not perfect, and WP is a different type of collaborative environment than SE, with different strengths and weaknesses. Many seemingly obvious, trivial questions are FAQs, and one of the strengths of SE is that we have mechanisms for collecting correct answers to FAQs in a single place and then avoiding wasting our time by answering those FAQs again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="894c11aa-ba72-4f92-a20d-cdb484b518f1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:24:55.207" UserId="23119" Text="Do we need the [tag:relativity] tag? Most questions using it are generally because it's a popular science question and the OP doesn't know which to use **or** because the OP used it along with [tag:general-relativity] or [tag:special-relativity]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not get rid of it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="894c11aa-ba72-4f92-a20d-cdb484b518f1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:24:55.207" UserId="23119" Text="Do we need the relativity tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="894c11aa-ba72-4f92-a20d-cdb484b518f1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:24:55.207" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="97d72875-299f-4fa8-b048-6b773b376728" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:35:48.260" UserId="12951" Text="*Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more? I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, we should encourage expert users to ask more questions in their area of expertise. I agree with you that the proportion of good questions would be greater if the experts shared more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are five suggestions for experts considering contributing a question:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;1)	Answer your own questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)	Write questions for an audience of physicists trained outside your specialty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)	Share the big, significant, important questions in your field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)	Elaborate on the scientific news that does manage to get attention in the media.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;5)	Ask questions with answers that actually matter to the quality of life for people on our planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6)	Be an example of reason, scientific methodology, and professionalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasons to contribute&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)	We become what we write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)	There are too few examples of scientific thinking available to people outside a university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)	Good posts have a feedback effect by encouraging others – making physics.se more fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="caa5d6ab-1bbf-4646-8fb8-52b81b794bba" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:37:14.517" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="If you hover your mouse over the downvote button, you get this tip: &quot;This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.&quot; The help section [&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;][1] does not say anything about insufficient research effort. This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I normally leave a comment explaining my downvote, quoting or paraphrasing the text in the downvote button's tip. If I don't do this, the OP will probably have no idea that I downvoted and will not learn that (IMO) there was a problem with the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO there is nothing wrong with having questions and answers that cover exactly the same information that's available somewhere else like Wikipedia. WP is not perfect, and WP is a different type of collaborative environment than SE, with different strengths and weaknesses. Many seemingly obvious, trivial questions are FAQs, and one of the strengths of SE is that we have mechanisms for collecting correct answers to FAQs in a single place and then avoiding wasting our time by answering those FAQs again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="6db91592-1abf-4e24-900f-27bca807c693" CreationDate="2013-07-18T23:06:53.003" UserId="12951" Text="Graduate physics students, and postdocs, often are in the position of having to design and build their own experimental apparatus.  Questions about 'engineering' experimental apparatus for research seem on-topic to me.  Questions about 'engineering' something intended for commercial use seems off-topic because there are people paid to do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9556" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="36a9d692-2051-4690-8965-4e5acdb2bd80" CreationDate="2013-07-18T23:06:53.003" UserId="12951" />
  <row Id="9557" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="9f3a4aa3-76c0-4ddc-bbb3-2bc0cec190d9" CreationDate="2013-07-19T05:26:51.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/358095568284819456" />
  <row Id="9558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="2a30915e-39c3-487c-ac9c-c8fffeeda549" CreationDate="2013-07-19T05:36:01.480" UserId="124" Text="I'd be fine with removing it. I've always been somewhat in favor of getting rid of this tag (just not enough to do anything about it), because posts which both [tag:general-relativity] and [tag:special-relativity] apply to can just be tagged with both of those, and otherwise we just use one or the other as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The potentially difficult thing about this will be going through all the questions tagged [tag:relativity] and sorting them out into GR or SR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="5fedb905-0042-48e1-b080-0c9c57aafa50" CreationDate="2013-07-19T09:00:14.667" UserId="7433" Text="We have [103 questions][1]  tagged with _only_ [tag:relativity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [9 questions][2] tagged with [tag:general-relativity] and [tag:relativity] but not [tag:special-relativity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [16 questions][3] tagged with [tag:special-relativity] and [tag:relativity] but not [tag:general-relativity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [10 questions][4] tagged with all three. I've noticed that most of our relativity questions are about general relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best solution here is to go through the [118 questions][5] tagged [tag:relativity] but not [tag:general-relativity], and look for ones without GR on them. Then merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind keeping the tag, either. FWIW it may be worth merging the SR and GR tags into [tag:relativity], but that may lead to a broad tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D%20-%5Bspecial-relativity%5D%20-%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20is:question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D+%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D+-%5Bspecial-relativity%5D++is%3Aquestion&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D+%5Bspecial-relativity%5D+-%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D++is%3Aquestion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D%20%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20%5Bspecial-relativity%5D%20is:question&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D%20-%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20is:question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="4a9c49ca-daac-48c5-9c7e-c58a0c6a8c6a" CreationDate="2013-07-19T13:15:44.540" UserId="7433" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We place a boilerplate banner on each question linking to a book policy and mentioning (in short) what is to be expected of answers.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - These should be made CW. Reasons? See [Chris' comment][2]&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9561" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="adafd21f-f9ee-47b0-8c1e-762df8bd7dca" CreationDate="2013-07-19T14:29:35.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/358232152585932803" />
  <row Id="9563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="50f1608d-2e7a-4cc9-82a5-066bcb914e8a" CreationDate="2013-07-19T16:00:50.997" UserId="24773" Text="I just do not know where to write this remark. Apologies if this is the wrong place. Also I do not know whether the discussions about tag creation are available. I did not find the one about *hydrostatics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it reasonable to have a specialized tag, when a more general tag is missing. What I mean is that there is no tag covering *fluid statics* which might include both *hydrostatics* (a bad name, since there is more than water to it ...) and statics of gaz.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag &quot;statics&quot; is not appropriate to fill the gap, given its definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="50f1608d-2e7a-4cc9-82a5-066bcb914e8a" CreationDate="2013-07-19T16:00:50.997" UserId="24773" Text="Is hydrostatics the appropriate tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="50f1608d-2e7a-4cc9-82a5-066bcb914e8a" CreationDate="2013-07-19T16:00:50.997" UserId="24773" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="cd284099-9178-412a-a935-a88d1a6ddea0" CreationDate="2013-07-19T17:08:50.880" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I just do not know where to write this remark. Apologies if this is the wrong place. Also I do not know whether the discussions about tag creation are available. I did not find the one about [tag:hydrostatics].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it reasonable to have a specialized tag, when a more general tag is missing. What I mean is that there is no tag covering *fluid statics* which might include both *hydrostatics* (a bad name, since there is more than water to it ...) and statics of gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag &quot;statics&quot; is not appropriate to fill the gap, given its definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="2c525d16-bf1f-41ea-bf60-411ad8675883" CreationDate="2013-07-19T17:39:05.930" UserId="8563" Text="I recently asked [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71598/8563) precisely in the spirit to have more &quot;expert&quot; questions, and I'd like to share this thought while it is still fresh in my mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading a paper related to my research prompted a tangential question that became my Question. It took remarkably little time to form and emerged very clear and crisp in its full form. Essentially: &quot;Oh, that's curious! It's not important here, but surely one can do better experiments now. I wonder what one would see then? What's the theory behind that, anyway?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, actually posting the question on the site was a pretty laborious effort of phrasing it correctly, furnishing it with the appropriate context for it to be answerable, and the mechanics of digging for the images and links and references. In this instance that effort was probably &quot;cheaper&quot; than trying to figure out an answer (which would involve some digging for the state-of-the-art on that measurement, at least, and I'm not in the mood for _more_ papers), but this is probably rare. I also have rather faint hopes of that question getting an answer here, as I feel there are few molecular physicists around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="c341158e-fe03-4beb-8c29-2971c98866ed" CreationDate="2013-07-19T21:45:10.173" UserId="2843" Text="I couldn't help noticing that hosting homework questions from textbooks borders on copyright infringement. Especially when [pictures of diagrams are used][1]. Is/should there be a policy promoting citing the textbook of origin, Chapter/section and question number? This might make it easier for others searching the internet for other problems in the same book as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46805/rotational-dynamics-problem-rod-slipping-against-block?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="c341158e-fe03-4beb-8c29-2971c98866ed" CreationDate="2013-07-19T21:45:10.173" UserId="2843" Text="Should Homework Questions Cite Their Textbook When Relevant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="c341158e-fe03-4beb-8c29-2971c98866ed" CreationDate="2013-07-19T21:45:10.173" UserId="2843" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="e55eac7e-a17a-490f-8906-feb60670f5d0" CreationDate="2013-07-19T21:57:23.927" UserId="124" Text="As a matter of copyright/plagiarism, then yes, whenever material is quoted verbatim from a textbook, or from anywhere really, the source should be identified. I think that is mentioned in our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714), but if not, it should be added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not expect this to be a &quot;prosecutable&quot; violation of copyright law, since quoting part or all of a homework problem for the purpose of getting help solving it probably falls under the fair use exception." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="ba27ed05-dd0e-43de-9e58-1e8492c6940f" CreationDate="2013-07-19T22:24:44.920" UserId="2751" Text="Disclaimer: this is **not** a complaint, just a thought and an observation ... ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe experts prefer helping others by answering questions and do not ask much here, because Physics SE is not an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. The number of people who could answer their questions at the same level might be too small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on TP.SE experts did, and on MathOverflow they still do ask more questions themself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="24ff1ca6-4db7-4186-87d4-26bc0202c00d" CreationDate="2013-07-20T07:15:06.620" UserId="1268" Text="I noticed some of my comments disappearing without me triggering this (at least not that I am aware of). Example: placed a comment in reaction to [this question][1]. It's now gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone an idea what is happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71582/is-it-possible-to-have-a-geostationary-satellite-over-the-poles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="24ff1ca6-4db7-4186-87d4-26bc0202c00d" CreationDate="2013-07-20T07:15:06.620" UserId="1268" Text="Disappearing comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="24ff1ca6-4db7-4186-87d4-26bc0202c00d" CreationDate="2013-07-20T07:15:06.620" UserId="1268" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="0d23ac44-6762-4dc0-b8b5-2a12416e4015" CreationDate="2013-07-20T07:25:34.163" UserId="124" Text="Comments are meant to be temporary: to solicit clarification or point out potential edits, that sort of thing. So they tend to get deleted. If a comment doesn't really add anything substantial, it's liable to be deleted more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, if your comments disappear, don't worry, that's just the system working as intended. If you have something to say that is worth preserving, something that you _don't_ want to disappear after a while, put it in an answer. (Obviously, it should be something that actually does constitute an answer to the question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="e5eee75d-d0ba-4e4c-b6e1-2e129f9ba7da" CreationDate="2013-07-20T07:25:41.960" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="fd498a5a-93d9-4aac-aea8-d966925aff29" CreationDate="2013-07-20T09:53:26.517" UserId="23119" Text="There are many questions here that ask about how GR comes out of string theory. For example, [this][1], [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7].  Maybe this question should be tagged as [tag:faq]? . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="fd498a5a-93d9-4aac-aea8-d966925aff29" CreationDate="2013-07-20T09:53:26.517" UserId="23119" Text="Should &quot;How do the Einstein's equations come out of string theory?&quot; be FAQ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="fd498a5a-93d9-4aac-aea8-d966925aff29" CreationDate="2013-07-20T09:53:26.517" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|questions|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="a728488a-b028-42b0-a6c6-1964910b9486" CreationDate="2013-07-20T10:36:38.137" UserId="2751" Comment="Clarified what I mean" Text="Disclaimer: this is **not** a complaint, just a thought and an observation ... ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe experts prefer helping others by answering questions and do not ask much here, because Physics SE is not an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. The number of people who could answer their questions at the same level might be too small. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better explain what I mean, when Lubos Motl reads in interesting paper concerning his own subject, thinks about it and comes up with some interesting thoughts and questions he rather posts an article on his blog as he did for example [here](http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/06/finding-and-abandoning-incorrect.html?m=1) to obtain a better response than he would get when posting a corresponding question here. And think about it, who should answer, if people like Qmechanic have a question about something they do not understand concerning their own research subject? There are simply not enough physicists of this calliber here who could appreciate or even answer such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, if one wants to have questions from experts (about their own subject at least), the size of the community of fellow researchers who can appreciate and answer such questions must not fall below a certain critical value.&#xD;&#xA;For example on sites with a higher number of researchers like TP.SE experts did, and on MathOverflow they still do ask more questions themself. With tpg2114's objections concerning the TP.SE example I disagree. This was a nice small extremely high quality site and it only died because the SE network is not appropriate to support such small communities and maybe they could have lowered the bar to ask questions a little bit as I said [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2610/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary I would say, if we want to have more questions from experts about physics issues they are working on (?), we should first of all try to attract more experts and researchers to the site and make them feel at home here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="ea13d440-57c7-4851-9b59-763e50e6aa09" CreationDate="2013-07-20T11:52:08.333" UserId="23119" Comment="added 405 characters in body" Text="There are many questions here that ask about how GR comes out of string theory. For example, [this][1], [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7].  And almost all of the comments on those posts are &quot;Related: ...&quot;, &quot;Possible Duplicate: ...&quot;, &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; (of course if you pick any Question A and Question B out of the 7 questions, then Post A would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: B&quot; and B would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: A&quot;, or &quot;Related: ...&quot; or &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; or &quot;You cheater! Didn't you check this question: ...&quot; or whatever.)  . Maybe this question should be tagged as [tag:faq]? . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="4d1d2722-4152-418e-a46a-8c66f143b06d" CreationDate="2013-07-20T13:14:44.807" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="8fbc7519-db26-4118-82f6-8180359daba8" CreationDate="2013-07-20T13:44:24.597" UserId="16689" Text="I really like this kind of question. I will not really try to answer it, mainly I will give my feeling and experience, as a user of this website from a research-like perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like first to say that I already elaborated [somewhere else][1] that the quality of the questions and answers sounds to me to depend on the topic. I pretty much like the condensed matter questions and answers on this website, as well as the quantum information ones for instance. And that's great because that's my research topics ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a background in superconductivity and quantum optics. So, as far as I can, I've tried to answer -- since less than one year I'm using SE -- the questions on superconductivity which were unanswered, and more generally on condensed matter when I know the answer. It appeared to me that the quantum optics questions are most of the time correctly answered, so I've nothing to add about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one year, I'm trying to learn -- as a post-doc -- more about topological issues in both condensed matter and quantum information topics. Clearly, I will not ask question here like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hey guys, I want to write an article about this or that, please do that for me !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would be ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pretty hard to understand the problems at the edge of two topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I'm using this site is as follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I just want to test some ideas with other communities people (especially high-energy physicists for instance) to compare their point of view with my poor-condensed-matter vision (like [this one][2], or [this one][3]). &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want easy access to a stream of articles, for which I would spend a lot of time finding relevant ones (like [this one][4]), and which are related to my current problems. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I would like to understand in more details a point I've no time to stop on at the moment (like [this one][5]), since it's just an aside of what I'm thinking at the moment. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want to point out something I consider not well discussed in literature (like [this question][6], or [this one][7]).&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the questions are just something I consider funny when I think about them, and which could be interesting for someone else (like [this one][8]), but I've neither time nor interest to keep on thinking of.&#xD;&#xA; - And yes, sometimes I'm asking purely fantasy, bulls... questions which are completely stupid (like [this one][9]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time, I try to make *useful* questions, not *clever* ones. I mean, I'm trying to ask questions which could be useful for others, not specifically dedicated to my problems of the moment. I'm usually writing on a piece of paper some questions I would like to answer, just inspired by the time I'm thinking about, most of the time after reading some papers. I feel some of them could be interesting for the SE community, so I try to publish them on this website. I do not think more than that ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny part is that two colleagues at my lab are using SE, too. We sometimes discuss the questions/answers together, to try to improve our understanding about specific staff for instance. What I want to point out here is that a researcher needs to discuss a lot in order to (un)validate her/his ideas, especially at the early stage of the elaboration of a new concept. To try to collect as much as possible opinions is the key I believe. This website is really useful for me in that respect. But still it's highly time consuming. As anything you have to type, you need to think about, read, write, clarify, read, write, think about ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to promote SE as much as I can around me (in the real life I mean). The most important reason why researchers do not use this website more often or as a working tool is simple I believe: **they don't have time** ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4138/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46324/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65767/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69358/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71151/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69141/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62282/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71587/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68456/16689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="debd10af-3109-42eb-8897-fa2e711b878e" CreationDate="2013-07-20T13:51:25.390" UserId="16689" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="I really like this kind of question. I will not really try to answer it, since I consider Mark Rovetta already answered it perfectly [somewhere else on this page][2]. Instead I will give my feeling and experience, as a user of this website from a research-like perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like first to say that I already elaborated [somewhere else][3] that the quality of the questions and answers sounds to me to depend on the topic. I pretty much like the condensed matter questions and answers on this website, as well as the quantum information ones for instance. And that's great because that's my research topics ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a background in superconductivity and quantum optics. So, as far as I can, I've tried to answer -- since less than one year I'm using SE -- the questions on superconductivity which were unanswered, and more generally on condensed matter when I know the answer. It appeared to me that the quantum optics questions are most of the time correctly answered, so I've nothing to add about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one year, I'm trying to learn -- as a post-doc -- more about topological issues in both condensed matter and quantum information topics. Clearly, I will not ask question here like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hey guys, I want to write an article about this or that, please do that for me !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would be ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pretty hard to understand the problems at the edge of two topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I'm using this site is as follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I just want to test some ideas with other communities people (especially high-energy physicists for instance) to compare their point of view with my poor-condensed-matter vision (like [this one][4], or [this one][5]). &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want easy access to a stream of articles, for which I would spend a lot of time finding relevant ones (like [this one][6]), and which are related to my current problems. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I would like to understand in more details a point I've no time to stop on at the moment (like [this one][7]), since it's just an aside of what I'm thinking at the moment. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want to point out something I consider not well discussed in literature (like [this question][8], or [this one][9]).&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the questions are just something I consider funny when I think about them, and which could be interesting for someone else (like [this one][10]), but I've neither time nor interest to keep on thinking of.&#xD;&#xA; - And yes, sometimes I'm asking purely fantasy, bulls... questions which are completely stupid (like [this one][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time, I try to make *useful* questions, not *clever* ones. I mean, I'm trying to ask questions which could be useful for others, not specifically dedicated to my problems of the moment. I'm usually writing on a piece of paper some questions I would like to answer, just inspired by the time I'm thinking about, most of the time after reading some papers. I feel some of them could be interesting for the SE community, so I try to publish them on this website. I do not think more than that ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny part is that two colleagues at my lab are using SE, too. We sometimes discuss the questions/answers together, to try to improve our understanding about specific staff for instance. What I want to point out here is that a researcher needs to discuss a lot in order to (un)validate her/his ideas, especially at the early stage of the elaboration of a new concept. To try to collect as much as possible opinions is the key I believe. This website is really useful for me in that respect. But still it's highly time consuming. As anything you have to type, you need to think about, read, write, clarify, read, write, think about ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to promote SE as much as I can around me (in the real life I mean). The most important reason why researchers do not use this website more often or as a working tool is simple I believe: **they don't have time** ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4138/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46324/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65767/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69358/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71151/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69141/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62282/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71587/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68456/16689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="cae29b62-9107-4520-8988-dc8b8f845176" CreationDate="2013-07-21T04:46:15.157" UserId="5477" Text="Currently the &quot;homework&quot; close reason looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we get quite a lot of posts where someone posts a homework question, and then writes their attempt at a solution (without any real explanation, just the equations and numbers they used) and asks whether it's correct. I believe that such &quot;check my work&quot; questions are also off topic, but the phrase &quot;show some effort to work through the problem&quot; could be taken as encouraging them. Should we change the wording to make this policy clearer? Perhaps something like this (suggestions for improvements are welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="cae29b62-9107-4520-8988-dc8b8f845176" CreationDate="2013-07-21T04:46:15.157" UserId="5477" Text="Wording of the homework close reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="cae29b62-9107-4520-8988-dc8b8f845176" CreationDate="2013-07-21T04:46:15.157" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="c6af2877-256b-465e-a86b-4bf529ebfe26" CreationDate="2013-07-21T04:51:54.043" UserId="5477" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Currently the &quot;homework&quot; close reason looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we get quite a lot of posts where someone posts a homework question, and then writes their attempt at a solution (without any real explanation, just the equations and numbers they used) and asks whether it's correct. I believe that such &quot;check my work&quot; questions are also off topic, but the phrase &quot;show some effort to work through the problem&quot; could be taken as encouraging them. Should we change the wording to make this policy clearer? Perhaps something like this (suggestions for improvements are welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me feel better about voting to close such questions, because the user gets a clearer explanation of what they did wrong and how they can improve their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="80d1c852-2985-4a28-a6d7-a6ed9e91b3ed" CreationDate="2013-07-21T04:57:37.820" UserId="5477" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Currently the &quot;homework&quot; close reason looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we get quite a lot of posts where someone posts a homework question, and then writes their attempt at a solution (without any real explanation, just the equations and numbers they used) and asks whether it's correct. Such &quot;check my work&quot; questions are also off topic according to the linked meta post, but the phrase &quot;show some effort to work through the problem&quot; could be taken as encouraging them. Should we change the wording to make this policy clearer? Perhaps something like this (suggestions for improvements are welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me feel better about voting to close such questions, because the user gets a clearer explanation of what they did wrong and how they can improve their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="0895ffaa-bedc-48f4-abb1-2350da0056fa" CreationDate="2013-07-21T06:31:58.087" UserId="5477" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Currently the &quot;homework&quot; close reason looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we get quite a lot of posts where someone posts a homework question, and then writes their attempt at a solution (without any real explanation, just the equations and numbers they used) and asks whether it's correct. Such &quot;check my work&quot; questions are also off topic according to the linked meta post, but the phrase &quot;show some effort to work through the problem&quot; could be taken as encouraging them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we change the wording to make this policy clearer? Perhaps something like this (suggestions for improvements are welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me feel better about voting to close such questions, because the user gets a clearer explanation of what they did wrong and how they can improve their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="fc2bbdcd-4389-4cad-b1e8-2f3e9f29b2bf" CreationDate="2013-07-21T06:48:23.607" UserId="124" Text="**Ask about a specific physics concept** is in bold for exactly this reason. Close reasons need to be fairly short if they're going to be useful, and accordingly the wording of the existing close reasons has been carefully tuned to say what needs to be said without using more words than necessary. In that respect, I don't think this change helps. We already have the big homework policy meta post to explain all the details of what an acceptable homework question looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not saying the existing reasons are perfect, but we did put quite a bit of thought into them - they were extensively discussed in a chat session, and then posted [for community feedback on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/chat-session-to-discuss-and-possibly-finalize-close-reasons) (and earlier, [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like)). When a few days passed without any additional comments, we decided the close reasons were good enough and implemented them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the close reasons is not something we should be doing often or on a whim; in particular, a small change like this isn't enough to justify it. If there is a _major_ omission from one of the close reasons, then we can discuss it and change it to fix that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="88d03fa4-4ef6-492c-94d8-5a8b2015baa3" CreationDate="2013-07-21T09:05:43.207" UserId="7433" Text="There's a character limit on close reason, and that close reasons surpasses it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close reasons are supposed to be short, because the longer it is, the less likely someone is to read it. FWIW, while discussing the close reasons some users were against making it even that long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in this case I don't see how someone who can't be bothered to read both bolded parts will read the extra unbolded sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not too averse to removing the &quot;show your work&quot; bit entirely, it's really not as important. Homework posts that ask a conceptual question aren't really homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="b81ba1f0-4ac6-4397-8089-7bf9f59398ce" CreationDate="2013-07-21T15:53:18.247" UserId="5477" Text="Here are some other suggestions for how the wording could be changed. The most minimal change would be this: (replacing &quot;work through the problem&quot; with &quot;understand the problem&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would prefer to be a bit more explicit about it: (This is the version in my original post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manishearth suggested just getting rid of the &quot;work through the question part&quot; entirely, which I'd be happy with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or again being more explicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Questions that simply quote a homework problem or just ask us to check your working are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or shorter and not losing much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Questions that simply quote a homework problem or just ask us to check your working are off topic. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="d0fb875d-afbf-43ef-9a2d-439bf9aab397" CreationDate="2013-07-21T18:03:06.050" UserId="22254" Text="In two days, [Space Exploration SE](http://space.stackexchange.com) is going public. How will the migration of space-related questions proceed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: it is not my fault that the folks have chosen this moniker. After all, we have IT Security.SE (Sec.SE) and nobody complains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="d0fb875d-afbf-43ef-9a2d-439bf9aab397" CreationDate="2013-07-21T18:03:06.050" UserId="22254" Text="Will space-related questions be migrated to SEx.SE (Space Exploration) after it goes public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="d0fb875d-afbf-43ef-9a2d-439bf9aab397" CreationDate="2013-07-21T18:03:06.050" UserId="22254" Text="|discussion|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="7fcdca23-47a4-4429-9625-59458bb14413" CreationDate="2013-07-21T18:09:48.503" UserId="7433" Text="There won't be any:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Migration to beta sites is discouraged -- beta sites should grow as organically as possible.&#xD;&#xA; - Migration of old questions is also discouraged&#xD;&#xA; - We won't migrate questions which are on-topic here. In the case of a site scope overlap, questions stay where asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="1b2aad38-a599-4544-9d4f-fb441b27ac4f" CreationDate="2013-07-21T19:25:18.333" UserId="8563" Text="The recent [question on the precise meaning of &quot;clockwise&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71455/8563) has received a ton of close-votes and downvotes (partly, I think, because of the original tone of the question). As @babou and I have argued, this is a valid, nontrivial, on-topic, valuable question, and it should really be pulled out of the administrative hole it's in. So: c'mon, upvote it and unclosevote it! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="1b2aad38-a599-4544-9d4f-fb441b27ac4f" CreationDate="2013-07-21T19:25:18.333" UserId="8563" Text="C'mon, let's rescue the &quot;clockwise&quot; question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="1b2aad38-a599-4544-9d4f-fb441b27ac4f" CreationDate="2013-07-21T19:25:18.333" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="7c65f747-03a9-4fc5-af23-497e246f1f4a" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:18:55.753" UserId="520" Text="Oh, FSM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense the question turns on the same (mis)understanding that leads to ask [why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, this is why physicist and engineer use &quot;into the wall&quot; and &quot;out of the wall&quot;. The usual clock rotates into the the wall, and the deal in most card games rotates into the table. Alas when you say that in other company people think you are even weirder than is actually the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="bcf85956-55ea-42ea-8be3-bd518761ccc8" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:31:45.607" UserId="520" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Oh, FSM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense the question turns on the same (mis)understanding that leads to ask [why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down): one party views the clock from their own POV, the other promotes the clock to effective personhood and looks from *its* POV. In either case if they would *say what they mean* they could agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, this is why physicist and engineer use &quot;into the wall&quot; and &quot;out of the wall&quot;. The usual clock rotates into the the wall, and the deal in most card games rotates into the table. Alas when you say that in other company people think you are even weirder than is actually the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9614" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="18bc69e0-9e69-4ab6-b630-e354e698675f" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:33:43.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/359048565374455808" />
  <row Id="9615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="646b3902-6070-4241-b067-f9faac621051" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:39:16.847" UserId="520" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="Oh, FSM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense the question turns on the same (mis)understanding that leads to ask [why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down): one party views the clock from their own POV, the other promotes the clock to effective personhood and looks from *its* POV. In either case if they would *say what they mean* they could agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, this is why physicist and engineer use &quot;into the wall&quot; and &quot;out of the wall&quot;. The usual clock rotates into the the wall, and the deal in most card games rotates into the table. Alas when you say that in other company people think you are even weirder than is actually the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On reviewing the question I think there are some good answers there, and would not oppose re-opening, but I am among the crowd that feels *&quot;Physicists don't use that term other than casually because we have a more precise vocabulary; it's an English question&quot;*, so I am not going to use my moderator super powers to re-open it either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="3528b9aa-3c2b-418d-b76a-98e3c2eba298" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:57:25.947" UserId="27320" Text="[![enter image description here][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/index.php?langue=en&amp;halsid=scn6jd3c0frrsmge7on91shuv2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vUZAx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9617" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="1de31a2a-f70d-4e2c-bb2c-0bc73a1c44e4" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:57:25.947" UserId="27320" />
  <row Id="9618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="f4cc09a5-7b8a-4781-9c83-58ed3db1ee2e" CreationDate="2013-07-21T21:04:57.090" UserId="27320" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/index.php?langue=en&amp;halsid=scn6jd3c0frrsmge7on91shuv2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vUZAx.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This logo does not comply with the 220*250 format yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9619" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="bb265db3-483f-49f3-98bb-6b462474d28c" CreationDate="2013-07-21T21:05:43.727" UserId="9426" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9426,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jon Ericson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4630" RevisionGUID="f12e0ae0-390a-4733-a487-5e728eddfaa9" CreationDate="2013-07-21T23:57:45.530" UserId="1255" Text="Well I was just about to post my own topic about this.  Space Exploration is being infected by physics questions.  Out of the most recent 10 questions, I can count about 4 or 5 that could be questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to let everyone know that we're getting new activity partly because of traffic from there.  I've linked to a number of physics questions, because Space Exploration produces things are repeats from here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let me say that the astronomy detail is quite confusing.  Space exploration and astronomy are quite heavily intertwined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="1690eef9-91f0-44cd-97c4-510691ea4876" CreationDate="2013-07-22T01:48:29.410" UserId="124" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="As a matter of copyright/plagiarism, then yes, whenever material is quoted verbatim from a textbook, or from anywhere really, the source should be identified. I think that is mentioned in our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714), but if not, it should be added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not expect this to be a &quot;prosecutable&quot; violation of copyright law, since quoting part or all of a homework problem for the purpose of getting help solving it probably falls under the fair use exception. (But I'm not a lawyer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="05c2d1be-b79a-4a13-834d-9013f1b14297" CreationDate="2013-07-22T09:57:09.397" UserId="8563" Comment="added 855 characters in body" Text="The recent [question on the precise meaning of &quot;clockwise&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71455/8563) has received a ton of close-votes and downvotes (partly, I think, because of the original tone of the question). As @babou and I have argued, this is a valid, nontrivial, on-topic, valuable question, and it should really be pulled out of the administrative hole it's in. So: c'mon, upvote it and unclosevote it! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Manishearth's benefit, I quote my comment to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Clockwise&quot; is an important, ubiquitous technical term in the physical literature, and it is perfectly fine to have questions about their specific meaning and the conventions that surround such technical terms. Conventions are not physical insight but they are a crucial part of transmitting and understanding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the &quot;ubiquitous&quot;, babou did the numbers to find that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word &quot;clockwise&quot; is used more than 800 times on physics.stackexchange.com according to the very approximative figures of google (I used: clockwise site:physics.stackexchange.com). This adverb must have some relevance to physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the question is about conventions. But asking what the common conventions in physics are, and how to use them, is what we have a [tag:conventions] tag to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="495963c8-e312-40ea-8de3-340ae1c20ae8" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:20:00.937" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="a051ff45-b826-43ee-a4cb-4abbbbf3c014" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:20:00.937" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="beab9af7-711a-43a1-895d-fa8d238ac854" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:52:52.247" UserId="5477" Comment="Sorry, I didn't realise I was editing the *meta* tag wiki, I thought there was no content on the main site one for some reason. This is a copy of the main site's text, as it won't let me change it back to empty." Text="An detailed explanation on how to ask a homework question is available on [meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/373)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9626" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="beab9af7-711a-43a1-895d-fa8d238ac854" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:52:52.247" Comment="Proposed by 5477 approved by 7433 edit id of 3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="7f84981c-9403-47fb-8718-29fdf752b96d" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:53:02.343" UserId="5477" Comment="Sorry, I didn't realise I was editing the *meta* tag wiki, I thought there was no content on the main site one for some reason. This is a copy of the main site's text, as it won't let me change it back to empty." Text="Applies to questions of primarily educational value - not only questions that arise from actual homework assignments, but any question where it is preferable to guide the asker to the answer rather than giving it away outright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9628" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="7f84981c-9403-47fb-8718-29fdf752b96d" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:53:02.343" Comment="Proposed by 5477 approved by 7433 edit id of 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="4377b23c-77a6-4fd7-aad6-49ad9ad0c36f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T12:18:29.213" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="a4a48cfd-3520-47ad-90f0-7976ceaf7e20" CreationDate="2013-07-22T14:55:58.043" UserId="24773" Text="I had a longer answer, but I will limit it to this, for what it is worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do write many more answers than questions. I answer only relatively&#xD;&#xA;simple questions, as my math is no longer what it used to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no expert in physics, but I am a scientist, and I can&#xD;&#xA;often find my own answers. I also learn by answering questions&#xD;&#xA;(typically what I did about the working of ABS brakes, on which I knew&#xD;&#xA;practically nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did ask a very decent [question of physics][1], for which I was downvoted&#xD;&#xA;(-1) for no reason I could identify (52 views). A few comments, but no&#xD;&#xA;answer. I provided an answer myself (read apparently by no one). The&#xD;&#xA;purpose of the question was to understand how people make assumptions,&#xD;&#xA;as the answer to that question contradicted assumptions made in a&#xD;&#xA;previous one that was referenced. I still believe it was a good&#xD;&#xA;question, even though the purpose of it was (barely) hidden. I think&#xD;&#xA;understanding methods of reasonning is also part of science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not encouraging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have questions to ask. But I let them ripen. I feel that I will&#xD;&#xA;not (should not ?) get many chances of asking, and I better ask the&#xD;&#xA;right questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69677/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="25edc8b4-bcd6-4030-8087-e394c27445f6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:36:16.577" UserId="22354" Text="Here are  two questions that do not make sense, while reading them:  &#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71887/at-cern-what-do-you-call-the-moment-event-particles-crash-together-in-the-pa  &#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71823/is-there-a-proof-of-existence-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My observation is that second question doesn't get better if you read the answers. I didn't learn anything new from the answers. It just looked to me like a philosophical exercise in renaming things for the sake of renaming things.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the first question actually did got better when I read the answer. I've learnt something new. I've got better understanding of the particle physics experiment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bugs me is the moderator response to both situations. It was the first question that was blocked -- not the second one. I think that something is wrong with that. And I think that it has something to do with the standard complaint about &quot;not enough experts&quot; that you guys have here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="25edc8b4-bcd6-4030-8087-e394c27445f6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:36:16.577" UserId="22354" Text="Questions that look like senceless, but with sensible answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="25edc8b4-bcd6-4030-8087-e394c27445f6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:36:16.577" UserId="22354" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="3f66db96-2045-4ae5-9a3c-32b973f241f0" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:53:00.913" UserId="7433" Text="First one had one close vote, two comment upvotes (other than mine), and a flag. It was brought to our attention by the flag, and I closed it -- it made sense because it isn't really about physics concepts, and that's what we more or less deal with here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, answers do not justify the question. The question effectively asked for one word, but it got a more elaborate and interesting answer. For that matter, any question can get an elaborate and interesting answer. Closing in this case doesn't lead to deletion, all it does is prevent more answers and not invite similar questions. Nothing wrong with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think any of the mods even saw the second question. However, at first glance it's not a well-worded question, but it _is_ asking something sensible. It's effectively asking if physics allows for the notion that time is an illusion. I'm open to arguments about it's unsuitability though.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="b589e44e-8aa6-4d0c-802e-c47f0f5c4214" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:58:13.277" UserId="2451" Comment="spelling sence -&gt; sense" Text="Here are  two questions that do not make sense, while reading them:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71887/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71823/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My observation is that second question doesn't get better if you read the answers. I didn't learn anything new from the answers. It just looked to me like a philosophical exercise in renaming things for the sake of renaming things.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the first question actually did got better when I read the answer. I've learnt something new. I've got better understanding of the particle physics experiment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bugs me is the moderator response to both situations. It was the first question that was blocked -- not the second one. I think that something is wrong with that. And I think that it has something to do with the standard complaint about &quot;not enough experts&quot; that you guys have here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9637" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="b589e44e-8aa6-4d0c-802e-c47f0f5c4214" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:58:13.277" UserId="2451" Comment="spelling sence -&gt; sense" Text="Questions that look like senseless, but with sensible answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="b589e44e-8aa6-4d0c-802e-c47f0f5c4214" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:58:13.277" UserId="2451" Comment="spelling sence -&gt; sense" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="73103d71-490e-4377-a05c-24b61695f969" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:35:15.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/359456639365033984" />
  <row Id="9640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="a129f834-7356-4054-86dd-16fb6fe5df56" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:59:41.270" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="This isn't so much a full answer as an extended comment...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the things we realized in our (incredibly long, there-goes-my-productivity-for-the-day) [chat][1] is that just about any wording we choose can be misinterpreted or at the very least mis-emphasized in the OP's mind. I don't worry too much about covering *all* the corner cases anymore as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one used to have the exact same qualm about &quot;here's my work, where did I go wrong?&quot; questions - that the OP would miss the key sentence in the linked faq - and I even suggested a wording for that specific case [here][2]. While I don't advocate that being a default close reason, I copy/paste it as a custom close reason in these situations, where the OP actually does some work but in the end is using us as a computer algebra system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to find a close reason that covers everything, I've personally settled for having a couple specific alternate wordings on hand for certain cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="31d53794-616d-4f9b-beba-7621bb1f37fb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T03:12:02.410" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added example" Text="This isn't so much a full answer as an extended comment...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the things we realized in our (incredibly long, there-goes-my-productivity-for-the-day) [chat][1] is that just about any wording we choose can be misinterpreted or at the very least mis-emphasized in the OP's mind. This is *especially* likely when the wording mentions some corner case that just doesn't apply.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't worry too much about covering *all* the corner cases anymore as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one used to have the exact same qualm about &quot;here's my work, where did I go wrong?&quot; questions - that the OP would miss the key sentence in the linked faq - and I even suggested a wording for that specific case [here][2]. While I don't advocate that being a default close reason, I copy/paste it as a custom close reason in these situations, where the OP actually does some work but in the end is using us as a computer algebra system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to find a close reason that covers everything, I've personally settled for having a couple specific alternate wordings on hand for certain cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For a contrived example: OP has a practice exam with solution set, but the solution set just has equations but no concepts. OP posts a question and the given answer and says &quot;huh?&quot; We put on hold with our standard &quot;homework must show effort&quot; clause. If the OP reads a sentence saying &quot;don't post equations and ask us to check them,&quot; it may be taken as &quot;this question would be fine but for the fact that you posted too many equations,&quot; which is not at all the message we wanted to send.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="f5118d46-3d8f-4c58-9c3f-4cb4da592dd5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:56:22.263" UserId="24791" Text="The title sums it well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While `Beyond Standard Model` is an active area in physics(Check [arxiv][1], there are more than displayable results), we don't have a tag for it. I basically wanted to use it for [this post][2], but I couldn't find anything related to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+model+AND+Beyond+standard/0/1/0/all/0/1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71967/proton-radius-puzzle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="f5118d46-3d8f-4c58-9c3f-4cb4da592dd5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:56:22.263" UserId="24791" Text="Tag Request, Beyond Standard Model" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="f5118d46-3d8f-4c58-9c3f-4cb4da592dd5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:56:22.263" UserId="24791" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="ff9e173f-d08c-45be-bf05-b9e3ee86c743" CreationDate="2013-07-23T08:06:10.447" UserId="5477" Text="Please up/down vote this answer according to whether you think the wording should be changed to the following. (This is option 1 in my other answer - it's the same as the old wording, but changes &quot;work through the problem&quot; to &quot;understand the problem.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="67593072-0def-454f-a6b3-11d8c26164f6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:43:28.217" UserId="520" Text="The diversity of possible theories and possible observation that our Beyond the Standard Model (tm) is enormous, and the tag would be so broad that it would provide little characterization of the question. Consider that [it is non-unreasonable to consider neutrino oscillation as &quot;beyond the standard model&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Dilaton noted in the comments we are better served by a set of more specific tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5118/why-are-neutrino-oscillations-considered-to-be-beyond-the-standard-model" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="36f8aa85-d402-485e-9ec7-edda108a7cc9" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:27:27.763" UserId="8563" Text="[tag:faq] is a meta tag, which are [strongly discouraged in the SE system](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) unless they demonstrably and widely serve a useful (crucial?) function for a particular site. (The only meta tag in wide use here is [tag:homework], which is definitely critical.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless someone can argue convincingly that this is a useful tag (which would probably require identifying and retagging many of the relevant questions for it to be useful; the current six questions don't help much) then it probably ought to be exorcized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can think of a reason: if the list in [tag:faq] were kept updated, trim, complete and relevant, then it would significantly speed and ease the process of pointing people to their question's duplicate, and possibly help them find it before they ask. However, that's a high-maintenance task, and I don't see that it's worth the extra clutter it will introduce.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="e03ca7a2-805f-460b-b197-0bda11fc1ac3" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:53:57.540" UserId="2146" Text="Suppose a number of users from Russia, for example, decided to create a room discussing Russian physics and physicists, and they decided to converse in the Russian language. This would unintentionally exclude most people from here participating and learning from the conversation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the guide lines, if any, on where non-English can be used on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="e03ca7a2-805f-460b-b197-0bda11fc1ac3" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:53:57.540" UserId="2146" Text="When can non-English be used on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="e03ca7a2-805f-460b-b197-0bda11fc1ac3" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:53:57.540" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4643" RevisionGUID="d9f83017-ff05-46f2-a096-4f17e5211b9b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:05:16.467" UserId="124" Text="In general, we don't care what happens in chat rooms associated with the site, so if some users want to set up a chat room for discussion in a foreign language, that [should be okay](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/92996). However, if chat moderators have reason to suspect that the foreign language is being used to disguise communication that would otherwise be unacceptable (e.g. insults), they'll have to deal with that, and shutting down the chat room is one of the possible consequences (in extreme cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, meta site, and in the [main site chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), all content should be in English. (Or more precisely, all content should be understandable to English speakers.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="ac7b9392-847f-4bc9-b057-510de8d00863" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:11:46.577" UserId="27320" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gH3ka.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/index.php?langue=en&amp;halsid=h80sqt9oe4cj9came4tqtgted1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="3e145d76-db27-45df-a1f8-db7c9656bd93" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:35:29.323" UserId="23119" Text="[![INSPIRE -- literature database search for high-energy physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPxBl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://inspirehep.net " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9660" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="33934cb8-2022-42f1-81e5-ede5cbf5fb71" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:35:29.323" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="9668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4647" RevisionGUID="6783903e-a26b-4211-809b-8c62ed4fac89" CreationDate="2013-07-25T11:36:48.267" UserId="24791" Text="[![TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design)][3]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ted.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NZg62.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9669" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4647" RevisionGUID="e05b242f-be0e-48d4-8cec-485af938e806" CreationDate="2013-07-25T11:36:48.267" UserId="24791" />
  <row Id="9670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="0df6b8cf-1fdc-4ce9-9705-4adc31932fd5" CreationDate="2013-07-25T11:48:46.753" UserId="399" Text="What should be done with these questions is that some moderator should ***find the best answers***, migrate them all to one of these questions, and close all the others as duplicates. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="d990fad4-f41f-44a9-824c-242be5392ac5" CreationDate="2013-07-26T00:56:38.593" UserId="24773" Text="I sympathise very much with Emilio's feeling about this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know whether the question needs reopening. Trying to sponge a&#xD;&#xA;mess will often spread it to a worse mess. The real problem is that it&#xD;&#xA;became a mess to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that it was a perfectly valid question, asked candidly by&#xD;&#xA;a user who wanted to be sure in the face of some opposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is about an adverb often used technically by physicists, on this&#xD;&#xA;site too (as I tried to show).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three respondents were in agreement with this. My own answer was&#xD;&#xA;probably hard to follow as I had misread John Rennie's answer&#xD;&#xA;(because, as I explained later, he was using the more complex to&#xD;&#xA;explain the simpler, in my view. I now understand his intent and reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem was, and is often, with the downvote system. There was&#xD;&#xA;absolutely no reason to downvote this question. It was unjustified&#xD;&#xA;technically, and it was rude to the poster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting on scientific issues is a rather strange idea (whether for or&#xD;&#xA;against). Voting without having to justify the vote is just an open&#xD;&#xA;door for the kind of mess we have seen. I know that has already been&#xD;&#xA;discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to clean the mess, and many other questions, would be to&#xD;&#xA;write a common synthesis of what was said.  But if we start on that&#xD;&#xA;path, we will not finish soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have individually the possibility of rewriting the existing answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we will still be treating a symptom, not the illness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If something is not worth seeing, it should not be there. If it is&#xD;&#xA;nevertheless kept, it can only be as an example of what is not worth&#xD;&#xA;seeing. But that is useful only if a reason is given, even an&#xD;&#xA;anonymous one. The reason is needed by the public as much as it is&#xD;&#xA;desired by the author." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="168b9e94-c5bd-4e20-9748-1586f8ddb87a" CreationDate="2013-07-26T08:39:04.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/360680657611010050" />
  <row Id="9674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="91039021-1254-4e43-9367-a49089f49977" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:50:01.247" UserId="8563" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="[tag:faq] is a meta tag, which are [strongly discouraged in the SE system](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) unless they demonstrably and widely serve a useful (crucial?) function for a particular site. (The only meta tag in wide use here is [tag:homework], which is definitely critical.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless someone can argue convincingly that this is a useful tag (which would probably require identifying and retagging many of the relevant questions for it to be useful; the current six questions don't help much) then it probably ought to be exorcized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can think of a reason: if the list in [tag:faq] were kept updated, trim, complete and relevant, then it would significantly speed and ease the process of pointing people to their question's duplicate, and possibly help them find it before they ask. However, that's a high-maintenance task, and I don't see that it's worth the extra clutter it will introduce.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;One way to initially populate such a tag could be to do a graph analysis on all posts and see which questions have lots of links towards them, or trying to identify cliques. Are there tools available for this sort of thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="48db295d-1e82-44dd-aa8a-f1af5581a8cb" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:49:23.710" UserId="8563" Text="[![BOINC volunteer distributed computing][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BOz24.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9679" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="01df5075-6a39-4f09-ac00-20f82ea5ff3e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:49:23.710" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="9680" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="ea49cb55-164c-4287-9617-72c3338f7612" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:40:19.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/360771568755933184" />
  <row Id="9684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="d2cdd8f0-e59f-43aa-9578-9030dc66a982" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:11:30.237" UserId="5827" Text="Can we have a tag for questions related to atomic, molecular and optical physics? I'd suggest &quot;AMO-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, how many tags we have here match APS subject tags? Perhaps it would be a good idea to include APS subject classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this specific question has been brought up before. I am just too lazy to look it up. Sorry. :]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="d2cdd8f0-e59f-43aa-9578-9030dc66a982" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:11:30.237" UserId="5827" Text="AMO tag [Do we have one?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="d2cdd8f0-e59f-43aa-9578-9030dc66a982" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:11:30.237" UserId="5827" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="288eab28-47a7-460a-aa85-6b576cbe5c10" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:57:32.700" UserId="5827" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="Can we have a tag for questions related to atomic, molecular and optical physics? I'd suggest &quot;AMO-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, how many tags we have here match APS subject tags? Perhaps it would be a good idea to include APS subject classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this specific question has been brought up before. I am just too lazy to look it up. Sorry. :]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;APS = American Physical Society. I mean take a look at Phys.Rev.Letters or Europhysics Letters and see how editors categorize subfields. Perhaps we could simply include that categorization as tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMO is pretty much a catch-all phrase for laser cooling, ion trapping, optical lattices, BEC studies, Atom Magnetometry and tons more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="30aa4c0f-e2a5-4c26-81b1-96cac9ca50d5" CreationDate="2013-07-27T03:49:59.320" UserId="23119" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][3]][2] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gH3ka.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/index.php?langue=en&amp;halsid=h80sqt9oe4cj9came4tqtgted1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UoUIy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="3fc0fd22-9cc7-4649-8904-f294c64f2d4c" CreationDate="2013-07-27T04:47:38.350" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="[![INSPIRE -- literature database search for high-energy physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPxBl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://inspirehep.net  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="35440cf5-f888-4b5b-934f-16336a5b22a9" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:31:16.493" UserId="23119" Text="There are many questions which should be [tag:faq] on the main site in my opinion. So I'm starting this meta post  to vote on questions  which could become [tag:faq].  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="35440cf5-f888-4b5b-934f-16336a5b22a9" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:31:16.493" UserId="23119" Text="FAQ questions (on the main site)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="35440cf5-f888-4b5b-934f-16336a5b22a9" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:31:16.493" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tag|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="60fe8478-f3f2-45cd-abf7-6a6acaf1dff5" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:36:39.860" UserId="23119" Text="This question should be faq: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How do the Einstein's equations come out of string theory](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The duplicates are:  [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="823ad18f-5ad9-44f0-80cc-c588ad4e294e" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:40:20.483" UserId="23119" Text="This question should be faq: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69982/variational-derivation-of-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duplicates: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15242/lagrangian-of-schrodinger-field?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55622/how-would-a-lagrangian-be-used-to-recover-the-schrodinger-equation?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="0e4bd22e-ee95-4484-b65c-670212b99215" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:43:41.733" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="This question should be faq: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How do the Einstein's equations come out of string theory](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The duplicates are:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="0ef80302-5504-4e08-837f-24d476adafde" CreationDate="2013-07-27T11:32:08.540" UserId="16660" Text="Yesterday I had 1693 rep, but when I logged on today I had only 1689 left. I went in to see if I'd gotten any downvotes. There weren't any, but I did have a *&quot;post was removed&quot;* notice - I ticked the *&quot;show removed posts&quot;* box at the bottom of the page because I've come across this before ([this][1] and [this][2] meta question helped me figure things out then, I've already done the rep recalculation trigger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that only accounts for a loss of 2 rep points and I seem to have lost 4. Is there anything else that can explain this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the amount of rep we're talking about is ludicrously small. So it's not the rep itself that bothers me, but the fact that I have no idea where it went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2845/incorrect-reputation-being-displayed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1352/user-removed-rep-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9697" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="0ef80302-5504-4e08-837f-24d476adafde" CreationDate="2013-07-27T11:32:08.540" UserId="16660" Text="More rep has changed than I can account for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9698" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="0ef80302-5504-4e08-837f-24d476adafde" CreationDate="2013-07-27T11:32:08.540" UserId="16660" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="6f4dcb22-c88f-40fc-9c18-b156c3345811" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:38:04.747" UserId="23119" Text="The flag reasons are outdated: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts.   It still has &quot;too localised&quot; and others. Shouldn't it be updated? . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="6f4dcb22-c88f-40fc-9c18-b156c3345811" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:38:04.747" UserId="23119" Text="Outdated flag reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="6f4dcb22-c88f-40fc-9c18-b156c3345811" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:38:04.747" UserId="23119" Text="|bug|flagging|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="6d12b623-0044-49bf-b29b-6c21b6e0674b" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:48:49.200" UserId="23119" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which should be [tag:faq] on the main site in my opinion. So I'm starting this meta post  to vote on questions  which could become [tag:faq].  Add answers to propose faq questions, and vote on them, . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="262ef622-ade4-4dbf-9ad0-1262430d9cd8" CreationDate="2013-07-27T14:10:40.583" UserId="23119" Comment="!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111........ " Text="There are many questions which should be [tag:faq] on the main site in my opinion. So I'm starting this meta post  to vote on questions  which could become [tag:faq].  Add answers to propose faq questions, and vote on them, . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REQUEST:** Could this question by Community Wiki?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9706" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="262ef622-ade4-4dbf-9ad0-1262430d9cd8" CreationDate="2013-07-27T14:10:40.583" UserId="23119" Comment="!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111........ " Text="|discussion|tags|site-faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="40845273-fa32-4cf1-9584-fba7daed01c2" CreationDate="2013-07-27T19:17:33.507" UserId="23119" Text="**This question should be faq:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48016/how-exactly-do-superstrings-reduce-the-number-of-dimensions-in-bosonic-string-th  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10075/compactification-of-dimensions?rq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38722/limit-on-space-time-dimension-from-susy?rq=1     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="9216b4e1-08e2-4d6f-b081-ddf5118df863" CreationDate="2013-07-27T19:18:59.903" UserId="23119" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="**This question should be faq:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69982/variational-derivation-of-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15242/lagrangian-of-schrodinger-field?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55622/how-would-a-lagrangian-be-used-to-recover-the-schrodinger-equation?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="bc4b2600-dd84-4709-95d7-5ba990473294" CreationDate="2013-07-27T19:20:23.347" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="b27326b8-d1bf-4886-a80d-96f22204c53c" CreationDate="2013-07-28T05:21:38.550" UserId="23119" Comment="thesis site  ihas been closed . " Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration &amp; Technology][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami?referrer=fO8dAW_YEcLPxcPqde7HtA2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Computational Origami&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[!Computational Origami][15]][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40518.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40518/big-data&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/43283.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="beca2619-fd2c-4831-bf59-5d9e5b356fab" CreationDate="2013-07-28T05:33:51.850" UserId="23119" Comment="added 59 characters in body climate change proposal is dead . " Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][10] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration &amp; Technology][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami?referrer=fO8dAW_YEcLPxcPqde7HtA2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Computational Origami&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png)](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science)   &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40518.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40518/big-data&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/31977.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/31977/climate-change&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/43283.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43283/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9717" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="d6aa4d31-c17b-4ae5-bfdd-cb5dbe6b1960" CreationDate="2013-07-28T10:19:01.573" UserId="23119" Comment="This is the *only* question witht the gtag. " Text="|support|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="33b6487b-8ef3-4e2c-82df-5396a0f439b1" CreationDate="2013-07-28T11:09:28.840" UserId="12798" Text="I find the question to be fair and John's Rennie's answer to be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word clockwise can only be used along with a well defined axis, and had to clarified to the user. I see no reason, why such a question must be closed, as cross products requires an unambiguous definition of the word clockwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I request reopening of the question, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="951eec72-a38a-42c9-a979-a642e0efe284" CreationDate="2013-07-28T15:17:05.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="cd047feb-aa23-4b14-9735-396741885950" CreationDate="2013-07-28T15:17:05.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="80bcb689-5ca8-43f1-bdb3-eeb01d9aff64" CreationDate="2013-07-28T18:17:54.640" UserId="23119" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Use this to  request/propose that a tag  be burinated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9729" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="80bcb689-5ca8-43f1-bdb3-eeb01d9aff64" CreationDate="2013-07-28T18:17:54.640" Comment="Proposed by 23119 approved by 7433 edit id of 5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="31844765-597d-478c-8dbe-1a1446158433" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:07:08.443" UserId="2751" Text="Just today, I flagged the first nonconstructive trolling comment below a legitimate [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/72589/2751) as not constructive. When going to my flagging history, I see that the flag is nether declined nor deemed helpful, but there is a yellow blob saying that it is &quot;active&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen this before, what does it mean for a flag to be &quot;active&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="31844765-597d-478c-8dbe-1a1446158433" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:07:08.443" UserId="2751" Text="What does the status &quot;active&quot; of a flag mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="31844765-597d-478c-8dbe-1a1446158433" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:07:08.443" UserId="2751" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="e6032c7d-9948-40d3-9910-27097cc61b63" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:21:12.640" UserId="2751" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="Just today, I flagged the first nonconstructive trolling comment below a legitimate [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/72589/2751) as not constructive. When going to my flagging history, I see that the flag is nether declined nor deemed helpful, but there is a yellow blob saying that it is &quot;active&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen this before, what does it mean for a flag to be &quot;active&quot;? Does it mean that the flag is still active because it has not yet been handled? However, it is no longer listed among the flags waiting for moderator attention in the right side bar ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="1c0ee9c7-e615-4498-882a-7749b8de4add" CreationDate="2013-07-29T10:43:04.640" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Does it mean that the flag is still active because it has not yet been handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. I think. (the flag system has been changed internally a bit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, it is no longer listed among the flags waiting for moderator attention in the right side bar .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Umm, where? There never was a &quot;# of flags waiting for attention&quot; bar on the side. Also, comment flags behave a bit differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW that comment isn't trolling, but it's not constructive either (I purged the thread). And we'd appreciate it if you didn't attack commenters about their comments and effectively call them trolls. That puts you in the wrong too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="d3cfb401-7493-4fc4-9512-ade1b17e8ebc" CreationDate="2013-07-29T20:25:31.477" UserId="24900" Text="I'd like to post a question, but not sure that I should post it either here or Space Exploration.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why an asteroid doesn't make a sonic bang while entering the atmosphere?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="d3cfb401-7493-4fc4-9512-ade1b17e8ebc" CreationDate="2013-07-29T20:25:31.477" UserId="24900" Text="Does this question belong here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="d3cfb401-7493-4fc4-9512-ade1b17e8ebc" CreationDate="2013-07-29T20:25:31.477" UserId="24900" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="251c6f32-c202-445b-ad43-e71d0b6d5337" CreationDate="2013-07-29T21:05:13.310" UserId="24142" Text="That's physics question, so that belongs on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9747" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="734783ed-0508-47e5-bf92-380e6b162662" CreationDate="2013-07-30T01:35:39.753" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="0c6abe3c-0511-48b0-bd85-f6d7d74e9e0e" CreationDate="2013-07-30T01:37:57.403" UserId="2911" Text="Since you now have [a specific off-topic close reason][1] for these, I re-used that to update the sidebar guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ask question sidebar][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Homework-like questions should &lt;b&gt;ask about a specific physics concept&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;show some effort&lt;/b&gt; to work through the problem. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/&quot;&gt;homework guidance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjMz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="3ada988a-8c97-4fa7-8610-666d21d965ff" CreationDate="2013-07-30T06:42:53.330" UserId="12985" Text="I realised that a bunch of LaTeX symbols actually cannot be used in stackexchange, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\right)$$ gives me nothing...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way around this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="3ada988a-8c97-4fa7-8610-666d21d965ff" CreationDate="2013-07-30T06:42:53.330" UserId="12985" Text="LaTeX symbols for physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="3ada988a-8c97-4fa7-8610-666d21d965ff" CreationDate="2013-07-30T06:42:53.330" UserId="12985" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="443f7f4a-9b53-495a-bb4c-057292e81c39" CreationDate="2013-07-30T07:09:37.440" UserId="124" Text="Pair it with a left parenthesis? :-P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\left( stuff \right)$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this _particular_ piece of LaTeX syntax is supported if you use it correctly, there are many others that are not. The system this site uses for typesetting math is [MathJaX](http://www.mathjax.org/), which implements a set of commands that correspond to a subset of LaTeX syntax. You can see which commands are supported in the [MathJaX documentation](http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/). As a general rule, if you try to do anything especially tricky that would work in LaTeX, don't count on it working in MathJaX, but the simple stuff should be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="b4c934c7-31dd-446a-a45b-1c0487548474" CreationDate="2013-07-30T07:12:54.247" UserId="124" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="You probably shouldn't. If you have an issue on the site that needs moderator attention, flag it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, for some reason other than that, you want to contact the moderators, either leave a message in the chat room or use an @-notification on a question or answer that one of us has posted or commented on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't use the features the site provides to contact moderators (for example, if you aren't able to log in), email team+physics@stackexchange.com, and the Stack Exchange team will help you out. That email address doesn't go to the site moderators, but in cases like that there's probably nothing we could do about it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Personally, I do list an email address where I can be reached on my profile, but it shouldn't be used for matters relating to this site.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="7e89c309-dcdb-47a9-bde5-3c126fa58281" CreationDate="2013-07-30T15:39:54.917" UserId="23119" Comment="How many are there?   " Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary/10654#10654  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="c7e36c52-e799-4eb4-85eb-ddd2c8050127" CreationDate="2013-07-30T17:15:23.097" UserId="23119" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69982/variational-derivation-of-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15242/lagrangian-of-schrodinger-field?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55622/how-would-a-lagrangian-be-used-to-recover-the-schrodinger-equation?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="b4dca7b5-1023-4b10-8007-965486073859" CreationDate="2013-07-30T17:15:42.333" UserId="23119" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48016/how-exactly-do-superstrings-reduce-the-number-of-dimensions-in-bosonic-string-th  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10075/compactification-of-dimensions?rq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38722/limit-on-space-time-dimension-from-susy?rq=1     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="7e485c00-9e9e-4e56-b1c6-db8d71a6808a" CreationDate="2013-07-30T17:16:57.323" UserId="23119" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="There are many questions here that ask about how GR comes out of string theory. For example, [this][1], [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7].  And almost all of the comments on those posts are &quot;Related: ...&quot;, &quot;Possible Duplicate: ...&quot;, &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; (of course if you pick any Question A and Question B out of the 7 questions, then Post A would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: B&quot; and B would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: A&quot;, or &quot;Related: ...&quot; or &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; or &quot;You cheater! Didn't you check this question: ...&quot; or whatever.)  . Maybe this question should be tagged as [tag:faq]? . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***UPDATE:***      Full list here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4653/faq-questions-on-the-main-site/4654#4654" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="6ee7cdb5-a9c9-4b90-9a27-a9a6f2a398e0" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:11:41.740" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="As I was casually going through the list of tags, I noticed several whose pluralization stood out as... off. It seems to me that for non-unique things (so I'm excluding [tag:sun], [tag:earth], etc.) that are not [mass nouns][1] (i.e. concepts, like [tag:energy] or even [tag:simulation]), the plural form of the word should be used. By and large this is the case already, but there are a few sore thumbs I suggest replacing. In particular, I suggest the replacements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:asteroid] → [tag:asteroids] (cf. [tag:meteoroids], [tag:meteors], [tag:meteorites]);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:exoplanet] → [tag:exoplanets] (cf. [tag:planets]);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:nebula] → [tag:nebulae] (it's not like we live in &quot;*the* Nebula&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:star] → [tag:stars] (cf. [tag:planets], [tag:neutron-stars]);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:x-ray] → [tag:x-rays] (cf. [tag:gamma-rays], [tag:microwaves]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last one *could* be interpreted as an adjective and thus correct as-is, but the examples show we are being inconsistent at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **(1)** should these changes be made? If so, **(2)** should they be implemented via tag creation/synonymization, or can a mod just silently rename the tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="6ee7cdb5-a9c9-4b90-9a27-a9a6f2a398e0" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:11:41.740" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Tag cleanup - pluralization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="6ee7cdb5-a9c9-4b90-9a27-a9a6f2a398e0" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:11:41.740" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="90b2e2db-af62-4c88-af23-90964bd57192" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:20:42.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="In my recent perusal of the tags, I came across a couple that seemed unnecessary. Can we get rid of the following tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:proof-that-1-plus-1-is-2] Seriously, why? Even [Mathematics][1] doesn't have this as a tag. Also, there are no questions attached to it.&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:fun-stuff] This seems to be a meta-tag that invites silliness. I'm all for a little lightheartedness in asking questions, but having this tag seems like it invites off-topic posts. Alternatively, we could make the synonym [tag:fun-stuff] → [tag:soft-question].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="90b2e2db-af62-4c88-af23-90964bd57192" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:20:42.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Tag cleanup - burnination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="90b2e2db-af62-4c88-af23-90964bd57192" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:20:42.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="bdf2a8cd-9d85-4ba6-91a3-09631ffd32a1" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:23:56.473" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added another bullet point" Text="As I was casually going through the list of tags, I noticed several whose pluralization stood out as... off. It seems to me that for non-unique things (so I'm excluding [tag:sun], [tag:earth], etc.) that are not [mass nouns][1] (i.e. concepts, like [tag:energy] or even [tag:simulation]), the plural form of the word should be used. By and large this is the case already, but there are a few sore thumbs I suggest replacing. In particular, I suggest the replacements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:asteroid] → [tag:asteroids] (cf. [tag:meteoroids], [tag:meteors], [tag:meteorites]);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:exoplanet] → [tag:exoplanets] (cf. [tag:planets]);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:nebula] → [tag:nebulae] (it's not like we live in &quot;*the* Nebula&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:star] → [tag:stars] (cf. [tag:planets], [tag:neutron-stars]);&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:x-ray] → [tag:x-rays] (cf. [tag:gamma-rays], [tag:microwaves]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last one *could* be interpreted as an adjective and thus correct as-is, but the examples show we are being inconsistent at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, there is one that seems unnecessarily pluralized. I suggest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:stellar-winds] → [tag:stellar-wind] (cf. [tag:solar-wind], [tag:atmosphere]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **(1)** should these changes be made? If so, **(2)** should they be implemented via tag creation/synonymization, or can a mod just silently rename the tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4679" RevisionGUID="a93c91af-3578-49a7-a92d-b34ca85ba6a5" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:39:33.107" UserId="124" Text="1. Yes&#xD;&#xA;2. This can be done with the mod synonymification tool - no need to go through the whole process of proposing a suggestion when it's such an obvious correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave this for a day or so just in case anyone does have comments, and then make the changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mmm, synonymification :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9773" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="3d636950-552e-4ea3-8d31-698e84b52c96" CreationDate="2013-07-31T02:32:30.790" UserId="11062" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="dc01c1a2-df8b-41e3-ba6e-c2f877045880" CreationDate="2013-07-31T03:53:31.280" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9775" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="bcbe3413-e616-4612-995f-bf8dd0f30f04" CreationDate="2013-07-31T08:45:26.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/362494199091834880" />
  <row Id="9776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="0b1f930a-fba6-4041-ad5c-7115e884540e" CreationDate="2013-07-31T11:46:23.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/362539735979278337" />
  <row Id="9777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="8719ea92-6623-4fb4-9e5c-4844dcf0f366" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:58:04.863" UserId="6764" Text="Can anyone tell me how do I paste a hyperlink into an coment? I always dislike long hyperlinks like this one: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=int_%28-0.1%29%5E%280.1%29+1.06%5E2*x%5E2*e%5E%28-x%5E2%2F1%29+dx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also see, that the above isn't fully reckognized (a bug or simply it all stops when the page wants to edit the link in italic) - only half of a hyperlink is infact a link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="8719ea92-6623-4fb4-9e5c-4844dcf0f366" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:58:04.863" UserId="6764" Text="Inline hyperlink in a comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="8719ea92-6623-4fb4-9e5c-4844dcf0f366" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:58:04.863" UserId="6764" Text="|bug|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="2f49e192-d9e8-428b-a004-be78f55fc7f9" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:18:18.657" UserId="520" Text="As explained at the bottom of the [formatting help page][1] you use `[link text](url)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also [a more detailed help page just for comment formatting][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/formatting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help#comment-formatting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9781" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="b5245cfd-c698-4b2a-94fc-ef93bcf18949" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:03:55.140" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="7e5d9ba4-c236-49fd-9538-d4a988315616" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:35:53.163" UserId="19976" Text="At this point, I have answered quite a few questions on physics.SE, and it would be very helpful to have the ability to search them.  Is there a way to restrict the physics.SE native search to only my answers?  If not, has adding such functionality been considered thus far?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="7e5d9ba4-c236-49fd-9538-d4a988315616" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:35:53.163" UserId="19976" Text="Searching my answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="7e5d9ba4-c236-49fd-9538-d4a988315616" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:35:53.163" UserId="19976" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="58b040fa-9c0c-4c5d-a37b-f709d496e22f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:42:12.770" UserId="124" Text="Yep, just include `user:me` in your search query. You can also use something like `user:19976` to restrict the results to any particular user's posts, where `19976` should be replaced by the ID of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to restrict your search to only answers (as opposed to questions and answers), you can also include `is:answer`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other search operators that you can see by doing a search and looking at the right side of the results page for &quot;Advanced Search Tips&quot;. (Or see [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="c2afec65-365b-4052-9fa6-97d1df42dd37" CreationDate="2013-08-02T11:11:57.417" UserId="27166" Comment="retagged to support" Text="|support|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="5918bef2-9778-49a8-931e-a9060b269bc9" CreationDate="2013-08-02T15:15:58.967" UserId="23119" Text=" What's [tag:rest-mass] for? It's probably *too* specific. Why not burinate it? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="5918bef2-9778-49a8-931e-a9060b269bc9" CreationDate="2013-08-02T15:15:58.967" UserId="23119" Text="What's the rest mass tag for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="5918bef2-9778-49a8-931e-a9060b269bc9" CreationDate="2013-08-02T15:15:58.967" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4685" RevisionGUID="b29aa99a-a7ee-4bfd-9687-e14872fcf508" CreationDate="2013-08-02T15:23:19.850" UserId="2451" Text="I think [tag:rest-mass] should be a synonym to (or merged with) [tag:mass]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9791" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="a933626a-02f4-4e25-b626-f0caa109501b" CreationDate="2013-08-03T08:49:13.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/363582316079095808" />
  <row Id="9792" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="efad1933-d079-4460-940b-97796de93a78" CreationDate="2013-08-03T10:56:11.357" UserId="23119" Comment="retagged . " Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9795" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="e5b0bd27-0fe6-43b0-80c8-c5898106cd24" CreationDate="2013-08-04T05:38:02.317" UserId="11062" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="62be242a-333d-4af3-931b-8d905e0db4a2" CreationDate="2013-08-04T09:48:13.853" UserId="23119" Text="[When I check this page, it says that there' is a suggested edit queue. But aren't suggested edits disallowed on meta? Where did this come from? Is it outdated?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/review)  . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="62be242a-333d-4af3-931b-8d905e0db4a2" CreationDate="2013-08-04T09:48:13.853" UserId="23119" Text="Suggested edits on meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="62be242a-333d-4af3-931b-8d905e0db4a2" CreationDate="2013-08-04T09:48:13.853" UserId="23119" Text="|bug|suggested-edits|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9801" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="b96ca905-218a-4d0d-85c6-062c358b8989" CreationDate="2013-08-04T11:34:53.803" UserId="23119" Comment="edited title" Text="Eradicating the &quot;theory&quot; tag from all &quot;theory&quot;-ies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9802" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="72d0a86d-1d92-4a9b-9259-c6f2ae0f6771" CreationDate="2013-08-04T11:36:18.230" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [ef001d9a-0155-47b8-86ce-60c5296f4824]" Text="Getting rid of &quot;theory&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="fe7627ea-c2df-4f58-a824-dfd366afade1" CreationDate="2013-08-04T12:35:10.600" UserId="23119" Text="  [tag:discrete]? Seriously? What kind of a tag is that?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="fe7627ea-c2df-4f58-a824-dfd366afade1" CreationDate="2013-08-04T12:35:10.600" UserId="23119" Text="The &quot;discrete&quot; tag ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="fe7627ea-c2df-4f58-a824-dfd366afade1" CreationDate="2013-08-04T12:35:10.600" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="8a305138-7315-48f2-8969-952a7083be0b" CreationDate="2013-08-04T13:26:17.200" UserId="2451" Text="[Discrete](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete) means as opposed to _continuous._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For, instance, people may ask questions about discrete electric charges, discrete spacetime, discrete energies, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If discretization is vital/essential to the question then tag it with the [tag:discrete] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related tag (in case of quantum theory) is the [tag:quantization] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="2116626f-eefa-4624-beb4-e85638dc1761" CreationDate="2013-08-04T13:32:37.020" UserId="23119" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="  [tag:discrete]? Seriously? What kind of a tag is that?     Too broad .   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9814" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="2116626f-eefa-4624-beb4-e85638dc1761" CreationDate="2013-08-04T13:32:37.020" UserId="23119" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="The &quot;discrete&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="e5522343-d3d8-4ccc-8d8d-27cb9666b460" CreationDate="2013-08-04T14:33:26.430" UserId="7433" Text="It's for tag wiki suggestions. Those still work on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9817" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="76b7b382-445f-4e01-87d9-295318dab689" CreationDate="2013-08-04T14:34:11.527" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|suggested-edits|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="90153662-316f-44a6-a472-400dd529cfaa" CreationDate="2013-08-04T15:07:11.723" UserId="2451" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="[Discrete](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete) means as opposed to _continuous._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For, instance, people may ask questions about discrete electric charges, discrete spacetime, discrete energies, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If discretization is vital/essential to the question then tag it with the [tag:discrete] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently there is 37 questions tagged with the [tag:discrete] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related tag (in case of quantum theory) is the [tag:quantization] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="c1f3899b-08ed-4f36-ae85-22d1fe1de817" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:52:24.593" UserId="25907" Text="While flagging questions, there is a detailed system explaining exactly what each option means, but there is no such thing while flagging comments. The help section also does not give any specific examples. Can a system for flagging comments be created just like the one for flagging questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="c1f3899b-08ed-4f36-ae85-22d1fe1de817" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:52:24.593" UserId="25907" Text="Flagging comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="c1f3899b-08ed-4f36-ae85-22d1fe1de817" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:52:24.593" UserId="25907" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4695" RevisionGUID="79cb3e39-0a8f-47a2-be9c-f71160b476c6" CreationDate="2013-08-04T18:06:17.793" UserId="520" Text="Because comments are designed to be ephemeral and second-class objects, we don't maintain nearly as much formality in dealing with them. Take you best guess and go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It bears repeating: any comment can be deleted at any time for any reason or none. Nothing important should be left in the comments: important ideas should make their way into first class posts lest they be lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e5183a9a-b0ce-4103-b51c-0c7fbc0ea8d3" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:01:38.157" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, book-request questions more or less have a blanket ban on this site. I'm seeing if this can be changed, to allow for a relaxed book policy that permits book requests with some constraints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is consensus on this, we can convert this to a meta-[meta-tag:faq] post, and the policy becomes official&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please vote on the answers according to whether or not you wish that answer to be the policy for books. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Till then, please stick with the old policy. Switching policies before we get sufficient agreement on this will lead to further discord and confusion on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e5183a9a-b0ce-4103-b51c-0c7fbc0ea8d3" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:01:38.157" UserId="7433" Text="Reevaluating the book policy, and a proposal for a new policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e5183a9a-b0ce-4103-b51c-0c7fbc0ea8d3" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:01:38.157" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="06e32794-09a1-4157-902d-ee087adb88d7" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:01:38.157" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the book questions** by adding the banner, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how can I help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a &quot;Could someone explain X to me&quot; instead. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before answering, please see [our policy] on resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book. Explain what the book is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which book is most suited for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, flag for community-wikification.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="f473cbb0-6b66-4418-8d5e-37e7d4074bb1" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:15:43.837" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Reevaluating the book policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="f473cbb0-6b66-4418-8d5e-37e7d4074bb1" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:15:43.837" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|feature-request|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="be8e857e-a08a-416a-9c42-7a853e54620d" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:32:09.813" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Does it really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="be8e857e-a08a-416a-9c42-7a853e54620d" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:32:09.813" UserId="7433" Text="Getting rid of the popular science tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="be8e857e-a08a-416a-9c42-7a853e54620d" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:32:09.813" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="8d721285-e580-4136-ac4d-1815b3e43920" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:24:13.880" UserId="2751" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the majority of the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="78f638c6-6eab-494d-a882-06da65acb981" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:35:15.113" UserId="2751" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="b8327eab-2160-489b-9794-62be6ce51be5" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:47:14.597" UserId="7433" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag(popular-science) can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Does [tag:popular-science] really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="9ed52908-7c26-4789-adfe-59fd40d63079" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:53:05.233" UserId="24142" Text="This issue has been bugging me for a while now. I suppose it's more appropriate for the main SE site, but I want to know how others feel about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very annoying that the 'active questions' thread gets cluttered with older posts that received minor edits: LaTeX formatting, fixed grammar, a few words changed, and especially, retagging. There are a few prolific editors on this site; nothing wrong with that, but their edits are pushing recent answers off the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that new or substantially improved answers deserve to remain visible on the main page as long as possible, and they shouldn't get mixed with older posts that haven't changed significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related problem is that the 'active' thread doesn't show any information about when the question was posted, or what has changed: you have to click on the question to see how old it is, and whether someone posted a new answer or whether it was just a retag or a small edit. I find that frustrating, and a waste of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that any change shouldn't go unnoticed. So my suggestion would be to split the 'active' thread in two: one 'active questions' thread for new questions, new answers, major edits (say, e.g. more than 50 characters altered), and perhaps also new comments, which currently don't bump questions. In addition, there could be a new 'edited questions' thread that keeps track of retagging and minor edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to know what the rest of you think.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="9ed52908-7c26-4789-adfe-59fd40d63079" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:53:05.233" UserId="24142" Text="Minor edits should not make questions 'active'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="9ed52908-7c26-4789-adfe-59fd40d63079" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:53:05.233" UserId="24142" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|editing|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="824c6a94-81c8-42d8-a8f0-4325e6c67b13" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:56:14.683" UserId="7433" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag(popular-science) can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Does [tag:popular-science] really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. There are approx [3 questions per month][3] in the tag (ignore the last data point, recently there has been tons of retagging in that tag, not all of it fitting the description). I don't see a pressing need to filter these out. There just aren't that many. Applying the tag more broadly to catch more popsci questions-- well, then you get a very broad tag, which is probably more ambiguous. And in this case favourite tags would serve you better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/127366/popular-science-questions-per-month-in-layman-tags#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlLvl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="9e352495-4352-45bc-ad85-44f8c29a2692" CreationDate="2013-08-05T19:14:33.130" UserId="7433" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag(popular-science) can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Note that having a tag for it is usually taken as  a sign that we welcome all such questions. While we don't disallow such posts, we don't want to actively encourage them either. &#xD;&#xA; - Does [tag:popular-science] really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. There are approx [3 questions per month][3] in the tag (ignore the last data point, recently there has been tons of retagging in that tag, not all of it fitting the description). I don't see a pressing need to filter these out. There just aren't that many. Applying the tag more broadly to catch more popsci questions-- well, then you get a very broad tag, which is probably more ambiguous. And in this case favourite tags would serve you better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/127366/popular-science-questions-per-month-in-layman-tags#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlLvl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="f536ce3d-c174-4dc7-9c8c-56617cd313a7" CreationDate="2013-08-05T23:11:37.407" UserId="19976" Text="There is a user on physics.SE with the name michio kaku http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/27903/michio-kaku who I strongly doubt is the real michio kaku given his response here http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73297/a-question-for-the-generalization-of-gauge-transformation-with-two-antisymmetric which was promptly removed by David Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me thinking about how it would be nice if we could somehow make certain that names of faculty at research universities could be protected as usernames as a means of retaining such people in the physics.SE community.  Perhaps this is antithetical to SE values?  Furthermore, it would be interesting (and useful I think) to have a means of verifying that these people are who they claim to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that physics.SE needs to be inclusive, but I personally think that attracting/retaining users who are researchers could lend legitimacy to the site and might enhance the quality and scope of both questions, and answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="f536ce3d-c174-4dc7-9c8c-56617cd313a7" CreationDate="2013-08-05T23:11:37.407" UserId="19976" Text="Regulating user names: protecting researchers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="f536ce3d-c174-4dc7-9c8c-56617cd313a7" CreationDate="2013-08-05T23:11:37.407" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="2c3a7bba-419f-481b-9685-b091ed111fd7" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:02:24.660" UserId="7433" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues. **The basic issue with level filtering is that people look at the tag as &quot;Hey, that's the tag with all the bad questions&quot;.** (Not &quot;that's the topic I don't like&quot;, the focus remains on the _tag_). And then it gets applied more broadly because everyone has their opinion of what sort of questions they don't like. This is already currently happening, as mentioned before.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag(popular-science) can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Note that having a tag for it is usually taken as  a sign that we welcome all such questions. While we don't disallow such posts, we don't want to actively encourage them either. &#xD;&#xA; - Does [tag:popular-science] really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. There are approx [3 questions per month][3] in the tag (ignore the last data point, recently there has been tons of retagging in that tag, not all of it fitting the description). I don't see a pressing need to filter these out. There just aren't that many. Applying the tag more broadly to catch more popsci questions-- well, then you get a very broad tag, which is probably more ambiguous. And in this case favourite tags would serve you better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/127366/popular-science-questions-per-month-in-layman-tags#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlLvl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="5bb03d55-ad41-4583-b35e-554a4f774b09" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:28:37.243" UserId="2751" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751). Looking at the high number of upvotes the level-filtering proposal has obtained, it seems the community has reached consensus that this concept is helpful and a good thing to improve the site for everybody. So it should not be negatively affected or even prevented by burnicating one of the level tags needed to implement and maintain this idea.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this. And I doubt that the majority of people sees [tag:popular-science] as a bad question tag. There are [people](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4477/2751) who see it completely different and very positive from what Manishearth fears. I think some of these questions are really fun too. The agreement about what kind of questions should naturally has a certain tag is natural, intended, nothing specific or characteristic for level tags, and in my opinion it is therefore neutral and nothing bad or to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="4650a01f-5d66-4ddb-a7f6-fd22e6ed3c15" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:34:52.927" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751). Looking at the high number of upvotes the level-filtering proposal has obtained, it seems the community has reached consensus that this concept is helpful and a good thing to improve the site for everybody. So it should not be negatively affected or even prevented by burnicating one of the level tags needed to implement and maintain this idea.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this. And I doubt that the majority of people sees popular-science as a bad question tag. There are [people](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4477/2751) who see it completely positive and very different and from what Manishearth fears. I think some of these questions are really fun too. The agreement about what kind of questions should naturally have a certain tag, is natural and the intended way how appropriate tagging works, it is nothing specific or characteristic for level tags, so in my opinion it is therefore neutral and there is nothing bad going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="b8cd6b95-2f9f-4414-9c00-78281cd3800b" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:51:46.310" UserId="2751" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751). Looking at the high number of upvotes the level-filtering proposal has obtained, it seems the community has reached consensus that this concept is helpful and a good thing to improve the site for everybody. So it should not be negatively affected or even prevented by burnicating one of the level tags needed to implement and maintain this idea.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dont think that the majority of people sees popular-science as a bad question tag. On the contraty, there are [people](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4477/2751) who see it completely positive and very different from what Manishearth fears. I think some of these questions are really fun too. The agreement about what kind of questions should naturally have a certain tag, is natural and the intended way how appropriate tagging works, it is nothing specific or characteristic for level tags, so in my opinion it is therefore neutral and there is nothing bad going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="9dfc8671-7aaa-43b8-8325-1b88d08c1857" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:45:32.433" UserId="23473" Text="This is me listing the reasons I'm pro popsci tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if I may address its similarity to [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life]. It's true, a good amount of what's listed in popsci is also in these tags. However, this tag is certainly useful for questions like: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73358/23473 where it is clearly not a home-experiment (I hope!) nor a part of everyday life. The popsci tag is different from the other two because it is purely specific to science that the layman would have heard of. One could imagine asking a question about some part of everyday life that would be deeply complicated. For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1077/23473 It isn't tagged as everyday-life, but I wouldn't argue if it were; I stand on the ground most days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for level filtering, it will always be a problem no matter what. If you aren't going to ban those types of questions and if you don't eliminate the tag system entirely, then there will have to be a way of identifying those questions as easy, no-brainers. I say &quot;have to&quot; because there will always be people like me that like to log on every so often and answer a couple easy questions. Tags like popsci help me do that. No matter what the tag indicating easy questions is, people will take advantage of it because each person defines what constitutes main-stream science or an &quot;easy&quot; question differently. Thus, no matter what, some people will love the tag and some people will hate the tag; this is just something that we must accept about layman science questions. Furthermore, if someone decides that they don't like an entire tag so much as to ignore all questions tagged by it, that is their loss more than ours. Personally, I don't ignore any tags; you never know where a great question might pop up and the extra 10 seconds I have to spend looking through ones I don't like is worth it if I know I'm not ignoring a potentially good question. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, I am only opposed to removing the popsci tag if it is the only level tag being removed. The existence of a &quot;top-level&quot; tag necessitates the existence of a &quot;bottom-level&quot; tag. If this post were suggesting removing all level tags, I wouldn't care so much. But so long as popsci is the only one on the chopping block, I say no. I want my &quot;this is an easy question and should take maybe 30 seconds to answer it&quot; tag :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="4752a6b1-a515-409c-a2db-9e00ba1496cb" CreationDate="2013-08-06T19:08:27.393" UserId="23473" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="This is me listing the reasons I'm pro popsci tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if I may address its similarity to [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life]. It's true, a good amount of what's listed in popsci is also in these tags. However, this tag is certainly useful for questions like: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73358/23473 where it is clearly not a home-experiment (I hope!) nor a part of everyday life. The popsci tag is different from the other two because it is purely specific to science that the layman would have heard of. One could imagine asking a question about some part of everyday life that would be deeply complicated. For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1077/23473 It isn't tagged as everyday-life, but I wouldn't argue if it were; I stand on the ground most days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for level filtering, it will always be a problem no matter what. If you aren't going to ban those types of questions and if you don't eliminate the tag system entirely, then there will have to be a way of identifying those questions as easy, no-brainers. I say &quot;have to&quot; because there will always be people like me that like to log on every so often and answer a couple easy questions. Tags like popsci help me do that. No matter what the tag indicating easy questions is, people will take advantage of it because each person defines what constitutes main-stream science or an &quot;easy&quot; question differently. Thus, no matter what, some people will love the tag and some people will hate the tag; this is just something that we must accept about layman science questions. Furthermore, if someone decides that they don't like an entire tag so much as to ignore all questions tagged by it, that is their loss more than ours. Personally, I don't ignore any tags; you never know where a great question might pop up and the extra 10 seconds I have to spend looking through ones I don't like is worth it if I know I'm not ignoring a potentially good question. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, I am only opposed to removing the popsci tag if it is the only level tag being removed. The existence of a &quot;top-level&quot; tag necessitates the existence of a &quot;bottom-level&quot; tag. If this post were suggesting removing all level tags, I wouldn't care so much (that is, half of my argument would cease to be valid and thus, I would not carry a strong opinion one way or the other). But so long as popsci is the only one on the chopping block, I say no. I want my &quot;this is an easy question and should take maybe 30 seconds to answer it&quot; tag :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="ce641511-dca8-4c00-bee0-46db07464390" CreationDate="2013-08-07T02:53:47.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/364942416307953664" />
  <row Id="9858" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="acb52c24-cf4a-4163-8511-a24e26cf0cdb" CreationDate="2013-08-07T08:53:45.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/365033005443579904" />
  <row Id="9859" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="faf6b17d-392b-407d-8097-666c53f9b89e" CreationDate="2013-08-07T11:54:39.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/365078531513917440" />
  <row Id="9860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="efe6a0c0-d284-4628-9399-eb4c8b02ab2a" CreationDate="2013-08-07T13:16:16.840" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 454 characters in body" Text="This is me listing the reasons I'm pro popsci tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if I may address its similarity to [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life]. It's true, a good amount of what's listed in popsci is also in these tags. However, this tag is certainly useful for questions like: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73358/23473 where it is clearly not a home-experiment (I hope!) nor a part of everyday life. The popsci tag is different from the other two because it is purely specific to science that the layman would have heard of. One could imagine asking a question about some part of everyday life that would be deeply complicated. For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1077/23473 It isn't tagged as everyday-life, but I wouldn't argue if it were; I stand on the ground most days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for level filtering, it will always be a problem no matter what. If you aren't going to ban those types of questions and if you don't eliminate the tag system entirely, then there will have to be a way of identifying those questions as easy, no-brainers. I say &quot;have to&quot; because there will always be people like me that like to log on every so often and answer a couple easy questions. Tags like popsci help me do that. No matter what the tag indicating easy questions is, people will take advantage of it because each person defines what constitutes main-stream science or an &quot;easy&quot; question differently. Thus, no matter what, some people will love the tag and some people will hate the tag; this is just something that we must accept about layman science questions. Furthermore, if someone decides that they don't like an entire tag so much as to ignore all questions tagged by it, that is their loss more than ours. Personally, I don't ignore any tags; you never know where a great question might pop up and the extra 10 seconds I have to spend looking through ones I don't like is worth it if I know I'm not ignoring a potentially good question. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: I want my &quot;this is an easy question and should take maybe 30 seconds to answer it&quot; tag :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="db25e1f1-31c6-4f60-bee6-aefa3fb68e7b" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:04:27.537" UserDisplayName="user27777" Text="Is there a way to link an answer from question 1, say, to question 2 if answer 1 works or enhances all or part of question 2?  I see many questions that have essentially the same answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="db25e1f1-31c6-4f60-bee6-aefa3fb68e7b" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:04:27.537" UserDisplayName="user27777" Text="linking answers: suppose several questions have essentially the same answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="db25e1f1-31c6-4f60-bee6-aefa3fb68e7b" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:04:27.537" UserDisplayName="user27777" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="ebb7ffda-d5c2-4ed5-ad3a-36e32a8d97ea" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:17:39.383" UserId="124" Text="No, there isn't. But if you find that an existing answer to one question also applies to another question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check and see if the questions are duplicates, and if so, flag one as a duplicate of the other&#xD;&#xA;2. Otherwise, you can quote the relevant parts of an answer (whether yours or someone else's), just as you would quote the relevant parts of an external website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="66a5134c-39ae-45ec-8ec3-bb778db6b8fc" CreationDate="2013-08-08T00:57:38.350" UserId="8563" Text="I was googling earlier and I found one of my physics.sx answers plagiarized word for word on another site. I do not want to send them traffic so I'm only going to post screenshots of it; the address is pretty clear from the logo, with a dot in between, but I would urge people to not give them the traffic unless they really need to go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\quad$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also clear from their sidebar,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that they have plenty of other physics.sx q&amp;a's on display. If this is as yet undetected I suspect there's going to be sparks flying in places, but I also suspect it can come in handy if I say it: I am uncomfortable with content I generated for this site being displayed elsewhere. If this has already been detected and measures have already been taken to no effect, then... bummer, I guess, and thanks for letting me vent a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzRiD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jb1ky.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rHC6D.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="66a5134c-39ae-45ec-8ec3-bb778db6b8fc" CreationDate="2013-08-08T00:57:38.350" UserId="8563" Text="Plagiarism from other sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="66a5134c-39ae-45ec-8ec3-bb778db6b8fc" CreationDate="2013-08-08T00:57:38.350" UserId="8563" Text="|support|moderators|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4710" RevisionGUID="1da9f3a5-ba82-4ef1-b61e-673eeae0f197" CreationDate="2013-08-08T02:49:35.820" UserId="520" Text="The [content of all Stack Exchange sites](http://stackexchange.com/legal) is licensed [Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike][1]. If the terms are met, then they are allowed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the terms are *not* met, the centralized place for reporting violations of the license is on [the mother meta thread for such things][2]. And I see that [the first answer there is this very site](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/163974/2509).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/131846/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="233c52b9-814b-4b24-9b16-f13ee73cd1a8" CreationDate="2013-08-08T02:52:33.353" UserId="124" Text="The license under which Stack Exchange distributes user-contributed content, CC-BY-SA 2.5, does allow other sites to reuse that content as long as they follow the attribution guidelines in the [terms of service](http://stackexchange.com/legal). If you're uncomfortable with your content being displayed elsewhere even when the guidelines are followed, then honestly you should probably stop contributing here because it is a prerequisite of posting that you agree to let SE and other sites redistribute your contributions in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the site you're pointing out does not follow the attribution guidelines, then that's illegal, and you should check that it is reported in [this thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/131846/report-sites-that-use-stack-exchange-content-without-following-attribution-rules) on Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="1c6e1d69-8988-4d9d-851d-a47802909a2d" CreationDate="2013-08-08T05:02:09.487" UserId="124" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="No, there isn't. But if you find that an existing answer to one question also applies to another question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check and see if the questions are duplicates, and if so, flag one as a duplicate of the other&#xD;&#xA;2. Otherwise, you can quote the relevant parts of an answer (whether yours or someone else's) and include a link to it in your answer, just as you would quote the relevant parts of, and link to, an external website. (Of course make sure your answer is self-contained so that people don't _have_ to click on the link to get the point.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="3bb9e9be-31c4-4279-93b8-8b209015e8db" CreationDate="2013-08-08T10:57:12.273" UserId="2751" Text="What mechanism determines which meta posts or blog articles are featured in the Community Bulltin on the main page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning blog articles, I would guess that the newest ones are featured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the mechanisms to determine which meta question is featured, is completely unclear to me. Is it automatically decided by criteria that describe the activity and popularity of the meta question for example, such as votes, views, date of posting, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it the moderators of our site who determine &quot;by hand&quot; which meta question is featured in the community bulltin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering about this because currently, the meta post dedicated to [reevaluate the book policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2751) is featured in the Community Bulltin, whereas the meta post requesting to [burnicate](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4699/2751) the popular-science tag does not appear in the Community Bulltin on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date of posting of both of these two quite recent meta questions differes only by a few hours, and both of them are very important for the community and concern important political issues of Physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think all meta question looking for community input to find consensus about important site political issues should be featured in the Community Bulltin, such that the people who are mostly active on the main page and dont click meta too often, have a better chance to take note of them too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the featuring of meta questions in the Community Bulltin can be done &quot;by hand&quot; by an appropriate site moderator action, can the burnicate request of the popular science tag be featured there too? I request featuring this meta question too there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="3bb9e9be-31c4-4279-93b8-8b209015e8db" CreationDate="2013-08-08T10:57:12.273" UserId="2751" Text="What mechanism determines what is featured in the Community Bulltin on the main page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="3bb9e9be-31c4-4279-93b8-8b209015e8db" CreationDate="2013-08-08T10:57:12.273" UserId="2751" Text="|support|feature-request|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="6acbf3a0-3694-479f-b386-189ab75ffec2" CreationDate="2013-08-08T11:06:34.820" UserId="7433" Text="It's not by hand, it depends on the vote score and other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods can add community events to the bulletin and can mark meta posts as featured if necessary, but we don't control the automatically shown stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind marking the book request post as [meta-tag:featured] (would have to discuss that with other mods), as it could be a rather major policy change but the burninate request isn't something that really qualifies to be featured." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="6549a5ee-29c1-4804-b90e-cde15e56b490" CreationDate="2013-08-08T11:16:02.557" UserId="2751" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="What mechanism determines which meta posts or blog articles are featured in the Community Bulltin on the main page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning blog articles, I would guess that the newest ones are featured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the mechanisms to determine which meta question is featured, is completely unclear to me. Is it automatically decided by criteria that describe the activity and popularity of the meta question for example, such as votes, views, date of posting, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it the moderators of our site who determine &quot;by hand&quot; which meta question is featured in the community bulltin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering about this because currently, the meta post dedicated to [reevaluate the book policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2751) is featured in the Community Bulltin, whereas the meta post requesting to [burnicate](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4699/2751) the popular-science tag does not appear in the Community Bulltin on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date of posting of both of these two quite recent meta questions differes only by a few hours, and both of them are very important for the community and concern important political issues of Physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think all meta question looking for community input to find consensus about important site political issues should be featured in the Community Bulltin, such that the people who are mostly active on the main page and dont click meta too often, have a better chance to take note of them too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the featuring of meta questions in the Community Bulltin can be done &quot;by hand&quot; by an appropriate site moderator action, can the burnicate request of the popular science tag be featured there too? I request featuring this meta question too there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The burnicate request is very important for everybody too and has a huge impact on how people will be able to use the site in the future, and it has the potential to annihilate the by the community appreciated level proposel. It is much more important and has a higher impact on the community than for example the currently featured regulating user names or the miner edit post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="95f1dff2-77d8-4f11-980b-0d52da2ecda1" CreationDate="2013-08-08T13:21:53.193" UserId="23473" Text="After seeing a large amount of debate on this topic, I've decided to post another answer. Whereas my previous post was decidedly pro-popsci, I hope to present this post in a more neutral tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite clear that there are two almost evenly populated and completely contrasting sides on this issue. Seeing as mutual collaboration is not possible, in determining the next course of action we need not continue the considering of reasons relevant to each side's point of view. Put another way, we are at a stalemate; however, I believe that if we can calm down and analyze this using the logical skills that we scientists are graciously stereotyped with having, we should be able to agree on what, inevitably, the correct action should be; at least, until a majority opinion can be established.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been many excellent points made on both sides of the debate. As such, arguing them will lead to nothing more than a bickering stalemate. I suggest ignoring them for now. Instead, let us consider the outcome of our actions. If we were to &quot;burninate&quot; the popsci tag, aside from making half of the people upset (either action inevitably will do that), it will add a slight to moderate inconvenience to the users who currently rely in part on the use of that tag. On the other hand, if we leave the tag in place, it has been argued that we would create the potential for a slight future inconvenience for some users (many of whom would identify in the other mentioned category).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When deciding the correct action in this case, I believe we can all agree that the action which produces the most net benefit for the population as a whole is the most correct. Keeping in mind that future actions can always be taken when and if the opinion of the majority shifts to one side or the other, I propose the following: Since removing the tag would definitely inconvenience some users now *and* in the future - whereas leaving it may or may not (there is a non-zero probability that it would cause no problems) inconvenience about the same number of users at a point in the future and since leaving the tag could not create any net negative effects in the present (as nothing would change from the immediate past until now), without any foreknowledge of the future, I am forced to conclude that removing the tag would carry less net benefit for the population of users as a whole than leaving the tag in place. Thus, if my premises and postulate are valid, I must conclude that at this time, **the best course of action would be to allow the tag to remain**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may now downvote me and pelt me with criticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="592db6bc-f676-48ff-a31f-7a48c16af2a2" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:39:32.563" UserId="27244" Text="Why Physics Stack Exchange don't create and application for mobile devices?, I understand that all people have a web browser inntheir device to check all the stuff, but, with an mobile application you can create a whole lot of options, like use the keyboard to write equations like wolfram alpha do, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="592db6bc-f676-48ff-a31f-7a48c16af2a2" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:39:32.563" UserId="27244" Text="App for iPad and Android" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="592db6bc-f676-48ff-a31f-7a48c16af2a2" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:39:32.563" UserId="27244" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4716" RevisionGUID="7783fb45-1bd4-4ae2-a1d9-07f33ad47475" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:50:13.790" UserId="23473" Text="I definitely agree that some minor edits shouldn't make questions active. The one in particular, as you mentioned, is retagging. Why does this even make a question active in the first place? When you retag, the question itself is not changed, so in what sense is it &quot;active&quot;? I have not seen one situation when a retagged question deserved to be made active simply because it was retagged. Plus everytime someone makes a new tag, they retag a whole bunch of past questions with it and that effectively wipes the active board.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It occurs to me that retagging being made active is only good for people that have favourited that tag; then they notice that a new question has been added to a favourite tag of theirs. But that could easily be solved if instead of making it an active question, it showed up in the new questions section for that particular tag. Then people could just check new questions for a favourite tag rather than forcing everyone to see that an old question hasn't changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kinda went off topic here, but retagging is the only minor edit I strongly (← key word) believe shouldn't make a question active." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="8d6afe5e-8430-4f6d-879f-c3a342e87b06" CreationDate="2013-08-08T15:44:34.783" UserId="520" Text="This would be done at the Stack Exchange level, and in fact [they *are* working on an Android tool][1]. Don't know if or when a iOS version might be in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/190200/help-us-test-the-alpha-version-of-our-android-app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="4c62327d-f219-4cd9-8aec-cab343868167" CreationDate="2013-08-09T06:55:12.000" UserId="7433" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the book questions** by adding the banner, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how can I help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a &quot;Could someone explain X to me&quot; instead. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before answering, please see [our policy] on resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book. Explain what the book is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which book is most suited for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, flag for community-wikification.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="9892b2a6-4414-48eb-a109-2de3fc89dc60" CreationDate="2013-08-09T08:53:00.697" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which should be [tag:faq] on the main site in my opinion. So I'm starting this meta post  to vote on questions  which could become [tag:faq].  Add answers to propose faq questions, and vote on them, . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REQUEST:** Could this question by Community Wiki?   . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9890" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="dc24c6c5-852d-431b-a732-410f3f64bf6e" CreationDate="2013-08-09T08:56:25.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/365758454897451008" />
  <row Id="9895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="3a925f74-7a02-4c3d-89ed-1546d42c46bf" CreationDate="2013-08-09T09:51:17.003" UserId="23119" Comment="abbchdhfvgehydhixjkalmsnaopqhrutsktnuviwxyz    " Text="There are many questions which should be [tag:faq] on the main site in my opinion. So I'm starting this meta post  to vote on questions  which could become [tag:faq].  Add answers to propose faq questions, and vote on them, . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REQUEST:** Could this question by Community Wiki?   .                                " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9898" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="b5cb0424-09a6-4996-918e-4d5eeb6237c3" CreationDate="2013-08-09T10:02:30.403" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9899" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="8fb8f4cb-a0b5-4a8d-bd2a-942411f7f88c" CreationDate="2013-08-09T10:02:30.403" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9900" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="770d84b9-487d-40f9-93d3-fe32d185c384" CreationDate="2013-08-09T10:02:30.403" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9901" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="94e7aa94-ed47-4388-81fc-9cc8764d7bc2" CreationDate="2013-08-09T10:02:30.403" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="9902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="f3ecef5a-7cb9-4fe2-9a04-d5a204057cf2" CreationDate="2013-08-09T10:16:23.580" UserId="23119" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which should be [tag:faq] on the main site in my opinion. So I'm starting this meta post  to vote on questions  which could become [tag:faq].  Add answers to propose faq questions, and vote on them, . &#xD;&#xA;                                                                                                                                                " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="e304a133-44c6-41aa-9030-eecc82aff861" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:20:00.127" UserId="8563" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65238/black-hole-and-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't find more but I'm fairly certain they're there.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9904" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="a2b1eb7b-8417-4cac-8c46-f5355b9e7cdb" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:20:00.127" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="9905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="4acc3f04-a28c-43e0-ae0a-52dd081db0f4" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:25:46.653" UserId="23119" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65238/black-hole-and-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28297/why-is-a-black-hole-black &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't find more but I'm fairly certain they're there.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="3f57b662-1725-4526-ba50-9a1922157c0c" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:42:25.063" UserId="8563" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15371/understanding-time-is-time-simply-the-rate-change&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;out there, I'm sure. I just close-voted one as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9907" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="b1029003-db5b-4cf4-a96c-02d519728075" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:42:25.063" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="9908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="20e60861-ae90-4616-ad0f-ce79ea6cfdb5" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:47:32.583" UserId="23119" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15371/understanding-time-is-time-simply-the-rate-change&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73624/what-is-time-actually?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17056/time-what-is-it?lq=1  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32155/what-is-a-clock?lq=1    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And  many more .   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="9716c534-33ed-4dd7-b00c-7d55ca1f5327" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:48:17.597" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 423 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy and Astrophysics (stop me if you've heard this one before)][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Quantum Information and Foundations][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change, climatology, mitigation and adaptation][7]][8] &#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Origami][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="ddf00ba8-fb01-47e9-acf5-ec0d704fc7a7" CreationDate="2013-08-09T21:22:55.410" UserId="12798" Text="When I look at the questions currently tagged as popular science, I think it is highly reasonable to apply this tag to questions like([how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old][1]). I also notice that there have been instances of what can be called misuse of the tag(in my personal opinion), and questions like [Why does a glass breaks when subject to very sharp sound like in opera?][2] and [physical difference between A and B][3] are examples. In these questions I feel the the author wishes to see a technically precise answer and had not  explicitly asked for a layman's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a considerable ambiguity about where the popular science tag can be used, and this ambiguity is perhaps being exploited to tag question which do not qualify for the tag. This is, perhaps seen by some as an effective way of keeping questions out of a main page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this I suggest we continue to use the tag for a period of few months, and use this period to define the tag in a way that is agreeable to fair number of people in community. Even after this, if the tag is not being used responsibly, if there is consent from the community then it can be burniated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I would like to point out that, this problem is only a manifestation of larger problem, which is the site is getting too large for the current scheme of organization to work effectively.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73258/why-does-a-glass-breaks-when-subject-to-very-sharp-sound-like-in-opera&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69525/physical-difference-between-a-and-b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="5a8458b8-2a88-496b-918f-fc401f37be9a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T21:48:04.717" UserId="12798" Text="I suggest, that we introduce a High-School-Level Tag, as opposed to Graduate Level Physics(Currently Called Research-Level), To Bring a Basic Level Filtering system into action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some ambiguity about what qualifies as High school(depending on where you studied), For most purposes, there will be little confusion on when It can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="5a8458b8-2a88-496b-918f-fc401f37be9a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T21:48:04.717" UserId="12798" Text="Tag Request - Highschool Level Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="5a8458b8-2a88-496b-918f-fc401f37be9a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T21:48:04.717" UserId="12798" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="14f4c83f-b76b-4b53-a84e-441d5b07b88b" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:10:30.180" UserId="12798" Comment="added 574 characters in body" Text="I suggest, that we introduce a High-School-Level Tag, as opposed to Graduate Level Physics(Currently Called Research-Level), To Bring a Basic Level Filtering system into action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some ambiguity about what qualifies as High school(depending on where you studied), For most purposes, there will be little confusion on when It can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a List of sample questions that this tag can be applied to, [calculating-a-torque][1]&#xD;&#xA;, [centrifugal-force][2] and [understanding-the-basics-of-electromagnetic-induction][3] and [density-of-air-in-a-balloon][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70626/calculating-a-torque&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73672/centrifugal-force&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73622/understanding-the-basics-of-electromagnetic-induction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73473/density-of-air-in-a-balloon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="8b5de51b-c29d-405a-aab5-bd70c6e1f2ba" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:16:34.610" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I suggest, that we introduce a High-School-Level Tag, as opposed to Graduate Level Physics(Currently Called Research-Level), To Bring a Basic Level Filtering system into action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some ambiguity about what qualifies as High school(depending on where you studied), For most purposes, there will be little confusion on when It can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of sample questions that this tag can be applied to, [calculating-a-torque][1]&#xD;&#xA;, [centrifugal-force][2] and [understanding-the-basics-of-electromagnetic-induction][3] and [density-of-air-in-a-balloon][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70626/calculating-a-torque&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73672/centrifugal-force&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73622/understanding-the-basics-of-electromagnetic-induction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73473/density-of-air-in-a-balloon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="8dc265ad-d44a-4250-ba23-c9d83e6e2f3b" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:18:38.700" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="When I look at the questions currently tagged as popular science, I think it is highly reasonable to apply this tag to questions like([how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old][1]). I also notice that there have been instances of what can be called misuse of the tag(in my personal opinion), and questions like [Why does a glass breaks when subject to very sharp sound like in opera?][2] and [physical difference between A and B][3] are examples. In these questions I feel the the author wishes to see a technically precise answer and had not  explicitly asked for a layman's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a considerable ambiguity about where the popular science tag can be used, and this ambiguity is perhaps being exploited to tag questions which do not qualify for the tag. This is, perhaps seen by some as an effective way of keeping questions out of a main page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this I suggest we continue to use the tag for a period of few months, and use this period to define the tag in a way that is agreeable to a fair number of people in community. Even after this, if the tag is not being used responsibly, if there is consent from the community then it can be burniated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I would like to point out that, this problem is only a manifestation of a larger problem, which is the site is getting too large for the current scheme of organization to work effectively.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73258/why-does-a-glass-breaks-when-subject-to-very-sharp-sound-like-in-opera&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69525/physical-difference-between-a-and-b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="db438329-ac18-48c9-9a53-01ccd6bf90ca" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:23:46.300" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="When I look at the questions currently tagged as popular science, I think it is highly reasonable to apply this tag to questions like([how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old][1]). I also notice that there have been instances of what can be called misuse of the tag(in my personal opinion), and questions like [Why does a glass breaks when subject to very sharp sound like in opera?][2] and [physical difference between A and B][3] are examples. In these questions I feel the the author wishes to see a technically precise answer and had not  explicitly asked for a layman's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a considerable ambiguity about where the popular science tag can be used, and this ambiguity is perhaps being exploited to tag questions which do not qualify for the tag. This is, perhaps seen by some as an effective way of keeping questions out of a main page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this I suggest we continue to use the tag for a few months, and use this period to define the tag in a way that is agreeable to a fair number of people in community. Even after this, if the tag is not being used responsibly, if there is consent from the community then it can be burniated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I would like to point out that, this problem is only a manifestation of a larger problem, which is the site is getting too large for the current scheme of organization to work effectively.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73258/why-does-a-glass-breaks-when-subject-to-very-sharp-sound-like-in-opera&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69525/physical-difference-between-a-and-b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9918" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="58ae19b6-14b0-4b96-9364-6b5d4aae0e08" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:10:38.733" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|design|editing|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="a183cafb-c4e2-4c7c-97af-9871ce2b5b50" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:16:09.473" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 235 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="d03270e0-4545-49a0-b60d-8affdcf5256d" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:20:47.273" UserId="23119" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary/10654#10654   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many others I can't find. &#xD;&#xA;   I remember there was a question like &quot;Is this explanation fo 9 spatial dimensions in string theory correct?&quot; or something like that.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9921" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="f7c0e739-1942-4776-bb5b-8580d52883a6" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:20:47.273" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="9922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="083934ff-d070-41da-99b9-279440be4939" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:33:08.507" UserId="2911" Text="Doing this would open up a huge can of worms: suddenly, there's an arbitrary threshold for &quot;activity&quot; that divides posts being worked on. Yes, it's easy to come up with individual changes that most folks probably agree don't warrant much oversight, but applying such simple rules broadly can have disastrous results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's examine retagging, since that seems to be the primary focus here: it's true, most tag edits are fairly uninteresting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Unless you happen to be following the tag that was added...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or the tag that was removed...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or someone decides that [tag:quantum-mechanics] is used too carelessly, and replaces it with [tag:fake-quantum-mechanics] on all the questions they don't care for...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or decides that their profile page is too hard for their fans to find, and adds [tag:shog-answered-this] to all the questions they've answered...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren't hypothetical examples; folks make bad tag edits all the time. Heck, y'all have been arguing over [certain tags](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag) fairly regularly here - kinda hard to read that and then come back and claim tag-edits are *guaranteed* to be minor or unworthy of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once you start trying to decide whether or not a *body edit* is major or minor, it just gets worse - *particularly* if you hope to base your decision on something as simple as the *number of characters changed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;active&quot; lists have one purpose: to show questions that have had recent activity (or more precisely, to order questions according to their last activity date). There are other filters and sort orders available, and we've been working on better ones for some time now - [try this one out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=interesting). We even have plans to replace the rather unhelpful &quot;modified&quot; indicator with something slightly more descriptive. So let's not make things more confusing than they need to be by changing the self-descriptive &quot;active&quot; to &quot;active enough for *someone's* taste&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="3c360d76-26df-4b84-acec-9286a6ade39a" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:47:13.197" UserId="23119" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I thought it might be useful, at least at the beginning of the site, to make a list of some canonical forms of subfield tags. Obviously it's impossible to create a comprehensive list of tags, but my idea is to have a set such that any question which is appropriate for the site could be tagged with at least one tag from the set. This will also help us out later when people get enough rep to vote on tag synonyms, since we'll already know what the community thinks the canonical forms of certain tags should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, these tags are already used on the site and I think they would make good subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `astrophysics`&#xD;&#xA;- `atmospheric-science` (physical aspects of meteorology and climatology)&#xD;&#xA;- `classical-mechanics` (when `lagrangian-mechanics` and `hamiltonian-mechanics` and `newtonian-mechanics`  are too specific)&#xD;&#xA;- `cosmology`&#xD;&#xA;- `education` (could be renamed to `physics-education`)&#xD;&#xA;- `electro-magnetism` (needs to have the hyphen removed though)&#xD;&#xA;- `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `general-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `geophysics` (physical aspects of geology and seismology)&#xD;&#xA;- `gravity` (when `general-relativity` and `newtonian-gravity` are too specific)&#xD;&#xA;- `hamiltonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `kinematics` (basic relationships between position, velocity, and acceleration)&#xD;&#xA;- `lagrangian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `magnetohydrodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `mathematical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `medical-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `optics` (when `quantum-optics` is either too specific or inappropriate)&#xD;&#xA;- `particle-physics` (although this might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `physical-chemistry`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-field-theory`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-mechanics`&#xD;&#xA;- `quantum-optics`&#xD;&#xA;- `rotational-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `special-relativity`&#xD;&#xA;- `string-theory` (also might fit under `high-energy-physics`)&#xD;&#xA;- `thermodynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `wave-theory`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have not been used on the site, but I think they would be appropriate subject tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `atomic-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `condensed-matter-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `newtonian-gravity`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags in the following list are in use, and I can see how they *could* be good subject tags, but I think they're either too broad or too specific, or redundant with the preceding lists. Note that I am *not* advocating that these tags be renamed or deleted. They're fine as tags (well most of them are fine), but I just think that any question that uses them still should have a tag from one of the previous lists. Others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `mechanics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `climate-science`: subset of `atmospheric-science`&#xD;&#xA;- `applied-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `experimental-physics`: too broad&#xD;&#xA;- `standard-model`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `aerodynamics`: subset of `fluid-dynamics`&#xD;&#xA;- `sound`: typically equivalent to `acoustics`&#xD;&#xA;- `philosophy`: probably off-topic, or there should be another applicable tag&#xD;&#xA;- `large-hadron-collider`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `accelerator-physics`: subset of `high-energy-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `software`: equivalent to `computational-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `nuclear-engineering`: equivalent to `nuclear-physics`&#xD;&#xA;- `material-science`: either equivalent to `condensed-matter-physics`, or the question may be off topic for this site&#xD;&#xA;- `electrostatics`: subset of `electromagnetism`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. I'm making this CW so it can be collaboratively edited (although if you change something other than fixing a typo, please leave a comment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="f6edc918-01e5-4f85-b3dd-4656c320963c" CreationDate="2013-08-10T04:09:07.337" UserId="23119" Text="There are multiple tags which are too specific/stupid, and useless. E.g.       ,       ,  , &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:temperature] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:pressure] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:speed] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:acceleration] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:suvat-equations] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:nebulae]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:asteroids]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [tag:aircraft]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:affine-lie-algebra] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:labarotary-safety] (like, seriously?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:water] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:earthquake] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:hamiltonian](could be merged with hamiltonian mechanics) [tag:chaos] (merge with chaos theory) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:capacitance] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene] (I hope this was an aprial fools joke!,.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:approximations] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:angular-momentum] [tag:momentum] [tag:mass] [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:gauge-invariance] (merge with gauge symmetry) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:laws-of-physics] (let me tag aaaaaall the questions here with that.!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:x-ray] (now, i'll make a tag for that light frequency between red and green)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:coulomb-branch]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:complex-number] (which qm question couldn't havey that?) [tag:Aaaaaaargh]!                                                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:mole] (Now, a tag for rabbits and pigs!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like someone (Dilaton, I think.)  had said somewhere, we don't need a tag for every thermodynamic variab;le, every kinematical variable, every . . .   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="f6edc918-01e5-4f85-b3dd-4656c320963c" CreationDate="2013-08-10T04:09:07.337" UserId="23119" Text="Redundant (too specific) tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="f6edc918-01e5-4f85-b3dd-4656c320963c" CreationDate="2013-08-10T04:09:07.337" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|burninate-request|burinate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="d3e160a8-d515-4f06-a32d-8bb28a8dbd01" CreationDate="2013-08-10T04:51:16.610" UserId="23119" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65238/black-hole-and-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28297/why-is-a-black-hole-black &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41930/if-nothing-in-the-universe-can-travel-faster-than-light-how-come-light-cant-es?lq=1   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't find more but I'm fairly certain they're there.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="9694f14c-0d47-4b41-80b6-ad6b143be9f9" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:01:52.310" UserId="23119" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-gravity-escape-a-black-hole &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69651/in-which-direction-do-gravitons-travel-do-they-originate-from-mass-or-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45999/nothing-escapes-bhs-gravitons-mediate-gravity-so-why-do-bhs-gravitate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35861/why-a-black-hole-sucks-nearly-everything-but-emits-gravitons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See full list (with some non-duplicates):   [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/937?lq=1) &#xD;&#xA;     .    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9934" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="cd254824-7685-4822-abbf-c33d1790cc8c" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:01:52.310" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="9935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="b0479a4d-94e9-4c6b-8c26-ea4d51d395dc" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:09:30.533" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="7afa3891-335f-4f95-9e19-f4c78490b468" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:14:53.613" UserId="23119" Comment="Made question more specific as per Qmechanic's comment . " Text="There are multiple tags which are too specific/stupid, and useless. E.g.       ,       ,  , &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:temperature] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:coulomb-branch]     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:pressure] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:speed] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:acceleration] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:capacitance] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene] (I hope this was an aprial fools joke!,.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:approximations] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:angular-momentum] [tag:momentum] [tag:mass] [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:gauge-invariance] (merge with gauge symmetry) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:laws-of-physics] (let me tag aaaaaall the questions here with that.!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:x-ray] (now, i'll make a tag for that light frequency between red and green)  &#xD;&#xA;                                               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:mole] (Now, a tag for rabbits and pigs!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like someone (Dilaton, I think.)  had said somewhere, we don't need a tag for every thermodynamic variab;le, every kinematical variable, every . . .   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9937" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="7afa3891-335f-4f95-9e19-f4c78490b468" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:14:53.613" UserId="23119" Comment="Made question more specific as per Qmechanic's comment . " Text="Redundant (too specific) tags about specific variables, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="4f4ddbd6-5f9e-4b41-a66b-098b6d7b5e07" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:17:24.000" UserId="23119" Text="http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags-about-specific-variables-etc has  been made more specific to   tags that talk about essentially every variable of [field name].  Here are the burninateable tags about veeeery specific areas, probably not even physics .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:complex-number] (which qm question couldn't havey that?) [tag:Aaaaaaargh]! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:affine-lie-algebra] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:labarotary-safety] (like, seriously?)  i ,    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="4f4ddbd6-5f9e-4b41-a66b-098b6d7b5e07" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:17:24.000" UserId="23119" Text="Redundant tags II" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="4f4ddbd6-5f9e-4b41-a66b-098b6d7b5e07" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:17:24.000" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="21ba677a-a9d0-4701-a40e-be5c600a6596" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:18:33.600" UserId="23119" Text="After http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags?rq=1 and http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4732/redundant-tags-ii, Redundant tags III is about tags about specific objects, meaningless to tag a question with .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene] (I hope this was an aprial fools joke!,.) &#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] [tag:water]  [tag:earthquake]      [tag:nebulae]      [tag:asteroids]   [tag:aircraft]   [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have. This is the closest redundant tags post put                                                                I could post this on .    )                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="21ba677a-a9d0-4701-a40e-be5c600a6596" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:18:33.600" UserId="23119" Text="Redundant tags III" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="21ba677a-a9d0-4701-a40e-be5c600a6596" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:18:33.600" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9944" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="3060cd83-0c60-48ff-81e1-8eff5c30cedf" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:21:04.937" UserId="23119" Comment="edited title" Text="Redundant tags I" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="9927d260-79cf-47e4-8ddb-c0ca691ba9d4" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:23:36.853" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="After http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags?rq=1 and http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4732/redundant-tags-ii, Redundant tags III is about tags about specific objects, meaningless to tag a question with .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene]  [tag:air] [tag:water]  [tag:earthquake]      [tag:nebulae]      [tag:asteroids]   [tag:aircraft]   [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have. This is the closest redundant tags                                                                I could post     put this on .    )                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="3060cd83-0c60-48ff-81e1-8eff5c30cedf" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:21:04.937" UserId="23119" Comment="edited title" Text="There are multiple tags which are too specific/stupid, and useless. E.g.       ,       ,  , &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:temperature] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:coulomb-branch]     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:pressure] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:speed] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:acceleration] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:capacitance] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [tag:angular-momentum] [tag:momentum] [tag:mass] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [tag:x-ray] (now, i'll make a tag for that light frequency between red and green)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:mole] (Now, a tag for rabbits and pigs!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like someone (Dilaton, I think.)  had said somewhere, we don't need a tag for every thermodynamic variab;le, every kinematical variable, every . . .   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="f7007b05-c065-4488-968b-2b331ee9bde5" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:25:14.033" UserId="23119" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags-about-specific-variables-etc has  been made more specific to   tags that talk about essentially every variable of [field name].  Here are the burninateable tags about veeeery specific areas, probably not even physics .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   [tag:laws-of-physics]   [tag:approximations] [tag:complex-number]     [tag:affine-lie-algebra]   [tag:labarotary-safety]                                                                      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="e1238d2e-0148-4660-9cd9-82328a008ae5" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:27:08.260" UserId="23119" Comment="edited title" Text="There are multiple tags which are too specific/stupid, and useless. E.g.       ,       ,  , &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:temperature]  [tag:coulomb-branch]      [tag:pressure]  [tag:speed] [tag:acceleration] [tag:capacitance]       [tag:angular-momentum] [tag:momentum] [tag:mass]   [tag:x-ray]  [tag:mole]                                           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like someone (Dilaton, I think.)  had said somewhere, we don't need a tag for every thermodynamic variab;le, every kinematical variable, every . . .   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="18cd08cd-1247-4217-a236-50f4d8e171f6" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:48:12.800" UserId="24142" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="This issue has been bugging me for a while now. I suppose it's more appropriate for the main SE site, but I want to know how others feel about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very annoying that the 'active questions' thread gets cluttered with older posts that received minor edits: LaTeX formatting, fixed grammar, a few words changed, and especially, retagging. There are a few prolific editors on this site; nothing wrong with that, but their edits are pushing recent answers off the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that new or substantially improved answers deserve to remain visible on the main page as long as possible, and they shouldn't get mixed with older posts that haven't changed significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related problem is that the 'active' thread doesn't show any information about when the question was posted, or what has changed: you have to click on the question to see how old it is, and whether someone posted a new answer or whether it was just a retag or a small edit. I find that frustrating, and a waste of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that any change shouldn't go unnoticed. So my suggestion would be to split the 'active' thread in two: one 'active questions' thread for new questions, new answers, major edits (say, e.g. more than 50 characters altered), and perhaps also new comments, which currently don't bump questions. In addition, there could be a new 'edited questions' thread that keeps track of retagging and minor edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to know what the rest of you think.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="8abb4940-fc4a-4fca-b428-bbdffb2ecee5" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:50:49.703" UserId="24142" Text="Having read Shog9's post, I have a very simple suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Keep the 'active' tab as it is, although it would be nice to see more info, such as the date at which the question was posted, and the type of modification (edit, retag, new question, new answer).&#xD;&#xA; - Create a new tab with only the newest answers, just like there's a tab for the newest questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be very helpful, and it requires no major design changes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="5540d780-f855-4d83-bbea-8b0ad6879fb4" CreationDate="2013-08-10T06:23:04.900" UserId="7433" Text="[tag:graphene] is a pretty big field in solid state physics. It has applications in the implementation of quantum computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] probably isn't necessary and can be merged with one of the fluid tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:water] ditto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:earthquake] merge with [tag:geophysics]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:nebulae] this isn't really a specific object as nebulae are quite a vast topic in astrophysics. If this tag were to be deleted, it would be because we aren't getting many questions about this (not always a good reason to delete a tag imo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:asteroids] ditto. And in this case we are getting questions about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:aircraft] A rather vast topic in fluid dynamics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:gauss-law] We get enough questions about this. If there were more [tag:faradays-law] questions, that tag could be created too, IMO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4736" RevisionGUID="84658429-e902-46e6-901e-0d29dcd4c256" CreationDate="2013-08-10T06:31:08.813" UserId="7433" Text="[tag:x-ray-crystallography] This isn't very specific. Common technique in experimental physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [tag:laws-of-physics] Slightly metaphysics-y, but not that bad a tag. it's ambiguous though, I guess we could get rid of it. Not too certain about that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:approximations] Sort of a meta tag in the sense that it doesn't denote a topic (however that doesn't seem to be the tpe of met tag that's disallowed, since most other sites have similar tags). But otherwise approximations are there in many different physics topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:complex-number] similar as above. Used in many places (circuit analysis, optics are two examples I can come up with)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:affine-lie-algebra] Probably too specific as it has only 2 questions. I don't know how broad the topic/application is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:laboratory-safety] is on topic (I think), and a pretty interesting tag to have. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="2151a75a-e3a7-409b-86b7-52d4638ddc20" CreationDate="2013-08-10T06:33:13.263" UserId="23119" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags-about-specific-variables-etc has  been made more specific to   tags that talk about essentially every variable of [field name].  Here are the burninateable tags about veeeery specific areas, probably not even physics .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   [tag:laws-of-physics]   [tag:approximations] [tag:complex-number]     [tag:affine-lie-algebra]   [tag:laboratory-safety]                                                                       &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4737" RevisionGUID="66451ca0-7583-4e4a-a76a-e6c36940f135" CreationDate="2013-08-10T08:13:54.697" UserId="23119" Text="What does the &quot;disputed&quot; status of a flag mean?  E.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IV9LD.png     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that the moderators couldn't decide whether the flag should be accepted or declined ?  .   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4737" RevisionGUID="66451ca0-7583-4e4a-a76a-e6c36940f135" CreationDate="2013-08-10T08:13:54.697" UserId="23119" Text="What does the &quot;disputed&quot; status of a flag mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4737" RevisionGUID="66451ca0-7583-4e4a-a76a-e6c36940f135" CreationDate="2013-08-10T08:13:54.697" UserId="23119" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="027c83b8-76ef-46bf-823c-c4d07edd3165" CreationDate="2013-08-10T09:42:34.760" UserId="7433" Text="It basically means that non mods disagreed on the flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it [was marked as &quot;looks good&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/21044) in the review queue. Which seems correct to me because it's not deletable and can be improved (VLQ is for non salvageable stuff)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="19d02e9a-4a66-4a19-b58a-9842474c0c1f" CreationDate="2013-08-10T11:39:49.037" UserId="23119" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5456/the-speed-of-gravity    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too many to list; see   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/5456?lq=1 .  26 questions are listed, some aren't exactly duplicates ...        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9962" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="10ecd5fe-3b95-46d3-ba80-18a126dc32c8" CreationDate="2013-08-10T11:39:49.037" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="9963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="c31675fd-33bf-4e52-b671-623c638941bf" CreationDate="2013-08-10T12:07:52.237" UserId="2751" Text="Here I do not quite agree that all of the tags mentioned in this question should be burnicated (generally I think all the tags we have should denote meaningful physics terms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:x-ray-cristallography] is a meaningful method to investage the&#xD;&#xA;   structure of materials in the field of material sciences, so it seems&#xD;&#xA;   a good one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:laws-of-physics] seems a bit unspecific&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - [tag:approximations] seems ok for questions that ask about about   &#xD;&#xA;   particular approximations needed in different contexts&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:affine-lie-algebra] is a good meaningful technical tag for   &#xD;&#xA;   technical questions (it came from TP.SE), even though it is not   &#xD;&#xA;   heavily populated I still dont give up that the kind of questions   &#xD;&#xA;   that needs this kind of tags will increas again ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:labor-savety] looks slightly off topic to me ..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4742" RevisionGUID="ba74ae18-8485-4d3d-96d3-68eb0be4a170" CreationDate="2013-08-10T12:26:28.510" UserId="2751" Text="I generally agree with [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/45/2751) answer and the idea, that the tags we have should denote subfields of physics or meaningful keywords as applied by physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But tags just denoting thermodynamic or kinematic variables, basic quantities used in certain subfields, etc look to me not meaningful enough to categorize qustions. In addition, creating such tags for every thermodynamic and kinematic variable or for every basic quantity applied in any subfield would largely inflate the number of tags we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the particular tags listed here, it seems to me that the thermodynamic variables are already covered by [tag:thermodynmaics], the kinematic variables by [tag:kinematics], capacitance by [tag:electrostatics], etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="0bc77063-eeb4-4317-8256-bf9c9542b4ce" CreationDate="2013-08-10T16:00:00.957" UserId="2911" Text="There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to *want* pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean *easy* questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of &quot;why&quot; questions. You *could* just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you *do* want them, and want them tagged as such, then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ...You need to be *ruthlessly* consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for *and receive* a &quot;general audience&quot; answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. **Unless the asker states**, &quot;I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it&quot; or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It *cannot* be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond &quot;I want a layman's explanation for something&quot;, then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. [tag:homework] is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly, **you cannot fight about this.** Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in [edit wars](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-great-edit-wars/) over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, **the tag will be removed with no further discussion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/147100/the-homework-tag-is-now-officially-deprecated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="eb5c33c8-ac7c-4b27-bf27-50ce36b145f2" CreationDate="2013-08-10T17:23:33.410" UserId="2911" Text="&gt; I note that popular-science, research-level, and homework are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should bother you. Here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first page of tags][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what the [first tags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) looks like right now. It indicates a healthy site, catering to a broad range of interests. Note that with a few exceptions it mostly *describes what this site is about*. If your interest or expertise falls into one of the areas described by those tags, you'll likely find a reason to keep you here on the site. You can follow topics that interest you, ignore those that don't, and even get customized lists of questions that match your specific interests. A host of tools in the software itself make use of this information, and it's clear which topics are popular here, and which ones are less well-served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now picture a site where the top three tags are [tag:homework], [tag:popular-science] and [tag:research-level], with the tags that describe specific topics trailing off behind them. (Let's imagine y'all ignore [my advice][2] and start slapping [popular-science] on any question you don't think falls into either [homework] or [research-level]). You might imagine this would result in the same list pictured above, with a couple of extra tags at the start - you would be wrong. **Every time we've seen this done,** it has resulted in topic-specific tags being neglected in favor of the broad, easy categories. The bigger the category gets, the more poorly-tagged questions result...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse yet, it carves the site up into separate districts based on fairly subjective criteria that have little or nothing to do with the actual subjects being asked and answered. They may *start out* &quot;separate but equal&quot;, but... That never lasts. Pretty soon, one or more tags develop a reputation for being... Let's say &quot;dirty&quot;. You don't want this tag on *your* question. You do want it on questions you don't like, since then you can ignore it. No need to put effort into editing or closing bad questions - just shove them in the ghetto and pretend they don't exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tagging is *not* a tool for moderation; they are a tool for *organization*. The categories that a question falls into should be obvious based on the question itself - if a 3rd-party is required to arbitrate, then tagging has failed. Leave tags for *topics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you know better than to suggest there are only three topics here on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIpVA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag/4743#4743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="1c038abd-fdba-441c-b257-e0791f069230" CreationDate="2013-08-10T17:48:53.023" UserId="2911" Text="[I tend to agree with @Qmechanic here][1]: if there is *any* need for discussion, lumping all these tags into one post becomes unwieldy. I'm sure not gonna burn a big pile of tags like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also agree with [David Z here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4007/are-there-too-many-and-or-specific-tags/4009#4009) - if a tag describes part of the topic of a question, then it's a good tag. There aren't *too many*; you're not gonna *run out*. This notion that everything on the site should be lumped into a tiny handful of tags is somewhere between misguided and harmfully stupid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good reason to believe that a *specific* tag is unnecessary or harmful, post about it here - folks will discuss it if necessary and then it can be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i#comment12934_4728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4746" RevisionGUID="e4c0ef26-b34f-427b-a1c6-4d6a826ef074" CreationDate="2013-08-10T18:04:45.937" UserId="2911" Text="There are a few reasons not to do this, some social, some technical, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is some ambiguity about what qualifies as High school(depending on where you studied)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That alone is reason enough not to put any more thought into it. You should be able to read a question and *know* which tags apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9969" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="cac7fd6a-98a2-4fac-88c1-60037554dbcd" CreationDate="2013-08-10T18:04:54.063" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="0f459776-46e2-45ad-99ab-d660e5d755d7" CreationDate="2013-08-10T18:39:28.647" UserId="2751" Comment="Dear Jess, I though this point need a bit clarification after a new discussion with Shog9. I mean no bad by this edit, but if it is against what you wanted to say or anybody else thinks it is too inappropriate, please roll back ..." Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton has pointed out that we already have a [tag:popular-science] tag.  Currently, it only has 14 questions tagged.  I claim we should emphasize this tag just like we should emphasize [tag:research-level].  Furthermore, it is important that we develop a reasonably objective definition.  (@Manishearth worries that this tag might determined more by subjective *tone* rather than content.)  I propose this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular-science questions are accessible to a layman with minimal physics training.  They would be appropriate in a newspaper article or non-academic magazine.  Such question are distinct from research-level questions, which are of professional interest to physicists.  They are also distinct from homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suggested this as the tag wiki excerpt, which is the short-definition of this tag and which appears as a tooltip when someone hovers over the tag. (Someone with 20k is needed to approve it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should ideally capture about 15 % of the questions posted on the site, as the bulk of the questions are expected to be standard good conceptual physics questions that need no additional level tag*.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clarifying edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I change the percentage of questions that are rougly expected to need such a level tag at all from 95% to 15% as the bulk of the questions most probably falls into neither of these three categories. This point was for example discussed in the comments directly below this question, as well as in the comments [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4465/2751) and [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4744/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This number means, that ideally  about 85% of the questions should have no level tag at all, maybe 5% should be shown to researchers (37 users follow currently research-level) who have a very specialized interest and knowledge, 5% to students who are looking for good additional example problems to prepare for an exam for example (there are 36 people following homework too) and 5% to people who want to learn about physics in a simplified weay without beeing bogged down by math an physic jargon they are not interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="6b1cc17d-bf5a-42bc-b6ba-811cd92a716a" CreationDate="2013-08-10T22:09:19.137" UserId="2911" Text="Dearest Physics&lt;sub&gt;meta&lt;/sub&gt; Stack Exchange readers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just got done reading through [this discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag), its many supporting discussions, its answers, their comments, the answers to the supporting questions and *their* comments. And I *gotta* tell ya, **you talk too much...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...without actually *saying* very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of people requested that I research this issue (and a few related issues) and give my opinion, since apparently there've been some hurt feelings here and there over some of this. That's a shame. The whole point of meta is to give folks a voice in how the community is run - if you're writing this much and still feeling unheard, something is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I have a few suggestions for the more... enthusiastic... participants in these discussions, a few things I've picked up over the years that'll make these go a lot smoother for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Have fun.** I don't know why you're here, but I'm guessing it *probably* isn't your job to argue about minutia on The Internet all day&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Even if the questions you ask/answer *on Physics.SE* are crucial to your work, meta debates probably aren't. Hopefully, we're all here because we love the site and want it to be even better - so if this is starting to feel like a drag, go for a walk or something instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Try to read more than you write.** If you find yourself dominating a conversation (or *multiple* conversations simultaneously), chances are it is becoming increasingly hard for other folks to keep up with what you're trying to say; they might very well just start ignoring you. Ironically, you can end up being unheard because you talk to much! You also risk giving the impression that you don't really care about what anyone else has to say, being too busy writing your rebuttal to really understand what you're responding to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Know when a comment discussion isn't working.** Comments are a great way to ask for or provide clarifications, raise concerns, or provide simple criticisms. But they can be exceedingly tedious for others to read, and not everyone has time to involve themselves in a prolonged discussion. If you find yourself going back and forth at for any significant length of time, chances are you're not getting your point across - maybe you'd be better off writing or updating an answer where you have room to expand your argument... or even taking the conversation to chat. **Hint:** if you find yourself posting two comments back-to-back because your response won't fit into one, you're probably doing it wrong. **Stop and write an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Recognize that the people you disagree with probably are not Pure Evil.** Sure, dividing up a happy community into tag-ghettos sounds like something that Hitler or Stalin would do, and I'm sure Pol Pot would've *loved* the idea of throwing tags he didn't like into a mass grave and setting them on fire. But consider: if those guys had limited themselves to bullying bits around on The Internet&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, we probably wouldn't hate them so much. Try to limit the hyperbole and focus on the topic at hand; if you're having trouble doing that, maybe take a break and have a nice cup of tea instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Evidence trumps speculation.** Afraid that *X* will be the death of the site? You might be right. But... Prove it. Or at least, provide *something* to back up your assertion. Has *X*  been tried elsewhere and failed? Say that. Is there evidence on the site itself that *X* is causing problems? Link to it. If the sky is falling, then stop running around screaming and *show us a piece of it!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Remember that there are an awful lot of people on the site who just want to ask and answer physics questions.** A discussion here on Meta is just that: a way for interested parties to lay out their arguments; it's not guaranteed to reflect the opinion of the greater community. Most of the time, discussions are never really *concluded* here - it's always possible for someone to come in with a new answer, and ultimately what actually matters is what happens *on the main site itself*. Meta gives you a podium&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Don't spend too much of *your* time here either.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;** If you spend all of your time here on Meta, it becomes very easy to forget the reasons why you came here in the first place, place undue importance on trivial arguments, and stop having fun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. **Be patient.** Change takes time, and remember: a lot of folks aren't as enthusiastic about following every meta conversation as you are (See #6). If things aren't happening fast enough for your taste, starting *more* discussions on the subject may be counter-productive (See #2). And if you're too busy hand-wringing on meta to actually follow your own advice when participating on the main site, then you're missing the chance to set an example for others to follow (#7). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, remember that you elected moderators to *help out* on the site, *settle* intractable arguments, and *enact* the policies hashed out here and elsewhere. They're strongly encouraged to be active here on meta, but... They don't actually *have* to respond to every discussion or involve themselves in every debate. If you want their input and assistance, try to make it a bit easier for them to provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Because that's *my* job, and you can't have it! Just kidding, we're [hiring](http://stackexchange.com/about/hiring).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I'll bet a lot fewer people have starved to death because of Collectivist Farmville.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Or maybe a soapbox. A podium sounds like something Hitler would want.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Again, my job not yers.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="6b1cc17d-bf5a-42bc-b6ba-811cd92a716a" CreationDate="2013-08-10T22:09:19.137" UserId="2911" Text="How to conduct a discussion on meta and not kill everyone in trying" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="6b1cc17d-bf5a-42bc-b6ba-811cd92a716a" CreationDate="2013-08-10T22:09:19.137" UserId="2911" Text="|discussion|etiquette|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="2361f94b-dd0a-4bf4-a3b7-f64ed54e84d4" CreationDate="2013-08-11T02:58:16.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/366393098483404801" />
  <row Id="9979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="21d332a7-63d3-4d22-a29c-3f1c3b6d30aa" CreationDate="2013-08-11T11:28:01.573" UserId="2751" Text="Ok, I just did not see much use of a BSM tag too, but no I think it can be useful and we should have one for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with what Matt Reece said in his comment:&#xD;&#xA;there's some effect which is not present in the SM and a question about what it means and how it can be interpreted, not linked to any particular model. General things like questions involving bounds on higher-dimension operators---of which the proton charge radius is, more or less, an example---would be a good use of this tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the LHC, in addition to very specific searches for BSM physics which can clearly be ascribed to a particular theory/conept/model such as supersymmetry or string theory, people do more general broader searches for BSM physics effects which can not be uniquely related to a single known theoretical idea, such as extra dimesnsions, violations of fundamental symmetries, or more generally for deviations from the SM one would not yet know how to interpret them at present, too. Questions deeling with such issues could not be tagged with string-theory, supersymmetry, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exatly to fill this gap, [tag:BSM] is usefull and it would be useful for people who want to ask and/or look for questions which deal with more general BSM phenomenology including more exotic effects, which are not covered by the specific tags denoting BSM theories and concepts we have.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="19a4d235-a8ce-47ae-8dba-2bcabade6fd5" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:06:59.410" UserId="2751" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Ok, I just did not see much use of a BSM tag too, but no I think it can be useful and we should have one for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I agree with what Matt Reece said in his comment: there's some effect&#xD;&#xA;   which is not present in the SM and a question about what it means and&#xD;&#xA;   how it can be interpreted, not linked to any particular model.&#xD;&#xA;   General things like questions involving bounds on higher-dimension&#xD;&#xA;   operators---of which the proton charge radius is, more or less, an&#xD;&#xA;   example---would be a good use of this tag&#xD;&#xA; - On the LHC, in addition to very specific searches for BSM physics&#xD;&#xA;   which can clearly be ascribed to a particular theory/conept/model&#xD;&#xA;   such as supersymmetry or string theory, people do more general&#xD;&#xA;   broader searches for BSM physics effects which can not be uniquely&#xD;&#xA;   related to a single known theoretical idea, such as extra&#xD;&#xA;   dimesnsions, violations of fundamental symmetries, or more generally&#xD;&#xA;   for deviations from the SM one would not yet know how to interpret&#xD;&#xA;   them at present, too. Questions deeling with such issues could not be&#xD;&#xA;   tagged with string-theory, supersymmetry, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exatly to fill this gap, [tag:BSM] is usefull and it would be useful for people who want to ask and/or look for questions which deal with more general BSM phenomenology including more exotic effects, which are not covered by the specific tags denoting BSM theories and concepts we have.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="a6a326f1-d10c-49f1-91ee-858da1dc4982" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:15:50.347" UserId="2751" Comment="Typos ..." Text="Ok, I first did not see much use of a BSM tag too, but no I think it can be useful and we should have one for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I agree with what Matt Reece said in his comment: there's some effect&#xD;&#xA;   which is not present in the SM and a question about what it means and&#xD;&#xA;   how it can be interpreted, not linked to any particular model.&#xD;&#xA;   General things like questions involving bounds on higher-dimension&#xD;&#xA;   operators---of which the proton charge radius is, more or less, an&#xD;&#xA;   example---would be a good use of this tag&#xD;&#xA; - At the LHC, in addition to very specific searches for BSM physics&#xD;&#xA;   which can clearly be ascribed to a particular theory/conept/model&#xD;&#xA;   such as supersymmetry or string theory, people do more general&#xD;&#xA;   broader searches for BSM physics effects which can not be uniquely&#xD;&#xA;   related to a single known theoretical idea, such as extra&#xD;&#xA;   dimensions, violations of fundamental symmetries, or more generally&#xD;&#xA;   for deviations from the SM one would not yet know how to interpret&#xD;&#xA;   them at present, too. Questions dealing with such issues could not be&#xD;&#xA;   tagged with string-theory, supersymmetry, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exatly to fill this gap, [tag:BSM] is usefull and it would be useful for people who want to ask and/or look for questions which deal with more general BSM phenomenology including more exotic effects, which are not covered by the specific tags denoting BSM theories and concepts we have.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="f1410ae4-9157-4059-b5a6-ae0bfe6509a8" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:21:08.810" UserId="2751" Comment="Typos ..." Text="Ok, I first did not see much use of a BSM tag too, but no I think it can be useful and we should have one for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I agree with what Matt Reece said in his comment: there's some effect&#xD;&#xA;   which is not present in the SM and a question about what it means and&#xD;&#xA;   how it can be interpreted, not linked to any particular model.&#xD;&#xA;   General things like questions involving bounds on higher-dimension&#xD;&#xA;   operators---of which the proton charge radius is, more or less, an&#xD;&#xA;   example---would be a good use of this tag&#xD;&#xA; - At the LHC, in addition to very specific searches for BSM physics&#xD;&#xA;   which can clearly be ascribed to a particular theory/concept/model&#xD;&#xA;   such as supersymmetry or string theory, people do more general&#xD;&#xA;   broader searches for BSM physics effects which can not be uniquely&#xD;&#xA;   related to a single known theoretical idea, such as extra&#xD;&#xA;   dimensions, violations of fundamental symmetries, or more generally&#xD;&#xA;   for deviations from the SM one would not yet know how to interpret&#xD;&#xA;   them at present, too. Questions dealing with such issues could not be&#xD;&#xA;   tagged with string-theory, supersymmetry, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly to fill this gap, [tag:BSM] is usefull and it would be useful for people who want to ask and/or look for questions which deal with more general BSM phenomenology including more exotic effects, which are not covered by the specific tags denoting BSM theories and concepts we have.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="8771db52-2153-431d-b8e2-d3ab34c9967b" CreationDate="2013-08-11T15:01:58.700" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35674/is-time-continuous/35804#35804 (totally fails to understand QM), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.            " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="8771db52-2153-431d-b8e2-d3ab34c9967b" CreationDate="2013-08-11T15:01:58.700" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Flags and technical innacuracies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="8771db52-2153-431d-b8e2-d3ab34c9967b" CreationDate="2013-08-11T15:01:58.700" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|feature-request|answers|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="865734e6-ac5c-419b-924f-b8493c76f978" CreationDate="2013-08-11T15:27:13.887" UserId="11062" Text="[This would've been covered by our overall site FAQ](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/7931/205334) under the topic **Moderation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags don't work like that. Flagging should be done only when moderators require some intervention with the post. For instance, someone is spamming around, uses offensive words, posting bad questions that need to be closed, etc. can be handled by a mod. Other cases...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If some asker accepts some answer, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. It means that he's satisfied with it. You shouldn't flag it and say it's wrong. Because, a mod shouldn't switch accepted answers, that are only provided for askers. If that's the case, he can go around accepting answers by himself. And, something in your point of view may be different from others' point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) An answer gets large number of upvotes (*that too*...) doesn't mean that it's correct. It's accepted and agreed as a worthy answer by the overall community. Mod can't interrupt the community's evaluation of answers. That's the reason why downvoted answers are still under questions. If the wrong answer is related to Physics (just some misunderstanding), we can keep it to indicate others that it's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your question goes to the author. Just comment below it, indicating what's wrong there. Mods can't do everything. They're just our people. Feel free to interact with them. Why do you need mods as some connecting bridges? Again, your thought that *answers should be deleted by mods once they're flagged* is really a misconception..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="caab7cb7-a3ef-4865-806e-2aaee30bb558" CreationDate="2013-08-11T16:22:16.383" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35674/is-time-continuous/35804#35804 (totally fails to understand QM), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="dbaa6a1e-07c4-440b-beaf-9c467cd1805b" CreationDate="2013-08-11T16:30:42.347" UserId="2911" Text="And what would such a flag *do?* Alert the moderators? What if they lack sufficient expertise in the flagged topic to make a good call? Alert high-rep users? So that they can... criticize the post for you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a better idea would be to just indicate publicly that the post was flagged. We could even maintain a count of the number of such flags, and display that next to the post, thereby indicating the number of people who found the post to be inaccurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a bit controversial, but... Since your concern is primarily with &quot;*upvoted* wrong answers&quot;, we could potentially reduce the score of the post by one for every &quot;inaccurate&quot; flag cast on it, thereby giving flaggers a direct way to combat overrated posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="fde14117-27ef-4da3-a373-1c4a5cc7d8ac" CreationDate="2013-08-11T17:25:59.253" UserId="2146" Text="I tried to flag a comment, but accidentally upvoted it, and I can't remove the upvote because I have only 1 minute to remove it, which I've only recently discovered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I flag a comment I've accidentally upvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="fde14117-27ef-4da3-a373-1c4a5cc7d8ac" CreationDate="2013-08-11T17:25:59.253" UserId="2146" Text="How do I flag a comment I've accidentally upvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="fde14117-27ef-4da3-a373-1c4a5cc7d8ac" CreationDate="2013-08-11T17:25:59.253" UserId="2146" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="4a8a7b68-55ec-460b-b8e5-db5813d32907" CreationDate="2013-08-11T19:27:46.067" UserId="7433" Text="[Already been reported, not yet been fixed](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the best thing to do is to flag the corresponding post with a custom flag, mentioning that you're unable to flag the comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="990e483f-5703-4be9-a42a-34c7fa5460f0" CreationDate="2013-08-12T01:48:20.787" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body" Text="&lt;---  Calamities    Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="5e32858d-5801-4001-9fd1-e1c5325d8302" CreationDate="2013-08-12T01:54:37.190" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4756" RevisionGUID="34c25132-9c3d-449d-9526-7bae46233287" CreationDate="2013-08-12T03:51:13.243" UserId="27204" Text="It seems that `star` and `stars` are two separate tags and there's not good reason for them to be so, especially when the latter is only used 4 times. I suggest to merge both into `star`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4756" RevisionGUID="34c25132-9c3d-449d-9526-7bae46233287" CreationDate="2013-08-12T03:51:13.243" UserId="27204" Text="Tag merging: &quot;Star: and &quot;Stars&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4756" RevisionGUID="34c25132-9c3d-449d-9526-7bae46233287" CreationDate="2013-08-12T03:51:13.243" UserId="27204" Text="|feature-request|tags|meta-tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="8678cf14-8cd8-4303-b8c8-11bd4be99962" CreationDate="2013-08-12T06:25:58.050" UserId="2684" Text="Sometimes the community just gets it wrong, if there is a plausible-looking answer, many users will just upvote it even if it is outside their expertise and they can't actually evaluate the correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to prevent such wrong, but plausible answers to rise to the top is to specifically commment on them and explain why they are wrong, preferably with some references to back up your claim. Users are far less likely to just upvote if they see that the answer is controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another very important point is that bad answers are much more likely to get upvoted if there are no better answers around. Posting a good answer that contradicts the bad answer should be the top priority if there is no good answer yet on that question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you see an upvoted bad answer, comment on it to point out the error (constructively, just commenting &quot;this answer sucks&quot; doesn' help at all) and post a better answer as competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with the idea of flags for incorrect answers is that it puts the burden to evaluate the correctness on a single person, in this case a moderator. Moderators don't necessarily have the expertise in every area that is on-topic here, they are not primarily selected for their domain knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even if you would suggest something like the top users evaluating those flags, they still can be wrong and leaving the decision in the hand of a single or a few users could be worse than leaving it in the hands of the community. If you look at my only answer I posted on Physics, this was posted as a response to the current most-upvoted answer. That answer is just plainly missing the point of the question in one part, it is completely wrong in one important aspect and it was posted by the user with the highest reputation on Physics. Even high-reputation users are occasionally wrong, evaluating the correctness is not something we should put in the hands of a single user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="66de4166-37d9-480b-8e26-a14034b51ca7" CreationDate="2013-08-12T06:44:06.287" UserId="2451" Comment="added 647 characters in body" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, please only suggest a tag synonym, if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="c2f2e3ce-21d3-410d-a34f-5378ec0cc8f0" CreationDate="2013-08-12T06:52:05.980" UserId="2451" Comment="added 647 characters in body" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, please only suggest a tag synonym, if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="ee1e0efc-dbcd-49d0-a4c9-fff329a21bad" CreationDate="2013-08-12T06:59:18.137" UserId="2451" Comment="added 647 characters in body" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="f0d4db2e-7671-4b1b-98ca-0e9d728e7f4a" CreationDate="2013-08-12T16:13:59.630" UserId="23119" Text="At http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;.  . .    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="f0d4db2e-7671-4b1b-98ca-0e9d728e7f4a" CreationDate="2013-08-12T16:13:59.630" UserId="23119" Text="Criteria for the popular-science tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="f0d4db2e-7671-4b1b-98ca-0e9d728e7f4a" CreationDate="2013-08-12T16:13:59.630" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|retagging|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="198e28ea-1ada-4188-af3e-a9ea496a79c6" CreationDate="2013-08-12T17:14:37.153" UserId="2911" Text="In my opinion, the best argument for even *having* this tag is that it's [a fairly common and well-understood term][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular science, sometimes called literature of science, is interpretation of science intended for a general audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deviating from that introduces ambiguity and creates the potential for confusion if the tag is applied to questions where answers are decidedly *not* written for a general audience. Why would any answers here be written for a general audience? Usually because *that's what the asker asked for* - &quot;can someone give me a layman's explanation?&quot;, &quot;how would I explain this to a 12 year old?&quot;, etc. **Therefore, I recommend the following criteria:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [tag:popular-science] Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for instance, these are clearly pop-sci questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73564/explaining-to-a-five-year-old-why-dont-bubbles-run-like-water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64530/why-cant-supersonic-planes-just-fly-higher-to-go-faster-while-maintaining-cos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...while these are probably not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69651/in-which-direction-do-gravitons-travel-do-they-originate-from-mass-or-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a lot of questions have been retagged with [tag:popular-physics] in the past month or so, but not *all* of them comply with the definition above - in particular, there are a few questions where the tag seems to have been added based on the perceived difficulty or &quot;softness&quot; of the question rather than any explicit desire on the part of the asker for a broadly-accessible answer (much less the existence of such an answer on the question). Some of these will need to be retagged again to avoid setting a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="4c61b32c-6fa4-4f6f-9baa-cef8aa968bff" CreationDate="2013-08-12T18:21:17.377" UserId="7433" Comment="edited body" Text="In my opinion, the best argument for even *having* this tag is that it's [a fairly common and well-understood term][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular science, sometimes called literature of science, is interpretation of science intended for a general audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deviating from that introduces ambiguity and creates the potential for confusion if the tag is applied to questions where answers are decidedly *not* written for a general audience. Why would any answers here be written for a general audience? Usually because *that's what the asker asked for* - &quot;can someone give me a layman's explanation?&quot;, &quot;how would I explain this to a 12 year old?&quot;, etc. **Therefore, I recommend the following criteria:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [tag:popular-science] Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for instance, these are clearly pop-sci questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73564/explaining-to-a-five-year-old-why-dont-bubbles-run-like-water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64530/why-cant-supersonic-planes-just-fly-higher-to-go-faster-while-maintaining-cos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...while these are probably not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69651/in-which-direction-do-gravitons-travel-do-they-originate-from-mass-or-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a lot of questions have been retagged with [tag:popular-science] in the past month or so, but not *all* of them comply with the definition above - in particular, there are a few questions where the tag seems to have been added based on the perceived difficulty or &quot;softness&quot; of the question rather than any explicit desire on the part of the asker for a broadly-accessible answer (much less the existence of such an answer on the question). Some of these will need to be retagged again to avoid setting a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="76cd2670-8c6f-4c43-9f0e-7ee9d1ba47a4" CreationDate="2013-08-12T19:22:27.843" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="&quot;Open-source&quot; isn't the same thing as &quot;doesn't cost money.&quot; For example, if my friend lets me smoke some of his marijuana for free, that doesn't make it open-source marijuana. Open source, in the software world, means that you can look at the source code of the program (not just the compiled version), and the source code is also either public domain or available under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative, opensource.org. When applied to books, the term would imply something similar, except that instead of source code we mean something like a format that is designed to be edited (e.g., LaTeX) and whose specs are sufficiently open that there are open-source software implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these definitions, sites like gen.lib.rus.ec have nothing to do with open source. Here is a site I run that catalogs books that actually are legally free and/or open-source: http://theassayer.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is this considered a violation of copyright/bla-bla-bla policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most countries, linking is not a violation of copyright, even if the site you're linking to violates copyright. And of course if the site you're linking to really is a source that carries open-source books, then there is nothing illegal going on whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I would suggest is to be honest about what's going on, and not to call it open source if it's not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="ad32ad03-2e53-4bca-b93c-9d9b2f946621" CreationDate="2013-08-12T20:17:32.957" UserId="2451" Comment="changed open-source -&gt; illegal download/pirate sites" Text="I am currently editing the [tag:string-theory] tag wiki, and am adding some links to good books, which are downloadable from illegal download/pirate resources, like http://gen.lib.rus.ec/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is this considered a violation of copyright/bla-bla-bla policy? Is it allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10017" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="ad32ad03-2e53-4bca-b93c-9d9b2f946621" CreationDate="2013-08-12T20:17:32.957" UserId="2451" Comment="changed open-source -&gt; illegal download/pirate sites" Text="Is linking to illegal download/pirate sites for books a violation of copyright here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="53d6a2b8-81b9-43f3-b8ab-683c478bb636" CreationDate="2013-08-12T20:56:54.873" UserId="2911" Comment="Moved some of the clarifications from (now-deleted) comments in so that they are more readily accessible to future readers" Text="At http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;These are just suggestions - the intent is for people to suggest a good definition in the answers, the community votes on these answers, and the most upvoted one after a reasonable amount of time has past will be the one we apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever definition you come up with **needs to be objective**. Otherwise we're back where we've started on the tag. &quot;Question was phrased in a pop sci way&quot; is ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="53d6a2b8-81b9-43f3-b8ab-683c478bb636" CreationDate="2013-08-12T20:56:54.873" UserId="2911" Comment="Moved some of the clarifications from (now-deleted) comments in so that they are more readily accessible to future readers" Text="Criteria for the popular-science tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="976b6ba4-4111-4d25-bc0e-7b5520e582b8" CreationDate="2013-08-12T21:26:46.197" UserId="19976" Text="What is the best way to visually include Mathematica code in a response?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am almost done writing one right now, and I'd like to include a small amount of code which shows a computation demonstrating a result I claim in the response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="976b6ba4-4111-4d25-bc0e-7b5520e582b8" CreationDate="2013-08-12T21:26:46.197" UserId="19976" Text="Including Mathematica code in a response" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="976b6ba4-4111-4d25-bc0e-7b5520e582b8" CreationDate="2013-08-12T21:26:46.197" UserId="19976" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="d9194a56-bade-4f14-979c-fcfff8a9f326" CreationDate="2013-08-12T21:35:47.783" UserId="520" Text="The '{}' button at the top of the editor or pressing Control-k will indent a selected block by 4-spaces putting it in code block mode." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="90808c24-db0d-4003-b6b9-c1de2c36dea0" CreationDate="2013-08-13T01:10:13.623" UserId="11822" Comment="Edit per comment / to \" Text="Is it possible to number equations when posting questions at physics stack exchange, or any other stack exchange site enabled with MathJax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried \begin{equation} \end{equation}." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="68c3ae27-eae8-43be-90e6-96338b63d145" CreationDate="2013-08-13T01:48:44.813" UserId="23119" Comment=" i   " Text="At http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the comments:*      &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;These are just suggestions - the intent is for people to suggest a good definition in the answers, the community votes on these answers, and the most upvoted one after a reasonable amount of time has past will be the one we apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever definition you come up with **needs to be objective**. Otherwise we're back where we've started on the tag. &quot;Question was phrased in a pop sci way&quot; is ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="3d6270e3-ffd4-4eb1-b9c8-42aab992c861" CreationDate="2013-08-13T02:11:45.223" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am currently editing the [tag:string-theory] tag wiki, and I am adding some links to freely downloadable, copyrighted books at some illegal pirate resources located in third countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is this considered a violation of copyright policy of stack exchange? Is it allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10027" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="3d6270e3-ffd4-4eb1-b9c8-42aab992c861" CreationDate="2013-08-13T02:11:45.223" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is linking to an illegal pirate site for freely downloading copyrighted books a violation of copyright here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="e255ec38-b4f1-4b26-99e0-83dfbfb269ee" CreationDate="2013-08-13T02:21:40.597" UserId="19976" Comment="added 1653 characters in body" Text="What is the best way to visually include Mathematica code in a response?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am almost done writing one right now, and I'd like to include a small amount of code which shows a computation demonstrating a result I claim in the response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is art of what the code.  I realized that of I right clicked on the code and chose Copy As &gt; MathML then I would pretty much get what I wanted (see below).  Is this the best I can do?  I mean, I guess the only more I could want is to have the text set in Courier so it looks more &quot;code-ish.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;math xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML'&#xD;&#xA;    mathematica:form='StandardForm'&#xD;&#xA;    xmlns:mathematica='http://www.wolfram.com/XML/'&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mi&gt;Rx&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mo&gt;[&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mi&gt;&amp;#952;_&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mo&gt;]&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;mo&gt;:=&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mo&gt;{&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mo&gt;{&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mn&gt;1&lt;/mn&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mn&gt;0&lt;/mn&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mn&gt;0&lt;/mn&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mo&gt;}&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mo&gt;{&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mn&gt;0&lt;/mn&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mi&gt;Cos&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;[&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mi&gt;&amp;#952;&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;]&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mi&gt;Sin&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;[&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mi&gt;&amp;#952;&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;]&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mo&gt;}&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mo&gt;{&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mn&gt;0&lt;/mn&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;-&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;mi&gt;Sin&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;mo&gt;[&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;mi&gt;&amp;#952;&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;mo&gt;]&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mo&gt;,&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mi&gt;Cos&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;[&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mi&gt;&amp;#952;&lt;/mi&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;mo&gt;]&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;mo&gt;}&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;mo&gt;}&lt;/mo&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/mrow&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/math&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="0fd7a4d0-7faf-4030-93ce-1b9297f3ff84" CreationDate="2013-08-13T02:30:34.603" UserId="124" Comment="add code example" Text="The '{}' button at the top of the editor or pressing Control-k will indent a selected block by 4-spaces putting it in code block mode. Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Rx[θ_] := {{1, 0, 0}, {0, Cos[θ], Sin[θ]}, {0, -Sin[θ], Cos[θ]}}" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="e4f05d60-3ec8-4450-ab61-70a432ca548a" CreationDate="2013-08-13T11:40:25.283" UserId="23119" Comment="@Qmechanic: I think it was a speellimng error ? . " Text="I am currently editing the [tag:string-theory] tag wiki, and I am adding some links to freely downloadable, copyrighted books at some illegal pirate resources located in third parties.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is this considered a violation of copyright policy of stack exchange? Is it allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10031" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="bf28edd6-ab2f-438e-b156-4e0943827010" CreationDate="2013-08-13T13:49:48.433" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10032" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4756" RevisionGUID="b5c57e8c-7aaa-4189-b984-825d9dae76a6" CreationDate="2013-08-13T13:51:52.770" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="2f82a9b5-207d-4e65-83fb-4f51cc5dfb5b" CreationDate="2013-08-13T14:03:05.177" UserId="23473" Text="I recently noticed a joke post; a user intentionally asked and answered a question that was a very subtle mockery of research-level physics papers and had no application as an actual question on this site. I've got a sense of humour, it was pretty funny, so I thought &quot;we can let this slide. Close the question, but enjoy the joke while it's here&quot; But I checked out his account anyway. It seems this user (not going to name names for privacy's sake, and &quot;12262&quot; other reasons) has maybe 1 or 2 out of about 40 posts that are remotely serious. All of his posts are &quot;jokes&quot; aimed at intentionally misleading, asking nonsensical questions, or generally mocking physics in some way. If reading one of his answers, it is important to keep in mind the entire time that it **is** a joke. Some answers can seem very sane an reasonable because of his ability to use jargon. The important thing is that upon closer inspection, many of them say nothing or say the wrong thing seemingly intentionally. Granted, some of them are pretty funny, but the fact remains that it's damaging to have someone running around giving false facts or generally making us look bad/disreputable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thus, I'd love to have the discussion about at what point we decide something should be done and what to do in the case that they are way out of line.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start it off, obviously we're all a big fan of something that's funny. So I assume it goes without saying that if you want to throw some jokes into a question or answer, feel free. I just think there should still be some serious content. Sometimes, an answer can be entirely silly and still be acceptable, an example being http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/70851/23473 where the top answer is entirely silly. But I think it becomes unaccpetable when, instead of a one-time thing, a user is constantly posting questions/answers that do more harm than good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what to do when one is found, to that I have no answer. What would you say would be the appropriate action for an intentionally disruptive user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="2f82a9b5-207d-4e65-83fb-4f51cc5dfb5b" CreationDate="2013-08-13T14:03:05.177" UserId="23473" Text="Policy regarding intentionally counter-productive users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="2f82a9b5-207d-4e65-83fb-4f51cc5dfb5b" CreationDate="2013-08-13T14:03:05.177" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|policy|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10036" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="a33e9afd-51c1-49dd-83ea-d0c30ce0591f" CreationDate="2013-08-13T14:07:58.027" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="f06db1b9-6d75-4d98-8b79-ea1a7ceff4bb" CreationDate="2013-08-13T14:08:12.590" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="2bb2560f-db18-488a-8473-20d56d186ff3" CreationDate="2013-08-13T14:56:51.713" UserId="8563" Text="The best option is to use the `{}` button, or `Ctrl + k`, to create four indenting spaces which will format code like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as dmckee pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would recommend **not** altering with the Mathematica code: leave greek symbols as e.g. `\[Theta]`, which is the result of a direct copy-paste from Mathematica. If you then copy-paste into the front end then Mathematica will automatically prettify them. If you feel this makes the code less clear, then use other symbols (such as `q` for `θ`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, though, you can't expect _all_ your Mathematica code to be made completely clear. Take, for example, this piece of code,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sound[{Play[Re[E^(-((10000 I)/(4 10^-6 I + 60 t)))/Sqrt[10^-6 - 15 I t]], {t, 0, 15}]}]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I posted recently in [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63798/slinky-reverb-the-origin-of-the-iconic-star-wars-blaster-sound). It lost quite a bit of formatting (fraction, square root, exponential) in the transcription process, but I can't put that in and **I definitely shouldn't do something that compromises the code upon copy-paste.** Thus I left it like that; if a clearer exposition of what the code is saying is necessary then I'd recommend adding a LaTeX'd version of what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="a8d4390a-b689-4216-8be1-3847d81ec8da" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:52:31.093" UserId="2843" Text="There is a significant overlap between physics and chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest that questions tagged &quot;chemistry&quot; on physics.se be displayed and editable on both chemistry.se and physics.se. The reverse would also be beneficial: questions on chemistry.se tagged physics could appear here as well as there and be editable by both communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question immediately arises, should we collaborate on other tags? I would suggest that only tags involving the word chemistry  or physics respectively should be cross-communal projects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="a8d4390a-b689-4216-8be1-3847d81ec8da" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:52:31.093" UserId="2843" Text="Collaborate With Chemistry.se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="a8d4390a-b689-4216-8be1-3847d81ec8da" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:52:31.093" UserId="2843" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="28c85d2f-f25b-487f-a987-d675619cb58a" CreationDate="2013-08-14T04:53:13.153" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Wrong answers and bad questions are supposed to be dealt with using downvotes. Antisocial behavior is AFAIK supposed to be dealt with by moderators using measures like warnings and suspensions. These measures aren't always effective, but from what I've seen, the cases where they don't work commonly seem to involve people who are persistent posters but don't seem able to recognize the limits of their own expertise. I haven't seen much evidence that the system's failures include a lot of people who are trolls or merry pranksters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="cc7da424-506d-416f-8ab8-d1b65db0a3d2" CreationDate="2013-08-14T08:51:00.557" UserId="2843" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="There is a significant overlap between physics and chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest that questions tagged &quot;chemistry&quot; on physics.se be displayed and editable on both chemistry.se and physics.se. The reverse would also be beneficial: questions on chemistry.se tagged physics could appear here as well as there and be editable by both communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question immediately arises, should we collaborate on other tags? I would suggest that only tags involving the word chemistry  or physics respectively should be cross-communal projects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a question on SO meta: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration which points out how it is mostly the sciences that would benefit from this feature. I guess that means it is &quot;too specific,&quot; since we are relatively small. Democracy baby!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="a131624c-62f0-4993-8d9e-88515ae4c977" CreationDate="2013-08-14T11:26:22.743" UserId="23119" Text="As suggested by Natheniel in   http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i,    I'll make a single question and let people vote on the answers (containing redundant tags to burninate.).               " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="a131624c-62f0-4993-8d9e-88515ae4c977" CreationDate="2013-08-14T11:26:22.743" UserId="23119" Text="Redundant tags: vote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="a131624c-62f0-4993-8d9e-88515ae4c977" CreationDate="2013-08-14T11:26:22.743" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10057" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="0321d608-543f-409c-9673-333c76b26c49" CreationDate="2013-08-14T11:33:43.257" UserId="23119" Comment="Actually, the tag synonyms could go into http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting/4772#4772 " Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="1e130c5d-40ee-4ea2-b7ed-893b752d9237" CreationDate="2013-08-14T12:59:22.223" UserId="2751" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE[tag:aircraft] and [tag:airplane]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These tags are first of all synonyms of each other and they do not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="5146df54-0e30-414c-bccd-5fd1a2fd3e52" CreationDate="2013-08-14T13:04:28.710" UserId="2751" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE[tag:aircraft]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="28d45fc3-cbb9-4e8c-9d39-1c574f016706" CreationDate="2013-08-14T14:19:47.827" UserId="2751" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE[tag:aircraft]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="96398bb4-05ce-4bc0-8552-2684fd493e3a" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:08:04.070" UserId="16660" Text="The [tag:physics-careers] tag seems reduntant and confusing, since questions asking for career advice are off-topic and I see little other uses for it. It also (weakly) suggests career advice questions are *on-topic* here, which may have lead to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74183/16660) being asked recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we get rid of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="eedf275f-9f66-4945-922f-4cbc0ea6e9e2" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:17:12.073" UserId="10522" Text="Why when someone retags a question (and also when he or she suggests an edit, I think) that question becomes the first in the list of 'active' questions???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very inconvenient — I hate it — because it puts back questions that are *really* active (with new answers, for example). Retagging doesn't sufficiently change a question to put it in the first position. The list of active questions should be reserved for questions containing real changes rather than minor, irrelevant changes such as one more or one less tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wasn't a problem for me until certain user started to retag questions permanently. For example, in the last two hours he has made 16 suggestions or editions (and often the number is even larger). I'm not against his editions or suggestions, I am against the questions he edits appear in the first position in the list of active question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="eedf275f-9f66-4945-922f-4cbc0ea6e9e2" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:17:12.073" UserId="10522" Text="Retagging and suggesting edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="eedf275f-9f66-4945-922f-4cbc0ea6e9e2" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:17:12.073" UserId="10522" Text="|discussion|feature-request|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="d1e3f816-5286-4e82-9a99-0984e644cdb8" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:24:31.977" UserId="16660" Comment="Correct two typos" Text="The [tag:physics-careers] tag seems redundant and confusing, since questions asking for career advice are off-topic and I see little other uses for it. It also (weakly) suggests career advice questions are *on-topic* here, which may have led to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74183/16660) being asked recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we get rid of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="db3cc032-d29a-442c-8a9a-5d8e9bd4af8c" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:25:46.663" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is there going to be a way for me to make a very minor edit, e.g. punctuation, without pushing the question to the top of the activity date sort?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10110" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="db3cc032-d29a-442c-8a9a-5d8e9bd4af8c" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:25:46.663" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|editing|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="fa9ec7eb-d16b-4caa-9f6d-0b8ba46f7368" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:26:46.307" UserId="2451" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Very minor edits, e.g. punctuation](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47/very-minor-edits-e-g-punctuation)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed a sign error in an old answer of mine. I wanted to fix it, but I don't really want to bring this old question to the top of the stack when there's fundamentally nothing new to read there. Is there a workaround for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="fa9ec7eb-d16b-4caa-9f6d-0b8ba46f7368" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:26:46.307" UserId="2451" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|editing|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="a7765820-97f3-480d-a7ae-86bb59984e75" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:30:48.650" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|editing|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="75d0f814-0896-4a36-99c6-53481fb94fff" CreationDate="2013-08-14T19:08:10.743" UserId="2451" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been decline many times, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is by definition a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="e9de4a2f-a82d-4160-a00e-ceb4bc66ce2b" CreationDate="2013-08-14T19:26:47.103" UserId="2451" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been decline many times, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is here by definition a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alternatively, if you are mainly interested in recent questions, you might consider to instead browse the [newest question tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) rather than the [front page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/). This way of browsing avoids all the edits, but the downside is that you will miss all the new answers to older questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="caeef4bf-6c26-45e9-a620-ec1135c4196b" CreationDate="2013-08-14T19:53:18.413" UserId="2451" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been declined many times, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is by definition here a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [This is not really a solution to the underlying problem, but you might find it useful anyway:] Alternatively, if you are mainly interested in recent questions, you might consider to instead browse the [newest question tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) rather than the [front page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/). This way of browsing avoids all the edits, but the downside is that you will miss all the new answers to older questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4792" RevisionGUID="c996a978-7a2d-433b-a736-fddbb1dc6151" CreationDate="2013-08-14T21:11:54.013" UserId="124" Text="&gt; All of his posts are &quot;jokes&quot; aimed at intentionally misleading, asking nonsensical questions, or generally mocking physics in some way. [...] The important thing is that upon closer inspection, many of them say nothing or say the wrong thing seemingly intentionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely what downvotes are to be used for. Note that the criterion for downvoting an answer is &quot;This answer is not _useful_.&quot;  It's not _only_ based on correctness. So if an answer (or question) is obscured by jargon, that alone could be sufficient cause to downvote it even if it's technically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an account has a large proportion of highly downvoted questions or answers, that can lead to moderator action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10118" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="a94f4a48-bea6-43c9-bfb4-a2dd96e3496b" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:03:18.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/367934513563054081" />
  <row Id="10119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="78b66438-114d-42c9-a6ba-36168729e6b4" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:42:28.417" UserId="10896" Text="The [physics-careers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physics-careers) tag contains almost all questions also tagged [soft-question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question). Those which don't are deemed off-topic and closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the questions ask about the details of working in some specific field. For eg.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Current scope of Chaos theory and non-linear dynamics?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30140/current-scope-of-chaos-theory-and-non-linear-dynamics)&#xD;&#xA; - [How can some-one independently do research in particle physics?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45315/how-can-some-one-independently-do-research-in-particle-physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we really need a specific tag about physics-careers? If so, what kind of *unique* questions would this tag describe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="78b66438-114d-42c9-a6ba-36168729e6b4" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:42:28.417" UserId="10896" Text="What can be done about a tag which is a complete subset of another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="78b66438-114d-42c9-a6ba-36168729e6b4" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:42:28.417" UserId="10896" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="f6a3a4ce-a5d0-42b8-b70a-4c6873f5615b" CreationDate="2013-08-15T10:36:29.273" UserId="7433" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the book questions** by adding the banner, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how can I help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a &quot;Could someone explain X to me&quot; instead. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before answering, please see [our policy] on resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book. Explain what the book is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which book is most suited for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, flag for community-wikification.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10123" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="6ffc7481-3a35-4ad9-abd9-d223a891bacb" CreationDate="2013-08-15T12:04:06.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/367980014161367040" />
  <row Id="10127" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="0e685508-d7fe-46c5-962d-d385e0c8132d" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:27:18.303" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74264/how-to-write-formulas-maths-expressions-in-the-forum" />
  <row Id="10128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="9004c276-12a7-4ae1-9c17-7d71ba8a9807" CreationDate="2013-08-15T12:56:27.997" UserId="27829" Text="I'm new to this forum, I was wondering how to write neat formulas in the post/question?&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to use MathXML and code everithing in XML or is there an editor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks, Luther" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="9004c276-12a7-4ae1-9c17-7d71ba8a9807" CreationDate="2013-08-15T12:56:27.997" UserId="27829" Text="How to write formulas/maths expressions in the forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="9004c276-12a7-4ae1-9c17-7d71ba8a9807" CreationDate="2013-08-15T12:56:27.997" UserId="27829" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10131" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="30827787-25d2-4932-96ac-b640541f325c" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:28:54.107" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2713],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10132" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="c5d4f623-0669-4923-9dd3-4c89d7fa074a" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:30:51.240" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10133" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="d2c917af-0a13-474b-88c0-7eb9c8ac5f48" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:30:59.757" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4080],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="cedeb886-9934-4fc7-81b7-dc7e85ec1e13" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:31:36.740" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I'm new to this forum, I was wondering how to write neat formulas in the post/question?&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to use MathXML and code everything in XML or is there an editor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10135" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="642b4dbf-7ac8-4e6b-ad38-913492549efd" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:34:43.693" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="4dc17e48-2f11-44fd-aabb-a9bfac3e1403" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:40:58.603" UserId="12798" Text="Is there some page that shows only questions that are filtered by my favorite tags? I don't mean favorite tags being highlighted on the main page and other pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, I would like to put forth a proposal for such a page. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="4dc17e48-2f11-44fd-aabb-a9bfac3e1403" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:40:58.603" UserId="12798" Text="Only questions with favourite tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="4dc17e48-2f11-44fd-aabb-a9bfac3e1403" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:40:58.603" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4798" RevisionGUID="2003dabe-1fcc-43c7-956e-12e787f026b4" CreationDate="2013-08-15T13:44:40.350" UserId="7433" Text="[Here?][1] Note that it's an aggregate of qs from your network-wide favorite tags. Of course, you can create your own filter and copy-paste the list of favorite tags into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/filters/46870/favorite-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="1c3a71f2-7081-46a7-9410-33366c4286f7" CreationDate="2013-08-15T15:20:20.283" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1238 characters in body; edited title" Text="This is a second revision based on Manishearth response below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He pointed out that there is this [feature][1] on the network wide site, to filter out questions based on tag groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I will be very happy to use this feature directly on the network wide site, I propose that we inherit this feature directly into Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a few advantages of this feature is introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It will be within the site itself, and users don't have to go anywhere else to access his feature. Its a rather obscure place to look for right now.&#xD;&#xA; - Each set of people with common interests(thus tags) have a place of their own.&#xD;&#xA; - People will be not on be on each others throats for space on the main page. The string theorists for example will not have to bother all about what the homework guys are doing on the other side of the digital space.&#xD;&#xA; - It would make the site much easier to use and add a lot of flexibility.&#xD;&#xA; - People interested in serious research, would have a much easier time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I picture that it would look a box on the left(or right) with tag groups that you have made. If you click on a particular group you will get the usual options(Active, Hot, Week, Month) relevant to the tags you selected. There will be an edit button to make new tag groups and modify or delete existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ofcourse this would only work to complement the Main Page, Which in recent times has become rather tedious to browse through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/filters/46870/favorite-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10141" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="1c3a71f2-7081-46a7-9410-33366c4286f7" CreationDate="2013-08-15T15:20:20.283" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1238 characters in body; edited title" Text="Tag Groups and search filters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="afef68ae-a933-4d06-8139-8bf64a05883e" CreationDate="2013-08-15T15:26:49.283" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1238 characters in body; edited title" Text="This is a second revision based on Manishearth response below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He pointed out that there is this [feature][1] on the network wide site, to filter out questions based on tag groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I will be very happy to use this feature directly on the network wide site, I propose that we inherit this feature directly into Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a few advantages of this feature is introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It will be within the site itself, and users don't have to go anywhere else to access his feature. Its a rather obscure place to look for right now.&#xD;&#xA; - Each set of people with common interests(thus tags) have a place of their own.&#xD;&#xA; - People will be not on be on each others throats for space on the main page. The string theorists for example will not have to bother all about what the homework guys are doing on the other side of the digital space.&#xD;&#xA; - It would make the site much easier to use and add a lot of flexibility.&#xD;&#xA; - People interested in serious research, would have a much easier time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I picture that it would look like a box on the left(or right) with tag groups that you have made. If you click on a particular group you will get the usual options(Active, Hot, Week, Month) relevant to the tags you selected. There will be an edit button to make new tag groups and modify or delete existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ofcourse this would only work to complement the Main Page, Which in recent times has become rather tedious to browse through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/filters/46870/favorite-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="1b55ba9d-b3be-4b73-8dbe-8d450e422696" CreationDate="2013-08-15T16:01:47.830" UserId="2751" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE [tag:fan]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just an everyday object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of a fan should be tagged with the proper real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="4375ddd1-6db1-4381-94b1-05955596cd35" CreationDate="2013-08-15T16:42:46.637" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="This is a second revision based on Manishearth response below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He pointed out that there is this [feature][1] on the network wide site, to filter out questions based on tag groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I will be very happy to use this feature directly on the network wide site, I propose that we inherit this feature directly into Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a few advantages if this feature is introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It will be within the site itself, and users don't have to go anywhere else to access his feature. Its a rather obscure place to look for right now.&#xD;&#xA; - Each set of people with common interests(thus tags) have a place of their own.&#xD;&#xA; - People will be not on be on each others throats for space on the main page. The string theorists for example will not have to bother all about what the homework guys are doing on their side of the digital space.&#xD;&#xA; - It would make the site much easier to use and add a lot of flexibility.&#xD;&#xA; - People interested in serious research, would have a much easier time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A box on the left(or right) with tag groups that you have created would be an ideal interface. Once you click on a group you will see the usual options(Active, Hot, Week, Month) relevant to the tags you selected. There will be an edit button to make new tag groups and modify or delete existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ofcourse this would only work to complement the Main Page, Which in recent times has become rather tedious to browse through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/filters/46870/favorite-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="f26cb551-dfa6-48c4-874f-2ea32f990a28" CreationDate="2013-08-15T17:01:04.267" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="This is a second revision based on Manishearth's response below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He pointed out that there is this [feature][1] on the network wide site, to filter out questions based on tag groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I will be very happy to use this feature on the network wide site, I propose that we inherit this feature directly into Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a few advantages if this feature is introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It will be within the site itself, and users don't have to go anywhere else to access his feature. Its a rather obscure place to look for right now.&#xD;&#xA; - Each set of people with common interests(thus tags) have a place of their own.&#xD;&#xA; - People will be not on be on each others throats for space on the main page. The string theorists for example will not have to bother all about what the homework guys are doing on their side of the digital space.&#xD;&#xA; - It would make the site much easier to use and add a lot of flexibility.&#xD;&#xA; - People interested in serious research, would have a much easier time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A box on the left(or right) with tag groups that you have created would be an ideal interface. Once you click on a group you will see the usual options(Active, Hot, Week, Month) relevant to the tags you selected. There will be an edit button to make new tag groups and modify or delete existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ofcourse this would only work to complement the Main Page, Which in recent times has become rather tedious to browse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/filters/46870/favorite-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="f0ecc682-f407-4cfa-9514-4347618d99e9" CreationDate="2013-08-15T18:16:03.403" UserId="124" Text="In general there's nothing wrong with having a tag that is a subset of another. After all, we do have broad subfield tags like [tag:electromagnetism] and [tag:quantum-field-theory] that many other tags will fit under. It's still useful to have those more specific tags to make it easier for people to filter posts as they like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, [tag:physics-careers] questions may well be off topic on the site. I don't know if we have an explicit discussion about it on meta but I don't believe there's any particular justification for them to be on topic. That's a separate issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10147" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="70434159-2beb-4a9b-94ef-dc2f37415fdb" CreationDate="2013-08-15T18:21:01.860" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="b0b28dff-5bbc-47f2-91c3-37a36c2963d6" CreationDate="2013-08-16T08:25:04.667" UserId="7433" Text="As a moderator on both the sites involved, I sort of support this -- this was the reason I proposed [soft migration](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration) in the first place. Note that soft migration is less complicated than your proposal -- we don't need editing and all, just that the posts should turn up on the main page and in searches. Allowing editing would probably be complicated in the implementation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; as the privileges would need to get carried over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had already added a ticker chatroom feed for [tag:physical-chemistry] (and I just added one for [tag:quantum-mechanics]) in the Phy.SE chatroom. If nobody has any objections I can convert it to a chat message feed (every new post is posted in the chatroom). It shouldn't cause too much clutter as Chem.SE doesn't have that much activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. These things always _seem_ easy to implement, but a large app like SE usually has complications in implementing such things. One great example is HTTPS -- to most, turning on HTTPS can be done with the flip of a switch. But for something like SE, [it's not so easy][1]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/04/23/stackoverflow-com-the-road-to-ssl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="ecea6fd6-6e21-40fd-ac2f-e5f416e3b41d" CreationDate="2013-08-16T09:53:04.543" UserId="4066" Text="We seem to be missing an off-topic close reason. I think. Unless I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I select off-topic, I can choose from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - homework with insufficient research&#xD;&#xA; - engineering&#xD;&#xA; - fringe rather than mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA; - belongs on math.SE or meta.physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are potentially plenty of off-topic questions which don't fall neatly into one of those four boxes, so I'd have to use the option of flagging a diamond mod with a custom reason. Which seems like overkill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think this is turning into a feature request for a new close reason (one that will also appear on the flagging screen): &quot;this question is not about physics concepts&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="ecea6fd6-6e21-40fd-ac2f-e5f416e3b41d" CreationDate="2013-08-16T09:53:04.543" UserId="4066" Text="Are we missing an off-topic close reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="ecea6fd6-6e21-40fd-ac2f-e5f416e3b41d" CreationDate="2013-08-16T09:53:04.543" UserId="4066" Text="|feature-request|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="25a6d115-e18d-4f7f-93b2-901fed30c367" CreationDate="2013-08-16T10:20:32.833" UserId="2751" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE [tag:aircraft]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="abd34bf0-9bd5-4e54-bb0f-9ebaeb65ea81" CreationDate="2013-08-16T11:43:57.950" UserId="7433" Text="There _is_ a freeform off topic reason*, but that's only for 3k users. These users get to type an &quot;other&quot; close reason. This becomes a comment on the question. Subsequent closevoters get the additional option to choose the same close reason (which results in a comment upvote). When the question is closed, it gets the default off topic wording (&quot;this is off topic for Physics because it doesn't fit the scope defined in the help center&quot; or something like that), and the comment stays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't available to flaggers, though. However, the off topic subreason you choose is not visible to anyone (even mods) -- the flag is always counted as &quot;off topic&quot; from the POV of reviewers and mods. So my advice would be to just pick a random offtopic subreason when none fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the question &quot;if it isn't visible, why make flaggers choose?&quot;. Well, these subreasons subtly teach new flaggers _what_ is flaggable. This happened to me on SO, I didn't know that certain types of questions could be closed until the flag changes came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that this system is slightly unweildy though, and have [proposed a change to it](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/188106/178438)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Known hereabouts as the [trolley car close reason](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n8CSK.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="74cb4a64-0b72-45a0-bd6d-3c78dd66c96b" CreationDate="2013-08-17T11:42:36.477" UserId="23119" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3009/how-exactly-does-curved-space-time-describe-the-force-of-gravity &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7781/does-the-curvature-of-spacetime-theory-assume-gravity/69092#69092   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45307/how-do-the-einsteins-differential-equation-of-the-curvature-of-spacetime-come-o/71454#71454 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many others, can't remember .         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10167" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="34d08ea8-094b-40cb-9d1e-b24728db17d0" CreationDate="2013-08-17T11:42:36.477" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="10168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="c0898364-42a9-447c-a11b-5fa714f26c70" CreationDate="2013-08-18T12:38:14.437" UserId="7433" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I'm new to physics.SE, but I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a while. Now, Wikipedia has a space for people to ask questions: the [Reference desk][1]. I was wondering if we could collaborate with [the science reference desk][2]. By collaborate, I mean that we should also check for and help answer unanswered questions over there, while they may do the same for us (Ill ask there if we reach a decision here). Aside from that, we can detour out-of-scope questions to each other. I myself was introduced to stackexchange when my question was ignored at RDS and I was told to try SE. Aside from that, RDS gets a lot more discussion on more interesting conundrums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RDS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="07618e08-65cb-49ad-9750-89ab2e2f46cf" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:26:31.813" UserId="26382" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74425/power-loss-from-chain-and-sprocket-combinations-of-equal-ratios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm simply asking what the difference of power would be to make an atv with a 13t sprocket accelerate the same as one with a 11t sprocket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I asking to be engineered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't or don't want to answer the question, that's fine.  But don't say its about engineering for a means to delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="07618e08-65cb-49ad-9750-89ab2e2f46cf" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:26:31.813" UserId="26382" Text="How is my question about engineering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="07618e08-65cb-49ad-9750-89ab2e2f46cf" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:26:31.813" UserId="26382" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="9fc67317-554b-4450-92ad-e5e9f33ad996" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:36:55.420" UserId="26382" Text="How about &quot;Because I don't feel like answering this question&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="00b4269a-f00b-4717-b84b-74f8926b8174" CreationDate="2013-08-19T05:19:44.250" UserId="6634" Text="The issue is you are not asking *how* or *why* something works, but rather for the final answer. The only question you ask is &quot;Would you agree its easier to accelerate the chain on the smaller sprocket than the larger?&quot; which is not a physics question. The rest of your post is either background information or a &quot;check my calculation&quot; section. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like your question re-opened, I would suggest that you find ways to pose it in a way that is looking for an understanding of what the physical differences might be between the two systems. Even removing the bulk of the information might help, the question can be as simple as &quot;Why does power decrease as cogs become smaller at a constant gear ratio?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers don't matter from the physics standpoint, nor does the application. But if you can phrase it as a &quot;Why does this work the way it does&quot; question, it would be on topic and would (hopefully) give you the understanding of the problem to solve for the numbers yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my two cents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="984a4015-24d7-4078-8775-b33c61392cbe" CreationDate="2013-08-19T05:25:59.560" UserId="6634" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The issue is you are not asking *how* or *why* something works, but rather for the final answer. The only question you ask is &quot;Would you agree its easier to accelerate the chain on the smaller sprocket than the larger?&quot; which is not a physics question. The rest of your post is either background information or a &quot;check my calculation&quot; section. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like your question re-opened, I would suggest that you find ways to pose it in a way that is looking for an understanding of what the physical differences might be between the two systems. Even removing the bulk of the information might help, the question can be as simple as &quot;Why does power decrease as cogs become smaller at a constant gear ratio?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers don't matter from the physics standpoint, nor does the application. But if you can phrase it as a &quot;Why does this work the way it does&quot; question, it **might** be on topic and would (hopefully) give you the understanding of the problem to solve for the numbers yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my two cents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="8d825aee-d7f1-4d85-9cb1-46591519cf92" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:43:22.077" UserId="25907" Text="I don't have rep on that site so could someone consider moving http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/79447/can-a-circuit-be-powered-from-earth-with-a-return-ground-on-mars to physics SE? It seems like a really good question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="8d825aee-d7f1-4d85-9cb1-46591519cf92" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:43:22.077" UserId="25907" Text="Transfer question from electrical engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="8d825aee-d7f1-4d85-9cb1-46591519cf92" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:43:22.077" UserId="25907" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10178" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="b1fdae0c-aeac-42df-b467-2017e27abc2a" CreationDate="2013-08-19T17:33:55.237" UserId="2751" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="693f1ec2-082f-488c-9db6-b106fc09f8fe" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:14:50.050" UserId="2751" Text="Recently, the book policy has been reevaluated, and Manishearth's [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751) how to change it seems to be well enough accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is still missing for the new book policy to become reality, is some people, who are willing to help with editing the new incoming questions and controlling the answers, such that they conform with the needes of the new policy as expl]ained [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So please come forward and write a short answer, if you are willing to help with this :-)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a big job, as the expected average rate of new incoming such questions when allowed again by the new policy, is about one question per two weeks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="693f1ec2-082f-488c-9db6-b106fc09f8fe" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:14:50.050" UserId="2751" Text="Please volunteer for help editing recommendation questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="693f1ec2-082f-488c-9db6-b106fc09f8fe" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:14:50.050" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="6a23a0dc-06a3-4ab1-a065-980f610ccfce" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:16:25.367" UserId="2751" Text="Yes, I am willing to help with editing the recommendation questions and controlling their answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="cda0e480-b4cb-4952-ac87-8b4c5187e27b" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:18:52.877" UserId="10896" Text="This question :http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74639/boeing-747-crashes-into-a-solid-diamond-skyscraper&#xD;&#xA;was highly downvoted, and put on hold recently giving a reason &quot;Primarily opinion based&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were no comments whatsoever, as to why this was opinion based or to explain the down-votes. Is this kind of behavior appropriate on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="cda0e480-b4cb-4952-ac87-8b4c5187e27b" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:18:52.877" UserId="10896" Text="Is Such a behaviour appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="cda0e480-b4cb-4952-ac87-8b4c5187e27b" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:18:52.877" UserId="10896" Text="|support|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="b9e17302-bb3f-48b8-b848-9055cefec2d9" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:51:21.787" UserId="2451" Text="I will only address the closure, not the down votes in this meta answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I closed this question (v4) as _primarily opinion based,_ not because there isn't a definite scientific answer that _in principle_ could be reach, but because to reach a scientific sound conclusion would mean to perform a tremendous amount of rigorous analysis, which almost certainly does not exist in the literature, which would be too much work to lay on our potential answerers, and which would not be conceptional in nature, or enlightening to any of our readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short of such scientific rigorous answers, the _answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions,_ as indicated in the the reason for closure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="5747091d-7463-4b82-abb2-561ad7677981" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:57:17.667" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I will only address the closure, not the down votes in this meta answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I closed this question (v4) as _primarily opinion based,_ not because there isn't a definite scientific answer that _in principle_ could be reach, but because to reach a scientific sound conclusion would mean to perform a tremendous amount of rigorous analysis, which almost certainly does not exist in the literature, which would be too much work to lay on our potential answerers, and which would not be conceptional in nature, or enlightening to any of our readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short of such scientific rigorous answers, the _answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions,_ as indicated in the reason for closure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="2c095041-2040-41b2-8bbc-0b4771f5aae2" CreationDate="2013-08-20T13:18:25.870" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="abcdefghijklmanopqurstuvwxyzi   " Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.)          etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4817" RevisionGUID="d7224bdf-f34b-4fc8-8556-9f89da40bf96" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:27:37.283" UserId="4066" Text="In this case, I think you did the right thing by posting here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The user][1] has either been trolling the site, or has written a lot of posts that are unintentionally very low quality (as someone mentioned elsewhere - any sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinuishable from trolling); either way, it's time for that to stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having drawn it to the attention of general posters like me, I hope that the bad questions and answers will continue to receive downvotes - and that's down to people reading this, to review the [questions][2] and [answers][3], and upvote or downvote (not in batches, as serial voting will get reversed automatically) as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I trust that the moderators will take appropriate action against the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12262/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12262/user12262?tab=questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12262/user12262?tab=answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="30ac5c31-f61f-4ff5-b5e1-3b0de074be26" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:35:36.780" UserId="7433" Text="I think what happened here is that the post was deemed &quot;Not Constructive&quot;, and was closed with the &quot;modern&quot; analogue of that close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask, &quot;what's wrong with the post then&quot;? Well, it's basically what's called an &quot;idle curiosity&quot; question -- you're not really aiming to learn something specific out of it, rather you're hoping to get some &quot;accidental learning&quot; from the post. It's not really focused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That in itself isn't that much of a problem on this SE site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however there's another issue: It's not specific enough. There's not enough information about the system to get a meaningful answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (alternatively, a good answer would require tons of analysis to get anywhere), which is sort of supported by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've asked many Physics teachers and each has their own theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it doesn't have a definitive answer and it's not really focused towards a concept, it _basically_ becomes a discussion. Such questions are great to discuss in person. You do indeed learn a lot by seeing the approaches of others. But the question itself doesn't really focus on any concept -- the learning value derives from the _possibility_ of one of the answers  teaching you a good concept. Coupled with it being discussiony, that makes it rather unsuitable for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. While most SE sites deal with &quot;problems you actually face&quot;, the science sites don't (Well, not exactly), as explained [here][2].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I suspect that supplying enough information to fix this would then just convert this to a homework/engineering problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/164692/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4819" RevisionGUID="301963ed-c397-4c3d-aaf9-de2c2cc31ef5" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:39:09.297" UserId="520" Text="I'm going to start by commenting the word &quot;appropriate&quot; in the context of getting downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People sometimes seem to come to meta looking for a ruling that the crowd was wrong, but that is not how it works. We *rely* on the crowd to get things right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes (up and down) are plenary: excepting vote fraud people are empowered to vote *any way they like*. Nor are down votes a bad thing: they are an integral part of the evaluation this site does on posted material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people also seem to be of the opinion that downvotes are intrinsically rude. Well, I disagree: there are things in this world that are not any good at all; that fail to meet even lax and minimum standards for quality. A correct evaluation of them *should* conclude that they are bad. On Stack Exchange sites posts which don't meet a minimum standard *should* be downvoted. I'd go so far as to say that if you don't cast several percent of your votes as down (when you have the power), then you are not doing your part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance I suspect that you are being punished for either being insensitive or for sensatioanlism. In either case that is the privilege of the people doing the voting. Of *course* it is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the close reason, I don't like &quot;Opinion based&quot; for this very much because a correct answer *could* arrived out after much simulation using a large cluster or supercomputer and person months of specialized materials simulation physicist or engineers. On the other hand, no one has done that work so you are in *practice* inviting people to guess or to have a &quot;conversation&quot; on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not be reopening this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4819" RevisionGUID="c65d7cd0-ce30-4e94-9285-08cf8ea5ee30" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:49:05.690" UserId="520" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm going to start by commenting the word &quot;appropriate&quot; in the context of getting downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People sometimes seem to come to meta looking for a ruling that the crowd was wrong, but that is not how it works. We *rely* on the crowd to get things right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes (up and down) are plenary: excepting vote fraud people are empowered to vote *any way they like*. Nor are down votes a bad thing: they are an integral part of the evaluation this site does on posted material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people also seem to be of the opinion that downvotes are intrinsically rude. Well, I disagree: there are things in this world that are not any good at all; that fail to meet even lax and minimum standards for quality. A correct evaluation of them *should* conclude that they are bad. On Stack Exchange sites posts which don't meet a minimum standard *should* be downvoted. I'd go so far as to say that if you don't cast several percent of your votes as down (when you have the power), then you are not doing your part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance I suspect that the OP is being punished for either being insensitive or for sensationalism. In either case that is the privilege of the people doing the voting. Of *course* it is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the close reason, I don't like &quot;Opinion based&quot; for this very much because a correct answer *could* arrived out after much simulation using a large cluster or supercomputer and person months of specialized materials simulation physicist or engineers. On the other hand, no one has done that work so you are in *practice* inviting people to guess or to have a &quot;conversation&quot; on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not be reopening this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="17ef3191-b5a3-47bb-a728-544956971377" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:02:46.190" UserId="7433" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I think what happened here is that the post was deemed &quot;Not Constructive&quot;, and was closed with the &quot;modern&quot; analogue of that close reason, &quot;primarily opinion based&quot;. POB doesn't apply as well as NC does here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask, &quot;what's wrong with the post then&quot;? Well, it's basically what's called an &quot;idle curiosity&quot; question -- you're not really aiming to learn something specific out of it, rather you're hoping to get some &quot;accidental learning&quot; from the post. It's not really focused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That in itself isn't that much of a problem on this SE site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however there's another issue: It's not specific enough. There's not enough information about the system to get a meaningful answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (alternatively, a good answer would require tons of analysis to get anywhere), which is sort of supported by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've asked many Physics teachers and each has their own theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it doesn't have a definitive answer and it's not really focused towards a concept, it _basically_ becomes a discussion. Such questions are great to discuss in person. You do indeed learn a lot by seeing the approaches of others. But the question itself doesn't really focus on any concept -- the learning value derives from the _possibility_ of one of the answers  teaching you a good concept. Coupled with it being discussiony, that makes it rather unsuitable for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. While most SE sites deal with &quot;problems you actually face&quot;, the science sites don't (Well, not exactly), as explained [here][2].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I suspect that supplying enough information to fix this would then just convert this to a homework/engineering problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/164692/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="814171bb-d8ad-430b-bf68-65fadf7b0438" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:08:02.630" UserId="2451" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="I will only address the closure, not the down votes in this meta answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I closed OP's question (v4) as _primarily opinion based,_ not because there isn't a definite scientific answer that _in principle_ could be reach, but because to reach a scientific sound conclusion would mean to perform a tremendous amount of rigorous analysis, which almost certainly does not exist in the literature, which would be too much work to lay on potential answerers, which would be technical rather than conceptional in nature, with a too&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; localized scope, which cannot be easily generalized to other situations, to be interesting or enlightening to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short of such scientific rigorous answers, the _answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions,_ as indicated in the reason for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; This does not imply that one is not allowed to ask difficult  advanced research questions at Phys.SE that might take a lot of work to answer fully. But there should be a reasonable potential scientific or intellectual payoff, which is completely lacking in this case, cf. comment below by Nathaniel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="4d46f0d2-0ffe-448a-a181-f751d2d1f9d8" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:24:04.377" UserId="20898" Text="Online resources, including Wikipedia articles, arXiv articles and other web pages are often cited and used in answers and questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions and answers on this site are expected to help future visitors. But, many of these online webpages are subject to change, modification or even removal. For example, Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more and arXiv articles may also change duo to uploading a newer version. The problem is much more severe with other web pages, where their address may change or the whole page may be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Wikipedia and arXiv articles, a *permanent link* to each version is provided by the site itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (many) other pages, the solution is to use a web archiving service, like [WebCite][1] to prevent link rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't we use permanent links/archived versions of cited online resources in questions/answers? I know that questions and answers are expected to be self-contained as much as possible, but citing a *more comprehensive* online source is usually unavoidable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it can be done automatically by a bot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For a discussion on the same issue on Wikipedia, see [here][3].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://webcitation.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="4d46f0d2-0ffe-448a-a181-f751d2d1f9d8" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:24:04.377" UserId="20898" Text="Should we use permanent links when citing online sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="4d46f0d2-0ffe-448a-a181-f751d2d1f9d8" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:24:04.377" UserId="20898" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="8c4e770a-5baa-4bf5-be9c-66c8dba0ee56" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:28:14.743" UserId="12798" Text="While I might not be capable of answering this question, the question itself has been extremely well posed, I think it should have a well defined answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the correct analysis of the stress required to fracture a material must be involved in some way. This question is not very different atleast conceptually from a slightly different question, &quot;How much force do I need to apply on a diamond rod to break it?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons I request reopening of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think that the OP must clarify what the mass of the plane is and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4822" RevisionGUID="f80857a0-1359-4209-bd90-94cd5b75135b" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:31:19.453" UserId="2451" Text="Permalinks should not be demanded, but it should definitely be encouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phys.SE is still less than 3 years old, but link rot may become a problem in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4822" RevisionGUID="a8f44b67-a78b-4b42-8f47-1db930280ebc" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:36:26.267" UserId="2451" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Permalinks should not be demanded, but it should definitely be encouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phys.SE is still less than 3 years old, but link rot may become a problem in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. just yesterday we almost had to close [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6446/2451) question because the main link is gone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="2f5aca3a-a8fc-43e4-9cc5-f5cb585fac96" CreationDate="2013-08-20T22:21:14.550" UserId="8563" Text="I think this is not a particularly big problem given the nature of most common links in this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your two examples, Wikipedia and arXiv updates are natural and linking to an old version is bad practice. If the Wikipedia edits are radical enough that the original point is lost then there is always the edit history both on their side and ours that it's possible to reconstruct what the original link was. ArXiv edits are very rarely substantive enough to remove crucial information, and if they are it is a strong indication that that content was unreliable (and, again, there is the edit history to fall back on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is definitely something to think about, and we should form a consensus policy about it. I have one very specific request to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Always use DOI links when linking to online articles.** A Digital Object Identifier is a permanent link and will always follow the document, while journal website urls can change and even be inaccessible to users in other locations. Find the DOI marker on the page, e.g. `doi:10.1038/nature12422`, and link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12422.&#xD;&#xA; - While we're at this, when linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page (arxiv.org/abs/...) and not directly to the pdf, as a courtesy to users on lower bandwidths. If the paper has been published (which will be noted on the arXiv abstract), include a link to the journal version, even if it's paywalled, if only as a courtesy to the referees' hard work.&#xD;&#xA; - If citing a pdf of a paper or similar that is _not_ on the arXiv or a similar repository, **use a web citation service to protect it**, or at least make a local copy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demanding permanent links is rather too harsh and will slow down the site, particularly with new users. If someone posts a particularly fragile link, change it to a more permanent one (using WebCite, the Wayback Machine, or similar if appropriate) and refer them to this question. More experienced users should be proactive in editing such links when they look fragile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am making this answer community wiki so further policy points can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10205" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="93ec3957-bac8-4af9-acb7-bf8750ffebc8" CreationDate="2013-08-20T22:21:14.550" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="10208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="98b1158d-fe1a-4387-a877-85b7f307cb49" CreationDate="2013-08-21T07:22:49.683" UserId="28212" Text="Given the assumptions, I believe the question is well posed. In the real engineering world, this type of calculation is frequently performed and simulated, and the results are far from &quot;opinion based.&quot; It seems most people that are against this question are more inclined to theoretical physics / high level math. While I'm sure this question can have a highly-theoretical answer, it's most likely best answered as you answer &quot;how much torque can I apply to this beam before it breaks.&quot; You answer it with having some material properties of the material (which were found by experimentation). &quot;Best engineering&quot; way to answer the question would be to simulate it in a FEA program such as Catia, assuming you know the diamond properties and just model the plane crash as a impact force... and see what happens. I don't see how that result would be &quot;opinion based.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="8b948d6a-d17f-461d-90d1-82c00f3ab10d" CreationDate="2013-08-21T07:31:52.343" UserId="28212" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Given the assumptions, I believe the question is well posed. In the real engineering world, this type of calculation is frequently performed and simulated, and the results are far from &quot;opinion based.&quot; It seems most people that are against this question are more inclined to theoretical physics / high level math. While I'm sure this question can have a highly-theoretical answer, it's most likely best answered as you answer &quot;how much torque can I apply to this beam before it breaks.&quot; You answer it with having some material properties of the material (which were found by experimentation). A very good &quot;engineering&quot; way to answer the question would be to do pen-and-paper calculations with using Mohr's circles (which should be straight-forward on a rectangular structure) and &quot;check&quot; the results by simulating it in a FEA program such as Catia, assuming you know the diamond properties and just model the plane crash as a impact force... and see what happens. I don't see how that result would be &quot;opinion based.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="018d42e4-fd18-4158-891d-33d1f44e6f2a" CreationDate="2013-08-21T07:36:54.740" UserId="28212" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Given the assumptions, I believe the question is well posed. In the real engineering world, this type of calculation is frequently performed and simulated, and the results are far from &quot;opinion based.&quot; It seems most people that are against this question are more inclined to theoretical physics / high level math. While I'm sure this question can have a highly-theoretical answer, it's most likely best answered as you answer &quot;how much torque can I apply to this beam before it breaks.&quot; You answer it with having some material properties of the material (which were found by experimentation). A very good &quot;engineering&quot; way to answer the question would be to do pen-and-paper calculations using Mohr's circles and check to see if anything exceeds diamond's ultimate shear/tensile stresses (which should be straight-forward on a rectangular structure) and &quot;check&quot; the results by simulating it in a FEA program such as Catia, assuming you know the diamond properties and just model the plane crash as a impact force... and see what happens. I don't see how that result would be &quot;opinion based.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="d105dfe7-1a4d-485a-9663-e88e141cc2ef" CreationDate="2013-08-21T08:18:20.347" UserId="22254" Text="I was the first downvoter on the question and I downvoted it now, again after the question was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the downvote is that the poster seems to have no compassion to the relatives of those who perished 12 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, I don't have to explain the reasoning behind my downvotes. But for this one, I think an exception is in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will post this as a comment to the main question as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10212" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="2d0dd186-7d44-49a1-9f63-37fcd206c9d6" CreationDate="2013-08-21T11:53:11.563" UserId="2751" />
  <row Id="10213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="89c1588b-09d0-4d29-a8e2-9737f1903f8a" CreationDate="2013-08-21T13:12:27.387" UserId="28442" Text="Given the sensitive nature of the question, I've decided that it is now beyond the point of repair. I made the mistake of including sensitive details, which were too closely linked with the events of the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing my question to make it less descriptive would simply ruin it's purpose. I have for those reasons decided to delete the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stand corrected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10215" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="bb9d1a24-b50b-411b-a81d-7782983d1a9f" CreationDate="2013-08-21T15:11:39.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/370201537911746560" />
  <row Id="10216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="f7307953-6973-4dbb-9e07-3a35d518ec1a" CreationDate="2013-08-21T19:28:47.780" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Permalinks should be actively discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a WP article changes, the change is probably an improvement (or at least this is true to the extent that WP is a system that manages to work as intended). When a paper on arxiv changes, the change is almost certainly an improvement. If we point people to out of date versions, the most common effect will be none whatsoever, while the second most common effect will be to make their lives worse by, e.g., letting them take an equation out of a paper without realizing that a factor of 2 was inadvertently left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everybody understands this and won't be particularly surprised. There might be more of an issue if we were using WP as a definitive source of information that would settle any argument for once and for all -- but of course we're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not referencing historical documents or holy texts. SE answers are supposed to be self-contained and valid on their own merits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="a6aae825-71d4-4e7f-bf60-d90f870bbd08" CreationDate="2013-08-21T19:34:14.507" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Permalinks should be actively discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a WP article changes, the change is probably an improvement (or at least this is true to the extent that WP is a system that manages to work as intended). When a paper on arxiv changes, the change is almost certainly an improvement. If we point people to out of date versions, the most common effect will be none whatsoever, while the second most common effect will be to make their lives worse by, e.g., letting them take an equation out of a paper without realizing that there was a wrong factor of 2 -- the factor of 2 being irrelevant to the SE discussion, but potentially a source of pain and suffering for the unwitting user of the permalink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everybody understands this and won't be particularly surprised. There might be more of an issue if we were using WP as a definitive source of information that would settle any argument for once and for all -- but of course we're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not referencing historical documents or holy texts. SE answers are supposed to be self-contained and valid on their own merits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="b34e8224-3fc6-48ed-892c-7e3e4ee4aa73" CreationDate="2013-08-21T19:41:42.960" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Permalinks should be actively discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a WP article changes, the change is probably an improvement (or at least this is true to the extent that WP is a system that manages to work as intended). When a paper on arxiv changes, the change is almost certainly an improvement. If we point people to out of date versions, the most common effect will be none whatsoever, while the second most common effect will be to make their lives worse by, e.g., letting them take an equation out of a paper without realizing that there was a wrong factor of 2 -- the factor of 2 being irrelevant to the SE discussion, but potentially a source of pain and suffering for the unwitting user of the permalink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everybody understands this and won't be particularly surprised. There might be more of an issue if we were using WP as a definitive source of information that would settle any argument for once and for all -- but of course we're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not referencing historical documents or holy texts. SE answers are supposed to be self-contained and valid on their own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A links to a publishers' paywall page is a different issue from WP and arxiv. Such a link is very nearly useless. The publishers may claim that the url is permanent, but in reality it probably has a shelf life of 5 years or something, simply because that's a typical half-life for any web site. It's preferable to link to the paper on arxiv, if it's there, or else to a site like adsabs.harvard.edu that is likely to exist for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting issue to consider is the impermanence of SE itself. SE's data is potentially immortal, because it's CC-licensed, but SE's servers and urls are just web sites running proprietary software, and by default should be expected to have the typical 5-year half-life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="36c53fab-d6f0-455c-bab6-6623bba5f2b9" CreationDate="2013-08-21T19:47:37.050" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Permalinks should be actively discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a WP article changes, the change is probably an improvement (or at least this is true to the extent that WP is a system that manages to work as intended). When a paper on arxiv changes, the change is almost certainly an improvement. If we point people to out of date versions, the most common effect will be none whatsoever, while the second most common effect will be to make their lives worse by, e.g., letting them take an equation out of a paper without realizing that there was a wrong factor of 2 -- the factor of 2 being irrelevant to the SE discussion, but potentially a source of pain and suffering for the unwitting user of the permalink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everybody understands this and won't be particularly surprised. There might be more of an issue if we were using WP as a definitive source of information that would settle any argument for once and for all -- but of course we're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not referencing historical documents or holy texts. SE answers are supposed to be self-contained and valid on their own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A links to a publishers' paywall page is a different issue from WP and arxiv. Such a link is very nearly useless. The publishers may claim that the url is permanent, but in reality it probably has a shelf life of 5 years or something, simply because that's a typical half-life for any web site. It's preferable to link to the paper on arxiv, if it's there, or else to a site like adsabs.harvard.edu that is likely to preserve the abstract and bibliographical information for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting issue to consider is the impermanence of SE itself. SE's data is potentially immortal, because it's CC-licensed, but SE is just some web sites running proprietary software, and by default should be expected to have the typical 5-year half-life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option that deserves serious consideration is that if you have a PDF of a paper, you can put it on the web for others to use. This could be legal or illegal (depending on your country's laws on fair use, etc.), moral or immoral (depending on your opinion of the morality of the current copyright regime). I sometimes put papers, especially historical ones, on scribd.com. When I link to them from SE, I try to remember to warn people of the potential copyright issue if they click through on the link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="7ce7d146-9107-492e-9f4c-82e22ce3b8ae" CreationDate="2013-08-21T20:08:58.873" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="deleted 759 characters in body" Text="Permalinks should be actively discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a WP article changes, the change is probably an improvement (or at least this is true to the extent that WP is a system that manages to work as intended). When a paper on arxiv changes, the change is almost certainly an improvement. If we point people to out of date versions, the most common effect will be none whatsoever, while the second most common effect will be to make their lives worse by, e.g., letting them take an equation out of a paper without realizing that there was a wrong factor of 2 -- the factor of 2 being irrelevant to the SE discussion, but potentially a source of pain and suffering for the unwitting user of the permalink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everybody understands this and won't be particularly surprised. There might be more of an issue if we were using WP as a definitive source of information that would settle any argument for once and for all -- but of course we're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not referencing historical documents or holy texts. SE answers are supposed to be self-contained and valid on their own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option that deserves serious consideration is that if you have a PDF of a paper, you can put it on the web for others to use. This could be legal or illegal (depending on your country's laws on fair use, etc.), moral or immoral (depending on your opinion of the morality of the current copyright regime). I sometimes put papers, especially historical ones, on scribd.com. When I link to them from SE, I try to remember to warn people of the potential copyright issue if they click through on the link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4822" RevisionGUID="3824374c-25e6-412b-9ecc-e3a2fbf68aff" CreationDate="2013-08-21T20:35:39.303" UserId="2451" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="We certainly endorse that users amend their posts with relevant links, as long as the post is self-contained, and not just a link farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Permalinks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permalink) should not be demanded, but it should definitely be encouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phys.SE is still less than 3 years old, but [link rot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot) may become a problem in the future. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="0f968998-e7c6-4a99-a815-116284da6a40" CreationDate="2013-08-21T23:13:28.340" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Permalinks to frozen versions of references should be actively discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a WP article changes, the change is probably an improvement (or at least this is true to the extent that WP is a system that manages to work as intended). When a paper on arxiv changes, the change is almost certainly an improvement. If we point people to out of date versions, the most common effect will be none whatsoever, while the second most common effect will be to make their lives worse by, e.g., letting them take an equation out of a paper without realizing that there was a wrong factor of 2 -- the factor of 2 being irrelevant to the SE discussion, but potentially a source of pain and suffering for the unwitting user of the permalink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wikipedia articles may change significantly and do not contain (exactly) the cited material any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everybody understands this and won't be particularly surprised. There might be more of an issue if we were using WP as a definitive source of information that would settle any argument for once and for all -- but of course we're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not referencing historical documents or holy texts. SE answers are supposed to be self-contained and valid on their own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option that deserves serious consideration is that if you have a PDF of a paper, you can put it on the web for others to use. This could be legal or illegal (depending on your country's laws on fair use, etc.), moral or immoral (depending on your opinion of the morality of the current copyright regime). I sometimes put papers, especially historical ones, on scribd.com. When I link to them from SE, I try to remember to warn people of the potential copyright issue if they click through on the link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="4851882c-8093-4228-8579-07d6a9306936" CreationDate="2013-08-21T23:22:53.763" UserId="8563" Comment="added 479 characters in body" Text="I think this is not a particularly big problem given the nature of most common links in this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your two examples, Wikipedia and arXiv updates are natural and linking to an old version is bad practice. If the Wikipedia edits are radical enough that the original point is lost then there is always the edit history both on their side and ours that it's possible to reconstruct what the original link was. ArXiv edits are very rarely substantive enough to remove crucial information, and if they are it is a strong indication that that content was unreliable (and, again, there is the edit history to fall back on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is definitely something to think about, and we should form a consensus policy about it. I propose the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Always use DOI links when linking to online articles.** A Digital Object Identifier is a permanent link and will always follow the document, while journal website urls can change and even be inaccessible to users in other locations. Find the DOI marker on the page, e.g. `doi:10.1038/nature12422`, and link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12422.&#xD;&#xA; - While we're at this, when linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page (arxiv.org/abs/...) and not directly to the pdf, as a courtesy to users on lower bandwidths. If the paper has been published (which will be noted on the arXiv abstract), include a link to the journal version, even if it's paywalled, if only as a courtesy to the referees' hard work.&#xD;&#xA; - If citing a pdf of a paper or similar that is _not_ on the arXiv or a similar repository (e.g. a university repository), **use a web citation service to protect it**, or at least make a local copy.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing Wikipedia or the arXiv, **always cite the most recent version**. Revisions will most likely be improvements, and if it is unclear what the reference was for there is enough edit history to reconstruct that.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing external websites, always cite the page's current position. If you consider there is a danger of link rot, include a webcite or webarchive link, or make sure there is an appropriate version of the page in the Wayback Machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demanding permanent links is rather too harsh and will slow down the site, particularly with new users. If someone posts a particularly fragile link, change it to a more permanent one (using WebCite, the Wayback Machine, or similar if appropriate) and refer them to this question. More experienced users should be proactive in editing such links when they look fragile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am making this answer community wiki so further policy points can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="a21b973b-5bb9-476d-bbfb-8740c4cd3309" CreationDate="2013-08-21T23:29:25.623" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="openlibrary urls for books" Text="I think this is not a particularly big problem given the nature of most common links in this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your two examples, Wikipedia and arXiv updates are natural and linking to an old version is bad practice. If the Wikipedia edits are radical enough that the original point is lost then there is always the edit history both on their side and ours that it's possible to reconstruct what the original link was. ArXiv edits are very rarely substantive enough to remove crucial information, and if they are it is a strong indication that that content was unreliable (and, again, there is the edit history to fall back on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is definitely something to think about, and we should form a consensus policy about it. I propose the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Always use DOI links when linking to online articles.** A Digital Object Identifier is a permanent link and will always follow the document, while journal website urls can change and even be inaccessible to users in other locations. Find the DOI marker on the page, e.g. `doi:10.1038/nature12422`, and link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12422. For books that don't have DOI's, a good alternative is an [Open Library][1] url.&#xD;&#xA; - While we're at this, when linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page (arxiv.org/abs/...) and not directly to the pdf, as a courtesy to users on lower bandwidths. If the paper has been published (which will be noted on the arXiv abstract), include a link to the journal version, even if it's paywalled, if only as a courtesy to the referees' hard work.&#xD;&#xA; - If citing a pdf of a paper or similar that is _not_ on the arXiv or a similar repository (e.g. a university repository), **use a web citation service to protect it**, or at least make a local copy.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing Wikipedia or the arXiv, **always cite the most recent version**. Revisions will most likely be improvements, and if it is unclear what the reference was for there is enough edit history to reconstruct that.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing external websites, always cite the page's current position. If you consider there is a danger of link rot, include a webcite or webarchive link, or make sure there is an appropriate version of the page in the Wayback Machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demanding permanent links is rather too harsh and will slow down the site, particularly with new users. If someone posts a particularly fragile link, change it to a more permanent one (using WebCite, the Wayback Machine, or similar if appropriate) and refer them to this question. More experienced users should be proactive in editing such links when they look fragile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am making this answer community wiki so further policy points can be added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openlibrary.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="1a68bf47-3f42-4bf5-86da-d5e6e9a03054" CreationDate="2013-08-22T01:55:00.313" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I wasn't even aware of this situation when it happened, and I'm not sure how I personally would have voted/dealt with close votes, but consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our close reasons often overlap, and the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; consensus could probably have been phrased in terms of our engineering close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems where the solution depends on too many variables, or where the variables are not particularly constrained or even fully defined, are considered off-topic by association with engineering. The reason is, the correctness of any answer given depends sensitively on all sorts of extra information, much of it not necessarily related to any particular physics concept. For example, the scaling for how a beam deflects under a load *may* be a valid physics question, but a question that relies on the exact dimensions and material properties of some particular beam is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the problem goes beyond universally-accepted underlying physical concepts, the only way to generate any solution at all is to make a number of assumptions. Thus engineering questions are generally also off-topic as opinion-based, simply by virtue of the fact that they ask a bunch of physicists/physics enthusiasts for their opinions to fill in the blanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned elsewhere, there were plenty of downvotes and surrounding controversy. I suspect the wording of the question was such as to amplify whatever response it was going to get anyway, and as I've explained above, the response was likely to be &quot;this doesn't belong here&quot; for one reason or another. This isn't to say that a little whimsy or an attempt to connect to current events/the Zeitgeist isn't allowed (I'm certainly guilty of titling questions so as to make them more attention grabbing), but understand that this method will amplify negative reactions as much as positive and so is inherently risky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="b1720f7a-4bd2-4096-bc98-c12eade0812e" CreationDate="2013-08-22T16:58:20.213" UserId="11062" Text="Well, I don't point this specifically on anyone, But, err...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we had this scheme of *automated close reason* insertion, I've seen Physics.SE people suggest new users (who ask questions *vaguely* or badly or whatever) on how to ask questions here. At least, they've pointed out what's wrong with a particular question. Nowadays, I barely see such constructive comments. Recently, we had a discussion on this. [And, I said](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4815/is-such-a-behaviour-appropriate#comment13410_4815)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The automated close reason is for the purpose that users don't necessarily have to add comments :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite happy that I added *&quot;necessarily&quot;* in that phrase. So, have we *really* stopped constructive commenting? I know there's no necessity that you should insert comments. But, inserting comments would help a lot. And, stopping *comments* isn't such a good idea. It'd make things worse..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="b1720f7a-4bd2-4096-bc98-c12eade0812e" CreationDate="2013-08-22T16:58:20.213" UserId="11062" Text="Why did we stop leaving comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="b1720f7a-4bd2-4096-bc98-c12eade0812e" CreationDate="2013-08-22T16:58:20.213" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="ff4b6d8c-4242-44cc-a6d0-977e74c1bc2b" CreationDate="2013-08-22T17:12:26.600" UserId="11062" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't point this specifically on anyone, But, err...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we had this scheme of *automated close reason* insertion, I've seen Physics.SE people suggest new users (who ask questions *vaguely* or badly or whatever) on how to ask questions here. At least, they've pointed out what's wrong with a particular question. Nowadays, I barely see such constructive comments. For example, [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74926/11062). Recently, we had a discussion on this. [And, I said](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4815/#comment13410_4815)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The automated close reason is for the purpose that users don't necessarily have to add comments :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite happy that I added *&quot;necessarily&quot;* in that phrase. So, have we *really* stopped constructive commenting? I know there's no necessity that you should insert comments. But, inserting comments would help a lot. And, stopping *comments* isn't such a good idea. It'd make things worse..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10230" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="ff4b6d8c-4242-44cc-a6d0-977e74c1bc2b" CreationDate="2013-08-22T17:12:26.600" UserId="11062" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Why have we stopped leaving comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="dcbb4cac-111d-48e4-b913-b081b40e72cf" CreationDate="2013-08-22T18:42:31.213" UserId="124" Text="You're seeing fewer comments because the close reasons are now more specific, and they explain what needs to be improved about the question, which is what we used to use comments for. If you would write a comment that simply restates what is in the close reason, there's no point in doing that. Of course if you have something to say above and beyond what the close reason includes, then you can certainly still use a comment for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="1d08b135-b2c3-48d5-b972-99f984cd48aa" CreationDate="2013-08-23T16:29:48.747" UserId="23119" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Soccer_ball_animated.svg&quot;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10236" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="0c443951-2065-4cf6-91fe-25a5b46b9aa5" CreationDate="2013-08-23T17:29:17.397" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [d6aa4d31-c17b-4ae5-bfdd-cb5dbe6b1960]" Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="a0cffcab-9318-4077-a287-83d3bd456946" CreationDate="2013-08-23T19:03:28.940" UserId="10896" Text="There are quite a few questions recently which are off-topic here and belong to Chemistry.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we add that to the migrate options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. question : http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75081/soap-like-chemical-causing-the-water-to-evacuate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="a0cffcab-9318-4077-a287-83d3bd456946" CreationDate="2013-08-23T19:03:28.940" UserId="10896" Text="Add an off-topic migrate to Chemistry.SE close reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="a0cffcab-9318-4077-a287-83d3bd456946" CreationDate="2013-08-23T19:03:28.940" UserId="10896" Text="|feature-request|migration|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="07f4126d-2d81-422e-a697-68adb385ae3e" CreationDate="2013-08-23T19:04:33.763" UserId="124" Text="Chemistry is a beta site, and as a rule we shouldn't really be migrating to beta sites. So I don't see this happening. Once Chemistry graduates to full site status, then sure, we can reconsider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, if a question seems like it should be migrated to a beta site, just flag it as off topic or vote to close as off topic if you have sufficient reputation. When the questions accumulates 3 or 4 close votes, a moderator will take care of migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10241" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="c3eb08e2-a0b0-4e51-b4ac-d1259e34c206" CreationDate="2013-08-24T00:14:12.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/371062851194331136" />
  <row Id="10250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="1c2d8c63-b393-421b-ab78-d4ccd74ecd8b" CreationDate="2013-08-24T11:37:28.413" UserId="23119" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=​&quot;/​help/​badges/​49/​populist&quot; title=​&quot;gold badge:​ Highest scoring answer that outscored an accepted answer with score of more than 10 by more than 2x&quot; class=​&quot;badge&quot;&gt;​…​&lt;/a&gt;​ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10251" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="6c1e8fc1-4f14-4cf6-a877-74111f7f8274" CreationDate="2013-08-24T11:45:13.953" UserId="23119" Comment="retagged , .    " Text="|support|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="cdc4cd01-1c6a-4b7c-9a18-b2538bc1576f" CreationDate="2013-08-24T14:52:53.330" UserId="24791" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="4c75f419-a735-4a89-80a7-fdb2d1aad7a1" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:32:50.363" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10254" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="03383f42-61f3-4fd5-83a1-e943c5203bb0" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:33:25.557" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [cdc4cd01-1c6a-4b7c-9a18-b2538bc1576f]" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10255" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="65d52425-5231-481a-a962-6938f134ddc1" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:33:31.713" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [4c75f419-a735-4a89-80a7-fdb2d1aad7a1]" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10256" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="89877d18-db67-42fc-abc7-00e96f8abf34" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:33:36.497" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [03383f42-61f3-4fd5-83a1-e943c5203bb0]" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10257" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="79cfdabf-d96f-4769-8f1c-6473d57fcbcc" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:33:45.107" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [65d52425-5231-481a-a962-6938f134ddc1]" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10258" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="1399b897-0fc8-4943-b886-7af985593ab3" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:33:51.920" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [89877d18-db67-42fc-abc7-00e96f8abf34]" Text="Yes, I will try to help; based on my own state of knowledge though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="3d642a6e-a177-4b38-a263-2dd48ea57122" CreationDate="2013-08-24T17:45:24.987" UserId="23119" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There are quite a few questions recently which are off-topic here and belong to Chemistry.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we add that to the migrate options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. question : http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75081/soap-like-chemical-causing-the-water-to-evacuate   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="06b62971-14d2-498b-8c52-087452a282a5" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:26:19.600" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Just a thought - perhaps this is an unintended side effect of having more close voters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previously, 1 or 2 votes would accumulate, and a mod would then cast a binding vote and perhaps feel obliged to explain it more (to try to diffuse the perceived threatening nature of having a mod near-unilaterally close your post, as would be disheartening on any internet site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now more of these close votes come from us regular users who, as 1 of 5, feel the responsibility doesn't rest squarely on our shoulders to communicate with the OP. In this case, it seems responsibility is not conserved - the more it is shared, the more it is diminished overall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="6ded7c1f-8a13-4163-a1e0-4579b0f45cc9" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:44:24.347" UserId="124" Text="I just noticed the question on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics which you have probably seen if you're reading this. It's attracted a lot of positive attention, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any reason it should be an appropriate question for the site. Consider these excerpts from the [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is not based on an actual problem, but it is open-ended pretty much by definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question hits all three of these points on the nose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one doesn't, it's just assembling a list without any specific prompt for information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naming a breakthrough is not a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As detailed [elsewhere on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi), questions with these attributes fail to increase the quality of the site at best, and actively pollute it at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have an [active discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list) (in a long-term sense) on list questions, but even looking at the suggestions made in that question and answers, nothing seems to allow an all-encompassing list of breakthroughs. A common opinion is that list questions of limited scope are likely to be okay, but this is absolutely not one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question, primarily to people who upvoted or reopen-voted the &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question: in doing so, it seems that you're suggesting we ignore fully half a page of the help center _and_ an emerging consensus on list questions from this site itself. **Why?** What are your arguments that these policies don't apply to this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="6ded7c1f-8a13-4163-a1e0-4579b0f45cc9" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:44:24.347" UserId="124" Text="Why should the &quot;list of breakthroughs in physics&quot; be allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="6ded7c1f-8a13-4163-a1e0-4579b0f45cc9" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:44:24.347" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10264" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="17e2c3d5-9b7a-48e7-88df-7a27885c8d87" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:47:15.673" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10265" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="d8062817-14c4-4847-80a9-a8a0be0c2d80" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:47:15.673" UserId="124" Comment="1010" />
  <row Id="10266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="eacffd34-faa1-498c-ba27-3197a20dd72f" CreationDate="2013-08-24T21:29:05.790" UserId="16660" Text="It seems people are arguing that this question has the potential to elicit answers containing fairly high-level and interesting physics. Of course I agree it's interesting and enjoyable to read about accidental discoveries of important phenomena or physical principles/laws. And as pointed out in the comments to the question, such answers **might** indeed encourage experts to join the site (more so than, say, simple kinematics questions or copy-paste homework ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are undoubtedly entire books devoted (completely or in part) to such discoveries. Furthermore I think the experts-argument is insufficient. Not only is it a vague way to judge whether or not a question should be allowed, I think it's far worse to undermine current policy than it is to close one question that may or may not attract good new users. Of course, if the policy changed, it could become an allowed question. So I would encourage people to focus their energy on finding a good new list policy that **includes** positive, interesting list questions (like this one, perhaps altered slightly) but **excludes** the problematic ones - instead of putting it all into battles about specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I agree that certain list questions have the potential to be acceptable and attract good new users, experts. But I also believe we should not undermine current policy and instead try to improve it if possible. David is right when he points out how this specific questions fails to pass the current filter, so it should be closed. Therefore I re-iterate: please focus your energy on developing an improved lists policy. It's more difficult than semi-anarchistically fighting specific battles, but it is very important and far more useful. *Lose one in the short run, save a thousand in the long.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="d96e9fe9-f094-40c5-b0da-ac0bc2f0ea17" CreationDate="2013-08-24T22:22:44.190" UserId="8563" Text="Personally, I voted to reopen because I felt this particular question would be a valuable resource and a positive addition to the site. I understand many of your concerns and agree that it would be a blatant exception to current policy; I also agree with Wouter that communal energies are best directed to the design and implementation of a more comprehensive list policy that will not lead to site pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I must say I am disappointed that this question was closed by moderation action and that it took this long for a moderator to bring this to meta. The review queue is by now very efficient: out of the 50 newest closed questions, 33 were closed with at least four people involved. The post was in the review queue and would have been dealt with by the community, with a woulda-coulda-shoulda outcome that's useless to speculate upon now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the question had been voted off the review queue, I would have appreciated a post like this before, or at least shortly after the moderator closure. Note that I'm not in any way advocating such discussion for all moderator actions and I speak exclusively of this question: it was a well-phrased question (if somewhat naive to the policies of this site) that attracted positive attention, in the form of upvotes and answers, and it was clear that a lot of people were watching. I feel this question was an exception enough that it warranted a more open, discussed and justified closure process. (A similar feeling may have motivated the other upvoters and reopen-voters, I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, I've said my piece. Now I'll go have a think about list question policies, instead of brooding about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10268" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="747158de-92e1-4e81-8c47-d6ef308c0a63" CreationDate="2013-08-25T00:15:12.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/371425491049529344" />
  <row Id="10269" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="947803a9-83c0-43a7-b5e9-e84ce2339045" CreationDate="2013-08-25T02:40:40.477" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10270" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="8bbb2ce3-4f3c-4902-a86e-057d4dcbfffd" CreationDate="2013-08-25T02:40:40.477" UserId="520" Comment="1010" />
  <row Id="10277" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="2d3d5ff7-c7d4-4303-acc5-cb9078acbe0b" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:35:25.700" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4768],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DImension10  Abhimanyu PS&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10278" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="bcd9e7e1-e31a-485f-a3cb-d95759f27b73" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:35:34.450" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4768],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DImension10  Abhimanyu PS&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="03ca4c00-85b2-4055-94e1-2acb325a07fe" CreationDate="2013-08-25T09:52:47.547" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|login|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="55664438-9b3b-4136-9064-b96b2de305c9" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:02:43.900" UserId="23119" Text="Since list questions aren't  allowed here, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics), and recieve imediate closing, even locking, and [a meta post against it](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed),  maybe such questions could be migrated to [Math Overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net), where such questions are taken well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up or down if you support this or do not.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="55664438-9b3b-4136-9064-b96b2de305c9" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:02:43.900" UserId="23119" Text="A migration path to Math Overflow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="55664438-9b3b-4136-9064-b96b2de305c9" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:02:43.900" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|feature-request|closed-questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="22702fa4-73f7-4a8c-b2fe-71b96f3724fc" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:45:22.787" UserId="2684" Text="This site is about physics, Math Overflow is about research-level mathematics. I can't imagine many questions that would be posted here that would be welcome on MO. Just because they allow certain list questions doesn't mean that they'll take *any* list questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When asking for a migration path it is pretty much required to demonstrate the need for this migration path. You should be able to point to a significant number of migrations performed by mods, or show a list of questions that should have been migrated to MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also rather certain that MO would not welcome this migration path, they have been rather cautious about the topic of migrations towards their site. Any site can request to have a migration path shut down if it causes more trouble than it is worth. And MO has an agreement with SE that grants them more independence, so I'm pretty sure you'd have to ask them first if they want a migration path." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="d04454fe-a6fb-4746-9ec8-8b387b3672d9" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:07:17.960" UserId="8563" Text="The [breakthroughs in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics) question would _not_ be on topic in Math Overflow. This is mostly because they _don't_ welcome physics questions (happy as they are to take high-level mathematics questions with roots in physics), but you are also [mistaken](http://mathoverflow.net/search?page=1&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) [that](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/133203/explanations-for-mathematicians-about-the-falsifiability-or-not-of-string-the) [they](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/13682/which-mathematical-ideas-have-done-most-to-change-history) [generically](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/18100/theorems-with-unexpected-conclusions) [welcome](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/examples-of-common-false-beliefs-in-mathematics) [list](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends) [questions](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of railing against the closure, why not [listen to Wouter](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4839/8563) and propose a list question policy that will allow the questions you find interesting and at the same time protects the site from [&quot;ooooh, I have one!&quot;](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/1083/do-good-math-jokes-exist) questions polluting the front page (and, specifically, addresses the concerns in [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4045/8563), [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4565/8563) and others to that same question, and [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/)). You might actually find it hard!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="9b6f09fe-c88c-4d91-a884-bfbc5959dfb1" CreationDate="2013-08-25T14:30:53.403" UserId="23119" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Applies to meta questions about [tag:homework] questions on the main site.    Do not post your homework metaphysics questions here.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10288" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="9b6f09fe-c88c-4d91-a884-bfbc5959dfb1" CreationDate="2013-08-25T14:30:53.403" Comment="Proposed by 23119 approved by 7433, 8563 edit id of 6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="eee0c30d-6a4b-4776-8559-e88485342122" CreationDate="2013-08-25T14:31:00.497" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="Applies to meta questions about [tag:homework] questions on the main site.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10290" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="eee0c30d-6a4b-4776-8559-e88485342122" CreationDate="2013-08-25T14:31:00.497" Comment="Proposed by 23119 approved by 7433, 8563 edit id of 7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="44c17491-923b-42c0-a5d7-0fe44a6bd741" CreationDate="2013-08-25T15:49:01.130" UserId="3253" Text="I just lost 10 reputation points and in my history, all it says was &quot;user was removed&quot;. Can someone explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="44c17491-923b-42c0-a5d7-0fe44a6bd741" CreationDate="2013-08-25T15:49:01.130" UserId="3253" Text="How did I lose 10 reputation points yesterday?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="44c17491-923b-42c0-a5d7-0fe44a6bd741" CreationDate="2013-08-25T15:49:01.130" UserId="3253" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="c9670dc0-f466-4d2a-b19a-7bb4c3f0374b" CreationDate="2013-08-25T16:30:29.823" UserId="11062" Text="It has already been addressed in the [mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/126471/205334). Some guy has voted your answer and you gained a +10 for that. Now, the buddy has removed his account and his votes have been revoked. Whatever he had voted (as a member of this site), will be reversed (once he removes his account), which means *not only you*, but anyone who were voted by him will be affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty interesting scheme. Even for an user who has cast more than 5000 votes, once he removes his account, all those votes are *gone*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10295" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="8fd27b44-d28c-4eb5-b4f8-11796cbe047d" CreationDate="2013-08-26T01:53:34.497" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="b97e4390-8a3a-4e0a-8d07-d452c0b2384a" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:38:09.460" UserId="23742" Text="It has not been many days since I joined this site. I thought of using this as to clarify my doubts while doing problems or increase my knowledge in physics. I put questions and ask just to give me hints on doing them and try my maximum to solve those before posting them here. But my questions always gets on hold because it is off-topic. I don't understand what is off-topic in my questions(except one on philosophical cosmology). All of them are pure applications of physics. Finally, when I put a question on relativity, going deep into physics so that it is not flagged off due to off-topic content there is no one to answer.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="b97e4390-8a3a-4e0a-8d07-d452c0b2384a" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:38:09.460" UserId="23742" Text="Asking purely physics questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="b97e4390-8a3a-4e0a-8d07-d452c0b2384a" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:38:09.460" UserId="23742" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10302" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="9bd3632b-fcd8-4ea2-893a-f9cc7824d754" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:46:51.263" UserId="23742" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="2a8ec5db-4bf0-4116-8297-a1cc37dcdc4e" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:14:12.087" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; I put questions and ask just to give me hints on doing them and try my maximum to solve those before posting them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only see evidence of that in your latest question, and that was a &quot;check my work&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, we only permit homework-like questions when they are asking for something conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of [this question][1], philosophy/&quot;new&quot; physics is off topic here because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is _not_ a discussion forum. We try to make a repository of useful questions and answers. Discussions are fun to participate in, but their content is generally not useful to others. We have [a chat room][2] for discussions.&#xD;&#xA; - Even if &quot;physicists are philosophers&quot;, physicists use more precise methods and have a different way of approaching the problem than the general philosopher. Metaphysics and philosophy is off topic here.&#xD;&#xA; - The question wasn't a question in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your relativity question is rather unclear. I think I've understood it (and may provide an answer if I get the time), but I doubt many have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75132/philosophical-cosmology-is-there-something-called-god&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10304" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="e790a7ee-adb1-4cf7-b0d4-4eecb1739a59" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:58:24.400" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [b97e4390-8a3a-4e0a-8d07-d452c0b2384a]" Text="|discussion|" />
  <row Id="10305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="38c8b288-bca6-46bb-ac8a-76934ebdd3ff" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:58:47.447" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10307" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="41a8bf4a-77b1-4c06-b2fb-8687efc3bf46" CreationDate="2013-08-27T14:59:37.607" UserId="23119" Comment="Sensible title.   All questions here would (I mean, should) be pure physics, anyway . ! , ?   " Text="No-work homework questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10309" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="9c8ccefa-d392-4231-a394-3b42ee361958" CreationDate="2013-08-27T15:38:42.153" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [38c8b288-bca6-46bb-ac8a-76934ebdd3ff]" Text="Asking purely physics questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="18f4ba5d-eb52-4d62-b181-aee28e10bbab" CreationDate="2013-08-27T20:41:08.800" UserId="11053" Text="When I flag a duplicate it's usually because I've found an older question with substantial topical overlap and an answer that covers the new question completely. Sometimes I hesitate because the new question is actually asking the same thing as the old question, but much more clearly. So I'm confronted with a &quot;bad&quot; (poorly worded/formatted/developed) question with &quot;good&quot; answers and a &quot;good&quot; question with potentially &quot;bad&quot; answers, no answers or also some &quot;good&quot; answers. What's the best practice here? Is it the responsibility of the moderators handling the flag to attempt to merge (I could then suggest it when I flag)? If the questions are similar enough, should I suggest an edit completely replacing the &quot;bad&quot; question with the &quot;good&quot; one? This robs the author of the &quot;good&quot; question of any rep from votes and could wreak havoc on any comment discussion. Anyone have some insight on saving these &quot;good&quot; duplicates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is some related discussion: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/648/liberal-definition-of-duplicate-questions-and-the-health-of-physics-stack-exchan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="18f4ba5d-eb52-4d62-b181-aee28e10bbab" CreationDate="2013-08-27T20:41:08.800" UserId="11053" Text="Merging duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="18f4ba5d-eb52-4d62-b181-aee28e10bbab" CreationDate="2013-08-27T20:41:08.800" UserId="11053" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="c6262aaa-4afc-419a-bf91-aebb0cc17003" CreationDate="2013-08-27T21:49:00.240" UserId="27318" Text="This bug happened to me when I created an account, and it went like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I already had a Google subscription in another site affiliate to the StackExchange network.&#xD;&#xA;- I posted a question in physics anonimally, and posted using a hotmail address.&#xD;&#xA;- I then realized the ocurred and tried registering on the site, trough the same Google e-mail. The website merged my two profiles in the two websites but the guest profile was still existing in separate.&#xD;&#xA;- I tried answering the e-mail I received at my hotmail account for registration, but for some reason It did not created the hotmail account, and everytime I logged in trough hotmail account it logged into the gmail account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result: The 'guest account' was unregisterable and still remained 'guest' nomatter wich e-mail I used for login. As my account was not the questioner and I didnt had enough points I couldnt reply to anything. I had to contact an operator to merge the two accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="c6262aaa-4afc-419a-bf91-aebb0cc17003" CreationDate="2013-08-27T21:49:00.240" UserId="27318" Text="Bug - Asking question anomally and then registering problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="c6262aaa-4afc-419a-bf91-aebb0cc17003" CreationDate="2013-08-27T21:49:00.240" UserId="27318" Text="|bug|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="d45c22ba-604d-4ea8-be25-2201eb98652c" CreationDate="2013-08-28T02:22:27.200" UserId="27318" Comment="Grammar" Text="This bug happened to me when I created an account, and it went like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I already had a Google subscription in another site affiliate to the StackExchange network.&#xD;&#xA;- I posted a question in physics anonymously, and posted using a hotmail address.&#xD;&#xA;- I then realized the ocurred and tried registering on the site, trough the same Google e-mail. The website merged my two profiles in the two websites but the guest profile was still existing in separate.&#xD;&#xA;- I tried answering the e-mail I received at my hotmail account for registration, but for some reason It did not created the hotmail account, and everytime I logged in trough hotmail account it logged into the gmail account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result: The 'guest account' was unregisterable and still remained 'guest' nomatter wich e-mail I used for login. As my account was not the questioner and I didnt had enough points I couldnt reply to anything. I had to contact an operator to merge the two accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="ea70df30-01ad-4051-a58f-86ae3667c08f" CreationDate="2013-08-28T10:50:42.527" UserId="23119" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer: please explain why you're recommending it as a solution. Answers that don't explain anything will be deleted. See Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears at the bottom of certain questions; but not all. What determines whethere it does , or not ? .  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="ea70df30-01ad-4051-a58f-86ae3667c08f" CreationDate="2013-08-28T10:50:42.527" UserId="23119" Text="We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="ea70df30-01ad-4051-a58f-86ae3667c08f" CreationDate="2013-08-28T10:50:42.527" UserId="23119" Text="|support|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10320" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="78698cde-087b-4c3b-8265-bd515efc8f16" CreationDate="2013-08-28T10:51:45.080" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="85019c1d-9c4f-4315-9c7b-ff5c460eb15b" CreationDate="2013-08-28T11:34:45.077" UserId="2684" Text="This is a post notice that moderators can apply, they were originally created for Skeptics (the &quot;citation needed&quot; notice) and for some of the more subjective sites where such short and lazy answers were a significant problem. But they are occasionally used on other sites as well, though not all that much because they are a mod-only feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4857" RevisionGUID="71d1d246-abdf-49ce-8032-574115908916" CreationDate="2013-08-28T12:53:41.783" UserId="7433" Text="To answer the general question &quot;how do I get a question merged&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we usually don't merge duplicates questions unless they're _exact_ duplicates (in terms of what is asked), or one is a subset of the other. That need not always be the case, though. It depends on the answers currently present on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that two questions should be merged, just use a custom flag. Duplicate flags are no longer directly routed to mods, so there's a chance that it may be missed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the specific question &quot;What should be done when there is a question which is a dupe of an older, answered question but is written in a much better manner&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duplicates need not be in chronological order. Multiple times, I have closed an older question as a dupe of a newer one, and merged the answers because the older one is close to being closeable as unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10323" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="72f3d7ed-9986-4762-b27a-50967f021aac" CreationDate="2013-08-28T12:55:16.257" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4768],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DImension10  Abhimanyu PS&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10324" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="0cff4d0f-1566-4a56-9be3-09bc339286d7" CreationDate="2013-08-28T12:56:15.950" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1289],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10325" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="c5bed89e-40bb-4f43-bfcf-efa8373583c7" CreationDate="2013-08-28T17:41:02.900" UserId="23119" Comment="I propose that this is to be considereed      &quot;Status-completed&quot;.  ,         " Text="|discussion|tags|retagging|faq-proposed|statuscompleted-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="c5bed89e-40bb-4f43-bfcf-efa8373583c7" CreationDate="2013-08-28T17:41:02.900" UserId="23119" Comment="I propose that this is to be considereed      &quot;Status-completed&quot;.  ,         " Text="At http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the comments:*      &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;These are just suggestions - the intent is for people to suggest a good definition in the answers, the community votes on these answers, and the most upvoted one after a reasonable amount of time has past will be the one we apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever definition you come up with **needs to be objective**. Otherwise we're back where we've started on the tag. &quot;Question was phrased in a pop sci way&quot; is ambiguous.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="cd88d80c-4925-484f-b31d-89554ae42b44" CreationDate="2013-08-28T18:04:44.950" UserId="6634" Text="I suppose we can't change the way reputation works on just our site so eventually if this became a serious proposal change it would have to happen on the mother Meta. But before I go and get flamed there, I figured I'd start a discussion here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that on our site in particular, we don't have a hard time generating high quality answers but it's hard to find high quality questions. When a question is upvoted, the asker gets 5 rep. When an answer is upvoted, the asker gets 10 rep. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to imply that answers are worth more than questions. In some sense I agree, answers take a lot of work to put together. But a good question often times takes more work to put together than a good answer, particular in physics. We have previously discussed (*ad nauseum*) the fact that there are people who only answer questions and don't ask, and that there are many more lower quality questions coming in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would changing the reputation earned (and lost) on questions to match answers encourage more questions? Or would it just inflate reputations because the majority of people wouldn't change their habits? Would we want to encourage more questions (which by default would also bring in more lower-quality questions as well)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="cd88d80c-4925-484f-b31d-89554ae42b44" CreationDate="2013-08-28T18:04:44.950" UserId="6634" Text="What would it look like if rep for questions counted the same/more than answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="cd88d80c-4925-484f-b31d-89554ae42b44" CreationDate="2013-08-28T18:04:44.950" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|reputation|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="f6392843-1e8a-4863-b750-2340a1ff37b7" CreationDate="2013-08-28T19:33:33.533" UserId="520" Text="When Stack Overflow launched the scoring was the same for questions and answers. This eventually became a bit of a cause for concern when a number of users who had &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* never offered an answer&#xD;&#xA;* mostly had zero or negative net scores on their very many poor questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but were still accumulating enough rep to access some important site privileges. There rose [a movement to increase the power of down votes on questions][1], which was [tag:status-planned] for some time after which [the team suddenly decided to reduce the upvote value on questions instead][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this slightly *increased* the quality of questions on Stack Overflow (mostly by discouraging hoards of bad questions, rather than by generating a lot of really good ones), but it was a small thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my expectation based on that ancient history on a different site is that while this proposal might bring in a few more good questions it would also bring in many more bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we have more tools for dealing with problem users now, so maybe would could handle it, but I don't know for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/42763/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="cb3d5635-cc3a-4a76-a8fe-112a756257f3" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:23:52.257" UserId="19976" Text="I recently posted an answer to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75082/why-are-magnetic-fields-only-produced-by-moving-charges/75085#75085 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was marked as a duplicate of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51346/no-magnetic-field-from-a-static-charge-is-there-a-simple-physical-argument-to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that (2) has a really satisfactory answer.  In any case, I think that my answer to (1) would contribute non-trivially to (2).  What are the physics.SE norms/policies about re-posting my answer from (1) as a response to (2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="cb3d5635-cc3a-4a76-a8fe-112a756257f3" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:23:52.257" UserId="19976" Text="Repeating answers in duplicate questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="cb3d5635-cc3a-4a76-a8fe-112a756257f3" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:23:52.257" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="7f044637-9412-4dc5-bd93-0182cdd0313d" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:34:54.940" UserId="520" Text="If a merge is not in order (and I don't think that one is), then re-using your own material is reasonable and proper. I hesitate to suggest verbatim coping of an answer, because most of the time we treat that as a sign of possible abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does posting a substantially similar answer that has refocused for the slightly different emphasis of the two question appeal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavdZ's suggesting in the comments to delete on the &quot;duplicate&quot; is also very reasonable, especially if you haven't accumulated points for that answer yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4862" RevisionGUID="d540b986-26e5-4da5-a4f2-55a86c819a24" CreationDate="2013-08-29T02:21:15.977" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="I don't ask questions or refrain from asking questions on SE based on the amount of rep I will gain. I ask a question if I want to know the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High levels of activity are not necessarily a sign of health, so it's not obvious to me that a low number of good questions is a bad thing, to be remedied by fiddling with rules. One of the reasons I stopped being very active on WP and physicsforums.com is that the structure of both of those sites seemed to encourage a lot of &quot;churn.&quot; Physicsforums probably has 20 threads on the Ehrenfest paradox, each with 300 posts. This is not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems that on our site in particular, we don't have a hard time generating high quality answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure I agree with this. Easy questions get good answers. Hard questions often don't. This is just the logic of the bell curve. There are few experts in the world and many novices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10336" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="c070ab76-d3ab-4bf7-97a0-a73a13ec8c7d" CreationDate="2013-08-29T15:15:20.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/373101569711304704" />
  <row Id="10337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="baa568c1-ede8-4b70-8159-6c12e1fe3f20" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:04:00.877" UserId="9173" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with a private ownership." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="baa568c1-ede8-4b70-8159-6c12e1fe3f20" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:04:00.877" UserId="9173" Text="Intellectual property on Physics SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="baa568c1-ede8-4b70-8159-6c12e1fe3f20" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:04:00.877" UserId="9173" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="d0a1ae36-1d34-4257-bcfc-d4b0f6878925" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:13:12.217" UserId="9173" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4864" RevisionGUID="819ff2db-6710-4366-9a51-957eaa916088" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:13:35.687" UserId="6634" Text="The owner retains the copyright for what is written, but by submitting it to the site he/she irrevocably allows StackExchange to use, modify, and create derivative work from it forever. This is why anybody is allowed to edit questions/answers without the original poster's consent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, a user may not demand that SE take down data he/she has posted. The user may ask but SE is not obligated in any way to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least that's my interpretation of the license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4864" RevisionGUID="15f6e7f6-9d7a-4236-8337-d3de25525f17" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:25:39.007" UserId="6634" Comment="added 1269 characters in body" Text="The owner retains the copyright for what is written, but by submitting it to the site he/she irrevocably allows StackExchange to use, modify, and create derivative work from it forever. This is why anybody is allowed to edit questions/answers without the original poster's consent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, a user may not demand that SE take down data he/she has posted. The user may ask but SE is not obligated in any way to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least that's my interpretation of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, let's pretend that this is the conversation that happens when you submit something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***User***: Hi StackExchange, I've created this awesome answer and would like to post it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***StackExchange***: Great job User! Just so you know, if you submit this to me, you own the copyright of what you post. But, you do agree that I can use it forever, and I can modify or share it, but I always have to attribute it to you if I do. That also means that anybody else who uses it may do so also, but they have to attribute it as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***User***: So if I want to reuse what I post here, I can?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***StackExchange***; Yes, you own the copy right. The license even allows waivers of clauses if the copyright holder agrees. This means you don't need to attribute it to yourself if you don't want to. It also means you can derive other work from it and you don't need to use Creative Commons if you do. But I have to use Creative Commons if I derive anything from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***User***: But what if I want my content removed? Can that happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***StackExchange***: You let me use it forever in any way I see fit. So if you want it removed, you may ask politely but I am not obligated to remove it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***User***: I get it now! Here is my awesome answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="150ae547-7f92-49c3-815b-708457dc5599" CreationDate="2013-08-29T23:53:53.463" UserId="6974" Text="Maybe you should give a summary of and a link to your answer to the duplicate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10344" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="012b7e13-3217-42b9-b127-d5d958bb0763" CreationDate="2013-08-30T02:58:57.723" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75674/cant-se-change-am-i-running-against-a-wall-of-obstinacy" />
  <row Id="10345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="b133830d-ae14-4e0f-acec-3c3233492c51" CreationDate="2013-08-30T02:40:52.617" UserId="28807" Text=" i just wonder why the questions are duplicated(http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75524/the-sound-change-the-light?noredirect=1#comment156943_75524 ) ? because i ask physics things in physics site(even less quoting, and edited it as a physics problem ), and english questions in english site(ELL). can't SE change? am i running against a wall of obstinacy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="b133830d-ae14-4e0f-acec-3c3233492c51" CreationDate="2013-08-30T02:40:52.617" UserId="28807" Text="can't SE change? am i running against a wall of obstinacy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="b133830d-ae14-4e0f-acec-3c3233492c51" CreationDate="2013-08-30T02:40:52.617" UserId="28807" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="2fb886c6-1585-4cc0-bc76-94b08af61910" CreationDate="2013-08-30T03:04:49.177" UserId="520" Text="The mere fact that you read something strange does not qualify it as a physics question. People can write anything they like, and no one and nothing stops them from writing unphysical nonsense. In fact, some of us read unphysical nonsense for entertainment, so we *pay* them to write unphysical nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not feel obligated to answer question about such writings, however, [and even say so][1] in the [help center][2] (note the bit about &quot;fictional physics&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, long answer short: your question is off-topic, and there is no version you can ask that will be answered here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; am i running against a wall of obstinacy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you are not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We, on the other hand, are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem bound and determined to push on us a question that clearly falls outside the bounds of what we accept. You are in the wrong on this, and the only polite thing for you to do is *quit it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites, like Physics.SE are *not* open forums where anything goes. We maintain high standards by enforcing tight bounds on what kind of content we accept and then using a crowd-sourced evaluation to sort content by quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We intend to continue maintaining those standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="52a1ba2c-f9a2-44b0-bfbc-09845d9d3c0f" CreationDate="2013-08-30T03:23:41.583" UserId="520" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="The mere fact that you read something strange does not qualify it as a physics question. People can write anything they like, and no one and nothing stops them from writing unphysical nonsense. In fact, some of us read unphysical nonsense for entertainment, so we *pay* them to write unphysical nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not feel obligated to answer question about such writings, however, [and even say so][1] in the [help center][2] (note the bit about &quot;fictional physics&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, long answer short: your question is off-topic, and there is no version you can ask that will be answered here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; am i running against a wall of obstinacy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you are not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We, on the other hand, are. You reposted that question twice, despite being told clearly and repeated that it was off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem bound and determined to push on us a question that clearly falls outside the bounds of what we accept. You are in the wrong on this, and the only polite thing for you to do is *quit it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites, like Physics.SE are *not* open forums where anything goes. We maintain high standards by enforcing tight bounds on what kind of content we accept and then using a crowd-sourced evaluation to sort content by quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We intend to continue maintaining those standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="206685eb-adbe-4183-a8c8-55ceb87fbf73" CreationDate="2013-08-30T03:29:50.880" UserId="1492" Text="Physics.SE is for questions about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Physics means observations of the way nature behaves , note: observations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rumble thing you are obsessing about is not an observation. It is a figment from the imagination of the author you have quoted. Physics.SE is not about interpreting dreams or visualizations or fairy land propositions or .... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have also latched onto sonic weapons in your comments. Whales die because of sonic weapons so they do have strong effects. You could form a question on the lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can sonic weapons create waves? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can a sonic boom move walls , made out of wood? stone? glass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The answer to this last][1] is observational from the meteor that fell in Russia a while ago. Yes, they can have a lot of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are physics questions.Rumbles in the imagination of a writer are not, unless boundary conditions are strictly given, and then one can talk of a [gedanken experiment.][2] *Rumbles and oily sheens* are not boundary conditions for problem solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w2AsGazCcg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedanken_experiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="91922901-e202-408b-b4fa-957c50793539" CreationDate="2013-08-30T10:36:13.130" UserId="9173" Comment="added 866 characters in body" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up long and interesting discussion below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SE is licensed under CC-wiki license with Attribution required,&#xD;&#xA;you can read it here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a post on S[OFU] about same topic with more details:&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/13976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Stack exchange CAN USE your work(user generated content) to _earn_ money.&#xD;&#xA;This is written in the short summary of the license hyperlinked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Effectively you retain only CREDITS on your work. But not the rights to remove it from circulation or issue a new license which will _contradict_ / _constrain_ CC-wiki (this part is declared in termination section of CC-wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - License is effectively INFINITE (up to the limits of the international law, about 60 years or so)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no WAY to terminate this license by the will of creators (users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="f0c477f3-d15c-45fd-8e7b-efee3771f95f" CreationDate="2013-08-30T11:49:40.787" UserId="9173" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up long and interesting discussion below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SE is licensed under CC-wiki license with Attribution required,&#xD;&#xA;you can read it here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a post on S[OFU] about same topic with more details:&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/13976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Stack exchange CAN USE your work(user generated content) to _earn_ money.&#xD;&#xA;This is written in the short summary of the license hyperlinked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Effectively you retain only CREDITS on your work. But not the rights to remove it from circulation or issue a new license which will _contradict_ / _constrain_ CC-wiki (this part is declared in termination section of CC-wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - License is effectively INFINITE (up to the limits of international law, about 60 years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no WAY to terminate this license by the will of the creators (users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="31f05e50-eb14-44ad-89b5-fe9da0ea059f" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:25:01.870" UserId="2146" Text="When flagging a question as needing migration to academia, electronics, signal processing, chemistry, philosophy etc, I end up at Flagging&gt;Closing&gt;Off-Topic&gt;Migration which offers me just two options for migration: math stack exchange, or meta physics stack exchange. I then have to go all the way back to flagging it again, choosing the &quot;other&quot; option, and then typing in the migration site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it therefore be possible to replace the two migration options with a general box where people can type in the site they think the question needs to be migrated to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="31f05e50-eb14-44ad-89b5-fe9da0ea059f" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:25:01.870" UserId="2146" Text="Can the flag for migration be generalized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="31f05e50-eb14-44ad-89b5-fe9da0ea059f" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:25:01.870" UserId="2146" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="7abb25b1-dee9-401f-9ef5-a1742050c644" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:45:47.357" UserId="23119" Comment=" ...      " Text="|feature-request|flagging|close-reasons|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10357" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="dc0429f1-4d45-468c-9437-a21ad5c6c898" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:46:34.440" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10359" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="fa1c3ac3-2441-4538-9bf8-aeee9f1aa6a7" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:48:01.117" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10360" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="7e91d70f-6745-4208-91b3-68e50079d5cb" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:49:28.513" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="ec3e35b6-aee0-4c7d-ab71-7084b45c5011" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:51:36.930" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat|language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10362" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="ddf9ad72-7667-4c6d-9944-7aa63e77c2d7" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:52:21.197" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|flagging|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="98f2d5c2-29ee-42e4-a164-29a7de00f097" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:53:57.673" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="5d64a903-fd88-47c7-bc52-3b6260c6b66c" CreationDate="2013-08-30T18:50:35.650" UserId="124" Text="This is covered by [the link dmckee gave in the comments](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/96205/more-options-when-flagging-for-migration), in which the exact same feature was proposed on MSO and declined. Migrations to sites other than Math are sufficiently rare that there's no particular need to let ordinary users vote for them. (Moderators have always been able to do this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the first thing to decide when considering whether to migrate a question is, do you think it's off topic here? If you see a question that is off topic, flag it as such, or vote to close if you have that privilege. If you think the question would be appropriate at another site, other than the options given (Meta and Math), leave a comment on the question to indicate that. Alternatively, you can custom-flag the question as &quot;Off topic and possibly suitable for migration to X&quot; or some such thing. **Don't suggest a question for migration unless you believe it's off topic on this site.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10365" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="5a7be2be-517f-48ec-bbbe-8130c2ce32e5" CreationDate="2013-08-30T18:50:44.557" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|flagging|close-reasons|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="da1ca05d-28dd-4d1d-894b-7f6925315ed0" CreationDate="2013-08-30T19:47:20.633" UserId="17408" Text="The title really says it all: would a question asking for examples of unobservable posits in physical theories be appropriate for this SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that requests for lists are generally frowned upon. Is this question fine as is? If not, is there some way to reformulate it into an acceptable one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="da1ca05d-28dd-4d1d-894b-7f6925315ed0" CreationDate="2013-08-30T19:47:20.633" UserId="17408" Text="Would a question asking for examples of unobservable posits in physical theories be appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="da1ca05d-28dd-4d1d-894b-7f6925315ed0" CreationDate="2013-08-30T19:47:20.633" UserId="17408" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="6de19c10-1404-4882-856a-64fd8faeab85" CreationDate="2013-08-30T22:17:22.800" UserId="8563" Comment="added 107 characters in body; edited title" Text="The flag reasons are outdated: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts.   It still has &quot;too localised&quot; and others. Shouldn't it be updated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: just a bump to the front page, as this is still outdated. Should this be taken up to the MotherMeta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="6de19c10-1404-4882-856a-64fd8faeab85" CreationDate="2013-08-30T22:17:22.800" UserId="8563" Comment="added 107 characters in body; edited title" Text="Outdated flag reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="93ae3c23-0220-498c-b4b4-eb0a83ddff58" CreationDate="2013-08-30T22:55:20.903" UserId="124" Text="Probably it would not be appropriate. You could bring it up in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="fcf82c9a-2e31-42d1-ae74-039ceae48a6e" CreationDate="2013-08-31T00:25:13.513" UserId="2451" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The title really says it all: would a question asking for examples of unobservable [posits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posit) in physical theories be appropriate for this SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that requests for lists are generally frowned upon. Is this question fine as is? If not, is there some way to reformulate it into an acceptable one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4873" RevisionGUID="91c57215-0792-4ba8-91a5-c0665221082a" CreationDate="2013-08-31T02:20:17.590" UserId="6634" Text="As DavidZ pointed out to me on another answer of mine, we can't say whether something is on or off topic until we see the question's wording. So if you don't get what you need in chat, edit your question here with the wording of what you intend to ask and we can help shape it if it can be shaped or tell you to bugger off :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, even if I post something that says &quot;Yeah, looks great!&quot; that really can only say it ***might*** be on-topic, it's up to the community to really decide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="c54cd3fb-99ae-45c9-a5f6-0119e95ef40c" CreationDate="2013-08-31T03:12:40.010" UserId="23119" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The flag reasons are outdated: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts.   It still has &quot;too localised&quot; and others. Shouldn't it be updated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: just a bump to the front page, as this is still outdated. Should this be taken up to Meta Stack Overflow?    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="d60a0602-e414-4be3-9957-4ce652f131b0" CreationDate="2013-08-31T04:08:58.220" UserId="23119" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55431/why-one-dimensional-strings-but-not-higher-dimensional-shells-membranes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73808/does-string-m-theory-address-higher-dimensional-membrane-vibration-modes?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66948/string-theory-why-not-use-n-dimensional-blocks-objects-branes?lq=1     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10378" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="da75ec17-462f-4266-8a3a-87fca7f8787e" CreationDate="2013-08-31T04:08:58.220" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="10383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="445f6d35-f3e8-4ef7-9fd2-72ec814a56f5" CreationDate="2013-08-31T12:21:26.610" UserId="23119" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Recently, the book policy has been reevaluated, and Manishearth's [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751) how to change it seems to be well enough accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is still missing for the new book policy to become reality, is some people, who are willing to help with editing the new incoming questions and controlling the answers, such that they conform with the needes of the new policy as expl]ained [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So please come forward and write a short answer, if you are willing to help with this :-)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a big job, as the expected average rate of new incoming such questions when allowed again by the new policy, is about one question per two weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just 2 more people are needed for the policy to succeed.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="29de3fd5-caaa-4f64-8202-9c20fa249f4c" CreationDate="2013-08-31T19:34:04.013" UserId="24773" Text="My problem with this discussion is that I wonder about the correlation between votes and quality. Admittedly I can only read fairly elementary topics. But I find that questions that give me a lot to think just get downvoted, and I also find wrong answers at the top of the votes. And the vote ordering is often not the quality ordering (when I think I can estimate it with fair reliability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that science has never been a matter of opinion, or of vote. The usefulness of vote is more sociological than scientific. Interestingly, the rep gives you a right to manage, not to decide on scientific issues, which is probably a good thing. But it is also a bit of a problem since users can confuse rep and scientific reliability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the problem that quality is not easily measured. So many users think that a formula is an explanation  ...  sometimes they do not even bother defining notation, assuming some universality of it. Ther is also the opposite: answers by someone who has an opinion though he does not really know anything on the topic and does not have half an argument to back his opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as I said, I can only read the more elementary topics, and I have been wondering whether the situation is the same for the more advanced questions.&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that one can talk nonsense at any level, but what is it actually?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="afaa9ffd-a051-4ef8-9be2-1fdc81dfe84b" CreationDate="2013-08-31T20:53:26.597" UserId="9173" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up long and interesting discussion below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SE is licensed under CC-wiki license with Attribution required,&#xD;&#xA;you can read it here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a post on S[OFU] about same topic with more details:&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/13976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Stack exchange CAN USE your work(user generated content) to _earn_ money.&#xD;&#xA;This is written in the short summary of the license hyperlinked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Effectively you retain only CREDITS on your work. But not the rights to remove it from circulation or issue a new license which will _contradict_ / _constrain_ CC-wiki (this part is declared in termination section of CC-wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - License is effectively INFINITE (up to the limits of international law, about 60 years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no WAY to terminate this license by the will of the creators (users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good news. If we look at UK CC license  (lest assume our user lives in UK), we read following (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;2.3. This License does not affect any rights that the User may have under any applicable law, including fair use, fair dealing or any other legally recognized limitation or exception to copyright infringement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I understand correctly - when user gets BANNED from this website he can remove all he's work from here. At least in UK. Am I correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4879" RevisionGUID="e3f27b30-adb2-41f8-8a07-fac7ddd6a709" CreationDate="2013-09-01T00:20:39.383" UserId="1255" Text="From a practical user-ship perspective, you can not delete your contributions which are questions or answers.  There are ways that you could try to fight this.  Particularly, there was once a user who *edit* all their questions and answers to be blank as a protest to the banning of a different user.  I do not know what the resolution of that, but it would be consistent with policy that moderators reverted all those edits - and that is what you should expect if you do the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange is privy to concerns of privacy and online reputation.  Deleting your account takes moderator action, but it's a rubber stamp.  Anyone may delete their account, and their username will be removed from all their Qs and As.  This is important, because maybe someone wants to carefully manage the type of content on their stack exchange network, and they don't feel that contributions somewhere were not in keeping with the decorum of their online reputation.  They can remove their identity, but their contributions remain as a nameless Qs and As.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's basically all I wanted to add.  Redacting your contributions is both legally and *technically* impossible, but Stack Exchange does allow withdrawal of credit (which is legally at their discretion)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="613dadfa-297e-4b30-917f-48b4fefee61b" CreationDate="2013-09-01T02:28:07.497" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="In any difficult field of endeavor -- ballet, mountaineering, violin-playing, physics -- there are going to be far more people in the world who have devoted a relatively small number of hours to the field than there are who have spent a big chunk of time to it. On physics.SE, non-novice users are in short supply. Is there any way to tell whether the number of currently active, non-novice users on physics.SE is going down or going up? We have certainly lost some non-novice users such as Arnold Neumaier and Ted Bunn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose a quantifiable way of defining this would be the number of high-rep users. Although rep doesn't really correlate very tightly with competence on an individual basis, and high-rep users may get suspended for being naughty, I would think that the number of high-rep users would be worth looking at on a statistical basis. Of course it won't tell us anything about whether we're retaining new non-novice users, such as ZeroTheHero, who appears to be a non-novice but just showed up today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="613dadfa-297e-4b30-917f-48b4fefee61b" CreationDate="2013-09-01T02:28:07.497" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Are we gaining or losing non-novice users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="613dadfa-297e-4b30-917f-48b4fefee61b" CreationDate="2013-09-01T02:28:07.497" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10403" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="4bdc72ff-843d-4f44-bffc-426ac326c1dd" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:54:25.083" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="7fc0f523-a09e-4700-887a-d470f21903d2" CreationDate="2013-09-01T09:04:19.453" UserId="7433" Text="Created some queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Number of active users in a tag month wise][1]: This graphs the number of users who have made more than `threshhold` (this can be edited) posts in the list of tags in a given month, over all months.&#xD;&#xA; - [Monthwise streaks in a tag][2]: This was an intermediate query I created which is used in the one above. It tabulates the number of posts per month per user in a given tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first query, for `threshhold=2` (So each user needs to have at least 3 posts in the tag list to qualify), I get this graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to be on an overall increase, but local decline(since April). Probably due to seasonal fluctuations, note that there was a similar drop in the summer of 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to make a better query that shows retention later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133974/monthwise-streaks-in-a-tag?TagName=quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rR25h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="22b62a87-bc06-4c85-a28b-b37a99819b77" CreationDate="2013-09-01T10:14:10.747" UserId="23119" Comment="In case the ccomments are deleted. .   " Text="Created some queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Number of active users in a tag month wise][1]: This graphs the number of users who have made more than `threshhold` (this can be edited) posts in the list of tags in a given month, over all months.&#xD;&#xA; - [Monthwise streaks in a tag][2]: This was an intermediate query I created which is used in the one above. It tabulates the number of posts per month per user in a given tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first query, for `threshhold=2` (So each user needs to have at least 3 posts in the tag list to qualify), I get this graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to be on an overall increase, but local decline(since April). Probably due to seasonal fluctuations, note that there was a similar drop in the summer of 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to make a better query that shows retention later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other queries:&#xD;&#xA;-----   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133999/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=5#graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/134002/monthwise-streaks-in-a-tag?TagName=string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/134004/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=5#graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/134005/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133974/monthwise-streaks-in-a-tag?TagName=quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rR25h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10406" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="e031c8c5-786d-4728-bed3-16a5257032a5" CreationDate="2013-09-01T10:18:18.273" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [7fc0f523-a09e-4700-887a-d470f21903d2]" Text="Created some queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Number of active users in a tag month wise][1]: This graphs the number of users who have made more than `threshhold` (this can be edited) posts in the list of tags in a given month, over all months.&#xD;&#xA; - [Monthwise streaks in a tag][2]: This was an intermediate query I created which is used in the one above. It tabulates the number of posts per month per user in a given tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first query, for `threshhold=2` (So each user needs to have at least 3 posts in the tag list to qualify), I get this graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to be on an overall increase, but local decline(since April). Probably due to seasonal fluctuations, note that there was a similar drop in the summer of 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to make a better query that shows retention later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133974/monthwise-streaks-in-a-tag?TagName=quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rR25h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="2af37e15-de1c-4425-8e99-1c84e4f4b372" CreationDate="2013-09-01T12:26:36.893" UserId="12798" Text="Ill speak for myself, thought I wouldn't call my self non-novice or anything else. I am among the people thinking of leaving the site after being here for about a year. The reason is It stopped being interesting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I rarely posted, I used to enjoy reading answers, but off-late nothing in the site seems to interest me(I am student of theoretical physics). I do find good question/answers occasionally(often by the same set of 3-4 people), which is why I continue to check the site and sometimes the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is nothing like what it was when I joined a year ago. Perhaps it is a personal view, but it might be shared by a few other people. I would be very much interested in a dedicated TP site. I also have no idea when and why [Dilaton][1] got banned, but that was going to happen eventually I guess. There are discussions linked in Dilaton's page about starting a new site, I would definitely be curious to see how it turns up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="28b342b2-4545-40d4-a3d1-a875aa615aae" CreationDate="2013-09-01T17:35:08.047" UserId="25069" Text="I'm just curious why my answer was removed.  I asked the poster some questions about his problem then provided two principles to solve his situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75809/help-making-a-solenoid-engine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A(deleted):Do you have something in series with the wire to limit the current? A 2m wire connected directly to 12V should pull a lot more current than 20 mA. What kind of 12V battery is this? Is the battery voltage staying at 12V when you connect it? Batteries tend not to survive long with wires connected directly across their terminals, perhaps it is dead or dieing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two ways to increase the magnetic field: more current and/or more wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway my second concern is that this is just one example where someone is obviously trying to experiment and learn something without help.  Yet rather than just let the question stand they see some back and forth about the site policy and the question gets closed.  I've seen this on other questions too.  It bothers me because I would rather encourage people to try rather than just close their questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="28b342b2-4545-40d4-a3d1-a875aa615aae" CreationDate="2013-09-01T17:35:08.047" UserId="25069" Text="Curious why my answer was removed and dissapointed with discouraging newbies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="28b342b2-4545-40d4-a3d1-a875aa615aae" CreationDate="2013-09-01T17:35:08.047" UserId="25069" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="47b18859-69b1-4f7c-b167-a46617a03e81" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:12:49.060" UserId="10896" Text="As for your answer, It does not *majorly* contribute to answering the question in any way. I appreciate that you were trying to encourage the OP into researching some more, but your answer looks more like it is asking for clarification. We have comments for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why the question was closed, the close reason specifically says that the question is about engineering, something which is off-topic on this site. There is another SE site :[Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) for such questions. According to me, the question would be answered better there, as the users there must be having hands-on experience about making such things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS someone should have left a comment telling the OP about such a site, and instead of closing, the question could have been migrated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="bd359c9c-7555-44c0-a510-dfa265fcad13" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:15:31.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/374234078322913280" />
  <row Id="10419" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="65f67b7b-d81b-4dfd-9ffd-7a757cf17524" CreationDate="2013-09-03T00:15:35.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/374687078124367872" />
  <row Id="10420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="be0df94f-b049-4a36-943e-4fbc9e74e5d5" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:11:52.007" UserId="23119" Text="Why has [Do we agree with Ron's suspension?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/do-we-agree-with-rons-suspension) been deleted?!                                                                      What is the reason for this censorship?                                                                          Is it merely so that future visitors don't find out what has happened?     Or was it accidental?                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please undelete it.      &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="be0df94f-b049-4a36-943e-4fbc9e74e5d5" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:11:52.007" UserId="23119" Text="Do we agree with Ron's suspension? [clοsed]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="be0df94f-b049-4a36-943e-4fbc9e74e5d5" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:11:52.007" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|meta|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10423" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="575cef44-855b-4940-a0d3-d4345ff78f31" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:50:47.983" UserId="9789" Comment="Removed confusing [closed] from title" Text="Do we agree with Ron's suspension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="973dcdbb-d9f8-4d43-8e40-14a544a36273" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:58:40.853" UserId="7433" Text="There were [some unnecessary edits][1] made (by you) to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. After it quieted down, it wasn't causing any problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it got bumped twice recently, so it was better off deleted. Again, that post shouldn't have been on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ec08c4fe-4914-47e7-808f-56c0e03e7f3e" CreationDate="2013-09-03T14:02:09.337" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 200 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why has the meta post [Do we agree with Ron's suspension?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/) been deleted? What is the reason for this censorship? Is it merely so that future visitors don't find out what has happened? Or was it accidental? Please undelete it.      &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10428" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ec08c4fe-4914-47e7-808f-56c0e03e7f3e" CreationDate="2013-09-03T14:02:09.337" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 200 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why has the meta post 'Do we agree with Ron's suspension?' been deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="57d1c461-5a5f-4e5e-8428-951f008190b2" CreationDate="2013-09-03T21:06:20.023" UserId="12811" Text="Should never have been. Too bad. I was reading usenet news stuff long before my children learned computers .... And I am old enough that they learned them from me. I was on BBS and I was a member of AOL when it was Compuserve. &#xD;&#xA;Never was this hard. We are only trading characters on mostly intellectual endeavor. Why do we need ban these fine folk or deny a few pages of text.. Certainly is getting pretty annoying ... I started a scientist but ended up a lawyer. You are free to do what you want with your site. But you will regret, I suspect, with these authoritarian approaches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="67a8d8c9-2b21-4eb6-90e1-f9881b1f3790" CreationDate="2013-09-04T07:41:22.233" UserDisplayName="user24357" Text="I can't post questions on the website, I click post and it takes me to the &quot;/questions/ask/submit&quot; page. Nothing happens after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="67a8d8c9-2b21-4eb6-90e1-f9881b1f3790" CreationDate="2013-09-04T07:41:22.233" UserDisplayName="user24357" Text="I cannot post questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="67a8d8c9-2b21-4eb6-90e1-f9881b1f3790" CreationDate="2013-09-04T07:41:22.233" UserDisplayName="user24357" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10433" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="02e47738-373c-4283-a8c7-d7e770f22841" CreationDate="2013-09-04T07:53:05.993" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="de8abe0d-94f5-4932-8587-3cc4b9c33fa4" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:56:32.230" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="934dba44-2a99-4221-95b4-50d440b6f0b4" CreationDate="2013-09-04T12:52:43.603" UserId="8563" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about 30 users: admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and Crazy Buddy a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, posted before I was ready. will add a bit more content in a bit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="934dba44-2a99-4221-95b4-50d440b6f0b4" CreationDate="2013-09-04T12:52:43.603" UserId="8563" Text="It is hard to improve suggested edits to tag wikis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="934dba44-2a99-4221-95b4-50d440b6f0b4" CreationDate="2013-09-04T12:52:43.603" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|feature-request|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="0bcdc059-87ed-4a87-8066-f09acec94d52" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:00:07.993" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ouch, I didn't know that the system did that. I've had similar experiences when I (as a non mod) approve an edit and then realize that I want to improve it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system, that's pretty much the best you can do. I agree that this can be improved; but in the meantime it's OK to bug me (or anyone else who doesn't mind) in chat to fast-track a single review because you want to make more changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="b3244813-44e8-4eb6-911f-0108219c930b" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:01:55.003" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1179 characters in body" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about [30 users](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all): admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and Crazy Buddy a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available. This is an issue because few people can review tag wiki edits and fewer of them actually do. Further, each reviewer can only do 20 posts per day, and I've already maxed out on that a couple of times. If you propose a tag wiki edit that takes ages to go through, that may be one possible reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore ask two things. On the site design front, **is there a way to have multiple edits to the same tag wiki in the review queue?** This would ideally be available as an &quot;Improve&quot; button directly on the tag edit (though possibly with text warning to make sparse use of it because of the reviewing limitations). Future reviewers might be presented all the reviews to the same tag wiki, either simultaneously or one after the other, to make reviewing simpler. A cap on the maximum number of pending edits would also be reasonable, as would making this feature site-specific so it gets turned off after the tag wiki review queue speeds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the community side, on the other hand, **if you have more than 5k rep, please review all the Suggested Edits you can.** This keeps that specific queue faster and allows a faster community dialog about what we want our tag wikis to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy to take the [tag:feature-request] to the Mother Meta, but as this is mostly a local issue I thought I'd ask here and get some local support before I go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="83d8e510-d1a7-4f13-b587-5ee1431d1647" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:25:25.973" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about [30 users](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all): admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and a few others a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available. This is an issue because few people can review tag wiki edits and fewer of them actually do. Further, each reviewer can only do 20 posts per day, and I've already maxed out on that a couple of times. If you propose a tag wiki edit that takes ages to go through, that may be one possible reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore ask two things. On the site design front, **is there a way to have multiple edits to the same tag wiki in the review queue?** This would ideally be available as an &quot;Improve&quot; button directly on the tag edit (though possibly with text warning to make sparse use of it because of the reviewing limitations). Future reviewers might be presented all the reviews to the same tag wiki, either simultaneously or one after the other, to make reviewing simpler. A cap on the maximum number of pending edits would also be reasonable, as would making this feature site-specific so it gets turned off after the tag wiki review queue speeds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the community side, on the other hand, **if you have more than 5k rep, please review all the Suggested Edits you can.** This keeps that specific queue faster and allows a faster community dialog about what we want our tag wikis to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy to take the [tag:feature-request] to the Mother Meta, but as this is mostly a local issue I thought I'd ask here and get some local support before I go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="c4de7eaa-a169-4962-b099-dc171da7c745" CreationDate="2013-09-04T14:02:23.857" UserId="24773" Comment="completed various aspects" Text="My problem with this discussion is that I wonder about the correlation between votes and quality. Admittedly I can only read fairly elementary topics. But I find that questions that give me a lot to think just get downvoted, and I also find wrong answers at the top of the votes. And the vote ordering is often not the quality ordering (when I think I can estimate it with fair reliability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that science has never been a matter of opinion, or of vote. The usefulness of vote is more sociological than scientific. Interestingly, the rep gives you a right to manage, not to decide on scientific issues, which is probably a good thing. But it is also a bit of a problem since users can confuse rep and scientific reliability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the problem that quality is not easily measured. So many users think that a formula is an explanation  ...  sometimes they do not even bother defining notation, assuming some universality of it. Ther is also the opposite: answers by someone who has an opinion though he does not really know anything on the topic and does not have half an argument to back his opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as I said, I can only read the more elementary topics, and I have been wondering whether the situation is the same for the more advanced questions.&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that one can talk nonsense at any level, but what is it actually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding specifically the quality of questions**, what matters most is&#xD;&#xA;the sexyness-entertaining quality of the question, not actual content&#xD;&#xA;or preparatory work. I will take the example of two questions that are&#xD;&#xA;exactly on the same topic, but were not flagged as such:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66746/&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73654/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was mine, actually my fist post on physics.SE after&#xD;&#xA;doing no physics for more decades than I care to tell.&#xD;&#xA;It took me a long time to write that question as I was trying to&#xD;&#xA;understand first what issues could matter, what kind of data and&#xD;&#xA;question might be sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very lucky to be upvoted once, and to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was asked 2 month later. It is exactly the same&#xD;&#xA;issue, presented as a disaster movie. It was not detected as&#xD;&#xA;duplicate and attracted much attention and 20 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I try to ask questions as a scientist, or as a showman ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue, directly related, is the questions removed as&#xD;&#xA;duplicate. First, it is inconsistant (see above) and sometimes&#xD;&#xA;inaccurate.  Answering old questions is a waste of time. I know as I&#xD;&#xA;did it more than my share. Thoses answers do not get votes or&#xD;&#xA;comments, and I personnally hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the practice of stopping duplicate question is just the best way to&#xD;&#xA;ensure that further input will not come, of that a different&#xD;&#xA;perspective will be avoided. **What would have happened if the second question above had been detected as duplicate, as it should have ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I am really wondering what is the purpose, and the dangers, of&#xD;&#xA;such a site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="a2d916bb-743a-482f-a995-4e749858df29" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:31:38.637" UserId="12798" Text="Everything is very conveniently hidden behind the Moderator Agreement. I Understand that there are Privacy Issues, especially In cases where there is use of abusive language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While precise details of the Suspension need not be disclosed, I think even a line offering the basic reason is necessary so that the community can know exactly why, Such as &quot;Use of abusive language&quot; or &quot;Intentional and repeated spamming&quot; or &quot;Unfounded Allegations against Moderators&quot; or whatever the reason is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [post][1] Which asks for a lot more to be disclosed. But I only ask for a one line reason available to the Public, Especially if you are Imposing 6 Month - 1 Year suspensions to users who are otherwise friendly atleast to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4241/change-of-policy-make-reasons-for-suspensions-public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="a2d916bb-743a-482f-a995-4e749858df29" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:31:38.637" UserId="12798" Text="Can we Trust the Moderators with the power to suspend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="a2d916bb-743a-482f-a995-4e749858df29" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:31:38.637" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10445" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="cf1643ec-f48d-4679-be1b-a370877223de" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:37:46.840" UserId="12798" Comment="edited title" Text="One line Reason for Suspension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="823c44ba-f2c6-4ce9-90d1-e4411af0f282" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:52:25.540" UserId="9789" Text="We give the short indication on the profile to avoid [the Streisand effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect), so other users get a general idea of _why_ an account was suspended. The user that was suspended is always welcome to contact us (the Stack Exchange team) to let us know if they feel the suspension was unwarranted or excessive. There are checks and balances on _everything_ that community moderators can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving too much more detail would border on violating the user's privacy - remember that search engines see profile pages and that text, so less there is definitely better. The system provides enough so that those interested in recent events the user was involved in can _probably_ determine what happened, and we're respectful of the user's privacy in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="8564b29b-679e-4c05-9c13-329250e85f04" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:57:42.450" UserId="19976" Text="Do moderators have additional privileges to edit comments after the usual 5 minute cutoff?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because in the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon#comment158548_76162&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could have sworn that Qmechanic's original comment was &quot;possible duplicate,&quot; which is why I had responded that I didn't think it was a duplicate.  This makes my response comment look rather silly, but I'm mainly curious because it's bothering me that my memory is failing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="8564b29b-679e-4c05-9c13-329250e85f04" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:57:42.450" UserId="19976" Text="Moderators and comment edit cutoff time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="8564b29b-679e-4c05-9c13-329250e85f04" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:57:42.450" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10450" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="c47e348b-e6ca-4a38-8ffc-8a943d09a21c" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:59:58.780" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="649a9e93-cca6-42cc-9e0a-99c80a7594fa" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:00:02.553" UserId="2451" Text="Yes, moderators can edit comments after the usual 5 minutes window, even comment by others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I might have written _possible duplicate_ first, I don't remember now, but I'm pretty sure I changed it to _related_ within 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="aa18f6b2-c3d5-49b7-87cb-40cbc97ae376" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:01:43.617" UserId="7433" Text="Yes. We can edit all comments without a time limit. This is mainly supposed to be used for editing profanities (or other things) out of an otherwise useful comment. There's no special exception in the software to prevent moderators from editing their _own_ comments after the 5 minute window, and it's not particularly necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it usually isn't intentional, we do tend to overshoot the 5 minute limit at times since we get no notification about it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="a1bb2aa0-2674-45e0-819f-2b92c833d7b6" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:05:16.120" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="Yes, moderators can edit comments after the usual 5 minute window, even comments by others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I might have written _possible duplicate_ first, I don't remember now, but I'm pretty sure I changed it to _related_ within 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="d7464450-4329-4959-bf52-f120404cd451" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:12:40.927" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="Yes, moderators can edit comments after the usual 5 minute window has ended, even comments by others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I might have written _possible duplicate_ first, I don't remember now, but I'm pretty sure I changed it to _related_ within 5 minutes. Your reply comment is only 2 minutes after mine, so we might have overlapped in our messages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="adfff519-53c0-433a-b260-2b96b9812e73" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:19:19.230" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="Yes, moderators can edit comments after the usual 5 minute window has ended, even comments by other users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, there is a pencil icon behind my comment, so I did change something, I might have written _possible duplicate_ first, I don't remember now, but I'm pretty sure I changed it to _related_ within 5 minutes. Your reply comment is only 2 minutes after mine, so we might have overlapped in our messages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="54e03d79-61c3-404a-9c3e-e00237b2eb0e" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:24:13.487" UserId="10896" Text="There is currently a flood of boring questions by new users. It has been a while since I have seen some interesting questions. But then I realised many of the recent interesting questions might get lost to the bottom of the &quot;newest&quot; tab in the current flood of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way I can sort out these &quot;Good&quot; questions which are recent enough(A week old)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;frequent&quot; or &quot;votes&quot; tabs don't help because they don't sort out the recent ones. And the &quot;newest&quot; tab doesn't help because it doesn't sort out the good ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Though it doesn't need specifying, &quot;good&quot; questions are defined by votes and/or activity(views, comments, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="54e03d79-61c3-404a-9c3e-e00237b2eb0e" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:24:13.487" UserId="10896" Text="How to sort Good+Recent questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="54e03d79-61c3-404a-9c3e-e00237b2eb0e" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:24:13.487" UserId="10896" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="08ce804d-e95b-4246-9cfd-921aeee687d3" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:33:10.940" UserId="124" Text="In the search box at the top right, you can write `is:question score:3` and then sort the results by &quot;newest&quot;. This will give you a list of all questions with net score 3 or higher, sorted from newest to oldest. You can, of course, change the number 3 to some other value to suit your definition of a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also search operators for views and number of answers and other things, if you would like to incorporate those; full details are [in the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Don't forget that you can help limit the number of boring questions (and the visibility of the ones we do get) by downvoting them and flagging those which are inappropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="4a835b04-45a1-413b-bdb4-5cb5195d84cf" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:33:38.403" UserId="7433" Text="You can use the `score:` search operator to filter by score, and then sort the results by &quot;newest&quot; or &quot;active&quot;. Try [this][1] search (modify the number 3 if you wish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is a `views:` operator (and an `answers:` operator) that works similarly. Both operators search for posts with score/views greater than or equal to a given number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=score:3%20is:question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="8bbd4ec6-868a-4d16-b11a-663975c52992" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:44:30.390" UserId="124" Comment="clarify the last point" Text="In the search box at the top right, you can write `is:question score:3` and then sort the results by &quot;newest&quot;. This will give you a list of all questions with net score 3 or higher, sorted from newest to oldest. You can, of course, change the number 3 to some other value to suit your definition of a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also search operators for views and number of answers and other things, if you would like to incorporate those; full details are [in the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Don't forget that you can help limit the number of boring questions (and the visibility of the ones we do get) by downvoting and/or flagging them when it's appropriate to do so. Downvotes and flags, properly used, are an essential part of keeping the site's quality up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="d8c5763c-6b9f-466f-adcd-e160d07cd248" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:46:32.590" UserId="2451" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Yes, moderators can edit comments after the usual 5 minute window has ended, even comments by other users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, there is a pencil icon behind my comment, so I did change something, I might have written _possible duplicate_ first, I don't remember now, but I'm pretty sure I changed it to _related_ within 5 minutes. Your reply comment is only 2 minutes after mine. Moreover, a comment edit is not instantly updated on other users' screens unless they manually refresh/reload the page, so it is entirely plausible that we have unintentionally overlapped in our comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10463" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="760e0eaa-19d8-48ab-b099-d01c8cf2638e" CreationDate="2013-09-04T18:54:37.277" UserId="8563" Comment="made title more indicative of content." Text="Comment edit cutoff time for moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="e7545995-1dc2-40f6-8c46-61a9779a9123" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:44:03.083" UserId="12798" Text="These are One year(or half  year depending on who we are talking about) suspensions, not a week or two. I would have been ok if it was a week or even two weeks, which is a reasonable period for reflection and &quot;to Cool down&quot;. Ofcourse your natural response is mail the stack exchange team, I am pretty sure it is useless to do so. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="f09464c2-e9cc-4579-919d-649db5b1b640" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:54:10.643" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 106 characters in body" Text="These are One year(or half  year depending on who we are talking about) suspensions, not a week or two. I would have been ok if it was a week or even two weeks, which is a reasonable period for reflection and &quot;to Cool down&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your response will be mail the stack exchange team, What do can I say? I don't know anything that happened. There has to be a justification for imposing such Harsh suspensions. And I want to know it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="063c100e-5676-4a02-bd29-5b5f57abaeb9" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:23:22.110" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="I've been logging in to SE using openid, provided by MyOpenID.com. Now MyOpenID says they're going to stop hosting openid in February. I only use openid for SE. I don't do social media. What is my most hassle-free option for keeping my SE accounts open and continuing to log in to them? Can I switch to Stackexchange as my openid provider, and if so, how do I do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="063c100e-5676-4a02-bd29-5b5f57abaeb9" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:23:22.110" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="How to switch away from MyOpenID?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="063c100e-5676-4a02-bd29-5b5f57abaeb9" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:23:22.110" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|support|login|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="e95ec357-1c6c-477e-88ea-a7069dbb19b6" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:38:15.330" UserId="124" Text="Yes, you can. To do this, go to your profile page on the main site and click on &quot;my logins&quot; at the top right. At the bottom of this page, it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To create a new Stack Exchange account&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; # **click here**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on the link, then fill in your email address and chosen password (and your name if you like), and click the button to submit and that should be it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this process is separate from any accounts you have on SE sites, so (as far as I know) the name you enter in this form will _not_ be copied to the display name (or real name) in your profile on Physics SE, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="07520657-cb04-445e-972b-c556eae5e4cd" CreationDate="2013-09-05T11:53:41.140" UserId="2451" Comment="red notification button" Text="_Yes,_ moderators can edit comments after the usual 5 minute window has ended, even comments by other users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, there is a pencil icon behind my comment, so I did edit something, I might have written _possible duplicate_ first, I don't remember now, but I'm pretty sure I changed it to _related_ within 5 minutes. Your reply comment is only 2 minutes after mine. Moreover, a comment edit is not instantly updated on another user's screen unless he manually refreshes/reloads the page, so it is entirely plausible that we have unintentionally overlapped in our comments. Later I noticed a red notification button in the upper left corner of my brouwser (caused by the _@Qmechanic_ in your reply comment), but I did not change anything because of the notification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="f2b421cf-4b05-4f3b-b8b5-8ec419eb5cbf" CreationDate="2013-09-05T15:26:59.243" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="add links" Text="I've been logging in to SE using openid, provided by MyOpenID.com. Now MyOpenID says they're going to stop hosting openid in February. I only use openid for SE. I don't do social media. What is my most hassle-free option for keeping my SE accounts open and continuing to log in to them? Can I switch to Stackexchange as my openid provider, and if so, how do I do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following info, which I don't actually understand, may be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4167495&amp;cid=44762189&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4167495&amp;cid=44761869" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="983e8e0c-1341-4bb7-a3b2-ccd296b56fde" CreationDate="2013-09-05T15:44:22.303" UserId="24773" Text="Closing duplicate is certainly a problem, as a variation in the way&#xD;&#xA;the question is asked can suggest very different answers, and&#xD;&#xA;sometimes much better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are closed, the only alternative is to answer the old&#xD;&#xA;question, which I know from experience is mostly a waste of time&#xD;&#xA;because you start at the bottom of a list that is supposed to&#xD;&#xA;order for quality and not for date. I hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that duplicate policies are inconsistent, bordering&#xD;&#xA;arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here, I will just copy a part of [my answer to another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;about the quality of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding specifically the quality of questions**, what matters most&#xD;&#xA;is the sexyness-entertaining quality of the question, not actual&#xD;&#xA;content or preparatory work. I will take the example of two questions&#xD;&#xA;that are exactly on the same topic, but were not flagged as such:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66746/ and&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73654/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was mine, actually my fist post on physics.SE after doing no physics for more decades than I care to tell. It took me a long time to write that question as I was trying to understand first what issues could matter, what kind of data and question might be sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very lucky to be upvoted once, and to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was asked 2 month later. It is exactly the same issue, presented as a disaster movie. It was not detected as duplicate and attracted much attention and 20 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I try to ask questions as a scientist, or as a showman ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue, directly related, is the questions removed as duplicate. First, it is inconsistant (see above) and sometimes inaccurate. Answering old questions is a waste of time. I know as I did it more than my share. Thoses answers do not get votes or comments, and I personnally hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the practice of stopping duplicate question is just the best way to ensure that further input will not come, of that a different perspective will be avoided. **What would have happened if the second question above had been detected as duplicate, as it should have ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4858#4876" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="c5f404f1-5631-4adf-b19a-e3a90984c7b0" CreationDate="2013-09-05T16:07:39.377" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Exact duplicate (closed) questions and automatic link insertion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10477" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="c5f404f1-5631-4adf-b19a-e3a90984c7b0" CreationDate="2013-09-05T16:07:39.377" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|feature-request|exact-duplicates|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="6d976b8a-ab97-4c84-a1f4-d408502abd8a" CreationDate="2013-09-06T07:00:38.187" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 197 characters in body" Text="Treat this as a way of expression that I am unhappy with such long suspensions being imposed. Since I don't know why it happened perhaps you have a reason and I won't pursue. It certainly involved people who I enjoyed listening to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="1805eb25-5b38-4c0b-b797-6e3cca9cda3d" CreationDate="2013-09-06T07:44:51.093" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Treat this as a way of expression that I am unhappy with such long suspensions being imposed. Since I don't know why it happened, perhaps you have a reason and I won't pursue. It certainly involved people who I enjoyed listening to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="98642e2b-48be-4785-b817-70aee661830f" CreationDate="2013-09-06T12:50:04.110" UserId="23119" Text="If you see [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) page, there are many &quot;pending&quot; tag synonyms.  I' have noticed that very few people bother voting on tag synonyms.  This post is like a request for people to  vote on tag synonyms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have at least 5 reputation on a particular tag (you can see how much reputation you have on a particular tag [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23119?tab=tags), replacing &quot;23119&quot; with   your own    user id.),              please consider voting on tag synonyms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, if you also have 2500 reputation, consider proposing tag synonyms (this is a little hard, because  the synonym needs to exist first.).                   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="98642e2b-48be-4785-b817-70aee661830f" CreationDate="2013-09-06T12:50:04.110" UserId="23119" Text="Please vote on tag synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="98642e2b-48be-4785-b817-70aee661830f" CreationDate="2013-09-06T12:50:04.110" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10486" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="ab86a30c-99ae-4cd1-a785-0bba1cfc3f24" CreationDate="2013-09-06T12:51:30.010" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="0b48ea70-58f5-49e1-a496-d2f0abea2171" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:14:11.687" UserId="7433" Text="You've got the requirements wrong, they're much stricter. Firstly, 2.5k rep is needed for voting, too. In addition, it's a _score_ (upvotes-downvotes) of five from answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result we usually (depends on the tag) don't have the requisite number of people to get synonyms  by community voting. Instead, the hb get proposed on the other meta thread, and mod approved if there seems to be consensus. Yes, there are a couple of upvoted ones there that need to be looked at, I'll do that soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW I don't like the abbreviation-synonyms you proposed there as much, I don't see a need for them. The particle-&gt;particle-physics is an iffy one too; the word has a broader meaning. But the tags are usually used to mean the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="87b893c0-6d1b-4166-bf77-a0d995ef51f9" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:36:29.520" UserId="7433" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="You've got the requirements wrong, they're slightly stricter. &lt;s&gt;Firstly, 2.5k rep is needed for voting, too.&lt;/s&gt; In addition, it's a _score_ (upvotes-downvotes) of five from answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;As a result we usually (depends on the tag) don't have the requisite number of people to get synonyms  by community voting&lt;/s&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syn page isn't too visible and there's not much of a chance to discuss. Instead, the synonyms usually get proposed on the other meta thread, and mod approved if there seems to be consensus. Yes, there are a couple of upvoted ones there that need to be looked at, I'll do that soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW I don't like the abbreviation-synonyms you proposed there as much, I don't see a need for them. The particle-&gt;particle-physics is an iffy one too; the word has a broader meaning. But the tags are usually used to mean the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="446f6030-d511-4d8d-8e5b-0cc8fee32795" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:51:01.533" UserId="23119" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="             &#xD;&#xA;I just wonder why the questions are duplicated (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75524/the-sound-change-the-light?noredirect=1#comment156943_75524 ) ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I ask physics things in physics site (even       less quoting, and edited it as a physics problem),       and English questions in English site (ELL.SE).        Can't SE change? Am I running against a wall of obstinacy?                 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="446f6030-d511-4d8d-8e5b-0cc8fee32795" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:51:01.533" UserId="23119" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can't se change? Am I running against a wall of obstinacy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10491" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="446f6030-d511-4d8d-8e5b-0cc8fee32795" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:51:01.533" UserId="23119" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10495" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="e0050c9b-b981-48a2-9b02-7cef23116499" CreationDate="2013-09-07T00:15:42.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/376136657197862912" />
  <row Id="10499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="643e2c69-3bbd-47f1-8540-0eaa6f55cf64" CreationDate="2013-09-07T15:47:14.860" UserId="2451" Text="Merging two posts is often a quite delicate and time-consuming job. E.g. even two questions, which are essentially duplicates of each others, can be worded slightly different, and the merged answers may have to be adjusted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unfortunately an experimental fact that a new answer (to one of two duplicate questions) gains more exposure and votes if it belongs to the newer entry. But please please please do consider answering the older entry instead so that (in most cases) newer duplicate entries can be closed with minimal grief and heartache. And do never-ever submit the same answer twice to two duplicate entries!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also please help locate duplicates, e.g. in the following frequently-asked-topics: [twin paradox in SR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=twin+paradox); [Young double slit experiment in QM](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/double-slit-experiment); [parabolic motion in Newtonian mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=projectile); and other typical homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if a question formulation is unclear, please improve it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="af238e0e-00e5-49bf-8170-44dbdb669725" CreationDate="2013-09-07T19:08:55.067" UserId="124" Comment="clarify the process" Text="Yes, you can. To do this, go to your profile page on the main site and click on &quot;my logins&quot; at the top right. It will bring up a dialog showing the OpenIDs currently associated with your Stack Exchange account. Click the link at the bottom that says &quot;add more logins.&quot; Then, at the bottom of that page, it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To create a new Stack Exchange account&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; # **click here**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on the link, then fill in your email address and chosen password (and your name if you like), and click the button to submit and that should be it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this process is separate from any accounts you have on SE sites. To put it another way, Stack Exchange the OpenID provider (&quot;SE-OpenID&quot;) is separate from Stack Exchange the Q&amp;A site (&quot;SE-Q&amp;A&quot;). When the page says &quot;To create a new Stack Exchange account&quot; it's talking about creating a new SE-OpenID account. Your SE-Q&amp;A account (which holds your reputation and whatever information you've entered on your profile page on this site) will not be affected, except to have the new SE-OpenID account associated with it. In particular, the name and email address you enter in the form while creating your SE-OpenID account will _not_ be copied to your profile on Physics SE or any other SE site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="a3e0ad6f-dd93-49cb-a658-13c32d07167d" CreationDate="2013-09-07T19:25:35.690" UserId="7433" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4911" RevisionGUID="256c78bc-5dda-43ad-9213-7bec164a36a5" CreationDate="2013-09-08T07:24:13.727" UserId="6605" Text="The answer to this question can be found in the answers to the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why has Ron Maimon recently been suspended for a year?&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why is there no academic freedom on Physics.SE&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="196e1c95-90f2-4948-abe1-b2434df4777b" CreationDate="2013-09-08T16:02:30.167" UserId="8563" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76665/quantum-entanglement-and-causality and its multiple duplicates. We should choose a canonical question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10504" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="2e8aa10c-0f1e-4b70-bb82-775062b92b9b" CreationDate="2013-09-08T16:02:30.167" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="10505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="4c128664-4aca-4bfc-90a9-7ac4bf37e8d8" CreationDate="2013-09-08T19:21:15.693" UserId="8563" Text="There's too much banging of people's heads againts brick walls that we know won't budge around here. There are network-wide policies in place about suspensions which are there for a reason and we should _not_ be asking for exceptional insider access for any particular one - any user of this site may well wind up thanking those policies, either from within a suspension or because of someone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that isn't to say that there is a community that cares about Ron Maimon's presence. Yes, he was very often curt, to say the least. But he did some great physics. And many of us appreciate the physics he did on this site. The deleted question is a testament to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just reached 10k rep today. I am offering a small testament to the great physics that Ron did [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41721/8563). It isn't much, but I've been bugged by the pure complaining for some time. Thanks for the great physics, Ron, and hopefully see you around here next year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="2757db99-a138-4557-a0fb-39ee07ebe3f6" CreationDate="2013-09-09T08:06:41.680" UserId="23119" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="#***\[tag:status-completed]***#           &#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10508" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="7321e167-eae9-405d-975d-a25a9a4ae15e" CreationDate="2013-09-09T11:26:41.670" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|statuscompleted-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="5a2f44fa-caed-4a36-a19e-dc863321414b" CreationDate="2013-09-09T13:33:58.977" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="d9b155a3-af31-4562-a3ea-420b1d2d55bf" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:17:57.500" UserId="8563" Text="The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queues are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 27. Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="d9b155a3-af31-4562-a3ea-420b1d2d55bf" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:17:57.500" UserId="8563" Text="There is a current flood in the Reopen Votes review queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="d9b155a3-af31-4562-a3ea-420b1d2d55bf" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:17:57.500" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|review|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="69252b46-b5a8-4194-a616-1ceda04ea90f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:26:11.963" UserId="11062" Comment="fixed minor grammar issues..." Text="The review queue for reopen votes is currently exceptionally high. Did something happen in the system-side to bring on this unexpected flooding? A lot of the posts in the queue are minor edits, some were active quite a while ago, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was last edited on July 17. Normally, this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10521" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="69252b46-b5a8-4194-a616-1ceda04ea90f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:26:11.963" UserId="11062" Comment="fixed minor grammar issues..." Text="Flood in the reopen queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="02090519-7f86-4764-a7e9-4ad151537b7c" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:27:17.383" UserId="7433" Text="See [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Currently, this means that a closed question will automatically be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; added to the reopen queue when it is...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by the author. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delete it. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Sufficiently popular, where popularity is calculated based on question score, top answer score, or views per month. We're still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tweaking the exact thresholds for these, but right now they're fairly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generous - however, the most popular closed questions are being added&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the queue *first*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably an initial flood of questions, once we clear it out the queue ought to stay empty (like how all the queues were above 100 when they were introduced). There are edits from July there, so they probably allowed the algorithm to retroactively apply itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not if I can do anything about it :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/196074/lots-of-questions-in-the-reopen-queue/196078#196078" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10523" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="b8059396-7119-4692-b50a-42ca92522f86" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:09:32.093" UserId="8563" Comment="Rollback to [d9b155a3-af31-4562-a3ea-420b1d2d55bf]" Text="The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queues are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 27. Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10524" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="b8059396-7119-4692-b50a-42ca92522f86" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:09:32.093" UserId="8563" Comment="Rollback to [d9b155a3-af31-4562-a3ea-420b1d2d55bf]" Text="There is a current flood in the Reopen Votes review queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="ea5e0f69-b8bf-43b8-8219-b71d5d2bae24" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:10:25.770" UserId="8563" Comment="I like my grammar, thank you very much." Text="The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queue are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago (such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 17). Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="5b7795b5-ab79-4452-a36a-7480c65fa0c6" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:15:56.697" UserId="8563" Comment="I like my grammar, thank you very much." Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related: [Lots of questions in the reopen queue](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/196074/184688) at meta.stackoverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queue are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago (such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 17). Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10527" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="5b7795b5-ab79-4452-a36a-7480c65fa0c6" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:15:56.697" UserId="8563" Comment="I like my grammar, thank you very much." Text="There is currently a flood in the Reopen Votes review queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10528" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="f2831864-878c-4d0a-a7f3-4ac326937fde" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:40:19.267" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|review|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10529" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="1ed37837-0f9c-4e9c-bf6e-ce400325fad2" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:40:34.083" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|retagging|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10530" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="0761dfed-aeb0-4ae0-94c6-8c166b84a718" CreationDate="2013-09-09T19:26:14.997" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|review|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="23bddc5c-2704-4c02-bb0a-3f0c2278bfb2" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:30:14.697" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Here are two recent questions that I would consider low in quality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Is coherent light required for interference in the Young double slit experiment?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What theories explain the wave-particle duality as traveling-standing waves duality?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both refer to videos. The first one is a single sentence with a link to a very lengthy video. The second says he saw the video somewhere but can't find the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there are multiple problems that apply to almost all questions that are asked about videos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They usually don't take the trouble to write up what they think is going on in the video, so in order to answer the question, people would have to watch the video, which is very time-consuming. The asker usually doesn't even give a time index that can be skipped to for the relevant part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The other problem with people failing to write up anything is that the question no longer stands on its own. The video will at some point stop being available on youtube, or youtube will be superseded by something else, or whatever...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Physics.SE is supposed to be for &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,&quot; i.e., for people who are somewhat serious about the subject. People who show up here saying, &quot;I saw this video...&quot; are typically not at all serious about the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The video medium itself is just not well suited to presenting complex ideas. This also tends to drag down the level of the questions to something below what I perceive as the intended level of physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are exceptions to all of the above. For example, some people watch a video of a physics lecture online and show up here with a useful question, e.g., &quot;At 3:47, Feynman writes the equation $E=-\grad\phi+\partial A/\partial t$, but isn't the sign of the second term wrong? It disagrees with the sign in Jackson, but is this just a different sign convention?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the more common case where the questions are of low quality, would it be helpful to set some kind of standard policy and/or consensus for how to respond to the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76800/what-theories-explain-the-wave-particle-duality-as-traveling-standing-waves-dual&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76692/is-coherent-light-required-for-interference-in-the-young-double-slit-experiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="23bddc5c-2704-4c02-bb0a-3f0c2278bfb2" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:30:14.697" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="How to deal with low-quality questions based on videos?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="23bddc5c-2704-4c02-bb0a-3f0c2278bfb2" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:30:14.697" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="20879ef5-0d1c-4589-b2a9-76efad3dc084" CreationDate="2013-09-10T00:04:55.610" UserId="124" Text="Good points, and I agree. Questions like that don't really fit into any of our close reasons, as far as I can tell (maybe I'm wrong though), so I'm not sure a close vote or flag is warranted, but I would definitely consider a downvote to be appropriate. A helpful comment explaining the downvote is also nice, but of course nobody is _obligated_ to explain their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag doesn't apply to cases like this. It's meant to be for questions (and answers) which are barely coherent, or otherwise have _serious_ quality problems of a non-technical nature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="6068ab77-6c5a-408c-a48c-56a0551a88b2" CreationDate="2013-09-10T06:06:39.253" UserId="29208" Text="I want to input equations with special characters in a question, is there some way to do that? Is there like some program or some code to do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="6068ab77-6c5a-408c-a48c-56a0551a88b2" CreationDate="2013-09-10T06:06:39.253" UserId="29208" Text="How to write equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="6068ab77-6c5a-408c-a48c-56a0551a88b2" CreationDate="2013-09-10T06:06:39.253" UserId="29208" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10538" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="5891735f-5093-4c06-a4a9-572e1cd44dc7" CreationDate="2013-09-10T06:15:49.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/377314449516146688" />
  <row Id="10539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="1c682593-ad3a-4815-ad21-8d29f4169363" CreationDate="2013-09-10T08:09:27.557" UserId="7433" Text="We use LaTeX here (powered by MathJax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a small tutorial [here][1] on using LaTeX in posts. There are more links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This tutorial][2] is also pretty nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-i-format-math-chemistry-expressions-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/117/24293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="8beb79ad-61f2-479c-b27c-d02a316363cd" CreationDate="2013-09-10T08:28:58.427" UserId="7433" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="We use LaTeX here (powered by MathJax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a small tutorial [here][1] on using LaTeX in posts. There are more links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This tutorial][2] is also pretty nice. We have a short FAQ entry [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-i-format-math-chemistry-expressions-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/117/24293&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="3030792a-3a0a-4880-8481-95aece4e4d35" CreationDate="2013-09-10T11:38:48.753" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10542" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="70d49e7f-8ce2-4320-946d-3c34d9e9f6e7" CreationDate="2013-09-10T11:41:04.433" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="6138c953-a823-49eb-8028-ea4fea385f62" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:13:52.443" UserId="10522" Text="When are next moderator elections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many moderator positions will be available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When does the current moderators' term of office conclude?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="6138c953-a823-49eb-8028-ea4fea385f62" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:13:52.443" UserId="10522" Text="When are next moderator elections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="6138c953-a823-49eb-8028-ea4fea385f62" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:13:52.443" UserId="10522" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="f68d8717-b5c2-4f3e-90d7-8e6a5e26b858" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:16:59.303" UserId="124" Text="As explained [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms), moderators are not limited to terms. The next moderator election will be whenever the community and the SE team decide that the site needs more moderators, and the number of positions available will be determined by the need. It's usually 1 or 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="62b83649-b5da-43d4-9eb9-884befafa720" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:17:49.547" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; When are next moderator elections?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How many moderator positions will be available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know, elections are on a as-needed basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When does the current moderators' term of office conclude?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't one. We can step down or be removed by SE, but otherwise it's a life term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="4f407bb0-1276-48ee-84be-59321bf7b87e" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:35:02.990" UserId="10522" Text="According to this answer &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections/4924#4924 (&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The next moderator election will be whenever **the community** and the SE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; team decide that the site needs more moderators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;), the community can decide when next moderator election will take place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think that we need moderator elections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think so. I don't trust some of the current moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="4f407bb0-1276-48ee-84be-59321bf7b87e" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:35:02.990" UserId="10522" Text="Do you think that we need moderator elections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="4f407bb0-1276-48ee-84be-59321bf7b87e" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:35:02.990" UserId="10522" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="75475a91-1042-425f-b2a2-5d560b12a85f" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:49:58.283" UserId="23119" Comment="elections, " Text="|support|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10553" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="49d77bcf-260d-4f2d-9f31-ac8f4e6a25bb" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:51:10.457" UserId="23119" Comment="elections, " Text="|discussion|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="8e9c89f2-dc7d-495d-86b3-f4937e19d780" CreationDate="2013-09-10T17:03:15.633" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="According to this answer &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections/4924#4924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The next moderator election will be whenever **the community** and the SE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; team decide that the site needs more moderators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the community can decide when next moderator election will take place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think that we need moderator elections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think so. I don't trust some of the current moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="a5aa990f-e176-4883-a544-d421abaa6fbc" CreationDate="2013-09-10T17:04:16.867" UserId="124" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="As explained [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms), moderators are not limited to terms. The next moderator election will be whenever the community and the SE team decide that the moderation workload on the site exceeds what the current moderators can do, and the number of positions available will be determined by the need. It's usually 1 or 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="95b5102f-1828-44a1-96df-ba7f4281ea08" CreationDate="2013-09-10T17:09:16.390" UserId="124" Text="I wasn't clear about this in the answer you quoted (which is now edited), but moderator elections actually happen whenever the workload becomes too much for the current number of moderators - whether because of growth of the site, or the resignation/removal of one or more existing moderators. The community gets to provide input about whether moderation tasks are being done, and in that sense the community can contribute to the decision to hold a moderator election, but just saying &quot;I don't like the current moderators, so let's get new ones&quot; isn't how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can express your concerns about a current moderator in a meta post or privately to the SE team (team@stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="10e143c3-67f3-445d-bc40-cbbdec734aa3" CreationDate="2013-09-10T17:23:44.053" UserId="7186" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I wasn't clear about this in the answer you quoted (which is now edited), but moderator elections actually happen whenever the workload becomes too much for the current number of moderators - whether because of growth of the site, or the resignation/removal of one or more existing moderators. The community gets to provide input about whether moderation tasks are being done, and in that sense the community can contribute to the decision to hold a moderator election, but just saying &quot;I don't like the current moderators, so let's get new ones&quot; isn't how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can express your concerns about a current moderator in a meta post or [privately to the SE team](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10558" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="808dfb23-b3cf-44e2-854f-933aaa192c13" CreationDate="2013-09-10T18:15:51.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/377495652697407488" />
  <row Id="10559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="d6db6857-58f3-43ba-a4c7-7703ef064dcb" CreationDate="2013-09-10T19:04:14.220" UserId="8563" Text="Just a note on your last comment. If you have any specific complaints about a moderator action which you are unhappy with, this meta is the place to voice them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to be polite and reasonable, provide evidence for all your allegations, and keep the discussion civil. Additionally, you also need to understand that some moderators (which notably include user suspensions) are a private matter between the individuals involved _and should be like this as part of the privacy policy that also protects you_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that, there are no repercussions for conducting a constructive discussion in meta. **If you are unhappy about specific incidents, please express that in this meta!** It does not help if you bottle it up until you wind up being blanket unhappy with a certain person. Improving this site begins with the everyday process of helping moderators understand what the community's opinions are. If you bring a specific issue to meta in a civilized way, you stand to gain a community discussion or even re-evaluation of site policy or at least a good understanding of what the issues are and why the policies are as they are. (And, if you're unhappy with policy, you can again bring that up, though if the community disagrees with you then you'll have to settle with agree-to-disagree.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In here as in real life, don't wait until elections to exercise democracy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="2fb0d91a-8f99-41e4-b29d-9bf05f288ea0" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:02:25.193" UserId="4812" Text="Suppose ,I have asked a question in physics.stackexchange.Lets say that the question remains unanswered for a long period of time or say I don't obtain any satisfactory answers to that question.In such a case if I know few users who, I believe or hope can answer the question then how can I invite them to answer that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="2fb0d91a-8f99-41e4-b29d-9bf05f288ea0" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:02:25.193" UserId="4812" Text="Inviting known users to answer my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="2fb0d91a-8f99-41e4-b29d-9bf05f288ea0" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:02:25.193" UserId="4812" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="132b14ba-6b90-460d-b0d3-5d26e46884ea" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:20:07.020" UserId="23119" Comment="\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\    " Text="Specialties: quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, Lie algebras in physics, statistical physics, foundations of physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** NOT ACTIVE ANYMORE    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="5c138c2d-f748-4a51-972e-4cd46c025aa9" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:22:03.700" UserId="23119" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/23431/pratik-deoghare&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/23431.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for Pratik Deoghare on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; title=&quot;profile for Pratik Deoghare on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no specialities. But I am interested in (almost) everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** NOT ACTIVE ANYMORE      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="d77a12ed-162d-494c-b722-6f93717e6842" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:42:12.043" UserId="520" Text="There is no tool to bring a specific question to the attention to specific users, and all suggestions that there should be have been roundly and firmly rejected on the mother-meta. Stack Exchange is not a social network and there is no way to push content as individual users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, if you have enough rep, offer a bounty to (hopefull, there are no guarantees) draw more attention to your question in a general way. This, too is not guaranteed. The last bounty I offered expired without eliciting a single additional answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="e45c5cbf-c665-49ed-baf3-0cffd6f78a6e" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:50:38.257" UserId="11062" Text="As you can't put a bounty on your questions *yet*, you can just ping the required user in chat (if he's available), or just use comments under any of his posts&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt; I've done this methodology once (a change, for thanking a guy). I don't think this is a nice way for getting answers. So before you're gonna do this, keep in mind that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You shouldn't go around disturbing him, by commenting below all of his posts (which would lead to moderation). I commented below his post. The next day, I visited his profile. I noted the `seen` *&quot;xx hours ago&quot;*. I was quite sure that he had visited the site after I had commented. Though there's no guarantee of him *seeing it*, there's a larger chance that he'd have seen it. Because, SE provides you with an inbox by which you'll definitely get notified, which is quite helpful that you don't have to go to your post to see a comment. Again, you shouldn't disturb that particular user. You can't force someone when he's not interested into, or unable to provide an answer for your question.&#xD;&#xA;2. Comments should be useful to a particular post. As you're violating it, make sure that you delete your comment after visiting his profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, don't go around jumping from user after user, for answering your post. It's likely to work for 1 or maybe 2 (max.), but I would never suggest you to disturb everyone like this..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="e3eabf24-6088-4360-82a4-185cc81d7a35" CreationDate="2013-09-11T13:13:58.027" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|review|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="5016e3e7-5d63-40c0-8467-4d8366a0568d" CreationDate="2013-09-11T15:38:24.237" UserId="520" Comment="typos" Text="There is no tool to bring a specific question to the attention to specific users, and all suggestions that there should be have been roundly and firmly rejected on the mother-meta. Stack Exchange is not a social network and there is no way to push content at individual users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, if you have enough rep, offer a bounty to (hopefully, there are no guarantees) draw more attention to your question in a general way. This, too is not guaranteed. The last bounty I offered expired without eliciting a single additional answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="5494d103-14de-4170-a947-dc89f153d16e" CreationDate="2013-09-11T16:45:28.693" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="d97adc8c-2822-4bb7-98a1-b48053634462" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:35:53.740" UserId="8563" Text="I recently gained access to the 10k tools and the flag page looks buggy to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the flag count on the top right often shows a count for flags that are not present. The page can also be completely empty, with a nonzero counter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has [come up on the mother meta already](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/187231/184688), but since it has been marked ![enter image description here][2] there I thought I'd bring it up here as there may be relevant site differences. The bug in the main question there, which Jarred Dixon's answer addresses, also seems to be a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarred Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation. An auto-generated low-quality flag that's only for moderator eyes? (would &quot;only for ♦.♦&quot; be the right abbreviation of that, by the way?) It sounds unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone from the dev team comment on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ic2aU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c48J5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="d97adc8c-2822-4bb7-98a1-b48053634462" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:35:53.740" UserId="8563" Text="10k tools show flag counts for flags I can't see" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="d97adc8c-2822-4bb7-98a1-b48053634462" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:35:53.740" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|10k-tools|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="5e8e6f88-7b41-4394-8ab2-1ad7f412428d" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:50:43.213" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarred Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two similar-looking flag queues. One is for 10k users which contain all flags except the ♦ flags and certain auto flags, and one is for mods which contains all flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the number shown at the top of the screen (you may not see it unless there are &gt;5 flags) and at the top of the tab is cached, so it may stay stuck for a while even when a flag disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, one of the posts had already been flagged by you (afaict), so it didn't appear in your queue but added up to the number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There still is something fishy here, though. Probably just caching. I currently see the tab indicator as 2, with the breakdown as 2NAA and 1VLQ. There is one post with an NAA flag (from 2 users, one of them is you), and another with an NAA (from you) and a VLQ flag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;♦.♦" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="2ee96278-e2b8-47e9-b55a-5eb098e37433" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:04:00.823" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently gained access to the 10k tools and the flag page looks buggy to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the flag count on the top right often shows a count for flags that are not present. The page can also be completely empty, with a nonzero counter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has [come up on the mother meta already](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/187231/184688), but since it has been marked ![enter image description here][2] there I thought I'd bring it up here as there may be relevant site differences. The bug in the main question there, which Jarred Dixon's answer addresses, also seems to be a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarrod Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation. An auto-generated low-quality flag that's only for moderator eyes? (would &quot;only for ♦.♦&quot; be the right abbreviation of that, by the way?) It sounds unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone from the dev team comment on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ic2aU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c48J5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="a48fbe9f-8d28-4d02-8ae1-d1c6b4213faa" CreationDate="2013-09-12T05:04:39.500" UserId="9719" Text="I'd like to point two things out about the deleted discussion. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. It started nine months ago, and was closed 8 months ago.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The OP was not a member of SE when that discussion took place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This discussion should probably end there. But since it hasn't, I will say that these discussions are never useful. That particular question was essentially an invitation for users to discuss how wonderful and useful a particular user was, and to object to his suspension solely on the basis of how wonderful and useful he was. Many users obliged. They argued essentially that that particular user should not have been suspended because of his reputation and value to he community. Never mind that the mods found him to be engaging in antisocial activity. The mods are not allowed to discuss the reason for that suspension, and they are the only people with that information. So it's really a one-sided discussion. Unless some other, non-privileged, user has some pertinent information, there really isn't any point to discussing the case. There was also another user suspended at the same time. No one complained about that suspension, which makes me think these arguments were either not in good faith, or were not fully thought through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a line of thinking that there is something wrong with a particular suspension. That is a really odd way to think about it, though. The mods don't suspend users arbitrarily: they have to either see the bad behavior themselves, or it has to be reported to them by another user. We have 5 mods currently. I haven't seen one of them in some time, so maybe we only have 4 active mods. They all come to a consensus on suspensions. So if you think there is something wrong with a suspension, you're saying that they all screwed up. And that can happen, I suppose. If you think that happened, you can write to the SE Community team. I have seen at least three of them around. They out-rank our local mods. Ultimately, there are several levels of review that a suspension will go through. If you think all of those check don't work, or that all of those people are engaged in a conspiracy, then you think this system really doesn't work. Since you're still using the system, I don't believe that you really think these checks aren't working. This paragraph applies to everyone complaining about this particular suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will admit that, whenever I see a suspended account anywhere on SE, I will engage in a bit of [rubbernecking]. This usually consists of looking at the offending user's Activity page to see what they were writing before they were suspended. Sometimes I can guess, sometimes I can't; the mods usually scrub most of the offending material. In this particular case, it was really obvious. I believe that the mods are actually incapable of removing the evidence of the wrongdoing in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rubbernecking]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbernecking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="f136f298-db7c-4a00-913c-8254183c0fc9" CreationDate="2013-09-12T12:15:37.550" UserId="9719" Comment="Clarify which OP I'm taking about." Text="I'd like to point two things out about the deleted discussion. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. It started nine months ago, and was closed 8 months ago.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The OP of this question was not a member of SE when that discussion took place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This discussion should probably end there. But since it hasn't, I will say that these discussions are never useful. That particular question was essentially an invitation for users to discuss how wonderful and useful a particular user was, and to object to his suspension solely on the basis of how wonderful and useful he was. Many users obliged. They argued essentially that that particular user should not have been suspended because of his reputation and value to he community. Never mind that the mods found him to be engaging in antisocial activity. The mods are not allowed to discuss the reason for that suspension, and they are the only people with that information. So it's really a one-sided discussion. Unless some other, non-privileged, user has some pertinent information, there really isn't any point to discussing the case. There was also another user suspended at the same time. No one complained about that suspension, which makes me think these arguments were either not in good faith, or were not fully thought through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a line of thinking that there is something wrong with a particular suspension. That is a really odd way to think about it, though. The mods don't suspend users arbitrarily: they have to either see the bad behavior themselves, or it has to be reported to them by another user. We have 5 mods currently. I haven't seen one of them in some time, so maybe we only have 4 active mods. They all come to a consensus on suspensions. So if you think there is something wrong with a suspension, you're saying that they all screwed up. And that can happen, I suppose. If you think that happened, you can write to the SE Community team. I have seen at least three of them around. They out-rank our local mods. Ultimately, there are several levels of review that a suspension will go through. If you think all of those check don't work, or that all of those people are engaged in a conspiracy, then you think this system really doesn't work. Since you're still using the system, I don't believe that you really think these checks aren't working. This paragraph applies to everyone complaining about this particular suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will admit that, whenever I see a suspended account anywhere on SE, I will engage in a bit of [rubbernecking]. This usually consists of looking at the offending user's Activity page to see what they were writing before they were suspended. Sometimes I can guess, sometimes I can't; the mods usually scrub most of the offending material. In this particular case, it was really obvious. I believe that the mods are actually incapable of removing the evidence of the wrongdoing in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rubbernecking]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbernecking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="552ab55c-cfc5-4eab-8551-eb57465d3ef4" CreationDate="2013-09-12T12:48:25.487" UserId="23068" Text="There are two posts with flags on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One you have flagged, but so have others - you are seeing the count of others on it, but you can't see it because you have flagged it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one also has a couple of flags on it, but one of those is a moderator flag. The count includes the non-moderator flag, but the moderator flag prevents you from seeing the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... the count is that of current non-moderator flags (minus yours), the posts don't show up in your list for two different reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10581" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="d290e4c1-a769-4bee-82ae-e060848db0a0" CreationDate="2013-09-12T12:48:33.877" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|10k-tools|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="ed963a16-0cf6-497f-b031-067fae908b67" CreationDate="2013-09-12T12:49:25.677" UserId="9719" Text="**The current moderation team is doing just fine.** We officially have [5 mods]: David Z, dmckee, Manishearth, mbq, and Qmechanic. mbq's activity has been sporadic recently, but I see all 4 of the others every single day. So maybe we really have 4 active mods. That seems to be working well for now. Maybe we could use another mod, but I could go either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm skeptical of this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't trust some of the current moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be much more effective to discuss your specific concerns, rather than vaguely insinuating that something isn't working. If you are not comfortable discussing it more specifically, then that is symptomatic of a larger distrust with the entire SE system. Simply by being here, and asking this question, you are expressing at least some trust that the system still works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see from [your activity] that you have been less active in the last couple of weeks. Is that because of your distrust of the mods, or is this just part of the normal ebb and flow of time and energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5 mods]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators&#xD;&#xA;[your activity]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/10522/drake?tab=activity&amp;sort=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="eb660a0d-a4fc-488b-ae47-3cf7eb8be979" CreationDate="2013-09-12T14:22:37.773" UserId="7433" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="[Manishearth][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities: None.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: Stuff requiring analogies, electromagnetism, basic QM and relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually on chat anyways, but its better to keep this here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1212053.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="818ac457-1b33-4b7d-965c-d2cdcb4a890c" CreationDate="2013-09-12T14:55:07.667" UserId="8563" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Related:** [tag:feature-request] at Meta.StackOverflow, http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/196775/184688. Show it some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently gained access to the 10k tools and the flag page looks buggy to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the flag count on the top right often shows a count for flags that are not present. The page can also be completely empty, with a nonzero counter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has [come up on the mother meta already](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/187231/184688), but since it has been marked ![enter image description here][2] there I thought I'd bring it up here as there may be relevant site differences. The bug in the main question there, which Jarred Dixon's answer addresses, also seems to be a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarrod Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation. An auto-generated low-quality flag that's only for moderator eyes? (would &quot;only for ♦.♦&quot; be the right abbreviation of that, by the way?) It sounds unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone from the dev team comment on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ic2aU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c48J5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="cbd40c1e-1855-4837-80de-542f24ded111" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:32:21.200" UserId="5477" Text="I decided to finally go ahead start using the ignored tags feature. So I added &quot;homework&quot; as an ignored tag - but the homework questions are still there on the main page, they're just greyed out. Is it possible to make them disappear entirely? This is a last-ditch attempt to filter out some of the noise on this site and make it seem interesting again, and if I still have to scroll past all the greyed-out homework questions it's not going to be as effective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="cbd40c1e-1855-4837-80de-542f24ded111" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:32:21.200" UserId="5477" Text="Can I actually ignore my ignored tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="cbd40c1e-1855-4837-80de-542f24ded111" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:32:21.200" UserId="5477" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="ea380d8a-29e3-439e-a477-f789a2c5eba8" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:43:55.410" UserId="5477" Comment="added image" Text="I decided to finally go ahead start using the ignored tags feature. So I added &quot;homework&quot; as an ignored tag - but the homework questions are still there on the main page, they're just greyed out, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make them disappear entirely? This is a last-ditch attempt to filter out some of the noise on this site and make it seem interesting again, and if I still have to scroll past all the greyed-out homework questions it's not going to be as effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cQF1D.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="c83ef8ff-150a-4b7b-8ddf-e5ae1ccd2aed" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:46:34.657" UserId="7433" Text="Ah, this seems to be a preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to [your preferences page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tick the &quot;hide ignored posts&quot; checkbox  near the bottom:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this hides _all_ posts tagged &quot;homework&quot;, even if they are tagged with your favorited tags. Probably desired behavior in this case :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/current&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UfNGH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="6a589197-1abf-43d0-ba43-43f87d67f4ac" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:51:51.843" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10592" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="f46f0a80-098c-4659-b860-7cdaf08a20a4" CreationDate="2013-09-12T22:49:17.593" UserId="23119" Comment="m   s;;cx;cx;vxzmkaxmzxcmccvicvxmximx  ! .      Better title; edited tags . , " Text="|discussion|featured|questions|answers|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="f46f0a80-098c-4659-b860-7cdaf08a20a4" CreationDate="2013-09-12T22:49:17.593" UserId="23119" Comment="m   s;;cx;cx;vxzmkaxmzxcmccvicvxmximx  ! .      Better title; edited tags . , " Text="Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="40594cad-1da4-43f6-b3dd-5907463a445a" CreationDate="2013-09-13T13:39:05.243" UserId="2451" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=​&quot;/​help/​badges/​49/​populist&quot; title=​&quot;gold badge:​ Highest scoring answer that outscored an accepted answer with score of more than 10 by more than 2x&quot; class=​&quot;badge&quot;&gt;​…​&lt;/a&gt;​ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please **downvote(!)** this meta post to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't appear on the [front meta page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="49adfd35-421f-4d23-a439-59dd9645c312" CreationDate="2013-09-13T14:27:46.367" UserId="2451" Comment="added 36 characters in body; edited title" Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=​&quot;/​help/​badges/​49/​populist&quot; title=​&quot;gold badge:​ Highest scoring answer that outscored an accepted answer with score of more than 10 by more than 2x&quot; class=​&quot;badge&quot;&gt;​…​&lt;/a&gt;​ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard not to like this meta post but please please **downvote(!)** it to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't appear on the [front meta page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10597" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="49adfd35-421f-4d23-a439-59dd9645c312" CreationDate="2013-09-13T14:27:46.367" UserId="2451" Comment="added 36 characters in body; edited title" Text="Formatting sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="7b049d02-d812-41ae-b03f-9cf18cd3b0cb" CreationDate="2013-09-13T15:40:23.367" UserId="23119" Comment="Make it clear on the main page . " Text="You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard not to like this meta post but please please **downvote(!)** it to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't appear on the [front meta page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10599" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="7b049d02-d812-41ae-b03f-9cf18cd3b0cb" CreationDate="2013-09-13T15:40:23.367" UserId="23119" Comment="Make it clear on the main page . " Text="Formatting sandbox (PLEASE DOWNVOTE to - 8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="b97aba11-a562-42f0-8492-fbc96df20391" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:02:29.283" UserId="25069" Text="This question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77228/resistance-of-circle-of-wire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is part of an active contest.  I don't know what the policy is for these cases but this person is trying to cheat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="b97aba11-a562-42f0-8492-fbc96df20391" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:02:29.283" UserId="25069" Text="Question is part of a contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="b97aba11-a562-42f0-8492-fbc96df20391" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:02:29.283" UserId="25069" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="11a59bed-5ae8-46f2-9c47-5697bcd45481" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:08:12.987" UserId="124" Text="Here's the question that addresses this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To _summarize_ from the answer there, we need to verify that the questions are actually from a contest (which is done) and also that the rules of the contest forbid seeking outside help (I'm looking into this). Once that's done, one of us moderators will close the question, or non-moderators can also vote to close it if they're sufficiently convinced that the question violates the contest rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But really, read the answer at that other question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="5b14598b-4174-485e-b9fe-66c176fb4aa4" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:22:30.197" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="This question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77228/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is part of an active contest.  I don't know what the policy is for these cases but this person is trying to cheat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="de2e44cf-1251-4151-8a97-35544f04094b" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:29:50.973" UserId="2451" Text="The Phys.SE question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77228/ indeed seems to be question B2 of a homework assignment with due date 30.09.2013, cf. [this](http://fks.sk/archiv/2013_14/29knizkaZima1.pdf) pdf document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translator from Slovak -&gt; English produced this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _B2 - Nákružnica (9 points)&#xD;&#xA;Tinka is seeking revenge, as it pulled beetroot (and gave them Katka). Therefore, pulled out of the lab resistance wire with resistance R and produced from it earring. Sealed iron ends so as to form circle of uniform cross-section. She felt while resistance and resistance earrings a measured so that the earring Conn. ohmmeter between terminals. What minimum and maximum resistance to Tinka measure? What resistance values ​​when the clamps squeezed from the middle of the circle angle α._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is moreover specifically stated in the document that the _problems should be solved separately._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="ad2bd719-f48e-4c75-8663-734bd94bee44" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:33:09.507" UserId="23119" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="**PLEASE DO NOT DELETE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ghvibnscnkcmxcbvjcox kxcn n jxcknnckxnjxc vcxjnvcknvkxknxc cxn ckjxnkxn cxvncvkjnvcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cvcxjnjkc njk ncxk xck jnxjkncxkjnxjknvcxjjncjknjcxknxckcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ckvncxjkcxjknvkbnjnvcknvkcncknvcxjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjvjkfdkjvvvnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnvnvvkdd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/\       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10624" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="c1796d51-1c9e-4031-a6d9-a83932e6d4a3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:33:16.803" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [48eec36f-77cf-434f-acfb-ef9d2df532ba]" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberishwaE RscSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......qawr ASDCSaASFAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10625" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="49cc6362-bbe2-46bd-97e5-d9bf88418741" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:33:21.553" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [ad2bd719-f48e-4c75-8663-734bd94bee44]" Text="**PLEASE DO NOT DELETE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ghvibnscnkcmxcbvjcox kxcn n jxcknnckxnjxc vcxjnvcknvkxknxc cxn ckjxnkxn cxvncvkjnvcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cvcxjnjkc njk ncxk xck jnxjkncxkjnxjknvcxjjncjknjcxknxckcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ckvncxjkcxjknvkbnjnvcknvkcncknvcxjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjvjkfdkjvvvnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnvnvvkdd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/\       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10626" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="342c522a-8f5f-4625-9c71-6dbf39f9e1c5" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:33:25.850" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [c1796d51-1c9e-4031-a6d9-a83932e6d4a3]" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberishwaE RscSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......qawr ASDCSaASFAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10627" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="ddbb418d-7387-4c21-9103-2ff99783417e" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:33:37.337" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [49cc6362-bbe2-46bd-97e5-d9bf88418741]" Text="**PLEASE DO NOT DELETE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ghvibnscnkcmxcbvjcox kxcn n jxcknnckxnjxc vcxjnvcknvkxknxc cxn ckjxnkxn cxvncvkjnvcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cvcxjnjkc njk ncxk xck jnxjkncxkjnxjknvcxjjncjknjcxknxckcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ckvncxjkcxjknvkbnjnvcknvkcncknvcxjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjvjkfdkjvvvnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnvnvvkdd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/\       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10628" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="331e0d99-124a-485e-aae0-4c7a1c9763d2" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:34:06.353" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [342c522a-8f5f-4625-9c71-6dbf39f9e1c5]" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberishwaE RscSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......qawr ASDCSaASFAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10629" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="19c2d47d-7266-4904-81cd-eeb646a2708f" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:34:26.090" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [ddbb418d-7387-4c21-9103-2ff99783417e]" Text="**PLEASE DO NOT DELETE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ghvibnscnkcmxcbvjcox kxcn n jxcknnckxnjxc vcxjnvcknvkxknxc cxn ckjxnkxn cxvncvkjnvcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cvcxjnjkc njk ncxk xck jnxjkncxkjnxjknvcxjjncjknjcxknxckcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ckvncxjkcxjknvkbnjnvcknvkcncknvcxjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjvjkfdkjvvvnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnvnvvkdd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/\       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="3f6cb3e6-b00b-4b42-af40-2874e9380be6" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:35:14.373" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 263 characters in body" Text="hldsfnddjbxjvbcxhjvbxjckv c vcvvjcvcnj bcxc   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;testing.........&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sdndsksncnckvncjnvn cxkvxcv&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cvvc  mmvc c clv vckl cv vc  cc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see comment .. .       md,v,v   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10632" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="59961e54-1419-48e1-b9f3-5822858ef739" CreationDate="2013-09-14T03:38:28.033" UserId="7433" Comment="edited title" Text="Formatting sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="4ec1c22d-7d36-4b7b-9bf0-8ccd047ad373" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:18:46.720" UserId="23119" Comment="/,\  " Text="&lt;!---Please do not remove the Important Notices---&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Important: PLEASE DOWNVOTE   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard not to like this meta post but please please **downvote(!)** it to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't appear on the [front meta page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!---Important notices over---&gt;           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10636" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="4ec1c22d-7d36-4b7b-9bf0-8ccd047ad373" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:18:46.720" UserId="23119" Comment="/,\  " Text="|support|formatting|status-completeing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="5013c8fa-a467-49d0-ad51-3c803ffc6714" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:23:29.037" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 452 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="5013c8fa-a467-49d0-ad51-3c803ffc6714" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:23:29.037" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 452 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="53d9a22e-163d-4cf2-b2ae-5351e2b0f594" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:23:30.927" UserId="23119" Comment="/,\  " Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="53d9a22e-163d-4cf2-b2ae-5351e2b0f594" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:23:30.927" UserId="23119" Comment="/,\  " Text="|support|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="8b2d94bb-b81f-41b9-8623-9ce0f6e31b9d" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:30:40.177" UserId="23119" Comment="By bumping a -10 voted post, I see that  it doesn't bump           to the first page, as qmechanic had said.  " Text="&lt;!---Please do not remove the Important Notices---&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Important: PLEASE DOWNVOTE   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard not to like this meta post but please please **downvote(!)** it to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't appear on the [front meta page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!---Important notices over---&gt;           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10642" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="88b05f20-28e3-4ca3-b85f-8b48572b5e52" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:30:50.677" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [53d9a22e-163d-4cf2-b2ae-5351e2b0f594]" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="f77f8953-2317-4bd6-977d-3edae895d765" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:31:54.667" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10644" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="141878e3-c6cc-42aa-a264-7dc60a30d2c3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:33:52.957" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [8b2d94bb-b81f-41b9-8623-9ce0f6e31b9d]" Text="&lt;!---Please do not remove the Important Notices---&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Important: PLEASE DOWNVOTE   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard not to like this meta post but please please **downvote(!)** it to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't appear on the [front meta page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!---Important notices over---&gt;           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10645" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="dba3e443-efa2-4a75-86c0-e58a7bcfec3d" CreationDate="2013-09-14T04:36:28.983" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [5013c8fa-a467-49d0-ad51-3c803ffc6714]" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10646" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="e0d06a71-c76f-436f-9a23-39d7400b10aa" CreationDate="2013-09-14T06:16:13.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/378764102749130752" />
  <row Id="10647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="0454613d-5738-4391-9ad3-fb47e999aaec" CreationDate="2013-09-14T10:31:11.217" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="fab4d484-93c5-4602-a5f1-73491ff440eb" CreationDate="2013-09-14T10:31:11.217" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="71eb2011-3ac5-4cf6-9ed0-730d7e6280f3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T10:33:45.180" UserId="2451" Comment="added 265 characters in body; edited title" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -4 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10650" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="71eb2011-3ac5-4cf6-9ed0-730d7e6280f3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T10:33:45.180" UserId="2451" Comment="added 265 characters in body; edited title" Text="This is a sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="36d1791d-a83c-451f-bbdb-9ed2834fc0cd" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:20:34.813" UserId="23119" Text="[meta-tag:status-completed]      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17651/is-it-possible-to-recover-classical-mechanics-from-schrodingers-equation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 over [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/17651?lq=1).    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10652" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="f653a038-4019-48d9-b678-43a200b862ff" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:20:34.813" UserId="23119" />
  <row Id="10653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="08f1cc59-2108-4020-8d41-f77e84c736d2" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:24:10.127" UserId="23119" Comment=", 0 " Text="***[meta-tag:Status-completed]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------         &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5456/the-speed-of-gravity    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too many to list; see   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/5456?lq=1 .  26 questions are listed, some aren't exactly duplicates ...        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="40bfc4c8-e568-414c-ad98-1d3eb87083e2" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:26:45.373" UserId="23119" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65238/black-hole-and-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28297/why-is-a-black-hole-black &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41930/if-nothing-in-the-universe-can-travel-faster-than-light-how-come-light-cant-es?lq=1   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't find more but I'm fairly certain they're there.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="3d6a997b-0f71-4556-ad5c-e5c6716761f0" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:27:30.500" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------      &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="d8b32ebe-4080-4a7a-a4ec-1f8a84cfc3bc" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:28:35.207" UserId="23119" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17651/is-it-possible-to-recover-classical-mechanics-from-schrodingers-equation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 over [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/17651?lq=1).    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10657" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="8b317bc9-7233-4ed0-ad95-131492789f1c" CreationDate="2013-09-14T11:33:54.823" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="This is a sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="124791d5-fa70-4a47-982f-4185eeed30ed" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:00:18.243" UserId="8563" Comment="updated link. Removed deleted question." Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------      &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-einsteins-field-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="cafdf8a4-5168-4259-8017-d1cd5c7d88d0" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:12:39.393" UserId="23119" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Before posting your own question, please consult these questions to see if there is already an answer that solves your problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are often policies.         " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10660" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="cafdf8a4-5168-4259-8017-d1cd5c7d88d0" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:12:39.393" Comment="Proposed by 23119 approved by 7433, 8563 edit id of 8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="ab4fcfee-302f-4695-a9fc-8e617a4b4dd3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:12:45.220" UserId="23119" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="These questions are the most frequently asked and answered questions on Meta. They are often policies.       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10662" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="ab4fcfee-302f-4695-a9fc-8e617a4b4dd3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:12:45.220" Comment="Proposed by 23119 approved by 7433, 8563 edit id of 9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10663" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="b2a9c60b-ef2f-489e-9772-f25c65a37153" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:13:29.023" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1159],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="95a941f2-4daa-4d98-aa0c-5b3045ae6394" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:24:39.263" UserId="23119" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary/10654#10654   &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Many others I can't find. &#xD;&#xA;   &lt;!---I remember there was a question like &quot;Is this explanation fo 9 spatial dimensions in string theory correct?&quot; or something like that (*Found*).  ---&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="ba059a8e-6564-4d7e-9ac0-43dc335dd10a" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:57:40.050" UserId="2451" Comment="added material" Text="I) The Phys.SE question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77228/ indeed seems to be question B2 of a [homework assignment](http://fks.sk/archiv/2013_14/29knizkaZima1.pdf) with due date 30.09.2013 from the [FKS secondary school competition](http://fks.sk/english/english.php) in Slovakia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translator from Slovak -&gt; English produced this translation of [the pdf file](http://fks.sk/archiv/2013_14/29knizkaZima1.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _B2 - Nákružnica (9 points)&#xD;&#xA;Tinka is seeking revenge, as it pulled beetroot (and gave them Katka). Therefore, pulled out of the lab resistance wire with resistance R and produced from it earring. Sealed iron ends so as to form circle of uniform cross-section. She felt while resistance and resistance earrings a measured so that the earring Conn. ohmmeter between terminals. What minimum and maximum resistance to Tinka measure? What resistance values ​​when the clamps squeezed from the middle of the circle angle α._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is moreover specifically stated next to a warning skull in the pdf document that _Úlohy rieš samostatne!,_ i.e. the _problems should be solved separately._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) The Phys.SE questions http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76016/2451,  http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76080/2451, and http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76091/2451 seem to be problem I.3, I.4, and I.Exp, respectively, of a [first round of problems](http://fykos.org/problems) with due date 14.10.2013 from the [FYKOS high school competition](http://fykos.org/about-us/about-us) in Czech Republic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="96f13160-7e80-4911-a10b-6760cbe15baf" CreationDate="2013-09-14T14:03:14.670" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="afd2c917-774f-4a23-be0b-f2367362a4f1" CreationDate="2013-09-14T18:08:24.057" UserId="25069" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="This question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77228/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is part of an active contest.  I don't know what the policy is for these cases but this person is trying to cheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  For those arguing allowing the questions for the intellectual reasons I should point out that after the contest is closed the solutions are made public by the exam authors.  So if this person asking the question was really sincere about learning they could just wait to see the results after the contest is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4946" RevisionGUID="42ed7e29-f8f7-4584-88cd-f9e0b12f5661" CreationDate="2013-09-14T20:00:52.860" UserId="347" Text="I am more than happy to answer most General Relativity questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="f4f29468-2fc5-4037-887d-deafa4861c9e" CreationDate="2013-09-14T23:41:29.727" UserId="8563" Text="I just approved two edits removing the tag [tag:fun-stuff] from the two only posts that currently have it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64524/what-are-the-limitations-of-performing-music-in-space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10701/how-much-force-is-in-a-keystroke-estimated-of-course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, it seems pointless to have such a small tag. On top of that, it definitely pushes the limits of on-topic (though a bit of fun never hurt anyone, really). On the other hand, it wasn't really hurting anyone as the question count was minimal.* All in all I'm pretty neutral about this, so I approved the edit. I just thought this should come up in meta before we lose the tag. (Tags with no questions get deleted shortly, as per [this MSO question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19753/what-happens-to-zombie-tags).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's it gonna be? Tag burnination? Tag rescue with tens of volunteers turning up all these fun questions that really needed that tag? Or my personal favourite, a long, slow slide of this question down the meta front page, faced with stone-cold utter indifference? (hey, I could even get a tumbleweed outta that...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* Yes, I know &quot;minimal&quot; is only one question per tag. Go take this up in math if you feel that strongly about it.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="f4f29468-2fc5-4037-887d-deafa4861c9e" CreationDate="2013-09-14T23:41:29.727" UserId="8563" Text="Is [fun-stuff] on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="f4f29468-2fc5-4037-887d-deafa4861c9e" CreationDate="2013-09-14T23:41:29.727" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|scope|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="1078730d-7ee3-4245-9699-2b4b458d630e" CreationDate="2013-09-15T01:05:40.220" UserId="6634" Text="The tag doesn't add any extra information and is an unnecessary meta-tag. Burn it at the stake! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="3c52cc21-272b-416c-8f14-d4192732438e" CreationDate="2013-09-15T01:54:29.513" UserId="8563" Text="As I have expressed mainly by my edits on such posts, video-based questions can indeed be rescued to give, I think, fairly high-quality content. This is definitely time-consuming and should only be done if you think the end product will be worth it, but I think the end results can be quite good, such as these two, in their before-and-after shots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rotor panorama](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75709/revisions) (currently closed but see my comment there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is coherent light required for interference in Young's double slit experiment?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/76692/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, it is extremely unhelpful to come to a post that says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [this video](http://youtube.com) is confusing, please explain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and nothing more. If you have the time, see the video and decide whether it's worth keeping into a full Q&amp;A. If it is, and you have the time and capacity, take the appropriate stills from the video, describe what's happening, and fill out the question. If you don't, then leave a comment to the OP explaining that they need to flesh out their post and set out a question that is not dependent on the video.* Refer them to this meta thread, too, to drive home the message that if they don't change their post soon then its likely future is lots of downvotes and no answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have time to look at the video, then also leave a comment and also refer them to this meta thread, it's [easy to find](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=videos). **Please avoid drive-by downvoting**, though, unless there already is an appropriate comment: it does little to help the site and very little to help the OP improve their post and get an answer to their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I note, though, that for users without image-upload privileges the whole thing is an uphill climb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="4dce933f-6c2d-4180-9907-f070a1eb5c8a" CreationDate="2013-09-15T05:25:53.843" UserId="23119" Comment="This is a burninate request. " Text="|discussion|scope|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="df4df033-294b-41c8-85e6-54db63688052" CreationDate="2013-09-15T06:52:47.360" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|scope|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="ed7ce8c4-1ada-431a-b81e-f499b5a40fe6" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:06:29.823" UserId="10001" Text="I just noticed that Ron's account has been [suspended again for a period of one year][1]. He is not even participating on this site anymore so i don't understand the reason for this suspension. Will my account too be closed if i stop participating ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="ed7ce8c4-1ada-431a-b81e-f499b5a40fe6" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:06:29.823" UserId="10001" Text="Why Ron Maimon's account had been closed again for one year ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="ed7ce8c4-1ada-431a-b81e-f499b5a40fe6" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:06:29.823" UserId="10001" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="7a3314d3-e467-42a4-9463-4c4388a003d9" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:09:51.010" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; He is not even participating on this site anymore so i don't understand the reason for this suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was participating, slightly. I can't provide details on the exact reasons for suspension&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I can tell you that he was suspended for his participation (more accurately, something he did in the course of that participation), not for his lack of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will my account too be closed if i stop participating ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Moderators are bound by the mod agreement to not reveal details behind a suspension&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10688" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="08eea3e8-f7b3-438a-ad2a-909a8546d10c" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:26:56.677" UserId="10001" Comment="edited title" Text="Will my account too be closed like that of Ron Maimon's if i stop participating on physicsSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="16a92a58-060d-43c0-8f12-20cecc54643c" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:40:05.657" UserId="7433" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="&gt; He is not even participating on this site anymore so i don't understand the reason for this suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was participating, slightly. I can't provide details on the exact reasons for suspension&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I can tell you that he was suspended for his participation (more accurately, something he did in the course of that participation), not for his lack of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will my account too be closed if i stop participating ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. People are free to come and go from the site if they don't break any other rules. We don't suspend accounts for inactivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Moderators are bound by the mod agreement to not reveal details behind a suspension&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10690" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="364f35e8-967c-48f7-94a3-e90760ff2270" CreationDate="2013-09-15T07:41:13.507" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|user-accounts|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="417f1b9d-8d75-42dc-8cc2-5444ae4a3302" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:21:33.037" UserId="2451" Text="Let me check if the sandbox at -8 goes to the front meta page if I add a new answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10692" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="68be5d37-d7a1-4168-8691-47ac7be7455c" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:21:33.037" UserId="2451" />
  <row Id="10693" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="5a04376c-fb9e-45ea-abd3-1ef594548c7c" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:43:33.380" UserId="23119" Comment="edited title" Text="Why has the meta post &quot;Do we agree with Ron's suspension? [clοsed]&quot; been deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10694" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="59d68294-841c-48cd-ac92-ccc1710d870e" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:43:40.850" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [ec08c4fe-4914-47e7-808f-56c0e03e7f3e]" Text="Why has the meta post 'Do we agree with Ron's suspension?' been deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10695" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="7dea9608-02d1-4992-966b-4d250a869ee5" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:52:45.950" UserId="23119" Comment="status" Text="|feature-request|design|election|proposed-status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="ed4f43fe-6db6-4e74-9d73-364690c97370" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:54:31.757" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="85499216-0d5f-4cc2-9b14-e16e570fe06f" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:54:31.757" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="c94f81f6-ba55-44bf-928e-3afb83369114" CreationDate="2013-09-15T08:55:20.010" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="470b48b3-20d0-4947-9f5f-519aa63d72d3" CreationDate="2013-09-15T09:03:32.543" UserId="23119" Comment="-" Text="|support|design|proposed-status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10700" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="9ef37882-bb3c-40bb-ac8b-8d3a92fc0c7e" CreationDate="2013-09-15T09:30:47.487" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [19c2d47d-7266-4904-81cd-eeb646a2708f]" Text="**PLEASE DO NOT DELETE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**no delete**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ghvibnscnkcmxcbvjcox kxcn n jxcknnckxnjxc vcxjnvcknvkxknxc cxn ckjxnkxn cxvncvkjnvcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cvcxjnjkc njk ncxk xck jnxjkncxkjnxjknvcxjjncjknjcxknxckcx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ckvncxjkcxjknvkbnjnvcknvkcncknvcxjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjvjkfdkjvvvnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnvnvvkdd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/\       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10701" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="c4112a30-8633-4979-a402-2b12fa04d4f9" CreationDate="2013-09-15T09:31:18.973" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [48eec36f-77cf-434f-acfb-ef9d2df532ba]" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberishwaE RscSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......qawr ASDCSaASFAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4956" RevisionGUID="e5c3931d-88aa-4fb5-a4e4-ecec92c5d7d3" CreationDate="2013-09-15T09:48:05.390" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="Fire it from a cannon, launch several cyber-nukes at it, and send the ashen remains into the black hole at the centre of the galaxy...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...in other words, burninate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="854bc77a-744b-48bb-807b-264a77317f10" CreationDate="2013-09-15T11:28:21.140" UserId="23119" Comment="added 91023394839839831983193891819839183198383198391839183198391381938138193819381983911 characters in body " Text="Let me check if the sandbox at -8 goes to the front meta page if I add a new answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="0a318a3f-45f1-4cc4-b642-acceaa043450" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:04:04.540" UserId="8563" Comment="Added clarification." Text="&gt; This post refers to the white-on-black, blackboard design initially proposed in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se. This design was withdrawn and (after a spell back in site-beta design) replaced with the current one, which first appeared in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not seeing the styling that would indicate that this site is out of beta, I've tried hard refreshes, and using browsers that I've never used before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the design actually launched, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10708" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="0a318a3f-45f1-4cc4-b642-acceaa043450" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:04:04.540" UserId="8563" Comment="Added clarification." Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="3d1f2f69-5280-49c8-986d-5251d0adf1ac" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:36:43.460" UserId="8563" Text="There has been a trend lately of old meta posts brought up to the front page because of retagging or other minor edits. While this happens all the time on the main site and is OK and encouraged in mild doses, the situation in meta is somewhat different. Meta is _very_ slow compared to the main site, by a factor of about 50. (It takes ~7 hours for an inactive post to slide down the main but ~2 weeks in meta.) I would therefore like to bring this up here. If we're OK with this, then we're OK, but if we're not then we need a policy to stick to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that bringing an old post to the front page gives the impression that the discussion is still active, and this can be very confusing. Old support posts like [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/579/why-do-i-still-see-the-beta-css) become meaningless when a tide of changes completely washes over the issue. Old policy discussions (which I won't link to) do not gain anything from the extra attention, and we have seen this have tragic consequences for certain questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, though, I think there's no real reason to be fiddling with the tags on old discussions. They are in the archive and can be found easily enough. They often discuss quite topical issues for the specific time they were asked in and now have only historical value. (A lot of it in some cases.) They do not belong on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me take a stance, then, so people can up/down-vote. **Please keep edits of old meta posts to a minimum.** Use retag edits on them only when they would be impossible to find otherwise. If you feel a certain discussion should be revived, then **give an alternative answer**, or better yet **ask a new question** that's appropriate for the site's current conditions. If you don't have anything to add to such a thread, then maybe it's in the cold archives for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tags deserve special attention. The meta tags [meta-tag:status-declined], [meta-tag:status-completed] and [meta-tag:status-bydesign] can only be applied by moderators. If you feel a question needs one of these tags and doesn't have it, **flag a moderator** and tell them that, instead of inventing new tags for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="3d1f2f69-5280-49c8-986d-5251d0adf1ac" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:36:43.460" UserId="8563" Text="Editing old meta questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="3d1f2f69-5280-49c8-986d-5251d0adf1ac" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:36:43.460" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|editing|policy|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="c4e503fc-271c-4d28-9ecc-f5ece9eab471" CreationDate="2013-09-15T16:21:07.437" UserId="6634" Text="I agree completely and am annoyed by it as well... Answering old questions is fine, expanding old questions is fine, retagging or minor (ie. doesn't add substantially to it but still bumps it to the front page) no so much. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10714" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="2a16619d-7701-48c9-9bd9-93ebe556fd54" CreationDate="2013-09-15T16:22:48.887" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10716" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="7f6861f6-a783-473c-8ba8-2748961d8b91" CreationDate="2013-09-15T18:16:20.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/379307710971662336" />
  <row Id="10718" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="b2937ddb-d4bc-4192-b6df-ae7ad2f699b3" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:00:16.373" UserId="2911" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="bd07464e-f49c-4ad9-9781-fd6b7fbc403c" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:02:36.477" UserId="2911" Comment="Don't call out specific users (see: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members); also fixed some punctuation." Text="I just noticed that the account of a formerly-active user whom I hadn't seen active since he was suspended a while back has been suspended again for a period of one year. He is not even participating on this site anymore so I don't understand the reason for this suspension. Will my account too be closed if I stop participating? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="bd07464e-f49c-4ad9-9781-fd6b7fbc403c" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:02:36.477" UserId="2911" Comment="Don't call out specific users (see: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members); also fixed some punctuation." Text="Will my account be closed if i stop participating on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="d5a6db0f-a968-496c-b0ac-7c624bfe6e91" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:04:10.440" UserId="2911" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="&gt; He is not even participating on this site anymore so i don't understand the reason for this suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was participating, slightly. I can't provide details on the exact reasons for suspension&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I can tell you that he was suspended for his participation (more accurately, something he did in the course of that participation), not for his lack of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will my account too be closed if i stop participating ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. People are free to come and go from the site if they don't break any other rules. We don't suspend accounts for inactivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Moderators are bound by common decency to not discuss the details behind a suspension of a person who by definition isn't here to defend themselves. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="09f4968f-cb0d-40eb-b46b-bb12dded8f3f" CreationDate="2013-09-15T23:45:08.933" UserId="2451" Comment="please always explain abbreviations" Text="&gt; This post refers to the white-on-black, blackboard design initially proposed in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se. This design was withdrawn and (after a spell back in site-beta design) replaced with the current one, which first appeared in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do I still see the &quot;beta&quot; [CSS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not seeing the styling that would indicate that this site is out of beta, I've tried hard refreshes, and using browsers that I've never used before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the design actually launched, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10724" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="7c9e6d6a-ab65-492b-b215-f3f324f3041d" CreationDate="2013-09-16T06:25:16.577" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [68b2da1c-2a95-4d5b-bf7c-67919c3c129a]" Text="|feature-request|design|election|" />
  <row Id="10725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="47ec708f-cf2c-4ea4-976e-c7ae2c2d88a0" CreationDate="2013-09-16T06:36:46.783" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why has [this meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/) been deleted? What is the reason for this censorship? Is it merely so that future visitors don't find out what has happened? Or was it accidental? Please undelete it.      &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10726" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="47ec708f-cf2c-4ea4-976e-c7ae2c2d88a0" CreationDate="2013-09-16T06:36:46.783" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why has this meta post been deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="0aee47c3-94c9-49d7-8f59-72acf132a64f" CreationDate="2013-09-16T09:59:22.190" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="I have a question and i want to offer bounty, how do I do it.&#xD;&#xA;And what exactly is bounty?Is it giving away your reputation to somebody" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="0aee47c3-94c9-49d7-8f59-72acf132a64f" CreationDate="2013-09-16T09:59:22.190" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="How to offer bounty to a person who answers my question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="0aee47c3-94c9-49d7-8f59-72acf132a64f" CreationDate="2013-09-16T09:59:22.190" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="|support|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="f61764a7-c8b7-4252-930d-db5fab1fda93" CreationDate="2013-09-16T10:12:11.820" UserId="8563" Text="This is all [explained in the help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). The minimum bounty is 50 reputation points so you're some way away from that. I don't see why you need one, though, you just got [a good answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77503/8563) to your only question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="eb26eb9b-679b-4b44-a382-805b9fa4378c" CreationDate="2013-09-16T11:54:47.700" UserId="23119" Comment="prev wording by a st ec/of valued assoc who has disfrconcontrthsite the user he ref to in impl way for the app t moon orb. ear. makes it seem that that user he ref to in an impl way was disal. from contr. to th. site for the approx time the earth orbits around the sun last time too.  " Text="I just noticed that the account of a formerly-active user whom I hadn't seen active since he was suspended a while back (for a month) has been suspended again for a period of one year. He is not even participating on this site anymore so I don't understand the reason for this suspension. Will my account too be closed if I stop participating?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10740" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="3c07735c-8503-4a4f-afd1-bbde70a93158" CreationDate="2013-09-16T13:44:51.250" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [bd07464e-f49c-4ad9-9781-fd6b7fbc403c]" Text="I just noticed that the account of a formerly-active user whom I hadn't seen active since he was suspended a while back has been suspended again for a period of one year. He is not even participating on this site anymore so I don't understand the reason for this suspension. Will my account too be closed if I stop participating? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="357bb36c-f5c3-4d5a-b5e7-6045802c8f9a" CreationDate="2013-09-16T15:16:21.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/379624807832510464" />
  <row Id="10742" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="e05646e8-3cdf-49e2-88e4-1ac908c43c50" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:06:45.180" UserId="7433" Comment="edited title" Text="Why was a meta discussion about another user's suspension deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="aa7a645c-674c-4923-ae76-491b3216558d" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:26:12.877" UserId="7433" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned [here][1], it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there were [some unnecessary edits][2] made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/197072/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10744" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="acb5aeb0-4d26-464f-a4df-47635ba89212" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:26:18.973" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10745" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="55e234a9-5e13-44da-9fdf-695049f3ac7e" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:30:34.693" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10746" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="6da84aae-a05e-40fd-b9e5-76f33d73f2cc" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:30:34.693" UserId="7433" Comment="1011" />
  <row Id="10747" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="cf30938e-f8c7-4b04-adee-b96e17fa42ae" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:39:12.107" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10748" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="160c40eb-668d-47de-bf9c-6c0a1a069299" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:39:12.107" UserId="7433" Comment="1011" />
  <row Id="10749" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="10fe8253-914c-4e38-868e-d308f526b0c5" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:39:29.530" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10750" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="d04388ff-31bd-4c01-b8dd-cc2c136005aa" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:39:29.530" UserId="7433" Comment="1012" />
  <row Id="10751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="49d3fea5-9c27-4123-8160-877868e1392f" CreationDate="2013-09-16T20:55:48.660" UserId="21740" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tvsog.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10752" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="7fb2ed4e-7d02-4e94-817a-abddeff4aaf6" CreationDate="2013-09-16T20:55:48.660" UserId="21740" />
  <row Id="10753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="169e227f-aad6-4693-8864-0eff86efe707" CreationDate="2013-09-16T21:01:12.450" UserId="21740" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="6e9da298-64b6-4c4d-a74a-19b8d0083a4e" CreationDate="2013-09-17T00:06:36.893" UserId="21740" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZWTFb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="7c907bda-7778-4053-8d01-66e230a109c1" CreationDate="2013-09-17T00:19:15.937" UserId="21740" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qIjvZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="913c76db-dc3d-4638-bcb5-580a6ff5543f" CreationDate="2013-09-17T03:03:02.530" UserId="520" Comment="fix ebarassing wordo and spelling errors" Text="I want to follow two threads in arguing that such questions are **very well suited to Physics.SE**: firstly that stack exchange is well suited to these kinds of questions and secondly that these *are* physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Prototypical questions that are well suited to our engine here have a small or medium number of distinct answer that are not wrong and can be well evaluated by users who are familiar with the question domain. Such questions can be either outright objective or [&quot;good subjective&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Yes, there is going to be a list of answers. There are lists of answers to questions on Stack Overflow and to most of those on the main site (in fact many of o[ur most highly voted questions][2] have 10 or more answers that take several approaches to answering the problem), but these list are characterized by a domain expert being able to say to each answer *&quot;this is correct&quot;* or *&quot;this is incorrect&quot;*, and any subjectivity that may enter is in terms of which answer is clearer or easier or more scalable or more pedogoically useful.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Managing, maintaining and running experimental apparatus constitutes a specific domain of knowledge in which experts *will know which answer are good, which might work and which are nonsense*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Experiment is, obviously, a pillar of the scientific inquiry co-equal with theory and phenomenolgy, and a substantial fraction of working scientists would describe themselves as an &quot;experimenter&quot; rather than a &quot;theorist&quot; or a &quot;phenomenlogist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  And the actual work of an experimenter includes a lot of things from the design, construction, calibration, operation of experiments though data acquisition and analysis as well as writing up the results. In my personal experience a scientist in his or her early career will spend a substantial fraction of his or her time tinkering with and swearing over some piece of apparatus that *almost* works or simple isn't working at all.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  **These are problems encountered and solved by physicists**, and because they revolve around experimental apparatus they are specific to the profession or to a small set of related professions. (Yes, I recognize that the leak test question is rather broader than that.)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Finally, to exclude the kinds of questions that experimental grad-students spend a lot of time on from consideration here send a message that experiment is not valuable to the physics community. Do we really want that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="fbfec39f-5b7c-4ce1-9f17-e0c694f2644d" CreationDate="2013-09-17T06:40:59.980" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="How to create a new tag which I didn't find in the tag list. It might be an important tag.&#xD;&#xA;I also want to create it to earn a badge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="fbfec39f-5b7c-4ce1-9f17-e0c694f2644d" CreationDate="2013-09-17T06:40:59.980" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="How to create a new tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="fbfec39f-5b7c-4ce1-9f17-e0c694f2644d" CreationDate="2013-09-17T06:40:59.980" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="|support|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="787edb26-8fe1-4b08-9053-6c0dce48b97f" CreationDate="2013-09-17T07:10:08.947" UserId="7433" Text="One needs [300 reputation][1] to create tags. At that stage, just using a new tag on a question creates it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try not to make narrow/redundant/meta tags, though. It's best not to look at it from a badges point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="314d05cd-c02b-40c6-bba2-a522431abb06" CreationDate="2013-09-17T10:56:58.773" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed references to the OP's circumstances to make the Q&amp;A general." Text="This is all [explained in the help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4968" RevisionGUID="1f2420a9-0858-4229-a010-03eeaf40132b" CreationDate="2013-09-17T11:48:08.003" UserId="4066" Text="There are **no** measures in place to suspend registered accounts (with rep&gt;1) that do pause their participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you **wish** to be suspended, then flag one of your own questions for a diamond moderator, and ask them (ideally you'd ask politely) to suspend you. There's no need to create extra work for the mods by forcing a suspension through repeatedly breaking the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw some of the material that led to the suspension in question. Those comments have been deleted now, as they broke the site rules. That was the reason for the suspension: not inactivity, but rather rule-breaking activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster explicitly insisted that he would go on breaking the rules until he was suspended. He's done that on more than one StackExchange site, so this wasn't a one-off event in time or in location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He's now suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prosper, the site needs enforcement of the rules. This poster wanted to be suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now, the rules are enforced, and the poster is suspended. So we've all got what we need. If anyone has a problem with the suspension, then they should address their complaints to the poster himself, who actively sought out and engineered the necessity for the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4968" RevisionGUID="f749554d-7d21-4674-8206-21a076d00297" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:37:12.127" UserId="4066" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="There are **no** measures in place to suspend registered accounts (with rep&gt;1) that do pause their participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you **wish** to be suspended, then flag one of your own questions for a diamond moderator, and ask them (ideally you'd ask politely) to suspend you. There's no need to create extra work for the mods by forcing a suspension through repeatedly breaking the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw some of the material that led to the suspension in question. Those comments have been deleted now, as they broke the site rules. That was the reason for the suspension: not inactivity, but rather rule-breaking activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster has explicitly insisted that he would go on breaking the rules until he was suspended. He's done that on more than one StackExchange site, and that's been his &quot;personal policy&quot; for over a year now, so this wasn't a one-off event in time or in location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He's now suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prosper, the site needs enforcement of the rules. This poster wanted to be suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now, the rules are enforced, and the poster is suspended. So we've all got what we need. If anyone has a problem with the suspension, then they should address their complaints to the poster himself, who actively sought out and engineered the necessity for the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="bfa45e32-de80-497c-84b9-f770b7e703a2" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:02:16.130" UserId="23119" Comment="ordered the links properly.    " Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5E3rC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/#!/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4969" RevisionGUID="37ce72ed-0fdc-499e-a635-7d98053dccd7" CreationDate="2013-09-18T06:59:04.830" UserId="23119" Text="If one looks at the more basic topics, we have dozens of tags for any one    these topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TAg:KiNEmAtICs]     :  &#xD;&#xA;{ [tag:motion] [tag:velocity] [tag:acceleration] [tag:suvat-equations] [tAg:jERk] [tag:position] etc. } &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:classical-mechanics]  : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{ [tag:forces] [tag:momentum] [tag:velocity] [tag:acceleration] [tag:motion] [tag:newtonian-mechanics] [tag:lagrangian-formalism] [tag:hamiltonian-formalism] [tag:hamiltonian]        &#xD;&#xA;[tag:equations-of-motion] etc. }      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:electromagnetism]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{ [tag:maxwell-equations] [tag:electricity] [tag:magnetism] [tag:magnetic-fields] [tag:electric-field] [tag:gauss-law] etc. }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for more advanced topics, e.g. [TaG:StRINg-thEOrY], we have just one tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are we supposed to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Merge all the more specific tags for basic subjects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add new tags   for advanced subjects?    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4969" RevisionGUID="37ce72ed-0fdc-499e-a635-7d98053dccd7" CreationDate="2013-09-18T06:59:04.830" UserId="23119" Text="Specific tags; broad tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4969" RevisionGUID="37ce72ed-0fdc-499e-a635-7d98053dccd7" CreationDate="2013-09-18T06:59:04.830" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="8db0069a-7dd4-42c8-a38e-6004ea1a7a48" CreationDate="2013-09-18T07:02:50.723" UserId="7433" Text="Add new tags. Try not to make them too specific, but add new tags. Try not to bump with this, work with newer posts instead of older ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends, in a way. Are there many (&gt;10) questions being asked about that topic or physical/mathematical object/concept? Then make a tag. Otherwise, no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="5b67c442-2d27-409b-bd4c-d70b1fcbebc3" CreationDate="2013-09-18T08:07:04.107" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 143 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;- Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;- What defines non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;- What sort of questions and answers are disallowed by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;- What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="aed3afa1-0791-4a80-81b5-9405f815ff4e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T08:32:42.400" UserId="10001" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of Ron Maimon's if i stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4951/will-my-account-be-closed-if-i-stop-participating-on-physics-se). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. However when my question still had two or three downvotes and was still being downvoted one of the moderators (Shog9) came and deleted all the comments (including the first one in which i inquired why my question was being downvoted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth has told me that there are no rules. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="aed3afa1-0791-4a80-81b5-9405f815ff4e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T08:32:42.400" UserId="10001" Text="What rules do moderators follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="aed3afa1-0791-4a80-81b5-9405f815ff4e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T08:32:42.400" UserId="10001" Text="|feature-request|moderators|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="4f7623fb-109e-472e-b1aa-81696c79c177" CreationDate="2013-09-18T09:08:58.870" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="d70dfe5d-336d-4eaf-acc5-673d711ceabe" CreationDate="2013-09-18T09:51:17.530" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.), see also more answers listed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/865/23119)            etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="541fb957-fef5-40cb-a7b7-41c4954e1844" CreationDate="2013-09-18T10:10:11.930" UserId="8563" Comment="very minor spelling." Text="##Is non mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, questions and answers about non mainstream physics are not allowed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, the question will need to be specific in order to fit this format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What defines mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of questions and answers are disallowed by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any post that attempts to work within the bounds of what we have determined to be &quot;mainstream physics&quot; is considered on topic for this site barring any other issues. For example, a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if a question or answer uses a non-mainstream theory as its premise and attempts to go forward in that direction, it can be safely closed or deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, be certain that it is indeed off topic by the above rules. Note that if a post is simply _wrong_, leave a constructive comment explaining why, and downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is indeed non mainstream, leave a comment stating the fact and linking to this meta post. For questions, flag or vote to close as non mainstream. For answers, use a custom moderator flag mentioning that it is non mainstream." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="b8dae7a4-141d-4d4f-98bb-4ac840ac375e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T11:46:07.533" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="How to share a link to a question that was visited by 25 unique IP addresses.&#xD;&#xA;I want this to earn the announcer badge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="b8dae7a4-141d-4d4f-98bb-4ac840ac375e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T11:46:07.533" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="How to get Announcer badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="b8dae7a4-141d-4d4f-98bb-4ac840ac375e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T11:46:07.533" UserDisplayName="user29660" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="2d3be585-8b1c-4c0e-823c-cdc281d3c1a8" CreationDate="2013-09-18T11:48:57.433" UserId="7433" Text="In general, yes, comments can be deleted at will, so there are no rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, we refrain from deleting comments on meta if there's an ongoing discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, meta comments will be deleted if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They serve their purpose by eliciting a modification to the post (Which is what happened with the comments that were deleted). This is generally followed on main as well, comments flagged as obsolete get removed.&#xD;&#xA; - They go off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;please explain the downvotes&quot; is a rather pointless comment, especially on Meta, where downvotes can express disagreement (So the downvote just means that someone disagrees with the post or its premise)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="ba2d3389-fa68-48d4-8493-f814940fadb6" CreationDate="2013-09-18T11:50:49.300" UserId="7433" Text="You can find the full badge description [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to use the &quot;share&quot; link and share the question with others (Sharing it on an SE site will _not_ work). This is usually done via Twitter/Facebook/etc. If enough people click on it, you get a badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="3d20d99b-484e-479c-b3f3-4dbdcc7185e9" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:29:51.260" UserId="10001" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of Ron Maimon's if i stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4951/will-my-account-be-closed-if-i-stop-participating-on-physics-se). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. However when my question still had two or three downvotes and was still being downvoted one of the moderators (Shog9) came and deleted all the comments (including the first one in which i inquired why my question was being downvoted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth has told me that there are no rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edited later** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question that i referred to in one of my comments below Manishearth's answer and that Manishearth just deleted is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4XMDH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="66a35b0a-6dd1-473f-a601-a43fcce88b0c" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:59:31.540" UserId="23119" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to share a link to a question that was visited by 25 unique IP addresses.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I want this to earn the announcer badge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="66a35b0a-6dd1-473f-a601-a43fcce88b0c" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:59:31.540" UserId="23119" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="0c08bc6f-1641-4f46-b856-a47bf3da7378" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:10:33.510" UserId="4066" Text="There are no rules that set the limits of what cannot be deleted, so any comment is fair target for deletion. That's because comments are, **by design**, second-class material, ephemeral and disposable. They are there to seek clarification on questions and answers. Once they've served that purpose, they can be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments that are used to try to subvert a Stack Exchange site into being a medium for discussion, rather than Q&amp;A, are **always** fair target for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules that set out what must be deleted: material that is illegal, offensive, or that breaks the sites rules. The comment-flagging box gives you a good guide to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in short, never put in comments something that you should put in a question or an answer: if it's got merit, put it in a first-class container (Q&amp;A), not an ephemeral, disposable second-class container (comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihnfz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="888dcfe2-135c-48d4-9b00-44f92f378134" CreationDate="2013-09-18T14:11:53.907" UserId="4066" Comment="added 413 characters in body" Text="There are no rules that set the limits of what cannot be deleted, so any comment is fair target for deletion. That's because comments are, **by design**, second-class material, ephemeral and disposable. They are there to seek clarification on questions and answers. Once they've served that purpose, they can be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments that are used to try to subvert a Stack Exchange site into being a medium for discussion, rather than Q&amp;A, are **always** fair target for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules that set out what must be deleted: material that is illegal, offensive, or that breaks the sites rules. The comment-flagging box gives you a good guide to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in short, never put in comments something that you should put in a question or an answer: if it's got merit, put it in a first-class container (Q&amp;A), not an ephemeral, disposable second-class container (comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thanks to [tgp2114][2] for their comment that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; long comment chains are sometimes allowed on Meta when they are constructive, but Meta is the exception not the &quot;rule&quot; ... So one may see long comment threads here, but **they may be deleted at any time for any reason**. Particularly when they are not on topic any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my emphasis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihnfz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="f8ff5739-ef1c-439b-8890-46a0ca1f73d6" CreationDate="2013-09-18T15:40:01.347" UserId="23119" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="This is all [explained in the help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). [You'll need to have at least 75 reputation to set a bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10792" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="5b27d277-164b-4c04-aa2d-c081dc505b85" CreationDate="2013-09-18T15:52:10.073" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="ce43e33f-e7e4-44bb-99af-e606566ce2e7" CreationDate="2013-09-18T15:53:41.580" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|down-votes|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="53a486c1-80f1-4fd2-83c9-2cb734eb3d3b" CreationDate="2013-09-18T15:58:36.830" UserId="8563" Text="Click on the &quot;share&quot; button below a question or an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will bring up the standard share buttons for Google Plus, Facebook and Twitter, which will place a link to the post on your Plus page / timeline / feed. You will also be able to copy a link to the question that identifies you as the person who shared it; these [look like this](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/114621/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://stackoverflow.com/q/&lt;question-id&gt;/&lt;user-id&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    http://stackoverflow.com/a/&lt;answer-id&gt;/&lt;user-id&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `&lt;user-id&gt;` is your user ID. (You can get this by going to your profile and looking at the search bar on the top right.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will get the Announcer badge, for example, if 25 unique IP addresses click on any of such links. Be aware, though, that there are mechanisms in place to detect [sock puppeting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)) so if you try to access it yourself from 25 different computers the system may detect that and discount those visits. Also, as EnergyNumbers points out, [links shared within the SE network do not count towards referral badges](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/114608/184688).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Ls0W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="74415c22-1ca7-4a30-8084-ea04b879529b" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:40:03.517" UserId="23119" Text="It seems that  many users find the  homework tag &quot;Demeaning&quot;. c.f. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving]), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning&quot;, despite = the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="74415c22-1ca7-4a30-8084-ea04b879529b" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:40:03.517" UserId="23119" Text="Should we rename the homework tag as &quot;problem-solving&quot;, or such?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="74415c22-1ca7-4a30-8084-ea04b879529b" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:40:03.517" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|tags|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="8e5329cf-734a-436e-8cab-9b48141714db" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:49:44.600" UserId="10001" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of Ron Maimon's if i stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4951/will-my-account-be-closed-if-i-stop-participating-on-physics-se). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. During this discussion Manishearth told me that my question broke no rules and so (on this basis) i refused to change the title of my question. However then one of the moderators (Shog9; who, as I just knew, is also a stack exchange employee) came and deleted all the comments also changed the title and main body of my question. I further added a comment that the changed title was not what i asked, to which he only replied after two days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators/stack employees follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth in his answer below says that there are no rules which, if true, is ridiculous because you can never question the action of a moderator even if s/he deletes some comment which is very useful to the discussion. Besides this he also told me that title of my question was modified because it referred to a specific user. According to him there are no questions on meta in which any particular user is called out. I gave him example of the following question which he again deleted immediately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4XMDH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="3b332948-41e1-497b-b976-5b07a08a37a5" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:34:06.780" UserId="23119" Comment="tag formatting doesn't work in tag wiki excerpt. " Text="Applies to meta questions about &quot;homework&quot;-tagged     questions on the main site.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10801" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="3b332948-41e1-497b-b976-5b07a08a37a5" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:34:06.780" Comment="Proposed by 23119 approved by 7433 edit id of 12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="49bba749-d5dc-4ed7-9c03-25932e116463" CreationDate="2013-09-18T18:03:20.310" UserId="10001" Comment="deleted 366 characters in body" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of Ron Maimon's if i stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4951/will-my-account-be-closed-if-i-stop-participating-on-physics-se). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. During this discussion Manishearth told me that my question broke no rules and so (on this basis) i refused to change the title of my question. However then one of the moderators (Shog9; who, as I just knew, is also a stack exchange employee) came and deleted all the comments also changed the title and main body of my question. I further added a comment that the changed title was not what i asked, to which he only replied after two days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators/stack employees follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth in his answer below says that there are no rules which, if true, is ridiculous because you can never question the action of a moderator even if s/he deletes some comment which is very useful to the discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="9c9dbdaf-3c86-41f9-ba1f-c70402372d48" CreationDate="2013-09-18T18:44:41.893" UserId="2911" Text="You have some good answers here already, but since I was the one who deleted the comments I'll take a few minutes to explain why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all started [here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members) - someone mentioned Physics, and upon visiting the meta here I saw 4 different threads calling out a specific user. As mentioned in the thread I linked to, this is something we generally try to avoid: there's nothing to be gained from publicly humiliating someone, *particularly* someone who isn't here to defend themselves. While a certain amount of curiosity is understandable, leaving these threads up long-term to be indexed by Google is kinda cruel; we frequently get emails from folks who are concerned about their online reputation and looking to distance themselves from mistakes in their past - no need to add to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I deleted or edited these threads. While doing so, I observed numerous bitter, unproductive, tangential conversations - as EnergyNumbers notes, such comments are [subject to removal without notice][1], so I removed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this is the guidance I gave the moderators at the time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know I've said this before, but... Try not to let threads discussing someone's suspension hang around forever. They rarely lead to anything good. Either edit to generalize them, or remove them once they've quieted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate goal here should always be to provide something of value to future readers. I doubt you're the only one who'll ever be concerned about suspensions - therefore, it's worth providing a clear, easy-to-follow discussion for those that follow. Lengthy comment threads hinder this goal - they are distracting and push actual *answers* further down the page. Comments that speculate on offenses committed by another user are particularly unhelpful - common decency dictates that one should address others directly with complaints rather than talking about them behind their backs. Expect the current comments on that question to be removed at some point as well, once the current discussion is concluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4971/what-rules-do-moderators-follow-in-deleting-comments-in-an-ongoing-discussion/4975#4975" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="ae44c967-e15c-4594-bdec-b757e52a8462" CreationDate="2013-09-18T18:46:05.813" UserId="2451" Comment="Well, if it was inappropriate to explicitly mention the user then I guess it still is" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] if I stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4951/). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. During this discussion Manishearth told me that my question broke no rules and so (on this basis) i refused to change the title of my question. However then one of the moderators (Shog9; who, as I just knew, is also a stack exchange employee) came and deleted all the comments also changed the title and main body of my question. I further added a comment that the changed title was not what i asked, to which he only replied after two days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators/stack employees follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth in his answer below says that there are no rules which, if true, is ridiculous because you can never question the action of a moderator even if s/he deletes some comment which is very useful to the discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4979" RevisionGUID="aaa666db-df6c-4f1d-bcab-b3ecaa1c1cf3" CreationDate="2013-09-18T19:06:26.610" UserId="9719" Text="This is a fantastic idea. I fully support it. I have noticed the same behavior you have: people don't like calling their question &quot;homework,&quot; especially if it isn't part of an assignment. I have taken to saying &quot;Homework tag applies, even if this isn't actual homework&quot; in my edit summaries when I apply the [tag:homework] tag. This proposal would better describe what kinds of questions are acceptable, and would encourage better tagging of such questions. And as tpg2114 says in his comment, this would be nearly trivial to implement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="796457d3-23ca-4074-8e7a-781c422e6e40" CreationDate="2013-09-18T19:34:19.293" UserId="8563" Text="**I agree with a strong caveat.** The tag wiki excerpt must function as an exceptionally well-tuned tool to catch the great homework/problem-solving questions, turn the borderline cases into good questions, and prevent bad questions as far as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way tag synonyms work at Ask a Question time is the following. You type in the tag you think you should use (say, &quot;sound&quot;) and presto! A very visible prompt appears with the strong suggestion that the tag to use is, in fact, acoustics - _and it flashes a blurb at them_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, say we have a [myopic user](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html) who did not read the guidance in the sidebar. They see they're asked for tags and, saying &quot;hey&quot;, they type in `homework`. They are then presented with the suggestion that in fact they meant &quot;problem solving,&quot; as well as a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem-solving refers to questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes conceptual questions about homework assignments, although not all homework questions are allowed. PLEASE CLICK LEARN MORE BEFORE POSTING HOMEWORK QUESTIONS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `learn more` link would then take them to a tag wiki with a succinct summary of the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/8563) and numerous links to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of this, as I see it, is that it encourages the right sort of homework-like questions we want, whilst taking (a probably small, but nonzero) action to prevent the bad ones from getting asked in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't think we're at the fighting-ourselves-to-oblivion-over-homework-tags kind of stage that SO reached some time ago, and I have not seen anyone railing against a [tag:homework] tag that did not yield to the first comment of &quot;The tag applies to all homework-like questions&quot; and subsequent referral to meta. I think our biggest problem is still fighting the constant tide of low-quality homework questions, and if we do this right it can help in that respect. If it helps in making the homework-like askers a bit happier about it then all to the better, but then that's only because yes, &quot;problem-solving&quot; _does_ encapsulate so much better what we want in good homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YWXIw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="1bafa34c-4e5f-4f7a-87db-ac8bbab634a9" CreationDate="2013-09-18T19:35:24.350" UserId="8563" Comment="Trivial edits to change my downvote." Text="It seems that  many users find the  homework tag &quot;demeaning&quot;, e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving]), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning,&quot; despite the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4981" RevisionGUID="e39272b1-c68a-4228-a6dc-11c2afe8a01d" CreationDate="2013-09-18T21:32:45.697" UserId="124" Text="Yep, I've thought that this might be useful. I just didn't have any particularly good ideas for what the new tag should be. I was thinking [tag:homework-like], so let this answer be the proposal for that. (Although to be honest, I think [tag:problem-solving] sounds better.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="82951473-5cf1-4008-b480-497a1cf68094" CreationDate="2013-09-19T02:39:59.397" UserId="520" Text="I think there is one real (or at least, really potential) issue with [tag:problem-solving]: it could be applied to almost every question on the site. Presumably people wouldn't go around editing it in willy-nilly, but it is likely that new users will apply it without discrimination to their questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking *&quot;Oh, I have a problem, and I'd like it solved&quot;*. It could be worse that [tag:mathematical-physics] in terms of misapplication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="590434a6-9c79-4ccf-8f5e-5e6d97a4e87c" CreationDate="2013-09-19T04:56:49.027" UserId="28244" Text="Something tells me this question is a duplicate of something.&#xD;&#xA;I noticed somewhere that accounts can be suspended for 'low-quality contributions'. Interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a series of 'questions' below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why does the sun rise?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Is the universe a big banana?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why can't physics bring back my dead goldfish?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why does a finite photon mass break gauge symmetry?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Does a wormhole collide with black holes to create infinite energy? Does this mean that gravity is invalid? Does this disprove the general theory of relativity?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Einstein said &quot;God don't play no dice&quot;, but QM says otherwise. Why haven't we found any astral dice yet? Does this disprove string theory?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why do we use operators?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Does this doodle I uploaded explain everything? If not, I demand an explanation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'How do we resolve the twin's paradox?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine there was a user who has asked these questions over the duration of his membership. Could you point out the questions that constitute a 'low-quality' contribution and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** This is not a complaint against the moderators. This question has nothing to do with any particular thing. I request people to not take any names. Personally I believe there is no such thing as an inherently 'good' or 'bad' question. But I completely understand the need for standards. I just want to understand this site's standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="590434a6-9c79-4ccf-8f5e-5e6d97a4e87c" CreationDate="2013-09-19T04:56:49.027" UserId="28244" Text="'low-quality contributions'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="590434a6-9c79-4ccf-8f5e-5e6d97a4e87c" CreationDate="2013-09-19T04:56:49.027" UserId="28244" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="fbd1def8-a008-422d-82ee-3970b3b60d3b" CreationDate="2013-09-19T05:08:48.003" UserId="28244" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="Something tells me this question is a duplicate of something.&#xD;&#xA;I noticed somewhere that accounts can be suspended for 'low-quality contributions'. Interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a series of 'questions' below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why does the sun rise?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Is the universe a big banana?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why can't physics bring back my dead goldfish?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why does a finite photon mass break gauge symmetry?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Does a wormhole collide with black holes to create infinite energy? Does this mean that gravity is invalid? Does this disprove the general theory of relativity?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Einstein said &quot;God don't play no dice&quot;, but QM says otherwise. Why haven't we found any astral dice yet? Does this disprove string theory?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Why do we use operators?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Does this doodle I uploaded explain everything? If not, I demand an explanation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'How do we resolve the twin's paradox?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'What happens when a photon, gluon, graviton, quark and electron all collide? Does this create the Higgs Boson and why?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine there was a user who has asked these questions over the duration of his membership. Could you point out the questions that constitute a 'low-quality' contribution and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** This is not a complaint against the moderators. This question has nothing to do with any particular thing. I request people to not take any names. Personally I believe there is no such thing as an inherently 'good' or 'bad' question. But I completely understand the need for standards. I just want to understand this site's standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="6191dd80-17ef-4b93-9a33-23e1808bb5dc" CreationDate="2013-09-19T05:12:45.883" UserId="124" Text="Suspensions for low quality contributions are generally tied to a large number of downvoted and/or closed questions (relative to the total number of questions the user has asked, of course). So if you want to know this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could you point out the questions that constitute a 'low-quality' contribution and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would throw the question back at you: which of these questions would you downvote, and furthermore which of them would you expect the rest of the community to downvote as well? Which ones would you vote to close and expect others to vote to close?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we suspend for low quality contributions, it is generally the community that has judged the contributions to be low quality, not (only) the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="5628ed85-1c79-459a-877d-73a542d97c3a" CreationDate="2013-09-19T05:18:56.580" UserId="28244" Comment="deleted 1271 characters in body" Text="Something tells me this question is a duplicate of something.&#xD;&#xA;I noticed somewhere that accounts can be suspended for 'low-quality contributions'. Could you point out what constitutes a 'low-quality' contribution and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="ec2b0e43-3350-4757-a9df-bb994d042932" CreationDate="2013-09-19T09:08:48.420" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="A question if I may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy here about deletion of not so good questions that may have good, well researched answers attached?  Are they deleted eventually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well researched answers often take considerable amount of time to research/write and would certainly be a contribution to the site.  Are these lost if the not so good question is eventually deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be prudent for the answerer to submit an edit to the question in order to improve on it, hence not close it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="ec2b0e43-3350-4757-a9df-bb994d042932" CreationDate="2013-09-19T09:08:48.420" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="not so good questions with well researched answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="ec2b0e43-3350-4757-a9df-bb994d042932" CreationDate="2013-09-19T09:08:48.420" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="7ac63737-2be9-4a76-935f-bab3e81c0c46" CreationDate="2013-09-19T11:37:11.117" UserId="8563" Text="There is a specific policy _against_ deleting questions that have good answers. Have a look at [the 10k privileges page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools): from the Deleting Posts section,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###When should I delete questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Closed questions that are of no lasting value whatsoever should be flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before voting to delete, please check that there are **no good answers**; if so, then the question should be flagged for moderator attention as a potential merge candidate. We don't like to lose great answers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the e-ground it is of course always more or less of a judgement call on the part of the community, but there need to be 3 or more 10k users that vote deletion, or a moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that a question was deleted wrongly, bring it up in meta. (This is of course a tricky matter because you usually can't see them. 10k users can, though, so anything obviously wrong will eventually get picked up on.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="eb0e8bba-ced9-4164-9dea-1a2323ab7b18" CreationDate="2013-09-19T11:50:25.753" UserId="7433" Text="In general, such questions shouldn't be answered in the first place. Instead, flag for closure, and leave a comment on how it can be improved. If the question is improved, it can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the policy here about deletion of not so good questions that may have good, well researched answers attached? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They get closed, but that's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are they deleted eventually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. See Emilio's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would it be prudent for the answerer to submit an edit to the question in order to improve on it, hence not close it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, it's fine to edit a closed (or an about-to-be-closed) question to change it to something more constructive so that it matches the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10821" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="37f918c7-28ff-4d8b-89ce-219a852735f5" CreationDate="2013-09-19T18:16:33.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/380757343203770370" />
  <row Id="10822" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="a57cd0ea-56d0-4cf0-b609-e1371683a21e" CreationDate="2013-09-19T22:24:19.037" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4988" RevisionGUID="9b42f7dc-db6d-4634-a496-00f982be1291" CreationDate="2013-09-19T22:58:12.023" UserDisplayName="user20703" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GWTVN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GWTVN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10824" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4988" RevisionGUID="7f176b41-e1f8-4324-b1e6-cec3f5bb04b4" CreationDate="2013-09-19T22:58:12.023" UserDisplayName="user20703" />
  <row Id="10825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="d5e16767-54d3-408b-bfaa-52d07ff0fbb3" CreationDate="2013-09-20T01:18:24.067" UserId="5477" Text="I agree that the name of the [tag:homework] tag should be changed, but I also agree with some commenters that [tag:problem-solving] isn't the best name for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to suggest [tag:exercise] as an alternative. It's broader than [tag:homework] but still specific enough to be useful, and hopefully it would be less offensive to people who are doing exercises in their own time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="1cd8a96c-8f8a-4d8f-9148-1e2d75826104" CreationDate="2013-09-20T05:54:12.453" UserId="25069" Text="Often when working my way through a question or answer there are several links in the middle of the text for references.  It would be nice if I could click on that and not lose my place on the page I was reading but rather have the link open up in a new window.  Is this something that can be easily configured on SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="1cd8a96c-8f8a-4d8f-9148-1e2d75826104" CreationDate="2013-09-20T05:54:12.453" UserId="25069" Text="Can this site be setup to open external links in a new tab?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="1cd8a96c-8f8a-4d8f-9148-1e2d75826104" CreationDate="2013-09-20T05:54:12.453" UserId="25069" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4991" RevisionGUID="93ce8a98-42d1-46cb-a847-aa2d47f0b207" CreationDate="2013-09-20T06:03:26.133" UserId="124" Text="No, SE doesn't have a setting to allow this. I recommend holding down Ctrl (on a non-Mac) while clicking a link to get it to open in a new tab. Alternatively, you could check and see if your browser has a setting to do this by default, or if there is an extension/addon that will let you configure it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4991" RevisionGUID="5cb7f7ef-1878-4c67-953c-62f681b75252" CreationDate="2013-09-20T07:54:20.540" UserId="5477" Comment="Mac instructions" Text="No, SE doesn't have a setting to allow this. I recommend holding down Ctrl (on a non-Mac) or Command (on a Mac) while clicking a link to get it to open in a new tab. Alternatively, you could check and see if your browser has a setting to do this by default, or if there is an extension/addon that will let you configure it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10831" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="06787cb0-a570-452a-8116-b8d264f70a3d" CreationDate="2013-09-20T11:55:02.520" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10832" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="337117f4-2cb2-48f7-a10e-2a64c1cda5a0" CreationDate="2013-09-20T13:30:49.920" UserId="23119" Comment=".   " Text="A request to allow links to be opened in a new tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="337117f4-2cb2-48f7-a10e-2a64c1cda5a0" CreationDate="2013-09-20T13:30:49.920" UserId="23119" Comment=".   " Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="3191992c-db2b-43be-a188-ed6ad825e477" CreationDate="2013-09-20T13:32:43.670" UserId="23119" Text="Not necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If it is opened in a new tab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one may only open in a new tab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If it is opened there itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one may open both in a new tab (middle-click if your mouse has a scroller, or  `ctrl+leftClick` if not) or not.       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="e8d72a1f-691f-4d81-9504-9ffb7b4b6a39" CreationDate="2013-09-20T17:24:03.220" UserId="8563" Comment="Feature-requests are for changes in site functionality. This change can be implemented completely on the community side." Text="|discussion|tags|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10836" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="485aac01-f634-409d-bf5b-28a0caff602d" CreationDate="2013-09-20T18:16:36.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/381119757023735808" />
  <row Id="10842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4988" RevisionGUID="4e802a56-936c-427d-90d6-6678f3373914" CreationDate="2013-09-21T00:06:51.353" UserDisplayName="user20703" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GWTVN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="96dcc5cf-eca3-4c20-bca2-2f5e1ab3180b" CreationDate="2013-09-21T03:23:57.677" UserId="25069" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="Often when working my way through a question or answer there are several links in the middle of the text for references.  It would be nice if I could click on that and not lose my place on the page I was reading but rather have the link open up in a new window.  Is this something that can be easily configured on SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  For people with poor internet connections this is a nice feature because I often have to abandon a page because it takes too long to load and if I accidentally just close it I have to start all over again.  I had no idea it was unpopular because it is a common feature on almost every forum or other site I use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="81448351-4317-4a8c-9bef-4c5e326211dc" CreationDate="2013-09-21T03:28:09.137" UserId="23119" Comment="sdsmdoneieifndfndivdnejknvjdnsvjdddddfv dvfvvfd  " Text="Not necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If it is opened in a new tab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one may only open in a new tab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If it is opened there itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one may open both in a new tab (middle-click if your mouse has a scroller, or  `ctrl+leftClick` if not) or not.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As  for your edit, that's why I said &quot;USE  MIDDLE CLICK&quot; and so did everybody else.          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;And you have dmckee's suggested  userscript.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10845" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="eae81744-61b4-4693-951d-c8d992906ff7" CreationDate="2013-09-21T08:00:36.943" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1347],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="9aacfc73-af4c-4f53-bf89-303f7f2742c3" CreationDate="2013-09-21T15:49:50.903" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|answers|reputation|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="bb3d0466-4851-4de9-8cc6-b0376e435e4d" CreationDate="2013-09-21T15:51:39.913" UserId="23119" Text="I see that it is possible,.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is community wiki because you've edited it at least 10 times, or because at least 5 different people have edited it (as opposed to a moderator making it community wiki), then the answers **do not automatically** become Community Wiki. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c.f.            http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30052/how-much-water-must-flow-trough-canal-to-maintain-a-constant-water-deep       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="a566700e-ed48-4a2d-8139-ce5a81bf9ca7" CreationDate="2013-09-22T10:18:25.603" UserId="23119" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Test post to test something (see comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberishwaE RscSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish .......qawr ASDCSaASFAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;Mars Is Earth.&lt;/s&gt; , Manish Earth wrote this post.        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="d3db55c2-5341-4924-9359-012b57a72793" CreationDate="2013-09-22T10:27:11.380" UserId="23119" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="caf6faca-c895-4bdc-86b3-94b0af3cdd92" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:01:42.117" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="It seems there are the beginnings of an edit war going on with [how can counting the number of cracks in glass tell you about the speed of imact?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question has a few problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - It doesn't stand particularly well on its own, requiring reading an external link for background.&#xD;&#xA;  - It doesn't discuss the question in such a way as to guide answers to the desired level of detail.&#xD;&#xA;  - It is partially phrased in the imperative, rather than the interrogative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However**, as far as I can tell, **it has nothing to do with homework**, either in actuality or conceptually. Someone was reading a scientific news article and had a question about the physics behind a phenomenon. It certainly doesn't sound like someone wants a particular problem solved - I read it as asking for the concepts behind some claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **why was this tagged as homework?** Is the new policy to use [tag:homework] to filter out questions certain users don't particularly like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="caf6faca-c895-4bdc-86b3-94b0af3cdd92" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:01:42.117" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Does the homework tag now apply to any question without much research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="caf6faca-c895-4bdc-86b3-94b0af3cdd92" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:01:42.117" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|tags|policy|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="0afbb505-bc40-4d2d-8a00-6816ef697544" CreationDate="2013-09-23T15:08:02.773" UserId="6634" Text="My take on this is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, don't start edit wars. If you put something on a question, and somebody later removes it, don't just go back in and put it back again and leave comments about it. Take it to meta, take it to chat, and actually discuss it rather than take it out to 7 revisions. When people disagree, use the channels we have to resolve it face-to-face (or I suppose keyboard-to-keyboard). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I do not think that is a homework question. Not just in the strict sense but in the sense we defined. OP is looking for a physical concept that is not understood to be explained. It's no different than the myriad of questions about how we know gravity exists, why there are only 4 dimensions in space-time, etc.. To me, the OP doesn't understand the physical correlation between impact velocity and fracture in glass and would like an understanding of the concepts behind it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I do not think it should be tagged as homework. All that said, I think the question is poorly formed because it doesn't mention what part is confusing, asks answers to go read an article rather than summarize it, and shows very little effort. It should be downvoted, maybe closed, but that's a different conversation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="97a34fa5-4fc2-42d9-816b-3b09406a7f4d" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:28:43.050" UserId="2146" Text="Dimension10 has given the [link][1] to where the policy is laid out clearly in David's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which points out that the dividing line is rather vague, and therefore could make most of the questions here homework if we relied on this definition, rather than our own personal view based upon common experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the whole point of the homework tag is to enable people to filter out the tedious **unoriginal** questions found in most text books. Therefore, I don't think any problem thought up by someone for themselves should be tagged homework, unless it's universally recognized as a standard text book problem designed for students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="b8732514-9c8f-495f-8344-10195790c2e5" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:01:42.807" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="1f92c7e4-127d-4234-809d-27f21f2ddae9" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:36:23.500" UserId="26600" Text="Why aren't badges removed in some cases?  &#xD;&#xA;For example,when I downvote a question and remove the downvote I get the `critic` badge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="1f92c7e4-127d-4234-809d-27f21f2ddae9" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:36:23.500" UserId="26600" Text="Why aren't badges removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="1f92c7e4-127d-4234-809d-27f21f2ddae9" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:36:23.500" UserId="26600" Text="|bug|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="fb35e681-6c28-453c-a6fb-5d227ff36af6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:50:42.900" UserId="23119" Comment="not a bug, " Text="|support|feature-request|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="d999593a-6f38-4d03-84b3-58ac5a638162" CreationDate="2013-09-24T14:00:00.667" UserId="23119" Comment="md.cdvm,d,vsmvs     " Text="Why aren't badges removed in some cases?  &#xD;&#xA;For example,when I downvote a question and remove the downvote I get the [![enter image description here][1]][2] badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WBjhi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/7/critic           &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="b09306f2-1d71-4ec0-9d43-a87ad176268a" CreationDate="2013-09-24T15:51:13.280" UserId="8563" Text="I'm late to the party but I want to say this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original phrasing for this question closely matched a very common pattern seen in real homework questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Statement of a homework or other textbook problem.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Solve this please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of variations of this (see e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/763/amount-of-2-amperage) or [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77769/how-can-you-prove-generalised-jacobi-identity) or [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69991/what-is-the-alternative-of-pmg-permanent-magnet-generator-in-a-horizontal-axis) question) but they generally give a feeling of entitlement: the OP _demands_ (even if they do it politely) that some expert drop what she's doing and give him exactly the explanation - without overdoing it and using only the right hints - that will get them an A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this should have the homework tag on it, but I can definitely understand a certain trigger-happiness on the part of the people that wanted that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="94562347-8524-41ad-b8bb-357c7474da3c" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:58:15.293" UserId="11484" Text="- For example, editing the (long inactive) question to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add trivial tags, like _faq_&#xD;&#xA; - Change tags to synonymous tags, e.g. _Classical Mechanics_ to _Newtonian Mechanics_&#xD;&#xA; - Correct insignificant grammatical errors, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why did the Earth _cooled_ down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why did the Earth _cool_ down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Removing substantial portions of other answers, summarizing the edit as _removed crap_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="94562347-8524-41ad-b8bb-357c7474da3c" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:58:15.293" UserId="11484" Text="Why does the community allow or even encourage seemingly meaningless edits to questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="94562347-8524-41ad-b8bb-357c7474da3c" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:58:15.293" UserId="11484" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="9d3538b8-1a83-49a1-b32d-393bf61e9bbd" CreationDate="2013-09-24T17:15:48.250" UserId="124" Text="We don't, really. People shouldn't make edits unless they represent a nontrivial improvement to the question. But note that tag changes are often nontrivial, because people use tags for filtering and also for understanding the context of a question, so it's relatively important to have accurate tags on questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existing tags are chosen as they are for a reason, generally; for example, [tag:classical-mechanics] is more general than [tag:newtonian-mechanics]. The former encompasses Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, and is used in particular when one wants to indicate non-quantum mechanics. So even something that may look like a trivial edit, i.e. changing one of those tags to the other, often isn't. If you think you see two synonymous tags, you can ask on [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or here on meta to see if they should be merged, but there's a decent chance they are separate for a reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10881" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="88c9d628-de25-488a-bad5-5448c2d5304e" CreationDate="2013-09-24T21:16:52.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/382614633678651393" />
  <row Id="10882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="76ad1a0c-95e7-444a-aaf5-99ea2d95fea9" CreationDate="2013-09-24T23:53:17.040" UserId="2146" Comment="expanded answer from more information on the policy" Text="Dimension10 has given the [link][1] to where the policy is laid out clearly in David's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which points out that the dividing line is rather vague, and therefore could make most of the questions here homework if we relied on this definition, rather than our own personal view based upon common experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the whole point of the homework tag is to enable people to filter out the tedious **unoriginal** questions found in most text books. Therefore, I don't think any problem thought up by someone for themselves should be tagged homework, unless it's universally recognized as a standard text book problem designed for students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;update:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that the main purpose behind the homework tag is to prevent students cheating on their homework assignments, which should make things considerably clearer on when to tag a question as homework: **Does this question look as if it could be given to a student by a teacher as a graded exercise?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="aa90959a-d5a3-42a7-a759-493d751fca0a" CreationDate="2013-09-25T02:02:40.630" UserId="23119" Comment="Just as an   oxymoron. " Text="- For example, editing the (long inactive) question to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add trivial tags, like _faq_&#xD;&#xA; - Change tags to synonymous tags, e.g. _Classical Mechanics_ to _Newtonian Mechanics_&#xD;&#xA; - Correct insignificant grammatical errors, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Why did the Earth _cooled_ down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;Why did the Earth _cool_ down&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Removing substantial portions of other answers, summarizing the edit as _removed crap_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10891" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="3427ff99-d69b-47f9-8eba-d6d23da5ea21" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:17:28.983" UserId="23119" Comment="What the OP really is asking; More specific title. " Text="Dimension10 edits posts and says help people find what they're looking for, remove crackpottery, or correct grammatical errors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10892" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="49eefea8-032b-47ff-8953-d0c8583757b8" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:17:45.890" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [aa90959a-d5a3-42a7-a759-493d751fca0a]" Text="Why does the community allow or even encourage seemingly meaningless edits to questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10893" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="43b57aed-851f-4c98-bb72-0592a6438685" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:20:37.557" UserId="23119" Comment="attempt 2   at more accurate    title" Text="Dimension10 should stop editing that makes it easier to find what they're looking for, or make them comply with the policies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10899" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="f249e404-127a-409c-aa20-9e9f951bc258" CreationDate="2013-09-25T14:08:22.083" UserId="5477" Comment="Rollback to [aa90959a-d5a3-42a7-a759-493d751fca0a]" Text="Why does the community allow or even encourage seemingly meaningless edits to questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="96b57093-5390-4c85-80e1-bbae3e140fc4" CreationDate="2013-09-26T05:19:31.500" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="[Well, the community really doesn't like editing, even good ones](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5002/why-does-the-community-allow-or-even-encourage-seemingly-meaningless-edits-to-qu), and now supports  crackpottery, there;'s no point of the editing feature. Please disable it to avoid such nonsense in the future. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="96b57093-5390-4c85-80e1-bbae3e140fc4" CreationDate="2013-09-26T05:19:31.500" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Please disable the editing feature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="96b57093-5390-4c85-80e1-bbae3e140fc4" CreationDate="2013-09-26T05:19:31.500" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|feature-request|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5007" RevisionGUID="a8535408-57e0-4355-b34c-5f114c483ae3" CreationDate="2013-09-26T08:09:07.837" UserId="1325" Text="Am I really discouraged from correcting spelling and grammatical mistakes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example [changing &quot;tale&quot; to &quot;tail&quot;][1] is trivial in the sense that it doesn't affect the meaning of the question, but it makes a big difference to the way visitors will perceive this site. Do we really wish to encourage the stereotype that scientists are illiterate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78610/why-comets-have-tails" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5008" RevisionGUID="eefaba05-f447-42d8-9e06-4e2e14810a39" CreationDate="2013-09-26T08:29:08.310" UserId="1325" Text="The SE sites are intended to act as a reservoir of knowledge, and I find them pretty good in this respect. The best answers are almost blog articles in that they don't just answer the question but explain the issues around the answer and sometimes even related material. It takes a lot of time and effort to write a really good answer and it continually astonishes me that busy academics are willing to take the time out of trying to do their day job. I won't name any names to spare your blushes, but you know who you are :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, everyone makes silly mistakes when typing answers, especially since the pressures of real life mean answers are sometimes rushed. My answers are often edited to correct spelling and grammatical errors, and I will edit answers whenever I notice such errors. Such editing is an important part of making the site useful for future readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rarer that I'll edit the meat of an answer since that seems a bit rude. Typically I'd ping the author and suggest clarifications or corrections. I'd almost never edit a question I perceived as lazy or crackpottery because I think such questions are best ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So good edits are an **essential** part of how this site works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is obviously part of the ongoing campaign against the lazy and crackpot. I find such questions just as annoying as everyone else does, but there are a huge army of the lazy and crackpot out there, and anyone who thinks edits are a useful weapon against them is sadly deluded. Just downvote, or if you have the reputation vote to close, and don't do anything that going to bring attention to unsatisfactory questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do think we should have a &quot;could be answered in 5 seconds using Google&quot; tag and reason for closing, but that's a meta post for another day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5009" RevisionGUID="ba1c7fe6-9fbb-40c1-81b9-7f5d3547186c" CreationDate="2013-09-26T08:32:22.703" UserId="1325" Text="A badge is a reward for taking the time and effort to make the site better. Removing a downvote does not negate the effort you've put in, so you still deserve the badge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="d5c5345c-4537-477b-a9d7-fe4d2595eaa5" CreationDate="2013-09-26T08:38:44.203" UserId="2684" Text="The ability to edit any post is one of the major features of the Stack Exchange system, disabling it would make the site much worse. There is virtually no chance at all that SE would disable editing entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even though the ability to edit is very useful in general, there are certain types of edits that have more drawbacks than advantages. Every edit adds some overhead as it bumps the question to the frontpage for review. A high frequency of edits can drown out the actual new content on the frontpage, in such a case even if the edits themselves are good, the effect of all the edits at once in a short time is negative as it makes the frontpage useless for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a question is still new and on the frontpage, there is no disadvantage to bumping it for even a minor edit. Though one should *always* try to fix everything about a post, and not fix a typo while leaving other large errors unfixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old questions the situation changes a bit. Significant edits are always welcome, but there is some disagreement about minor fixes. Personally I still think that fixing typos and grammar mistakes is worth it for old questions, with the restriction that I would not go and hunt for this kind of stuff to fix, and that I would be especially careful to try and fix every problem in that post to avoid further, unnecessary bumps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closed questions that are likely to be deleted anyway should not be edited at all. Unless you make an edit that would fix the question and make it fit for reopening, one should not edit closed questions at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Radical edits are generally discouraged. If you disagree strongly with an answer, just post another answer yourself and downvote (or even flag/vote to delete) the other answer. The exception are questions that would be closed if they stay unedited. Drastic edits to make a question follow the site rules is generally acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="26ca9979-c677-4380-a1fc-56616ad12836" CreationDate="2013-09-26T11:57:50.817" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="[Well, the community really doesn't like editing, even good ones](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5002/why-does-the-community-allow-or-even-encourage-seemingly-meaningless-edits-to-qu), and now supports  crackpottery, there;'s no point of the editing feature. Please disable it to avoid such nonsense in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, until (or if not) this feature is incorporated, I'll continue editing though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm only suggesting this for Phys.SE, not the entire SE network.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5011" RevisionGUID="0790af6c-d7ba-4dc5-967b-e380c3897867" CreationDate="2013-09-26T13:57:21.853" UserId="28244" Text="Nah, editing is good. Editing is nice. The real problem here is with what's displayed on the home page. The questions and answers with the most recent activity are displayed. This 'activity' is too broad. Here's what I propose (someone must have probably proposed the same thing in the past):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone edits a question or its answers, let there be a checkbox discussing the nature of his edit. It could have options like:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fixed formula in answer&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Minor typo fixed in question&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Retagged for more clarity&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the field he checked in the box, pages can be considered 'active' or not&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="337ed20f-b918-4d7c-aa49-109f05464ffb" CreationDate="2013-09-26T13:59:28.083" UserId="520" Text="Some note on the application of site privileges&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **All site privileges should be used judiciously.**  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As a long term goal we *would* like to see good grammar, usage and spelling predominate on the site. However, we also don't want to see an endless stream of one-word edits. This is a major reason for the six-character minimum on suggested edits: to accustom users to the idea that edits should be generally by significant in size as well as correct in what they edit.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Other users may not want to see the stylistic feel of their work changed by another person simply because the editor has a different personal style. It doesn't need to be *the way you would have done* it needs to be *correct and clear*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Don't start a fight over it**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  If someone rolls back an edit *do not* reinstate it. Doing so makes it about the egos of the people involved. Let it go: it does not reflect on your personal worth. If you think the edit really was necessary, flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't take it personally**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Someone fixing you spelling errors isn't personal. Neither is someone rolling back an edit. Nor their posting some unscientific nonsense. Again, this does not reflect on your personal worth. We have mechanisms for handing these problems without needing to get your dander up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Don't try to make some kind of subtle statement**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  The tagging of questions is not a system for rating them. Nor for marking which questions are interesting and which boring. It is purely a system for categorizing the kinds of physics content each question touches on. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Neither edits nor the edit messages should be used as a place to express your opinion about a post. You rate posts for quality by *voting*. You rate a post's appropriateness by voting or not voting to close (assuming you have that power) or by flagging spam and offensive dreck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Be professional**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site aims to be a milieu for professional scientists, skilled and capable amateurs and those aspiring to be one. That calls for a certain amount of decorum, and certainly for grown-up behavior. If you wouldn't want your mom or the hiring committee at your next job to see, think twice before doing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="1b85ed0b-09b5-4cad-8f73-f6bb39c23de8" CreationDate="2013-09-26T14:06:17.183" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Some notes on the application of site privileges&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **All site privileges should be used judiciously.**  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As a long term goal we *would* like to see good grammar, usage and spelling predominate on the site. However, we also don't want to see an endless stream of one-word edits. This is a major reason for the six-character minimum on suggested edits: to accustom users to the idea that edits should be generally by significant in size as well as correct in what they edit.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Other users may not want to see the stylistic feel of their work changed by another person simply because the editor has a different personal style. It doesn't need to be *the way you would have done* it needs to be *correct and clear*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Don't start a fight over it**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  If someone rolls back an edit *do not* reinstate it. Doing so makes it about the egos of the people involved. Let it go: it does not reflect on your personal worth. If you think the edit really was necessary, flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't take it personally**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Someone fixing your spelling errors isn't personal. Neither is someone rolling back an edit. Nor their posting some unscientific nonsense. Again, this does not reflect on your personal worth. We have mechanisms for handing these problems without needing to get your dander up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Don't try to make some kind of subtle statement**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  The tagging of questions is not a system for rating them. Nor for marking which questions are interesting and which boring. It is purely a system for categorizing the kinds of physics content each question touches on. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Neither edits nor the edit messages should be used as a place to express your opinion about a post. You rate posts for quality by *voting*. You rate a post's appropriateness by voting or not voting to close (assuming you have that power) or by flagging spam and offensive dreck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Be professional**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site aims to be a milieu for professional scientists, skilled and capable amateurs and those aspiring to be one. That calls for a certain amount of decorum, and certainly for grown-up behavior. If you wouldn't want your mom or the hiring committee at your next job to see, think twice before doing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="e644f6aa-c8e5-443e-bd62-7598664baaaa" CreationDate="2013-09-26T14:17:51.747" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="Some notes on the application of site privileges&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **All site privileges should be used judiciously.**  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As a long term goal we *would* like to see good grammar, usage and spelling predominate on the site. However, we also don't want to see an endless stream of one-word edits. This is a major reason for the six-character minimum on suggested edits: to accustom users to the idea that edits should be generally be significant in size as well as correct in what they edit.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Other users may not want to see the stylistic feel of their work changed by another person simply because the editor has a different personal style. It doesn't need to be *the way you would have done* it needs to be *correct and clear*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Don't start a fight over it**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  If someone rolls back an edit *do not* reinstate it. Doing so makes it about the egos of the people involved. Let it go: it does not reflect on your personal worth. If you think the edit really was necessary, flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't take it personally**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Someone fixing your spelling errors isn't personal. Neither is someone rolling back an edit. Nor their posting some unscientific nonsense. Again, this does not reflect on your personal worth. We have mechanisms for handing these problems without needing to get your dander up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Don't try to make some kind of subtle statement**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  The tagging of questions is not a system for rating them. Nor for marking which questions are interesting and which boring. It is purely a system for categorizing the kinds of physics content each question touches on. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Neither edits nor the edit messages should be used as a place to express your opinion about a post. You rate posts for quality by *voting*. You rate a post's appropriateness by voting or not voting to close (assuming you have that power) or by flagging spam and offensive dreck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Be professional**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site aims to be a milieu for professional scientists, skilled and capable amateurs and those aspiring to be one. That calls for a certain amount of decorum, and certainly for grown-up behavior. If you wouldn't want your mom or the hiring committee at your next job to see, think twice before doing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="21370501-571e-4644-aa59-b98d11098600" CreationDate="2013-09-26T21:10:58.113" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="Okay, I am posting as one of the community, not on their behalf though only on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a community member, I appreciate substantial and effective edits to any post, and especially on my own.  By substantial and effective,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what I mean**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there is a plethora of grammatical, spelling etc errors - making it readable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Without changing the meaning of the post, fixing terminology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what it does not and NEVER will mean**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- changing the meaning because someone disagrees with the notion put forward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vandalism of any kind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- putting meanings that should be included in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a way of bumping inactive posts to the front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a **member of the community**, I do want edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="7dbb5e0c-ee9a-4c35-8560-4b39fb799d03" CreationDate="2013-09-28T04:59:43.037" UserId="23119" Comment="==========DONE==========" Text="***[meTA-TAg:StAtuS-COmPLEteD]***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***PLEASE BURNINATE [tag:fan]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just an everyday object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of a fan should be tagged with the proper real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="5689510e-e879-4ad5-b761-51b18e20768a" CreationDate="2013-09-28T05:21:30.867" UserId="23119" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="***[MeTA-TaG:StATuS-REviEW]*** (i.e. if this reaches at least 10 votes, it may be implemented, since it's pretty hard to      manually kill 36 tags from questions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:physics-careers] tag seems redundant and confusing, since questions asking for career advice are off-topic and I see little other uses for it. It also (weakly) suggests career advice questions are *on-topic* here, which may have led to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74183/16660) being asked recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we get rid of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="6d749822-c0c5-48c9-b103-fb08a66ba344" CreationDate="2013-09-28T05:22:22.763" UserId="23119" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="***[mETa-TAg:StATuS-plANneD]***       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***PLEASE BURNINATE [tag:aircraft]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10932" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="a498f194-ca2a-4cd8-ba4d-bf4d29386676" CreationDate="2013-09-28T06:35:57.330" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [1b55ba9d-b3be-4b73-8dbe-8d450e422696]" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE [tag:fan]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just an everyday object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of a fan should be tagged with the proper real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10933" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="33d4f8e1-a38a-41be-bd64-bf0e29f120c0" CreationDate="2013-09-28T06:36:56.197" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [25a6d115-e18d-4f7f-93b2-901fed30c367]" Text="***PLEASE BURNINATE [tag:aircraft]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as [tag:fluid-dynamics], [tag:classical-mechanics], [tag:aerodynamics], or whatever applies in the respective case instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10934" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="0ef1b8c5-e9b7-420e-9981-7bb2902833be" CreationDate="2013-09-28T06:37:07.650" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [d1e3f816-5286-4e82-9a99-0984e644cdb8]" Text="The [tag:physics-careers] tag seems redundant and confusing, since questions asking for career advice are off-topic and I see little other uses for it. It also (weakly) suggests career advice questions are *on-topic* here, which may have led to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74183/16660) being asked recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we get rid of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e3bd0a83-367c-42c8-81b8-e72359873d22" CreationDate="2013-09-28T11:51:01.097" UserId="3416" Text="I'm using Chrome (Version 29.0.1547.76 m), and lately whether I'm on physics.stackexchange, or on mathematica.stackexchange, when I'm writing a long question, usually with a lot of equations in latex, my browser freezes for a couple of seconds, and crashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily I can just go back, and forward and the question is still there, but my title is gone, so I need to put that again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still it's kinda annoying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do any of you have similar problems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e3bd0a83-367c-42c8-81b8-e72359873d22" CreationDate="2013-09-28T11:51:01.097" UserId="3416" Text="Does anybody experience freezing and chrashing of browser while on SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e3bd0a83-367c-42c8-81b8-e72359873d22" CreationDate="2013-09-28T11:51:01.097" UserId="3416" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="176b6afe-e08b-404b-8583-19c4f50abc1e" CreationDate="2013-09-28T12:09:02.900" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="4342a12c-60dd-4f0f-941d-7b1a7341e11f" CreationDate="2013-09-28T13:51:49.687" UserId="23119" Text="For some reason, [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1) has deleted my [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65942/23119).     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, Community only deletes questions upon a certain number (6?) of  &quot;Spam&quot; and &quot;Offensive&quot; flags. What's so spam-like or offensive about that post? Here's the content for those with less than 10k099 rep and non-mods:       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; #Why isn't there a Heterotic string theory which tensors the fermionic state with the Type II state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Heterotic (HO and HE) string is found by tensoring the left movers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the bosonic string theory state and the right movers of the Type II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; string theory state: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$|ψ_H⟩=|ψ_B⟩⊗|ψ_{II}⟩$$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bosonic state is of course based on the Polyakov Action. Now, what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if we had another state (I'll call it the k-heterotic state) which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formed by tensoring the fermionic string theory state and the type II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$|ψ_H⟩=|ψ_F⟩⊗|ψ_II⟩$$&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fermionic string theory state is based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Dirac Action: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$S_F=S_{RNS}−S_B$$ &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is this theory not consistent?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether the bosonic state is chosen or the fermionic state, how does&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that matter? Is it because the Dirac Action is imaginary (since it has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an i outside the integral if one expands out the Dirac matrix&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fermionic field product)? Does it have anything to do with that?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I wonder if these flaggers were sockpuppets of each other, because I had suddenly started to get 4 downvotes on the mentioned question since  a couple of (20?) days back, which is surprising, because it was initially quite upvoted. So I wonder if the same people had maybe serial flagged this post   and gotten it deleted??? Indicating to me some sort of sockpuppetry...               &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Also, these serial downvotes have occured on some others of  my posts, so I hope they don't get deleted too?  Or have they already?     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially strange (and dangerous), because it doesn't turn up in my [recent deleted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/recently-deleted-questions/23119) either,...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p3BpV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="4342a12c-60dd-4f0f-941d-7b1a7341e11f" CreationDate="2013-09-28T13:51:49.687" UserId="23119" Text="Please undelete this question on String Theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="4342a12c-60dd-4f0f-941d-7b1a7341e11f" CreationDate="2013-09-28T13:51:49.687" UserId="23119" Text="|support|bug|questions|deleted-questions|undelete-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="c13b9f88-b35d-4a8a-b518-e9dfd07ab348" CreationDate="2013-09-28T14:19:32.060" UserId="2911" Comment="see: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/78048/enable-automatic-deletion-of-old-unanswered-zero-score-questions-after-a-year/92006#92006" Text="|support|questions|deleted-questions|undelete-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="4ed28f9a-f811-42e0-86e6-368779350343" CreationDate="2013-09-28T16:41:56.257" UserId="7433" Text="Apparently it was automatically deleted (cf [this meta post][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have undeleted it, and [also requested that this particular autodelete functionality be turned off for smaller sites.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/78048/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/198710/should-we-really-have-removedeadquestions-on-smaller-sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="f51eacb3-9d69-4dd2-b79d-6569524b7f5d" CreationDate="2013-09-28T22:20:43.320" UserId="8563" Text="There is a user called [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) that undertakes a number of useful background tasks, like take possession of up- and down-votes from deleted users (for more detail see e.g. http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). In particular, the system bumps old unanswered questions to the top of the front page every so often to help them get answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens, the link to the question will show Community as the last active user on that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is some other name, then the question has had some activity recently. To be taken to the last active post in that thread, click on the timestamp:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o7iws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3Cq7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="58b73f52-fa54-4f80-b8de-7300d8013eb9" CreationDate="2013-09-29T01:04:26.767" UserId="8563" Text="I just stumbled on [this fantastic list of magic shortcuts](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/94000/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Supported magic links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[meta]` &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[main]` &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[edit]` &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ... ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[ask]`, `[answer]` &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[something.se]` &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use `[ubuntu.se]` for Ask Ubuntu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Except for `[chat]` and `[edit]`, and with the addition of `[chat-faq]`, these also work in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# **Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to [Homework Policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/)?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="58b73f52-fa54-4f80-b8de-7300d8013eb9" CreationDate="2013-09-29T01:04:26.767" UserId="8563" Text="Can we have a magic link to the homework policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="58b73f52-fa54-4f80-b8de-7300d8013eb9" CreationDate="2013-09-29T01:04:26.767" UserId="8563" Text="|feature-request|comments|links|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="1476676a-cb86-4c0c-8d7f-a12a256010b5" CreationDate="2013-09-29T03:02:40.677" UserId="124" Text="Magic links are only implemented for standard URLs that are present on every site, so unless we hear otherwise from the developers, I would not expect this to happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="432bdd40-96b1-45a6-bedb-775adafcf0b9" CreationDate="2013-09-29T03:21:49.323" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|undelete-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="75cd364e-345c-47fe-b1ec-3ee314a1232d" CreationDate="2013-09-29T05:06:32.350" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|deleted-questions|undelete-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="6f7668aa-4622-4a2b-8a94-0e504c74351a" CreationDate="2013-09-29T05:08:04.983" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="5b26f000-cf73-4e73-a5f1-4570da90a345" CreationDate="2013-09-29T05:08:04.983" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5025" RevisionGUID="2d031e07-e0c9-4835-9d0f-4f2891fc96b5" CreationDate="2013-09-29T06:16:40.883" UserId="7433" Text="Aside from David's answer, I  use [this script][1] for linking to the policy. I've saved a comment with the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework and homework-like problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the close reason covers much of this now (indeed, one of the reasons for the close reason was to  incorporate the boilerplate comments into the system, enabling users to focus on the _exact_ problem in the question), I still use this for getting the link to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10965" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="67786293-9906-429c-b380-cb491b917be8" CreationDate="2013-09-29T06:21:59.927" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|questions|deleted-questions|undelete-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10966" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="75a48fa1-9734-452f-a5ff-e07d8bd58f27" CreationDate="2013-09-29T06:34:33.353" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10967" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="a6fcb32f-9042-4054-9bc5-6865fd78f8eb" CreationDate="2013-09-29T06:34:40.383" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10968" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="999f2f01-f740-4720-9b2a-0200af06dfe4" CreationDate="2013-09-29T06:34:49.900" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|questions|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="6aaeacd6-a76b-46ee-8181-9a38c226956c" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:16:35.133" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.), see also more answers listed [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/865/23119)            etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta-tag:status-declined]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I decline to give the  forecast? Or that it is predicted that this will be declined?  .                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="635121cb-3a50-481a-8380-b5b28b5e4659" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:27:40.700" UserId="21817" Text="I think this questions are off topic (they might fit in CogSci).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first asks if brightness is physichological, which of course is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66883/is-light-brightness-subjective-or-can-it-be-quantified&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second asks about time perception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68117/why-do-we-feel-the-passing-of-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="635121cb-3a50-481a-8380-b5b28b5e4659" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:27:40.700" UserId="21817" Text="Should subjective questions be closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="635121cb-3a50-481a-8380-b5b28b5e4659" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:27:40.700" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="2e7627fb-1308-4559-864c-5c91c5bfac83" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:33:28.107" UserId="24791" Text="The question hit me when I saw [this question][1] which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found [this post][2]; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like [music][3] and [scifi][4]. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xD;&#xA;about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://music.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="2e7627fb-1308-4559-864c-5c91c5bfac83" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:33:28.107" UserId="24791" Text="Should we allow embedding videos in questions or answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="2e7627fb-1308-4559-864c-5c91c5bfac83" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:33:28.107" UserId="24791" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5029" RevisionGUID="5bd326b2-167f-4647-8050-93ea08a019dc" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:36:23.947" UserId="7433" Text="Subjective questions are closed; but neither of these are subjective. The first is a terminology question (it's phrased badly but I guess it could pass), and the second probably should be migrated to cogsci." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="5a0bf9da-a1e4-4bb8-90fe-48d55f747fc8" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:36:48.870" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="49a16858-dbaf-4781-a5fd-a65a27880fe2" CreationDate="2013-09-29T12:45:24.730" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="1122a9b6-e486-4489-aa89-07f98486cbb7" CreationDate="2013-09-29T13:27:47.963" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Some apparent redspace problems, 10 m/s ([original post][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations &#xD;&#xA;    is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, &#xD;&#xA;    about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2372/how-long-it-will-take-for-a-tree-to-fall-on-a-ground/2401#2401&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="ae551906-58fc-4423-80ee-e506b3a7b64a" CreationDate="2013-09-29T13:48:13.353" UserId="5477" Text="I'm always uneasy when these types of question get closed. The problem is that for us, as experienced physicists, it's obvious that they have a strong subjective element - but for a novice this isn't obvious at all, and so it seems to the OP as if they are asking a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason I think the correct thing to do is to write an answer explaining why it has more to do with biology and perception than with physics. A good answer along these lines will be helpful to other physics novices as well, and hence it's a constructive thing to have on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5029" RevisionGUID="e99f0864-6d8a-4b3d-b9c1-88b051ef1dfe" CreationDate="2013-09-29T14:01:08.697" UserId="7433" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Subjective questions are closed; but neither of these are subjective. The first is a terminology question (it's phrased badly but I guess it could pass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is a physics question, though some of the answers are biological.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="dc119414-1e79-4dbc-81a6-a1539c610645" CreationDate="2013-09-29T16:00:27.990" UserId="21817" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="dc119414-1e79-4dbc-81a6-a1539c610645" CreationDate="2013-09-29T16:00:27.990" UserId="21817" Text="What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="dc119414-1e79-4dbc-81a6-a1539c610645" CreationDate="2013-09-29T16:00:27.990" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5034" RevisionGUID="67325b69-411b-48ee-b5f6-507451e61833" CreationDate="2013-09-29T16:12:20.407" UserId="6634" Text="I personally don't like when questions are easily found with a search on Google. But I recall reading something on SO's meta where they wanted an answer from the SE network to always be the first one that shows up on Google when people search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you found the info on Google on another site, you should reproduce (without copying obviously) the answer here so the SE answer **becomes** the easily Google'd answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's SE's view -- they want to always be the first link. I still personally don't know that I agree, but I usually just happily skip those questions (usually with a downvote) or I will leave a comment that says &quot;Have you tried typing [really obvious search term] into your favorite search engine?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That usually gets the point across. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="508e5917-c618-4d80-b3a8-4c7c196c1ba9" CreationDate="2013-09-29T16:14:12.240" UserId="21817" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="c7f2d701-18b9-4638-a71d-c3b368d24223" CreationDate="2013-09-29T19:23:14.517" UserId="124" Text="If it's a really basic Google search that yields the answer - as in, you copy and paste the question title into Google and the answer is in the top 4 or 5 results then I'd say a downvote is warranted. After all, the tooltip that pops up when you hover over the downvote button includes a statement about insufficient research effort, which is exactly what you're talking about. But beyond that, I don't know that there's a policy about it. In addition to the downvote, you can of course comment or answer the question, as tpg2114 suggested. If a close reason happens to apply, certainly vote to close (and don't answer in that case), but I don't think any of the close reasons apply to insufficient research specifically, and I'm not sure that's the sort of thing closing is meant to address." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="f81767ca-e8c2-4031-ba3f-3c346106fbc7" CreationDate="2013-09-30T00:45:20.603" UserId="5477" Comment="tried to prevent misinterpretation along the lines of what David Z thought I was sayinh" Text="I'm always uneasy when these types of question get closed. The problem is that for us, as experienced physicists, it's obvious that they have a strong subjective element - but for a novice this isn't obvious at all, and so it seems to the OP as if they are asking a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason I think the correct thing to do is to write an answer explaining the specific reasons why the phenomenon in question has more to do with biology and perception than with physics. A good answer along these lines will be helpful to other physics novices as well, and hence it's a constructive thing to have on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5036" RevisionGUID="527c59cf-493f-4934-a7d2-75299b1bab26" CreationDate="2013-09-30T05:31:31.980" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="While I agree in with the principle here, I tend to err on the side of &quot;sure, Google can say *something* but does it actually lead to a *great* answer?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, someone could very well show how the long-compared-to-focal-length limit turns the Fresnel equations into Fraunhofer ones, and maybe give a great physically intuitive reason why Fraunhofer diffraction leads to Fourier transforms (I've seen it done). Or take that meteor question. A [very similar one][1] was asked by another user, with about as much prior research being done, but several great answers resulted anyway. Maybe it was more than the OP &quot;deserved,&quot; but I certainly had fun researching an answer for that, and the end result is a synthesis of ideas that was *not* found in the first page of Google hits, and indeed may not have been written quite like that anywhere else on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, we want to encourage better questions. But at the same time I feel bad neglecting a good scientific inquiry just because the first person to ask it here did so flippantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that, unlike SO, we deal more with conceptual issues (&quot;why?&quot; &quot;how?&quot;) rather than one-word answers (&quot;what is the name of the function...?&quot; &quot;which package has...?&quot;). Or at least that seems like a reasonable ideal. Look-up questions should probably deserve more scrutiny, since if the number is easily found (such as &quot;depth of the deepest mine&quot;) there is little more we can add. Difficult-to-locate numbers are better (&quot;what is the *current* limit on Lorentz violation from astronomical observations?&quot;); actual *concepts* are still best, though, as even if these can be found using a simple search, there's always room for giving a *better* exposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76045/why-do-meteors-explode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="1a8e9c60-5825-4190-8732-441c09ad8d15" CreationDate="2013-09-30T07:02:21.880" UserId="29011" Text="Is it appropriate to ask the OP of a question to select your answer as the selected answer when you know that s/he has entirely understood your answer and that s/he is satisifed by it in the comments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: [in this answer][1] I completely explained the mechanics of the pulley sliding on the table and one can see that this accurately answers the OP's questions from the comments. Is it okay for me to remind the OP to choose my answer as the selected answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/76572/29011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="1a8e9c60-5825-4190-8732-441c09ad8d15" CreationDate="2013-09-30T07:02:21.880" UserId="29011" Text="Soliciting Selected Answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="1a8e9c60-5825-4190-8732-441c09ad8d15" CreationDate="2013-09-30T07:02:21.880" UserId="29011" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="b489b60e-3160-4adb-bee1-e4a8b2def39b" CreationDate="2013-09-30T07:41:06.983" UserId="124" Text="It's perfectly fine and even encouraged to remind a poster of SE etiquette, in particular that they should upvote helpful answers and accept the best one that directly answered their question, if there is one. But it's not OK to _tell_ someone how to vote or which answer to accept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take the actual example from the answer you're asking about, the comment you posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, since you've understood the answer, mark this as this as the accepted answer by clicking the checkbox on side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not appropriate. But this would be fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you think this is the best answer, could you mark it as the accepted answer by clicking the checkbox on the side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't something that gets you in trouble just for doing it once, but if we notice someone _repeatedly_ making the former sort of comment (telling people how to vote), that will probably be the basis for some sort of disciplinary action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11004" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="1f7a12f3-9012-41b9-bf51-c45d6dc1696d" CreationDate="2013-09-30T12:14:54.350" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="085036ae-c48f-4f41-8c33-3206b87717ac" CreationDate="2013-09-30T17:56:13.060" UserId="21817" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="bce7f68b-c4c5-4156-8edf-07cad3943f75" CreationDate="2013-09-30T18:09:58.917" UserId="21817" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="44a97fc4-49b0-4783-9509-ab6622883750" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:04:22.850" UserId="2451" Text="OP should before asking his question X on Phys.SE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Google [X](http://www.google.com/search?q=X). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Check Wikipedia. In practice this means Goggle [X wiki](http://www.google.com/search?q=X+wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it! The two Internet searches (1) and (2) should be the only moral requirements for a question on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rest of this answer is meant as helpful suggestions to potential questioners, and should not be considered mandatory.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great (but optional) if OP would also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Search Phys.SE for related posts: [is:q X](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are that [with his newly-gained knowledge from the above queries (1-3)] he will able to pose a better and more focused question, perhaps a great question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Finally, OP could pepper his question post with relevant links (from in and outside Phys.SE), spell out abbreviations, etc., to make it accessible to the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="46e85732-d087-41e9-bc54-5e19b0e31334" CreationDate="2013-09-30T23:59:13.873" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="OP should before asking his question X on Phys.SE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Google [X](http://www.google.com/search?q=X). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Check Wikipedia. In practice this means Goggle [X wiki](http://www.google.com/search?q=X+wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it! The two Internet searches (1) and (2) should be the only moral requirements for a question on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rest of this answer is meant as helpful suggestions to potential questioners, and should not be considered mandatory.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great (but optional) if OP would also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Search Phys.SE for related posts: [is:q X](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are that [with OP's newly-gained knowledge from the above queries (1-3)] he will able to pose a better and more focused question, perhaps a great question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Finally, OP could pepper his question post with relevant links (from in and outside Phys.SE), spell out abbreviations, etc., to make it accessible to the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="9655fcb1-b205-4f86-a51d-c7c54b92927e" CreationDate="2013-10-01T12:39:16.057" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Ideally, OP should before asking his question X on Phys.SE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Google [X](http://www.google.com/search?q=X). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Check Wikipedia. In practice this means Goggle [X wiki](http://www.google.com/search?q=X+wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it! The two internet searches (1) and (2) constitute a sufficient research effort for a question on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rest of this answer is meant as helpful suggestions to potential questioners, and should not be considered mandatory.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great (but optional) if OP would also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Search Phys.SE for related posts: [is:q X](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are that [with OP's newly-gained knowledge from the above queries (1-3)] he will able to pose a better and more focused question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Finally, OP could pepper his question post with relevant links (from in and outside Phys.SE), spell out abbreviations, etc., to make it accessible to the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="221f9fd5-2ab9-4d53-926e-032fda8e96a7" CreationDate="2013-10-01T14:53:15.160" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Ideally, OP should before asking his question X on Phys.SE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Google [X](http://www.google.com/search?q=X). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Check Wikipedia. In practice this means Goggle [X wiki](http://www.google.com/search?q=X+wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it! The two internet searches (1) and (2) constitute a sufficient research effort for a question on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rest of this answer is meant as helpful suggestions to potential questioners, and should not be considered mandatory.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great (but optional) if OP would also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Search Phys.SE for related posts: [is:q X](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are that [with OP's knowledge from the above queries (1-3)] he will able to pose a better and more focused question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Finally, OP could pepper his question post with relevant links (from in and outside Phys.SE), spell out abbreviations, etc., to make it accessible to the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11011" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="03af21d9-8574-4e4b-9a62-df1c1d707354" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:30:01.413" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/199083/what-is-the-point-for-placing-a-question-on-hold-or-marking-it-as-off-topic" />
  <row Id="11012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="c76e28d2-2d68-4054-90dc-7e7b32831943" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:18:49.947" UserId="9023" Text="I wanted to know what the parameter's on which a question asked by a user is marked as off-topic or put on hold for example look at [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As much I know this question was related to physics problem and it also contains the all required tag which specifies what the question is related to so how it is off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the below reason for question to be off-topic was as followed:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as much I think the question was not up to the mark of the site's standard for question to be asked but how it is off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79002/launch-angle-with-only-intial-velocity-and-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="c76e28d2-2d68-4054-90dc-7e7b32831943" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:18:49.947" UserId="9023" Text="What is the point for placing a question on hold or marking it as off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="c76e28d2-2d68-4054-90dc-7e7b32831943" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:18:49.947" UserId="9023" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5041" RevisionGUID="43ff084b-756e-46c6-b2eb-e1ec27ab2cd1" CreationDate="2013-10-01T19:16:08.327" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="&quot;Off-topic&quot; means more than just laterally off-topic. It also encompasses the concept of &quot;too low-level&quot; or &quot;this flavor question doesn't belong here.&quot; So there are at least three broad categories of off-topicness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **Lateral:** The subject matter doesn't even belong here. Maybe it's engineering, maybe it's pure math, maybe it's about programming. It might have been inspired by physics, but in fact there's no more physics left to be done.&#xD;&#xA;  - **Low level:** By this I don't necessarily mean the subject matter itself is low level (as far as I know we don't *really* have a lower limit on content level), but rather that the question itself doesn't show any work. Saying &quot;I don't get something, please make me understand&quot; just doesn't cut it here. If a person is really that lost on, e.g., a homework assignment, the teacher should be sought out for extra explanation. Or a personal tutor may be needed. Or really just more work needs to be put in.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - **Wrong flavor:** Off-topic might also mean that that the question asked is a question only in the technical syntactic sense, but that really it is being used as an open invitation for users to talk about a topic. Even if the subject is physics, any question that asks &quot;hey, what do y'all think of `&lt;cool thing&gt;`?&quot; is decidedly off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular question suffers from the second point - it gives the setup, and then says something like &quot;help, what do I do with this?&quot; Yes we could give the answer, but *nothing* would be served by that. Even the OP wouldn't actually have learned anything; at best he could say he's memorized how to solve this particular problem and is one step closer to that stage in life so many people aim for where they never have to think for themselves again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary, &quot;off-topic&quot; should be interpreted more broadly than &quot;not having to do with physics.&quot; Perhaps we could use different terms to distinguish these ideas, but eventually we would end up with an overabundance of specific &quot;bad question&quot; categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'm a firm believer that students are **never** truly learning unless they are challenged to the point where they struggle with the concepts. After all, learning is about *thinking* in new ways, not about memorizing facts, formulas, or even procedures for solving problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11016" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="bbeb9270-184a-4a88-b4fd-97947e82b2ec" CreationDate="2013-10-02T00:17:13.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/385196735414693888" />
  <row Id="11017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="590c7d68-9c05-4925-af87-e57eab6c6aa1" CreationDate="2013-10-02T19:53:27.080" UserId="14182" Text="I would like to know why Ron's account is suspended again, this time until Ago 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain to me what happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="590c7d68-9c05-4925-af87-e57eab6c6aa1" CreationDate="2013-10-02T19:53:27.080" UserId="14182" Text="Why is Ron again suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="590c7d68-9c05-4925-af87-e57eab6c6aa1" CreationDate="2013-10-02T19:53:27.080" UserId="14182" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="144fe859-e498-4a3c-8d1b-c11a8f8407b5" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:01:45.903" UserId="124" Text="As we have said repeatedly, we do not publicly discuss specific suspensions. So no, nobody on this site will explain to you what happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for the Stack Exchange team, although I highly doubt they will discuss specific cases, either. Though they do frequently _review_ suspensions internally, to make sure nothing untoward is going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, though, I will say that suspensions are imposed for violations of the site rules as outlined in the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help). The first two items on the [behavior page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior) (&quot;be honest&quot; and &quot;be nice&quot;) cover most cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="c81ce2ab-9f8d-4c1c-81ef-ff178dced0d2" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:09:27.167" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="I would like to know why [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] is suspended again, this time until Ago 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain to me what happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11022" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="c81ce2ab-9f8d-4c1c-81ef-ff178dced0d2" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:09:27.167" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="Why is [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] again suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11023" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="c81ce2ab-9f8d-4c1c-81ef-ff178dced0d2" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:09:27.167" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="|discussion|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="9f41303a-fd7b-42cd-8676-50e28e973a83" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:35:01.840" UserId="124" Comment="clarify information sharing policy" Text="As we have said repeatedly, we (moderators) do not share information about specific suspensions with anyone except other moderators and the SE team.\* This means that the moderators will not explain to you what happened, and nobody else on this site knows what happened. While other non-moderator users may be able to give you examples of behavior that _could_ have led to a suspension, they don't know what actually _did_ lead to the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for the Stack Exchange team, although I highly doubt they will discuss specific cases, either. Though they do frequently _review_ suspensions internally, to make sure nothing untoward is going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, though, I will say that suspensions are imposed for violations of the site rules as outlined in the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help). The first two items on the [behavior page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior) (&quot;be honest&quot; and &quot;be nice&quot;) cover most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*If a suspended user decides to reveal information about their own suspension, the moderators may then be permitted to respond. But as a rule, we tend not to do so because we've found that it rarely leads to anything productive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="e9a91b94-2053-4327-8ace-f49088c8b148" CreationDate="2013-10-03T03:57:25.147" UserId="26239" Text="My question, &quot;[is everything in the universe discrete][1]&quot; was quite rapidly put on hold as a duplicate of &quot;[does the Planck scale imply that spacetime is discrete][2]&quot;. I understand my question might have other issues as well, but it was closed for being a duplicate, so I would like to address that directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited the question and posted comments to explain why I don't think they are the same question, but I don't think anybody saw them. There was no discussion, no attention to the question; just closed, moved on, and forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on the situation is that my question is more general than the planck-scale question. The planck-scale is asking if spacetime specifically is discrete. And the questions and answers there are even more specific than that, they are talking about how the Planck scale is related to spacetime being discrete. My question is asking if everything in the universe is discrete, which is not equivalent, at least as much as I understand it. I did not find the answer to my question in the planck-scale question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my question a duplicate? If yes, please help me to understand why, because I don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79313/is-everything-in-the-universe-discrete&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9720/does-the-planck-scale-imply-that-spacetime-is-discrete" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="e9a91b94-2053-4327-8ace-f49088c8b148" CreationDate="2013-10-03T03:57:25.147" UserId="26239" Text="Is my question &quot;Is everything in the universe discrete&quot; a duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="e9a91b94-2053-4327-8ace-f49088c8b148" CreationDate="2013-10-03T03:57:25.147" UserId="26239" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="78b596b2-2bff-439e-be7e-118f224eb3cd" CreationDate="2013-10-03T07:36:32.257" UserId="2451" Text="I) A good advice if you feel that your topic Y is not a duplicate of topic X (and you are not getting any responds from the Phys.SE community), would be to explain better and give more concrete examples of Y which do not belong to X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) Questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is **everything** in the universe discrete_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is there **anything** in the universe that we know with relative certainty is not discrete?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are formulated too broad and vague, and you run the risk of not being taken seriously from the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In particular, I would suggest to be more specific than, say,  _quantization of classical theories often leads to observables which take discrete values,_ since the subject of quantization is already covered in many posts on Phys.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="ebf9956f-fafa-48ee-9271-d999200d3e58" CreationDate="2013-10-03T07:52:15.940" UserId="2451" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I) A good advice if you feel that your topic Y is not a duplicate of topic X (and you are not getting any responds from the Phys.SE community), would be to explain better and give more concrete examples of Y which do not belong to X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) Questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is **everything** in the universe discrete_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is there **anything** in the universe that we know with relative certainty is not discrete?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are formulated too broad and vague, and you run the risk of not being taken seriously from the very beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In particular, I would suggest to be more specific than, say,  _quantization of classical theories often leads to observables which take discrete values,_ since the subject of quantization is by itself broad and already covered in many posts on Phys.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="9d811411-70ea-463d-913f-10af05fb8df5" CreationDate="2013-10-03T08:12:56.373" UserId="2451" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I) A general advice if you feel that your topic Y is not a duplicate of topic X (and you are not getting any responds from the Phys.SE community), would be to explain better and give more concrete examples of Y which do not belong to X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) Questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is **everything** in the universe discrete_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is there **anything** in the universe that we know with relative certainty is not discrete?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are formulated too broad and vague, and you run the risk of not being taken seriously from the very beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In particular, I would suggest to be more specific than, say,  _quantization of classical theories often leads to observables which take discrete values,_ since the subject of quantization is by itself broad and already covered in many posts on Phys.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="673cac82-335e-4a0b-87a9-2378290a7efc" CreationDate="2013-10-03T08:58:49.720" UserId="2451" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="I) A general advice if you feel that your question Y is not a duplicate of question X (and your question Y is not receiving any responds from the Phys.SE community), would be to explain better and give more concrete examples of Y which do not belong to X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) Questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is **everything** in the universe discrete_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is there **anything** in the universe that we know with relative certainty is not discrete?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are formulated too broad and vague, and your post runs the risk of not being taken seriously from the very beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) Moreover, I would suggest to be more specific than, say,  _quantization of classical theories often leads to observables which take discrete values,_ since the subject of quantization is by itself broad and already covered in many posts on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, quantization of mass is already discussed e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/122/2451), [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/4238/2451) and [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6461/2451), to name one example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="074bea6c-7bea-4590-b0bf-8072d2c2fd87" CreationDate="2013-10-03T09:13:59.617" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I) A general advice if you feel that your question Y is not a duplicate of question X (and your question Y is not receiving any responds from the Phys.SE community), would be to explain better and give more concrete examples of Y which do not belong to X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) Questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is **everything** in the universe discrete_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is there **anything** in the universe that we know with relative certainty is not discrete?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are formulated too broad and vague, and your post runs the risk of not being taken seriously from the very beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) Moreover, I would suggest to be more specific than, say,  _quantization of classical theories often leads to observables which take discrete values,_ since the subject of quantization is by itself broad and already covered in many posts on Phys.SE. For instance, various aspects of mass quantization is asked e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/122/2451), [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/4238/2451) and [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6461/2451)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="f19d3d42-34e0-481c-a396-6ba9b4f03cf3" CreationDate="2013-10-03T11:48:06.850" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="ea942758-f16e-4b2b-aa87-5c67b991bd50" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:22:01.367" UserId="29374" Text="What/who determines if some questions are homework or not? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it's not quite clear that which one is homework like and which one is not! Therefore the mechanism by which some questions are marked as closed or on hold should be modified to prevent probable mistakes of considering some questions as homework like. &#xD;&#xA;When some one tag a question as homework like and put it on hold it can't be answered anymore. And because of new questions, after a short while it'll be removed from the first page of newest questions. I think, in relation to a question on SE, normally most views (Or let me say the highest rate of the views ) occur at first hours of asking it , which is nearer to the time at which it has been asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't it mean if we put a question on hold by mistake, it will reduce the chance of finding the answer for that question as quick as possible?&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't some rules be defined and established to prevent this and similar instances? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="ea942758-f16e-4b2b-aa87-5c67b991bd50" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:22:01.367" UserId="29374" Text="who says this question really look like a homework?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="ea942758-f16e-4b2b-aa87-5c67b991bd50" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:22:01.367" UserId="29374" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="1e5ed983-6bd1-4332-9476-91542eb42c7d" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:59:51.120" UserId="2451" Text="The meta question (v1) addresses really two separate and independent issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When to close a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When to tag a question with the homework tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are in principle two separate and independent decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasons for closure are discussed in many places on meta. [If I find a good link I will include it here later]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning whether a question should be tagged with the homework, let me first of all say, that I think the issue is too minor to e.g. start a back-and-forth edit war over. The usual practice is that if the question looks like homework, it will be tagged with the homework tag, if not directly by OP himself, then by someone from the community. Sometimes OP disagrees with this. Then he will usually be made aware of our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). However, the final decision in this matter is usually left for OP to decide for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="a930cd05-4765-4608-a740-4bb2adc7af0e" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:07:00.443" UserId="2451" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The meta question (v1) addresses really two separate and independent issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When to close a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When to tag a question with the homework tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are in principle two separate and independent decisions and actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasons for closure are discussed in many places on meta. [If I find a good link I will include it here later]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning whether a question should be tagged with the homework tag, let me first of all say, that I think the issue is too minor to e.g. start a back-and-forth edit war over. The usual practice is that if the question looks like homework, it will be tagged with the homework tag, if not directly by OP himself, then by someone from the community. Sometimes OP disagrees with this. Then he will usually be made aware of our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). However, the final decision in this matter is usually left for OP to decide for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="3191a3bb-6505-443a-97fc-a4c1997cb86c" CreationDate="2013-10-03T21:27:47.963" UserId="8563" Text="To address one of the confusions in this question, tagging questions as [tag:homework] and closing them as off-topic are independent concepts. [Searching the main site for non-closed homework questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhomework%5D+closed%3Ano) currently turns up a healthy ~1800 such questions. (For comparison, only [tag:quantum-mechanics] beats that.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="e9c8c9a1-2ee8-45a1-a120-3601d2da1676" CreationDate="2013-10-03T21:27:56.760" UserId="2451" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="The meta question (v1) addresses really two separate and independent issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When to close a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When to tag a question with the homework tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are in principle two separate and independent decisions and actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasons for closure are discussed in many places on meta. [If I find a good link I will include it here later. E.g. [this meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1048/2451) is currently not quite up to date.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning whether a question should be tagged with the homework tag, let me first of all say, that I think the issue is too minor to e.g. start a back-and-forth edit war over. The usual practice is that if the question looks like homework, it will be tagged with the homework tag, if not directly by OP himself, then by someone from the community. Sometimes OP disagrees with this. Then he will usually be made aware of our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). However, the final decision about tags is usually left for OP to decide for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="6d901b03-3bf4-4179-909e-584976a8d3ad" CreationDate="2013-10-04T05:20:21.377" UserId="28244" Text="The last time I asked for a book in http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76484/book-on-optics-in-curved-space-time , the question was closed as being 'primarily opinion-based'. David Z explained clearly why it was not appropriate and suggested I reword it. He said a change in the book policy might cause a shift in the present policy. I see many questions here being closed for similar reasons. But each question carries a unique story and a context. Every book recommendation given still constitutes a definite answer to the question. In spite of the question being closed, I still see people responding in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can appreciate where the moderators are coming from, I have found that other SE websites like the Math SE are more welcoming of such questions. The book list is not really sufficient. While I imagine most people can get what they want in this list, it is insufficient for more specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy collecting valuable (both pedagogically and historically) works in science and mathematics (even more than reading them :D). So sometimes my requirements might be specific.  So I have to ask, if the requirements are not easily met by the book list, is there anything I can gain from Physics.SE (without compromising the specificity of my requirements)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="6d901b03-3bf4-4179-909e-584976a8d3ad" CreationDate="2013-10-04T05:20:21.377" UserId="28244" Text="The present status on the book policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="6d901b03-3bf4-4179-909e-584976a8d3ad" CreationDate="2013-10-04T05:20:21.377" UserId="28244" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="9872a2d6-5786-4d48-b40c-7b8954a23272" CreationDate="2013-10-04T05:28:12.943" UserId="124" Text="If we allowed every little variation on a book recommendation, those questions could easily overwhelm the site. We don't want that to happen, because this is a site for technical content, not for reading lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though every book recommendation question carries its own context and you might think that'd be enough to differentiate them, there are large classes of these questions that wind up with the same set of answers. For example, a question that asks about black holes will collect the same answers (or a subset of the answers) as a question that asks about general relativity, and that's why the former is typically closed as a duplicate of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, we are approaching a consensus on a [new policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy) which will allow a vastly expanded set of book recommendation questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="12072496-cb7a-4aec-a11a-9b464fb5fd01" CreationDate="2013-10-05T03:17:17.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/386329217933537280" />
  <row Id="11047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="5b0e06cb-8452-4eff-81f5-28f74df069b9" CreationDate="2013-10-05T07:44:39.363" UserId="29953" Text="physics.SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the questions here are about the content, and not about the layout of the site. (Which is good, content &gt;&gt; layout, in terms of importance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm new in SE, as you can probably see, however, I have a few recommendations, hopefully they're not frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is, when one clicks on a topic in physics.SE, the title (in the main site) changes color. That happens so one can see if we clicked on a topic already or not. However, that change in color is almost unnoticeable. Is it me only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it possible to change the color of clicked topics? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="5b0e06cb-8452-4eff-81f5-28f74df069b9" CreationDate="2013-10-05T07:44:39.363" UserId="29953" Text="Physics.SE layout change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="5b0e06cb-8452-4eff-81f5-28f74df069b9" CreationDate="2013-10-05T07:44:39.363" UserId="29953" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="bef94eac-6d3d-4c1b-9c5d-6b79a96e8dfd" CreationDate="2013-10-05T09:17:17.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/386419814769889280" />
  <row Id="11051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="da9c5a95-e472-41a7-975d-f9c8e70997ff" CreationDate="2013-10-05T10:08:42.443" UserId="5477" Text="The following thing has happened to me a couple of times recently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I come across a question that looks good but has a few minor errors. Someone has suggested an edit which address some of them, so I accept it. It then says that the edit has to be approved by one other person before it will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit later on I realise that there are some other things that should be improved, so I try to make an edit of my own - but I can't, because when I click on edit I just see the diff of the suggested edit, with a sign saying it needs to be approved by other users before it can be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems a bit strange to me, because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) I have enough rep to edit questions without it needing to be reviewed, so if I just rejected the suggested edits and made the same changes myself, they would happen instantly (but that would of course be mean); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Approving someone else's edit seems to lock me out of being able to make my own edits or even view the edit history until someone else also approves it, which is just weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of these things seems to create a strange disincentive to approve edits from other users. So my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the rationale for this behaviour? Why do I have the power to make my own edits without needing approval but not the power to approve someone else's edits without further approval?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Am I really completely locked out of editing the post in such a case, or is there some other way I can make my own edit or look at the edit history?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="da9c5a95-e472-41a7-975d-f9c8e70997ff" CreationDate="2013-10-05T10:08:42.443" UserId="5477" Text="Is it possible to edit a question if you've already approved someone else's edit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="da9c5a95-e472-41a7-975d-f9c8e70997ff" CreationDate="2013-10-05T10:08:42.443" UserId="5477" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="e3edf282-22d1-4a31-9d36-79f3b9c39835" CreationDate="2013-10-05T11:06:43.850" UserId="30594" Text="Is it allowed to use the site to see if your ideas are plausible. The questions I have [&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;][1] [&lt;sup&gt;(2)&lt;/sup&gt;][2] don't contain any hypothetical technologies or physics, only hypothetical planets, but since I am trying to figure out if a specific scenario is feasible they end up reading a bit like homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do math, but I don't know much Physics, I was hoping people could suggest the names of the formulas I would need to figure it out and I could plug in the numbers, compare graphs etc. But I have a nagging feeling they might be a bit too specific. As is this question I guess. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79690/calculating-atmospheric-pressure-on-an-imaginary-planet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79709/how-to-travel-between-tidally-locked-binary-planets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="e3edf282-22d1-4a31-9d36-79f3b9c39835" CreationDate="2013-10-05T11:06:43.850" UserId="30594" Text="May I ask questions I come across while attempting to write Science Fiction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="e3edf282-22d1-4a31-9d36-79f3b9c39835" CreationDate="2013-10-05T11:06:43.850" UserId="30594" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5055" RevisionGUID="8f40b26d-8e5c-47e3-8a3d-a0d667a2ef29" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:01:47.353" UserId="11062" Text="You're not locked. Think of it this way. The SE engine can't just rely on one guy, believing solely on his arbitration. That's why it does this 50% believing on an user's decision on review queues. It *varies*. For instance, it's 20% for VTC queue, 33% on LQ queue (I've seen that one time, when I've recommended deleting the post, while two reviewers before me, also did the same - *fishy*), etc. In case of mods, the engine's policy breaks down. They being the arbiters, the system has to put its 100% belief on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, now you approve some edit, you fill the 50% belief. And someone rejects it, the 50% belief is gone and now, 2 more persons have to fill it up. If on the contrary, both persons rejected it and the belief goes to -100%, the suggested edit is declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the way it is, because *(sometimes)* a &gt;2k user might think that some edit is good, while the next guy (and the following guys) may think that it isn't (maybe *too minor* or something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, that's not the end of story. You have an **IMPROVE** button sandwiched between Reject &amp; Skip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Improve][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You click it, and you'll get into editing the suggested users' revision. If you wanna clear some stuff, or improve it *more* (being an enthusiast), you do that. There's also a check box, asking you whether that guy has helped you in editing or, he messed things up. You check it, and he gets the &quot;+2&quot; he's been waiting for. You deselect it (it's selected as default), he has to wait forever...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Helpful][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I've done some naughty things. You know this immortal guy, the [community user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/). Don't you? He has helped me a lot of times. I'm always fond of decoding users' writings. Sometimes, I get the chance to review a *too minor* suggested edit. It's less likely that I get transformed into a fool (blind). But if that happens, I click **Approve**. Then, I blame myself for doing it accidentally. One day, I sneaked into the post (which I had approved by then) and edited it (just replace the &quot;questions&quot; in the hyperlink to &quot;posts&quot; and after that ID, you put &quot;edit&quot;). Now that you've gone into the post (which was the *tricky* part), make your revision and save it. **You're done**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, get into the revisions of the post and you'll see that the immortal guy has rejected the edit. What you've done is normal. This is what you do when you're reviewing. If you deselect the &quot;helpful&quot; check box, this is what's gonna happen. The &quot;-1&quot; guy rejects it. There's a difference in both cases. In the first case, it's registered as **Improve** near your name, while in the second case, it's registered as **Approve**. And below it, the community user and near that name, it's **Reject**. This is where *some*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; users struggle to understand what's going on, where they think...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A &gt;2k user has approved the edit and the &quot;Community&quot; mod bot has rejected it? When did it start to think? How dare the thing reject it?&quot;, etc. all that kinds of of problematic thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: We do have some reviewer-spies, who shadow reviewers all time (no offense) and IMHO, it's a good habit. We can't blame people for their curiosity (in that way, our room can be active all the time). And also, the smarty guys (who've suggested the edit), who peek into the queue and check whether their edits get approved or not..!!! (so that they can have an argument with the reviewer when *time comes*, which is a good way to subject the reviewer into test)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cW0Np.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6X7I.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="8a3e3246-b7ca-4bda-908b-d52d7f0ccf0b" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:35:44.667" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 122 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is it allowed to use the site to see if your ideas are plausible? The questions I have [&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;][1] [&lt;sup&gt;(2)&lt;/sup&gt;][2] don't contain any hypothetical technologies or physics, only hypothetical planets, but since I am trying to figure out if a specific scenario is feasible they end up reading a bit like homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do math, but I don't know much Physics, I was hoping people could suggest the names of the formulas I would need to figure it out and I could plug in the numbers, compare graphs etc. But I have a nagging feeling they might be a bit too specific. As is this question I guess. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79690/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79709/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11060" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="8a3e3246-b7ca-4bda-908b-d52d7f0ccf0b" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:35:44.667" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 122 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="8a3e3246-b7ca-4bda-908b-d52d7f0ccf0b" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:35:44.667" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 122 characters in body; edited tags" Text="May I ask questions I come across while attempting to write Science Fiction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="72e78ee2-8f2b-4eeb-82ff-67ee8473a304" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:39:35.087" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Most of the questions here are about the content, and not about the layout of the site. (Which is good, content &gt;&gt; layout, in terms of importance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm new in SE, as you can probably see, however, I have a few recommendations, hopefully they're not frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is, when one clicks on a topic in physics.SE, the title (in the main site) changes color. That happens so one can see if we clicked on a topic already or not. However, that change in color is almost unnoticeable. Is it me only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it possible to change the color of clicked topics? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11063" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="72e78ee2-8f2b-4eeb-82ff-67ee8473a304" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:39:35.087" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Physics.SE color layout change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11064" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="72e78ee2-8f2b-4eeb-82ff-67ee8473a304" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:39:35.087" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="3e2108cc-dca6-4f9c-affb-0c564febaaba" CreationDate="2013-10-05T14:04:49.693" UserId="30594" Comment="added 1187 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it allowed to use the site to see if your ideas are plausible? The questions I have [&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;][1] [&lt;sup&gt;(2)&lt;/sup&gt;][2] don't contain any hypothetical technologies or physics, only hypothetical planets, but since I am trying to figure out if a specific scenario is possible according to physics they end up reading a bit like homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do math, but I don't know much Physics. When asking these questions I am hoping people can explain the relationship between the variables related to the phenomena and perhaps suggest the variables that have an effect that I hadn't considered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing that concerns me is that I am looking for the answer of a question I don't quite now how to ask. Other than to be very specific, which looks like asking someone else to do all the work. However I also think that were the relationships explained adequately it wouldn't be very difficult for me to reword the question in more general terms that someone else might search for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I've been trying to read more about homework policy than science fiction policy because when I give all the specifics, to a layman like myself, it looks as if it came straight out of a text book, though someone more versed in the subject might immediately find spot some naive assumptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way I am posting these questions knowing that they will be likely altered at least to make more sense if not also to be generalized. But the system has no way of verifying of my intent, and I am curious how much tolerance there is for very specific problems in the context of research for science fiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far though it looks like at the level of specificity in my examples they are fine, as no one has complained or downvoted either of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79690/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79709/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11066" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="3e2108cc-dca6-4f9c-affb-0c564febaaba" CreationDate="2013-10-05T14:04:49.693" UserId="30594" Comment="added 1187 characters in body; edited title" Text="May I ask questions I come across while attempting to write science fiction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="6e8519ae-bd3b-41cc-8124-e4263b0bcd4b" CreationDate="2013-10-05T14:11:07.227" UserId="30594" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Is it allowed to use the site to see if your ideas are plausible? The questions I have [&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;][1] [&lt;sup&gt;(2)&lt;/sup&gt;][2] don't contain any hypothetical technologies or physics, only hypothetical planets, but since I am trying to figure out if a specific scenario is possible according to physics they end up reading a bit like homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do math, but I don't know much Physics. When asking these questions I am hoping people can explain the relationship between the variables related to the phenomena and perhaps suggest the variables that have an effect that I hadn't considered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing that concerns me is that I am looking for the answer of a question that I don't quite now how to ask, other than to be very specific. However I also think that were the relationships explained adequately it wouldn't be very difficult for me to reword the question in more general terms that someone else might search for and would have also satisfied me had it been in the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I've been trying to read more about homework policy than science fiction policy because when I give all the specifics, to a layman like myself, it looks as if it came straight out of a text book, though someone more versed in the subject might immediately spot some naive assumptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way I am posting these questions knowing that they will be likely altered at least to make more sense if not also to be generalized. But the system has no way of verifying of my intent, and it might look like I am asking someone else to do my work for me. So I am curious as to how much tolerance there is for very specific problems in the context of research for science fiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far though it looks like at the level of specificity in my examples they are fine, as no one has complained or downvoted either of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79690/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79709/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="b6314ced-c883-4126-83b8-7b8cdd8a6ba6" CreationDate="2013-10-05T14:35:27.097" UserId="29953" Comment="Added an implicit question" Text="Most of the questions here are about the content, and not about the layout of the site. (Which is good, content &gt;&gt; layout, in terms of importance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm new in SE, as you can probably see, however, I have a few recommendations, hopefully they're not frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is, when one clicks on a topic in physics.SE, the title (in the main site) changes color. That happens so one can see if we clicked on a topic already or not. However, that change in color is almost unnoticeable. Is it me only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it possible to change the color of clicked topics? Would you want to have it changed, as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="d087e12e-853e-47d0-9ae1-6beb4edb136e" CreationDate="2013-10-05T14:36:04.643" UserId="520" Text="I'm sticking with the core idea in [my answer][1] to [*&quot;Are questions related to science fiction acceptable?&quot;*][2]: the fact that your motivation concerns writing is immaterial to the topicality of a question. As long as it is on-topic, it is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't like the atmosphere question very much. Far too much going on about your plans and not enough focus on he *physics question*. The question about getting between co-plantets(?) is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up my answer is: **stick to the physics**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/287/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/286/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="161f8296-c523-4856-87a7-d2f0ff7f926c" CreationDate="2013-10-05T18:02:01.033" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I'm sticking with the core idea in [my answer][1] to [*&quot;Are questions related to science fiction acceptable?&quot;*][2]: the fact that your motivation concerns writing is immaterial to the topicality of a question. As long as it is on-topic, it is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't like the atmosphere question very much. Far too much going on about your plans and not enough focus on the *physics question*. The question about getting between co-plantets(?) is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up my answer is: **stick to the physics**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/287/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/286/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="f80e3219-ffc2-4b4e-be48-34f14ae809ad" CreationDate="2013-10-05T18:31:10.777" UserId="14182" Text="During the time I have been active in this site, I have flagged this or that comment from time to time, adding my explanation of why I did that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have never received any answer. I thought it was normal, but from reading some comments now, it seems that one should naturally expect some answer from somebody (moderators?). I have looked for any kind of menu within my profile, but I don't find any option such as an &quot;Inbox&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the moderators (or whoever) answering to my flags but I am missing them? If that is the case, how do I read such answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="f80e3219-ffc2-4b4e-be48-34f14ae809ad" CreationDate="2013-10-05T18:31:10.777" UserId="14182" Text="Am I missing answers to my flags? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="f80e3219-ffc2-4b4e-be48-34f14ae809ad" CreationDate="2013-10-05T18:31:10.777" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5058" RevisionGUID="4a80b916-e298-485c-9cd9-8254f0075410" CreationDate="2013-10-05T18:52:51.780" UserId="520" Text="You should see a item &quot;helpful flags&quot; (and sometimes some unhelpful ones) in the fully informative version of your profile summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't see it, you probably need to view the full information. Use &quot;more info&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you can see it, click on the number of flags for a detailed list of how they were handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can go directly to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/[your user ID]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sFfz6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QeFW1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="d7bd45fa-fb7e-466d-9f78-cf3f784184d8" CreationDate="2013-10-06T06:17:52.367" UserId="7433" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Most of the questions here are about the content, and not about the layout of the site. (Which is good, content &gt;&gt; layout, in terms of importance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm new in SE, as you can probably see, however, I have a few recommendations, hopefully they're not frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is, when one clicks on a topic in physics.SE, the title (in the main site) changes color. That happens so one can see if we clicked on a topic already or not. However, that change in color is almost unnoticeable. Is it me only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it possible to change the color of clicked topics (`a:visited`)? Would you want to have it changed, as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="41486074-6851-4c47-93ff-ee84d7db16fb" CreationDate="2013-10-06T09:53:28.563" UserId="1325" Text="I was one of those flagging the question as a duplicate, so I guess I should justify my actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question isn't identical to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9720/does-the-planck-scale-imply-that-spacetime-is-discrete, but I felt that the physics underlying it is the same physics talked about in the other question, and if you read the answers to the other question, maybe supplemented with a bit of Googling, you'd have an answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good question (and yours is a good question) rarely just has a one line answer. Typically the answer will discuss the underlying physics needed to understand the one line answer. If I answered your question my answer would have a large overlap with Luboš Motl's answer to the previous question, so it's more a case of the answer being a duplicate rather than the question being a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If other users of the site disagree with the close flag they can flag to reopen the question, and if there are enough reflags the question will indeed be reopened. The fact it hasn't been suggests the other site users agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still interested in the subject I'd say examine the answers to the other question and try and pin down the specific issues that you feel are unresolved. Then post a new question specifically asking about those points, and if i can answer I will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="c1f8c461-aa63-4170-b949-44246e0f8ddc" CreationDate="2013-10-06T11:47:30.343" UserDisplayName="user26988" Text="Since there are no official restrictions put on &quot;Conspiracy theorists&quot; or a strict margin on when a question becomes &quot;Stupid&quot;, we could safely assume that questions are judged and authorized currently in an affable way.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, the question word **why** is not the only type that might lead to a purposeless question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How're people ok with this?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Don't you guys think this is stupid?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What were they thinking?&#xD;&#xA; 4. When will NASA start listening to me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, you get the point.&lt;br&gt; In my opinion, Just doing all those things we could with those tools provided to us, in the absence of which moderators could be notified, would ensure a genuine silly-question could be taken care of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="e1d93ced-f502-44e5-baf7-cb8f9294a498" CreationDate="2013-10-06T14:56:05.507" UserId="5477" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="d7ef68e4-c0cc-45ca-8cf2-68750ca50a67" CreationDate="2013-10-07T15:17:29.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/387235237157412864" />
  <row Id="11080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="15087e5f-dcb7-4e6b-aae7-8a31b7203d52" CreationDate="2013-10-07T20:06:16.843" UserId="8563" Text="Every so often we get a question that goes more or less like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm a masters/bachelor/highschool student and I really like physics and I'm really interested in (some broad physics field)/(all of physics) and I have to do a research project / would like to start a PhD in that field. What are some important/interesting/open problems in that area?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example, see e.g. [Beginner projects in NMR quantum computing](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79934/beginner-projects-in-nmr-quantum-computing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These, together with most other physics careers questions, have generally been considered off-topic, with some of the more general of them being migrated or otherwise redirected to academia.se. I agree that they should be considered off-topic on the main site: they are always too specific to be of use to future visitors, they significantly diminish the S:N ratio, and they are fundamentally unanswerable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Why? because implicit in these questions is a highly subjective appraisal of which topics are interesting or not. The difficulty of finding good open highschool/bachelor's/masters/PhD-level research topics aside, if you're looking to ask a question like that, ask yourself whether any of us is likely to really know what will make you 'tick' when working on a research project.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However:** it does feel a bit like a shame that we are turning these questions down without really offering the posters any place to turn. So, therefore, I'd like to set up this thread to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) see if we can come up with some space to help people with these sort of questions (which does feel unlikely to me), or at least&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) collect some helpful ways of facing this quandary, so we can refer posters to places where they can start working towards this choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies if this is sounding more and more like an academia.se question. What are people's thoughts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="15087e5f-dcb7-4e6b-aae7-8a31b7203d52" CreationDate="2013-10-07T20:06:16.843" UserId="8563" Text="&quot;What's a good research topic?&quot; questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="15087e5f-dcb7-4e6b-aae7-8a31b7203d52" CreationDate="2013-10-07T20:06:16.843" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5062" RevisionGUID="a4318e08-4726-4f47-8546-cf2300e351a7" CreationDate="2013-10-07T21:46:42.950" UserId="124" Text="We do always have the chat room, where such questions are perfectly appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com) and [reddit's /r/Physics](http://reddit.com/r/Physics) are both somewhat looser about their scope, so that such &quot;soft&quot; questions would likely be welcome there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="4db3e06e-14e8-41dc-bcdc-1e3082fd335f" CreationDate="2013-10-08T16:13:58.087" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|support|bug|status-bydesign|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="c8499935-51d1-41bf-8a97-1c47573b5616" CreationDate="2013-10-09T01:43:07.847" UserId="5477" Comment="steps to reproduce" Text="The following thing has happened to me a couple of times recently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I come across a question that looks good but has a few minor errors. Someone has suggested an edit which address some of them, so I accept it. It then says that the edit has to be approved by one other person before it will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit later on I realise that there are some other things that should be improved, so I try to make an edit of my own - but I can't, because when I click on edit I just see the diff of the suggested edit, with a sign saying it needs to be approved by other users before it can be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems a bit strange to me, because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) I have enough rep to edit questions without it needing to be reviewed, so if I just rejected the suggested edits and made the same changes myself, they would happen instantly (but that would of course be mean); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Approving someone else's edit seems to lock me out of being able to make my own edits or even view the edit history until someone else also approves it, which is just weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of these things seems to create a strange disincentive to approve edits from other users. So my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the rationale for this behaviour? Why do I have the power to make my own edits without needing approval but not the power to approve someone else's edits without further approval?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Am I really completely locked out of editing the post in such a case, or is there some other way I can make my own edit or look at the edit history?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Steps to reproduce**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe part of the problem is a bug, or at least an unintended consequence of the rep system. Since it's not easy to explain in writing, here is a series of screenshots illustrating the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a question with a suggested edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I click on &quot;edit (1)&quot; to see the suggested edit, and I see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a minor cosmetic change, but the question is only 5 hours old, so this seems appropriate and I press &quot;Approve&quot;, which gives me the following message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I close the message and go back to the question. I refreshed the page at this point, just to make sure that wasn't the issue. The question now looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. exactly the same as before, because the suggested edit hasn't been approved yet. So far so good. But suppose I now spot a more serious issue with the question that I'd missed before. I want to fix it, so again I click on &quot;edit (1)&quot;, but **this does not take me to the edit queue**. Instead I see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't able to fit the whole dialogue box into the screen shot, but there is no link to the edit queue at the bottom. Clicking &quot;(more)&quot; just reveals some stats but no link to the edit queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I mean by being &quot;locked out of editing&quot;. The edit queue is replaced by this dialogue, with no option to edit the post in any way, until another user approves the suggested edit. Sklivvz commented that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if there is a pending suggested edit, one can get to the review queue by clicking on the &quot;edit(1)&quot; at the bottom of the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is the intended behaviour then the current behaviour is a bug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LhNrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EQaSA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lxaIy.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/84TAx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6sQJy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11091" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="1fc40182-524a-43cd-82c1-4a1acfe9f7e1" CreationDate="2013-10-13T03:20:15.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/389229064835592192" />
  <row Id="11096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="d012a59c-7463-4b9b-8078-8608b7b599bb" CreationDate="2013-10-15T10:14:16.630" UserId="28244" Text="A recent question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80465/are-stephen-crothers-claims-legitimate has made me very uneasy. I will explain why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, this question is too open ended. I visited Crothers' website, looked through a lot of the papers and correspondence (mostly for my amusement) and discovered that he has a LONG list of arguments against the existence of Black Holes, the Big Bang and tonnes of other mainstream ideas in astrophysics and cosmology. I saw the first video the OP linked too and there were many claims made there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It seems the OP desires a simple explanation. This is almost impossible without going into technicalities of the Swarchzchild solution and other concepts in GTR, owing to the nature of Crothers' arguments. One can just look through the exchanges Crothers' had with many scientists, some of whom took great effort to dissect counter his arguments, to see how time-consuming this will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Beginners looking at this question will see: &#xD;&#xA;   i) Videos and papers of a man putting forth his 'bold' arguments.&#xD;&#xA;   ii) No answer technically detailed enough to dissect all the claims given in the links.&#xD;&#xA;This will give beginners the impression that Crothers' has a legitimate claim to make in completely dismissing and trashing the foundations of black holes and cosmology. This could potentially mislead beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. SE is ranked high in Google searches. This will create more publicity for Crothers' and Co. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While going through his website, I found a mention of Lubos Motl. It seems Crothers' and company embarked on a campaign to stop funding to observatories long back. This involved sending dozens of messages to prominent universities. I believe Lubos, being a representative of Harvard at the time, was one of the many recepients of these messages. I think he (and many other experts familiar with Crothers' and Co.) can better explain the dangers of giving publicity to these foolish claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried flagging the question. Manish told me that he would appreciate a discussion on this topic before deciding what to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I have nothing against Crothers' and Co. personally and it is only after reading his emails exchange, papers and watching his videos have I come to realize the true danger of giving too much attention to people like him (who are totally closed-minded). I only hope my question on Meta doesn't publicize him further. If it does, I will probably delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="d012a59c-7463-4b9b-8078-8608b7b599bb" CreationDate="2013-10-15T10:14:16.630" UserId="28244" Text="Is this question admissable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="d012a59c-7463-4b9b-8078-8608b7b599bb" CreationDate="2013-10-15T10:14:16.630" UserId="28244" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="a76e8475-3361-47eb-8b19-e6611a3f0cc5" CreationDate="2013-10-15T16:53:46.380" UserId="28244" Comment="I think that delving further into what Crothers' has been doing in the past is not really relevant here." Text="A recent question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80465/are-stephen-crothers-claims-legitimate has made me very uneasy. I will explain why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, this question is too open ended. I visited Crothers' website, looked through a lot of the papers and correspondence (mostly for my amusement) and discovered that he has a LONG list of arguments against the existence of Black Holes, the Big Bang and tonnes of other mainstream ideas in astrophysics and cosmology. I saw the first video the OP linked too and there were many claims made there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It seems the OP desires a simple explanation. This is almost impossible without going into technicalities of the Swarchzchild solution and other concepts in GTR, owing to the nature of Crothers' arguments. One can just look through the exchanges Crothers' had with many scientists, some of whom took great effort to dissect counter his arguments, to see how time-consuming this will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Beginners looking at this question will see: &#xD;&#xA;   i) Videos and papers of a man putting forth his 'bold' arguments.&#xD;&#xA;   ii) No answer technically detailed enough to dissect all the claims given in the links.&#xD;&#xA;This will give beginners the impression that Crothers' has a legitimate claim to make in completely dismissing and trashing the foundations of black holes and cosmology. This could potentially mislead beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. SE is ranked high in Google searches. This will create more publicity for Crothers' and Co. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried flagging the question. Manish told me that he would appreciate a discussion on this topic before deciding what to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I have nothing against Crothers' and Co. personally and it is only after reading his emails exchange, papers and watching his videos have I come to realize the true danger of giving too much attention to people like him (who are totally closed-minded). I only hope my question on Meta doesn't publicize him further. If it does, I will probably delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="12b17a4c-ede8-4ca5-8130-6309c6aa9d82" CreationDate="2013-10-15T17:21:36.463" UserId="9719" Text="That question is definitely close-able under the rubric of &quot;Unclear what you are asking,&quot; in addition to &quot;too open-ended.&quot; In the comments to that question, Ben Crowell points to a [meta question] he posed about this exact sort of thing: a link to a video, followed by the question, &quot;What's wrong with this?&quot; That's not really an answerable question, because there simply isn't enough information provided to determine what is bothering the OP about Crothers's ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Manishearth says, it's asking for a mainstream analysis of Crothers's ideas, so it could be salvaged by focusing on a specific aspect of Crothers's argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, there is the problem of some possible dishonesty of the OP of that question. In one comment, they imply that they are &quot;just a layman,&quot; but later claims to have read Schwarschild's original paper and seems to know a lot about the history of GR. To me, that discrepency is a big red flag that suggest that the OP isn't really askingthe question in good faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta question]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/how-to-deal-with-low-quality-questions-based-on-videos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11101" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="e822b94a-e5b1-475c-9246-d222be318d46" CreationDate="2013-10-16T03:03:38.243" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="dcbbcd38-9aed-4e0b-90c1-56149d96bc59" CreationDate="2013-10-16T03:04:47.830" UserId="2911" Comment="Strictly-speaking, not a bug" Text="Looks like it's a deficiency in the comment voting/flagging system, but it's not really worth improving. See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have three courses of action: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unupvote the comment (note that you can't reupvote if you do this). You can only unupvote if you've recently upvoted the comment&#xD;&#xA; - Flag the post with a custom flag asking for comment deletion.&#xD;&#xA; - Complain on meta about the comment being unflaggable ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_comment removed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="53a79a65-f8ec-4cd0-bb73-0d29e3df6316" CreationDate="2013-10-16T15:41:51.353" UserId="21817" Text="This is the user: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26988/python-student (I don't if this can be discussed here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite offensive (if he doesn't like the rules he can always go to Yahoo answers or any other forum)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="53a79a65-f8ec-4cd0-bb73-0d29e3df6316" CreationDate="2013-10-16T15:41:51.353" UserId="21817" Text="Should this profile description be removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="53a79a65-f8ec-4cd0-bb73-0d29e3df6316" CreationDate="2013-10-16T15:41:51.353" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="18aa295e-313a-43b2-b960-6ba010f39463" CreationDate="2013-10-16T16:01:06.573" UserId="11062" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="[This is the user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26988/python-student). (I don't think whether this can be discussed here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He's quite offensive (if he doesn't like the rules, he can always go to Yahoo answers or any other forum)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5068" RevisionGUID="32b64c09-e5fe-4555-a07b-8fd29536b404" CreationDate="2013-10-16T16:21:17.947" UserId="520" Text="Removed, and thank you for bringing that to our attention. You could also have flagged any of the user's posts and used the custom reason to explain the problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5069" RevisionGUID="a8772763-74bb-4ce5-a52b-4adf098140cf" CreationDate="2013-10-16T17:09:24.617" UserId="1325" Text="I think the answer was probably asked in good faith. I don't think [Stupid][1] was claiming to have read Schwarzschild's paper. He was just repeating a claim on Crothers' site that Schwarzschild's paper didn't predict black holes. The claim is wrong of course: Crothers has committed the beginner's error of thinking that because a solution is expressed in different coordinates it's a different solution, but let us skip lightly over this without comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a point to be made though, and I almost posted a meta question on the subject. We all love the heroic underdog figure, and if you watch the video linked in the question Crothers is an entertaining and plausible speaker. Although the question was phrased in neutral terms Stupid was obviously predisposed to believe Crothers was correct and we wicked physicists were maliciously ignoring him. In the face of this prejudice, and without being able to resort to mathematics, how can we make a cogent argument? I wish now I had simply ignored the question. It was a bit like wrestling a [tar baby][2] - with every attempt to disentangle myself I just got more deeply mired :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30918/stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="d19dabac-89a7-4b1a-8e2e-3b22c2c3746e" CreationDate="2013-10-17T13:34:31.013" UserId="829" Comment="fix spelling for Schwarzschild" Text="A recent question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80465/are-stephen-crothers-claims-legitimate has made me very uneasy. I will explain why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, this question is too open ended. I visited Crothers' website, looked through a lot of the papers and correspondence (mostly for my amusement) and discovered that he has a LONG list of arguments against the existence of Black Holes, the Big Bang and tonnes of other mainstream ideas in astrophysics and cosmology. I saw the first video the OP linked too and there were many claims made there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It seems the OP desires a simple explanation. This is almost impossible without going into technicalities of the Schwarzschild solution and other concepts in GTR, owing to the nature of Crothers' arguments. One can just look through the exchanges Crothers' had with many scientists, some of whom took great effort to dissect counter his arguments, to see how time-consuming this will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Beginners looking at this question will see: &#xD;&#xA;   i) Videos and papers of a man putting forth his 'bold' arguments.&#xD;&#xA;   ii) No answer technically detailed enough to dissect all the claims given in the links.&#xD;&#xA;This will give beginners the impression that Crothers' has a legitimate claim to make in completely dismissing and trashing the foundations of black holes and cosmology. This could potentially mislead beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. SE is ranked high in Google searches. This will create more publicity for Crothers' and Co. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried flagging the question. Manish told me that he would appreciate a discussion on this topic before deciding what to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I have nothing against Crothers' and Co. personally and it is only after reading his emails exchange, papers and watching his videos have I come to realize the true danger of giving too much attention to people like him (who are totally closed-minded). I only hope my question on Meta doesn't publicize him further. If it does, I will probably delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11116" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="7d62b3e7-23d8-40ce-8a5b-cf9cda7959f9" CreationDate="2013-10-17T15:26:25.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/390861362685296640" />
  <row Id="11117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="42d706db-be98-4bde-80a2-c086522391fc" CreationDate="2013-10-18T09:25:18.097" UserId="9662" Text="Suppose you wrote an answer, and people ask in the comments for details: so you answer the details in form of comments, but then, when you no longer can edit, you would like your comments to be part now of your answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do that, without having to write the LaTeX again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="42d706db-be98-4bde-80a2-c086522391fc" CreationDate="2013-10-18T09:25:18.097" UserId="9662" Text="Accessing a LaTeX code from comments to incorporate it in the answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="42d706db-be98-4bde-80a2-c086522391fc" CreationDate="2013-10-18T09:25:18.097" UserId="9662" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="3239b37b-f7f5-4266-873b-b2c80c3f5d74" CreationDate="2013-10-18T11:34:01.727" UserId="9662" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Suppose you wrote an answer, and people ask in the comments for details: so you answer the details in form of comments, but then, when you no longer can edit them, you would like your comments to be part now of your answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a way to do that, without having to write the LaTeX again?&#xD;&#xA;- I mean, I'm not asking for being able to edit the comments, but for every user to be able to extract the code of her/his own comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="4f3562d6-d812-4bf5-9b0d-bd2713591dca" CreationDate="2013-10-18T12:55:17.347" UserId="7433" Text="Right click on the LaTeX. Click `Show Math As`&gt;`TeX Commands`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kibjf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11122" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="a9bc0314-aefc-4a64-8fc2-292e62a1e384" CreationDate="2013-10-18T12:58:59.240" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11123" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="0e81285f-24d6-4554-9a17-18df9bb2be11" CreationDate="2013-10-19T00:01:22.723" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11124" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="bb26e2b5-a3a7-45fe-8c08-a8b00542bca8" CreationDate="2013-10-20T03:30:29.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/391768357206491136" />
  <row Id="11125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5075" RevisionGUID="b62a9781-1024-4d4e-bf36-74cb32079475" CreationDate="2013-10-20T19:52:39.160" UserDisplayName="user29727" Text="[![MIT Open Courseware][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gTfnh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/#physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11126" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5075" RevisionGUID="3a0c7e67-0316-46cc-8ed9-24a4e9da7f61" CreationDate="2013-10-20T19:52:39.160" UserDisplayName="user29727" />
  <row Id="11127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="9e1f50d4-675c-4a7e-9795-403b5afe1b06" CreationDate="2013-10-20T19:54:20.183" UserDisplayName="user29727" Text="[![KhanAcademy][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J8rVV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11128" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="0305531e-58e5-40f4-acc9-63f9bb0c40b6" CreationDate="2013-10-20T19:54:20.183" UserDisplayName="user29727" />
  <row Id="11131" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="e0015048-0c60-4ed4-84aa-45e2e5e9c2cc" CreationDate="2013-10-22T14:47:07.253" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="96f33b4e-5380-4696-8550-575874088b43" CreationDate="2013-10-22T16:55:19.213" UserId="29011" Text="Can I edit [this answer][1] to my own question to make it more polite? Around 50% of that answer criticizes my question. What is the SE policy to dealing with such answers? Should they be flagged (perhaps not this case, but in more extreme cases) or edited?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/81794/29011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="96f33b4e-5380-4696-8550-575874088b43" CreationDate="2013-10-22T16:55:19.213" UserId="29011" Text="Impolite answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="96f33b4e-5380-4696-8550-575874088b43" CreationDate="2013-10-22T16:55:19.213" UserId="29011" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5079" RevisionGUID="1fc148fd-0bc4-4e0b-8991-6a1d5cf0f1c4" CreationDate="2013-10-22T16:59:41.050" UserId="124" Text="You're right, that was inappropriate - relatively mildly so, compared to some of what we get, but still inappropriate. I edited it to fix it. (The original is of course still visible as revision 1.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, you can edit it yourself, or you can flag it if you're not sure. Just keep in mind the cardinal rule of editing, that you should not change the essential meaning of the post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="0cb1032a-4272-46e0-9014-31a72be8e866" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:52:24.670" UserId="29118" Text="Serial upvoting of a single user's questions I have little doubt are detectable and reversed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about dumping the daily allotment of 40 votes in a short amount of time on many questions from many users, a method that I should add, can earn someone 4 different participation badges (including a gold one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why isn't there flood protection on voting, just like on commenting? Are those voting related badges helpful (Suffrage, Vox Populi, Civic Duty, Electorate) in the way they are currently designed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="0cb1032a-4272-46e0-9014-31a72be8e866" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:52:24.670" UserId="29118" Text="Why aren't serial upvoting of questions reversed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="0cb1032a-4272-46e0-9014-31a72be8e866" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:52:24.670" UserId="29118" Text="|discussion|badges|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5081" RevisionGUID="1e591f77-4237-4681-bf77-111e3d2fba03" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:54:57.680" UserId="7433" Text="They are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours. The serial upvoting detection script is a heavy one and is run daily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find such a case that is not reversed, let the moderators know in a custom flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5082" RevisionGUID="7fccb25d-f5d1-45bc-affd-c1ff33208eb9" CreationDate="2013-10-24T04:42:32.053" UserId="2911" Text="Well, that's *why* you only get 40 per day - before that restriction was put in place, folks were abusing it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, we do encounter someone doing something crazy with their 40/day, but generally-speaking votes are the voter's to do with as he wishes - even if that means squandering them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="c6b8c04b-4ff7-40b2-aad4-49baebca2477" CreationDate="2013-10-25T15:53:47.213" UserDisplayName="user31346" Text="I recently lost commenting permissions due to offering a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, I've noticed that when reading answers with comments, clicking on the &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link doesn't reveal the recently added comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link appears when a new comment is added to the discussion after you've loaded the page. It worked while I had commenting permissions. It doesn't work now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense to not allow me to actually *add* a comment, but I shouldn't be prevented from *showing* the recently added comment, especially because I can view it if I reload the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rrCA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="c6b8c04b-4ff7-40b2-aad4-49baebca2477" CreationDate="2013-10-25T15:53:47.213" UserDisplayName="user31346" Text="The &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link doesn't do anything if you don't have comment permissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="c6b8c04b-4ff7-40b2-aad4-49baebca2477" CreationDate="2013-10-25T15:53:47.213" UserDisplayName="user31346" Text="|discussion|bug|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11146" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="8ab2beb4-79b5-4a39-956a-6d7249964dd7" CreationDate="2013-10-25T16:15:37.683" UserDisplayName="user31346" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|design|comments|user-interface|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="a72446d6-b68b-4f0d-a0f5-3f7190f6550e" CreationDate="2013-10-25T18:41:35.193" UserId="520" Text="Generally when the site starts acting up the problem is local to your browser. Trying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* forcibly reloading the page&#xD;&#xA;* if that fails clearing your caches&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There shouldn't be a connection between the ability to *make* comments and the ability to *see* them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="f6245bf9-2a00-4ddd-9129-f59543dacaed" CreationDate="2013-10-25T18:58:36.470" UserDisplayName="user31346" Comment="added 374 characters in body" Text="I recently lost commenting permissions due to offering a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, I've noticed that when reading answers with comments, clicking on the &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link doesn't reveal the recently added comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link appears when a new comment is added to the discussion after you've loaded the page. It worked while I had commenting permissions. It doesn't work now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense to not allow me to actually *add* a comment, but I shouldn't be prevented from *showing* the recently added comment, especially because I can view it if I reload the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confirmed that it isn't a problem local to my browser by visiting this question from a different browser as a non-logged in user and I could reproduce the issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link doesn't work when you don't have comment permissions or are not logged in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only an issue with the &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link that appears *after* you've loaded a page. For long comment threads that simply start off with a &quot;show more comments&quot; link, that link works fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rrCA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYzEw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="9f745118-ba40-4e92-bf98-2de1c76d1900" CreationDate="2013-10-25T19:15:22.127" UserDisplayName="user31346" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="I recently lost commenting permissions due to offering a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, I've noticed that when reading answers with comments, clicking on the &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link doesn't reveal the recently added comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link appears when a new comment is added to the discussion after you've loaded the page. It worked while I had commenting permissions. It doesn't work now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense to not allow me to actually *add* a comment, but I shouldn't be prevented from *showing* the recently added comment, especially because I can view it if I reload the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confirmed that it isn't a problem local to my browser by visiting this question from a different browser as a non-logged in user and I could reproduce the issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link doesn't work when you don't have comment permissions or are not logged in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps to reproduce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Open a second browser that doesn't have you logged into stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;2. As your logged in user, here, in this browser window, add a comment to this question.&#xD;&#xA;3. Notice the &quot;add / show 1 more comments&quot; link appear in the other browswer, that you're not logged in with.&#xD;&#xA;4. Click on that link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rrCA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYzEw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="92bc01bb-677a-4d70-85f6-badabf6ec5dc" CreationDate="2013-10-26T16:58:34.220" UserId="26063" Text="This one is gonna sound absoultely nuts, but as far as I know this here is the best site to discuss and develop mainstream physics had there been some facility to remotely do experiments on good equipment science would be developing and progressing right here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is that even though we have developed such a fantastic community for researchers, teachers and students why aren't some really famous scientists &quot;the mainstream scientists&quot; here among us ? Are we doing something wrong ? I know that they have a community of highly qualified people in actual life but why aren't these great communities merging already ? We also have many reasearch students and scientists here, but the names of people with actual fame does not shine along some good question here and there, Is it lack of publicity or lack of standard, decorum or what ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="92bc01bb-677a-4d70-85f6-badabf6ec5dc" CreationDate="2013-10-26T16:58:34.220" UserId="26063" Text="Mainstream scientists and physics SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="92bc01bb-677a-4d70-85f6-badabf6ec5dc" CreationDate="2013-10-26T16:58:34.220" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="8dbb45cd-98cf-46d0-85fe-0442d3799240" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:07:02.170" UserId="26063" Text="I undestand we deal with mainstream physics here but as physics has been developed from philosophy only why are qustions based on speculations and those which are related to looking for possibilities discouraged ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="8dbb45cd-98cf-46d0-85fe-0442d3799240" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:07:02.170" UserId="26063" Text="physics vs philosophy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="8dbb45cd-98cf-46d0-85fe-0442d3799240" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:07:02.170" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="fb518130-b655-4dea-9131-a6429803f279" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:09:09.257" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I understand we deal with mainstream physics here but as physics has been developed from philosophy only why are questions based on speculations and those which are related to looking for possibilities discouraged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11157" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="fb518130-b655-4dea-9131-a6429803f279" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:09:09.257" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Physics vs philosophy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="fb518130-b655-4dea-9131-a6429803f279" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:09:09.257" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5088" RevisionGUID="57d7c7ea-623c-4fe3-b9f7-587da1bc55ec" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:26:37.250" UserId="7433" Text="&gt;  discuss and develop mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, no, we do not _develop_ physics here. We deal with established physics.  Nor do we discuss too much (except for [in chat][1]); the main site is not for discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why aren't some really famous scientists &quot;the mainstream scientists&quot; here among us ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we do have 't Hooft, Shor, and Motl, to name a few major scientists in their respective fields. I have seen a couple others, though I can't recall which ones off the top of my head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, most established scientists probably do not have the time to participate in a site like this. Plus, many may find the concept of answering questions unappealing &amp;mdash; they have better things to do with their time. When one is an expert in their field, a site like this doesn't help them as much. As a student, I find the site helpful as there are many things to learn and answering questions leads to a clarification of my own confusions. But all this requires there to be people better at physics than me to be around. From an expert's POV, there is less motivation to participate here as there are fewer people of similar knowledge and calibre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5089" RevisionGUID="7ee55fc3-3d61-4153-96c4-e2bd1585d4b5" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:55:26.027" UserId="520" Text="If I may say so, it is easy to see why you would like to have field leading experts participate in our little community, it is not clear what we have to offer those folks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been (professionally) close enough to enough narrow gauge experts to get a sense of what their lives are like. What they want to do research; talk to their peers---by which I mean people who know as much or more than them in some subject that interests them---and read papers that might be related to what they are interested in. A few of them also like to teach, but they want to teach people *who will become their peers*, not just anyone off the street. Competing with that are the things that they have to do: raise money for research, talk to a lot of colleagues who *might* have something to offer them, provide patronage for former students, weigh in on *&quot;where do we want the field to go&quot;* discussions&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, give talks and so on. There are a lot of demands on their time, and they barely have time to do the stuff they love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of these people are the kind of hyper-capable, super-productive people we all want to be, but their lives are packed to the gills, so you have to offer them something substantive---something *they* value---to get their attention to an enterprise like ours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; There has just been a big one of these in particle physics and the sheer number of expert-person hours that went into it was staggering. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="b2b2afe7-ac89-4451-b762-b2b55a99a8b3" CreationDate="2013-10-26T18:03:57.723" UserId="7433" Text="&gt;  as physics has been developed from philosophy &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, physics may have been _called_ philosophy in the early past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The methods of physics are radically different from philosophy, and most physicists attempt to stay well within the realm of &quot;physics&quot; without straying into philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metaphysical questions usually lead to opinionated debate and are thus not constructive for the site. Besides, such speculation many a time falls in the realm of [non mainstream physics][1] as people start theorizing outside the established framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="9ca9b112-c831-401b-bb7e-13931dd80761" CreationDate="2013-10-26T19:41:16.977" UserId="26063" Comment="added my view on philosophy" Text="I understand we deal with mainstream physics here but as physics has been developed from philosophy only why are questions based on speculations and those which are related to looking for possibilities discouraged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum : this is more what i see philosophy as : &#xD;&#xA;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of academic degrees, the term &quot;philosophy&quot; does not refer solely to the field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is &quot;love of wisdom&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="25f8a93c-ff88-47a6-b128-a4334842176b" CreationDate="2013-10-26T21:41:01.043" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-reproduced|design|comments|user-interface|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="a5afd726-d0a2-40a4-a3c7-3227f7cf3c95" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:11:30.960" UserId="26063" Text="Why can't we say thank you or leave other comments when someone edits our post (those that are done without approval) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="a5afd726-d0a2-40a4-a3c7-3227f7cf3c95" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:11:30.960" UserId="26063" Text="Thank you for editing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="a5afd726-d0a2-40a4-a3c7-3227f7cf3c95" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:11:30.960" UserId="26063" Text="|feature-request|comments|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="9f84f3f1-ac69-49e7-b17c-c807f6377556" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:22:07.480" UserId="7433" Text="You can, actually, @replying to an editor works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, usually &quot;thanks!&quot; comments are discouraged as they leads to clutter and in most cases are better expressed by acceptance ticks or upvotes. However, if you feel that an edit was particularly helpful in improving your post, feel free to thank the editor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="85c05e8e-746a-4509-a95a-4a8548af5ec7" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:22:23.827" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11169" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="e1246db0-14a9-4049-8f3b-4cde572e4c97" CreationDate="2013-10-27T00:07:36.967" UserId="2451" Comment="Hi Ben Crowell, I removed 'low-quality' from the title, so that OP of the low-quality question won't be offended if I link to this meta question." Text="How to deal with questions based on videos?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="eed09713-c875-4ded-944e-0ff15fe4da09" CreationDate="2013-10-27T04:11:21.650" UserId="31641" Text="Have any of you read the book &quot;The Joy of x&quot;? Or &quot;How things work&quot;? Many people find these to be fascinating &amp; eye-opening, and sometimes the first time they found these topics to be interesting and approachable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about such a feature here on stackexchange: not so much a question/answer, but a sharing of useful, valuable, and eye-opening insights and explanations in physics and its amazing existence in the world around us. Unique approaches that you feel no else has thought of, or an explanation that lends a sudden intuitive clarity previously lacking. (Well, something along those lines. I'm not quite sure of the words to express the exact feature I am looking for, but think of book &quot;The Joy of x&quot; for example.) These in turn could be voted on for their actual value, clarity, and ability to bring to light a unique facet of physics. Obviously, it would be important that they don't go about pointing out 1+1=2 or anything already covered or blindingly obvious and lacking in any value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But top rated topics would in affect be answering so many questions people often have by presenting them in an a uniquely approachable light. Or simply revealing the hidden world around us, kind of like Einstein did when he pointed out E=mc^2. Isn't that part of the joy of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the users here have what to share and what to add... but if only someone would ask it. How about if they could share without being asked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="eed09713-c875-4ded-944e-0ff15fe4da09" CreationDate="2013-10-27T04:11:21.650" UserId="31641" Text="Feature: A section for sharing observations and explanations in a non-question format" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="eed09713-c875-4ded-944e-0ff15fe4da09" CreationDate="2013-10-27T04:11:21.650" UserId="31641" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="a87333a6-7008-4921-9489-4e7daafb000b" CreationDate="2013-10-27T05:45:16.780" UserId="124" Text="This is a question and answer site. So anything other than questions and answers is out of our scope. This is by design; a lot of what keeps people coming to Stack Exchange sites is that they don't have to sift through junk that isn't questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a more discussion-oriented environment, we do have the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) (and you can also make your own, separate chat rooms), but otherwise you'd have to look to a different website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5095" RevisionGUID="576ac184-f1b0-48f0-b943-701a34821aa8" CreationDate="2013-10-27T05:47:17.847" UserId="7433" Text="Just to add to DavidZ's answer, if you have something you want to share, and if you can phrase it as an answer to what would be a good, on-topic question for the site, then you can ask-and answer your own question simultaneously using the &quot;answer your own question&quot; checkbox on the Ask Question page.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="5c6a5435-89da-4ec7-b8a7-abe28e15d02c" CreationDate="2013-10-27T07:19:55.173" UserId="26063" Text="I posted this question ( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82329/inducing-thoughts-with-brain-waves ) and mentioned that if this was too off topic I would be willing to close it, it was even closed but is still getting downvoted. Could someone delete this post entirely, as I understand that deleting too many of your own posts can create trouble for asking questions in future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="5c6a5435-89da-4ec7-b8a7-abe28e15d02c" CreationDate="2013-10-27T07:19:55.173" UserId="26063" Text="can this post be completely removed ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="5c6a5435-89da-4ec7-b8a7-abe28e15d02c" CreationDate="2013-10-27T07:19:55.173" UserId="26063" Text="|support|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="4b35c5c9-fad4-4d24-b046-61820741d258" CreationDate="2013-10-27T08:47:24.560" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I posted this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82329/inducing-thoughts-with-brain-waves) and mentioned that if this was too off-topic, I would be willing to close it, it was even closed but is still getting downvoted. Could someone delete this post entirely, as I understand that deleting too many of your own posts can create trouble for asking questions in future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11179" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="4b35c5c9-fad4-4d24-b046-61820741d258" CreationDate="2013-10-27T08:47:24.560" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can this post be completely removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11180" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="4b35c5c9-fad4-4d24-b046-61820741d258" CreationDate="2013-10-27T08:47:24.560" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|questions|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="778ce29d-4607-4a92-ba4d-384ff36b81d9" CreationDate="2013-10-27T08:51:45.107" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|questions|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="e1b9ee0d-6491-4ed0-ac6e-43de0c2958d8" CreationDate="2013-10-27T08:53:19.477" UserId="7433" Text="Done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deleting your own posts only really causes problems if the community feels that they have value. While a closed post can be improved and get reopened, it is OK if you feel that it is unsalvageable and delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that on Stack Overflow (and Programmers, Super User, and Server Fault), having too many deleted questions can lead to a question ban. However, this happens even if someone else deletes them. The question ban is not enabled for Physics as we do not have much flooding of substandard questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="fc60b2d3-879b-457b-b8f4-58df0f6cc493" CreationDate="2013-10-27T09:29:50.750" UserId="14182" Text="&quot;Mark this question as favourite (click again to undo)&quot; (or probably &quot;favorite&quot; á la US english, I don't remember) is what you get if you position the mouse pointer on that star that appears besides each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What effect does that star have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="fc60b2d3-879b-457b-b8f4-58df0f6cc493" CreationDate="2013-10-27T09:29:50.750" UserId="14182" Text="What is the mark &quot;favourite question&quot; for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="fc60b2d3-879b-457b-b8f4-58df0f6cc493" CreationDate="2013-10-27T09:29:50.750" UserId="14182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="75141255-5135-4cc2-8849-22dbb2331714" CreationDate="2013-10-27T09:35:17.893" UserId="7433" Text="It lets you track the question in [your favorites tab][1]. In this case, updates to the question (answers, etc) will increment the red counter above the tab (the counter isn't visible if there have been no changes since your last visit), and the updated question will be highlighted yellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effectively, it's a way of &quot;watching&quot; the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use it to bookmark questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is [a page where you can view your network-wide favorites][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/14182/eduardo-guerras-valera?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/1956019/eduardo-guerras-valera?tab=favorites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="d9eb7f85-c041-4996-ae24-3fece6523b21" CreationDate="2013-10-27T17:39:57.023" UserId="26063" Text="Some days ago I had an argument with a user about tension being a force on a post, since then I am constantly receiving atleast one downvote on all my posts, maybe it is not related but I believe that the person is deliberately down voting all my quetions and answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="d9eb7f85-c041-4996-ae24-3fece6523b21" CreationDate="2013-10-27T17:39:57.023" UserId="26063" Text="is someone deliberating downvoting my posts ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="d9eb7f85-c041-4996-ae24-3fece6523b21" CreationDate="2013-10-27T17:39:57.023" UserId="26063" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="011d399d-e46a-4744-9bdc-40f86aa5bf74" CreationDate="2013-10-27T17:43:51.293" UserId="520" Text="There are two features of the engine designed to combat this kind of thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is a script which detects and reverses short-term voting sprees over some threshold (but it only runs once a day, so you do have to be patient with it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The moderators have a tool that will show such a pattern in the long run. As of this post you do not appear in the summary nor do the details look actionable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="6c5d586e-254a-44d3-a132-59dc32a21041" CreationDate="2013-10-27T18:15:00.793" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="A while back, we had [this][1] discussion in which we tried to measure quantitatively whether the site was gaining or losing non-novice users. Since then, I've had the distinct subjective impression that the quality of discussion on the site has gone down markedly. I went through some of my own questions to which I'd accepted an answer, figuring that the people who wrote those answers would be the kind of competent and knowledgeable users who would make my own experience here better. We do seem to have lost some, including Cristi Stoica (inactive) and Luboš Motl (very low activity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried using some database queries to test this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This][2] is Manishearth's query that he formed as part of the previous discussion. It attempts to measure the number of users who are not novices, based on whether they post multiple times in a month in certain tagged areas. Re-running the query now shows that the level of such users seems to have been stagnant for about the last year or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [This][3] is the number of users posting in homework. It shows strong growth over the last year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [This][4] is the total number of active users. It also shows a strong, steady trend of growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm using the term &quot;critical mass&quot; in the title of this question is that the critical mass of, say, uranium-235 depends on concentration. If you take a given number of 235U atoms and dilute them, you can make a critical mass into something that's not a critical mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjectively, I'm finding that I've been spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law. I've decided to become inactive on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4880/are-we-gaining-or-losing-non-novice-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144712/number-of-users-posting-in-homework#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144711/number-of-active-users?Threshhold=0#graph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="6c5d586e-254a-44d3-a132-59dc32a21041" CreationDate="2013-10-27T18:15:00.793" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Have we lost the necessary critical mass of professional physicists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="6c5d586e-254a-44d3-a132-59dc32a21041" CreationDate="2013-10-27T18:15:00.793" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|discussion|content-level|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="a46574a7-20e4-4583-b768-ee100bc93771" CreationDate="2013-10-27T18:37:09.163" UserId="7433" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="A while back, we had [this][1] discussion in which we tried to measure quantitatively whether the site was gaining or losing non-novice users. Since then, I've had the distinct subjective impression that the quality of discussion on the site has gone down markedly. I went through some of my own questions to which I'd accepted an answer, figuring that the people who wrote those answers would be the kind of competent and knowledgeable users who would make my own experience here better. We do seem to have lost some, including Cristi Stoica (inactive) and Luboš Motl (very low activity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried using some database queries to test this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This][2] is Manishearth's query that he formed as part of the previous discussion. It attempts to measure the number of users who are not novices, based on whether they post multiple times in a month in certain tagged areas. Re-running the query now shows that the level of such users seems to have been stagnant for about the last year or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [This][3] is the number of users posting in homework. It shows strong growth over the last year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [This][4] is the total number of active users. It also shows a strong, steady trend of growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm using the term &quot;critical mass&quot; in the title of this question is that the critical mass of, say, uranium-235 depends on concentration. If you take a given number of 235U atoms and dilute them, you can make a critical mass into something that's not a critical mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjectively, I'm finding that I've been spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law. I've decided to become inactive on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4880/are-we-gaining-or-losing-non-novice-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144725/number-of-users-posting-in-homework?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144711/number-of-active-users?Threshhold=2#graph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="8301b1b2-ed9e-485b-8b9f-6bdb9a942eca" CreationDate="2013-10-27T18:59:56.377" UserId="7433" Text="I'm really sorry to hear your decision; I've enjoyed reading many of your answers here and would have loved to read new ones as they come along. I hope you reconsider your decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may wish to avoid beginners by ignoring the tags they tend to post in; or just stepping out when a novice gets argumentative. I've done that more than once myself. Argumentative users can just be ignored, you are never under any obligation to reply. As tpg mentioned, your decision to leave the site exacerbates the problem; while it's entirely your decision to leave (obviously), I hope you take that into account :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still with to leave, good luck on whatever you decide to spend your time on! It's been good having you here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The queries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the queries, to me the active users and homework graph are actually displaying almost the same trend. The thing with homework questions is that most get closed, and later deleted (we currently have almost 2000 deleted homework posts). Deleted posts don't turn up in the queries, so there is an apparent increase in posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the trends from April to now are more or less the same (the HW trend is still more stark), and there's a steady drop in the HW posts as we go back (which is not there in the higher level tags because stuff there rarely gets deleted.). The recent Oct-Nov increase in HW is due to the slowly approaching exams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that there's still been an increase in HW and a drop of quality, not that drastic, but still could be a problem. I'm open to ideas to bolster up the quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="5acedff7-1091-4976-afa2-7fa95e2313c3" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:09:47.867" UserId="124" Text="Honestly, I don't think we ever had a critical mass of professional physicists. I do seem to have noticed that several of the well-qualified people who used to post regularly don't do so any more, but that's natural over time. Some of them will come back, and we'll also get new well-qualified posters over time. Of course we can always do more with actively recruiting new people to contribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Subjectively, I'm finding that I've been spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's kind of a separate issue, and one that the moderators are here to help with. A contributor getting angry and belligerent should never be tolerated on this site. As a moderator I get the sense that this is happening much more than we hear about it, i.e. people aren't casting enough flags. So my point would be, whenever you start to see an argument like this emerge, it will probably make things a lot easier on you if you just flag the comment and back out. It's not worth your time to get involved in that sort of thing, as you know, but that's what we (mods) are here for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5105" RevisionGUID="fc2f140f-2e80-4909-ac68-edae2cc3727c" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:02:35.837" UserId="520" Text="Like the others I am very saddened to hear that you will scale back you activity. Permit me to hope that this is a hiatus rather than an end. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can sympathize with your complaint about belligerent beginners, as I also feel we've had more of them of late; as well as another uptick in the number of people who want to ask high level questions from a preparation that appears to consist almost solely of pop-sci reading (or for that matter pop-sci youtubing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in the comments, however, I think that more intensive moderator intervention is *not* the answer. We have to have a more active and demanding community that is willing to say *&quot;Here is the line, meet this level or go do some reading before you ask.&quot;* (in the nicest possible tones and phrasing, of course) or we will be forever mired in homework, personal theories and vague pop-sci hand-waving.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="2fb176b3-7275-428a-9b7b-a20665bf65c0" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:38:35.340" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; Subjectively, I'm finding that I've been spending my time on the site&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beginners about friction and Newton's third law. I've decided to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; become inactive on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all due respect, and you've earned a lot of it here, I don't see that your decision logically follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the first sentence, the first question I have is &quot;Why? Why engage in such unenjoyable activities?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I see it, this site offers an opportunity to *trade value for value*.  If you spot an interesting question and you take the time to work up an answer, either you gained a value from doing so or you didn't *period*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't gain any value, you shouldn't have answered the question in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you did, then *why bother arguing with imbeciles if they disagree with your answer*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Let it go* unless, and once again, you believe there is value in arguing a point with someone, i.e., *that you both may profit from the exchange*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, I do value your contributions and if your decision is final, I respect that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you find value in simply composing your thoughts to answer an interesting question then please consider continuing that and *simply ignore the unteachable that frequent here*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="c1ef9ff0-d3c3-43dc-ad81-717939eb5373" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:59:44.697" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Some days ago I had an argument with a user about tension being a force on a post, since then I am constantly receiving at least one downvote on all my posts, maybe it is not related but I believe that the person is deliberately down voting all my quetions and answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11200" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="c1ef9ff0-d3c3-43dc-ad81-717939eb5373" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:59:44.697" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is someone deliberating downvoting my posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11201" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="c1ef9ff0-d3c3-43dc-ad81-717939eb5373" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:59:44.697" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="5cdd4299-32b8-4e17-8e34-a29f8047bc94" CreationDate="2013-10-28T07:15:54.883" UserId="28244" Text="While I'm no professional or expert, I think the what's working against Physics SE is, ironically, what makes it so effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People are being spoonfed all the time here. Like Google, Q&amp;A websites have become magical 'wishing fountains' to millions of people. Stupid questions about Newton's Laws and classical mechanics are being asked by people all the time here. Why? Because the internet is neutering the intellect and common sense of millions (mostly of school kids), while giving them access to vasts stores of knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that many experts, Ben in particular, end up answering loads of duplicates. Improving the Physics SE's search engine for questions will take a lot of the load off experts and moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that the number of Homework questions will explode in coming years. At some point, 9 out of every 10 questions asked daily will be duplicates. So finding an effective way of dealing with duplicates is really the main hurdle facing this site. It will also lower the amount of spoonfeeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="8a872a54-6940-416c-b5c2-8444e925c014" CreationDate="2013-10-28T09:20:33.277" UserId="26063" Text="I recently asked this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82488/understanding-forces-in-qft and as far as I could possibly think I concluded thag yes my question was within the site's giidelines of a good question, as I was asking about a physical observation (force) and what is the explanation provided for it by modern science using force carriers or force fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I initially started searching on internet and found out that forcd carriers are virtual particles and do not actually exist and that force fields are generally defined as force per unit charge/mass etx and hence implying that they are not the cause of themselves ( since they are derived from force only) being confused i posted my question as mentioned above and only got downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I ask questions better in future( or even improve this one ) to better meet the sites standards/guidelines ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="8a872a54-6940-416c-b5c2-8444e925c014" CreationDate="2013-10-28T09:20:33.277" UserId="26063" Text="improving quality of my questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="8a872a54-6940-416c-b5c2-8444e925c014" CreationDate="2013-10-28T09:20:33.277" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="2b5228af-f2f7-4326-b034-0f8d9e1ddfbc" CreationDate="2013-10-28T10:30:21.687" UserId="21817" Text="I didn't downvote, although I didn't like much the question (maybe because it's a bit vague and saying _Another source disproving fields existence_, like if you know everything, doesn't help). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, your question is rather philosophical and controversial, so it doesn't fit very well in the Q/A format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to improve your questions, you should also worry about presentation (boldface is always welcome) and grammar (I found at least five spelling errors in this question). And dont forget to start your question with capital letters (&quot;Improving quality of my questions&quot;)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="c8c902ff-1a42-40e6-a7c1-80752d33e7c1" CreationDate="2013-10-28T11:22:46.337" UserId="7433" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="It lets you track the question in [your favorites tab][1]. In this case, updates to the question (answers, etc) will increment the red counter above the tab (the counter isn't visible if there have been no changes since your last visit), and the updated question will be highlighted yellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effectively, it's a way of &quot;watching&quot; the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use it to bookmark questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is [a page where you can view your network-wide favorites][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These pages are both tabs on your site and netw0rk-wide profiles. You can get to your network profile by clicking the &quot;network profile&quot; link (it has the SE logo next to it) on  your site profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/14182/eduardo-guerras-valera?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/1956019/eduardo-guerras-valera?tab=favorites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11208" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="4ca8f5e3-30fb-4961-a820-55fe5da4d3ac" CreationDate="2013-10-28T12:42:07.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/394806279845457921" />
  <row Id="11209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="a2408bc5-4d7b-453e-bd9b-5880591cd4a1" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:09:43.263" UserId="28244" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="While I'm no professional or expert, I think what's working against Physics SE is, ironically, what makes it so effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People are being spoonfed all the time here. Like Google, Q&amp;A websites have become magical 'wishing fountains' to millions of people. Stupid questions about Newton's Laws and classical mechanics are being asked by people all the time here. Why? Because the internet is neutering the intellect and common sense of millions (mostly of school kids), while giving them access to vasts stores of knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that many experts, Ben in particular, end up answering loads of duplicates. Improving the Physics SE's search engine for questions will take a lot of the load off experts and moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that the number of Homework questions will explode in coming years. At some point, 9 out of every 10 questions asked daily will be duplicates. So finding an effective way of dealing with duplicates is really the main hurdle facing this site. It will also lower the amount of spoonfeeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="d49d2931-168c-4add-8ad1-265abb55ea12" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:17:31.623" UserId="8563" Text="This question is an offshoot of Ben Crowell's question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists, and I'm asking it separately to help avoid multi-threaded comment discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in [a comment of dmckee](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14673_5102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't think that we (that is the mods) *should* be in the business of closing a lot of questions with our super-powers anymore. There are enough 3k users (81) that they *should* be able to carry the bulk of the load. My impression, however, is that a relatively small fraction of the eligible users apply their power with any regularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in that thread, I think this is a specific enough question that we can find the relevant statistics to give an answer to it. I must add that I agree with dmckee's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific question: **Is it possible to confirm this statement from publicly available data, hopefully through the data explorer? If so, what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To kick off the discussion, and to answer [Manishearth's comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14703_5102), I think the relevant tables to look at are not the per-question close-votes, but the publicly available per-user [log of the review activity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="d49d2931-168c-4add-8ad1-265abb55ea12" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:17:31.623" UserId="8563" Text="How much are 3k+ users moderating through the review queue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="d49d2931-168c-4add-8ad1-265abb55ea12" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:17:31.623" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|moderation|review|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="db4f6933-8ae5-4158-b8e2-06eb67930626" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:39:12.207" UserId="16660" Text="I'm sure I'm not the only one who regrets Ben Crowell's decision to become unactive on PSE. He stated the reason for his departure in [this post][1] addressing the ratio of professional physicist users to beginners, pop-sci philosophers and other 'lower level users'. A big part of that reason seems to have been that he finds himself *&quot;spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can sympathize, I feel like this is something everyone determines for themselves. You don't *have* to argue about these topics with these users. Then again, it is alarming that these discussions seem to have become more frequent, also in my experience (which, granted, is not as long-term as Ben Crowell's).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an idea popped up in my head which might help restore the balance somewhat or at least halt the dilution of the uranium-235 in Ben's analogy. It might also be unrealistic, but I wanted to bounce this idea off the community and see what everyone thinks. Who knows, perhaps it sparks a new, better idea in someone else's head. So here it comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps an entry exam of some sort can help. Not in increasing the number of experts per se, but in decreasing the number of pop-sci philosophers and no-effort homework posters. Nothing too fancy or long, just a single question requiring a certain level of insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps a couple of questions requiring varying levels of insight/knowledge. Still not taking too much time or long calculations though, that will decrease the number of new users on all levels of expertise. But their answers to these few questions can then be used to roughly assert the level of the new user and perhaps award a badge corresponding to this level. This way the inquiry ('exam') sort of seems worth the trouble (little more than without the badge anyway) and other users can also more easily determine on roughly what level to answer this new user's question and to what degree to trust their answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5102/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="db4f6933-8ae5-4158-b8e2-06eb67930626" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:39:12.207" UserId="16660" Text="Would the level of PSE benefit from an 'entry exam' of sorts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="db4f6933-8ae5-4158-b8e2-06eb67930626" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:39:12.207" UserId="16660" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="b2fa1257-e358-4650-84e4-18bdc485e108" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:46:30.893" UserId="16660" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I'm sure I'm not the only one who regrets Ben Crowell's decision to become unactive on PSE. He stated the reason for his departure in [this post][1] addressing the ratio of professional physicist users to beginners, pop-sci philosophers and other 'lower level users'. A big part of that reason seems to have been that he finds himself *&quot;spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can sympathize, I feel like this is something everyone determines for themselves. You don't *have* to argue about these topics with these users. Then again, it is alarming that these discussions seem to have become more frequent, also in my experience (which, granted, is not as long-term as Ben Crowell's).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an idea popped up in my head which might help restore the balance somewhat or at least halt the dilution of the uranium-235 in Ben's analogy. It might also be unrealistic, but I wanted to bounce this idea off the community and see what everyone thinks. Who knows, perhaps it sparks a new, better idea in someone else's head. So here it comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still pretty much a vague idea, but perhaps an entry exam of some sort can help. Not to increase the number of experts per se, but to decrease the number of pop-sci philosophers and no-effort homework posters. Nothing too fancy or long, just a single question requiring a certain level of insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps **a couple** of questions requiring **varying** levels of insight/knowledge. Still not taking too much time or long calculations though, that will decrease the number of new users on all levels of expertise. But their answers to these few questions can then be used to roughly assert the level of the new user and perhaps award a badge corresponding to this level. This way the inquiry ('exam') sort of seems worth the trouble (little more than without the badge anyway) and other users can also more easily determine on roughly what level to answer this new user's question and to what degree to trust their answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5102/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="396a1f73-83b4-46b1-918f-e319301d38c5" CreationDate="2013-10-28T14:02:51.730" UserId="7433" Text="On the outset it sounds like a good idea, however there's a problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We do regularly get good low-level conceptual questions, and some good pop-sci questions. While these are no substitute for expert questions, we should not actively put them down by making the OPs unwelcome. The proposal seems to make the site insular &quot;Physicists only, please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - What level questions can we ask? Just to give an example, if we ask basic newton's laws of motion questions, we will still have the folks who ask rotational dynamics questions. If we ask them questions of that level, we prematurely exclude many who would otherwise have asked a good question. Of course, this can be fixed with your &quot;varied level&quot; proposal.&#xD;&#xA; - I doubt SE would be amenable to a change that denies certain users a the ability to participate on the site before they even post anything. Most of the prevention mechanisms on SE are to allow people to post almost anything but have the community quickly dispatch unwanted stuff (via closing). This one contradicts that. Instead, if we focus on getting rid of the bad questions quickly and on not entertaining beginner theorists who think they are the next Einstein, we may manage to keep the signal/noise ratio in check. &#xD;&#xA; - We might even _lose_ possible new experts this way. Most people want site registration to be as hassle-free as possible. I myself would never have joined if the site started asking me questions first; I would have taken my questions/answers to Quora or PhysicsForums. You see, while good questions come from those willing to put effort into them, if they have an easier way out which requires less effort but, on the outset, seems to lead to comparable results, they will take it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to also note that Math.SE _allows_ homework questions and still has a good amount of high level questions and experts. They've been around longer than us, if they've not been hurt by this model; I don't see why we can't do better by reducing the number of HW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="c11cc97e-13c8-44f5-9b17-f66a0a2fc056" CreationDate="2013-10-28T14:39:10.820" UserDisplayName="user31346" Text="The *first* thing StackExchange mentions at [Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) is &quot;Anybody can ask a question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, at http://stackexchange.com/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our Q &amp; A site are free and open to everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At StackExchange, the focus is on the questions and answers, not on the people. We judge each question or answer on its own, not the person asking it (aside from their reputation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes are the method by which to rate the quality of a question or answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get bogged down by &quot;homework&quot; style questions; just downvote, flag, and move on.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="6340cd58-c428-41a3-8a23-687d07043eb3" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:16:16.497" UserId="10334" Text="I'll add a couple more points to jinawee's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You should consider *accepting* more answers to your previous questions.  The fact that you generally don't accept any answers implies that you're more interested in soliciting an open-ended discussion, which is frowned-upon here.  Accepting an answer also demonstrates that you've successfully understood the subject material, and are ready to move on to your next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Looking at many of your questions, it seems like you can answer most of them yourself, with just a little more research effort. Try reading a Wikipedia entry on the subject, or glance at a textbook, or indeed search Physics SE for similar questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="1d3f3c50-d7e9-463c-8452-ec0c6052e1ac" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:22:01.143" UserId="8563" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="This question is an offshoot of Ben Crowell's question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists, and I'm asking it separately to help avoid multi-threaded comment discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in [a comment of dmckee](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14673_5102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't think that we (that is the mods) *should* be in the business of closing a lot of questions with our super-powers anymore. There are enough 3k users (81) that they *should* be able to carry the bulk of the load. My impression, however, is that a relatively small fraction of the eligible users apply their power with any regularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in that thread, I think this is a specific enough question that we can find the relevant statistics to give an answer to it. I must add that I agree with dmckee's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific question: Is it possible to confirm this statement from publicly available data, hopefully through the data explorer? If so, what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To kick off the discussion, and to answer [Manishearth's comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14703_5102), I think the relevant tables to look at are not the per-question close-votes, but the publicly available per-user [log of the review activity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so it looks we may need to ask the dev team for these statistics. In this case, **what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?** I'll make a proposal shortly but please try and think of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="d34c9e2e-f774-497f-b9e4-20de058f6621" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:23:41.677" UserId="10334" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="I'll add a couple more points to jinawee's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You should consider *accepting* more answers to your previous questions.  The fact that you generally don't accept any answers implies that you're more interested in soliciting an open-ended discussion, which is frowned-upon here.  Accepting an answer also demonstrates that you've successfully understood the subject material, and are ready to move on to your next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Looking at many of your questions, it seems like you can answer most of them yourself, with just a little more research effort. Try reading a Wikipedia entry on the subject, or glance at a textbook, or indeed search Physics SE for similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second point is my biggest reason for downvoting questions (not necessarily yours, but in general)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5115" RevisionGUID="18003fbc-8664-4e7d-b02b-7d0435371bd5" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:55:14.843" UserId="8563" Text="To test the hypothesis &quot;there is only a small core of users that use the review queues regularly&quot;, my first naive attempt would be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the users with close-vote powers, during `month=October 2013`, how many users made `range_1=0`, `range_2=[1,5]`, `range_3=[6,20]`, `range_4=[21,50]`, and `range_5=[51,∞]` reviews in the `review_queue=close_votes`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the ranges are of course adjustable, and `month` should then be varied over the past six months or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is in fact the case that the hypothesis is true, then the data above doesn't get us very far as to why some people don't use the review queues, or how the site might motivate them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possible reason I can think of this is activity on the site (the dependence on which must in any case be substracted from any other possible explanations). I can think of two queries to try and get at this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the average reputation earned during `month=October 2013` by the users that made `range_1=0`, `range_2=[1,5]`, `range_3=[6,20]`, `range_4=[21,50]`, and `range_5=[51,∞]` reviews in the `review_queue=close_votes` in that period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are the reputation earned during `month=October 2013` and the number of reviews made in the `review_queue=close_votes` in that period correlated? Is there a positive correlation? How does a scatter plot look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I don't want to put off users who are simply using the site without going into the review-queue quagmire.* But if we find that there's some specific measures we can do to encourage close-voters to review and to close-vote low-level questions to get them in the queue in the first place, then we should do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*Not really! It's not that bad!&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="39c07a2f-64a0-4059-a610-59e4b42cb273" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:21:21.993" UserId="21817" Text="Does it make any sense to edit a question which I have flagged and will probably be closed?7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be to add the [homework] tag to a bad homework question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="39c07a2f-64a0-4059-a610-59e4b42cb273" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:21:21.993" UserId="21817" Text="Is it useless to edit a bad question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="39c07a2f-64a0-4059-a610-59e4b42cb273" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:21:21.993" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="99036732-7707-4a6e-a638-8119899aa68c" CreationDate="2013-10-28T19:02:14.747" UserId="124" Text="It can still be useful for people who come across the question later and may look to it as an example of how to ask their own questions. So I wouldn't call it a bad idea. But it's not as important to edit a question which is going to be closed as it is to edit those which are going to stay open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="77cfa0b0-5cc3-4c25-803b-1c4a433388bf" CreationDate="2013-10-28T20:56:55.480" UserId="6634" Text="In your example, *always* add the [tag:homework]. In fact, I would say always edit the tags on good and bad questions if appropriate. After all, you may flag it but it might not get closed for awhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call my approach to bad [tag:homework] specifically the DEF method -- Downvote, Edit, Flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="91f700a6-7291-45fd-957d-e2bd19b36604" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:05:02.563" UserId="14182" Text="Nobody has mentioned yet the core reason for the sad loss of quality of this site. You can do whatever statistical analysis you want to do, based on the number of new users, fraction of homework question, analogies with Uranium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face it. Don't avoid mentioning it. Please, let's honestly face the truth, and write it, with &quot;R&quot; like &quot;Ron&quot; and &quot;M&quot; like &quot;Maimon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ron Maimon left the site in december 2012 after being banned and censored. After him, others followed, both professionals and simple readers who enjoyed the site mainly because of Ron's posts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can downvote this, some moderator can say for the nth time &quot;oh, no, nothing is happening, this is normal&quot;, and you can even do Bayesian inference with the number of new users, their eye color or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not the same after December 2012. In plain words, that's it, period. Neumeier and others quickly lost interest after Ron's departure. Now Lubos is probably getting bored because he is alone here. When he is eventually gone, we'd better rename this site as &quot;Physics Homework StackExchange&quot; and change the Hut Potential of the logo into some diagram from an Elementary School textbook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="d1e4fe10-2bae-4371-ad3f-83a66923e4dd" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:17:25.577" UserId="14182" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Nobody has mentioned yet the core reason for the sad loss of quality of this site. You can do whatever statistical analysis you want to do, based on the number of new users, fraction of homework question, analogies with Uranium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face it. Don't avoid mentioning it. Please, let's honestly face the truth, and write it, with &quot;R&quot; like &quot;Ron&quot; and &quot;M&quot; like &quot;Maimon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ron Maimon left the site in december 2012 after being banned and censored. After him, others followed, both professionals and simple readers who enjoyed the site mainly because of Ron's posts, or simply because that incident revealed a level of moderators control they don't want to accept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can downvote this, some moderator can say for the nth time &quot;oh, no, nothing is happening, this is normal&quot;, and you can even do Bayesian inference with the number of new users, their eye color or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site had a golden age that ended abruptly in December 2012. In plain words, that's it, period. Neumeier and others quickly lost interest after Ron's departure. Hey, even Gerard 't Hooft himself was here. Now Lubos is probably getting bored because he is alone here. When he is eventually gone, we'd better rename this site as &quot;Physics Homework StackExchange&quot; and change the Hut Potential of the logo into some diagram from an Elementary School textbook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="d64bda11-d091-4029-8689-d9ba18da9385" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:23:10.543" UserId="14182" Comment="edited body" Text="Nobody has mentioned yet the core reason for the sad loss of quality of this site. You can do whatever statistical analysis you want to do, based on the number of new users, fraction of homework question, analogies with Uranium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face it. Don't avoid mentioning it. Please, let's honestly face the truth. It is written with &quot;R&quot; like &quot;Ron&quot; and &quot;M&quot; like &quot;Maimon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ron Maimon left the site in december 2012 after being banned and censored. After him, others followed, both professionals and simple readers who enjoyed the site mainly because of Ron's posts, or simply because that incident revealed a level of moderators control they don't want to accept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can downvote this, some moderator can say for the nth time &quot;oh, no, nothing is happening, this is normal&quot;, and you can even do Bayesian inference with the number of new users, their eye color or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site had a golden age that ended abruptly in December 2012. In plain words, that's it, period. Neumeier and others quickly lost interest after Ron's departure. Hey, even Gerard 't Hooft himself was here!. Now Lubos is probably getting bored because he is almost alone here. When he is eventually gone, we'd better rename this site as &quot;Physics Homework StackExchange&quot; and change the Hut Potential of the logo into some diagram from an Elementary School textbook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11231" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="55c347fd-4635-4047-a36f-747ced63908a" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:43:24.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/394942502006165504" />
  <row Id="11232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="a5d652bb-6dac-4e31-b571-b9220718d31e" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:52:29.243" UserId="14182" Comment="added 657 characters in body" Text="Nobody has mentioned yet the core reason for the sad loss of quality of this site. You can do whatever statistical analysis you want to do, based on the number of new users, fraction of homework question, analogies with Uranium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face it. Don't avoid mentioning it. Please, let's honestly face the truth. It is written with &quot;R&quot; like &quot;Ron&quot; and &quot;M&quot; like &quot;Maimon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ron Maimon left the site in december 2012 after being banned and censored. After him, others followed, both professionals and simple readers who enjoyed the site mainly because of Ron's posts, or simply because that incident revealed a level of moderators control they don't want to accept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can downvote this, some moderator can say for the nth time &quot;oh, no, nothing is happening, this is normal&quot;, and you can even do Bayesian inference with the number of new users, their eye color or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site had a golden age that ended abruptly in December 2012. In plain words, that's it, period. Neumeier and others quickly lost interest after Ron's departure. Hey, even Gerard 't Hooft himself was here!. Now Lubos is probably getting bored because he is almost alone here. When he is eventually gone, we'd better rename this site as &quot;Physics Homework StackExchange&quot; and change the Hut Potential of the logo into some diagram from an Elementary School textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a research institution, people are free to communicate with each other in the way they desire to, because they are mature adults. Only if things become really really bad in a discussion, would a third person try to calm them down. In elementary school it is just the opposite: teachers urge the children to behave nicely towards others, and punish any rude words or behaviour. Well, which of the two examples does moderation resemble here, a research institution or an elementary school? There you have it. Now, don't complain if the site resembles more and more everyday a repository of elementary school homework questions. You get what you pay for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="9240be10-c61c-4617-8976-de4c57d8d617" CreationDate="2013-10-29T05:28:57.967" UserId="1492" Text="I am repeating Eduardo's last paragraph here because it is an insightful observation, separable from suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a research institution, people are free to communicate with each other in the way they desire to, because they are mature adults. Only if things become really really bad in a discussion, would a third person try to calm them down. In elementary school it is just the opposite: teachers urge the children to behave nicely towards others, and punish any rude words or behaviour. Well, which of the two examples does moderation resemble here, a research institution or an elementary school? There you have it. Now, don't complain if the site resembles more and more everyday a repository of elementary school homework questions. You get what you pay for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interactive forum, not a conference, where fights would be unacceptable, or a lecture. If you want to keep high level people involved it should be treated as a working group where confrontations can get out of hand sometimes, if people feel strongly. If the message is &quot;children play nice-nice&quot; it will become a bland forum, because it will not keep the interest of high level people : they can discuss in their own blogs where they can thunder and throw lightning  as they like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the element of the attention span of people, which I have found tends to focus for a while and then gets removed to new more exciting offerings. That is natural, and people will  always be leaving and new ones coming. A nice-nice  playground though will not attract new ones to replace them at that level. Physics is not about &quot;nice&quot;, it is about &quot;correct&quot;, and I can understand people blasting away at misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="75297859-d3d8-4337-bbdb-ef529028125c" CreationDate="2013-10-29T06:22:50.020" UserId="1492" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I am repeating Eduardo's last paragraph here because it is an insightful observation, separable from suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a research institution, people are free to communicate with each other in the way they desire to, because they are mature adults. Only if things become really really bad in a discussion, would a third person try to calm them down. In elementary school it is just the opposite: teachers urge the children to behave nicely towards others, and punish any rude words or behaviour. Well, which of the two examples does moderation resemble here, a research institution or an elementary school? There you have it. Now, don't complain if the site resembles more and more everyday a repository of elementary school homework questions. You get what you pay for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interactive forum, not a conference, where fights would be unacceptable, or a lecture. If you want to keep high level people involved it should be treated as a working group where confrontations can get out of hand sometimes, if people feel strongly. If the message is &quot;children play nice-nice&quot; it will become a bland forum, because it will not keep the interest of high level people : they can discuss in their own blogs where they can thunder and throw lightning  as they like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the element of the attention span of people, which I have found tends to focus for a while and then gets removed to new more exciting offerings. That is natural, and people will  always be leaving and new ones coming. A nice-nice  playground though will not attract new ones to replace them at that level. Physics is not about &quot;nice&quot;, it is about &quot;correct&quot;, and I can understand people blasting away at misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Correct&quot; should be a necessary and sufficient condition in physics discussions, imo. &quot;Nice&quot; is mixing apples and oranges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="4cf51c1d-f58f-400d-8d39-601877bc078a" CreationDate="2013-10-29T12:16:31.963" UserId="14182" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="Nobody has mentioned yet the core reason for the sad loss of quality of this site. You can do whatever statistical analysis you want to do, based on the number of new users, fraction of homework question, analogies with Uranium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face it. Don't avoid mentioning it. Please, let's honestly face the truth. It is written with &quot;R&quot; like &quot;Ron&quot; and &quot;M&quot; like &quot;Maimon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ron Maimon left the site in december 2012 after being banned and censored. After him, others followed, both professionals and simple readers who enjoyed the site mainly because of Ron's posts, or simply because that incident revealed a level of moderators control they don't want to accept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can downvote this, some moderator can say for the nth time &quot;oh, no, nothing is happening, this is normal&quot;, and you can even do Bayesian inference with the number of new users, their eye color or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site had a golden age that ended abruptly in December 2012. In plain words, that's it, period. Neumeier and others quickly lost interest after Ron's departure. Hey, even Gerard 't Hooft himself was here!. Now Lubos is probably getting bored because he is almost alone here. When he is eventually gone, we'd better rename this site as &quot;Physics Homework StackExchange&quot; and change the Hut Potential of the logo into some diagram from an Elementary School textbook. (Edit: Qmechanic is another valuable member I should acknowledge, still active, but one always forgets him, probably because he is anonymous, always humble and he doesn't usually take part in comment discussions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a research institution, people are free to communicate with each other in the way they desire to, because they are mature adults. Only if things become really really bad in a discussion, would a third person try to calm them down. In elementary school it is just the opposite: teachers urge the children to behave nicely towards others, and punish any rude words or behaviour. Well, which of the two examples does moderation resemble here, a research institution or an elementary school? There you have it. Now, don't complain if the site resembles more and more everyday a repository of elementary school homework questions. You get what you pay for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="b590c847-eb51-4679-84ee-df26dcb3bfc0" CreationDate="2013-10-29T12:31:02.603" UserId="14182" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Nobody has mentioned yet the core reason for the sad loss of quality of this site. You can do whatever statistical analysis you want to do, based on the number of new users, fraction of homework question, analogies with Uranium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face it. Don't avoid mentioning it. Please, let's honestly face the truth. It is written with &quot;R&quot; like &quot;Ron&quot; and &quot;M&quot; like &quot;Maimon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ron Maimon left the site in december 2012 after being banned and censored. After him, others followed, both professionals and simple readers who had enjoyed the site mainly because of Ron's posts, or simply because that incident revealed a level of moderators control they don't want to accept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can downvote this, some moderator can say for the nth time &quot;oh, no, nothing is happening, this is normal&quot;, and you can even do Bayesian inference with the number of new users, their eye color or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site had a golden age that ended abruptly in December 2012. In plain words, that's it, period. Neumeier and others quickly lost interest after Ron's departure. Hey, even Gerard 't Hooft himself was here!. Now Lubos is probably getting bored because he is almost alone here. When he is eventually gone, we'd better rename this site as &quot;Physics Homework StackExchange&quot; and change the Hut Potential of the logo into some diagram from an Elementary School textbook. (Edit: Qmechanic is another valuable member I should acknowledge, still active, but one always forgets him, probably because he is anonymous, always humble and he doesn't usually take part in comment discussions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a research institution, people are free to communicate with each other in the way they desire to, because they are mature adults. Only if things become really really bad in a discussion, would a third person try to calm them down. In elementary school it is just the opposite: teachers urge the children to behave nicely towards others, and punish any rude words or behaviour. Well, which of the two examples does moderation resemble here, a research institution or an elementary school? There you have it. Now, don't complain if the site resembles more and more everyday a repository of elementary school homework questions. You get what you pay for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="975f7f86-68f7-4d5d-af89-be5b021019a0" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:44:25.687" UserId="14182" Text="The vanishing of the whole thread &quot;Do we agree with Ron's Suspension?&quot; has been for me the straw that broke the camel's back. I had shared my thoughts there, together with other physicists, and we deserve some respect. I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to all who answered my questions. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="975f7f86-68f7-4d5d-af89-be5b021019a0" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:44:25.687" UserId="14182" Text="I leave Physics SE. This is my good-bye note" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="975f7f86-68f7-4d5d-af89-be5b021019a0" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:44:25.687" UserId="14182" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="0822cd63-61c9-446a-9c47-8b2740b17b4f" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:49:31.740" UserId="14182" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="The vanishing of the whole thread &quot;Do we agree with Ron's Suspension?&quot; has been for me the straw that broke the camel's back. I had shared my thoughts there, together with other physicists, and we deserve some respect. I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="9f4e9868-b5a9-49fe-8d44-a4fb6888755c" CreationDate="2013-10-29T14:52:17.337" UserId="2146" Text="As I recall, user DImension10 Abhimanyu made some comments there to which I replied to, you then made a comment about me that I flagged, and the whole thread then got deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess the moderator(s) decided that the thread was being resurrected and adding to an already ridiculous amount of discussion in the comments, leading to a bad atmosphere where people could end up getting suspended. As usual, the right thing seems to have been done under the circumstances, IMO. But this is my take on the matter, and I don't know the facts for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, I hope you can see that the moderators are fair and very skilled in dealing with stuff like this, and there's no need for you to leave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="3fe7c24c-cbe8-40d3-8ece-c3f6d5b3f49c" CreationDate="2013-10-29T15:37:05.790" UserId="24142" Text="Like many others I am saddened to see Ben leave, and I hope it is a temporary hiatus, but I certainly understand his decision. I haven't been very active either lately, and there are several reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The lack of high-quality questions. I don't know why this is happening, but for some reason we're seeing an increase in low-level questions. Perhaps it is simply the case that the best questions have already been asked, and that the quality inevitably goes downhill after a while. But the decline seems to be too sudden for this explanation.&#xD;&#xA; - The amount of duplicate questions. This is related to the first remark: the most obvious questions have already been asked. And it's quite irritating when new users can't seem to be bothered to use the search function. These little irritations build up over time.&#xD;&#xA; - The Astronomy SE site. This really bothers me. I wouldn't mind the existence of that site if it was only meant for amateur astronomy. But they also accept astrophysics and cosmology questions. I just cannot understand why SE allows this. First of all, Physics SE is too small to be split up into smaller categories. This is drawing people away from our site, while Astronomy SE will never obtain a critical mass themselves: this fragmentation is damaging everyone. Second, they don't have enough experts (yet) to address those questions, resulting in low-quality answers. Also, they're reinventing the wheel, because the astrophysicists on this site already have built a very useful database of answers. But most importantly, I find this very disrespectful to the astrophysicists here. It feels like our work is just being dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; - The lack of social interaction. By design, SE is not a forum. And I think this is a mistake. SE doesn't have the tools for interaction between long-term members (no, the chat function is no substitute). This makes the participation on this site impersonal, which makes it harder for people to stay motivated enough to come back. When you have a community, like a forum does, it's much easier to keep people interested and get through times when the activity is temporarily less. More importantly, it's just more fun. The whole reputation system can be entertaining for a while, but I feel much more satisfied to hear a &quot;thank you&quot; than get an anonymous upvote. We are human beings, after all.&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, and directly related to my previous point, we've seen some animosity between several members. This is a direct consequence of the lack of a forum. We don't really have the tools to settle disputes, or to talk to members when we feel they're not behaving as we'd like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our work here is purely voluntary. That means that this site can only survive if we feel that our work is being appreciated and worth the time we put into it, and that we enjoy doing it. Well, I haven't been enjoying myself lately. But despite this, I am determined to stick around, and hope for better times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="cfb30393-4b1e-44a4-8bf0-f5ad0ddba2e6" CreationDate="2013-10-29T16:43:21.703" UserId="7433" Text="I'm sorry to see you go, though I don't quite sympathize with your reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was wrong was that it was [a public discussion about another user][1], one who wasn't even around. It was deleted due to that. Not to remove any discussion -- there are plenty of posts mentioning the suspension that are still around (some of them yours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user wasn't even suspended by the same mod each time. As mentioned before, it's about the site rules, not any personal vendetta. And I think there has been enough discussion about the rules, though if you want them changed then you'd have to bring them up on [the main meta][2] (where I think it's been brought up before, not sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this was done to cover the traces of anything. Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. We had a good member who is no longer here. Is there any point leaving a post around that discusses his suspension? One that contains various dissections of his character? And things that border on personal attacks to him? Is that _really_ something we should preserve? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think that the suspension was wrongly carried out&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the mods will never claim that the user in question was never suspended (and we know that the community will remember). With this in mind, there isn't any reason for us to do this to cover our tracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, sorry to see you go. Thank you for your contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This is not the place to discuss this, please don't.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members/197072#197072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="6b14210a-96ea-40b3-afd4-c73cbe40eb0d" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:36:41.060" UserId="7433" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I'm sorry to see you go, though I don't quite sympathize with the reasons you have listed in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was wrong was that it was [a public discussion about another user][1], one who wasn't even around. It was deleted due to that. Not to remove any discussion -- there are plenty of posts mentioning the suspension that are still around (some of them yours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user wasn't even suspended by the same mod each time. As mentioned before, it's about the site rules, not any personal vendetta. And I think there has been enough discussion about the rules, though if you want them changed then you'd have to bring them up on [the main meta][2] (where I think it's been brought up before, not sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this was done to cover the traces of anything. Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. We had a good member who is no longer here. Is there any point leaving a post around that discusses his suspension? One that contains various dissections of his character? And things that border on personal attacks to him? Is that _really_ something we should preserve? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think that the suspension was wrongly carried out&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the mods will never claim that the user in question was never suspended (and we know that the community will remember). With this in mind, there isn't any reason for us to do this to cover our tracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, sorry to see you go. Thank you for your contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This is not the place to discuss this, please don't.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members/197072#197072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="9be2cdd6-3466-42aa-8cd3-f42ec7126e86" CreationDate="2013-10-29T22:17:23.067" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="The vanishing of the whole [thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2713/2451) &quot;Do we agree with [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]'s Suspension?&quot; has been for me the straw that broke the camel's back. I had shared my thoughts there, together with other physicists, and we deserve some respect. I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="a920ef60-83ad-4149-8074-21e96951fde7" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:00:16.220" UserId="5374" Text="Interesting thread. I read all the answers and comments and want to formulate something which is maybe implied by other comments but which I haven't seen put like that: &#xD;&#xA;I'd say the amount of low level questions just directly correlates with the fact that the SE portal is more known now. I hang around in a hackerspace sometimes, filled with hobbyists, and professional programmers, non-academics, people who do Khan academy and the Euler project, know how to build microcontrolers but which have never heard about the lambda calculus, the Gamma function or the arXiv. And now - opposed to 2 years ago - these kind of communities know of StackExchange. People now know that there are &quot;forums&quot; on the internet, which pretty accurately can be described as &quot;like google, but you can also ask a question if you don't get the answer the first time&quot;. The StackOverflow sites started as a programming site. I came to know StackExchange via the first spin of MathOverflow as a late physics undergrad as &quot;hey, check this out! There is a Q&amp;A site on the web where you can get TERRENCE TAO, the cute fields medalist to answer your questions!&quot;. Now the existence of the StackExchange sites are &quot;public&quot; and you must consider that every one of the 200 different engineering degrees have bad introductory physics courses, where they force people to learn 200 years of insights in one 2 times 4 months. Of course they will come here, and of course, they will not be check if they questions have already been formulated here in some other way. (I'd even say they are rational in not doing the latter - there isn't a global community moral, where you put your interests last to not disturb the efficiency of a commertial website. They want their answers and it's without consequences if they piss off the virtual community circle of others.) So my facit is, if you don't want the indian engineers to take over the physics site (disclaimer: that's not supposed to be any offence in any way! It's just a huge bulk of people.), then you can't display SE Physics as a page where they will get their second semester answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="05bc02f6-f05a-431e-9e5f-c09a24d0c052" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:26:29.480" UserId="1325" Text="Some time ago I [asked if we needed a tag to distinguish questions asked by beginners][1]. The answer was *no* on the grounds that a *layman* or *beginner* tag would be a meta tag and these were [frowned on][2]. However we now have a *homework* tag, and it seems to me that a *layman* tag is no more meta than the *homework* tag (both of them being meta tags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem remains the same as it was when I posted back in April 2012, or if anything it has got worse as the site has become more popular. People are understandably enthused by some mind blowing fact from a popular science TV programme and ask a question about it here. The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased. This is not intended as a criticism since I have been guilty of just the same when asking questions on SE sites outside my expertise - the guys at the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange were polite but quite firm in telling me so :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the low quality of the questions inevitably irritates and frustrates even the most good natured of us. The temptation to be less than polite is great, and the result can be ill feeling and the departure of site members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question. To call the tag *beginner* seems a bit derogatory, but *layman* seems reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1176/beginners-non-physicists-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="05bc02f6-f05a-431e-9e5f-c09a24d0c052" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:26:29.480" UserId="1325" Text="Do we need a *Beginners* tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="05bc02f6-f05a-431e-9e5f-c09a24d0c052" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:26:29.480" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="e9db2b79-a696-41a4-a76b-c63d7347a54e" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:43:37.700" UserId="5374" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Interesting thread. I read all the answers and comments and want to formulate something which is maybe implied by other comments but which I haven't seen put like that: &#xD;&#xA;I'd say the amount of low level questions just directly correlates with the fact that the SE portal is more known now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hang around in a hackerspace sometimes, filled with hobbyists, and professional programmers, non-academics, people who do Khan academy and the Euler project, know how to build microcontrolers but which have never heard about the lambda calculus, the Gamma function or the arXiv. And now - opposed to 2 years ago - these kind of communities know of StackExchange. People now know that there are &quot;forums&quot; on the internet, which pretty accurately can be described as &quot;like google, but you can also ask a question if you don't get the answer the first time&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The StackOverflow sites started as a programming site. I came to know StackExchange via the first spin of MathOverflow as a late physics undergrad as &quot;hey, check this out! There is a Q&amp;A site on the web where you can get TERRENCE TAO, the cute fields medalist, to answer your math questions!&quot;. Today the existence of the StackExchange sites are &quot;public&quot; and you must consider that every one of the 200 different engineering degrees have bad introductory physics courses, where they force people to learn 200 years of insights in two times 4 months. Of course they will come here, and of course, they will not be check if they questions have already been formulated here in some other way. (I'd even say they are rational in not doing the latter - there isn't a global community moral, where you put your interests last, just to not disturb the efficiency of a commercial website. People want their questions cleared and it's without consequences if they piss off the virtual community circle of others.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclusion is, if you don't want the indian engineers to take over the physics site (disclaimer: that's not supposed to be any offence in any way! It's just a huge bulk of people), then you can't display SE Physics as a web site where they will get their second semester answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="2e38eda0-cf3e-4293-947d-f9f1cdb57db9" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:44:44.267" UserId="1325" Comment="edited title" Text="Do we need a Beginners tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="3d47bb69-a77f-45a7-bae1-5e29b8698b28" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:09:05.417" UserId="5374" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Interesting thread. I read all the answers and comments and want to formulate something which is maybe implied by other comments but which I haven't seen put like that: &#xD;&#xA;I'd say the amount of low level questions just directly correlates with the fact that the SE portal is more known now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hang around in a hackerspace sometimes, which is filled with hobbyists and professional programmers, non-academics, people who do Khan academy and the Euler project, know how to build microcontrolers but which have never heard about the lambda calculus, the arXiv or the Gamma function. And now - as opposed to 2 years ago - these kind of communities know about StackExchange. People now know that there are &quot;forums&quot; on the internet, which pretty accurately can be described as &quot;like google, but you can also ask a question if you don't get the answer the first time&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The StackOverflow sites started as a programming site. I came to know StackExchange via the first spin of MathOverflow as a late physics undergrad as &quot;hey, check this out! There is a Q&amp;A site on the web where you can get TERRENCE TAO, the cute fields medalist, to answer your math questions!&quot;. Today the existence of the StackExchange sites are &quot;public&quot; and you must consider that every one of the 200 different engineering degrees have bad introductory physics courses, where they force people to learn 200 years of physics insights in two times 4 months. Of course they will come here, and of course, they will not check beforehand if their questions have already been formulated here in some similar way. (I'd even say they are rational in not doing the latter - there isn't a global community moral, where you put your interests last, just to not disturb the efficiency of a commercial website. People want their questions cleared and it's without consequences if they piss off the virtual community circle of others.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclusion is, if you don't want the indian engineers to take over the physics site (disclaimer: that's not supposed to be any offence in any way! It's just a huge bulk of people), then you can't display SE Physics as a web site where they will get their second semester answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="87e160fe-fce1-4d35-8b81-6d23150d2890" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:10:00.157" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="I have to be honest, I am seriously unsure as to whether applied/experimental physics questions would be welcomed here. There are a lot involved in theoretical physics (which is great), but, would applied and experimental physics just be looked down upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am NOT talking about homework based experiments, I mean questions that relate to experimental and applied research. I am not seeing a great deal of support for this equally valid side of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="87e160fe-fce1-4d35-8b81-6d23150d2890" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:10:00.157" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="applied physics based questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="87e160fe-fce1-4d35-8b81-6d23150d2890" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:10:00.157" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="77bf8799-7a25-4dc1-9382-240de14594ef" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:34:21.637" UserId="7433" Text="Firstly, I have two ways of interpreting a [tag:beginner] tag. I may switch between both interpretations in this post to cover all bases, one interpretation is &quot;questions in beginner physics&quot;, and another is similar to the one you ask &quot;questions where the OP is in over his head&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Blast from the past&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me a _lot_ about all the discussions we had about [tag:popular-science]. The major issue with such meta tags is that they're vague. So, allowing them means that each user applies the tag with their own definition of the tag. And it rapidly devolves into a &quot;I-don't like this post&quot; tag which each person uses differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one user may consider the entire body of classical mechanics to be beginner level, one may not. The same goes for, say, newtonian mechanics. There are plenty of nontrivial problems that get asked in NM, too, and some may hide them with the tag while other tag users may not want that. [Quoting Shog][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(see that post for the conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the homework tag works well is that the tag is well-defined. I personally am uneasy about having a meta tag like that on the site, but after thinking about it, it seems to not be causing problems and would cause far bigger problems if removed anyway :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do not despair, there are better solutions to this specific problem. I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ill-formed and badly-phrased? Flag/vote for closure as Unclear What You Are Asking&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. And comment to try to get the OP to do the Googling, if you're in the mood for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Apply [tag:popular-science]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If (and only if) the user asks explicitly for a layman answer (and I bet there is a significant amount of overlap between such questions and the type you dub &quot;beginner&quot;), then we have [tag:popular-science], which has the following excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Individual tag ignores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is concerned about the level of questions, it's pretty easy to ignore tags like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] and company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Come to think of it, we have many such tags. It may be good to have a meta community wiki post listing such tags in approximate increasing order of average expertise. Then, people can easily copy paste the tags they wish to ignore. (feel free to start this post if you wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that (veering a bit off topic here into related ground), ignoring [tag:homework] seems to get rid of a lot of the crap. Note that if you see a homework question that needs closing, vote to close _and_ downvote. Closed posts that aren't downvoted still appear on the main page, and contribute to making our site look like a place to get homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. If you think that the closing system takes to long and have lost faith in it, let us know. Currently, the mods are holding back from the queue, but we increase our participation there as a temporary measure if there are problems. 3k+ users can help be part of the long term solutions by actively checking out the review queues and handling at least a couple questions from the close queue every day, if even 10 users do that we'd have a very fast system.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="fd12146a-da99-456e-ad38-73dd9f65367e" CreationDate="2013-10-30T14:13:38.070" UserId="124" Text="Yes, they are allowed and encouraged. People just tend not to ask them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example of [an excellent experimental question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82739/can-a-discrete-dynode-mass-spec-detector-get-tired)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="23b52ca9-cb92-4aed-81ba-da48950eb20a" CreationDate="2013-10-30T16:48:36.580" UserId="21817" Text="I flagged this [question][1] as a duplicate, the flag is marked as helpful. But it didn't get closed, I commented in chat and it's still open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82262/are-matter-waves-transverse-and-can-they-be-polarized" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="23b52ca9-cb92-4aed-81ba-da48950eb20a" CreationDate="2013-10-30T16:48:36.580" UserId="21817" Text="Why isn't this duplicate closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="23b52ca9-cb92-4aed-81ba-da48950eb20a" CreationDate="2013-10-30T16:48:36.580" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="3506b682-3b1b-4ee6-a460-4f548db0c889" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:07:42.533" UserId="7433" Text="Close flags are marked as helpful the first time someone close votes. In this case, [one user close voted and three others didn't][1] , so the flag was marked helpful even if the post didn't get closed, and the review item was dequeued due to the majority of do-not-close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;helpful&quot; flag means that the flag had some worth and you should not be discouraged from raising flags in similar cases later on, even if the flag is not acted on. When it comes to close flags, if a user agrees with you, that usually means that the flag has some merit and should be marked helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance, they probably should be closed, but I'd like to see the opinions of other community members on the matter first given that at least three people feel that it is not a dupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/25718" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="e0daa825-cee3-4d15-9a56-736712b2ae0f" CreationDate="2013-10-31T01:25:11.463" UserId="520" Text="While they are not particularly active we have a number explicitly experimental tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-physics]: The largest (by number of posts) of these tags. Rather a grab-bag in my opinion, with a number of superb questions and some abysmal ones as well.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-technique]: I think this tag has an unusually high fraction of *good* questions, but as they tend to be technical, involved and specialized there are a high proportion of unanswered questions here. &#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-evidence]: Mostly what proves some-surprising-concept-from-modern-physics or unusual assertion type questions. Many of the *answers* are good experimental physics posts.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-technology]: I've never been quite sure what this tag is supposed to be. Cross-tagged with [tag:experimental-technique] in places.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:home-experiment]: How to do something interesting with minimal kit, a low budget and a high degree of safety. Fun questions and some of them are surprisingly deep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental physics is every bit as hard as theory and rather less glamorous (though easier to get a lucrative job with), so it does not attract as much attention from excitable, earnest beginners. Frankly, though it is far too small a community to sustain a separate site I think the experimental community here is actually *achieving* the level of sustained sophistication and quality that we'd like to see for the whole site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="893b1b49-1e25-4eb6-b6d3-ebc60508470a" CreationDate="2013-10-31T03:32:05.583" UserId="520" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="While they are not particularly active we have a number explicitly experimental tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-physics]: The largest (by number of posts) of these tags. Rather a grab-bag in my opinion, with a number of superb questions and some abysmal ones as well.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-technique]: I think this tag has an unusually high fraction of *good* questions, but as they tend to be technical, involved and specialized there are a high proportion of unanswered questions here as well.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-evidence]: Mostly *&quot;What proves [some-surprising-concept-from-modern-physics or unusual-assertion]?&quot;* type questions. Many of the *answers* are good experimental physics posts.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-technology]: I've never been quite sure what this tag is supposed to be. Cross-tagged with [tag:experimental-technique] in places.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:home-experiment]: How to do something interesting with minimal kit, a low budget and a high degree of safety. Fun questions and some of them are surprisingly deep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental physics is every bit as hard as theory and rather less glamorous (though easier to get a lucrative job with), so it does not attract as much attention from excitable, earnest beginners. Frankly, though it is far too small a community to sustain a separate site I think the experimental community here is actually *achieving* the level of sustained sophistication and quality that we'd like to see for the whole site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="f440d80a-af51-4c1b-81b0-82e47fff3873" CreationDate="2013-10-31T06:44:56.263" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 198 characters in body" Text="While they are not particularly active we have a number explicitly experimental tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-physics]: The largest (by number of posts) of these tags. Rather a grab-bag in my opinion, with a number of superb questions and some abysmal ones as well.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-technique]: I think this tag has an unusually high fraction of *good* questions, but as they tend to be technical, involved and specialized there are a high proportion of unanswered questions here as well.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:experimental-technology]: I've never been quite sure what this tag is supposed to be. Cross-tagged with [tag:experimental-technique] in places.&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:home-experiment]: How to do something interesting with minimal kit, a low budget and a high degree of safety. Fun questions and some of them are surprisingly deep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental physics is every bit as hard as theory and rather less glamorous (though easier to get a lucrative job with), so it does not attract as much attention from excitable, earnest beginners. Frankly, though it is far too small a community to sustain a separate site I think the experimental community here is actually *achieving* the level of sustained sophistication and quality that we'd like to see for the whole site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="178bc507-07dd-4a4a-a796-14f95883e837" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:29:04.077" UserId="17609" Text="Can I post this on the main site? There is a sweater involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=543675909045560&amp;set=a.110374005709088.19294.105628429516979&amp;type=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Click picture for the link.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xL7s0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="178bc507-07dd-4a4a-a796-14f95883e837" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:29:04.077" UserId="17609" Text="Can I post this on the main site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="178bc507-07dd-4a4a-a796-14f95883e837" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:29:04.077" UserId="17609" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="a85c1fce-a886-4bbc-acb0-d45e65083b66" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:37:21.790" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="This is encouraging, very encouraging.  Thank you for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the advice I will take from the replies here are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a reasonably strong experimental physics, this is where I will focus on (and on any other question that I feel confident answering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a minority of people who have the ignorant low view of experimental physics, they are irrelevant to me, but they are always welcome to ask/answer as always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The true cross section of the members are here for the physics (experimental and theoretical) and not to worship one or two members, or to be drawn in to the nonsense drama.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some won't like this, but that is fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="578330b6-a33e-4d43-bfd1-acb01c6d2f1b" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:42:46.797" UserId="17609" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Can I post this on the main site? There is a sweater involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what would be the appropriate tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=543675909045560&amp;set=a.110374005709088.19294.105628429516979&amp;type=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Click picture for the link.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: The deadline almost certainly refers to Central European Time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xL7s0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="b740f687-1dd0-4af8-9925-30b5e2efa5f3" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:46:28.683" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I don't know that this works as a main-site question, per se. After all, just asking for someone to do the calculations runs afoul of the HW policy, and asking for people to submit solutions that are expected to vary may even run afoul of big lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a hypothetical site where this is on-topic as-is would be to Physics.SE as Codegolf.SE is to SO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it's a cute problem, and it reminds me of the types of things we were expected to figure out at the drop of a hat in an order-of-magnitude physics class I took as an undergrad (one of the best and hardest classes I've ever taken). I think it'd be fun to discuss in chat if nowhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, any question that gets down to the *concepts* at work here (&quot;Could vortices have reduced the naive estimate of pressure?&quot; &quot;Is this method for finding the elastic limit of metal sound?&quot;) *would* be welcome on the main site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="578330b6-a33e-4d43-bfd1-acb01c6d2f1b" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:42:46.797" UserId="17609" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="|discussion|scope|tags|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="412a839d-8f20-47d1-94df-c855084de8fe" CreationDate="2013-10-31T08:21:11.097" UserDisplayName="user29350" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="This is encouraging, very encouraging.  Thank you for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the advice I will take from the replies here are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a reasonably strong experimental physics, this is where I will focus on (and on any other question that I feel confident answering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a minority of people who have the ignorant low view of experimental physics, they are irrelevant to me, but they are always welcome to ask/answer as always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The true cross section of the members are here for the physics (experimental and theoretical) and not to be drawn in to the nonsense drama.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some won't like this, but that is fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="49aed023-2465-4536-8a4c-cb64a41d3146" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:28:50.840" UserId="7433" Text="A lot of members have recently noticed a drop in the net question quality on this site. Many of us feel that this is fixable, so I'm trying to take steps in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, what we need to do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stem the inflow of homework questions&#xD;&#xA; - Attract more expert users&#xD;&#xA; - Make participation more enjoyable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think can be done to achieve any of these goals? Robust proposals welcome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Please don't bring up stuff that's been declined before unless you are reformulating it to be a better proposal.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="49aed023-2465-4536-8a4c-cb64a41d3146" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:28:50.840" UserId="7433" Text="How can we improve participation on Physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="49aed023-2465-4536-8a4c-cb64a41d3146" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:28:50.840" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|retention|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="19f1f39f-f6f4-47ac-ae09-fae7e2cce8d5" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:39:35.630" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se (Not a dupe, this is about what a user can do to improve his/her _own_ experience, and that is about more global changes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to help users smoothen their own Physics.SE experience. Later on it will be turned into a community wiki meta-[meta-tag:faq] post, but for now please post any constructive suggestions you have on this thread.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="19f1f39f-f6f4-47ac-ae09-fae7e2cce8d5" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:39:35.630" UserId="7433" Text="As a user of Physics.SE, how do I make my own experience smoother and more enjoyable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="19f1f39f-f6f4-47ac-ae09-fae7e2cce8d5" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:39:35.630" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="a4003a51-486d-4bbc-b591-0f9b52fd9a99" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:53:10.890" UserId="6634" Text="We talked about it briefly in chat about starting a Topic of the Week event, akin to what is done at [Astronomy][1] and [Space][2] SE. I had proposed something similar [here][3] previously based on what was done at other SE sites discussed therein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how about we look at a just-for-fun Topic (or Tag) of the Week? Here's some of the things that would need to be decided/fleshed out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How long does each topic run?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the precedent is a week. But sometimes it takes longer to come up with really good questions or answers about highly technical aspects. Maybe two weeks would be better, but then we run the risk of getting tired of the topic in the middle. So I propose a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What's the point?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are three goals this serves. First, it promotes the asking and answering of questions the community deems interesting. Tired of [tag:newtonian-mechanics]? Suggest something else you are interested in and get some questions and answers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it could be used to attract higher-level participants. If there are things experienced members would like to focus on, decide and participate accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, it's something fun to do and will get many people outside of their comfort zones. I don't know anything about most of the tags here, but I would be encouraged to do some digging and ask a question about them if I knew it would get answered by people who know about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How are topics/tags chosen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the preceding month, a question will be posted here on meta to take nominations for the 4 topics of the next month. Each nomination should be it's own answer and ideally should contain at least one sample question already on the site pertaining to it. The 4 answers with the highest votes at the close of the voting period will be chosen -- let's say the voting period is 3 weeks. If topics should fit in a particular week of the next month, that should be noted; for instance, if a big announcement from CERN will be made in the first week of December, it might be good to put the [tag:particle-physics] topic during that week or the week after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the timeline look like? Assuming we get started soon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 1 - Nov 23**: Topic proposal and voting period for December's topics.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 23**: December's topic proposal question locked.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 27**: Topic schedule for December released&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1**: First topic week begins&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1 - Dec 20**: Topic proposal and voting period for January's topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What constitutes a community decision?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Highest voted topics get chosen. Well, let's say the highest of the 0-or-greater votes. If all the topics are positive and there's a tie, the mods will split the tie up and feel free to nominate again for the next month. If all the topics are at 0 then there is no interest in continuing and we give up. If we can't get 4 positively voted topics, we give up. If all topics are negative, we give up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we can only do what the cross-section of community here tells us to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, tags that you find interesting. The second goal may be to propose tags in which there is relatively low participation as a means to promote questions and answers in that topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should not be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Under no circumstances should a meta-type tag be nominated! So no [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], or [tag:popular-science]. Whatever tag is nominated could have questions from all three of those categories asked during that time, so let's not limit the level of the question, just the scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would avoid overly broad and overly specific tags as well. Something like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] is very broad and there's already a lot of questions on it so it probably doesn't need to be made a topic (although this is a guideline, not a rule so it could be -- the community will decide whether to use it or not). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why should I participate?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No seriously, why not? Do you know everything conceivable in your field? Do you know everything about every other field? Why not take the chance to read about something new or dig a little deeper into something old? Why not use the site as it's intended -- to pose questions you would like answered, or to answer questions you have the knowledge to answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/123/topic-of-the-week-cmb-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/questions/373/topic-of-the-week-colonization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/topic-of-the-week-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11293" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="a903c608-d9bb-41a7-998b-c8387d60cf93" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:58:04.140" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1080],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:11062,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Crazy Buddy&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5142" RevisionGUID="6f0a0212-5a5d-45ec-bddc-2c01f118a09e" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:02:53.047" UserId="7433" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am considering setting up a meta-list of tags that show some categories of tags, as well as a bunch of beginner-level tags roughly sorted by difficulty for easy favoriting/ignoring. Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Favoriting and ignoring tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions having your favorite tags appear highlighted on the front page (and most other question lists).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions having your ignored tags are hidden from the main page, and greyed out in other question lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can edit these from the side of the main page, or from [your preferences][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/current&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YlvL7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="9567265c-bb4a-4c9d-85a6-d9b8600bfdd0" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:06:39.607" UserId="7433" Text="##Making your own main page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search feature is pretty useful to create your own main page, if you're only interested in a particular set of tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for `[research-level] or [mathematical-physics] or [string-theory] -[homework]`, for example, takes you to [this page][1], which shows the questions tagged by at least one of those three tags and does _not_ have the [tag:homework] tag. Using the [&quot;active&quot; tab][2] on the search page, we get a page which behaves very similar to the main page in that one can see question bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bookmark the search page link you just created and use it instead of the main page!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level+or+mathematical-physics+or+string-theory+-homework&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level+or+mathematical-physics+or+string-theory+-homework?sort=active&amp;pageSize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="f7815a03-dd64-4c39-bf32-a73bb0604792" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:31:31.830" UserId="9719" Text="This idea is not totally original: there was at least an attempt at a journal club in chat [in 2011][1]. That, in turn, was inspired by mbq's (and [Cross Validated][2]) idea, which seems to have happened at least twice. We already have users do this, so I'm really just suggesting that we more actively encourage this. So here's some ideas I have. Feel free to add ideas for the process, suggest ideas for papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly) graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses the paper in some detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why would we want to do this?&#xD;&#xA;As several people have noted, and Manishearth has [summarized][3], we've been having some difficulty recently with long-term, highly-respected users leaving or cutting back their involvement. We are also seeing a lot of homework questions that are either too basic for the regular users' tastes, or simply don't show any work at all. I hope that this idea will help fix both of those. First, by providing more interesting questions of a higher technical level, I hope that we can both retain our current users' interest and make the site more inviting for professional physicists who aren't already here. Second, this will help populate the front page with questions that aren't homework, which should help discourage students from asking for help on their homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##So how would that work here?&#xD;&#xA;Someone finds a research paper they think is interesting. They develop a question about that paper, and post it to the main site. For a theory paper, this might be about a missing step in a derivation. For an experimental paper, this might be about the experimental setup. For a computational paper, this might be about the approximations underlying the computational model. **Regardless of the kind of paper, the question should otherwise be a valid, on-topic question for Physics.SE.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, we will also invite suggestions for papers. People can add papers to this question as Answers, and others can vote those papers up or down. Other users can then use those votes as a gauge of how interested people will be to see a question about a particular paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, there will be no restriction on the number of questions that can be asked about a particular paper. After all, any good physics paper *should* invite several questions. Some questions will be distinct enough that they can be asked in parallel, while other questions will be generated from the answer to a previous question. We may even want to suggest a time-period (say a week) where people try to focus on one particular paper, and dissect it with many questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of papers should I be looking for?&#xD;&#xA;Any paper, past or present, that is within the scope of the site. They can be historical, current, in your sub-discipline, something you need for your research, something only of passing interest to you, whatever. The only real limitation is that it should be published in a real journal or posted on a real pre-print server. This journal club will not be a place to ask for feedback on a manuscript you are working on, and it really won't be appropriate for discussing some crank's magnum opus about the earth sitting on top of [an infinite tower of turtles][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I worry about Open Access?&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. Not everyone here has access to many journals, so if you ask about a non-OA paper, you are excluding those who can't get a copy of that paper. That will presumably lower the quality of the response you get. On the other hand, some of the more prestigious journals *hate* Open Access, and many sub-disciplines of physics just haven't picked up on OA yet. So there are many papers that will produces good questions that just aren't OA papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, feel free to base your voting and preference on the accessibility of a paper, but don't feel obligated to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I tag such questions as journal-club, or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;**NO**. Tag these questions as you normally would. We will compile a list of these questions here so people can find them easily. But creating a new tag for this project isn't useful; it would be a meta-tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Ok. This sounds great. What can I do to help?&#xD;&#xA;Suggest papers here as answers. Vote on papers that you like. If you want to skip the whole suggestion-vote-ask process, just go ahead and ask a question about your paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##This sound okay, but it would be even better if you did...&#xD;&#xA;If you have suggestions for improvements, please feel free to add them, either as an answer/comment to this question, or by editing this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat &#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/674/first-cross-validated-journal-club&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="f7815a03-dd64-4c39-bf32-a73bb0604792" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:31:31.830" UserId="9719" Text="Let's have a journal club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="f7815a03-dd64-4c39-bf32-a73bb0604792" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:31:31.830" UserId="9719" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="56be32b0-9eaa-48bb-a83d-aa7f2a0d458c" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:40:04.450" UserId="7433" Text="#A journal club!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(While I assumed this was going to be as an answer to this post, Colin posted it as a separate question. Linking to it here just for completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the paper in some detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**More details, and main post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11300" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="2ee2ab41-2789-4538-9671-3f461f85e1aa" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:40:42.670" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|retention|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="4fbec67e-884e-4db0-86ec-7bd306d14614" CreationDate="2013-10-31T19:31:02.827" UserId="7433" Text="##It's OK to step back&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, one gets caught in unsavory, long discussions with users who aren't quite getting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't need to stay caught up in these discussions. You have a right to step out of the discussion, and you should feel free to exercise it whenever the discussion is getting too annoying for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are feeling that the user is harassing you, mention it in a custom flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="1d06f2eb-355d-4e83-8076-33a16fea0c4c" CreationDate="2013-10-31T20:25:57.617" UserId="7433" Text="##Use chat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times I see long discussions on the main site being conducted in real time, in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a rather non ideal way of communicating&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; as many a time one is still typing a long comment and receives multiple replies while doing so, making it confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, [create a room in chat][1] and link to it in the comments. You can have much more free discussion in this environment. It doesn't get cluttered like the comments, and it's more amenable to back-and-forth conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, it works for non-realtime discussions as well, and works for many users chatting just as well as 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, discussing in chat means that there's no worrying about the comments getting deleted later on. Chat discussions are preserved)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides chat rooms for individual discussions, we do have a [main chat room][2] that is reasonably active. This is usually just a place to hang out and discuss physics, the site, or pretty much anything else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. besides not really being allowed; while short discussions are OK, long discussions shouldn't really happen in the comments.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/new&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="c283cdbd-dbf1-430c-9ab1-90d31c01a960" CreationDate="2013-10-31T20:47:31.090" UserId="7433" Text="#Boot up the new book policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendation questions are great sources of traffic from students of varying levels, and we may want to start accepting them again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the SE model usually doesn't work well with recommendation questions, [I believe that we may be able to handle them in a way that doesn't exhibit most of the shortcomings of recommendation questions on SE, while not impinging on their quality][1] (indeed, this may improve their quality a lot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we need people to volunteer to curate book questions! The proposed policy involves editing the questions into a certain format, and keeping an eye on the answers to ensure that they stick to the policy. If answers are not doing this, they should be flagged and commented on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Volunteer to help with the policy here**][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4812/please-volunteer-for-help-editing-recommendation-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="0bb82b19-5186-4826-a00e-476cac6458c9" CreationDate="2013-10-31T21:46:05.323" UserId="9719" Text="The paper that partially inspired this idea was a letter in the October 24 Nature regarding a new method for using NMR to measure the temperature in a chemical reactor (It's Nature, so not Open Access, but here's the [DOI]). I'm not totally sure I understand how they convert the NMR signal into temperature. I'm going to give it another read, and I should have a question or two about it in the next few days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DOI]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11305" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="881e288e-96eb-4580-818a-b73ee1ed661d" CreationDate="2013-10-31T21:47:31.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/396030701373771776" />
  <row Id="11306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="056cf947-9680-4a66-a5a2-7ab987461149" CreationDate="2013-10-31T23:02:17.430" UserId="2146" Text="I don't think there is a problem with the level of participation here anymore than there is one with the Math and Chemistry sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem lies with the attitude of some people who started out thinking that Physics Stack Exchange would somehow be the next Math Overflow. No, it's ended up ticking over nicely just like other popular academic sites on the Stack Exchange network, open to a wide range of people including enthusiasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to &quot;improve&quot; participation more towards Math Over Flow level, then alienate those at the lower level by excluding them from asking questions, and banning homework questions. That way you'll improve participation of professionals , while reducing [questions/day][1] and therefore overall participation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics Q&amp;A for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields **494 questions/day**&#xD;&#xA; - MathOverflow&#xD;&#xA;MathOverflow Q&amp;A for professional mathematicians **42 questions/day**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to face facts, physics isn't as popular as mathematics, and the last thing we want to be doing right now is pushing it too far in a direction that will promote its demise, just as for the failed Theoretical Physics site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physics Q&amp;A for active researchers, academics and students of physics **51 questions/day**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="be091184-7270-421d-bca9-2714af88cb5d" CreationDate="2013-10-31T23:34:02.230" UserId="2146" Comment="previous caused misunderstanding" Text="Firstly, I don't think there is a need to improve participation here anymore than with the Math and Chemistry sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the problem lies with the attitude of some people who started out thinking that Physics Stack Exchange would somehow be the next Math Overflow. Instead, it's ended up ticking over nicely just like other popular academic sites on the Stack Exchange network, open to a wide range of people including enthusiasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to &quot;improve&quot; participation more towards Math Over Flow level, then alienate those at the lower level by excluding them from asking questions, and banning homework questions. That way you'll improve participation of professionals , while reducing [questions/day][1] and therefore overall participation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd place Mathematics Q&amp;A for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields **494 questions/day**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - 17th place MathOverflow&#xD;&#xA;MathOverflow Q&amp;A for professional mathematicians **42 questions/day**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite physics not being as popular as mathematics, it's still placed 9th, and I don't think there is a need to improve participation in its current form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 9th place Physics Q&amp;A for active researchers, academics and students of physics **51 questions/day**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5151" RevisionGUID="86c60a13-2952-4d67-afdd-29b4aa79d349" CreationDate="2013-10-31T23:58:34.310" UserDisplayName="user29350" Text="Yes, I am happy to help in the time I have.  Given that my 2 day-to-day jobs are involved in academia and teaching, which include this kind of thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="f0c8f3ab-0b83-41b6-888c-7663354aaeea" CreationDate="2013-11-01T03:47:33.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/396121303289442304" />
  <row Id="11310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="bf94447e-20dd-4da4-b8fe-d9dd882b2f61" CreationDate="2013-11-01T05:53:20.503" UserId="5477" Text="This site gets a lot of low-quality homework questions. Since I ignored the homework tag a few months ago, my experience of the site has been much more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current [homework policy][1] is nice, but the questions that actually obey it are few. I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, and since we're [looking for ways to improve the site's quality][2], I wanted to put the following idea forward to see how people respond to it: why don't we just ban homework altogether? The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. Potentially we might lose a few good questions, but we'd also lose a *lot* of bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not 100% I agree with this proposal myself, but I'm curious to see how people feel about it, and it seems like it might be worth having the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="bf94447e-20dd-4da4-b8fe-d9dd882b2f61" CreationDate="2013-11-01T05:53:20.503" UserId="5477" Text="Why don't we just ban homework altogether?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="bf94447e-20dd-4da4-b8fe-d9dd882b2f61" CreationDate="2013-11-01T05:53:20.503" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="ab52362a-49af-4334-9491-474a6e670f5a" CreationDate="2013-11-01T07:05:43.527" UserId="31782" Text="should i try to raise my reputation .But how? Can i remove this ban by deleting my all posts questions etc or make a new account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="ab52362a-49af-4334-9491-474a6e670f5a" CreationDate="2013-11-01T07:05:43.527" UserId="31782" Text="i cant answer now any question on physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="ab52362a-49af-4334-9491-474a6e670f5a" CreationDate="2013-11-01T07:05:43.527" UserId="31782" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="ef656447-9bfb-4294-8ecf-41895a57bcab" CreationDate="2013-11-01T07:25:41.300" UserId="7433" Text="When you get hit with the automatic answer block, you get linked to a [page that describes how your situation and how to get out of it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, improve your existing answers. You have some deleted link-only answers; elaborate on them and undelete. Don't ask questions or leave comments in  the answer box, such stuff gets flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ delete your posts, it will exacerbate the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ create a new account, it will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, please do not ask homework-like questions on this site. See http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/answer-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="9e4b2ed2-b98d-4275-a7cb-66910943f381" CreationDate="2013-11-01T07:31:06.530" UserId="7433" Text="##Ban homework altogether&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**See Nathaniel's post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The current homework policy is nice, but the questions that actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obey it are few. I think this is because if you've put the effort in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because of this, and since we're looking for ways to improve the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site's quality, I wanted to put the following idea forward to see how&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people respond to it: why don't we just ban homework altogether? The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Potentially we might lose a few good questions, but we'd also lose a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lot of bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5156" RevisionGUID="c3718a92-7f46-48a6-94a6-61eba8ec7d4d" CreationDate="2013-11-01T08:30:15.977" UserId="7433" Text="Actually, as I understand it, that _is_ already the case. Almost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thoughts on the current policy&#xD;&#xA;See, the way I see it is that a post that follows the homework policy really doesn't need the tag in the first place. My thoughts resonate with what you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of making the primary focus of the question the homework problem, it's easier to just ask for the concept and maybe include the problem to exhibit your thought process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I once said in chat,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [IMO an _on topic_ HW question is indistinguishable from a normal question when the &quot;this is HW&quot; part is excised.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that the &quot;show some effort&quot; bit of the homework policy is much less important than the &quot;ask about a specific concept&quot;, though it is more objectively determined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The current state of questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on this site, the majority of closed HW questions don't get improved. Some people add effort, but most of these still aren't conceptual, and arguably never will be as many are essentially asking for help with algebra or some such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 in 30 HW questions get reopened, and that too usually because they become borderline (not because they get improved significantly). Some stats on this would be good, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you ignored that tag and it felt nicer. I'm pretty sure that the questions you missed seeing were eventually closed, at least most of them. It's just a matter of speed, and that's a [different issue][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So, what can we improve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said at the top, this is almost already the case. Almost. We can still improve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, there still are some HW posts that get reopened because they added effort. We can try to be more strict when it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, from the policy POV, the semantics of the current policy is that &quot;Homework is OK, just read this long post to learn all the caveats&quot;. Changing it to &quot;Homework is not OK, but here is how you may be able to convert your HW question to a good one&quot; may lead to some good results. Ditto with the close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we consistently change the semantics of our hw policy across the site, and instead of telling users to improve their hw question (the wording means that it will most probably still stay an hw question), we tell them to _convert_ it into a conceptual question (which brings home the point that the question needs a major change of POV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a way to conclude this post at the moment, I may do so later after thinking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10552277#10552277&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5110/how-much-are-3k-users-moderating-through-the-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="cce3e22f-c01e-410d-b924-b1c318218344" CreationDate="2013-11-01T09:47:33.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/396211900209692672" />
  <row Id="11320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="a9bfa181-dafe-4be4-b962-a906a750162b" CreationDate="2013-11-01T10:35:10.717" UserId="66" Text="#Level up your communication ninja powers&#xD;&#xA;* Make sure your questions, answers and comments are clear, understandable by the audience and on-topic. Use proper English. Be reasonably polite in tone (as you would be with a professor you like).&#xD;&#xA;* Never fight with other people, or discuss their intentions. *They* are not wrong, *their posts* are. Understand the difference! It's *not* personal.&#xD;&#xA;* Are you posting more than 1 or 2 comments on a post? Forget about it, it's time to move on to do something else. It's seriously not worth your time.&#xD;&#xA;* Most people here are really, *really* smart and they are really, *really* into physics. Always assume your counterpart is *at least* as smart as you and/or as knowledgeable as you.&#xD;&#xA;* Good content is favored by time and voting. Give it time.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't have conversations with other people on the site. Honestly, conversations are nice, but this site is about asking and answering questions. Keep it in mind. &#xD;&#xA;* Don't try to answer in a 600 letters comment! If you disagree with an answer, write a better one. &#xD;&#xA;* It takes time and effort to learn how to be effective on the Stack Exchange network, that's why we have a point system. Learn about the system before complaining it's all wrong. &#xD;&#xA;* This site is not only about physics. It's about *communicating* physics.&#xD;&#xA;* This site is *not a forum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="c94bc20c-216f-4f36-bf0d-f34b2137c88a" CreationDate="2013-11-01T12:04:58.270" UserId="31782" Text="this question isn't duplicate anymore. why people criticise beginners?http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82672/what-is-the-length-of-a-photon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="c94bc20c-216f-4f36-bf0d-f34b2137c88a" CreationDate="2013-11-01T12:04:58.270" UserId="31782" Text="is it duplicate how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="c94bc20c-216f-4f36-bf0d-f34b2137c88a" CreationDate="2013-11-01T12:04:58.270" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5159" RevisionGUID="30bdf6e6-f6f3-4e7a-8a2f-197c9f3e7db8" CreationDate="2013-11-01T12:27:52.663" UserId="11062" Text="We're not criticizing anyone here. Please don't misunderstand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing is reversible. In case you've asked for something else and we've misunderstood you, the question can be reopened. But, it's you who should make it clear. Express it to us, by editing your question to add, how your question isn't a duplicate, what exactly you were trying to ask, and more specifically, think whether it's meaningful in its current form, etc. Once you've edited, the votes would also attain *reversibility*. Had your question transformed into a good one, people will revoke their downvotes (for sure). No one's angry...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've asked, *&quot;Hey, what's the length of a photon?&quot;*. And, we said, &quot;Hmm... We've already got a more generalized question on the size of quantum particles, where yours might be a proper subset&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Then, you say, *&quot;No, it's not..!!!&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, telling us &quot;NO, NO, NO&quot; isn't gonna work it out. Instead, you should explain why it's not a duplicate in its current form... ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5160" RevisionGUID="92df621b-e7d1-4e62-a514-330f5eb61f3e" CreationDate="2013-11-01T14:27:17.080" UserId="1325" Text="Please, please, please ban homework altogether. Allowing homework has resulted in a deluge of questions from users with a reputation of 1 asking us to do their work for them. Yes, we can tag then ignore homework questions, but (a) that requires us to be continually editing tags and (b) it makes the site look rubbish for anyone not au fait with filtering by tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no problem with anyone trying to learn and using the site as a teaching aid, but just copying and pasting homework questions isn't going to achieve either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="7144b33e-33d4-4e2d-9bfd-da056ad163b9" CreationDate="2013-11-01T21:43:31.273" UserId="2146" Text="I don't think there is a need for a ban on even basic homework questions, because the system we have in place at the moment seems to be working well IMO. A recent example is the question [cylinder on an inclined plane held in equilibrium](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83128/cylinder-on-an-inclined-plane-held-in-equilibrium). This was flagged, and put on hold with the message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;put on hold as off-topic by tpg2114, Crazy Buddy, Sklivvz♦ 49 mins ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; – tpg2114, Crazy Buddy, Sklivvz&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question or leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as users flag bad homework questions, the system in place should be adequate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="086c6a16-ac02-44cc-b626-f88977b2cb13" CreationDate="2013-11-02T01:33:37.853" UserId="124" Text="&gt; The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that's exactly what the current homework policy _does_ say!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons you might have thought otherwise: first, the homework policy is probably not as clear as it could be on this. But the quoted bit is definitely the intent, and I'd certainly approve of a rewording to make that more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually _stop_ people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting. We need more community involvement, specifically close voting and flagging (and _not answering_) low-quality homework questions. (There has been a significant increase in flags over the past few days, which is great, but more is still better.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, something we could consider is removing the [tag:homework] _tag_, thus making it considerably more explicit to new posters that homework questions are not welcome here unless they can be reformulated in such a way as to make them conceptual. You wouldn't be the first to [suggest this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag), but each time it's been brought up, the community has come out in support of keeping the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some historical context may help explain why that happens. In the early days of the site, we didn't have a homework policy, and thus people posted homework questions and got them answered. The [tag:homework] tag became one of our most popular tags rather quickly. There were several [discussions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38/the-canonical-homework-question) about whether this was okay, and largely people thought that it was, for a few reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One of the founding principles of the site was that we did not want to reject questions for being too low-level. In other words, we didn't want to be the physics version of Math Overflow. Now, there's a difference between being low-level and low-effort, and in particular excluding homework questions is not the same as excluding low-level questions, but in those early days our standards for homework-related questions were perhaps not as strict as they are now precisely because we wanted to show that we were inclusive of all levels of questions.&#xD;&#xA;- We were taking cues from [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com), which already had a homework policy that seemed to be working well. You'll notice that the wording of our homework policy is closely based on [theirs](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question/1804#1804). Since they accept homework questions on Math, our default position was to do the same here. Of course, it emerged over time that their policy is loosely enforced (at least, that seems to be the case as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;- Honestly, we were worried that the site would never reach critical mass if we put a blanket ban on homework questions. Currently, I'm fairly sure this is not something we have to worry about, because we have a steady stream of non-homework, conceptual questions, but in the early days it wasn't so clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time went on, the [tag:homework] tag became more and more well established as a feature of the site and of the homework policy, and people who wanted to see higher-level questions grew accustomed to using it to filter those questions out. At this point, it has a tremendous amount of inertia, in the sense that we've grown accustomed to a certain way of operating which does involve use of the [tag:homework] tag, and as much as there are some of us who would like to see it (and its associated questions) go, there are probably more people who want to keep it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5156" RevisionGUID="9f6dd3f5-f055-4915-9461-bfeead1fbd42" CreationDate="2013-11-02T03:24:03.293" UserId="7433" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Actually, as I understand it, that _is_ already the case. Almost. But we can improve it somewhat to make it more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thoughts on the current policy&#xD;&#xA;See, the way I see it is that a post that follows the homework policy really doesn't need the tag in the first place. My thoughts resonate with what you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of making the primary focus of the question the homework problem, it's easier to just ask for the concept and maybe include the problem to exhibit your thought process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I once said in chat,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [IMO an _on topic_ HW question is indistinguishable from a normal question when the &quot;this is HW&quot; part is excised.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that the &quot;show some effort&quot; bit of the homework policy is much less important than the &quot;ask about a specific concept&quot;, though it is more objectively determined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The current state of questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on this site, the majority of closed HW questions don't get improved. Some people add effort, but most of these still aren't conceptual, and arguably never will be as many are essentially asking for help with algebra or some such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 in 30 HW questions get reopened, and that too usually because they become borderline (not because they get improved significantly). Some stats on this would be good, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you ignored that tag and it felt nicer. I'm pretty sure that the questions you missed seeing were eventually closed, at least most of them. It's just a matter of speed, and that's a [different issue][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So, what can we improve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said at the top, this is almost already the case. Almost. We can still improve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, there still are some HW posts that get reopened because they added effort. We can try to be more strict when it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, from the policy POV, the semantics of the current policy is that &quot;Homework is OK, just read this long post to learn all the caveats&quot;. Changing it to &quot;Homework is not OK, but here is how you may be able to convert your HW question to a good one&quot; may lead to some good results. Ditto with the close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we consistently change the semantics of our hw policy across the site, and instead of telling users to improve their hw question (the wording means that it will most probably still stay an hw question), we tell them to _convert_ it into a conceptual question (which brings home the point that the question needs a major change of POV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a way to conclude this post at the moment, I may do so later after thinking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10552277#10552277&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5110/how-much-are-3k-users-moderating-through-the-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11329" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="6b54fcab-3ae8-4f1c-b1b2-d0a1e032a6a0" CreationDate="2013-11-02T03:49:01.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/396484061696630785" />
  <row Id="11331" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="976c8edb-bda6-430b-bdbd-758aee2d0abf" CreationDate="2013-11-02T05:57:04.907" UserId="2451" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DIMension10&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11332" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="4d4835ee-c580-461d-9053-cfacef15231d" CreationDate="2013-11-02T09:49:01.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/396574659699023872" />
  <row Id="11333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="32f37bbf-ff2e-455a-884a-14b06b23e9ea" CreationDate="2013-11-02T13:07:51.063" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 136 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change, climatology, mitigation and adaptation][7]][8] &#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Origami][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="5dc37f17-b3cd-4eb2-a596-4934cfefdba2" CreationDate="2013-11-02T13:26:05.163" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change, climatology, mitigation and adaptation][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11335" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="5dc37f17-b3cd-4eb2-a596-4934cfefdba2" CreationDate="2013-11-02T13:26:05.163" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|computational|origami910|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11336" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="c5f1cb5c-f58d-40a8-b59e-f31b89d60212" CreationDate="2013-11-02T13:26:21.383" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [32f37bbf-ff2e-455a-884a-14b06b23e9ea]" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change, climatology, mitigation and adaptation][7]][8] &#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Origami][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11337" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="c5f1cb5c-f58d-40a8-b59e-f31b89d60212" CreationDate="2013-11-02T13:26:21.383" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [32f37bbf-ff2e-455a-884a-14b06b23e9ea]" Text="|discussion|featured|" />
  <row Id="11338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="c6444e0e-d6bd-468b-9b86-ef1ec3f76e8f" CreationDate="2013-11-02T13:26:39.620" UserId="23119" Comment=" [![Computational Origami][9]][10]  deleted proposal.  " Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Climate Change, climatology, mitigation and adaptation][7]][8] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11339" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="f6cdf806-9e19-4975-a94e-71d76766b7d0" CreationDate="2013-11-02T15:27:58.667" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="86cc8e5c-7a6d-4256-8f9c-9b14558fec64" CreationDate="2013-11-02T22:00:31.510" UserId="6634" Text="Just to put this out there, here's an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Nuke questions that are &quot;Solve this problem for me&quot; type questions that should be nuked even under the current policy. This will take some work to go through the roughly 2600 questions tagged homework to evaluate which are good examples and which are bad. &#xD;&#xA; 1. Nuke the HW tag (not the remaining questions themselves, just the tag).&#xD;&#xA; 1. Change the FAQ: &quot;Can I ask about homework here? No, this site is not intended to do homework for users. We are here to educate about concepts in physics&quot; or something along those lines. That way it makes it clear we don't want to do anybody's work for them but if they can formulate it as a conceptual question we'll answer it. In other words, it's the same as what we have now but we say &quot;No but&quot; instead of &quot;Yes but...&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Users need to step up and help close things down that violate the &quot;we won't do your work for you&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't be fun to do it, and to enforce it, but it has to be done by the users and not just the moderators if it will ever work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="52e49deb-7bd7-4c25-b909-5d4a463b20d7" CreationDate="2013-11-03T13:14:35.070" UserId="27746" Text="I think it makes a lot of sense to ban homework questions. It's not that we shouldn't help students who are having trouble with their assignments. But we should help them to grasp the concept, we should *NOT* be doing their work. If the student actually identifies the concept he's having trouble with and asks a conceptual question about this concept, then everything's fine, that's what the site's for. The existence of the homework tag, and the nature of the questions associated with this tag, simply invite students to ask their assignment flat out. Eliminating the homework tag might help fix this issue. After all, a conceptual question really doesn't need to be tagged homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about what the homework tag is really there for. The tag description reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Applies to questions of primarily educational value - not only questions that arise from actual homework assignments, but any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question where it is preferable to guide the asker to the answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather than giving it away outright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to ask a proper homework question - that is a question which focuses on the concept I'm having trouble with rather than the details of the assignment - I *DO* want an outright answer; I shouldn't be led on when it comes to understanding the concept. So '*guiding the asker to the answer rather than giving it away outright*' really only applies to questions which simply restate the assignment. So implicitly, the tag description is encouraging unresearched, unconceptual, dumb homework-assingment-questions. The homework tag *only makes sense* for those types of questions. Getting rid of it would in my opinion be the correct course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above would go too far for some people, this might be an alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - All questions tagged as homework will appear in a review queue, and will be hidden from the main page by default. They will only be shown on the main page when the question has been reviewed and accepted by several users.&#xD;&#xA; - All homework questions that are not tagged as a homework question will be immediately retagged to a homework question (thus becoming hidden and entering the review stage), or closed right away.&#xD;&#xA; - Delete all old homework questions (and their answers) that are not up to the standard we expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, this should ensure that the main page isn't flooded by low-quality questions, thus discouraging prospective users from asking such questions. Deleting old low-quality questions will go to some length to discourage low-quality questions as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, the main page will be populated by interesting high-level questions, and some high-quality homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this approach does require some new features in the SE website(s), and makes the homework question a very special tag (even on a merely technical level)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="5f49ecb8-be7f-4176-ac70-32f86ab10875" CreationDate="2013-11-03T14:23:23.180" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="bc25859b-29e6-402a-aa77-e08c702bcd98" CreationDate="2013-11-03T15:09:05.037" UserId="2451" Text="As much as I understand the frustration and I sympathize with the move to ban homework-like (HWL) questions because of front page clutter, one has to realize that people will _never_ stop posting HWL question. They are sometimes desperate with an upcoming exam tomorrow. Realistically, the only thing we can do is to minimize the time such HWL posts appear open on the front page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast closing requires help from the community to flag around the clock, and especially +3k users to review and cast votes-to-close. It is possible that policy formulations should be strengthen in certain places to provide people with the necessary mandate for closure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But closure is not all. The posts still appear on the front page for a while unless it is downvoted to -4. Note however, that traditionally, the unwritten rule is to not massively downvote new posters, but rather leaving constructive comments. If you decide to downvote a HWL question, please first check OP's userpage, to see if he has a repeated pattern of posing bad HWL questions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the majority of HWL question (say 90%) indeed are elementary exercises in e.g. Newtonian kinematic (suvat-relations), electrostatics, electric circuits (resistors), etc, one should not forget that we also from time to time get good and interesting HWL questions, e.g. in QFT or GR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in the search of methods to stop HWL questions, the status of the [tag:homework] tag will unavoidably be questioned once again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pros and cons of the [tag:homework] tag have been discussed many times before in other meta posts, e.g. [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1477/2451) and [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4022/2451). Here I will only address what potential benefit the retirement of the homework tag would have on the incoming stream of HWL questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be against removing the [tag:homework] tag for various reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is absolutely instrumental in identifying HWL questions in the first place that such posts are tagged with [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. People will _never_ stop posting HWL questions, no matter how many policies that we write, no matter how many tags that we ban, and no matter how many duplicates of the question that there already exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely doubt any broken-window theory that the homework tag causes more HWL questions to be asked, cf. point 2 above. On the other hand, the [tag:homework] tag helps the community to quickly identify, close, and possibly downvote HWL questions, cf. point 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One a long-term scale, one could discuss further the possible retirement of the [tag:homework] tag, but it shouldn't be a desperate action here-and-now to deal with the current flooding of HWL questions. The HWL will keep on coming anyway, but without the [tag:homework] tag, we would just have made it more difficult for ourselves to identify and deal with the problem on a daily basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="4a612cd7-3d51-419e-b889-98da8860dd86" CreationDate="2013-11-03T21:13:33.430" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 743 characters in body" Text="As much as I sympathize with the move to ban homework-like (HWL) questions because of front page clutter, we should realize that people will _never_ stop posting HWL question. They are sometimes desperate, say, with an upcoming exam tomorrow. Realistically, the only thing we can do is to minimize the time that such HWL posts appear open on the front page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast closing requires help from the community to flag around the clock, and especially +3k users to review and cast votes-to-close. It is possible that HW policy formulations should be strengthen to provide people with the necessary mandate/tools for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But closure is not all. The posts still appear on the front page for a while unless it is downvoted to -4. Note however that traditionally, the unwritten rule is to not massively downvote new posters, but rather leaving constructive comments. If you decide to downvote a HWL question, please first check OP's userpage, to see if he has a repeated pattern of posing bad HWL questions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in the search of methods to stop HWL questions, the status of the [tag:homework] tag will unavoidably be questioned. The pros and cons of the [tag:homework] tag have been discussed many times before in other meta posts, e.g. [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1477/2451) and [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4022/2451). Here I will only address what potential benefit the retirement of the homework tag would have on the incoming stream of HWL questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be against removing the [tag:homework] tag for various reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is instrumental in identifying HWL questions in the first place that such posts are tagged with [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. People will _never_ stop posting HWL questions, no matter how many policies that we write, no matter how many tags that we ban, and no matter how many duplicates of the question that there already exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely doubt any broken-window theory that the homework tag causes more HWL questions to be asked than without the tag, cf. point 2 above. On the other hand, the [tag:homework] tag helps the community to quickly identify and close HWL questions, cf. point 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="37670e32-7b9a-4368-a61e-beaff98ea662" CreationDate="2013-11-04T12:33:48.867" UserId="23389" Text="The problem identified is that some users don't enjoy tedious  discussions with *&quot;pop-sci philosophers and no-effort homework posters.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The obvious and easy solution is don't do it then. Do the things you do like!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed solution, that we reject the successful SE model, is impracticable and, in any case, unwarranted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="54b88abf-1542-462c-8662-286bbd4f66a8" CreationDate="2013-11-04T17:45:13.030" UserId="6634" Text="I've been noticing another trend that brings up a counter-point to my &quot;let's nuke it&quot; answer I posted previously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many homework-like questions are answered by lower-rep users. It would be a case of beginners helping beginners, which actually means that the answerer does in fact get something out of helping -- the best way to learn is to teach after all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also means that the budding physicists who start out on the site by answering homework questions learn as they go along; not just about how to teach and the basics that (at the time) are not so basic to them but about how to interact with the site and with the community at large. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, homework-like questions may not be so bad because, just like the goal of giving homework, it's training both questioner and answerer alike to be better members of the community as they progress through the study of physics. Maybe what we need is not a decrease in homework questions but an increase in advanced questions -- let the beginners work together on the homework-like questions and the experts work together on the expert questions. And while the experts may not learn much from the homework-like questions (although everybody stands to learn from attempting to explain things in different ways to different people), the beginners get experience with the easy questions and can learn advanced topics by reading the advanced ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everybody wins, right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="7367932f-ed1e-4afc-9178-280732820e6d" CreationDate="2013-11-05T08:41:39.463" UserId="5477" Text="I thought it would be worth distilling my thoughts into a concrete proposal. What follows is similar to what some of the other answers have suggested. In many ways it is not a big change to the current policy, but it *is* a big change to the way the policy is presented, and I think it would have a lot of benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current homework policy is formatted something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: **How can I ask a homework question on Physics.SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: You can ask homework questions, but you have to do a couple of things to make it OK. (Show some effort and ask about a concept.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposal is to change it to something more like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: **Can I ask a homework question on Physics.SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: **No**, we don't accept homework questions here. However, if you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask about that, then it won't be a homework question and we'll be happy to help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be best to keep the `homework` tag, at least at first, so that people can continue to filter it. It would become similar to the `big-list` tag, in that any question that's legitimately tagged with it would almost certainly be closed (hopefully by the community). Later, if we're successful in stemming the tide, perhaps it could be phased out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this change as having two main benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's less encouraging to people considering asking a homework question. It doesn't give the impression that just adding an attempt at the working, or asking &quot;what physics concept do I need to solve this problem?&quot; will make it okay. On the flip side it *does* encourage doing enough work to turn the question into a genuinely concept-based one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, it gives the community a stronger mandate to close non-conceptual homework questions. I admit that I'm one of the high-rep users that doesn't participate much in this. This is partly because I find the review queues to be generally depressing places to hang out, but more saliently, it's also because I often don't quite feel justified in casting a close vote. I tend to find myself thinking &quot;well, the policy does say homework is allowed, and this person's made a *bit* of an effort to show some working, and you can see they've *kind of* tried to ask about a concept, even if they haven't really done a good job, so maybe closing it would be a bit mean.&quot; Under the new system it would be much simpler: &quot;this is a homework-like question, so it should be closed&quot;. There would be no reason to feel bad about it, which would make it much easier to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this relatively small change would make the policy much clearer, and could potentially result in smaller numbers of low-quality homework questions, while also encouraging participation from the community in closing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="108c96b9-2781-4c38-9d22-8b878d927482" CreationDate="2013-11-05T09:09:39.040" UserId="5477" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I thought it would be worth distilling my thoughts into a concrete proposal. This is essentially what Manishearth already proposed - I'm just hoping to make the idea clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many ways it is not a big change to the current policy, but it *is* a big change to the way the policy is presented, and I think it would have a lot of benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current homework policy is formatted something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: **How can I ask a homework question on Physics.SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: You can ask homework questions, but you have to do a couple of things to make it OK. (Show some effort and ask about a concept.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposal is to change it to something more like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: **Can I ask a homework question on Physics.SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: **No**, we don't accept homework questions here. However, if you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask about that, then it won't be a homework question and we'll be happy to help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be best to keep the `homework` tag, at least at first, so that people can continue to filter it. It would become similar to the `big-list` tag, in that any question that's legitimately tagged with it would almost certainly be closed (hopefully by the community). Later, if we're successful in stemming the tide, perhaps it could be phased out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this change as having two main benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's less encouraging to people considering asking a homework question. It doesn't give the impression that just adding an attempt at the working, or asking &quot;what physics concept do I need to solve this problem?&quot; will make it okay. On the flip side it *does* encourage doing enough work to turn the question into a genuinely concept-based one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, it gives the community a stronger mandate to close non-conceptual homework questions. I admit that I'm one of the high-rep users that doesn't participate much in this. This is partly because I find the review queues to be generally depressing places to hang out, but more saliently, it's also because I often don't quite feel justified in casting a close vote. I tend to find myself thinking &quot;well, the policy does say homework is allowed, and this person's made a *bit* of an effort to show some working, and you can see they've *kind of* tried to ask about a concept, even if they haven't really done a good job, so maybe closing it would be a bit mean.&quot; Under the new system it would be much simpler: &quot;this is a homework-like question, so it should be closed&quot;. There would be no reason to feel bad about it, which would make it much easier to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this relatively small change would make the policy much clearer, and could potentially result in smaller numbers of low-quality homework questions, while also encouraging participation from the community in closing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="0971e7e0-0137-4882-9036-25ad14627976" CreationDate="2013-11-05T17:07:30.687" UserId="124" Comment="update with examples, remove CW note, improve wording for consistency" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by adding the banner, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how can I help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;    resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;    style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;    resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;    for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;    or paper will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="7ec31481-ffc7-416e-9cd5-ed819c6bfc6a" CreationDate="2013-11-06T06:06:34.630" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Dearest Physics&lt;sub&gt;meta&lt;/sub&gt; Stack Exchange readers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just got done reading through [this discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag), its many supporting discussions, its answers, their comments, the answers to the supporting questions and *their* comments. And I *gotta* tell ya, **you talk too much...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...without actually *saying* very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of people requested that I research this issue (and a few related issues) and give my opinion, since apparently there've been some hurt feelings here and there over some of this. That's a shame. The whole point of meta is to give folks a voice in how the community is run - if you're writing this much and still feeling unheard, something is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I have a few suggestions for the more... enthusiastic... participants in these discussions, a few things I've picked up over the years that'll make these go a lot smoother for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Have fun.** I don't know why you're here, but I'm guessing it *probably* isn't your job to argue about minutia on The Internet all day&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Even if the questions you ask/answer *on Physics.SE* are crucial to your work, meta debates probably aren't. Hopefully, we're all here because we love the site and want it to be even better - so if this is starting to feel like a drag, go for a walk or something instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Try to read more than you write.** If you find yourself dominating a conversation (or *multiple* conversations simultaneously), chances are it is becoming increasingly hard for other folks to keep up with what you're trying to say; they might very well just start ignoring you. Ironically, you can end up being unheard because you talk to much! You also risk giving the impression that you don't really care about what anyone else has to say, being too busy writing your rebuttal to really understand what you're responding to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Know when a comment discussion isn't working.** Comments are a great way to ask for or provide clarifications, raise concerns, or provide simple criticisms. But they can be exceedingly tedious for others to read, and not everyone has time to involve themselves in a prolonged discussion. If you find yourself going back and forth at for any significant length of time, chances are you're not getting your point across - maybe you'd be better off writing or updating an answer where you have room to expand your argument... or even taking the conversation to chat. **Hint:** if you find yourself posting two comments back-to-back because your response won't fit into one, you're probably doing it wrong. **Stop and write an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Recognize that the people you disagree with probably are not Pure Evil.** Sure, dividing up a happy community into tag-ghettos sounds like something that Hitler or Stalin would do, and I'm sure Pol Pot would've *loved* the idea of throwing tags he didn't like into a mass grave and setting them on fire. But consider: if those guys had limited themselves to bullying bits around on The Internet&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, we probably wouldn't hate them so much. Try to limit the hyperbole and focus on the topic at hand; if you're having trouble doing that, maybe take a break and have a nice cup of tea instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Evidence trumps speculation.** Afraid that *X* will be the death of the site? You might be right. But... Prove it. Or at least, provide *something* to back up your assertion. Has *X*  been tried elsewhere and failed? Say that. Is there evidence on the site itself that *X* is causing problems? Link to it. If the sky is falling, then stop running around screaming and *show us a piece of it!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Remember that there are an awful lot of people on the site who just want to ask and answer physics questions.** A discussion here on Meta is just that: a way for interested parties to lay out their arguments; it's not guaranteed to reflect the opinion of the greater community. Most of the time, discussions are never really *concluded* here - it's always possible for someone to come in with a new answer, and ultimately what actually matters is what happens *on the main site itself*. Meta gives you a podium&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Don't spend too much of *your* time here either.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;** If you spend all of your time here on Meta, it becomes very easy to forget the reasons why you came here in the first place, place undue importance on trivial arguments, and stop having fun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. **Be patient.** Change takes time, and remember: a lot of folks aren't as enthusiastic about following every meta conversation as you are (See #6). If things aren't happening fast enough for your taste, starting *more* discussions on the subject may be counter-productive (See #2). And if you're too busy hand-wringing on meta to actually follow your own advice when participating on the main site, then you're missing the chance to set an example for others to follow (#7). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, remember that you elected moderators to *help out* on the site, *settle* intractable arguments, and *enact* the policies hashed out here and elsewhere. They're strongly encouraged to be active here on meta, but... They don't actually *have* to respond to every discussion or involve themselves in every debate. If you want their input and assistance, try to make it a bit easier for them to provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Because that's *my* job, and you can't have it! Just kidding, we're [hiring](http://stackexchange.com/about/hiring).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I'll bet a lot fewer people have starved to death because of Collectivist Farmville.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Or maybe a soapbox. A podium sounds like something Hitler would want.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Again, my job not yers.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="7a90931c-d173-4a82-80e6-c103286c301b" CreationDate="2013-11-06T06:52:44.723" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit remοved during grace period]" Text="#This is a sandbοx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community (anti-)Wikipedia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvοted to -8 or less (rather than upvοting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1+1=32$&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;[Start ChAtJaX][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Start ChAtJaX][1]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://javascript:%28function%28%29%7Bif%28window.MathJax===undefined%29%7Bvar%20script%20=%20document.createElement%28%22script%22%29;script.type%20=%20%22text/javascript%22;script.src%20=%20%22http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML%22;var%20config%20=%20%27MathJax.Hub.Config%28%7B%27%20%20%20%27extensions:%20%5B%22tex2jax.js%22%5D,%27%20%20%20%27tex2jax:%20%7B%20inlineMath:%20%5B%5B%22$%22,%22$%22%5D,%5B%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%28%22,%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%29%22%5D%5D,%20displayMath:%20%5B%5B%22$$%22,%22$$%22%5D,%5B%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5B%22,%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5D%22%5D%5D,%20processEscapes:%20true%20%7D,%27%20%20%20%27jax:%20%5B%22input/TeX%22,%22output/HTML-CSS%22%5D%27%20%20%20%27%7D%29;%27%20%20%20%27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload%28%29;%27;if%20%28window.opera%29%20%7Bscript.innerHTML%20=%20config%7D%20else%20%7Bscript.text%20=%20config%7D%20document.getElementsByTagName%28%22head%22%29%5B0%5D.appendChild%28script%29;%28doChatJax=function%28%29%7Bwindow.setTimeout%28doChatJax,1000%29;MathJax.Hub.Queue%28%5B%22Typeset%22,MathJax.Hub%5D%29;%7D%29%28%29;%7Delse%7BMathJax.Hub.Queue%28%5B%22Typeset%22,MathJax.Hub%5D%29;%7D%7D%29%28%29;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="21abb8c5-4a8c-4b35-a703-4d02e356a2ab" CreationDate="2013-11-06T06:54:41.293" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit remοved during grace period]" Text="Some apparent redspace problems, 10 m/s ([original post][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sοurce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations &#xD;&#xA;    is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, &#xD;&#xA;    about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2372/how-long-it-will-take-for-a-tree-to-fall-on-a-ground/2401#2401&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="7a90931c-d173-4a82-80e6-c103286c301b" CreationDate="2013-11-06T06:52:44.723" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit remοved during grace period]" Text="This is not a sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="7e896685-da6f-4ca0-9472-07e72ad5ded7" CreationDate="2013-11-06T06:58:39.127" UserId="23119" Comment="http://   [Start ChAtJaX][1]      [1]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27" Text="#This is a sandbοx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community (anti-)Wikipedia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvοted to -8 or less (rather than upvοting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1+1=32$&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Start ChAtJaX][1]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[Start ChAtJaX!\]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Start ChAtJaX][3]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Start ChAtJaX][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: [Start ChAtJaX][5]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;![Start ChAtJaX!]([Start ChAtJaX][6]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[]          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Start! ChAtJaX!][7]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://%5BStart%20ChAtJaX%5D%5B1%5D%20%20%20%20%20%20%5B1%5D:%20javascript:%28function%28%29%7Bif%28window.MathJax===undefined%29%7Bvar%20script%20=%20document.createElement%28%22script%22%29;script.type%20=%20%22text/javascript%22;script.src%20=%20%22http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML%22;var%20config%20=%20%27MathJax.Hub.Config%28%7B%27%20%20%20%27extensions:%20%5B%22tex2jax.js%22%5D,%27%20%20%20%27tex2jax:%20%7B%20inlineMath:%20%5B%5B%22$%22,%22$%22%5D,%5B%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%28%22,%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%29%22%5D%5D,%20displayMath:%20%5B%5B%22$$%22,%22$$%22%5D,%5B%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5B%22,%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5D%22%5D%5D,%20processEscapes:%20true%20%7D,%27%20%20%20%27jax:%20%5B%22input/TeX%22,%22output/HTML-CSS%22%5D%27%20%20%20%27%7D%29;%27%20%20%20%27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload%28%29;%27;if%20%28window.opera%29%20%7Bscript.innerHTML%20=%20config%7D%20else%20%7Bscript.text%20=%20config%7D%20document.getElementsByTagName%28%22head%22%29%5B0%5D.appendChild%28script%29;%28doChatJax=function%28%29%7Bwindow.setTimeout%28doChatJax,1000%29;MathJax.Hub.Queue%28%5B%22Typeset%22,MathJax.Hub%5D%29;%7D%29%28%29;%7Delse%7BMathJax.Hub.Queue%28%5B%22Typeset%22,MathJax.Hub%5D%29;%7D%7D%29%28%29;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();)&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();)&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var script = document.createElement(&quot;script&quot;);script.type = &quot;text/javascript&quot;;script.src = &quot;http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML&quot;;var config = %27MathJax.Hub.Config({%27 + %27extensions: [&quot;tex2jax.js&quot;],%27 + %27tex2jax: { inlineMath: [[&quot;$&quot;,&quot;$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\(&quot;,&quot;\\\\\\\\\\\\)&quot;]], displayMath: [[&quot;$$&quot;,&quot;$$&quot;],[&quot;\\\\[&quot;,&quot;\\\\]&quot;]], processEscapes: true },%27 + %27jax: [&quot;input/TeX&quot;,&quot;output/HTML-CSS&quot;]%27 + %27});%27 + %27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload();%27;if (window.opera) {script.innerHTML = config} else {script.text = config} document.getElementsByTagName(&quot;head&quot;)[0].appendChild(script);(doChatJax=function(){window.setTimeout(doChatJax,1000);MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);})();}else{MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;,MathJax.Hub]);}})();)&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://%5BStart%20ChAtJaX%5D%5B1%5D%20%20%20%20%20%20%5B1%5D:%20javascript:%28function%28%29%7Bif%28window.MathJax===undefined%29%7Bvar%20script%20=%20document.createElement%28%22script%22%29;script.type%20=%20%22text/javascript%22;script.src%20=%20%22http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML%22;var%20config%20=%20%27MathJax.Hub.Config%28%7B%27%20%20%20%27extensions:%20%5B%22tex2jax.js%22%5D,%27%20%20%20%27tex2jax:%20%7B%20inlineMath:%20%5B%5B%22$%22,%22$%22%5D,%5B%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%28%22,%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%29%22%5D%5D,%20displayMath:%20%5B%5B%22$$%22,%22$$%22%5D,%5B%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5B%22,%22%5C%5C%5C%5C%5D%22%5D%5D,%20processEscapes:%20true%20%7D,%27%20%20%20%27jax:%20%5B%22input/TeX%22,%22output/HTML-CSS%22%5D%27%20%20%20%27%7D%29;%27%20%20%20%27MathJax.Hub.Startup.onload%28%29;%27;if%20%28window.opera%29%20%7Bscript.innerHTML%20=%20config%7D%20else%20%7Bscript.text%20=%20config%7D%20document.getElementsByTagName%28%22head%22%29%5B0%5D.appendChild%28script%29;%28doChatJax=function%28%29%7Bwindow.setTimeout%28doChatJax,1000%29;MathJax.Hub.Queue%28%5B%22Typeset%22,MathJax.Hub%5D%29;%7D%29%28%29;%7Delse%7BMathJax.Hub.Queue%28%5B%22Typeset%22,MathJax.Hub%5D%29;%7D%7D%29%28%29;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11361" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a63da4b1-e47f-48b7-ac7e-cf6f5f5412b6" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:04:11.870" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [96f13160-7e80-4911-a10b-6760cbe15baf]" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11362" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a63da4b1-e47f-48b7-ac7e-cf6f5f5412b6" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:04:11.870" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [96f13160-7e80-4911-a10b-6760cbe15baf]" Text="This is a sandbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="4453faf8-edfc-43d3-b028-3d367e1ad862" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:04:41.933" UserId="23119" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11364" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="6d5c40de-8f47-41d3-9368-4ef03cab7583" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:05:01.763" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [a63da4b1-e47f-48b7-ac7e-cf6f5f5412b6]" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11365" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a540cff4-3fcf-4ee0-bb4b-682e12b8676a" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:05:07.090" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [4453faf8-edfc-43d3-b028-3d367e1ad862]" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="e2bec869-56ba-4ab5-b0f8-e9b6412e06c4" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:05:20.437" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit remοved during grace period]" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Chris White questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else. &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11367" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="6f715bb7-a692-4371-aab7-ac8198799004" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:06:14.190" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [a540cff4-3fcf-4ee0-bb4b-682e12b8676a]" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="b432c6d7-61b5-460f-8303-2e7f00eba8dc" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:06:33.970" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit remοved during grace period]" Text="        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#This is a *sandbox*&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="b432c6d7-61b5-460f-8303-2e7f00eba8dc" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:06:33.970" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit remοved during grace period]" Text="|support|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="0a9e9bfb-279b-488f-9469-734cf7e0dff3" CreationDate="2013-11-06T16:09:49.513" UserId="11169" Text="I propose we start the journal club by reading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three Classes of Newtonian Three-Body Planar Periodic Orbits. Milovan Šuvakov and V. Dmitrašinović. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110** no. 11, 114301 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.114301). [arXiv:1303.0181](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0181).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly interested in that paper, and a good question on it was recently posted: [How trustworthy are numerically-obtained periodic solutions to the three body problem?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/how-trustworthy-are-numerically-obtained-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-pr). There is also a question-that-isn't-really-a-question on the same paper, posted a week or so ago: [Details of the new solutions to the three-body problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82511/details-of-the-new-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="c0426549-e7ca-4eb5-862e-8b6ed5a614bf" CreationDate="2013-11-06T16:20:56.280" UserId="11169" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="I propose we start the journal club by reading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three Classes of Newtonian Three-Body Planar Periodic Orbits. Milovan Šuvakov and V. Dmitrašinović. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110** no. 11, 114301 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.114301). [arXiv:1303.0181](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0181).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly interested in that paper, and a good question on it was recently posted: [How trustworthy are numerically-obtained periodic solutions to the three body problem?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/how-trustworthy-are-numerically-obtained-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-pr). There is also a question-that-isn't-really-a-question on the same paper, posted a week or so ago: [Details of the new solutions to the three-body problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82511/details-of-the-new-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Commentaries on the paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Physicists Discover a Whopping 13 New Solutions to Three-Body Problem](http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2013/03/physicists-discover-whopping-13-new-solutions-three-body-problem), ScienceNow&#xD;&#xA;* [13 new periodic solutions to the 3-body problem](http://motls.blogspot.cz/2013/03/13-new-periodic-solutions-to-3-body.html), Luboš Motl's blog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="b702d6bd-6df9-4c10-aedc-dfaa134d72ed" CreationDate="2013-11-07T10:00:28.930" UserId="23119" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="&lt;div class=&quot;code&quot; data-postid=&quot;389&quot;&gt;an edit has been made to this post; click to load&lt;/div&gt;             &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVDZr.png &#xD;&#xA;#This is a *sandbox*&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="87d91fe9-3ad9-4ef8-a4c4-4cfcc040f78f" CreationDate="2013-11-07T10:06:08.783" UserId="23119" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&lt;div class=&quot;new-post-activity&quot; data-postid=&quot;389&quot;&gt;an edit has been made to this post; click to load.  &lt;/div&gt;           &#xD;&#xA;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVDZr.png &#xD;&#xA;#This is a *sandbox*&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="381f910b-e9d4-474c-a364-2ac904503b1f" CreationDate="2013-11-07T10:24:56.787" UserId="23119" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="&lt;code&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;new-post-activity&quot; data-postid=&quot;389&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;an edit has been made to this post; click to load.  &lt;/div&gt; &amp;nbsp;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;         &lt;/code&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;        '     &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVDZr.png &#xD;&#xA;#This is a *sandbox*&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="9e77b34a-b46d-4a7f-b6ff-479c24677d96" CreationDate="2013-11-07T12:31:37.747" UserId="8563" Comment="the second question is now closed." Text="I propose we start the journal club by reading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three Classes of Newtonian Three-Body Planar Periodic Orbits. Milovan Šuvakov and V. Dmitrašinović. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110** no. 11, 114301 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.114301). [arXiv:1303.0181](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0181).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly interested in that paper, and a good question on it was recently posted: [How trustworthy are numerically-obtained periodic solutions to the three body problem?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/how-trustworthy-are-numerically-obtained-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-pr). There is also a question-that-isn't-really-a-question on the same paper, posted a week or so ago: [Details of the new solutions to the three-body problem [on hold]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82511/details-of-the-new-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Commentaries on the paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Physicists Discover a Whopping 13 New Solutions to Three-Body Problem](http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2013/03/physicists-discover-whopping-13-new-solutions-three-body-problem), ScienceNow&#xD;&#xA;* [13 new periodic solutions to the 3-body problem](http://motls.blogspot.cz/2013/03/13-new-periodic-solutions-to-3-body.html), Luboš Motl's blog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="d79ab6c2-c716-4869-b27b-38e50d98500b" CreationDate="2013-11-07T17:01:46.307" UserId="8563" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="I propose we start the journal club by reading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three Classes of Newtonian Three-Body Planar Periodic Orbits. Milovan Šuvakov and V. Dmitrašinović. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110** no. 11, 114301 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.114301). [arXiv:1303.0181](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0181).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly interested in that paper. Why not give it a go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions about this paper on-site&#xD;&#xA; -  [Details of the new solutions to the three-body problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82511/details-of-the-new-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem)&#xD;&#xA; - [How trustworthy are numerically-obtained periodic solutions to the three body problem?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/how-trustworthy-are-numerically-obtained-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-pr)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other commentaries and resources on the paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Physicists Discover a Whopping 13 New Solutions to Three-Body Problem](http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2013/03/physicists-discover-whopping-13-new-solutions-three-body-problem), ScienceNow&#xD;&#xA;* [13 new periodic solutions to the 3-body problem](http://motls.blogspot.cz/2013/03/13-new-periodic-solutions-to-3-body.html), Luboš Motl's blog&#xD;&#xA;* There is a nice [gallery with animations of the solutions](http://suki.ipb.ac.rs/3body/) at Šuvakov's website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="8ce8be12-3b10-4ebe-9af7-509d8ef7588d" CreationDate="2013-11-08T02:53:12.327" UserId="9719" Text="I would say that our ultimate goal should be the burnination of [tag:homework]. But I agree with several others who have said that that is unworkable in the short term. My experience with questions tagged [tag:homework] is that they fall into a few categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Please do my homework for me. I have put no effort into it at all.&quot; [example][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;I have completed this homework problem. Please check my work and/or where did I go wrong?&quot; [example][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Possibly not a good question as written, but the OP is trying. There might be a conceptual question somewhere. [example][3], [example][4]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Hard problems that come either directly from the research literature, or from upper-level courses. These usually have an easy to identify conceptual question. [example][5] [example][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 and 2 are easy; we just want to close them and get on with real questions. 3 is probably the most difficult category, both to identify, and to actually address. I think we want most of the questions in 4, but it is sometimes difficult to separate out the physics and the math in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just favorited [tag:homework], sort of in the spirit of [Manish's suggestion] and have been going through those questions (if anyone has seen a lot of homework questions in the review queue recently, that's me). I haven't seen a single question yet where the [tag:homeowrk] tag actually *helps* the question: they're all either on-topic or off-topic. It really is a meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best argument I can come up with to keep [tag:homework] is that people can use it to filter out questions they don't want to see. I have two replies to that. First, it's not a very good filter. I suspect people who want to ignore [tag:homework] are trying to filter out categories 1 and 2, and possibly 3. But they're also ignoring questions that fit into 4, and I'm not sure they want to do that. My other reply is that we really do need everyone's help to close the really bad homework questions when they come up. I feel a little conflicted about saying that; it is essentially telling other users how they should use the site, and the low-level BS homework questions are exactly the sort of things that drives away the higher-end users we're trying to keep/attract. On the other hand, I worry that part of the problem we're having with closing the bad homework questions is that not enough of our 3000+ users are seeing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83399/finding-the-final-velocity&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83627/elastic-potential-energy-of-a-spring-when-compressed&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83618/rotational-inertia-of-a-sphere-and-a-cube&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55584/canonical-partition-of-a-boson-gas&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82506/conservation-of-energy-in-a-quantum-harmonic-oscillator-after-a-sudden-change-in&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76994/polchinskys-evaluation-of-the-one-loop-string-path-integral&#xD;&#xA;[Manish's suggestion]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5143/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="294d14db-5b71-4840-9cd9-c8f7a6f8e7a0" CreationDate="2013-11-08T18:58:32.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/398887277205913600" />
  <row Id="11389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="a062b605-e2a8-4a9f-b4b2-c1a09103de3f" CreationDate="2013-11-11T12:42:54.873" UserId="1325" Text="I note http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange, but it seems to me that the accepted answer doesn't answer the question. I have no special wish to get excessively philosophical, but I think being clear what we're trying to achieve will help clarify vexed issues like homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside what SE are trying to achieve (profit presumably), it seems to me that good reasons for the effort we put into this site include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Fun&#xD;&#xA; 2. Encouraging interest in physics&#xD;&#xA; 3. Education&#xD;&#xA; 4. Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experience suggests that research will only ever be a tiny part of site activity because there are too few research physicists interested in participating. Let's also leave aside *Fun* because it's a given - few people will do things that aren't fun unless they're paid or forced to. If you're with me so far that means we basically have two aims, to encourage interest and to educate. Arguably *encouraging interest* is also educating, but at a popular science level, in which case our sole purpose in life is education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is supposed to a question rather than just a diatribe, I guess my question is whether you agree with my analysis and if not, why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="a062b605-e2a8-4a9f-b4b2-c1a09103de3f" CreationDate="2013-11-11T12:42:54.873" UserId="1325" Text="What is the ultimate purpose of physics.stackexchange - revisited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="a062b605-e2a8-4a9f-b4b2-c1a09103de3f" CreationDate="2013-11-11T12:42:54.873" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="96c10936-ecb3-4422-8341-6787d3277e5e" CreationDate="2013-11-11T20:03:17.240" UserId="7433" Text="The _primary_ purpose is to &quot;Make The Internet a Better Place™&quot;. What this means is that the Q&amp;As should be of the form that are useful to others. People searching for a conceptual explanation or the resolution of an apparent paradox should find this site and be helped here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a long history. If you've ever googled for help with something and come across a forum, you might have been frustrated by the signal-to-noise ratio on that forum. I recall coming across tons of tangential discussion, and sometimes pages and pages of discourse which reaches no resolution. Besides that, many of these are cluttered with duplicates and one-time problems that are really too specific for anyone else to benefit. Forums are useful to the people asking questions and the handful of community members participating in the discussion. But the wider audience from the Internet has a hard time with forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to do away with that, by keeping posts focused and only allowing posts that will help many people. This was the essence behind the &quot;Too Localized&quot; close reason that many of you may remember, &amp;mdash; the point was that while the answers may help the OP, there's a very little chance of it helping anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also one of the main reasons why we close homework. Besides the no-effort-please-do-my-work-for-me, homework questions don't help any other visitors. While the answers may be conceptual, it is pretty hard for someone with the conceptual question to find the homework problem via Google or otherwise, as the question focuses on the problem, not the concept &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As for people who want help with the _same_ homework problem, well, that's pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main purpose is to also help people _other_ than the OP, people who will come to the Q&amp;A after searching related terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just the primary purpose. As you mentioned, fun is another factor&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, as is encouraging interest and _conceptual_ education. The &quot;fun&quot; bit extends itself; I personally don't participate just because it's &quot;fun&quot;. I write answers because my own understanding is strengthened by doing so&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, not just to help the OP and the other readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Research_ is a different beast. Our [non mainstream policy][1], in its attempts to be as objective as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments, stops us from _developing_ new physics&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. I guess this is OK, because frankly speaking, the people here have better channels to develop new physics; by discussing with colleagues and collaborators. The ones who choose to try to develop the theory here are usually the type that are proposing some non mainstream ideas. Besides all this, the limitation of discussion on the main site is a damper here, though that is easily remedied with chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is in no way saying that research _level_ questions are discouraged, just that using the site as a platform to develop new theories collaboratively is discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Which is why we encourage making HW question conceptual; people will actually _find_ the question then&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Don't let [this blog post][2] tell you otherwise ;-)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. The act of codifying nebulous thoughts on a topic into clear English is something that seems to immediately highlight one's own conceptual misunderstandings and inadequacies.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. Neither does MathOverflow, they have a policy against open questions and the like, and they still maintain a good level of research-level questions.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="aae31963-da86-4602-9d6b-5cde99206c59" CreationDate="2013-11-12T03:41:32.323" UserId="12811" Text="Sticky content that allows SE to get lots of hits. That allows the investors and owners to make money. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="f7cb2d99-1764-4985-b500-aea2ef98887e" CreationDate="2013-11-12T05:16:19.527" UserId="7433" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="The _primary_ purpose is to &quot;Make The Internet a Better Place™&quot;. What this means is that the Q&amp;As should be of the form that are useful to others. People searching for a conceptual explanation or the resolution of an apparent paradox should find this site and be helped here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a long history. If you've ever googled for help with something and come across a forum, you might have been frustrated by the signal-to-noise ratio on that forum. I recall coming across tons of tangential discussion, and sometimes pages and pages of discourse which reaches no resolution. Besides that, many of these are cluttered with duplicates and one-time problems that are really too specific for anyone else to benefit. Forums are useful to the people asking questions and the handful of community members participating in the discussion. But the wider audience from the Internet has a hard time with forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to do away with that, by keeping posts focused and only allowing posts that will help many people. This was the essence behind the &quot;Too Localized&quot; close reason that many of you may remember, &amp;mdash; the point was that while the answers may help the OP, there's a very little chance of it helping anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also one of the main reasons why we close homework. Besides the no-effort-please-do-my-work-for-me, homework questions don't help any other visitors. While the answers may be conceptual, it is pretty hard for someone with the conceptual question to find the homework problem via Google or otherwise, as the question focuses on the problem, not the concept &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As for people who want help with the _same_ homework problem, well, that's pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main purpose is to also help people _other_ than the OP, people who will come to the Q&amp;A after searching related terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just the primary purpose. As you mentioned, fun is another factor&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, as is encouraging interest and _conceptual_ education. The &quot;fun&quot; bit extends itself; I personally don't participate just because it's &quot;fun&quot;. I write answers because my own understanding is strengthened by doing so&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, not just to help the OP and the other readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Research_ is a different beast. Our [non mainstream policy][1], in its attempts to be as objective as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments, stops us from _developing_ new physics&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. I guess this is OK, because frankly speaking, the people here have better channels to develop new physics; by discussing with colleagues and collaborators. The ones who choose to try to develop the theory here are usually the type that are proposing some non mainstream ideas. Besides all this, the limitation of discussion on the main site is a damper here, though that is easily remedied with chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is in no way saying that research _level_ questions are discouraged, just that using the site as a platform to develop new theories collaboratively is discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Which is why we encourage making HW question conceptual; people will actually _find_ the question then&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Don't let [this blog post][2] tell you otherwise ;-)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. The act of codifying nebulous thoughts on a topic into clear English is something that seems to immediately highlight one's own conceptual misunderstandings and inadequacies.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;s&gt;Neither does MathOverflow, they have a policy against open questions and the like, and they still maintain a good level of research-level questions.&lt;/s&gt; MathOverflow disallows well known open problems, but they don't seem to have any research being done on site, even if the posts may inspire research.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="88c04857-94dc-41ed-9ef3-e48ad686eedb" CreationDate="2013-11-12T05:36:36.067" UserId="7433" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="The _primary_ purpose is to &quot;Make The Internet a Better Place™&quot;. What this means is that the Q&amp;As should be of the form that are useful to others. People searching for a conceptual explanation or the resolution of an apparent paradox should find this site and be helped here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a long history. If you've ever googled for help with something and come across a forum, you might have been frustrated by the signal-to-noise ratio on that forum. I recall coming across tons of tangential discussion, and sometimes pages and pages of discourse which reaches no resolution. Besides that, many of these are cluttered with duplicates and one-time problems that are really too specific for anyone else to benefit. Forums are useful to the people asking questions and the handful of community members participating in the discussion. But the wider audience from the Internet has a hard time with forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to do away with that, by keeping posts focused and only allowing posts that will help many people. This was the essence behind the &quot;Too Localized&quot; close reason that many of you may remember, &amp;mdash; the point was that while the answers may help the OP, there's a very little chance of it helping anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also one of the main reasons why we close homework. Besides the no-effort-please-do-my-work-for-me, homework questions don't help any other visitors. While the answers may be conceptual, it is pretty hard for someone with the conceptual question to find the homework problem via Google or otherwise, as the question focuses on the problem, not the concept &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As for people who want help with the _same_ homework problem, well, that's pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main purpose is to also help people _other_ than the OP, people who will come to the Q&amp;A after searching related terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just the primary purpose. As you mentioned, fun is another factor&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, as is encouraging interest and _conceptual_ education. The &quot;fun&quot; bit extends itself; I personally don't participate just because it's &quot;fun&quot;. I write answers because my own understanding is strengthened by doing so&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, not just to help the OP and the other readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not intending to say that we aren't here to help each other. We are. The community feeling is a great thing, and helping each other learn physics is a good goal. But one should try to have a look a the larger picture, helping a couple of people on site is dwarfed by the countless other non-members we help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Research_ is a different beast. Our [non mainstream policy][1], in its attempts to be as objective as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments, stops us from _developing_ new physics&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. I guess this is OK, because frankly speaking, the people here have better channels to develop new physics; by discussing with colleagues and collaborators. The ones who choose to try to develop the theory here are usually the type that are proposing some non mainstream ideas. Besides all this, the limitation of discussion on the main site is a damper here, though that is easily remedied with chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is in no way saying that research _level_ questions are discouraged, just that using the site as a platform to develop new theories collaboratively is discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Which is why we encourage making HW question conceptual; people will actually _find_ the question then&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Don't let [this blog post][2] tell you otherwise ;-)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. The act of codifying nebulous thoughts on a topic into clear English is something that seems to immediately highlight one's own conceptual misunderstandings and inadequacies.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;s&gt;Neither does MathOverflow, they have a policy against open questions and the like, and they still maintain a good level of research-level questions.&lt;/s&gt; MathOverflow disallows well known open problems, but they don't seem to have any research being done on site, even if the posts may inspire research.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11396" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="b68b08c4-a5ab-4178-bcd4-9c9a8017576d" CreationDate="2013-11-12T10:01:38.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/400201707722145792" />
  <row Id="11397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="6c0c5f62-d399-46c1-b3ef-730209ffa11d" CreationDate="2013-11-12T22:56:08.880" UserId="9887" Text="Well, John, it's actually pretty simple from my perspective.  The *purpose* of this site is to promote the creation and trading of value for value for those interested in thinking about and doing physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, in my opinion, is the only valid reason for this site's existence.  I've learned a good bit here from other's answers as well as through composing my own answers; a process which forces me to think very clearly about the particular topic and, in so doing, sharpens my own thinking and deepens my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that I'm not special in any way and thus that others must create and trade value here in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly feel no obligation to participate here for some &quot;larger cause&quot;.  My participation is for a purely selfish reason:  I profit from it (in the larger, *proper* sense of the word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that is the reason others volunteer here to answer and moderate; that they too find value and profit for themselves in doing so.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="4763b8fe-01ae-42c1-b663-69fb9cd0a653" CreationDate="2013-11-12T23:02:35.327" UserId="9887" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Well, John, it's actually pretty simple from my perspective.  The *purpose* of this site is to promote the creation and trading of value for value for those interested in thinking about and doing physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, in my opinion, is the only valid reason for this site's existence.  I've learned a good bit here from other's answers as well as through composing my own answers; a process which forces me to think very clearly about the particular topic and, in so doing, sharpens my own thinking and deepens my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that I'm not special in any way and thus that others desire to create and trade value here in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly feel no obligation to participate here for some &quot;larger cause&quot;.  My participation is for a purely selfish reason:  I profit from it (in the larger, *proper* sense of the word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that is the reason others volunteer here to answer and moderate; that they too find value and profit for themselves in doing so.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5177" RevisionGUID="dc13a74d-2520-43b7-bd04-c19ea5b2becb" CreationDate="2013-11-13T00:38:51.630" UserId="4846" Text="In addition to &quot;Encouraging interest in physics&quot; and &quot;Education&quot;, an important part of most SE sites is also to get real feedback on both questions and answers. This is what allows some of us to learn provide clearer answers and ask more focused questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="9382d004-bbf1-4587-994e-2eb01d2f5a62" CreationDate="2013-11-13T03:17:24.140" UserId="2146" Text="It isn't possible for there to be a single ultimate purpose, since the existence of Physics Stack Exchange depends upon a diverse range of purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - those within the community contributing to the site, &#xD;&#xA; - the unpaid moderators&#xD;&#xA; - the company financing the project&#xD;&#xA; - [the motive of the founders][1]&#xD;&#xA; - other people and group motives I'm not aware of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a better question would be to ask: **What's the purpose behind you being here?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the fundamental reason is given in [Alfred Centauri's answer.][2] I liked the idea of contributing to the site, putting it down on my CV as one of my interests, and the interviewer could take a look at [some of my answers][3] and hire me. Now that I'm more aware of my [incompetence][4], I use the site more passively to learn from others, in the hope I might actually get round to asking [good questions][5] more regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5173/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange-revisited/5176#5176&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub/7752#7752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6934/what-is-the-source-of-high-frequency-squeal-in-faulty-crt-monitors-and-tv-and-w/6968#6968&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="3631b4cf-f00b-45b7-a582-92f03bf18f7b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:14.057" UserId="8563" Text="It was [proposed recently on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) that, as part of a broader programme of increasing the site quality, we ban homework questions altogether. This proposal seems to have really quite strong support. On the other hand, it was pointed out quite persuasively, mostly by David Z and Manishearth, and mostly well upvoted, that the current policy is already much like this in that the [tag:homework] questions that stay open tend to be conceptual questions that don't really need the tag. This means that the final change will mostly be one of documentation and presentation. Finally, it's pretty clear that we need to keep the tag itself, as an aid for users who ignore that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the really-quite-settled state of that discussion, it seems to me that it's time to move forward on it. This involves generating a consensus that we do want this, and developing the corresponding documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, then, I think the consensus on what the core of the policy should be is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Homework questions are not allowed on this site, but it is acceptable to ask conceptual questions which are based on a set assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please **vote this question up if you agree with the change, and vote it down if you disagree**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned above, it seems the main change that needs to happen is one of documentation. There are a fair few pieces of documentation relating to this issue around the site, and they would all need to be changed. Specifically, I can identify the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The homework policy on this meta site: the question and its answer&#xD;&#xA; - The How to Ask sidebar on the [Ask a Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) page&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA; - The homework close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am posting answers to this question with proposals for each of these, so they can be discussed independently. Please vote each answer up or down according to whether you agree to the change to that specific wording. I am making all of them community wiki: if you have suggestions for improvement, post them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must note that I came up against quite a few rough edges in writing this documentation when it came to describing the tag itself. I believe this is because it is pretty inconsistent to keep and actively use a 'homework' tag if the front-line message we're sending is that homework is off-topic. I'll post a separate thread about it shortly. For now, I propose we use the tag much as we're using it now: it should describe questions based on set problems (homework, textbook, etc.) as well as the old &quot;questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself&quot;, though that seems weird now (are those not just... questions?). I propose, to begin with, at least, that we *keep the tag and the close reason separate*, as described in the documentation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm also adding an answer with some thoughts on enforcement of this policy, which is the _truly crucial_ ingredient of driving down the amount of low-level homework questions on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="3631b4cf-f00b-45b7-a582-92f03bf18f7b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:14.057" UserId="8563" Text="Banning homework: vote and documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="3631b4cf-f00b-45b7-a582-92f03bf18f7b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:14.057" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="f6291366-d631-4682-a77d-71086025b9c3" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:14.057" UserId="8563" Text=" - The homework policy: the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are homework questions allowed on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy on asking homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are homework questions allowed?&#xD;&#xA; - What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA; - What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11405" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="c316b155-5558-45f9-b5a0-a9f4252a405b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:14.057" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5181" RevisionGUID="153fc206-d481-42e2-9a2d-6e52a7c7d40c" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:48.390" UserId="8563" Text=" - The tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a crucial part of the policy. This is what gets seen by users who try to tag a question as [tag:homework]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ey2CI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon mouseover, a link saying [learn more](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) appears, which leads to the homework tag wiki. This is, I think, a crucial place to catch potential low-level homework questions and stop them being asked in that form. My proposal is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HOMEWORK QUESTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED unless they're about a specific concept. If you have a homework question, please read the guidance in meta, the tag info, or click 'learn more' to help you convert it to a conceptual question. Use this tag for questions based on set problems as well as questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="b7500b4c-b945-4334-9af0-a0ac907b8180" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:29:03.360" UserId="8563" Text=" - The close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed on this site.** See our [meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="dfb4a91c-de2f-4942-a9e3-035e4325df7d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:29:39.533" UserId="8563" Text=" - The [How to Ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed** on this site. You should ask about **specific concepts**. See our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11409" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="dfb4a91c-de2f-4942-a9e3-035e4325df7d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:29:39.533" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11410" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5181" RevisionGUID="153fc206-d481-42e2-9a2d-6e52a7c7d40c" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:28:48.390" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11411" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="b7500b4c-b945-4334-9af0-a0ac907b8180" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:29:03.360" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="caba7c04-019e-4a72-9a7b-0ec02c7a8c6d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:30:46.663" UserId="8563" Text="&#xD;&#xA; - The tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;## Homework questions are **not** allowed on Physics Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**, and not a homework help site. Questions about a specific concept that originate in homework problems are OK, but questions asking us to check your work or asking for pointers or hints about a problem are likely to be closed. Please [see the details on our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is considered a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble.** If your question originates in a homework assignment, you should provide the problem in full as well as all your working so far, to provide context. Please [see the details on our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is this tag used for?&#xD;&#xA;This tag describes questions based on a set problem, such as textbook and self-study problems, puzzles, and actual homework assignments. It also covers problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes on-topic conceptual questions that are based on such problems, as well as off-topic questions which are purely for homework help. *Having the homework tag is independent of being on-topic*. If you see off-topic homework questions, the appropriate action is to [flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) or [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11413" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="6d4299f6-6c32-41a5-bd48-14ecdc9b2df9" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:30:46.663" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="80d2c5b3-b868-4aaa-8eb1-6872974854f9" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:31:25.230" UserId="8563" Text="&#xD;&#xA; - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. They show they've done the necessary calculations for the problem, and they ask about a specific concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11415" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="3980f3df-91f5-4e75-9508-8141e0378c66" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:31:25.230" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="0d1c1fe7-5073-4584-82a9-6ece00ccc8af" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:32:04.093" UserId="8563" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tag it as [tag:homework]. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - [Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts), or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - Consider downvoting it. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag on-topic, conceptual questions as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11417" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="0d1c1fe7-5073-4584-82a9-6ece00ccc8af" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:32:04.093" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="16ddf6e1-dcc3-4837-8b95-91682c61f6ac" CreationDate="2013-11-13T15:06:37.703" UserId="8563" Comment="added 316 characters in body" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tag it as [tag:homework]. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - [Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts), or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - Consider downvoting it. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag on-topic, conceptual questions as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="832dd52d-ba05-4029-b4e7-9807ba5d850b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T15:17:58.557" UserId="8563" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tag it as [tag:homework]. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - [Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts), or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - Consider downvoting it. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag on-topic, conceptual questions as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="47fa5930-2d4b-4ff2-9ac2-827f1239bb7c" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:04:27.740" UserId="7433" Comment="Added some bold to help those who don't like to read too much :P" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag on-topic, conceptual questions as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="c7c6d864-5e92-4000-87a7-69c2904a4b8b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:15:49.640" UserId="23119" Comment="Removed sexist remark : )" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who can explain me the strange things that happen all the way with [my question about the Mendeleev table][1] here? At the beginning I could not edit it or make comments after it. That's why I tried to give my own answers to it, but my first answer was deleted. I wrote another one, and today somebody deleted the chain of comments after it (my talk with the users with names dimension10 and Mitchell Porter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to find out, what is the idea? If the person who does this wants to inspire me with something, I suggest him to do this openly. If I violate some rules, or do something wrong, it will be much more honest to tell me this directly, than to compel me to catch anonymous hints. If not, then I believe there is a very interesting explanation of this phenomena, that resembles discrimination so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="c0a99fa0-6190-4ace-9859-5b5c10f1611f" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:01:02.303" UserId="7433" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="0b8be2b2-87ad-41d6-8bcb-b49853241c78" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:09:04.887" UserId="8563" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text=" - The tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;## Homework questions are **not** allowed on Physics Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**, and not a homework help site. Questions about a specific concept that originate in homework problems are OK, but questions asking us to check your work or asking for pointers or hints about a problem are likely to be closed. Please [see the details on our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is considered a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments as well as homework-like problems from textbooks, self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble.** If your question originates in a homework assignment, you should provide the problem in full as well as all your working so far, to provide context. Please [see the details on our meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is this tag used for?&#xD;&#xA;This tag describes homework-like questions based on a set problem, such as textbook and self-study problems, puzzles, and actual homework assignments. It also covers problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes on-topic conceptual questions that are based on such problems, as well as off-topic questions which are purely for homework help. *Having the homework tag is independent of being on-topic*. If you see off-topic homework questions, the appropriate action is to [flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) or [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="36d340bd-ee17-4a96-b529-02a3e5f74180" CreationDate="2013-11-13T22:01:34.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/400745280095936513" />
  <row Id="11425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="eddcb6eb-ea53-4c32-ae12-503caf40dac1" CreationDate="2013-11-14T00:19:10.670" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text=" - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5187" RevisionGUID="0de30f23-7751-4dec-a44f-7c2d20e4339e" CreationDate="2013-11-14T04:02:38.570" UserId="12350" Text="The purpose of physics stack exchange is simply to allow students from across the world to ask their homework questions, and for students and experts to gain personal fulfillment from answering other's people's homework questions, improving assignment grades around the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="d1ffaf97-96fd-40e7-a5ca-4c28b6f770c1" CreationDate="2013-11-14T05:03:50.130" UserId="12350" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][16]][17] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11430" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a83e6c71-eab3-4162-b50e-7f5db0a84f71" CreationDate="2013-11-14T11:48:01.130" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|formatting|markdown|stress-energy-tensor|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="07074273-8a25-46d5-9a32-1b7032721549" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:09:50.107" UserId="16941" Text="What will happen if I lose all my reputation by asking bullshit question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="07074273-8a25-46d5-9a32-1b7032721549" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:09:50.107" UserId="16941" Text="What will happen if I lose all my reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="07074273-8a25-46d5-9a32-1b7032721549" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:09:50.107" UserId="16941" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5191" RevisionGUID="cd0502be-2abd-4ed4-8333-486ff1e5d46e" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:18:58.833" UserId="7433" Text="Your reputation will go to 1, and you won't be able to do anything except post, suggest edits, and accept answers. If you ask too many low quality questions after being asked not to, there's a chance you will get suspended, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't deliberately ask bad questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11437" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="489c6883-0969-4b50-846f-bfc9c507362e" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:23:26.840" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5192" RevisionGUID="4d54b30e-4f6a-4d8f-af4c-98bb22072101" CreationDate="2013-11-14T18:39:04.030" UserId="22494" Text="It's actually pretty hard to lose all of your reputation.  There is a major imbalance between reputation gains and losses.  For example, if a question gets upvoted you get 5 reputation but if it gets downvoted you only lose 2.  See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/7237/how-does-reputation-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd have to put in a lot more effort to lose reputation than you have to put in to gain it.  You'd get suspended way before that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="57a64231-19fd-4a89-8bf2-dc191c367ccf" CreationDate="2013-11-15T04:56:47.247" UserId="5477" Text="A recent [proposal to change the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** these changes go ahead, we have to decide what to do about the [tag:homework] tag. This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="57a64231-19fd-4a89-8bf2-dc191c367ccf" CreationDate="2013-11-15T04:56:47.247" UserId="5477" Text="Banning homework: what to do with the tag if the policy is changed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="57a64231-19fd-4a89-8bf2-dc191c367ccf" CreationDate="2013-11-15T04:56:47.247" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="30a3b10b-0230-4afb-8432-1f6222ea0d26" CreationDate="2013-11-15T04:58:22.467" UserId="5477" Text="**Answer for voting:** We should go with **policy option 1**, the least-radical change. We should keep the [tag:homework] tag, and some [tag:homework] questions would be on topic, as is currently the case. We would have the option to discuss removing the tag at a later date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11443" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="f93fff7a-3021-4516-b202-4b40bf7afa56" CreationDate="2013-11-15T04:58:22.467" UserId="5477" />
  <row Id="11444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="9dbab108-56d7-435f-a9a0-ea7f07754b14" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:00:05.957" UserId="5477" Text="**Answer for voting:** We should go with **policy option 2**, but **keep the tag** for now. Questions legitimately tagged with [tag:homework] would always be candidates for closing. We would have the option to discuss removing the tag at a later date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11445" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="4daa5445-31be-40e7-8636-f8d48278b4b1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:00:05.957" UserId="5477" />
  <row Id="11446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="77d2b5e6-8aee-47d6-9a03-a44b080291d4" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:02:50.203" UserId="5477" Text="**Answer for voting:** We should go with **policy option 2**, and **immediately burninate the tag**. There would be no specific tag for homework questions, and we would instead rely on all homework questions being rapidly closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11447" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="2c5c245f-5c56-4955-9a0e-20d534074af2" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:02:50.203" UserId="5477" />
  <row Id="11448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="3ab83da2-e1fe-4147-9bac-18a09b9ef8a6" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:03:40.227" UserId="5477" Comment="oops, wrong answer" Text="**Answer for voting:** We should go with **policy option 1**, the least-radical change. We should keep the [tag:homework] tag, and some [tag:homework] questions would be on topic, as is currently the case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="3b44dfef-d0cf-4f8b-8dd8-635650666b35" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:04:32.610" UserId="5477" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="A recent [suggestion about changing the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** these changes go ahead, we have to decide what to do about the [tag:homework] tag. This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="7385f612-c1ae-42dc-865b-ff15e0c231f2" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:10:27.977" UserId="5477" Text="**Answer for voting:** we should do **none of the above** but instead keep the current policy, or make some other change not covered by the proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11451" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="7385f612-c1ae-42dc-865b-ff15e0c231f2" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:10:27.977" UserId="5477" />
  <row Id="11452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="bb332c04-b048-4758-a611-f759a1db9cce" CreationDate="2013-11-15T06:29:45.423" UserId="124" Comment="convert question to FAQ/policy format" Text="What is the policy on asking for recommendations of books or resources on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;- What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;- How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;- As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11453" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="bb332c04-b048-4758-a611-f759a1db9cce" CreationDate="2013-11-15T06:29:45.423" UserId="124" Comment="convert question to FAQ/policy format" Text="Are resource recommendations allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="bb332c04-b048-4758-a611-f759a1db9cce" CreationDate="2013-11-15T06:29:45.423" UserId="124" Comment="convert question to FAQ/policy format" Text="|discussion|faq|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="fe25c9b5-91ee-4c83-bf00-77b416c77d3a" CreationDate="2013-11-15T06:30:05.907" UserId="124" Comment="change heading to match question" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by adding the banner, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;    resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;    style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;    resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;    for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;    or paper will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11457" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="3cbd0ee1-ef64-456e-a69b-e9007db9847f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:16:06.450" UserId="7433" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="1e4ca8c9-c80e-4c01-909a-967e4ccc9ef7" CreationDate="2013-11-15T08:14:29.993" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often we get questions of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;How to build this particular device?&quot; or&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Why was this design implemented in such-and-such product?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions appropriate for Physics Stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="f193620c-9e91-4b80-893b-97d3833b0c13" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:19:46.077" UserId="23119" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="A recent [suggestion about changing the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** these changes go ahead, we have to decide what to do about the [tag:homework] tag. This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: If all the answers are supposed to be Community Wiki here, shouldn't the question, too.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="4f349a16-0ca7-4e0a-9165-5f109119c15f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T12:18:57.680" UserId="1739" Comment="fixed omitted word" Text="I note http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange, but it seems to me that the accepted answer doesn't answer the question. I have no special wish to get excessively philosophical, but I think being clear what we're trying to achieve will help clarify vexed issues like homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside what SE are trying to achieve (profit presumably), it seems to me that good reasons for the effort we put into this site include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Fun&#xD;&#xA; 2. Encouraging interest in physics&#xD;&#xA; 3. Education&#xD;&#xA; 4. Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experience suggests that research will only ever be a tiny part of site activity because there are too few research physicists interested in participating. Let's also leave aside *Fun* because it's a given - few people will do things that aren't fun unless they're paid or forced to. If you're with me so far that means we basically have two aims, to encourage interest and to educate. Arguably *encouraging interest* is also educating, but at a popular science level, in which case our sole purpose in life is education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is supposed to be a question rather than just a diatribe, I guess my question is whether you agree with my analysis and if not, why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="d22703d1-910b-40b8-958f-cdbc14b92152" CreationDate="2013-11-15T13:45:30.380" UserId="12350" Text="**Policy Number 3:**  We let the community decide which homework questions to close by looking at vote counts.  Homework posts which reach a score of -3 get closed.  This is proposed because I believe some specific problems encountered in high level research or graduate studies may still be a good fit for this site, because in such instances it may not be possible to ask about a general concept without asking the specific problem that is faced.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11462" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="14ad6bc7-e86a-4375-9951-4ec050c6ea3f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:44:13.060" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11463" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="2bf94c63-f732-499c-9226-a194e0cc27c5" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:44:13.060" UserId="7433" Comment="1014" />
  <row Id="11464" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="4b79419c-78dd-4411-877e-528a2a9d37c7" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:44:22.483" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11465" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="16177723-15e6-4f53-9be8-82c5fe49a6a2" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:44:22.483" UserId="7433" Comment="1014" />
  <row Id="11466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="7946215a-3cc6-41ee-8c02-f6420e0fb0a5" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:46:02.553" UserId="7433" Text="We have [a new book/resource recommendation policy][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is of a form that it can only be applied to _new_ questions. We have many old questions with answers that do not satisfy the policy, what should we do about them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="7946215a-3cc6-41ee-8c02-f6420e0fb0a5" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:46:02.553" UserId="7433" Text="New book policy: What should we do about the old questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="7946215a-3cc6-41ee-8c02-f6420e0fb0a5" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:46:02.553" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="226abfc6-fb74-43ae-8d31-39a0f0303687" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:46:02.553" UserId="7433" Text="I propose that we edit the resource recommendation banner into these questions, making the _questions_ follow the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the answers, those which do _not_ follow the policy can be collected into a single Community Wiki answer. Maybe with a disclaimer about how it is no longer considered a good answer to a recommendation question. We could alternatively historical lock it, though the historical lock post notice seems to talk about questions even when applied to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, there aren't any broken windows, but the content is preserved. This requires some effort, though. I don't mind doing it myself, but I'll have to start a week from now. This isn't something urgent, so we can handle it at our leisure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="ccc4b457-0b88-4a18-88cd-a681a7d599ad" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:48:40.473" UserId="7433" Text="(Kept this answer here for voting, I don't agree with this myself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternate idea is to simply historical lock all the old questions. This has the disadvantage of disallowing new answers&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however it is less effort, especially as many of these are already locked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This can be partially remedied by allowing users to repost the question conforming to the new policy. That causes some unnecessary duplication of content though.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11471" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="c740bef9-084a-4d2f-9eed-238a218cd7f4" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:18:46.250" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [3b44dfef-d0cf-4f8b-8dd8-635650666b35]" Text="A recent [suggestion about changing the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** these changes go ahead, we have to decide what to do about the [tag:homework] tag. This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="09e75284-f4fb-45b8-bedb-36ffd7c3e4b3" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:41:05.710" UserId="1325" Text="With all the current discussions about homework and changing site rules, I'd think we're missing something in the [How to ask FAQ][1] and I'd be interested to hear the members' views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the single most important thing about the question is that some effort has gone into writing it. That is, we expect the OP to have done some Googling or other background reading and made an effort to make their question well posed i.e. clear and obvious what they're asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions tend to be the most egregious violators of this principle, but we also get the &quot;tell me about relativity&quot; type questions. At the risk of picking on someone [this question][2] is a recent example of an OP who hasn't done even basic research before asking a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguably, being well researched is more of an issue than being homework - after all a well researched homework question is almost inevitably about concepts rather than specifics, and therefore qualifies as a good question. So I suggest that rather than worrying about what exactly constitutes homework, we make our close/delete decisions on how well researched the question is. We should update the How to ask FAQ accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86681/blackhole-radiation-and-white-dwarfs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="09e75284-f4fb-45b8-bedb-36ffd7c3e4b3" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:41:05.710" UserId="1325" Text="Updating the *How to ask* FAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="09e75284-f4fb-45b8-bedb-36ffd7c3e4b3" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:41:05.710" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="8f928724-d2ad-4609-9aae-a1e5062bd3d7" CreationDate="2013-11-15T20:37:37.900" UserId="7433" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="(Kept this answer here for voting, I don't agree with this myself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternate idea is to simply (permanently) historical lock all the old questions. This has the disadvantage of disallowing new answers&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however it is less effort, especially as many of these are already locked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This can be partially remedied by allowing users to repost the question conforming to the new policy. That causes some unnecessary duplication of content though.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="7b4d730b-2e94-457c-80df-9defaac534e2" CreationDate="2013-11-15T21:00:04.863" UserId="4066" Text="Move the content into the relevant tag wikis, then delete the old questions. Those who have volunteered to be custodians of book questions (or at least, that subset who aren't currently suspended) should do this tag-wiki curation before any new book questions are started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way, no useful content is lost, and we find out if there's genuine maintenance commitment or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="f458446c-1adc-4eba-8ae1-2321956f18c0" CreationDate="2013-11-15T21:19:25.450" UserId="8563" Text="One of the things that bother me the most about book* recommendation requests is the endless stream of similar requests that can spout around any specific topic, for all the different possible reader levels and prerequisites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;I'm an undergrad and I want to learn QM&quot; says someone. &quot;Me too, but can you keep it to minimal functional analysis?&quot; says someone else. &quot;Actually, can you cut down on the linear algebra?&quot; and &quot;I haven't taken analytical mechanics, so could you go easy on the hamiltonians and lagrangians?&quot; say two more people... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and on and on it goes. It is completely impractical to have a new thread for each such request: we should have a single, canonical book-recommendation thread for, say, ~undergraduate quantum mechanics, and close all the requests in the paragraph above as duplicates of the main thread. I see this as absolutely necessary to avoid the quality dilution and the clutter that would come otherwise, and which led us to ban the tag to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is unfair on people coming to this site for book recommendations to give them no voice regarding what level of books are present in the answers to the canonical thread. If I do find the main thread and find it to be full of books that need no functional analysis, but I can't handle the linear algebra in them, I should still be able to invite answers at that level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand I'm a little late to the game, but I was busy working on other policy for the site. (And, you know, my PhD.) I nevertheless would like to propose a change in how the [recently adopted policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) works on the *question* side of the affair. (The answer side is, on the other hand, well dealt with, I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## I propose we keep a single thread per topic, and that the specific requests of level be included as edits and comments to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in this scheme all the requests above would be merged into a single thread which would be formatted along the following lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Good undergraduate quantum mechanics books&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are good books or online resources to learn quantum mechanics at an undergraduate level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Level of resources&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are looking for resources in this topic but you find the answers in this page too advanced or too basic, add a request in this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there good books that use minimal functional analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I'd like resources with very little linear algebra.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are books with little resource to lagrangians and hamiltonians? My analytical mechanics is a little shaky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proposal does require additional curatorial attention, in deleting parts of the resource-level list as they get addressed and newer requests are added. However, I feel that this is quite small in comparison with the bulk of work of curating the answers. It provides input to the people who have very specific requests, while keeping the answers condensed into one big resource that's useful for future visitors, instead of scattered into lots of small, specific lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as I have argued elsewhere, policy changes are only half policy changes if they don't come with a documentation proposal. Thus, this change could come with the following paragraph added to the [policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## How do I ask a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First of all, [search the site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?) to see if the topic has been asked before. Adding the tag `[books]` to your search may be useful. If the topic has not been covered, start a new question. Keep it general! We want questions and answers to be useful for future visitors. Ask for a specific topic. If you have a specific level or set of prerequisites that you'd like answers to address, add it, separately, at the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the topic *has* been covered, don't ask a new question! If the resources in that thread are too advanced or too basic for you, or you have some specific set of prerequisites that the current answers don't address, edit the current question to request it. Add your request to the list provided, or start one like the one in [this question]().&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*To appease the purists, throughout this post &quot;book recommendation&quot; should be understood to mean &quot;resource recommendation&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="f458446c-1adc-4eba-8ae1-2321956f18c0" CreationDate="2013-11-15T21:19:25.450" UserId="8563" Text="Dealing with level of resources in requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="f458446c-1adc-4eba-8ae1-2321956f18c0" CreationDate="2013-11-15T21:19:25.450" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="e212aa0c-d2a0-4033-8471-4cc2a2bf1ce9" CreationDate="2013-11-15T21:33:25.710" UserId="8563" Text="##Can we please keep it to one-resource-per-answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of the answers referenced in [our recent policy for resource recommendations](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) have long answers that include multiple resources, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363/getting-started-general-relativity/376#376). While this keeps things compact in a way, it makes it difficult for people to upvote specific resources. This substantially under-uses the capabilities of our platform, which is great for good answers to float up and OK ones to stay further down in the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we make it policy that answers to resource recommendations include only one resource per answer? This involves, of course, the possibility of as many answers per user as necessary on each thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two thoughts on dealing with the consequences. First, doing this opens the door to huge reputation farming. This would make a bit of an argument for making all answers community wiki - though if you come up with multiple good books and provide good reviews of them, why should you not have some rep? Secondly, it would add some initial and long-term curatorial stress in separating multi-resource answers, but I don't think this is unreasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="faaba620-e866-45c0-9819-e75d6a1dfcf3" CreationDate="2013-11-16T01:19:38.093" UserId="12350" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][16]][17] &#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Problems][18]][19] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][13]][14] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/40709.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36039.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36039/quantum-information-and-foundations&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58505.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58505/climate-change-climatology-mitigation-and-adaptation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/50229.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/50229/computational-origami&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition &#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/61943.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/61943/physics-problems " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="022cd5c7-920e-45fd-9187-a7d606db5e24" CreationDate="2013-11-16T05:41:37.967" UserId="5477" Comment="Some people have misunderstood the purpose of the question; tried to prevent that; edited title" Text="A recent [suggestion about changing the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** we decide to change the homework policy, we have to decide what the new version will say about the [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="022cd5c7-920e-45fd-9187-a7d606db5e24" CreationDate="2013-11-16T05:41:37.967" UserId="5477" Comment="Some people have misunderstood the purpose of the question; tried to prevent that; edited title" Text="Fine-tuning the proposed homework policy: what to do with the tag if the policy is changed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="62225195-83ed-4f31-81e0-4e251a960012" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:37:58.643" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;Space&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;←&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11490" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="d752051e-c1b6-4383-9401-a3df346eb83f" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:38:04.893" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [7424c761-1450-456b-8f8b-c7b3e7a51f6a]" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;Space&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;left-arrow&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="4335b824-d1f0-4ef8-8c93-b15d42965f6c" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:38:57.897" UserId="23119" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; {Space Bar} &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;←&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11492" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="c898ce15-8a40-4b9c-a0b0-07f702a42ac8" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:40:35.700" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [d752051e-c1b6-4383-9401-a3df346eb83f]" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;Space&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;left-arrow&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="b7a813b0-83e6-4502-be13-5da21efb66c9" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:41:01.233" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;←&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11494" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="9e29c418-179e-49fd-99d0-7304ef00839c" CreationDate="2013-11-16T16:01:41.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/401741873817329664" />
  <row Id="11495" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="5331a3c7-6695-4d2d-84b4-819540cea118" CreationDate="2013-11-16T17:04:04.687" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [7424c761-1450-456b-8f8b-c7b3e7a51f6a]" Text="Works for me on Srware Iron (Google Chrome derivative) v16.0.950.0 on Windows XP X-64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the problem go away if you clear your browser cache, stop your Apache process, and try again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, select the mathjax popup window on the taskbar so that it's active; then press &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;Space&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;m&lt;/kbd&gt;, then &lt;kbd&gt;left-arrow&lt;/kbd&gt;, then waggle the mouse around a long way in each direction: this can help get errant windows back onto the main screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="2e302d21-a6a1-44d7-b941-6f295ccbe05a" CreationDate="2013-11-17T04:26:27.083" UserId="5477" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**Answer for voting: option 1** We should go with **policy option 1**, the least-radical change. We should keep the [tag:homework] tag, and some [tag:homework] questions would be on topic, as is currently the case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="99b6535b-2552-48b0-877b-f8173ec90eb7" CreationDate="2013-11-17T04:27:25.243" UserId="5477" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="**Answer for voting: option 2.2** We should go with **policy option 2**, and **immediately burninate the tag**. There would be no specific tag for homework questions, and we would instead rely on all homework questions being rapidly closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="c7ebcc0b-1892-4680-b240-4348e5c1136d" CreationDate="2013-11-17T04:27:52.027" UserId="5477" Comment="added 11 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="**Answer for voting: option 2.1** We should go with **policy option 2**, but **keep the tag** for now. Questions legitimately tagged with [tag:homework] would always be candidates for closing. **We would have the option to discuss removing the tag at a later date.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="84fd95f6-2a87-4c49-a3be-6c7f96683c34" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:51:56.657" UserId="34141" Text="Would I be allowed to post question relating to seismic image processing on Physics SE under the &quot;Geophysics&quot; tab?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="84fd95f6-2a87-4c49-a3be-6c7f96683c34" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:51:56.657" UserId="34141" Text="Seismic image processing questions on Physics SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="84fd95f6-2a87-4c49-a3be-6c7f96683c34" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:51:56.657" UserId="34141" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="0a56bc06-16dc-40ba-8631-9f87a72e1885" CreationDate="2013-11-18T21:11:57.443" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5211" RevisionGUID="53684e78-67f9-4195-85e3-78d51bda4cdc" CreationDate="2013-11-18T23:08:38.327" UserId="124" Text="I can't say anything for sure without seeing the question itself, but probably not. Remember, questions posted on this site have to be about physics. Image processing doesn't really fall under that scope. The tags exist only to _classify_ questions, not to tell you which ones are on topic and which ones aren't. (Though a lack of appropriate tags does tend to _suggest_ that a question is off topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes questions of this nature are on topic at [DSP](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/), so you could check there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="8500f200-0c51-4fa3-b5d1-eb1804c54a1f" CreationDate="2013-11-19T00:13:18.797" UserId="8563" Text="It's hard without knowing what you want to do and, indeed, without seeing the question. Depending on its content it may be on topic at DSP, or possibly Computational Science. However, you can always ask  the question here and find out later that it's not a good fit for this site; seeing the question will help us direct you to a better home for it if it isn't. (If you do, of course, link to it here and to this discussion from there.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="786131c3-3722-412f-b2b2-c8c0880dedaa" CreationDate="2013-11-19T15:55:23.280" UserId="23119" Comment="edited body" Text="Would I be allowed to post question relating to seismic image processing on Physics SE under the &quot;Geophysics&quot; tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="786131c3-3722-412f-b2b2-c8c0880dedaa" CreationDate="2013-11-19T15:55:23.280" UserId="23119" Comment="edited body" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="268fe9a0-10ee-4a69-934a-ec5a7f9aa482" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:28:48.777" UserId="7433" Text="Last year, we had the [Winter Bash][1] on Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who weren't around or don't remember, the event is one where completing various achievements on the site earns you different hats that can be &quot;worn&quot; on site; appearing on top of your gravatar wherever it is shown on the site. They're basically badges that you can wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to let the team know whether or not we want to participate as a site this year. So, what say? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that individuals can opt out if they wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://winterba.sh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="268fe9a0-10ee-4a69-934a-ec5a7f9aa482" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:28:48.777" UserId="7433" Text="Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="268fe9a0-10ee-4a69-934a-ec5a7f9aa482" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:28:48.777" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5214" RevisionGUID="15542e29-1862-4d36-80b2-c22201bfd366" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:28:56.713" UserId="7433" Text="Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In other words, upvote this if you want hats)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5215" RevisionGUID="59680ca8-b543-4a00-a4df-0702062c05dd" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:30:04.750" UserId="7433" Text="I don't think that Physics.SE should participate in this event. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="f64d95e2-4311-4fb0-9a8f-38c94c23b55b" CreationDate="2013-11-20T03:06:31.327" UserId="23119" Comment="`Better woording`    " Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by adding the banner, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Before answering, please see [**our policy**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;    resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;    **style, content, and prerequisites** of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;    resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;    for them rather than blindly relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;    or paper will be deleted.  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; And please, note that any answers to this are **community-owned**, which means that they are subject to  heavy editing, especially to make them comply with the book policy, to avoid deletion.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question specifically specifies the content level or style required, please also add that to the banner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; This question specifically asks for,...    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="2ba59d77-e662-4d23-8abc-e3e11bd2c11e" CreationDate="2013-11-20T03:18:38.100" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|hats|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5214" RevisionGUID="4302815f-a4a3-466a-b0d8-c33dbeffc52c" CreationDate="2013-11-20T03:19:29.243" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In other words, upvote this if you want hats)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5215" RevisionGUID="598fda39-679f-4185-bae7-2c8659dff3d9" CreationDate="2013-11-20T03:20:30.877" UserId="23119" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="I don't think that Physics.SE should participate in this event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In other words, upvote if you don't want hats.)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11525" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5215" RevisionGUID="c76b1e6d-7c83-4d56-afc7-12314310eaa4" CreationDate="2013-11-20T06:11:59.460" UserId="7433" Comment="Rollback to [59680ca8-b543-4a00-a4df-0702062c05dd]" Text="I don't think that Physics.SE should participate in this event. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5215" RevisionGUID="93090032-acfa-4fae-8dcd-5cf82119b8eb" CreationDate="2013-11-20T06:12:13.167" UserId="7433" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I don't think that Physics.SE as a whole should participate in this event. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11527" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="ae428f94-fbac-4131-ac0c-257ff463ea6e" CreationDate="2013-11-20T13:01:53.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/403146176503250944" />
  <row Id="11528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="f216de73-5ac1-43b8-a5ad-e2ebde9eb572" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:04:06.423" UserId="26063" Text="I assume that I am correct in thinking that the site does not support discussing personal research, is there some online place where we can discuss our research ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this question here cause I could not find any such place on google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="f216de73-5ac1-43b8-a5ad-e2ebde9eb572" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:04:06.423" UserId="26063" Text="discussing personal research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="f216de73-5ac1-43b8-a5ad-e2ebde9eb572" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:04:06.423" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="c41c2dcc-11cf-4b4d-87a6-746932ba95d7" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:14:00.780" UserId="7433" Text="Yes, you are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if one comes across an issue while doing research, they are welcome to ask it as long as the question is working within the framework of modern mainstream physics. However, especially since discussion questions are not allowed here, discussing one's research usually leads to a question that is either open ended, broad, or non mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We sometimes discuss research in [chat][1], though we rarely talk of the exact details&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the research that is being done, people are free to do so. (Just don't annoy people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Modern cutting-edge research is usually of the kind that one needs an appreciable depth of knowledge in that subfield to understand it.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="771a6e76-fff5-478c-834d-b562a4f60660" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:24:34.027" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11533" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="1b454e21-3fb7-4f1b-a227-fac8aaa0cedd" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:35:02.907" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="45a489db-3800-40ce-9376-7a6a19d4d2f7" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:45:39.340" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="Last year, we had the [Winter Bash][1] on Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who weren't around or don't remember, the event is one where completing various achievements on the site earns you different hats that can be &quot;worn&quot; on site; appearing on top of your gravatar wherever it is shown on the site. They're basically badges that you can wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to let the team know whether or not we want to participate as a site this year. So, what say? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that individuals can opt out if they wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Given the response, I've submitted the form for enabling it on our site. Those who didn't want hats, let us know if you are having trouble disabling it (note: it's only going to be around for the last week of December). Those who want hats, here's something to satiate your hunger for hats until the Winter Bash:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://winterba.sh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZN824.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11535" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="06bca66d-f25b-40a2-b877-e413e9294aa9" CreationDate="2013-11-20T20:45:47.700" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [fe25c9b5-91ee-4c83-bf00-77b416c77d3a]" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by adding the banner, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for book questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from grammar/formatting fixes, edit the following banner into the top of our question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;    resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;    style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;    resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;    for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;    or paper will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="3dda5e3a-0183-4c4b-9e01-e5c8eccfd20c" CreationDate="2013-11-20T22:38:52.163" UserId="520" Text="One thing I like to say to people with questions like this is that you keep explaining why you would like to have your question on Physics.SE (and we get that, we really do), but you have not explained why Physics.SE would benefit by hosting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how good *your question* might be, to allow this category would be to open our doors to an endless stream of low quality musing by every Tom Dick and Harry who thinks he knows something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="7815ccf9-7f91-475e-82bd-28ec9d10a589" CreationDate="2013-11-21T08:25:13.717" UserId="26063" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87249/electro-gravito-generator?noredirect=1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the question to clarify the problem, but still it has been marked as question not clear and hold. Can it possibly be spared from the hold tag now ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="7815ccf9-7f91-475e-82bd-28ec9d10a589" CreationDate="2013-11-21T08:25:13.717" UserId="26063" Text="Could this question be put off hold now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="7815ccf9-7f91-475e-82bd-28ec9d10a589" CreationDate="2013-11-21T08:25:13.717" UserId="26063" Text="|support|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="d422af46-4a84-47a0-9cd2-274bb9cd678f" CreationDate="2013-11-21T10:39:24.980" UserId="7433" Text="You started off that post with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now I know that the site frowns on homebrew research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...I think you already should know why it's on hold/closed then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perpetual motion machines (and other similar devices like free energy machines) are (almost always) off topic on the main site because usually they arise from some flaw of assuming ideality. The same goes for yours. As I mentioned in response to your other post, original research isn't allowed, so even if the post is unclear, it should be closed as non mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="12a0cf17-ae2e-4fc7-9d42-73103a9709ab" CreationDate="2013-11-21T13:02:01.017" UserId="825" Text="I can understand the motivation behind this well, and if this is the majority's wish, then so be it of course. However, I personally believe this is a big mistake. Let me try to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As someone who is about to complete his PhD, I consider myself to be already a good physicist in my field, but an *expert* only in homework and problem sheets :-). I have been spending a large fraction of the past decade doing those! I believe I am in good company there.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By banning every kind of homework, we don't necessarily increase the quality of contributions to the site. **We just reduce the audience.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We should distinguish between bad and good homework questions. I wholeheartedly agree that the kind of bad questions that tend to swamp the front page should be banned:&#xD;&#xA;  * Badly worded, confusing questions, Grammar/spelling mistakes, no caps, no TeX.&#xD;&#xA;  * &quot;Give me the solution / check my calculation / I'm stuck&quot; kind of questions&#xD;&#xA;  * Really specialized obscure calculation details a la &quot;how do I solve this integral&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Good homework questions in my opinion would be **canonical, polished, clear problem sheet excercises**, that we all have encountered at some point, and that can teach you a lot by going through them. Examples from the top of my head: &quot;Calculate the gravity field inside a hollow sphere&quot;, &quot;Reflection/Transmission of a wavefunction on a potential&quot;, &quot;Calculate the density of states in a nucleus / a metal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; A good answer would be more high- than low-level. (#1: &quot;The problem becomes much easier when you choose spherical coordinates. Or compare the mass in a cone behind and in front of you.&quot;) Maybe one could put calcuational details in a spoiler box (as used on other SE sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I believe the old policy has been encouraging the bad kind of question. *Don't post the whole problem, but break it down into small steps. Ask about the specific step where you are stuck. Ask about specific concepts that give you difficulties.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The problem is that a physics learner **doesn't know yet which concepts to apply**. If they don't understand the problem, of course their questions will be bad! They would benefit much much more from a bird's eye view of the excercise solution, than from help in the gritty details. This brings me to the final point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We have to consider how physics is taught at universities. There are lectures, which are more for exposition in my experience. You don't learn much by just consuming lectures. There are textbooks for working through the topics in detail. But you learn by far the most by doing the excercises (and lab courses); ideally in a study group with your fellow students. By doing lots of excercises again and again, you develop a feeling for which concepts and techniques to apply when. And I believe there is value in not just finding the solution, but learning a canonical, elegant way of solving the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**If physics is martial arts, problem sheets are [kata][1].** As such an integral part of physics, I believe they have to be a part of a physics Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5222" RevisionGUID="a66cfd19-21c4-49aa-988d-d17e6b542fe5" CreationDate="2013-11-21T13:31:26.397" UserId="825" Text="Regardless of the policy, I'd burninate* it, but for different reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a meta-tag, and not very useful for searching. (It might be good for ignoring, but since homework questions are about to be banned anyway, it shouldn't be necessary in the future.)&#xD;&#xA;* Currently, it just means &quot;don't give the OP a full answer&quot;. Or worse, &quot;answer only in riddles, or as if you were talking to a student&quot;. I'd personally perceive it as condescending to see that tag added to one of my questions without asking me. From the tag wiki [tag:homework]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Applies to questions of primarily educational value - not only questions that arise from actual homework assignments, but any question where **it is preferable to guide the asker to the answer rather than giving it away outright**. Please READ THE GUIDANCE IN META before asking homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*) never thought I'd use that word!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5223" RevisionGUID="3e0a98e8-228c-4eec-9f99-ade334e17ab8" CreationDate="2013-11-21T20:12:11.937" UserId="8563" Text="I can think of an analogous *on*-topic question about *perpetuum mobiles*, which was phrased in a way that did *not* bring in non-mainstream physics: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75471/what-prevents-this-magnetic-perpetuum-mobile-from-working/. Three points to note for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That question is on topic, and it got good answers, mostly because of the tone it was asked in. If you're asking us to do your work, then we probably have more interesting things to do. If you present us with an interesting puzzle, then some of us will be more interested. &#xD;&#xA; - Additionally, that question makes it clear that this is within mainstream physics. Perpetuum mobile proposals are off-topic in this site because they always have, and always will, turn out hollow. If you're trying to convince us that yours works, you're barking up the wrong tree, and our patience is likely to run short quite quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - The method given in my answer, and the associated physics, will to hold in a modified form for the device you propose. The electrostatic and gravitational fields are conservative, so your pendulum bob will respond to some specific, conservative, potential energy landscape, which is on you to calculate. You will *not* be able to harvest energy simply from gravitational and electrostatic forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, I have little interest in following up on your proposal. As DumspterDoofus explained, there's a general theorem that disqualifies your device. You're doing something wrong and it's on you to figure out what." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="f339594f-5257-49e2-b5d5-771ea1cfb506" CreationDate="2013-11-22T05:09:40.723" UserId="17361" Text="Sometimes, when I ask a question and I'm not sure how to word it, as is often the reason why I must ask the community in the first place, I miss some information or other important details.  This is the result of not really knowing what I was looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example could be &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87460/write-a-parabolic-equation-in-kinematics/87463?noredirect=1#87463&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, in which I needed a way to turn my kinematic details into a parabolic equation.  In short, I made a mistake in quoting the standard form and didn't notice it until the answerer kindly pointed it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have already edited the question once and I have a best answer.  I know about editing old questions and I get the feeling that the community doesn't much care if I elaborate upon the question, but this would be a minor edit to correct some misinformation.  It would bump the question to the main page again (for what I know) and inadvertently *take away* from other questions, if nothing else.  So, even if the user base doesn't mind seeing the same question again for a frivolous edit, it still pushes more relevant questions down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is, should I make this small edit or not?**  &#xD;&#xA;If I don't, the question will have misinformation (probably not harmful, however).  &#xD;&#xA;If I do, the question will be bumped to the main page and affect more recent questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="f339594f-5257-49e2-b5d5-771ea1cfb506" CreationDate="2013-11-22T05:09:40.723" UserId="17361" Text="Editing a question for a small edit after having a best answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="f339594f-5257-49e2-b5d5-771ea1cfb506" CreationDate="2013-11-22T05:09:40.723" UserId="17361" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5225" RevisionGUID="a3817089-fb91-4ef1-a058-56fd2ce55f42" CreationDate="2013-11-22T06:11:57.193" UserId="124" Text="Occasional minor edits are fine. Don't worry about bumping your question to the front page; there's nothing wrong with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we do frown on is making a _lot_ of minor edits, especially over a short period, or making trivial edits that don't improve the quality of the question at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="d5b1cf62-7faf-4f6a-b190-8443dc7d310f" CreationDate="2013-11-22T17:31:36.933" UserId="11484" Text="What is our policy on [lmgtfy][1] links? Some questions show no research effort by the OP, and while most of the times, it is sufficient to suggest a google search, [some questions][2] seem to be begging for a lmgtfy comment. Is it acceptable, or is it considered rude / inappropriate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lmgtfy&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87519/what-is-hydel-electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="d5b1cf62-7faf-4f6a-b190-8443dc7d310f" CreationDate="2013-11-22T17:31:36.933" UserId="11484" Text="Policy on lmgtfy links" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="d5b1cf62-7faf-4f6a-b190-8443dc7d310f" CreationDate="2013-11-22T17:31:36.933" UserId="11484" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="96988c99-8360-41a9-a21b-92586caabba9" CreationDate="2013-11-22T17:35:49.623" UserId="21817" Text="Please don't make any lmgtfy comments. They will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/109713/is-lmgtfy-frowned-upon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="b304e7a3-3b38-424f-8636-258f4b0fbd39" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:51:21.463" UserId="520" Text="The overarching &quot;Be nice&quot; directive means that LMGTFY links are right out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some people are unselfconsciously out to take advantage of us, and yes this is very, *very* annoying. None-the-less we're going to be the better people here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free free to vote to close such question when you have the privilege. Or to flag them if you don't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="9b359018-6756-4b8b-be30-617832130fac" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:32:48.827" UserId="22494" Text="When I first saw http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether my initial reaction was &quot;hell yeah!&quot;.  As I've thought about the issue more though, I wonder if banning homework will do Physics.SE more harm in the long-run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of [David's answer][1] is particularly apt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually *stop* people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David is absolutely right that no matter what our Homework Policy ends up being, we can't stop homework questions from being posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is another, possibly more important issue though.  This is a small community and if we don't bring in new members at a healthy rate the membership will decay over time.  It can already be hard for inexperienced members to find questions to answer or ways to gain reputation and feel like they're a part of the community.  I suspect banning homework and aggressively closing homework questions will alienate some new users that we actually want to have stick around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions are already &quot;essentially banned&quot; and it's a lot of work to close them.  I don't really see how changing our policy to more explicitly state that they are banded will do anything meaningful to help the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead, we actually relaxed our homework policy we could aggressively tag homework questions and tell all members that don't like them to put the tag in their ignore filter.  I don't see any harm in letting homework questions go ignored and unanswered and doing so would allow inexperienced users a chance to try their hand answering them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With banned homework we're essentially telling potential users to go get experience somewhere else and come back when they're ready.  Could we adjust our homework policy to give these users a chance to get experience here while also not frustrating our veteran users that hate homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, does banning homework do long-term harm for only short-term gain?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/22494" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="9b359018-6756-4b8b-be30-617832130fac" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:32:48.827" UserId="22494" Text="Does banning homework do long-term harm for only short-term gain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="9b359018-6756-4b8b-be30-617832130fac" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:32:48.827" UserId="22494" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="69a14ca1-b572-466a-b21a-d2ffba9c9382" CreationDate="2013-11-24T03:25:26.983" UserId="520" Text="Of course it is possible to write a set of restrictions on question that would impede growth and chase beginners away to get their experience elsewhere (and thereby transfer their loyalties), but we don't just need more users we need *good* users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And good users mean one who can write *good* posts. So let me counter with another quote from the same thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IMO an on topic HW question is indistinguishable from a normal question when the &quot;this is HW&quot; part is excised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not *per se* homework versus not *per se* homework, it is questions that show some level of thought and preparation versus those that do not. Personally I don't want to spend my time on site full of rotten no-effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've having rather a it of trouble with that kind of thing right now and it is *pissing me off*. At times it is all I can do to to remain civil on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Do my homework for me&quot; is just one of several red flags for a bad question, but bad questions are bad and they should go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beginner's questions should be allowed but we should *insist* that they be good ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your proposal is a suggestion that are skilled and experienced users should ignore the junk. That arrangement would allow the junk to proliferate without bound. In my opinion it is the very worst thing we could do because visitors and new user *will see all the junk*. Indeed they we see a site dominated by crap, and they will form the obvious opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had this argument out on Stack Overflow. The inclusionists were ascendant for a couple of years, but many of them came around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that we can or would attempt to stop any user form applying what filters they would, but making it policy to ignore the crap is simply a bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="e947f0d3-e8ea-4fba-95aa-b3762b0e0a42" CreationDate="2013-11-25T08:27:57.287" UserId="1325" Text="I have some sympathy with Brandon's point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit concerned we'll end up seeming an unfriendly and elitist site. The moderators are admirably tactful in dealing with homework questions, but I see comments to homework questions that while justified strike me as a bit bitchy. I worry these will put new users off - it's easy for us old timers to forget how intimidating asking your first question can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other point that strikes me is that I see various questions about esoteric subjects like supersymmetry that look awfully like homework set by a PhD supervisor, but of course the level is far higher than the usual homework question. These tend not to be tagged as homework (possibly because few of understand them :-) so presumable there is some ill defined cut-off point where homework ceases to be homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picking up on a point made in David's answer, it seems to me the most important thing is the amount of effort that's been put into writing the question. This is what I was getting at in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5203/updating-the-how-to-ask-faq. At the moment we have a *Homework* tag and we have a close reason that says *Homework like questions ... should show some effort*. The homework tag works fine, but I think the close reason should be unrelated to whether the the question is homework. The close reason should be that the OP hasn't made sufficient effort. This would be applied to homework, but would also be applied to questions like *Tell me about the Standard Model* that we get from time to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="903a83ec-03f7-4b57-a518-aaf7671fb11c" CreationDate="2013-11-25T12:06:31.710" UserId="8563" Comment="Spelling. Added links. Sorry to meddle." Text="The overarching &quot;Be nice&quot; directive means that LMGTFY links are right out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some people are unselfconsciously out to take advantage of us, and yes this is very, *very* annoying. None-the-less we're going to be the better people here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to vote to close such question [when you have the privilege](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). Or to [flag them](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) if you don't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="edf1b0c2-b274-42f1-9685-25507dcf646d" CreationDate="2013-11-25T12:21:43.943" UserId="8563" Text="This answer contains the discussion in the comments to [the question that sparked this discussion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper), which was originally posted at the (now defunct) [Theoretical Physics](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- 	&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;I have asked the [relevant question on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563). – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="2b8ed54b-90c1-403d-8693-19516951a265" CreationDate="2013-11-25T12:29:41.040" UserId="8563" Comment="Streamlined question." Text="We occasionally get &quot;find me a PDF&quot; requests, where a user knows exactly the paper she needs and (presumably because of a paywall) asks how to obtain an electronic copy of it. This has typically been considered off-topic, and I agree that a site built around how to get behind paywalls is not a good thing to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this question of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27503/8563), which asked the former Theoretical Physics site about how one might obtain _any_ copies of a particularly hard-to-obtain paper, has been [put on hold as off-topic](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/27503/revisions) for this reason. I [argued in the comments](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5232), and I repeat it here, that this is a question that requires an good knowledge of the physics literature and that future questions like this should definitely be allowed. If I am desperate to find a given paper, have the exact reference, and have looked everywhere, then I would be glad to be able to voice it in a gathering of physicists. I feel banning questions like this would devalue this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we decide to allow this, then we also need to define where to draw the line. If you (dis)agree on the general principle, (down)up-vote the main answer to this question, and voice your ideas for appropriate criteria!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11586" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="2b8ed54b-90c1-403d-8693-19516951a265" CreationDate="2013-11-25T12:29:41.040" UserId="8563" Comment="Streamlined question." Text="|discussion|faq|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="afb20c1d-a146-4675-87d8-bb279fb85527" CreationDate="2013-11-25T15:06:53.893" UserId="8563" Text="This question was recently bumped to the front page: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9874/video-documentaries-about-physics. It lay dormant for many years, which explains why it wasn't closed under the previous absolutely-not [tag:books] policy. Now that we have a more permissive policy on resource recommendation requests, the question is in principle on-topic, but I feel that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###this question is too broad to be a good [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the idea of asking for documentaries is, I think, quite nice, such threads ought to be confined to much more specific topics. Otherwise,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say ye?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="afb20c1d-a146-4675-87d8-bb279fb85527" CreationDate="2013-11-25T15:06:53.893" UserId="8563" Text="Isn't &quot;video documentaries about physics?&quot; too broad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="afb20c1d-a146-4675-87d8-bb279fb85527" CreationDate="2013-11-25T15:06:53.893" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|scope|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="0059913a-ce75-4ee0-ba80-b1dbf6186e58" CreationDate="2013-11-25T16:38:46.740" UserId="16660" Text="I agree that effort is the main decider between a good question and a bad one. Since my thoughts seem to be very close to yours, this answer is essentially the same idea expressed differently. Hopefully it can also make this meta post more active, because it seems to have slipped right past me to be honest, while I think it's a very important one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good questions show effort, regardless of the level at which they are asked. Be it about a layman's explanation of black holes, a particular problem from a syllabus posing problems to a student, a random everyday phenomenon noticed by a perceptive/curious mind or a research-level pondering of a professional physicist. If the question shows clear effort from the OP, outlining the problem and their own thoughts, it's likely going to be a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way such a question could still be considered bad is if it falls outside the scope, it's offensive, it's a duplicate (which can also point to low research effort) or if it's not a question at all. A question about some crazy theory connecting the female menstrual cycle to minute trembles in the earth's crust is obviously off-topic. A question à la &quot;Pay only 500$ and find your perfect partner.&quot; is not a question and obviously spam. I won't give an example of an offensive question, but I recall there has been at least one incident in the past where a single user got very personal and offensive toward another user in questions specifically asked for this purpose. Obviously this is intolerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: questions which show *sufficient* effort should, if I haven't missed anything, be easy to classify as either good or bad on the basis of other clear features. Questions which show little to no effort should be put on hold with a close reason pointing out the insufficient effort, with no mention of homework. Of course the homework policy can still be maintained, but it just becomes part of a larger idea, which should clearly shine through to people asking a question. This idea is obviously already present in the close reason for homework, but there should really just be a general close reason for low effort question. This way, questions like &quot;Explain relativity to me&quot; are also included - as John already pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: a question should not be categorized according to whether it is a challenge to the people viewing it, it should be categorized according to whether the person to whom it *is* a challenge has made sufficient effort in describing the what and why of this challenge and their own thoughts/attempted solutions. Copy-paste homework questions are mindbendingly irritating because of the copy-paste part, not the homework part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first way to make this idea of sufficient effort clear for all questions is to put it into the text on the right-hand side of the ASK QUESTION page. This should be editable since a little text about homework is written there, with a link to the meta post dealing with our homework policy. The second way is to change the homework close reason to a general low-effort close reason, which will include cases of low-effort homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="0b82b7cb-1706-4f41-9300-5b087613ea4a" CreationDate="2013-11-25T19:15:43.843" UserId="9719" Text="I agree, for all the reasons you listed. I have flagged and voted accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="486ecf87-fd76-4a35-a60d-3d0377f2116a" CreationDate="2013-11-25T19:39:41.910" UserId="8563" Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Can we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="486ecf87-fd76-4a35-a60d-3d0377f2116a" CreationDate="2013-11-25T19:39:41.910" UserId="8563" Text="Books banner: top or bottom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="486ecf87-fd76-4a35-a60d-3d0377f2116a" CreationDate="2013-11-25T19:39:41.910" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="87c6bc07-e8b1-4499-9ca1-422fcbbe4354" CreationDate="2013-11-25T21:32:26.817" UserId="6634" Text="On the flip side, I think having it in the preview makes perfect sense and just helps reinforce the point. The title should be sufficient to tell what kind of book the person is looking for (at least the subject area) and having the banner in the preview just makes it so the person who might answer it sees the banner before even reading the page. I think that's much more useful that seeing somebody's first sentence or two that just repeats what the title says anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the title and tags don't reveal the subject matter, then they should be fixed anyway. Keeping the banner at the top, and keeping it in the preview, means that people who answer it are hit twice with the requirements as opposed to one or potentially zero times if they don't read to the bottom of the question. And since the banner is detailing rules for how to answer, I think that's a good thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="32b9767c-3bb9-4eab-800a-944033df4ca6" CreationDate="2013-11-25T21:46:23.343" UserId="8563" Comment="I'm actually neutral towards this. I'm keeping the question vote count relevant, though." Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up(down)vote this question if you (dis)agree, or voice any concerns in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="a07b3526-1437-472c-a2b0-da24017885ed" CreationDate="2013-11-26T05:21:01.920" UserId="31782" Text="i answered this question some days ago:  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87205/electric-heating-rod/87221#87221   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;soon my answer got downvoted and other community users started to explain the dangers involved with that equipment(**electric heating heating rod**).but i didn't find the tag *laboratory-safety* or any of such kind.  &#xD;&#xA;But the people who posted the comments and answers are highly reputed so i think that i misunderstood the question and i too explained a bit about the safety of that equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;but after i edited my answer it got another downvote. I think my answer is not appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As i understand the author of question asked about the physics concept involved  in getting electric current through his body.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am new to this site please give any suggestions how i improve my answer. Should i explain the dangers involved or should i explain the reason why OP felt current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="a07b3526-1437-472c-a2b0-da24017885ed" CreationDate="2013-11-26T05:21:01.920" UserId="31782" Text="Is ther any Home safety precaution tag on physics.stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="a07b3526-1437-472c-a2b0-da24017885ed" CreationDate="2013-11-26T05:21:01.920" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5240" RevisionGUID="6ae77437-31ab-46b1-8677-7cf44780a59b" CreationDate="2013-11-26T05:36:05.807" UserId="124" Text="I couldn't say why your answer was being downvoted, but in case this is what you're asking: the rule is that people should not take safety advice from this site. This is spelled out in section 5 of the [TOS](http://stackexchange.com/legal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the fullest extent allowed by law, Stack Exchange disclaims any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, availability, completeness, legality or operability of the material or services provided on this Network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, legally speaking, that means people _can_ post safety recommendations (things like &quot;yes, it is safe to put your heating iron in a bucket of water&quot;) and it's our readers' obligation to know that they should not take that advice. But there's another issue at hand, which is that this is a site about _physics concepts_, and that's pretty much mutually exclusive with safety advice. So our informal policy has been that if an answer (or even a comment) says something is safe or unsafe, that's going outside the scope of the information we are supposed to provide. I don't think that's ever really been written down anywhere, but it's been de facto &quot;enforced&quot; by stern comments. We could definitely make a [meta-tag:faq] post about that, though, if people think it would be necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the bottom line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You were right not to address the safety concerns in your answer. It is not our job to warn people of the dangers of procedures they ask about. I think the reason you're getting downvoted is something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="b5859906-945f-49e0-90b5-a6799aaf6544" CreationDate="2013-11-26T05:57:59.263" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="A few days ago I answered &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87205/electric-heating-rod/87221#87221   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;soon my answer got downvoted and other community users started to explain the dangers involved with that equipment(**electric heating heating rod**). I didn't find the tag *laboratory-safety* or any of such kind.  &#xD;&#xA;But the people who posted the comments and answers are highly reputed so I think that I misunderstood the question and I too explained a bit about the safety of that equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;After I edited my answer it got another downvote. I think my answer is not appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As I understand the author of question asked about the physics concept involved  in getting electric current through his body.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am new to this site please give any suggestions how I can improve my answer. Should I explain the dangers involved or should i explain the reason why OP felt current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="6cd2c19d-a309-46a6-80a4-2cde0e783542" CreationDate="2013-11-26T06:19:06.337" UserId="22494" Text="I immediately voted &quot;too broad&quot; when I saw it.  I think our aggressive closing of closing of homework questions has made us twitchy about closing things.  A lot of the old questions are interesting but off topic questions that would be closed by today's standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="14180db3-e7d1-4d03-ac10-ad43a5ba8d95" CreationDate="2013-11-26T06:37:31.367" UserId="22494" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I immediately voted &quot;too broad&quot; when I saw it.  I think our aggressive closing of closing of homework questions has made us twitchy about closing things.  A lot of the questions are interesting but off topic questions that would be closed (rightly so) by today's standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11605" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="a805184a-46a0-426c-b597-b5d470c2c2f9" CreationDate="2013-11-26T07:40:54.470" UserId="31782" Comment="spelling fixed(*there* was misspelled)" Text="Is there any Home safety precaution tag on physics.stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="7d7d91cc-f4f1-457d-a5e0-e5fa81d2d7b3" CreationDate="2013-11-26T12:19:13.550" UserId="31782" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="A few days ago I answered &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87205/electric-heating-rod/87221#87221   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;soon my answer got downvoted and other community users started to explain the dangers involved with that equipment(**electric heating heating rod**). I didn't find the tag *laboratory-safety* or any of such kind attached to the question. &#xD;&#xA;But the people who posted the comments and answers are highly reputed so I think that I misunderstood the question and I too explained a bit about the safety of that equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;After I edited my answer it got another downvote. I think my answer is not appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As I understand the author of question asked about the physics concept involved  in getting electric current through his body.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am new to this site please give any suggestions how I can improve my answer. Should I explain the dangers involved or should i explain the reason why OP felt current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="a90f6808-a5e2-4d32-a9e2-5d860133b34e" CreationDate="2013-11-26T12:19:26.667" UserId="23119" Comment="added 2 characters in body; feel free to roll back" Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Up/Down]vote this question if you [/Dis]agree, or voice any concerns in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11608" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="73da01ca-82b8-4186-abb3-fcc7f874afc2" CreationDate="2013-11-26T22:21:15.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/405461274328182784" />
  <row Id="11609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="056bfa87-b27b-4736-bfb0-82104e3f4937" CreationDate="2013-11-27T00:31:09.733" UserId="520" Text="There is a [tag:laboratory-safety] tag, though it has very few applications. I don't see any reason it could not be applied to [tag:home-experiment] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'm wary of getting into the business of making definitive safety statements on the site. Despite the disclaimer that David Z. talks about many jurisdiction do not allow the disclaiming or waiver of *negligence* and sufficiently bad advice could be construed as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="2d0318ba-e2b3-4f0d-b8bc-b80a95113143" CreationDate="2013-11-27T00:32:26.720" UserId="22494" Comment="Minor fix to sentence flow for readability" Text="There is a [tag:laboratory-safety] tag, though it has very few applications. I don't see any reason it could not be applied to [tag:home-experiment] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'm wary of getting into the business of making definitive safety statements on the site. Despite the disclaimer that David Z. talks about, many jurisdictions do not allow the disclaiming or waiver of *negligence* and sufficiently bad advice could be construed as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="c5244a7b-3c10-4a86-a7c6-33f66bef2e4f" CreationDate="2013-11-27T03:03:29.233" UserId="2911" Text="Yeah, this looks terrible. Not only does it waste the preview, it gets in the way of the question, and can easily end up being longer than the question itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Top-edited banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, we have [a system for attaching permanent banners][2] to posts that *doesn't* get in the way of viewing the question. I've added one for book recommendations based on your template; if you see a question with the top-banner on it, flag it for moderator attention and ask that the post notice be added instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find an example of this notice [here][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Post notice at the bottom][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYQwc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/102363/support-for-banners&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87917/reference-request-for-exactly-solved-models&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KbbdZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="45076c44-366c-4c62-8d26-b59a13c4881f" CreationDate="2013-11-27T04:25:40.880" UserId="124" Comment="reference the new post notice" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="9279c4e6-a70a-4018-8588-af1a8f82b127" CreationDate="2013-11-27T07:04:47.143" UserId="31782" Text="I flagged some comments and answers as technically wrong but these flags were declined and moderator's reply was:&quot;flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How i am supposed to notify the technical inaccuracies ?I have got privilege to comment everywhere and i left some comments on the answers which have some technical inaccuracies.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it ok to leave such a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="9279c4e6-a70a-4018-8588-af1a8f82b127" CreationDate="2013-11-27T07:04:47.143" UserId="31782" Text="Are technically wrong answers and comments allowed on physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="9279c4e6-a70a-4018-8588-af1a8f82b127" CreationDate="2013-11-27T07:04:47.143" UserId="31782" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="e43e9439-a030-4550-b7bf-85fadd1596aa" CreationDate="2013-11-27T07:18:07.813" UserId="124" Text="The way you indicate that an answer is wrong is by commenting to point out why it's wrong, as you did, and by downvoting, which requires 125 reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to indicate that a comment is wrong, if it's a recent comment, is to post a followup comment explaining why. If it's an old comment, you might as well just flag it as obsolete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="475a77f9-2aa0-49b5-ba3a-121c8390ec43" CreationDate="2013-11-27T07:21:10.413" UserId="22494" Text="If you spot something wrong, you have a few options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it's a wrong answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you see a way of fixing the answer without changing it much, you&#xD;&#xA;   can edit it.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - If you don't see an easy way of fixing it you can comment on it, or&#xD;&#xA;   downvote, preferably both.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - You can post a correct answer and if appropriate, address what was&#xD;&#xA;   wrong about the other answer(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it's a wrong comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can respond to the comment with a comment (use your best judgment&#xD;&#xA;   with this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you think you can answer the question and comment address the comment, leave an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it's a wrong question:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you see a way of editing the question to fix it without breaking the original question, consider editing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could leave a comment explaining what's wrong with the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could flag the question or vote to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could search the site for related or duplicate questions and leave them in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could leave an answer explaining why the question is wrong but addressing the general idea of the question if appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="41e97b2f-6148-4fff-a579-155412a9c3e9" CreationDate="2013-11-27T08:44:26.373" UserId="25069" Text="I've noticed a few clever and funny jokes from time to time in the comments, so I thought I'd test the waters with my own comment joke (on topic and technically an answer) and it was popular.  However I logged on the next day and noticed the comment was removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="41e97b2f-6148-4fff-a579-155412a9c3e9" CreationDate="2013-11-27T08:44:26.373" UserId="25069" Text="Are jokes in comments not allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="41e97b2f-6148-4fff-a579-155412a9c3e9" CreationDate="2013-11-27T08:44:26.373" UserId="25069" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5249" RevisionGUID="64afa1f2-f2a5-439d-a1df-353346884bdc" CreationDate="2013-11-27T08:52:04.440" UserId="124" Text="They're allowed, in the sense that you don't get in trouble for posting them. (Within reason of course. If somebody e.g. spams joke comments on many posts then that's a separate issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But comments are prone to deletion, and those which don't offer a substantive contribution to the physics are _especially_ prone to deletion. They do tend to attract flags, too, so we often notice them quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice: don't read too much into it when your comments get removed. If you were doing something _wrong_ with comments, such that you should actually refrain from posting such comments in the future, we would tell you so directly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5250" RevisionGUID="5a0ffddc-8df3-40bb-9d45-e6317d415e5e" CreationDate="2013-11-27T08:53:12.103" UserId="1325" Text="I propose the first paragraph of the How to ask FAQ be updated to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To get the best answer it's a good idea to do some background research before you post and try and make your question as precise as possible. Any questions that could be easily answered, or at least clarified, by some determined Googling are unlikely to be well received. Questions that look like they've been copied and pasted from your homework are also likely to be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please treat this as a first attempt and feel free to suggest changes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="d2e38c5f-11ef-4268-aa55-4eafee874816" CreationDate="2013-11-27T12:48:12.117" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="fd1cf989-bc6c-422e-8574-7901baa6ecf1" CreationDate="2013-11-27T14:52:52.280" UserId="23119" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="On Wiki Pedia, for example, when you make an edit (to the source) , there is a box called &quot;Common edit summaries.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Edit Summaries][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also minor edit summaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Minor Edit Summaries][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that many common edits can be given quick summaries, to save time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that important at Wiki (since edit summaries aren't compulsoury), but I guess it would be ***very useful here at Physics.SE***.  Not just for edits, but for comments, also. For example, I find that I'm often repeating the same comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Homework Policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Please show more effort while asking homework questions. Don't expect anyone to do your work for you.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Non-mainstream questions are not allowed here.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Does your &quot;theory&quot; have any mathematics? What does it predict? What can I calculate with it? Please don't promote your own non-mainstream ideas here.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice question!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice answer!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Huh? This is very unclear?! What are you even talking about?&quot; . &#xD;&#xA;  / . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means coming to meta ($ \geq $ 1 min waiting time), searching for [faq] ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time), then clicking ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time),  Linking to it and parsing the link and adding the text ($ \geq 1 $ minute typing time), which amounts to 4 minutes. Well, that's not that long, but this same process is repeated for multiple, multiple posts. So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 1.*** Could there be a feature &quot;Common coments&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the edits. Till recently,  I would just write something like, because its quick: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SNJDSJDWIEE21!!!!S';DSDJSJDJUQJIDUFDNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111........    &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something like that. Recently, for some reason, I got bored of typing nonsense, so I just type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added homework tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added popular-science tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Corrected LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Don't use big-list tag.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It seems as if the homework tag applies even if it isn't real homework.&quot; (Yup, that's copied from Qmechanic.)     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tags.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant reference-request tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string-theory tag. This is a kinematics question.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string theory tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant research-level tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant Mathematical Physics tag.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed unnecessary Controversial statements.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fixed grammar.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And such things. It is quite monotonous to repeatedly write this, so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 2:*** Could the same feature as requested in Q1 be applied to Edit Summaries too? (It would be even better if the system would detect the tags which have been changed, like if I add a pop-sci tag, for e.g., then it has in the common edit summaries, &quot;Added Popular-Science tag.&quot;, but perhaps that's just too much.)    .&#xD;&#xA; . &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Edit:* This is useful only to &lt; 2k reputation users.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o35Es.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ox2Ti.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="fd1cf989-bc6c-422e-8574-7901baa6ecf1" CreationDate="2013-11-27T14:52:52.280" UserId="23119" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="|feature-request|editing|comments|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="cafe5905-64b2-466f-af83-99f840e5564d" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:31:03.250" UserId="31782" Text="Today i saw a message &quot;+14 Serial downvoting reversed&quot; in my profile. It seems someone unintentionally downvoted most of my posts in a small span of time but i am not sure why someone did this.  &#xD;&#xA;My question is:  &#xD;&#xA;**Are my posts of low quality, unclear etc etc..**  &#xD;&#xA;I am not specialized in *Physics*. English isn't my first language. I am improving my posts continuously.  If to someone my posts seems unclear he/she should downvote my posts slowly so that next time i won't get my reputation back.  &#xD;&#xA;I request the reader to leave some concise comments with constructive criticism on my posts so i could further improve the quality of my posts.  &#xD;&#xA;If the reader hasn't spare time to write any comment on individual posts which he/she wants to downvote please leave a small comment here or if the reason is wide then you may put it as an  answer to this question.  &#xD;&#xA;If the serial downvoting was due to my some disrespectful comment of mine then i am extremely sorry. &#xD;&#xA;Now onwards i will not put any vague comment on SE. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="cafe5905-64b2-466f-af83-99f840e5564d" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:31:03.250" UserId="31782" Text="Why someone serially downvoted most of my posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="cafe5905-64b2-466f-af83-99f840e5564d" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:31:03.250" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|comments|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5253" RevisionGUID="cc7a423d-f30f-479d-8eea-c40ad0bc92d9" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:43:56.463" UserId="124" Text="If someone was serially downvoting your posts, it usually means they were trying to annoy you, not because of anything wrong with your posts. You should ignore this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11636" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="6bb87f43-dff2-4fd1-9eaa-141bf1869f63" CreationDate="2013-11-28T10:17:35.000" UserId="7433" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DIMension10&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="5c0bed36-4208-4f0d-b522-e8f143b7acdd" CreationDate="2013-11-30T04:21:17.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/406639044710637568" />
  <row Id="11639" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="65065db7-0cec-4706-aa30-86e03ec59961" CreationDate="2013-11-30T17:14:45.810" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="c561bd0b-5b5a-425a-ab13-2a6ab91fab58" CreationDate="2013-11-30T22:18:19.067" UserId="8563" Text="I'll restate here Jeff's answer in [the analogous question in the mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled) for the benefit of any future users searching this meta with the same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a handful of conditions where we will stop accepting edits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A large number of suggested edits by you were rejected in the last day (absolute value) - if banned you will be banned for a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. We are out of empty slots in the queue (currently 20 120 200)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. There is an edit to a particular post that was not approved yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. You are not logged in and the post is less than 10 minutes old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the past no &quot;edit&quot; link would be shown at all; since July 2012 the edit link is disabled and the mouse hover tooltip will explain why an edit cannot be suggested, like &quot;Account is not allowed to suggest edits&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="b41870d7-62d5-440b-8cd2-3be2ae685fcb" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:00:03.210" UserId="35051" Text="How do I write fractions in my answers and questions? How do I write any mathematical expression ? I have tried using x/y type of expressions but it does not work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me how to do it. Will it need any special HTML code?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am new to the site, so please be a bit expletive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="b41870d7-62d5-440b-8cd2-3be2ae685fcb" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:00:03.210" UserId="35051" Text="About providing fractions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="b41870d7-62d5-440b-8cd2-3be2ae685fcb" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:00:03.210" UserId="35051" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11651" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="bb18b35b-d837-4227-836a-aabaafd7d294" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:08:21.170" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11652" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="2bb91292-c838-401b-a65a-85865d15dded" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:26:17.003" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="d2f1d8ff-13c5-4b25-b9ba-4821255d42dc" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:27:09.193" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq|tex|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="3ded66e4-d381-4a41-b552-ae76281f3930" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:28:27.153" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11655" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="0bc8ef0a-c54f-4735-84a2-d8aa2697e073" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:31:54.197" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="e5544104-264d-4f9f-9684-8f8970628a36" CreationDate="2013-12-02T05:19:45.070" UserId="24596" Text="The answer by @David  above summarizes it well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below I attempt to see what constitutes a good comment and in what situations a funny comment would be appreciated in any discussion. *Sorry for the long post!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Equating a SE question to a classroom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Teacher poses a question and students are free to collaborate on&#xD;&#xA;   the answers. &#xD;&#xA; - A student attempts to answer the question and others may&#xD;&#xA;   comment with an objective to improve the answer, highlight that the&#xD;&#xA;   answer does not cover all aspects of the Q, or just may have&#xD;&#xA;   questions to help them better understand the answer itself, and so&#xD;&#xA;   on... &#xD;&#xA; - Now assume that there is no urgency in finding the answer; so&#xD;&#xA;   if a student were to joke at this point, however distracting it may&#xD;&#xA;   be from the topic it would in most likelihood not be met with disapproval, and&#xD;&#xA;   may even be appreciated by some :).   &#xD;&#xA; - However with a ***time constraint*** such as 5 mins more till the lecture&#xD;&#xA;   ends, the lecturer may not appreciate this and would limit the&#xD;&#xA;   discussion to just constructive comments. Of course nothing beats a&#xD;&#xA;   humorous insight (something constructive AND funny!) but that is&#xD;&#xA;   indeed very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Space/Time Constraints on SE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On SE we do have a ***minimal time constraint*** where questions not given enough attention are pushed lower over time while newer/trending questions get more eyeballs - based on some algorithm... So the goal is to showcase a good question and encourage more users to contribute by engaging them with a constructive and serious discuss in the comments. Example: If I am not serious about my question I will not have researched it well enough and this will not attract users to contribute to the solution.&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, ***SE has a space constraint*** where the comments are limited in number and size, also questions are encouraged to be more precise and well formatted. The aim being to allow users to collaborate and find answers in the ***most optimal way possible***. For this same reason many comments are deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Typical forums do not have these constraints and so have some negatives like cross-posting, post/comments that are way longer than the quality matter they provide, ... all of these aspects are missing in SE sites.&#xD;&#xA; - A joke in a comment is most likely to survive if it includes some information that adds some meaning to the discussion. An ideal comment is simply a constructive one. &#xD;&#xA; - Jokes are very subjective so only some may get the joke; others may just find it distracting... So **for the greater good** it makes sense for moderators to trim the flagged comments to just constructive ones.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="ad5efb8f-90ad-416a-b870-8850e2bd0ea9" CreationDate="2013-12-02T10:38:30.930" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="08fc1f64-05c2-4961-8175-1de7f2c679a4" CreationDate="2013-12-02T18:35:34.940" UserId="124" Comment="add historical banner" Text="&gt; **NOTE: the migration is complete** so this is now old news.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're reading this, you've probably heard that the [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sites, among others, will be [shutting down this week](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/). Since these two sites have a large overlap in scope with Physics, we are going to be &quot;adopting&quot; the entire content of both [TP](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se) and [Astro](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono). Over the past week, the details of the migration have been discussed [on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) and [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event). I'm creating this post to address the important questions that the people involved should know about in the last few days before the migration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How will the migration happen?&#xD;&#xA;- What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;- As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;- How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;- What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;- What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="b5923701-2d50-4106-9247-200018f62f0b" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:02:40.810" UserId="8563" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88572/how-do-you-show-that-gamma5-dagger-gamma5 was recently closed as homework-like. I agree that this is in somewhat of a grey area as far as ontopicness here goes, but I think this is because the core of this question is a maths question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it possible to prove such-and-such-a-fact using only this-and-that-hypothesis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of that fact, and because the question is in fact quite good, shouldn't this question be migrated (after appropriate modification if needed) to math.se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="b5923701-2d50-4106-9247-200018f62f0b" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:02:40.810" UserId="8563" Text="The gamma^5 question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="b5923701-2d50-4106-9247-200018f62f0b" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:02:40.810" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11663" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="68c93498-c28f-4a37-a761-f549b327a359" CreationDate="2013-12-03T10:21:23.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/407816828137005056" />
  <row Id="11664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="7f503cd7-fd7e-4d90-922f-91078e76fcb1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T16:18:56.587" UserId="25301" Text="There have been a number of posts recently that I wanted to mark for merging to the scicomp.SE site (e.g., [this recent one on RK4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88854/4th-order-runge-kutta-method-for-coupled-harmonic-oscillator)), but the only options for merging are this meta site and the  math.SE site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually just leave a comment suggesting the OP ask on the scicomp site, but should there be a migration option for scicomp?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="7f503cd7-fd7e-4d90-922f-91078e76fcb1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T16:18:56.587" UserId="25301" Text="SciComp migration option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="7f503cd7-fd7e-4d90-922f-91078e76fcb1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T16:18:56.587" UserId="25301" Text="|feature-request|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="6d98d76b-8d0f-47db-aa50-32bd5e699b4a" CreationDate="2013-12-03T16:20:24.870" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="There have been a number of posts recently that I wanted to mark for migration to the scicomp.SE site (e.g., [this recent one on RK4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/88854/)), but the only options for migration are this meta site and the math.SE site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually just leave a comment suggesting the OP ask on the scicomp site, but should there be a migration option for scicomp?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5260" RevisionGUID="b7f9acfe-7058-48c3-8039-520dec071c5d" CreationDate="2013-12-03T17:08:39.597" UserId="124" Text="Computational Science is a beta site, so I don't think it makes sense to have that migration option yet. We want to be really careful about migrating to beta sites because the questions there could potentially be lost at any point. That being said, if you think a question is off topic here _and_ seems like it should go to scicomp.SE, flag it for moderator attention with a suggestion that it be migrated. For 3k-ers, I don't know if the system will let you vote to close as off topic as well, but if it does, you should do that too, in addition to casting a custom flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever scicomp.SE graduates, we can reconsider this proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="2a5b254b-81f3-4266-be1a-58e009ad8191" CreationDate="2013-12-04T14:03:49.047" UserId="24596" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="The answer by @David  above summarizes it well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below I attempt to see what constitutes a good comment and in what situations a funny comment would be appreciated in any discussion. *Sorry for the long post!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Equating a SE question to a classroom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Teacher poses a question and students are free to collaborate on&#xD;&#xA;   the answers. &#xD;&#xA; - A student attempts to answer the question and others may&#xD;&#xA;   comment with an objective to improve the answer, highlight that the&#xD;&#xA;   answer does not cover all aspects of the Q, or just may have&#xD;&#xA;   questions to help them better understand the answer itself, and so&#xD;&#xA;   on... &#xD;&#xA; - Now assume that there is no urgency in finding the answer; so&#xD;&#xA;   if a student were to joke at this point, however distracting it may&#xD;&#xA;   be from the topic it would in most likelihood not be met with disapproval, and&#xD;&#xA;   may even be appreciated by some :).   &#xD;&#xA; - However with a ***time constraint*** such as 5 mins more till the lecture&#xD;&#xA;   ends, the lecturer may not appreciate this and would limit the&#xD;&#xA;   discussion to just constructive comments. Of course nothing beats a&#xD;&#xA;   humorous insight (something constructive AND funny!) but that is&#xD;&#xA;   indeed very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Space/Time Constraints on SE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On SE we do have a ***minimal time constraint*** where questions not given enough attention are pushed lower over time while newer/trending questions get more eyeballs - based on some algorithm... So the goal is to showcase a good question and encourage more users to contribute by engaging them with a constructive and serious discuss in the comments. Example: If I am not serious about my question I will not have researched it well enough and this will not attract users to contribute to the solution.&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, ***SE has a space constraint*** where the comments are limited in number and size, also questions are encouraged to be more precise and well formatted. The aim being to allow users to collaborate and find answers in the ***most optimal way possible***. For this same reason many comments are deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Typical forums do not have these constraints and so have some negatives like cross-posting, post/comments that are way longer than the quality matter they provide, ... all of these aspects are missing in SE sites.&#xD;&#xA; - Jokes are very subjective so only some may get the joke; others may just find it distracting... So **for the greater good** it makes sense for moderators to trim the flagged comments to just constructive ones.&#xD;&#xA; - So finally... a joke in a comment *is most likely to survive* the onslaught of the moderator's trusty `delete` if it includes some information that adds some meaning to the discussion... and if you can't do that then just get Chuck Norris to post it for you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="2862f934-d4a7-4a34-8dd7-1260b5162728" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:19:51.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="As you probably noticed, there is a new top bar implemented on this site. This is part of a network-wide experiment in... UI design I guess? Details on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The new top bar is out on meta. Consider it a beta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/207420)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not complaining about or complimenting the way the features are implemented (not here, anyway - you can always check out [Mother Meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/top-bar?sort=newest)), but I **request that the color scheme be changed**. The current off-black clashes quite harshly with our light-blues-on-white scheme. It looks like some sinister cloud, ever reminding us of our network overlords' presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current color may work well on certain sites, but certainly not all. This is not surprising, because **no one color scheme could possibly work** on dozens of individual sites with their own customized appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, we're not the only site that seems to have a clash. Just check out [Christianity](http://christianity.stackexchange.com), [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com), [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com), [Mi Yodeya](http://judaism.stackexchange.com), [Programmers](http://programmers.stackexchange.com), and [TeX](http://tex.stackexchange.com), for example. (As I'm not a particularly active member of any other site, I'm not formally requesting those sites be changed, which is why I'm not asking on Mother Meta. Also, there is at least one such global request: [Would it be possible to lighten the color of the new top bar?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/210012))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can we get something that fits our color scheme, please? And no, saying I should userscript it is **not** a valid answer - I'm considering how the site looks to everyone else too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="2862f934-d4a7-4a34-8dd7-1260b5162728" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:19:51.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Help! There's a giant ugly thing on top of the page!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="2862f934-d4a7-4a34-8dd7-1260b5162728" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:19:51.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="1a3c967c-3303-4dd0-a665-ba8984e7a11f" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:21:55.707" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="3486f60d-a759-49c6-8360-01109840e746" CreationDate="2013-12-05T04:21:28.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/408451030016618498" />
  <row Id="11675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="3653c3dc-fbe1-4fe3-a646-feba9fcd7ed1" CreationDate="2013-12-05T14:15:19.137" UserId="23119" Comment="only question with the tag. " Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11676" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="ca0ba358-7962-417f-82fb-a0442698a7a5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T14:18:00.057" UserId="4066" Comment="Rollback to [1a3c967c-3303-4dd0-a665-ba8984e7a11f]" Text="|feature-request|design|" />
  <row Id="11678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="0fb20a15-3a8b-4a55-8834-80ab6e46885d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:17:10.333" UserId="4826" Text="It's the time of the year again, namely it is December 2013, and so we shall now refresh our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/5263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="0fb20a15-3a8b-4a55-8834-80ab6e46885d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:17:10.333" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="0fb20a15-3a8b-4a55-8834-80ab6e46885d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:17:10.333" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="f5df8f80-a20e-4ffd-ba0b-bb90dc1171f1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:17:10.333" UserId="4826" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/#!/stackphysics&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5E3rC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11682" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="f5df8f80-a20e-4ffd-ba0b-bb90dc1171f1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:17:10.333" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="11683" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="0fb20a15-3a8b-4a55-8834-80ab6e46885d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:17:10.333" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="11684" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="1d528fa1-13e5-4d3c-8184-abab31d9922d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:18:17.053" UserId="4826" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5263],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4826,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Grace Note&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="c88d5867-8108-4806-a139-cc456d405785" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:52:32.507" UserId="11062" Text="[![Astrobites][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jaRuC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astrobites.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11686" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="261099f1-a64d-421a-a016-0bb58077d958" CreationDate="2013-12-06T10:52:32.507" UserId="11062" />
  <row Id="11687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="84a22154-970b-4fac-9a58-d2e750864326" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:09:07.367" UserId="7433" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 800 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fQztJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11688" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="cd066dd1-c8c9-41db-a379-62b5e42e100d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:09:07.367" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="11689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5267" RevisionGUID="55a0bc58-87f3-4944-b0e2-f5046ea7ed6a" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:11:41.363" UserId="7433" Text="[![Chemistry Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11690" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5267" RevisionGUID="04d557d9-4999-470a-9ab2-d825ed6b902b" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:11:41.363" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="11691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="43a92321-d852-4c7c-8622-e6bc85c22c79" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:14:39.033" UserId="7433" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GWTVN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11692" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="fd32912d-066f-41bc-a95a-cf0199f7bd89" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:14:39.033" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="11693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="4f53f6c3-4c46-4343-9843-375ee0fa0e99" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:05:29.543" UserId="8563" Text="[![writeLaTeX.com - great for explaining physics, and works on your iPad too!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ip3i5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.writelatex.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11694" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="cce25535-47d8-498d-83e1-9617cfe02211" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:05:29.543" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="916b0ee1-769d-4374-b351-c4cd6cb43a05" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:07:14.723" UserId="8563" Text="[![Try Sage open-source mathematical software system][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4LfYL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sagemath.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11696" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="79ec2ef2-9f03-4088-be2f-d7253d36d631" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:07:14.723" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="d21fa746-6bba-4602-bb3a-4425a9b913fe" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:16:33.130" UserId="8563" Text="[![Detexify2 - LaTeX symbol classifier][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbnRL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11698" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="8d215e34-c4e5-4459-b8a5-ece5df5f9276" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:16:33.130" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="fade83be-ebc8-4e9a-b9f4-a08ecfc29a27" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:17:56.560" UserId="8563" Text="[![free online $\LaTeX$ editing][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5r0et.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sharelatex.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11700" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="f07f8b2e-65df-4f73-bd10-d32540a8e74e" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:17:56.560" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5273" RevisionGUID="96df6a13-16ac-4795-8c28-abc74d1fcf41" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:19:00.003" UserId="8563" Text="[![Magma Computational Algebra System][3]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0468s.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11702" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5273" RevisionGUID="1e75ee1a-febc-4042-b19e-c819c0281f3c" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:19:00.003" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5274" RevisionGUID="8255df4e-48bc-4edf-b3fb-507f6f928aa9" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:39:49.823" UserId="8563" Text="[![WorldCat - the online catalogue of the world's libraries, online][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KYkEt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://www.worldcat.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11704" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5274" RevisionGUID="fe2924b8-1e9c-4a72-a1bf-ebf3c5b8e884" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:39:49.823" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="f7fca792-1fbe-48a0-a4ae-cd19b696563c" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:58:11.197" UserDisplayName="user29727" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d64R1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11706" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="bc300577-571e-4e1f-9563-84e0e539fcef" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:58:11.197" UserDisplayName="user29727" />
  <row Id="11707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5276" RevisionGUID="9b88a7d4-7d28-4642-9ace-d793a9abc781" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:00:09.770" UserDisplayName="user29727" Text="[![MIT's Open Courseware][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gTfnh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/#physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11708" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5276" RevisionGUID="a3139407-8b84-4bf3-80b0-53bcac28dee4" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:00:09.770" UserDisplayName="user29727" />
  <row Id="11709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="5d74089c-6ed3-435f-9067-b3265ee43b55" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:12:06.563" UserDisplayName="user29727" Text="[![Khan|Academy][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J8rVV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11710" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="d86e0f80-d99d-4034-818c-9edb248b3029" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:12:06.563" UserDisplayName="user29727" />
  <row Id="11711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5278" RevisionGUID="0e998fef-2651-4c86-a5f8-499bdc964233" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:21:03.670" UserId="8563" Text="[![Digital Library of Mathematical Functions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aqoJF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11712" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5278" RevisionGUID="c51302ef-4f9c-4a27-8972-a21c289f895c" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:21:03.670" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="416ff010-4af8-481f-abcb-0b190b014469" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:24:33.880" UserId="11062" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qIjvZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11714" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="da76fe22-d021-4eaf-95c7-88ecb7e43175" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:24:33.880" UserId="11062" />
  <row Id="11715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5278" RevisionGUID="09e580b0-fbe9-479a-b8b1-d93be42de74e" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:41:33.680" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="[![Digital Library of Mathematical Functions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HwOs5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="049ba069-4406-4bd5-92a4-e8c0cb9b62c6" CreationDate="2013-12-07T13:57:51.977" UserDisplayName="user29727" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="[![Free online collaborative $\LaTeX$ editor][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vrkV5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sharelatex.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="5382f8b4-7592-4935-a5e3-8a8b8c5b78cf" CreationDate="2013-12-07T22:45:01.800" UserId="124" Text="The [help center page about site scope](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) includes the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little while ago it was [suggested](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88190/the-commutator-of-scalar-field#comment180297_88190) (and [further discussed](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/interpretation-of-should-and-must)) that the use of &quot;should&quot; implies that the following items are to be interpreted as soft guidelines, not rules, i.e. that exceptions are not uncommon. But I believe that was not the intent of the policy. My understanding is that the types of questions listed on that page are _never_ on topic on this site. Is that accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, should we change the wording of that part of the help center, perhaps to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions are inappropriate for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions must not be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to reduce the chance of confusion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="5382f8b4-7592-4935-a5e3-8a8b8c5b78cf" CreationDate="2013-12-07T22:45:01.800" UserId="124" Text="Should we use stronger wording in the help center's on topic page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="5382f8b4-7592-4935-a5e3-8a8b8c5b78cf" CreationDate="2013-12-07T22:45:01.800" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="e4c87d6a-d23c-465d-8336-569dc9fa6cb7" CreationDate="2013-12-07T22:54:33.647" UserId="124" Text="Now that our [new recommendation policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) is in effect, I would like to propose a change that I think will alleviate some misuse of the associated tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:books] → [tag:resource-recommendation]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:reference-request] → [tag:specific-reference]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this better captures the [intended meaning of the tags](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/786/what-are-the-meanings-of-books-and-reference-request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Better suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="e4c87d6a-d23c-465d-8336-569dc9fa6cb7" CreationDate="2013-12-07T22:54:33.647" UserId="124" Text="Should we rename the books and reference-request tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="e4c87d6a-d23c-465d-8336-569dc9fa6cb7" CreationDate="2013-12-07T22:54:33.647" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5282" RevisionGUID="b1b73b7f-d03f-41dd-a1e8-f360fb012abc" CreationDate="2013-12-08T02:57:43.123" UserId="8563" Text="I completely agree that this is accurate. Any question that fits any of those four descriptions should rightfully be closed. There are grey areas around them - there always will be - but you have to be really far from those descriptions to be on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like your first suggestion, though I would actually strengthen it to the following.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions are inappropriate for this site, and could be [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions) or even [removed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="e955bd46-a586-436c-8f9c-9899dd1c039b" CreationDate="2013-12-08T06:54:52.660" UserId="8563" Text="Earlier today I was eyeballing other people's badges because, you know, badges, and I came upon something of a curious observation. If you look at the answer badges - specifically [Nice](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer), [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/39/good-answer) and [Great](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) Answer, there is a clear sense that, even for the bronze badge, established users of the site - and particularly users with, say, 1k+ rep - get a lot of the badges. However, if you look at the users who have earned the gold question badges, the picture is completely different: [Famous Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question), [Great Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/42/great-question) and [Stellar Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/51/stellar-question) have been earned overwhelmingly by &lt;1k rep users; ditto for the silvers and bronzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course not news. This was discussed in depth in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions. It is also not a surprise in any sense that more questions come from lower-rep users and more answers come from higher-rep users - that's to be expected in some form in any Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm quite struck at how we *do* have a pretty big set of really nice questions, and that they were mostly asked by quite low-rep users. While it is natural that questions will tend to be asked by lower-rep users, it is not a given that the good questions will come from that end of the scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore decided to explore this theme a bit and, in the meantime, dredge up what's left of my SQL skills after ten years (!) of rust. I came up with this query for the Stack Exchange Data Explorer: [What reputation do people with Popular/Notable/Famous Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152438/what-reputation-do-people-with-popular-notable-famous-question-badges-typically-h?viewsThreshold=10000&amp;repThreshold=100000#graph). It produces a cumulative-distribution-function-like plot of the number of users below reputation `rep` that have asked a question with `&gt;viewsThreshold` views. For the gold badge, the plot is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 90% of such questions were asked by users who (even now) have less than 1k. There are a few between 1k and 2k, and really not much other than [this great (cw) question of Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401/what-software-programs-are-used-to-draw-physics-diagrams-and-what-are-their-rel) and [this one of nibot's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/what-is-the-difference-between-kinematics-and-dynamics). I genuinely think this is surprising and really puts the nail on what we knew all along: 'expert' users need to start asking more questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also raises an interesting question as regards why this happens: can it really simply be explained by low-rep users &quot;stumbling&quot; on the good nuggets of question space, as part of the huge body of questions asked by the overwhelming majority of users that have &lt;1k rep? Looking at, say, the questions that earned the [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) sobriquet, I think there is something else at stake. Those questions have a simplicity, and therefore a generality, that I think tends to be lacking in the questions asked by more established users. What do people think about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have also cooked up the corresponding query for the Nice/Good/Great Answer badge series, [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Answer badges typically have?&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152446/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-answer-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). There aren't enough Great Answers to give a smooth enough plot, but the silver earners, at 25+ votes, are distributed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (1) the horizontal scale is very different, (2) the slope is much shallower, and (3) only 20% of silver-earning answers come from &lt;1k users. (And, also, multiple good questions from Luboš M, Anna V, David Z, and Mark E.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for completeness, here are the corresponding queries for the other two question badge series: [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152450/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-question-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=10&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph) and [What reputation do people with Favorite/Stellar Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152452/what-reputation-do-people-with-favorite-stellar-question-badges-typically-have?FavoriteCountThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). Both have, as far as I can tell, the same behaviour as the views-based series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware, of course, that so far I've been talking a lot but there aren't many actual questions. The main motivation of this post is to share this observation and the (moderately hard and solid) statistics that back it up. I guess the real question is something like: what do people make of this? Does this correspond to the image this community has of the site? Or is there something missing from this analysis. What are the core reasons for this to happen? Is it simply a volume thing - i.e. the bulk of questions tends to come from lower-rep users than higher-rep ones - or is there indeed some core simplicity and accessibility to those great questions that eludes many of our great answerers? (I think there's quite a bit to that. And, in that case, we should really go and learn how to ask from those great questions.) If this is happening, is it a good thing? Is it a neutral, that's-how-things-are, thing? Or is it something we should try to counter-act? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pPol.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iViBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="e955bd46-a586-436c-8f9c-9899dd1c039b" CreationDate="2013-12-08T06:54:52.660" UserId="8563" Text="Our best questions come from non-expert users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="e955bd46-a586-436c-8f9c-9899dd1c039b" CreationDate="2013-12-08T06:54:52.660" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|questions|users|data-explorer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="b62afc0e-d9c2-45c7-97a1-b9affff77547" CreationDate="2013-12-08T07:18:52.850" UserId="8563" Comment="Corrected mistake." Text="Earlier today I was eyeballing other people's badges because, you know, badges, and I came upon something of a curious observation. If you look at the answer badges - specifically [Nice](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer), [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/39/good-answer) and [Great](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) Answer, there is a clear sense that, even for the bronze badge, established users of the site - and particularly users with, say, 1k+ rep - get a lot of the badges. However, if you look at the users who have earned the gold question badges, the picture is completely different: [Famous Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question), [Great Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/42/great-question) and [Stellar Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/51/stellar-question) have been earned overwhelmingly by &lt;1k rep users; ditto for the silvers and bronzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course not news. This was discussed in depth in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions. It is also not a surprise in any sense that more questions come from lower-rep users and more answers come from higher-rep users - that's to be expected in some form in any Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm quite struck at how we *do* have a pretty big set of really nice questions, and that they were mostly asked by quite low-rep users. While it is natural that questions will tend to be asked by lower-rep users, it is not a given that the good questions will come from that end of the scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore decided to explore this theme a bit and, in the meantime, dredge up what's left of my SQL skills after ten years (!) of rust. I came up with this query for the Stack Exchange Data Explorer: [What reputation do people with Popular/Notable/Famous Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152438/what-reputation-do-people-with-popular-notable-famous-question-badges-typically-h?viewsThreshold=10000&amp;repThreshold=100000#graph). It produces a cumulative-distribution-function-like plot of the number of users below reputation `rep` that have asked a question with `&gt;viewsThreshold` views. For the gold badge, the plot is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 90% of such questions were asked by users who (even now) have less than 1k. There are a few between 1k and 2k, and really not much other than [this great (cw) question of Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401/what-software-programs-are-used-to-draw-physics-diagrams-and-what-are-their-rel) and [this one of nibot's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/what-is-the-difference-between-kinematics-and-dynamics). I genuinely think this is surprising and really puts the nail on what we knew all along: 'expert' users need to start asking more questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also raises an interesting question as regards why this happens: can it really simply be explained by low-rep users &quot;stumbling&quot; on the good nuggets of question space, as part of the huge body of questions asked by the overwhelming majority of users that have &lt;1k rep? Looking at, say, the questions that earned the [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) sobriquet, I think there is something else at stake. Those questions have a simplicity, and therefore a generality, that I think tends to be lacking in the questions asked by more established users. What do people think about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have also cooked up the corresponding query for the Nice/Good/Great Answer badge series, [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Answer badges typically have?&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152446/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-answer-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). There aren't enough Great Answers to give a smooth enough plot, but the silver earners, at 25+ votes, are distributed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (1) the horizontal scale is very different, (2) the slope is much shallower, and (3) only 20% of silver-earning answers come from &lt;1k users. (And, also, multiple good answers from Luboš M, Anna V, David Z, and Mark E.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for completeness, here are the corresponding queries for the other two question badge series: [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152450/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-question-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=10&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph) and [What reputation do people with Favorite/Stellar Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152452/what-reputation-do-people-with-favorite-stellar-question-badges-typically-have?FavoriteCountThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). Both have, as far as I can tell, the same behaviour as the views-based series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware, of course, that so far I've been talking a lot but there aren't many actual questions. The main motivation of this post is to share this observation and the (moderately hard and solid) statistics that back it up. I guess the real question is something like: what do people make of this? Does this correspond to the image this community has of the site? Or is there something missing from this analysis. What are the core reasons for this to happen? Is it simply a volume thing - i.e. the bulk of questions tends to come from lower-rep users than higher-rep ones - or is there indeed some core simplicity and accessibility to those great questions that eludes many of our great answerers? (I think there's quite a bit to that. And, in that case, we should really go and learn how to ask from those great questions.) If this is happening, is it a good thing? Is it a neutral, that's-how-things-are, thing? Or is it something we should try to counter-act? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pPol.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iViBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="6f4e86f7-6a58-4b7e-8479-6ac0f74e8681" CreationDate="2013-12-08T10:42:30.207" UserId="825" Text="To give an opposing view, I believe there is some value in being ambiguous there. Site rules should not be fast and hard rules, but rather guidelines. I wouldn't want to close a useful and interesting question just because it might formally violate the rules. Rather, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis whether this question brings value to the site or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of which, I don't understand why [the question mentioned above][1] was closed. Well, OK, I understand the mechanics of what happened. It's a homework question, it was decided that homework questions are not wanted, and thus the question was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't understand is why the mechanics were blindly applied. Do people think the concrete question is bad, or it's harmful to answer it? Imagine the asker was trying to write a paper, and not doing homework. Would the question still be closed? Probably yes. That would mean that computational / derivational questions are no longer allowed. I'm just worried that we are narrowing the scope of the site down and down until we can only ask the most high-level vauge conceptional questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88190/the-commutator-of-scalar-field#comment180297_88190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="302d9042-40d1-4cdb-b3e8-c2d13a36289c" CreationDate="2013-12-08T12:09:18.790" UserId="5445" Text="[![robotics stack exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QpWDJ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11730" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="3362f3e1-5e66-47be-b666-8803e5445af5" CreationDate="2013-12-08T12:09:18.790" UserId="5445" />
  <row Id="11731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5286" RevisionGUID="4770570b-c9aa-49a1-8ab2-805225ccda8b" CreationDate="2013-12-08T12:12:37.803" UserId="5445" Text="[![robotics stack exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O6uoa.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11732" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5286" RevisionGUID="59062486-cb63-4dbb-ac07-9cd580c5bac0" CreationDate="2013-12-08T12:12:37.803" UserId="5445" />
  <row Id="11733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5282" RevisionGUID="120a2488-3e17-4a1e-a6cf-48275e4c1954" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:32:05.570" UserId="23119" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="I completely agree that this is accurate. Any question that fits any of those four descriptions should rightfully be closed. There are grey areas around them - there always will be - but you have to be really far from those descriptions to be on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like your first suggestion, though I would actually strengthen it to the following.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions are inappropriate for this site, and could be [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions) or even [removed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="8c620514-a083-46d8-98b5-57b1a7f9ecae" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:32:36.603" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|policy|homework|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="9f6ef3c9-e08d-4393-acb1-6b7b07887771" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:36:23.073" UserId="24142" Text="It's important to note that the number of upvotes on a question or an answer are not necessarily a sign of quality, but rather of *popularity*. You could write a great question or answer, but if nobody pays attention to them, they won't get upvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed myself that some of my most-upvoted answers took me the least effort to write, and conversely some answers that took me lots of time got barely any attention at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="c15a5e81-bf28-45b1-93a0-e409b6650193" CreationDate="2013-12-08T15:37:32.037" UserId="1325" Text="No really, [scientists have proved it][1] using our fellows over at Stack Overflow as guinea pigs. I wonder if there's enough questions on the PhysicsSE for a similar analysis to be meaningful ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522171/data-mining-reveals-the-secret-to-getting-good-answers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="c15a5e81-bf28-45b1-93a0-e409b6650193" CreationDate="2013-12-08T15:37:32.037" UserId="1325" Text="To get good answers ask a good question!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="c15a5e81-bf28-45b1-93a0-e409b6650193" CreationDate="2013-12-08T15:37:32.037" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="cee773cb-9bbd-4835-b6ed-bc89ac0671dd" CreationDate="2013-12-08T16:53:31.143" UserId="7433" Text="Nice graphs!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally thought this would be obvious though. If we use votes as a way of measuring &quot;best&quot; (far from accurate), then the posts with the most votes will be the ones that more people can understand and appreciate. Popular posts cater to this perfectly, and thus get the most votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really good higher level questions are (a) hard to find as more experienced people ask less questions, and (b) understood by less prospective voters. So there will be very few high level posts with a lot of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish we had a better way of gauging post quality than votes, especially for higher level posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="879af3d2-9776-42c9-a42d-19ff21eb9ea7" CreationDate="2013-12-08T17:58:13.450" UserId="8563" Comment="Addendum, and fixed unpardonable omission." Text="Earlier today I was eyeballing other people's badges because, you know, badges, and I came upon something of a curious observation. If you look at the answer badges - specifically [Nice](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer), [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/39/good-answer) and [Great](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) Answer, there is a clear sense that, even for the bronze badge, established users of the site - and particularly users with, say, 1k+ rep - get a lot of the badges. However, if you look at the users who have earned the gold question badges, the picture is completely different: [Famous Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question), [Great Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/42/great-question) and [Stellar Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/51/stellar-question) have been earned overwhelmingly by &lt;1k rep users; ditto for the silvers and bronzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course not news. This was discussed in depth in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions. It is also not a surprise in any sense that more questions come from lower-rep users and more answers come from higher-rep users - that's to be expected in some form in any Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm quite struck at how we *do* have a pretty big set of really nice questions, and that they were mostly asked by quite low-rep users. While it is natural that questions will tend to be asked by lower-rep users, it is not a given that the good questions will come from that end of the scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore decided to explore this theme a bit and, in the meantime, dredge up what's left of my SQL skills after ten years (!) of rust. I came up with this query for the Stack Exchange Data Explorer: [What reputation do people with Popular/Notable/Famous Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152438/what-reputation-do-people-with-popular-notable-famous-question-badges-typically-h?viewsThreshold=10000&amp;repThreshold=100000#graph). It produces a cumulative-distribution-function-like plot of the number of users below reputation `rep` that have asked a question with `&gt;viewsThreshold` views. For the gold badge, the plot is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 90% of such questions were asked by users who (even now) have less than 1k. There are a few between 1k and 2k, and really not much other than [this great (cw) question of Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401/what-software-programs-are-used-to-draw-physics-diagrams-and-what-are-their-rel) and [this one of nibot's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/what-is-the-difference-between-kinematics-and-dynamics). I genuinely think this is surprising and really puts the nail on what we knew all along: 'expert' users need to start asking more questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also raises an interesting question as regards why this happens: can it really simply be explained by low-rep users &quot;stumbling&quot; on the good nuggets of question space, as part of the huge body of questions asked by the overwhelming majority of users that have &lt;1k rep? Looking at, say, the questions that earned the [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) sobriquet, I think there is something else at stake. Those questions have a simplicity, and therefore a generality, that I think tends to be lacking in the questions asked by more established users. What do people think about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have also cooked up the corresponding query for the Nice/Good/Great Answer badge series, [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Answer badges typically have?&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152446/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-answer-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). There aren't enough Great Answers to give a smooth enough plot, but the silver earners, at 25+ votes, are distributed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (1) the horizontal scale is very different, (2) the slope is much shallower, and (3) only 20% of silver-earning answers come from &lt;1k users. (And, also, multiple good answers from Luboš M, John R, Anna V, David Z, and Mark E.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for completeness, here are the corresponding queries for the other two question badge series: [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152450/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-question-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=10&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph) and [What reputation do people with Favorite/Stellar Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152452/what-reputation-do-people-with-favorite-stellar-question-badges-typically-have?FavoriteCountThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). Both have, as far as I can tell, the same behaviour as the views-based series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware, of course, that so far I've been talking a lot but there aren't many actual questions. The main motivation of this post is to share this observation and the (moderately hard and solid) statistics that back it up. I guess the real question is something like: what do people make of this? Does this correspond to the image this community has of the site? Or is there something missing from this analysis. What are the core reasons for this to happen? Is it simply a volume thing - i.e. the bulk of questions tends to come from lower-rep users than higher-rep ones - or is there indeed some core simplicity and accessibility to those great questions that eludes many of our great answerers? (I think there's quite a bit to that. And, in that case, we should really go and learn how to ask from those great questions.) If this is happening, is it a good thing? Is it a neutral, that's-how-things-are, thing? Or is it something we should try to counter-act? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to the comments and the Pulsar's and Manishearth's answers I'd like to say two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is that *of course* question score is only an approximate, stand-in metric to the completely undefinable &quot;question quality&quot;. However, I feel it is not entirely a bad metric, particularly at the high end of the scale: most of the badge-earning questions are indeed good questions. (That's not to say, on the other hand, that all our good questions get high score, and particularly so for high-end questions.) But there's nothing wrong with a highly-voted, low-level question: if it gets good physics across to a lot of people, at a level where they can understand it, what else could you ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on this site, mostly, to refine my [outreach](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_outreach)[-fu](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-fu#Suffix), and I suspect most high-end users are here at least partly for that. As I see it, these questions are a very valuable resource. Seriously: go read our [Good Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) and tell me you didn't have fun. And, at least, it's something we can and should learn from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pPol.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iViBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="f1abd088-9180-47ff-b181-f6141a82c87a" CreationDate="2013-12-08T18:10:34.703" UserId="7670" Text="Training and expertise change how your neural circuitry processes data about the world, causing your interpretation of much of the data about the world to become so rapid and automatic that it can become very difficult even to see why certain questions are even meaningful, let alone &quot;interesting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not just a training issue. The ability to discard many forms of data very quickly appears to be innate in how complex biological neural systems manage to process what would otherwise be a fatal overloads of sensory data -- and I do mean fatal, e.g. via driving a car without such data reductions in effect. This is not just some sloppy form of ignoring data at random, either. Brains in general have an absolutely amazing ability to identify and discard unnecessary data before it gums up the limited processing available, allowing them to focus (foveate) quickly on the much smaller subset of clues and data that is truly critical for survival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this comes into play in understanding why experts ask fewer questions because higher-level intelligence -- sentience -- seems to use these same mechanisms to create largely sensory-isolated loops that can revisit data many times without requiring the data to play again in the real world. Your internal &quot;thought voice&quot; is perhaps the most extreme example, since it is independent of any real external voices. (The bumper sticker version of that might be &quot;I hallucinate, therefore I am.&quot;) Insight becomes a matter of applying smart data reduction not to what you are seeing, but to what you are thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall result is an abstract view of the world that can become highly disconnected from the reality shouted at us by our senses, guided by mechanisms that become so deeply reflexive that we barely even see other options, let alone question them. That's a good thing in cases such as science or engineering, for which first-order sensory reality often turns out to be a remarkably poor indicator of what is really going on. It's a bad thing when it enables people to abstract away reality in a way that disconnects them from the very data to which they should be paying the most attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I *really* need to give examples of the latter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of science -- what science means at the biological level -- is to balance our ability to abstract data rapidly (&quot;expertise&quot;) with the realization that such abstractions are *always* dangerous, even when applied even slightly beyond the original data. We must never confuse the brain-generated emotion of confidence with experiment-based confirmation from the physical world that those abstractions are still valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, given all of that, it's time to go back to your fascinating data and charts showing a strong inverse relationship between how many interesting questions get asked and level of expertise of those asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because experts develop and frequently use complex abstraction structures for interpreting questions and data quickly and decisively, those abstraction structures inevitably begin to make heavy use of the fast-discard capabilities of complex biological neural systems. For that very reason, it also becomes more and more difficult without special training for them even to &quot;see&quot; questions or data that fall within the scope of expertise. Thus they are less inclined to dwell on them much or ask many questions about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, relative novices have no such rapid-discard structures in space, so even small discrepancies or obscurities in the overall structure tend to jump out at them, sometimes very starkly. The concept of &quot;present&quot; is a straightforward example. To many relativists and quantum field theorists, the idea of &quot;block time&quot; -- that is, that that the universe preexists from start to finish as a bundle of worldlines -- seems almost inevitable, for reasons too numerable to mention here. Yet to almost anyone not trained in those reasons, the idea of block time often sounds either insane, a flat-out contraction of everything that a person sees in their own lives, or like some form of extreme religious belief. As a result, the questions they will ask about such an issue will be very different from those that an expert might ask, and will also have very different emotional weighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not easy resolution to all of this, since we are very much products of our own brains. However, with that said, it is nonetheless emphatically possible and very much desirable to train ourselves to be *aware* of our own limitation, and how to minimize their impacts in our overall analytical approach to understanding the universe. The colloquial phase for it is humility, but it's a form of humility that needs to be sharpened and structured as finely as the flowing patterns of a Damascus sword." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="50b9d4e1-b7f6-4a6e-ba72-b4c223498847" CreationDate="2013-12-08T18:35:53.030" UserId="520" Text="Do not neglect the degree to which the &quot;level&quot; of a question determines the audience that will be interested. There are more laymen than beginners that journymen than masters, and than means that there are more people to be impressed by basic questions than by esoteric, expert level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that it is the really good basic questions and the really good answers to basic questions that get the largest number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see this in the [answers that I have given][1], both here and [on Stack Overflow][2]. My highest voted posts are pretty decent answers to fairly basic questions. I've written a few answers on both sites that I consider to be good, expert level work, but they are not the one that the crowd loves. Simply because the crowd that can appreciate them is much small than the one that can appreciate the basic coolness of bootstrapping a complex tool or the idea of huge-scale, slow-motion acoustics in a near-vacuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: the thing that votes measure is a convolution of the &quot;quality&quot; of a post with the size of the audience that can appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/users/2509/dmckee?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11743" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="3251d9c9-3121-4a31-a5e6-4eb763f514c1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T21:15:26.460" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [5382f8b4-7592-4935-a5e3-8a8b8c5b78cf]" Text="|discussion|scope|policy|" />
  <row Id="11744" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="6c81e2b2-5e99-4319-a965-235796ee2e33" CreationDate="2013-12-08T22:21:40.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/409810030310227968" />
  <row Id="11745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="2e79974b-8e0f-4a10-8e9c-bb59425c3025" CreationDate="2013-12-09T18:30:45.593" UserId="2911" Text="I suspect you'll all get used to this *eventually* - it's a pretty big change, but realistically I find the top bar isn't usually visible while I'm reading or answering questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If y'all had [kept the *original* design](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se) this bar would've matched up *perfectly*... ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="b5068050-2259-49a8-b5d6-1fb1caef503e" CreationDate="2013-12-09T18:48:22.563" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|migration|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="e5ec262b-bcd9-4ed9-8d25-9070df4100cb" CreationDate="2013-12-10T01:32:15.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/410220385335246848" />
  <row Id="11748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="c8eaf545-4419-4bb1-b1c5-7646443dc6e6" CreationDate="2013-12-10T14:20:49.140" UserId="35354" Text="I would like to answer this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9551/applications-of-the-spectral-theorem-to-quantum-mechanics?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I cannot: I insert my answer in the form &quot;Your Answer&quot;, I click on &quot;Post Your Answer&quot; and then after a while (even 5 minutes) I receive an error message.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help me?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;Walter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="c8eaf545-4419-4bb1-b1c5-7646443dc6e6" CreationDate="2013-12-10T14:20:49.140" UserId="35354" Text="Error with the form &quot;Your Answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="c8eaf545-4419-4bb1-b1c5-7646443dc6e6" CreationDate="2013-12-10T14:20:49.140" UserId="35354" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="6b17cf10-face-4ebb-a380-79432773c7cc" CreationDate="2013-12-10T14:44:19.810" UserId="8563" Text="I was going to rail about this when it came out, but I decided to give it a few more days like the team asked. Well, it's been a few days, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## I still don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't like the black bar being black. One of the reasons I use chrome is that it respects the very valuable real estate at the top of the browser window. It packs the maximum of information into just three bars. The black bar increases this space, which I like to be as minimal as possible, by a whopping 30%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't like the bright blue logo at all. Why have colours in there in the first place? They're bound to clash with *some* site design, no matter what you choose. Why not have it the same shade of grey as the inbox sign? As it is, it clashes horribly with the greenish turquoise of our main site. In meta it's even worse, and on a question page it has far and away the biggest chroma of the whole page. If you *must* keep it, why not damp it down to grey?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rl6d7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5282" RevisionGUID="cc6a8fa0-9795-4293-a66c-6e25635b30eb" CreationDate="2013-12-10T14:53:16.930" UserId="8563" Comment="Implemented suggestions. @Dimension10: Please do not edit other people's posts on meta when the intent of the post is to express an opinion." Text="I completely agree that this is accurate. Any question that fits any of those four descriptions should rightfully be closed. There are grey areas around them - there always will be - but you have to be really far from those descriptions to be on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like your first suggestion, though I would actually strengthen it to the following.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions are inappropriate for this site, and will likely be [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions) or even [deleted](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="310c3669-2415-47a3-afe4-3db420da88ef" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:12:45.970" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to answer this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9551/applications-of-the-spectral-theorem-to-quantum-mechanics?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I cannot. I insert my answer in the form &quot;Your Answer&quot;, I click on &quot;Post Your Answer&quot; and then after a while (even 5 minutes) I receive an error message.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="310c3669-2415-47a3-afe4-3db420da88ef" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:12:45.970" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|bug|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="fca06754-fd12-433e-b39c-9062cc571610" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:39:53.343" UserId="28199" Text="[![Astronomy Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11756" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="bf46092d-b7e3-4f64-8d91-c63ad4557d0a" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:39:53.343" UserId="28199" />
  <row Id="11757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="35c06efe-2198-4358-b8e7-9b00b73a9c79" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:32:16.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/410492176351887360" />
  <row Id="11758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="4dc9c5f5-544d-448c-8982-a47ac8025a71" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:27:41.380" UserDisplayName="user29727" Text="[![Current Ask Different bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11759" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="e1f91d26-4710-4921-94f9-81d22b2c8eb9" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:27:41.380" UserDisplayName="user29727" />
  <row Id="11760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="3963409e-381f-4d07-96da-3dd05bd20efb" CreationDate="2013-12-11T09:38:06.127" UserId="5477" Text="At least one other site now has a customised top bar: the one at [Science Fiction and Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) has been made slightly translucent in order to make it fit better with their site. Obviously translucency wouldn't be appropriate in our case, but a similarly subtle change in colour scheme would make it a lot less visually jarring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is now precedent for customising the top bar, I hope the request to do so on our site will be genuinely considered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="f5b18fda-e913-4268-99a5-ca108606e035" CreationDate="2013-12-11T11:34:47.227" UserId="5477" Text="I quite often see this sort of thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when I reload the page, the equations will go back to being centred where they should be - but sometimes not. This is with Google Chrome (31.0.1650.57, though it's been an issue for a while) under OS X 10.8.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is with the Math renderer set to &quot;SVG&quot;, because I like my equations to be pretty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ql3OS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="f5b18fda-e913-4268-99a5-ca108606e035" CreationDate="2013-12-11T11:34:47.227" UserId="5477" Text="MathJax alignment issue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="f5b18fda-e913-4268-99a5-ca108606e035" CreationDate="2013-12-11T11:34:47.227" UserId="5477" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="7c7d1705-cd11-493f-8ef8-2ffd9291b86f" CreationDate="2013-12-11T14:18:52.480" UserId="8563" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 800 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2G8JO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="ff267b34-093a-4124-8540-a4927b10f8a4" CreationDate="2013-12-11T14:20:41.397" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv.org: the biggest open-access e-print repository for maths and physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VoMdO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11766" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="d8908c36-cf04-4fa9-bcaa-309793f5f6a3" CreationDate="2013-12-11T14:20:41.397" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="11767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="3ea56f06-a8ef-4e8f-8231-6f2236de3002" CreationDate="2013-12-11T14:59:31.070" UserId="31782" Text="A moderator declined two of my flagged comments and I disagree with this. How should I proceed in getting this reversed?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="3ea56f06-a8ef-4e8f-8231-6f2236de3002" CreationDate="2013-12-11T14:59:31.070" UserId="31782" Text="How do I dispute a moderator's diclination of two of my flags that i raised?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="3ea56f06-a8ef-4e8f-8231-6f2236de3002" CreationDate="2013-12-11T14:59:31.070" UserId="31782" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5301" RevisionGUID="e86659e1-0edc-4738-aebd-2e8cf7dda2b2" CreationDate="2013-12-11T16:53:58.403" UserId="124" Text="You post here (on meta) explaining what you flagged and what the response was, and ask why the decision was made that way and whether it was the right decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there is no guarantee the decision will be reversed, but if not, you'll get an explanation on why it was the right decision in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="fef8e9b5-fadd-48f6-a334-09a3a6d15e82" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:06:04.203" UserId="34705" Text="I am not sure if the mathematical physics tag would be appropriate for this post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89922/use-of-fractional-derivatives-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I would ask first. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="fef8e9b5-fadd-48f6-a334-09a3a6d15e82" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:06:04.203" UserId="34705" Text="Is the mathematical physics tag appropriate for this post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="fef8e9b5-fadd-48f6-a334-09a3a6d15e82" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:06:04.203" UserId="34705" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5303" RevisionGUID="4cdf5f71-aebc-4bf9-adbd-b1d362a37329" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:19:08.037" UserId="2451" Text="_Yes,_ it seems the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag applies to fractional derivatives, in particular since [fractional calculus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus) is a relatively advanced mathematical discipline, which is rarely covered in the standard university curriculum.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="cba53fdb-eaba-44b2-9f09-a98f9db1d0ff" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:23:19.427" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am not sure if the mathematical physics tag would be appropriate for this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89922/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11776" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="cba53fdb-eaba-44b2-9f09-a98f9db1d0ff" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:23:19.427" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="7dadf348-f1eb-4cd9-b268-9b503a013103" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:33:55.507" UserId="31782" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89374/velocity-at-the-very-moment-of-collision &#xD;&#xA;--------- &#xD;&#xA;some comments are posted on this question out of which i flagged these two: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 The last part is a duplicate of: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35177/… – jinawee  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 An addendum to @ja72's comment is that all composite objects must in reality **d** the store and release business . – dmckee♦.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;i flagged the comment no 1 two times , first because i had edited my question and explained that the last part of my question was duplicate of [this] question not that jinawee mentioned but my flag was declined.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;then i again edited my question and removed the duplicate part, after editing i again flagged comment no 1 as obsolete but it was again declined.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;i flagged comment no 2 as _not constructive_ because i don't find it related to the question one time and it was declined. And after this, the comment was rephrased with minor improvement of _d_ replaced with _do_. As &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;An addendum to @ja72's comment is that all composite objects must in reality **do** the store and release business. – dmckee♦ &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;Why my flags to these comments were declined?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[this]:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="7dadf348-f1eb-4cd9-b268-9b503a013103" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:33:55.507" UserId="31782" Text="Why some of my flags were declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="7dadf348-f1eb-4cd9-b268-9b503a013103" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:33:55.507" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5303" RevisionGUID="5898c74a-ccf2-43eb-b51c-0867268f1ac0" CreationDate="2013-12-11T17:43:56.977" UserId="2451" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="I) _Yes,_ it seems the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag applies to fractional derivatives, in particular since [fractional calculus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus) is a relatively advanced mathematical discipline, which is rarely covered in the standard university curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, for the most common tags [tag:insert-tagname-here], there is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a short wiki tag excerpt by hovering the mouse over the tag in the main Phys.SE site, or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a longer wiki tag description at http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/insert-tagname-here/info, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where one can learn more about the [tag:insert-tagname-here] tag. If not, users are encouraged to create (or improve) a wiki tag description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="2480f161-2a0a-44ac-8f04-09d9b8d9461c" CreationDate="2013-12-11T18:24:33.067" UserId="8563" Text="You shouldn't set too much store by declined flags. If you look on MSO, it happens relatively often that flags are declined and yet the action gets taken. There's two outcomes that can come out of this sort of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, did the action get taken? If it did, then no worries. If it didn't, what was it? If you were asking for removal of comments, then don't worry too much about it - comments are temporary anyway. If you don't like a comment but it's not offensive or anything, well, shucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The only thing a declined flag really does is it slightly affects your [flag weight](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/84859/we-dont-need-to-see-flag-weight) - that is, your total helpful vs. declined flags. This is *not* something to worry about unless a really large percentage of your flags get declined. This is used by mods as a *very* rough measure to help gauge the importance of flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, there's not all that much to decry about a declined flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="17e42b93-3fcb-4849-ae9b-da79e810533b" CreationDate="2013-12-11T18:39:14.547" UserId="1325" Text="I'm not a moderator, but FWIW I found jinawee's comment useful as it linked to an article that was related if not an exact duplicate. I would not want the comment deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dmckee's comment expands on ja72's to point out that special relativity demands any composite object cannot be rigid. This also seems to me to be a useful point and again my view is that the comment should stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Emilio says above, you can add a comment yourself to point out problems with someone else's comment, but those comments would normally not be deleted unless they are offensive or gratuitously pointless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5303" RevisionGUID="971833bc-c7bd-4041-bd8f-5bc62b9075f9" CreationDate="2013-12-11T20:59:46.443" UserId="2451" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I) _Yes,_ it seems the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag applies to fractional derivatives, in particular since [fractional calculus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus) is a relatively advanced mathematical discipline, which is rarely covered in a standard university curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, for the most common tags [tag:insert-tagname-here], there is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a short pop-up wiki tag excerpt available by hovering the mouse over the tag in the main Phys.SE site, or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a longer wiki tag description at http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/insert-tagname-here/info, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where one can learn more about the [tag:insert-tagname-here] tag. If not, then users are encouraged to create a wiki tag description (or improve an existing wiki tag description)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="65c2750c-595a-46cf-aa33-6ab25f31ea09" CreationDate="2013-12-12T07:23:40.783" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to comment" Text="I'm not a moderator, but FWIW I found jinawee's comment useful as it linked to an article that was related if not an exact duplicate. I would not want the comment deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dmckee's comment expands on ja72's to point out that special relativity demands any composite object cannot be rigid. This also seems to me to be a useful point and again my view is that the comment should stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Emilio says above, you can add a comment yourself to point out problems with someone else's comment, but those comments would normally not be deleted unless they are offensive or gratuitously pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, during the collision the ball has no single well defined velocity because it is an elastic object and as it deforms different parts of the ball are moving at different speeds. So it isn't clear what is meant by the velocity at the moment of the collision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might ask could we have a perfectly rigid ball, but special relativity sets an upper limit on the rigidity of macroscopic objects because pressure waves in the object cannot move faster than sound. Therefore no perfectly rigid objects can exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dmckee was pointing out that all real balls must deform and store energy as they hit the wall, then go back to their original shape and release energy as they bounce off the wall. Hence the impact takes a finite time and we have the problem of an ill defined velocity during the collision. In his comment the word *business* just means *activity* or *what happens* rather than some commercial enterprise. I'm afraid it's another example of English being a confusing language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11785" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="f1d2b7ed-b902-45c5-a6c8-1e1b602e9246" CreationDate="2013-12-12T16:32:16.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/411171654010945536" />
  <row Id="11786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="f1b22531-63da-4cb0-b921-bba1ced30c8e" CreationDate="2013-12-12T17:26:40.233" UserId="1325" Comment="oops" Text="I'm not a moderator, but FWIW I found jinawee's comment useful as it linked to an article that was related if not an exact duplicate. I would not want the comment deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dmckee's comment expands on ja72's to point out that special relativity demands any composite object cannot be rigid. This also seems to me to be a useful point and again my view is that the comment should stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Emilio says above, you can add a comment yourself to point out problems with someone else's comment, but those comments would normally not be deleted unless they are offensive or gratuitously pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, during the collision the ball has no single well defined velocity because it is an elastic object and as it deforms different parts of the ball are moving at different speeds. So it isn't clear what is meant by the velocity at the moment of the collision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might ask could we have a perfectly rigid ball, but special relativity sets an upper limit on the rigidity of macroscopic objects because pressure waves in the object cannot move faster than light. Therefore no perfectly rigid objects can exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dmckee was pointing out that all real balls must deform and store energy as they hit the wall, then go back to their original shape and release energy as they bounce off the wall. Hence the impact takes a finite time and we have the problem of an ill defined velocity during the collision. In his comment the word *business* just means *activity* or *what happens* rather than some commercial enterprise. I'm afraid it's another example of English being a confusing language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="86dbb7eb-7e60-4a1a-9c9b-703f5436d509" CreationDate="2013-12-12T22:22:50.793" UserId="8563" Comment="Grammar in the title to avoid jarring English in the front page. I won't mess with your post, though ;)." Text="Why were some of my flags declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="e149aba1-4828-4a02-afcc-99f3f192877e" CreationDate="2013-12-13T04:31:55.900" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="c946ae02-4e1b-4d2b-a938-951ac6b3e403" CreationDate="2013-12-13T12:51:19.547" UserId="8563" Text="The current tag wiki for the [tag:books] - now [tag:resource-recommendation] - tag includes, in its final paragraph, the request that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you question is about [tag:resource-recommendations], please add your question to [the book list][1] as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just gave that tag wiki a make-over to bring it in line with the [new books policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/), and I erased that paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think the [books list question][1] is not a good [tag:resource-recommendation] question as per the new policy.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't see that much value in having the question as opposed to simply [looking for questions with that tag].(http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - It adds to the curatorial load in dealing with new questions and adds a big backlog to go over.&#xD;&#xA; - It is unreasonable to expect of every asker of resource recommendation questions to edit their question into the big list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two things that come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the [books list question][1] on topic now?&#xD;&#xA; - If so, should we link to it from the tag wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="c946ae02-4e1b-4d2b-a938-951ac6b3e403" CreationDate="2013-12-13T12:51:19.547" UserId="8563" Text="Do we need/want an overarching books question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="c946ae02-4e1b-4d2b-a938-951ac6b3e403" CreationDate="2013-12-13T12:51:19.547" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|scope|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="b2987bda-348e-4aff-a677-c472911ca152" CreationDate="2013-12-14T17:36:06.023" UserId="20898" Text="[![THE NET ADVANCE OF PHYSICS][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UthyH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11793" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="9b251d5d-4c12-49da-a5ec-37f0903f4e50" CreationDate="2013-12-14T17:36:06.023" UserId="20898" />
  <row Id="11794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="d2510209-ce8d-49c9-a9db-7425bd43d1dc" CreationDate="2013-12-14T18:09:44.300" UserId="20898" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[![THE NET ADVANCE OF PHYSICS][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IYbBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="8111d45d-ffa3-44b7-ae47-1a1108819c7f" CreationDate="2013-12-15T12:28:54.850" UserId="1492" Text="[An answer by Ubuntu was deleted,][1] wrongly, in my opinion, as not being an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is offering an alternative answer which can be discussed as to how probable it is for Venus to be captured as is. He starts with a polite preamble but that is no reason to jump and delete the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7819/why-does-venus-rotate-the-opposite-direction-as-other-planets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="8111d45d-ffa3-44b7-ae47-1a1108819c7f" CreationDate="2013-12-15T12:28:54.850" UserId="1492" Text="why was this beginner's answer deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="8111d45d-ffa3-44b7-ae47-1a1108819c7f" CreationDate="2013-12-15T12:28:54.850" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5310" RevisionGUID="7f968457-793a-49a7-ae93-1083afd08571" CreationDate="2013-12-15T13:16:13.203" UserId="20731" Text="I think the way the answer was written has caused some confusion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed there is some answer in the text Ubuntu wrote, namely the innate spinning meteor theory. Most of the text however, especially the last sentence (&quot;if you do not answer I will understand), suggests that Ubuntu is rather asking a question. Or, really assuming the worst*, even hijack someone elses question for a question on his own theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can imagine that Qmechanic decided to delete it mainly based on the last part of the post, maybe without noticing the attempt at an answer in the first part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am quite sure that he didn't mean to do that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5310" RevisionGUID="3e5aef15-3d0f-4b54-8751-850353237268" CreationDate="2013-12-15T13:24:02.700" UserId="20731" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I think the way the answer was written has caused some confusion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed there is some answer in the text Ubuntu wrote, namely the innate spinning meteor theory. Most of the text however, especially the last sentence (&quot;if you do not answer I will understand&quot;), suggests that Ubuntu is rather asking a question. Or, really assuming the worst*, even hijack someone elses question for a question on his own theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can imagine that Qmechanic decided to delete it mainly based on the last part of the post, maybe without noticing the attempt at an answer in the first part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am quite sure that he didn't mean to do that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11800" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="f9c432e2-8a4f-41da-b491-12cfca4d917d" CreationDate="2013-12-15T15:00:22.267" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags; incorporated Manish Earth ' s comment" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="f9c432e2-8a4f-41da-b491-12cfca4d917d" CreationDate="2013-12-15T15:00:22.267" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags; incorporated Manish Earth ' s comment" Text="[An answer by Ubuntu was deleted,][1] wrongly, in my opinion, as not being an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is offering an alternative answer which can be discussed as to how probable it is for Venus to be captured as is. He starts with a polite preamble but that is no reason to jump and delete the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7819/why-does-venus-rotate-the-opposite-direction-as-other-planets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To those with &lt; 10 k, https://i.stack.imgur.com/U3rLz.png " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="f9c432e2-8a4f-41da-b491-12cfca4d917d" CreationDate="2013-12-15T15:00:22.267" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags; incorporated Manish Earth ' s comment" Text="Why was this beginner's answer deleted ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="7050f212-0ea9-4192-995d-0889eb2cd872" CreationDate="2013-12-15T15:10:07.730" UserId="2451" Text="Ups, yes, I read it pretty quickly, and mostly noticed what seemed like a question at the end. I have no time to deal with it, so I'm just going to undelete the answer for now, removing the question and the greeting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="fbffbbc5-3461-4da6-997b-c8d6975d2b00" CreationDate="2013-12-15T18:39:40.713" UserId="124" Text="Reading version 1 of the answer, my impression is that it was intended as a response to other answers (and comments). Sure, it includes something that _could_ be construed as an answer to the question, but that answer is quite speculative, and not the kind of informed response we want to encourage. So I would also have deleted that answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="f6bf1c89-33de-4597-8a1f-01217939975b" CreationDate="2013-12-15T23:06:40.687" UserId="124" Text="Yes, I agree with the proposal to get rid of the books question, or at least put a historical lock on it. I would rather have that information in the tag wiki anyway. Not that every resource recommendation should be linked in the tag wiki, but some of the ones on major topics that people are likely to reference frequently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="b79e90fe-dc1a-417b-b21c-1a081ac02ecb" CreationDate="2013-12-16T09:53:47.990" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The current tag wiki for the [tag:books] - now [tag:resource-recommendation] - tag includes, in its final paragraph, the request that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you question is about [tag:resource-recommendations], please add your question to [the book list][1] as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just gave that tag wiki a make-over to bring it in line with the [new books policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/), and I erased that paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think the [books list question][1] is not a good [tag:resource-recommendation] question as per the new policy.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't see that much value in having the question as opposed to simply [looking for questions with that tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - It adds to the curatorial load in dealing with new questions and adds a big backlog to go over.&#xD;&#xA; - It is unreasonable to expect of every asker of resource recommendation questions to edit their question into the big list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two things that come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the [books list question][1] on topic now?&#xD;&#xA; - If so, should we link to it from the tag wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="53511e41-f0da-49cc-aa78-e88c9a6bd94f" CreationDate="2013-12-16T16:34:32.350" UserId="20898" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="[![THE NET ADVANCE OF PHYSICS][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IYbBr.png &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="7fd8719f-eb9c-48ca-9e17-6fd7a8dbcec1" CreationDate="2013-12-16T20:54:21.397" UserId="21817" Text="When edit a question in the close queue, it automatically skips to the next question. So I have to open the question in a new tab to VTC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any direct way to achive this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there any particular reason why this cannot be done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="7fd8719f-eb9c-48ca-9e17-6fd7a8dbcec1" CreationDate="2013-12-16T20:54:21.397" UserId="21817" Text="Editing and closing in the close queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="7fd8719f-eb9c-48ca-9e17-6fd7a8dbcec1" CreationDate="2013-12-16T20:54:21.397" UserId="21817" Text="|support|editing|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="3b8c089b-d638-4c69-b52e-9f801d644332" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:09:35.777" UserId="7182" Text="A recent attempt on my part to re-open an estimation question has failed, so I thought it might be worthwhile to continue the discussion on meta. The original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55598/estimate-number-of-hairs-on-human-head&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was marked as off-topic since physicists should not care about the number of hairs on a human head. I will resist the urge to answer that physics = everything, since then we will start getting questions about the economy on here...but I think that estimation questions should be allowed for three main reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Every single physics textbook contains them. If chapter 1 of an introductory physics textbook is &quot;off-topic&quot;, then how can we determine that anything is on-topic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physicists have a long tradition of estimation. The phrase &quot;Back-of-the-envelope&quot; originated in the hard sciences, and any googling on the issue will immediately tell you these kinds of problems are referred to as &quot;Fermi problems&quot; because he was so good at them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem). He used them to solve physical problems - like estimating the size of nuclear explosions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) They are a key part of the working physicists toolkit. During seminars/conferences, questions of the form &quot;it seems like that value is too large&quot; are important discussion points, and originate with such estimation techniques. They allow us to study the mechanisms behind physical phenomena and processes which we may not be able to understand from first principles ( i.e. [the Drake equation][1]). If someone is running a machine (accelerator, telescope, SEM, SQUID...) they will be required to make on-the-fly decisions based on estimations of physical parameters of the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can someone tell me why these questions are not allowed? To me they are really characteristic of problems in physics. I hate using quotes to prove arguments, but I'm going to do so in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Never make a calculation until you know the answer: make an estimate before every calculation, try a simple physical argument (symmetry! invariance! conservation!) before every derivation, guess the answer to every puzzle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                             Wheeler and Taylor, Spacetime Physics (1966).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="3b8c089b-d638-4c69-b52e-9f801d644332" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:09:35.777" UserId="7182" Text="Why are estimation questions off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="3b8c089b-d638-4c69-b52e-9f801d644332" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:09:35.777" UserId="7182" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5317" RevisionGUID="a61ff6a8-4c3f-4bed-b46a-0b377240a123" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:25:43.073" UserId="6634" Text="Let's assume the question, even in it's current form, were asked today. I have a feeling it would be closed under the homework policy because it shows no effort, doesn't ask about a physical concept, and essentially boils down to a copy-paste of the question asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while I suppose one could argue that the close reason there is not the correct one, I still think it wouldn't be open anyway. I would vote to close it at least." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5318" RevisionGUID="44eaa92c-962a-4c5a-8611-08e2b4ae855d" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:36:36.980" UserId="7433" Text="Multiple reasons why it should stay closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You've made a very radical edit to it, completely changing what was asked. Ask it separately.&#xD;&#xA; - It's not a practical Fermi problem as there is no starting ground. The classic piano tuner problem has a base of numbers that can be easily estimated. &#xD;&#xA; - It's a tool, yes, but ultimately not a _physics_ question. &quot;How does one solve the Fermi problem of estimating the number of binary stars in an area&quot; is an OK question. This is not. One could similarly reason that programming questions are on topic, since programming is a tool which is widely used in physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="7dba408c-fd76-4c1f-a030-5b1f192f0395" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:42:13.023" UserId="124" Text="I would add to the other answers that you seem to be taking the wrong principle away from this. Just because the question was about order-of-magnitude estimation, and it got closed, doesn't mean questions about estimation are off topic. So what you're asking here is not really a problem that needs to be solved: estimation questions are _not_ off topic as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, no-effort homework-like questions in which someone asks us to solve a problem for them _are_ off topic, and also questions which ask for an answer rather than about a physical concept are off topic. (Kind of the same thing.) This question about hairs on a head is precisely that type." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5320" RevisionGUID="d616349e-7a5c-4d67-bc68-dbebfff1ccff" CreationDate="2013-12-16T23:44:54.677" UserId="22494" Text="I reluctantly approved your radical edit to the question because I thought you put a lot of effort into it and I didn't entirely disagree with your main point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue I see with the question as it is worded now is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - About 80% of the question text is defending the general idea of estimation as a valid tool in physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question itself (how many hairs on a human head) has almost no value to the community&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not against estimation questions but I think a question should be about the estimation technique or have some value to the overall community.  If the goal is to have a good demonstration of estimation then we could have any question, not just human hair, be the stand-in-question that demos the technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this could be one of the cases when posting a question about estimation and then answering your own question would be a valuable contribution to the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11820" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="5225df9b-e961-494b-b520-de3ced1562c0" CreationDate="2013-12-17T01:48:26.610" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4634],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="73dc6d51-ac53-45ed-9219-a5f423d0df0e" CreationDate="2013-12-17T01:53:17.393" UserId="22494" Text="I find this annoying too.  I often see a question that should be cleaned up AND closed.  I recently re-read the [close-vote guidance][1] to figure this out.  This is the pertinent few sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Editing the question or gathering enough Leave Open votes will automatically kick the question out of the queue and immediately begin aging the close votes (no matter the number of views). If the question receives another close vote after being kicked out, it will re-enter the queue for further review. Questions with vote to close as a duplicate will also list each possible duplicate in a tab at the top for easy reviewing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems editing is viewed as an implicit &quot;leave open&quot; vote.  I assume the rational behind that is that if the question is worth closing it isn't worth editing and if it is worth editing, it's worth leaving open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I've been handling this is to open a new tab, edit the question, and then cast a close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do this because I want our closed questions to be searchable so that in the future we can find them for duplicate marking or even to help discourage more poor questions from being asked by new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5322" RevisionGUID="d2e640da-f979-4d08-9429-2482bd4987ea" CreationDate="2013-12-17T02:15:07.160" UserId="11062" Text="I guess the &quot;edit&quot; buttons placed in the review queues are meant to bring the question back into our scope. Because, it has popped into the review queue due to its *off-topicness* or its low quality or some flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so far (in my 3k user lifetime), I've done the same believing my hypothesis..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="6ae20468-ad4b-4381-b3a1-8d9d33a26edc" CreationDate="2013-12-17T05:33:46.037" UserId="562" Text="I find that the tags Info page is somehow hard to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be useful to have a simple pictures to illustrate the tag like the Wikipedia pages, for example putting the figure on the right hand side of [Special relativity][1] to our corresponding [tag][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it would be easier to visualize the relation between tags rather than just list all of them out, such as [Classical mechanics][3]. Is there way to generate those graphs so that we can put them there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/special-relativity/info&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/classical-mechanics/info" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="6ae20468-ad4b-4381-b3a1-8d9d33a26edc" CreationDate="2013-12-17T05:33:46.037" UserId="562" Text="Illustrative pictures for the tags Info page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="6ae20468-ad4b-4381-b3a1-8d9d33a26edc" CreationDate="2013-12-17T05:33:46.037" UserId="562" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="76e178b0-3a6b-4f8a-bd19-1ecad1a5d050" CreationDate="2013-12-17T10:33:04.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/412893200521891840" />
  <row Id="11829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="a6c07f4e-cd2f-4ed3-b9d2-e332cd2f2f14" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:31:45.267" UserId="12813" Text="**User feed** and **Question feed** are supported by (1) the Feeder or (2) Google Reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Google Reader is closed this summer. And Feeder is not free for payment(?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we have alternative of **User feed** and **Question feed** by **emails notification or like other feeds supporter**?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="a6c07f4e-cd2f-4ed3-b9d2-e332cd2f2f14" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:31:45.267" UserId="12813" Text="User feed and Question feed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="a6c07f4e-cd2f-4ed3-b9d2-e332cd2f2f14" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:31:45.267" UserId="12813" Text="|support|user-interface|notifications|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="a5c89fe8-cad3-47f9-9da1-dba71ad74bac" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:40:15.953" UserId="12813" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="**User feed** and **Question feed** are supported by (1) the Feeder or (2) Google Reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Google Reader is closed this summer. And Feeder is not free for payment(?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we have alternative of **User feed** and **Question feed** by **emails notification or like other feeds supporter**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF we do not, can we promote to have these features?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11833" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="dadd4aaf-8165-459b-94c5-70b6af596e48" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:41:48.703" UserId="7433" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="32dd6b8b-b148-4f72-8791-d688400f07dd" CreationDate="2013-12-18T02:19:11.743" UserId="12813" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="SE **User feed** and **Question feed** are supported by (1) the Feeder or (2) Google Reader ONLY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Google Reader is closed this summer. And Feeder is not free for payment(?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we have alternative of **User feed** and **Question feed** by **emails notification or like other feeds supporter**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF we do not, can we promote to have these features?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="f0ae26c5-d8e7-4f7a-8400-6aff235072e4" CreationDate="2013-12-18T06:50:36.163" UserId="5477" Comment="added 500 characters in body" Text="I quite often see this sort of thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when I reload the page, the equations will go back to being centred where they should be - but sometimes not. This is with Google Chrome (31.0.1650.57, though it's been an issue for a while) under OS X 10.8.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is with the Math renderer set to &quot;SVG&quot;, because I like my equations to be pretty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not specific to multiline equations. Here is an example with a single-line one, albeit a rather long one:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure but I suspect it happens with all equations - it's just that unless the bounding box of the equation is very large it tends to end up only slightly offset from the centre-line, so I don't notice it with small equations. (I'll keep an eye out and update again if I can confirm that.)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ql3OS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mdZ66.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="ecfd3ece-b7ca-4734-8020-af450507503d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T11:03:25.677" UserId="7743" Text="As far as I know Astronomy.SE [merged][1] into Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I asked this astronomy related question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89350/when-venus-is-the-brightest-when-viewed-from-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I got a moderator comment that it would better fit in astronomy.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's up? Will the site split again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="ecfd3ece-b7ca-4734-8020-af450507503d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T11:03:25.677" UserId="7743" Text="Did Astronomy.SE reopen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="ecfd3ece-b7ca-4734-8020-af450507503d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T11:03:25.677" UserId="7743" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="92e665ed-0dbe-4523-bfac-565838f7062a" CreationDate="2013-12-18T11:07:28.727" UserId="7433" Text="The site was restarted. Old questions merged with Physics stay here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since our scope was expanded, everything on topic on Astro _is_ on topic here, though for observational astronomy there is a chance that you may get better answers on Astro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, there are no plans of splitting up the scope again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="fe47471e-bc03-4585-b1b3-ed4b744697b8" CreationDate="2013-12-18T12:51:01.720" UserId="2451" Text="Technically speaking, it is not reopened. Rather it is a [new](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy) SE proposal with the [same name](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy), although it might be difficult to tell [the difference in scope](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/6222/40978). So in practice: _Yeah,_ it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="883d93f8-713b-4c4d-88c1-a979cb7933b6" CreationDate="2013-12-20T01:41:19.830" UserId="17361" Text="I really would like to refrain from whining and so whilst I have been downvoted to -5 or less before, I haven't really bothered to complain about it.  I truly do not want to be that person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would like some criticism to why my question received -3 because in my eyes it is perfectly valid: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90347/proof-that-the-ground-pushes-you-up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just asks about why the ground is expected to push back when you try to jump; the answer of which is as simple as compression and decompression (hence elasticity) of the surface on a nanoscopic level.  I mentioned that I'm new to physics and gave my opinion on what I thought was happening.  I got answers and -3 votes but nobody said anything out of the ordinary and when I asked, nobody bothered answering me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody please explain what I am doing wrong in my question?  Is it the way I asked it, the content itself, or perhaps is it too low-level for the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="883d93f8-713b-4c4d-88c1-a979cb7933b6" CreationDate="2013-12-20T01:41:19.830" UserId="17361" Text="Post downvoting am I doing something wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="883d93f8-713b-4c4d-88c1-a979cb7933b6" CreationDate="2013-12-20T01:41:19.830" UserId="17361" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5329" RevisionGUID="b6ad0686-36ca-49c0-8b19-5a998307d78b" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:44:33.310" UserId="124" Text="My guess is, there's a little of both involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are _lots_ of resources online, including other questions on this very site, on the topic of how the normal force happens. You haven't given any indication that you looked at any of those resources, and thus it appears as though you haven't put much of any research effort into your question. Any post like that is not likely to be well received.&#xD;&#xA;- Also, the question is written in a way that's characteristic of someone who isn't familiar with even the basic physics required to understand the answer. (And the fact that you identify yourself as a newbie to physics doesn't help.) Remember that this is primarily an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. Now, that doesn't mean that everyone is supposed to be a physics expert (like a grad student or researcher), but what it does mean is that we expect people asking questions to either already have the appropriate level of physics knowledge required to understand the answer to their question, or to be willing to go out and learn it after they get that answer. Your question is written in a way that kind of implies you're looking for a layperson-level, highly simplified explanation. There's nothing wrong with _asking_ those kinds of questions, but when you want that kind of an explanation, this site isn't meant to be the place to get them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5330" RevisionGUID="631d476e-a392-4b48-93b7-96fd2e415502" CreationDate="2013-12-20T11:25:09.710" UserId="1325" Text="It's annoying and even upsetting to receive downvotes; I certainly don't like it when it happens to me! However a downvote isn't an insult, and it's not a personal criticism. A downvote just means the downvoter doesn't think the question is suitable for this site. Three or more downvotes stop a question from appearing on the home page, so there is a reason for downvoting i.e. to reduce (perceived) clutter on the home page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, I don't think your question warranted downvotes. It is a duplicate, but even I find it hard to spot duplicates for questions and for a new user of the site it must be even harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one of the key features of the Physics Stack Exchange that we strive to protect is it's high signal to noise ratio. Right from the early days of Usenet a big problem with Physics discussion sites has been that all types of junk gets posted on them, from would be scientists trying to promote their own theories to zealots claiming Einstein was wrong and even people who just like vandalising web sites. The aim of the Physics SE is that all the questions and answers will be interesting and informative to anyone interested in Physics. As a result we expect people to have done some research before posting their question, and questions that are naive tend to attract downvotes as a result. By taking this approach we run the risk of being elitist and putting off newcomers trying to learn Physics. It's a tightrope we have to walk, and I think we generally get it about right though the treatment of your question was a bit harsh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5329" RevisionGUID="6f0e2411-56af-4f8d-9bc6-a1accd49b058" CreationDate="2013-12-20T19:26:32.397" UserId="124" Comment="add more information" Text="My guess is, there's a little of both involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are _lots_ of resources online, including other questions on this very site, on the topic of how the normal force happens. You haven't given any indication that you looked at any of those resources, and thus it appears as though you haven't put much of any research effort into your question. Any post like that is not likely to be well received.&#xD;&#xA;- Also, the question is written in a way that's characteristic of someone who isn't familiar with even the basic physics required to understand the answer. (And the fact that you identify yourself as a newbie to physics doesn't help.) Remember that this is primarily an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. Now, that doesn't mean that everyone is supposed to be a physics expert (like a grad student or researcher), but what it does mean is that we expect people asking questions to either already have the appropriate level of physics knowledge required to understand the answer to their question, or to be willing to go out and learn it after they get that answer. Your question is written in a way that kind of implies you're looking for a layperson-level, highly simplified explanation. There's nothing wrong with _asking_ those kinds of questions, but when you want that kind of an explanation, this site isn't meant to be the place to get them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corresponding to those reasons, here are some things you can do to improve future questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, put some effort into searching for the answer to your question, and show that you've done so. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into Google (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few results&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant Wikipedia pages&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. Remember, since this is an expert-level site, you should have the capacity to educate yourself enough to understand the answers you get, and as part of that educational program you should have some textbook-like resource available to you. Make sure to use it.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on arXiv.&#xD;&#xA; - And of course, search on this site! Use the search box in the top right to check for relevant keywords and tags, and also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to explicitly list all the steps you go through to do prior research - like, you don't have to say which search terms you used - but you should give some indication that you put some effort into this. Basically, if someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that answers it, you should have found it yourself and already put an explanation in the question of why that resource doesn't give you the answer you want. Bear in mind that this is a requirement of questions at _all_ levels. It has nothing to do with whether your question may be too simple or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing (but it's kind of the same thing) that works against you is that you ask a question, present a hypothesis about the answer... and then that's it. It's fine (even preferred) to have your own hypothesis about the answer to your question - as long as your hypothesis is grounded in solid physics, of course - but then you need to go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, and then you don't need to post the question in the first place. Or if it's incorrect, you'll learn something that might help you better understand the question or its eventual answer. The point is, if you just say &quot;My hypothesis is that XXXX.&quot; and leave it at that, it comes across as laziness. If you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is that XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="28de352e-3aa7-4a84-bbd9-808df3773bce" CreationDate="2013-12-21T01:10:47.893" UserId="22494" Text="I'm pretty sure I was the first downvote which was based on the original version of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proof that the ground pushes you up&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Excuse me if this is obvious because I am new to physics)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It has been said that when you try to jump you are exerting your force on the ground and the ground pushes you up. I was wondering if this was an over-simplification or not. If so, what's the full explanation? Otherwise, I would like to know the derivation of this proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a couple issues with the question.  First, you were asking for &quot;proof&quot; and the fact that you don't fall through the ground and that you can jump sure seems like great proof to me.  Second, you didn't really ask about the source of the normal force or any details of the interaction.  Third, there are many very similar or identical questions on the site and it doesn't seem like you did any effort to search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;tool tip&quot; when you hover over the downvote button reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your original formulation and the downvote guidance that my downvote was called for.  You've since edited the question and improved it.  I don't think the downvote is as appropriate now so I've reverted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Also, as an aside, this site is about getting the best answers to the best questions.  This is one of the reasons why questions and answers can be edited by anyone.  The [revision history][1] show you fighting with editors (in my opinion) inappropriately.  There are times where edits should be reverted or fixed but I don't see any examples of that in the edits to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/90347/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="99dece50-3e0e-4a12-9370-6c6f8d64302b" CreationDate="2013-12-21T07:27:00.973" UserId="22494" Text="Recently the question [Is there a minimum mass is required for light to be noticeably bent?][1] popped up in my review queue because it has a few close votes/flags.  One is for &quot;*Unclear what you're asking*&quot; and the other is &quot;*Primarily opinion based*&quot;.  I thought about hitting &quot;*Skip*&quot; but ultimately I decided to vote &quot;*Leave Open*&quot; because I don't think either of those votes is accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now I feel guilty and I wonder if choosing anything other than &quot;*Skip*&quot; was a conflict of interest.  I have an up-voted answer in response to the question and I think that makes me a really poor judge of where the question should be closed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a generally accepted convention about conflicts of interest like in this case?  Should I have chosen &quot;*Skip*&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90336/is-there-a-minimum-mass-is-required-for-light-to-be-noticeably-bent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="99dece50-3e0e-4a12-9370-6c6f8d64302b" CreationDate="2013-12-21T07:27:00.973" UserId="22494" Text="Is it a conflict of interest to review &quot;votes to close&quot; on questions you've answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="99dece50-3e0e-4a12-9370-6c6f8d64302b" CreationDate="2013-12-21T07:27:00.973" UserId="22494" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5333" RevisionGUID="0da7c09d-b047-490f-a6f4-7535434a9c3b" CreationDate="2013-12-21T09:58:01.997" UserId="1325" Text="Closing the question doesn't prevent your answer being upvoted and indeed accepted, so the only effect on your reputation would be the peripheral one that site users may not look at a question if they see it has been closed. So any conflict of interest you may have is pretty minor. I would not lose any sleep over the issue :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5334" RevisionGUID="7d612b93-5bdf-43dd-ae02-d8abda6ab544" CreationDate="2013-12-21T18:17:48.380" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is there a generally accepted convention about conflicts of interest like in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but I think in practice we just trust people to be more or less objective. And you're not making a unilateral decision so the impact of any potential conflict of interest is limited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="b9fa00b5-4eeb-4454-b83e-173e75b55115" CreationDate="2013-12-22T03:13:30.017" UserId="8563" Text="To go a bit further, I tend to see it this way when it comes up: if you think the question is worthy of an answer, then it most likely deserves to be left open. You've thought enough about the question to decide that it is on-topic and to provide an answer. Stand up for it and vote to leave open! (If that is, of course, what you think should be done.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11854" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="af076ee9-65f7-4e9b-a482-ff38ff83160c" CreationDate="2013-12-22T04:38:21.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/414615871571906561" />
  <row Id="11855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="75eec0ce-864c-4f5b-a82d-a40a9f19be90" CreationDate="2013-12-23T01:50:36.260" UserId="12813" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Do we have **User feed** and **Question feed** by **emails notification**? (or like **other feeds supporter**?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF we do not, can we promote to have these features?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. It is **NOT** asking about off-site service. What I wonder is whether there is email notification for **a specific User** feed or **a specific question** feed provided by Phys SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="471c9b29-56bc-4a59-9d6f-7430091977d1" CreationDate="2013-12-23T01:57:06.660" UserId="12813" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Do we have **User feed** and **Question feed** by **emails notification**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we do not, can we promote to have these features?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. It is **NOT** asking about off-site service. What I wonder is whether there is an email notification service for **a specific User** feed or **a specific question** feed provided by Phys SE. There is this service for question Tags on a particular category. But NOT for **a specific User** feed or **a specific question** feed. Why **NOT**? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11857" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="9c5df7a4-1d66-4e8d-b624-eb278751c9a4" CreationDate="2013-12-23T06:30:55.610" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12813,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Idear&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="87681154-16d7-4081-bd08-f990b9d3e418" CreationDate="2013-12-23T07:05:20.223" UserId="31337" Text="How do I include a diagram that will simplify my question, mostly in concepts like kinematic or Newton's Laws of Motions? I searched the site but didn't find a way to include it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If this question has already been asked and has an answer, please add a link and close this one.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="87681154-16d7-4081-bd08-f990b9d3e418" CreationDate="2013-12-23T07:05:20.223" UserId="31337" Text="Procedure to include a diagram in a post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="87681154-16d7-4081-bd08-f990b9d3e418" CreationDate="2013-12-23T07:05:20.223" UserId="31337" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5337" RevisionGUID="f33c20d1-4117-44a8-997f-bab58acb9c1f" CreationDate="2013-12-23T08:07:21.837" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="To insert pictures, you can click the handy &quot;Image&quot; button above the question/answer field:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will prompt you to locate the picture either on your computer or on the internet. It will upload it to StackExchange's special imgur account&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and insert the appropriate formatted link in the text field. Note that you are encouraged to replace the highlighted text with some image description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![pre-formatted image link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *making* diagrams, there is no particular toolset on the site.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; We do have many [suggestions][3], though, for standalone tools. Use whichever you want, and upload the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why nothing integrated into the site? You can make a request, but as you'll see in that last link, there are many different opinions about what works best. Besides, whatever option there is has to be amenable to integrating into websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You should do this rather than just format an appropriate link to the image. This way the picture is permanently stored even if there is link rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Unlike, for instance [Electrical Engineering][4], which has a [tool for making circuit diagrams][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lO6nf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SytVf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/401&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/a/2708" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="0db5f094-58df-46cb-94f9-a123d52a8d0a" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:19:38.057" UserId="392" Text="Is it ok to downvote an answer when the user refused to use `LaTeX` math formatting and instead wrote out all equations in **bold** text or worse no formatting at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example answer:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/82028/392&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. There is a little known FAQ on math formatting here:&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="0db5f094-58df-46cb-94f9-a123d52a8d0a" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:19:38.057" UserId="392" Text="Downvoting an answer not using math formatting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="0db5f094-58df-46cb-94f9-a123d52a8d0a" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:19:38.057" UserId="392" Text="|discussion|mathjax|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="2cf7ed68-e51b-4e46-921f-0101c51ccbe9" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:22:06.270" UserId="520" Text="Generally you should fix easy things like that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you can also expect posters to learn from their mistakes and not do the same thing in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5340" RevisionGUID="2bfb96f3-d205-46d1-ae54-9033b945fb2e" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:34:07.970" UserId="21817" Text="I wouldn't downvote if the answer is not complicated to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you should leave a comment to new users and edit it if you have time. For instance, @annav doesn't use LaTex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="b8814764-8cd6-47eb-b724-6d27ed537855" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:23:05.597" UserId="21817" Text="I can't see the difference bewteen _very low quality_ and _not an answer_. The flag descriptions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**it is not an answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**it is very low quality**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that an useful comment should be flagged as _not an answer_. But when the answer is just nonsense, is it _very low quality_ or _not an answer_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how do questions get to the _low quality_ queue, since there is no  _low quality question_ flag?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="b8814764-8cd6-47eb-b724-6d27ed537855" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:23:05.597" UserId="21817" Text="Why do we have the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="b8814764-8cd6-47eb-b724-6d27ed537855" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:23:05.597" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="5228a838-2944-4034-9b37-9ed940c04f69" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:23:14.363" UserId="124" Text="Technically you can downvote for whatever reason you want. (Any reason based on the content of the post, that is. If you downvote because of who posted it, that's not okay.) So if you want to downvote a post because it doesn't use MathJax for the formulas, that is, strictly speaking, okay. It may or may not be a good idea, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is sometimes an argument in favor of doing this. The main reason you're supposed to downvote an answer is that it's not useful. But an answer can be not useful for a variety of reasons: it's wrong, it's unclear, it doesn't justify its conclusions, or it's just difficult to read. (Or others.) And an answer with a lot of math which is formatted using plain text, not MathJax, qualifies as &quot;difficult to read&quot; as far as I'm concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, of course, it's an easy edit to put in the proper MathJax formatting. So when I come across an answer of this type, I'll usually just edit it, rather than downvoting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="8781994e-4dd9-462a-893d-0d75546fc9ab" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:31:21.493" UserId="520" Text="Very low quality presumably present a nominal answer, it is just that it is very badly written or presented to a unresolvable extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not an answer says that it is for new questions, comments and responses to other answers; that is things which don't even pretend to provide an answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the low quality queue is filled only with posts flagged by the automatic post-quality heuristics. These are usually very short or consisting mainly of a link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5344" RevisionGUID="8eca19e9-e59e-4f19-a2df-e8c04eaa1003" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:47:50.940" UserId="124" Text="I think [this MSO question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/93595/is-the-very-low-quality-flag-too-ambiguous) addresses that. To quote from the top answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Essentially this is synonymous with **flag for removal**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, it's quite rare that I see a post which I would consider an appropriate use of the VLQ flag. It pretty much has to be actual gibberish. (Needless to say, as a moderator I delete such posts; if I weren't a moderator, I would VLQ-flag them.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="d2deff96-8951-4c60-8efa-bab8606a56a6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T05:14:47.763" UserId="12813" Text="**What is the standard time of Physics SE and Physics meta.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the clock gauging our profile &quot;**visited X days, Y consecutive**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eg. in arXiv, we have arXiv time like this: http://arxiv.org/localtime&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How about Physics SE and Physics meta? Is that EST, the same of New York City?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This matters, whether **Y consecutive** depends on the mark of date-changing line? **Is it 00:00 of EST?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="d2deff96-8951-4c60-8efa-bab8606a56a6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T05:14:47.763" UserId="12813" Text="What is the standard time (clock) of Physics SE and Physics meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="d2deff96-8951-4c60-8efa-bab8606a56a6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T05:14:47.763" UserId="12813" Text="|support|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="372584ea-ea02-462a-ade9-c8e9118281e5" CreationDate="2013-12-24T05:15:32.763" UserId="520" Text="All Stack Exchange sites run on UTC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="8edf3b43-502a-40a6-920e-782b68e64202" CreationDate="2013-12-24T12:09:28.333" UserId="15901" Text="Have I done enough to improve [this question][1] to get it reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90372/is-optical-illusion-responsible-for-loch-ness-monster" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="8edf3b43-502a-40a6-920e-782b68e64202" CreationDate="2013-12-24T12:09:28.333" UserId="15901" Text="Can the Loch Ness monster question be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="8edf3b43-502a-40a6-920e-782b68e64202" CreationDate="2013-12-24T12:09:28.333" UserId="15901" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5348" RevisionGUID="b810ad38-60ff-4284-aaaf-ddadd0c68786" CreationDate="2013-12-24T12:20:42.043" UserId="21817" Text="dmckee's answer is correct, but note that if you want to see UTC time, you can go to the **achivements tab**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jfWa9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="fca887e5-c251-4113-9c5e-119357166559" CreationDate="2013-12-24T12:23:09.540" UserId="21817" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="237c8b89-e9b7-41d5-aa76-c5ac013a36d0" CreationDate="2013-12-24T21:02:37.457" UserId="124" Comment="expand on need for edits" Text="Technically you can downvote for whatever reason you want. (Any reason based on the content of the post, that is. If you downvote because of who posted it, that's not okay.) So if you want to downvote a post because it doesn't use MathJax for the formulas, that is, strictly speaking, okay. It may or may not be a good idea, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is sometimes an argument in favor of doing this. The main reason you're supposed to downvote an answer is that it's not useful. But an answer can be not useful for a variety of reasons: it's wrong, it's unclear, it doesn't justify its conclusions, or it's just difficult to read. (Or others.) And an answer with a lot of math which is formatted using plain text, not MathJax, qualifies as &quot;difficult to read&quot; as far as I'm concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, of course, it's an easy edit to put in the proper MathJax formatting. So when I come across an answer of this type, I'll usually just edit it, rather than downvoting. And in general, whenever the reason you would downvote is something that can be fixed in a fairly obvious way by an edit which doesn't change the meaning of the post, it's preferable to edit rather than downvoting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="d8801ca3-a8b9-404a-bed7-356f63b28aab" CreationDate="2013-12-25T14:20:56.270" UserId="11062" Text="Is it nice to link to other Q&amp;A sites when answering questions? I know that we don't have expectations as skeptics people. But, I have a bad feeling when we come up with an answer based on someone's saying elsewhere in the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/91245/11062) might be a *close* example. The answerer cites the phrase to some guy at some other Q&amp;A site. Saying by its looks, that's a low quality site for sure. For instance, we don't even know who the guy, or what his specialty in our field is....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is a high-quality Q&amp;A site. We usually come to the conclusion, from each others' answers, based on agreement of previously known facts. And, I'm convinced that this answer is okay with it. I mean, it says that the viscosity of vodkas vary with brands. With some common sense, we all can agree with that. So, the citing doesn't matter here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about a technical one? Wouldn't the same &quot;citing to another Q&amp;A site&quot; (well, most are pretty much low quality when compared to us) reduce the quality of our answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="d8801ca3-a8b9-404a-bed7-356f63b28aab" CreationDate="2013-12-25T14:20:56.270" UserId="11062" Text="Is is good/bad to cite to posts in other Q&amp;A sites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="d8801ca3-a8b9-404a-bed7-356f63b28aab" CreationDate="2013-12-25T14:20:56.270" UserId="11062" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="0de5d9fa-7947-4532-93ad-cb3d9224b122" CreationDate="2013-12-25T15:16:41.347" UserId="11062" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Is it nice to link to other Q&amp;A sites when answering questions? I know that we don't have expectations as skeptics people. But, I have a bad feeling when we come up with an answer based on someone's saying elsewhere in the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/91245/1) might be a *close* example (I've edited it now, with a better link from @dmckee). The answerer cites the phrase to some guy at some other Q&amp;A site. Saying by its looks, that's a low quality site for sure. For instance, we don't even know who the guy, or what his specialty in our field is....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is a high-quality Q&amp;A site. We usually come to the conclusion, from each others' answers, based on agreement of previously known facts. And, I'm convinced that this answer is okay with it. I mean, it says that the viscosity of vodkas vary with brands. With some common sense, we all can agree with that. So, the citing doesn't matter here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about a technical one? Wouldn't the same &quot;citing to another Q&amp;A site&quot; (well, most are pretty much low quality when compared to us) reduce the quality of our answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="ad670560-375f-4085-9192-5d8582742f9e" CreationDate="2013-12-25T16:59:56.833" UserId="1325" Text="If you had a question about fluid dynamics and wave formation then that's physics. Why waves might look like mythical creatures is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5351" RevisionGUID="31516db2-3c64-4334-9911-a0d2cccc2ec3" CreationDate="2013-12-25T17:16:28.670" UserId="1325" Text="When you're answering a question about an observation like settling in fluid there are two parts to the answer. One is an explanation of the mathematical model used, and the second is the estimation of numerical values for constants used in your calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mathetical model rarely needs citations, except possibly you're using a citation to skip the gory details, as it should be fairly obvious if the maths makes sense. Finding numerical values is far harder. Taking the question you linked, I also tried to look up the viscosity of vodka and rather surprisingly Google failed to find anything useful. Even the simpler search for the viscosity of water/ethanol mixtures took some searching. Under these circumstances you may be reduced to quoting figures from some questionable source. That doesn't necessarily matter if it's clear how you're using the data and how possible errors in the numerical values may affect your conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit unfair to point to a particular question, but if you look at my and Joe Hilton's answers then actually neither is very good, since neither of us give a model for the settling of gold leaf flakes in a fluid. In fact, as Bernhard points out, a naive calculation using Stoke's law gives an unrealistically high settling rate, and it's not immediately obvious to me how to model the settling of such unusually shaped and flexible particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my point is that citations from dubious sources are not in themselves a problem as it depends on the context and what exactly the citation is being used for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="52ce5587-b4ff-45b0-a581-c8d036eef1d1" CreationDate="2013-12-26T09:18:52.670" UserId="15901" Comment="added coda" Text="Have I done enough to improve [this question][1] to get it reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coda:**  If the first comment by `WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance` had been posted as an answer, I would have accepted it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90372/is-optical-illusion-responsible-for-loch-ness-monster" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="a164c8fb-437a-4d92-99d1-d1ca2bcea486" CreationDate="2013-12-26T13:45:08.063" UserId="7433" Text="There have been [a][1] [couple][2] [of][3] impromptu contests on Meta where one has to write a relevant poem or something. Some have been just for fun, some have been for swag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not have an informal (no prizes, unfortunately) competition on this Meta for some Christmas fun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inspiration is [this chat message][4] on the Physics GRE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the physics one basically just tests whether you've sat through a &quot;modern physics for freshman poets&quot; course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accuracy of the above statement aside, one can have quite a bit of fun writing physics poems that could find a place in a quiz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The poem must either be a question, or a question+answer&#xD;&#xA; - No restrictions on the specific form of poetry. Preferably rhyming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have fun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/212433/should-employees-with-head-injuries-be-allowed-to-post-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/212781/christmas-hat-haiku&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/208393/i-would-like-a-mug-please&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=12793773#12793773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="a164c8fb-437a-4d92-99d1-d1ca2bcea486" CreationDate="2013-12-26T13:45:08.063" UserId="7433" Text="Write a &quot;Physics GRE&quot; poem!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="a164c8fb-437a-4d92-99d1-d1ca2bcea486" CreationDate="2013-12-26T13:45:08.063" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="eec41378-8f78-472c-8767-2293636b55b9" CreationDate="2013-12-26T13:45:08.063" UserId="7433" Text="Just to get this started:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the music that is sung&#xD;&#xA; when an electron is far flung?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why, you idiotic pile of dung, &#xD;&#xA; the answer is bremsstrahlung!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By root of oak and stem of clove where do photons get the shove?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The intriguing answer, by Jove is most certainly Cerenkov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Apologies for the cold-blooded murder of meter)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="9d49e845-848f-4cef-8fbc-ebbcd14fee7f" CreationDate="2013-12-26T14:43:54.090" UserId="11062" Text="YAY!!! Let's enjoy the last few days of 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How's mine?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What happens when a sparkler becomes a night hurdler?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why are you being crazy, niggler? It's definitely Doppler..!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this too...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, we all sprang out from a mere bang?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yeah, but it's not a stupid whizbang. It's the Big Bang!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5355" RevisionGUID="d1650216-2fdb-4789-bf83-16a2ba83d44a" CreationDate="2013-12-26T16:01:30.520" UserId="25301" Text="Here's one...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Bright stars out at day?&#xD;&#xA;    It must be supernovae!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and two...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The missing part of decay we know,&#xD;&#xA;    is a little bitty neutrino&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;possibly some more coming later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="8fa61a2c-9002-4313-afb9-048b0f5b0124" CreationDate="2013-12-26T21:39:35.497" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="&gt; Why two beams of light are a-racing; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  In that way exactly they're facing. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  In accord with GR &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Once they've traveled quite far &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [Will gravity change their true spacing?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There once was a piece of spaghetti &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Quite dry and uncooked and not sweaty. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Too much it was bent; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Away the shards went. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [But why did it break like confetti?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The [universe][3] keeps on [expanding][4] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  And [everyone's][5] always [demanding][6]: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Much [faster than light][7]? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  I'm [sure][8] it's not [right][9]! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  But [where][10] is my [misunderstanding][11]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71661/why-does-dry-spaghetti-break-into-three-pieces-as-opposed-to-only-two&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20056/superluminal-expansion-of-the-early-universe-how-is-this-possible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30037/will-acceleration-rate-of-expansion-of-space-become-faster-than-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41058/is-the-cosmic-horizon-related-to-the-big-bang-event&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44386/is-2-5x-speed-of-light-possible-between-two-objects&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50061/time-for-light-to-travel-from-most-distant-objects-in-universe&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59803/galaxies-moving-away-at-the-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60519/can-space-expand-with-unlimited-speed&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90440/how-is-it-possible-the-universe-expanded-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-during-i" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5344" RevisionGUID="2537bd47-8d87-4162-8b8b-b06b79536569" CreationDate="2013-12-27T07:40:30.247" UserId="124" Comment="expand on answer" Text="I think [this MSO question](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/93595/is-the-very-low-quality-flag-too-ambiguous) addresses that. To quote from the top answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Essentially this is synonymous with **flag for removal**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, it's quite rare that I see a post which I would consider an appropriate use of the VLQ flag. It pretty much has to be actual gibberish. (Needless to say, as a moderator I delete such posts; if I weren't a moderator, I would VLQ-flag them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The not-an-answer flag, on the other hand, is intended for content which is legible, perhaps understandable, and may even constitute a useful contribution of some sort, but simply does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it makes little difference to us (moderators) which kind of flag you use, so don't spend much time agonizing over whether you should flag something as very low quality or as not an answer. If you're not sure, pick either one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="d6c7f9c4-8764-404a-ab89-171bf6499802" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:30:33.827" UserId="11062" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="YAY!!! Let's enjoy the last few days of 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How's mine?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What happens when a sparkler becomes a hurdler?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's very easy, niggler. It's certainly Doppler..!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this too...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, we all sprang out from a bang?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not a stupid whizbang. It's the Big Bang!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="4bbc6077-e3c7-4986-acf0-a63ecf93de7c" CreationDate="2013-12-27T18:24:02.093" UserId="26063" Text="I just downvoted an answer on my own question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91359/are-there-any-non-dissipative-non-conservative-forces/91487#91487) because it was more of a comment, as soon as I downvoted I got a -1 in my reputation, is it supposed to be like this or was it some technical fault ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="4bbc6077-e3c7-4986-acf0-a63ecf93de7c" CreationDate="2013-12-27T18:24:02.093" UserId="26063" Text="Is there a -1 for downvoting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="4bbc6077-e3c7-4986-acf0-a63ecf93de7c" CreationDate="2013-12-27T18:24:02.093" UserId="26063" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5358" RevisionGUID="f1fa5c7d-49a4-4b99-b54f-f6a41168f0aa" CreationDate="2013-12-27T18:27:51.533" UserId="22494" Text="Yes, there is a 1 rep point hit for downvoting answers.  There isn't any reputation hit for downvoting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that *really bad* answers tend to attract 3-4 downvotes and then the author is motivated to remove the answer.  When an answer that you downvoted is removed you get your reputation back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reputation loss does make you think twice about downvoting an answer but don't let it discourage you.  Wrong or poor answers need to be downvoted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="556427c0-1b19-48fa-8024-a3ab5c52d7c2" CreationDate="2013-12-27T18:38:54.793" UserId="11062" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I just downvoted an answer on [my own question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91359/are-there-any-non-dissipative-non-conservative-forces/91487#91487) because it was more of a comment. As soon as I downvoted, I got a -1 in my reputation. Is it supposed to be like this, or was it some technical fault ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11904" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="556427c0-1b19-48fa-8024-a3ab5c52d7c2" CreationDate="2013-12-27T18:38:54.793" UserId="11062" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="d66f8e90-9db2-4057-b6ba-bd62c9045e49" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:28:46.287" UserId="20456" Text="Definition of bias from Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that all [SE][1] sites tend to show only the highly voted, rated, or otherwise answered questions (or a combination thereof). It seems to me that this is meeting the definition of bias in these areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.It is favoring good questions, and trying to convey that bad ones don't exist, *or are not to be seen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Bad questions are going to be asked anywhere! Why present questions as if bad questions are non-existent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.It is also prejudice to questions which might be interesting, but from which nobody has voted up. It is possible that a good question may not be voted up immediately, and other questions get asked and push it down more and more(especially in a high-traffic site). With this in mind, it eliminates the potential from *other than non-preferred questions to be visible* from the home page of a site(even if those questions may have been good in one way or another, but didn't get the chance to be featured). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand that the site wants to give off a good vibe, but it is bias and prejudice to **only** show favored questions in the front page. Perhaps a few bad questions here and there would show more realism and less bias, I would say. Also, as mentioned before, good questions aren't always voted, hence, they could be skewed by and never get their front page view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a theory that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Maybe the front page should **sometimes** show non-voted questions, or even down-voted questions to give a sense of realism, and reduce the bias outlook of the site by not only favoring voted questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Maybe the page should divide the voted/bad/average questions all on the front page in separate rows/columns to portray more than just the bias &quot;good&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't be the only one who thinks this, can I? I understand that image is important in business, but it's simply **bias, prejudice, and falsehood** to try and make the site seem perfect by only featuring voted marks or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="d66f8e90-9db2-4057-b6ba-bd62c9045e49" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:28:46.287" UserId="20456" Text="Isn't it bias to only show good quality/rated questions on the main page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="d66f8e90-9db2-4057-b6ba-bd62c9045e49" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:28:46.287" UserId="20456" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="bdd1e947-0b13-455d-b625-d42994cb6545" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:56:04.333" UserId="22494" Text="*The comments are getting crowded so I'll post as an answer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's correct that anything other than a uniform random selection of questions is biased in some way.  That's fine.  That's even *good*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange doesn't claim or even aim to be a statistically unbiased representation of (physics) questions.  That's why there is a democratic system in place to allow the community to rate questions and answers and why those votes are used to determine what gets shown to other people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People will continue participate in the site if they have questions others find interesting or if there are interesting questions to answer.  Without a democratic voting system it would be much harder to find the interesting content and many people would lose interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A biased selection isn't the sign of totalitarian oppression.  It's the sign of a working democracy.  Your vote is worth the same as my vote or anyone else's vote so if you see questions you think are underrated, be sure to upvote them.  By the same token, if you see questions that are overrated, downvote them.  The site will be steered in the direction of the collective community feeling.  You're a part of the community so do your part by voting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="9b572662-38e7-4323-b1fb-ca8239cc9959" CreationDate="2013-12-27T22:07:44.993" UserId="520" Text="Lets take you points one at a time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Only good content is shown.** This is simply false. Content with scores of -2 upwards are shown on http://physics.stackexchange.com, and *all* content is shown on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Note that un-voted questions *are* featured on the front-page, and that randomly selected (subject to a net score higher than -3) older questions are occasionally bumped to the front-page by the community user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **An allegation that this is disingenuous or advertising.** Frankly that is nonsense. The vast bulk of our users find us from searches which take them directly to relevant content. The tuning of the front-page (which takes into account both score and you tag preferences) is designed as a convenience to the *users*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **A claim that we have a obligation to treat all content alike.** Again, nonsense. These site are designed to *&quot;make the internet a better place&quot;*. That does not mean highlighting crap, it means highlighting the good stuff. And &quot;good&quot; is chosen by the users at large.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It is worth noting that the high-rep users do *not* dominate the voting, there are many, *many* more low-rep user than high-rep ones and they have the same voting power as anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Noting that bad questions are going to be asked.** Well, yes they are. But we are not going to encourage that. We are, in fact, going to discourage that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: we *are* biased against crap and we are proud of that fact.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="ae981447-ff6e-49ed-8c36-f1bfa70d6847" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:25:25.390" UserId="21817" Text="As I see, your main concern is that low-voted questions are not shown in the front page. So this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Down-voted questions won't get an answer**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **It's gives a false image**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **It's _bias_ (which is implicitly bad)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know you, but for me, the Stackechange network is one of the best places in the Internet. I get quick and good answers (in most cases it has already been answered). But in other forums it's useless to use the search options, because there are somo many duplicates, spam, silly discussions, no tags... Once a question is asked, _it will be lost like tears in the rain_ (and if you find an unanswered question, you're not even supposed to answer). Moderation doesn't even exist (spam may stay weeks before it's deleted). And forget about _meta_ discussion, if you don't like the rules, you must shut up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stackexchange network solves most of these problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I give some answers to your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So you're saying that what community members decide to show to other people, other people will see? That's simply wrong. Why should a &quot;community member&quot; decide what me, a passerby, may want to see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you don't like the voting system. It's the problem democracy always had, that some _stupid_ person can vote, when _I_ a _superior_ person should be the only one to decide (the problem is that in most cases, you would be in the base of the pyramid and if you criticize the system you might even get killed). But experience has proven that democracy is far better than a dictatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this isn't a totalitarian system, why do you have the power (yes, power) to remove me from this site, but I can't even say I don't like you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Brandon can't remove you from the system and, aren't you expressing your opinions freely? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is relative to racism, sexism, and social prejudice against other classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're going to far...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I proved that I follow a just system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one? You've just said that you don't follow this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you want me to start a website like this (I'm a programmer, I can), and implement my own system? We can then see which one works better(I can back the site as well, and know others who will). Is this a challenge towards my morality? Are you doing that right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's see how nice StackExchange looks when I write about it in my blog which has thousands of followers, and write an article on Ezine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that you're taking this too personally. You're free to do anything. In fact, I encourage you to it, if you like. One must follow his convictions, we one live once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Talking about morals? Give me the power to vote down your question like you did mine, and then tell me a thing about morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one is talking about morals (morality is something more important than this, which is done in real life, where people really need help, not in the Internet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="69332a60-092d-4761-8f7f-b4c4d2fcf6a9" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:28:24.363" UserId="22494" Comment="Very minor typo fixes" Text="As I see, your main concern is that low-voted questions are not shown in the front page. So this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Down-voted questions won't get an answer**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **It's gives a false image**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **It's _bias_ (which is implicitly bad)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know you, but for me, the Stackechange network is one of the best places in the Internet. I get quick and good answers (in most cases it has already been answered). But in other forums it's useless to use the search options, because there are so many duplicates, spam, silly discussions, no tags... Once a question is asked, _it will be lost like tears in the rain_ (and if you find an unanswered question, you're not even supposed to answer). Moderation doesn't even exist (spam may stay weeks before it's deleted). And forget about _meta_ discussion, if you don't like the rules, you must shut up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stackexchange network solves most of these problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I give some answers to your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So you're saying that what community members decide to show to other people, other people will see? That's simply wrong. Why should a &quot;community member&quot; decide what me, a passerby, may want to see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you don't like the voting system. It's the problem democracy always had, that some _stupid_ person can vote, when _I_ a _superior_ person should be the only one to decide (the problem is that in most cases, you would be in the base of the pyramid and if you criticize the system you might even get killed). But experience has proven that democracy is far better than a dictatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this isn't a totalitarian system, why do you have the power (yes, power) to remove me from this site, but I can't even say I don't like you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Brandon can't remove you from the system and, aren't you expressing your opinions freely? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is relative to racism, sexism, and social prejudice against other classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're going to far...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I proved that I follow a just system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one? You've just said that you don't follow this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you want me to start a website like this (I'm a programmer, I can), and implement my own system? We can then see which one works better(I can back the site as well, and know others who will). Is this a challenge towards my morality? Are you doing that right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's see how nice StackExchange looks when I write about it in my blog which has thousands of followers, and write an article on Ezine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that you're taking this too personally. You're free to do anything. In fact, I encourage you to it, if you like. One must follow his convictions, we only live once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Talking about morals? Give me the power to vote down your question like you did mine, and then tell me a thing about morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one is talking about morals (morality is something more important than this, which is done in real life, where people really need help, not in the Internet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="7d3b791c-dc3f-4f0c-b267-16af8cec7d2c" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:50:44.970" UserId="21817" Comment="added 1200 characters in body" Text="As I see, your main concern is that low-voted questions are not shown in the front page. So this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Down-voted questions won't get an answer**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **It's gives a false image**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **It's _bias_ (which is implicitly bad)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know you, but for me, the Stackechange network is one of the best places in the Internet. I get quick and good answers (in most cases it has already been answered). But in other forums it's useless to use the search options, because there are so many duplicates, spam, silly discussions, no tags... Once a question is asked, _it will be lost like tears in the rain_ (and if you find an unanswered question, you're not even supposed to answer). Moderation doesn't even exist (spam may stay weeks before it's deleted). And forget about _meta_ discussion, if you don't like the rules, you must shut up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stackexchange network solves most of these problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with mass media technologies is [information overload][1]. Too much information is no information at all (that why I don't read newspapers and watch TV anymore). So the vote system is supposed to reduce the noise. Sure, some good questions will be lost, but this is a tiny disadvantage compared to the benefits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if this site sucks, I like it (and millions more do) and I should have the option to use it (we aren't doing anything illegal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I don't see the problem of not showing bad questions. When I visit a website I want to see the best of it, not the hall of shame. I doubt that people will have a heartattack when they realize we are not perfect (everyone should already know that perfection doesn't exist). Should we also warn that the computers which people are visiting the site with are financing wars, rapes, hunger and many other crimes in the Third World? And if you log in you'll see all the crap you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you don't treat all content the same in some regard, that is unfair, unjust, and bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Justice is not treating everyone in the same way, but in the way they deserve. Bad questions (to the community standards) won't be favoured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to give some answers to your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So you're saying that what community members decide to show to other people, other people will see? That's simply wrong. Why should a &quot;community member&quot; decide what me, a passerby, may want to see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you don't like the voting system. It's the problem democracy always had, that some _stupid_ person can vote, when _I_ a _superior_ person should be the only one to decide (the problem is that in most cases, you would be in the base of the pyramid and if you criticize the system you might even get killed). But experience has proven that democracy is far better than a dictatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this isn't a totalitarian system, why do you have the power (yes, power) to remove me from this site, but I can't even say I don't like you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Brandon can't remove you from the system and, aren't you expressing your opinions freely? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is relative to racism, sexism, and social prejudice against other classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're going to far...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I proved that I follow a just system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one? You've just said that you don't follow this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you want me to start a website like this (I'm a programmer, I can), and implement my own system? We can then see which one works better(I can back the site as well, and know others who will). Is this a challenge towards my morality? Are you doing that right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's see how nice StackExchange looks when I write about it in my blog which has thousands of followers, and write an article on Ezine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that you're taking this too personally. You're free to do anything. In fact, I encourage you to do it, if you like. One must follow his convictions, we only live once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Talking about morals? Give me the power to vote down your question like you did mine, and then tell me a thing about morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one is talking about morals (morality is something more important than this, which is done in real life, where people really need help, not in the Internet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="3f2dc0d4-7f04-40a6-86af-aa79482a5b52" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:57:22.243" UserId="21817" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="As I see, your main concern is that low-voted questions are not shown in the front page. So this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Down-voted questions won't get an answer**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **It's gives a false image**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **It's _bias_ (which is implicitly bad)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know you, but for me, the Stackechange network is one of the best places in the Internet. I get quick and good answers (in most cases it has already been answered). But in other forums it's useless to use the search options, because there are so many duplicates, spam, silly discussions, no tags... Once a question is asked, _it will be lost like tears in the rain_ (and if you find an unanswered question, you're not even supposed to answer). Moderation doesn't even exist (spam may stay weeks before it's deleted). And forget about _meta_ discussion, if you don't like the rules, you must shut up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stackexchange network solves most of these problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with mass media technologies is [information overload][1]. Too much information is no information at all (that why I don't read newspapers and watch TV anymore). So the vote system is supposed to reduce the noise. Sure, some good questions will be lost, but this is a tiny disadvantage compared to the benefits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if this site sucks, I like it (and millions more do) and I should have the option to use it (we aren't doing anything illegal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I don't see the problem of not showing bad questions. When I visit a website I want to see the best of it, not the hall of shame. I doubt that people will have a heartattack when they realize we are not perfect (everyone should already know that perfection doesn't exist). Should we also warn that the computers which people are visiting the site with are financing wars, rapes, hunger and many other crimes in the Third World? And if you log in you'll see all the crap you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you don't treat all content the same in some regard, that is unfair, unjust, and bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Justice is not treating everyone in the same way, but in the way they deserve. Bad questions (to the community standards) won't be favoured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that any system will be unfair because there are people who can't afford an Internet connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to give some answers to your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So you're saying that what community members decide to show to other people, other people will see? That's simply wrong. Why should a &quot;community member&quot; decide what me, a passerby, may want to see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you don't like the voting system. It's the problem democracy always had, that some _stupid_ person can vote, when _I_ a _superior_ person should be the only one to decide (the problem is that in most cases, you would be in the base of the pyramid and if you criticize the system you might even get killed). But experience has proven that democracy is far better than a dictatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this isn't a totalitarian system, why do you have the power (yes, power) to remove me from this site, but I can't even say I don't like you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Brandon can't remove you from the system and, aren't you expressing your opinions freely? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is relative to racism, sexism, and social prejudice against other classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're going to far...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I proved that I follow a just system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one? You've just said that you don't follow this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you want me to start a website like this (I'm a programmer, I can), and implement my own system? We can then see which one works better(I can back the site as well, and know others who will). Is this a challenge towards my morality? Are you doing that right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's see how nice StackExchange looks when I write about it in my blog which has thousands of followers, and write an article on Ezine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that you're taking this too personally. You're free to do anything. In fact, I encourage you to do it, if you like. One must follow his convictions, we only live once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Talking about morals? Give me the power to vote down your question like you did mine, and then tell me a thing about morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one is talking about morals (morality is something more important than this, which is done in real life, where people really need help, not in the Internet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="821a1fcb-0a17-4398-bea8-9abed21b180a" CreationDate="2013-12-28T00:22:00.293" UserId="21817" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="As I see, your main concern is that low-voted questions are not shown in the front page. So this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Down-voted questions won't get an answer**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **It's gives a false image**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **It's _bias_ (which is implicitly bad)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know you, but for me, the Stackechange network is one of the best places in the Internet. I get quick and good answers (in most cases it has already been answered). But in other forums it's useless to use the search options, because there are so many duplicates, spam, silly discussions, no tags... Once a question is asked, _it will be lost like tears in the rain_ (and if you find an unanswered question, you're not even supposed to answer). Moderation doesn't even exist (spam may stay weeks before it's deleted). And forget about _meta_ discussion, if you don't like the rules, you must shut up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stackexchange network solves most of these problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with mass media technologies is [information overload][1]. Too much information is no information at all (that why I don't read newspapers and watch TV anymore). So the vote system is supposed to reduce the noise. Sure, some good questions will be lost, but this is a tiny disadvantage compared to the benefits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to bias you've arrived to this site (if Google sorted his results in any order, Internet would be almost useless), you're biasing people all the time, books, sports, countries... You can't have it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if this site sucks, I like it (and millions more do) and I should have the option to use it (we aren't doing anything illegal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I don't see the problem of not showing bad questions. When I visit a website I want to see the best of it, not the hall of shame. I doubt that people will have a heartattack when they realize we are not perfect (everyone should already know that perfection doesn't exist). Should we also warn that the computers which people are visiting the site with are financing wars, rapes, hunger and many other crimes in the Third World? And if you log in you'll see all the crap you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you don't treat all content the same in some regard, that is unfair, unjust, and bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Justice is not treating everyone in the same way, but in the way they deserve. Bad questions (to the community standards) won't be favoured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that any system will be unfair because there are people who can't afford an Internet connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to give some answers to your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So you're saying that what community members decide to show to other people, other people will see? That's simply wrong. Why should a &quot;community member&quot; decide what me, a passerby, may want to see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you don't like the voting system. It's the problem democracy always had, that some _stupid_ person can vote, when _I_ a _superior_ person should be the only one to decide (the problem is that in most cases, you would be in the base of the pyramid and if you criticize the system you might even get killed). But experience has proven that democracy is far better than a dictatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this isn't a totalitarian system, why do you have the power (yes, power) to remove me from this site, but I can't even say I don't like you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Brandon can't remove you from the system and, aren't you expressing your opinions freely? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is relative to racism, sexism, and social prejudice against other classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're going to far...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I proved that I follow a just system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one? You've just said that you don't follow this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you want me to start a website like this (I'm a programmer, I can), and implement my own system? We can then see which one works better(I can back the site as well, and know others who will). Is this a challenge towards my morality? Are you doing that right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's see how nice StackExchange looks when I write about it in my blog which has thousands of followers, and write an article on Ezine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that you're taking this too personally. You're free to do anything. In fact, I encourage you to do it, if you like. One must follow his convictions, we only live once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Talking about morals? Give me the power to vote down your question like you did mine, and then tell me a thing about morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one is talking about morals (morality is something more important than this, which is done in real life, where people really need help, not in the Internet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="5d93accb-37d3-49c5-aeae-79ae5b379231" CreationDate="2013-12-28T02:50:48.787" UserId="26063" Text="I don't know how much of an answer this is going to be, but have you seen google ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The search results are decided on their relevance and popularity in the entire Internet.  That does not throw people off as bias, it does mean that when you search &quot;popular science&quot; it will give you the official popular science site and not your own blog which has a lousy comment on their biased nature. Do you also go to google's blog and criticize them of being such a biased community ? I dont think so, it is this feature only that gets results and gets them fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it may offend the ego of many people to get their questions downvoted and then thrown off the front page, but that is usually not because people are not finding your questions interesting, it is because people find your questions lacking something which make them suitable for the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="cdb87fbb-6815-4ddc-92d3-4d5095370383" CreationDate="2013-12-28T05:29:09.907" UserId="540" Text="I heard recently that we should not discuss new theories here. Why we should not discuss new theories when they are very closely resembling the existing accepted theories but with slight modification. After all even if we fail with new theory, we end up learing the old established theory in a better way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="cdb87fbb-6815-4ddc-92d3-4d5095370383" CreationDate="2013-12-28T05:29:09.907" UserId="540" Text="Why we should not discuss new theories?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="cdb87fbb-6815-4ddc-92d3-4d5095370383" CreationDate="2013-12-28T05:29:09.907" UserId="540" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="76fa4611-b51d-437a-9f97-c0c0c6fbf70a" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:45:49.027" UserId="1325" Text="I'd say the key point emerges in your comment above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is there any physics forum to discuss new theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a discussion forum - it is a question and answer site. It's hard to see how you could ask a question about a new theory without it turning into a discussion. That doesn't mean we hate and revile speculation, just that this isn't the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the phrase &quot;non-mainstream physics&quot; because I'm sure that's how Pope Urban VIII would have described Galileo. Actually I think the wording on the vote to close dialog is pretty good when it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/discussion-on-old-and-new-theoretical.html?m=1#comment-1171388568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="21dd8857-6563-4f98-a798-2e6253128dd2" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:49:00.540" UserId="1325" Comment="Trivial typo in an otherwise fantastic answer" Text="As I see, your main concern is that low-voted questions are not shown in the front page. So this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Down-voted questions won't get an answer**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **It's gives a false image**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **It's _bias_ (which is implicitly bad)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know you, but for me, the Stackechange network is one of the best places in the Internet. I get quick and good answers (in most cases it has already been answered). But in other forums it's useless to use the search options, because there are so many duplicates, spam, silly discussions, no tags... Once a question is asked, _it will be lost like tears in the rain_ (and if you find an unanswered question, you're not even supposed to answer). Moderation doesn't even exist (spam may stay weeks before it's deleted). And forget about _meta_ discussion, if you don't like the rules, you must shut up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stackexchange network solves most of these problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with mass media technologies is [information overload][1]. Too much information is no information at all (that why I don't read newspapers and watch TV anymore). So the vote system is supposed to reduce the noise. Sure, some good questions will be lost, but this is a tiny disadvantage compared to the benefits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to bias you've arrived to this site (if Google sorted his results in any order, Internet would be almost useless), you're biasing people all the time, books, sports, countries... You can't have it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if this site sucks, I like it (and millions more do) and I should have the option to use it (we aren't doing anything illegal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I don't see the problem of not showing bad questions. When I visit a website I want to see the best of it, not the hall of shame. I doubt that people will have a heartattack when they realize we are not perfect (everyone should already know that perfection doesn't exist). Should we also warn that the computers which people are visiting the site with are financing wars, rapes, hunger and many other crimes in the Third World? And if you log in you'll see all the crap you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you don't treat all content the same in some regard, that is unfair, unjust, and bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Justice is not treating everyone in the same way, but in the way they deserve. Bad questions (to the community standards) won't be favoured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that any system will be unfair because there are people who can't afford an Internet connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to give some answers to your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So you're saying that what community members decide to show to other people, other people will see? That's simply wrong. Why should a &quot;community member&quot; decide what me, a passerby, may want to see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you don't like the voting system. It's the problem democracy always had, that some _stupid_ person can vote, when _I_ a _superior_ person should be the only one to decide (the problem is that in most cases, you would be in the base of the pyramid and if you criticize the system you might even get killed). But experience has proven that democracy is far better than a dictatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this isn't a totalitarian system, why do you have the power (yes, power) to remove me from this site, but I can't even say I don't like you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Brandon can't remove you from the system and, aren't you expressing your opinions freely? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is relative to racism, sexism, and social prejudice against other classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're going too far...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I proved that I follow a just system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one? You've just said that you don't follow this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you want me to start a website like this (I'm a programmer, I can), and implement my own system? We can then see which one works better(I can back the site as well, and know others who will). Is this a challenge towards my morality? Are you doing that right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's see how nice StackExchange looks when I write about it in my blog which has thousands of followers, and write an article on Ezine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that you're taking this too personally. You're free to do anything. In fact, I encourage you to do it, if you like. One must follow his convictions, we only live once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Talking about morals? Give me the power to vote down your question like you did mine, and then tell me a thing about morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one is talking about morals (morality is something more important than this, which is done in real life, where people really need help, not in the Internet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="f0a79243-d0d0-4c01-8b5d-14dfd01a0c67" CreationDate="2013-12-28T09:26:33.713" UserId="36248" Text="If someone answers a question but refers to a Wikipedia link as a definitive source for the answer, should that answer be deleted or flagged somehow? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reasons and explanation for my question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The academic use section on Wikipedia states &quot;However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source&quot; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use). Please do not cite the irony of my linking to wikipedia for this source as it is probably not a community-driven page and it is what Wikipedia itself states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that it is useful to refer somebody to Wikipedia to give them a general idea of some problem they may be considering, but it is another matter to use Wikipedia as an authoritative, definitive source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that when somebody gives an answer to a question and that answer depends on the authority of others then any link treated as authoritative ought to refer to a credible source that has a process for peer review and is not simply editable by the community at large. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason why I am asking this is to make sure I do not answer any questions in a way that negatively impacts the community here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="f0a79243-d0d0-4c01-8b5d-14dfd01a0c67" CreationDate="2013-12-28T09:26:33.713" UserId="36248" Text="Should answers that link to wikipedia be deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="f0a79243-d0d0-4c01-8b5d-14dfd01a0c67" CreationDate="2013-12-28T09:26:33.713" UserId="36248" Text="|discussion|questions|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="5f3a0991-e2e1-4029-a9eb-da21ea7cda78" CreationDate="2013-12-28T10:22:16.567" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11928" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="7a19aed0-dedf-4609-b7f7-ad08f05b941f" CreationDate="2013-12-28T10:25:34.710" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="97672c20-5908-4717-9ce5-0487e5c6eca8" CreationDate="2013-12-28T11:11:16.530" UserId="36146" Text="I realize that non-mainstream physics is off-topic, but I would hope that moderators err on the side of inclusion; I went through all of the OP's links and learned a lot imagination/conjecture-wise, without being swayed into joining any shady physics cults ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly, sourced rebuttals and elucidations present in answers on those topics do a lot to show me what is going on with some of the higher reaches of physics without climbing those crags myself. I'm not exactly sure how you would get the same result without questions of this kind to complete such a &quot;Socratic method&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say what you will about the wackiness of [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75706/could-we-see-a-lower-dimension-within-our-universe/75787#75787) for example, but I learned a *lot* from the comments and the sole answer, and it was equally worth it to untangle what the OP was asking despite it being ill-formed, and, if the answerer is right, pointing at a non-mainstream theory (braneworld)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="759be09a-6a73-4f52-9f7c-1c2dbf808212" CreationDate="2013-12-28T11:30:12.697" UserId="1325" Text="I know, I know, it's yet another Meta post about our homework policy. Feel free to downvote and write abusive comments if you're heartily sick of posts about the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still with me: the *homework* classification for closing questions has never literally meant that your teacher or professor set the question as part of your homework. It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves. But as you progress and questions get harder it's increasingly hard to Google useful stuff, and I think there comes a point where a question shouldn't be treated as homework even if it was actually set by your professor. I'm thinking of the sort of questions you'd find in a graduate level book. These, or at least the better examples of the breed, are intended to enhance your understanding of the subject and this is surely what we should be trying to do here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal is that if a question is graduate level or above it should never be closed as *homework*. I think we should leave it up to site members to decide whether to answer. In any case only a small subset of site members can answer questions at this level, and since they are among the more experienced users we should leave the decision whether to answer to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="759be09a-6a73-4f52-9f7c-1c2dbf808212" CreationDate="2013-12-28T11:30:12.697" UserId="1325" Text="Graduate and above level questions aren't homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="759be09a-6a73-4f52-9f7c-1c2dbf808212" CreationDate="2013-12-28T11:30:12.697" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11933" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="06b67aa6-9daa-4a2c-9c52-736861f347f3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T12:13:41.980" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="4c454ee2-1d80-49cd-bae0-2641504cceef" CreationDate="2013-12-28T12:19:43.690" UserId="7433" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="49bb2103-7821-41fb-bbc2-7e82fda78e63" CreationDate="2013-12-28T12:31:13.427" UserId="7433" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="c313d7f4-382a-4241-bec0-bf52be7a5465" CreationDate="2013-12-28T15:38:27.323" UserId="2451" Comment="It's irrelevant which answer OP downvoted" Text="I just downvoted an answer. (In this case because it was more of a comment than an answer.) As soon as I downvoted, I got a -1 in my reputation. Is it supposed to be like this, or is it some technical fault?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11937" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="c313d7f4-382a-4241-bec0-bf52be7a5465" CreationDate="2013-12-28T15:38:27.323" UserId="2451" Comment="It's irrelevant which answer OP downvoted" Text="Is there a $-1$ for downvoting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11938" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="fb3a85fb-135c-4e1e-9fc7-d4bdef7dd585" CreationDate="2013-12-28T16:38:37.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/416971461652668416" />
  <row Id="11939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5371" RevisionGUID="182555cd-775b-4212-a470-b9d1099088b2" CreationDate="2013-12-28T17:42:08.283" UserId="520" Text="Treating Wikipedia as authoritative (i.e. *&quot;Wikipedia say X and that settles it!&quot;*) would be laughably silly, but Wikipedia is a fairly reliable source for all kinds of basic and widely available knowledge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several uses of Wikkipedia that are (in my opinion, with my moderators hat taken off) completely appropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **To support a argument or derivation only sketched in the answer** I regularly point to Wikipedia when I'm going to skips some steps and am not sure the OP has the preparation to follow the jump unaided, thus hopefully avoid the bit where some authors (I'm looking at you, J.D. Jackson) says *&quot;it is obvious that&quot;* just before a line that seems to have nothing in common with the proceeding argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **To set a lower limit on the preparation expected** Questions that can be answered directly out of the Wikipedia page are suspect as too lazy and unresearched for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **As a source for basic tabulated input to work** For the purposes of Physics.SE, the values of, say, coefficients of linear thermal expansion listed in the Wikipedia are fine. Say where you got them and if someone whats to be *really* sure they can dig up a *Handbook of Chemistry and Physics* themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer that exist merely to provide a redirect are always bad answers *no matter what they link to* and will eventually be deleted or converted to a comment by moderator action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11940" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="eda2403b-7618-427c-b30d-7b58b685bd0b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T17:55:09.473" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5216],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="ed3983fc-eb95-4d21-bccc-00f84ee0e6ee" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:14:53.200" UserId="7433" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized this, one of the other reasons the HW policy was put up in the start was that users did not want this site to be seen as a place where you can get your homework done for you&quot; (which accounts for the tag confusion as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are people still concerned about this?&#xD;&#xA; - Will allowing low effort grad level hw affect this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="d4d457da-ec2f-41e8-a090-2716ac3fb70e" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:23:36.467" UserId="2751" Text="This question is inspired by Colin McFauls very reasonable [classification](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5172/2751) of questions tagged as [tag:homework] due to the very broad notion of the term  &quot;homework-like&quot; currently applied at  Physics SE, and  can be considered as a follow up of John Rennie's meta [post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751) asking for graduate-level upward questions not getting closed as homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically agree  with John Rennie that gruaduate-level upward (technical) questions should not be closed as homework and want to go even farther by proposing that, refering to Colin McFauls classification, category 3 (not yet a good question but salvagable) and even more so category 4 (high-level problems) should not even be tagged [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the very broad notion of &quot;homework-like&quot; as currently applied, be narrowed down to not include technical advanced topic questions that come up from reading higher-level textbooks, following advanced courses, or even from reading research papers (graduate-level upward for short)?&#xD;&#xA;And can then these advanced technical questions (not all of them at once of course) be detagged from [tag:homework] (after appropriate edits if needed for category 3 questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of advanced technical questions that should not be considered homework and therefore either directly or after an improving edit, detagged. I am not trying to sharply distinguish between category 3 and category 4 of Colin McFaul's classification at the moment, and this list is by no means comprehensive but contains just a few examples to show what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82336/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57973/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73297/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76207/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69163/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75896/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89489/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/80556/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46703/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57253/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="d4d457da-ec2f-41e8-a090-2716ac3fb70e" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:23:36.467" UserId="2751" Text="Can the very broad notion of &quot;homework-like&quot; be narrowed down to not include advanced-topic technical questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="d4d457da-ec2f-41e8-a090-2716ac3fb70e" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:23:36.467" UserId="2751" Text="|discussion|scope|tags|policy|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11945" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="26a684ff-6d2c-49c5-8221-98f2c2f82026" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:29:09.547" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5369],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11946" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="bd3ff395-7038-4670-bdff-7b9a05388b8e" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:31:04.927" UserId="7433" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11947" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="2c9eab26-ff1d-46ca-8336-43f37b63a1e5" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:31:58.727" UserId="7433" Comment="edited title" Text="Can the homework tag not be applied to advanced questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5373" RevisionGUID="a008282b-35f2-43d7-9156-24816de3bd95" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:41:26.997" UserId="7433" Text="I think we need to eventually have a critical look at what we really mean by the [tag:homework] tag; as I mentioned in an answer to John's post, the tag means different things to different people and it's being used to mean all kinds of things. So much that I've stopped applying the tag (I still close posts as homework, though) in entirety because I'd rather not add to the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your specific question, I agree, almost(?) all of the high level questions tagged [tag:homework] really don't need the tag. They are obviously not closeable, and they don't look like questions that people would want to filter out. Many of them are a bit localized, but they still have a lot of worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this just makes me wonder why we have the tag in the first place. It's displaying the same issues as [tag:popular-science], namely lack of consistency, and they are more pronounced because the tag is one of the largest on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe we could rename it to [tag:problem-solving] or some such? Or just remove it entirely. Questions are getting closed reasonably quickly now, without too much mod intervention. We might be close to a point where the tag can be quietly phased out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="2cb0292a-c268-45d8-af49-02303bd358d6" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:45:24.713" UserId="124" Text="I don't agree with this. Graduate-level questions are _rarely_ homework-like, true, but not _never_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason we close questions as homework-like is to make it clear that we will not help students cheat at this site. When I say &quot;cheat&quot; here, I don't mean only violation of explicit policies on seeking outside help set by an instructor. For purposes of this answer (and the homework policy in general), I take &quot;cheating&quot; to be anything that completely or almost completely negates the educational value of the problem. **The homework-like close reason is for questions where, if we provide the OP with the information they request, we would be negating the intended educational value of the problem for them.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our (well, my) de facto rule for closing questions as homework-like is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the problem is &quot;artificially&quot; constructed in a way that suggests its intended value is learning the method rather than getting the answer, and&#xD;&#xA;- the OP asks for the answer or to be shown the method in full detail, or fails to demonstrate a willingness to put some effort into the problem themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These criteria are an empirical way of identifying questions where the OP is trying to cheat. The criteria are not necessarily perfect, of course, so there is some room to apply common sense. The ultimate goal is to close exactly those questions which satisfy the bolded statement in the previous paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as to what this has to do with your proposal: graduate-level questions can still have educational value. And therefore, it is still possible for posters to try to bypass the educational value of such questions by asking for the answer outright, or just posting the question and saying &quot;I don't know what to do,&quot; or so on. It happens rarely, and certainly when evaluating a question for closing, if the question is at a high level, I do think about it a lot more carefully before voting to close as homework-like (and I would certainly encourage others to do the same). But it has happened in the past, and it can happen again in the future. And that's why I don't think it's a good idea to make an absolute rule that graduate-level questions can _never_ be closed as homework-like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="f519bf42-29b9-4371-a079-2b2c9b6c26ab" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:45:27.523" UserId="7433" Text="&gt;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're having some more recent discussions on the [tag:homework] tag. A month ago, there was a flurry of activity involving a tightening up of the policy. Unfortunately, I was really busy after that and later on was out of town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that there are some [residual issues about high-level homework][1] (something that I'd been planning to address but didn't have the time). I'm pretty sure we can sort these out in parallel or even after installing the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the current status of the policy? Should we be pushing forward with it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/graduate-and-above-level-questions-arent-homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="f519bf42-29b9-4371-a079-2b2c9b6c26ab" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:45:27.523" UserId="7433" Text="What's the current status of the homework policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="f519bf42-29b9-4371-a079-2b2c9b6c26ab" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:45:27.523" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="327a28c6-bab2-4473-8e68-a55391234e96" CreationDate="2013-12-28T18:57:04.087" UserId="124" Text="Officially nothing has changed about the policy yet, i.e. the old one is still in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficially, my impression is that we are converging on a change in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Homework questions&quot; per se would no longer be allowed on the site, as suggested in the questions you linked&#xD;&#xA;- Our existing [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be changed to describe how people can modify their homework questions to conceptual questions to make them acceptable here&#xD;&#xA;- The [tag:homework] tag _may_ be entirely removed as part of this. We haven't yet fully discussed that, I believe. (I would like to see this happen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should definitely push forward with this; there is no particular rush, but we are getting close enough that it would be a shame not to see this through to the end. We need to decide what to do about the tag, and I don't know if there are any other unresolved issues to handle before we put these changes in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11956" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="f5bc2d4a-0dd2-4637-9309-8899382c72fb" CreationDate="2013-12-29T04:31:49.763" UserId="23119" Comment="no ,LaTeX on meta. " Text="Is there a &quot;- 1&quot; or downvoting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11957" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="52c61b9e-4686-4b25-9eef-631a26adba7f" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:16:45.380" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed title to avoid bickering over the -1 / $-1$ / &quot;-1&quot;. Plus, previous edit had incorrect spelling." Text="Does downvoting cost reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="e4f5d0a0-f59f-4c6e-982b-ed44f8d4a016" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:22:11.333" UserId="8563" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012 is a [tag:resource-recommendation] question imported from the now-defunct Theoretical Physics site. I don't think it is constructive or that it should be reopened, and it is far from being in line with the current books policy. However, I'm quite curious as to whether it's part of a series and what the motivation for it, and discussions about it, were. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question cites a meta.TP thread [&quot;Journal club-like thing&quot;](http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/234/journal-club-like-thing) but the link is dead. Is it still possible to access that page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="e4f5d0a0-f59f-4c6e-982b-ed44f8d4a016" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:22:11.333" UserId="8563" Text="Is this meta.TP post still extant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="e4f5d0a0-f59f-4c6e-982b-ed44f8d4a016" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:22:11.333" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="3b966664-ad2a-4b01-a739-267a60aad5e5" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:51:32.747" UserId="18" Text="I received a notification for a comment made by Emilio Pisanty on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2687/modern-references-for-continuum-mechanics/2762?noredirect=1&quot;&gt;question &lt;/a&gt; asking for an update of my answer in order to comply with the current policy on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&quot;&gt;resource recommendations&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can verify, I wasn't the only one who received the same comment. I was wondering if it is wise to try to enforce a current policy on very old contributions. I feel it is too much to ask for a huge amount of users. Maybe this is our online version of retroactivity in law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="3b966664-ad2a-4b01-a739-267a60aad5e5" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:51:32.747" UserId="18" Text="Enforcing new policies to old questions/answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="3b966664-ad2a-4b01-a739-267a60aad5e5" CreationDate="2013-12-29T05:51:32.747" UserId="18" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5379" RevisionGUID="0859d359-19ac-4652-929e-45184a576771" CreationDate="2013-12-29T06:01:43.870" UserId="7433" Text="The book policy is only retroactive in a fashion. Answers which do not follow the current policy are deleted and replaced with a community wiki list having the same contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to comment on every answer and ask for it to be fixed -- if you want you can do that, of course, and if the answer is deleted before you get a chance to fix it you can post a new one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to go through all the old questions and new-ify them, I have only done this for a couple of posts so far. I'll get to it this week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio to be clear, there is no need to comment but the rest of what you did on the post seems about right, carry on :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="fab27738-6e85-4509-af3a-d2e83261b2f0" CreationDate="2013-12-29T06:39:50.903" UserId="7433" Comment="added 917 characters in body" Text="I propose that we edit the resource recommendation banner into these questions, making the _questions_ follow the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the answers, those which do _not_ follow the policy can be collected into a single Community Wiki answer. Maybe with a disclaimer about how it is no longer considered a good answer to a recommendation question. We could alternatively historical lock it, though the historical lock post notice seems to talk about questions even when applied to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, there aren't any broken windows, but the content is preserved. This requires some effort, though. I don't mind doing it myself, but I'll have to start a week from now. This isn't something urgent, so we can handle it at our leisure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rather like @Emilio's banner for the community wiki questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11966" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="2ea26140-1fc6-4c32-8e04-44c2dd24b4c4" CreationDate="2013-12-29T07:38:41.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/417197969189134336" />
  <row Id="11967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5380" RevisionGUID="c38e2a0b-25b4-4cff-b259-f1bbd5648381" CreationDate="2013-12-29T12:50:34.557" UserId="1325" Text="How about we simply say that for a trial period (a month?) the moderators don't close any homework questions, and we close them only due to 5 VTCs from site members. That's a small change since I don't think the mods close many homework questions anyway. Mods should still close for other reasons, and of course can VTC just like everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decision about what should and shouldn't be on the site is then just down to the site members. I don't want to tell site members what to do and I can't anyway, so everyone should VTC as they see fit, though I reserve the write to post pleas for mercy if I think a question has been closed unnecessarily :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not fussed about the homework tag, though I won't be using it myself. If enough of us VTC quickly the homework tag should become unnecessary anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If after a month we're all happy with the way things are going we could start updating the text in the VTC dialog and the guidelines. Only at that point do we have to agree on exactly what we're going to say is acceptable or unacceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="ca3950b9-9fcf-45c5-b642-0619c4ad266f" CreationDate="2014-01-01T04:50:11.890" UserId="5477" Text="From my point of view, I would like to make a new proposal for the wording of the new policy, which would reflect the consensus described in David Z's answer. (i.e. it would be at heart a &quot;no homework&quot; policy rather than a &quot;some homework&quot; one.) This is dependent on me finding time to write it though, which I haven't had much luck with the last few weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course if someone else wants to do that then great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="f82cc1ca-ac12-405c-ac89-8e5f6ce30163" CreationDate="2014-01-01T04:55:18.917" UserId="5477" Comment="addressed the high-level point" Text="From my point of view, I would like to make a new proposal for the wording of the new policy, which would reflect the consensus described in David Z's answer (i.e. it would be at heart a &quot;no homework&quot; policy rather than a &quot;some homework&quot; one) while also addressing the issue of high-level homework questions in a way that I think most people would find acceptable. (With the right definition of homework many of these will be excluded, and the rest can easily be converted into non-homework questions.) This is dependent on me finding time to write it though, which I haven't had much luck with the last few weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course if someone else wants to do that then great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="48e648e5-e2bc-425e-a251-c16e59dc84da" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:19:34.820" UserId="5477" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="At least one other site now has a customised top bar: the one at [Science Fiction and Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) has been made slightly translucent in order to make it fit better with their site. Obviously translucency wouldn't be appropriate in our case, but a similarly subtle change in colour scheme would make it a lot less visually jarring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: [Ask Ubuntu][1] also has a customised bar. It's the same colour scheme as our one, but has been moved to fit into the layout in a different way. (It still looks like a compromise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is now precedent on two other sites for customising the top bar, I hope the request to do so on ours will be genuinely considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://askubuntu.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="07f8ea0b-8c33-4626-800e-02f297b82ae4" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:40:43.237" UserId="5477" Text="So [many of us agree][1] that the new not-black topbar looks awful on Physics.SE. One solution to this would be to change the top-bar to reduce the discord, as has been done on [scifi.SE][2] and [askubuntu.com][3] (and possibly other sites). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, another possibility would be to rethink the design of Physics.SE itself. Personally, I find the current design a little uninspiring anyway, and since many of the other Stack Exchange sites have really excellent designs I was wondering if it might be time to give ours another look. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a design expert, but I've never been a fan of the colour scheme, which somehow seems to say &quot;company that makes elastic bands or something&quot; rather than &quot;community of academic experts and enthusiasts&quot;. Since one of the main problems with the top bar is the clash between the Stack Exchange logo and the main colours of our site, perhaps this would be a good time to think about changing our colour scheme. If we could also have a more modern-looking design with some (off-)black elements rather than just light blues and greens then the top bar might not look out of place at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how likely this is to happen, but I thought it might be worth putting the idea out there to see if it gets any reaction from Stack Exchange and/or the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5261/help-theres-a-giant-ugly-thing-on-top-of-the-page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://askubuntu.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="07f8ea0b-8c33-4626-800e-02f297b82ae4" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:40:43.237" UserId="5477" Text="Is our site due for a redesign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="07f8ea0b-8c33-4626-800e-02f297b82ae4" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:40:43.237" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="b2d1f769-e3e4-47cc-b536-bd986cf93c56" CreationDate="2014-01-03T07:39:04.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/419010004889645056" />
  <row Id="11982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5385" RevisionGUID="1aff38c9-b384-4f13-97e8-9541b25f0c9a" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:54:21.990" UserId="347" Text="I strongly disagree with this.  It's just as lazy and stupid to repost a problem from Jackson, Wald, Peskin &amp; Schroder and the like as it is to repost your introductory high school level question.  And when I see a question that I recognize, or a question that is of the same lazy sort of caliber without the effort to show why it is interesting or relevant, I at least tag as homework, and usually vote to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5386" RevisionGUID="2fb9c259-64bd-4363-844c-73942a38238b" CreationDate="2014-01-04T02:18:07.733" UserId="31422" Text="`homework` tag should be renamed to `exercise` and **questions should be evaluated on the basis of whether they are likely to be useful for further visitors who are genuinely interested in the subject or not**. Of course, posting an actual homework without any effort is unethical and should be prohibited by policy, but we(you) don't need to be that harsh in enforcing that. Who cares? Those fools find their way to cheat anyway. Also, if there was no `homework` tag I would expect *less* actual homework questions posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the site would be better this way, but the community shall decide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="7c8d59f3-93e0-45a0-8f0e-4ce2e0df5865" CreationDate="2014-01-04T07:50:58.700" UserId="8563" Text="We have several questions asking for recommendations of books for beginner-level quantum mechanics. Many of them are closed as duplicates of this one: &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33215/what-is-a-good-introductory-book-on-quantum-mechanics. It is our canonical such question and it just earned its asker a [Famous Question badge](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question?userid=10970), so it's been seen 10k times over a year and a half and will continue to accumulate them. It is also in line with our new resource recommendation policy. However, it is still closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should it be reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already voted to reopen at some point, so I can't put it into the queue. How about we show this question some community love?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="7c8d59f3-93e0-45a0-8f0e-4ce2e0df5865" CreationDate="2014-01-04T07:50:58.700" UserId="8563" Text="The intro-to-QM books question: reopen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="7c8d59f3-93e0-45a0-8f0e-4ce2e0df5865" CreationDate="2014-01-04T07:50:58.700" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|reopen|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5388" RevisionGUID="930781fe-026d-45ab-897f-06141417111d" CreationDate="2014-01-04T19:27:53.183" UserId="124" Text="Yeah, I think that makes sense. The question in its current form seems like just the kind of thing the new recommendation policy is designed to encourage, and we should definitely have one open question about intro QM books. (Of course we also have to make sure the answers are in shape, but that can happen whenever.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is an active meta discussion I won't unilaterally reopen it just yet. I think the community can take care of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11988" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="e3a738fa-20a6-4c59-af2c-215472535850" CreationDate="2014-01-05T11:02:41.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/419786021015158784" />
  <row Id="11989" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="a62d2d05-3e98-4fe8-a179-0f2307fd5f00" CreationDate="2014-01-05T23:02:41.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/419967215153455104" />
  <row Id="11990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="05e26be2-294b-432e-b8cf-4b823811cd8c" CreationDate="2014-01-06T11:45:32.730" UserId="23119" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="&lt;code&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;new-post-activity&quot; data-postid=&quot;389&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;an edit has been made to this post; click to load.  &lt;/div&gt; &amp;nbsp;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;         &lt;/code&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[test](search-ms:displayname=Search%20Results%20in%20New%20folder&amp;crumb=System.Generic.String%3ADISCRETESPACETIME&amp;crumb=location:C%3A%5CUsers%5CAPS%5CDesktop%5CSTORAGE%20Liver%20(MAIN)%5CSTORAGE%20LIVER%20-%20OLD%5CNew%20folder)            '     &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVDZr.png &#xD;&#xA;#This is a *sandbox*&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit Community Wikia questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="05e26be2-294b-432e-b8cf-4b823811cd8c" CreationDate="2014-01-06T11:45:32.730" UserId="23119" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="|support|formatting|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="45719e80-b563-46f0-92e0-8ca673ea8c3c" CreationDate="2014-01-07T07:33:48.497" UserId="5477" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="**update:** this issue is connected with Chrome's text zoom feature - see the bottom of this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quite often see this sort of thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when I reload the page, the equations will go back to being centred where they should be - but sometimes not. This is with Google Chrome (31.0.1650.57, though it's been an issue for a while) under OS X 10.8.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is with the Math renderer set to &quot;SVG&quot;, because I like my equations to be pretty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not specific to multiline equations. Here is an example with a single-line one, albeit a rather long one:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems not to happen with all equations, but I'm not sure what the pattern is. I'd say it occurs with more than 50% of them though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I habitually browse with Chrome's zoom level set to one or two, because my eyesight is quite poor. This problem doesn't occur with the zoom set to the default level, and it also immediately disappears if I change the zoom level, so as a workaround I can quickly change the zoom to something else and back again (`option`-`-` `option`-`+` on my Mac) to get the correct formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ql3OS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mdZ66.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="b3a90cbc-9b94-4067-9acb-62469feb820a" CreationDate="2014-01-07T08:55:55.647" UserId="5477" Comment="added 655 characters in body" Text="So [many of us agree][1] that the new not-black topbar looks awful on Physics.SE. One solution to this would be to change the top-bar to reduce the discord, as has been done on [scifi.SE][2] and [askubuntu.com][3] (and possibly other sites). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, another possibility would be to rethink the design of Physics.SE itself. Personally, I find the current design a little uninspiring anyway, and since many of the other Stack Exchange sites have really excellent designs I was wondering if it might be time to give ours another look. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a design expert, but I've never been a fan of the colour scheme, which somehow seems to say &quot;company that makes elastic bands or something&quot; rather than &quot;community of academic experts and enthusiasts&quot;. Since one of the main problems with the top bar is the clash between the Stack Exchange logo and the main colours of our site, perhaps this would be a good time to think about changing our colour scheme. If we could also have a more modern-looking design with some (off-)black elements rather than just light blues and greens then the top bar might not look out of place at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how likely this is to happen, but I thought it might be worth putting the idea out there to see if it gets any reaction from Stack Exchange and/or the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really wouldn't require a big change. The following is not a serious suggestion (as I said I'm no designer) but here is the result of spending a couple of minutes applying colour curves in GIMP, to reduce the amount of green and red in the colour scheme, while leaving the top bar untouched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![modified screenshot][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the colour clash against the Stack Exchange logo is greatly reduced, and the overall darker colour scheme lessens the impact of the bar itself. A proper designer could do a much better job, but the point is that a few gentle tweaks could make it look a lot less bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5261/help-theres-a-giant-ugly-thing-on-top-of-the-page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://askubuntu.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S3L4X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="af1d48a1-24a7-4bb9-9dc3-9bdb3e6b42b8" CreationDate="2014-01-07T12:00:01.053" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|resource-recommendation|reopen|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11997" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="8e331a33-3279-4870-93f8-674954b39543" CreationDate="2014-01-07T13:07:57.330" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5390" RevisionGUID="672af950-943f-4674-843b-186232c2ebf1" CreationDate="2014-01-07T15:58:21.410" UserId="23635" Text="Please can we not change it. It works perfectly fine and looks nice to me. That's my vote. Cheers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="d4588159-70a1-46eb-9f51-1b260f4892e0" CreationDate="2014-01-08T11:13:42.110" UserId="8563" Text="This question was recently bumped to the top of the front page by a new answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read/. I originally wanted to just recommend the new answer be deleted, but the question is so bad that I think it should be closed as primarily opinion-based, and then put under a historical lock. Or something to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an everyone-add-your-favourite-book question.&#xD;&#xA; - It is [everything a bad list question is](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/98366/184688).&#xD;&#xA; - Its answers provide no commentary or detail about the books.&#xD;&#xA; - Its sister question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/books-that-every-physicist-should-read, already has a well-earned historical lock on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="d4588159-70a1-46eb-9f51-1b260f4892e0" CreationDate="2014-01-08T11:13:42.110" UserId="8563" Text="The Layman books question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="d4588159-70a1-46eb-9f51-1b260f4892e0" CreationDate="2014-01-08T11:13:42.110" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="97abdbb0-c561-400e-b240-44653fea0078" CreationDate="2014-01-08T12:09:11.093" UserId="25301" Text="I vote the historical lock. I don't think the question has any real value, but some future non-physicist people might find it useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly more text to come when I think some more and am not using my nifty Kindle Fire but a reliable computer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="574725d6-ab6c-4819-a6cd-01e05ab7fdc8" CreationDate="2014-01-08T16:26:56.483" UserId="2751" Text="I see absolutely no point in people going after old open book questions, as we have now the new books policy. Instead, open old books questions should be flagged for moderators to put in Shog9 s banner, and closed old book questions should be flagged to put in the banner too and reopend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing wrong with the question in this meta question, even on MathOverflow and TP.SE which have / had much higher standards than a for all levels sites such as Physics, such resource questions are / have been highly tollerated depending on the exact issue at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="abf62ca0-d394-4ca3-a29f-eb01f58f04ef" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:22:02.227" UserId="22302" Text="For the past few days I have been unable to log into physics.stackexchange.com using OpenID. The error I get is below. Strangely, I can log in by browsing to the root site stackexchange.com and using OpenID. Then I can go to physics.stackexchange.com and get logged in automatically because I was already logged into the root site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unable to log in with your OpenID provider:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The openid.return_to parameter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/authenticate/?s=c15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128&amp;dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not match the actual URL&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/authenticate/?s=c15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128&amp;dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.sig=C1VsVB5URdaZprZo0tRqzDwgmFSwk8kVDxM7mAW8lEw%3D&amp;openid.signed=claimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cassoc_handle%2Cop_endpoint%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cns.alias3%2Calias3.mode%2Calias3.type.alias1%2Calias3.value.alias1%2Calias3.type.alias2%2Calias3.value.alias2&amp;openid.assoc_handle=1Ltb%21IAAAALcYO9mOn_QMDQzJxGqxsg6Af5QghCn_8YIfu4gxKkOZQQAAAAGFmCfvbxvG3B3afcDveMh7dJMqemvMnVxTW1EOwFaj1sT3wDW7Pi3jk0LZzSM3rNRvArAyenOrXkCm8fgPNk76&amp;openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fopenid%2Fprovider&amp;openid.return_to=http%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fusers%2Fauthenticate%2F%3Fs%3Dc15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128%26dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fopenid.stackexchange.com%252Fuser%252F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.response_nonce=2014-01-08T19%3A15%3A35ZnevwToP9&amp;openid.mode=id_res&amp;openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&amp;openid.ns.alias3=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&amp;openid.alias3.mode=fetch_response&amp;openid.alias3.type.alias1=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&amp;openid.alias3.value.alias1=gilg%40stanford.edu&amp;openid.alias3.type.alias2=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2FnamePerson&amp;openid.alias3.value.alias2=Isopycnal%20Oscillation)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the request was made with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="abf62ca0-d394-4ca3-a29f-eb01f58f04ef" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:22:02.227" UserId="22302" Text="Persistent error logging into physics.stackexchange.com with OpenID [Unable to log in with your OpenID provider]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="abf62ca0-d394-4ca3-a29f-eb01f58f04ef" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:22:02.227" UserId="22302" Text="|bug|login|openid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="be2fc114-5db9-4e89-bc87-fcf9803494cf" CreationDate="2014-01-08T20:41:09.900" UserId="22302" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="OS - Windows 7&#xD;&#xA;Browser - Firefox v26.0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the past few days I have been unable to log into physics.stackexchange.com using OpenID. The error I get is below. Strangely, I can log in by browsing to the root site stackexchange.com and using OpenID. Then I can go to physics.stackexchange.com and get logged in automatically because I was already logged into the root site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unable to log in with your OpenID provider:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The openid.return_to parameter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/authenticate/?s=c15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128&amp;dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not match the actual URL&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/authenticate/?s=c15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128&amp;dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.sig=C1VsVB5URdaZprZo0tRqzDwgmFSwk8kVDxM7mAW8lEw%3D&amp;openid.signed=claimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cassoc_handle%2Cop_endpoint%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cns.alias3%2Calias3.mode%2Calias3.type.alias1%2Calias3.value.alias1%2Calias3.type.alias2%2Calias3.value.alias2&amp;openid.assoc_handle=1Ltb%21IAAAALcYO9mOn_QMDQzJxGqxsg6Af5QghCn_8YIfu4gxKkOZQQAAAAGFmCfvbxvG3B3afcDveMh7dJMqemvMnVxTW1EOwFaj1sT3wDW7Pi3jk0LZzSM3rNRvArAyenOrXkCm8fgPNk76&amp;openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fopenid%2Fprovider&amp;openid.return_to=http%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fusers%2Fauthenticate%2F%3Fs%3Dc15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128%26dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fopenid.stackexchange.com%252Fuser%252F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.response_nonce=2014-01-08T19%3A15%3A35ZnevwToP9&amp;openid.mode=id_res&amp;openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&amp;openid.ns.alias3=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&amp;openid.alias3.mode=fetch_response&amp;openid.alias3.type.alias1=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&amp;openid.alias3.value.alias1=gilg%40stanford.edu&amp;openid.alias3.type.alias2=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2FnamePerson&amp;openid.alias3.value.alias2=Isopycnal%20Oscillation)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the request was made with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12016" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="dbda06ce-3e33-4bd4-a3d6-9a72a47f216b" CreationDate="2014-01-09T06:32:43.050" UserId="2751" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="0bab370f-1155-4530-aea1-5fb9018b7e55" CreationDate="2014-01-09T10:29:49.003" UserId="35964" Text="When using an equation in an question or an answer, it is sometimes useful to give it a number and refer to it in the text. The `\tag` command works : if you add `\tag{1}` in the equation environment, a nice &quot;(1)&quot; shows up on the right hand side of the equation. But how can one refer to it in the text in another way than typing `(1)` ? I have tried to use `\eqref{1}` but this only shows &quot;(???)&quot;. Using the command `\label{1}` in the equation solves the `\eqref` issue, but the equation is not displayed correctly anymore, only the LaTeX code appears in the preview window. Is there a way to have `\eqref` work and `\label` as well ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="0bab370f-1155-4530-aea1-5fb9018b7e55" CreationDate="2014-01-09T10:29:49.003" UserId="35964" Text="Using labels with mathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="0bab370f-1155-4530-aea1-5fb9018b7e55" CreationDate="2014-01-09T10:29:49.003" UserId="35964" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="da331405-6a83-42b5-bd1a-3e3c7816a781" CreationDate="2014-01-09T10:36:40.063" UserId="35964" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12021" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="25972760-a7cc-4671-b8ab-76ee3d8bffdc" CreationDate="2014-01-09T11:23:12.757" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12022" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="2eac8993-7caa-4cff-90ac-b31ce6b5a20e" CreationDate="2014-01-09T11:55:13.223" UserId="2751" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12023" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="651e4733-4a82-4b64-881f-8a017b3c6ede" CreationDate="2014-01-09T17:10:32.010" UserId="27166" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|login|openid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="f6d81ec0-396f-4821-a7d0-04cda3b28901" CreationDate="2014-01-09T17:19:23.257" UserId="25301" Comment="added update for reasoning" Text="I vote the historical lock. I don't think the question has any real value, but some future non-physicist people might find it useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (sorry for delay, had things to do)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAICR, the new resource recommendation policy [clearly states](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X-- a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post being discussed **does not request any of these topics**, it simply asks for **a list of books**. The vast majority of the answers to the question also appear to fail the recommended answering policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anupam and Satwick's answers at least mention topics covered, but don't really  hit the other points (where the book isn't thorough or the prerequisites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it does not really fit the model of the Stack Exchange network (which has a general ban on list questions anyway) and that it does not even fit our book policy, the only two options I see are (a) complete deletion and (b) historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe that (a) should be considered just because there is the possibility that *someone* could find some of the books are useful. Thus, the only good option is the historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="3eb9869a-1c3c-46f2-8582-2eb02b3fb4d5" CreationDate="2014-01-09T22:09:54.743" UserId="7901" Text="Note that `\tag`, `\label`, and `\eqref` all play different roles in the process, and you would need to use all three to accomplish your goal.  The `\tag{x}` macro adds an equation number that appears at the right of the equation; it does not create any symbolic name for use with `\eqref`.  That is done through `\label{y}` which assigns the name `y` to the tag that is used in the equation where `\label{y}` appears.  Note that `\label{y}` does not create an equation number, and so if you use `\label` without a `\tag`, the `\eqref` will have no number to refer to, and you get the `(???)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that you are having trouble with labels in question and answer previews is that the preview code reprocesses all the math every time that you type a new character.  That means that the `\label` commands are processed over and over again.  Since a label name can only be used once, when a label is processed a second time, MathJax throws an error (which is trapped and shown as the TeX code in a box).  If you finish answer and post it, it would work properly, since when the page is shown, each label is only used once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the StackExchange sites don't use automatic equation numbering, you have to give an explicit `\tag`, so there is really no need to use `\label` (unless you plan to change the tags after the fact), because you know what the equation tag is already.  So you might as well use the explicit references by typing `(1)` as you suggest above.  If you want a link to the equation (the other thing that `\eqref` provides), then you can make one explicitly.  For example, if you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$E=mc^2\tag{1}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [(1)](url-to-this-question#mjx-eq-1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to link to the tagged equation (where `url-to-this-question` is replaced by the URL to the current question).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5399" RevisionGUID="bee64ea5-3d79-4b89-92f0-a647206b8573" CreationDate="2014-01-11T18:33:45.487" UserId="26063" Text="If you observe the top/highest voted questions &#xD;&#xA;(http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes, &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon, &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down, &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87107/why-dont-metals-bond-when-touched-together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is safe to presume that these questions are not those which would be poupular just amongst layman but also among physicists. But at the same time we can say that experts would already be knowing such things. As the site deals with existing physics and related questions, i believe that the experts have a good grasp on it and have learnt most stuff. At the same time when beginners ask questions which experts woupd already be knowing they get high votes and hence have these sair badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="4715cb29-1cfd-4fbc-b9a8-8b9eb75a2e72" CreationDate="2014-01-12T16:54:33.340" UserId="2451" Comment="Please avoid the use of square brackets [] in the title as square brackets are normally reserved to indicate moderation actions." Text="Persistent error logging into physics.stackexchange.com with OpenID (Unable to log in with your OpenID provider)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="e6b061ed-40ab-4e96-9e62-8c0ddb416291" CreationDate="2014-01-13T09:39:06.090" UserId="21904" Text="I accidentally created the tag &quot;angu&quot;. I tried looking for a deete button a little bit but I didn't find it. How do I delete it? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="e6b061ed-40ab-4e96-9e62-8c0ddb416291" CreationDate="2014-01-13T09:39:06.090" UserId="21904" Text="How do you delete a tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="e6b061ed-40ab-4e96-9e62-8c0ddb416291" CreationDate="2014-01-13T09:39:06.090" UserId="21904" Text="|support|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="ec153edf-fef2-4b34-be54-68c265cc11b9" CreationDate="2014-01-13T09:46:45.260" UserId="21904" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I accidentally created the tag &quot;angu&quot; on the main site. I tried looking for a delete button a little bit but I didn't find it. How do I delete it? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="9fd69769-b5a3-4103-b6da-1d6c2b9d5c0d" CreationDate="2014-01-13T12:05:18.423" UserId="8563" Text="Tags that don't have questions get automatically deleted within 24 hours. Simply remove the tag from the question and wait for a bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="013c54f6-5dc0-4046-b6f9-7aa0dfa224ff" CreationDate="2014-01-13T19:20:04.573" UserId="34564" Text="Previously the question concerning edits of 6 characters was asked &lt;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4478/editing-tags-not-allowed-because-not-6-characters&gt;, however the answers provided were not satisfactory for the question. It is often the case that a single sign needs to be changed or a trivial typo disrupts the flow. In addition some edits are made in series as the question/answer are read over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I am writing to make a change to the page &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work/17964#17964&gt;. My concern is an edit of lambda squared to lambda in the Lagrangian under the header putting it all together. This matches the quartic interaction as typically written and correspondingly as the potential as defined above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="013c54f6-5dc0-4046-b6f9-7aa0dfa224ff" CreationDate="2014-01-13T19:20:04.573" UserId="34564" Text="Edits must be 6 characters long" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="013c54f6-5dc0-4046-b6f9-7aa0dfa224ff" CreationDate="2014-01-13T19:20:04.573" UserId="34564" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="5723c095-af1c-4fea-a2e1-103b91a622b1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T02:33:23.780" UserDisplayName="user28355" Text="I wish to add a tikz diagram to one of my questions, but the website doesn't seem to compile. Some help please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="5723c095-af1c-4fea-a2e1-103b91a622b1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T02:33:23.780" UserDisplayName="user28355" Text="Tikz in the question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="5723c095-af1c-4fea-a2e1-103b91a622b1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T02:33:23.780" UserDisplayName="user28355" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5404" RevisionGUID="5070e622-d66e-4fcf-9850-dd56f63fd1b4" CreationDate="2014-01-14T08:05:00.603" UserId="7433" Text="Mathjax doesn't support TikZ, and it would be a very heavy script even if it did. Remember that mathjax is compiled on the client side so putting heavy code in it will just end up in making your answer take a lot of time to load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, make the diagram in LaTeX (`\documentclass[standalone]` is good for this), and upload the image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5405" RevisionGUID="838b472b-20e1-4986-a154-b15676450681" CreationDate="2014-01-14T10:46:35.437" UserId="26063" Text="For every question, there is a number of views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean ? How many times a question has been viewed/opened ? How many times it has been opened by a unique member of community ? Or something else ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it determined ? Is a log of IP addresses visiting the question kept ? If it is, who all can access it ? If not, then how is it determined ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5405" RevisionGUID="838b472b-20e1-4986-a154-b15676450681" CreationDate="2014-01-14T10:46:35.437" UserId="26063" Text="How is no of views determined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5405" RevisionGUID="838b472b-20e1-4986-a154-b15676450681" CreationDate="2014-01-14T10:46:35.437" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="da1ad238-2058-43dc-95c2-f85df3cd0bf2" CreationDate="2014-01-14T18:09:29.093" UserId="25814" Text="I want to add something like F&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt; (the force at point A.), I've been doing it this way:  &#xD;&#xA;$F$&amp;lt;sub&gt;$A$&amp;lt;/sub&gt; but inside an equation starting with 2 dollar signs(I want it to be written on a separate line Like:  &#xD;&#xA;$$F&amp;lt;sub&gt;A&amp;lt;/sub&gt;$$  this is causing some troubles, and it seems that it couldn't be done this way, so how can I do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="da1ad238-2058-43dc-95c2-f85df3cd0bf2" CreationDate="2014-01-14T18:09:29.093" UserId="25814" Text="How to add a subscript character inside an equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="da1ad238-2058-43dc-95c2-f85df3cd0bf2" CreationDate="2014-01-14T18:09:29.093" UserId="25814" Text="|support|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="79947764-2984-4623-8af7-ed870896eda2" CreationDate="2014-01-14T18:19:27.927" UserId="520" Text="The tool we use for math rendering is called MathJax. It provides a close simulation of LaTeX math-mode. The subscript operator is `_`, so you write `F_A`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5408" RevisionGUID="8649ed64-53d2-42c6-9965-5024fbbb8131" CreationDate="2014-01-14T18:19:57.507" UserId="22494" Text="Underscore.  `F_A` in TeX is $F_A$.  For longer strings use `{}` groups like `F_{10}`: $F_{10}$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="8bcecee6-f389-4d5e-9f16-9a4259de33d0" CreationDate="2014-01-15T08:27:27.297" UserId="26076" Text="This question is inspired by the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is it physically possible to convert matter into the electromagnetic spectrum(specifically x-rays)?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/93707/26076)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I put in the title is in part rhetorical, for I am sure that there are many users on this site who would agree with its sentiment, a conclusion I reach from seeing the great deal of loving work many users put into their answers, particularly to answers that are patently almost ridiculously well within the writer's level of competence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if people agree that the answer to my question is &quot;yes&quot;, then why do people vote to close questions like the one I cited? Is there something in this site's policies that I am overlooking? It's not simply about this question: I cite it only as an example. Let me list what it is about this question that is important for this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It bespeaks a reasonably intelligent user with a smattering of knowledge about physical science and who is speculating with this knowledge to reach conclusions that are clearly wrong and patently so to someone with a physics background;&#xD;&#xA;3. A google or Wikipedia search would not readily show why these conclusions are wrong - at least from the standpoint of *a reasonably intelligent person without a physics background*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My cited question is clearly not someone seeking to publish their pet, peer-review-less theory on this site. There are two very fundamental reasons why the answer to the question is no: firstly that (1) we have no way of encoding the complex quantum state of something like a cell or a brain in the interactions between photons, aside from by turning the quantum state into a colossal document and sending it by digital communications and secondly that (2) &quot;quantum teleportation&quot;, as I understand it, so far has the highly specific meaning of quantum state transmission from one system to another of the same kind: e.g. atom states are &quot;teleported&quot; to states of the same kind of atoms through entanglement combined with classical information transmission. So there are two key pieces of knowledge here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An understanding of the idea of *state*;&#xD;&#xA;2. A rough knowledge of the kinds of quantum teleportation that are actively researched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point here is that it is hard for someone not of a physics background to latch onto these two concepts as search terms for google and Wikipedia. If one looks at the quantum teleportation wiki without a good understanding of QM, I can well imagine that once could read this article and not see any obvious reason why Star Trek teleportation won't work, at least as far as we know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given my title of this question, what is wrong with dispelling someone's ignorance and giving them a few pointers to their future research? Some will find such questions irritating, but surely the dispelling of ignorance that a good answer to this question is a *win for science*. I despair these days at the lack of scientific literacy throughout society, and this lack is positively dangerous when it underpins appallingly ill informed policy decisions of powerful entities like governments and influential corporations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now I'll stop banging on: I guess a reader can guess that I'm pretty passionate about *not* closing this question and shall keep applying the principles stated in my future reviews. I'll sign of with an exhortation: if a question is not showing obvious laziness, *please try (1) to imagine things from the standpoint of someone not as skilled as you in physics and ask yourself the question (2) is an well placed answer a chance to dispel ignorance and further the scientific literacy in our world?* before voting to close and repeat my question: what are the main reasons why people do vote to close these questions and how can we better apply the principles of spreading our knowledge around if people agree that such an endeavour is important.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="8bcecee6-f389-4d5e-9f16-9a4259de33d0" CreationDate="2014-01-15T08:27:27.297" UserId="26076" Text="Is it part of this site's charter to dispel ignorance and raise awareness of science?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="8bcecee6-f389-4d5e-9f16-9a4259de33d0" CreationDate="2014-01-15T08:27:27.297" UserId="26076" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="2ed7a34a-e120-4db1-a9cb-7eebdae450db" CreationDate="2014-01-15T14:42:34.790" UserId="25301" Text="In **this particular case**, I think the only thing that was done wrong was not linking the OP to the multiple questions about quantum teleportation and instead voting to close it as off-topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Could teleportation ever really happen?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/could-teleportation-ever-really-happen)&#xD;&#xA; - [Using quantum teleportation in a way to have the effect of matter teleportation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39363/using-quantum-teleportation-in-a-way-to-have-the-effect-of-matter-teleportation)&#xD;&#xA; - [Quantum teleportation - the alternative to destroying atoms](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77760/quantum-teleportation-the-alternative-to-destroying-atoms)&#xD;&#xA; - [Why can't quantum teleportation be used to transport information](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14276/why-cant-quantum-teleportation-be-used-to-transport-information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And so on](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=teleportation). Surely these would have dispelled the ignorance and raised awareness of science to the OP and the future readers, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="4507b32c-2d67-420d-831a-8c7d44e3d2f2" CreationDate="2014-01-15T15:48:07.123" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is it part of this site's charter to dispel ignorance and raise awareness of science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is part of this site's charter (not that we officially have a charter) is to provide a platform for people to ask expert-level physics questions and provide high-quality answers to those questions. If, in the process of doing that, we happen to dispel ignorance and raise awareness of science, then sure, that's a nice side effect. But it's not our primary mission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, we generally expect askers to have enough of a background in physics that they can ask questions in a way which is meaningful to experts, and understand the answers. While the asker of the question about converting matter into EM waves or whatever may be intelligent, they clearly don't have the level of familiarity with physics that is required to ask about this topic and understand the answers they'd be likely to get. As a consequence, the question is highly unlikely to be useful to future visitors (I'm talking about people with some physics knowledge), which makes it not a good fit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of other physics Q&amp;A sites, like [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com), that can more readily cater to layperson questions. We distinguish ourselves by trying to operate at a slightly higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, note that when I say &quot;expert level&quot; I'm not saying one must be e.g. a grad student or above to ask a question here. As I said, it's about having an appropriate level of understanding of physics to pose a meaningful question and understand the answers. It is _possible_ to do this as a beginning student of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="040da690-780f-4ad0-94a4-89cd1bfb52a9" CreationDate="2014-01-15T16:22:08.087" UserId="11062" Text="Yep, the number of views is determined by the IP addresses of individual users, who had viewed the question in the past. It's just a [timed counter to measure roughly &quot;how popular the question is&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/188348/205334).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by &quot;timed intervals&quot; is that, say you view a question today. And, (let's say) after a week or so, you view it again. Refresh the page, and you'll find out that the views have increased by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mods don't have any privy information regarding the views, it's really obvious that the site-developers can view almost anything. [Sklivvz](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz), and [Shog](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) are examples, as they visit us often (:P)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="925ae15f-9a10-4fe8-8002-db9ec543fc09" CreationDate="2014-01-16T10:07:57.300" UserId="7433" Comment="added 1045 characters in body" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:reference-request], which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dealing with old recommendation posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5413" RevisionGUID="6826e7f5-8621-4914-aaae-03fb5a035034" CreationDate="2014-01-16T11:00:52.433" UserId="1325" Text="I'm not sure that the site has or needs a *charter*, but the site content is what we the site users choose it to be. I suppose SE would have the sanction of closing the site if they wanted, but aside from such nuclear sanctions we decide what goes hereabouts (anyone who disagrees should hurry up and get enough rep to vote me down :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own view is that education, encouragement and indeed making Physics exciting is an important part of this site - I wish a site like this had been available to me when I was a spotty youth back in the seventies! All we had was Horizon and the occasional James Burke documentary. If I spot a question that looks like one I might have asked as a 14 year old I will look hard to see if it can be answered usefully, even if it's a naive question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I do sympathise with David's position when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, we generally expect askers to have enough of a background in physics that they can ask questions in a way which is meaningful to experts, and understand the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are plenty of other physics Q&amp;A sites, like Physics Forums, that can more readily cater to layperson questions. We distinguish ourselves by trying to operate at a slightly higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a blog site - it's a question and answer site. If a question is so poorly phrased that it needs an expository essay to answer it then that isn't a question we should be addressing here. Furthermore I will only answer a naive question if I can do so in a way that is rigorous and not misleading. We do no-one any favours by (to take a silly example) claiming that General Relativity [can be explained with a rubber sheet][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it's fair to single out questions, but the question that sparked this discussion basically amounts to *Can we build a Star Trek type transporter?*. Although I couldn't bring myself to vote to close, I don't think we can usefully answer that question here. I don't see that linking to quantum teleportation addresses more than a fraction of the question. You'd need a huge answer to really do the question justice, and that's not appropriate for this site. So I don't have any problems with the question being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/b8566ba5a110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="e78e0682-c2c7-46e9-88f6-4bdc3c326ad0" CreationDate="2014-01-16T12:54:47.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/423800501734744064" />
  <row Id="12061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5414" RevisionGUID="540e5bd9-49c4-46a4-9766-4e3b57b003ae" CreationDate="2014-01-16T20:18:45.220" UserId="26063" Text="On [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)'s page if says and I quote : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{Randomly poke old unanswered questions every hour so they get some attention}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What algorithm is used for this **random** throws of questions ? Does it bring up useful questions only ? How ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5414" RevisionGUID="540e5bd9-49c4-46a4-9766-4e3b57b003ae" CreationDate="2014-01-16T20:18:45.220" UserId="26063" Text="Community♦ Gifted questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5414" RevisionGUID="540e5bd9-49c4-46a4-9766-4e3b57b003ae" CreationDate="2014-01-16T20:18:45.220" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="5299b1b9-d350-4fa7-b24e-d9522fe093b8" CreationDate="2014-01-17T10:36:31.407" UserId="20898" Text="[![A beautiful, free online graphing calculator][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nwLGb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.desmos.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12065" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="6a604197-cd5b-450a-a984-e7eb1d8604fe" CreationDate="2014-01-17T10:36:31.407" UserId="20898" />
  <row Id="12066" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5414" RevisionGUID="344e38e6-2a89-428f-9eca-f3dcd4a63e7d" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:43:04.220" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="66297e57-f3fd-475c-9f32-dc9ab5d51bb5" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:49:51.920" UserId="23119" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv.org: the biggest open-access e-print repository for maths and physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IIjc5.png &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12068" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="ae36b967-77eb-43d5-ac2a-90144e93575c" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:50:06.220" UserId="23119" Comment="Rollback to [ff267b34-093a-4124-8540-a4927b10f8a4]" Text="[![arXiv.org: the biggest open-access e-print repository for maths and physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VoMdO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="30a9db2a-b9ea-47a2-8569-c2a6007c13e5" CreationDate="2014-01-18T14:28:07.973" UserId="4826" Comment="Fixed the title text not being accurate." Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="32f0aaf4-6441-4ae2-8244-0b5e8bf45f3a" CreationDate="2014-01-18T23:11:48.910" UserId="26687" Text="[![iphooichoo][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.onlinescienceolympiads.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JWwNz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12076" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="f0627401-3dfc-416c-bdc6-ee9e069b9d36" CreationDate="2014-01-18T23:11:48.910" UserId="26687" />
  <row Id="12078" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="30e2bf57-5d74-479b-bdcc-7daef8a32d7e" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:40:02.420" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94508/how-many-females-visit-this-site" />
  <row Id="12079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="3bf93d7e-2845-4cfd-9036-3796ccf86047" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:38:54.267" UserId="20270" Text="Recently there has been a lot in the media about how to get more females into studying the sciences, especially physics and mathematics.  I have three related questions that I think may help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are you a female with tertiary scientific qualifications visiting this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Are you a female without any tertiary scientific qualifications visiting this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What first gave you an interest in science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are many males here without any qualifications and on every other science site. They all love to read and answer questions. Some are even helpful with their answers and have learnt a lot by just visiting science sites. I know females love to read and learn too so I am intersted to see how many answer yes to question 2 and what got them to first visit this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="3bf93d7e-2845-4cfd-9036-3796ccf86047" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:38:54.267" UserId="20270" Text="How many females visit this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="3bf93d7e-2845-4cfd-9036-3796ccf86047" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:38:54.267" UserId="20270" Text="|discussion|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="59b28cec-cf80-4106-8c03-e5ade2d697b3" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:48:57.813" UserId="20270" Comment="added more detail" Text="Recently there has been a lot in the media about how to get more females into studying the sciences, especially physics and mathematics.  I have three related questions that I think may help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are you a female with tertiary scientific qualifications visiting this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Are you a female without any tertiary scientific qualifications visiting this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What first gave you an interest in science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are many males here without any qualifications and on every other science site. They all love to read and answer questions. Some are even helpful with their answers and have learnt a lot by just visiting science sites. I know females love to read and learn too so I am intersted to see how many answer yes to question 2 and what got them to first visit this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Nash discovered game theory and compared it to picking up women. Could game theory be used for science to pick up women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.about.com/library/weekly/aa012002a.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12087" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="e6c3b543-9782-44d5-a17f-7e7637bd2b3d" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:52:47.280" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [3bf93d7e-2845-4cfd-9036-3796ccf86047]" Text="Recently there has been a lot in the media about how to get more females into studying the sciences, especially physics and mathematics.  I have three related questions that I think may help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are you a female with tertiary scientific qualifications visiting this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Are you a female without any tertiary scientific qualifications visiting this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What first gave you an interest in science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are many males here without any qualifications and on every other science site. They all love to read and answer questions. Some are even helpful with their answers and have learnt a lot by just visiting science sites. I know females love to read and learn too so I am intersted to see how many answer yes to question 2 and what got them to first visit this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="8d1def41-9670-416a-9401-a87e210dafc5" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:58:53.597" UserId="8563" Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LSRYV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12089" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="4cc38442-e438-48ab-a545-4d66a3835a61" CreationDate="2014-01-20T17:58:53.597" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="12090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="02a8cdda-6751-4cd6-86e9-c0b9ae81ddd0" CreationDate="2014-01-20T20:03:36.530" UserId="20270" Text="I'll get the ball rolling, here are my answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Cartoons about space mainly and the Why is it so program. ( The host appealed to me as a child)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="5d91de85-24f4-459f-98f9-9ba60964e584" CreationDate="2014-01-20T20:10:04.453" UserId="20270" Comment="added detail" Text="I'll get the ball rolling, here are my answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Cartoons and supermarionation about space mainly and the Why is it so program. ( The host appealed to me as a child)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="c28c324a-1967-46b0-9ee4-fd06f57a532c" CreationDate="2014-01-20T20:57:29.130" UserId="1492" Text="1. yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Jule Vern at age 8,  a good math teacher in highschool and a bad physics teacher so I had to think through his parroted statements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="fe1d9f4c-ec7e-402f-b738-24314e8e7828" CreationDate="2014-01-21T02:01:07.117" UserId="11062" Text="I don't understand how you would believe anyone at all. This is internet dude, an environment for virtual interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I say I'm a girl? (Actually, I'm a boy). Now, do you really *know* &quot;what am I&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can you [believe anyone's appearance in the internet, especially when you've never seen them in your life?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog) If you're an *amateur* physicist, you'll be skeptical here. So, the questions (1) &amp; (2) are unreliable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="709ae049-4096-4592-9bf9-c693eaba508a" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:56:56.530" UserId="38037" Text="When I visit this question,&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94471/&#xD;&#xA;, I see this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;protected by dmckee♦ 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question is protected to prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have currently 101 rep points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some thinking, I came to the conclusion that my 100 &quot;association bonus&quot; points doesn't count towards this requirement. Is this the reason I can't answer? If it's the case, wouldn't be relevant to let this a little more explicit in the message?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="709ae049-4096-4592-9bf9-c693eaba508a" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:56:56.530" UserId="38037" Text="Does minimum rep to answer protected question includes association points?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="709ae049-4096-4592-9bf9-c693eaba508a" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:56:56.530" UserId="38037" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="cc633dff-60e5-4552-93b5-0cb6b03d91df" CreationDate="2014-01-23T07:43:24.403" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; Is this the reason I can't answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If it's the case, wouldn't be relevant to let this a little more explicit in the message?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pretty explicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation _on this site_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasoning behind this is that when it comes to site-specific policies, someone with 101 rep is not much more knowledgeable than someone with 1 rep. Popular questions tend to attract attention from the network, and most won't know if their answer is really appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="a391d947-38a7-46d3-bbc3-d5b532b13533" CreationDate="2014-01-23T14:53:12.977" UserId="20848" Text="This is a pointless question that at best satisfies curiosity, but at worst results in more misguided pressure to &quot;fix&quot; things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every person is different.  Physical differences are obvious to us all.  Clearly there are substantial mental differences too, even if they are usually not as immediately obvious from casual observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should therefore not be any surprise that we can come up with various metrics to classify people into two groups, and that some occupations or disciplines are then comprised laregely of one group.  Since the male/female classification covers a number of large differences, it should be expected that there are occupations and disciplines made up largely of one or the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What to do about this?  Wrong question.  The obvious presumption is that this is a natural and expected outcome, so that there is nothing wrong.  The burden of proof is with someone claiming there is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are all also individuals, and humans in particular have large individual variations that can often have a higher amplitude than broad catagories and trends.  For example, let's say that in 8th grade girls on average do better at subject A than boys.  This does NOT mean that any one boy will be worse at A than any one girl, only that on a broad average this will be true.  This of course should not surprise anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Male and female brains clearly have differences, and it should be expected that there will be subjects one is &lt;i&gt;generally&lt;/i&gt; more adept at than the other.  This is no different than discovering that those taller than 5&amp;frac12; feet are better at basketball than those shorter.  The only difference is that the feature likely to be the cause of this outcome is obvious from casual observation.  However, this again does not mean that any one person 5.6 feet tall will be better at basketball than one 5.4 feet tall, only that on &lt;i&gt;average&lt;/i&gt; this is &lt;i&gt;likely&lt;/i&gt; to be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing wrong here as long as we don't make the mistake of judging the capabilities of individual people based on which broad catagories they fit in.  The important thing to strive for is that all individuals have equal &lt;i&gt;opportunities&lt;/i&gt;, not equal outcomes.  Unequal outcomes should the expected cause of all of us having unequal abilities.  Therefore trying to measure outcome, as this question is doing, is pointless and will only lead to data that is easily misinterpreted.  That, in addition with the small sample size and self-selected samples makes any answer here only a anecdote at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been envolved with trying to augment science and technology education of the K-12 grade students in our town.  One of the laments I have heard, predominantly from women but not exclusively so, is that there are not enough girls going into science.  The fact that there are less women in science than men is somehow taken as evidence of a problem that needs to be fixed.  You may think this is a pointless academic argument, but it's not since real action has been taken as a result.  There are two programs I am aware of available to students in our town that aim to address this &quot;problem&quot;.  One is a &lt;i&gt;take your daughter to work&lt;/i&gt; day, and another is a private organization that sponsor a &lt;i&gt;women in science&lt;/i&gt; event for girls.  In other words, real resources are being expended.  And no, there is not a comparable &lt;i&gt;take your son to work&lt;/i&gt; day or a &lt;i&gt;men in science&lt;/i&gt; event for boys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these programs are run by private organizations that are privately funded, so I agree they have a right to exist and carry out these programs.  However, that doesn't make them a good idea or that the overall expenditure of resources is doing some larger good.  Once again what we should all be striving for is equal opportunity for all, not trying to skew the opportunities to cause a more equal outcome simply because that is believed to be better somehow.  It is meaningless results produced by questions like this that lead to such deliberate unequal opportunities and discrimination.  Non-science like this causes real harm (I am hoping we can agree that discrimination is harm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all need to be vigilant and vocal against meaningless anecdotes leading to statistics, that masquerade as science, that effect public policy, that eventually cause real harm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12099" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="721749cf-f207-48bb-9341-b7f54c01bda2" CreationDate="2014-01-24T12:52:17.893" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95068/sombrero-grid-logo" />
  <row Id="12100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="b375f0a1-a5ee-4abb-8086-3fa97cacfa0a" CreationDate="2014-01-24T11:29:59.927" UserId="38123" Text="This site has a 3d grid looking like a sombrero as a logo. Does it represent some specific physical phenomenon or is it just art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="b375f0a1-a5ee-4abb-8086-3fa97cacfa0a" CreationDate="2014-01-24T11:29:59.927" UserId="38123" Text="Sombrero / grid logo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="b375f0a1-a5ee-4abb-8086-3fa97cacfa0a" CreationDate="2014-01-24T11:29:59.927" UserId="38123" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12103" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="50ff86d3-4ab8-4f9d-97c3-752b621ddec8" CreationDate="2014-01-24T12:52:17.893" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95068/sombrero-grid-logo/95070#95070" />
  <row Id="12104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="6209c0b3-bd1f-470b-9724-dbd9ec339d86" CreationDate="2014-01-24T11:34:16.890" UserId="36995" Text="I don't know the original motivation of the author, but I reckon it could represent a wave on a membrane or the wave function of a particle for a symmetrical condition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12105" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="869d3f0e-7e12-403b-95f6-6261c6764399" CreationDate="2014-01-24T12:52:17.893" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95068/sombrero-grid-logo/95071#95071" />
  <row Id="12106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="1b69d754-49c9-4045-a017-c012527d05cd" CreationDate="2014-01-24T11:36:44.923" UserId="33475" Text="It could very well be the diagram that is always drawn for spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB)! SSB is quite an important phenomenon, and its sort of the foundation for the Higgs mechanism that got a Nobel prize this past October." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12107" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="4fcf20a5-124a-4b9b-889e-05906898b370" CreationDate="2014-01-24T12:54:12.240" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12108" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="9f4f03f9-653c-4867-b60e-89bf8cb0a181" CreationDate="2014-01-24T19:14:47.483" UserId="520" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12109" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="86b16ca5-48cb-4d8f-9647-6fc4fbc0dc9c" CreationDate="2014-01-24T19:15:08.877" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="54f95323-744c-4167-881f-856f4a7e46fc" CreationDate="2014-01-25T10:37:39.857" UserId="28097" Text="I recently asked [this question][1] about explaining gravity to a 6 year old and it  made it into the &quot;Hot Network Questions&quot; list. It generated a lot of discussion and has some very good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, a moderator commented on the question, saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The point of this site is not to educate people, it's to allow people to ask high quality physics questions and get high quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the question is of **high quality**. Probably not. But I've seen similar questions here before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73564/explaining-to-a-five-year-old-why-dont-bubbles-run-like-water&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76650/explaining-uv-radiation-to-a-6-year-old&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77191/explaining-newtons-laws-of-motion-to-a-6-year-old&#xD;&#xA; -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9805/how-do-you-explain-spinning-tops-to-a-nine-year-old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the question off-topic? If so, why? I'd like some constructive feedback on this - I think it will help me ask better questions in the future.&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any way I can improve the question without invalidating all the current answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/94471/28097" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="54f95323-744c-4167-881f-856f4a7e46fc" CreationDate="2014-01-25T10:37:39.857" UserId="28097" Text="Is this question off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="54f95323-744c-4167-881f-856f4a7e46fc" CreationDate="2014-01-25T10:37:39.857" UserId="28097" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="80798a0d-1484-43c1-bcfe-c0851d869bd4" CreationDate="2014-01-25T12:14:05.910" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="42f132ca-d2a4-4f25-b604-4ef4937f72e4" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:32:55.203" UserId="520" Text="I don't speak for the other moderators, but my concern with this question and the other like it is that very often the answers that such question attract are not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case that are at least a half a dozen answers that are frankly terrible that have received lots of upvotes. &quot;Explanations&quot; in terms of other forces might shut the kid up, but they are ***bad physics***, and on a site about physics that makes them ***bad answers***. Yet, because of the popularity of the question they are voted up, which makes our community look unprofessional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brandon's this point almost from the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While great, this question is off topic for Physics.SE. It isn't about physics, it's about education and childhood cognition with a few physics metaphors sprinkled in. A large portion of any answer to this question could also answer &quot;How do you explain &lt;any complicated subject&gt; to a 6 year old?&quot; which makes this question about education. The rest of the answer is about simple gravity / falling / symmetry metaphors which makes this question too broad. – Brandon Enright Jan 20 at 19:55 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="1e2a71ee-fb11-4aba-9eb8-de7f000822a1" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:04:50.003" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I don't speak for the other moderators, but my concern with this question and the other like it is that very often the answers that such questions attract are not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case that are at least a half a dozen answers that are frankly terrible that have received lots of upvotes. &quot;Explanations&quot; in terms of other forces might shut the kid up, but they are ***bad physics***, and on a site about physics that makes them ***bad answers***. Yet, because of the popularity of the question they are voted up, which makes our community look unprofessional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brandon's this point almost from the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While great, this question is off topic for Physics.SE. It isn't about physics, it's about education and childhood cognition with a few physics metaphors sprinkled in. A large portion of any answer to this question could also answer &quot;How do you explain &lt;any complicated subject&gt; to a 6 year old?&quot; which makes this question about education. The rest of the answer is about simple gravity / falling / symmetry metaphors which makes this question too broad. – Brandon Enright Jan 20 at 19:55 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12116" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="bc4a0864-2a54-425d-a2b9-5acdd0bcd9f7" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:11:35.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/427156815940681729" />
  <row Id="12117" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="cc0e2142-1703-4a0b-a82b-7e4805aed022" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:57:48.417" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/217476/not-notified-of-new-edits-on-meta-physics-se" />
  <row Id="12118" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="f0b84f78-4550-42d4-b134-1d1261ff3cac" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:57:48.417" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/217476/not-notified-of-new-edits-on-meta-physics-se/217492#217492" />
  <row Id="12119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="1b2a7b49-6558-4cba-ac51-40eea2edc0af" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:48:01.637" UserId="38203" UserDisplayName="psubsee2003" Text="I do not believe this is not a bug, but rather it is [meta-tag:status-bydesign].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the edit notification system is currently design, users are not notified when a minor edit is made to one of their own posts.  [The exact criteria are][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a non-trivial edit is one which changes at least 10 characters (this is using a diff algorithm, so it's not a simple add/delete; and is naturally a little fuzzy). For the &quot;technical&quot; sites (where code highlighting is enabled) changes to code of at least 2 characters are considered non-trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this, changes to tags are considered trivial and will not generate a notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/134906/what-type-of-notifications-do-we-have/135411#comment378020_135411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="6b67a92c-3629-464f-b12f-34542a5bb92c" CreationDate="2014-01-25T16:22:05.123" UserId="28097" Text="I recently asked [this question][1] on meta.physics.stackexchange.com, and one hour later, the question was [edited][2], but I wasn't notified of the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites, I'm notified when an edit is made to any of my questions / answers. But on meta.physics.SE, I'm not. Why is this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5430/is-this-question-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/5430/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="6b67a92c-3629-464f-b12f-34542a5bb92c" CreationDate="2014-01-25T16:22:05.123" UserId="28097" Text="Not notified of new edits on meta.physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="6b67a92c-3629-464f-b12f-34542a5bb92c" CreationDate="2014-01-25T16:22:05.123" UserId="28097" Text="|support|notifications|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="630d2ca5-bf14-44d6-b37d-c95d18bc74c5" CreationDate="2014-01-26T03:21:30.510" UserId="35024" Text="Moderators are appointed for life as discussed in [this][1] post.  Not having a term limit seems reasonable, but is there no way for a moderator to be recalled by the community?  No reelection and no recall authority seems rather like a dictatorship.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="630d2ca5-bf14-44d6-b37d-c95d18bc74c5" CreationDate="2014-01-26T03:21:30.510" UserId="35024" Text="How does a moderator lose his diamond?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="630d2ca5-bf14-44d6-b37d-c95d18bc74c5" CreationDate="2014-01-26T03:21:30.510" UserId="35024" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="85f8c4d4-4358-4825-80d8-03027134c752" CreationDate="2014-01-26T03:27:02.717" UserId="520" Text="If you think a moderator is out of line use the [&quot;contact us&quot; link][1] at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.][2] This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beta site get *pro tem* moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time that is it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/151633/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5436" RevisionGUID="e2e90d33-2914-46a2-8cb8-d1211bf43ce8" CreationDate="2014-01-26T05:46:22.190" UserId="112" Text="Whilst I can almost guarantee the author of the logo did not have this in mind when creating it; a physical phenomenon that *may* be described via such a potential is the Two-Level-System (TLS) defects we see in superconducting circuitry that involve Josephson junctions. In a [recent paper][1] we describe what occurs when an oxygen atom delocalises around an Al-Al bond axis. The potential of the rotationally symmetric case is a &quot;mexican hat&quot; - exactly like the logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i7/e077002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12128" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="394e0905-c273-40c5-8c75-257db79930c1" CreationDate="2014-01-26T17:32:29.780" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="82f49c83-6cdd-4540-9554-d968c02d8076" CreationDate="2014-01-26T18:37:06.507" UserId="7433" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="1. yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Jules Verne at age 8,  a good math teacher in highschool and a bad physics teacher so I had to think through his parroted statements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="6ac2c6f4-a174-4a17-8220-00313f7f5d1f" CreationDate="2014-01-26T18:39:02.270" UserId="2911" Comment="grammar" Text="I do not believe this is a bug, but rather it is [meta-tag:status-bydesign].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the edit notification system is currently designed, users are not notified when a minor edit is made to one of their own posts.  [The exact criteria are][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a non-trivial edit is one which changes at least 10 characters (this is using a diff algorithm, so it's not a simple add/delete; and is naturally a little fuzzy). For the &quot;technical&quot; sites (where code highlighting is enabled) changes to code of at least 2 characters are considered non-trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this, changes to tags are considered trivial and will not generate a notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/134906/what-type-of-notifications-do-we-have/135411#comment378020_135411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="a9c01da7-a23e-4e14-8a88-b3f2017386fa" CreationDate="2014-01-27T23:57:59.927" UserId="520" Text="The thing that makes me very reluctant to pursue this is that people seems to have no sense for the amount of time they are asking readers (well, viewers) to invest when they link to videos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes they seem to be saying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh, yeah. Just watch this [47 minute] clip and I'm sure I recall it being in there somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More aware users, of course post that you can find the answer around [time hash], which is helpful, but I rarely want to follow such links anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm sure there are people who would try to take this as license to post what are in effect link-only answer. Or worse, link-only *questions*. Heck, we have some of that already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="2ae0a01d-4f29-41fa-908a-275b914ce27f" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:14:39.210" UserId="16371" Text="The mathematical modeling SE proposal (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling) is closer to becoming a real site, but it needs more work. This site is for questions that are about models for real life phenomena. For instance, I was at a math talk yesterday where they described a PDE modelling bacteria with flagella, and they described how the model gave incorrect results until they ellipsoids instead of spheres and incorporated random 'tumbling'. This site is for people to ask questions about such models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any new site requires 60 followers (there are now 80+) and 40 'sample questions'. These are not meant to be answered; everyone who visits the site adds up to 5 questions (each &lt;150 characters, the size of a tweet) and others vote on those they like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because many of the followers (including me) are theoretical mathematicians, we have trouble writing expert-level or even graduate-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you can think of an interesting question on mathematical models (versions of TQFT, improvements on mean field theory, Einstein's treatment of viscosity for spheres) of 150 characters or less, please follow this link, scroll to the bottom, and ask your questions: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions of overlap with other sites are discussed on this site as well. This proposal has support from mathoverflow, mathSE and scicomp." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="2ae0a01d-4f29-41fa-908a-275b914ce27f" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:14:39.210" UserId="16371" Text="Update on mathematical modeling stackexchange-Writing interesting questions in 150 characters or less" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="2ae0a01d-4f29-41fa-908a-275b914ce27f" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:14:39.210" UserId="16371" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="ce81a78e-c3ce-4e95-8264-bc000a506970" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:21:14.580" UserId="7433" Text="The area 51 process doesn't require you to post a full question in 140 characters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You just have to post a title of a question. Similar to how the title of a question on a full Stack Exchange site is limited by 140 characters, this is too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this stage of site development, the focus is on what _types_ of questions will be asked (which can be gleaned from the title), instead of the full content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no need to ask for people to come up with short questions. Ask people to come up with good questions with titles that say something about the question. Not as hard :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with your site proposal!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="e741afbf-b396-416b-bf5b-bf091d2aa0b7" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:26:54.650" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 413 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematical modeling][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Problems][7]][8] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling?referrer=V6GL1V2huilDGxDR-o9vQA2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/61943.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/61943/physics-problems&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="95e01836-55b9-46a8-bef9-b30697e9037a" CreationDate="2014-01-30T13:52:30.240" UserId="26499" Text="Well I can read the reason why [my question][1] was put on hold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I wonder if that would be the good action for questions like these. I honestly did a lot already, however everything I always saw was just &quot;beating around the point&quot;. And I **knew** I missed a simple fact from the text in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment already gave the answer (as I showed), which was simply that if the thrust to weight is constant, the accelleration is also constant.  &#xD;&#xA;I did no realise this, and without this one can't beat the question. I started the question thus with &quot;I have no idea how to start this...&quot;, simply because I saw that in whatever I would do I would miss a value - and any extra information would determine which method to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this question could both be answered easily as well as helps understanding. I could point all things I did already, and then you would all look into a mistake in my calculations or something. But I knew that wasn't the problem (and thus a waste of everyone's time) and I knew the problem was misinterpreting the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is closing really good for actual questions about &quot;understanding information given&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95832/ideal-rocket-motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="95e01836-55b9-46a8-bef9-b30697e9037a" CreationDate="2014-01-30T13:52:30.240" UserId="26499" Text="Why is this on hold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="95e01836-55b9-46a8-bef9-b30697e9037a" CreationDate="2014-01-30T13:52:30.240" UserId="26499" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5441" RevisionGUID="d864a83c-a9f0-4178-a420-8d33fb2b6087" CreationDate="2014-01-30T14:22:17.623" UserId="8563" Text="I don't want to bash your Area 51 proposal, and I do see that it can take up the sort of chunk of knowledge-space that applied mathematics departments take up in many universities. However, when it comes to physics, I have a hard time distinguishing &quot;a mathematical model of a physical situation&quot; from... physics, you know? I would consider questions about the maths of the models you quote,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;versions of TQFT, improvements on mean field theory, Einstein's treatment of viscosity for spheres&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as legitimately parts of physics, and I would expect they would be entirely on-topic on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What sort of take are you guys thinking of taking about these sort of models? What sort of questions would be off-topic here but more destined for such a site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="136597af-da83-4ecf-8dd4-445c487a1648" CreationDate="2014-01-30T14:27:08.493" UserId="8563" Comment="Physics Problems has been closed." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematical modeling][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling?referrer=V6GL1V2huilDGxDR-o9vQA2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/61943.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/61943/physics-problems&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="f2242e12-cf5b-49d5-8c2e-781f2db65afa" CreationDate="2014-01-30T14:55:35.147" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="9437879b-3358-497f-b998-d1558c5e4c03" CreationDate="2014-01-30T15:14:03.693" UserId="8563" Comment="Added beta sites." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematical modeling][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12144" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="152a1b74-029a-4ff9-8974-dc146de3617f" CreationDate="2014-01-30T15:17:26.917" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more descriptive, and an actual question." Text="Why is this question on rocket motion on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="3c8034a0-1883-4135-82d8-b5af549c15dd" CreationDate="2014-01-31T12:14:17.837" UserId="1325" Text="The aim of this site is to become a resource of useful information for future students of Physics or indeed anyone wanting to learn more about Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with homework questions is that they are generally only of interest to one person i.e. the person doing the homework. So this type of question doesn't contribute anything useful to the site. That's why your question got closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="1c143a78-c1a8-4989-9cb9-d5944fa5d535" CreationDate="2014-01-31T17:53:58.330" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|tags|design|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="41bdd647-3c4a-4aa5-b6a1-19aab99ad210" CreationDate="2014-02-01T06:21:49.103" UserId="31782" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not the least if editing policy is not mentioned abstractly yet then please explain it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="41bdd647-3c4a-4aa5-b6a1-19aab99ad210" CreationDate="2014-02-01T06:21:49.103" UserId="31782" Text="What is the current policy of making an edit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="41bdd647-3c4a-4aa5-b6a1-19aab99ad210" CreationDate="2014-02-01T06:21:49.103" UserId="31782" Text="|support|feature-request|editing|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="d6c5c413-189c-4f59-9c08-691cee8dcd64" CreationDate="2014-02-01T09:14:24.290" UserId="124" Text="Edits are meant to transform posts into better posts, but only as long as doing so does not misrepresent the intent of the person the post is credited to. In most cases, that does mean clarifying but not changing the post's meaning. Changing a resource recommendation into a conceptual question is usually an example of that: the person really wants to know about the concept, but decides to ask for resources for some reason (perhaps because they think it will make them look less lazy), and so an editor is able to make the question better by changing it to ask what the person directly wants to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes an edit can be a little more drastic. This is for when a post is inappropriate in its current form and would otherwise be closed, but it's fairly clear how to edit it in a way that makes it appropriate. Usually the editor in such a situation is experienced and knowledgeable, and the original poster is new to the site, and so may not know how to make a good edit themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, any official policies on meta are tagged [meta-tag:faq], so between the help center and those questions, you can get all the information you should need about policies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12156" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="3815cc4c-2a87-40dd-b7ae-8b7073e493a0" CreationDate="2014-02-01T10:07:03.310" UserId="31782" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|editing|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="b536fb4c-5f77-4b3a-937b-5679cfb8504b" CreationDate="2014-02-01T22:47:34.483" UserId="21817" Text="What's the purpose of the [tag:physics] tag? Every question is supposed to be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried removing some myself but new users keep using it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="b536fb4c-5f77-4b3a-937b-5679cfb8504b" CreationDate="2014-02-01T22:47:34.483" UserId="21817" Text="Burninate the &quot;physics&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="b536fb4c-5f77-4b3a-937b-5679cfb8504b" CreationDate="2014-02-01T22:47:34.483" UserId="21817" Text="|discussion|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12161" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="3d1798ee-fc3c-4802-8619-612a9e5cfd45" CreationDate="2014-02-02T02:38:25.920" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="42274c14-e8fb-4fb9-9190-1b0eb769d369" CreationDate="2014-02-02T09:00:01.830" UserId="1325" Text="Re the answer review page you reach by clicking on the number in this yellow square:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Review][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see a *Skip* option. The only way I can make answers disappear from this page is by flagging them in some way. At the moment there are a slew of answers to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94471/how-do-i-explain-to-a-6-year-old-why-people-on-the-other-side-of-the-earth-dont that I don't feel need flagging and I can't get rid of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing some obvious way to get them off this page? If not, can we have a *Skip* option on this page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="42274c14-e8fb-4fb9-9190-1b0eb769d369" CreationDate="2014-02-02T09:00:01.830" UserId="1325" Text="Reviewing answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="42274c14-e8fb-4fb9-9190-1b0eb769d369" CreationDate="2014-02-02T09:00:01.830" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="87c732e8-1a93-423b-afcf-e90a98d5a723" CreationDate="2014-02-02T09:10:13.210" UserId="11062" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Reviewing answers (10k users only)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="87c732e8-1a93-423b-afcf-e90a98d5a723" CreationDate="2014-02-02T09:10:13.210" UserId="11062" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="e79721a2-cf9d-490b-898d-fae11c7e491e" CreationDate="2014-02-02T13:33:04.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/429970728470212608" />
  <row Id="12168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="8fa02cef-d824-4214-839e-759f1ffd1993" CreationDate="2014-02-02T15:28:36.183" UserId="8563" Text="There is indeed some room for debate on whether all questions on this site must absolutely be about physics, or whether some non-physics astronomy questions are a good fit here. But this debate is irrelevant: questions on this site do *not* have to specify that they're about physics. The tag conveys no information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, it leaves the option for new users to use *only* that tag, e.g. [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/95068/revisions). Chances are, if no other tag applies, that the question is off-topic here. The existence of the [tag:physics] tag makes that less evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please burninate and blacklist it.&#xD;&#xA;-------" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="1daa68dc-998c-4c14-8980-20f26eaada03" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:16:36.243" UserId="8563" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but I don't know for sure. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12170" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="15d0fc92-a886-4ac1-9ba9-b5e9d64747a4" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:18:39.437" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title clearer." Text="Can we get a 'skip flag' button in the 10k review tools?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="15d0fc92-a886-4ac1-9ba9-b5e9d64747a4" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:18:39.437" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title clearer." Text="|support|review|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="f2667a7f-d16c-4c5c-bb06-1143c027e785" CreationDate="2014-02-03T02:51:54.730" UserId="8563" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="6df2abe2-46b6-40a3-8108-e22065fb2629" CreationDate="2014-02-03T11:36:01.457" UserId="23119" Comment="ddcmzlcz" Text="|feature-request|review|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="05b0a1e7-c1ac-4fa6-9c33-9cbfb924f53b" CreationDate="2014-02-03T19:36:22.367" UserId="11053" Text="Maybe this is just me (my browser/OS?), but many mathjax symbols (sums, integrals) are showing up off-centre vertically for me, and overlapping their limits. In general just very ugly. Since I can't find anyone else asking about this, I assume it's not global...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Firefox 26.0 on Fedora 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, integrals in this question look all wrong: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96033/is-there-a-physically-motivated-trick-to-evaluate-this-convolution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone know what might be going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="05b0a1e7-c1ac-4fa6-9c33-9cbfb924f53b" CreationDate="2014-02-03T19:36:22.367" UserId="11053" Text="Mathjax looks horrible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="05b0a1e7-c1ac-4fa6-9c33-9cbfb924f53b" CreationDate="2014-02-03T19:36:22.367" UserId="11053" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="26b18ef8-cf7e-4b3c-8403-fddd7fa93174" CreationDate="2014-02-03T19:47:17.197" UserId="11053" Comment="Added screenshot." Text="Maybe this is just me (my browser/OS?), but many mathjax symbols (sums, integrals) are showing up off-centre vertically for me, and overlapping their limits. In general just very ugly. Since I can't find anyone else asking about this, I assume it's not global...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Firefox 26.0 on Fedora 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, integrals in this question look all wrong: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96033/is-there-a-physically-motivated-trick-to-evaluate-this-convolution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone know what might be going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: this code: \rho(r,\epsilon) = \frac{3\epsilon^2}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dz\int_0^{\infty}dRR\frac{\rho\left(\sqrt{R^2+z^2}\right)}{(R^2+(z-r)^2+\epsilon^2)^{5/2}}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;produces this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice not only the ugly integrals, but also \left( and \right) seem to be poorly behaved as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J8IzR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="03f5e6dc-1e93-4069-824b-52cb0df2d9ad" CreationDate="2014-02-03T20:32:14.457" UserId="2911" Text="[tag:physics] is now an [intrinsic](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/181772/enable-the-intrinsic-sitename-tag-blacklist-on-older-sites) tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="bf8e959e-66e6-4434-863b-9f7cad429d12" CreationDate="2014-02-03T20:32:21.957" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="5e42dee3-af41-4a27-9c13-1875c2e2e30e" CreationDate="2014-02-03T22:34:58.653" UserId="7901" Text="The problem is with the STIX fonts on your system.  STIX comes in several forms, now.  The original form was a set of 29 fonts with names like STIXGeneral, STIXVariants, and STIXSizeOneSym, each in its own font family.  Recently, they were repackaged into a set of 5 fonts in families STIX and STIXMath that are designed to work with Microsoft Word.  Unfortunately, this repackaging makes them unusable by MathJax (many of the important characters are no longer accessible from within a web browser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, MathJax will ignore the repackaged fonts and use its web fonts instead.  But it appears that a number of Linux installations now ship with the STIX Word fonts, but have aliased the original font names to point to the new STIX Word fonts.  This is an error, in my opinion, as they are not interchangeable.  For example, the STIXSizeOneSym font had larger versions of the integrals, sums, parentheses, etc, at their usual unicode positions, but STIX Word has normal sized characters at those locations, and the larger sizes are inaccessible to the browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are seeing is the result of that font aliasing.  Your Linux is telling MathJx that it has the original STIX fonts, but really all it has is the STIX Word fonts.  MathJax goes ahead and uses the fonts that it is told are available, but the characters are not correct, so the results are not what they should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Disable the STIX fonts on your system.  This way MathJax won't find them, and will use its web fonts as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Remove the alias for STIXSizeOneSym, which is the font that MathJax uses to determine if the STIX fonts are available.  If that one is not found, MathJax will not use local STIX fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Install local copies of the MathJax fonts; these are used in preference to local STIX fonts.  There may be a package for MathJax fonts for your Linux already, so that would make it easy to install them.  If not, you can download them directly from the [MathJax CDN](http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/).  Note that you will have to download them each individually (you may have to use the &quot;Raw&quot; button at the upper right after clicking on a font name), and install the complete set (I think there are 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  There is a &quot;hidden&quot; menu that you could use to select the font to be used.  Use your browser's console window to type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        MathJax.Menu.showFontMenu(true);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This will add a `Font Preferences` menu to the `Math Settings` submenu of the MathJax contextual menu (right click on any equation to get the menu).  The font menu lets you select any of MathJax' font options.  Select `TeX (web)`.  Note that this will cause the page to reload.  The menu will no longer be available, so if you want to change back, you will need to give the command above again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope one of those does the trick for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="a2e294ce-65d4-4720-b63a-be8aad59fa97" CreationDate="2014-02-03T22:42:35.250" UserId="7901" Comment="Fixed link to fonts" Text="The problem is with the STIX fonts on your system.  STIX comes in several forms.  The original form was a set of 29 fonts with names like `STIXGeneral`, `STIXVariants`, and `STIXSizeOneSym`, each in its own font family.  Recently, they were repackaged into a set of 5 fonts in families `STIX` and `STIXMath` that are designed to work with Microsoft Word.  Unfortunately, this repackaging makes them unusable by MathJax (many of the important characters are no longer accessible from within a web browser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, MathJax will ignore the repackaged fonts and use its web fonts instead.  But it appears that a number of Linux installations now ship with the STIX Word fonts, but have aliased the original font names to point to the new STIX Word fonts.  This is an error, in my opinion, as they are not interchangeable.  For example, the `STIXSizeOneSym` font had larger versions of the integrals, sums, parentheses, etc, at their usual unicode positions, but STIX Word has normal sized characters at those locations, and the larger sizes are inaccessible to the browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are seeing is the result of that font aliasing.  Your Linux is telling MathJax that it has the original STIX fonts, but really all it has is the STIX Word fonts.  MathJax goes ahead and uses the fonts that it is told are available, but the characters are not correct, so the results are not what they should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Disable the STIX fonts on your system.  This way MathJax won't find them, and will use its web fonts as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Remove the alias for `STIXSizeOneSym`, which is the font that MathJax uses to determine if the STIX fonts are available.  If that one is not found, MathJax will not use local STIX fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Install local copies of the MathJax fonts; these are used in preference to local STIX fonts.  There may be a package for MathJax fonts for your Linux already, so that would make it easy to install them.  If not, you can download them directly from the [MathJax GitHub repository](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/tree/master/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf).  Note that you will have to download them each individually (you may have to use the &quot;Raw&quot; button at the upper right after clicking on a font name), and install the complete set (I think there are 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  There is a &quot;hidden&quot; menu that you could use to select the font to be used.  Use your browser's console window to type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        MathJax.Menu.showFontMenu(true);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This will add a `Font Preferences` menu to the `Math Settings` submenu of the MathJax contextual menu (right click on any equation to get the menu).  The font menu lets you select any of MathJax' font options.  Select `TeX (web)`.  Note that this will cause the page to reload.  The menu will no longer be available, so if you want to change back, you will need to give the command above again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope one of those does the trick for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="42d97745-d8bf-432a-b72a-0776ff5ad91e" CreationDate="2014-02-03T23:05:01.093" UserId="7901" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The problem is with the STIX fonts on your system.  STIX comes in several forms.  The original form was a set of 29 fonts with names like `STIXGeneral`, `STIXVariants`, and `STIXSizeOneSym`, each in its own font family.  Recently, they were repackaged into a set of 5 fonts in families `STIX` and `STIXMath` that are designed to work with Microsoft Word.  Unfortunately, this repackaging makes them unusable by MathJax (many of the important characters are no longer accessible from within a web browser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, MathJax will ignore the repackaged fonts and use its web fonts instead.  But it appears that Fedora installations now ship with the STIX Word fonts, but have aliased the original font names to point to the new STIX Word fonts.  This is an error, in my opinion, as they are not interchangeable.  For example, the `STIXSizeOneSym` font had larger versions of the integrals, sums, parentheses, etc, at their usual unicode positions, but STIX Word has normal sized characters at those locations, and the larger sizes are inaccessible to the browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are seeing is the result of that font aliasing.  Your Linux is telling MathJax that it has the original STIX fonts, but really all it has is the STIX Word fonts.  MathJax goes ahead and uses the fonts that it is told are available, but the characters are not correct, so the results are not what they should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Disable the STIX fonts on your system.  This way MathJax won't find them, and will use its web fonts as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Remove the alias for `STIXSizeOneSym`, which is the font that MathJax uses to determine if the STIX fonts are available.  If that one is not found, MathJax will not use local STIX fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Install local copies of the MathJax fonts; these are used in preference to local STIX fonts.  There may be a package for MathJax fonts for your Linux already, so that would make it easy to install them.  If not, you can download them directly from the [MathJax GitHub repository](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/tree/master/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf).  Note that you will have to download them each individually (you may have to use the &quot;Raw&quot; button at the upper right after clicking on a font name), and install the complete set (I think there are 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  There is a &quot;hidden&quot; menu that you could use to select the font to be used.  Use your browser's console window to type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        MathJax.Menu.showFontMenu(true);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This will add a `Font Preferences` menu to the `Math Settings` submenu of the MathJax contextual menu (right click on any equation to get the menu).  The font menu lets you select any of MathJax' font options.  Select `TeX (web)`.  Note that this will cause the page to reload.  The menu will no longer be available, so if you want to change back, you will need to give the command above again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope one of those does the trick for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12183" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="b9d0db35-84ec-4df9-b049-fadb97439c5d" CreationDate="2014-02-04T17:51:44.293" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8a2809e4-5617-4007-9aef-262bd10b042e" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:34:30.870" UserId="19976" Text="I recently posted an answer to the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96074/how-do-we-know-that-heat-is-a-differential-form/96095#96095&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and there were a large number of comments on my answer.  I wanted to add another comment just now to ask those who had been involved in the discussion whether they thought that the answer could be improved in a particular way (by correcting a possible mathematical error) but found that all comments are gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit sad because I thought (certain parts of) the discussion in the comments was illuminating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the likely reason that the comments were deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8a2809e4-5617-4007-9aef-262bd10b042e" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:34:30.870" UserId="19976" Text="Under what conditions are all comments on an answer deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8a2809e4-5617-4007-9aef-262bd10b042e" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:34:30.870" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="adc27fe9-047f-4793-a5d2-9bfc9fdf8154" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:40:13.797" UserId="19976" Text="The title says it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to think back to recall whether I have ever been notified when an answer to one of my questions was edited, but I can't recall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="adc27fe9-047f-4793-a5d2-9bfc9fdf8154" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:40:13.797" UserId="19976" Text="Are users automatically notified when an answer to their question is edited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="adc27fe9-047f-4793-a5d2-9bfc9fdf8154" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:40:13.797" UserId="19976" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="90db9b07-75d4-4bcd-bde2-8096e274eb81" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:49:12.947" UserId="7433" Text="Don't have long discussions in the comments, instead create a room in chat. I can give you a screenshot of the comments if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, it looks like you did that. However, the comments were still there and were cleared by a moderator -- they still cause clutter and reduce the signal-to-noise ratio. If there is useful information in the comments, the best thing to do is to incorporate it into the post; comments aren't as permanent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] are the deleted comments, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment discussions can be deleted if they get long. We usually wait a couple of days for a discussion to settle before doing this, though there are cases when we ask an active thread to move to chat and clear it if it ignores the request. However, if you want to recover the deleted comments, I don't mind providing them in most cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ogvr8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12193" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="edbd415a-b281-4e67-ba9d-9d550ac3d9d8" CreationDate="2014-02-05T13:57:30.160" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more descriptive, as it's in the community bulletin." Text="Is the question 'explaining gravity to a six-year-old' off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="9cf09295-85b8-480d-9bdb-84d42c5c5ddb" CreationDate="2014-02-05T15:51:45.663" UserId="124" Text="A direct answer your question would be kind of tricky because the effective &quot;algorithm&quot; used to decide whether to delete all comments on a post involves a balance between the number of comments, the relevance of the content of the comments, when they were posted, and so on, and ultimately it comes down to each individual moderator's judgment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking for myself, I'm likely to delete all comments when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - there are a large number of them (enough that the &quot;add/show N more comments&quot; message appears)&#xD;&#xA; - the comment discussion is inactive (nobody has commented for a day or two)&#xD;&#xA; - the information in the comments is not essential to the post; _or_ the comments are all old, like on the order of weeks or more&#xD;&#xA; - my attention is drawn to the post by a flag on the post or a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general, you should act as though comments can be deleted at any time for any reason. In particular, any information in comments that is useful to readers of the parent post should be incorporated into that post or another answer. And any time you find yourself going back and forth with someone in the comments, you should move the discussion to chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="629f94bc-6da4-4e13-90e9-255d39264a67" CreationDate="2014-02-06T04:06:18.223" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|inbox|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="512308b9-d206-446a-8ec4-bd436f66efb5" CreationDate="2014-02-06T04:07:58.980" UserId="2911" Text="No, no notifications are generated if an answer to one of your questions is edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you go to your profile and sort your questions by Activity, recent edits to answers will cause questions to rank more highly in that list (as will new answers, edits to the question itself, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="6ea0f09b-e386-4116-9517-3d59cdbd7d69" CreationDate="2014-02-06T16:01:14.227" UserId="2525" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="It's pretty unlikely that any organisation with the access to materials, technology and fabrication facilities to manufacture a *device* would be seeking intro physics guidance on SO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another physics based forum had a strict rule on not explaining things that people could hurt themselves with, Van der Graff generators, electromagnetic rail guns, penny squeezers, etc - and that they could reasonably build. but it was OK to talk about much more dangerous experiments that they couldn't actually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12206" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="8a105c7b-28c2-4c10-be6e-374c0ddb01a2" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:46:53.867" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98109/why-is-there-a-marking-down-option-on-this-website" />
  <row Id="12207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="211359ec-4ba6-4e07-a158-0716c7428b83" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:41:08.103" UserId="38269" Text="Would it be better that there is only marking up for the questions asked to eliminate the probability that some people would just like to vote others down no matter what the answer? The best answers would be judged by the amount of positive votes without the influence of hypocrites.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="211359ec-4ba6-4e07-a158-0716c7428b83" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:41:08.103" UserId="38269" Text="Why is there a marking down option on this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="211359ec-4ba6-4e07-a158-0716c7428b83" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:41:08.103" UserId="38269" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="8041bbd9-7198-44ae-8b94-dbd4a8400ba1" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:57:19.183" UserId="6634" Text="Voting down is a judgment of quality (although on meta it's more about whether people agree or disagree with you since questions can be opinions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, you vote up answers that are correct and useful. You vote down questions that are not correct or not useful. If downvotes were eliminated, then it just means the scale will shift and a score of 0 means not useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But downvoting also counter-acts incorrect upvotes. Maybe people voted up an answer or question without knowing whether it was completely accurate. There needs to be a way for those who do know to counter-act that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, things with many downvotes become grayed out or removed from view to indicate that they aren't to be trusted. Without downvotes, bad answers may stay at 0 but good ones also start out at 0 so there's no way to distinguish between bad and just not-yet-upvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you have a + there has to be - for the universe to balance out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="a7e5dda1-f381-44ca-9338-5f75a82252c0" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:57:29.713" UserId="11659" Text="Note that it _costs_ reputation points to vote down. So, users cannot just mark down everything in sight _ad infinitum_; they'll eventually run out of karma. And as Al mentioned, the moderators can remove abusive voters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the motivation behind the feature, it is so that people who have established their reputation in the community can use their judgement to suppress excessive upvotes (or just to bury plain bad content). This also prevents users who are asking bad questions or giving bad answers from gaining reputation on the site. It takes less minimum reputation to upvote a question than to downvote; so the downvotes should be coming from more experienced members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, suppose someone asks a question like &quot;what if you shoot a bullet from a spaceship going at the speed of light?&quot; Some new members might think that's a really neat and original question, and vote it up. But more experienced members will know that this question has been asked numerous times before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12213" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="4f8a775a-3def-41b9-80f7-fc64b96a4403" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:58:13.143" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why is there a down voting option on this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12214" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="4f8a775a-3def-41b9-80f7-fc64b96a4403" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:58:13.143" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="c282f354-362d-4fbf-b42a-b9eec26eb308" CreationDate="2014-02-06T20:40:00.847" UserId="38269" Comment="added 114 characters in body; added 3 characters in body" Text="Would it be better that there is only marking up for the questions asked to eliminate the probability that some people would just like to vote others down no matter what the answer? The best answers would be judged by the amount of positive votes. Would it be a good idea for the developers if this website to make a petition for all users to see how many people favour voting down or no voting down?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="cb310bb8-77ae-4cde-8f60-cfb48f1b4b8f" CreationDate="2014-02-06T21:12:42.700" UserId="38269" Comment="edited body" Text="Would it be better that there is only marking up for the questions asked to eliminate the probability that some people would just like to vote others down no matter what the answer? The best answers would be judged by the amount of positive votes. Would it be a good idea for the developers of this website to make a petition for all users to see how many people favour voting down or no voting down?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="67cfebf1-0f31-42be-a35c-c5fc92f66fe5" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:17:08.963" UserId="10522" Text="Why are **now** lengthy discussions allowed in comments?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="67cfebf1-0f31-42be-a35c-c5fc92f66fe5" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:17:08.963" UserId="10522" Text="Why are now lengthy discussions allowed in comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="67cfebf1-0f31-42be-a35c-c5fc92f66fe5" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:17:08.963" UserId="10522" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="693a939a-b8ad-4aea-8f4d-63a9042748a6" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:27:11.220" UserId="6634" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why are lengthy discussions **now** allowed in comments?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="693a939a-b8ad-4aea-8f4d-63a9042748a6" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:27:11.220" UserId="6634" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why are lengthy discussions allowed in comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12222" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="693a939a-b8ad-4aea-8f4d-63a9042748a6" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:27:11.220" UserId="6634" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12223" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="2e63d5a0-59ee-4172-a7bc-85521512ca89" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:29:13.520" UserId="10522" Comment="edited title" Text="Why are lengthy discussions now allowed in comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="5d858320-052d-422b-81e2-b8e3614f7d7c" CreationDate="2014-02-07T00:35:12.570" UserId="124" Text="I hope Manishearth won't mind if I steal his comment, but they're not. The reason it seems like they might be is that we usually don't get around to cleaning them up unless someone flags them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more precise: Stack Exchange gives us (moderators) some slightly contradictory guidance on comments. On one hand, the intent of comments on main sites is that they are supposed to be transient, and used for suggestions, corrections and clarifications, not for discussion. However, we're also advised not to indiscriminately delete comments unless they've degenerated into an argument. As you can tell, these two guidelines aren't quite compatible with each other. Different moderators and different sites have chosen different approaches to dealing with comments, within this spectrum, and our compromise here is to remove comments [when their usefulness has passed and they are brought to our attention](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5453/under-what-conditions-are-all-comments-on-an-answer-deleted), but otherwise not to look too hard for comment discussions to delete. We rely on the community and the system to find the cases where comments really need to be cleaned up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12225" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="882c9279-7083-4aca-ab29-4db0a7d7c301" CreationDate="2014-02-07T01:33:19.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/431601535785893888" />
  <row Id="12226" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="8954cbb6-575c-46e9-b40b-be97ddc86ab7" CreationDate="2014-02-08T03:51:58.197" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="c6cb42ff-d643-456f-8109-1ccdcb402674" CreationDate="2014-02-08T23:52:28.370" UserId="38269" Comment="deleted 320 characters in body" Text="Discussing such topics seems to be pointless. Consider this question as deleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12228" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="00276d05-de5c-42c1-9e83-e250f9382653" CreationDate="2014-02-09T00:49:27.260" UserId="6634" Comment="Rollback to [cb310bb8-77ae-4cde-8f60-cfb48f1b4b8f]" Text="Would it be better that there is only marking up for the questions asked to eliminate the probability that some people would just like to vote others down no matter what the answer? The best answers would be judged by the amount of positive votes. Would it be a good idea for the developers of this website to make a petition for all users to see how many people favour voting down or no voting down?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12229" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="eab651c1-783e-41f7-ba9b-ed3cbcdb2d15" CreationDate="2014-02-09T00:52:10.150" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[949],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10851,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="2ad43775-03b9-4944-bb36-b7e674015aa9" CreationDate="2014-02-10T07:45:15.260" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="43c196c4-333a-472e-aab1-52b58a9acc0c" CreationDate="2014-02-10T23:58:21.400" UserDisplayName="user38621" Text="Link to the question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98637/learning-roadmap-for-picking-up-enough-mathematical-know-how-in-order-to-model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, where *could* I go in order to have such a question answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="43c196c4-333a-472e-aab1-52b58a9acc0c" CreationDate="2014-02-10T23:58:21.400" UserDisplayName="user38621" Text="Why is the following question &quot;on-hold&quot; worthy, and how could I improve it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="43c196c4-333a-472e-aab1-52b58a9acc0c" CreationDate="2014-02-10T23:58:21.400" UserDisplayName="user38621" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="9aa9432f-8028-4131-ba7c-2e641a007c4a" CreationDate="2014-02-11T00:32:37.767" UserId="7433" Text="Firstly, the question is exceedingly broad. We usually deal with specific, conceptual questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, we just don't do &quot;getting started&quot; questions. A subset of book recommendation questions are allowed, but they need to be reasonably specific too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm not really sure if it can be fixed while still being useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try asking around in [chat][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="bc1f3c26-6c62-4cc2-b390-bd8113ffa6ba" CreationDate="2014-02-11T07:15:32.033" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Since quite some time, the amount of new incoming higher level questions is decaying and the number of very basic ones is increasing, but the current inflood of bad homeworks (the good ones I appreciate and upvote) and very basic questions of non physicists and people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, is unprecedented I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67008/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67012/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55965/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67017/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66976/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66941/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67022/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66938/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66918/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66856/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66855/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66829/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66700/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66580/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66460/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66422/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66434/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66449/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66358/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66261/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66225/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66209/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66208/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65471/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65475/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65491/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65519/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65439/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65568/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65570/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65669/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23294/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56014/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65772/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65795/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65899/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65953/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65951/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62260/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65972/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66041/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66070/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62324/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66052/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66058/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66030/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66073/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66077/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66109/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66165/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66210/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, parts of them get closed or migrated, if they are just posted on the wrong site here etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the really worrying thing is that a not negligible part of these homework and very low level questions get (even highly) upvoted and answered by very basic answers which are upvoted too by the present population of Physics SE, and sometimes even flags saying that these questions should not be here for the one or the other reason, get declined!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The About of Physics SE still says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physics is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople questions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that similar questions have been asked over and over again here on Physics meta. But obviously the issue has never been seriously addressed which is, as I guess, among the possible reason for the current flood of really low level stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who ask these low level questions seem to be less knowledgeable on physics or maths than the visitors of [Prof Strassler's](http://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/) site the purpose of which is explicitly to explain (particle) physics to laypeople. And the atmosphere of the site starts to be &quot;Quora-like&quot;, as (almost only) short, basic, equation free, and in popular language formulated posts get high upvotes, activity, and attendance whereas slightly higher level, more sophisticated, advanced topic, and in particular technical posts almost [tumbleweed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed) meaning they get low views, low votes, no answers, etc ... these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad side effect of the current state is that if this keeps going, the site will be governed by people who like and prefer this increasing basic Q&amp;A, because it is them who are gaining the most rep so it will be them who have the power to closevote and access to other moderation privileges, even if they have no (deep enough) physics knowledge of their own to decide what is a good legitimate physics question and what not for example, what the (intended to be community of physicists and students) needs, etc. whereas the initially targeted by the site audience and its needs gets pushed back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, if the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="2447b3f0-a59d-4e27-8684-289bf1e46931" CreationDate="2014-02-11T07:56:17.010" UserId="8563" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;The proposal below has been posted as a separate feature request [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4357/8563), and has was implemented shortly afterwards. The current sidebar looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjMz.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="8a1860fe-a57f-42ab-8d09-8bcbf5d512dd" CreationDate="2014-02-11T08:20:55.717" UserId="8563" Text="This is a good place to document a nice SE Data Explorer query I cooked up recently. (This is not a direct answer to the question, but it does provide some useful data to inform decisions.) The query [**Timeline of posts closed as homework**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/161237/205482/timeline-of-posts-closed-as-homework) plots the accumulation plot of questions created in the past 3 months (or some other period you specify) which were closed as Off-Topic and were tagged as [tag:homework] (or some other tag you specify). Currently the data shows a sharp increase in the rate of homework closures at about the start of term (I complained about it in chat [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13290286#13290286), which also has a graph as of January 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old data, though, must be taken with a grain of salt, because many of the relevant questions (and particularly the more annoying ones) are automatically deleted by the system. For more details, see [the post deletion documentation on the mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that/5222#5222), but in short, questions closed as Off-Topic can get deleted as soon as 9 days after their last edit if they have score ≤0 and no upvoted or accepted answers. This thinning down of the data is evident upon comparing the graph in this post with the one in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cz8Qc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="d230c60e-b447-4e24-b092-a2596f425f45" CreationDate="2014-02-11T08:23:21.930" UserId="8563" Comment="Added link to resource recommendations policy." Text="Firstly, the question is exceedingly broad. We usually deal with specific, conceptual questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, we just don't do &quot;getting started&quot; questions. A subset of book recommendation questions are allowed, but they need to be reasonably specific too. (See the [meta thread on resource recommendations](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) to see how to ask one of those.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm not really sure if it can be fixed while still being useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try asking around in [chat][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="be201e10-bf04-4d34-a901-16b79cc39800" CreationDate="2014-02-11T16:13:34.130" UserId="21817" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="9b57ec95-2c0e-404c-aed5-f3a57b3b657d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T21:04:55.247" UserId="24773" Text="The same happened for another question yesterday: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98505/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the comments were deleted by @dmckee.  I am aware that the exchange was bordering the absurd, But I was interested in trying to analyze the intellectual mismatch that caused it. I would very much like to have a copy, if it is at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the deletion, but it would be nice to have advance warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the interesting part can be the exchange itself, rather than whatever science may be in it.  But I know this view runs contrary to local policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="7eafd2dd-6387-4e44-8b7e-54ac196a730e" CreationDate="2014-02-12T03:12:07.357" UserId="520" Comment="added 12282 characters in body" Text="The same happened for another question yesterday: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98505/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the comments were deleted by @dmckee.  I am aware that the exchange was bordering the absurd, But I was interested in trying to analyze the intellectual mismatch that caused it. I would very much like to have a copy, if it is at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the deletion, but it would be nice to have advance warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the interesting part can be the exchange itself, rather than whatever science may be in it.  But I know this view runs contrary to local policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is not only not right, it's not even wrong. – David H 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you know the story of this big truck that was carrying a hole for the foundation of a new house? There was a bump on the road and the hole fell off the truck. When he noticed he had lost the hole, the driver backed up to fetch it and reload it. But he failed to be careful and was never heard of again. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By the way, what is the question you want to ask? There is no question in your text. – babou 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i was originally looking for logical answers to the question is space nothing. I do like your response not only not right its not even wrong though. The story of the dump truck is not logical by any stretch though. It makes since that the &quot;void&quot; that is between everything from the largest of things to the smallest of sub atomic particles is what is generally thought of when using the word &quot;space&quot;. Hence everything is in nothing and that nothing is referenced as space. Infinite and immeasurable in its greatness. It is where everything that is...is. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your question appears to be entirely philosophically-based and thus doesn't belong on a physics Q&amp;A site. Also, it doesn't make any sort of logical sense whatsoever to say, nothing is where everything that is exists. There is no relation without relata. – Kyle Kanos 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I feel that the eternal nothingness debate is some kind of philosophical juggling of language. Wouldn't the mere action of talking about nothing make it something? I think that this type of questions are above human understanding and we must remain silent. – jinawee 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heart Sutra? Form is empty. Emptiness is form.Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So too are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness...the new physics? ;-) – V. Moretti 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is, BTW, a site dedicated to Philosophy. – dmckee♦ 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Kyle categorize my question about physics any way you like but because it is about physics it is a physics question anyway you slice it. I am simply asking is space literally the void that is between all particles no matter how great or small. My children come home from school spewing information given to them as science that has no logical foundation. If the void is something then it is not space as i or any logical person sees it. Everything that exists, exists in this void we call space and this space is literally nothing. yes or no? – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee talking about nothing doesn't make it something, my wife does it relentlessly...:)The argument that nothing is something is definitely beyond my understanding but the argument that nothing is nothing is quite logical. Like saying time is nothing but we reference it without thought all our lives. Time does not exist any more than and inch or a foot or a yard or meter....they are simply measurements. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @V.Moretti that makes no since. Emptiness is containing nothing and form is the shape and structure of something. Like the hole in the dump truck babou mentioned above. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @david z i had to ask the question as i did because of the rules of the site. My question is...is the area void of matter that exists between all matter space? It is a simple physics question so far void of logical answers. My physics question seems to be being classified as philosophical when its not. What i am seeing in discussion so far is a refusal to answer a simple physics question about the area between matter. A question easily understood but avoided by everyone so far. Everyone else knows good and well what it is im asking but you claim its unclear? – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @ dmckee there should be one for logical answers about simple physics. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the area void of matter that exists between all matter space? Was it so difficult to ask it this way? The answer to your question is yes, althought space in some sense will never be void, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state. – jinawee 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My children come home from school spewing information given to them as science that has no logical foundation Or perhaps it is the case that you don't understand the logic behind the information. If this troubles you, you can always ask the teacher for guidance (or you can ask the question on the relevant website). – Kyle Kanos 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe the point of my truck story is that emptyness (nothingness if you prefer) is not something that is. But never mind. Another answer to your question may be that very simple questions may be hardest to answer, or to make sense of, or to explain. Would you accept the idea that an event can occur from within what you thought of being nothing. But then, is it nothing if it can give birth to observable events? So it may be that not a single stretch of space may be considered nothing. Maybe that means that space cannot exists without whatever fills it, whatever its name. – babou 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee thank you. It was difficult to ask because the sight will not let one ask a question it thinks has previously been asked. To your answer you answered the question yes but then muddied the water saying it will never be void. Space itself is the void and matter of any type while in space does not completely fill this vast void we call space. To say space itself is something or that space is matter would mean that space has atomic definition and two atoms can not be in the same place simultaneously. They can be adjacent to each other but not simultaneously occupy the same place. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @kyle kanos thanks. The teacher finally just stated &quot;that's what the book says&quot; Logic too is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. So don't be snotty with me for asking a physics question. You are not the question police. Answer it or don't. It is a simple logical question many ask and just as many build careers on answering. You seem to be building your career on policing the question instead of answering it. The other gentlemen have answered. Do you have one? – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My answer to your post was given in my first comment: this is a (bad) philosophic statement and there is no physics question here. – Kyle Kanos yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @babou thank you.Yes an event can occur within nothing. The observable events occurring within nothing (space) is the matter in space reacting with each other. There has to be space between the matter or the matter is always touching something else. On a grand scale or a minuscule scale. Space is mechanically necessary for the formation of matter. There has to be space to form atoms and molecules or everything would be one big mass. Matter can not exist without the space around it, the areas void of matter of any kind. Space is not anything. No atoms can simultaneously occupy the same place. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @kyle kanos again, you judged my question but never answered it. You apparently are not good at judging questions nor good at answering them. Several other gentlemen saw fit to answer the question even in its original form. You continue to argue my question is in the wrong place. I submit that if you can reason it is in the wrong place you too can then reason what i am asking. I then reason that the problem is that you just are not able to answer and thus want the question moved because you feel obliged to answer as long as it is here. Answer the question or not? – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What question is there to answer? I see seven sentences. – Kyle Kanos yesterday &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Kyle Kanos, come on Kyle. Everyone else found the question. Its at the top. Is everything in nothing? Then followed by a short statement as the site requires. Many have argued that space itself is actually something. I simply argue that is illogical, improbable and impossible. &quot;Space&quot; is the area, void of all matter, that all matter exists in. Regardless the size of the matter. Others here have disagreed. Some agree but muddy the water with a however or a but. You must see the question, regardless of its form. Answer it or don't. You have the last word. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question &quot;Is everything in nothing?&quot; makes no sense. Something being (existing) in what is defined as not anything literally is nonsense. You are trying to defy the law of non-contradiction, which is just absurd. – Kyle Kanos yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @kyle you understood it enough to say it was not a physics question. Now you argue it is contradictory? Let me help you. Everything is all matter. Nothing is the area (space) in which matter exists. Matter is something right? There is space, void of matter between all matter or else everything touches something else. Without space (area void of matter)there could be no specific things because all atoms and molecules would touch something else. Is everything in nothing? if yes end of discussion. If no then what is everything in? Nothing is &quot;space&quot;. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you read some physics instead of saying it's all wrong, you would learn that fields are more important than matter, that the concept of to touch is ill-defined, etc. Einstein's theory make GPS work, we can measure the vaccum... Unless you make an specific model where you can predict observed phenomena, your theory is useless. All the greatest developments in Science were done in this way. If you want, you can say that the Spaghetti moster created us, but this is not the place. – jinawee yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You sidestepped my question. Would you accept the idea that an event can occur from within what you thought of being nothing. That is you consider a stretch of space where there is nothing (you asserted yourself such stretches exist). No matter or anything else enters it from outside it, and yet an event is taking place from within that void. Can you still consider that this stretch is nothing ? Can you consider that it was nothing before the event, yet gave birth to an event with no outside input? – babou yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee because something is written doesn't make it so. Lots of folks worshiped Newton and i believe Einstein stated he was not entirely correct either. Doesn't make Einstein absolute nor does it make Newton useless either. I never mentioned the spaghetti monster you did. LOL You and everyone else may disagree with my thought and im not offended. You saying i am wrong does not make me wrong. I will say a lot of proffered physics does not pass the science of logic. That is like saying something is invisible because you can not see it. Answer my question or not. It is legitimate. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @babou thanks again for humoring me. Its kind of you. Again, yes, i accept the idea an event can occur withing nothing. I am thinking of all area where there is zero matter is &quot;space&quot;. I think you think i am thinking in terms of a jar with a lid where ideally nothing can enter and this is not correct. The tiny area between atomic particles is space. The infinite vastness in which galaxies exist is the space i refer to also. Atoms exist in this space, so do planets and this space can not be a fabric of any kind. Like an idea. We all have them yet they don't physically exist yet they are. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I read the first two lines and I stopped. You disagree with Physics and you say your theory is correct. Thank goodness that this is not that is not the way science works, we would be in the Middle Ages. I can only answer you from the current view of Physics, if not, people could answer that reality doesn't exist and all is made of rainbows... I don't say you're wrong, just that to accept your theory you have to destroy our current laws of Physics (and they are the main contribution for human progress). So I won't answer you more. Hope that at least you let your kids enjoy Science! Good luck! – jinawee yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee thanks for reading the first two lines. Im no Einstein and i love science and logic equally. Did Einstein agree with everything Newton put forth? – pjameslamar yesterday " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="df280808-746a-4c21-b7f9-015381b6ea98" CreationDate="2014-02-12T12:40:36.227" UserId="28958" Text="I understand that asking pure math questions on the physics site is discouraged and I've seen many questions moved over to math. However, often times such questions are more suited for physicists to answer since they those types of questions more often. Furthermore, they are more likely to answer the question using tools that a physicist would be familiar with. This is certainly the case for example is in this [post][1] and there are many other similar examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it really be disallowed to ask a math questions on the physics stackexchange if you would like a physicist's perspective on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98877/evaluate-1-loop-contribution-to-the-4-point-greens-function?noredirect=1#comment201657_98877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="df280808-746a-4c21-b7f9-015381b6ea98" CreationDate="2014-02-12T12:40:36.227" UserId="28958" Text="Asking math questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="df280808-746a-4c21-b7f9-015381b6ea98" CreationDate="2014-02-12T12:40:36.227" UserId="28958" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="1a2c8bad-5dac-4366-ba13-409f0ac303e8" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:00:38.753" UserId="1325" Text="In my comments to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98899/can-quantum-angular-momentum-l-be-zero I tried to @PPG, but it won't let me. Presumably the conditions for whether or not I can ping someone are listed somewhere ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="1a2c8bad-5dac-4366-ba13-409f0ac303e8" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:00:38.753" UserId="1325" Text="What are the rules for pinging someone in comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="1a2c8bad-5dac-4366-ba13-409f0ac303e8" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:00:38.753" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5475" RevisionGUID="81c0afd1-424d-4be9-9838-e126da44e80a" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:09:39.917" UserId="7433" Text="The owner of a post is always pinged, so you don't need to explicitly mention it (and thus autocomplete doesn't work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter, editors of a post, closing moderators (not 3k users), and bounty-givers can also be pinged, though they don't turn up in the autocomplete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="cc40ad0e-c13e-4d29-aebd-3cc6e4530cb5" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:17:54.373" UserId="7433" Text="It depends on the question. Many a time, the physics of the question is already done, and the mathematics is jut regular math, which can be handled equally well (or better) by those on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are those questions which are really physics-math and not math-math (eg some kinds of theoretical physics), and afaict they aren't migrated unless they have other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a snapshot of the recent migrated questions, to paint a better picture of the migrating practices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(10ks can have a look at the page directly [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/posts/migrated/away&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v0MSp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5477" RevisionGUID="4a2aea09-5817-4ef3-8c3d-5d70372cef44" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:24:10.953" UserId="124" Text="The criterion for a question to be on topic here is that is is **about physics**. That's all. So yes, if a question is about math and not about physics, it shouldn't be allowed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Merely being more suited for a physicist to answer isn't really relevant; for one thing, if that were our criterion, it would allow many other kinds of questions that I think everyone would agree are off topic here. We've seen this happen in the early days of Stack Overflow, where people would ask questions that weren't about programming simply because they thought programmers would have the right perspective to answer. They were widely considered to be &quot;polluting&quot; the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is a fine line between advanced theoretical physics and pure math. To that end, there are certain topics, which one might consider purely mathematical, but which the community has effectively decided to include in the scope of physics, including renormalization and group theory. So sometimes it's a bit of a judgment call. But overall, the principle is that the question must be about physics to be on topic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="faa224f6-25fa-4bdb-99cf-289ee2250f7e" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:26:19.117" UserId="28958" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I understand that asking pure math questions on the physics site is discouraged and I've seen many questions moved over to math. However, often times such questions are more suited for physicists to answer since they encounter those types of questions more often. Furthermore, they are more likely to answer the question using tools that a physicist would be familiar with. This is certainly the case for example is in this [post][1] and there are many other similar examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it really be disallowed to ask a math questions on the physics stackexchange if you would like a physicist's perspective on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98877/evaluate-1-loop-contribution-to-the-4-point-greens-function?noredirect=1#comment201657_98877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="1550834d-5345-46f5-b355-1ee4f2dc4bce" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:41:05.953" UserId="1325" Text="Is there a way to find out how close you are to the Epic and Legendary badges, that is how many times you've hit the daily limit? I've seen clever things done with queries so I'm guess there is a way to calculate this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="1550834d-5345-46f5-b355-1ee4f2dc4bce" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:41:05.953" UserId="1325" Text="Epic and Legendary badges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="1550834d-5345-46f5-b355-1ee4f2dc4bce" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:41:05.953" UserId="1325" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="bdb746ed-17b7-4e43-9258-c8d0a629b64e" CreationDate="2014-02-12T16:45:17.337" UserId="22494" Text="Head to [http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation][1] for your reputation stats.  Near the bottom you'll see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; days represented 197&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rep cap was reached via rep from upvotes *only* on 3 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earned at least 200 reputation on 4 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earned 250 reputation from suggested edits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear to me if the &quot;upvotes only&quot; number is used or if the potentially larger 200 rep number is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="7e500f4b-13d6-4211-b1e6-75f0e8bb7be0" CreationDate="2014-02-12T17:24:09.173" UserId="22494" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is there a way to find out how close you are to the Epic and Legendary badges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="7e500f4b-13d6-4211-b1e6-75f0e8bb7be0" CreationDate="2014-02-12T17:24:09.173" UserId="22494" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="781abbcf-cfd9-49f2-88fa-c1c2649f2c29" CreationDate="2014-02-12T18:10:08.287" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The rather lengthy conditions are given on Meta.SO: [How do comment @replies work?][1] In particular, these two points explain that `@`-pinging is both unnecessary and auto-deleted in your case - both you and the author of that post will ping each other automatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a user comments on their own post and there is only one person who has previously commented, then that person is also notified if @name is forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first author of the question or answer will always be notified of any new comment. There is no need to use @name to notify them. (You may still use it for clarity, if needed; however if only you and the author have been commenting on the post so far, the @name will be automatically removed from the beginning of the comment, as it adds no value.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/43019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="82c5a267-923c-4eea-a116-e189cf76792c" CreationDate="2014-02-12T18:39:59.017" UserId="2751" Text="I agree, the language of physics is mathematics, and the more advanced the topic considered, the more math is needed to understand and talk about it at a technical level. So IMHO Physics SE is currently way too aggressively voting to close for and migrating technical questions involving mathematical concepts and ideas which are of paramount importance to understand advanced physics, away ([sometimes](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/648665/36639) even against the judgement of established experts on the topic at hand)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular in theoretical physics, no clear separation can often reasonably be drawn, mathematical and physical ideas strongly interact and overlap. I would appreciate reviewers to refrain from too strictly separating things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, questions involving mathematical topics/concepts the &quot;smell&quot; too physicsy are often ignored on Math SE, as said for example [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13722481#13722481) such that they find no answers if they have not already obtained some before being migrated, as the mathematicians there are not too interested in maths that is mostily useful for physicists. It also has to be considered that mathematicians often use different language/terminilogy, strategies to approach a problem (mathematicions consider physicists often to be sloppy, whereas the very rigorous point of view of mathematicians is often not directly useful for a physicist to solve his issue if interest), etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="85b5cf2b-0351-400a-8a66-87c66b974e39" CreationDate="2014-02-12T21:01:21.963" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I agree, the language of physics is mathematics, and the more advanced the topic considered, the more math is needed to understand and talk about it at a technical level. So IMHO Physics SE is currently way too aggressively voting to close for and migrating technical questions involving mathematical concepts and ideas which are of paramount importance to understand advanced physics, away ([sometimes](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/648665/36639) even against the judgment of established experts on the topic at hand)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular in theoretical physics, no clear separation can often reasonably be drawn, mathematical and physical ideas strongly interact and overlap. I would appreciate reviewers to refrain from too strictly separating things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, questions involving mathematical topics/concepts the &quot;smell&quot; too physicsy are often ignored on Math SE, as said for example [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13722481#13722481) such that they find no answers if they have not already obtained some before being migrated, as the mathematicians there are not too interested in maths that is mostly useful for physicists. It also has to be considered that mathematicians often use different language/terminology, strategies to approach a problem (mathematicians consider physicists often to be sloppy, whereas the very rigorous point of view of mathematicians is often not directly useful for a physicist to solve his issue if interest), etc. ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12265" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="22292bf3-79c1-4739-9c71-a3e4299dc5ff" CreationDate="2014-02-13T00:11:55.537" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98965/is-physics-stackexchange-limited-to-answering-questions" />
  <row Id="12266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="5e880cba-5534-4f67-a3af-ab4559db353b" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:53:28.260" UserId="30376" Text="I am not allowed to create a new tag, please make an appropriate one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask a question someone answers it. The design of the stackexchange sites (the reward system of earning points) ensures that good answers and even more importantly correct answers are distinguished from all the other answers to that question. Can we do more? What do I mean by more? Imagine a course on Quantum Mechanics, by course I mean lectures notes, exercises, a complete guide that has all the contents to take and mentor a beginning university student right up to post graduate level. Essentially it would take a novice and enable them to understand what is going on at the frontiers of that field. A dream set of lecture-notes/guide/book written by the thousands of users of this site. Keep in mind that this is no replacement for the formal process of studying at a university, but rather a resource that students can use.  Wikipedia has individual articles, but it can be edited by anyone. There are more strict measures in place here. These can be made even more strict by imposing conditions that only graduate students and researchers (lecturers, professors I have seen plenty of them answering questions here) affiliated with recognized institutions can edit the course notes. There would be people who need to approve of any additions before they become part of the course. You get what I am trying to propose here right? Now physics.stackexchange may not be the place this is carried out, an affiliate or sister site could be proposed. Am I dreaming too big?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="5e880cba-5534-4f67-a3af-ab4559db353b" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:53:28.260" UserId="30376" Text="Is physics stackexchange limited to answering questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="5e880cba-5534-4f67-a3af-ab4559db353b" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:53:28.260" UserId="30376" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="6c00f7a3-b51f-44a9-9018-a131a28b624b" CreationDate="2014-02-13T00:18:45.150" UserId="520" Text="Stack Exchange sites are built on a questions and answer model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find many suggestions for adding other features on the mother meta, but they have all been turned down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="2395e65b-09bb-4df0-a71a-2315180e66ee" CreationDate="2014-02-13T00:19:05.970" UserId="22494" Text="The &quot;Wikipedia can be edited by anyone&quot; criticism is tired [FUD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt).  Yes you will be able to find examples of errors, edit wars, and false information.  You can find the same stuff here.  The SE platform is designed for Q&amp;A and it works well for that.  Voting and editing is what keeps the quality up and makes the good stuff stand out from the bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a good physics resource, take a free online course, or buy a physics book, or check out Wikipedia, or ask questions here, or watch a bunch of lectures on YouTube, or [...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you propose just isn't within the scope of what SE was designed to do or can do or should do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="0ff4c7fc-d94a-4ba2-9da1-d6c55ba3fa34" CreationDate="2014-02-13T03:11:30.190" UserId="28646" Text="I am using Firefox 26.0 on most recent Ubuntu. Math formulas surrounded with the dollar sign are not being rendered as formulas, just as plain text. I can't pinpoint when it stopped working, because I am just an sporadic user of math enabled StackExchange sites, but some time ago they used to be displayed as nicely rendered LaTeX formulas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="0ff4c7fc-d94a-4ba2-9da1-d6c55ba3fa34" CreationDate="2014-02-13T03:11:30.190" UserId="28646" Text="Why is math not being rendered here on my browser?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="0ff4c7fc-d94a-4ba2-9da1-d6c55ba3fa34" CreationDate="2014-02-13T03:11:30.190" UserId="28646" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="29b58378-7889-4ea2-8a24-b1c802c08fd4" CreationDate="2014-02-13T03:20:33.243" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="6ac7950c-3aa6-4b70-ab8d-41f11775085e" CreationDate="2014-02-13T03:27:38.203" UserId="28646" Text="Ok, I figured it out. HTTPS Everywhere extension was messing with my ability to have math rendered. Probably a bug on them..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="4af65cb5-ff7a-4e24-9529-59afb5bbc722" CreationDate="2014-02-13T03:34:24.717" UserId="28958" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="I understand that asking pure math questions on the physics site is discouraged and I've seen many questions moved over to math. However, often times such questions are more suited for physicists to answer since they encounter those types of questions more often. Furthermore, they are more likely to answer the question using tools that a physicist would be familiar with. This is certainly the case for example is in this [post][1] and there are many other similar examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it really be disallowed to ask a math questions on the physics stackexchange if you would like a physicist's perspective on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: I just wanted to give an example for what my issue was. I recently needed some help with a math question from my QFT book, so I posted it [here][2]. However, the response I got was (as I expected) very formal, and not the approach a physics student would normally take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98877/evaluate-1-loop-contribution-to-the-4-point-greens-function?noredirect=1#comment201657_98877&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/672619/vector-delta-function-identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="b8c33ec6-af16-45dc-a2fc-e523d8f330d4" CreationDate="2014-02-13T06:32:20.363" UserId="30376" Comment="added 1562 characters in body" Text="I am not allowed to create a new tag, please make an appropriate one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask a question someone answers it. The design of the stackexchange sites (the reward system of earning points) ensures that good answers and even more importantly correct answers are distinguished from all the other answers to that question. Can we do more? What do I mean by more? Imagine a course on Quantum Mechanics, by course I mean lectures notes, exercises, a complete guide that has all the contents to take and mentor a beginning university student right up to post graduate level. Essentially it would take a novice and enable them to understand what is going on at the frontiers of that field. A dream set of lecture-notes/guide/book written by the thousands of users of this site. Keep in mind that this is no replacement for the formal process of studying at a university, but rather a resource that students can use.  Wikipedia has individual articles, but it can be edited by anyone. There are more strict measures in place here. These can be made even more strict by imposing conditions that only graduate students and researchers (lecturers, professors I have seen plenty of them answering questions here) affiliated with recognized institutions can edit the course notes. There would be people who need to approve of any additions before they become part of the course. You get what I am trying to propose here right? Now physics.stackexchange may not be the place this is carried out, an affiliate or sister site could be proposed. Am I dreaming too big?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&#xD;&#xA;In light of the comments and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of 'dream notes' that everyone contributes to will surely be superior to anything available on the arxiv as Chris White suggested.  Kyle Kanos suggesting that I string together tags, I can't take this response seriously. My idea for the notes/exercises to be contributed to by everyone is because the final product will be based not on my style of teaching but a concoction of everyone's and will likely be understood by a large class of students, because every student learns differently. I want everyone to act as mentors/coaches not just one person, or a small group of people. (Lecture notes on arxiv is almost always by individuals). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brandon Enright suggesting that I take free courses online or watch youtube lectures is not good enough. Right now sure individuals do exactly that. You can find tutorials on programming languages to physical sciences on youtube. The problem is each individual does that but it does not save the next guy any time. Imagine we had the proposed 'dream notes'. It would be a complete guide, with exercises and everything. &quot;What you propose just isn't within the scope of what SE was designed to do or can do or should do.&quot; I don't get the last or should do part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dmckee's answer makes sense. I need to make a proposal on the mother meta and polish and clarify my ideas. My ideas here are not entirely clear, because I posted the question on a whim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly  are the down votes for me not posting the question on the correct platform or are they for suggesting something that others find outrageous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="1d198a11-3832-4a6b-a3e4-ee70eae815b8" CreationDate="2014-02-13T09:04:47.420" UserId="8563" Text="The one-stop shop for tracking your badge progress (not that you should really be doing that) is [this answer to Badge Progress Reports on the mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/3230/badge-progress-reports/143653#143653). There are  usually a few relevant queries in the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com/) to choose from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, I can't find one that looks reliable; the mother meta thread points to [the reputation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) that Brandon pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're feeling competitive, though, [Legendary Badge advancement TopCount](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/160805/legendary-badge-advancement-topcount) will show the leaderboard: the number of days users have reached the daily cap, from über-legendary to mortarboard. [Top users by the number of times they earned 200/day&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/129639/top-users-by-the-number-of-times-they-earned-200-day) does the same, though there's a slight discrepancy with the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're wondering exactly what the criterion is, [this answer by Nick Craver](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/88526), and his comments below it, confirms that you only need 200 reputation total in [one day](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/42184/) to add a count towards these badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="43262bbd-df63-4660-99ea-92a6ff792d58" CreationDate="2014-02-13T21:25:36.497" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="09cfd825-2c3f-433b-88a3-2820669fcb9e" CreationDate="2014-02-14T01:39:16.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/434139748371017728" />
  <row Id="12281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="6d5934e1-eb18-4a88-9058-5e928b1ef56d" CreationDate="2014-02-14T02:09:27.880" UserId="124" Text="In [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5380/124) it was suggested that it might be good for moderators to refrain from unilaterally closing homework (or homework-like) questions for a while, so that we can get a better sense of what people consider to be on topic and off topic regarding homework here. So we're going to do that for a trial period next week. (We may extend it longer than a week if it seems like that will be useful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Sunday 2/16 to Saturday 2/22, moderators will not cast any close votes using the homework close reason, except as the 5th vote on a question that we think should be closed. Effectively, we'll do our best to act like regular 3k users when it comes to closing homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective of this is to get a better sense of what kinds of questions should and shouldn't be prohibited under our new and improved homework policy (which will come into existence at some time in the future). Accordingly, while this experiment is going on, here is what close voters (i.e. those with 3k+ rep) should do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Consider the existing homework policy more of a guideline than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;- Instead of voting to close questions because they break the policy (as you normally would), only vote to close those questions which you would like to see prohibited by our new, to-be-written homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;- While you're doing it, think about why you are voting to close certain questions and not others, and try to come up with some description of what makes a homework-like question closeworthy for you. Post your feedback on this meta post (as comments or answers, as appropriate) and/or in the [chat room](chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this trial period ends, we'll take the feedback into account when working toward drafting a new homework policy. As always, reasoned arguments will be given more weight than something pithy that gets a lot of votes. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="6d5934e1-eb18-4a88-9058-5e928b1ef56d" CreationDate="2014-02-14T02:09:27.880" UserId="124" Text="A week of community closing: what should be disallowed homework?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="6d5934e1-eb18-4a88-9058-5e928b1ef56d" CreationDate="2014-02-14T02:09:27.880" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="115a0279-aaa9-4a90-9939-c17c8561a64b" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:19:48.157" UserId="2751" Text="I still agree with the point of view, that [graduate level (upward) questions are not homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751). Technical questions, as they come up from studying advanced textbooks, following advanced courses, or even more so from reading research papers, should neither be tagged nor closed as homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hope is, that the future homework policy will finally narrow down the currently [way too broad notion of **&quot;homework-like&quot;**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751) down to a more reasonable definition of **&quot;homework&quot;**, that excludes the above mentioned kind of technical questions from being considered homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The often brought up objection against (advanced) questions involving a (mathematical) derivations / explanations, calculations, or a proof of something, claiming that they are exclusively useful to the OP, is IMHO not valid. Such technical questions are useful and helpful to everybody who wants to learn and understand the (advanced) topic or concepts at hand at a more serious (deeper than equation free popular) level.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="15492d8f-ce55-4b94-bf52-d3e7eddf515e" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:30:15.860" UserId="8563" Text="[This question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) arose out of a time with a lot of discussion on meta about how this site could be improved; it was proposed that we ban homework and this question explored how that would look like and whether people agreed to a concrete form or not. This question gathered a lot of votes (currently +25/-7 on the question, and 13/1, 11/1, 9/0, 7/0, 7/0 and 6/0 on the answers), but my impression is that there wasn't really enough consensus to implement this policy, or at least in this form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, the debate has slowed somewhat (as in e.g. [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/)) and it has drifted off into other directions (such as [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain)). In particular, next week [**moderators will leave all homework closures to the community**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework) as a way to try and find out what we, as a community, think should and should not be on this site. I regard this as a much healthier approach to the problem, and I think it should lead to this document becoming obsolete: we should reformulate the policy in terms of what we actually want and do, instead of some idealized construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add a bit more food for thought to the meta table, I'd like to set down some retrospective thoughts on this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, I must say I regard this as an experiment and large parts of it as not very successful. It was proposed elsewhere that we ban homework questions but still keep the homework tag, at least temporarily. This policy proposal was an attempt to see whether such a policy could be realized in a concrete example, and I tried very hard to reconcile the two conflicting directions. I do not think I was very successful, and the policy below has several sticky points that must be resolved using judgement calls; I think this is a sign of fundamental contradictions at the heart of such a policy, and I'm doubtful that more successful implementations of the same core policy can be written while still retaining the homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The key point that sparked this was the claim/observation by [David Z](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) and [Manishearth](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563) that homework is already essentially banned. I'm less convinced now that that's the case (see e.g. [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=[homework]+closed:no+score:3)), but this was an exercise at seeing whether such an 'effective policy' could be set down into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Certain parts of this thread definitely still read nicely. I particularly like the emphasis on driving people away from homework-like questions and onto more conceptual ones, the shift to &quot;what should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&quot;, and the introduction of sections on what to do if your question has been closed or put on hold or has close-votes on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another contradiction is to tell people to drop the dependence of their question on the problem (&quot;it should be useful to someone who's not staring at the same problem&quot;) but still telling them it is crucial that they 'reference the source' and provide the full context of their question. I'm not saying that we should drop either requirement, but I do think this merits a lot of thought as to how to reconcile the two once they're on (e)paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One useful practicality is that there are in fact a lot of small places where users with homework questions come into contact with the policy, which is reflected in the six different answers here. These should all be considered with a view on an eventual reformulation of formal policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, as this page is already long enough. I just wanted to set these thoughts down, particularly since we're coming up on community closing. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="15492d8f-ce55-4b94-bf52-d3e7eddf515e" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:30:15.860" UserId="8563" Text="About the proposal to ban homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="15492d8f-ce55-4b94-bf52-d3e7eddf515e" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:30:15.860" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="1f92c676-1db1-4b33-a93a-2b63cf4cd2cd" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:53:21.097" UserId="7433" Text="Good points; I've thought a lot about these myself in the past and come to think of it, never really resolved them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First of all, I must say I regard this as an experiment and large parts of it as not very successful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I not sure if the experiment was ever launched. We never really changed the policy; the &quot;new&quot; HW policy hasn't yet seen the light of the day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But yes, if you mean the meta discussions, those haven't been really successful. There is support for _changing_ the policy, and a lot of support for the proposed draft, but there are still kinks and a arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm less convinced now that that's the case (see e.g. this search), but this was an exercise at seeing whether such an 'effective policy' could be set down into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the HW tag is a different beast from the policy. It gets applied willy-nilly and I personally just avoid dealing with it. A successful implementation of a homework policy (with active 3k participation) should end up in the tag bein totally redundant, but that's not the case yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many of those seem to be more technical questions, which are currently under debate when it comes to homeworkiness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another contradiction is to tell people to drop the dependence of their question on the problem (&quot;it should be useful to someone who's not staring at the same problem&quot;) but still telling them it is crucial that they 'reference the source' and provide the full context of their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This basically has to do with wording. It should be clear as to what the primary, _conceptual_ issue is, and the rest can be given as an addendum or example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as my own closing habits go, I usually look through the question to check for what it's asking; I don't expect the user to write perfectly organized questions, and IMO that shouldn't be necessary for an on topic question (just highly desirable). This extends to moderation habits, I only mod message (and suspend on further infraction) users who dump no-effort homework problems on us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might want to convert this into a suggestion, instead of a part of the policy. Also ask reviewers to identify and reorganize such questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="2d867400-8e69-4231-9e8c-018da99c0ec5" CreationDate="2014-02-14T17:23:43.250" UserId="8563" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="[This question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) arose out of a time with a lot of discussion on meta about how this site could be improved; it was proposed that we ban homework and this question explored how that would look like and whether people agreed to a concrete form or not. This question gathered a lot of votes (currently +25/-7 on the question, and 13/1, 11/1, 9/0, 7/0, 7/0 and 6/0 on the answers), but my impression is that there wasn't really enough consensus to implement this policy, or at least in this form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, the debate has slowed somewhat (as in e.g. [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/)) and it has drifted off into other directions (such as [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain)). In particular, next week [**moderators will leave all homework closures to the community**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework) as a way to try and find out what we, as a community, think should and should not be on this site. I regard this as a much healthier approach to the problem, and I think it should lead to this document becoming obsolete: we should reformulate the policy in terms of what we actually want and do, instead of some idealized construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add a bit more food for thought to the meta table, I'd like to set down some retrospective thoughts on this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, I must say I regard this as an experiment in writing and large parts of it as not very successful. It was proposed elsewhere that we ban homework questions but still keep the homework tag, at least temporarily. This policy proposal was an attempt to see whether such a policy could be realized in a concrete example, and I tried very hard to reconcile the two conflicting directions. I do not think I was very successful, and the policy below has several sticky points that must be resolved using judgement calls; I think this is a sign of fundamental contradictions at the heart of such a policy, and I'm doubtful that more successful implementations of the same core policy can be written while still retaining the homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The key point that sparked this was the claim/observation by [David Z](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) and [Manishearth](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563) that homework is already essentially banned. I'm less convinced now that that's the case (see e.g. [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=[homework]+closed:no+score:3)), but this was an exercise at seeing whether such an 'effective policy' could be set down into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Certain parts of this thread definitely still read nicely. I particularly like the emphasis on driving people away from homework-like questions and onto more conceptual ones, the shift to &quot;what should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&quot;, and the introduction of sections on what to do if your question has been closed or put on hold or has close-votes on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another contradiction is to tell people to drop the dependence of their question on the problem (&quot;it should be useful to someone who's not staring at the same problem&quot;) but still telling them it is crucial that they 'reference the source' and provide the full context of their question. I'm not saying that we should drop either requirement, but I do think this merits a lot of thought as to how to reconcile the two once they're on (e)paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One useful practicality is that there are in fact a lot of small places where users with homework questions come into contact with the policy, which is reflected in the six different answers here. These should all be considered with a view on an eventual reformulation of formal policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, as this page is already long enough. I just wanted to set these thoughts down, particularly since we're coming up on community closing. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12291" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="87d0e8aa-9f74-4fd1-b3a6-a2a6086f32df" CreationDate="2014-02-15T13:39:17.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/434683332497272832" />
  <row Id="12292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="adb7d5f3-565e-4519-8947-b2d29b87881e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T14:08:56.827" UserId="5477" Text="I still don't like this idea. It's unfair to the people asking the questions to have them closed arbitrarily at users' whims, instead of according to a written policy. Also it's hard to see how this can really help to form the policy. All you'll get is some questions closed and not others, but probably without much consistency, and with no consensus on the reasons why. There's a reason why we have discussions on meta instead of just letting people close-vote as they choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least the homework-policy meta post should be replaced with an explanation of the situation before this starts. It's ludicrous to have a specific set of written rules while at the same time encouraging people to close-vote without regard to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="1976f64d-eee1-4241-8851-00ff9a5a2da5" CreationDate="2014-02-15T15:27:52.597" UserId="1325" Text="Have the mods done much closing since my [original suggestion][1]? The impression I have is that over the last month most of the closing has been done by the users. At the moment I'm reasonably happy with the status quo. It seems to me that most of the questions that have been closed were fairly obviously homework, and we have let through more advanced *homework* of the sort that Dilaton mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a sort of protocol emerging that we still close the more blatant of homework questions but provide hints in the comments. This keeps the homework questions off the home page but (hopefully) still provides a bit of help and encouragement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I recently did a quick count and 20% of all questions on the site were being closed. 20%! Mind you, amongst the more forum like sites having 80% of all questions worth while would be a huge step up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/5380#5380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12294" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="058b551e-32fa-4daa-9529-030b0e2d9212" CreationDate="2014-02-15T16:39:17.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/434728632930824192" />
  <row Id="12295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="835d5018-343c-4ae6-b242-7fb3870b1183" CreationDate="2014-02-16T00:37:14.317" UserId="10549" Text="I've created [a new proposal][1] on Area 51 for a Stack Exchange focusing on the history of mathematics and science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a math student, I am *constantly* studying the history of the subject. I feel that ultimately, it's the only way to really get a sense of that all important holy grail of mathematics learning: *motivation*. As for science, studying the history of the subject overlaps very strongly with appreciating the evidence for modern science, since all of the experiments and mathematical arguments were done a long time ago and are seldom mentioned nowadays outside of histories of the subject. And all of this is aside from the fact that the history of science is inherently interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, mining the literature alone can be very difficult at times, and an SE would be really beneficial. I also hope that this SE might promote the study of the history of science and math among both students and teachers, since I (and hopefully you, too!) really think it's almost crucial if you want to really understanding either subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to history.SE** firstly because it's more specialized, but more importantly because answering or asking questions about the history of science will usually require knowledge of *science* (or math) as well as just history. Asking about the early development of quantum field theory is unlikely to get you anywhere on a site full of people who are primarily interested in history and not science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to math.SE or physics.SE** because an interest in history (let alone an in depth knowledge of it) isn't necessarily standard among math or physics experts, so a question about any even slightly obscure topic in history is unlikely to get a very good answer unless the right person happens by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I invite anyone interested in the history of math and science to follow the proposal on Area 51, vote up example questions that you find interesting, and post your own example questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Area 51 link: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meta discussion on math.SE: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12773/area-51-proposal-history-of-mathematics-and-science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="835d5018-343c-4ae6-b242-7fb3870b1183" CreationDate="2014-02-16T00:37:14.317" UserId="10549" Text="Area 51 proposal: History of Science And Mathematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="835d5018-343c-4ae6-b242-7fb3870b1183" CreationDate="2014-02-16T00:37:14.317" UserId="10549" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="6c0a6924-17a6-4f0b-8020-dd82d8a30c0e" CreationDate="2014-02-16T03:24:44.103" UserId="124" Comment="note about experiment" Text="&gt; **Policy change this week (Feb 16-22):** we are conducting a week-long experiment in which [community members rely more on their individual judgment to close homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework), and this post should be considered a soft guideline rather than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="0ab50a15-0142-4d3d-b240-812bb778579e" CreationDate="2014-02-17T08:05:04.950" UserId="8563" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematical modeling][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="766806c4-8a64-4335-b6ea-b32af57b2964" CreationDate="2014-02-17T11:53:33.340" UserId="8563" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="I've created [a new proposal][1] on Area 51 for a Stack Exchange focusing on the history of mathematics and science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a math student, I am *constantly* studying the history of the subject. I feel that ultimately, it's the only way to really get a sense of that all important holy grail of mathematics learning: *motivation*. As for science, studying the history of the subject overlaps very strongly with appreciating the evidence for modern science, since all of the experiments and mathematical arguments were done a long time ago and are seldom mentioned nowadays outside of histories of the subject. And all of this is aside from the fact that the history of science is inherently interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, mining the literature alone can be very difficult at times, and an SE would be really beneficial. I also hope that this SE might promote the study of the history of science and math among both students and teachers, since I (and hopefully you, too!) really think it's almost crucial if you want to really understanding either subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to history.SE** firstly because it's more specialized, but more importantly because answering or asking questions about the history of science will usually require knowledge of *science* (or math) as well as just history. Asking about the early development of quantum field theory is unlikely to get you anywhere on a site full of people who are primarily interested in history and not science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to math.SE or physics.SE** because an interest in history (let alone an in depth knowledge of it) isn't necessarily standard among math or physics experts, so a question about any even slightly obscure topic in history is unlikely to get a very good answer unless the right person happens by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I invite anyone interested in the history of math and science to follow the proposal on Area 51, vote up example questions that you find interesting, and post your own example questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Area 51 link: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta discussion on math.SE](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12773/area-51-proposal-history-of-mathematics-and-science); [Meta discussion on MO](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1496/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="65eae9db-a26d-461f-b4e0-26816fc77c2c" CreationDate="2014-02-17T11:59:58.170" UserId="8563" Text="Just for everyone's attention, a nice question has popped up in the MathOverflow meta: [Formatting citations to the literature on MathOverflow](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow?cb=1), shooting towards a button that will insert a formatted citation given a DOI or arxiv link, or even pop up a search window to connect with some back end. It looks pretty preliminary but it's something to keep an eye on if it goes through, and maybe it's a nice project for some of our better coders (though I don't want to [point fingers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433/manishearth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your convenience, here's the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We'd like to make it easier to cite articles from the literature, on MathOverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; I propose adding a single button to the edit toolbar while writing posts, which will pop up a search dialog, allow the user to select a result, and then insert a nicely formatted link to the paper back into the edit box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The button would appear next to the current four icons for inserting hyperlinks, blockquotes, preformatted text, and images. (We could insert this button ourselves, via our allowed javascript footer, but eventually we'd want SE to insert it natively.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To get a sense of how the search dialog might work, please look at [this prototype](http://semorrison.github.io/citation-search/).&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously this would need some polishing; suggestions for improvements welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Once a search result has been selected, I propose inserting into the edit box something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &lt;span class=&quot;citation&quot; authors=&quot;Sendak, Maureen and Geisel, Theresa&quot; mrnumber=&quot;MR1234567&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;          cite=&quot;J. Unexpected Results 17 (2015), no. 1, 17-29&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2222&quot;&gt;A mathematics paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &lt;/span&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will render simply as the hyperlink &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2222&quot;&gt;A mathematics paper&lt;/a&gt;. The hyperlink should be the 'best available URL', e.g. the DOI resolution address, a direct link to the published version, or the link to the corresponding record on MathSciNet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I would like to include the extra `&lt;span&gt;` tag around the actual hyperlink for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. it makes the extra citation data available, in case the user wants to also show the authors or journal reference in the text,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. it allows us to render citation links differently via the CSS selector `.citation` if desired,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. it allows us to programmatically detect and reformat citation links after the fact, if desired (e.g. to provide links to your local library's resolver).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are a number of things we'll need to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* verify we really can add a button to the edit interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* pick a 'backend' for the search dialog (the prototype above is a hack; it would be nice to run off MathSciNet or Zentralblatt, etc, but this may require a lot of coordination)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* design and build the search dialog&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* beta test with some users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="65eae9db-a26d-461f-b4e0-26816fc77c2c" CreationDate="2014-02-17T11:59:58.170" UserId="8563" Text="A &quot;cite this paper, will you?&quot; button?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="65eae9db-a26d-461f-b4e0-26816fc77c2c" CreationDate="2014-02-17T11:59:58.170" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|user-interface|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="f491db32-bbf3-4afc-b839-9ee9fc8c5e25" CreationDate="2014-02-17T17:29:44.567" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12305" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="d3884bd8-17bd-4f58-97ab-d6c3cd30adef" CreationDate="2014-02-17T19:40:13.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/435498943615893504" />
  <row Id="12307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="8f36225c-fda1-48e7-9ded-3ed5d7bf7510" CreationDate="2014-02-18T17:21:51.390" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/23431/pratik-deoghare&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/23431.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for Pratik Deoghare on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; title=&quot;profile for Pratik Deoghare on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&amp;amp;A sites&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no specialities. But I am interested in (almost) everything. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="78c37649-f37f-4336-aabf-8bacab606e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-18T19:00:04.153" UserId="40862" Text="What happens if some ground breaking, novel, noble prize winning ideas are posted in this website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the person posting the idea get credit ? Is there a risk of ideas being stolen from this website and plagiarized ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="78c37649-f37f-4336-aabf-8bacab606e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-18T19:00:04.153" UserId="40862" Text="What happens if some ground breaking, novel, noble prize winning ideas are posted in this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="78c37649-f37f-4336-aabf-8bacab606e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-18T19:00:04.153" UserId="40862" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5499" RevisionGUID="f0ee3ce2-58ac-4f43-aa16-728ee72aff85" CreationDate="2014-02-18T19:15:20.593" UserId="520" Text="1. For the most part you should not post new work here. This is a question and answer site, not a publication venue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you do, you  can rely on the site to establish priority. That's not ideal, but it will suffice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12314" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="b21c9359-3e90-4d20-ade4-7fa0e583a6be" CreationDate="2014-02-18T19:40:16.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/435861342655115264" />
  <row Id="12315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="8079c979-79df-445a-8e6b-8e2222c50622" CreationDate="2014-02-18T23:23:56.980" UserId="19976" Text="I recently answered the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99731/differentiating-a-vector-product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and although I don't think it's written in the clearest possible way, I (and another answerer) had no trouble understanding the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was nonetheless put on hold (due to the votes of a number of users) for being unclear.  I'm pretty confused by this to be honest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is what the OP is asking really sufficiently unclear for it to be closed?  He pretty clearly states that he just wants to know how the derivative operator was &quot;factored out&quot; of a particular expression.  I would be much less confused if, for example, the question had been moved to math.SE instead of being closed as unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm just clairvoyant and I don't know it?  Perhaps I'm just confused about the SE definition of &quot;clarity&quot;?  I dunno." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="8079c979-79df-445a-8e6b-8e2222c50622" CreationDate="2014-02-18T23:23:56.980" UserId="19976" Text="Question &quot;clarity&quot; confusion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="8079c979-79df-445a-8e6b-8e2222c50622" CreationDate="2014-02-18T23:23:56.980" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="0d2e7608-a24f-4bfe-ad5a-643d14be1fb4" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:02:30.610" UserId="19976" Text="I think I might have a physics.SE addiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am turning to the community in earnest to detemine a means by which I can limit my incessant desire to participate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone, especially one of the more active users (you know who you are), have any constructive suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a hard time believing I'm alone in my plight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="0d2e7608-a24f-4bfe-ad5a-643d14be1fb4" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:02:30.610" UserId="19976" Text="Dealing with addiction to physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="0d2e7608-a24f-4bfe-ad5a-643d14be1fb4" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:02:30.610" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12321" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="4ef02172-9311-40de-8b53-03817f4d8e37" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:10:41.467" UserId="19976" Comment="edited title" Text="Dealing with an addiction to physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="6d8a1291-af68-4802-9cb4-6b7ddc605ce7" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:12:36.910" UserId="5374" Text="Depending on the extend to which you want to remove yourself, you could either get yourself banned or make going online a reward. I mean just look up self-help sites on online addition in general, sure they'll cover the basic strategies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="c826a852-9627-4dac-8f05-63696f062928" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:38:20.157" UserId="19976" Comment="deleted 114 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am turning to the community to determine a means by which I can limit my incessant desire to participate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone, especially one of the more active users (you know who you are), have any constructive suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12324" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="c826a852-9627-4dac-8f05-63696f062928" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:38:20.157" UserId="19976" Comment="deleted 114 characters in body; edited title" Text="Determining a way to regulate my physics.SE participation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="be23e9d9-7a98-4df4-a2fb-c3e9e8d5d46e" CreationDate="2014-02-19T09:00:30.530" UserId="5374" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Depending on the extend to which you want to remove yourself, you could either get yourself banned or make going online a reward. I mean just look up self-help sites on online addiction in general, sure they'll cover the basic strategies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="fae6ab74-8b3b-4259-8f56-13e94d0ad9ab" CreationDate="2014-02-19T16:50:52.210" UserId="38236" Text="I some time ago posted a question twice (I was new and never experienced this kind of website)  &#xD;&#xA;I did so because I wanted desired attention to that question  &#xD;&#xA;but as I experienced this website I think that posting duplicate questions is bad  &#xD;&#xA;my question is that  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;what should I do with that duplicate post ?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I think I should delete that post.  &#xD;&#xA;Am I right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="fae6ab74-8b3b-4259-8f56-13e94d0ad9ab" CreationDate="2014-02-19T16:50:52.210" UserId="38236" Text="What should I do when I by mistake post a duplicate question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="fae6ab74-8b3b-4259-8f56-13e94d0ad9ab" CreationDate="2014-02-19T16:50:52.210" UserId="38236" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="570d3453-c1ed-410c-a406-b1fc0d3f3af4" CreationDate="2014-02-19T16:51:34.663" UserId="7433" Text="Yes, delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to get attention to older questions, place a bounty on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="deacc7e3-cb5a-49c4-a383-75cdca255117" CreationDate="2014-02-19T17:49:18.080" UserId="1325" Text="For the record I thought the question was perfectly clear and in fact I was halfway through my own answer when the dreaded *There is a new answer to the question* banner appeared. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised that the question got closed, but then that's democracy for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I voted to reopen when I got the chance and I see the question has been reopened, but then that's democracy for you :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't attach too much significance to the affair. As the number of active &gt;3k users increases we're going to get more statistical fluctuations, but you just wait for the statistics to build up, which is exactly what happened in this case. I've made some close votes that were in retrospect not warranted, and I'm now quite glad that cooler heads outvoted me. The whole point of requiring 5 votes to close (and 5 to reopen?) is that individual aberrations will eventually get overruled by the site members as a whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5506" RevisionGUID="3ebc8d97-cfa8-4f8b-9b37-555c6e0d2b17" CreationDate="2014-02-19T18:10:22.170" UserId="1325" Text="I'm guessing the duplicate you're thinking of is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7340/water-rocket-physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as a non-moderator I don't think duplicate questions are necessarily a problem because often apparent duplicates are highlighting different aspects of the problem. In your case your new question is focussing on the nozzle design while the duplicate is more general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have sometimes answered questions I knew to be duplicates because I wanted to write about a particular aspect of the question and the older duplicate was different enough that my answer would have seemed a bit off topic there. For example http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71126/why-does-the-refractive-index-depend-on-wavelength is a duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65812/why-do-prisms-work-why-is-refraction-frequency-dependent, but I answered the former because I could pick up on some of the points mentioned by the OP and I felt my answer would be better there than on the duplicate. My answer got upvoted a few times so I guess others agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To return to your question, actually I think it's more engineering than physics and I'd be surprised if anyone can answer it without going off and doing the experiments. If anyone does know the answer I bet it's because they have already gone off and done the experiments. Still, I wouldn't rush to delete the question - wait and see what the site members think. If the question gets closed and attracts a lot of downvotes you might want to delete it because that cancels out the downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5507" RevisionGUID="de61f3ce-f39a-44b0-8b4c-22118f7771be" CreationDate="2014-02-19T18:23:28.640" UserId="1325" Text="I think there are some unnecessarily cynical views in Nikolaj's answer and the comments to it. It's human nature to like approval from your peers, and upvotes are a proxy for approval - a virtual pat on the back if you will. Of course the flip side is that downvotes are really quite wounding - I hate being downvoted and won't downvote others without serious provocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, if you find yourself addicted to this site it's because it's more enjoyable than your everyday life. The solution is to look at your everyday life and figure out how to improve it. In my case I'm semi retired and only work for a few hours in the mornings. The alternative to the Physics SE is doing the gardening or some DIY. I mean, come on, what would you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record I hate your answers because you invariably get in just before me (often when I've nearly finished typing up my answer) and then you rub salt into the wound by making your answer better. You should immediately quit the Physics SE and never come back :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="5249d11b-7a64-4ad9-932e-fd57be0c552b" CreationDate="2014-02-19T18:32:52.573" UserId="124" Text="Well you could always join reddit ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(reddit's [/r/askscience](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience) is actually another very good place for experts to share their scientific knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, there are some techniques out there to limit your internet browsing, usually involving some program that will block access to designated websites outside of a preconfigured period of time. I've never used them myself, because if I did, I would waste more time figuring out creative ways to get around the block than I would have on the site it was blocking, but if you don't suffer from that problem you could try this method. Alternatively, if you want to completely shut yourself off from this site for an extended period, you could edit your computer's HOSTS file to point `physics.stackexchange.com` to `127.0.0.1`. Again, it's easily worked around, but I guess that works for some people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative, as Nikolaj suggested, is to get your account suspended. I think there's a precedent for this but I'm not sure what the relevant policies are. You don't have to do something bad on the site that would actually deserve a suspension (and we'd rather you didn't), just ask a moderator in chat or something and we'll look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, which sounds like (and mostly is) a joke but actually has something to it if you think about it, is to become a moderator. Moderators do a lot more janitorial work - editing, reviewing, closing and reopening posts, and other things which can be handled in 10-second chunks - and a lot less asking and answering, so although it doesn't directly force you to spend less time on the site, it does alter how you'd be spending your time here, making it a lot easier to pop in for just a minute or two between your real-life obligations. Plus, you will get thoroughly sick of handling flags after a while. Of course, this would require demonstrating the need for a new moderator election and then winning that election, so it's not straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, though, it has to come down to your own willpower. As we've learned from handling trolls and spammers, there is no foolproof way to keep someone off the site if they really want to participate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5509" RevisionGUID="b1436324-15d5-43f0-87ec-a5bece3968a5" CreationDate="2014-02-19T19:26:20.717" UserId="1492" Text="I have been retired from active research since 2001 and for me this site is a way not to forget my  physics by enjoying the answers and answering where I can without using too many formulas. I have not learned how to use the codes for  them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would advise you to start reading in depth one of your subjects in your graduate studies. Try to focus your attention  on problems that are hard, worry them like a dog with a bone. I believe then you will find  that most of  the questions arising on this board will seem irrelevant to your interest and you will reduce your participation, which I do enjoy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="eb3c731d-6362-488b-9241-8450b190310e" CreationDate="2014-02-19T19:27:04.957" UserId="6634" Text="So I am noticing something that will likely crop up later and leave the results of this inconclusive... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of low-level homework questions coming in and getting closed. These are the types of questions that I think we all agree shouldn't be allowed and the week results will show that it's the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But high-level homework questions aren't really coming in, so there is no opportunity for the trial voting period to suss out how the community actually feels about them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few more days left, but I wouldn't be surprised if the results just show what we can all agree to already and we'll be back to speculating and arguing over high-level homework questions because no/few opportunities were presented to vote on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="70ee51f2-bc65-4ff6-9cd5-b45885a20c16" CreationDate="2014-02-19T20:23:25.537" UserId="1325" Comment="Correct typo" Text="What happens if some ground breaking, novel, Nobel prize winning ideas are posted in this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="70ee51f2-bc65-4ff6-9cd5-b45885a20c16" CreationDate="2014-02-19T20:23:25.537" UserId="1325" Comment="Correct typo" Text="What happens if some ground breaking, novel, Nobel prize winning ideas are posted in this website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the person posting the idea get credit ? Is there a risk of ideas being stolen from this website and plagiarized ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="3f5db5e0-407f-40e7-9dc0-390db2eee6be" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:00:17.917" UserId="38236" Text="This question [asked by me][1] has been put on hold  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;they say that this question belongs to engineering and not physics.    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I have to do the following activity&#xD;&#xA;[Bottle Rocket][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I am confused that What kind of bottle exhaust should I choose out of the following ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if some other design is better then I welcome those.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;---  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;where should i ask this question ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99897/which-kind-of-exhaust-should-i-use&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZqAp7baeUg%E2%80%8E&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kHsct.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V2zOU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/28cTL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="3f5db5e0-407f-40e7-9dc0-390db2eee6be" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:00:17.917" UserId="38236" Text="Where should i ask this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="3f5db5e0-407f-40e7-9dc0-390db2eee6be" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:00:17.917" UserId="38236" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="0b8f639d-2c3c-4d18-8403-34daf3254e4c" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:18:02.333" UserId="38236" Comment="deleted 547 characters in body; added 89 characters in body" Text="This question [asked by me][1] has been put on hold  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;they say that this question belongs to engineering and not physics.    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;where should i ask this question ?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;edit : how can i modify the question so that my post is back from [ON HOLD] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99897/which-kind-of-exhaust-should-i-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="21ed2fd7-7122-45d5-9ce4-96e8846df12a" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:20:43.973" UserId="25301" Text="Currently, there is no place to ask this question. However, there is an [Engineering site proposed in Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/60453/engineering) that you might want to support. They will not answer any questions at this point (still in the &quot;Definition&quot; stage), but this seems like it'd be on-topic on that site (if it goes live)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="a4772712-10f3-4861-a0f3-bd597917568e" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:20:51.613" UserId="38236" Text="I some time ago asked [This Question][1] but i also want to ask &quot;Why it makes sound like 'ting', 'ting' before lighting up ?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should I modify the post or post a new question ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96366/why-does-a-fluorescent-tube-lamp-flicker-before-lighting-up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="a4772712-10f3-4861-a0f3-bd597917568e" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:20:51.613" UserId="38236" Text="Should I ask new Question or modify my old post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="a4772712-10f3-4861-a0f3-bd597917568e" CreationDate="2014-02-20T03:20:51.613" UserId="38236" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="5728abb1-fe9b-42b5-9be3-33d7f6dfe763" CreationDate="2014-02-20T06:00:27.780" UserId="124" Text="That's a separate issue from what you were asking about in the earlier question, so you should post it separately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="fda4e862-8532-4983-a922-0b2d8056d719" CreationDate="2014-02-20T15:14:55.633" UserId="21817" Text="[tag:biology] → [tag:biophysics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every biology question should be about the physics part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12350" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="377953ef-bec8-470a-ab0c-c7b9951a8dfb" CreationDate="2014-02-20T15:14:55.633" UserId="21817" />
  <row Id="12351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5517" RevisionGUID="f7f554c1-a4f8-4a35-82bd-d71edc2268d9" CreationDate="2014-02-20T23:48:55.230" UserId="35024" Text="Quite honestly, I think it is a perfectly legitimate question for this site since the answer will be based on fluid mechanics.  It doesn't take that many votes to close a question however, and we have a lot of theorists/purists around here. If your approach showed a little more personal effort to understand the effect of the bottle's neck on the exhaust, then it likely would have received an answer and/or not have been closed.  Also, it wouldn't hurt to cast the question in the language of fluid mechanics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are trying to build a repository of quality questions, and questions which can be typed out in 30 seconds will often be closed; the reason for doing so is somewhat arbitrary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="5b6b44ff-a9c9-440a-a87b-315cdc205fb8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T05:46:46.213" UserId="1492" Text="Example [this question][1] was closed as duplicate. It is a duplicate as a question  and when one goes to the link one finds a good answer in fairly theoretical terms, the first part not really geared towards the level of the question, and certainly not of the question made duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition it offers what I call a &quot; platonic physics view&quot;, i.e. beautiful theories have been found and are the miraculous mold on which nature is poured.  One reason I keep my attention on this site is because it is dominated by theorists and graduate students of theory and the answers are geared towards the &quot;platonic&quot;. ( the other is that I seem to be the only woman physicist here with some reputation :) and do not want to let the side down ). I try to inject the experimentalist's view.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the platonic view may be the correct view and vindicated if we find a TOE finally. I.e. :&quot;Mathematics molds the world&quot;. But it is not the view we have now. The view we have now is continuously testing the mathematics against the data, and the only real, imo answer to such questions is that **this is what observations tell us** and we have modeled them mathematically successfully .  I would not mind if the site was from graduate students up, but such type of questions come from enthusiastic young aspiring physicists and answers always biased towards theory are not a good guide for them. They must realize that data and experiments are what inspire the theories and a theory in the air is just mathematics. It is the kind of thinking,  &quot;if I think deeply I will solve the equations of the world&quot; without a strong basis on the data base ,that generates the cranks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I tend to answer such questions , but I do not get to them fast enough before they become duplicate. Maybe the duplicate should be signaled for one day or two before making it impossible to answer a simple question with a simple answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100056/why-do-electrons-and-protons-attract-each-other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="5b6b44ff-a9c9-440a-a87b-315cdc205fb8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T05:46:46.213" UserId="1492" Text="Policy on closing/holding/duplicate questions of the type &quot;why positve and negative charges attract&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="5b6b44ff-a9c9-440a-a87b-315cdc205fb8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T05:46:46.213" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="9335ac1b-9e49-4c81-ba2b-77bd0e440b76" CreationDate="2014-02-21T13:52:19.397" UserDisplayName="user36538" Text="I have very serious doubts from my experience here (albeit, limited).  Two things that I have rightly or wrongly observed from the responses (and lack thereof) to my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I got was only provided when I offered the bounty - without the bounty, I am sure it never would have been answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other questions I posted are not even worth being researched it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I researched for questions that were out of my subject area, despite being hellishly busy, and naively thought that others would do the same)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="9335ac1b-9e49-4c81-ba2b-77bd0e440b76" CreationDate="2014-02-21T13:52:19.397" UserDisplayName="user36538" Text="Realistically, are atmospheric physics questions on topic and acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="9335ac1b-9e49-4c81-ba2b-77bd0e440b76" CreationDate="2014-02-21T13:52:19.397" UserDisplayName="user36538" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5520" RevisionGUID="d955801d-c64c-446a-bdfb-f05444749708" CreationDate="2014-02-21T14:03:26.930" UserId="6634" Text="If they weren't closed, then they are on-topic and acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of answers just means lack of interest or expertise from others. As I've said many times, the only way to attract people with those interests or expertise is to have something for them to do here and to tell them about it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've done the first, now they just need to find out there are things to do here and come do them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't or don't want to wait, that's on you. But if your questions stayed open then you didn't violate a policy and if they didn't get answered then you didn't excite the right people or the right people aren't here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="0b33aa04-8c97-4ba6-8ac7-be2f6dc4baca" CreationDate="2014-02-21T14:33:20.397" UserId="20848" Text="You did ask a engineering question, although it could have probably been a reasonable physics question if asked properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site seems to be largely about theoretical physics.  There is a gray area between engineering and applied physics, but I have noticed that questions that aren't about advanced theoretical physics are treated a lot less well than more &quot;entry level&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would have probably voted to close your question too, not because of the level of physics or the fact that is about applied physics (I personally enjoy those), but because:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The title (&lt;i&gt;Which kind of exhaust should I use?&lt;/i&gt;) makes no sense.  I can see asking about the type of bottle or the type of proplellent, but the &quot;kind of exhaust&quot;?  Huh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disrespect shown with the very first letter is not a good start.  The first letters of English sentences are capitalized.  It's a arbitrary but well known and basic rule.  Regardless of how unfamiliar you are with English, that is so basic a rule that there is no excuse.  You are saying &lt;i&gt;&quot;I don't care about your silly language conventions and how annoying it may be for you if others don't follow them.  I'm more important than you are, so you'll just have to put up with it&quot;&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The whole question is just a homework problem dumped on us without any effort on your part.  &lt;i&gt;&quot;Here, solve this for me while I go off and do more important things.  And no, I'm not interested in the physics, I just need the answer to hand in to get my grade.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;&quot;Which kind of bottle exhaust&quot;&lt;/i&gt; Huh?  The pictures imply you are asking about the bottle, but then what is &quot;bottle exhaust&quot; supposed to mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can't imagine any practical difference between the bottles shown yourself at all?  Really!!?  It never even occurred to you that size, pressure capability, and weight might have some bearing on the problem?  Frankly if you haven't even &lt;i&gt;thought&lt;/i&gt; about those issues as possibly being relevant, then you really are at too low a level to ask a question here.  How are you going to understand any of the possible answers, other than &quot;Use that one.&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="3f85f5d0-5934-4737-97f4-84ff79472c1e" CreationDate="2014-02-21T15:37:42.110" UserId="20848" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="You did ask a engineering question, although it could have probably been a reasonable physics question if asked properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site seems to be largely about theoretical physics.  There is a gray area between engineering and applied physics, but I have noticed that questions that aren't about advanced theoretical physics are treated a lot less well than more advanced questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would have probably voted to close your question too, not because of the level of physics or the fact that is about applied physics (I personally enjoy those), but because:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The title (&lt;i&gt;Which kind of exhaust should I use?&lt;/i&gt;) makes no sense.  I can see asking about the type of bottle or the type of proplellent, but the &quot;kind of exhaust&quot;?  Huh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disrespect shown with the very first letter is not a good start.  The first letters of English sentences are capitalized.  It's a arbitrary but well known and basic rule.  Regardless of how unfamiliar you are with English, that is so basic a rule that there is no excuse.  You are saying &lt;i&gt;&quot;I don't care about your silly language conventions and how annoying it may be for you if others don't follow them.  I'm more important than you are, so you'll just have to put up with it&quot;&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The whole question is just a homework problem dumped on us without any effort on your part.  &lt;i&gt;&quot;Here, solve this for me while I go off and do more important things.  And no, I'm not interested in the physics, I just need the answer to hand in to get my grade.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;&quot;Which kind of bottle exhaust&quot;&lt;/i&gt; Huh?  The pictures imply you are asking about the bottle, but then what is &quot;bottle exhaust&quot; supposed to mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can't imagine any practical difference between the bottles shown yourself at all?  Really!!?  It never even occurred to you that size, pressure capability, and weight might have some bearing on the problem?  Frankly if you haven't even &lt;i&gt;thought&lt;/i&gt; about those issues as possibly being relevant, then you really are at too low a level to ask a question here.  How are you going to understand any of the possible answers, other than &quot;Use that one.&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="7fb60cc9-ad71-4f83-93b2-89b02db12de8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T15:54:54.363" UserId="23119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="7868f07a-7ae5-4570-8e70-03ff3a94d2c9" CreationDate="2014-02-22T10:55:10.363" UserId="26633" Text="What are the options I have, to revert a community edit? I don't want to simply edit my question; I was looking for something similar to a roll-back option where the approvers are notified that I wish to reject their proposed edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be missing out on some obvious existing way to do it but help would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Case in point][1] (3rd edit changed the question to something that doesn't make sense any more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75052/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="7868f07a-7ae5-4570-8e70-03ff3a94d2c9" CreationDate="2014-02-22T10:55:10.363" UserId="26633" Text="How do I go about reverting a Community edit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="7868f07a-7ae5-4570-8e70-03ff3a94d2c9" CreationDate="2014-02-22T10:55:10.363" UserId="26633" Text="|support|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5524" RevisionGUID="4dc9e004-1aa5-4d7f-b659-aa98a28c1f34" CreationDate="2014-02-22T11:03:25.970" UserId="7433" Text="There is a rollback option, but it doesn't notify anyone, just creates the reverse edit. You can find it on the bar for the second (and first) revision of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Community edit is just one that was suggested by an anonymous user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5525" RevisionGUID="f2f99f71-9ce7-437a-9767-0033e5f2029b" CreationDate="2014-02-22T20:40:21.487" UserId="12951" Text="I hope atmospheric physics -as well as all other geophysics- remains on topic somewhere on SE. I think there is less difference between the various disciplines of physical science than the ways we tend to group ourselves. I like the idea of a earth sciences group, but expect it may be too thin. We should use the available tags more effectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="d81b78e0-48ae-4370-8060-2d4c21fe0416" CreationDate="2014-02-22T23:00:25.697" UserId="124" Text="I find it interesting that people are voting to close questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100331/if-an-object-moved-5-meters-in-a-second-how-can-its-velocity-be-10-m-s because this strikes me as a textbook example of a conceptual question, the kind of thing that our existing homework policy was specifically made to allow. I wonder if this is just an isolated case, or have questions like this been accumulating close votes all week? And if so, does this really mean that the community doesn't want conceptual questions on simple topics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="6efc8562-02ee-4a1b-9b0e-771cad100b89" CreationDate="2014-02-23T01:40:34.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/437401564769439744" />
  <row Id="12373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="ccbd8f77-8176-4be8-a507-9b90ab8d6ec4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T01:54:44.697" UserId="124" Text="**http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100236/which-component-shows-spin-squeezing-under-twisting-hamiltonian**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a contentious debate emerging about whether this question, currently at [revision 5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/100236/5), should be open or not. Standard practice is to bring the discussion to meta, so here we are to discuss: is it right for revision 5 to be on hold or not, and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="ccbd8f77-8176-4be8-a507-9b90ab8d6ec4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T01:54:44.697" UserId="124" Text="Should this question be on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="ccbd8f77-8176-4be8-a507-9b90ab8d6ec4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T01:54:44.697" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="2565bc73-70ae-4360-8c1c-3c037d17857f" CreationDate="2014-02-23T02:24:12.017" UserId="25301" Text="It was rightfully closed in the first place. As it was [originally written](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/100236/1), it had every appearance of a graduate-level **but zero effort** homework problem.  After it was closed, OP added a couple relevant links to papers that contained the answer (as pointed out by me). Seems to me that it's *still* a zero-effort homework problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="3d7ad8f6-25f7-4689-8de4-8be9730499ad" CreationDate="2014-02-23T07:13:41.433" UserId="2751" Text="The question asking about some properties of a twisted Hamiltonian system **is**  conceptual, even though it asks about the issue at a technical level. It not less conceptual than the more basic question brought up [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5526/2751) and who's attracting closevotes is questioned too, but the twiseted Hamiltonian question is about a more advanced topic and at a higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already said [several times](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5489/2751) (and please dont ignore the fact that my answer there is the one with the highest net scoere so there *are* people who agree with this even on meta) elsewhere, technical questions, as they come up from reading books about advanced topics, following higher level courses, or even from studying research papers should not be prohibited. Forbidding such technical questions about advanced topics is detrimental for people who want to learn physics at a beyond popular equation free technial level and it would be bad for the originally targetted audience (researchers, academics, and students of physics and astronomy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twisted Hamiltonian question is a legitimate technical question too, it is even conceptual, so IMHO the closevoters have been wrong. In summary, this particular question should not be closed, but allowed to attract nice and interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="21eeb4aa-a29d-4232-ac83-a570d05001bc" CreationDate="2014-02-23T07:40:23.723" UserId="124" Comment="add a note" Text="In [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5380/124) it was suggested that it might be good for moderators to refrain from unilaterally closing homework (or homework-like) questions for a while, so that we can get a better sense of what people consider to be on topic and off topic regarding homework here. So we're going to do that for a trial period next week. (We may extend it longer than a week if it seems like that will be useful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Sunday 2/16 to Saturday 2/22 (**EDIT** and maybe for a couple more days), moderators will not cast any close votes using the homework close reason, except as the 5th vote on a question that we think should be closed. Effectively, we'll do our best to act like regular 3k users when it comes to closing homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective of this is to get a better sense of what kinds of questions should and shouldn't be prohibited under our new and improved homework policy (which will come into existence at some time in the future). Accordingly, while this experiment is going on, here is what close voters (i.e. those with 3k+ rep) should do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Consider the existing homework policy more of a guideline than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;- Instead of voting to close questions because they break the policy (as you normally would), only vote to close those questions which you would like to see prohibited by our new, to-be-written homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;- While you're doing it, think about why you are voting to close certain questions and not others, and try to come up with some description of what makes a homework-like question closeworthy for you. Post your feedback on this meta post (as comments or answers, as appropriate) and/or in the [chat room](chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this trial period ends, we'll take the feedback into account when working toward drafting a new homework policy. As always, reasoned arguments will be given more weight than something pithy that gets a lot of votes. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="cbb7adbc-3a52-443b-b516-a8436106bd9b" CreationDate="2014-02-23T07:48:50.873" UserId="2751" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The question asking about some properties of a twisted Hamiltonian system **is**  conceptual, even though it asks about the issue at a technical level. It not less conceptual than the more basic question brought up [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5526/2751) and who's attracting closevotes is questioned too, but the twisted Hamiltonian question is about a more advanced topic and at a higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already said [several times](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5489/2751) (and please dont ignore the fact that my answer there is the one with the highest net scoere so there *are* people who agree with this even on meta) elsewhere, technical questions, as they come up from reading books about advanced topics, following higher level courses, or even from studying research papers should not be prohibited. Forbidding such technical questions about advanced topics is detrimental for people who want to learn physics at a beyond popular equation free technial level, and it would be bad for the originally targetted audience of the site (researchers, academics, and students of physics and astronomy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twisted Hamiltonian question is a legitimate technical question too, it is even conceptual, so IMHO the closevoters have been wrong. In summary, this particular question should not be closed, but allowed to attract nice and interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="180c42d5-8d1c-4644-a5e4-fd653520f981" CreationDate="2014-02-23T10:06:35.733" UserId="5477" Text="The question seems mostly to be within a quote block, but I can't tell whether it's a quote from somewhere (e.g. a textbook or past exam paper) or whether the user just randomly put quotes around the question for no reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former then it obviously should be closed according to the current policy. I don't think there's any room for debate there. The policy says that homework questions should show some effort, which clearly isn't the case here, with the question in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* room for debate about whether it should be allowed by any future policy (honestly I'm on the fence about that), but since the new policy isn't in effect yet I'd say it should stay closed, at least until the user can reword it so it doesn't look like a verbatim quote from somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="983a6f8b-a7e9-437b-9ab9-d8f2b26b251c" CreationDate="2014-02-23T10:12:27.443" UserId="5477" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="The question seems mostly to be within a quote block, but I can't tell whether it's a quote from somewhere (e.g. a textbook or past exam paper) or whether the user just randomly put quotes around the question for no reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former then it obviously should be closed according to the current policy. I don't think there's any room for debate there. The policy says that homework questions should show some effort, which clearly isn't the case here, with the question in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* room for debate about whether it should be allowed by any future policy (honestly I'm on the fence about that), but since the new policy isn't in effect yet I'd say it should stay closed, at least until the user can reword it so it doesn't look like a verbatim quote from somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if this is just a case of &quot;random quotation marks&quot; then there's no problem except the formatting. In that case it's a conceptual question and the user has made some effort to specify it clearly, and it should be easy enough for the OP to edit so that it doesn't give the impression of being a copy-and-paste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="d2207779-af5b-4abc-ab01-62b2bf2c5c3f" CreationDate="2014-02-23T10:26:54.927" UserId="5477" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="The question seems mostly to be within a quote block, but I can't tell whether it's a quote from somewhere (e.g. a textbook or past exam paper) or whether the user just randomly put quotes around the question for no reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**edit**: the quote block was edited in by someone other than the OP. I've now removed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former then it obviously should be closed according to the current policy. I don't think there's any room for debate there. The policy says that homework questions should show some effort, which clearly isn't the case here, with the question in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* room for debate about whether it should be allowed by any future policy (honestly I'm on the fence about that), but since the new policy isn't in effect yet I'd say it should stay closed, at least until the user can reword it so it doesn't look like a verbatim quote from somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if this is just a case of &quot;random quotation marks&quot; then there's no problem except the formatting. In that case it's a conceptual question and the user has made some effort to specify it clearly, and it should be easy enough for the OP to edit so that it doesn't give the impression of being a copy-and-paste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="da95a103-5a03-474e-9657-abe561c39ad4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T14:35:35.227" UserId="520" Text="I want to say a few words about the graduate student experience as I lived it and have watched friends and mentees live it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Every graduate student, bar none, at some point asks a friend or teacher or adviser to help them derive some line from a text book that they haven't gotten, only to say the equivalent of *&quot;Well, that was obvious!&quot;* when shown the answer.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Needed and seeking out help is not, in and of itself, rare or anything to be ashamed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Every successful physicist is loathe to ask for help with this kind of thing in their own sub-field. They'll look in others texts, and attack the problem from multiple angles on their own first.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  When dabbling in someone else's discipline that they have no intention of mastering, all bets are off. The first thing to do is find a subject expert willing to walk you past the road-blocks. But you'll come away have been shown the work, not having learned the work. And successful physicists know the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* More importantly, anyone who makes a habit of asking for help with reading material in their chosen sub-field *isn't going to make it*. The biggest thing that happens (or should happen) in grad school is a sorting of those who can make progress without supervision and guidance from those who basically can't.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Heck, quite a large fraction of people who can make progress on their own are not going to &quot;make it&quot; if you define that phase by nailing down a tenured R1 position of a staff scientist job at a major laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the upshot of all of this is that I think making it *too easy* (and anonymous, none the less) to get that kind of help does budding scientists a bad turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this position is not popular and not even consistent with what Stack Exchange is about, but I stand by the idea that *&quot;Help me derive line #.## out of Author&quot;* question should not be allowed. Nor exercises typically assigned in upper-division and graduate course work. I am quite sure that all the professionals here can *smell* a homework problem and that the difference between them and a question asked by a student reading ahead is generally quite clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always I argue for a firm hand on this: **let's treat students with respect and help them to get the education that they deserve by not doing their damn work for them.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12386" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="e1f9f365-be14-4bcb-87a2-e054f23a6bf3" CreationDate="2014-02-23T14:45:57.230" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/why-you-must-login-to-ask-a-question-in-physics-stackexchange-com" />
  <row Id="12387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="6591665c-13e9-4bc3-864f-f7baf0aab7d3" CreationDate="2014-02-23T14:39:12.353" UserDisplayName="Error" Text="Why you must login to ask a question in http://physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;while other sites are free and open to everyone?&#xD;&#xA;Link: [How does it work](http://stackexchange.com/about)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**you can ask or answer questions without even bothering of register**...&#xD;&#xA;Why Phys.SE is out of scope of Stackexchange!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="6591665c-13e9-4bc3-864f-f7baf0aab7d3" CreationDate="2014-02-23T14:39:12.353" UserDisplayName="Error" Text="Why you must login to ask a question in physics.stackexchange.com?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="6591665c-13e9-4bc3-864f-f7baf0aab7d3" CreationDate="2014-02-23T14:39:12.353" UserDisplayName="Error" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="cebcc7f6-9d7a-4df9-8cb7-905dba7706b6" CreationDate="2014-02-23T14:51:43.807" UserId="520" Text="As far as I know this is mistaken. Physics Stack Exchange should be just like every other stack exchange in basic mechanics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="cac5386f-637b-40be-a895-185a56a1fcdc" CreationDate="2014-02-23T16:19:52.543" UserId="31782" Text="I asked this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98731/effects-of-microwaves  a few days ago. I really asked some offtopic things but now i've edited it appropriately. But it is still closed.   &#xD;&#xA; So how should edit this to make it on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="cac5386f-637b-40be-a895-185a56a1fcdc" CreationDate="2014-02-23T16:19:52.543" UserId="31782" Text="How can i make my question On topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="cac5386f-637b-40be-a895-185a56a1fcdc" CreationDate="2014-02-23T16:19:52.543" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="fcfc2290-3d66-4c51-b5c9-b44577e94928" CreationDate="2014-02-23T16:27:47.777" UserId="520" Text="My personal pet peeve here is that you *still* have four distinct questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One question per &quot;question&quot;, already!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor is &quot;teach me an entire sub-discipline&quot; properly scoped for a Stack Exchange site, and that seems to be the nature of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="86097297-2545-4ffd-ae21-13ec6d87245d" CreationDate="2014-02-23T16:48:40.113" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Questions 1 and 2 are biology, not physics. We can put upper bounds on the physical effects of something, but it is up to biologists to determine if that is harmful to the organism. These questions are also marginally on-topic for [at least one technical site][1] and definitely on-topic for [the local site for general skeptical inquiries][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions 3 and 4 can be made on-topic here, but they should be **separate** questions. 3 should be phrased in a way to ask about conceptually how microwaves heat living (i.e. water-rich, organic) material. 4 should ask about whether such frequencies are focused by the eye (note that the vitreous humor is at least as important as the lens proper in humans, the former being essentially water as far as physics is concerned, the latter a crystal in some sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is not for physics to say what the harm is, *unless* you provide the biology necessary for that judgment. For example, if you give a correspondence between electrons ejected from DNA and cancer rate, a physicist can tell you something like &quot;sitting next to a cell tower will cause XXX excess displaced electrons per DNA strand per day due to thermal motions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I make no guarantees though that these questions have not been asked already. You should check those linked questions in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://superuser.com/questions/718650/paranoid-parent-wifi-safe-for-baby&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1178/are-wifi-waves-harmful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="1ec8ad46-1e10-40c6-b3c8-7b4d84b8ec93" CreationDate="2014-02-23T17:43:27.390" UserId="124" Comment="add note about referring to new policy" Text="**http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100236/which-component-shows-spin-squeezing-under-twisting-hamiltonian**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a contentious debate emerging about whether this question, currently at [revision 5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/100236/5), should be open or not. Standard practice is to bring the discussion to meta, so here we are to discuss: is it right for revision 5 to be on hold or not, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify: I think there's agreement that the question should be on hold according to the current homework policy. Here we should address whether whatever new policy we come up with should also put such questions on hold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="0b4a0d17-e2b0-4e26-b5ef-281e2dad1187" CreationDate="2014-02-23T17:48:30.870" UserId="124" Text="The way the question is worded seems to me to be indicative of being copied and pasted out of a textbook or a problem set. In particular, the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you answer this without assumptions on the initial state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is characteristic of how one would write a homework problem, but not how one would ask an honest conceptual question. Therefore I think it should be on hold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="1b0a69b3-05a3-4301-9a9e-c19ab68a8334" CreationDate="2014-02-23T18:50:11.710" UserId="124" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="The way the question is worded seems to me to be indicative of being copied and pasted out of a textbook or a problem set. In particular, the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you answer this without assumptions on the initial state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is characteristic of how one would write a homework problem, but not how one would ask an honest conceptual question. Therefore I think it should be on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has clarified that this is not copied from somewhere, in this case, although I think the more general point about the phrasing stands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="7b4fc9ac-19e3-44a1-b1ce-4fdce49d277b" CreationDate="2014-02-24T02:27:36.170" UserId="8563" Text="I also observe this behaviour. Visiting the site on incognito chrome and trying to ask a question prompts me directly for a log in. From a random smattering of sites from the bottom of this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - TeX, Web Applications, Webmasters, Game Development (and presumably most sites) show visitors straight to the Ask a Question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Overflow, Programmers, and possibly others, directly prompt you for a log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ServerFault (and others?) sends users to [a pretty nice How to Ask page](http://serverfault.com/questions/ask/advice), including a prominent search bar, that won't let you proceed to the question page until you promise to &quot;keep these tips in mind when asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure why the log-in prompt is enabled for this site. **It should be disabled** as we do not really have much of a spam problem. At most, we should have the ServerFault version, but I should think even that is unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="953c8e08-02a4-4002-98d5-fc22855707a7" CreationDate="2014-02-24T05:16:12.933" UserId="1492" Text="I think that this type of question  should not be closed. It is not wrong/out-of-present-day-physics, or incoherent or without a reference for context. Even if I might think that this is homework for a graduate level course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I strongly believe that at graduate level a physicist will stand or fall by the research he/she can do and the purpose of this board should not be to teach diligence/the-honor-system to graduate students. It seems to me  that the site aims to be a web  repository of knowledge where somebody googling for &quot;twisting Hamiltonian&quot; will find a relevant answer and links to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be a pity if it ends up a repository on simple conceptual problems in physics ( these I can easily answer because my mathematical tools are rusty). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="7b909caf-4c4a-4986-bb10-26470926497f" CreationDate="2014-02-24T05:29:30.963" UserId="1492" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="I think that this type of question  should not be closed. It is not wrong/out-of-present-day-physics, or incoherent or without a reference for context. Even if I might think that this is homework for a graduate level course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I strongly believe that at graduate level a physicist will stand or fall by the research he/she can do and the purpose of this board should not be to teach diligence/the-honor-system to graduate students. It seems to me  that the site aims to be a web  repository of knowledge where somebody googling for &quot;twisting Hamiltonian&quot; will find a relevant answer and links to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be a pity if it ends up a repository on simple conceptual problems in physics ( these I can easily answer because my mathematical tools are rusty). I have lost count on how many times I have contributed to answer the &quot;wave particle duality&quot; connundrum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="1837dd74-55c9-479d-b957-462d425c9400" CreationDate="2014-02-24T05:49:19.337" UserId="1492" Text="I will not be able to follow the chat discussion on this because the time is way past my bedtime even if it is east coast time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The type of  questions that I think it is fair to close are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Highschool level homework with no effort towards the solution, and this with a kind explanation in the comments, so that the kid does not become discouraged by an inimical physicists front,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; wrong/out-of-present-day-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; incoherent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;without a reference for context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly believe that at graduate level a physicist will stand or fall by the research he/she can do, not the homework he/she can solve. IMO the purpose of this board should not be to teach diligence/the-honor-system to graduate students. It seems to me that the site aims to be a web repository of knowledge where somebody googling even for a graduate level question in mathematical formulations, will find a relevant answer and links to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a mathematical/theoretical question is not answered that is an answer in itself, that the general physics community was not interested enough to spend the effort to answer it.  The site will reach the limit of its competence in answering questions, or the limit of the width of the mathematically/theoretically oriented people following the site and willing to spend the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be a pity if the site ends up just a repository on simple conceptual problems in physics ( these I can easily answer because my mathematical tools are rusty). I have lost count on how many times I have contributed to answer the &quot;wave particle duality&quot; conundrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="766c3b9e-40d4-42b7-9e60-9bcc856fe392" CreationDate="2014-02-24T20:03:33.207" UserId="8563" Text="Since this has been brought up a few times, here's the available info on requesting a temporary suspension of one's account to help with site overuse issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest I can remember is [this comment of Shog9's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2746/request-for-establishing-a-new-privilege-to-undo-a-ban/2748#comment5815_2746)* ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SDEov.png)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen more than one person request a suspension voluntarily due to realizing they were unable to balance their time on the site with other responsibilities... – Shog9♦ Dec 6 '12 at 17:36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though he quickly would &quot;generally suggest other ways of temporarily revoking your own access&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has come up a few times, from what I can tell, in MSO, and particularly [Can an account be self-suspended](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/106604/can-an-account-be-self-suspended) and [&quot;Ban myself&quot; button in user profiles](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/32299/ban-myself-button-in-user-profiles). The useful-looking [How do you escape an addiction to Stack Overflow?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/21774/how-do-you-escape-an-addiction-to-stackoverflow-or-other-it-sites) has been closed for some reason. It has definitely happened occasionally but it is my impression that the SE team is in general not particularly in favour of this. In this site, it would come down to whether our mod team think it's the most appropriate course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that like most other artificial devices to stop your participation - chrome nanny, userscripts, host file modifications - it is easy to circumvent by setting up a new account. It does have the advantage that your reputation is and privileges are locked away from you, but if you've managed to sidestep the ban then all you've accomplished as a whole is to make your experience of the site more miserable and more guilt-ridden than before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I don't think this is really the way to go. I don't agree with Nikolaj's tone, but if you find you can't stop coming here, you should see it, at least for the sake of self-analysis, as an addiction, and learn to come to grips with it that way. Find out what triggers you, personally, to come here instead of working on your research, and change those triggers. Or simply drive them down to an acceptable level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be a shame to watch you go, though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Go there if you want but please, *please* don't let's resurrect that thread.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="8d51e522-f8f6-45af-8996-a5ba3db939d1" CreationDate="2014-02-24T20:26:44.943" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed links from outward post. Still present in revision history, though, as planned from the beginning; there's no need to link to such an explosive thread here." Text="Since this has been brought up a few times, here's the available info on requesting a temporary suspension of one's account to help with site overuse issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest I can remember is a comment of Shog9's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen more than one person request a suspension voluntarily due to realizing they were unable to balance their time on the site with other responsibilities... – Shog9♦ Dec 6 '12 at 17:36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though he quickly would &quot;generally suggest other ways of temporarily revoking your own access&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has come up a few times, from what I can tell, in MSO, and particularly [Can an account be self-suspended](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/106604/can-an-account-be-self-suspended) and [&quot;Ban myself&quot; button in user profiles](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/32299/ban-myself-button-in-user-profiles). The useful-looking [How do you escape an addiction to Stack Overflow?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/21774/how-do-you-escape-an-addiction-to-stackoverflow-or-other-it-sites) has been closed for some reason. It has definitely happened occasionally but it is my impression that the SE team is in general not particularly in favour of this. In this site, it would come down to whether our mod team think it's the most appropriate course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that like most other artificial devices to stop your participation - chrome nanny, userscripts, host file modifications - it is easy to circumvent by setting up a new account. It does have the advantage that your reputation is and privileges are locked away from you, but if you've managed to sidestep the ban then all you've accomplished as a whole is to make your experience of the site more miserable and more guilt-ridden than before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I don't think this is really the way to go. I don't agree with Nikolaj's tone, but if you find you can't stop coming here, you should see it, at least for the sake of self-analysis, as an addiction, and learn to come to grips with it that way. Find out what triggers you, personally, to come here instead of working on your research, and change those triggers. Or simply drive them down to an acceptable level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be a shame to watch you go, though!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12405" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="6b9fbf9d-0917-4345-9612-c60377b189f4" CreationDate="2014-02-24T20:29:14.260" UserId="2911" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[915],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2911,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="c8347dd4-8994-4ba2-8252-82b31b57cb3c" CreationDate="2014-02-25T09:19:12.897" UserId="5477" Text="I noticed that this question was migrated to the new Astronomy beta site: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1845/spotting-international-space-station&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding was that since the merger with the old astronomy site, all astronomy questions were on topic here, including practical, non-physicsy ones like this. In practice we don't really see much of this type of question, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally if a question is on topic it won't be migrated (unless the OP asks for it, which I guess could have happened here), but this one was migrated very rapidly, so I was wondering whether our policy on this type of question has changed now that the new site is online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only asking out of curiosity. Such a change in policy would be very reasonable under the circumstances - I just didn't see any discussion of it on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="c8347dd4-8994-4ba2-8252-82b31b57cb3c" CreationDate="2014-02-25T09:19:12.897" UserId="5477" Text="Has our policy on astronomy questions changed now that Astronomy beta is open?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="c8347dd4-8994-4ba2-8252-82b31b57cb3c" CreationDate="2014-02-25T09:19:12.897" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="7d473369-62aa-4273-aa1b-0d1e409df801" CreationDate="2014-02-25T13:38:06.797" UserId="25301" Text="I'd like to first point out that the Astronomy is in Beta and doesn't seem to be [doing too great](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy), so if you have an interest in it: go and participate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go to the [Definitions section](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709?phase=definition) of the Area51 proposal for Astronomy, most of the answers to the proposal questions and the *Example Questions* themselves suggest that the site is supposed to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an academic site about the observation and scientific study of celestial objects.&#xD;&#xA;([source](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/a/11467/94239))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that questions about observing something in space should be migrated over there, while questions about the physics of something in space would be on topic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="fe22c435-910e-413f-b42f-2fe8388305a5" CreationDate="2014-02-25T15:01:42.557" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 114 characters in body" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was non-zero so this Loperator aninhilated his stated post.*  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sorry! D' Alembert has killed the page, perhaps because it was in a massless state.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or... we could put text saying &quot;LQG&quot;,  since LQG is ill-defined ? : )    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="40830508-3fde-4989-9ce6-b8d0bacdbbd6" CreationDate="2014-02-25T15:44:20.177" UserId="8563" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](http://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](http://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="ff8edcca-a184-441a-8648-dfba13940d24" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:10:39.573" UserId="8563" Text="I recently misread [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100816/whats-wrong-with-this-faster-than-light-gedankenexperiment) and wrote a nice answer for what turned out not to be the question at all. I then proceeded to look quite carefully for the question I had actually answered, and I found that we don't really have a question (or answers) about the specific scheme described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The choice of measurement basis on one half of an entangled state affects the other half. Can this be used to communicate faster than light?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100864/the-choice-of-measurement-basis-on-one-half-of-an-entangled-state-affects-the-ot/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore went ahead and posted it as a self-answered Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know we have had a ton of similar questions, and we have certainly touched on it edgewise (as in e.g. [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/2209/8563)), but I could not find this specific scheme, which is otherwise quite a popular misconception about entanglement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest related question, I think, is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55028/epr-type-experiments-and-faster-than-light-communication-using-interference-effe, but this question (a) uses collapse and not measurement as a proposed method, and (b) is unclear and not particularly helpful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread does not serve any particular purpose, but I set it up to avoid long discussions in comments. If you have proposed duplicates, I would be interested in seeing them and discussing whether they are indeed or not. I do feel, though, that we need a nice, simple and understandable canonical question for this scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="ff8edcca-a184-441a-8648-dfba13940d24" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:10:39.573" UserId="8563" Text="Yet another quantum-entanglement-gives-faster-than-light-communication question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="ff8edcca-a184-441a-8648-dfba13940d24" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:10:39.573" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|specific-question|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="7c5e9e68-b2c4-4b11-9a15-131ff25dce8f" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:15:50.557" UserId="124" Text="&gt; My understanding was that since the merger with the old astronomy site, all astronomy questions were on topic here, including practical, non-physicsy ones like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was my understanding as well: that everything on topic for the new astronomy site is on topic for us, and thus we should never be migrating questions to that site. Evidently some other people don't think the same, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="00fa17af-66c6-40ad-bcf3-443c5593d45b" CreationDate="2014-02-25T20:40:07.760" UserId="2451" Text="I) As for the general principles, when the old Astro.SE was closed, it was decided on Phys.SE that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. astronomy questions are [on-topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1197/2451), and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. to [import](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2451) all posts from the old Astro.SE to Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally there is also a SE rule which states that migration of a post (from one SE sister site to another) should only be considered if it is deemed off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) As for the particular [post](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1845), I was the moderator that migrated it. I guess I in a weak moment thought that it should be migrated to Astro.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="c445d6a3-0966-4964-9fd0-74d0fef6e976" CreationDate="2014-02-25T22:29:19.877" UserId="22494" Text="Moderating Physics.SE is clearly a lot of work.  We attract a lot of off-topic posts and crazy crackpot theories.  I don't see a lot of thanks or appreciation going to our moderators either.  **Thank you to all of our hard working moderators for handling all of the work our site creates!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if we had more moderators the load would be better balanced.  On of our moderators, [mbq][1] hasn't been active in quite a while.  Even if we don't need to increase the total number of moderators, it seems reasonable to discuss shifting mbq's moderator role to a more active member.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I think we should look into increasing our number of active moderators.  I don't have any data to back me up and I can't read our active moderators minds to know how burnt out they are but I think we should consider reclaiming at least on moderator role and possibly adding another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the community think?  Do we need to do anything?  Should we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="c445d6a3-0966-4964-9fd0-74d0fef6e976" CreationDate="2014-02-25T22:29:19.877" UserId="22494" Text="Is it time to review and update our moderators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="c445d6a3-0966-4964-9fd0-74d0fef6e976" CreationDate="2014-02-25T22:29:19.877" UserId="22494" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="713605c4-1a01-4e78-9367-1e68bfbb4972" CreationDate="2014-02-25T22:58:07.093" UserId="2751" Text="I dont agree with this at all, community moderation has increased a lot in the past months and I often got the impression that some reviewers (in particular close voters) are even a bit too eager at times. There is no need for _more_ moderators on the site. And I personally think the last few days with moderators refraining from unilaterally closing non obviously bad/spammy/offensive etc questions have done the site a lot of good. If mods only clean up obviously bad things and leave everything else to the community, there is no need to increase their number for them being able to reduce their workload." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="d7bef330-ffd7-423b-acbf-3d6d714e0b18" CreationDate="2014-02-25T23:46:59.563" UserId="124" Text="I certainly wouldn't mind having an additional moderator to reduce the load, but I don't feel a pressing need to add someone to the crew either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the bigger need is for more 3k users. We have reasonable policies on what sorts of questions to put on hold, and we have a community which is able to revise those policies and create new ones as needed; where we seem to be lacking is having enough people to enforce those policies in a timely manner by casting enough close votes within the first minutes or hours of a hold-worthy question being posted. Of course having an additional moderator would help with that, but the better solution to this problem is more responsible users with more reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12422" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="b35603ee-e999-45df-beca-83450b9b1e21" CreationDate="2014-02-26T01:40:50.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/438488797752598528" />
  <row Id="12423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="53ac972a-ab0c-4db5-afca-01393d491764" CreationDate="2014-02-26T12:27:26.857" UserId="31782" Text="Recently i raised a flag on meta.Phys.SE .  &#xD;&#xA;Practically the flag was declined, that is no action was taken by the moderators. But the strange thing is that it is not declined officially. It is marked as **disputed**.  &#xD;&#xA;What does it mean? I don't want to know about this particular flag. I want to know about this in general i.e. how and why some flags are disputed?  &#xD;&#xA;Can flags on the main site too be disputed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="53ac972a-ab0c-4db5-afca-01393d491764" CreationDate="2014-02-26T12:27:26.857" UserId="31782" Text="How a flag is disputed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="53ac972a-ab0c-4db5-afca-01393d491764" CreationDate="2014-02-26T12:27:26.857" UserId="31782" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="228bdc43-a350-48e4-a757-461970e2ffc9" CreationDate="2014-02-26T17:08:56.440" UserId="6634" Text="So we have a close reason for engineering questions because selection of materials for building that ultralight in the garage are off-topic. But where is the line drawn between engineering and experimental design? The question I'm thinking of specifically is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88165/pressure-applied-to-flat-plate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any context, the asker could be designing a vacuum cleaner and this would be off-topic as an engineering question. Or OP could be setting up a shock-tube experiment, or a low-pressure chamber to study some particles or something, in which case it would be on-topic as an experimental design question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without any context, how does one draw the line? Even with context, does the engineering close reason indicate we no longer want questions about building experiments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="228bdc43-a350-48e4-a757-461970e2ffc9" CreationDate="2014-02-26T17:08:56.440" UserId="6634" Text="What is engineering and what is experimental design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="228bdc43-a350-48e4-a757-461970e2ffc9" CreationDate="2014-02-26T17:08:56.440" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="0dc296db-6cc2-4a4a-a984-2e1999da7f24" CreationDate="2014-02-26T19:41:07.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/438760657480335360" />
  <row Id="12430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5554" RevisionGUID="33843075-3b38-420f-83bd-74d789058d8d" CreationDate="2014-02-26T19:47:05.720" UserId="124" Text="Hm... after thinking about it, this is rather complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rule of thumb that might work: physics experiments generally involve some sort of extreme condition that makes normal, everyday materials or building techniques unsuitable. If the question identifies a specific requirement of that type, and displays prior research showing that the OP has verified that normal materials are unsuitable, it should be fine, because the properties of materials under extreme conditions is within the domain of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, questions about what materials or building techniques are commonly used in physics experiments, even the more ordinary ones, are fine. In this case the question would have to identify that it is actually about a physics experiment. For example, &quot;what are muon scintillators normally filled with?&quot; would be okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which ask how to calculate properties of a material, like the one you linked, are also fine. But the key here is that the question needs to ask _how_ to do the calculation, not just &quot;calculate this for me,&quot; for the same reason we don't allow no-effort homework questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12431" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="42423367-0d17-40f3-b19d-f21157c3d27e" CreationDate="2014-02-26T21:09:21.780" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4737],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:21817,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jinawee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="541a436d-df18-4923-a032-ccaed5f18e75" CreationDate="2014-02-27T10:07:34.607" UserId="40580" Text="I am a little nervous to saying about this for fear of losing rep points but, I feel that users with more reputation should lose more reputation for making the same &quot;mistakes&quot; as newbies (like me). For instance, if I got a couple down votes on this question I would not be allowed to comment anymore. If a user with 3k+ votes gets twice as many down votes as I do, nothing changes for them. It (at least for me) discourages me from trying to answer questions and fully participate on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point: Users with more rep points can throw around bad answers without much repercussions, while newer users get smashed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this doesn't sound like a fair thing for more experienced users. And in no way am I trying to criticize SE. In fact I am very pleased with the way physics SE is run and I believe that its current style of operation is the most beneficial to the physics community. I just think new users should be treated (point wise) less harshly as experienced users. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="541a436d-df18-4923-a032-ccaed5f18e75" CreationDate="2014-02-27T10:07:34.607" UserId="40580" Text="Opinion for bracketed point system for users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="541a436d-df18-4923-a032-ccaed5f18e75" CreationDate="2014-02-27T10:07:34.607" UserId="40580" Text="|discussion|reputation|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="7ee83197-3820-4bc6-a2ef-6da6c668df4f" CreationDate="2014-02-27T11:02:31.280" UserId="26044" Text="It shouldn't matter how much reputation you have, you should always prevent answers which are downvoted. Since we are not dealing with opinion based questions, downvotes are given for bad answers. (Of course, sometimes there are those unjustified downvotes, but I guess (I hope), it happens rarely.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what would prevent you from giving bad answers? A higher penalty if you have a higher reputation? Maybe. That's the same discussion with progressive taxes, some call it fair, some not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen users with 100k+ asking about why they got downvoted and they justified their downvoted answer, so they cared about the downvotes. Since the system works, I don't see a reason to change it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="6d7c5eb7-9f30-4777-b1f9-92bd5381b125" CreationDate="2014-02-27T11:43:20.343" UserId="17440" Text="[![LaTeX Search][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9NapU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latexsearch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12443" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="43fae03c-4001-4aac-b1b1-3af738f8cd98" CreationDate="2014-02-27T11:43:20.343" UserId="17440" />
  <row Id="12444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="92734ac2-d3e5-4929-875f-2bdaa484a8c7" CreationDate="2014-02-27T12:34:41.540" UserId="8563" Text="I think that your point, that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users with more rep points can throw around bad answers without much repercussions, while newer users get smashed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is wrong on both counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As an 'established user', posting an egregiously wrong answer and getting called out on it is a lot more visible, and a lot more embarrassing, than for new users. Further, people will be more focused on helping new users understand why their answer is wrong, and they will be less forgiving with more established users, tending to simply point out where the mistake is and why it is fatal if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Even as a new user, it is actually very hard to get &quot;smashed&quot; by a wrong answer. I definitely empathize with the feeling, as a new user, that every bit of rep is precious as you try to climb the privileges ladder; all of us felt the same at some point. However, downvotes are very light! It takes five downvotes to undo the rep from a single upvote. It would take thirteen downvotes to make you drop down the shortest privilege gap after 15 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are a feedback mechanism. They are a way for the community to tell you that your content is incorrect, and they are an opportunity for you to use the community to help you fix it. You should of course be open-minded and reasonable, but if you are then you will either end up with a correct answer or an understanding of why your previous thoughts were wrong. Either way, in real-world terms you come out ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you manage to fix your answer, then you will start getting upvotes. If the answer is fundamentally flawed, there is nothing wrong with deleting it! There is no shame in it and very few people will even know it's there. It will also [restore your reputation](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/2638/184688): you can force a recalculation of your rep on the [reputation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) (or it will happen automatically with some regularity) and this will not count downvotes on deleted questions. Reputation-wise, you're back to where you started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we're speaking about downvotes: don't be afraid to post things like these in meta, either. Downvotes here do not affect your reputation, and tend to be an indication of whether people agree with your proposals or the premises of your question. As long as you're polite and open-minded, and follow the usual civility rules, nothing much can happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="885598e3-5284-4d14-ac29-08b2857e49d1" CreationDate="2014-02-27T23:17:25.440" UserId="28958" Text="I suspect this proposal is off-topic here but I thought I would give it a try. I apologize in advance if this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've begun watching video lectures on Effective Field Theory with a focus on particle physics from [MIT][1] and going through the homework. I thought it would be fun to go through them at the same pace with other users on the site. That way we could ask questions the with regards to the lectures and the homework on Stackexchange and someone would likely be able to answer them. I think it would be good for the site and encourage high level questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea for the book club is to do 2 lectures a week and follow with the HW. I like to TeX notes for courses that I take so I'll provide lecture notes. If you would be interested in the idea let me know and I will put together a more firm proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you are not interested in joining but have any input on how such an idea would work best on the site, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-851-effective-field-theory-spring-2013/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="885598e3-5284-4d14-ac29-08b2857e49d1" CreationDate="2014-02-27T23:17:25.440" UserId="28958" Text="Effective Field Theory book club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="885598e3-5284-4d14-ac29-08b2857e49d1" CreationDate="2014-02-27T23:17:25.440" UserId="28958" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5561" RevisionGUID="a0a840f6-0168-494a-b353-32f7b7fae6d4" CreationDate="2014-02-27T23:33:51.590" UserId="6634" Text="I think in terms of making it work on the site, your best bet would be to set up a chat room for those following along to discuss etc informally. When questions come up that are conceptual in nature and are a good fit for the site, it would be good to put them in as questions and answer them on the main site. But for other questions, particularly ones about how to work through the homework assignments, those would probably best be handled informally in a chat room. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12449" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="ad7b02df-69bf-4751-952b-778a67a955ce" CreationDate="2014-02-28T04:09:07.250" UserId="-1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:21817,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jinawee&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:11062,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Waffle's Crazy Peanut&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="838b9a4e-490d-4e50-ba7a-8ec4d9ce833e" CreationDate="2014-03-01T04:19:27.363" UserId="6634" Text="This is really just posted to get the conversation rolling and please don't infer my view on the topic from the question -- I'll post an answer when I have some time that will reflect my opinion on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there was a recent [tag:big-list] question seeking to create a massive compilation of reading materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101187/best-sets-of-physics-lecture-notes-and-articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed because it definitely does not conform with our current policies concerning [big-list questions][1] nor those concerning [reference-request questions][2] and the [related discussion][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite clearly not conforming to any of the established policies, the question has attracted 3 reopen votes. I have been [admonished in the past][4] for voting to close against the prevalent opinion described on Meta, so I would like to find out why reopen votes are being cast on a question that so clearly violates all of the established policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the discussion here is really about whether we still feel the [tag:big-list] questions are off-topic or not and more specifically whether the question linked above should be opened despite it being against existing policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5205/dealing-with-level-of-resources-in-requests&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/software-for-calculating-feynman-diagrams#comment197589_96510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="838b9a4e-490d-4e50-ba7a-8ec4d9ce833e" CreationDate="2014-03-01T04:19:27.363" UserId="6634" Text="Big list resource questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="838b9a4e-490d-4e50-ba7a-8ec4d9ce833e" CreationDate="2014-03-01T04:19:27.363" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="abce34df-9c17-4501-b845-9d879441ad6f" CreationDate="2014-03-01T08:44:10.747" UserId="7433" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/silicon-based-life was closed  for being off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possibly an astrobiology question, and was migrated from the old Astronomy.SE. In which case it is on topic by current rules. Probably. (we might want to have a more critical look into exactly which topics from Astro we have made on topic, as of now it's just the hard-to-verify &quot;what used to be on topic is on topic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed again due to it being broad, and possibly still off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do with this post?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="abce34df-9c17-4501-b845-9d879441ad6f" CreationDate="2014-03-01T08:44:10.747" UserId="7433" Text="Should this astrobiology question be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="abce34df-9c17-4501-b845-9d879441ad6f" CreationDate="2014-03-01T08:44:10.747" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="6d867fac-d4eb-426f-a3e0-7702d4367816" CreationDate="2014-03-01T09:14:26.253" UserId="7433" Text="##Voting to close/reopen against policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton's correct [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @tpg2114 and others, we agreed in meta that questions about software exclusively used by and useful for physicists purpose are allowed. So there is no need to close this question, voted to leave open. Please do not overrule that agreement like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One should not silently oppose policies via the vote to close / vote to reopen buttons. While there is an intentional degree of subjectivity in the closing policies, there is a limit to it and if a post is objectively closeable (or non-closeable), one should not use the 3k tools against that. Too much of this might lead to a review ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wishes to overrule these policies, they are free to discuss it on meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is important for you to cast your votes according to your own assessment of the question. This is especially important when there is a great deal of subjectivity involved, either due to an intentionally subjective policy or the lack of a policy altogether. It's OK to vote against popular opinion on a post -- it helps give a true assessment of what the policies ought to be. But this only applies to cases where there is some subjectivity involved, not when you know that the post is objectively off topic by current policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, vote by the policy, not what you feel the policy should be. When there is subjective leeway offered by the policy or a lack of policy, vote according to what you feel and not what everyone else feels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Best Sets of Physics Lecture Notes and Articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the resources post, that seems to be the one [tag:resource-reccomendation] to rule them all. Extremely broad, since it more or less is a resource-rec for all physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we can do, however, is move the answers into the community wiki historical answers on the older, converted, book questions. I'm not sure if all have been converted yet (Emilio and I had managed a couple, not sure how many the volunteers managed to clear up), but if so we can just move the answers over. And possibly create new book questions for the ones where there aren't answers yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or move to the tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/software-for-calculating-feynman-diagrams#comment197589_96510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="19f08456-04dd-4d0c-99a2-0396b8a22a95" CreationDate="2014-03-01T09:38:14.567" UserId="7433" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/silicon-based-life was closed  for being off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possibly an astrobiology question, and was migrated from the old Astronomy.SE. In which case it is on topic by current rules. Probably. (we might want to have a more critical look into exactly which topics from Astro we have made on topic, as of now it's just the hard-to-verify &quot;what used to be on topic is on topic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed again due to it being broad, and possibly still off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do with this post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three points to be addressed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should astrobiology be on topic? To what extent?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the mentioned post count as acceptable astrobiology?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the mentioned post too broad? (this point is independent of the other two)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be clear as to what you're addressing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="fe2328fb-87d0-4e2d-870f-7ecabc827e15" CreationDate="2014-03-01T10:02:40.933" UserId="5477" Text="It is a fundamentally interdisciplinary question. Physicists, chemists, biologists and astronomers will all have their own take on it, so it makes sense for it to be on topic for all four sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could surely argue that it isn't strictly about physics (five people felt that way), but one could equally argue that it isn't (five people felt that way as well). It certainly isn't so blatantly obviously off topic that it requires a moderator to overrule the community's decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="1c79bebb-1ab8-4518-9674-2f2dde75d2bf" CreationDate="2014-03-01T11:29:34.460" UserId="5477" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamentally interdisciplinary question. Physicists, chemists, biologists and astronomers will all have their own take on it, so it makes sense for it to be on topic for all four sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could surely argue that it isn't strictly about physics (five people felt that way), but one could equally argue that it is (five people felt that way as well). It certainly isn't so blatantly obviously off topic that it requires a moderator to overrule the community's decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5566" RevisionGUID="0b4a0efc-6887-4638-9c09-432d5bd2d88e" CreationDate="2014-03-01T15:04:35.103" UserId="520" Text="What can I say guys, I've seen this topic raised many times in many contexts (Isaac Asimov even wrote on it once), but the answers have *always* been chemistry answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is a interesting--event fascinating topic--but interesting does not imply topicality on physics.se. Nor does utility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to be able to *show* new users that there are limits to what kinds of question we accept here and leaving old posts open simply because they interest us, rather than because they *belong* works against that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one I am not going to apologize for: it's a biology question and while they need interdisciplinary input that input comes almost entirely from chemistry. The broadness is a secondary issue as far as I am concern (though &quot;Let me write a list of questions and call it a singular question&quot; is certainly a pet peeve of mine)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="ec086d8e-3dd4-4007-8772-bebdd77a046a" CreationDate="2014-03-01T15:20:20.737" UserId="7433" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/silicon-based-life was closed  for being off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possibly an astrobiology question, and was migrated from the old Astronomy.SE. In which case it is on topic by current rules. Probably. (we might want to have a more critical look into exactly which topics from Astro we have made on topic, as of now it's just the hard-to-verify &quot;what used to be on topic is on topic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was reopened by five people, due to the reason above. It was closed again due to it being broad, and possibly still off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do with this post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three points to be addressed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should astrobiology be on topic? To what extent?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the mentioned post count as acceptable astrobiology?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the mentioned post too broad? (this point is independent of the other two)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be clear as to what you're addressing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="62aaf32f-18b0-43ff-9fc0-9638730c8367" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:18:16.180" UserId="26169" Text="I'm aware that we have a &quot;regularization&quot; tag, but I don't think this is the same as dimensional regularization. I've only just started learning about these concepts, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe regularization is the method of finding divergencies in integrals. Dimensional regularization is a certain method to regularize integrals almos always corresponding to Feynman integrals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the distinction between the two is large enough that it justifies the &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; tag. Especially, because &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; plays such an important role in QFT. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="62aaf32f-18b0-43ff-9fc0-9638730c8367" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:18:16.180" UserId="26169" Text="Would it be useful to have a &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="62aaf32f-18b0-43ff-9fc0-9638730c8367" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:18:16.180" UserId="26169" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="fcb14bc3-2df1-46d3-a282-263e68969e14" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:26:15.203" UserId="26169" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I'm aware that we have a &quot;regularization&quot; tag, but I don't think this is the same as dimensional regularization. I've only just started learning about these concepts, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe regularization is the method of finding divergencies in integrals. Dimensional regularization is a certain method to regularize integrals almos always corresponding to Feynman integrals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the distinction between the two is large enough that it justifies the &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; tag. Especially, because &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; plays such an important role in quantum field theory. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="f8d498c5-ebc8-4c95-9657-f329f881b5ca" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:37:31.790" UserId="26169" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I'm aware that we have a &quot;regularization&quot; tag, but I don't think this is the same as dimensional regularization. I've only just started learning about these concepts, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe regularization is the method of finding divergencies in integrals. Dimensional regularization is a certain method to regularize integrals almost always corresponding to Feynman integrals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the distinction between the two is large enough that it justifies the &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; tag. Especially, because &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; plays such an important role in quantum field theory. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="d60fd0eb-c30f-4bf5-b823-cc473cacf768" CreationDate="2014-03-01T17:11:03.067" UserId="26169" Text="I would really like for it to be possible to have one wiki message that contains a massive list of lecture notes that users find particularly useful. My suggestion is that we allow for on such message where people can add any website/notes that they find useful. However, I would suggest that every set of notes *must* have one or two lines pointing out what particular subject they address and why these note are so good. I believe this rule will ensure that people have actually used the notes themselves, instead of just googling, say, &quot;quantum mechanics&quot; and randomly add notes to the message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only disadvantage (I can think of) is that some of the links will die after some time. But I don't think this is the end of the world, and the pros will outweigh the cons ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="8aba7ec7-3596-4b66-af62-461fddc1c5a4" CreationDate="2014-03-01T17:38:04.433" UserId="8563" Text="There are two things that upset me quite a bit about this business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The role of moderators is to enact community consensus. When there isn't one, their role is to bring the question formally for community consideration on this meta site, so that a communal decision can be taken. In this particular instance, five people voted to close and five people voted to reopen. Neither of these is an indication that the question is on- or off-topic here; rather, they must be taken together as an indication that there is no consensus. Unilateral moderator action in these conditions is, I feel, out of line. This is regardless of whether the question was, or turns out to be, off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I simply do not see the point of closing old questions, and particularly ones which already have answers. If the motivation for that is to keep them from cluttering the front page, or out of a broken-windows approach, I believe closing them is in fact detrimental, and just brings more attention to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular question is on two gray areas but I would strongly dispute that either of them merits closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an astrobiology question and as such it is best answered by biologists, or possibly chemists. Indeed, if it were asked today, I would recommend direct migration to biology.se. However, this question was asked on the old astronomy beta and, having been on topic there, it should be taken as on topic here. It is now too old to be migrated, and there are very good reasons for that age limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Further than that, the reason we close questions as off-topic is because they clutter and take up the attention of people who do not have the expertise to answer them. This question has two perfectly good answers that quite patently satisfied the OP and are good resources for anyone who lands on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The other reason we close questions as off-topic is so that they don't invite new questions like them which, again, clutter the front page. I do not think this question does that. Anyone looking to ask such things would more naturally ask it in the new astronomy beta. If someone does ask it here, we can simply migrate to biology or astronomy as appropriate. If we ever get inundated with those then we can rethink closing old questions which create the impression that biology is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is indeed slightly too broad for the SE model. However, it has answers that address essentially every point raised. The reason we close questions as too broad is that they are simply unlikely to attract good answers and their broadness undermines their future usefulness. This question has attracted good answers which are short, concise and to the point. I do not think it is even a broken window, and its broadness harms no one. To put it clearly, I do not think it should be closed as too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having addressed this particular question, I do think that astrobiology questions have much better venues than this site. Unless the question really does involve physics, at least on the side of the astrobiology, we should point the posters to the biology, astronomy or chemistry betas, and migrate the questions there after consultation with the poster and the target site moderators. We do not get anywhere near enough of these to make the process unfeasibly long or complicated, and this should really be done on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fate of this particular question, I think it is a perfectly valid question and should not be closed, though it is arguably on the wrong site and is too old to be migrated. To keep consistency, and to satiate the moderator thirst &quot;to *show* new users that there are limits to what kinds of question we accept here&quot;, I propose that the question be reopened but that the following banner be added, as a quote, to the end of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that astrobiology questions are typically not on topic on this site unless they address specific physics issues. If you have a similar question, please consider posting it on our [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com), [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com) or [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sister sites. For more information, please refer to [this Physics Meta question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="64613678-82a7-49db-af90-e1849399144b" CreationDate="2014-03-01T17:59:48.530" UserId="26169" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I'm aware that we have a &quot;regularization&quot; tag, but I don't think this is the same as dimensional regularization. I've only just started learning about these concepts, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe regularization is the method of finding divergencies in integrals. Dimensional regularization is a certain method to regularize integrals almost always corresponding to Feynman diagrams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the distinction between the two is large enough that it justifies the &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; tag. Especially, because &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; plays such an important role in quantum field theory. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="79cf1700-5b0a-4d1b-a407-4ed9f8bd27c8" CreationDate="2014-03-01T19:07:14.563" UserId="8563" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="The best option is to use the `{}` button, or `Ctrl + k`, to create four indenting spaces which will format code like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as dmckee pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would generally recommend **not** altering the Mathematica code. When posting any code on the site, it should be in a form that it will run directly after being copied and pasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as it happens, Mathematica will automatically turn Greek ASCII characters, like `θ`, directly to their InputForm representation (i.e. `\[Theta]`) immediately upon pasting. It is therefore OK to change those characters to their ASCII representation. This is, in fact, what the [mathematica.se prettify userscript](http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/additional-useful-buttons-for-our-m-se-editor) does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, though, you can't expect _all_ your Mathematica code to be made completely clear. Take, for example, this piece of code,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sound[{Play[Re[E^(-((10000 I)/(4 10^-6 I + 60 t)))/Sqrt[10^-6 - 15 I t]], {t, 0, 15}]}]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I posted recently in [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63798/slinky-reverb-the-origin-of-the-iconic-star-wars-blaster-sound). It lost quite a bit of formatting (fraction, square root, exponential) in the transcription process, but I can't put that in and **I definitely shouldn't do something that compromises the code upon copy-paste.** Thus I left it like that; if a clearer exposition of what the code is saying is necessary then I'd recommend adding a LaTeX'd version of what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="7d71649f-e9fb-4520-bf6f-259ca700c2e2" CreationDate="2014-03-01T19:19:20.360" UserId="8563" Comment="added 838 characters in body" Text="There are two things that upset me quite a bit about this business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The role of moderators is to enact community consensus. When there isn't one, their role is to bring the question formally for community consideration on this meta site, so that a communal decision can be taken. A good example of what I consider successful moderator handling of such a situation is [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this particular instance, five people voted to close and five people voted to reopen. Neither of these is an indication that the question is on- or off-topic here; rather, they must be taken together as an indication that there is no consensus. Unilateral moderator action in these conditions is, I feel, out of line. This is regardless of whether the question was, or turns out to be, off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I simply do not see the point of closing old questions, and particularly ones which already have answers. If the motivation for that is to keep them from cluttering the front page, or out of a broken-windows approach, I believe closing them is in fact detrimental, and just brings more attention to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular question is on two gray areas but I would strongly dispute that either of them merits closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an astrobiology question and as such it is best answered by biologists, or possibly chemists. Indeed, if it were asked today, I would recommend direct migration to biology.se. However, this question was asked on the old astronomy beta and, having been on topic there, it should be taken as on topic here. It is now too old to be migrated, and there are very good reasons for that age limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Further than that, the reason we close questions as off-topic is because they clutter and take up the attention of people who do not have the expertise to answer them. This question has two perfectly good answers that quite patently satisfied the OP and are good resources for anyone who lands on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The other reason we close questions as off-topic is so that they don't invite new questions like them which, again, clutter the front page. I do not think this question does that. Anyone looking to ask such things would more naturally ask it in the new astronomy beta. If someone does ask it here, we can simply migrate to biology or astronomy as appropriate. If we ever get inundated with those then we can rethink closing old questions which create the impression that biology is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is indeed slightly too broad for the SE model. However, it has answers that address essentially every point raised. The reason we close questions as too broad is that they are simply unlikely to attract good answers and their broadness undermines their future usefulness. This question has attracted good answers which are short, concise and to the point. I do not think it is even a broken window, and its broadness harms no one. To put it clearly, I do not think it should be closed as too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that closing astronomy-related questions sends the message that any astronomy questions are off-topic here. This goes against (1) the discussions at the time of the merger, (2) the [loud objections on this meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2665/8563) to the opening of the new astronomy beta, and (3) the [loud objections by many phycisists](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/6222/why-wouldnt-this-just-be-part-of-the-existing-physics-stack-exchange-site) on the new astronomy beta's discussion page to the reopening of a parallel site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having addressed this particular question, I do think that astrobiology questions have much better venues than this site. Unless the question really does involve physics, at least on the side of the astrobiology, we should point the posters to the biology, astronomy or chemistry betas, and migrate the questions there after consultation with the poster and the target site moderators. We do not get anywhere near enough of these to make the process unfeasibly long or complicated, and this should really be done on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fate of this particular question, I think it is a perfectly valid question and should not be closed, though it is arguably on the wrong site and is too old to be migrated. To keep consistency, and to satiate the moderator thirst &quot;to *show* new users that there are limits to what kinds of question we accept here&quot;, I propose that the question be reopened but that the following banner be added, as a quote, to the end of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that astrobiology questions are typically not on topic on this site unless they address specific physics issues. If you have a similar question, please consider posting it on our [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com), [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com) or [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sister sites. For more information, please refer to [the discussion on Physics Meta about this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="8d25c400-6eb8-4ead-80ab-3bcdf085f406" CreationDate="2014-03-01T19:36:23.340" UserId="26169" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm aware that we have a &quot;regularization&quot; tag, but I don't think this is the same as dimensional regularization. I've only just started learning about these concepts, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe regularization is the idea of finding divergencies in integrals. Dimensional regularization is a certain method to regularize integrals almost always corresponding to Feynman diagrams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the distinction between the two is large enough that it justifies the &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; tag. Especially, because &quot;dimensional regularization&quot; plays such an important role in quantum field theory. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="2900db6e-24e1-4e03-9a81-cf154933f8a6" CreationDate="2014-03-01T20:00:40.613" UserId="8563" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iMJut.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12474" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="d6a027ca-939a-4a01-a1f4-12905da22297" CreationDate="2014-03-01T20:00:40.613" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="12475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="644e4332-bf21-4326-9f10-7464db2f6644" CreationDate="2014-03-02T00:13:45.377" UserId="8563" Comment="Updated to include Dirac-ify version." Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ovzu6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="76864b23-072d-4759-b72b-deb515546454" CreationDate="2014-03-02T00:52:15.087" UserId="8563" Text="[![Community Promootion Ads are proposed and voted on by the Physics SE community][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8yg4s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5263/community-promotion-ads-2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12477" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="8421f698-2da0-4da1-a48f-0e200b430b1e" CreationDate="2014-03-02T00:52:15.087" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="12478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5572" RevisionGUID="fe17c424-5b37-443f-98c5-4ed5ca86e4d8" CreationDate="2014-03-02T06:29:56.880" UserId="1492" Text="Firstly, I have been more or less happy following this site because it is about PHYSICS. I had a professor in College whose face would light up just by saying &quot;Physics&quot; .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly I am aware that this has a long term goal of being a repository of interesting questions and answers to be found by future searches on the topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly I am aware that in education, as in most human organized goals, there are two tendencies a) follow the rules and you cannot go wrong, b) nurture the student and the knowledge will root and flower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the happy medium is the best in education. There should be rules and goals to challenge and channel , and there should be nurturing to generate spontaneous creativity .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the site wants to be a web educational resource it should also keep the happy medium. Following strictly the rules is for games like football and cricket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leave everything ambient and impulsive may be good for poetry and the arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But physics at its best is stifled by football rules and regulations because the best physics comes out of creativity as great as the one Shakespeare showed in writing his plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am trying to say is that strictly sticking to rules stifles creativity, and educating physicists, who are mainly boys and mostly trained to follow the rules should have enough leeway to allow creativity to emerge. For example: closing &quot;stupid&quot; questions of young boys without looking at their profile or guessing their age, or leaving a kind comment, stifles creativity, no matter the rules, and discourages young people from following the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one reason I would &quot;bend the rules&quot; because we are not playing chess here. We are teaching and learning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for this specific closure, that is not even reviewable, I think the blind following of rules is not useful. An aspiring young physicist googling for &quot;best physics lecture notes&quot; will get this  on the search. Does it reflect well on the site to have it &quot;closed as out of topic?&quot; Would it attract him/her to have a look and contribute to the site? I think it would be enough to keep it locked so that it does not pop up on first page, and leave it at that. Not many people come out with &quot;best physics lecture notes&quot; questions to make it a problem, and if they do they can be referred to the duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance is everything, and remember, it is not a site for football games judgement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="140a8abe-5e94-426c-b326-e421cf0528fa" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:15:40.160" UserId="40580" Text="I have recently started partaking in the joys of SE. And at first I aspired to have thousands of rep points and badges, so I started answering questions and asking questions. But now I don't care about the rep points I just like knowing that I am helping someone, the same way some SE user has helped me in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said I have recently found myself checking SE frequently and answering the questions right as they come in before most others probably had the chance to. Is this wrong? Should I back off a little and let others answer the questions? I mostly answer the easier ones :$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="140a8abe-5e94-426c-b326-e421cf0528fa" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:15:40.160" UserId="40580" Text="Is it rude to answer to quickly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="140a8abe-5e94-426c-b326-e421cf0528fa" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:15:40.160" UserId="40580" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5572" RevisionGUID="75fa0f91-d7a7-4ea4-a634-2d1028a8c7ea" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:17:08.157" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Firstly, I have been more or less happy following this site because it is about PHYSICS. I had a professor in College whose face would light up just by saying &quot;Physics&quot; .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly I am aware that this has a long term goal of being a repository of interesting questions and answers to be found by future searches on the topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly I am aware that in education, as in most human organized goals, there are two tendencies a) follow the rules and you cannot go wrong, b) nurture the student and the knowledge will root and flower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the happy medium is the best in education. There should be rules and goals to challenge and channel, and there should be nurturing to generate spontaneous creativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the site wants to be a web educational resource it should also keep the happy medium. Following strictly the rules is for games like football and cricket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leave everything ambient and impulsive may be good for poetry and the arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But physics at its best is stifled by football rules and regulations because the best physics comes out of creativity as great as the one Shakespeare showed in writing his plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am trying to say is that strictly sticking to rules stifles creativity, and educating physicists, who are mainly boys and mostly trained to follow the rules should have enough leeway to allow creativity to emerge. For example: closing &quot;stupid&quot; questions of young boys without looking at their profile or guessing their age, or leaving a kind comment, stifles creativity, no matter the rules, and discourages young people from following the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one reason I would &quot;bend the rules&quot; because we are not playing chess here. We are teaching and learning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for this specific closure, that is not even reviewable, I think the blind following of rules is not useful. An aspiring young physicist googling for &quot;best physics lecture notes&quot; will get this on the search. Does it reflect well on the site to have it &quot;closed as out of topic?&quot; Would it attract him/her to have a look and contribute to the site? I think it would be enough to keep it locked so that it does not pop up on first page, and leave it at that. Not many people come out with &quot;best physics lecture notes&quot; questions to make it a problem, and if they do they can be referred to the duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance is everything, and remember, it is not a site for football games judgment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12483" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="00b782b3-3750-495c-a455-ec075f487d42" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:22:01.973" UserId="22494" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it rude to answer too quickly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5574" RevisionGUID="b5099c12-bcb7-4634-911c-d5a1df397c2f" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:24:42.567" UserId="22494" Text="Time isn't really (or isn't intended to be) a factor on the SE platform.  The goal is to get the best answers to the best questions.  If you see a question that you can answer, you should answer it.  It doesn't matter if the question is a minute old or a year old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, for the sake of the questioner, the sooner they get a (good) answer, the better.  Overall though, we want questions and answers that are useful to more than one person so answers aren't meant to just help the original questioner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="68c7f9e4-5355-4dbe-ada1-0fa3091afa41" CreationDate="2014-03-02T09:58:32.100" UserId="41607" Text="It seems like just giving an answer or asking a question someone doesn't like causes you to lose reputation yet the people who down vote are not required to list why they did so. At this point after only using the site for a day i am regretting signing up. Most people on here seem nice and provide awesome answers, they explain things don't just answer the question for you. Yet on one of my posts someone directly gave me the answer and I got down votes for it even though he walked through the problem in addition a question I asked got put on hold for seemingly no reason and none of the people who put it there would deign to answer the question of why it was put on hold if an answer hadn't already been provided I would have been extremely upset at the rudeness of not one but 5 people with apparently a great deal of experience with the site. In addition people seem to assume either the worst or the people who tend to mark questions down seem to only give them a cursory glance as such I really wish people would provide a detailed answer as to why they are marking it down instead of giving a stock message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="68c7f9e4-5355-4dbe-ada1-0fa3091afa41" CreationDate="2014-03-02T09:58:32.100" UserId="41607" Text="Why is the site so political?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="68c7f9e4-5355-4dbe-ada1-0fa3091afa41" CreationDate="2014-03-02T09:58:32.100" UserId="41607" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="6ef7175c-413b-410c-807f-2ec7a7ff1af3" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:06:10.780" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="It seems like just giving an answer or asking a question someone doesn't like causes you to lose reputation yet the people who downvote are not required to list why they did so. At this point after only using the site for a day I am regretting signing up. Most people on here seem nice and provide awesome answers, they explain things don't just answer the question for you. Yet on one of my posts someone directly gave me the answer and I got down votes for it even though he walked through the problem in addition a question I asked got put on hold for seemingly no reason and none of the people who put it there would deign to answer the question of why it was put on hold if an answer hadn't already been provided I would have been extremely upset at the rudeness of not one but 5 people with apparently a great deal of experience with the site. In addition people seem to assume either the worst or the people who tend to vote questions down seem to only give them a cursory glance as such I really wish people would provide a detailed answer as to why they are voting it down instead of giving a stock message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12489" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="6ef7175c-413b-410c-807f-2ec7a7ff1af3" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:06:10.780" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="6ef7175c-413b-410c-807f-2ec7a7ff1af3" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:06:10.780" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why are my questions downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="b4bd1eb7-91d2-4f0b-978e-78a95481ccc4" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:33:23.297" UserId="41607" Comment="added 728 characters in body; edited title" Text="It seems like just giving an answer or asking a question someone doesn't like causes you to lose reputation yet the people who downvote are not required to list why they did so. At this point after only using the site for a day I am regretting signing up. Most people on here seem nice and provide awesome answers, they explain things don't just answer the question for you. Yet on one of my posts someone directly gave me the answer and I got down votes for it even though he walked through the problem in addition a question I asked got put on hold for seemingly no reason and none of the people who put it there would deign to answer the question of why it was put on hold if an answer hadn't already been provided I would have been extremely upset at the rudeness of not one but 5 people with apparently a great deal of experience with the site. In addition people seem to assume either the worst or the people who tend to vote questions down seem to only give them a cursory glance as such I really wish people would provide a detailed answer as to why they are voting it down instead of giving a stock message.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that this question has been edited by a moderator I assume as I did not have the ability to check off on the edits. I would like to reaffirm the the political in the title and i dislike the inclusion of my as I was using those as examples however I have seen it happen to a couple of other questions as well. This is another example of what I don't like no comment left on the hows an whys for the change. This wa posted in the meta area and was tagged as discussion. It was neither harming nor damning, nor did it contain anything that violated the rules of the site but was edited without permission anyway. I understand this when it comes to the question part of the site but the meta side really?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="b4bd1eb7-91d2-4f0b-978e-78a95481ccc4" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:33:23.297" UserId="41607" Comment="added 728 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why are questions downvoted without an explanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="34ec1a38-2898-4539-a716-512739058602" CreationDate="2014-03-02T13:42:00.123" UserId="7433" Text="Regarding your closed / downvoted questions, have a look at the banner below them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It links to [this meta post][2], which explains why the question is off topic in great detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the banner was put there is that closevoters need not explain themselves every time they see a homework question. If the post is closed with a banner, you are expected to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is for the post, not the user. Don't take downvotes personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the title edit, you're addressing a rather different issue than the one in the post, so the title was edited. There's nothing political here, the question was closed according to established policy. Talking about politicalness would spark unnecessary side discussions and derail the main point, so it was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D8i4e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="87d75eeb-3aa2-4571-af02-c48b785950df" CreationDate="2014-03-02T13:48:47.817" UserId="8563" Text="One situation when people vote to close without leaving comments is for homework questions. This site is not a homework help forum; it is a place to ask conceptual questions that are useful for future visitors, and homework questions are rarely that. You should really read our homework guidance on this meta site before asking new ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason few people comment on those is that (1) they are often trawling through ten or so similar questions I  a review queue, and mostly that (2) the homework closure reason,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was painstakingly worked out over a long time, essentially says it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also note that there was recently a strong movement towards a much stricter (at least formally) policy. This is a long term, ongoing discussion, and you can find most of it easily by searching for the homework and discussion tags on this meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This dislike of homework questions, and particularly of of those that look copy-pasted from a book or assignment, may explain the downvotes. Those are secret by design and schemes to force downvoters to comment have been brought up and rejected multiple times. If you ask politely for input on how to improve your question,  in the comments, it will probably be enough for someone to stop by and help. Drive-by downvotes can be annoying to us all but they are a net positive feature of this site, as they are everyone's way of expressing that they found a question 'unclear or not useful'. Make sure that yours are not, and you'll be safer from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your comments about this meta thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question was indeed edited by a moderator, though 2k+ users also have the ability to validate edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure what you mean by &quot;political&quot; but the term has come to have very specific meanings on this meta, through many very ugly discussions which you probably don't want to get dragged into. Honestly, I don't see why you used the term at all. The moderator intervention was probably meant to defuse confrontations, though I agree that a message explaining why would have been helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, there is never any permanent harm done, as you can always re-edit. (On the other hand, avoid direct rollbacks without good reason and appropriate discussion.) I like your new title best of all three, in fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5578" RevisionGUID="e9184af0-4c97-41c5-886e-cbadd50933f5" CreationDate="2014-03-02T21:35:07.007" UserId="40289" Text="How does one distinguish between any of the following reasons why he or she has not received a response to his or her question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The question is unnoticed by many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Not many feel confident or qualified to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) The question is too trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) The question is too confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) No one is interested in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have posted two questions already. Feel free to investigate them and suggest improvements for them to invoke better feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5578" RevisionGUID="e9184af0-4c97-41c5-886e-cbadd50933f5" CreationDate="2014-03-02T21:35:07.007" UserId="40289" Text="How tell the difference between the following modes of unresponsiveness to your question: unnoticed, unanswerable, trivial, confusing, or apathetic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5578" RevisionGUID="e9184af0-4c97-41c5-886e-cbadd50933f5" CreationDate="2014-03-02T21:35:07.007" UserId="40289" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="ea9a8ddf-f775-4580-9a03-8ae0203c03ad" CreationDate="2014-03-02T22:17:37.353" UserId="25301" Text="As far as I can tell/predict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There is a &quot;view&quot; counter for each question&#xD;&#xA; 2. No way of knowing&#xD;&#xA; 3. It'd likely be closed if its too trivial&#xD;&#xA; 4. Someone would likely comment that it's confusing, a close vote for &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would also likely come&#xD;&#xA; 5. No way of knowing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that if you really want an answer to a question, you can always add a [bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) to the question (though this requires 50+ rep)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="3e72796c-0f76-4a3b-857e-0db7f88a201a" CreationDate="2014-03-03T01:25:21.453" UserId="5477" Text="To address your questions in particular: they are quite advanced technical questions, which immediately means only a small subset of the site's user base will be able to answer them. It's possible that such people might miss your questions. When you have more rep you can offer a bounty, which will help with this. Or, if you feel you can improve the questions, editing them will bump them back to the front page. (But please don't make small edits just for the sake of bumping - an edit should always make a substantial improvement to the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, your questions have been up-voted (especially the first one), and both of them have been favourited by four people. (The favorite button is the star underneath the up and down vote buttons. The small number underneath it is the number of people who have used it.) This suggests that in your case, people are interested in the questions but don't know the answer. For specific technical questions like this, you shouldn't be too surprised if it takes a little while for an answer to come." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="02ab4913-0cf8-427e-9529-dce66fe5149b" CreationDate="2014-03-03T03:32:23.087" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Go forth and answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are some sites where this can lead to issues. For example, on [StackOverflow][1] a number of users [race to be the first to post minimally helpful links][2], since that gets the most reputation per unit effort, resulting in a bunch of decidedly unhelpful tidbits that look like they were drawn from a live help session. As long as you are posting good, thorough answers, this isn't a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern on [TeX][3] is that there is a very small core of very good answerers (mostly the people who developed TeX and its brethren), and if they answer all the easy questions, [new users will be discouraged from participating in the community][4]. I doubt we will ever have that problem here. Between the number of questions we get and the breadth of topics they cover, no small group of people could answer them all (at least not well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other catch I'll mention is that you should not just blindly answer things. Take a look around at what established users take to be good questions. For example, if someone posts their homework assignment expecting us to just do it for them, we (high-rep users) *will* close it, and probably throw a few downvotes at it too. Our efforts at keeping up the quality and integrity of this site are made more difficult when new users quickly post solutions to these questions before we react.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should keep up your enthusiasm. My own experience is that after reaching 10k rep I grew far more picky in terms of which questions I would spend time answering. There are certainly posts where I know I could write a good answer, but I'm tired of explaining the same topic (e.g. the expansion of the universe) for the umpteenth time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tex.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1867/should-high-rep-users-hang-back-a-little" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="de199bf9-571b-480c-b862-99d89dc57aae" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:17:26.567" UserId="40289" Text="$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a = b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\label{my equation}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equation \ref{my equation} is my equation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="de199bf9-571b-480c-b862-99d89dc57aae" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:17:26.567" UserId="40289" Text="How to write equations with automatic equation numbering like \label{ref} in latex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="de199bf9-571b-480c-b862-99d89dc57aae" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:17:26.567" UserId="40289" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="7e565730-0dc6-4f41-8a4b-469551391b37" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:21:32.573" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="38b287a2-92ab-4e24-9059-e46aa3f7d4a7" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:21:58.847" UserId="40289" Comment="added 388 characters in body; edited tags" Text="$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a = b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\label{my equation}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equation \ref{my equation} is my equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan on editing my question [Alternative representation of the covariant derivative?][1] to make it more compact and concise, but I would be nice to safe time and not have to renumber all of the equations a third time. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101464/alternative-representation-of-the-covariant-derivative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="38b287a2-92ab-4e24-9059-e46aa3f7d4a7" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:21:58.847" UserId="40289" Comment="added 388 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12507" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="fc0a340a-9743-4881-9a84-9c90845de93b" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:22:35.033" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12508" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="fc0a340a-9743-4881-9a84-9c90845de93b" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:22:35.033" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Latex/MathJax question: How to number equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="7979911e-7670-4f8f-935f-d152775faccf" CreationDate="2014-03-03T14:26:50.847" UserId="2451" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a = b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\label{my equation}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equation \ref{my equation} is my equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan on editing my question [Alternative representation of the covariant derivative?][1] to make it more compact and concise, but it would be nice to save time and not have to renumber all of the equations [manually](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2887/2451) a third time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101464/alternative-representation-of-the-covariant-derivative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="277e7ed2-8b52-4056-9664-4ac0e90664e2" CreationDate="2014-03-03T15:07:51.000" UserId="25301" Comment="corrected for factuality" Text="As far as I can tell/predict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There is a &quot;view&quot; counter for each question&#xD;&#xA; 2. No way of knowing&#xD;&#xA; 3. It'd likely be closed if its too trivial&#xD;&#xA; 4. Someone would likely comment that it's confusing, a close vote for &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would also likely come&#xD;&#xA; 5. No way of knowing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that if you really want an answer to a question, you can always add a [bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) to the question (though this requires 75+ rep)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5583" RevisionGUID="d9ae5d79-e92b-422a-be1e-ee2ea4a346ac" CreationDate="2014-03-03T15:28:47.870" UserId="520" Text="`\tag{something to refer back to}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ C^2 = A^2 + B^2 \,. \tag{PT} $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then later you write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring back to (PT) we see that side the length of the hypotenuse is clearly 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to type the refernces yourself. I tend to use `*`, `**`, `$\dag$` and `$\ddag$`, or (as above) mnemonics for Physics SE posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12512" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="69ff179e-d156-467b-ac60-2c19f6407d34" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:01:08.887" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2887],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="25fdaf4e-ef1b-46b6-b5ae-7e836c8ecfd6" CreationDate="2014-03-04T16:41:59.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/440889907553505280" />
  <row Id="12514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="7d256fe7-03da-400b-94e9-5931a44aa8d4" CreationDate="2014-03-04T19:04:17.347" UserId="12951" Text="I also think it is valuable to have some place that sometimes posts 'real-life' examples of work physicists are doing outside of academic physics.  For example, medical physics, aeronautics, and computer science - which may actually be engineering problems - but may employ more persons that have physics degrees than universities. There are likely students that read here that know better than to flat-out ask &quot;What can I do with a degree in Physics?&quot; but that are very interested in formulating an answer to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a second criterion for including or closing an 'engineering' question might be whether the contribution of a trained physicist is likely necessary for its solution in a real-life situation.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="09632432-ca04-4c61-97a7-63a8b07e5560" CreationDate="2014-03-04T19:33:10.510" UserId="1325" Text="Has there been any feedback on http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it was all a bit underwhelming and the close ratio was largely unaffected. Has there been any discussions amongst the mods, and if so what conclusions did you reach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="09632432-ca04-4c61-97a7-63a8b07e5560" CreationDate="2014-03-04T19:33:10.510" UserId="1325" Text="Feedback on the &quot;no close&quot; week" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="09632432-ca04-4c61-97a7-63a8b07e5560" CreationDate="2014-03-04T19:33:10.510" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5586" RevisionGUID="3c0d5b09-1873-45f2-b428-8a42d9ba181e" CreationDate="2014-03-05T08:16:07.780" UserId="124" Text="There has been no private discussion among the moderators about this, and we're not planning on having any. Nothing about the results of the experiment really needs to be kept private, so whatever discussion we have will be on meta posts or in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and thus everyone can read it themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I've been very busy for the past week and haven't had a chance to think about it much, but I have been hoping to see some hard statistics on closures during the week the moderators were avoiding closing homework questions. (And perhaps also afterwards, since I think I've only closed a couple of HW questions myself even since the trial ended.) My impression, to the extent I noticed anything different, was that there was little difference in what types of questions got closed, it just took longer to do it, but I wasn't keeping a particularly close eye on the site so I'm not particularly confident in that assessment. If that impression turns out to be correct, it would mean there are no significant changes that need to be made to the scope section of the homework policy, except perhaps with regard to graduate-level HW questions, which we didn't get a chance to examine during that week (simply because nobody asked any, that I know of)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="8807004a-8626-45de-966e-6ebbe2736604" CreationDate="2014-03-05T09:07:19.250" UserId="40580" Text="I have very recently started participating in SE, and I have (embarrassingly) answered some the HW questions. After seeing some the meta posts of the more experienced users and mods, I now feel pretty bad about answering HW questions (Sorry!!). I have never posted any HW questions either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is who is the worst offender the asker or the answerer? I am assuming its the answerer because they are presumably more experienced and should know better than to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I have stopped answering HW questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="8807004a-8626-45de-966e-6ebbe2736604" CreationDate="2014-03-05T09:07:19.250" UserId="40580" Text="Whats Worse: Posting a HW Question or Answering a HW Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="8807004a-8626-45de-966e-6ebbe2736604" CreationDate="2014-03-05T09:07:19.250" UserId="40580" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="f92badbd-7bfe-4364-af06-f948021dfa3c" CreationDate="2014-03-05T09:21:14.390" UserId="5374" Text="Both are bad, the answerers are probably worse. But it's not always completely clear where to draw the line, to me at least, where homework ends where &quot;proper&quot; questions start. (I'm not quite sure if that your question here is a real question suited for the meta board either.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's good if you feel bad for a while as it will prevent you from doing it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12523" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="c66078db-d24c-4e73-9012-1fc103ccc267" CreationDate="2014-03-05T16:42:01.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/441252301286940672" />
  <row Id="12524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="fc9fe42e-70dc-43f2-aa3b-1f2576d4ffe7" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:11:32.197" UserId="124" Text="I've noticed a bunch of disputed not-an-answer flags in the queue recently. While it's great that people are actively flagging things, this trend does suggest some disagreement on or misunderstanding of what these flags should be used for. Is that really the case? Are people clear on the purpose of the not-an-answer flag, and if not, is there anything we should be doing to make it more clear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll post some examples here for posterity; all of the following were flagged as not an answer by multiple people and the flag was disputed. On [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your question should more accurately have been, &quot;Why does sound travel faster in solid iron than in liquid mercury even though mercury has higher density?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Were the question phrased that way, the answer would be more obvious. At temperatures at which both metals are liquid or both metals are solid, sound travels faster in the denser metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101563):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The chemical bonds in the dye would be broken by high energy UV photons from the sun - the moon has no atmosphere or ozone layer to protect it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why so cheap? Remember NASA in the 60s was a different organisation, led by an engineering challenge to get to the moon and back, nothing else mattered. Need a flag? Just get whatever fits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A more modern Nasa would have had an entire division of flag-ness populated by PR professionals and managers. With nationwide competitions for k12 children, a careful check that the flag supplier employed a suitable number of disabled veterans and each star made by a different agency in each state. All resulting in a $5,000,000 flag with it's own twitter following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course it wouldn't have any scientists and engineers to actually get it to the moon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you say the black hole would need to be incredibly huge for this to be possible, are you thinking of it's size from the perspective of our universe? This seems wrong to me because the black hole would have to be located in another much much larger universe than our own. So even though from our perspective it would seem huge, in the universe where the black hole exists it could be average sized. Kind of like m-theory but instead of equal sized branes an infinite progression of smaller and smaller (or bigger and bigger) universes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The birds must feel something, because they usually sit on the ground wire, not the high voltage wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing special about these answers; they're simply the latest ones. But I've been seeing this pattern for quite a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that my goal here is **not** to try to collect feedback on whether each of these is actually not-an-answer; people have already made their case by flagging. If anyone wants to offer a reasoned argument why one of these should or shouldn't be considered not-an-answer, you can do so by commenting on that answer itself. (Or if the answer is deleted by the time you read this and you think it shouldn't have been, then you can comment here or ping one of us mods in chat.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="fc9fe42e-70dc-43f2-aa3b-1f2576d4ffe7" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:11:32.197" UserId="124" Text="Are we clear on what the &quot;not an answer&quot; flag is for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="fc9fe42e-70dc-43f2-aa3b-1f2576d4ffe7" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:11:32.197" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="7126f9b8-dbe5-42b7-905d-3cfcffcd19b7" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:42:22.773" UserId="124" Comment="try to focus the question" Text="I've noticed a bunch of disputed not-an-answer flags in the queue recently. While it's great that people are actively flagging things, this trend does suggest some disagreement on or misunderstanding of what these flags should be used for. Is that really the case? **Are people clear on the purpose of the not-an-answer flag, and if not, is there anything we should be doing to make it more clear?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a first step, let's try something. All of the following were flagged as not an answer by multiple high-rep users, and the flag was disputed, often by multiple high-rep users. What I'd like to hear from you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you would flag any of these as not-an-answer, what's your justification for doing so?&#xD;&#xA;- If you would dispute an existing not-an-answer flag on any of these, what's your justification for doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'd like to get at least one opinion on each side for each answer. The point is not to correctly guess whether each of these is NAA, so even if (_especially_ if) your justification turns out to be &quot;wrong&quot; I still want to hear it. The point is for us moderators to understand whether, and how, people are misunderstanding the purpose of the NAA flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your question should more accurately have been, &quot;Why does sound travel faster in solid iron than in liquid mercury even though mercury has higher density?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Were the question phrased that way, the answer would be more obvious. At temperatures at which both metals are liquid or both metals are solid, sound travels faster in the denser metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101563):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The chemical bonds in the dye would be broken by high energy UV photons from the sun - the moon has no atmosphere or ozone layer to protect it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why so cheap? Remember NASA in the 60s was a different organisation, led by an engineering challenge to get to the moon and back, nothing else mattered. Need a flag? Just get whatever fits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A more modern Nasa would have had an entire division of flag-ness populated by PR professionals and managers. With nationwide competitions for k12 children, a careful check that the flag supplier employed a suitable number of disabled veterans and each star made by a different agency in each state. All resulting in a $5,000,000 flag with it's own twitter following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course it wouldn't have any scientists and engineers to actually get it to the moon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you say the black hole would need to be incredibly huge for this to be possible, are you thinking of it's size from the perspective of our universe? This seems wrong to me because the black hole would have to be located in another much much larger universe than our own. So even though from our perspective it would seem huge, in the universe where the black hole exists it could be average sized. Kind of like m-theory but instead of equal sized branes an infinite progression of smaller and smaller (or bigger and bigger) universes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The birds must feel something, because they usually sit on the ground wire, not the high voltage wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing special about these answers; they're simply the latest ones. But I've been seeing this pattern for quite a while." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="c01387c4-c2ed-4f6c-881f-b126da65f9e2" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:47:05.090" UserId="8563" Text="There is no objective way of answering that, and I see little point in apportioning, and much less measuring, blame over homework questions. You shouldn't really be seeing either as 'offenders', and they cannot be compared to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, answering homework questions does indeed actively do damage to the level of the site. Every homework question that a new user gets answered encourages them to post another one; every homework question that a new user sees with an answer encourages them to sign up and post their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand the impulse to answer, but it is important that off-topic questions remain *operationally* off-topic, and that means that they not get answered in the few hours before they get closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: don't feel you're &quot;worse&quot; than homework askers - just stop answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, this is a perfectly fine question to bring up on meta. This part of the site is for discussing the site itself and for clarifying any questions you have about it and the community. Another viable venue is the chat room, but for a question like this, where a more permanent record is helpful to more people, meta is the recommended choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5591" RevisionGUID="d1e19f36-53b8-4275-a90a-cf7e7c23caf7" CreationDate="2014-03-05T18:03:44.963" UserId="8563" Text="I just looked at my flagging history and I did indeed go through those four examples. I flagged two of them as Not An Answer, and I disputed the other two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I flagged&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [the moon flag one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/101572/8563), because it is more of a rant than anything, and most of all it does not address the core of the question, as to how bleaching might be avoided, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [the observable-universe one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas/101622#101622), because it is confusing, doesn't really say much, and simply piles on speculation on an already large helping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disputed the other two. Looking at them again, I guess they do fall on the wrong side of the line. I'm not very sure why I flagged like that, to be honest; it may partly have been a desire to not be too harsh on new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The sound-speed-in-mercury one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895/why-does-sound-travel-faster-in-iron-than-mercury-even-though-mercury-has-a-high/101914#101914) is, I think, not *that* far from an (incorrect) attempt at an answer. It happens fairly often that someone takes a bad question and reformulates so that it has an answer; this looks like a failed attempt at that. I still see it in a bit of a gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With [the current-through-birds one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195/how-much-of-current-flows-through-a-bird-sitting-on-a-power-line/101807#101807), I felt if they could back up their assertions it might eventually become a full answer, even if incorrect. I guess I also acted partly to balance out the other comments, which seemed out of proportion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your more general question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#not very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags are hard to handle. In particular, it has happened to me a few times that I see a very bad answer and flag it, and it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were on answers with very limited value to anyone ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99507/theoretical-space-station-components/99515#99515), [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30501/why-does-a-gas-inside-a-closed-container-experience-atmosperic-pressure-when-the/97819#97819)). If it turns out that the Very Low Quality flag does not cover those answers, what *does* it cover? This sort of thing has made me quite jumpy at the time of flagging posts, and it tends to make me err on the side of forgiveness rather than harshness. I note now that this was, I think, only for the VLQ queue and not for the Not An Answer one, but I can't really separate the two in my mind / recollections all that clearly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="8b5914e0-f441-46ea-8160-308143c351e8" CreationDate="2014-03-05T19:03:06.380" UserId="28958" Comment="added 653 characters in body" Text="I suspect this proposal is off-topic here but I thought I would give it a try. I apologize in advance if this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've begun watching video lectures on Effective Field Theory with a focus on particle physics from [MIT][1] and going through the homework. I thought it would be fun to go through them at the same pace with other users on the site. That way we could ask questions the with regards to the lectures and the homework on Stackexchange and someone would likely be able to answer them. I think it would be good for the site and encourage high level questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea for the book club is to do 2 lectures a week and follow with the HW. I like to TeX notes for courses that I take so I'll provide lecture notes. If you would be interested in the idea let me know and I will put together a more firm proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you are not interested in joining but have any input on how such an idea would work best on the site, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** There are 26 lectures in total. I propose we aim for 2 lectures a week except on weeks where we do the homework, starting next week (have the first 2 lectures watched by the 17th). I think its best to make Monday as the &quot;meeting day&quot; and aim to have the lectures and HW done for this day each week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've watched the first couple lectures and I saw that the first HW should be done after the 3rd lecture. Please let me know if you think the plan needs some modification or have any ideas!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will post lecture notes on my [website][2] under Effective Field Theory link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-851-effective-field-theory-spring-2013/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~ajd268/Notes.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="319b7124-ef1c-479a-ac5a-705c7aa7bc8d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T21:11:34.977" UserId="29216" Text="Posts from new users often requiring edits that add LaTeX code. When I review edits from users that add such code, all I see on the LHS and RHS are the raw LaTeX codes, such as `$a_y=g$`. This is the case even after I select the &quot;rendered&quot; view button. I'd rather just compare the two rendered outputs. Admittedly I have only noticed this on my Mac's Safari, and haven't tried other browsers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to view rendered LaTeX when reviewing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="319b7124-ef1c-479a-ac5a-705c7aa7bc8d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T21:11:34.977" UserId="29216" Text="Why can't I see rendered MathJax/LaTeX when reviewing edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="319b7124-ef1c-479a-ac5a-705c7aa7bc8d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T21:11:34.977" UserId="29216" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="522caf04-d8ea-4807-9e38-34f8ff6883fe" CreationDate="2014-03-05T21:15:30.827" UserId="7433" Text="I just run the [chatjax][1] bookmarklet on the diff. It usually works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess showing a rendered diff of math is a rather non-trivial problem, so they just show the latex diff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="2e6221ba-4b1c-4ec0-8bcc-e3edda0f25a6" CreationDate="2014-03-05T21:53:59.830" UserId="29216" Comment="Title change" Text="How can I see rendered MathJax/LaTeX when reviewing edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5594" RevisionGUID="eab5f85e-5156-4c25-a0d9-0647c8ea0236" CreationDate="2014-03-05T23:24:58.600" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="# Disputed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sound speed in mercury][1]: I felt this correctly pointed out (albeit in a roundabout way) that apples were being compared to oranges, and so the density-sound speed relation shouldn't even be expected to hold. Sure it might be incomplete, but the OP didn't give any specific direction for ways to go, so I can't say this isn't an answer. I feel **answers that could be better are still answers**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Flagged:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Universe as a black hole][3]: Seemed like it was **asking for clarification**, and as such was a comment, not an answer. I tried to come to this decision without worrying about the correctness/non-mainstreamness of the answer.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Birds on a power line][4]: This didn't answer the question asked. *If* the OP had asked &quot;Can birds detect electricity flowing through power lines?&quot; *then* this would be an acceptable answer. Again, it may be factually wrong, but it answers the question in that case. However, the **OP asked for a quantitative result, and this only gives a qualitative answer**. In that way it is a comment, not an answer. A qualitative answer that explains *why* a quantitative result would be nigh impossible would be acceptable, but this post doesn't support itself at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Untouched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Flag on the Moon][2]: I agree it's an out-of-place rant that went a bit too long. Mitigating circumstance: The OP asked for it (&quot;Why so cheap? Didn't NASA know...?&quot;). Also, if left by itself, the first sentence would count as *some* sort of answer (at about the same level of completeness as the sound speed case above). Question: **Can a post with an answer be deemed &quot;not an answer&quot; due to other stuff in it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the overall purpose of NAA: I feel I know how I use it, in the sense that I have self-consistent criteria that I apply objectively. And I feel my flagging states suggest I'm mostly in line with the moderators and broader community on this: 159/176 (90%) NAA/invalid/moderator attention flags deemed helpful. And my own feeling is that the flags I see from others aren't far off from what I would judge myself. The first page of my flagging history has 46 NAA's I've issued and only 5 invalids. So again, ~90% agreement.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If &quot;not an answer&quot; applied to posts that were completely wrong, based on a grave misunderstanding of basic principles, well then we should flag most of the posts on this site that use the word &quot;horizon.&quot; But that's an exasperation for another time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Caveat: I will sometimes be on the border and ignore something in the flag queue until it goes away. So there is missing data in a sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895/why-does-sound-travel-faster-in-iron-than-mercury-even-though-mercury-has-a-high/101914#101914&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101563/is-it-possible-to-avoid-the-radiation-that-caused-the-american-flag-turned-into/101572#101572&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas/101622#101622&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195/how-much-of-current-flows-through-a-bird-sitting-on-a-power-line/101807#101807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="230fd60c-6ff1-452b-8dc2-63550c31b2e5" CreationDate="2014-03-05T23:33:41.450" UserId="8563" Comment="both, but posting with bad grammar in the title is infinitely worse :). Just fixing the grammar before this gets down  from the front page.  No offense meant, it's a pet peeve is all." Text="I have very recently started participating in SE, and I have (embarrassingly) answered some the HW questions. After seeing some the meta posts of the more experienced users and mods, I now feel pretty bad about answering HW questions (Sorry!!). I have never posted any HW questions either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is who is the worst offender, the asker or the answerer? I am assuming it's the answerer because they are presumably more experienced and should know better than to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I have stopped answering HW questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12538" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="230fd60c-6ff1-452b-8dc2-63550c31b2e5" CreationDate="2014-03-05T23:33:41.450" UserId="8563" Comment="both, but posting with bad grammar in the title is infinitely worse :). Just fixing the grammar before this gets down  from the front page.  No offense meant, it's a pet peeve is all." Text="What's Worse: Posting a HW Question or Answering a HW Question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="cd67a17f-5aa6-4fda-8e2a-8304de91e25a" CreationDate="2014-03-06T00:29:48.640" UserId="4646" Text="You mean like the third paragraph in [this edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/35315)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's kind of a tricky case.  The problem is that the change is *in the middle of* an equation, so the diff engine sticks some extra markup in there to highlight it, causing MathJax not to recognize it as a valid equation at all.  To fix it, either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a) the SE diff generator would need be changed to treat MathJax sections as atomic blocks (which would have the unfortunate side effect of always showing the entire equation as changed, even if the actual change was to a tiny part of it), or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* b) MathJax itself would have to be somehow tweaked to recognize the diff markup and replicate it in the rendered equation.  [I've done a bit of MathJax hacking myself](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4130/the-scope-of-newcommand-is-the-entire-page/12502#12502), but that sounds way beyond my skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the first option above would be the more practical one, but I can't really tell &amp;mdash; AFAIK, the diff generation is done on the server side, so only SE developers actually know how the code works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kgjie.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="a58bd4e3-f07b-42ea-8473-bbc222883f12" CreationDate="2014-03-06T01:45:28.847" UserId="9719" Text="NOTE: When I write up the first part of this, I am referring only to the context provided at the questions and answers themselves, at the time I am writing v1 of this answer. In the second part of this answer, I will address other comments provided here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Iron/Mercury sound:** I would flag as Not an Answer. That answer just says, &quot;If you asked this slightly different question, then the answer would be trivial.&quot; I would be okay with that, if the answer provided an explanation of why the original question doesn't make sense, and why that re-interpretation of the question is natural or needed. I would also be okay with that if, in addition to that, also answered the question as actually asked (in fact, I frequently do this myself). But the answer doesn't provide any of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flag on Moon:** I would not flag. I would dispute an NaA flag. The third paragraph is not helpful, and should not be there. By itself, it would be Not an Answer. But the rest of the answer actually does address the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Universe in black hole:** I would not flag. I would dispute an NaA flag. I read this answer as an attempt to interpret the question so it makes sense, and answer what the answerer regards as the question. I contrast this with the Iron/Mercury question because the answer here explains why he thinks he needs to apply his understanding to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Birds on a wire:** I would not flag. Without the comments provided there by Emilio and Brandon, I would dispute a flag. The comments point out the the premise of the answer is incorrect or needs to be justified. If the premise of the answer is incorrect, I regard it as Not an Answer (though I don't always flag such answers). I would not dispute an NaA flag if I saw either of those comments attached to the flag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;My reactions to other answers here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Question: **Can a post with an answer be deemed &quot;not an answer&quot; due to other stuff in it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say that, in theory, an answer could contain enough off-topic content for me to regard it as Not an Answer. In that case, the off-topic content would have to overwhelm the on-topic content to such an extent that it becomes difficult to find the on-topic answer. I don't see that in this case. I'm sure I've seen that happen in the past, but I can't think of any examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If &quot;not an answer&quot; applied to posts that were completely wrong, based on a grave misunderstanding of basic principles [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it has happened to me a few times that I see a very bad answer and flag it, and it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, I have flagged things that I found so egregiously wrong or incoherent from a physics standpoint that I regarded them as not answers. And I have see that reply from whoever answered my flag. The result is that I am slower to flag things as NaA than I used to be. The answers I gave above about what I would have flagged (not necessarily about what I would have disputed) are, I believe, in line with what the team and the mods intend for that flag to mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NAA is for posts that are a separate question or a comment, or otherwise make no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two points where I disagree with what I think is the official intent of the NAA flag. One is the Birds on a wire answer.I believe the intent of the flag is not to include that answer as NaA, and leave it to voting to sort out the value of that answer. But I don't consider that an attempt to answer the question unless/until the author adds a justification for the premise of that answer. And I think we should consider deleting some answers like that if they don't add that justification after some time. The second point is that some answers are attempts to answer the question in a way, but the actual physics content is just incoherent. These answers are not just wrong, they're Not Even Wrong. Again, my understanding is that the official intent is to downvote those into oblivion, but I think we should consider deleting content that is physically incoherent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="6a988163-05f1-484f-93ea-a23f189776dc" CreationDate="2014-03-06T03:05:35.737" UserId="36804" Text="[tag:radio-frequency]→[tag:radio]&#xD;&#xA;24 vs. 54 questions tagged; no wikis for either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12546" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="77293a9e-615a-4e6c-96ce-5b32f95884d7" CreationDate="2014-03-06T03:05:35.737" UserId="36804" />
  <row Id="12547" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="cc2969e9-9d3c-4e28-80d5-d28a729ac085" CreationDate="2014-03-06T07:42:01.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/441478795707830272" />
  <row Id="12548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="a063a9a2-e689-4bb8-8caf-8fb9d8932a90" CreationDate="2014-03-06T17:54:09.443" UserId="38153" Text="I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101663/object-at-incline-and-forces-acting-on-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I showed enough effort, I am not asking someone to do my homework, I am not asking someone to check my answers, and I am not being unclear on what I am having problems with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main idea of my question is I have a book which has two formulas; I am trying to prove them to see how the author arrived at them and I need help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if my question should be closed. If so I'll gladly delete it myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="a063a9a2-e689-4bb8-8caf-8fb9d8932a90" CreationDate="2014-03-06T17:54:09.443" UserId="38153" Text="Should my question really be on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="a063a9a2-e689-4bb8-8caf-8fb9d8932a90" CreationDate="2014-03-06T17:54:09.443" UserId="38153" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="0509d5d2-3272-4824-986b-3a0ca2d8a426" CreationDate="2014-03-06T18:44:29.813" UserId="124" Text="Your question is certainly better than a lot of the low-quality homework questions we get here, but at its core, what you're asking is &quot;where do these formulas come from?&quot; That's not a conceptual question. What we mean by asking about a specific physics concept is something like &quot;What does the sin(theta) in this equation represent?&quot; or &quot;Is it valid to set w cos(theta) = 0 here?&quot; (where you would present reasons why you think it might not be but you're not sure) or even &quot;Why is this block able to slide up the incline when my calculations show that it shouldn't be able to?&quot; Basically, you're supposed to dig down into your work and identify the one specific idea that you can't understand or figure out, which is keeping you from proceeding with the problem. A good rule of thumb is that you should be able to ask your one question in the title, and it shouldn't be &quot;how do I derive this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the bottom line is, no, you haven't showed enough effort. You're fairly close, though. With a little discussion here on meta we could probably help you figure out how to edit your question so that it would be on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="e43f33a8-7edc-44df-963f-e07a8a9b83a8" CreationDate="2014-03-07T08:33:37.150" UserId="1325" Text="At the time of typing this we have exactly 30,000 questions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a lot of effort by both askers and answerers. Well done to everybody concerned! :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="e43f33a8-7edc-44df-963f-e07a8a9b83a8" CreationDate="2014-03-07T08:33:37.150" UserId="1325" Text="We have 30,000 questions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="e43f33a8-7edc-44df-963f-e07a8a9b83a8" CreationDate="2014-03-07T08:33:37.150" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12555" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="487d82e6-9e4f-4598-a0d1-b65ff6b33bf2" CreationDate="2014-03-07T08:35:46.937" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12556" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="ca01d8d1-ffd4-4743-9582-9e62f92467fa" CreationDate="2014-03-07T13:42:15.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/441931835938193408" />
  <row Id="12557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="b2688dcf-be77-4c94-adbc-58a21d528407" CreationDate="2014-03-07T20:40:09.947" UserId="28958" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="I suspect this proposal is off-topic here but I thought I would give it a try. I apologize in advance if this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've begun watching video lectures on Effective Field Theory with a focus on particle physics from [MIT][1] and going through the homework. I thought it would be fun to go through them at the same pace with other users on the site. That way we could ask questions the with regards to the lectures and the homework on Stackexchange and someone would likely be able to answer them. I think it would be good for the site and encourage high level questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea for the book club is to do 2 lectures a week and follow with the HW. I like to TeX notes for courses that I take so I'll provide lecture notes. If you would be interested in the idea let me know and I will put together a more firm proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you are not interested in joining but have any input on how such an idea would work best on the site, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** There are 26 lectures in total. I propose we aim for 2 lectures a week except on weeks where we do the homework, starting next week (have the first 2 lectures watched by the 17th). I think its best to make Monday as the &quot;meeting day&quot; and aim to have the lectures and HW done for this day each week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've watched the first couple lectures and I saw that the first HW should be done after the 3rd lecture. Please let me know if you think the plan needs some modification or have any ideas!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will post lecture notes on my [website][2] under Effective Field Theory link. Dilaton has been kind enough to open a chatroom for us over [here][3]. If you would like to follow along please post so we know you exist! The goal is to have the first two lectures watched by Monday, March 17th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-851-effective-field-theory-spring-2013/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~ajd268/Notes.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13401/effective-field-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1318" RevisionGUID="c88b5cdc-37c6-4234-a0d4-d0cdbf698c40" CreationDate="2014-03-07T21:23:49.860" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is there a way to spread this burden out among the community or perhaps a post-review process for specific proposals that are in question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewing edits is [a power enabled for all users with at least 2000 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). Currently that is &lt;s&gt;15&lt;/s&gt; more than 160 users on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus any team members who drop by and decide to put in a little work on our site in particular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="2734111c-f5c2-4203-b548-785e80101495" CreationDate="2014-03-07T22:13:08.077" UserId="124" Text="Recently we've been discussing [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102109/numerical-ising-model-wolff-algorithm-and-correlations) whether questions on numerical algorithms should be allowed when the context is a physics problem.  The last time this was discussed on Meta seems to be [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2) (a follow-up to [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions)), which implies that such questions should be allowed. However, there's nothing about this in the help center, and the [last time I tried to add it](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/921/computational-science-in-the-faq) the only response was to wait until the [Computational Science site](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) had taken off and reevaluate the decision then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, now Computational Science is well established, and it seems we are still of the opinion that numerical algorithms in a physical context should be on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this assessment accurate? Does the community want questions on numerical algorithms in a physical context to be on topic for us? (this is just a last opportunity for anyone who disagrees to speak out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How should we word the item that would need to be added to the [Help Center's on-topic page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) to reflect this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="2734111c-f5c2-4203-b548-785e80101495" CreationDate="2014-03-07T22:13:08.077" UserId="124" Text="Adding computational science to the list of on-topic items in the Help Center" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="2734111c-f5c2-4203-b548-785e80101495" CreationDate="2014-03-07T22:13:08.077" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="d6b1e335-760b-41ca-99da-379587adc0ec" CreationDate="2014-03-08T04:43:47.603" UserId="6634" Text="I wholeheartedly support adding computational topics to our site, but where we draw the line needs to be very clear. Here is where I would draw it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What we can't do**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot answer programming questions (How does one implement X method for Y equation?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot debug code (I programmed Crank-Nicholson but it's not working, what did I do wrong?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot optimize code (My matrix inversion routine used for Crank-Nicholson is running slow, how can I speed it up?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot advise on libraries/languages/compilers/etc (Should I use PETSc or Trillinos for my code? or Is Fortran better for scientific programming? or Should I use OpenMP or MPI to make my code parallel?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What we can do**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can advise on numerical methods *when tied to a physical problem and not a generic P/ODE* (I am studying shock-turbulence interaction, is WENO or AUSM better? or What methods would one use to solve diffusion problems?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can discuss scheme quality/limitations (What makes the original Murman-Cole scheme not conservative in transonic potential flows?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can discuss scheme design (How does one determine if a scheme is conservative?) **Note**: This one may be controversial here as that might be better in SciComp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The punchline**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say we include it but with the caveat that it needs to be tied to physical problems and not to programming. No implementation issues, no optimization, no CODE. Just concepts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="d481784e-647d-4226-85c6-7a0749eb187b" CreationDate="2014-03-08T22:18:01.060" UserId="8563" Text="[![Browse through our unanswered questions!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mma-se-ads.herokuapp.com/static/physics/unanswered.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12569" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="6f7e26d1-dad9-4389-a437-7e909caf205f" CreationDate="2014-03-08T22:18:01.060" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="12571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="9d61abe4-0161-414a-bba6-877a2f31e120" CreationDate="2014-03-09T07:58:46.870" UserId="7433" Text="One thing after the recent [astrobiology discussion][1] was clear: our policy that &quot;anything on topic on the old astrophysics site is on topic here&quot; seems to be a bit vague and under question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the wording does not make it clear, this was the _initial_ meaning behind this policy: &quot;The _topics_ which are allowed on the old astrophysics site are on topic here too&quot;, with no statement about the other factors (broadness, etc) which can get a question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it need to be tweaked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we might want to review this rather vague-in-retrospect policy and come up with a definitive replacement. Something like &quot;astrophotography, observational astronomy, and astrobiology&quot; are on topic, with a definition for what we count as &quot;astrophotography / etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this comment][2] raises a valid point: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1 for pointing out that this is biology, not physics. Astrobiology deals with things like &quot;What signatures does photosynthesis imprint in planetary spectra?&quot; or &quot;Do we know of any organisms that could withstand the UV radiation in the habitable zone of an M dwarf?&quot; And yes, I'm speaking as an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that discussion revolved around the question being astrobiology and thus on topic, however the above point seems to throw a wrench in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that such confusions exist, I suggest we come with definitive criteria as to what is considered &quot;on topic astrophysics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or possibly have a second look at this policy in general, since the &quot;we are an astronomy and physics&quot; site never really took off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened#comment16344_5566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="9d61abe4-0161-414a-bba6-877a2f31e120" CreationDate="2014-03-09T07:58:46.870" UserId="7433" Text="Let's refine our definition of what scope we import from Astro.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="9d61abe4-0161-414a-bba6-877a2f31e120" CreationDate="2014-03-09T07:58:46.870" UserId="7433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="58971b9c-d824-4b11-81c8-f770a68b3a49" CreationDate="2014-03-09T14:57:54.153" UserId="5477" Text="I'm not massively in favour of trying to come up with a definition of &quot;on-topic astrobiology&quot;. I'd much rather just be a bit more inclusive in general about what we consider on topic. I mean, so what if the only physics input to that question comes from chemistry? Isn't chemistry a sub-field of physics, especially when you're talking about something as basic as the difference between carbon and silicon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we have this situation where the mantra is, it has to be &quot;about physics&quot; to be on topic. This is said to be defined in the help centre, but it isn't really. All the help centre does is give a list of types of question, each of which is defined in terms of physics. So it's &quot;about physics&quot; if it's on topic, and it's on topic if it's &quot;about physics&quot;, and the only way this can really be determined is through a body of vaguely worded case law that's scattered through a thousand meta posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a far better solution would be to re-think this whole &quot;about physics&quot; business. The quality of questions on this site has dropped massively over the past couple of years, so we're desperately in need of more good ones. I'm not saying that we should be inclusive when it comes to low quality or non-productive questions, but I do think we should lighten up a bit when it comes to the *topic* of questions. Arbitrarily lopping off whole sub-fields just because some people feel they belong in a different discipline just seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12575" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="0add8463-84e6-4c20-adbf-4de287f3f107" CreationDate="2014-03-09T15:49:38.090" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12577" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="d3de8680-3e8c-4e9b-8e90-b9558f9ea526" CreationDate="2014-03-10T01:42:25.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/442837850296713216" />
  <row Id="12578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="dc79034c-bb4c-4803-8bee-01712914815e" CreationDate="2014-03-10T02:16:54.863" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="One thing after the recent [astrobiology discussion][1] was clear: our policy that &quot;anything on topic on the old astrophysics site is on topic here&quot; seems to be a bit vague and under question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the wording does not make it clear, this was the _initial_ meaning behind this policy: &quot;The _topics_ which are allowed on the old astronomy site are on topic here too&quot;, with no statement about the other factors (broadness, etc) which can get a question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it need to be tweaked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we might want to review this rather vague-in-retrospect policy and come up with a definitive replacement. Something like &quot;astrophotography, observational astronomy, and astrobiology&quot; are on topic, with a definition for what we count as &quot;astrophotography / etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this comment][2] raises a valid point: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1 for pointing out that this is biology, not physics. Astrobiology deals with things like &quot;What signatures does photosynthesis imprint in planetary spectra?&quot; or &quot;Do we know of any organisms that could withstand the UV radiation in the habitable zone of an M dwarf?&quot; And yes, I'm speaking as an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that discussion revolved around the question being astrobiology and thus on topic, however the above point seems to throw a wrench in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that such confusions exist, I suggest we come with definitive criteria as to what is considered &quot;on topic astronomy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or possibly have a second look at this policy in general, since the &quot;we are an astronomy and physics&quot; site never really took off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened#comment16344_5566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="ca75c3c2-8a9f-4ddd-b327-c0bf46b61b54" CreationDate="2014-03-10T06:58:34.353" UserId="5477" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="**Note:** this answer addresses a previous version of the question, which contained an error that caused me to misinterpret it. It's mostly irrelevant now, but I'm keeping it around because I want to pick up the discussion later, in another post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not massively in favour of trying to come up with a definition of &quot;on-topic astrobiology&quot;. I'd much rather just be a bit more inclusive in general about what we consider on topic. I mean, so what if the only physics input to that question comes from chemistry? Isn't chemistry a sub-field of physics, especially when you're talking about something as basic as the difference between carbon and silicon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we have this situation where the mantra is, it has to be &quot;about physics&quot; to be on topic. This is said to be defined in the help centre, but it isn't really. All the help centre does is give a list of types of question, each of which is defined in terms of physics. So it's &quot;about physics&quot; if it's on topic, and it's on topic if it's &quot;about physics&quot;, and the only way this can really be determined is through a body of vaguely worded case law that's scattered through a thousand meta posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a far better solution would be to re-think this whole &quot;about physics&quot; business. The quality of questions on this site has dropped massively over the past couple of years, so we're desperately in need of more good ones. I'm not saying that we should be inclusive when it comes to low quality or non-productive questions, but I do think we should lighten up a bit when it comes to the *topic* of questions. Arbitrarily lopping off whole sub-fields just because some people feel they belong in a different discipline just seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12580" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="f008f96d-552e-4f2d-8cbc-2679143e7885" CreationDate="2014-03-10T14:48:01.147" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Let's refine our definition of what scope we import from Astronomy.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12581" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="f008f96d-552e-4f2d-8cbc-2679143e7885" CreationDate="2014-03-10T14:48:01.147" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12582" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="791cec10-c261-4d62-8b4d-35cf18da95a5" CreationDate="2014-03-11T05:53:06.817" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102944/how-to-use-mathjax" />
  <row Id="12583" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="c9e8a5be-9972-48dc-9859-6ff42d70f29d" CreationDate="2014-03-11T05:53:06.817" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102944/how-to-use-mathjax/102948#102948" />
  <row Id="12584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="73f60816-b821-4fca-b987-86efa361d6df" CreationDate="2014-03-11T05:41:06.007" UserId="36047" Text="Mathjax is pretty similar to Latex I believe. I would recommend learning Latex since it is more comprehensive and will be more helpful in the long run. However, it is not really necessary. Math SE has good references regarding Mathjax&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="3cfed23e-f352-4ccf-82e0-6673ee6a4f77" CreationDate="2014-03-11T05:29:05.973" UserId="28987" Text="I can't seem to find instruction anywhere on how to use Mathjax or whatever it is called to correctly format equations etc. I remember seeing a list but can't locate it on the site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="3cfed23e-f352-4ccf-82e0-6673ee6a4f77" CreationDate="2014-03-11T05:29:05.973" UserId="28987" Text="How to use Mathjax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="3cfed23e-f352-4ccf-82e0-6673ee6a4f77" CreationDate="2014-03-11T05:29:05.973" UserId="28987" Text="|discussion|homework|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12588" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="5e8ee554-c597-4b26-8077-34a282ed4b57" CreationDate="2014-03-11T08:09:28.887" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="1d988fc0-7eb6-483d-8cd9-e8148b4bffd5" CreationDate="2014-03-11T08:13:57.017" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq|mathjax|tex|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="e2cbd9aa-46e0-4c4f-aebc-84c9d9cdbbad" CreationDate="2014-03-11T08:15:12.573" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12591" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="a2f36e82-b171-4e7a-9a50-34c48abbc834" CreationDate="2014-03-11T20:34:04.607" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10851,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5612" RevisionGUID="d1ac26fd-240a-4c67-98e2-e6233c202e8d" CreationDate="2014-03-11T21:05:58.013" UserId="4485" Text="Other commitments in your life will be sufficient to regulate your participation on this site; you just have to ensure that you're not ignoring other opportunities that can help you live your life more fully the way you want to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is my participation optimized for the sort of life I could live?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I was passionate about research and hoping to go into teaching later on, I'd be using the site to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - look at every question and answer here, to get a good idea about how&#xD;&#xA;   people think about typical problems  &#xD;&#xA; - Practice my latex and writing&#xD;&#xA;   skills, to make writing a research paper easier.&#xD;&#xA; - wade through the trivia that may unearth an item of knowledge that might help me or a colleague later on&#xD;&#xA; - look at the activity of the talented users here, so I may learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, me coming on to the site becomes a problem if it undermines the sort of life I can lead, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - logging on every five minutes out of fear that I might not answer a question before everyone else.&#xD;&#xA; - re-reading the same questions and answers over again, without improving them in some way" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="cc6285be-e2c6-4b08-8070-6237e60182ee" CreationDate="2014-03-12T06:31:41.183" UserId="22494" Comment="edited body" Text="I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with [the Logo turtle question][1] and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xD;&#xA;But recently [Jeff disagreed][2], and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained [some][3] questions [about][4] physics for which there is [sparse][5] experimental evidence or [theoretical support][6]. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputable (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="8745fc0d-c270-4533-baa3-2bc2ec9b180b" CreationDate="2014-03-13T16:07:10.103" UserId="2451" Text="I have observed .3k users creating a lot of new tags that often in the end have to be manually remove again, which is time consuming for editors, and which, in turn, creates unnecessary extra traffic on the front page. Phys.SE is now 3.3 years old. It seems reasonable to assume that we already have most of the tags that we need now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Should we raise the privilege limit for tag creation from .3k to 1k?_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our sister site [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) has recently done this. For users without enough reputation, it will still be possible to suggest new tags, e.g., via meta posts or in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta post is only about the privilege limit to _create_ new tags. The post is not about merging/synonymizing/deleting tags. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="8745fc0d-c270-4533-baa3-2bc2ec9b180b" CreationDate="2014-03-13T16:07:10.103" UserId="2451" Text="Raising the privilege limit for tag creation from 300 to 1k?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="8745fc0d-c270-4533-baa3-2bc2ec9b180b" CreationDate="2014-03-13T16:07:10.103" UserId="2451" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="5866d008-be78-4cc8-84dc-6f2ace0b70c5" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:44:24.637" UserId="34564" Text="Has autocompletion been discussed for the search at the top right of a stackexchange sight? I'm relatively new to stackexchange in that my oldest account is 5 months old, so I am not sure if this has been suggested before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature would seem to be useful for physics, since we are often typing the same words into search, i.e. &quot;Feynman path integral&quot; &quot;covering group&quot; etc. Additionally an autocomplete feature for search might be of aid to beginning users of the sight (beginning physics exploration), who might not know what to query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how the task of subdividing the code to build the autocompletion would go, but that seems secondary right now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **main question** is whether users of the sight would find the feature of autocompletion for search useful.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="5866d008-be78-4cc8-84dc-6f2ace0b70c5" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:44:24.637" UserId="34564" Text="Adding an autocomplete for search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="5866d008-be78-4cc8-84dc-6f2ace0b70c5" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:44:24.637" UserId="34564" Text="|discussion|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12607" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="41e4aa75-abb3-4f08-94bc-6ec70e5c769f" CreationDate="2014-03-14T07:42:27.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/444378008439521280" />
  <row Id="12608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="f687455e-e9f5-46c4-abe4-96ff42150ab3" CreationDate="2014-03-14T08:39:09.293" UserId="31782" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="I asked this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98731/effects-of-microwaves  a few days ago. I really asked some offtopic things but now i've edited it appropriately. But it is still closed.   &#xD;&#xA; So how should edit this to make it on topic?  &#xD;&#xA;______________  &#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I have edited my question further, is it on topic now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12609" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="f687455e-e9f5-46c4-abe4-96ff42150ab3" CreationDate="2014-03-14T08:39:09.293" UserId="31782" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="How can I make my question On topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="57b5bd74-fe68-45ea-9080-26a20c945792" CreationDate="2014-03-14T10:59:44.210" UserId="2451" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I have observed .3k users creating a lot of new tags that often in the end have to be manually remove again, which are time consuming for editors, and which, in turn, create unnecessary extra traffic on the front page. Phys.SE is now 3.3 years old. It seems reasonable to assume that we already have most of the tags that we need now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Should we raise the privilege limit for tag creation from .3k to 1k?_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our sister site [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) has recently done this. For users without enough reputation, it will still be possible to suggest/propose new tags, e.g., via meta posts or in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta post is only about the privilege limit to _create_ new tags. The post is not about merging/synonymizing/deleting tags. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="363968e2-4a3d-4404-9994-1a0f61f33c7c" CreationDate="2014-03-14T11:42:03.097" UserId="31782" Text="I have asked a few question on this website. I always try to answer question which I can.  I never wrote any of my questions hastily. I have read this &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&gt; help page many a times. Nearly 5 or 6 of my question have been deleted by the &quot;community moderator&quot; because they were silently downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;My 3 questions are still alive which are down voted silently.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86526/ac-through-a-pure-inductor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90858/what-is-the-aperture-in-the-hydraulic-analogy-of-ohms-law. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why my questions were downvoted silently?**   &#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;My 6 answers are also down voted. These are:  &#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99377/relationship-between-stopping-potential-and-work-function/99385#99385  &#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94032/using-sin-or-cos-for-computing-shm/94096#94096  &#xD;&#xA;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89496/centripetal-force-in-frame-of-reference-of-body-moving-in-a-circle/89500#89500  &#xD;&#xA;4. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82828/explain-what-happens-to-object-in-lift/82831#82831  &#xD;&#xA;5. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95636/elastic-potential-energy/95642#95642  &#xD;&#xA;And  &#xD;&#xA;6. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87057/angular-displacement/87066#87066 ,I will never forget this one, I spend 2 days in finding the reference book.  &#xD;&#xA;**Why my answers were downvoted silently.**  &#xD;&#xA;____________________  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Note: If my posts are downvoted silently due to the grammatical and formatting mistakes then I want to tell the community one important thing:- I have the privilege to downvote, keep downvoting, I have started to find posts which have minor grammatical and spelling mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="363968e2-4a3d-4404-9994-1a0f61f33c7c" CreationDate="2014-03-14T11:42:03.097" UserId="31782" Text="Why my posts were downvoted and closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="363968e2-4a3d-4404-9994-1a0f61f33c7c" CreationDate="2014-03-14T11:42:03.097" UserId="31782" Text="|support|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="cf0bbc90-da96-4643-a6bd-5e3b18aa47c2" CreationDate="2014-03-14T12:43:31.190" UserId="8563" Text="I will only address your last comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grammar and formatting matter.** It is important that you recognize this site not only as a place to learn physics, but also (primarily?) as a place to learn to *communicate* physics. It is not enough to have it clear in your own head, and you also need to communicate it correctly. An answer that has serious grammar issues can be so hard to read that it is simply easier to give up, and particularly so for the parts of your audience that do not speak fluent English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formatting can also be harmful to an answer to the     &#xD;&#xA;point of rendering it unreadable. Answers which have unadjusted para-    &#xD;&#xA;graph lengths which have    &#xD;&#xA;you chasing the line all over the place are very tiring to read and will often cause downvotes simply in self-defense. It is important that    &#xD;&#xA;each paragraph contain one point and one point only and that it be visually    &#xD;&#xA;separated from the    &#xD;&#xA;other paragraphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stack Exchange text editor was built by web designers who have thought about such things for a long time. Let the editor do its job! Do not hijack its formatting like I did above. Enter each paragraph in a single go, without any unnecessary line breaks (which is essentially only equations), and leave an empty line in the text editor between different paragraphs. Finally, always use displayed equations (double dollar signs) whenever an equation deserves it own line. Isn't this a lot easier to read than the above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that threatening to downvote other posts is not as constructive as, say, asking for help as to how to better format your material. So you have found other posts with grammar and spelling mistakes? Good! Go and edit them so that they are better and easier for everyone to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a counter-argument, you may ask why people don't edit *your* posts for spelling and formatting. There may be many reasons for that. One is that you do seem to have gone to extra lengths to make your formatting hard to read, and it is sometimes felt as unpolite to go and undo your work, even if it is completely in the wrong direction. Another reason is that sometimes the edits would be too minor and would not merit bumping the thread up. Finally, when the edits are major enough to merit that, they usually render the answer essentially impossible to understand and they would make for an unreasonable amount of work.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, let me say that it is important to not take down-votes personally. Because any question or answer always takes in some amount of work, a downvote always tends to sting; this happens to everyone. However, when people downvote, it is as an indication that the post is `not useful`, as the tooltip says. If you get a downvote, take it as an invitation to reconsider the physics content of your post, and to make sure that the presentation is optimal for transmitting said content to people who do not know it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12615" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="8349acbd-03f7-4c4f-ab61-ee22eefcacf0" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:03:26.580" UserId="8563" Comment="Title grammar. You should still fix the grammar and formatting in the rest of the post. Note the proper verb construct for questions. It's not enough to stick &quot;why&quot; or &quot;how&quot; before a sentence to make it a question!" Text="Why were my posts downvoted and closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="12326888-62af-408c-8665-0cd10d8f6445" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:36:45.233" UserId="31782" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I have asked a few questions on this website. I always try to answer questions which I can.  I never wrote any of my questions hastily. I have read this &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&gt; help page many a times. Nearly 5 or 6 of my questions have been deleted by the &quot;community moderator&quot; because they were silently downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;My 3 questions are still alive which are downvoted silently.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86526/ac-through-a-pure-inductor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90858/what-is-the-aperture-in-the-hydraulic-analogy-of-ohms-law. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why my questions were downvoted silently?**   &#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;My 6 answers are also downvoted. These are:  &#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99377/relationship-between-stopping-potential-and-work-function/99385#99385  &#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94032/using-sin-or-cos-for-computing-shm/94096#94096  &#xD;&#xA;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89496/centripetal-force-in-frame-of-reference-of-body-moving-in-a-circle/89500#89500  &#xD;&#xA;4. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82828/explain-what-happens-to-object-in-lift/82831#82831  &#xD;&#xA;5. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95636/elastic-potential-energy/95642#95642  &#xD;&#xA;And  &#xD;&#xA;6. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87057/angular-displacement/87066#87066 ,I will never forget this one, I spend 2 days in finding the reference book.  &#xD;&#xA;**Why my answers were downvoted silently.**  &#xD;&#xA;____________________  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Note: If my posts are downvoted silently due to the grammatical and formatting mistakes then I want to tell the community one important thing:- I have the privilege to downvote, keep downvoting, I have started to find posts which have minor grammatical and spelling mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="39133309-d813-4507-949a-a8f59eeca48a" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:52:08.980" UserId="31782" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I have asked a few questions on this website. I always try to answer questions which I can.  I never wrote any of my questions hastily. I have read this &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&gt; help page many a times. Nearly 5 or 6 of my questions have been deleted by the &quot;community moderator&quot; because they were silently downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;My 3 questions are still alive which are downvoted silently.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86526/ac-through-a-pure-inductor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90858/what-is-the-aperture-in-the-hydraulic-analogy-of-ohms-law. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why  were my questions downvoted silently?**   &#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;My 6 answers are also downvoted. These are:  &#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99377/relationship-between-stopping-potential-and-work-function/99385#99385  &#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94032/using-sin-or-cos-for-computing-shm/94096#94096  &#xD;&#xA;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89496/centripetal-force-in-frame-of-reference-of-body-moving-in-a-circle/89500#89500  &#xD;&#xA;4. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82828/explain-what-happens-to-object-in-lift/82831#82831  &#xD;&#xA;5. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95636/elastic-potential-energy/95642#95642  &#xD;&#xA;And  &#xD;&#xA;6. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87057/angular-displacement/87066#87066 ,I will never forget this one, I spend 2 days in finding the reference book.  &#xD;&#xA;**Why were my answers downvoted silently.**  &#xD;&#xA;____________________  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Note: If my posts are downvoted silently due to the grammatical and formatting mistakes then I want to tell the community one important thing:- I have the privilege to downvote, keep downvoting, I have started to find posts which have minor grammatical and spelling mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="dd289ef4-2411-4767-aa95-93fcc9808b00" CreationDate="2014-03-14T22:04:50.403" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="95517f1c-9aca-4f73-b668-a13255d8097d" CreationDate="2014-03-14T22:04:53.527" UserId="2911" Text="##Let's look at some data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 365 days, 15 tags have been created by users with less than 1000 reputation at the time of creation and then used more than once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Name                      Used User Link                      Created    RepOnCreation &#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------- ---- ------------------------------ ---------- ------------- &#xD;&#xA;    klein-gordon-equation     70   Dimensio1n0                    6/26/2013  675           &#xD;&#xA;    absorption                18   MahderT                        10/15/2013 686           &#xD;&#xA;    optical-materials         15   WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance 7/26/2013  712           &#xD;&#xA;    coupled-oscillators       11   yankeefan11                    11/20/2013 357           &#xD;&#xA;    scale-invariance          10   user6818                       4/24/2013  737           &#xD;&#xA;    leptons                   6    riemannium                     9/9/2013   520           &#xD;&#xA;    soft-matter               6    FraSchelle                     6/14/2013  801           &#xD;&#xA;    ballistics                6    Adnan                          9/30/2013  574           &#xD;&#xA;    humidity                  4    Adnan                          9/30/2013  574           &#xD;&#xA;    laser-interaction         4    MahderT                        10/15/2013 686           &#xD;&#xA;    nucleation                4    Nanite                         12/11/2013 425           &#xD;&#xA;    anderson-localization     3    becko                          4/18/2013  680           &#xD;&#xA;    blackbody                 2    garyp                          3/4/2014   533           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 additional tags created in this period by users with &lt; 1000 reputation currently exist but are only used once on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, here are the 30 tags created during the same time period and used more than once by users with &gt;= 1000 reputation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Name                      Used User Link       Created    RepOnCreation &#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------- ---- --------------- ---------- ------------- &#xD;&#xA;    resource-recommendations  340  Qmechanic       12/10/2013 24196         &#xD;&#xA;    resistance                143  Qmechanic       8/20/2013  19452         &#xD;&#xA;    stars                     133  Qmechanic       8/1/2013   19212         &#xD;&#xA;    exoplanets                36   Qmechanic       8/1/2013   19212         &#xD;&#xA;    pions                     20   Ben Crowell     5/4/2013   4632          &#xD;&#xA;    beyond-the-standard-model 19   Ali             7/23/2013  1028          &#xD;&#xA;    conductors                16   Emilio Pisanty  10/21/2013 11691         &#xD;&#xA;    born-rule                 15   Dan             8/7/2013   3162          &#xD;&#xA;    dirac-matrices            15   Emilio Pisanty  12/3/2013  13517         &#xD;&#xA;    thought-experiment        14   udiboy          10/24/2013 2088          &#xD;&#xA;    black-hole-firewall       13   Brandon Enright 5/3/2013   1340          &#xD;&#xA;    time-dilation             12   Emilio Pisanty  2/6/2014   15455         &#xD;&#xA;    identical-particles       8    Qmechanic       11/1/2013  22626         &#xD;&#xA;    short-circuits            6    Emilio Pisanty  9/4/2013   9667          &#xD;&#xA;    charge-conjugation        6    Emilio Pisanty  10/3/2013  11272         &#xD;&#xA;    plasmon                   5    JoeHobbit       3/31/2013  1198          &#xD;&#xA;    image-processing          4    Dan             7/3/2013   2913          &#xD;&#xA;    type-i-string             4    Dimensio1n0     9/18/2013  2711          &#xD;&#xA;    zener-diodes              4    Emilio Pisanty  10/13/2013 11489         &#xD;&#xA;    ionization-energy         4    Anthony         10/17/2013 1102          &#xD;&#xA;    canonical-conjugation     3    Emilio Pisanty  10/29/2013 11828         &#xD;&#xA;    deformation-quantization  3    Qmechanic       9/7/2013   20027         &#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-reg           3    Hunter          3/1/2014   1368          &#xD;&#xA;    ground-state              2    Idear           1/8/2014   1132          &#xD;&#xA;    heterotic-string          2    Dimensio1n0     9/18/2013  2711          &#xD;&#xA;    nebulae                   2    Qmechanic       8/1/2013   19212         &#xD;&#xA;    affine-lie-algebra        2    user6818        3/25/2013  1166          &#xD;&#xA;    non-linear-schroedinger   2    Dan             3/28/2013  1839          &#xD;&#xA;    enthalpy                  2    Mostafa         10/21/2013 2051          &#xD;&#xA;    large-n                   2    user6818        2/9/2014   1208          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13 additional tags created in this period by users with &gt;= 1000 reputation currently exist but are only used once on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A total of 316 tags were destroyed during the same time period. I've no good way of determining when they were created or who created them, however it is reasonable to assume that *most* were created during the same time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-rep users are already handling the bulk of the tag creation. We could raise this limit with only a minor negative impact, provided users with the privilege are able to step up and handle cases where a question is posted without an appropriately-specific tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've raised it. **Step up!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="00e247f7-ac6a-42fa-aca3-403a51ec0ba5" CreationDate="2014-03-15T01:12:55.500" UserId="40289" Text="Thanks to Brandon Enright for putting the question &quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98513/is-there-a-field-equation-which-can-reduce-into-all-three-flavors-of-spin-zero&quot; on the featured list by placing a bounty on it. Since the bounty ran out, the question is no longer on the featured list and still remains unanswered. What is the next evolutionary stage of the question? Will it be cast into the sea of forgotten unanswered questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="00e247f7-ac6a-42fa-aca3-403a51ec0ba5" CreationDate="2014-03-15T01:12:55.500" UserId="40289" Text="What happens next if a question is unanswered after the bounty is dropped and is removed from the featured list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="00e247f7-ac6a-42fa-aca3-403a51ec0ba5" CreationDate="2014-03-15T01:12:55.500" UserId="40289" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="a506fecb-b601-4dcf-a306-508ccb3ae41f" CreationDate="2014-03-15T01:19:27.550" UserId="7433" Text="It stays open. You can put another bounty on it if you wish, though it is advisable to try and improve the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being &quot;cast into the sea of forgotten unanswered questions&quot; isn't something done deliberately, it just happens. But these do get found and answered, if good, eventually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="a3076f96-dced-4106-8fac-6577806e6ade" CreationDate="2014-03-15T13:42:34.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/444831022514208769" />
  <row Id="12625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="82f77781-f6c4-4464-8f77-959ac8ed470b" CreationDate="2014-03-16T02:20:32.487" UserId="124" Comment="edit to reflect the fact that computational questions have been off topic" Text="Recently we've been discussing [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102109/numerical-ising-model-wolff-algorithm-and-correlations) whether questions on numerical algorithms should be allowed when the context is a physics problem.  The last time this was discussed on Meta seems to be [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2) (a follow-up to [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions)), which implies that such questions should be allowed. However, computational questions have historically beenoff topic according to the definition of our scope in the help center, and the [last time I proposed changing that](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/921/computational-science-in-the-faq), the only response was to wait until the [Computational Science site](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) had taken off and reevaluate the decision then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, now Computational Science is well established, and nevertheless it seems we are of the opinion that numerical algorithms in a physical context should be on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this assessment accurate? Does the community want questions on numerical algorithms in a physical context to be on topic for us? (this is just a last opportunity for anyone who disagrees to speak out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How should we word the item that would need to be added to the [Help Center's on-topic page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) under the &quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot; heading to reflect this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="92c34091-ae5b-48f1-a0bf-828443734e43" CreationDate="2014-03-16T02:47:54.223" UserId="5477" Text="I would word the help-centre item like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the list of &quot;on topic&quot; things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Computational physics** [[followed by a link to an exemplary question]] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the list of &quot;off topic&quot; things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Implementation details** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question concerns writing, compiling, debugging or optimising code for a specific language or platform, it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science][1] or [Stack Overflow][2], however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finding a good exemplary question for computational physics is tricky due to them being off topic up to now. Perhaps we'd have to wait until a great one came along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've left out the issue of software questions (e.g. how to I do X in package Y), because it seems like a somewhat separate issue to me. We could always put an additional &quot;software issues&quot; item in the &quot;off topic&quot; list if we feel it's important enough to mention explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="7354bbe3-8599-4610-bd02-ffec4aeb826f" CreationDate="2014-03-16T03:25:57.037" UserId="5477" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I would word the help-centre item like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the list of &quot;on topic&quot; things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Computational physics** [[followed by a link to an exemplary question]] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the list of &quot;off topic&quot; things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Implementation details** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question concerns writing, compiling, debugging or optimising code for a specific language or library, it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science][1] or [Stack Overflow][2], however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finding a good exemplary question for computational physics is tricky due to them being off topic up to now. Perhaps we'd have to wait until a great one came along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've left out the issue of software questions (e.g. how to I do X in package Y), because it seems like a somewhat separate issue to me. We could always put an additional &quot;software issues&quot; item in the &quot;off topic&quot; list if we feel it's important enough to mention explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="35d402e9-afc3-47e0-9539-c12846d05257" CreationDate="2014-03-16T03:41:45.460" UserId="5477" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="I would word the help-centre item like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the list of &quot;on topic&quot; things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Computational physics** [[followed by a link to an exemplary question]] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the list of &quot;off topic&quot; things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Implementation details** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about *implementing* computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimising code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science][1] or [Stack Overflow][2], however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finding a good exemplary question for computational physics is tricky due to them being off topic up to now. Perhaps we'd have to wait until a great one came along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've left out the issue of software questions (e.g. how to I do X in package Y), because it seems like a somewhat separate issue to me. We could always put an additional &quot;software issues&quot; item in the &quot;off topic&quot; list if we feel it's important enough to mention explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="f8ccb4b5-8e3e-4143-93cf-914ba01d7c97" CreationDate="2014-03-16T16:11:34.780" UserId="9719" Comment="Add example." Text="NOTE: When I write up the first part of this, I am referring only to the context provided at the questions and answers themselves, at the time I am writing v1 of this answer. In the second part of this answer, I will address other comments provided here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Iron/Mercury sound:** I would flag as Not an Answer. That answer just says, &quot;If you asked this slightly different question, then the answer would be trivial.&quot; I would be okay with that, if the answer provided an explanation of why the original question doesn't make sense, and why that re-interpretation of the question is natural or needed. I would also be okay with that if, in addition to that, also answered the question as actually asked (in fact, I frequently do this myself). But the answer doesn't provide any of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flag on Moon:** I would not flag. I would dispute an NaA flag. The third paragraph is not helpful, and should not be there. By itself, it would be Not an Answer. But the rest of the answer actually does address the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Universe in black hole:** I would not flag. I would dispute an NaA flag. I read this answer as an attempt to interpret the question so it makes sense, and answer what the answerer regards as the question. I contrast this with the Iron/Mercury question because the answer here explains why he thinks he needs to apply his understanding to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Birds on a wire:** I would not flag. Without the comments provided there by Emilio and Brandon, I would dispute a flag. The comments point out the the premise of the answer is incorrect or needs to be justified. If the premise of the answer is incorrect, I regard it as Not an Answer (though I don't always flag such answers). I would not dispute an NaA flag if I saw either of those comments attached to the flag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;My reactions to other answers here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Question: **Can a post with an answer be deemed &quot;not an answer&quot; due to other stuff in it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say that, in theory, an answer could contain enough off-topic content for me to regard it as Not an Answer. In that case, the off-topic content would have to overwhelm the on-topic content to such an extent that it becomes difficult to find the on-topic answer. I don't see that in this case. I'm sure I've seen that happen in the past, but I can't think of any examples. UPDATE: [Ron Maimon's answer] to a GR resource request question is a perfect example of what I mean by this. The first sentence should just be a comment, and the rest of the answer doesn't even attempt to answer the question. I have just flagged it as Not An Answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If &quot;not an answer&quot; applied to posts that were completely wrong, based on a grave misunderstanding of basic principles [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it has happened to me a few times that I see a very bad answer and flag it, and it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, I have flagged things that I found so egregiously wrong or incoherent from a physics standpoint that I regarded them as not answers. And I have see that reply from whoever answered my flag. The result is that I am slower to flag things as NaA than I used to be. The answers I gave above about what I would have flagged (not necessarily about what I would have disputed) are, I believe, in line with what the team and the mods intend for that flag to mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NAA is for posts that are a separate question or a comment, or otherwise make no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two points where I disagree with what I think is the official intent of the NAA flag. One is the Birds on a wire answer.I believe the intent of the flag is not to include that answer as NaA, and leave it to voting to sort out the value of that answer. But I don't consider that an attempt to answer the question unless/until the author adds a justification for the premise of that answer. And I think we should consider deleting some answers like that if they don't add that justification after some time. The second point is that some answers are attempts to answer the question in a way, but the actual physics content is just incoherent. These answers are not just wrong, they're Not Even Wrong. Again, my understanding is that the official intent is to downvote those into oblivion, but I think we should consider deleting content that is physically incoherent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Maimon's answer]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15006/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="6603b819-1dfe-4802-a32c-b9ccedcc39be" CreationDate="2014-03-16T16:51:14.183" UserId="40282" Text="On [this comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103561/when-i-stretch-a-rubber-band-it-breaks-when-i-hold-the-broken-ends-together-w/103565?noredirect=1#comment211682_103565) here, I posted a link to the famous xkcd. What is weird is, the link is broken, with a 404 error. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you remove the trailing `/` from the link it goes to the page correctly, even though the browser adds `/` anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [here is a sample link](http://what-if.xkcd.com/54/) which works. It is to the same page. **Probable bug report**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="6603b819-1dfe-4802-a32c-b9ccedcc39be" CreationDate="2014-03-16T16:51:14.183" UserId="40282" Text="Link in comment returns false 404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="6603b819-1dfe-4802-a32c-b9ccedcc39be" CreationDate="2014-03-16T16:51:14.183" UserId="40282" Text="|bug|comments|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="64625a97-4174-41b3-b5f9-66e508f8d512" CreationDate="2014-03-16T16:53:40.217" UserId="520" Text="Using my moderator superpowers I have removed the trailing slashes. There also seemed to be some invisible characters there. In any case, both links seem to work now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="3c7254cc-15a8-4d13-972d-7edd1691455c" CreationDate="2014-03-18T02:48:59.690" UserId="34564" Text="After finding precedence http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5527/should-this-question-be-on-hold I'd like to bring a question that I wrote to attention. Namely, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102447/quantum-computing-records is currently marked as closed, but was modified after being placed on hold to limit the scope of answers. The last time a similar question was asked occured 3 years ago, and the field of quantum computing has undergone vast changes since then!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question has three short sub questions that can be answered with 2-4 sentences each with a paper or link backing up claims. Originally, I had asked if the answers could include more records that might be of interest, and that is where I believe the question became too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short I am asking that the question be looked at again for opening (preferably brought back) as it has been modified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="3c7254cc-15a8-4d13-972d-7edd1691455c" CreationDate="2014-03-18T02:48:59.690" UserId="34564" Text="Bringing a question back to life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="3c7254cc-15a8-4d13-972d-7edd1691455c" CreationDate="2014-03-18T02:48:59.690" UserId="34564" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="e6ca5fa2-e4ec-4860-9705-92f882128a50" CreationDate="2014-03-18T03:29:37.470" UserId="23119" Text="This [question][1] has been deleted. To me, the question was quite interesting. Can I have a screenshot of the entire question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89423/lagrangian-of-phi-4-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="e6ca5fa2-e4ec-4860-9705-92f882128a50" CreationDate="2014-03-18T03:29:37.470" UserId="23119" Text="Can I have a screenshot of &quot;Lagrangian of $\phi^4$ theory&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="e6ca5fa2-e4ec-4860-9705-92f882128a50" CreationDate="2014-03-18T03:29:37.470" UserId="23119" Text="|support|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="9df31925-d61d-4b20-a68d-eac26e5597a4" CreationDate="2014-03-18T03:50:19.333" UserId="6634" Text="Okay, so I posted these as comments but I thought about it some more and figured I should just turn it into an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the question stands, I don't feel it's too broad. But I also don't feel like it's a good question. It doesn't educate anybody about anything, other than some trivia and 3 numbers. That doesn't mean you couldn't get your numbers and make a good question though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think this could be split into 3 questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the current record for entangled qubits *and how has the number been increased*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This asks for the number but also looks for some analysis about the progress in the field. What cool things did people come up with to increase the number? Or did nothing change except time and money? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the longest storage time of a qubit at room temperature *and what breakthroughs led to the increase*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's tying it back to &quot;what physics makes this result possible&quot; rather than &quot;Just give me a number and a reference.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the longest storage time of a qubit at any temperature *and how does the temperature influence the storage time?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same trend -- tie it back to what is physically happening and what governs the numbers that are appearing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of those could be their own questions. They almost have to be, all together it would be too broad again. But one at a time, they are answerable with detail and references and give some insight into physics rather than just listing trivia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As always on questions like this, I can only represent my opinion and I can't guarantee others agree.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5633" RevisionGUID="8f874b8e-b2c3-4e6a-bdee-37fd746dd245" CreationDate="2014-03-18T05:31:54.733" UserId="5477" Text="I hope it's appropriate to post this. I can't think why it wouldn't be, so...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BwCmu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="fc84908a-0a11-4ee4-ad43-7cbd8e506411" CreationDate="2014-03-18T13:45:05.280" UserId="40289" Text="I noticed that stack overflow as an advertised career 2.0. I assume users on that site receive some type of career boost? Is there an equivalent for Physics Exchange? If not, could we make one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="fc84908a-0a11-4ee4-ad43-7cbd8e506411" CreationDate="2014-03-18T13:45:05.280" UserId="40289" Text="Is there a Physics Exchange Career 2.0?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="fc84908a-0a11-4ee4-ad43-7cbd8e506411" CreationDate="2014-03-18T13:45:05.280" UserId="40289" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5635" RevisionGUID="b83a3922-7f38-469e-a66d-728e5d2f69da" CreationDate="2014-03-18T14:30:51.387" UserId="7433" Text="Careers 2.0 is an exclusive place for those with good Stack Overflow / GitHub profiles, where employers can put job listings from this pool of &quot;good&quot; candidates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Employment in physics works very differently, and besides our community is small, so I doubt it would work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="e10eb304-67c1-4596-853c-6ebf15f944b8" CreationDate="2014-03-18T20:10:55.127" UserId="9426" Text="When accessing a pages with MathJax via the HTTPS protocol, we now use the CDN specified by the [MathJax FAQ](http://www.mathjax.org/resources/faqs/#problem-https):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How do I access the MathJax CDN using a https secure connection?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The MathJax CDN utilizes Rackspace’s CDN service. Unfortunately, this currently does not offer https support for the default address cdn.mathjax.org. However, as an alternative, you can use the following unmapped address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    https://c328740.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While not as appealing as cdn.mathjax.org, this address is stable and safe to use. For more information, see our documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So everyone should now be able to enjoy the beauty of quality mathematics notation whichever protocol they prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="a46eb27e-58b6-4ff9-8041-db90eb3b4f47" CreationDate="2014-03-20T05:46:56.973" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5637" RevisionGUID="ae155f5c-ed17-4cc9-aac0-cf8d952a1cdc" CreationDate="2014-03-21T00:22:24.460" UserId="42939" Text="Isn't it nice to get someone to ask a basic question? After all , everyone of us learned the basics some day. I think it is nice that the beginner has different sources of knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the problem is that of sifting. if we can categorize questions in to basic and advanced then it will be a relief to people who are irritated and embarrassed  at being in the same forum where mere mortals who are grappling with quantum entanglement. Those guys can get to the advanced area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this classification has to be very crude, May be some can appear in both sections. It is nice to see things out of your field of specialization, it helps a lot in developing  lateral thinking patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think one should not worry too much about the basic questions, Human brain is really good at spotting what it wants in 'noisy ' situations. ELITISM should not be welcomed and tolerated anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="21297691-cb72-4531-b828-17d12af3eb8d" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:11:11.890" UserId="1492" Text="I am aware that I make mistakes and do not follow the conventions and know nothing about the codes used for formulae so it is good when somebody edits my post. But I am curious, in [this editing][1] some real mistakes were corrected but also some words deleted and inserted as they were, at least in my browser (Firefox).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it possible that in other browsers some everyday  characters are interpreted differently? For example, I see no difference in the spelling and settings for &quot;telescope&quot; and &quot;the&quot; in the first line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As sometimes the spell checker does that too, I am wondering if my keyboard does something funny ( it is also a greek keyboard) that others can see who do not have greek in their browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/37484" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="21297691-cb72-4531-b828-17d12af3eb8d" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:11:11.890" UserId="1492" Text="changes in a post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="21297691-cb72-4531-b828-17d12af3eb8d" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:11:11.890" UserId="1492" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="f13dad33-e0c8-4d8a-939d-635ab36c05c1" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:45:10.410" UserId="22494" Text="If you look at the diff in the default &quot;rendered output&quot; view, you see words like &quot;telescope&quot; and &quot;the&quot; are highlighted like they've been changed but you can't see the changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you switch to the &quot;markdown&quot; view though, you can see what changed.  In both cases you used two spaces before the words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a&lt;space&gt;&lt;space&gt;telescope focusing&lt;space&gt;&lt;space&gt;the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple spaces in a row are not rendered so they look like one space in rendered output even though they are more than one space in markup.  So when your answer was edited and the extra spaces removed, no visible change was made but the diff engine still detected the change and highlighted it for you.  This is why it looks like no change was made but there are still words highlighted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="0287ff92-d577-4f64-8c3a-f85f0daab8d4" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:50:05.910" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am aware that I make mistakes and do not follow the conventions and know nothing about the codes used for formulae so it is good when somebody edits my post. But I am curious, in [this editing][1] some real mistakes were corrected but also some words deleted and inserted as they were, at least in my browser (Firefox).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that in other browsers some everyday characters are interpreted differently? For example, I see no difference in the spelling and settings for &quot;telescope&quot; and &quot;the&quot; in the first line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As sometimes the spell checker does that too, I am wondering if my keyboard does something funny (it is also a greek keyboard) that others can see who do not have greek in their browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/37484" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="0287ff92-d577-4f64-8c3a-f85f0daab8d4" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:50:05.910" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Invisible changes in my post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="0287ff92-d577-4f64-8c3a-f85f0daab8d4" CreationDate="2014-03-21T05:50:05.910" UserId="22494" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="f2b8f57e-7a6f-4854-aa33-970477b29b02" CreationDate="2014-03-21T09:20:21.327" UserId="8563" Text="Just a quick note on a relevant development at MSO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Let's get rid of the 10K flag queue](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, if it goes through, much of this discussion would be obsolete. I quite like it, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="efbb5614-2d46-4b62-82e8-b87bb19f4506" CreationDate="2014-03-22T00:02:58.563" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="0065406f-2c4c-47b3-a61e-2a7b766d21dc" CreationDate="2014-03-22T18:41:41.557" UserId="25833" Text="I tried to delete a question but I got a message saying that I can't because it has answers, and asked me to flag this for a moderator attention so this is what I did but then I got a message saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did I do wrong? Doesn't this problem need moderator intervention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="0065406f-2c4c-47b3-a61e-2a7b766d21dc" CreationDate="2014-03-22T18:41:41.557" UserId="25833" Text="Why was my flag to delete my question declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="0065406f-2c4c-47b3-a61e-2a7b766d21dc" CreationDate="2014-03-22T18:41:41.557" UserId="25833" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="5c3ded6e-041f-4cd8-80c8-f644a40dcf39" CreationDate="2014-03-22T19:04:26.410" UserId="25833" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="I tried to delete a question but I got a message saying that I can't because it has answers, and asked me to flag this for a moderator attention so this is what I did but then I got a message saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did I do wrong? Doesn't this problem need moderator intervention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here is my question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68911/why-do-current-and-electrons-flow-in-opposite-directions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which has 10700 views while the other one which my question is closed as duplicate of only has 3000 views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is distracting from the other one for that I want to delete it. Also I have three badges I've earned can you please undo them because they are illegal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry for asking the duplicate question but I didn't know it was a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="df980614-1855-4305-8e65-131f24a7c11c" CreationDate="2014-03-22T20:17:24.807" UserId="7433" Text="I merged the two for you. Requesting a merge makes sense here, if you request deletion the moderator will look at the post from that POV and decline it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always, try to be specific in flags, it really helps especially when there are a lot of flags to go through :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="6b6caf2b-9932-4110-b6c9-88d487491065" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:10:30.467" UserId="41680" Text="Twice today, I have accidentally clicked “add comment” and unable to find a cancel button, closed the browser tab." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="6b6caf2b-9932-4110-b6c9-88d487491065" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:10:30.467" UserId="41680" Text="How do you cancel a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="6b6caf2b-9932-4110-b6c9-88d487491065" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:10:30.467" UserId="41680" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="6e3d6446-0d73-44b6-99a0-b473f37d1209" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:17:15.420" UserId="41680" Text="I did comment on a comment, but since what I wrote isn’t there, either I forgot to post it or it was deleted.  Neither of those would explain fifty points suddenly appearing as associated with that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="6e3d6446-0d73-44b6-99a0-b473f37d1209" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:17:15.420" UserId="41680" Text="Why do I get fifty rep for apparently doing nothing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="6e3d6446-0d73-44b6-99a0-b473f37d1209" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:17:15.420" UserId="41680" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="683cf0ca-3b60-47ce-b438-525141d0a199" CreationDate="2014-03-23T05:31:08.107" UserId="520" Text="The only activity your account shows in [this answer][1] which has attracted five upvotes to date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/101650/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5646" RevisionGUID="15d70775-6f4b-44fd-8436-114422af31c1" CreationDate="2014-03-23T07:06:40.583" UserId="7433" Text="You can delete a comment you create, there's a little &quot;x&quot; next to an added comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="6b1a650f-b77a-4385-9fc7-9e960ccc17d9" CreationDate="2014-03-23T16:25:26.100" UserId="2451" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="It depends on the question. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a question of the form  _What does this notation/terminology mean?_ is on-topic if it cannot immediately be answered by a simple Google search/Wikipedia lookup.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a question of the form _What is the standard notation for this quantity?_ or _Why do we use this notation?_ is off-topic/not constructive, and should go to chat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: If the site gets swamped by notational/terminology soft-questions instead of conceptional physics questions, we might want to rethink this policy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="6963574a-8f4c-49b8-a627-4ebc289cfd56" CreationDate="2014-03-23T23:29:02.803" UserId="5477" Text="It should simply be considered on topic. Notation questions are useful and occasionally interesting, and I see no tangible benefit in not having them on the site. (Unless of course they have other problems, such as being too broad, unclear etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="450b5095-8573-496f-ad86-d3e4ad686a0d" CreationDate="2014-03-24T10:26:11.343" UserId="24653" Text="I have recently asked a few questions about QFT in curved spacetime, and have noticed that there is no existing tag for this topic. I looked around the forum some more and found that there are several questions which would fall under this category, so I think it could be a useful addition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I tried to create a tag I was told that tags can not exceed 25 characters. This makes perfect sense, but then it becomes quite hard to create an appropriate tag. Therefore, I was wondering: What would be a good tag name for questions like these? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="450b5095-8573-496f-ad86-d3e4ad686a0d" CreationDate="2014-03-24T10:26:11.343" UserId="24653" Text="A tag for QFT in curved spacetime?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="450b5095-8573-496f-ad86-d3e4ad686a0d" CreationDate="2014-03-24T10:26:11.343" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="21134a5f-bba2-4ff9-835a-27f1cc039e0b" CreationDate="2014-03-24T20:29:57.393" UserId="124" Text="This seems like a good use case for a combination of tags, like [tag:quantum-field-theory] and [tag:curvature]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="084fcf93-cf81-4084-943e-24a236c6020b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T16:16:43.700" UserId="1325" Text="23 downvotes on different questions in a 1 minute period (around 15:30 GMT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose most active members will have suffered this at some point, but it's my first and it's surprisingly annoying. I trust the serial downvote detector will be along at some point to reverse this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="084fcf93-cf81-4084-943e-24a236c6020b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T16:16:43.700" UserId="1325" Text="Got my first serial downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="084fcf93-cf81-4084-943e-24a236c6020b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T16:16:43.700" UserId="1325" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="2fa0e3b4-749b-4ce7-9395-5322d6ee4b17" CreationDate="2014-03-25T16:56:51.447" UserId="1325" Comment="The last sentence is a question" Text="23 downvotes on different questions in a 1 minute period (around 15:30 GMT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose most active members will have suffered this at some point, but it's my first and it's surprisingly annoying. I trust the serial downvote detector will be along at some point to reverse this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="950f2cd6-9744-439c-bae9-50a9962665c4" CreationDate="2014-03-25T21:51:28.767" UserId="124" Text="Yes, the votes should be reversed within 24 hours. If they're not, then it's time to let a moderator know, on meta or chat or by a custom flag on one of the affected posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information see [this post on meta.SO](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5652" RevisionGUID="61d10f9c-b66e-41bf-b082-3dc0afafd0a0" CreationDate="2014-03-25T22:39:26.343" UserId="10456" Text="Maybe quantum field theory in curved spacetime is too specific.  Maybe we can broaden it up a little to something like &quot;qft-in-classical-background&quot; intending to capture all topics involving some sort of (non-trivial) background fields including gravitational ones...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would envision questions concerning Hawking radiation, Unruh effect, Schwinger effect, fermion non-conservation by Monopoles, or Instantons *etc.* to all carry such a tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="101e5eaf-5668-4858-bf5a-4a278edaa1d3" CreationDate="2014-03-27T16:59:22.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/449229199367487488" />
  <row Id="12704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="e579124a-f21d-4e0e-b3b5-65f158f9711d" CreationDate="2014-03-27T20:56:13.373" UserId="8563" Text="[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105347/contravariant-and-covariant-vectors-conceptual-problem) just made me look at the tag [tag:covariance], and I didn't like what I saw. The tag is a mismatched collection of questions about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lorentz covariance of theories in relativity,&#xD;&#xA; - covariance of a physical quantity under Lorentz transformations,&#xD;&#xA; - covariant derivatives,&#xD;&#xA; - the differences between covariant and contravariant vectors, and&#xD;&#xA; - statistical covariance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a tag to be useful it needs to refer to a coherent set of connected questions; by that metric this tag is useless. I therefore propose we instate the tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:relativistic-covariance] for the first two,&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:covariant-derivative] and&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:covectors].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While [statistical covariance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_matrix) has huge traction in physics (e.g. [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1869)), [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23719/autocorrelation-functions-pair-correlation-functions) is our only statistics covariance question and it's hardly about that, so I propose that tag be dropped. If needed further down, the tag [tag:statistical-covariance] can be introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will implement these changes over the weekend (so I don't dump forty questions on the front page in one go) unless there are any objections or better proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help prevent this happening again, I also propose we blacklist the [tag:covariance] tag. Setting up [tag:covariant-vectors] as a synonym for [tag:covectors] will ensure it will come up when someone tries to use [tag:covariance], and having appropriate tag wiki excerpts for the tags should help guide people to the correct tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="e579124a-f21d-4e0e-b3b5-65f158f9711d" CreationDate="2014-03-27T20:56:13.373" UserId="8563" Text="What's with the [covariance] tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="e579124a-f21d-4e0e-b3b5-65f158f9711d" CreationDate="2014-03-27T20:56:13.373" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="98982dc3-d52d-4feb-bfd2-e12f89944a10" CreationDate="2014-03-27T21:20:33.163" UserId="2451" Text="1)The [tag:covariance] tag is supposed to cover whatever-notion-the-physical-system-in-question-is-covariant-under, typically relativistic covariance, but also more abstractly, e.g. contravariant and covariant tensors not necessarily in the context of GR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other uses of the [tag:covariance] tag than above is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Statistical covariance should be tagged with [tag:statistics] (which in turn should only be used for [statistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics). E.g. Fermi-Dirac statistics etc. goes under [tag:spin-statistics]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Covariant derivatives should be tagged [tag:differential-geometry] and perhaps [tag:differentiation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Covector, bivector, differential forms, etc, should be typically tagged with [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:tensors].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="2de0f410-a23b-4930-a699-8dbc13d7b1a3" CreationDate="2014-03-28T00:01:50.023" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1774 characters in body" Text="I) Specifically about covariance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The [tag:covariance] tag is supposed to cover whatever-notion-the-physical-system-in-question-is-covariant-under, typically relativistic covariance, but also more abstractly, e.g. contravariant and covariant tensors not necessarily in the context of GR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other uses of the [tag:covariance] tag than the above are wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Covariant derivatives should be tagged [tag:differential-geometry] and perhaps [tag:differentiation]. (The [tag:covariance] tag could apply here if the main topic of the question is point 1.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Covector, bivector, differential forms, etc, should typically be tagged with [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:tensors].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Statistical covariance, average, etc, should be tagged with [tag:statistics] (which in turn should only be used for [statistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) in the mathematical sense. E.g. Fermi-Dirac statistics etc. go under [tag:statistical-mechanics], while the [tag:spin-statistics] tag is ideally reserved for issues related to the spin-statistics theorem). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, the issue of tagging is non-trivial and difficult to make perfect. Since the system doesn't know which tags are close, and which tags are far apart in tag space (the metric is the [discrete metric](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiscreteMetric.html)), it is often better to have broad tags with simple rules rather than specific tags that nobody else will use consistently or have heard about. In plain English: it might be better to compromise and either (i) tag dromedary questions with the [tag:camel] tag rather than introducing a new [tag:dromedary] tag with the consequence that the system will no longer recognize that posts with [tag:dromedary] and [tag:camel] are likely very similar; or (ii) make [tag:dromedary] a [synonym](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) of the [tag:camel] tag, with the consequence that questions tagged with [tag:dromedary] would automatically be retagged as [tag:camel] by the system, even if experts of dromedaries would strongly object to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will likely continue to be tags that cause various problems. E.g. the tags [tag:mathematical-physics] and [tag:specific-reference] are often applied wrongly. Non-descriptive tags, such as, e.g. [tag:general-physics], [tag:differential-equations], [tag:equations-of-motion], etc, are overused. Ambiguous tags, such as, e.g. [tag:space] should be replaced by [tag:geometry], [tag:spacetime], [tag:vacuum], [tag:space-travel], etc, depending on context. And so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12709" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="c2099357-24b0-4d74-baed-3e0d6090a220" CreationDate="2014-03-28T05:34:07.013" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [a3e0ad6f-dd93-49cb-a658-13c32d07167d]" Text="##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="24548dbf-f084-43ed-8c63-005692cd66a8" CreationDate="2014-03-28T16:48:09.660" UserId="124" Comment="fix headings" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="c99b7b36-f026-41d9-a945-1b6d61f48d2a" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:12:37.757" UserId="42975" Text="Lists of questions etc show links to select the count of items per page on the lower right. Next to it, there is a separate describing label with the text &quot;per page&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Because the label has just the same design as the links nearby, it looks to me like another similar link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the relation to the other links, I expected that it provides a way to specify other item counts not covered by the links, eg. &quot;200&quot; or &quot;all&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the label be changed to look different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like on meta.stackoverflow.com, where the &quot;per page&quot; label uses just plain text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also compare the &quot;next&quot; link on the left between those variants - it should be changed just the other way around I suppose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="c99b7b36-f026-41d9-a945-1b6d61f48d2a" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:12:37.757" UserId="42975" Text="Can the label &quot;per page&quot; on lists made look different than the links next to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="c99b7b36-f026-41d9-a945-1b6d61f48d2a" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:12:37.757" UserId="42975" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="fa3a2657-cb57-499a-b91a-a39257245c95" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:29:46.110" UserId="42975" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="Lists of questions etc show links to select the count of items per page on the lower right. Next to it, there is a separate describing label with the text &quot;per page&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Because the label has just the same design as the links nearby, it looks to me like another similar link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the relation to the other links, I expected that it provides a way to specify other item counts not covered by the links, eg. &quot;200&quot; or &quot;all&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the label be changed to look different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like on meta.stackoverflow.com, where the &quot;per page&quot; label uses just plain text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also compare the &quot;next&quot; link on the left between those variants - it should be changed just the other way around I suppose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the image for an example of the relevant lower part of a question list page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example of the relevant lower part of a question list page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mQCXD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="9e9bae96-1481-4a78-9bf0-a5a76c629be3" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:41:50.863" UserId="42975" Comment="remove incorrect description of a related issue - more confusing than helpful anyway" Text="Lists of questions etc show links to select the count of items per page on the lower right. Next to it, there is a separate describing label with the text &quot;per page&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Because the label has just the same design as the links nearby, it looks to me like another similar link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the relation to the other links, I expected that it provides a way to specify other item counts not covered by the links, eg. &quot;200&quot; or &quot;all&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the label be changed to look different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like on meta.stackoverflow.com, where the &quot;per page&quot; label uses just plain text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the image for an example of the relevant lower part of a question list page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example of the relevant lower part of a question list page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mQCXD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12716" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="dd86049f-2700-4ae4-a03c-b70508a8e9be" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:50:34.713" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="8f637bcf-7ce7-40dd-91fa-3eec064b1701" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:57:10.917" UserId="42975" Comment="Add image to illustrrate proposed change" Text="Lists of questions etc show links to select the count of items per page on the lower right. Next to it, there is a separate describing label with the text &quot;per page&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Because the label has just the same design as the links nearby, it looks to me like another similar link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the relation to the other links, I expected that it provides a way to specify other item counts not covered by the links, eg. &quot;200&quot; or &quot;all&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the label be changed to look different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like on meta.stackoverflow.com, where the &quot;per page&quot; label uses just plain text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See below for an example of the relevant lower part of a question list page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example of the relevant lower part of a question list page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the design of the label &quot;per page&quot; and the related number links with this example from meta.stackoverflow.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example similar to proposed change][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mQCXD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zezQi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="8f637bcf-7ce7-40dd-91fa-3eec064b1701" CreationDate="2014-03-28T20:57:10.917" UserId="42975" Comment="Add image to illustrrate proposed change" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="fff61c88-906d-468c-a1e5-abc30303759b" CreationDate="2014-03-29T01:47:56.550" UserId="29762" Text="In physics forums, I created two accounts (actually for myself, for not being able to change my photograph), then I was suspended from the site. Now, as my sister is forcing me to create an account for her also, can create another for her? Why I asked is that, I should not get suspended even here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="fff61c88-906d-468c-a1e5-abc30303759b" CreationDate="2014-03-29T01:47:56.550" UserId="29762" Text="Can I create two accounts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="fff61c88-906d-468c-a1e5-abc30303759b" CreationDate="2014-03-29T01:47:56.550" UserId="29762" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="f89ef24f-d0e3-4a0d-a0d4-aa7cf6aa53b6" CreationDate="2014-03-29T02:42:02.640" UserId="124" Text="Yes, you're allowed to create multiple accounts, but there are [some restrictions on how you can use them](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/57682/how-should-sockpuppets-be-handled-on-stack-exchange). Let me quote the key part of that answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **if the second account allows you to do something on the site that your normal account would be prevented from doing, it is abuse.**  Examples of this include (but are not limited to):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Voting on your own posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Casting multiple votes on others' posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Supporting your own arguments (_&quot;+1: shog is right, don't know why the rest of you don't realize this&quot;_)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using bounties to circumvent the rep cap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Circumventing suspensions, quality bans, or the rate limits on posting questions / answers / comments / etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the evidence available to moderators is suggestive of any of these activities, we'll take whatever corrective action is necessary. Usually that means merging and suspending the accounts, but of course it could vary on a case by case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to create multiple accounts and use them regularly, I'd suggest thinking carefully about why you want to do so, and whether you really need to. Although, as I said, it is _allowed_ to create and regularly use multiple accounts, it's not very common to have a good reason for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, Physics Forums is a completely different kind of site. In general, anything you may know about their policies won't necessarily apply here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="dfe5df75-cffb-4f16-bf54-b62d926f21e5" CreationDate="2014-03-29T17:58:14.713" UserId="2451" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="I) Specifically about covariance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The [tag:covariance] tag is supposed to cover whatever-notion-the-physical-system-in-the-question-is-covariant-under, typically relativistic covariance, but also more abstractly, e.g., contravariant and covariant tensors not necessarily in the context of relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other uses of the [tag:covariance] tag than the above are wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Covariant derivatives should be tagged [tag:differential-geometry] and perhaps [tag:differentiation]. (The [tag:covariance] tag could apply here if the main topic of the question is point 1.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Covector, bivector, differential forms, etc, should typically be tagged with [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:tensors].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Statistical covariance, average, etc, should be tagged with [tag:statistics] (which in turn should only be used for [statistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) in the mathematical sense. E.g. Fermi-Dirac statistics etc. go under [tag:quantum-statistics] and perhaps [tag:statistical-mechanics], while the [tag:spin-statistics] tag is ideally reserved for issues related to the spin-statistics theorem). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, the issue of tagging is non-trivial and difficult to make perfect. Since the system doesn't know which tags are close, and which tags are far apart in tag space (the metric is the [discrete metric](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiscreteMetric.html)), it is often better to have broad tags with simple rules rather than specific tags that nobody else will use consistently or have heard about. In plain English: it might be better to compromise and either (i) tag dromedary questions with the [tag:camel] tag rather than introducing a new [tag:dromedary] tag with the consequence that the system will no longer recognize that posts with [tag:dromedary] and [tag:camel] are likely very similar; or (ii) make [tag:dromedary] a [synonym](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) of the [tag:camel] tag, with the consequence that questions tagged with [tag:dromedary] would automatically be retagged as [tag:camel] by the system, even if experts of dromedaries would strongly object to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will likely continue to be tags that cause various problems. E.g. the tags [tag:mathematical-physics] and [tag:specific-reference] are often applied wrongly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-descriptive tags, such as, e.g. [tag:general-physics], [tag:differential-equations], [tag:equations-of-motion], etc, should be avoided as they serve little purpose. (Many questions on Phys.SE involve differential equations and equations of motion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ambiguous tag, such as, e.g. [tag:space] should either be replaced by [tag:geometry], [tag:spacetime], [tag:vacuum], [tag:space-travel], etc, depending on context. Or the proper use of an ambiguous tag should be spelled out in the corresponding tag wiki. E.g. use of the [tag:distributions] tag is explained in its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/distributions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="2561338f-4aec-4690-884a-fa204a0259eb" CreationDate="2014-03-29T18:21:23.737" UserId="2451" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="I) Specifically about covariance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The [tag:covariance] tag is supposed to cover whatever-notion-the-physical-system-in-the-question-is-covariant-under, typically relativistic covariance, but also more abstractly, e.g., contravariant and covariant tensors not necessarily in the context of relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other uses of the [tag:covariance] tag than the above are wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Covariant derivatives in differential geometry should be tagged [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:gauge-invariance] and perhaps [tag:differentiation]. (The [tag:covariance] tag could apply here if the main topic of the question is point 1.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Gauge Covariant derivatives should be tagged [tag:gauge-invariance] and perhaps [tag:gauge-theory] and [tag:differentiation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Covector, bivector, differential forms, etc, should typically be tagged with [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:tensors].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Statistical covariance, average, etc, should be tagged with [tag:statistics] (which in turn should only be used for [statistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) in the mathematical sense. E.g. Fermi-Dirac statistics etc. go under [tag:quantum-statistics] and perhaps [tag:statistical-mechanics], while the [tag:spin-statistics] tag is ideally reserved for issues related to the spin-statistics theorem). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, the issue of tagging is non-trivial and difficult to make perfect. Since the system doesn't know which tags are close, and which tags are far apart in tag space (the metric is the [discrete metric](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiscreteMetric.html)), it is often better to have broad tags with simple rules rather than specific tags that nobody else will use consistently or have heard about. In plain English: it might be better to compromise and either (i) tag dromedary questions with the [tag:camel] tag rather than introducing a new [tag:dromedary] tag with the consequence that the system will no longer recognize that posts with [tag:dromedary] and [tag:camel] are likely very similar; or (ii) make [tag:dromedary] a [synonym](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) of the [tag:camel] tag, with the consequence that questions tagged with [tag:dromedary] would automatically be retagged as [tag:camel] by the system, even if experts of dromedaries would strongly object to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will likely continue to be tags that cause various problems. E.g. the tags [tag:mathematical-physics] and [tag:specific-reference] are often applied wrongly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-descriptive tags, such as, e.g. [tag:general-physics], [tag:differential-equations], [tag:equations-of-motion], etc, should be avoided as they serve little purpose. (Many questions on Phys.SE involve differential equations and equations of motion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ambiguous tag, such as, e.g. [tag:space] should either be replaced by [tag:geometry], [tag:spacetime], [tag:vacuum], [tag:space-travel], etc, depending on context. Or the proper use of an ambiguous tag should be spelled out in the corresponding tag wiki. E.g. use of the [tag:distributions] tag is explained in its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/distributions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="0d722ddd-0c70-4d5f-9e0c-0391c6e7af0a" CreationDate="2014-03-30T07:08:06.357" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="I am a new user and I have already answered 19 questions. What annoys me is that in most cases the person who has asked the question does not revert back to accept an answer. I am pretty sure that if not all, most of my answers were pretty helpful. This is most relevant especially in cases where only I answered the question. Shouldn't this be monitored?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="0d722ddd-0c70-4d5f-9e0c-0391c6e7af0a" CreationDate="2014-03-30T07:08:06.357" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="Questions with no accepted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="0d722ddd-0c70-4d5f-9e0c-0391c6e7af0a" CreationDate="2014-03-30T07:08:06.357" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="|discussion|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="b93c2e6b-3d2a-4327-9b89-28758d842ddc" CreationDate="2014-03-30T17:58:58.733" UserId="6634" Text="It is monitored, sort of. The community tends to self-police (at least on other SE sites, I haven't seen it too often here but I could just be missing it). In other words, person A asks a question and somebody comes along and leaves a comment &quot;Hey, I would like to answer your question but you have a history of leaving answers unaccepted. If you accept answers on other questions, somebody might be more interested in answering this one.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if somebody consistently doesn't accept an answer, then stop answering their questions (and if you post a friendly suggestion as a comment, others may stop answering also). And the person may correct their behavior and accept good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also post a comment like Kyle suggested. Just be polite while posting the reminder. Assume the user is just a beginner who is unaware of how the site works rather than the user is lazy or abusive and maliciously leaves things unaccepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's sometimes easy to identify questioners unlikely to accept an answer. Do they have many unaccepted questions? Are their questions homework? Do they answer other peoples' questions? There's probably a lot more clues than that to figure it out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So -- if you find yourself consistently getting burned by answering questions that never have any answers accepted, consider changing which questions you answer. Of course, that's if it bothers you at all. Maybe you're just happy to contribute to increasing knowledge for others who visit the question. Then it shouldn't matter whether it is accepted or not. All that matters is the usefulness of the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="dcfb6f72-6d9c-4fcc-9a51-b3dbfabeb85d" CreationDate="2014-03-31T04:26:09.730" UserId="3257" Text="I just got an announcement that by getting 2000 rep, I can edit questions and answers without review.  The title bar shows my rep as 1990.  I clicked on my icon in the title bar to see if that would cause an update, but it didn't.  It is probably a difference in update times for the different pieces of the site, but it has persisted for a while.  More amusement than a real problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="dcfb6f72-6d9c-4fcc-9a51-b3dbfabeb85d" CreationDate="2014-03-31T04:26:09.730" UserId="3257" Text="Reputation display" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="dcfb6f72-6d9c-4fcc-9a51-b3dbfabeb85d" CreationDate="2014-03-31T04:26:09.730" UserId="3257" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="55f38351-805c-4963-81bd-0783e8abaa2c" CreationDate="2014-03-31T09:19:27.060" UserId="8563" Text="If you want to force a recalculation of your reputation, the reputation page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will give you an exhaustive breakdown and force a recalc. I currently see your reputation  at 2,010, so you're above that threshold, but as dmckee notes it is perfectly plausible for someone to have upvoted one of your answers, triggering the announcement, and then retracted the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes can be retracted [within the first five minutes after they're cast](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/34323/im-getting-your-vote-is-too-old-to-be-changed-for-a-vote-i-made-less-than), in which case they do not show up in your reputation history. They can also [be retracted if the post is edited](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/19235/is-this-a-bug-in-voting-or-is-it-supposed-to-work-like-this), in which case you will get a corresponding `-10` on your reputation history, with the explanation `unupvote`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [What are the limits on how I can cast, change, and retract votes?](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5212/what-are-the-limits-on-how-i-can-cast-change-and-retract-votes) at the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tNPNP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="32d252c2-45c7-42cb-b0dd-46403d9f778d" CreationDate="2014-03-31T11:19:00.450" UserId="27166" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="3ac012e0-3475-4b88-bbb5-4772e68ed4f4" CreationDate="2014-03-31T18:21:01.547" UserId="29762" Text="Everyone love this site. Some might ask more questions, some might answer more questions, some might do both, they enjoy doing these. This make them to visit the site often, me too.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It is not a bad thing to visit the site often, it will help you develop your reasoning, your ability to question in a clear way, answer the questions in a better way, in the sense confining the large matter to a shorter paragraph, to make one not to loss the significance in the bulk and every other things.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Generally, it will harm your performance in the exams, your participation in the SE will confine you to use your limited time to learn only some concepts, but you would had learned them in depth. The question papers contain only those questions, which are not in depth, but the questions which are easy. But, as one wouldn't had learnt all the concepts because of his non-economical use of time, he drops from his standards.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;If you are going in depth about physics asking questions and answering which are unanswered (rather answering/asking easy questions), it is worth spending time here, as I can assure that you are going to be our next Noble prize winner:) It makes you proud that you are different from others.      &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Its worth spending time to focus on your course and also participate here, both have some advantages and disadvantages.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The one thing you could do is that you could visit this site only once in a day for 45 minutes (if you could utilize this long time), or visit this site thrice, each of 15 minutes period. I have tried the latter, but I desire to spend more and I go on. So I would suggest you to follow the former.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="dc2f9ef3-6921-4362-bd56-143d5f3d2d51" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:58:09.367" UserId="25833" Text="Every time I click on an option it is not accepted, what option should I choose to buy some unicoins?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really like the effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="dc2f9ef3-6921-4362-bd56-143d5f3d2d51" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:58:09.367" UserId="25833" Text="Why can't I buy Unicoins?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="dc2f9ef3-6921-4362-bd56-143d5f3d2d51" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:58:09.367" UserId="25833" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="28ad4428-29b6-4e84-bd6a-13bd698579f5" CreationDate="2014-04-01T18:14:11.540" UserId="8563" Text="I continue to be befuddled by what exactly one is supposed to do with flags in the 10k tools, and I'm quite relieved to know [they're going away soon](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue). In the meantime, though, here's a stumper I just came across in my flagging history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post in question is [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104304/without-seeing-the-lightning-can-you-tell-how-far-away-it-struck-by-how-the-thu/104308#104308), which came up flagged as Not an Answer if I remember correctly. I understand why someone would flag this - it was only a sort-of good fit to the question to begin with - but I disagree that it failed to address the original intent of the OP. Particularly, I felt it did answer the question in its state at the time, with a less specific title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, given the current state of the question, I can understand that it might best be classed as Not an Answer. Given that, I can understand that my `invalid flags` is disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely stumped, however, at the message. `Flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer`? That has absolutely nothing to do with why I flagged this way. The technical content of the post was never an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone elucidate what on Earth this message means and how it came into being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mzWH9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="28ad4428-29b6-4e84-bd6a-13bd698579f5" CreationDate="2014-04-01T18:14:11.540" UserId="8563" Text="Invalid flags → disputed → flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies. What?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="28ad4428-29b6-4e84-bd6a-13bd698579f5" CreationDate="2014-04-01T18:14:11.540" UserId="8563" Text="|support|flagging|10k-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="dfc83fb0-8169-4f8b-ac73-8391b5665136" CreationDate="2014-04-01T18:23:43.750" UserId="8563" Text="Unicoins are at present functional in certain features of the site. You can obtain them by mining them on the same applet window where you can spend them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it appears most monetary means to obtain Unicoins are taking some time to go online. That means that at present there is no way to obtain them other than mining. If you feel strongly about it, there are ways to automate the mining so that your browser will do the work for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about Unicoins in general, as well as said automation methods, see the Meta StackOverflow question  http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/227363/what-are-stack-overflow-unicoins. I should also mention that if you like Unicoins you should hurry to make the best of them, as certain commentators have hinted that this feature [may be available for a limited time only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xj9yK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="4d55ce70-7e08-4e49-92c4-1e863ec86599" CreationDate="2014-04-01T19:34:13.250" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105984/friction-influencing-the-motion-of-a-mass-and-non-inertial-frame-of-reference/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105653/kirchoffs-rules-and-rc-circuits/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pretty apparent that in both of these questions, the user was legitimately asking for help after he/she tried the problem him/herself. I understand if the questions are closed if it just directly asks the community to solve everything, but why these? I just don't understand why the moderators would put them on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and both of them were closed after I answered, did that have anything to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't say that they don't contribute anything to the community. Does that mean reading solved problems can't teach you anything? I guess all the Physics textbooks should stop printing solved examples then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="4d55ce70-7e08-4e49-92c4-1e863ec86599" CreationDate="2014-04-01T19:34:13.250" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="Why were these homework questions closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="4d55ce70-7e08-4e49-92c4-1e863ec86599" CreationDate="2014-04-01T19:34:13.250" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="bdba5c92-3a9c-4f39-a606-e30cce546a7b" CreationDate="2014-04-01T19:57:07.857" UserId="7433" Text="Invalid flags are dismissed with the same reason as the original ones. So they automatically get marked as disputed -- this means the _original_ flag was disputed, not your invalid flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happened here was: User A flagged a post. You invalid flag-flagged it. Then, a moderator declined the original flag (automatically declining the invalid flag), with that message. If a 10k user marks as invalid, the final outcome is always &quot;disputed&quot;, IIRC. It's confusing, yes, but going away soon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="e2145d19-957b-4a35-ab72-ef56b8acfd36" CreationDate="2014-04-01T20:03:03.677" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; It is pretty apparent that in both of these questions, the user was legitimately asking for help after he/she tried the problem him/herself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current status of the HW policy is that even if work is shown, it still needs to be conceptual. Quoting the [summary at the top of the policy,][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please don't say that they don't contribute anything to the community. Does that mean reading solved problems can't teach you anything? I guess all the Physics textbooks should stop printing solved examples then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not a physics textbook. People don't read it like one, they come to it by searches and homework problems are rarely found in the same form (the generic titles don't help), so these are pretty useless for this site. What may be useful for a textbook need not be useful for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the questions can be rewritten to be explicitly conceptual (instead of just showing a problem and a partial solution), then they can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh, and both of them were closed after I answered, did that have anything to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but you shouldn't answer such questions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="a24bb5e8-f830-41d9-9cd1-37f11ad62ba9" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:56:21.383" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="So it seems the [10k flag queue is being removed][1] with essentially no replacement. The general consensus over at SO (or at least my own reading of it) seems to be that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Moderators ignored 10k feedback in dealing with flags, and in fact this feedback was an encumbrance to them; and&#xD;&#xA;  2. 10k users have better things to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises a few Physics-specific questions. Regarding (1), **do the moderators here not use (or minimally use) the feedback 10k users provide via flags?** If that information was never useful, then there is no loss here, though in the future it would be nice to be told &quot;ignore that feature; we don't want you to add flags.&quot; If it was useful, are we losing functionality with the imminent change, and is there any way to recover it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding (2), **what else can I be doing as a 10k user?** I understand there are several information overviews tabulating migrations, voting trends, comment activity, etc. But these seem to be more for my own personal consumption; it's not clear how to use this information to *do* anything. A perfectly valid answer might be &quot;nothing - 10k users are just like any other user who can vote to close (3k) but can't vote to delete (20k),&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; but if that's the case this should really be spelled out clearly somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Well okay, tag wiki approval (5k) and protecting questions (15k) are in that range too, but these are pretty lightly used features here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="a24bb5e8-f830-41d9-9cd1-37f11ad62ba9" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:56:21.383" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What exactly should 10k users be doing to help the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="a24bb5e8-f830-41d9-9cd1-37f11ad62ba9" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:56:21.383" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|flagging|10k-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5674" RevisionGUID="4622b204-8899-4b79-9dd8-2c485cbb1fab" CreationDate="2014-04-02T07:40:01.020" UserId="124" Text="1. I'll be honest, I never really paid much attention to anything that happened in the various review queues. But I do know that when a post is flagged by multiple people, or when a flag is disputed - really, any time multiple people weigh in, the more the better - it's _tremendously_ useful to me when deciding how to handle the flag. If that came from the 10k flag queue, then I will be sad to see it go.&#xD;&#xA;2. Again, I'm not really sure what 10k users are able to do, but the biggest task, for anyone who has the privilege, has been and continues to be voting to put questions on hold as appropriate. So yeah, there's not much that should change at 10k. But that situation may be somewhat specific to our site and others in this range of activity. Perhaps a meta post would be useful; I don't think it's necessarily something we can expect to appear in the help center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="928d18b5-836e-498f-bc2a-8c194e369c84" CreationDate="2014-04-02T21:40:29.903" UserId="35024" Text="It seems that posts often come up for deletion in the [low quality posts review queue][1] which are clearly 'bad' answers but answers nonetheless.  The answers are often 'bad' because they are short but not blatantly incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it appropriate to recommend deletion for such answers?  Isn't the point of the voting system to sort bad and good answers?  Is deletion of such answers an inappropriate form of censorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="928d18b5-836e-498f-bc2a-8c194e369c84" CreationDate="2014-04-02T21:40:29.903" UserId="35024" Text="Is it appropriate to use the low quality review system to get rid of 'bad' answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="928d18b5-836e-498f-bc2a-8c194e369c84" CreationDate="2014-04-02T21:40:29.903" UserId="35024" Text="|discussion|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="03cb3f58-69a9-49a5-ad66-d793655a909a" CreationDate="2014-04-03T00:47:02.223" UserId="25301" Text="The options for Low Quality posts are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - No comment needed&#xD;&#xA; - Commentary on another post&#xD;&#xA; - A &quot;Thank you&quot; comment&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I'm having this problem too&quot; comment&#xD;&#xA; - Different question than posted&#xD;&#xA; - Link-only answer (and not spam)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This is a bad answer&quot; does not appear on the list, so voting to delete such an answer would be a bad practice, in my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="f9e7b2a2-79d1-4809-b0cd-461c16cd4a37" CreationDate="2014-04-03T04:20:07.243" UserId="2911" Text="I want to clarify a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You *can* still help handle flags, via /review. Yes, lots of other people can do this too - but that doesn't mean they'll do as good a job as you would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Flag handling has never been the &quot;big&quot; 10K privilege, IMHO. It got a lot of focus, because for a long time it was the *only* way ordinary users could directly help shoulder the support burden... But it often wasn't really the best use of your abilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you poke around in [/tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools), you'll quickly notice that most of what's found there isn't directly actionable - it's *informational!* What you *do* with that information is up to you: hopefully, you've been around long enough now that you have some idea of how you want the site to be run, and are able to make good use of the information presented. Here are a few ideas, based on how *I've* used the 10K tools:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Find problems that've been overlooked and fix them if you can, or bring them to the attention of the moderators if you can't. The stats page is a gold mine for outliers that might benefit from a bit of attention from a wise, aged site veteran such as yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Find awesome stuff that reminds you of why you like coming here. The stats page is a good one for this too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Sanity-check the stuff that other people are doing, and offer guidance and correction where necessary: new tags, new answers, suggested edits, questions being migrated or closed, posts being deleted... Outside of /tools, you also get a full history of actions taken by others in /review, which can be helpful in identifying problems there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as a 10K+ member of the site your opinions likely carry quite a bit of weight with your peers: if you see a trend that you think is worth calling attention to, don't hesitate to do it - having access to more data makes it easier to back up your arguments. And that's the most valuable &quot;10K privilege&quot; in my book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12765" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="053d4fbc-8b17-4792-8693-2de62a9f42e2" CreationDate="2014-04-03T20:04:59.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/451812629070487552" />
  <row Id="12766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="02dd8e24-53fe-42a5-855a-116b7af33740" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:28:36.940" UserId="43690" Text="I was about to report a bug when I noticed [why my recent upvotes haven't changed my reputation](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2765/why-my-recent-upvotes-havent-changed-my-reputation). I heavily edit my answers as I am trying to develop technical writing skills, upvotes with low reputation would be a better metric. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would wikifying all most posts cause problems? &#xD;&#xA;If so at what number of edits does a post wikify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="02dd8e24-53fe-42a5-855a-116b7af33740" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:28:36.940" UserId="43690" Text="Would it be a problem if I wikify all my answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="02dd8e24-53fe-42a5-855a-116b7af33740" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:28:36.940" UserId="43690" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="17a562af-a94c-4d07-ae5f-9499d18a5b53" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:35:09.017" UserId="43690" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I was about to report a bug when I noticed [why my recent upvotes haven't changed my reputation](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2765/why-my-recent-upvotes-havent-changed-my-reputation). I heavily edit my answers as I am trying to develop technical writing skills, upvotes with low reputation would be a better metric. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would wikifying most of my answers cause problems? &#xD;&#xA;If so at what number of edits does a post wikify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12770" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="dfe82c2a-73f0-4df5-9922-230b75222f4e" CreationDate="2014-04-04T09:45:37.397" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12771" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="2b41447d-d570-489a-bbed-92be1f92bbfa" CreationDate="2014-04-04T09:45:56.590" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12772" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="46af1dab-4bc6-4bf1-a35a-43ed4a1074b8" CreationDate="2014-04-04T09:48:42.820" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12773" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="46af1dab-4bc6-4bf1-a35a-43ed4a1074b8" CreationDate="2014-04-04T09:48:42.820" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="How can I know if an additional edit is going to turn my answer into an open community-wiki (CW)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="0f5c78bd-f1e2-438c-9053-b17d01c08992" CreationDate="2014-04-04T09:50:28.127" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="8d76da32-1aae-417c-b214-f3664c7ea725" CreationDate="2014-04-04T09:51:50.050" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="edae8aae-2a88-45e1-b710-7dc73ae56f86" CreationDate="2014-04-04T10:05:01.873" UserId="3948" Text="As to when a post automatically becomes community wiki the rules are set out here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Create Wiki Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/community-wiki)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are also several ways a question or answer can automatically enter community wiki mode. In these cases, we believe that the post is de-facto wiki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the body of the post has been edited by at least **5** different users&#xD;&#xA;* the post has been edited **10** times by the original owner&#xD;&#xA;* you answer a question marked community wiki&#xD;&#xA;* a question generates more than **30** answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your case I'd try to make each edit more significant to reduce the total number of edits. If you spot a spelling mistake or think you can express something better then take a bit more time to review the whole post so you don't have to repeat the process later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="c9f48f30-5582-4f9d-84b9-222af66b3f8f" CreationDate="2014-04-04T10:42:13.457" UserId="43830" Text=" A lot of conceptual questions in physics cannot be asked in few sentences. Because the idea or image of the subject  in questioner's mind which is the actual root of the problem is never projected in few lines. So is a discussion possible on this site? where one can better understand other's problems. Otherwise the questioner remains unsatisfied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="c9f48f30-5582-4f9d-84b9-222af66b3f8f" CreationDate="2014-04-04T10:42:13.457" UserId="43830" Text="A request for Discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="c9f48f30-5582-4f9d-84b9-222af66b3f8f" CreationDate="2014-04-04T10:42:13.457" UserId="43830" Text="|discussion|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="db12180e-fd2b-41d6-b3bd-9e3d39786349" CreationDate="2014-04-04T10:58:56.677" UserId="1325" Text="The site isn't intended for discussions. In fact avoiding long rambling discussions is a key aim of the Stack Exchange group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't focus your problem into a reasonably concise question then you need to go off and research the area. The internet is such a rich resource that there's really no excuse for not doing your own leg work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't mean you can't ask conceptual questions, but they have to be well specified ones and the anticipated answer has to be reasonably concise as well. If the answer to your question would effectively be a blog post then you should search the web for a blog post instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, you can always ask your question anyway and see if anyone answers it. The worst that will happen is that it gets downvoted and closed, and you can always delete it to remove the stain!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="213d9d47-81fb-4baa-91b0-07e82895296e" CreationDate="2014-04-04T13:57:01.340" UserId="43690" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I was about to report a bug when I noticed [why my recent upvotes haven't changed my reputation](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2765/why-my-recent-upvotes-havent-changed-my-reputation). I heavily edit my answers as I am trying to develop technical writing skills, upvotes with low reputation would be a better figure of merit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would wikifying most of my answers cause problems? &#xD;&#xA;If so at what number of edits does a post wikify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="2bc51ca0-1242-4dd4-9d8b-f1cbd3e90821" CreationDate="2014-04-04T14:16:33.827" UserId="124" Text="There's a difference between discussion and asking a question in a few lines. You can certainly ask questions that are longer than that; in fact, the ideal question length is probably 15-30 lines, and there are plenty of examples of well-written questions that are longer than that. The key is that it should be _answerable_: your question should be able to be addressed by a single post from someone else (which can also be long). It should _not_ require a back-and-forth discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, sometimes you need to ask for clarification on an answer (or others need to ask for clarification on your question), which is why we have comments, but the content of the comments is supposed to be incorporated into the post. At the end, we should wind up with one question and some number of answers that directly address the question, and that's all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="9604d236-c954-4c22-a251-928f186b3a57" CreationDate="2014-04-04T14:25:35.910" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Would wikifying most of my answers cause problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically no; it doesn't _directly_ cause any problem with the functionality of the site. But reputation is a measure of how much the community trusts you, and to that end it's useful to other people as well as yourself. So it is better for the community if you _don't_ intentionally wikify your posts. And it doesn't give you any benefit to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, community wiki mode is a signal that edits from others are especially welcome; it's meant for the few posts that are really supposed to be collectively written by multiple people. Normal questions and answers don't fit that qualification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if you want to go ahead and wikify your posts, it's not something you would get in trouble for (i.e. we wouldn't suspend someone just for that, unless it causes some sort of serious problem in a way we haven't foreseen). But also bear in mind that we will not go through and reverse wiki mode on a large number of posts if you change your mind later. If you decide to make a post community wiki, it will be stuck that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="c7ddeba0-e976-4022-aee0-94f6ea1be80e" CreationDate="2014-04-04T15:40:52.940" UserId="11012" Text="Consider this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/106605/what-is-charge-actually-how-to-define-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question, the asker explicitly specified that he wanted an intuitive explanation of charge, without using &quot;quantum mechanics or advanced particle models.&quot; The response by PhotonicBoom fit these criteria well, but the one by JamalS referenced QED.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I feel that high-level answers on &quot;low-level&quot; questions (e.g. JamalS's answer) do not respond to the question, since the user explicitly did not want a complex answer. On the other hand, the answer provides insight to other members of the community. Is it acceptable to provide answers which surpass the difficulty level requested by the user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="c7ddeba0-e976-4022-aee0-94f6ea1be80e" CreationDate="2014-04-04T15:40:52.940" UserId="11012" Text="Is it appropriate to provide responses which too difficult or easy for the asker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="c7ddeba0-e976-4022-aee0-94f6ea1be80e" CreationDate="2014-04-04T15:40:52.940" UserId="11012" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="a0b018cb-cee9-40a8-beb6-abddcbe8db3b" CreationDate="2014-04-04T15:48:44.373" UserId="520" Text="Questions and answers on Stack Exchange site are not *just* for the asker. Posts will remain around, be indexed by search engines and visited by many people over the years (Google is responsible roughly one-quarter of *all* Physics SE traffic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, answers that lie outside the OP's skill range are acceptable. You can assume the OP won't accept them, but the crowd will still judge them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="8f5f7001-9075-47a8-835d-cf0e8e861200" CreationDate="2014-04-05T08:05:00.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/452356213981081600" />
  <row Id="12792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="036ab831-7fa0-4f1e-9c8e-5d5a7e6548b8" CreationDate="2014-04-05T19:15:10.623" UserId="2525" Text="But other questions shouldn't be closed as dupes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answered one simple question on the reason light slows down in a medium, with a simple classical picture of the absorption and delayed retransmission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was marked as a dupe and the accepted answer on the dupe link immediately launched into a calculus notation packed answer about Poynting vectors. For the person asking the question this is not only about as useful as an answer in Chinese - it gives the impression that mere mortals aren't supposed to ask questions about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So unless this site is simply going to be the Phys Rev Let hangout, we need to allow simple questions and answers  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="bdcc3d99-8593-40bc-8be2-4327e90181cb" CreationDate="2014-04-06T04:26:28.107" UserId="2525" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="But other questions shouldn't necessarily be automatically closed as dupes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answered one simple question on the reason light slows down in a medium, with a simple classical picture of the absorption and delayed retransmission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was marked as a dupe and the accepted answer on the dupe link immediately launched into a calculus notation packed answer about Poynting vectors. For the person asking the question this is not only about as useful as an answer in Chinese - it gives the impression that mere mortals aren't supposed to ask questions about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So unless this site is simply going to be the Phys Rev Let hangout, we need to allow simple questions and answers  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="2648a539-9f02-4d31-b69e-7d0991c7c7c2" CreationDate="2014-04-06T07:59:02.670" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107091/soft-question-the-best-way-to-learn-physics-road-map was marked as a duplicate to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5508/how-to-learn-physics-effectively-and-efficiently when I have clearly mentioned why it is not, in the question itself. Will Qmechanic or someone else please explain why it was closed? Do the moderators even care to read the question before closing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="2648a539-9f02-4d31-b69e-7d0991c7c7c2" CreationDate="2014-04-06T07:59:02.670" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="Marked as duplicate when it is not a duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="2648a539-9f02-4d31-b69e-7d0991c7c7c2" CreationDate="2014-04-06T07:59:02.670" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="d43a143c-2219-4a7c-96cf-8c7f5fee1891" CreationDate="2014-04-06T10:47:34.547" UserId="8563" Text="QMechanic's [comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107091/soft-question-the-best-way-to-learn-physics-road-map#comment218659_107091) really says it all. You are correct that your question is not an exact duplicate (and the moderator made this explicit, so accusing them of not reading the question is hardly the type of constructive discussion we expect in meta). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your question is a *very* poor fit for this site, for a number of reasons. This format works best when questions have something like a unique answer, when there is some sort of objective criterion to determine whether a given answer is correct, and hopefully one to determine which of two answers is better, and when expected answers contain facts and experiences instead of opinions. Your question fails miserably on all counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, no one, at all, ever learns physics 'in order'; everyone learns a few things at a time. Secondly, there isn't really any way to tell one way is better than another. Voting becomes meaningless in such a question. Thirdly, one never learns all of physics, and you will be hard-pressed to find someone who can tell you both in what order to take quantum optics and quantum information, and what plasma courses to take befor learning astrophysics. Relatedly, you yourself won't learn all of physics, so that large parts of any answer would likely be irrelevant. Moreover, since you presumably have already started learning, what would you do with the answers? What if I told you that the best way is to learn math all the way up to functional analysis and then derive all of each field from its basic principles? Would you implement that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more general guidance, you should refer to the Meta question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list, and to the blog post [Good subjective, bad subjective](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/). In this site, list questions are unlikely to prosper unless you make very specific requirements of the answers, and take care to avoid all the pitfalls I mentioned and in those two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me clearly thank QMechanic for closing that question in a timely fashion before more people became invested in it. It was an open-and-shut primarily-opinion-based, too-broad question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12800" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="633afd69-b74f-4fa4-a9dd-23baf2a40a6f" CreationDate="2014-04-06T10:52:13.660" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|specific-question|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="637dcdf2-dcd9-4c2e-8dfc-59fc0b7551da" CreationDate="2014-04-06T14:51:52.037" UserId="23473" Text="So for those of us who can vote to close, we all know what the close vote system looks like. Particularly, under &quot;off topic&quot; you have homework, personal theories, engineering, other StackExchange, and other. The other StackExchange site options are Physics Meta and Math. Quite frankly, I think this covers everything and I have no issues with the occasional typing a reason into &quot;other&quot;. However, I see numerous questions that belong on other StackExchange sites with close-votes as homework or personal theories when they clearly aren't. Most often it is questions asking for help with a circuit being closed as homework. Students aren't the only ones who build circuits; this sort of question really should belong on the electrical engineering SE. I realize we have the &quot;this is engineering&quot; option, but I feel that should be reserved for cases that are about using physics to solve a problem, not for stuff like making circuits. When I see these questions, I always take the extra 14 seconds to type &quot;This question belongs on electrical engineering SE&quot; in the other box. But I feel if there were an option for EE-SE under the other SE site option, it would be used more often and the homework option would be abused less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on electrical engineering because it's the one I see more often. If you think there are other SE sites we should add to the close-vote system, feel free to mention them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you might say a close vote is a close vote. That's simply not true. When we vote to close something, we owe it to the asker to provide an adequate reason. If there is some keen young student or an electrical engineer out there that needs help for something that is not homework, then it is not a valid reason to close the question as homework. We can't force all our 3k+ users to take 14 seconds to write the proper reason, but we can make it easier for them by including other SE sites in the option list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, clearly we cannot include all the other SE sites. We have Math.SE because of how often it comes up. IMO electrical engineering makes an appearance fairly frequently. What do you think? Would expanding the list be worthwhile? If so, what sites would you like to see added? If not, I'd love to hear your pint of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="637dcdf2-dcd9-4c2e-8dfc-59fc0b7551da" CreationDate="2014-04-06T14:51:52.037" UserId="23473" Text="Should we include other StackExchange sites in the close vote options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="637dcdf2-dcd9-4c2e-8dfc-59fc0b7551da" CreationDate="2014-04-06T14:51:52.037" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="2ad3adfb-a0c5-463e-a570-b344a4acb4e7" CreationDate="2014-04-06T17:48:56.760" UserId="23473" Comment="added 790 characters in body" Text="So for those of us who can vote to close, we all know what the close vote system looks like. Particularly, under &quot;off topic&quot; you have homework, personal theories, engineering, other StackExchange, and other. The other StackExchange site options are Physics Meta and Math. Quite frankly, I think this covers everything and I have no issues with the occasional typing a reason into &quot;other&quot;. However, I see numerous questions that belong on other StackExchange sites with close-votes as homework or personal theories when they clearly aren't. Most often it is questions asking for help with a circuit being closed as homework. Students aren't the only ones who build circuits; this sort of question really should belong on the electrical engineering SE. I realize we have the &quot;this is engineering&quot; option, but I feel that should be reserved for cases that are about using physics to solve a problem, not for stuff like making circuits. When I see these questions, I always take the extra 14 seconds to type &quot;This question belongs on electrical engineering SE&quot; in the other box. But I feel if there were an option for EE-SE under the other SE site option, it would be used more often and the homework option would be abused less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on electrical engineering because it's the one I see more often. If you think there are other SE sites we should add to the close-vote system, feel free to mention them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you might say a close vote is a close vote. That's simply not true. When we vote to close something, we owe it to the asker to provide an adequate reason. If there is some keen young student or an electrical engineer out there that needs help for something that is not homework, then it is not a valid reason to close the question as homework. We can't force all our 3k+ users to take 14 seconds to write the proper reason, but we can make it easier for them by including other SE sites in the option list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, clearly we cannot include all the other SE sites. We have Math.SE because of how often it comes up. IMO electrical engineering makes an appearance fairly frequently. What do you think? Would expanding the list be worthwhile? If so, what sites would you like to see added? If not, I'd love to hear your pint of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;So I took a closer look at all of the related posts about this. (Thanks for the duplicate votes, by the way. But there were several other questions this was closer to a duplicate of; why that one?) Anyway, it seems that the question has been raised before about various other SE sites. For the majority, the answer seemed to be that those other sites were all betas. EE.SE is not a beta site, so I still think this is a valid discussion. Additionally, and it should be noted that this is an inference I am making, it seems from answer like [this][1] that I am not the only one who would be in favour of adding an EE.SE migration link. Especially since even last year it was the #2 site that questions were migrated to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4145/23473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="e924960d-12d9-43ca-a0f3-2805d2efedc2" CreationDate="2014-04-06T22:52:53.610" UserId="8563" Text="The main problem with this scheme is that, while our 3k users know what's off-topic here, they will in general not know if it's a good fit to the target site. Is the level of this homeworky circuits question appropriate for EE? No idea! We definitely dont want to dump all our low-level circuits questions on them. In the past 90 days we've migrated 11 questions thar way, and 2 got closed there (18%). This ratio is high enough that we shouldn't be blanket migrating stuff that way, and the total numbers are low enough that they can be dealt with by hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this has historically been the bane of migration across the network. After a special SO&gt;SU channel was opened, the superuser mods were none too happy about the flood of low quality stuff that went that way. Just something to bear in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="29f5c356-1f7e-4e71-9225-92c6ab59fc7b" CreationDate="2014-04-07T10:53:26.063" UserId="24653" Text="This idea popped into my head because of [this question][1], but it is something that I've thought about before: Don't we need a new option when flagging a question, saying &quot;Off topic because... it is simply not a question about physics, and therefore not appropriate for this forum.&quot; or something to the same effect? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel questions that would merit this flag occur quite often, and given the current options I always have a hard time deciding what to flag them for... If I'm wrong and there is an established procedure for questions like this, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107258/where-can-i-find-this-book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="29f5c356-1f7e-4e71-9225-92c6ab59fc7b" CreationDate="2014-04-07T10:53:26.063" UserId="24653" Text="A new &quot;Off-topic because...&quot; option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="29f5c356-1f7e-4e71-9225-92c6ab59fc7b" CreationDate="2014-04-07T10:53:26.063" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="e2df73c7-1442-42ef-9d7d-0744fa02508b" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:03:21.517" UserId="7433" Text="It doesn't really matter which off topic subflag you use, the subflags are just indicators and the option you pick isn't displayed anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is different when voting to close (&gt;3k rep), here the reason is displayed, and you also have an option where you can give a custom close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="b39ad9f4-cdf4-424f-800f-52237521fd21" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:13:43.200" UserId="24653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="ad7b0f4f-a105-4c48-8669-0c8e875fd2a2" CreationDate="2014-04-07T12:58:50.077" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more precise. Old title was slightly confusing as the 3k+ closing dialog already has a custom close reason." Text="A new &quot;Off-topic because...&quot; option for flags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="eae6e6ba-738f-4d15-afd8-54b3532e80bf" CreationDate="2014-04-07T20:37:31.317" UserId="21817" Text="I was thinking of migrating this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81842/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the migrate option doesn't appear. Is this a bug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="eae6e6ba-738f-4d15-afd8-54b3532e80bf" CreationDate="2014-04-07T20:37:31.317" UserId="21817" Text="Why can't I vote to migrate this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="eae6e6ba-738f-4d15-afd8-54b3532e80bf" CreationDate="2014-04-07T20:37:31.317" UserId="21817" Text="|support|bug|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="fa7efc6f-4027-4f8d-aa39-e2b67ab693d9" CreationDate="2014-04-07T21:04:42.703" UserId="2451" Text="No, it's too old. Questions more than 60 days old can't be migrated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="34e8fc97-6ad1-427f-94dc-554d9f81235b" CreationDate="2014-04-08T10:22:52.730" UserId="1325" Text="I've been looking through the new [Physics Overflow beta][1] and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="34e8fc97-6ad1-427f-94dc-554d9f81235b" CreationDate="2014-04-08T10:22:52.730" UserId="1325" Text="Should we have a Popular Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="34e8fc97-6ad1-427f-94dc-554d9f81235b" CreationDate="2014-04-08T10:22:52.730" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="ac9429d0-7f68-41fc-a221-5340f4ea6dd1" CreationDate="2014-04-08T12:26:00.003" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|status-bydesign|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="bd1aacad-a3b4-4e2b-b329-70811c6e3104" CreationDate="2014-04-08T13:50:36.400" UserId="23389" Text="I somehow don't like the idea of a split; I think the site is stronger together, and sometimes basic, naive questions actually have advanced answers, that might not be intelligible to the original poster, but are interesting for other people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be made easier to filter/hide popular physics questions? A clear button near the top of the page, &quot;Hide basic questions&quot; that removes all traces of basic physics for the user would suffice? To me, that is much more palatable than a physics overflow style breakaway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Practically, it would be much simpler than your suggestion, though it would require every new question to be assigned basic or advanced status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="4dbc3fa7-45bf-4225-a1a4-3dad541feb44" CreationDate="2014-04-08T19:33:23.207" UserId="2684" Text="This is one aspect that is fundamentally different on the science sites on SE compared to many other sites on the network. Non-programmers generally don't ask questions on Stack Overflow, but a significant part of the questions on Physics, Chemistry and Biology are from a laymen perspective. This is inherent in the topics I suspect, programming just doesn't lend itself to this kind of questions from non-programmers, while many people are curious about basic facts and concepts from physics, chemistry or biology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rather dislike the idea of splitting a site according to some more or less arbitrary question level or difficulty. The practical problems of defining the boundary between sites alone are a huge headache. I think Math Overflow showed that this concept can work well at the very top of the question level, but I am not convinced that it would work as well if you add such separations at lower levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also be very, very careful in examining what we want to achieve when we discuss splitting off a part of the site at the lower level. This can easily end up as a site that just gets all the trash from the higher-level site dumped onto it. A site that is created simply to get rid of certain questions we don't want here is doomed to fail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying that a Popular Physics site couldn't work, I actually do think that something like a Popular Science site could work if approached correctly. But such a site must have a positive definition of what it should be, it can't start as a category of questions we don't want here. I'd also include all natural sciences, I think just physics would be too narrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of popular science is not really about difficulty level or effort in the question. The big difference is that such questions are asked by people without substantial education in the subject. This not only changes the question, but it also changes how answers should be written. This is also one aspect that would benefit the most from a separate site, as there it would be clear that answers need to be understandable by the general public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But homework questions are not popular science questions. They are an entirely different category and I think making a popular science site into a homework dumping ground would doom it from the beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a moderator on Skeptics, and Skeptics is to some extent already a popular science site. We're more restrictive, but we often explain current scientific research in laymen terms. So I certainly think that such an effort is worthwhile, I don't regard popular science questions as somehow lower quality, but they need a different approach than questions from a scientist or student.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be very careful about migration, it is often misused as a softer alternative to closing, and that would result in this site just dumping all the crap on the popular physics site. If such a site is created, it would have to prove that it works without any migration path." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="c0a19527-9507-405e-92bc-a7d31b61bbde" CreationDate="2014-04-08T20:21:43.180" UserId="2451" Text="Phys.SE is currently 3.5 years old and has the [second-most traffic of all the science sites at SE](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-traffic) (with Math.SE being number one), so at least in that sense it is quite successful[1]. Also Phys.SE receives a lot of Google hits and is quite visible on the Internet. So Phys.SE has in many ways found a robust formula, which is spelled out on the [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics [...]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not let events outside Phys.SE (which might be just a flash in the pan like the previous [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)) dictate what is and what is not the purpose of Phys.SE. We welcomed all levels before, and we should continue to welcome all levels. By splitting up Phys.SE in many parts, we may very well destroy the formula, which has worked in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the theoretical reasons to keep all levels at Phys.SE, there might also be practical reasons: It may be practically impossible to establish a unanimous definition of what constitutes high, medium, and low level, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning high-level question: You can still ask high-level questions on Phys.SE! We are open 24/7 and it is business as usual. One thing that we learned from the TP.SE failure (with its unfortunate slow traffic) is that if you ask a high-level question, there might only be a few experts in the world that can answer on the spot. Many more experts would be able to answer after &quot;doing the calculation themselves&quot;, however they often haven't the time. But if they are curious enough they might do it anyway! So long story short: One should expect that high-level quality answers take time. Phys.SE offers a visible platform on the Internet and has many active (and also some more dormant) experts in all corners of physics. If you have a high-level question in physics, Phys.SE is one of the best places to ask it, in terms of receiving a useful answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning low-level question: We should continue to enforce that questions should preferably be conceptional. E.g low-level homework questions should follow certain [rules](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). As for a discussion of a [Popular Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science), that seems to belong to [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) rather than on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] In fact one interpretation of the large traffic volume is that we are drowning in success: The front page currently changes every 5 hours (or so), which means that it is easier to overlook a post nowadays, relatively speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="8e385cd9-c8f8-4b90-90ab-72a1bd79c8e0" CreationDate="2014-04-09T08:05:36.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/453805917788971008" />
  <row Id="12829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="cceec90d-ec33-4f3b-9307-b77e8a42747e" CreationDate="2014-04-09T13:41:50.933" UserId="1325" Text="24 hours on, and whatever the rights and wrongs of my suggestion it's clear that the site members as a whole don't feel strongly about the issue. Only ten votes have been cast on my question, and at the time of writing the most active answer only has six votes (three up and three down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting a new SE site, or even reviving Dilaton's Area 51 proposal would be a great deal of work, and there clearly isn't any enthusiasm for this. That makes the project a non-starter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd guess most of the site members just don't think there's a problem, so agonising on how to address it is pointless. Unless anyone else wants to shout now, I'll leave it a day or so then accept this as the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="b4e39ef9-95d5-4c53-85ae-1ae3fabd0f70" CreationDate="2014-04-09T17:28:35.217" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="Two of my answers were downvoted recently and the reason was that though they gave quite a bit of information, all of it wasn't entirely accurate and had a few errors. The main cause of this is because I type most of my answers myself without doing a lot of research. I try to explain the answer by using the knowledge that I already have and don't check if what I know is 100% accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now I feel that I should do some research before posting my answers. I just want to know what you guys do when you answer a question. Do you google the question first and foremost? I've seen some huge answers by high rep users which seem like they've come right out of a textbook. Do you actually type all of that? Or do you open different sources and copy-paste the appropriate information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is very frustrating to be voted down after taking so much time in typing an answer. Why don't people just say what the error is so that I can edit the answer and fix it? I don't think you should downvote answers at all unless they are completely bullshit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="b4e39ef9-95d5-4c53-85ae-1ae3fabd0f70" CreationDate="2014-04-09T17:28:35.217" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="How exactly do you answer questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="b4e39ef9-95d5-4c53-85ae-1ae3fabd0f70" CreationDate="2014-04-09T17:28:35.217" UserDisplayName="user42733" Text="|discussion|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="4e1159fb-753d-42d5-adfd-3791c71e2a16" CreationDate="2014-04-09T17:48:07.667" UserId="25301" Text=" Downvotes are to let other users know that the answer contains errors or wasn't useful. Once you've edited the answer to correct the errors, users who have downvoted can change their downvote to an upvote (assuming your edits have amended the errors). It should **not** be used only for answers that *are completely bullshit*, it should be used for *any wrong answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I usually use Wikipedia for references for relevant articles and Google for image searches. Outside of that, I pull things from memory or my textbooks at my desk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, at some point you're going to stop caring about downvotes. You might want to consider stopping caring now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="f8e7a2cd-9771-4489-a03b-381ce3a3c929" CreationDate="2014-04-09T18:42:07.937" UserId="4066" Comment="I've removed the link to Physics Overflow, as that site is phishing for Stack Exchange logins, usernames and passwords" Text="I've been looking through the new Physics Overflow beta (security warning: that site is not affiliated with Stack Exchange, and is phishing for Stack Exchange logins, usernames and passwords) and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="d089f965-c48d-4e69-8892-da2b48ef800d" CreationDate="2014-04-09T19:06:51.007" UserId="8563" Text="Downvotes are an unavoidable effect of having an answer that is not accurate, and they should remain that way. Downvotes are not a criticism on the poster, they are the way to keep good answers on the top and inaccurate answers (duly indicated as such in the comments, ideally) further down; it's what makes this site good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy to answer questions is what you describe: post what you know and let the community tell you when it's wrong. In that case, you should be prepared for exactly that: the community will tell you it's wrong by downvoting it. If that happens, the onus is on you to figure out why and to fix it. You can politely request explanations for the votes, and if your tone is right then people will stop by and help, but they are not obliged to. Drive-by downvoting hurts but it is necessary and has been gone over a million times in this and the [mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid those downvotes, the answer is simple: don't post inaccurate answers. If you're not 100% sure of the material you're posting, do your homework, investigate, check, and revise whatever needs revising, before you post. This is, I feel, how many of us approach answers, and it has the huge advantage that it lets you learn while you answer. Indeed, it is probably the reason many of us are here: we learn by answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as jinawee pointed out [in a comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/how-exactly-do-you-answer-questions#comment16743_5702), lifting text straight out of different sources without proper attribution is straight-up plagiarism and should be removed from the site if present. If you find text that looks 'taken out of a textbook', google it and find out. If you do find such an instance, the correct procedure is to edit the post yourself: include links to the original sources, and indicate whatever text has been copied by the use of inline quotation marks and quote blocks for longer stretches. Do this regardless of the poster's reputation, and particularly so for high-rep users, who should know better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I do not think anyone does this and have *never* seen an instance on the site. Most people *do* type all of that. They either know it already - which is exactly what we want, a site where experts can take fifteen minutes to explain what they know and save you many hours of research - or they find it out, in which case they learned as much as you did in the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12836" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="8a86294a-269e-4d1e-aaff-0052df05e4b8" CreationDate="2014-04-09T20:07:21.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/453987552325021696" />
  <row Id="12837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5705" RevisionGUID="38a714a3-7fd1-44f5-9351-cc1e06892c05" CreationDate="2014-04-09T20:37:53.967" UserId="12951" Text="I'll suggest that comments are a really useful way to help get a question answered if you are unsure you have a good answer yourself. You don't get a lot of rep for that, but I think it improves the site and helps people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I see a question that I'm fairly sure could be answered by a web search, but its also clear the person asking lacks the critical term (word) needed to find what they are looking for.  If I know a good term, I'll share it in a comment, and give the person a chance to do some leg-work themselves to answer or improve their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not condescending to the person to constructively help in this way, but IMO you should do it in a comment rather than answer - and you should not be marked down for it.  If you feel you do have answer, then use the answer functionality and you can also include links to supporting resources.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12838" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="78f943ad-8ce8-49cf-89fe-a45bcb3bfbf4" CreationDate="2014-04-09T20:47:55.087" UserId="1325" Comment="Rollback to [34e8fc97-6ad1-427f-94dc-554d9f81235b]" Text="I've been looking through the new [Physics Overflow beta][1] and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="a681d46c-4d12-4ef0-9579-2acc12563724" CreationDate="2014-04-09T20:49:17.787" UserId="1325" Comment="Remove link" Text="I've been looking through the new Physics Overflow beta and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="47ecb3cb-d335-45ba-ad48-6d46bd03a32c" CreationDate="2014-04-10T06:20:28.757" UserId="1325" Comment="Add note on Physics Overflow" Text="I've been looking through the new Physics Overflow beta¹ and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Note that the Physics Overflow is not part of the Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="95311d85-c3a2-4430-9eb3-43f3bc08d2c3" CreationDate="2014-04-10T09:53:58.570" UserId="1492" Text="I think that a popular physics site would be a bad idea within the format of voting  and assuming that a highly voted questions will be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Most of the people voting will be non physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) few knowledgable physicists will be consistently checking every day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will result in arbitrary votes and even wrong ones, not exactly cranks but half informed people pushing successfully their half informed opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth in science is not arrived at by consensus of the hoi polloi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way this might work would be if the people answering were high reputation people from physics.SE and the popularphysics.SE registered users would not be allowed to answer, only to comment maybe. Anyway this is outside the format of SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="21544ed6-8129-47d4-9b23-7be7d1654043" CreationDate="2014-04-10T11:10:15.237" UserId="2451" Comment="minor" Text="Phys.SE is currently 3.5 years old and has the [second-most traffic of all the science sites at SE](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-traffic) (with Math.SE being number one), so at least in that sense it is quite successful[1]. Also Phys.SE receives a lot of Google hits and is quite visible on the Internet. So Phys.SE has in many ways found a robust formula, which is spelled out on the [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics [...]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not let events outside Phys.SE (which might be just a flash in the pan like the previous [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)) dictate what is and what is not the purpose of Phys.SE. We welcomed all levels before, and we should continue to welcome all levels. By splitting up Phys.SE in many parts, we may very well destroy the formula, which has worked in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the theoretical reasons to keep all levels at Phys.SE, there might also be practical reasons: It may be practically impossible to establish an unanimous definition of what constitutes high, medium, and low level, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning high-level questions: You can still ask high-level questions on Phys.SE! We are open 24/7 and it is business as usual. One thing that we learned from the TP.SE failure (with its unfortunate slow traffic) is that if you ask a high-level question, there might only be a few experts in the world that can answer on the spot. Many more experts would be able to answer after &quot;doing the calculation themselves&quot;, however they often haven't the time. But if they are curious enough they might do it anyway! So long story short: One should expect that high-level quality answers take time. Phys.SE offers a visible platform on the Internet and has many active (and also some more dormant) experts in all corners of physics. If you have a high-level question in physics, then Phys.SE is definitely one of the best places to ask it, in terms of receiving a useful answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning low-level questions: We should continue to enforce that questions should preferably be conceptional. E.g low-level homework questions should follow certain [rules](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). Some basic/minimal research of the topic (like googling before asking) is generally expected, cf. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5033/2451) meta post. As for a discussion of a [Popular Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science), that seems to belong to [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) rather than on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] In fact one interpretation of the large traffic volume is that we are drowning in success: The front page currently changes every 5 hours (or so), which means that it is easier to overlook a post nowadays, relatively speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="cdeb4ab7-59ae-4992-9f2e-bbbe96086f42" CreationDate="2014-04-10T12:38:22.207" UserId="1492" Comment="added 1377 characters in body" Text="I think that a popular physics site would be a bad idea within the format of voting  and assuming that a highly voted questions will be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Most of the people voting will be non physicists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) few knowledgable physicists will be consistently checking every day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will result in arbitrary votes and even wrong ones, not exactly cranks but half informed people pushing successfully their half informed opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth in science is not arrived at by consensus of the hoi polloi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way this might work would be if the people answering were high reputation people from physics.SE and the popularphysics.SE registered users would not be allowed to answer, only to comment maybe. Anyway this is outside the format of SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: Let me add some thoughts here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the two+ years I have been following physics.SE the level of physics has fallen. I was first alerted to the existence of the site by Lubos and in the beginning there were a number of good answers to questions that stretched my little grey cells( well women are supposed to have white ones  :) , so treat it as a saying ). A lot of people with a better knowledge of physics than I have left for various reasons the site, or are completely inactive. Very few questions appear in my area of expertise ( experimental particle physics) and the reason I persist is in order to exercise my teaching muscles over the repetitive naive questions of young students ( and keep those grey cells active in my retirement). Better than scrabble after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I hope the physicsoverflow  will be successful even if not jumping with activity, where I can follow something challenging and new.I am essentially saying that the format of voting, when the numbers become large and experts become a small percentage of the populace essentialy leads to a popularphysics  ambiance. You cannot ask that everybody participating has a physics degree after all,because the SE objectives include students in highschool. physics overflow explicity puts the limit at graduate level upward questions so I hope it will succeed in keeping a high level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="fc1897c5-a0ae-4aa5-a4a7-7e7a131d1ff7" CreationDate="2014-04-10T12:54:36.000" UserId="2451" Comment="minor" Text="Phys.SE is currently 3.5 years old and has the [second-most traffic of all the science sites at SE](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-traffic) (with Math.SE being number one), so at least in that sense it is quite successful[1]. Also Phys.SE receives a lot of Google hits and is quite visible on the Internet. So Phys.SE has in many ways found a robust formula, which is spelled out on the [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics [...]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not let events outside Phys.SE (which might be just a flash in the pan, like the previous [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)) dictate what is and what is not the purpose of Phys.SE. We welcomed all levels before, and we should continue to welcome all levels. By splitting up Phys.SE in many parts, we may very well destroy the formula, which has worked in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the theoretical reasons to keep all levels at Phys.SE, there might also be practical reasons: It may be practically impossible to establish an unanimous definition of what constitutes high, medium, and low level, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning high-level questions: You can still ask high-level questions on Phys.SE! We are open 24/7 and it is business as usual. One thing that we learned from the TP.SE failure (with its unfortunate slow traffic) is that if you ask a high-level question, there might only be a few experts in the world that can answer on the spot. Many more experts would be able to answer after &quot;doing the calculation themselves&quot;, however they often haven't the time. But if they are curious enough they might do it anyway! So long story short: One should expect that high-level quality answers take time. Phys.SE offers a visible platform on the Internet and has many active (and also some more dormant) experts in all corners of physics. If you have a high-level question in physics, then Phys.SE is definitely one of the best places to ask it, in terms of receiving a useful answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning low-level questions: We should continue to enforce that questions should preferably be conceptional. E.g. low-level homework questions should follow certain [rules](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). Moreover, some basic/minimal research of the topic (like googling before asking) is generally expected, cf. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5033/2451) meta post. As for a discussion of a [Popular Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science), that seems to belong to [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) rather than on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] In fact one interpretation of the large traffic volume is that we are drowning in success: The front page currently changes every 6 hours (or so), which means that it is easier to overlook a post nowadays, relatively speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="24fba0f9-5357-409f-b679-f868e5acd014" CreationDate="2014-04-10T15:42:01.473" UserId="23119" Comment="added link back since the regain account plugin has now been disabled.  " Text="I've been looking through the new [Physics Overflow beta](http://physicsoverflow.org)¹ and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Note that the Physics Overflow is not part of the Stack Exchange network  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="e8eb8362-9363-4afe-8e73-71df25c65942" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:10:23.847" UserId="26169" Text="Until a couple of days ago, the answers to questions would always be ordered based on the number of votes they received and the answer that was accepted. However, recently this has changed for my browser, see for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I the only one who if suffering from this (assuming this is a bug)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/G1GOs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="e8eb8362-9363-4afe-8e73-71df25c65942" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:10:23.847" UserId="26169" Text="The answers are not ordered anymore based on the number of votes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="e8eb8362-9363-4afe-8e73-71df25c65942" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:10:23.847" UserId="26169" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="1811c7a3-ac6b-4b6b-868c-4b41e05ebc8e" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:17:24.777" UserId="8966" Text="Have you selected the tab *votes* on the right, just above the answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eWz42.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="414b7837-465f-498b-8494-378950003947" CreationDate="2014-04-10T18:08:40.593" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="a0555a58-496e-4736-addf-ccdf924da86a" CreationDate="2014-04-11T13:55:51.693" UserId="42975" Text="I skipped a proposed edit on http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/107909/42975 because I was editing myself quite a lot.&#xD;&#xA;Now, I want to manually apply the useful fixes from it, but can not find the skipped edit diff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to look?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="a0555a58-496e-4736-addf-ccdf924da86a" CreationDate="2014-04-11T13:55:51.693" UserId="42975" Text="Can not find edit request that I had skipped" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="a0555a58-496e-4736-addf-ccdf924da86a" CreationDate="2014-04-11T13:55:51.693" UserId="42975" Text="|support|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="255bdb46-596e-4ae9-ae3e-1441a20efd6a" CreationDate="2014-04-11T23:46:49.613" UserId="42975" Comment="Update on finding the diff, and what to make of it for the question" Text="I &quot;skipped&quot; a proposed edit in the review on http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/107909/42975 because I was editing myself quite a lot.&#xD;&#xA;Now, I want to manually apply the useful fixes from it, but can not find the skipped edit diff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, I found the edit again - but without noticing why, and how it ended up on my screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, while my current motivating instance of the problem was solved by chance - I could read the diff, and applly changes manually by a standard edit (of my own post) - the problem still exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It even seems like both parts of the confusion are related to a common cause, making it more relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the problem be related to hiding parts of UI and feature set based on reputation?  &#xD;&#xA;(My rep. was about 650 at the time.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="48227fd6-d4b8-48be-b333-1666b5cac54c" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:15:28.457" UserId="44257" Text="Simple as that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that since we can only upvote comments, it leads to skew, where comments, even if they are unhelpful or inaccurate cannot be downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the whole mechanics of this website is, more-or-less &quot;people vote for things and the good things rise to the top, while the bad fall to the bottom&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would you use this as your model, but clearly ignore it in one place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="48227fd6-d4b8-48be-b333-1666b5cac54c" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:15:28.457" UserId="44257" Text="Why can we not downvote comments, when we can upvote them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="48227fd6-d4b8-48be-b333-1666b5cac54c" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:15:28.457" UserId="44257" Text="|feature-request|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="550a3d8a-07cc-4f12-8a62-40a5863c75cb" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:19:19.113" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|comments|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5712" RevisionGUID="c0e2cc6f-03df-49b4-b9f9-3cdcc00f960e" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:21:48.507" UserId="7433" Text="The upvotes just sort the comments for collapsing so that the software can determine which comments to show. If an entire comment thread fits, then there's no point in collapsing any comments. So why would we need a downvote?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the comment thread doesn't fit, a non-upvoted comment and a downvoted comment would have the same effect anyway -- hidden by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What effect do you propose for downvoted comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="d37ad470-8eb9-46ac-b949-396b5cabcb71" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:39:17.143" UserId="124" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, chosen more or less at random from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104682/group-theory-quotient-group-notation?noredirect=1&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104269/non-invertible-operators-and-cardinality-of-two-real-line-segments?noredirect=1&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105030/why-a-sin2-pi-ft-fraca2jej2-pi-ft-e-j2-pi-ft-but-not-fraca?noredirect=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="d37ad470-8eb9-46ac-b949-396b5cabcb71" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:39:17.143" UserId="124" Text="Should pure math questions be on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="d37ad470-8eb9-46ac-b949-396b5cabcb71" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:39:17.143" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="a25f9ab0-bd98-46cc-8376-70c67cc0d64f" CreationDate="2014-04-12T21:03:26.163" UserId="4066" Text="**No, purely-maths topics should not be on topic here.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a very clear scope: questions which ask about physics concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we start blurring that by saying some maths questions are on topic, and some are not, then we lose the clarity of the present scope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we extend the scope to be &quot;any maths or physics question&quot;, then we've effectively absorbed maths.se, and both physics.se and maths.se lose out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarity of scope is enormously important. It helps new and established contributors have an unambiguous rule about what is on topic, and what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be muddied if the scope is no longer simply &quot;physics concepts&quot;, but includes some or all maths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12868" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="e174bfd8-d59b-4a7d-bb91-19ad5b7a9f47" CreationDate="2014-04-12T21:44:56.763" UserId="66" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sklivvz&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="247bf766-6ebd-47a4-93d8-6dcf137481c7" CreationDate="2014-04-12T21:50:05.080" UserId="2451" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, chosen more or less at random from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106753/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106042/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/105030/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104682/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104269/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="b3a0fe66-e46d-4b36-8d59-445dec049920" CreationDate="2014-04-12T22:01:23.487" UserId="2451" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, chosen more or less at random from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106753/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106042/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/105030/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104682/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104269/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="8541e81f-7da7-4a28-9356-953108418ada" CreationDate="2014-04-12T23:25:37.727" UserId="8338" Text="Math questions relevant to physics should be allowed, even encouraged.  To quote Gel-Mann (as related in &quot;The Second Creation&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;But, you know, the way they teach math is so abstract and peculiar, it's very hard for a student to know what's going on.  Mathematicians tend to present things in such a - what is the word? - such a *nonconstructive* way.  They like to prove that there is something, but not actually *show* you what it is.  When they give examples, they are so trivial that you don't learn anything form them.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="e2cfac24-3cfa-4b16-87b8-1e828af04e20" CreationDate="2014-04-13T01:37:58.310" UserId="4066" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="**No, purely-maths topics should not be on topic here.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a very clear scope: questions which ask about physics concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we start blurring that by saying some maths questions are on topic, and some are not, then we lose the clarity of the present scope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we extend the scope to be &quot;any maths or physics question&quot;, then we've effectively absorbed maths.se, and both physics.se and maths.se lose out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarity of scope is enormously important. It helps new and established contributors have an unambiguous rule about what is on topic, and what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be muddied if the scope is no longer simply &quot;physics concepts&quot;, but includes some or all maths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so I'm proposing that the present wording on the Help Center Scope Page is sufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="ffadbc0a-9151-48f3-bdd6-8e19f2a7797a" CreationDate="2014-04-13T04:43:23.123" UserId="1492" Text="There exists the middle road in this question, and it is similar to the one used for homework, i.e. ask for context.  Pure mathematical questions at all levels should be discouraged if they have no physics context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naive example from an experimentalist :  I am thinking of using &quot;this mathematical tool&quot; in the context of string theories but I cannot find the set of its symmetry groups. Instead of &quot;what are the symmetry groups of &quot;this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that a physicist has a hunch that a certain mathematical tool will be useful in a specific physical context and does not want to reveal it before it has matured into a full preprint ( for obvious reasons). Then mathematics.se and its conceptual difficulties should be faced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5717" RevisionGUID="791b6687-3afa-4a4e-b084-8adace138b0f" CreationDate="2014-04-13T08:00:37.743" UserId="34382" Text="Questions devoid of any physics content (or reference to physics), which focus entirely on mathematical details should be migrated to the mathematics SE. If the question is regarding a mathematical method applied to a physics problem, then it is appropriate for the physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, a question which focuses entirely on mathematical details, whilst perhaps appropriate for the mathematics SE, should be kept on the physics SE if it is motivated by physics, even though it may not necessarily be regarding how it is precisely applied to a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An example:** there was a question regarding how to compute the normals given a metric, and potentially its embeddings. The question did not feature a particular example from a physics problem, but it was on the physics SE because it was motivated by physics (specifically, because the normals are used to compute the extrinsic curvature which is part of the gravitational action boundary term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the requirements and expectations of the OP should be partially kept into consideration. It may be although the question is highly mathematical, the OP desires a physicist's perspective or approach, which may have subtle differences from a mathematics SE answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="c8f907f4-734e-4bfd-862d-bdac63aa08e1" CreationDate="2014-04-13T17:32:26.047" UserId="2451" Comment="misspelled gell-mann" Text="Math questions relevant to physics should be allowed, even encouraged.  To quote [Gell-Mann](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann) (as related in &quot;The Second Creation&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;But, you know, the way they teach math is so abstract and peculiar, it's very hard for a student to know what's going on.  Mathematicians tend to present things in such a - what is the word? - such a *nonconstructive* way.  They like to prove that there is something, but not actually *show* you what it is.  When they give examples, they are so trivial that you don't learn anything from them.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="ea1ea26d-6cb4-4420-9c38-5f48ba61d8c4" CreationDate="2014-04-13T21:45:29.717" UserId="25301" Text="This site's [About page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](http://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we start allowing purely mathematical questions, should we also now allow [philosophic questions](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/)? How about [space exploration](http://space.stackexchange.com/)? And so on? Why not just allow *any* question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="7d9b23f0-64b5-47c0-a60b-495691939d07" CreationDate="2014-04-14T00:19:44.477" UserId="44257" Text="Again, simple as.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very supprised and disapointed that these questions are locked. I think for students and mathematicans who may want to enter the field these questions are great and could be very insparational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that these lists can have something to add.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that many of the answers were simply un-detailed lists of a half-dozen books, but it is not the fault of the question nor the question-poser that the answers given were not in line with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, can we open the &quot;Every Physicist Books&quot; question and the &quot;Layman Books&quot; question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="7d9b23f0-64b5-47c0-a60b-495691939d07" CreationDate="2014-04-14T00:19:44.477" UserId="44257" Text="Can we open &quot;The Every Physicist Books Question&quot; &amp; &quot;The Layman Books Question&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="7d9b23f0-64b5-47c0-a60b-495691939d07" CreationDate="2014-04-14T00:19:44.477" UserId="44257" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="ae06ab6c-d781-42af-b1bc-fff360436caa" CreationDate="2014-04-14T00:27:52.033" UserId="2451" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Again, simple as.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very supprised and disapointed that these questions are locked. I think for students and mathematicans who may want to enter the field these questions are great and could be very insparational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that these lists can have something to add.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that many of the answers were simply un-detailed lists of a half-dozen books, but it is not the fault of the question nor the question-poser that the answers given were not in line with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, can we open the [Every Physicist Books](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/884/2451) question and the [Layman Books](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13020/2451) question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="3a2fce48-6ea1-4644-bdbf-daccc247b504" CreationDate="2014-04-14T00:55:50.560" UserId="25301" Comment="cleaned up text." Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](http://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](http://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](http://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](http://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](http://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="9e602afb-9b40-4afc-b2b4-fa21b410b29c" CreationDate="2014-04-14T02:21:25.630" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I agree that many of the answers were simply un-detailed lists of a half-dozen books, but it is not the fault of the question nor the question-poser that the answers given were not in line with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;True, but the questions weren't locked because of their answers, they were locked because they - the questions themselves - are not good content for a Stack Exchange site. (That's a general rule, by the way. Whenever a question is locked or closed, it's not because of any answers it may have received.) As dmckee said in a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, these things could be valuable in and of themselves, but they break sites. No, really, they do. The easy-to-ask, easy-to-participate-in cruft drives out the real content that makes the site different from the rest of the internet. They ruin the one thing that makes Stack Exchange sites different and better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that Stack Exchange sites are not trying to be your one-stop resource to find all useful information on a particular subject. We are trying to be the best place to ask specific questions and get accurate answers. Accordingly, we don't want to deal with anything that's not a specific question or an accurate answer. I'm not saying all that other content is useless; on the contrary, some of it is very useful. But it's not what we're trying to collect here. There are plenty of other places online where that other content can find a good home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open-ended lists fall into that category of non-SE content. So no, we will not unlock those questions. They're useful, sure, but this site is not the place for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="38db6dd1-b1c6-4f05-8075-9c66eddcb020" CreationDate="2014-04-14T09:46:52.203" UserId="66" Text="The reason is that answers are ranked by score, and comments are ranked by time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* useful answers get upvotes and move to the top&#xD;&#xA;* bad answers get dowvotes and move to the bottom&#xD;&#xA;* average answers stay in the middle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, downvotes help the best quality emerge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments have upvotes to express agreement and avoid multiple &quot;I agree with the previous&quot; comments. There is no score ranking in comments, besides choosing comments to show when there are too many, so downvotes are not needed for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are not answers which can be right or wrong. Comments are opinions, and we like different opinions to coexist, whereas we want wrong answers to go away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you think a comment is _really bad_ then you can flag it - with enough flags it will be deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="a3d43cdf-65bf-42c5-8272-e487cf40c2c4" CreationDate="2014-04-14T11:14:40.207" UserId="24142" Text="Yes, math questions should be on topic, when it is a question about mathematical concept that are more used and known by physicists than mathematicians. In my view, the rationale should always be &quot;on which site would a particular question have the best chance to get an answer?&quot; Surely our primarily goal is to help an OP as much as we can?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, certain math questions would get more attention on this site than on math SE; the average physicist will know more about vector analysis, tensor analysis, certain aspects of group theory, certain differential equations, special functions, Legendre polynomials, Fourier analysis, integral transforms and calculus of variations than the average mathematician. The well-known textbook *Mathematical Methods For Physicists* can serve as a rough guide. Moreover, a physicist will often solve these questions in a different way than a mathematician would, which sometimes might be more helpful to the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example is [this question](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/673318/laplaces-equation-in-spherical-coordinates/) on Laplace's Equation in Spherical Coordinates, which the OP encountered in Griffith's EM. Despite the fact that the question was answered here and my answer was accepted, a mod still decided to migrate it to math SE, where, not surprisingly, it didn't get any attention whatsoever. So what was the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I don't like self-imposed arbitrary rules to decide which topics are supposedly on-topic or not. I favour a much more pragmatic approach when dealing with 'borderline' cases: just wait and see if a question gets enough attention, and when it doesn't, *then* consider a migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="da0fec01-5733-4ed5-8cea-757ed291b090" CreationDate="2014-04-14T11:38:52.163" UserId="24142" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Yes, math questions should be on topic, when they are questions about mathematical concepts that are more used and known by physicists than mathematicians. In my view, the rationale should always be &quot;on which site would a particular question have the best chance to get an answer?&quot; Surely our primarily goal is to help an OP as much as we can?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, certain math questions would get more attention on this site than on math SE; the average physicist will know more about vector analysis, tensor analysis, certain aspects of group theory, certain differential equations, special functions, Legendre polynomials, Fourier analysis, integral transforms and calculus of variations than the average mathematician. The well-known textbook *Mathematical Methods For Physicists* can serve as a rough guide. Moreover, a physicist will often solve these questions in a different way than a mathematician would, which sometimes might be more helpful to the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example is [this question](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/673318/laplaces-equation-in-spherical-coordinates/) on Laplace's Equation in Spherical Coordinates, which the OP encountered in Griffith's EM. Despite the fact that the question was answered here and my answer was accepted, a mod still decided to migrate it to math SE, where, not surprisingly, it didn't get any attention whatsoever. So what was the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I don't like self-imposed arbitrary rules to decide which topics are supposedly on-topic or not. I favour a much more pragmatic approach when dealing with 'borderline' cases: just wait and see if a question gets enough attention, and when it doesn't, *then* consider a migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="764a29de-ea0d-4bf0-8f17-51a6449bc169" CreationDate="2014-04-14T20:25:25.703" UserId="124" Comment="add example and clarify some wording" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106753/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/106042/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/105030/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104682/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104269/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/108392/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="bfa0f6f3-aed4-4d79-b788-f41776ddcf75" CreationDate="2014-04-14T22:24:43.513" UserId="66" Text="&gt; Mathematics : Physics = Grammar : Literature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While many writers may be very good at grammar, one would not ask a pure grammar question to a writer, but to a linguist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a big difference between a question of mathematics as applied to physics and a question of pure mathematics. While many physicists are good at applying mathematics, only a few of them have the breadth or depth of knowledge that a mathematician has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fear is that pure mathematical questions would not receive as good answers here ans on math.se or mathoverflow and my very strong suspicion is that they would not receive a good peer review because of course pure mathematics is a larger set of concepts and skills as compared to the subset used in physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12888" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="e2c216fd-4b7f-4ab3-9779-3066a75c42c7" CreationDate="2014-04-15T02:16:51.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/455892480320602112" />
  <row Id="12889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5724" RevisionGUID="853445b9-3309-4556-8295-d4fb7f50f55d" CreationDate="2014-04-15T05:32:36.617" UserId="20731" Text="I am just throwing this out there, maybe, as discussed in the comments on Emilios answers, it is too much hassle to go through for the number of occurences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I completely agree that migration channels can have value, but that it opens up the possibility that low-level junk gets dumped to a different SE site and closed there. The main reason is, as Emilio mentioned, that many 3k+ users that are allowed to give close votes at physics.se, have little knowledge of the site they are voting to migrate towards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now comes the idea: the stackexchange rep system allows us to check that knowledge! We already have a system in place that allows us to check whether a physics.se user has enough rep to close vote; we already have a system that allows us to check whether a ee.se user (just as example) has enough rep to close vote. We could make the 'migrate to' option only available to people that have sufficient rep BOTH on the sending as well as on the receiving stackexchange site. Maybe it doesn't have to be the full close vote rep minimum on the receiving site, I'm note sure, but at least this makes sure that users that vote to migrate actually have knowledge of the site the question is migrated to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5725" RevisionGUID="17cdff85-1550-4ade-aed0-abb83b450730" CreationDate="2014-04-15T13:19:55.790" UserId="20848" Text="What's the real problem here?  Some moron couldn't be bothered to read the rules and blurts out his question on the wrong site.  Why should it be our responsibility to move it to the right site?  Our job here is protecting the site, not worrying about whether the moron finds the right place for his question.  Someone that can't figure that out probably won't be contributing anything useful to another site either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never use any of the migration options when voting to close, here or elsewhere.  Often I don't feel I know enough about the target site to be sure, but the main reason is that it's simply not my job nor my problem, and I don't want the moron to get away with posting in the wrong place by getting a useful answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="8ebcef92-3797-4240-9457-8dceef655f89" CreationDate="2014-04-15T14:25:30.633" UserId="66" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="&gt; Mathematics : Physics = Grammar : Literature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While many writers may be very good at grammar, one would not ask a pure grammar question to a writer, but to a linguist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a big difference between a question of mathematics as applied to physics and a question of pure mathematics. While many physicists are good at applying mathematics, only a few of them have the breadth or depth of knowledge that a mathematician has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fear is that pure mathematical questions would not receive as good answers here ans on math.se or mathoverflow and my very strong suspicion is that they would not receive a good peer review because of course pure mathematics is a larger set of concepts and skills as compared to the subset used in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* migrate pure maths questions to the appropriate level mathematics site&#xD;&#xA;* criterion to define &quot;pure maths&quot;: if answering the question *requires* physics knowledge, then keep the question; if answering the question *does not require* any physics knowledge, migrate away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="2eb1789c-030f-457e-bfc5-9441965a681f" CreationDate="2014-04-15T15:43:56.530" UserId="66" Comment="added 491 characters in body" Text="&gt; Mathematics : Physics = Grammar : Literature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While many writers may be very good at grammar, one would not ask a pure grammar question to a writer, but to a linguist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a big difference between a question of mathematics as applied to physics and a question of pure mathematics. While many physicists are good at applying mathematics, only a few of them have the breadth or depth of knowledge that a mathematician has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fear is that pure mathematical questions would not receive as good answers here ans on math.se or mathoverflow and my very strong suspicion is that they would not receive a good peer review because of course pure mathematics is a larger set of concepts and skills as compared to the subset used in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to *maximize usefulness of the network* and *minimize effort of the communities*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where would someone likely go to look for an answer to this question? Differential equations are very useful in physics, but most DE questions probably live in our maths sites. We don't want to have the same question in two places, or worse, questions randomly spread between the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, remember that if you can answer a question *here*, you can also do so *on the maths sites*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* migrate pure maths questions to the appropriate level mathematics site&#xD;&#xA;* criterion to define &quot;pure maths&quot;: if answering the question *requires* physics knowledge, then keep the question; if answering the question *does not require* any physics knowledge, migrate away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12893" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="b378a38f-f85b-484a-9cc3-13251cf92e98" CreationDate="2014-04-16T04:58:28.420" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/59480/chrome-automatically-fills-in-stack-exchange-comments" />
  <row Id="12894" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="63031fe7-3ad5-44c7-bc12-6d266b88de37" CreationDate="2014-04-16T04:58:28.420" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/59480/chrome-automatically-fills-in-stack-exchange-comments/59495#59495" />
  <row Id="12895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="99a488a6-96d2-4534-837c-e04e7261f3a8" CreationDate="2014-04-14T18:36:48.360" UserId="44701" UserDisplayName="JoyalToTheWorld" Text="Check your browser auto-fill settings, it certainly isn't the stack exchange, must be the browser (or browser extension).&#xA;&#xA;Try removing extensions one at a time, re-checking if  the issue exists after each." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="b8bfebc9-67fd-47aa-bc33-c43ee6a9cd87" CreationDate="2014-04-14T13:55:35.020" UserId="5739" Text="Help!  I contribute to the Physics Stack Exchange.  I use Chrome (on OS X), and I don't use any extensions with stack exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the last several days, when I attempt to leave a comment on a post, Chrome has been automatically filling the comment space with text that I submitted as a comment days ago.  Editing is a nightmare, because with every edit *all* of the text I entered is deleted, and that old text is inserted in its place.  Practically anything I do in the comment field causes all text to be deleted, and that old scrap of text to be inserted.  Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="b8bfebc9-67fd-47aa-bc33-c43ee6a9cd87" CreationDate="2014-04-14T13:55:35.020" UserId="5739" Text="Chrome automatically fills in Stack Exchange comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="b8bfebc9-67fd-47aa-bc33-c43ee6a9cd87" CreationDate="2014-04-14T13:55:35.020" UserId="5739" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="872ff266-ddab-4823-8ca2-eb9b93b8f744" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:06:18.017" UserId="23583" Text="How do I perform a strikethrough on some text I've posted in a question ? I've tried \sout and a few others to no avail. The advanced help page in the editor doesnt provide any assistance either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could we potentially add how to do a strikethrough to the advanced help section in the question editor ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="872ff266-ddab-4823-8ca2-eb9b93b8f744" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:06:18.017" UserId="23583" Text="Strikethrough in Jatex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="872ff266-ddab-4823-8ca2-eb9b93b8f744" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:06:18.017" UserId="23583" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="d9989f4b-046b-484d-a9b1-ccd07820743a" CreationDate="2014-04-16T10:58:06.067" UserId="7433" Text="Use `&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;` for &lt;s&gt;striking&lt;/s&gt; text. Not sure if there are any supported strikethrough methods in the subset of LaTeX we use here, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="feff8155-d2f6-4af8-9572-528a736d04e4" CreationDate="2014-04-16T12:44:26.100" UserId="25589" Text="The first thing you need to do is to include the *cancel* package into your TeX by writing the following in your code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \require{cancel}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After, it's relatively easy to cancel something by just writing: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \cancel{\displaystyle\int\mathrm d^4x\,\text{whathever}}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can also use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \cancelto{to whathever}{whathever}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![hope this helps!!!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NvHFG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="4fb2d958-c251-49f3-890d-aa58211c5627" CreationDate="2014-04-16T14:16:39.593" UserId="44646" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="c5ef048a-f2a8-47c9-a889-bd47df18c373" CreationDate="2014-04-19T14:18:30.183" UserId="31782" Text="&gt;This question:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82238/why-does-a-bicycle-come-to-rest-after-travelling-a-distance/109111#109111 has been downvoted too much. Why it is so.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The OP seems to know that there is some force which brings the bicycle to rest and is just asking for which. It clearly shows that OP has gone through some thought process but he cannot figure out which force it is,is it Kinetic friction, rolling friction, air friction, static friction, gravitational or anything else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="c5ef048a-f2a8-47c9-a889-bd47df18c373" CreationDate="2014-04-19T14:18:30.183" UserId="31782" Text="Why this question is downvoted too much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="c5ef048a-f2a8-47c9-a889-bd47df18c373" CreationDate="2014-04-19T14:18:30.183" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|down-votes|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="50a7e488-a3cd-49c2-9e1e-5153ee322ed0" CreationDate="2014-04-19T14:55:05.017" UserId="11062" Text="In seeing [the way the question was first posted](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/82238/1), one can't expect anything better than [@ja72's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82238/#comment171089_82238).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually downvote because upvotes/downvotes are basically meant for whether a post is showing some **research effort** or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XttEC.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question, (it appears, from its looks that) the OP didn't bother to do some research on his question. I might guess that that's probably the reason behind the other downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="78c86dfb-d25a-4c4c-9fbd-3a43fc67cd3e" CreationDate="2014-04-19T15:06:30.763" UserId="31782" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;I am not able to add [this](http://mediaserver.pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Archive.org-Logo.png) image.  so copying from the above.&#xD;&#xA;[![http://i.imgur.com/1GkFlun.png][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QpWDJ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12910" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="cff11823-9b9d-425b-a588-6d0f01f5073a" CreationDate="2014-04-19T15:06:30.763" UserId="31782" />
  <row Id="12911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="b386a27e-63a2-4884-851d-709cb195e3ef" CreationDate="2014-04-19T15:14:36.807" UserId="31782" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;I am not able to add [this](http://mediaserver.pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Archive.org-Logo.png) image.  so copying from the above.&#xD;&#xA;[![http://i.imgur.com/1GkFlun.png][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cdn.sstatic.net/img/http://mediaserver.pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Archive.org-Logo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="38d6c006-d14d-4f3f-9654-c52eca795bd7" CreationDate="2014-04-19T21:04:48.303" UserId="10549" Text="This is to announce that the History of Math and Science StackExchange proposal on Area 51 has entered the &quot;commit&quot; stage. You can read more about the proposal [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5494/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?rq=1) and see the proposal itself [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the commitment stage, a certain number of users must &quot;commit&quot; to using the site, which is simply a pledge to use it when the beta launches. Once enough people have done this, the beta version of the site will launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the top physics example questions on the proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exactly what kind of data did Kepler work out his laws from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What type of instrumentation was used to produce monofrequency light sources at the period of JC Maxwell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When was it recognized by scientists that the surface temperature of Venus must be extremely high compared to the earth? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="38d6c006-d14d-4f3f-9654-c52eca795bd7" CreationDate="2014-04-19T21:04:48.303" UserId="10549" Text="History of Math and Science proposal is in commit stage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="38d6c006-d14d-4f3f-9654-c52eca795bd7" CreationDate="2014-04-19T21:04:48.303" UserId="10549" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="c9047cdb-fb33-4ded-bb60-6499239a68d9" CreationDate="2014-04-19T21:39:28.523" UserId="124" Text="Here's my take: the questioner effectively says, right in the question, that they know that an object's velocity won't change without a force acting on it. Then they ask whether the fact that an object (the bicycle) is changing its velocity implies that a force is acting on it. This reflects a failure to apply basic logic. And the entire core of the question is based on that logical failure. So it's not a good question for us; there's no interesting physics in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="772d1ba8-2640-40c4-8b81-0de6ba73bfd0" CreationDate="2014-04-20T03:33:37.770" UserId="31782" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![http://i.imgur.com/1GkFlun.png][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: //mediaserver.pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Archive.org-Logo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="69dc3c67-5a0b-45b9-9851-3a5712e974b8" CreationDate="2014-04-20T06:14:44.570" UserId="31782" Text="I have noticed that some stack exchanges sites have different policies as compared to the stackoverflow.com. e.g. Math.SE has completely different policies for [comments](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/12743/103816) and [home-work](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/103816) questions.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the policy of Phys.SE for asking beginner level questions, that is can unintelligent persons ask questions here?  &#xD;&#xA;Is this site mainly for expert level questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="69dc3c67-5a0b-45b9-9851-3a5712e974b8" CreationDate="2014-04-20T06:14:44.570" UserId="31782" Text="Is Phys.SE mainly for expert-level questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="69dc3c67-5a0b-45b9-9851-3a5712e974b8" CreationDate="2014-04-20T06:14:44.570" UserId="31782" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="22bc2770-7085-4beb-80fc-c2fcf614281c" CreationDate="2014-04-20T07:46:44.780" UserId="31782" Comment="deleted 163 characters in body" Text="&gt;This question:http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82238/31782 has been downvoted too much. Why it is so.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;IMO OP seems to know that there should be some force which brings the bicycle to rest and is just asking for if this is true or there is some other concept involved. Since the OP does not make it clear my speculation might be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5737" RevisionGUID="1bc94e34-869d-44ab-bd3c-174f27b5449f" CreationDate="2014-04-20T09:35:10.960" UserId="21817" Text="Not at all! We've got 2014  [tag:newtonian-mechanics] questions. And I bet most of the users have average intelligence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the homework, there are tons of posts here on meta. You can see that unlike Math.SE, where no effort is required at all, here you must have worked and only the conceptual part. No questions like: _Why is my solution wrong?_, _I'm  stuck, how do I continue?_...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing about questions is that you must have thought about it, and a Google search before asking would be useful. Of course, some understanding of the fundamental concepts is necessary, you can't ask to explain how to calculte a Feynman diagram when you even don't know quantum mechanics. But some questions are good if they can be explained easily, even if it's covered in textbooks, like: _Is energy conserved in GR?_, _What is negative temperature?_... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are still interesting basic questions yet to asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="8754c6e1-bcd0-4523-b5eb-1369d763b4cb" CreationDate="2014-04-20T11:51:11.977" UserId="1325" Text="The fantastic thing about the Stack Exchange generally, and the Physics SE in particular is that it gives you access to people who are expert in their area. This is an extraordinary resource, and I would have loved it to be available back in the 70s when I was a teenage science nerd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But working physicists are busy people with mortgages to pay and families to feed. If you want them to answer your question then you have to make it interesting and rewarding to answer. That means putting in the Google legwork to research your question and work out what the important physics behind your question is and how best to phrase the question. We see a lot of beginners' questions that give the impression little effort has been put into them, and in these days of the Internet there is no excuse for this. It gives the impression the OP doesn't really care, and in that case why should busy physicists make the (considerable) effort to write a detailed answer? Asking on the Physics SE shouldn't be the first option - it should be the last option and only used after easy options like blog articles have failed to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a fan of banning questions, and if beginners want to ask questions that they have not thoroughly researched then let them ask. However they shouldn't be surprised if the questions are ignored by the more experienced members of the site. Such questions also attract downvotes, though my own view is that this is rather petty and I only rarely downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re homework: this discussion has rumbled on and on. If someone wants to learn some physics in order to do their homework then I'm happy to help because I think learning physics is good. If they're just trying to get their homework done then I would probably vote to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="8c9d7515-5261-4bd9-8f1f-e751ea9bc3a1" CreationDate="2014-04-20T16:29:12.950" UserId="31782" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="I have noticed that some stack exchanges sites have different policies as compared to the stackoverflow.com. e.g. Math.SE has completely different policies for [comments](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/12743/103816) and [home-work](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/103816) questions.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the policy of Phys.SE for asking beginner level questions, that is can unintelligent persons ask questions here?  &#xD;&#xA;Is this site mainly for expert level questions?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I am not talking of home-work type questions. suppose  I want to ask a very simple, basic question which is a result of a simple logical failure or a misunderstanding or ignorance. I do some research but do not get the answer. Are those question on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="01f8e72f-22d1-439e-9f40-7b7c620fbd23" CreationDate="2014-04-21T02:49:00.240" UserId="31782" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![http://i.imgur.com/1GkFlun.png][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/eZkj7Gi.jpg?1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12925" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="63c7d8db-0737-4a6d-a37e-5a4cc16c0f84" CreationDate="2014-04-21T12:22:53.533" UserId="31782" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:31782,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anupam&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12926" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="8d7f046f-8e9a-4810-838a-e5ff08894fb9" CreationDate="2014-04-21T14:37:15.377" UserId="31782" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:31782,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anupam&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="0405e9b5-674d-411a-b015-f9a698a41ce7" CreationDate="2014-04-21T16:21:41.503" UserId="26169" Text="So we have had some recent discussions on whether pure maths questions be on topic (see [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) and [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic)). It seems that the majority want to make the policies less strict, and so my question is: will the moderators change the policies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this question is not meant to spark the discussion on whether pure maths questions should be on topic or not. If someone want to share their opinion about this, then please see the aforementioned discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="0405e9b5-674d-411a-b015-f9a698a41ce7" CreationDate="2014-04-21T16:21:41.503" UserId="26169" Text="Maths question on physics SE; how to proceed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="0405e9b5-674d-411a-b015-f9a698a41ce7" CreationDate="2014-04-21T16:21:41.503" UserId="26169" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="1abc85d9-eccf-4c8b-8155-7ef9a1c08eed" CreationDate="2014-04-21T16:43:59.573" UserId="26169" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="We have had some recent discussions on whether pure maths questions be on topic (see [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) and [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic)). It seems that the majority want to make the policies less strict, and so my question is: will the moderators change the policies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this question is not meant to spark the discussion on whether pure maths questions should be on topic or not. If someone want to share their opinion about this, then please post them in the aforementioned discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5740" RevisionGUID="7f4ff5d3-8c12-40ae-824f-8816da70b3ef" CreationDate="2014-04-21T17:33:49.110" UserId="25301" Text="I'm not sure where you got the idea that *the majority want to make the policies less strict* from DavidZ's meta post, given that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The  most [highly voted answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5717/25301) opens with the statement,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions devoid of any physics content (or reference to physics), which focus entirely on mathematical details should be migrated to the mathematics SE. If the question is regarding a mathematical method applied to a physics problem, then it is appropriate for the physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The remaining answers echoed the sentiments above (and were oddly given roughly equal mixtures of +1 and -1 votes), with a [single answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5722/25301) saying that we should absorb Math.SE's scope into our own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I'm not sure that anything really needs to be done to what the majority actually voted. As far as I can tell, this is already done here on physics.SE (as evidenced by the list of migrated questions that DavidZ presented)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="78ca8e7a-c09e-431d-87e5-fae8afa215a2" CreationDate="2014-04-21T19:11:08.497" UserId="124" Text="I'm waiting for tomorrow's chat session to see what points are brought up there, and then we'll figure out the consensus and adjust the content of the help center if necessary to reflect it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="3fde73a6-f0d8-499d-8bf6-1024601ede3f" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:21:10.093" UserId="1186" Text="Why this my question has been closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109273/is-this-picture-of-the-universe-valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="3fde73a6-f0d8-499d-8bf6-1024601ede3f" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:21:10.093" UserId="1186" Text="Why this question has been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="3fde73a6-f0d8-499d-8bf6-1024601ede3f" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:21:10.093" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="4f915030-ad17-4202-b827-d534337bcab4" CreationDate="2014-04-22T13:26:19.380" UserId="5739" Text="In a comment, someone posted a URL that went directly to a particular answer to a certain question.  How does one find the URL of a particular answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="4f915030-ad17-4202-b827-d534337bcab4" CreationDate="2014-04-22T13:26:19.380" UserId="5739" Text="What is the URL of an individual answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="4f915030-ad17-4202-b827-d534337bcab4" CreationDate="2014-04-22T13:26:19.380" UserId="5739" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5744" RevisionGUID="435cfd33-e035-4eb5-bce6-251302621a51" CreationDate="2014-04-22T13:33:11.567" UserId="520" Text="Look at the bottom of each post (question or answer). See the gray-text links (&quot;edit&quot; &quot;flag&quot; and &quot;share&quot;)? Those are hot-links and &quot;share&quot; has the permalink address. Use your browser to copy it's URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comments you can get a permalink from the time-stamp (but be aware that comments are not very permanent and can be deleted without warning)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="bb444fdb-dca1-4f6f-ac92-b02dc62045ac" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Most people have enough of a sense of the concept of &quot;fair play&quot; that I'd like to think this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly going to come up, and we don't want people from legitimately using this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cribbing from &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10811/homework-on-stackoverflow&quot;&gt;StackOverflow&lt;/a&gt; - on which the Mathematics.StackExchange site builds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two principles involved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;It is okay to ask about homework&lt;/b&gt;. For one, it would be impossible to stop it all even if we wanted to. Stack Overflow exists to help programmers learn and provide a standard repository for programming problems, both simple and complex, and this includes helping students.&lt;/li&gt;   &#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest&lt;/b&gt;. Therefore you might choose to treat homework questions differently than other questions.&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that it'll be nigh-impossible to determine in advance which are homework questions 100% of the time. On the other hand, there will be those questions are going to stick out like a sore thumb as obvious homework. I don't think we want to get in the habit of providing homework answers directly, as that directly violates principle 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's wrong to inquire if a question is a homework or class-related question in the comments. If it is, the questioner ought to be willing to accept help in a form similar to what they might get from a reasonably accommodating professor or TA, and it should be our job to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, if we could get people with homework questions to &lt;strong&gt;voluntarily&lt;/strong&gt; tag their questions appropriately, then everyone would benefit. Maybe this ought to be in our FAQs or guidelines somewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="531f4ba3-328c-4a77-b7c6-4a78045d5fb3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26483/could-we-have-the-ability-to-mark-a-change-as-minor-in-questions-or-answers/26496#26496&quot;&gt;No&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="cb48f2b4-6112-41bf-8c59-21c4daf29f63" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There are already members of the SE team who are registered on the site and have moderator powers, but I don't think they participate heavily in the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moderator-choosing process is described in e.g. this &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site/58056#58056&quot;&gt;post on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt; but here's the gist: about a week after the public beta starts, temporary moderators will be chosen by the Stack Exchange team, based on community input. Then later on, after the end of the beta period, there will be an election of permanent moderators - or rather, an election of moderator &lt;em&gt;candidates&lt;/em&gt; to indicate who the community prefers, but I'm sure the results will be reviewed by the SE team and the final choice is up to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="98c8b811-7ac1-4fd1-a014-ddde24f0b843" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The following is with respect to SO (&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com&quot;&gt;StackOverflow&lt;/a&gt;, the site that started the whole SE business), which we are not but since it works good there we should at least think about this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeff Atwood &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3774/add-meta-tag-to-support-internationalization/7320#7320&quot;&gt;stated&lt;/a&gt; (regarding non-english posts on &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com&quot;&gt;http://stackoverflow.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe programmers who speak only Mandarin, or French, or Spanish, are better off forming their own communities and centers of gravity. Shared language is one of the fundamental aspects of community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Just visit Chinatown in nearby San Francisco to see what I mean.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some digging I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this blog post from '07&lt;/a&gt; as a follow-up on the discussion &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;We need to help non-English-speakers somehow…&lt;/a&gt;, and the faq-entry &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13676/146482&quot;&gt;Is English required on Stack Overflow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, on SO the policy is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I say keep it in English. I'm not against diversity or other languages, I'm for us all being able to communicate under one. This isn't political, this isn't about smothering peoples cultures with Western ideologies. It is about being pragmatic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do agree that multiple languages on one site cause confusion. But we should not &quot;ban&quot; non-english speakers, so I suggest we do not vote on non-english posts (both questions and answers) and try to translate things to english as good as possible. As soon as the correctness of the translation is verified, the original text should be removed - it will still be available by clicking on the &lt;em&gt;edited by&lt;/em&gt; link. Maybe one can edit in a&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &lt;code&gt;[original version in russian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/519/revisions#rev3252802a-affc-499f-9316-3e44d8a4f81c)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;link or post that as comment, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="3f52f600-c0b0-4c41-b150-1978823250fa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;update&lt;/strong&gt; Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h&quot;&gt;Cedric H.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky&quot;&gt;David Zaslavsky&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin&quot;&gt;Noldorin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq&quot;&gt;mbq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Congratulations! &lt;em&gt;Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the spirit of &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site&quot;&gt;these guidelines&lt;/a&gt;, please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163&quot;&gt;math.SE's election&lt;/a&gt; for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a link to the parent-site profile (&lt;code&gt;#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number&lt;/code&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an estimate of presence times&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the standing on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97&quot;&gt;level of questions issue&lt;/a&gt; the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub&quot;&gt;Mark Eichenlaub&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler&quot; title=&quot;at least for now...&quot;&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="61e95d27-ebbc-4cf0-9d5b-2611a71d7f85" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is SE-wide bug; if you need this +100 now, create account on any other SE site, this should make the transfer here. Yet this will be fixed, hopefully soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related meta question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/70147/account-association-not-giving-100/70149#70149&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/70147/account-association-not-giving-100/70149#70149&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="a6b3b130-f715-406c-ac48-73eab99ff266" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;It is already posted on Meta.SO by KennyTM, so all we can do is wait (or upvote the post on meta): &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68388/there-should-be-universal-latex-mathjax-guide-for-sites-supporting-it&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68388/there-should-be-universal-latex-mathjax-guide-for-sites-supporting-it&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="8633758d-87ed-4d31-8a03-1996779974e6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, is there a way to insert line-breaks into a comment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No there isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It would be also nice if [Enter] didn't submit the comment; this still surprises me sometimes and makes me add unfinished comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More generally, is there some nice FAQ or other resource where one can learn everything about the site's user interface?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may ask a &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/support&quot; class=&quot;post-tag required-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'support'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;support&lt;/a&gt; question in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="77e60fa1-5d2c-44e1-9d55-657aa336b6cf" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I think the theory is that if a 'comment' is long enough and has enough structure to require paragraphs (i.e. line breaks), then it should really be answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I quite like that it just takes [Enter] to submit comments. This is a recent change in the user interface of this site, and makes comment writing a bit quicker, in the case where one leaves many short comments (as I often do). [Shift-Enter] still gives you a normal line-break (only visible in the editor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq&quot;&gt;the set of &lt;code&gt;faq&lt;/code&gt;-tagged questions on Meta StackOverflow&lt;/a&gt; you may find quite helpful. These are generally large community-wiki style questions detailing various aspects of StackExchange sites, dating back to the early days of StackOverflow (but updated a lot since).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="43cd94c5-f504-46d4-9688-2696b7d255c2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43055/146482&quot;&gt;Greasemonkey script for displaying threaded comments&lt;/a&gt; to get a better overview:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://unicorn.&amp;#252;-wie-geek.de/threaded2.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You still have to click on &lt;code&gt;show more comments...&lt;/code&gt; if necessary, and the heuristic is of course not always perfect, but I like it. Other useful greasemonkey scripts can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/3687/146482&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5188/146482&quot;&gt;that one&lt;/a&gt; at meta.SO, e.g.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3687/greasemonkey-script-ideas-best-of-stackoverflow-greasemonkey-implementations/25927#25927&quot;&gt;Show unread questions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49704/double-intensity-shading-for-questions-with-1-interesting-tags/49724#49724&quot;&gt;Highlight which tag is the interesting one, plus different shading if more than one tag is interesting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/38600/146482&quot;&gt;Script to add “reply” links to comments&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="e8a99f03-04fd-41a0-8b98-d01b3c1ca438" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Recently physics.SE has seem more users regularly including salutations and sign-off in their posts. That &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&quot;&gt;behavior has been strongly discouraged on Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt; for a very long time, and I would prefer the same here. But I'm not ready to start a major editing campaign without polling the locals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/37439/2509&quot;&gt;Editing for Brevity?&lt;/a&gt; (Closed as a duplicate of the above, but much more recent and containing some additional discussion.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thought?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="4ce5b846-960d-4d52-a90f-bee9b3aa0f09" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;In the originial &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&quot;&gt;thread&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&quot;&gt;dmckee&lt;/a&gt; is mentioning the argumentation is all about &lt;strong&gt;effectiveness&lt;/strong&gt; and getting the content of something straight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But: This is a question of which &lt;strong&gt;culture&lt;/strong&gt; one wants to have in such a community. The &lt;em&gt;extraneous clutter&lt;/em&gt; mentioned by &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi&quot;&gt;TheTXI&lt;/a&gt; might indeed be something meaningful in &lt;strong&gt;human communication&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I strongly plead to leave the &lt;strong&gt;freedom&lt;/strong&gt; to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="d3d33620-d041-421f-b0a6-c8d6a11d421b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;We already show a reminder to those who downvote and are below 2k rep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzdqj.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(don't worry, no posts were harmed in the creation of this screenshot)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no rational way to &lt;em&gt;force&lt;/em&gt; people to leave a comment explaining their downvote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have some free time and wish to read the weeks and weeks of discussion on this topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2263/require-comments-on-downvotes&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2263/require-comments-on-downvotes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6521/allow-users-to-leave-an-anonymous-comment-when-voting&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6521/allow-users-to-leave-an-anonymous-comment-when-voting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Linked&quot; and &quot;Related&quot; columns of those questions are voluminous and probably cover every possible permutation of this conversation we could have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="5a5e8c85-2eed-4457-98e4-13e9c5c832f5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Yes -- this is by design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67054/can-we-grandfather-in-rep-abilities-as-sites-leave-beta&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67054/can-we-grandfather-in-rep-abilities-as-sites-leave-beta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;more detail at&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges&quot;&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="2cde85fe-be76-4cf7-a0f5-cb1f8da8c15a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the design. However I am not exactly pleased with what it does to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/49704/146482&quot;&gt;highlight SOFU tag&lt;/a&gt; greasemonkey script which made it easy to spot which and how many tags of a question actually are favourites:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QKYNb.png&quot; alt=&quot;tagged&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="bfb8ee36-2509-42cf-b87a-e27c21cc965b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The system automatically bumps old questions which don't have any (upvoted?) answers, under the guise of the &quot;Community&quot; user, in order to expose them to fresh eyes. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6981/why-does-a-question-appear-as-modified-by-the-community-user&quot;&gt;this MSO question&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="038b0330-65ec-4a3e-b548-6bdc8b61c381" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I like it. But since taste is subjective, I still hope that &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64697/allow-individual-se-theming-settings&quot;&gt;Allow individual SE theming settings&lt;/a&gt; will get accepted. Until then, those who don't like the current design can have a look &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackapps.com/questions/2113/beta-gaming-se-black-edition&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for some inspiration how to manipulate this to one's individual pleasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="a5599ac0-1b9a-4a7d-ab2b-de865f479c17" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/610&quot;&gt;2011 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat&lt;/a&gt;. The format, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests&quot;&gt;as described on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt;, is one &lt;em&gt;answer&lt;/em&gt; to this question &lt;em&gt;for every question&lt;/em&gt; asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have questions or comments about this, &lt;strong&gt;please do not answer this question&lt;/strong&gt; as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests&quot;&gt;the parent question&lt;/a&gt; or in &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion&quot;&gt;the Town Hall Discussion Room&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please add your replies to the chat room and comment here so they can be added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="ad26c296-a904-43d5-8f96-c8390d91ad39" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Bounties are assigned separately from accepted answers. You can add bounties to your questions or other people's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#bounty&quot;&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#bounty&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="d8544ecf-96e5-45ea-b02d-ecec30c086de" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you're asking about the rules governing when a user can be suspended: there is only one, &quot;don't be a jerk.&quot; This is intentionally vague. Suspensions are imposed at the discretion of the moderators. Generally they only occur after an official warning has been given but has not had the desired effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is discussed on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23366/suspension-reasons&quot;&gt;this MSO question&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23661/what-is-the-point-of-a-30-day-account-suspension/23681#23681&quot;&gt;this MSO answer&lt;/a&gt; (though I'm not saying we're obligated to use that exact sequence on this site).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="3ea190e7-ada2-4537-b839-cf2c25ca1d21" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;In case you want to now about these, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; is a the thread at meta.SO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="99a09b96-9aff-4e4c-945f-9cea4b8ea9b9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;You have &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74943/how-do-i-remove-a-frequented-tag&quot;&gt;encountered&lt;/a&gt; the &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;frequented tags&quot;&lt;/a&gt; feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't set any &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot; tags by hand the system will eventually attempt to guess what you are interested in from your history; these are your &quot;frequented tags&quot; and they are highlighted for you in the various question list views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make it go away by setting some tags as &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot;, though that will give you a different type of highlighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="ca225cba-222e-4581-9df8-092fbf0566db" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There are limited email notification available already, and the topic has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?tab=relevance&amp;amp;q=email%20notification&quot;&gt;discussed heavily on the mother meta&lt;/a&gt;. You will find that the official policy is to use email as a backup form of communication, not as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14555/notify-more-frequently-than-once-a-day/14600#14600&quot;&gt;substitute for visiting the site&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider using &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/email-notifications-for-new-questions-matching-specific-tags/25225#25225&quot;&gt;the RSS feeds&lt;/a&gt; (available at the bottom of most pages on the site) to follow sites/questions/tags/users that interest you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="97cc01d7-9642-4392-ad0d-038e15b10c20" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Closing does not necessarily block the question from getting answered, in that the server will accept answers but the UI generally tries to discourage this. See here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/79434/why-was-an-answer-allowed-on-a-question-that-was-merged-into-another-one&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/79434/why-was-an-answer-allowed-on-a-question-that-was-merged-into-another-one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Migration does, however, when the question is locked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="3ceb6690-d04f-4f0a-9b21-9389d61c413c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Two points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Accepting an answer does &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular questions are not in any sense &lt;em&gt;&quot;open&quot;&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;&quot;unanswered&quot;&lt;/em&gt; until there is a green checkmark and &lt;em&gt;&quot;closed&quot;&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;&quot;answered&quot;&lt;/em&gt; afterwards. Note that &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&quot;&gt;there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;formal definition of &lt;em&gt;&quot;unanswered&quot;&lt;/em&gt; for the purposes of the unanswered tab&lt;/a&gt; is &lt;em&gt;&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sense it is unfortunate that the site puts so much visual emphasis on accepted answers, because I prefer the current system but new users don't see a clear explanation of the meaning of acceptance and simply draw their own conclusions from the emphasis the site gives to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&quot;&gt;Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance&lt;/a&gt; have &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&quot;&gt;appeared&lt;/a&gt; on the mother meta &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&quot;&gt;many&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&quot;&gt;many&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers&quot;&gt;times&lt;/a&gt; without the team taking any action. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="1db1d773-392c-491d-a9b0-79fbbeecc925" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As David said, it is proprietary. However, here is a list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-clones&quot;&gt;OpenSource clones&lt;/a&gt; of the engine. IMO the most advanced are &lt;a href=&quot;http://shapado.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shapado&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osqa.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OSQA&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="d215ff19-02f6-41b9-86cc-f9aaef7a7e3a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/are-answers-that-just-contain-links-elsewhere-really-good-answers&quot;&gt;(admittedly old) question&lt;/a&gt; on meta.SO concerns the handling of answers which contain a link and essentially nothing else. There are some varied opinions on how to handle such answers, ranging from upvoting (the view that as long as the answer to the question can be found at the link, it's fine) to flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; (the view that &quot;outsourcing&quot; the burden of answering to another site is effectively useless).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since physics is somewhat different from programming, it occurs to me that the discussion on meta.SO might not be &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; applicable to this site. &lt;strong&gt;What does the physics.SE community think of link-only answers?&lt;/strong&gt; Do we upvote them, edit them, downvote them, flag them, etc.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="72b112fa-c015-4414-8b38-9a89fea29d27" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57707/a-suggestion-of-yes-no-button-in-front-of-this-have-you-considered-accepting-an&quot;&gt;This message will automatically go away after 60 days.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if nothing worth accepting shows up in that time, you'll at least be rid of it that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="3aec20b2-a17e-4ac4-859c-06d154410ed3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/4830/2509&quot;&gt;no&lt;/a&gt; private &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/57203/2509&quot;&gt;messaging&lt;/a&gt; system, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/85255/2509&quot;&gt;nor will there every be&lt;/a&gt;. The team has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/431/2509&quot;&gt;quite firm&lt;/a&gt; on this. The mantra is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is not a social network.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57537/how-do-i-contact-other-users&quot;&gt;Options that are available to you&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;@-tagging the user in a comment (which you should probably delete afterwards)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;@-tagging the user in chat&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Looking in the user's profile: people who want to be contacted out-of-band can provide the means there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="e1bca8d2-3c85-4d18-bd2d-32c49cb5fe6f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Cross-posting questions across Stack Exchange sites is strongly discouraged. See&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-it-possible-to-post-questions-across-a-couple-of-the-sites-because-its-debata/64073#64073&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-it-possible-to-post-questions-across-a-couple-of-the-sites-because-its-debata/64073#64073&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Allowing cross-posting [across the Stack Exchange network] is a slippery slope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you might have slightly better odds of getting an answer by posting it on two sites, well, by gum, why not maximize your odds by posting it on &lt;em&gt;twenty sites!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are some questions which fall into grey areas between sites, and I think it's OK to &lt;strong&gt;ask and delete, then re-ask&lt;/strong&gt; if you feel you have asked on the wrong site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as a general rule, do not cross-post questions, please. Pick a site and go with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also ok to ask &lt;em&gt;two different versions&lt;/em&gt; of a question but you MUST tailor it to the audience on that site. Copying and pasting would put you on the road to account suspension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(there's also the issue of cross-posting on multiple websites that aren't Stack Exchange sites.. so long as you're willing to be &lt;em&gt;responsible&lt;/em&gt; for the question everywhere you asked it, this can be ok-ish.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="993a5b17-8afb-48f5-968b-6c3c0cbe065d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I saw an ad in the top banner when I visited:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gsdMM.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could just as easily be an ad for this site.  If Physicsforums.com is an important site, sponsoring an ad there would be a good way to drive traffic here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100137/what-is-the-meaning-of-chaos-is-it-related-to-the-psi-character&quot;&gt;CHAOS&lt;/a&gt; should get involved in this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="2a4e6675-f963-4e3a-957c-7c9e70268da8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;To copy from the comment I left you: the Stack Exchange system automatically reverses runs of apparent &quot;revenge downvoting&quot;. If the downvotes don't disappear within 36 hours, send an email to team@stackexchange.com identifying the questions that are still downvoted. There isn't anything that we (moderators) can do about it, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is explained in more detail on the main meta site, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23005/preventing-users-from-downvoting-good-answers-to-bad-questions/23010#23010&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that you can't lose the privilege of asking questions due to reputation. All users, even those with 1 reputation, can ask questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="3ef8fcb3-5faf-4ad5-8400-dd3b36e80ead" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xA;  On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&quot;&gt;the Logo turtle question&lt;/a&gt; and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xA;  But recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&quot;&gt;Jeff disagreed&lt;/a&gt;, and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; questions &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&quot;&gt;about&lt;/a&gt; physics for which there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&quot;&gt;sparse&lt;/a&gt; experimental evidence or &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520&quot;&gt;theoretical support&lt;/a&gt;. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputable (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="0bbf18ca-4593-44a0-bdb4-4b263712a634" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't know how to start with this exercise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finding tension in strings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;List of international, English language physics grad programs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Schrodinger Equation - History&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often &lt;em&gt;tend&lt;/em&gt; to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title&quot;&gt;better&lt;/a&gt; than the ones that are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by &lt;strong&gt;encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions&lt;/strong&gt;. I think it's good for two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714&quot;&gt;homework policy&lt;/a&gt;. Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that &lt;strong&gt;in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question&lt;/strong&gt;, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will &lt;strong&gt;help them write a better question&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a &lt;em&gt;consistent&lt;/em&gt; pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caveats:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm also &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; asking.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do you agree?&lt;/strong&gt; I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="44017ec1-8ac4-401d-91d7-a7852361805e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There are really two types of question titles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Good titles that describe the content of the question in an accurate way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want #1, and definitely not #2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many ways to get there, but you &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; want to start arbitrarily forcing everyone to prefix their questions with &quot;How do I..&quot; because that would actually harm the titles. See the excellent guidelines here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/10648/1&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/10648/1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR -- you want &lt;em&gt;good, descriptive&lt;/em&gt; titles, a question title in the formal tone of a question can be every bit as bad as one that isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="d7107e37-4060-4285-982e-0b9545b6f816" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there is no way to do this. It has been proposed as a feature request &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1170/should-i-be-able-to-cancel-my-up-vote-on-a-comment&quot;&gt;on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt; and declined. Comments don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things anyway, so try not to worry about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="356bb4c8-b3a4-4381-96b2-de44a246c38b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There are a few recent questions ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability&quot;&gt;Magnetic Susceptibility- Permeability&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram&quot;&gt;What is a Free Body Diagram?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20622/how-to-compute-resting-position-given-initial-position-initial-velocity-and-dec&quot;&gt;How to compute resting position given initial position, initial velocity and deceleration rate?&lt;/a&gt;) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The network overlords have considered implementing &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&quot;&gt;a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason&lt;/a&gt; to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason&quot;&gt;too easily abused&lt;/a&gt; to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Just leave these kinds of questions alone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leave the ones about physics &lt;em&gt;concepts&lt;/em&gt; alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that &lt;strong&gt;no physics topic is too elementary to ask about&lt;/strong&gt;. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="90e280d9-a959-4b59-aada-7fa2c9cfbed3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;IE8 generates &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=IE8&amp;amp;submit=search&quot;&gt;a fair number of complaints on the mother meta&lt;/a&gt;, but I don't see one exactly like this. The closest I've got is &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/109618/2509.&quot;&gt;Autologin working sporadically?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has this started recently after it was working for a while? The team does tinker with the code and this could be a regression if it is new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="b9573ff2-b0b0-4ebc-a46a-6f79f9f194a6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This has already been proposed &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&quot;&gt;on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt;. The way things are going, it seems unlikely to be implemented any time soon, but you should definitely add your vote to that proposal on MSO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="83ff4f73-6da1-4596-be64-3bff47cca144" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;No real point; there isn't any rep or anything. It's just something to strive for. You see all those badges and think &quot;I should get some more&quot;. Getting a badge on asking/answering a question (which is the first thing you do when you join) is a way to introduce the concept of badges. A new user sees that he got a badge, and investigates. He feels like getting more badges, so he works towards some of them. It benefits the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Badges are used by many online communities. It's a way of setting goals for the users; and helps retention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17853/how-do-badges-work&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17853/how-do-badges-work&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="9b7a4e55-740b-42d8-aab5-184735398e9b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The intent of this feature is that you accept the answer which actually solves your problem. This originated on Stack Overflow, and it makes sense there because for programming questions, it's easy for the original poster to try out various solutions and unambiguously determine which one actually works. For physics questions, on the other hand, the OP may not be in a position to judge which answer (if any) is correct, so accepting doesn't always make quite as much sense for this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, it does offer a way to show that you've gotten a satisfactory answer, and so accepting an answer can be thought of as a way to mark a question as &quot;resolved.&quot; It's not resolved in the sense you might see the term elsewhere, though - if a question has an accepted answer, that shouldn't discourage you from posting your own answer if you think it adds value. Questions with accepted answers should certainly &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be considered &quot;closed&quot; in any sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you accept an answer to your question, the person who posted the answer gets 15 reputation, and you get 2 reputation. This is meant to encourage people to accept answers to their questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more details, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; on Meta Stack Overflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="4fb2f304-56ec-4340-9c96-b1e6e866363c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3751540#3751540&quot;&gt;Related chat snippet&lt;/a&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/3754680#3754680&quot;&gt;s&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Multiple times, I see a question and feel &quot;oh, &lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;xyz&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt; would be able to post a brilliant answer to this one&quot;. Quite a few nice questions get pushed down; out of the notice of the specialists. Sometimes I may want &lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;xyz&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;s advice on a particular answer that I've seen. Aside from that, there are numerous other reasons where you may want to contact a specific user. For this, I &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127333/allow-users-to-opt-in-to-being-superpinged-in-chat-by-anyone&quot;&gt;proposed a feature at MSO&lt;/a&gt;, but it probably won't go through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I propose is this:&#xA;A meta question, on which a user can post their username and specialties as a separate answer. A user need not be a specialist in anything(eg, me) to post. Maybe the question can be tagged &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/featured&quot; class=&quot;post-tag moderator-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'featured'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;featured&lt;/a&gt; so that everyone gets a look-see at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of such a post will be to allow anyone to ping that user with P.SE related comments. It should be entirely opt-in, nobody's forcing anyone :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are spam issues and other stuff, so I want to see some of your thoughts on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="b3beb404-3a88-4e82-9d39-597c4374e864" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Related &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41474/request-a-specific-expert-on-a-subject-to-answer-your-question&quot;&gt;suggestions&lt;/a&gt; have &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30564/how-to-ask-a-question-to-a-particular-user-of-stackoverflow-com&quot;&gt;been made&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/113561/asking-specific-people-to-answer-my-questions&quot;&gt;the mother&lt;/a&gt; meta &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16757/how-do-you-contact-a-stackoverflow-user&quot;&gt;many&lt;/a&gt; times, the official position is that user who wish to be contactable put contact information in the &lt;em&gt;About Me&lt;/em&gt; field of their profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maintaining a list of such users would, of course, be fine--a question here on meat.physics would be perfect for that purpose--but the system isn't going to support your getting their attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="ad176281-0da8-489d-ac41-65ccbdb89a1d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Discuss &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&quot;&gt;If it&amp;#39;s possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?&lt;/a&gt; . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (&lt;em&gt;EDIT by DZ&lt;/em&gt;) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;amp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'research-level'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;research-level&lt;/a&gt;.See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&quot;&gt;Area51 discussion on TP&amp;amp;P.SE overlap&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&quot;&gt;post on MSO discussion on merger&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag&quot;&gt;Research-level tag proposal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="534abb7e-5bd9-4adb-8966-7c4a527829d3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me&quot;&gt;What is serial voting and how does it affect me?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Serial upvoting is handled automatically and you don't need to get a moderator/Meta involved. In this case it's just two votes though, so I doubt it would be detected as fraud (it's usually many votes when fraud occurs, but there cut off isn't publicly known). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, don't worry about it. In this case it's doubtful they had any ill or improper intent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="cc81b13f-bc6d-4a6c-874a-0dc816043940" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;h1&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed&quot;&gt;How will the migration happen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions &lt;em&gt;except for closed questions&lt;/em&gt; on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for &lt;a href=&quot;http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Theoretical Computer Science&lt;/a&gt;. This includes most or all of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information&quot;&gt;quantum-information&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing&quot;&gt;quantum-computing&lt;/a&gt; tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Photography&lt;/a&gt;. This includes some/most of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography&quot;&gt;astrophotography&lt;/a&gt; tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be transferred. So there is one thing that we &lt;em&gt;recommend&lt;/em&gt; you do: &lt;strong&gt;sign up for an account on Physics!&lt;/strong&gt; And make sure that account is &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist&quot;&gt;associated&lt;/a&gt; with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer &lt;em&gt;unless&lt;/em&gt; you make this association.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&quot;&gt;Note that bounties are reset&lt;/a&gt; (since the revision history is not migrated over)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587&quot;&gt;Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag&quot;&gt;proposal&lt;/a&gt; to use a tag (probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'research-level'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;research-level&lt;/a&gt;) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scope of Physics &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&quot;&gt;will be expanding&lt;/a&gt; to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy&quot;&gt;proposal&lt;/a&gt; to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What needs to be done after questions are merged?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The domains &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541&quot;&gt;will be preserved for at least 6 months&lt;/a&gt; so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="c6d22198-dfce-45c7-8e45-d97246c8a5ee" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;That's explained in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&quot;&gt;What does &quot;user was removed&quot; mean and why did my reputation change because of it?&lt;/a&gt;. Basically, when another user's account is deleted, any votes they may have cast for you are reverted and your reputation can change accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="130584b2-3563-41f1-b07f-892c61b10c80" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;there are many factual and insightful things you write, but then from time to time cringe-worthy statements I wouldn't expect from a student (&quot;you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power&quot;). I had a similar start like you on SE, some sites here like skeptics.se or philosophy.se don't fit at all my level of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. I left such sites instead of trying to improve them, it's pointless trying to yield my desired level on it by contributing q&amp;amp;a. &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130542&quot;&gt;I explained here &lt;/a&gt; why some proposal work and some not. The quality/level of a single site is strongly linked to the amount of experts attracted during area51 process. You can only make minor improvments to such sites by clever moderation and attracting more experts afterwards (&lt;strong&gt;e.g. theophys user don't want to participate here for the same reasons you try to improve this site&lt;/strong&gt;). The level of necessary background knowledge is just to different among user to waste here their time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You seem to have a usenet-background, I too. That is unfiltered anarchy, thats also the system most uni's run in my experience innofficially. But SE is democracy, hierarchy, filtering, ranking, sorting (&lt;strong&gt;why do you think there are no downvotes/rep for comments? To stop endless discussion and force competition and several answers. This is the most important non-feature of SE&lt;/strong&gt;), elections of poor and good mods,..... you know all this stuff that happens in democracy too. It's a imperfect system for imperfect people. But have you seen a better one for big communities? Why did you stop posting on usenet, wikipedia and joined this system. Ask and answer this yourself and I'm sure we all can save a lot meta time and useless discussion with/about you here. I already told you that your bio's (while entertaining on christianity and philosophy :D ) are not really productive for you. Also yelling for new mods on physics.se and phil.se is really naive, what do you expect. &quot;Hey our german 38 year old  vice-chancellor is  in my opinion not qualified for his job. Can we please try somebody else (I really think this)&quot;. But he was elected by the majority. Just stop this, how can a smart guy like you think this can/will work??? You're biting on granite and wasting your and our time here. Invent a better system. Contribute answers here, discuss in forums like usenet of physicsforums.com. There are physicists who don't like for mentioned reasons usenet (too much spam and crackpot-theorists), q&amp;amp;a boards (moderation, no discussion), forums (too lengthy discussions)... &lt;strong&gt;There is no perfect system that fits everybody's needs and philosophy of communication.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You look to me like on a crusade. Trying to correct all bad answers on SE sites whichs seems at a first glance admirable and worth supporting ) but also pretty naive if one knows a little bit about human and group psychology and has participated in internet discussions since a decade. &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed&quot;&gt;The problems of wikipedia authoring are well-known&lt;/a&gt;, lenghty discussions with arrogant mods, SE resolves this problem by competing answers. &lt;strong&gt;And with all your comments &amp;amp; corrections you are trying to re-introduce this wikipedia editing style here again&lt;/strong&gt;. Maybe unconsciously as you are still in your trained usenet and wikipedia modus operandi. Well, quit this, or you end like Georg. I'm sure a physics.se site with 10-20 Ron Maimons and Georg's wouldn't work (most agreed that tolerating the escapades of one Ron Maimon is ok) and would end in even worse overall level of tolerance and respect than on usenet and wikipedia due to the rep thing and real names, thats why I asked user here to think about if such bios are really helpful. You see how fast people can change their mind and ask you to calm down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made quite some meta posts on science SE sites recently. Because I would like to see open science really working and I'm interested if and how super-moderation of  autarchic communities can work, when become things uncommunicable, how can meta user and mods find common set of values, level and scope of a site (we make a similar experiment in germany currently, direct democracy with liquid feedback community software in the pirates party). SE and Quora are a important steps here. Maybe there will come even better hybrid systems. If you want to create high quality communities, you need a clever system like here (area51, voting, meta, filtering), ranting about content, bad and wrong answers here a lot is a drop in the bucket and even more in forums, usenet and wikipedia, where users like you already failed with their demands. &lt;strong&gt;I come to SE to read different views by different users, not wikipedias common denominator stuff, commenting or editing an answer towards subjective &quot;correct&quot; content here is the huge misconception you seemingly have and brought over here from your wikipedia days.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder why you aren't blogging. Well I'm aware without publications, university position, PHD a physics blog doesn't attract a lot of comments/views nowadays anymore. You probably too. Without credentials only few would read Motl's blog imho. So this is probably the best place to invest your time. Nonetheless I'm still wondering why you didn't participate more in theophys.se if the quality of some answers here is so terrible? I begin to think you are trying to find out how much power your rep here gives you and the responses you get are not really surprising. May be start a Ron Maimon proposal? The SE system allows this ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="111a7212-b02d-4432-9386-b1d6ecea867d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Because the question currently has a net score below -3 it will not appear on the  front page (http://physics.stackexchage.com/).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is by design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find an authoritative source just now, but this is alluded to in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/2509&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/2509&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="d9fece73-382a-43a7-8533-9a3a9c3cfa18" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I determine what user was removed.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is there a way to have the related up/down-votes listed to see what questions comments were effected?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="62ac4f8d-1ec8-4562-a4c6-8faa9444dc59" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139349/why-are-there-drastic-moderator-actions-that-take-effect-immediately-when-execut&quot;&gt;Dilaton's MSO thread&lt;/a&gt;, so please allow me to set the record straight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site &lt;em&gt;temporarily&lt;/em&gt; to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension/1377#1377&quot;&gt;moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should note that moderators don't have a &quot;ban&quot; button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/&quot;&gt;read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When users exhibit a pattern of either …&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;No effort to learn and improve over time&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...&lt;em&gt;OR&lt;/em&gt;...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;Disruptive behavior&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;… these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it&#xA;  takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something&#xA;  more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively&#xA;  turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming&#xA;  everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and &lt;em&gt;walk away&lt;/em&gt;. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="b5683c03-e540-43bb-b005-9e877bd6fa3d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I made &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/a/293&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; a short analysis on why chemistry stats look bad (3rd bullet point). I believed with bio and phy.se existing, chemistry as connecting branch and huge overlap in research would be able to reach the &lt;strong&gt;critical mass&lt;/strong&gt; of user and questions for a self-sustaining growth by user on bio/phy.se joining the site. But it looks very bad compared to a other science sites I observed since its start, I don't see many bio/phy user registered at all on chem.se. I also &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/141518/163173&quot;&gt;asked on MO&lt;/a&gt;, what can be done to help those science sites. The main reason is probably that many commiters left the site (lasted nearly 2 years, which is of course too long). But if it gets closed, because it doesnt grow, and I start to believe sites that never reach the critical mass ever yield a substantial growth to establish a community, thats a huge downer. No chemistry on SE?! I mean, really. &quot;Waiting for further growth&quot; when older sites like cognitivesciences.se or linguistics.se didn't grow for months looks like desperation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can be done? A lot of the chemistry questions are very specialized and localized, as most of the underlying theory belongs to physics, but this makes me even more wondering why many of the probably existing chem students reading physics.se dont take notice of chem.se or ask/answer questions there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="ea4423b7-8336-46c0-8c04-cb1a6691c2b0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The reasons you're not required to leave a comment when downvoting, and why that is not going to change, are explained in detail in many questions on Meta Stack Overflow (&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you downvote a post, you're &lt;em&gt;encouraged&lt;/em&gt; (but never required) to explain what can be improved about it. Of course, this is also encouraged even if you don't downvote the post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coming at it from the other direction, when your post is downvoted and/or someone suggests an improvement, you have no obligation to do anything about it. Correcting the answer or deleting it are not your only choices. You can just leave it alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="5542ae57-8f9c-47e5-9426-87663304ad30" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There is no way to do this directly on the site, but you can do it using a user style sheet, which requires a browser extension like Stylish (for Firefox at least). You would need to set the &lt;code&gt;background-color&lt;/code&gt; property for the &lt;code&gt;tagged-interesting&lt;/code&gt; CSS class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has been discussed a bit on MSO, e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78849/allow-custom-colorization-of-tags&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68853/choose-background-and-text-color-on-so&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="04190a80-40d6-4ed4-a7a3-4a7350e15f1a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is described &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92074/what-can-i-do-when-getting-it-does-not-meet-our-quality-standards&quot;&gt;on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt;. Here's the gist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Make sure your question has&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a clear title&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a reasonable explanation of what your question is, sharing your research on the matter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;correct use of English and actual sentences&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course that's not an exhaustive list of what makes a good (or rather, non-bad) question, just some general guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="1b4dcd10-f421-40ab-902f-285bcc8bcdb9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;All the relevant information on suggested edits can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; at Meta Stack Overflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="9522cbd3-c409-4edf-a590-660e9c493d22" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Based on clicking links from the links everyone else provided, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66592/define-your-own-color-of-tagged-interesting&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; accepted answer to be the only thing that actually helped me change it. I'm essentially CSS illiterate, so I needed it spelled out a little more thoroughly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="68b88ed2-87e1-4a39-9c2d-02d5e8e9c233" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is detailed in several questions on Meta Stack Overflow, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144553/account-privacy-and-search-engines&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the way to hide personal information is simply by not entering that information in the first place. Most fields of the profile are optional, so you enter only what you want people to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The email address is one of several exceptions. Your email address will never be visible to anyone except moderators. (And the SE moderator code of conduct prohibits us from revealing that information to anyone else.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="fca41f6c-4b7f-436a-97df-4cc5d71c84b4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There is no internal concept of &quot;following&quot; a user because (all together now) this &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/110958/can-we-finally-have-some-social-networking-features-on-here&quot;&gt;is not a social network&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, all is not lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are RSS feeds for users (and tag and question feeds). Click on the username to get to their profile page and look at the bottom right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="a2f43e5e-7025-4e5d-b0bc-bfb626252213" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;No, it cannot be done manually, not even by moderators, despite being a popular request on MSO (&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100967/should-move-to-chat-be-provided-on-demand-as-a-button-perhaps&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93444/provide-a-tool-for-moderators-to-migrate-comments-to-chat&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;, etc.). Unless and until we get this feature implemented, you have a couple of options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Just post a comment asking to continue the discussion in the chat room (you can either use the site's main chat room or create a new chat room)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or keep the discussion going in the comments until the system gives you the automatic &quot;move to chat&quot; option. After you do that you can flag the first comment for a moderator to delete them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="df7651f7-a807-448b-a29f-53d08bbb0c5f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As the moderator election 2012 is in progress, users (above 300 rep.) are invited to nominate themselves in the election. So, some users will ask themselves, &quot;Could I become a moderator?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I strongly believe that these four lines don't necessarily answer their questions...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A moderator&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;is patient and fair&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;leads by example&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;is open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly are the basic needs for physics users to become moderators?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Should they be experts in at least one of the fields of Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp;amp; badges)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp;amp; be elected as a moderator?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;amp;A votes), etc. &lt;strong&gt;count&lt;/strong&gt; during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read all the answers. All are &lt;em&gt;amazing&lt;/em&gt;. I got some new &lt;em&gt;facts&lt;/em&gt;. Thanks to all, guys. I believe that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet&quot;&gt;moderator cheat sheet&lt;/a&gt; would be very useful for a new moderator...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="c2c7f212-a28e-447b-8ab9-f875bfc64903" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Being a moderator of another SE site I might be able to tell from my experience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A moderator has to make some difficult decisions that cannot be handled by the community:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;find users who are trying to cheat the system (multiple accounts, voting rings)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;handle flags&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;contact users privately if there are any problems that cannot be solved otherwise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important part is understanding the informal rules of the system and put them into practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing physics (or whatever the topic of the site is) is not that important. Sure, it helps, but the decision if a question is on topic should be made by the community anyway via close votes, not primarily by moderators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meta participation and the flag count are indeed good indicators for that. They show how much the users cares already about the site and how familiar s/he is with the rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Recommended reading&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet&quot;&gt;Moderator Cheat Sheet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75189/who-are-the-diamond-moderators-and-what-is-their-role&quot;&gt;Who are the diamond moderators, and what is their role?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://moderator.stackexchange.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moderator Blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="706ddb7d-4f4c-47e4-aa94-eb9a41d3d3ce" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;It appears that &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/42011/520&quot;&gt;the question&lt;/a&gt; may have been the victim of an automated &quot;bad question&quot; reaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I recall the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/2509&quot;&gt;qualification for automatic removal&lt;/a&gt; are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;one month old&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;negative vote total on the question and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;no answers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is not that I'm stumped as it does not appear to have been done by anyone (including Community who get the &quot;credit&quot; for closure due to spam flags).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="4cb941a4-b51d-4a90-98b0-aa672248a6ab" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Ah! I think I figured it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The review queues have recently been changed to include some known bad posts as honeypots for detecting users who were mechanically reviewing in an effort to get the badges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157808/reviewing-low-quality-posts-that-are-baits-do-not-let-you-improve-edit-them&quot;&gt;these are currently detectable due to differences in the UI&lt;/a&gt;. Presumable the team is working on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hmmm ... what I see is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/xIgl5.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with the improve button right in the middle of the cluster on the right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you getting something different? On just one suggested edit or consistently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="88cd369d-d3b3-4cf5-b50d-0f2bfae7c44b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The location field is neither necessarily the user's actual location, nor is it force-validated. For example, my own personal location is listed as &quot;6&quot;, which is an in-joke from my first days on Meta Stack Overflow. This is probably less of an issue overall on Physics, as there's probably a greater portion of users who have valid locations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We once did an attempt last year to standardize location strings across profiles. &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88217/location-in-profile-was-changed-without-edit-or-knowing/88220#88220&quot;&gt;That didn't go over too well&lt;/a&gt;, although it gave us the means to suggest &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88306/where-is-the-documentation-for-the-correct-format-of-the-user-profiles-location&quot;&gt;a standardized format&lt;/a&gt; (as opposed to forcing it on).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chat timezone is not derived from your location field. Rather, it is derived from your machine itself, through JavaScript, and reflects what time your machine thinks it is. This lets it give you &quot;local&quot; time for you where-ever you are, no matter how much you may travel. We don't actually store this information, which prevents us from a proper means to relay these times to other users who would be, say, stopping at your profile page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think for now, the simplest implementation is that a user who opts to want their time zone known to others can add it into the &quot;About Me&quot; section of their profile. Or, even, right into the location field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="37a7c8f2-1335-4b08-a821-354abc093820" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Presumably you are discussing &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46210/520&quot;&gt;your answer&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46189/520&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What has happened is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&quot;&gt;you edited it so many times that it was automatically converted to a &quot;community wiki&quot; post&lt;/a&gt;. Note the different format of the user-card at the bottom right of the post:&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/msEif.png&quot; alt=&quot;user card example&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the automatic conversion feature is to (1) prevent the original poster for benefiting from a post that has been extensively edited by others and to discourage frivolous edits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to de-wiki this one for you, but this is not something that you should count on happening again in the future. It is generally recommended that you work on your posts offline so that you will only make a few edits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="362ab7c0-f42e-4b21-b564-5979745d50ab" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was also looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest&quot;&gt;Map of all SE sites (except the 3 biggest)&lt;/a&gt; because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&quot;&gt;anna-v&lt;/a&gt; is 641-4, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&quot;&gt;Qmechanic&lt;/a&gt; is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Data Explorer&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I created a simple scatter plot to see what data we would be dealing with, the X axis is questions asked and Y is answers given. I'm looking for techniques on how to show all the different scales of data: &lt;a href=&quot;http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades&quot;&gt;http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades&lt;/a&gt; but it will give you an idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, should anybody want to play around with the data and see what they can come up with, the query is &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user&lt;/a&gt; It pulls out comments too, maybe there's a cool way to incorporate that information. Cooler than just doing a 3D scatter anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="77887b86-9635-466b-b02a-49fab2258238" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat&quot;&gt;2012 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat&lt;/a&gt;. The format, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests&quot;&gt;as described on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt;, is one &lt;em&gt;answer&lt;/em&gt; to this question &lt;em&gt;for every question&lt;/em&gt; asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have questions or comments about this, &lt;strong&gt;please do not answer this question&lt;/strong&gt; as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests&quot;&gt;the parent question&lt;/a&gt; or in &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion&quot;&gt;the Town Hall Discussion Room&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please @GraceNote or @TimStone &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat&quot;&gt;in the chat room&lt;/a&gt; and let us know!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="67f5c047-fbaf-46d9-8ae8-f9a1c2c6a8c6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As dmckee wrote in a comment, the full details are at &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&quot;&gt;this question on MSO&lt;/a&gt;, but I'll reproduce a rule of thumb here: all you have to do is put &lt;code&gt;@&lt;/code&gt; before the name, and omit the spaces. You don't need to put it at the beginning of the comment. So to reply to John Rennie you could write &lt;code&gt;Yes @JohnRennie&lt;/code&gt; and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also omit characters after the first three. So &lt;code&gt;@Joh&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;@John&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;@JohnR&lt;/code&gt;, etc. all work equivalently to &lt;code&gt;@JohnRennie&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="4d031d4d-6372-48f0-b637-628a59993be7" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;What happened is that a user got deleted (normally this happens by their own request).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All their recent votes, given within a set number of days are undone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if overall they gave you reputation, it is taken away&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if they overall took reputation from you, it is restored.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case, for example, I had (I assume) one up vote and two down votes from the user, giving me a +6 of reputation. Today I have a &lt;code&gt;-6 user was removed&lt;/code&gt; message in my rep log.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the other 3 down votes, it looks like they are serial, however it's just three votes, I wouldn't get too upset about it :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&quot;&gt;What does &amp;quot;user was removed&amp;quot; mean and why did my reputation change because of it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the obligatory &quot;don't do that&quot; post is here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/125740/dont-throw-away-all-votes-when-a-user-is-deleted&quot;&gt;Don&amp;#39;t throw away all votes when a user is deleted&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="f65f0c1f-9e48-4bc1-aa32-ac58ddaab78b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pdf for offline reading&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What is community moderation, and why should I care?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, as moderators, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, so how do I start?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The basics of the community moderation tools&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Commenting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment&quot;&gt;Comment Everywhere&lt;/a&gt;&quot; privilege page.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When commenting on posts, &lt;em&gt;be nice&lt;/em&gt;. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be &lt;em&gt;welcoming and helpful&lt;/em&gt;. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are &lt;em&gt;basically&lt;/em&gt; saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Flagging&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There's some extra information on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let me explain what flagging is. &lt;em&gt;Any&lt;/em&gt; user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png&quot; alt=&quot;flagging menu for down voted answers&quot; title=&quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&quot;&gt;this queue&lt;/a&gt;), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; flagged the post, though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png&quot; alt=&quot;my flag counts on meta&quot; title=&quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A moderator marks it as helpful&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png&quot; alt=&quot;list of flagged posts&quot; title=&quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be afraid of your flag getting declined. &lt;strong&gt;Flag often, and learn when &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to flag from your declined flags&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&quot;&gt;There&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&quot;&gt;are&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&quot;&gt;shiny&lt;/a&gt; badges for flagging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Closing/Reopening&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;You may also want to see &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a &lt;em&gt;temporary&lt;/em&gt; state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question&lt;/strong&gt;. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&quot;&gt;How to Ask&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt; are useful to link to in such cases).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also: &lt;strong&gt;if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may &lt;strong&gt;vote to reopen&lt;/strong&gt; (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The 10k moderator tools&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&quot;&gt;the moderator tools privilege page&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What can you do here?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Exact duplicate&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Off topic&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the question seems to go against:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt; (specifically the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&quot;&gt;first&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&quot;&gt;third&lt;/a&gt;) sections&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;policy discussions on meta&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or your general idea of being on-topic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&quot;&gt;how-to-ask&lt;/a&gt;. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing &lt;code&gt;[faq]&lt;/code&gt; in the comment box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Not Constructive&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&quot;&gt;this blog post&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a &lt;em&gt;temporary&lt;/em&gt; state for such posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (&lt;code&gt;[chat]&lt;/code&gt; in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Not A Real Question&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&quot;&gt;second section&lt;/a&gt;), an &lt;em&gt;entire book&lt;/em&gt; can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NARQ can almost &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Too Localized&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&quot;&gt;homework policy&lt;/a&gt;, then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Welcome to Physics! Please see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&quot;&gt;our homework policy&lt;/a&gt;. We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with &lt;code&gt;@Manishearth&lt;/code&gt; to notify me)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Other problem posts&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Things that don't answer the question&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &amp;lt;50 rep cannot comment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if the post is answering an &lt;em&gt;entirely different&lt;/em&gt; question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Very Low Quality posts&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Plagiarism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&quot;&gt;This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism&lt;/a&gt;. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Spam/Promotion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&quot;&gt;this section of the FAQ&lt;/a&gt;. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Offensive&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Comments&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, about comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Chatty comments&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Obsolete&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Rude/offensive&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Self explanatory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Not Constructive/Off topic&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), and you &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&quot;&gt;review queues&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&quot;&gt;there&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&quot;&gt;are&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&quot;&gt;badges&lt;/a&gt; for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Late Answers and First posts queue&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Low Quality queue&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; click &quot;looks good&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For users with &amp;lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Close/Reopen vote queues&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; clear close/reopen votes on the post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Suggested edit queue&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;vandalism: it made the post worse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then, reject it as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Meta participation&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is &lt;em&gt;deciding&lt;/em&gt; site policies. This is done on this site, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Physics Meta&lt;/a&gt;. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;Meta FAQ&lt;/a&gt; first, though, especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences&quot;&gt;the section on voting&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="7e0892f7-0a8c-4517-871e-d8fcf9d21c7e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Looks like it's a deficiency in the comment voting/flagging system, but it's not really worth improving. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it&quot;&gt;Allow flagging a comment after upvoting it&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have three courses of action: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unupvote the comment (note that you can't reupvote if you do this). You can only unupvote if you've recently upvoted the comment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flag the post with a custom flag asking for comment deletion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Complain on meta about the comment being unflaggable ;-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;comment removed&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="52093723-aba1-451e-8386-354cd3792fc4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I was going through some old questions, where the accepted answers aren't usually the most thorough/best ones (in my opinion), which leads me to my suggestion - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would it be possible for other users to vote to change the &quot;correct&quot; answer? I can't seem to find the couple of questions I was looking at that spawned this idea, but I'll link to them once I find it. If more than some number of users think the right answer should be changed to something else, then we could award rep to the new accepted answer without taking it away from the original accepted answer (or something like that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically because then the actual &quot;best&quot; answer will come up first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; After going through the Meta-SO questions, I eventually found (after stumbling on hundreds of &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=jon%20skeet&quot;&gt;Jon Skeet&lt;/a&gt; questions) several threads relating to re-ordering of the questions based on votes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24403/should-the-system-automatically-modify-the-accepted-answer-when-another-answer-i&quot;&gt;This one&lt;/a&gt; (about changing the accepted answer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7572/why-do-incorrect-answers-keep-getting-accepted&quot;&gt;This other one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95635/should-there-be-a-tab-to-see-anwers-with-much-higher-votes-than-the-accepted-ans&quot;&gt;Also this&lt;/a&gt; (Reordering the answers)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36195/accepted-answer-most-upvoted-answer-discrepancy&quot;&gt;And finally this&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one seems to have really reached any form of a consensus on this issue (about re-ordering the questions). I doubt it's going to get resolved, but I thought I'd add these links here for anyone else who's interested in going through the debate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="4286e55f-3933-4455-81d5-91972eb4b34e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Nope. This or something like it has been brought up many times on MSO (&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;) and repeatedly declined, so you can be pretty confident it's not going to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see it being useful in some cases, but (perhaps unfortunately), we're stuck with the way the system works here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the accepted answer is actually outright &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt; or completely useless, then you can downvote it, and even post a link in chat to ask other people to review it. You can state your objections to it and ask people to vote as they see fit, but don't go as far as &lt;em&gt;telling&lt;/em&gt; people how to vote on a post - while it might not &lt;em&gt;technically&lt;/em&gt; be against the rules, it is bad etiquette.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="6f6c8c14-dfb3-4ca7-a7aa-b5ed67930306" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Just a heads up for those of you who have access to the so-called moderator tools (10k+), you can see &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/post-feedback/summary?filter=all&quot;&gt;various statistics&lt;/a&gt; related to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130095/anonymous-user-feedback-about-my-posts&quot;&gt;anonymous feedback mechanism&lt;/a&gt; (i.e. that from persons of no account), and also see list of those post which recive better or worse anonymous feedback then votes and those that simple recieve very positive or negative anonymous feedback.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was a bit surprised today when I noticed that we have recieved more than 12k such votes which averages more than one per question and is almost 10% of the more usual sort of votes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that can't see it right now, it is running about 2:1 positive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/users/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sam.saffron&lt;/a&gt; has provided a &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;data explorer&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/60668/feedback-on-my-posts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;query that can extract this data on a per user basis&lt;/a&gt; (which I believe gets around the 10k limit for the on-site pages). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="39d121f5-fc8e-4bf2-bfb7-9d0f76bf1752" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; really cool graph was posted onto meta.SO early December. Dunno how many over here have seen it... I thought it was super-fancy, so I'm sharing it here as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaTIA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter link description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4002" RevisionGUID="f3870f1f-023d-457c-bfd0-5f3147c09e07" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that photography.se will take them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As documented &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130342/178438&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, when Astro.SE was getting closed they did a migration of astrophotography questions over to Photo.SE, and any posts that photo.se would accept were migrated off. Astro.SE didn't have that many posts, so I believe the posts were individually reviewed and migrated. These weren't migrated, so I don't think we can do it now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from that, (1) and (2) are Not Constructive anyway, so they shouldn't be migrated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt;, we &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; migrate posts older than 60d.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though if any new questions come up on astrophotography, I personally have no issue with allowing them as long as they don't have other issues (NC/NARQ/etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you &quot;flag&quot; something, you click the &quot;flag&quot; button and choose an option (the flag gets forwarded to mods). Bringing stuff up on meta is fine, but if your flag can achieve it, then that's easier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4053" RevisionGUID="8082d8bd-c503-4a8a-a6d3-47295274e07d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this has been brought up many times &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/886/a-friends-list-on-stack-overflow-would-be-nice&quot;&gt;on MSO&lt;/a&gt; and you can read there all about why it won't be implemented. Basically, Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;amp;A site, not a social network. (For the details you may have to read through the comments in the linked question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="79c89076-49fb-4a86-884e-0ba15cbdd8ae" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Our good friend &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&quot;&gt;Community ♦&lt;/a&gt; bumps old posts that are &quot;unanswered&quot;. An &quot;answered&quot; post is one that has at lease one answer with at least one upvote (or accept)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739/178438&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739/178438&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4060" RevisionGUID="198b5fe6-f1b7-4574-8e20-9956578e7f8a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53585/how-do-favorite-questions-work&quot;&gt;star a post&lt;/a&gt;, then all edits to the post and its answers will be visible in your &quot;favorites&quot; tab (the tab gets an indicator on it whenever there are any changes)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding inbox notifications, that has been proposed many times (&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68106/notify-me-of-edits-to-posts-ive-voted-on&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16662/add-notification-when-someone-comments-in-the-same-post-than-me&quot;&gt;another one&lt;/a&gt;) on the main meta, for various similar features. It's been declined most of the time, since it can get too noisy for active users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="dc25435f-526f-4190-8693-0fe15e155932" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I have seen some posts show up on more than one category of the review panel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, say a new user posts a one-line answer to an old question. This will flag the post for the Late Answers and Low Quality Posts review queues (and maybe also First Posts). I might then deal with it as part of sorting the Late Answers queue, and &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; as part of the Low Quality Posts one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I understand and support that these posts get put on all relevant queues, I find it a bit weird and slightly annoying to be asked to deal with the same post more than once. (It doesn't help that such posts are usually annoying and/or hard to deal with.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this by design or can it be avoided? i.e. could posts I've already taken action on be removed from my review queues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm aware that this may be more suited to the mother meta, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/153406/posts-come-up-in-multiple-review-queues&quot;&gt;it has come up already&lt;/a&gt; with no answers, hence my asking here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="3e7e2194-58a4-4f8e-9a86-30bbd0998e8e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&quot;&gt;What are &amp;quot;Community Wiki&amp;quot; posts?&lt;/a&gt; . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yep, it will turn into CW at your next edit. Don't worry, if you want to un-CW-ify it just flag it (or reply to this post). CW is only when you want collaboration, just let us know whenever you get hit on the head with the 10-edit thing :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, try to batch up your edits, constant bumping to the main page isn't something we really want -- leads to clutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4070" RevisionGUID="8f9f6192-d431-40ec-878a-4014459a1206" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;You can look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/52980/revisions&quot;&gt;the edit history&lt;/a&gt; (get there by clicking the time stamp on the &quot;edited&quot; block beside your usercard) and compare to &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/2509&quot;&gt;the rules for automatic how community wiki works&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this instance it appears that a further edit &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; tip your answer into wiki status.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="df479fba-ce42-445f-9600-517bd6e060f0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151536/it-takes-two-to-tango/151586#151586&quot;&gt;This was changed last October&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange/117903#117903&quot;&gt;Recent feature changes to Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; (see the October entry)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current suggested edit algorithm for Physics.SE is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the reviewer is the post author, their action is binding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the reviewer is a mod, his action is binding (yay)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the reviewers are neither mods nor original authors, then the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; decision (approve/reject) to reach two supporters is taken into account.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;However, using the &quot;improve&quot;/&quot;edit&quot; button lets one bypass the double approval (&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9584&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt; -- Community♦ steps in as a reviewer here) -- though you have to make an extra change to the post to do this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at your history, you seem to have come across the &quot;requires another approval&quot; block in the past &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9578&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/12651&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. You probably didn't notice the &quot;needs another approval&quot; banner , that's all:)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="2b73cec6-f469-430e-a3a6-0a185863cba9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;To address the more general issue of including email addresses in posts: this has come up several times on MSO, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132117/what-should-i-do-if-a-user-posts-sensitive-information-as-part-of-a-question-or&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, and also see the &quot;Linked&quot; section in the sidebar. The gist of those answers is that, although there's technically no rule against having an email address in a post, there is no good reason for it to be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you see an email address in a post, but the content of the post is otherwise worth keeping, I'd say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Edit it out&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flag the post for moderator attention so we can have the revision with the email address deleted from the revision history&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's some debate on MSO as to whether you should leave a comment suggesting to the OP that they shouldn't put sensitive information like email addresses in their posts. It could be argued that it draws attention to the email, but I don't think that's such a big issue on this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if the content of the post is not worth keeping, just treat it accordingly. Flag it for moderator attention, or as spam, if it looks like spam; and/or vote to close or delete it if you have enough reputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="2869c63a-b4e4-415a-ae39-69bcb000f790" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I wish I'd stuck my nose in earlier, though I would not have argued strongly against the migration. Still there are a few points that need to be made one way or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many physics departments now have programs in the field known as &quot;Physics Education Research&quot; (PER), and professors hired for their skill in that discipline are called &quot;physics professors&quot; (and indeed they generally have Ph.Ds in physics).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, no one argues that the discipline is &lt;em&gt;physics&lt;/em&gt;, it is clearly a field in the study of education. You can go to their talk or chat them up in the hallway and come to understand that very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason PER is not in the College of Education is that those people have spectacularly failed us for generations. They have been unable to address the specific needs of technical disciplines in general and physics in particular. Not to mention a widespread feeling that their approach is not very scientific and a lot of their doctrine is nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The PER people &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; trying to understand the value and costs of particular turns of phase as well as pedagogical approaches (things like &lt;em&gt;&quot;Is following the historical lines of development of physics useful or and unnecessary distraction?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;&quot;math separately or as you go along?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, they actually have very sparse concrete answers in those parts of their field. The place where they've made the most reliable and helpful advances is in the structure of instruction. Clickers and demos to break up the presentation and re-focus the students; investigative rather than follow the steps lab; more lab and less lecture; and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have to say that the original questions &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; about what it says in the title, because physics &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; taught using the phrases that the OP singles out for interest. Physics is conveyed in a general and non-technical way to the interest lay public using those words and metaphors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That may seem like arguing of semantics, but I think it is important because popular science and science education have different audiences and different goals. You always tune your message to the audience and what you expect them to take away, and pop-sci is aimed at giving the intelligent non-specialist an overview of the results and the flavor of the theory; it is not intended to enable them to do physics at that level. Notwithstanding that a lot of us got &lt;em&gt;engaged&lt;/em&gt; and started down the road to being scientist from exactly such entertainment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up, personally, I'd have left it where it was. The answer to the question are not going to be &lt;em&gt;physics&lt;/em&gt; answers, but to the extent that there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; actual authoritative answer they will come from physicists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't have a fixed policy on PER questions that I'm aware of, and I don't have a sense of what would be a good one. It is a murky business where many of the topics of investigation are of generally applicability (sometimes to all technical subjects and sometimes to learning in general). We don't want to open the door to &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; question about educational technique as long as it has &quot;in teaching physics&quot; appending (those of you who were around in the early days of Stack Overflow may remember the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19487/2509&quot;&gt;boat programming&lt;/a&gt;&quot; question). But these means that allowing PER questions becomes a nightmare of trying to articulate well drawn lines. What fun that will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Acedamia.SE does a good job of answer that kind of question then it might be best to ship all there just for consistency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="0eeb70b0-d9dd-4a47-9c5e-6c13c700176f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I have &lt;a href=&quot;http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&quot;&gt;undeleted your post on chem&lt;/a&gt;, for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&quot;&gt;soft migration&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&quot;&gt;cases&lt;/a&gt; it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896&quot;&gt;Jeff's objection&lt;/a&gt; to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="d83abfce-cc88-4506-b61b-cc049e68b5c5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As David says, there are only 4 things to keep in mind: your answer isn't &lt;em&gt;offensive&lt;/em&gt;, isn't a spam, it's answering the question, it is of very good quality. (Well, &lt;em&gt;flagging an answer&lt;/em&gt; states only 4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as QMech says, you can always revert your post to a CW if you want so that your reputation (&lt;em&gt;score&lt;/em&gt;) may not be affected in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no rule that says, you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; delete your answer. It's your wish, unless you're raged by a bunch of guys always against you (happens around SO everyday). You're saying that the comments are useful. So, you've got your point. &lt;em&gt;Don't delete it&lt;/em&gt; if you don't want to. After all, it's worth a rep. score equivalent to a single answer. You can get it in the future, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On one hand, There are a lot of users who've got &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=439&amp;amp;tab=votes&amp;amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ano%20score%3a-10&quot;&gt;more downvotes&lt;/a&gt; than you, and some users were lucky that their answer was &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=172&amp;amp;tab=votes&amp;amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ayes%20score%3a-10&quot;&gt;accepted&lt;/a&gt;. While on the other hand, &lt;strong&gt;there are&lt;/strong&gt; users who've deleted their 10+ voted answers when they got &lt;strong&gt;shot&lt;/strong&gt; by an investigation on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83955/plagiarism-should-be-addressed-specifically-in-the-faq/134715#134715&quot;&gt;their cat art&lt;/a&gt;. Some mods should've seen a lot of voted answers deleted by this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;P.S.&lt;/strong&gt; I've deleted many of my answers, due to these downvotes. In fact, I got raged by a guy &lt;em&gt;once&lt;/em&gt; and when he's gone, I got all my score back. But now, I can't search where my deleted answers are. The reason I deleted my answers, I didn't want a guy to search my profile and downvote my &lt;em&gt;downvoted&lt;/em&gt; post. But now, I don't delete my answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="6c7a8164-cacd-4e8b-991e-54f48b2d2b0b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I think my answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; says it all (and some of the other answers as well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it's a rule that makes sense for the SOFU trilogy, and not for science sites. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="67a4f0aa-d9dc-458a-a9b9-f5b91381b145" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues/161391#161391&quot;&gt;Been there, done that&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;Late Answers and First Posts&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[....]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In these queues, you can edit the post, flag it, upvote or downvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment.  When you take one of these actions, the &lt;strong&gt;I'm Done&lt;/strong&gt; button becomes enabled, allowing you to complete review. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; impressed with it, etc), then you can always click the &lt;strong&gt;No Action Needed&lt;/strong&gt; button. If you're unsure about the post, &lt;em&gt;please&lt;/em&gt; use the &lt;strong&gt;Skip&lt;/strong&gt; button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="777542e4-192f-4f90-b44c-af0345823820" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is a bot based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ELIZA&lt;/a&gt;, as an April Fools' Day joke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174407/what-is-chat-with-an-expert&quot;&gt;What is &amp;quot;chat with an expert&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="0eb872d5-d0fa-4287-8bec-cb2d37c38b43" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The book question has been grandfathered in, that's all. Otherwise such questions are more or less off topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommendation questions are off topic network wide (some reasons are given &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/174286/178438&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; -- basically they have caused problems in the past)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Physics.SE does not try to be a resource for everything useful for physics students. We try to focus on closed-ended, conceptual questions here. You may want to try Quora or a similar website for that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="261a8a95-ec0e-42f2-b30b-218207257167" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote&quot;&gt;Is there anyway we can require a person to write something to explain a downvote?&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;amp;submit=search&quot;&gt;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;amp;submit=search&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Downvoters are &lt;em&gt;urged&lt;/em&gt; to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About making it anonymous: This &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&quot;&gt;has been proposed before&lt;/a&gt;, and the answer does make a lot of sense&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xA;  the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xA;  comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xA;  an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com&quot;&gt;the mother meta&lt;/a&gt;, but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like &lt;a href=&quot;http://quora.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quora&lt;/a&gt; are much better for such questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="0703eca2-56e8-4a07-9133-2f7cb9e344a2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The CW scheme is just when you want other users to help in revision of your post. &lt;em&gt;Not for formatting,etc.&lt;/em&gt; which is already done by the fellow users - but, for improving (additional information) of your post which shouldn't be normally done by fellow users. They can edit the post for clarification. But, they can't change the post by adding additional info. There's also this historical lock (which a mod can put on a post) for the prevention of edit wars...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The influences: When a post goes beyond 10 edits, it's automatically reverted to a CW. When the post is marked by CW, additional (+) or (-) votes doesn't influence &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; precious reputation. Be sure to check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1&lt;/strong&gt;'d user&lt;/a&gt;..! Well, he's &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; -1 in every site. He owns the CWs...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've got some time, consider reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11740/205334&quot;&gt;What are &amp;quot;Community Wiki&amp;quot; posts?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/55888/205334&quot;&gt;When to mark the &amp;#39;community wiki&amp;#39; checkbox on a new question?&lt;/a&gt; which are themselves CWs...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="01d5ead8-b796-4ca2-b1cc-18cae507457f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;Post linked with &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179167/can-we-have-a-graphing-tool-for-math-se-and-physics-se&quot;&gt;this MSO&lt;/a&gt; post&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graphing tool is very important for answering and asking some questions in Physics.&#xA;Graphing tool must include the function plotting and &lt;strong&gt;drawing some free shapes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This post is for further discussion on this and getting the comments and suggestions on this of Physics.SE users especially. As CrisF ♦  asked to post that on Site Meta. .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="0df38f19-9673-444d-a007-c1d192c33928" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Exact requirements are listed &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions&quot;&gt;on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;Beta&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;silver; awarded once&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Participate actively in a site's private beta phase&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Not just 3 bronze badges anymore, but the exact requirements not disclosed to prevent users from just doing the bare minimum.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Not awarded on Meta sites, including Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/why-are-beta-badges-awarded-at-all/#comment-44251&quot;&gt;Jeff's comment to his own answer to &quot;Why are beta badges awarded at all?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, for this site it's a moot point as we are no longer in private beta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="5a3dc406-3725-4730-b090-bdada1420967" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Accept&quot; - that little checkmark - does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; mean &quot;this answer is correct.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It just means the author of the question accepted it. Hence the name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Folks &lt;em&gt;accept&lt;/em&gt; all kinds of things. Things they find helpful, or reassuring, or funny, or insightful, or don't like but are convinced are unavoidable...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, folks accept the truth. But there's no guarantee that something is true just because someone accepts it. In particular, if there's no &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity&quot;&gt;actual problem being solved&lt;/a&gt;, the asker's opinion on answers means very little. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, the asker isn't the only arbiter. Anyone with a bit of useful participation on the site can vote on answers. If your answer is getting up-voted, that probably means a lot more than the checkmark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="abf21e2f-6f0e-4310-a6e2-386fde3a9abd" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Close votes can &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away&quot;&gt;age away&lt;/a&gt;, at which point the voter won't be able to VTC on the same question again...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moderators can remove questions from the queue by closing them or selecting &quot;Leave Open&quot;. In the latter case, the outstanding close votes remain on the question until the question is closed or the votes age away (see #1). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If a certain number (currently three) of &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses are garnered in review, the question is removed from the queue without being closed, and the outstanding close votes become eligible for aging as described in #1. A given question will be dequeued as soon as it receives &lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt; 3 &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses or 5 &quot;Close&quot; votes. Since close votes are not immediately deleted, it is possible for a question to be dequeued via Leave Open responses and then closed anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions will be removed from the queue if a reviewer opts to edit them. Questions can also be removed from the queue if a bounty is added, if they are locked, or if they are deleted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="0abb1c6b-3a38-4522-84a5-afd62d03d444" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-mechanics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'quantum-mechanics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;quantum-mechanics&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'homework'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-field-theory&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'quantum-field-theory'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;quantum-field-theory&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/electromagnetism&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'electromagnetism'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;electromagnetism&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/newton-mechanics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'newton-mechanics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;newton-mechanics&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'general-relativity'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;general-relativity&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thermodynamics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'thermodynamics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;thermodynamics&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gravity&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'gravity'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;gravity&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/special-relativity&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'special-relativity'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;special-relativity&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/particle-physics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'particle-physics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;particle-physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'homework'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt; at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I have just learned from &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I have asked a corresponding &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/183321/184300&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; on MSO if the frontpage presented to anonymous or not logged in users could be made configurable, in order to be able to exchange tags and questions in the corresponding lists. Any support for this feature request on MSO would be highly welcome and urgently needed I think :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="7d3bedc6-3d5e-45f2-b897-a4a46accc3bf" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;h2&gt;Not gonna happen.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;difficult to categorize questions &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;questions that span disciplines&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&quot;&gt;Favorite and Ignored tags&lt;/a&gt; mechanism, and view the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;front page&lt;/a&gt; rather than the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&quot;&gt;questions page&lt;/a&gt; because the front page is weighted by your favorite tags (or by your &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108224/documentation-for-frequented-tags-feature&quot;&gt;frequented tags&lt;/a&gt; if you haven't specified your favorites)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&quot;&gt;tag subscriptions&lt;/a&gt; or the  &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&quot;&gt;RSS feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching&quot;&gt;Search by tag&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="a2699dfd-61d5-434f-95c1-e2df53d4f709" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;You need &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment&quot;&gt;50 reputation&lt;/a&gt; to comment everywhere&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work&quot;&gt;How do comments work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="2dc12243-07de-415f-9d00-0e38e3c7a55b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Once again, there are two requests here. One is for a minisite separating basic questions from high level ones, and one is just a nohomework.physics.SE minisite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Separation of &quot;basic&quot; questions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within SE rules, this isn't possible. tags like &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/basic&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'basic'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;basic&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advanced&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'advanced'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;advanced&lt;/a&gt; are not allowed, as they are &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&quot;&gt;meta tags&lt;/a&gt;. Even if it were allowed, it would involve massive retagging efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing it within the current tag system is not possible as topics can't easily be separated into &quot;basic&quot; &quot;non basic&quot;. Besides, the border is very fuzzy, and it varies from person to person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I don't think this can be realistically implemented. A hidden &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/minisite&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'minisite'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;minisite&lt;/a&gt; tag could work, but it would require non-trivial changes from the devs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Separation of homework&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume you mean that there will be a no-homework sub-site. I personally hope that a combination of minor changes (proactively deleting old closed HW, being a bit stricter on the policy, etc) may mitigate the issue enough without a subsite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A few more thoughts&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This reminds me of some of the discussions &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Separating the communities can seem elitist to many, and I myself don't think that it's an ideal way to solve the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the flaws with this is that it gives off the impression that we are leaving the basic portion of the community to die as we go off to greener pastures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally am really wary of splitting the communities in any manner, even if its by minisite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="4faf3f41-541c-4437-b416-094dc7799592" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The close reasons have been finalized and implemented &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, please direct requests for new close reasons to a separate meta post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/184154/206562&quot;&gt;this meta.SO post&lt;/a&gt;, it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;not a real question&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;not constructive&lt;/strong&gt;, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;too localized&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;unclear what you’re asking&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;too broad&lt;/strong&gt;, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;primarily opinion-based&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it appears &lt;strong&gt;off-topic&lt;/strong&gt; will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What will our list of default &lt;em&gt;off-topic&lt;/em&gt; reasons be?&lt;/strong&gt; Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus &lt;strong&gt;duplicate&lt;/strong&gt;, which is still in place)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete &lt;strong&gt;too localized&lt;/strong&gt; reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="96a37b25-27af-4dc6-8fdb-8b8828f83131" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This has been asked &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28817/178438&quot;&gt;multiple&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/129513/edit-an-existing-answer-or-incorporate-existing-answer-into-a-new-one&quot;&gt;times&lt;/a&gt; on the main meta. In this case I'll just copy &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/129515/178438&quot;&gt;my answer&lt;/a&gt; over there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If its just a bit of more info (read:a paragraph), add it and leave a comment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If it's a completely new bundle of stuff, but is based on stuff gleaned from the answer, write an addendum answer as described above.&#xA;  Hat it with &quot;This is in addition to @JonSkeet's answer&quot;. You may also&#xA;  comment on the original answer and ask the poster to incorporate your&#xA;  answer if s/he wishes--and then delete your answer once the deal is&#xA;  done (&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28817/178438&quot;&gt;Something smilar could have happened here&lt;/a&gt;, though it&#xA;  didn't).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22303/factors-affecting-torque-and-rpm-of-a-motor/22317#22317&quot;&gt;Factors affecting torque and RPM of a motor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23197/how-can-one-imagine-curled-up-dimensions/23205#23205&quot;&gt;How can one imagine curled up dimensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22125/penetration-versus-frequency/22134#22134&quot;&gt;Penetration versus Frequency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23824/will-an-emf-be-induced-across-the-ends-of-a-stationary-metal-rod-placed-in-a-tim/23895#23895&quot;&gt;Will an emf be induced across the ends of a stationary metal rod placed in a time-varying magnetic field?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of wrong answers (or parts of answers), leave a comment. Try not to make radical changes in edits -- you can tell the OP in a comment to make them himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="5b86fc1c-a815-4360-af1c-69d3940e85f2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;favorite&quot; feature is one that you can (ab)use as much as you want without any problems. When you favorite a question, you get updates delivered to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/16660/wouter?tab=favorites&quot;&gt;favorites tab on your profile.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quora has a nice &quot;save draft&quot; feature, which adds the question to an &quot;unanswered questions&quot; tab. I'd be happy if that were implemented, though I don't see that happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4719/add-answer-later-tab&quot;&gt;this has been proposed before&lt;/a&gt;. It's not &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/status-declined&quot; class=&quot;post-tag moderator-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'status-declined'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;status-declined&lt;/a&gt;, so not officially declined yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="fc2663b1-45cd-4e3e-b253-d2b9ea221dba" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105391/why-does-flag-marking-as-helpful-declined-not-always-correlate-with-moderator-ac&quot;&gt;Why does flag marking as helpful/declined not always correlate with moderator action?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually, when the moderator sees a flag and has to think for a while over the flag, reading the post carefully (i.e., the action that should be taken is not immediately obvious), the flag gets marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, even if the post doesn't get closed/deleted. &quot;Helpful&quot; means &quot;While it may not have applied for this post, don't stop flagging posts for similar reasons&quot;. After all, each post is different, and we don't want to discourage you from flagging a similr post (where the flag may be valid).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides this, IIRC a close flag gets marked as helpful on the first close vote a post receives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your specific flags:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe&quot;&gt;Total Number of Dimension in universe?&lt;/a&gt;: While popular science-y, this is neither unclear nor off topic IMO. However, similar questions may tend to be of the same type.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear&quot;&gt;In what order should unit symbols appear?&lt;/a&gt; This isn't off topic, questions about standards are OK here &lt;em&gt;as long as they aren't too localized&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe#question&quot;&gt;Could all strings be one single string which weaves the fabric of the universe?&lt;/a&gt; In my opinion, this probably can be closed as non-mainstream since it effectively proposes a theory and asks for evaluation. However, I'll let the handling moderator deal with this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision&quot;&gt;Could life survive a pole shift caused by an asteroid collision?&lt;/a&gt; Your flag here was marked as &quot;helpful&quot; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchang.com/users/-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Community ♦&lt;/a&gt;, so it got &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/17508&quot;&gt;voted to close&lt;/a&gt; by a few users (the votes have now expired). I personally would have declined the flag: While the question does talk of a possibly crackpot theory, it is asking for evaluation of one point within the theory, and it's to a sufficient degree physical. (Of course, it would have helped if he replaced &quot;all life&quot; with &quot;most life&quot;, but that is clear from the context)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is&quot;&gt;Why are we talking about space curvature as if we know what space is?&lt;/a&gt; You seemed to want it deleted, not just closed. There's no reason to do that; downvoted closed posts get auto-deleted anyway, and there' no particular need to wipe such posts off Physics.SE (they don't show up on the main page)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="f3db421e-cb8c-42f3-ace0-f6efca19b528" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I do not know how I am supposed to do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the help system,&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that&quot;&gt;How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean?&lt;/a&gt; , I am supposed to ask here to have my answer undeleted by vote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an answer to question &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69726/does-trade-affect-earths-rotation&quot;&gt;Does trade affect Earth&amp;#39;s rotation?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;At the time I wrote the answer the page contained several humorous comment.&#xA;Some have been deleted since.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This induced me to write my answer in kind, though it was actually a serious answer as it was suggesting the most efficient way (not yet given by others) to actually do what the question asked. It is possible that my humor was too cryptic, as it was not understood, as the answer was deleted as irrelevant. Not knowing the system I did not try to edit it (as the help mentions that only for self-deletion), and I tried to explain in comments the problem and the meaning of the answer to have it undeleted.  Without any success, when a final remark made me understand, after several hours, that I was supposed to edit it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I did, and I do believe it is a sensible and useful answer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69746/revisions&quot;&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69746/revisions&lt;/a&gt;. It was edited 15 hours ago, but nothing is happening. I understand that some users can vote on this. Can you help.   Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suggestion: it should be said more clearly on the help page that a question is supposed to be edited before it can be undeleted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="058237e7-5ad6-4eda-9fa1-e8b5c777ca1f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I got in the habit on SO of removing thanks and signature lines (and greetings) during edits because they don't add to the question and are relatively unneeded. I think we should adopt the same policy here and remove them from questions where they appear (and ideally not include them when writing new questions). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mind going through and editing questions to remove them, but I would like it to be something everybody does so when they re-tag or edit questions for other reasons, they can remove these lines too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find questions of this sort by searching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;thanks closed:no is:question&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where you can replace thanks with whatever other words that could bring up things like greetings and signatures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, here is the MSO discussion on the same topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts&quot;&gt;Should &amp;#39;Hi&amp;#39;, &amp;#39;thanks,&amp;#39; taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="9cb538dc-ceca-4f3f-9388-1199d16360ea" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad&quot;&gt;Why are &amp;quot;shopping list&amp;quot; questions bad?&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&quot;&gt;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;TL;DR&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The problems&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is a Q&amp;amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about &lt;em&gt;concepts&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The oldest answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The most popular answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, note that the following problems do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&quot;&gt;exceptions&lt;/a&gt;, though.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that happens with book questions is that the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Only&lt;/em&gt; allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We place a boilerplate banner on each question linking to a book policy and mentioning (in short) what is to be expected of answers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These should be made CW. Reasons? See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565&quot;&gt;Chris' comment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;List questions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head &lt;em&gt;sans&lt;/em&gt; decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4643" RevisionGUID="6060d9b8-b5fc-4650-88e2-242a44490d04" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;In general, we don't care what happens in chat rooms associated with the site, so if some users want to set up a chat room for discussion in a foreign language, that &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92996&quot;&gt;should be okay&lt;/a&gt;. However, if chat moderators have reason to suspect that the foreign language is being used to disguise communication that would otherwise be unacceptable (e.g. insults), they'll have to deal with that, and shutting down the chat room is one of the possible consequences (in extreme cases).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the main site, meta site, and in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&quot;&gt;main site chat room&lt;/a&gt;, all content should be in English. (Or more precisely, all content should be understandable to English speakers.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4710" RevisionGUID="fc7a9165-b547-4c7f-b6e0-3688266a8e26" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/legal&quot;&gt;content of all Stack Exchange sites&lt;/a&gt; is licensed &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike&lt;/a&gt;. If the terms are met, then they are allowed to do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the terms are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; met, the centralized place for reporting violations of the license is on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/131846/2509&quot;&gt;the mother meta thread for such things&lt;/a&gt;. And I see that &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/163974/2509&quot;&gt;the first answer there is this very site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="0a06a634-367a-4499-9426-7816e67cb2c4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The license under which Stack Exchange distributes user-contributed content, CC-BY-SA 2.5, does allow other sites to reuse that content as long as they follow the attribution guidelines in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/legal&quot;&gt;terms of service&lt;/a&gt;. If you're uncomfortable with your content being displayed elsewhere even when the guidelines are followed, then honestly you should probably stop contributing here because it is a prerequisite of posting that you agree to let SE and other sites redistribute your contributions in this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the site you're pointing out does not follow the attribution guidelines, then that's illegal, and you should check that it is reported in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131846/report-sites-that-use-stack-exchange-content-without-following-attribution-rules&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt; on Meta Stack Overflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="5cb9595b-0a64-471d-a2e1-24ed817a6397" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This would be done at the Stack Exchange level, and in fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190200/help-us-test-the-alpha-version-of-our-android-app&quot;&gt;they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; working on an Android tool&lt;/a&gt;. Don't know if or when a iOS version might be in the works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="71925b10-645c-4cda-9149-5ab560a17db3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/popular-science&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'popular-science'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;popular-science&lt;/a&gt; is clearly a meta tag,&lt;/strong&gt; in the same way that &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'homework'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt; is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of &lt;em&gt;answers&lt;/em&gt; that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After years of support and many thousands of questions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/147100/the-homework-tag-is-now-officially-deprecated&quot;&gt;we had to burn [homework] on Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with.&lt;/em&gt; When folks are regularly getting into fights over a &lt;em&gt;tag&lt;/em&gt;, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - &lt;em&gt;regardless&lt;/em&gt; of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be met:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean &lt;em&gt;easy&lt;/em&gt; questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of &quot;why&quot; questions. You &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; want them, and want them tagged as such, then...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;...You need to be &lt;em&gt;ruthlessly&lt;/em&gt; consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for &lt;em&gt;and receive&lt;/em&gt; a &quot;general audience&quot; answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. &lt;strong&gt;Unless the asker states&lt;/strong&gt;, &quot;I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it&quot; or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond &quot;I want a layman's explanation for something&quot;, then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'homework'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt; is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And most importantly, &lt;strong&gt;you cannot fight about this.&lt;/strong&gt; Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-great-edit-wars/&quot;&gt;edit wars&lt;/a&gt; over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, &lt;strong&gt;the tag will be removed with no further discussion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="c9ecc7e8-8088-4bdc-b41d-0e6f276352b9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/7931/205334&quot;&gt;This would've been covered by our overall site FAQ&lt;/a&gt; under the topic &lt;strong&gt;Moderation&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flags don't work like that. Flagging should be done only when moderators require some intervention with the post. For instance, someone is spamming around, uses offensive words, posting bad questions that need to be closed, etc. can be handled by a mod. Other cases...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) If some asker accepts some answer, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. It means that he's satisfied with it. You shouldn't flag it and say it's wrong. Because, a mod shouldn't switch accepted answers, that are only provided for askers. If that's the case, he can go around accepting answers by himself. And, something in your point of view may be different from others' point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) An answer gets large number of upvotes (&lt;em&gt;that too&lt;/em&gt;...) doesn't mean that it's correct. It's accepted and agreed as a worthy answer by the overall community. Mod can't interrupt the community's evaluation of answers. That's the reason why downvoted answers are still under questions. If the wrong answer is related to Physics (just some misunderstanding), we can keep it to indicate others that it's wrong...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, your question goes to the author. Just comment below it, indicating what's wrong there. Mods can't do everything. They're just our people. Feel free to interact with them. Why do you need mods as some connecting bridges? Again, your thought that &lt;em&gt;answers should be deleted by mods once they're flagged&lt;/em&gt; is really a misconception...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="b0d4d577-1266-426a-8c61-33be550611d0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it&quot;&gt;Already been reported, not yet been fixed&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case the best thing to do is to flag the corresponding post with a custom flag, mentioning that you're unable to flag the comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="f796e218-4e08-4d52-a4a9-404a47d5c3ec" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There is a significant overlap between physics and chemistry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion&quot;&gt;Explanation of &amp;quot;thermite vs ice&amp;quot; explosion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I suggest that questions tagged &quot;chemistry&quot; on physics.se be displayed and editable on both chemistry.se and physics.se. The reverse would also be beneficial: questions on chemistry.se tagged physics could appear here as well as there and be editable by both communities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A question immediately arises, should we collaborate on other tags? I would suggest that only tags involving the word chemistry  or physics respectively should be cross-communal projects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[edit]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a question on SO meta: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&quot;&gt;Asking on Multiple Sites: &amp;quot;Soft-Migration&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; which points out how it is mostly the sciences that would benefit from this feature. I guess that means it is &quot;too specific,&quot; since we are relatively small. Democracy baby!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="237db556-9dab-4a9e-8558-020798148fd2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As a moderator on both the sites involved, I sort of support this -- this was the reason I proposed &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&quot;&gt;soft migration&lt;/a&gt; in the first place. Note that soft migration is less complicated than your proposal -- we don't need editing and all, just that the posts should turn up on the main page and in searches. Allowing editing would probably be complicated in the implementation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; as the privileges would need to get carried over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had already added a ticker chatroom feed for &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physical-chemistry&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'physical-chemistry'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;physical-chemistry&lt;/a&gt; (and I just added one for &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-mechanics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'quantum-mechanics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;quantum-mechanics&lt;/a&gt;) in the Phy.SE chatroom. If nobody has any objections I can convert it to a chat message feed (every new post is posted in the chatroom). It shouldn't cause too much clutter as Chem.SE doesn't have that much activity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. These things always &lt;em&gt;seem&lt;/em&gt; easy to implement, but a large app like SE usually has complications in implementing such things. One great example is HTTPS -- to most, turning on HTTPS can be done with the flip of a switch. But for something like SE, &lt;a href=&quot;http://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/04/23/stackoverflow-com-the-road-to-ssl/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it's not so easy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="33143147-a35b-41de-898a-514eb50a7a2d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a freeform off topic reason*, but that's only for 3k users. These users get to type an &quot;other&quot; close reason. This becomes a comment on the question. Subsequent closevoters get the additional option to choose the same close reason (which results in a comment upvote). When the question is closed, it gets the default off topic wording (&quot;this is off topic for Physics because it doesn't fit the scope defined in the help center&quot; or something like that), and the comment stays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't available to flaggers, though. However, the off topic subreason you choose is not visible to anyone (even mods) -- the flag is always counted as &quot;off topic&quot; from the POV of reviewers and mods. So my advice would be to just pick a random offtopic subreason when none fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This raises the question &quot;if it isn't visible, why make flaggers choose?&quot;. Well, these subreasons subtly teach new flaggers &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; is flaggable. This happened to me on SO, I didn't know that certain types of questions could be closed until the flag changes came out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do feel that this system is slightly unweildy though, and have &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/188106/178438&quot;&gt;proposed a change to it&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Known hereabouts as the &lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/n8CSK.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;trolley car close reason&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="b9590eb8-4b38-4914-aaa9-1aecee99ee27" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I think what happened here is that the post was deemed &quot;Not Constructive&quot;, and was closed with the &quot;modern&quot; analogue of that close reason, &quot;primarily opinion based&quot;. POB doesn't apply as well as NC does here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may ask, &quot;what's wrong with the post then&quot;? Well, it's basically what's called an &quot;idle curiosity&quot; question -- you're not really aiming to learn something specific out of it, rather you're hoping to get some &quot;accidental learning&quot; from the post. It's not really focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That in itself isn't that much of a problem on this SE site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however there's another issue: It's not specific enough. There's not enough information about the system to get a meaningful answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (alternatively, a good answer would require tons of analysis to get anywhere), which is sort of supported by this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I've asked many Physics teachers and each has their own theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once it doesn't have a definitive answer and it's not really focused towards a concept, it &lt;em&gt;basically&lt;/em&gt; becomes a discussion. Such questions are great to discuss in person. You do indeed learn a lot by seeing the approaches of others. But the question itself doesn't really focus on any concept -- the learning value derives from the &lt;em&gt;possibility&lt;/em&gt; of one of the answers  teaching you a good concept. Coupled with it being discussiony, that makes it rather unsuitable for this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. While most SE sites deal with &quot;problems you actually face&quot;, the science sites don't (Well, not exactly), as explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2. I suspect that supplying enough information to fix this would then just convert this to a homework/engineering problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="9e1de6c7-c9d3-4112-a891-26f3835152eb" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;It has already been addressed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/126471/205334&quot;&gt;mother meta&lt;/a&gt;. Some guy has voted your answer and you gained a +10 for that. Now, the buddy has removed his account and his votes have been revoked. Whatever he had voted (as a member of this site), will be reversed (once he removes his account), which means &lt;em&gt;not only you&lt;/em&gt;, but anyone who were voted by him will be affected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty interesting scheme. Even for an user who has cast more than 5000 votes, once he removes his account, all those votes are &lt;em&gt;gone&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="9e66ca25-b52c-4a18-a0da-924b10c5a735" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;When Stack Overflow launched the scoring was the same for questions and answers. This eventually became a bit of a cause for concern when a number of users who had &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;never offered an answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mostly had zero or negative net scores on their very many poor questions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but were still accumulating enough rep to access some important site privileges. There rose &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&quot;&gt;a movement to increase the power of down votes on questions&lt;/a&gt;, which was &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/status-planned&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'status-planned'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;status-planned&lt;/a&gt; for some time after which &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42763/2509&quot;&gt;the team suddenly decided to reduce the upvote value on questions instead&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that this slightly &lt;em&gt;increased&lt;/em&gt; the quality of questions on Stack Overflow (mostly by discouraging hoards of bad questions, rather than by generating a lot of really good ones), but it was a small thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my expectation based on that ancient history on a different site is that while this proposal might bring in a few more good questions it would also bring in many more bad ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, we have more tools for dealing with problem users now, so maybe would could handle it, but I don't know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="4da5114c-c339-462a-a8a9-89a0625660a1" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up long and interesting discussion below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;SE is licensed under CC-wiki license with Attribution required,&#xA;you can read it here &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is a post on S[OFU] about same topic with more details:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13976&quot;&gt;Who owns the copyright to S[OFU] content?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stack exchange CAN USE your work(user generated content) to &lt;em&gt;earn&lt;/em&gt; money.&#xA;This is written in the short summary of the license hyperlinked above.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Effectively you retain only CREDITS on your work. But not the rights to remove it from circulation or issue a new license which will &lt;em&gt;contradict&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;constrain&lt;/em&gt; CC-wiki (this part is declared in termination section of CC-wiki).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;License is effectively INFINITE (up to the limits of international law, about 60 years)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no WAY to terminate this license by the will of the creators (users).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE II:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good news. If we look at UK CC license  (lest assume our user lives in UK), we read following (&lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;2.3. This License does not affect any rights that the User may have under any applicable law, including fair use, fair dealing or any other legally recognized limitation or exception to copyright infringement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if I understand correctly - when user gets BANNED from this website he can remove all he's work from here. At least in UK. Am I correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="e5214537-db9f-40a7-9e3b-cb1b3c5b3843" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is covered by &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96205/more-options-when-flagging-for-migration&quot;&gt;the link dmckee gave in the comments&lt;/a&gt;, in which the exact same feature was proposed on MSO and declined. Migrations to sites other than Math are sufficiently rare that there's no particular need to let ordinary users vote for them. (Moderators have always been able to do this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that the first thing to decide when considering whether to migrate a question is, do you think it's off topic here? If you see a question that is off topic, flag it as such, or vote to close if you have that privilege. If you think the question would be appropriate at another site, other than the options given (Meta and Math), leave a comment on the question to indicate that. Alternatively, you can custom-flag the question as &quot;Off topic and possibly suitable for migration to X&quot; or some such thing. &lt;strong&gt;Don't suggest a question for migration unless you believe it's off topic on this site.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="0feb17b8-e7bc-4d2f-a27c-69523053afc4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/197072/178438&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it was deleted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, there were &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions&quot;&gt;some unnecessary edits&lt;/a&gt; made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="7a8d7a7f-44d0-4677-8d0f-697b67e9e826" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196074/184688&quot;&gt;Lots of questions in the reopen queue&lt;/a&gt; at meta.stackoverflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queue are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;, which was edited July 17). Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="f850354f-02c3-4111-a8d3-6360359c1fe6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196074/lots-of-questions-in-the-reopen-queue/196078#196078&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Currently, this means that a closed question will automatically be&#xA;  added to the reopen queue when it is...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by the author. Or,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to&#xA;  delete it. Or,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;...Sufficiently popular, where popularity is calculated based on question score, top answer score, or views per month. We're still&#xA;  tweaking the exact thresholds for these, but right now they're fairly&#xA;  generous - however, the most popular closed questions are being added&#xA;  to the queue &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably an initial flood of questions, once we clear it out the queue ought to stay empty (like how all the queues were above 100 when they were introduced). There are edits from July there, so they probably allowed the algorithm to retroactively apply itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not if I can do anything about it :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="6f6aea9c-9ebe-4f34-97f0-ed42b6691b97" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms&quot;&gt;on Meta Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt;, moderators are not limited to terms. The next moderator election will be whenever the community and the SE team decide that the moderation workload on the site exceeds what the current moderators can do, and the number of positions available will be determined by the need. It's usually 1 or 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="ad4c07cf-cf08-4c18-b72f-f94c8b60b378" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/feature-request&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'feature-request'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;feature-request&lt;/a&gt; at Meta.StackOverflow, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196775/184688&quot;&gt;The flag counter in the 10k tools should reflect the posts I can actually see&lt;/a&gt;. Show it some love!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently gained access to the 10k tools and the flag page looks buggy to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the flag count on the top right often shows a count for flags that are not present. The page can also be completely empty, with a nonzero counter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ic2aU.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/187231/184688&quot;&gt;come up on the mother meta already&lt;/a&gt;, but since it has been marked &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/c48J5.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt; there I thought I'd bring it up here as there may be relevant site differences. The bug in the main question there, which Jarred Dixon's answer addresses, also seems to be a bit different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarrod Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation. An auto-generated low-quality flag that's only for moderator eyes? (would &quot;only for ♦.♦&quot; be the right abbreviation of that, by the way?) It sounds unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could anyone from the dev team comment on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="0b4995f3-a5de-49ee-b86a-86b681d86549" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I just approved two edits removing the tag &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fun-stuff&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'fun-stuff'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;fun-stuff&lt;/a&gt; from the two only posts that currently have it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64524/what-are-the-limitations-of-performing-music-in-space&quot;&gt;What are the limitations of performing music in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10701/how-much-force-is-in-a-keystroke-estimated-of-course&quot;&gt;How much force is in a keystroke? (estimated, of course)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one, it seems pointless to have such a small tag. On top of that, it definitely pushes the limits of on-topic (though a bit of fun never hurt anyone, really). On the other hand, it wasn't really hurting anyone as the question count was minimal.* All in all I'm pretty neutral about this, so I approved the edit. I just thought this should come up in meta before we lose the tag. (Tags with no questions get deleted shortly, as per &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19753/what-happens-to-zombie-tags&quot;&gt;this MSO question&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what's it gonna be? Tag burnination? Tag rescue with tens of volunteers turning up all these fun questions that really needed that tag? Or my personal favourite, a long, slow slide of this question down the meta front page, faced with stone-cold utter indifference? (hey, I could even get a tumbleweed outta that...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Yes, I know &quot;minimal&quot; is only one question per tag. Go take this up in math if you feel that strongly about it.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="7a7d858e-15e4-419e-ad9a-cb3fc1ed32c9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;You can find the full badge description &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to use the &quot;share&quot; link and share the question with others (Sharing it on an SE site will &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; work). This is usually done via Twitter/Facebook/etc. If enough people click on it, you get a badge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="bbcc6c48-04eb-4269-9520-7c35ca8d8087" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Click on the &quot;share&quot; button below a question or an answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Ls0W.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will bring up the standard share buttons for Google Plus, Facebook and Twitter, which will place a link to the post on your Plus page / timeline / feed. You will also be able to copy a link to the question that identifies you as the person who shared it; these &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/114621/184688&quot;&gt;look like this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;http://stackoverflow.com/q/&amp;lt;question-id&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;user-id&amp;gt;&#xA;http://stackoverflow.com/a/&amp;lt;answer-id&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;user-id&amp;gt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where &lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;user-id&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt; is your user ID. (You can get this by going to your profile and looking at the search bar on the top right.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will get the Announcer badge, for example, if 25 unique IP addresses click on any of such links. Be aware, though, that there are mechanisms in place to detect &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sock puppeting&lt;/a&gt; so if you try to access it yourself from 25 different computers the system may detect that and discount those visits. Also, as EnergyNumbers points out, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/114608/184688&quot;&gt;links shared within the SE network do not count towards referral badges&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="a23779f4-ce1e-4de6-9058-2fecabe2c830" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;You have some good answers here already, but since I was the one who deleted the comments I'll take a few minutes to explain why. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all started &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; - someone mentioned Physics, and upon visiting the meta here I saw 4 different threads calling out a specific user. As mentioned in the thread I linked to, this is something we generally try to avoid: there's nothing to be gained from publicly humiliating someone, &lt;em&gt;particularly&lt;/em&gt; someone who isn't here to defend themselves. While a certain amount of curiosity is understandable, leaving these threads up long-term to be indexed by Google is kinda cruel; we frequently get emails from folks who are concerned about their online reputation and looking to distance themselves from mistakes in their past - no need to add to that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I deleted or edited these threads. While doing so, I observed numerous bitter, unproductive, tangential conversations - as EnergyNumbers notes, such comments are &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4971/what-rules-do-moderators-follow-in-deleting-comments-in-an-ongoing-discussion/4975#4975&quot;&gt;subject to removal without notice&lt;/a&gt;, so I removed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, this is the guidance I gave the moderators at the time: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know I've said this before, but... Try not to let threads discussing someone's suspension hang around forever. They rarely lead to anything good. Either edit to generalize them, or remove them once they've quieted down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultimate goal here should always be to provide something of value to future readers. I doubt you're the only one who'll ever be concerned about suspensions - therefore, it's worth providing a clear, easy-to-follow discussion for those that follow. Lengthy comment threads hinder this goal - they are distracting and push actual &lt;em&gt;answers&lt;/em&gt; further down the page. Comments that speculate on offenses committed by another user are particularly unhelpful - common decency dictates that one should address others directly with complaints rather than talking about them behind their backs. Expect the current comments on that question to be removed at some point as well, once the current discussion is concluded. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="61fe86b1-f59e-4f32-8c86-515b9c0a2898" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Apparently it was automatically deleted (cf &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/78048/&quot;&gt;this meta post&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have undeleted it, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/198710/should-we-really-have-removedeadquestions-on-smaller-sites&quot;&gt;also requested that this particular autodelete functionality be turned off for smaller sites.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="7d2c95fd-789d-4b91-b7d2-de41a261a07c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There is a user called &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&quot;&gt;Community&lt;/a&gt; that undertakes a number of useful background tasks, like take possession of up- and down-votes from deleted users (for more detail see e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user&quot;&gt;Who is the Community user?&lt;/a&gt;). In particular, the system bumps old unanswered questions to the top of the front page every so often to help them get answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this happens, the link to the question will show Community as the last active user on that question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/o7iws.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is some other name, then the question has had some activity recently. To be taken to the last active post in that thread, click on the timestamp:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3Cq7.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="ee468d45-c26e-4c6b-8429-035788385ed8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I just stumbled on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/94000/184688&quot;&gt;this fantastic list of magic shortcuts&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Supported magic links:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;[meta]&lt;/code&gt; &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;[main]&lt;/code&gt; &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;[edit]&lt;/code&gt; &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[ ... ]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;[ask]&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;[answer]&lt;/code&gt; &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;[something.se]&lt;/code&gt; &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use &lt;code&gt;[ubuntu.se]&lt;/code&gt; for Ask Ubuntu.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Except for &lt;code&gt;[chat]&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;[edit]&lt;/code&gt;, and with the addition of &lt;code&gt;[chat-faq]&lt;/code&gt;, these also work in chat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/&quot;&gt;Homework Policy&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="3715d51b-30c5-4282-8ee8-419ca671b519" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The question hit me when I saw &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://music.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;music&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://scifi.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;scifi&lt;/a&gt;. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xA;about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="81bd8f20-1051-4a69-9ea0-04f0c5263dcc" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&quot;&gt;What is the deepest man-made underground tunnel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&quot;&gt;What processes occur when a meteor enters the atmosphere?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&quot;&gt;How does the Ocean polarize light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&quot;&gt;Difference Between Fraunhofer and Fresnel Diffraction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Debate&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people are against asking them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute &lt;strong&gt;last thing you ever want to do&lt;/strong&gt;. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others think the opposite:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the contrary, &lt;strong&gt;you should ask first before googling&lt;/strong&gt;, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Search SO first&#xA;  If no answer, then Google&#xA;  If answer found, post community wiki&#xA;  If no answer is found post question on SO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (&lt;em&gt;This has been removed from the FAQ&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Downvote and comment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Correct flagging&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen that this question (&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered&quot;&gt;How Was the Speed of Light Discovered?&lt;/a&gt;) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Homework-like&lt;/strong&gt; questions should ask about a specific physics concept and &lt;strong&gt;show some effort&lt;/strong&gt; to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to create a new flag like &lt;strong&gt;no research effort&lt;/strong&gt; (which is much more clear)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sorry for asking this question :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&quot;&gt;Do you google before asking on StackOverflow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&quot;&gt;Embrace the non-Googlers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&quot;&gt;How should we deal with Google questions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&quot;&gt;To Google or not to Google...Complexity of SO questions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&quot;&gt;How should we deal with Google questions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&quot;&gt;How much research effort is expected of Stack Overflow users?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&quot;&gt;Level of questions: what do we do now ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&quot;&gt;Wikipedia like questions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&quot;&gt;How basic is too basic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&quot;&gt;Are some questions too simple?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="e373fb12-38a0-4b7e-84e8-4d5deef9dc8d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry to see you go, though I don't quite sympathize with the reasons you have listed in the post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was wrong was that it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members/197072#197072&quot;&gt;a public discussion about another user&lt;/a&gt;, one who wasn't even around. It was deleted due to that. Not to remove any discussion -- there are plenty of posts mentioning the suspension that are still around (some of them yours).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The user wasn't even suspended by the same mod each time. As mentioned before, it's about the site rules, not any personal vendetta. And I think there has been enough discussion about the rules, though if you want them changed then you'd have to bring them up on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/&quot;&gt;the main meta&lt;/a&gt; (where I think it's been brought up before, not sure).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think this was done to cover the traces of anything. Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. We had a good member who is no longer here. Is there any point leaving a post around that discusses his suspension? One that contains various dissections of his character? And things that border on personal attacks to him? Is that &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; something we should preserve? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't think that the suspension was wrongly carried out&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the mods will never claim that the user in question was never suspended (and we know that the community will remember). With this in mind, there isn't any reason for us to do this to cover our tracks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, sorry to see you go. Thank you for your contributions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. This is not the place to discuss this, please don't.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="e7e80213-151c-412a-bb77-174a0845bd93" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some thoughts on enforcement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As was mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563&quot;&gt;Manishearth's&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563&quot;&gt;QMechanic's&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563&quot;&gt;David Z's&lt;/a&gt; answers in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/&quot;&gt;the recent discussion on banning homework&lt;/a&gt;, the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;very myopic!&lt;/a&gt;) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tag it as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;homework&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&quot;&gt;Flag the question for closure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&quot;&gt;vote to close it&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&quot;&gt;review queue&lt;/a&gt; in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Consider downvoting it&lt;/strong&gt;. Questions with a score of &lt;strong&gt;-4&lt;/strong&gt; are &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688&quot;&gt;hidden from the front page&lt;/a&gt;, and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Think twice before answering.&lt;/strong&gt; In any &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;broken windows theory&lt;/a&gt; of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons &lt;em&gt;with answers&lt;/em&gt; do so much, much more.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also tag &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563&quot;&gt;on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki&lt;/a&gt; as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;homework&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt; as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing&quot;&gt;edit posts&lt;/a&gt;, though they will pass through a review queue &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit&quot;&gt;until you have 2k rep&lt;/a&gt;. As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists&quot;&gt;retain&lt;/a&gt; and increase our expert user base.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;strong&gt;use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&quot;&gt;review queues&lt;/a&gt; as much as you can!&lt;/strong&gt; Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/review&quot;&gt;SO&lt;/a&gt;) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/&quot;&gt;(example)&lt;/a&gt; than by a single moderator &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/&quot;&gt;(example)&lt;/a&gt;. There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues&quot;&gt;this MSO thread&lt;/a&gt;. There's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian&quot;&gt;three badges&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer&quot;&gt;to be had&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward&quot;&gt;per revision queue&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a &lt;em&gt;ton&lt;/em&gt; of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023&quot;&gt;Late Answers&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts&quot;&gt;First Posts&lt;/a&gt; review queues at &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&quot;&gt;500 rep&lt;/a&gt;, and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5192" RevisionGUID="478fc215-837a-4836-8a66-96c9f8496086" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;It's actually pretty hard to lose all of your reputation.  There is a major imbalance between reputation gains and losses.  For example, if a question gets upvoted you get 5 reputation but if it gets downvoted you only lose 2.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7237/how-does-reputation-work&quot;&gt;How does &amp;quot;Reputation&amp;quot; work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'd have to put in a lot more effort to lose reputation than you have to put in to gain it.  You'd get suspended way before that happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="ae76e874-eef0-4175-9a68-5618ce35640e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Please don't make any lmgtfy comments. They will be deleted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links&quot;&gt;Ban LMGTFY (let me google that for you) links&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109713/is-lmgtfy-frowned-upon&quot;&gt;Is LMGTFY frowned upon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="f4c2729d-3431-4aa2-93cc-73bb46217a4a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This answer contains the discussion in the comments to &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;the question that sparked this discussion&lt;/a&gt;, which was originally posted at the (now defunct) &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&quot;&gt;Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt; site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have asked the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563&quot;&gt;relevant question on meta&lt;/a&gt;. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="3e0df319-0fcc-470f-ba1f-a7872cdd4c05" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Yeah, this looks terrible. Not only does it waste the preview, it gets in the way of the question, and can easily end up being longer than the question itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYQwc.png&quot; alt=&quot;Top-edited banner&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, we have &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/102363/support-for-banners&quot;&gt;a system for attaching permanent banners&lt;/a&gt; to posts that &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; get in the way of viewing the question. I've added one for book recommendations based on your template; if you see a question with the top-banner on it, flag it for moderator attention and ask that the post notice be added instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find an example of this notice &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87917/reference-request-for-exactly-solved-models&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/KbbdZ.png&quot; alt=&quot;Post notice at the bottom&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="7330dd1d-9cec-4200-b79a-91f903d35d8a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I'll restate here Jeff's answer in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled&quot;&gt;the analogous question in the mother meta&lt;/a&gt; for the benefit of any future users searching this meta with the same question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are a handful of conditions where we will stop accepting edits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A large number of suggested edits by you were rejected in the last day (absolute value) - if banned you will be banned for a week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We are out of empty slots in the queue (currently 20 120 200)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is an edit to a particular post that was not approved yet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are not logged in and the post is less than 10 minutes old.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the past no &quot;edit&quot; link would be shown at all; since July 2012 the edit link is disabled and the mouse hover tooltip will explain why an edit cannot be suggested, like &quot;Account is not allowed to suggest edits&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="69048173-c981-4fef-91b7-4473a3580225" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;As you probably noticed, there is a new top bar implemented on this site. This is part of a network-wide experiment in... UI design I guess? Details on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/207420&quot;&gt;The new top bar is out on meta. Consider it a beta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not complaining about or complimenting the way the features are implemented (not here, anyway - you can always check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/top-bar?sort=newest&quot;&gt;Mother Meta&lt;/a&gt;), but I &lt;strong&gt;request that the color scheme be changed&lt;/strong&gt;. The current off-black clashes quite harshly with our light-blues-on-white scheme. It looks like some sinister cloud, ever reminding us of our network overlords' presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current color may work well on certain sites, but certainly not all. This is not surprising, because &lt;strong&gt;no one color scheme could possibly work&lt;/strong&gt; on dozens of individual sites with their own customized appearance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, we're not the only site that seems to have a clash. Just check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathematica.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Mathematica&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://math.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Mathematics&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://judaism.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Mi Yodeya&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://programmers.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Programmers&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://tex.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;TeX&lt;/a&gt;, for example. (As I'm not a particularly active member of any other site, I'm not formally requesting those sites be changed, which is why I'm not asking on Mother Meta. Also, there is at least one such global request: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/210012&quot;&gt;Would it be possible to lighten the color of the new top bar?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can we get something that fits our color scheme, please? And no, saying I should userscript it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; a valid answer - I'm considering how the site looks to everyone else too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="ce721229-02bf-4580-813c-7d03e71be71b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;You shouldn't set too much store by declined flags. If you look on MSO, it happens relatively often that flags are declined and yet the action gets taken. There's two outcomes that can come out of this sort of thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First of all, did the action get taken? If it did, then no worries. If it didn't, what was it? If you were asking for removal of comments, then don't worry too much about it - comments are temporary anyway. If you don't like a comment but it's not offensive or anything, well, shucks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The only thing a declined flag really does is it slightly affects your &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/84859/we-dont-need-to-see-flag-weight&quot;&gt;flag weight&lt;/a&gt; - that is, your total helpful vs. declined flags. This is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; something to worry about unless a really large percentage of your flags get declined. This is used by mods as a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; rough measure to help gauge the importance of flags.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, there's not all that much to decry about a declined flag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5344" RevisionGUID="400ddbb8-afeb-4096-a00e-98beafdd51aa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93595/is-the-very-low-quality-flag-too-ambiguous&quot;&gt;this MSO question&lt;/a&gt; addresses that. To quote from the top answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Essentially this is synonymous with &lt;strong&gt;flag for removal&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, it's quite rare that I see a post which I would consider an appropriate use of the VLQ flag. It pretty much has to be actual gibberish. (Needless to say, as a moderator I delete such posts; if I weren't a moderator, I would VLQ-flag them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The not-an-answer flag, on the other hand, is intended for content which is legible, perhaps understandable, and may even constitute a useful contribution of some sort, but simply does not answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it makes little difference to us (moderators) which kind of flag you use, so don't spend much time agonizing over whether you should flag something as very low quality or as not an answer. If you're not sure, pick either one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="5e1da37f-1c98-4761-a6b4-1f293d5af06c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212433/should-employees-with-head-injuries-be-allowed-to-post-on-meta&quot;&gt;a&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212781/christmas-hat-haiku&quot;&gt;couple&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208393/i-would-like-a-mug-please&quot;&gt;of&lt;/a&gt; impromptu contests on Meta where one has to write a relevant poem or something. Some have been just for fun, some have been for swag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not have an informal (no prizes, unfortunately) competition on this Meta for some Christmas fun?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The inspiration is &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=12793773#12793773&quot;&gt;this chat message&lt;/a&gt; on the Physics GRE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the physics one basically just tests whether you've sat through a &quot;modern physics for freshman poets&quot; course&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accuracy of the above statement aside, one can have quite a bit of fun writing physics poems that could find a place in a quiz&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The form is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The poem must either be a question, or a question+answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No restrictions on the specific form of poetry. Preferably rhyming&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="e96b93ea-f1d0-493a-a1bf-7a167a2dcde2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This question was recently bumped to the top of the front page by a new answer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read/&quot;&gt;Books that every layman should read&lt;/a&gt;. I originally wanted to just recommend the new answer be deleted, but the question is so bad that I think it should be closed as primarily opinion-based, and then put under a historical lock. Or something to that effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is an everyone-add-your-favourite-book question.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/98366/184688&quot;&gt;everything a bad list question is&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its answers provide no commentary or detail about the books.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its sister question, &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/books-that-every-physicist-should-read&quot;&gt;Books that every physicist should read&lt;/a&gt;, already has a well-earned historical lock on it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are people's views on this one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="5b9de0fd-42e2-4fda-9d97-c5e137988a7f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Yep, the number of views is determined by the IP addresses of individual users, who had viewed the question in the past. It's just a &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/188348/205334&quot;&gt;timed counter to measure roughly &quot;how popular the question is&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I mean by &quot;timed intervals&quot; is that, say you view a question today. And, (let's say) after a week or so, you view it again. Refresh the page, and you'll find out that the views have increased by one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While mods don't have any privy information regarding the views, it's really obvious that the site-developers can view almost anything. &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz&quot;&gt;Sklivvz&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9&quot;&gt;Shog&lt;/a&gt; are examples, as they visit us often (:P).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="efb82cf2-4cc3-4a86-8882-9bd93611543c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I do not believe this is a bug, but rather it is &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/status-bydesign&quot; class=&quot;post-tag moderator-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;status-bydesign&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;status-bydesign&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the edit notification system is currently designed, users are not notified when a minor edit is made to one of their own posts.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/134906/what-type-of-notifications-do-we-have/135411#comment378020_135411&quot;&gt;The exact criteria are&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a non-trivial edit is one which changes at least 10 characters (this is using a diff algorithm, so it's not a simple add/delete; and is naturally a little fuzzy). For the &quot;technical&quot; sites (where code highlighting is enabled) changes to code of at least 2 characters are considered non-trivial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this, changes to tags are considered trivial and will not generate a notification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="e8746b30-eef8-4842-8163-95a506bd7d44" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;If you think a moderator is out of line use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact&quot;&gt;&quot;contact us&quot; link&lt;/a&gt; at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151633/2509&quot;&gt;Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.&lt;/a&gt; This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beta site get &lt;em&gt;pro tem&lt;/em&gt; moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this time that is it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="e4ee19ba-ba6e-4fc7-a420-16714deb5415" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&quot;&gt;Review queues&lt;/a&gt; are accessible &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&quot;&gt;from 500 reputation&lt;/a&gt;. This starts with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers&quot;&gt;Late Answers&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts&quot;&gt;First Posts&lt;/a&gt; review queues, gets augmented by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits&quot;&gt;Suggested Edits&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts&quot;&gt;Low Quality Posts&lt;/a&gt; queues at &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit&quot;&gt;2,000 rep&lt;/a&gt;, and finally &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close&quot;&gt;Close Votes&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen&quot;&gt;Reopen Votes&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&quot;&gt;3,000 rep&lt;/a&gt;. It is easily accessible by a link that says &lt;code&gt;review&lt;/code&gt; on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&quot; alt=&quot;review link on top bar&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&quot; alt=&quot;skip button on review queues&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&quot;&gt;Moderator tools&lt;/a&gt; are available to users with &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools&quot;&gt;10k reputation&lt;/a&gt; and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&quot;&gt;flags&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&quot; alt=&quot;Moderator tools flags page&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This includes &lt;code&gt;Not an answer&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Very low quality&lt;/code&gt; flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether &lt;code&gt;Spam&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Offensive, abusive, or hate speech&lt;/code&gt; flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. &lt;code&gt;Flag to close&lt;/code&gt; flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. &lt;code&gt;Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)&lt;/code&gt; flags are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags&quot;&gt;Flags page&lt;/a&gt; can also be accessed by clicking on the &lt;em&gt;yellow&lt;/em&gt; number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the &lt;code&gt;review&lt;/code&gt; link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&quot; alt=&quot;review link on top bar&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475&quot;&gt;this MSO thread&lt;/a&gt;), but of course that makes them no less useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/status-bydesign&quot; class=&quot;post-tag moderator-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;status-bydesign&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;status-bydesign&lt;/a&gt;, as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a skip button makes particular sense in &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/review&quot;&gt;places with a review queue overload problem&lt;/a&gt;. Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, there &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and then in MSO &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see&quot;&gt;back in September&lt;/a&gt; as a bug in the flags page, and then &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113&quot;&gt;when the yellow number appeared in the top bar&lt;/a&gt;. If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="d000be46-2f3e-4f96-9326-0e3e9f7b1980" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;physics&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;physics&lt;/a&gt; is now an &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/181772/enable-the-intrinsic-sitename-tag-blacklist-on-older-sites&quot;&gt;intrinsic&lt;/a&gt; tag. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="7f024389-7bdb-4d84-bfc8-fb0507455365" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;This is a good place to document a nice SE Data Explorer query I cooked up recently. (This is not a direct answer to the question, but it does provide some useful data to inform decisions.) The query &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/161237/205482/timeline-of-posts-closed-as-homework&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Timeline of posts closed as homework&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; plots the accumulation plot of questions created in the past 3 months (or some other period you specify) which were closed as Off-Topic and were tagged as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;homework&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;homework&lt;/a&gt; (or some other tag you specify). Currently the data shows a sharp increase in the rate of homework closures at about the start of term (I complained about it in chat &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13290286#13290286&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which also has a graph as of January 20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The output looks something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cz8Qc.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old data, though, must be taken with a grain of salt, because many of the relevant questions (and particularly the more annoying ones) are automatically deleted by the system. For more details, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that/5222#5222&quot;&gt;the post deletion documentation on the mother meta&lt;/a&gt;, but in short, questions closed as Off-Topic can get deleted as soon as 9 days after their last edit if they have score ≤0 and no upvoted or accepted answers. This thinning down of the data is evident upon comparing the graph in this post with the one in chat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="1ce7baf9-b0a2-4a44-b107-46754e27887b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The rather lengthy conditions are given on Meta.SO: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43019&quot;&gt;How do comment @replies work?&lt;/a&gt; In particular, these two points explain that &lt;code&gt;@&lt;/code&gt;-pinging is both unnecessary and auto-deleted in your case - both you and the author of that post will ping each other automatically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a user comments on their own post and there is only one person who has previously commented, then that person is also notified if @name is forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first author of the question or answer will always be notified of any new comment. There is no need to use @name to notify them. (You may still use it for clarity, if needed; however if only you and the author have been commenting on the post so far, the @name will be automatically removed from the beginning of the comment, as it adds no value.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="3bce81f4-130d-4703-9921-b7348f50e1c1" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;The one-stop shop for tracking your badge progress (not that you should really be doing that) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3230/badge-progress-reports/143653#143653&quot;&gt;this answer to Badge Progress Reports on the mother meta&lt;/a&gt;. There are  usually a few relevant queries in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange Data Explorer&lt;/a&gt; to choose from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this particular case, I can't find one that looks reliable; the mother meta thread points to &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&quot;&gt;the reputation page&lt;/a&gt; that Brandon pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're feeling competitive, though, &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/160805/legendary-badge-advancement-topcount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Legendary Badge advancement TopCount&lt;/a&gt; will show the leaderboard: the number of days users have reached the daily cap, from über-legendary to mortarboard. &lt;a href=&quot;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/129639/top-users-by-the-number-of-times-they-earned-200-day&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Top users by the number of times they earned 200/day&#xA;&lt;/a&gt; does the same, though there's a slight discrepancy with the first one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're wondering exactly what the criterion is, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/88526&quot;&gt;this answer by Nick Craver&lt;/a&gt;, and his comments below it, confirms that you only need 200 reputation total in &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42184/&quot;&gt;one day&lt;/a&gt; to add a count towards these badges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="f15e17ab-dc57-4185-b98f-5262fff37460" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Since this has been brought up a few times, here's the available info on requesting a temporary suspension of one's account to help with site overuse issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest I can remember is a comment of Shog9's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have seen more than one person request a suspension voluntarily due to realizing they were unable to balance their time on the site with other responsibilities... – Shog9♦ Dec 6 '12 at 17:36&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;though he quickly would &quot;generally suggest other ways of temporarily revoking your own access&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has come up a few times, from what I can tell, in MSO, and particularly &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106604/can-an-account-be-self-suspended&quot;&gt;Can an account be self-suspended&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32299/ban-myself-button-in-user-profiles&quot;&gt;&quot;Ban myself&quot; button in user profiles&lt;/a&gt;. The useful-looking &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21774/how-do-you-escape-an-addiction-to-stackoverflow-or-other-it-sites&quot;&gt;How do you escape an addiction to Stack Overflow?&lt;/a&gt; has been closed for some reason. It has definitely happened occasionally but it is my impression that the SE team is in general not particularly in favour of this. In this site, it would come down to whether our mod team think it's the most appropriate course of action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that like most other artificial devices to stop your participation - chrome nanny, userscripts, host file modifications - it is easy to circumvent by setting up a new account. It does have the advantage that your reputation is and privileges are locked away from you, but if you've managed to sidestep the ban then all you've accomplished as a whole is to make your experience of the site more miserable and more guilt-ridden than before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I don't think this is really the way to go. I don't agree with Nikolaj's tone, but if you find you can't stop coming here, you should see it, at least for the sake of self-analysis, as an addiction, and learn to come to grips with it that way. Find out what triggers you, personally, to come here instead of working on your research, and change those triggers. Or simply drive them down to an acceptable level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be a shame to watch you go, though!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="de3ecaf0-28c3-42db-bae1-0861c0acf3e5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I think that your point, that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;users with more rep points can throw around bad answers without much repercussions, while newer users get smashed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is wrong on both counts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As an 'established user', posting an egregiously wrong answer and getting called out on it is a lot more visible, and a lot more embarrassing, than for new users. Further, people will be more focused on helping new users understand why their answer is wrong, and they will be less forgiving with more established users, tending to simply point out where the mistake is and why it is fatal if it is.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even as a new user, it is actually very hard to get &quot;smashed&quot; by a wrong answer. I definitely empathize with the feeling, as a new user, that every bit of rep is precious as you try to climb the privileges ladder; all of us felt the same at some point. However, downvotes are very light! It takes five downvotes to undo the rep from a single upvote. It would take thirteen downvotes to make you drop down the shortest privilege gap after 15 rep.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Downvotes are a feedback mechanism. They are a way for the community to tell you that your content is incorrect, and they are an opportunity for you to use the community to help you fix it. You should of course be open-minded and reasonable, but if you are then you will either end up with a correct answer or an understanding of why your previous thoughts were wrong. Either way, in real-world terms you come out ahead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you manage to fix your answer, then you will start getting upvotes. If the answer is fundamentally flawed, there is nothing wrong with deleting it! There is no shame in it and very few people will even know it's there. It will also &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/2638/184688&quot;&gt;restore your reputation&lt;/a&gt;: you can force a recalculation of your rep on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&quot;&gt;reputation page&lt;/a&gt; (or it will happen automatically with some regularity) and this will not count downvotes on deleted questions. Reputation-wise, you're back to where you started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we're speaking about downvotes: don't be afraid to post things like these in meta, either. Downvotes here do not affect your reputation, and tend to be an indication of whether people agree with your proposals or the premises of your question. As long as you're polite and open-minded, and follow the usual civility rules, nothing much can happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="7a8e3362-6519-4dec-aa39-e60c3668ed13" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Go forth and answer!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there are some sites where this can lead to issues. For example, on &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com&quot;&gt;StackOverflow&lt;/a&gt; a number of users &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem&quot;&gt;race to be the first to post minimally helpful links&lt;/a&gt;, since that gets the most reputation per unit effort, resulting in a bunch of decidedly unhelpful tidbits that look like they were drawn from a live help session. As long as you are posting good, thorough answers, this isn't a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another concern on &lt;a href=&quot;http://tex.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;TeX&lt;/a&gt; is that there is a very small core of very good answerers (mostly the people who developed TeX and its brethren), and if they answer all the easy questions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1867/should-high-rep-users-hang-back-a-little&quot;&gt;new users will be discouraged from participating in the community&lt;/a&gt;. I doubt we will ever have that problem here. Between the number of questions we get and the breadth of topics they cover, no small group of people could answer them all (at least not well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only other catch I'll mention is that you should not just blindly answer things. Take a look around at what established users take to be good questions. For example, if someone posts their homework assignment expecting us to just do it for them, we (high-rep users) &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; close it, and probably throw a few downvotes at it too. Our efforts at keeping up the quality and integrity of this site are made more difficult when new users quickly post solutions to these questions before we react.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should keep up your enthusiasm. My own experience is that after reaching 10k rep I grew far more picky in terms of which questions I would spend time answering. There are certainly posts where I know I could write a good answer, but I'm tired of explaining the same topic (e.g. the expansion of the universe) for the umpteenth time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="a844506d-cbbb-44dc-a598-92c3e333956a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Just a quick note on a relevant development at MSO:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue&quot;&gt;Let's get rid of the 10K flag queue&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, if it goes through, much of this discussion would be obsolete. I quite like it, by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="5628a275-fee8-452c-bcd9-10470e7b1752" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the votes should be reversed within 24 hours. If they're not, then it's time to let a moderator know, on meta or chat or by a custom flag on one of the affected posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further information see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed&quot;&gt;this post on meta.SO&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="79b63848-d596-4876-82b4-d5e3222a161b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you're allowed to create multiple accounts, but there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57682/how-should-sockpuppets-be-handled-on-stack-exchange&quot;&gt;some restrictions on how you can use them&lt;/a&gt;. Let me quote the key part of that answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;if the second account allows you to do something on the site that your normal account would be prevented from doing, it is abuse.&lt;/strong&gt;  Examples of this include (but are not limited to):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Voting on your own posts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Casting multiple votes on others' posts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Supporting your own arguments (&lt;em&gt;&quot;+1: shog is right, don't know why the rest of you don't realize this&quot;&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Using bounties to circumvent the rep cap&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Circumventing suspensions, quality bans, or the rate limits on posting questions / answers / comments / etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the evidence available to moderators is suggestive of any of these activities, we'll take whatever corrective action is necessary. Usually that means merging and suspending the accounts, but of course it could vary on a case by case basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to create multiple accounts and use them regularly, I'd suggest thinking carefully about why you want to do so, and whether you really need to. Although, as I said, it is &lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt; to create and regularly use multiple accounts, it's not very common to have a good reason for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, Physics Forums is a completely different kind of site. In general, anything you may know about their policies won't necessarily apply here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="9b1a3035-173a-49a1-9083-56e1c4d671fa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;If you want to force a recalculation of your reputation, the reputation page at&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&quot;&gt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;will give you an exhaustive breakdown and force a recalc. I currently see your reputation  at 2,010, so you're above that threshold, but as dmckee notes it is perfectly plausible for someone to have upvoted one of your answers, triggering the announcement, and then retracted the vote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Votes can be retracted &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34323/im-getting-your-vote-is-too-old-to-be-changed-for-a-vote-i-made-less-than&quot;&gt;within the first five minutes after they're cast&lt;/a&gt;, in which case they do not show up in your reputation history. They can also &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19235/is-this-a-bug-in-voting-or-is-it-supposed-to-work-like-this&quot;&gt;be retracted if the post is edited&lt;/a&gt;, in which case you will get a corresponding &lt;code&gt;-10&lt;/code&gt; on your reputation history, with the explanation &lt;code&gt;unupvote&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/tNPNP.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5212/what-are-the-limits-on-how-i-can-cast-change-and-retract-votes&quot;&gt;What are the limits on how I can cast, change, and retract votes?&lt;/a&gt; at the mother meta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="23cae093-5e0a-48a3-a2f1-97f607a80a9d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I continue to be befuddled by what exactly one is supposed to do with flags in the 10k tools, and I'm quite relieved to know &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue&quot;&gt;they're going away soon&lt;/a&gt;. In the meantime, though, here's a stumper I just came across in my flagging history:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/mzWH9.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The post in question is &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104304/without-seeing-the-lightning-can-you-tell-how-far-away-it-struck-by-how-the-thu/104308#104308&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, which came up flagged as Not an Answer if I remember correctly. I understand why someone would flag this - it was only a sort-of good fit to the question to begin with - but I disagree that it failed to address the original intent of the OP. Particularly, I felt it did answer the question in its state at the time, with a less specific title. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, given the current state of the question, I can understand that it might best be classed as Not an Answer. Given that, I can understand that my &lt;code&gt;invalid flags&lt;/code&gt; is disputed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm completely stumped, however, at the message. &lt;code&gt;Flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&lt;/code&gt;? That has absolutely nothing to do with why I flagged this way. The technical content of the post was never an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could someone elucidate what on Earth this message means and how it came into being?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="ef62781e-1e24-41d8-8ced-24cd640748e5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Unicoins are at present functional in certain features of the site. You can obtain them by mining them on the same applet window where you can spend them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xj9yK.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, it appears most monetary means to obtain Unicoins are taking some time to go online. That means that at present there is no way to obtain them other than mining. If you feel strongly about it, there are ways to automate the mining so that your browser will do the work for you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information about Unicoins in general, as well as said automation methods, see the Meta StackOverflow question  &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/227363/what-are-stack-overflow-unicoins&quot;&gt;What are Stack Overflow unicoins?&lt;/a&gt;. I should also mention that if you like Unicoins you should hurry to make the best of them, as certain commentators have hinted that this feature &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;may be available for a limited time only&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="dfa3783c-92a4-4c97-9ac4-573b907f94ea" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;So it seems the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue&quot;&gt;10k flag queue is being removed&lt;/a&gt; with essentially no replacement. The general consensus over at SO (or at least my own reading of it) seems to be that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moderators ignored 10k feedback in dealing with flags, and in fact this feedback was an encumbrance to them; and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;10k users have better things to do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This raises a few Physics-specific questions. Regarding (1), &lt;strong&gt;do the moderators here not use (or minimally use) the feedback 10k users provide via flags?&lt;/strong&gt; If that information was never useful, then there is no loss here, though in the future it would be nice to be told &quot;ignore that feature; we don't want you to add flags.&quot; If it was useful, are we losing functionality with the imminent change, and is there any way to recover it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding (2), &lt;strong&gt;what else can I be doing as a 10k user?&lt;/strong&gt; I understand there are several information overviews tabulating migrations, voting trends, comment activity, etc. But these seem to be more for my own personal consumption; it's not clear how to use this information to &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; anything. A perfectly valid answer might be &quot;nothing - 10k users are just like any other user who can vote to close (3k) but can't vote to delete (20k),&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; but if that's the case this should really be spelled out clearly somewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Well okay, tag wiki approval (5k) and protecting questions (15k) are in that range too, but these are pretty lightly used features here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="5023f894-5079-490d-b9d9-77874c648e2d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:14:35.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;I've been looking through the new &lt;a href=&quot;http://physicsoverflow.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Physics Overflow beta&lt;/a&gt;¹ and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&quot;&gt;Theoretical Physics SE&lt;/a&gt;. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says &lt;em&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for &lt;strong&gt;active researchers, academics and students&lt;/strong&gt; (my emphasis)&lt;/em&gt;. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;¹ Note that the Physics Overflow is not part of the Stack Exchange network  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="ac78da26-bdae-4558-830a-cf3a67618997" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Most people have enough of a sense of the concept of &quot;fair play&quot; that I'd like to think this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly going to come up, and we don't want people from legitimately using this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cribbing from [StackOverflow][1] - on which the Mathematics.StackExchange site builds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two principles involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;It is okay to ask about homework&lt;/b&gt;. For one, it would be impossible to stop it all even if we wanted to. Stack Overflow exists to help programmers learn and provide a standard repository for programming problems, both simple and complex, and this includes helping students.&lt;/li&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest&lt;/b&gt;. Therefore you might choose to treat homework questions differently than other questions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it'll be nigh-impossible to determine in advance which are homework questions 100% of the time. On the other hand, there will be those questions are going to stick out like a sore thumb as obvious homework. I don't think we want to get in the habit of providing homework answers directly, as that directly violates principle 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's wrong to inquire if a question is a homework or class-related question in the comments. If it is, the questioner ought to be willing to accept help in a form similar to what they might get from a reasonably accommodating professor or TA, and it should be our job to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, if we could get people with homework questions to **voluntarily** tag their questions appropriately, then everyone would benefit. Maybe this ought to be in our FAQs or guidelines somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10811/homework-on-stackoverflow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="9764ae58-f760-4815-8127-a05e2dc7e0d6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[No](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26483/could-we-have-the-ability-to-mark-a-change-as-minor-in-questions-or-answers/26496#26496)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="d8e4797f-3883-4239-86e4-bedfbf7b13b8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There are already members of the SE team who are registered on the site and have moderator powers, but I don't think they participate heavily in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator-choosing process is described in e.g. this [post on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site/58056#58056) but here's the gist: about a week after the public beta starts, temporary moderators will be chosen by the Stack Exchange team, based on community input. Then later on, after the end of the beta period, there will be an election of permanent moderators - or rather, an election of moderator _candidates_ to indicate who the community prefers, but I'm sure the results will be reviewed by the SE team and the final choice is up to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="93de8db3-c362-41e1-829d-5294c2c50ac3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The following is with respect to SO ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com), the site that started the whole SE business), which we are not but since it works good there we should at least think about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeff Atwood [stated](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3774/add-meta-tag-to-support-internationalization/7320#7320) (regarding non-english posts on http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe programmers who speak only Mandarin, or French, or Spanish, are better off forming their own communities and centers of gravity. Shared language is one of the fundamental aspects of community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just visit Chinatown in nearby San Francisco to see what I mean.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some digging I found [this blog post from '07](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/) as a follow-up on the discussion [We need to help non-English-speakers somehow…](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/), and the faq-entry [Is English required on Stack Overflow?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13676/146482)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, on SO the policy is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I say keep it in English. I'm not against diversity or other languages, I'm for us all being able to communicate under one. This isn't political, this isn't about smothering peoples cultures with Western ideologies. It is about being pragmatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that multiple languages on one site cause confusion. But we should not &quot;ban&quot; non-english speakers, so I suggest we do not vote on non-english posts (both questions and answers) and try to translate things to english as good as possible. As soon as the correctness of the translation is verified, the original text should be removed - it will still be available by clicking on the _edited by_ link. Maybe one can edit in a  &#xD;&#xA;    `[original version in russian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/519/revisions#rev3252802a-affc-499f-9316-3e44d8a4f81c)`  &#xD;&#xA;link or post that as comment, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="8a426d18-8544-4a37-9294-b4d9002f8921" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="3790d4ce-da3e-49ce-b275-91446a11c9ed" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is SE-wide bug; if you need this +100 now, create account on any other SE site, this should make the transfer here. Yet this will be fixed, hopefully soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta question: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/70147/account-association-not-giving-100/70149#70149&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="3e447492-a71f-474a-a6c7-c62881c9753f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="It is already posted on Meta.SO by KennyTM, so all we can do is wait (or upvote the post on meta): http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68388/there-should-be-universal-latex-mathjax-guide-for-sites-supporting-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="dfd7deda-8b44-4e4f-be34-678bcabd8499" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt; First, is there a way to insert line-breaks into a comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No there isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be also nice if [Enter] didn't submit the comment; this still surprises me sometimes and makes me add unfinished comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More generally, is there some nice FAQ or other resource where one can learn everything about the site's user interface?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask a [meta-tag:support] question in http://meta.stackoverflow.com/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="5d615724-e522-497b-bbc0-5f72d4a8df04" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I think the theory is that if a 'comment' is long enough and has enough structure to require paragraphs (i.e. line breaks), then it should really be answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I quite like that it just takes [Enter] to submit comments. This is a recent change in the user interface of this site, and makes comment writing a bit quicker, in the case where one leaves many short comments (as I often do). [Shift-Enter] still gives you a normal line-break (only visible in the editor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [the set of `faq`-tagged questions on Meta StackOverflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) you may find quite helpful. These are generally large community-wiki style questions detailing various aspects of StackExchange sites, dating back to the early days of StackOverflow (but updated a lot since)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="c4a23470-4fa2-4f21-b8c0-bb07c368e8cf" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I use the [Greasemonkey script for displaying threaded comments](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43055/146482) to get a better overview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://unicorn.&amp;#252;-wie-geek.de/threaded2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still have to click on `show more comments...` if necessary, and the heuristic is of course not always perfect, but I like it. Other useful greasemonkey scripts can be found in [this thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/3687/146482) and [that one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5188/146482) at meta.SO, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Show unread questions](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3687/greasemonkey-script-ideas-best-of-stackoverflow-greasemonkey-implementations/25927#25927)&#xD;&#xA;- [Highlight which tag is the interesting one, plus different shading if more than one tag is interesting](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49704/double-intensity-shading-for-questions-with-1-interesting-tags/49724#49724)&#xD;&#xA;- [Script to add “reply” links to comments](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/38600/146482)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="67eacc54-4207-44ed-83d4-ea32266d7c1d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Recently physics.SE has seem more users regularly including salutations and sign-off in their posts. That [behavior has been strongly discouraged on Stack Overflow][1] for a very long time, and I would prefer the same here. But I'm not ready to start a major editing campaign without polling the locals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Editing for Brevity?][2] (Closed as a duplicate of the above, but much more recent and containing some additional discussion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/37439/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="a691c734-3fa0-4fff-bd26-0f0a68eac040" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="0db14b5e-9cc0-403e-9629-21cc000176e1" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="We already show a reminder to those who downvote and are below 2k rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(don't worry, no posts were harmed in the creation of this screenshot)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rational way to *force* people to leave a comment explaining their downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have some free time and wish to read the weeks and weeks of discussion on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2263/require-comments-on-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6521/allow-users-to-leave-an-anonymous-comment-when-voting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Linked&quot; and &quot;Related&quot; columns of those questions are voluminous and probably cover every possible permutation of this conversation we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzdqj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="562d0f13-cd55-4b34-a4de-a262034599db" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Yes -- this is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67054/can-we-grandfather-in-rep-abilities-as-sites-leave-beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more detail at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="e5e7931f-0b35-4892-8ffc-1e883f9fce01" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Thanks for the design. However I am not exactly pleased with what it does to the [highlight SOFU tag](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/49704/146482) greasemonkey script which made it easy to spot which and how many tags of a question actually are favourites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tagged][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QKYNb.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="31dfa8e5-f1c7-469f-9aa4-4b1ed874290f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The system automatically bumps old questions which don't have any (upvoted?) answers, under the guise of the &quot;Community&quot; user, in order to expose them to fresh eyes. See [this MSO question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6981/why-does-a-question-appear-as-modified-by-the-community-user) for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="592bc2ec-aadb-4d74-830b-6a1bfc7486fa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I like it. But since taste is subjective, I still hope that [Allow individual SE theming settings](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64697/allow-individual-se-theming-settings) will get accepted. Until then, those who don't like the current design can have a look [here](http://stackapps.com/questions/2113/beta-gaming-se-black-edition) for some inspiration how to manipulate this to one's individual pleasing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="d44e12cb-af9e-424d-941c-a4087725104e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2011 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/610). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please add your replies to the chat room and comment here so they can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="5f52a097-23c8-40d7-937b-77c0ac65e7df" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Bounties are assigned separately from accepted answers. You can add bounties to your questions or other people's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#bounty&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="cf54414e-076b-44c5-a175-c2cf4efaf0fe" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Assuming you're asking about the rules governing when a user can be suspended: there is only one, &quot;don't be a jerk.&quot; This is intentionally vague. Suspensions are imposed at the discretion of the moderators. Generally they only occur after an official warning has been given but has not had the desired effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is discussed on [this MSO question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23366/suspension-reasons), and [this MSO answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23661/what-is-the-point-of-a-30-day-account-suspension/23681#23681) (though I'm not saying we're obligated to use that exact sequence on this site)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="5bd8a44f-7a2a-49c6-9fa2-1cd54a8bf7c2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="In case you want to now about these, [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange) is a the thread at meta.SO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="e7226b11-b1a8-4721-aace-c33882f7a68c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="You have [encountered][1] the [&quot;frequented tags&quot;][2] feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't set any &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot; tags by hand the system will eventually attempt to guess what you are interested in from your history; these are your &quot;frequented tags&quot; and they are highlighted for you in the various question list views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make it go away by setting some tags as &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot;, though that will give you a different type of highlighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74943/how-do-i-remove-a-frequented-tag&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="e9185f73-a962-4828-8073-73eed6ec14fc" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There are limited email notification available already, and the topic has been [discussed heavily on the mother meta][1]. You will find that the official policy is to use email as a backup form of communication, not as a [substitute for visiting the site][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider using [the RSS feeds][3] (available at the bottom of most pages on the site) to follow sites/questions/tags/users that interest you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?tab=relevance&amp;q=email%20notification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14555/notify-more-frequently-than-once-a-day/14600#14600&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/email-notifications-for-new-questions-matching-specific-tags/25225#25225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="403edc57-3777-4550-89ef-ab28a70bbdba" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Closing does not necessarily block the question from getting answered, in that the server will accept answers but the UI generally tries to discourage this. See here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/79434/why-was-an-answer-allowed-on-a-question-that-was-merged-into-another-one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Migration does, however, when the question is locked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="0b58c366-c406-4b66-98b3-baa981fd563a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accepting an answer does ***not*** indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular questions are not in any sense *&quot;open&quot;* or *&quot;unanswered&quot;* until there is a green checkmark and *&quot;closed&quot;* or *&quot;answered&quot;* afterwards. Note that [there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [formal definition of *&quot;unanswered&quot;* for the purposes of the unanswered tab][2] is *&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense it is unfortunate that the site puts so much visual emphasis on accepted answers, because I prefer the current system but new users don't see a clear explanation of the meaning of acceptance and simply draw their own conclusions from the emphasis the site gives to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance][3] have [appeared][4] on the mother meta [many][5] [many][6] [times][7] without the team taking any action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="d1fdf61f-61ff-406c-a10e-c9419331e43d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As David said, it is proprietary. However, here is a list of [OpenSource clones](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-clones) of the engine. IMO the most advanced are [Shapado](http://shapado.com/) and [OSQA](http://www.osqa.net/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="8eebd770-e0cd-4f1a-933b-c350747b0b34" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This [(admittedly old) question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/are-answers-that-just-contain-links-elsewhere-really-good-answers) on meta.SO concerns the handling of answers which contain a link and essentially nothing else. There are some varied opinions on how to handle such answers, ranging from upvoting (the view that as long as the answer to the question can be found at the link, it's fine) to flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; (the view that &quot;outsourcing&quot; the burden of answering to another site is effectively useless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since physics is somewhat different from programming, it occurs to me that the discussion on meta.SO might not be _completely_ applicable to this site. **What does the physics.SE community think of link-only answers?** Do we upvote them, edit them, downvote them, flag them, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="1e301401-e31c-48e5-98cd-0b6b9f8217c7" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[This message will automatically go away after 60 days.](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57707/a-suggestion-of-yes-no-button-in-front-of-this-have-you-considered-accepting-an)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if nothing worth accepting shows up in that time, you'll at least be rid of it that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="a6c0199a-9a2f-4149-8113-1d74585514a1" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There is [no][1] private [messaging][2] system, [nor will there every be][3]. The team has been [quite firm][4] on this. The mantra is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is not a social network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Options that are available to you][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in a comment (which you should probably delete afterwards)&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in chat&#xD;&#xA;* Looking in the user's profile: people who want to be contacted out-of-band can provide the means there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/4830/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/57203/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/85255/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/431/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57537/how-do-i-contact-other-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="68346bbb-fcfd-44c6-9545-e9b01284180a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Cross-posting questions across Stack Exchange sites is strongly discouraged. See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-it-possible-to-post-questions-across-a-couple-of-the-sites-because-its-debata/64073#64073&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Allowing cross-posting [across the Stack Exchange network] is a slippery slope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you might have slightly better odds of getting an answer by posting it on two sites, well, by gum, why not maximize your odds by posting it on *twenty sites!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some questions which fall into grey areas between sites, and I think it's OK to **ask and delete, then re-ask** if you feel you have asked on the wrong site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But as a general rule, do not cross-post questions, please. Pick a site and go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also ok to ask *two different versions* of a question but you MUST tailor it to the audience on that site. Copying and pasting would put you on the road to account suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there's also the issue of cross-posting on multiple websites that aren't Stack Exchange sites.. so long as you're willing to be *responsible* for the question everywhere you asked it, this can be ok-ish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="05b5045e-804b-4e78-b8ba-a554270ce091" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I saw an ad in the top banner when I visited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could just as easily be an ad for this site.  If Physicsforums.com is an important site, sponsoring an ad there would be a good way to drive traffic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps [CHAOS](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100137/what-is-the-meaning-of-chaos-is-it-related-to-the-psi-character) should get involved in this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gsdMM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="7d828256-b624-4a23-a947-e464b6cd18ec" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="To copy from the comment I left you: the Stack Exchange system automatically reverses runs of apparent &quot;revenge downvoting&quot;. If the downvotes don't disappear within 36 hours, send an email to team@stackexchange.com identifying the questions that are still downvoted. There isn't anything that we (moderators) can do about it, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in more detail on the main meta site, for example [this answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23005/preventing-users-from-downvoting-good-answers-to-bad-questions/23010#23010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you can't lose the privilege of asking questions due to reputation. All users, even those with 1 reputation, can ask questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="5c665bf1-e2cd-4720-9c5d-7905818fe636" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with [the Logo turtle question][1] and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xD;&#xA;But recently [Jeff disagreed][2], and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained [some][3] questions [about][4] physics for which there is [sparse][5] experimental evidence or [theoretical support][6]. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputable (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="b2119fe0-565c-4c00-9cbd-5b67cc7c9467" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often _tend_ to be [better](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) than the ones that are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by **encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions**. I think it's good for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that **in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question**, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm **not** saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm also **not** saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does _nothing_ to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is _really_ asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="0b4221b6-5535-4e31-a603-e046b834424d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There are really two types of question titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Good titles that describe the content of the question in an accurate way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want #1, and definitely not #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to get there, but you *don't* want to start arbitrarily forcing everyone to prefix their questions with &quot;How do I..&quot; because that would actually harm the titles. See the excellent guidelines here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/10648/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR -- you want *good, descriptive* titles, a question title in the formal tone of a question can be every bit as bad as one that isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="9f4ca292-7692-41bb-be8b-f9a4cd8db849" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Unfortunately there is no way to do this. It has been proposed as a feature request [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1170/should-i-be-able-to-cancel-my-up-vote-on-a-comment) and declined. Comments don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things anyway, so try not to worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="916985f8-a4fa-4423-8286-937bb346441c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There are a few recent questions ( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20622/how-to-compute-resting-position-given-initial-position-initial-velocity-and-dec) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The network overlords have considered implementing [a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/) to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was [too easily abused](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason) to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just leave these kinds of questions alone&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave the ones about physics _concepts_ alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&#xD;&#xA;3. Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&#xD;&#xA;4. Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that **no physics topic is too elementary to ask about**. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="649f826d-6fd2-4784-bcb7-7778d7ec498b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="IE8 generates [a fair number of complaints on the mother meta][1], but I don't see one exactly like this. The closest I've got is [Autologin working sporadically?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this started recently after it was working for a while? The team does tinker with the code and this could be a regression if it is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=IE8&amp;submit=search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/109618/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="e29e853b-0872-4d69-97aa-3afc4b77d753" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This has already been proposed [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form). The way things are going, it seems unlikely to be implemented any time soon, but you should definitely add your vote to that proposal on MSO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="122afa7a-039e-4f88-ac38-af2c04afdb99" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="No real point; there isn't any rep or anything. It's just something to strive for. You see all those badges and think &quot;I should get some more&quot;. Getting a badge on asking/answering a question (which is the first thing you do when you join) is a way to introduce the concept of badges. A new user sees that he got a badge, and investigates. He feels like getting more badges, so he works towards some of them. It benefits the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges are used by many online communities. It's a way of setting goals for the users; and helps retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17853/how-do-badges-work as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="c89c914f-7920-4ca5-8726-5455c58b4aad" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The intent of this feature is that you accept the answer which actually solves your problem. This originated on Stack Overflow, and it makes sense there because for programming questions, it's easy for the original poster to try out various solutions and unambiguously determine which one actually works. For physics questions, on the other hand, the OP may not be in a position to judge which answer (if any) is correct, so accepting doesn't always make quite as much sense for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, it does offer a way to show that you've gotten a satisfactory answer, and so accepting an answer can be thought of as a way to mark a question as &quot;resolved.&quot; It's not resolved in the sense you might see the term elsewhere, though - if a question has an accepted answer, that shouldn't discourage you from posting your own answer if you think it adds value. Questions with accepted answers should certainly **not** be considered &quot;closed&quot; in any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you accept an answer to your question, the person who posted the answer gets 15 reputation, and you get 2 reputation. This is meant to encourage people to accept answers to their questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see [this question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work) on Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="a2486194-7728-4fd5-98e7-1403840f0792" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt; [Related chat snippet][1]([s][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple times, I see a question and feel &quot;oh, `&lt;xyz&gt;` would be able to post a brilliant answer to this one&quot;. Quite a few nice questions get pushed down; out of the notice of the specialists. Sometimes I may want `&lt;xyz&gt;`s advice on a particular answer that I've seen. Aside from that, there are numerous other reasons where you may want to contact a specific user. For this, I [proposed a feature at MSO][3], but it probably won't go through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what I propose is this:&#xD;&#xA;A meta question, on which a user can post their username and specialties as a separate answer. A user need not be a specialist in anything(eg, me) to post. Maybe the question can be tagged [meta-tag:featured] so that everyone gets a look-see at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of such a post will be to allow anyone to ping that user with P.SE related comments. It should be entirely opt-in, nobody's forcing anyone :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are spam issues and other stuff, so I want to see some of your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3751540#3751540&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/3754680#3754680&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127333/allow-users-to-opt-in-to-being-superpinged-in-chat-by-anyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="e9115b83-f6f4-45cb-baf6-6dc7b77da71a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Related [suggestions][1] have [been made][2] on [the mother][3] meta [many][4] times, the official position is that user who wish to be contactable put contact information in the *About Me* field of their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintaining a list of such users would, of course, be fine--a question here on meat.physics would be perfect for that purpose--but the system isn't going to support your getting their attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41474/request-a-specific-expert-on-a-subject-to-answer-your-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30564/how-to-ask-a-question-to-a-particular-user-of-stackoverflow-com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/113561/asking-specific-people-to-answer-my-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16757/how-do-you-contact-a-stackoverflow-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="51ced690-bb6f-493d-a01c-f266c9929f9f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="054b531c-5f3e-41c6-8ed2-bc45f9704bfa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="See [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serial upvoting is handled automatically and you don't need to get a moderator/Meta involved. In this case it's just two votes though, so I doubt it would be detected as fraud (it's usually many votes when fraud occurs, but there cut off isn't publicly known). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, don't worry about it. In this case it's doubtful they had any ill or improper intent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="037bd426-9921-4a44-aa9f-4c81d8edbff2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="00de61da-21f2-4eb0-aacd-de2e49ee58be" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="That's explained in [What does &quot;user was removed&quot; mean and why did my reputation change because of it?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it). Basically, when another user's account is deleted, any votes they may have cast for you are reverted and your reputation can change accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="f220f23e-f61a-4429-9569-9c41c1a07138" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="there are many factual and insightful things you write, but then from time to time cringe-worthy statements I wouldn't expect from a student (&quot;you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power&quot;). I had a similar start like you on SE, some sites here like skeptics.se or philosophy.se don't fit at all my level of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. I left such sites instead of trying to improve them, it's pointless trying to yield my desired level on it by contributing q&amp;a. [I explained here ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130542) why some proposal work and some not. The quality/level of a single site is strongly linked to the amount of experts attracted during area51 process. You can only make minor improvments to such sites by clever moderation and attracting more experts afterwards (**e.g. theophys user don't want to participate here for the same reasons you try to improve this site**). The level of necessary background knowledge is just to different among user to waste here their time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have a usenet-background, I too. That is unfiltered anarchy, thats also the system most uni's run in my experience innofficially. But SE is democracy, hierarchy, filtering, ranking, sorting (**why do you think there are no downvotes/rep for comments? To stop endless discussion and force competition and several answers. This is the most important non-feature of SE**), elections of poor and good mods,..... you know all this stuff that happens in democracy too. It's a imperfect system for imperfect people. But have you seen a better one for big communities? Why did you stop posting on usenet, wikipedia and joined this system. Ask and answer this yourself and I'm sure we all can save a lot meta time and useless discussion with/about you here. I already told you that your bio's (while entertaining on christianity and philosophy :D ) are not really productive for you. Also yelling for new mods on physics.se and phil.se is really naive, what do you expect. &quot;Hey our german 38 year old  vice-chancellor is  in my opinion not qualified for his job. Can we please try somebody else (I really think this)&quot;. But he was elected by the majority. Just stop this, how can a smart guy like you think this can/will work??? You're biting on granite and wasting your and our time here. Invent a better system. Contribute answers here, discuss in forums like usenet of physicsforums.com. There are physicists who don't like for mentioned reasons usenet (too much spam and crackpot-theorists), q&amp;a boards (moderation, no discussion), forums (too lengthy discussions)... **There is no perfect system that fits everybody's needs and philosophy of communication.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look to me like on a crusade. Trying to correct all bad answers on SE sites whichs seems at a first glance admirable and worth supporting ) but also pretty naive if one knows a little bit about human and group psychology and has participated in internet discussions since a decade. [The problems of wikipedia authoring are well-known](http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed), lenghty discussions with arrogant mods, SE resolves this problem by competing answers. **And with all your comments &amp; corrections you are trying to re-introduce this wikipedia editing style here again**. Maybe unconsciously as you are still in your trained usenet and wikipedia modus operandi. Well, quit this, or you end like Georg. I'm sure a physics.se site with 10-20 Ron Maimons and Georg's wouldn't work (most agreed that tolerating the escapades of one Ron Maimon is ok) and would end in even worse overall level of tolerance and respect than on usenet and wikipedia due to the rep thing and real names, thats why I asked user here to think about if such bios are really helpful. You see how fast people can change their mind and ask you to calm down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made quite some meta posts on science SE sites recently. Because I would like to see open science really working and I'm interested if and how super-moderation of  autarchic communities can work, when become things uncommunicable, how can meta user and mods find common set of values, level and scope of a site (we make a similar experiment in germany currently, direct democracy with liquid feedback community software in the pirates party). SE and Quora are a important steps here. Maybe there will come even better hybrid systems. If you want to create high quality communities, you need a clever system like here (area51, voting, meta, filtering), ranting about content, bad and wrong answers here a lot is a drop in the bucket and even more in forums, usenet and wikipedia, where users like you already failed with their demands. **I come to SE to read different views by different users, not wikipedias common denominator stuff, commenting or editing an answer towards subjective &quot;correct&quot; content here is the huge misconception you seemingly have and brought over here from your wikipedia days.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you aren't blogging. Well I'm aware without publications, university position, PHD a physics blog doesn't attract a lot of comments/views nowadays anymore. You probably too. Without credentials only few would read Motl's blog imho. So this is probably the best place to invest your time. Nonetheless I'm still wondering why you didn't participate more in theophys.se if the quality of some answers here is so terrible? I begin to think you are trying to find out how much power your rep here gives you and the responses you get are not really surprising. May be start a Ron Maimon proposal? The SE system allows this ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="643ee15e-2bfb-4cf0-9298-0b10c7d96a64" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Because the question currently has a net score below -3 it will not appear on the  front page (http://physics.stackexchage.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an authoritative source just now, but this is alluded to in http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="8729006e-7f9c-43c5-9eb9-3d64d1a94654" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Related: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How do I determine what user was removed.   &#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to have the related up/down-votes listed to see what questions comments were effected?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="d8a28f00-8431-4bb0-b9fb-6b4444a14024" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in [Dilaton's MSO thread][1], so please allow me to set the record straight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site *temporarily* to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, [moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension/1377#1377).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that moderators don't have a &quot;ban&quot; button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and [read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When users exhibit a pattern of either …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###No effort to learn and improve over time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...*OR*...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Disruptive behavior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and *walk away*. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: *&quot;Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139349/why-are-there-drastic-moderator-actions-that-take-effect-immediately-when-execut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="3bc142b4-f2e4-428a-8a18-a46296600241" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I made [here](http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/a/293) a short analysis on why chemistry stats look bad (3rd bullet point). I believed with bio and phy.se existing, chemistry as connecting branch and huge overlap in research would be able to reach the **critical mass** of user and questions for a self-sustaining growth by user on bio/phy.se joining the site. But it looks very bad compared to a other science sites I observed since its start, I don't see many bio/phy user registered at all on chem.se. I also [asked on MO](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/141518/163173), what can be done to help those science sites. The main reason is probably that many commiters left the site (lasted nearly 2 years, which is of course too long). But if it gets closed, because it doesnt grow, and I start to believe sites that never reach the critical mass ever yield a substantial growth to establish a community, thats a huge downer. No chemistry on SE?! I mean, really. &quot;Waiting for further growth&quot; when older sites like cognitivesciences.se or linguistics.se didn't grow for months looks like desperation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be done? A lot of the chemistry questions are very specialized and localized, as most of the underlying theory belongs to physics, but this makes me even more wondering why many of the probably existing chem students reading physics.se dont take notice of chem.se or ask/answer questions there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="d29b073f-7687-4a5a-a9a1-327c63793bc7" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The reasons you're not required to leave a comment when downvoting, and why that is not going to change, are explained in detail in many questions on Meta Stack Overflow ([example](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you downvote a post, you're _encouraged_ (but never required) to explain what can be improved about it. Of course, this is also encouraged even if you don't downvote the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming at it from the other direction, when your post is downvoted and/or someone suggests an improvement, you have no obligation to do anything about it. Correcting the answer or deleting it are not your only choices. You can just leave it alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="b0296732-a1cd-47d3-b36d-aaae34998af2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There is no way to do this directly on the site, but you can do it using a user style sheet, which requires a browser extension like Stylish (for Firefox at least). You would need to set the `background-color` property for the `tagged-interesting` CSS class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been discussed a bit on MSO, e.g. [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78849/allow-custom-colorization-of-tags) and [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68853/choose-background-and-text-color-on-so)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="75081099-ad04-41cb-8931-c184e8b29c90" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is described [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92074/what-can-i-do-when-getting-it-does-not-meet-our-quality-standards). Here's the gist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Make sure your question has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a clear title&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a reasonable explanation of what your question is, sharing your research on the matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - correct use of English and actual sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's not an exhaustive list of what makes a good (or rather, non-bad) question, just some general guidelines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="80b78fce-8bc6-4554-bcfd-80e4f57ba793" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="All the relevant information on suggested edits can be found at [this question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work) and [this one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled) at Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="8b717149-789d-43b9-bd58-f6f24290575a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Based on clicking links from the links everyone else provided, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66592/define-your-own-color-of-tagged-interesting&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; accepted answer to be the only thing that actually helped me change it. I'm essentially CSS illiterate, so I needed it spelled out a little more thoroughly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="bf47c337-3765-4241-abf4-0eadc2bcd378" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is detailed in several questions on Meta Stack Overflow, for example [this one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144553/account-privacy-and-search-engines).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the way to hide personal information is simply by not entering that information in the first place. Most fields of the profile are optional, so you enter only what you want people to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The email address is one of several exceptions. Your email address will never be visible to anyone except moderators. (And the SE moderator code of conduct prohibits us from revealing that information to anyone else.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="320d47f9-e4bd-4fc4-be79-c004ea5f67ff" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There is no internal concept of &quot;following&quot; a user because (all together now) this [is not a social network][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, all is not lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are RSS feeds for users (and tag and question feeds). Click on the username to get to their profile page and look at the bottom right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/110958/can-we-finally-have-some-social-networking-features-on-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="7910e07e-4bda-486f-8262-1ee28ff80831" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="No, it cannot be done manually, not even by moderators, despite being a popular request on MSO ([1](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100967/should-move-to-chat-be-provided-on-demand-as-a-button-perhaps), [2](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93444/provide-a-tool-for-moderators-to-migrate-comments-to-chat), etc.). Unless and until we get this feature implemented, you have a couple of options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Just post a comment asking to continue the discussion in the chat room (you can either use the site's main chat room or create a new chat room)&#xD;&#xA;- Or keep the discussion going in the comments until the system gives you the automatic &quot;move to chat&quot; option. After you do that you can flag the first comment for a moderator to delete them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="255103ff-2fa0-4d63-9095-1ed956c44458" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As the moderator election 2012 is in progress, users (above 300 rep.) are invited to nominate themselves in the election. So, some users will ask themselves, &quot;Could I become a moderator?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly believe that these four lines don't necessarily answer their questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A moderator&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- is patient and fair&#xD;&#xA;- leads by example&#xD;&#xA;- shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&#xD;&#xA;- is open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are the basic needs for physics users to become moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should they be experts in at least one of the fields of Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp; badges)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp; be elected as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;A votes), etc. **count** during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read all the answers. All are *amazing*. I got some new *facts*. Thanks to all, guys. I believe that the [moderator cheat sheet](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet) would be very useful for a new moderator..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="5bdfa7f4-6e2f-404e-880d-c722f066bd11" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Being a moderator of another SE site I might be able to tell from my experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moderator has to make some difficult decisions that cannot be handled by the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- find users who are trying to cheat the system (multiple accounts, voting rings)&#xD;&#xA;- handle flags&#xD;&#xA;- contact users privately if there are any problems that cannot be solved otherwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important part is understanding the informal rules of the system and put them into practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing physics (or whatever the topic of the site is) is not that important. Sure, it helps, but the decision if a question is on topic should be made by the community anyway via close votes, not primarily by moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta participation and the flag count are indeed good indicators for that. They show how much the users cares already about the site and how familiar s/he is with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recommended reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Cheat Sheet][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Who are the diamond moderators, and what is their role?][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Blog][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75189/who-are-the-diamond-moderators-and-what-is-their-role&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://moderator.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="f9756627-6c7c-417b-be68-0f6277132f5f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="It appears that [the question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/42011/520) may have been the victim of an automated &quot;bad question&quot; reaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall the [qualification for automatic removal][1] are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* one month old&#xD;&#xA;* negative vote total on the question and&#xD;&#xA;* no answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not that I'm stumped as it does not appear to have been done by anyone (including Community who get the &quot;credit&quot; for closure due to spam flags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="5129ded8-6551-4e33-aa03-4734ede4bc58" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Ah! I think I figured it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queues have recently been changed to include some known bad posts as honeypots for detecting users who were mechanically reviewing in an effort to get the badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that [these are currently detectable due to differences in the UI][1]. Presumable the team is working on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmmm ... what I see is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the improve button right in the middle of the cluster on the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you getting something different? On just one suggested edit or consistently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157808/reviewing-low-quality-posts-that-are-baits-do-not-let-you-improve-edit-them&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xIgl5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="d7519066-c34d-46bd-9051-4515cdda2c72" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The location field is neither necessarily the user's actual location, nor is it force-validated. For example, my own personal location is listed as &quot;6&quot;, which is an in-joke from my first days on Meta Stack Overflow. This is probably less of an issue overall on Physics, as there's probably a greater portion of users who have valid locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We once did an attempt last year to standardize location strings across profiles. [That didn't go over too well](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88217/location-in-profile-was-changed-without-edit-or-knowing/88220#88220), although it gave us the means to suggest [a standardized format](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88306/where-is-the-documentation-for-the-correct-format-of-the-user-profiles-location) (as opposed to forcing it on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chat timezone is not derived from your location field. Rather, it is derived from your machine itself, through JavaScript, and reflects what time your machine thinks it is. This lets it give you &quot;local&quot; time for you where-ever you are, no matter how much you may travel. We don't actually store this information, which prevents us from a proper means to relay these times to other users who would be, say, stopping at your profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think for now, the simplest implementation is that a user who opts to want their time zone known to others can add it into the &quot;About Me&quot; section of their profile. Or, even, right into the location field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="4c59c7f7-482b-4891-b643-938ed92055c2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Presumably you are discussing [your answer][1] to [*How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has happened is that [you edited it so many times that it was automatically converted to a &quot;community wiki&quot; post][3]. Note the different format of the user-card at the bottom right of the post:![user card example][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the automatic conversion feature is to (1) prevent the original poster for benefiting from a post that has been extensively edited by others and to discourage frivolous edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to de-wiki this one for you, but this is not something that you should count on happening again in the future. It is generally recommended that you work on your posts offline so that you will only make a few edits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46210/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46189/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msEif.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="77d73aa3-81d9-4fca-ab55-9a9bdf920819" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the [Data Explorer][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I created a simple scatter plot to see what data we would be dealing with, the X axis is questions asked and Y is answers given. I'm looking for techniques on how to show all the different scales of data: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades but it will give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, should anybody want to play around with the data and see what they can come up with, the query is http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user It pulls out comments too, maybe there's a cool way to incorporate that information. Cooler than just doing a 3D scatter anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="bcf51b5f-1ed8-43d7-9d77-a5e7b0f1a2aa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2012 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please @GraceNote or @TimStone [in the chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat) and let us know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="4166fd08-5c3d-494f-a744-554101fe137a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As dmckee wrote in a comment, the full details are at [this question on MSO](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work), but I'll reproduce a rule of thumb here: all you have to do is put `@` before the name, and omit the spaces. You don't need to put it at the beginning of the comment. So to reply to John Rennie you could write `Yes @JohnRennie` and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also omit characters after the first three. So `@Joh`, `@John`, `@JohnR`, etc. all work equivalently to `@JohnRennie`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="921c0163-5c32-4853-89f5-a00768c27712" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="What happened is that a user got deleted (normally this happens by their own request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All their recent votes, given within a set number of days are undone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if overall they gave you reputation, it is taken away&#xD;&#xA;* if they overall took reputation from you, it is restored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my case, for example, I had (I assume) one up vote and two down votes from the user, giving me a +6 of reputation. Today I have a `-6 user was removed` message in my rep log.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the other 3 down votes, it looks like they are serial, however it's just three votes, I wouldn't get too upset about it :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the obligatory &quot;don't do that&quot; post is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/125740/dont-throw-away-all-votes-when-a-user-is-deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="40fd0034-5f0d-49a8-a791-8044d638c612" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing/Reopening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may **vote to reopen** (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="87d8459c-4461-49ae-983e-c7c4829a7091" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Looks like it's a deficiency in the comment voting/flagging system, but it's not really worth improving. See http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have three courses of action: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unupvote the comment (note that you can't reupvote if you do this). You can only unupvote if you've recently upvoted the comment&#xD;&#xA; - Flag the post with a custom flag asking for comment deletion.&#xD;&#xA; - Complain on meta about the comment being unflaggable ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_comment removed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="10f4ae43-a10e-404e-80a0-4a0641a180f4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I was going through some old questions, where the accepted answers aren't usually the most thorough/best ones (in my opinion), which leads me to my suggestion - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible for other users to vote to change the &quot;correct&quot; answer? I can't seem to find the couple of questions I was looking at that spawned this idea, but I'll link to them once I find it. If more than some number of users think the right answer should be changed to something else, then we could award rep to the new accepted answer without taking it away from the original accepted answer (or something like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically because then the actual &quot;best&quot; answer will come up first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** After going through the Meta-SO questions, I eventually found (after stumbling on hundreds of [Jon Skeet][1] questions) several threads relating to re-ordering of the questions based on votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This one][2] (about changing the accepted answer)&#xD;&#xA; - [This other one][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Also this][4] (Reordering the answers)&#xD;&#xA; - [And finally this][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one seems to have really reached any form of a consensus on this issue (about re-ordering the questions). I doubt it's going to get resolved, but I thought I'd add these links here for anyone else who's interested in going through the debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=jon%20skeet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24403/should-the-system-automatically-modify-the-accepted-answer-when-another-answer-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7572/why-do-incorrect-answers-keep-getting-accepted&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95635/should-there-be-a-tab-to-see-anwers-with-much-higher-votes-than-the-accepted-ans&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36195/accepted-answer-most-upvoted-answer-discrepancy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="158411e0-d92e-4659-90bd-d54619e2d76f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Nope. This or something like it has been brought up many times on MSO ([example](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature)) and repeatedly declined, so you can be pretty confident it's not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see it being useful in some cases, but (perhaps unfortunately), we're stuck with the way the system works here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the accepted answer is actually outright _wrong_ or completely useless, then you can downvote it, and even post a link in chat to ask other people to review it. You can state your objections to it and ask people to vote as they see fit, but don't go as far as _telling_ people how to vote on a post - while it might not _technically_ be against the rules, it is bad etiquette." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="46b2e7bd-e03e-4c03-930e-e8162303f499" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Just a heads up for those of you who have access to the so-called moderator tools (10k+), you can see [various statistics][1] related to the [anonymous feedback mechanism][2] (i.e. that from persons of no account), and also see list of those post which recive better or worse anonymous feedback then votes and those that simple recieve very positive or negative anonymous feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit surprised today when I noticed that we have recieved more than 12k such votes which averages more than one per question and is almost 10% of the more usual sort of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that can't see it right now, it is running about 2:1 positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition [sam.saffron][3] has provided a [data explorer][4] [query that can extract this data on a per user basis][5] (which I believe gets around the 10k limit for the on-site pages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/post-feedback/summary?filter=all&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130095/anonymous-user-feedback-about-my-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/users/1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/60668/feedback-on-my-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="53bb8044-5e2c-409b-847d-bfd935bbe748" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[This][1] really cool graph was posted onto meta.SO early December. Dunno how many over here have seen it... I thought it was super-fancy, so I'm sharing it here as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaTIA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4002" RevisionGUID="00f5ee22-d6e7-4944-a0c6-a591da2e3f4e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I don't think that photography.se will take them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As documented [here][1], when Astro.SE was getting closed they did a migration of astrophotography questions over to Photo.SE, and any posts that photo.se would accept were migrated off. Astro.SE didn't have that many posts, so I believe the posts were individually reviewed and migrated. These weren't migrated, so I don't think we can do it now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, (1) and (2) are Not Constructive anyway, so they shouldn't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from _that_, we _can't_ migrate posts older than 60d.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though if any new questions come up on astrophotography, I personally have no issue with allowing them as long as they don't have other issues (NC/NARQ/etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you &quot;flag&quot; something, you click the &quot;flag&quot; button and choose an option (the flag gets forwarded to mods). Bringing stuff up on meta is fine, but if your flag can achieve it, then that's easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130342/178438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4053" RevisionGUID="37923af5-9b84-4a2b-9299-785b12d2e1a8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Yes, this has been brought up many times [on MSO](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/886/a-friends-list-on-stack-overflow-would-be-nice) and you can read there all about why it won't be implemented. Basically, Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;A site, not a social network. (For the details you may have to read through the comments in the linked question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="4dd1d403-3254-4926-b5a6-1a879838b7d8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Our good friend [Community ♦][1] bumps old posts that are &quot;unanswered&quot;. An &quot;answered&quot; post is one that has at lease one answer with at least one upvote (or accept)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739/178438 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4060" RevisionGUID="b142b519-79d5-4aa5-b488-1a96f7b75db9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="If you [star a post][1], then all edits to the post and its answers will be visible in your &quot;favorites&quot; tab (the tab gets an indicator on it whenever there are any changes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding inbox notifications, that has been proposed many times ([example][2], [another one][3]) on the main meta, for various similar features. It's been declined most of the time, since it can get too noisy for active users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53585/how-do-favorite-questions-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68106/notify-me-of-edits-to-posts-ive-voted-on&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16662/add-notification-when-someone-comments-in-the-same-post-than-me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="1b56601d-6e07-4a79-b736-9b48607fe379" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I have seen some posts show up on more than one category of the review panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, say a new user posts a one-line answer to an old question. This will flag the post for the Late Answers and Low Quality Posts review queues (and maybe also First Posts). I might then deal with it as part of sorting the Late Answers queue, and _also_ as part of the Low Quality Posts one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand and support that these posts get put on all relevant queues, I find it a bit weird and slightly annoying to be asked to deal with the same post more than once. (It doesn't help that such posts are usually annoying and/or hard to deal with.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this by design or can it be avoided? i.e. could posts I've already taken action on be removed from my review queues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm aware that this may be more suited to the mother meta, and [it has come up already](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/153406/posts-come-up-in-multiple-review-queues) with no answers, hence my asking here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="eb342c89-2e63-47da-a9d1-c2a1acb07ebc" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="See http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, it will turn into CW at your next edit. Don't worry, if you want to un-CW-ify it just flag it (or reply to this post). CW is only when you want collaboration, just let us know whenever you get hit on the head with the 10-edit thing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, try to batch up your edits, constant bumping to the main page isn't something we really want -- leads to clutter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4070" RevisionGUID="368b7a74-0b2b-4f3f-b384-c6d8654723b3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="You can look at [the edit history][1] (get there by clicking the time stamp on the &quot;edited&quot; block beside your usercard) and compare to [the rules for automatic how community wiki works][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance it appears that a further edit *will* tip your answer into wiki status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/52980/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="cf1418ed-f367-4cb4-88e7-717461672232" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[This was changed last October][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange/117903#117903 (see the October entry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current suggested edit algorithm for Physics.SE is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is the post author, their action is binding&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is a mod, his action is binding (yay)&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewers are neither mods nor original authors, then the _first_ decision (approve/reject) to reach two supporters is taken into account.&#xD;&#xA; - However, using the &quot;improve&quot;/&quot;edit&quot; button lets one bypass the double approval ([example][2] -- Community♦ steps in as a reviewer here) -- though you have to make an extra change to the post to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at your history, you seem to have come across the &quot;requires another approval&quot; block in the past [here][3] and [here][4]. You probably didn't notice the &quot;needs another approval&quot; banner , that's all:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151536/it-takes-two-to-tango/151586#151586&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9584&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9578&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/12651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="63e756d9-34e9-4f9b-9424-a0b467248a49" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="To address the more general issue of including email addresses in posts: this has come up several times on MSO, for example [this question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132117/what-should-i-do-if-a-user-posts-sensitive-information-as-part-of-a-question-or), and also see the &quot;Linked&quot; section in the sidebar. The gist of those answers is that, although there's technically no rule against having an email address in a post, there is no good reason for it to be there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you see an email address in a post, but the content of the post is otherwise worth keeping, I'd say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Edit it out&#xD;&#xA;2. Flag the post for moderator attention so we can have the revision with the email address deleted from the revision history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's some debate on MSO as to whether you should leave a comment suggesting to the OP that they shouldn't put sensitive information like email addresses in their posts. It could be argued that it draws attention to the email, but I don't think that's such a big issue on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if the content of the post is not worth keeping, just treat it accordingly. Flag it for moderator attention, or as spam, if it looks like spam; and/or vote to close or delete it if you have enough reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="84d4ce38-a8f9-4898-ae1d-4a9d3863e19f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I wish I'd stuck my nose in earlier, though I would not have argued strongly against the migration. Still there are a few points that need to be made one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many physics departments now have programs in the field known as &quot;Physics Education Research&quot; (PER), and professors hired for their skill in that discipline are called &quot;physics professors&quot; (and indeed they generally have Ph.Ds in physics).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That said, no one argues that the discipline is *physics*, it is clearly a field in the study of education. You can go to their talk or chat them up in the hallway and come to understand that very well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   The reason PER is not in the College of Education is that those people have spectacularly failed us for generations. They have been unable to address the specific needs of technical disciplines in general and physics in particular. Not to mention a widespread feeling that their approach is not very scientific and a lot of their doctrine is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The PER people *are* trying to understand the value and costs of particular turns of phase as well as pedagogical approaches (things like *&quot;Is following the historical lines of development of physics useful or and unnecessary distraction?&quot;* and *&quot;math separately or as you go along?&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  However, they actually have very sparse concrete answers in those parts of their field. The place where they've made the most reliable and helpful advances is in the structure of instruction. Clickers and demos to break up the presentation and re-focus the students; investigative rather than follow the steps lab; more lab and less lecture; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to say that the original questions *isn't* about what it says in the title, because physics *isn't* taught using the phrases that the OP singles out for interest. Physics is conveyed in a general and non-technical way to the interest lay public using those words and metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That may seem like arguing of semantics, but I think it is important because popular science and science education have different audiences and different goals. You always tune your message to the audience and what you expect them to take away, and pop-sci is aimed at giving the intelligent non-specialist an overview of the results and the flavor of the theory; it is not intended to enable them to do physics at that level. Notwithstanding that a lot of us got *engaged* and started down the road to being scientist from exactly such entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, personally, I'd have left it where it was. The answer to the question are not going to be *physics* answers, but to the extent that there *are* actual authoritative answer they will come from physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have a fixed policy on PER questions that I'm aware of, and I don't have a sense of what would be a good one. It is a murky business where many of the topics of investigation are of generally applicability (sometimes to all technical subjects and sometimes to learning in general). We don't want to open the door to *any* question about educational technique as long as it has &quot;in teaching physics&quot; appending (those of you who were around in the early days of Stack Overflow may remember the &quot;[boat programming](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19487/2509)&quot; question). But these means that allowing PER questions becomes a nightmare of trying to articulate well drawn lines. What fun that will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Acedamia.SE does a good job of answer that kind of question then it might be best to ship all there just for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="d864bd1b-dbd0-4768-8c0d-8a903ed9d4d8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="2fa7aa1a-9e9f-4f17-a3e8-5319c2d06c2a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As David says, there are only 4 things to keep in mind: your answer isn't *offensive*, isn't a spam, it's answering the question, it is of very good quality. (Well, *flagging an answer* states only 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as QMech says, you can always revert your post to a CW if you want so that your reputation (*score*) may not be affected in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rule that says, you **should** delete your answer. It's your wish, unless you're raged by a bunch of guys always against you (happens around SO everyday). You're saying that the comments are useful. So, you've got your point. *Don't delete it* if you don't want to. After all, it's worth a rep. score equivalent to a single answer. You can get it in the future, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, There are a lot of users who've got [more downvotes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=439&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ano%20score%3a-10) than you, and some users were lucky that their answer was [accepted](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=172&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ayes%20score%3a-10). While on the other hand, **there are** users who've deleted their 10+ voted answers when they got **shot** by an investigation on [their cat art](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83955/plagiarism-should-be-addressed-specifically-in-the-faq/134715#134715). Some mods should've seen a lot of voted answers deleted by this...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** I've deleted many of my answers, due to these downvotes. In fact, I got raged by a guy *once* and when he's gone, I got all my score back. But now, I can't search where my deleted answers are. The reason I deleted my answers, I didn't want a guy to search my profile and downvote my *downvoted* post. But now, I don't delete my answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="e8a98495-98ee-4eb2-9669-516867827c10" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I think my answer [here][1] says it all (and some of the other answers as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's a rule that makes sense for the SOFU trilogy, and not for science sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="70f40988-6097-4765-879f-6b05c108ebe8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[Been there, done that][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Late Answers and First Posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[....]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In these queues, you can edit the post, flag it, upvote or downvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment.  When you take one of these actions, the **I'm Done** button becomes enabled, allowing you to complete review. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always click the **No Action Needed** button. If you're unsure about the post, *please* use the **Skip** button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues/161391#161391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="c10d9237-8a32-48f9-9e67-d8c6d2d702ee" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is a bot based on [ELIZA][1], as an April Fools' Day joke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174407/what-is-chat-with-an-expert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="19314297-09bd-4c66-b7ed-7cd17ea29c20" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The book question has been grandfathered in, that's all. Otherwise such questions are more or less off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendation questions are off topic network wide (some reasons are given [here][1] -- basically they have caused problems in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics.SE does not try to be a resource for everything useful for physics students. We try to focus on closed-ended, conceptual questions here. You may want to try Quora or a similar website for that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/174286/178438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="1180001c-99b7-40fe-b4a5-58a3330bbdf0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="91758268-0b19-4f18-8e1f-94ce2f9d037c" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The CW scheme is just when you want other users to help in revision of your post. *Not for formatting,etc.* which is already done by the fellow users - but, for improving (additional information) of your post which shouldn't be normally done by fellow users. They can edit the post for clarification. But, they can't change the post by adding additional info. There's also this historical lock (which a mod can put on a post) for the prevention of edit wars...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The influences: When a post goes beyond 10 edits, it's automatically reverted to a CW. When the post is marked by CW, additional (+) or (-) votes doesn't influence *your* precious reputation. Be sure to check out the [**-1**'d user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)..! Well, he's **the** -1 in every site. He owns the CWs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;If you've got some time, consider reading http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11740/205334 and http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/55888/205334 which are themselves CWs..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="d73c0978-6a93-4cd8-b18a-055c4c0f229a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt;##Post linked with [this MSO](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179167/can-we-have-a-graphing-tool-for-math-se-and-physics-se ) post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphing tool is very important for answering and asking some questions in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;Graphing tool must include the function plotting and **drawing some free shapes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This post is for further discussion on this and getting the comments and suggestions on this of Physics.SE users especially. As CrisF ♦  asked to post that on Site Meta. .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="bd6bfa1e-76ad-4b5b-9529-c897d9d1c0d5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Exact requirements are listed [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Beta&#xD;&#xA;- silver; awarded once&#xD;&#xA;- Participate actively in a site's private beta phase&#xD;&#xA;  - Not just 3 bronze badges anymore, but the exact requirements not disclosed to prevent users from just doing the bare minimum.&#xD;&#xA;- Not awarded on Meta sites, including Meta Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;- Source: [Jeff's comment to his own answer to &quot;Why are beta badges awarded at all?&quot;](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/why-are-beta-badges-awarded-at-all/#comment-44251)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, for this site it's a moot point as we are no longer in private beta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="08a4cd52-bfd5-470c-b239-f837aac399cc" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&quot;Accept&quot; - that little checkmark - does *not* mean &quot;this answer is correct.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just means the author of the question accepted it. Hence the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Folks *accept* all kinds of things. Things they find helpful, or reassuring, or funny, or insightful, or don't like but are convinced are unavoidable...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, folks accept the truth. But there's no guarantee that something is true just because someone accepts it. In particular, if there's no [actual problem being solved][1], the asker's opinion on answers means very little. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, the asker isn't the only arbiter. Anyone with a bit of useful participation on the site can vote on answers. If your answer is getting up-voted, that probably means a lot more than the checkmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="bb4fc5c8-9ef6-47ca-9a1d-f4d61dcb6214" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="1. Close votes can [age away](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away), at which point the voter won't be able to VTC on the same question again...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators can remove questions from the queue by closing them or selecting &quot;Leave Open&quot;. In the latter case, the outstanding close votes remain on the question until the question is closed or the votes age away (see #1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If a certain number (currently three) of &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses are garnered in review, the question is removed from the queue without being closed, and the outstanding close votes become eligible for aging as described in #1. A given question will be dequeued as soon as it receives *either* 3 &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses or 5 &quot;Close&quot; votes. Since close votes are not immediately deleted, it is possible for a question to be dequeued via Leave Open responses and then closed anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions will be removed from the queue if a reviewer opts to edit them. Questions can also be removed from the queue if a bounty is added, if they are locked, or if they are deleted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="4a189a4e-2ecc-4887-972e-c8294ddababf" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have asked a corresponding [question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/183321/184300) on MSO if the frontpage presented to anonymous or not logged in users could be made configurable, in order to be able to exchange tags and questions in the corresponding lists. Any support for this feature request on MSO would be highly welcome and urgently needed I think :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="3bb7f776-9e2b-4202-bcfb-388778a246b9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Not gonna happen. &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* difficult to categorize questions &#xD;&#xA;* questions that span disciplines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use the [Favorite and Ignored tags][1] mechanism, and view the [front page][2] rather than the [questions page][3] because the front page is weighted by your favorite tags (or by your [frequented tags][4] if you haven't specified your favorites)&#xD;&#xA;* Use [tag subscriptions][5] or the  [RSS feeds][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [Search by tag][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108224/documentation-for-frequented-tags-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="1595c764-4332-40aa-9c73-bfa009a39290" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="You need [50 reputation][1] to comment everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="daa3fe76-9f17-46a7-9d33-9f8d8436500e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Once again, there are two requests here. One is for a minisite separating basic questions from high level ones, and one is just a nohomework.physics.SE minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of &quot;basic&quot; questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within SE rules, this isn't possible. tags like [tag:basic] and [tag:advanced] are not allowed, as they are [meta tags][1]. Even if it were allowed, it would involve massive retagging efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it within the current tag system is not possible as topics can't easily be separated into &quot;basic&quot; &quot;non basic&quot;. Besides, the border is very fuzzy, and it varies from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think this can be realistically implemented. A hidden [tag:minisite] tag could work, but it would require non-trivial changes from the devs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you mean that there will be a no-homework sub-site. I personally hope that a combination of minor changes (proactively deleting old closed HW, being a bit stricter on the policy, etc) may mitigate the issue enough without a subsite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A few more thoughts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me of some of the discussions [here][2] and [here][3]. Separating the communities can seem elitist to many, and I myself don't think that it's an ideal way to solve the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the flaws with this is that it gives off the impression that we are leaving the basic portion of the community to die as we go off to greener pastures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am really wary of splitting the communities in any manner, even if its by minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="f486baff-82a2-42ac-ba84-02eb00473c7b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt; The close reasons have been finalized and implemented [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/), please direct requests for new close reasons to a separate meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="a29ba236-dc0c-47ef-a69d-d5b976bd5ab4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This has been asked [multiple][1] [times][2] on the main meta. In this case I'll just copy [my answer][3] over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If its just a bit of more info (read:a paragraph), add it and leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If it's a completely new bundle of stuff, but is based on stuff gleaned from the answer, write an addendum answer as described above.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hat it with &quot;This is in addition to @JonSkeet's answer&quot;. You may also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment on the original answer and ask the poster to incorporate your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer if s/he wishes--and then delete your answer once the deal is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; done ([Something smilar could have happened here][1], though it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; didn't).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22303/factors-affecting-torque-and-rpm-of-a-motor/22317#22317&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23197/how-can-one-imagine-curled-up-dimensions/23205#23205&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22125/penetration-versus-frequency/22134#22134&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23824/will-an-emf-be-induced-across-the-ends-of-a-stationary-metal-rod-placed-in-a-tim/23895#23895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of wrong answers (or parts of answers), leave a comment. Try not to make radical changes in edits -- you can tell the OP in a comment to make them himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28817/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/129513/edit-an-existing-answer-or-incorporate-existing-answer-into-a-new-one&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/129515/178438&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="3617b0d4-e1ee-4c45-b51e-041a4bd340a8" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The &quot;favorite&quot; feature is one that you can (ab)use as much as you want without any problems. When you favorite a question, you get updates delivered to the [favorites tab on your profile.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quora has a nice &quot;save draft&quot; feature, which adds the question to an &quot;unanswered questions&quot; tab. I'd be happy if that were implemented, though I don't see that happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [this has been proposed before][2]. It's not [meta-tag:status-declined], so not officially declined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/16660/wouter?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4719/add-answer-later-tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="19cbe158-8a28-41dc-89b2-2d9be532170e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="See also: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105391/why-does-flag-marking-as-helpful-declined-not-always-correlate-with-moderator-ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when the moderator sees a flag and has to think for a while over the flag, reading the post carefully (i.e., the action that should be taken is not immediately obvious), the flag gets marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, even if the post doesn't get closed/deleted. &quot;Helpful&quot; means &quot;While it may not have applied for this post, don't stop flagging posts for similar reasons&quot;. After all, each post is different, and we don't want to discourage you from flagging a similr post (where the flag may be valid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, IIRC a close flag gets marked as helpful on the first close vote a post receives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your specific flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe: While popular science-y, this is neither unclear nor off topic IMO. However, similar questions may tend to be of the same type.&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear This isn't off topic, questions about standards are OK here _as long as they aren't too localized_&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe#question In my opinion, this probably can be closed as non-mainstream since it effectively proposes a theory and asks for evaluation. However, I'll let the handling moderator deal with this.&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision Your flag here was marked as &quot;helpful&quot; by [Community ♦](http://physics.stackexchang.com/users/-1), so it got [voted to close][1] by a few users (the votes have now expired). I personally would have declined the flag: While the question does talk of a possibly crackpot theory, it is asking for evaluation of one point within the theory, and it's to a sufficient degree physical. (Of course, it would have helped if he replaced &quot;all life&quot; with &quot;most life&quot;, but that is clear from the context)&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is You seemed to want it deleted, not just closed. There's no reason to do that; downvoted closed posts get auto-deleted anyway, and there' no particular need to wipe such posts off Physics.SE (they don't show up on the main page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/17508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="e1ae8c89-d184-4215-a3a8-37aa7d1f3e06" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I do not know how I am supposed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the help system,http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that , I am supposed to ask here to have my answer undeleted by vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an answer to question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69726/does-trade-affect-earths-rotation&#xD;&#xA;At the time I wrote the answer the page contained several humorous comment.&#xD;&#xA;Some have been deleted since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This induced me to write my answer in kind, though it was actually a serious answer as it was suggesting the most efficient way (not yet given by others) to actually do what the question asked. It is possible that my humor was too cryptic, as it was not understood, as the answer was deleted as irrelevant. Not knowing the system I did not try to edit it (as the help mentions that only for self-deletion), and I tried to explain in comments the problem and the meaning of the answer to have it undeleted.  Without any success, when a final remark made me understand, after several hours, that I was supposed to edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did, and I do believe it is a sensible and useful answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69746/revisions. It was edited 15 hours ago, but nothing is happening. I understand that some users can vote on this. Can you help.   Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion: it should be said more clearly on the help page that a question is supposed to be edited before it can be undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="da894c61-25db-45f7-81e4-69fe8da2a9aa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I got in the habit on SO of removing thanks and signature lines (and greetings) during edits because they don't add to the question and are relatively unneeded. I think we should adopt the same policy here and remove them from questions where they appear (and ideally not include them when writing new questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind going through and editing questions to remove them, but I would like it to be something everybody does so when they re-tag or edit questions for other reasons, they can remove these lines too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find questions of this sort by searching:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    thanks closed:no is:question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where you can replace thanks with whatever other words that could bring up things like greetings and signatures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, here is the MSO discussion on the same topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="fb0333f1-b832-4112-a3e5-fc539099f157" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We place a boilerplate banner on each question linking to a book policy and mentioning (in short) what is to be expected of answers.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - These should be made CW. Reasons? See [Chris' comment][2]&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4643" RevisionGUID="c4cfec6a-e232-4508-aba9-56aa07f76cae" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="In general, we don't care what happens in chat rooms associated with the site, so if some users want to set up a chat room for discussion in a foreign language, that [should be okay](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92996). However, if chat moderators have reason to suspect that the foreign language is being used to disguise communication that would otherwise be unacceptable (e.g. insults), they'll have to deal with that, and shutting down the chat room is one of the possible consequences (in extreme cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, meta site, and in the [main site chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), all content should be in English. (Or more precisely, all content should be understandable to English speakers.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4710" RevisionGUID="927df8dc-31c7-4d6f-b58d-4b6cc63e722f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The [content of all Stack Exchange sites](http://stackexchange.com/legal) is licensed [Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike][1]. If the terms are met, then they are allowed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the terms are *not* met, the centralized place for reporting violations of the license is on [the mother meta thread for such things][2]. And I see that [the first answer there is this very site](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/163974/2509).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/131846/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="8b3c43c4-c726-4522-b0f1-2f919628dfb1" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The license under which Stack Exchange distributes user-contributed content, CC-BY-SA 2.5, does allow other sites to reuse that content as long as they follow the attribution guidelines in the [terms of service](http://stackexchange.com/legal). If you're uncomfortable with your content being displayed elsewhere even when the guidelines are followed, then honestly you should probably stop contributing here because it is a prerequisite of posting that you agree to let SE and other sites redistribute your contributions in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the site you're pointing out does not follow the attribution guidelines, then that's illegal, and you should check that it is reported in [this thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131846/report-sites-that-use-stack-exchange-content-without-following-attribution-rules) on Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="83147b61-abcc-4d07-a4e3-20b1b8f43daf" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This would be done at the Stack Exchange level, and in fact [they *are* working on an Android tool][1]. Don't know if or when a iOS version might be in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190200/help-us-test-the-alpha-version-of-our-android-app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="96ecaaa3-e8db-44cc-9f17-ac23de760373" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to *want* pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean *easy* questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of &quot;why&quot; questions. You *could* just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you *do* want them, and want them tagged as such, then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ...You need to be *ruthlessly* consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for *and receive* a &quot;general audience&quot; answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. **Unless the asker states**, &quot;I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it&quot; or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It *cannot* be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond &quot;I want a layman's explanation for something&quot;, then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. [tag:homework] is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly, **you cannot fight about this.** Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in [edit wars](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-great-edit-wars/) over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, **the tag will be removed with no further discussion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/147100/the-homework-tag-is-now-officially-deprecated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="6cc8d73c-05da-436a-98fd-7e6bbf2b3a20" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[This would've been covered by our overall site FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/7931/205334) under the topic **Moderation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags don't work like that. Flagging should be done only when moderators require some intervention with the post. For instance, someone is spamming around, uses offensive words, posting bad questions that need to be closed, etc. can be handled by a mod. Other cases...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If some asker accepts some answer, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. It means that he's satisfied with it. You shouldn't flag it and say it's wrong. Because, a mod shouldn't switch accepted answers, that are only provided for askers. If that's the case, he can go around accepting answers by himself. And, something in your point of view may be different from others' point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) An answer gets large number of upvotes (*that too*...) doesn't mean that it's correct. It's accepted and agreed as a worthy answer by the overall community. Mod can't interrupt the community's evaluation of answers. That's the reason why downvoted answers are still under questions. If the wrong answer is related to Physics (just some misunderstanding), we can keep it to indicate others that it's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your question goes to the author. Just comment below it, indicating what's wrong there. Mods can't do everything. They're just our people. Feel free to interact with them. Why do you need mods as some connecting bridges? Again, your thought that *answers should be deleted by mods once they're flagged* is really a misconception..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="525a27be-0274-4f7f-8ee1-8c69e9df79ea" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[Already been reported, not yet been fixed](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the best thing to do is to flag the corresponding post with a custom flag, mentioning that you're unable to flag the comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="a5ab1a26-e496-4588-9764-0ef7800b6c1d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There is a significant overlap between physics and chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest that questions tagged &quot;chemistry&quot; on physics.se be displayed and editable on both chemistry.se and physics.se. The reverse would also be beneficial: questions on chemistry.se tagged physics could appear here as well as there and be editable by both communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question immediately arises, should we collaborate on other tags? I would suggest that only tags involving the word chemistry  or physics respectively should be cross-communal projects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a question on SO meta: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration which points out how it is mostly the sciences that would benefit from this feature. I guess that means it is &quot;too specific,&quot; since we are relatively small. Democracy baby!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="2650ab17-1a7d-46d5-a2a2-0b1ad2ad8be0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As a moderator on both the sites involved, I sort of support this -- this was the reason I proposed [soft migration](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration) in the first place. Note that soft migration is less complicated than your proposal -- we don't need editing and all, just that the posts should turn up on the main page and in searches. Allowing editing would probably be complicated in the implementation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; as the privileges would need to get carried over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had already added a ticker chatroom feed for [tag:physical-chemistry] (and I just added one for [tag:quantum-mechanics]) in the Phy.SE chatroom. If nobody has any objections I can convert it to a chat message feed (every new post is posted in the chatroom). It shouldn't cause too much clutter as Chem.SE doesn't have that much activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. These things always _seem_ easy to implement, but a large app like SE usually has complications in implementing such things. One great example is HTTPS -- to most, turning on HTTPS can be done with the flip of a switch. But for something like SE, [it's not so easy][1]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/04/23/stackoverflow-com-the-road-to-ssl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="72d9ddde-52f2-4a35-b764-5c2284b03295" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There _is_ a freeform off topic reason*, but that's only for 3k users. These users get to type an &quot;other&quot; close reason. This becomes a comment on the question. Subsequent closevoters get the additional option to choose the same close reason (which results in a comment upvote). When the question is closed, it gets the default off topic wording (&quot;this is off topic for Physics because it doesn't fit the scope defined in the help center&quot; or something like that), and the comment stays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't available to flaggers, though. However, the off topic subreason you choose is not visible to anyone (even mods) -- the flag is always counted as &quot;off topic&quot; from the POV of reviewers and mods. So my advice would be to just pick a random offtopic subreason when none fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the question &quot;if it isn't visible, why make flaggers choose?&quot;. Well, these subreasons subtly teach new flaggers _what_ is flaggable. This happened to me on SO, I didn't know that certain types of questions could be closed until the flag changes came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that this system is slightly unweildy though, and have [proposed a change to it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/188106/178438)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Known hereabouts as the [trolley car close reason](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n8CSK.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="b722ded9-53c2-41bd-aa63-8fff3ff3c1b3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I think what happened here is that the post was deemed &quot;Not Constructive&quot;, and was closed with the &quot;modern&quot; analogue of that close reason, &quot;primarily opinion based&quot;. POB doesn't apply as well as NC does here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask, &quot;what's wrong with the post then&quot;? Well, it's basically what's called an &quot;idle curiosity&quot; question -- you're not really aiming to learn something specific out of it, rather you're hoping to get some &quot;accidental learning&quot; from the post. It's not really focused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That in itself isn't that much of a problem on this SE site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however there's another issue: It's not specific enough. There's not enough information about the system to get a meaningful answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (alternatively, a good answer would require tons of analysis to get anywhere), which is sort of supported by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've asked many Physics teachers and each has their own theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it doesn't have a definitive answer and it's not really focused towards a concept, it _basically_ becomes a discussion. Such questions are great to discuss in person. You do indeed learn a lot by seeing the approaches of others. But the question itself doesn't really focus on any concept -- the learning value derives from the _possibility_ of one of the answers  teaching you a good concept. Coupled with it being discussiony, that makes it rather unsuitable for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. While most SE sites deal with &quot;problems you actually face&quot;, the science sites don't (Well, not exactly), as explained [here][2].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I suspect that supplying enough information to fix this would then just convert this to a homework/engineering problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164692/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="b1200d1a-0a57-4f18-9938-955b8be5d1a4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="It has already been addressed in the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/126471/205334). Some guy has voted your answer and you gained a +10 for that. Now, the buddy has removed his account and his votes have been revoked. Whatever he had voted (as a member of this site), will be reversed (once he removes his account), which means *not only you*, but anyone who were voted by him will be affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty interesting scheme. Even for an user who has cast more than 5000 votes, once he removes his account, all those votes are *gone*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="d7daeb82-93d8-4f34-9e4f-44a8cd7a57e0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="When Stack Overflow launched the scoring was the same for questions and answers. This eventually became a bit of a cause for concern when a number of users who had &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* never offered an answer&#xD;&#xA;* mostly had zero or negative net scores on their very many poor questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but were still accumulating enough rep to access some important site privileges. There rose [a movement to increase the power of down votes on questions][1], which was [tag:status-planned] for some time after which [the team suddenly decided to reduce the upvote value on questions instead][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this slightly *increased* the quality of questions on Stack Overflow (mostly by discouraging hoards of bad questions, rather than by generating a lot of really good ones), but it was a small thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my expectation based on that ancient history on a different site is that while this proposal might bring in a few more good questions it would also bring in many more bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we have more tools for dealing with problem users now, so maybe would could handle it, but I don't know for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42763/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="e78d278a-c53b-45ad-b2dc-cb8d7a01d080" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up long and interesting discussion below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SE is licensed under CC-wiki license with Attribution required,&#xD;&#xA;you can read it here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a post on S[OFU] about same topic with more details:&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Stack exchange CAN USE your work(user generated content) to _earn_ money.&#xD;&#xA;This is written in the short summary of the license hyperlinked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Effectively you retain only CREDITS on your work. But not the rights to remove it from circulation or issue a new license which will _contradict_ / _constrain_ CC-wiki (this part is declared in termination section of CC-wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - License is effectively INFINITE (up to the limits of international law, about 60 years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no WAY to terminate this license by the will of the creators (users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good news. If we look at UK CC license  (lest assume our user lives in UK), we read following (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;2.3. This License does not affect any rights that the User may have under any applicable law, including fair use, fair dealing or any other legally recognized limitation or exception to copyright infringement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I understand correctly - when user gets BANNED from this website he can remove all he's work from here. At least in UK. Am I correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="54e4f7a2-27c3-47da-a770-fc6453bb5113" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is covered by [the link dmckee gave in the comments](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96205/more-options-when-flagging-for-migration), in which the exact same feature was proposed on MSO and declined. Migrations to sites other than Math are sufficiently rare that there's no particular need to let ordinary users vote for them. (Moderators have always been able to do this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the first thing to decide when considering whether to migrate a question is, do you think it's off topic here? If you see a question that is off topic, flag it as such, or vote to close if you have that privilege. If you think the question would be appropriate at another site, other than the options given (Meta and Math), leave a comment on the question to indicate that. Alternatively, you can custom-flag the question as &quot;Off topic and possibly suitable for migration to X&quot; or some such thing. **Don't suggest a question for migration unless you believe it's off topic on this site.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="80c34f54-9f4b-49ce-a6b9-b2d277e1197e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned [here][1], it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there were [some unnecessary edits][2] made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/197072/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="3d1b4627-f820-4bcd-a3ce-a880e5a43b6e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related: [Lots of questions in the reopen queue](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196074/184688) at meta.stackoverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queue are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago (such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 17). Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="e5e43762-bcc8-4e5b-927a-fd7e85508872" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="See [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Currently, this means that a closed question will automatically be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; added to the reopen queue when it is...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by the author. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delete it. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Sufficiently popular, where popularity is calculated based on question score, top answer score, or views per month. We're still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tweaking the exact thresholds for these, but right now they're fairly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generous - however, the most popular closed questions are being added&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the queue *first*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably an initial flood of questions, once we clear it out the queue ought to stay empty (like how all the queues were above 100 when they were introduced). There are edits from July there, so they probably allowed the algorithm to retroactively apply itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not if I can do anything about it :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196074/lots-of-questions-in-the-reopen-queue/196078#196078" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="979e7df3-4cb8-47db-9781-dd8a0b864af4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As explained [on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms), moderators are not limited to terms. The next moderator election will be whenever the community and the SE team decide that the moderation workload on the site exceeds what the current moderators can do, and the number of positions available will be determined by the need. It's usually 1 or 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="50ba38fa-bfd7-4816-a56e-a92c90c460ef" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="&gt; **Related:** [tag:feature-request] at Meta.StackOverflow, http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196775/184688. Show it some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently gained access to the 10k tools and the flag page looks buggy to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the flag count on the top right often shows a count for flags that are not present. The page can also be completely empty, with a nonzero counter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has [come up on the mother meta already](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/187231/184688), but since it has been marked ![enter image description here][2] there I thought I'd bring it up here as there may be relevant site differences. The bug in the main question there, which Jarred Dixon's answer addresses, also seems to be a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarrod Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation. An auto-generated low-quality flag that's only for moderator eyes? (would &quot;only for ♦.♦&quot; be the right abbreviation of that, by the way?) It sounds unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone from the dev team comment on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ic2aU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c48J5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="387c7f65-5383-4053-9290-064635aaa821" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I just approved two edits removing the tag [tag:fun-stuff] from the two only posts that currently have it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64524/what-are-the-limitations-of-performing-music-in-space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10701/how-much-force-is-in-a-keystroke-estimated-of-course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, it seems pointless to have such a small tag. On top of that, it definitely pushes the limits of on-topic (though a bit of fun never hurt anyone, really). On the other hand, it wasn't really hurting anyone as the question count was minimal.* All in all I'm pretty neutral about this, so I approved the edit. I just thought this should come up in meta before we lose the tag. (Tags with no questions get deleted shortly, as per [this MSO question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19753/what-happens-to-zombie-tags).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's it gonna be? Tag burnination? Tag rescue with tens of volunteers turning up all these fun questions that really needed that tag? Or my personal favourite, a long, slow slide of this question down the meta front page, faced with stone-cold utter indifference? (hey, I could even get a tumbleweed outta that...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* Yes, I know &quot;minimal&quot; is only one question per tag. Go take this up in math if you feel that strongly about it.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="f1db3f47-2a89-460a-b6ee-c7585f7882c2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="You can find the full badge description [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to use the &quot;share&quot; link and share the question with others (Sharing it on an SE site will _not_ work). This is usually done via Twitter/Facebook/etc. If enough people click on it, you get a badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="e8ecc680-d94a-43b9-9990-73f4892f9cd1" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Click on the &quot;share&quot; button below a question or an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will bring up the standard share buttons for Google Plus, Facebook and Twitter, which will place a link to the post on your Plus page / timeline / feed. You will also be able to copy a link to the question that identifies you as the person who shared it; these [look like this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/114621/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://stackoverflow.com/q/&lt;question-id&gt;/&lt;user-id&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    http://stackoverflow.com/a/&lt;answer-id&gt;/&lt;user-id&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `&lt;user-id&gt;` is your user ID. (You can get this by going to your profile and looking at the search bar on the top right.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will get the Announcer badge, for example, if 25 unique IP addresses click on any of such links. Be aware, though, that there are mechanisms in place to detect [sock puppeting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)) so if you try to access it yourself from 25 different computers the system may detect that and discount those visits. Also, as EnergyNumbers points out, [links shared within the SE network do not count towards referral badges](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/114608/184688).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Ls0W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="fa96a083-702f-46e7-b3fb-481e64e1a4e9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="You have some good answers here already, but since I was the one who deleted the comments I'll take a few minutes to explain why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all started [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members) - someone mentioned Physics, and upon visiting the meta here I saw 4 different threads calling out a specific user. As mentioned in the thread I linked to, this is something we generally try to avoid: there's nothing to be gained from publicly humiliating someone, *particularly* someone who isn't here to defend themselves. While a certain amount of curiosity is understandable, leaving these threads up long-term to be indexed by Google is kinda cruel; we frequently get emails from folks who are concerned about their online reputation and looking to distance themselves from mistakes in their past - no need to add to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I deleted or edited these threads. While doing so, I observed numerous bitter, unproductive, tangential conversations - as EnergyNumbers notes, such comments are [subject to removal without notice][1], so I removed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this is the guidance I gave the moderators at the time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know I've said this before, but... Try not to let threads discussing someone's suspension hang around forever. They rarely lead to anything good. Either edit to generalize them, or remove them once they've quieted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate goal here should always be to provide something of value to future readers. I doubt you're the only one who'll ever be concerned about suspensions - therefore, it's worth providing a clear, easy-to-follow discussion for those that follow. Lengthy comment threads hinder this goal - they are distracting and push actual *answers* further down the page. Comments that speculate on offenses committed by another user are particularly unhelpful - common decency dictates that one should address others directly with complaints rather than talking about them behind their backs. Expect the current comments on that question to be removed at some point as well, once the current discussion is concluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4971/what-rules-do-moderators-follow-in-deleting-comments-in-an-ongoing-discussion/4975#4975" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="67f7972c-2595-4abd-95aa-438386f874d3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Apparently it was automatically deleted (cf [this meta post][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have undeleted it, and [also requested that this particular autodelete functionality be turned off for smaller sites.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/78048/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/198710/should-we-really-have-removedeadquestions-on-smaller-sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="9802ad8c-c4d7-4654-a2da-5d10f6b11eb9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There is a user called [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) that undertakes a number of useful background tasks, like take possession of up- and down-votes from deleted users (for more detail see e.g. http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). In particular, the system bumps old unanswered questions to the top of the front page every so often to help them get answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens, the link to the question will show Community as the last active user on that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is some other name, then the question has had some activity recently. To be taken to the last active post in that thread, click on the timestamp:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o7iws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3Cq7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="31590384-260a-45f7-9328-14776a69391d" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I just stumbled on [this fantastic list of magic shortcuts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/94000/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Supported magic links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[meta]` &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[main]` &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[edit]` &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ... ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[ask]`, `[answer]` &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[something.se]` &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use `[ubuntu.se]` for Ask Ubuntu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Except for `[chat]` and `[edit]`, and with the addition of `[chat-faq]`, these also work in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# **Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to [Homework Policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/)?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="41a4c052-814d-487c-8d28-513238379ecd" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The question hit me when I saw [this question][1] which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found [this post][2]; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like [music][3] and [scifi][4]. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xD;&#xA;about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://music.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="5284db80-0e31-4747-b1a8-de8db5a9d622" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="e9f8870e-5a80-4102-a343-a6022e6037aa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I'm sorry to see you go, though I don't quite sympathize with the reasons you have listed in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was wrong was that it was [a public discussion about another user][1], one who wasn't even around. It was deleted due to that. Not to remove any discussion -- there are plenty of posts mentioning the suspension that are still around (some of them yours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user wasn't even suspended by the same mod each time. As mentioned before, it's about the site rules, not any personal vendetta. And I think there has been enough discussion about the rules, though if you want them changed then you'd have to bring them up on [the main meta][2] (where I think it's been brought up before, not sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this was done to cover the traces of anything. Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. We had a good member who is no longer here. Is there any point leaving a post around that discusses his suspension? One that contains various dissections of his character? And things that border on personal attacks to him? Is that _really_ something we should preserve? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think that the suspension was wrongly carried out&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the mods will never claim that the user in question was never suspended (and we know that the community will remember). With this in mind, there isn't any reason for us to do this to cover our tracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, sorry to see you go. Thank you for your contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This is not the place to discuss this, please don't.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members/197072#197072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="4a01707b-92e0-4baf-a2d0-ac0cf36e76e0" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5192" RevisionGUID="a5e8082e-a16a-4a9c-928a-f69d91738bbb" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="It's actually pretty hard to lose all of your reputation.  There is a major imbalance between reputation gains and losses.  For example, if a question gets upvoted you get 5 reputation but if it gets downvoted you only lose 2.  See http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7237/how-does-reputation-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd have to put in a lot more effort to lose reputation than you have to put in to gain it.  You'd get suspended way before that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="50c16adb-b009-4663-bc65-3cb9a7c6969e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Please don't make any lmgtfy comments. They will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links and http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109713/is-lmgtfy-frowned-upon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="0b5af35b-0ddc-4a68-a2ab-a0e5fbcd2add" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This answer contains the discussion in the comments to [the question that sparked this discussion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper), which was originally posted at the (now defunct) [Theoretical Physics](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- 	&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;I have asked the [relevant question on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563). – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="18202c89-0fa8-4860-a116-a8e3078dc547" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Yeah, this looks terrible. Not only does it waste the preview, it gets in the way of the question, and can easily end up being longer than the question itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Top-edited banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, we have [a system for attaching permanent banners][2] to posts that *doesn't* get in the way of viewing the question. I've added one for book recommendations based on your template; if you see a question with the top-banner on it, flag it for moderator attention and ask that the post notice be added instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find an example of this notice [here][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Post notice at the bottom][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYQwc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/102363/support-for-banners&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87917/reference-request-for-exactly-solved-models&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KbbdZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="6093873d-8e74-4ada-b23d-e8aba0c47d79" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I'll restate here Jeff's answer in [the analogous question in the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled) for the benefit of any future users searching this meta with the same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a handful of conditions where we will stop accepting edits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A large number of suggested edits by you were rejected in the last day (absolute value) - if banned you will be banned for a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. We are out of empty slots in the queue (currently 20 120 200)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. There is an edit to a particular post that was not approved yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. You are not logged in and the post is less than 10 minutes old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the past no &quot;edit&quot; link would be shown at all; since July 2012 the edit link is disabled and the mouse hover tooltip will explain why an edit cannot be suggested, like &quot;Account is not allowed to suggest edits&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="a62fad05-01f9-4340-b8dc-c6c1cc5b9706" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="As you probably noticed, there is a new top bar implemented on this site. This is part of a network-wide experiment in... UI design I guess? Details on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The new top bar is out on meta. Consider it a beta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/207420)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not complaining about or complimenting the way the features are implemented (not here, anyway - you can always check out [Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/top-bar?sort=newest)), but I **request that the color scheme be changed**. The current off-black clashes quite harshly with our light-blues-on-white scheme. It looks like some sinister cloud, ever reminding us of our network overlords' presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current color may work well on certain sites, but certainly not all. This is not surprising, because **no one color scheme could possibly work** on dozens of individual sites with their own customized appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, we're not the only site that seems to have a clash. Just check out [Christianity](http://christianity.stackexchange.com), [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com), [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com), [Mi Yodeya](http://judaism.stackexchange.com), [Programmers](http://programmers.stackexchange.com), and [TeX](http://tex.stackexchange.com), for example. (As I'm not a particularly active member of any other site, I'm not formally requesting those sites be changed, which is why I'm not asking on Mother Meta. Also, there is at least one such global request: [Would it be possible to lighten the color of the new top bar?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/210012))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can we get something that fits our color scheme, please? And no, saying I should userscript it is **not** a valid answer - I'm considering how the site looks to everyone else too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="31820e18-5905-47b7-90bc-31717fba70ba" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="You shouldn't set too much store by declined flags. If you look on MSO, it happens relatively often that flags are declined and yet the action gets taken. There's two outcomes that can come out of this sort of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, did the action get taken? If it did, then no worries. If it didn't, what was it? If you were asking for removal of comments, then don't worry too much about it - comments are temporary anyway. If you don't like a comment but it's not offensive or anything, well, shucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The only thing a declined flag really does is it slightly affects your [flag weight](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/84859/we-dont-need-to-see-flag-weight) - that is, your total helpful vs. declined flags. This is *not* something to worry about unless a really large percentage of your flags get declined. This is used by mods as a *very* rough measure to help gauge the importance of flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, there's not all that much to decry about a declined flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5344" RevisionGUID="8ec66fb3-a1f5-4b3f-8843-cff8e784e6e5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I think [this MSO question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93595/is-the-very-low-quality-flag-too-ambiguous) addresses that. To quote from the top answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Essentially this is synonymous with **flag for removal**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, it's quite rare that I see a post which I would consider an appropriate use of the VLQ flag. It pretty much has to be actual gibberish. (Needless to say, as a moderator I delete such posts; if I weren't a moderator, I would VLQ-flag them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The not-an-answer flag, on the other hand, is intended for content which is legible, perhaps understandable, and may even constitute a useful contribution of some sort, but simply does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it makes little difference to us (moderators) which kind of flag you use, so don't spend much time agonizing over whether you should flag something as very low quality or as not an answer. If you're not sure, pick either one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="77ebb38f-56fb-448f-b055-89c56a27a84a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There have been [a][1] [couple][2] [of][3] impromptu contests on Meta where one has to write a relevant poem or something. Some have been just for fun, some have been for swag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not have an informal (no prizes, unfortunately) competition on this Meta for some Christmas fun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inspiration is [this chat message][4] on the Physics GRE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the physics one basically just tests whether you've sat through a &quot;modern physics for freshman poets&quot; course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accuracy of the above statement aside, one can have quite a bit of fun writing physics poems that could find a place in a quiz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The poem must either be a question, or a question+answer&#xD;&#xA; - No restrictions on the specific form of poetry. Preferably rhyming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have fun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212433/should-employees-with-head-injuries-be-allowed-to-post-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212781/christmas-hat-haiku&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208393/i-would-like-a-mug-please&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=12793773#12793773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="059c862f-5d36-4f4e-b60c-5aba88d72ba7" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This question was recently bumped to the top of the front page by a new answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read/. I originally wanted to just recommend the new answer be deleted, but the question is so bad that I think it should be closed as primarily opinion-based, and then put under a historical lock. Or something to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an everyone-add-your-favourite-book question.&#xD;&#xA; - It is [everything a bad list question is](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/98366/184688).&#xD;&#xA; - Its answers provide no commentary or detail about the books.&#xD;&#xA; - Its sister question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/books-that-every-physicist-should-read, already has a well-earned historical lock on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="99a6b136-7721-4559-a70a-91486e07e343" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Yep, the number of views is determined by the IP addresses of individual users, who had viewed the question in the past. It's just a [timed counter to measure roughly &quot;how popular the question is&quot;](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/188348/205334).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by &quot;timed intervals&quot; is that, say you view a question today. And, (let's say) after a week or so, you view it again. Refresh the page, and you'll find out that the views have increased by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mods don't have any privy information regarding the views, it's really obvious that the site-developers can view almost anything. [Sklivvz](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz), and [Shog](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) are examples, as they visit us often (:P)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="e5e98a9f-2c75-431a-8d50-5eecab819069" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I do not believe this is a bug, but rather it is [meta-tag:status-bydesign].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the edit notification system is currently designed, users are not notified when a minor edit is made to one of their own posts.  [The exact criteria are][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a non-trivial edit is one which changes at least 10 characters (this is using a diff algorithm, so it's not a simple add/delete; and is naturally a little fuzzy). For the &quot;technical&quot; sites (where code highlighting is enabled) changes to code of at least 2 characters are considered non-trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this, changes to tags are considered trivial and will not generate a notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/134906/what-type-of-notifications-do-we-have/135411#comment378020_135411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="af3eb816-2ed9-4fc6-9d5b-569c0b225ba6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="If you think a moderator is out of line use the [&quot;contact us&quot; link][1] at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.][2] This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beta site get *pro tem* moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time that is it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151633/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="b4169e7c-5b26-43bc-9bf9-21e2a3e7478f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="39326f4b-72b0-4bf4-b507-3bac7de793e5" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="[tag:physics] is now an [intrinsic](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/181772/enable-the-intrinsic-sitename-tag-blacklist-on-older-sites) tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="76116a07-3a8f-442a-9f09-150b063aea41" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="This is a good place to document a nice SE Data Explorer query I cooked up recently. (This is not a direct answer to the question, but it does provide some useful data to inform decisions.) The query [**Timeline of posts closed as homework**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/161237/205482/timeline-of-posts-closed-as-homework) plots the accumulation plot of questions created in the past 3 months (or some other period you specify) which were closed as Off-Topic and were tagged as [tag:homework] (or some other tag you specify). Currently the data shows a sharp increase in the rate of homework closures at about the start of term (I complained about it in chat [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13290286#13290286), which also has a graph as of January 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old data, though, must be taken with a grain of salt, because many of the relevant questions (and particularly the more annoying ones) are automatically deleted by the system. For more details, see [the post deletion documentation on the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that/5222#5222), but in short, questions closed as Off-Topic can get deleted as soon as 9 days after their last edit if they have score ≤0 and no upvoted or accepted answers. This thinning down of the data is evident upon comparing the graph in this post with the one in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cz8Qc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="7b777a15-6468-46cb-a1a2-8705aae14964" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The rather lengthy conditions are given on Meta.SO: [How do comment @replies work?][1] In particular, these two points explain that `@`-pinging is both unnecessary and auto-deleted in your case - both you and the author of that post will ping each other automatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a user comments on their own post and there is only one person who has previously commented, then that person is also notified if @name is forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first author of the question or answer will always be notified of any new comment. There is no need to use @name to notify them. (You may still use it for clarity, if needed; however if only you and the author have been commenting on the post so far, the @name will be automatically removed from the beginning of the comment, as it adds no value.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="5e076b9e-5671-4c60-82ea-e75c8a946cfa" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="The one-stop shop for tracking your badge progress (not that you should really be doing that) is [this answer to Badge Progress Reports on the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3230/badge-progress-reports/143653#143653). There are  usually a few relevant queries in the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com/) to choose from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, I can't find one that looks reliable; the mother meta thread points to [the reputation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) that Brandon pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're feeling competitive, though, [Legendary Badge advancement TopCount](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/160805/legendary-badge-advancement-topcount) will show the leaderboard: the number of days users have reached the daily cap, from über-legendary to mortarboard. [Top users by the number of times they earned 200/day&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/129639/top-users-by-the-number-of-times-they-earned-200-day) does the same, though there's a slight discrepancy with the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're wondering exactly what the criterion is, [this answer by Nick Craver](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/88526), and his comments below it, confirms that you only need 200 reputation total in [one day](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42184/) to add a count towards these badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="788e48a6-3669-43bd-9dab-fb7e72d3af42" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Since this has been brought up a few times, here's the available info on requesting a temporary suspension of one's account to help with site overuse issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest I can remember is a comment of Shog9's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen more than one person request a suspension voluntarily due to realizing they were unable to balance their time on the site with other responsibilities... – Shog9♦ Dec 6 '12 at 17:36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though he quickly would &quot;generally suggest other ways of temporarily revoking your own access&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has come up a few times, from what I can tell, in MSO, and particularly [Can an account be self-suspended](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106604/can-an-account-be-self-suspended) and [&quot;Ban myself&quot; button in user profiles](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32299/ban-myself-button-in-user-profiles). The useful-looking [How do you escape an addiction to Stack Overflow?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21774/how-do-you-escape-an-addiction-to-stackoverflow-or-other-it-sites) has been closed for some reason. It has definitely happened occasionally but it is my impression that the SE team is in general not particularly in favour of this. In this site, it would come down to whether our mod team think it's the most appropriate course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that like most other artificial devices to stop your participation - chrome nanny, userscripts, host file modifications - it is easy to circumvent by setting up a new account. It does have the advantage that your reputation is and privileges are locked away from you, but if you've managed to sidestep the ban then all you've accomplished as a whole is to make your experience of the site more miserable and more guilt-ridden than before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I don't think this is really the way to go. I don't agree with Nikolaj's tone, but if you find you can't stop coming here, you should see it, at least for the sake of self-analysis, as an addiction, and learn to come to grips with it that way. Find out what triggers you, personally, to come here instead of working on your research, and change those triggers. Or simply drive them down to an acceptable level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be a shame to watch you go, though!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="1362a1c2-a9ef-4d08-997f-b7dc32091484" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I think that your point, that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users with more rep points can throw around bad answers without much repercussions, while newer users get smashed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is wrong on both counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As an 'established user', posting an egregiously wrong answer and getting called out on it is a lot more visible, and a lot more embarrassing, than for new users. Further, people will be more focused on helping new users understand why their answer is wrong, and they will be less forgiving with more established users, tending to simply point out where the mistake is and why it is fatal if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Even as a new user, it is actually very hard to get &quot;smashed&quot; by a wrong answer. I definitely empathize with the feeling, as a new user, that every bit of rep is precious as you try to climb the privileges ladder; all of us felt the same at some point. However, downvotes are very light! It takes five downvotes to undo the rep from a single upvote. It would take thirteen downvotes to make you drop down the shortest privilege gap after 15 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are a feedback mechanism. They are a way for the community to tell you that your content is incorrect, and they are an opportunity for you to use the community to help you fix it. You should of course be open-minded and reasonable, but if you are then you will either end up with a correct answer or an understanding of why your previous thoughts were wrong. Either way, in real-world terms you come out ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you manage to fix your answer, then you will start getting upvotes. If the answer is fundamentally flawed, there is nothing wrong with deleting it! There is no shame in it and very few people will even know it's there. It will also [restore your reputation](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/2638/184688): you can force a recalculation of your rep on the [reputation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) (or it will happen automatically with some regularity) and this will not count downvotes on deleted questions. Reputation-wise, you're back to where you started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we're speaking about downvotes: don't be afraid to post things like these in meta, either. Downvotes here do not affect your reputation, and tend to be an indication of whether people agree with your proposals or the premises of your question. As long as you're polite and open-minded, and follow the usual civility rules, nothing much can happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="f9caa363-3b9b-42e7-a6ca-961ece24df90" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Go forth and answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are some sites where this can lead to issues. For example, on [StackOverflow][1] a number of users [race to be the first to post minimally helpful links][2], since that gets the most reputation per unit effort, resulting in a bunch of decidedly unhelpful tidbits that look like they were drawn from a live help session. As long as you are posting good, thorough answers, this isn't a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern on [TeX][3] is that there is a very small core of very good answerers (mostly the people who developed TeX and its brethren), and if they answer all the easy questions, [new users will be discouraged from participating in the community][4]. I doubt we will ever have that problem here. Between the number of questions we get and the breadth of topics they cover, no small group of people could answer them all (at least not well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other catch I'll mention is that you should not just blindly answer things. Take a look around at what established users take to be good questions. For example, if someone posts their homework assignment expecting us to just do it for them, we (high-rep users) *will* close it, and probably throw a few downvotes at it too. Our efforts at keeping up the quality and integrity of this site are made more difficult when new users quickly post solutions to these questions before we react.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should keep up your enthusiasm. My own experience is that after reaching 10k rep I grew far more picky in terms of which questions I would spend time answering. There are certainly posts where I know I could write a good answer, but I'm tired of explaining the same topic (e.g. the expansion of the universe) for the umpteenth time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tex.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1867/should-high-rep-users-hang-back-a-little" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="51e0ea79-0ea1-474d-a2de-deb73ef56870" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Just a quick note on a relevant development at MSO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Let's get rid of the 10K flag queue](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, if it goes through, much of this discussion would be obsolete. I quite like it, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="44f54d7d-7ba1-4ed1-96fc-87ed073bcb06" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Yes, the votes should be reversed within 24 hours. If they're not, then it's time to let a moderator know, on meta or chat or by a custom flag on one of the affected posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information see [this post on meta.SO](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="ba5a9379-26a4-4d63-aa83-82f70b272d4e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Yes, you're allowed to create multiple accounts, but there are [some restrictions on how you can use them](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57682/how-should-sockpuppets-be-handled-on-stack-exchange). Let me quote the key part of that answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **if the second account allows you to do something on the site that your normal account would be prevented from doing, it is abuse.**  Examples of this include (but are not limited to):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Voting on your own posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Casting multiple votes on others' posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Supporting your own arguments (_&quot;+1: shog is right, don't know why the rest of you don't realize this&quot;_)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using bounties to circumvent the rep cap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Circumventing suspensions, quality bans, or the rate limits on posting questions / answers / comments / etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the evidence available to moderators is suggestive of any of these activities, we'll take whatever corrective action is necessary. Usually that means merging and suspending the accounts, but of course it could vary on a case by case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to create multiple accounts and use them regularly, I'd suggest thinking carefully about why you want to do so, and whether you really need to. Although, as I said, it is _allowed_ to create and regularly use multiple accounts, it's not very common to have a good reason for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, Physics Forums is a completely different kind of site. In general, anything you may know about their policies won't necessarily apply here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="6ca8dcbb-a9ee-42dc-a7f9-3d54e5d5cd67" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="If you want to force a recalculation of your reputation, the reputation page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will give you an exhaustive breakdown and force a recalc. I currently see your reputation  at 2,010, so you're above that threshold, but as dmckee notes it is perfectly plausible for someone to have upvoted one of your answers, triggering the announcement, and then retracted the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes can be retracted [within the first five minutes after they're cast](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34323/im-getting-your-vote-is-too-old-to-be-changed-for-a-vote-i-made-less-than), in which case they do not show up in your reputation history. They can also [be retracted if the post is edited](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19235/is-this-a-bug-in-voting-or-is-it-supposed-to-work-like-this), in which case you will get a corresponding `-10` on your reputation history, with the explanation `unupvote`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [What are the limits on how I can cast, change, and retract votes?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5212/what-are-the-limits-on-how-i-can-cast-change-and-retract-votes) at the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tNPNP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="35afcaac-7b57-4973-9d4b-ed196e784ffb" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I continue to be befuddled by what exactly one is supposed to do with flags in the 10k tools, and I'm quite relieved to know [they're going away soon](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue). In the meantime, though, here's a stumper I just came across in my flagging history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post in question is [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104304/without-seeing-the-lightning-can-you-tell-how-far-away-it-struck-by-how-the-thu/104308#104308), which came up flagged as Not an Answer if I remember correctly. I understand why someone would flag this - it was only a sort-of good fit to the question to begin with - but I disagree that it failed to address the original intent of the OP. Particularly, I felt it did answer the question in its state at the time, with a less specific title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, given the current state of the question, I can understand that it might best be classed as Not an Answer. Given that, I can understand that my `invalid flags` is disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely stumped, however, at the message. `Flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer`? That has absolutely nothing to do with why I flagged this way. The technical content of the post was never an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone elucidate what on Earth this message means and how it came into being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mzWH9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="73c29fd9-afca-4e40-ab7a-cd86262eb21e" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="Unicoins are at present functional in certain features of the site. You can obtain them by mining them on the same applet window where you can spend them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it appears most monetary means to obtain Unicoins are taking some time to go online. That means that at present there is no way to obtain them other than mining. If you feel strongly about it, there are ways to automate the mining so that your browser will do the work for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about Unicoins in general, as well as said automation methods, see the Meta StackOverflow question  http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/227363/what-are-stack-overflow-unicoins. I should also mention that if you like Unicoins you should hurry to make the best of them, as certain commentators have hinted that this feature [may be available for a limited time only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xj9yK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="40f6ac83-b5cd-442d-91ad-83f23676dcd4" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="So it seems the [10k flag queue is being removed][1] with essentially no replacement. The general consensus over at SO (or at least my own reading of it) seems to be that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Moderators ignored 10k feedback in dealing with flags, and in fact this feedback was an encumbrance to them; and&#xD;&#xA;  2. 10k users have better things to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises a few Physics-specific questions. Regarding (1), **do the moderators here not use (or minimally use) the feedback 10k users provide via flags?** If that information was never useful, then there is no loss here, though in the future it would be nice to be told &quot;ignore that feature; we don't want you to add flags.&quot; If it was useful, are we losing functionality with the imminent change, and is there any way to recover it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding (2), **what else can I be doing as a 10k user?** I understand there are several information overviews tabulating migrations, voting trends, comment activity, etc. But these seem to be more for my own personal consumption; it's not clear how to use this information to *do* anything. A perfectly valid answer might be &quot;nothing - 10k users are just like any other user who can vote to close (3k) but can't vote to delete (20k),&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; but if that's the case this should really be spelled out clearly somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Well okay, tag wiki approval (5k) and protecting questions (15k) are in that range too, but these are pretty lightly used features here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="d993d521-feae-4ed9-adc0-35792c39fed9" CreationDate="2014-04-23T13:34:02.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration" Text="I've been looking through the new [Physics Overflow beta](http://physicsoverflow.org)¹ and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Note that the Physics Overflow is not part of the Stack Exchange network  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="5ddf3f82-ce6d-47ba-a21e-8ad9f0c37f09" CreationDate="2014-04-23T20:26:18.057" UserId="23473" Text="So a week or so ago, I made the [tag:frw-universe] tag; made a tag-wiki for it too. Recently, a certain someone (not relevant who) made it a synonym of [tag:cosmology]. For the record, it is currently the only synonym of [tag:cosmology]. I think this was not valid. I'd like to state my disagreement with this action and request that it be undone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cosmology is a broad field that applies to a very large number of topics. It is true that [tag:frw-universe] would be a subset of [tag:cosmology], but it is not a synonym. [tag:frw-universe] only applies to topics that include a scale factor, are about the GR model of the universe we live in, and make some reference to the slightly more advance concepts like Friedmann equations, Hubble radius, co-moving quantities, or the like. Whereas cosmology can be applied to a much broader range, such as AdS/CFT, Schwarzschild space, asymptotically de Sitter solutions, and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could have a question that asks about the problem with using de Sitter space as a model for the universe we live in. That would be tagged as [tag:cosmology], but it should not be [tag:frw-universe]. Similarily, a question asking about cosmological redshift is a cosmology question and it is probably within an FRW-universe, but the question shouldn't be tagged as [tag:frw-universe] any more than a question about radioisotope dating should be tagged with [tag:standard-model] Additionally, a question that asks about finding the Ricci tensor for a higher-dimensional FRW metric could be tagged under [tag:frw-universe] (albeit, it would be more appropriate as [tag:frw-metric], but those would more likely be synonyms) and [tag:general-relativity], but I wouldn't necessarily put it under [tag:cosmology].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, if this is a simple case that 99% of the time when [tag:frw-universe] is used, [tag:cosmology] will also be used, then I'd like to point out the existence of [tag:dark-energy], [tag:space-expansion], [tag:big-bang], or possibly the worst for that particular crime: [tag:cosmological-inflation]. These are all allowed and often used without being recast as synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on all this, I think the synonymizing should be reversed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="5ddf3f82-ce6d-47ba-a21e-8ad9f0c37f09" CreationDate="2014-04-23T20:26:18.057" UserId="23473" Text="Possible bad tag synonym" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="5ddf3f82-ce6d-47ba-a21e-8ad9f0c37f09" CreationDate="2014-04-23T20:26:18.057" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5746" RevisionGUID="a9f0b68b-22ad-4f02-b412-c6c280bbf5a2" CreationDate="2014-04-23T21:32:13.760" UserId="2451" Text="Well,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. if the Phys.SE community thinks a [tag:frw-universe] tag would be useful, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. if somebody would like to be custodian over the [tag:frw-universe] tag, then it seems like a good idea to undo the synonym. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an ideal world you are right: Let's tag all the questions as precise as possible. The problem is that we are only allowed to use 5 tags. And many users would not know the [tag:frw-universe] tag, and not use it. The fact is that currently almost none of the FRW-related questions are tagged as such. Thus it would require a custodian to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. initially find all the FRW-related questions and tag them appropriately, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. in the future to tag new FRW-related questions consistently.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="e6a00c71-0335-486d-b2d0-3c1e2e9e2532" CreationDate="2014-04-24T13:35:48.240" UserId="1492" Text="When voting for closing , the reasons one can check are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;duplicate, off topic, unclear, too broad, primarily opinion based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] though  is just too low level in physics and displays a lack of physics background and even if answered the person who asked would probably not understand the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might call the new choice &quot;OP needs  to read a basic physics course&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I answer such questions because usually some equally ignorant of basic physics  replies with irrelevant points, and it brings the level of the site down to a popular science one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109812/what-might-be-the-reason-that-more-dense-materials-are-better-at-shielding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="e6a00c71-0335-486d-b2d0-3c1e2e9e2532" CreationDate="2014-04-24T13:35:48.240" UserId="1492" Text="add another reason for closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="e6a00c71-0335-486d-b2d0-3c1e2e9e2532" CreationDate="2014-04-24T13:35:48.240" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="83152cd7-e917-4664-9a08-5174f3e6f36e" CreationDate="2014-04-24T15:17:00.203" UserId="1325" Text="Actually I think the linked question is not a bad one. I would have closed it, but I would have closed it because it's homework not because it's a silly question. I'd guess most of us did the experiment of seeing what materials would stop gamma rays at school, and that's what the OP is asking about. There's some interesting physics behind this that's readily explainable to school children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, this takes us back to the point I raised in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5697/should-we-have-a-popular-physics-se and the response of the community was clearly &quot;No!&quot; (which, in hindsight, I agree with). If a question is so badly stated as to be unanswerable then just close and who cares exactly what reason you choose. If the question is answerable then it's up to you to choose whether to answer it. If you don't bother answering then you can't criticise someone who does make the effort. If an answer is wrong then explain why in a comment, or if you're feeling vindictive downvote it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="f7574b75-8730-4371-946f-65c978f0c371" CreationDate="2014-04-24T18:00:45.403" UserId="124" Text="We're only allowed three custom close reasons\*, which will all necessarily be sub-reasons of &quot;off topic.&quot; So if we were to add another custom close reason for a lack of sufficient preparation (or whatever we would call it), it would have to replace one of the existing reasons. I don't dispute that this would probably be a good close reason to have, but the question is, is it more important than the ones we have there right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current close reasons - homework-like, non-mainstream, and engineering - were chosen because, roughly speaking, we (mods and others who offered input) thought they were the three most common types of questions we wanted to most actively discourage. Or more precisely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- they are used reasonably often&#xD;&#xA;- it's useful to have specific, standardized wording for them&#xD;&#xA;- we want to actively remind people that questions of that nature are not on topic&#xD;&#xA;- they tend not to overlap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Perhaps_ lack of preparation meets these criteria better than one of the current reasons, but I'm not entirely convinced that it does. In particular, I think a lot of these questions also fall under homework-like (including the example you linked to) or too broad, and can be closed as such. For those that don't, you can always type in a custom close reason which will be posted as a comment. And I think that ability is sufficient to handle these sorts of questions. I could be wrong, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could definitely see myself changing my mind if someone can come up with a wording for the new close reason that would be reasonably objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;\*actually it is technically possible to have up to 5, but all sites other than Stack Overflow are limited to 3 and we would have to petition the SE team with a _very_ strong case to get them to increase our allotment.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a separate note, I always **downvote** questions that show a lack of appropriate preparation. This relates to the issue in [this meta question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5736): I consider this site to be for expert-level questions in the sense that an asker must have adequate preparation in physics to coherently formulate their question and understand the answer they are seeking. Questions that don't satisfy that criterion demonstrate a lack of research effort (in a sense) and are sometimes also unclear, which is the criterion to cast a downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="ef14a065-8793-4782-a1de-da64e54b0f74" CreationDate="2014-04-25T07:17:45.770" UserId="24452" Text="I hope this question is suitable for discussing here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been hanging around on PSE, I found the text editor of this site is very good and simple(Markdown+Mathjax). I hope to find an online editor just as PSE, with a preview pane, the syntax is same, support math equations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want that I can save the manuscript on the server and get the sharing links so that I can send it to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, what I wanted is writing a post on PSE however this post would not bother anyone unless I share the link with them. Because some question may be too specific and no need to be seen to all the people, or maybe sometimes I want to discuss a questions with my friends privately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if PSE can offer this feature or anyone know a free online website fits all my requirements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="ef14a065-8793-4782-a1de-da64e54b0f74" CreationDate="2014-04-25T07:17:45.770" UserId="24452" Text="I am looking for a online text editor just like physics stack exchang" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="ef14a065-8793-4782-a1de-da64e54b0f74" CreationDate="2014-04-25T07:17:45.770" UserId="24452" Text="|feature-request|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="7982fa1d-11e4-4ba1-a6ec-4f6742c5c050" CreationDate="2014-04-25T07:21:11.710" UserId="7433" Text="Try [StackEdit][1], or [PageDown][2]. The latter is the open source engine that SE uses, the former is an editor based on SE's flavor of markdown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackedit.io/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pagedown.googlecode.com/hg/demo/browser/demo.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="891def76-10b5-429a-bb3c-4be3dd84d2de" CreationDate="2014-04-25T08:54:05.157" UserId="26169" Comment="edited title" Text="I am looking for a online text editor just like physics stack exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="9b21ae79-949a-4b85-be9d-d6cb04b9cf46" CreationDate="2014-04-25T11:00:48.013" UserId="31782" Text="I asked this question a few days ago: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.  &#xD;&#xA;I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What should I do now?   &#xD;&#xA;Should I explain more how my question is about [Physics](https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CDgQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPhysics&amp;ei=0T5aU4bFIIKLrQfIy4GIBA&amp;usg=AFQjCNGMFMK1mbBxI-sOP6bvwzS8vBf3JQ&amp;bvm=bv.65397613,d.bmk)?   &#xD;&#xA;Should I quote the whole artical from the referred book?  &#xD;&#xA;It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="9b21ae79-949a-4b85-be9d-d6cb04b9cf46" CreationDate="2014-04-25T11:00:48.013" UserId="31782" Text="How can I make my question On topic? 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="9b21ae79-949a-4b85-be9d-d6cb04b9cf46" CreationDate="2014-04-25T11:00:48.013" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="9d62204c-1b4a-4ca5-9c58-dbb3ece93e0d" CreationDate="2014-04-25T12:42:11.040" UserId="25301" Text="I voted to close your question because you posed it as an experiment on Physics.SE users and not physics (you've [twice now eliminated the disclaimer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/109506/revisions) stating [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/109506/4)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you've re-written it, it appears that your question is merely, *Why did the author assume the commutative &amp; associative properties at this point?* The answer may not be known (especially without looking at the ~70 year old book) or it might be a guessing game. Either way, I do not think it is worth re-opening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="b51167a4-cc5a-4a6c-8194-cf019da5bc5c" CreationDate="2014-04-25T12:56:15.003" UserId="31782" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Last but not the least if editing policy is mentioned somewhere please give me a link of that. If not then please mention it as an answer to my question.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="a75bc06d-8f07-49ce-97bf-ea63937570ce" CreationDate="2014-04-25T12:57:38.400" UserId="25301" Comment="answered the OPs questions at his request" Text="I voted to close your question because you posed it as an experiment on Physics.SE users and not physics (you've [twice now eliminated the disclaimer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/109506/revisions) stating [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/109506/4)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you've re-written it, it appears that your question is merely, *Why did the author assume the commutative &amp; associative properties at this point?* The answer may not be known (especially without looking at the ~70 year old book) or it might be a guessing game. Either way, I do not think it is worth re-opening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What should I do now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot expedite the process, so the best you can do is hope that your pleas sway 3k+ voters to re-open it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Should I explain more how my question is about Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how it's about physics period, it appears to me to be purely about the associative &amp; commutative laws of algebra. You probably could post it on Math.SE for a reasonable answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Should I quote the whole artical [sic] from the referred book?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That might be a case of *Too Long; Didn't Read* (TL;DR). Personally, I think you've done enough to show what the article is stating, I just think it's a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated above, probably Math.SE because it's not about physics (at least as far as I can read into it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="481947ce-48de-4a5d-b9f6-a63d8ef5dbac" CreationDate="2014-04-25T12:58:06.000" UserId="31782" Comment="Capitalization." Text="should I try to raise my reputation .But how? Can I remove this ban by deleting my all posts questions etc or make a new account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13321" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="481947ce-48de-4a5d-b9f6-a63d8ef5dbac" CreationDate="2014-04-25T12:58:06.000" UserId="31782" Comment="Capitalization." Text="I cant answer now any question on physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="f9124095-57d9-4cc8-a1af-1e3f1ad068bb" CreationDate="2014-04-25T13:02:35.987" UserId="31782" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This question isn't duplicate anymore. Why people criticize beginners?  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82672/what-is-the-length-of-a-photon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="62485f76-20a5-4717-8f27-7767f41cea43" CreationDate="2014-04-25T13:05:20.093" UserId="31782" Comment="deleted 174 characters in body" Text="I asked a  question about the relation between mathematics and physics a few days ago: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.  &#xD;&#xA;I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Should I explain more how my question is about [&quot;_Mathematical Physics_&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time#comment224114_109506)  &#xD;&#xA;- Should I quote the whole article from the referred book?  &#xD;&#xA;- It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="67d69a37-75a3-401a-8379-d0163adaa573" CreationDate="2014-04-25T13:41:14.563" UserId="8563" Comment="Grammar fixes." Text="This question isn't duplicate anymore. Why do people criticize beginners?  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82672/what-is-the-length-of-a-photon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="67d69a37-75a3-401a-8379-d0163adaa573" CreationDate="2014-04-25T13:41:14.563" UserId="8563" Comment="Grammar fixes." Text="Why was this question marked as a duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="3d834ed1-bd0c-457a-b349-80d1de88d4db" CreationDate="2014-04-25T13:42:52.500" UserId="8563" Comment="Further grammar fixes" Text="Should I try to raise my reputation? How should I do this? Can I remove this ban by deleting my all posts questions etc, or should I make a new account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="6c30bb39-9b78-4678-9387-2e0662d0b60c" CreationDate="2014-04-25T14:06:34.523" UserId="8563" Text="User profiles in Stack Exchange have typically been a very personal thing and the attitude towards them has been the most laissez-faire in the spectrum of SE policy. It is usual for user profiles to include links to external sites, as this is e.g. the place for users to link to their personal webpages or blogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any specific content which should not be placed in that area, or which could lead to a suspension? Should I refrain from e.g. promoting Quora in that space?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="6c30bb39-9b78-4678-9387-2e0662d0b60c" CreationDate="2014-04-25T14:06:34.523" UserId="8563" Text="Is promoting external websites in user profiles forbidden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="6c30bb39-9b78-4678-9387-2e0662d0b60c" CreationDate="2014-04-25T14:06:34.523" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="ba0c56ba-c078-408b-81d8-b580aa14a5ba" CreationDate="2014-04-25T14:11:13.237" UserId="7433" Text="You can put whatever you want in your profile. (barring NSFW or generally offensive material, though the rules are pretty lax on that too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, feel free to link to Quora there :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="a0de5b19-07eb-4020-83a2-82d142a39603" CreationDate="2014-04-25T14:33:44.433" UserId="31782" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I asked a  question about the relation between mathematics and physics a few days ago: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.  &#xD;&#xA;I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Should I explain more how my question is about [&quot;_Mathematical Physics_&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time#comment224114_109506)  &#xD;&#xA;- Should I quote the whole article from the referred book?  &#xD;&#xA;- It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?   &#xD;&#xA;- Is my question a bad question, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="1bb8371c-c7b5-459b-9a2a-707e4dde8a24" CreationDate="2014-04-25T17:37:04.640" UserId="8563" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="User profiles in Stack Exchange have typically been a very personal thing and the attitude towards them has been the most laissez-faire in the spectrum of SE policy. It is usual for user profiles to include links to external sites, as this is e.g. the place for users to link to their personal webpages or blogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any specific content which should not be placed in that area, or which could lead to a suspension? Should I refrain from e.g. promoting Quora in that space? What about Physics Overflow? If such links are allowed, how does this match with the existence of suspensions for 'promotional content'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="6fd17f8f-ba3a-4578-9276-40d1f5d27330" CreationDate="2014-04-25T20:57:23.117" UserId="124" Text="To expand on what Manishearth said and address the last part of the question: the guidelines on what constitutes excessive self-promotion are outlined in the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Avoid overt self-promotion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a large percentage of your posts include a mention of your product or website, you're probably here for the wrong reasons. Our advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for details. We also offer free community promotion ads for open source projects and non-profit organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suspensions for promotional content are issued when people behave in a way that violates these guidelines, are warned about it, and don't stop. In particular, you need to make a _lot_ of posts (questions, answers, comments, or chat messages) with only marginally relevant (or irrelevant) links to get suspended for that reason. No matter how many links you put in your profile, they only appear in one place, and it's a place that people actually have to actively seek out in order to see what you put there. So I'm fairly certain that nobody will ever get suspended for posting promotional content solely due to something they put in their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that none of this depends on which site is being linked to, except to the extent that the target of the links determines whether they are relevant. (Linking to a porn site will probably never be relevant; linking to e.g. Quora could be, but it depends on the target and context of the link.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13334" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="922b1d6a-4ae5-48e6-abcf-11c42f3bf523" CreationDate="2014-04-25T21:04:31.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/459800145027411969" />
  <row Id="13335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="e9352d72-bb03-4414-aa97-b7516e242e10" CreationDate="2014-04-25T22:17:50.493" UserId="124" Comment="add clarification about suspension and note about specific websites" Text="To expand on what Manishearth said and address the last part of the question: the guidelines on what constitutes excessive self-promotion are outlined in the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Avoid overt self-promotion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a large percentage of your posts include a mention of your product or website, you're probably here for the wrong reasons. Our advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for details. We also offer free community promotion ads for open source projects and non-profit organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suspensions for promotional content are issued when people behave in a way that violates these guidelines, are warned about it\*, and don't stop. In particular, you need to make a _lot_ of posts (questions, answers, comments, or chat messages) with only marginally relevant (or irrelevant) links to get suspended for that reason. No matter how many links you put in your profile, they only appear in one place, and it's a place that people actually have to actively seek out in order to see what you put there. So I'm fairly certain that nobody will ever get suspended for posting promotional content solely due to something they put in their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that none of this depends on which site is being linked to, except to the extent that the target of the links determines whether they are relevant. (Linking to a porn site will probably never be relevant; linking to e.g. Quora could be, but it depends on the target and context of the link.) In particular, we don't have any rules of the form &quot;no linking to [specific website],&quot; whether in profiles or elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*I should clarify that we do _not_ have any policy saying that you must have been warned about certain behavior prior to being suspended for that behavior. But as a courtesy, we (moderators) usually try to verify that a user who behaves in a way that warrants a suspension is aware that they are doing so, and has a chance to stop, before actually issuing a suspension. There's usually not much point in suspending someone who doesn't realize they're breaking a rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="cf707685-78e8-4047-89bb-871fe613d69e" CreationDate="2014-04-26T08:17:49.317" UserId="1325" Text="As you originally phrased your question it seemed as if you weren't really that interested in an answer and the point was to see if if got closed. I suspect the original question is beyond recovery and if you're really interested you should pose it as a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally the answer is that you're mixing up the *perception of the flow of time* with *time*. Time is just a coordinate that extends to the positive and negative of some arbitrarily chosen point (as is space). If you wish to *experience* time moving from 0 to -5 you can do, and of course you would see the direction of motion reversed, but this doesn't change the sign of quantities like *dx/dt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13337" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="1dab1edc-a38f-4c10-bc81-6de9f24e2879" CreationDate="2014-04-26T12:04:33.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/460026643365765120" />
  <row Id="13339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="12c781fb-439a-4ada-b8c1-314db2ab8cd4" CreationDate="2014-04-29T11:35:49.570" UserId="16660" Text="[This question][1] was recently closed as `Too broad`. While I see how that would be the case if the question is interpreted as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explain the entire theories of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question that's being asked is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do the differences in these three methods manifest themselves the solving of a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that seems to me like a decent question which could probably be addressed in a reasonably sized answer. In fact, I was half-way through writing an answer when the question was closed. I must say it was slightly disappointing to think my time on that answer was wasted, so perhaps I am prejudiced. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you see this? Is the question too broad? If so, can it be rephrased (I've already made a humble attempt myself) or is it unsalvageable without significantly altering the core question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110475/can-you-give-example-of-some-problems-with-solutions-in-each-of-newtonian-lagra" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="12c781fb-439a-4ada-b8c1-314db2ab8cd4" CreationDate="2014-04-29T11:35:49.570" UserId="16660" Text="Is this question too broad and if so, can it be fixed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="12c781fb-439a-4ada-b8c1-314db2ab8cd4" CreationDate="2014-04-29T11:35:49.570" UserId="16660" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="9ab6292c-0315-4349-9fd4-e4d4e7de06ac" CreationDate="2014-04-29T12:52:36.697" UserId="25301" Text="I think it is a little broad, but mostly because the OP wants examples of solving the same problem done in the three methods which can take up quite some space (especially if you chose a problem that is rather complicated in one method to show the power of the others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we neglected that aspect, the question would then be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the key differences between Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian dynamics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which *probably* could be answered easily and quickly enough, but it might be an [&quot;insufficient effort&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5747/add-another-reason-for-closing) type question and remain closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5760" RevisionGUID="3bb8d217-3fa7-49ac-9ee2-953cf1415dd7" CreationDate="2014-04-29T15:11:45.193" UserId="520" Text="If I were to answer that question my answer would look something like what appears below. The problem I see with that kind of answer is that it is only useful if you already have experience with these methods so that you can relate to the amount of work (and level of creativity/cleverness) each step demands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternate approach is to claim that Newtonian physics is concerned with forces, Lagrangian with energies and Hamiltonian with momenta, but again that is not helpful unless the reader has a framework to hang the explanation on and beginning students may incorrectly feel that I mean the treatment of energy and momenta in the Newtonian mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, the problem is that the reader has to understand before they can understand and that calls for an entire chapter with exercises in a textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving steps in each formalism&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Newtonian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Draw picture, choose coordinate system&#xD;&#xA;2. Identify forces (i.e. free body diagrams go here)&#xD;&#xA;3. Write the algebraic relationships between various quantities in the system&#xD;&#xA;4. Bash the algebra and calculus until you get to the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lagrangian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Draw picture, choose generalized coordinates&#xD;&#xA;2. Write down the kinetic and potential energies in terms of the generalized coordinate (and thereby get the Lagrangian). Identify what form (1st, 2nd, undetermined multiplies) you want to use&#xD;&#xA;3. Extract derivatives and write down Equations of Motion&#xD;&#xA;4. Bash the system of PDEs until you have solved the system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Draw picture, choose generalized coordinates&#xD;&#xA;2. Write down the kinetic and potential energies in terms of the generalized coordinate (and thereby get the Lagrangian).&#xD;&#xA;3. Extract the generalized momenta from the Lagrangian&#xD;&#xA;4. Invert the momenta and write down the Hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;5. Extract the derivatives of the Hamiltonian thus arriving at the remaining Equations of Motion&#xD;&#xA;6. Bash the system of PDEs until you have solved the system&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="c0f809e4-831e-4957-a5b3-b953e6279e54" CreationDate="2014-04-29T18:16:59.923" UserId="124" Text="The key statement of the original question (v1) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you show me a problem and solved with basic characteristics of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods. like  &#xD;&#xA;Problem : ........................  &#xD;&#xA;Solution with Newtonian : ....................  &#xD;&#xA;Solution with Lagrangian : ........................  &#xD;&#xA;Solution with Hamiltonian : ......................&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several reasons I think this is a bad question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any time someone says effectively &quot;answer the question in this format,&quot; it's a strong (though not definite) indicator of an asker who wants to be spoon-fed, and is not going to put in the effort to understand a reasonable answer. This is supported by the lack of any reference to an attempt by the OP to answer the question themselves, or even to look up a suitable problem and solutions in a textbook or problem book. So I think it's very clear that the OP has not put in anywhere close to sufficient effort to craft a good question for this site. As far as I'm concerned, this warrants a downvote, and one _could_ argue also closure under the homework-like reason (though that could be a bit of a stretch). If we were to have an &quot;insufficient effort&quot; close reason then this would certainly qualify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- This question, and in particular the way in which the question is asked, suggests it's being asked by someone who has not studied Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. And in fact the poster says as much earlier in the question. That means they won't have the expertise required to make sense of the kind of answer we'd give them. What they need for this particular misunderstanding is a textbook or a course in classical mechanics, not a question on this site, and thus any useful answer to their question is likely to be very long (in an attempt to incorporate much of the material that a class would cover). That's part of the description of the &quot;too broad&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    When I say this is a site for expert-level questions, this is the kind of thing I mean to exclude, and thus for this reason as well I'm inclined to downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Beyond that, the question is very much non-specific. It doesn't give us any indication of what the asker is really confused about, and in particular it doesn't address any sort of conceptual misunderstanding. Without that information, it will be a shot in the dark for us to provide a problem and solutions that are actually helpful. This qualifies it to be closed as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And finally, there's an endless list of possible answers, which is one of the criteria mentioned _explicitly_ in the description for the &quot;too broad&quot; close reason. Now, of course any question can have a large number of possible answers, if you go by word-for-word comparison, but usually there is something in the question that will cause all possible _correct_ answers to basically be saying the same thing. In this case, if the OP had identified some aspect of the various formalisms that they were confused about (as I mentioned in the previous bullet point), that would give the answers something to address and perhaps excuse the question from being too broad, but in this revision there is nothing of the sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the rephrased version (v3): the key statement is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use an example to outline the basic characteristics (and key differences) of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods in their approach to classical mechanics problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an improvement over v1, as it addresses the formatting issue from the first bullet point above, and _partially_ the third, in the sense that it _starts_ to give a clue as to why the asker is confused. But the second and fourth, and part of the third, still stand. In particular, the question is still being asked by someone who is not prepared to receive a reasonable answer, and there's still nothing sufficiently specific identifying a particular concept that confuses the OP. Any edit we could make to remedy that would involve a significant amount of guessing on the editors' part as to what the OP really wanted to know. So **I don't think it's possible to fix this question through editing without intervention by the OP.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="6ba0d739-85e9-4ab4-8fd5-67560a6cb1d3" CreationDate="2014-04-29T19:45:21.053" UserId="124" Comment="clarify that I think the question should stay on hold" Text="The key statement of the original question (v1) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you show me a problem and solved with basic characteristics of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods. like  &#xD;&#xA;Problem : ........................  &#xD;&#xA;Solution with Newtonian : ....................  &#xD;&#xA;Solution with Lagrangian : ........................  &#xD;&#xA;Solution with Hamiltonian : ......................&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several reasons I think this is a bad question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any time someone says effectively &quot;answer the question in this format,&quot; it's a strong (though not definite) indicator of an asker who wants to be spoon-fed, and is not going to put in the effort to understand a reasonable answer. This is supported by the lack of any reference to an attempt by the OP to answer the question themselves, or even to look up a suitable problem and solutions in a textbook or problem book. So I think it's very clear that the OP has not put in anywhere close to sufficient effort to craft a good question for this site. As far as I'm concerned, this warrants a downvote, and one _could_ argue also closure under the homework-like reason (though that could be a bit of a stretch). If we were to have an &quot;insufficient effort&quot; close reason then this would certainly qualify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- This question, and in particular the way in which the question is asked, suggests it's being asked by someone who has not studied Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. And in fact the poster says as much earlier in the question. That means they won't have the expertise required to make sense of the kind of answer we'd give them. What they need for this particular misunderstanding is a textbook or a course in classical mechanics, not a question on this site, and thus any useful answer to their question is likely to be very long (in an attempt to incorporate much of the material that a class would cover). That's part of the description of the &quot;too broad&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    When I say this is a site for expert-level questions, this is the kind of thing I mean to exclude, and thus for this reason as well I'm inclined to downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Beyond that, the question is very much non-specific. It doesn't give us any indication of what the asker is really confused about, and in particular it doesn't address any sort of conceptual misunderstanding. Without that information, it will be a shot in the dark for us to provide a problem and solutions that are actually helpful. This qualifies it to be closed as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And finally, there's an endless list of possible answers, which is one of the criteria mentioned _explicitly_ in the description for the &quot;too broad&quot; close reason. Now, of course any question can have a large number of possible answers, if you go by word-for-word comparison, but usually there is something in the question that will cause all possible _correct_ answers to basically be saying the same thing. In this case, if the OP had identified some aspect of the various formalisms that they were confused about (as I mentioned in the previous bullet point), that would give the answers something to address and perhaps excuse the question from being too broad, but in this revision there is nothing of the sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the rephrased version (v3): the key statement is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use an example to outline the basic characteristics (and key differences) of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods in their approach to classical mechanics problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an improvement over v1, as it addresses the formatting issue from the first bullet point above, and _partially_ the third, in the sense that it _starts_ to give a clue as to why the asker is confused. But the second and fourth, and part of the third, still stand. In particular, the question is still being asked by someone who is not prepared to receive a reasonable answer, and there's still nothing sufficiently specific identifying a particular concept that confuses the OP. Any edit we could make to remedy that would involve a significant amount of guessing on the editors' part as to what the OP really wanted to know. So **I don't think it's possible to fix this question through editing without intervention by the OP**, and thus I think this should remain on hold unless and until the OP does edit it in a way that addresses these issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="b4528e08-f21a-47f4-9221-d13aef88d986" CreationDate="2014-04-30T12:45:14.837" UserId="1325" Text="I mean this change:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Taskbar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically the number in the orange square, which is related in some vague to the number of posts that have needed review in the last day or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it shows &quot;20&quot; this implies to me that there are 20 outstanding reviews required. Only there aren't. When I click the &quot;20&quot; or the &quot;review&quot; link there are no reviews pending. This used to show the number of edits pending, and I can see the case for making it show the number of pending reviews of all kinds. However I can't see the case for making it show effectively random numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wMTDj.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="b4528e08-f21a-47f4-9221-d13aef88d986" CreationDate="2014-04-30T12:45:14.837" UserId="1325" Text="The change to the taskbar is massively annoying" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="b4528e08-f21a-47f4-9221-d13aef88d986" CreationDate="2014-04-30T12:45:14.837" UserId="1325" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13349" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="4371b2a6-2975-429e-b439-9a5bc067b914" CreationDate="2014-04-30T13:44:40.417" UserId="11062" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13350" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="ef489500-51e4-4ecf-8b5e-68e933b553a7" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:36:26.610" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5763" RevisionGUID="3af77ec4-a51b-4fab-addd-bafd6ff90cc9" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:41:50.940" UserId="2911" Text="They're not random: if the bar shows 20, then there are actually 20 pending review tasks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, unlike the numbers shown to you and everyone else in /review, this number counts *everything* - including tasks you aren't personally eligible to review. This includes tasks you've already done, tasks you've skipped, and tasks that the system expects you might not be sufficiently impartial to review (e.g., things you've already flagged or posted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many of [the 10K tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools), this is intended to be *informational,* something to give you a high-level overview of what's happening on your site. If the number is getting bigger, there's a problem *even if you personally are reviewing everything you can!* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="07fb2c10-6d5f-42ba-8c75-5cd4a5f1a40a" CreationDate="2014-05-01T05:46:15.450" UserId="31782" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82449/mean-free-time-as-explained-in-e-spenkes-book?noredirect=1#comment173362_82449. Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the comm mod I asked the same question on Math.SE and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="07fb2c10-6d5f-42ba-8c75-5cd4a5f1a40a" CreationDate="2014-05-01T05:46:15.450" UserId="31782" Text="Why was this question hated by the community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="07fb2c10-6d5f-42ba-8c75-5cd4a5f1a40a" CreationDate="2014-05-01T05:46:15.450" UserId="31782" Text="|discussion|down-votes|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="12950416-0bb1-488b-9cf7-9abd0718350e" CreationDate="2014-05-01T05:49:48.230" UserId="31782" Comment="Capitalization." Text="I flagged some comments and answers as technically wrong but these flags were declined and moderator's reply was:&quot;flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How I am supposed to notify the technical inaccuracies? I have got privilege to comment everywhere and I left some comments on the answers which have some technical inaccuracies.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it ok to leave such a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="00dfcb67-2f5f-4bbc-8d18-916cdbf41425" CreationDate="2014-05-01T08:34:17.747" UserId="31782" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82449/mean-free-time-as-explained-in-e-spenkes-book?noredirect=1#comment173362_82449. Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the comm mod I asked [the same question on Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/595538/the-exponential-decay) and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="770f81a0-30f8-4a6e-92be-380d7184a80a" CreationDate="2014-05-01T10:23:26.613" UserId="7433" Text="The first version required the user to find a book and read it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Has anyone read e.spenke's book? what's mathematical definition of mean free time for metal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one was very unclear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E.spenke:-&quot;if on the average, a time T elapsed between two collisions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of an electron, dt/T terminal points of such times fall on average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into the time interval dt. thus an electron suffers in the interval dt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the average dt/T collisions, and N electrons suffer N.dt/T&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collisions. thus collisions eliminate in an interval dt on the average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dN= N.dt/T electrons from a group with uniform velocity hence decrease&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exponentialy with time: N=N(0).e^(-t/T)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; i think dt/T is the probability of an electron to collide here. but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can it be shown mathematically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also was rather badly formatted, and this makes people less likely to read it. Someone improved it for you, though, and you made further improvements to it. However, it was a bit late by then, and people had already seen the post and may not have checked again for improvements. (also, if it has a score &lt;-3, it gets hidden from the main page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also suggest you keep titles descriptive of the actual question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="e44dcde4-ae6a-4246-950f-8670f0e8219d" CreationDate="2014-05-01T12:22:52.413" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82449/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the community mod I asked [the same question on Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/595538/) and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="5f71f9d2-eb5e-4a8e-9bef-055da012233c" CreationDate="2014-05-03T20:18:16.283" UserDisplayName="user20719" Text="I requested for a deletion of my account for Physics.SE. It's been more than six hours and apparently no action has been taken yet. Can anyone tell me how long a deletion process normally needs to finish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="5f71f9d2-eb5e-4a8e-9bef-055da012233c" CreationDate="2014-05-03T20:18:16.283" UserDisplayName="user20719" Text="How long does it take to get an account deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="5f71f9d2-eb5e-4a8e-9bef-055da012233c" CreationDate="2014-05-03T20:18:16.283" UserDisplayName="user20719" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5767" RevisionGUID="9c2ab7b9-34c4-41e7-95b3-2b0cbf98c40f" CreationDate="2014-05-04T00:15:45.003" UserId="124" Text="Someone at Stack Exchange HQ will need to verify and process your request, so you will probably need to wait _at least_ until Monday during business hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13364" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="796515df-8efc-49cc-869c-5bb4623c5df9" CreationDate="2014-05-04T12:36:59.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/462933910176145408" />
  <row Id="13365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="786cac3d-286d-4ff3-9b85-1ea8cca38050" CreationDate="2014-05-04T15:46:37.563" UserId="2451" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="I requested for a deletion of my account for Physics.SE, cf. [this help page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleting-account). It's been more than six hours and apparently no action has been taken yet. Can anyone tell me how long a deletion process normally needs to finish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="944c05ed-adb9-4c18-a002-b57a3210f336" CreationDate="2014-05-04T18:56:50.063" UserId="1325" Text="As discussed http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5673/what-exactly-should-10k-users-be-doing-to-help-the-site the flag review queue has disappeared, but it isn't clear to me whether flagging answers is still useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With questions, the implication of the the above question is that it's better to put effort into voting to close and downvoting as appropriate. With answers there is no vote to close, so for answers that are really comments, or spam, or whatever flagging and downvoting are the only options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is whether it's helpful to the moderators if we flag answers, or should we just downvote them? If the answer is that flagging is helpful, are all the flags helpful or just the more extreme ones like *offensive, abusive or hate speech*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="944c05ed-adb9-4c18-a002-b57a3210f336" CreationDate="2014-05-04T18:56:50.063" UserId="1325" Text="Should we still be flagging answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="944c05ed-adb9-4c18-a002-b57a3210f336" CreationDate="2014-05-04T18:56:50.063" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="fef265f2-9ed5-4651-b549-19bc704968cc" CreationDate="2014-05-05T01:23:29.150" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="885169ed-56bc-4cc8-b288-d15341136d57" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:42:11.957" UserId="2911" Text="Absolutely. *Flagging* is no less useful now than it was before; only the process by which flags are *handled* has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19104/how-do-metallic-objects-interfere-with-x-rays/111106#111106) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could I ask then what is the comparable &quot;blocking&quot; ability of lead, zinc and regular carbon steel (ie steel used in general construction), In simple terms, for example 1mm of lead is the same as ?mm zinc and ??mm steel????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, that is *not* an answer. Flagging it as such puts it in front of the moderators *and* other users via /review/low-quality-posts. If multiple people flag the same answer, it gets pushed toward the top of the moderator queue. It *also* gets a bit of additional weight on the side of &quot;delete&quot; in /review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, either moderators or reviewers can delete the answer - this means the flag will be handled regardless of whether or not there are moderators or reviewers active on the site - the post will be dealt with by whoever gets to it first. In this case, *both* queues contributed to handling the flag, with a reviewer leaving a comment explaining why this was not an appropriate answer and a moderator following up by deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases, the flag may not be able to be handled by reviewers. These flags enter the moderator queue *only*, and remain there until a moderator is able to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a 10K user][1], you're now kept abreast of the state of /review via [the number at the top of the page][2]; if that number isn't budging for days at a time, neither moderators nor reviewers are keeping up and flagging isn't working - maybe ask around and try to find out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A pocket guide to flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the following flags are available in various situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Very Low Quality:** used to call out a question or answer that is *abysmally* bad - not necessarily even incorrect, but impossible to understand or utterly irrelevant. The sort of post that would embarrass you if it showed up when you were showing off the site to a peer. Each &quot;helpful&quot; VLQ flag comes with an automatic downvote, compliments of the system. Only available for posts scoring &lt;=0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Not an answer:** used to call attention to posts that do not even attempt to answer the question they're posted in response to. Follow-up questions, commentary on other answers, rants, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Offensive:** posts that shock the proverbial conscience. Generally, such posts will have other problems as well, which might otherwise result in them being closed or deleted - but in this case the author has gone out of his way to make his work odious. Each flag generates an immediate downvote from the system, which will be retracted if the flag is declined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Spam:** overt self-promotion. Can be anything from mechanically-generated offers of discount handbags, to someone obnoxiously pushing their tangentially-relevant blog in lieu of actually answering questions. Like Offensive, you'll know it when you see it. Also generates an automatic downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *A sufficient number of either Spam or Offensive flags on a post will cause it to be instantly removed, locked, and the author's reputation docked 100 points. If you find spam inherently offensive, just pick whichever option seems more appropriate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Other:** You're not quite sure how to categorize it, but *something is rotten in the state of Denmark*. Hopefully, an experienced moderator will be able to sort it out. Requires entering a description of the problem - *be specific!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying/5763#5763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="7a920fa2-72cf-4682-9571-f3c845b24cf9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:13:53.483" UserId="19976" Text="When I use the search bar to perform a keyword search for previous questions, is it possible (for example) to append something to my keywords so that my search will include questions that have been put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="7a920fa2-72cf-4682-9571-f3c845b24cf9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:13:53.483" UserId="19976" Text="Is it possible to search for questions that have been put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="7a920fa2-72cf-4682-9571-f3c845b24cf9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:13:53.483" UserId="19976" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="72e308c8-ea74-4f42-b6fe-6b64397bb303" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:47:57.273" UserId="2451" Text="There seems to be no way to only search for questions 'on hold', but one can use the search word [closed:yes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3ayes) to find all closed questions (that haven't been deleted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Phys.SE search engine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search), click on _Advanced Search Tips_ in the right margin to learn more search tips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="a12fd87e-f2f3-4ba0-9013-59f57a12e510" CreationDate="2014-05-05T21:04:42.387" UserId="40394" Text="Here is a solid criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mathematical questions may be asked, but only in the context of predicting some physical phenomena.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the use of mathematics in physics, and what separates it from mathematics for good'ole mathematics sake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="eba0cbd5-3611-4d71-a688-0579f8f6ac29" CreationDate="2014-05-05T22:25:18.943" UserId="2451" Comment="added explanation" Text="There seems to be no direct way to only search for questions 'on hold', but one can use the search word [closed:yes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3ayes) to find all closed questions (that haven't been deleted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an indirect way to only search for questions 'on hold', one could try the search [closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=closed%3ayes%20duplicate%3ano%20migrated%3ano).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, to learn how to search, click on _Advanced Search Tips_ in the right margin of the [Phys.SE search box](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search) page, or visit the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) for a more complete set of search options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5773" RevisionGUID="1aaba091-de71-4a76-b8af-3bae12cc379c" CreationDate="2014-05-06T13:15:31.047" UserId="4646" Text="I just had a bounty awarded for [my answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111006/how-does-light-bend-around-my-finger-tip/111238#111238).  (Thanks, Ruslan!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I went to look at it, though, I noticed that the bounty marker icon looked kind of awkward, like it didn't really *want* to be there, shuffling off to one side and huddling uncomfortably close to the accepted answer checkmark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Screenshot 1: awkwardly placed bounty marker icon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should give our bounty icon a little more grace and confidence, make it be proud of itself!  And I think I know just the CSS rule to do it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- language: lang-css --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .vote .bounty-award {&#xD;&#xA;         margin: 5px auto;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The `.vote` is there just to make this rule more specific than the existing bounty margin rule, which, for some strange reason, specifies a 5 pixel *right* margin and nothing else.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this new CSS rule added, the bounty icon looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Screenshot 2: improved bounty marker icon placement][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Yes, I got an upvote while testing this.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks a lot better, don't you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the awkward bounty marker placement doesn't seem to be limited just to physics.SE, although it's more obvious here than one many other SE sites.  As far as I can tell, the CSS rule I suggested above seems to improve (or have no visible effect on) the bounty marker appearance on *all* Stack Exchange sites I've so far tested it on, so I'd suggest it as a general CSS change to all the sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I'm posting this bug report / suggestion here, rather than on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com), because the problem is most noticeable here on physics.SE.  (And because per-site metas just don't get enough love in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iugkU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bLAqH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5773" RevisionGUID="1aaba091-de71-4a76-b8af-3bae12cc379c" CreationDate="2014-05-06T13:15:31.047" UserId="4646" Text="Bounty icon is poorly placed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5773" RevisionGUID="1aaba091-de71-4a76-b8af-3bae12cc379c" CreationDate="2014-05-06T13:15:31.047" UserId="4646" Text="|bug|design|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="ce942a66-7c8e-40ce-874e-77c607c72791" CreationDate="2014-05-07T18:19:13.820" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="ba4d6b21-4e7b-4b58-9bc8-b4b5e38b62a0" CreationDate="2014-05-08T06:50:18.670" UserId="31782" Text="![I am in danger!](http://i.imgur.com/kzFljxq.png)   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Finally a warning banner has been installed to tell users that they are going to be banned to ask questions. This is very good. It saved me for getting banned again.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The banner says:&quot;_...edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity_&quot;. Which questions should I edit? Should I edit my deleted questions Or my present undeleted questions? Or should I improve all of my questions? &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;What do we mean my _&quot;well received&quot;_? Do questions  to whom I haven't accepted an answer are called &quot;_not well recieved_&quot; or only which are downvoted? Or which are closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="ba4d6b21-4e7b-4b58-9bc8-b4b5e38b62a0" CreationDate="2014-05-08T06:50:18.670" UserId="31782" Text="I am in danger of being blocked from asking any more questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="ba4d6b21-4e7b-4b58-9bc8-b4b5e38b62a0" CreationDate="2014-05-08T06:50:18.670" UserId="31782" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="04793523-c917-469e-a4a0-b106ce95b507" CreationDate="2014-05-08T06:57:40.480" UserId="7433" Text="Hm, this warning has been around for a while it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not well received&quot; means downvoted, closed, or deleted, with different weightages for the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Undelete your deleted questions if you self deleted them, and fix them. Also, fix your downvoted ones, take feedback from the people in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [link][1] in that banner lists how you can improve your questions and avoid a ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="809b875f-873b-49eb-8f90-a9a12da3a58e" CreationDate="2014-05-08T11:32:53.977" UserId="2451" Comment="removed deleted links" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/774831/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/765211/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/764631/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/761917/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/754449/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/747413/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/746432/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/744131/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/735556/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/726177/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/722339/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/718567/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="99e0bf5e-1cc2-4c0f-80a4-468972b99200" CreationDate="2014-05-08T19:34:24.003" UserId="34274" Text="I was thinking about a whole family of grey questions that the SE structure kind of makes difficult to answer. If there are problems which overlap with two areas, say Physics and one of the Engineering sites, and require expertise in both fields, should there be a mechanism to create a multi-forum question. Questions like these may not be suitable to just migrate over but still contribute to the Physics discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example here is a question I asked:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109875/ricci-tensor-calculus-and-matrix-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's as relevant to physics as it is to engineering and math. That being said it would be difficult to get a satisfying question unless you have people from the math and engineering area who also prowl the Physics forum. It's on topic and a satisfying answer would help refine an understanding of Physics vs. Engineering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking it would be interesting to see different SE forums being able to host the same question with the responses from all the forums it is in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you guys think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="99e0bf5e-1cc2-4c0f-80a4-468972b99200" CreationDate="2014-05-08T19:34:24.003" UserId="34274" Text="Linked Questions across different StackExchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="99e0bf5e-1cc2-4c0f-80a4-468972b99200" CreationDate="2014-05-08T19:34:24.003" UserId="34274" Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13392" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="8f7c136f-c64d-49f2-bc0e-ea92966c74b5" CreationDate="2014-05-09T16:44:19.633" UserId="31782" Comment="Capitalization." Text="How do I dispute a moderator's diclination of two of my flags that I raised?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="76659075-747c-4a3a-979b-a4e7d656323d" CreationDate="2014-05-10T04:56:13.457" UserId="124" Text="On Physics Stack Exchange, people asking questions are expected to demonstrate that they've put a certain amount of effort into answering the question themselves. What exactly counts as sufficient effort?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="76659075-747c-4a3a-979b-a4e7d656323d" CreationDate="2014-05-10T04:56:13.457" UserId="124" Text="What counts as sufficient prior research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="76659075-747c-4a3a-979b-a4e7d656323d" CreationDate="2014-05-10T04:56:13.457" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|questions|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="969522cd-babd-481c-9f22-02e67c83779c" CreationDate="2014-05-10T04:56:13.457" UserId="124" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). The [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net) search engine may be helpful, especially if you're asking about particle physics or a closely related area. Also give [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com) a try.&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, your question looks bad, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="2d283941-3384-4ed8-a40e-0bb7dcd44850" CreationDate="2014-05-10T04:57:24.977" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="f4376f63-a04b-44a8-9c77-d18fd3098cd8" CreationDate="2014-05-10T10:52:20.487" UserId="2751" Text="[![PhysicsOverflow: a graduate-level upward physics site][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/012JQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13401" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="484215b3-8c92-4576-95c3-e990d50c65e2" CreationDate="2014-05-10T10:52:20.487" UserId="2751" />
  <row Id="13402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="faee54b3-a3f7-4eff-a417-9cb37c379e24" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:16:36.080" UserId="42115" Text="Recently I had posted two questions (fortunately [one][1] is there to show you), but the response which I received from the community was too irritating. And what is wrong with the homework tag (why isn't the community removing it if you don't want any so-called &quot;homework&quot; questions in this community*)? Total crap.. whenever users (the ones with huge rep) see questions that beginners ask they just add the tag 'homework'.. What the. I mean even they were beginners at some point or the other. Instead of answering those simple (but damn to imp for the beginners) questions they community forces students like me to remove the questions. I would seriously recommend the community to check out mathSE's response to homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am not targeting homework tag here, but the term has entered this question only because of those users who really don't want to answer the questions and demoralize the young enthusiastic brains. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel homework tag is being used over here (in phySE) *to spread the message that the question is being asked by a beginner* (or maybe &quot;noob&quot;) *so please downvote it* and *flag it* and *teach him/her how to use the homework tag* and...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really need a response. These guys (with high rep) must learn how to help others before they continue their journey on this site. Seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112099/a-question-on-vectors#112099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="faee54b3-a3f7-4eff-a417-9cb37c379e24" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:16:36.080" UserId="42115" Text="Why does Physics SE community get irritated when a small doubt / general question is asked by students?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="faee54b3-a3f7-4eff-a417-9cb37c379e24" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:16:36.080" UserId="42115" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="28f9522e-8a77-43ae-9c6e-20e529fe1d82" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:29:48.047" UserId="7433" Text="The homework tag is primarily there so that uninterested people can choose to not see a certain class of questions. Unfortunately, the tag name does not accurately reflect its meaning, the meaning includes homework-like questions which are not homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a [policy][1] about such questions, and while there are questions which can be tagged [tag:homework] and are still on topic, _most_ of them are not. This is why the tag exists, but most such questions are not well received by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This community is more interested in conceptual questions (where the concept is highlighted, not when the concept ma or may not be deeply hidden inside) over problem solving. There are other forums out there if you want to discuss problem solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13406" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="76977cdd-7d04-461d-ad04-330f68c61c80" CreationDate="2014-05-10T19:22:04.293" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="13407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5783" RevisionGUID="38a6ed97-ee5b-40f5-8cfb-f9c0e334456c" CreationDate="2014-05-11T20:25:44.943" UserId="4646" Text="Actually, the following set of CSS styles (applied on top of the existing styles on each SE site) seems to work even better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- language: lang-css --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .vote .bounty-award-container {&#xD;&#xA;         margin: 13px 0;&#xD;&#xA;         text-align: center;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    .vote .bounty-award, span.bounty-award {&#xD;&#xA;         margin: 0;&#xD;&#xA;         display: inline-block;&#xD;&#xA;         padding: 0.2em 0.5em;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules allow the width of the bounty marker to adapt to the bounty amount, while keeping it centered and leaving a reasonable margin between it and any other post icons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Bounty marker icon with extra styles as above][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny selector for the second rule above is to let it apply both to the left bar icons for awarded bounties and to the notice box for active bounties (where the current 5px right margin also looks pretty ugly) while still keeping it more specific than existing site style sheets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have included the CSS styles above in the [Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/stack-overflow-unofficial-patch) v1.14 user script.  After some testing, I decided to enable them on *all* SE sites.  On the original trilogy sites (SO, SU, SF) they have very little effect, as they strongly resemble the existing styles, and the few differences are overridden by `!important` rules in the site style sheet.  On most other SE sites (as far as I've tested) they seem to improve the bounty icon appearance anywhere from slightly to significantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H9dR1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13408" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="c38fe057-d0b0-4e17-ac4c-a49fdb89bc9e" CreationDate="2014-05-11T21:57:35.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/465611703879606273" />
  <row Id="13409" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="64ca48d8-a2c8-40ed-970c-93c14e9129d9" CreationDate="2014-05-12T01:22:53.893" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="What counts as sufficient prior research when asking a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="b5b78643-1162-40be-9bca-252dd25c4ee7" CreationDate="2014-05-12T04:39:05.130" UserId="31782" Comment="Chak dhai da, Far bhai da, Chak donga malayi da, Sed te be k khai ja!" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![http://i.imgur.com/1GkFlun.png][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/Wz9cLQB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="e9ced3fd-9a80-4e62-88eb-11900662327d" CreationDate="2014-05-12T05:17:14.917" UserId="124" Comment="add ADS link" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). You may find it useful to use a dedicated scientific search engine, such as [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net), or [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can, if you want, post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, it's going to look like you didn't do your research, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5725" RevisionGUID="d9d9c1bc-f81d-499f-82f7-7b63bfad8b19" CreationDate="2014-05-12T14:20:20.990" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="What's the real problem here?  A user couldn't be bothered to read the rules and blurts out his question on the wrong site.  Why should it be our responsibility to move it to the right site?  Our job here is protecting the site, not helping other users to find the right place for his question.  Someone that can't figure that out probably won't be contributing anything useful to another site either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never use any of the migration options when voting to close, here or elsewhere.  Often I don't feel I know enough about the target site to be sure, but the main reason is that it's simply not my job nor my problem, and I don't want reward a user who posts in the wrong place by getting them a useful answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="865bd875-26a1-4b76-aa04-056317a28eb6" CreationDate="2014-05-12T16:21:55.617" UserId="41729" Text="In the question [why popcorns become soft after popping][1] the tag `popcorn` was suggested. I think it would be nice to have a more general `everyday physics`, or a better name that you could come up with, to collect the explanations of everyday phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is not `popular-science`, that [was][2] not [liked][3] by the community. It is not &quot;explain in simple words what QFT is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be interesting? In the interest of archives, if approved, should we go through old questions and re-tag them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112015/why-are-popcorn-seeds-soft-after-popping&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="865bd875-26a1-4b76-aa04-056317a28eb6" CreationDate="2014-05-12T16:21:55.617" UserId="41729" Text="Every day physics tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="865bd875-26a1-4b76-aa04-056317a28eb6" CreationDate="2014-05-12T16:21:55.617" UserId="41729" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5785" RevisionGUID="d4e1e60e-db50-46d2-a039-704ba40e6439" CreationDate="2014-05-12T17:05:27.283" UserId="124" Text="We already have such a tag, [tag:everyday-life]. I personally don't think it's all that useful, but in any case it does exist and I guess this is the sort of thing it was meant for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13417" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="fd3756fe-3621-4f09-a7ad-2f2a53acd355" CreationDate="2014-05-12T17:55:01.970" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="66ad8f8e-9a74-4677-adc2-9ad4782bddeb" CreationDate="2014-05-12T20:17:57.357" UserId="30717" Text="I was the one who made the comment about adding a &quot;popcorn&quot; tag. I was actually making a joke when I said it; the point of the humor was to highlight the ridiculousness of making a tag for such a specific concept, but apparently the OP thought I was being serious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="d70fcea1-83ba-4d0c-a2ab-b0cb99f835e1" CreationDate="2014-05-12T22:22:48.903" UserId="30717" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="I was the one who made the comment about adding a &quot;popcorn&quot; tag. I was actually making a joke when I said it; the point of the humor was to highlight the ridiculousness of making a tag for such a specific concept, but apparently the OP thought I was being serious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say &quot;garbage in, garbage out&quot;, but considering that I am a dumpster, that would probably be hypocritical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5787" RevisionGUID="2c787333-613e-46ab-b740-664c84f7f9ad" CreationDate="2014-05-13T16:07:01.733" UserId="20848" Text="Sure, people shouldn't just blurt out whatever question pops into their minds without thinking about it and making at least some attempt to find the answer.  The real question is how much is enough?  What is a reasonable level of research?  How do we measure that or even decide how much research was actually done?  Should the bar be lower for a more beginner question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the sentiment here, but I think our implementation sometimes goes too far.  My answer here was brought about by &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112466/20848&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  John Rennie wanted to close the question.  His comment got 4 upvotes, and 3 close votes have accumulated so far.  On the other hand, my comment saying it was a good question got 3 upvotes and the question itself got 9 upvotes, no downvotes, and three answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is that this is a rather &quot;low level&quot; physics question, and people are really responding to that.  That's short sighted and will eventually leave only experts here with nothing to say to each other because nobody has anything to ask.  With enough research, any question could be answered without asking here.  This site is trying to be a repository of good questions with good answers.  This can't happen if we refuse to answer anything that isn't answerable by other means.  Even if the answer is out there elsewhere, for some questions we want this site to be where people go to do the reasearch and find the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site shouldn't be only about high-falutin physics.  We aren't here for stupid questions either, but there is a important distinction between stupid and ignorant.  The question I linked to above was ignorant but not stupid.  It was well asked and actually about a clever observation for someone that doesn't already know the answer.  That makes it a good question.  Just because the answer doesn't require invoking relativity or quantum mechanics, doesn't make it a bad question or not useful to include in the repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lighten up a little." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5787" RevisionGUID="13e4e2c8-f307-4244-aeaa-b57b39cfae21" CreationDate="2014-05-13T18:07:19.470" UserId="20848" Comment="added 4175 characters in body" Text="Sure, people shouldn't just blurt out whatever question pops into their minds without thinking about it and making at least some attempt to find the answer.  The real question is how much is enough?  What is a reasonable level of research?  How do we measure that or even decide how much research was actually done?  Should the bar be lower for a more beginner question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the sentiment here, but I think our implementation sometimes goes too far.  My answer here was brought about by &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112466/20848&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  John Rennie wanted to close the question.  His comment got 4 upvotes, and 3 close votes have accumulated so far.  On the other hand, my comment saying it was a good question got 3 upvotes and the question itself got 9 upvotes, no downvotes, and three answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is that this is a rather &quot;low level&quot; physics question, and people are really responding to that.  That's short sighted and will eventually leave only experts here with nothing to say to each other because nobody has anything to ask.  With enough research, any question could be answered without asking here.  This site is trying to be a repository of good questions with good answers.  This can't happen if we refuse to answer anything that isn't answerable by other means.  Even if the answer is out there elsewhere, for some questions we want this site to be where people go to do the reasearch and find the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site shouldn't be only about high-falutin physics.  We aren't here for stupid questions either, but there is a important distinction between stupid and ignorant.  The question I linked to above was ignorant but not stupid.  It was well asked and actually about a clever observation for someone that doesn't already know the answer.  That makes it a good question.  Just because the answer doesn't require invoking relativity or quantum mechanics, doesn't make it a bad question or not useful to include in the repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lighten up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Added in Response to Comment:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Z points out that this answer doesn't really answer the original question.  That's strictly speaking correct.  This was somewhat of a comment, but too long to be a comment.  But, another point was that this is impossible to measure in a reasonable way and therefore will always be very subjective.  To put it more directly, my points relative to the original question are:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whatever we say is the minimum level of research will be impossible to quantify by any standard metric, so will always be mostly subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if there was some quantifiable measure we could all agree on, it will be difficult to determine whether that minimum level of research was actually performed.  In cases of blatant laziness it could be easy to show, like by entering the question title into Google and finding the first hit being a direct answer.  However, most of the time there won't be a nice and easy smoking gun like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The level of dilligence must necessarily depend on the questioner's level of physics knowledge.  A professor of physics would know where to look up things and has access to such resources.  A high school student can't be expected to know about any physics journals, and probably doesn't have access to them anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can be hard to know where to look if you don't already know the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; the research.  Asking here is part of finding a answer to a physics question.  It shouldn't be the first knee-jerk reaction, but ultimately that's what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is what I suggest someone should do before asking:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;Think&lt;/i&gt; about the question a little bit.  What do you already know that relates to it?  Try to identify what physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the missing step that make too many &quot;homework&quot; questions so bad.  It's not that they are contrived or assigned questions, but that the asker hasn't bothered to identify what part exactly they are having trouble with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See rule #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See rule #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do at least a basic keyword search.  Sometimes you get lucky and you will find the answer easily.  Sometimes you don't find the answer but learn a few things anyway.  That's all good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we also realize that finding the right keywords is not obvious when you don't already know the answer and know what things are called.  Even then, it can be easy to have the search swamped with hits that match other uses of the same words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So definitely give it a try, but don't sweat it too much.  I'd say 5-10 minutes of honest effort is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask around if you have someone to ask.  Unlike the previous rules, this is not a requirement since not everyone has someone they can ask or has access to them.  If you're a high school student at school, you should ask your physics teacher.  But if it's the weekend, that's not going to help.  We don't expect you to wait until Monday morning to get a basic physics answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are more advanced in physics, then you will be held to a higher standard.  This includes various search engines, textbooks, and the like that you should be familiar with that ordinary folks aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there is a bare minimum amount of research anyone should do, but the appropriate level depends a lot on how advanced you are in the topic.  The most important points are 1-3.  After that it's mostly to ask a good question &lt;i&gt;for your level&lt;/i&gt; that is self-consistant with that level, and to write the question properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK to be ignorant, but never OK to be stupid.  There is also never any excuse for sloppiness.  Taking some care includes breaking thoughts into sentences, capitalizing the first letter of sentences, capitalizing the word &quot;I&quot;, and never ever ever using text-speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you are asking a bunch of people to volunteer their time to answer your question.  If you keep that and rule #1 in mind, and show the appropriate respect by doing the simple things that have nothing to do with level of physics knowledge, you'll most likely do fine.  Go ahead and ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5787" RevisionGUID="c77046da-d81a-4c7d-a61d-80fa50c5a3b2" CreationDate="2014-05-13T18:15:55.733" UserId="20848" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="Sure, people shouldn't just blurt out whatever question pops into their minds without thinking about it and making at least some attempt to find the answer.  The real question is how much is enough?  What is a reasonable level of research?  How do we measure that or even decide how much research was actually done?  Should the bar be lower for a more beginner question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the sentiment here, but I think our implementation sometimes goes too far.  My answer here was brought about by &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112466/20848&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  John Rennie wanted to close the question.  His comment got 4 upvotes, and 3 close votes have accumulated so far.  On the other hand, my comment saying it was a good question got 3 upvotes and the question itself got 9 upvotes, no downvotes, and three answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is that this is a rather &quot;low level&quot; physics question, and people are really responding to that.  That's short sighted and will eventually leave only experts here with nothing to say to each other because nobody has anything to ask.  With enough research, any question could be answered without asking here.  This site is trying to be a repository of good questions with good answers.  This can't happen if we refuse to answer anything that isn't answerable by other means.  Even if the answer is out there elsewhere, for some questions we want this site to be where people go to do the reasearch and find the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site shouldn't be only about high-falutin physics.  We aren't here for stupid questions either, but there is a important distinction between stupid and ignorant.  The question I linked to above was ignorant but not stupid.  It was well asked and actually about a clever observation for someone that doesn't already know the answer.  That makes it a good question.  Just because the answer doesn't require invoking relativity or quantum mechanics, doesn't make it a bad question or not useful to include in the repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lighten up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Added in Response to Comment:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Z points out that this answer doesn't really answer the original question.  That's strictly speaking correct.  This was somewhat of a comment, but too long to be a comment.  But, another point was that this is impossible to measure in a reasonable way and therefore will always be very subjective.  To put it more directly, my points relative to the original question are:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whatever we say is the minimum level of research will be impossible to quantify by any standard metric, so will always be mostly subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if there was some quantifiable measure we could all agree on, it will be difficult to determine whether that minimum level of research was actually performed.  In cases of blatant laziness it could be easy to show, like by entering the question title into Google and finding the first hit being a direct answer.  However, most of the time there won't be a nice and easy smoking gun like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The level of dilligence must necessarily depend on the questioner's level of physics knowledge.  A professor of physics would know where to look up things and has access to such resources.  A high school student can't be expected to know about any physics journals, and probably doesn't have access to them anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can be hard to know where to look if you don't already know the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; the research.  Asking here is part of finding a answer to a physics question.  It shouldn't be the first knee-jerk reaction, but ultimately that's what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is what I suggest someone should do before asking:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;Think&lt;/i&gt; about the question a little bit.  What do you already know that relates to it?  Try to identify what physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the missing step that make too many &quot;homework&quot; questions so bad.  It's not that they are contrived or assigned questions, but that the asker hasn't bothered to identify what part exactly they are having trouble with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See rule #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See rule #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do at least a basic keyword search.  Sometimes you get lucky and you will find the answer easily.  Sometimes you don't find the answer but learn a few things anyway.  That's all good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we also realize that finding the right keywords is not obvious when you don't already know the answer and know what things are called.  Even then, it can be easy to have the search swamped with hits that match other uses of the same words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So definitely give it a try, but don't sweat it too much.  I'd say 5-10 minutes of honest effort is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask around if you have someone to ask.  Unlike the previous rules, this is not a requirement since not everyone has someone they can ask or has access to them.  If you're a high school student at school, you should ask your physics teacher.  But if it's the weekend, that's not going to help.  We don't expect you to wait until Monday morning to get a basic physics answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are more advanced in physics, then you will be held to a higher standard.  This includes various search engines, textbooks, and the like that you should be familiar with that ordinary folks aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you've gotten to the point of deciding to ask here, use the search feature &lt;i&gt;on this site&lt;/i&gt;.  You might be surprised how many people have had the same question before you and that there are already some good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there is a bare minimum amount of research anyone should do, but the appropriate level depends a lot on how advanced you are in the topic.  The most important points are 1-3.  After that it's mostly to ask a good question &lt;i&gt;for your level&lt;/i&gt; that is self-consistant with that level, and to write the question properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK to be ignorant, but never OK to be stupid.  There is also never any excuse for sloppiness.  Taking some care includes breaking thoughts into sentences, capitalizing the first letter of sentences, capitalizing the word &quot;I&quot;, and never ever ever using text-speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you are asking a bunch of people to volunteer their time to answer your question.  If you keep that and rule #1 in mind, and show the appropriate respect by doing the simple things that have nothing to do with level of physics knowledge, you'll most likely do fine.  Go ahead and ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="9fc03fc4-52f9-4023-80cc-7e7cac40da98" CreationDate="2014-05-14T12:47:02.033" UserId="44176" Text="This is something one would expect in some &quot;social&quot; or even &quot;humanitarian&quot; branches of science (although i **do not** say that this is scientific, but it is indeed mainstream presently)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it strikes me as very odd that positive branches of science (physics, mathematics, biology etc..) have to take such &quot;measures&quot; to guard a forum or a community from error or &quot;heresy&quot; or &quot;non-mainstream-ness&quot; (if i may use such a term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if mathematics or even physics is a result of voting of which law is valid and is not a matter of natural reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is as if some very wicked (but clever) person can divert the innocent viewers of this forum and make them believe other physical laws (by a mere manipulation of text and voting systems) hold in natural reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course in such a case &quot;extreme measures&quot; must be taken, the &quot;natural&quot; processes must be guarded from falling from their natural/realist (or should i say mainstream) status by voting them down or up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13424" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="27a5e7e7-d985-4619-86eb-221bc5fe96b1" CreationDate="2014-05-14T12:47:02.033" UserId="44176" />
  <row Id="13425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="4f3c62f8-3cde-4544-8c55-14d255ac6e11" CreationDate="2014-05-14T14:27:26.660" UserId="44176" Comment="added 608 characters in body" Text="This is something one would expect in some &quot;social&quot; or even &quot;humanitarian&quot; branches of science (although i **do not** say that this is scientific, but it is indeed mainstream presently)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it strikes me as very odd that positive branches of science (physics, mathematics, biology etc..) have to take such &quot;measures&quot; to guard a forum or a community from error or &quot;heresy&quot; or &quot;non-mainstream-ness&quot; (if i may use such a term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if mathematics or even physics is a result of voting of which law is valid and is not a matter of natural reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is as if some very wicked (but clever) person can divert the innocent viewers of this forum and make them believe other physical laws (by a mere manipulation of text and voting systems) hold in natural reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course in such a case &quot;extreme measures&quot; must be taken, the &quot;natural&quot; processes must be guarded from falling from their natural/realist (or should i say mainstream) status by voting them down or up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A recommendation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the forum's name to **&quot;mainstream physics&quot;** , since a definition of *&quot;mainstream&quot;* is in place it would indeed be **valid** and reflect the site's **puspose and content**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead *leave* **&quot;physics&quot;** site name as **non-reflecting** the site's purpose and content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would lead to *misunderstanding* as encompassing talks / theories and discussions about actual physics (as in *nature* ) and hypotheses about physics etc.. instead of &quot;mainstream physics&quot; as some people want to frame it as *THE PHYSICS* (please nothing personal here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thnaks again&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="cec422f9-3611-4830-946e-c477207bc255" CreationDate="2014-05-14T14:32:36.297" UserId="44176" Comment="added 608 characters in body" Text="This is something one would expect in some &quot;social&quot; or even &quot;humanitarian&quot; branches of science (although i **do not** say that this is scientific, but it is indeed mainstream presently)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it strikes me as very odd that positive branches of science (physics, mathematics, biology etc..) have to take such &quot;measures&quot; to guard a forum or a community from error or &quot;heresy&quot; or &quot;non-mainstream-ness&quot; (if i may use such a term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if mathematics or even physics is a result of voting of which law is valid and is not a matter of natural reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is as if some very wicked (but clever) person can divert the innocent viewers of this forum and make them believe other physical laws (by a mere manipulation of text and voting systems) hold in natural reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course in such a case &quot;extreme measures&quot; must be taken, the &quot;natural&quot; processes must be guarded from falling from their natural/realist (or should i say mainstream) status by voting them down or up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A recommendation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the forum's name to **&quot;mainstream physics&quot;** , since a definition of *&quot;mainstream&quot;* is in place it would indeed be **valid** and reflect the site's **purpose and content**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead *leave* **&quot;physics&quot;** site name as **non-reflecting** the site's purpose and content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would lead to *misunderstanding* as encompassing talks / theories and discussions about actual physics (as in *nature* ) and hypotheses about physics etc.. instead of &quot;mainstream physics&quot; as some people want to frame it as *THE PHYSICS* (please nothing personal here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course changing the name would immediately make apparent the fact that it is **non-encompassing** all physics or formulations or alternative hypotheses except what is *sponsored* (with a grain of salt) as &quot;mainstream&quot;. This would beat the purpose of the mainstream (but not of physics) as trying to frame the talk around physics (and science)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One should not buy into that or accept that framing merely on mainstream authority.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you again&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="9e475c93-e087-4ca3-af2f-570a3c081467" CreationDate="2014-05-16T16:10:35.457" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 154 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the question [why popcorns become soft after popping][1] the tag `popcorn` was suggested. I think it would be nice to have a more general `everyday physics`, or a better name that you could come up with, to collect the explanations of everyday phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is not `popular-science`, that [was][2] not [liked][3] by the community. It is not &quot;explain in simple words what QFT is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be interesting? In the interest of archives, if approved, should we go through old questions and re-tag them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112015/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4699/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4295/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13428" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="9e475c93-e087-4ca3-af2f-570a3c081467" CreationDate="2014-05-16T16:10:35.457" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 154 characters in body; edited title" Text="Everyday physics tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="551356b2-fa53-4a75-9772-a84325dc7850" CreationDate="2014-05-18T20:57:48.963" UserId="8563" Text="So there's this careers course thing I'm going to this week as part of some graduate school requirement, and I've been asked to prepare a curriculum vitae for it. I'm probably going to include something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  - Active on Physics Stack Exchange (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because, after all, I think I've written up some pretty nice physics over time on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering, though, what people's attitude towards this is. So: if you're a professional physicist, is your participation on the site on your CV? If yes, then what did you include and how does it look like? If 'depends', then what sorts of CV use-cases do you include it in for and for which ones do you leave it out? If not, and you have a brag-about-able profile, what made you leave it out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="551356b2-fa53-4a75-9772-a84325dc7850" CreationDate="2014-05-18T20:57:48.963" UserId="8563" Text="Is Physics SE on your CV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="551356b2-fa53-4a75-9772-a84325dc7850" CreationDate="2014-05-18T20:57:48.963" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5790" RevisionGUID="491cc624-b01d-44cb-9497-1f11a73d5d0f" CreationDate="2014-05-18T21:33:17.197" UserId="124" Text="In the software industry, a high-reputation Stack Overflow profile is seen as a sign of competence, because you have to use the same technical knowledge and research skills required by your job to answer questions there. But in academia, people - at least, the people who make up the majority (though perhaps not the entirety) of tenure and grant review committees - tend to see anything that's not actual research as a distraction from research. For that reason participation on this site doesn't play the same role to a professional physicist as participation on Stack Overflow does to a professional developer. Participation in Physics SE is probably best framed as a service activity, like other kinds of community outreach or volunteer work (not that you would put non-physics-related volunteer work on your CV), rather than as a demonstration of your knowledge of physics.&#xA;&#xA;Professors reviewing CVs do look for some amount of service activities, but in many cases they do so only grudgingly, as a concession to the requirements of running a department and/or pressure from university administrators. This tends to be somewhat correlated with age, so that e.g. younger professors are a little more likely to look favorably on things like having a blog or contributing to Physics SE. As a graduate student, I don't think it can really hurt you that much to include it, but at later stages of your career (if you go for a career in academia) I think it's important to make it clear that this is not something that consumes a lot of your time, otherwise it probably could hurt your prospects.&#xA;&#xA;As for what exactly to include: I'd put something a little more substantial than what you've quoted. A brief paragraph (2, maybe 3 sentences) that explains what Physics SE is and/or what you do here is probably going to be useful. (I don't have easy access to my own CV at the moment otherwise I'd give you an example, though I doubt that example would be any better than what you'd come up with on your own.) But again, don't play up the amount of time you've invested in the site; better to frame it as something that you use as a resource to improve your education.&#xA;&#xA;I'm sure this has also been pondered extensively on [Academia](http://academia.stackexchange.com/) so you could check there for more thoughts, not specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13433" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="3ecad697-8f79-41cd-98a1-2391157cfa44" CreationDate="2014-05-19T22:14:32.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/468515071459876865" />
  <row Id="13434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="bec8cea1-a408-4249-825f-a019903baa3a" CreationDate="2014-05-20T13:17:08.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/468742219307180032" />
  <row Id="13435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5791" RevisionGUID="651c09d5-6f46-4e34-8b65-a7ca0b82bd5c" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:06:22.847" UserId="26969" Text="Speaking as a professional physicist _not_ in academia, I would say that what you do here is seen more as a hobby (extracurricular interest) than a professional achievement. That said - when you are applying for a job, people are likely to Google you. If your profile links to your real name, your activity on PSE is likely to show up in search results. In your case, your profile is the second hit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the cat is firmly out of the bag - even if you don't include it on your CV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. When I look at a resume, I assume that the things people mention are the things _they_ find impressive: that tells me a lot about their thought processes. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Someone with a very high reputation probably spends a lot of time on this site: you might wonder whether this would distract that person from their &quot;real job&quot; - are they refreshing the question list every five minutes while at work to distract them from their task at hand? A constant need for &quot;upvotes&quot; is considered by some an unhealthy addiction (of which I am guilty).&#xD;&#xA; 4. A highly upvoted answer on this site does not carry the same weight as a highly cited peer reviewed publication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said - if you have written some answers you are particularly proud of, you might link to them from a blog; then point to this blog to give people an indication of (a) your &quot;informal&quot; communication style (how you write when you are not writing for a peer reviewed journal) - this is an EXTREMELY important skill; and (b) your willingness to &quot;give back&quot; to your community - again, something that is highly appreciated by most employers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line - everything you do online becomes a visible part of your record of achievements. Make sure that it projects the right perception of who you are - and why you would be a valuable member of whatever organization you would like to be hired by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QxMK2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5790" RevisionGUID="7057520f-13bd-4be2-8901-1fbb1922b1ac" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:20:26.550" UserId="124" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="In the software industry, a high-reputation Stack Overflow profile is seen as a sign of competence, because you have to use the same technical knowledge and research skills required by your job to answer questions there. But in academia, people - at least, the people who make up the majority (though perhaps not the entirety) of tenure and grant review committees, funding agencies, and research directors - tend to see anything that's not actual research as a distraction from research. For that reason participation on this site doesn't play the same role to a professional physicist as participation on Stack Overflow does to a professional developer. Participation in Physics SE is probably best framed as a service activity, like other kinds of community outreach or volunteer work (not that you would put non-physics-related volunteer work on your CV), rather than as a demonstration of your knowledge of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professors reviewing CVs do look for some amount of service activities, but in many cases they do so only grudgingly, as a concession to the requirements of running a department and/or pressure from university administrators. (And something analogous applies to those in a non-academic environment.) This tends to be somewhat correlated with age, so that e.g. younger professors are a little more likely to look favorably on things like having a blog or contributing to Physics SE. As a graduate student, I don't think it can really hurt you that much to include it, but at later stages of your career (if you go for a career in academia) I think it's important to make it clear that this is not something that consumes a lot of your time, otherwise it probably could hurt your prospects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what exactly to include: I'd put something a little more substantial than what you've quoted. A brief paragraph (2, maybe 3 sentences) that explains what Physics SE is and/or what you do here is probably going to be useful. (I don't have easy access to my own CV at the moment otherwise I'd give you an example, though I doubt that example would be any better than what you'd come up with on your own.) But again, don't play up the amount of time you've invested in the site; better to frame it as something that you use as a resource to improve your education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure this has also been pondered extensively on [Academia](http://academia.stackexchange.com/) so you could check there for more thoughts, not specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="34d7a9d4-b006-4ebe-a8b8-ff65b2f1d875" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:48:44.127" UserId="46971" Text="Physicists are also people and can appreciate nice wording, politeness and paradoxes. I am asking specifically about [this imprecise question][1] which appears amusing because it is not strictly defined. The actual question in that case is **what am I missing in my description of the system**, not **how does it work**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we push to straighten out the question?  As-is it leaves ample room for nice dissertations on the laws of physics (already present in the answers, expect more to come). If reworked to be clear, the question will become its own answer and the correct bare-bones answer will look almost trivial, not at all noteworthy. Do we foster amusing site content generation so that visitors have more prose (and poetry) to read, or trim it down to formula for formula, measurement for measurement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112277/i-find-a-problem-in-the-law-of-angular-momentum-conservation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="34d7a9d4-b006-4ebe-a8b8-ff65b2f1d875" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:48:44.127" UserId="46971" Text="Has the entertainment aspect of a question any value besides dry logic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="34d7a9d4-b006-4ebe-a8b8-ff65b2f1d875" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:48:44.127" UserId="46971" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5793" RevisionGUID="8e957ae2-e0aa-4238-8a9d-d9b6fc7975db" CreationDate="2014-05-21T21:40:10.393" UserId="124" Text="It seems like you're asking two things here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does it have any value if a question is entertaining? I suppose it does, but _not at the expense of being clear and on-topic_. In other words, a boring but clearly written, well-researched, and insightful question is better than an entertaining question that is unclear, or not well-researched, or not insightful. So if you want to make your question entertaining, make sure you are not making it worse in other ways by doing so. And bear in mind that this is very difficult. So I would suggest that you not try to make your questions entertaining; it usually (but not always) winds up doing more harm than good.&#xD;&#xA;2. Should the _particular_ question you linked to be edited to define it more clearly? The guideline for that is to always stick to information provided by the original poster. If the OP contributed extra information in a comment that would clarify the question, sure, edit that in. If part of the question is unclear and you can make it clear (without adding additional information that the OP might not know), go ahead and do that too. But if the question is unclear and you can't figure out how to clarify it without guessing something, you need to wait for the OP to make that edit. In the meantime, you should downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular, editing the question so that it contains its own answer is pretty much never a good idea. When doing so, you inevitably wind up adding some information that the OP did not have access to (because if they did, they wouldn't have asked the question in the first place).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="c41f1f65-b73c-4109-b332-872dcd5abcb7" CreationDate="2014-05-23T16:49:09.677" UserId="45735" Text="I have found myself in a position where I posted quite an elaborated answer, but got no notice from the OP. Let's say the question remains open and no comments from the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I feel prone to at least comment on some answers whenever I post a question - even if any of those I choose as accepted answer - merely because I see the user has put a lot of effort on it and may be even clarified some aspects of the question but not completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have a way to implement that, assuming comments are not supposed to be used with this aim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of question where I received zero feedback from OP [here](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2427/when-will-all-eight-planets-in-our-solar-system-align/) (belongs to astronomy.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of an answer I felt the need to provide feedback as OP, because of the amount of work the user put into it, despite me not choosing it as the accepted answer [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/114054/45735)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="c41f1f65-b73c-4109-b332-872dcd5abcb7" CreationDate="2014-05-23T16:49:09.677" UserId="45735" Text="Giving feedback to elaborated or useful answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="c41f1f65-b73c-4109-b332-872dcd5abcb7" CreationDate="2014-05-23T16:49:09.677" UserId="45735" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="a0504a4a-0dbf-4949-a5e4-2696cdfc963c" CreationDate="2014-05-23T17:34:02.290" UserId="520" Text="I'm not sure what you expect people to say. Drive-by askers happen. You take that risk when you write the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can expect to accumulate some love from the grater community over time, but how much depends on the quality of the question ans well as the quality of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All requests to install a feature allowing you to bug people have been firmly and correctly shot down and will not be acted upon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="aadcccab-04ba-46d0-9d52-452b3c653769" CreationDate="2014-05-23T17:46:36.503" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil stuff" Text="I'm not sure what you expect people to say. Drive-by askers happen. You take that risk when you write the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can expect to accumulate some love from the greater community over time, but how much depends on the quality of the question as well as the quality of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All requests to install a feature allowing you to bug people have been firmly and correctly shot down and will not be acted upon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="d130a469-f06b-4fd6-b6b4-51700f9f8659" CreationDate="2014-05-23T18:17:45.783" UserId="23473" Text="The hard truth is that sometimes you can't expect to get any praise, gratitude, or even feedback from the OP. In our Q&amp;A format, all that the site really needs is that a question is asked and an answer is given. Everything else is just added bonuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important thing to remember in those circumstances is that your answer is not meant only to help the OP, but to help everybody asking the same question, especially googlers. It may be tough when the OP does not recognize that you put effort into answering, but I can tell you that the rest of us at Physics.SE appreciate you taking the time to be thorough and accurate. And if your answer is decent, take comfort that it will probably be enjoyed by the community and rewarded with upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot and would not institute a forced feedback system. There is nothing anyone can do to force an asked to give feedback. Regardless what is implemented, it will always be possible for someone to post a question and then never log in to the site again. Furthermore, how can we define what is a decent answer? If someone posts a good question and the first and/or only answer they get is a drive-by crackpot answer, then how can we force them to give feedback when they might just want to ignore it? Or if an answer is really kind of meh but there's no way you know to make it better, what would you force someone to say? &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hey, thanks for answering but this isn't a great answer and I doubt you can make it better&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, that would be terrible for so many reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while the rest of us appreciate and applaud your time and effort in posting the elaborate answers, feedback from the OP is one of those things you can't always expect to get nor can it be forced out of them. Just smile, be happy when you get feedback, and remember that you write such great answers not just for the OP but for the whole community. And some other nonsense about a good deed being its own reward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5797" RevisionGUID="6aaecca5-0b81-4b17-a6cf-ee1dfc933016" CreationDate="2014-05-23T23:42:51.723" UserId="124" Text="&gt; It would be nice to have a way to implement that, assuming comments are not supposed to be used with this aim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upvoting. That's literally _exactly_ what upvoting is for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, even though it says that comments are not supposed to be used to leave compliments, we don't really care _that_ much if you do. After all, we don't have a huge volume of comments on this site, the way they do on e.g. Stack Overflow, so usually having a complimentary comment or two doesn't get in the way much. Just be aware that comments are transient, so your comment may wind up being deleted after a little while. (In fact, good etiquette would be to come back and delete it yourself, if you are able to establish that the OP has probably read it, or is not going to read it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5798" RevisionGUID="161ea043-ae3c-4333-8397-51748a11fd2f" CreationDate="2014-05-24T07:02:25.223" UserId="1325" Text="I like it when the OP comments to my answer to say thanks. Even though it's not the main aim of this site I see teaching as an important by product, and it's nice when you get a comment saying *thanks, now I understand* or words to that effect. Without such feedback it's hard to know how clear your answer is (my answers always make sense to me, but I suspect not always to anyone else :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As David says, we're a fairly civilised lot hereabouts and I don't think the mild abuse of the comments system does any harm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="365138d3-e1f6-447b-9dc7-03c064985c86" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:17:10.087" UserId="2751" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="[![PhysicsOverflow: a graduate-level upward physics site][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="c286f9e5-93cb-4937-a549-caccd703ae6c" CreationDate="2014-05-24T21:30:58.853" UserId="34382" Text="In deciding whether a question should be closed, moderators and users of sufficient reputation refer to the official physics S.E. policy, and act accordingly. In law, if a particular decision is approved in a case, it may provide a precedent for future cases. Suppose a question on the physics S.E. is by the policy off-topic, but a previous question many years ago, which was upvoted, untouched by moderators, and answered is off-topic by the same argument applied to the present question. Does the fact that the question was allowed previously provide precedent? If not, should it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** the question is purely a 'thought experiment,' or perhaps more appropriately **hypothetical**. I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on this topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="c286f9e5-93cb-4937-a549-caccd703ae6c" CreationDate="2014-05-24T21:30:58.853" UserId="34382" Text="The role of precedents in closing questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="c286f9e5-93cb-4937-a549-caccd703ae6c" CreationDate="2014-05-24T21:30:58.853" UserId="34382" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="6feb3c8f-c329-4ab2-b29b-4b524a3b2f94" CreationDate="2014-05-24T21:40:13.790" UserId="124" Text="No, not necessarily, for two reasons:&#xA;&#xA;1. The scope of the site and our sense of what constitutes an appropriate question has changed over time. So if you find an old question that is not closed but seems like it should be, it's possible that the question was considered appropriate at the time it was asked, but our policy has changed since then. In a case like that, please flag the question so a moderator can close it (or you can vote to close and then ask in chat for other 3k users to also review it for closure).&#xA;2. Moderators and 3k members don't necessarily see every question. Sometimes a question which should be closed simply gets missed by everyone and stays open for that reason. Again, in this case, vote to close it, or if it's an older question you can flag for moderator attention.&#xA;&#xA;In general, I would say that decisions about whether to close any given question should be made on a case-by-case basis. Citing precedent can help guide that decision by clarifying the reason the question should or should not be closed, but it is not itself a reason to close a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="666061e3-8611-439d-b58b-610f04537136" CreationDate="2014-05-24T22:19:09.577" UserId="520" Text="So, [David Z. covered the question about formal precedent pretty well](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5800/520), but I'd like to explore another aspect of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do, and have used precedent as the basis for arguing about what the policy *should* be several times. That is someone asks meta *&quot;Do we have a policy about Foo?&quot;*, and people with some memory [drag out earlier questions that are more or less like the one under discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2905/520) and use those to [suggest what the *de facto* policy has been](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/733/520) and as a spring board for discussion what they think the policy *should* be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you want to re-open a policy discussion that has been established for a while it *really* helps to have some concrete examples to hand your arguments on. Looking at the existing precedents is a fine what to show what you think the casts of the current policy are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="4615246b-3e1f-4489-8260-e05c211fa913" CreationDate="2014-05-26T18:17:54.097" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil stuff" Text="So, [David Z. covered the question about formal precedent pretty well](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5800/520), but I'd like to explore another aspect of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do use precedent as the basis for arguing about what the policy *should* be. This has been done several times. That is someone asks meta *&quot;Do we have a policy about Foo?&quot;*, and people with some memory [drag out earlier questions that are more or less like the one under discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2905/520) and use those to [suggest what the *de facto* policy has been](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/733/520) and as a spring board for discussion what they think the policy *should* be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you want to re-open a policy discussion that has been established for a while it *really* helps to have some concrete examples to hang your arguments on. Looking at the existing precedents is a fine what to show what you think the casts of the current policy are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="80e89698-2592-4322-a7a2-8940f9704e85" CreationDate="2014-05-27T09:19:50.047" UserId="24653" Text="This question is inspired by the heated debate that went down here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114511/is-there-physics-behind-the-layout-of-a-piano-keyboard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question itself is fascinating to me, and I'd love to see a long and comprehensive answer to it. However, after some contemplation it seems to me that the matter of deciding where this question would be best at home (restricting ourselves to the SE network) is quite a subtle one. By means of this question I would like to ask all of you what your opinions on this matter are. Here are some of the things that I have considered thus far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Music.SE: Not a good place because it focuses on practicing and experiencing music rather than the science behind it all.&#xD;&#xA;2. Physics.SE: A reasonable option, but the debate on the question from my link shows that there is no agreement no whether this is on-topic here. It's quite a broad question that will certainly have to incorporate some non-physics aspects.&#xD;&#xA;3. Biology.SE: Perhaps this might work, but I'm quite skeptical that there will be anyone who knows a lot about acoustics over there, as the inevitable biology component to the sought-after answer is quite far removed from the technicalities of understanding the associated waves. I have better hopes that someone from physics.SE will understand the biology part, at least at a level sufficient to properly answer the question, than vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;4. Math.SE: Not a good place. The question simply isn't all that mathematical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? Should this question be on-topic in physics.SE? Is there a better site within the SE network? What do the mods think? Let's discuss!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, let's try to refrain from petty/'smartass' remarks as much as possible. We're all here for fun &amp; physics, after all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="80e89698-2592-4322-a7a2-8940f9704e85" CreationDate="2014-05-27T09:19:50.047" UserId="24653" Text="The appropriate place for a question about the science behind music" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="80e89698-2592-4322-a7a2-8940f9704e85" CreationDate="2014-05-27T09:19:50.047" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5803" RevisionGUID="bf4d4a1f-668f-45d4-a86a-48f2c26bb614" CreationDate="2014-05-27T14:24:31.127" UserId="520" Text="Can't say I have ever understood why people want this kind of topic to be &quot;physics&quot;. Certainly sound is waves and waves are physics, but &quot;sounds good&quot; is a physiology topic which turns out to be defined by the math of small integers. Fascinating stuff with a very interesting history, and something a physicist should know about. But it has only a peripheral claim to *be* physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we have a *lot* of questions on the site which are really about the response of the human sensory apparatus, rather than about physics proper. I think it has to be that way because unless you know the answer it seems like it ought to be a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly I don't close questions on this border *despite* their being off topic. On the other hand, I don't open them either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13460" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="f9a18f45-9531-42d5-b6a7-e88658e87205" CreationDate="2014-05-27T19:39:41.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/471375205806669824" />
  <row Id="13461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5804" RevisionGUID="e1f1639a-c8a3-49f5-989f-c3ac332a9cb2" CreationDate="2014-05-28T23:57:13.483" UserId="9887" Text="(More of an extended comment so down vote if you must...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the title question of the post: &quot;Is there physics behind the layout of the piano keyboard?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if the answer is simply and plainly *no* then, it seems to me, an appropriate answer would succinctly explain this, the OP would accept it, and that would be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if the answer is plainly *yes* then, you know the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer isn't plainly yes or no, then there is the problem of how to proceed (close? migrate? ...) but, even then, there is potential value in the thought process behind this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *I still do not understand the motivation for the down votes to this question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one thing to vote to close and I have *no* problem with that but I just cannot imagine downvoting this simple, honest and, perhaps for some, thought provoking question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;**Is** there physics behind the layout of the piano keyboard?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a far more interesting question than many here of late." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13462" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="d48feb7f-6aac-4bb2-bc54-d75ad28025c6" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:03:01.713" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114860/a-question-for-the-high-rated-members-best-way-to-answer-a-physics-question" />
  <row Id="13463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="c08814b6-333e-411f-98a5-463246133370" CreationDate="2014-05-29T07:20:43.040" UserDisplayName="user47408" Text="    Firstly, forgive me if I offend you for not asking a physics related question(feel free to dislike this if you are). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I have been exploring the website a little bit, and I notice that most of the users vote for highly rated members (imagine that) when they pick their answer choice. Clearly, there is very good reason for this (in fact I notice a strong correlation between brilliant answers and member rating), yet I am wondering how to answer someone's question, and get chosen as an answer choice ; this poses a problem, considering a low rated member's opinion is more than likely to be eclipsed by a more notable user (clearly, there is good reason for this). &#xD;&#xA;I really like this website, and I would like to use it in order to educate myself, and help others educate themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    So, my question is: What do you find to be the most effective method to answer a person's question? What idiosyncrasies separate good answers from great ones? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="c08814b6-333e-411f-98a5-463246133370" CreationDate="2014-05-29T07:20:43.040" UserDisplayName="user47408" Text="A question for the high rated members: Best way to answer a physics question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="c08814b6-333e-411f-98a5-463246133370" CreationDate="2014-05-29T07:20:43.040" UserDisplayName="user47408" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="a84f66b3-8f0e-490f-8729-a93cadf46fac" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:09:54.543" UserId="7433" Comment="deleted 133 characters in body" Text="I have been exploring the website a little bit, and I notice that most of the users vote for highly rated members (imagine that) when they pick their answer choice. Clearly, there is very good reason for this (in fact I notice a strong correlation between brilliant answers and member rating), yet I am wondering how to answer someone's question, and get chosen as an answer choice ; this poses a problem, considering a low rated member's opinion is more than likely to be eclipsed by a more notable user (clearly, there is good reason for this). &#xD;&#xA;I really like this website, and I would like to use it in order to educate myself, and help others educate themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: What do you find to be the most effective method to answer a person's question? What idiosyncrasies separate good answers from great ones? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="a669c05a-d229-4a78-96de-397f7d012f0f" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:10:36.120" UserId="40382" Text="I don't know if Physics.SE or other SE sites have this feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they don't, I suggest a new feature. Can we have the questions and answers available as downloads. We can simply save the html file but it's tiresome when one wants to download too many questions. Can we have a topic-wise(or should I say tag-wise) collection of different questions? It maybe be a great help to students and teachers as it can show the wide range of questions which can arise out of a topic and it can also address some common misconceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can have it like a separate set of files for questions related to a particular phenomenon. For, example all questions related to Hawking Radiation available as download. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="a669c05a-d229-4a78-96de-397f7d012f0f" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:10:36.120" UserId="40382" Text="Questions and Answers as Downloads" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="a669c05a-d229-4a78-96de-397f7d012f0f" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:10:36.120" UserId="40382" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="9fa052c1-2d4d-48f4-8dbb-f6d26ef0ea5e" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:35:02.983" UserId="1325" Text="I won't answer a question if there is already a correct answer. If I think the existing answer could be clarified I sometimes add an answer but make it clear it's just a footnote to the existing answer. So you needn't feel concerned I'll trample over your answers. I suspect this applies to most of the high rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that people do seem to vote up high rep users even when their answers aren't especially good. I've even had answers upvoted when I've subsequently decided the answer was actually wrong and deleted it. Quite why this happens I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a good answer is a clear answer that explains the underlying physics, preferably with equations to make it absolutely clear how the physics works. I see no end of answers that are vague and arm waving. Unless you can write down the equations behind the physics, then work through them to show how the answer emerges I don't think you understand the problem well enough to explain it to someone else. If your answer is clear and logical it will get upvoted whatever your reputation - we all started with a reputation of 1 (or 101 if we came from another SE site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As jinawee comments, reputation shouldn't be your principal motivation for answering questions. I found that answering questions forces me to learn about areas of physics that I'd ignored in the 30 years (!) since leaving university and it's always enjoyable to feel you are learning something. It's also nice when someone leaves comments like *thanks, I understand it better now* - we all like to make the world a better place :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="ada3b3ed-ade7-4b97-b97b-e881a381b1b6" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:38:12.640" UserId="20848" Text="Just a guess, but this would probably defeat the purpose of this site, which is to provide eyeballs to view ads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At best a download would include the ads you would have seen at that time.  However, there is no way to track new views, and the ads could go stale.  In the case of rotating ads, whichever one you got with your snapshot would get all the future views and the other paying advertisers would get none.  You'd also not see the results of new voting, new answers, or other updates to the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE needs you to come back to the live site whenever you want to look at some question or answer again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="1b4d78aa-6d9a-4f5b-be3e-760eabe5af08" CreationDate="2014-05-29T15:30:39.263" UserId="40382" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="I don't know if Physics.SE or other SE sites have this feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they don't, I suggest a new feature. Can we have the questions and answers available as downloads. We can simply save the html file but it's tiresome when one wants to download too many questions. Can we have a topic-wise(or should I say tag-wise) collection of different questions? It maybe be a great help to students and teachers as it can show the wide range of questions which can arise out of a topic and it can also address some common misconceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can have it like a separate set of files for questions related to a particular phenomenon. For, example all questions related to Hawking Radiation available as download. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: For example, [this](http://www.stackprinter.com/deleted) page is an archive of deleted popular questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="ad58cb82-984d-49ac-8270-df255ceace31" CreationDate="2014-05-29T19:41:37.797" UserId="37182" Text="Who can tell me why I am cut off from leaving comments? Spending the time to compose a comment then nothing showing up is rather irritating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="ad58cb82-984d-49ac-8270-df255ceace31" CreationDate="2014-05-29T19:41:37.797" UserId="37182" Text="Can not leave comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="ad58cb82-984d-49ac-8270-df255ceace31" CreationDate="2014-05-29T19:41:37.797" UserId="37182" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="3375b484-8254-4cb5-aef1-a4ba492c46ab" CreationDate="2014-05-29T20:09:22.867" UserId="26969" Text="I was [answering a homework question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/114921/26969), and wanted to include some &quot;hidden answers&quot; to give the OP a chance to work it out bit by bit. Some of the layout etc. of the equations is different in preview - it was OK in the actual answer.  For example, in preview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the actual answer. Clearly the preview is left aligned, but the equations become centered in the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were other issues in preview - some text followed by a block of multi-line equations &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`This is a problem: $$..\\..\\..$$` ended up on the same line during preview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preview is such an important feature - especially when you do things like equations. It would be nice if it would work together with the &quot;hidden answer&quot; feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l7WX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zyloY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qe9iC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="3375b484-8254-4cb5-aef1-a4ba492c46ab" CreationDate="2014-05-29T20:09:22.867" UserId="26969" Text="Preview hidden equation - alignment is broken" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="3375b484-8254-4cb5-aef1-a4ba492c46ab" CreationDate="2014-05-29T20:09:22.867" UserId="26969" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="bede91cf-bb12-40b6-8fd8-31e9b71710c9" CreationDate="2014-05-30T14:59:43.947" UserId="23339" Text="I once managed to chat with someone instead of writing a lot of comments because the site proposed that to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a really hard time finding and using the chat on this site. Maybe one could make this very useful feature more readily available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="bede91cf-bb12-40b6-8fd8-31e9b71710c9" CreationDate="2014-05-30T14:59:43.947" UserId="23339" Text="How do I find the Chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="bede91cf-bb12-40b6-8fd8-31e9b71710c9" CreationDate="2014-05-30T14:59:43.947" UserId="23339" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="8cf42c7b-58dd-49c0-acb7-aa39fbc65f2e" CreationDate="2014-05-30T15:43:02.217" UserId="2451" Text="A link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) of the meta site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="4f6ee1e4-001c-4ba7-9804-b2f0dc9ab4d4" CreationDate="2014-05-30T15:49:12.563" UserId="2451" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="1. A link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) of the physics meta site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13488" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="83da1278-896f-4eb8-b4c5-895bcd7d7422" CreationDate="2014-05-30T18:15:20.383" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How do I find the chat room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13489" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="83da1278-896f-4eb8-b4c5-895bcd7d7422" CreationDate="2014-05-30T18:15:20.383" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|feature-request|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="90c4af68-82ef-4655-9663-1a4896f1b464" CreationDate="2014-05-31T00:29:51.357" UserId="347" Text="Yes, ask yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Does my answer have something new to say that is not provided by the other answers?  (For instance, you have a theoretical approach to something that is answered empirically)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Do I know a clear path from first principles to an answer?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rarely look at the author until after I've upvoted.  And I've certainly written wrong answers before (and seen the same effect John Rennie describes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you keep on writing correct things, you'll find yourself with reputation soon enough.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="32d12005-b609-45ed-8107-de85a75a21b2" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:11:28.320" UserId="2578" Text="I had asked a question in physics stack exchange a while back, but never got an answer. It surprisingly was never closed nor anyone had any comments. I feel like people are thinking, &quot;ugh, another superluminal scheme...&quot; and never bothered to even consider it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps its more appropriate to ask it here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105009/thought-experiment-using-quantum-entanglement-in-position-and-its-effects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="32d12005-b609-45ed-8107-de85a75a21b2" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:11:28.320" UserId="2578" Text="Thought experiment using quantum entanglement in position and its effects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="32d12005-b609-45ed-8107-de85a75a21b2" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:11:28.320" UserId="2578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5816" RevisionGUID="689ac36c-1701-488b-a7f0-2a40c43dd4fd" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:55:55.047" UserId="37182" Text="Problem &quot;solved&quot;. Disable new &quot;Mathjax Buttons&quot; I loaded from a description on the right of the questions page. Fixes two different commenting problems here and on ElectronicsSE plus fixes problem with the Stackexchange pull-down menu to go to other SE pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to find how to reach the Mathjax Buttons author....." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="8198391c-1889-449d-91df-9378fd7b19c3" CreationDate="2014-05-31T16:28:31.470" UserId="2451" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="1. A direct link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) of the [physics meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. From _any_ page on the [physics main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) or the [physics meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/), single-click on the word 'StackExchange' in the upper left corner of the page. A menu should open. A click on the word 'chat' near the top of the menu brings you to [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/). Continue with item 2. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="183c2e13-0782-4a1a-96fe-fa848d97f6f4" CreationDate="2014-06-01T02:22:16.987" UserId="124" Text="No, it would not be appropriate to ask this question here on meta. It's not a question about the PSE website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any feedback, I don't think you're justified in any assumption about what people are thinking. I will say this: the question is a little on the long side, which is not a bad thing (in fact it's of an appropriate length to potentially be a pretty good question) but it does mean only a limited number of people will be willing to read and understand the whole thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="dec83281-11be-4027-bcc2-0d1e2e7cc06f" CreationDate="2014-06-01T03:42:12.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/472946184621793281" />
  <row Id="13502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="2e910f11-fce7-4ef8-b53f-bb829d46ea1a" CreationDate="2014-06-01T15:22:42.440" UserId="124" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="No, it would not be appropriate to ask this question here on meta. It's not a question about the PSE website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any feedback, I don't think you're justified to make any _assumption_ about what people are thinking - the best you can do is speculate, but you never know if your speculation is right without hearing from others. I will say this: the question is a little on the long side, which is not a bad thing (in fact it's of an appropriate length to potentially be a pretty good question) but it does mean only a limited number of people will be willing to read and understand the whole thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="63cd0942-5a1c-415f-9d57-648ec07f8dc1" CreationDate="2014-06-02T07:51:19.147" UserId="8563" Comment="Added screenshot" Text="1. A direct link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/) of the [physics meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. From _any_ page on the [physics main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) or the [physics meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/), single-click on the word 'StackExchange' in the upper left corner of the page. A menu should open. A click on the word 'chat' near the top of the menu brings you to [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/). Continue with item 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oG882.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13504" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="0bd5e93c-16ae-47f7-a696-83eeafe5725d" CreationDate="2014-06-02T09:42:14.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/473399179750813697" />
  <row Id="13515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="fe48408d-e3fe-46a6-9353-b022c4560118" CreationDate="2014-06-03T17:29:20.703" UserId="26969" Text="People come to this site for _understanding_ of physics (and sometimes for homework help, but that's a topic for another day...). One of the things that sets a _great_ answer apart from an _OK_ answer is the ability to _bridge the gap in understanding_ that led to the question in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that great answers often include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An intuitive explanation of the concept&#xD;&#xA; 2. A diagram (or several) that explains what is going on&#xD;&#xA; 3. A _rigorous_ (and correct!) analysis of the underlying physics&#xD;&#xA; 4. References to &quot;further reading&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people read an answer like that, they appreciate &quot;yes, that's really how it is; my understanding of physics just improved&quot; - and the answer has some lasting value. Visitors recognize that, and they will reward it regardless of your current reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't worry about the reputation of others. If you strive to follow the above principles, you will come up with some great answers, and soon you will get the rep points you deserve.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="30bbce3e-9e3f-4601-8bca-0b92a6248144" CreationDate="2014-06-04T13:51:11.497" UserId="46239" Text="I have seen self learning tag in mathematics Stack Exchange. But this tag is not there in physics Stack Excahnge. I think there are many students who are learning new stuff by there own without help of any institution (like me). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;normally it happens that when i ask some question, other users add homework tag. so i think if there is self learning tag, so they no other can know that whether it is homework question or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="30bbce3e-9e3f-4601-8bca-0b92a6248144" CreationDate="2014-06-04T13:51:11.497" UserId="46239" Text="Should there be self learning tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="30bbce3e-9e3f-4601-8bca-0b92a6248144" CreationDate="2014-06-04T13:51:11.497" UserId="46239" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5824" RevisionGUID="4e2203ac-ba28-4c6d-b927-f83addb207c6" CreationDate="2014-06-04T14:29:06.083" UserId="23785" Text="It doesn't actually matter whether or not the asker was assigned the problem as homework. The homework tag is for homework-like questions. These are questions whose purpose are not about resolving a conceptual difficulty, but instead about getting the right answer to a specific problem. Thus you can assign the homework tag without knowing if the problem actually is homework; homework-likeness is a property of the problem, not the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think people on this site care about whether or not you attend a university and I don't think they care about whether your question stems from a homework assignment or random curiosity. What they do care about is that your question addresses a conceptual issue that can be applied to many situations, so that the answer is useful to a wide audience and writing an answer is a good investment of time. The homework tag is supposed to indicate whether or not this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think we need a self-learner tag, because we don't care whether you go to a university or not, and we wouldn't need an &quot;actual-homework&quot; tag, because we don't care whether the problem is actually homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some links to recent discussion about the homework tag for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="c2307c4e-af23-4aa7-945a-04197bb55b13" CreationDate="2014-06-04T14:55:45.107" UserId="520" Text="#No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:self-learning] would be a [meta-tag][1], and those are discouraged. In fact, [tag:homework] is *also* a meta-tag, but [the site has voted to keep it][2], and given it a [somewhat unusual meaning][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that a couple of those links are the same ones that [NowIGetTo... used][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5824/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="2450882a-4945-4bb3-b154-be9652c28cbf" CreationDate="2014-06-04T16:02:56.277" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil" Text="#No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:self-learning] would be a [meta-tag][1], and those are discouraged. In fact, [tag:homework] is *also* a meta-tag, but [the site has voted to keep it][2], and given it a [somewhat unusual meaning][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that a couple of those links are the same ones that [NowIGetTo... used][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5824/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="bdd4da96-28a6-4557-8bbc-57c20fbdefaa" CreationDate="2014-06-04T19:55:25.400" UserId="34382" Text="Recently, I answered a question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610, which received as of now, 30 upvotes, and I am glad that the community found the answer helpful, and of above average quality. However, many of my other answers, in my opinion, have been much better in both content, length, style, approach, etc. Yet, those received a few votes, whilst the aforementioned a phenomenal 30!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, I ask, does anyone have any theories or input they'd like to share regarding what they think serial upvoted answers have that make them distinct from others? Or perhaps is it less deterministic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just puzzled as to how I got 30 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** this is in no way a rant about other answers not receiving votes; I'm simply curious. Also, it's certainly not a complaint! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="bdd4da96-28a6-4557-8bbc-57c20fbdefaa" CreationDate="2014-06-04T19:55:25.400" UserId="34382" Text="Unusual Upvote Trends (Discussion)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="bdd4da96-28a6-4557-8bbc-57c20fbdefaa" CreationDate="2014-06-04T19:55:25.400" UserId="34382" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="8d96a308-8b88-4e35-a459-1e3c9ec30d59" CreationDate="2014-06-04T20:15:49.583" UserId="25301" Text="To the right of every page is the [Hot Network Questions](http://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot) list. If you note the list carefully, you'll find the question you linked to appear on the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While not the clearest picture (looks better on my screen even after cropping it), there's your answer and the hot question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have [three](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88145/why-are-rockets-so-big/88155#88155) [such](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108971/why-does-a-nuclear-explosion-have-directionality/108976#108976) [answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80159/why-has-earths-core-not-become-solid/80169#80169) (3 links there) to my name due to the HNQ-effect, and I know I'm not the only one who's seen this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wVkuP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="e23b7e31-3ef1-4765-9865-1597b275094c" CreationDate="2014-06-04T20:47:40.933" UserId="26169" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have seen self learning tag in mathematics Stack Exchange. But this tag is not there in physics Stack Excahnge. I think there are many students who are learning new stuff by there own without help of any institution (like me). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;normally it happens that when i ask some question, other users add homework tag. so i think if there is self learning tag, so they know other can know that whether it is homework question or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13527" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="61184686-2704-4e3f-af80-16c57753565f" CreationDate="2014-06-04T21:51:23.400" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="443a1831-3a34-43a5-9bda-a60195826f55" CreationDate="2014-06-05T10:08:02.557" UserId="44257" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another grad student within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="443a1831-3a34-43a5-9bda-a60195826f55" CreationDate="2014-06-05T10:08:02.557" UserId="44257" Text="'Stalking', Reverse-Voting and the scope of &quot;Serial Downvoting&quot; Confusion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="443a1831-3a34-43a5-9bda-a60195826f55" CreationDate="2014-06-05T10:08:02.557" UserId="44257" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5829" RevisionGUID="08f6a776-59fd-4769-a081-dfdf4d8c4971" CreationDate="2014-06-05T10:18:27.023" UserId="2684" Text="If you go through the profile of a user to find interesting posts, you should try to avoid voting on their posts. Because you're selecting posts by user, this distorts the voting compared to when you would find questions via other means. This creates a pattern that is almost indistinguishable from vote fraud and is likely to be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no problem if you encounter the posts naturally, e.g. because you're active in the same tags as another user.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5830" RevisionGUID="e62096f9-6558-486b-8e17-21a9d1135aac" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:17:36.537" UserId="1325" Text="That's nothing! I got 24 votes for a [picture of a fly's foot][1] :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the vast majority of the site members are *interested amateurs* rather than physics students or people being paid to do physics. As an (ex) scientist my favourite answers are the ones that are right at the edge of what I know, but these are exactly the answers that are going to be uninteresting to most other people. My experience is that you get the most votes when you take a question that everyone can understand and provide an answer that everyone can understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I agree that it certainly helps if the question you're answering makes the hot questions list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37772/why-doesnt-a-fly-fall-off-the-wall/37773#37773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="1d21f331-29b7-4c83-b817-278c2780be96" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:18:41.897" UserId="44257" Comment="Added a clarifying paragraph on the extent of the action my question is about" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another grad student within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 1: I should have mentioned, I am only talking about three or four votes here and there, when I'm taking a break from my own work, by the way. It is not as if I am suggesting systematically going through every single one of another persons questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I still think it is helpful to try to find out the bounds for this, in order to avoid doing anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\\$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5831" RevisionGUID="a4c55c03-cc5c-450a-a08b-88f5a81e0c7a" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:21:19.213" UserId="6634" Text="I'm not sure on the algorithm exactly but I have a feeling if you go to a link, read the question carefully, read all the answers carefully, and then vote up the answers that are useful and vote down the answers that are not, the algorithm wouldn't catch it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because **this is normal voting behavior**. You shouldn't cast a vote from the name alone, you shouldn't be seeking out to vote rapidly and frequently. You should be reading questions and answers and voting up the good and down the bad. This takes at least a minute or two (and quite possibly longer) on each question. It doesn't matter how you arrive at the question or answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So vote properly and you should be fine. Just don't spend 12 hours a day doing it and make sure you are considering the content before casting votes and it should be okay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="cfdb6484-96e2-47e4-9866-4e881ea96d96" CreationDate="2014-06-05T17:25:32.043" UserId="23473" Text="I'm pretty much rehashing what everyone else has said, but what is the point of a discussion if not to repeat the same few points that everyone agrees with in many different ways?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many contributing factors to how many votes an answer might get. The most obvious and influential being whether or not the answer is correct and complete. However, it is far from unheard of that a masterfully made answer with just the right information presented in an easy to understand way might get few or even no votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote-hunting (that's a new term I just made up) is a skill; sadly one I am not very adept at, but I am an adept pattern recognizer so I see the trends. Beyond being correct and easily understood, it particularly helps if the question has a simple title; one most users could understand and most non-physicists would think &quot;hey, that sounds pretty cool!&quot; That said, too simple and it's likely to be ignored by everyone. The question you gave as an example is perfect for this. &quot;How exactly does gravity work?&quot; That type of title will definitely bring the viewers. The other thing that helps is if a question has a lot of up votes. That tells users that most people like the question and find it interesting. This makes them more interested in seeing what the answer to it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once they've clicked in, you want the viewer to stay. To that end, the question needs to be well worded, easily followable, and interesting to novices and at least undergrad level as well. You might consider editing the format or grammar of the question if you feel it needs improvement in those areas but remember **do not make any substantive changes to the content of the question unless it is your own**. Also, consider improving the tags to include not only subjects mentioned in the question, but also subjects you know would have to be mentioned in any correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will all lure in users and make them wanting to find out the right answer. Right off the bat, users usually upvote the accepted answer before moving to others. So if yours is accepted, great! If not, this is an uphill battle; your answer will need to be really good. I find that when there are a lot of answers at around the same vote level (say 5 with 0 or 1 vote), a really good answer can get muddled and lost. At this point, adding pictures really helps bring votes to you. If you can set your answer apart from the others visually, people are more likely to read yours, especially if all the answers are on the long side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medium to long answers usually are more correct than short answers and so they tend to be read first and upvoted. But too long and nobody wants to take the time. This is also true with math-heavy answers, answers that aren't segmented with short, manageable paragraphs, or answer that start with things like &quot;This is just my opinion, I really don't know for sure...&quot; Sometimes, a lot of math is called for, so then it's fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, try to make it fun to read. Put a little piece of unexpected humour right in the middle of your answer, use wild and/or silly scenarios for thought experiments, be creative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoid the use of this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's all well and good for telling people that you fixed a problem or added in missing info, but it's exhausting for a reader. It may get you points from a few expert users, but novices rarely recognize the original need for the edit and I've seen it happen many times where the votes abruptly stop coming in once someone has added the edit line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could go on about the content and format of your answer, but I don't want to risk giving too much advice that isn't always true. The next thing that influences number of votes is the time of day that a question appears on the active page. We all live in different time zones, but a majority of our users are in North America. If you do your edits or post your answers during daylight/business hours for North America, you will get more instantaneous views and a higher chance of fast upvotes, which gets you onto the &quot;hot topics&quot; list. However, it also means that you will be off the active front page relatively quickly. There's a trade off there. In the reverse time slot, you'll stay on the active page longer, but you'll definitely get less views. In your case, you might have hit a sweet spot time-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is much more that goes into how many upvotes an answer gets. And what makes vote-hunting hardest is that these factors have varying impacts on number of upvotes such that it is very difficult to predict whether a question will be a hit or a miss. It's more of an experience-based instinct that some users will have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="8d6cffb4-a081-4d71-99af-940b8b7297e5" CreationDate="2014-06-05T21:46:22.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/474668578663571457" />
  <row Id="13537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="4e6f3538-6dfd-4ed6-bc34-21b789d14872" CreationDate="2014-06-06T04:11:38.490" UserId="124" Comment="remove unnecessary backslashes and edit notification" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another grad student within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should have mentioned, I am only talking about three or four votes here and there, when I'm taking a break from my own work, by the way. It is not as if I am suggesting systematically going through every single one of another persons questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I still think it is helpful to try to find out the bounds for this, in order to avoid doing anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="075e77e1-e1e7-4de1-afda-b047b1c7b938" CreationDate="2014-06-06T04:18:43.293" UserId="124" Text="&gt; So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, you shouldn't do that. In determining which posts to vote on and how to vote on them (up or down), the author of the post should not be a factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, it's not such a big deal. If you look at someone's profile and vote on a _few_ of their posts, probably nothing will come of it. Voting on _many_ of the same person's posts, especially in quick succession, is likely to be reversed by the serial voting script, and then it will be forgotten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="998f6b24-3d47-470d-9ec3-5cc3f3280e81" CreationDate="2014-06-06T06:35:16.687" UserId="23339" Text="after about 10 comments to and fro in a short time, SE suggest to &quot;take the discussion to a chat&quot;. Often, that would have been useful about 10 comments earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to make this appear earlier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="998f6b24-3d47-470d-9ec3-5cc3f3280e81" CreationDate="2014-06-06T06:35:16.687" UserId="23339" Text="Option &quot;take this to the chat&quot; earlier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="998f6b24-3d47-470d-9ec3-5cc3f3280e81" CreationDate="2014-06-06T06:35:16.687" UserId="23339" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5835" RevisionGUID="d9906c2e-a94e-4bbb-b914-03508faaea1c" CreationDate="2014-06-06T07:11:05.950" UserId="7433" Text="There have been requests for this on the mother meta ([example](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93444/provide-a-tool-for-moderators-to-migrate-comments-to-chat)) but so far nothing has been implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, of course, go to chat, create a room, and invite the other user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="acb8820b-d7ab-44b8-82c0-6c9468f905fc" CreationDate="2014-06-06T09:22:27.647" UserId="34521" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but I'm experiencing rather strange behavior of MathJax in Google Chrome. On some stackexchange sites the LateX equations don't render. On Physics I can see only the source code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![What I see on physics SE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on math.stackexchange.com I can see it perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![what I see on math SE][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These 2 screenshots were taken in the very same browser (Google Chrome under Windows 7) during the same session. Each site is open on different tab - one is working, the other one is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When viewing in Firefox, everything is fine. Just Chrome refuses to display equations on physics (and sone other SE sites). Also I tried Chrome on other computers and everything is fine there as well. So the problem must be partially tied to my specific Chrome installation and also somehow tied to certain SE sites (because the same Chromw browser can display equtaions on Math SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have an idea why this could be happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vxLCV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U2TLv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="acb8820b-d7ab-44b8-82c0-6c9468f905fc" CreationDate="2014-06-06T09:22:27.647" UserId="34521" Text="MathJax not working in some cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="acb8820b-d7ab-44b8-82c0-6c9468f905fc" CreationDate="2014-06-06T09:22:27.647" UserId="34521" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="35c4ce87-db8c-460b-8c0d-7a08e320590f" CreationDate="2014-06-06T13:40:32.780" UserId="23473" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="I'm pretty much rehashing what everyone else has said, but what is the point of a discussion if not to repeat the same few points that everyone agrees with in many different ways?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many contributing factors to how many votes an answer might get. The most obvious and influential being whether or not the answer is correct and complete. However, it is far from unheard of that a masterfully made answer with just the right information presented in an easy to understand way might get few or even no votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote-hunting (that's a new term I just made up) is a skill; sadly one I am not very adept at, but I am an adept pattern recognizer so I see the trends. Beyond being correct and easily understood, it particularly helps if the question has a simple title; one most users could understand and most non-physicists would think &quot;hey, that sounds pretty cool!&quot; That said, too simple and it's likely to be ignored by everyone. The question you gave as an example is perfect for this. &quot;How exactly does gravity work?&quot; That type of title will definitely bring the viewers. The other thing that helps is if a question has a lot of up votes. That tells users that most people like the question and find it interesting. This makes them more interested in seeing what the answer to it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once they've clicked in, you want the viewer to stay. To that end, the question needs to be well worded, easily followable, and interesting to novices and at least undergrad level as well. You might consider editing the format or grammar of the question if you feel it needs improvement in those areas but remember **do not make any substantive changes to the content of the question unless it is your own**. Also, consider improving the tags to include not only subjects mentioned in the question, but also subjects you know would have to be mentioned in any correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will all lure in users and make them wanting to find out the right answer. Right off the bat, users usually upvote the accepted answer before moving to others. So if yours is accepted, great! If not, this is an uphill battle; your answer will need to be really good. I find that when there are a lot of answers at around the same vote level (say 5 with 0 or 1 vote), a really good answer can get muddled and lost. At this point, adding pictures really helps bring votes to you. If you can set your answer apart from the others visually, people are more likely to read yours, especially if all the answers are on the long side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medium to long answers usually are more correct than short answers and so they tend to be read first and upvoted. But too long and nobody wants to take the time. This is also true with math-heavy answers, answers that aren't segmented with short, manageable paragraphs, or answer that start with things like &quot;This is just my opinion, I really don't know for sure...&quot; Sometimes, a lot of math is called for, so then it's fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, try to make it fun to read. Put a little piece of unexpected humour right in the middle of your answer, use wild and/or silly scenarios for thought experiments, be creative. Also, images. Let me restate that. Images. When you have a nice image with a splash of colour, that makes people want to read it. If you can find an image that could pretty much answer the question by itself and you pair it up with a nice written explanation that adds additional info for the more curious readers, then you're gold. Answers like that might win you the populist badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoid the use of this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's all well and good for telling people that you fixed a problem or added in missing info, but it's exhausting for a reader. It may get you points from a few expert users, but novices rarely recognize the original need for the edit and I've seen it happen many times where the votes abruptly stop coming in once someone has added the edit line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could go on about the content and format of your answer, but I don't want to risk giving too much advice that isn't always true. The next thing that influences number of votes is the time of day that a question appears on the active page. We all live in different time zones, but a majority of our users are in North America. If you do your edits or post your answers during daylight/business hours for North America, you will get more instantaneous views and a higher chance of fast upvotes, which gets you onto the &quot;hot topics&quot; list. However, it also means that you will be off the active front page relatively quickly. There's a trade off there. In the reverse time slot, you'll stay on the active page longer, but you'll definitely get less views. In your case, you might have hit a sweet spot time-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is much more that goes into how many upvotes an answer gets. And what makes vote-hunting hardest is that these factors have varying impacts on number of upvotes such that it is very difficult to predict whether a question will be a hit or a miss. It's more of an experience-based instinct that some users will have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="da1d213f-24d5-4980-a478-ff3f89162ca1" CreationDate="2014-06-06T14:18:52.257" UserId="44126" Comment="not *all* of us are grad students" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another clever fellow within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should have mentioned, I am only talking about three or four votes here and there, when I'm taking a break from my own work, by the way. It is not as if I am suggesting systematically going through every single one of another persons questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I still think it is helpful to try to find out the bounds for this, in order to avoid doing anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5837" RevisionGUID="702956a0-028f-486c-a570-2df4e0ce7aea" CreationDate="2014-06-06T16:57:06.607" UserId="34382" Text="&gt; So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vote button *pop up* descriptions provide a general guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vnQ1f.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By **useful**, the question should deal with a topic which is accesible to some part of the physics community. The question is **clear** if proper notation is employed, with correct formatting and grammar; the necessary background which introduces the question should be present, and ideas communicated in a coherent and logical fashion. Finally, the question should show **research effort** which demonstrates the original poster has demonstrated some attempt to find an answer elsewhere. On the other hand, if the question doesn't meet any of the above criteria, one should potentially vote down. Nevertheless, these are general guidelines and do not apply to all cases. In fact, I only vote positively if my own personal criteria are met.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;A question should merit either an *up* vote or *down* vote based solely on its contents, and should not be influenced by, for example, the status of the user, or any information which may be garnered on his/her profile or elsewhere. As to whether it is just to go through others' questions and answers from the past, and voting - well that should be totally acceptable, providing the voting is based on a *careful analysis of the question or answer*. Obviously, creating aptly called *sock puppet* accounts to serial up/down vote a specific question is forbidden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="9ec7cd1a-5103-420f-be4f-6281b7e3eef5" CreationDate="2014-06-06T19:14:39.653" UserId="25680" Text="Simple question, maybe even a simpler answer that is just escaping me:  for the autobiographer badge I am supposed to fill out all the user profile fields.  Where are these user profile fields?  I can't find them in my profile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="9ec7cd1a-5103-420f-be4f-6281b7e3eef5" CreationDate="2014-06-06T19:14:39.653" UserId="25680" Text="Where are user profile fields?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="9ec7cd1a-5103-420f-be4f-6281b7e3eef5" CreationDate="2014-06-06T19:14:39.653" UserId="25680" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5839" RevisionGUID="960e1b3b-2d54-41a8-96db-958b768e1d16" CreationDate="2014-06-06T19:39:46.010" UserId="520" Text="I image that you expected to provide something for &quot;age&quot;, &quot;location&quot; and &quot;website&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is nothing that enforces honesty in these values (e.g. my location) or that they are particularly important to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="ef2fcba7-f684-4f6f-a6b3-86d6ac42284b" CreationDate="2014-06-06T19:39:51.810" UserId="25301" Text="Easy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Click on your profile on the topbar (whilst on main page, not meta)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Click &quot;edit&quot; located under &quot;Questions&quot; (same line as your name)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Fill out items as necessary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13554" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="d9fca07f-d8cf-483e-b65a-07d56705910e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T00:19:53.030" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-norepro|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="7e9db443-617b-45cd-b0ab-d254ff4e8abb" CreationDate="2014-06-08T07:54:50.713" UserId="42481" Text="There should be just `photon-emission` but there is also a misspelling of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one go about reporting this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lViUv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="7e9db443-617b-45cd-b0ab-d254ff4e8abb" CreationDate="2014-06-08T07:54:50.713" UserId="42481" Text="Duplicate misspelled tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="7e9db443-617b-45cd-b0ab-d254ff4e8abb" CreationDate="2014-06-08T07:54:50.713" UserId="42481" Text="|discussion|tags|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5842" RevisionGUID="19d73bb9-cd75-4d91-b34d-37ebe158b64d" CreationDate="2014-06-08T11:36:45.850" UserId="2451" Text="Fixed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, to report minor things like misspelling, etc, which do not require that the community should make a decision of principle, but it is clear what needs to be done, then one could just mention the problem in the chat room.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5842" RevisionGUID="a24c8af6-4078-4856-896b-7abd85dbd2bc" CreationDate="2014-06-08T11:43:37.723" UserId="2451" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Fixed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, to report minor things like misspellings, etc, which do not require that the community should make a decision of principles, but it is clear what needs to be done, then one could just mention the problem in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="9201d5c9-d5e8-46eb-8d7d-2e6e27a7bf0f" CreationDate="2014-06-09T04:35:28.820" UserId="8563" Text="The standard reference for this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me) at Meta Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note in particular that it does *not* give specifics on what will and will not trigger a serial-voting detection by the system. **This is intentional.** The more information that is available, the easier it is to game the system. In particular, if the information you are asking for were available, it would be easier to stagger serial downvoting attacks over multiple days in ways that the algorithm wouldn't pick up but could still cause some serious damage to posts that do not deserve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ethos behind this policy is that it is good questions and good answers that should be rewarded, and not good users *per se*. This may sound strange at first but I think it is, in the end, quite reasonable. This shouldn't discourage you from looking for interesting threads in the profile of a user whose posts you like, but if you do this be sure to pay due attention to all the *other* posts on those threads and vote accordingly. This is only fair on all the other people who made an effort to contribute to those threads!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if your votes *are* reversed, don't take it too hard. If you come across a post that you had upvoted in the past and your vote is no longer there, all you need to do is upvote it again. If the threads are really that good, it's likely you'll revisit them at some point and this will show up if it's happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13561" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="45ccb498-debe-49dd-91f4-f677f0a946da" CreationDate="2014-06-10T04:23:52.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/476218163294527488" />
  <row Id="13562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="002d240a-909d-4585-8d4e-b81a11103678" CreationDate="2014-06-10T06:29:37.460" UserId="46399" Text="The badges section mentions that when someone earns ''at least 100 total score for at least 20 non-community wiki answers'' in a specific tag, he/she gets a bronze badge for that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the meaning of this string ''non-community wiki answers'' is not elaborated here. Maybe it could be edited, or one can add a link if that info is hosted elsewhere, but what exactly does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="002d240a-909d-4585-8d4e-b81a11103678" CreationDate="2014-06-10T06:29:37.460" UserId="46399" Text="Meaning of non-community wiki answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="002d240a-909d-4585-8d4e-b81a11103678" CreationDate="2014-06-10T06:29:37.460" UserId="46399" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="287f3dc7-c1ed-4ef2-b090-61f7d24c8b7c" CreationDate="2014-06-10T08:37:33.553" UserId="8563" Text="Certain posts are marked as *community wiki*, for a variety of reasons. Essentially, if you mark one of your answers as community wiki, it is very easy for other users to edit your post and contribute content to it, and it is taken as an encouragement on others to do so. Because of this, certain 'benefits', including reputation, are suspended in community wiki posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) or http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts at Meta Stack Exchange. It is my understanding that most people feel this information is visible enough and does not need further highlighting - it is only one search query away at the help center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="e05f0273-aed0-4d11-85a3-a12fa3d0170e" CreationDate="2014-06-11T08:53:20.130" UserId="47268" Text="It would be nice to be able to make matrices with column and row names using &lt;code&gt;\bordermatrix{}&lt;/code&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Producing something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![bordermatrix][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has also been requested on [Cross Validated meta][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it hasn't been added yet I think. Any tips for making this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kU3hk.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/809/bordermatrix-in-mathjax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="e05f0273-aed0-4d11-85a3-a12fa3d0170e" CreationDate="2014-06-11T08:53:20.130" UserId="47268" Text="Bordermatrix in MathJaX" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="e05f0273-aed0-4d11-85a3-a12fa3d0170e" CreationDate="2014-06-11T08:53:20.130" UserId="47268" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="942fe90f-5b90-4556-9dc0-030a13b5c809" CreationDate="2014-06-11T15:16:04.083" UserId="46853" Text="What is the number in parentheses randomly changing on my chrome tab?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My chrome tab reads &quot;(1) Physics Stack Exchange&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then a few minutes later is reads...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My chrome tab reads &quot;(2) Physics Stack Exchange&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="942fe90f-5b90-4556-9dc0-030a13b5c809" CreationDate="2014-06-11T15:16:04.083" UserId="46853" Text="What is the number in parentheses randomly changing on my chrome tab?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="942fe90f-5b90-4556-9dc0-030a13b5c809" CreationDate="2014-06-11T15:16:04.083" UserId="46853" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="43168966-9255-40f4-b308-a64811d56367" CreationDate="2014-06-11T15:43:03.813" UserId="31782" Comment="Capitalization." Text="Today I saw a message &quot;+14 Serial downvoting reversed&quot; in my profile. It seems someone unintentionally downvoted most of my posts in a small span of time but I am not sure why someone did this.  &#xD;&#xA;My question is:  &#xD;&#xA;**Are my posts of low quality, unclear etc etc..**  &#xD;&#xA;I am not specialized in *Physics*. English isn't my first language. I am improving my posts continuously.  If to someone my posts seems unclear he/she should downvote my posts slowly so that next time I won't get my reputation back.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I request the reader to leave some concise comments with constructive criticism on my posts so I could further improve the quality of my posts.  &#xD;&#xA;If the reader hasn't spare time to write any comment on individual posts which he/she wants to downvote please leave a small comment here or if the reason is wide then you may put it as an  answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If the serial downvoting was due to my some disrespectful comment of mine then I am extremely sorry. &#xD;&#xA;Now onwards I will not put any vague comment on SE. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5848" RevisionGUID="132e8c29-e6ac-4a87-bc56-1e40e118ef91" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:08:21.340" UserId="37286" Text="[![Find perfect Explanations at PerfectExplanations.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zlOkk.png&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: http://perfectexplanations.com/ &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13574" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5848" RevisionGUID="7ca2e18c-88a0-4a4e-a436-a6388a3c3a73" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:08:21.340" UserId="37286" />
  <row Id="13575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="8c1bc3b9-4f14-46c7-b1cc-3ab95ec12157" CreationDate="2014-06-11T20:40:05.597" UserId="9719" Text="That's the number of questions with new activity since you last refreshed the page. If you click over to that tab, the top of the questions list will have a gray box with the message &quot;1 question with new activity.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="cb677e58-6da6-4760-a04a-e8443a83701c" CreationDate="2014-06-12T04:40:03.733" UserId="31782" Text="[![Internet Archive][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/n4PMq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13577" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="7d3aa92a-2bcd-4bc9-9659-1d88c6916ce9" CreationDate="2014-06-12T04:40:03.733" UserId="31782" />
  <row Id="13578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="02900a84-ec8a-4ca5-8318-0a08892835ff" CreationDate="2014-06-12T17:11:34.707" UserId="22387" Text="Under what circumstances, could a StackExchange user win an association bonus? I tried to find it out, but could not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="02900a84-ec8a-4ca5-8318-0a08892835ff" CreationDate="2014-06-12T17:11:34.707" UserId="22387" Text="What is an association bonus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="02900a84-ec8a-4ca5-8318-0a08892835ff" CreationDate="2014-06-12T17:11:34.707" UserId="22387" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="3e6e19b3-ace1-49ee-99cb-81d5d8b36c0a" CreationDate="2014-06-12T18:28:49.830" UserId="46239" Text="I have asked a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/117391/find-out-the-dimension-of-fracab) before 3 days and it was put on hold. After that i have done all the required editing in the question and also put the comment but till now it haven't been reviewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think after edit, the question is up to the standard because before editing question had got -2 votes but now after editing it has got 3 votes up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope the question will not be closed!!   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="3e6e19b3-ace1-49ee-99cb-81d5d8b36c0a" CreationDate="2014-06-12T18:28:49.830" UserId="46239" Text="How much time will it take to review ON HOLD questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="3e6e19b3-ace1-49ee-99cb-81d5d8b36c0a" CreationDate="2014-06-12T18:28:49.830" UserId="46239" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="27b7c77b-fb86-4ce7-a436-158d4d65684f" CreationDate="2014-06-12T18:45:36.637" UserId="25301" Text="Once edited, questions that are `on-hold` are put into the [Review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) for reopening. It takes 5 people with reputation greater than 3,000 to accept a re-open. You can find more information [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your question *still* asks us to check your work for you, which is [not something we do here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). It could be that *because* of this styled question, no one seems to want to re-open your question (as you have zero re-open nominations on your question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13585" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="c4079139-7a3d-426c-b4f9-feca6125c7b5" CreationDate="2014-06-12T18:47:05.073" UserId="25301" Comment="swapped out some tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|policy|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="db0befb8-0251-4978-925a-cb095edc68b0" CreationDate="2014-06-12T18:51:51.657" UserId="7433" Text="Your post was [already reviewed][1], with a unanimous decision to keep closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still things to be improved, read the homework policy carefully. The summary up top captures the problem with your question well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On holded questions are no different from closed questions, the wording switches over automatically in five days. There is no actual difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/46001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="c3ffd00b-fb72-4441-9cd7-f0e6c2a070d1" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:14:35.407" UserId="9719" Text="We have a very old question, [How many stablised qubits have been achieved in Quantum Computing?], from 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have a much more recent question, [Quantum computing records (entangled qubits)], from this past March.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, these are basically asking the same question. But the answer posted and accepted for the earlier question obviously isn't relevant for the second question. The most obvious thing I can think of is to have one definitive question about qubit records, and add answers periodically that update the record (using some phrasing like &quot;As of June 2014, the record is --&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an appropriate use of the FAQ feature? If we applied that idea here, would we need to make everything Community Wiki? And how would we go about updating the accepted answer? (is that even possible?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there just a much easier solution to this problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine several questions that would be subject to a similar difficulty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How many stablised qubits have been achived in Quantum Computing?]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4226/how-many-stabilised-qubits-have-been-achieved-in-quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;[Quantum computing records (entangled qubits)]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102447/quantum-computing-records-entangled-qubits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="c3ffd00b-fb72-4441-9cd7-f0e6c2a070d1" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:14:35.407" UserId="9719" Text="Is a question with a time-dependent answer a good use of the FAQ feature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="c3ffd00b-fb72-4441-9cd7-f0e6c2a070d1" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:14:35.407" UserId="9719" Text="|discussion|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="9a775642-7006-4610-925d-1dda6a9bd424" CreationDate="2014-06-13T02:49:35.747" UserId="26969" Text="I just ran into the following link http://mob.rqna.net/qna/rxquhz-creating-large-aspheric-lens-profile-for-cnc-cutting-out-of-acrylic-plastic-for-huge-camera-obscura.html which seems to be a exact copy of the question-and-answer from earlier today on physics.se : http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/118998/creating-large-aspheric-lens-profile-for-cnc-cutting-out-of-acrylic-plastic-for/119011?noredirect=1#comment243027_119011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a known problem? Is it even considered a problem? I was quite surprised!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="9a775642-7006-4610-925d-1dda6a9bd424" CreationDate="2014-06-13T02:49:35.747" UserId="26969" Text="Someone is stealing my answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="9a775642-7006-4610-925d-1dda6a9bd424" CreationDate="2014-06-13T02:49:35.747" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="856a0896-c1f7-45fd-a728-a4a3da72d12e" CreationDate="2014-06-13T03:03:19.487" UserId="7433" Text="I reported them. ([details][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While your content is licensed under CC-BY-SA and can be used on any website provided they follow certain attribution rules ([see section 2 here][2]), this site doesn't do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/200177/updated-procedure-for-reporting-scrapers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="f7d2d156-44e6-4b1d-9bab-462ecca9e191" CreationDate="2014-06-13T03:06:08.233" UserId="520" Text="When you posted you licensed your content under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. See the [legal link][1] at the bottom of each page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of content so-licensed without proper attribution is a network wide issue, and is addressed in [Updated procedure for reporting SCRAPERs][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Short version:** Report violations directly to the Stack Exchange team using the [contact us link][3] at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one time the team was also interested in hearing about copiers who meet both of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They **do** provide proper attributions&#xD;&#xA;* Have their content rank higher than the original Stack Exchange content on Google&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for SEO purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't prove to myself that they still want to hear about such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/200177/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="b244565f-9b1e-445b-800c-0edfb298973f" CreationDate="2014-06-13T03:07:53.643" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13596" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="c507d780-92d7-44a3-963b-d417359c2f0a" CreationDate="2014-06-13T10:23:54.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/477395932963549184" />
  <row Id="13597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="0bbc6beb-ffc5-421d-8e94-787b85fd7412" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:00:20.443" UserId="31782" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="![I am in danger!](http://i.imgur.com/kzFljxq.png)   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Finally a warning banner has been installed to tell users that they are going to be banned to ask questions. This is very good. It saved me for getting banned again.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The banner says:&quot;_...edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity_&quot;. Which questions should I edit? Should I edit my deleted questions Or my present undeleted questions? Or should I improve all of my questions? &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;What do we mean my _&quot;well received&quot;_? Do questions  to whom I haven't accepted an answer are called &quot;_not well recieved_&quot; or only which are downvoted? Or which are closed?  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="2161683d-fb3e-4015-9e58-2b471be75c41" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:00:39.713" UserId="31782" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82449/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the community mod I asked [the same question on Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/595538/) and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="f9f287db-abf9-4ac5-b97d-150a703185c6" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:01:01.540" UserId="31782" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I have noticed that some stack exchanges sites have different policies as compared to the stackoverflow.com. e.g. Math.SE has completely different policies for [comments](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/12743/103816) and [home-work](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/103816) questions.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the policy of Phys.SE for asking beginner level questions, that is can unintelligent persons ask questions here?  &#xD;&#xA;Is this site mainly for expert level questions?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I am not talking of home-work type questions. suppose  I want to ask a very simple, basic question which is a result of a simple logical failure or a misunderstanding or ignorance. I do some research but do not get the answer. Are those question on topic.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="8985d38b-1829-4bd2-a631-0d0d1ac3c7b4" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:01:45.200" UserId="31782" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;This question:http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82238/31782 has been downvoted too much. Why  is it  so.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;IMO OP seems to know that there should be some force which brings the bicycle to rest and is just asking for if this is true or there is some other concept involved. Since the OP does not make it clear my speculation might be wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13601" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="8985d38b-1829-4bd2-a631-0d0d1ac3c7b4" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:01:45.200" UserId="31782" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is this question downvoted too much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="06e3caed-d54e-4682-9ff6-d4d7360862f0" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:02:25.703" UserId="31782" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I have asked a few questions on this website. I always try to answer questions which I can.  I never wrote any of my questions hastily. I have read this &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&gt; help page many a times. Nearly 5 or 6 of my questions have been deleted by the &quot;community moderator&quot; because they were silently downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;My 3 questions are still alive which are downvoted silently.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86526/ac-through-a-pure-inductor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90858/what-is-the-aperture-in-the-hydraulic-analogy-of-ohms-law. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why  were my questions downvoted silently?**   &#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;My 6 answers are also downvoted. These are:  &#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99377/relationship-between-stopping-potential-and-work-function/99385#99385  &#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94032/using-sin-or-cos-for-computing-shm/94096#94096  &#xD;&#xA;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89496/centripetal-force-in-frame-of-reference-of-body-moving-in-a-circle/89500#89500  &#xD;&#xA;4. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82828/explain-what-happens-to-object-in-lift/82831#82831  &#xD;&#xA;5. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95636/elastic-potential-energy/95642#95642  &#xD;&#xA;And  &#xD;&#xA;6. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87057/angular-displacement/87066#87066 ,I will never forget this one, I spend 2 days in finding the reference book.  &#xD;&#xA;**Why were my answers downvoted silently.**  &#xD;&#xA;____________________  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Note: If my posts are downvoted silently due to the grammatical and formatting mistakes then I want to tell the community one important thing:- I have the privilege to downvote, keep downvoting, I have started to find posts which have minor grammatical and spelling mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="ac9f5420-b4f7-41f6-8f04-258c5803e939" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:03:55.217" UserId="31782" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Recently I raised a flag on meta.Phys.SE. Practically the flag was declined, that is no action was taken by the moderators. But the strange thing is that it is not declined officially. It is marked as **disputed**. What does it mean? I don't want to know about this particular flag. I want to know about this in general i.e. how are and why some flags disputed? Can flags on the main site too be disputed?  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13604" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="ac9f5420-b4f7-41f6-8f04-258c5803e939" CreationDate="2014-06-13T14:03:55.217" UserId="31782" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="How is a flag disputed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13605" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="2ec483e3-b0c3-41ae-8bdc-b03a01c9bc1e" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:10:39.670" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [8c9d7515-5261-4bd9-8f1f-e751ea9bc3a1]" Text="I have noticed that some stack exchanges sites have different policies as compared to the stackoverflow.com. e.g. Math.SE has completely different policies for [comments](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/12743/103816) and [home-work](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/103816) questions.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the policy of Phys.SE for asking beginner level questions, that is can unintelligent persons ask questions here?  &#xD;&#xA;Is this site mainly for expert level questions?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I am not talking of home-work type questions. suppose  I want to ask a very simple, basic question which is a result of a simple logical failure or a misunderstanding or ignorance. I do some research but do not get the answer. Are those question on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13606" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="3d32e9e3-40d8-4484-a825-5cf61595b5d3" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:10:51.060" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13607" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="6506b61b-fb1b-4a27-918c-1e9be040ab81" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:10:51.060" UserId="124" Comment="1015" />
  <row Id="13608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="4ad34ae0-1ac0-43f1-af42-11336236db7e" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:11:21.543" UserId="124" Comment="remove thanks" Text="Recently I raised a flag on meta.Phys.SE. Practically the flag was declined, that is no action was taken by the moderators. But the strange thing is that it is not declined officially. It is marked as **disputed**. What does it mean? I don't want to know about this particular flag. I want to know about this in general i.e. how are and why some flags disputed? Can flags on the main site too be disputed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13609" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="440e166f-33b7-474f-af95-d71406fd6d6d" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:11:29.273" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13610" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="0d2dcf41-61ea-41c3-bc0e-40c82eb99858" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:11:29.273" UserId="124" Comment="1016" />
  <row Id="13611" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="5efa3cf3-b6fa-4501-a85c-5fbf09b87d7c" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:11:46.710" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [e44dcde4-ae6a-4246-950f-8670f0e8219d]" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82449/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the community mod I asked [the same question on Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/595538/) and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13612" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="5f082ce6-339a-4412-91b8-6da6e360da7a" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:11:57.530" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13613" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="4ec47b78-5bf5-4ed2-8a63-ab51ab85e7d3" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:11:57.530" UserId="124" Comment="1017" />
  <row Id="13614" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="7e2c2102-5a7f-409a-9560-f9da7d825606" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:12:12.643" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [39133309-d813-4507-949a-a8f59eeca48a]" Text="I have asked a few questions on this website. I always try to answer questions which I can.  I never wrote any of my questions hastily. I have read this &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&gt; help page many a times. Nearly 5 or 6 of my questions have been deleted by the &quot;community moderator&quot; because they were silently downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;My 3 questions are still alive which are downvoted silently.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86526/ac-through-a-pure-inductor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90858/what-is-the-aperture-in-the-hydraulic-analogy-of-ohms-law. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why  were my questions downvoted silently?**   &#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;My 6 answers are also downvoted. These are:  &#xD;&#xA;1. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99377/relationship-between-stopping-potential-and-work-function/99385#99385  &#xD;&#xA;2. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94032/using-sin-or-cos-for-computing-shm/94096#94096  &#xD;&#xA;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89496/centripetal-force-in-frame-of-reference-of-body-moving-in-a-circle/89500#89500  &#xD;&#xA;4. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82828/explain-what-happens-to-object-in-lift/82831#82831  &#xD;&#xA;5. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95636/elastic-potential-energy/95642#95642  &#xD;&#xA;And  &#xD;&#xA;6. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87057/angular-displacement/87066#87066 ,I will never forget this one, I spend 2 days in finding the reference book.  &#xD;&#xA;**Why were my answers downvoted silently.**  &#xD;&#xA;____________________  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Note: If my posts are downvoted silently due to the grammatical and formatting mistakes then I want to tell the community one important thing:- I have the privilege to downvote, keep downvoting, I have started to find posts which have minor grammatical and spelling mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13615" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="9c5c5ae9-7631-4cfb-bd39-a7c11b18b487" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:12:25.563" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13616" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="1d73b3c5-e268-4189-a997-eb192b69f7f1" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:12:25.563" UserId="124" Comment="1018" />
  <row Id="13617" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="2061c6fd-89b2-4fc0-b5c0-4f247bb18bae" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:12:46.940" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [ba4d6b21-4e7b-4b58-9bc8-b4b5e38b62a0]" Text="![I am in danger!](http://i.imgur.com/kzFljxq.png)   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Finally a warning banner has been installed to tell users that they are going to be banned to ask questions. This is very good. It saved me for getting banned again.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The banner says:&quot;_...edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity_&quot;. Which questions should I edit? Should I edit my deleted questions Or my present undeleted questions? Or should I improve all of my questions? &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;What do we mean my _&quot;well received&quot;_? Do questions  to whom I haven't accepted an answer are called &quot;_not well recieved_&quot; or only which are downvoted? Or which are closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13618" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="8e11ab73-ff42-40dd-a17a-f347c5d78424" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:12:56.867" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13619" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="2e431b05-f8ae-4d04-a95f-4f351a577824" CreationDate="2014-06-13T23:12:56.867" UserId="124" Comment="1019" />
  <row Id="13620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="0fd8cba8-c1d9-4911-a472-5dcd1ce62d5e" CreationDate="2014-06-14T09:19:24.297" UserId="31782" Text="I like your idea very much. We are well aware, [for whom Phys.SE is for](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange#comment16570_715).   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've proposed a new website named [_Physics Problems_](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2) on Area51. The targeted audience is not required to be a _student_ of Physics.    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I, in no way favour to help verbatim homework questions. My sole purpose is to make a platform, where people, who do not have access of teacher or peers etc, could get help for learning Physics.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/69198.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Physics problems&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="f8d346c7-a5d6-4106-a55b-91dc05cc0830" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:47:59.240" UserId="31782" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="A moderator declined two of my flagged comments and I disagree with this. How should I proceed in getting this reversed?    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="1d44f905-58a3-4031-8d1d-da3492477c25" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:48:24.030" UserId="31782" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I flagged some comments and answers as technically wrong but these flags were declined and moderator's reply was:&quot;flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How I am supposed to notify the technical inaccuracies? I have got privilege to comment everywhere and I left some comments on the answers which have some technical inaccuracies.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it ok to leave such a comment?  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="4c5ee8e9-9246-4bef-b89c-1b301742b381" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:48:45.890" UserId="31782" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I asked a  question about the relation between mathematics and physics a few days ago: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.  &#xD;&#xA;I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Should I explain more how my question is about [&quot;_Mathematical Physics_&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time#comment224114_109506)  &#xD;&#xA;- Should I quote the whole article from the referred book?  &#xD;&#xA;- It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?   &#xD;&#xA;- Is my question a bad question, why?  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="2db25166-d277-4c41-95d0-567ffb6dc8a8" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:49:37.387" UserId="31782" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Last but not the least if editing policy is mentioned somewhere please give me a link of that. If not then please mention it as an answer to my question.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="93aeab53-5dbb-4394-bcae-9a24d3ae5e6a" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:52:53.613" UserId="31782" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89374/velocity-at-the-very-moment-of-collision &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some comments are posted on this question out of which I flagged these two: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 The last part is a duplicate of: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35177/… – jinawee  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 An addendum to @ja72's comment is that all composite objects must in reality **d** the store and release business . – dmckee♦.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I flagged the comment no 1 two times, first because I had edited my question and explained that the last part of my question was duplicate of [this] question not that &quot;jinawee&quot; mentioned but my flag was declined.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;then I again edited my question and removed the duplicate part, after editing I again flagged comment no 1 as obsolete but it was again declined.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I flagged comment no 2 as _not constructive_ because I don't find it related to the question one time and it was declined. And after this, the comment was rephrased with minor improvement of _d_ replaced with _do_. As &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;An addendum to @ja72's comment is that all composite objects must in reality **do** the store and release business. – dmckee♦ &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;Why were my flags to these comments declined?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[this]:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="93aeab53-5dbb-4394-bcae-9a24d3ae5e6a" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:52:53.613" UserId="31782" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why were some of my flags got declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="a83a620a-7148-4630-9374-aff45c0615c5" CreationDate="2014-06-14T12:55:02.950" UserId="31782" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="A few days ago I answered the question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87205/electric-heating-rod/87221#87221 .  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Soon my answer got downvoted and other community users started to explain the dangers involved with that equipment(**electric heating heating rod**). I didn't find the tag *laboratory-safety* or any of such kind attached to the question. &#xD;&#xA;But the people who posted the comments and answers are highly reputed so I think that I misunderstood the question and I too explained a bit about the safety of that equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;After I edited my answer it got another downvote. I think my answer is not appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As I understand the author of question asked about the physics concept involved  in getting electric current through his body.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am new to this site please give any suggestions how I can improve my answer. Should I explain the dangers involved or should I explain the reason why OP felt current.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Thank you &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13628" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="a1c04d1f-8bd0-4c50-8100-3cbf1bc64e55" CreationDate="2014-06-14T16:23:56.490" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [8f7c136f-c64d-49f2-bc0e-ea92966c74b5]" Text="A moderator declined two of my flagged comments and I disagree with this. How should I proceed in getting this reversed?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13629" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="556acf6a-b066-4d45-8dba-e64f59e17e03" CreationDate="2014-06-14T16:24:05.797" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [12950416-0bb1-488b-9cf7-9abd0718350e]" Text="I flagged some comments and answers as technically wrong but these flags were declined and moderator's reply was:&quot;flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How I am supposed to notify the technical inaccuracies? I have got privilege to comment everywhere and I left some comments on the answers which have some technical inaccuracies.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it ok to leave such a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13630" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="f3051d8e-6508-4add-bd9e-cbf7fc7e94f0" CreationDate="2014-06-14T16:24:14.983" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [a0de5b19-07eb-4020-83a2-82d142a39603]" Text="I asked a  question about the relation between mathematics and physics a few days ago: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.  &#xD;&#xA;I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Should I explain more how my question is about [&quot;_Mathematical Physics_&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time#comment224114_109506)  &#xD;&#xA;- Should I quote the whole article from the referred book?  &#xD;&#xA;- It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?   &#xD;&#xA;- Is my question a bad question, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13631" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="58816897-bf99-4fd8-96ce-5d62b4e8a0c8" CreationDate="2014-06-14T16:25:45.627" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [b51167a4-cc5a-4a6c-8194-cf019da5bc5c]" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Last but not the least if editing policy is mentioned somewhere please give me a link of that. If not then please mention it as an answer to my question.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="83bd6b0a-2868-4818-be37-af5f00cfebda" CreationDate="2014-06-14T16:26:29.720" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="A few days ago I answered the question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87205/electric-heating-rod/87221#87221 .  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Soon my answer got downvoted and other community users started to explain the dangers involved with that equipment(**electric heating heating rod**). I didn't find the tag *laboratory-safety* or any of such kind attached to the question. &#xD;&#xA;But the people who posted the comments and answers are highly reputed so I think that I misunderstood the question and I too explained a bit about the safety of that equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;After I edited my answer it got another downvote. I think my answer is not appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As I understand the author of question asked about the physics concept involved  in getting electric current through his body.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am new to this site please give any suggestions how I can improve my answer. Should I explain the dangers involved or should I explain the reason why OP felt current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="4882d944-5455-4a1c-b6b6-718e4ed56a1f" CreationDate="2014-06-14T16:29:23.273" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="&gt;This question:http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82238/31782 has been downvoted too much. Why  is it  so.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;IMO OP seems to know that there should be some force which brings the bicycle to rest and is just asking for if this is true or there is some other concept involved. Since the OP does not make it clear my speculation might be wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="8e2c8f08-1f03-4e35-b0da-c47a28fe65f9" CreationDate="2014-06-15T04:53:31.387" UserId="2911" Text="Next time, search [the help center][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are an experienced Stack Exchange network user with 200 or more reputation on at least one site, you will receive a starting +100 reputation bonus to get you past basic new user restrictions. This will happen automatically on all current Stack Exchange sites where you have an account, and on any other Stack Exchange sites at the time you log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="210ca567-1dd0-4969-8c28-e1c7cae03ca7" CreationDate="2014-06-15T17:37:38.370" UserId="12262" Text="My question stands in general, as stated in the title:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;How are &quot;disputes about content of a question&quot; resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of comments or answers there?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specificly, my question arises regarding the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light    &#xD;&#xA;Since commenting there is presently disabled I submit my corresponding comment draft (and related question) hereby:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee dmckee: &quot;_locked by dmckee [ http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee ] yesterday [Jun 14, 2014] This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta [ http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ ]._&quot; -- &lt;b&gt;Would you please point out the specific page or forum where &quot;_disputes about its [this question's] content_&quot; would be resolved in public?&lt;/b&gt; (Having visited http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ I've been unable to recognize any **recent** relevant discussion there; and I'm curious which &quot;_disputes about content_&quot; couldn't take place here [ http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light ], as usual, by means of answers and/or comments.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="210ca567-1dd0-4969-8c28-e1c7cae03ca7" CreationDate="2014-06-15T17:37:38.370" UserId="12262" Text="How are &quot;disputes about content of a question&quot; resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of answers or comments there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="210ca567-1dd0-4969-8c28-e1c7cae03ca7" CreationDate="2014-06-15T17:37:38.370" UserId="12262" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="856cd514-7d1e-480f-ae0f-d1e1d4989f9b" CreationDate="2014-06-15T19:04:22.997" UserId="1325" Text="I speak with no moderatorial authority, but it seems to me the question has been locked because of repeated edits and rollbacks. Specifically you keep trying to add a &quot;thank you&quot; line. This is certainly polite, but we take it for granted everyone is grateful for any help received and *thank yous in advance* just clutter up questions so they are routinely removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the removal of the *thank you* isn't a show stopper I would guess it can be removed and the question unlocked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13639" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="168b06c5-8788-4b6e-8d23-e1bad0143d1f" CreationDate="2014-06-15T19:07:23.127" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[915],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:34382,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;JamalS&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5863" RevisionGUID="081f9c30-7532-4526-87d3-621e5723a6a0" CreationDate="2014-06-15T19:59:02.120" UserId="520" Text="That question and others were repeatedly edited to include a &quot;Thank you&quot; in violation of the guidelines in the [help center][1] section on [behavior expected of users][2] despite polite correction by other users and moderators. They were locked simply to prevent repetition of the behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frequent and pointless edits bump old material to the front page, and while we understand and respect the desire to be polite, posts are treated as archival material rather than on-going live interactions. Thanks are expressed by accepting and up-voting useful replies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5863" RevisionGUID="265d44b5-5a49-40bf-9f95-1b988da67d8b" CreationDate="2014-06-15T20:50:49.377" UserId="520" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="That question and others were repeatedly edited to include a &quot;Thank you&quot; in violation of the guidelines in the [help center][1] section on [behavior expected of users][2] despite polite correction by other users and moderators. They were locked simply to prevent repetition of the behavior while things have some time to cool off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frequent and pointless edits bump old material to the front page, and while we understand and respect the desire to be polite, posts are treated as archival material rather than on-going live interactions. Thanks are expressed by accepting and up-voting useful replies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="d2aa4c26-f5dd-4f89-8890-86c49e1595cb" CreationDate="2014-06-15T20:52:32.337" UserId="2451" Comment="user12262 and user31782 are different!" Text="I speak with no moderatorial authority, but it seems to me the question has been locked because of repeated edits and rollbacks. Specifically OP of [question 100442](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/100442/2451) keep trying to add a &quot;thank you&quot; line. This is certainly polite, but we take it for granted everyone is grateful for any help received and *thank yous in advance* just clutter up questions so they are routinely removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the removal of the *thank you* isn't a show stopper I would guess it can be removed and the question unlocked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="848b6b7c-915a-4ae2-b3b6-4d08209f3983" CreationDate="2014-06-16T09:32:59.657" UserId="1186" Text="I have recently encountered a question about Black Holes, marked as a duplicate: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103670/do-black-holes-exist The question asks whether black holes have information inside and if no, how a hollow sphere can be considered a black hole. The question is marked as duplicate of the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102202/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-black-hole-to-form which is totally different and concerned with the time it takes for a black hole formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, this question is about information inside, the linked question is about formation time, they cannot be duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know why people voted to close it, possibly they only read the tite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="848b6b7c-915a-4ae2-b3b6-4d08209f3983" CreationDate="2014-06-16T09:32:59.657" UserId="1186" Text="Not a duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="848b6b7c-915a-4ae2-b3b6-4d08209f3983" CreationDate="2014-06-16T09:32:59.657" UserId="1186" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="2431a0a2-171e-4c53-bdd9-f538ba0d23ae" CreationDate="2014-06-16T10:06:16.850" UserId="7433" Text="&gt; The question asks whether black holes have information inside and if no, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not what it looks like to me. The information bit seems to be an afterthought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's indeed what the question is asking, it should be clearer. Currently it's a rather vague question that most people are interpreting as &quot;Does a black hole have matter inside or not?&quot; in a rough way.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="a0c58851-65fc-4ef3-99ae-b78348cc0283" CreationDate="2014-06-17T01:06:24.470" UserId="124" Text="Let me address your general question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are &quot;disputes about content of a question&quot; resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of comments or answers there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You come here, to meta, and either contribute to an existing post about the question, or make a new post if one does not already exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are several reasons a question can be locked, but generally, it will happen because someone was using either comments or edits inappropriately. Locking isn't granular, though; there's only one way to lock a post, and it prevents both commenting and editing. So in cases like this, where the post was locked to prevent edits, it also prevents commenting as an undesired side effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would also point out that comments are mostly meant for suggesting corrections and bringing peoples' attention to relevant related content, not for extended discussion. So they're not really the proper venue to resolve a serious dispute about a question's content. That's what this meta site is for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="4bba0d15-8e77-49d9-81e0-366fa5fe9700" CreationDate="2014-06-17T05:40:03.573" UserId="124" Text="Should we rename [tag:shm] to [tag:harmonic-oscillator]? I don't think the distinction is worth having two separate tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="4bba0d15-8e77-49d9-81e0-366fa5fe9700" CreationDate="2014-06-17T05:40:03.573" UserId="124" Text="Tag rename: shm to harmonic-oscillator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="4bba0d15-8e77-49d9-81e0-366fa5fe9700" CreationDate="2014-06-17T05:40:03.573" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="b17a1bf2-00b1-4791-b968-81ef1846c30b" CreationDate="2014-06-17T05:42:56.147" UserId="124" Comment="add a point from Olin's answer" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Think_ about the question. What do you already know that relates to it? Narrow it down to the specific physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). You may find it useful to use a dedicated scientific search engine, such as [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net), or [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can, if you want, post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, it's going to look like you didn't do your research, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="582a1010-c752-4cc5-88b3-0f90f6bf9826" CreationDate="2014-06-17T07:45:50.417" UserId="124" Comment="clarify what this question is for" Text="Should we rename [tag:shm] to [tag:harmonic-oscillator]? I don't think the distinction is worth having two separate tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify: the purpose of this question is so that if anyone has objections, they will be made public. If there are no objections in a few days, we'll go ahead and make the synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or vote on the [synonym proposal](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/harmonic-oscillator/synonyms) Qmechanic made, if you are able to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="4a78f3c7-5217-492e-be38-a48a31ec621f" CreationDate="2014-06-17T11:47:58.853" UserId="32426" Text="I've found multiple times the closing of questions about the topic of general relativity/solutions of the einstein field equations. Examples are [here][1] and [here][2]. These judgement was: &quot;not mainstream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High reputated physicists on the list seem to agree with my opinion (see for example [John Rennie's][3] comment [here][4] 2 hours ago, or [Flint22][5]'s comment [here][6])). Their opinions were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;I don't think this is off-topic. If you draw the Penrose diagram for e.g. a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole there are null geodesics that allow light from other universes to be seen.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;While I agree that to answer this question would be pure speculation, I absolutely disagree that the Kerr Metric is non-mainstream. It is a well studied solution to the Einstein equations which is to be found in any graduate lecture course on Black Hole Mechanics.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current suggestion were to change this de-facto policy, and repair its damages on the site by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the removal of the lock from the questions,&#xD;&#xA;* and to do a scan in the currently held/deleted questions, and do the same if there is the same case. Partially I could help in this, although I can't see the already deleted questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe/113041#113041&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119562/light-in-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119562/light-in-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/44257/flint72&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe/113041#113041" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="4a78f3c7-5217-492e-be38-a48a31ec621f" CreationDate="2014-06-17T11:47:58.853" UserId="32426" Text="Why were well-known, valid solutions of the GR &quot;off-topic&quot; or &quot;non-mainstream&quot;? (suggestion)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="4a78f3c7-5217-492e-be38-a48a31ec621f" CreationDate="2014-06-17T11:47:58.853" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="0744bc33-3057-4856-a669-f2fa3e706c3a" CreationDate="2014-06-17T13:12:58.860" UserId="7433" Text="##Regarding https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree that its non mainstream, but I find it too unclear and closeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, even if the Kerr Metric is mainstream (which it is, afaict), Flint's comment does classify the question as not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&gt; While I agree that to answer this question would be pure speculation, I absolutely disagree that the Kerr Metric is non-mainstream.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speculative questions fall afoul of our [mainstream physics policy][2] since the answers won't be accepted physics. (Which is what Brandon meant when he said &quot;partially non maisntream&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Regarding https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119562/light-in-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is unclear, but not to the extent that it is closeable. It has a speculative tone about it, but it seems mainstream to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The general issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen many questions mis-closed as non mainstream. The community usually manages to pick these up well, however if the question is unclear it's really the OP's fault. The best way to get these opened is to get the OP to edit them. I left a comment on the Penrose Diagram one to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe/113041#comment232569_113034&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="d3f84e98-71ed-4b94-8e8d-27e83413eef7" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:00:07.763" UserId="1492" Text="In a comment to my answer [here][1] I was asked :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;and can you provide source for that this forum is only for mainstream physics, what is mainstream?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that this was written in the help page, but cannot find it. It is sort of implied in the list of appropriate questions but there is no discouragement of crackpot theory type discussions in the red x list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it my impression that somewhere the &quot;mainstream physics&quot; was emphasized? Anyway why isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119593/is-it-true-that-gravitational-lensing-only-occurs-for-objects-made-of-plasma/119596#119596" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="d3f84e98-71ed-4b94-8e8d-27e83413eef7" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:00:07.763" UserId="1492" Text="appropriate questions for site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="d3f84e98-71ed-4b94-8e8d-27e83413eef7" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:00:07.763" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="4db39bd1-def0-49dc-9fea-de7b8a6b40ea" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:06:54.203" UserId="520" Text="Look at the second set of bullet point in the [&quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot;][1] page of the [help center][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A partial quote reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Pitches for your own personal theories or work**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Questions about fictional physics**&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bit about *&quot;[a]nything that could not be published in a reputable journal&quot;* is the key, and I suppose that this is the standard to use in judging the extent of &quot;mainstream&quot;-ness required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember that some theories that are widely considered to be unlikely are none-the-less publishable. People did MOND for decades despite a near consensus that the work was doomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="3c171ba8-f246-4705-8d64-7e3152875dcc" CreationDate="2014-06-17T16:23:08.647" UserId="7433" Text="When a new user joins, they are shown the [tour][1] page. I added a link and explicitly mentioned non-mainstream there. That should help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="f2df53da-f101-42ad-8df4-6b616d5048be" CreationDate="2014-06-17T16:46:49.330" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to make the title more precise. Dear anna v, if u don't like my changes please roll back or use the parts u like." Text="In a comment to my answer [here][1] I was asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _and can you provide source for that this forum is only for mainstream physics, what is mainstream?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that this was written in the help page, but cannot find it. It is sort of implied in the list of appropriate questions but there is no discouragement of crackpot theory type discussions in the red x list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it my impression that somewhere the &quot;mainstream physics&quot; was emphasized? Anyway why isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119593/is-it-true-that-gravitational-lensing-only-occurs-for-objects-made-of-plasma/119596#119596" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="f2df53da-f101-42ad-8df4-6b616d5048be" CreationDate="2014-06-17T16:46:49.330" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to make the title more precise. Dear anna v, if u don't like my changes please roll back or use the parts u like." Text="Concerning appropriate questions: Where is &quot;mainstream physics&quot; emphasized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="f2df53da-f101-42ad-8df4-6b616d5048be" CreationDate="2014-06-17T16:46:49.330" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to make the title more precise. Dear anna v, if u don't like my changes please roll back or use the parts u like." Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="c469f618-fe14-464e-9065-925fd8ba5b43" CreationDate="2014-06-17T16:59:58.440" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="93c9c8e6-d838-4e08-9989-195a72d838bf" CreationDate="2014-06-17T18:17:46.620" UserId="32426" Text="On my opinion, the current question voting/deleting mechanism is bad, because it often closes(deletes) valid questions as well. But it is my opinion only - until now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I've found an idea to get *evidence* to prove that. I can see a possibility to *audit the question closing/deleting system.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very simple: First, I sample the site for closed, but good-looking questions. On my own experience, especially the questions dealing with the solutions of the Einstein Field Theories are somehow disliked by some voting machine, but probably there are other, misteriously disliked areas as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I get good physics question with google from believable sources. For example, *I ask things to which I already found an answer on arxiv* (of course only in old and well-referenced papers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I put them on the site as my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hiphotesis is, that these questions will be closed(deleted) as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And my actual question were: if I did this, were it an acceptable behavior, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="93c9c8e6-d838-4e08-9989-195a72d838bf" CreationDate="2014-06-17T18:17:46.620" UserId="32426" Text="Suggestion: an idea to audit the question close/delete mechanism without any moderation privilege" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="93c9c8e6-d838-4e08-9989-195a72d838bf" CreationDate="2014-06-17T18:17:46.620" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|moderation|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="faff81d9-017a-4288-9f85-182d520e6987" CreationDate="2014-06-18T02:46:52.267" UserId="7433" Text="I really doubt that there are some &quot;mysteriously disliked&quot; fields. Especially general relativity and the EFEs; that's one of the most popular topics on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's acceptable to test the waters with your own questions, but try not to jump to conclusions when a question is closed. It may not have been closed for the reason you think, Physics.SE has a lot of policies when it comes to the types of allowed questions to maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio, it may have hit one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k+ users have access to overall review history. While I'm not as active now, in the past I used to go through this and look for any places where the review system failed, so far I haven't found any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="54c4d30b-1de1-4565-b98e-3a3868d37cc1" CreationDate="2014-06-18T06:21:47.250" UserId="46239" Text="Yesterday my reputation was 64 but when today is displaying 60 but not showing where my i lost my reputation! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to refresh page twice but no change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="54c4d30b-1de1-4565-b98e-3a3868d37cc1" CreationDate="2014-06-18T06:21:47.250" UserId="46239" Text="Reputation display" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="54c4d30b-1de1-4565-b98e-3a3868d37cc1" CreationDate="2014-06-18T06:21:47.250" UserId="46239" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="f1a6cc60-5265-4dc0-b7e2-482bbade82c5" CreationDate="2014-06-18T10:06:49.930" UserId="1325" Text="Despite my comment I didn't vote to reopen the question you mention. This is because after an initial burst of enthusiasm I took a closer look at the question and decided it didn't make sense. I suspect there is a language difficulty and result is that as it stands the question can't be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did consider editing the question to make it clearer, but it was at that point I realised I could be sure what the OP was actually asking. So I decided to leave it closed on the grounds it's unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although I think the close reason *non-mainstream* was wrong, I still think the question should be closed. I obviously don't know the thought processes of those who voted to close, but given how confusing the question is I'm reluctant to censure them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe has probably been closed unfairly, but again it's a poorly written question and I feel no great urge to attempt an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="b4751ced-71da-4b8a-b731-9deed872f93f" CreationDate="2014-06-18T10:14:37.340" UserId="1325" Text="I would be very annoyed to be presented with *test questions*. I put a lot of effort into answering people's questions because I would have loved someone to do that when I was a spotty kid interested in physics¹. The thought that all that effort was just to prove a point about the suitability or otherwise of question subject matter is not a welcome one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ this would have meant inventing the Stack Exchange back in the 60s but who knows, CTCs may one day make this possible :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="30fba4cc-a8bb-4719-9e3d-8e09d6890d95" CreationDate="2014-06-18T13:39:57.487" UserId="7433" Text="Click the &quot;show removed posts&quot; tick at the bottom of the page. A couple old, closed questions with 0 or less net votes were removed, and suggested edit rep from the same was lost in the process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j7JFM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="ff837663-4b43-4950-9d78-1569ef2959fa" CreationDate="2014-06-19T05:10:51.623" UserId="8563" Text="I want to point out one aspect of the question closure procedure which is relevant here but is not apparent to &lt;3k users (and even then takes a while to realize). When voting to close a question, one gets to choose between the multiple options, but after you have five close votes the question gets closed regardless of what the mix of options is. (That is, three non-mainstream votes and two unclear votes will cause a question to be closed.) Further, **only the reason with the most votes gets reported, and the other ones are not visible**, either publicly or to 3k+ or 10k+ users. It is therefore possible that those questions  have, say, two non-mainstream votes, two unclear votes, and one too-broad vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that question closure mostly reflects that the community thinks a question is closable, but the reason stated is slightly more of an indicative thing and does not necessarily reflect a consensus among the close-voters. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="28633b0c-46f7-4670-9298-47553c9a6faa" CreationDate="2014-06-19T20:55:24.613" UserId="373" Text="I was surprised that [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119578/) question by Freudian Slip was voted off-topic. The reason of the vote is that this question is about the optimal classical strategy to win the CHSH game, and needs only logic and no physic to be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the CHSH game is a game invented by physicists, to look at physics problems (nonlocality and how quantum physics or other theories could beat it). I have only ever heard about this game in discussion about physics, and I think it is totally boring without physics, whether quantum or post-quantum (with PR-boxes). Such games have become a common tool in quantum information this century, and the optimal classical strategy defines a classical/quantum boundary, which is a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this question is off topic because “You could remove all references to QM from this question without changing what it's asking”, then [these](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52547/) [two](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13341/) questions about differential equations (and many others) is also off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other word, I don’t understand why this question is not *mathematics in the context of physics*, as advised at the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic), since the CHSH-game only make sense “in the context of physics”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="28633b0c-46f7-4670-9298-47553c9a6faa" CreationDate="2014-06-19T20:55:24.613" UserId="373" Text="Are questions on quantum-information inspired games on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="28633b0c-46f7-4670-9298-47553c9a6faa" CreationDate="2014-06-19T20:55:24.613" UserId="373" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="f364720a-d45e-46fb-9edd-f84e110f0a93" CreationDate="2014-06-20T10:39:31.330" UserId="26875" Text="I'd like to discuss the relevance (&quot;on-topicness&quot;) of questions regarding the effects of physical influence on biologic organisms, specifically humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, there have been these two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is WiFi safe for humans?][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it possible to kill a human with a powerful magnet?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one was closed for being off-topic (*not* for showing little effort to find a solution on Google). The second one has not been touched. I fail to see the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that it is problematic to give medical advice on StackExchange but that's not the point. I could except closing the questions on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that the evaluation of the effects of radiation or strong fields is part of physical research. There are questions involved regarding the penetration depth and the scattering or interaction rates when radiation travels through organic tissue. For example, we have a group at our physics department doing simulations of the absorption of radiation emitted by cell phones with different antenna designs in the human body. Those things are beyond the scope of what biology can do and there are physicists working on it so I fail to see how that just isn't physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119806/is-wifi-safe-for-humans&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119999/is-it-possible-to-kill-a-human-with-a-powerful-magnet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="f364720a-d45e-46fb-9edd-f84e110f0a93" CreationDate="2014-06-20T10:39:31.330" UserId="26875" Text="Relevance of biology-related questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="f364720a-d45e-46fb-9edd-f84e110f0a93" CreationDate="2014-06-20T10:39:31.330" UserId="26875" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="daf695fc-5565-47ca-9947-2097a3bf1127" CreationDate="2014-06-20T10:45:46.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/479938151578738688" />
  <row Id="13691" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="85c56632-004e-44e7-a56d-6cbecf7c81eb" CreationDate="2014-06-20T10:51:33.033" UserId="26875" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13692" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="c8f735a4-bfe6-4a3f-8827-49dfa83f9260" CreationDate="2014-06-20T16:08:34.307" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120158/what-is-a-good-place-to-ask-more-opinion-based-questions-instead-of-physics-se" />
  <row Id="13693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="a3a9e881-5f3f-4235-8a0e-0af1f3ee5802" CreationDate="2014-06-20T16:05:29.760" UserId="36195" Text="I recently created a question on Physics SE and learned that this site is not suited for questions that could be more opinion based. Since this is the case, could you suggest other places where people can ask these more opinion-based questions so as to reduce the number of them on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="a3a9e881-5f3f-4235-8a0e-0af1f3ee5802" CreationDate="2014-06-20T16:05:29.760" UserId="36195" Text="What is a good place to ask more opinion-based questions instead of Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="a3a9e881-5f3f-4235-8a0e-0af1f3ee5802" CreationDate="2014-06-20T16:05:29.760" UserId="36195" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="e2b20239-4a76-45cb-8b8b-2ba327b2a548" CreationDate="2014-06-20T18:09:18.233" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="**One suggestion: [our chat room][1].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an informal place where a number of regular users can be found from time to time. We discuss all manner of things, and we're quite willing to give our opinions on physics-related issues. Just remember standard chat etiquette - no one is forced to respond to your solicitation for opinions. But likely someone will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are [scheduled chat sessions][2] every other week, where we try to gather around the same time (and where we sometimes have a site-maintenance agenda).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other sites on the internet.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This space intentionally left blank.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't personally venture out much into the wilds of cyberspace. Hopefully other answers will be posted recommending forums that might match your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A word of caution.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the philosophy of not allowing opinion-based questions on the main site here is that we want to provide objectively correct information, and we can't really verify the correctness of opinions. Throw in anonymity and a lack of face-to-face communication and it's entirely possible to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might stumble upon a community of physicists who are disillusioned with academia and who will tell you to study physics on your own without formal training, but you can't tell they're in the minority. Or you might find opinions from mathematicians claiming to be physicists who will tell you to not bother with lab work if you want to be a theorist, whereas another community might give the opposite response. Or you might meet someone like me telling you most of your standard textbooks in physics are garbage, but perhaps those books are actually best for you personally. So wherever you gather opinions, always critically evaluate what you're being told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="3bda1389-2c8f-4009-9f11-f44d1ab81df7" CreationDate="2014-06-20T18:33:47.210" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added reputation requirement" Text="**One suggestion: [our chat room][1].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an informal place where a number of regular users can be found from time to time. We discuss all manner of things, and we're quite willing to give our opinions on physics-related issues. Just remember standard chat etiquette - no one is forced to respond to your solicitation for opinions. But likely someone will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are [scheduled chat sessions][2] every other week, where we try to gather around the same time (and where we sometimes have a site-maintenance agenda).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note one needs [20 reputation][3] to participate on SE chats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other sites on the internet.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This space intentionally left blank.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't personally venture out much into the wilds of cyberspace. Hopefully other answers will be posted recommending forums that might match your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A word of caution.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the philosophy of not allowing opinion-based questions on the main site here is that we want to provide objectively correct information, and we can't really verify the correctness of opinions. Throw in anonymity and a lack of face-to-face communication and it's entirely possible to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might stumble upon a community of physicists who are disillusioned with academia and who will tell you to study physics on your own without formal training, but you can't tell they're in the minority. Or you might find opinions from mathematicians claiming to be physicists who will tell you to not bother with lab work if you want to be a theorist, whereas another community might give the opposite response. Or you might meet someone like me telling you most of your standard textbooks in physics are garbage, but perhaps those books are actually best for you personally. So wherever you gather opinions, always critically evaluate what you're being told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="3e69cad9-9fe8-4f56-a996-9feb7b72bdb7" CreationDate="2014-06-20T18:47:47.167" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Inspired by [this meta post on RPG.SE][1]: I think we should keep in mind that posts with lots of &quot;**Edit:**&quot; and &quot;**Update:**&quot; sections are a bit hard to read from beginning to end, and we should strive to avoid this style (which I'm certainly guilty of using from time to time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, sometimes we need to change what we've written. But the revision history for the post contains all past versions in case anyone is curious. And most future visitors probably aren't interested in the full history of how a great question or answer got to where it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is a call for us all to try to make smooth-flowing posts whenever we edit new information into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if editing another post for whatever reason, editors should feel free to incorporate updates smoothly into the post. (This last bit might be a bit more controversial here on Physics, where it seems most of us are loath to edit others' posts.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good idea? Am I missing some reason why physics posts should read like revision histories?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/3454/dont-signal-your-edits-in-text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="3e69cad9-9fe8-4f56-a996-9feb7b72bdb7" CreationDate="2014-06-20T18:47:47.167" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Let's not have posts look like revision histories" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="3e69cad9-9fe8-4f56-a996-9feb7b72bdb7" CreationDate="2014-06-20T18:47:47.167" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|editing|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5887" RevisionGUID="4298643b-e37e-44b3-8e23-b305a80ee311" CreationDate="2014-06-20T23:35:54.073" UserId="50606" Text="As the author of the original question being argued over, I am probably the last person anybody wants to hear on this subject since I'm severely biased, but here I go anyways.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of asking any question (in a Q&amp;A site) is to generate an answer.  A question must adequately describe the desired response, along with any (and preferably all) information needed to give the desired answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In isolation, the context of a question alone should not determine whether it is on- or off-topic.  **What should determine whether it's on-topic or not should purely depend on whether you need knowledge of the topic in order to correctly answer the question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if, as David Z suggests in the comments of my question, &quot;You could remove all references to QM from this question without changing what it's asking&quot;, then that would imply that even though the *context* was QM, the actual content of the question had no dependencies on knowledge of QM, and he would be correct that the topic of the question wasn't QM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original question is kind of a perfect storm. I was looking for a reason in the source QM theory about why a non-QM condition was invalid, and the answer ended up having absolutely nothing to do with QM (to an almost embarrassing degree).  Add to this the fact that the response I expected did not fully state what I was looking for (at the end I only asked &quot;where am I wrong?&quot;), and it's totally understandable that people would misinterpret my question as being &quot;Look how smart I am, you guys missed this obvious solution to this QM-Inspired card game&quot; instead of what I was hoping for, which was actual QM theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still possible that &#xD;&#xA;However, this is a Question **and Answer** forum, and answers also have a topic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a question cannot be determined to be on- or off-topic without taking into consideration the topic of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to a question is &quot;Because at 99% of the speed of light you would experience time at a slower rate then everybody else,&quot; then it's absolutely a physics question, no matter what the question was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I would suggest that this is true only when the **expected** answer is physics-based." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5887" RevisionGUID="1d2aa70f-74ce-471f-aea8-e8f3e9fbd049" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:04:33.060" UserId="50606" Comment="removed text not intended to be submitted" Text="As the author of the original question being argued over, I am probably the last person anybody wants to hear on this subject since I'm severely biased, but here I go anyways.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of asking any question (in a Q&amp;A site) is to generate an answer.  A question must adequately describe the desired response, along with any (and preferably all) information needed to give the desired answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In isolation, the context of a question alone should not determine whether it is on- or off-topic.  **What should determine whether it's on-topic or not should purely depend on whether you need knowledge of the topic in order to correctly answer the question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if, as David Z suggests in the comments of my question, &quot;You could remove all references to QM from this question without changing what it's asking&quot;, then that would imply that even though the *context* was QM, the actual content of the question had no dependencies on knowledge of QM, and he would be correct that the topic of the question wasn't QM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original question is kind of a perfect storm. I was looking for a reason in the source QM theory about why a non-QM condition was invalid, and the answer ended up having absolutely nothing to do with QM (to an almost embarrassing degree).  Add to this the fact that the response I expected did not fully state what I was looking for (at the end I only asked &quot;where am I wrong?&quot;), and it's totally understandable that people would misinterpret my question as being &quot;Look how smart I am, you guys missed this obvious solution to this QM-Inspired card game&quot; instead of what I was hoping for, which was actual QM theory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="b1542d60-639a-4f8e-bbd8-dd548a46e5c6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:44:53.157" UserId="43402" Text="**Why have moderators removed my coments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the question is nonsense and referred to another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresloved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="b1542d60-639a-4f8e-bbd8-dd548a46e5c6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:44:53.157" UserId="43402" Text="Guru's are always right? Censorship in place of scientific arguments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="b1542d60-639a-4f8e-bbd8-dd548a46e5c6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:44:53.157" UserId="43402" Text="|discussion|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="0d24ad6d-7e99-4c0b-b87c-5bbbd7c00247" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:00:55.427" UserId="43402" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the question is nonsense and referred to another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="6b98b91d-8fc9-4017-a3fb-0a87e39dc284" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:16:43.577" UserId="43402" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the question is nonsense and referred to another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="2190f1b5-39b0-4ec5-80da-a6e29dd409eb" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:37:37.017" UserId="43402" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the question is nonsense and referred to another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="40594166-1c66-496a-964d-62f315510ca6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:47:11.167" UserId="43402" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the question is nonsense and referred to another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to prove the weird policy regarding answers and comments followed here. The top scoring (18 votes now) answer to the question I am talking about is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.&#xD;&#xA;Moral of the story: Gravity and EM are two very different things that look similar to some people because they both fall off like 1r2. Be careful what you trust. When someone makes a claim like that, check their references. If there are no references, ignore it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="b61a71d5-dc89-41b9-ae2a-c67b1f8f033d" CreationDate="2014-06-21T09:01:14.300" UserId="21817" Text="_Why have moderators removed my comments?_ The basic rule of StackExchange is that comments can be removed once you give the message to the poster. If you don't want your ideas to be removed post an answer or say it in chat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your comment, come on, don't compare mass murders to comment removal. And note that the comments weren't removed by the Goverment (they have better things to do). StackExchange is a private company, so this would be more like when someone is saying something you don't like in your house, you have the right to tell him to stop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="6bba9534-cbc6-448c-a5d9-6976803af409" CreationDate="2014-06-21T09:07:56.427" UserId="21817" Comment="added 630 characters in body" Text="_Why have moderators removed my comments?_ The basic rule of StackExchange is that comments can be removed once you give the message to the poster. If you don't want your ideas to be removed post an answer or say it in chat. I'm not a moderator, but I guess that was the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the answer is awful nonsense, every answer is allowed (in this case I think is a good answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in any General Relativity book, so no need to give references. If you think otherwise, you should back it up with solid references: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site (and I think the question should have been closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your comment, come on, don't compare goverment censorship to comment removal. And note that the comments weren't removed by the Goverment (they have better things to do). StackExchange is a private company, so this would be more like when someone is saying something you don't like in your house, you have the right to tell him to stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="dfe19d26-712c-4302-a99d-a79dbf2a08d0" CreationDate="2014-06-21T09:15:38.530" UserId="21817" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="_Why have moderators removed my comments?_ The basic rule of StackExchange is that comments can be removed once you give the message to the poster. If you don't want your ideas to be removed post an answer or say it in chat. I'm not a moderator, but I guess that was the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the answer is awful nonsense, every answer is allowed (in this case I think is a good answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in any General Relativity book, so no need to give references. If you think otherwise, you should back it up with solid references: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site (and I think the question should have been closed under this policy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your comment, come on, don't compare goverment censorship to comment removal. And note that the comments weren't removed by the Goverment (they have better things to do). StackExchange is a private company, so this would be more like when someone is saying something you don't like in your house, you have the right to tell him to stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final remark, mods don't apply the removing policy too strictly when they should be supposed to remove +1 comments and that stuff. But since it doesn't cause mayor troubles, I think it's ok.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5890" RevisionGUID="702fe9a9-8877-45b6-911a-6d91036b778b" CreationDate="2014-06-21T09:55:32.923" UserId="1325" Text="In all Stack Exchange sites, including Physics comments are regarded as transient and may be deleted at any point. The site encourages anyone who wants to address a question to put the time and effort into writing a comprehensive and high quality answer. While answers can be deleted this is normally only done in extreme circumstances e.g. when someone posts obscene or spam material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking comments shouldn't be used to answer questions. I have to confess I sometimes use comments to provide an answer, but only when I don't want to put in the time and effort to write a proper answer. In those circumstances I'm quite happy that my comment might be deleted as I don't regard it as an important contribution to the site that I want preserved for posterity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments also shouldn't be used to discuss answers. You can comment to suggest changes. For example I always read comments to my answers, and if I think the comment makes a good point I will edit my answer accordingly or event delete it. If I think the comment is wrong or irrelevant I will not. Either way, the comment only plays a transient role in advising me of possible issues and having done this it can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe an answer is wrong or confusing, and the OP ignores your comments, then the correct course is to write your own answer. That answer can then be read by future site members along with the one you object to. Comments are not intended to provide a permanent commentry on answers and shouldn't be used for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above is general, but you refer to a particular question. I didn't see the comments before they were deleted so I can't comment on why some were deleted and others weren't. I wouldn't be upset if my comments were deleted (for the reasons discussed above) though I note they have been heavily upvoted so presumably site members agree with them and/or find them helpful. I stand by them; I even have just gone back and reread the blog article to make sure I had not misjudged it, and I stand by my original opinion. If you wish to object you should write an answer analysing the blog article and pointing out its strengths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5890" RevisionGUID="963eb023-bda3-4aab-9e8a-316ed57d674d" CreationDate="2014-06-21T10:04:01.360" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="In all Stack Exchange sites, including Physics, comments are regarded as transient and may be deleted at any point. The site encourages anyone who wants to address a question to put the time and effort into writing a comprehensive and high quality answer. While answers can be deleted this is normally only done in extreme circumstances e.g. when someone posts obscene or spam material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking comments shouldn't be used to answer questions. I have to confess I sometimes use comments to provide an answer, but only when I don't want to put in the time and effort to write a proper answer. In those circumstances I'm quite happy that my comment might be deleted as I don't regard it as an important contribution to the site that I want preserved for posterity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments also shouldn't be used to discuss answers. You can comment to suggest changes. For example I always read comments to my answers, and if I think the comment makes a good point I will edit my answer accordingly or event delete it. If I think the comment is wrong or irrelevant I will not. Either way, the comment only plays a transient role in advising me of possible issues and having done this it can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe an answer is wrong or confusing, and the OP ignores your comments, then the correct course is to write your own answer. That answer can then be read by future site members along with the one you object to. Comments are not intended to provide a permanent commentry on answers and shouldn't be used for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above is general, but you refer to a particular question. I didn't see the comments before they were deleted so I can't comment on why some were deleted and others weren't. I wouldn't be upset if my comments were deleted (for the reasons discussed above) though I note they have been heavily upvoted so presumably site members agree with them and/or find them helpful. I stand by them; I even have just gone back and reread the blog article to make sure I had not misjudged it, and I stand by my original opinion. If you wish to object you should write an answer analysing the blog article and pointing out its strengths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="01542ba5-091b-4f35-aa43-d5d68f4f4bab" CreationDate="2014-06-21T10:44:15.390" UserId="43402" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the question is nonsense and referred to another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to prove that moderation follows weird policy regarding answers and comments - the top scoring (18 votes now) answer to the question I am talking about is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.&#xD;&#xA;Moral of the story: Gravity and EM are two very different things that look similar to some people because they both fall off like 1r2. Be careful what you trust. When someone makes a claim like that, check their references. If there are no references, ignore it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="a8d8974d-e4cd-4aeb-927c-de263385b096" CreationDate="2014-06-21T11:08:27.733" UserId="43402" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the blog the question was based on is nonsense and to justify his opinion he linked another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred to give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to prove that moderation follows weird policy regarding answers and comments - the top scoring (18 votes now) answer to the question I am talking about is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.&#xD;&#xA;Moral of the story: Gravity and EM are two very different things that look similar to some people because they both fall off like 1r2. Be careful what you trust. When someone makes a claim like that, check their references. If there are no references, ignore it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="30fe0c01-6a1f-4dfe-b930-5970d491169a" CreationDate="2014-06-21T12:01:44.917" UserId="43402" Comment="added 1090 characters in body" Text="**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there that the blog the question was based on is nonsense and to justify his opinion he linked another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred to give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to prove that moderation follows weird policy regarding answers and comments - the top scoring (18 votes now) answer to the question I am talking about is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.&#xD;&#xA;Moral of the story: Gravity and EM are two very different things that look similar to some people because they both fall off like 1r2. Be careful what you trust. When someone makes a claim like that, check their references. If there are no references, ignore it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Should someone think I am a lunatic or otherwise obsessive, I will show a better example of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometime at the beginning of my presence here at physics.stackexchange, I wrote this answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110703/do-photons-occupy-space/110707#110707. It's actually only a quotation that experiments show that photon seems to have real spin. After that I not only received immediate downvotes, but also a number of derogatory comments calling me naive and such. When I responded accordingly (but not overtly), my comment was removed, while the original offensive comments were left intact. Only after I asked why moderation was unfair, the other comments were removed too. Apparently, moderation didn't mind offensive comments as long as they supported the &quot;right concepts&quot;. (Notice, I didn't develop any lengthy concepts or theories considered non-mainstream. I only pointed out to a fact provided by scientists from regular university). Since then there were a number of cases where I could see that certain comments are not welcome. So this time it was just too much and I decided to react." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="49bdb5da-b5a8-49bd-8507-b90a1c4b53c8" CreationDate="2014-06-21T12:11:01.943" UserId="653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="57a0e194-47c7-4255-9b49-1f30049f137d" CreationDate="2014-06-21T13:12:46.557" UserId="520" Text="#**Write it in a post.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reliable way to insure that what you have to say is not removed as a noise comment is to write an answer to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *only* official use-case for comments is to work toward improving the post they are attached to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toward that end, comments are transient and subject to removal. If what you write is not a throw-away comment, don't leave it in a &quot;comment&quot;, find a way to make a post of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A particularly pernicious mis-use of comments seems to be as a way to write unpopular opinions and out-of-the-mainstream assertions without being subject to the publicly visible evaluation implicit in the up-and-down voting mechanism that applies to posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the removal of comments *does* involve a judgement call on the part of the moderators. We're doing our best, but we're not going to agonize over ever decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13721" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="978fdad2-272f-4e17-bb4e-d512677c6e0e" CreationDate="2014-06-22T04:46:57.640" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/480572627095138305" />
  <row Id="13722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="d179cc0b-fc0b-42e2-8323-51267317209d" CreationDate="2014-06-22T08:06:26.840" UserId="43402" Comment="added 914 characters in body" Text="EDIT2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these answers and comments below have been a truly learning experience for me. I was told a lot of useful and important things, for instance that I can write an answer myself, that I can upvote or downvote, that any comment can always be deleted. Now I know, thank you. **Pity that the only thing I still don't know is why certain comments get deleted and some not.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should anyone try to tell me that content counts, I recommend comparing my deleted comment - which I described below (and which was removed after just a few hours) - and those two comments that are still there after almost 2 days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I skimmed the blog. Wow, just wow.* and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*+1 for including a short and long answer.* (we all know that +1-type comments are highly recommended on stackexchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess further downvoting my question will give me the lesson I deserve.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there (this comment is now gone) that the blog the question was based on is nonsense and to justify his opinion he linked another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred to give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to prove that moderation follows weird policy regarding answers and comments - the top scoring (18 votes now) answer to the question I am talking about is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.&#xD;&#xA;Moral of the story: Gravity and EM are two very different things that look similar to some people because they both fall off like 1r2. Be careful what you trust. When someone makes a claim like that, check their references. If there are no references, ignore it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Should someone think I am a lunatic or otherwise obsessive, I will show a better example of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometime at the beginning of my presence here at physics.stackexchange, I wrote this answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110703/do-photons-occupy-space/110707#110707. It's actually only a quotation that experiments show that photon seems to have real spin. After that I not only received immediate downvotes, but also a number of derogatory comments calling me naive and such. When I responded accordingly (but not overtly), my comment was removed, while the original offensive comments were left intact. Only after I asked why moderation was unfair, the other comments were removed too. Apparently, moderation didn't mind offensive comments as long as they supported the &quot;right concepts&quot;. (Notice, I didn't develop any lengthy concepts or theories considered non-mainstream. I only pointed out to a fact provided by scientists from regular university). Since then there were a number of cases where I could see that certain comments are not welcome. So this time it was just too much and I decided to react." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="c78ef2a0-2a49-4e3e-a0f2-3150e2842a72" CreationDate="2014-06-22T14:25:31.300" UserId="16660" Text="I don't know much about it, but isn't Quora less strict on opinion-based answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I personally have strongly mixed feelings towards opinion-based answers. Opinion-based discussions can be very enlightening as well, but they tend to only be that if all the people involved know what they're talking about. When **asking** for opinions, you most likely don't really know what you're talking about, which is fine because it's the reason you're asking. And what's more: on the internet, you can't be sure the people answering **do** in fact know what they're talking about. Not to mention the representational value of these people. (see the word of caution in [Chris White's answer][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whenever you're asking for people's opinions, you should be aware of your own (perhaps partially developed) opinion and prejudices and the expectation bias they bring. You have to be very cautious to avoid doing what makes me personally so suspicious of social sciences: connecting conclusions to experiments with bad statistical properties. Physics SE is the only physics website that I'm aware of which has reasonable statistics, where you can have a fair amount of confidence in the bulk of the answers. The system is far from perfect, but it's as close as I've seen. And a big part of the reason, *in my opinion*, is the 'no-opinions' policy. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5885/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5893" RevisionGUID="bc50954b-522a-424c-a8ef-004fbb2f33ec" CreationDate="2014-06-22T19:11:26.427" UserId="34382" Text="The following is a brilliant poem, *An Ode to the Unity of Space and Time*, by Shing-Tung Yau, in the standard textbook, *String Theory and M-Theory* by Becker, Becker and Schwarz:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Time, ah, time,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how you go off like this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physical things, a things,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so abundant you are!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Ruo's waters are three thousand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how can they not have the same source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Time and space are one body,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mind and things sustain each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Time, o time,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not time come again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heaven, o heaven,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how many are the appearances of heaven!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From ancient days constantly shifting on,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; black holes flaring up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Time and space are one body,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it without end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great indeed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the riddle of the universe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beautiful indeed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the source of truth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To quantize space and time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the smartest are nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To measure the Great Universe with a long thin tube,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the learning is vast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="7ff8b0b5-3a8f-48a2-b822-dd57afa93aef" CreationDate="2014-06-23T22:38:50.063" UserId="26969" Text="I was looking at [the profile of @Dvij](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/20427/dvij) who recently offered a bounty of 150 on a question and seemed to have a reputation of just 16. I was curious what made somebody quite so generous / desperate for a good answer to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In recent reputation changes I noticed a -150 for awarding a bounty and a +99 &quot;rep change&quot;. Looking at the reputation history since then, it appears that the award of a 150 rep bounty caused the account to go overdrawn, and it got &quot;rebalanced&quot; to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leads to my question: under what circumstances can one offer a bounty that exceeds ones reputation? Is there a limit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="7ff8b0b5-3a8f-48a2-b822-dd57afa93aef" CreationDate="2014-06-23T22:38:50.063" UserId="26969" Text="Awarding bounty greater than reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="7ff8b0b5-3a8f-48a2-b822-dd57afa93aef" CreationDate="2014-06-23T22:38:50.063" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13728" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="c075db5b-4452-4d8e-acb3-7f0d3a2eeb1a" CreationDate="2014-06-23T22:45:03.500" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5895" RevisionGUID="ce227c8a-cc3d-4764-9b29-0f2ff304b1e8" CreationDate="2014-06-23T22:45:48.150" UserId="124" Text="The tags have been merged. This is a dummy answer to prevent the question from showing up in the unanswered list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="26247bdc-f578-4c0b-8502-d99b9b2a9e79" CreationDate="2014-06-24T02:49:59.060" UserId="30604" Comment="the cow says moo" Text="[![Community Promotion Ads are proposed and voted on by the Physics SE community][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8yg4s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5263/community-promotion-ads-2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="6d04028e-6cf2-4d0b-95a0-18181981f51a" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:06:21.687" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was looking at the userpage for [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] who recently offered a bounty of 150 on a question and seemed to have a reputation of just 16. I was curious what made somebody quite so generous / desperate for a good answer to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In recent reputation changes I noticed a -150 for awarding a bounty and a +99 &quot;rep change&quot;. Looking at the reputation history since then, it appears that the award of a 150 rep bounty caused the account to go overdrawn, and it got &quot;rebalanced&quot; to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leads to my question: under what circumstances can one offer a bounty that exceeds ones reputation? Is there a limit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13732" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="6d04028e-6cf2-4d0b-95a0-18181981f51a" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:06:21.687" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="f88df484-56b1-4089-8810-fd32390555be" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:09:21.173" UserId="8563" Text="Yes please. Many of [these posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22update+2%22) are very difficult to read for no good reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="25d0afcd-3292-4f46-9be6-549079379d81" CreationDate="2014-06-24T13:31:37.020" UserId="43588" Text="I believe one reason for using these marked revisions is when the question itself is edited by the OP in a significant way, which necessitates an important change in the answer. The answer may have been a good answer to the original question, and the answerer is reluctant to suppress it altogether : he'll rather add an appendix answering the new question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that, in such edits, it is often the main text of the question which is edited, not the title: thus the answer remains a good answer for those who've been attracted there by the title, not by the particulars the OP has added since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus a side question would be also, when the original question is relevant and gets answered, should the OP be allowed to modify significantly his question or should he be directed to post another question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="e6202162-b8b2-4c94-a106-6853dd00f919" CreationDate="2014-06-24T22:46:38.990" UserId="2451" Text="Moderators are not allowed to comment on specific cases due to privacy concerns, but let me say that in general missing reputation is often associated with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. deleted users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. deleted posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. invalidated reputation due to voting irregularities (read: [sock puppetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppetry)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that gaming the reputation system in general leads to suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="78825483-5bd1-44e2-8ac6-0429230d29e4" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:14:08.840" UserId="2451" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Moderators are not allowed to comment on specific cases due to privacy concerns, but let me say in general that missing reputation is often associated with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. deleted user accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. deleted posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. invalidated reputation due to voting irregularities (read: [sock puppetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppetry)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that gaming the reputation system may in general lead to suspension (if that wasn't obvious).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="0e08f9f0-0792-40e7-958f-b331f6f18dcb" CreationDate="2014-06-26T04:06:51.657" UserId="46156" Text="Am I allowed to put a physics problem that pertains to a certain subject, and answer that problem so other people can understand the concept? I think doing this would help other people so that they won't be confused with what they're doing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="0e08f9f0-0792-40e7-958f-b331f6f18dcb" CreationDate="2014-06-26T04:06:51.657" UserId="46156" Text="Are Problem Explanations Allowed in Physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="0e08f9f0-0792-40e7-958f-b331f6f18dcb" CreationDate="2014-06-26T04:06:51.657" UserId="46156" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="95c1c1ff-61ca-47bb-83fb-7eae7a8c399e" CreationDate="2014-06-26T04:21:40.783" UserId="124" Text="We don't have a rule against problem explanations _specifically_, but I think there's a decent chance these sorts of questions would run afoul of our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). You don't get any special consideration because you're the one posting both the question and the answer; in other words, your question and answer will be examined for compliance with the homework policy the same as if they had been posted by different people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on how you ask the question, though. If your question asks about a concept, and presents the problem only as an example of how the concept might be applied (rather than asking for the answer to the problem), it might well be fine. And if your answer only shows how to apply the concept in the context of the problem, rather than giving a full solution, again, it could be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="e4d016f4-2649-4784-8bb3-b00071f1e222" CreationDate="2014-06-26T06:10:25.193" UserId="5477" Text="This is not to argue in favour of the practice, but I think one reason people do it is to make clear what the new part is. For example, you post a long answer, but the OP raises a point they didn't understand that needs to be addressed. You could just edit it seamlessly into the answer, but then it would be hard for the OP to find the part that refers to their specific point. Under these circumstances I sometimes put an &quot;update&quot; heading as a sign to the OP that this is the part they should be looking at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the OP could just look at the edit history in this situation, but I have a feeling that most people don't do this, and even if they do they have to extract the relevant information from a diff, which isn't always ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this isn't a proper answer, it's just one reason why it sometimes happens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="7c54f17a-7a2d-412f-ba6f-09c1f1ba4f8d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:30:20.427" UserId="51948" Text="I know that this place does cannot peer review the many &quot;pet theories&quot; out there. These things get asked here quite a lot. Information about this is detailed in the wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am asking is: should we have something for those who do not do mainstream physics? Or should it be a separate site altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really want to see alternative theories and thought experiments easily (and this is a good platform for it, though I know this this is intended to be a Q&amp;A site - though the Q&amp;A style could only be reserved for the mainstream physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="7c54f17a-7a2d-412f-ba6f-09c1f1ba4f8d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:30:20.427" UserId="51948" Text="Should there be a special section for non-mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="7c54f17a-7a2d-412f-ba6f-09c1f1ba4f8d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:30:20.427" UserId="51948" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="12fbbb27-fe79-49b7-9b2f-0d4fbd0206fd" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:46:05.213" UserId="124" Text="**No.** Part of the appeal of Stack Exchange sites is their reputation for quality. When you come to an SE site you _know_ you're going to see (mostly) good content, for a certain definition of &quot;good&quot; that is fairly well associated with the mainstream of whatever the subject of the site is. Opening up the site to non-mainstream physics (in the sense that I think you mean) would trash our reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it may be true that the platform would be a good one to use for discussing non-mainstream physics. If you think that's a niche that needs to be filled, you're welcome to find some software equivalent to what SE runs (there are several options) and start your own site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the reason we're not going to do it here is for the protection of the _community_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me point out, though, that pretty much anything is fair game in our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="0ff9b98d-f9f8-4364-91f3-f729129e4cac" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:18:39.230" UserId="1325" Text="I did something very like this in http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109776/how-long-would-it-take-me-to-travel-to-a-distant-star&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking how to calculate the travel time to a star could be a homework problem - I bet it's been set as course work many times. However in this case the emphasis is on understanding the physics involved rather than just giving an answer. If you were thinking of something along these lines then I'd say give it a go. You can always delete your question and answer if it's not well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="fd04d70d-b8d8-4100-a24a-bedcda032f2b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T13:51:11.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/482159139549114368" />
  <row Id="13752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="b0a9a257-fdbf-48fe-8255-3a29827804e9" CreationDate="2014-06-26T14:42:04.223" UserId="41072" Text="Sometimes the actual answer changes with time, like BICEP2 more or less retracting their detection of gravitational waves, neutrios found not to be superluminal, the astronomical unit is redefined as a contant, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases I like to see an updated answer (possibly years later) along with the original answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103898/what-was-the-major-discovery-on-gravitational-waves-made-march-17th-2014-in-th/103902#103902" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="3da7f2ad-2b6b-4ac2-9167-54ee3d712301" CreationDate="2014-06-26T20:34:25.863" UserId="41072" Text="Only one of the two linked questions in the OP was closed as &quot;not mainstream&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;light in another universe&quot; question was voted &quot;not mainsteam&quot; by Alfred Centauri, Brandon Enright and Qmechanic and two others voted to close for other reasons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;rotating black hole&quot; question had at least one customized reason that mentioned not being mainstream, but I don't seen any evidence that anyone (else) voted &quot;not mainstream&quot;.  I voted to close because I didn't think it was clear what was being asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="a8564ffa-85a0-4bec-a8d3-4782c93bf3fc" CreationDate="2014-06-26T20:40:06.090" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="bbac25eb-bf5a-412b-8665-b89009b02137" CreationDate="2014-06-27T01:02:31.627" UserId="124" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="**No.** Part of the appeal of Stack Exchange sites is their reputation for quality. When you come to an SE site you _know_ you're going to see (mostly) good content, for a certain definition of &quot;good&quot; that is fairly well associated with the mainstream of whatever the subject of the site is. And this is not arbitrarily chosen; we select for this particular kind of content because people want to see it. Opening up the site to non-mainstream physics (in the sense that I think you mean) would trash our reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it may be true that the platform would be a good one to use for discussing non-mainstream physics. If you think that's a niche that needs to be filled, you're welcome to find some software equivalent to what SE runs (there are several options) and start your own site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the reason we're not going to do it here is for the protection of the _community_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me point out, though, that pretty much anything is fair game in our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="475f4c94-04bd-4887-a8fc-01e1c0ebc123" CreationDate="2014-06-28T07:47:50.107" UserId="1325" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall has appeared on the [Physics Today Facebook page][1]. Annoyingly I can't work out how to link that particular post (I'm clearly too old for Facebook - perhaps I should ask my 12 year old niece how to do it :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, well done to all who contributed to that question. It has to be good for the Physics SE to get this sort of publicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been periodically annoyed by the 200 rep/day limit, but poor alemi has been stung by it big time - that limit has cost over 1000 rep points. Can the mods pull a string somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/PhysicsToday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="475f4c94-04bd-4887-a8fc-01e1c0ebc123" CreationDate="2014-06-28T07:47:50.107" UserId="1325" Text="We're in Physics Today!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="475f4c94-04bd-4887-a8fc-01e1c0ebc123" CreationDate="2014-06-28T07:47:50.107" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="8ab3a5b3-0aa4-4317-805d-0c67bdb85119" CreationDate="2014-06-28T12:43:26.213" UserId="12513" Text="I am not complaining, neither I am any kind of rebel here. I am just asking that isn't physics all about the physical phenomenon that used to happen everyday, every second around us. Isn't it's about the application of mathematics in our daily life to build something what we really refer as engineering. Then why we can't ask the numerical based question on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last time when I asked a question based on Electrostatics which was having a capacitor circuit and we'll have to find some of the information of the circuit which included power, current through the capacitors and other information. But the following day my question was closed saying that &quot;this question is user specific and can't help other user to get their answer....blah...blah!&quot;. I didn't understand that what is meaning of physics if we keep it limited to Einstein's theory of relativity, instead we should try to come up to use physics in such a way which can help us in simplifying our way of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please** note that here I am not trying to promote the low grade numerical based question that we could by just applying some famous physicists formula. Rather numerical are beyond that, believe me. We should cope with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rather need your views on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="8ab3a5b3-0aa4-4317-805d-0c67bdb85119" CreationDate="2014-06-28T12:43:26.213" UserId="12513" Text="Isn't physics is all about application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="8ab3a5b3-0aa4-4317-805d-0c67bdb85119" CreationDate="2014-06-28T12:43:26.213" UserId="12513" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="a7d7bf5c-03d7-4b8f-9eaa-83d23deeee85" CreationDate="2014-06-28T16:25:57.903" UserId="124" Text="To address the question part of this: no, there are no strings we can pull; the only way to get someone a large amount of reputation exceeding the 200/day limit is a bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13763" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="3c2360ef-1102-43bd-9c31-19f2a51564c8" CreationDate="2014-06-28T16:32:27.360" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="35b76c8b-a52f-4f83-913d-21f06db91bc3" CreationDate="2014-06-28T17:52:01.043" UserId="50606" Text="I've had two questions put on hold so far.  One eventually got closed (for an arguably good reason), but the [other one][1] is still on hold.  I've made edits to the question and left a comment pointing this out, but how do I know when my changes have been reviewed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter, since I obviously have difficulty wording my questions in such a way that accurately reflect the answer I'm trying to get, when I get a canned (copy/pasted from the help center) message that my question isn't about mainstream physics, but my intent was to learn the mainstream physics, how can I find out what exactly in my question lead to the conclusion that put it on hold in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121867/can-a-difference-in-the-speed-of-time-introduce-acceleration/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="35b76c8b-a52f-4f83-913d-21f06db91bc3" CreationDate="2014-06-28T17:52:01.043" UserId="50606" Text="How can you tell when a question that's been put on hold has been reviewed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="35b76c8b-a52f-4f83-913d-21f06db91bc3" CreationDate="2014-06-28T17:52:01.043" UserId="50606" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="69692b57-7dd2-4d9a-ac58-f9421e48ed49" CreationDate="2014-06-28T17:56:51.140" UserId="520" Text="If you will allow me the indulgence of addressing this answer to what I perceive your situation to be, I think we might make some progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging for your posts I'd guess that you are near the beginning of your studies in physics--and presumably doing well because the conceptual understanding embedded in your writing is quite good for a beginner---and that colors how you think about physics just as my situation colors mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post that you are describing as *&quot;applications&quot;* I would describe as *&quot;textbook conceptual question&quot;*. They are solved immediately by anyone who understands the relationships between the abstract representations that we use and the physical reality that goes with them. You gave a perfectly good answer to [the capacitance question][1], but it consists of connecting the verbal representation of the problem (*&quot;charge drawn from a battery&quot;*) to the mathematical representation (&quot;Q \propto C_{eq}&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you continue in your studies you will find that fluent moves between multiple representations of a single problem are a foundation skill. In fact I know at least one Physic Education Researcher who *defines* upper-division level thinking in terms of fluency with multiple representations and differing levels of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the difference between that capacitance questions and the rrecent one about the relationship between coin masses and the noise they make on hitting a hard surface][2] (that is a pretty advanced example, but it is to make the point). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more posts with which to exhibit different levels of sophistication:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Observations in the cathode ray tube experiement][2] Here the asker is having trouble applying what they know (or should) know about atoms and cathode rays to a real world problem. The explanation requires an understanding of the environment inside a CRT, and the integration of three physical concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How to choose a α, β, γ measurement detector?][3] This question is about the strategy for apply physics knowledge to a design problem and is really too broad. My &quot;answer&quot; simply explains how big the field is and give a couple of vague generalities. People build industry careers on knowing how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How can scintillation gamma-spectrometers work given that track length is different for different angles?][4] A practical application question for which the answers are well known. This would be a textbook question for a student just beginning to study the experimental aspects of nuclear or high-energy physics. Again, the answer required knowing several physics facts: how gammas interact with matter: how light propagates in scintillation counters and is converted to latchable electronic signals, something about the geometric limitations of hodoscopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How are the masses of unstable elementary particles measured?][5] Another experimental particle-physics question. There are several different answers and knowing which ones to use is a matter of experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How quark electric charge directly have been measured?][6] An application question at a moderately high level of sophistication; this requires a pretty sophisticated understanding of experimental particle physics technique and theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Solar neutrino predictions][7] Not really a &quot;application&quot; questions but a &quot;state of the discipline&quot; one. Requires lots of familiarity with what has been done, but not a lot of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I've taken these examples from my area of expertise because I knew I could find them quickly, but the site has examples at many levels of sophistication from many different areas of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/115170/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90837/observations-in-the-cathode-ray-tube-experiement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/43177/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83055/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34193/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60356/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5545/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5913" RevisionGUID="dd6dd3a8-1e92-4145-9a58-6830d84b6f68" CreationDate="2014-06-28T18:18:32.697" UserId="7433" Text="&gt;  One eventually got closed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closed and on hold are the same state, except for the wording. On hold questions are automatically closed in 5 days (iirc). The wording change is to avoid people getting caught up in the finality of the term &quot;closed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when I get a canned (copy/pasted from the help center) message that my question isn't about mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't copy pasted. It's one of the options available to the close voters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but how do I know when my changes have been reviewed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not directly through the system, but you can ask a mod in chat. In this case, the reopen review is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/47217), a unanimous &quot;Leave Closed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how can I find out what exactly in my question lead to the conclusion that put it on hold in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ask the commenters, or ask in chat. (Or on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you were starting off with a &quot;hypothetical&quot; system forbidden by established physics (or, at least, hard to justify unless you specify the metric behind it). Idealized hypotheticals are okay, but ones which disobey physics are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appending a non mainstream question with an EDIT block that asks a completely different question doesn't make sense either. Just ask a new question, though I suggest you clarify the paragraph at the end with what you mean when you talk of components. Preferably with a bit of mathematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="fa5e229c-f21f-4bab-9431-41a4c9949ee3" CreationDate="2014-06-28T18:49:16.567" UserId="520" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="If you will allow me the indulgence of addressing this answer to what I perceive your situation to be, I think we might make some progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging for your posts I'd guess that you are near the beginning of your studies in physics--and presumably doing well because the conceptual understanding embedded in your writing is quite good for a beginner---and that colors how you think about physics just as my situation colors mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post that you are describing as *&quot;applications&quot;* I would describe as *&quot;textbook conceptual question&quot;*. They are solved immediately by anyone who understands the relationships between the abstract representations that we use and the physical reality that goes with them. You gave a perfectly good answer to [the capacitance question][1], but it consists of connecting the verbal representation of the problem (*&quot;charge drawn from a battery&quot;*) to the mathematical representation (&quot;Q \propto C_{eq}&quot;). The accepted answer to the same question connects the verbal version with a pictorial version and is also correct and useful to the asker. It is typical that there are at least three useful representations of every physics concept and moving between them is sometimes difficult for beginners but is generally very easy for more experienced practitioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you continue in your studies you will find that fluent moves between multiple representations of a single problem are a foundation skill. In fact I know at least one Physic Education Researcher who *defines* upper-division level thinking in terms of fluency with multiple representations and differing levels of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the difference between that capacitance questions and the recent one about the relationship between coin masses and the noise they make on hitting a hard surface][2] (that is a pretty advanced example, but it is to make the point). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more posts with which to exhibit different levels of sophistication:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Observations in the cathode ray tube experiement][2] Here the asker is having trouble applying what they know (or should) know about atoms and cathode rays to a real world problem. The explanation requires an understanding of the environment inside a CRT, and the integration of three physical concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How to choose a α, β, γ measurement detector?][3] This question is about the strategy for apply physics knowledge to a design problem and is really too broad. My &quot;answer&quot; simply explains how big the field is and give a couple of vague generalities. People build industry careers on knowing how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How can scintillation gamma-spectrometers work given that track length is different for different angles?][4] A practical application question for which the answers are well known. This would be a textbook question for a student just beginning to study the experimental aspects of nuclear or high-energy physics. Again, the answer required knowing several physics facts: how gammas interact with matter: how light propagates in scintillation counters and is converted to latchable electronic signals, something about the geometric limitations of hodoscopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How are the masses of unstable elementary particles measured?][5] Another experimental particle-physics question. There are several different answers and knowing which ones to use is a matter of experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How quark electric charge directly have been measured?][6] An application question at a moderately high level of sophistication; this requires a pretty sophisticated understanding of experimental particle physics technique and theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Solar neutrino predictions][7] Not really a &quot;application&quot; questions but a &quot;state of the discipline&quot; one. Requires lots of familiarity with what has been done, but not a lot of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I've taken these examples from my area of expertise because I knew I could find them quickly, but the site has examples at many levels of sophistication from many different areas of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/115170/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90837/observations-in-the-cathode-ray-tube-experiement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/43177/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83055/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34193/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60356/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5545/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="66074286-98dd-4cd1-99d4-d518ad06f4fb" CreationDate="2014-06-28T20:50:10.137" UserId="50606" Text="If a question is asked that (in good faith) has to do with physics, but the actual answer ends up being that the assumptions that led up to the question being asked were wrong in a way that had nothing to do with physics (and thus the answer had nothing to do with physics), should the question be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of people felt that [this question][1] I asked had nothing to do with physics, enough so that it's currently closed.  I had been wanting an answer that would tell me more about Bell's Theory, but worded my question in such a way that many people thought I was suggesting an alternative strategy to the CHSH game.  I've edited it a couple of times (most recently just now) in an attempt to clearly state what the actual question was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the answer turned out to be that I had made a mistake in calculating the effectiveness of my strategy, and that it wasn't better than the one used in the original.  It had nothing to do with a restriction in Bell's theory like I thought it did when I posted the original question.  So ultimately the answer was &quot;User's error&quot; and had nothing to do with physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I just delete it, or should I keep it alive so anybody else that makes the same mistake as I did can see it and not bother asking the same question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119578/why-isnt-the-best-case-classical-solution-to-the-chsh-game-100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="66074286-98dd-4cd1-99d4-d518ad06f4fb" CreationDate="2014-06-28T20:50:10.137" UserId="50606" Text="Should a question whose answer ends up not having anything to do with physics be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="66074286-98dd-4cd1-99d4-d518ad06f4fb" CreationDate="2014-06-28T20:50:10.137" UserId="50606" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5915" RevisionGUID="1f33484e-3d06-41bb-bc2e-7283653b99c6" CreationDate="2014-06-28T22:17:55.540" UserId="520" Text="I'm not going to address your specific situation, but will answer the title questions directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should a question whose answer ends up not having anything to do with physics be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are certain questions which look naively like physics questions, and questions like that are going to get asked again and again. In those cases we want a high-quality clear and definitive answer to point askers to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My favorite category of these is questions about color and about certain optical illusions. In many cases the answers are really biological or brain-science related, but naive askers will very often ask them on Physics SE because &quot;light is physics&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="84b85cd6-5db6-4d8d-8250-9629429e0880" CreationDate="2014-06-29T01:56:55.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/483066549700689921" />
  <row Id="13775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="3ffe80e3-d10a-4100-9e3f-a27a5fbd0a79" CreationDate="2014-06-29T03:18:50.613" UserId="124" Text="This is just my personal opinion, informed by experience, but not a reflection of any official policy: I don't think there are any circumstances under which a question _should_ be deleted by its original poster. And there are very few circumstances under which a question should be deleted at all; in those few cases, one of us moderators will delete the question directly. (Or the system will take care of it, e.g. if a question gets enough spam flags.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as I'm concerned, you can delete the question if you want (and if the system will let you), but you're not obligated to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other people may think differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5917" RevisionGUID="8e3548cb-e8b9-41ce-b35e-cbe8f6974748" CreationDate="2014-06-29T05:11:47.210" UserId="5477" Text="Personally, I think both questions are definite cases of &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;. I don't know what either of them really wants to know, to the extent that it's questionable whether they're really asking about the Kerr metric at all. So I think it's right that they're closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I really wish that both community members and (on other questions) moderators would avoid selecting &quot;off topic&quot; as the close reason in such cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, closing something as &quot;off topic&quot; sends a message that says &quot;we don't want *any* questions on this topic, even if they are otherwise excellent questions and have no other issues.&quot; If you close a question as off topic then you're saying that the *topic* is the primary issue, and this implicitly restricts what can be discussed on the site in future. So please, please, please, if a question has multiple issues, close it as something other than &quot;off topic&quot; unless it really is the case that no question on a similar subject could possibly ever be tolerated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="27f2e35a-976d-4659-80cf-a3b1a9d2f0fd" CreationDate="2014-06-29T06:49:21.423" UserId="1325" Comment="Update link" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall has appeared on the [Physics Today Facebook page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well done to all who contributed to that question. It has to be good for the Physics SE to get this sort of publicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been periodically annoyed by the 200 rep/day limit, but poor alemi has been stung by it big time - that limit has cost over 1000 rep points. Can the mods pull a string somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/PhysicsToday/posts/10154354597660164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="d6fea175-a4b2-4fc1-b0c9-a2e579d48e19" CreationDate="2014-06-30T02:57:57.420" UserId="124" Comment="clarify wording" Text="This is just my personal opinion, informed by experience, but not a reflection of any official policy: I don't think there are _any_ circumstances under which the original poster of a question should feel obligated to delete it. And there are very few circumstances under which a question should be deleted at all; in those few cases, the question _very obviously_ never should have been posted in the first place. When that happens, one of us moderators will delete the question directly, or the system will take care of it (e.g. if a question gets enough spam flags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as I'm concerned, you can delete the question if you want (and if the system will let you), but you shouldn't feel like you have to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other people may think differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="d6e428d9-efa5-4c0c-88ad-254c7bd11186" CreationDate="2014-06-30T15:02:11.570" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If you will allow me the indulgence of addressing this answer to what I perceive your situation to be, I think we might make some progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging for your posts I'd guess that you are near the beginning of your studies in physics--and presumably doing well because the conceptual understanding embedded in your writing is quite good for a beginner---and that colors how you think about physics just as my situation colors mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post that you are describing as *&quot;applications&quot;* I would describe as *&quot;textbook conceptual question&quot;*. They are solved immediately by anyone who understands the relationships between the abstract representations that we use and the physical reality that goes with them. You gave a perfectly good answer to [the capacitance question][1], but it consists of connecting the verbal representation of the problem (*&quot;charge drawn from a battery&quot;*) to the mathematical representation (&quot;Q \propto C_{eq}&quot;). The accepted answer to the same question connects the verbal version with a pictorial version and is also correct and useful to the asker. It is typical that there are at least three useful representations of every physics concept and moving between them is sometimes difficult for beginners but is generally very easy for more experienced practitioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you continue in your studies you will find that fluent moves between multiple representations of a single problem are a foundation skill. In fact I know at least one Physic Education Researcher who *defines* upper-division level thinking in terms of fluency with multiple representations and differing levels of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the difference between that capacitance questions and the recent one about [the relationship between coin masses and the noise they make on hitting a hard surface][1] (that is a pretty advanced example, but it is to make the point). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more posts with which to exhibit different levels of sophistication:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Observations in the cathode ray tube experiement][2] Here the asker is having trouble applying what they know (or should) know about atoms and cathode rays to a real world problem. The explanation requires an understanding of the environment inside a CRT, and the integration of three physical concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How to choose a α, β, γ measurement detector?][3] This question is about the strategy for apply physics knowledge to a design problem and is really too broad. My &quot;answer&quot; simply explains how big the field is and give a couple of vague generalities. People build industry careers on knowing how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How can scintillation gamma-spectrometers work given that track length is different for different angles?][4] A practical application question for which the answers are well known. This would be a textbook question for a student just beginning to study the experimental aspects of nuclear or high-energy physics. Again, the answer required knowing several physics facts: how gammas interact with matter: how light propagates in scintillation counters and is converted to latchable electronic signals, something about the geometric limitations of hodoscopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How are the masses of unstable elementary particles measured?][5] Another experimental particle-physics question. There are several different answers and knowing which ones to use is a matter of experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How quark electric charge directly have been measured?][6] An application question at a moderately high level of sophistication; this requires a pretty sophisticated understanding of experimental particle physics technique and theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Solar neutrino predictions][7] Not really a &quot;application&quot; questions but a &quot;state of the discipline&quot; one. Requires lots of familiarity with what has been done, but not a lot of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I've taken these examples from my area of expertise because I knew I could find them quickly, but the site has examples at many levels of sophistication from many different areas of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/115170/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90837/observations-in-the-cathode-ray-tube-experiement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/43177/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83055/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34193/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60356/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5545/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13784" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="0493ea0c-9e37-4eef-a678-c1ad8a5a159a" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:24:37.800" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/234900/questions-about-theoretical-physics-in-physics-exchange" />
  <row Id="13785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="38052bc6-d0b0-40ea-becf-dff9fa0585d6" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:20:52.487" UserId="43426" Text="In the [**Area 51 Exchange**][1] I've found that &quot;*The Theoretical Physics site didn't have enough activity during the beta. It has been closed, and its content has been merged into Physics*&quot;. But when I've done a question in the Physics exchange about Theoretical Physics [**my question**][2] was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closed as off-topic by Alfred Centauri, Brandon Enright, Kyle, Chris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; White, Qmechanic♦ Jun 17 at 5:02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in Physics exchange can't I ask questions about Theoretical Physics, where is the place to do this??, and if the content of the closed Theoretical Physics was merged into Physics, why can't I ask questions in that exchange account??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the questions of Theoretical Physics should by into the Physics exchange tagged as Theoretical Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for you time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119562/light-in-another-universe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="38052bc6-d0b0-40ea-becf-dff9fa0585d6" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:20:52.487" UserId="43426" Text="Questions about Theoretical Physics in Physics Exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="38052bc6-d0b0-40ea-becf-dff9fa0585d6" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:20:52.487" UserId="43426" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="972ee62c-7368-47af-80e0-d4e087b4ffd6" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:39:12.293" UserId="7433" Text="We allow theoretical physics here. But only the mainstream kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposing new theories or talking about physics which hasn't been peer-validated is not allowed, to avoid making this site a hotbed for kook theorists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check [this link][1] from the close reason for more information. Others have already mentioned how the post can be improved in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="caf26ebf-41ba-4ae2-9e10-a41ca2f07ea8" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:40:56.593" UserId="124" Text="This _is_ the place to ask questions about theoretical physics. You can't assume that just because your question was closed, it means that theoretical physics is off topic; if that were the case, the post notice explaining why it was closed would say &quot;This question is off topic because it is about theoretical physics.&quot; Notice that it doesn't say that. (Also notice that almost every other question on the site is about theoretical physics.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notice displayed below your post gives you a brief summary of reason it was considered off topic. You can generally find more information about it in the comments. That being said, it's fine to ask for more detail here on meta, and perhaps one of the people who closed it will chime in to provide more detail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="18f0c02e-2a0f-4f02-addd-9b4f826d4bdf" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:06:34.003" UserId="2451" Comment="Please don't hold all of theoretical physics hostage because your question was closed" Text="In the [**Area 51 Exchange**][1] I've found that &quot;*The Theoretical Physics site didn't have enough activity during the beta. It has been closed, and its content has been merged into Physics*&quot;. But when I've done a question in the Physics exchange about other universes [**my question**][2] was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closed as off-topic by Alfred Centauri, Brandon Enright, Kyle, Chris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; White, Qmechanic♦ Jun 17 at 5:02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in Physics exchange can't I ask questions about other universes, where is the place to do this? And if the content of the closed Theoretical Physics was merged into Physics, why can't I ask questions in that exchange account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the questions of Theoretical Physics should by into the Physics exchange tagged as Theoretical Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/119562/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13791" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="18f0c02e-2a0f-4f02-addd-9b4f826d4bdf" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:06:34.003" UserId="2451" Comment="Please don't hold all of theoretical physics hostage because your question was closed" Text="Question about Other Universes in Physics Exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13792" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="18f0c02e-2a0f-4f02-addd-9b4f826d4bdf" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:06:34.003" UserId="2451" Comment="Please don't hold all of theoretical physics hostage because your question was closed" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="940a32be-7414-4e13-b733-39686b51439b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:49:30.000" UserId="52582" Text="I have no love for math, but I do love the theories. Mostly the ones that can't be proven, which have no correct answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="940a32be-7414-4e13-b733-39686b51439b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:49:30.000" UserId="52582" Text="Can I ask theoretical physics questions on physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="940a32be-7414-4e13-b733-39686b51439b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:49:30.000" UserId="52582" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="b8868aa7-3fe2-48d9-bb63-4172c96afb4f" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:56:34.713" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Can I ask [theoretical physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics) questions on physics.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="b8868aa7-3fe2-48d9-bb63-4172c96afb4f" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:56:34.713" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="6ef76122-56c4-4d89-9fb7-0e80a097b6b4" CreationDate="2014-07-01T19:15:57.607" UserId="2451" Text="Sure. Phys.SE is for [theoretical](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics) as well as [experimental](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics) physics, in all areas of physics. To get an quick idea of various topics of physics, see e.g. the list in [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/12176/2451) Phys.SE answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="6bb54aef-b420-4ef0-8872-ed3b366ccb32" CreationDate="2014-07-01T19:34:54.330" UserId="2451" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="Sure. Phys.SE is for [theoretical](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; as well as [experimental](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics) physics, in all areas of physics. To get an quick idea of various topics of physics, see e.g. the list in [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/12176/2451) Phys.SE answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Note that the words 'theoretical' and 'theory' have specific meanings in physics, which differ from the more common use as, say, 'wildly speculative', see e.g. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="aba7b97a-0c75-4658-8663-d679461b86cd" CreationDate="2014-07-01T19:38:01.727" UserId="52582" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I ask wildly speculative, abstract questions on physics.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13801" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="aba7b97a-0c75-4658-8663-d679461b86cd" CreationDate="2014-07-01T19:38:01.727" UserId="52582" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I ask wildly speculative, abstract questions on physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13802" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="88b072ae-d084-4345-bea1-1b3964d533e4" CreationDate="2014-07-01T19:42:05.330" UserId="2451" Comment="Rollback to [b8868aa7-3fe2-48d9-bb63-4172c96afb4f]" Text="Can I ask [theoretical physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics) questions on physics.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13803" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="88b072ae-d084-4345-bea1-1b3964d533e4" CreationDate="2014-07-01T19:42:05.330" UserId="2451" Comment="Rollback to [b8868aa7-3fe2-48d9-bb63-4172c96afb4f]" Text="Can I ask theoretical physics questions on physics.stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="cc16a28d-006f-418f-997b-0ecd23778236" CreationDate="2014-07-01T20:01:49.157" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to counter dmckee's comment." Text="Sure. Phys.SE is for all areas of physics, from [theoretical](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; to [experimental](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics) physics. To get a quick idea of various topics of physics, see e.g. the list in [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/12176/2451) Phys.SE answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Note that the words 'theoretical' and 'theory' have specific meanings in physics, which differ from the more common use as, say, 'wildly speculative'; see e.g. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="66ea13ff-6ac7-4029-8ce3-8ec6a0052b42" CreationDate="2014-07-02T05:07:02.043" UserId="31790" Text="I recently answered the question [&quot;Which Is More Fundamental, Fields or Particles?&quot;][1] essentially by explaining what second quantization is and why it makes so much more sense than first quantization. The answer has been well received suggesting that some users benefited from a good explanation of second quantization. However, if I search &quot;what is second quantization&quot; I do not find my answer. This is not surprising because the question I answered does not have &quot;second quantization&quot; in the title or tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when a user posts a question asking &quot;Why X?&quot;, the best answer involves explaining topic Y. A user may post a good explanation of Y. If X and Y share no meaningful key words, users searching for the answer to &quot;What is Y?&quot; may not find the answer. Therefore, what should be done in this situation to help future users wondering about Y find the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122570/which-is-more-fundamental-fields-or-particles/122571#122571" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="66ea13ff-6ac7-4029-8ce3-8ec6a0052b42" CreationDate="2014-07-02T05:07:02.043" UserId="31790" Text="How do we expose a good explanation of a topic which isn't obviously related to the original question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="66ea13ff-6ac7-4029-8ce3-8ec6a0052b42" CreationDate="2014-07-02T05:07:02.043" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13808" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="b4682610-f1fe-4cdd-8be9-82a734973d69" CreationDate="2014-07-02T15:36:41.320" UserId="31790" Comment="Changed title" Text="Making good posts discoverable when the original question isn't obviously related" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="7f38e5fe-a966-4c8f-8cd6-71791d0fe9e8" CreationDate="2014-07-02T16:18:19.277" UserId="1325" Text="I think your question (well, my interpretation of it) is within the scope of the site and was closed unfairly, and the number of likes my comment got suggests others agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, but, but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're asking a technical question about how metrics like the Reissner-Nordstom or Kerr have null geodesics that allow light from other universes to reach ours then that's a fair question, because I can write down equations to demonstrate it. If on the other hand you're about to propose something more appropriate to the [Sci-Fi SE][1] then you're unlikely to get a warm reception here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the real reason your question was closed is that it wasn't clear what you were asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="0649d474-3c69-405e-85f1-079ad0aa2e16" CreationDate="2014-07-02T16:38:10.430" UserId="11053" Text="I think it's reasonable to edit the question a bit. I think the clearest form of a question can only be written by someone who already knows the answer. You have to be careful not to post an answer to a different question, then edit the question so that it asks the question that you answer (this would be a bit rude to the OP). But the worst that can happen is that people will disagree with your added interpretation of the question and the edit will be rolled back, so I don't think there's much harm in trying, provided you make a reasonable effort to keep the original intent of the question intact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5927" RevisionGUID="b52538cf-2a23-4d3f-b967-5564561a1497" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:44:15.417" UserId="24773" Text="I just got the following achievement:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You've earned the &quot;Curious&quot; badge (Asked a good question on 5 separate days, and maintains a positive question record.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is indeed curious, and I am curious too. I am wondering why I received it a bit more than 9 months after my last question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that duration rings a bell, but I somehow doubt it is the real reason.&#xD;&#xA;Anyone knows more ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5927" RevisionGUID="b52538cf-2a23-4d3f-b967-5564561a1497" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:44:15.417" UserId="24773" Text="How long the pregnancy to produce a &quot;Curious&quot; badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5927" RevisionGUID="b52538cf-2a23-4d3f-b967-5564561a1497" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:44:15.417" UserId="24773" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="ba1f31df-808d-47c9-b2dc-1fb37bc613b4" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:56:07.433" UserId="9426" Text="Well, you got the badge retroactively today because we just implemented it today.  See: [Asking days badges](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/234259/asking-days-badges) for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, the badges will be awarded shortly after the criteria is met. Since the criteria involves votes and closed question and such, it might still be a while after asking your last question, however. Suppose you had 4 days of asking well-received questions and one day asking a question with no votes. If I come along 9 months later and upvote that question, the criteria will be met and the badge awarded. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5927" RevisionGUID="1b39d75c-5b76-41ee-8351-a5d4bb93427d" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:57:16.710" UserId="9426" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="08c4f821-fb70-407f-ae2c-dede2740bcc0" CreationDate="2014-07-03T05:15:03.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/484565963829149696" />
  <row Id="13817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5929" RevisionGUID="668fe1d1-2702-448f-95e8-56065119e3f9" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:29:28.303" UserId="32426" Text="Ok, I understand, repairing means work. Clicking only for &quot;close&quot; is much simpler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is worsened by that people over 2k don't get +2 reputation for an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current system actively encourages high-reputated reviewers to destroy things, instead of making them better. It is the problem of the rewarding system, which don't seems to change in the near future. The only option if _you_, highly reputated reviewer, try to make your job more cooperatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a big part of such questions have very low quality. But it is not always so. They are often fixable, because they contain good content, but with bad grammar/spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, now you will probably close this &quot;question&quot; as &quot;it is not a question&quot;. Yes, it isn't. It is an... ask. I ask you to click more on &quot;edit&quot; as to &quot;close&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And now you can click to the &quot;close&quot; link - on this question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5929" RevisionGUID="668fe1d1-2702-448f-95e8-56065119e3f9" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:29:28.303" UserId="32426" Text="Please, don't close questions as unclear because of bad english. Repair them instead" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5929" RevisionGUID="668fe1d1-2702-448f-95e8-56065119e3f9" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:29:28.303" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="f704d097-44f0-47ae-b137-f4d1892c7067" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:33:37.003" UserId="46399" Text="Recently, [three new badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges) have been introduced here - Curious, Inquisitive and Socratic, which are intended to appreciate asking good questions. (Good is interpreted in terms of how well received the question is, which though debatable, still should work well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the significance of the clause ''on separate days'' in the defining statement? Why are we discouraging people from asking two good questions on a single day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="f704d097-44f0-47ae-b137-f4d1892c7067" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:33:37.003" UserId="46399" Text="Significance of ''separate days'' in the new badges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="f704d097-44f0-47ae-b137-f4d1892c7067" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:33:37.003" UserId="46399" Text="|discussion|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5929" RevisionGUID="250f9d82-d453-4bfd-b31a-31278fdff1fa" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:00:23.013" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="02db982f-1498-49c7-bb20-0282d2bcce03" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:42:35.073" UserId="124" Text="Actually closure (as unclear) is meant as a temporary status. This is why it's called &quot;on hold&quot; for the first five days. The question gets put on hold, edited, and then reopened once it's been clarified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases where it's obvious how to edit the question to improve it, such as spelling mistakes, then sure, just editing is the best thing to do. But in those cases, the question isn't really unclear in the sense of the close reason. When a question is _actually_ unclear, in a way that can't be clarified without the OP's input, then voting to put it on hold is the thing to do. That prompts the asker to come back and edit it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="ddddf284-c47f-4477-be51-f73c0e31b4a0" CreationDate="2014-07-03T13:35:34.173" UserId="7433" Text="There's a post on the mother meta which already addresses this: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems with questions with bad English is that they _are_ unclear, even when you get past the grammar issues. Because bad grammar usually leads to loss of clarity, and you're left wondering what the person is asking about. We usually don't make edits that decide what the question means, we let the OP fix it. Crystal balling the question is not or job, and more often than not we get the wrong interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, closing/on-holding is a temporary state. It means that the question needs improvement, and will be opened when it gets improved. People who close questions also patrol the reopen queues and often reopen such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think a +2 rep for editing for everyone would really help here. If the user is still motivated by rep, then they probably will go for the easier edits. If not (which is pretty likely), then stuff will continue as usual. Fixing an unclear post is one of the harder things to do, especially because you have to try and figure out the poster's intentions. People here have better things to do with their time, usually.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="e29f2745-c1b9-4f37-bd09-b2a7688fdb44" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:05:29.813" UserId="9426" Text="Good question. The initial idea for the badges was simply to give them based on [number of questions asked](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/228844/should-we-add-more-badges-for-asking-questions). For most sites, that would probably have been a fine choice. But a [few sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (notably our flagship, Stack Overflow) get more questions than they can reasonably handle each day. The &quot;on separate days&quot; requirement exists to encourage pacing oneself and make questions count. (Most of the other requirements are intended to encourage more interesting, not just more, questions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On smaller sites, it can actually be useful to spread questions out a bit. I conducted a [contest on Parenting](http://meta.parenting.stackexchange.com/q/665/4521) and found that it's harder to care about answers if you are trying generate questions for reasons other than curiousity. My experience on other sites is the same: if I try too hard to ask questions, the answers don't tend to matter as much to me. Also, it can be annoying to see the front page cluttered with the questions of just one person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should feel lucky I didn't get my first idea to solve the problem: &quot;on separate _weeks_&quot;. The trouble with that pace is that people would need to wait up to 7 days to ask their next question if they didn't want to &quot;waste&quot; it. I called that behavior &quot;just-too-late asking&quot;. A day didn't seem like too much time to wait in contrast. ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, there's no reason to not ask a second question on a second day, if you don't care about the badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5934" RevisionGUID="6f12e689-af00-42ea-bf3b-32e519584e9e" CreationDate="2014-07-03T22:16:59.390" UserId="11053" Text="Personally I have no qualms about voting to re-open a question that I either perceive was closed unfairly (this is usually obvious from reading comments if I can't judge it for myself), or has undergone a substantial edit to address the close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the majority of things I see in the re-open queue are either edits of a few characters, a bit of cleaning up of language or a restatement of the question (often awkwardly pasted in with the original formulation) that doesn't address the close reason. Minor edit -&gt; no change to reasoning for closing in the first place -&gt; leave closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that a substantial edit doesn't *entitle* a question to be re-opened. If the question is still fraught with problems (I've noticed that substantial edits occasionally make things *worse* by adding many more poorly framed sub-questions to a question) -&gt; leave closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's probably a bit of a difference between writing an adequate question that doesn't get closed in the first place (a bit easier), and writing a question good enough to get re-opened (a bit harder). But I think this is fine. If anything I think we should be closing more questions that are merely adequate and demanding that they be edited to be 'good questions' to be re-opened. Writing good questions takes effort and time, just like writing a good answer. Many OPs forget this, which we get away with thanks to answerers that fill in all the missing detail from the question in their answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5935" RevisionGUID="8eea8df2-6748-4019-9911-16ddf978cf73" CreationDate="2014-07-03T22:47:31.533" UserId="8563" Text="There's a mechanism in place that you're probably not aware of, but which you should research well and think about. Any time that a closed question is edited, it is put into a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) called Reopen Votes, for which the options are Leave Closed, Edit and Reopen, and Reopen. If a question gets three 'Leave closed' votes, then it gets taken out of the queue - which means that three independent people think that the edits are not enough to warrant reopening. It also means that they get to see and comment on the post, if there is evidence that the OP is on the track to clarify their ideas but still needs some help - and this does happen very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see this Mother Meta post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/140893/add-a-review-posts-with-reopen-votes-review-task&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your assertion that 'a closing vote can never be removed' is incorrect - it takes equal amounts of people to reopen as it does to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I cannot account for the actions of other reviewers on that queue, but I can assure you that each question I see there receives a good look at both the changes and how they address the closure reason, as well as whether the new version by itself is a closable question or not. Unfortunately, I agree completely with Kyle in that the content of this queue is very often minor edits which do not address the closure reason at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To browse through the last few questions on the queue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122940/dipole-charge-attractions-while-one-of-them-is-turning-around-other is an improvement but it is still on the border line as regards the homework policy, and the 2/2 votes reflect this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122956/spherical-shell-with-mass-of-the-earth only has style improvements since the closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122890/string-theory-and-how-it-works is actually a fair improvement on the previous version but it is still miles away from on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122727/explosive-energy-in-a-container is an improvement but it is still unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122506/michelson-morley-interferometer-in-space-without-rods is a better description of a confused thought process which it is still very hard to make sense of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122070/chanddrasekhar-limit  is, I think, still on the borderline of the homework policy, and it has attracted attention from thoughtful users who work in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this background, a substantial edit which has clearer language or a longer posts immediately demands attention, and it is easy to detect when the OP has put in a good bit of work to clarify their post. If they have clarified it to the point that the core of the question is now clear, I will usually edit it into shape and vote to reopen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is very seldom the case. Most often, the lack of clarity in the language leads to ambiguities in what the question actually is (if not a complete puzzle as to what was going on inside the OP's head). In the (relatively frequent) cases where one can identify two or three candidate questions that the OP may be thinking of, it is *still* a disservice to the OP to directly edit that in, because we do not know what they wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, beware of making generalizations based on your own personal experience of the site, as I can tell you - from experience - that it is very easy to *not* see stuff that does go on. Unless you have followed up on *every* post that was closed as unclear, and seen that all of them get worked on by their OPs and still get 'robo-voted' down, how can you be sure that you've not simply been seeing the closure part of the process, without being around for the reopening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13829" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="bd621e3b-b2b0-42dc-978e-8036203748bc" CreationDate="2014-07-04T05:17:28.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/484928962381225985" />
  <row Id="13830" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="9deabb79-3cc4-4b79-9503-f214ee2d60d7" CreationDate="2014-07-04T08:17:30.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/484974267495624704" />
  <row Id="13831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="0446ed9f-de36-44d1-a04d-6dbb42c04101" CreationDate="2014-07-04T09:52:37.330" UserId="26044" Text="When flagging a question Physics SE, one can select&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then one further has the options to choose from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [meta.physics.stackexchange.com][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [math.stackexchange.com][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make sense to add&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [philosophy.stackexchange.com][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to that list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="0446ed9f-de36-44d1-a04d-6dbb42c04101" CreationDate="2014-07-04T09:52:37.330" UserId="26044" Text="Flagging question as belonging to another SE site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="0446ed9f-de36-44d1-a04d-6dbb42c04101" CreationDate="2014-07-04T09:52:37.330" UserId="26044" Text="|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="3f7e47db-5064-4f07-be7b-b98244c712eb" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:15:02.910" UserId="7433" Text="Migration options are rarely added unless a site has a track record of a lot of migrations to the other site, the majority of which are successful. This is to prevent uninformed migrations to sites where the question is actually off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just use a custom flag, a moderator will migrate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="773bc5a9-3227-4be9-8180-e050a0557c2d" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:39:11.423" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13836" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="dc55c434-6570-40a9-9ce0-ed512c596a95" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:40:16.783" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5938" RevisionGUID="90b4d6e8-fb3d-4f64-be30-9154f4cf0af1" CreationDate="2014-07-04T18:46:51.777" UserId="11053" Text="Noticed a bit of strange behavior around the rep cap yesterday. I had an answer to a hot network question that got a bunch of upvotes, so I hit the cap [+200], then some more upvotes [still +200], then someone retracted their upvote [+190] (no idea if this was one of the votes from before or after I hit the cap, but that might be related to the cause of the bug), then some further upvotes [still +190].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the rep cap intended to be on net change, or on positive contribution? I guess it might make sense to have down-votes lower the cap, but a retracted upvote seems like it shouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not too fussed about the 10 rep, but it would be a bit unfortunate if this disqualified the day from counting toward things like Epic (not that I'm ever likely to be Epic, but it's the principle!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![rep changes from yesterday][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AwIZI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5938" RevisionGUID="90b4d6e8-fb3d-4f64-be30-9154f4cf0af1" CreationDate="2014-07-04T18:46:51.777" UserId="11053" Text="Odd rep cap behavior?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5938" RevisionGUID="90b4d6e8-fb3d-4f64-be30-9154f4cf0af1" CreationDate="2014-07-04T18:46:51.777" UserId="11053" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="9e5e8f82-f05b-4b2e-a040-3cb2efa8e270" CreationDate="2014-07-04T19:03:31.130" UserId="11053" Text="dmckee♦ is correct, this seems to be due to a slow cache. Changes shown at physics.stackexchange.com/reputation show +200.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 (10)&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [10]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2     74691 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 16     1659 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA; 2    122790 [0]&#xD;&#xA;-- 2014-07-03 rep +200  = 3384      `" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13841" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5938" RevisionGUID="2975a0d4-a3c6-445e-a892-06feb5abdb4f" CreationDate="2014-07-04T19:06:13.300" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="58562554-34c5-4dca-8f0f-241fd3a8a327" CreationDate="2014-07-05T13:24:46.547" UserId="34382" Comment="edited body" Text="As [Manishearth notes][1], the [Terms of Service][2] are quite clear on how material on the site is licensed. If you don't want the material licensed that way then don't post it to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the copyright holder, you are obviously free to offer the material under another license if you want (the Creative Commons licenses being non-exclusive), but you don't get to do that on Stack Exchange's dime (by posting that offer on their websites); instead you should make that second offer in another venue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4514/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="d54c06e2-40a4-4041-b411-13f2461386e4" CreationDate="2014-07-05T15:51:52.033" UserId="23389" Text="I noticed that this question from a new user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;went viral, attracting tens of thousands of views and hundreds of votes. The numbers speak for themselves - there is no doubt that the question was a good one, though, of course, questions covering a range of topics and difficulties are desirable. Worryingly, however, our initial responses to the question were rather negative; the question was downvoted to a negative rating and comments indicated that the question was of no value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this not suggest that our response to questions can be too quick and too harsh? Are we too officious/bureaucratic? We initially discouraged one of the most successful questions of all time. Do we need to be more careful? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="d54c06e2-40a4-4041-b411-13f2461386e4" CreationDate="2014-07-05T15:51:52.033" UserId="23389" Text="Mass of a coin went question went viral, despite inital downvotes and negative comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="d54c06e2-40a4-4041-b411-13f2461386e4" CreationDate="2014-07-05T15:51:52.033" UserId="23389" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="cf396008-7b27-46f0-9855-cf91eac1c6f9" CreationDate="2014-07-05T19:56:37.130" UserId="1325" Text="I also recall the question went to a net -2 score early on, hence my comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's any cause for soul searching though. All questions will have some site members who approve and some who don't. It just so happened that the disapprovers were first on the scene this time. It didn't take long for the rest of us to get there and start voting it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you should bear in mind that it's actually not a great question - it just had some great answers. I think the question's upvotes flatter it a bit. I suspect it's basking in the aura of the upvotes attracted by alemi and Floris' answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="ea26029b-a0cf-4c92-99c8-4fb1cf2e80c7" CreationDate="2014-07-06T04:32:57.800" UserId="51994" Text="I remember the question having a net -2 score early on as well.  The initial question was in broken english, which I suspect added to the early poor reception.  I knew the question had potential and was worried it was quickly going to get buried, so I edited the question for english grammar as quick as I could [14:58] and started working on my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It took me a bit to get my initial results, and I had other things going on, so by the time I was ready to post [18:30], Floris had already answered with his first dimensional analysis results [15:05], so I amended my answer a bit in light of his answer and posted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From there, Floris and I kept commenting and editing our own posts based on the updates of the other's.  I really think the reason we ended up with such a great pair of answers was because we both kept working off each other's improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are a few lessons to draw from the question.  The first is that people should try not to judge questions negatively based solely on english grammar, it is easy enough to edit a question if you think it still has potential.  The second is that answers can feed off one another and lead to mutual improvement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I'll mention that I was afraid the question was going to get closed.  I know it wasn't in this case but I was afraid of it nonetheless.  One because it was in broken english and I think we can agree that as a whole the site isn't the most friendly towards non native english speakers, and second the question was broad, and I feel the site is a little harsh on broad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my observations and food for thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="7b35e117-591b-40b8-9f3a-379fb6c418ad" CreationDate="2014-07-06T04:39:15.827" UserId="51994" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I remember the question having a net -2 score early on as well.  The initial question was in broken english, which I suspect added to the early poor reception.  I knew the question had potential and was worried it was quickly going to get buried, so I edited the question for english grammar as quick as I could [14:58] and started working on my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It took me a bit to get my initial results, and I had other things going on, so by the time I was ready to post [18:30], Floris had already answered with his first dimensional analysis results [15:05], so I amended my answer a bit in light of his answer and posted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From there, Floris and I kept commenting and editing our own posts based on the updates of the other's.  I really think the reason we ended up with such a great pair of answers was because we both kept working off each other's improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are a few lessons to draw from the question.  The first is that people should try not to judge questions negatively based solely on english grammar, it is easy enough to edit a question if you think it still has potential.  The second is that answers can feed off one another and lead to mutual improvement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I'll mention that I was afraid the question was going to get closed.  I know it wasn't in this case but I was afraid of it nonetheless.  One because it was in broken english and I think we can agree that as a whole the site isn't the most friendly towards non native english speakers, and second the question was broad, and I feel the site is a little harsh on broad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize I've only been a member for a little while.  I've been lurking for quite a while and only recently decided to pull the trigger and start contributing.  Just my observations and food for thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="5eb81252-be14-409d-bf8e-f5826b6cbb05" CreationDate="2014-07-06T06:10:14.223" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I'm going to echo one of John Rennie's points, but more forcefully. Really **it is not a great *question***. It hit upon a great topic, and allowed for some really great answers, but the question itself does no [prior research][1], nor does it give any indication about what direction the answers should take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's phrased like the questions at the top of [xkcd: What If][2] posts, but keep in mind the author there plenty of options and only deals with the questions that lead to the most amusing discussion. There is already filtering going on. Because *all* questions posted here first before downvotes and closevotes, our filtering process is more transparent, but that doesn't mean we're doing any more filtering than any other quality site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also note my own response *to the question*. I saw it only after it was edited for grammar, so grammar wasn't even an issue. Even after seeing the answers, I still posted a comment (which has since been nuked), saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; It's not clear what you're asking. Do you want an answer based only on theory (which the current answers are telling you is difficult and complicated), or do you want to set up an experiment? If the latter, the answer is trivial if you only have a finite number of coin types and you pre-record the sound each makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still stand by this comment. The OP has never specified if they are seeking a first-principles calculation, or if they're willing to just accept empirical data points. Perhaps the thought is &quot;if I measure just a dime and a quarter, can I infer the acoustic properties of the intermediate coins?&quot; *But this was never explicitly stated* so we can only guess at the OP's intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be tempting to jump in and expound on a familiar topic vaguely related to what the OP asked, and maybe that even leads to a great post that reveals lots of nuanced physics. But I for one won't upvote a *question* that leaves so much guesswork to the answerers. And in my experience, the vast majority of similarly vague questions do *not* get good answers. We should encourage questions to be good in and of themselves, rather than reward lucky shots in the dark ex post facto. After all, what kind of incentive structure do you want upvotes to induce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://what-if.xkcd.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5944" RevisionGUID="2029f70e-afe3-447f-b1a8-32390ac68ebf" CreationDate="2014-07-07T13:40:33.113" UserId="20848" Text="Another reason for not adding your own license to post here is that it gives the impression that other posts are not similarly licensed, and that authors here get to pick their license terms.  Neither of those are correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="24b355b0-b3c2-41e2-bcf2-643f264075d8" CreationDate="2014-07-07T15:38:32.833" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="9e39ea75-7ab4-41bf-8052-d0a0e4555207" CreationDate="2014-07-07T22:36:35.710" UserId="12214" Text="[This question][1] was put on hold recently (and answered in the comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do *not* question the decision but would appreciate further guidance about the particular reason so I can adjust future questions accordingly. Also I am not requesting the question be re-opened.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not homework (I cannot tell whether it is &quot;homework-like&quot;). It is a simple calculation-oriented question so maybe that qualifies. It is certainly about physics and requests a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments were helpful and the point seemed to be that I must come to grips with prerequisites before dealing with a topic that depends on them. Point taken. But that doesn't really apply to the question as much as it does to me. The question was well edited by Qmechanic (who actually went to the book and added the original equation numbers) and it seemed to me that a straightforward answer might be helpful to others who jumped into Feynman's book even if they did have the background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parenthetically, I did not show my own work because I didn't think it would help anyone to do so. My hope was that by seeing the answer I could make some necessary inferences about the topic (variational calculus and Lagrangians) and proceed further. Of course Feynman gives many hints in his text to allow this to some extent anyway but an authoritative answer can lend one confidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also parenthetically, this doesn't mean I didn't do work before posting the question. I am not working in an academic setting so I don't have professors or fellow students to consult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any further guidance about the specific deficiencies of the question would be appreciated. The question was answered generously in the comments so it's more or less moot but I would like to have a clear sense of what is not acceptable so I can steer clear of it.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123255/question-about-an-integration-by-parts-in-feynmans-quantum-mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="9e39ea75-7ab4-41bf-8052-d0a0e4555207" CreationDate="2014-07-07T22:36:35.710" UserId="12214" Text="Request for further clarification on question on hold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="9e39ea75-7ab4-41bf-8052-d0a0e4555207" CreationDate="2014-07-07T22:36:35.710" UserId="12214" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="1bf088c4-437c-407f-a8ed-16b3e5109331" CreationDate="2014-07-07T23:01:16.113" UserId="50583" Text="The problem with that question is that it really didn't have anything to do with Feynman's book or quantum mechanics (as indicated by Qmechanic's tag edits). And I agree that someone not being &quot;classically educated&quot; in physics cannot necessarily see this, but the question is really about variational calculus as it is applied everywhere in physics from the first introduction of the Lagrangian formulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the deficiency of the question is that it does not ask about the right thing - you ask for an explicit derivation because you do not know what deeper principle is behind it. Essentially, you ask &quot;How does variational calculus work in the Lagrangian formulation?&quot;, which is something most classical textbooks are happy to answer (and which every quantum mechanics textbook presupposes you know). Admittedly, if you had asked that thing, it would almost surely have been a duplicate or been also answered by &quot;Did you read any introduction to Lagrangian formalism?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question shows that you did not learn the prerequisites (as commonly understood by the physics community) for the given topic, and as such, it is off-topic. This does not invalidate your desire to learn about physics, it does only invalidate the *angle* from which you tried it. Ask about things of which you are sure that they are not commonplace anywhere where you could have found it with decent effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="7f4e86b8-25e3-443a-a7e4-0c6ed1a9e668" CreationDate="2014-07-07T23:32:05.277" UserId="7433" Text="You're one of the few people to handle a homework closing the right way (more or less). Kudos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question is not homework (I cannot tell whether it is &quot;homework-like&quot;). It is a simple calculation-oriented question so maybe that qualifies. It is certainly about physics and requests a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework-like bit comes from the fact that essentially you want us to work out some steps and show them to you. (&quot;I think if I saw it done once methodically it would clarify a lot.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can convert the question into something ansking for physical concepts, that would fix it. Something that asks the question [this comment begins to answer][1] would be good. (I'd give a sample of a conceptual question like that that you can adapt, but I've got to go and it's best if it comes from you since you know your own needs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The comments were helpful and the point seemed to be that I must come to grips with prerequisites before dealing with a topic that depends on them. Point taken. But that doesn't really apply to the question as much as it does to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, to give a very extreme example, someone with no understanding of subtraction might ask a mathematical question on ... say .. special relativity. It is possible to give an answer to it (in this extreme case let's ignore the length of the answer). But that answer won't really be useful to anyone, people requiring conceptual help in special relativity. It's localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's part of the reason why *your* knowledge is necessary to be known -- we should have to spend less time explaining prereqs, and the answer should be useful to others as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123255/question-about-an-integration-by-parts-in-feynmans-quantum-mechanics#comment250499_123255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="9db9dfc8-5994-41b0-95a9-662f7d1538e9" CreationDate="2014-07-08T17:33:33.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/486563752603832321" />
  <row Id="13858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="6e7a9ceb-1a6f-49e7-83d9-8cd639312c3e" CreationDate="2014-07-08T18:35:59.133" UserId="5739" Text="I sometimes find myself searching for policy on something so that I can point a poster to the policy, or refer to it myself for guidance.  Usually this is the homework policy, but sometimes it's something else such the policy on questions related to experimental physics.   But I seem to re-invent the wheel of finding the policy each time I need it, and for me the search does not go smoothly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some kind of central location for policies?  Or can you provide advice on how to find these things quickly?  It always seems to take me many clicks and many pages to find what I want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="6e7a9ceb-1a6f-49e7-83d9-8cd639312c3e" CreationDate="2014-07-08T18:35:59.133" UserId="5739" Text="Quickly finding policy on Xxxxx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="6e7a9ceb-1a6f-49e7-83d9-8cd639312c3e" CreationDate="2014-07-08T18:35:59.133" UserId="5739" Text="|support|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="07701c98-90e6-4f41-ae16-6df140924489" CreationDate="2014-07-08T21:07:26.860" UserId="124" Text="As the comments pointed out, the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and the [meta-tag:faq] tag on meta are the canonical sources. There's also a lot of site-agnostic information in the [faq tag on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq), which is mostly just clarifications of the stuff in the help center, but I would still consider that to be part of our policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything that you don't find in one of those sources, you can ask here on meta or in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), although it's worth doing a quick search of meta to see if you can find any prior discussion about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="20c5831e-d4dc-4b64-a210-361160b3b21c" CreationDate="2014-07-08T21:18:16.310" UserId="26969" Text="I also recall the question was poorly received - lots of &quot;no it can't be done&quot; comments. Pretty sure it was still in the negative when I wrote my first answer (which I knew was wrong - I just couldn't see where my mistake was.  @alemi helpfully pointed out the mistake, and from there on out our answers kept building off each other, and the votes kept coming. See the edit history.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance the link on Reddit probably helped significantly to make the question go viral, and the upvotes that it generated represent that &quot;the internet&quot; liked this question - more than &quot;the denizens of physics.SE&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the tools or skills to get at the data, but I suspect that a large number of votes came from new-ish users. Maybe folks who were already regulars on other SE sites and who decided to join just to vote. It would be interesting to see if there was a &quot;membership enrollment blip&quot; in the days after the Reddit cross link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This episode treminded me of several things:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- there is cool physics all around us&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- sometimes you need a nudge to find it&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- judge less, encourage more&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said - OP got three gold badges for his question. That qualifies as &quot;winning the lottery&quot; in my books. I had a good time answering it, so I'm not complaining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13863" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="68d8fce2-398e-4786-b4dc-61b13cee41e0" CreationDate="2014-07-09T19:32:44.110" UserId="6982" Comment="edited title" Text="Mass of a coin question went viral, despite inital downvotes and negative comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13864" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="71cdd4f5-9b41-4c31-a467-231c1ac55260" CreationDate="2014-07-10T05:35:36.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/487107853250228224" />
  <row Id="13865" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="e9c09282-ac56-4dc8-a7d8-147254a38832" CreationDate="2014-07-11T02:36:01.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/487425047100129280" />
  <row Id="13866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="9414a9ec-5053-4e50-9a5c-4799504e7f5b" CreationDate="2014-07-11T09:31:52.633" UserId="40357" Text="A moment ago, I wanted to ask a question on this SE about the amount of energy in human blood, but it warned me that I'm in risk of no longer being able to ask questions on this account due to a large amount of low-quality questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that I've only asked 2 questions on here so far, I find this extremely weird. While it's true that both of my questions were problematic, I'm surprised that I'm already getting this warning, considering I also have an accepted answer with 2 upvotes, and have 2 upvotes on each of my 2 questions. It even says it right on the [question bans FAQ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One or two bad posts will not cause you to be blocked from using the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm considering deleting both of these questions, not to try and circumvent this ban, but because of self-curation: if these questions are bad enough to warrant closing and don't have an answer, they're not really a good fit for this website. the problem is that the duplicate question already has an answer (which fits more as a comment, I think), which means that deleting it warns me that it ALSO counts against my questions ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why I'm getting these results. I find it disheartening to see that a mere 2 lower-quality questions can get me into this trouble, even though the FAQ explicitly mentions this shouldn't be the case. Should I start to get worried?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="9414a9ec-5053-4e50-9a5c-4799504e7f5b" CreationDate="2014-07-11T09:31:52.633" UserId="40357" Text="Why am I in risk of a questions ban after one duplicate and one closed question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="9414a9ec-5053-4e50-9a5c-4799504e7f5b" CreationDate="2014-07-11T09:31:52.633" UserId="40357" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5952" RevisionGUID="cd4ccc94-713f-42df-bce3-c1232872ce8d" CreationDate="2014-07-11T10:38:32.827" UserId="7433" Text="Deleting the questions will make it worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One or two bad posts will not cause you to be blocked from using the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completely correct, you are not yet blocked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact algorithm is secret, but from what I see one more bad question won't affect you. The warning is more of a way to provide you with the links to improve your subsequent questions, the actual ban is rather far off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="560abc9c-5179-4aa1-9fa3-7b5659fc2824" CreationDate="2014-07-11T23:21:39.550" UserId="26665" Text="Why this question is closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How does Spacetime interval emerge from Strings theory](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121205/how-does-spacetime-interval-emerge-from-strings-theory)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="560abc9c-5179-4aa1-9fa3-7b5659fc2824" CreationDate="2014-07-11T23:21:39.550" UserId="26665" Text="Why this question is closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="560abc9c-5179-4aa1-9fa3-7b5659fc2824" CreationDate="2014-07-11T23:21:39.550" UserId="26665" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="9c123869-4ff0-45b1-b59f-432019814fa8" CreationDate="2014-07-12T01:32:49.450" UserId="50583" Text="Well, it says so right in the closing notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You gave neither a level of detail/math at which you would like the possible answer to be, nor did you indicate which parts of GR and string theory are you at all familiar with. A rigorous answer adressing someone without prior in-depth knowledge of both topic would possibly fill some pages (to state it mildly), while there might be many different and inconsistent non-rigorous handwaves people could give you. As it stand, the question reads basically: *&quot;Explain string theory to me and how it could produce GR results&quot;*  People spend entire **lecture series** on this, so it is definitely not a narrow enough question for our Q&amp;A format." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13874" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="3897b3af-5c11-4532-94de-51238a2da09a" CreationDate="2014-07-12T23:37:31.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/488104901378334720" />
  <row Id="13875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="ed6387c1-a87b-4c49-9a48-ffdb69cb3db6" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:40:27.123" UserId="38674" Text="It is the second time my [answer][1] is edited this week. I have no problem with peer reviewing as long as it improve the answer not denaturing it. So I re-edited twice the answer in order to keep desired and correct modifications bit I restored the original meaning of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Last edit contained wrong information!** How can I prevent other people to modify my answer with wrong knowledge? Why am I not able to validate (accept/deny) modifications. There are various tools to improve quality of answer (vote, flags). And other users may write their own answers or downvote mine if they do not agree with. Is there a way to lock this answer before it happens again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/126208/38674" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="ed6387c1-a87b-4c49-9a48-ffdb69cb3db6" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:40:27.123" UserId="38674" Text="What can we do when other users denature your answer by editing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="ed6387c1-a87b-4c49-9a48-ffdb69cb3db6" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:40:27.123" UserId="38674" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="7dedc9ec-4c3c-4442-a405-42eb9ac2c35a" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:47:44.703" UserId="38674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="It is the second time my [answer][1] is edited this week. I have no problem with peer reviewing as long as it improve the answer not denaturing it. So I re-edited twice the answer in order to keep desired and correct modifications bit I restored the original meaning of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Last edit contained wrong information!** Further it has been done by an user with no activity in Physics SE. How can I prevent other people to modify my answer with wrong knowledge? Why am I not able to validate (accept/deny) modifications. There are various tools to improve quality of answer (vote, flags). And other users may write their own answers or downvote mine if they do not agree with. Is there a way to lock this answer before it happens again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/126208/38674" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="46a05c6b-5264-45d7-9d84-41f0d4f2f4b9" CreationDate="2014-07-13T09:15:30.517" UserId="7433" Text="The first edit seemed okay to me, actually. V is the invariant here, and V^2/R for small R will lead to high power -- that's what Jerry was trying to say. With I^2R it's not immediately obvious if the high I will overcome the low R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if you feel an edit was mistaken, feel free to roll it back or engage the editor in the comments (pinging a user who has edited the post works).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the second edit, that was a suggested edit from a low rep user and you should have gotten a notification asking for review. Others approved it, but you can still roll it back. I don't see much of an issue with it, though, I&gt;5A is indeed unusual for normal wires, and current usually is of the order of a few hundred mA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="5de34001-9849-4da2-9844-ae8afd1d78fe" CreationDate="2014-07-13T15:03:20.420" UserId="520" Text="A basic rule of Stack Exchange is that people can edit your work here. The edit history allows readers to sort out who is actually responsible for which words, but even so we are sensitive to the possible appearance that people are putting words in your mouth. That is part of why you should get notified every time your one of your posts is edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the power to re-edit or to roll-back changes you don't like. If an edit war begins to develop, don't engage with the other user, just flag the post using a custom flag reason and explain your point of view. A moderator will try to sort things out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the edits other users make to *my* posts are improvements in my mind as well as theirs. In most of the exceptions they things they worked on *really* was a deficiency, I just don't like how they tried to fix it and I re-fix it to my own satisfaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is that ability to re-intervene if I don't like what they have done that lets me remain unperturbed by the ability of other users to edit my posts. I hope that it will do the same for you in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="f019cfe4-dac1-4f4a-99e8-49cce011bd08" CreationDate="2014-07-13T15:29:51.447" UserId="520" Comment="address the particular case as well as the generalities" Text="A basic rule of Stack Exchange is that people can edit your work here. The edit history allows readers to sort out who is actually responsible for which words, but even so we are sensitive to the possible appearance that people are putting words in your mouth. That is part of why you should get notified every time your one of your posts is edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the power to re-edit or to roll-back changes you don't like. If an edit war begins to develop, don't engage with the other user, just flag the post using a custom flag reason and explain your point of view. A moderator will try to sort things out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the edits other users make to *my* posts are improvements in my mind as well as theirs. In most of the exceptions they things they worked on *really* was a deficiency, I just don't like how they tried to fix it and I re-fix it to my own satisfaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is that ability to re-intervene if I don't like what they have done that lets me remain unperturbed by the ability of other users to edit my posts. I hope that it will do the same for you in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning these particular edits, I have to say that reasoning like *&quot;Current is the reason why it is heating, voltage is the cause.&quot;* is suspect and often the cause of confusion. To truly understand any given case you have to look carefully at what is constant in the situation and what is subject to case-by-case variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many supplies in the everyday world (batteries, line power, etc) are approximately fixed voltage supplies. In those case the current is a *consequence* of the voltage and resistance. The form V^2/R give the best intuition for how the inputs (voltage and resistance across the short) affect the heat produced. Notice how you can read directly that lower resistance causes more power and that higher supply voltage causes the power to grow quadratically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the usual form IV is correct, but you lose the intuition about the actual situation on the ground by suggesting that the current is something you have control of directly rather than being something you have to adjust by effectively turning another dial. In other words this is to some degree a choice made to help engineer things, rather than a fundamental choice, but there is widespread expert agreement on the matter. Jerry's edit improved your post, and you hurt it's quality by putting it back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do exist good approximations to fixed-current supplies and in those cases the form I^2 R give the best intuition. These mostly show up in electronics and I'm weak enough in the subject to not try to provide an example off the cuff.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="d091e7ed-773e-445c-bea6-cb77c0370a80" CreationDate="2014-07-13T15:39:36.013" UserId="520" Comment="address the particular case as well as the generalities" Text="A basic rule of Stack Exchange is that people can edit your work here. The edit history allows readers to sort out who is actually responsible for which words, but even so we are sensitive to the possible appearance that people are putting words in your mouth. That is part of why you should get notified every time your one of your posts is edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the power to re-edit or to roll-back changes you don't like. If an edit war begins to develop, don't engage with the other user, just flag the post using a custom flag reason and explain your point of view. A moderator will try to sort things out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the edits other users make to *my* posts are improvements in my mind as well as theirs. In most of the exceptions they things they worked on *really* was a deficiency, I just don't like how they tried to fix it and I re-fix it to my own satisfaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is that ability to re-intervene if I don't like what they have done that lets me remain unperturbed by the ability of other users to edit my posts. I hope that it will do the same for you in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing specifically the matter of low rep users introducing edits: those edits are not applied until after a edit review proccess in which they are seen by no few than two users with un-reviewed editing privileges. In this case the first two user to review the edit approved it and it was applied. This took approximately 5 minutes in this case, though I have seen edits pending for hours in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low rep users whose edits are routinely turned down can lose the privilege of suggesting edits and reviewer can lose that privilege as well if (1) they fail enough review audits or (2) they come to the moderators attention for bad reviews too often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, again, the correct action if you think a edit that was made to one of your posts was improper is to flag the post so that a moderator (or several) will look at the situation. Even if we don't take action that time it can lead to our seeing a pattern and practice that might eventually lead to action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case I think the low-rep editor was genuinely trying to help clarify some murky bits in you text and the reviewers agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning these particular edits, I have to say that reasoning like *&quot;Current is the reason why it is heating, voltage is the cause.&quot;* is suspect and often the cause of confusion. To truly understand any given case you have to look carefully at what is constant in the situation and what is subject to case-by-case variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many supplies in the everyday world (batteries, line power, etc) are approximately fixed voltage supplies. In those case the current is a *consequence* of the voltage and resistance. The form V^2/R give the best intuition for how the inputs (voltage and resistance across the short) affect the heat produced. Notice how you can read directly that lower resistance causes more power and that higher supply voltage causes the power to grow quadratically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the usual form IV is correct, but you lose the intuition about the actual situation on the ground by suggesting that the current is something you have control of directly rather than being something you have to adjust by effectively turning another dial. In other words this is to some degree a choice made to help engineer things, rather than a fundamental choice, but there is widespread expert agreement on the matter. Jerry's edit improved your post, and you hurt it's quality by putting it back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do exist good approximations to fixed-current supplies and in those cases the form I^2 R give the best intuition. These mostly show up in electronics and I'm weak enough in the subject to not try to provide an example off the cuff.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="60c5358f-0ef8-4861-b6cc-289d3ad0088e" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:52:05.020" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="da6f6823-8ba3-43de-8aba-fc979a5143b6" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:52:27.413" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="3f7335ef-5793-48b7-ae9d-fe02f0d59a48" CreationDate="2014-07-14T16:19:41.943" UserId="520" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="A basic rule of Stack Exchange is that people can edit your work here. The edit history allows readers to sort out who is actually responsible for which words, but even so we are sensitive to the possible appearance that people are putting words in your mouth. That is part of why you should get notified every time your one of your posts is edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the power to re-edit or to roll-back changes you don't like. If an edit war begins to develop, don't engage with the other user, just flag the post using a custom flag reason and explain your point of view. A moderator will try to sort things out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the edits other users make to *my* posts are improvements in my mind as well as theirs. In most of the exceptions they things they worked on *really* was a deficiency, I just don't like how they tried to fix it and I re-fix it to my own satisfaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is that ability to re-intervene if I don't like what they have done that lets me remain unperturbed by the ability of other users to edit my posts. I hope that it will do the same for you in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing specifically the matter of low rep users introducing edits: those edits are not applied until after a edit review proccess in which they are seen by no few than two users with un-reviewed editing privileges. In this case the first two user to review the edit approved it and it was applied. This took approximately 5 minutes in this case, though I have seen edits pending for hours in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low rep users whose edits are routinely turned down can lose the privilege of suggesting edits and reviewer can lose that privilege as well if &lt;s&gt;(1) they fail enough review audits or (2) &lt;/s&gt;(seems review audits are not enabled on Physics SE right now) they come to the moderators attention for bad reviews too often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, again, the correct action if you think a edit that was made to one of your posts was improper is to flag the post so that a moderator (or several) will look at the situation. Even if we don't take action that time it can lead to our seeing a pattern and practice that might eventually lead to action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case I think the low-rep editor was genuinely trying to help clarify some murky bits in you text and the reviewers agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning these particular edits, I have to say that reasoning like *&quot;Current is the reason why it is heating, voltage is the cause.&quot;* is suspect and often the cause of confusion. To truly understand any given case you have to look carefully at what is constant in the situation and what is subject to case-by-case variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many supplies in the everyday world (batteries, line power, etc) are approximately fixed voltage supplies. In those case the current is a *consequence* of the voltage and resistance. The form V^2/R give the best intuition for how the inputs (voltage and resistance across the short) affect the heat produced. Notice how you can read directly that lower resistance causes more power and that higher supply voltage causes the power to grow quadratically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the usual form IV is correct, but you lose the intuition about the actual situation on the ground by suggesting that the current is something you have control of directly rather than being something you have to adjust by effectively turning another dial. In other words this is to some degree a choice made to help engineer things, rather than a fundamental choice, but there is widespread expert agreement on the matter. Jerry's edit improved your post, and you hurt it's quality by putting it back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do exist good approximations to fixed-current supplies and in those cases the form I^2 R give the best intuition. These mostly show up in electronics and I'm weak enough in the subject to not try to provide an example off the cuff.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="2f3f36bd-b9d3-4cd9-af05-95673e772de5" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:51:02.920" UserId="11053" Text="Well, meta posts about &quot;homework&quot; keep on coming, but we still don't seem to have a solution that sticks, so I'll give it another shot. For what it's worth I think the current system isn't so bad that we need to go back to the drawing board, but that there's also room for improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to use this question as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post answers containing a short, self-contained statement on the topic of the homework policy.** Keep these as close to one line as possible. I'll put up a couple of my own to show the format I have in mind and get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote according to whether you agree or disagree with the statement.** This is of course the normal voting process for meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hope is that this can break up the question of homework policy into bite-sized chunks. Some items we will have good agreement on - these can be either implemented in the case of positive agreement, or discarded in the case of negative agreement. Other items will be debated - these can go to other meta-questions for further discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="2f3f36bd-b9d3-4cd9-af05-95673e772de5" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:51:02.920" UserId="11053" Text="Bite-sizing homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="2f3f36bd-b9d3-4cd9-af05-95673e772de5" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:51:02.920" UserId="11053" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="f7633f0f-57f5-4114-a89a-2cf5349cccdb" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:51:02.920" UserId="11053" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please check my work&quot; are off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5960" RevisionGUID="2c701a50-7f2a-498f-b87e-4cf0999db030" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:52:23.883" UserId="11053" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please solve this exercise&quot; or &quot;please plug these numbers into an equation for me&quot; are off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5961" RevisionGUID="6c1ff010-2821-4bb0-87b0-08e426686d9d" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:53:40.783" UserId="11053" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;here a problem and my solution with my reasoning for each step, where has my reasoning gone wrong?&quot; are on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="ecc4cc1e-e838-4918-9d9e-a911aae16ab9" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:54:59.240" UserId="11053" Text="The close reason as stated does not emphasize that we do not answer &quot;check my work&quot; questions enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="a25e412f-9607-4474-9e00-d9bf5f5752c4" CreationDate="2014-07-15T02:55:26.877" UserId="11053" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;I was working on X and didn't understand why Y isn't the case&quot; or similar are on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13894" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="6ded5ff5-e22c-41ee-89c0-96727e884ec8" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:52:56.827" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/489060048375918592" />
  <row Id="13895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5960" RevisionGUID="fc2a768c-2379-4408-9962-e278fb49e4b3" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:24:08.213" UserId="11053" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please solve this exercise&quot; or &quot;please plug these numbers into an equation for me&quot; are **OFF topic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="ee5e82d1-841c-4a31-8942-38fec93f486f" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:24:20.057" UserId="11053" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please check my work&quot; are **OFF topic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="94c0ca08-954a-4896-af08-6515d502544d" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:24:33.630" UserId="11053" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;I was working on X and didn't understand why Y isn't the case&quot; or similar are **ON topic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5961" RevisionGUID="d6288ec3-744a-4825-8e8f-a6f274e94bd7" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:24:51.577" UserId="11053" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;here a problem and my solution with my reasoning for each step, where has my reasoning gone wrong?&quot; are **ON topic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13899" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="c2030056-1ee3-4bec-812f-955278fbeca2" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:56:21.020" UserId="124" Comment="add featured tag" Text="|discussion|featured|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="da0a195a-ee8e-4c52-86b5-a8503f733d70" CreationDate="2014-07-15T17:04:04.567" UserId="32426" Text="In most cases, a homework has a much shorter time limit. If it is longer, it needs also a lot of work, which won't be done here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, if a such question could be answered with a such delay, it were practically impossible to mis-use the site for cheating, and thus eliminated the main reason behind the actually harsh homework policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="da0a195a-ee8e-4c52-86b5-a8503f733d70" CreationDate="2014-07-15T17:04:04.567" UserId="32426" Text="Proposal: putting homework questions on hold - but only for a week" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="da0a195a-ee8e-4c52-86b5-a8503f733d70" CreationDate="2014-07-15T17:04:04.567" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5965" RevisionGUID="8cda8fff-f22f-4f56-8f9c-ce70440dbe1a" CreationDate="2014-07-15T17:30:28.060" UserId="50583" Text="From what I gather, whether students use Physics.SE to cheat or not has never been our primary concern when considering the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason behind the &quot;harsh&quot; homework policy is that the SE is **not** a forum where nice people come around and solve your problems for you. It is intended to be a community of more or less knowledgeable physicists answering each other's questions *so that other people asking themselves the same thing may learn from it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not primarily about helping the OP, though a heartfelt thank you can make the day of an answerer. We are about answering questions in a way that might be useful to other physicists or interested laypersons as well, and solving problem No. 34.23(iii) from some book is not going to do that. That's also the reason for the &quot;harsh&quot; requirement that an allowed homework question should ask about a **conceptual** problem, not the solution as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13904" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="801bf76a-b517-4035-a298-4ac27a74bfa0" CreationDate="2014-07-15T17:31:46.340" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="dcff2767-4702-4dce-8c98-338c3ce3c168" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:04:33.233" UserId="52768" Text="I've noticed several posts (like [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126471/can-an-object-reverse-its-direction-of-acceleration-even-though-it-continues-to)) lately that are extremely simple questions. In this question, the OP asked for an explanation as well as some examples. At the time of this writing, the accepted answer only has 21 votes while a comment on the question has 31. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer provides both an explanation and an illustrated example while the comment only provides an example (granted a good one). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, when should simple questions be given answers like this in the comments? My understanding is that answers should never be given in the comments but here is a fairly popular question (near 2k views) where a commenter was more rewarded than an answer. Any clarification would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="dcff2767-4702-4dce-8c98-338c3ce3c168" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:04:33.233" UserId="52768" Text="Give an answer or Comment instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="dcff2767-4702-4dce-8c98-338c3ce3c168" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:04:33.233" UserId="52768" Text="|discussion|answers|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5967" RevisionGUID="f3356da2-87b7-4d7b-ac75-b808c96c8bad" CreationDate="2014-07-15T20:03:40.377" UserId="124" Text="&gt; when should simple questions be given answers like this in the comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NEVER**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For at least two reasons: comments can be (and often are) deleted, and comments can't be downvoted, so our ability to deal with wrong information in comments is limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not something we moderators enforce too aggressively, because if someone posts a good answer as a comment, they miss out on all the reputation they could get from upvotes on that answer. So, in the short term at least, they're mostly &quot;hurting&quot; themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see that someone else has posted something in a comment which should be an answer, the polite thing to do is post a comment in reply saying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @[user] that should probably be an answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or similar. But you're not obligated to do so, and in fact you are _allowed_ to take their comment and post it as your own answer, in which case you get the reputation. Just make sure to attribute it (e.g. &quot;As [user] said in a comment,&quot;) and use a quote block if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, I'm not actually so sure the comment should have been an answer. It offered an example where the question really wanted an explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="3138e3aa-2b03-4360-857a-c26312e5e7db" CreationDate="2014-07-15T20:20:04.407" UserId="23473" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;Please explicitly derive this equation/law for me&quot; are **OFF topic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5969" RevisionGUID="93aeff23-bbf2-4623-90e9-8eef1e58b808" CreationDate="2014-07-15T20:23:05.530" UserId="23473" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense&quot; are **ON topic**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5970" RevisionGUID="0b361f26-670d-414b-8e37-7571f85c9174" CreationDate="2014-07-15T20:51:44.157" UserId="23473" Text="Most people will tell you that you should never leave an answer as a comment. What they mean is if you know the answer, don't simply leave it as a comment. That I can agree with. However, what often happens (and something I am certainly guilty of) is that users aren't entirely sure of the correct answer or if the answer they think is complete. Additionally, someone may know the answer but not have references or further information to back it up and explain it. In these cases, users might leave a comment containing the gist of what they think the answer is in the hopes that it will help someone who either knows more, has more time, or has the additional insight needed to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, one user's comment can start a comments discussion where the correct answer is eventually arrived at and agreed upon. In these cases, it usually starts as someone posting a comment answer or the like without having all the insight into the problem they feel is necessary to form an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, if you know the answer, write an answer. If you partially know an answer (but not sure or informed enough to have faith in it as a posted answer) or think you know something that someone else could build off of or could help another answerer, then write a comment. That way you can be corrected without penalty if you're wrong or you could help to make a future answer better if you're right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="0c8acba0-ba5a-4f01-8470-e50c4bd4c944" CreationDate="2014-07-15T23:10:49.760" UserId="44126" Text="Here at Physics.SE, we prefer questions that are *interesting*. Questions about homework that indicate the asker finds the question uninteresting (&quot;please solve this problem, I have no idea how&quot;; &quot;please check my work, I have no idea whether it's right&quot;) will probably be closed. Questions which demonstrate why the asker finds the question interesting (&quot;I tried X, expecting to find Y, but instead found Z and am stuck&quot;) are more likely to arouse the interest of the community and get good answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="4fd8509b-e410-471d-a636-3173f4e0b7ca" CreationDate="2014-07-16T07:10:28.873" UserId="1325" Text="With elementary questions it's sometimes hard to know whether to answer the question or whether to vote to close it on the grounds that 30 seconds Googling will find the answer. In such cases I find myself between two stools. I don't want to criticise because I don't want to discourage a beginner who may be genuinely interested. However an answer would appear to encourage/reward a question that I think really shouldn't have been asked in the first place. In those circumstances I tend to provide a brief answer in a comment as a compromise - there is an extent to which answering in a comment is a thinly veiled criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you cite will seem blindingly obvious to any working physicist, and I suspect that by answering in a comment ACuriousMind is expressing some degree of contempt for a question that really shouldn't have been asked. I don't mean this as a criticism of ACuriousMind because I very nearly did the same, and indeed 34 (at the time of writing this) other site members agree with him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end I decided to answer, and the answer turned out to be vastly more popular than I expected and indeed vastly more popular than my answer merits. Oh well, the 26 upvotes are especially welcome since I discovered you could exchange SE points for Air Miles :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5974" RevisionGUID="cf0fbc97-40db-4947-b3ba-0902d4c09ef4" CreationDate="2014-07-17T07:03:03.987" UserId="1325" Text="The last comment by the author says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm asking if it is correct to say that black holes exists from our point of reference, because from our point of reference nothing is inside them. Nothing is inside them, as I understand it, because nothing ever goes through the event horizon from our point of reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this makes it very clear that this is just another recurrence of the many, many &quot;infinite time to reach the event horizon&quot; questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="9ace4653-6947-40ef-9464-d334ace46fb9" CreationDate="2014-07-17T10:33:34.417" UserId="45649" Text="I've read the other answers here, and the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two authors ([Floris] &amp; [Alemi]) of the (excellent) highly voted answers to the original Coin Question have replied here, and I think that they have useful insights. It's interesting that their answers on this meta question are the lowest rated at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Horses for courses&#xD;&#xA;My suspicion is that one person's good question is not another's good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some, a nicely clear unambiguous question is a good one. Ideally one showing the asker's research and a statement of why they couldn't proceed, or their uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a professional software engineer, primarily using Stack Overflow rather than Phy.S.E., these are certainly the kinds of questions that I like to answer and hope to ask. Stack Overflow's [How do I ask a good question?](http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask) covers this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular users are likely to prefer this kind of question. Those working in the field, and the enthusiasts with an interest in Physics that hang about here and get in the way, like me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for others, a simple interesting question with excellent answers that teaches them something, is a good question. Answers that encourage them to feel science is something that they can do, participate in, use, and understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Floris's answer][Floris] mentions a link on Reddit, and I would think this is the kind of question that would appeal to someone happening on the site from a link and having a kind of &quot;popular science&quot; interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that a well written question, in a case like this, might not be as successful as the quick carelessly written one. As a populist pedagogic tool, it might be less likely to pull the masses in, because an outsider, reading a well written question, won't feel that is something that they, personally, would ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Is it a problem?&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think that the first kind of question is the better kind, but I think the second kind has its place and use, as it helps provide a fascination with science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may feel differently if they would rather keep Phy.S.E. as a fairly highbrow tool for learning and answering professional queries – I'm not judging that as a bad thing: having relatively uninformed people about can be annoying, particularly if they reduce the signal to noise ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something to worry about? There I'm not sure. Voting is useful because it provide a mechanism to resolve disputes like this where people have different needs and desires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the experienced physicist and teachers here might have a good sense of when a &quot;dumb&quot; question can be a good tool, and so, in a way, becomes a good question. You probably also need a sense of whether it will have popular appeal, which is hard to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;In summary, I would say that if you want Phy.S.E to be a place that reaches out to the popular science crowd and gives them an insight to what it is to experiment  and use science, then support what [Alemi] and [Floris] say. Edit questions to improve grammar, spelling and general readability. Go easy on questions that haven't put in the ground work but sound interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Alemi]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5942/45649&#xD;&#xA; [Floris]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5950/45649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5976" RevisionGUID="aadcb668-c7c3-479d-a8f1-0360a10094b6" CreationDate="2014-07-17T13:40:22.283" UserId="23473" Text="Questions that can be summarized as &quot;I want to solve this problem but do not know how. What relevant physics do I need to research/learn to solve it?&quot; are **ON topic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="99a7af2a-98e4-44c5-ac74-9bda00d13779" CreationDate="2014-07-17T22:57:28.117" UserId="12262" Text="Questions which can be summarized as &quot;This is the statement of an example problem. (Perhaps the &lt;i&gt;&quot;simplest&quot;&lt;/i&gt; and/or the &lt;i&gt;&quot;most interesting&quot;&lt;/i&gt; case I have been able to think of at the moment.) Rather than solving it (which I may or may not be able to do myself) I'd like you to point out some useful &lt;i&gt;&quot;standard&quot;, &quot;technical&quot;&lt;/i&gt;  terminology, including some name for the general class of problems to which my specific example case belongs, such that I can educate myself further.&quot; are &lt;b&gt; ON topic &lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13922" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="631d574d-8970-4443-a5b2-dce094f3002e" CreationDate="2014-07-18T00:07:02.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/489924265937219584" />
  <row Id="13923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="58a2f0a4-ee3a-4d25-8d6f-e60232d00b26" CreationDate="2014-07-18T02:04:40.470" UserId="5477" Text="The phrase &quot;ask about a specific physics concept&quot; is ambiguous in meaning, and is not being correctly understood by the majority of homework posters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5979" RevisionGUID="70441b5a-5b86-49f6-ba47-4c70a33beb48" CreationDate="2014-07-18T02:07:01.703" UserId="5477" Text="The current policy is summarised as &quot;*we do accept homework questions, but only if X, Y, Z*&quot;. It would be better to move to a policy that says &quot;*we do not accept homework questions. However, if you do X, Y and Z it will not be a homework question any more and we can accept it.*&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="69a4ee09-7165-4d89-80f2-a3db6f7b13d7" CreationDate="2014-07-18T22:33:29.570" UserId="27384" Text="Once I asked a question. I recieved an answer but didn't like it entirely. I offered a bounty. The days went and I recieved no answer. One day I happened to go to the question and the previous answer had been substantially improved and I hadn't been notified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that  notifying askers when an answer has been modified might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this has the downside that every little edit ( gramatical mistakes for example) might be annoying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, this could be easily solved giving to the one who makes the edit the possibility to decide whether or not it is worthy notifying the edit to the asker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="69a4ee09-7165-4d89-80f2-a3db6f7b13d7" CreationDate="2014-07-18T22:33:29.570" UserId="27384" Text="Should we be notified when an edit has been made to an answer we have recieved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="69a4ee09-7165-4d89-80f2-a3db6f7b13d7" CreationDate="2014-07-18T22:33:29.570" UserId="27384" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="9573c4e1-be69-4390-88d9-908586100a56" CreationDate="2014-07-18T23:18:09.840" UserId="8563" Text="An alternative way to accomplish this is to simply [mark your questions as Favorites](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53585/how-do-favorite-questions-work). In that way, they will come up on the Favorites &gt; activity tab on your profile when they are edited. The people who want this information can then access it, and everyone else is left *without* a bunch of annoying notifications, and particularly so the [people with many tens of questions](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/44871/top-question-askers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="f2e8a43f-8ee8-4873-bb38-862778af48d2" CreationDate="2014-07-20T14:55:22.290" UserId="184" Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]     &#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LyjNt.png&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13930" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="05305302-eacd-4ae3-bdf4-7cbe9ce96941" CreationDate="2014-07-20T14:55:22.290" UserId="184" />
  <row Id="13931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="c530c58a-236e-4d4e-b2ae-93f2642e3446" CreationDate="2014-07-21T04:19:01.013" UserId="5787" Text="It would certainly be helpful if the one who gives an answer has the ability to make the edit significant enough to be notified the asker. Informing about the edits to the answer cannot be dropped of course, because it can lead to loads of misinformation. A simple typo of leaving out 'not' can significantly change the meaning of the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="dec24480-a1b6-4994-9ca4-0230c595411a" CreationDate="2014-07-21T10:01:04.827" UserId="184" Comment="changed picture to a nicer one" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PXirF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="20fabba3-1ef2-48c1-bc35-0bd8b595fdf0" CreationDate="2014-07-22T21:50:30.537" UserId="46147" Text="What will happen with my SE account after my death? Is there something that eg. warn foture users not to try contact with me, because I'm dead? Would my account be deleted for preserving servers memory? Could my family make something memorial with this account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other meta problems are generated by death?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="20fabba3-1ef2-48c1-bc35-0bd8b595fdf0" CreationDate="2014-07-22T21:50:30.537" UserId="46147" Text="What happens after death?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="20fabba3-1ef2-48c1-bc35-0bd8b595fdf0" CreationDate="2014-07-22T21:50:30.537" UserId="46147" Text="|support|feature-request|policy|user-accounts|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="13ff74e2-f912-4ebb-bb4b-ab31a13dcc1f" CreationDate="2014-07-23T15:07:35.783" UserId="52112" Text="&gt; Strictly speaking, one should never answer a question in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A counterexample: [My comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123685/effect-of-small-variable-transverse-force-on-satellite-orbital-precession#comment258543_123685) on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123685/effect-of-small-variable-transverse-force-on-satellite-orbital-precession).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the answer is lurking somewhere in the Gauss planetary equations, Lagrange planetary equations, Delauney planetary equations, or Hill planetary equations. But where, and in which ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know that teasing out an answer from those planetary equations can be a nightmarish time drain. I just don't want to take the time to do it for this specific question. Maybe my comment pushed the questioner in the right direction. At the very least, my comment gave him terms to search for with his preferred search engine. On the other hand, maybe my comment didn't do a thing. It certainly was not an answer to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="9b18fbff-1979-4db0-8674-4331470a879d" CreationDate="2014-07-24T06:57:40.410" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Recently David Z [said in chat][1] that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's good to keep in mind that people are less likely to read a longer answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering: How true is it that length can work against you in an answer? While we can't directly measure the number of users who do read individual answers, surely there is some [data][2] we can dig up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll post my own findings. Everyone else should feel free to contradict me with better statistics (not a hard thing to do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/16754771#16754771&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="9b18fbff-1979-4db0-8674-4331470a879d" CreationDate="2014-07-24T06:57:40.410" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Are question and answer scores correlated with post length?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="9b18fbff-1979-4db0-8674-4331470a879d" CreationDate="2014-07-24T06:57:40.410" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|voting|data-explorer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5987" RevisionGUID="71075f84-bda1-48d5-bb4a-dbeb986bcda7" CreationDate="2014-07-24T06:57:40.410" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="# Raw Scores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here are some queries asking how questions and answers score as a function of their lengths (in raw input characters, no sophisticated parsing here), with the associated graphs replicated here for convenience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Question score as a function of length][1]&#xD;&#xA;![question score as a function of length][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Answer score as a function of length][3]&#xD;&#xA;![answer score as a function of length][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases the mean score in each bin is shown together with +1-sigma and -1-sigma scores. There might be a slight upward trend for answers, but there is not really any trend to speak of for questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Normalized Scores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Perhaps* a better measure is (score) / (page views). At least this way we are closer to answering the question &quot;of those who looked at this question/answer, what fraction thought it was good?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Question score as a function of length, normalized by views][5]&#xD;&#xA;![question score as a function of length, normalized by views][6]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Answer score as a function of length, normalized by views][7]&#xD;&#xA;![answer score as a function of length, normalized by views][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voters don't seem to care much about a post's length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Accepted vs. Not Accepted Answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could there be a difference in voting patterns as a function of post length between these two populations of answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Answer score as a function of length and acceptance][9]&#xD;&#xA;![answer score as a function of length and acceptance][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a busy plot, but I don't see a trend in either population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least in this rough analysis, it seems post length really doesn't matter *when it comes to votes*. Of course, some of my answers I'm most proud of are rather long expositions on rich topics, so I'm not saying we should all write one-sentence answers to maximize votes per unit effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I leave this last graph that has nothing to do with post length. It's not really surprising; it shows that answer score is correlated with (the absolute value of) question score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Answer score as a function of question score][11]&#xD;&#xA;![answer score as a function of question score][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/210041/question-score-as-a-function-of-length&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SEI9v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/210042/answer-score-as-a-function-of-length&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ifWXF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/210043/question-score-as-a-function-of-length-normalized-by-views&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2w609.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/210046/answer-score-as-a-function-of-length-normalized-by-views&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PjbwA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/210058/answer-score-as-a-function-of-length-and-acceptance&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GYc5v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/210069/answer-score-as-a-function-of-question-score&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FPkw3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5988" RevisionGUID="b334dad0-e4c7-4f9b-a2b2-e265969cb3cb" CreationDate="2014-07-26T18:27:51.663" UserId="5739" Text="Before marking as duplicate, please read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've set up a chat room, and I cannot find the link/button or whatever to invite a specific user to join.  A search of meta, and the help system suggests this is possible.  Instructions say variously, &quot;from the chat room itself&quot;, or &quot;from the info link&quot;.  I cannot find the buttons to push.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please be explicit about what the procedure is, and where on the screen the links/buttons/whatever are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(FWIW [not much] this is yet another instance of me not being able to easily find instructions on using SE features.  I don't know what to do about that...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5988" RevisionGUID="b334dad0-e4c7-4f9b-a2b2-e265969cb3cb" CreationDate="2014-07-26T18:27:51.663" UserId="5739" Text="Invite a user to chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5988" RevisionGUID="b334dad0-e4c7-4f9b-a2b2-e265969cb3cb" CreationDate="2014-07-26T18:27:51.663" UserId="5739" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="e34e14bc-b399-44b7-8b72-a3c8e264b946" CreationDate="2014-07-26T21:29:26.260" UserId="16689" Text="I'm just wonder if a tag for mesoscopic physics should be welcome ? I guess so :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy up/down-voting for this forgotten topic :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="e34e14bc-b399-44b7-8b72-a3c8e264b946" CreationDate="2014-07-26T21:29:26.260" UserId="16689" Text="Tag for mesoscopic physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="e34e14bc-b399-44b7-8b72-a3c8e264b946" CreationDate="2014-07-26T21:29:26.260" UserId="16689" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="1a93f487-6c37-4a17-9f55-97ceeb36d27e" CreationDate="2014-07-26T21:43:01.407" UserId="16689" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="I'm just wonder if a tag for mesoscopic physics should be welcome ? I guess so :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy up/down-voting for this forgotten topic :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples found those days: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128054/all-andreev-phenomena&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127972/regimes-of-josephson-junction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and all the questions about Josephson junctions actually are questions about mesoscopic . I nevertheless think a tag &quot;Josephson&quot; would be too restrictive. Also, questions about superconducting qubits, nano-devices in general, transport problems in topological insulator and so on, ... are all eligible as &quot;mesoscopic&quot; I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="3f380dc8-2577-4e02-8c6d-277ab0da9252" CreationDate="2014-07-26T21:48:46.060" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I'm just wonder if a tag for [mesoscopic physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoscopic_physics) should be welcome? I guess so :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy up/down-voting for this forgotten topic :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples found those days: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/128054/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127972/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and all the questions about Josephson junctions actually are questions about mesoscopic. I nevertheless think a tag &quot;Josephson&quot; would be too restrictive. Also, questions about superconducting qubits, nano-devices in general, transport problems in topological insulator and so on, ... are all eligible as &quot;mesoscopic&quot; I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="4e85b102-fed3-4ce8-82ed-cb589a417e6b" CreationDate="2014-07-26T21:54:06.803" UserId="2451" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="I'm just wonder if a tag for [mesoscopic physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoscopic_physics) should be welcome? I guess so :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy up/down-voting for this forgotten topic :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples found those days: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/128054/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127972/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and all the questions about Josephson junctions actually are questions about mesoscopic. I nevertheless think a tag &quot;Josephson&quot; would be too restrictive. Also, questions about superconducting qubits, nano-devices in general, transport problems in [topological insulator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/topological-insulators) and so on, ... are all eligible as &quot;mesoscopic&quot; I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="45ce7076-a755-44c3-a82e-eb00670b7cc4" CreationDate="2014-07-27T09:29:41.910" UserId="51979" Text="i did'nt asked any homework question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;instead i asked the validity of a given formula &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128207/how-to-derive-this-formula" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="45ce7076-a755-44c3-a82e-eb00670b7cc4" CreationDate="2014-07-27T09:29:41.910" UserId="51979" Text="why was my question closed ? i did'nt asked any homework question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="45ce7076-a755-44c3-a82e-eb00670b7cc4" CreationDate="2014-07-27T09:29:41.910" UserId="51979" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="7181f13e-2b22-458f-be82-232b1e54a540" CreationDate="2014-07-27T12:38:04.743" UserId="16660" Text="Adapted from my comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/16660) of the links in the homework close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely your question asks exactly that: how do I solve/prove this? So we've established that it falls under the homework-category, right? Now how do you get the question reopened? By showing what you have done to try and get the answer: links to websites you've visited (with some explanation of what's on there) and of course your own work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="22064174-c2a8-4fd6-a0c3-c7ccc51ae2bf" CreationDate="2014-07-27T13:15:23.237" UserId="2451" Comment="updated some of the links" Text="It's possible for a Stack Exchange site to get a community powered blog, as done so by many sites seen on [SE](http://stackexchange.com/blogs), e.g. [math.SE](http://math.blogoverflow.com/). To get our [own](http://physics.blogoverflow.com), what we first need is _community support_, since the blog will be run only by this site's users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this post is to answer the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Does the Physics.SE community want their own blog?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to this is yes, the next things we need to address are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Who would be willing to contribute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What would the blog be about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What would our schedule be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These, of course, will come in later discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I love the idea of a Stack Exchange site having a community blog. It helps in so many ways e.g. publicity. I am &quot;Blog Overlord&quot; over at [Programmers.SE](http://www.programmers.stackexchange.com/), and we've got an awesome [blog](http://programmers.blogoverflow.com/) going over there. The best part is, users from the community are the ones writing the posts, developing the scope, and editing to reflect the view of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So once again, before we go into details, ***does the Physics.SE community want their own blog?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Blog Overflow - Getting Started](http://blogoverflow.com/getting-started/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Stack Exchange Blog - Blog Overflow](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/06/blog-overflow/)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13955" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="22064174-c2a8-4fd6-a0c3-c7ccc51ae2bf" CreationDate="2014-07-27T13:15:23.237" UserId="2451" Comment="updated some of the links" Text="What's the possibility of a Physics.SE community blog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="c400ea38-7186-4b99-9c8b-c65167ff46aa" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:11:48.773" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="It's possible for a Stack Exchange site to get a community powered blog, as done so by many sites seen on [SE](http://stackexchange.com/blogs), e.g. [Math.SE](http://math.blogoverflow.com/). To get our [own](http://physics.blogoverflow.com), what we first need is _community support_, since the blog will be run only by this site's users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this post is to answer the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Does the Physics.SE community want their own blog?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to this is yes, the next things we need to address are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Who would be willing to contribute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What would the blog be about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What would our schedule be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These, of course, will come in later discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I love the idea of a Stack Exchange site having a community blog. It helps in so many ways e.g. publicity. I am &quot;Blog Overlord&quot; over at [Programmers.SE](http://www.programmers.stackexchange.com/), and we've got an awesome [blog](http://programmers.blogoverflow.com/) going over there. The best part is, users from the community are the ones writing the posts, developing the scope, and editing to reflect the view of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So once again, before we go into details, ***does the Physics.SE community want their own blog?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Blog Overflow - Getting Started](http://blogoverflow.com/getting-started/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Stack Exchange Blog - Blog Overflow](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/06/blog-overflow/)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13957" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="7ec361e8-af06-4b36-9cd7-113eadac02e1" CreationDate="2014-07-27T19:25:00.740" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1327],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9719,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Colin McFaul&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13959" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="6b6f95cf-4fe4-4a78-9b00-709bb2f7e219" CreationDate="2014-07-27T19:30:36.600" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="f9c1090d-d2c2-467f-82ff-c17f8dcccfd0" CreationDate="2014-07-27T22:11:17.813" UserId="2451" Comment="Sorry Anna, removed greetings which is distracting for an important issue" Text="I agree on that the title should be a question. Maybe one could program the requirement of a question mark for acceptance of the title?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for closed questions. I would be happy if there were a qualifier next to the word &quot;closed&quot; in the main list. For example &quot;closed/duplicate&quot; in the main list encourages people to open the question and find the link to the duplicate. &quot;closed, not a question&quot;, or &quot;closed, FAQ&quot;, will allow to skip in good conscience. &quot;closed/migrated&quot; would encourage opening the question to see where, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="673d031e-6416-40f2-8f0b-138251c39927" CreationDate="2014-07-28T03:47:03.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/493603514556616704" />
  <row Id="13962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="7778c1ec-8a38-4752-abeb-5efcd48b9916" CreationDate="2014-07-28T07:20:29.133" UserId="51979" Text="in this question I asked a specific concept and I have shown all my works and efforts behind it even though it was closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to know where am I going wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128223/getting-two-different-answers-for-the-same-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="7778c1ec-8a38-4752-abeb-5efcd48b9916" CreationDate="2014-07-28T07:20:29.133" UserId="51979" Text="why was this question marked as off-topic even though i find nothing wrong in it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="7778c1ec-8a38-4752-abeb-5efcd48b9916" CreationDate="2014-07-28T07:20:29.133" UserId="51979" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="2e0a8d48-1540-4c1d-a7e9-21b704964389" CreationDate="2014-07-28T12:55:29.577" UserId="16660" Text="I'll pour the comment I made below [my answer to your other question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5991/16660) into an answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think despite the effort you've shown in the question at hand, the two main reasons for closing it were probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. that you don't seem to have studied any classical mechanics and should probably do that first instead of asking here (for your own benefit). In a way, that's also what we mean by &quot;effort&quot;. You should realize that to solve classical mechanics problems, one obviously needs to study a bit of classical mechanics first. It doesn't appear to me that you have done so. That's fine, but then you should understand that you might not (yet!!) have all the skills and insights needed. I don't know what books to recommend because I disliked the one book that I ever bought on classical physics but perhaps others can suggest a few.&#xD;&#xA; 2. that the question doesn't really ask about a physical concept. You state you want the concept you're missing, but then I'm afraid the answer is simply &quot;classical mechanics&quot;. Not that you would need the entire subject to solve those questions, but if you had studied *some* classical mechanics you would immediately know what type of question you were dealing with and how to go about solving it. I mean, I'm not saying this to discourage you, because we all started out not knowing it, but I really suggest getting a good book or other resource on classical mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do feel this question is better than your other one that got closed recently in that it shows your effort. It's just that your effort displays a lack of knowledge about classical mechanics or even just particle trajectories, which would mean that an answer would be either a full course on this subject (which no-one will and should do, there are plenty of books and other resources) or very specific, only getting you to the solution of this particular question (which would mean you're likely to return soon with a similar question because you haven't understood the actual physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="b4a68f37-29ed-406f-a888-d44a21156561" CreationDate="2014-07-28T13:53:11.050" UserId="25301" Text="#**What's wrong with your post**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to homework questions, there is a lot of discussion here on the Meta site. A more recent attempt to tackle the homework issue is a discussion titled [*Bite-sizing homework*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework). Among the dozen answers in that post are the following two answers with votes in parenthesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please check my work&quot; are **OFF topic**. (+19/-7) [link](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;here a problem and my solution with my reasoning for each step, where has my reasoning gone wrong?&quot; are **ON topic**. (+9/-7) [link](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5961/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that your question follows the first of the two which seems to be decidedly off-topic (net score of +12). You could argue that it is the latter of the two, in which case it is split among voters (net score of +2), but if enough people with 3,000+ rep see it the latter way and think it is off-topic, it can be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not actually see any specific physics concept in your question, you want to know if your answer is correct: does the ball hit the 5th step. This is, in my opinion, clearly following the first of the two above quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#More on Homework&#xD;&#xA;Further, the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) states in point #2 under the heading *How should I ask a homework question on this website?* (emphasis mine),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. **If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.** As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**What you can do to fix it**&#xD;&#xA;In order to make the question *on-topic*, you *might* be able to tune it to the following spec (also taken from the afore-mentioned Bite-sizing homework post):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense&quot; are **ON topic**. (+23/-1) [link](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5969/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***This will take some serious effort from you to make it decidedly on-topic.*** It may also be the case that you figure out your answer while trying to re-write the question. If that is the case, I still recommend completing the re-write so that your question can be re-opened &amp; answered to be useful for future visitors with a similar struggle in the problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="749f3cab-c252-4197-8be8-fa69fafd2980" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:37:42.850" UserId="23473" Text="Every so often, an answer like [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/36263/23473) shows up in the low-quality review queue (that one showed up today for me). When it does, we are presented with the familiar choices: &quot;Looks OK&quot;, &quot;Edit&quot;, &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;, and &quot;Skip&quot;. Now as per a [previous meta discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5675/23473), questions like this shouldn't be deleted since they don't meet that criteria. The post itself is an attempt at an answer, but in general, it can be unclear, wrong, too short, or horribly written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I can downvote it and maybe leave a comment if I'm able, but that doesn't remove it from my review queue. I refuse to hit &quot;Looks OK&quot; because let's face it, there are posts like this that simply do not look OK. If I knew what the poster was trying to say, I'd consider editing it, but sometimes you know they are &quot;answering&quot; the question but you're just not sure what they're trying to say or you know it's completely wrong. So no hitting &quot;Edit&quot;. We already vetoed &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;. So all I have left is &quot;Skip&quot;. I can always hit the &quot;Skip&quot; button, let someone else worry about it. But there are times when a post is really bad and you want to do something about it, not just pass it off to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to open up the floor to discussion. What does everyone else do when faced with a truly low-quality post that can't be edited or deleted? And feel free to suggest new features for the low-quality review stack too; those are always fun to consider. Just remember that if you do and people start to think it's a good idea, Shog9 will quickly come here to tell us all exactly why the current low-quality review setup is the smartest and most effective design we could have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="749f3cab-c252-4197-8be8-fa69fafd2980" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:37:42.850" UserId="23473" Text="What to do with Low Quality posts that you just can't delete" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="749f3cab-c252-4197-8be8-fa69fafd2980" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:37:42.850" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="1d004c9a-a989-4c3d-9d0f-8158630c1415" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:00:16.253" UserId="50583" Text="I feel your pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, formally, &quot;Looks OK&quot; is the only way to go. It *is* an attempt to answer the question. Perhaps it's horrible, not useful, confused or whatever else, but it is a valid, if ugly, contribution. The best course of action is: **Downvote it into oblivion.** (then hit &quot;Looks OK&quot;, feeling slightly guilty)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A button expressing something like &quot;Not OK, but not suited for deletion either&quot; would not convey useful information, in my opinion. Either it should be deleted, or it is fit to remain on the site. Attempts to answer are not fit for deletion as per the meta post you linked, so they are OK in the sense of the review queue. Sometimes we have to supress our aesthetical opinions and suffer the cognitive dissonance of hitting &quot;Looks OK&quot; that we personally would never really *call* OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="37dc4925-b00d-439a-b176-b58a4885642b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:06:50.957" UserId="25301" Text="My checklist that I try following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do I understand the original question?&#xD;&#xA;  1. No? Select *Skip*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Yes? Downvote.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Comments exist already?&#xD;&#xA;  1. No? Leave one explaining why it's wrong (try adding Physics.SE links too).&#xD;&#xA;  2. Yes? &#xD;&#xA;   - Does the comment explain the error?&#xD;&#xA;     1. Yes? Select *Looks OK*.&#xD;&#xA;     2. No? Explain why it's wrong, select *Looks OK*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Looks OK* button ***is*** [the appropriate response](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) for incorrect answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="d18f1976-75e2-4744-9d1d-9b6daac26c82" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:18:10.553" UserId="25301" Comment="added extra case" Text="My checklist that I try following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do I understand the original question?&#xD;&#xA;  1. No? Select *Skip*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Yes? Downvote.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Comments exist already?&#xD;&#xA;  1. No? &#xD;&#xA;    - Can I guide the poster to a more-correct answer?&#xD;&#xA;      1. Yes? Do so, then select *Looks OK*&#xD;&#xA;      2. No? Select *Skip*&#xD;&#xA;  2. Yes? &#xD;&#xA;   - Does the comment explain the error?&#xD;&#xA;     1. Yes? Select *Looks OK*.&#xD;&#xA;     2. No? Explain why it's wrong, select *Looks OK*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Looks OK* button ***is*** [the appropriate response](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) for incorrect answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="97fe4c43-a912-4f3e-b3b2-daac1cc69dc2" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:24:51.633" UserId="23473" Comment="added 778 characters in body" Text="Every so often, an answer like [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/36263/23473) shows up in the low-quality review queue (that one showed up today for me). When it does, we are presented with the familiar choices: &quot;Looks OK&quot;, &quot;Edit&quot;, &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;, and &quot;Skip&quot;. Now as per a [previous meta discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5675/23473), questions like this shouldn't be deleted since they don't meet that criteria. The post itself is an attempt at an answer, but in general, it can be unclear, wrong, too short, or horribly written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I can downvote it and maybe leave a comment if I'm able, but that doesn't remove it from my review queue. I refuse to hit &quot;Looks OK&quot; because let's face it, there are posts like this that simply do not look OK. If I knew what the poster was trying to say, I'd consider editing it, but sometimes you know they are &quot;answering&quot; the question but you're just not sure what they're trying to say or you know it's completely wrong. So no hitting &quot;Edit&quot;. We already vetoed &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;. So all I have left is &quot;Skip&quot;. I can always hit the &quot;Skip&quot; button, let someone else worry about it. But there are times when a post is really bad and you want to do something about it, not just pass it off to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to open up the floor to discussion. What does everyone else do when faced with a truly low-quality post that can't be edited or deleted? And feel free to suggest new features for the low-quality review stack too; those are always fun to consider. Just remember that if you do and people start to think it's a good idea, Shog9 will quickly come here to tell us all exactly why the current low-quality review setup is the smartest and most effective design we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an addendum after having read a couple of answers to this, everyone go to an answer you know of with zero or less up-votes and hit the flag button. Notice it has the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag option that says &quot;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now supposedly, one could flag an answer with that and (if I'm not mistaken) that sends it to the LQ review queue. That's one of the reasons why if I see a post that is technically an answer but I can't see a way of saving it through edits, I hesitate to hit the &quot;Looks OK&quot; option. An answer might fulfill the requirements of using that flag option but then also be marked as &quot;OK&quot; by the queue reviewers. 20 goto 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="c947f1c4-aa6b-4d18-a8e3-c33606542d47" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:29:55.993" UserId="51979" Comment="added 1221 characters in body" Text="in this question I asked a specific concept and I have shown all my works and efforts behind it even though it was closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to know where am I going wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more over i think that i am just asking a mathematical concept that which step would the particle hit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so according to this post on meta.physics.stackexchange.com &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ask about the specific concept that gives you trouble&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to show your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time going over ground that you have already covered or understand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128223/getting-two-different-answers-for-the-same-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="1018649f-14c5-46e1-b45f-660de4922597" CreationDate="2014-07-28T20:41:38.837" UserId="8563" Text="I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for, but this is indeed available on a site-wide scale. This is done via the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Stack Exchange Data Dump.](https://archive.org/details/stackexchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a collection of all the questions and answers in each Stack Exchange site, which is updated on every ~3 months if I remember correctly. This is publicly available to download, and its use is governed by the same [CC-BY-SA](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) license that governs Stack Exchange user contributions. For more information see [this SE blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/), [this one](http://blog.stackexchange.com/category/cc-wiki-dump/) on the migration to the Internet Archive, and of course [the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at this, I should note that this database can be accessed directly by anyone with SQL skills at the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com/) ([description in the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49424/stack-exchange-data-explorer)), which is a goldmine for site usage statistics among other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I'm not sure exactly what the OP is asking for, but this is mostly a reply to the question title, meant for people that are looking for exactly that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="925cd5a2-5ca7-48a8-83de-0342fc22cd18" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:18:29.387" UserId="25301" Text="Some time ago, [John Rennie asked](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...in many cases it looks as if the OP simply can't be bothered to put any effort in. Do we have a policy for closing (or not closing) such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Meta question has received not a downvote (12/0 at time of writing). The answer by Ben Crowell says (emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The help section &quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot; does not say anything about insufficient research effort. **This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer also received no downvotes (7/0 currently), suggesting the community agrees that this correct: insufficient effort questions should be *downvoted* and not *closed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, several 3k+ users have voted to close questions due to &quot;insufficient effort.&quot; This leads to the question at hand: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we change current policy on insufficient effort questions**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="925cd5a2-5ca7-48a8-83de-0342fc22cd18" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:18:29.387" UserId="25301" Text="Closing &quot;Insufficient Effort&quot; questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="925cd5a2-5ca7-48a8-83de-0342fc22cd18" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:18:29.387" UserId="25301" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="0f9c6c46-ad25-430e-9e27-d343f60cd699" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:29:12.757" UserId="11053" Text="Unless the question falls into one of the existing close reasons by virtue of being poorly researched - unclear what you're asking comes to mind - I think a downvote + comment explanation is better. To me the guidance when you start a custom close reason &quot;This question appears to be off-topic because it is about...&quot; draws a reasonable line - if I have to backspace to write &quot;This question does not demonstrate sufficient research effort.&quot; I'm kind of getting away from the idea of it being &quot;off-topic&quot;. If I was trying to be witty I might call this an off-topic-off-topic close vote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="2c38ede6-5fd8-4865-b307-e60e5a301b57" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:39:37.557" UserId="23473" Text="Now, at first I was pro-VTC based on insufficient effort. However, then I remembered something Shog9 wrote in a different meta post (and for the life of me I can't seem to recall what the post was about to find it). And I know, if I and/or many others were to be for this as a VTC reason, he would come back saying the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it I got from it was this: Where does it end? What is insufficient research? Sure, there may be some questions that are blatantly not enough research that everyone can agree with, but it's too slippery a slope to actually make it a VTC reason. Once we start judging some questions as insufficient research, some users will inevitably start using that reason as a bludgeon to suppress questions they don't like. And how do we determine where the cutoff is? How is it fair for anyone to decide that a certain level represents the cutoff of too little prior research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point is, though, it just comes down to the fact that there is too much room for this to be abused as a VTC reason. And even though we all hate to see some new user asking a question that hasn't been researched, it is also too unwelcoming to new and uninformed users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you can disagree with me all you want, but I guarantee that if this ever starts gaining ground, we'll have a mod from SO like Shog9 come and tell us the same thing. This is too subjective to be properly, fairly, and safely implemented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="b0edac81-eaa4-4ed8-9d68-bfc548709734" CreationDate="2014-07-29T18:49:17.807" UserId="2751" Comment="The title did not properly represent what I wanted to say." Text="Can we please stop applying the homework tag (and policy) to very advanced questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="cf38270a-fab2-4bcb-a25c-101453c53191" CreationDate="2014-07-29T21:56:02.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/494239955921932288" />
  <row Id="13991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="8ba39715-bcb6-427e-b13a-a8d9a0b58409" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:13:38.377" UserId="1325" Text="The difference between downvoting and closing is that it's impossible to reply to a closed question. If I downvote a question I'm saying I don't like it, but if others want to reply to it that's fine. If I vote to close I'm saying *this question shouldn't be here and no-one should reply to it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We VTC homework questions because if we didn't people would keep getting replies to them and they would carry on asking homework questions. So voting to close rather than just downvoting is an important part of deterring homework questions. I think this principle is generally accepted, though where we draw the line continues to be a matter for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to questions that (I think) show insufficient effort, the principle is whether we should reward these by answering them or not. I very much doubt that the OP posted the question as a malicious attempt to waste our time, and closing the question may seem an unnecessarily harsh criticism. But if we answer questions that have not been properly thought through then we encourage the asking of those questions and we will get more of them. That's why I sometimes vote to close if I think the OP has dashed out the question without thinking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site works well because we have a population of skilled physicists who are willing to spend time and effort answering questions. I think it's fair to require that OP's invest a similar amount of time and effort in asking questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="04fbc720-8e7c-4e5a-8c1d-08525fabd4d0" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:54:23.153" UserId="46399" Text="This concerns the [create new tags privilege](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags) that comes with 1K reputation. In particular, an excerpt from the link reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on some sites, new tags will be automatically culled and removed from the system if they are not used by at least 1 other question in a 6 month period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is not clear here is, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) If I create a new tag, and use it for the question that I want to use it for, and be done with it. Neither I, nor anyone else uses it for 6 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) I use it twice in my (original) questions, but no one else uses it for 6 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C) I use it once in a original question, then start to look for the other places where it can be used, and re-tag existing questions (which existed with some tags even before I created this new tag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, the tag would be culled in case A). But what about cases B and C? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In particular, is case C) a legitimate way of bending around the rules?** I mean, will I invite anyone's wrath if I do it, or is it considered inappropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="04fbc720-8e7c-4e5a-8c1d-08525fabd4d0" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:54:23.153" UserId="46399" Text="''Automatic culling'' of tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="04fbc720-8e7c-4e5a-8c1d-08525fabd4d0" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:54:23.153" UserId="46399" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6007" RevisionGUID="bd936ca6-8662-42ac-8fc5-1476a79b9b9e" CreationDate="2014-07-30T10:31:30.867" UserId="7433" Text="It is okay to use your new tag on older questions, as long as you do not flood the main page in your retagging or apply the tag wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be worthwhile to ask in chat if the tag follows the tag rules before doing this though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13996" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="185fee56-0704-49bf-89c0-f79bdd96b638" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:09:32.830" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128750/any-help-available-for-solid-state-electronic-devices-and-materials" />
  <row Id="13997" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="391b6cd8-d307-4e3b-bad4-1851d17190be" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:09:32.830" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128750/any-help-available-for-solid-state-electronic-devices-and-materials/128751#128751" />
  <row Id="13998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="2fcd1295-767f-44d3-835a-71ccf7c95ab9" CreationDate="2014-07-30T09:17:04.200" UserId="55751" Text="Yes of course, Condensed Matter Physics in general is one of the largest single subfields of Physics. I am guessing then you would start with an introductory course in Solid State Physics. So feel free to bring up your questions here in physics stackexchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="20c34235-f5cb-477e-b342-4fc89bc0aac1" CreationDate="2014-07-30T09:12:14.347" UserDisplayName="user56345" Text="I am teaching and doing research work in Solid State Electronic Devices and Materials, which is a subset of Materials Science &amp; Engineering - a branch of Applied Physics. I want to know if this falls within the domain of Physics Stackexchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="20c34235-f5cb-477e-b342-4fc89bc0aac1" CreationDate="2014-07-30T09:12:14.347" UserDisplayName="user56345" Text="Any help available for Solid State Electronic Devices and Materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="20c34235-f5cb-477e-b342-4fc89bc0aac1" CreationDate="2014-07-30T09:12:14.347" UserDisplayName="user56345" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="d558a715-c2d1-4e05-8c2c-8e76fcc9eb75" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:13:06.983" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="ac2e3a2d-a6b2-46b7-a1e5-bed7a184d48c" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:28:08.740" UserId="52112" Text="I have a strong aversion to having edits applied to my work without my approval. Because of that, I don't do that to what others have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what should be done with obviously wrong answers? I really don't want to edit them; that goes very much against my personal principles. I don't mind fixing an obvious typo or poor choice of wording. But fundamentally changing what a person wrote? That is just wrong to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why I don't like unapproved revisions:  &#xD;&#xA;Long ago I had a very bad experience at work in that regard. Our team had spent over a year doing an analysis for NASA. We wrote that work up in a multi-volume white paper that used extravehicular activities (EVAs) as a central, organizing theme. Corporate HQ decided our white paper needed external review because the distribution list had some very high level people on it. Their editor didn't think that &quot;extravehicular&quot; was a word and changed every occurrence of &quot;extravehicular activity&quot; to &quot;activity with extra vehicles&quot; (and then he changed the acronym to AEV). He then sent the &quot;corrected&quot; paper straight to the printer because &quot;except for a few minor grammatical errors, the paper was very good.&quot; He turned our report into a joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="ac2e3a2d-a6b2-46b7-a1e5-bed7a184d48c" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:28:08.740" UserId="52112" Text="Correcting incorrect answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="ac2e3a2d-a6b2-46b7-a1e5-bed7a184d48c" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:28:08.740" UserId="52112" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="82b6fefd-9805-4793-b7fc-1c0d664d0e5e" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:49:28.903" UserId="44126" Text="Low-reputation users whose edits go into the approval queue see an edit page with  a box of advice like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How to Edit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;► fix grammatical or spelling errors&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;► clarify meaning without changing it&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;► correct minor mistakes&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;► add related resources or links&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;► always respect the original author&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that these instructions are consistent with your instincts about editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The right response to a wrong answer, as I understand it, is to downvote, comment, and/or post a correct answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="7c5edfa4-2c57-4385-9cd5-46be5966e159" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:58:23.367" UserId="25301" Text="I think that edits of another user's post should be reserved for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. typographical errors (e.g., grammar, LaTeX formatting)&#xD;&#xA; 2. adding/modifying relevant links (e.g., updating broken links)&#xD;&#xA; 3. word choices (e.g., using *liquids* as a generalized replacement for *fluids*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These edits are minor, changing the superficial appearance while leaving alone the *content*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edits that turn an incorrect answer into a correct one is a ***drastic*** change and should not be done by anyone. Leaving a comment about *why* the answer is incorrect and downvoting are the correct response to seeing bad answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="f828d2e6-d746-428d-b2b5-aca416e02db8" CreationDate="2014-07-31T03:09:43.480" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Yes! Solid state physics is physics, and is therefore on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are more conditions on whether or not an individual question fits the site besides just the general field of study. In particular, note that what we call [engineering questions][1] are off topic, so something like &quot;What's the most cost efficient material to use in this application?&quot; is probably off topic. &quot;How do I fabricate this device?&quot; is a gray area - it might be on topic, it might not, and it probably warrants more discussion if it comes up. I mention this not to be intimidating, but just because solid state electronics are studied both from a pure science standpoint and an engineering one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for such a large field, solid state/condensed matter/materials science is IMO quite underrepresented on the site at the moment. Don't be discouraged if at first it seems like the community consists entirely of particle physicists and general relativists. Hopefully we can attract a larger user base with some good questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="95edc658-564a-49d1-a6ce-2a40c96d274f" CreationDate="2014-08-03T15:19:09.347" UserId="124" Comment="revise to reflect new policy" Text="The policy on this has changed since my answer was originally posted, so I thought an update would be in order. If you include content from another site, there are two separate reasons that it might be problematic: copyright violation, and plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Plagiarism** is the inclusion of _any_ content taken from another source, unless the content is quoted and the source is acknowledged. Our rule on this site is that plagiarism is not acceptable, and plagiarized content will be removed or the post will be edited to quote and cite it, as we discover it.&#xD;&#xA;- **Copyright violation** is the copying of content from another source in a way that doesn't satisfy certain legal conditions. It is illegal and you shouldn't do it, but since Stack Exchange now has a [formal process to handle DMCA takedown requests](http://stackexchange.com/legal), moderators do not deal with copyright violations. If the content is also plagiarized (which is often the case), we'll delete or edit it for that reason, but we don't take any action because of a copyright violation. The SE team will delete content used in violation of copyright when they are made aware of it through a DMCA request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To include content from other sources in your posts, you need to avoid both kinds of problems. Avoiding plagiarism is generally straightforward; always cite and quote your content. Avoiding copyright violation is a little more complex; yes, you should check that the material is available under a compatible CC license at the original source, or that the part you are using constitutes fair use, or try to get permission from the copyright holder, but in practice there may not be any consequences for not doing so if the copyright holder doesn't notice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="be2ecd40-61a3-4f7b-88cc-cc60327f997b" CreationDate="2014-08-04T10:25:07.463" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am not sure whether this has been discussed anywhere; if so, please point me to the right place. Still it shouldn't hurt to discuss it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the site growing there will be an increasing need for including images into answers (I find they help a huge deal in certain cases; one picture is worth a 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; words, etc.). But what about copyright issues? I guess most of the authors (if they can be find, that is) wouldn't mind but it would still be correct to ask them, right (and not just because they might sue you)? On the other hand, it seems strange not to post an answer while waiting for a response from the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, is there any policy about these things? Or is it perhaps no big deal, with issues being solved *a posteriori* after author finds his copyright is being infringed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="be2ecd40-61a3-4f7b-88cc-cc60327f997b" CreationDate="2014-08-04T10:25:07.463" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="6c3231a8-31ff-4410-8cd5-2309239e513a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T07:52:31.870" UserId="26969" Text="Just today, I [answered an interesting question about the intensity of sunrise in Australia vs Asia](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/129494/26969). When my accepted answer hit the 10 upvotes, I received (&quot;instantly&quot;, or so it seemed) the &quot;nice answer&quot; badge. But since it was an accepted answer, I would have thought I hit the conditions for the &quot;Enlightened&quot; badge at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why would I be awarded one badge, and not the other? What algorithm / mechanism would cause the delay?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I am not coming across as whining - I'm sure it will show up eventually - but I was curious about the inner workings of the SE machine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="6c3231a8-31ff-4410-8cd5-2309239e513a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T07:52:31.870" UserId="26969" Text="Delay in awarding two badges for same event" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="6c3231a8-31ff-4410-8cd5-2309239e513a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T07:52:31.870" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6015" RevisionGUID="8a56ce35-537e-42b3-ad1d-6c8f8969c783" CreationDate="2014-08-05T11:54:45.780" UserId="7433" Text="Badges are awarded by a periodic script, since it's too much load to check for them on every action. Badges that require heavier queries to calculate are run less often (some of them have a period of one day). Also, badges with the same period may or may not run in sync (in the same phase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you get such delays. Don't worry about it unles s&gt;24 hours have passed without you getting the badge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="b1e37509-05e6-430c-bf4a-b87bb8cfdb2f" CreationDate="2014-08-06T12:18:38.547" UserId="56578" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129521/two-balls-of-different-mass-a-1-b-3-collide-in-2-d-b-is-at-rest) :&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even condidered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129580/average-velocity-of-a-body-moving-in-a-circle-with-constant-speed-v):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="b1e37509-05e6-430c-bf4a-b87bb8cfdb2f" CreationDate="2014-08-06T12:18:38.547" UserId="56578" Text="Homework questions, on hold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="b1e37509-05e6-430c-bf4a-b87bb8cfdb2f" CreationDate="2014-08-06T12:18:38.547" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="7f884eee-7c15-4f3b-b542-7a6d2aa32730" CreationDate="2014-08-06T12:24:16.830" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even condidered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="7f884eee-7c15-4f3b-b542-7a6d2aa32730" CreationDate="2014-08-06T12:24:16.830" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="1bed071b-c53e-4605-b71d-976d917974ad" CreationDate="2014-08-06T12:30:32.893" UserId="56578" Comment="edited body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="5f8657c2-6f9d-483f-ac3d-322919b96397" CreationDate="2014-08-06T14:10:26.483" UserId="23473" Text="The &quot;On Hold&quot; is not automatic. Users such as myself with over 3000 reputation review new questions and determine if they fall within the spirit of the site, if they are understandable, if they have been asked before, and if we think they are answerable. If a question fails any one of those tests, a user will vote to put a question on hold. If at least 4 other users agree, then the question is put on hold. You can call this system superficial and unsatisfactory, but it is the system we choose to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about homework like the ones you linked to are not within the spirit of the site. We recognize that the number of members and visitors to the site would dramatically increase if we were to answer all homework questions, but that is not what we are here for. There are many posts in the physics meta that discuss our policy and the reasoning behind it concerning homework-like questions. So I will not go into it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, thank you for your effort to improve the site. Your intent is noted and appreciated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="7bb8573f-77ec-4602-946c-a0c9448b962c" CreationDate="2014-08-06T15:56:06.577" UserId="25301" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="86eb721a-65ae-4ff6-ac95-1d0318e87cdb" CreationDate="2014-08-06T17:31:24.510" UserId="520" Text="&gt; In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a pretty good argument that homework help drives out the real experts and prevents the site from hosting large numbers of really good questions and answers that will continue to help others in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you believe that argument or not the users of Physics SE have made a conscious and deliberate decision not to be a homework help site in the sense that you are using the phrase.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You have already received several links to meta discussions surrounding that decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* get help with introductory physics, but you are going to be required to pull the underlying concept out of the context of the question in front of you and present it in a clear by widely applicable context. Take note that *&quot;Is there a formula for ...?&quot;* and *&quot;What is the formula for ...?&quot;* will almost never be acceptable. At a workshop for early-career physics professors that I attended this summer someone said *&quot;Students ask about formulas, professors ask about principles.&quot;* and the more I have reflected on that and pair attention to the dialog of my students and colleagues the more truth I have seen in that line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it comes down to is that Physics SE expects you to approach your question more like a professional than like a student, even if you are a raw beginner. That's going to be pretty tough at first, but I believe the exercise will help you rather a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; And the site has continued to grow. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="83808951-ab4c-4f67-a199-93a1577d7758" CreationDate="2014-08-06T17:36:36.887" UserId="520" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="&gt; In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a pretty good argument that homework help drives out the real experts and prevents the site from hosting large numbers of really good questions and answers that will continue to help others in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you believe that argument or not the users of Physics SE have made a conscious and deliberate decision not to be a homework help site in the sense that you are using the phrase.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You have already received several links to meta discussions surrounding that decision. We also consciously include *&quot;Is my solution right?&quot;* questions in the homework-like category. Both the closures that you use as examples are in accordance with site policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* get help with introductory physics, but you are going to be required to pull the underlying concept out of the context of the question in front of you and present it in a clear by widely applicable context. Take note that *&quot;Is there a formula for ...?&quot;* and *&quot;What is the formula for ...?&quot;* will almost never be acceptable. At a workshop for early-career physics professors that I attended this summer someone said *&quot;Students ask about formulas, professors ask about principles.&quot;* and the more I have reflected on that and paid attention to the dialog of my students and colleagues the more truth I have seen in that line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it comes down to is that Physics SE expects you to approach your question more like a professional than like a student, even if you are a raw beginner. That's going to be pretty tough at first, but I believe the exercise will help you rather a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; And the site has continued to grow. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="e06e3c37-51da-442c-a1d8-1ae75a2d64d2" CreationDate="2014-08-07T03:38:57.307" UserId="51994" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowedge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could additionally argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit.  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) of recent fame, serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modelling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current 'homework' tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, minimally this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you could imagine elevating the tag to a more privileged status, perhaps the questions themselves could be voted on in meta, and new questions selected at some regular interval, with only one such question running at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="e06e3c37-51da-442c-a1d8-1ae75a2d64d2" CreationDate="2014-08-07T03:38:57.307" UserId="51994" Text="Proposal: Kapitza Tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="e06e3c37-51da-442c-a1d8-1ae75a2d64d2" CreationDate="2014-08-07T03:38:57.307" UserId="51994" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="4e3a6fc9-a00a-4508-8244-ac0fe66a8a0b" CreationDate="2014-08-07T03:51:06.850" UserId="51994" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowedge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could additionally argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit.  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modelling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current 'homework' tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, minimally this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you could imagine elevating the tag to a more privileged status, perhaps the questions themselves could be voted on in meta, and new questions selected at some regular interval, with only one such question running at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="ecca973e-5880-4182-91fd-88cfa74224e9" CreationDate="2014-08-07T04:09:34.587" UserId="51994" Comment="examples of top rated kapitza posts" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowedge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could additionally argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modelling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current 'homework' tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, minimally this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you could imagine elevating the tag to a more privileged status, perhaps the questions themselves could be voted on in meta, and new questions selected at some regular interval, with only one such question running at a time. In the spirit of a community sponsored challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="153f60a7-c284-4127-94e0-38a6a83e6bbd" CreationDate="2014-08-07T05:02:03.360" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1601 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, found the question very useful, he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so, fair enough, close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise** and does not leave a good impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, be my guest!, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a studen gets, and I promise will abstain in future. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="7505d604-7e35-4702-9654-a24910b2907d" CreationDate="2014-08-07T05:08:39.457" UserId="56578" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, found the question very useful, he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise** and does not leave a good impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, *be my guest!*, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14033" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="853e1b7d-dcfa-422f-abfb-fdfa54f9e645" CreationDate="2014-08-07T05:28:52.593" UserId="51994" Comment="edited title" Text="Proposal: Challenge Problems | Kapitza Tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="4d1709e7-026d-4e61-a56d-948bf813b47b" CreationDate="2014-08-07T05:49:31.507" UserId="56578" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, found the question very useful, he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, *be my guest!*, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="2ad6e932-6bee-4350-a09d-15859d41b4ac" CreationDate="2014-08-07T06:09:16.943" UserId="51994" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowedge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modelling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current 'homework' tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, minimally this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you could imagine elevating the tag to a more privileged status, perhaps the questions themselves could be voted on in meta, and new questions selected at some regular interval, with only one such question running at a time. In the spirit of a community sponsored challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="275d24bd-cbae-43ac-a3fe-fd25d3b085c1" CreationDate="2014-08-07T06:52:48.163" UserId="56578" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,@Kyle Kanos,@ACuriousMind,@Brandon Enright,@Kyle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, found the question very useful, he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, *be my guest!*, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6021" RevisionGUID="2e5ec2c0-3bcd-4d39-b705-a7dec4b4f641" CreationDate="2014-08-07T07:17:23.053" UserId="1325" Text="My main motivation for answering a question is that I believe the OP is really interested in the answer. I only ask questions when it's a problem that is really bugging me. So my interest in questions that seem to be the physics equivalent of crossword puzzles is going to be minimal at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't deny the value of such problems as part of the learning process. I'm not familar with the Kapitza problems, but I recall the [Cavendish Problems in Classical Physics][1] with some affection. The foreword to this book makes the excellent analogy that they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a set of exercises to develop the technique, like the five finger exercises that are an indispensable basis of concert-hall mastery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All quite worthy, though while I still own the book I haven't opened it for around thirty years and have no plans to do so in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then lots of people are interested in crossword puzzles, and my views expressed here shouldn't put off anyone who wants to ask or answer such problems here. I'm just not convinced it would make the site a more interesting place to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/physics/general-and-classical-physics/cavendish-problems-classical-physics-2nd-edition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14038" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="92e20ea7-8ba4-407c-868e-10f800ced90e" CreationDate="2014-08-07T07:23:03.173" UserId="51994" Comment="edited title" Text="Proposal: Kapitza Tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="d1fa3f94-1069-4119-b9ea-20e3d25a00c5" CreationDate="2014-08-07T07:25:09.217" UserId="56578" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,@Kyle Kanos,@ACuriousMind,@Brandon Enright,@Kyle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, found the question very useful, he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, *be my guest!*, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="d7a308e9-f3c3-4a9c-9bd9-e6bbd394f4f8" CreationDate="2014-08-07T07:34:57.550" UserId="124" Text="The homework _tag_ doesn't really have special rules. Rather, homework-like _questions_ have special rules, one of which is that the [tag:homework] tag should be applied to them - but the presence or absence of the tag doesn't particularly affect how we treat the question. And in fact, the homework rules are not that special. They're a special case of the general rule that questions should be conceptual, reasonably well researched, and be asked in good faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point in saying all this is that I don't like the idea of having special tags with special rules. Yes, in practice [tag:homework] is a little bit like this, and so is [tag:resource-recommendations], but managing those two is already a handful, and we only really keep them around for historical reasons anyway. I'm opposed to the creation of any new special tags or special categories of questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="b823a7d4-6937-4792-8a0b-c63a4915f72f" CreationDate="2014-08-07T07:35:40.047" UserId="56578" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,@Jim,,@Kyle Kanos,@ACuriousMind,@Brandon Enright,@Kyle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, found the question very useful, he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, *be my guest!*, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="69fabb51-a167-4fc6-9343-9a189e96a3ff" CreationDate="2014-08-07T09:29:43.533" UserId="8563" Text="The tag you are proposing is what is known as a [meta tag](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/). These are in general discouraged, though if there are good reasons for making one then they can fulfil useful and specific functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues to keep in mind are well described in [this meta.cooking.se post](http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/434/please-zap-the-meta-tags-and-dependent-tags):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tags of this sort generally end up being hard to maintain, as people use them in many unexpected ways which are not really their original intent. We have three such tags, [tag:homework], [tag:resource-recommendation], and [tag:specific-reference]; they all perform specific functions and they all require maintenance. Adding a new one is doable (though it adds to the moderator load) but it does need to be worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="4b620a6d-61b5-454d-916e-ea87e8262cc0" CreationDate="2014-08-07T09:37:10.397" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The tag you are proposing is what is known as a [meta tag](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/). These are in general discouraged, though if there are good reasons for making one then they can fulfil useful and specific functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues to keep in mind are well described in [this meta.cooking.se post](http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/434/please-zap-the-meta-tags-and-dependent-tags):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tags of this sort generally end up being hard to maintain, as people use them in many unexpected ways which are not really their original intent. We have three such tags, [tag:homework], [tag:resource-recommendations], and [tag:specific-reference]; they all perform specific functions and they all require maintenance. Adding a new one is doable (though it adds to the moderator load) but it does need to be worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="f8ae3f39-51fe-4391-8eb2-f7b9ec0db2ab" CreationDate="2014-08-07T10:28:04.360" UserId="56578" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,@Jim,,@Kyle Kanos,@ACuriousMind,@Brandon Enright,@Kyle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, was intrigued by this *(rather silly)* concept: he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, *be my guest!*, but I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="e86c1dd0-a97f-4634-bc7f-91c6c9b784d9" CreationDate="2014-08-07T11:32:31.903" UserId="56578" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee,@Jim,,@Kyle Kanos,@ACuriousMind,@Brandon Enright,@Kyle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, was intrigued by this *(rather silly)* concept: he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, but I articulated and argumented my post, you give me the short-shift with a click. I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="96b64fe1-a928-4b56-b25c-d6ec041aaaf3" CreationDate="2014-08-07T13:33:40.010" UserId="23473" Comment="added 4963 characters in body" Text="The &quot;On Hold&quot; is not automatic. Users such as myself with over 3000 reputation review new questions and determine if they fall within the spirit of the site, if they are understandable, if they have been asked before, and if we think they are answerable. If a question fails any one of those tests, a user will vote to put a question on hold. If at least 4 other users agree, then the question is put on hold. You can call this system superficial and unsatisfactory, but it is the system we choose to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about homework like the ones you linked to are not within the spirit of the site. We recognize that the number of members and visitors to the site would dramatically increase if we were to answer all homework questions, but that is not what we are here for. There are many posts in the physics meta that discuss our policy and the reasoning behind it concerning homework-like questions. So I will not go into it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, thank you for your effort to improve the site. Your intent is noted and appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having also read your updated post, I want to respond in order of how you said it; so please forgive me if I repeat myself or if it seems disorderly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact we can and do have it both ways. We encourage homework-like questions that ask about the physics concepts pertinent to the question. We discourage questions that ask us to solve someone's problem for them. What we like and don't like is, of you can see our decisions at course, entirely up to us (meaning a majority of our trusted users) to decide. You can see our decisions at [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) meta post. The appearance of non-consistence may (and I stress the &quot;may&quot; since I cannot be sure about anyone's understanding but my own) be due to a difference between how you understand what we accept and what/why our standards for question are and how we understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I do recognize that this is a sincere attempt to fix a problem that you feel we may be overlooking. It is a criticism, but a constructive criticism. As I stated before, we do appreciate the effort you put into this. The downvotes are not a dislike of your post as in the main site, they represent the opinions of our users; by downvoting, they are disagreeing with your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework-like questions is continually an issue we discuss. We recognize that there are some homework-like questions that are very well posed and have answers that would be valuable to a wide range of readers. What you must recognize is that we are trying to allow homework questions that teach the physics of it, we do not want this site to be one where little Jimmy can come to have a professional physicist solve question 2.18 from his grade 10 physics textbook for him. Similarly, we want our answers to be useful to more than just the asker. I won't deny that occasionally a question is closed that shouldn't be, but no community is perfect and we strive to reopen questions that we feel shouldn't be closed. However, we had to make guidelines that could cover most of the potential types of homework-like questions. These guidelines **may** occasionally make a useful question be put on-hold, but overall they do more good than harm and we are still always re-evaluating them to ensure that we allow the maximum number of HW questions while still maintaining as best we can the ideal of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving along, you seem to misunderstand the concept of &quot;On-Hold&quot;. A question is not put on hold indefinitely. After a few days, the [On Hold] status turns to [Closed]. After more time, closed question are often deleted. The reason we put questions [On Hold] initially is because the word &quot;Closed&quot; seem kind of onerous and permanent. The fact is, the [On Hold] status is meant to encourage the asker to improve the question. Any time a closed question is edited, it becomes visible to all 3k+ rep users and we vote whether or not to reopen the question. On-Hold is a temporary status that means a question should be edited to fit the site's requirements. Once we feel it is better, we often do vote to reopen a question. Alternatively, if you feel a closed question should not be closed, you can flag it for reopening. Five high-rep users must agree on reopening just as five must agree on closing. So you see, we do not leave questions on-hold forever. Just until we think they are sufficiently improved. If they aren't, the question is closed and/or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close with this:&#xD;&#xA;This site is not intended for just elite scholars. It is also not intended to widen the audience and raise a new generation of scholars. It is also not a forum as the word is commonly used nowadays. This is a Q&amp;A site. We strive to answer questions about physics; mainstream physics. The idea is that someone can come to the site wondering about anything from the physics behind an everyday phenomenon or about the principles needed to work through a high-level research problem and we *volunteer* to strive to answer their questions and answer in a way that everyone else reading it might learn something new or interesting from it. There are a myriad of HW questions that fall under this description; but Jimmy asking how to solve problem 2.18 does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not looked at Tesla's question because it isn't relevant here. If you want to start a new meta post discussing how you think Tesla's question falls within the scope of the site, that's one thing; it's possible it was unfairly closed, I don't know. But you are finding so much opposition here because we have worked hard on our homework policy and we feel there is no simple way of making it better while still maintaining the ideal of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think you are a nuisance. However, I will admit that at least I personally feel you have perhaps been too quick to form an opinion on our overall policy when it seems you don't have a full understanding of it. But thank you regardless for the effort to improve the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="480839e0-a7c3-40ca-a7c8-c99bbf1835ea" CreationDate="2014-08-07T16:15:05.210" UserId="51994" Comment="rescind request for specialized behavior" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowedge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modelling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current 'homework' tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt; **Note**: In light of initial response, I rescind any form of request for any sort of explicitly novel site behavior associated with this tag. &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="5bf874e1-847e-4f3e-b3f6-7a28b0d36d79" CreationDate="2014-08-07T16:22:46.823" UserId="51994" Comment="remove note of edit" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowedge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modelling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current 'homework' tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="6bdc536c-914d-4eb5-9a1e-cec7b0c2c60e" CreationDate="2014-08-07T16:43:11.063" UserId="51994" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowledge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modeling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current [tag:homework] tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to stretch their physics muscles.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="2e23d4db-c1b8-4bf6-90bf-9dcb12156f4f" CreationDate="2014-08-08T04:23:15.497" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Jim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, was intrigued by this *(rather silly)* concept: he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, but I articulated and argumented my post, you give me the short-shift with a click. I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14051" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="0524b8c6-64d3-4d25-b7b2-26275553588b" CreationDate="2014-08-08T04:47:05.150" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129974/why-does-every-post-here-gets-downvoted-and-disregarded" />
  <row Id="14052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b905acf5-c087-41b4-b1a1-fbaac4cdf855" CreationDate="2014-08-08T04:45:20.723" UserId="29663" Text="Why does every post here gets downvoted and disregarded, even though many users here are not even professional physicists? Much condescension and feeling of self value, for someone as partial, dont you think? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b905acf5-c087-41b4-b1a1-fbaac4cdf855" CreationDate="2014-08-08T04:45:20.723" UserId="29663" Text="Why does every post here gets downvoted and disregarded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b905acf5-c087-41b4-b1a1-fbaac4cdf855" CreationDate="2014-08-08T04:45:20.723" UserId="29663" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="ec05ce07-6d51-4690-bb63-2a5a96f12a3e" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:11:03.040" UserId="520" Text="A quick glance at the question page or the front page shows more upvoted than downvoted posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has high standards for questions (and answers) but my observation is that most users are hesitant to use downvotes, with one expception. The exception is posts that violate the [homework policy][1]. Especially second and subsequent posts by the same user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that this site is of and by physicists&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and while we welcome beginners to our group, we expect them to be willing to take part *as* physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem, to have gotten a mistaken impression of what we do here and what the site is for. Perhaps just observing for a few days might make things a little more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Some professionals, some future professionals and some plain old amateurs, but all physicsist or putting on a convincing impression thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="8cf3e350-cf79-45b3-aafc-cae9ce4641fb" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:55:47.900" UserId="44126" Text="This is meant as a sympathetic comment, not an answer, but it grew too long for the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the main, there are lots and lots of very good questions that get upvoted and stay around, and there's a healthy population of poor questions that get downvoted and removed. Any system for differentiating the two will make mistakes sometimes. That's okay. It's just a website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There certainly are days when the confines beyond which questions are closed as &quot;not physics&quot; are so narrow that it baffles me; I've been tempted to retaliate by leaving close votes on good questions that say &quot;this question is about the motion of charged particles in electromagnetic fields and not about physics.&quot; (I probably wouldn't do something so petty, but closures like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/128968/44126) put me in the mood.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the OP's question about [temperatures at different latitudes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/96229/44126). There's a very simple physical explanation why you get more insolation and low latitudes than at high latitudes — the angle of incidence — and it appeared in an answer just two hours after the question was asked. I agree with the sentiment at that question that meteorology and climate science are broad topics which are not properly a subset of physics, and the question was muddled by the asker's misconceptions. But on the whole it was probably a question that could have stayed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14057" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="8a0abd9b-2724-4e6f-b32a-7d0d542dcf3c" CreationDate="2014-08-08T10:18:27.367" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/497688280381808640" />
  <row Id="14058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="d431b287-9e1e-4537-a288-d6ea16dd4856" CreationDate="2014-08-08T13:20:03.217" UserId="8563" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="The tag you are proposing is what is known as a [meta tag](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/). These are in general discouraged, though if there are good reasons for making one then they can fulfil useful and specific functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues to keep in mind are well described in [this meta.cooking.se post](http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/434/please-zap-the-meta-tags-and-dependent-tags):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tags of this sort generally end up being hard to maintain, as people use them in many unexpected ways which are not really their original intent. We have three such tags, [tag:homework], [tag:resource-recommendations], and [tag:specific-reference]; they all perform specific functions and they all require maintenance. Adding a new one is doable (though it adds to the moderator load) but it does need to be worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for a tag of this sort, and particularly if you expect users to behave differently when it's present, it needs to be something immediately recognizable by essentially all of the site's audience, or it will inevitably get misused. I have to say that it's not the case for Kapitza - I hadn't heard the name until this thread - and I don't think there's any other similar alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="5e31ba63-1040-4f52-9f5c-e4cf54b2b37a" CreationDate="2014-08-08T14:22:47.333" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="The &quot;On Hold&quot; is not automatic. Users such as myself with over 3000 reputation review new questions and determine if they fall within the spirit of the site, if they are understandable, if they have been asked before, and if we think they are answerable. If a question fails any one of those tests, a user will vote to put a question on hold. If at least 4 other users agree, then the question is put on hold. You can call this system superficial and unsatisfactory, but it is the system we choose to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about homework like the ones you linked to are not within the spirit of the site. We recognize that the number of members and visitors to the site would dramatically increase if we were to answer all homework questions, but that is not what we are here for. There are many posts in the physics meta that discuss our policy and the reasoning behind it concerning homework-like questions. So I will not go into it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, thank you for your effort to improve the site. Your intent is noted and appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having also read your updated post, I want to respond in order of how you said it; so please forgive me if I repeat myself or if it seems disorderly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact we can and do have it both ways. We encourage homework-like questions that ask about the physics concepts pertinent to the question. We discourage questions that ask us to solve someone's problem for them. What we like and don't like is, of course, entirely up to us (meaning a majority of our trusted users) to decide. You can see our decisions at [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) meta post. The appearance of non-consistence may (and I stress the &quot;may&quot; since I cannot be sure about anyone's understanding but my own) be due to a difference between how you understand what we accept and what/why our standards for question are and how we understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I do recognize that this is a sincere attempt to fix a problem that you feel we may be overlooking. It is a criticism, but a constructive criticism. As I stated before, we do appreciate the effort you put into this. The downvotes are not a dislike of your post as in the main site, they represent the opinions of our users; by downvoting, they are disagreeing with your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework-like questions is continually an issue we discuss. We recognize that there are some homework-like questions that are very well posed and have answers that would be valuable to a wide range of readers. What you must recognize is that we are trying to allow homework questions that teach the physics of it, we do not want this site to be one where little Jimmy can come to have a professional physicist solve question 2.18 from his grade 10 physics textbook for him. Similarly, we want our answers to be useful to more than just the asker. I won't deny that occasionally a question is closed that shouldn't be, but no community is perfect and we strive to reopen questions that we feel shouldn't be closed. However, we had to make guidelines that could cover most of the potential types of homework-like questions. These guidelines **may** occasionally make a useful question be put on-hold, but overall they do more good than harm and we are still always re-evaluating them to ensure that we allow the maximum number of HW questions while still maintaining as best we can the ideal of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving along, you seem to misunderstand the concept of &quot;On-Hold&quot;. A question is not put on hold indefinitely. After a few days, the [On Hold] status turns to [Closed]. After more time, closed question are often deleted. The reason we put questions [On Hold] initially is because the word &quot;Closed&quot; seem kind of onerous and permanent. The fact is, the [On Hold] status is meant to encourage the asker to improve the question. Any time a closed question is edited, it becomes visible to all 3k+ rep users and we vote whether or not to reopen the question. On-Hold is a temporary status that means a question should be edited to fit the site's requirements. Once we feel it is better, we often do vote to reopen a question. Alternatively, if you feel a closed question should not be closed, you can flag it for reopening. Five high-rep users must agree on reopening just as five must agree on closing. So you see, we do not leave questions on-hold forever. Just until we think they are sufficiently improved. If they aren't, the question is closed and/or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close with this:&#xD;&#xA;This site is not intended for just elite scholars. It is also not intended to widen the audience and raise a new generation of scholars. It is also not a forum as the word is commonly used nowadays. This is a Q&amp;A site. We strive to answer questions about physics; mainstream physics. The idea is that someone can come to the site wondering about anything from the physics behind an everyday phenomenon or about the principles needed to work through a high-level research problem and we *volunteer* to strive to answer their questions and answer in a way that everyone else reading it might learn something new or interesting from it. There are a myriad of HW questions that fall under this description; but Jimmy asking how to solve problem 2.18 does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not looked at Tesla's question because it isn't relevant here. If you want to start a new meta post discussing how you think Tesla's question falls within the scope of the site, that's one thing; it's possible it was unfairly closed, I don't know. But you are finding so much opposition here because we have worked hard on our homework policy and we feel there is no simple way of making it better while still maintaining the ideal of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think you are a nuisance. However, I will admit that at least I personally feel you have perhaps been too quick to form an opinion on our overall policy when it seems you don't have a full understanding of it. But thank you regardless for the effort to improve the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="0da8fcc4-80a4-405b-96b5-bea34157a229" CreationDate="2014-08-08T18:54:20.507" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="# On changing policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a new tag is a secondary issue here; the primary issue is a suggested policy change. Should we allow these open-ended style inquiries&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; if they would otherwise fall afoul of the policies we have in place? (Of course anything that is on topic can be asked, whether it's Kapitza-esque or not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be **against changing the policy** to make exceptions for such questions, for these reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Questions whose purpose is to challenge others are fundamentally different from those who are asked out of genuine interest. Yes, [Code Golf][1] exists, but it is an entirely different style of site. Many of the experts here get no small amount of satisfaction from explaining an answer in such a way that *students actually learn something from it*. We might enjoy having to work for a good answer, but there's something about a pure challenge that's rather offputting to me. I want the person asking the question to be interested in the answer, not in how well *I personally* handle the problem.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1'. Challenges shift at least some of the focus away from pure physics and onto the people doing the physics. And how many researchers would see such questions and think, &quot;If I only wanted a challenge, I would focus on my research instead of laymen throwing questions at me like people throw bananas at monkeys in the zoo.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; There may be a use for a place on the internet where physics students can get together and have lots of back-and-forth on their approaches, but this isn't *necessarily* the place for that.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. Questions that are too broad really are too broad. Consider `#200: Satellite collisions`: Are you looking for change in orbital parameters? Breaking up of the material? Something else? Without further constraints, this becomes directionless musing. How can I objectively evaluate answers? Someone might state something physically true but also uninteresting? Does that deserve an upvote or a downvote?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. They don't on their own specify a level of an answer. Do you want a high school level zeroth-order answer? A graduate level third-order analysis? Good questions in physics are pitched at a well-defined level.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; We are constantly asking new users what level they are so that we can provide *appropriate* answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples of how these questions can be made to work (to their benefit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, many of these questions have potential, and *can* be asked on the site, **with refinement**. For example, `#83: Freezing pond` could have three variants, *shortened* versions of which might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I know water takes time to freeze, even once it's 0 degrees. Is there some way of predicting that time? Say I have a liquid pond at 0, and it's -10 outside. The pond will freeze, but is it at a random time or is there some fixed time it takes to get rid of its heat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Before a once-warm lake starts to freeze, must its temperature be 4°C throughout at some point?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The rate of cooling of a pond depends strongly on how efficiently convection above its surface carries heat away. Let's ignore conduction through the ground. How can I determine how convectively unstable the air over a cooling body of water is. I know in astrophysics we have the Schwarzschild criterion that tells us if the air is linearly unstable to convection. But maybe the Ledoux criterion is more appropriate, since there will be a humidity gradient? On a related note, can I take the mixing length as a lower bound on the size of the pond for which the plane-parallel assumption holds?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good question guides the answers toward some well-specified goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize that **virality is a poor indicator of quality**. I could post a question or answer that's just gratuitously pornographic while only giving physics lip service. We could dredge up all manner of voters from the dark corners of the internet who would love it, but we shouldn't think it's good just because a large number of people with no vested interest in the site as is like the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can always reduce standards and eliminate barriers to become more popular. But this site isn't about becoming the most visited place on the internet with &quot;physics&quot; in the url. It is &quot;[a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy][3],&quot; and it achieves its purpose at least in part thanks to being exclusionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than adjusting policies to match the votes of the masses, I'd like to see discussion on encouraging voters to appreciate some of the great but not-so-sexy physics that goes almost unnoticed around here. Personally, the answers I've contributed that I feel are the &quot;best&quot; in the sense of explaining something really well for others are all at &lt; 5 score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On the tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others discuss creating a meta-tag already. I just want to respond to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's an unhealthy sign to have tags whose purpose is to block questions from some users' view. Whenever that happens, it's an *indication* that *maybe* those questions shouldn't be here at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;In undergrad, we had a course, Physics 101, that dealt exclusively with techniques to solve such &quot;order-of-magnitude&quot; problems (even when we were expected to get the right answer to better than an order of magnitude). It was a great experience, and all physics students should test their mettle in such situations, so I'm not against such questions per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Anecdote from my childhood: At a pretty young age it became obvious that I was very good at mental arithmetic. As a result, it was a common pastime of my classmates to challenge me with difficult arithmetic problems to see how quickly and accurately I could solve them. No one was interested in the result; they only cared about deriving entertainment from me. I was content with it for a while, because showing off is something children like to do. But I don't participate in Physics.SE to be others' entertainment. Nor do I participate in order to publicly boast about my own problem-solving ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Not that I would be so cruel to monkeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;Going back to my Ph 101 example, I had lots of fun comparing how I did things with others, and then extending the given problems and going even further in depth. But I wouldn't involve the professor at every step. Part of the *student* experience value in these problems was *not* having experts give the &quot;correct&quot; answer right away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;I would go so far as to say one of the most important arts in physics is being able to evaluate the effective range of theories: Where do they work? Where do they fail? The inverse question is of course &quot;Given a tolerance for the final answer, what's the (minimal) amount of physics I need to employ to get the answer (for the right reasons).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://codegolf.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27939&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="5647ee09-009f-402f-91b6-162b118b3771" CreationDate="2014-08-08T20:46:15.777" UserId="55446" Text="I feel bad for asking such a question, because I know there is probably a simple answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel baited after reading a conversation of the meta thread about what questions were and weren't appropriate. I felt offended when I read that questions which didn't have answers, e.g. speculative questions, could not be asked. &#xD;&#xA;How can we not ask questions about challenging, interesting, and speculative aspects of life and reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton and all the greats created theories solely on circumspection, analyzing of phenomena, asking questions no one had before. Einstein was stubborn, and always asked questions, questions that brought the body of science forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to be overly controversial, but I mean that life is wonderful, reality is complex, and limiting questions only to what has been asked and answered before is limiting to natural human creativity and analyzing ability that would better the body of scientific work. It is exactly opposite to the heart of physics, which is all about understanding the nature of phenomena, enjoying it, exploring it, and getting interested in it. Without asking questions, one is looking at everything in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am deeply hurt by the implications and perhaps my emotionalism is bringing me to a place where I do not see the rule clearly. I worry about this limitation of these types of interesting questions. Peer review sounds good. Perhaps it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link I am referring to is here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="5647ee09-009f-402f-91b6-162b118b3771" CreationDate="2014-08-08T20:46:15.777" UserId="55446" Text="No speculation? What is wrong with speculation? Can't we ask questions about all things, not solely understood things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="5647ee09-009f-402f-91b6-162b118b3771" CreationDate="2014-08-08T20:46:15.777" UserId="55446" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="a2c4bd61-4101-43cc-8679-162037a1a5ed" CreationDate="2014-08-08T20:54:20.230" UserId="55446" Comment="Added a paragraph" Text="I feel bad for asking such a question, because I know there is probably a simple answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel baited after reading a conversation of the meta thread about what questions were and weren't appropriate. I felt offended when I read that questions which didn't have answers, e.g. speculative questions, could not be asked. &#xD;&#xA;How can we not ask questions about challenging, interesting, and speculative aspects of life and reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton and all the greats created theories solely on circumspection, analyzing of phenomena, asking questions no one had before. Einstein was stubborn, and always asked questions, questions that brought the body of science forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The history of science is littered with initial rejection in the circumstances of new theories. No one would publish Peter Higgs' Higgs Field paper as it had &quot;no obvious connection to real physics&quot; yet was completely right. Reality itself is a test of truth. We cannot solely test real physics based on subjective standards and prevailing wisdom. A reputable journal may reject all sorts of difficult to understand acheivements based on what is true and accepted at the time, but still be wrong later on the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to be overly controversial, but I mean that life is wonderful, reality is complex, and limiting questions only to what has been asked and answered before is limiting to natural human creativity and analyzing ability that would better the body of scientific work. It is exactly opposite to the heart of physics, which is all about understanding the nature of phenomena, enjoying it, exploring it, and getting interested in it. Without asking questions, one is looking at everything in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am deeply hurt by the implications and perhaps my emotionalism is bringing me to a place where I do not see the rule clearly. I worry about this limitation of these types of interesting questions. Peer review sounds good. Perhaps it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link I am referring to is here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="4af8c0e4-1d1c-4425-a495-90d356957aa1" CreationDate="2014-08-08T21:02:37.313" UserId="55446" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="I feel bad for asking such a question, because I know there is probably a simple answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel baited after reading a conversation of the meta thread about what questions were and weren't appropriate. I felt offended when I read that questions which didn't have answers, e.g. speculative questions, could not be asked. &#xD;&#xA;How can we not ask questions about challenging, interesting, and speculative aspects of life and reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton and all the greats created theories solely on circumspection, analyzing of phenomena, asking questions no one had before. Einstein was stubborn, and always asked questions, questions that brought the body of science forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The history of science is littered with initial rejection in the circumstances of new theories. No one would publish Peter Higgs' Higgs Field paper as it had &quot;no obvious connection to real physics&quot; yet was completely right. Reality itself is a test of truth. We cannot solely test real physics based on subjective standards and prevailing wisdom. A reputable journal may reject all sorts of difficult to understand acheivements based on what is true and accepted at the time, but still be wrong later on the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to be overly controversial, but I mean that life is wonderful, reality is complex, and limiting questions only to what has been asked and answered before is limiting to natural human creativity and analyzing ability that would better the body of scientific work. It is exactly opposite to the heart of physics, which is all about understanding the nature of phenomena, enjoying it, exploring it, and getting interested in it. Without asking questions, one is looking at everything in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am deeply hurt by the implications and perhaps my emotionalism is bringing me to a place where I do not see the rule clearly. I worry about this limitation of these types of interesting questions. Peer review sounds good. Perhaps it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link I am referring to is here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: as I read this my mind thinks &quot;Abuse, abuse, abuse.&quot; The reason we probably do not allow such an exchange is abuse by poor practitioners. Nonetheless, the nature of the post seems to stand. We must worry about taking steps to bring physics forward over time, not leaving it as it is. That wouldn't be fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="8de62685-e7f8-4fb6-8ebf-aa725e86816d" CreationDate="2014-08-08T21:11:49.583" UserId="50583" Text="The purpose of Physics.SE is **not** to be a forum for people to discuss their idea about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of Physics.SE is **not** to advance the state of the science in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of Physics.SE is **not** to encompass all that life and reality can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of Physics.SE *is* to be a place where *answers* to *questions about established physics* can be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that the question is not *interesting* if it cannot be asked here. Neither does it mean that it is not *useful* or *important*. It does simply mean that we do not want it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, one reason for the mainstream policy is that we do not want to be inundated with the personal pet theories of crackpots. But closing a question as non-mainstream does not make any statement about the asker, it simply says: We do not deal with such questions here. And that is because we are *not a forum*, and speculative questions would necessarily have to be *discussed* rather than *answered*. And that is just not what Physics.SE is intended to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="146173a5-1a1a-4276-afa8-a3d746a1db81" CreationDate="2014-08-09T09:54:35.167" UserId="41376" Text="I would like to bring this issue to your attention and it would be very nice to know other position and comments on this, I think something useful can come out of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Motivation**: After reading many questions and comments I have seen that several questions are oriented to better understanding the principles and corollaries of a theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I see is that they receive lots of comments which point out irrelevant observations, I mean in relation to real purpose of the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, comments adding information from other areas of physics, or pointing out the infeasibility of the experiment. Nevertheless, when discussing about a certain theory, pointing a paradox or drawing conclusion from it, even if the scenario proposed includes other phenomena not explained by this theory, the relevant discussion might not always need the detailed knowledge of those phenomena which might render this scenario impossible, and the question still be a very valid one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**: Let us think about Einstein's famous gedanken, or thought experiment, of the relativistic train and the 2 observers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is aimed to better understand consequences the theory of relativity and is completely valid. Comments or answers focusing on how the mechanisms for switching light on would work, or how the persons can not see something passing at these speeds, etc., all are arguably valid but out of scope in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the point is, assuming all conditions imposed in the scenario, and not contained in the theory, hold: how do the we explain/understand the consequences and their relation to the theory postulates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**: Using this tag would have the benefits of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **clarify the type of answer desired**: this separates questions wanting details, numbers, technicalities, from those exploring underlying principles, or reflecting misunderstandings of a theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **preventing out of scope comments and answers**: the people will only contribute with posts of relevant aspects, when they have a clear idea of what they are talking about and not bring to attention their knowledge on tangential-to-question subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="146173a5-1a1a-4276-afa8-a3d746a1db81" CreationDate="2014-08-09T09:54:35.167" UserId="41376" Text="Proposal: Gedanken tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="146173a5-1a1a-4276-afa8-a3d746a1db81" CreationDate="2014-08-09T09:54:35.167" UserId="41376" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="c2631f23-87aa-4ccf-a69d-f70de45b2a1c" CreationDate="2014-08-09T14:22:01.760" UserId="50583" Text="First, that would be a meta tag, unrelated to actual content of the question. As has been discussed here on meta at length, such tags are bad because they tell you nothing about whether or not the question might interest you, and thus convey no useful information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you seem to imply that this tag should restrict the &quot;allowed&quot; answers to the one the OP wishes to hear. That's not how we roll, since the primary goal of answering a question is *not* to tell the OP what they wish to hear, but to answer the question in a way that is useful and relevant to everyone asking themselves the same or a similar question. And it is wholly possible that though the OP wishes *not* to hear technical discussions of this particular Gedankenexperiment, answers/comments providing these could be of use to others thinking about them. After all, proposing a Gedankenexperiment is somewhat contingent on that it is not, *in principle*, impossible to realize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, OPs *are already* allowed to ask for a particular &quot;species&quot; of explanation - at least, I see nothing prohibiting that. But I think it is not something we should *encourage* by creating such a tag, since if you do not know the answer to a question, how could you ever compentently predict of what kind the *actual answer* resolving whatever problem occurs has to be? For example, there are many questions - thought experiments and otherwise - that ask things like *How can it be?* asking for an *explanation* of a *supposedly occuring phenomenon*, and the answer does not explain the phenomenon at all, but instead shows that the very *premise* of the question is flawed, which can very well be a quite technical and &quot;non-intuitive&quot; thing to show. But these are the *real* answers, not the argumentative answers the OP might have expected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="b6258bdb-a4d8-464f-96b3-4a11beefa58d" CreationDate="2014-08-09T14:29:19.387" UserId="50583" Comment="Added tl;dr as per Jim's request" Text="First, that would be a meta tag, unrelated to actual content of the question. As has been discussed here on meta at length, such tags are bad because they tell you nothing about whether or not the question might interest you, and thus convey no useful information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you seem to imply that this tag should restrict the &quot;allowed&quot; answers to the one the OP wishes to hear. That's not how we roll, since the primary goal of answering a question is *not* to tell the OP what they wish to hear, but to answer the question in a way that is useful and relevant to everyone asking themselves the same or a similar question. And it is wholly possible that though the OP wishes *not* to hear technical discussions of this particular Gedankenexperiment, answers/comments providing these could be of use to others thinking about them. After all, proposing a Gedankenexperiment is somewhat contingent on that it is not, *in principle*, impossible to realize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, OPs *are already* allowed to ask for a particular &quot;species&quot; of explanation - at least, I see nothing prohibiting that. But I think it is not something we should *encourage* by creating such a tag, since if you do not know the answer to a question, how could you ever compentently predict of what kind the *actual answer* resolving whatever problem occurs has to be? For example, there are many questions - thought experiments and otherwise - that ask things like *How can it be?* asking for an *explanation* of a *supposedly occuring phenomenon*, and the answer does not explain the phenomenon at all, but instead shows that the very *premise* of the question is flawed, which can very well be a quite technical and &quot;non-intuitive&quot; thing to show. But these are the *real* answers, not the argumentative answers the OP might have expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr**: Meta tags are bad. Also, it should not be forbidden to provide answers outside of what the OP *thought/said* they were seeking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="27876c4f-f30a-4995-a0b4-4d7f33772388" CreationDate="2014-08-09T17:48:37.850" UserId="23473" Text="Okay, so we have the question VTC reason of &quot;we deal with mainstream physics...&quot; yadda yadda yadda. And everyone is grateful for it. But what about answers? Surely everyone would agree that we don't want to see someone answer a valid question with non-mainstream physics and/or unpublished (crackpot) personal theories even if they are an attempt to answer the question. At the moment, we can and do severely downvote these answers, just like when a question like that is posted. But we have no analogous VTC reason for answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When answers that are clearly non-mainstream have popped up, I sometimes custom flag them for mods with a statement like &quot;This answer should be deleted due to the 'non-mainstream/unpublished theories' reason&quot;. And usually, the mods will delete the answer fairly quickly (thanks mods :D). But when going through the VLQ review queue, the reasons listed for recommending an answer be deleted don't include anything even interpretable as &quot;non-mainstream/unpublished theories&quot;. There is also no specific flag for this reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if we're okay with this kind of answer being deleted, should we formalize this? Add the &quot;We deal with mainstream physics.....&quot; reason to the VLQ queue list? Or at least a separate flag for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe, this might be an example of a case where we're doing what we shouldn't? Should we just be downvoting these into oblivion? Is deleting even the right action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I'm in favour of deleting these answers. They may attempt to answer the question, but we don't allow non-mainstream questions and so we shouldn't allow non-mainstream answers. I'd be in favour of adding a flag option and a recommend deletion reason to encompass this phenomenon. Otherwise, to delete these posts we'll be stuck with just bugging the mods with them all the time. Don't get me wrong, non-mainstream answers are the primary reason I think I even have a chance at the deputy badge. But I'm willing to give that up because I think we need an easier and more formalized way of removing these answer that (I think) everyone wants removed than bugging the mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about everyone else? Yea/Nay on deleting them? Yea/Nay to new flag option? Yea/Nay to new deletion reason in VLQ queue? Other suggestions/ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="27876c4f-f30a-4995-a0b4-4d7f33772388" CreationDate="2014-08-09T17:48:37.850" UserId="23473" Text="Adding &quot;Non-mainstream physics&quot; to the answer deletion/flag reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="27876c4f-f30a-4995-a0b4-4d7f33772388" CreationDate="2014-08-09T17:48:37.850" UserId="23473" Text="|feature-request|scope|answers|review-tools|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6033" RevisionGUID="b5df5ea0-9394-4a2b-851d-0c18d8f368e4" CreationDate="2014-08-09T20:42:11.563" UserId="8563" Text="You should keep in mind that this policy is a response to a very specific problem, and it tends to be used in a pretty well-focused way. Specifically, we get a steady stream of posts about wild theories about how if you allow for repulsive gravity then you fix both relativity and quantum mechanics, usually from people who have hardly bothered to learn the theories they pretend to debunk or the experimental evidence that their theory would need to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a problem that's unique to this site. Established researchers tend to get a large volume of unsolicited email with this sort of thing, and they used to get it by post before the e-epoch. (To get a taste for the stuff, see [John Baez's Crackpot Index](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The defining characteristic of these posts, as I see it, is that they take as a premise something that's either unverifiable, has been proved wrong, or has no evidence backing it, and is not present in the literature, and then proceed to ask a question without accepting the possibility that the premise is flawed as an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sort of posts visibly diminish the quality of the site and they make it a lot harder to keep the experts here (they have enough of it on their own inbox). To make things worse, it can be very hard to argue with the posters of these questions, and it's a demanding exercise with little actual gain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is OK, on the other hand, to ask speculative questions of the sort of &quot;what if X?&quot;, or preferably, &quot;how does X fit in with our current theoretical/experimental understanding of Y?&quot;. If you do post a question like that, then please be careful with your tone and phrasing, and keep an open mind throughout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="5c3e0b06-d356-419e-b37a-bced2245a849" CreationDate="2014-08-09T22:38:32.707" UserId="124" Text="No, answers are _not_ supposed to be deleted simply for being wrong. I can't speak for the other mods, but if I see flags like that, I usually decline them. Exceptions include answers that are purely promotional (which should be flagged as spam), and answers that don't actually address the question (which should be flagged as not an answer). Downvotes are how we indicate that something isn't correct - a vote total of -5 or so sends a pretty strong message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason you can't carry over the reasoning from questions (&quot;we have a non-mainstream close reason, why not delete non-mainstream answers?&quot;) is that, first of all, answers are not questions. They fill different roles in the site and there's no reason to expect the same sets of rules to apply to both. Beyond that, our non-mainstream close reason is mostly meant to curtail a specific kind of request: that where someone posts their pet theory that is going to overthrow relativity (or whatever) and challenges us to find something wrong with it. Requests like this are a drain on the attention of professional physicists and grad students (check your spam folder :-p), and we don't want to entertain them on this site. Clearly, this is only an issue for questions, not answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="e31de107-d46b-4c1a-9104-cb07b1ea2e20" CreationDate="2014-08-10T19:28:38.640" UserId="26969" Text="I was just the &quot;victim&quot; of a large number of upvotes - which I suspect the script will catch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't imaging how you can upvote that quickly - 9 votes in 23 seconds is spectacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question I have: if one ends up running into the rep cap for the day, and subsequent upvotes get no rep, then do these &quot;uncounted&quot; votes become counted votes after a serial voting reversal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious how the system works - I might not hit the cap today, otherwise I could just do the wait-and-see experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6veP2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="e31de107-d46b-4c1a-9104-cb07b1ea2e20" CreationDate="2014-08-10T19:28:38.640" UserId="26969" Text="serial upvoting reversal reputation cap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="e31de107-d46b-4c1a-9104-cb07b1ea2e20" CreationDate="2014-08-10T19:28:38.640" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="29c97ba1-54d8-481e-bbdd-594e91656fa9" CreationDate="2014-08-10T19:54:02.803" UserId="51994" Text="Answer can be found here: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also relevant: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124842/how-to-act-when-youre-being-serial-upvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;# What else should I know about this subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Reversals trigger a reputation recalculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whenever serial voting gets reversed, all days involved in the serial voting will be recalculated as if the serial votes had never happened, and any reputation you might have lost due to those serial votes hitting the reputation cap will be given to you at that time. **Serial voters will not prevent you from gaining reputation that you deserve**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="7229322b-08dd-460c-a566-ff4fe35bea97" CreationDate="2014-08-11T07:34:07.917" UserId="56578" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone agree that is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundredths of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one , just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="7229322b-08dd-460c-a566-ff4fe35bea97" CreationDate="2014-08-11T07:34:07.917" UserId="56578" Text="Is it wise to keep the relation between votes and rep linear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="7229322b-08dd-460c-a566-ff4fe35bea97" CreationDate="2014-08-11T07:34:07.917" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14089" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="1fadc1b1-f06d-4fc7-aba9-2b94504f4efd" CreationDate="2014-08-11T07:39:11.710" UserId="56578" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="1fadc1b1-f06d-4fc7-aba9-2b94504f4efd" CreationDate="2014-08-11T07:39:11.710" UserId="56578" Comment="edited tags" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone willagree that is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundredths of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one , just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="536ecb09-536c-4a2f-91bb-53ff498eb498" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:14:45.397" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="ff5a5ba3-993e-4f88-8ec9-31fa4bc322dd" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:29:52.350" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundredths of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one , just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="de57d742-4c68-4c6d-8b2a-4454f621e710" CreationDate="2014-08-11T10:37:16.530" UserId="56578" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="af9849cf-0414-444e-9d3f-696fdb9500e7" CreationDate="2014-08-11T10:55:37.037" UserId="24653" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Most people have enough of a sense of the concept of &quot;fair play&quot; that I'd like to think this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly going to come up, and we don't want to deter people from legitimately using this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cribbing from [StackOverflow][1] - on which the Mathematics.StackExchange site builds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two principles involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;It is okay to ask about homework&lt;/b&gt;. For one, it would be impossible to stop it all even if we wanted to. Stack Overflow exists to help programmers learn and provide a standard repository for programming problems, both simple and complex, and this includes helping students.&lt;/li&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest&lt;/b&gt;. Therefore you might choose to treat homework questions differently than other questions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it'll be nigh-impossible to determine in advance which are homework questions 100% of the time. On the other hand, there will be those questions are going to stick out like a sore thumb as obvious homework. I don't think we want to get in the habit of providing homework answers directly, as that directly violates principle 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's wrong to inquire if a question is a homework or class-related question in the comments. If it is, the questioner ought to be willing to accept help in a form similar to what they might get from a reasonably accommodating professor or TA, and it should be our job to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, if we could get people with homework questions to **voluntarily** tag their questions appropriately, then everyone would benefit. Maybe this ought to be in our FAQs or guidelines somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10811/homework-on-stackoverflow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="6f30fe5e-f4da-48fe-baf0-6111984182aa" CreationDate="2014-08-11T10:57:46.557" UserId="8563" Text="The relationship between votes and reputation is indeed nonlinear. This is implemented by means of a [**reputation cap**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation), which restricts the total reputation you can get from upvotes&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; during one day&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; to 200 rep. This is designed to prevent exactly that problem; you should note that this is a lot worse on sites like StackOverflow with a lot more traffic than us. This is a lot more nonlinear than a logarithmic relation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Mathematica graphics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9KT93.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you note. When questions and answers go viral, they get a lot of their votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect. Consider, for example, [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/121905/8563) to the mass-of-a-coin question, and note the number of votes that did *not* accrue the poster any rep, despite the considerable effort that went into that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the rep cap works fairly well at its job. Admittedly, the rep level of the cap (i.e. 200) is tuned for sites like StackOverflow with a lot more traffic, but it tends to work well here, particularly because it's very rare for users to post more than one wonder-hit question or answer without actually deserving a good bit of rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;This excludes bounties and answer accepts, which are reasonable enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Midnight-to-midnight on UTC time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/47tS3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="5b2c947d-020c-4340-a3d7-03e06254169d" CreationDate="2014-08-11T11:07:51.593" UserId="8563" Text="This answer is (as of August 2014) pretty outdated. This site's official homework policy is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent discussions about possible changes to this policy, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework, and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, also, that as of July 30 2014, math.SE has [banned the (homework) tag](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/16425/fate-of-the-homework-tag-the-community-voted-now-what), though homework questions are [apparently still on-topic](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="1f78bdc7-1184-4cf6-a9d4-d37f9b2c390b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T11:40:13.010" UserId="56578" Comment="added 784 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanti**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the cap (and 200 is a **huge figure**) the relation is linear, what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question has been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question during almost 4 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this is none of my business, you adopt the policy you like. But this is evidence, a hard fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="41496e48-dd71-4614-aef6-a96e255df760" CreationDate="2014-08-11T11:52:53.237" UserId="56578" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanti**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the cap (and 200 is a **huge figure**) the relation is linear, what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was of no use: on the peak first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question during almost 4 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this is none of my business, you adopt the policy you like. But this is evidence, a hard fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="a47ad7f8-ded3-42d6-a58a-00511321b867" CreationDate="2014-08-11T11:59:24.090" UserId="8563" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="This thread is (as of August 2014) pretty outdated. This site's official homework policy is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent discussions about possible changes to this policy, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751, and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, also, that as of July 30 2014, math.SE has [banned the (homework) tag](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/16425/fate-of-the-homework-tag-the-community-voted-now-what), though homework questions are [apparently still on-topic](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="fb19e502-5edf-4fc1-8f39-2047cf8bba3b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T12:18:04.883" UserId="56578" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanti**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="036eddc1-fb5d-489e-b2c7-a574fcb01924" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:17:15.747" UserId="56578" Comment="added 336 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanti**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="aa3df1a8-8d71-4a4d-a57a-10f47e458f43" CreationDate="2014-08-11T15:02:14.143" UserId="55446" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="I feel bad for asking such a question, because I know there is probably a simple answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel baited after reading a conversation of the meta thread about what questions were and weren't appropriate. I felt offended when I read that questions which didn't have answers, e.g. speculative questions, could not be asked. &#xD;&#xA;How can we not ask questions about challenging, interesting, and speculative aspects of life and reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton and all the greats created theories solely on circumspection, analyzing of phenomena, asking questions no one had before. Einstein was stubborn, and always asked questions, questions that brought the body of science forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to be overly controversial, but I mean that life is wonderful, reality is complex, and limiting questions only to what has been asked and answered before is limiting to natural human creativity and analyzing ability that would better the body of scientific work. It is exactly opposite to the heart of physics, which is all about understanding the nature of phenomena, enjoying it, exploring it, and getting interested in it. Without asking questions, one is looking at everything in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am deeply hurt by the implications and perhaps my emotionalism is bringing me to a place where I do not see the rule clearly. I worry about this limitation of these types of interesting questions. Peer review sounds good. Perhaps it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link I am referring to is here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: as I read this my mind thinks &quot;Abuse, abuse, abuse.&quot; The reason we probably do not allow such an exchange is abuse by poor practitioners. Nonetheless, the nature of the post seems to stand. We must worry about taking steps to bring physics forward over time, not leaving it as it is. That wouldn't be fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="52ee39db-4ae8-42bf-ab82-a5ed26efc4d5" CreationDate="2014-08-11T15:20:36.273" UserId="56578" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanti**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 1 pt., &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 10 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 30 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question (and its most voted answer)  would get a respectable score of **27 pts.**, and this seems fair enough. Any other criteria will do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="f5d5a446-038e-4bfd-aa5f-bca1690722b5" CreationDate="2014-08-11T15:38:20.990" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanti**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6042" RevisionGUID="93921eaf-9da1-4a37-a377-f4237197e38d" CreationDate="2014-08-11T16:53:34.567" UserId="8563" Text="Let me specifically address the case of [Cooling a cup of coffee with help of a spoon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon). This is an atypical example and should *not* be taken as a prototype for policies affecting the whole site. The fact that something funny is going on there is immediately evident from [the OP's reputation graph](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran?tab=reputation) (which gives directly the rep he got from it as he has no other posts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CodW3.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there are two distinct events where the OP reached the rep cap, separated by over two years. This is highly unsusual. A good tool to dig a bit deeper is to see [the post's timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/5265/timeline)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. On that day, as [pointed out by Manishearth](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon#comment176355_5510), [**the thread was linked to on what-if.xkcd**](http://what-if.xkcd.com/71/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a link is usually the cue for an avalanche of votes and that is indeed what happened. However, I'm actually quite surprised that even a link that big poured so little rep into the site. I actually think this is good evidence that we should keep things as they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, I really don't see why you dislike that question so much. It is a well-phrased, properly-posed question about an interesting everyday phenomenon, and it is without a doubt one of our better entry-points into the site for the physics-interested public. Plus, its answer is a model of responding to idle queries with the appropriate experimentation instead of further idle speculation. The OP did get a fair bit of rep from a flashy question, but he has not made any misuse of his moderation privileges since - and indeed has not been seen on the site since accepting Rhodes' answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I really don't think you can use this post as a model for the rest of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Post timelines are a useful but undocumented tool. To see them, go to physics.stackexchange.com/ posts/####/timeline, where `####` is the post ID. For more info see [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36303/feedback-request-new-timeline-question-view) and for why it's only accessible this way see [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/180594/184688)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="c63d2ab2-a674-49ba-8ab5-941d3c337271" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:07:38.997" UserId="8563" Comment="added 814 characters in body" Text="The relationship between votes and reputation is indeed nonlinear. This is implemented by means of a [**reputation cap**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation), which restricts the total reputation you can get from upvotes&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; during one day&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; to 200 rep. This is designed to prevent exactly that problem; you should note that this is a lot worse on sites like StackOverflow with a lot more traffic than us. This is a lot more nonlinear than a logarithmic relation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Mathematica graphics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9KT93.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you note. When questions and answers go viral, they get a lot of their votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect. Consider, for example, [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/121905/8563) to the mass-of-a-coin question, and note the number of votes that did *not* accrue the poster any rep, despite the considerable effort that went into that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the rep cap works fairly well at its job. Admittedly, the rep level of the cap (i.e. 200) is tuned for sites like StackOverflow with a lot more traffic, but it tends to work well here, particularly because it's very rare for users to post more than one wonder-hit question or answer without actually deserving a good bit of rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to see the real effect of the rep cap, you should use [this Stack Exchange Data Explorer query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/204782/top-users-by-reputation-with-rep-cap-and-member-for-days), which gives all the users that have hit the rep cap, ordered by how many times they have done so. If you find the days when they did, you will mostly see very good answers that deserved a good bit of rep. Having a lower rep cap would only make it harder to get rep by posting good content. Having the sort of nonlinear relation you propose would also make it harder to do exactly that - instead, it would reward merely [nice](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/45/nice-answer) answers instead of the really [great](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;This excludes bounties and answer accepts, which are reasonable enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Midnight-to-midnight on UTC time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/47tS3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="01d9222c-5462-400d-a427-7ed017b6d1df" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:19:07.873" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 100 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Many communities must deal with this question sooner or later, might as well get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How should we deal with homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that the Mathematics.StackExchange site is handling things well. Here are some links to their deliberations on these matters. As a frequent user of that site, I must say that we have been fairly successful of handling these questions well: both supportive, but not too helpful to be destructive to the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to deal with HW questions.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More policy about HW questions.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to not give complete solutions.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Homework tags.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update July 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE votes on homework tag.](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/14981/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Result of voting.](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/16425/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/106/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/410/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/415/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/621/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14108" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="01d9222c-5462-400d-a427-7ed017b6d1df" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:19:07.873" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 100 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The canonical homework question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14109" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="01d9222c-5462-400d-a427-7ed017b6d1df" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:19:07.873" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 100 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="37722fbb-4278-49d1-8b99-496fd20bef97" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:46:53.140" UserId="8563" Comment="added 264 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;Note that the site's current policy on homework questions is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will always have the current version of the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many communities must deal with this question sooner or later, might as well get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How should we deal with homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that the Mathematics.StackExchange site is handling things well. Here are some links to their deliberations on these matters. As a frequent user of that site, I must say that we have been fairly successful of handling these questions well: both supportive, but not too helpful to be destructive to the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to deal with HW questions.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More policy about HW questions.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to not give complete solutions.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Homework tags.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update July 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE votes on homework tag.](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/14981/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Result of voting.](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/16425/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/106/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/410/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/415/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/621/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14111" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="37722fbb-4278-49d1-8b99-496fd20bef97" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:46:53.140" UserId="8563" Comment="added 264 characters in body; edited title" Text="Towards a canonical homework question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="0b1fc43f-b3dc-4f8c-8ca9-71d311bd50d5" CreationDate="2014-08-11T21:38:43.500" UserId="50583" Comment="Adopting Qmechanic's suggestion in response to Schlomo's comment" Text="The purpose of Physics.SE is **not** to be a forum for people to discuss their idea about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of Physics.SE is **not** to advance the current frontier of science in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of Physics.SE is **not** to encompass all that life and reality can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of Physics.SE *is* to be a place where *answers* to *questions about established physics* can be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that the question is not *interesting* if it cannot be asked here. Neither does it mean that it is not *useful* or *important*. It does simply mean that we do not want it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, one reason for the mainstream policy is that we do not want to be inundated with the personal pet theories of crackpots. But closing a question as non-mainstream does not make any statement about the asker, it simply says: We do not deal with such questions here. And that is because we are *not a forum*, and speculative questions would necessarily have to be *discussed* rather than *answered*. And that is just not what Physics.SE is intended to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="9f920728-147e-4b43-a373-d75bfd761813" CreationDate="2014-08-12T00:58:14.377" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; I suppose **everyone** will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You suppose incorrectly since, at least, **I** do not agree and I suspect that many active participants here don't agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, if it is the case that you believe that the members here that actively answer questions *do it primarily for reputation points*, perhaps it is time *to check your premises*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might consider that, in fact, those that actively answer questions here have relatively little concern that someone else &quot;gets 3 times as much&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concerns *me* most, and I suspect this holds for many here, *is that the question is interesting and that the process of focusing my thoughts to answer the question is profitable **in itself**, regardless of the up-votes my answer gets.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, up-votes are nice but do consider the possibility that they are not the primary concern to, shall we say, the *adults* that participate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="82e7208a-14a5-4478-8c44-65744d748a14" CreationDate="2014-08-12T04:16:57.953" UserId="56578" Comment="edited body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="f7ede97f-0ab0-4162-901d-7ee6b6aa0dda" CreationDate="2014-08-12T05:06:39.617" UserId="56578" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my last update, as there seem to be some confusion and misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  if it is the case that you believe that the members here that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively answer questions do it primarily for reputation points,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perhaps it is time **to check your premises**.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Well, the silly question **attracted a lot more people** to the website,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is also worth something. Also, for&lt;2k rep you also get awarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for editting questions. **I do not really see** the problem you are trying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to&#xD;&#xA;.. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that downvotes in the Meta just indicate disagreement with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views, not that it's a stupid question. I think your question is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly reasonable one, and my downvote indicates only that I don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree with your view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="1e5d4c5b-d07a-4636-ad66-1a473c837a8c" CreationDate="2014-08-12T05:11:44.250" UserId="56578" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my last update, as there seem to be some confusion and misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, I really don't see why **you dislike that question** so much.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  if it is the case that you believe that the members here that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively answer questions do it primarily for reputation points,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perhaps it is time **to check your premises**.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Well, the silly question **attracted a lot more people** to the website,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is also worth something. Also, for&lt;2k rep you also get awarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for editting questions. **I do not really see** the problem you are trying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are some of the unwarranted conclusions you are jumping to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that downvotes in the Meta just indicate disagreement with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views, not that it's a stupid question. I think your question is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly reasonable one, and my downvote indicates only **that I don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree** with your view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="5a22f58e-1189-495f-8a1f-fbe4745fde80" CreationDate="2014-08-12T05:29:03.307" UserId="56578" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my last update, as there seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, I really don't see why **you dislike that question** so much.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  if it is the case that you believe that the members here that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively answer questions do it primarily for reputation points,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perhaps it is time **to check your premises**.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Well, the silly question **attracted a lot more people** to the website,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is also worth something. Also, for&lt;2k rep you also get awarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for editting questions. **I do not really see** the problem you are trying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These ,and many others, are unwarranted conclusions you are jumping to. I think I expressed my view in a clear way: if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that downvotes in the Meta just indicate disagreement with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views, not that it's a stupid question. I think your question is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly reasonable one, and my downvote indicates only **that I don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree** with your view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a post has a tag &quot;discussion&quot; you should argument your dissent, the up/down vote is&#xD;&#xA;a lazy solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="0fb7329d-bf38-42c8-86ba-606a7ef20086" CreationDate="2014-08-12T05:59:32.453" UserId="1325" Text="It takes a fairly highly motivated person to put in all that effort to learn physics, and in general highly motivated people are going to be competitive. That means no matter how much we claim reputation doesn't really matter, the reality is that it is an important motivator. Hence the enthusiastic response to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless REPUTATION DOESN'T REALLY MATTER!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expending lots of effort in trying to formulate the perfect reputation system is like trying to formulate the perfect electoral system. It's an entertaining pastime, but it's a doomed quest because there is no such perfect system. As long as the system mostly works well most of the time that's good enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the key thing about the Physics SE is that we don't just give answers, we give explanations. A good answer will not only give the final result but also explain the working to get that result and possibly also some of the broader principles involved. The way you judge the worth of an answer is whether it's been clearly enough explained that you can understand it, and not by the reputation of the answerer. If you don't understand an answer, but accept it anyway because the anwerer has a high reputation, you are doing both yourself and this site a disservice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="ea9ecedd-f38c-466a-b1b6-188d553a9532" CreationDate="2014-08-12T12:09:15.217" UserId="9887" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="&gt; I suppose **everyone** will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing etc. hundreds of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You suppose incorrectly since, at least, **I** do not agree and I suspect that many active participants here don't agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, if it is the case that you believe that the members here that actively answer questions *do it primarily for reputation points*, perhaps it is time *to check your premises*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might consider that, in fact, those that actively answer questions here have relatively little concern that someone else &quot;gets 3 times as much&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concerns *me* most, and I suspect this holds for many here, *is that the question is interesting and that the process of focusing my thoughts to answer the question is profitable **in itself**, regardless of the up-votes my answer gets.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, up-votes are nice but do consider the possibility that they are not the primary concern to, shall we say, the *adults* that participate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update to address edited question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I expressed my view in a clear way: if one reads an answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signed by a rep-4000 member **one doesn't know** if he is a great scholar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who gave lots of competent answer **or he just gave one single answer** to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tell that if you want to cool off your coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can simply click on the user name at the bottom of the answer which takes one to the user's profile page where one can readily determine if the user is a 'one hit wonder' or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WDwCl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14128" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="7bd50652-ebbf-47bb-bad0-8f4df6938f67" CreationDate="2014-08-12T12:10:12.610" UserId="9887" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9887,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alfred Centauri&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14129" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="fc9befc3-7437-4d3d-ac74-729efe865395" CreationDate="2014-08-12T12:11:58.820" UserId="9887" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9887,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alfred Centauri&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="f67e2f98-cefc-4c96-9d60-44516314927c" CreationDate="2014-08-12T17:04:45.827" UserId="51994" Text="#We should vote to close “Insufficient Effort” questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Offered bare to take a poll&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="2da58dd2-1209-4789-8d1e-3d5d735638da" CreationDate="2014-08-12T17:06:53.337" UserId="51994" Text="# We should downvote “Insufficient Effort” questions, but not vote to close&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Offered bare to take a poll&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="45f2b718-4256-4288-ac60-dbfdbbcfc935" CreationDate="2014-08-12T17:10:05.170" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="3c0291ad-6c2a-419e-a37b-a9aecedf906c" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:15:23.170" UserId="1345" Text="I up-voted a Lubos Motl answer and thought I might be the first to humbly see his score the first to tick over past 100K. But it seems to be stuck on 99,996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the system has gone haywire over a few people thinking the same as me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="3c0291ad-6c2a-419e-a37b-a9aecedf906c" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:15:23.170" UserId="1345" Text="Why is Lubos Motl's reputation stuck at 99,996?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="3c0291ad-6c2a-419e-a37b-a9aecedf906c" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:15:23.170" UserId="1345" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14136" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="4064a49b-7a30-4b25-814c-284110e04911" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:15:59.700" UserId="1345" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John McVirgo&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14137" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="0f9688d2-a3eb-47ec-bfc7-2ac6d31b3be5" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:16:13.837" UserId="1345" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John McVirgo&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14138" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="c9e84a71-2ccf-431e-8fd0-61cc85ab88a6" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:24:46.287" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="64f5cbe6-e7a3-4a59-b3a6-91582193cb08" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:36:34.387" UserId="51994" Text="For those who are unaware, particularly unloved questions are [automatically deleted](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question with a -1 score or lower and no answers gets deleted in 30 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question that is closed (not as duplicate), has no answers with score &gt;0 (or accepted) and has not been edited in 9 days is deleted after 9 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in terms of keeping the site clean, for a majority of the types of questions  we are talking about, the difference is getting it deleted only 21 days sooner if we vote to close rather than downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that is enough of a benefit to argue against the intrinsic subjectivity that [Jim mentions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6003/51994)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="abf16d23-7a29-4d12-93fc-54d76f38ab98" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:27:31.393" UserId="26129" Text="I had to compute a Laurent series, and happened to obtain a correct result by certain manipulations that mathematicians (and even many physicists) would completely disapprove. I suspected that there must be a deeper reason for this, and asked it in Math. SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An outrageous way to derive a Laurent series: why does this work?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in one of the comments, it has been brought up that physicists may have better insights to this kind of issue. I agreed with this suggestion, and considered posting the same question in Phys. SE; however, I thought it may be off-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what are other members' opinions on whether I should copy-paste this question to Phys. SE or leave it in Math. SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/894704/an-outrageous-way-to-derive-a-laurent-series-why-does-this-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="abf16d23-7a29-4d12-93fc-54d76f38ab98" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:27:31.393" UserId="26129" Text="What would be a reasonable way to gain attention of Phys. SE members on a question I posted in Math. SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="abf16d23-7a29-4d12-93fc-54d76f38ab98" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:27:31.393" UserId="26129" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="307ce39e-26f2-49be-af43-1a90d0f727d8" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:37:55.337" UserId="50583" Text="If it has no connection to physics, it can stay where it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because some physicists are good at getting the right answers by the wrong means, this does not mean that we are the ones to ask for such means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [list of on-topics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) (not an actual term) lists *pure mathematics* only in the presence of physics. If there's no physical motivation for what you want to compute and how you compute it, I would vote to migrate such a question to math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the matter of drawing attention to your question on physics.SE, I believe you just achieved that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6053" RevisionGUID="87be71a3-d206-408c-b5d0-649e78924ee8" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:49:44.950" UserId="124" Text="Probably the best way to draw attention to a question on another site is to post a link in chat.&#xA;&#xA;Making a meta post which happens to link to the question (as you did) also does achieve that result. But if there's nothing more to the post than &quot;check out this question on another site,&quot; I don't think that's a good use of meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6053" RevisionGUID="5d55fc50-58c8-46da-8118-987640e4e3db" CreationDate="2014-08-13T00:04:32.190" UserId="124" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Probably the best way to draw attention to a question on another site is to post a link in chat.&#xA;&#xA;Making a meta post which happens to link to the question (as you did) also does achieve that result. But (for future posters) if there's nothing more to the post than &quot;check out this question on another site,&quot; I don't think that's a good use of meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="2f618885-413a-4071-8170-44df0a9bfa15" CreationDate="2014-08-13T00:24:44.957" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Side note: There are certain cases (this is probably not one of them, as mentioned elsewhere, since it is *pure* math) where a question can be on topic on two different sites, and moreover the ways of looking at the question are significantly different between the two fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such cases, once you have responses on one site you may want to post (a possibly reworded variant of) the question on a second site, in order to get a different perspective. However, you should make sure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. It really is on topic on the site;&#xD;&#xA;  2. You are interested in different approaches, not just in having a different group of people verify what has already been done;&#xD;&#xA;  3. You link to the old question, so new answerers are aware of what has been said and don't duplicate any work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I would avoid cross-posting simultaneously; post once, get some feedback, then post somewhere else if warranted. Also note that it is all too easy to abuse cross-posting. If you only are looking for one answer, any answer, then pushing your query to multiple communities merely to improve the odds of getting an answer is frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note most of what I say here is for future visitors who come across this topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="5ab9b4eb-3659-4ca7-9033-d4457560e859" CreationDate="2014-08-13T03:41:01.470" UserId="51994" Comment="clarify statement of intent a bit." Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowledge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modeling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current [tag:homework] tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to collectively create interesting content introducing a wide array of physics topics.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE, but much more pedagogical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="272a4d68-8ea8-498c-a669-f1f20886b819" CreationDate="2014-08-13T05:19:47.920" UserId="1325" Text="I have to confess I did exactly the same (my apologies to DavidZ) with the same lack of effect. However I see Luboš is now on 100,026 so we have our first 100k user! Congratulations to Luboš (he said through gritted teeth :-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="bb04d8fd-f667-48e8-997f-d195b59ea274" CreationDate="2014-08-13T05:20:19.303" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="I up-voted a Luboš Motl answer and thought I might be the first to humbly see his score the first to tick over past 100K. But it seems to be stuck on 99,996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the system has gone haywire over a few people thinking the same as me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14150" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="bb04d8fd-f667-48e8-997f-d195b59ea274" CreationDate="2014-08-13T05:20:19.303" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="Why is Luboš Motl's reputation stuck at 99,996?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14151" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="4c058512-e86e-4244-ba63-d142371f9cf8" CreationDate="2014-08-13T07:34:51.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/499459047721287680" />
  <row Id="14161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6057" RevisionGUID="1d8c40a2-92dd-4ce2-9df3-6ca606c2d281" CreationDate="2014-08-13T23:54:46.390" UserId="7142" Text="One thing to consider is that it is very frustrating when you're in the process of writing an answer, put quite some effort in it, and then you find that it has been closed in the mean time, and all your effort was wasted (and possibly another frustration if it gets reopened later and you recognize that you should have copied your text somewhere to save it, but didn't).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such frustration in tendency drives away people willing and able to answer, or at least makes them put less effort into their answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when considering to close, always keep in mind that you not only affect the one who asks, but also those who answer. While the effect on the questions will likely be higher quality, the effect on the answers will likely be lower quality.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="93f2b3e2-b724-48fb-a7ba-98ccf6a99467" CreationDate="2014-08-14T17:32:51.727" UserId="47511" Text="As I understand it, this is not a homework help site, so I don't see what all the fuss is about here. People who post questions should not have to put in any effort attempting to answer their own questions. What is helpful is if they can formulate their questions clearly enough for it to be addressed properly (which may in some cases imply that the poster does have to put in some effort, but this really depends on the question that is asked).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To deal with the problem of students who abuse this site to get their homework done by us, other measures need to be taken. If someone frequently posts questions about the same topic that are all suspiciously homework like problems then one can ask the poster to stop asking questions about that topic and block the account if the poster refuses to comply with this demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Students should, however, be free to post homework questions here, but they should be honest about this and in that case it is reasoanble to demand that the student shows a significant amount of effort. But it is unreasonbable for this site that it not primarily a homework helo site to treat every question as if it were a homework question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="8734556c-b5f1-44cc-87ac-ee6c0fe516a0" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:02:38.673" UserId="8563" Text="I recently found this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Fractals in physics. Suggest book titles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12784/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is currently deleted ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FMCTR.png)). I'm not sure it's a great question but it [seems to matter to some people](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/16686/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles). When it was closed it was off-topic by the then-current `books` policy, but it is now a fixable question. I'm not sure why it was deleted - is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, this question should be undeleted, have the books banner added, and have its answers collected into the usual CW collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="8734556c-b5f1-44cc-87ac-ee6c0fe516a0" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:02:38.673" UserId="8563" Text="Books for fractals in physics - question undelete" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="8734556c-b5f1-44cc-87ac-ee6c0fe516a0" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:02:38.673" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|specific-question|deleted-questions|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="4cf62176-fdc0-4af6-a679-d3ebd5c4afd8" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:26:09.360" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="47103178-1570-49d6-93e2-0dbbb7747df3" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:05:57.927" UserId="24653" Text="This is a proposal that has been discussed to some extent in the h bar chat (especially with @ACuriousMind and @alemi), and a meta post to gauge the response of the rest of the community is long overdue, so here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All long-time SE users are aware that there are always a number of questions that come up again and again. Physics.SE is no different in this respect: Who hasn’t sighed at the sight of yet another variation of the twin paradox from SRT? This is a proposal to try to deal with this phenomenon in a thorough way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Proposal**: We, as a community, create a set of ‘canonical questions’, well written and comprehensive questions which cover the essential points of questions that come up frequently. These canonical questions must have a *set* of good answers. The answers to the canonical questions should address the questions at different level, with answers ideally ranging from high school to graduate school (and up!) level, where possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are two main ways that these canonical questions can be created. Firstly, we can edit existing popular questions (many candidate canonical questions can be found in the ‘frequent’ tab of questions) to make them more comprehensive, and add more/improve existing answers so they become even more useful. Secondly, we can make a couple of new questions with the express purpose of canonizing them. This would be similar to what John Rennie did [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109776/how-long-would-it-take-me-to-travel-to-a-distant-star), except with more answers, and perhaps a more thorough formulation of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody interested should probably scan these relevant blog posts: (thanks, alemi, for the excellent research):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/the-wikipedia-of-long-tail-programming-questions/&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/dr-strangedupe-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-duplication/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and most recently, one that seems very encouraging: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I am mainly looking for answers that address the following questions: Do you think we need this, and is it worth the effort? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reception in chat was quite positive, but maybe some of you have reasons to believe that this might be a bad idea, or perhaps just too much effort… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: We initially considered using the ‘faq’ tag - but DavidZ has made it clear that this tag should not be used, because it really should be burninated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="47103178-1570-49d6-93e2-0dbbb7747df3" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:05:57.927" UserId="24653" Text="Do we need and want a set of canonical questions with canonical answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="47103178-1570-49d6-93e2-0dbbb7747df3" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:05:57.927" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14170" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="b7fc2d21-16ef-45e3-a3d6-963821ffe5e2" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:57:27.053" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|site-faq|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="02f94876-43ed-4d15-91ae-f80688a05254" CreationDate="2014-08-14T22:42:21.863" UserId="2451" Comment="Dear Emilio Pisanty. I removed PO link since it seems that what PO thinks is irrelevant to what decisions Phys.SE should make, and can in worsed case derail the discussion." Text="I recently found this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Fractals in physics. Suggest book titles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12784/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is currently deleted ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FMCTR.png)). When it was closed it was off-topic by the then-current `books` policy, but it is now a fixable question. I'm not sure why it was deleted - is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, this question should be undeleted, have the books banner added, and have its answers collected into the usual CW collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="3d5fe141-80f0-4ab6-92a7-e740a48942ae" CreationDate="2014-08-15T00:47:40.910" UserId="25301" Text="We've already got one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109776/how-long-would-it-take-me-to-travel-to-a-distant-star&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie posted that because there wasn't a good covers everything answer (if I recall correctly, if this is wrong, please correct me) about the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be okay with these types of questions &amp; answers, but I think that they should be made a **community wiki**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="6ff6cea7-6009-459e-aa04-8a6df1757039" CreationDate="2014-08-15T09:02:32.367" UserId="8563" Comment="I'm sorry, but I don't think a &quot;never link to PO&quot; policy is reasonable. If we can't have a civilized discussion the moment a PO link appears then we have a different problem. As it is now, this simply strengthens the case of the founders of PO. Reinstating the link." Text="I recently found this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Fractals in physics. Suggest book titles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12784/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is currently deleted ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FMCTR.png)). I'm not sure it's a great question but it [seems to matter to some people](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/16686/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles). When it was closed it was off-topic by the then-current `books` policy, but it is now a fixable question. I'm not sure why it was deleted - is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, this question should be undeleted, have the books banner added, and have its answers collected into the usual CW collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6062" RevisionGUID="5748b24a-4e9f-420f-b541-d0e8cbcc2468" CreationDate="2014-08-15T10:00:45.547" UserId="1325" Text="I have no objection to the proposal so I'm not going to vote it down, however I'm not sure how well this is going to work in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take the Q/A of mine that you link, I wrote this mainly for personal reasons. I had finally got around to working though the analysis of acceleration in Chapter 6 of Gravitation and was feeling really proud that I'd successfully worked through all the derivations that the authors assume are obvious. It was on this wave of smugness that I decided I just had to share my new found understanding. While I'd like to say it was to create a valuable resource for the site, this was a fringe benefit rather than a prime motivator. I have several times linked the question as a duplicate, but only *several* times, not hundreds of times, so I'm not sure it's made that much difference to the day to day working of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that I think we'll only get really good Q/A blogettes if someone decides they're on a mission to write them. I'm not sure that trying to draw up a list of potential subjects will work. Certainly, my response to being handed some random subject to write a Q/A on would be lukewarm at best. Particularly if it was going to be a Community article and I wouldn't even get any rep points for my efforts (the Q/A I wrote took me the better part of a whole day if you include all the tinkering with trial calculations in spreadsheets).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while it would be great to see more of this type of Q/A I think we should leave it to people to decide that they just can't live without writing about their current obsession. By all means provide encouragement, but I just don't think writing by committee will produce great articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, a Q/A about time dilation and the twin paradox has been simmering away in a corner of my mind for some time now ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14175" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="91aab1a6-718f-462d-a2bf-f02c1c482cd8" CreationDate="2014-08-15T12:41:43.140" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="Do we want and need a set of canonical questions with canonical answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="df27246b-fb70-41a1-892f-62c1bf8ca949" CreationDate="2014-08-16T00:03:36.050" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14177" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="4519e182-0497-40b4-86f8-cbc723bf3ebd" CreationDate="2014-08-16T01:35:56.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/500455888256520193" />
  <row Id="14178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="482e09e4-dfe8-49f5-a986-28cbed7edd93" CreationDate="2014-08-16T08:55:44.260" UserId="56960" Text="It’s physics. There are not so much repeated (actually) questions, but there are several topics prone to misconceptions, such as:  &#xD;&#xA; • Time and mass in Special Relativity.  &#xD;&#xA; • Electric charge vs electric potential.  &#xD;&#xA; • Field potential vs field strength (mainly E-M and gravity).  &#xD;&#xA; • Charge carriers in conductors and semiconductors – a bunch of misconceptions.  &#xD;&#xA; • Mass number of a nucleus vs its mass vs the atom’s mass.  &#xD;&#xA; • Temperature vs energy.  &#xD;&#xA; • Singularity of the spacetime vs event horizon.  &#xD;&#xA; • Field superposition vs quantum superposition.  &#xD;&#xA; • Coherent quantum superposition vs mixed states (statistical superposition).  &#xD;&#xA; • State vector reduction a.k.a. wave function collapse – a bunch of misconceptions.  &#xD;&#xA; • Transition between quantum states.  &#xD;&#xA; • Continuous operator spectrum and eigenvectors/eigenfunctions/eigenstates.  &#xD;&#xA; • Composite particles and the size of a particle – a bunch of misconceptions.  &#xD;&#xA;Although such misconceptions are known to develop with a high probability, we can’t predict in which exactly form such a misconception will be submitted as a question.&#xD;&#xA;Why don’t have an index of misconceptions with brief explanations and links to relevant educational resources?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="5b930f15-abf3-4da4-9114-4f8dfba8dc4a" CreationDate="2014-08-16T13:35:56.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/500637080297668608" />
  <row Id="14180" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="b39624e7-4069-4b4d-b0a5-a4c6289279c2" CreationDate="2014-08-19T16:21:48.517" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131637/how-to-ask-debunking-questions-trying-to-examine-decuity-com-claims-light-is-a" />
  <row Id="14181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="52abf523-8084-4b0b-94ac-11bc75fb9222" CreationDate="2014-08-19T13:47:33.030" UserId="57527" Text="What is the proper format to ask debunking questions without being marked as off-topic, yet be able to step through the entire theory logically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I am looking at Wallace Kluck's claim on decuity.com that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Light is an inertial particle not a wave&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rotating electron is treated as a charged ring with its radius as the radius of gyration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total kinetic energy is divided equally into linear kinetic energy or rotational kinetic energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total kinetic energy, linear and rotational, of each particle increases to mc^2 while the charge of the electron decreases to zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall theory looks simple, I just need better minds than mine to help elucidate..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="52abf523-8084-4b0b-94ac-11bc75fb9222" CreationDate="2014-08-19T13:47:33.030" UserId="57527" Text="How to ask debunking questions (trying to examine decuity.com claims &quot;Light is an inertial particle not a wave&quot; etc.)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="52abf523-8084-4b0b-94ac-11bc75fb9222" CreationDate="2014-08-19T13:47:33.030" UserId="57527" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="d75658c3-62d5-4c42-a20d-c04fb341db63" CreationDate="2014-08-19T18:24:16.870" UserId="2451" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is the proper format to ask debunking questions without being marked as off-topic, yet be able to step through the entire theory logically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I am looking at Wallace Kluck's claim on [decuity.com](http://decuity.com/) that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Light is an inertial particle not a wave._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rotating electron is treated as a charged ring with its radius as the radius of gyration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total kinetic energy is divided equally into linear kinetic energy or rotational kinetic energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total kinetic energy, linear and rotational, of each particle increases to mc^2 while the charge of the electron decreases to zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall theory looks simple, I just need better minds than mine to help elucidate..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="d75658c3-62d5-4c42-a20d-c04fb341db63" CreationDate="2014-08-19T18:24:16.870" UserId="2451" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="bf4cd8e9-3529-449b-8af5-c6300fd33bd3" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:29:09.330" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|specific-question|deleted-questions|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="8fd1da40-f415-4a84-bb6f-712c5338ac7f" CreationDate="2014-08-19T23:06:32.050" UserId="56561" Text="Is this the preferred page to comment or ask questions about management issues (editing, deleting, culture, etc.) with the Physics-stackexchange.com site?  Or is there a more direct path to communicate with the administrators/monitors/managers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="8fd1da40-f415-4a84-bb6f-712c5338ac7f" CreationDate="2014-08-19T23:06:32.050" UserId="56561" Text="How to address comments/questions to the site's operatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="8fd1da40-f415-4a84-bb6f-712c5338ac7f" CreationDate="2014-08-19T23:06:32.050" UserId="56561" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="31f21267-ddd1-4a52-ba0d-26e9f4ed50a4" CreationDate="2014-08-19T23:11:56.553" UserId="520" Text="[With 15 rep you can flag posts][1] with a custom flag reason, and there is always the [**contact us**][2] link at the bottom of every page to contact the operators of the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your current rep range you can post to meta but not issue flags, so your choices are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="293515e7-60b5-4cfd-92ac-dec2c1d49b8a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T23:17:34.740" UserId="520" Comment="added 693 characters in body" Text="[With 15 rep you can flag posts][1] with a custom flag reason, and there is always the [**contact us**][2] link at the bottom of every page to contact the operators of the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your current rep range you can post to meta but not issue flags, so your choices are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that you have only one post on the main site, and it has been deleted---by me, none-the-less---some I'm going to guess that this is the cause of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are a bit different from a lot of other sites on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;We use a &quot;question &amp; answer&quot; model instead of a &quot;threaded conversation&quot; model, and you should not post a followup question &quot;under&quot; an existing question. Those &quot;under&quot; posts are called &quot;answers&quot; and should only be used to *answer the question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a different question you should use the &quot;[ASK QUESTION][3]&quot; button at the top of the page. You can certainly link to the previous question to explain your motivation if you think that is helpful (keeping in mind that [until you have 10 rep you can only put two links in a single post][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/new-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="9efb49d4-7d1e-48c3-b654-b5466cd18219" CreationDate="2014-08-20T02:41:06.970" UserId="124" Comment="simplify title" Text="How to ask debunking questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="41c61297-17ea-401c-b948-f78c8d5ccc5b" CreationDate="2014-08-20T02:50:06.127" UserId="124" Text="I'm inclined to say that questions of this sort are off topic, period. Remember that this is an &quot;expert-level&quot; site, not in the sense of being limited to professional physicists or anything like that, but we expect that any question asked should display a certain level of, shall I say, not being total nonsense. Even if the total nonsense originates from someone else and you're merely trying to make sense of it, I still think that falls outside our scope. Distinguishing crackpot theories from real ones is not what we do here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can certainly ask on chat if anyone would perform such an analysis in return for a fee or an external reward - but of course such an arrangement would be entirely separate from this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="900d4651-0d53-400e-ad82-6ba0a1790381" CreationDate="2014-08-20T03:07:23.383" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Is this the preferred page to comment or ask questions about management issues (editing, deleting, culture, etc.) with the Physics-stackexchange.com site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is exactly the place to ask general questions about why posts are edited or deleted and about the site culture, because you can get the answers from other users of the site. You don't need to contact an administrator or moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think someone's post is inappropriate, or you have reason to believe another member is engaging in behavior that is not allowed, you should generally flag the relevant post instead of posting here on meta. Flagging requires that you have 15 reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or is there a more direct path to communicate with the administrators/monitors/managers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should know that there are two levels of oversight for Stack Exchange sites. The [moderators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) are members of the site who have been elected to clean up obsolete or gibberish posts, handle disputes, and so on. The flags I mentioned above are processed by the moderators, so if you want to bring a post to our attention, flagging is the way to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above the moderators are the Stack Exchange team. Under most circumstances, you don't need to contact them directly. If you do need to for some reason, you can use the [contact page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="73abd861-58bd-4eb0-ad0a-f5798e211800" CreationDate="2014-08-20T08:45:10.933" UserId="1325" Text="There are (at least) a couple of reasons why working physicists feel little motivation for debunking articles like the one you link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the believers of such articles typically hold such beliefs for reasons unrelated to physics - e.g. they like to believe in conspiracy theories, or that they are being persecuted. That means arguing with them is futile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. it's easy to come up with a farrago of plausible physical terms, but it's much harder and takes a lot of effort to detangle it and demonstrate why it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess the general view (it's certainly my view) is that if people want to learn about physics we're happy to go out of our way to help. But if all they want is to have their own views vindicated then, well, it's a free world but they're on their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you're thinking about asking a question, consider whether the answer would require us to go off and read the web site. If it would, then your question has no place here. On the other hand if you want to ask a question about physics that we can answer without having to go off and read some crackpot website then please go ahead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="fff8e418-437a-4130-8aec-234474691a40" CreationDate="2014-08-20T12:40:18.510" UserId="56960" Text="Moderators @Qmechanic and @dmckee marked it as a duplicate, but it is not so (see http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32498/how-is-angular-momentum-measured-in-experiments-in-practice#comment268412_32498 ). Linked questions are restricted to **fundamental** particles, whereas angular momentum is a concept applicable to any system. I now can’t post an answer about composite particles (currently at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11197/how-does-one-experimentally-determine-chirality-helicity-spin-and-angular-mome/131711 ) into *correct* thread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="fff8e418-437a-4130-8aec-234474691a40" CreationDate="2014-08-20T12:40:18.510" UserId="56960" Text="Reopen the «How is angular momentum measured in experiments/in practice?» topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="fff8e418-437a-4130-8aec-234474691a40" CreationDate="2014-08-20T12:40:18.510" UserId="56960" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="94965ae4-fd49-43e1-a809-7bc8864403d1" CreationDate="2014-08-20T12:52:26.370" UserId="56960" Comment="+duplicates tag" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="00499a72-4428-4896-9736-44019b9f0792" CreationDate="2014-08-20T19:04:02.923" UserId="520" Text="We have [entertained debunking questions before](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-is-the-science-valid), but the community has become steadily more opposed to them over time. I don't think your going to get a lot of support right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that there is no limit to how many there could be and none of them have a lot of value going into the future. They just don't add to the repositroy of quality answer to good questions that we are trying to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="b5e8fcef-c9ca-4c03-b819-aa8fe12fc2b5" CreationDate="2014-08-21T07:20:32.207" UserId="1325" Comment="My OCD is getting the better of me" Text="We have [entertained debunking questions before](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-is-the-science-valid), but the community has become steadily more opposed to them over time. I don't think you're going to get a lot of support right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that there is no limit to how many there could be and none of them have a lot of value going into the future. They just don't add to the repository of quality answers to good questions that we are trying to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="baa11002-b34b-41ee-a6c9-32c1c41235a5" CreationDate="2014-08-21T12:50:37.017" UserId="8563" Text="I think the marked duplicates cover well enough the intent of [the question you mentioned](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32498/how-is-angular-momentum-measured-in-experiments-in-practice). They are indeed slightly more focused, but there's nothing in the closed one to indicate the level of generality that's being requested. Opening it up because it sort-of also covers composite particles would mean that the question really asked 'how is angular momentum measured in *every* conceivable experimental system', and that is really much too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good answer and you want to find a good home for it, you should note that **it is perfectly OK to ask a question and answer it**. In fact, many of our best questions were written this way, because this gets past the fact that the questioner often doesn't know enough about the topic to ask the really interesting questions. For some samples see the ≲1k results in [Self answers that were self-answered from the start](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/219610/287619/self-answers-that-were-self-answered-from-the-start)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="caec5c82-8b92-498a-84cc-33e1d2d0aa15" CreationDate="2014-08-21T18:57:59.867" UserId="44176" Text="Based on the case of a question [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/131738/44176) (of course not the only one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people (a moderator among them) voted to close the question, which had an (accepted) answer and plus was highly up-voted (let me note in bold **by members of this site**) which were an order of magnitufe more than the five people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some brief comments with the moderator (@DavidZ) after the issue was raised (by me @NikosM, who btw did not post an answer). It was mentioned that posts may be off-topic regardless of how many up-votes they have. i replied, shortly, that certainly the people who up-voted do not consider this to be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems a **very serious issue here**, especially when (as you can see in the screenshot below) there is **no way provided for (other) members to request or vote for re-opening**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dINky.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="caec5c82-8b92-498a-84cc-33e1d2d0aa15" CreationDate="2014-08-21T18:57:59.867" UserId="44176" Text="Issue when people who close a question are an order of magnitude less than those who accepted and up-voted question and answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="caec5c82-8b92-498a-84cc-33e1d2d0aa15" CreationDate="2014-08-21T18:57:59.867" UserId="44176" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="85739ddc-1e19-4947-93a5-eef25bb3bf78" CreationDate="2014-08-21T19:04:27.693" UserId="44176" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Based on the case of a question [Explanation for this type of (magic-trick) suspension? (on hold)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/131738/44176) (of course not the only one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people (a moderator among them) voted to close the question, which had an (accepted) answer and plus was highly up-voted (let me note in bold **by members of this site**) which were an order of magnitufe more than the five people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some brief comments with the moderator (@DavidZ) after the issue was raised (by me @NikosM, who btw did not post an answer). It was mentioned that posts may be off-topic regardless of how many up-votes they have. i replied, shortly, that certainly the people who up-voted do not consider this to be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems a **very serious issue here**, especially when (as you can see in the screenshot below) there is **no way provided for (other) members to request or vote for re-opening**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dINky.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14213" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="85739ddc-1e19-4947-93a5-eef25bb3bf78" CreationDate="2014-08-21T19:04:27.693" UserId="44176" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Issue when people who close a question are (an order of magnitude) less than those who accepted and up-voted question and answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="207ad3ae-9f59-4e4f-869d-3bd026992152" CreationDate="2014-08-21T19:24:59.280" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The [privilege of voting to close and/or reopen][1] is gained at 3000 reputuation. At the time of this writing, there are 132 such users, most active on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for restricting the privilege is that wisdom in guiding the site comes from experience. In particular, as users spend more time here, they realize that **not all interesting questions belong here**. This is not Quora, where anything and everything can be asked. New or very casual users do tend to vote based on the sole criterion &quot;Did this pique my interest?&quot; Those of us who've been around for a while know that just allowing any and all questions that pique someone's interest would dilute the quality away from our [stated purpose][2] of being &quot;a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the site guidelines even differentiate between up/downvotes and close/reopen votes. We vote to close because of **off-topicness**, we downvote because &quot;**This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to keep in mind: after 5 close votes come in, the question is closed and no more may be cast. Thus it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that more would have voted to close than just those first 5. Furthermore, while the question is in the close vote queue, those of us who can cast such votes are given the option of voting to leave open. In this case, not enough 3k users thought the question should be left open, but that possibility does indeed exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="f58730dd-ebfd-470b-b836-a8e0500c459b" CreationDate="2014-08-21T19:43:21.330" UserId="25301" Text="I think the issue can be summed up into a single sentence (a paraphrase of DavidZ's comment):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Votes do **not** reflect the on-topicness of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The attention the post received was because discerning the source of magic tricks is a popular topic among the populous. This question is not actually about physics, it is about determining how a magic trick is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6078" RevisionGUID="f49ba63f-8f5c-46da-bf4b-4959010ff226" CreationDate="2014-08-21T19:54:30.783" UserId="23473" Text="As I said in my comment, regardless of whether or not people liked the question in question, and regardless of its on-topicness, the question should still have been closed as having been primarily opinion based. A magician's illusions can be explained by physics, but first one needs to know exactly how an illusion is performed. So without the magician revealing his secrets (and I'm led to believe there's a common saying indicating they generally don't), we can only speculate what possible methods are used to enact the illusion. This means that any answers would be based on the answerer's opinion of what possible methods were used. And although very liked, questions whose answers are primarily based on opinion are not a good fit for the site and should be closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="28b1a287-49e4-4fe1-bc50-b3583765f61c" CreationDate="2014-08-21T23:15:15.780" UserId="26969" Text="I would like to argue that the question (as phrased in the last paragraph) had a clear physics-based character:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So the question is : Is this **related to the electrical charge of a magnet** or a cheap trick ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first answer that was posted (which got 33 votes as of the time I write this) exposed it as &quot;most likely a cheap trick&quot; - but this was speculation, and I agree could be argued as off topic for the site (because not about the physics of the situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I would argue that the answer which I posted (17 votes at the time of writing) explores the physics of the question: &quot;could this be done with electrical charges or with magnets?&quot; The community seems to believe that I did an OK job estimating whether this could be done, and rewarded me with a rep-cap day...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an answer such as mine had not been posted after a day or two, I could understand the question being closed; but as it is, I have sympathy for Nikos's position that this seems like a strange decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="e3cd6090-6ebf-405f-a023-bbd74b3e077a" CreationDate="2014-08-22T03:35:06.927" UserId="20848" Text="I agree that popularity and on-topicness are orthogonal, but in this case I think the question as asked was reasonably enough on topic.  There is perhaps a valid issue due to all answers would necessarily be speculation, but that doesn't take away from the physicsness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically the question is how a trick was done, which you can argue is off topic if you really want to on the grounds of speculation.  However, with the minor modification of asking whether the physics of magnetism or electrostatics could be applied to create the observed effect, it would be clearly on topic.  This was what the asker was asking, and what Floris answered in a excellent way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of how this question would have been perceived if indeed electric or magnetic fields turned out to be plasible explanations.  I doubt there would have been much objection.  It seems unfair that we are closing a honest question only because the answer &lt;i&gt;turned out&lt;/i&gt; not to require much physics.  However, the asker didn't know that, this being essentially his question.  Those that closed the question are basically requiring the asker to have known the answer to the question and thereby know it was off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the &lt;i&gt;question&lt;/i&gt; was therefore reasonable.  If my answer, which didn't contain any real physics, were the only one after a couple of days or so, I could see the point in closing the question and have it eventually be automatically purged from the site.  However, we ended up with a great discussion of the physics that showed how the observed phenomenon could not be the result of magnetic and electric fields.  That seems just as valid to me as the same physics analisys in a different situation showing that it is possible.  A negative result is still a valid and useful result.  It's still good physics analisys whether the result shows something is or isn't possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if the question instead showed a photograph of one of those pens being suspended in air in a special pen holder, and the question asked how that was done?  I doubt anyone would feel that was off topic.  Floris' answer would be almost the same, except this time the numbers would show that magnetic fields could indeed explain the observed phenomena." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="618f6805-7e22-4af6-89bd-8e179573201f" CreationDate="2014-08-23T15:13:40.333" UserId="56960" Text="Not to say I object against the tag in general, but current wording and practices seem inconsistent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let’s start from the upper constrain. First of all, where the wording “research-level questions should not require new or groundbreaking research and results to answer” came from? I quote the current (August 23, 2014) tag description, and I do not see where was it discussed. Of course, it would not be reasonable to expect that one would make a *groundbreaking* research only to answer a question posted at an Internet site. But using some amount of original research, or possibly results of some researches that are underway (but, say, are not published) shouldn’t be discouraged. Here is not Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the lower constrain.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [A]nswer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, “blindingly obvious” questions may not be labelled as research-level. But there are many questions, even about everyday life, that are far from being blindingly obvious even for a scientist with a degree. Should **all** non-obvious questions become research-level? I think most of them shouldn’t.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I propose to change the formulation to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*An unambiguous answer to a research-level question cannot be easily inferred from the body of widely-known and available scientific knowledge expressed in literary form*&#xD;&#xA;(I mean textbooks, research-level books and papers, Wikipedia and other reputable Web resources…)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know my English is awkward, but I hope there will be wordsmiths who will improve the proposed wording." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="647a2395-606d-48d2-8e4e-c787f954c4cd" CreationDate="2014-08-23T20:04:44.767" UserId="8563" Text="[![Qiqqa: Essential software for PDF and research management][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z9tAx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.qiqqa.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14221" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="a36915e8-fecb-499a-b941-8eaa13a116e7" CreationDate="2014-08-23T20:04:44.767" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="14226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="f7ad1291-47c2-499d-8db4-e94c83facb10" CreationDate="2014-08-24T14:03:25.017" UserId="24124" Text="I could not find clarification in help pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what are the milestones or such?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="f7ad1291-47c2-499d-8db4-e94c83facb10" CreationDate="2014-08-24T14:03:25.017" UserId="24124" Text="Does the comment length limit depend on reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="f7ad1291-47c2-499d-8db4-e94c83facb10" CreationDate="2014-08-24T14:03:25.017" UserId="24124" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6085" RevisionGUID="2d64018f-578a-49fc-9059-f0b54a3c1126" CreationDate="2014-08-24T14:05:19.433" UserId="50583" Text="No, it's 600 characters for every one of us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="c9f1d986-575f-4beb-9dd5-fc537ef3bacc" CreationDate="2014-08-26T12:43:00.003" UserId="20848" Text="I just tried to vote to close the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/131799/20848 because it is squarely about engineering and not about physics.  However, it told me something like &quot;questions with open bounties can't be closed&quot;.  That seems like a odd rule.  A bounty doesn't change whether something is off topic or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the point is that it would be wrong to force the bounty to be wasted, but if that is really the intent then the bounty could be refunded when the question is closed.  Actually in this case I think it could be migrated to EE, but that doesn't change the fact that it is off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a unintended interaction, or is there really a logical reason behind this that I'm missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="c9f1d986-575f-4beb-9dd5-fc537ef3bacc" CreationDate="2014-08-26T12:43:00.003" UserId="20848" Text="Can't close question with open bounty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="c9f1d986-575f-4beb-9dd5-fc537ef3bacc" CreationDate="2014-08-26T12:43:00.003" UserId="20848" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="a9810f69-73e6-4b13-82ae-7d1f061425e4" CreationDate="2014-08-26T12:47:04.307" UserId="7433" Text="Mods can cancel (refund) the bounty and close it. If enough people agree, I'll do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6088" RevisionGUID="5763a547-1bc0-430e-925e-a15a8832fe2c" CreationDate="2014-08-26T13:33:25.987" UserId="2684" Text="Allowing the community to refund bounties would enable some ways to exploit the bounty system. If the reputation was removed entirely when a question is closed, it would allow users to directly impact the reputation of another user in a rather large way. Not to speak of  the edge case when a question gets then reopened. If the bounty was refunded, this would allow users to gain the attention for their question a bounty brings, and then avoid paying for it by getting it closed before the bounty runs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This situation is pretty rare because bad questions are usually closed in the first two days, and bounties can only be started after that time. Because of the low volume and the rather large consequences the decision has, letting only moderators make these decisions is the safest way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="bdbc897f-613d-495f-a73a-5654eb75c70f" CreationDate="2014-08-26T13:40:26.993" UserId="23473" Text="Checked on meta.SE, see http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/121448/262980 and related posts therein. It makes sense. Essentially, it says that a bounty is a contract that offers additional exposure for additional reputation. Refunding a bounty should only be done in extraordinary circumstances and that exactly falls under the purview of moderator actions. It further says that having a VTC system set-up that auto-generates a moderator flag is a lot of work for something that is seldom seen. Bounties can be used to keep bad questions open, but it isn't frequent enough to necessitate new features. It is infrequent enough that it again is something aptly suited for the custom mod-flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But about the question in question, I agree it's not really about physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="e92e14f9-df1f-44ad-a387-7b4c22a9fc07" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:00:23.437" UserDisplayName="user20250" Text="I know this might be unusual since people usually ask the opposite question, but I simply have to ask this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's about this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132114/can-a-superhuman-move-so-fast-as-to-be-invisible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that this question belongs on http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ (maybe http://biology.stackexchange.com/ since it also includes the neuroscience tag). Also I think it should have been put on hold in order to improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** **It's about perception.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the question wants to know whether &quot;regular audiences&quot; or a &quot;normal person&quot; can see it or not, the author isn't asking whether it's detectable by other physical means. To be fair, there are some physical considerations that we have to worry about here but I can't see how a physicist could conclude the issue, it has to come to the issue of human visual perception and that's not physics. The visual system is far from an idealized camera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) The questions is badly posed.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the title is very misleading, it's clearly not about the moving object, it's about the observer. And I don't see how it helps if the object is superhuman and if we have the exact dimensions of the space in which the superhuman is confined. The motion is practically arbitrary, only limited by special relativity and the object's only limitation is it's approximate size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can safely say that the question can be translated into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it possible for an everyday-sized easily visible object to evade human visual perception by moving sufficiently fast in a confined space?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you put it this way, I think it's even more clear that a physicist cannot give a final word here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="e92e14f9-df1f-44ad-a387-7b4c22a9fc07" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:00:23.437" UserDisplayName="user20250" Text="Why wasn't this question moved or put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="e92e14f9-df1f-44ad-a387-7b4c22a9fc07" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:00:23.437" UserDisplayName="user20250" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="fb5f4147-724d-403d-b463-673c974052c9" CreationDate="2014-08-26T22:24:37.127" UserId="26406" Text="I was about to ask a question on the website today when I saw a message saying: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wait! Some of your past questions have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from asking any more.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have only ever asked 2 questions, one with 3 upvotes and one with 4." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="fb5f4147-724d-403d-b463-673c974052c9" CreationDate="2014-08-26T22:24:37.127" UserId="26406" Text="Bad Question Warning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="fb5f4147-724d-403d-b463-673c974052c9" CreationDate="2014-08-26T22:24:37.127" UserId="26406" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="f5ddbd26-9920-4a9d-804a-3d141d5d4900" CreationDate="2014-08-27T01:47:04.650" UserId="124" Text="The question wasn't moved or put on hold because the community consensus is that it is on topic and reasonably well written. (bearing in mind that &quot;reasonably well written&quot; in this context is not a particularly high bar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think what you really want to know is why other people don't agree with you that the question is off topic and/or badly posed. For starters, it's not clear that the original poster was asking about the behavior of the human visual system. Sure, there are allusions to human sight, but that's not a clear indicator that the question is about perception. From the perspective of a layperson, there are (at least) two possible reasons a fast-moving object might be invisible: the amount of light it reflects may be diminished because of its motion, or the human eye might be incapable of picking up that reflected light. The latter of these is a matter of perception, sure, but the former is physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases like these where a question is partly about physics and partly not, it often takes just a minor edit to refocus the question primarily on the physical aspects, and that's preferable to going through the whole hold-edit-reopen cycle. You may notice that the title has been edited in exactly that manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14244" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="80d6ace5-2e7b-4f82-9569-2ee507714700" CreationDate="2014-08-28T00:25:26.160" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5951],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="672ddee3-a285-4e61-90f3-0eaaad67037a" CreationDate="2014-08-28T06:31:20.557" UserId="124" Text="It's long overdue that I make this post revisiting our policy on &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions. These are questions, often (but not necessarily) homework-like, that present a _complete_ mathematical or logical derivation and ask whether it's correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) has rendered check-my-work questions off topic. However, we're currently in the (very long) process of revisiting that policy. According to the [poll on homework close reasons](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) ([answer 1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/124), [answer 2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5961/124)), the community seems to be generally in favor of keeping such questions off topic, although not _obviously_ so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was brought up in a [chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/check-my-work-chat) a while ago that perhaps people would support making only certain kinds of check-my-work questions on topic. When deciding whether a given check-my-work question is on topic, we might take into account factors such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the level of the question (basic or advanced)&#xD;&#xA;- how much prior research the asker has demonstrated (have they tried asking colleagues?)&#xD;&#xA;- whether they have a reason to believe they have made a mistake at all&#xD;&#xA;- whether they have an idea of what the mistake might be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and others to be suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point of this question is to resolve the issue for whenever our homework policy gets revamped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should any kinds of check-my-work questions be on topic?  &#xD;&#xA;If so, how do we distinguish the on-topic ones from the off-topic ones?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="672ddee3-a285-4e61-90f3-0eaaad67037a" CreationDate="2014-08-28T06:31:20.557" UserId="124" Text="Should any check-my-work questions be made on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="672ddee3-a285-4e61-90f3-0eaaad67037a" CreationDate="2014-08-28T06:31:20.557" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="1c633658-7239-4489-9965-db65041b5a95" CreationDate="2014-08-28T13:03:07.417" UserId="6634" Text="I'll offer up my other view on this since I am undecided in some respects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Checking of mathematical derivations only should always be off topic. We're not TA's here, we shouldn't need to hold office hours for people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, when people ask a question that really can be rephrased as &quot;Did I include all of the relevant physics?&quot; then I think it's okay. In that sense, even basic questions like the equation of motion for a mass-spring system could be verified -- does gravity matter in the model for example. Obviously higher-level questions would fit into this naturally as they involve more physical concepts that need to be included. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this way, we aren't separating based on &quot;high&quot; or &quot;low&quot; level, which I strongly object to, because these are entirely subjective to the background. I've said it previously -- I never encountered Lagrangians until grad school so in my background, even &quot;basic&quot; questions about deriving one is &quot;graduate&quot; level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, we are deciding based on whether we are **checking that the relevant physics is included** in the work and we go no further. If all the physics is present but the derivation made a mistake/sign error/math error along the way, take it to office hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6096" RevisionGUID="e1fe0327-9857-462f-b910-caf5abbf9154" CreationDate="2014-08-28T14:33:18.947" UserId="23473" Text="Let me quote part of the homework-like close reason... Ahem...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Powerful words. So when it comes to checking someone's work, most of the time the question and answer will be specific to that user and not very useful to the broader community. This includes all levels of questions, research-level too. Little Susie's question about what mistake she might have made in question 16.8 of Scherrer's textbook might be off-topic for more reasons than Billy's question about where he went wrong in deriving the equation of state parameter for a universe filled with dark matter that is weakly coupled to gluons and photons, but the fact that they are both too specific to be at all useful to the broader community or future users makes both of them equally off-topic (it's really a binary state, thus &quot;equally&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I did say &quot;most of the time&quot;. Based on that phrasing, it stands to reason that *some* of the time these questions are on-topic. And that's where it get's into a grey area. There's really no easy way of making a catch-all statement for when they are on-topic. If we feel that the question describes a commonly seen method and that the mistake is one that we might expect a lot of people to run into, then I think it is useful to the broader community and that we should give an appropriate answer to what they've done wrong at least once (that is assuming, of course, that the question isn't off-topic or closeable for some reason other than its specificity). But we should make sure to reword the question such that anytime someone else comes along having run into the same problem, we can link to that question as a duplicate (obviously)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="7d82bc26-9781-4257-8d36-8e674c0654ae" CreationDate="2014-08-28T15:44:54.223" UserId="50583" Text="*Check my work* question should always be off-topic. Those that can be rephrased *should be rephrased*. &quot;Am I right?&quot;, &quot;Is this correct?&quot; or something else is always only of use to people who did the *exact same derivation*, and this is definitely *too localized*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the bullet points in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The level of the question should be utterly irrelevant. I have no more desire to correct a multiplication error in a basic kinematics derivation that I have to hunt sign errors in an advanced QFT calculation. Aside from my desire, neither will be of use to people who have not committed the *exact same error*, so it is definitely *too localized* either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Asking colleagues or anything else like that is nothing we could read. The close-worthiness of a question must not be influenced by a statement like *&quot;I asked my prof and he didn't know either&quot;* since we have no way to know whether that is even true or not, or whether that prof even *should* have known, etc. Prior research that I would expect is *finding out the correct answer (preferably with derivation)* or, if that cannot/has not been done, *finding similar problems or techniques* and briefly explaining why they are of no use in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is *crucial*. If it is simply *&quot;Am I right?&quot;*, a probably full and complete answer is *&quot;Yes.&quot;*, which is too short to even submit it as an answer, which shows unequivocally that we as a SE do not want such questions. Asking *&quot;Where's the mistake?&quot;* is better, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The only kind of &quot;check my work&quot; I think we should allow is the one where a derivation is presented, leading to a wrong result, and the question is *&quot;It seems as if step X is wrong? But it should be right because of Y, so why is this not the case?&quot;*. There must be a reasonable explanation (by established physics, of course) of why the derivation is expected to work in the eye of the asker, and then the answer pointing out the flaw in the reasoning can actually be *useful*, since the question is then essentially *&quot;Why is the physical principle Y not applicable here?&quot;* The question *should* also be edited to reflect that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is still possible that questions of the latter type are essentially based on a sign error or somesuch, because we all are sometimes blind. Point it out in a comment, VTC the question (or not, that must probably be left to individual judgement, but that's what the close/reopen queues are for), and move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="dca42509-7330-4337-8cd1-ef9d2565a2c9" CreationDate="2014-08-28T15:55:43.630" UserId="25301" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Check my work&quot; type questions should **remain off topic** for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They do not ask for clarification of *physics concepts*, they ask for clarification on the *mathematical solution* to a *particular* problem&#xD;&#xA; - In the [&quot;How do I as homework question&quot; post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/25301), it states that Physics.StackExchange&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The question will likely only help the original poster and not future visitors to the site&#xD;&#xA; - This is likely *more* true for the more advanced topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is likely that some of these &quot;Check my work&quot; questions can be reformulated to be an on-topic question, e.g. reworded so as to fit the [&quot;*I was working on X and didn't understand why Y isn't the case*&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5963/25301) criterion. However, note that changing the question ourselves would constitute a [drastic change](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6012/25301) in the intent/meaning of the question, which should be left for the OP to do. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6099" RevisionGUID="d15c2c1a-6072-42d6-af2e-8e92ac24b40a" CreationDate="2014-08-28T17:01:50.347" UserId="1325" Text="I know the stated goal of the site is to provide a knowledge base, and I know that every time I rant on about the importance of teaching I get told that isn't the main purpose of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless I think teaching is important, and doing worked examples is an important part of teaching. I'm not saying I want the site to fill up with posts asking how to do a worked example, but I think answering such questions can illustrate important concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A blatant &quot;spot my deliberate mistake&quot; question is always going to be off topic, but I would urge site members to consider whether the mistake is conceptual rather than arithmetical. If it's a conceptual mistake I think there is some justification for answering the question as long as your answer is mainly concerned with the concepts involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14254" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="df8d85b5-842e-4a8a-9a30-7129dcdac7e5" CreationDate="2014-08-28T18:46:01.967" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6100" RevisionGUID="474ae54e-8dc5-4849-9d01-1e3f5d4b6a64" CreationDate="2014-08-29T06:10:11.543" UserId="6292" Text="[![This Week in Science – The Kickass Science Podcast ][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qX4Jd.png &quot;The Kickass Science Podcast&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.twis.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14256" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6100" RevisionGUID="9fa83ac4-95a0-45f4-b545-59c88a7559ce" CreationDate="2014-08-29T06:10:11.543" UserId="6292" />
  <row Id="14257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="08713989-2ad2-4538-b743-f3f99ece4f01" CreationDate="2014-08-29T15:07:52.207" UserDisplayName="user58110" Text="is there a way I can close my own question once I have received a satisfactory answer? I don't want to completely delete it as I might need to access it later. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="08713989-2ad2-4538-b743-f3f99ece4f01" CreationDate="2014-08-29T15:07:52.207" UserDisplayName="user58110" Text="Can I close my own question without deleting it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="08713989-2ad2-4538-b743-f3f99ece4f01" CreationDate="2014-08-29T15:07:52.207" UserDisplayName="user58110" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="9140eaf4-edb7-410c-8c4d-9fb887800bb5" CreationDate="2014-08-29T18:25:46.367" UserId="41957" Text="I would like to revisit this, with context to an Area 51 proposal which seems to be attractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75912/scientific-imagination?referrer=Le-GdDM0b9wFuP7v0aO_3g2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/75912.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Scientific Imagination&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site proposal proposed by a user Krumia, is also based on XKCD What-If book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposal is attractive, but I guess not enough to propose an entirely new SE site for the purpose. So I proposed [Can we make “what-if” questions locally on-topic on their respective sites?](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/17695/104857)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also discussed this in the Physics chat room starting from [this message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17415835#17415835).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can have _some_ support for such questions. Some specific ones which can be answered through little to no discussion but with supportive and established facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see if the community is willing to except questions like the ones in the Example Questions list of that proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the three Science sites (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) agree to this, the proposal would be closed right here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="f12ae5b4-5c1b-4b4d-990e-945fd73d9447" CreationDate="2014-08-30T05:15:52.767" UserId="124" Text="No, there's no way to do this, and that's intentional. A question shouldn't be closed because it has received a satisfactory answer. Closure - or putting &quot;on hold&quot; (same thing) - means that a question was _inappropriate_ in some way and should not have been asked in its current form. (In most cases, it can be edited to make it appropriate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing you thought of this because you wanted a way to mark that your question has been resolved, like how forum posts often get `[SOLVED]` edited into the title? If so, you should do that by accepting the answer that resolved your problem. Click the little green checkmark to the left of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Chris White brought up in the comments, there is an internal algorithm that tracks the overall quality of posts made by new users. Having your question closed is a significant strike against you in that algorithm. It's a bad thing, and not something you should do voluntarily just because your question was answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, since you mentioned deleting your question, you shouldn't do that either. Deletion, like closing, is intended for posts that are inappropriate for the site, but in this case they're so bad that there is no value in even keeping them visible on the site at all. This is a fate meant for the very bottom of the question barrel, and the post quality algorithm treats deleted questions accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="47b4f3b2-97e9-4ae8-9b23-00cbc7649fc3" CreationDate="2014-08-30T08:56:01.250" UserId="52949" Text="Can people be able to increase the amount of bounty after they put the bounty on a question? If there isn't, I think it should be because when a question still stays unanswered after you put a bounty on it, you should be able to add more bounty to get the question answered more quickly. Isn't the objective of bounties inducing people to answer the questions? All in all, there should be a command to add more bounty to a question that has already been offered a bounty. Because, it would be time saving since you have to wait a week to offer more bounty on the question with this system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="47b4f3b2-97e9-4ae8-9b23-00cbc7649fc3" CreationDate="2014-08-30T08:56:01.250" UserId="52949" Text="Can I increase the bounty amount over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="47b4f3b2-97e9-4ae8-9b23-00cbc7649fc3" CreationDate="2014-08-30T08:56:01.250" UserId="52949" Text="|discussion|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="de92e72e-2cd8-4e14-b0ff-e565295c5bda" CreationDate="2014-08-30T14:17:05.263" UserId="23473" Comment="except is almost an antonym of accept" Text="I would like to revisit this, with context to an Area 51 proposal which seems to be attractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75912/scientific-imagination?referrer=Le-GdDM0b9wFuP7v0aO_3g2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/75912.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Scientific Imagination&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site proposal proposed by a user Krumia, is also based on XKCD What-If book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposal is attractive, but I guess not enough to propose an entirely new SE site for the purpose. So I proposed [Can we make “what-if” questions locally on-topic on their respective sites?](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/17695/104857)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also discussed this in the Physics chat room starting from [this message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17415835#17415835).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can have _some_ support for such questions. Some specific ones which can be answered through little to no discussion but with supportive and established facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see if the community is willing to accept questions like the ones in the Example Questions list of that proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the three Science sites (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) agree to this, the proposal would be closed right here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="2e0b0aeb-f236-4c95-b29c-a35d623e715f" CreationDate="2014-08-30T14:23:12.510" UserId="52949" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="3063bfef-9d68-4cc1-a402-575d7f02a8da" CreationDate="2014-08-30T14:34:24.190" UserId="23473" Text="It seems we must have violated causality (only logical explanation) because almost a year ago someone posted a [suspiciously similar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/203902/262980) feature request on the mother meta that includes the stuff we talked about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't look like any mods really looked it over thoroughly and I didn't see many persuasive arguments against it. So with that in mind, I'd be for allowing people to feed-the-meter as long as protective measures like an increasing minimum rep payment is implemented. Perhaps also, the any rep from the bounty that is 7 days old should be treated like 7 day old bounties in the current system to prevent users from building up questions with 5000 rep bounties, which could effectively bypass the rep cap to let them do all sorts of things (get their friends to trusted status in a week, for example). Or there should be a maximum rep cap on bounties that's, say, 3X the current max rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these are just ideas, I'm for it until I hear a good argument against it. The details can be worked out by people more motivated than I." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="967ab179-b30d-4923-9156-49028abe1bce" CreationDate="2014-08-30T16:50:21.730" UserId="520" Text="It's worth saying a few words about the meaning of &quot;closed&quot; in the Stack Exchange system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Closed&quot; ***does not*** mean &quot;complete&quot; or &quot;dealt with&quot; the way it does in a issue-tracking or work-ticket system. Because Stack Exchange sites are mostly trying to accumulate databases of well answered questions to *help other people in the future* the mere fact that the original asker is satisfied does not mean that a question is somehow done. New answers are welcome and sometimes they can rise to be more highly voted than the old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Closed ***does*** mean that the question has been found to be undesired for some reason. It might be bad on it's own merits (incoherent, based on disastrously false assumptions, a rant rather than a questions ...) or a good questions that does not fit well in the rigors of the Q&amp;A format we use here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, &quot;closed&quot; is a *bad* thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14269" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="afb22181-b824-441e-9145-6989c97561d1" CreationDate="2014-08-30T17:08:54.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/505764105362612224" />
  <row Id="14270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="4826a051-e4ad-4876-9271-621353f18b3b" CreationDate="2014-08-30T18:38:19.250" UserId="25274" Text="I spend most of my time on the TeX.SE and venture to other SE sites when looking for help.  However, the atmosphere here seems to be going the way of the &quot;old&quot; stackoverflow SE.  By old, I mean about 5months or so ago.  SO was becoming extremely hostile and unfriendly to those trying to learn programming and asking basic questions.  Instead of directing new members to duplicate questions or helping them understand the rules and that they should use search feature first, they were being mistreated in the comments and down voted to oblivion which can prevent them from asking questions. However, SO finally changed their course and it has become a better place to ask questions for beginners and those not as skilled in programming in my eyes.  You can go through their meta to see the many discussions on rampant hostility from that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been skimming through physics meta and have seen an unsettling trend.  Post on banning homework type questions, no basic questions, we want conceptually higher level questions only, etc, etc.  This how it started on their meta.  What do we do about this question or that.  It just perpetuates the anger and it boils over from the members more skilled in physics to those trying to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this isn't route physics.SE is looking to take." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="4826a051-e4ad-4876-9271-621353f18b3b" CreationDate="2014-08-30T18:38:19.250" UserId="25274" Text="Thoughts on meta post on homework question handling and basic questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="4826a051-e4ad-4876-9271-621353f18b3b" CreationDate="2014-08-30T18:38:19.250" UserId="25274" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="71d89788-8af3-4de0-a727-5c9881184e91" CreationDate="2014-08-30T19:08:33.240" UserId="6634" Text="I guess there isn't really a question to answer here but it's more of a discussion thing than anything else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind each Stack setting its own policies is that each one can be tailored to a specific community, and that community establishes its own guidelines and procedures. And, as different members come and go, the community adapts and the policies adapt accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arguments made on Meta here are very repetitive and common and despite all the discussion, our policies and actions tend to remain pretty consistent. There are two camps -- those who come in and want help on homework problems and think that we should be answering every question that comes in and those who want to outlaw all basic questions or things that are not very high level or specialized in advanced content. The two extremes are very vocal while it tends to be the trend of the majority to take a more even approach. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sides have their points but ultimately it is up to the community to decide what kind of community they want. The tendency to ban homework questions is grounded in trying to keep the community that is here happy. Many (not all, but many) of the people who drop in to ask homework questions are only looking for a quick answer and have no desire to participate in the community. They ask their very specific question, get an answer, never accept answers or vote and then disappear until they need another homework question answered. These people have no intention of being part of the community and so we don't look highly upon their questions, and we actively do what we can to suppress them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The argument made by those who only want high level, advanced questions is that homework questions &quot;drown&quot; out the &quot;good&quot; questions and they have to sort through the 500th question on why F = ma and they miss the questions they are interested in. Personally, I don't buy into this since there's ways to sort and search by tags etc.. But there is some validity to how they feel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, only taking very specialized questions limits to people who are interested in, or capable of, participating. And small communities like that don't function well within the Stack Exchange universe. But the people who want this say &quot;Who cares what SE wants, we want our community!&quot; The solution, whether they like it or not, is to go make their own community because this place just won't work that way. And they have made efforts to go do that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So coming back to your main point. If you read the posts on Meta and the arguments, it's easy to think we're all a bunch of jerks who are mean and blast people into oblivion. But (now anyway, there is a lot of drama surrounding the topic of politeness on our site), we are actually relatively friendly. Yes, we will downvote homework questions and vote to close them (I did both on your most recent question). But we will not tolerate attacks on people, nor will we post comments on homework questions insulting people etc.. That is not okay. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our hostility is not very hostile, but when it is, it's confined to Meta (usually) and it's directed between experienced people here (typically). And mostly it's because we know each other. On the main site, when people post things that break policies, the majority of the experienced users are very civil. The anger and hostility usually starts with people who are not part of the community who get upset about the downvote, or upset about a question being put on hold, etc.. And they get upset and start lashing out because the site doesn't work the way they want it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said it in chat before and I'll say it again now -- for some reason, on the internet in general, but specifically on the Stacks -- there is a mentality where people show up to play in our sandbox and then get really angry with how we play in our sandbox and tell us we should do it their way. But the thing is, SE as a whole and each Stack specifically, isn't designed to cater to every person on the internet. It's designed to generate high quality questions with high quality answers from experts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And our experience is that the vast majority of homework-like questions are not high quality. And the vast majority of people asking those questions do not become high quality members of the community. There are ways to phrase homework-like questions so they are on topic, and high quality, and useful to others. And that's what we're looking for. And we will help those who want to get to that point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your question on non-linear springs for example, if you could explain the steps you took and why you think those are the right steps *from a physics standpoint*, we would keep it open. We would be able to say &quot;Well, you assumed X is physically correct but the physics say Y&quot; which would lead you to your answer. But just putting an equation and saying &quot;I don't know where to start&quot; doesn't help you, it doesn't help (or interest) our members, and the answer won't help anybody other than you. Whereas, breaking down to the physics of your question and why you think a spring force should work a certain way, will help others who may be confused about their spring problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="1a0c3d43-16b6-4938-a227-e047528d265a" CreationDate="2014-08-30T20:00:27.307" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6109" RevisionGUID="610806f6-f762-43f5-a0f9-14e12dc26308" CreationDate="2014-08-30T20:01:26.107" UserId="520" Text="The bulk of the users of this site have consistently voted for a site that is welcoming to beginners *provided* that they are able to frame their questions in a physicist-like way. That is, the site is welcoming to beginning scientists, but not to students who have not yet begun to think like physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing new about this, it's been this way for two and a half years or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't overlook the fact that the re-re-re-&quot;can we be nicer to the noobs&quot; movement on Stack Overflow (which comes up every 18-24 months)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; wasn't about changing the rules about what was allowed, it was about changing the nature of the comments and improving the close-reason texts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Overflow is not accepting of &quot;teach me to program&quot; type questions, so it is neither strange nor exceptional that Physics SE is not particularly accepting of &quot;help me with my physics 101 homework&quot; questions. To be sure Math SE *is* friendly to their equivalent of such questions, but that's a different choice and it generates a different (to my mind less useful) kind of site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It is, perhaps, worth exploring *why* the comments drift toward hostile over time and need an occasional course adjustment. Stack Overflow (and to a lesser extent, Physics SE) has become a premiere, go-to resource for help in it's domain. Not surprisingly, that attracts the attentions of *everybody*, including the vast hoards of people who can't be arsed to do any work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is predictable: a large fraction of the questions asked are of very low quality and are often duplicates. Maintaining a high quality site means that these things *must* be dealt with and on Stack Exchange sites most of that burden falls on users with 3000+ reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those users see examples of a couple-dozen types are no-effort questions and questions from people whose preparation isn't up to meeting the minimum requirements of the site *over and over and over and over*. This is frustrating and from time to time someone takes it out on a new poster. It's not really fair because usually *this* poster hasn't disobeyed the basic rules dozens of times, but none-the-less he or she is part of a hoard that is (generally unintentionally) *attacking the quality of the site*. The attack is real, it has the potential to destroy the value of the site, and it goes on day in and day out without let up. So the frustration is real too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learning to handle it without exploding is a process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="7679ca9e-1ec6-4291-a3f3-3c5935617d0b" CreationDate="2014-08-31T06:49:20.633" UserId="1325" Text="The word *community* gets mentioned over and over in these discussions, and for me that is essential feature of the Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a teenage SciFi reading physics nerd back in the early 70s just about the time the Standard Model was reaching its final form. This was a fantastically exciting time, but if you lived in a small town in rural Somerset there was no-one to talk to about it. **No-one**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if a newcomer to the site wants to ask a basic question I will go to some trouble to write a detailed answer. This doesn't just mean answering their question, but maybe exploring related physics and trying to show what's so interesting about the physics behind it. I was going to cite a couple of such answers, but [looking through my answers][1] there are so many answers of this type it hardly seems pulling out one or two as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that I have to believe you're¹ really interested in the problem, and you'll be interested enough to read my answer and take it further by doing your own research. Since I can't read your mind I have to go by what you wrote in your question. That means your question has to show me you've thought about the problem and tried to Google it yourself, and that you're only asking here because you've come to a dead end. If this is the case then I don't care how basic your question is: if I think I can provide an interesting and informative answer then I will. Hopefully as you learn more about physics you'll start answering other people's questions yourself - there are plenty of examples on the site of this happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I appreciate I'm on the evangelist wing of this community, but while I suspect many members will regard my views as a little naive I suspect the vast majority agree with the basic principle. If you're interested and prepared to put some effort in we won't turn you away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flip side of this is that if you can't be arsed² then neither can I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;¹ this the [royal *you*][2], not you personnally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² © dmckee, 2014 - I thought this was a British expression. Shouldn't you colonials be saying *can't be assed*? :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie?tab=answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="5f61bea0-6247-4018-86ed-45e472fbe7a6" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:24:31.420" UserId="19976" Text="A user recently asked if a certain computation she/he saw in Weinberg's QM was in error:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133522/rate-of-change-of-a-normalised-wave-function/133528#133528&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found other typos/errors in the same book, and I think having a single question in which users write &quot;answers&quot; in which they point out an apparent error (and then get feedback on whether or not it is an error) might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would such a post be allowed on this site?  I imagine that it could be tagged &quot;education,&quot; but I'm not certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a thing existed, I *would* be concerned that if someone were to want to point out a new error, then her/his concern would get lost if there were a single location for a particular book's errors, but perhaps that location could simply serve as a place to compile all of the errors, and when new errors are posted as new questions, they could simply be added to the master location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="5f61bea0-6247-4018-86ed-45e472fbe7a6" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:24:31.420" UserId="19976" Text="Compiling a book's errors in a single question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="5f61bea0-6247-4018-86ed-45e472fbe7a6" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:24:31.420" UserId="19976" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="1bf0a8c9-02c9-4d97-9bc6-31a99288e1c0" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:30:58.060" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body; edited tags" Text="A user recently asked if a certain computation she/he saw in Weinberg's QM was in error:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/133522/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found other typos/errors in the same book, and I think having a single question in which users write &quot;answers&quot; in which they point out an apparent error (and then get feedback on whether or not it is an error) might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would such a post be allowed on this site?  I imagine that it could be tagged &quot;education,&quot; but I'm not certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a thing existed, I *would* be concerned that if someone were to want to point out a new error, then her/his concern would get lost if there were a single location for a particular book's errors, but perhaps that location could simply serve as a place to compile all of the errors, and when new errors are posted as new questions, they could simply be added to the master location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14281" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="1bf0a8c9-02c9-4d97-9bc6-31a99288e1c0" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:30:58.060" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="e69d749f-a1a7-443a-9707-d5b2f8ac1eb9" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:33:47.107" UserId="19976" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="A user recently asked if a certain computation she/he saw in Weinberg's QM was in error:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/133522/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found other typos/errors in the same book, and I think having a single question in which users write &quot;answers&quot; in which they point out an apparent error (and then get feedback on whether or not it is an error) might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would such a post be allowed on this site?  I imagine that it could be tagged &quot;education,&quot; but I'm not certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a thing existed, I *would* be concerned that if someone were to want to point out a new error, then her/his concern would get lost if there were a single location for a particular book's errors, but perhaps that location could simply serve as a place to compile all of the errors, and when new errors are posted as new questions, they can simply be added to the master location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="7baae97b-23ee-42ec-999a-1aace4a9fb12" CreationDate="2014-09-02T23:30:55.153" UserId="6634" Text="I guess I should get the obvious out of the way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a question would not be on topic on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say that for several reasons, but mostly because it's not a question about physics concepts, it will become a &quot;big list&quot; type question that gets populated over time. It's something that will require constant maintenance as new versions of the book come out, as new errors are found, and so on. It's also not a good fit for the &quot;I have a question&quot; and &quot;Here is the answer&quot; format. It's more of a thing for a wiki or a blog or something along those lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those things make it off topic from what we have discussed and decided before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the less obvious part, and what I consider your question to really be: Should such a question be on-topic here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here I will say that no, it should not be. It's a great idea, it's a noble cause, and it's something that would be helpful to people who study that subject. However, the scope of the site is more narrow than that and we're not here to be a repository of every single idea, topic, or fact that somebody studying physics may want answered. I don't think expanding the scope of the site to include a single, curated errata for a text book is a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am in favor of people coming in and asking questions that say &quot;My book says X but I think it should be Y&quot; **provided** there is an explanation as to why it should be Y. Just like we were discussing with the &quot;check my work&quot; questions. Because the answer could be &quot;Well, if it really were a negative sign, this would be a production term and not a dissipation term -- so we know the book is incorrect.&quot; In other words, we can provide physical (or logical/intuitive) reasons to help the questioner **understand** why what is there is right or wrong and how to diagnose potential errors using logic, reasoning and physical insight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That can't be done easily in a &quot;big list&quot; of errata format. So while a single list would make it easier for somebody to find the errata of some book, I think it doesn't serve the purpose of what we're trying to do here and it's better to have the questions about potential errors come in as they are now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking through the list of topics in the [Help Center][1], I would not be comfortable adding &quot;Potential errors and mistakes in your textbooks&quot; to the list of topics that we say people should stick to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="f36a2d32-ae68-45b3-a070-335efaa1321a" CreationDate="2014-09-06T06:13:41.420" UserId="1325" Text="This just looks rubbish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toolbar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The font looks blocky and ugly, and having the shaded rectangle overlap the title looks really amateurish. It's not that I have any special love for the old toolbar, but if we're going to change it can we at least change it for the better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UlYyx.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="f36a2d32-ae68-45b3-a070-335efaa1321a" CreationDate="2014-09-06T06:13:41.420" UserId="1325" Text="Can we please back out the toolbar changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="f36a2d32-ae68-45b3-a070-335efaa1321a" CreationDate="2014-09-06T06:13:41.420" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6115" RevisionGUID="e8fa6e91-7818-4a10-9ada-9c546d1d7dda" CreationDate="2014-09-06T08:37:00.710" UserId="24653" Text="I struggled with this too. It seems that it's due to a *Chrome* update. To undo this nonsense, type about:flags in your URL bar and click 'Enable' on the Disable DirectWrite Windows option (4th from above)! This fixed it, for me at least." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6115" RevisionGUID="ec2a9e5d-6973-4004-b2db-29ca860f0d02" CreationDate="2014-09-06T08:43:41.037" UserId="24653" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="I struggled with this too. It seems that it's due to a *Chrome* update. To undo this nonsense, type about:flags in your URL bar and click 'Enable' on the Disable DirectWrite Windows option (4th from above)! This fixed it, for me at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Crappy Update][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P4efo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="ce62441e-4212-424d-9791-e4773484a0ae" CreationDate="2014-09-06T15:20:00.690" UserId="124" Comment="add a blurb about closing particularly low-effort questions" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Think_ about the question. What do you already know that relates to it? Narrow it down to the specific physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). You may find it useful to use a dedicated scientific search engine, such as [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net), or [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can, if you want, post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, it's going to look like you didn't do your research, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that show a particular lack of research effort [may be put on hold (or &quot;closed&quot;)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions). In many of these cases, the advice in our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714) may be useful in improving the question enough to have it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="f08b5987-e3dd-4e49-9095-cf41dd272bed" CreationDate="2014-09-07T08:46:30.797" UserId="52647" Text="I have been registered with Physics SE for almost two months, I am not a physicist (programmer) and here not to get my homework done, but more of curious person. I have asked 8 questions so far, 3 zero score 5 positive. [One of questions][1] is closed due to lack of effort, [one is duplicate][2].    &#xD;&#xA;Today when I wanted to ask a question I got a warning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wait! Some of your past questions have not been well-received, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you're in danger of being blocked from asking any more.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For help formulating a clear, useful question, see: How do I ask a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After [reading that to get unbanned to ask questions][3] I have go contribute in other ways (presumedly answer questions which I would rather not as I am incompetent in physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I ask anymore questions (and possibly get banned), I wanted to know **what is the threshold of getting banned from asking more questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133263/what-distance-does-one-travels-in-his-lifetime&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131810/what-makes-us-move-in-time&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="f08b5987-e3dd-4e49-9095-cf41dd272bed" CreationDate="2014-09-07T08:46:30.797" UserId="52647" Text="What is threshold to get ban on asking questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="f08b5987-e3dd-4e49-9095-cf41dd272bed" CreationDate="2014-09-07T08:46:30.797" UserId="52647" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="9162a472-322c-44c7-a74d-2019c2df782d" CreationDate="2014-09-07T10:00:07.690" UserId="7433" Text="It's secret, and that message is sent rather early on in most cases so you have plenty of time to improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you seem to actively be trying to improve, by reading the policies and cross checking, it shouldn't hit you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14302" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="2c24fea7-5783-4acc-8ad8-d3e8b361eb30" CreationDate="2014-09-07T20:45:10.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/508717637094739968" />
  <row Id="14303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="c8e796e4-03d2-4bf4-ac08-5e3a6d236a0b" CreationDate="2014-09-07T22:37:34.350" UserId="23473" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="It seems that  many users find the  homework tag &quot;demeaning&quot;, e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving] or [tag:homework-like] as suggested by David Z), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning,&quot; despite the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="72911b4d-2551-47c3-993d-311571cea11b" CreationDate="2014-09-07T22:48:26.007" UserId="23473" Text="Want to post an answer in agreement with David Z and because this is an old thread, so maybe a new post will spark life into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for a rename, but I think [tag:homework-like] would be more appropriate. dmckee pointed out that [tag:problem-solving] would be misused and pasted on too many questions. That might be worst case scenario, but it's definitely believable. Whereas [tag:homework-like] would still get the message across about the type of question, but we'd also remove the problem of all the new users editing in the phrase &quot;Edit: This is not part of my homework! I am just interested in finding out about it&quot; or something like that. And seeing as there's an edit war going on right this second as I'm writing this over the inclusion of [tag:homework] because the OP keeps saying it's not part of his homework, I think clarifying to [tag:homework-like] could save us all some future headaches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="a63936a3-6ae4-472c-961b-da6afe0c271e" CreationDate="2014-09-08T13:41:25.257" UserId="1325" Text="I recently took a bit of stick for suggesting that the [Minkowski metric was an easy way to understand special relativity][1], and this morning I suspect I've managed to be more [confusing than helpful discussing this with Floris][2]. I wonder if this is the sort of issue that site members would be interested in discussing in a chat session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only reservation is that I'm not sure how well suited the SE chat is to this sort of thing; for example does it allow the posting of equations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there's any appetite for the idea, I wonder if there's a better way to do it than the SE chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134417/is-special-relativity-a-special-case-of-general-relativity-qualitatively/134422#134422&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110669/is-gravitational-time-dilation-different-from-other-forms-of-time-dilation/110675#comment275598_110675" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="a63936a3-6ae4-472c-961b-da6afe0c271e" CreationDate="2014-09-08T13:41:25.257" UserId="1325" Text="Chat tutorials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="a63936a3-6ae4-472c-961b-da6afe0c271e" CreationDate="2014-09-08T13:41:25.257" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="3383e253-4bc6-4680-acfe-8929b4d50914" CreationDate="2014-09-09T06:39:46.770" UserId="56578" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="3383e253-4bc6-4680-acfe-8929b4d50914" CreationDate="2014-09-09T06:39:46.770" UserId="56578" Text="Answering own question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="3383e253-4bc6-4680-acfe-8929b4d50914" CreationDate="2014-09-09T06:39:46.770" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="e4702332-747f-4599-b51f-83b90d9d791b" CreationDate="2014-09-09T06:46:17.113" UserId="56578" Comment="added 398 characters in body" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Technical Note*: probably it's my poor eyesight, but at Physics. SE when a word is linked to an URL, it is terribly difficult for me to notice it. I keep swinging the mouse on every word to check if the coluor changes.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make it more visible, as it happens in other sites of SE, making it of  a different colour **before** the mouse touches it? Even here at Meta it looks better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="d1452d9f-1364-4e31-bf58-2e6c272f72bb" CreationDate="2014-09-09T07:01:14.983" UserId="1325" Text="You can't upvote your own answer but you can accept it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for answering your own question would be that you think it would be interesting/useful to the Physics SE community. If you think this would be the case then yes you should go ahead and write the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reservation I have is that your question is rather elementary. You calculate the forces by taking moments about the points where the feet touch the ground, and (in the UK) this is something you get taught in basic mechanics from around age 16. I don't know what the demographics of the Physics SE community look like, but I'd be surprised if many members didn't already know this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you think it would be interesting and rewarding to write your own answer you should ignore old duffers like me and go ahead and do it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="d1d02831-ba6c-441a-b68f-f9e9a400d644" CreationDate="2014-09-09T07:25:15.533" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1221 characters in body" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Technical Note*: probably it's my poor eyesight, but at Physics. SE when a word is linked to an URL, it is terribly difficult for me to notice it. I keep swinging the mouse on every word to check if the colour changes.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make it more visible, as it happens in other sites of SE, making it of  a different colour **before** the mouse touches it? Even here at Meta it looks better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The only reservation I have is that your question is rather elementary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discovered it is, the point is that there are always doubts, when phisics is concerned, anyway  we both answered such an *elementary* question(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132860/why-is-acceleration-constant-in-this-example/132870#132870) or *silly* question:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132680/describing-objects-in-the-first-dimension/132700#132700. &#xD;&#xA;Probably for you it is an exception, but, as I am more ignorant than astudent, for me is the ordinary thread of the mill: race between hare and tortoise, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133833/two-runners-on-two-different-tracks/133860#133860, etc. This last is really elementary, but it sparked of an interesting controversy nobody will ever settle. Probably you would like to play umpire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I can easily delete my question, but *I thought this practice is discouraged*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I am content with my solution and I do not mind losing two upvotes. If future viewers will have same proble, will post same question again. (btw: the horizontal friction it is not easy, unless you are an engineer). It seems that our average viewer is worried by spaghetti and meatballs and how you can run away fron your shadow!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="aa70d750-8f6c-4f48-8fd4-bbc5f0e70743" CreationDate="2014-09-09T09:11:42.163" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Technical Note*: probably it's my poor eyesight, but at Physics. SE when a word is linked to an URL, it is terribly difficult for me to notice it. I keep swinging the mouse on every word to check if the colour changes.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make it more visible, as it happens in other sites of SE, making it of  a different colour **before** the mouse touches it? Even here at Meta it looks better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The only reservation I have is that your question is rather elementary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discovered it is, the point is that there are always doubts, when phisics is concerned, anyway  we both answered such an *elementary* question(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132860/why-is-acceleration-constant-in-this-example/132870#132870) or *silly* question:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132680/describing-objects-in-the-first-dimension/132700#132700. &#xD;&#xA;Probably for you it is an exception, but, as I am more ignorant than astudent, for me is the ordinary thread of the mill: race between hare and tortoise, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133833/two-runners-on-two-different-tracks/133860#133860, etc. This last is really elementary, but it sparked of an interesting controversy nobody will ever settle. Probably you would like to play umpire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I delete my question?, but *I thought this practice is discouraged*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I am content with my solution I do not need to post it for other members. If future viewers will have same proble, will post same question again. (btw: the horizontal friction it is not easy, unless you are an engineer). It seems that our average viewer is worried by spaghetti and meatballs and how you can run away fron your shadow!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="04a2aa6b-a1f2-4d58-9cc3-b93f67874c5d" CreationDate="2014-09-09T09:19:04.803" UserId="56578" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Technical Note*: probably it's my poor eyesight, but at Physics. SE when a word is linked to an URL, it is terribly difficult for me to notice it. I keep swinging the mouse on every word to check if the colour changes.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make it more visible, as it happens in other sites of SE, making it of  a different colour **before** the mouse touches it? Even here at Meta it looks better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The only reservation I have is that your question is rather elementary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discovered it is, the point is that there are always doubts, when physics is concerned, anyway  we both answered such an *elementary* question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132860/why-is-acceleration-constant-in-this-example or such a *silly* one: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132680/describing-objects-in-the-first-dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably for you it is an exception, but, as I am more ignorant than astudent, for me is the ordinary thread of the mill: race between hare and tortoise, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133833/two-runners-on-two-different-tracks/133860#133860, etc. This last is really elementary, but it sparked of an interesting controversy nobody will ever settle. And what about this:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134468/determining-the-decay-constant-for-a-damped-wave, is it less elementary than mine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I delete my question?, but *I thought this practice is discouraged*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I am content with my solution I do not need to post it for other members. If future viewers will have same proble, will post same question again. (btw: the horizontal friction it is not easy, unless you are an engineer). It seems that our average viewer is worried by spaghetti and meatballs and how you can run away fron your shadow!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="dac1e822-3bca-4339-aaac-ef64ea2683cf" CreationDate="2014-09-09T09:24:54.260" UserId="56578" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Technical Note*: probably it's my poor eyesight, but at Physics. SE when a word is linked to an URL, it is terribly difficult for me to notice it. I keep swinging the mouse on every word to check if the colour changes.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make it more visible, as it happens in other sites of SE, making it of  a different colour **before** the mouse touches it? Even here at Meta it looks better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The only reservation I have is that your question is rather elementary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discovered it is, the point is that there are always doubts, when physics is concerned, anyway  we both answered such an *elementary* question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132860/why-is-acceleration-constant-in-this-example or such a *silly* one: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132680/describing-objects-in-the-first-dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably for you it is an exception, but, as I am more ignorant than a student, answering simple question is for me ordinary run of the mill: race between hare and tortoise,  etc,,https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133833/two-runners-on-two-different-tracks/133860#133860, etc. This last is really elementary, but it sparked of an interesting controversy nobody will ever settle. And what about this:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134468/determining-the-decay-constant-for-a-damped-wave, is it less elementary than mine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I delete my question?, but *I thought this practice is discouraged*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I am content with my solution I do not need to post it for other members. If future viewers will have same proble, will post same question again. (btw: the horizontal friction it is not easy, unless you are an engineer). It seems that our average viewer is worried by spaghetti and meatballs and how you can run away fron your shadow!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="d9d57207-16af-444d-8195-4a09532485b7" CreationDate="2014-09-09T14:28:45.933" UserId="56578" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="When I joined I found *this possibility* interesting but asked myself if it is ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But three days ago I asked: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134242/how-is-weight-distributed-when-legs-are-astride ? and got 0 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As I needed the information I did some research and found a possible answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I suppose that after 3 days I can answer my question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I suppose that if I post it I cannot upvote it, but, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if it remains the **only** answer, what happens? I suppose I cannot accept my own answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Technical Note*: probably it's my poor eyesight, but at Physics. SE when a word is linked to an URL, it is terribly difficult for me to notice it. I keep swinging the mouse on every word to check if the colour changes.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make it more visible, as it happens in other sites of SE, making it of  a different colour **before** the mouse touches it? Even here at Meta it looks better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The only reservation I have is that your question is rather elementary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discovered it is, the point is that there are always doubts, when physics is concerned, anyway  we both answered such an *elementary* question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132860/why-is-acceleration-constant-in-this-example or such a *silly* one: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132680/describing-objects-in-the-first-dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably for you it is an exception, but, as I am more ignorant than a student, answering simple question is for me ordinary run of the mill: race between hare and tortoise,  etc,,https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133833/two-runners-on-two-different-tracks/133860#133860, etc. This last is really elementary, but it sparked of an interesting controversy nobody will ever settle. And what about this:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134468/determining-the-decay-constant-for-a-damped-wave, is it less elementary than mine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I delete my question?, but *I thought this practice is discouraged*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I am content with my solution I do not need to post it for other members. If future viewers will have same proble, will post same question again. (btw: the horizontal friction it is not easy, unless you are an engineer). It seems that our average viewer is worried by spaghetti and meatballs and how you can run away fron your shadow!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14318" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="4bad2415-9c04-4e8c-9c95-0019b7addc5c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T17:52:21.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/509398921614221313" />
  <row Id="14319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="11ae5e0b-d077-4a5f-98ab-d2b0878e6df2" CreationDate="2014-09-10T04:32:27.913" UserId="52112" Text="I've read the meta questions on duplicates. This question may well be a duplicate, but there are some unlearned lessons in those answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions prompted me to raise this issue in meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/if-the-universe-is-expanding-what-is-it-expanding-into)  &#xD;&#xA;Apparently this question is used so often as a link target for other questions that a rather large bounty was given to provide better answers. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Special Relativity, 2nd Postulate — Why?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134356/special-relativity-2nd-postulate-why/134365#134365)  &#xD;&#xA;This question was closed as a duplicate of [Special Relativity Second Postulate](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34024/special-relativity-second-postulate). Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is a poorly formed question. It asks four distinct questions at once, and the answers are subpar as a result. A google search on &quot;what is the universe expanding into&quot; will yield a number of well-written answers. Our site should be on that list! Each of the four questions raised in that one question should be a question of its own. In fact, some of those questions have been asked individually, and those individually asked questions have received better answers. But yet they are marked as duplicates of the cited poorly written question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the second question, the only thing the two questions have in common are that they both ask about Einstein's second postulate of special relativity. The older question asks whether that postulate truly does mean that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The newer one asks what motivated Einstein to choose that axiom. These are not duplicates. The older question did not ask the latter question, and none of the answers to that older question broach the subject raised in the newer question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before marking a question as a duplicate of another one should ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is this new question really a duplicate of the target question? Do the answers to the target question answer the question posed in the new question?  &#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, this question is not a duplicate. Don't mark it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the target question well posed? Are the answers to the target question well written?  &#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, and particularly if the new question is much better posed than the target, don't mark the new question as a duplicate. Close the old question as trash instead of giving a massive bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="11ae5e0b-d077-4a5f-98ab-d2b0878e6df2" CreationDate="2014-09-10T04:32:27.913" UserId="52112" Text="Duplicate meta-question on duplicate questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="11ae5e0b-d077-4a5f-98ab-d2b0878e6df2" CreationDate="2014-09-10T04:32:27.913" UserId="52112" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="243d394e-8114-48da-8b9e-dedfc33579ff" CreationDate="2014-09-10T05:13:55.693" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 163 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've read the meta questions on duplicates. This question may well be a duplicate, but there are some unlearned lessons in those answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions prompted me to raise this issue in meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7359/)  &#xD;&#xA;Apparently this question is used so often as a link target for other questions that a rather large bounty was given to provide better answers. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Special Relativity, 2nd Postulate — Why?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134356/)  &#xD;&#xA;This question was closed as a duplicate of [Special Relativity Second Postulate](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34024/). Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is a poorly formed question. It asks four distinct questions at once, and the answers are subpar as a result. A google search on &quot;what is the universe expanding into&quot; will yield a number of well-written answers. Our site should be on that list! Each of the four questions raised in that one question should be a question of its own. In fact, some of those questions have been asked individually, and those individually asked questions have received better answers. But yet they are marked as duplicates of the cited poorly written question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the second question, the only thing the two questions have in common are that they both ask about Einstein's second postulate of special relativity. The older question asks whether that postulate truly does mean that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The newer one asks what motivated Einstein to choose that axiom. These are not duplicates. The older question did not ask the latter question, and none of the answers to that older question broach the subject raised in the newer question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before marking a question as a duplicate of another one should ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is this new question really a duplicate of the target question? Do the answers to the target question answer the question posed in the new question?  &#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, this question is not a duplicate. Don't mark it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the target question well posed? Are the answers to the target question well written?  &#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, and particularly if the new question is much better posed than the target, don't mark the new question as a duplicate. Close the old question as trash instead of giving a massive bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14323" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="243d394e-8114-48da-8b9e-dedfc33579ff" CreationDate="2014-09-10T05:13:55.693" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 163 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="b01e5e09-88d7-45cf-ab2e-c0cee74a2911" CreationDate="2014-09-10T11:16:20.230" UserId="1325" Text="Re (1): [Danu suggested a while back][1] that we should have a set of canonical questions that could be used as targets for duplicates. I'd guess Chris' bounty is an attempt to get such a canonical answer. Maybe the effort would be better spent on writing a new and clearer question/answer. If so Chris could ask the mods to refund the bounty and then write a new question - I guess that's up to Chris. Whatever the case, if a really good answer to the current question emerges that has to be a useful step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re (2): when questions are a little ill posed I often try to provide a broader answer than the one actually requested. Of course I'll answer the question, but I'll usually also try to put it in context and expand around it. So although you're correct that the two questions are different I think they basically have the same answer(s) and can usefully be regarded as duplicates. We seem to differ about what the key features of that answer is, but that's physics I guess :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14325" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="d21439c1-07f8-4a39-9631-41e7f86dc258" CreationDate="2014-09-10T11:31:15.013" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239173/physics-stack-exchange-styling-issue-in-chrome-when-not-logged-in" />
  <row Id="14326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="766c5a1f-6c1e-4176-be9b-6ec73dc9ec7d" CreationDate="2014-09-10T11:28:43.217" UserId="58881" UserDisplayName="ForkandBeard" Text="Looking at this question on physics.stackexchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134705/what-are-washers-for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The highlighted heading (Questions) looks odd. I'm not logged in to that site and I'm using Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Odd styling screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AJwbW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="766c5a1f-6c1e-4176-be9b-6ec73dc9ec7d" CreationDate="2014-09-10T11:28:43.217" UserId="58881" UserDisplayName="ForkandBeard" Text="Physics stack exchange styling issue in Chrome when not logged in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="766c5a1f-6c1e-4176-be9b-6ec73dc9ec7d" CreationDate="2014-09-10T11:28:43.217" UserId="58881" UserDisplayName="ForkandBeard" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14329" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="7f35eec7-2339-4a77-b405-03cf986a6cd1" CreationDate="2014-09-10T15:49:19.433" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6114],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:24653,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Danu&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14330" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="00f83d9a-345e-42fb-8f90-3cf8616745bc" CreationDate="2014-09-11T13:18:55.187" UserId="24653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14331" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="abb6cddd-88da-451d-8ee8-92d9bb9ab38f" CreationDate="2014-09-11T20:27:45.377" UserId="58972" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|status-bydesign|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="10d5e5ae-b645-4e32-89fe-851b7816727a" CreationDate="2014-09-11T21:32:38.120" UserId="58771" Text="First I am sorry if this question is repeated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to send a private message to a user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="10d5e5ae-b645-4e32-89fe-851b7816727a" CreationDate="2014-09-11T21:32:38.120" UserId="58771" Text="Can I send masseges &quot; private messages '' to a user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="10d5e5ae-b645-4e32-89fe-851b7816727a" CreationDate="2014-09-11T21:32:38.120" UserId="58771" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="9e81bc54-1d42-4a1f-849f-94d5b40e215e" CreationDate="2014-09-11T21:43:09.730" UserId="520" Text="There is no private message facility and the team has regularly and robustly turned down all such suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get another user's attention by [tagging them in the comments][1] (though they need to have participated in the discussion or editing of a post for that to work), and you can (with [sufficient rep][2]) open a chat room for holding a conversation. That last suggestion isn't private in the sense that others are excluded but you probably won't have a lot of people poking their noses in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat-rooms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="44f39c6f-0a86-4435-b4de-37732efc6e93" CreationDate="2014-09-12T05:07:07.340" UserId="1325" Comment="Clarification (I hope)" Text="Can I send &quot;private messages'' to a user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="95defaf6-b708-4766-b678-892f99e14e22" CreationDate="2014-09-12T15:52:19.040" UserId="16015" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: A web portal for reading preprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FxXxJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14338" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="49918b93-2312-43f9-b200-ab63ebaaee43" CreationDate="2014-09-12T15:52:19.040" UserId="16015" />
  <row Id="14339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="e6cba75f-4611-4808-bce3-1da3702504a5" CreationDate="2014-09-12T19:26:27.163" UserId="26969" Text="Yesterday I hit the rep cap thanks to some unexpectedly well received answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I don't understand: I got three answers accepted, which I thought should give me 45 &quot;cap free&quot; points. Add to that 200 &quot;capped&quot; points should get me to 245 - but somehow I was capped at 235 (with a lot of upvotes that carried no points but got me two &quot;nice answer&quot; and one &quot;enlightened&quot; badges).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my question: I saw there was a &quot;late in the day&quot; vote reversal which removed 10 points - but this reversal did not &quot;promote&quot; a previously uncounted +10 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this expected behavior? I don't want to appear like I'm whining (OK I probably failed there) - I just want to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="e6cba75f-4611-4808-bce3-1da3702504a5" CreationDate="2014-09-12T19:26:27.163" UserId="26969" Text="rep cap and accepted answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="e6cba75f-4611-4808-bce3-1da3702504a5" CreationDate="2014-09-12T19:26:27.163" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="4d8a475f-06c3-474a-bc1d-e38cae8540ca" CreationDate="2014-09-12T22:45:51.150" UserId="26969" Comment="added 1677 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Yesterday I hit the rep cap thanks to some unexpectedly well received answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I don't understand: I got three answers accepted, which I thought should give me 45 &quot;cap free&quot; points. Add to that 200 &quot;capped&quot; points should get me to 245 - but somehow I was capped at 235 (with a lot of upvotes that carried no points but got me two &quot;nice answer&quot; and one &quot;enlightened&quot; badges).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my question: I saw there was a &quot;late in the day&quot; vote reversal which removed 10 points - but this reversal did not &quot;promote&quot; a previously uncounted +10 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this expected behavior? I don't want to appear like I'm whining (OK I probably failed there) - I just want to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** screenshot of rep tab http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26969/floris?tab=reputation :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation shows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134932 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134932 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134935 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     1    134932 (15)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [10]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     1    135024 [15]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134791 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134932 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135078 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135078 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135078 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     1    134793 [15]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -- 2014-09-11 rep +245  = 10335     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the sum of rep increments on the entire file - and it looks like I did indeed get credited with 245 points although the reputation tab says I got 235.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words - I have to (re)tag this as a bug, not a discussion...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SXKeT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14343" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="4d8a475f-06c3-474a-bc1d-e38cae8540ca" CreationDate="2014-09-12T22:45:51.150" UserId="26969" Comment="added 1677 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="b1a2434d-9713-4b66-809c-5bc2973393e3" CreationDate="2014-09-12T23:26:56.590" UserId="520" Comment="added 379 characters in body" Text="There is no private message facility and the team has regularly and robustly turned down all such suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get another user's attention by [tagging them in the comments][1] (though they need to have participated in the discussion or editing of a post for that to work), and you can (with [sufficient rep][2]) open a chat room for holding a conversation. That last suggestion isn't private in the sense that others are excluded but you probably won't have a lot of people poking their noses in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra is &quot;This is not a social network!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some Physics SE user find this to be insufficiently friendly and have responded with the meta.physics most [&quot;Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions&quot;][3] where you are explicitly invited to ping them in order to direct their attention to other posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat-rooms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1159/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="6387be9c-eb75-4adb-a570-8fc1c94a29c0" CreationDate="2014-09-13T05:11:15.763" UserId="16015" Comment="use new picture" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: A web portal for reading preprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvnEG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="0300fa34-e002-4688-bd2e-97af230678b3" CreationDate="2014-09-13T06:53:18.907" UserId="16015" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: another web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvnEG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="55ce7e0a-3ba7-48ce-88e8-7da472207878" CreationDate="2014-09-13T21:11:07.187" UserId="31790" Text="That would be really really useful. This is a problem with a lot of SE sites, but let's fix this here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="55ce7e0a-3ba7-48ce-88e8-7da472207878" CreationDate="2014-09-13T21:11:07.187" UserId="31790" Text="Why isn't a description of Physics SE's scope on the front page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="55ce7e0a-3ba7-48ce-88e8-7da472207878" CreationDate="2014-09-13T21:11:07.187" UserId="31790" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="70de34cf-978c-4557-9990-f6da6ac164c8" CreationDate="2014-09-13T21:25:24.770" UserId="520" Text="I suspect that it is not on the front page because space on that page is *valuable*, and most people don't have cause to reference the scope on a daily basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="6f77d6b1-9b45-4d60-a2f6-fb131348845b" CreationDate="2014-09-13T21:28:01.387" UserId="31790" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="That would be really really useful. This is a problem with a lot of SE sites, but let's fix this here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If real estate on the front page is the issue, how about a small link: &quot;scope of this site&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="86d6d58a-4144-4b25-b472-19204ddf6e0e" CreationDate="2014-09-14T00:24:48.290" UserId="53091" Text="See this [Physics SE post][1].  I maintain that it doesn't violate the homework policy for someone to provide a complete answer because (1) the OP attempted the question and got it wrong (2) the OP has the answer key and posted the correct answer.  They are missing something conceptually and trying to understand why they got the wrong answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any reason why a complete answer would be conducive to cheating.  In my opinion, the moderators applied the HW policy without consideration of these details, simply because a complete answer was provided to a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135249/whats-the-relation-between-output-voltage-and-time-to-boil-water-given-the-same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="86d6d58a-4144-4b25-b472-19204ddf6e0e" CreationDate="2014-09-14T00:24:48.290" UserId="53091" Text="This question shouldn't violate the homework policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="86d6d58a-4144-4b25-b472-19204ddf6e0e" CreationDate="2014-09-14T00:24:48.290" UserId="53091" Text="|discussion|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6132" RevisionGUID="7ad21585-3230-48dc-8b5c-60e514e58564" CreationDate="2014-09-14T00:38:28.310" UserId="520" Text="I don't speak for anyone else here, but my reason for wanting to discouraging homework-like questions is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Firstly because if we don't that will be all the site does&#xD;&#xA;* Secondly because people *don't* learn from being told. They learn from figuring things out. If you must answer, then provide them with a leading answer so that they still have to have the realization themselves: that is where the learning happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But frankly, if left to my own preferences, we just wouldn't entertain homework-like questions at all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="fb92471e-46ec-419f-948f-3370c3c7840f" CreationDate="2014-09-14T04:58:23.243" UserId="124" Text="Let me expand upon the argument that I first put forth in the comments on that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the homework policy applies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) specifies what sorts of questions it applies to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentionally somewhat vague; it speaks to the intent behind the policy (see below for more on this intent) rather than giving an objective procedure for determining whether a question is homework-like, because frankly, we haven't been able to come up with such a procedure. In practice we rely on our high-reputation members' intuition for how homework questions are written to determine which questions it should apply to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the relevant part of the question we're discussing reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W needed 10 minutes to boil water when it is half filled with water in Singapore where the output voltage is 220V. Estimate the amount of time needed to do the same task if the kettle was brought to the USA where the output voltage is 110V. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope we all agree that this question _does_ satisfy the criterion presented in the first sentence of the policy, and thus that the homework policy is applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the question was closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part of the homework policy for this point is this (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and **ask about that specifically**. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let me quote again the core question from the post being discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's quite clear that this core question, considered in isolation, is not about a conceptual issue that was encountered while trying to solve the problem, it's asking for a complete explanation of the solution. But of course there was more in the post than just that core question and the quotation of the homework problem. Between them is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My answer to this question is Option 3 (20 minutes) because I thought that since output voltage is the USA is 2 times less than that of Singapore, it would take twice as long to do the same task of boiling water half filled. However, the answer key was Option 4 (40 minutes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this part does not actually _ask_ anything, nor does it modify what the core question is about. Accordingly it doesn't change the fact that the question is asking for a complete solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; P.S. I don't quite understand what it is meant by &quot; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W&quot; ??? I get that 2000W means the kettle uses 2000J/s and V means work done by kettle/charge. But what is the difference between the 2 (power and charge of the kettle)? And how does the V of kettle differ from output voltage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I don't believe is relevant for two reasons: first of all, it shouldn't be possible to sneak a request for a complete solution through by also asking something else in the same question. To implement that, posts which primarily ask for a complete solution but include some other supplementary questions should still be closed. Besides, &quot;P.S.&quot; explicitly indicates that the following material is not the main focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding these two points,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) the OP attempted the question and got it wrong (2) the OP has the answer key and posted the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say again that the homework policy requires an asker to narrow down their question to the specific conceptual issue that is giving them trouble. Both points (1) and (2) are true but they do not change the fact that the OP in this case is not asking about a specific conceptual issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the answer was deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply, this excerpt from the homework policy covers it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I maintain that the answer which I deleted gives away a near-complete solution, in that it explains how one would derive the given answer of 40 seconds. Yes, it does identify that the question is a poor one, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer gives away a near-complete solution. (For now I'm refraining from posting that near-complete solution here, but if it becomes important I'll edit it in.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is the intent of the homework policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above discussion has addressed why (I think) the question should be closed and the answer deleted under the _letter_ of the homework policy, but not under its _spirit_. In particular, let's consider the argument that, regardless of what the HW policy actually says, its intent is to prevent cheating and a complete answer isn't conducive to cheating in this case. I don't agree, for two reasons. First, because the value of the problem lies in the OP working through it step by step, doing as much of it as possible, so as to learn the method. By giving away a complete explanation of how the answer is achieved, we rob the OP of that value. And second, because any time we provide a complete or near-complete answer to a homework-like question, it pushes our site's reputation a tiny bit toward that of a place where people can come and get their homework problems explained to them. We don't want that. This is supposed to be a site primarily geared toward physics research and applications, not a homework help site. And we already get too many homework-like questions despite _not_ having the reputation of a site that welcomes them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is expressed in other words in the following quote from a Math Meta post, which is also quoted in our homework policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest, and if a solution complete enough to be copied verbatim and handed in is given immediately, it will encourage more people to use the site as a free homework service. In the spirit of creating a lasting resource of mathematical knowledge, you may come back after a suitable amount of time and edit your response to include a more complete answer. Or even better, the student can post his own correct answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6134" RevisionGUID="13c450a1-b6a2-4fa6-ac00-4e20b5f19411" CreationDate="2014-09-14T11:15:43.937" UserId="1325" Text="I can see your point, that the question is about what related power to voltage, but as it stands the question is a check my work question and ripe for closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to rework the question into a conceptual one that stands a chance of being reopened. I note there is a deleted answer that addresses my reworked version of the question. If the consensus is that the question is now OK maybe the answer could be undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general comment: if you feel strongly that a question should be reopened then editing it and voting to reopen is the best way forward. All users with enough rep will see the reopen request appear in the review queue, and if your edit is persuasive enough they will vote to reopen the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="2e883061-0354-45e1-b313-180dab7982ad" CreationDate="2014-09-14T15:04:39.090" UserId="25301" Text="I know that most of us are &quot;paper theorists,&quot; but I think we need to remember that experimental physics is physics too!  We have several tags for experimental physics (with tag excerpts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technology](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technology)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;Use this tag for questions pertaining to the limits, management, and operation of equipment necessary to experimental physics. This tag is not intended for &quot;does this thing I heard about actually work&quot; type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;for questions about design, process, data, or analysis of experiments and observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technique](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; filling in the unspecified details of elegant-sounding descriptions of experimental methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some of us are a little quick to close questions that seem to be engineering (e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135259/how-can-i-make-a-dry-dilution-refrigerator-quiet that was closed and even downvoted--and also the cause for this Meta post). This merely begs the question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *objectively* separates **engineering** questions from **experimental physics** ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;see also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1132/experimental-technology-questions-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2948/should-how-do-i-solve-this-experimental-problem-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design (of which this might be a possible duplicate?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="2e883061-0354-45e1-b313-180dab7982ad" CreationDate="2014-09-14T15:04:39.090" UserId="25301" Text="Experimental Physics &amp; Engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="2e883061-0354-45e1-b313-180dab7982ad" CreationDate="2014-09-14T15:04:39.090" UserId="25301" Text="|discussion|scope|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14362" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="84b1be49-41b0-4df2-8d21-f69287f9a145" CreationDate="2014-09-14T18:03:38.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/511213699907207168" />
  <row Id="14363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="6dc8f46c-540a-469e-81b6-4714b9c61c2a" CreationDate="2014-09-14T18:52:16.377" UserId="31790" Text="&gt; What objectively separates **engineering** questions from **experimental** physics ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue that trying to formulate such a distinction is not the correct way to attack the problem of deciding what questions should and shouldn't be considered on-topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;A better approach is to ask whether or not physics or engineering flavor is more appropriate in the *answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a question of answers&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to build a waveguide resonator with low dielectric loss.&#xD;&#xA;I could post the following question to either Physics SE or Electrical Engineering SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I design the geometry of a waveguide resonator so that it has the minimal dielectric loss?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae.&#xD;&#xA;If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging potential at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.&#xD;&#xA;Heck, if I pose it to the right person I might learn about numerical recipes to solve electrostatics problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example has illustrated that the appropriate place for a question can depend on what kind of answer the person posing question wants.&#xD;&#xA;It would be wise to keep this in mind when judging the appropriateness of questions on this site.&#xD;&#xA;Before, knee-jerk voting to close a question, we must ask ourselves if the asker may have had a reason to post it here instead of somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who is reading your question?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our capacity as experimental physicists, my colleagues and I spend &gt;99% of our time building equipment, fixing equipment, and programming a computer.&#xD;&#xA;These are all activities which could be classified as &quot;engineering&quot;, yet we identify as physicists.&#xD;&#xA;I frequent Physics SE and not Electrical Engineering SE.&#xD;&#xA;This is not without reason: I am far more qualified to answer questions here than I am on Electrical Engineering and, even when I'm asking an engineeringy question, I would rather get the benefit of people who work in similar environments and with similar equipment as myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point here is that another important aspect to deciding whether a question should be categorized as &quot;engineering&quot; is the readership of the site.&#xD;&#xA;If I ask a question about a machine, the Physics Lab Quizzwopper 2000X, nobody on Electrical Engineering SE will ever have heard of it.&#xD;&#xA;So, while a theorist might find a *question* about equipment off-topic, an experimentalist will not, because the experimentalist wants the *answer* which only a physicists can give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audiences aren't well delineated&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I use the symmetries of physical system XYZ in order to vectorize my simulation program in computer memory for optimal performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to objectively categorize this *question* as &quot;physics&quot; or &quot;engineering&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;All we can say is that the person most like to give a useful *answer* to this question is someone who has solved a similar problem in the past.&#xD;&#xA;This could be a &quot;physicist&quot; who had to learn some programming or an &quot;engineer&quot; who had to solve a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's probably reasonable to let the question sit wherever the asker put it, and if it doesn't get any attention, that person can move it somewhere else and try again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="442ec814-6b08-437d-9589-cc14f7c8f1ba" CreationDate="2014-09-14T19:35:42.883" UserId="31790" Comment="Added P.S. note." Text="&gt; What objectively separates **engineering** questions from **experimental** physics ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue that trying to formulate such a distinction is not the correct way to attack the problem of deciding what questions should and shouldn't be considered on-topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;A better approach is to ask whether or not physics or engineering flavor is more appropriate in the *answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a question of answers&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to build a waveguide resonator with low dielectric loss.&#xD;&#xA;I could post the following question to either Physics SE or Electrical Engineering SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I design the geometry of a waveguide resonator so that it has the minimal dielectric loss?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae.&#xD;&#xA;If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging potential at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.&#xD;&#xA;Heck, if I pose it to the right person I might learn about numerical recipes to solve electrostatics problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example has illustrated that the appropriate place for a question can depend on what kind of answer the person posing question wants.&#xD;&#xA;It would be wise to keep this in mind when judging the appropriateness of questions on this site.&#xD;&#xA;Before, knee-jerk voting to close a question, we must ask ourselves if the asker may have had a reason to post it here instead of somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who is reading your question?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our capacity as experimental physicists, my colleagues and I spend &gt;99% of our time building equipment, fixing equipment, and programming a computer.&#xD;&#xA;These are all activities which could be classified as &quot;engineering&quot;, yet we identify as physicists.&#xD;&#xA;I frequent Physics SE and not Electrical Engineering SE.&#xD;&#xA;This is not without reason: I am far more qualified to answer questions here than I am on Electrical Engineering and, even when I'm asking an engineeringy question, I would rather get the benefit of people who work in similar environments and with similar equipment as myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point here is that another important aspect to deciding whether a question should be categorized as &quot;engineering&quot; is the readership of the site.&#xD;&#xA;If I ask a question about a machine, the Physics Lab Quizzwopper 2000X, nobody on Electrical Engineering SE will ever have heard of it.&#xD;&#xA;So, while a theorist might find a *question* about equipment off-topic, an experimentalist will not, because the experimentalist wants the *answer* which only a physicists can give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audiences aren't well delineated&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I use the symmetries of physical system XYZ in order to vectorize my simulation program in computer memory for optimal performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to objectively categorize this *question* as &quot;physics&quot; or &quot;engineering&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;All we can say is that the person most like to give a useful *answer* to this question is someone who has solved a similar problem in the past.&#xD;&#xA;This could be a &quot;physicist&quot; who had to learn some programming or an &quot;engineer&quot; who had to solve a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's probably reasonable to let the question sit wherever the asker put it, and if it doesn't get any attention, that person can move it somewhere else and try again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I have avoided proposing an objective criterion by which to decide whether a given question is appropriate for this site, as that issue is not strictly within the scope of the original question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14365" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="61f25852-7b0f-45b1-825d-3b0432cd69e4" CreationDate="2014-09-15T03:04:44.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/511349870482186240" />
  <row Id="14366" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="a4788848-b727-4a6c-94cf-d294b6e9bf55" CreationDate="2014-09-18T18:41:52.807" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|tags|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="450bd7cc-6a4a-4514-ad26-845a69b350f6" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:13:51.867" UserId="29011" Text="For instance take a look at this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What technology can result from such expensive experiment as undertaken in CERN?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135764/what-technology-can-result-from-such-expensive-experiment-as-undertaken-in-cern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the top most answer has just 2 upvotes while a couple of 30-odd upvoted answers and even a 50 upvote answer is simply hidden away at the bottom. I'm finding this a recurring feature in several questions and it always puzzles me! Why doesn't Physics SE sort answers the same way as other SE sites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="450bd7cc-6a4a-4514-ad26-845a69b350f6" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:13:51.867" UserId="29011" Text="Why is Physics SE so bad at sorting answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="450bd7cc-6a4a-4514-ad26-845a69b350f6" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:13:51.867" UserId="29011" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6138" RevisionGUID="71ad2cd4-384d-4e98-a816-220d6f9889a8" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:21:56.543" UserId="2451" Text="You have probably accidentally clicked the feature where the answers are ordered according to activity rather than votes. To order according to votes, click on the 'votes' icon (rather than the 'active' and 'oldest' icons) at the place where the question ends and the answers begin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14371" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="67e481b7-e219-4e55-b35e-017096038fc3" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:49:32.213" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6138" RevisionGUID="ea8488c9-ca82-4dbc-bed5-9e985706ec5c" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:51:05.177" UserId="23068" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="You have probably accidentally clicked the feature where the answers are ordered according to activity rather than votes. To order according to votes, click on the 'votes' icon (rather than the 'active' and 'oldest' icons) at the place where the question ends and the answers begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![sorting answers][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQ1FF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="d1456af9-a3d5-4552-bb1a-10b7a6e62d86" CreationDate="2014-09-19T16:03:39.660" UserId="41376" Text="I have seen several questions, already inactive, for which an answer was given which was useful to the user asking, but not marked as the answer. It was easy to see they were useful from the comments and flags from the user asking. But since they seem long time inactive, I wonder what happens with these questions ultimately? Do they get closed? And also it seems they are even abandoned by the rest of the users, no new votes or flags. It would be strange that they are not visited any more by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there be a strategy to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of what I mention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 2][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 4][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 5][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3488/why-do-things-that-are-far-away-seem-smaller&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3688/why-does-pressure-act-as-a-source-for-the-gravitational-field&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3563/the-source-of-the-light-we-see-from-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3554/whats-a-good-reference-for-this-classical-picture-feynmans-talking-about&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3505/free-electrons-and-energy-states" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="d1456af9-a3d5-4552-bb1a-10b7a6e62d86" CreationDate="2014-09-19T16:03:39.660" UserId="41376" Text="No marked answer when user found it usefull" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="d1456af9-a3d5-4552-bb1a-10b7a6e62d86" CreationDate="2014-09-19T16:03:39.660" UserId="41376" Text="|support|accepted-answer|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="04b7eb3d-3782-4e40-baaa-0230a1e1f0b8" CreationDate="2014-09-20T15:13:48.647" UserId="1325" Text="Someone recently asked a question about whether you could observe beat frequencies of light. I think it was within the last week. Can anyone remember the question? Despite what I think are obvious search terms I'm unable to find the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because a [paper has just appeared on the Arxiv demonstrating exactly this effect](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2384) and I think this would make a nice answer to the question if only I could find it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="04b7eb3d-3782-4e40-baaa-0230a1e1f0b8" CreationDate="2014-09-20T15:13:48.647" UserId="1325" Text="Question about beat frequencies of light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="04b7eb3d-3782-4e40-baaa-0230a1e1f0b8" CreationDate="2014-09-20T15:13:48.647" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="0ee5a545-be7c-4af1-b17d-e50f0e5543fc" CreationDate="2014-09-21T05:18:48.880" UserId="431" Text="The styling on my navbar buttons is a bit off. The font is a bit strange and the highlighted area overlaps the sort-by tabs. Mucking around in the DOM/Style inspector, if I uncheck the `font-family` property of `.nav a` it is magically fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've hit Ctrl-F5 (cacheless refresh) to no avail.  Not sure if this is just my browser screwing up or if I'm being AB tested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x2O2f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="0ee5a545-be7c-4af1-b17d-e50f0e5543fc" CreationDate="2014-09-21T05:18:48.880" UserId="431" Text="Nav buttons (Questions, Tags, Users...) styling seems screwed up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="0ee5a545-be7c-4af1-b17d-e50f0e5543fc" CreationDate="2014-09-21T05:18:48.880" UserId="431" Text="|support|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14382" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="27e7a0c5-c707-4a22-bd51-d36b68eb19b8" CreationDate="2014-09-21T06:02:57.540" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6114],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6142" RevisionGUID="6c99d610-ce52-40aa-bcab-f14c78448ed4" CreationDate="2014-09-21T17:50:19.277" UserId="8533" Text="Some others have suggested [tag:pedagogical-question], which I like more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to suggest [tag:pedagogical], but somehow that also sounds demeaning to me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6142" RevisionGUID="781bf61e-f646-47d9-a685-0f55b94d0376" CreationDate="2014-09-21T17:57:04.427" UserId="8533" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="How about [tag:pedagogical-question]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not my idea, but I thought I should add it as an answer. I did immediately think [tag:pedagogical] would be better than [tag:problem-solving], but somehow the lone [tag:pedagogical] also sounds demeaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6143" RevisionGUID="6453c4d8-7102-40dd-a564-1beda48fbb58" CreationDate="2014-09-22T21:02:17.177" UserId="59604" Text="The truth is that the homework tag is being used for questions that are NOT homework but &quot;Applies to questions of primarily educational value&quot; regardless of whether it relates to school and the educational system or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is mainly that if you are NOT in school and DON'T have the option to ask a teacher or classmate (because you don't have a teacher or classmates because you are not in school), then what results is you will exclude a lot of answers who don't want to do others' homework thinking you are asking for homework help (which implies SCHOOL homework), when in reality you are just trying to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way, the &quot;homework&quot; tag excludes at-home diy-ers who have a physics question from getting a good answer, or in many cases from getting an answer at all, because answerers will overlook their question thinking it's related to SCHOOL homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem here appears to be that the TAG &quot;homework&quot; means &quot;educational(learning) value/purpose&quot; but the WORD implies &quot;educational SYSTEM (NOT necessarily for the purpose of learning)&quot; which is ***completely*** different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it all comes down to specificity. There should be two tags, or synonym tags, that include specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`school-homework`&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`diy-physics-help`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where both are synonyms of the `homework` tag,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;but only `school-homework` actually means the `homework` tag, because to anyone who reads `homework`, what they see in their mind is really `school-homework` regardless of tag intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true, that it could be abused, but that's what we have moderators for.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the benefit from ***not excluding people*** from the site who could be valuable contributors is greater than the *potential for abuse*, which we have moderators in place to help with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that it will be obvious, over time, who are homework cheaters and who are honest DIY-ers. It seems to me, that someone cheating on their homework will not spend the time and effort to answer any questions or contribute anything to the site, and this pattern can be recognized rather quickly in most cases. **DIY-ers with physics questions, on the other hand, are the polar opposite**. By nature, these people have a desire to learn, and most people with a desire to learn have an unusually high desire to also help others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By specifying `SCHOOL-homework`, there is no doubt as to whether the question is in regards to the educational system or not. It's a matter of clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do take note that several people in this thread already have clearly said **they skip over homework questions because they don't want to do other people's homework**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, by not forcing anyone just wanting to learn (who are NOT asking school homework questions) into using a prohibitive `homework` tag (at least without specifying that it is NOT related to the educational system), you will not be excluding some of the most valuable potential contributors to the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="56e08060-ee9c-4127-a101-3dfe3b83c8bc" CreationDate="2014-09-22T22:55:35.057" UserId="2451" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="It seems that many users find the  homework tag &quot;demeaning&quot;, e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving] or [tag:homework-like] as suggested by David Z), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning,&quot; despite the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me emphasize that I'm _not_ here suggesting to change the [policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) for homework-like questions, nor whether or not we should have a tag for homework-like questions. The scope and policy have been discussed in several other meta questions. Here I'm only asking whether we should change the _name_ of the tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6144" RevisionGUID="e1424c5a-0ee8-47cd-b38b-444cbbb500ad" CreationDate="2014-09-22T23:18:10.043" UserId="2451" Text="How about [tag:homework-and-exercises]? It is self-explanatory, and that way we still [call a spade a spade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade) while simultaneously leave open the possibility that it might not be actual homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="f4fb0dab-9b20-488e-a189-1e9ba5c630f0" CreationDate="2014-09-23T05:20:32.123" UserId="1325" Text="Well, no, as well all know. However this misapprehension comes up time and time again, and surprisingly there doesn't seem to be a single question addressing precisely this issue (though it's covered by lots of related questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we need a Danuesque [canonical question and answer(s)][1] with the title above so we can point people to it? If the consensus is yes then I hereby volunteer to create a community wiki question and a trial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've missed an obvious Q/A that already covers this then shout and I'll delete this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="f4fb0dab-9b20-488e-a189-1e9ba5c630f0" CreationDate="2014-09-23T05:20:32.123" UserId="1325" Text="Did the Big Bang happen at a point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="f4fb0dab-9b20-488e-a189-1e9ba5c630f0" CreationDate="2014-09-23T05:20:32.123" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="62b1c38d-2759-404b-8b7e-0fb420c2ce55" CreationDate="2014-09-23T18:10:53.510" UserId="23473" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Want to post an answer in agreement with David Z and because this is an old thread, so maybe a new post will spark life into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm for a renaming, but I think [tag:homework-like] would be more appropriate. dmckee pointed out that [tag:problem-solving] would be misused and pasted on too many questions. That might be worst case scenario, but it's definitely believable. Whereas [tag:homework-like] would still get the message across about the type of question, but we'd also remove the problem of all the new users editing in the phrase &quot;Edit: This is not part of my homework! I am just interested in finding out about it&quot; or something like that. And seeing as there's an edit war going on right this second as I'm writing this over the inclusion of [tag:homework] because the OP keeps saying it's not part of his homework, I think clarifying to [tag:homework-like] could save us all some future headaches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="d5650d78-74fd-49bd-9457-d43707da9f43" CreationDate="2014-09-23T20:13:48.800" UserId="3948" Text="When I open the site in Chrome - either main or meta I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![the top bar in chrome][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rather than this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![the top bar in Firefox/IE][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *think* this is the CSS used to display the elements in the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    line-height: 1;&#xD;&#xA;    text-align: center;&#xD;&#xA;    color: #444;&#xD;&#xA;    font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;&#xD;&#xA;    font-size: 13px;&#xD;&#xA;    background-color: #fff;&#xD;&#xA;    min-width: 1010px;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QtBSj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jyI4x.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="d5650d78-74fd-49bd-9457-d43707da9f43" CreationDate="2014-09-23T20:13:48.800" UserId="3948" Text="The navigation is borked in Chrome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="d5650d78-74fd-49bd-9457-d43707da9f43" CreationDate="2014-09-23T20:13:48.800" UserId="3948" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14399" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="33e5ee6e-9b7b-40fe-a1c0-50bddc444170" CreationDate="2014-09-23T20:19:19.973" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6114],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3948,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ChrisF&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="d2722be9-30d4-46a6-bf32-f800dbc0ebf4" CreationDate="2014-09-24T05:58:35.600" UserId="1325" Text="Just for completeness I'll post an answer. I've posted my proposed Q/A as a community Wiki at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reception seems favourable, but that shouldn't stop you if you have any ideas for improving it. For example I'm contemplating adding a second answer for *gifted amateurs* that goes into a lot more detail on the points I glossed over in the main answer. All such contributions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="6e62920b-e344-469c-a1d0-2470181026a9" CreationDate="2014-09-24T09:24:37.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/514706964669288449" />
  <row Id="14404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="d4eb4cf3-9059-4eed-9274-44298d3b3b7d" CreationDate="2014-09-25T08:32:28.030" UserId="31790" Text="[This question][1] is a math question.&#xD;&#xA;It may use equations which are commonly found in physics, and it may refer to non-linear terms as &quot;interactions&quot;, but the question itself is purely about math.&#xD;&#xA;It was not put on hold or marked as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand [this question][2], which is also a math question, was put on hold as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in this latter question is that the asker focused directly onto the mathematics, stripping away whatever physics may have been at hand in when they identified the mathematical problem at the heart of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between these questions is cosmetic.&#xD;&#xA;There is no substantive reason to consider the first question &quot;physics&quot; other than the fact that the math question represented there was encountered in a physics textbook.&#xD;&#xA;For all we know, the same may be true for the latter question, and is in fact likely given that the asker came here rather than to the math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you think one of these questions was put on hold while the other was not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I think the answer is pretty obviously that there are more users here who are familiar with the math relevant to the first question than the second.&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good reason to close the second question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137171/lsz-reduction-vs-adiabatic-hypothesis-in-perburbative-calculation-of-interacting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="d4eb4cf3-9059-4eed-9274-44298d3b3b7d" CreationDate="2014-09-25T08:32:28.030" UserId="31790" Text="Why are cosmetic trappings of physics enough to make math questions considered on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="d4eb4cf3-9059-4eed-9274-44298d3b3b7d" CreationDate="2014-09-25T08:32:28.030" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="7f3c86b5-0bb4-45c7-a237-fa4a3a8b7f49" CreationDate="2014-09-25T08:40:25.740" UserId="31790" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="[This question][1] is a math question.&#xD;&#xA;It may use equations which are commonly found in physics, and it may refer to non-linear terms as &quot;interactions&quot;, but the question itself is purely about math.&#xD;&#xA;It was not put on hold or marked as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [another purely math question][2] which was not put on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand [this question][3], which is also a math question, was put on hold as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in this latter question is that the asker focused directly onto the mathematics, stripping away whatever physics may have been at hand in when they identified the mathematical problem at the heart of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between these questions is cosmetic.&#xD;&#xA;There is no substantive reason to consider the first or second questions &quot;physics&quot; other than the fact that the math questions represented there was encountered in a physics textbook.&#xD;&#xA;For all we know, the same may be true for the latter question, and is in fact likely given that the asker came here rather than to the math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you think one of these questions was put on hold while the other was not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I think the answer is pretty obviously that there are more users here who are familiar with the math relevant to the first question than the second.&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good reason to close the second question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137171/lsz-reduction-vs-adiabatic-hypothesis-in-perburbative-calculation-of-interacting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="072fe986-2b4a-4f55-9747-2cf8f58397c3" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:38:19.813" UserId="58326" Text="Sometimes there are questions in one's mind which he needs answering but those are just confusion in his own mind not any homework question or any question he read in a book. But to explain the question better that person uses diagrams and examples, and all of the community declares it a _homework question_. I suggest there should be a simple rule to decide if that question is acceptable or not.  &#xD;&#xA;If the questions gives a problem to the community and asks others to solve the problem it is unacceptable and considered as homework. If the question is about explanation of underlying physics in a case **and** the user makes an effort by himself it is considered a &quot;_physics problem_&quot; not a &quot;_homework question_&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="072fe986-2b4a-4f55-9747-2cf8f58397c3" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:38:19.813" UserId="58326" Text="Rules regarding home-work questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="072fe986-2b4a-4f55-9747-2cf8f58397c3" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:38:19.813" UserId="58326" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="2300979d-8ac3-4f37-9f98-2c2c5d465e62" CreationDate="2014-09-25T10:06:17.493" UserId="58326" Comment="formatting" Text="Sometimes there are questions in one's mind which he needs answering but those are just confusion in his own mind not any homework question or any question he read in a book. But to explain the question better that person uses diagrams and examples, and all of the community declares it a _homework question_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I suggest there should be a simple rule to decide if that question is acceptable or not. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. If the questions gives a problem to the community and asks others to solve it for him it is unacceptable and considered as homework.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If the question asks explanation of the underlying physics in a case **and** the user makes an effort by himself to understand it is considered a &quot;_physics problem_&quot; not a &quot;_homework question_&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Velocity of satellites greater than required velocity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135340/velocity-of-satellites-greater-than-required-velocity)  &#xD;&#xA;This question discusses a case in which velocity of satellites gets greater than required velocity and asks what happens and why?  &#xD;&#xA;This question is definitely not a homework question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. [A problem of thermodynamics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136874/a-problem-of-thermodynamics)  &#xD;&#xA;The text of the question goes like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;A rigid tank contains a hot fluid that is cooled while being stirred by a paddle wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Initially the internal energy of the fluid is 800KJ, during the cooling process, the &gt;fluid loses 500KJ of heat, and the paddle wheel does 100KJ of work on the fluid: &gt;determine the final internal energy of the fluid, neglect the energy stored in the paddle &gt;wheel&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can you help me solve this?    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  In this question the user asks a physics problem from book or somewhere else and expects an answer which is worked solution and calculation.  &#xD;&#xA;It is clearly a homework question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6152" RevisionGUID="6516c0f3-695f-478c-9f4d-781bb79a9f50" CreationDate="2014-09-25T13:57:15.900" UserId="23473" Text="I'm not going to bother looking at the questions you linked, not because I think it's not worth my time (something I couldn't judge without looking at the questions), but because the general issue you're addressing can be answered without referring to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions posted on Physics.SE deal purely with mathematics, no sane person can deny that without being facetious. The reason we allow some and not others is because physicists are more suited to helping with some math problems. There are some problems we as physicists see over and over again, and on top of that, we have our own ways of solving and interpreting these problems that is different from the methods and interpretations of mathematicians or engineers. Thus, if some of these questions arise that cover purely mathematical problems but they approach it from a physicist's perspective (or that is to say, they have applied physics cosmetics), then it's more likely we will leave it open because there's a good chance that the solution might be more helpful coming from a physicist rather than  a pure mathematician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions where all the physics has been stripped away, we usually take that as a sign that the OP is not interested in the unique methods or interpretations that physicists use and that they are purely interested in the mathematical approach to the problem. For this kind of question, a mathematician is better suited, what with it being their expertise and all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while cosmology may be important in physics, cosmetology is important in asking physics questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="cca4bbef-543a-44f2-b2a3-463e1153c6aa" CreationDate="2014-09-25T14:08:54.463" UserId="23473" Text="The tag [tag:homework] really just signifies that the question is useful for studying the basics of physics either through solving problems and exercises, examining derivations, or understanding the concepts behind a solution. It does not mean something that necessarily is homework, just examples or problems that are useful for supplementing what one learns in a classroom, which includes questions from someone learning physics in their spare time; homework-like questions. We realize how misleading the name of the tag is; the featured post on meta right now is actually discussing changing the name of the tag to avoid the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for deciding if a question is acceptable, the homework policy lays it out very clearly. Now, that doesn't mean we don't ever change our minds if we think it doesn't work as well as it could. The homework policy is probably the most re-examined, re-evaluated, and even re-written policy on this site. One of our [recently featured meta threads](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) was specifically about defining the homework policy in small chunks and allowing everyone to vote on what it should be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="c4c3891a-7583-439c-84b2-4802e9c77da2" CreationDate="2014-09-25T14:10:40.547" UserId="56578" Text="QMechanic's idea is excellent, but doesn't eliminate the 'racist' :) word **'homework'**, sometimes it is not really homework ( I personally had 2 sad experiences that are still smarting, I can't get over it, as I *am no student*), and in any case why can't we call a 'spade' a *'shovel*'?&#xD;&#xA;These below are quasi-synonyms of homework and sound nice,It  is like using 'Afro-American'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about:[tag:problems-and-exercises]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="044e688e-a5d0-4167-be7e-e464776a945b" CreationDate="2014-09-25T14:16:50.447" UserId="56578" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="QMechanic's idea is excellent (as 'problem-solving' has a different meaning), but doesn't eliminate the 'racist' :) word **'homework'**, sometimes it is not really homework ( I personally had 2 sad experiences that are still smarting, I can't get over it, as I *am no student*), and in any case why can't we call a 'spade' a *'shovel*'?&#xD;&#xA;These below are quasi-synonyms of homework and sound nice,It  is like using 'Afro-American'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about:[tag:problems-and-exercises]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="7210a9e3-e5ec-46c9-b9c2-d799df0ae17a" CreationDate="2014-09-25T14:58:23.627" UserId="56578" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="QMechanic's idea is excellent (as 'problem-solving' has a different meaning), but doesn't eliminate the too-specific word **'homework'**, sometimes it is not really homework ( I personally had 2 sad experiences that are still smarting, I can't get over it, as I *am no student*), and use a broader term that includes 'homework'. After all, why can't we call a 'spade' a *'shovel*'?&#xD;&#xA;These below are quasi-synonyms of homework and sound nice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about:[tag:problems-and-exercises]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="9c04349d-808f-4599-85d0-6a15a48e335a" CreationDate="2014-09-25T15:04:18.433" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="QMechanic's idea is excellent (as 'problem-solving' has a different meaning), but doesn't eliminate the too-specific word **'homework'**, sometimes it is not really homework ( I personally had 2 sad experiences that are still smarting, I can't get over it, as I *am no student*). Why not use a broader term that includes 'homework'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These below are quasi-synonyms of 'homework' and sound nice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about:[tag:problems-and-exercises]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="8a81e659-eb7c-4318-8d21-85fab0a1ac3b" CreationDate="2014-09-25T21:54:53.950" UserId="124" Text="We already have this rule in place, or something very much like it. It's encapsulated in our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) and the close reason used on unacceptable homework-like questions. So as far as I can tell, it's a good idea but it's not anything new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="9a99ae83-f743-474f-a430-4a44da4f894b" CreationDate="2014-09-25T22:00:45.817" UserId="124" Text="Take a look at the _reason_ the closed question was closed: it was because of our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714), specifically the part that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this closure has nothing to do with whether it should be considered a physics question or a math question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="9d6b3377-8adf-4e92-97ed-f14479fe233e" CreationDate="2014-09-26T06:20:23.297" UserId="46399" Text="See [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question sits on a +2 -18 vote status, but has +100 bounty on it, from &quot;Community&quot;. Digging further into it leads me to [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), which seems to suggest that Community is a kind of a bot. However - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a bot and, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) has 1 rep, what is the source of the bounty amount?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) how does it write that human-like comment in the bounty notice - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That guy was just confused. Why so many downvotes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Community really a bot, or some SE moderator disguised as a bot? Does it really work as per some algorithms, or is there a human touch to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Except of course that algorithm might be written by a human, but is that comment algorithm generated?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="9d6b3377-8adf-4e92-97ed-f14479fe233e" CreationDate="2014-09-26T06:20:23.297" UserId="46399" Text="Fishy &quot;Community&quot; behavior!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="9d6b3377-8adf-4e92-97ed-f14479fe233e" CreationDate="2014-09-26T06:20:23.297" UserId="46399" Text="|discussion|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="7db3c55b-0e8f-44a6-85f9-8c3f3053193c" CreationDate="2014-09-26T06:35:06.240" UserId="562" Text="For that question, the bounty was issued by a user with 100+ reputation. The user has (been) deleted the account after that. The only purpose for the bounty is to raise the attention of the most downvoted question as said in the bounty description. As I remember, the user is from other SE and get 100 association bonus so it is not surprised that the user disappear after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Community is a bot, and it will take over anything that is not associated to anyone anymore. Mod can tell you more on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14424" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="256906bd-6f80-4d6b-99c2-df2830612204" CreationDate="2014-09-26T12:47:52.363" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified title. Otherwise it sounds like you are accusing the community (lowercase c) of fishy behaviour. Hope you don't mind but feel free to roll back." Text="A bounty set by the Community user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="256906bd-6f80-4d6b-99c2-df2830612204" CreationDate="2014-09-26T12:47:52.363" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified title. Otherwise it sounds like you are accusing the community (lowercase c) of fishy behaviour. Hope you don't mind but feel free to roll back." Text="|discussion|moderation|bounty|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="56bbab8d-1ab7-42e9-b8ae-547ae01e1fc9" CreationDate="2014-09-26T17:36:04.873" UserId="31790" Comment="Fixe important typo" Text="[This question][1] is a math question.&#xD;&#xA;It may use equations which are commonly found in physics, and it may refer to non-linear terms as &quot;interactions&quot;, but the question itself is purely about math.&#xD;&#xA;It was not put on hold or marked as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [another purely math question][2] which was not put on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand [this question][3], which is also a math question, was put on hold as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in this latter question is that the asker focused directly onto the mathematics, stripping away whatever physics may have been at hand in when they identified the mathematical problem at the heart of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between these questions is cosmetic.&#xD;&#xA;There is no substantive reason to consider the first or second questions &quot;physics&quot; other than the fact that the math questions represented there was encountered in a physics textbook.&#xD;&#xA;For all we know, the same may be true for the latter question, and is in fact likely given that the asker came here rather than to the math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you think one of these questions was put on hold while the other was not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I think the answer is pretty obviously that there are more users here who are familiar with the math relevant to the first two questions than the third.&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good reason to close the third question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137171/lsz-reduction-vs-adiabatic-hypothesis-in-perburbative-calculation-of-interacting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="55fca866-580d-4af4-ba29-235c368f3f99" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:10:16.983" UserId="24653" Text="This is an outgrowth of the discussion in chat, following [this earlier question by Daniel Sank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o?noredirect=1#comment19559_6150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we, as a community, agree that &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are *off-topic* here. There are meta questions establishing this (feel free to edit them in if you feel so inclined). I (among others) have observed the trend that these questions tend to get closed under the *homework* VTC reason. However, when this does lead to the closure of a question, there is no part in the appearing block of text (which is supposed to explain the reason of closure) which refers to the &quot;please check my work&quot; clause we have established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do we need to incorporate a clause like this in the homework VTC reason, should we make a *new* VTC reason, or is everything fine as is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we actually implement the decision of part 1 of this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="55fca866-580d-4af4-ba29-235c368f3f99" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:10:16.983" UserId="24653" Text="(How) do we make it explicit that &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="55fca866-580d-4af4-ba29-235c368f3f99" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:10:16.983" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="09f631b3-8299-4dcb-bd38-4cc3d8b6be41" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:13:57.643" UserId="24653" Text="An option that seems particularly attractive to me is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 1: We modify the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, adding a clause that specifically refers to &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 2: There should be a slight modification to both the text that shows up in the review queue under the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, and the grey block of text that appears after a question has been closed. As far as I'm concerned, this can be as basic as adding the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On this site, questions that essentially boil down to &quot;can you please check my work&quot; are also grouped under &quot;homework-like&quot; and considered off-topic cf. [this meta question] (insert relevant meta link)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="0d8ddd8b-7a8d-43ca-ad00-410dfe272733" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:14:34.613" UserId="25301" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="This is an outgrowth of the discussion in chat, following [this earlier question by Daniel Sank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o?noredirect=1#comment19559_6150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we, as a community, agree (for the most part) that [&quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are *off-topic* here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic). There are meta questions establishing this (feel free to edit them in if you feel so inclined). I (among others) have observed the trend that these questions tend to get closed under the *homework* VTC reason. However, when this does lead to the closure of a question, there is no part in the appearing block of text (which is supposed to explain the reason of closure) which refers to the &quot;please check my work&quot; clause we have established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do we need to incorporate a clause like this in the homework VTC reason, should we make a *new* VTC reason, or is everything fine as is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we actually implement the decision of part 1 of this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current close reason is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="93453419-fb51-4d63-9cb5-fe3141a37295" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:15:09.237" UserId="24653" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="This is an outgrowth of the discussion in chat, following [this earlier question by Daniel Sank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o?noredirect=1#comment19559_6150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we, as a community, agree (for the most part) that [&quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are *off-topic* here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic). I (among others) have observed the trend that these questions tend to get closed under the *homework* close reason. However, when this does lead to the closure of a question, there is no part in the appearing block of text (which is supposed to explain the reason of closure) which refers to the &quot;please check my work&quot; clause we have established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do we need to incorporate a clause like this in the homework close reason, should we make a *new* close reason, or is everything fine as is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we actually implement the decision of part 1 of this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the current &quot;homework&quot; close reason is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="2f124270-4ed9-454b-b3e2-a683c56888da" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:19:36.383" UserId="24653" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="An option that seems particularly attractive to me is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 1: We modify the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, adding a clause that specifically refers to &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 2: There should be a slight modification to both the text that shows up in the review queue under the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, and the grey block of text that appears after a question has been closed. As far as I'm concerned, this can be as basic as adding the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On this site, questions that essentially boil down to &quot;can you please check my work&quot; are also grouped under &quot;homework-like&quot; and considered off-topic cf. [this meta question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6161" RevisionGUID="dce6ebb9-59f9-428d-aeee-33d9f8e3324b" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:43:07.273" UserId="124" Text="The close reason was never meant to be (and in fact _can't_ be, because of a 400-character limit, of which we already use 339) a complete listing of what kinds of low-effort and/or homework-like questions are not allowed. It presents a high-level summary and then links to the meta question, which _does_ provide the full details of what questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree that anything needs to be changed, for two reasons. First, the close reason refers to the meta post precisely because it applies to all categories of questions that are prohibited by that meta post. It's the full homework policy that determines which questions are inappropriate, not the 400-character summary. The argument that a specific case is not a valid reason for closure because it didn't make it into the summary is just not practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And second, perhaps more importantly, questions which just ask for us to check the OP's work are not asking about a **specific physics concept**. That's one of the big reasons we put the word &quot;concept&quot; in the close reason in the first place, to exclude check-my-work questions. So I would argue that check-my-work questions actually _are_ covered by the language of the existing close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of our long-term plan to revamp the homework policy (and tag), assuming that plan ever comes to fruition, the close reason will be changed. So while we're crafting the new one, whenever it comes to that, we can take into account feedback that arises out of this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="1c76338e-ea2e-4407-a99d-5dd6e2a9747a" CreationDate="2014-09-26T19:46:33.280" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Some history and background, too long for a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once upon a time the close reasons were universal across all SE sites. But different sites saw different types of problem questions, and so we were granted a set of universal reasons plus custom off-topic reasons. The question was [what should our off-topic reasons be?][1]. Especially of note is that we would get three reasons, no more (except maybe by asking higher powers *very* nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People looking for us to solve their homework for them have always been a problem around here, so we were pretty much in agreement one of the reasons should be about homework. This ultimately left two reasons to use on non-mainstream stuff and engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had a [lengthy discussion][2] covering [multiple bookmarked chats][3] about wording the homework reason. I think we largely felt that what we came up with was the best compromise. We couldn't cover every detail in 400 characters, nor would we necessarily want to. People not showing any effort and not asking about concepts were the two biggest problem then, and that influenced the wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it seems people are noticing an increase in &quot;this is physics; here is my extensive work; please check it and tell me if I'm off by a factor of 2&quot; questions. Even back when we came up with the close reason, we noticed these things and moved the obscured&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;up to the top of our [homework policy][4], but those words didn't make it to the close reason. *Perhaps* we need them there; I'm not sure. There will have to be compromises, and we don't want to burden the bulk of people receiving this message with corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, if you can cast close votes then you can fill out a custom off-topic reason. Even back before we had this ability, I would sometimes leave comments making it clear how the question violated our policy. In particular I used the wording now found at the top of our policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can copy and paste this if you want into a custom close reason or even just a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="2767c6a8-886e-444b-8594-d2124cc6bf37" CreationDate="2014-09-27T17:22:31.623" UserId="12513" Text="So here is what the locked and closed question banner say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locked questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **locked** by `&lt;username&gt;`♦ `&lt;date&gt;` at `&lt;time&gt;`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question exists because it has historical significance, but it **is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not considered a good, on-topic question for this site**, so please do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [help center][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closed questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **closed** as `&lt;blah blah&gt;` by `&lt;username&gt;`♦ `&lt;date&gt;` at `&lt;date&gt;`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improved and possibly reopened, [visit the help center][2] for guidance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the [help center][3],&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please edit the question or leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably some of the most loathing notification for the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So moderator lock a particular question because the question is not considered a good, on-topic question for the given SE site then why locking the question transfers the question in community wiki? I mean I used to thought that community wiki have a collection of good questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="2767c6a8-886e-444b-8594-d2124cc6bf37" CreationDate="2014-09-27T17:22:31.623" UserId="12513" Text="Why frozen and locked topics becomes community wiki" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="2767c6a8-886e-444b-8594-d2124cc6bf37" CreationDate="2014-09-27T17:22:31.623" UserId="12513" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="5b646602-c6aa-4a38-bf26-17758babf606" CreationDate="2014-09-27T18:45:46.900" UserId="8563" Text="The `locked` and `community wiki` status of a question are completely independent, and it is perfectly possible for a post to be locked without being community wiki. An example of this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter (currently locked and attributed to [MathsStudent](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/3044/mathsstudent)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, this doesn't mean that they're not *correlated*, and it is indeed true that many posts which are locked are also community wiki. A good way to see this is to [google the lock banner text for this site](https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?q=This%20question%20exists%20because%20it%20has%20historical%20significance%2C%20but%20it%20is%20not%20considered%20a%20good%2C%20on-topic%20question%20for%20this%20site%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com#q=This+question+exists+because+it+has+historical+significance%2C+but+it+is+not+considered+a+good%2C+on-topic+question+for+this+site+site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com). There are indeed a lot of such results; on example is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read (currently locked and community wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that 'big-list' questions were indeed allowed early in this site's history. However, they generate a lot of hits and therefore a lot of reputation for answers which may in themselves not be really that valuable (i.e. their main merit is being posted in the right thread at the right time), with the addition of a large snowball effect. This was deemed undesirable so most of these threads were put on community wiki. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, though, big-list posts were deemed off-topic, which is still the policy today. (Roughly, it's because those posts are the fast food of Q&amp;A sites. They're entertaining for a while but they're perennially active and they detract attention from more valuable threads.) Closing them is a bad half-measure because edits can keep them active. Deleting them is too much because they do have valuable content. Hence they were put on historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, your question is a bit confusing and it's hard to know what you mean without the specific examples that made you ask this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="3e5b4243-a29f-4285-b09e-9c587448af1e" CreationDate="2014-09-28T01:33:49.627" UserId="56299" Text="There have been numerous questions put on hold as showing &quot;insufficient effort&quot;, generally in cases where the question has a simple, easily-found-out answer. But there are also a *lot* of questions that are marked as &quot;duplicate&quot; of other questions on Physics SE. Out of curiosity, can (note: not a request) duplicate questions be closed as showing &quot;insufficient effort&quot;, especially if the question(s) they duplicate come up easily on a site search? That is, if one can easily answer the question by browsing through the site, does that question show &quot;insufficient effort&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="3e5b4243-a29f-4285-b09e-9c587448af1e" CreationDate="2014-09-28T01:33:49.627" UserId="56299" Text="Does &quot;insufficient effort&quot; cover previous SE questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="3e5b4243-a29f-4285-b09e-9c587448af1e" CreationDate="2014-09-28T01:33:49.627" UserId="56299" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6166" RevisionGUID="071c213b-59a2-4908-94e9-50561113bd88" CreationDate="2014-09-28T03:18:26.970" UserId="26076" Text="I try to think of &quot;what kind of person is most likely to have the answer to this question&quot;? If the answer is an experimental physicist, or a physicist, then I am very loathe to close any question, no matter how &quot;engineering&quot; it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a question recently where some poor user asked why she was getting essentially a link error in building a piece of software to do scattering amplitude calculations. The software was written by CERN and the question was closed as being &quot;software engineering&quot;. I really thought we'd done the user a disservice: she linked the home page for the software (so she'd more than likely sought an answer from the right sources), and, from what she was doing, clearly had the intelligence to know well in advance the answer that she would have gotten from Stack Exchange. &quot;You're missing a library&quot;, or someone hasn't defined a symbol in extant libraries (highly unlikely in released software!) are the only two possible correct answers. Well, DUH, I think such an answer would simply insult the user's intelligence - if she can wield Mellin-Barnes integrals she would surely know this. I notice she hasn't been active since and I don't blame her. Someone of her obvious knowledge was likely to be an asset to Physics SE, so we lost out in closing this question. What of course she was looking for was someone with experience with that particular piece of software, or someone who could point her towards other resources. That person, unquestionably, had to be a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hasten to add that, for me, the engineering-out screening is important: I come here to think about fundamental problems and not be bothered by engineering problems. The latter are pretty much my day job. I come here to get away from them. I'm not disparaging them, but I'm not lucky enough (at this time) to be working in physics, so when I'm not at work I want to be either spending time with my children, or working on the mathematics and physics that I love. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate John Rennie's reason for closing: we want the site to have use to not simply one person. But it's conceivable that other people want to use this particular software. Also, one would have to wonder how many times such a question would be asked. Allowing the odd question like this might help the physics community a little more.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="d555a1aa-ed85-40b3-8ba5-48a42a4c76f3" CreationDate="2014-09-28T16:27:22.670" UserId="8563" Comment="Rephrased the question to clarify it and make it more streamlined as it is the go-to thread for this issue now." Text="Since earlier this month, the main toolbar of the site (with links to Questions, Tags, Users, Badges, Unanswered and Ask Question) has changed, distinctly for the worse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toolbar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The font looks blocky and ugly, the shaded rectangle is shifted down so that it overlaps with the question titles. This looks amateurish and mostly just wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issue is present in Chrome but (apparently) not in other browsers. Is this by design, or is it a bug? If so, how can I fix it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UlYyx.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="d555a1aa-ed85-40b3-8ba5-48a42a4c76f3" CreationDate="2014-09-28T16:27:22.670" UserId="8563" Comment="Rephrased the question to clarify it and make it more streamlined as it is the go-to thread for this issue now." Text="The site toolbar looks broken in Chrome. How can I fix it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6115" RevisionGUID="f135ec37-bf7f-489f-bd1e-eb678e5f97f2" CreationDate="2014-09-28T16:28:40.330" UserId="8563" Comment="Streamlined formatting, pulled in info from the comments." Text="I struggled with this too. It seems that it's due to a *Chrome* update. To undo this nonsense, type &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    about:flags &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in your URL bar and click 'Enable' on the Disable DirectWrite Windows option (4th from above). This fixed it, for me at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Crappy Update][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be necessary to close and reopen Chrome, or to visit `chrome://restart` on a new tab, to make this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P4efo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6167" RevisionGUID="adc5d32f-2204-4802-86d2-9339a2a9255c" CreationDate="2014-09-28T16:49:25.337" UserId="25301" Text="I would argue that, yes a duplicate question would count as insufficient prior research. There is a [search engine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=) built into this site for a few reasons, one of which is to prevent duplicates. This site is also indexed favorably by Google (don't use others, so I cannot point to their efficacy), so searching that would *should* also bring searchers to this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would also argue that it is **irrelevant** at that point because the question ought to be closed as a *duplicate* and not due to the homework aspect of &quot;insufficient evidence.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="7aa54c85-afd1-4749-a614-6c5f49c90c66" CreationDate="2014-09-28T23:42:49.897" UserId="124" Text="In a way, it is. Users who visit the site's front page and are not logged in see a very prominent banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![front page banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that points them to the [site tour](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). As part of the tour, we give a high-level overview of what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask and what kinds are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a visitor wants to find out more details about what kinds of questions are appropriate, that information is a little more difficult to find. Perhaps we should consider linking to it from the tour page. People probably won't read the links at first, but the fact that there are links may at least suggest that there are more details to be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could make the argument that it would be useful to show this banner to logged-in users as well (who are interested enough in the site that they have actively chosen to make an account). I don't believe that is a good use of the available space on the home page though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ArF8F.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="95b2f779-2a4a-4c76-bc77-4da7d53c6915" CreationDate="2014-09-29T20:21:27.963" UserId="38010" Text="I think it may be worth mentioning that if you conformally map the standard cosmological spacetime to Minkowski spacetime you find it doesn't map to the whole of Minkowski spacetime. In the conformal map can be extended so the big bang singularity can be mapped to a standard spatial slice of Minkowski spacetime (i.e. it remains spatially infinite) and only the observable Universe at t=0 shrinks to a point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it doesn't mean that the Universe was actually infinite at the big bang, the singular nature of the big bang prevent a meaningful answer to the question, but it is useful when understanding why the particle horizon exists even though by rewinding back in time you can make any comoving point arbitrarily close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="7233aa73-17ac-4638-9347-b028945f23fd" CreationDate="2014-09-30T05:43:31.867" UserId="124" Text="A little while ago [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) was posted to Meta, highlighting an apparent inconsistency between the handling of these two main site questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (A) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi was closed under our homework policy, specifically for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;- (B) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle remains open, even though it has been asserted that it is also a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we got distracted from the real issue there by arguments over whether the questions were too purely mathematical, so I wanted to raise the issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a chat discussion it came out that some people interpret question (B) as a check-my-work question, and others don't. Some people interpret it as a purely mathematical question, and others consider it to have sufficient physical context. To me, that's a sign of an unclear question. There seem to be three - well, four - positions on what should be done with that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Put it on hold for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;2. Put it on hold for being unclear&#xD;&#xA;3. Put it on hold for being purely mathematical (I think the previous Meta question ruled this out)&#xD;&#xA;4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who looked at question (B) prior to this meta post and declined to vote to close it (or flag it): **can you elaborate on why you thought option 1 or 2 (or 3) would _not_ be an appropriate course of action?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the aforementioned chat discussion between DanielSank and myself, if I understood correctly, is that he thinks we should recognize that there is ambiguity in questions like (B), and (A), and refrain from voting to close them, since there is (or may be?) an interpretation that allows the question to be appropriate for this site. On the other hand, I think we should actively put questions on hold unless and until it is _clear_ that they are appropriate. That disagreement may be material for a followup meta question, depending on the outcome of this one. (If you have thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment on this question to say so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="7233aa73-17ac-4638-9347-b028945f23fd" CreationDate="2014-09-30T05:43:31.867" UserId="124" Text="Why shouldn't a question be on hold? (no, really, I'm curious)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="7233aa73-17ac-4638-9347-b028945f23fd" CreationDate="2014-09-30T05:43:31.867" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|specific-question|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="71d0153e-099e-42c0-b73f-37784be3019b" CreationDate="2014-09-30T13:02:57.883" UserId="8563" Text="I stand by position `4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine` for [question (B)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it's a check-my-work question, though admittedly this is a subtle point. The OP has found a textbook problem and has presumably worked out the solution, but the question is not about solving the textbook problem. More specifically, the textbook problem is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Prove property P(A) for arbitrary objects A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (where A is, in that case the function F). The OP's question has little to do with the proof; instead, the OP asks whether the property even makes sense. The post is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; I found an object A1 such that the property P(A1) doesn't make sense. Is this known/expected? How do I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As it turns out, the handling of that singularity is not trivial, and needs the proper framework to work well. This means a level of mathematical sophistication that is not very usual in intro-to-QM books ([Galindo &amp; Pascual](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Quantum_mechanics_I.html?id=BKfvAAAAMAAJ) being the only exception I know of), or a set of heuristics which involve not caring about specific infinities and singularities. These heuristics are particular to physics and form the core of any good answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a similar vein, I don't think this question is a maths question. The heuristics are particular to physics and a mathematician would either (a) throw a fit at the nonchalant use of divergent integrals, or (b) have a particularly hard time phrasing their explanation in terms that a physicist would find useful. The process in (b) is in fact that of turning mathematics into physics. Hence the question is physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As I stated before, calling a question &quot;that's just pure maths&quot; just because it has mathematical formulae in it is not productive, not least because that encompasses all of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find it particularly unclear, but it's not a model of clarity either. It was clear enough that it found an answer within 24 hours, so I think it definitely deserved the benefit of the doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Furthermore, I claim that *as regards questions that are unclear*, we as a community do tend to give the benefit of the doubt to users, and particularly newcomers. I think the review queues do a good job of putting unclear questions on the plate of the people best suited to work with the OPs to clarify them and make them answerable, when that is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I would of course be willing to consider data beyond my personal experience. This, however, is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put things in contrast, [question (A)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi) is very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It too starts with a textbook(-style) problem, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Given objects B, and C, what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and the OPs question is exclusively &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This is why question (A) is a check-my-work problem. I don't find it that terrible, because of the level of sophistication of the problem and the given solution, but I still agree that (i) it is closable under [the current policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) and (ii) it should be closed for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the question of whether question (A) is too close to pure math for this site, I think it is close to the fence that it's on-topic both here and at maths.SE, but its content is still relevant enough to undergraduate-level analytical mechanics that it's on topic here (as far as the physics/maths divide goes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The main confusion in [DanielSank's question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) is that this is even an issue. I don't think anyone, on the whole discussion, ever claimed that this question was off-topic for being too mathsy. (Of course, I'll be glad to set straight on this if someone has done so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, I don't think the questions under consideration show any inconsistency in our current closure practices. This doesn't mean that we *are* perfectly consistent, but I think perfect consistency is a little too much to ask of a system run by many individuals with varying opinions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there is probably more room in the system for more detailed comments on questions by people voting to close. This has also [come up recently](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off) on a related topic. More detailed comments on why a question is getting closed helps the OP in improving their post (or understanding the scope of the site), and it improves the site in making it clear to future users why some content is on-topic and other content is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our review queue is [quiet enough](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review), and we don't have the sort of problem that [SO has](http://stackoverflow.com/review). We have a big enough pool of reviewers that we can spare the extra time for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sorting through the queue on busy times can be a bit of a dull job, and I would ask that some consideration be shown to reviewers, as it's hard to really grok the process until you see it in action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="14572a94-627a-4bd0-8773-a7cf3f6bd6df" CreationDate="2014-10-01T06:24:45.853" UserId="31790" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* by a physicist (me), the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but because of my background I gave a physics oriented one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="14572a94-627a-4bd0-8773-a7cf3f6bd6df" CreationDate="2014-10-01T06:24:45.853" UserId="31790" Text="Should we allow answers to show up before migrating/holding/closing questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="14572a94-627a-4bd0-8773-a7cf3f6bd6df" CreationDate="2014-10-01T06:24:45.853" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="292bc078-7383-45d5-9472-36a4433419aa" CreationDate="2014-10-01T16:31:16.717" UserId="124" Text="&gt; This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Absolutely not.** That defeats the entire point of putting posts on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this is a site for questions _about physics_, not questions which are best answered by physicists or questions where the answers are going to be useful to physicists. It's been that way for a long time, and I don't think the latter should be the sole criterion for judging whether a question is appropriate here. If we do that, it opens the door to a lot of &quot;soft&quot; questions that we know we don't want on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding this specific case, that question _ordinarily_ wouldn't have been migrated. It's a special case because the OP posted it on both sites, Math and Physics, essentially simultaneously. We don't want the same questions to be simultaneously cross-posted on multiple SE sites because it splits answerers' effort and hides useful answers for people who find it on one site but not the other, so one or the other version of the question was _going_ to be migrated. I coordinated with one of the math moderators and we decided to send it to their site rather than here. I think the essential nature of the question is mathematical, and while it does have a physical context such that it ordinarily would be on topic here, given that it should only continue to exist on one site or the other, we thought that site should be Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing wrong or even unusual about providing a physically-motivated answer to a question on math.SE, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="2db510e1-fb9f-458f-97eb-bd5e545d3253" CreationDate="2014-10-01T17:17:36.410" UserId="31790" Comment="wording, to try to clarify for KyleKanos" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* by a physicist (me), the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but because of my background I gave a physics oriented one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="da46abb6-c475-44e6-9503-dd1eeefd06f7" CreationDate="2014-10-01T17:22:51.807" UserId="31790" Comment="wording, to try to clarify for KyleKanos" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but because of my background I gave a physics oriented one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="b10aae8c-fa6e-4f00-af8a-b947dbbf9883" CreationDate="2014-10-01T18:20:09.627" UserId="2451" Text="Concerning OP's specific question: I asked the Math.SE moderators if we exceptionally could get the post back, to which they agreed. It is now [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/138217/2451)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="04c2ddc4-95d7-4ae6-9f63-84aadce9b955" CreationDate="2014-10-01T18:26:28.367" UserId="2451" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Concerning OP's specific question: The question was originally cross-posted within 4 minutes on both Phys.SE and Math.SE. A request from a Math.SE moderator to merge the two posts lead to the migration to Math.SE in the first place. Today I asked the Math.SE moderators if we exceptionally could get the post back, to which they agreed. It is now again on [Phys.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/138217/2451)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="3a7cc78e-abec-4e07-b8a7-76056a7b636a" CreationDate="2014-10-01T18:32:52.687" UserId="31790" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but because of my background I gave a physics oriented one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Apparently the original reason for that question to be on Math SE was that the OP cross posted it on physics and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="cfe2b102-8b75-48cd-a98c-369f9a683682" CreationDate="2014-10-01T21:56:35.083" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but a physics one was given and was deemed helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Apparently the original reason for that question to be on Math SE was that the OP cross posted it on physics and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="10e887d6-56b8-4a37-85f9-55236a546ca0" CreationDate="2014-10-02T09:37:34.140" UserId="1325" Text="If you look at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138309/an-operator-identity-relating-to-trace the close banner states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;marked as duplicate by John Rennie, Brandon Enright, Danu, Qmechanic♦ 38 mins ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I didn't vote to close as a duplicate, I voted to close as *Off-topic/Homework-like*. The SE obviously just takes the majority decision and then attributes it to everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, it doesn't really matter and there are far more important things in life to be worrying about. However it would be nice if the SE didn't misrepresent my opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="10e887d6-56b8-4a37-85f9-55236a546ca0" CreationDate="2014-10-02T09:37:34.140" UserId="1325" Text="The SE is misrepresenting my close votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="10e887d6-56b8-4a37-85f9-55236a546ca0" CreationDate="2014-10-02T09:37:34.140" UserId="1325" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="12606cdd-f1dd-450c-90ca-1210e03cfdb4" CreationDate="2014-10-02T12:05:03.000" UserId="50583" Text="This has been a (highly upvoted/bountied) [feature request](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/263383) on mother meta for four years, and [even](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/926/263383) there [more than once](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2519/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these is [tag:status-declined], so it is possible it will be implemented in the future, but currently, it seems not to rank highly on the agenda." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="03b12700-02a4-42bb-947a-efff2004aeab" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:45:51.377" UserId="50583" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="This has been a (highly upvoted/bountied) [feature request](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/263383) on mother meta for four years, and [even](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/926/263383) there [more than once](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2519/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one of these is marked [tag:status-declined], so it seems there's not really consensus about whether or not SE may one day implement distiguishing close reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6179" RevisionGUID="1ba37449-69bd-4d4b-b759-06affe1270e9" CreationDate="2014-10-02T23:56:02.260" UserId="124" Text="I'm not _necessarily_ saying I agree with the current design, but I think I can justify it somewhat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main point of putting questions on hold, or closing them, is to disincentivize people from asking questions that are inappropriate (&quot;bad&quot;) for the site. We do this by cutting off their main reward: the answers. It's a form of operant conditioning. Strictly speaking, to employ operant conditioning we don't need to have close reasons at all; if we just indicate &quot;good&quot; (open) or &quot;bad&quot; (on hold) for each question, people learn over time what constitutes an appropriate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, of course, that would take forever, and we don't want people to have to ask a thousand practice questions to figure out what our scope is. So we help them along with an explanation of why the question is &quot;bad&quot;. That explanation could be left in a comment, but if you've ever tried leaving comments to indicate the problems with questions, you find that you wind up using more or less the same few comments 95% of the time. Close reasons replace those comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider things from the point of view of a new asker. A list of different people's names with different unfamiliar phrases is going to be a lot more confusing than a single reason that says &quot;your question is not appropriate because [reason].&quot; Basically, by narrowing down to a single close reason, we give askers of &quot;bad&quot; questions a specific target for the effort they're (hopefully) going to put in to improve the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions are inappropriate for multiple reasons, and in those cases the preceding argument doesn't apply quite so well. But I think it still helps to show one main reason the question is inappropriate at first, and have the asker focus on improving that. Additional, secondary problems can be identified through comments. It fits into the natural back-and-forth process that tends to accompany a question being edited and improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14477" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="c062c9d4-3b4c-4e94-8280-03ec6eff1dff" CreationDate="2014-10-03T09:50:07.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/517974871133798400" />
  <row Id="14478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="a5c5e41d-c00c-458d-9b8e-093c621d9e84" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:01:09.043" UserId="56578" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, I can understand now why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics and psycholinguistics, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to ear as much editing 140 posts in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity, **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*red-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="a5c5e41d-c00c-458d-9b8e-093c621d9e84" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:01:09.043" UserId="56578" Text="Answers should be rated. A suggestion to the Team" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="a5c5e41d-c00c-458d-9b8e-093c621d9e84" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:01:09.043" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="fba1f767-391d-44db-9d18-b7e3ee78261e" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:11:11.743" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14482" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="cc99b65e-d5a9-408c-b5f4-9c7184663494" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:11:34.797" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="f030a4b1-ebe6-4a45-8a6a-ca36344e467b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:16:59.780" UserId="56578" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to ear as much editing 140 posts in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity, **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*red-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="50a6f2f0-b0b0-4dfd-bba6-5188a8b1c386" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:24:23.380" UserId="56578" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earnn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*red-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="cf9977e8-b8cb-4c11-adac-3da8f341f13b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T14:54:23.103" UserId="1325" Comment="I'm guessing you meant &quot;rep&quot;" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earnn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="028641d1-3c01-4aa8-9c13-89f36edb039b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T20:41:34.003" UserId="6634" Text="I can't recall which question here on the Meta this was discussed (and it may have been yours now that I think about it) but there's some difficult things that go on with *any* reputation system. But particularly those on a site like Physics which draws people from a wide range of backgrounds. A site like StackOverflow suffers a little less from it because there's no &quot;pop-programming&quot; TV shows that try to &quot;educate&quot; people like we see in the hard sciences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Recap of other discussions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First, you'll find here that relatively basic or trivial questions and answers get huge numbers of votes. I think the main reason behind it, especially now that we have that little Hot bar on the side of the Stack Exchange sites, is that the trivial questions often bring easy-to-understand, simple, plain-English answers that are accessible to untrained people. So you'll get a lot more votes from people who go &quot;Oh, I always wondered why steam rises, now I get it!&quot; There's far, far fewer people who will come in and say &quot;Oh, I always wondered why the wave function collapses! I'm glad I read the 45 lines of equations to understand it!&quot; In other words, votes are, for better or worse, a measure of supply and demand. There are far more people looking for accessible explanations of common phenomenon than there are ultra-specialist experts looking to discuss something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, as John suggested in his answer, reputation is not exactly a great measurement of knowledge. In comments on another thread, I mentioned that really, at best, reputation is a proxy measurement for knowledge. Just like SAT or GRE scores are a proxy measurement for IQ -- the reputation is a proxy measurement for the knowledge of a user. Maybe more precisely, a proxy measurement for how much the *community* trusts the knowledge of a user. But since the community is rather fluid and ill-defined, that's still a tough way to pin it down. But just like standardized testing, you'll find people with awesome scores but when you read their content it just isn't very good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, things like edits, retagging, etc are really janitorial tasks. I can go through and make correct edits for grammar and spelling on a topic I know absolutely nothing about and earn some rep for it. But it is, and should be, disproportionately less than reputation than I earn for questions and/or answers. Because I'm not proving my knowledge, but rather my willingness to be part of the community. One could argue using reputation for things like edits makes my 2nd point about reputation invalid. It may no longer be thought of as a proxy measurement of knowledge. To some extent this may be true; however, the amount of rep is very small (which is likely only included for the psychological &quot;gamification&quot; effect that gets people addicted to things) and it also stops once you reach a certain reputation threshold. I no longer earn rep for edits, but I do them anyway because I want to perform a service for the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth, and I suppose the end of my numbered list, each community works differently and it seems our community really doesn't downvote all that much. We flag, we close, we leave comments, but there's really not a lot of downvoting that happens. We should be more liberal with our votes, both up and down, and actually vote for great answers and downvote ones that are lacking. This would go a long way to &quot;fixing&quot; the run-away reputation for trivial things. But honestly, there's so many trivial questions that I will never even look at, so I won't be up or down voting them because I'm not interested in reading them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Potential damages&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You raise a concern that somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok. I've been here a long time and I haven't gotten moderator tools for the 10000 rep point yet so it's not really all that easy. But even granting the point that it might be, if a user went through and started going nuts and closing things willy-nilly, defacing posts, whatever -- that's a very easy fix. The user would be suspended, all the changes made would be rolled back, and all would go on well. There are checks and balances for exactly this reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's almost like going from a &quot;gateway&quot; method of software development, where a central user has to approve and propagate all changes, to a &quot;distributed&quot; method of software development. In the distributed model, everybody has a copy of the code, everybody has access to the version control, and everybody can restore the code to any state should somebody else mess it up. It's tough to let others have the tools sometimes, but there's always the roll-back option to fix things. This is why the site has moderators, and why the Stack Exchange team fields complaints about the moderators. There's checks and balances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your anecdote about Math.SE is an example of where this sort of struggles sometimes. But ultimately each community votes for their moderators and those moderators represent the community. My father likes to joke about the US Congress -- everybody in the US complains the system is broken because we just elect a bunch of crooks and idiots to Congress. But ultimately it means the system works exactly like it should, because the majority elected the people who are just like them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Reputation is a hybrid (together with badges and privileges) -- it's a proxy measurement of knowledge, and a way to turn content contributions into a game to get people hooked on doing it. Parts of it are fair, parts of it are not, and just like anything else one does in life, it's really easy to work hard and feel like progress is slow but to see somebody do nothing and get all the benefits. It's true for money, cars, family, happiness, and apparently SE reputation. And just like those other things, the best advice I can give **is to not care about keeping up with the others and take pride in what you do**. I can't change that somebody else is going to get rep by something trivial. And it doesn't bother me anymore. I'm going to ask and answer the things that interest me at the time and enjoy the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the final thing I really can say about our system and I'll paraphrase Winston Churchill to do it -- StackExchange (and reputation) is the worst system of internet Q&amp;A sites, except for all the others. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6183" RevisionGUID="f10b9944-13c4-4c73-95d0-92f847e64c79" CreationDate="2014-10-04T04:14:54.493" UserId="26969" Text="Note that drhodes, while in principle armed with &quot;dangerous privileges&quot;, doesn't really ever come onto the site - a person who earns privileges with a single &quot;long tailed&quot; question, but never uses them is not really much of a threat to the stability of the community, I think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to say that I am sometimes surprised by the variability in upvotes that my own answers collect (I don't spend time dissecting others' performance), and agree that &quot;popular science&quot; answers often do better than the deep quality ones we would like to see more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a solution but I would add that questions with &quot;enduring appeal&quot; (like the coffee question) seem to be able to keep getting a few votes a day, while some of my own 40+ questions have at times gotten me very few rep points because all the votes came in a short time - they might have &quot;instant&quot; appeal of the &quot;wow I never knew that&quot; kind, but people don't actively seek those answers, so they soon disappear from view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short - I think the system works reasonably well. Any change would have to be replicated across the entire SE &quot;mother site&quot; and I don't think it's sufficiently broken here to warrant that. If we end up with a rogue editor, John R, David Z and the other diamonds will surely take them down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re-reading this, I seem to be repeating a lot of points that were already made in tgp2114's answer. Consider this an elaborate upvote (don't worry, I'll put a real one in too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6183" RevisionGUID="d5dc2478-318d-452a-a4e7-447453402fa7" CreationDate="2014-10-04T05:17:31.567" UserId="26969" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Note that drhodes, while in principle armed with &quot;dangerous privileges&quot;, doesn't really ever come onto the site - a person who earns privileges with a single &quot;long tailed&quot; question, but never uses them is not really much of a threat to the stability of the community, I think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to say that I am sometimes surprised by the variability in upvotes that my own answers collect (I don't spend time dissecting others' performance), and agree that &quot;popular science&quot; answers often do better than the deep quality ones we would like to see more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a solution but I would add that questions with &quot;enduring appeal&quot; (like the coffee question) seem to be able to keep getting a few votes a day, while some of my own 40+ questions have at times gotten me very few rep points because all the votes came in a short time - they might have &quot;instant&quot; appeal of the &quot;wow I never knew that&quot; kind, but people don't actively seek those answers, so they soon disappear from view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short - I think the system works reasonably well. Any change would have to be replicated across the entire SE &quot;mother site&quot; and I don't think it's sufficiently broken here to warrant that. If we end up with a rogue editor, David Z, dmckee, Manishearth or Qmechanic (the current &quot;diamonds&quot;) will surely take them down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re-reading this, I seem to be repeating a lot of points that were already made in tgp2114's answer. Consider this an elaborate upvote (don't worry, I'll put a real one in too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="ec5fb5d1-9fd0-4be8-938c-060b313087b3" CreationDate="2014-10-04T05:36:48.137" UserId="1325" Text="The main role of the reputation system is to encourage people to participate. There is something competitive within all of us that just loves being awarded points, even when they have no real value. You yourself say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU in a couple of minutes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key word being *thrill*. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just human nature, and the end result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time to writing some truly fantastic answers. This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, but you have to have grown up in the pre-Internet era to realise what an astonishing resource the Physics SE is for enthusiastic young physicists like I was forty years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current reputation system is very, very good at doing what it's designed to do i.e. motivating people to take part. If you start makes changes that are perceived as obstructing the path to yet more points I fear you will start demotivating exactly the sort of people who make this site such as a success. It's not that people will storm off in a huff, but faced with the choice of writing yet another answer on Lorentz transformations or sitting down to enjoy the large pile of new SF books that are screaming for my attention, you start making the latter look more attractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of your question seems to be the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights. But experience shows that this simply isn't a problem. Rather the reverse really - it often takes 12 hours to close the most egregious of homework questions because we don't have enough people actively using their moderatorial privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even though you cite me in your question as *appreciating the validity of your arguments*, let me make it very clear that I comprehensively disagree with the views expressed in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="bb549e76-78c9-4035-ad49-baf9e820d247" CreationDate="2014-10-04T06:08:30.777" UserId="56578" Comment="added 2067 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...4) scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answer*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="08bbcdd0-5d3c-43e2-bd52-438dd7494f28" CreationDate="2014-10-04T06:13:46.103" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="fd74bf2f-44c5-479f-a952-a4cd75bd164f" CreationDate="2014-10-04T06:21:58.010" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="c7ce4b36-1ac3-40d3-9f9c-51408354fb2a" CreationDate="2014-10-04T07:04:24.813" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1144 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been made by anyone else I would not comment it, as it gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="7c9f7da3-8882-45dd-9d0e-296f47504a44" CreationDate="2014-10-04T07:10:48.500" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1144 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the thrill you should quote the whole sentence: I added that **I feel ashamed of that**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="fc5fbc7c-b083-42a8-b1c4-3a6bf8ee3d0b" CreationDate="2014-10-04T07:23:48.180" UserId="56578" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="4fea4a68-ee60-4dbc-9ef1-865d854ddabd" CreationDate="2014-10-04T08:02:32.003" UserId="56578" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but 3) *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="34558d7f-0e62-4bda-aefd-08cd3551009c" CreationDate="2014-10-04T10:15:37.213" UserId="56578" Comment="I hope you agree with the edit :-) or/and forgive me" Text="The main role of the reputation system is to encourage people to participate. There is something competitive within all of us that just loves being awarded points, even when they have no real value. You yourself say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU in a couple of minutes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key word being *thrill*. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just human nature, and the end result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time to writing some truly fantastic answers. This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, but you have to have grown up in the pre-Internet era to realise what an astonishing resource the Physics SE is for enthusiastic young physicists like I was forty years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current reputation system is very, very good at doing what it's designed to do i.e. motivating people to take part. If you start making changes that are perceived as obstructing the path to yet more points I fear you will start demotivating exactly the sort of people who make this site such as a success. It's not that people will storm off in a huff, but faced with the choice of writing yet another answer on Lorentz transformations or sitting down to enjoy the large pile of new SF books that are screaming for my attention, you start making the latter look more attractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of your question seems to be the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights. But experience shows that this simply isn't a problem. Rather the reverse really - it often takes 12 hours to close the most egregious of homework questions because we don't have enough people actively using their moderatorial privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even though you cite me in your question as *appreciating the validity of your arguments*, let me make it very clear that I comprehensively disagree with the views expressed in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="4d425eff-2152-4424-b85a-8a5a8ec0ba45" CreationDate="2014-10-05T04:41:11.287" UserId="25907" Text="For any question, if you start a bounty, the first pop-up link has a learn more... link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link points to http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounties which gives a 404." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="4d425eff-2152-4424-b85a-8a5a8ec0ba45" CreationDate="2014-10-05T04:41:11.287" UserId="25907" Text="start a bounty --&gt; learn more... gives a 404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="4d425eff-2152-4424-b85a-8a5a8ec0ba45" CreationDate="2014-10-05T04:41:11.287" UserId="25907" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="a96666bc-51f7-4988-832c-f7b7201eeac0" CreationDate="2014-10-05T06:51:00.273" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1979 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island#Influence) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views** that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- editors should qualify only through successful edits&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="13870dc8-2e0b-467c-9168-355345ea22c0" CreationDate="2014-10-05T06:58:18.387" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views** that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- editors should qualify only through successful edits&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="aa6eef6a-d216-4bf9-ad30-b7fe3d97c6ce" CreationDate="2014-10-05T07:03:51.527" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views** that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="f46efa89-8d51-4a0f-a1d6-75018ffb2a93" CreationDate="2014-10-05T07:34:05.423" UserId="57075" Text="I had asked a [question][1] which was initially poorly stated. However, I tried to revise the question continually (about ten times) to make my question clearer. But yet the revisions to the question did not push it to the 'active' or the 'newest' list even though the question was improved to a large extent. Neither did it appear in any other 'list'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I added a few comments to the question to try to make it appear in the 'active' list.  Still, the question did not appear in any of the lists. Now, I do not want to utilize my reputation for a bounty as it is already less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me how to attract more attention for my question without placing a bounty on it ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do take a look at my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138565/description-of-the-motion-of-the-com-of-a-system-of-charged-particles-moving-in?answertab=active#tab-top" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="f46efa89-8d51-4a0f-a1d6-75018ffb2a93" CreationDate="2014-10-05T07:34:05.423" UserId="57075" Text="How to attract more attention for my question without placing a bounty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="f46efa89-8d51-4a0f-a1d6-75018ffb2a93" CreationDate="2014-10-05T07:34:05.423" UserId="57075" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="c77cbb6e-f4ec-49f6-b4c6-8408b770db1c" CreationDate="2014-10-05T09:27:41.700" UserId="56578" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to chose best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of 'unanswered questions'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="cad14bd1-663b-4866-89a0-8f305970f38c" CreationDate="2014-10-05T10:17:09.530" UserId="56578" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="c8c47a8e-49bd-4cbd-9830-fd65cdb7bca7" CreationDate="2014-10-05T13:57:02.883" UserId="50583" Text="You talk a lot about what happened in other communites (from your point of view), and you seem honestly concerned that we might be &quot;taken over&quot; by incompetent - or worse, malicious - site users. To prevent this, you want to revise the reputation system, which really lies *at the heart* of how SE sites work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, maybe, if our site is taken over by incompentent, malicious or deranged people, it's our fault. Not the systems fault. This is why we have moderators. This is why we can and *should* downvote bad content. This is why we close inappropriate questions and delete non-answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say someone gains moderatorial power through few, and effortless, but popular posts and starts rampaging. They will be banned in the blink of an eye, and no one will shed a tear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say someone starts nonsensical edits after gaining 2k (which is far easier than 10k). Their actions will be flagged, and either they will cease their activity or be banned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you afraid of? The only reason to fear these &quot;takeovers&quot; is if you do not trust in the larger community and the moderators to act in the best interest of the site. And if you do not trust the community, why participate here at all? There *are* measures in place to prevent such hostile takeovers, and they all draw from one source - the community. From the power and privileges we all have gained through accruing reputation, and from our will to use them to make this site what we want it to be. And though we are always fighting over the details, and never quite of one mind (what a terrible thing that would be!), the fact that most questions that are closed stay closed (and that some are, indeed reopened unchanged but not closed again) show that, all in all, most actively moderating users *agree* on what this site should and should not harbor and that they are not vindictively engaging in edit wars or closing/reopening wars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the way it is. And changing the rep system to only grant privileges to the *experts* and those with brillant exposition skills would devalue the many low- and mid-level contributions that are made on this site as well. Nobody guarantees that the most brillant physicist in the world, earning all the rep, might not be a giant asshole. And nobody can be sure that the undergraduate answering &quot;trivial&quot; questions from everyday life and intro physics is not more than able to improve the quality of other posts and sensibly decide on matters of moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are individuals, forming a community that has grown over time. If the mere granting of privileges through &quot;undeserved&quot; reputation can destroy that, then we deserve to be destroyed. We have all the tools - rollback, bans, flags, close/reopen votes - to defend our version of this community against those who want to change it with malicious intent (I'm still not convinced these people exist, by the way). Changing the reputation system means saying that we don't *trust* each other to be civil and reasonable with the privileges granted. And if you think that the users of this site are neither civil nor reasonable, then why stay here at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="00acb5c6-7c99-4567-9488-caf915e9db8c" CreationDate="2014-10-05T19:00:09.343" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="**Edits do bump posts, and all questions are on equal footing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any time a question is asked, an answer is posted, or either a question or an answer is edited, the question is bumped to the top of the [active tab][1], which is also probably what you see when you just go to the [main site][2]. A question will only appear once in that list, based on the most recent modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we get about [66 new questions per day][3], the eighth highest across the network. Posts don't linger on any list of &quot;most recently modified&quot; because too many questions, answers, and edits are occurring. Imagine the chaos if every person who asked a question were in competition to keep their question at the top of such a list. Consider also that the reason edits bump posts at all is so more people can vet them and make sure there is no vandalism or quality degradation going on behind our backs, and we don't want to be flooded with unnecessary edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus there is a crowding-out effect -- you cannot keep your question more visible without reducing some other question's visibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please do not edit just to bump posts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, there is a fixed amount of attention the users of the site have, and making them notice your question necessarily detracts from other questions' views. There used to be a built-in safeguard: After a certain number of edits, the system automatically made your post community-wiki, meaning you no longer earned rep on it from upvotes. That feature has been [done away with][4], though, for entirely unrelated reasons, so we are left to trust that users won't abuse the side effect of bumping that comes with editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, making the question *better* is not a problem. If an edit substantially improves things (and remember, more is not always better), feel free to make it. But if you just want attention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That's what bounties are for.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes they can be expensive when you are a new user, but that is intentional design. Bounties let you get that attention, but they make sure you really are dedicated to getting an answer, since it will necessarily detract from the attention others get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bounty keeps the question on the [featured tab][5] of the [questions page][6] for a week, where a number of users check to find particularly worthwhile questions to invest their time answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are other channels that help unanswered questions get answered.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the featured tab and the [active tab][7] (which is the same content as the main page), the questions page also has a [newest tab][8], which simply displays all questions ordered only by when they were asked. Your question will be visible here for a longer time, as answers and edits do not count. There is also the [newest tab][9] of the [unanswered questions page][10]. A number of users, myself included, will check this list when looking for stuff to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answerers are people too, with their own motives.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's useful to remember that we all have our own interests, and thus have topics we're not as interested in helping students with (or don't know enough to do so). Add to that the fact that professional physicists may not want to spend *all* their free time answering low-level questions they've seen hundreds of times before, and you see that not everyone is in a position to serve you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, most people have a particular weekly schedule in real life. Perhaps you post a question at the beginning of the weekend, while the users most eager to answer your style of question only visit on weekdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Give the question some time. Unlike Stack Overflow, we are not about rapid-fire replies that fix the problem you're being paid to fix with the minimal amount of information needed to get the job done. Answers here are often very well thought-out and considered, and they tend to trickle in over several days at least. In fact, if someone accepts an answer I give too soon, I usually tell them they shouldn't be so quick to consider the issue settled, since even better answers may very well be provided in due time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=active&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=featured&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=active&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=newest&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="a096a994-8c2e-4ab5-99f1-7045def824f6" CreationDate="2014-10-06T04:07:20.133" UserId="46740" Text="I don't know if this site is the appropriate place but my question is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stackwise application for Ipad lets me visit all my favorite stackexchange sites. However, it doesn't seem to run latex and equations are seen as a bunch of code. I don't know latex yet. Has anyone had similar problems, or know how to solve this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="a096a994-8c2e-4ab5-99f1-7045def824f6" CreationDate="2014-10-06T04:07:20.133" UserId="46740" Text="Stackwise application for Ipad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="a096a994-8c2e-4ab5-99f1-7045def824f6" CreationDate="2014-10-06T04:07:20.133" UserId="46740" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6194" RevisionGUID="db2fe27a-4473-4175-94cb-db0c2df5ad67" CreationDate="2014-10-06T04:59:22.660" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The [Stackwise App][1] appears to be third-party -- you should file a bug report with its developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the Stack Exchange team is [alpha-testing its official iPad app][2], and you can sign up to participate. My very limited understanding is that this is just a superficial change to the already-existing iOS app for optimal display on an iPad. Since the iOS app already displays latex properly ([I requested it myself][3]), I suspect it won't be an issue there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For future reference, bug reports and feature requests for official apps at least should probably go to the [main meta][4] and tagged appropriately. Even for latex it's not like Physics is the only Stack Exchange site that uses it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/stackwise/id556308691?ls=1&amp;mt=8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239250/help-us-test-the-new-stack-exchange-ipad-app&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/222868/please-add-tex-rendering-on-the-ios-app&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="7013c0e9-3778-4fca-a7f7-8f2a965e86a4" CreationDate="2014-10-06T05:31:19.783" UserId="56578" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="44065920-9732-438f-82e3-2e6bfdf52b91" CreationDate="2014-10-06T05:42:37.430" UserId="56578" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="d734d31a-f55c-46b7-bf20-d829c0cc45d5" CreationDate="2014-10-06T05:44:59.577" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing, etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my last update, as there seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, I really don't see why **you dislike that question** so much.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  if it is the case that you believe that the members here that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively answer questions do it primarily for reputation points,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perhaps it is time **to check your premises**.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Well, the silly question **attracted a lot more people** to the website,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is also worth something. Also, for&lt;2k rep you also get awarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for editting questions. **I do not really see** the problem you are trying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These ,and many others, are unwarranted conclusions you are jumping to. I think I expressed my view in a clear way: if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that downvotes in the Meta just indicate disagreement with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views, not that it's a stupid question. I think your question is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly reasonable one, and my downvote indicates only **that I don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree** with your view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a post has a tag &quot;discussion&quot; you should argument your dissent, the up/down vote is&#xD;&#xA;a lazy solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="66b95e42-76dd-4a77-b265-42d98b670bdc" CreationDate="2014-10-06T06:40:28.123" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1062 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* (also by myself) would be rated **1** (-2 at most, if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it). Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or from -3 to 20&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for your answers and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not accept any answer, because mine, as clearly stated, was not a question. It is being downvoted *(while, oddly enough, the old one is being upvoted)*, and this is comprehensible as the *suggestion is not popular*. I posted it again because in between I made a lot of experience on other sites, and **most of all** because I myself benefitted by the current system. Last time a mean reader might think I was envious, jealous of other members' luck, this time a mean (*and hasty*) reader may think I am not happy with this site, whereas *I clearly stated the opposit*e from the very beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably the best SE site, and there are really kind, awsome people, and even our 'kids' are fantastic. This time, I thought, *my best intentions are clear* as **I am condemning an overrated banal answer of mine**. The proposal was considered interesting but with disruptive consequences last time, and you confirmed you dislike it. I posted just for the record. Thanks again" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="e4a5ea68-9b8d-4568-b86c-bfad76ad6cd7" CreationDate="2014-10-06T13:28:16.483" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The main role of the reputation system is to encourage people to participate. There is something competitive within all of us that just loves being awarded points, even when they have no real value. You yourself say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU in a couple of minutes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key word being *thrill*. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just human nature, and the end result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time to writing some truly fantastic answers. This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, but you have to have grown up in the pre-Internet era to realise what an astonishing resource the Physics SE is for enthusiastic young physicists like I was forty years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current reputation system is very, very good at doing what it's designed to do i.e. motivating people to take part. If you start making changes that are perceived as obstructing the path to yet more points I fear you will start demotivating exactly the sort of people who make this site such as a success. It's not that people will storm off in a huff, but faced with the choice of writing yet another answer on Lorentz transformations or sitting down to enjoy the large pile of new SF books that are screaming for my attention, you start making the latter look more attractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of your question seems to be the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights. But experience shows that this simply isn't a problem. Rather the reverse really - it often takes 12 hours to close the most egregious of homework questions because we don't have enough people actively using their moderatorial privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even though you cite me in your question as *appreciating the validity of your arguments*, let me make it very clear that I comprehensively disagree with the views expressed in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="ad012046-8c54-4bbc-9e8a-ec719575ec2b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T15:05:09.533" UserId="25907" Text="Seems to be fixed on all sites as of 2014-10-06.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14539" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="677af3d0-666c-422b-a24d-937ba77db897" CreationDate="2014-10-06T15:35:28.443" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="16ff4d4d-23f9-4a07-a4c4-2765c6efedcb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T04:43:56.860" UserId="22254" Text="A community ad caught my eye, and I visited http://www.physicsoverflow.org. What are the links between Physics SE and Physics Overflow and how are they different from each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="16ff4d4d-23f9-4a07-a4c4-2765c6efedcb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T04:43:56.860" UserId="22254" Text="What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="16ff4d4d-23f9-4a07-a4c4-2765c6efedcb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T04:43:56.860" UserId="22254" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="fe8864c4-e39b-4b34-96e5-75859f1a3c7c" CreationDate="2014-10-07T05:19:30.767" UserId="24653" Text="PhysicsOverflow was started by a number of users that were not content with the way the SE network works - especially in terms of moderation. They are not affiliated with the SE network. Furthermore, PO is more strict about the level of questions, accepting only questions of graduate level or higher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="8fa065b4-042b-4123-a885-0cb7d5f79110" CreationDate="2014-10-07T06:50:06.897" UserId="56578" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a **fair compensation** for the posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [**silly answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [**basic notion**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes) instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn moderator priviledges and cause huge damages. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ubermod Oded* said last time that changing policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an adequate program all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having 30 000 pts, and I wouldn't mind my 250.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *counterbalances* must be calculated, *thresholds* and priviledges updated and **collaboration** from experts needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not **just** take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* would be rated **1** or 2 at most, even by myself: if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it, if I knew that my valid posts were fairly rated. Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote, and **rarely upvote newcomers' good answers**&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify **which views** you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your *pshychological* motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make **better than** John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to *1 million* and (mine) to *25 000* you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20 000* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality. I'm sure you read this amazing book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize that 5-10** organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I *collected evidence on other sites*, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) (*strawman* is the meanest of fallacies, as the *manipulation is extended from the proposition to the person*) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or (probably best) from **-5 to 20**. Rating can be **tuned in a way to insure 100k** (or 1M, 1G..) to top users. If *answers were kept anonymous* for a while '*new users*' could get a better deal.&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for your answers and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not accept any answer because mine, as clearly stated, was *not* a question. It is being downvoted *(while, oddly enough, the old one is being upvoted)*, and this is comprehensible as the *suggestion is not popular with the notables*. I posted it again because in between I made a lot of experience on other sites, and **most of all** because I myself benefitted by the current system: last time a mean reader might think I was envious, jealous of other members' luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time a mean (*or hasty*) reader may think I am not happy with this site, whereas *I clearly stated the opposite from the very beginning: &#xD;&#xA;this is probably the best SE site, there are really kind people, and even our '*kids*' are fantastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time, I thought, my best intentions are clear as I am condemning an **overrated banal answer of mine**. Last time the proposal was considered interesting but with disruptive consequences: I posted again to show that *a more rational and fair system is possible without impairing top reps*. Thanks again!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="645f2baa-658f-4624-92f3-ceee6ea83fbe" CreationDate="2014-10-07T07:15:20.963" UserId="56578" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a *fair compensation* for posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [*silly answer*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [*basic notion*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes), instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc., &#xD;&#xA;with only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn mod priviledges: *is this rational?*. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last time *ubermod* said that changing current policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an *adequate program* all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having less than 100k, and I wouldn't mind my 200 or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *checks and balances* must be calculated, thresholds and priviledges updated and collaboration from top users needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not just take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* would be rated 1 or 2 at most, even by myself: if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it, if I knew that my valid posts were fairly rated. Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote, and **rarely upvote newcomers' good answers**&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify which views you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your pshychological motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make *better than* John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to 1M and (mine) to 25k you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20K* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all. It's the same with money and inflation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality. I'm sure you read this amazing book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize** that 5-10 organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I collected evidence on other sites, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more *competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) (*strawman* is the meanest of fallacies, as the *manipulation is extended from the proposition to the person*) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or (probably best) from **-5 to 20**. Rating can be tuned in a way to insure 100k (or 1M, 1G..) to top users. If *answers were kept anonymous* for a while 'new users' could get a better deal.&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for your answers and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not accept any answer because mine, as clearly stated, was *not* a question. It is being downvoted *(while, oddly enough, the old one is being upvoted)*, and this is comprehensible as the *suggestion is not popular with the notables*. I posted it again because in between I made a lot of experience on other sites, and **most of all** because I myself benefitted by the current system: last time a mean reader might think I was envious, jealous of other members' luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time a mean (*or hasty*) reader may think I am not happy with this site, whereas *I clearly stated the opposite from the very beginning: &#xD;&#xA;this is probably the best SE site, there are really kind people, and even our '*kids*' are fantastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time, I thought, my best intentions are clear as I am condemning also an overrated banal answer of mine. Last time the proposal was considered interesting but with disruptive consequences: I posted again to show that *a more rational and fair system is possible without impairing top reps*. Thanks again!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="10ad43e5-59da-46b1-86f4-054de9cc3c11" CreationDate="2014-10-07T07:46:36.287" UserId="2751" Text="PhysicsOverflow is meant to be some kind of a rebirth of the untimely passed away [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and a little physics brother of [MathOverflow](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to the former theoretical physics site, we have slightly lowered the bar to ask questions to graduate-level upward and broadened the scope to include experimental physics and phenomenology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the high-level Q&amp;A, PhysicsOverflow offers also a [Reviews section](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/4657#a4807), dedicated to discuss and peer review (mostly ArXiv but other sources can be considered too) papers publicly and &quot;in real time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PhysicsOverflow was built outside the SE network to not have to fullfill any externally prescribed activity criteria for graduation (Area51 statistics). As Danu hinted at, this also allows us to avoid having to obey the &quot;SE model&quot; or SE rules, policies, and guidelines where they would clash with the goals of a high-level academic community (MathOverflow negociated a [special agreement](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow/970#970) with SE before joining the network).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find a full description of the site in our [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6199" RevisionGUID="bfb2c51b-7e24-4fa0-9475-95d287452429" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:05:18.753" UserId="2451" Text="[http://www.physicsforums.com](http://www.physicsforums.com)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="f108b046-b2d5-4831-ba26-7ea82a71b82c" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:05:53.027" UserId="2451" Text="[http://www.quora.com/Physics](http://www.quora.com/Physics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="df475a22-0bbe-4134-83e5-c89a58c02513" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:07:57.050" UserId="2451" Text="[http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics](http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="1e658c7b-8770-43ce-b19f-8c7062ca28ec" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:13:05.860" UserId="2451" Comment="previous text not suitable for referral" Text="My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="1e658c7b-8770-43ce-b19f-8c7062ca28ec" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:13:05.860" UserId="2451" Comment="previous text not suitable for referral" Text="My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="1e658c7b-8770-43ce-b19f-8c7062ca28ec" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:13:05.860" UserId="2451" Comment="previous text not suitable for referral" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="b4a9acc3-0df6-47fd-8d11-9c7264183e45" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:23:40.540" UserId="2451" Comment="previous text not suitable for referral" Text="Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer.&#xD;&#xA;To not generate a too large list a site should fulfil the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics subsection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. Please avoid blatant promotion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ include self-student.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="38e37dca-89c7-42d0-907b-ac09521453f9" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:32:49.497" UserId="2451" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer.&#xD;&#xA;To not generate a too large list a site should fulfil the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics subsection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE's scope. In particular, it should welcome questions in all areas of physics and at any level of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. Please avoid blatant promotion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ include self-student.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="a9c2f6be-9640-447e-b776-4f26e4b2d4df" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:59:20.073" UserId="26969" Text="There was a &quot;check my work&quot; [question asked yesterday](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139278/26969) with an unusual characteristic: the OP had really gone through the problem carefully, checking units and magnitudes along the way. She had made a rather silly mistake in the mathematics along the way resulting in an answer that was a factor 10x off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my dilemma. On the one hand, it was a &quot;check my work&quot; homework question. On the other hand, it was an unusually good one. I had left a comment about not closing it, and it attracted no downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when, after leaving the comment, I went through the work and discovered it all came down to a single typo, I wondered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;should this question be closed as being &quot;too local and not interesting to future visitors&quot;, or should we leave it open as an example of a &quot;OK&quot; form of a check-my-work homework question? I couldn't decide, even after reading [the answers to this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5914/26969).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of you know that on the homework spectrum I lean towards the &quot;helpful&quot; over the &quot;discouraging&quot; end of the distribution, so I would like to hear the community's thought on this one. But I'd gladly give up my 15 rep points if it's decided this post has no further value on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="a9c2f6be-9640-447e-b776-4f26e4b2d4df" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:59:20.073" UserId="26969" Text="Should this question be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="a9c2f6be-9640-447e-b776-4f26e4b2d4df" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:59:20.073" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="af59d886-89af-40e6-bbee-d7e9e19e19bf" CreationDate="2014-10-08T21:16:37.253" UserId="124" Text="I wouldn't say to delete it. Deletion is meant only for things that very obviously shouldn't have been posted in the first place: non-answers posted as answers, unintelligible gibberish, spam, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do absolutely believe it should be _closed_. The reasons for making check-my-work questions off topic are unrelated to the quality of the post; accordingly, there is no such thing as an OK check-my-work question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="5be010fa-6fc5-47d0-a549-1d7a4e3555c8" CreationDate="2014-10-08T21:25:23.047" UserId="2451" Comment="added 484 characters in body" Text="_My question was [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer.&#xD;&#xA;To not generate a too large list a site should fulfil the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics subsection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE's scope. In particular, it should welcome questions in all areas of physics and at any level of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. Please avoid blatant promotion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; _The question wasn't reopened after I edited the question. Also no one helped me when I asked in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar)._ (The chat room requires [20 reputation points](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ includes self-student.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14560" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="5be010fa-6fc5-47d0-a549-1d7a4e3555c8" CreationDate="2014-10-08T21:25:23.047" UserId="2451" Comment="added 484 characters in body" Text="My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="98020fcc-b5ab-49a9-9b39-f5a19c4c5dbf" CreationDate="2014-10-09T07:23:45.037" UserId="56578" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Why does every post here gets downvoted and disregarded, even though many users here are not even professional physicists? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much condescension and feeling of self value, for someone as partial, don't you think? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="72bfc2b9-8aa0-4522-b01f-764cb6e533cc" CreationDate="2014-10-09T09:02:44.317" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="_My question was [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer.&#xD;&#xA;To not generate a too large list, a site should fulfill the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE's scope. In particular, it should welcome questions in all areas of physics and at any level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Please avoid blatant promotion. This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; _The question wasn't reopened after I edited the question. Also no one helped me (sufficiently) when I asked in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar)._ (The chat room requires [20 reputation points](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ includes self-student.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="247bfd30-f6b4-4d6b-84a7-a49badcda35a" CreationDate="2014-10-09T17:44:13.220" UserId="31790" Text="Let us take as an *example* [this question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;Consider whether you think it should be considered off-topic (for being purely mathematical in nature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is your opinion based on what you find interesting, the specific written rules of this site, a combination, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/139532/the-conjugate-representation-in-su2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="247bfd30-f6b4-4d6b-84a7-a49badcda35a" CreationDate="2014-10-09T17:44:13.220" UserId="31790" Text="By what criteria do you judge whether mathy questions should or should not be considered off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="247bfd30-f6b4-4d6b-84a7-a49badcda35a" CreationDate="2014-10-09T17:44:13.220" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="bd93b5ab-dc12-424b-84ac-73e497a549f4" CreationDate="2014-10-09T17:48:42.757" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Let us take as an *example* [this question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;Consider whether you think it should be considered off-topic (for being purely mathematical in nature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is your opinion based on what you find interesting, the specific written rules of this site, a combination, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139532/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="bd93b5ab-dc12-424b-84ac-73e497a549f4" CreationDate="2014-10-09T17:48:42.757" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="f1a6ee13-ca55-4705-ba25-5f418c835340" CreationDate="2014-10-09T17:58:39.957" UserId="31790" Comment="removed opinion nature of question" Text="Let us take as an *example* [this question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;Consider whether you think it should be considered off-topic (for being purely mathematical in nature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should one's opinion be based on what one finds interesting, the specific written rules of this site, a combination, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139532/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="e5ecca9b-6c67-451e-a89d-73d41bd4bbee" CreationDate="2014-10-09T18:14:25.837" UserId="31790" Comment="More explanation" Text="Let us take as an *example* [this question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;Consider whether you think it should be considered off-topic (for being purely mathematical in nature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should one's opinion on whether a mathematical question be closed be based on what one finds interesting, the specific written rules of this site, a combination, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this question is trivially answered by referring to the site tour (see KyleKanos's comment below) because the tour says that what's allowed is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mathematics in the context of physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on mathematical details outside of physical context are off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem seems to be that there is enormous room for interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;A pure math question may have obvious physical implications even if the question doesn't explicitly reference those implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach is to take the question at face value and not allow for any benefit of the doubt with respect to implicit relevance to physics.&#xD;&#xA;With this approach, the example question linked above would be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to consider whether the mathematics in the question is directly relevant to physics or might simply be so common in physics settings that other users of the site would find it interesting and useful.&#xD;&#xA;From this perspective, the example question might be kept open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139532/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="46bdb75e-5554-4622-8c21-c30154e36345" CreationDate="2014-10-09T23:39:36.280" UserId="50583" Text="My procedure is the following when faced with a math question with no physical context given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite hesitant to migrate questions to math.SE and proceed in the following order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the question is closeable under the homework policy here, I'll vote to close it as *homework*. People too lazy to read our policies before posting should not be given the convenience of migration to a site that will answer their question, since that does not discourage them from just posting here again next time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I know the physical motivation for the question, I'll leave a comment asking the OP if that was their motivation, and *not* vote to close it. (In the question you cite, I didn't do that since the physical relevance of SU(N) representations is something I considered implicitly understood.) It would probably be best to make a habit of editing it in myself, but that would often change the original post considerably and thus be time-consuming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If I don't know the physical motivation, I'll vote for migration to math. (Sometimes leaving a comment asking the OP to add physical relevance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it is obvious that 2. and 3. depend on my personal knowledge (as most close votes do, at some point). But migrating away questions that I *know* to be connected to physics is just not the right thing to do, in my opinion. Nevertheless, we are told to judge questions as written, improve those we can, and close those we can't, so the cases in 3. must be voted to migrate by me even if there's some motivation behind them I cannot fathom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to remark that I don't consider this process to be any more subjective than other close votes, especially *homework*, where the spectrum from &quot;lenient&quot; to &quot;harsh&quot; close-voters is quite broad on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6209" RevisionGUID="6968f142-d827-48a2-a2b5-4f776126d442" CreationDate="2014-10-10T02:55:45.257" UserId="52112" Text="I'm giving up on flagging. The system is flawed and broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rejected flags are punished. There's a big difference between bad behavior with regard to flagging and a mere difference of opinion. There's no leeway. Moderators have two choices. They can either accept my flag, in which case I'm awarded a meaningless brownie point, or they can reject my flag, in which case that rejection does count against me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There's no way to retract a flag. I've mistakenly flagged the wrong item once, an answer instead of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The last straw: I flagged an obviously garbage answer as spam. My flag was rejected, and yet the answer was deleted. WTF?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gave up on flagging at the stackoverflow for more or less the same reason. It's a flawed and broken system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="845799a4-e591-4ea9-a155-eb64706b4a9e" CreationDate="2014-10-10T11:09:39.520" UserId="8563" Comment="Formatting and language fixes to improve readability." Text="**My question was [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer. To keep the list at a reasonable size, please (only) include sites which fulfil the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE's scope. In particular, it should welcome questions in all areas of physics and at any level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please avoid blatant promotion. This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The question wasn't reopened after I edited the question. Also no one helped me (sufficiently) when I asked in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). (The chat room requires [20 reputation points](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ includes self-student.  &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6210" RevisionGUID="e5593bbe-16b9-4a75-863c-fc367b7fccf1" CreationDate="2014-10-10T20:22:47.027" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="There is not always a clear distinction between physics and philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpretations of quantum mechanics are not empirically testable, so they could be considered philosophy, and yet the people who work on this kind of things are typically physicists who publish in physics journals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are people who work on the philosophy of science. For example, Norton's dome was originally brought up in a philosophical critique of the notion of causality,[Norton] but a lot of the literature that came after Norton's original paper smells more like physics  or mathematics [Laraudogoitia 2012],[Korolev 2006].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People's opinions on what constitutes physics are themselves philosophical stances. For example, many physicists have attitudes that could generally be described as operationalist, and these attitudes influence what they would define as a valid physics question as opposed to a philosophy question. But operationalism is itself a philosophical idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons, I don't think it's practical to prohibit philosophy questions on the site, if they're also physics questions. If there is very little scientific content and it's mainly philosophy, then we could certainly suggest they move their question to philosophy.SE. There are certain topics that are basically FAQs where people imagine that something has a conclusive physics answer, but in fact it doesn't. Examples are the block universe and interpretations of quantum mechanics. This can be handled simply by writing good answers that say exactly that. For example, if someone is under the illusion that physicists actually study whether the block universe concept is valid or correct, it's only a physicist who can authoritatively tell them that this *isn't* what we study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Korolev, &quot;Indeterminism, asymptotic reasoning, and time irreversibility in classical physics,&quot; 2006, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3003/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Norton, &quot;Causation as Folk Science,&quot; http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1214/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jon Pérez Laraudogoitia, &quot;On Norton’s dome,&quot; Synthese, 2012 http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11229-012-0105-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="233a5049-4be5-4bfc-9051-731319e79da7" CreationDate="2014-10-11T02:47:48.043" UserId="60884" Text="[![The Fun Physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ljt1P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14581" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="522c0b5d-aa40-47cd-a529-a4edb0448d54" CreationDate="2014-10-11T02:47:48.043" UserId="60884" />
  <row Id="14582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="f02866cd-fc2f-488f-834f-4f89621c6dbd" CreationDate="2014-10-11T09:13:27.437" UserId="5477" Text="In the old days, I used to stay logged in to Physics.SE (and other Stack Exchange sites) for many weeks at a time. Only very occasionally would I find myself mysteriously logged out, and have to log back in again. But nowadays it seems to happen at least once a day. Why is this, and can I do anything about it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="f02866cd-fc2f-488f-834f-4f89621c6dbd" CreationDate="2014-10-11T09:13:27.437" UserId="5477" Text="Why do I keep getting logged out all the time these days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="f02866cd-fc2f-488f-834f-4f89621c6dbd" CreationDate="2014-10-11T09:13:27.437" UserId="5477" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="c3636b2b-f715-45a0-b7c9-27d437934a82" CreationDate="2014-10-12T12:54:15.453" UserId="2451" Comment="added criterium 3" Text="**My question was [closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer. To keep the list at a reasonable size, please only include sites which fulfil the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE's scope. In particular, it should welcome questions in all areas of physics and at any level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The site should be free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please avoid blatant promotion. This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The question wasn't reopened after I edited the question. Also no one helped me (sufficiently) when I asked in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). (The chat room requires [20 reputation points](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ includes self-student.  &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="6d7ebd39-eccb-4951-80b3-cf84ca79e013" CreationDate="2014-10-14T16:08:56.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/522056472126320640" />
  <row Id="15588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="13c21bdc-3f28-4d70-b0b8-aca74c0a9c61" CreationDate="2014-10-15T11:13:16.333" UserId="8563" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned in now-deleted comments, is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will tolerate far more abuse than is present in this site, and that civility is not necessarily a requirement there. This is underscored, as I see it, by two main bits of PO policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) of their FAQ, which contains (at present) no guidance on things like name-calling, racism, sexism, harassment, and such sorts of things which can and do happen in unmoderated interet forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, it seems the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there seems to be very little clarity about who is running the moderation, and what their responsibilities are; see e.g. [Who are the Physics Overflow moderators, and what is their exact role and powers?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22268/physics-overflow-moderators-what-their-exact-role-and-powers?), and the (hidden) page [Who wants to help us to be a moderator?](http://physicsoverflow.org/6197/who-wants-to-help-us-as-should-be-a-moderator). This is in contrast to [the moderators tab of the Users page of this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators), which makes this information clearly available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the (incoming) &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [recently replaced one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="b8ff038c-b48e-413f-a089-8e24e4fcf8f8" CreationDate="2014-10-15T12:39:33.660" UserId="36360" Text="The [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info) for [tag:reference-request] contains the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contrast this with the [tag:reference-request] tag, which is for questions that ask for a specific resource, instead of any resource explaining a particular topic. The tags [tag:resource-recommendations] and [tag:reference-request] are &#xD;&#xA;mutually exclusive; they should never both be applied to the same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [tag:reference-request] is a tag synonym for [tag:resource-recommendations]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="b8ff038c-b48e-413f-a089-8e24e4fcf8f8" CreationDate="2014-10-15T12:39:33.660" UserId="36360" Text="The tag wiki for resource recommendations contradicts existing tag synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="b8ff038c-b48e-413f-a089-8e24e4fcf8f8" CreationDate="2014-10-15T12:39:33.660" UserId="36360" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6215" RevisionGUID="46668b6d-dcac-440c-9be7-5a4ddff2d028" CreationDate="2014-10-15T12:46:55.493" UserId="50583" Text="Good catch. I submitted an edit replacing [tag:reference-request] with [tag:specific-reference]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="034b3e18-7fe6-4075-9964-3af6a5a1f824" CreationDate="2014-10-15T13:04:33.823" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1030 characters in body" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned comments that are now [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18110760#18110760), is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will tolerate far more abuse than is present in this site, and that civility is not necessarily a requirement there. This view is supported, as I see it, by two main bits of PO policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) of their FAQ, which contains (at present) no guidance on things like name-calling, racism, sexism, harassment, and such sorts of things which can and do happen in unmoderated internet forums. While this does not immediately mean that they are allowed, I cannot at present find any on-site reference that says that they are not, and users who observe such behaviour and are unhappy with it are not really given any encouragement to report it (and, I feel, rather the contrary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, it seems the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, PO moderators have [stated informally](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se/6213?noredirect=1#comment20823_6213) that abuse will not be tolerated there, but I'm not sure how that squares with the comment above. At the very least, this is unclear and confusing as a PO user; personally, I would expect that some pretty bad stuff will inevitably slip through the cracks of that lack of clarity. I do not, however, advise people curious about PO to stay away from the site - instead, be aware of these points and make up your own mind whether you want to be part of that community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there seems to be very little clarity about who is running the moderation, and what their responsibilities are; see e.g. [Who are the Physics Overflow moderators, and what is their exact role and powers?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22268/physics-overflow-moderators-what-their-exact-role-and-powers?), and the (hidden) page [Who wants to help us to be a moderator?](http://physicsoverflow.org/6197/who-wants-to-help-us-as-should-be-a-moderator). This is in contrast to [the moderators tab of the Users page of this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators), which makes this information clearly available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the (incoming) &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [recently replaced one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15594" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="92436bee-da76-4f19-b54a-20fe0b57998a" CreationDate="2014-10-15T15:11:18.307" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6216" RevisionGUID="830294b3-8ca3-4428-aa6e-95fa4ae707cb" CreationDate="2014-10-15T17:28:30.667" UserId="8563" Text="Note that the current synonyms have been changed from the proposal; since July 2014, **both** [tag:books] and [tag:specific-reference] map to [tag:resource-recommendations]. This is intended to catch a large number of users who were using the `reference-request` tag when the post is best described by the `resource-recommendations` flavour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `specific-reference` flavour, on the other hand, is rarer, and can be re-tagged by hand if needed. So if you see something that should have the [tag:specific-reference] tag and doesn't yet, add it in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6216" RevisionGUID="817f66a2-4bad-4a11-9b16-665e93497e1c" CreationDate="2014-10-15T17:31:18.427" UserId="124" Comment="fix typo" Text="Note that the current synonyms have been changed from the proposal; since July 2014, **both** [tag:books] and [tag:reference-request] map to [tag:resource-recommendations]. This is intended to catch a large number of users who were using the `reference-request` tag when the post is best described by the `resource-recommendations` flavour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `specific-reference` flavour, on the other hand, is rarer, and can be re-tagged by hand if needed. So if you see something that should have the [tag:specific-reference] tag and doesn't yet, add it in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="3ca65147-cb00-4f3a-a49c-38d0e481eac3" CreationDate="2014-10-15T19:59:27.273" UserId="5459" Text="I know that there are a few different options to sort questions based on popularity, views, tags etc etc. These options give the same list to anyone who uses them at that moment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there any option which learns from my past activities (views, votes cast, votes received etc etc) to curate and sort a personalized list of questions? Is there a proposal to bring such a thing, not just for physics but other SE forums too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="3ca65147-cb00-4f3a-a49c-38d0e481eac3" CreationDate="2014-10-15T19:59:27.273" UserId="5459" Text="Are the list of questions that I am seeing curated based on my past activities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="3ca65147-cb00-4f3a-a49c-38d0e481eac3" CreationDate="2014-10-15T19:59:27.273" UserId="5459" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="f6885efb-6175-47d6-9d2a-6f8222fbc96c" CreationDate="2014-10-15T21:06:50.433" UserId="520" Text="The algorithm for the front-page display (http://physics.stackexchange.com/) uses your [favorite and ignored tags](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do) to sort out new or recently active questions that might be interesting to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[If you do not set your favorite and ignored tags it will use your frequented tags instead.](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/138187/2509)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="8ca1c585-0001-4503-983c-e299f900b6ec" CreationDate="2014-10-15T21:14:34.283" UserId="532" Text="There is a simple grammatical error in an answer that I was trying to fix.  Unfortunately, it only involved modifying 3 characters.  So, I quickly lightly copy-edited the remainder of the answer making 2 other minor changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edit suggestion was than quickly rejected.  Is there anyway to just tell the reviewer / author the issue, so he can fix himself if he prefers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/59239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="8ca1c585-0001-4503-983c-e299f900b6ec" CreationDate="2014-10-15T21:14:34.283" UserId="532" Text="Is there anyway to communicate with an edit reviewer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="8ca1c585-0001-4503-983c-e299f900b6ec" CreationDate="2014-10-15T21:14:34.283" UserId="532" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="c517bd15-e16f-4cb1-b076-c30baa13395e" CreationDate="2014-10-16T02:17:58.497" UserId="25301" Text="I rejected your edit to my post because I thought the only thing worth changing was deleting the additional `is` in the first sentence; the other changes you suggested were not what I wanted to say. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this happens again, the easiest thing to do is use the comments to question the author about the particular choice of language or blatant errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a slightly related note, the StackExchange team have decided to change the canned responses for rejecting edits. Sadly, the **too minor** category (which I would have used) has been replaced with **no improvement whatsoever**. You can [read more about it here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/238333/what-guidance-should-be-given-when-edits-are-rejected/239950#239950). I personally do not like the language used (it seems rather confrontational), but it's what reviewers have to deal with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15610" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="afa06ff2-6d3e-4450-bbca-3c4740379eaa" CreationDate="2014-10-16T14:25:51.880" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5660],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:24653,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Danu&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="9b756715-ffb4-4e31-ae7b-f984c5cec0c2" CreationDate="2014-10-16T14:29:40.210" UserId="8563" Comment="Fixed title grammar while this is at the top of the front page." Text="There is a simple grammatical error in an answer that I was trying to fix.  Unfortunately, it only involved modifying 3 characters.  So, I quickly lightly copy-edited the remainder of the answer making 2 other minor changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edit suggestion was than quickly rejected.  Is there any way to just tell the reviewer / author the issue, so he can fix himself if he prefers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/59239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15612" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="9b756715-ffb4-4e31-ae7b-f984c5cec0c2" CreationDate="2014-10-16T14:29:40.210" UserId="8563" Comment="Fixed title grammar while this is at the top of the front page." Text="Is there any way to communicate with an edit reviewer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15613" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="59eb77b4-b8b6-4931-8328-d2a7c42f889c" CreationDate="2014-10-17T00:00:34.733" UserId="58972" Comment="We don't support IE8 at this time" Text="|bug|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="ebee9719-9734-4e51-88f4-ca3b551dcc06" CreationDate="2014-10-17T00:01:21.327" UserId="58972" Text="Thanks for bringing this up. Per [our official supported browsers wiki](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/71208/262550), we do not support IE8. Therefore, I recommend that you upgrade your browser (it's likely that you have by now, 2+ years later) to ensure an optimal experience on our sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15615" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="e5c00a22-8228-46f7-b49e-e6a1a5ea6ff8" CreationDate="2014-10-17T19:20:24.500" UserId="58972" Comment="I do not find the colors to be difficult to read at this time." Text="|bug|status-declined|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="08fce0a8-6c94-4f9f-971c-90bd72a01706" CreationDate="2014-10-17T19:20:50.927" UserId="58972" Text="Thanks for bringing this up. I am declining this request as the colors in the current build of our network sites seem to be sufficient, high-contrast, and easy to read." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="e6eccf15-0c67-44a2-8d43-2fdaefaec5a8" CreationDate="2014-10-17T20:23:03.003" UserId="34382" Text="I direct your attention to the physics SE question on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136604/philosophy-enquiry-of-string-theory. Verbatim questions from the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to explain all the mathematical structure that arises in string&#xD;&#xA;&gt; theory?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does one know what one derives is math and what is physics? Where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the boundary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is extremely broad; string theory incorporates many aspects of mathematics. Secondly, the 'boundary' between whether something derived is mathematics or physics is primarily opinion-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user has added other questions, and I feel other than being too broad and opinion-based in some aspects, the post should be split into separate questions. For example, one discusses the possibility of string theory as being some effective field theory, or approximation of a more fundamental framework, which is not related to the two questions above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, a bounty has been offered, and the question cannot be closed (at least not by normal users). How has this question slipped passed us for two days, and not been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="e6eccf15-0c67-44a2-8d43-2fdaefaec5a8" CreationDate="2014-10-17T20:23:03.003" UserId="34382" Text="Why has 'philosophy enquiry of string theory' not been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="e6eccf15-0c67-44a2-8d43-2fdaefaec5a8" CreationDate="2014-10-17T20:23:03.003" UserId="34382" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6225" RevisionGUID="7b624e3d-dfa1-4aa8-8444-74ecb917bd1a" CreationDate="2014-10-17T20:36:22.447" UserId="124" Text="It hasn't been closed because it did not accumulate five close votes from 3k+ users. (Or four votes, at least, with a moderator picking up the fifth.) That's really all there is to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, _nobody_ voted to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that it has a bounty and doesn't allow close votes, if anyone does strongly believe it should be closed, flag it accordingly, and we (mods) will interpret that as a proxy for a close vote. I'm not sure if the system lets you flag as off topic, but if not, use a generic flag for moderator attention and give your reasoning for why it should be closed in the flag description. If there is strong community support for closing it, we can still cancel the bounty and close the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="00e82e1c-985e-4ba2-be9d-653ddc2507ce" CreationDate="2014-10-18T00:29:14.960" UserId="40971" Text="2 days ago a group of people Listed here:&quot;Red Act, Brandon Enright, Danu, JamalS [and] John Rennie&quot; put my question on hold as off topic. I refuted their claim that I was off topic and gave 2 quotes from this very website stating a question like mine was indeed on topic and have gotten no response whatsoever ever. I find it extraordinary that a wrongly accused questioned stay on hold and unreviewed for so long especially considering after 5 days the question gets permanently closed. I now have less than 3 days until it's closed so if an authority figure such as an admin could review my question on behalf of the website I would greatly appreciate the correction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="00e82e1c-985e-4ba2-be9d-653ddc2507ce" CreationDate="2014-10-18T00:29:14.960" UserId="40971" Text="My on-hold Question not being reviewed or responded to after edit and 2 comments I made" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="00e82e1c-985e-4ba2-be9d-653ddc2507ce" CreationDate="2014-10-18T00:29:14.960" UserId="40971" Text="|support|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="76ab0e79-f3de-49c0-90c2-8593c702d3ea" CreationDate="2014-10-18T00:36:04.360" UserId="40971" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="2 days ago a group of people Listed here:&quot;Red Act, Brandon Enright, Danu, JamalS [and] John Rennie&quot; put my question on hold as off topic. I refuted their claim that I was off topic and gave 2 quotes from this very website stating a question like mine was indeed on topic and have gotten no response whatsoever ever. I find it extraordinary that a wrongly accused questioned stay on hold and unreviewed for so long especially considering after 5 days the question gets permanently closed. I now have less than 3 days until it's closed so if an authority figure such as an admin could review my question on behalf of the website I would greatly appreciate the correction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/141390/the-atom-solid-or-liquid&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="790f38a6-9733-4ee4-822e-48a0ef4f4d91" CreationDate="2014-10-18T00:43:49.513" UserId="2911" Text="Your question was reviewed by a moderator, whose decision - leaving it on-hold - reflects that the question still suffers from the problem for which it was closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unusual for further information to be left in these cases; unless there's something specific that you could do to alter the question such that it would be allowed here, there's really nothing more to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="aaf0d573-191b-4456-b22d-23668d968f2f" CreationDate="2014-10-18T10:33:14.087" UserId="34382" Text="**Interests:** [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:string-theory], [tag:mathematical-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, I'm open to responding to other inquiries, but these are my dominant interests.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6229" RevisionGUID="df47a22e-8c73-448b-aa47-2c5127f19f93" CreationDate="2014-10-18T13:26:38.373" UserId="8563" Text="The problem with your question is that it deals with counterfactual physics. These are only on-topic in a few cases but this is far from that. There is no way to answer your question because the situation you ask about would not happen within real physics. To get an answer you'd have to extend the laws of physics to that case and the are multiple, non-unique ways to do that. Hence your question is more about science fiction than science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the review procedure, it worked pretty much as intended. Your edit was really minor and does not really warrant a specific response. You do have to assume that after a day or so (but usually a few hours), your edit has been seen and deemed insufficient. Your options then are to continue editing, or ask on meta for further guidance, which you did. (That said, a less confrontational attitude where you simply ask why exactly your question was thought off-topic, and how you can fix it, will be a lot easier to work with and will make less people not bother with a confrontational post.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct that the closure text does not completely cover what's wrong with your question. This is by design: we have a small number of canned closure reasons and we get more personal theories than counterfactual queries. In a case like this it is good practice to leave a comment explaining why it's off-topic, which Red Act did, before the question was closed. Until you had actually addressed that, there's little point in providing further input. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="5a2c5f68-d854-44fc-99a2-4f1668f758aa" CreationDate="2014-10-18T15:29:49.730" UserId="1325" Text="When an on-hold question is updated it goes into the review queue and all users with &gt;3k rep see it. I did see your question in the review queue and I voted to leave it closed. I would guess the same applies to all the other reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why I voted to close your question, then voted against reopening it, is that it can't be answered using the laws of physics because you propose a physically impossible situation. Your question even concedes that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If I were to **break the laws of the universe** and shrink down to the size of a nucleus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my emphasis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long term aim of this site is to provide a definitive searchable resource for anyone interested in Physics. That means we expect answers to be based on impeccable physical reasoning and we downvote and close answers that do not meet this standard. It is impossible to answer your question whilst maintaining the standards expected of answers posted here, and that's why your question was closed and remains closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6231" RevisionGUID="225b3ca2-0f8c-4461-8984-a14ff5e4d392" CreationDate="2014-10-18T16:41:51.690" UserId="2451" Text="Comments to the new version of Phys.SE question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136604/2451 (v5): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question has now been considerably changed, so that many of the initial flags do possibly no longer apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have therefore cancelled the flags. If you still think the latest version should be flagged, submit a new flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have cancelled the bounty to give the community a chance to review the latest version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- OP should wait at least 3 days before setting a new bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="a79993fc-4465-4c44-882b-b7bf8cfd81ef" CreationDate="2014-10-19T10:25:09.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/523781892609691648" />
  <row Id="15631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="862db6c9-9343-4e36-bb31-db376543ffde" CreationDate="2014-10-19T11:06:05.343" UserId="61946" Text="So the title says all. What is the meaning of a student of Physics as per this community? I ask this because there are students at many levels: 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th graders, undergraduates, graduates etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REASON FOR THIS QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a 10th grader. I posted a question (&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/140924/tension-in-a-pulley-system&gt;) and it was put on hold, despite receiving an upvote. I understand, that for 99% people here, the question would take less than 10 seconds to solve. I also understand, that there are many answered questions, similar to my question, and their answers fully apply to my question. However, the answers begin with the very part that I have a doubt in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize it's because of lack of concept clarity (about tension) that I am not able to understand. &#xD;&#xA;Realizing that the community rules wanted me to include my efforts at solving the question and a specific thing which I wanted to ask, I edited the question, and in the comments, wrote to two people who chose to vote for putting the question on hold to review and open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after a few days, the question was closed, without a comment from any one explaining what was it lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if these questions are too trivial for people here, should I leave this website???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="862db6c9-9343-4e36-bb31-db376543ffde" CreationDate="2014-10-19T11:06:05.343" UserId="61946" Text="What does this community mean by students?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="862db6c9-9343-4e36-bb31-db376543ffde" CreationDate="2014-10-19T11:06:05.343" UserId="61946" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="b0e5d0a7-2fac-4a87-843c-e256b394fa1c" CreationDate="2014-10-19T11:19:38.640" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body; edited tags" Text="So the title says all. What is the meaning of a student of Physics as per this community? I ask this because there are students at many levels: 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th graders, undergraduates, graduates etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REASON FOR THIS QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a 10th grader. I posted a question (&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/140924/&gt;) and it was put on hold, despite receiving an upvote. I understand, that for 99% people here, the question would take less than 10 seconds to solve. I also understand, that there are many answered questions, similar to my question, and their answers fully apply to my question. However, the answers begin with the very part that I have a doubt in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize it's because of lack of concept clarity (about tension) that I am not able to understand. &#xD;&#xA;Realizing that the community rules wanted me to include my efforts at solving the question and a specific thing which I wanted to ask, I edited the question, and in the comments, wrote to two people who chose to vote for putting the question on hold to review and open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after a few days, the question was closed, without a comment from any one explaining what was it lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if these questions are too trivial for people here, should I leave this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="b0e5d0a7-2fac-4a87-843c-e256b394fa1c" CreationDate="2014-10-19T11:19:38.640" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="2acff233-c3b6-4244-8fd4-9cb3598bcfce" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:26:25.430" UserId="520" Text="##Introductory remarks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First some remarks to address specific points or misconceptions in your post, then I'll try to pick apart this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I don't think there is an agreed definition of *&quot;student&quot;*. I take the word to mean any one who is seriously studying the subject. Being in secondary school certainly is no barrier to be a full participant on Physics SE.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  The key word (in my personal (not moderator powered) opinion) is *&quot;seriously&quot;*. It doesn't mean you have to be an expert, but it does mean you have to be acting as physicist: taking basic concepts and applying them to build a understanding.  You should also use the discipline specific vocabulary and the usual techniques in terms of drawing and labeling figures to help you along.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  I'll discuss my understanding of your question a little more in a further down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As I've remarked before there isn't an actual difference between *&quot;on hold&quot;* and *&quot;closed&quot;*. They represent the same condition in the database that backs the site and the different words are only there to indicate to new users that this condition is not irrevocable. The code that writes the messages uses a threshold time in that state to decide which phrase to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When you edit a held question it gets put into the review queue for higher rep users to look at (I think this only happens the first time you edit after the question is held). People did see your question and the both votes cast were to leave it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Just showing what you have tried is not enough to rescue a homework-like question. You have to render the question into a form where it has general applicability rather than being useful only for solving the question in front of you. You accomplish this by making the question about the *physics concept* where you are stuck (I almost wrote &quot;concepts&quot;, but that would have been a mistake because each question should address *one* concept).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; I know this can be difficult and that you may not have a clear idea of what that request even means.  I teach a lot of introductory physics courses and *many* students don't &quot;get it&quot; even after I bang away at the problem for a whole semester. But I'd like to offer a piece of advice: if the words *&quot;formula&quot;* or *&quot;equation&quot;* enters into your question then you haven't yet got it down to physics concepts but are still treating the mathematical representation which is case specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##About your post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all the question seems to have changed steadily as you repeatedly edited it. You need to be careful to understand the action of higher rep users in terms of the version(s) they knew about when they took those action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent version is much closer to a good (for the site) question than the early versions which were both unclear and addressed only the specific example in front of you. Alas the pure number of edits you made works against you: people develop a fatigue about these things; when you post came back to the top of the active queue for the fifth time they sighed and thought &quot;Not that again!&quot; and moved on without even looking at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be very helpful to know what you *do* get. I mean, I'd be temped to offer two different very short answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Well, draw a free-body diagram for each block already!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Each block is in equilibrium, right? So what does that imply about the forces acting on them?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't even know if these response would help you because your question is *so* basic (and the exercise you are working on so oddly stated) that I'm not sure what tools you have at your disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the most recent addition your post is (imho) either re-openable or close to it because the focus has come be on a procedure for working out the tension which is actually a fairly general thing. I'm not going to vote on it because as a moderator my single vote is binding and it is desirable to have the community weight in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="a3445164-4ce1-4d95-872d-f34c0f2b2418" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:32:56.397" UserId="61952" Text="My question was put on hold and closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/140955/how-to-feed-a-small-black-hole-against-1-tw-hawking-radiation-pressure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reason given was: &quot;We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle Kanos agrees with me that the elements I use in my question are mainstream physics but he thinks the combination of them is not. Sure, it won't be possible in the near or even quite distant future, but IMO it's a valid question and I've seen equally theoretical questions, even one about black hole power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review my question and reopen it if it's on topic here. Please also read the comments of Alan Rominger  and Hypnosifl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, Bernhard&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="a3445164-4ce1-4d95-872d-f34c0f2b2418" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:32:56.397" UserId="61952" Text="off topic review: How to feed a small black hole against 1 TW Hawking radiation pressure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="a3445164-4ce1-4d95-872d-f34c0f2b2418" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:32:56.397" UserId="61952" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="cab08a08-c853-40b7-9e5c-8116371e2a28" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:36:23.310" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="##Introductory remarks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First some remarks to address specific points or misconceptions in your post, then I'll try to pick apart this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I don't think there is an agreed definition of *&quot;student&quot;*. I take the word to mean any one who is seriously studying the subject. Being in secondary school certainly is no barrier to be a full participant on Physics SE.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  The key word (in my personal (not moderator powered) opinion) is *&quot;seriously&quot;*. It doesn't mean you have to be an expert, but it does mean you have to be acting as physicist: taking basic concepts and applying them to build a understanding.  You should also use the discipline specific vocabulary and the usual techniques in terms of drawing and labeling figures to help you along.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  I'll discuss my understanding of your question a little more in a further down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As I've remarked before there isn't an actual difference between *&quot;on hold&quot;* and *&quot;closed&quot;*. They represent the same condition in the database that backs the site and the different words are only there to indicate to new users that this condition is not irrevocable. The code that writes the messages uses a threshold time in that state to decide which phrase to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When you edit a held question it gets put into the review queue for higher rep users to look at (I think this only happens the first time you edit after the question is held). People did see your question and both votes cast were to leave it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Just showing what you have tried is not enough to rescue a homework-like question. You have to render the question into a form where it has general applicability rather than being useful only for solving the question in front of you. You accomplish this by making the question about the *physics concept* where you are stuck (I almost wrote &quot;concepts&quot;, but that would have been a mistake because each question should address *one* concept).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; I know this can be difficult and that you may not have a clear idea of what that request even means.  I teach a lot of introductory physics courses and *many* students don't &quot;get it&quot; even after I bang away at the problem for a whole semester. But I'd like to offer a piece of advice: if the words *&quot;formula&quot;* or *&quot;equation&quot;* enters into your question then you haven't yet got it down to physics concepts but are still treating the mathematical representation which is case specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##About your post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all the question seems to have changed steadily as you repeatedly edited it. You need to be careful to understand the action of higher rep users in terms of the version(s) they knew about when they took those action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent version is much closer to a good (for the site) question than the early versions which were both unclear and addressed only the specific example in front of you. Alas the pure number of edits you made works against you: people develop a fatigue about these things; when you post came back to the top of the active queue for the fifth time they sighed and thought &quot;Not that again!&quot; and moved on without even looking at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be very helpful to know what you *do* get. I mean, I'd be temped to offer two different very short answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Well, draw a free-body diagram for each block already!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Each block is in equilibrium, right? So what does that imply about the forces acting on them?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't even know if these response would help you because your question is *so* basic (and the exercise you are working on so oddly stated) that I'm not sure what tools you have at your disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the most recent addition your post is (imho) either re-openable or close to it because the focus has come be on a procedure for working out the tension which is actually a fairly general thing. I'm not going to vote on it because as a moderator my single vote is binding and it is desirable to have the community weight in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="bf6e3a5e-d621-4587-8893-aec120802a20" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:42:31.687" UserId="24452" Text="We should also encourage good comment, since not everyone is willing to write a long detailed answer, they may provide thoughts which is also very important. Also comment is the start of a deeper discussion, so I think we should encourage a little bit of good comment by giving some reputation to the corresponding person who writes a voted up comment " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="bf6e3a5e-d621-4587-8893-aec120802a20" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:42:31.687" UserId="24452" Text="Why no reputation for good comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="bf6e3a5e-d621-4587-8893-aec120802a20" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:42:31.687" UserId="24452" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="67381555-63fc-44aa-bcc1-3db051ea7cf8" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:43:22.707" UserId="61952" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15645" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="9b9f4ab4-ae67-43ec-ad86-de76c77ed925" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:49:14.247" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|comments|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6236" RevisionGUID="49b051cd-a492-46d4-8703-b9fa4814e5d9" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:51:38.323" UserId="50583" Text="We are *not a forum*, but a question and answer site. It is not the aim of the SE model to encourage debate, but to provide (more or less) definite answers to definite questions. Though comments may contain worthwhile information, reputation is granted for contributions towards good questions and answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are transient by design, and subject to deletion at any time. They are not made to stay, and should not be used to state vital information - everything that is crucial should be edited into the existing questions and answers, or be written into another answer. Making comments grant reputation disincentivizes good edits and answers, which is contrary to the goal of creating good Q&amp;As." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="ac53d6c4-3da7-4996-a2df-25dfdbd0396b" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:52:47.310" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 97 characters in body" Text="My question was put on hold and closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/140955/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reason given was: &quot;We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle Kanos agrees with me that the elements I use in my question are mainstream physics but he thinks the combination of them is not. Sure, it won't be possible in the near or even quite distant future, but IMO it's a valid question and I've seen equally theoretical questions, even one about black hole power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review my question and reopen it if it's on topic here. Please also read the comments of Alan Rominger and Hypnosifl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15648" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="ac53d6c4-3da7-4996-a2df-25dfdbd0396b" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:52:47.310" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 97 characters in body" Text="Off topic review: How to feed a small black hole against 1 TW Hawking radiation pressure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="db172697-3a55-4b94-b089-20927777d533" CreationDate="2014-10-19T16:01:59.267" UserId="24452" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="We should also encourage good comment, since not everyone is willing to write a long detailed answer, they may provide thoughts which is also very important. Also comment is the start of a deeper discussion, so I think we should encourage a little bit of good comment by giving some reputation to the corresponding person who writes a voted up comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine the loss of some great points by the some people who may think the question is not worthwhile to write an answer, or they are too busy or too lazy to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="8e745639-4175-42c6-b2b1-8efc43eb5440" CreationDate="2014-10-19T16:27:07.920" UserId="59406" Text="As I said in the comments, [this topic in meta][1] seems to indicate that questions asking what mainstream theories would predict about a science-fictional scenario are on-topic (assuming the premises of the scenario don't themselves violate any physical laws, of course). And certainly mainstream physicists write papers analyzing physical solutions in general relativity that are unlikely to occur naturally and have science-fictional associations, like [traversable wormholes][2] and the [Alcubierre warp bubble][3], discussions about these ideas are not typically closed. Likewise the theoretical possibility of an advanced civilization extracting rotational energy from a rotating black hole is sometimes discussed in textbooks, see the page [here][4] discussing two theoretical processes that have been discussed in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5053/may-i-ask-questions-i-come-across-while-attempting-to-write-science-fiction?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Lorentzian-Wormholes-Einstein-Computational-Mathematical/dp/1563966530&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/nagasawa2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="27dd95ce-dc85-47bc-b7d8-adc22cff723c" CreationDate="2014-10-19T16:38:00.147" UserId="1325" Text="It's hard to take seriously any question that starts with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I believe some life will evolve into electronic beings which can repair their bodies and potentially live as long as they have an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, I think it's an interesting question to ask whether a small black hole in some specified pressure of gas would come to an equilibrium where the outgoing Hawking radiation would balance the rate of infalling gas. The problem is that at the moment the serious physics in your question is overwhelmed by the science fiction fluff and that makes me reluctant to vote to reopen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="f433a0b7-e05d-4f26-b61a-21a016e7b640" CreationDate="2014-10-20T02:53:08.103" UserId="124" Text="To address your actual question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the meaning of a student of Physics as per this community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does it matter? As far as I know, nowhere in the rules and policies and guidelines of this site, nor anywhere in the discussions here on meta, does it say anything specific to students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we've ever bothered to come up with a precise definition of &quot;student&quot; for this community, simply because - as I explained in the previous paragraph - we've never really needed one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want one, I think the definition dmckee gave in his answer is reasonable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I take the word to mean any one who is seriously studying the subject.... The key word (in my personal (not moderator powered) opinion) is &quot;seriously&quot;. It doesn't mean you have to be an expert, but it does mean you have to be acting as physicist: taking basic concepts and applying them to build a understanding. You should also use the discipline specific vocabulary and the usual techniques in terms of drawing and labeling figures to help you along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But really, how the community here responds to you depends on the quality of the content you post, not on who you are or what your relationship to physics is (student, teacher, researcher, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="ece44704-d113-4fc4-b27d-51d88bf8c4a7" CreationDate="2014-10-20T13:01:53.293" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="3270007f-d063-44de-943f-17b766e4c554" CreationDate="2014-10-21T04:39:26.300" UserId="16015" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: another web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvnEG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="84d22468-84bf-4ef7-9c68-a604c8768b3a" CreationDate="2014-10-21T10:28:33.673" UserId="61946" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="So the title says all. What is the meaning of a student of Physics as per this community? I ask this because there are students at many levels: 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th graders, undergraduates, graduates etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REASON FOR THIS QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a 10th grader. I posted a question (&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/140924/&gt;) and it was put on hold, despite receiving an upvote. I understand, that for 99% people here, the question would take less than 10 seconds to solve. I also understand, that there are many answered questions, similar to my question, and their answers fully apply to my question. However, the answers begin with the very part that I have a doubt in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize it's because of lack of concept clarity (about tension) that I am not able to understand. &#xD;&#xA;Realizing that the community rules wanted me to include my efforts at solving the question and a specific thing which I wanted to ask, I edited the question, and in the comments, wrote to two people who chose to vote for putting the question on hold to review and open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after a few days, the question was closed, without a comment from any one explaining what was it lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if these questions are too trivial for people here, should I leave this website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: OK, I will open a new question on the main site. Discussion over from my side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="6aba1881-3747-492b-8605-9132711d8d87" CreationDate="2014-10-21T14:16:17.667" UserId="23473" Text="**Specialties** [tag:general-relativity], [tag:cosmology], [tag:inflation] (actually pretty much all cosmology topics), [tag:rocket-science] (and/or satellites/space tech), [tag:engineering]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, I always try to answer in a fun way at the appropriate level. My students always tell me I make them like physics again (except the physics majors, who obviously already like physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="d77aafbb-eb33-4591-8aa5-4db42f425c08" CreationDate="2014-10-21T15:02:38.100" UserId="20848" Text="The problem is not that you are a 10th grade student.  Unfortunately, there are too many physics experts on this site that have forgotten that they weren't born knowing all that stuff either.  Too often I see simple questions get closed because they are simple.  There is also a somewhat religious aversion to homework problems here.  I see the point, and I too vote to close those question that simply dump a homework problem on us here.  But, helping someone work thru a contrived problem, as long as they are trying within the apparent limits of their knowledge, should be part of the function of this site.  However, all that is somewhat of a digression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem in this particular case is that your question was crap.  This is not about the content, but the way the question was written and the problem explained.  Unfortunately, all too often teachers will give you leeway in formatting, presentation quality, clarity, and overall neatness.  This is doing you a disservice, since the real world gives no such leeway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may think, what does it matter how it looks as long it says what it needs to say?  It may be smudged pencil scrawls, but you can still see what it says.  Wrong.  Such things are annoying to read, and in some cases take extra time to decipher.  You saved yourself a little trouble in writing, but that is at the expense of the reader.  Think about what that says, which is &lt;i&gt;&quot;I'm more important than you are.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;.  That's not a smart thing to say to someone you want to get a good grade from, a admissions dean you are trying to impress, someone you hope will hire you, or volunteers you are asking a favor from to help you with your problem on a web site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attitude and respect matter.  A lot.  Nobody wants to help some ingrate who can't even be bothered to write a comprehensible question.  Screw that.  There is absolutely no excuse for not getting the little things right, like capitalizing the first word of each sentence, capitalizing the word &quot;I&quot;, one thought per sentence, and presenting information with the context of the reader in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just looked at your original question, and your problem was mostly a confused and very poorly thought out presentation of the question.  Here is your question interspresed with my thoughts as I'm reading it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;In the question,&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Huh?  What question.  No question has been previously introduced.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;a block having mass M is suspended from a fixed support using a wire of length L.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;OK, I think I can form a mental picture of this.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Due to the mass M, the an elongation of l is produced in the wire.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;&quot;The an&quot;?  Really?  You think so little of us that you can't even be bothered to proofread what you wrote once?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Elongation is produced&quot; is awkward and leaves confusion.  Is l the additional length the wire is stretched after M is supsended from it compared to its unstretched length?  But if so, how does that reconcile with you stating earlier that the length was L.  Is L before or after M is suspended?&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Now, this mass M is removed,&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Now I'm picturing a wire dangling from something.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;and a pulley is suspended using the same wire. Assume the mass of the pulley to be negligible. Now two blocks of mass M (M is the same mass as in the first case) are suspended on opposite ends of the pulley. What will be the elongation of the wire in this case?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;I think I sortof see this.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Options: A. 4l B. 2l C. l D. l/2&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Huh?  Oh, these are apparently choices of a multiple choice answer labeled A-D.  That was confusing.  That would have been much clearer in tabular form.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;I have no idea about mechanical advantage and its usage to solve such problems,&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What does mechanical advantage have to do with anything?  That was never mentioned in the problem and appears to be irrelevant.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;nor have I done anything related to pulleys.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;So let me get this straight.  This question clearly contains a pulley, but yet this guy has done nothing with pulleys!?  He hasn't even bothered to look up the basics or read the chapter in his book before asking the question?  Does he need us to change his diaper and burp him too?  If he'd said the book says xxx, but I don't see how to apply that here because yyy, I'd be all over this trying to help him.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;I don't know how to calculate the total mass of the pulley and masses system.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;OK, but what has this guy done to try to figure it out?  I can't tell what specifically he is stuck on to try to help him past the mental block or misconception.  I'm happy to help someone trying to learn, but this ingrate just wants the answer and hasn't even tried to figure anything out himself.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;This question is from a competitive test&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;How on earth is that relevant?  Why am I supposed to give a crap where this question came from?  Is this supposed to give his question higher priority?  Oh, it's from a competitive test (as apposed to what, a uncompetetive test?), so we'll hop to it and get right on that.  Yeah, right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's see, confusing writing, no diagram when it is obvious that would be useful, hasn't shown any work, and arrogant attitude.  Screw this.  Voting to close on account of just being homework dumped on us, and downvoting for good measure as a kick in the butt on the way out the door.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had one chance to make your first impression, and you blew it by being lazy, sloppy, and therefore arrogant.  The question as it stands now (I don't remember seeing the original) is actually somewhat reasonable.  If I came across that on its own, I'd probably try to answer.  However, now that the history has been pointed out, I don't feel motivated to spend my free time on this particular question.  I know the SE system was recently changed so that questions are now &quot;on hold&quot; instead of &quot;closed&quot; initially.  But, that's a bunch of PC crap I don't agree with.  It makes it seem OK to make a mess first and then be allowed to fix it later.  Not on my free time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I could vote to reopen it, and it probably deserves it according to the SE rules, but it's my vote and I'm not going to.  You need to be taught a lesson that respect, carefully thinking out what you want to say, presentation quality, and attention to detail matter.  You seem to think proper writing is something that only applies in English class.  Wrong.  Not on my free time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="b7dbc57d-765c-4586-a4f6-6419e13fa503" CreationDate="2014-10-22T01:44:39.503" UserId="56299" Text="I'm clearly not the first to voice concerns regarding homework questions. Most people here know this is not a check-my-work or give-me-the-answer site, and so don't ask  poorly-phrased homework questions that aren't about a physics concept. But we still have a lot, especially from new users. There's been a lot of effort put into making sure people know about the homework policy, from the [tour](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) to the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) to [meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). But there are still issues, such as [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142489/how-to-find-the-moments-of-a-and-b), on which I spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what the OP's core issue was - only to have him/her suddenly announce that s/he knew the answer. Why, given all the effort that's been put in to the contrary, are we still seeing poor homework questions? Is there any way we can fix this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="b7dbc57d-765c-4586-a4f6-6419e13fa503" CreationDate="2014-10-22T01:44:39.503" UserId="56299" Text="Why are there still poor homework questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="b7dbc57d-765c-4586-a4f6-6419e13fa503" CreationDate="2014-10-22T01:44:39.503" UserId="56299" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="2308c090-1a15-4287-a161-c51a61235417" CreationDate="2014-10-22T09:04:47.940" UserId="1325" Text="The homework questions are predominantly from new users. They probably didn't bother to read any of the info about the site (does anyone? :-), and in any case they have nothing to lose by posting the homework question. There's no meaningful penalty and in any case often (too often) someone answers it. Just look at the number of questions closed as homework that have answers: many with accepted answers. As things stand, the posting of homework questions is an inevitable result of the existance of physics students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way to stop homework questions would be to bar new users from posting questions directly. One possibility would be to require questions from new users to be approved by the 3k users, or another would be to block questions entirely until new users had earned some reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess both options would require changes by Stack Exchange. I would also guess that the Physics SE is unusual in its disapproval of homework. As a result I doubt the SE would be willing to make those changes. It would be worth searching the mother meta as I bet the issue of approving questions has been raised before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6244" RevisionGUID="f18ac5e0-644f-495a-aca4-2c7638591e4c" CreationDate="2014-10-22T16:20:45.220" UserId="3113" Text="I think that the main purpose of the &quot;Homework&quot; tag is to inform respondants that this question must NOT be answered explicitly without explanation.  It should only be answered in a way that encourages the requestor to think--it should help him solve the problem and not solve it for him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really think it's a good idea to switch away from this context--if someone saw a &quot;problem-solving&quot; tag would they still be as likely to remember not to directly answer the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;Educational&quot; or &quot;Learning&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I think that part of the reason some people object to the &quot;Homework&quot; tag on their posts is that they are actually trying to get the internet to do their homework for them and they dislike the tag because it stops people from directly answering a question in such a way that that they can copy and paste it into their homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15663" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="0fe60490-b471-4c3d-928d-76e20bc6d027" CreationDate="2014-10-22T18:45:04.437" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="02678492-3f2d-4cda-a4d4-1a47c8a103f5" CreationDate="2014-10-22T18:46:01.640" UserId="124" Comment="update name of tag" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="51f1baff-56fc-4649-81d2-cd2dac30f542" CreationDate="2014-10-23T03:31:33.017" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|comments|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6245" RevisionGUID="b1d488be-4131-4fed-abd1-c72e655d3b66" CreationDate="2014-10-24T15:52:52.253" UserId="1325" Text="One of the problems with homework questions is that they often get an answer before the question can be closed. So the vile perpetrator gets the answer they want, and the subsequent downvotes don't hurt them because their rep is probably already just 1 and they may not be planning to come back anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure anyone posting answers to homework questions is just trying to be helpful, and I doubt they have the destruction of the site in mind, but I wonder if some sanction would be appropriate. The obvious one would be that upvotes for answers to questions closed as *Off-topic* would be excluded from the rep (I wouldn't exclude the upvotes from the rep for other close reasons because some questions closed as duplicates have good answers). Could we ask SE if they can do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6245" RevisionGUID="b1d488be-4131-4fed-abd1-c72e655d3b66" CreationDate="2014-10-24T15:52:52.253" UserId="1325" Text="Sanction for answering a homework question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6245" RevisionGUID="b1d488be-4131-4fed-abd1-c72e655d3b66" CreationDate="2014-10-24T15:52:52.253" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6246" RevisionGUID="b10ed052-66ee-489b-8ff5-addb0b3bdef1" CreationDate="2014-10-24T16:23:40.063" UserId="20848" Text="I think this is going too far.  I also think some people, you included if I remember right, are on a vendetta against homework problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People shouldn't be just dumping homework problems on us.  I have no problem with those getting closed and downvoted to oblivion.  If someone answers one, you can downvote the answer with a comment explaining why.  That should eventually get the point across.  You don't need any new SE features for that.  It's your vote, use it as you see fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we seem to be excessively strict about any homework-like problem.  It should be OK to state the problem, then ask something like &lt;i&gt;I can figure out xxx is yyy, but I don't see how to get zzz from that&lt;/i&gt;, or &lt;i&gt;I solved it like this, am I on the right track?&lt;/i&gt;, etc.  Everyone had to learn this stuff somehow, and working thru problems, whether deliberately contrived for the purpose or not, is a useful part of that process.  As long as someone is trying &lt;i&gt;within the limits of their apparent knowledge&lt;/i&gt;, we should be helping them learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing answers to these types of problems should never do is simply give the answer.  The point in these cases is to teach physics.  Sometimes it helps illuminate the concepts to show the answer at the end, but just giving the answer without teaching the physics does nothing useful for anyone.  Go ahead and digitally tar and feather any such answer.  However, no new SE features are needed for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="54804037-2423-4079-856c-385801f9467d" CreationDate="2014-10-24T21:31:16.640" UserId="29216" Comment="added science educator link" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Geoscience][9]][10] &#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematical modeling][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="562af250-dc07-4624-8b70-61e4627a08e0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T09:47:17.600" UserId="56960" Text="“Unification of energy and mass ”, when explained carelessly, becomes one of the most dangerous heresies. Ī don’t point my finger to anybody, but many otherwise knowledgeable guys easily write a rubbish with roughly “Special Relativity abolished the difference between energy  and mass, hallelujah Einstein, hallelujah *E* = *m* *c*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ” meaning. Of course we, “adult” guys, understand that Special Relativity actually *separated* two masses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An essence susceptible to forces and creating gravitational forces (the same as energy or, if you like, 4-momentum *vector* or its projection).&#xD;&#xA;* Mass, an **intrinsic** quantitative property of a body (said the *rest mass* or, more generally, *invariant mass*, the *magnitude* of 4-momentum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are, of course, related, but are not more the same thing than “distance” and “length” are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposal: any answer suggesting “energy and mass are the same thing” without any specification about **which definition of mass is assumed** ought to be summarily downvoted on sight. The same about “photons do not effect gravity” visionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="562af250-dc07-4624-8b70-61e4627a08e0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T09:47:17.600" UserId="56960" Text="“Mass in Special Relativity” misconception" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="562af250-dc07-4624-8b70-61e4627a08e0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T09:47:17.600" UserId="56960" Text="|discussion|answers|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="b3589941-5e3c-40d8-9763-e625cb326d89" CreationDate="2014-10-26T16:54:44.133" UserId="520" Comment="minor bue pencile stuff" Text="So, [David Z. covered the question about formal precedent pretty well](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5800/520), but I'd like to explore another aspect of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do use precedent as the basis for arguing about what the policy *should* be. This has been done several times. That is someone asks meta *&quot;Do we have a policy about Foo?&quot;*, and people with some memory [drag out earlier questions that are more or less like the one under discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/2905/520) and use those to [suggest what the *de facto* policy has been](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/733/520) and as a spring board for discussion what they think the policy *should* be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you want to re-open a policy discussion that has been established for a while it *really* helps to have some concrete examples to hang your arguments on. Looking at the existing precedents is a fine way to show what you think the costs of the current policy are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6249" RevisionGUID="5d237599-35e6-432a-b272-904a4e0559aa" CreationDate="2014-10-26T21:21:26.743" UserId="43351" Text="Leaving aside the merits of the original offending question, I do think it is difficult sometimes to gauge the level of explanation someone is looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks on the forum launch into the full gruesome mathematics of a solution, and whilst that may suit a certain fraction of the readership and possibly impress their peers, I can't help thinking that it is often of little use to the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be better if those working at undergraduate level and below would identify themselves as such, or indicate in some other way the complexity and depth of the answers being sought. Sometimes it's obvious from the questions being asked, but often it isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="84a85325-24c4-4686-8b66-d44ce747182a" CreationDate="2014-10-27T08:19:49.837" UserId="1325" Text="I have to confess that I don't understand the distinction between the two types of masses made by the OP. I certainly agree that mass and energy are not the same, though they are interchangeable. However a more detailed discussion of the issue is probably inappropriate for the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point is that the tone of the post strikes me as inappropriate. No-one is paid for contributing to this site. We do so entirely out of good will. I don't like the idea of punishing members for answers. Unless an answer is obviously lazy or careless the correct response to a misleading answer is to (tactfully) point out the error and/or post a better answer yourself. Answering questions is just as much a learning process as posting them, and few of us can claim all our answers are beyond improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note Incnis' profile states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This site is supposedly useful for “active researchers, academics and students of physics”. If you want science, then never rely on such self-governed Internet sites (Stack Exchange, Wikipedia, or whatever), that are not supervised by an academic organization. They are all flawed. You can find some valuable insights here, but you may not trust assessments made by this community. Use reputable sources, available experts, and your own intellect to verify all this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well yes, but that applies to everything in life and academic organizations are far from beyond reproach. I think the Physics SE stands head and shoulders above any comparable site I have ever seen. It is everything that peer review should be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="3d2fb370-0985-4748-b519-3a55a1264ca5" CreationDate="2014-10-27T09:46:04.857" UserId="62456" Text="I asked at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/143087/sum-of-energy-from-torques-of-several-disks-in-double-rotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is on hold, but I don't find another forum or question where this problem is resolved. It's possible to use lower number of disks, 16 at least, but I can't think with 2 or 3 disks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="3d2fb370-0985-4748-b519-3a55a1264ca5" CreationDate="2014-10-27T09:46:04.857" UserId="62456" Text="Why my question is hold on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="3d2fb370-0985-4748-b519-3a55a1264ca5" CreationDate="2014-10-27T09:46:04.857" UserId="62456" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="3d53a004-4850-4120-bbb7-1cccec5ad853" CreationDate="2014-10-27T10:11:47.917" UserId="50583" Text="The closing notice tells you *exactly* why your question is on hold, and links to [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) - what more do you want to know? Please also have a look at [our stance on check-my-work questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That you cannot find the solution to your problem elsewhere is unfortunate, but that does not mean that we have to solve it for you (or check your solution)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15693" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="77aed406-0ca8-4c52-bd96-152d965f01d6" CreationDate="2014-10-27T12:57:59.123" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|scope|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="65adf8c9-6a8f-4c04-a9f2-b523d2b5b32e" CreationDate="2014-10-27T12:58:54.277" UserId="56960" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="“Unification of energy and mass ”, when explained carelessly, becomes one of the most dangerous heresies. Ī don’t point my finger to anybody, but many otherwise knowledgeable guys easily write a rubbish with roughly “Special Relativity abolished the difference between energy  and mass, hallelujah Einstein, hallelujah *E* = *m* *c*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ” meaning. Of course we, “adult” guys, understand that Special Relativity actually *separated* two masses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An essence susceptible to forces and creating gravitational forces (the same as energy or, if you like, 4-momentum *vector* or its projection).&#xD;&#xA;* Mass, an **intrinsic** quantitative property of a body (said the *rest mass* or, more generally, *invariant mass*, the *magnitude* of 4-momentum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are, of course, related, but are not more the same thing than “distance” and “length” are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposal: any answer suggesting “energy and mass are the same thing” without any specification about **which definition of mass is assumed** ought to be summarily downvoted on sight. The same about “photons do not effect gravity” visionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Update: answers like http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91501/what-keeps-mass-from-turning-into-energy/91503#91503 were assumed, although it is hard to find this misconception in such concentrated form on psysics.SE. And it likely became a moot question for now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="8fdbaebb-affe-42d8-ad84-03d3f13bd515" CreationDate="2014-10-27T13:48:07.740" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to edit" Text="I have to confess that I don't understand the distinction between the two types of masses made by the OP. I certainly agree that mass and energy are not the same, though they are interchangeable. However a more detailed discussion of the issue is probably inappropriate for the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point is that the tone of the post strikes me as inappropriate. No-one is paid for contributing to this site. We do so entirely out of good will. I don't like the idea of punishing members for answers. Unless an answer is obviously lazy or careless the correct response to a misleading answer is to (tactfully) point out the error and/or post a better answer yourself. Answering questions is just as much a learning process as posting them, and few of us can claim all our answers are beyond improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note Incnis' profile states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This site is supposedly useful for “active researchers, academics and students of physics”. If you want science, then never rely on such self-governed Internet sites (Stack Exchange, Wikipedia, or whatever), that are not supervised by an academic organization. They are all flawed. You can find some valuable insights here, but you may not trust assessments made by this community. Use reputable sources, available experts, and your own intellect to verify all this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well yes, but that applies to everything in life and academic organizations are far from beyond reproach. I think the Physics SE stands head and shoulders above any comparable site I have ever seen. It is everything that peer review should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re the [edit to the question][1]:** I wouldn't use phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not that mass and energy &quot;can change back and forth&quot;. They are literally equivalent ways of talking about the same thing &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a minor edit to *they are different forms of the same thing* would be fine by me, and I'd guess that's what the author really meant. However I think far worse crimes against physics are committed. Is this really such a big issue as to warrant its own meta post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/6248/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15699" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="9699d91f-6ec6-452a-80fd-02d6ac2fbcb4" CreationDate="2014-10-28T11:01:31.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/527052538260881410" />
  <row Id="15700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6254" RevisionGUID="64089aed-4447-43cc-9b51-99fbc4ce9c3c" CreationDate="2014-10-29T16:31:55.073" UserId="6982" Text="I see the problem with the homework questions, but I don't like your suggestion because it is not a remedy to the actual the problem. The actual problem, as far as I understand, is that the questions get asked, not that they are sometimes answered. As you say, most of these questions are asked by one-time visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need some power users on the homework-tag, because they have the single-handed option (like mods) to close questions. Otherwise, we need more people in general with VTC privileges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, would it be useful to support a physics-learning proposal on Area 51, (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions). In that case, you can move most of these over there, without losing any content (where they could still be closed for insufficient quality what-so-ever). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="b9773b7f-e77b-4999-965e-f096795e62e7" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:39:03.150" UserId="55683" Text="[![For the geeks interested in fun science questions and answers.][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/coftu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75912/scientific-imagination?referrer=IPIEcsN2huMFuP7v0aO_3g2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15703" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="59f49b69-b927-49d9-9483-a94a097a6976" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:39:03.150" UserId="55683" />
  <row Id="15704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="171a3af6-d479-4ad6-acd3-ab015e2d089d" CreationDate="2014-11-03T18:22:52.787" UserId="66" Text="As you noted, the answerers are just trying to be helpful, and we don't want to discourage them from doing so (in general, of course!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we don't want to punish people because of a closure that happens after they answered! That seems unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, closures are temporary. Questions can be reopened. Communities often disagree on borderline cases. Involving rep loss in this is ...not wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - there's not much we can feasibly do to stop users from answering *before* a question is closed, and we already prevent answers on closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we *can* do, and we *do* do, is prevent repeat offenders who *ask* bad questions from asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In case of repeated multiple consecutive closed questions, mods are informed that there's something happening via a flag. This is usually enough on smaller sites where mods can contact every user they need to, and help them correct their style&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In other cases, users are [autobanned](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans) from asking after they display a pattern of bad questions asked (multiple closed, heavily downvoted, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we *do not* do, is affect first-time offenders, that would not be welcoming to people that err in good faith." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="484b4ccc-2093-4c88-988e-930010a14f54" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:27:56.190" UserId="41634" Text="I wrote [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119512/building-free-energy-directly-from-lagrangian), intentionally using *lagrangian*, not *Lagrangian*. Google is a company name, a proper noun, but *google* is a verb; *Fermi* is a person name, but *fermion* is a noun. I think this is right, [alike Feynmann](http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Path-Integrals-Emended/dp/0486477223). I know that *Lagrangian* is widely accepted and if I write different, readers will hard to recognize the gesture. But the wide acceptance is not necessary right. Please let me write it in a right way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="484b4ccc-2093-4c88-988e-930010a14f54" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:27:56.190" UserId="41634" Text="Let me write &quot;lagrangian&quot; in lower case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="484b4ccc-2093-4c88-988e-930010a14f54" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:27:56.190" UserId="41634" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6258" RevisionGUID="f7495655-d76e-402c-ab5d-e193896918b4" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:40:52.577" UserId="25301" Text="For starters, check this link for the Wikipedia entry on [*Lagrangian*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian). Then press `CTRL+F` and type in `lagrangian`. Scroll through the page and count the number of times you see the lower-case version of the word. The hidden value below gives you the total number of times it's found, in case you were not interested in doing the experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! There are 0 (**zero**) instances of the lower-case version of the word &quot;lagrangian&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar results are found [here](http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath523/kmath523.htm), [here](http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Lagrangian.html), [here](http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/stat.mech/lectures/lecture_1/node3.html) and so on. Note also that [Merriam-Webster dictionary capitalizes it as well](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lagrangian).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, if you feel that strongly about using the wrong case, you can always re-edit the question to make it the (incorrect) lower-case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="6968bb26-4335-4f7d-bdfe-d864cf4016cc" CreationDate="2014-11-04T13:45:38.107" UserId="43351" Text="On Nov 1st I was fortunate enough to earn 215 rep points (which was capped). I have not received a mortarboard badge for this. Anyone know why? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="6968bb26-4335-4f7d-bdfe-d864cf4016cc" CreationDate="2014-11-04T13:45:38.107" UserId="43351" Text="Delayed/absent mortarboard badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="6968bb26-4335-4f7d-bdfe-d864cf4016cc" CreationDate="2014-11-04T13:45:38.107" UserId="43351" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6260" RevisionGUID="f0aa3aa0-2763-4225-8292-f63fdc94389c" CreationDate="2014-11-04T14:26:43.553" UserId="2451" Text="The mortarboard badge is only awarded one time per user. You already have received this badge on Oct 26th. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="c7ac8e1e-e2d3-4f1c-8444-ba03a0a50f0c" CreationDate="2014-11-04T15:02:03.387" UserId="5739" Text="There are a few features in Stack Exchange that I can never remember how to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I move a discussion that has started in an exchange of comments to a chat, while copying the existing discussion to the chat as well?   I've seen it done, and I've even done it myself, but I always struggle to figure out how it's done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="c7ac8e1e-e2d3-4f1c-8444-ba03a0a50f0c" CreationDate="2014-11-04T15:02:03.387" UserId="5739" Text="Starting a chat, including existing comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="c7ac8e1e-e2d3-4f1c-8444-ba03a0a50f0c" CreationDate="2014-11-04T15:02:03.387" UserId="5739" Text="|support|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="9b8a1e46-42f4-45d2-ace3-1a54cddeb2dc" CreationDate="2014-11-05T03:35:05.370" UserId="25301" Text="While editing [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/144887/planetary-motion), I noticed that we have a tag for [tag:planet] as well as one for [tag:planets]. A slightly deeper than superficial look indicates that [tag:planet] is apparently [a synonym](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/planets/synonyms) of [tag:planets]--it appears it was used once and then later linked to [tag:planets].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it seems completely unnecessary, can we burninate the [tag:planet] tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="9b8a1e46-42f4-45d2-ace3-1a54cddeb2dc" CreationDate="2014-11-05T03:35:05.370" UserId="25301" Text="Burninate the &quot;planet&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="9b8a1e46-42f4-45d2-ace3-1a54cddeb2dc" CreationDate="2014-11-05T03:35:05.370" UserId="25301" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="c339737b-e5a5-4278-b624-95c16b056379" CreationDate="2014-11-05T06:45:38.903" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="While editing [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/144887/planetary-motion), I noticed that we have a tag for [tag:planet] as well as one for [tag:planets]. A slightly deeper than superficial look indicates that [tag:planet] is apparently [a synonym](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/planets/synonyms) of [tag:planets]--it appears it was used once and then later linked to [tag:planets].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it seems completely unnecessary, can we merge the [tag:planet] tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="c339737b-e5a5-4278-b624-95c16b056379" CreationDate="2014-11-05T06:45:38.903" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Merge the &quot;planet&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="9ba6cdec-9349-4f4e-b0d5-dcfa1fe454ee" CreationDate="2014-11-05T06:57:50.217" UserId="2451" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests in chat, and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate do perform the last step.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="c1a17e47-d7a6-41f7-ae2b-e418891bcd47" CreationDate="2014-11-05T14:22:08.317" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="84070e98-8943-4909-ae4a-3c5ea3d29fe0" CreationDate="2014-11-06T08:13:14.140" UserId="2451" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the correct term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. A burninate request requires assistance from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be carried out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="4af48aa0-cb6d-4b1f-b8bd-a87573b6ff04" CreationDate="2014-11-06T08:31:22.903" UserId="2451" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the relevant term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires assistance from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="b688cc8b-f95d-4748-9f17-c9844331417d" CreationDate="2014-11-06T08:55:30.533" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the relevant term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires intervention from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="a5692445-efda-4ec3-8395-48815e674976" CreationDate="2014-11-06T11:27:01.867" UserId="2451" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the relevant term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires intervention from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="9360899a-d098-4ace-aa9c-63faa573a5d7" CreationDate="2014-11-07T01:23:07.420" UserId="431" Text="Not sure if this is related to [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6114/the-site-toolbar-looks-broken-in-chrome-how-can-i-fix-it), but there's yet another formatting problem in Chrome. I'm seldom one to argue for doing it so it works vs. doing it right, but there needs to be some pragmatism: the number of Windows Chrome users strike me as a not-so-insignificant chunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n4XY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="9360899a-d098-4ace-aa9c-63faa573a5d7" CreationDate="2014-11-07T01:23:07.420" UserId="431" Text="Wide Chrome (&gt;2406 px) breaks horizontal alignment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="9360899a-d098-4ace-aa9c-63faa573a5d7" CreationDate="2014-11-07T01:23:07.420" UserId="431" Text="|bug|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="f7baf2e5-956a-4d1c-bbc5-364e3509c30b" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:37:12.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/530594797728169984" />
  <row Id="15733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="b090a9e0-028b-4f2b-8ff9-58521d4518ba" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:44:40.190" UserId="57823" Text="As a mad scientist, skilled with his hands. I build my own tools, in many cases. I think would be very useful if can ask about contruction of tools related to the Physical (in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(contruction mean: procedures, materials, and other stuff)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the FAQ say that: &quot;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&quot; is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about: &quot;How to build a solar filter for my telescope?&quot; is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or: &quot;How to build a neutron source?&quot; is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="b090a9e0-028b-4f2b-8ff9-58521d4518ba" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:44:40.190" UserId="57823" Text="Is on-topic ask about homemade construction of tools?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="b090a9e0-028b-4f2b-8ff9-58521d4518ba" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:44:40.190" UserId="57823" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="008c3f69-e57d-45a8-8583-eed18e5da480" CreationDate="2014-11-07T14:25:08.020" UserId="25301" Comment="minor formatting, added tag" Text="As a mad scientist, skilled with his hands. I build my own tools, in many cases. I think would be very useful if can ask about contruction of tools related to the Physical (in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(contruction mean: procedures, materials, and other stuff)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) say that &quot;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&quot; is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about &quot;How to build a solar filter for my telescope?&quot; Would that be on-topic? Or, &quot;How to build a neutron source?&quot; Would that be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15737" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="008c3f69-e57d-45a8-8583-eed18e5da480" CreationDate="2014-11-07T14:25:08.020" UserId="25301" Comment="minor formatting, added tag" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="c991d639-cc48-45f1-97ff-ea8c1c81c0c4" CreationDate="2014-11-07T15:38:47.053" UserId="23473" Text="I'm not going to say there isn't a way of asking those questions that would be on-topic. With the right wording, you *could* manage to get away with asking them. But it's risky business. Engineering questions are generally off-topic here and asking how to build tools for science is definitely more of an engineering topic. My advice would be to avoid the trouble and not ask them, but if you think you can make the questions enough about physics and less about how to build something, then try your luck and we'll see what the reviewers think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6268" RevisionGUID="0cff9555-30d6-4643-8e8b-f9e8fbb44457" CreationDate="2014-11-07T16:35:09.503" UserId="24142" Text="I would say this is more an engineering question, which in general is off-topic; see this topic: [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently no general engineering SE site, but there is one in commitment phase: [Area 51 - Engineering](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/60453/engineering?referrer=KcfjUC9wdeJUZvrx04eTvg2). So I'd suggest you wait until it matures or even commit to the proposed site yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="dcd645d4-9747-4d15-98e8-305573855924" CreationDate="2014-11-07T18:56:57.077" UserId="44176" Text="As another answer mentioned Engineering **is** Physics (use same models, same domain, same principles). i would say engineering is practical physics (associated in some part to experimental physics as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So engineering as **practical physics** is certainly **on-topic** on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, **real-world examples or analogies** are used in physics (they are used in mathematics for crying out loud), to make concepts more intuitive or applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving is not only for engineers. Physicists (and mathematicians and other domains) actually solve problems (and i mean practical problems as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R. Feynman and his diagrams were considered as *less than physics* (actually Schwinger considered them to be engineering &quot;*..all S and T lines and rays..*&quot;, reference: &quot;*Genius, the life of R. Feynman*&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i'm sure some people will disagree with providing intuition and real-world analogies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus i would like to mention that some sites actually **forbid** (explicitly or implicitly) practical questions about physics. Personally i strongly disagree with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point is **not memorisation of given rules**, but **actual comprehension of the why and how to the point of actual application** (and even beyond).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15741" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="0bb68038-f8d1-42bb-91b8-6da8944f2e98" CreationDate="2014-11-07T18:56:57.077" UserId="44176" />
  <row Id="15742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6270" RevisionGUID="7b79b6ed-6e1a-4112-a530-0b7e7a515f4c" CreationDate="2014-11-07T19:46:04.277" UserId="520" Text="I'd (personally, not as a moderator) go with something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The design and construction of instruments that you can not easily buy---either because there is no commercial supply, because each one is necessarily unique or because you're jury-rigging a basic instrument for a home-experiment---might be on-topic. The design and construction of instruments that compete directly with commercially available instruments is off-topic as engineering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="1a09b478-3e56-47f3-8904-d1b0b48bc9d8" CreationDate="2014-11-11T23:05:41.053" UserId="44176" Text="Others gave nice answers (with which personaly generaly agree), will add one more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions having to do with application based on physical principles (or *practical physics*) should be on-topic. Even if these questions involve making things or measuring things or assessing things, etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if one wants to build a telescope, the physical principles are what is relevant to build a working telescope. This involves the mathematical relations that are relevant to telescopes, the materials and their properties, the compensating factors for atmospheric effects, parallax calculations and all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wants to assess personaly the efficiency of an already made telescope (either home-made or purchased) using physical principles, this should also be on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if one wants the locations of the materials for making a telescope or extensive research about a specific material over another material for building a telescope. i would say this cannot be done correctly and effectively here. And this indeed involves engineering research which can be extensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless the physical principles remain the same, even for assessing the various materials, but any furher investigation would be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="25ddc17e-7db2-4ace-a4cf-e38ec1b3a41c" CreationDate="2014-11-12T12:38:08.820" UserId="43574" Text="Why are questions like &quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146255/why-does-objects-with-zero-acceleraton-move/146268#146268&quot; downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems like a person genuinely wanting to understand a physical concept and coming here for help. It just bothers me that apparently people have decided not to help those people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen remarks on meta like 'This site is for professionals', suggesting that the question is too 'stupid' or low-level, but if that is truly the case, homework questions should also not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid misconceptions: I am perfectly ok with downvoting low-level or homework questions if the person has not put any effort in, or wants us to solve their problems. I am only talking about the cases where people are, in my perception, genuinely looking for help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="25ddc17e-7db2-4ace-a4cf-e38ec1b3a41c" CreationDate="2014-11-12T12:38:08.820" UserId="43574" Text="Why are simple questions downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="25ddc17e-7db2-4ace-a4cf-e38ec1b3a41c" CreationDate="2014-11-12T12:38:08.820" UserId="43574" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="51b0a7b6-3247-4cf6-bac3-c6a3638498fb" CreationDate="2014-11-12T13:44:13.153" UserId="34382" Text="&gt; I've seen remarks on meta like 'This site is for professionals',&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggesting that the question is too 'stupid' or low-level, but if that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is truly the case, homework questions should also not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not follow how 'this site is for professionals' implies homework or homework-like questions should not be allowed. Regardless, notice the rather large banner when first visiting the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Researchers, academics and students of physics* are all welcome on the stack exchange, as are their questions providing they adhere to the guidelines, as determined by the users and moderators. If a homework-like question adheres to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Presents the question clearly, with all required details&#xD;&#xA; - Demonstrates an explicit attempt, whether conceptual or computational&#xD;&#xA; - Discusses clearly what the issue the OP is having&#xD;&#xA; - Poses a question sufficiently broad, i.e. at least partially beyond the homework context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;give or take a few more points (outlined in the site's guidelines), it's *likely* though *not* guaranteed that it will be well-received, and attract posts of good quality. If the question is too 'low level' as you describe, it may be easily answerable by a quick Google search, in which case the question may be closed for insufficient prior research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9MHI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6274" RevisionGUID="2c8b1d01-35ee-4471-a553-d07d21d8d0bf" CreationDate="2014-11-12T14:43:03.190" UserId="23473" Text="As far as I've seen, simple questions are not downvoted. One of our most upvoted questions is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3534/dont-heavier-objects-actually-fall-faster-because-they-exert-their-own-gravity A simple question if ever there was one. And the all-time most up-voted question on our site is about the best way to cool a cup of coffee with a spoon. If posed right, the simplest questions get the most upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the question you cite, it didn't make much sense to begin with and the answer is fairly obvious and presented in any text that teaches about Newton's laws. It's also a question easily answered by parents, teachers, whatever. The downvote was most likely because the question showed little to no prior effort. We do enjoy teaching physics to interested people, but we expect to be met halfway. We are supplements to learning, not primary sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now as stated, one downvote does not establish a trend. It happens on some &quot;simple&quot; questions, but that's not so much due to their simplicity as it is due to their unclear/imprecise wording, lack of effort, or other such reasons. I assure you that there are high-level questions that get downvoted as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="35057ac4-428e-4941-bf85-5d734dd6a702" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:46:19.097" UserId="8563" Text="I've noticed several (&gt;~3) times over the past few months that the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework has been bumped up the front page of Meta, on separate occasions. I don't think it happens that often at all, and I'm not sure whether it's a good thing on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way to see which questions have been bumped up by this process? Is this going on at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On a related note, the [user page for Community on Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="35057ac4-428e-4941-bf85-5d734dd6a702" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:46:19.097" UserId="8563" Text="(Why) does this particular question keep getting bumped up by Community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="35057ac4-428e-4941-bf85-5d734dd6a702" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:46:19.097" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|support|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6277" RevisionGUID="ba5b9780-3493-469b-a5fc-94f255f1a060" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:49:36.373" UserId="2451" Text="The question is likely bumped every month or so by the community bot because it doesn't have an upvoted answer. It was bumped on Nov 12th, which is close to a multiple of 30 days from the original post on Feb 14th." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6277" RevisionGUID="5e0e2da1-296f-4df7-a014-a4e7687dfd0b" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:55:57.437" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The question is likely bumped every month or so by the community bot because it didn't have an upvoted answer. It was bumped on Nov 12th, which is close to a multiple of 30 days from the original post on Feb 14th." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="e704feb8-c97b-4352-a003-aec8356b59bf" CreationDate="2014-11-13T20:07:45.507" UserId="2911" Text="&gt; (On a related note, the user page for Community on Meta states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true - with the caveat that it doesn't bump if there's nothing to bump. If there's only 1 question on the site that meets the criteria for bumping, then Community will bump it and *touch nothing else* for the next 30 days until it becomes eligible again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [as Qmechanic notes][1], it rather appears that this is the only question that's been eligible for some time... And now even it isn't eligible anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community/6277#6277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6277" RevisionGUID="c927b55d-da58-484b-adea-946f3efeadc1" CreationDate="2014-11-14T15:39:57.777" UserId="2451" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The post was likely bumped every month or so by the community bot because the post didn't have an upvoted answer. The post was bumped on Nov 12th, which is close to a multiple of 30 days from the original post on Feb 14th." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="7b1ee114-ca12-4446-9fe9-85eaea48af52" CreationDate="2014-11-15T10:38:01.367" UserId="56578" Text="I stopped editing because it makes posts bump on the front page, but I am still trying to do my whack to improve the site. I'd like to know what is the exact policy regarding flags, please answer with a clear Yes/No to each question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) &quot;**avoid comments like '+1' or 'thanks**' &quot;,  is this just a recommendation or any comment including &quot; +/-1 &quot; should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2) are generic positive comments like 'nice post', '*this is an interesting/ useful answer*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) are generic unsubstantiated negative comments without explanations or correction like '*this is not true*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 4) are negative comments justified by subjective or generic explanations like ' you *say it is red, I think it is pink*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 5) should one refrain from flagging comments by users with 10k+ rep, are they allowed to handle flags to their own posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 6) can anyone, besides mods, delete comments? Someone has been lately deleting positive comments to my answers and it does not seem accidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experince I have noticed tha DavidZ is delegated to deal with flags, but probably any mod can answer these questions. I hope that they share a common policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="7b1ee114-ca12-4446-9fe9-85eaea48af52" CreationDate="2014-11-15T10:38:01.367" UserId="56578" Text="Precise directives re flagging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="7b1ee114-ca12-4446-9fe9-85eaea48af52" CreationDate="2014-11-15T10:38:01.367" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="6d8e534e-471f-4e5b-ad9f-4b647000e43a" CreationDate="2014-11-15T14:19:04.573" UserId="50583" Text="- *+1/-1 comments and noise*: [This mother meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/15290/263383) is a bit undecided on the matter, but generally advises *against* leaving such comments, and *encourages* flagging them. The thing it boils down to is that comments should be *signal*, not *noise*. &quot;+1, great post!&quot; is noise. &quot;-1, this is false&quot; is also noise. Comments containing &quot;+1&quot; but citing a *specific reason* for the upvote, pointing out what was particularly worthy about the post contain at least a minimum of signal. Comments containing &quot;-1&quot; but citing a *specific reason* for the downvote are definitely signal, since they tell others what is wrong about the post. So, there's no 100% clear cut policy, and no one will tar and feather you for leving generic &quot;+1 comments&quot;. Yet, sooner or later, such a comment will probably be removed as noise, and you are similarily encouraged to flag noise when you see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Flags and deletion*: A comment is removed when either &quot;enough&quot; flags have been cast on it *or* when a mod removes it, cf. [this mother meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/17365/263383). Note that authors can also delete their comments at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *10k users and flags*: **Never** refrain from doing anything to a post just because the person owning the post/comment is a high reputation user. There [is no 10k flag queue](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/226092/263383) anymore, only moderators can see flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Subjective negative comments*: Saying &quot;I think this is not true&quot; carries no information other than that someone, somewhere disagrees. This is noise, and should be treated as such (i.e. be flagged if you feel strongly about it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="1ea3e357-ed19-42e7-a420-17367a961aad" CreationDate="2014-11-15T14:57:48.037" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1316 characters in body" Text="I stopped editing because it makes posts bump on the front page, but I am still trying to do my whack to improve the site. I'd like to know what is the exact policy regarding flags, please answer with a clear Yes/No to each question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) &quot;**avoid comments like '+1' or 'thanks**' &quot;,  is this just a recommendation or any comment including &quot; +/-1 &quot; should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2) are generic positive comments like 'nice post', '*this is an interesting/ useful answer*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) are generic unsubstantiated negative comments without explanations or correction like '*this is not true*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 4) are negative comments justified by subjective or generic explanations like ' you *say it is red, I think it is pink*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 5) should one refrain from flagging comments by users with 10k+ rep, are they allowed to handle flags to their own posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 6) can anyone, besides mods, delete comments? Someone has been lately deleting positive comments to my answers and it does not seem accidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience I have noticed tha DavidZ is delegated to deal with flags, but probably any mod can answer these questions. I hope that they share a common policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1/-1 comments and noise: This mother meta post is a bit undecided on the matter, but generally advises against leaving such comments, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encourages flagging them. The thing it boils down to is that comments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be signal, not noise. &quot;+1, great post!&quot; is noise....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **there's no 100% clear cut policy,** and no one will tar and feather you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for leving generic &quot;+1 comments&quot;. Yet, sooner or later, such a comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will probably be removed as noise, and you are similarily encouraged&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to flag noise when you see it. - ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is what I noticed, ACuriousMind: [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall/121932#121932) there are some 20 comments, none of which cannot be considered (in your interpretation) *noise*, yet they have been there for months. I personally would approve of leaving them, as it is a right tribute to the poster and his effort. But, as I said, I just had the impression that some top member [with whom I had divergence of opinions, not you, :) , anyway] was trying to influence of the readers deleting positive comments an my replies to negative comments. I asked DavidZ to restore them, but he declined my request. I draw the conclusion that generic positive comments are not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="69e5eaae-932f-448f-a6b4-33d9b316ea71" CreationDate="2014-11-15T15:16:42.543" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I stopped editing because it makes posts bump on the front page, but I am still trying to do my whack to improve the site. I'd like to know what is the exact policy regarding flags, please answer with a clear Yes/No to each question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) &quot;**avoid comments like '+1' or 'thanks**' &quot;,  is this just a recommendation or any comment including &quot; +/-1 &quot; should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2) are generic positive comments like 'nice post', '*this is an interesting/ useful answer*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) are generic unsubstantiated negative comments without explanations or correction like '*this is not true*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 4) are negative comments justified by subjective or generic explanations like ' you *say it is red, I think it is pink*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 5) should one refrain from flagging comments by users with 10k+ rep, are they allowed to handle flags to their own posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 6) can anyone, besides mods, delete comments? Someone has been lately deleting positive comments to my answers and it does not seem accidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience I have noticed tha DavidZ is delegated to deal with flags, but probably any mod can answer these questions. I hope that they share a common policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This mother meta post is a bit undecided on the matter, but generally advises against leaving such comments, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encourages flagging them. The thing it boils down to is that comments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be signal, not noise. *&quot;+1, great post!&quot; is noise* ....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **there's no 100% clear cut policy,** and no one will tar and feather you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for leving generic &quot;+1 comments&quot;. Yet, sooner or later, such a comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will probably be removed as noise, and you are similarily encouraged&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to flag noise when you see it. - ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is what I noticed, ACuriousMind: [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall/121932#121932) there are some 20 comments, none of which cannot be considered (in your interpretation) *noise*, yet they have been there for months. I personally would approve of leaving them, as it is a right tribute to the poster and his effort. But, as I said, I just had the impression that some top member [with whom I had divergence of opinions, not you, :) , anyway] was trying to influence of the readers deleting positive comments an my replies to negative comments. I asked DavidZ to restore them, but he declined my request. I draw the conclusion that generic positive comments are not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6281" RevisionGUID="76f51d64-0d48-4bc1-aa53-0bbc31979e40" CreationDate="2014-11-15T17:45:11.627" UserId="520" Text="1. Personally I advice against writing &quot;+1&quot; or &quot;-1&quot; or any other explicit indication of how you voted. Your *vote* already did that. Votes are anonymous in the Stack Exchange system to encourage them to reflect the voters judgement rather than membership in some cliche or bandwagon. Likewise comments of approval or disapproval that do not explain, expand-on, or dissect the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Explaining why you think a post is wrong is a good comment, adding a &quot;-1&quot; makes it more likely the author will take it as an attack.   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; Likewise expanding on a author's thoughts or emphasizing the importance of something in a post carries the message of approve, but just writing &quot;Nice post.&quot; doesn't say anything that your vote didn't already say.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; For these reasons I am more likely to take the time to trim a comment thread if I see explicit mention of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Use your judgement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 10k users are just like anybody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Comments can be removed by anyone with moderation powers (i.e. moderators and certain SE employees), but the comment's author, or by accumulating enough comment flags.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="8ec375f5-3c78-423d-bd84-83f81b731469" CreationDate="2014-11-15T17:45:53.453" UserId="520" Comment="fix the list to be enumerated by nature" Text="I stopped editing because it makes posts bump on the front page, but I am still trying to do my whack to improve the site. I'd like to know what is the exact policy regarding flags, please answer with a clear Yes/No to each question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;**avoid comments like '+1' or 'thanks**' &quot;,  is this just a recommendation or any comment including &quot; +/-1 &quot; should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. are generic positive comments like 'nice post', '*this is an interesting/ useful answer*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. are generic unsubstantiated negative comments without explanations or correction like '*this is not true*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. are negative comments justified by subjective or generic explanations like ' you *say it is red, I think it is pink*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. should one refrain from flagging comments by users with 10k+ rep, are they allowed to handle flags to their own posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. can anyone, besides mods, delete comments? Someone has been lately deleting positive comments to my answers and it does not seem accidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience I have noticed tha DavidZ is delegated to deal with flags, but probably any mod can answer these questions. I hope that they share a common policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This mother meta post is a bit undecided on the matter, but generally advises against leaving such comments, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encourages flagging them. The thing it boils down to is that comments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be signal, not noise. *&quot;+1, great post!&quot; is noise* ....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **there's no 100% clear cut policy,** and no one will tar and feather you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for leving generic &quot;+1 comments&quot;. Yet, sooner or later, such a comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will probably be removed as noise, and you are similarily encouraged&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to flag noise when you see it. - ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is what I noticed, ACuriousMind: [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall/121932#121932) there are some 20 comments, none of which cannot be considered (in your interpretation) *noise*, yet they have been there for months. I personally would approve of leaving them, as it is a right tribute to the poster and his effort. But, as I said, I just had the impression that some top member [with whom I had divergence of opinions, not you, :) , anyway] was trying to influence of the readers deleting positive comments an my replies to negative comments. I asked DavidZ to restore them, but he declined my request. I draw the conclusion that generic positive comments are not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="afc4f01e-bf19-4fb4-a17d-dfd1c3982a0f" CreationDate="2014-11-15T19:43:35.397" UserId="41010" Text="I recently saw a post (a question) where the edits made were as follows (no link, do not want to single out):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Edit 2 (suggested, approved) was numerous but minor grammar / capitalization fixes; the question was already readable prior.&#xD;&#xA;  - Edit 3 (privileged) added a missing space between two words in the title.&#xD;&#xA;  - Edit 4 (suggested, approved) changed an &quot;it's&quot; to &quot;its&quot; in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The edits were made by different users). I am not active on Physics. I am active on SO. On SO these would be considered too minor. I would actually probably flag the question and point out that edit 2 and 4 should not have been approved to help spot potential robo-editors/-reviewers (these flags have, so far, been generally marked as helpful).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know how Physics feels about these kinds of things though. Here, are the above edits OK? If not, is it helpful to flag them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="afc4f01e-bf19-4fb4-a17d-dfd1c3982a0f" CreationDate="2014-11-15T19:43:35.397" UserId="41010" Text="How do you guys feel about minor edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="afc4f01e-bf19-4fb4-a17d-dfd1c3982a0f" CreationDate="2014-11-15T19:43:35.397" UserId="41010" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6283" RevisionGUID="55ae7b6c-e8f0-4cd8-9d1e-b6e7d4f233cd" CreationDate="2014-11-15T20:08:18.720" UserId="6634" Text="Grammar/spelling changes are fine. Particularly if the person editing made an effort to get all of them at once. Even if a question is readable, it's okay to edit it to fix all the remaining mistakes at once. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single space is pretty minor, but since it's on a title it's also sort of important to get right. It just looks bad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poor grammar in the title for a single word, I wouldn't approve that change unless there were other things to change as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say Edit 2 is fine, Edit 3 is okay but not great -- titles are important though and readability matters. Edit 4 I wouldn't have approved but I also don't think I would flag as too minor (I would have rejected it as too minor however).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have a problem with robo-reviewers like SO does. We're a much smaller community and the people who typically do the approval are drawn from a small group of active users. So it's less about robots and more about bumping questions to the front page when there is little reason to. Which is certainly annoying, but not mission-critical to avoid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="09e242b4-c81e-4ee0-bb7a-5d5f46bd7f38" CreationDate="2014-11-15T22:28:45.497" UserId="42739" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146794/is-a-thomsons-lamp-physically-realistic/146801#146801  has been put on hold for being off topic. I am not clear why that is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the question is philosophically motivated but I think it is suitable for physical considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think one can answer the question in a non philosophical manner. The question ask for some physical argumentation in favour or against a possible outcome  in a thought experiment. Even, the possibility of the thought experiment can  be argued on physical grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question would require to at least elaborate in the following topics: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental designs and results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accepted and/or actively researched theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I would like to know if there is some criteria to consider certain thought experiments to be better suited for philosophical discussion rather than physics discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="09e242b4-c81e-4ee0-bb7a-5d5f46bd7f38" CreationDate="2014-11-15T22:28:45.497" UserId="42739" Text="When is a thought experiment not a physics question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="09e242b4-c81e-4ee0-bb7a-5d5f46bd7f38" CreationDate="2014-11-15T22:28:45.497" UserId="42739" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="12664c28-ea11-43c8-84ef-05222932694c" CreationDate="2014-11-15T23:54:44.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/533770105352515584" />
  <row Id="15777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="4b117539-c8a8-4f14-bb22-b1bfedf4bdea" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:39:03.043" UserDisplayName="user49111" Text="This is so depressing. Yesterday, I opened up my account and found it had some 620 rep. Today it came down to 517. I was shocked at first. But then : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these serial voters must be removed. They cause **mental trauma**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2WcGS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="4b117539-c8a8-4f14-bb22-b1bfedf4bdea" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:39:03.043" UserDisplayName="user49111" Text="Serial Up-voting problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="4b117539-c8a8-4f14-bb22-b1bfedf4bdea" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:39:03.043" UserDisplayName="user49111" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="d02d56a5-d7c9-4b8e-aea5-58b157931b46" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:47:25.470" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="53db5673-a612-4924-ac57-b219582c22b5" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:47:36.587" UserId="7433" Text="The relevant users have gotten a suspension and/or have been removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for bringing this to our notice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="01126bee-5b94-45f3-800c-2e291e69ce80" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:47:37.753" UserId="9887" Text="It is the case that 5 individual contributors to this site decided to close this question.  This is a fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, everything else is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It very well may be the case that, on a different day (month, year), this question would not be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site (composed of moderators, contributors with voting rights etc.) is not time invariant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regardless of what you think *ought* to be the case, if essentially no one here is interested in the question, it doesn't matter if it is closed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, bottom line, it isn't the policy *per se*; it is up to *the OP* to phrase the question in a way that is interesting *enough* to those that contribute here *at this particular time*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could say more but it is late.  I'll refine and amplify later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="bd50940c-591e-49c9-a4ae-d8eb74338d94" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:59:07.917" UserId="57961" Text="I have been on stack exchange for months, but still haven't figured out how to start a new line. The usual Latex double slash or \newline doesn't seem to work here. Could anyone help? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="bd50940c-591e-49c9-a4ae-d8eb74338d94" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:59:07.917" UserId="57961" Text="layout of the text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="bd50940c-591e-49c9-a4ae-d8eb74338d94" CreationDate="2014-11-16T03:59:07.917" UserId="57961" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6281" RevisionGUID="63a0c8d1-0d32-4673-b2fd-c0f243303755" CreationDate="2014-11-16T04:08:50.370" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="1. Personally I advise against writing &quot;+1&quot; or &quot;-1&quot; or any other explicit indication of how you voted. Your *vote* already did that. Votes are anonymous in the Stack Exchange system to encourage them to reflect the voters judgement rather than membership in some cliche or bandwagon. Likewise comments of approval or disapproval that do not explain, expand-on, or dissect the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Explaining why you think a post is wrong is a good comment, adding a &quot;-1&quot; makes it more likely the author will take it as an attack.   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; Likewise expanding on a author's thoughts or emphasizing the importance of something in a post carries the message of approve, but just writing &quot;Nice post.&quot; doesn't say anything that your vote didn't already say.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; For these reasons I am more likely to take the time to trim a comment thread if I see explicit mention of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Use your judgement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 10k users are just like anybody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Comments can be removed by anyone with moderation powers (i.e. moderators and certain SE employees), but the comment's author, or by accumulating enough comment flags.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="4b259dbe-5ab4-44d7-b65a-3bacb5691484" CreationDate="2014-11-16T07:35:50.153" UserId="124" Text="I'm a little surprised you've been around for months without having noticed that StackExchange doesn't use LaTeX ;-) Posts here are composed in a variant of [Markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax), and as dmckee pointed out in a comment there is an [editing help page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) that explains most features of Markdown syntax, or the particular variant SE uses. Right at the [top of the page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help#linebreaks) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; End a line with two spaces to add a `&lt;br/&gt;` linebreak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="fbb691a1-dc15-47ad-9bfd-3b708fc41bac" CreationDate="2014-11-16T07:40:50.077" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/146794/2451 has been put on hold for being off topic. I am not clear why that is the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the question is philosophically motivated but I think it is suitable for physical considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think one can answer the question in a non philosophical manner. The question ask for some physical argumentation in favour or against a possible outcome  in a thought experiment. Even, the possibility of the thought experiment can  be argued on physical grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question would require to at least elaborate in the following topics: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental designs and results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accepted and/or actively researched theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I would like to know if there is some criteria to consider certain thought experiments to be better suited for philosophical discussion rather than physics discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="fbb691a1-dc15-47ad-9bfd-3b708fc41bac" CreationDate="2014-11-16T07:40:50.077" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="fadc59b5-865f-4f6f-acdc-6d49d6aa4562" CreationDate="2014-11-16T11:32:41.610" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 127 characters in body" Text="I stopped editing because it makes posts bump on the front page, but I am still trying to do my whack to improve the site. I'd like to know what is the exact policy regarding flags, please answer with a clear Yes/No to each question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;**avoid comments like '+1' or 'thanks**' &quot;,  is this just a recommendation or any comment including &quot; +/-1 &quot; should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. are generic positive comments like 'nice post', '*this is an interesting/ useful answer*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. are generic unsubstantiated negative comments without explanations or correction like '*this is not true*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. are negative comments justified by subjective or generic explanations like ' you *say it is red, I think it is pink*' acceptable or any such comment should be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. should one refrain from flagging comments by users with 10k+ rep, are they allowed to handle flags to their own posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. can anyone, besides mods, delete comments? Someone has been lately deleting positive comments to my answers and it does not seem accidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience I have noticed tha DavidZ is delegated to deal with flags, but probably any mod can answer these questions. I hope that they share a common policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This mother meta post is a bit undecided on the matter, but generally advises against leaving such comments, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encourages flagging them. The thing it boils down to is that comments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be signal, not noise. &quot;+1, great post!&quot; is noise ....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *there's no 100% clear cut policy,* and no one will tar and feather you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for leaving generic &quot;+1 comments&quot;. - ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is what I noticed, ACuriousMind, *discretionary* judgement calls. I personally would approve of leaving generic positive comments, as it is a right tribute to the poster and his effort. But, as I said, I just had the impression that some top member [with whom I had divergence of opinions, not you, :) , anyway] was trying to influence of the readers deleting positive comments and my replies to negative comments. I asked DavidZ to restore them, but he declined my request. I draw the conclusion that generic positive comments are not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I understand that positive comments are left to the discretion of mods, even though this makes a lottery offlagging, but I ask:&quot; **can anyone delete the reply, the refutation of a negative comment** at his own discretion?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6291" RevisionGUID="383e5d5d-89d9-4e07-97f7-8e9640842c0b" CreationDate="2014-11-16T21:49:28.033" UserId="8563" Text="Line breaks are easy: just leave a blank line between two paragraphs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...like this. (Helpful tip: to see how any given post was formatted, click on the `edit` button to the left of the signature.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also force line breaks by using the HTML tag `&lt;br&gt;`. However, I would strongly advise you not to abuse this and to &lt;br&gt; let the Stack Exchange Markdown compiler do its thing. Just write your paragraphs, separate them with a blank line, and you're good to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="b23a649d-4948-4389-a2b1-602b57c478f1" CreationDate="2014-11-16T22:42:04.750" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 330 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned comments that are now [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18110760#18110760), is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will let slide a good bit more unpoliteness than you'll see here. It is certainly the case that their stance towards abuse is relatively hazy. The main thing that worries me about PO is well encapsulated by the question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, that answer is hardly conclusive, and it seems that the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Moreover, the section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) of their FAQ is rather hazy regarding things like name-calling, racism, sexism, harassment, and such sorts of things which can and do happen in unmoderated internet forums. It was recently updated to include a contact link for such things, but it's unclear what it includes and it gives no guidance on what is or is not really OK on the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, PO moderators have [stated informally](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se/6213?noredirect=1#comment20823_6213) that abuse will not be tolerated there, but I'm not sure how that squares with the comment above. At the very least, this is unclear and confusing as a PO user; personally, I would expect that some pretty bad stuff will inevitably slip through the cracks of that lack of clarity. I do not, however, advise people curious about PO to stay away from the site - instead, be aware of these points and make up your own mind whether you want to be part of that community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the (incoming) &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [recently replaced one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like PO to adopt an approach like [arXiv Analytics](http://arxitics.com/), which states on its front page, in crisp and clear language, that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We encourage frank, open, and constructive conversation, but frankness doesn't mean lack of civility or lack of respect for others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, though, that they're reluctant to put any qualifiers behind 'frankness is allowed'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6291" RevisionGUID="82933bf7-4dde-42e5-ac32-9d887457c5a5" CreationDate="2014-11-17T10:28:48.860" UserId="8563" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="Line breaks are easy: just leave a blank line between two paragraphs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...like this. (Helpful tip: to see how any given post was formatted, click on the `edit` button to the left of the signature.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also force line breaks by using the HTML tag `&lt;br&gt;`. However, I would strongly advise you not to abuse this and to &lt;br&gt; let the Stack Exchange Markdown compiler do its thing. Just write your paragraphs, separate them with a blank line, and you're good to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a line break within a math block, then you need to use the `align` environment, where line breaks are implemented by the usual LaTeX double backslash:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;    a+b &amp; =c \\&#xD;&#xA;    d+e &amp; =f&#xD;&#xA;    \end{align}&#xD;&#xA;    $$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6281" RevisionGUID="df02ff37-5f0f-4bff-9685-432d07a46785" CreationDate="2014-11-17T10:37:04.503" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="1. Personally I advise against writing &quot;+1&quot; or &quot;-1&quot; or any other explicit indication of how you voted. Your *vote* already did that. Votes are anonymous in the Stack Exchange system to encourage them to reflect the voters judgement rather than membership in some cliche or bandwagon. Likewise comments of approval or disapproval that do not explain, expand-on, or dissect the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Explaining why you think a post is wrong is a good comment, adding a &quot;-1&quot; makes it more likely the author will take it as an attack.   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; Likewise expanding on a author's thoughts or emphasizing the importance of something in a post carries the message of approve, but just writing &quot;Nice post.&quot; doesn't say anything that your vote didn't already say.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; For these reasons I am more likely to take the time to trim a comment thread if I see explicit mention of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Use your judgement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 10k users are just like anybody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Comments can be removed by anyone with moderation powers (i.e. moderators and certain SE employees), by the comment's author, or by accumulating enough comment flags.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15797" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="082e03af-1e85-489c-8d8b-ab93c6c34436" CreationDate="2014-11-17T17:56:17.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/534404674556669952" />
  <row Id="15798" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="a4f8bd49-109e-4f86-8dcf-5eee85c0a732" CreationDate="2014-11-18T08:08:39.623" UserId="124" Comment="fix title grammar" Text="Is it on-topic to ask about homemade construction of tools?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="ddc7d3c7-3138-4fb6-81c2-fd09f5a5059b" CreationDate="2014-11-18T17:37:31.903" UserId="42739" Comment="improve question" Text="In general I would like to know if there is some criteria to consider certain thought experiments or questions to be better suited for philosophical discussion rather than physics discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/146794/2451 has been put on hold for being off topic. I am not clear why that is the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the question is philosophically motivated but I think it is suitable for physical considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can answer the question in a non philosophical manner. The question ask for some physical argumentation in favour or against a possible outcome  in a thought experiment. Even, the possibility of the thought experiment can  be argued on physical grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question would require to at least elaborate in the following topics: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental designs and results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accepted and/or actively researched theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some other questions (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang &#xD;&#xA;) which I will regard as highly philosophical but again I understand them being open as all the answers are in some sense physics oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking to consider the reopening of the former question, but as a second plea. My main request is if someone would mind to point me some general guideline about when is a question too philosophical and not suitable for the site. Even if the guidelines are time dependent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15800" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="ddc7d3c7-3138-4fb6-81c2-fd09f5a5059b" CreationDate="2014-11-18T17:37:31.903" UserId="42739" Comment="improve question" Text="When is a question too philosphical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="0a8e742e-e5f8-4b19-ab86-408c7ef992a5" CreationDate="2014-11-19T00:14:47.163" UserId="9887" Comment="added 697 characters in body" Text="It is the case that 5 individual contributors to this site decided to close this question.  This is a fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, everything else is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It very well may be the case that, on a different day (month, year), this question would not be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site (composed of moderators, contributors with voting rights etc.) is not time invariant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regardless of what you think *ought* to be the case, if essentially no one here is interested in the question, it doesn't matter if it is closed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, bottom line, it isn't the policy *per se*; it is up to *the OP* to phrase the question in a way that is interesting *enough* to those that contribute here *at this particular time*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could say more but it is late.  I'll refine and amplify later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you mind expanding a little bit on how can I phrase the question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a way that is interesting enough to those that contribute here at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this particular time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you're referring to the Thomson's lamp question.  If the question is about a genuine philosophical *puzzle*, it is certainly beyond the scope of physics to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way, if physics can decide the problem, the problem isn't a philosophical puzzle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, in your question, you write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sum of this infinite series of time intervals is **exactly** two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intentionally emphasized the word *exactly*.  Think about the *physical* implication of *that* in relation to this puzzle.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="bfcc7df9-3525-4c06-a469-cae644853353" CreationDate="2014-11-20T05:03:49.650" UserId="63384" Text="Why is that when I **down vote** a post then **2** of my reputation gets deducted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="bfcc7df9-3525-4c06-a469-cae644853353" CreationDate="2014-11-20T05:03:49.650" UserId="63384" Text="After Down Vote, my reputation gets less" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="bfcc7df9-3525-4c06-a469-cae644853353" CreationDate="2014-11-20T05:03:49.650" UserId="63384" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6293" RevisionGUID="ac67fcc4-a7d9-49c1-88bb-108fc223304e" CreationDate="2014-11-20T05:55:30.673" UserId="7894" Text="That's the way the system works.  You should have a look at the available help pages, e.g. this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You lose 2 points when someone downvotes one of your questions or answers and you lose 1 point when you downvote someone else's answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="7302026f-4876-4c51-b65a-306d9308a021" CreationDate="2014-11-20T07:29:32.160" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-bydesign|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="76535dc5-e4ed-4305-9c53-96833f4c6d3a" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:05:00.630" UserId="23473" Text="You lose 1 point for downvoting an answer and none for downvoting a question. This is because downvoting hurts the post's owner. We want you to only downvote when you seriously believe it deserves it. We don't want people to downvote simply because they feel like it or don't like the author or don't like that they used &quot;your&quot; instead of &quot;you're&quot; somewhere in a 1000 word post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is only a loss of 1 rep point for downvoting an answer because we realize that reputation is hard-earned and we don't want to discourage free expression of opinions; 1 rep point is not much at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is not to be taken lightly, so this is status-by-design because we want you to take it seriously but not be discouraged from using it. -1 for downvoting a post gets the point across but doesn't hurt too much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6295" RevisionGUID="191f30fa-d45a-4d67-a0c1-823fac143c9d" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:26:08.227" UserId="25301" Text="A downvote symbolizes your disagreement with someone's work. It is literally saying, *This answer is not useful* (hover your mouse over the downvote, that is the alt-text that pops up). The loss of 2 rep for you suggests that the decision to downvote should *not* be taken lightly (i.e., just downvoting for the heck of it) that you should truly judge whether the post really is wrong or misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, you gain 10 rep when your answer is upvoted and 5 when your question is upvoted. Unless you are downvoting &gt;5 answers for each answer-upvote (or &gt;2 answers for each question-upvote) you receive, you are still going to gain reputation based on simple math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="412e584c-af5c-4359-9ccc-d7fc2f897510" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:47:57.427" UserId="63384" Text="I have flaged **4** posts and my profile says that all the flags are helpful(i.e. **4** posts flaged, **4** helpful flags). But when I tried to flag one more post, I saw that I had only **8** flags remaining. Even though **all my flags were deemed as helpful**. I want to know why two of my flags were gone,even though they were helpful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="412e584c-af5c-4359-9ccc-d7fc2f897510" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:47:57.427" UserId="63384" Text="Flags mentioned as helpful, but still my remaining flags are reduced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="412e584c-af5c-4359-9ccc-d7fc2f897510" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:47:57.427" UserId="63384" Text="|support|bug|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="40ab90d0-c696-40d9-a5fe-5240d767884b" CreationDate="2014-11-20T15:02:06.010" UserId="25301" Text="From the [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How many flags do I have?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you start out, you are allotted 10 flags per day. This number may increase to up to 100 flags per day: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You get one bonus flag per 2000 reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You are awarded additional bonus flags when you flag correctly - one bonus flag for every ten net helpful flags (helpful flags minus declined flags)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6298" RevisionGUID="b036c31e-f348-442d-97b3-515bb8c62e3c" CreationDate="2014-11-20T15:03:08.120" UserId="23473" Text="You get 10 flags a day when you start out. Once used up, you have to wait until the next day to flag more posts. This is done to prevent new users from flagging everything they see and abusing the system. For every 10 helpful flags you have, you get allotted one more opportunity to flag a post each day. So don't worry, you'll get another 12 or so tomorrow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="4578e19e-6bc3-4bbb-b8ff-ddaa704922e6" CreationDate="2014-11-20T17:30:24.150" UserId="27166" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15815" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="f96ed64d-7044-4ad9-a83f-b4a1288de558" CreationDate="2014-11-20T18:01:46.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/535493216838356992" />
  <row Id="15817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="1744df4c-2427-4142-8175-de09a81446d8" CreationDate="2014-11-23T07:25:39.930" UserId="56960" Text="Do some *concrete* evidences exist that the physics.SE site offers any help with researches? (Note that researches on physics [may not be confused with theoretical physics, that is a specific thing][1].) Were new works published there that later obtained recognition from the professional scientific community? Did anybody obtain key insights that prompted his/her research to succeed? Or, possibly, some in-deep reviews of pre-existing papers and textbooks did arise from discussions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6081/56960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="1744df4c-2427-4142-8175-de09a81446d8" CreationDate="2014-11-23T07:25:39.930" UserId="56960" Text="Does physics.SE help researches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="1744df4c-2427-4142-8175-de09a81446d8" CreationDate="2014-11-23T07:25:39.930" UserId="56960" Text="|discussion|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="8f347aac-92dd-4762-8a55-1da48c69a583" CreationDate="2014-11-23T12:38:26.250" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="An example question:  &#xD;&#xA;[Solution for the Finite 2D Potential Well - Rotational Symmetry][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is being voted to close as off-topic. Reading the comments, that seems to be because it the physics is basically done, all that's left is to solve a differential equation. That is true, but I wonder if it's really a problem.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;That question was just an example, let's focus on the general case. A lot of physics problems and exercises have very little physics and quite a lot of mathematics. Let us assume a question is asked where the physics is basically done, so that it is solvable through strictly mathematical procedures. The motivation is something like: the Lagrangian of a several body system, the velocity field of a fluid around a specific object, or the eigenstates of a QM system. Also assume the level is not too basic, so it is within our pre-established level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we consider such a question off-topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though the answer only requires mathematics, it looks like the kind of question a physics student might be interested in. Do we want to keep it here or move it to math.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2707/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="8f347aac-92dd-4762-8a55-1da48c69a583" CreationDate="2014-11-23T12:38:26.250" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="7ed08e14-2f08-4347-8de8-bcbbe63366da" CreationDate="2014-11-23T13:44:09.103" UserId="34382" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Does some *concrete* evidence exist that the physics.SE site offers any help with research? (Note that research in physics [may not be confused with theoretical physics, that is a specific thing][1].) Were new works published there that later obtained recognition from the professional scientific community? Did anybody obtain key insights that prompted his/her research to succeed? Or, possibly, some in-deep reviews of pre-existing papers and textbooks did arise from discussions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6081/56960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="7f24c7f8-d872-4167-82e2-880766882d9a" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:41:38.390" UserId="2170" Text="My answer here was recently deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148332/by-what-force-does-a-man-attract-earth/148336?noredirect=1#comment309273_148336&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never encountered such forceful thing on any Stack Exchange site before. It was neither spam nor offensive post (the situations in which answers are deleted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it all about? Yes, I did write 800N, but the answer also had useful concept." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="7f24c7f8-d872-4167-82e2-880766882d9a" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:41:38.390" UserId="2170" Text="Why was my answer deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="7f24c7f8-d872-4167-82e2-880766882d9a" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:41:38.390" UserId="2170" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="38d42cc4-5e0a-43a0-bdc6-992261a1accb" CreationDate="2014-11-24T08:03:08.697" UserId="64978" Text="http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the same problem but in Opera. I've read in one comment that this isn't a problem in Opera but it's for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XwzAF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="38d42cc4-5e0a-43a0-bdc6-992261a1accb" CreationDate="2014-11-24T08:03:08.697" UserId="64978" Text="The site toolbar looks broken in Opera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="38d42cc4-5e0a-43a0-bdc6-992261a1accb" CreationDate="2014-11-24T08:03:08.697" UserId="64978" Text="|discussion|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="4c653177-1e85-4ed7-b3b2-8a323fc0888e" CreationDate="2014-11-24T09:05:37.477" UserId="124" Text="I quote the comment I left on your answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714). Please don't post complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why. I'm not sure what to add to that. (Maybe if you can elaborate on why you were confused by that message, I can provide something more useful.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="01f57c82-34eb-4850-9358-5c13d3a6428f" CreationDate="2014-11-25T08:40:32.497" UserId="43574" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Why are questions like &quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146255/why-does-objects-with-zero-acceleraton-move/&quot; downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems like a person genuinely wanting to understand a physical concept and coming here for help. It just bothers me that apparently people have decided not to help those people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen remarks on meta like 'This site is for professionals', suggesting that the question is too 'stupid' or low-level, but if that is truly the case, homework questions should also not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid misconceptions: I am perfectly ok with downvoting low-level or homework questions if the person has not put any effort in, or wants us to solve their problems. I am only talking about the cases where people are, in my perception, genuinely looking for help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="73ccbeca-237f-49b0-9e7a-1039597f8b6b" CreationDate="2014-11-25T10:22:13.577" UserId="64978" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the same problem but in Opera. I've read in one comment that this isn't a problem in Opera but it's for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is really disturbing because in this form, the clickable area of the buttons is on the upper half of them and each time I want to click on them I've to go through the same confusion and bewilderment again and again until I remember what's going on in here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XwzAF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="c5ed5981-9258-435b-bf8e-233a23913110" CreationDate="2014-11-26T12:04:19.387" UserId="1325" Text="... obviously to answer simple questions about everyday life:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148953/why-are-dishwasher-washed-glasses-squeaky-clean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and that answer has so far scored just a single upvote&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that get the most upvotes are going to be the simple ones that everyone can understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which could of course just mean it's a crap answer :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="c5ed5981-9258-435b-bf8e-233a23913110" CreationDate="2014-11-26T12:04:19.387" UserId="1325" Text="The secret to getting a massive reputation is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="c5ed5981-9258-435b-bf8e-233a23913110" CreationDate="2014-11-26T12:04:19.387" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="e324dbaa-9a96-4d3c-9d35-58117ec3ccc2" CreationDate="2014-11-26T12:40:42.397" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to comment" Text="... obviously to answer simple questions about everyday life:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148953/why-are-dishwasher-washed-glasses-squeaky-clean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and that answer has so far scored just a single upvote&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that get the most upvotes are going to be the simple ones that everyone can understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to NikolajK's comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The very nature of StackOverflow's structure has it such that only those who answer simple questions of the most popular programming languages will get a reward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the reward for participating in the Physics SE is just the rep points you get then, well, each to his own but I think this is a poor way to approach the Physics SE and probably life in general. Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers don't attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of people around here put lots of effort in for effectively no reward, and the moderators not only get no reward but have to put up with criticism every time someone disagrees with their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And long may it remain so. As long as the world is a better place with the Physics SE than it would be without it then you can count me in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which could of course just mean it's a crap answer :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="e58708cd-9df8-4a59-80ce-122454f08bac" CreationDate="2014-11-26T16:00:21.407" UserId="58382" Text="The &quot;Related questions&quot; list does a great job in presenting the most upvoted (and whatever other parameters are used) questions related to a subject, and the subgroup of linked questions, when present, is even better. However, given the amount of high quality questions and answers that are present in physics.se I wonder if there isn't something more that can be done to *index* the best-of of the various topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm thinking of are list-questions (probably community wiki) presenting the most upvoted, frequently asked, high-quality questions/answers. Eventually with a tree structure with links to similar list-questions on more specific topics. Something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;Common questions on: Quantum mechanics:&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General scope:&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46015/why-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77030/what-is-quantization&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8062/about-the-complex-nature-of-the-wave-function&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on Schroedinger equation:&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on group theory applied to quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;and so on, I think you got the idea.&#xD;&#xA;Would something like this be compatible with the policies/doable? Here is a list of cons/pros that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who decides which are the &quot;best-quality&quot; questions*** to be worth putting in such lists? For high-rated questions with lots of views this would not be too much of a problem, but in other situations the choice may be more subjective. A poll in these cases would be appropriate, but we can't create a (probably meta) post for any such choice. However, it may be feasible to have a twin-question on meta for each such list-question where to decide these things.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who can create/modify these lists?*** Making them community wiki enhances the problem lowering the rep needed to modify them lower. Still, the fact that most of the edits by newer users must be peer-reviewed eases this problem.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would be time-demanding to mantain such lists***. Yes it probably would. However it would also, if well played, help people to quickly find what they are looking for if something similar has already been discussed, thus lowering the duplicate questions asked and allowing to not reinventing the same wheel endless times.&#xD;&#xA;- ***They would became extremely large***. This is easily prevented by appropriate directory structures, with links to sub-lists when some become too large to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would provide a peer reviewed list of valuable discussions***. All the indexing systems (related/linked questions, tags, advanced search capabilities) provided by the stackexchange network are very good, but they have intrinsic limitations: with more and more questions asked it can become hard to locate the treasures hidden in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Less duplicates***: for a new user it may not be so easy to navigate between questions to find what he is looking for. The proposed kind of lists would definitely help on this (of course provided they are visible enough. Maybe they could even be linked in tag wikis to do that?).&#xD;&#xA;- ***Easier to link OP to similar discussions***.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would improve the overall quality of physics.SE***. Ok, this is maybe not really a pro but my subjective take on the whole proposal. Still, wouldn't it be great? :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="e58708cd-9df8-4a59-80ce-122454f08bac" CreationDate="2014-11-26T16:00:21.407" UserId="58382" Text="&quot;Questions&quot; containing links to the most relevant questions on a given topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="e58708cd-9df8-4a59-80ce-122454f08bac" CreationDate="2014-11-26T16:00:21.407" UserId="58382" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15839" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="34987196-a321-483f-a7f4-b39a3ff30857" CreationDate="2014-11-26T19:22:29.100" UserId="58382" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Questions&quot; containing links to the most relevant questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="83df0034-52f4-4266-984d-6f662c5a01d2" CreationDate="2014-11-26T19:45:21.767" UserId="58382" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The &quot;Related questions&quot; list does a great job in presenting the most upvoted (and whatever other parameters are used) questions related to a subject, and the subgroup of linked questions, when present, is even better. However, given the amount of high quality questions and answers that are present in physics.se I wonder if there isn't something more that can be done to *index* the best-of of the various topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm thinking of are list-questions (probably community wiki) presenting the most upvoted, frequently asked, high-quality questions/answers. Eventually with a tree structure with links to similar list-questions on more specific topics. Something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;Common questions on: Quantum mechanics:&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General scope:&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46015/why-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77030/what-is-quantization&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8062/about-the-complex-nature-of-the-wave-function&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on Schroedinger equation:&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on group theory applied to quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;and so on, I think you got the idea.&#xD;&#xA;Would something like this be compatible with the policies/doable? Here is a list of cons/pros that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who decides which are the &quot;best-quality&quot; questions*** to be worth putting in such lists? For high-rated questions with lots of views this would not be too much of a problem, but in other situations the choice may be more subjective. A poll in these cases would be appropriate, but we can't create a (probably meta) post for any such choice. However, it may be feasible to have a twin-question on meta for each such list-question where to decide these things.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who can create/modify these lists?*** Making them community wiki enhances the problem lowering the rep needed to modify them lower. Still, the fact that most of the edits by newer users must be peer-reviewed eases this problem.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would be time-demanding to mantain such lists***. Yes it probably would. However it would also, if well played, help people to quickly find what they are looking for if something similar has already been discussed, thus lowering the duplicate questions asked and allowing to not reinventing the same wheel endless times.&#xD;&#xA;- ***They would become extremely large***. This is easily prevented by appropriate &quot;directory structures&quot;, with links to sub-lists when one contains too much links to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would provide a peer reviewed list of valuable discussions***. All the indexing systems (related/linked questions, tags, advanced search capabilities) provided by the stackexchange network are very good, but they have intrinsic limitations: with more and more questions asked it can become hard to locate the treasures hidden in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Less duplicates***: for a new user it may not be so easy to navigate between questions to find what he is looking for. The proposed kind of lists would definitely help on this (of course provided they are visible enough. Maybe they could even be linked in tag wikis to do that?).&#xD;&#xA;- ***Easier to link OP to similar discussions***.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would improve the overall quality of physics.SE***. Ok, this is maybe not really a pro but my subjective take on the whole proposal. Still, wouldn't it be great? :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="6f2aa19e-5d95-4d50-a138-c8c85e5f6d4d" CreationDate="2014-11-27T09:51:37.727" UserId="5279" Text="I think it is correct that the more popular subjects will get more attention than the best questions and answers on less popular subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to write the best book ever written on the subject of fluid mechanics, the definite *sine qua non* of this vital subject, and it got rave reviews from the top scientists in the field, I'd still have to be satisfied with book sales in the low thousands, perhaps hundreds.  In the meantime, the current NY Times bestseller list features the #1 bestseller at the moment as: *41*, by George W. Bush. The 43rd president’s portrait of his father, George H. W. Bush, the 41st.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same thing when it comes to Library Science.  To become a professional librarian generally requires a master's degree, and this requires about 6 years of education.  And your starting salary will be exceeded by that of an associate degree recipient who studied computer programming.  The world simply needs more programmers; librarians?  Meh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this fair?  It is just?  Perhaps not, but it is reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you must learn to be satisfied with your own work, if it is what gives you the greatest satisfaction, and forget that your reputation doesn't grow as fast as someone else's, who chooses to answer the easy questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="35ca529e-4b28-4b91-9684-de4cf6638dcd" CreationDate="2014-11-27T15:11:39.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/537987121307729921" />
  <row Id="15843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="579689ca-6f84-4386-97dd-a0bfa63d6177" CreationDate="2014-11-27T20:16:48.273" UserId="58382" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="The &quot;Related questions&quot; list does a great job in presenting the most upvoted (and whatever other parameters are used) questions related to a subject, and the subgroup of linked questions, when present, is even better. However, given the amount of high quality questions and answers that are present in physics.se I wonder if there isn't something more that can be done to *index* the best-of of the various topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm thinking of are list-questions (probably community wiki) presenting the most upvoted, frequently asked, high-quality questions/answers. Eventually with a tree structure with links to similar list-questions on more specific topics. Something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;Common questions on: Quantum mechanics:&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General scope:&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46015/why-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77030/what-is-quantization&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8062/about-the-complex-nature-of-the-wave-function&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on Schroedinger equation:&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on group theory applied to quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;and so on, I think you got the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would something like this be compatible with the policies/doable? I'm not meaning this in a somewhat abstract way: *if I create a community wiki post on the lines described above, would this be considered inappropriate/off topic?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of cons/pros that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who decides which are the &quot;best-quality&quot; questions*** to be worth putting in such lists? For high-rated questions with lots of views this would not be too much of a problem, but in other situations the choice may be more subjective. A poll in these cases would be appropriate, but we can't create a (probably meta) post for any such choice. However, it may be feasible to have a twin-question on meta for each such list-question where to decide these things.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who can create/modify these lists?*** Making them community wiki enhances the problem lowering the rep needed to modify them lower. Still, the fact that most of the edits by newer users must be peer-reviewed eases this problem.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would be time-demanding to mantain such lists***. Yes it probably would. However it would also, if well played, help people to quickly find what they are looking for if something similar has already been discussed, thus lowering the duplicate questions asked and allowing to not reinventing the same wheel endless times.&#xD;&#xA;- ***They would become extremely large***. This is easily prevented by appropriate &quot;directory structures&quot;, with links to sub-lists when one contains too much links to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would provide a peer reviewed list of valuable discussions***. All the indexing systems (related/linked questions, tags, advanced search capabilities) provided by the stackexchange network are very good, but they have intrinsic limitations: with more and more questions asked it can become hard to locate the treasures hidden in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Less duplicates***: for a new user it may not be so easy to navigate between questions to find what he is looking for. The proposed kind of lists would definitely help on this (of course provided they are visible enough. Maybe they could even be linked in tag wikis to do that?).&#xD;&#xA;- ***Easier to link OP to similar discussions***.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would improve the overall quality of physics.SE***. Ok, this is maybe not really a pro but my subjective take on the whole proposal. Still, wouldn't it be great? :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6281" RevisionGUID="c562a657-7bb0-416d-a24d-deb81f18c333" CreationDate="2014-11-28T06:24:42.487" UserId="56578" Comment="edited body" Text="1. Personally I advise against writing &quot;+1&quot; or &quot;-1&quot; or any other explicit indication of how you voted. Your *vote* already did that. Votes are anonymous in the Stack Exchange system to encourage them to reflect the voters judgement rather than membership in some clique or bandwagon. Likewise comments of approval or disapproval that do not explain, expand-on, or dissect the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Explaining why you think a post is wrong is a good comment, adding a &quot;-1&quot; makes it more likely the author will take it as an attack.   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; Likewise expanding on a author's thoughts or emphasizing the importance of something in a post carries the message of approve, but just writing &quot;Nice post.&quot; doesn't say anything that your vote didn't already say.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; For these reasons I am more likely to take the time to trim a comment thread if I see explicit mention of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Treated in (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Use your judgement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 10k users are just like anybody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Comments can be removed by anyone with moderation powers (i.e. moderators and certain SE employees), by the comment's author, or by accumulating enough comment flags.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="6ff4d027-97e2-4054-bcb8-022b2feffb30" CreationDate="2014-11-28T07:31:59.963" UserId="56578" Text="&gt; &quot;...Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **that answer has so far scored just a single upvote**.... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the **most upvotes are going to be the simple ones** that everyone can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... **Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't attract as much attention** as the more obvious ones (people just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics SE... &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very fond of John Rennie, and I have expressed my great esteem for him in many occasions. He his the first figure one comes to know and appreciate, as soon as one joins this site. He is not so active now, but, when I joined in Summer, I could see at 8 o'clock sharp a whole string of excellent, clear and interesting answers in impeccable British English, signed by a photo of a distinguished figure that reminded me of a XIX century Squire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot avoid to poind out how this post of his is a contradiction of the position he held when I first exposed [**this problem**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear) and when I offered [**a solution**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6180/answers-should-be-rated-a-suggestion-to-the-team/6184#6184). My posts where heavily downvoted, and probably he too downvoted them, now his post has 10 upvotes, so far. Congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be simple and effective to _put a rep cap to questions (and answers) bearing the tag 'everyday-life'_, why don't you propose or just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion was more far-reaching than this. It would give a solution to all the other problems, including the one *dmckee* was hinting to here, of [**cliques**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6279/precise-directives-re-flagging/6281#6281), fans, followers and supporters (sometime: worshippers). There are some members that get **anyway** dozens of votes, **no matter they write**, even if they _do not answer the OP question_ , or just write simple answers for which another member would get (at most) a couple of votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to give you one of the hundreds of examples [**this simple answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148656/why-dont-stars-have-keplerian-orbits/148670#148670) has got only 30 words (made to look longer repeating the question and adding the tag: the answer is simple), is not the first and is not better that the others, yet, it fetches 22 votes *(almost one-word-one-vote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, I must ask John: why don't you do something in concrete, instead of _moaning_ :) , to back up my proposal that **answers should be rated**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="a43dddaa-3c0b-4ab0-831f-6b5df45244d6" CreationDate="2014-11-28T10:40:40.613" UserId="56578" Comment="added 990 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;...Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **that answer has so far scored just a single upvote**.... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the **most upvotes are going to be the simple ones** that everyone can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... **Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't attract as much attention** as the more obvious ones (people just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics SE... &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very fond of John Rennie, and I have expressed my great esteem for him in many occasions. He his the first figure one comes to know and appreciate, as soon as one joins this site. He is not so active now, but, when I joined in Summer, I could see at 8 o'clock sharp a whole string of excellent, clear and interesting answers in impeccable British English, signed by a photo of a distinguished figure that reminded me of a XIX century Squire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot avoid to poind out how this post of his is a contradiction of the position he held when I first exposed [**this problem**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear) and when I offered [**a solution**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6180/answers-should-be-rated-a-suggestion-to-the-team/6184#6184). My posts where heavily downvoted, and probably he too downvoted them, now his post has 10 upvotes, so far. Congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be simple and effective to _put a rep cap to questions (and answers) bearing the tag 'everyday-life'_, why don't you propose or just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion was more far-reaching than this. It would give a solution to all the other problems, including the one *dmckee* was hinting to here, of [**cliques**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6279/precise-directives-re-flagging/6281#6281), fans, followers and supporters (sometime: worshippers). There are some members that get **anyway** dozens of votes, **no matter they write**, even if they _do not answer the OP question_ , or just write simple answers for which another member would get (at most) a couple of votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to give you one of the hundreds of examples [**this simple answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148656/why-dont-stars-have-keplerian-orbits/148670#148670) has got only 30 words (made to look longer repeating the question and adding the tag: the answer is simple), is not the first and is not better that the others, yet, it fetches 22 votes *(almost one-word-one-vote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, I must ask John: why don't you do something in concrete, instead of _moaning_ :) , to back up my proposal that **answers should be rated**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The key word being thrill**... the end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to writing some truly fantastic answers. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I think the current reputation system is very, very good.**.. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; start making changes .. I fear you will start demotivating exactly the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sort of people who make this site such as a success.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments, let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **comprehensively disagree** with the views expressed in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes **I'm a bit frustrated** that what I consider my better answers don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _thrill of easy rep_ is compensated by the _frustration_ of seeing one's merit not appreciated. That's life, John, you can't have it both ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="5722e266-f2b3-4f38-97eb-5a9083d283a4" CreationDate="2014-11-29T06:21:05.440" UserId="56578" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;...Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **that answer has so far scored just a single upvote**.... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the **most upvotes are going to be the simple ones** that everyone can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... **Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't attract as much attention** as the more obvious ones (people just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics SE... &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very fond of John Rennie, and I have expressed my great esteem for him in many occasions. He his the first figure one comes to know and appreciate, as soon as one joins this site. He is not so active now, but, when I joined in Summer, I could see at 8 o'clock sharp a whole string of excellent, clear and interesting answers in impeccable British English, signed by a photo of a distinguished figure that reminded me of a XIX century Squire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot avoid to poind out how this post of his is a contradiction of the position he held when I first exposed [**this problem**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear) and when I offered [**a solution**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6180/answers-should-be-rated-a-suggestion-to-the-team/6184#6184). My posts where heavily downvoted, and probably he too downvoted them, now his post has 10 upvotes, so far. Congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be simple and effective to _put a rep cap to questions (and answers) bearing the tag 'everyday-life'_, why don't you propose or just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion was more far-reaching than this. It would give a solution to all the other problems, including the one *dmckee* was hinting to here, of [**cliques**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6279/precise-directives-re-flagging/6281#6281), fans, followers and supporters (sometime: worshippers). There are some members that get **anyway** dozens of votes, **no matter they write**, even if they _do not answer the OP question_ , or just write simple answers for which another member would get (at most) a couple of votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to give you one of the hundreds of examples [**this simple answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148656/why-dont-stars-have-keplerian-orbits/148670#148670) has got only 30 words (made to look longer repeating the question and adding the tag: the answer is simple), is not the first and is not better that the others, yet, it fetches 22 votes *(almost one-word-one-vote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, I must ask John: why don't you do something in concrete, instead of _moaning_ :) , to back up my proposal that **answers should be rated**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The key word being thrill**... the end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to writing some truly fantastic answers. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I think the current reputation system is very, very good.**.. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; start making changes .. I fear you will start demotivating exactly the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sort of people who make this site such as a success.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments, let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **comprehensively disagree** with the views expressed in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes **I'm a bit frustrated** that what I consider my better answers don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _thrill of easy rep_ is compensated by the _frustration_ of seeing one's merit not appreciated. That's life, John, you can't have it both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: This time **it'll be amusing** to see how the *farcical carousel* of downvoting/upvoting will develop, since I have only quoted *verbatim* John's statements. I couldn't possible attribute a downvote to me, as I just recorded a contradiction, or I hope, a change of opinion, which I welcome! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="37b1eca7-b220-41dd-abcb-663509306de9" CreationDate="2014-11-29T14:52:38.840" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Always do I have seen most of the homework tagged questions are hold, where moderators reason to show minimal effort. I thought they wanted the asker to show his attempt. But recently, I got amazed when my homework-tagged question was put on hold by a moderator( I am not disrespecting him!) . For what? The same reason. That quo was an off-topic and that I haven't showed any effort. Really? See [my question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149421) . Is this not an effort? Why was it put on hold?? What is, then, effort actually??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="37b1eca7-b220-41dd-abcb-663509306de9" CreationDate="2014-11-29T14:52:38.840" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="What is the meaning of **effort** that moderators want in homework quo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="37b1eca7-b220-41dd-abcb-663509306de9" CreationDate="2014-11-29T14:52:38.840" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="d77d6cd3-89d9-4355-a820-004d25b89cf2" CreationDate="2014-11-29T15:02:59.747" UserId="2451" Comment="Moderators are here to enforce the decisions of the Phys.SE community" Text="Always do I have seen most of the homework tagged questions are hold, with a close reason to show minimal effort. I thought Phys.SE wanted the asker to show his attempt. But recently, I got amazed when my homework-tagged question was put on hold by a moderator (I am not disrespecting him!). For what? The same reason. That question was an off-topic and that I haven't showed any effort. Really? See [my question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149421). Is this not an effort? Why was it put on hold? What is, then, effort actually?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="d77d6cd3-89d9-4355-a820-004d25b89cf2" CreationDate="2014-11-29T15:02:59.747" UserId="2451" Comment="Moderators are here to enforce the decisions of the Phys.SE community" Text="What is the meaning of **effort** that Phys.SE wants in homework questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="d77d6cd3-89d9-4355-a820-004d25b89cf2" CreationDate="2014-11-29T15:02:59.747" UserId="2451" Comment="Moderators are here to enforce the decisions of the Phys.SE community" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="816e71fe-badb-45ca-b21f-1b879bf8253d" CreationDate="2014-11-29T15:34:15.220" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="There are multiple criteria for a homework-like question to be acceptable here, as detailed in [our policy][1]. In no particular order three of the most important criteria (the ones I feel are most often not met) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Show some **effort**. Don't just dump your work in our laps for us to do.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Ask about something **specific**. There are many issues that can arise in trying to solve a problem, and we can't read your mind to see what you do and don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Ask about a physical **concept**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point is where your question fails. Lately we've seen a lot of this, where users focus on my point (1), showing a whole lot of effort, and forget about point (3). It's unfortunate, because when you put that much work into something it naturally feels like you deserve an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But alas, **we are not a homework help service**. In particular, as the policy notes right in the summary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking about sign errors (like your question) or missing factors of 2 are the paradigmatic examples of things we don't allow, since ultimately they are just about a symbol manipulation mistake rather than something *physical*. It's not just about effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can try to turn the question into something that is acceptable. There are conceptual physical questions related to what you asked, for example, &quot;Can the moment of inertia be negative?&quot; My general suggestion for questions of this type is to go through the steps, try to figure out the boundary where &quot;everything before this is definitely right, and everything after this has something wrong&quot; and see if you can ask something along the lines of &quot;I thought this quantity was calculated this way, but that conflicts with my feeling that the quantity should be positive, so is my intuition right?&quot; for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community feels a revised version of the question no longer conflicts with our policies, they will reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="900a418a-f7f7-44e1-a26d-81997269d590" CreationDate="2014-11-29T16:12:43.590" UserId="124" Text="I'll give you two answers, one to the question you actually asked and one to the question that I think you actually wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you asked: what counts as effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working through a homework problem is like exploring the branches of a tree, or walking through a maze. You start at the problem statement - the ground, or the entrance - and you try taking some step that you think will get you closer to the answer. Maybe it turns out not to work, in which case you back up and try another tactic. Or if it does work, then you look for another step that will get you even closer to the answer. As you proceed through the problem, you'll accumulate a bunch of &quot;dead ends&quot; corresponding to problem-solving strategies that didn't work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Showing effort basically amounts to telling us about those dead ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons for this. First, we only like to help people who help themselves. If you don't put any effort into answering your own question, why should anyone else put effort into answering it for you? (Sometimes there _are_ such reasons; maybe the question is really interesting and people answer it for their own amusement, but homework-like questions are generally not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more importantly, showing us the dead ends you've hit lets us give answers that will actually _help_ you, rather than duplicating work you've already done. Maybe you missed some strategy you could have tried. Maybe one of the dead ends actually works, but you made a mistake and concluded that it didn't. Or if nothing else, showing what you tried is one of the best ways to convey your level of knowledge, so people can write level-appropriate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) gives some general guidelines on what sort of preparation one should do before asking a question here. It applies to _all_ questions, not just homework questions, but most of the things listed there are problem-solving strategies that should be in your list of &quot;dead ends&quot; before you post your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do _not_ have to list out _everything_ you tried, but you do have to give potential answerers enough information to understand how you got from the problem statement up to the point at which you were unable to proceed further, _and_ how you tried to work past it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that generally do _not_ count as sufficient effort, and will get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to think [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schr%C3%B6dinger-equation) is a very good example of how to show effort. So is [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem) (and it's actually quite a short question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you actually want to know: why is my question on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the _main_ reason your question is on hold has nothing to do with how much effort you showed (or didn't show).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the close reason for homework says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and show some effort to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions should ask about the _concept_ that confuses you. Isolate the reason you got stuck, and ask how to work past it (after showing some attempts to do so yourself, as I discussed earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that do _not_ count as asking about a specific physics concept, and will generally get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot; (yes, this qualifies under both parts of the homework close reason)&#xD;&#xA;- Most variations of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot; (_this is your case_)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="68e04d08-2117-4a39-b207-92ebb55af6e1" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:09:53.040" UserId="124" Text="&gt; _if I create a community wiki post on the lines described above, would this be considered inappropriate/off topic?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah. It's not a question, so it shouldn't be posted as one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, what you're describing here is precisely the reason tag wikis (and tags themselves) exist. As Emilio pointed out in the comments, going to a tag page and sorting by votes already gives a fairly good idea of what the community considers to be the best questions about that topic. And a curated list of common questions is _exactly_ the kind of thing that would help to make a tag wiki great. If you look at the best-maintained tag wikis on Stack Overflow, like C++ and PHP, they already include links to good questions and other good resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel motivated to create something like this, I'd encourage you to head over to the tag wiki for [tag:quantum-mechanics] or whichever one you want to work on, and get started!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15857" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="e2b24570-00eb-4881-8119-0cfd70352933" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:11:55.583" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="9a15111b-3b65-44ba-b016-63d8c8b6a27f" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:30:31.587" UserId="63384" Text="I flagged a question thinking that it deserved it, but later I realised that the **flag** wasn't needed. So my question is can we **undo a flag**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="9a15111b-3b65-44ba-b016-63d8c8b6a27f" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:30:31.587" UserId="63384" Text="Can we Undo Flags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="9a15111b-3b65-44ba-b016-63d8c8b6a27f" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:30:31.587" UserId="63384" Text="|support|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="9bf3e236-5fd7-419c-8aee-357c26204d07" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:44:27.193" UserId="124" Text="As far as I know, no, you can't. But there aren't really any consequences to casting a flag that turns out not to be needed. If the flag is declined, you might see a notice next time you cast a flag that prompts you to look at why it was declined, but that's about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who _consistently_ and _frequently_ cast invalid flags may face some consequences, but you'd really have to be trying to run into that situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="1629d867-7a94-4b39-a613-98fa5e988a7c" CreationDate="2014-11-30T16:56:32.750" UserId="124" Comment="add links to C++ and PHP wikis" Text="&gt; _if I create a community wiki post on the lines described above, would this be considered inappropriate/off topic?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah. It's not a question, so it shouldn't be posted as one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, what you're describing here is precisely the reason tag wikis (and tags themselves) exist. As Emilio pointed out in the comments, going to a tag page and sorting by votes already gives a fairly good idea of what the community considers to be the best questions about that topic. And a curated list of common questions is _exactly_ the kind of thing that would help to make a tag wiki great. If you look at the best-maintained tag wikis on Stack Overflow, like [C++](http://stackoverflow.com/tags/c%2b%2b/info) and [PHP](http://stackoverflow.com/tags/php/info), they already include links to good questions and other good resources. (Keep in mind that those tag wikis are the result of many people collaborating, so if you're writing a tag wiki on your own, don't feel any pressure to come up with something that detailed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel motivated to create something like this, I'd encourage you to head over to the tag wiki for [tag:quantum-mechanics] or whichever one you want to work on, and get started!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6313" RevisionGUID="61e153d1-dfb8-4fc1-8fe1-70a8fb2e3df2" CreationDate="2014-11-30T17:26:56.200" UserId="62952" Text="Reputation is fun to get and I think serves a very useful purpose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the end of the day I think the point of this site is to help people with useful answers and learn new stuff by seeing the way other people approach problems, by thinking about the questions that are asked and by asking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from my point of view it is more important to engage in a good discussion through questions and answers and comments - I think this is more important than reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in answer to the question posed - yes I agree that popular science questions often get lots of attention and it may be a way to 'gain reputation', but I think our motivation in contributing here should be to engage in good scientific discussion about physics rather than just to gain reputation. If our motivation is to engage in discussion then issues about reputation are perhaps not so important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is a bit like Cyberherbalist's good answer.)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15864" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="ac9fd50b-12e6-4759-b780-8af85a63ff28" CreationDate="2014-11-30T18:14:30.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/539120301830078464" />
  <row Id="15865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="f509eb35-8404-4cd6-af57-05d31fdf1112" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:01:10.010" UserId="45494" Text="I have asked a question relating to how I have approached a problem. My reason for asking the question was my answers seem to be unrealistic. The question is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to calculate force on a string pinned to a spinning object][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was put on hold reasonably soon after I asked the question. I just want to confirm if what the reason for it being put on hold was so I can better phrase the question. The reason give was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question was clearly about a specific physics concept, and I've clearly found and tried to apply an equation to work through the problem (not that it's homework). I've also reduced my problem to the simplest model I could so it was useful to the broader community. So I'm not sure the given reason really applies. Clarification/advice on what changes would be appropriate would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149667/how-to-calculate-force-on-a-string-pinned-to-a-spinning-object" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="f509eb35-8404-4cd6-af57-05d31fdf1112" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:01:10.010" UserId="45494" Text="Are questions asking for confirmation of a method off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="f509eb35-8404-4cd6-af57-05d31fdf1112" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:01:10.010" UserId="45494" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="6131db6a-caef-40a3-be0e-91587b0cb51c" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:37:19.293" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have asked a question relating to how I have approached a problem. My reason for asking the question was my answers seem to be unrealistic. The question is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to calculate force on a string pinned to a spinning object][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was put on hold reasonably soon after I asked the question. I just want to confirm if what the reason for it being put on hold was so I can better phrase the question. The reason give was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question was clearly about a specific physics concept, and I've clearly found and tried to apply an equation to work through the problem (not that it's homework). I've also reduced my problem to the simplest model I could so it was useful to the broader community. So I'm not sure the given reason really applies. Clarification/advice on what changes would be appropriate would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149667/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="6131db6a-caef-40a3-be0e-91587b0cb51c" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:37:19.293" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|hw|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15870" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="6131db6a-caef-40a3-be0e-91587b0cb51c" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:37:19.293" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Are questions asking for confirmation of a method off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="f255ee78-8402-42f6-8fa7-5910e3cce35d" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:03:02.030" UserId="62952" Text="Is there any guidance on reviewing the first post of a new user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have looked in meta and could not find a similar question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I can think of at the moment is to compare with guidance on the [quesiton help here][1] if it is a question and compare with [guidance on answering][2] if it is an answer and maybe it is simply that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry maybe this is very obvious to all except me. I know that I appreciated the helpful comments and edits I got from various people the first time I posted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="f255ee78-8402-42f6-8fa7-5910e3cce35d" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:03:02.030" UserId="62952" Text="reviewing first post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="f255ee78-8402-42f6-8fa7-5910e3cce35d" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:03:02.030" UserId="62952" Text="|discussion|review|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="645f4961-f2e5-4a84-9b5f-bfc7103b6c63" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:18:54.757" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="ff85b71f-09e6-431a-8ccf-143abf74070f" CreationDate="2014-12-01T01:31:12.867" UserId="6634" Text="Reviewing really comes from experience, and that's partly why it is limited to users who have reached enough reputation. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules written down anywhere on what to look for because the expectation is that users performing the reviews have established themselves in the community and know what is expected, or not acceptable, on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we do tend to have some tricky rules if you haven't been really active on meta. Resource/book recommendations, homework, computational, engineering, and experimental questions all have very specific policies that have many subtleties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from those, the usual correction of Grammer, formatting, mathjax, removing greetings/thanks/superfluous information, and proper tagging are always safe and a good way for new reviewers to help new users. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="37156aff-0c68-46f6-afe4-1e78dbb2373a" CreationDate="2014-12-01T02:54:40.147" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="linked to (hopefully) most relevant posts on policies" Text="Reviewing really comes from experience, and that's partly why it is limited to users who have reached enough reputation. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules written down anywhere on what to look for because the expectation is that users performing the reviews have established themselves in the community and know what is expected, or not acceptable, on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we do tend to have some tricky rules if you haven't been really active on meta. [Resource/book recommendations][1], [homework][2], [computational][3], [engineering][4], and [experimental][5] questions all have very specific policies that have many subtleties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from those, the usual correction of Grammer, formatting, mathjax, removing greetings/thanks/superfluous information, and proper tagging are always safe and a good way for new reviewers to help new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="a12a9746-984f-4fef-a924-ac6da75e55c9" CreationDate="2014-12-01T07:30:45.653" UserId="24653" Comment="edited body" Text="Reviewing really comes from experience, and that's partly why it is limited to users who have reached enough reputation. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules written down anywhere on what to look for because the expectation is that users performing the reviews have established themselves in the community and know what is expected, or not acceptable, on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we do tend to have some tricky rules if you haven't been really active on meta. [Resource/book recommendations][1], [homework][2], [computational][3], [engineering][4], and [experimental][5] questions all have very specific policies that have many subtleties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from those, the usual correction of grammar, formatting, MathJax, removing greetings/thanks/superfluous information, and proper tagging are always safe and a good way for new reviewers to help new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15878" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="b25bb145-9427-488b-9a9c-f4334b60ac94" CreationDate="2014-12-01T10:11:26.930" UserId="34382" Comment="edited title" Text="Does physics.SE help research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="c9be730f-aa71-4b3c-82b5-9cb95412d7b6" CreationDate="2014-12-01T10:16:41.690" UserDisplayName="user65081" Text="I contacted stack exchange several times because I had to make a duplicate account and I want to merge them. I have not still received any response after abunch of emails acros about a week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mt problem is that when I created my google account I misspelled it. I do remember the password, but not the username, and gogle doesnt help because I do not have an alternative email phone. &#xD;&#xA;The two accounts are for users: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny, for which I have no longer access, and https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65396/wolprhram-jonny, for which I do havve login access. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at the history after the second account was created all activity from the first account stopped. Plus tte similarities in the answers andother caracteristics pose no doubt I am the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there any way to bring this to the attention of some moderator that can help me? I onlt need to know the mispelled username that is private in my profile. Once I have access to both account I will be able to ask for a standard merge, which require a confirmation email sent to both accounts. &#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="c9be730f-aa71-4b3c-82b5-9cb95412d7b6" CreationDate="2014-12-01T10:16:41.690" UserDisplayName="user65081" Text="I cannot access my account because I forgot my username, can you send me the email on my profile that is not public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="c9be730f-aa71-4b3c-82b5-9cb95412d7b6" CreationDate="2014-12-01T10:16:41.690" UserDisplayName="user65081" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="ce75b0dd-88df-4f77-bfea-71f831bfe060" CreationDate="2014-12-01T10:51:05.370" UserId="124" Text="The way to bring it to the attention of a moderator is to post here (or ping one of us in chat), but we can't help you in this way. Revealing personal information like this would be a violation of the moderator agreement. What we can do is bug the SE team to make sure they are working on your merge request, which I will go do right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6319" RevisionGUID="aa292a7e-8070-488f-aa36-398ea90d69df" CreationDate="2014-12-01T14:57:29.700" UserId="9789" Text="(I work for Stack Exchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just [contact us directly](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact) to handle this. Fixing it requires us asking you for additional information that needs to be given privately, so it's best handled via email. Give us up to 24 hours to take care of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="dac5f6c4-27de-4668-868c-a2c4d4e4f3f3" CreationDate="2014-12-01T15:18:31.513" UserId="65389" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149004/wave-equation-variables-and-interpretation was put on hold as too broad, but edited the same day. Now it's been on hold for a few days. Is it still too broad? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="dac5f6c4-27de-4668-868c-a2c4d4e4f3f3" CreationDate="2014-12-01T15:18:31.513" UserId="65389" Text="Is this question still too broad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="dac5f6c4-27de-4668-868c-a2c4d4e4f3f3" CreationDate="2014-12-01T15:18:31.513" UserId="65389" Text="|discussion|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="8eaa7581-d0aa-47a4-800f-a5aea5fef950" CreationDate="2014-12-01T15:29:48.413" UserId="50583" Text="Questions that are edited after they are closed enter the reopen queue. There has not been a single reopen queue cast on that question, indicating that the reviewers still thought it too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal view is that this is a mixture between *too broad*, *unclear what you're asking* and *non-mainstream*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You just throw the matrix exponential in there and essentially ask &quot;Is this a wavefunction?&quot;. I bet one can write down something looking like a wave equation to which that exponential would be the solution, but what do you *mean* by *&quot;[...]is there a natural way to extend the previous wavefunction interpretation[...]*&quot;? What *was* the previous wavefunction interpretation? (Just writing down an exponential doesn't make it a &quot;wavefunction&quot;!) Why would you expect the matrix exponential to have the same interpretation? What system are you trying to model? It's really not a very focused question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="f150637c-f971-4ca1-a1f5-3611f064ed31" CreationDate="2014-12-01T15:31:10.413" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149004/ was put on hold as too broad, but edited the same day. Now it's been on hold for a few days. Is it still too broad? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15889" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="f150637c-f971-4ca1-a1f5-3611f064ed31" CreationDate="2014-12-01T15:31:10.413" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15890" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="a401519a-6902-48f2-a5d6-b67d8961f062" CreationDate="2014-12-01T22:21:13.417" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified title." Text="Guidelines for the First Posts review queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="c2711d21-44b7-4c90-a152-a6f772382ac0" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:45:33.973" UserId="5326" Text="Just curious to know do we have Nobel prize winners on this SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="c2711d21-44b7-4c90-a152-a6f772382ac0" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:45:33.973" UserId="5326" Text="Do we have Nobel prize winners on this SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="c2711d21-44b7-4c90-a152-a6f772382ac0" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:45:33.973" UserId="5326" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="6e6a69cc-bfe6-43f5-b2bd-30010ddbf8ce" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:50:38.840" UserId="5326" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Just curious, do we have any Nobel prize winner on this SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I want to follow some big shots, or the topics they are interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="fadcce20-d497-4f95-9881-4d49077f2fdf" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:54:35.270" UserId="25301" Text="Sorta. [Gerard ’t Hooft](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11205/g-t-hooft) has an account here and has answered a few questions (16, according to his profile). However, he hasn't been very active lately, last stopping by back in February 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are others, I'm not aware of them (or they're not making themselves aware)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="e74a5c0d-9c7f-4291-9a99-66fe0b068d96" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:58:09.073" UserId="22494" Comment="edited body" Text="Sorta. [Gerard ’t Hooft](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11205/g-t-hooft) has an account here and has answered a few questions (16, according to his profile). However, he hasn't been very active lately, last stopping by back in February 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are others, I'm not aware of them (or they're not making themselves known)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="20655483-677c-4730-a7bd-a220d638a8cc" CreationDate="2014-12-02T15:58:48.223" UserId="23785" Text="I think the rep system is working. The way I see it, rep you should get rep for helping people. If you write a poor answer that doesn't give any useful information, then you won't help anyone and you shouldn't get rep. If you write a good answer to a very narrowly focused question that only 10 people care about, then you should get some rep because you helped some people. On the other hand, if you write a good answer to a popular question that 1000 people care about, then you should get a lot of rep because you helped a lot of people. This system encourages people to write answers that will help the most people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think ultimately this is a good thing. We are all sad that not everybody is an expert in physics. I think the best way we can help change that is to write good answers to the &quot;simple&quot; questions that make non-experts say &quot;aha!&quot;, and teaches them some simple physics concepts. The more questions like this that are answered on this site, the more physics people will be able to learn on their own, and the higher the general public's knowledge of physics will be. Then there will be a greater interest in the higher-level questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="1391bb10-6dae-4b19-adc0-19237f7b4ff3" CreationDate="2014-12-02T23:37:51.873" UserId="46304" Text="Take [this code sample from meta.SE][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        var a = 3;&#xD;&#xA;        while( !(a &lt; 0)){&#xD;&#xA;            alert(&quot;JavaScript code &lt;b&gt;goes&lt;/b&gt; here.&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;            a--;&#xD;&#xA;        }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've written it below (the first line is recognized, processed and eaten by the SE syntax parser):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    var a = 3;&#xD;&#xA;    while( !(a &lt; 0)){&#xD;&#xA;        alert(&quot;JavaScript code &lt;b&gt;goes&lt;/b&gt; here.&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;        a--;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no syntax highlighting (i.e. colours) where I should. Having written one or two posts on physics.SE where I did use code, highlighting would've been much appreciated. Is this a bug and could it perhaps be amended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184108/what-is-syntax-highlighting-and-how-does-it-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="1391bb10-6dae-4b19-adc0-19237f7b4ff3" CreationDate="2014-12-02T23:37:51.873" UserId="46304" Text="Code syntax highlighting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="1391bb10-6dae-4b19-adc0-19237f7b4ff3" CreationDate="2014-12-02T23:37:51.873" UserId="46304" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15901" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="c7630dea-3219-4650-805b-c0d93ba85507" CreationDate="2014-12-02T23:52:02.650" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6326" RevisionGUID="06d9ce08-35ca-4947-a1ae-a677f4ce3be8" CreationDate="2014-12-03T05:29:41.507" UserId="124" Text="This is a site for questions about physics concepts, not about code. The community has decided that &quot;physics concepts&quot; extends to high-level descriptions of algorithms or procedures for physics-related computation, but not to implementation details. In practice, this usually means that most questions shouldn't have code samples in them, and the few that do should be written so that they would still make sense if the code were omitted. In light of that I don't think the benefit of syntax highlighting is worth the cost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="838e95fe-bafd-4f8b-bdf5-07e09df0cb2b" CreationDate="2014-12-03T13:48:42.967" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I contacted stack exchange several times because I had to make a duplicate account and I want to merge them. I have not still received any response after abunch of emails acros about a week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mt problem is that when I created my google account I misspelled it. I do remember the password, but not the username, and gogle doesnt help because I do not have an alternative email phone. &#xD;&#xA;The two accounts are for users: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny, for which I have no longer access, and http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65396/wolprhram-jonny, for which I do have login access. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at the history after the second account was created all activity from the first account stopped. Plus tte similarities in the answers andother caracteristics pose no doubt I am the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there any way to bring this to the attention of some moderator that can help me? I onlt need to know the mispelled username that is private in my profile. Once I have access to both account I will be able to ask for a standard merge, which require a confirmation email sent to both accounts. &#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15904" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="838e95fe-bafd-4f8b-bdf5-07e09df0cb2b" CreationDate="2014-12-03T13:48:42.967" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="73c1878b-25f2-4c21-acc8-d238ac3f3d56" CreationDate="2014-12-03T13:58:31.287" UserId="2451" Comment="added 203 characters in body; edited title" Text="(Below follows the explicit case that spurred this meta question in the first place.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot access my account because I forgot my username, can you send me the email on my profile that is not public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted stack exchange several times because I had to make a duplicate account and I want to merge them. I have not still received any response after abunch of emails acros about a week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mt problem is that when I created my google account I misspelled it. I do remember the password, but not the username, and gogle doesnt help because I do not have an alternative email phone. &#xD;&#xA;The two accounts are for users: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny, for which I have no longer access, and http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65396/wolprhram-jonny, for which I do have login access. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at the history after the second account was created all activity from the first account stopped. Plus tte similarities in the answers and other caracteristics pose no doubt I am the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there any way to bring this to the attention of some moderator that can help me? I onlt need to know the mispelled username that is private in my profile. Once I have access to both account I will be able to ask for a standard merge, which require a confirmation email sent to both accounts. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15906" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="73c1878b-25f2-4c21-acc8-d238ac3f3d56" CreationDate="2014-12-03T13:58:31.287" UserId="2451" Comment="added 203 characters in body; edited title" Text="I cannot access my Phys.SE account because I forgot my username/password. What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="622222ad-c845-45b6-a0f3-652c5b33519f" CreationDate="2014-12-04T03:11:17.393" UserId="63055" Text="[Peter Shor][1] has an active account (as of this posting). He's not a Nobel prize winner but he developed/has a famous [quantum algorithm][2] named after him, which I think qualifies him as a &quot;big shot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/399/peter-shor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="4c79128b-af33-4e0a-81df-51756bb7a524" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:08:52.740" UserId="1954" Text="When browsing answers, occasionally you will find an answer a very good answer that has a factually incorrect statement in it. I have always operated under the philosophy that we want to stay true to the intent of an author's answer, but that it's unlikely they intended to be factually incorrect. If the comments yield a consensus that the statement is indeed incorrect and should be fixed (that is to say, the error isn't so detrimental to the answer that you should abandon the answer and create a new one), what would be the most appropriate action to take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Make the edit (or suggested edit if you lack the reputation)&#xD;&#xA; * Leave a comment for the author to make the edit&#xD;&#xA; * Downvote and explain the downvote is because of the error and what needs to be fixed&#xD;&#xA; * Something else I'm not thinking of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, I've usually done the first option on Stack Exchange, but I want to make sure that I follow the same kinds of protocols the Physics site does when I'm browsing questions here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I apologize if I'm &quot;leading the question&quot; because of my opinion that the first option is the correct one. I tried to make the question as neutral as possible, but bias always slips through. =(*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="4c79128b-af33-4e0a-81df-51756bb7a524" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:08:52.740" UserId="1954" Text="Is it appropriate to fix factual errors without the author's &quot;permission&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="4c79128b-af33-4e0a-81df-51756bb7a524" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:08:52.740" UserId="1954" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="fa845064-3eff-4df5-8ef4-83c3e8c5420d" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:13:19.480" UserId="2451" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="When browsing answers, occasionally you will find an answer a very good answer that has a factually incorrect statement in it. I have always operated under the philosophy that we want to stay true to the intent of an author's answer, but that it's unlikely they intended to be factually incorrect. If the comments yield a consensus that the statement is indeed incorrect and should be fixed (that is to say, the error isn't so detrimental to the answer that you should abandon the answer and create a new one), what would be the most appropriate action to take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make the edit (or suggested edit if you lack the reputation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave a comment for the author to make the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvote and explain the downvote is because of the error and what needs to be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Something else I'm not thinking of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, I've usually done the first option on Stack Exchange, but I want to make sure that I follow the same kinds of protocols the Physics site does when I'm browsing questions here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I apologize if I'm &quot;leading the question&quot; because of my opinion that the first option is the correct one. I tried to make the question as neutral as possible, but bias always slips through. =(*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15912" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="a0be6960-0799-415b-9223-dda7db79df73" CreationDate="2014-12-04T17:04:12.873" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6010],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15917" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="bcebd95e-7251-437b-9e35-99c1e3c4d372" CreationDate="2014-12-04T21:26:49.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/540618251303395329" />
  <row Id="15918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="8dc95d21-73d6-4f03-88e4-9588b6447b3f" CreationDate="2014-12-05T07:03:38.943" UserDisplayName="user65081" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="(Below follows the explicit case that spurred this meta question in the first place.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot access my account because I forgot my username, can you send me the email on my profile that is not public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted stack exchange several times because I had to make a duplicate account and I want to merge them. I have not still received any response after abunch of emails acros about a week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mt problem is that when I created my google account I misspelled it. I do remember the password, but not the username, and gogle doesnt help because I do not have an alternative email phone. &#xD;&#xA;The two accounts are for users: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny, for which I have no longer access, and http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65396/wolprhram-jonny, for which I do have login access. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at the history after the second account was created all activity from the first account stopped. Plus tte similarities in the answers and other caracteristics pose no doubt I am the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there any way to bring this to the attention of some moderator that can help me? I onlt need to know the mispelled username that is private in my profile. Once I have access to both account I will be able to ask for a standard merge, which require a confirmation email sent to both accounts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;The problem has been fixed now, thanks a lot!!!!! (the problem was apparently a backlog due to the holidays weekend)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="ba60af04-4439-4035-a1cb-8d02f84d67f0" CreationDate="2014-12-06T10:02:45.237" UserId="124" Text="It's a pretty standard rule on SE sites (and on this site, in particular) that you shouldn't delete a question and then repost essentially the same question as a new post; instead, you should just edit the original post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But events of today got me thinking. Suppose you ask a question, then decide the question wasn't ready to be posted, but you think you might be able to get it ready for posting with a few days or weeks of additional time. (Like if you're busy and can't get to it right away.) The course of action I would think to suggest to you in that case (if you didn't already know what to do) would be to delete the question, come back in a week or whenever, and edit it into shape. But it seems kind of silly to expect a poster to always go hunting through their history of deleted questions to find one they've already asked on the topic. (Can non-mods even see self-deleted questions these days?) In a case like this, it doesn't seem so bad to just post a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I'm asking here is twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this situation is deleting and reposting okay? (i.e. you post a question, delete it, then come back after a significant amount of time and want to ask the question again in better form)&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming it is, what makes the boundary between an acceptable and unacceptable delete-and-repost? I suppose it depends on just why this sort of thing is not allowed in most cases in the first place. (I think I know why, but I won't say it yet so as to avoid influencing the responses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course one should always make an effort not to post a question unless you really do think it's ready, but everyone makes mistakes on this from time to time. I'm also assuming the first posting of the question got no answers and no upvotes so that there is little to no apparent harm in deleting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="ba60af04-4439-4035-a1cb-8d02f84d67f0" CreationDate="2014-12-06T10:02:45.237" UserId="124" Text="Are there acceptable circumstances to delete and repost questions? What are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="ba60af04-4439-4035-a1cb-8d02f84d67f0" CreationDate="2014-12-06T10:02:45.237" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|questions|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6331" RevisionGUID="5676ed7d-4dc5-4a0e-a678-9319abcbdc5a" CreationDate="2014-12-06T11:06:07.117" UserId="1325" Text="It's rare that an old question revives and starts attracting good answers. My own instinctive (and illogical) reaction is that new questions are inherently more interesting than old ones, and given a limited lifespan I commit what free time I do have to answering new questions. I can't speak for other members, but I suspect I'm not alone in this. Indeed, if an old question is edited then reopened I may not even realise, since I generally sort questions chronologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may well also be the case that a closed question is fundamentally flawed. Yes, it could be comprehensively rewritten, but then isn't that really a new question rather than an edit of the old?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't obvious to me why deleting questions is such a bad thing anyway. I suppose I'd be annoyed if I put a lot of work into answering, only to have my answer deleted along with the question, but then you're proposing deletion only if there are no upvotes or answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have no problem with allowing questions to be deleted and a similar question reposted. It should be fairly obvious if a user is abusing the privilege, and in fact I'm sure we've seen such behaviour before and the sky hasn't fallen (though the offenders are no longer with us :-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="ef03438d-2a68-406f-b424-03818666ad6d" CreationDate="2014-12-06T11:20:35.397" UserId="124" Comment="add references" Text="It's a pretty standard rule on SE sites (and on this site, in particular) that you shouldn't delete a question and then repost essentially the same question as a new post; instead, you should just edit the original post. (cf. MSE questions [1](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/168017), [2](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/176612), [3](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/175110), [4](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/7046))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But events of today got me thinking. Suppose you ask a question, then decide the question wasn't ready to be posted, but you think you might be able to get it ready for posting with a few days or weeks of additional time. (Like if you're busy and can't get to it right away.) The course of action I would think to suggest to you in that case (if you didn't already know what to do) would be to delete the question, come back in a week or whenever, and edit it into shape. But it seems kind of silly to expect a poster to always go hunting through their history of deleted questions to find one they've already asked on the topic. (Can non-mods even see self-deleted questions these days?) In a case like this, it doesn't seem so bad to just post a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I'm asking here is twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this situation is deleting and reposting okay? (i.e. you post a question, delete it, then come back after a significant amount of time and want to ask the question again in better form)&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming it is, what makes the boundary between an acceptable and unacceptable delete-and-repost? I suppose it depends on just why this sort of thing is not allowed in most cases in the first place. (I think I know why, but I won't say it yet so as to avoid influencing the responses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course one should always make an effort not to post a question unless you really do think it's ready, but everyone makes mistakes on this from time to time. I'm also assuming the first posting of the question got no answers and no upvotes so that there is little to no apparent harm in deleting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="7428170b-a328-4d99-9eb9-289ddcb88dc6" CreationDate="2014-12-07T13:54:11.660" UserId="124" Text="[![Physics Forums][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Txu0Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsforums.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15926" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="5d087554-7866-4902-81cb-a7481d813759" CreationDate="2014-12-07T13:54:11.660" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="15927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="87071d03-2b9f-4808-8fdc-edff6fdc040d" CreationDate="2014-12-07T14:37:54.497" UserId="63384" Text="Once, what happened is I answered a question which obviously I thought as an appropriate answer to that question. But after some time, the question was edited by the 'asker' itself. The edit changed the slight meaning of the question. Although it didn't affect the question much. But what about my answer?. I got many down-votes for my answer (which was appropriate before the editing of the question). This is something **unfare** and shouldn't happen. Now, what can one do if He/She is in my position?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="87071d03-2b9f-4808-8fdc-edff6fdc040d" CreationDate="2014-12-07T14:37:54.497" UserId="63384" Text="What happens if a question is edited after we answer it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="87071d03-2b9f-4808-8fdc-edff6fdc040d" CreationDate="2014-12-07T14:37:54.497" UserId="63384" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="5abec568-36e0-4117-8fe7-9ec794801ecd" CreationDate="2014-12-07T15:14:40.487" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Once, what happened is I answered a question which obviously I thought as an appropriate answer to that question. But after some time, the question was edited by the 'asker' itself. The edit changed the slight meaning of the question. Although it didn't affect the question much. But what about my answer?. I got many down-votes for my answer (which was appropriate before the editing of the question). This is something **unfair** and shouldn't happen. Now, what can one do if He/She is in my position?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="5abec568-36e0-4117-8fe7-9ec794801ecd" CreationDate="2014-12-07T15:14:40.487" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="08ca4872-3420-41dd-8c49-112d342284c2" CreationDate="2014-12-07T19:17:29.017" UserId="124" Text="What you can (and should) do is edit your answer to match the updated question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if the question is edited _drastically_, so much that it's asking something _completely_ different and thus invalidates any answers that have been posted, that's a different story. That's not supposed to happen. So in that case you can roll back the edit to the question. If you're not sure whether the edit is drastic enough to qualify for rolling back, you can ask for a second opinion in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or here on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="4818ddae-eb01-4be4-8d65-a3f979e05ab4" CreationDate="2014-12-08T06:36:56.353" UserId="16015" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: another web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://oss.arxitics.com/images/arxitics.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="9c5e6e52-8eae-45a2-8233-18f438469ab2" CreationDate="2014-12-08T07:22:44.283" UserId="16015" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: specialized web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://oss.arxitics.com/images/arxitics.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="59de6fd5-deaf-4b60-8949-47d92031d058" CreationDate="2014-12-08T11:43:01.577" UserId="26076" Text="I think we all share your experiences John. Like you, on the whole I don't mind a bit: I also gain as much as I give simply in reading other people's responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed there is a sense wherein this experience is definitely a good thing. Let me try to demonstrate this by telling the kind of situation in which I am shamelessly seeking reputation by answering exactly the kind of popular question you speak of. I do do this (or try from time to time - I'm not often successful) and here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my many reasons for becoming active on this site is that I saw it as a place not only to test and hone my knowledge of physics, but also to test and improve my ability as a technical writer. I am not at a University and have no formal experience in teaching, but I am doing more and more volunteer work at my daughter's school and other places and am interested in what makes a good technical writer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole, the answers I am proudest of score 2, 3 or 4 at the very very most, are accepted by the OP and the OP makes a comment or two that shows that they have learnt something from my efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But sometimes I see a question that I think &quot;there's something I see people having misconceptions with, and I think I can write an answer that most competent and open laypeople would get&quot; - and this is when I really do shamelessly measure the worth of my answer by how many upvotes I get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only does the world need good scientists, it desperately needs those who can convey their ideas well and effectively. Remember Richard Feynman, accepting the challenge of explaining the spin statistics theorem and saying &quot;I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it&quot; and then, a week later conceding that he couldn't do it and thus concluding that this means we (the physics community) don't really understand the SST. I admire Feynman enormously, his life and his work, but this is probably the anecdote about him that pierced into me most deeply. So in this sense I see it as altogether appropriate that the popular questions should be the ones to score well even though I fully understand your frustration. This doesn't mean the others are without worth - I think like you if this site were only popular questions I wouldn't be here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="8d512880-fd64-4d7c-9cb5-9e975faf6e48" CreationDate="2014-12-09T20:26:40.687" UserId="2451" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="A question has arisen if shopping advice posts is off-topic and should be kept closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12466/3694&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/151437/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that this is not a question _on physics_, but how does one otherwise ask the fellow physicists for this kind of information? Experimental physics _is_ to a large extent about choosing the right makers. Besides, the [question 12466](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12466/3694) is not just about _where to buy_ these liquids, but mainly about why they are so rare on the market. I have never worked with them, so do not know, and was asking for help. People experience in refractometry / microscopy might have been able to answer question 12466." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="8fc1fff6-743c-4f5b-b680-f00d0d354403" CreationDate="2014-12-11T03:49:31.030" UserId="66335" Text="It makes no sense to require such high reputation just to add comments. It's possible that trolls can study enough physics to stick around a few days and get good reputation by asking interesting question, give best answer, etc., and then start being &quot;bad&quot; on this site after they get to 50. Higher reputation isn't assurance that only good quality answers come from the person in question who has achieved it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is like voting a president and then they can lead the country to the floor afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would like the reputation changed to perhaps 10 or 20 at most, as that's more fair and logical, reasonable, and achievable in a respectable amount of time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel it's an insult against me personally if the reputation is too high, like putting me underneath the users who have the power to post comments anywhere and anything they want. Consequently, I ask that you please lower it and be fair for everyone here, not keep it at 50 to keep the elite users in control." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="8fc1fff6-743c-4f5b-b680-f00d0d354403" CreationDate="2014-12-11T03:49:31.030" UserId="66335" Text="Why do you need 50 reputation to comment on other posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="8fc1fff6-743c-4f5b-b680-f00d0d354403" CreationDate="2014-12-11T03:49:31.030" UserId="66335" Text="|discussion|reputation|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="2bd23e3f-5dfa-4ca8-9e28-19b3081b5a97" CreationDate="2014-12-11T04:20:37.117" UserId="47511" Text="This place is teeming with physics Nobel prize winners. But except for Prof. 't Hooft who won the prize in the past, they will win it in the future. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="906aa5aa-d2a3-4c40-a40e-f16f114a2fd6" CreationDate="2014-12-11T05:08:07.513" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|reputation|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="67cca3a6-9f74-433c-87a6-399966b8d759" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:25:47.833" UserId="31790" Text="I go to the site banner and click on &quot;help&quot; and then &quot;help center&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I see a search box which promises to search the help pages.&#xD;&#xA;I type in &quot;TeX&quot; and hit `Search`.&#xD;&#xA;No results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would seem to be a barrier for n00bs (I'm making this post because someone is asking me for a reference on how TeX works on this site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we improve this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="67cca3a6-9f74-433c-87a6-399966b8d759" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:25:47.833" UserId="31790" Text="Can we make TeX instructions easier to find?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="67cca3a6-9f74-433c-87a6-399966b8d759" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:25:47.833" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="c5f2133c-3be3-468b-8e30-2a7c88b65a99" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:09:57.967" UserId="124" Text="You stumbled on the unfortunate fact that our [notation help page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation) did not include the word &quot;TeX&quot;. It did include both &quot;LaTeX&quot; and &quot;MathJax&quot; so searching for either of those would have found it. Anyway, I've fixed that by expanding the help page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="62142cc4-6693-4868-8d35-fe229de439c7" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:22:46.217" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Frustrating! The new CAPTCHA  really begger's description. First, they want to type a number for verification, then they ask to copy a big code and to paste it. Then what?? Nothing happens! 2 minuites within had I pasted it. But nothing happens then; the page remains same;-( &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been thus able to post nothing for the past 2 days! Previously it didn't happen. Just type a number and your quo/ans is posted. But what's going on now?  What's causing the problem?? I am using Nokia 2700c; **does using this mobile a sin?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="62142cc4-6693-4868-8d35-fe229de439c7" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:22:46.217" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Why is the new CAPTCHA troubling me from posting quo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="62142cc4-6693-4868-8d35-fe229de439c7" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:22:46.217" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="cfa43acb-3778-4c43-bdec-6f79e3823f85" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:38:46.873" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Frustrating! The new CAPTCHA  really begger's description. First, they want to type a number for verification, then they ask to copy a big code and to paste it. Then what? Nothing happens! 2 minuites within had I pasted it. But nothing happens then; the page remains same;-( &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been thus able to post nothing for the past 2 days! Previously it didn't happen. Just type a number and your quo/ans is posted. But what's going on now?  What's causing the problem? I am using Nokia 2700c; Is using this mobile the cause? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="cfa43acb-3778-4c43-bdec-6f79e3823f85" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:38:46.873" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|login|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16955" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="cfa43acb-3778-4c43-bdec-6f79e3823f85" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:38:46.873" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why is the new CAPTCHA troubling me from posting question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="9f627260-4481-45ae-a42a-1f035fae9fec" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:42:31.933" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="modified the body" Text="Frustrating! The new CAPTCHA  really begger's description. First, they want to type a number for verification, then they ask to copy a big code and to paste it. Then what?? Nothing happens! 2 minuites within had I pasted it. But nothing happens then; the page remains same;-( &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been thus able to post nothing for the past 2 days! Previously it didn't happen. Just type a number and then pressing **verify** button, your quo/ans is posted.  But what's going on now? There is no **verify** button in the 2nd page. So, what should I do after posting the code?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's causing the problem?? I am using Nokia 2700c and my browser is Opera; **does using this outdated mobile a sin?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[N.B. : How did I post this question? Actually I also don't know. I have 2 browsers: Opera 7; the pre-installed Opera Mini. When I tried to post a quo on the former, it would ask for human verification and sometimes not. The same does happen for the later! God knows why it happens so:-|. Call it my luck or so, when I posted this question, I didn't get human verification. And so I could post this quo:-x ]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16957" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="9f627260-4481-45ae-a42a-1f035fae9fec" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:42:31.933" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="modified the body" Text="Why is the new CAPTCHA troubling me from posting questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="417d0f19-996d-4a9f-af79-e11c584a3551" CreationDate="2014-12-12T15:05:51.627" UserId="23473" Text="It's unfortunate to hear that you are so personally offended. I assure you that the people who implemented this policy were probably not aware of your existence when they made it, so I hope that knowledge helps to lessen the amount you feel personally insulted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sad reality is that this policy works extremely well. 50 reputation points is not difficult to come by for any users that intend to contribute more than one or two opinions. It is not restricting commenting to the elite users since any user that spends a day or three on this site could easily accumulate the necessary reputation if they wanted to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you seem very avid to have this policy changed to something more to your own personal liking, you need to realize that there are a significant number of other people that use this network; majority of whom enjoy this policy. That means that in order you to change this policy to what you want it to be, the owners of the site would have to change it away from what the vast majority wants it to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked in your post that we be fair to everyone here and you imply that the reputation requirement be fair, logical, and achievable in a reasonable amount of time. That is a noble request. It's understandably impossible to be fair towards everyone all of the time, but we can strive for fairness to the majority. The current policy satisfies the wants of the majority; it is in place to decrease the occurrence of spam, trolling, etc; the necessary rep is low enough that it can be earned by writing one or two good posts or through 25 approved edits; and it is widely agreed that it works well and does not exclude anyone unnecessarily. These make it fulfill the requirements of your request. In trying to be logical, reasonable, and fair towards the greatest number of people, it is a good idea for us to leave the policy as is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you may still view this as unfair or unacceptable. If so, the only thing I can tell you is that some things in life will seem unfair to you and some things can not be made to change simply because you disapprove. Learning to live with and not be angered by minor inconveniences (and that is exactly what this is; not being able to post a comment on Physics.SE is no more than a minor inconvenience in your life) is something we all must do. Life sometimes isn't fair." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="adbdfa80-fb3f-41c0-ad6a-971697bd70d3" CreationDate="2014-12-12T17:44:55.757" UserId="62173" Text="Is there already a pre-defined feature in SE that allows one to print a post along with its answers and comments in a readable format? I have tried printing the page just via the browser, but it cuts through sentences and answers, and the outputs are usually very ugly (poor formatting). Since there are many many valuable and complete answers on physics.SE, it would be really nice if there was a print option that would keep the formatting of the post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="adbdfa80-fb3f-41c0-ad6a-971697bd70d3" CreationDate="2014-12-12T17:44:55.757" UserId="62173" Text="Is there a printable version of posts in SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="adbdfa80-fb3f-41c0-ad6a-971697bd70d3" CreationDate="2014-12-12T17:44:55.757" UserId="62173" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="106c3b7a-50b6-4c1b-968c-9f98ad5ad6a2" CreationDate="2014-12-12T18:04:00.537" UserId="25301" Text="As discussed on [Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22877/printing-out-stack-overflow-questions), you can try&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.stackprinter.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you need is the site name (Physics, in this case) and the question ID. The latter is found by clicking the link of the question and finding the number after `questions`, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/152937/what-am-i-doing-wrong-heredynamicsthey-should-give-the-same-answer &#xD;&#xA;                                               ^ here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you can print it off. It does keep all the latex and images (the link I chose above I know has some images and latex and it looks fine in my print-view)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="bd2d37cd-fa28-4162-9284-2ccd1e1e0dbd" CreationDate="2014-12-12T22:26:28.107" UserId="66236" Text="For a couple of dates my reputation is not being updated. Do you have some policy on that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="bd2d37cd-fa28-4162-9284-2ccd1e1e0dbd" CreationDate="2014-12-12T22:26:28.107" UserId="66236" Text="Reputation not changing overtime though questions answered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="bd2d37cd-fa28-4162-9284-2ccd1e1e0dbd" CreationDate="2014-12-12T22:26:28.107" UserId="66236" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="d6941e01-01c8-4c20-a1ea-a199fb4f8629" CreationDate="2014-12-12T22:33:22.920" UserId="24653" Text="[Looking at your profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66236/sakhan?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest), it seems you simply didn't get any upvotes on your recent answers, so they didn't net you any reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16971" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="fa7dd36d-494c-480b-9250-6b944a5912dd" CreationDate="2014-12-12T22:34:28.623" UserId="24653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="ce41309b-5d32-4aea-81e9-1974629c601f" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:07:59.663" UserId="65616" Text="Can we write MathJax commands in comments (and in chat)? If not, I believe we should add such a feature..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="ce41309b-5d32-4aea-81e9-1974629c601f" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:07:59.663" UserId="65616" Text="Can we use MathJax in comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="ce41309b-5d32-4aea-81e9-1974629c601f" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:07:59.663" UserId="65616" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="7ec61b46-e3d5-430e-8cae-7113f07a7ecb" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:19:22.193" UserId="56299" Text="I was just checking the First Posts review queue, and I found this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146862/many-body-quantum-rotors#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strange that it should be there, given that it's from mid-November and I haven't seen it before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have an idea why it was there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="7ec61b46-e3d5-430e-8cae-7113f07a7ecb" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:19:22.193" UserId="56299" Text="Old-ish first post showed up in review queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="7ec61b46-e3d5-430e-8cae-7113f07a7ecb" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:19:22.193" UserId="56299" Text="|bug|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="6b2928a8-c89c-4ab7-9c08-a0498e1156ac" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:21:22.370" UserId="56299" Text="Yep, we can use MathJax in comments. You use the regular dollar signs and notation. Be wary, though, of how many dollar signs you use, as choosing the wrong number in a given scenario tends to make the posts harder to read. However, it doesn't seem to work on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For chat, see [this page](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support/3297#3297)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="aafd461a-74f0-4536-a61a-53048b61dce5" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:29:10.813" UserId="2911" Text="The author's [*original* first post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/145449/general-gaussian-distribution-relation) was migrated to a different site some time ago, and the system just now got around to cleaning up the stub. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes the *second* post from that author the new first. Which is why you were presented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is reasonably common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="05da1d0e-f5f5-4ea3-a662-58f7ef644398" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:41:11.680" UserId="56299" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Yep, we can use MathJax in comments. You use the regular dollar signs and notation. Be wary, though, of how many dollar signs you use, as choosing the wrong number in a given scenario tends to make the posts harder to read. However, it doesn't seem to work anywhere on meta (note even on questions and answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For chat, see [this page](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support/3297#3297)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="33018d37-dea4-4e33-82da-ae566dc59246" CreationDate="2014-12-13T00:43:08.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/543566759257980929" />
  <row Id="16982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="8f00310b-33ad-40aa-b320-237f91e20986" CreationDate="2014-12-13T04:55:20.177" UserId="24142" Text="Well, another easy way to get reputation is to create a FAQ and answer it yourself, like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How does the Hubble parameter change with the age of the universe?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joking aside, I share the frustration that basic questions get far more attention than advanced ones. When I look at my own most-upvoted answers, I also see that many of them are answers that took me the least effort to write, while complex answers on which I spent a significant amount of time hardly got any votes at all. Now, this is of course perfectly logical, and I'm OK with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's one 'feature' of SE that sticks out like a sore thumb: once a popular question gets enough views, it ends up in the 'Hot Network Questions' queue. If that happens, the views (and votes) are boosted up enormously, far higher than it usually deserves. I find this very unfair; there already is a significant discrepancy in the rewards given to answering 'popular' and 'specialized' questions, and this arbitrary feature increases it even more. I think this can discourage people from devoting their precious time to write high-quality answers on advanced subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know how this can be fixed. One could argue to simply get rid of the 'Hot Network Questions' list. But I admit that I quite like reading what's going on on the various SE sites. It makes fun reading, and one such question has actually prompted me to become a member of another SE site. It's a very effective way to promote the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, some sort of restriction might be put on the upvotes of these questions; but such measures would also be arbitrary and somewhat unfair. And of course, there are other ways in which a question can suddenly gain a lot of publicity: for example, the views will also increase substantially if the question is linked to on a popular external site like Reddit. These 'outside' influences are even harder to control, and frankly they shouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been thinking about another way to counter this effect, namely by rewarding 'advanced' answers. Perhaps we can devise a method to measure the quality of someone's answers, in addition to the amount of votes they get. I have such an idea, and I would be interested in everyone's opinion, so I will post it as a separate topic. Stay tuned..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="d9df7a88-2ba2-49bf-9793-e2c58f5e30d8" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:48:31.067" UserId="24142" Text="This is a follow-up post on John Rennie's topic [The secret to getting a massive reputation is](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is), and [my answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is) therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been wondering if it is possible to implement an additional reputation score that rewards high-quality answers more than basic answers. I have such a proposal, and I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is as follows: the standard reputation system treats every vote the same: each vote counts as 10 points. That's all very nice and democratic, but it doesn't reflect the quality of an answer; the score depends heavily on the popularity of the question. But perhaps we can also give answers a *weighted* vote, such that the score you get not only depends on how many votes you received, but also on *who* has given the upvotes. In particular, a vote from a high-rep user will give you a higher score than a vote from a low-rep user. Now, I'm not in favour of having this 'quality score' displayed on every individual answer, because that might influence other voters. Instead, I'd prefer for each user to have an 'overall quality score', calculated from all their received votes combined, updated once a day, and displayed next to their total reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics. So they will likely also read and vote on these more advanced subjects. Therefore, while these topics attract less votes, those votes are more likely to come from high-rep users (though not always; there are also specialists who have not built up a high reputation. No system is perfect). On the other hand, more basic questions will attract more casual users with lower reputations. Also, high-rep users have more experience with the site, and will more often recognize and appreciate a high-quality answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next problem is then to decide how the votes should be weighted. There are of course a lot of possible ways, so I'll just give a simple example. Consider the following distribution: The horizontal axis has all the users who have voted at least once, sorted according to their reputation, from highest to lowest. The vertical axis has the total amount of upvotes given by each user. Then divide this distribution into 9 areas, representing 9 user groups, such that the total amount of votes that each group has given is roughly the same (some rounding off is needed so that each user falls into one group). The upvotes of the group of highest-rep users are worth a score of 18; the votes of users of group 2 are worth a score of 16; the votes of users in groups 3 to 9 are worth 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2, respectively. In this manner, the average score of all the votes of the entire site will be 10 (rounded off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you get an upvote from someone in group 1 (the top users), you get 18 points. If you get an upvote from someone in group 9 (the lowest-rep users), you get 2 points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can refine this system further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign an additional quality score to a received bounty;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign a higher quality score to votes from people who have posted an answer to the same question. After all, a vote from a 'competitor' is an acknowledgement that your answer is of high quality;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvotes can also be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any interest in this feature? Is it worth doing? Is it actually doable? Do you have alternative ideas? I look forward to your feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="d9df7a88-2ba2-49bf-9793-e2c58f5e30d8" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:48:31.067" UserId="24142" Text="The secret to rewarding high-quality answers is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="d9df7a88-2ba2-49bf-9793-e2c58f5e30d8" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:48:31.067" UserId="24142" Text="|discussion|feature-request|answers|reputation|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="7a25987a-338a-4a84-9c6e-f6f7491e039b" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:54:16.617" UserId="24142" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body" Text="This is a follow-up post on John Rennie's topic [The secret to getting a massive reputation is](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is), and [my answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6352/24142) therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been wondering if it is possible to implement an additional reputation score that rewards high-quality answers more than basic answers. I have such a proposal, and I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is as follows: the standard reputation system treats every vote the same: each vote counts as 10 points. That's all very nice and democratic, but it doesn't reflect the quality of an answer; the score depends heavily on the popularity of the question. But perhaps we can also give answers a *weighted* vote, such that the score you get not only depends on how many votes you received, but also on *who* has given the upvotes. In particular, a vote from a high-rep user will give you a higher score than a vote from a low-rep user. Now, I'm not in favour of having this 'quality score' displayed on every individual answer, because that might influence other voters. Instead, I'd prefer for each user to have an 'overall quality score', calculated from all their received votes combined, updated once a day, and displayed next to their total reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics. So they will likely also read and vote on these more advanced subjects. Therefore, while these topics attract less votes, those votes are more likely to come from high-rep users (though not always; there are also specialists who have not built up a high reputation. No system is perfect). On the other hand, more basic questions will attract more casual users with lower reputations. Also, high-rep users have more experience with the site, and will more often recognize and appreciate a high-quality answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next problem is then to decide how the votes should be weighted. There are of course a lot of possible ways, so I'll just give a simple example. Consider the following distribution: The horizontal axis has all the users who have voted at least once, sorted according to their reputation, from highest to lowest. The vertical axis has the total amount of upvotes given by each user. Then divide this distribution into 9 areas, representing 9 user groups, such that the total amount of votes that each group has given is roughly the same (some rounding off is needed so that each user falls into one group). The upvotes of the group of highest-rep users are worth a score of 18; the votes of users of group 2 are worth a score of 16; the votes of users in groups 3 to 9 are worth 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2, respectively. In this manner, the average score of all the votes of the entire site will be 10 (rounded off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you get an upvote from someone in group 1 (the top users), you get 18 points. If you get an upvote from someone in group 9 (the lowest-rep users), you get 2 points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can refine this system further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign an additional quality score to a received bounty;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign a higher quality score to votes from people who have posted an answer to the same question. After all, a vote from a 'competitor' is an acknowledgement that your answer is of high quality;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvotes can also be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any interest in this feature? Is it worth doing? Is it actually doable? Do you have alternative ideas? I look forward to your feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="f614ffc6-4d5b-4773-ab72-b91b3ed07c9d" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:55:11.647" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="... obviously to answer simple questions about everyday life:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148953/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and that answer has so far scored just a single upvote&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that get the most upvotes are going to be the simple ones that everyone can understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to NikolajK's comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The very nature of StackOverflow's structure has it such that only those who answer simple questions of the most popular programming languages will get a reward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the reward for participating in the Physics SE is just the rep points you get then, well, each to his own but I think this is a poor way to approach the Physics SE and probably life in general. Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers don't attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of people around here put lots of effort in for effectively no reward, and the moderators not only get no reward but have to put up with criticism every time someone disagrees with their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And long may it remain so. As long as the world is a better place with the Physics SE than it would be without it then you can count me in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which could of course just mean it's a crap answer :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="f614ffc6-4d5b-4773-ab72-b91b3ed07c9d" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:55:11.647" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="The secret to getting a massive reputation is ___" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="aba4885c-3176-47fe-924f-482aad80fa36" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:58:03.267" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body; edited title" Text="This is a follow-up post on John Rennie's topic http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6303/, and [my answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6352/24142) therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been wondering if it is possible to implement an additional reputation score that rewards high-quality answers more than basic answers. I have such a proposal, and I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is as follows: the standard reputation system treats every vote the same: each vote counts as 10 points. That's all very nice and democratic, but it doesn't reflect the quality of an answer; the score depends heavily on the popularity of the question. But perhaps we can also give answers a *weighted* vote, such that the score you get not only depends on how many votes you received, but also on *who* has given the upvotes. In particular, a vote from a high-rep user will give you a higher score than a vote from a low-rep user. Now, I'm not in favour of having this 'quality score' displayed on every individual answer, because that might influence other voters. Instead, I'd prefer for each user to have an 'overall quality score', calculated from all their received votes combined, updated once a day, and displayed next to their total reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics. So they will likely also read and vote on these more advanced subjects. Therefore, while these topics attract less votes, those votes are more likely to come from high-rep users (though not always; there are also specialists who have not built up a high reputation. No system is perfect). On the other hand, more basic questions will attract more casual users with lower reputations. Also, high-rep users have more experience with the site, and will more often recognize and appreciate a high-quality answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next problem is then to decide how the votes should be weighted. There are of course a lot of possible ways, so I'll just give a simple example. Consider the following distribution: The horizontal axis has all the users who have voted at least once, sorted according to their reputation, from highest to lowest. The vertical axis has the total amount of upvotes given by each user. Then divide this distribution into 9 areas, representing 9 user groups, such that the total amount of votes that each group has given is roughly the same (some rounding off is needed so that each user falls into one group). The upvotes of the group of highest-rep users are worth a score of 18; the votes of users of group 2 are worth a score of 16; the votes of users in groups 3 to 9 are worth 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2, respectively. In this manner, the average score of all the votes of the entire site will be 10 (rounded off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you get an upvote from someone in group 1 (the top users), you get 18 points. If you get an upvote from someone in group 9 (the lowest-rep users), you get 2 points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can refine this system further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign an additional quality score to a received bounty;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign a higher quality score to votes from people who have posted an answer to the same question. After all, a vote from a 'competitor' is an acknowledgement that your answer is of high quality;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvotes can also be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any interest in this feature? Is it worth doing? Is it actually doable? Do you have alternative ideas? I look forward to your feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16990" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="aba4885c-3176-47fe-924f-482aad80fa36" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:58:03.267" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body; edited title" Text="The secret to rewarding high-quality answers is ___" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="2a0c606a-0d4a-4946-a234-a2fc54b973e0" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:59:29.010" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Reputation not changing over time though questions answered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="662cca12-88bf-4f00-899d-32f76b198e47" CreationDate="2014-12-13T08:25:50.623" UserId="102" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16993" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="5c74d972-9727-4b26-bd59-913607a186ce" CreationDate="2014-12-13T08:42:47.807" UserId="24142" Comment="edited title" Text="The secret to getting rewarded for high-quality answers is ___" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6354" RevisionGUID="533e2a4a-c011-4bc4-a3e2-dd8e034dd56e" CreationDate="2014-12-13T10:18:12.200" UserId="124" Text="&gt; The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is where I think the argument breaks. High reputation comes from experience using the site, not necessarily knowledge about the subject area, so I wouldn't expect that high-rep users are more qualified to judge the correctness of an answer than low- or moderate-rep users. They may be more qualified than the average _new_ user (someone who has posted perhaps one or two times, if that), but most of that group probably doesn't vote anyway so I don't think this proposal would make a difference in that respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to weight votes by the expertise of the person casting them, I think the statistic that would make sense to look at is the number of highly upvoted answers, and to some extent the level to which they are upvoted, on questions that share a tag with the question being answered. That way people who have demonstrated expertise in the topic(s) of the question get to cast the most influential votes. But that would be a complicated calculation, and I don't know if SE's servers could handle it in real time or near real time, and in any case who knows if it would really do any better. It'd be an interesting quantity to compute offline, but you can't do it without access to individual vote data (which is not released).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, what you're proposing is basically applying [PageRank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank) to answers. Google's history shows that it's not difficult for users to adjust their voting and posting behavior to game this system, and that leads to a whole new set of problems which become considerably more complex to deal with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6355" RevisionGUID="3b39605c-97d4-4190-b61b-5c1b62fecb6e" CreationDate="2014-12-13T23:54:27.770" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I stopped reading right there and perhaps you'll stop reading right here - or maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, when you focus your mind and put in the effort to write an answer on an advanced topic that you're proud of, *isn't that the most valuable reward*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my opinion that there are actually relatively few here whose upvotes are meaningful in any significant way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, when you write an answer on an advanced topic, relatively few will be able to judge if it is a helpful answer or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you think carefully about this, you should *expect* that advanced topic answers, no matter how wonderful, will receive less upvotes than 'off-the-cuff' answers to basic questions that happen to get a lot of page views and upvotes from those that could not begin to appreciate the advanced topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, one should not be dispirited by this perfectly understandable state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="58b776d5-de68-43a9-9033-b55ee7f5e172" CreationDate="2014-12-14T11:55:36.270" UserId="34274" Text="I think a great answer (note I'm not saying **the** great answer since there can be more than one) to a question has a few qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **distinct**, in the sense either it goes about answering the question in a novel way other answers don't, or it just outperforms other people's explanations using the same methodologies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **accessible**, if many people can look at your answer and pull something of value from it then it's a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **organized**, and people can extract the information they need in an organized manner without much extra effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **hard to ignore**, it's got some kind of eye-catching flair to it that draws in the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and most importantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It **enriches the conversation**, you may even ending up deviating some from the actual question but for the sake of enriching the conversation, providing greater context, or providing a new insight that *the question would benefit from*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least that's my five cents..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="6d588ca3-1a95-45cb-aad9-1539a3084b4b" CreationDate="2014-12-14T23:24:52.323" UserId="34274" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="I think a great answer (note I'm not saying **the** great answer since there can be more than one) to a question has a few qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **distinct**, in the sense either it goes about answering the question in a novel way other answers don't, or it just outperforms other people's explanations using the same methodologies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **accessible**, if many people can look at your answer and pull something of value from it then it's a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **organized**, and people can extract the information they need in an organized manner without much extra effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **hard to ignore**, it's got some kind of eye-catching flair to it that draws in the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and most importantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It **enriches the conversation**, you may even ending up deviating some from the actual question but for the sake of enriching the conversation, providing greater context, or providing a new insight that *the question would benefit from*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least that's my five cents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theres always a constant tug of war between these angles but ultimately popular questions will usually have some kind of ratio of these different ingredients that makes them appealing to large numbers of people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="b42012bf-ecbc-4fba-b2c8-56152851adb1" CreationDate="2014-12-15T07:01:09.120" UserId="1325" Text="I take it the Christmas hat season has opened? Watch out you werewolves!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why no announcement this year? I guess SE do it every year, so maybe it's now just taken as routine. However I'm surprised there was no fanfare at all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="b42012bf-ecbc-4fba-b2c8-56152851adb1" CreationDate="2014-12-15T07:01:09.120" UserId="1325" Text="A hat! I've got a hat!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="b42012bf-ecbc-4fba-b2c8-56152851adb1" CreationDate="2014-12-15T07:01:09.120" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="a307c3e8-8234-4ab1-bba5-56f9509c2234" CreationDate="2014-12-15T07:31:47.113" UserId="124" Text="What we've posted in the past is not an announcement, really, but a request to find out whether the community wants hats. But the hats have been so well-received in the past that we figured there was no need to ask this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess an announcement would have been a good idea. We'll keep that in mind for next year. (Yes, it is an annual tradition, or at least we have every reason to expect hats will return each December for the foreseeable future.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="22433655-c12b-4c9a-a4ef-559f3a3b7d2c" CreationDate="2014-12-16T00:18:59.773" UserId="66236" Text="There is a question I have regarding profile views as shown on my homepage. If a person views a profile twice then will the homepage mentioned it as two profile views or one ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="22433655-c12b-4c9a-a4ef-559f3a3b7d2c" CreationDate="2014-12-16T00:18:59.773" UserId="66236" Text="Profile check and number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="22433655-c12b-4c9a-a4ef-559f3a3b7d2c" CreationDate="2014-12-16T00:18:59.773" UserId="66236" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="4c706faa-0ac0-43ea-a1f4-36da1c16c3b0" CreationDate="2014-12-16T03:29:50.040" UserId="25301" Text="As with most queries about the StackExchange engine, [you go to Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132688/how-are-profile-views-counted),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it is always caching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the person views it *after* the cache has been cleared ([say 15-20 minutes](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2869800/how-long-are-files-usually-kept-in-a-browsers-cache), depending on your usage), then it seems to count as a second view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="15ef20a4-9ed4-400f-942a-89356592fe06" CreationDate="2014-12-17T00:47:32.377" UserId="2451" Comment="name of handling mod is irrelevant" Text="[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12240/why-2-distributions-can-not-be-multiplied?noredirect=1) was closed and migrated to Math.SE 20 minutes ago (as of this writing). User Marek posted an answer to this question 15 minutes ago. I thought question closure/migration locks the quesion from being answerable? How did that happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17007" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="f78763a9-c0fa-4aeb-8b65-3cf10febe8e5" CreationDate="2014-12-17T09:47:59.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/545153426276253696" />
  <row Id="17018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="cf538424-e302-456d-bc56-439d7a41bcac" CreationDate="2014-12-19T01:02:16.420" UserId="65616" Text="I recently wanted to ask about a series of questions relating to pretty much the same topic. It was a pretty narrow topic, but I had too many questions to put in one major question. Therefore, I was thinking that I instead write something like this for each title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Topic question 1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Topic question 2&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Topic question 3&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would this work in this forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="cf538424-e302-456d-bc56-439d7a41bcac" CreationDate="2014-12-19T01:02:16.420" UserId="65616" Text="Can I ask a series of question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="cf538424-e302-456d-bc56-439d7a41bcac" CreationDate="2014-12-19T01:02:16.420" UserId="65616" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="f56ee8d2-f928-41e9-b58c-e469904b90ff" CreationDate="2014-12-19T01:27:09.047" UserId="25301" Text="First: the StackExchange network is *not* a forum, it is a *Question &amp; Answer* site. A forum allows discussion between many people and answers tend to get buried deep in threads (if it's ever answered). Here, we allow only questions and answers (the comments are really meant for cleaning up misunderstandings or pointing out incorrect statements or similar such things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second: There is a great Meta.StackExchange post titled [Writing a Good Title](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/writing-a-good-title) that's worth the read. A title that's simply a *label* is not descriptive, likely to be ignored, though usually someone would come along and edit it to something meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third: Since each question has a timestamp attached, we'd be able to see the temporal order which would make labeling them fruitless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two alternative suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Start with something along the lines with&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    `This is question 1 of a series (see [Q2 here](link1) and [Q3 here](link2))  `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Ask your *only* first question and get some answers. It might be that those answers guide you to (maybe even give you outright) the answer to the subsequent questions (which asking &amp; answering those anyway are totally okay)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="150dea1a-c9e0-42fc-8137-c283b7282347" CreationDate="2014-12-19T02:37:46.913" UserId="124" Text="&gt; &quot;Topic question 1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Topic question 2&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Topic question 3&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, these are terrible titles. (A good rule of thumb is that any title which includes the word &quot;question&quot; is probably a terrible title.) They do not say what is actually being asked. That's how you _should_ title your questions: ask the thing that is actually being asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no need to indicate that the questions are related. For each question, just write a title that asks your question and then put the complete question in the body, as you normally would. If you think it is useful to reference a previous question, you can mention it and link to it in the body of the new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="1e8a24a5-a3d7-4468-95c3-f8f8186cca18" CreationDate="2014-12-19T07:09:47.597" UserId="1325" Comment="Stuff" Text="I take it the Christmas hat season has opened? Watch out you werewolves!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why no announcement this year? I guess SE do it every year, so maybe it's now just taken as routine. However I'm surprised there was no fanfare at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really a comment, but I don't know how to put pictures in comments. Some of the effects we're getting with hats on the default user images are quite striking. Look at this one (user id concealed to protect the guilty):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![User icon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if the effect was deliberate or not, but I'd love to see that character on Star Trek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cKHmD.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="d112b89a-40b6-4fd4-be22-46f29b43868d" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:40:26.013" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I recently wanted to ask about a series of questions relating to pretty much the same topic. It was a pretty narrow topic, but I had too many questions to put in one major post. Therefore, I was thinking that I instead write something like this for each title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Topic question 1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Topic question 2&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Topic question 3&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this work in this forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="d112b89a-40b6-4fd4-be22-46f29b43868d" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:40:26.013" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can I ask a series of questions in enumerated subsequent posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="d112b89a-40b6-4fd4-be22-46f29b43868d" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:40:26.013" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6366" RevisionGUID="84118a54-e455-4150-8cf9-75b48cbf60f5" CreationDate="2014-12-20T05:11:06.513" UserId="59208" Text="The post [is imagary time a fifth dimension][1] may indeed have been asked before, but the referenced post is not it. That earlier one concerns Hawking's cup to avoid the point in the cone. This one involves the expression of the metric in Minkowsky spacetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't interact with the banner where this was marked and agreed to by someone, so I bring it up here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154145/is-imaginary-time-a-fifth-dimension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6366" RevisionGUID="84118a54-e455-4150-8cf9-75b48cbf60f5" CreationDate="2014-12-20T05:11:06.513" UserId="59208" Text="Not a duplicate as marked" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6366" RevisionGUID="84118a54-e455-4150-8cf9-75b48cbf60f5" CreationDate="2014-12-20T05:11:06.513" UserId="59208" Text="|support|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="011b3000-84a2-4873-a7dc-3be9c2c5d3bf" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:16:58.270" UserId="23473" Text="I've just earned the Solstice hat! Huzzah! And I see that several others have earned it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now as far as I know from reading its requirement, that hat is earned by posting a comment on 12/21. Today is 12/20 in UTC time. What's up with this? Is it a bug? Have I discovered time travel? Should I not be pointing this out so that I can keep the hat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="011b3000-84a2-4873-a7dc-3be9c2c5d3bf" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:16:58.270" UserId="23473" Text="I'm a time traveller! You are too!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="011b3000-84a2-4873-a7dc-3be9c2c5d3bf" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:16:58.270" UserId="23473" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="da93f634-39b2-4fc7-9349-f82c25bb37c3" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:21:47.107" UserId="124" Text="I disagree; the original question doesn't say that it's asking specifically about Hawking's use of the idea. It just asks what imaginary time is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if the closed question really is different, it should be edited to explain why it differs from other questions (including the linked duplicate). Then it could be reopened. I would note that this kind of edit is very difficult to make without changing the apparent meaning of the question, so usually it needs to be made by the original asker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="cf8480e4-7b57-4146-b8f5-7f3458d329cc" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:22:49.013" UserId="23473" Text="Had I done my homework, I'd have easily found [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/245123/262980) meta.SE post. But let's put it here for all the others that might be tempted to ask the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time-based hats are given a leeway of about 12 hours before and after the UTC day. That's to allow people in different parts of the world to fulfill the requirements during that day where they are on Earth. Since it's extra work to check where someone is and calculate the limits for them, everyone gets an extra 24 hour window. Yay! Thanks SE team!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="9e6a2982-91e0-49f7-9def-432a1c15442b" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:28:53.530" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="c505e209-07e7-4a49-837a-9e30ca54a0d0" CreationDate="2014-12-22T04:04:33.717" UserId="31790" Text="If [this question][1] had been worded like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Is it physically plausible that a lightning string could make your sweat boil and cause your clothes to explode off your body&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;without any reference to a quote from the internet, would it still have been closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154420/lightning-strikes-causing-nudity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="c505e209-07e7-4a49-837a-9e30ca54a0d0" CreationDate="2014-12-22T04:04:33.717" UserId="31790" Text="Can a question be made on-topic by hiding the real reason the OP is asking it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="c505e209-07e7-4a49-837a-9e30ca54a0d0" CreationDate="2014-12-22T04:04:33.717" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6371" RevisionGUID="646f4d71-324e-47fe-a4e0-cb6164486b8e" CreationDate="2014-12-22T10:58:55.920" UserId="1325" Text="The problem with questions like this is that they're like asking *can an elephant fly?* The answer is yes if you're allowed to start at the top of a cliff and your definition of *flight* includes trajectories normal to the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the question is not answerable from first principles in any useful way. You might say yes your clothes could be blown off if you were coated in a continuous film of sweat with a high enough conductivity and there was enough power in the lightning to vaporise all the sweat and your clothes were impermeable enough for a high pressure to be built up. But that doesn't tell us anything useful, hedged around as it is with numerous conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to approach the question would be to examine actual lightning strikes to try and establish whether the phenomenon happened, and if so what factors were common to all occurrences. At this point it might be useful to approach a physicist and try to model the specific phenomena involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think Kyle's response is spot on. Post on the Skeptics SE in the hope someone can point you to the sort of evidence mentioned above. As it stands the question isn't appropriate here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="7c8ebe89-8daf-4c92-82f1-9b577555b865" CreationDate="2014-12-22T11:03:23.257" UserId="1325" Text="If a question is based on a misapprehension then I think it is fair to close it as a duplicate of a question that explains the physics involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case a Q/A explaining what physicists mean by imaginary time is not strictly speaking an answer to the question *Is imaginary time a fifth dimension?*, but it answers the question indirectly by explaining imaginary time. That makes it a good candidate to be linked as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case flagging the duplicate worked, as I note the OP posted in a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ok, I think I'm starting to get it. Imaginary time is the result of a transformation applied to time that makes it act like a spatial dimension mathematically. Imaginary time and &quot;real time&quot; aren't two coordinates of a complex number, they're just two different ways of looking at the same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="13995940-991c-4771-b9a5-c640759e970c" CreationDate="2014-12-23T02:42:07.493" UserId="31790" Text="What's the right way to post a self-answered question on a topic which underlies many existing questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider in particular a case wherein many questions have been posed about Topic X.&#xD;&#xA;These questions are not particularly well written because the askers are not themselves experts in Topic X and so don't really know what they're asking about.&#xD;&#xA;Answers have been given, but for the most part suffer a lack of precision inherited from the relatively aimless nature of the questions themselves.&#xD;&#xA;How does one post a self answered question on Topic X, designed to provide a clear and unifying response to those poorly posed questions, without violating the duplicate rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="13995940-991c-4771-b9a5-c640759e970c" CreationDate="2014-12-23T02:42:07.493" UserId="31790" Text="How to respond to a pool of existing poorly worded questions without creating a duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="13995940-991c-4771-b9a5-c640759e970c" CreationDate="2014-12-23T02:42:07.493" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17044" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="37336418-7f19-4431-8cbf-2fbf04b9f03d" CreationDate="2014-12-23T03:29:21.817" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|questions|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="98cedcb8-f712-4242-9645-a6829c304690" CreationDate="2014-12-23T03:29:27.890" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="bb8ee24b-9311-4fb1-a23c-8f6893968289" CreationDate="2014-12-23T03:55:54.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/547239146377711616" />
  <row Id="17047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="826b114b-8022-4c01-a137-c53ff1d35442" CreationDate="2014-12-23T08:17:51.443" UserId="124" Text="Other than off topic flags, there are several different types of flags that one can cast on a question, answer, or comment. What are each of these flags for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question and answer flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- spam&#xD;&#xA;- offensive/abusive/hate speech&#xD;&#xA;- not an answer&#xD;&#xA;- very low quality&#xD;&#xA;- other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- rude or offensive&#xD;&#xA;- not constructive&#xD;&#xA;- obsolete&#xD;&#xA;- too chatty&#xD;&#xA;- other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It often happens that the same post will be flagged with 2 or 3 or more different reasons. This suggests that people are not clear about what some of the flags are meant for. I'm making this post to help people understand what the intended uses of the different flags are; this will cover only the types of answers that should _clearly_ be flagged for one particular reason, not the borderline cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="826b114b-8022-4c01-a137-c53ff1d35442" CreationDate="2014-12-23T08:17:51.443" UserId="124" Text="Which flag do I use for an inappropriate post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="826b114b-8022-4c01-a137-c53ff1d35442" CreationDate="2014-12-23T08:17:51.443" UserId="124" Text="|support|flagging|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="260a31ae-cf5a-4f40-80e0-b87ffea6fd61" CreationDate="2014-12-23T08:17:51.443" UserId="124" Text="# Question and answer flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Spam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;spam&quot; flag is for content which is both promotional _and_ irrelevant to the post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to commercial websites unrelated to physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything which is not promotional, or which constitutes an answer, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers referencing a relevant physics paper or publication (including blog posts), even if the poster is the author of the publication&#xD;&#xA;- offensive content (see below)&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of posts that should be flagged as spam:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [online poker sign up](http://example.com) **free**! win money in your spare time! Top players use our site for quick money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **International Symposium on Imaginary Physics Call For Papers** We invite you and your colleagues to submit papers to a new symposium for experts in the field of Imaginary Physics. [Click here](http://example.com) to access the signup form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;offensive&quot; flag is for content that does not constitute an answer _and_ which a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes - what other sites often call &quot;doxxing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- mild insults&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- legitimate answers which can be edited to not be offensive while preserving the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For obvious reasons, I'm hiding the examples in a spoiler tag. Hover over the quote boxes to see sample offensive answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! all these shitty answers you get when you let chinese on the site, you asked for this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! If you do not accept this answer I will come to your house at 333 Quantum Road, Hilbertsville and murder a member of your family within one year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;- anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;- answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions&#xD;&#xA;- comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; jaafjajrefaseoifjaeijfoaisnsdoj ajfauenwofjasndifnaowjnefoaijw3oeiosafaw3efnaso aksdj vaosjdfoa dfoajw efjas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Not An Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;not an answer&quot; flag is for anything posted as an answer which does not constitute so much as an _attempt_ to answer that question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers to completely different questions&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions, including requests for clarification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything that answers the question or represents a good-faith attempt to answer the question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- answers which just barely fail to address the question due to an honest misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;- anything the poster honestly thinks is a legitimate answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If gravity is $+9.8$, does that mean the train goes up in the air? I thought up was positive. Can you explain what happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Bohr's answer is good but it doesn't explain why only these certain orbits are allowed. What if you hit an electron slightly, just enough to push it out of its orbit but not into the next one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;other&quot; flag, or the &quot;flag for moderator attention&quot;, is for anything that does _not_ fit into one of the above categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Comment flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general note: if you find yourself wanting to flag many comments on the same post, it's enough to just flag one or two. When handling a comment flag, we normally look at all other comments on the post and delete them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rude or offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this flag for anything that violates the &quot;be nice&quot; rule, including anything that a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive (much like the &quot;offensive&quot; flag for answers). In particular, valid uses of this flag include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes (a.k.a. &quot;doxxing&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- comments you simply disagree with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't believe you consider yourself competent to post about string theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The examples from the &quot;offensive&quot; question/answer flag (see above) would also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;not constructive&quot; flag is for comments which do not contribute to the goal of clarifying or improving their parent post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions which should be asked independently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to related resources or potential duplicate questions&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for improving the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the only correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're not a physicist, why should I believe anything you write?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little difference between how the &quot;not constructive&quot;, &quot;too chatty&quot;, and &quot;obsolete&quot; flags are handled, so if you believe a comment should be flagged as one of those three, don't spend much time worrying about which one of the three reasons to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Too chatty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;too chatty&quot; flag is for comments which constitute idle discussion unrelated to the post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;+1 great post!&quot; or &quot;-1 this is wrong&quot; or anything along those lines, unless the comment also includes an explanation&#xD;&#xA;- greetings, thanks, and pleasantries&#xD;&#xA;- anecdotes, stories, jokes, links to XKCD comics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- discussions which are expected to result in a suggestion for improving the post&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions (which may produce a clarification)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I joined this site just to upvote your post. Great job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks for the upvote!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little difference between how the &quot;not constructive&quot;, &quot;too chatty&quot;, and &quot;obsolete&quot; flags are handled, so if you believe a comment should be flagged as one of those three, don't spend much time worrying about which one of the three reasons to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;obsolete&quot; flag is for comments that have served their purpose or outlived their usefulness, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for changes which have been incorporated into the post&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for changes which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;- requests for clarification which have been answered&#xD;&#xA;- answers to requests for clarification&#xD;&#xA;- back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;- pretty much any comment older than a week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- active discussions&#xD;&#xA;- comments you disagree with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether a comment is eligible for the &quot;obsolete&quot; flag depends entirely on its context, not its content, so it would be pointless to provide examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little difference between how the &quot;not constructive&quot;, &quot;too chatty&quot;, and &quot;obsolete&quot; flags are handled, so if you believe a comment should be flagged as one of those three, don't spend much time worrying about which one of the three reasons to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;other&quot; flag, or the &quot;flag for moderator attention&quot;, is for anything that does _not_ fit into one of the above categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I misuse a flag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your flag gets declined. This is not a big deal. There are no lasting consequences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..._unless_ you are warned that you're flagging incorrectly, and you continue to do it repeatedly, frequently, and intentionally (as far as the mods can tell). Then you'd be subject to the same disciplinary measures we use against anyone else who seriously abuses their privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples in this post are not real, but are meant to be representative of actual contributed content that would be a valid use of the respective flags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="623cc026-332f-4096-9dbb-315dac7e773b" CreationDate="2014-12-23T09:56:34.987" UserId="1325" Text="Exactly what the official SE line is I'm not sure, but I'm personnally not that fussed about duplicates. Apparent duplicates often stress different aspects of a problem, and I'm not sure it does any harm to have separate questions and answers with different perspectives on a problem. I've even occasionally flagged a question as a duplicate of a question that has itself been closed as a duplicate because I thought it had a better answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would go ahead and write your canonical question and answer. The worst that will happen is that it gets ignored, and the best that it will provide a valuable synthesis of previous related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example is the issue of wave particle duality. Even though there's a [question specifically devoted to asking what it is][1] (with 9 answers!), and [numerous other related questions][2], I still don't feel there is a perfect Q/A for the interested amateur. Maybe one day I shall attempt to write one :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46237/is-the-wave-particle-duality-a-real-duality&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=wave%20particle%20duality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17052" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="0e352f27-93c8-4ba5-ab33-d5eeaba1be73" CreationDate="2014-12-24T04:46:53.160" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="17053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="0e352f27-93c8-4ba5-ab33-d5eeaba1be73" CreationDate="2014-12-24T04:46:53.160" UserId="124" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="# Question and answer flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Spam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;spam&quot; flag is for content which is both promotional _and_ irrelevant to the post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to commercial websites unrelated to physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything which is not promotional, or which constitutes an answer, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers referencing a relevant physics paper or publication (including blog posts), even if the poster is the author of the publication&#xD;&#xA;- offensive content (see below)&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of posts that should be flagged as spam:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [online poker sign up](http://example.com) **free**! win money in your spare time! Top players use our site for quick money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **International Symposium on Imaginary Physics Call For Papers** We invite you and your colleagues to submit papers to a new symposium for experts in the field of Imaginary Physics. [Click here](http://example.com) to access the signup form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;offensive&quot; flag is for content that does not constitute an answer _and_ which a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes - what other sites often call &quot;doxxing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- mild insults&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- legitimate answers which can be edited to not be offensive while preserving the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For obvious reasons, I'm hiding the examples in a spoiler tag. Hover over the quote boxes to see sample offensive answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! all these shitty answers you get when you let chinese on the site, you asked for this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! If you do not accept this answer I will come to your house at 333 Quantum Road, Hilbertsville and murder a member of your family within one year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;- anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;- answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions&#xD;&#xA;- comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; jaafjajrefaseoifjaeijfoaisnsdoj ajfauenwofjasndifnaowjnefoaijw3oeiosafaw3efnaso aksdj vaosjdfoa dfoajw efjas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Not An Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;not an answer&quot; flag is for anything posted as an answer which does not constitute so much as an _attempt_ to answer that question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers to completely different questions&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions, including requests for clarification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything that answers the question or represents a good-faith attempt to answer the question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- answers which just barely fail to address the question due to an honest misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;- anything the poster honestly thinks is a legitimate answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If gravity is $+9.8$, does that mean the train goes up in the air? I thought up was positive. Can you explain what happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Bohr's answer is good but it doesn't explain why only these certain orbits are allowed. What if you hit an electron slightly, just enough to push it out of its orbit but not into the next one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;other&quot; flag, or the &quot;flag for moderator attention&quot;, is for anything that does _not_ fit into one of the above categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Comment flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general note: if you find yourself wanting to flag many comments on the same post, it's enough to just flag one or two. When handling a comment flag, we normally look at all other comments on the post and delete them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rude or offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this flag for anything that violates the &quot;be nice&quot; rule, including anything that a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive (much like the &quot;offensive&quot; flag for answers). In particular, valid uses of this flag include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes (a.k.a. &quot;doxxing&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- comments you simply disagree with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't believe you consider yourself competent to post about string theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The examples from the &quot;offensive&quot; question/answer flag (see above) would also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;not constructive&quot; flag is for comments which do not contribute to the goal of clarifying or improving their parent post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions which should be asked independently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to related resources or potential duplicate questions&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for improving the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the only correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're not a physicist, why should I believe anything you write?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little difference between how the &quot;not constructive&quot;, &quot;too chatty&quot;, and &quot;obsolete&quot; flags are handled, so if you believe a comment should be flagged as one of those three, don't spend much time worrying about which one of the three reasons to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Too chatty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;too chatty&quot; flag is for comments which constitute idle discussion unrelated to the post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;+1 great post!&quot; or &quot;-1 this is wrong&quot; or anything along those lines, unless the comment also includes an explanation&#xD;&#xA;- greetings, thanks, and pleasantries&#xD;&#xA;- anecdotes, stories, jokes, links to XKCD comics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- discussions which are expected to result in a suggestion for improving the post&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions (which may produce a clarification)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I joined this site just to upvote your post. Great job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks for the upvote!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little difference between how the &quot;not constructive&quot;, &quot;too chatty&quot;, and &quot;obsolete&quot; flags are handled, so if you believe a comment should be flagged as one of those three, don't spend much time worrying about which one of the three reasons to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;obsolete&quot; flag is for comments that have served their purpose or outlived their usefulness, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for changes which have been incorporated into the post, or which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;- requests for clarification which have been answered, and their answers&#xD;&#xA;- back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;- responses to comments which have been deleted&#xD;&#xA;- pretty much any comment older than a week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- active discussions&#xD;&#xA;- comments you disagree with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether a comment is eligible for the &quot;obsolete&quot; flag depends entirely on its context, not its content, so it would be pointless to provide examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little difference between how the &quot;not constructive&quot;, &quot;too chatty&quot;, and &quot;obsolete&quot; flags are handled, so if you believe a comment should be flagged as one of those three, don't spend much time worrying about which one of the three reasons to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;other&quot; flag, or the &quot;flag for moderator attention&quot;, is for anything that does _not_ fit into one of the above categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I misuse a flag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your flag gets declined. This is not a big deal. There are no lasting consequences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..._unless_ you are warned that you're flagging incorrectly, and you continue to do it repeatedly, frequently, and intentionally (as far as the mods can tell). Then you'd be subject to the same disciplinary measures we use against anyone else who seriously abuses their privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples in this post are not real, but are meant to be representative of actual contributed content that would be a valid use of the respective flags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="eee53910-16b9-45c6-8e5b-9349dd9945ca" CreationDate="2014-12-24T16:46:22.760" UserId="56299" Text="Perhaps it's unwise of me to re-open an issue that's essentially settled here, but maybe it's relevant again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, you've heard of the new site, [History of Science and Mathematics](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/). Danu, and LoganM and I are the pro-tem mods, and perhaps we'll admit to a little shameless promoting here and there on questions on various SEs that might be good on HSM. This, however, is not one of those instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ wrote, perhaps eloquently:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a rule, physicists tend not to care about it in the sense that a historian would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may be true. On the flip side, historians tend not to care about it in the sense that a scientist would. In other words, we're in between everybody, although perhaps we've been leaning a little towards the historian side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics has long said that history questions are usually on-topic. The same seems to be the case here. I'm not quite sure about how Biology, Chemistry, and Earth Science, etc. are leaning, but it's probably not a huge issue. History has decided that science questions there are absolutely on topic, and we at HSM informally rejected two migrated questions that someone shunted from History to HSM (to the consternation of just about everybody who cared).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be questions that are on-topic on HSM that are not on-topic at any of the other science or math sites. For example, take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why was Evariste Galois killed?](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/9/why-was-evariste-galois-killed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was [a meta discussion](http://meta.hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-questions-about-mathematicians-and-scientists-lives-on-topic) on the topic, with the resounding consensus that all questions about historical figures *must relate to the work of those figures.* A question about whether or not Albert Einstein liked Wiener Schnitzel would clearly be off-topic (and no, I have no idea). This sort of implies that many questions on HSM would be on-topic on the other science sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the same, though, questions that are less geared towards scientific/mathematical concepts and more towards the historical influence are possibly better for HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note: There seems to be a growing trend on Mathematics of people saying that a given question would be good for HSM. This is actually a problem, as there have been a couple cross-posting incidents. I have also noted once or twice that a question here would be good on HSM. Please, *do not* cross-post on HSM. It gets a bit messy, and is a pain for everyone. If you feel that your question is better on HSM, talk with the moderators here, as well as the pro-tem mods from HSM. I'm sure we can figure out if the question is suitable for migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="37e6f62f-0b1f-4800-9532-9f0dc9ee5b63" CreationDate="2014-12-25T14:44:22.597" UserId="31790" Text="Every now and then someone asks a &quot;homework&quot; and &quot;mathy&quot; question which gets held or closed because it's homework and math.&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a recent example][1].&#xD;&#xA;As worded the question is definitely a &quot;do my homework for me&quot; question and should be held.&#xD;&#xA;However, when I read it I think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gee, yeah, I it _would_ be nice to have some resources on this site about how to approach problems like this. As a physicist, I frequently have to deal with mathematical expressions like this one and it's super convenient to have some basic formulae and guiding words lying around so I know what direction to go in and not waste four hours going down blind alleys. In short, as a physicist, I want an answer to this _kind_ of question at my fingertips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do we do?&#xD;&#xA;It's not obvious how to record this information as a question which conforms to the site rules.&#xD;&#xA;One imagines asking something like &quot;what is the BCH formula used for?&quot;, but that's too vague and doesn't have a well defined correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;You could try &quot;What _kind_ of formula should I use to solve this _kind_ of expression?&quot; but that's not a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;One could then try to artificially inject physics into what is really a math question, but frankly that degrades the clarity of the information and, frankly, not calling a spade a spade makes my pedagogy hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154920/e-mp-i-pi-hbar-s-z-s-pm-e-pm-i-pi-hbar-s-z-s-pm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="37e6f62f-0b1f-4800-9532-9f0dc9ee5b63" CreationDate="2014-12-25T14:44:22.597" UserId="31790" Text="Is there a way incorporate mathematical expressions/tricks crucial to physicists on our site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="37e6f62f-0b1f-4800-9532-9f0dc9ee5b63" CreationDate="2014-12-25T14:44:22.597" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="c4204753-df8f-477c-a90c-bc063a4bc38f" CreationDate="2014-12-25T15:16:06.283" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Every now and then someone asks a &quot;homework&quot; and &quot;mathy&quot; question which gets held or closed because it's homework and math.&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a recent example][1].&#xD;&#xA;As worded the question is definitely a &quot;do my homework for me&quot; question and should be held.&#xD;&#xA;However, when I read it I think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gee, yeah, I it _would_ be nice to have some resources on this site about how to approach problems like this. As a physicist, I frequently have to deal with mathematical expressions like this one and it's super convenient to have some basic formulae and guiding words lying around so I know what direction to go in and not waste four hours going down blind alleys. In short, as a physicist, I want an answer to this _kind_ of question at my fingertips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do we do?&#xD;&#xA;It's not obvious how to record this information as a question which conforms to the site rules.&#xD;&#xA;One imagines asking something like &quot;what is the BCH formula used for?&quot;, but that's too vague and doesn't have a well defined correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;You could try &quot;What _kind_ of formula should I use to solve this _kind_ of expression?&quot; but that's not a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;One could then try to artificially inject physics into what is really a math question, but frankly that degrades the clarity of the information and, frankly, not calling a spade a spade makes my pedagogy hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/154920/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="c4204753-df8f-477c-a90c-bc063a4bc38f" CreationDate="2014-12-25T15:16:06.283" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="c57784fa-90bc-4e95-9431-2759d7c37485" CreationDate="2014-12-25T16:45:28.093" UserId="31790" Comment="Kicked out Frank" Text="Every now and then someone asks a &quot;homework&quot; and &quot;mathy&quot; question which gets held or closed because it's homework and math.&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a recent example][1].&#xD;&#xA;As worded the question is definitely a &quot;do my homework for me&quot; question and should be held.&#xD;&#xA;However, when I read it I think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gee, yeah, I it _would_ be nice to have some resources on this site about how to approach problems like this. As a physicist, I frequently have to deal with mathematical expressions like this one and it's super convenient to have some basic formulae and guiding words lying around so I know what direction to go in and not waste four hours going down blind alleys. In short, as a physicist, I want an answer to this _kind_ of question at my fingertips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do we do?&#xD;&#xA;It's not obvious how to record this information as a question which conforms to the site rules.&#xD;&#xA;One imagines asking something like &quot;what is the BCH formula used for?&quot;, but that's too vague and doesn't have a well defined correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;You could try &quot;What _kind_ of formula should I use to solve this _kind_ of expression?&quot; but that's not a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;One could then try to artificially inject physics into what is really a math question, but that degrades the clarity of the information and not calling a spade a spade makes my pedagogy hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/154920/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="86faeb5b-406f-4615-baf8-f069b4476704" CreationDate="2014-12-25T17:52:00.410" UserId="124" Text="Perhaps we do nothing. After all, this site is not trying to be a one-stop comprehensive resource for information about physics. There are some things people should be looking elsewhere for - &quot;elsewhere&quot; may include textbooks, class notes, Wikipedia, Hyperphysics, and all those other [resources we tell people to check before asking](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For homework questions in particular, the people who are asking these questions are not really our intended audience. (Leaving aside the occasional high-level homework question from a grad student in a QFT class or something like that.) This site is meant primarily for academics, researchers, and serious students, not for intro-level physics students who just want homework help. One of the ways we keep the intro-level students from overwhelming the site is by not providing the information they're looking for. We _want_ them to go to other sites for that information, sites which do want to help people with their homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="14ed102f-122f-418f-8021-40daaaf67e19" CreationDate="2014-12-25T19:58:37.463" UserId="34382" Comment="edited body" Text="Hmm... well, physics certainly does have a history, and it's useful to know something about that history, but as a rule, physicists tend not to care about it in the sense that a historian would. That is, the details of _when_ certain experiments were performed or when certain papers were published wind up being less important than the methodology and results of the experiments/papers themselves. So a question that just asks about the dates when certain things happened, or the order in which they happened, is probably off-topic here, but asking about the actual physics work that has been done in a particular area should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To provide an example (not the greatest), asking &quot;What events constitute the November Revolution?&quot; is not as good of a question as &quot;How did the experiment that discovered the $J/\psi$ meson work?&quot; (Of course both of these are well documented on Wikipedia and elsewhere.) Or, &quot;When was WMAP first proposed?&quot; is not as good as &quot;What made WMAP so much better than previous CMB probes?&quot; (although that last one may actually be more engineering than physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's sort of hard to tell in general. If you wanted a yes-or-no type answer, I'd say just ask the question, maybe with a link to this thread, and we'll see if it gets closed. (I promise not to downvote)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="cc051aa7-7c30-4f04-b795-aa8742282f3d" CreationDate="2014-12-28T06:34:41.820" UserId="31790" Comment="edited body" Text="If [this question][1] had been worded like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Is it physically plausible that a lightning strike could make your sweat boil and cause your clothes to explode off your body&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would it still have been closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154420/lightning-strikes-causing-nudity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="55638b56-ef56-4294-9804-49f660d63b73" CreationDate="2014-12-29T22:30:43.500" UserDisplayName="user60063" Text="Get the pitch-forks out, I am not only an experimental physicist (**not** an engineer) and a Physics teacher.  More often than not, I am denigrated for this in real life, as one theoretical physicist stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental, and especially physics teachers are the lowest on the research totem pole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rubbish, utter rubbish, as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental Physics = Theoretical Physics = Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of background, I have a PhD in Physics (not Experimental Physics etc), and are published internationally - due to circumstances currently beyond my control, I teach Physics to pay the bills, and my experiments use equipment that is often self made or borrowed, and are performed at a local lookout, or in the school science lab or on my kitchen bench.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing as grand as CERN, mine is based on what I can get from the hardware and electronics store and put together and calibrate with the borrowed 'standard' equipment.  It is often referred to as &quot;Backyard Physics&quot; - but is no less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively make useful homemade tools for use in experimental physics, physics principles must be understood and applied as a major underlying principle for the functionality of the tool.  This is not engineering, this is applied physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="4fca6619-e294-4e3f-be0c-7cc07b64120e" CreationDate="2014-12-29T22:42:15.187" UserId="31790" Comment="Removed an un-necessary joke about pitchforking experimentalists." Text="I am an experimental physicist (**not** an engineer) and a Physics teacher.  More often than not, I am denigrated for this in real life, as one theoretical physicist stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental, and especially physics teachers are the lowest on the research totem pole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rubbish, utter rubbish, as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental Physics = Theoretical Physics = Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of background, I have a PhD in Physics (not Experimental Physics etc), and are published internationally - due to circumstances currently beyond my control, I teach Physics to pay the bills, and my experiments use equipment that is often self made or borrowed, and are performed at a local lookout, or in the school science lab or on my kitchen bench.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing as grand as CERN, mine is based on what I can get from the hardware and electronics store and put together and calibrate with the borrowed 'standard' equipment.  It is often referred to as &quot;Backyard Physics&quot; - but is no less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively make useful homemade tools for use in experimental physics, physics principles must be understood and applied as a major underlying principle for the functionality of the tool.  This is not engineering, this is applied physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="5c41255e-2bb2-457e-b3dd-bcd9a887c8e1" CreationDate="2014-12-29T22:47:38.190" UserId="31790" Comment="words" Text="I am an experimental physicist (**not** an engineer) and a Physics teacher.  More often than not, I am denigrated for this in real life, as one theoretical physicist stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental, and especially physics teachers are the lowest on the research totem pole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rubbish, utter rubbish, as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental Physics = Theoretical Physics = Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of background, I have a PhD in Physics (not Experimental Physics etc), and am published internationally. Due to circumstances currently beyond my control, I teach Physics to pay the bills, and my experiments use equipment that is often self made or borrowed, and are performed at a local lookout, or in the school science lab or on my kitchen bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing as grand as CERN, my research is based on what I can get from the hardware and electronics store and put together and calibrate with the borrowed 'standard' equipment.  It is often referred to as &quot;Backyard Physics&quot; - but is no less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively make useful homemade tools for use in experimental physics, physics principles must be understood and applied as a major underlying principle for the functionality of the tool.  This is not engineering, this is applied physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17067" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="f72728db-0ffb-43f0-822d-bb9387aa3d8c" CreationDate="2014-12-29T23:26:02.817" UserDisplayName="user60063" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:60063,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sabre Tooth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17073" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="a4273340-3356-40f1-92b9-bec3ed8c4fa4" CreationDate="2014-12-30T04:31:50.660" UserDisplayName="user60063" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:60063,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sabre Tooth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="440aea6e-ab77-4d79-bff8-92839129a410" CreationDate="2014-12-30T04:39:13.310" UserDisplayName="user60063" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="I am an experimental physicist (**not** an engineer) and a Physics teacher.  More often than not, I am denigrated for this in real life, as one theoretical physicist stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental, and especially physics teachers are the lowest on the research totem pole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rubbish, utter rubbish, as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Experimental Physics = Theoretical Physics = Physics**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of background, I have a PhD in Physics (not Experimental Physics etc), and am published internationally. Due to circumstances currently beyond my control, I teach Physics to pay the bills, and my experiments use equipment that is often self made or borrowed, and are performed at a local lookout, or in the school science lab or on my kitchen bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing as grand as CERN, my research is based on what I can get from the hardware and electronics store and put together and calibrate with the borrowed 'standard' equipment.  It is often referred to as &quot;Backyard Physics&quot; - but is no less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To put it succinctly:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively make useful homemade tools for use in experimental 'backyard' physics, physics principles must be understood and applied as the major underlying principles for the functionality (and as I have found in publishing work, the validity) of the tool.  I fear that questions that are of this nature will just be closed as 'engineering' akin to 'toolmaking' - however, a question about the application of physics principles for an aspect of the tool's use is **not** engineering, but is applied physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="80e80ed3-5e83-46c5-9afa-fc98c07b64a4" CreationDate="2014-12-30T04:44:47.347" UserDisplayName="user60063" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="I am an experimental physicist (**not** an engineer) and a Physics teacher.  More often than not, I am denigrated for this in real life, as one theoretical physicist stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental, and especially physics teachers are the lowest on the research totem pole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rubbish, utter rubbish, insulting and says more about the one said it than his target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Experimental Physics = Theoretical Physics = Physics**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of background, I have a PhD in Physics (not Experimental Physics etc), and am published internationally. Due to circumstances currently beyond my control, I teach Physics to pay the bills, and my experiments use equipment that is often self made or borrowed, and are performed at a local lookout, or in the school science lab or on my kitchen bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing as grand as CERN, my research is based on what I can get from the hardware and electronics store and put together and calibrate with the borrowed 'standard' equipment.  It is often referred to as &quot;Backyard Physics&quot; - but is no less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To put it succinctly:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively make useful homemade tools for use in experimental 'backyard' physics, physics principles must be understood and applied as the major underlying principles for the functionality (and as I have found in publishing work, the validity) of the tool.  I fear that questions that are of this nature will just be closed as 'engineering' akin to 'toolmaking' - however, a question about the application of physics principles for an aspect of the tool's use is **not** engineering, but is applied physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in my question [Microtops sunphotometer sun target optics][1], I am clearly asking about the optics principles involved (applied physics) - not asking about how to build a sun target (engineering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155666/microtops-sunphotometer-sun-target-optics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="299d41dd-a5d5-4bc7-b633-34c2efafe5dd" CreationDate="2014-12-30T05:19:15.390" UserDisplayName="user60063" Text="From my own (not necessary unique) experience as a 'Backyard Physicist' (note - this is **not** the same as 'hobbyist'), I *have to* make my own tools a lot of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The division between applied physics and engineering, to me at least, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- asking about the specific physics principles involved with the specific aspect of the tool **and** questions about the measurement of a particular specific parameter are **applied physics** and ought to be on-topic as these questions seek to apply the theoretical physics principles to a practical situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- asking how a tool could be made is **engineering** and ought to be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17077" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="98c0a31e-3c51-432d-b2f4-5ab4ddb32230" CreationDate="2014-12-30T05:19:15.390" UserDisplayName="user60063" />
  <row Id="17078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="8e074e1e-f6ec-428c-8d37-4fcbf28b90ff" CreationDate="2014-12-30T05:30:19.897" UserDisplayName="user60063" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="From my own (not necessary unique) experience as a 'Backyard Physicist' (note - this is **not** the same as 'hobbyist'), I *have to* make my own tools a lot of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The division between applied physics and engineering, to me at least, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- asking about the specific physics principles involved with the specific aspect of the tool **and** questions about the measurement of a particular specific parameter are **applied physics** and ought to be on-topic as these questions seek to apply the theoretical physics principles to a practical situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- asking how a tool could be made is **engineering** and ought to be off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless a question *specifically* asks for the 2nd case, it should *not* be assumed that they are asking for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="ad0fd423-5f4b-402c-99d8-6d86ec24a83f" CreationDate="2014-12-30T20:14:46.873" UserId="8850" Text="Is this, or is this not, a question AND ANSWER site? What is the value in commenting to 'answer it yourself', 'calculate it yourself', etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is a Q&amp;A site, the way I perceive this is to either provide an answer, improve the question, or move along. I found this hostile and quite unhelpful in [a question I asked][1], and now see it again from the same user in [another user's question][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community cannot be 'bothered' to calculate anything or offer up answers, then why not reframe it into a 'we'll guide you to answer your own questions' site instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this behavior makes the community seem hostile and unwelcoming, and can be a great hindrance to new users, as well as an annoyance to regular users like myself. I come here to ask questions expecting answers, not snarky 'do it yourself' comments, and do my best to fully address the questions of others without this hostility or resistance to doing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154816/could-this-planetary-superalignment-happen&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155805/why-two-equal-resistors-cut-voltage-in-half" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="ad0fd423-5f4b-402c-99d8-6d86ec24a83f" CreationDate="2014-12-30T20:14:46.873" UserId="8850" Text="What is the value in making OPs 'answer it yourself'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="ad0fd423-5f4b-402c-99d8-6d86ec24a83f" CreationDate="2014-12-30T20:14:46.873" UserId="8850" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="1498f119-3913-4131-8a7d-5e95999ad6e4" CreationDate="2014-12-30T21:06:56.707" UserId="25301" Text="First, note that asking us to do the math for you is actually considered *off-topic* here. The [top-rated answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5960/25301) (52 upvotes, 0 downvotes at the time of writing) on the meta post [Bite-sizing homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958) states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please solve this exercise&quot; or &quot;please plug these numbers into an equation for me&quot; are **OFF topic**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had an equation (cf. your 2nd comment) and some numbers, yet you asked us to do it for you. So according to site policy, your question is actually off-topic (possibly the reason Qmechanic left the comment about reading the HW policy) and should be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, asking why you hadn't done the math is certainly a reasonable request because it will give clues as to the direction an answer should take. The difference between a simple math problem (off-topic) and the reason behind the phenomena (on-topic) is vast. Diagnosing the issue of the mathematical aspect can help keep your question open or help further its closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="9208c0f5-1463-42be-bfd3-98fd004f8447" CreationDate="2014-12-31T08:55:45.720" UserId="1325" Text="First some general preamble not specifically related to your question: the description of the site from the [first page of the tour][1] is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I interpret this fairly loosely because I consider everyone who wants to learn about physics a student regardless of whether they're in a formal course or not. So for me the key issue is whether the OP is interested to learn and is willing to put in the effort that learning requires. If I think they just want some gee whizz facts with which to impress their friends I'm likely to ignore the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider the accusations you level. Your statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the community cannot be 'bothered' to calculate anything or offer up answers, then why not reframe it into a 'we'll guide you to answer your own questions' site instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;strikes me as petty and ill-informed. Every day I see busy working physicists putting in considerable amounts of their time for free to answer questions. It's all very well for me because I'm retired and have free time to burn, but I see answers from people who have to work (as physicists) to pay their mortgages or to pass their exams. To dismiss the contribution these people make with the phrase *cannot be 'bothered' to calculate anything or offer up answers* is exceedingly ungracious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider your question. I think it's a pretty good question, but the first part of it is one that I would expect anyone interested in physics to be able to answer themselves. After all, you just need Newton's law of gravity and the radii of the planetary orbits, which you can get from Google. If I were presented with this in a tutorial I would require the student to answer it themselves and I would provide hints only as required. Rereading the comments now, CuriousOne responded more or less exactly as I would in a tutorial. Admittedly that's in a formal teaching context, but then I tend to view the Physics SE as an informal teaching context and the same rules apply. So in this and similar circumstances I think it's entirely reasonable to make comments to the effect that you should answer the question yourself because that will benefit you more than just answering the question. Maybe that sounds a bit patronising, but isn't any teaching essentially patronage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question strikes me as fascinating and bloody difficult. In principle you can just take the orbital periods and current positions and try to calculate when the planets will line up. However one of the points in Schwern's answer is that the Solar System is dynamic and not just some clockwork mechanism, and there may well be effects that prevent a near perfect alignment and will gently perturb the orbits to avoid it. I didn't attempt an answer to this because I can't answer it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally some footnotes that are entirely my personal opinion and unsupported by logical argument. What motivates me and others to put in so much effort isn't entirely clear to me. But then what motivates scientists in general isn't obvious - it's certainly not the money :-) But what demotivates people is clearer, and being taken for granted is one of the things. If I'm going to put in the work to answer a question I expect a reciprocal input from the student.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="ca8080c3-0e25-4b4a-9491-c6af32696200" CreationDate="2014-12-31T20:51:43.703" UserId="1527" Text="My original question here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155931/the-scientific-method-and-model-selection-in-physics was put on hold because it was too broad. I  understand the reasons behind the decision, and have updated the question subsequently with several edits to make it hopefully narrower in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the recommended way to proceed for after making such edits? Has Physics SE established a site-specific process to ask for a review of such decisions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="ca8080c3-0e25-4b4a-9491-c6af32696200" CreationDate="2014-12-31T20:51:43.703" UserId="1527" Text="What is the recommended process to ask a review of an updated question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="ca8080c3-0e25-4b4a-9491-c6af32696200" CreationDate="2014-12-31T20:51:43.703" UserId="1527" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17087" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="db79ae29-445a-443b-b185-2bfe49be3d1d" CreationDate="2014-12-31T20:57:08.567" UserId="1527" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the recommended process to ask for a review of an updated question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="db79ae29-445a-443b-b185-2bfe49be3d1d" CreationDate="2014-12-31T20:57:08.567" UserId="1527" Comment="edited title" Text="My original question here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155931/the-scientific-method-and-model-selection-in-physics was put on hold because it was too broad. I  understand the reasons behind the decision, and have updated the question subsequently with several edits to make it hopefully narrower in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the recommended way to proceed for after making such edits? Has Physics SE established a site-specific process to ask for a review of such decisions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="c78ec305-b632-4f66-8c52-1e7f472a1103" CreationDate="2015-01-01T00:47:59.367" UserId="124" Text="As Kyle mentioned in a comment, each edit after your post is put on hold automatically pushes it into the review queue. So the recommended way to proceed is to **wait** for enough high-rep site members to review your post. If you've fixed the problems that caused it to be put on hold in the first place, it will be reopened by their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is accessible to non-moderators, but [here is the outcome of the most recent review on your post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/67754). You have made some edits since then, so right now your post is back in the queue awaiting additional reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="4a0e20dc-c3bb-44a7-8b57-abece271ac1b" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:11.460" UserId="4826" Text="The dawn of a new year, 2015, now approaches, or has already approached, either way it means that it is now time to reset our Community Promotion Ads!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/6388" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="4a0e20dc-c3bb-44a7-8b57-abece271ac1b" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:11.460" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="4a0e20dc-c3bb-44a7-8b57-abece271ac1b" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:11.460" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17093" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="085581cb-8ac2-4354-bf1c-0858e4415297" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:11.460" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="17094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="20d73120-ef5f-42a7-937f-feca76318d03" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:11.460" UserId="4826" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/spBJn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/#!/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17095" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="ccd783cc-8659-47e2-8d96-1c97a89d2bb4" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:11.460" UserId="4826" />
  <row Id="17096" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="003bc2ed-5a4d-48a9-ac79-bf8f38484e41" CreationDate="2015-01-01T03:09:33.640" UserId="4826" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6388],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4826,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Grace Note&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="89c5cb56-0e20-4fbc-aa33-15f1ef7955bb" CreationDate="2015-01-01T14:56:56.947" UserId="38751" Text="I asked [a question][1] and got two answers which **seem** to be correct (I am not a chemist / biologist and the answers deal with chemical proprieties of lemons. They both make sense, though and ultimately point to the same physical property).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I accept an answer if I do not have the knowledge to decide which on is correct (and there is no clear winner via the upvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155663/why-does-a-pitcher-with-lemon-juice-have-foam-while-one-with-pure-water-does-no" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="89c5cb56-0e20-4fbc-aa33-15f1ef7955bb" CreationDate="2015-01-01T14:56:56.947" UserId="38751" Text="How to accept an answer if several seem fine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="89c5cb56-0e20-4fbc-aa33-15f1ef7955bb" CreationDate="2015-01-01T14:56:56.947" UserId="38751" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="2d4c8f95-8ae6-401e-b1a8-287eac48f405" CreationDate="2015-01-01T15:36:18.597" UserId="1325" Text="Your problem is that in the absence of a specialist in lemon juice your question can't be answered. Most of the answers (we can pass mercifully over the one suggesting the bubbles contained methane) point out that wherever there is a foam there is a surface active agent stabilising it. But all the answers can only suggest what that agent might be, and unless someone finds a paper analysing the foam and pinpointing the active ingredient no-one here can say conclusively what it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're happy with the conclusion that it's due to a surfactant then accept whichever question seems to you to explain things most clearly. If you're unhappy with not knowing exactly what the chmical involved is then accept none of the answers. It may seem untidy to leave a question with no accepted answer, but open questions can and do get answered months or years after they have been posted. You're just waiting for the right person to come along and see the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="b71e656b-9bc4-4c3e-b438-e75bc20100a5" CreationDate="2015-01-01T20:13:23.050" UserId="25301" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ovzu6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17105" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="ff102be0-9c8e-4341-8fe7-d1019bf66bda" CreationDate="2015-01-01T20:13:23.050" UserId="25301" />
  <row Id="17106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="76b3b0a6-cdcb-4a54-ac56-88e1d2605070" CreationDate="2015-01-01T20:17:34.547" UserId="25301" Text="[![Astronomy Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17107" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="4d641bb3-1de6-447d-8fc1-4792ddfbcf5b" CreationDate="2015-01-01T20:17:34.547" UserId="25301" />
  <row Id="17108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="4bf63e25-d2d6-433d-99f1-9d22ec57bd35" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:40:58.093" UserId="124" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 800 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2G8JO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17109" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="b6ef33bd-ff03-4f73-b1c0-8ee388097045" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:40:58.093" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="17110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="f6728e56-33ac-425b-bfe5-5d3e2c79d8d4" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:43:51.853" UserId="124" Text="[![Detexify2 - LaTeX symbol classifier][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbnRL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17111" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="37e49f14-ab88-43aa-92bc-491ffbd7affc" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:43:51.853" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="17112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="472deae9-98d1-4c6f-9740-db93d441405b" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:47:18.330" UserId="124" Text="[![Physics Forums][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Txu0Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsforums.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17113" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="ebc03c17-767e-4765-b99c-b6b208610291" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:47:18.330" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="17114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="f9ebe178-fde5-4913-9746-3d8e1651393d" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:49:14.743" UserId="124" Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17115" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="89dc6253-4cbf-4c17-b039-bbbac45ba9db" CreationDate="2015-01-02T01:49:14.743" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="17117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6399" RevisionGUID="b0d8816a-2ae7-4fc4-9640-0b9a67e312b0" CreationDate="2015-01-02T10:15:37.617" UserId="6848" Text="[![PhysicsOverflow: a graduate-level upward physics site][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17118" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6399" RevisionGUID="1f0b0581-1c2f-4190-8d36-72ade35e979d" CreationDate="2015-01-02T10:15:37.617" UserId="6848" />
  <row Id="17119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="08c7993f-6d92-4d5f-8858-c97f6ba80dee" CreationDate="2015-01-02T16:29:52.137" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; What objectively separates **engineering** questions from **experimental** physics ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue that trying to formulate such a distinction is not the correct way to attack the problem of deciding what questions should and shouldn't be considered on-topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;A better approach is to ask whether or not physics or engineering flavor is more appropriate in the *answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a question of answers&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to build a waveguide resonator with low dielectric loss.&#xD;&#xA;I could post the following question to either Physics SE or Electrical Engineering SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I design the geometry of a waveguide resonator so that it has the minimal dielectric loss?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae.&#xD;&#xA;If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging potential at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.&#xD;&#xA;Heck, if I pose it to the right person I might learn about numerical recipes to solve electrostatics problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example illustrates that the appropriate place for a question can depend on what kind of answer the person posing question wants.&#xD;&#xA;It would be wise to keep this in mind when judging the appropriateness of questions on this site.&#xD;&#xA;Before knee-jerk voting to close a question, we must ask ourselves if the asker may have had a reason to post it here instead of somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who is reading your question?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our capacity as experimental physicists, my colleagues and I spend &gt;99% of our time building equipment, fixing equipment, and programming a computer.&#xD;&#xA;These are all activities which could be classified as &quot;engineering&quot;, yet we identify as physicists.&#xD;&#xA;I frequent Physics SE and not Electrical Engineering SE.&#xD;&#xA;This is not without reason: I am far more qualified to answer questions here than I am on Electrical Engineering and, even when I'm asking an engineeringy question, I would rather get the benefit of people who work in similar environments and with similar equipment as myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point here is that another important aspect to deciding whether a question should be categorized as &quot;engineering&quot; is the readership of the site.&#xD;&#xA;If I ask a question about a machine, the Physics Lab Quizzwopper 2000X, nobody on Electrical Engineering SE will ever have heard of it.&#xD;&#xA;So, while a theorist might find a *question* about equipment off-topic, an experimentalist will not, because the experimentalist wants the *answer* which only a physicists can give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audiences aren't well delineated&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I use the symmetries of physical system XYZ in order to vectorize my simulation program in computer memory for optimal performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to objectively categorize this *question* as &quot;physics&quot; or &quot;engineering&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;All we can say is that the person most like to give a useful *answer* to this question is someone who has solved a similar problem in the past.&#xD;&#xA;This could be a &quot;physicist&quot; who had to learn some programming or an &quot;engineer&quot; who had to solve a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's probably reasonable to let the question sit wherever the asker put it, and if it doesn't get any attention, that person can move it somewhere else and try again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I have avoided proposing an objective criterion by which to decide whether a given question is appropriate for this site, as that issue is not strictly within the scope of the original question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="2ecff211-fce7-458c-80a2-b3f75e588959" CreationDate="2015-01-02T16:37:12.430" UserId="56299" Text="[![The Fun Physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ljt1P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17121" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="d9e338e7-e339-4b52-98ff-d7b3b1074ebf" CreationDate="2015-01-02T16:37:12.430" UserId="56299" />
  <row Id="17122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="9f703091-b641-4195-a41a-ed6904bd9ca2" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:32:27.667" UserId="25301" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QlIlq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://academia.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17123" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="d0aaa531-ea98-4d17-9273-b5db9aae2fce" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:32:27.667" UserId="25301" />
  <row Id="17124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="db20d205-1b74-4a2d-8c2f-77ffca362ef5" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:01:31.760" UserDisplayName="user65081" Text="I wonder if there is a way to check more or less quickly if your comments where voted. I specifically had the problem that I wanted to check how far away I was from the &quot;pundit&quot; medal, that requires 10 comments with score of 5 or more. The only way to check that I found is to go through the comments one by one, but this is not practical if you have hundreds of comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="db20d205-1b74-4a2d-8c2f-77ffca362ef5" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:01:31.760" UserDisplayName="user65081" Text="Is there a way to check voted comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="db20d205-1b74-4a2d-8c2f-77ffca362ef5" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:01:31.760" UserDisplayName="user65081" Text="|support|comments|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="6a51c420-0d1e-4a7f-893b-1ddc0c321e0e" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:16:00.400" UserId="50583" Text="[Here you go](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/238582/comments-and-votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enter your user ID and run the query, it will list all your comments, beginning with the highest voted, so you can easily count how many you have over 5 votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6405" RevisionGUID="de0329cc-c3c2-4325-aa2b-6999b56529fc" CreationDate="2015-01-03T18:05:42.117" UserId="21740" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GWTVN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17131" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6405" RevisionGUID="e051941a-22bd-4994-a154-d6084681eb7a" CreationDate="2015-01-03T18:05:42.117" UserId="21740" />
  <row Id="17132" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="441294e8-7a60-4345-9e45-95cc10dc09d7" CreationDate="2015-01-03T19:34:38.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/551461654169653248" />
  <row Id="17133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="f753601d-dea7-4f81-bcdc-7c3633980042" CreationDate="2015-01-04T02:44:42.857" UserId="56299" Text="[![HSM][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png &#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17134" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="143496e8-da74-4e21-8fec-61ed1963ae06" CreationDate="2015-01-04T02:44:42.857" UserId="56299" />
  <row Id="17135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="ed35b9af-1302-450c-a36b-72aabb3ba900" CreationDate="2015-01-04T03:45:07.557" UserId="31790" Comment="Diction" Text="Here is a solid criterion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mathematical questions may be asked, but only in the context of predicting some physical phenomena.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the use of mathematics in physics, and what separates it from mathematics for good'ole mathematics sake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="cc988faa-3fe7-4ca2-8698-1500e303a125" CreationDate="2015-01-04T04:29:26.887" UserId="16015" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: specialized web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://oss.arxitics.com/images/arxitics.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17137" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="b9636347-80e5-42d4-96d8-a403f520c10a" CreationDate="2015-01-04T04:29:26.887" UserId="16015" />
  <row Id="17138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="8f3a59fa-91bd-4205-af07-8d05bee54014" CreationDate="2015-01-04T04:42:59.207" UserId="16015" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: specialized web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IL75b.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="d546f0a1-43ad-422f-99ac-19e01b548f23" CreationDate="2015-01-04T04:45:45.377" UserId="16015" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: specialized web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IL75b.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="aa0e26ef-bd25-4d0e-b48b-1b76760245e4" CreationDate="2015-01-04T06:42:33.220" UserId="56578" Text="I'd like to start a bounty (on a question that already received 4 answers) because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*The current answers do not contain enough detail..*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you clarify these points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- are the answers posted before the bounty is started excluded from the bounty?&#xD;&#xA;- what happens if no new answer is posted, since the existing ones are not considered satisfactory?&#xD;&#xA;- if there is more than one new good answer, can I divide the bounty between them? How do I do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="aa0e26ef-bd25-4d0e-b48b-1b76760245e4" CreationDate="2015-01-04T06:42:33.220" UserId="56578" Text="Starting a bounty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="aa0e26ef-bd25-4d0e-b48b-1b76760245e4" CreationDate="2015-01-04T06:42:33.220" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="ec67733c-4cf8-4901-b195-acc373d29191" CreationDate="2015-01-04T06:59:49.627" UserId="20599" Text=" 1. No, you may award the bounty to them as well. &#xD;&#xA; 2. You will be forced to award the bounty to one of the old answers. By default, if you don't do this and there are no nw answers. The highest voted answer from the pre-existing answers will be awarded the bounty.&#xD;&#xA; 3. No, you cannot divide the bounty and a user can only place one bounty per question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="e584bb4e-e0e9-4434-9ce4-7427ad5df383" CreationDate="2015-01-04T07:47:20.703" UserId="56578" Comment="added 384 characters in body" Text="*Note*:  I couldn't find an explanation [here](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/09/bounty-reasons-and-post-notices/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to start a bounty (on a question that already received 4 answers) because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*The current answers do not contain enough detail..*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you clarify these points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- are the answers posted before the bounty is started excluded from the bounty?&#xD;&#xA;- what happens if no new answer is posted, since the existing ones are not considered satisfactory?&#xD;&#xA;- if there is more than one new good answer, can I divide the bounty between them? How do I do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are two more possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what happens if I do not choose an answer?&#xD;&#xA;- if I do not get any new answer and I post an answer, could I give to bounty to my own answer, even though this does not seem a great solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="243ca1ad-7294-4ba7-ac1f-37f0abe4fe73" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:02:54.730" UserId="31790" Text="Writing a good title can require some thought.&#xD;&#xA;A title, while short, must help other users get an idea of what your question will ask so they can decide whether or not to click and read the entire thing.&#xD;&#xA;How should users of [physics.stackexchange][1] construct good titles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="243ca1ad-7294-4ba7-ac1f-37f0abe4fe73" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:02:54.730" UserId="31790" Text="How do we write good question titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="243ca1ad-7294-4ba7-ac1f-37f0abe4fe73" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:02:54.730" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="5b920bff-4451-40a8-9495-c998b5418881" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:02:54.730" UserId="31790" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles and how to fix them&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers two problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;2. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;3. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="a72c4a5f-dda3-445a-972c-93e2b5a0ead8" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:09:05.837" UserId="31790" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles and how to fix them&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;2. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;3. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="3d085c6a-4ce4-4c40-b1de-a0f71d15d2dc" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:16:39.770" UserId="31790" Comment="Added faq-proposed tag" Text="Writing a good title can require some thought.&#xD;&#xA;A title, while short, must help other users get an idea of what your question will ask so they can decide whether or not to click and read the entire thing.&#xD;&#xA;How should users of [physics.stackexchange][1] construct good titles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/shouldnt-we-make-more-of-our-question-titles-actual-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17161" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="3d085c6a-4ce4-4c40-b1de-a0f71d15d2dc" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:16:39.770" UserId="31790" Comment="Added faq-proposed tag" Text="|discussion|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="b4f9a5d9-3507-4b09-a548-34c5a5f279f8" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:22:14.560" UserId="31790" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles and how to fix them&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;2. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;3. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;4. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="d084b215-55d3-496a-af54-c1192bcf4645" CreationDate="2015-01-04T17:30:29.050" UserId="31790" Comment="Added quick tip about not putting tags in titles" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles and how to fix them&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="a4a43ea5-6b0f-44af-9f9f-1add136a93a8" CreationDate="2015-01-04T19:44:10.070" UserId="25301" Comment="added bullet about capitalization" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles and how to fix them&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Only the *first* word and [*proper nouns*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun) should be capitalized in the title . In no case should the *entire* title ever be capitalized (which is seen as yelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="9406c3b5-e14b-40a1-971f-21511db6ab0f" CreationDate="2015-01-04T20:02:30.170" UserId="31790" Comment="Make the point about capitalization a positive statement instead of a negative one." Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles and how to fix them&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Capitalize only the first word and [proper nouns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun) in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="0bcd01d0-7dce-499c-9e01-9d03935c42d7" CreationDate="2015-01-04T20:52:47.870" UserId="20599" Comment="deleted 165 characters in body" Text=" 1. No, you may award the bounty to them as well. &#xD;&#xA; 2. By default, the bounty will not go to anyone.&#xD;&#xA; 3. No, you cannot divide the bounty and a user can only place one bounty per question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="b1412102-3d7e-4e7b-8513-30c2ee8f36f2" CreationDate="2015-01-05T03:29:52.380" UserId="6848" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="b1412102-3d7e-4e7b-8513-30c2ee8f36f2" CreationDate="2015-01-05T03:29:52.380" UserId="6848" Text="Why did my comments under the community ad for physicsoverflow get deleted thrice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="b1412102-3d7e-4e7b-8513-30c2ee8f36f2" CreationDate="2015-01-05T03:29:52.380" UserId="6848" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="772ff985-651a-4ca3-aa5c-a35d3b905fdb" CreationDate="2015-01-05T03:38:02.470" UserId="25301" Text="There is a [comment directly](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015#comment22500_6399) under your post from Qmechanic that states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the [related meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) and [its chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17799/discussion-on-question-by-deer-hunter-what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-lin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, you were asked to use the two linked resources to discuss anything, rather than the Community Ads thread, and you ignored that message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that comments are considered &quot;second class&quot; citizens and can be deleted without approval/consent of the posted user. You can read more [about it here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/914/25301)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="e5a2ad35-1498-4fd0-960a-dfe7a16865d1" CreationDate="2015-01-05T03:39:28.917" UserId="124" Text="1. The rule under which your comments got deleted is the following, which was posted right there on the post which you were commenting on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the related meta post and its chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but when a moderator leaves direct instructions not to do something and you go ahead and do it anyway, you're probably not going to like the outcome. (Same goes for when a site policy says not to do something and you do it anyway, although in that case you might at least have the excuse that you didn't know about the policy.) The proper way to ask why your comments were being deleted was to bring it up on meta, as you did, or to ask in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The Stack Exchange model is that any information worth keeping belongs in a question or answer; comments are meant to be ephemeral. Consequently, we (moderators) often delete comments for a variety of reasons. You're also encouraged to delete your own comments once they have served their purpose. You will find the following in [the relevant Meta SE FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Comments are disposable: unlike posts, there's no revision history, and they can be deleted without warning by their authors, by moderators, and in response to flags. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="6dc9a4f2-a550-4a3f-af9e-a57c518aef31" CreationDate="2015-01-05T04:41:00.987" UserId="6848" Comment="added 1309 characters in body" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have always been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="8653a316-fdbc-4e26-ac03-bde246b81773" CreationDate="2015-01-05T04:47:50.497" UserId="6848" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have usually been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="9e2ff2f1-f3ae-4410-b5b3-523508abc7d7" CreationDate="2015-01-05T07:58:46.407" UserId="6848" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have usually been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is **why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="2277a7be-558b-4251-9e5c-b77150c7d42f" CreationDate="2015-01-05T09:15:49.860" UserId="56578" Text="Sometimes it is impossible to post a comment: if I open a box and start writing both the ping and the text I try to write do not appear in the box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only some red waves appear, the waves that usually underline mistakes in spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all started over a month ago, and it usually happens only in the late afternoon or evening GMT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a problem of my browser or PC or has someone experienced the same problem lately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="2277a7be-558b-4251-9e5c-b77150c7d42f" CreationDate="2015-01-05T09:15:49.860" UserId="56578" Text="Comment box glitch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="2277a7be-558b-4251-9e5c-b77150c7d42f" CreationDate="2015-01-05T09:15:49.860" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="c15ca614-d480-4a16-b7ea-2a49eb2ae34c" CreationDate="2015-01-05T12:42:08.750" UserId="25301" Comment="updated to reflect new questions" Text="There is a [comment directly](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015#comment22500_6399) under your post from Qmechanic that states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the [related meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) and [its chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17799/discussion-on-question-by-deer-hunter-what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-lin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, you were asked to use the two linked resources to discuss anything, rather than the Community Ads thread, and you ignored that message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that comments are considered &quot;second class&quot; citizens and can be deleted without approval/consent of the posted user. You can read more [about it here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/914/25301).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, questions involving Physics Overflow quickly degrade into [&quot;not so nice&quot;](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) comment threads. Qmechanic's comment was a warning to *prevent* such a new thread from occurring by diverting people to a channel where it is more appropriate (i.e., chat). As an aside, the Meta post gives some information about Physics Overflow written by one of their founders, who also wrote the MathOverflow post you wanted to link.  &#xD;&#xA;None of the other posted Ads recommend such a controversial topic, so no similar warnings are necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="2be1f6ea-18b9-4f77-9c75-ce45ec5ddb91" CreationDate="2015-01-05T17:20:32.940" UserId="31790" Comment="Improved a section header" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles (and how to fix a couple of them)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][3]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][4]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][5]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Capitalize only the first word and [proper nouns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun) in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="c46c2a72-c1b9-4bc0-80d8-d7404ea57904" CreationDate="2015-01-05T17:29:32.007" UserId="6848" Comment="added 512 characters in body" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have usually been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is **why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addition:** After the conversation with Kyle Kanos, it becomes clear that moderators are not violating any rule set by Stackexchange; what is also made clear is that moderators have unlimited power at comment zone with 0 restriction, in accordance to the rule. This is a very unjust rule, and it would be humane for moderators to refrain from wielding this power. However, the current situation suggests the unreasonable(but again, not illegitimate) power is being very actively exercised. I rest my case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="3ebd5b93-3acb-45f4-94ef-e67f4360d3b7" CreationDate="2015-01-05T20:19:01.487" UserId="124" Comment="edit in light of the fact that non-mods don't see old deleted questions" Text="It's a pretty standard rule on SE sites (and on this site, in particular) that you shouldn't delete a question and then repost essentially the same question as a new post; instead, you should just edit the original post. (cf. MSE questions [1](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/168017), [2](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/176612), [3](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/175110), [4](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/7046))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But events of today got me thinking. Suppose you ask a question, then decide the question wasn't ready to be posted, but you think you might be able to get it ready for posting with a few days or weeks of additional time. (Like if you're busy and can't get to it right away.) The course of action I would think to suggest to you in that case (if you didn't already know what to do) would be to delete the question, come back in a week or whenever, and edit it into shape. But non-moderators can only see _recent_ deleted questions, if they even know where to look, and it seems kind of silly to expect a poster to always go hunting through their history of deleted questions to find one they've already asked on the topic. In a case like this, it doesn't seem so bad to just post a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I'm asking here is twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this situation is deleting and reposting okay? (i.e. you post a question, delete it, then come back after a significant amount of time and want to ask the question again in better form)&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming it is, what makes the boundary between an acceptable and unacceptable delete-and-repost? I suppose it depends on just why this sort of thing is not allowed in most cases in the first place. (I think I know why, but I won't say it yet so as to avoid influencing the responses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course one should always make an effort not to post a question unless you really do think it's ready, but everyone makes mistakes on this from time to time. I'm also assuming the first posting of the question got no answers and no upvotes so that there is little to no apparent harm in deleting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17192" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="e437a01d-fb67-4ebe-9591-5ebef8367a55" CreationDate="2015-01-06T04:43:15.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/552324494187302914" />
  <row Id="17196" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="7afdcf31-2e01-4740-a69c-19b043f95f17" CreationDate="2015-01-07T07:43:14.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/552732175037394944" />
  <row Id="17197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="bc8fef30-63ec-491e-b0ee-1a12a153fe78" CreationDate="2015-01-07T11:03:49.230" UserId="58382" Text="A [quick search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated history questions shows a handful os results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should these old questions be migrated too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="bc8fef30-63ec-491e-b0ee-1a12a153fe78" CreationDate="2015-01-07T11:03:49.230" UserId="58382" Text="Should old questions about history be migrated to hsm.se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="bc8fef30-63ec-491e-b0ee-1a12a153fe78" CreationDate="2015-01-07T11:03:49.230" UserId="58382" Text="|discussion|tags|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="441f2c62-80ce-4f4b-9799-9b77351cdbba" CreationDate="2015-01-07T11:10:36.370" UserId="58382" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="A [quick search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated history questions shows a handful os results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should these old questions be migrated too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion is: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/156/58382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="f2a2c50e-1705-4df3-bc3b-60d270b90215" CreationDate="2015-01-07T13:56:09.017" UserId="2451" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="A [quick search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated history questions shows a handful of results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should old (i.e., more than 2 month old) questions be migrated too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion is: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/156/58382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17202" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1eab86db-da95-4984-ae78-6e46f3ac46d9" CreationDate="2015-01-07T15:43:10.390" UserId="58382" Comment="edited title" Text="Should old questions about history of physics be migrated to hsm.se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1eab86db-da95-4984-ae78-6e46f3ac46d9" CreationDate="2015-01-07T15:43:10.390" UserId="58382" Comment="edited title" Text="A [quick search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated [tag:history] questions shows a handful of results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should old (i.e., more than 2 month old) questions be migrated too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion is: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/156/58382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="fe35d5f4-94a3-486e-8b59-e4e41b4f813a" CreationDate="2015-01-07T22:57:20.920" UserId="124" Text="Old questions (older than 90 days I think) can't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, we haven't even established that history questions are off topic here in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="e4a5ff18-5020-4a5d-ab17-ef8df6b9102c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T00:00:29.573" UserId="56299" Text="The big problem here is what DavidZ mentioned - questions eventually become too old to be migrated, though I believe the limit is [60 days](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151890/disable-migration-for-questions-older-than-60-days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this discussed before on Mathematics Meta, and the consensus was what I think should be the policy on Physics - and what I think is the unofficial policy here - which is that history questions are *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would *love* to see this on HSM, and I think that we'd accept a migration of it to HSM. It clearly deals with history, and is, from what I can tell, 95% history and 5% physics. That 5%, by the way, is gratuitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, history of physics is still on-topic on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity#comment331015_158079) left below the question, by alarge, seems to be rather typical in this post-HSM-launch era:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Might hsm.stackexchange.com be a better home for this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Better&quot; is the key word here. The comments below a history question may be laid out the same, but the word &quot;better&quot; is always used. History questions are okay here. Also,  there have been quality answers to many of the [tag:history] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, while we're trying to increase traffic and question rate on HSM, we don't want to artificially increase it. This was discussed [a while ago](http://meta.hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/116/should-math-se-seed-hsm-with-some-history-of-mathematics-questions), and we reached the conclusion that there's no reason to do it because these history questions have done so well on other sites. We want to &quot;homegrow&quot; questions and traffic - in other words, attract users and questions on our own, without external help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, we can't handle the migration of all these unanswered questions at once - we simply don't yet have the user base* - and slowly &quot;weaning&quot; the other SEs off of unused history questions would be unproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I also don't want to have to manually re-tag and edit hundreds of questions - taking into account history questions from all the science and math sites, as well as science questions from History. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="28ab58f9-81da-40fc-8e83-98e960332514" CreationDate="2015-01-08T02:07:52.923" UserId="66335" Text="Doesn't it make no sense? Why do people say you need 20 points to enter chat to prevent trolls from jumping in? Basically, a troll could just simply ask questions here for infinity and even if you ban them, it takes no more than a few seconds to start again. The system is wired stupidly if you look at it like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We require points so members can become reputable in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls don't care about reputation as a &quot;good&quot; person in the community, and they can come by and disrupt what's available to them first then, be it spamming/attacking others in questions, or leading people on with semi-legit questions just to take people for a ride and waste everyone's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You need 20 points in chat to prevent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there such an anti-troll establishment in chat but not in normal question asking? Why not require everyone gives photo ID and their physical address so you can go and kill them if you troll you? Simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throw me in a room filled with mentally-retarded people and let's see how that changes. The needs of the many only outweigh the few because that's what people *think is right*. Whether it is is up for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are not set in stone. They are variables on the server that can be changed by hitting a few keys. It's not like it's hard. If I felt like hacking the community, I eventually could, but if fools will change it back, it's not worth it. So what do you gain by creating foolish rules to prevent trolls when by the very nature of this site breeds them because any outlet is good enough for a troll, even if just questioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place. If you want no trolling, don't start a community; communities always have trolls. Trolls are not stopped by points. As stated before, a troll can earn the reputation and then proceed to disrupt and destroy as much as possible right after." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="28ab58f9-81da-40fc-8e83-98e960332514" CreationDate="2015-01-08T02:07:52.923" UserId="66335" Text="What is the purpose of limiting certain features for &quot;fear of trolls&quot; when trolls can still ask questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="28ab58f9-81da-40fc-8e83-98e960332514" CreationDate="2015-01-08T02:07:52.923" UserId="66335" Text="|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="bb4713d6-0cd5-451a-b3a2-1991a4408b2a" CreationDate="2015-01-08T02:36:16.507" UserId="25301" Text="This is effectively answered [on the Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74086/so-chat-why-is-it-that-only-members-of-stack-overflow-with-at-least-20-reputat). The answers there are probably not sufficient for you, so I'm going to continue with a few extra points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chat is a place where people who spend their time answer questions here can hang out and respond to each other *in real time* (that's important). Allowing any &quot;troll&quot; in would probably ruin our fun there. I think that's a perfectly valid reason to have the 20-rep minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A new user can certainly post questions, but until they hit 50 rep, they cannot  comment on *other* threads so their trolling is contained to their own posts. If they are indeed trolling, they'll soon enough find their question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any user who writes multiple poorly-received (i.e., heavily downvoted) questions can get a temporary ban from asking questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Anyone who takes the time to earn 50 rep in order to troll has a lot of free time. They'll quickly find their posts getting downvoted, dropping their rep by 2 each vote. Once they get under 50, they'll no longer be able to comment and under 20, they cannot enter chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls are people who just want to bother other people for no good reason. As long as people like this exist, we will set up whatever road blocks are necessary to keep them at bay, simply because they are annoying. If you want to put up with trolls, feel free to take it to a place where trolls are readily accepted (there are places like that on the internets); here, we prefer to prevent them as much as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="aa46879a-6638-43f4-aaa1-c908aef884b5" CreationDate="2015-01-08T02:36:54.427" UserId="25301" Comment="deleted rather offensive comment, tag swap" Text="Doesn't it make no sense? Why do people say you need 20 points to enter chat to prevent trolls from jumping in? Basically, a troll could just simply ask questions here for infinity and even if you ban them, it takes no more than a few seconds to start again. The system is wired stupidly if you look at it like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We require points so members can become reputable in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls don't care about reputation as a &quot;good&quot; person in the community, and they can come by and disrupt what's available to them first then, be it spamming/attacking others in questions, or leading people on with semi-legit questions just to take people for a ride and waste everyone's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You need 20 points in chat to prevent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there such an anti-troll establishment in chat but not in normal question asking? Why not require everyone gives photo ID and their physical address so you can go and kill them if you troll you? Simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The needs of the many only outweigh the few because that's what people *think is right*. Whether it is is up for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are not set in stone. They are variables on the server that can be changed by hitting a few keys. It's not like it's hard. If I felt like hacking the community, I eventually could, but if fools will change it back, it's not worth it. So what do you gain by creating foolish rules to prevent trolls when by the very nature of this site breeds them because any outlet is good enough for a troll, even if just questioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place. If you want no trolling, don't start a community; communities always have trolls. Trolls are not stopped by points. As stated before, a troll can earn the reputation and then proceed to disrupt and destroy as much as possible right after." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="aa46879a-6638-43f4-aaa1-c908aef884b5" CreationDate="2015-01-08T02:36:54.427" UserId="25301" Comment="deleted rather offensive comment, tag swap" Text="|feature-request|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="422b6b3b-b224-4920-a844-176121b1ef98" CreationDate="2015-01-08T03:28:40.960" UserId="56299" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="The big problem here is what DavidZ mentioned - questions eventually become too old to be migrated, though I believe the limit is [60 days](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151890/disable-migration-for-questions-older-than-60-days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this discussed before on Mathematics Meta, and the consensus was what I think should be the policy on Physics - and what I think is the unofficial policy here - which is that history questions are *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would *love* to see this on HSM, and I think that we'd accept a migration of it to HSM. It clearly deals with history, and is, from what I can tell, 95% history and 5% physics. That 5%, by the way, is gratuitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, history of physics is still on-topic on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity#comment331015_158079) left below the question, by alarge, seems to be rather typical in this post-HSM-launch era:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Might hsm.stackexchange.com be a better home for this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Better&quot; is the key word here. The comments below a history question may be laid out the same, but the word &quot;better&quot; is always used. History questions are okay here. Also,  there have been quality answers to many of the [tag:history] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, while we're trying to increase traffic and question rate on HSM, we don't want to artificially increase it. This was discussed [a while ago](http://meta.hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/116/should-math-se-seed-hsm-with-some-history-of-mathematics-questions), and we reached the conclusion that there's no reason to do it because these history questions have done so well on other sites. We want to &quot;homegrow&quot; questions and traffic - in other words, we would like to attract users and questions on our own, without this kind of artificial stimulus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, we can't handle the migration of all these unanswered questions at once - we simply don't yet have the user base* - and slowly &quot;weaning&quot; the other SEs off of unused history questions would be unproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I also - as a pro-tem mod on HSM - don't want to have to manually re-tag and edit hundreds of questions - taking into account history questions from all the science and math sites, as well as science questions from History. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="6e5a581a-3053-4b10-9237-dcae43e405e8" CreationDate="2015-01-08T08:12:51.373" UserId="1325" Text="Physicists tend to be more impressed by experimental evidence than theoretical reasoning, and the experimental evidence is that we are keeping trolling under control. If this was being achieved at the cost of widespead repression I might be concerned, but my experience is that we're a pretty liberal bunch hereabouts. So I can't see any urgency to review the various restrictions we have placed on low rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I see the low incidence of trolling as evidence that the site is working well. Trolling is most effectively when issues are a matter of opinion, and physics is rarely a matter of opinion. Generally speaking a question about physics will have a correct answer, and our answerers do a good job of not just giving the correct answer but explaining why it's correct. In the face of such clear exposition trolls get reduced to posting obscenities, and since this achieves little more than the raising of eyebrows and rapid deletion I suspect it's unsatisfying for the trolls." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="8ae7c7d3-bc42-44e1-bfea-6a08121eed29" CreationDate="2015-01-08T16:06:13.910" UserId="10833" Text="Alongside each question there's a list of related questions, which are often relevant and interesting. For some reason, their scores appear in grey boxes even if the questions have been answered. Surely it would be more helpful if they were colour coded as happens elsewhere on the site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the advantages as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you've just answered a question on a topic, you probably know something about it. Therefore you're probably well positioned to answer related unanswered questions. If would be really useful to see at a glance whether there are any!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you've just asked or read a question, you might be interested in reading round the subject. Therefore you'll probably want to check out other answered questions on the same topic. Hence the need for this feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine it wouldn't be very hard to implement, given that the code must exist elsewhere on the site. Perhaps upvote this if you think it would be useful, and someone can escalate it as a feature request to SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="8ae7c7d3-bc42-44e1-bfea-6a08121eed29" CreationDate="2015-01-08T16:06:13.910" UserId="10833" Text="Related Questions - How To Tell If They've Been Answered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="8ae7c7d3-bc42-44e1-bfea-6a08121eed29" CreationDate="2015-01-08T16:06:13.910" UserId="10833" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="763f2d38-3f1b-4079-b74e-89be0f8c102c" CreationDate="2015-01-09T09:04:31.417" UserId="67587" Text="My post “Gravitational shifts of frequency in general relativity and classical physics” was first closed by five users, and finally deleted as “off-topic”. This post has consisted in a comparison between relativistic and classical solutions for three kinds of frequency shifts noticed in gravitational field, all of them well-known for a long time, therefore indisputably inside PSE *mainstream* physics. Downright fanny, my previous post “A proof for Newtonian origin of residual perihelion advances in solar system” has also consisted in a comparison between relativistic and classical solutions for another phenomenon claimed to be an experimental test of general relativity, but nobody considered it as “off-topic”, although in this case the classical solution has been indeed somewhat a novelty.&#xD;&#xA;As in my opinion the ill-will of my censors is evident, I ask for undeleting my post abusively removed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="763f2d38-3f1b-4079-b74e-89be0f8c102c" CreationDate="2015-01-09T09:04:31.417" UserId="67587" Text="Undeleting my removed post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="763f2d38-3f1b-4079-b74e-89be0f8c102c" CreationDate="2015-01-09T09:04:31.417" UserId="67587" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="77dcbca3-d028-4457-b379-f4cf985b81c5" CreationDate="2015-01-09T09:34:00.743" UserId="2451" Comment="added 96 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My post [Gravitational shifts of frequency in general relativity and classical physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/155372/2451) was first closed by five users, and finally deleted as “off-topic”. This post has consisted in a comparison between relativistic and classical solutions for three kinds of frequency shifts noticed in gravitational field, all of them well-known for a long time, therefore indisputably inside PSE *mainstream* physics. Downright fanny, my previous post [A proof for Newtonian origin of residual perihelion advances in solar system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/153194/2451) has also consisted in a comparison between relativistic and classical solutions for another phenomenon claimed to be an experimental test of general relativity, but nobody considered it as “off-topic”, although in this case the classical solution has been indeed somewhat a novelty.&#xD;&#xA;As in my opinion the ill-will of my censors is evident, I ask for undeleting my post abusively removed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="77dcbca3-d028-4457-b379-f4cf985b81c5" CreationDate="2015-01-09T09:34:00.743" UserId="2451" Comment="added 96 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17238" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="ae9300be-dcd2-46e3-9365-35b19cc05f28" CreationDate="2015-01-10T16:54:22.970" UserId="2451" Comment="Rollback to [d3db55c2-5341-4924-9359-012b57a72793]" Text="#This is a sandbox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this question as a formatting sandbox (if you can edit CW questions), and you can post answers if you want to test out formatting there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: It's hard not to like this meta post but please keep it downvoted to -8 or less (rather than upvoting it) so that it doesn't get bumped to the front meta page every time someone is experimenting in the sandbox, which usually is not interesting to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17239" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="ae9300be-dcd2-46e3-9365-35b19cc05f28" CreationDate="2015-01-10T16:54:22.970" UserId="2451" Comment="Rollback to [d3db55c2-5341-4924-9359-012b57a72793]" Text="|support|formatting|" />
  <row Id="17240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="61a31227-0baa-4b7f-a8d4-964cdecd9248" CreationDate="2015-01-11T17:31:09.540" UserId="25301" Comment="added more information, cleaned up some formatting" Text="#Why the minimum rep is fine enough to prevent trolling&#xD;&#xA;This is effectively answered [on the Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74086/so-chat-why-is-it-that-only-members-of-stack-overflow-with-at-least-20-reputat). The answers there are probably not sufficient for you, so I'm going to continue with a few extra points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chat is a place where people who spend their time answer questions here can hang out and respond to each other *in real time* (that's important). Allowing any &quot;troll&quot; in would probably ruin our fun there. I think that's a perfectly valid reason to have the 20-rep minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A new user can certainly post questions, but until they hit 50 rep, they cannot  comment on *other* threads so their trolling is contained to their own posts. If they are indeed trolling, they'll soon enough find their question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any user who writes multiple poorly-received (i.e., heavily downvoted) questions can get a temporary ban from asking questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Anyone who takes the time to earn 50 rep in order to troll has a lot of free time. They'll quickly find their posts getting downvoted, dropping their rep by 2 each vote. Once they get under 50, they'll no longer be able to comment and under 20, they cannot enter chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls are people who just want to bother other people for no good reason. As long as people like this exist, we will set up whatever road blocks are necessary to keep them at bay, simply because they are annoying. If you want to put up with trolls, feel free to take it to a place where trolls are readily accepted (there are places like that on the internets); here, we prefer to prevent them as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What happens if a troll *does* get the minimum rep &amp; trolls chat&#xD;&#xA;The Stack Exchange dev team have two ways of managing trolls:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Users in chat can [mute the abusing member](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#mute). This allows users to *not see* the trolling posts in *any* chat room.&#xD;&#xA;2. Users in the chat can [flag the post](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#nice) as inappropriate. With enough flags (or a present moderator), the user will get a ban from participating in chat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even *if* a troll does manage to get the required reputation, there are ways to block them from persisting in being a troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;People here are afraid to make things work my way because my way is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your way would require us to have [little-to-no blockage against trolls](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6337/why-do-you-need-50-reputation-to-comment-on-other-posts) by lowering/eliminating reputation limits. It is *not* out of fear that these limits are imposed, it is out of *rationalized* thinking and *experimental* evidence. We *don't* want to be annoyed or bothered by a subset of internet-capable people who *want* to *be* annoying and bothersome.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="6aa7fda0-082c-412d-aea1-115bfac6ce5e" CreationDate="2015-01-12T06:53:35.873" UserId="66335" Text="Lately I have found this community to be very close-minded and unaccepting of any good feature changes. It is like a local-government allowing people to vote, only to later make a decision on their own merit entirely. In other words, it's like talking to a wall. I have outlined some features that should be changed and have made them clear as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Participating in chat should only require 5 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Blocking of users from certain IPs/IP ranges should never be automatic; instead; always manual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Commenting on any question/answer on the site should only require 10 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to prove that you're open-minded as a community, I challenge you to make one of the latter changes active within the next two weeks. If you wish to prove to me that you still continue to refuse and ignore my requests, please be honest and admit the dark truth about your community as I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't make a change nor admit your community as I've mentioned, I ask that you promise you can keep me from using this site; actually, I dare it. If you fail to keep that promise, I will never stop coming back, and everytime I come back and let you know it, that's a loss of face value and reputation for this entire community and what it stands for. I am here to only prove the facts. If I'm gone, I can't prove them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make me leave and prove you are right. If I keep coming back, you can't stop me nor retain face value. Your community will be gradually exposed for what it is, and you will be liars who shall live in shame." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="6aa7fda0-082c-412d-aea1-115bfac6ce5e" CreationDate="2015-01-12T06:53:35.873" UserId="66335" Text="How to improve this site for the greater good" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="6aa7fda0-082c-412d-aea1-115bfac6ce5e" CreationDate="2015-01-12T06:53:35.873" UserId="66335" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="57063d15-7c93-40c4-8a74-27f7d20d3907" CreationDate="2015-01-12T06:59:28.293" UserId="66335" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Lately I have found this community to be very close-minded and unaccepting of any good feature changes. It is like a local-government allowing people to vote, only to later make a decision on their own merit entirely. In other words, it's like talking to a wall. I have outlined some features that should be changed and have made them clear as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Participating in chat should only require 5 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Blocking of users from certain IPs/IP ranges should never be automatic; instead; always manual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Commenting on any question/answer on the site should only require 10 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to prove that you're open-minded as a community, I challenge you to make one of the latter changes active within the next two weeks. If you wish to prove to me that you still continue to refuse and ignore my requests, please be honest and admit the dark truth about your community as I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't make a change nor admit your community as I've mentioned, I ask that you promise you can keep me from using this site; **actually, I dare it**. If you fail to keep that promise, I will never stop coming back, and everytime I come back and let you know it, that's a loss of face value and reputation for this entire community and what it stands for. I am here to only prove the facts. If I'm gone, I **can't** prove them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make me leave and prove you are right. If I keep coming back, you can't stop me nor retain face value. Your community will be gradually exposed for what it is, and you will be liars who shall live in shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's it going to be? If this question is simply deleted, I'll just come back and open it again, unless you can prove me wrong. If you can't prove me wrong, we all know what that proves, don't we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="8170d386-2606-460c-8675-1eff39d41a98" CreationDate="2015-01-12T07:05:41.060" UserId="66335" Comment="edited body" Text="Doesn't it make no sense? Why do people say you need 20 points to enter chat to prevent trolls from jumping in? Basically, a troll could just simply ask questions here for infinity and even if you ban them, it takes no more than a few seconds to start again. The system is wired stupidly if you look at it like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We require points so members can become reputable in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls don't care about reputation as a &quot;good&quot; person in the community, and they can come by and disrupt what's available to them first then, be it spamming/attacking others in questions, or leading people on with semi-legit questions just to take people for a ride and waste everyone's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You need 20 points in chat to prevent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there such an anti-troll establishment in chat but not in normal question asking? Why not require everyone gives photo ID and their physical address so you can go and kill them if you troll you? Simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The needs of the many only outweigh the few because that's what people *think is right*. Whether it is is up for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are not set in stone. They are variables on the server that can be changed by hitting a few keys. It's not like it's hard. If I felt like hacking the community, I eventually could, but if fools will change it back, it's not worth it. So what do you gain by creating foolish rules to prevent trolls when by the very nature of this site breeds them because any outlet is good enough for a troll, even if just questioning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place. If you want no trolling, don't start a community; communities always have trolls. Trolls are not stopped by points. As stated before, a troll can earn the reputation and then proceed to disrupt and destroy as much as possible right after." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="27bad735-6b1f-4f0c-b701-c272805dd247" CreationDate="2015-01-12T09:28:17.140" UserId="31790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Lately I have found this community to be very close-minded and unaccepting of any good feature changes. It is like a local-government allowing people to vote, only to later make a decision on their own merit entirely. In other words, it's like talking to a wall. I have outlined some features that should be changed and have made them clear as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Participating in chat should only require 5 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Blocking of users from certain IPs/IP ranges should never be automatic; instead; always manual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Commenting on any question/answer on the site should only require 10 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to prove that you're open-minded as a community, I challenge you to make one of the latter changes active within the next two weeks. If you wish to prove to me that you still continue to refuse and ignore my requests, please be honest and admit the dark truth about your community as I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't make a change nor admit your community as I've mentioned, I ask that you promise you can keep me from using this site; **actually, I dare it**. If you fail to keep that promise, I will never stop coming back, and every time I come back and let you know it, that's a loss of face value and reputation for this entire community and what it stands for. I am here to only prove the facts. If I'm gone, I **can't** prove them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make me leave and prove you are right. If I keep coming back, you can't stop me nor retain face value. Your community will be gradually exposed for what it is, and you will be liars who shall live in shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's it going to be? If this question is simply deleted, I'll just come back and open it again, unless you can prove me wrong. If you can't prove me wrong, we all know what that proves, don't we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="b4038ef5-9d42-48fd-abbf-57a110804e3b" CreationDate="2015-01-12T14:15:54.473" UserId="50583" Text="The deletion of your post happened *automatically*, since it is *closed*, has no answers, a negative score, and was closed more than 9 days ago. This is the [automatic deletion routine](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) running across all SE sites, and represents no particular ill-will towards your question in particular, and hence, even if undeleted, it will be deleted again when this routine runs the next time (it runs once every day, I think)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="2411575b-6004-4d32-aca0-92b344d36f39" CreationDate="2015-01-12T17:44:12.397" UserId="1325" Text="The best way to improve this site for the greater good is to provide answers to questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All else is secondary. Providing answers that use appropriate principles of physics to answer in a quantitative way is what makes this such a great site. Bonus marks if you can manage the *common touch* and make the answers intuitively obvious as well as rigorous. If you find you have time to agonise over the fine details of who can do what, when and to whom then you aren't answering enough questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="c9530a97-eac4-4fc4-8b1e-81c85bc7338e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T09:57:11.577" UserId="62952" Text="I want to start this meta question as place where people can put links to **well asked homework questions**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that if not so good questions are asked then we will have a meta question to point people to - so they can go and see well asked questions. Qmechanic is very good at highlighting well asked questions, but I found it hard to search for them - so I thought we could add links here... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start the ball rolling this I link a [good mechanics type questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156943/why-do-we-need-to-know-the-shape-of-the-slide-to-find-the-time-to-slide-down-it/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="c9530a97-eac4-4fc4-8b1e-81c85bc7338e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T09:57:11.577" UserId="62952" Text="Examples of good homework questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="c9530a97-eac4-4fc4-8b1e-81c85bc7338e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T09:57:11.577" UserId="62952" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="4832b9b8-2bcb-4784-b1f9-459b153a20cc" CreationDate="2015-01-14T10:32:20.240" UserId="2451" Comment="I think OP has misunderstood the meaning" Text="I want to start this meta question as place where people can put links to **well asked homework-like questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that if not so good questions are asked then we will have a meta question to point people to - so they can go and see well asked questions. Qmechanic is very good at highlighting well asked questions, but I found it hard to search for them - so I thought we could add links here... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB: Only one link per answer!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="4832b9b8-2bcb-4784-b1f9-459b153a20cc" CreationDate="2015-01-14T10:32:20.240" UserId="2451" Comment="I think OP has misunderstood the meaning" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6443" RevisionGUID="8f0342b6-347f-4f55-af89-3217aef648d7" CreationDate="2015-01-14T14:12:05.227" UserId="62952" Text="Here is a good example of a well asked [question about mechanics][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is good because of the work that the OP has put into the question and it is very clear exactly what is being asked and how far the OP has got working through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156943/why-do-we-need-to-know-the-shape-of-the-slide-to-find-the-time-to-slide-down-it/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="d34b6eda-999c-4539-91b2-b932eb6e8c05" CreationDate="2015-01-14T14:15:37.323" UserId="62952" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I want to start this meta question as place where people can put links to **well asked homework-like questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that if not so good questions are asked then we will have a meta question to point people to - so they can go and see well asked questions. Qmechanic, Jim and others are very good at highlighting well asked questions, but I found it hard to search for them - so I thought we could add links here... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB: Only one link per answer!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="f5b74c38-8bc9-47a9-ba2e-63e1df5aa9b5" CreationDate="2015-01-15T02:02:53.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/555545625526558720" />
  <row Id="17280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="19f4b26a-8d1d-451e-be48-3927645822a5" CreationDate="2015-01-15T07:15:36.247" UserId="1325" Text="I am not normally considered a member of the homework question supporter's club, but I did decide to answer http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159411/problem-regarding-archimedes-principle, or at least provide a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's good that the Physics SE has an educational role. This doesn't mean answering all homework questions, but every now and then I see a question that I think many aspiring young physicists would benefit from. In this case the question was about a thinly disguised simple harmonic oscillator. Every physics student is going to encounter a dozen questions about thinly disguised SHOs, and it's important they know how to recognise and approach them. In principle the same may happen during a research career, though I must admit I can't remember ever having to model one of the systems I studied as an SHO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now closed, and I'm not complaining about that since it's blatantly homework. It also doesn't have a terribly helpful title so I doubt many aspiring young physicists will ever read it, let alone take away valuable lessons about simple harmonic oscillators. Nevertheless this is the sort of question where an answer can be helpful to many people, and I don't regret the time taken to answer it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="76b62ba0-6e3b-4829-b89f-1cd146637534" CreationDate="2015-01-15T12:15:37.067" UserId="4962" Text="Is it possible to center a picture added in a question on the SE sites? I can not find any centering option on the help pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="76b62ba0-6e3b-4829-b89f-1cd146637534" CreationDate="2015-01-15T12:15:37.067" UserId="4962" Text="Centering a picture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="76b62ba0-6e3b-4829-b89f-1cd146637534" CreationDate="2015-01-15T12:15:37.067" UserId="4962" Text="|support|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="d9db1338-2b15-4b4f-9a67-b01fed11731d" CreationDate="2015-01-15T13:38:26.283" UserId="25301" Text="[This was answered on Meta.StackExchange a number of years ago](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25835/is-it-possible-to-horizontally-center-an-image-on-stack-exchange-sites). There are two answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**Method 1**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;` tags to manually position the HTML image call (in this case, `&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png alt=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png&quot; title=&quot;CENTERED!&quot;&gt;`). As an example, look here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                      &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png&quot; alt=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png&quot; title=&quot;CENTERED!&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I had to *manually* add the 22 spaces to center that (it looks centered on my monitor at least!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**Method 2:**&#xD;&#xA;Using many `&amp;nbsp;`'s in front of the image (in this case `![alt text][1]` where `[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;![this is my profile image][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 35 of those `&amp;nbsp;` in that line to center it.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="d189f41f-f576-41e5-b78d-52838f916fb6" CreationDate="2015-01-15T15:32:14.220" UserId="23473" Text="Go to the Physics.SE main page and look at the community promotion ad. Do it now, I'll wait.......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back yet? Okay, was it advertising Physics Overflow? Because every time I visit the main page, it's advertising PO. Last I checked, it [wasn't rated high enough](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015/6399#6399) to be featured on our community ads. And [according to meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246453/old-community-promotion-ads-still-showing-up) they should be using the 2015 ads now. Furthermore, every time I refresh I believe (and others are in this belief too) that it should randomly select a new ad to show, but I always get PO being advertised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems wrong. Conveniently and suspiciously wrong to boot. Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="d189f41f-f576-41e5-b78d-52838f916fb6" CreationDate="2015-01-15T15:32:14.220" UserId="23473" Text="Do we really love PO that much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="d189f41f-f576-41e5-b78d-52838f916fb6" CreationDate="2015-01-15T15:32:14.220" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17288" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="fd84ff0a-b6a3-463a-a42a-7bc91d834950" CreationDate="2015-01-15T15:33:26.057" UserId="23473" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17289" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="c0421a83-a3d7-44b7-b46f-81b891a2af43" CreationDate="2015-01-15T15:36:44.757" UserId="23473" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17290" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="81605d68-57a5-41ff-a220-948127e46233" CreationDate="2015-01-15T18:24:48.553" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6449" RevisionGUID="8013c953-53aa-40fd-9b15-b2f65eb3b9d5" CreationDate="2015-01-15T18:25:47.043" UserId="7186" Text="Alas, I was a little optimistic in saying that the new ad threads would be live by now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I switched Physics over to the 2015 post, so barring any caching issues, you should be seeing new ads shortly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="413ae82c-2169-4632-9f93-0fb3d88e033c" CreationDate="2015-01-15T18:29:54.340" UserId="68181" Text="Just wondering, out of curiosity, what is the worst answer that anyone's seen on here (in terms of down votes)? I saw one just now that had -8 but there must be worse. I'm not talking about abusive answers (which probably got deleted), but genuine (although misguided!) attempts to address the question. I'm not looking to embarrass or shame anyone but was wondering what the record is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, please don't say 'this one' ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="413ae82c-2169-4632-9f93-0fb3d88e033c" CreationDate="2015-01-15T18:29:54.340" UserId="68181" Text="What is the worst answer ever on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="413ae82c-2169-4632-9f93-0fb3d88e033c" CreationDate="2015-01-15T18:29:54.340" UserId="68181" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="d98b83c8-fc6d-47a9-9b2a-856018ce4363" CreationDate="2015-01-15T18:41:23.777" UserId="2911" Text="You can figure this out yourself; [just search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20score%3a..-1)  and then go to the last page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one would tend to assume that the absolute *worst* answers are probably deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="c7b1dcbe-e85b-4f8b-94b0-a29bcdce91a5" CreationDate="2015-01-15T19:04:24.180" UserId="124" Text="You're not the first to notice this trend; actually, we had some discussion about it in the moderator chat room a few months ago. So I collected some data. Sampling which community ad is displayed on the home page at 5-minute intervals for a week or so shows that the distribution among different ads is roughly Gaussian, with no significant outliers. If I remember correctly, the Physics Overflow ad was displayed a little more than average, but was certainly far from being the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at the actual samples shows that the same community ad is displayed for a run of several hours. The exact length of the run changes according to some pattern I couldn't figure out (perhaps randomly), but the ad is not randomly chosen on each page view. I presume this is done to allow better caching. Anyway, I think this contributes to the _impression_ that the PO ad was being displayed more than it should be. If you tend to notice one ad more than the others, then when you see it the first time, you're more likely to register it when you visit the page in the future. While that ad is the current one, then it _is_ being displayed more often than it would be if the ads were randomly chosen at each page load, and your brain registers something fishy about that. On the other hand, during a run of any other ad, you don't notice it at all and your brain doesn't register the fact that you're going a long time without seeing the ad you focus on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="83eb0898-aab7-423d-b274-9eae5be14fc3" CreationDate="2015-01-15T19:40:04.570" UserId="62952" Comment="added link from Kyle for most upvoted homewoek and excercise tagged questions" Text="I want to start this meta question as place where people can put links to **well asked homework-like questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that if not so good questions are asked then we will have a meta question to point people to - so they can go and see well asked questions. Qmechanic, Jim and others are very good at highlighting well asked questions, but I found it hard to search for them - so I thought we could add links here... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle provided a useful link to [*homework and excercise* questions that have been voted up the most on Physics SE][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers below have links to well asked *homework and exercise* questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB: Only one link per answer please!** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework-and-exercises?sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="e77e4797-5962-475d-8814-1e93c3430723" CreationDate="2015-01-15T23:05:43.267" UserId="124" Comment="add data" Text="You're not the first to notice this trend; actually, we had some discussion about it in the moderator chat room a few months ago. So I collected some data. Sampling which community ad is displayed on the home page at 10-minute intervals for a couple weeks shows that the distribution among different ads is roughly Gaussian, with no significant outliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 12 [Worldbuilding SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/6211?url=http%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 22 [SciRate](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5982?url=https%3a%2f%2fscirate.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 46 [community ad thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5571?url=http%3a%2f%2fmeta.physics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5263%2fcommunity-promotion-ads-2014)&#xD;&#xA;- 59 [MathJax buttons](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5570?url=http%3a%2f%2fstackapps.com%2fquestions%2f3373%2fmathjax-buttons)&#xD;&#xA;- 68 [Space SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5279?url=http%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 72 [MIT OCW](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5276?url=http%3a%2f%2focw.mit.edu%2fcourses%2f%23physics)&#xD;&#xA;- 73 [Mathematica SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5275?url=http%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 77 [arXiv (1)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5266?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 81 [Unanswered questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5607?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2funanswered)&#xD;&#xA;- 82 [Astronomy SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5295?url=http%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 84 [Zotero](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5420?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.zotero.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 85 [NIST DLMF](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5278?url=http%3a%2f%2fdlmf.nist.gov%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Khan Academy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5277?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.khanacademy.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Physics Overflow](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5780?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.physicsoverflow.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 88 [featured questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5296?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2f%3ftab%3dfeatured)&#xD;&#xA;- 90 [LaTeX Search](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5558?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.latexsearch.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 95 [Desmos](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5415?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.desmos.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [ShareLaTeX](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5272?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sharelatex.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [arXiv (2)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5299?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![histogram of ad frequency][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(this omits the ad for the site's newsletter) The Physics Overflow ad was displayed more than average, but was certainly far from being the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at the actual samples shows that the same community ad is displayed for a run of several hours. The exact length of the run changes according to some pattern I couldn't figure out (perhaps randomly), but the ad is not randomly chosen on each page view. I presume this is done to allow better caching. Anyway, I think this contributes to the _impression_ that the PO ad was being displayed more than it should be. If you tend to notice one ad more than the others, then when you see it the first time, you're more likely to register it when you visit the page in the future. While that ad is the current one, then it _is_ being displayed more often than it would be if the ads were randomly chosen at each page load, and your brain registers something fishy about that. On the other hand, during a run of any other ad, you don't notice it at all and your brain doesn't register the fact that you're going a long time without seeing the ad you focus on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E3WJq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17299" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="e2892a4f-67eb-470a-8e00-69e23353dcd0" CreationDate="2015-01-16T03:01:34.533" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|answers|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="81371218-e033-442f-ac31-7fcd62ee60cf" CreationDate="2015-01-16T12:06:04.363" UserId="184" Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]     &#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LyjNt.png&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17301" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="2c5ce040-9746-4834-952a-07dcac38d062" CreationDate="2015-01-16T12:06:04.363" UserId="184" />
  <row Id="17303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="ddefce6e-bb06-4ab4-891a-7d0c6030a653" CreationDate="2015-01-16T15:02:34.837" UserId="68181" Comment="Re-phrasing the question to make it more constructive." Text="I was wondering if there is a way that I can search and view a list of answers that is sorted by vote scores, in such a way that I can determine which answers have the lowest scores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've re-phrased the question, as many people seemed to feel that in its original form it wasn't very constructive and may have given the impression of trying to encourage or celebrate 'bad answers', or may have led to posters feeling embarrassed or offended. This is the original question (for historical purposes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just wondering, out of curiosity, what is the worst answer that anyone's seen on here (in terms of down votes)? I saw one just now that had -8 but there must be worse. I'm not talking about abusive answers (which probably got deleted), but genuine (although misguided!) attempts to address the question. I'm not looking to embarrass or shame anyone but was wondering what the record is.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17304" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="ddefce6e-bb06-4ab4-891a-7d0c6030a653" CreationDate="2015-01-16T15:02:34.837" UserId="68181" Comment="Re-phrasing the question to make it more constructive." Text="How can I view which answers have the lowest vote scores?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="b319afc4-0dcf-415f-9818-5dc7cb34d2dc" CreationDate="2015-01-16T20:34:11.220" UserId="25301" Comment="we have an edit history for a reason, if someone is curious about the history, they can view it; just ask the question" Text="I was wondering if there is a way that I can search and view a list of answers that is sorted by vote scores, in such a way that I can determine which answers have the lowest scores?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="0ff06604-c4b3-4970-90af-3d583dda4774" CreationDate="2015-01-18T16:51:22.603" UserId="45195" Text="I recently asked a question about a theory proposed by someone I know. It is not a scientifically known one, but it is not so obviously true or false that one can avoid speculating on it, to reason out why it should be false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit, it was not a &quot;mainstream&quot; question as required by the site. My question got closed with the reason that it was not mainstream, and theories can be discussed only if they have already been researched, new work is not allowed on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, before its closing, there was a person who commented that they could discuss it according to the known facts. There was 1 upvote on it. Someone else countered him by saying that the same could be done with any off-topic question, hence that was not a valid reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it shows that there are people willing to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be a good idea to create an &quot;off-stream&quot; tag, where unpublished theories can be discussed scientifically. Those who don't like the idea could just avoid browsing through such questions, instead of banning them from the site altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="0ff06604-c4b3-4970-90af-3d583dda4774" CreationDate="2015-01-18T16:51:22.603" UserId="45195" Text="Why are off-topic questions banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="0ff06604-c4b3-4970-90af-3d583dda4774" CreationDate="2015-01-18T16:51:22.603" UserId="45195" Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="aa37aab6-865d-4a29-9ba1-3d3c136d1599" CreationDate="2015-01-18T17:32:04.897" UserId="25301" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="[I recently asked a question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158299/theory-of-black-holes-producing-matter-or-antimatter) about a theory proposed by someone I know. It is not a scientifically known one, but it is not so obviously true or false that one can avoid speculating on it, to reason out why it should be false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit, it was not a &quot;mainstream&quot; question as required by the site. My question got closed with the reason that it was not mainstream, and theories can be discussed only if they have already been researched, new work is not allowed on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, before its closing, there was a person who commented that they could discuss it according to the known facts. There was 1 upvote on it. Someone else countered him by saying that the same could be done with any off-topic question, hence that was not a valid reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it shows that there are people willing to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be a good idea to create an &quot;off-stream&quot; tag, where unpublished theories can be discussed scientifically. Those who don't like the idea could just avoid browsing through such questions, instead of banning them from the site altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="f3aa9833-d56b-4308-b54b-1b91b55d1496" CreationDate="2015-01-18T17:51:02.067" UserId="25301" Comment="Title did not reflect body, so I adjusted it so they would" Text="Can we allow non-mainstream questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17312" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="0f1b71a9-83c8-433c-a52f-742f06585f52" CreationDate="2015-01-18T21:51:04.043" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5903],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="05291406-c0b7-4868-8242-12e043e2210b" CreationDate="2015-01-18T22:55:24.367" UserId="68181" Text="Could someone please clarify this for me? I flagged this question earlier today as abusive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160129/question-about-how-smoke-and-combustion-works?noredirect=1#comment336085_160129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it had a drugs reference (which seemed to be unnecessary and not particularly related to physics). However, another user (I won't name names) with a higher rep than me posts a comment telling me to &quot;take my personal views on drug use out of here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say I'm a bit confused. I was only trying to help and I would have thought that, given this site is supposedly accessible to all age groups, we would want to keep things fairly 'family friendly'. I mean, technically one could describe the recipe for crystal meth as 'science', but would posting that be appropriate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a look through the posting guidelines, but couldn't find anything related to this specific issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="05291406-c0b7-4868-8242-12e043e2210b" CreationDate="2015-01-18T22:55:24.367" UserId="68181" Text="What is the site policy on (illegal) drug-related questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="05291406-c0b7-4868-8242-12e043e2210b" CreationDate="2015-01-18T22:55:24.367" UserId="68181" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17316" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="fda99cc0-0381-4871-9572-640c2deadb61" CreationDate="2015-01-19T06:27:28.223" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[996],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6457" RevisionGUID="36d6cb24-60d2-4e90-8e33-049fccf9711f" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:39:27.290" UserDisplayName="user59591" Text="There was nothing in them that could have reasonably been considered offensive; furthermore, there was no notification about their removal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6457" RevisionGUID="36d6cb24-60d2-4e90-8e33-049fccf9711f" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:39:27.290" UserDisplayName="user59591" Text="Why were my recent postings removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6457" RevisionGUID="36d6cb24-60d2-4e90-8e33-049fccf9711f" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:39:27.290" UserDisplayName="user59591" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="8a182d90-4c53-4abd-86cf-5ce64b0dadd8" CreationDate="2015-01-19T23:40:17.023" UserId="520" Text="You seem to have misunderstood the communications model we use on Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've been using &quot;Answer&quot; posts to comment on or amend your questions (as if this were the USENET or a threaded-conversation forum). That's not how things work here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers are reserved for *answering the question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To amend or extend a post please use the edit facility (modulo not changing a post beyond recognition or rendering existing answer invalid.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="022f091d-da16-4475-b626-82fc1283e5e8" CreationDate="2015-01-20T02:03:52.547" UserId="25301" Text="You were told exactly why below the posts:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found in both of your deleted posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![heaviside01][1]  &#xD;&#xA;([source](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/160072/25301), requires 10k+ rep)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;([source](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/156041/25301), requires 10k+ rep)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are additional *thoughts* to your post. As such, they belong *in the question post* and not as **answers** to your query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uqtuJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CxMPr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="0144e185-46c6-4ac9-886b-6da86e179815" CreationDate="2015-01-20T19:57:41.960" UserId="63055" Text="Some equations have nested fractions and radicals e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([which is the relationship of temperature between a planet and a star based on a radiative energy balance][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathjax renders the equation this size:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which makes it hard to read some variables. I am wondering: is any way to increase the size of the font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qDkSM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Temperature_relation_between_a_planet_and_its_star&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LARSY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="0144e185-46c6-4ac9-886b-6da86e179815" CreationDate="2015-01-20T19:57:41.960" UserId="63055" Text="Is there a way to control the font size of MathJax equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="0144e185-46c6-4ac9-886b-6da86e179815" CreationDate="2015-01-20T19:57:41.960" UserId="63055" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="df895b41-590e-4d8a-9dd4-d31978b3719f" CreationDate="2015-01-20T20:13:45.743" UserId="25301" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any MathJax commands that will increase the font size, but I am currently searching for such a command.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a temporary fix (for you only) is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Right click on any MathJax equations in any post&#xD;&#xA; 2. Select `Math Settings`&#xD;&#xA; 3. Select the last option, `Scale all math...`&#xD;&#xA; 4. Enter any number you want in the pop-up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies site-wide (I believe that it edits your JavaScript file) but, again,  for you only.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="1322a348-d939-42ea-a401-7eae2c5fba2c" CreationDate="2015-01-20T20:25:57.417" UserId="25301" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="It seems MathJax supports [size Latex commands](http://www.forkosh.com/latex/ltx-178.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `\tiny`, `\scriptsize`, `\footnotesize`, `\small`, `\normalsize` (default), `\large`, `\Large` (capital &quot;L&quot;), `\LARGE` (all caps), `\huge`, `\Huge` (capital &quot;H&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which go from smallest to largest. A quick test showed that `\large` or `\Large` worked rather well for the equation you have above (getting larger might be just too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a temporary fix (for you only) is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Right click on any MathJax equations in any post&#xD;&#xA; 2. Select `Math Settings`&#xD;&#xA; 3. Select the last option, `Scale all math...`&#xD;&#xA; 4. Enter any number you want in the pop-up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies site-wide (I believe that it edits your JavaScript file) but, again,  for you only.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="e39b84b5-a09d-4dbb-8a12-cc07b25ab123" CreationDate="2015-01-20T21:48:59.120" UserId="62952" Comment="changed end of second paragraph because question does not mention 'worst' anymore" Text="You can figure this out yourself; [just search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20score%3a..-1)  and then go to the last page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one would tend to assume that answers with the absolute *lowest scores* have probably been deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="450b6a48-8ea0-454c-8e05-f8b7ff6b6fbf" CreationDate="2015-01-23T10:44:00.520" UserId="67847" Text="In answering [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160574/what-relative-masses-are-required-for-them-to-collide-n-times-in-this-scenario/160641#160641) question, I needed to multiply three matrices - which obviously involves writing them on the same line. I tried a couple of things, none of which worked, so my question is - how do you write colinear matrices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="450b6a48-8ea0-454c-8e05-f8b7ff6b6fbf" CreationDate="2015-01-23T10:44:00.520" UserId="67847" Text="MathJax: How do I write matrices on the same line?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="450b6a48-8ea0-454c-8e05-f8b7ff6b6fbf" CreationDate="2015-01-23T10:44:00.520" UserId="67847" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6464" RevisionGUID="790d8adb-2879-48c6-82b6-0838c047e128" CreationDate="2015-01-23T12:13:20.917" UserId="124" Text="It works the same way you did it earlier in the answer, when you had a matrix and vector: just write the markup for the matrices one after another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\begin{pmatrix}...\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}...\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}...\end{pmatrix}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They don't all have to be on the same line, but as with any other MathJax expression, you can't have a blank line between the starting and ending `$$`s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went ahead and fixed the markup in the answer for you, as an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="a6245af7-cd82-49d6-b95f-c04f20a2ab80" CreationDate="2015-01-24T11:45:56.987" UserId="56578" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has hany value or meaning. In both cases, will the question be closed anyway when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="a6245af7-cd82-49d6-b95f-c04f20a2ab80" CreationDate="2015-01-24T11:45:56.987" UserId="56578" Text="Voting to close" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="a6245af7-cd82-49d6-b95f-c04f20a2ab80" CreationDate="2015-01-24T11:45:56.987" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="19e42491-398f-42c2-9c62-da3ad26c0fde" CreationDate="2015-01-24T12:55:59.987" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has any value or meaning. In both cases, will the question be closed *anyway* when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="e3feb2b7-a174-476e-98f0-b71e080a621d" CreationDate="2015-01-24T14:33:10.230" UserId="56578" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has any value or meaning. In both cases, will the question be closed *anyway* when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you also explain why [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/135)&#xD;&#xA;at *meta* only one vote to **leave closed** is enough to declare that *item no longer reviewable*? and if/how that question can ever be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="fc060ea5-abe5-45d8-b14f-0ac1e357449c" CreationDate="2015-01-24T16:10:45.197" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="fc060ea5-abe5-45d8-b14f-0ac1e357449c" CreationDate="2015-01-24T16:10:45.197" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work in the context of review tasks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has any value or meaning. In both cases, will the question be closed *anyway* when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you also explain why [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/135)&#xD;&#xA;at *meta* only one vote to **leave closed** is enough to declare that *item no longer reviewable*? and if/how that question can ever be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17348" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="fc060ea5-abe5-45d8-b14f-0ac1e357449c" CreationDate="2015-01-24T16:10:45.197" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="Voting to close in review tasks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="f5c18918-6591-4b6b-ab2a-a5eb174b1fde" CreationDate="2015-01-24T19:12:42.010" UserId="8563" Text="A question will be closed whenever there are five Close votes on it, unless one of those is a moderator (in which case the question is closed immediately). It's important to note that [close votes age away](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away) if no new votes are being added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect of Leave Open votes is to take the question out of the review queue: if (# of Close votes) - (# of Leave Open votes) is three or more, the question will not be shown to new reviewers on the queue. This does not affect the number of Close votes on the question, so it can still be closed if people find it independently and vote to close it, or if a moderator sees it and closes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An identical system is in place for the Reopen review queue: enough Leave Closed votes will knock a question out of the queue, but will not cancel the existing Reopen votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see [this thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10582/what-is-a-closed-or-on-hold-question) in the mother meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="b20aa4de-db21-44c2-95c5-95a5bfba99a8" CreationDate="2015-01-24T19:27:01.183" UserId="8563" Comment="added 969 characters in body" Text="A question will be closed whenever there are five Close votes on it, unless one of those is a moderator (in which case the question is closed immediately). It's important to note that [close votes age away](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away) if no new votes are being added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect of Leave Open votes is to take the question out of the review queue: if (# of Close votes) - (# of Leave Open votes) is three or more, the question will not be shown to new reviewers on the queue. This does not affect the number of Close votes on the question, so it can still be closed if people find it independently and vote to close it, or if a moderator sees it and closes it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel strongly about a question staying open, you should comment below it stating the reasons why you think so. Close-voters may simply express their disagreement via their votes, but at the very least this helps the OP in knowing where the strengths of their posts are, which will hopefully help them reopen it later on. Alternatively, you can post here on meta if it exceeds the dimensions of a comment thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways for a question to enter the review queue. One is for a user with close-vote privileges to vote to close, and the other is for someone *without* the privilege to flag it as off-topic. The former is the more common of the two, and in that case there will be that additional vote in the count, so the review count will show four Close votes from the review; this is the case for the first question you linked. The total count of close votes on a question is shown in parenthesis next to the close link below the question body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An identical system is in place for the Reopen review queue: enough Leave Closed votes will knock a question out of the queue, but will not cancel the existing Reopen votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see [this thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10582/what-is-a-closed-or-on-hold-question) in the mother meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="5b96cfad-a3fd-411e-bcdf-82004318f94d" CreationDate="2015-01-24T22:23:58.640" UserId="2911" Comment="Correct / clarify certain areas. Note also that reviews do not necessarily correspond to votes - there are reopen and close votes, but leave closed and leave open reviews are not close or reopen votes." Text="A question will be closed whenever there are five Close votes on it, unless one of those is a moderator (in which case the question is closed immediately). It's important to note that [close votes age away](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away) if no new votes are being added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect of Leave Open votes is to take the question out of the review queue: if (# of Leave Open reviews) is three or more, the question will not be shown to new reviewers on the queue. This does not affect the number of Close votes on the question (except by triggering the start of close vote aging - see link above), so it can still be closed if people find it independently and vote to close it, or if a moderator sees it and closes it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel strongly about a question staying open, you should comment below it stating the reasons why you think so. Close-voters may simply express their disagreement via their votes, but at the very least this helps the OP in knowing where the strengths of their posts are, which will hopefully help them reopen it later on. Alternatively, you can post here on meta if it exceeds the dimensions of a comment thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways for a question to enter the review queue. One is for a user with close-vote privileges to vote to close, and the other is for someone *without* the privilege to flag it as off-topic. The former is the more common of the two, and in that case there will be that additional vote in the count, so the review count will show four Close votes from the review; this is the case for the first question you linked. The total count of close votes on a question is shown in parenthesis next to the close link below the question body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An identical system is in place for the Reopen review queue: enough Leave Closed votes will knock a question out of the queue, but will not cancel the existing Reopen votes. A question will be removed from the queue when it is reopened, when it attracts 3 or more Leave Closed reviews, or when all outstanding reopen votes age away (see link in first paragraph - this is what happened in the example you linked to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see [this thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10582/what-is-a-closed-or-on-hold-question) in the mother meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="c96e5752-4d1a-4be2-a01e-4784d0d729c6" CreationDate="2015-01-25T06:51:06.720" UserId="56578" Comment="added 835 characters in body" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work in the context of review tasks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has *any value or meaning*. In both cases, will the question be closed *anyway* when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2) Can you also explain why [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/135)&#xD;&#xA;at *meta* only one vote to **leave closed** is enough to declare that *item no longer reviewable*? and if/how that question can ever be reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: if 4 members think a question should *not* be closed, 5 members can *anyway* close that question, and the four contrary votes are absolutely irrelevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone answer also the second question? There were a couple of **reopen** votes at that post, which have disappered now: on what conditions can it be reopened? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why one member that has closed that question can vote again to prevent people from reopening it, and why only one vote (his) is enough to make that *item no longer reviewable*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that only some [20 members](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats) (out of 100/150) are actively engaging in **reopen** votes and that 5+5 were involved in the closures, it seems that it is practically impossible to reopen that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="074c12e9-5cb8-473d-a52c-047d7dadfbfe" CreationDate="2015-01-25T08:17:37.647" UserId="56578" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="074c12e9-5cb8-473d-a52c-047d7dadfbfe" CreationDate="2015-01-25T08:17:37.647" UserId="56578" Text="Careless (serial) voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="074c12e9-5cb8-473d-a52c-047d7dadfbfe" CreationDate="2015-01-25T08:17:37.647" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17356" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="7a6b3c02-f0b9-4a95-b27e-1e61fa3452b0" CreationDate="2015-01-25T08:27:18.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/559266247565910016" />
  <row Id="17357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="8baef8ac-7903-4bd2-8002-7ddabcf4726b" CreationDate="2015-01-25T08:44:58.040" UserId="56578" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="28162a5b-69d1-4a51-9b1b-e9aef6e844cd" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:24:30.537" UserId="56578" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="837a5121-1361-4a56-aab3-5b934831092b" CreationDate="2015-01-25T14:56:42.600" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1393 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total), if he had taken an average of 5 mins to examine and assess posts in a scrupulous manner he should have spent some 350 hours. (850 in total, which makes over 100 days working 9 to 5 without a coffee-break)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="9bdf2fa5-f63d-4fc3-a9c5-b355bd8a03d5" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:35:26.513" UserId="25301" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds. &#xD;&#xA;3. Your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="7396f908-53fa-4e2a-af5a-5972df45b56a" CreationDate="2015-01-25T18:52:08.140" UserId="25301" Comment="amended the answer" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="45026b6a-eefc-42c4-a53d-99522e674bab" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:41:08.870" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="In answering [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160574/what-relative-masses-are-required-for-them-to-collide-n-times-in-this-scenario/160641#160641) question, I needed to multiply three matrices - which obviously involves writing them on the same line. I tried a couple of things, none of which worked, so my question is - how do you write collinear matrices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="45026b6a-eefc-42c4-a53d-99522e674bab" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:41:08.870" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="6a1ecd00-47a6-4922-bd2a-670ff872a905" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:44:36.083" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to understand the answers given to the question:&#xD;&#xA;How long it will take for a tree to fall on a ground?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example how are the following to be interpreted&#xD;&#xA;$ $$  \  {  }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and what are:&#xD;&#xA;frac  mgh  mh  mathcal  partial  left  right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem unable to find any sort of &quot;introduction&quot; to  physics.stackexchange.  I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to ask this question on &quot;meta&quot; as directed - but found I need &quot;five reputation&quot; - &amp; can find nothing telling what this is and how to earn them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also please advise of all the faux pas made herein&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="6a1ecd00-47a6-4922-bd2a-670ff872a905" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:44:36.083" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17375" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="6a1ecd00-47a6-4922-bd2a-670ff872a905" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:44:36.083" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Where can I find the explanation for the LaTeX/mathjax symbology used for equations in physics.stackexchange.com?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="fc8dfdfe-1f0c-4af7-9d22-e33f15bc41d3" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:52:39.227" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|formatting|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="62561ff0-b6e0-41bc-85fd-66a82b45dfc0" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:52:51.293" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="2a4e11b3-4f3e-415c-9ceb-87c334cf1502" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:54:00.560" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="82d873a5-b9aa-41b4-a534-413b9e6017a6" CreationDate="2015-01-26T08:12:00.643" UserId="56578" Comment="added 2644 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions, I am only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) **unclear**: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) **duplicate**: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked *possible duplicate[**s**].* Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more and more useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) **no effort-HW**. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well **aware of our humanity**, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the **community**.. -  Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called *community* is just a select group (rougly a dozen members from the *3k+ club*), who almost **never acknowledge they made a mistake**, and even if some do, it is practically **impossible to reopen a question**, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare *off-topic* the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) is really indicative of the contempt *the community* has for *newcomers* and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong and to give an explanation. (I acknowledged then that *you* were the only one who reversed his vote), and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of *newcomers*: it was closed and deleted **twice**  marked as *HW-off-topic*) when the OP was a *newbie*, and become  perfecly on-topic (when posted) last week&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) for a reply to the second question and see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="2879d85f-a0f1-4cd0-97a3-6d8e76f97d56" CreationDate="2015-01-26T08:17:07.023" UserId="56578" Comment="added 2644 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions, I am only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) **unclear**: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) **duplicate**: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked *possible duplicate[**s**].* Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) **no effort-HW**. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well **aware of our humanity**, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the **community**.. -  Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called *community* is just a select group (rougly a dozen members from the *3k+ club*), who almost **never acknowledge they made a mistake**, and even if some do, it is practically **impossible to reopen a question**, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare *off-topic* the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) is really indicative of the contempt *the community* has for *newcomers* and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong and to give an explanation. (I acknowledged then that *you* were the only one who reversed his vote), and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of *newcomers*: it was closed and deleted **twice** ( marked as *HW-off-topic*) when the OP was a *newbie*, and become  perfecly on-topic (when posted) last week&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) for a reply to the second question and see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="791d1e32-0fe3-4c55-841b-6faa956ce14e" CreationDate="2015-01-26T11:34:52.467" UserId="56578" Comment="added 502 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait 5 seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (and in particular to down-votes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 secs** per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: it takes a few minutes to read it properly, check the equations and evaluate the *effort*. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close: it is **shameful and shameless** to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions, I am only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) **unclear**: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) **duplicate**: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked *possible duplicate[**s**].* Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) **no effort-HW**. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well **aware of our humanity**, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the **community**.. -  Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called *community* is identified with just a select group (rougly a dozen members from the *3k+ club*), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, *that* is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the *status quo*) and, even if some do, it is practically **impossible to reopen a question**, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare *off-topic* the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt *the community* has for *newcomers* and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. I acknowledged then that *you* were the only one who reversed his vote, but you too **refused to give an explanation** (there are hundreds of similar cases), and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of *newcomers*: it was closed and deleted **twice** ( marked as *HW-off-topic*) when the OP was a *newbie*, and became perfecly *on-topic* (when posted *ad hoc*, out of curiosity) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) for a reply to the second question and see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="ede975a4-a8f4-49d0-ae56-6294f6bc9dcd" CreationDate="2015-01-26T12:01:03.020" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism &#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Jim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, was intrigued by this *(rather silly)* concept: he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, but I articulated and argumented my post, you give me the short-shift with a click. I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17383" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="90585148-9170-4773-a7b5-9449ef50502c" CreationDate="2015-01-26T13:29:30.863" UserId="25301" Comment="Rollback to [837a5121-1361-4a56-aab3-5b934831092b]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total), if he had taken an average of 5 mins to examine and assess posts in a scrupulous manner he should have spent some 350 hours. (850 in total, which makes over 100 days working 9 to 5 without a coffee-break)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17385" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="19ac392a-e1c7-4b06-8e1e-473af9b1a7f0" CreationDate="2015-01-26T14:40:59.187" UserId="56578" Comment="Rollback to [791d1e32-0fe3-4c55-841b-6faa956ce14e]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait 5 seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (and in particular to down-votes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 secs** per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: it takes a few minutes to read it properly, check the equations and evaluate the *effort*. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close: it is **shameful and shameless** to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions, I am only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) **unclear**: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) **duplicate**: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked *possible duplicate[**s**].* Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) **no effort-HW**. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well **aware of our humanity**, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the **community**.. -  Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called *community* is identified with just a select group (rougly a dozen members from the *3k+ club*), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, *that* is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the *status quo*) and, even if some do, it is practically **impossible to reopen a question**, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare *off-topic* the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt *the community* has for *newcomers* and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. I acknowledged then that *you* were the only one who reversed his vote, but you too **refused to give an explanation** (there are hundreds of similar cases), and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of *newcomers*: it was closed and deleted **twice** ( marked as *HW-off-topic*) when the OP was a *newbie*, and became perfecly *on-topic* (when posted *ad hoc*, out of curiosity) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) for a reply to the second question and see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="6d260578-0c5d-43b3-adc0-c28e04ff2dbb" CreationDate="2015-01-26T14:43:46.137" UserId="56578" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait 5 seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (and in particular to down-votes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 secs** per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: it takes a few minutes to read it properly, check the equations and evaluate the *effort*. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close: it is **shameful and shameless** to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure (raising a flag). It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions, I am only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) **unclear**: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) **duplicate**: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked *possible duplicate[**s**].* Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) **no effort-HW**. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well **aware of our humanity**, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the **community**.. -  Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called *community* is identified with just a select group (rougly a dozen members from the *3k+ club*), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, *that* is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the *status quo*) and, even if some do, it is practically **impossible to reopen a question**, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare *off-topic* the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt *the community* has for *newcomers* and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. I acknowledged then that *you* were the only one who reversed his vote, but you too **refused to give an explanation** (there are hundreds of similar cases), and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of *newcomers*: **two identical questions** were closed and deleted ( marked as *HW-off-topic*) when the OP was a *newbie*, and became perfecly *on-topic* (when posted *ad hoc*, out of curiosity) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) for a reply to the second question and see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17387" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="941fc782-62ab-4fe2-bcbd-9f3b8eb5b8c4" CreationDate="2015-01-27T00:19:11.730" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [837a5121-1361-4a56-aab3-5b934831092b]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total), if he had taken an average of 5 mins to examine and assess posts in a scrupulous manner he should have spent some 350 hours. (850 in total, which makes over 100 days working 9 to 5 without a coffee-break)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17388" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="690894ba-1a3b-4dbf-b398-2c103c5154f4" CreationDate="2015-01-27T00:19:38.853" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17389" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="83ed6b7f-d1fb-4c0c-8744-edf84ed27843" CreationDate="2015-01-27T00:19:38.853" UserId="520" Comment="1020" />
  <row Id="17391" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="8ff7a582-b50e-41c0-b73c-2f99f9814863" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:27:23.970" UserId="-1" Comment="1020" />
  <row Id="17392" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="c9678176-4358-452e-94d8-a967c355ca74" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:27:23.970" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17393" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="802aebbd-67bd-44ff-a553-a1cc1757a723" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:33:34.760" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [2e23d4db-c1b8-4bf6-90bf-9dcb12156f4f]" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Jim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, was intrigued by this *(rather silly)* concept: he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, but I articulated and argumented my post, you give me the short-shift with a click. I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="6abac90e-89aa-45b3-a9bc-ceed800fd3ce" CreationDate="2015-01-27T07:32:12.383" UserId="56578" Text="I deliberately asked only questions in my post: from now on I want to separate the issues, the problems from *my* suggestions, which (legitimately) may not be popular or may be downright wrong, and should be mercilessly downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must specify also that **my posts at Meta are addressed to the SE Team who monitor the various sites, or, eventually, to its real owners**, who care about the welfare of the network, and are not meant to gain popularity. You probably all know that **I had the cheek to refute Newton** himself (and Wikipedia) in a few answers of mine, which are extremely unpopular with the top users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close: it is _shameful and shameless_ to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure (raising a flag). It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions in my question, I was only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have documented that some members cast up to 7-8 VTC in a minute. This truth has not been questioned, nay,  to my surprise the right to VTC a question in 10 seconds has been proudly claimed. Probably I am too old and my reflexes are dimmed as my eyesight and moreover my modest abilities and competence do not allow me to conscientiously review a question in 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) unclear: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) duplicate: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked possible duplicate[s]. Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) no effort-HW. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. **If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient** and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the community.. - Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called community is identified with just a select group (rougly a dozen members from the 3k+ club), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, that is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the status quo) and, even if some do, it is practically impossible to reopen a question, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare off-topic the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt the community has for newcomers and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. All members who pretended not to understand it or insulted the poster refused to give a justification or even an explanation , and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of newcomers: two identical [questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23893_6467) were closed and deleted (marked as HW-off-topic) when the OP was a newbie, and became perfectly on-topic (when posted ad hoc) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting for a reply to the second question [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) to see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is therefore my answer to the questions**? I think we are not being enough fair to students, and our *comprehension* or *humanity* should be greater. My suggestion is articulate and you can choose any bit you approve, or mix them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions by newcomers (or users who already posted bad questions) might not be published immediately, they might be put in a separate queue, just as we are doing with **First post**/ answer. There the posts by non-natives might be corrected and made more clear for non-native reviewers, who sometime have problems with comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;- in the same queue the really bad questions might get a first screening and be put on hold, preventing people from answering, giving time to the reviewers to take a conscientious decision&#xD;&#xA;- nobody should ever be allowed to cast more than a VTC in one minute.&#xD;&#xA;- members who voted to close should not allowed to vote again to leave it closed&#xD;&#xA;- obviously enough, reviewers criticized for wrongly closing a question should not be allowed to close the Meta-question&#xD;&#xA;- question at Meta should never be closed when they criticize policies or actions. If the post contains rude words only those words should be eliminated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="85bc7dd6-0130-4a8a-bf0a-8c669c3fdd15" CreationDate="2015-01-27T13:03:20.533" UserId="56578" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I deliberately asked only questions in my post: from now on I want to separate the issues, the problems from *my* suggestions, which (legitimately) may not be popular or may be downright wrong, and should be mercilessly downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must specify also that **my posts at Meta are addressed to the SE Team who monitor the various sites, or, eventually, to its real owners**, who care about the welfare of the network, and are not meant to gain popularity. You probably all know that **I had the cheek to refute Newton** himself (and Wikipedia) in a few answers of mine, which are extremely unpopular with the top users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close or locked: it is _shameful and shameless_ to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure or censorship. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions in my question, I was only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have documented that some members cast up to 7-8 VTC in a minute. This truth has not been questioned, nay,  to my surprise the right to VTC a question in 10 seconds has been proudly claimed. Probably I am too old and my reflexes are dimmed as my eyesight and moreover my modest abilities and competence do not allow me to conscientiously review a question in 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) unclear: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) duplicate: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked possible duplicate[s]. Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) no effort-HW. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. **If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient** and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the community.. - Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called community is identified with just a select group (roughly a dozen members from the 3k+ club), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, that is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the status quo) and, even if some do, it is practically impossible to reopen a question, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare off-topic the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt the community has for newcomers and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. All members who pretended not to understand it or insulted the poster refused to give a justification or even an explanation , and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of newcomers: two identical [questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23893_6467) were closed and deleted (marked as HW-off-topic) when the OP was a newbie, and became perfectly on-topic (when posted *ad hoc*) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting for a reply to the second question [**here**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) to see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is therefore my answer to the questions**? I think we are not being enough fair to students, and our *comprehension* or *humanity* should be greater. My suggestion is articulate and you can choose any bit you approve, or mix them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions by newcomers (or users who already posted bad questions) might not be published immediately, they might be put in a separate queue, just as we are doing with **First post**/ answer. There the posts by non-natives might be corrected and made more clear for non-native reviewers, who sometime have problems with comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;- in the same queue the really bad questions might get a first screening and be put on hold, preventing people from answering, giving time to the reviewers to take a conscientious decision&#xD;&#xA;- nobody should ever be allowed to cast more than a VTC in one minute.&#xD;&#xA;- members who voted *to close* should not be allowed to vote same question to *leave it closed*&#xD;&#xA;- obviously enough, reviewers criticized for wrongly closing a question should not be allowed to close the Meta-question&#xD;&#xA;- question at Meta should never be closed when they criticize policies or actions. If the post contains rude words only those words should be eliminated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="282be879-8631-4f25-a120-b2990e117b0a" CreationDate="2015-01-27T17:28:59.613" UserId="2" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="bf4e5f7b-786d-4208-ad9d-b98f2924e4bd" CreationDate="2015-01-27T17:29:13.190" UserId="2" Text="This should be resolved with the latest version of MathJax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="5addae47-aa69-4255-b46c-7720e171d8cd" CreationDate="2015-01-27T18:15:56.047" UserId="23473" Text="So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is &quot;yes&quot; and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Q:** How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**A1:** Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**A2:** I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**A3:** I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of &quot;this isn't a place for personal opinions&quot;. But is it truly an answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By &quot;like A3&quot; I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, they're answers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted.&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;**No, they're not answers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking &quot;How does this happen?&quot;, not &quot;What is your opinion of how this happens?&quot;. If I asked &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot; and you responded with &quot;In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean.&quot; I'd say &quot;I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant.&quot; (And then I might literally bite your head off too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is &quot;The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be.&quot; If the question were &quot;What is your opinion of *X*?&quot;, it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question &quot;How does *X* work?&quot; is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter?&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of &quot;Yes&quot;, but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider &quot;No&quot;. So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="5addae47-aa69-4255-b46c-7720e171d8cd" CreationDate="2015-01-27T18:15:56.047" UserId="23473" Text="Opinions: When are or are not they answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="5addae47-aa69-4255-b46c-7720e171d8cd" CreationDate="2015-01-27T18:15:56.047" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="924a7969-3fb8-49aa-9a48-d5039b851592" CreationDate="2015-01-27T19:28:02.950" UserId="1325" Text="I really hate opinion type answers, and indeed many of the more banal answers I post are because I considered an existing answer inadequate and I didn't want the OP to go away with the wrong impression. Since I'm philosophically opposed to downvoting, posting a better answer is usually the only way to show my displeasure with the current answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So just in case it's not clear, I consider both A2 and A3 wholly unacceptable. People come to us for an authoritative answer from an expert in their field. That it's possible for a young physics nerd, as I was forty (!!!) years ago, to get answers from a working string thorist is frankly astonishing. Indeed, in my days as a teen physics nerd it was utterly inconceivable. Given what a fantastic service we offer I feel we should strongly resist diluting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I would not downvote or otherwise sanction any answer given in good faith, unless it was grossly incorrect in which case I normally vote to delete it. If an answer is unsatisfactory then the very best solution is to post a better answer and show how it should be done. If you do this you are not just educating the OP, but you are also educating the person posting the unsatisfactory answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="1228ddaa-d1ef-4c72-b951-e5225b24b076" CreationDate="2015-01-27T20:36:40.600" UserId="520" Text="Speaking with my moderator hat on ...&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I have not been acting on examples of A2 or cases that are borderline between A2 and A3: that's up to the community to establish by consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outright example of A3 I delete after they have accumulated a net score of around -4 and no significant upvote contribution. That is, those that the community has shown it's disapproval of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with my user hat on ...&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###I down-vote A3s. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often mercilessly, though I've been known to hold back if I think the post suggests the users (1) didn't know and better and (2) can be taught. Whether I vote or not I am likely to leave a comment summarizing where the answer goes wrong or to upvote and existing comment of that kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to strongly discourage these kinds of posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I'd like to downvote many A2s, but I don't always.&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be lenient if it is the first answer to a question that has gone unanswered for several hours, or if the poster provides a reasonably well reasoned argument for why an analogy with some other physics makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to discourage these posts if better answers are present, but *want* the better class is no really good answer is available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="2100ad6b-2545-42ae-87e6-6494479d665e" CreationDate="2015-01-27T20:52:11.557" UserId="520" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Speaking with my moderator hat on ...&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I have not been acting on examples of A2 or cases that are borderline between A2 and A3: that's up to the community to establish by consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outright example of A3 I delete after they have accumulated a net score of around -4 and no significant upvote contribution. That is, those that the community has shown it's disapproval of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with my user hat on ...&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###I down-vote A3s. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often mercilessly, though I've been known to hold back if I think the post suggests the users (1) didn't know and better and (2) can be taught. Whether I vote or not I am likely to leave a comment summarizing where the answer goes wrong or to upvote and existing comment of that kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to strongly discourage these kinds of posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I'd like to downvote many A2s, but I don't always.&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be lenient if it is the first answer to a question that has gone unanswered for several hours, or if the poster provides a reasonably well reasoned argument for why an analogy with some other physics makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to discourage these posts if better answers are present, but if no expert answer is available an example of how another kind of physicists would approach the problem is better than letting it languish unattended for days or weeks. Or so it seems to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="2aa5560a-0e23-4220-a870-14bbd743e79d" CreationDate="2015-01-27T20:58:24.623" UserId="6634" Text="My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers *may* be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the &quot;I am not certain but...&quot; from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that **require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy**. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a &quot;here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about&quot; level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, **must** downvote if it is inaccurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response][1] -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="48c6bda4-a8e1-4b75-9f86-1324d3bc1218" CreationDate="2015-01-27T21:16:17.967" UserId="25301" Text="I think **A2** is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of *This answer could be better if ...&quot;* would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think **A3** is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Comments:  &#xD;&#xA;A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an &quot;attempt&quot; to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks:  &#xD;&#xA;Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP&#xD;&#xA; - New Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Does not apply&#xD;&#xA; - URL only:  &#xD;&#xA;Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be &quot;Looks Okay&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5995, asked here on Physics by [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="8d710e10-7ca0-4a10-823d-f1f6aefe71cb" CreationDate="2015-01-28T02:45:05.270" UserId="25301" Comment="added extra bullet due to jim's comment" Text="I think **A2** is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of *This answer could be better if ...&quot;* would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think **A3** is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Comments:  &#xD;&#xA;A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an &quot;attempt&quot; to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks:  &#xD;&#xA;Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP&#xD;&#xA; - New Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Does not apply&#xD;&#xA; - URL only:  &#xD;&#xA;Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied&#xD;&#xA; - No comment necessary:  &#xD;&#xA;This, to me, is supposed to be used when *someone else* has already left a delete-comment as above&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be &quot;Looks Okay&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5995, asked here on Physics by [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to &quot;get around&quot; the other comments and delete **A3** answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="5ca6c3e3-42e8-4f3b-aaaf-808622a9038f" CreationDate="2015-01-28T08:15:58.040" UserId="56578" Comment="added 1824 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**:&#xD;&#xA;I do not know why/by whom the question has been unlocked, I hope it was deliberately done out of *Fairness* or in the name of *First Amendment*. This allowed me to restore my earlier correction of some typos and a slip of the pen (the object of a [**snarky**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23854_6467) remark which was ignored by mods, and defused by my irony)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to point out that it is really sad that in a site of *&quot;scientists&quot;* the main counter-argument to an argument or even to a hard fact is a snarky remark or the usual mean [**straw-man** fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): *occasional careless  VTC** is twisted into [*widespread malfeasance*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23862_6470), *documenting excess* may be [*bad for my sanity*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23860_6467) (a very subtle/diabolic *innuendo* probably difficult to flag or censure), and means accusing somebody of [*cruelty*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23863_6470) and *occasional excess* is definitively drowned in [*averages*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23924_6467) and doesn't exist, therefore my whole post is pointless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to point out that trying to boycott a post that gives **bare facts** (which, alas, prove some **home truths**) by voting to close/ deleting paragraphs / locking it simply proves that the [**recriminations**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23894_6467) are grounded not only re the *policies* but also re moderation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="621e3993-398e-4df0-b7de-e2561500be05" CreationDate="2015-01-28T09:32:35.620" UserId="56578" Text="I am **not** proposing to change the software or criticizing the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;I always wanted to ask this question since a joined, since it is a glaring asymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having raised over a thousand useful flags now, and consequently having read thousands of comments, I have noticed that (probably as a consequence) many of them are pointless or completely wrong, but nevertheless they always influence the reader (especially when the poster has a substantial reputation) and the only way to contrast them is to wait for a comment that refutes them and upvote the latter. When a posters is embarassed he can always delete it, and make the response incomprehensible, but, if nobody notices it (or is not able to refute it), it remains there forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure that everybody is aware of this phenomenon, to some extent. I'd like to know what is the rationale of this decision, what are the arguments that brought the software/policy maker to chose this option. Anybody knows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="621e3993-398e-4df0-b7de-e2561500be05" CreationDate="2015-01-28T09:32:35.620" UserId="56578" Text="Why can't comments be downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="621e3993-398e-4df0-b7de-e2561500be05" CreationDate="2015-01-28T09:32:35.620" UserId="56578" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="cf798da3-b117-4c93-ad81-1ccc945bb4a1" CreationDate="2015-01-28T13:43:51.777" UserId="25301" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="5151e2df-7c2a-4e28-8f8e-6e0da85e8433" CreationDate="2015-01-28T15:18:12.627" UserId="56578" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="I am **not** proposing to change the software or criticizing the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;I always wanted to ask this question since a joined, since it is a glaring asymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having raised over a thousand useful flags now, and consequently having read thousands of comments, I have noticed that (probably as a consequence) many of them are pointless or completely wrong, but nevertheless they always influence the reader (especially when the poster has a substantial reputation) and the only way to contrast them is to wait for a comment that refutes them and upvote the latter. When a posters is embarassed he can always delete it, and make the response incomprehensible, but, if nobody notices it (or is not able to refute it), it remains there forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure that everybody is aware of this phenomenon, to some extent. I'd like to know what is the rationale of this decision, what are the arguments that can be/ are brought to prefer/justify this option. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6480" RevisionGUID="dbcfb235-52d1-496f-99e6-3ad6be04b560" CreationDate="2015-01-28T15:58:36.073" UserDisplayName="user66452" Text="The answer is simple. They are not answers or questions but comments. Don't you know what the comment exactly means? It mean a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction. So in my view, it is really absurd to vote down someone's opinion. An opinion is only a thought. Thoughts are responsible to create questions, answers and rulings. Hope you understand.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6480" RevisionGUID="5c7471dd-42cf-4538-9083-a585c0d63cfe" CreationDate="2015-01-28T16:06:06.003" UserDisplayName="user66452" Comment="correct minor mistakes" Text="The answer is simple. They are not answers or questions but comments. Don't you know what the comment exactly means? It mean a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction. So in my view, it is really absurd to vote down someone's opinion. An opinion is only a thought. Thoughts are responsible to create questions, answers and rulings. Hope you understand.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume:&#xD;&#xA;If I say, &quot;I think there is gonna be end of physics when string theory is gonna proved&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is comment and it may only needs a correction from expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I say, &quot;I know that string theory is the last theory and the end of physics&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be a foolish assertion that can be voted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can say that there is always an opportunity for an opinion to be non-foolproof or to be.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17415" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="02757536-b27d-420d-87a4-f8bfc5431aaf" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:30:47.507" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5711],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="cc162404-d641-41b2-8615-70ae4daad343" CreationDate="2015-01-30T04:32:42.543" UserId="25301" Comment="removed irrelevant note, added tag" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17418" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="cc162404-d641-41b2-8615-70ae4daad343" CreationDate="2015-01-30T04:32:42.543" UserId="25301" Comment="removed irrelevant note, added tag" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17419" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="33e0a4a2-bdaa-4c62-9032-d1087038621e" CreationDate="2015-01-30T06:36:31.780" UserId="56578" Comment="Rollback to [5ca6c3e3-42e8-4f3b-aaaf-808622a9038f]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**:&#xD;&#xA;I do not know why/by whom the question has been unlocked, I hope it was deliberately done out of *Fairness* or in the name of *First Amendment*. This allowed me to restore my earlier correction of some typos and a slip of the pen (the object of a [**snarky**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23854_6467) remark which was ignored by mods, and defused by my irony)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to point out that it is really sad that in a site of *&quot;scientists&quot;* the main counter-argument to an argument or even to a hard fact is a snarky remark or the usual mean [**straw-man** fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): *occasional careless  VTC** is twisted into [*widespread malfeasance*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23862_6470), *documenting excess* may be [*bad for my sanity*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23860_6467) (a very subtle/diabolic *innuendo* probably difficult to flag or censure), and means accusing somebody of [*cruelty*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23863_6470) and *occasional excess* is definitively drowned in [*averages*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23924_6467) and doesn't exist, therefore my whole post is pointless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to point out that trying to boycott a post that gives **bare facts** (which, alas, prove some **home truths**) by voting to close/ deleting paragraphs / locking it simply proves that the [**recriminations**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23894_6467) are grounded not only re the *policies* but also re moderation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17420" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="33e0a4a2-bdaa-4c62-9032-d1087038621e" CreationDate="2015-01-30T06:36:31.780" UserId="56578" Comment="Rollback to [5ca6c3e3-42e8-4f3b-aaaf-808622a9038f]" Text="|discussion|" />
  <row Id="17421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="6d519825-38fd-4ed3-b7f1-75962551725c" CreationDate="2015-01-30T06:43:21.423" UserId="56578" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**:&#xD;&#xA;I do not know why/by whom the question has been unlocked, I hope it was deliberately done out of *Fairness* or in the name of *First Amendment*. This allowed me to restore my earlier correction of some typos and a slip of the pen the object of a [**snarky**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23854_6467) remark which was ignored by mods, and defused by my irony (rollbacking is a most contemptuous (and lazy) form of censoring)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to point out that it is really sad that in a site of *&quot;scientists&quot;* the main counter-argument to an argument or even to a hard fact is a snarky remark or the usual mean [**straw-man** fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): *occasional careless  VTC** is twisted into [*widespread malfeasance*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23862_6470), *documenting excess* may be [*bad for my sanity*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23860_6467) (a very subtle/diabolic *innuendo* probably difficult to flag or censure), and means accusing somebody of [*cruelty*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23863_6470) and *occasional excess* is definitively drowned in [*averages*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23924_6467) and doesn't exist, therefore my whole post is pointless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to point out that trying to boycott a post that gives hard and [**certified**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23929_6467) facts , which, alas, prove some **home truths**, by voting to close/ deleting paragraphs / locking it, simply proves that the [**recriminations**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23894_6467) are grounded not only re the *policies* but also re moderation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17422" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="644ef595-4c4f-4e34-ab68-1147f5492c89" CreationDate="2015-01-30T18:16:43.703" UserId="25301" Comment="Rollback to [cc162404-d641-41b2-8615-70ae4daad343]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17423" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="644ef595-4c4f-4e34-ab68-1147f5492c89" CreationDate="2015-01-30T18:16:43.703" UserId="25301" Comment="Rollback to [cc162404-d641-41b2-8615-70ae4daad343]" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" />
  <row Id="17425" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="7a1ac31c-4e89-4fa8-ae50-df7910a25b6e" CreationDate="2015-01-31T07:44:20.833" UserId="56578" Comment="Rollback to [6d519825-38fd-4ed3-b7f1-75962551725c]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**:&#xD;&#xA;I do not know why/by whom the question has been unlocked, I hope it was deliberately done out of *Fairness* or in the name of *First Amendment*. This allowed me to restore my earlier correction of some typos and a slip of the pen the object of a [**snarky**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23854_6467) remark which was ignored by mods, and defused by my irony (rollbacking is a most contemptuous (and lazy) form of censoring)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to point out that it is really sad that in a site of *&quot;scientists&quot;* the main counter-argument to an argument or even to a hard fact is a snarky remark or the usual mean [**straw-man** fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): *occasional careless  VTC** is twisted into [*widespread malfeasance*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23862_6470), *documenting excess* may be [*bad for my sanity*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23860_6467) (a very subtle/diabolic *innuendo* probably difficult to flag or censure), and means accusing somebody of [*cruelty*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23863_6470) and *occasional excess* is definitively drowned in [*averages*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23924_6467) and doesn't exist, therefore my whole post is pointless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to point out that trying to boycott a post that gives hard and [**certified**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23929_6467) facts , which, alas, prove some **home truths**, by voting to close/ deleting paragraphs / locking it, simply proves that the [**recriminations**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23894_6467) are grounded not only re the *policies* but also re moderation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17426" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="7a1ac31c-4e89-4fa8-ae50-df7910a25b6e" CreationDate="2015-01-31T07:44:20.833" UserId="56578" Comment="Rollback to [6d519825-38fd-4ed3-b7f1-75962551725c]" Text="|discussion|" />
  <row Id="17427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="8e654367-07da-46fc-9a32-b3e35b281453" CreationDate="2015-01-31T10:04:36.733" UserId="56578" Comment="added 5013 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**Careless *serial* voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do not know why/by whom the question has been unlocked, I hope it was deliberately done out of *Fairness* or in the name of *First Amendment*. This allowed me to restore my earlier correction of some typos and a slip of the pen, the object of a [**snarky**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23854_6467) remark ignored by mods, and defused only by my irony. [*Rollbacking* is a most contemptuous (and lazy) form of *censoring*]&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to point out that it is really sad that in a site of *&quot;scientists&quot;* the main counter-argument to an argument or even to a hard fact is a snarky remark or the usual mean [**straw-man** fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): &quot;occasional careless  VTC&quot; is twisted into [*widespread malfeasance*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23862_6470), &quot;documenting excess&quot; may be [*bad for my sanity*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23860_6467) (a very subtle/diabolic *innuendo* probably difficult to flag or censure), and means accusing somebody of [*cruelty*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23863_6470) and *occasional excess* is definitively drowned in [*averages*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23924_6467) and doesn't exist, therefore my whole post is pointless.&#xD;&#xA;I just want to point out that trying to boycott a post that gives hard and [**certified**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23929_6467) facts , which, alas, prove some **home truths**, by voting to close/ deleting paragraphs / locking it, simply proves that the [**recriminations**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23894_6467) are grounded not only re the *policies* but also re moderation.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Careless voting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems necessary to clarify the intent of this post, specifying that *careless voting* is not necessarily related to **serial** voting or the **time** spent on a question. The individual aspects will be examined in separate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it was insane to deny evidence, somebody has cleverly tried to minimize the problem, stating that it is limited to rare instances. I am patient and meticulous: if it is necessary I can and will research and document hundreds of cases. Since you are familiar with the concepts of random sampling, probability [theory] etc, I invite you to reflect on this disquieting relation/proportion: out of a dozen of question closed on Jan 29 there are:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; [one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161887/space-time-and-entropic-gravity), &#xD;&#xA;[two](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162069/is-a-black-hole-really-a-hole-in-space), questions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not-understood and considered **unclear** which have been (understood and) replied by  John Rennie. Does this mean anything? Does this require any comment? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same day there are also many questionable *off-topic* closures, I invite you to reflect on a couple of facts:1) the currect policy allows an [*offtopic* question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162352/are-uncertainties-in-heisenberg-uncertainity-just-standard-deviations) to get 4 answers (which is not consequent/contradictory), 2) [two](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162352/are-uncertainties-in-heisenberg-uncertainity-just-standard-deviations#comment341221_162352) top users [criticize](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162352/are-uncertainties-in-heisenberg-uncertainity-just-standard-deviations#comment341652_162352) what is going on. I have not (yet) voted to reopen to not alter the situation, 3) John Rennie stigmatizes the deplorable habit of [*downvoting simple questions*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6272/why-are-simple-questions-downvoted) (the question received **4** down-votes). This is just a summary analysis and the case should be examined with more care, I presented only to show that the approach to the issue of VTC is simplistic/superficial/careless/elitistic and inconsiderate to newcomers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One must consider himself [*omniscient*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment292155_134831) if he tries to review **any** question, and a young (student/ ) graduate has necessarily a *limited competence*. And even if one has competence in a particular field it takes a long time to examine, understand and assess a question. If a question is not clear, one should always assume that it is *probably* only **his own fault**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am glad that (after malicious and censoring response) there is a first relevant and honest comment, re [**this closure**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/134831/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **there.. isn't anything** normally referred&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to as the *force of inertia*...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how you define useful or used. .. used in research-level&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics? ...used as a teaching aid acceptable?...Does **useful** mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physically meaningful? Necessary to explain phenomena? A primary tool&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of researchers?  It's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unclear because we don't know how one could answer it - Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already [appreciated](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment294881_134831) Jim's sincere and loyal response to my recriminations and his [justifications in various comments](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment294827_134831) in October, and I appreciate that also here he has broken the grotesque *code of silence*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I invite him to read the edit-history and realize that I gave all possible explanation there and in the original *constructive* comments which were **inexplicably** deleted (that never happens in closed questions) and which mods [**inexplicably** refused](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment295127_134831) to undelete, when the question itself was undeleted. He probably remembers that *Rod Vance* posted many comments stating he understood the question and wished to give an interesting answer. I invite him to consider also the fact that probably he was *too young* to have heard of *force of inertia* and also that he was *not too familiar* with Newton's *Principia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope all the people involved in that deplorable decision will feel obliged to add their own explanation (in comments or answers) and, (if they acknowledge the were careless), an apology. That would be sensible. I'll present my counter-arguments in a separate answer because I do not like long posts. (and also because that might lay this post open to nit-picking censors/censorship)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="1f60ff73-f7e5-467d-8940-e6492eda2a82" CreationDate="2015-01-31T10:13:58.490" UserId="56578" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to wait for **5** seconds before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended (especially to downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**Careless *serial* voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7** seconds per question, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while (and cast myself some 250 votes testing how fast you can complete a review *without actually reading the post*) and I have registered that quite often members vote too many questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and check the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/frustrating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I'll only ask **you** simple questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A couple of stats*: 1) [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed. I could not find out how many have been completely deleted. The question cited in my answer was deleted only 10 after it was closed. 2) There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do not know why/by whom the question has been unlocked, I hope it was deliberately done out of *Fairness* or in the name of *First Amendment*. This allowed me to restore my earlier correction of some typos and a slip of the pen, the object of a [**snarky**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23854_6467) remark ignored by mods, and defused only by my irony. [*Rollbacking* is a most contemptuous (and lazy) form of *censoring*]&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to point out that it is really sad that in a site of *&quot;scientists&quot;* the main counter-argument to an argument or even to a hard fact is a snarky remark or the usual mean [**straw-man** fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): &quot;occasional careless  VTC&quot; is twisted into [*widespread malfeasance*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23862_6470), &quot;documenting excess&quot; may be [*bad for my sanity*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23860_6467) (a very subtle/diabolic *innuendo* probably difficult to flag or censure), and means accusing somebody of [*cruelty*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting/6470#comment23863_6470) and *occasional excess* is definitively drowned in [*averages*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23924_6467) and doesn't exist, therefore my whole post is pointless.&#xD;&#xA;I just want to point out that trying to boycott a post that gives hard and [**certified**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23929_6467) facts , which, alas, prove some **home truths**, by voting to close/ deleting paragraphs / locking it, simply proves that the [**recriminations**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23894_6467) are grounded not only re the *policies* but also re moderation.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Careless voting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems necessary to clarify the intent of this post, specifying that *careless voting* is not necessarily related to **serial** voting or the **time** spent on a question. The individual aspects will be examined in separate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it was insane to deny evidence, somebody has cleverly tried to minimize the problem, stating that it is limited to rare instances. I am patient and meticulous: if it is necessary I can and will research and document hundreds of cases. Since you are familiar with the concepts of random sampling, probability [theory] etc, I invite you to reflect on this disquieting relation/proportion: out of a dozen of question closed on Jan 29 there are:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; [one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161887/space-time-and-entropic-gravity), &#xD;&#xA;[two](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162069/is-a-black-hole-really-a-hole-in-space), questions (+ 1 = [three](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162340/speed-of-efflux-of-an-ideal-fluid))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not-understood and considered **unclear** which have been (understood and) replied by  John Rennie (plus one *off-topic* question where there was apparently no question). Does this mean anything? Does this require any comment? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same day there are also many questionable *off-topic* closures, I invite you to reflect on a couple of facts:1) the currect policy allows an [*offtopic* question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162352/are-uncertainties-in-heisenberg-uncertainity-just-standard-deviations) to get 4 answers (which is not consequent/contradictory), 2) [two](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162352/are-uncertainties-in-heisenberg-uncertainity-just-standard-deviations#comment341221_162352) top users [criticize](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162352/are-uncertainties-in-heisenberg-uncertainity-just-standard-deviations#comment341652_162352) what is going on. I have not (yet) voted to reopen to not alter the situation, 3) John Rennie stigmatizes the deplorable habit of [*downvoting simple questions*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6272/why-are-simple-questions-downvoted) (the question received **4** down-votes). This is just a summary analysis and the case should be examined with more care, I presented only to show that the approach to the issue of VTC is simplistic/superficial/careless/elitistic and inconsiderate to newcomers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One must consider himself [*omniscient*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment292155_134831) if he tries to review **any** question, and a young (student/ ) graduate has necessarily a *limited competence*. And even if one has competence in a particular field it takes a long time to examine, understand and assess a question. If a question is not clear, one should always assume that it is *probably* only **his own fault**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am glad that (after malicious and censoring response) there is a first relevant and honest comment, re [**this closure**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/134831/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **there.. isn't anything** normally referred&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to as the *force of inertia*...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how you define useful or used. .. used in research-level&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics? ...used as a teaching aid acceptable?...Does **useful** mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physically meaningful? Necessary to explain phenomena? A primary tool&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of researchers?  It's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unclear because we don't know how one could answer it - Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already [appreciated](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment294881_134831) Jim's sincere and loyal response to my recriminations and his [justifications in various comments](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment294827_134831) in October, and I appreciate that also here he has broken the grotesque *code of silence*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I invite him to read the edit-history and realize that I gave all possible explanation there and in the original *constructive* comments which were **inexplicably** deleted (that never happens in closed questions) and which mods [**inexplicably** refused](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used#comment295127_134831) to undelete, when the question itself was undeleted. He probably remembers that *Rod Vance* posted many comments stating he understood the question and wished to give an interesting answer. I invite him to consider also the fact that probably he was *too young* to have heard of *force of inertia* and also that he was *not too familiar* with Newton's *Principia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope all the people involved in that deplorable decision will feel obliged to add their own explanation (in comments or answers) and, (if they acknowledge the were careless), an apology. That would be sensible. I'll present my counter-arguments in a separate answer because I do not like long posts. (and also because that might lay this post open to nit-picking censors/censorship)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17438" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="b1f8789f-9738-4a0f-b496-725fc6e44be0" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:46:27.943" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [837a5121-1361-4a56-aab3-5b934831092b]" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total), if he had taken an average of 5 mins to examine and assess posts in a scrupulous manner he should have spent some 350 hours. (850 in total, which makes over 100 days working 9 to 5 without a coffee-break)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17439" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="451d243b-f045-4970-8e09-f2b5a95ba167" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:47:18.013" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17440" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="27eebf09-2b4e-4911-bf0d-ad1f6c17b253" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:47:18.013" UserId="520" Comment="1021" />
  <row Id="17441" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="7c35d627-5998-43fd-ad5f-eae09630d945" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:48:58.967" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17442" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="030ff207-b2de-432b-ae0a-df049ba1b842" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:48:58.967" UserId="520" Comment="1021" />
  <row Id="17443" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="dbc2408d-a5ba-4fa1-83ce-82209e17d98e" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:49:17.003" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17444" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="774e7c68-0c24-4242-98d2-ea1467a5d24c" CreationDate="2015-02-01T02:49:17.003" UserId="520" Comment="1022" />
  <row Id="17457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="8b87e1c8-c5cb-40da-b2b9-fc52b40baee8" CreationDate="2015-02-02T13:57:52.157" UserId="56578" Text="Can someone explain exactly when this badge is awarded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Highest scoring answer (**a**) that outscored an accepted answer (**A**) with score of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more than 10 by more than 2x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that (being a the most upvoted answer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a &gt; [2 * A] + 1&#xD;&#xA;- a &gt; 10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if that is correct, if  A &lt; 5, an answer a with 11 votes  should get the badge if there is no higher score?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [*here*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) a = 38 &gt; 10, A = 20, a &lt; (2*20+1) 41&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does that imply that when the badge was awarded A was &lt; 17?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="8b87e1c8-c5cb-40da-b2b9-fc52b40baee8" CreationDate="2015-02-02T13:57:52.157" UserId="56578" Text="The 'populist' badge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="8b87e1c8-c5cb-40da-b2b9-fc52b40baee8" CreationDate="2015-02-02T13:57:52.157" UserId="56578" Text="|feature-request|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6488" RevisionGUID="046820da-9fbb-47b1-8e12-9a7e583b665e" CreationDate="2015-02-02T14:20:27.177" UserId="25301" Text="Using your notation, the requirements for the [populist badge](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist) are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 * *A*&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not as you have it. So if *A* &lt;= 10, the badge cannot be awarded. At bare minimum *a* would need to have 23 upvotes to *A* having 11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;does that imply that when the badge was awarded A was &lt; 17?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [timeline page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/116608/timeline?asc=True), it seems Jamal's post was upvoted 25 times to ooker's 11 on the first day (in which ooker's was also accepted then). So it seems to have just barely met the qualifications for the badge on the first day, and yes, A &lt; 17 appears to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="c4034022-69b0-4e19-9cd7-0400ca7dae54" CreationDate="2015-02-02T14:20:42.910" UserId="8563" Text="The conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A* and&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*&gt;20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="e223de38-7d8c-4cfb-b4c3-6f713c88a228" CreationDate="2015-02-02T14:36:30.230" UserId="25301" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="4c9293cd-850e-4a94-be39-edc01be619ce" CreationDate="2015-02-02T15:10:09.467" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1843 characters in body; added 161 characters in body; added 108 characters in body" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*&gt;23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="30f222eb-c003-4117-9883-83f4ef1a2141" CreationDate="2015-02-02T15:31:05.937" UserId="23473" Comment="23 is valid. a&gt;22 is the requirement" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*&gt;22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17465" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="57ea4dd2-1725-43d4-b522-b61dfaf029c9" CreationDate="2015-02-02T16:24:16.980" UserId="8563" Comment="Rollback to [4c9293cd-850e-4a94-be39-edc01be619ce]" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*&gt;23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="a3fa9c97-7020-415f-83f9-2f10699acfad" CreationDate="2015-02-02T16:25:25.313" UserId="8563" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*&gt;23.&lt;sup&gt;[[1]](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6487/the-populist-badge/6489#comment24034_6487)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation and/or to complain about it.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="efde757e-4dad-402b-9462-4329d76bb794" CreationDate="2015-02-02T16:45:14.507" UserId="8563" Text="This struck me as rather odd. The Bounties section of any given profile, for any of the three tabs (active, offered and earned), contains a list of post links with the amount of rep of the bounty in question. It also has a tagline that indicates, as far as I can tell, the same 'activity' link that's on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this a weird place for such a link. If A awarded B a bounty, I'm not really that interested in whether C or D edited their answer later on. I'm more interested in when the bounty was awarded and links to B (resp. A) on A (resp. B)'s profile. (To the extent I'm interested in anything on that row, that is.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some specific rationale for this? Or is this just standard code for question lookup?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3MF3H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="efde757e-4dad-402b-9462-4329d76bb794" CreationDate="2015-02-02T16:45:14.507" UserId="8563" Text="What's the purpose of the tagline in the Bounties section of the profile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="efde757e-4dad-402b-9462-4329d76bb794" CreationDate="2015-02-02T16:45:14.507" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|bounty|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="037e23d3-1bb1-4cd5-bca5-3165af919af5" CreationDate="2015-02-02T21:30:58.670" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*≥23=2(10+1)+1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation and/or to complain about it.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="1dd4e534-e3e4-4bcc-92cd-0fc61b77308c" CreationDate="2015-02-05T19:57:23.440" UserId="2" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="c3ea9e54-8b54-4b8e-afe3-ca4e2b602c22" CreationDate="2015-02-06T15:01:02.110" UserId="6634" Text="Back when we sorted out the book recommendation and resource recommendation requests, we made it so there was a [permanent banner](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5237/books-banner-top-or-bottom) instructing those answering to abide by our policies regarding the questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we get so many homework questions, can (or should) we have a similar banner for those? The arguments for why it is good here are the same as for why it was good on the book/reference request ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also potentially serve as a reminder to the OP to check the policies. Right now, Kyle Kanos is pretty good about posting a standard comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please note that Physics.StackExchange is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems –  Kyle Kanos 1 hour ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with appropriate links. This comment is directed only at OP, but our banner could include similar wording plus directions to those who answer about not actually providing the full answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, since adding a banner requires a moderator, it can sometimes be annoying. Although QMechanic does a pretty good job reviewing almost every question on the site for appropriate tags so it probably wouldn't be that hard to add the banner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if we can ask the SE team to make it so questions tagged with [tag:homework-and-exercises] get the banner automatically. And if the tag is removed, the banner is removed. Although that's something that probably isn't trivial and shouldn't affect whether we have the banner now or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="c3ea9e54-8b54-4b8e-afe3-ca4e2b602c22" CreationDate="2015-02-06T15:01:02.110" UserId="6634" Text="Can (or should) we have a banner for homework questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="c3ea9e54-8b54-4b8e-afe3-ca4e2b602c22" CreationDate="2015-02-06T15:01:02.110" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="2aa4d7e5-0d5a-4b75-b3f2-3c7852fa6bf0" CreationDate="2015-02-06T15:34:00.470" UserId="8563" Text="The comment is usually helpful only when questions are running foul of the homework policy, or pretty close to. As such, the banner would mostly be duplicating the work of the homework close reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle's nice comment is useful because it can be added immediately without waiting for five close votes (thus giving the OP enough information to hopefully get them to fix their post before it's closed if that's possible) and because it has a personal touch with a direct way to respond which makes it less off-putting than the close message. An institutionalized banner with a canned message that needs to be added manually by a moderator would serve neither of those purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a banner automatically when the tag is applied would only serve to make the tag contentious again. The change from `homework` to `homework-and-exercises` has, I think, worked wonders in stopping newcomers from saying &quot;this is not a homework question!&quot; the minute the tag was applied. Having the tag automatically suggest to everyone, including those with on-topic HW questions, that they are unduly using the site as a homework help site - that does not seem constructive to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="8345c1b8-8750-4b2f-a007-dcd4a828ead7" CreationDate="2015-02-06T19:13:27.883" UserId="6634" Comment="added 1585 characters in body" Text="Back when we sorted out the book recommendation and resource recommendation requests, we made it so there was a [permanent banner](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5237/books-banner-top-or-bottom) instructing those answering to abide by our policies regarding the questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we get so many homework questions, can (or should) we have a similar banner for those? The arguments for why it is good here are the same as for why it was good on the book/reference request ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also potentially serve as a reminder to the OP to check the policies. Right now, Kyle Kanos is pretty good about posting a standard comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please note that Physics.StackExchange is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems –  Kyle Kanos 1 hour ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with appropriate links. This comment is directed only at OP, but our banner could include similar wording plus directions to those who answer about not actually providing the full answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it might seem unclear *who* exactly such a banner would be targeted towards, [here is a link](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/19931754#19931754) to an explanation that occurred in the chat room. I will try to summarize it here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For good, properly posed homework questions, the OP doesn't need to be reminded about the policies. However, those who **answer** the question should be reminded. For instance, somebody can show an example problem, explain what *concept* they are stuck on, and ask for help understanding the concept. That's a great homework question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody can then come along and say &quot;Here's how this concept works. And when you do that, you get the answer X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the person who **answered** the question violated the HW policy by going too far in the explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The banner would be targeted to the answerer more than the questioner, although the questioner (and future people who come to the site) will also see the banner and get links/information on the policy. Everybody wins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the book recommendation policy and banner. Somebody comes along an asks for a recommendation, perfectly on-topic and valid. We put the banner up reminding those who **answer** the question that recommendations must explain why it is appropriate and not just give a link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Books banner tells people who answer that they need to provide more information to abide by the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework banner tells people they should provide less information to abide by the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see them as equivalent and helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, since adding a banner requires a moderator, it can sometimes be annoying. Although QMechanic does a pretty good job reviewing almost every question on the site for appropriate tags so it probably wouldn't be that hard to add the banner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if we can ask the SE team to make it so questions tagged with [tag:homework-and-exercises] get the banner automatically. And if the tag is removed, the banner is removed. Although that's something that probably isn't trivial and shouldn't affect whether we have the banner now or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="509bdf29-8c35-4080-8743-6dc12d0a1e84" CreationDate="2015-02-07T22:44:27.523" UserId="48823" Text="The question in question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/158231/48823'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not a homework question, and I do not know enough physics to be able to make it more descriptive/specific. Can you help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="509bdf29-8c35-4080-8743-6dc12d0a1e84" CreationDate="2015-02-07T22:44:27.523" UserId="48823" Text="How can I improve a specific question which has been closed for being &quot;homework-like, and not showing enough effort&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="509bdf29-8c35-4080-8743-6dc12d0a1e84" CreationDate="2015-02-07T22:44:27.523" UserId="48823" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6499" RevisionGUID="1fc22c27-81a6-4bfa-a1d6-f30340b5ed39" CreationDate="2015-02-07T22:54:29.013" UserId="520" Text="Currently the conceptual basis of the question is wrong at a level that poses a real problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And there are vocabulary issues that confuse things: say &quot;thermal energy&quot; not &quot;heat energy&quot;, please. Heat is a property of interactions not of objects.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked detectability as a function of something that is not directly (or even closely) related to detectability. To be sure, a good answer would start by setting you straight on that , but it still leaves the question of which of the several ways to proceed from where you started to a answerable question should be taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was not among the close-voters, but I would have chosen &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; if I had evaluated the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main step to fix it would be to figure out what you *really* want to ask about. Possibilities include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Temperature for blackbody objects (are you assuming a size?)&#xD;&#xA;* Total radiated power assuming isotropic radiation&#xD;&#xA;* Radiated intensity along our line of site (for non-isotropic cases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="743039fb-7d21-4ed3-992e-c661976adcf3" CreationDate="2015-02-07T23:45:01.160" UserId="124" Text="I closed the question because you're just asking us to do a calculation for you. That kind of question is not what this site is for. Simply asking us to calculate something is one big marker for what we call &quot;homework-like&quot; questions, even though not all calculation requests are actually homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had shown some effort to do the calculation yourself and identified the step at which you got stuck, and asked about the reason you weren't able to proceed past that step rather than just asking us to do the calculation for you, then I would not have closed the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, I could be wrong about this, but I stand by my decision to close the question. And none of the edits you've made (as I write this) change the body of the question, so there is no reason my decision would be any different for the current version of the question as opposed to its original form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="f74f058c-2fdc-4ace-8047-b316f1c09384" CreationDate="2015-02-07T23:52:48.413" UserId="124" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I closed the question because you're just asking us to do a calculation for you. That kind of question is not what this site is for. Simply asking us to calculate something is one big marker for what we call &quot;homework-like&quot; questions, even though not all calculation requests are actually homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had shown some effort to do the calculation yourself and identified the step at which you got stuck, and asked about the reason you weren't able to proceed past that step rather than just asking us to do the calculation for you, then I would not have closed the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, this wasn't the clearest case, but I stand by my belief that the question is not appropriate for the site as is. And none of the edits you've made (as I write this) change the body of the question, so there is no reason my decision would be any different for the current version of the question as opposed to its original form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="3324024e-f1d4-4fa6-bd80-14fd0f260dae" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:14:45.857" UserId="35024" Text="Questions are regularly closed here because they are considered engineering questions.  The current close vote option for this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question is off-topic because it appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As many of you probably know, an [engineering SE][1] has recently started its beta phase.  Should the close vote system be updated to migrate the question similar to what is now done with mathematics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason I can think of not to do so is that the engineering SE is still in the beta phase and may not graduate to become a full fledged site.  If that is the case, should close-voters agree to take it upon themselves to leave it in the comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="3324024e-f1d4-4fa6-bd80-14fd0f260dae" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:14:45.857" UserId="35024" Text="Should the engineering close vote be changed in light of the new engineering SE site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="3324024e-f1d4-4fa6-bd80-14fd0f260dae" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:14:45.857" UserId="35024" Text="|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="23e1e980-ad82-40a0-8a73-ced076dfa1ae" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:39:57.580" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The system doesn't allow for full-fledged migration paths to beta sites. This is done to prevent young beta sites from being overwhelmed by the potentially large number of posts migrated away from a mature site. You normally wouldn't want the new site to be defined just by what the older site throws out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this rule was probably developed with Stack Overflow in mind -- its shear volume *would* overwhelm related sites. I don't have stats on how many engineering-closed questions we've had lately, but given that we've only migrated 4 questions this past month to Electrical Engineering, it probably isn't an overwhelming volume. Still, the system is what it is, so normal users cannot *directly* do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Formally request that our moderators migrate most such questions to Engineering. This would be a burden on the mods, and it would be circumventing the spirit of the &quot;don't migrate to betas&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Continue as usual, with Physics users made aware that there is an Engineering site up and running. We could comment on posts we vote to close, directing the posters to the other site. If the question is *particularly* good and *particularly* on-topic for Engineering, we could ourselves flag for moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to go with option 2. I would add that since engineering is so new (you don't even have temporary mods yet!), it itself hasn't fully defined what constitutes a good question. Eagerness is all well and good, but perhaps Engineering should get a better sense of itself first before we start throwing questions at it, especially since the typical Physics user with enough rep to vote to close will have even *less* of an idea of what Engineering wants than most Engineering users themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add that engineering sites should be edited into [our FAQ][1], which is linked in the close notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="367efdf8-c2f5-48e7-81b5-8e08d8b6365b" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:51:55.293" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added link to Engineering site; added not on lab equipment" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;  - How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;  - How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like [What really allows airplanes to fly?][1] that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad. Questions about the physical reasoning and analysis that lead to design decisions are on topic; questions seeking help designing or building something is off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about experimental physics and laboratory equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is not just theoretical, and experimental physics is on topic here. This includes questions about the usage of laboratory equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network. Your question may be suitable at one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Electrical Engineering][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Engineering][4]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Robotics][5]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, that list does not cover all forms of engineering. You can always propose a new Stackexchange site or support a proposal over at [Area 51][7]. For a quicker response, users with at least 20 reputation can always bring up a question in [our chat room][8]. Note that there is no guarantee that anyone there has any input, and The h Bar is not a Q&amp;A unto itself, but still we physics enthusiasts tend to like problem solving in general, as well as interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="5c8db35d-8895-4cdb-9a8e-fa7ee16547ca" CreationDate="2015-02-10T06:45:58.133" UserId="1325" Comment="Shear volume?" Text="The system doesn't allow for full-fledged migration paths to beta sites. This is done to prevent young beta sites from being overwhelmed by the potentially large number of posts migrated away from a mature site. You normally wouldn't want the new site to be defined just by what the older site throws out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this rule was probably developed with Stack Overflow in mind -- its sheer volume *would* overwhelm related sites. I don't have stats on how many engineering-closed questions we've had lately, but given that we've only migrated 4 questions this past month to Electrical Engineering, it probably isn't an overwhelming volume. Still, the system is what it is, so normal users cannot *directly* do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Formally request that our moderators migrate most such questions to Engineering. This would be a burden on the mods, and it would be circumventing the spirit of the &quot;don't migrate to betas&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Continue as usual, with Physics users made aware that there is an Engineering site up and running. We could comment on posts we vote to close, directing the posters to the other site. If the question is *particularly* good and *particularly* on-topic for Engineering, we could ourselves flag for moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to go with option 2. I would add that since engineering is so new (you don't even have temporary mods yet!), it itself hasn't fully defined what constitutes a good question. Eagerness is all well and good, but perhaps Engineering should get a better sense of itself first before we start throwing questions at it, especially since the typical Physics user with enough rep to vote to close will have even *less* of an idea of what Engineering wants than most Engineering users themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add that engineering sites should be edited into [our FAQ][1], which is linked in the close notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17505" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="82ee3d22-6906-4656-86f0-1e2ec60fbdef" CreationDate="2015-02-10T14:07:22.933" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[360],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:22494,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Brandon Enright&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="6623b6b7-5b36-440c-a998-37077bc99311" CreationDate="2015-02-10T17:53:38.750" UserId="72479" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/163574/can-ice-freeze&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this question is about explaining physical laws and physical chemistry and  also related to &quot;Accepted and/or actively researched theories&quot; which are on-topic. I believe I gave enough details also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was put on hold after a long time and after I got a good answer that I was willing to accept but I was waiting for a while if I can get any other good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the reason to put on-hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I also added &quot;further clarification&quot; section. I can clarify further if it is needed but one of the aims of the question is getting a clarification also. There are also related questions, it is not only one question. The question is, of course, asking for a detailed, well-documented answer which I got also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be re-opened please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="6623b6b7-5b36-440c-a998-37077bc99311" CreationDate="2015-02-10T17:53:38.750" UserId="72479" Text="Can this question about ice be re-opened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="6623b6b7-5b36-440c-a998-37077bc99311" CreationDate="2015-02-10T17:53:38.750" UserId="72479" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="6f59fd43-a6c8-4a3c-9ec7-bdd256013055" CreationDate="2015-02-10T18:10:40.140" UserId="50583" Text="I still think the question, as posed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the end, can we say that different crystalline forms have different solid states? Can ice freeze further by transforming into a different crystalline form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is unclear. You demonstrate that you are aware of the possibility of different crystal lattices (hexagonal vs. cubic ice is your example), which consequently have different material properties. But then you ask whether ice &quot;freezes further&quot;, and what is happening when it does so, as if you were *not* aware of different crystal structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't get what you're asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="36287acc-6b9b-41b0-a6f9-e32d88246513" CreationDate="2015-02-10T19:35:37.683" UserId="8563" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b4JPF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17511" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="ae9b92f9-cb2d-407a-a2cc-91e091d099ba" CreationDate="2015-02-10T19:35:37.683" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="17512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="26490a24-a8db-4477-81d2-06682625a33c" CreationDate="2015-02-10T19:56:26.727" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="9518a274-1611-4ec0-b596-04f1e4071a03" CreationDate="2015-02-10T22:17:48.960" UserId="8563" Text="For a beta site as young as this one, trigger-happy migration is generally a bad idea: it's not great for them, and it risks stranding good questions on a site that subsequently folds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, if a question looks likely to be declared off-topic here, or if it's on-topic but unlikely to find a qualified answerer, the most appropriate action is often a comment pointing the OP to the target site. I often simply ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would this question be more appropriate for [Engineering Stack Exchange](http://engineering.stackexchange.com/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, in copyable form &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Would this question be more appropriate for &#xD;&#xA;    [Engineering Stack Exchange](http://engineering.stackexchange.com/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep things friendly and polite, and do this case-by-case and tailored to the specific question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, if Engineering takes off and it turns out that they can indeed take many of our engineering questions, we can think about a more formal channel. In truth, though, there are really rather few such questions on this site in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="ab0e35c6-2612-4aa4-9fc2-7f2f550f95f1" CreationDate="2015-02-11T06:07:04.320" UserId="60688" Text="[This question][1] was put on hold recently, which was reedited and adjusted by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not question the decision but would appreciate any discuss on this issue. Also I would like to apply the question to be re-opened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not a homework (I am not sure whether it is &quot;homework-like&quot;). It is a calculation-oriented question based on fluid physics (I also cited a particular paper) so maybe that qualifies. It is certainly about physics and requests a definite proof or answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164215/how-can-i-show-the-time-derivative-of-an-energy-functional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="ab0e35c6-2612-4aa4-9fc2-7f2f550f95f1" CreationDate="2015-02-11T06:07:04.320" UserId="60688" Text="How can I apply a &quot;on hold&quot; problem to be re-opened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="ab0e35c6-2612-4aa4-9fc2-7f2f550f95f1" CreationDate="2015-02-11T06:07:04.320" UserId="60688" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="ddf91478-16c6-437a-92fe-bd631445c0e5" CreationDate="2015-02-11T08:10:12.553" UserId="124" Text="There's no need to apply anything, or apply for anything, if that's what you meant. Questions on hold that are edited are automatically placed in a queue to be reviewed by high-reputation users for taking off hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its current form as I write this, I expect that the outcome of the review will be to leave the question on hold. Your question doesn't actually ask anything. All it says is &quot;any hints will be appreciated&quot;, but that's not a question. (This is one of the common characteristics of bad homework-like questions.) You need to actually identify the concept that is confusing you and ask about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17518" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="677f4140-110a-4400-9b78-3026dcb20873" CreationDate="2015-02-11T15:33:31.727" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|closed-questions|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="b2a45da1-3002-4958-b73d-5d98bc4ef317" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:16:23.193" UserId="6634" Text="Is this question on topic? Or should it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164511/how-come-people-are-claiming-that-the-big-bang-never-happened&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually had the same question (namely how valid is the conclusion) but felt it would be opinion based so I asked it in chat. Now that it's on the main page (and the &quot;Hot Questions&quot; bar) we started discussing whether it is on topic or not. No close votes have been cast at the moment, but I thought it might be worth clarifying here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasons it might be off-topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Primarily opinion based. It asks if the assumptions and conclusions are valid.&#xD;&#xA;1. Answers are mostly discussion. You can see in the comments that it is actually mirroring the same discussion we had in chat about it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Non-mainstream physics. It's a new theory (although it is a peer-reviewed, published one now) that has not yet been verified and goes against the prevailing scientific opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasons those reasons may not be good ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Because it has been peer-reviewed, there must be some validity to their claims. Even if it is limited to universes located within spherical cows.&#xD;&#xA;1. Although it seems the answers are mostly discussion, they are all kind of presenting the same answer. And I know in the past that I have said that answers cannot make a question on topic so I personally have some mixed opinions about it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Although non-mainstream in the sense it goes against prevailing opinion, I think this is exactly the kind of non-mainstream question we should allow. It is a &quot;How and why does this buck the trend&quot; question. It is also a &quot;Are these assumptions valid to make&quot; question if you really drill into the physics of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that said, how does everybody feel about it being on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="b2a45da1-3002-4958-b73d-5d98bc4ef317" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:16:23.193" UserId="6634" Text="Is this question about a recent paper on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="b2a45da1-3002-4958-b73d-5d98bc4ef317" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:16:23.193" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="9ae01ef3-5694-44d9-a5bb-0a9f5b8366ca" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:21:08.160" UserId="23473" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, so long as it's clearly a Jim name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="9ae01ef3-5694-44d9-a5bb-0a9f5b8366ca" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:21:08.160" UserId="23473" Text="A Jim for all seasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="9ae01ef3-5694-44d9-a5bb-0a9f5b8366ca" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:21:08.160" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="3b0edf3e-f719-4764-aa1a-dd949d7bb5e2" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:22:18.747" UserId="23473" Text="Jimdalf the Grey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is fluff text to meet the 30 character minimum*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="4963953a-613d-4726-80c7-802d5ef55c0e" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:24:05.847" UserId="23473" Text="Jim the Enchanter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Suggestions for filling this space are welcome*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="922789ab-2838-4726-8c5e-de734a67d09b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:28:48.970" UserId="23473" Text="High King of Jimtopia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ignore this text*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: ignoring that text is technically failing to ignore it*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="346bd33e-3a43-4c5d-aaf7-48df3931c4a4" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:40:48.873" UserId="14105" Text="How about Jim &quot;your surname&quot;. I've noticed that most people seem to be satisfied with that as an identifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="45e19a81-785a-4cac-be1f-ee555d8682b1" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:43:56.900" UserId="50583" Text="I propose *ACuriousJim*.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="d701c277-d20a-405b-ab0d-e7962a085636" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:47:35.550" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="Jimdalf the Grey  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="75465cb5-2023-4ed5-9f76-746f30809255" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:47:53.123" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="Jim the Enchanter.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="77163d0d-1f35-47f4-8790-f8ee6f99f468" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:48:09.157" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body" Text="High King of Jimtopia&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="ee52f914-ef3c-491a-883a-81ae214ab18b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T17:57:31.703" UserId="14105" Text="I will also suggest &quot;The Jim&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="2f16e88e-4273-42da-acd2-d0269667d9cb" CreationDate="2015-02-11T18:09:41.673" UserId="23473" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, so long as it's clearly a Jim name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="846d55e3-338f-4af4-a55b-32d6e64da03c" CreationDate="2015-02-11T18:11:37.650" UserId="25301" Text="Jimnasium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(play on [gymnasium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="7d7d6972-4f9f-4473-832e-ce94eed11acb" CreationDate="2015-02-11T20:33:18.633" UserId="8563" Text="I personally don't have that much patience for this sort of hullaballoo, which seems to come and go periodically. Nevertheless we do play a role in it, and I think it's important that we respond to these sorts of questions appropriately. The flow goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Scientist comes up with crazy idea, and (a bit surprisingly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - actually comes up with some plausible-looking maths that merit a closer look, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [e](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun) sends it off to a journal, and it passes peer-review with referee comments along the lines of &quot;don't think it will take off, but this much is technically sound and worth publishing so people can find why exactly it won't work, maybe we'll learn something in the process&quot;. However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the journal's publicity department doesn't see the referee report and, caught by the trendy title and snazzy possibilities in the abstract, ships it off to a trendy news outlet mentioning the snazzy possibilities and dropping all the qualifiers behind the result, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - it gets reported on some credible news site, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a bunch of readers get confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our role is to stop it right there. Point out that it depends on frictionless cows and spherical surfaces. Give precise pointers to why the Established Theory does work and to the Mountain of Evidence that supports it. Explain why the new theory needs to explain a substantial fraction of that Mountain of Evidence before we'll start taking it as a real candidate for What Actually Happens in the World.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, we sort of need to interrupt the cycle pointed out by Jorge Cham,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The Science News Cycle - from PhD Comics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zM20b.png)](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about halfway through. We want it to look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zj2qJ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the paper in question is indeed a peer-reviewed journal publication, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the paper in question does initially contradict a well established theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we should be a bit more lax in terms of keeping these questions open. A few comments on the usual close reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;It's non-mainstream&quot;** doesn't hold if it's actually in a peer-reviewed publication, because of [how we structure that in the first place](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's unclear what you're asking** is a pretty high bar for something like this. It's often the case that *we* as professional physicists are confused by one of these, and it takes us time to get to grips with what the paper is saying. For a student or someone in the general public, we should set a slightly lower bar if they see something in mainstream media which is backed up by a peer-reviewed publication, and are simply confused about how credible it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's primarily opinion-based** and it most likely will remain so, with anything that's speculative like this. We do need to make an effort to keep it concise and to the point, but I think this is effort we need to make on keeping the answers trim and as low on discussion as possible, rather than something that makes us close the question immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for the long, rambly post. Feel free to shoot me down with reasoned arguments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="661e6824-cff5-416b-8089-1973b6fb7fea" CreationDate="2015-02-11T22:16:14.693" UserId="56299" Text="[Jim Post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9789/tim-post). To get rid of the multiple-Jims confusion and replace it with confusion for those who have no idea who Tim Post is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="8a730209-0bcd-454a-9c89-158605b95ce6" CreationDate="2015-02-12T03:15:08.587" UserId="44881" Text="I went with Jiminion, and I'm stuck with it for a month." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17539" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="691218a0-ec43-4e0b-8d9e-3b9270779c1f" CreationDate="2015-02-12T12:21:06.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/565848066696441856" />
  <row Id="17540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="d82e2c60-e364-4edd-b816-d2d9ef57380a" CreationDate="2015-02-13T07:34:10.950" UserId="1325" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="e3e056b9-954b-4c28-aaeb-2b3b43f33b28" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:15:58.310" UserId="25301" Text="Jimothy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[good reference here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXxkXGK1rQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="acb7dadd-145e-48e2-b7c2-4817ed82a595" CreationDate="2015-02-13T20:55:01.137" UserId="26969" Text="How about Jimmy Dodger - a play on &quot;Jammy Dodger&quot; which is a word with many meanings. Including a delicious biscuit that's a favorite (or favourite?) of the Doctor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="c91f8a3c-d8c6-4c77-9184-8999692bcc40" CreationDate="2015-02-15T15:51:37.233" UserId="184" Text="I created a graph of tags from Stack Exchange sites (including Physics.SE), [**TagOverflow**](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made an interactive version of http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1581/map-of-64-tags-from-physics-se, with always up-to-date data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nodes represent the most popular tags, with their area being proportional to the number of questions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edges represent relation between tags. Their width is related to the number of questions with both tags, while their shade - how much more often they occur than one should expect by random chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Default coloring is due to community detection - automated splitting of a graph into densely connected subgraphs. Positions of the nodes are due to [D3.js force layout](https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Force-Layout). That is, nodes connected via an edge attract each other. The strength of such attraction depends on the strength of an edge. Plus, all nodes repeal each other at a short distance to prevent overlaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Physics.SE is a (relatively) big place, it may be interesting to do conditional graphs (i.e. graphs restricted to question with a given tag), e.g. to get [tag:quantum-mechanics] ([TagOveflow: Physics: quantum-mechanics](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32&amp;tag=quantum-mechanics)) or [tag:homework-and-exercises] ([TagOveflow: Physics: homework-and-exercises](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32&amp;tag=homework-and-exercises)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Code and a more detailed description is on GitHub](https://github.com/stared/tagoverflow#tagoverflow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* check tag grouping - i.e. for the sake of eliminating synonyms or poorly-defined tags,&#xD;&#xA;* try to infer the structure of physics from Physics.SE :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides looking at the graph, you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* get interesting information per tag (e.g. top questions and users),&#xD;&#xA;* get some statistics (like average score for these tags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you enjoy it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* are there any findings on Physics.SE tags you find insightful and would like to share?&#xD;&#xA;* do you have ideas how to improve its usefulness or niceness to our community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wcYsL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="c91f8a3c-d8c6-4c77-9184-8999692bcc40" CreationDate="2015-02-15T15:51:37.233" UserId="184" Text="TagOverflow - an interactive graph of Physics.SE tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="c91f8a3c-d8c6-4c77-9184-8999692bcc40" CreationDate="2015-02-15T15:51:37.233" UserId="184" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="bdb1412f-7859-4328-b5ee-fe17953214ea" CreationDate="2015-02-16T00:46:12.403" UserId="56299" Comment="Some updates." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrition][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematical modeling][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="e6af726d-b3e3-4494-b63a-7bddfd1b955d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T01:07:02.263" UserId="26969" Text="I just noticed a new &quot;diamond&quot; moderator. Welcome Jaydles!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you mind telling us a bit about yourself? It doesn't appear that you have been active on physics.SE before; we'd like to know a bit more about you than is shown in your profile. How did you become a moderator on this site? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="e6af726d-b3e3-4494-b63a-7bddfd1b955d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T01:07:02.263" UserId="26969" Text="Who is this Jaydles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="e6af726d-b3e3-4494-b63a-7bddfd1b955d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T01:07:02.263" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="967beaca-5b2e-4509-994d-a54595d536cb" CreationDate="2015-02-16T08:40:31.340" UserId="58382" Text="A couple of questions here on meta.physics (namely [this one][1] and [this one][2] that I could find) already asked for how to use tags on Phys.SE. The answers to these questions seemed to imply that it is not possible to *automatically* number the equations, like what happens in standard Latex for example with the ```equation``` envinronment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked if this feature is possible on [meta][meta], and it turns out that [it already exists in MathJax][mathjax], as you can see from [the answer to my question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an extract from the answer linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This functionality already exists in MathJax. To enable it on an SE site, one would need to include either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;AMS&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*or*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;all&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*in the TeX part of MathJax configuration options. I think the second option would be too aggressive: it would automatically number all displayed formulas in all posts on the site, which would often go against the intent of authors who created some equation numbers manually.&#xD;&#xA;The first option is reasonable: it would apply only to the displayed equations entered as AMS-LaTeX environments, e.g.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;    y=x^2 &#xD;&#xA;    \end{equation} &#xD;&#xA;*There aren't that many of those.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question now belongs here: should/could this feature be enabled here, to avoid painstakingly renumbering all equations in a post when adding one in the middle and similar things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also think that an automatic numbering of equations by default would be useful as it would allow to easily reference not manually tagged equations posted by the OP, but this is probably not possible now as it would, if I understood correcly, mess up all the already manually numbered equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2887/58382&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5396/58382&#xD;&#xA;[3]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/248597/276202&#xD;&#xA;[meta]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[mathjax]:http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html?highlight=equationnumbers#automatic-equation-numbering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="967beaca-5b2e-4509-994d-a54595d536cb" CreationDate="2015-02-16T08:40:31.340" UserId="58382" Text="Enabling automatic numbering of equations on physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="967beaca-5b2e-4509-994d-a54595d536cb" CreationDate="2015-02-16T08:40:31.340" UserId="58382" Text="|discussion|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="675a8614-9641-4150-bb46-b54fe4ea53b7" CreationDate="2015-02-16T10:34:53.193" UserId="58382" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="A couple of questions here on meta.physics (namely [this one][1] and [this one][2] that I could find) already asked for how to use tags on Phys.SE. The answers to these questions seemed to imply that it is not possible to *automatically* number the equations, like what happens in standard Latex for example with the ```equation``` envinronment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked if this feature is possible on [meta][meta], and it turns out that [it already exists in MathJax][mathjax], as you can see from [the answer to my question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an extract from the answer linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This functionality already exists in MathJax. To enable it on an SE site, one would need to include either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;AMS&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*or*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;all&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*in the TeX part of MathJax configuration options. I think the second option would be too aggressive: it would automatically number all displayed formulas in all posts on the site, which would often go against the intent of authors who created some equation numbers manually.&#xD;&#xA;The first option is reasonable: it would apply only to the displayed equations entered as AMS-LaTeX environments, e.g.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;    y=x^2 &#xD;&#xA;    \end{equation} &#xD;&#xA;*There aren't that many of those.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question now belongs here: should/could this feature be enabled on Phys.SE, to avoid painstakingly renumbering all equations in a post when adding/removing one in the middle of a text and similar things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also think that an automatic numbering of equations by default would be useful as it would allow to easily reference not manually tagged equations posted by the OP, but this is probably not possible now as it would, if I understood correcly, mess up all the already manually numbered equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2887/58382&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5396/58382&#xD;&#xA;[3]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/248597/276202&#xD;&#xA;[meta]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[mathjax]:http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html?highlight=equationnumbers#automatic-equation-numbering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="a3e26916-1ae4-4a10-adbe-a2c0331280db" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:25:23.657" UserId="8563" Text="Consider a situation where someone asks for clarification about equation (4) in a comment, and then the post author adds a definition to clarify it just above it. Since the comment cannot be edited, the record will be confusing for newcomers and would be a not-really-worth-it pain to disentangle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic numbering works when you also have `\label`-ing and automatic `\ref`-erencing which can consistently point to the correct objects even when the equation numbers change. I think this is a bad idea on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="0146862a-23ff-4448-890d-3299fb15b6a2" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:29:57.130" UserId="8563" Comment="Nutrition, Mathematical Modeling and Popular Science have been removed." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [a discussion on proposals for one or more Earth / Planetary / Atmospheric / Environmental / Geology sciences][2] - please do join in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/3333/34267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/57490.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36296/geoscience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17562" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="bcc96005-edb0-44f1-b379-8fa6045b03a7" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:32:58.070" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/567300601483378688" />
  <row Id="17563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="6969d267-e72e-43e6-ba6b-780d487c95fa" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:42:09.540" UserId="8563" Comment="Some updates." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Science][30]][29]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][28]][27]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][32]][31]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][36]][35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65426/open-science&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65426.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://datascience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/55053.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: http://&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17564" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="4052f33e-b956-4c8d-9184-c8650b26cb43" CreationDate="2015-02-16T13:53:26.090" UserId="34382" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I apply for an &quot;on hold&quot; problem to be re-opened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="58c30a55-5bd3-43dd-9307-0a8ae483c53f" CreationDate="2015-02-16T15:40:32.763" UserId="2451" Text="As mentioned in comments, the new diamond moderator is SE team members, not a [Phys.SE moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://stackexchange.com/about/team) is a list of SE team members (using real names rather than usernames).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most moderating on Phys.SE is done by Phys.SE moderators, but &#xD;&#xA;SE team members do from time to time help out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="2e6c5ccc-6fca-4332-9c5e-5ce5f6648989" CreationDate="2015-02-16T15:43:08.330" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="I just noticed a new &quot;diamond&quot; moderator. Welcome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you mind telling us a bit about yourself? It doesn't appear that you have been active on physics.SE before; we'd like to know a bit more about you than is shown in your profile. How did you become a moderator on this site? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17567" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="2e6c5ccc-6fca-4332-9c5e-5ce5f6648989" CreationDate="2015-02-16T15:43:08.330" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Who is this new diamond moderator called [insert-username-of-actual-diamond-here]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="fdc4405b-a2b2-4d4e-bbef-56971e1d28ea" CreationDate="2015-02-16T15:50:37.990" UserId="2451" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="As mentioned in comments, the new diamond moderator is a SE team member, not a [Phys.SE moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://stackexchange.com/about/team) is a list of SE team members (using real names rather than usernames).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most moderating on Phys.SE is done by Phys.SE moderators, but &#xD;&#xA;SE team members do help out from time to time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record: Currently Phys.SE moderators have handled around 10k flags, while SE team members have handled around 60 flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="159016fb-7ce3-4249-a26f-b4edaf6b101f" CreationDate="2015-02-16T16:06:51.563" UserId="2451" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="As mentioned in comments, the new diamond moderator is a SE team member, not a [Phys.SE moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://stackexchange.com/about/team) is a list of SE team members (using real names rather than usernames).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most moderating on Phys.SE is done by Phys.SE moderators, but &#xD;&#xA;SE team members do help out from time to time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE team members also have other tasks, such as, e.g. developing SE software and finding bugs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record: Currently Phys.SE moderators have handled around 10k flags, while SE team members have handled around 70 flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17570" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="08c6f317-9185-4bee-ad32-bb0e95b258c1" CreationDate="2015-02-16T16:08:14.013" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Who is this new diamond moderator called (insert-username-of-diamond-here)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="08c6f317-9185-4bee-ad32-bb0e95b258c1" CreationDate="2015-02-16T16:08:14.013" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="1d96d8e1-d202-4e62-b331-dcc7f1cde968" CreationDate="2015-02-16T17:07:01.120" UserId="8563" Comment="added 907 characters in body" Text="Consider a situation where someone asks for clarification about equation (4) in a comment, and then the post author adds a definition to clarify it just above it. Since the comment cannot be edited, the record will be confusing for newcomers and would be a not-really-worth-it pain to disentangle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic numbering works when you also have `\label`-ing and automatic `\ref`-erencing which can consistently point to the correct objects even when the equation numbers change. I think this is a bad idea on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, note that there are [close to 1k posts that already use the `\begin{equation}` notation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=begin%7Bequation%7D), and [1.6k that use `\begin{align}`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22begin%7Balign%7D%22). We do not know whether their authors would like the tags, which could be quite intrusive. I have a few of those myself,  and I'd not be that keen on this: when I use the `align` notation I'm half the time tagging things myself, and having automatic tags detracts from the emphasis given to the important equations by the manual tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, though, I just don't think there's a need. A long post might have 10-20 equations but only a couple of them are really worth numbering, and that's at the extremes and can be dealt with using manual `\tag`s. I think we're getting along just fine and there isn't a use case for this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17573" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="8e8dd0aa-f75f-4916-80d5-e3f0e795276c" CreationDate="2015-02-16T17:14:46.850" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more descriptive of the actual question, and hopefully more likely to resonate with future users with the same question." Text="Diamond (♦) moderators with low reputation on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6530" RevisionGUID="617ded08-6945-4b7c-85ec-6a915acd8107" CreationDate="2015-02-16T17:20:12.243" UserId="520" Text="I personally dislike auto-numbering of equations. They are not all important, and I only want to number the ones I refer back to. When you do that the fact that they have a tag gives the reader a head's up that this relation is not only useful in passing but will be back to &lt;s&gt;haunt us&lt;/s&gt; illuminate another issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One this I would like is to be able to refer to equations by label or tag. I know how to arrange that in real LaTeX, but haven't looked into how well it works in MathJax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="7eb4ff22-8a0f-4beb-8e4c-5d2931ccebe2" CreationDate="2015-02-16T18:40:41.707" UserId="25301" Text="Minor issue&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;It seems you have a link error. If you select a tag (I chose `fluid-dynamics`, but it works for others I've tested, including other SE sites), the link at the top, e.g., `Physics:&lt;tag&gt; (&lt;question_number&gt;)`, leads to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/tagged/fluid-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which does not exist. It should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick look in main.js on your github page shows that `/questions/` should be included (see line 315):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .attr('href', seSiteData.siteData.site_url + &quot;/questions/tagged/&quot; + tagName)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suspect the problem is elsewhere, but didn't investigate more since I'm not really well-versed (read: at all) in JavaScript.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feature request&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to make a tag-graph of a particular user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6530" RevisionGUID="90efb7d7-6a2b-4277-8583-611a1db015db" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:04:49.117" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I personally dislike auto-numbering of equations. They are not all important, and I only want to number the ones I refer back to. When you do that the fact that they have a tag gives the reader a head's up that this relation is not only useful in passing but will be back to &lt;s&gt;haunt us&lt;/s&gt; illuminate another issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I *would* like is to be able to refer to equations by label or tag. I know how to arrange that in real LaTeX, but haven't looked into how well it works in MathJax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="cf24db5a-5ce8-443d-b98e-ce22016a5596" CreationDate="2015-02-18T01:27:26.203" UserId="72047" Text="Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthworm Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slim Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jimiroquai&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="2865c87b-fda4-4be2-a01e-658bc2691a7f" CreationDate="2015-02-18T07:17:03.260" UserId="1325" Comment="Add truly terrible joke" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that do as a tree level approximation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6533" RevisionGUID="2954e32e-96e5-473b-95bb-344c62e68825" CreationDate="2015-02-18T16:29:10.667" UserId="23473" Text="Dread Pirate Jimbeard &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17580" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="6ab650dc-fc70-44bb-8dde-9233d7b31d92" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:09:44.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/568095028100403200" />
  <row Id="17581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="3c30fc70-0fe3-4e35-b1ed-5afd6a413583" CreationDate="2015-02-18T19:19:35.167" UserId="68551" Text="Jimself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;......................." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="f1583927-2e95-47cf-a4fa-1f6a02682677" CreationDate="2015-02-19T22:24:13.653" UserId="49024" Text="For those of you who have been on StackOverflow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Jim Skeet&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="b031e633-6e28-4327-bd01-d25ef87b3f7d" CreationDate="2015-02-19T22:32:52.430" UserId="49024" Text="How about,&quot;Lord Jim&quot;? ........." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="14a2c9b7-31c8-44e8-8343-e3b50b42de04" CreationDate="2015-02-19T22:54:31.150" UserId="23473" Text="Jimperator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Perhaps [the most apt](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperator) title for the leader of Jims&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="4ef57f51-a7cb-4db7-aaea-0c8ba55dca95" CreationDate="2015-02-20T01:01:45.030" UserId="49024" Text="The Jimtimidator is another option..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="79dd3719-2e53-41ef-80e2-a99fdba4c6f3" CreationDate="2015-02-20T05:46:40.533" UserId="56321" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="93299a69-87b1-4623-b344-d34578ceb21e" CreationDate="2015-02-20T09:23:53.607" UserId="23339" Text="What about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the period spoken explicitly, as &quot;Jim - Period!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="a58bb30a-1249-451a-9fcb-860ca4e27134" CreationDate="2015-02-20T17:35:35.963" UserId="24653" Text="Keep it simple: [Jimbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="634e53d6-6b30-4764-8598-e1879cbf6241" CreationDate="2015-02-20T20:20:35.167" UserId="25301" Text="This post is in regards to events occurring with the question [Do tachyons move faster than light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166095/do-tachyons-move-faster-than-light) (see also chat starting [around here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20169987#20169987)), but the question is to be applied to a site-wide policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aforementioned post contained a bad question that was quickly closed as *primarily opinion based*. A set of high-rep users then edited the question to be something entirely different, which was then reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/218183/reviewing-suggested-edits-what-is-an-invalid-incorrect-or-radical-edit) about editing posts, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are all adding/changing the content of the post, the intended meaning of the author. That is not appropriate for an edit. (Unless the post is Community Wiki.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The intent of edits is to allow readers to more effectively understand the authors original intent. They are not there to change the author's intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edits made to the post in question appear to change the intended meaning of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [discussed radical edits before](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/correcting-incorrect-answers) in regards to incorrect answers, in which my answer (highly voted + accepted, though the 2nd answer says the same thing &amp; is also highly-voted) says that such edits that change the intended meaning should not be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Should we change our policy on editing (which, AFAIK, is aligned with the SE network policy cited above), to allow for such radical changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up, if we should keep the existing policy, what should occur to the post in question? Should it be reverted and closed, or should it be left as is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="634e53d6-6b30-4764-8598-e1879cbf6241" CreationDate="2015-02-20T20:20:35.167" UserId="25301" Text="Radically editing closed questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="634e53d6-6b30-4764-8598-e1879cbf6241" CreationDate="2015-02-20T20:20:35.167" UserId="25301" Text="|discussion|editing|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="a7f86da3-cb09-49e0-afba-9a13d5813b52" CreationDate="2015-02-20T20:57:23.383" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Question: Should we change our policy on editing (which, AFAIK, is aligned with the SE network policy cited above), to allow for such radical changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, no, no no, no no no, no no no no no no no no, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike e.g. Wikipedia, the Stack Exchange software attaches the original poster's name to every question and answer (and comment), except community wiki posts, and it's therefore reasonable to expect that the content of that post reflects the named poster's intent. Radical changes therefore _cannot_ be allowed without the original poster's approval. If people do think the question should be radically different, they can always post a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we have previous meta Q&amp;A on this issue I may as well also mention that I don't believe anything relevant has changed since those other questions and answers were posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="48d98695-fa7b-42ef-a1ef-2ef4332665a3" CreationDate="2015-02-20T21:03:44.357" UserId="2911" Text="There's a subtlety to the guidelines for editing here that many people (even some aged, veteran users) don't quite pick up on... So I'll try a different approach here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's [a famous interview with Richard Feynman][1], where he was asked the question, &quot;how do two magnets attract or repel each other?&quot; To which he responded,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and then went on to list how he might answer the question *if someone else were asking it.* This is a brilliant response, precisely because it illustrates a consideration that so many educators skip: **understanding the intentions of your student.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic guidelines for editing are listed on [the full edit page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1/edit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![always respect the original author][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they say *nothing* about not changing the meaning of the post - instead, the guidance is merely, &quot;respect the original author&quot;. Watching some editors debate this reminds me of [an old story][3]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He also who had received the one talent came and said, &quot;Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But his master answered him, &quot;You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Matthew 25:24–30, [World English Bible][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's always *safe* to edit a question in a way that does not change the literal meaning; after all, who can criticize you when you haven't *done anything?* But when you *do* understand the intent, and yet, out of an overabundance of caution, do nothing to alter the meaning even if by doing so you could better reflect the author's intention *and potentially provide a way for him to obtain assistance here*, then you're hardly respecting the author; like the cynical servant or a weary teacher who no longer cares if his students can absorb the information he regurgitates, you've wasted an opportunity and squandered the attention of your audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you edit a question, or when you review the edits of others, ask yourself this question: **does this edit make it more likely that the asker will obtain the information he needs?** The answer you give yourself to this question should provide you with a foundation for any discussion that might follow from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iRPet.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="7a6ef936-9d21-4565-a74c-ad74fdea7d41" CreationDate="2015-02-20T22:21:15.340" UserId="23473" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="902b8935-2a29-4178-a172-c8408f540f02" CreationDate="2015-02-20T22:49:49.100" UserId="57666" Text="I'm surprised nobody suggested... Jims Bond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6548" RevisionGUID="e997c95b-fdb1-4d31-bb48-96e882660cb8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T00:01:21.397" UserId="68030" Text="I love using RSS-feed and I wanted to use it for this site too. The problem is that my RSS-Reader does not render Latex so I get the *source code* of Latex and trying to render Latex in my head is not so easy! Wouldn't it be better if the Latex formulas are sent as pictures so that the RSS-Reader can do a better job. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also open to suggestions of an RSS-Reader (for linux), which can render Latex or Mathjax or whatever. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6548" RevisionGUID="e997c95b-fdb1-4d31-bb48-96e882660cb8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T00:01:21.397" UserId="68030" Text="RSS-Feed and Latex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6548" RevisionGUID="e997c95b-fdb1-4d31-bb48-96e882660cb8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T00:01:21.397" UserId="68030" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|rss|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="d752818c-da26-4857-ab6f-6a517a26d056" CreationDate="2015-02-21T08:14:14.860" UserId="1325" Comment="More bad jokes" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that do as a tree level approximation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just been pointed out to me that [Jimnosperm's have light¹ cones][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ 10-100g depending on the species&lt;/spu&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nurturestore.co.uk/pine-cone-math-station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="848cf9e8-f277-4dc6-99b6-9926d2ebc77f" CreationDate="2015-02-21T09:08:04.097" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="There has been a general sense among a number of users, myself included, that simplistic, almost throwaway answers can get very high scores, while thoroughly researched, high-level answers can languish with few to no votes. See the discussion [here][1] for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To what extent is this backed by data?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I set out to answer this question, if not once and for all then at least to begin to shed some light on it. To that extend I wrote a very minimal Python script, [uploaded to GitHub][2], for crunching some numbers and making some plots.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The script needs two pieces of input to run. First, it expects a local copy of the CSV file associated with [this Data Explorer query][3]. Simply run it with your user ID and click the &quot;Download CSV&quot; link. The other requirement is much more labor intensive: A file with the post IDs of all your answers and a &quot;quality score&quot; for each. For my purposes, I used a 6-point scale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0. It might actually be beneficial for this answer to be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;    1. Just a quick answer to an easy question, one that required essentially no work.&#xD;&#xA;    2. A not-so-great answer that was nonetheless not entirely trivial.&#xD;&#xA;    3. A run-of-the-mill good answer.&#xD;&#xA;    4. A solid, well-researched answer that provides thorough insight into the problem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;    5. An outstanding answer, the kind about which songs will be sung many generations hence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really unavoidable for my scheme. In order to measure the correlation between &quot;quality&quot; and score, we need to actually have &quot;quality&quot; numbers on hand. I did my best to rate all my 400 or so answers to date, trying not to let the answer's votes sway my feelings about its &quot;quality&quot; one way or the other. It took the better part of a lazy afternoon to go through them all, in case anyone wants a time estimate for doing this themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some plots and conclusions are given an an answer below. However, this is just the analysis of *my own opinion* of *my own answers*. **More data would be great**, so I encourage others to use the tools mentioned above (or their own tools) for analyzing this sort of data.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to post your own data or your alternate analysis of my data as answers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Bug reports, feature requests, and support inquiries welcome. I'll try my best, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;My personal data dump and self-rankings are included in the repository, in case you want to jump right in and play with data without ranking answers. In particular, the query returns more information than the script currently uses, such as dates and question scores, so a better analysis can certainly be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/c-white/stackexchange_analysis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/273688/scores-for-my-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="848cf9e8-f277-4dc6-99b6-9926d2ebc77f" CreationDate="2015-02-21T09:08:04.097" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What is the correlation between answer quality and score?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="848cf9e8-f277-4dc6-99b6-9926d2ebc77f" CreationDate="2015-02-21T09:08:04.097" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|content-level|voting|data-explorer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="6f298759-241a-4f03-9fa3-53d40cff3980" CreationDate="2015-02-21T09:08:04.097" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="One thing that can be done is to group answers by quality and look at the distribution of answer scores within each group. Below is a plot of the means (circles) and 25-75 percentiles (error bars) for the six quality groups mentioned above. From quality 0 to quality 5, the numbers of answers I put into each category are 43, 79, 80, 137, 46, and 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![trend][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat surprisingly, there does seem to be a positive correlation: &quot;better&quot; answers get more upvotes. It's not a particularly strong correlation compared to how wildly my answers vary in quality, but it's there. Note I haven't done any sophisticated fits to this data, this is all just qualitative visualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to better capture the underlying distributions being summarized above, I also plotted histograms of answer scores for each group, shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![histogram][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some explanation is warranted. I chose to use logarithmic abscissas.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If there were N answers with a score of A, I took this to mean an amount N was distributed uniformly on (A-1/2, A+1/2). This distribution was then split up into the appropriate logarithmic bins based on how much they intersected the interval. Anything with a nonpositive score was put into the separate bar on the left. Also, some answers with a score of 1 are put into the separate bar, simply because the interval (-1/2, 1/2) lies partially below my (or any) lowest logarithmic partition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I reach a similar conclusion: **quality is *not* negatively correlated with score**, and in fact it's a little bit positively correlated. Sure, 1 out of 19 of my personal &quot;best&quot; answers has been sitting for months with a score of 1, but a couple of them have done somewhat well. And a lot of my in-my-estimation-worthless answers have received the scores they deserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also apparent that at least my answer score distributions have awkward long, low tails to the right. This is probably a signature of a small fraction of answers going viral and getting lots of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Perhaps because I'm an astronomer, and we love using unintuitive axes for all our plots. Just be grateful I didn't make the x-axis run from right to left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1ZgzC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5f1G7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="9af91472-de21-4f69-83c9-ddb7d3e234fa" CreationDate="2015-02-21T18:45:48.617" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="reworded binning explanation; added some more concluding sentences" Text="One thing that can be done is to group answers by quality and look at the distribution of answer scores within each group. Below is a plot of the means (circles) and 25-75 percentiles (error bars) for the six quality groups mentioned above. From quality 0 to quality 5, the numbers of answers I put into each category are 43, 79, 80, 137, 46, and 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![trend][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat surprisingly, there does seem to be a positive correlation: &quot;better&quot; answers get more upvotes. It's not a particularly strong correlation compared to how wildly my answers vary in quality, but it's there. Note I haven't done any sophisticated fits to this data, this is all just qualitative visualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to better capture the underlying distributions being summarized above, I also plotted histograms of answer scores for each group, shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![histogram][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some explanation is warranted. I chose to use logarithmic abscissas.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If there were N answers with a score of A, I took this to mean an amount N was distributed uniformly on (A-1/2, A+1/2). This distribution was then split up into the appropriate logarithmic bins based on how much they intersected the interval. Anything with a negative score was put into the separate bar on the left. Anything that would have been put into a bin below my cutoff (10^0) is also put in the separate bar, including all scores of 0 (since (-1/2, 1/2) lies below 10^0) and some scores of 1 (since part of (1/2, 3/2) lies below 10^0).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I reach a similar conclusion: **quality is *not* negatively correlated with score**, and in fact it's a little bit positively correlated. Sure, 1 out of 19 of my personal &quot;best&quot; answers has been sitting for months with a score of 1, but a couple of them have done somewhat well. And a lot of my in-my-estimation-worthless answers have received the scores they deserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also apparent that at least my answer score distributions have awkward long, low tails to the right. This is probably a signature of a small fraction of answers going viral and getting lots of votes. We tend to focus on the low quality answers that get scattered into the very high bins, but this happens at all quality levels. In fact, the distributions truncated above 10^1 have a nice quality-score correlation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Perhaps because I'm an astronomer, and we love using unintuitive axes for all our plots. Just be grateful I didn't make the x-axis run from right to left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1ZgzC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5f1G7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="699af116-344c-489d-82a8-c9c57b0adb28" CreationDate="2015-02-22T19:31:46.630" UserId="56321" Comment="added variation" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="cf3add42-99cc-4cb3-9704-9f8d4345c348" CreationDate="2015-02-22T20:28:37.133" UserId="43351" Text="Sweep all before you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="5c52b5b5-df1b-4e5a-8ff5-26b2e9cf863d" CreationDate="2015-02-22T22:16:40.810" UserId="62952" Text="Jim_me_boy (hawkins) with pirate accent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="e3dd3da4-8a8d-4a34-9dc1-03e631cf0154" CreationDate="2015-02-22T22:18:44.473" UserId="62952" Text="Jimronimo - this is my proposal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="53d400a5-5ca9-4d78-b999-a1184febdad9" CreationDate="2015-02-22T23:21:00.657" UserId="43351" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Sweep all before you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and next month it could be...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeroo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="bd410e85-1d3e-42b5-a92d-29e0c88d3452" CreationDate="2015-02-23T01:36:49.103" UserId="58234" Text="Jiminy Cricket, for a childhood throwback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17614" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="72934758-00a7-4a16-9e14-8f4c44b471af" CreationDate="2015-02-23T05:34:06.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/569731907270934528" />
  <row Id="17616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="46fdec1e-5bae-4950-9c8b-b8add1c63d81" CreationDate="2015-02-23T13:54:27.770" UserId="44881" Text="Jimb.   The b is silent.  And pronounced like &quot;climb&quot; instead of &quot;limb&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="26d31e9b-9dd7-45bf-b524-0d241a1047ba" CreationDate="2015-02-23T14:22:54.780" UserId="40289" Text="Previously, I wrote the following question [Has anyone formally tested Josh Pellicer's theory on human sexual behavior?][1]. This was a question I wrote with a lot of material from the work in question. This question contained 6 sub-questions to answer for an overarching one question. Oddly enough, the question received great attention, so I placed a bounty on it, and then I received a very well thought out answer which answered all sub-questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the Curious George that I am, I wrote another question [What are the limitations of superconductors?][2], then I got into a lot of trouble. Mostly because I made an inappropriate comment: &quot;Let's get inquisitive.&quot; I am sorry, I was listening to a lot of funky music over the weekend, while I was learning to program, and then I found myself getting down on my keyboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think either the question did not have enough supporting material, no bounty placed, nonproductive commenting, or too many sub-questions. I know the question is on hold, so I will be unable to fix it in time, so what should I do in the future to avoid this issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9300/has-anyone-formally-tested-josh-pellicers-theory-on-human-sexual-behavior&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166310/what-are-the-limitations-of-superconductors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="26d31e9b-9dd7-45bf-b524-0d241a1047ba" CreationDate="2015-02-23T14:22:54.780" UserId="40289" Text="I asked way too many questions at once, now I must pay the price" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="26d31e9b-9dd7-45bf-b524-0d241a1047ba" CreationDate="2015-02-23T14:22:54.780" UserId="40289" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6557" RevisionGUID="ae91ee5b-00ed-442f-ae14-b16f46f3d506" CreationDate="2015-02-23T14:38:44.413" UserId="25301" Text="Closing a question doesn't mean you are in trouble. It means that your question, in its current state, does not meet the standards of the site. This label can be removed if you edit your question. I also don't think anyone was influenced by your &quot;lets get inquisitive&quot; comment, though I do not believe that's really an appropriate response to glance's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I voted to close your question as Too Broad because you've got 7 questions, some of which can actually be found with a simple Google search (which suggests you just rushed out and asked without trying to find the information in the normal means). We prefer [**one question per post**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread), though we sometimes loosen this rule and allow one or two *closely related* questions in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reduced the list of questions to the aforementioned one or two *closely related* ones, I'd be willing to nominate it for reopening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="8d71571c-db61-4140-b6d4-bd9900301cd8" CreationDate="2015-02-23T16:12:42.583" UserId="6634" Text="Unfortunately you've run into the &quot;problems&quot; that arise by letting each community set its own standards. Your question on cogsci.SE was allowed and well received despite having multiple questions because that's how that community responds. This community, however, does not generally keep open posts with several questions in them (unless the questions are so inter-related that asking them independently would mean none of them make sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the questions you asked could be asked as independent questions. That is not to say anything about the quality of them as individual questions nor is it to say whether they would be considered good or not (just copy-pasting each one into its own question would not be good, it's basically just trivia and not asking about the *how* or *why* the numbers are what they are). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for being in trouble, having the question on hold, etc. there is no need to repeat what [Kyle said in his answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6557/6634).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="21382a66-0602-4b35-8939-59110522d3c2" CreationDate="2015-02-24T07:16:55.957" UserId="65136" Text="How about LEEEEROY JIMKINS for a name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="82f03264-aa29-4bf6-9b7c-db63626700f1" CreationDate="2015-02-25T16:08:20.563" UserId="1492" Text="I just answered [this question][1] that community brought up, because the question had a score of 5, and the two answers were not getting any hits and I considered they were not answering well the simple question which got these 5 votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I checked and the user who asked the question came only on July 8,  2014 and has not been seen since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Community should check , and if there is no interest on the part of the questioner to look for answers , it is a one off, and the answers have not gotten any up votes  the question should not be brought up again ,and maybe even deleted ?. I am suggesting deletion because such simple minded questions with wishy washy answers ( maybe mine too) do not reflect well on the site, with search engines, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123603/how-does-a-magnetic-field-cause-objects-to-move/167018#167018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="82f03264-aa29-4bf6-9b7c-db63626700f1" CreationDate="2015-02-25T16:08:20.563" UserId="1492" Text="a suggestion for community updates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="82f03264-aa29-4bf6-9b7c-db63626700f1" CreationDate="2015-02-25T16:08:20.563" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="069756ab-e465-4344-ad79-c3b8ba785b70" CreationDate="2015-02-25T18:23:05.810" UserId="6634" Text="Well, now that your answer has been upvoted by somebody, at least *that* question won't be bumped anymore. Not that that addresses the problem at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do usually look at community bumped questions to see if there actually is an answer that deserves an upvote and just never got one. In some ways, that means it serves a purpose even if the original poster is long gone and no longer interested in returning. It would be a shame for a great question with an awesome answer that went unnoticed at the time to never be noticed again just because the person who asked it disappeared without a trace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also like to take the time when community bumps something to evaluate whether we just missed a reason to close it earlier. Maybe it is a homework question, or maybe it's a duplicate (and it's possible a newer question asks the same thing and got good answers, so the bumped one should be closed -- chronological order isn't required for deciding which in a set to close). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess what I'm trying to say is that community bumping questions gives all of us an opportunity to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Decide if the question is on topic/not duplicate/etc when it may have been missed before;&#xD;&#xA;1. Answer a question that may have been unanswered before or had mediocre answers;&#xD;&#xA;1. Upvote a great answer that may have been missed at the time but deserves to be upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of those things depend on whether the original poster(s) are still around. In some ways, I see community bumps as another type of review queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6563" RevisionGUID="4e4b4828-a89a-401c-afcf-05fe720346a0" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:33:15.867" UserId="520" Text="The usual line is that answer are not just for the OP, but also for people who find the question later---and given that the majority of our traffic comes from search engines that is potentially a lot of people. SO the argument goes on to suggest that un-answered questions are a blemish, and  even if the asker will never return again and getting some kind of up-vote worthy answer is an improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that the argument really holds for particularly poor questions, but it is true of *some* long-unanswered questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="b30d46a2-f985-4f26-9ad2-b298808e37cf" CreationDate="2015-02-25T21:08:53.257" UserId="56321" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="fb3bcff6-41a5-448a-90be-b9f0061198e6" CreationDate="2015-02-26T04:46:20.800" UserId="1492" Text="I just got an accept from an older question :[What is a good definition of 'time'? \[duplicate\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious I went to the duplicate,[Time, what is it? \[closed\]][2], and see that it is closed with the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a logical inconsistency here of pointing to a duplicate that is closed with such a reason. Either the original should have been closed or it should not have been marked duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156132/what-is-a-good-definition-of-time/156180#156180&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17056/time-what-is-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="fb3bcff6-41a5-448a-90be-b9f0061198e6" CreationDate="2015-02-26T04:46:20.800" UserId="1492" Text="consistencies in closures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="fb3bcff6-41a5-448a-90be-b9f0061198e6" CreationDate="2015-02-26T04:46:20.800" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="78022af5-ccb9-462b-a991-65587c0c7ec4" CreationDate="2015-02-26T04:55:03.677" UserId="1492" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="I just got an accept from an older question :[What is a good definition of 'time'? \[duplicate\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious I went to the duplicate,[Time, what is it? \[closed\]][2], and see that it is closed with the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a logical inconsistency here of pointing to a duplicate that is closed with such a reason. Either the original should have been closed or it should not have been marked duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit after I read the comments that led to the duplicate assignment. The second link provided in QMECHANIC's comment is fine and should be subsituted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156132/what-is-a-good-definition-of-time/156180#156180&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17056/time-what-is-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6565" RevisionGUID="14706173-75a6-4661-ac6e-04e63347d0d5" CreationDate="2015-02-26T07:25:35.440" UserId="6634" Text="I think we should strive to choose the most appropriate/specific close reasons when we vote to close. It is extra important in cases like this because the duplicate question close message encourages users to ask a new question if the answers on the duplicate don't address their specific concerns. But we don't want somebody to ask a new question about something that is off-topic to begin with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To ensure consistency and to avoid problems like this, the process of reviewing a question should be something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Evaluate whether the question is on- or off-topic. If it is off-topic, **vote to close** based on the most appropriate off-topic close reason. &#xD;&#xA;1. If the question is on-topic, look at the content of the question:&#xD;&#xA;  - Has the question been asked before? Many times, I can find a duplicate in the &quot;Related questions&quot; bar on the right side. If I can't find it there, and I think &quot;Surely this is something I've seen before&quot; or &quot;There's no way this hasn't been asked before,&quot; I'll search for possible duplicates. If a possible duplicate is found, **vote to close as a duplicate** and move to the next question. If no duplicate is found, continue.&#xD;&#xA;  - Does the question show research effort, is it clear and useful? **Upvote**.&#xD;&#xA;  - If it is on-topic but just a bad question (not useful to anybody else, no research, etc.) -- **downvote** and move on to the next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we follow that type of flow, we would avoid situations when we say &quot;Hey User, your question already has an answer! Oh wait, but we closed it because it's off-topic...&quot; Instead, we just say &quot;This is off-topic because X&quot; and it doesn't matter if it's been asked 100 times before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know some may disagree on the whole upvote/downvote thing. But regardless of your views on that, I think it makes the most sense to decide if something is on-topic before looking for potential duplicates. It seems silly to chase down potential duplicates to off-topic questions (wastes our time) and it also presents a strange message to people not familiar with how our site, or StackExchange in general, works. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="8b3de604-115b-49ff-8e25-8b619db460fe" CreationDate="2015-02-26T14:40:39.230" UserId="25301" Text="I think the problem with the &quot;inconsistency&quot; as viewed by some is the fact that close states are not permanent, yet they are being viewed as a permanent state. This is simply not true; any post can be re-opened at any time. In light of this point of view, it should be clear that there isn't any inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also has been discussed on Mother Meta before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173431/what-should-i-do-with-a-question-that-has-an-exact-duplicate-closed-as-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186706/can-we-prevent-questions-from-being-closed-as-duplicates-of-closed-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115125/should-duplicates-of-closed-questions-be-closed-as-duplicates-or-closed-for-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is mixed between the answers (so obviously no consensus, not even highly upvoted answers), but two points were brought up there that we ought to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What happens if we later decide that the closed-original is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What happens if we later decide that an unclosed-original is off-topic? What should we do to the questions closed as duplicate of *that* one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, your issue disappears because the close-state isn't permanent. This should suggest that closing as a duplicate of a closed question should not present any problems/inconsistencies because of the fact that the original can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, we have the opposite case you present. Should we then go through all the duplicates and re-label them as off-topic? That would be quite a lot of *unnecessary* work (because it brings us right back to (1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with [tgp2114's evaluation process](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6565/25301); the reasoning should be in this order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Has the question been asked before?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as duplicate&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the question off-topic (for all reasons)?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as off-topic (for the appropriate reason)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can't tell *or* disagree&#xD;&#xA;  - Skip *or* Leave Open&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It should not matter if the proposed duplicate is also closed as off-topic because, again, it can get out of that state.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="dfc96f85-a844-4469-8aa3-910b876acba1" CreationDate="2015-02-26T15:50:22.877" UserId="25301" Comment="clarified the case of closed question, clarified #2" Text="I think the problem with the &quot;inconsistency&quot; as viewed by some is the fact that **close states are not permanent**, yet they are being viewed as a permanent state. This is simply not true; any post can be re-opened at any time. In light of this point of view, it should be clear that there isn't any inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that close states also do **not** at all suggest that the question itself is &quot;not physics.&quot; What it *does* suggest is that the question does not *fit the site* in its **current form** under **current policies**. A closed question may be a perfectly valid physics question; case in point: homework questions. We view these as off-topic, even though they certainly are valid physics questions. And since policies can change, there is no reason to suspect that an off-topic question will remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do note though that, on occasion, there are questions asked here that aren't actually physics (e.g., some people asking engineering, philosophy or chemistry questions). This does not mean that the close state *itself* indicates that the question is not physics.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also has been discussed on Mother Meta before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173431/what-should-i-do-with-a-question-that-has-an-exact-duplicate-closed-as-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186706/can-we-prevent-questions-from-being-closed-as-duplicates-of-closed-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115125/should-duplicates-of-closed-questions-be-closed-as-duplicates-or-closed-for-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is mixed between the answers (so obviously no consensus, not even highly upvoted answers), but two points were brought up there that we ought to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What happens if we later decide that the closed-original is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What happens if we later decide that an unclosed-original is off-topic? What should we do to the questions closed as duplicate of *that* one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, your issue disappears because the close-state isn't permanent. This should suggest that closing as a duplicate of a closed question should not present any problems/inconsistencies because of the fact that the original can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, we have the opposite case you present. Should we then go through all the duplicates and re-label them as off-topic? That would be quite a lot of *unnecessary* work (because it brings us right back to (1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with [tgp2114's evaluation process](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6565/25301); the reasoning should be in this order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Has the question been asked before?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as duplicate&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the question off-topic (HW, engineering, etc)? Too broad? Opinion based?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close appropriately&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can't tell *or* disagree&#xD;&#xA;  - Skip *or* Leave Open&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It should not matter if the proposed duplicate is also closed as off-topic because, again, it can get out of that state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6567" RevisionGUID="49c68c98-4747-49fb-b1b6-b24e2553c904" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:20:23.557" UserId="59168" Text="I know very little about physics compared to most users of physics StackExchange. Even so, if I knew a grain more than what I know now, I wouldn't care to answer the questions of others. I'd rather focus on answering my questions. What motivates users of this site to answer questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do most of you recognize that for your questions to be answered, you'll need others to want to use the site. To want others to use the site, you'll have to answer their questions. Is this the goodwill that motivates all of you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6567" RevisionGUID="49c68c98-4747-49fb-b1b6-b24e2553c904" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:20:23.557" UserId="59168" Text="Why do users answer questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6567" RevisionGUID="49c68c98-4747-49fb-b1b6-b24e2553c904" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:20:23.557" UserId="59168" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="aaf6cae6-523d-4c73-8d19-73b82b060ad3" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:38:18.877" UserId="6634" Text="We have [discussed this before](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions) although that question is only tangentially related to this one. Based on that question though, you should find that the most active people who answer questions have some of the fewest questions asked. For the most part, the community is split into two broad groups -- those who ask questions and rarely answer (which seems to be where you would place yourself) and those who answer questions and rarely ask (which is where many of the people who will likely respond to this meta post would place themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for everybody so I'm sure I will miss individual motivations. But I know for some, they answer questions because they like to teach others. These folks tend to be current or retired academics. Which makes sense, they are making/have made a career out of educating others. And of course, there are those who plan on going into academics and would like to make a career out of teaching others so they could be in that group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are those who see answering others' questions as a way to learn more themselves. I know I have learned quite a bit by answering questions I am not an expert *per se* in but my knowledge of my field has allowed me to bring a particular perspective. And in those cases, I answer something but I also learn from the resulting votes/comments (was I right? did I miss something?) and in some cases has actually led me to ask questions of my own. I also get to see how others reach a conclusion/answer and I almost always learn something from the other answers even if I &quot;knew&quot; it. Turns out, there's usually more than one way to think about something and I wouldn't know how my thought process is different than somebody elses' without having first outlined mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could also say that I fit into a category where I want to encourage others to ask questions and understand how the universe works. It's just a nice thing to do, and maybe that's the goodwill/altruism you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the game aspect of it. You ask good questions, you get rep; you post good answers, you get rep. You get badges. You &quot;level up&quot; and get new permissions. It's sometimes fun to play the game for some people. Answers get more rep than questions so that's a good way to advance faster if you're good at it. Plus there's always that &quot;Yay, somebody liked my post!&quot; when you get an upvote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side of the coin, like you said about yourself, I spend a lot of time answering my own questions. But that's because I'm in grad school and I need to develop the skills to both develop my own questions and then answer them. Things that I have questions about, I can't openly ask questions about -- they are things I am being paid to research and I could get scooped if I start revealing what I'm doing to the world before it's done. My field is specific enough that what seems to be relatively general/generic questions would turn up in a search engine and it would be easy to piece together things. Of course, by the time I finish working on it enough that it could be public, that's because *I've already answered a bunch of my own questions and have new ones that are my next paper*! So it's not easy, nor appropriate, for me to be asking questions that directly benefit my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions tend to be curiosity about things. And I ask them here and not somewhere else because I have gotten to know the users here through my interactions (either in the chat room, here on meta, or through the Q&amp;A themselves) and I like them. I know that I can ask something and I usually have a pretty good idea who will attempt to answer it based on what the question is about. And I know I can trust the resulting answers or trust the comments that point out my misconceptions or point me to the right answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6569" RevisionGUID="09075d32-a04a-49e2-bb15-06b303dbbf8f" CreationDate="2015-02-27T05:19:34.170" UserId="1492" Text="The answer by tpg2114 is general enough to make up a questioner for ticking :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, my broad reasons as a retired experimentalist for  answering, more or less in order of importance, are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics is fun  ( a professor of mine used to say that with a big grin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)little white ( women are supposed to have more white brain cells than grey) cells have to be  exercised &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3) Whenever I start to think , &quot;maybe it is getting boring&quot;, due to the appearance of repetitive questions, or too engineering like, or not enough in my field (experimental particle physics) and the lowering of physics level, I stay keeping up the feminist flag. If you notice there are very few women ( explicitly stating gender) that appear here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="3158e198-bca5-4bcd-89e2-74e4327d798a" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:41:21.510" UserId="6719" Text="I don't see any difference between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;hide posts&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ignore this user  (everywhere)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference in their scope and if so what is it?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="3158e198-bca5-4bcd-89e2-74e4327d798a" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:41:21.510" UserId="6719" Text="What is the difference between: &quot;hide posts&quot; and &quot;ignore this user (everywhere)&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="3158e198-bca5-4bcd-89e2-74e4327d798a" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:41:21.510" UserId="6719" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="78ea7f4d-87e4-4c9e-9a10-8f0dc11bf526" CreationDate="2015-02-27T13:39:07.810" UserId="25301" Text="[This was asked &amp; answered Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/156160/in-chat-what-is-the-difference-between-hide-posts-and-ignore-this-user). Direct copy-pasta of (the relevant portion of) their answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hide posts&quot; just hides them for that 'session' (i.e. you refresh and they are back!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ignore this user everywhere&quot; is persistent across rooms / sessions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both actions will hide the user; clicking &quot;show posts&quot; will undo both actions. So the difference is the persistence. The latter, of course, requiring you to select them back whereas the former will do it for your next browser refresh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17648" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="82ae969e-a63c-4961-8f1d-e3ea13243ebe" CreationDate="2015-02-27T18:18:02.823" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between: &quot;hide posts&quot; and &quot;ignore this user (everywhere)&quot; in chatrooms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="592a36f9-a44b-44cc-bada-ca501e1397d9" CreationDate="2015-02-28T19:49:06.940" UserId="56321" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want.  &#xD;&#xA;But as the owner of this thread said, Jimeese sound more like Jim language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="5d830175-05ce-4a85-a92e-e337db6a250c" CreationDate="2015-03-01T19:21:56.597" UserId="74323" Text="I find that there are many questions which are marked as Unanswered but when checked , are usually ones of homework questions where a user comments the OP's mistake and the problem is solved .   &#xD;&#xA;Shouldnt these questions be deleted as no external user will find it useful ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="5d830175-05ce-4a85-a92e-e337db6a250c" CreationDate="2015-03-01T19:21:56.597" UserId="74323" Text="Unanswered Questions where OP gets the answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="5d830175-05ce-4a85-a92e-e337db6a250c" CreationDate="2015-03-01T19:21:56.597" UserId="74323" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="179b1609-6d2b-4f2d-b42b-0ce1f03823d6" CreationDate="2015-03-02T00:11:28.660" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; What motivates users of this site to answer questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only speak for myself.  My motivation for answering questions is purely selfish - answering questions here benefits *me*.  As soon as that is not the case, I will no longer participate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that others may find value in some of the answers I compose is not the primary reason I participate but it is nonetheless a value to me too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put, focusing one's mind to write a good answer to an interesting question almost always improves one's own understanding of the material.  In some cases, it simply reinforces or refreshes your understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, answering a question *wrongly* can be valuable.  Indeed, identifying and correcting an error in your understanding might be the most valuable reward of all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="966" RevisionGUID="d78dacaa-7652-4f75-9079-e924872d7559" CreationDate="2015-03-02T14:35:20.860" UserId="124" Comment="update to new recommendations" Text="&gt; Do you find that answers in comments are a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Any time &quot;answering information&quot; is posted as a comment instead of as an answer, it makes it more difficult for people to find, and we also lose access to the mechanism of voting as an indicator of the quality of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever you see someone post something as a comment that seems like it should be an answer, ask them to make it an answer. Or post it as an answer yourself.&#xD;&#xA;- Sometimes people post answering information, especially links, in a comment because they don't have time to make a full-fledged answer out of it. We should encourage people to make these posts as answers instead:&#xD;&#xA; - If you have a partial answer, post it with a note that you'll come back and edit more detail in when you have time. (And of course, actually come back and edit more detail in when you have time.)&#xD;&#xA; - If you downvote a post where the author has indicated they are going to come back and improve it later, make sure to check back after a few days and adjust your vote accordingly. You may, if you wish, leave a comment to indicate that you will do so. This is a further incentive for the author to make the edit.&#xD;&#xA; - If you see that someone else has posted a link-only answer, as long as it seems relevant and not spammy, it's best to edit the answer to contain the relevant material from the link. If you can't easily identify what the relevant part of the linked content is, then go ahead and flag it as not-an-answer. The moderators will encourage the author to add in the relevant part of the content.&#xD;&#xA; - Don't downvote answers for being sparse on detail or less complete than you'd like, as long as they are factually correct. Now, if an answer is so incomplete that it doesn't actually answer the question, go ahead and downvote it. But, again, come back later to see if it's been improved.&#xD;&#xA;- On the moderators' side, we will continue deleting comments that exceed the scope of what comments are meant to be used for. **This includes answers posted as comments**, although we do prefer to encourage the poster to convert the comment to an answer before we delete it. Still, be aware that if you post answering information as a comment, don't expect it to last." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6574" RevisionGUID="7d23ead6-cc02-4227-b892-8e19045f6189" CreationDate="2015-03-02T16:53:21.597" UserId="56299" Text="There used to be a time (i.e. August) when I asked a lot more than I answered. Looking at my earliest questions (*wince*), I was extremely inexperienced (and I still am). I mean, there's naïveté and then there are the kind of questions I was asking. At least the first few. They got a bit better as time went on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this the goodwill that motivates all of you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goodwill, schmoodwill. Not to sound a bit like Scrooge, but I'm not motivated by goodwill. I mean, I enjoy helping people - I really do - but if I decide to answer a question, it's not because I want to help the person asking it. In most cases, it's because *I* want to know the answer, and I don't want to wait around for someone else to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like tpg2114, I often learn when I answer questions. But for me, it's surprisingly often. Perhaps this is true more on other SEs, since I generally answer only basic questions on Physics, but many times I have no idea what the heck my answer will be when I sit down to write it - or even if I'll be able to learn enough to write an answer. Take [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142800/why-do-vapour-cones-form-around-jet-fighters/142808#142808). Before doing the research (yes, *beyond* Wikipedia), I couldn't even pronounce &quot;Prandtl–Glauert singularity&quot;, let alone understand what it's about. But that question was bugging me, so I upvoted, did the research, and explained it to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason I answer questions is because of those questions in August (and beyond). When I was wrong about something, I was corrected by the more experienced users. They were pretty nice about my mistakes, too, which I valued quite a bit. I'm not nearly as experienced as them, but I do my best to try to help the people who are like I was in August - trying to understand something cool but hard to explain. I like to give back answers for the answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more mundane note, I also answer questions when I'm bored. I can assure you that taking a break to research sound waves is infinitely more interesting than doing some vocabulary questions for English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6575" RevisionGUID="d5ffbeb5-de6d-4742-acde-490128522624" CreationDate="2015-03-02T17:01:48.987" UserId="44881" Text="No, answers in comments are not a problem.  If you are looking for an answer to a problem and find a question that seems to relate to your problem, you will comb the comments to find your answer anyway, so not really a problem.  So no, not really a problem to people going to the site to get answers to their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a third party looking at the question to find an answer, having an answer in the comments does not materially affect their ability to find an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the poor quality of the Stack Exchange searching mechanism/metric is a much bigger problem in that relevant and pertinent questions are not found in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="4b6a5831-6912-4a77-938c-fa0b3984b6e6" CreationDate="2015-03-03T03:42:07.050" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; Do you find that answers in comments are a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, there isn't a simple answer to this question.  Comments are intended to be a means to interact with the OP and others to, e.g., refine the question or an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, as such, comments are *transient*.  On that view, a comment *isn't* an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is the case that, on some occasions, a comment may be, in essence, contain a legitimate answer to a question.  But that doesn't mean that such occasions should be discouraged in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, comments are often a way to determine precisely what it is the OP is looking for and if it is determined that a comment is an answer, then other comments to the effect that &quot;isn't that an answer?&quot; can be posted and then, I've observed, the comments are often expanded into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would anyone want to discourage this discovery process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="865cc00a-ab3c-4a55-8e1a-d703829adc5a" CreationDate="2015-03-03T15:20:29.757" UserId="9887" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="&gt; Do you find that answers in comments are a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, there isn't a simple answer to this question.  Comments are intended to be a means to interact with the OP and others to, e.g., refine the question or an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, as such, comments are *transient*.  On that view, a comment *isn't* an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is the case that on some occasions, a comment contains a legitimate answer to a question.  But that doesn't mean that such occasions should be discouraged in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, comments are often a way to determine precisely what it is the OP is looking for and if it is determined that a comment is an answer, then other comments to the effect that &quot;isn't that an answer?&quot; can be posted and then, I've observed, the comments are often expanded into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would anyone want to discourage this discovery process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="a1a42939-4692-45dc-8c75-98c8eb97b8da" CreationDate="2015-03-06T16:50:45.527" UserId="60846" Text="I know that there's a way to share  questions from SE in Twitter, fb, g+ etc. Is there any way to share a question to the users of SE? I can't use none of the available options because I do not have accounts in them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="a1a42939-4692-45dc-8c75-98c8eb97b8da" CreationDate="2015-03-06T16:50:45.527" UserId="60846" Text="Share question within SE users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="a1a42939-4692-45dc-8c75-98c8eb97b8da" CreationDate="2015-03-06T16:50:45.527" UserId="60846" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17671" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="4dd618cb-f1de-4cad-8384-e619112d1621" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:52:21.753" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/250753/navigation-on-the-anonymous-homepage-is-styled-wrong" />
  <row Id="17672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="d662188a-e49b-489a-8daf-700fc4235dae" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:35:03.237" UserId="74736" Text="![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I observe. Watching from an ASUS laptop; an i5 intel CPU, and a chrome web browser (latest version). Well, I found an screenshot from a physics.SE user and it looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So apparently the code renders incorrectly in my Chrome. I can give further info about the system that I use. Note that I'm a guest while visiting the site. (if it helps)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JRO39.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="d662188a-e49b-489a-8daf-700fc4235dae" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:35:03.237" UserId="74736" Text="Navigation on the anonymous homepage is styled wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="d662188a-e49b-489a-8daf-700fc4235dae" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:35:03.237" UserId="74736" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17675" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="19a3c4ad-a58f-41fc-9611-420a9ed4187b" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:58:44.470" UserId="74736" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:74736,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;MARamezani&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17676" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="16de2d3d-8567-43e6-8486-6d5542e9922b" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:58:44.470" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17677" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="8c473849-8d95-4989-9b67-8047b2c5a15b" CreationDate="2015-03-06T19:26:49.637" UserId="23068" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23068,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Oded&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17678" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="6d915465-b6b5-4312-8b73-cc84023011ef" CreationDate="2015-03-06T22:06:59.873" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6114],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6580" RevisionGUID="6d841a55-7bd2-44bc-bd0b-c17e499c8d58" CreationDate="2015-03-07T05:20:51.867" UserId="74685" Text="Well, it seems like you already have the answer: both types of questions are increasing, showing a growth in the site, not one question replacing the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="63757a18-8c31-4d5f-b67c-755ecfb89a58" CreationDate="2015-03-07T09:20:34.633" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="My reputation earlier today was 2007. Suddenly it became 1997. Why? My old questions are suddenly continuously getting downvoted for no reason. What step should I take now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="63757a18-8c31-4d5f-b67c-755ecfb89a58" CreationDate="2015-03-07T09:20:34.633" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Why are my 6-months old questions suddenly being getting downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="63757a18-8c31-4d5f-b67c-755ecfb89a58" CreationDate="2015-03-07T09:20:34.633" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="1743baa4-934b-4e29-b5fe-df53e82ea2e0" CreationDate="2015-03-07T09:25:46.150" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="Modified the body." Text="My reputation earlier today was 2007. Suddenly it became 1997. 10 reputation losses within an hour. Why? I checked &amp; found that my old questions that were greatly appreciated are simultaneously being downvoted.  My old questions are suddenly continuously getting downvoted for no reason. No comments &amp; no feedback. This seems to be frustating as they were good questions; it is a slap in my face. What step should I take now? The two of those questions are:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="9e500f56-7d39-4fc7-99a3-d5aea0face8b" CreationDate="2015-03-07T11:01:10.120" UserId="50583" Text="How should we know? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are known to no one except the people who downvote. If this is a single user voting many of your posts down, the system will reverse the votes on its own. If this are several voters that just decided, for whatever reason, to give you some downvotes, then there's nothing to be done - voting is completely up to the discretion of the users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="660a5047-55e2-4688-970c-96b2352e86d0" CreationDate="2015-03-07T15:34:56.693" UserId="34464" Text="[The edit in question][1]. Fixing 3 different spelling mistakes and added some italics to make the post a bit easier to read and tried to clean up where the author was using quotation marks to refer to &quot;see&quot; as a word and where he used them to put special emphasis on the word (might have gotten one wrong after a second close reading, but I doubt that's the reason it got rejected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The only reason I think of is both reviewers being from the USA and thus not being aware of the fact that 1) the user used UK spelling more often in his post than US spelling 2) metre being the spelling used outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/75420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="660a5047-55e2-4688-970c-96b2352e86d0" CreationDate="2015-03-07T15:34:56.693" UserId="34464" Text="Why in the world (not US) did this suggested edit get rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="660a5047-55e2-4688-970c-96b2352e86d0" CreationDate="2015-03-07T15:34:56.693" UserId="34464" Text="|support|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6585" RevisionGUID="1aeca052-43ac-4f74-be38-9dd756d68f00" CreationDate="2015-03-07T16:14:35.560" UserId="25301" Text="I rejected it for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The edits your proposed didn't actually improve the post, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;  - changing `&quot;` to `'` &#xD;&#xA;  - changing &quot;quotes&quot; to *italics*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  don't actually make the post easier to read, they are superfluous changes.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Adding italics to certain words that weren't in quote marks originally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #2 seemed to be adding your own flavor to Martin's post, which appeared to me to deviate from his choice of language, leading me to choose the latter choice (&quot;clearly deviates...&quot;) instead of the Pranav's choice (&quot;does not make it easier to read...&quot;)--though I was strongly considering this first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This had nothing to do with the choice of metre versus meter; it has to do with the fact that your edits were just considered to be not good ones by the two people who happened to review it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="ff9f8125-a041-4118-bccc-49c508134d8d" CreationDate="2015-03-07T19:01:20.040" UserId="73927" Text="Suppose I have a question and I am in dire need for the answer to that question . Let's say that question fails to attract answers or attentions. But there are some users who I believe can answer that question . Is there any way by which I can request them to post an answer ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="ff9f8125-a041-4118-bccc-49c508134d8d" CreationDate="2015-03-07T19:01:20.040" UserId="73927" Text="inviting people to answer questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="ff9f8125-a041-4118-bccc-49c508134d8d" CreationDate="2015-03-07T19:01:20.040" UserId="73927" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17696" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="4ba107bf-85f6-47ab-a2c9-91726d9f1576" CreationDate="2015-03-08T06:58:10.460" UserId="7433" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6190],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9887,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alfred Centauri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7433,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="afd9d0f5-e7db-47ff-bdf8-f3a888002e26" CreationDate="2015-03-09T03:14:31.937" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The Stack Exchange network [is **not** a social network][1]. And the idea of pushing your question onto others has been [strongly rejected][2]. No expert would choose to participate in a site in which any user could nag them effortlessly to personally solve every problem that arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your question to have more visibility to everyone (on the site, not the whole network), you can do so, but there is a price. You must [offer a nonrefundable bounty][3] of your own reputation on the question. Open bounties are summarized in the [featured tab][4], and some (but not all) users check there to see if there are questions they can answer given the extra incentive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65261/is-stack-overflow-a-social-networking-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/103086/how-could-i-notify-stack-overflows-expert-users-about-my-new-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="e8128787-99af-4e02-b0f2-56c05d3172ca" CreationDate="2015-03-10T12:49:30.160" UserId="8563" Text="Reputation is a rough measure of a user's experience with the site. It can also be used as a (not very accurate) proxy for their overall expertise in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user population consists of people who ask lots of questions and answer few of them, experts who answer lots of questions and [typically ask few of them](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions), and people in between. A good measure of a given user's position in this spectrum is the number of questions they've asked over the number of answers they've posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a correlation between these two metrics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="e8128787-99af-4e02-b0f2-56c05d3172ca" CreationDate="2015-03-10T12:49:30.160" UserId="8563" Text="Does reputation correlate with the question-to-answer ratio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="e8128787-99af-4e02-b0f2-56c05d3172ca" CreationDate="2015-03-10T12:49:30.160" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6590" RevisionGUID="eb0de503-3bb8-432f-8d5a-73e1b5ef3638" CreationDate="2015-03-10T12:49:30.160" UserId="8563" Text="###Yes, it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried exploring this using [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/284478/question-and-answer-counts-vs-reputation), whose results go something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a log-log plot and it shows two distinct regimes, with a definite linear correlation in the higher-rep side. This means that the site's user base really does consist of two different populations with very different behaviours: novice users with reps below ~200 for whom there's no correlation between reputation and question/answer ratio, and more experienced users who ask noticeably less questions at higher reputations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dependence in this regime is roughly Q/A = 1/rep, with r squared of about 0.25. I'll leave more detailed statistics to people who can do them right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important thing to note is that the query returns results for only 3579 users, which is about 5% of our total of ~72k users, because it only reports on users that have ≥1 answer and ≥1 question. This could be a bug in the SQL, and it's something to keep an eye on. Maybe someone can extend this to cover those cases? It's not clear to me how you'd include those users in the log-log plot below, where they'd form a 'ceiling' at Q/A=∞ of pure askers and a 'floor' at Q/A of pure questioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nl98u.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="d207e8d3-8d56-4181-92a4-bdeaec26eb20" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:14:01.753" UserId="36719" Text="I cannot answer this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169209/is-there-an-infinite-amount-of-wavelengths-of-light-is-the-em-spectrum-continuo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Answer button.  At the bottom of the question is this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have 102 reputation points at this time.  I have not participated on physics.se yet; the points are awarded to me automatically due to my reputation on ell.se." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="d207e8d3-8d56-4181-92a4-bdeaec26eb20" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:14:01.753" UserId="36719" Text="Cannot Answer a Question. System says I &quot;need 10 points&quot;. I have 102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="d207e8d3-8d56-4181-92a4-bdeaec26eb20" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:14:01.753" UserId="36719" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="3d8c8e64-fef7-4c20-b75c-ac0dbd973b3e" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:15:52.443" UserId="520" Text="The banner you see is the one that appears when a question has been &quot;protected&quot;. The requirement is that you have 10 rep that was *earned on this site*. That is the association bonus is not counted toward that requirement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="a2ec4ad4-1a39-429e-aab6-031bd3b37afc" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:21:39.037" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The banner you see is the one that appears when a question has been &quot;protected&quot;. The requirement is that you have 10 rep that was *earned on this site*. That is, the association bonus is not counted toward that requirement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="24e484b3-1ba8-4c2c-9408-a1a72be68aa9" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:38:16.250" UserId="36719" Comment="added 1001 characters in body" Text="I cannot answer this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169209/is-there-an-infinite-amount-of-wavelengths-of-light-is-the-em-spectrum-continuo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Answer button.  At the bottom of the question is this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have 102 reputation points at this time.  I have not participated on physics.se yet; the points are awarded to me automatically due to my reputation on ell.se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;Based on the Answer and comment provided, I've updated this Question as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe this is a duplicate of http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5424/does-minimum-rep-to-answer-protected-question-includes-association-points (it's close).  In that question, the OP says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After some thinking, I came to the conclusion that my 100 &quot;association bonus&quot; points doesn't count towards this requirement. Is this the reason I can't answer? **If it's the case, wouldn't be relevant to let this a little more explicit in the message?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the message was explicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is protected to prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have **earned** at least 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my case, however, the message does not indicate &quot;earned&quot;.  I'll reiterate the other question's sentiment:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Wouldn't it be relevant to make *earned* explicit in the message (like it is in the other Q/A)?*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="3c363ccf-49d5-4853-aaf0-f4effb4069dd" CreationDate="2015-03-10T15:51:02.777" UserId="36719" Comment="added 1001 characters in body" Text="I cannot answer this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169209/is-there-an-infinite-amount-of-wavelengths-of-light-is-the-em-spectrum-continuo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Answer button.  At the bottom of the question is this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protected by Qmechanic♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have 102 reputation points at this time.  I have not participated on physics.se yet; the points are awarded to me automatically due to my reputation on ell.se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's due to a requirement to *earn* the points, wouldn't it be relevant to make *earned* explicit in the message?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17713" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="78c75a94-5366-4a5a-984e-03c9e3a9ed56" CreationDate="2015-03-10T21:19:18.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/575405591188893696" />
  <row Id="17714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="b0b03cbb-6ae0-46cf-9e7c-9aaffd60f5f9" CreationDate="2015-03-11T16:27:30.703" UserId="23473" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on March 13. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6590" RevisionGUID="5fbebdfb-857c-449c-a54a-e94cf68c3f20" CreationDate="2015-03-11T16:44:52.437" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="###Yes, it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried exploring this using [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/284478/question-and-answer-counts-vs-reputation), whose results go something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a log-log plot and it shows two distinct regimes, with a definite linear correlation in the higher-rep side. This means that the site's user base really does consist of two different populations with very different behaviours: novice users with reps below ~200 for whom there's no correlation between reputation and question/answer ratio, and more experienced users who ask noticeably less questions at higher reputations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dependence in this regime is roughly Q/A = 1/rep, with r squared of about 0.25. I'll leave more detailed statistics to people who can do them right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important thing to note is that the query returns results for only 3579 users, which is about 5% of our total of ~72k users, because it only reports on users that have ≥1 answer and ≥1 question. This could be a bug in the SQL, and it's something to keep an eye on. Maybe someone can extend this to cover those cases? It's not clear to me how you'd include those users in the log-log plot below, where they'd form a 'ceiling' at Q/A=∞ of pure askers and a 'floor' at Q/A=0 of pure answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nl98u.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17716" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="89f1a530-ec70-4371-b1ac-468da986bd62" CreationDate="2015-03-13T03:24:54.753" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/576222375357853698" />
  <row Id="17717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="92228d19-8bdc-4391-9a8d-27bfc3df72ad" CreationDate="2015-03-13T05:25:39.240" UserId="50583" Text="So, I took the tour through my old answers and assigned qualities to every one of them as Chris suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I couldn't bring myself to assign a 5 to *any* of my answers, my scale is effectively one point shorter than his original scale, and I also deleted all of the answers I assigned 0 to except for those I couldn't because they were accepted answers, so that data point is also effectively worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 2, 116, 84, 132 and 12 answers in the quality categories 0-4, in ascending order, with mean votes of 0, 3.6, 3.7, 5.2 and 4.0, respectively. I might have missed some answers when manually assigning quality scores, but not more than ten, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find no evident correlation at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gdRRZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFmTk.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="eaa5a72f-f5e8-4f81-b69f-98ab86c4e0e8" CreationDate="2015-03-13T05:39:20.723" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="Just joined a week ago and wondering how homework questions should be dealt with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this is covered already but I noticed a sizeable amount of kids are getting sharp &quot;don't bother me&quot; type answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I would like to see them treated better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are thousands of kid friendly physics sites but they are on SE now and we have to deal with that fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions for one kid friendly page that provides links to more suitable sites for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this already exists but I can't find it. We  don't want to lose the next potential Dirac Einstein etc because of a sharp retort or curt reply from a busy lecturer or teacher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure who will get this but could they tell me how SE deals with problems like this. Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="eaa5a72f-f5e8-4f81-b69f-98ab86c4e0e8" CreationDate="2015-03-13T05:39:20.723" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="homework questions physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="eaa5a72f-f5e8-4f81-b69f-98ab86c4e0e8" CreationDate="2015-03-13T05:39:20.723" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="b7078574-b921-4add-acee-caead70cf8a7" CreationDate="2015-03-13T07:05:07.323" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Just joined a week ago and wondering how homework questions should be dealt with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this is covered already but I noticed a sizeable amount of kids are getting sharp &quot;don't bother me&quot; type answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I would like to see them treated better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are thousands of kid friendly physics sites but they are on SE now and we have to deal with that fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions for one kid friendly page that provides links to more suitable sites for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this already exists but I can't find it. We  don't want to lose the next potential Dirac Einstein etc because of a sharp retort or curt reply from a busy lecturer or teacher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure who will get this but could they tell me how SE deals with problems like this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="b7078574-b921-4add-acee-caead70cf8a7" CreationDate="2015-03-13T07:05:07.323" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Homework questions physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17723" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="b7078574-b921-4add-acee-caead70cf8a7" CreationDate="2015-03-13T07:05:07.323" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="5673ab66-3d24-4114-bb8d-1a36b95b076b" CreationDate="2015-03-13T08:16:27.453" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="bd983962-14d7-43f7-afe1-efe97f4b77f4" CreationDate="2015-03-13T11:45:36.727" UserId="60201" Text="To summarize the myriad of homework meta questions that dmckee linked to, as well as to editorialize a little, I think the issue that most of us have is with _no-effort_ homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a help page on the main Physics.SE site that includes an [explanation of what's considered on topic][1].  That page briefly states that homework questions are off-topic, and then links to [this more detailed meta post][2] about what constitutes an acceptable homework question. Also, when you create a Physics.SE account, you have the option to take a very brief tour of the site, and IIRC it at least covers that list of what is on topic.  As a result, if users aren't following the guidelines of what's on-topic, it's because they are ignoring information that was easily put in their reach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, some of the best questions I've seen on this site have been tagged &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot;, but they need to be asked the right way.  In general, the two-prong test is that the question has to boil down to a specific conceptual question that would also be helpful to other uses, and the question has to include any attempted work.  However, there are a lot of questions on here where the question text is _just_ the homework question with **no** additional information or input from the user.  On the other hand, other askers will ask their question, and then punctuate it with a &quot;Due tomorrow&quot; or &quot;Show all work&quot;.  This isn't just oblivious to the rules of the site, it's selfish and imposing.  In the real world, all of these students will either continue in higher education or enter the world of work, and a life lesson that they should learn as soon as possible is that oftentimes, people want to help you (otherwise we wouldn't answer questions on here in the first place) but you have to be willing to put in the work yourself.  The reality, it's academically dishonest for us to just do a kid's homework for him, who will no doubt claim it as his/her own.  Additionally, students will likely get more out of the process of asking a question if they first spend some time analyzing what exactly they aren't understanding about a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  We welcome good homework questions here, but they have to follow certain guidelines, both for the good of the community and the OP.  We hope you stick around to contribute to the site, but hopefully the more truly atrocious homework questions you see, the more you'll understand why there have to be guidelines in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="1597c778-d675-496e-a8ef-af6745af5790" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:13:52.530" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jim the Enchanter.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="e31d4b81-0484-48bd-96ad-56cfd05d9d21" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:14:04.840" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that do as a tree level approximation?&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just been pointed out to me that [Jimnosperm's have light¹ cones][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ 10-100g depending on the species&lt;/spu&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nurturestore.co.uk/pine-cone-math-station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="515e9bea-e289-430f-8043-90ed0ecbc758" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:14:16.420" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I propose *ACuriousJim*.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="1f4543b3-fcca-49ea-92ce-00aa1d68b98d" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:14:51.133" UserId="23473" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Jimself&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="743a23a1-8b31-49fe-8edb-ac7d9b019e88" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:15:06.090" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I'm surprised nobody suggested... Jims Bond.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="5f5d7ab8-a873-4058-8e91-d6fae532e26e" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:15:26.887" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Sweep all before you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and next month it could be...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeroo&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="2fcf68f5-c917-4d6b-bcd7-c2646604a719" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:15:55.280" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I will also suggest &quot;The Jim&quot;.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="8639c438-2788-425f-bc81-43ee5398990f" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:16:07.793" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnasium&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(play on [gymnasium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="2c3a8e84-3354-44a1-9104-8e69e302b37e" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:16:21.377" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The Jimtimidator is another option...&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="a227cbce-9077-44c3-b4cd-347d7712bcde" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:16:32.793" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about LEEEEROY JIMKINS for a name?&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="a151e9cc-0958-4eaf-a561-0102e66e492d" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:16:53.227" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimdalf the Grey  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="d08ed2b1-2d78-4673-b61a-60205dc9b74f" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:05.247" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="For those of you who have been on StackOverflow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Jim Skeet&quot;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="b319729a-edca-4b96-a290-78e9cd2486ab" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:11.097" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimothy&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[good reference here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXxkXGK1rQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="d9864fef-37c5-421e-a4ff-9d1af60efc82" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:16.770" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimperator&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Perhaps [the most apt](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperator) title for the leader of Jims&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="17d55a41-152a-40d4-8ef9-5a6b6cb90f69" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:22.237" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimronimo - this is my proposal&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="1f5b166d-8f90-472b-9257-3c18c6fffe47" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:27.847" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jimmy Dodger - a play on &quot;Jammy Dodger&quot; which is a word with many meanings. Including a delicious biscuit that's a favorite (or favourite?) of the Doctor.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="f575a1ef-2e4b-4f0f-be58-fbff627d1907" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:31.717" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jiminy Cricket, for a childhood throwback.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="e9e33349-962d-4f37-a051-15e1282981ba" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:39.663" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want.  &#xD;&#xA;But as the owner of this thread said, Jimeese sound more like Jim language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="ddb8754a-9d3e-430f-aa8e-a199d5f8c593" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:50.237" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="[Jim Post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9789/tim-post). To get rid of the multiple-Jims confusion and replace it with confusion for those who have no idea who Tim Post is.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="7da60b45-dbf9-4d41-8391-e9dd361ecec0" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:17:57.023" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="What about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim.&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the period spoken explicitly, as &quot;Jim - Period!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="85e60fb0-78ac-4b5f-9d43-e9eb7013397f" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:04.457" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Keep it simple: [Jimbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU)&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="db64651a-e5f5-4e93-8f16-4e019f3cad72" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:09.160" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jim_me_boy (hawkins) with pirate accent&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="e362bad9-2bc4-47de-be1f-4b73e820a1ae" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:16.673" UserId="23473" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthworm Jim&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slim Jim&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jimiroquai&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="f3e1bbd2-9a71-4ae5-a432-66031f143f2d" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:25.850" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about,&quot;Lord Jim&quot;? .........&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="1baa811d-7bac-4d66-aba3-ed9a34633cf6" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:32.720" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimb.   The b is silent.  And pronounced like &quot;climb&quot; instead of &quot;limb&quot;.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6533" RevisionGUID="9668b389-0112-40a5-ba89-120e16369abc" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:38.887" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Dread Pirate Jimbeard &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="bfddee36-4a27-4374-9d35-eaea3ce85e63" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:18:42.417" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="High King of Jimtopia&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="41be5bde-f916-4ee6-809e-72e95a6e325b" CreationDate="2015-03-13T17:19:47.580" UserId="23473" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on April 12. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="53d85c5e-bc20-4ac9-b5dd-f49e3de9fb3a" CreationDate="2015-03-13T21:26:33.360" UserId="74669" Text="I posted a question on Stack Exchange Physics and the question was closed as off-topic. As a matter of fact I did a mistake when selecting the tags, since I used the homework tag. When I realized that I did a mistake I modified the tag, however the question was closed as off-topic. I really would get an answer to my question, so have I to post the question once more ? Why it wasn't enough to modify the tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="53d85c5e-bc20-4ac9-b5dd-f49e3de9fb3a" CreationDate="2015-03-13T21:26:33.360" UserId="74669" Text="off-topic question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="53d85c5e-bc20-4ac9-b5dd-f49e3de9fb3a" CreationDate="2015-03-13T21:26:33.360" UserId="74669" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="43822fae-8694-4111-9b39-dd40e4598fa6" CreationDate="2015-03-13T22:16:08.030" UserId="520" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I posted [a question][1] on Stack Exchange Physics and the question was closed as off-topic. As a matter of fact I did a mistake when selecting the tags, since I used the homework tag. When I realized that I did a mistake I modified the tag, however the question was closed as off-topic. I really would get an answer to my question, so have I to post the question once more ? Why it wasn't enough to modify the tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/168649/solution-of-the-wave-equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="b0b3538e-a1ea-4006-9e24-377f611f2d43" CreationDate="2015-03-13T22:19:35.943" UserId="520" Text="Your question appears to [fit within the definition of homework-like][1] used on the site, the tag should be applied and the question should be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the question I've just linked you to and at [the one linked in the close message][2], you may find some guidance for render your question into a form suitable for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="9dedd5fe-b239-44b5-b37b-3708b144e930" CreationDate="2015-03-14T00:01:35.720" UserId="520" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Your question appears to [fit within the definition of homework-like][1] used on the site, the tag should be applied and the question (in its current state) should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the question I've just linked you to and at [the one linked in the close message][2], you may find some guidance for render your question into a form suitable for the site.&#xA;&#xA;Given the sophistication of the work you exhibit I would be unsurprised if you were able to retool to a question we'd accept.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17761" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="24a631b8-5d48-447c-a80f-5b5f9b4ca0a1" CreationDate="2015-03-14T11:49:39.577" UserId="7433" Comment="1023" />
  <row Id="17762" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="6e8bdcd5-37a6-4fba-9988-ac43efadb1c2" CreationDate="2015-03-14T11:50:32.460" UserId="7433" Comment="1023" />
  <row Id="17763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="69709e33-d696-4525-86b3-3ecc9937b6d7" CreationDate="2015-03-14T12:38:06.103" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I posted [a question][1] on Phys.SE and the question was closed as off-topic. As a matter of fact I did a mistake when selecting the tags, since I used the homework tag. When I realized that I did a mistake I modified the tag, however the question was closed as off-topic. I really would get an answer to my question, so have I to post the question once more ? Why it wasn't enough to modify the tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/168649/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17764" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="69709e33-d696-4525-86b3-3ecc9937b6d7" CreationDate="2015-03-14T12:38:06.103" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|scope|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17765" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="69709e33-d696-4525-86b3-3ecc9937b6d7" CreationDate="2015-03-14T12:38:06.103" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Off-topic question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="217c9e3e-07d7-483b-ac8c-4700fe8c3b97" CreationDate="2015-03-15T07:13:54.690" UserId="73927" Text="Let us say that we have a user who has insufficient amount of reputation so as to put a bounty . Can we have a system or what are the pros and cons of a system which facilitates borrowing and lending of reputation ? The lenders of reputation can be repaid in a certain fixed time interval by the burrower . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="217c9e3e-07d7-483b-ac8c-4700fe8c3b97" CreationDate="2015-03-15T07:13:54.690" UserId="73927" Text="Reputation Banking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="217c9e3e-07d7-483b-ac8c-4700fe8c3b97" CreationDate="2015-03-15T07:13:54.690" UserId="73927" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6599" RevisionGUID="aa45b6d5-0e91-4273-bf56-90553603727e" CreationDate="2015-03-15T07:49:55.120" UserId="66165" Text="People *can* lend rep at zero cost to you. You don't even have to pay them back. How cool is that!  If someone likes your question, they can set a bounty on your question. What you cannot do is *request* or *negotiate* for someone to put a bounty on your question. And that is intentional. We don't want people trying to negotiate for other people's rep points. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need 75 points to set bounties. 2 answers with 4 upvotes gets you 80 points. 3 questions with 5 upvotes gets you 75 points. I think any user with enough useful knowledge to contribute to the site can put in a little effort an earn the reputation to be able to set bounties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need a quick answer and it's your first time using the site, you may think bounties are some fast way to encourage a response. But it's not like bounties have some elite status or something. A bounty is just an extra incentive to answer, but many people answer questions just because they are interested in the topic, or they like to answer, or many reasons not related to earning points. So really you don't *need* a bounty in order to get a good response. That's why SE is awesome. Anyone can ask and answer without having rep. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6600" RevisionGUID="4f3e95e8-bec7-4ec6-b068-d2e099c226cd" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:04:19.140" UserId="66165" Text="I spend most of my time on my mobile and do most of my SE stuff on it. I chat, I ask, I comment -- all of it on my mobile. But when I try to decide whether to ask or answer a question, I unfortunately don't have any way on my mobile to see if there are related questions already on SE. Sure I can google, but this is unreasonable for a variety of reasons (e.g. if I've typed something in an answer box in chrome and change to a tab google, what I typed often gets deleted when I return because the tab refreshes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it would really be convenient if I could have access to the related question information on my mobile. sure it might have to be fitted for mobile format but I think that would be really helpful. Then if a question exists with an answer, I don't have to ask it. I also can avoid answering one if I knew the question already had an answer. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6600" RevisionGUID="4f3e95e8-bec7-4ec6-b068-d2e099c226cd" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:04:19.140" UserId="66165" Text="can we get some mobile version of the related questions box / panel that I find on SE on my laptop web browser?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6600" RevisionGUID="4f3e95e8-bec7-4ec6-b068-d2e099c226cd" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:04:19.140" UserId="66165" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="5b1db305-9ec4-4e00-b470-3b13e0dc961a" CreationDate="2015-03-15T14:30:01.740" UserId="25301" Text="With regards to the mobile site (via the browser), [the &quot;official&quot; answer is](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240733/why-arent-related-questions-shown-on-the-mobile-interface),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't really see us adding lists of questions to the mobile web views at this point since they'd come off largely too cluttered, and the views aren't designed to fully mimic the desktop version in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, in the comments, it is suggested that there *could* be a link for it, but no such designs have come through (otherwise you'd not be asking ;) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the app interface, [this one was asked and the answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246153/related-questions-when-asking) (via comments) is &#xD;&#xA;&gt;It doesn't exist today but it's a good idea. I don't think the API has an endpoint for it yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically it seems you are out of luck at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="67d53825-65a6-49cf-b043-3810edbe1575" CreationDate="2015-03-15T17:01:01.760" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="This a soft question and I can try the chat rooms with it, if that's the consensus for the best place to discuss it. Comments from previous questions I have asked could also sort it out for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I post an answer to an OP saying &quot;your problem is currently impossible to answer because we have not yet been able to directly test our theory&quot;, is that **in purely formal terms** a more correct answer than &quot;YES/NO&quot; based on pure theory. If you look at the fairly straightforward [Object Falling At Infinite Speed][1], you might see what I am getting at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you understand my motivation here, I really do accept that GPS use, Hulse Taylor, Gravity Probe B etc.. all support G.R.) I also accept that the other answer in the link given above is 99.99999.....% probably correct. But we still have not done a direct test to confirm or refute the particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I completely self study and I don't have any formal background so I don't know much about how the formal science systems works. My motivation for this question is purely to learn more in order to better phrase future questions and answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170502/will-an-object-always-fall-at-an-infinite-speed-in-a-black-hole/170504#170504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="67d53825-65a6-49cf-b043-3810edbe1575" CreationDate="2015-03-15T17:01:01.760" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="How To Improve Questions and Answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="67d53825-65a6-49cf-b043-3810edbe1575" CreationDate="2015-03-15T17:01:01.760" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17777" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="38ca7aee-94e9-4a90-ae60-15231a012c53" CreationDate="2015-03-15T17:54:23.110" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5424],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:30247,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martin&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10851,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6603" RevisionGUID="e85ba9d2-e6cd-4733-b70c-4c1ae3480f39" CreationDate="2015-03-15T18:10:35.143" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text=" the most effective way is to present the theory and brief outline of the experimental evidence supporting it if appropriate (and if its that type of question, rather than nuts and bolts definite physical problem). Actually, thinking about it, the key concept is &quot;useful answer&quot; more than anything else, i'm bit slow on the uptake there but that settles it for me question answered  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="2869205c-7584-45d2-a88d-13e83e6a3be6" CreationDate="2015-03-16T09:36:50.577" UserId="1325" Text="The key point about an answer is that it should be useful and informative, not only for the person asking the question but for anyone else interested enough to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take the question you link as an example. The tone of the question suggests the OP has learned some facts about black holes (I would from popular science books/TV programmes) but doesn't have any real knowledge of general relativity. My aim when answering was to answer the question, but also try and explain why we get that answer and explain some of the background. The idea is that anyone reading my answer will leave feeling wiser. Actually I'm not sure I've really achieved this since I did kind of just trot out some formulae and graph them - I really must go back to the answer and add more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to just say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nobody, not the best people we have, nobody, knows what goes on inside a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is massively unhelpful. It's true that we don't have a nearby black hole to do experiments on, so all our theories are just theories. However there are lots of tests of GR and it's well enough establshed that we ca feel confident about using it to make predictions (like the graphs I drew). It's also true that the region of spacetime inside the event horizon is causally disconnected from the region outside, so we'll never have experimental tests of what happens inside it. But we have coordinate systems that cross the event horizon smoothly so (apart from the wilder excesses of string theorists) there is no reason to suppose that general relativity stops working at the event horizon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your answer had said *we don't know*, but then gone on to make the points I've raised above then it would be a reasonable answer but still less informative than it could be. As it is, your answer is true but leaves the reader no better off for having read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a satisfaction in having learned and/or understood something that was new and opaque. Everyone feels this, not just us nerds, which is how the Discovery Channel makes its money. A good answer on this site should fulfill this need - hopefully more rigorously than the Discovery Channel does. Admittedly, many readers will simply take away a new &quot;gee whizz it's like magic&quot; fact to impress their friends with, and I have no problem with that. But maybe a few readers will have a genuine interest sparked, and even one day become physicists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="f560b23e-5020-4162-b484-7ed7303256ea" CreationDate="2015-03-17T13:56:17.720" UserId="26969" Text="Sometimes it happens that you answer a particular question (or set of related questions) that ends up creating in the OP the impression that you have become their personal tutor, and they ask for your email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few approaches one can use: ignore, be rude, be polite, give in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lean towards &quot;be polite but say no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a site policy I could point to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="f560b23e-5020-4162-b484-7ed7303256ea" CreationDate="2015-03-17T13:56:17.720" UserId="26969" Text="How to handle request for email address" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="f560b23e-5020-4162-b484-7ed7303256ea" CreationDate="2015-03-17T13:56:17.720" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="c73c722c-43b4-4bbd-b9db-1dfe77ee106c" CreationDate="2015-03-17T14:34:29.813" UserId="25301" Text="[This Mother Meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138788/can-i-give-my-email-id-in-reply-to-user-comment) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You *can* give it if you are so inclined, but by no means you *have* to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's highly unorthodox to ask for someone's E-Mail address, and often it's to bug you for free one-on-one support. Which you are absolutely not obliged to give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's basically your choice to do that, there isn't a rule forbidding or forcing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not want to give out your email, then I would err on the side of caution and politely respond with something like, *I would rather not give out my personal email address, but if you do have further questions, go ahead and post it here, where I, and others, will be able to see it and answer you.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there *is* a line in the profile page for adding in an email address and some of us have it filled out. I have included mine there since I signed up almost 2 years ago and I think it's been used by a grand total of 4 users (on 8-10 emails, none of which were actually homework related, just side discussions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="32624e01-9dac-40b5-9ac1-30b6fadf0ea5" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:00:17.570" UserId="25301" Comment="corrected email address bit" Text="[This Mother Meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138788/can-i-give-my-email-id-in-reply-to-user-comment) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You *can* give it if you are so inclined, but by no means you *have* to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's highly unorthodox to ask for someone's E-Mail address, and often it's to bug you for free one-on-one support. Which you are absolutely not obliged to give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's basically your choice to do that, there isn't a rule forbidding or forcing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not want to give out your email, then I would err on the side of caution and politely respond with something like, *I would rather not give out my personal email address, but if you do have further questions, go ahead and post it here, where I, and others, will be able to see it and answer you.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that some of us do include our email addresses in the `About Me` section of the profile page. I have included mine there since I signed up almost 2 years ago and I think it's been used by a grand total of 4 users (on 8-10 emails, none of which were actually homework related, just side discussions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6609" RevisionGUID="6bb67664-04f3-4d5d-a6d4-ce3a40b8d6bc" CreationDate="2015-03-18T10:15:42.753" UserId="68030" Text="I don't know if you know the package physics in LaTeX but it is a really good one especially if one writes something about physics. e.g. I hate writing `|\Psi\rangle\` which is as simple as `\ket(\Psi)` in this package or `\left( \right)` which is just `\qty()`. I know that we are using MathJax and not LaTeX while rendering stuff in the answers or questions but I thought that it would be good to give it a shot if it is at all possible to implement these features in MathJax. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6609" RevisionGUID="6bb67664-04f3-4d5d-a6d4-ce3a40b8d6bc" CreationDate="2015-03-18T10:15:42.753" UserId="68030" Text="Is it possible to implement the physics package of latex into mathjax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6609" RevisionGUID="6bb67664-04f3-4d5d-a6d4-ce3a40b8d6bc" CreationDate="2015-03-18T10:15:42.753" UserId="68030" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6610" RevisionGUID="dd0d380a-ad98-4ace-80e0-498087e4a00e" CreationDate="2015-03-18T11:57:08.600" UserId="124" Text="It's probably technically _possible_, but nobody has bothered to do so yet because it would (presumably) be quite difficult. But all it really needs is for someone to undertake the work of porting the package, and then to convince either the SE dev team or the MathJax developers to include it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="3d6b4264-ffda-48f2-83df-29cd7558a6de" CreationDate="2015-03-18T21:11:01.877" UserId="23389" Text="Most of us have, to some degree, experienced an antagonistic situation in which we feel our answer was harshly criticized or in which we are charged with unfair criticism of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, these situations rapidly escalate, and despite knowing that I shouldn't, I've been drawn into destructive exchanges in these situations. In these instances, I've been slightly disappointed by my own behaviour and come away irritated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wondered whether there was a code of conduct or a policy in these situations? If not, I propose the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel someone's comment on your answer was inappropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the comment is bigoted, slanderous, or otherwise gratuitously offensive, report it and don't further engage with that user.&#xD;&#xA; - Re-read the comment - was it so bad? Did the commenter address a problem with your answer? If so, ignoring the provocative nature of the comment, politely respond.&#xD;&#xA; - If the user persists in making comments that you feel are offensive or provocative, stop interacting.&#xD;&#xA; - You might feel irritated that unfounded objections in a comment are there for all to see, but a competent physicist will see beyond those comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone's feels your comment on an answer was inappropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Re-read your comment. Was it unnecessarily rude or provocative? If so, amend or delete the comment. &#xD;&#xA; - If you feel the comment was reasonable, don't escalate or write further comments. You've raised your objection to the answer - your warning will be seen. There is no merit in a further series of destructive comments.&#xD;&#xA; - If the offender user persists in contacting you, ignore them and/or report the behaviour to a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, this can be my personal code of conduct. If I followed it in the past, I think it would have avoided unpleasant situations. This isn't the final word on this topic; I'm sure there may be many helpful alterations and additions to my rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="3d6b4264-ffda-48f2-83df-29cd7558a6de" CreationDate="2015-03-18T21:11:01.877" UserId="23389" Text="Policy on disagreements about &quot;harsh&quot; critiscism?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="3d6b4264-ffda-48f2-83df-29cd7558a6de" CreationDate="2015-03-18T21:11:01.877" UserId="23389" Text="|discussion|comments|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="c490cbe5-2fc2-4cbe-9415-bbd123f68c2d" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:36:14.310" UserId="24653" Text="Jim Rennie, the first disciple of [the one and only](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="e3e2593b-db35-4010-b556-8e9a13a0e514" CreationDate="2015-03-19T19:42:45.133" UserId="37612" Text="I think the story is both more complicated and more simple, and it helps to look at questions and answers separately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superimposed curves are very strongly smoothed versions of the data, using a cubic smoothing spline (Matlab's `csaps` with parameter p = 0.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this, with increasing reputation a user has more and more questions, but at some point (about 2000) this increase levels off towards about 10 questions. The smoothed curve is not a particularly good description of the data though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For answers vs reputation, the initial increase is similar, but instead of leveling off it becomes a linear relationship in the log-log plot, which implies a power law behavior. The exponent is about 1.11, which means the increase is only slightly faster than linear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison of the two smooth curves suggests that increase in Reputation is more driven by questions for small reputation, but more driven by answers for high Reputation, with a crossing point at about 370 Reputation and 4.5 both Questions and Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explains the picture when looking at questions/answers vs reputation. Until a reputation of about 100, the ratio increases slowly up to a value of 1.4, and then decreases faster and faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;third population&quot; speculated about in the comments might appear due to the fact that both the number of Questions and the number of answers vary wildly in the &quot;medium&quot; range of Reputation around 1000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to see whether these relations observed across users also describe the evolution of users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/re5UV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="f4146b86-e10b-423a-8257-27d405184c8f" CreationDate="2015-03-19T19:52:07.103" UserId="37612" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="I think the story is both more complicated and more simple, and it helps to look at questions and answers separately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superimposed curves are very strongly smoothed versions of the data, using a cubic smoothing spline (Matlab's `csaps` with parameter p = 0.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this, with increasing reputation a user has more and more questions, but at some point (about 2000) this increase levels off towards about 10 questions. The smoothed curve is not a particularly good description of the data though. (I'm ignoring the little dip for reputation &lt; 3, which is driven by users with 1 reputation and several questions. Similar for answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For answers vs reputation, the initial increase is similar, but instead of leveling off it becomes a linear relationship in the log-log plot, which implies a power law behavior. The exponent is about 1.11, which means the increase is only slightly faster than linear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison of the two smooth curves suggests that increase in Reputation is more driven by questions for small reputation, but more driven by answers for high Reputation, with a crossing point at about 370 Reputation and 4.5 both Questions and Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explains the picture when looking at questions/answers vs reputation. Until a reputation of about 100, the ratio increases slowly up to a value of 1.4, and then decreases faster and faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;third population&quot; speculated about in the comments might appear due to the fact that both the number of Questions and the number of answers vary wildly in the &quot;medium&quot; range of Reputation around 1000. It would be interesting to see whether these relations observed across users also describe the evolution of users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this suggests that the number of answers alone is a better match for reputation that the ratio questions/answers, since the smoothed relationship is  monotonous starting from a reputation of about 8.5, i.e. across 94% of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/re5UV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6615" RevisionGUID="8e190631-5826-49a5-8cc3-5423ff0e54fd" CreationDate="2015-03-20T04:52:49.320" UserId="124" Text="There is a policy (of sorts), namely the one from the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice). (See also [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior).) For convenience, I'll repeat (quote) the main points from those pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rudeness and belittling language are not okay.&#xD;&#xA;- Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.&#xD;&#xA;- Don't be a jerk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there's really a need to make an _additional_ policy on this. But guidance on specific ways to avoid breaking the policy (or the spirit of the policy) probably couldn't hurt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="d84c3d98-d65f-4d56-be3d-47ac78145b85" CreationDate="2015-03-20T06:07:33.360" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="I found a button to find the most voted questions, is there a way to find the most voted answers?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="d84c3d98-d65f-4d56-be3d-47ac78145b85" CreationDate="2015-03-20T06:07:33.360" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="Is it possible to find the most voted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="d84c3d98-d65f-4d56-be3d-47ac78145b85" CreationDate="2015-03-20T06:07:33.360" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6617" RevisionGUID="76c3a4a2-9bb9-42a5-9f73-5ae78003e43f" CreationDate="2015-03-20T08:30:46.043" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Because when it comes to real practical advice on specialist experimental techniques I may as well be talking to myself. It seems to be singularly useless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6617" RevisionGUID="76c3a4a2-9bb9-42a5-9f73-5ae78003e43f" CreationDate="2015-03-20T08:30:46.043" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Is this about Physics, or just theoretical armchair physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6617" RevisionGUID="76c3a4a2-9bb9-42a5-9f73-5ae78003e43f" CreationDate="2015-03-20T08:30:46.043" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6618" RevisionGUID="4b7fa21f-c511-46e4-883d-8e792570d5f7" CreationDate="2015-03-20T11:31:22.240" UserId="6634" Text="Quite easily with data.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've composed a [query here](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/291096/highest-voted-answers) for you (and others interested I suppose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can enter in the number of answers you want returned with the numAnswers variable. For example, numAnswers=10 will give you the top 10 highest voted answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also switch the site to query so you can find the top answers on whichever site you like. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="7ea9660f-d3df-4bbb-8c86-5cb200ed7dfd" CreationDate="2015-03-20T11:49:52.947" UserId="6634" Text="It's always amusing when (insert branch of physics here) complains about how few (insert branch of physics here) experts there are and we're just overrun with (insert opposite branch of physics here) questions/people. The theoretical folks complain(ed) all the time there was too much applied physics and not enough theory. The people who want homework help complain there is too much advanced physics. Experimentalists complain there's too much theoretical physics. Maybe if I get motivated, I'll go through meta in the past 2 years and pull together all the various times this comes up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'll address the idea you are raising rather than the (albeit mild-mannered) rant in the text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are disappointingly few experimental physicists on the site. And many experimental questions go unanswered or get threatened with close reasons as being too engineering, or not about physics, or whatever by people who don't conduct experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unfortunate for sure, **but we want experimental physics questions just as much as other areas**. We simply don't have the people here yet in a critical mass to make it work well. We have the tags for it, we have a few people excited to answer questions about it, but it also has to be questions about experiments we can answer. I would love to answer questions about experiments in fluids (analyzing results, measurement techniques, etc) but I would be completely useless to answer particle physics experiment questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there are two things that people who want to discuss experimental work should do. First, **get other people who conduct experiments involved**. If you are actually conducting experiments, odds are good that you have colleagues you share lab space/equipment with. **Get them on the site too** so that way we start building an experimental sub-community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the second thing you can do is be proactive in defending your question. Don't say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What kind of filter should I use to record XXXnm wavelengths?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and leave it at that. Because to many people, that would be off topic (and to the rest of us, a poor question). Instead, say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I am designing an experiment to measure Y under conditions X. I know it radiates at A, B, C frequencies and I want to capture phenomenon D which occurs primarily at wavelength XXXnm. How do I set up my camera to record this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because then it clearly communicates that you're looking for an answer to a physics experiment and not just trying to come up with some new app that's a *Instagram-Clash of Clans-selfie stick* integration tool (this post hereby counts as me establishing priority for copyright on such a tool!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It opens up some good avenues of discussion because experts can give advice on the experiment overall -- maybe there's better ways to set it up or other things to consider (like maybe all the glass in the world happens to filter that particular wavelength and you need to do something special). And experimentalists who are researching how to conduct similar work can find the answer here and say &quot;Wow, a place to ask/answer experimental questions? Awesome!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having an awesome repository of questions and answers is what draws theoretical (and for better or worse, homework) questions and experts, so let's build up the same repository for experimental ones. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="18a685a0-dea7-4b6e-9b16-698a5306e2d2" CreationDate="2015-03-20T11:55:48.077" UserId="6634" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="It's always amusing when (insert branch of physics here) complains about how few (insert branch of physics here) experts there are and we're just overrun with (insert opposite branch of physics here) questions/people. The theoretical folks complain(ed) all the time there was too much applied physics and not enough theory. The people who want homework help complain there is too much advanced physics. Experimentalists complain there's too much theoretical physics. Maybe if I get motivated, I'll go through meta in the past 2 years and pull together all the various times this comes up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'll address the idea you are raising rather than the (albeit mild-mannered) rant in the text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are disappointingly few experimental physicists on the site. And many experimental questions go unanswered or get threatened with close reasons as being too engineering, or not about physics, or whatever by people who don't conduct experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unfortunate for sure, **but we want experimental physics questions just as much as other areas**. We simply don't have the people here yet in a critical mass to make it work well. We have the tags for it, we have a few people excited to answer questions about it, but it also has to be questions about experiments we can answer. I would love to answer questions about experiments in fluids (analyzing results, measurement techniques, etc) but I would be completely useless to answer particle physics experiment questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there are two things that people who want to discuss experimental work should do. First, **get other people who conduct experiments involved**. If you are actually conducting experiments, odds are good that you have colleagues you share lab space/equipment with. **Get them on the site too** so that way we start building an experimental sub-community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time, the second thing you can do is be proactive in defending your question and make sure you include the [tag:experimental-physics] on it. Don't say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What kind of filter should I use to record XXXnm wavelengths?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and leave it at that. Because to many people, that would be off topic (and to the rest of us, a poor question). Instead, say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I am designing an experiment to measure Y under conditions X. I know it radiates at A, B, C frequencies and I want to capture phenomenon D which occurs primarily at wavelength XXXnm. How do I set up my camera to record this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because then it clearly communicates that you're looking for an answer to a physics experiment and not just trying to come up with some new app that's a *Instagram-Clash of Clans-selfie stick* integration tool (this post hereby counts as me establishing priority for copyright on such a tool!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It opens up some good avenues of discussion because experts can give advice on the experiment overall -- maybe there's better ways to set it up or other things to consider (like maybe all the glass in the world happens to filter that particular wavelength and you need to do something special). And experimentalists who are researching how to conduct similar work can find the answer here and say &quot;Wow, a place to ask/answer experimental questions? Awesome!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having an awesome repository of questions and answers is what draws theoretical (and for better or worse, homework) questions and experts, so let's build up the same repository for experimental ones. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17821" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="e426229c-d140-4b02-bdec-72e3af696eb7" CreationDate="2015-03-20T15:41:23.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/578944431216267265" />
  <row Id="17823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="78516466-7dee-4cdc-a833-f0dca714dccc" CreationDate="2015-03-23T05:31:18.480" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="My brother has opened an account at this wonderful site, I heard it is allowed to have different accounts, as long as you do not interact and do not upvote each other.&#xD;&#xA;Can you confirm this is perfectly OK?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, so can you tell me how to log out? I can't find a button" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="78516466-7dee-4cdc-a833-f0dca714dccc" CreationDate="2015-03-23T05:31:18.480" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="How can I log out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="78516466-7dee-4cdc-a833-f0dca714dccc" CreationDate="2015-03-23T05:31:18.480" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="12c3c65b-d2f9-4e43-8fbb-0e6bddac576b" CreationDate="2015-03-23T06:18:07.937" UserId="1492" Text="I got a -70, yesterday. I had looked at all the answers previously  because the count was way over the average. In all those answers I had been getting negative votes. So it was somebody agreeing with my point of view to mitigate the negatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this happen with negative votes too? It is checked when somebody votes in a series for or against a person? what are the parameters? within a day? an hour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I do not mind , and it is reasonable that I will get negative votes if people do not agree with my statements, though I do look at downvotes in case I have made a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A user who is not so often present now, would, it seems,  downvote any answer of mine , as some matter of principle, so I wonder how the check is made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="12c3c65b-d2f9-4e43-8fbb-0e6bddac576b" CreationDate="2015-03-23T06:18:07.937" UserId="1492" Text="serial voting reversed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="12c3c65b-d2f9-4e43-8fbb-0e6bddac576b" CreationDate="2015-03-23T06:18:07.937" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6622" RevisionGUID="0eeda3ce-afcb-46da-ba89-b585a78d81fa" CreationDate="2015-03-23T07:15:39.773" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Having two accounts from the same household is fine. In fact, you *can* vote on each other's posts if you come across them, but you should be sure to vote only based on content, not based on who made the post. And you shouldn't intentionally look for each other's posts. This is covered in [What is the procedure for having my spouse/significant other as a member of the same SE site?][1] If you're worried about being impartial, then just don't vote on each other's posts at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, even one person *can* have multiple accounts. In this case the connection should probably be disclosed, and the accounts most certainly should not vote for each other. I've seen this done where, for instance, a high-rep user or moderator wants a less-privileged account to *suggest* edits or closures, rather than *force* them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for logging out, look to the top bar, on the left:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first click][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a logout option in the menu:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![second click][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175374/what-is-the-procedure-for-having-my-spouse-significant-other-as-a-member-of-the&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dmDMi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLcvg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="c864d992-1203-4912-9857-70f3a90be7ac" CreationDate="2015-03-23T09:16:43.297" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I got a -70, yesterday. I had looked at all the answers previously because the count was way over the average. In all those answers I had been getting negative votes. So it was somebody agreeing with my point of view to mitigate the negatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this happen with negative votes too? It is checked when somebody votes in a series for or against a person? what are the parameters? within a day? an hour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I do not mind , and it is reasonable that I will get negative votes if people do not agree with my statements, though I do look at downvotes in case I have made a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A user who is not so often present now, would, it seems,  downvote any answer of mine , as some matter of principle, so I wonder how the check is made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17831" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="c864d992-1203-4912-9857-70f3a90be7ac" CreationDate="2015-03-23T09:16:43.297" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Serial up- or down-voting reversed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="c0c6eb77-e02e-4b1c-b3b8-ee16b27c7478" CreationDate="2015-03-23T09:33:27.147" UserId="8966" Text="Like Qmechanic said, the precise parameters are not known, for good reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;more or less&quot; description is that if you get too many downvotes/upvotes in a short time span, then the system will recognise those and revert them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reverts abusive negative voting, such as people downvoting you because they don't like *you* (rather than your posts), but also the upvoting, which would happen for example if a friend or someone else upvoted your posts regardless of the merits in the individual answers/questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, don't worry about it, the system will revert it by itself. If it fails to do so, then flag one of your posts using the custom reason and state your concern. If needed, moderators can ask the CM, i.e. the developers, to manually invalidate the voting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="a19fb1c6-d142-4f30-b0b2-4b29fc776460" CreationDate="2015-03-23T10:28:03.123" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="I am new here (and enthusiast), and I do not know if that refers to me, but I am asking anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am exploring the site: in all Q&amp;A sites you have favourites, not posts, but users. **This is very useful**, you surely know: if you appreciate some subject or the way somebody replies, you are informed of the new answer , you can send them a PM , etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, like every new member I suppose, have been impressed by the quality an clarity of some members: John Rennie, Lubos Motl, AnnaV, Rob Jeffries etc., usually I vote a good post, go to the profile, and explore the answers I like. I know you must vote the post and not the person, but I do **not** vote all posts, just the ones I like. What is wrong with that? Why should one vote one post, wait for an hour and come back to read another? That would make life very complicated, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that I noticed some posts scoring less than -1, and I think that it's inappropriate to humiliate a scientist and a lady with more than one negative vote. -1 would alert readers that someone disagrees and thinks you should take it with a pinch of salt, but that's all! am I wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.. I am sure that I upvoted many more posts by John Rennie than by Anna and those votes, surely double have not been reversed, so I think the program must be faulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember which posts I voted, and of course in a few weeks it will be absolutely impossible. I wonder what happens if by chance I should vote again a post that has been reversed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="635aa5bc-3101-4ff7-8c54-fa1e641ab556" CreationDate="2015-03-23T13:34:40.380" UserDisplayName="user75736" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="I am new here (and enthusiast), and I do not know if that refers to me, but I am asking anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am exploring the site: in all Q&amp;A sites you have favourites, not posts, but users. **This is very useful**, you surely know: if you appreciate some subject or the way somebody replies, you are informed of the new answer , you can send them a PM , etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, like every new member I suppose, have been impressed by the quality an clarity of some members: John Rennie, Lubos Motl, AnnaV, Rob Jeffries etc., usually I vote a good post, go to the profile, and explore the answers I like. I know you must vote the post and not the person, but I do **not** vote all posts, just the ones I like. What is wrong with that? Why should one vote one post, wait for an hour and come back to read another? That would make life very complicated, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that I noticed some posts scoring less than -1, and I think that it's inappropriate to humiliate a scientist and a lady with more than one negative vote. -1 would alert readers that someone disagrees and thinks you should take it with a pinch of salt, but that's all! am I wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.. I am sure that I upvoted many more posts by John Rennie than by Anna and those votes, surely double have not been reversed, so I think the program must be faulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember which posts I voted, and of course in a few weeks it will be absolutely impossible. I wonder what happens if by chance I should vote again a post that has been reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am asking if it is a problem to vote (deliberately or not) again a post on which a vote has been reverses. Of course now I'll vote a post after an hour or so" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="d249ec83-9b67-40c7-9bee-fe9793d7e78e" CreationDate="2015-03-24T06:13:57.520" UserId="1247" Text="I asked a question [&quot;How to use the born rule to find...&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170230/how-to-use-the-born-rule-to-find-the-expected-outcome-of-this-simple-stern-gerla) and it was closed for being a homework-like question. Now this was not a homework question. It's also not the case that I am lazy. I own multiple QM texts and have read through them trying to figure out how to solve these kinds of problems. I've also gone through physics grad school and I never learned how to solve these kinds of problems, which is surprising because of how simple they are. I suspect you do learn how to solve these kinds of problems if you go into certain fields like QM information. But in any case I think it is true that nowhere do typical QM texts cover how to answer these kinds particular kinds of problems. This feels like a very frustrating catch-22. Also, to make it even clearer that this was not a homework question, it was a follow-up to [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169939/looking-for-a-simple-example-of-generating-unequal-probabilities-in-qm) question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone tell me how I can re-word the question? I thought I was being helpful by drawing a diagram and making a specific example that was complex enough to capture the salient points of how to solve these kinds of problems, but I realize that kind of specificity may make it look like a homework problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="d249ec83-9b67-40c7-9bee-fe9793d7e78e" CreationDate="2015-03-24T06:13:57.520" UserId="1247" Text="I asked a non-homework question that was closed for being homework. How do I re-word it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="d249ec83-9b67-40c7-9bee-fe9793d7e78e" CreationDate="2015-03-24T06:13:57.520" UserId="1247" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="8093e97e-4f76-40bd-9fcb-d9057f305e0d" CreationDate="2015-03-24T06:16:03.273" UserDisplayName="user75736" Comment="added 1325 characters in body" Text="I am new here (and enthusiast), and I do not know if that refers to me, but I am asking anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am exploring the site: in all Q&amp;A sites you have favourites, not posts, but users. **This is very useful**, you surely know: if you appreciate some subject or the way somebody replies, you are informed of the new answer , you can send them a PM , etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, like every new member I suppose, have been impressed by the quality an clarity of some members: John Rennie, Lubos Motl, AnnaV, Rob Jeffries etc., usually I vote a good post, go to the profile, and explore the answers I like. I know you must vote the post and not the person, but I do **not** vote all posts, just the ones I like. What is wrong with that? Why should one vote one post, wait for an hour and come back to read another? That would make life very complicated, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that I noticed some posts scoring less than -1, which I found interesting, and I thought that it's inappropriate to humiliate a scientist and a lady with more than one negative vote. -1 would alert readers that someone disagrees and thinks you should take it with a pinch of salt, but that's all! am I wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.. I am sure that I upvoted many more posts by John Rennie than by Anna and those votes, surely double have not been reversed, so I think the program must be faulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember which posts I voted, and of course in a few weeks it will be absolutely impossible. I wonder what happens if by chance I should vote again a post that has been reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am asking if it is a problem to vote (deliberately or not) again a post on which a vote has been reverses. Of course now I'll vote a post after an hour or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am sorry if I was not clear or if I have been misunderstood, I'll try to express a few opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is a pity one cannot have favorites (persons) and follow as one likes&#xD;&#xA;2. I do not see the reason to give [a question*]( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa) 16 negative votes. This is in itself an exaggeration, I think, but that becomes absurd when the answer gets 27 positive votes. So, the question was not so not-useful/stupid, after all? And if it was stupid, how stupid can a question get? A proverb tells: &quot;*the only stupid question is the one you never asked*&quot;. Again, I think, and I may be wrong or you may disagree, I think that is a superfluous humiliation &#xD;&#xA;3. I can find an answer interesting even if, for an expert or a specialist, it has some minor or major mistake.&#xD;&#xA;4. The vote-reversing system is an illusion, because naive voters like me are checked, while voters in ill-faith know how to elude the program, voting after some time or I do not know when. I hope this is clear and that can be agreed.&#xD;&#xA;5. In other sites there is a list of well-defined rules, if I have overlooked it , tell me where it is , if there is not, it should be made so that newcomers can know exactly what to do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="eacb2792-916c-48ee-9be9-a7b71529144f" CreationDate="2015-03-24T06:29:57.217" UserDisplayName="user75736" Comment="added 1325 characters in body" Text="I am new here (and enthusiast), and I do not know if that refers to me, but I am asking anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am exploring the site: in all Q&amp;A sites you have favourites, not posts, but users. **This is very useful**, you surely know: if you appreciate some subject or the way somebody replies, you are informed of the new answer , you can send them a PM , etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, like every new member I suppose, have been impressed by the quality an clarity of some members: John Rennie, Lubos Motl, AnnaV, Rob Jeffries etc., usually I vote a good post, go to the profile, and explore the answers I like. I know you must vote the post and not the person, but I do **not** vote all posts, just the ones I like. What is wrong with that? Why should one vote one post, wait for an hour and come back to read another? That would make life very complicated, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that I noticed some posts scoring less than -1, which I found interesting, and I thought that it's inappropriate to humiliate a scientist and a lady with more than one negative vote. -1 would alert readers that someone disagrees and thinks you should take it with a pinch of salt, but that's all! am I wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.. I am sure that I upvoted many more posts by John Rennie than by Anna and those votes, surely double have not been reversed, so I think the program must be faulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember which posts I voted, and of course in a few weeks it will be absolutely impossible. I wonder what happens if by chance I should vote again a post that has been reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am asking if it is a problem to vote (deliberately or not) again a post on which a vote has been reverses. Of course now I'll vote a post after an hour or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am sorry if I was not clear or if I have been misunderstood, I'll try to express a few opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is a pity one cannot have favorites (persons) and follow as one likes&#xD;&#xA;2. I do not see the reason to give [a question*]( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa) 16 negative votes. This is in itself an exaggeration, I think, but that becomes absurd when the answer gets 27 positive votes. So, the question was not so not-useful/stupid, after all? And if it was stupid, how stupid can a question get? A proverb tells: &quot;*the only stupid question is the one you never asked*&quot;. Again, I think, and I may be wrong or you may disagree, I think that is a superfluous humiliation &#xD;&#xA;3. I can find an answer interesting even if, for an expert or a specialist, it has some minor or major mistake.&#xD;&#xA;4. The vote-reversing system is an illusion, because naive voters like me are checked, while voters in ill-faith know how to elude the program, voting after some time or I do not know when/how. I hope this is clear and that can be agreed.&#xD;&#xA;5. In other sites there is a list of well-defined rules, if I have overlooked it , tell me where it is , if there is not, it should be made so that newcomers can know exactly what to do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing I noticed, after writing this post, is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. a duplicate usually carries a negative vote: is it a shame in itself if one, without realizing, asks a question that has already asked, probably not knowing, like me, how to make a search? (I write a word, click the magnifying lens and nothing happens) or a proper search?. I have heard we should evaluate just the post, its content, is that right? If it is, how can a post be worth -3 and its exact duplicate +8?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, you have been very helpful and understanding!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="f0f95f7b-5967-4134-8f61-66646785401e" CreationDate="2015-03-24T07:02:00.133" UserId="124" Text="There are a few different reasons this can happen, but in this case, your best bet is probably to follow the same advice we give to askers of homework-like questions: show what you've tried and change the question to ask about the specific physics concept that you're confused about as you try to work through the problem yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the fact that our [homework policy](/questions/714) is called a homework policy, the recommendations we give there are not so different from the expectations we have of _all_ questions on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="5da3f737-5088-4cbe-8bf2-7bd5c2dfba41" CreationDate="2015-03-24T07:04:16.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/580263846331465728" />
  <row Id="17843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="e9e10a70-423b-4a04-aedb-b201788db99d" CreationDate="2015-03-24T07:31:25.177" UserId="8966" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Like Qmechanic said, the precise parameters are not known, for good reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;more or less&quot; description is that if you get too many downvotes/upvotes in a short time span, then the system will recognise those and revert them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reverts abusive negative voting, such as people downvoting you because they don't like *you* (rather than your posts), but also the upvoting, which would happen for example if a friend or someone else upvoted your posts regardless of the merits in the individual answers/questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, don't worry about it, the system will revert it by itself. If it fails to do so, then flag one of your posts using the custom reason and state your concern. If needed, moderators can ask the CM, i.e. the developers, to manually invalidate the voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more at [Why do I have a reputation change on my reputation page that says &quot;serial upvoting/downvoting reversed&quot;?][1] under *Reputation &amp; Moderation* in the Help Center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/serial-voting-reversed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="ed97e17c-5261-411a-9cda-78aa784833da" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:08:56.127" UserId="5739" Text="In the last couple of weeks, once in a while, MathJax has not rendered on my system (OS X).  In both Chrome and Firefox I see the markup rather than the rendered equations.  Is this a problem of my system, and if so is there a fix?  Or does the problem reside elsewhere, outside of my control?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="ed97e17c-5261-411a-9cda-78aa784833da" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:08:56.127" UserId="5739" Text="Sporadic MathJax failure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="ed97e17c-5261-411a-9cda-78aa784833da" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:08:56.127" UserId="5739" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="a5bc025b-b47d-4eb8-ba54-d8aba05292a5" CreationDate="2015-03-24T18:48:32.693" UserId="5739" Comment="status report" Text="In the last couple of weeks, once in a while, MathJax has not rendered on my system (OS X).  In both Chrome and Firefox I see the markup rather than the rendered equations.  Is this a problem of my system, and if so is there a fix?  Or does the problem reside elsewhere, outside of my control?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five hours after my OP, things are working again.  Must be an issue elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6628" RevisionGUID="6be0df63-6108-4c14-9c9f-cf3393c03b12" CreationDate="2015-03-24T19:40:48.370" UserId="32426" Text="The main problem with that, that most of the homework questions have a very low quality, is asked by an unknown user who never gets again back. I think it would be very improductive to provide them essentially a free, unpaid problem solving service, despite I must mention: the math SE *does this*, they solve nearly every question if its quality is enough to decipher them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem with such questions that they confront academian ethics. Many of the well-respected site users are educating undergrad physicsists as their daily job, and enforce their ethical system doing that. They surely won't take part its exact opposite as their hobby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite none of these problems are exactly mentioned in @DavidZ 's reasoing and his refered meta posts, I think these are the reasons why homework questions aren't really liked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site users don't have any opportunity to check if your question was a actually homework question, or only it looked as if it would be. Thus, the exact meaning of the &quot;homework questions policy&quot; is that &quot;homework-looking questions policy&quot;. Not the hw is forbid here, but asking questions looking hw questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After your question was closed, theoritally you could &quot;fix&quot; and reopen it. Practically, your chances are nearly negligible for that. And getting useful answers after that are doubly negligible, because most view hits the youngest questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the rules you confronted here, are relatively easily cheated. Most of the long-term close-voters here doing his task highly algorithmically, and most question _can_ be formulated to avoid their close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your place I did this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I would read DavidZ's link, _here_ is how you shoud formulate your hw question to survive.&#xD;&#xA;2. I tried to edit and reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;3. After it doesn't happen, silently deleted the closed question,&#xD;&#xA;4. And later I would ask this again, in a heavily transformed form, which avoids the rules of the close-voters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="31e2d1c0-e462-49fa-ab3a-de608b2b69b3" CreationDate="2015-03-24T20:22:57.970" UserId="16085" Text="Peter from the MathJax team here. Our CDN provider has been experiencing attacks on some of its DNS servers (see also this [thread on the MathJax User Group](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mathjax-users/kR6qnNLoiIA/79IfdXOpVbIJ)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This attack leads to erratic DNS resolution failures. We're sorry for the inconvenience this is causing users and we'll send out an update as soon as we get any news." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17853" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="50a0a18a-16e6-4052-abd5-e2c94fcfe1d9" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:08:56.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/580627409902444544" />
  <row Id="17857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="f69882f3-00b8-4d52-8418-7395c562ad4f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T08:46:44.063" UserId="1325" Text="During yesterday's Physics Chat we had an, erm, lively discussion about the evergreen subject of homework questions, and I think we reached as near a consensus as a motley crew of physics nerds is ever likely to achieve. I thought it would be worth posting (what I think is) the consensus view here in case anyone who missed that chat wants to comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who just wants to get on with their lives the tl;dr version is &quot;no change&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key concern everyone has is that once students get the idea they can post homework here and get answers we'll be swamped by homework questions. All the interesting questions will be lost in the flood and all the most active answerers will get bored and leave. And that will be the end of the site as a useful and authoritative source for physics. We all agree this is a **bad thing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, many (not all) of us feel that where a student is showing some effort it would be nice to post an answer giving hints and discussing the concepts involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that if a homework question is not closed immediately someone will give the sort of explicit answer we want to discourage. Once this happens it doesn't matter if the question is subsequently closed, because the student will have the answer they want and we'll have exactly the problem we started with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there really isn't any alternative to closing homework questions ASAP. This doesn't mean we're being nasty and unhelpful, it's just the only way to avoid us turning into yet another homework help site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of us have an unofficial strategy of voting to close homework questions then providing hints as comments. This doesn't seem an ideal solution to me, but it's probably the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone has views on the above I'd like to hear them, but please bear in mind the subject [has been discussed to death][1], so please only post if you have a point that hasn't been raised in any of the previous discussions of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="f69882f3-00b8-4d52-8418-7395c562ad4f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T08:46:44.063" UserId="1325" Text="Homework - the view from the chat session" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="f69882f3-00b8-4d52-8418-7395c562ad4f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T08:46:44.063" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="551d5f23-1987-4ba2-b1db-3cc6a492762b" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:13:09.457" UserId="66" Text="You can use search for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17861" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="807184a3-cf58-4bff-bf63-20edda5d333d" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:13:22.697" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="855da660-5b45-4262-bed6-6d3c8e4f952f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T12:13:46.910" UserId="2451" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="During yesterday's Physics Chat we had an, erm, lively [discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=20716748#20716748) about the evergreen subject of homework questions, and I think we reached as near a consensus as a motley crew of physics nerds is ever likely to achieve. I thought it would be worth posting (what I think is) the consensus view here in case anyone who missed that chat wants to comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who just wants to get on with their lives the tl;dr version is &quot;no change&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key concern everyone has is that once students get the idea they can post homework here and get answers we'll be swamped by homework questions. All the interesting questions will be lost in the flood and all the most active answerers will get bored and leave. And that will be the end of the site as a useful and authoritative source for physics. We all agree this is a **bad thing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, many (not all) of us feel that where a student is showing some effort it would be nice to post an answer giving hints and discussing the concepts involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that if a homework question is not closed immediately someone will give the sort of explicit answer we want to discourage. Once this happens it doesn't matter if the question is subsequently closed, because the student will have the answer they want and we'll have exactly the problem we started with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there really isn't any alternative to closing homework questions ASAP. This doesn't mean we're being nasty and unhelpful, it's just the only way to avoid us turning into yet another homework help site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of us have an unofficial strategy of voting to close homework questions then providing hints as comments. This doesn't seem an ideal solution to me, but it's probably the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone has views on the above I'd like to hear them, but please bear in mind the subject [has been discussed to death][1], so please only post if you have a point that hasn't been raised in any of the previous discussions of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17863" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="855da660-5b45-4262-bed6-6d3c8e4f952f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T12:13:46.910" UserId="2451" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="176b7785-e72c-43ad-9db9-d97de739bf90" CreationDate="2015-03-25T17:55:57.327" UserId="10968" Text="I was reading [2-year old meta post here][1], and it seems most of the answers saying that it should be on-topic (as theoretical physics) as science should answer non-mainstream questions to avoid censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's still not clear for me and I know that there was some long debate on this and many people left.&#xD;&#xA;So to simplify this, what's the current status of this topic on this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2597/10968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="176b7785-e72c-43ad-9db9-d97de739bf90" CreationDate="2015-03-25T17:55:57.327" UserId="10968" Text="Are cold fusion questions on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="176b7785-e72c-43ad-9db9-d97de739bf90" CreationDate="2015-03-25T17:55:57.327" UserId="10968" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="bac97cab-0007-4bb6-8fe0-e35a7349762b" CreationDate="2015-03-25T18:01:06.017" UserId="10968" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I was reading [2-year old meta post here][1], and it seems most of the answers saying that it should be on-topic (as theoretical physics) as science should answer non-mainstream questions to avoid censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's still not clear for me and I know that there was some long debate on this and many people left.&#xD;&#xA;So to simplify this, what's the current status of this topic on this site? If not, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2597/10968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="4ddd0e12-c0e7-4f41-9ac9-6dfc0d7d8395" CreationDate="2015-03-25T21:05:13.123" UserId="50583" Text="Cold fusion, to my knowledge, is and should not be treated differently than any other topic on the &quot;fringe&quot; of mainstream science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, [questions about non-mainstream science are off-topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/50583). It should be stressed that this does not imply that non-mainstream theories are entirely without merit (though they very often are), it merely says that *we as a community* do not want to have such debates on this site, as they are contrary to the Q&amp;A formula of SE sites where it is expected that question have at least one correct answer based in currently accepeted expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, asking whether X is possible within currently accepted physical theories, or what things forbid X from happening is on-topic. Presenting your own personal theory about X and asking for comments is off-topic, as well as questions asked in bad faith where it is evident that the asker will just keep moving the goalposts so that no answer is ever satisfactory, as well as questions of the kind *&quot;Isn't physics wrong about X?&quot;* or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter what kind of &quot;non-mainstream&quot; science X is here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="6c10ab21-4d46-4a66-9344-335a48a47ddb" CreationDate="2015-03-26T09:08:15.947" UserId="66" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="You can use search for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's more help on the search operators in the search page (click on &quot;Advanced Search&quot;) or in the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17874" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="b8d0469a-3f84-4e22-9526-68bb701108ac" CreationDate="2015-03-26T16:11:38.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/581126372959117312" />
  <row Id="17875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="c2e6b710-cfa4-44ab-9138-49142c35a7c4" CreationDate="2015-03-26T17:32:17.327" UserId="75397" Text="How can I edit my own questions and answers for example, give the symbols for pi, integration, and draw diagrams" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="c2e6b710-cfa4-44ab-9138-49142c35a7c4" CreationDate="2015-03-26T17:32:17.327" UserId="75397" Text="How can I edit my own questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="c2e6b710-cfa4-44ab-9138-49142c35a7c4" CreationDate="2015-03-26T17:32:17.327" UserId="75397" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17878" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="c5ee4b9e-0555-43ae-9bec-1c8c859999c0" CreationDate="2015-03-26T17:48:45.897" UserId="75397" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="78d45656-a77f-4428-be0a-fe8f5772df87" CreationDate="2015-03-26T17:55:54.473" UserId="25301" Text="You are looking for [the Notation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation). It provides a mini-tutorial on the use of inline equations and centered equations. For pi, you want \pi and for integrals, you want \int (I'd wrap those with $ to start MathJax, but it is not enabled on Meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, there is no method to draw figures via [tikz](http://www.texample.net/tikz/) or [\includegraphics](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Importing_Graphics) in the normal Latex methods. However, there is a [button to include the graphics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/formatting) (circled below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be used to pull an image from a website or from your computer. Also sadly, [there is *not* an easy way to center the image](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/centering-a-picture/6447#6447).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8zcSs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="f720b0de-8627-442c-ac54-cd15dbb60029" CreationDate="2015-03-26T18:16:35.737" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|editing|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17881" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="be170cfa-4f4b-45a7-847a-42ab8d1edcfc" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:15:00.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/581172515814400000" />
  <row Id="17882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="2dec9390-b668-4dd3-bd48-828180529733" CreationDate="2015-03-27T07:40:48.427" UserDisplayName="user75736" Comment="deleted 396 characters in body" Text="I am new here (and enthusiast), and I do not know if that refers to me, but I am asking anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am exploring the site: in all Q&amp;A sites you have favourites, not posts, but users. **This is very useful**, you surely know: if you appreciate some subject or the way somebody replies, you are informed of the new answer , you can send them a PM , etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, like every new member I suppose, have been impressed by the quality an clarity of some members: John Rennie, Lubos Motl, AnnaV, Rob Jeffries etc., usually I vote a good post, go to the profile, and explore the answers I like. I know you must vote the post and not the person, but I do **not** vote all posts, just the ones I like. What is wrong with that? Why should one vote one post, wait for an hour and come back to read another? That would make life very complicated, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that I noticed some posts scoring less than -1, which I found interesting, and I thought that it's inappropriate to humiliate a scientist and a lady with more than one negative vote. -1 would alert readers that someone disagrees and thinks you should take it with a pinch of salt, but that's all! am I wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.. I am sure that I upvoted many more posts by John Rennie than by Anna and those votes, surely double have not been reversed, so I think the program must be faulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember which posts I voted, and of course in a few weeks it will be absolutely impossible. I wonder what happens if by chance I should vote again a post that has been reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am asking if it is a problem to vote (deliberately or not) again a post on which a vote has been reverses. Of course now I'll vote a post after an hour or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am sorry if I was not clear or if I have been misunderstood, I'll try to express a few opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is a pity one cannot have favorites (persons) and follow as one likes&#xD;&#xA;2. I do not see the reason to give [a question*]( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa) 16 negative votes. This is in itself an exaggeration, I think, but that becomes absurd when the answer gets 27 positive votes. So, the question was not so not-useful/stupid, after all? And if it was stupid, how stupid can a question get? A proverb tells: &quot;*the only stupid question is the one you never asked*&quot;. Again, I think, and I may be wrong or you may disagree, I think that is a superfluous humiliation &#xD;&#xA;3. I can find an answer interesting even if, for an expert or a specialist, it has some minor or major mistake.&#xD;&#xA;4. The vote-reversing system is an illusion, because naive voters like me are checked, while voters in ill-faith know how to elude the program, voting after some time or I do not know when/how. I hope this is clear and that can be agreed.&#xD;&#xA;5. In other sites there is a list of well-defined rules, if I have overlooked it , tell me where it is , if there is not, it should be made so that newcomers can know exactly what to do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, you have been very helpful and understanding!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was recommended in a comment, I'll post some remarks as a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="359f6e41-e680-49ec-8410-a3239a13c068" CreationDate="2015-03-27T16:23:05.153" UserId="2911" Comment="Roll in some of the comment discussion; shore up implicit references to the question so that I can use this elsewhere" Text="There's a subtlety to the guidelines for editing here that many people (even some aged, veteran users) don't quite pick up on... So I'll try a different approach here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's [a famous interview with Richard Feynman][1], where he was asked the question, &quot;how do two magnets attract or repel each other?&quot; To which he responded,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and then went on to list how he might answer the question *if someone else were asking it.* This is a brilliant response, precisely because it illustrates a consideration that so many educators skip: **understanding the intentions of your student.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic guidelines for editing are listed on [the full edit page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1/edit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![always respect the original author][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they say *nothing* about the &quot;intended&quot; meaning of the post; you're expected to clarify the meaning, which you can hopefully learn by reading the post... but the only way to know if you've preserved the asker's *intent* is to make the edit and see if he's satisfied with the results. When in doubt, **talk to the author:** a comment paired with the edit expressing *your* intent and requesting feedback on your edit can go a long way toward ensuring that your edits are helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The critical guideline here is ***always* respect the original author:** edit with his best interest in mind, strive to make him look good, **write a question that'll get him the help he needs!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watching some editors debate this reminds me of [an old story][3]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He also who had received the one talent came and said, &quot;Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But his master answered him, &quot;You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Matthew 25:24–30, [World English Bible][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's always *safe* to edit a question in a way that does not change the literal meaning; after all, who can criticize you when you haven't *done anything?* But when you *do* understand the intent, and yet, out of an overabundance of caution, do nothing to alter the meaning even if by doing so you could better reflect the author's intention *and potentially provide a way for him to obtain assistance here*, then you're hardly respecting the author; like the cynical servant or a weary teacher who no longer cares if his students can absorb the information he regurgitates, you've wasted an opportunity and squandered the attention of your audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you edit a question, or when you review the edits of others, ask yourself this question: **does this edit make it more likely that the asker will obtain the information he needs?** The answer you give yourself to this question should provide you with a foundation for any discussion that might follow from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iRPet.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="7627bf88-7208-4a41-9758-faeb913b03b3" CreationDate="2015-03-27T18:24:40.560" UserId="31746" Text="I'd like to point on the idea of question as a knowledge resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has come to my knowledge that understanding a subject, especially Physics, requires experience with as many questions as possible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading many solutions of expert members of the Physics site may indeed help many students to understand Physics better.  &#xD;&#xA;Note that each person may contribute its own point of view and *technique* for solving a problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the policy that I experienced on this site actually discourages questions as such:  &#xD;&#xA;Many of my questions have 0 (zero) votes, therefore I received a warning that alerts me from asking more questions (which would probably get 0 votes, due to their 'homework' classification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By changing the policy and gaining questions, students will be able to understand physics merely by reading Q&amp;A on SE!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="7627bf88-7208-4a41-9758-faeb913b03b3" CreationDate="2015-03-27T18:24:40.560" UserId="31746" Text="Homework questions as a knowledge resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="7627bf88-7208-4a41-9758-faeb913b03b3" CreationDate="2015-03-27T18:24:40.560" UserId="31746" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6640" RevisionGUID="fbc994f2-be61-41b4-af26-e686581867e3" CreationDate="2015-03-27T18:51:40.753" UserId="520" Text="The pedagogical research is very firm on this. Seeing someone's solution or even watching them solve question and explain what they are thinking as they do it is a very inefficient way to learn physics. And yes, I know that you are convinced otherwise. All students are convinced otherwise. I was convinced otherwise. I was also wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the pedagogical research suggest *does* work is understanding concepts and placing them in a correct framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that the homework policy we thrashed out is actually also about the most pedagogically sound one we could have come to. If you are stuck reduce your perplexity to a *conceptual question* and ask that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6640" RevisionGUID="e9d30af1-760c-4979-bd17-15200a65c81b" CreationDate="2015-03-27T19:03:29.053" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The pedagogical research is very firm on this. Seeing someone's solution or even watching them solve questions and explain what they are thinking as they do it is a very inefficient way to learn physics. And yes, I know that you are convinced otherwise. All students are convinced otherwise. I was convinced otherwise. I was also wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the pedagogical research suggest *does* work is understanding concepts and placing them in a correct framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that the homework policy we thrashed out is actually also about the most pedagogically sound one we could have come to. If you are stuck reduce your perplexity to a *conceptual question* and ask that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="692a30f2-1c22-42dc-91b2-0f0a095d3f6b" CreationDate="2015-03-27T21:43:27.673" UserId="31746" Comment="added 529 characters in body" Text="I'd like to point on the idea of question as a knowledge resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has come to my knowledge that understanding a subject, especially Physics, requires experience with as many questions as possible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading many solutions of expert members of the Physics site may indeed help many students to understand Physics better.  &#xD;&#xA;Note that each person may contribute its own point of view and *technique* for solving a problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the policy that I experienced on this site actually discourages questions as such:  &#xD;&#xA;Many of my questions have 0 (zero) votes, therefore I received a warning that alerts me from asking more questions (which would probably get 0 votes, due to their 'homework' classification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By changing the policy and gaining questions, students will be able to understand physics merely by reading Q&amp;A on SE!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An answer to &quot;**dmckee**&quot; which is relevant for everyone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, essentially, you are correct! I think so too: &#xD;&#xA;A student must make an effort to solve a question - this is exactly what I do for each homework question that I receive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though what happens when you're stuck on a question for 2 hours? 4 hours? Gave it another try in the following day? Tried every possible way that you can think of?  &#xD;&#xA;Eventually there's a deadline for every exercise, thus time is priceless - therefore a solution is needful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="4b13223c-ae5a-450d-9b96-001b05830e64" CreationDate="2015-03-28T06:51:42.520" UserDisplayName="user76031" Text="There are over 6,500 questions with [no answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=noanswers) here, and over 8,000 practically unanswered. I tried one, but I have seen that nobody even takes a look at old questions. Do you know why? How does the date influence the usefulness of a question/answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have no interest that most questions be properly answered, here? Why should one waste time answering an old question if he knows that , if he is lucky, he will get one vote and is sure that, even if his answer is right, he has no chance of seeing it accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At other sites questions with no accept are awarded by the community, why is not that policy implemented here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="4b13223c-ae5a-450d-9b96-001b05830e64" CreationDate="2015-03-28T06:51:42.520" UserDisplayName="user76031" Text="Why should one answer a no-answer question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="4b13223c-ae5a-450d-9b96-001b05830e64" CreationDate="2015-03-28T06:51:42.520" UserDisplayName="user76031" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="1fa418ee-9989-4ed1-8bc5-3f2031bfd0ea" CreationDate="2015-03-28T07:03:01.387" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Do you know why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because each person can only look at so many questions, and people generally tend to look at the questions with recent activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does the date influence the usefulness of a question/answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably after some time the question is no longer useful to the original poster (although this is not guaranteed). But it can still be useful to other people. I often look at old questions in the course of my research, or while answering new questions, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You have no interest that most questions be properly answered, here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly not the case. We would like as many questions to be answered (well) as possible. Old, new, it makes no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why should one waste time answering an old question if he knows that , if he is lucky, he will get one vote and is sure that, even if his answer is right, he has no chance of seeing it accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Waste&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How do you justify the conclusion that you will get one vote if you're lucky? If your answer is good, it will probably get a few votes. The age of the question has little to do with this.&#xD;&#xA;2. If you consider it a waste of time to answer a question unless that answer will get accepted, then you're probably here for the wrong reasons. This site is not meant for people who want validation. It is meant for people who want to share knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At other sites questions with no accept are awarded by the community, why is not that policy implemented here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what you mean. The top position in the answer list is automatically given to the answer with the highest vote total - that is, the one that the community thinks is best - unless the question asker overrides that by accepting another answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="54bd6100-7c93-4840-8e92-6c79128f6a67" CreationDate="2015-03-28T07:07:43.033" UserDisplayName="user76031" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="There are over 6,500 questions with [no answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=noanswers) here, and over 8,000 practically unanswered. I tried one, but I have seen that nobody even takes a look at old questions. Do you know why? How does the date influence the usefulness of a question/answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have no interest that most questions be properly answered, here? Why should one waste time answering an old question if he knows that , if he is lucky, he will get one vote and is sure that, even if his answer is right, he has no chance of seeing it accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At other sites questions with no accept are awarded by the community, when the OP can't be bothered to accept an answer other members decide the accept. Old-question OP here are long inactive, why is not that policy implemented here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="86d26423-8ff9-406b-9b83-6c2675e2798b" CreationDate="2015-03-28T07:35:26.783" UserDisplayName="user76031" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="There are over 6,500 questions with [no answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=noanswers) here, and over 8,000 practically unanswered. I tried one, but I have seen that nobody even takes a look at old questions. Do you know why? How does the date influence the usefulness of a question/answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have no interest that most questions be properly answered, here? Why should one waste time answering an old question if he knows that , if he is lucky, he will get one vote and is sure that, even if his answer is right, he has no chance of seeing it accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At other sites questions with no accept are awarded by the community, when the OP can't be bothered to accept an answer other members decide the accept. Old-question OP's here are usually long inactive, do you know why isn't that policy followed here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="b4dd9a3f-10fe-4613-9f8f-1d4871c0471f" CreationDate="2015-03-28T18:46:22.077" UserId="46399" Text="DavidZ and other mods/higher-rep guys are better placed than me to provide an appropriate answer to your first two paragraphs. But I want to make a small point concerning the feasibility of the last part of your question, namely &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... when the OP can't be bothered to accept an answer other members decide the accept ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to draw your attention towards the fact that there is a message that prompts up when you bring your cursor near the 'accept' mark in an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Accept Message][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In comparison, if you bring it close to the upvote arrow, the message reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Upvote Message][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly therefore, the scope of an 'upvote' is different from that of 'accept'. If I am not the OP (asker), and I upvote an answer, it only means that I found the answer useful (or informative, or that I learned something from this). But only the OP can tell whether or not it solved his/her problem, and addressed everything he/she wanted addressed, up to his/her complete satisfaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, no one other than the OP can, in principle, &quot;decide the accept&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aSWcP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FHgnn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="bc817f0a-77bb-4a72-9658-7f38b67eaa64" CreationDate="2015-03-28T19:13:44.003" UserId="1325" Text="I thought I remembered having seen some discussion of this. It's in the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/780/vote-to-answer, though that's not a very search friendly title so no surprise it took me some time to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a read through dmckee's answer to this question, and in particular follow the links to the mother meta. Although there has never been a definitive statement by the Stack Exchange team they have not implemented a *community accept* feature despite numerous highly upvoted pleas for one. This suggests it's not a feature they regard as a priority. Maybe it will be implemented one day, though I wouldn't hold your breath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time note that answering an old question will bump the question up the rankings, though I don't know how big an effect this is. Answers to old questions also show in the review queue for users with enough rep, and I do upvote any such answers I consider good (though sadly many answers to old questions are, well, rubbish). The upvotes boost the question rankings and further enhance the visibility of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a Necromancer badge for answering a question more than 60 days old, and [475 of these badges have been awarded][1]. So not only is there considerable activity in the answering of old questions, but since award of the badge requires at least 5 upvotes there is clearly considerable rewards to be had by doing so. On a side note I note that both David and myself, arch villains though we may be, both have the Necromancer badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More broadly, I think we need to distinguish between questions that have no answer and questions that have answers but no accepted answer. The latter normally means the OP is AWOL or just doesn't care, and in these cases there is little we can do. While the OCD side of me deplores perfectly good answers being left unaccepted this doesn't lessen the value of the site to the physics community. Accepting an answer doesn't mean it's right - it just means the OP thought that was the most helpful answer. A more reliable guide is the number of upvotes the answer has attracted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question has no answers that probably means either the question is really hard or that it's really uninteresting. Anyone giving a good answer to an old hard question is likely to find themselves amply rewarded (as the number of Necromancer badges shows). Conversely, if the question is uninteresting it's likely your answer will be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/44/necromancer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="83102997-6583-4c6a-b943-aac083b47e9f" CreationDate="2015-03-29T02:03:21.263" UserId="25301" Text="HT to [Danu](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24653/danu) on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there was this recent post inquiring about [answering 0-answer questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6641/) in which a comment read,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not evident that votes on answers to old questions are fewer than on new ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, elsewhere on the site, it was mentioned that late answers are typically either really amazing or really bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are either of these statements true? Do older questions get fewer votes? Is there a bi-modality of score in late answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="83102997-6583-4c6a-b943-aac083b47e9f" CreationDate="2015-03-29T02:03:21.263" UserId="25301" Text="Age - Score Relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="83102997-6583-4c6a-b943-aac083b47e9f" CreationDate="2015-03-29T02:03:21.263" UserId="25301" Text="|discussion|answers|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="f90858bd-f188-4d23-b697-bc7cd1d86d20" CreationDate="2015-03-29T02:08:44.407" UserId="25301" Text="#Are there fewer votes on old answers?&#xD;&#xA;Using [my recent Data Query *Age-Score correlation*](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/293815/age-score-correlation), I gathered the average net scores of answers as a function of the number of days between the answer posting date and the question posting date. The figure below&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; shows the result of the query:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a slope at the early part (t ~&lt; 200), suggesting that the most upvotes come when the answer is posted nearest to when the question is posted (which makes sense, especially when thinking about the Hot Network Question Effect). There is also a relatively flat net *positive* score for t &gt;~ 200, with obvious outliers all  over the place&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zooming in to the  -5 &lt; y &lt; 5 range, we see a rather vacuous region that I can only presume is populated by those who have deleted their answer after a few negative votes early on&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, while the bottom right is populated by those who've left one crack-pot answer &amp; never came back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring back to either figure, we can see the long &quot;stripes&quot; appearing in the data. This is due to the fact that there are fewer answers that are also down/upvoted less than early on. **So this appears to me that there *are indeed* fewer votes for older answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Are the Late Answers either really bad or really good?&#xD;&#xA;With a 300 day delay between Q &amp; A, there are a grand total of 633 answers with a net positive score, 158 with a net negative score and 498 answers with zero score. Those nonzero scores drop to 385 answers with &gt;= 1 and 77 with &lt;= -1, leaving 329 mostly okay answers (that is, most of those remaining have a score between 0 and 1)--that's an 39.2% and 51.3% decrease in answer count, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that slightly more than half the Late Answers have a score &gt; |1|. Those nonzero score counts decrease to 143 net positive and 26 net negative when using |Score|&gt;2 as the metric (a 77% and 83% reduction). **So it appears to me that there is no clear bimodality.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, we have some heavily downvoted Late Answers that are deleted and thus cannot be accounted for in this mini-study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I've posted my (really simple) Python script for plotting this on my &#xD;&#xA;[github page](https://github.com/kylekanos/Age-Score-Correlation)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The eye-catching (311,20) is [this post by Ron Maimon](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19721/25301). You can easily (fork and) modify my Data Query to find the highest scoring ones by replacing the `Answer.OwnerId = @user` with `Answer.Score&gt;N` for whatever N you want--be warned though, this can fail due to sheer volume of results. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Though it seems strange that there are so few values close to 0 net upvotes in the t &lt; 200 range &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JL9WV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/93WR5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="94a99c64-c0bb-48c7-b21c-c2b8272e67b5" CreationDate="2015-03-29T02:21:00.250" UserId="25301" Comment="added log plot because it looks nice" Text="#Are there fewer votes on old answers?&#xD;&#xA;Using [my recent Data Query *Age-Score correlation*](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/293815/age-score-correlation), I gathered the average net scores of answers as a function of the number of days between the answer posting date and the question posting date. The figure below&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; shows the result of the query:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a slope at the early part (t ~&lt; 200), suggesting that the most upvotes come when the answer is posted nearest to when the question is posted (which makes sense, especially when thinking about the Hot Network Question Effect). There is also a relatively flat net *positive* score for t &gt;~ 200, with obvious outliers all  over the place&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zooming in to the  -5 &lt; y &lt; 5 range, we see a rather vacuous region that I can only presume is populated by those who have deleted their answer after a few negative votes early on&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, while the bottom right is populated by those who've likely left one crack-pot answer &amp; never came back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring back to either figure, we can see the long &quot;stripes&quot; appearing in the data. This is due to the fact that there are fewer answers that are also down/upvoted less than early on. **So this appears to me that there *are indeed* fewer votes for older answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Are the Late Answers either really bad or really good?&#xD;&#xA;With a 300 day delay between Q &amp; A, there are a grand total of 633 answers with a net positive score, 158 with a net negative score and 498 answers with zero score. Those nonzero scores drop to 385 answers with &gt;= 1 and 77 with &lt;= -1, leaving 329 mostly okay answers (that is, most of those remaining have a score between 0 and 1)--that's an 39.2% and 51.3% decrease in answer count, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that slightly more than half the Late Answers have a score &gt; |1|. Those nonzero score counts decrease to 143 net positive and 26 net negative when using |Score|&gt;2 as the metric (a 77% and 83% reduction). So it appears to me that there is no clear bimodality, based on the numbers&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the log of the delay between Q &amp; A, we can see a slightly different picture (also using the -5 &lt; y &lt; +5 range):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to suggest the same thing as above: there are lots of &quot;just okay&quot; answers, few really bad ones, and a fair number of really good ones. But since bad ones tend to get deleted, it's kinda hard (for me at least) to completely rule out a complete bimodality, so I'll say this one is **plausible.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I've posted my (really simple) Python script for plotting this on my &#xD;&#xA;[github page](https://github.com/kylekanos/Age-Score-Correlation)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The eye-catching (311,20) is [this post by Ron Maimon](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19721/25301). You can easily (fork and) modify my Data Query to find the highest scoring ones by replacing the `Answer.OwnerId = @user` with `Answer.Score&gt;N` for whatever N you want--be warned though, this can fail due to sheer volume of results. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Though it seems strange that there are so few values close to 0 net upvotes in the t &lt; 200 range &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4 Admittedly, we have some heavily downvoted Late Answers that are deleted and thus cannot be accounted for in this mini-study.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JL9WV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/93WR5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkv2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="26ec1b3d-7a32-4f8f-aab2-5c263e6110c0" CreationDate="2015-03-30T05:53:20.063" UserDisplayName="user76123" Text="Can you tell me if it is allowed to borrow a diagram from another post in this site?&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary to cite both the source and the post from which it was borrowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="26ec1b3d-7a32-4f8f-aab2-5c263e6110c0" CreationDate="2015-03-30T05:53:20.063" UserDisplayName="user76123" Text="Borrowing images" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="26ec1b3d-7a32-4f8f-aab2-5c263e6110c0" CreationDate="2015-03-30T05:53:20.063" UserDisplayName="user76123" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="4bcbb8ec-3e0f-4ae6-bdaa-155fc0c22c16" CreationDate="2015-03-30T06:13:49.387" UserId="46399" Text="All user contributions on Physics.SE are licensed with the following stipulation, as may be seen by scrolling to the bottom of this page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, attribution is required, i.e. you should cite the source. Once you do that, reusing (&quot;borrowing&quot;) images is allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's also true as a general practice in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="3b2b0fff-27eb-42d2-95a1-c06038b5abae" CreationDate="2015-03-30T06:29:27.520" UserId="46399" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="All user contributions on Physics.SE are licensed with the following stipulation, as may be seen by scrolling to the bottom of this page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, attribution is required, i.e. you should cite the source. Once you do that, reusing (&quot;borrowing&quot;) images is allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's also true as a safe, general practice in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="b5a07dad-b081-45d9-afa7-67260e431d7c" CreationDate="2015-03-30T09:38:53.757" UserId="16085" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="**Update 2015/03/30**: [CloudFlare reports](http://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/f0nt7qzwln27) that the issues have been resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter from the MathJax team here. Our CDN provider has been experiencing attacks on some of its DNS servers (see also this [thread on the MathJax User Group](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mathjax-users/kR6qnNLoiIA/79IfdXOpVbIJ)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This attack leads to erratic DNS resolution failures. We're sorry for the inconvenience this is causing users and we'll send out an update as soon as we get any news." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="b92fc79c-acd6-4e34-ab7e-51fd0be74c33" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:48:44.547" UserId="26969" Text="After a (for me) unusual spate of unpleasant back and forth with several users, I decided to delete an answer I wrote although it had a +11-1 vote count. However I am not seeing the negative impact on rep count that I was expecting. I just hit the rep cap for the day - which is why the timing of when the - 108 points would happen is of some interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I expect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="b92fc79c-acd6-4e34-ab7e-51fd0be74c33" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:48:44.547" UserId="26969" Text="Deleted question with positive score: when does my rep update" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="b92fc79c-acd6-4e34-ab7e-51fd0be74c33" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:48:44.547" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17917" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="4e7011d3-5269-4ac2-8b99-d590899c01c6" CreationDate="2015-03-30T19:35:15.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/582627166371868672" />
  <row Id="17918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="4f4df0e0-5450-4881-90f2-3d51d7ec6278" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:30:16.910" UserId="6634" Text="Okay, it took me way too long to find this considering how simple it was. If you are logged in, visit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it will update your reputation plus give you the actual info on how it is calculated. Waaaay down at the bottom is a summary of reputation changes. This should, hopefully, fix the caching issue and trigger the correct calculation of your reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related question [on the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236420/when-will-my-reputation-update) which seems to indicate a bug existed ~8 months ago in the update script when users hit the rep cap and then lost some votes somewhere. The answer there says the bug is/was acknowledged but I haven't found whether it has been fixed or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If manually updating the reputation doesn't fix it, maybe there is still a problem somewhere and this needs to be escalated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's above my pay grade." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="29b9d619-af1d-412e-b243-3a095805a2f8" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:36:39.050" UserId="6634" Comment="added 379 characters in body" Text="Okay, it took me way too long to find this considering how simple it was. If you are logged in, visit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it will update your reputation plus give you the actual info on how it is calculated. Waaaay down at the bottom is a summary of reputation changes. This should, hopefully, fix the caching issue and trigger the correct calculation of your reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related question [on the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236420/when-will-my-reputation-update) which seems to indicate a bug existed ~8 months ago in the update script when users hit the rep cap and then lost some votes somewhere. The answer there says the bug is/was acknowledged but I haven't found whether it has been fixed or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If manually updating the reputation doesn't fix it, maybe there is still a problem somewhere and this needs to be escalated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's above my pay grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading into that mother meta question, particularly the comments under it, it seems that the manual refresh button was removed from that reputation page I gave and the only way to trigger a recalc (at that time) was to delete/undelete one of your own answers. Again, no idea if this bug is still around or not, but you could always give that a shot and see if things update." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="e4d68b73-98e3-4960-a3dd-1285efc30253" CreationDate="2015-03-31T04:57:36.973" UserDisplayName="user76031" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="There are over 6,500 questions with [no answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=noanswers) here, and over 8,000 practically unanswered. I tried one, but I have seen that nobody even takes a look at old questions. Do you know why? How does the date influence the usefulness of a question/answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have an interest that most questions be properly answered, here? Why should one waste time answering an old question if he knows that, if he is lucky, he will get one vote and is sure that, even if his answer is right, he has no chance of seeing it accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At other sites questions with no accept are awarded by the community, when the OP can't be bothered to accept an answer other members decide the accept. Old-question OP's here are usually long inactive, do you know why isn't that policy followed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had prepared some data, but I realized that probably you are right, I am in the wrong site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="4835e8f1-2814-421b-a34d-577552eff913" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:14:20.887" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="I posted these question as an answer and probably is better to ask a new question:&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain what is the sense of giving a post (question/answer) more than a couple of negative votes, if the purpose is only to alert the reader that that post is not particularly useful, or is incorrect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of giving [a question*]( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa) 16 negative votes. This is in itself an exaggeration, but that becomes incomprehensible when the answer gets 27 positive votes and makes the answerer ( I think a mod) earn a precious badge?. So, the question was not so *not-useful*/stupid, after all? And if it was stupid, how stupid can a question get? A proverb tells: &quot;*the only stupid question is the one you never asked*&quot;. Again, I think, and I may be wrong or you may disagree, But, isn't that a superfluous humiliation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I see that since last week after my post, the negative votes have increased to 17, what is the sense of this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed, also, that a duplicate usually carries a negative vote: is it a shame in itself if one, without realizing, asks a question that has already asked? I have heard one should evaluate just *the post*, its content, is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If it is, how can a post be worth -3 and its exact duplicate +8?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="4835e8f1-2814-421b-a34d-577552eff913" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:14:20.887" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="The policy of downvoting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="4835e8f1-2814-421b-a34d-577552eff913" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:14:20.887" UserDisplayName="user75736" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="9708d483-75ce-4248-9f97-779ca9d011ab" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:52:49.443" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="1778b88b-7cfd-4520-af25-0056d7d63323" CreationDate="2015-03-31T13:09:45.843" UserId="25301" Text="I think this post is just a pile of loaded questions meant to attempt to discredit our way of doing things here. Despite the glaring warning sign that I shouldn't, I'm going to attempt a response in case OP is actually genuine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only three points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The alt-text of the up/down votes say something like, &quot;This post is/isn't useful.&quot; So downvoting is a way to say the post is *not* useful. If 20+ people think that the post you mention is not useful or shows no research effort, who are we to complain about it? It is *their* vote (See #2).  &#xD;&#xA;The *appropriate* action (when finding heavily downvoted posts) would be to try cleaning up the text to make it more useful (e.g., make it less of a troll post)--but you **must** respect the author and keep the *content* intact while changing the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. No matter how much you disagree with it, you cannot change our ways about how we will vote (there shouldn't be any  reason for you to *expect* that we change to your whim anyways). We are **free** to vote entirely as we please, up or down and for whatever dumb reason we want (whether the post is [obvious troll being obvious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or because we simply don't like the person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (This one is a counter-point) There are [many posts with greater than 100 votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=score%3A100). What is the point of that? Aren't the votes superfluous after only a few? What is the difference between +12 and +13 and +17? Why continue to upvote it up to &gt;100 after that? Why also bother upvoting other answers that are posted alongside the over-voted one, it's already got a good answer?   &#xD;&#xA;Seriously, why complain about downvotes when upvotes are equally as abused?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, the policy of downvoting is:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***vote as you please and stop caring what other people think of it***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="06af3ded-dd8c-456f-aeb2-ca56b27bd881" CreationDate="2015-03-31T14:06:55.267" UserId="1492" Text="It is a bit like a consensus poll. Some questions are really off the present day physics consensus, like perpetual motion proposals. If there are positive and negative votes in large numbers, as in your example, (+10/-27 at the moment) this  denotes either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)that some wrong premises are used in the question , in this case ignoring the postulate of the lorenz transformation which in tandem with maxwell's equations have described all data up to now and hav great predictive power. The negatives are to emphasize this. The positives must be from students or people not very grounded in electrodynamics who have the same question as the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)Or sometimes it is completely a cranky theory somebody is advocating and the negatives emphasize this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The votes show a sample of how many people agree and how many disagree as a guide for the reader who found the question by googling, he/she  will be aware of the agreement or not with current physics concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense the large number of down votes are useful, because this is also a site where research type questions may be asked. These may get a few negatives because the subject is still open . These should be contrasted to what most physicists believe is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course physics is not done by consensus, but this site is for questions on current physics , not for proposing new untested or controversial subjects. There are other fora for publishing own research, apart of course of the usual peer reviewed journals; for example vixra.org." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="1345d442-16ef-4c05-bd46-f3aa8008e47e" CreationDate="2015-03-31T17:55:50.817" UserId="1325" Text="A few specifics: I agree that more than three downvotes has no function. I also agree that downvoting a duplicate just because it's a duplicate is excessive (downvoting a lazy duplicate is fine IMHO). Finally I agree that downvoting should be a dispassionate activity based only on the contents of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not underestimate how much work people have put in to making this site a success, and for no reward other than the approval of their peers. And you should appreciate just what an extraordinarily valuable resource this site is. As a teen physics nerd in the 70s it was inconceivable that I could have a question answered by a real life theoretical physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But keeping a site like this relevant is a continual battle against the forces of entropy. In this case *entropy* consists of the fanatical, the opinionated, the lazy and the merely mischievous. At any one time there is only a small population of knowledgable answerers, and it would be easy to swamp the posts that make sense with posts that don't. This is not just my opinion or a merely theoretical statement. This has happened to every physics site I've been part of, starting at the very dawn of the Internet with the physics newsgroups. This site is so far unique in keeping a high quality of questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But back to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I disapprove of downvoting by more a than a few downvotes, and yes I disapprove of downvoting duplicates, and yes we shouldn't downvote just because we're annoyed by a post. But I am not going to criticise people for doing so when they put in so much work to keep this site successful, and I don't think you should do so either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="ac217504-8844-4de4-a775-4d41b29f1c43" CreationDate="2015-04-01T00:06:55.433" UserId="43351" Text="WTF?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users removed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously thinking of quitting this site for good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="ac217504-8844-4de4-a775-4d41b29f1c43" CreationDate="2015-04-01T00:06:55.433" UserId="43351" Text="What the hell, I just lost 582 reputation points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="ac217504-8844-4de4-a775-4d41b29f1c43" CreationDate="2015-04-01T00:06:55.433" UserId="43351" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="e59430da-4609-4351-9f2f-11eef543dec2" CreationDate="2015-04-01T02:29:49.533" UserId="520" Text="I am afraid that, as usual, we can't comment on moderation actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will echo tpg2114's comment that users are only ever removed because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They explicitly request it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As a consequence of breaking the terms of service&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta.stackexchange faq on the matter is [What does “user was removed” mean and why did my reputation change because of it?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a personal note, I'd hate to see you go because you bring a considerable expertise on a subject I don't know nearly enough about. I can appreciate that sudden changes of that magnitude are a heck of a shock and break the immersive nature of the gamification, and I couldn't blame you if you decided to give the site a rest for a while. But I still hope that you'll be back some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126470/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="b54df440-8de0-4d0a-bf15-5998c125ec81" CreationDate="2015-04-01T02:37:16.083" UserId="520" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="I am afraid that, as usual, we can't comment on moderation actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will echo tpg2114's comment that users are only ever removed because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They explicitly request it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As a consequence of breaking the terms of service&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Meta StackExchange [tag:faq] on the matter is [What does “user was removed” mean and why did my reputation change because of it?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HDE 226868 asks *&quot;Isn't there something in place to keep the votes of such high-voting users?&quot;*. I believe that the deletion of high-rep, longtime members is handled very carefully on a case-by-case basis to avoid---well situations very much like we have here. As far as I can tell there is no [tag:faq] about that on Meta StackExchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On a personal note, I'd hate to see you go because you bring a considerable expertise on a subject I don't know nearly enough about. I can appreciate that sudden changes of that magnitude are a heck of a shock and break the immersive nature of the gamification, and I couldn't blame you if you decided to give the site a rest for a while. But I still hope that you'll be back some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126470/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="70aa4931-bc8c-41e1-b80e-07c877af8e57" CreationDate="2015-04-01T06:03:18.827" UserId="1325" Text="Whoa, 1,741 votes removed! (How on Earth did they manage to opvote me the 1 rep point?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that over the last few weeks I've been getting lots of upvotes on old questions, and in her answer to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6621/serial-up-or-down-voting-reversed Gwen said she had been reading old questions and upvoting the ones she liked. I also note she's no longer a member, so that's an obvious contribution to the debit. If so I can't really complain as they were upvotes I hadn't really earned anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From various comments I wonder if there has been a group of friends recently join the site and vote in similar ways. If so that might explain the mass defection (I should make it clear this is just mischievous speculation not inside knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="ab8d74c2-91be-4e0d-9da9-150aa34fe58e" CreationDate="2015-04-01T09:17:22.450" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="Whoa, 1,741 votes removed! (How on Earth did they manage to upvote me the 1 rep point?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that over the last few weeks I've been getting lots of upvotes on old questions, and in her answer to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6621/serial-up-or-down-voting-reversed Gwen said she had been reading old questions and upvoting the ones she liked. I also note she's no longer a member, so that's an obvious contribution to the debit. If so I can't really complain as they were upvotes I hadn't really earned anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From various comments I wonder if there has been a group of friends recently join the site and vote in similar ways. If so that might explain the mass defection (I should make it clear this is just mischievous speculation not inside knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17935" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="1d780568-db91-4b11-8f58-3e993ee38959" CreationDate="2015-04-01T10:51:14.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/583220067145498624" />
  <row Id="17936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="4f917596-fdb3-45a1-b3c1-e0534d128bbc" CreationDate="2015-04-01T13:37:56.600" UserId="124" Text="OK, _normally_ we don't comment on moderation actions, but given the scope of what happened (and, really, the fact that you all figured it out anyway), we thought a brief statement is in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For quite some time we've been investigating a pattern of fraudulent activity involving multiple accounts. When we deleted several accounts which were engaged in vote fraud, it also wiped out the votes they cast. If you were the recipient of any of those votes, you'll see a reputation change reversing the effect of the votes, along with the message &quot;user was removed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for something completely general: I believe it's public information (somewhere on the site or [Meta SE](//meta.stackexchange.com), but I forget where) that &quot;fraudulent activity&quot; includes various ways in which one person uses multiple accounts to do things they couldn't do with a single account. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- upvoting their own posts&#xD;&#xA;- casting multiple votes on other people's posts&#xD;&#xA;- chiming in on discussions of site policy to artificially inflate the support for one side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. The point is that when you lose reputation due to the deletion of an account, it's usually reputation that was not fairly earned in the first place - not through any fault of your own, but because someone else cheated the system to give it to you. And if the activity has been going on for a while, the amounts of reputation involved can be pretty large.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this is enough to satisfy people's concerns. We would like the community to return to the status quo of not discussing details of individual moderator actions, but at the same time we want everyone to be clear that we (mods, SE, the computers... hopefully) are not up to anything nefarious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Hats](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hats.png &quot;...&quot;)](http://www.xkcd.com/455/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="0477603d-d126-47f1-b4dc-c287decb81b3" CreationDate="2015-04-01T16:00:24.677" UserId="4646" Text="This seemed like an interesting question, so I figured I'd do some research, too.  I started with [Kyle's SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/293815/age-score-correlation), and made a few changes to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the original question was about answering old questions with no answers yet, I figured it would be more meaningful to only look at the *first answer* to each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kyle's query bins the ages by day, but doesn't show how many answers go into each bin.  That was easy enough to add, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As it turns out, the age distribution is *heavily* skewed to the left, with almost *all* first answers being posted during the first day (and thus falling into a single bin in Kyle's plot), while the higher bins often had just one answer in them, and so ended up with a lot of noise.  To make the binning more reasonable, I switched to a logarithmic age scale, taking the base-10 logarithm of the difference between question and answer ages, and binning it at intervals of 0.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Finally, to check how much variation I was averaging over, I also added the sample [standard deviation](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) for each bin into the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The modified query is here.](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/295447/age-score-correlation-first-answers-only-logarithmic-binning)  Saving the output as CSV and playing with it in Excel produced the following bubble plot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plot of average first answer score vs. time since the question was asked on Physics Stack Exchange][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The area of each bubble is proportional to the number of answers in the bin.  The dotted trend line is autogenerated by Excel, and I suspect it doesn't actually account for the weight in each bin, but even just eyeballing the bubbles does confirm a clear downward trend (after the first 5 minutes or so, anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the unweighted trend line shown above is perhaps more relevant anyway, if we're mostly interested in answers to old questions (i.e. the right-hand side of the plot); a weighted trend line would be dominated by the age range between 5 minutes and 1 day, during which most first answers are posted, and would probably show an even *stronger* downward trend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it's worth keeping in mind that these averages conceal a *lot* of noise.  To show how much, here's the same plot with &amp;pm;1 s.d. error bars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Same plot as above, with one sigma error bars][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that those are just 1&amp;sigma; error bars, meaning that (assuming a roughly normal score distribution, which may or may not be valid), almost one third of all first answers lie even further away from the mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I would say that, qualitatively, these results confirm Kyle's general conclusion: there *is* a downward trend in answer score as a function of question age.  That said, clearly there's also a lot of variation *not* explained by age alone &amp;mdash; good answers still get more upvotes than bad ones, regardless of how old the question is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZWLl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djreI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="79941191-b1ea-446c-834f-4c80a90caf4a" CreationDate="2015-04-01T16:23:20.490" UserId="46399" Comment="Incorporated DavidZ's suggestions, as mentioned in his comment" Text="_(Answer updated by including Moderator inputs)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All user contributions on Physics.SE are licensed with the following stipulation, as may be seen from the [Terms of Service](http://stackexchange.com/legal) (Section 3), which specify the exact attribution requirements for reusing content outside of the Stack Exchange network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same may also be seen by scrolling to the bottom of this page, which is a mere reminder of the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, attribution is required, i.e. you should cite the source. Once you do that, reusing (&quot;borrowing&quot;) images is allowed, which is consistent with this site's [policy on plagiarism](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, that's also true as a safe, general practice in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="9c857eb1-389c-458f-85f6-18a95284b3df" CreationDate="2015-04-01T17:25:30.390" UserId="4646" Comment="added 795 characters in body" Text="This seemed like an interesting question, so I figured I'd do some research, too.  I started with [Kyle's SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/293815/age-score-correlation), and made a few changes to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the original question was about answering old questions with no answers yet, I figured it would be more meaningful to only look at the *first answer* to each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kyle's query bins the ages by day, but doesn't show how many answers go into each bin.  That was easy enough to add, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As it turns out, the age distribution is *heavily* skewed to the left, with almost *all* first answers being posted during the first day (and thus falling into a single bin in Kyle's plot), while the higher bins often had just one answer in them, and so ended up with a lot of noise.  To make the binning more reasonable, I switched to a logarithmic age scale, taking the base-10 logarithm of the difference between question and answer ages, and binning it at intervals of 0.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Finally, to check how much variation I was averaging over, I also added the sample [standard deviation](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) for each bin into the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The modified query is here.](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/295447/age-score-correlation-first-answers-only-logarithmic-binning)  Saving the output as CSV and playing with it in Excel produced the following bubble plot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plot of average first answer score vs. time since the question was asked on Physics Stack Exchange][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The area of each bubble is proportional to the number of answers in the bin.  The dotted trend line is autogenerated by Excel, and I suspect it doesn't actually account for the weight in each bin, but even just eyeballing the bubbles does confirm a clear downward trend (after the first 5 minutes or so, anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the unweighted trend line shown above is perhaps more relevant anyway, if we're mostly interested in answers to old questions (i.e. the right-hand side of the plot); a weighted trend line would be dominated by the age range between 5 minutes and 1 day, during which most first answers are posted, and would probably show an even *stronger* downward trend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it's worth keeping in mind that these averages conceal a *lot* of noise.  To show how much, here's the same plot with &amp;pm;1 s.d. error bars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Same plot as above, with one sigma error bars][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that those are just 1&amp;sigma; error bars, meaning that (assuming a roughly normal score distribution, which may or may not be valid), almost one third of all first answers lie even further away from the mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I would say that, qualitatively, these results confirm Kyle's general conclusion: there *is* a downward trend in answer score as a function of question age.  That said, clearly there's also a lot of variation *not* explained by age alone &amp;mdash; good answers still get more upvotes than bad ones, regardless of how old the question is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ps.** Just for comparison, here's a combined plot showing the same query results for Physics.SE, [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Average first answer score vs. logarithmic question age for Physics.SE, Math.SE and SO][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bubble sizes for SO have been scaled down by a factor of 10 compared to the other sites; SO is just that big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, especially for SO, there are some funny outlier data points that fall of the left and/or top edge of the plot, but the sizes of those bins are so small that they may be mostly just noise.  Still, it's kind of curious to note that there are, apparently, 82 first answers on SO posted (almost) exactly 10 seconds after the question, with an average score of 49.73(!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZWLl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djreI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vzifG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="051f97c6-b45b-4298-af9b-0997799c3bf1" CreationDate="2015-04-01T20:07:46.450" UserId="4646" Comment="added 584 characters in body" Text="This seemed like an interesting question, so I figured I'd do some research, too.  I started with [Kyle's SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/293815/age-score-correlation), and made a few changes to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the original question was about answering old questions with no answers yet, I figured it would be more meaningful to only look at the *first answer* to each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kyle's query bins the ages by day, but doesn't show how many answers go into each bin.  That was easy enough to add, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As it turns out, the age distribution is *heavily* skewed to the left, with almost *all* first answers being posted during the first day (and thus falling into a single bin in Kyle's plot), while the higher bins often had just one answer in them, and so ended up with a lot of noise.  To make the binning more reasonable, I switched to a logarithmic age scale, taking the base-10 logarithm of the difference between question and answer ages, and binning it at intervals of 0.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Finally, to check how much variation I was averaging over, I also added the sample [standard deviation](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) for each bin into the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The modified query is here.](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/295447/age-score-correlation-first-answers-only-logarithmic-binning)  Saving the output as CSV and playing with it in Excel produced the following bubble plot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plot of average first answer score vs. time since the question was asked on Physics Stack Exchange][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The area of each bubble is proportional to the number of answers in the bin.  The dotted trend line is autogenerated by Excel, and I suspect it doesn't actually account for the weight in each bin, but even just eyeballing the bubbles does confirm a clear downward trend (after the first 5 minutes or so, anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the unweighted trend line shown above is perhaps more relevant anyway, if we're mostly interested in answers to old questions (i.e. the right-hand side of the plot); a weighted trend line would be dominated by the age range between 5 minutes and 1 day, during which most first answers are posted, and would probably show an even *stronger* downward trend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it's worth keeping in mind that these averages conceal a *lot* of noise.  To show how much, here's the same plot with &amp;pm;1 s.d. error bars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Same plot as above, with one sigma error bars][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that those are just 1&amp;sigma; error bars, meaning that (assuming a roughly normal score distribution, which may or may not be valid), almost one third of all first answers lie even further away from the mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I would say that, qualitatively, these results confirm Kyle's general conclusion: there *is* a downward trend in answer score as a function of question age.  That said, clearly there's also a lot of variation *not* explained by age alone &amp;mdash; good answers still get more upvotes than bad ones, regardless of how old the question is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ps.** Just for comparison, here's a combined plot showing the same query results for Physics.SE, [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Average first answer score vs. logarithmic question age for Physics.SE, Math.SE and SO][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bubble sizes for SO have been scaled down by a factor of 10 compared to the other sites; SO is just that big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, especially for SO, there are some funny outlier data points that fall of the left and/or top edge of the plot, but the sizes of those bins are so small that they may be mostly just noise.  Still, it's kind of curious to note that there are, apparently, 82 first answers on SO posted (almost) exactly 10 seconds after the question, with an average score of 49.73(!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pps.** It seems that the huge average scores, mentioned above, for first answers posted just a few seconds after the question are mostly due to self-answers.  Apparently, before SE added the feature to allow you to post a question and an answer at the same time, what some people used to do was to write the answer in advance, save a copy locally, write and post their question and then immediately answer it afterwards.  Clearly, these answers were often excellent, and thus gained a *lot* of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I updated the SEDE query to exclude self-answers and re-ran it, but it turns out that, above one minute (&amp;approx; 10&lt;sup&gt;1.8&lt;/sup&gt; seconds) or so, the differences are minimal.  Evidently, the sharp downward trend between 1 and 5 minutes, especially on SO, is due to other causes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZWLl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djreI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vzifG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="c5840d91-cd52-484c-a8c6-688976f46f6f" CreationDate="2015-04-01T20:31:04.927" UserId="4646" Comment="added 653 characters in body" Text="This seemed like an interesting question, so I figured I'd do some research, too.  I started with [Kyle's SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/293815/age-score-correlation), and made a few changes to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the original question was about answering old questions with no answers yet, I figured it would be more meaningful to only look at the *first answer* to each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kyle's query bins the ages by day, but doesn't show how many answers go into each bin.  That was easy enough to add, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As it turns out, the age distribution is *heavily* skewed to the left, with almost *all* first answers being posted during the first day (and thus falling into a single bin in Kyle's plot), while the higher bins often had just one answer in them, and so ended up with a lot of noise.  To make the binning more reasonable, I switched to a logarithmic age scale, taking the base-10 logarithm of the difference between question and answer ages, and binning it at intervals of 0.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Finally, to check how much variation I was averaging over, I also added the sample [standard deviation](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) for each bin into the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The modified query is here.](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/295447/age-score-correlation-first-answers-only-logarithmic-binning)  Saving the output as CSV and playing with it in Excel produced the following bubble plot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plot of average first answer score vs. time since the question was asked on Physics Stack Exchange][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The area of each bubble is proportional to the number of answers in the bin.  The dotted trend line is autogenerated by Excel, and I suspect it doesn't actually account for the weight in each bin, but even just eyeballing the bubbles does confirm a clear downward trend (after the first 5 minutes or so, anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the unweighted trend line shown above is perhaps more relevant anyway, if we're mostly interested in answers to old questions (i.e. the right-hand side of the plot); a weighted trend line would be dominated by the age range between 5 minutes and 1 day, during which most first answers are posted, and would probably show an even *stronger* downward trend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it's worth keeping in mind that these averages conceal a *lot* of noise.  To show how much, here's the same plot with &amp;pm;1 s.d. error bars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Same plot as above, with one sigma error bars][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that those are just 1&amp;sigma; error bars, meaning that (assuming a roughly normal score distribution, which may or may not be valid), almost one third of all first answers lie even further away from the mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I would say that, qualitatively, these results confirm Kyle's general conclusion: there *is* a downward trend in answer score as a function of question age.  That said, clearly there's also a lot of variation *not* explained by age alone &amp;mdash; good answers still get more upvotes than bad ones, regardless of how old the question is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ps.** Just for comparison, here's a combined plot showing the same query results for Physics.SE, [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Average first answer score vs. logarithmic question age for Physics.SE, Math.SE and SO][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bubble sizes for SO have been scaled down by a factor of 10 compared to the other sites; SO is just that big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, especially for SO, there are some funny outlier data points that fall of the left and/or top edge of the plot, but the sizes of those bins are so small that they may be mostly just noise.  Still, it's kind of curious to note that there are, apparently, 82 first answers on SO posted (almost) exactly 10 seconds after the question, with an average score of 49.73(!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pps.** It seems that the huge average scores, mentioned above, for first answers posted just a few seconds after the question are mostly due to self-answers.  Apparently, before SE added the feature to allow you to post a question and an answer at the same time, what some people used to do was to write the answer in advance, save a copy locally, write and post their question and then immediately answer it afterwards.  Clearly, these answers were often excellent, and thus gained a *lot* of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went and updated the SEDE query to exclude self-answers and re-ran it, but it turns out that, above one minute (&amp;approx; 10&lt;sup&gt;1.8&lt;/sup&gt; seconds) or so, the differences are minimal.  Evidently, the sharp downward trend between 1 and 5 minutes, especially on SO, is due to other causes.  Anyway, the last plot above now excludes self-answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ppps.** I compared the plots more carefully, and noticed that excluding self-answers *raises* the average first answer score in the 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; seconds (&amp;approx; 1 day) to 10&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; seconds (&amp;approx; 3 months) range noticeably (by about 0.1 to 0.2 points or so) on Math.SE and SO.  Apparently, there's a non-negligible fraction of users on those sites who, if they don't get any answer to their question, will eventually post a self-answer that is often poorly received.  The effect here on Physics.SE is less clear, but that may be simply due to the smaller number of answers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZWLl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djreI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/in8It.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="91a0a7a8-2103-418c-b771-a505fb0efc44" CreationDate="2015-04-01T21:56:27.777" UserId="43351" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="What the...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users removed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously thinking of quitting this site for good (well, not really)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="ddf52686-b436-4814-bafd-ff664a676ac8" CreationDate="2015-04-02T21:30:44.047" UserId="25301" Comment="fixed one link , added another link" Text="#Are there fewer votes on old answers?&#xD;&#xA;Using [my recent Data Query *Age-Score correlation*](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/293815/age-score-correlation), I gathered the average net scores of answers as a function of the number of days between the answer posting date and the question posting date. The figure below&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; shows the result of the query:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a slope at the early part (t ~&lt; 200), suggesting that the most upvotes come when the answer is posted nearest to when the question is posted (which makes sense, especially when thinking about the Hot Network Question Effect). There is also a relatively flat net *positive* score for t &gt;~ 200, with obvious outliers all  over the place&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zooming in to the  -5 &lt; y &lt; 5 range, we see a rather vacuous region that I can only presume is populated by those who have deleted their answer after a few negative votes early on&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, while the bottom right is populated by those who've likely left one crack-pot answer &amp; never came back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring back to either figure, we can see the long &quot;stripes&quot; appearing in the data. This is due to the fact that there are fewer answers that are also down/upvoted less than early on. **So this appears to me that there *are indeed* fewer votes for older answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Are the Late Answers either really bad or really good?&#xD;&#xA;With a 300 day delay between Q &amp; A, there are a grand total of 633 answers with a net positive score, 158 with a net negative score and 498 answers with zero score. Those nonzero scores drop to 385 answers with &gt;= 1 and 77 with &lt;= -1, leaving 329 mostly okay answers (that is, most of those remaining have a score between 0 and 1)--that's an 39.2% and 51.3% decrease in answer count, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that slightly more than half the Late Answers have a score &gt; |1|. Those nonzero score counts decrease to 143 net positive and 26 net negative when using |Score|&gt;2 as the metric (a 77% and 83% reduction). So it appears to me that there is no clear bimodality, based on the numbers&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the log of the delay between Q &amp; A, we can see a slightly different picture (also using the -5 &lt; y &lt; +5 range):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to suggest the same thing as above: there are lots of &quot;just okay&quot; answers, few really bad ones, and a fair number of really good ones. But since bad ones tend to get deleted, it's kinda hard (for me at least) to completely rule out a complete bimodality, so I'll say this one is **plausible.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I've posted my (really simple) Python script for plotting this on my &#xD;&#xA;[github page](https://github.com/kylekanos/Age-Score-Correlation)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The eye-catching (311,20) is entirely due to [this post by Ron Maimon](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/14752/25301). You can easily (fork and) modify [this Data Query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/293752/answers-to-old-questions) to catch for whatever `AnswerScore=N` or age you want--be warned though, this can fail due to sheer volume of results. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Though it seems strange that there are so few values close to 0 net upvotes in the t &lt; 200 range &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4 Admittedly, we have some heavily downvoted Late Answers that are deleted and thus cannot be accounted for in this mini-study.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JL9WV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/93WR5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkv2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="da757162-1838-4f0f-89e3-81123304e808" CreationDate="2015-04-04T08:00:54.667" UserId="46399" Text="Invert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MIJ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the central problem was &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solves the problem once and for all, since it is impossible that the other Jim would be only Jim. It must be Jim(something), and so it is less probable that the 'something' would have MIJ occurring as the first three characters. (e.g. Jiminion is the other Jim, I believe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think inverted usernames are employed on this site. e.g. inverting [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib) gives bigguy, which makes sense as a username!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="ef5f5bed-43aa-4bb3-9c8e-661987d40d2a" CreationDate="2015-04-04T10:07:11.383" UserId="57370" Text="Flip it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ɯᴉſ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be hard to ping, but who cares. It's *awesome*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="826d2a84-adad-4721-ad9b-d38b88b50384" CreationDate="2015-04-04T19:27:19.687" UserId="56299" Text="I've been following the [tag:history] for some time now, and it led me to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156/are-history-of-physics-questions-allowed) (also [here](https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6421/should-old-questions-about-history-of-physics-be-migrated-to-hsm-se)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of, &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="826d2a84-adad-4721-ad9b-d38b88b50384" CreationDate="2015-04-04T19:27:19.687" UserId="56299" Text="Revisiting history" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="826d2a84-adad-4721-ad9b-d38b88b50384" CreationDate="2015-04-04T19:27:19.687" UserId="56299" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="4cbd6837-3311-4e81-826d-f0f95561df9a" CreationDate="2015-04-04T19:55:35.017" UserId="56299" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I've been following the [tag:history] tag for some time now, and it led me to [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156/are-history-of-physics-questions-allowed) (also [here](https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6421/should-old-questions-about-history-of-physics-be-migrated-to-hsm-se)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though. I'm neutral on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="be6e32cc-ef30-4be1-b8d6-475e7636879a" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:15:06.817" UserId="37236" Text="This is an [interesting pickle][1]. So, on the brink of what seemed to be covering angular motion entirely, I made a startling retrospective discovery:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;BIG MISCONCEPTIONS.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any sane individual would do in this case, I knocked out my Physics teacher with a brick and ran to the nearest computer to log into StackExchange Physics. My head was bubbling with excitement, and I was in a natural high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then came the answers! I was overjoyed. But none of them gave me what I wanted. So, I asked again. I clarified sub-questions, but I still did not get it. Life was falling apart, and the weather was getting warmer. There were conflicting answers, and people argued over my question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was sweet, really, except for the fact that *it was confusing the shit out of me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I managed to understand my problem on StackExchange chat, but even that was a coincidence. The guy I was originally chatting to was meticulously explaining the wrong thing to me (he knew no better), and I entranced by the charm of knowledge online, more importantly knowledge *on StackExchange*. However, another guy started arguing over the question, and then two guys supported him. I glanced at his profile, and saw that he'd done a doctorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What surprises me is that on the first two days of my question, the wrong answer was actually *upvoted*! I automatically assumed that it was correct, and continued to believe so until further the chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've told my little story, here is my problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *upvoted* the wrong guy's answer. And now I can't take back my upvote, even if I know that he's wrong. The change in decision was made because I *thought* that it was the correct answer but found out that it was wrong. (And there's no way you've implemented a neural link to the website, right? I've got an [electroencephalograph][2] waiting to be used.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I do now? How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173987/how-can-i-relate-linear-and-angular-motion-using-a-single-formula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://store.neurosky.com/products/mindwave-mobile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="be6e32cc-ef30-4be1-b8d6-475e7636879a" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:15:06.817" UserId="37236" Text="My life has been a lie. Today I learnt that StackExchange is not perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="be6e32cc-ef30-4be1-b8d6-475e7636879a" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:15:06.817" UserId="37236" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="11f10096-b39e-41d4-9a22-bc6335ad950e" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:21:09.367" UserId="37236" Comment="deleted 108 characters in body; edited title" Text="This is an [interesting pickle][1]. So, on the brink of what seemed to be covering angular motion entirely, I realized that I had ***big misconceptions***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any sane individual would do in this case, I knocked out my Physics teacher with a brick and ran to the nearest computer to log into StackExchange Physics. My head was bubbling with excitement, and I was in a natural high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were wrong answers. I *upvoted* a wrong answer. And now I can't take back my upvote. At the time of upvoting, I had assumed that the answer would be right due to the upvotes it had received, but now realize that I should've asked for citations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I do now? How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173987/how-can-i-relate-linear-and-angular-motion-using-a-single-formula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://store.neurosky.com/products/mindwave-mobile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17955" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="11f10096-b39e-41d4-9a22-bc6335ad950e" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:21:09.367" UserId="37236" Comment="deleted 108 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I take back my vote now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="ad440718-61b1-4b58-951e-b1eab6b40ac2" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:26:39.120" UserId="37236" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="This is an [interesting pickle][1]. So, on the brink of what seemed to be covering angular motion entirely, I realized that I had ***big misconceptions***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any sane individual would do in this case, I knocked out my Physics teacher with a brick and ran to the nearest computer to log into StackExchange Physics. I asked my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were wrong answers. I *upvoted* a wrong answer. And now I can't take back my upvote. At the time of upvoting, I had assumed that the answer would be right due to the upvotes it had received, but now realize that I should've asked for citations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I do now? How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173987/how-can-i-relate-linear-and-angular-motion-using-a-single-formula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://store.neurosky.com/products/mindwave-mobile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="d468515a-cb83-4535-8075-a030d855bbde" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:29:30.433" UserId="37236" Comment="edited body" Text="This is an [interesting pickle][1]. So, on the brink of what seemed to be covering angular motion entirely, I realized that I had ***big misconceptions***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any sane individual would do in this case, I knocked out my Physics teacher with a brick, ran to the nearest computer and logged into StackExchange Physic to ask my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were some wrong answers. I *upvoted* a wrong answer. And now I can't take back my upvote. At the time of upvoting, I had assumed that the answer would be right due to the upvotes it had received, but now realize that I should've asked for citations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I do now? How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173987/how-can-i-relate-linear-and-angular-motion-using-a-single-formula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://store.neurosky.com/products/mindwave-mobile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6664" RevisionGUID="554a39f2-8e1e-4ebb-8162-0a41c6a7380a" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:37:05.583" UserId="1325" Text="You can click again on the up arrow to remove an upvote, though I think this is only possible for a limited time. I see you have accepted the answer - you can click again on the tick to un-accept the answer and there is no time limit on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should un-accept the answer if it isn't an answer to your question, but I wouldn't worry about the stray upvote. After all, the person posting the answer has put a lot of effort into it, and even if the effort was misdirected it deserves some recognition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="7d80be2b-1746-4538-beac-3c9093143da3" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:40:54.770" UserId="37236" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="This is an [interesting pickle][1]. So, on the brink of what seemed to be covering angular motion entirely, I realized that I had ***big misconceptions***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any sane individual would do in this case, I knocked out my Physics teacher with a brick, ran to the nearest computer and logged into StackExchange Physic to ask my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were some wrong answers. I *upvoted* a wrong answer. And now I can't take back my upvote. At the time of upvoting, I had assumed that the answer would be right due to the upvotes it had received, but now realize that I should've asked for citations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This is the wrong answer][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I do now? How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173987/how-can-i-relate-linear-and-angular-motion-using-a-single-formula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/174100/37236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="7e678c53-1053-451b-9c65-42f35cf88ecf" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:58:08.190" UserId="1325" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my hair and spit with rage when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good history of science SE why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][2], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="6b558652-377c-4909-abf9-8fbe4c2f8e3c" CreationDate="2015-04-05T06:37:38.063" UserId="1325" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my clothes and tear my hair when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good history of science SE why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][2], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6666" RevisionGUID="736d856f-6d11-4b08-a6ec-54d2d731b361" CreationDate="2015-04-05T08:20:54.733" UserId="124" Text="&gt; How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As John's answer said, you can change your vote within 5 minutes of casting it. After that, it's locked in until the answer is edited. So something you can do is edit the answer so that you can change your vote. Of course, don't make a _frivolous_ edit, but nearly every answer has _something_ you can fix up (maybe the math syntax, or adding paragraph breaks, fixing spelling, etc.) which would justify a good edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6666" RevisionGUID="925df010-1960-44fa-9f0c-a5fd5b0d8b42" CreationDate="2015-04-05T08:54:55.567" UserId="124" Comment="added 481 characters in body" Text="&gt; How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As John's answer said, you can change your vote within 5 minutes of casting it. After that, it's locked in until the answer is edited. So something you can do is edit the answer so that you can change your vote. Of course, don't make a _frivolous_ edit, but nearly every answer has _something_ you can fix up (maybe the math syntax, or adding paragraph breaks, fixing spelling, etc.) which would improve the answer and justify a good edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else you can do is post a link to the question or answer in chat, or here on Meta if you have some reason to ask a meta question about it, and that will draw more attention and more votes to the answer. (Of course that's exactly what you did in this case.) If downvoting the answer is justified, presumably it will tend to get more downvotes the more attention it receives. Conversely if upvoting is justified, it will tend to get more upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="0f47b6da-a7a9-4de4-a90e-6e79f6e680e9" CreationDate="2015-04-05T10:58:33.133" UserId="74058" Text="I know that this forum should not replace a good bibliographic research, but... It is quite useful to know which book or paper or tutorial or any other external source of information that people have in mind when they explain advanced physical concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, having quickly a common background on a topic by giving explicit references may facilitate further constructive discussion or avoid &quot;(apparently) stupid questions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to others opinion, I think that giving explicit references and sources may help students to develop their autonomy. It gives them the example of what is a good source of information, incite them to read and show them the importance of references in research. It is always a good thing to enhance this culture, even among experienced researchers.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Thus, **I think that Physics stack should promote explicit source citing. Users should be rewarded for giving explicit references and other should be able to vote for the pertinence of the given sources.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="0f47b6da-a7a9-4de4-a90e-6e79f6e680e9" CreationDate="2015-04-05T10:58:33.133" UserId="74058" Text="Explicit references matter!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="0f47b6da-a7a9-4de4-a90e-6e79f6e680e9" CreationDate="2015-04-05T10:58:33.133" UserId="74058" Text="|discussion|feature-request|best-practices|site-enhancement|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="8489fb72-074e-4114-ac25-3c716c0c1178" CreationDate="2015-04-05T11:10:24.720" UserId="124" Text="We already do this: an answer which is referenced is, in general, more likely to receive more upvotes than one which is not. Voting is the incentive to reference sources as needed. Not to mention, an answer which has relevant links just _feels_ like a better answer, even from the perspective of the one writing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we're not going to _require_ references (or I should say, I strongly oppose doing so), the way Wikipedia or [Skeptics SE](//skeptics.stackexchange.com) does. For one thing, finding a good source for something you already know well takes a lot of time. Also, we care more about being right, and to a slightly lesser extent, being credible, than about having a trail of references that everyone can check. There are other ways to establish credibility besides referencing, and also, being referenced is not the same as being right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="dbea6b8a-c3e2-4ee6-8def-b64c5ef4937b" CreationDate="2015-04-05T14:57:00.667" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="I am asking this in relation to confirmation of assumption types questions from self study people only, with no access to formal teaching resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do appreciate that confirmation type questions may sometimes been seen as &quot;liking to watch our selves type&quot; but from most self study people I have dealt with, this is not the case, especially in the older generation, such as myself.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I ask a question, and the answer is either yes or no, is this allowed under the rules of the site?  If it is not, then I accept that as valid but I am left confused by some of the answers I see. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, that the range of answers provided to what initially seems like a simple confirmation type question can help to teach self study students the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. That their assumption is correct and provide confidence to carry on self studying.&#xD;&#xA;It can also help clarify the particular point in the self student's mind as he/she is writing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b.  The range of answers provided can also provide additional assistance to the self study student by referring to additional resources or areas to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c.  I have seen that often a simple question from a person with little background in the subject can produce lots of answers, ranging from the low level to the higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imo, this site  greatly benefits from the range of answers given and these answers are the backbone of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, my question: should I, given the points listed above,  refrain from  &#xD;&#xA;looking for confirmation even though to me, it is a perfectly valid question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="dbea6b8a-c3e2-4ee6-8def-b64c5ef4937b" CreationDate="2015-04-05T14:57:00.667" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="Self Study Students: Confirmation Type Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="dbea6b8a-c3e2-4ee6-8def-b64c5ef4937b" CreationDate="2015-04-05T14:57:00.667" UserDisplayName="user74893" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6670" RevisionGUID="d21ab0df-5640-4b39-8803-7ad46e10a453" CreationDate="2015-04-05T15:10:32.867" UserId="25301" Text="**It is my vote, and I will vote as I please.**  &#xD;&#xA;If I want to downvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to upvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to do nothing to your question/answer, I will. Same thing for everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copying from [my answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6652/25301) to [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6651/25301),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. No matter how much you disagree with it, you cannot change our ways about how we will vote (there shouldn't be any  reason for you to *expect* that we change to your whim anyways). We are **free** to vote entirely as we please, up or down and for whatever dumb reason we want (whether the post is [obvious troll being obvious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or because we simply don't like the person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you honestly feel that an answer without citations&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; is not useful&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, feel free to vote as you please. Just don't tell me that I should vote your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I would say that for *many* of the questions posted here, it would be entirely unnecessary to need one in an answer&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The [alt-text](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images) over the up and down buttons for answers say *This answer is useful.* and *This answer is not useful*, respectively, so my language there matches&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="dcaed81b-cfa5-435b-905f-eddffb2f81e7" CreationDate="2015-04-05T15:14:47.760" UserId="6634" Text="The danger in such questions is exactly what ACuriousMind pointed out -- if the answer is simply &quot;Yup, you're right&quot; then it really isn't a good fit for our site. On the other hand, if the answer is &quot;No, here's where your thinking is flawed and the physics/concepts/math behind the right answer&quot; then it is useful to the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it's not a great policy to wait for an answer to make a question good/on-topic or bad/off-topic. There needs to be a way to express a question such that no matter what the answer is, the question and answer are useful to others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some ways, it is just a matter of rephrasing the question. Rather than asking &quot;Am I correct in these assumptions?&quot; one could ask &quot;What are the assumptions that make this correct?&quot; In that way, if what you think is correct, you'll see an answer that explains what you were thinking anyway. And if you are wrong, you'll see an answer that explains what the right answer is. And then you could even make follow-up questions where you say &quot;Here's what I thought, but this answer says otherwise, why am I wrong?&quot; and we end up with a much better body of knowledge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So don't post questions that could just be answered by &quot;Yes&quot; or &quot;No.&quot; Always look to rephrase them so you get what you want (a &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; that you are right), but that no matter the outcome there is an answer that has technical content that benefits everybody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="17623e51-fcc3-4231-aa7d-def5e1a8cdaf" CreationDate="2015-04-05T15:27:46.847" UserId="25301" Text="If the question is literally asking for a yes/no answer, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I'd downvote because it's a terrible question. Beyond the fact that answers have a minimum character count (meaning the answer *ought* to be more than &quot;Yes&quot; or &quot;No&quot;), there is no added benefit to the collection of questions &amp; answers to this site for that type of question and answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I'd vote to close because [check my work problems](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) are considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this type of question is *easily* molded into an appropriate question for this site. For example, rather than saying, *Am I right?*, you could say, *Why is this the case?* or *Under what conditions does this not work?* I think that doing something like this will both *confirm* and *extend* your understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="495f7bda-ad5c-4e4a-bc52-37c78f5e8b13" CreationDate="2015-04-07T13:38:53.897" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="We've definitely agreed before that (at least some) historical questions are **on topic**, and I would urge close voters to refrain from closing such questions simply for being historical **unless and until policy changes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know from my own experience monitoring astro questions that a nonnegligible number of people seem to think a question can only belong in one place, and that if there is a more specific site that caters to the topic, the question should be migrated away from here. However this is simply not the case. Combined with the intrinsic bias of looking at comment votes (they can't be voted down!) and the fact that most people prowling the review queues are doing so *intent on closing questions*, and I think it's fair to say some upvoted &quot;history is off topic&quot; comments do not in themselves constitute policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I have no problem with us deciding to make history off-topic, and I have no problem with this decision being made solely because we now have an HSM site. The questions would hopefully flourish there, and everyone on this site who thinks history is irrelevant can continue happily living in their bubble in which all the right answers are known from on high right from the beginning.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, though, we would have to consider several points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. What should we do with old history questions? They're too old to migrate, and we wouldn't want to flood HSM with a bunch of them all at once anyway. Systematically close them all? Leave them around? [Lock them as historical?][1]&#xD;&#xA;  2. Users would have to be informed about the policy. This means a definitive FAQ meta post, a deprecation warning in the [tag:history] tag, and/or a special close reason.&#xD;&#xA;  3. What if HSM fails? Do we go back to accepting historical questions? Do we import their physics questions? This isn't just about contingency planning per se; I think an answer to this question will help define *why* we do not want history here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Strong words, I know. But I maintain that anyone who thinks physics is nothing more than learning presently-accepted facts out of a book is deluding themselves. In order to *be a physicist*, one must learn how to build *new* theories and experiments. Historical context can, ideally, provide some insight into how to think when you don't already know the answer. Of course, I don't insist that this site cater to every facet of training physicists, otherwise we'd be morally obliged to become a homework help service too.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126587/what-is-a-historical-lock-and-what-is-it-used-for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17979" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="e53ddc80-3765-479d-abb2-bb585efaa540" CreationDate="2015-04-08T11:29:58.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/585766530060853249" />
  <row Id="17980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="e1a7a3bd-27c5-4c9f-9301-e155ca7214da" CreationDate="2015-04-08T14:59:58.170" UserId="50419" Text="I am not sure whether it's a bug or not. But if you hover over the menu below banner labelled 'Physics', the background changes to light blue, however, that background comes behind the written texts on the page. This kind of makes the design look a bit untidy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the rest of the page be lowered or the background's height be reduced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="e1a7a3bd-27c5-4c9f-9301-e155ca7214da" CreationDate="2015-04-08T14:59:58.170" UserId="50419" Text="Bug Fix: the tabs in the Physics forum appear cluttered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="e1a7a3bd-27c5-4c9f-9301-e155ca7214da" CreationDate="2015-04-08T14:59:58.170" UserId="50419" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="3e446560-ae21-448a-8e91-4650bcb5b5c2" CreationDate="2015-04-08T15:43:44.153" UserDisplayName="user74893" Comment="deleted 244 characters in body" Text="I am asking this in relation to confirmation of assumption types questions from self study people only, with no access to formal teaching resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I ask a question, and the answer is either yes or no, is this allowed under the rules of the site?  If it is not, then I accept that as valid but I am left confused by some of the answers I see. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, that the range of answers provided to what initially seems like a simple confirmation type question can help to teach self study students the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. That their assumption is correct and provide confidence to carry on self studying.&#xD;&#xA;It can also help clarify the particular point in the self student's mind as he/she is writing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b.  The range of answers provided can also provide additional assistance to the self study student by referring to additional resources or areas to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c.  I have seen that often a simple question from a person with little background in the subject can produce lots of answers, ranging from the low level to the higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imo, this site  greatly benefits from the range of answers given and these answers are the backbone of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, my question: should I, given the points listed above,  refrain from  &#xD;&#xA;looking for confirmation even though to me, it is a perfectly valid question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="85e6f9ac-a0c4-4076-9b31-80e99b1fb879" CreationDate="2015-04-08T15:50:34.110" UserId="46399" Comment="Removed the incorrect part pointed out by Jim. (Jimnosperm that is)" Text="Invert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MIJ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the central problem was &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will work unless one of the other Jims also lands up on this post! This is because there is no uniqueness theorem for usernames on the site, so MIJ's already taken doesn't mean it can't be taken again. But I guess that holds for every single of the suggestions above and below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think inverted usernames are employed on this site. e.g. inverting [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib) gives bigguy, which makes sense as a username!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="eb1fe90a-9744-4a64-9b94-2ff5b3e7b223" CreationDate="2015-04-08T17:28:58.547" UserId="50419" Comment="added a snapshot" Text="I am not sure whether it's a bug or not. But if you hover over the menu below banner labelled 'Physics', the background changes to light blue, however, that background comes behind the written texts on the page. This kind of makes the design look a bit untidy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the rest of the page be lowered or the background's height be reduced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![The banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the `forum appear cluttered`? That! It looks a bit messy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DTreR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17986" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="cf448368-be82-4dfe-aacd-fa8bd4bbf6f7" CreationDate="2015-04-08T20:05:39.330" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6114],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="17987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="73c23c62-ed49-4588-9469-430acfe883b9" CreationDate="2015-04-09T09:46:04.193" UserId="76233" Text="When I am not logged in, I see this on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds good. But when I hit the &quot;ask a question&quot; button, I see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't that a contradiction? Maybe people find it dubious if there's *no registration required* yet they have to sign up in order to use the service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7HGhG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nyEai.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="73c23c62-ed49-4588-9469-430acfe883b9" CreationDate="2015-04-09T09:46:04.193" UserId="76233" Text="Is there really &quot;no registration required&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="73c23c62-ed49-4588-9469-430acfe883b9" CreationDate="2015-04-09T09:46:04.193" UserId="76233" Text="|bug|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="14aff021-ff9a-4178-88b5-2d9458964c37" CreationDate="2015-04-09T13:00:26.270" UserId="25301" Text="[Asked and answered on Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120707/clarify-the-no-registration-required-message). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it is that the original meaning of *no registration* was that other, similar Q&amp;A sites required you to register *just to **see** the answers*; this is not the case here. You should be able to answer questions without registering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="675e8b9f-42e3-4927-92a6-f4f9b587a272" CreationDate="2015-04-09T13:58:18.550" UserId="25301" Comment="added link to &amp; quotes from FAQ, referenced another Mother Meta post" Text="[Asked and answered on Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120707/clarify-the-no-registration-required-message). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it is that the original meaning of *no registration* was that other, similar Q&amp;A sites required you to register *just to **see** the answers*; this is not the case here. You should be able to answer questions without registering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is more explicitly stated in the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/) (specifically the [Why should I create an account?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-register) under the [My Account](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/account) header)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Registration is not required to participate on Stack Exchange; you can read, answer, and suggest edits as an anonymous user, much like on Wikipedia. There are some things you won’t be able to do on the site without registering, however, such as vote. Registering is easy, and once logged in, you can gain other key privileges by earning reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original policy *was* no registration required, but the original site ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/)) was receiving [several *thousand* questions per day](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (QPD) so the creator of the site, [Jeff Atwood](http://meta.stackexchange.com/users/1/jeff-atwood), changed it to require registration for *asking* questions (in attempts to stave off the sheer number of QPD). The comment thread under Jeff's answer is worth the read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="2dca5515-b8b2-4a15-8844-6bde9e05c66f" CreationDate="2015-04-09T15:49:43.000" UserId="1325" Text="Naming no names, but please can we have a ban on using lmgtfy.com in comments. I appreciate how frustrating it can be that users post questions without having done the most basic Google search. But pointing them at lmgtfy.com is just snide and unbecoming of an august company such as ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just downvote, vote to close and then imagine yourself interviewing the offender for a job at your university in years to come." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="2dca5515-b8b2-4a15-8844-6bde9e05c66f" CreationDate="2015-04-09T15:49:43.000" UserId="1325" Text="Use of lmgtfy.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="2dca5515-b8b2-4a15-8844-6bde9e05c66f" CreationDate="2015-04-09T15:49:43.000" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="20376152-3137-495d-8079-374756eb67c6" CreationDate="2015-04-09T15:53:49.547" UserId="1325" Comment="oops" Text="Naming no names, but please can we have a ban on using lmgtfy.com in comments. I appreciate how frustrating it can be that users post questions without having done the most basic Google search. But pointing them at lmgtfy.com is just snide and unbecoming of an august company such as ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just downvote, vote to close and then imagine yourself interviewing the offender for a job at your university in years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later**: doh, I showed [insufficient effort][1] in checking for duplicates. This was discussed in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links. Oh well, it probably doesn't hurt to jog memories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="9f06a86d-9cad-494b-bcb6-d34907ca0c29" CreationDate="2015-04-09T15:55:52.880" UserId="6634" Text="Come on John, [haven't you done a google search](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ameta.stackexchange.com+lmgtfy)? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, as QMechcanic posted, [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links) basically tells people to not to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [post on mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links) says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in *other* ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="c67d29c8-3e2c-4278-a920-ab17564bb604" CreationDate="2015-04-09T16:00:17.050" UserId="6634" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Come on John, [haven't you done a google search](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ameta.stackexchange.com+lmgtfy)? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, as QMechcanic linked to in the comments on your question, [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links) basically tells people to not to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [post on mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links) says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in *other* ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="78f5ab11-9380-4f3f-afce-62727c9e68c5" CreationDate="2015-04-09T16:03:01.740" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="Come on John, [haven't you done a google search](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ameta.stackexchange.com+lmgtfy)? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, as Qmechanic linked to in the comments on your question, [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links) basically tells people to not to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [post on mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links) says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in *other* ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="a8d84d27-a0e7-4392-ac3b-c5c77f8164bb" CreationDate="2015-04-10T02:32:24.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/586356021469253632" />
  <row Id="18001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="81b0523c-efbe-42bb-ad1a-f3d9871ba58b" CreationDate="2015-04-10T08:29:02.577" UserId="75502" Text="Earlier I posted a question which is flagged as it is inappropriate and I could not delete it due to answered. Now I changed both the title and content see link below, my question is since the new question is entirely different from the original flagged question is this recycling of question allowed? The comments and answer posted for original question is irrelevant to the new question is there any advise what to do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171818/is-negative-energy-a-consequence-of-gravitational-energy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="81b0523c-efbe-42bb-ad1a-f3d9871ba58b" CreationDate="2015-04-10T08:29:02.577" UserId="75502" Text="How do I recycle my earlier question which is flagged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="81b0523c-efbe-42bb-ad1a-f3d9871ba58b" CreationDate="2015-04-10T08:29:02.577" UserId="75502" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18004" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="082c1263-dd6c-45ce-b120-b1f27ec00a87" CreationDate="2015-04-10T08:49:20.730" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6681" RevisionGUID="554eddd9-3ac0-418a-b0c6-cd2ddea71dd5" CreationDate="2015-04-10T09:12:02.983" UserId="124" Text="No, this sort of recycling is not allowed. In general, any edit which completely changes the essential nature of a question is not allowed, because - as you noticed - it invalidates existing answers, and it also messes things up for people who may have bookmarked the question to come back to it later, and so on. If you want to completely change a question, just post a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Editing an answer to change it completely is not so bad, but only if you are the one who originally posted the answer, and it's rather discourteous if someone else's answer references yours. So, let's say, try not to do that very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any time an edit invalidates _comments_, that's fine. Just flag one of the comments as obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you should also roll back the edit that completely changed your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="5d76e879-25a1-4cbf-98b1-b5817e493477" CreationDate="2015-04-10T13:02:28.003" UserId="25301" Comment="clarified the point of the registration as per Oded" Text="[Asked and answered on Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120707/clarify-the-no-registration-required-message). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it is that the original meaning of *no registration* was that other, similar Q&amp;A sites required you to register *just to **see** the answers*; this is not the case here. You should be able to answer questions without registering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is more explicitly stated in the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/) (specifically the [Why should I create an account?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-register) under the [My Account](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/account) header)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Registration is not required to participate on Stack Exchange; you can read, answer, and suggest edits as an anonymous user, much like on Wikipedia. There are some things you won’t be able to do on the site without registering, however, such as vote. Registering is easy, and once logged in, you can gain other key privileges by earning reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original policy *was* no registration required, but the original site ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/)) was receiving [several *thousand* questions per day](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (QPD), many of which were *low quality*. So the creator of the site, [Jeff Atwood](http://meta.stackexchange.com/users/1/jeff-atwood), changed it to require registration for *asking* questions (in attempts to stave off the sheer number of bad questions). The comment thread under Jeff's answer is worth the read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="196fdd51-9fdc-4f94-9fc5-6aaedca458f2" CreationDate="2015-04-10T16:10:46.493" UserId="7743" Text="I'm very curious and like to understand physical concepts. So I search the internet and ask questions on the site.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is a problem: my understanding isn't complete about the subject sometimes I don't even know what concepts I need to look up. The internet is running low on easy to understand texts and figures when I'm trying to understand something in the more advanced fields like the general relativity and quantum field theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when I ask a question, and I get a highly technical answer that uses lots of advanced mathematical concepts I don't understand yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no doubt that it's a correct answer, because it receives upvotes. But the answer doesn't give me that &quot;Aha!&quot; moment, and makes me feel dumb. Probably I'd need to spend weeks or months to look up all the concepts to fully understand the response I got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What should I do when face a response like this? &#xD;&#xA;- How should I ask my question that invites an easy to understand answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="196fdd51-9fdc-4f94-9fc5-6aaedca458f2" CreationDate="2015-04-10T16:10:46.493" UserId="7743" Text="How should I ask a question to understand the answer I will get?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="196fdd51-9fdc-4f94-9fc5-6aaedca458f2" CreationDate="2015-04-10T16:10:46.493" UserId="7743" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6683" RevisionGUID="df3d7880-85d3-4435-856b-e4f22da5fa83" CreationDate="2015-04-10T18:09:42.577" UserId="50583" Text="&gt;What should I do when face a response like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote it up if you find it useful, don't if you don't (although I would implore you to not vote it down unless you find it *needlessly* obfuscated), and if it doesn't satisfy you, don't accept it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be good if you left a comment like &quot;I was looking for something less technical&quot;. While not every answerer will be willing (or able, since it might not even be possible) to provide a toned down version, I am sure many will be happy to provide one if they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How should I ask my question that invites an easy to understand answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nothing stops you from saying something like: *&quot;I'm looking for an intuitive understanding&quot;* or include your level of competence into the question, giving the potential answerers a clue about what you will or will not understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However**, I don't think you *should* do that. The Q&amp;As of SE are not meant to primarily help the asker, but to also provide insights to all the *other* people who read the question. Therefore, I believe it is not desirable to restrict to a particular level at which answers might be given - this just leads to potentially many different questions asking the same thing, but at a different level. It is far more elegant to have all the answers to *one* question, and every reader may find the answer that is best suited to their level on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="aba27055-d2f2-4ac2-a279-5a4f7325b95b" CreationDate="2015-04-10T21:03:58.687" UserId="76778" Text="Is there a way to make your question pop back up in the front/top again, so that more people see it? I get upset because if your question is not answered in the first second it will never get answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="aba27055-d2f2-4ac2-a279-5a4f7325b95b" CreationDate="2015-04-10T21:03:58.687" UserId="76778" Text="Refreshing your question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="aba27055-d2f2-4ac2-a279-5a4f7325b95b" CreationDate="2015-04-10T21:03:58.687" UserId="76778" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6685" RevisionGUID="0e7d1079-727a-4177-b083-3be24282a4e3" CreationDate="2015-04-11T02:46:53.880" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;Several of us have an unofficial strategy of voting to close homework questions then providing hints as comments. This doesn't seem an ideal solution to me, but it's probably the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the 2nd time of reading this post (shortly after it was posted), the above pair of lines are what I stared at and couldn't get out of my head for a couple days. At first, it was because I wanted to find the best solution. Then, as I thought about it some more, I realized that &quot;hints via comments&quot; was not actually a solution, but *a problem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, a person who is not really interested in physics and just wants an answer to their homework probably also doesn't give two $%^&amp;$ about rep on this site or what we want to do on a volunteer basis. They just want their answer. We do our best to deny that undeserved answer, but we cannot close unilaterally (a good thing) and so, sometimes, answers slip in. I'm okay with this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I've come to realize is this:  Giving a downvote is saying, *I don't like this question.* Voting to close is saying, *Your question should not have the opportunity to get an answer (because it doesn't fit our site).* And giving hints in the comments is then saying, *We want to help you.* The third action *entirely* **contradicts** the first two; in some stretch, it is probably *worse* than posting the answer because it is giving an *implicit approval* to something that is *readily rejected* from us answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once they get their answer via the comments, guess what's the next thing they'll do: tell their friends about the &quot;Great homework help site&quot; that they found. Consider this comment after a high-rep member of our site gave a hint about solving their homework question, and *then* commenting about the lack of OP's question with the site:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[A friend told me about the site told me I'd likely be able to get help with physics on here. Thanks for the help tho.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175385/rotating-rod-assembly-finding-the-force-reactions-at-the-bearings#comment371929_175385)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't the first time I've seen comments like this. And any bets on the commenter ever asking a question again? Or fixing their question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR** If we *really* don't want to become a homework help service, we really ought to *stop helping*. Which means hints via comments really should stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Sorry this is coming so late, I've was a tad busy the last few weeks but that's almost all over and done with now.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="171e2d9a-3fa8-4513-b79d-f159716e0a28" CreationDate="2015-04-11T04:38:28.103" UserId="5477" Text="The main way to do this is to offer a bounty. You will need to earn some more rep before you are able to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question will also pop back to the top if you edit it. But you should not do that unless the edit will substantially improve the question, e.g. by adding more information or making it clearer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="dc8f8e09-bf01-4bad-a5eb-c7e7f73fd5f3" CreationDate="2015-04-11T05:51:06.200" UserId="1325" Text="This is really a comment to Kyle's answer, but I decided to make it an answer because I wanted to give site members the chance to downvote if they disagree (and please do so - I'm genuinely interested in people's views on the subject). The key points I want to make are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) My view is that if a student solves a problem as a result of hints we've given then we've left that student a better physicist because they will have learned something. And that's a good thing for the student, the future of physics and of course our karma :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) If we just give a student the answer we will have left them a worse physicist because all they will have learned is to be lazy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I (now) always vote to close all homework questions is to avoid (B) i.e. to stop someone coming along and (innocently) supplying an explicit answer that leaves everyone worse off. I have no problem with (A).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe the site will be swamped by homework questions if we require students to work for their answer. As long as we can deter the more parasitic life forms I think we'll be fine. And actually I have no problem with Floris' comment to the question you link. I think it was well judged, and the student clearly doesn't feel they've just been handed the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="1bb5061a-1802-42bb-8451-eb306732488e" CreationDate="2015-04-11T14:38:22.443" UserId="75518" Text="I really don't like the notion of students asking for help on a homework-problem or similar problems being a *plague* for this site (in the sense that if &quot;we don't *eradicate* homework questions there will be a huge flood incomming&quot;). Everybody has the opportunity to just ignore certain flags in questions. If one does not choose to ignore the &quot;homework-flag&quot;, that's his or her personal issue. I'd say it comes all down to flagging a question the right way. Therefore I propose this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a new user joins this site, the homework flag is defaulted on all his questions until he reaches a certain reputation score (something high, that would account for at least a month of real activity).&#xD;&#xA; - The new (!) user can choose to unflag the homework-flag, but if this causes a reflag by moderators or closing of the question there should be a reset of his reputation score or maybe even deletion of his account. Something severe, that tells the user: &quot;You didn't play by the rules, therefore you're out!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - For all users, there should be a reputation penalty if a question was not flaged as homework but got edited/moderated to add the homework-flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="bd948335-1106-4f1d-9070-d0592a27be96" CreationDate="2015-04-11T14:49:55.720" UserId="75518" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I really don't like the notion of students asking for help on a homework-problem or similar problems being a *plague* for this site (in the sense that if &quot;we don't *eradicate* homework questions there will be a huge flood incomming&quot;). Everybody has the opportunity to just ignore certain tags in questions. If one does not choose to ignore the &quot;homework-tag&quot;, that's his or her personal issue. I'd say it comes all down to tagging a question the right way. Therefore I propose this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a new user joins this site, the homework tag is defaulted on all his questions until he reaches a certain reputation score (something high, that would account for at least a month of real activity).&#xD;&#xA; - The new (!) user can choose to untag the homework-tag, but if this causes a retag by moderators or closing of the question there should be a reset of his reputation score or maybe even deletion of his account. Something severe, that tells the user: &quot;You didn't play by the rules, therefore you're out!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - For all users, there should be a reputation penalty if a question was not taged as homework but got edited/moderated to add the homework-tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="d5d34afc-9032-4612-9e2e-3859937a653d" CreationDate="2015-04-13T15:42:31.347" UserId="2525" Comment="added link to hsm" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my clothes and tear my hair when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good [history of science SE][2] why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][3], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="082edff4-44b8-4fd8-9c24-d9a09c570185" CreationDate="2015-04-13T22:34:11.710" UserId="21529" Text="I asked a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165627/when-does-paulis-exclusion-principle-kick-in/165651#165651) some time ago and, after reading the answers and thinking the problem on my own, I realized that my question wasn't clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now have a better way to ask the question and also know the answer (knowing the right question leads to the right answer). Should I edit my question and add an answer myself? I worry that this would leave the answers which are already there a bit out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good way to proceed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="082edff4-44b8-4fd8-9c24-d9a09c570185" CreationDate="2015-04-13T22:34:11.710" UserId="21529" Text="Clarifying an answered question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="082edff4-44b8-4fd8-9c24-d9a09c570185" CreationDate="2015-04-13T22:34:11.710" UserId="21529" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="1065e395-262e-4687-97b6-4b1b254ee42a" CreationDate="2015-04-14T01:13:44.223" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;Should I edit my question and add an answer myself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this can found with this question: *If you update your post with your new/actual question, do the existing answers still answer your query?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they do answer the new question, feel free to edit it in. If they do not answer the new question, make a new post (and reference the original and emphasize how it is different, as some might want to close as a duplicate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should I edit my question and add an answer myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first half, as above; for the second half, absolutely. [Self-answered questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer) are (almost&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) always welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Caveats include off-topic questions, such as homework or non-mainstream physics.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18027" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="3e2a9678-864d-4e24-ba93-68f237759702" CreationDate="2015-04-14T02:47:52.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/587809465430323200" />
  <row Id="18028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="a4cb4243-d3c2-499c-adf5-a16d81dbe7f8" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:27:57.807" UserId="23473" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on **May 14**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="c204cf59-3d09-49b3-bb9e-2299c6262b16" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:28:08.537" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I propose *ACuriousJim*.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="3b30e92c-f36c-416c-8119-76cfccc55481" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:28:20.137" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that do as a tree level approximation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just been pointed out to me that [Jimnosperm's have light¹ cones][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ 10-100g depending on the species&lt;/spu&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nurturestore.co.uk/pine-cone-math-station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="454495df-1b82-4c9a-b972-9c7143c7be8a" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:28:31.593" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jim the Enchanter.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="178dd35f-e96c-43a4-8041-2abe4fdfaf77" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:28:39.070" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimself&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="df982703-65b0-47ce-98c8-a8537fc71859" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:28:46.547" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Sweep all before you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and next month it could be...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeroo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="477418a8-9597-4e8c-b0b4-9d750c3475c4" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:28:55.510" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I'm surprised nobody suggested... Jims Bond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="661fe22f-ca10-4233-8d65-36cc5e5b64c8" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:01.873" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I will also suggest &quot;The Jim&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="ed5c402a-caf0-4068-a55b-195df7ae3856" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:12.410" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The Jimtimidator is another option..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="e9c17867-f42c-4d54-8407-850f13431d7c" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:23.150" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about LEEEEROY JIMKINS for a name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="2d9791f8-0079-4487-8584-acfd765a80c6" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:33.460" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="For those of you who have been on StackOverflow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Jim Skeet&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="fe75b568-7f3c-4298-8c47-fb6bac467d38" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:40.937" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Flip it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ɯᴉſ**&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be hard to ping, but who cares. It's *awesome*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="0b37051e-240c-4d2c-a64b-11f394196876" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:48.930" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnasium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(play on [gymnasium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="a065b2d5-a255-4516-9a71-e8a95c932853" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:29:55.977" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimdalf the Grey  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="bc8772b4-c7ec-43a2-9537-c75411eebe21" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:03.767" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jim Rennie, the first disciple of [the one and only](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="d5cad63a-dfd5-4b5e-b7f4-4b35d71f0368" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:11.963" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimothy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[good reference here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXxkXGK1rQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="350a3241-577d-4122-97b1-5a528b3223c0" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:20.970" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimperator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Perhaps [the most apt](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperator) title for the leader of Jims&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="f4a34126-a512-4cf0-b2f3-30065422e3ef" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:30.957" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimronimo - this is my proposal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="ce31213f-a5a3-42ae-8a2b-87bb0571d590" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:38.897" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jimmy Dodger - a play on &quot;Jammy Dodger&quot; which is a word with many meanings. Including a delicious biscuit that's a favorite (or favourite?) of the Doctor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="f6c4475e-f379-4418-a32d-5536ba75ab94" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:45.733" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jiminy Cricket, for a childhood throwback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="774b75e0-c60e-4371-80ba-bc04e0bbe2f8" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:30:55.173" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want.  &#xD;&#xA;But as the owner of this thread said, Jimeese sound more like Jim language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="410108a4-1b14-4654-8da9-7e5f598df22d" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:02.707" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jim &quot;your surname&quot;. I've noticed that most people seem to be satisfied with that as an identifier.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="1ecd5c8d-c499-4e25-b558-4578304a29e2" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:09.927" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="[Jim Post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9789/tim-post). To get rid of the multiple-Jims confusion and replace it with confusion for those who have no idea who Tim Post is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="9f9a116f-41d5-4b6f-92dc-b241ca8e03f8" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:20.530" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="What about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the period spoken explicitly, as &quot;Jim - Period!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="61e1a457-3f83-43eb-aba0-b4bfbce9dc30" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:29.260" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Keep it simple: [Jimbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="162d3a88-90ae-432c-b54e-15c7bf817099" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:36.067" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jim_me_boy (hawkins) with pirate accent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="9b1958f2-73db-4695-9acf-d52d5261032e" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:43.163" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthworm Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slim Jim&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jimiroquai&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="a5019cca-b3a7-4ff5-83b7-0b1cd252ab0d" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:31:53.183" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Invert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MIJ**&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the central problem was &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will work unless one of the other Jims also lands up on this post! This is because there is no uniqueness theorem for usernames on the site, so MIJ's already taken doesn't mean it can't be taken again. But I guess that holds for every single of the suggestions above and below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think inverted usernames are employed on this site. e.g. inverting [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib) gives bigguy, which makes sense as a username!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="e7bf96d0-89d1-4a5f-957b-a0b7c77f4deb" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:32:01.017" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about,&quot;Lord Jim&quot;? ........." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="672abb80-55b6-4548-b0bd-05930b34b1e3" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:32:08.537" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimb.   The b is silent.  And pronounced like &quot;climb&quot; instead of &quot;limb&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="144f2641-d672-43a6-9041-61e8b6591a09" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:32:15.477" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I went with Jiminion, and I'm stuck with it for a month.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="5c866602-c070-435b-ac1c-2d849f146448" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:43:24.100" UserDisplayName="user77400" Text="Jimulhu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recognition of Jim being part of the great Cthulhu diaspora" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="b32bc16b-29e2-4e66-8ac9-f399f5ff0342" CreationDate="2015-04-14T12:53:33.427" UserId="23473" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on **May 14**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="4a9a224c-b7ab-4e27-94db-b008adf8aadd" CreationDate="2015-04-14T13:33:27.210" UserId="23473" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="Jim the Enchanter.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would have to be my profile pic if this name is chosen&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yalfO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="63475255-9ce5-4faa-9cb4-6d3186e1b135" CreationDate="2015-04-14T16:15:00.510" UserId="25605" Text="Why do you do some exercises or questions?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Can you enhance your knowledge without them?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't make mistakes and find them, then how will you learn?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Your flaws in conceptual understanding can be removed by doing what?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you people are not willing to help someone help remove his conceptual weaknesses then who'd (I am self learning usually.)?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions are considered off-topic, but I am saying that consider only those off-topic which are not useful to the wider audience, not the conceptual mistak-ed ones.&#xD;&#xA;I realize that mathematical error-ed questions are fit to be closed but some people are just so '_lakeer ka fakeer_' they just see a &quot;check-my-work&quot; type, and then, close! Wait! Look and then decide. Please this is my request." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="63475255-9ce5-4faa-9cb4-6d3186e1b135" CreationDate="2015-04-14T16:15:00.510" UserId="25605" Text="Homework Questions # Treatment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="63475255-9ce5-4faa-9cb4-6d3186e1b135" CreationDate="2015-04-14T16:15:00.510" UserId="25605" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="3b756d42-5fe5-4da4-af12-8ab05ed90048" CreationDate="2015-04-14T16:31:04.620" UserId="25605" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Don't know why but all &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions should not be considered off-topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you do some exercises or questions?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Can you enhance your knowledge without them?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't make mistakes and find them, then how will you learn?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Your flaws in conceptual understanding can be removed by doing what?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you people are not willing to help someone remove his conceptual weaknesses then who'd (I am self learning usually.)?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions are considered off-topic, but I am saying that consider only those off-topic which are not useful to the wider audience, not the conceptual mistak-ed ones.&#xD;&#xA;I realize that mathematical error-ed questions are fit to be closed but some people are just so '_lakeer ka fakeer_' they just see a &quot;check-my-work&quot; type, and then, close! Wait! Look and then decide. Please this is my request." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="18c015d4-dfca-4d86-9282-9ea695e55af7" CreationDate="2015-04-15T14:07:50.947" UserId="75397" Text="I am currently using stack exchange using my iPhone 4s and how can I upload a diagram to this site from camera roll?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="18c015d4-dfca-4d86-9282-9ea695e55af7" CreationDate="2015-04-15T14:07:50.947" UserId="75397" Text="Drawing diagrams using iPhone 4s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="18c015d4-dfca-4d86-9282-9ea695e55af7" CreationDate="2015-04-15T14:07:50.947" UserId="75397" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="ac43bbe2-755b-41af-b041-d9a207b2a53a" CreationDate="2015-04-15T16:37:30.400" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified title + minor language fixes." Text="I am currently using stack exchange using my iPhone 4s. How can I upload a diagram to this site from the camera roll?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18073" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="ac43bbe2-755b-41af-b041-d9a207b2a53a" CreationDate="2015-04-15T16:37:30.400" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified title + minor language fixes." Text="Uploading diagrams using iPhone 4s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="a8118a47-df62-45e9-8f49-8a703ce349c5" CreationDate="2015-04-16T00:38:46.630" UserId="56299" Comment="Updated ad." Text="[![HSM][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4t53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="98207b8f-6f4a-4f5d-9bf2-c7d2a7246a73" CreationDate="2015-04-16T01:08:08.793" UserId="5829" Text="Physics is left-justified on Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it intentional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="98207b8f-6f4a-4f5d-9bf2-c7d2a7246a73" CreationDate="2015-04-16T01:08:08.793" UserId="5829" Text="Can you please center the site like all other StackExchange sites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="98207b8f-6f4a-4f5d-9bf2-c7d2a7246a73" CreationDate="2015-04-16T01:08:08.793" UserId="5829" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="349ae32c-3463-45fd-809e-a6bff6af5306" CreationDate="2015-04-16T02:11:24.187" UserId="16" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="bb00a969-e8fe-4e5e-8918-29e232a9617f" CreationDate="2015-04-16T02:11:33.950" UserId="16" Text="[A fix for this is rolling out now.](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/253555/130213)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="a1d8ad75-cf7c-434f-92e2-18bcb2641cb9" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:45:31.957" UserId="58482" Text="I am learning quantum information/computation. I am reading Neilson and chuang for that . While reading whenever I am stuck on an exercise or have a doubt I post the same on physics stack exchange. But most of my doubts are purely mathematical and I am asked to migrate the question on math exchange. But most of my doubts although being mathematical involve **dirac notation (bra-ket)** and thus when I post the question on math exchange I am asked to migrate it to physics stack exchange as it involves bra-ket notation. Where are such questions suitable for posting ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="a1d8ad75-cf7c-434f-92e2-18bcb2641cb9" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:45:31.957" UserId="58482" Text="Do pure math questions with bra-ket notation belong on physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="a1d8ad75-cf7c-434f-92e2-18bcb2641cb9" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:45:31.957" UserId="58482" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="4907d0c9-9bca-4e01-83b3-28b2995180b4" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:53:57.470" UserId="24653" Comment="edited body" Text="I am learning quantum information/computation. I am reading Neilson and chuang for that . While reading whenever I am stuck on an exercise or have a doubt I post the same on physics stack exchange. But most of my doubts are purely mathematical and I am asked to migrate the question on math exchange. But most of my doubts although being mathematical involve **Dirac notation (bra-ket)** and thus when I post the question on math exchange I am asked to migrate it to physics stack exchange as it involves bra-ket notation. Where are such questions suitable for posting ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="a049ddef-aec4-4093-9dc4-ead02802763f" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:59:45.457" UserId="24653" Comment="edited body" Text="I am learning quantum information/computation, and while reading my textbook, naturally some questions arise. Whenever I am stuck on an exercise or have a doubt I post my question on physics stack exchange. But most of my doubts are purely mathematical and, consequently, I am asked to migrate the question on [math.se]. But most of my doubts, although being mathematical in nature, are formulated in terms of **Dirac (braket) notation** and thus, when I post the question on math I am often asked to migrate it to physics stack exchange as it involves braket notation. Where should such questions be posted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18085" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="a049ddef-aec4-4093-9dc4-ead02802763f" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:59:45.457" UserId="24653" Comment="edited body" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18086" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="a049ddef-aec4-4093-9dc4-ead02802763f" CreationDate="2015-04-16T18:59:45.457" UserId="24653" Comment="edited body" Text="Do pure math questions with braket notation belong on physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18087" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="f3422e66-c846-4c89-8128-7b76b1ffb048" CreationDate="2015-04-16T19:03:08.080" UserId="58482" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:58482,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sasha&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18088" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="000af455-5821-4f53-93bd-0077e8e277d3" CreationDate="2015-04-16T19:03:11.937" UserId="58482" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:58482,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sasha&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="1822c3bf-2f06-4a0d-a83b-173eaf23279e" CreationDate="2015-04-16T19:05:01.063" UserId="58482" Comment="added 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am learning quantum information/computation, and while reading my textbook, naturally some questions arise. Whenever I am stuck on an exercise or have a doubt I post my question on physics stack exchange. But most of my doubts are purely mathematical and, consequently, I am asked to migrate the question on [math.se]. But most of my doubts, although being mathematical in nature, are formulated in terms of Dirac (braket) notation and thus, when I post the question on math I am often asked to migrate it to physics stack exchange as it involves braket notation. Where  should such questions be posted, which are purely mathematical but involve some physics notation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18090" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="1822c3bf-2f06-4a0d-a83b-173eaf23279e" CreationDate="2015-04-16T19:05:01.063" UserId="58482" Comment="added 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do pure math questions with physics notation belong on physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="0575bb77-f0b0-4c72-af63-ed0134e82bc4" CreationDate="2015-04-16T20:01:40.133" UserId="55751" Text="Following Kyle Kanos' suggestion I'll turn my comment into an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that most of your questions are linear algebra related, which means it should be perfectly acceptable to post them on math SE, and in order to clarify possible notation issues (those more commonly used in physics), try to add a bit of explanation to the notation you're using so everyone can follow. E.g. if you use the bra-ket notation for an inner product then you can explain as (or simply ref. a link that explains it):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there are a lot of purely linear algebra (mainly QM related) posts on physics stackexchange, e.g. questions about diagonalisation, trace properties, self-adjointness, unitarity, etc. So in principle if you also establish the physical context in your post, it should be fine on physics SE as well (with appropriate choice of tags). There's not really more to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yw34x.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18092" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="8e465985-22d2-4d21-bf9f-cd0aa8954319" CreationDate="2015-04-16T20:33:20.057" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5713],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="18093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="a6f8d04d-fdbe-460b-9a6a-573563bc8ffd" CreationDate="2015-04-17T00:26:04.083" UserId="76778" Text="When I get and upvote sometimes it adds 5 points and other times it adds 10 points. Why does this change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="a6f8d04d-fdbe-460b-9a6a-573563bc8ffd" CreationDate="2015-04-17T00:26:04.083" UserId="76778" Text="Why do I sometimes get +5 points on upvotes and other times I get +10?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="a6f8d04d-fdbe-460b-9a6a-573563bc8ffd" CreationDate="2015-04-17T00:26:04.083" UserId="76778" Text="|discussion|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="24bdbf98-1ef8-41a7-a6e9-af109607b3d4" CreationDate="2015-04-17T00:38:14.930" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="See the help pages on [reputation][1] and [voting up][1]. In summary, upvotes on your *questions* get you 5 points, while upvotes on *answers* get you 10. If your answer is accepted you get 15. This is the case across the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="24e02cd5-54e6-4267-bf3a-b1c931e84bf5" CreationDate="2015-04-17T00:39:36.857" UserId="25301" Text="From the [Help Center on Reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**You gain reputation when:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - question is voted up: +5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answer is voted up: +10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answer is marked “accepted”: +15 (+2 to acceptor) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - suggested edit is accepted: +2 (up to +1000 total per user) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - bounty awarded to your answer: + full bounty amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - one of your answers is awarded a bounty automatically: + half of the bounty amount  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - site association bonus: +100 on each site (awarded a maximum of one time per site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you've been getting upvotes on questions (5 pts) and answers (10 pts), that's all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d73dd8aa-f4a7-4ce3-8f04-144eac01f5cf" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:08:33.513" UserDisplayName="user74370" Text="Just wanted to ensure something.I am new to this website.I am in high school and preparing for physics olympiads.So suppose I face some problem or have a doubt while solving numericals for books like Irodov Or HC Verma can I ask my doubts here?Will that be considered homework problem? Of course I have read through the homework policies and everything and surely I'll provide my approach and show my efforts whenever I post a question.But are such numerical based questions entertained here or are they considered homework?How should I frame my questions ? Any advice will be appreciated.Thank You." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d73dd8aa-f4a7-4ce3-8f04-144eac01f5cf" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:08:33.513" UserDisplayName="user74370" Text="How To Ask Numerical Based General Physics Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d73dd8aa-f4a7-4ce3-8f04-144eac01f5cf" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:08:33.513" UserDisplayName="user74370" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="f5f5c706-59ca-4304-8924-037e54de1417" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:25:57.300" UserId="50583" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Just wanted to ensure something. I am new to this website. I am in high school and preparing for physics olympiads. So suppose I face some problem or have a question while solving numericals for books like Irodov Or HC Verma can I ask my question here? Will that be considered homework problem? Of course I have read through the homework policies and everything and surely I'll provide my approach and show my efforts whenever I post a question. But are such numerical based questions entertained here or are they considered homework? How should I frame my questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18102" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="f5f5c706-59ca-4304-8924-037e54de1417" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:25:57.300" UserId="50583" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How should I ask general physics questions about numerics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="f5f5c706-59ca-4304-8924-037e54de1417" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:25:57.300" UserId="50583" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18104" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="3d293276-53ba-46c3-823f-92a526061ebe" CreationDate="2015-04-17T12:45:17.290" UserDisplayName="user74370" Comment="edited title" Text="How should I ask general physics questions about numericals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="8ce3ea7d-5cfd-4eca-9c20-8cdab9cc4fdd" CreationDate="2015-04-17T13:48:34.143" UserId="8563" Text="By &quot;questions about numericals&quot;, I imagine you mean questions like this one from [Irodov](https://archive.org/details/IrodovProblemsInGeneralPhysics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Irodov problem 3.147](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z42g2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite a general pattern in homework set questions: a (fairly artificial) setup is proposed, with numerical values for properties *p*&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;, ... , *p&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;*, and you're asked to give a numerical value for property *p*&lt;sub&gt;*n*+1&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For such sorts of questions, and regardless of whether your motivation for solving them is self-study or formal homework set by an instructor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you post a question that only has the problem and asks &quot;what do I do?&quot;, it will get shot down pretty much immediately.&#xD;&#xA; - If you post a question that quotes the problem, provides your working for the problem, notes that your final value is not what it's supposed to be, and asks for help, then you are asking a check-my-work question, which are [usually considered off topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, if your post crucially depends on the specific numerical values set by some textbook author, then it is unlikely to find a good reception here. We want conceptual questions which are useful to people that are *not* staring at the same specific set problem in the same specific edition of the same specific textbook that you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me provide an example to try and clarify what we mean by that. For the problem quoted above, there are two main steps you need to do: you need the charge density of the cylinder, and you need to transform that into the current. There are thus two main conceptual questions which would be on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How can I get the charge density of a cylinder from the electric field on its surface?&#xD;&#xA; - What is the &quot;convection current&quot; for a moving charge distribution of density *ρ*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that both of these questions demonstrate that you've thought about the problem and you have identified the concepts that are important for solving it - we can then help you grapple with those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="60ca1d4b-6d9a-4c77-9e0f-413afc197d62" CreationDate="2015-04-17T14:14:58.640" UserId="23473" Text="Physics.SE is **not** a homework help site, it is **not** meant to be a resource to teach people physics, and it is **not** a resource intended to help right conceptual misconceptions in students. When it was originally created, this site was meant to be a place where active physicists doing active research could come and ask/answer questions. It was intended to be a resource for physicists to be able to find answers to common questions they may want to ask. Much like how SO is most useful to programmers that are trying to program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since its creation, the population of Physics.SE has opened the site up to be more available to a broader audience. No longer is it specifically catering to professional physicists. The site is now a place where you can ask a question about physics, its concepts and explanations, and get an answer. We do enjoy it when we end up teaching something, however that is still **not** the objective. The objective is to answer physics questions that are broadly useful to physicists. If we choose to answer a question that roughly teaches the physics behind an everyday phenomenon or introduces the basic concepts of some advanced physics concept, that is our prerogative. And we expect that these answers will be useful in some way to active physicists. They may refresh concepts and ideas for those who are teaching them, remind others of stuff they learned long ago, or help out when a physicist is starting to research in a new area/field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we choose to answer a question such that the layman would benefit most from it, that is our prerogative as well. We have chosen to extend the range of usefulness to include offering a conceptual understanding to students and non-physicists, but there is no mandate for us to do this. The site is still primarily by physicists and of physicists and for physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many homework-like questions and, in particular, check my work questions can and very well may be helpful to students. We don't care. Our goal is not to teach students or ensure that they learn; it is to help physicists. Check-my-work questions do not help physicists, they only waste the time of the answerer. The question may be able to be reformed such that it is asking about the concepts of a problem, and that could help a physicist in teaching a class or brushing up on their own understanding. Even if the mistake is a conceptual error, the question is still only specific to students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though it is possible that some of these questions could be reworked into a form that we'd find acceptable, the general form of check-my-work questions is undesirable and off-topic to us. Therefore, we want to discourage all of these questions from being posed in the first place. When someone posts such a question, the likelihood is that they do not know what the problem is, whether it is math or conceptual. If they see that some check-my-work questions are allowed because of what the resolution was, then, not knowing what theirs may be, they will always post their question and we will continue getting questions that are just plain wrong for this site. If they see that *no* check-my-work questions are allowed, at best they will not post their question at all and perhaps on average they will rework their question to fit into what we might consider an acceptable format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, you must still keep in mind that no check-my-work questions, no matter the difficulty the OP has, are in line with the spirit of this site. We exist to provide physicists with a database of helpful questions and answers. We choose to also provide physical insight and explanations into common questions for the layman and students because we are very nice people, not because we have to. Most homework help questions have no use to physicists and so we do not accept most of them. Where we choose to draw the line in how much we will cater to non-physicists is entirely up to the collective body of users on this site. You cannot say we are wrong for choosing not to accept these questions. We have no requirement to help students with homework-like problems, so if we decide that we will not do so, the only thing to say is &quot;Have it your way&quot; and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: We aren't here to help students, so there's no use in being upset when we choose not to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="96b543e3-7935-4255-85c3-1697463a8de1" CreationDate="2015-04-18T07:54:43.597" UserId="77928" Text="I would like to ask if there is a room for questions regarding physics and philosophy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) On an epistemological basis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On a purely philosophical basis, that is, questions about the connection of physics with philosophical thinking(for example a question about consciousness and Martin Heidegger or Wittgenstein or a question regarding the phenomenology of thermodynamics and it' s connection to phenomenology or existentialism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is partly yes, what is the type of questions i have the right to ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="96b543e3-7935-4255-85c3-1697463a8de1" CreationDate="2015-04-18T07:54:43.597" UserId="77928" Text="About Physics and philosophy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="96b543e3-7935-4255-85c3-1697463a8de1" CreationDate="2015-04-18T07:54:43.597" UserId="77928" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="fe70c486-8704-4c57-b2ff-5be27b6782bf" CreationDate="2015-04-18T10:08:24.350" UserId="77928" Text="I have found this question about potential energy  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103377/what-is-potential-energy-truly. I can not make comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I ask a question supplementary to this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="fe70c486-8704-4c57-b2ff-5be27b6782bf" CreationDate="2015-04-18T10:08:24.350" UserId="77928" Text="Can I ask a question that is supplementary to another's users question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="fe70c486-8704-4c57-b2ff-5be27b6782bf" CreationDate="2015-04-18T10:08:24.350" UserId="77928" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="7b441f0a-0d51-4f30-9304-263135f9bb71" CreationDate="2015-04-18T11:16:48.523" UserId="124" Text="I'm inclined to say no, such questions are generally off topic here. Some of them may fit on [Philosophy Stack Exchange](//philosophy.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="ada39a8f-bd81-449a-87c9-e25933163b2a" CreationDate="2015-04-18T11:17:59.190" UserId="124" Text="Of course, if you have a follow-up question you can ask it as a separate question. Make sure to be very clear about why the question you ask is different from the original question. It's probably a good idea to link to the original question to help provide context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="0e3f0e48-569d-4efb-8eb6-a772ab871345" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:59:23.300" UserId="77928" Text="Can someone post questions concerning Quantum Brain Dynamics theories or questions regarding physics used for analysis of the brain (example: applications of classical EM field theory in brain or other areas of physics involved with the brain) or should questions like this go to cognitive science? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="0e3f0e48-569d-4efb-8eb6-a772ab871345" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:59:23.300" UserId="77928" Text="Quantum Brain Dynamics and brain-physics questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="0e3f0e48-569d-4efb-8eb6-a772ab871345" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:59:23.300" UserId="77928" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="7dbfa3d3-f966-4ac7-a584-0f1610f57e1e" CreationDate="2015-04-20T16:04:53.687" UserId="2451" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Are questions concerning [Quantum Brain Dynamics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_brain_dynamics) theories or questions regarding physics used for analysis of the brain (example: applications of classical EM field theory in brain or other areas of physics involved with the brain) on-topic at Phys.SE, or should questions like this go to cognitive science? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="a05b4055-d3f1-409e-bf12-2d54a0c871a0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T16:50:59.077" UserId="6634" Text="Like anything else that's multidisciplinary in nature, **it will depend on the question**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is about the *physics* of what is going on, it's fine to post here. &#xD;&#xA;1. If it is about the *implications* or *results* of the physics (ie. biological/chemical response, metaphysical implications, etc) then it should not be here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without seeing the actual text of a question, we can't say. But so long as it is about the physics of the problem and not something like &quot;How does the brain form memories under the theory of Quantum Brain Dynamics&quot; it is possibly on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="4aa0ad62-d5fb-4235-984a-a0f494a0bc47" CreationDate="2015-04-20T21:33:14.573" UserId="76778" Text="I understand that 3 reputation points is nothing, but I randomly lost three reputation points and under my reputation in my account it does not say why I lost these three points. Does anybody know why I would lose three points? It seems very awkward, because usually you lose 2 points, 5 points, 10 points or etc. but not an odd number(except for 5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="4aa0ad62-d5fb-4235-984a-a0f494a0bc47" CreationDate="2015-04-20T21:33:14.573" UserId="76778" Text="Random loss of three reputation points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="4aa0ad62-d5fb-4235-984a-a0f494a0bc47" CreationDate="2015-04-20T21:33:14.573" UserId="76778" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="b0c5dcc1-975c-4df9-ba52-d66cf935ce5c" CreationDate="2015-04-20T21:37:32.260" UserId="2451" Text="That's because the [community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) deleted one of [your questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/175196/2451) with 1 upvote and 1 downvote, leading to a net loss of -3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="0021c59c-5202-4344-a316-99709a6211b2" CreationDate="2015-04-20T21:42:36.687" UserId="2451" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="That's because the [community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) deleted one of [your questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/175196/2451) with 1 upvote and 1 downvote, leading to a net change of -3 rep pts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="51905ff3-99fa-45c2-b660-491b98ffb56b" CreationDate="2015-04-21T10:41:23.437" UserId="77928" Text="The title is maybe in need of modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is this: If I have found a question I'm not in position to answer(because of lack of knowledge), but have found something interesting in the web that I think it might be helpful for the question posted and understandable for those interested, should I just give the link as a comment or should I copy and paste the script that could be helpful as an answer with a reference to the link? Or maybe should I make a comment to someone else reffering the link of the site I have found so that he could post an answer(but I find this rather off limits)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="51905ff3-99fa-45c2-b660-491b98ffb56b" CreationDate="2015-04-21T10:41:23.437" UserId="77928" Text="About answering questions with pasting from other sources when not knowing the answer and have found might-helpful info in the web" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="51905ff3-99fa-45c2-b660-491b98ffb56b" CreationDate="2015-04-21T10:41:23.437" UserId="77928" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="ace36bf8-6ef1-4b84-9725-856346aad9aa" CreationDate="2015-04-21T10:59:53.707" UserId="8563" Text="If all you can contribute is the link, you should post it as a comment under the question. Posting an answer that only contains a link - commonly referred to as a link-only answer - is frowned upon and such an answer will generally get flagged as Not an Answer. (The reason for this is that such answers are very susceptible to [link rot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_link) and they bring the overall quality of the site down. The goal is to become a repository of answers, not a repository of unreliable links to relevant documents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to post an answer, you should study the link and summarize its important points in a way that actually answers the question. If you do not have the time or the ability to do this, you should simply post the link as a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, before posting a link it is a good idea to ensure that the page is archived in the [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/), so that the archived version is there in case the live website moves or goes down. (Don't link directly to the wayback machine, though - it's polite to the website creators to actually direct traffic to their site instead of an archived mirror.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="21fe9dca-4fdd-4982-8f41-b1aeeac7f6ea" CreationDate="2015-04-21T13:28:28.713" UserId="1492" Text="As an example look at [this][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questioner is a 13 year old according to profile, and the chosen answer is by a 13 year old. For the age group it is not a bad show, but is it appropriate for the site ? Already Jimmy has gathered negatives probably from people who have not checked the age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The reason I answered after Jimmy360's was chosen is because the site is supposed to have a level at least of college physics. The search engines often bring up Physics.SE answers and leaving it at the level of 13 year olds seems to me not desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I would be happier if in Physics.SE the level of physics knowledge was checked at registration and shown when one submits a question. This could be done with a user when registering, and the person given a code, a subscript, according the physics background example: &quot;beginner&quot;  gets a _b , college level _c, graduate level  _g .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177468/why-arent-we-affected-by-radium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="21fe9dca-4fdd-4982-8f41-b1aeeac7f6ea" CreationDate="2015-04-21T13:28:28.713" UserId="1492" Text="What about questions asked by 13 year old kids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="21fe9dca-4fdd-4982-8f41-b1aeeac7f6ea" CreationDate="2015-04-21T13:28:28.713" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="19972606-efa9-43d0-880e-8173a6cd7389" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:54:33.150" UserId="1325" Text="I was going to mention this at this afternoon's Physics Chat, but we got carried away discussing physics (entanglement) - typical! :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this raises an issue about what this site is for. I suspect our founding fathers intended the site to be like the Math Overflow, but the repeated failures of attempts to get a Physics-Overflow-a-like site going show there just isn't a big enough audience to sustain the site. We've ended up (until now - see below) somewhere around the undergrad/postgrad interface, and we've been chugging along quite happily at this level for a while. And that's good! I think many of us, including me, like reading and supplying answers at this level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a limited number of undergrad/postgrads interested in our site, especially once we've weeded out the ones who just want us to do their homework. And there is a much, much larger population of non-physicists interested enough to want a bit more than the latest Michio Kaku documentary gives them. This includes the *excitable schoolchild* market segment that Anna refers to. As the Physics SE becomes more widely known we're going to see more and more non-physicists, and the question is what reception we give them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I really don't know what is the best course. From exchanges in the chat I'm aware that some valued members of the site are completely uninterested in the, shall we say, *less informed* questioners. I have a lot of sympathy for this view - there is a limit to how many times I will find it interesting explaining why nothing can travel faster than light. If we get swamped by basic questions all the experts are going to get fed up and leave, and when that happens we lose the unique feature that distinguishes us from all the other physics sites on the web. On the other hand, I find the thought of saying to someone &quot;go away, you're too ignorant to post here&quot; is appalling (even if done politely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the best course is just to muddle along and see what happens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="9ef3e5f5-36a9-416a-ba18-ab632054beca" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:44:37.063" UserId="2451" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="That's because the [community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) deleted [one of your questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/175196/2451) with 1 upvote (+5 rep. pts.) and 1 downvote (-2 rep. pts.), leading to a net change of -3 rep. pts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, the question was deleted automatically because it was closed, had no net upvotes, and had not been edited for 9 days prior to the deletion. For more details see [this thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006). (Hat tip: Emilio Pisanty.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="6f07555d-051d-4377-b5f1-4b0b6ead96c2" CreationDate="2015-04-21T21:27:13.203" UserId="75644" Text="It's a resource request. For questions and comments see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/177194/75644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="6f07555d-051d-4377-b5f1-4b0b6ead96c2" CreationDate="2015-04-21T21:27:13.203" UserId="75644" Text="Why was my question closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="6f07555d-051d-4377-b5f1-4b0b6ead96c2" CreationDate="2015-04-21T21:27:13.203" UserId="75644" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="05f29e17-2b15-4f08-b0a2-ae4739aa2ce9" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:02:58.717" UserId="2451" Text="I will just recap what has happen so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loosely formulated one-line resource recommendation question (v2) was closed by me. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It is then in principle up to the reviewers to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18147" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="bfe007fa-4911-47c4-993e-50186cc8f890" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:03:15.813" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more explicit" Text="Why was my question, on dynamics demonstrations videos, closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="bfe007fa-4911-47c4-993e-50186cc8f890" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:03:15.813" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more explicit" Text="|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="9380f2fc-b320-4f6b-84ca-e4387a3aacf0" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:09:26.657" UserId="2451" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I will just recap what has happen so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated one-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It is then in principle up to the reviewers to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="0315e863-aa24-4418-adae-eab51a81cc54" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:12:37.537" UserId="2451" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I will just recap what has happen so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It is then in principle up to the reviewers to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="0a650a5c-e936-4bf4-8760-084779905a5f" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:19:25.163" UserId="2451" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="I will just recap what has happen so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. It appeared to be a request for online video lectures, cf. e.g. the answer by Jake Lebovic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You later improved the question (v5).  It now became clear that you were _not_ looking for online lecture videos. This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It is then in principle up to the reviewers to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="76e24cbb-3dc9-4b7b-a592-c9aff89531d2" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:30:53.803" UserId="2451" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="I will just recap what has happen so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. It appeared to be a request for online video lectures, cf. e.g. the answer by Jake Lebovic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators do often leave comments about reasons for closure, but please note that they do not always have the time, as initially in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It now became clear that you were _not_ looking for online lecture videos. It is then in principle up to the reviewers to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18153" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="c66d314a-08ea-4cdd-917c-efc5f42aaa56" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:37:42.983" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="c5e6096f-c903-4263-b79a-89069b171f9c" CreationDate="2015-04-21T23:41:10.687" UserId="56299" Text="Ack! I see I completely missed the chat session! This would have been an interesting topic to bring up. [It looks like I only missed actual physics, though](https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/what-about-questions-asked-by-13-year-old-kids/6719#6719) (darn!), so I still have a chance to discuss it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it's just me getting touchy about the age issue again, but I still am - and have always been - against the idea of judging users by their age. I'll admit that I've seen many posts (I'm ignoring the post that was brought up, actually) written by kids that are pretty bad. At the same time, I've seen grownups write a lot of really poor stuff, too. It's often tough to tell just who's behind the really crappy stuff, because in many cases they don't care enough to take any of this seriously - I'm talking about *you*, generic poster of crackpot theories of spam! - but I would assume that not all of them are kids; perhaps kids only constitute a small minority. We have no way of knowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that despite Anna's use of &quot;13-year-old&quot; a lot in this post, and the example at hand, the meat of the question isn't about age: it's about expertise. Is there a correlation between the two? I would bet all my rep - and some of other people's, too! - that an increase in age means an increase in expertise, unless you subscribe to the view that science is a game of the young. I think we can all agree that that isn't the case, however; without calling anyone old, there are a lot of folks who are older than the rest but are incredibly knowledgeable. So there's a correlation. But in science, a correlation isn't enough. A *causal relationship* is what's needed to truly supply good evidence to a theory. And I think that there is one, at least at the level of kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting back on-topic, the reason I'm concerned is a little bit self-centered. Where do *I* fit in? The most I know about quantum mechanics isn't too far beyond E=hv (I know, it's nu, not v, but there's no MathJax on meta), and the most I know about general relativity is what a metric is. Same goes for a bunch of other branches of physics. I would absolutely have a _b for them. But I *do* know a lot more about astronomy than the average kid my age, and much of the stuff I read is college level. I'm not arrogant enough to give myself a full _c, but I'm probably not a _b, either. Chances are, I won't be asking _b-level questions. Where do I fit in? And for my overall physics average, what am I? A _b-and-a-quarter? And there are certain areas of astronomy I know more about than others. How do I describe *that*? Moreover, I won't be asking questions about quantum mechanics and general relativity, because of how much of a novice I am. In a couple of years, that could change, but for know, I'll stay away from those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This - the difficulties arising from categorization - seems to be a large problem, especially at the beginner level - sort of. There are a variety of different levels of physics knowledge. There are those who don't have a good working knowledge of *anything* they're asking about, those who are studying stuff at school and sort of understand it - how do we differentiate among them? The same phenomenon is active in college (and, I'd warrant, graduate school) - a lot can change over four years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the whole point of this is that there's no set way to lump a group of people together without getting extremely specific. Is that better than just blindly shoving them on Stack Exchange? Perhaps. But the *quality* and level of the questions themselves are probably a better indicator of what level a person is at - and they can show changes over time. I know considerably more than what I did 8 months ago (and mostly from outside Stack Exchange!). Would that be enough to take me a level up (in the _b, _c, etc. system)? Oh, dear, absolutely not. But it would certainly matter in terms of my participation on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="f42eb3d6-939a-49b3-a2ce-87765cbe85ec" CreationDate="2015-04-22T02:21:21.933" UserId="75644" Comment="added follow up" Text="It's a resource request. For questions and comments see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/177194/75644&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if it's not appropriate for this forum then the question is : &#xD;&#xA;Where on the internet can I hope to get some decent responses to my original question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="6297edb9-833b-4022-a0aa-d71da4b7a25c" CreationDate="2015-04-22T02:43:52.280" UserId="520" Text="I have to say that I don't really want the site to be about the ``excitable school child'' demographic, but our big rule for defending against the un-serious---that they must ask conceptual questions---admits this demographic just fine. People at that level don't have the tools to do computation of any complexity so most of their questions are &quot;conceptual&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've had a background of questions from these users for as long as I've been with the site, and it hasn't done us any real harm. So I'm not in a hurry to &quot;do&quot; something about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is not a &quot;low level questioner&quot; one, but a overeager-with-the-accept one. The OP got a basic (even superficial) answer couched in language that (s)he understood and simply accepted it because (s)he was happy. All before any other answers (or even comments) came in and before any significant voting had occurred. The current state of the answers to the question would show any reader (including the OP if (s)he looks in again) that the accepted answer has problems, but the OP didn't wait long enough to find out before hitting the Big Green Checkmark (tm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A secondary problem is that we seem to be tolerating superficial answers in a lot of cases. Sometimes even ones that are so shallow and incomplete as to be more wrong that right. I understand the impulse---I'm guilty of not wanting to feel like an ogre because my up-to-down vote ration is hovering slightly about 2 as it is---but we may not be doing ourselves any favors by letting users think that they will be rewarded for substantially incomplete and under-researched answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr** The best response is twofold: write good answer to basic questions and vote down superficial or incomplete answers where ever you find the on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18157" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="8c483e69-e9ff-421a-8ec4-661bc5bc5005" CreationDate="2015-04-22T03:56:17.003" UserId="1492" Comment="so as not to be ageist :)" Text="What about questions asked by 13 year old kids (or people with low knowledge of physics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="ce4d4ee2-821c-4d09-9b58-997289dd96a9" CreationDate="2015-04-22T05:31:34.233" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to dmckee" Text="I was going to mention this at this afternoon's Physics Chat, but we got carried away discussing physics (entanglement) - typical! :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this raises an issue about what this site is for. I suspect our founding fathers intended the site to be like the Math Overflow, but the repeated failures of attempts to get a Physics-Overflow-a-like site going show there just isn't a big enough audience to sustain the site. We've ended up (until now - see below) somewhere around the undergrad/postgrad interface, and we've been chugging along quite happily at this level for a while. And that's good! I think many of us, including me, like reading and supplying answers at this level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a limited number of undergrad/postgrads interested in our site, especially once we've weeded out the ones who just want us to do their homework. And there is a much, much larger population of non-physicists interested enough to want a bit more than the latest Michio Kaku documentary gives them. This includes the *excitable schoolchild* market segment that Anna refers to. As the Physics SE becomes more widely known we're going to see more and more non-physicists, and the question is what reception we give them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I really don't know what is the best course. From exchanges in the chat I'm aware that some valued members of the site are completely uninterested in the, shall we say, *less informed* questioners. I have a lot of sympathy for this view - there is a limit to how many times I will find it interesting explaining why nothing can travel faster than light. If we get swamped by basic questions all the experts are going to get fed up and leave, and when that happens we lose the unique feature that distinguishes us from all the other physics sites on the web. On the other hand, I find the thought of saying to someone &quot;go away, you're too ignorant to post here&quot; is appalling (even if done politely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the best course is just to muddle along and see what happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having read dmckee's answer I think he has clearly articulated something I was thinking about but couldn't put into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An apparently superficial question may have a deep answer. Now I think about it, I have answered a lot of very simple questions where I thought it gave me the opportunity to explain concepts that I thought were important and interesting. The problem is not superficial questions but superficial answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still not an enthusiastic downvoter, but I do vote to delete any answers that I don't think contribute anything useful. We should probably encourage site members to be more active at both downvoting and deleting where appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6725" RevisionGUID="74c199f6-491e-415a-b730-cee146a4b72b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T09:09:03.763" UserId="40456" Text="There's never any need to use LMGTFY in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [LMGTFY]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translates as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am (please check all that apply):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]&amp;nbsp;annoyed,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]&amp;nbsp;frustrated  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]&amp;nbsp;stressed,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]&amp;nbsp;an asshole,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]&amp;nbsp;having a bad day.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The answer to your question can easily be found using a search engine so please do that. If you can't understand what you find, or why it answers your question, please ask a more specific question about the parts you don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The commenter's mood or disposition are irrelevant to the question and likely to change, rendering the comment partially obsolete. Therfore, they should be omitted, leaving:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The answer to your question can easily be found using a search engine so please do that. If you can't understand what you find, or why it answers your question, please ask a more specific question about the parts you don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="db91e542-d18e-4192-b53b-6da2947c8c74" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:58:44.567" UserId="2451" Comment="happen -&gt; happened" Text="I will just recap what has happened so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. It appeared to be a request for online video lectures, cf. e.g. the answer by Jake Lebovic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators do often leave comments about reasons for closure, but please note that they do not always have the time, as initially in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It now became clear that you were _not_ looking for online lecture videos. It is then in principle up to the reviewers (3k+ users) to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="7cec96e2-9bb3-40e4-a1bd-1e1303948f30" CreationDate="2015-04-22T16:52:04.233" UserId="23119" Text="***preamble:-*** I don't really have any hard feelings against SE any longer; I honestly do understand their point of view and way of functioning. It's just that the goals of PO are very different from those of StackExchange. I also figured out that a lot of my complaints when active here were unjustified (I'm talking about the &quot;wrong answers should be deleted&quot; nonsense that I liked to spread).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fundamental differences between PhysicsOverflow and Physics Stack Exchange, besides just the scope and level. Dilaton has already mentioned the difference in scope and level, but received a lot of flak for not mentioning what I initially thought were minor differences in policy, but upon further thought are actually important to point out, as mentioned by Emilio Pisanty and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main goal of PO is to support academic communities. SE's main goal is to support a library of interesting content (as their unofficial motto says, to &quot;make the internet better&quot;. I think both points of view are perfectly reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fundamental difference is from where a lot of the policy differences come from. For instance, PhysicsOverflow has a [user rights](http://physicsoverflow.org/user-rights) document, the [moderator manual](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ra1Ss1E-rWN3cyRC1zalAtT1U/edit) is made public and prominent from the PO homepage, and so on. PO's reviews section is a completely original idea, although there's also ArXiV-Analytics, but there are subtle differences which means the two aren't competitors either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are viewed as first-class citizens on PO, as they are important for an open discussion forum. Stack Exchange views them as somewhat inferior forms of content, again, because they do hinder the goal of forming neat Q&amp;A libraries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also true that PO does not have strict rules against rudeness. We have, however, recently adopted some guidelines that *encourage* politeness, although don't mandate them. It's a surprising kind of propaganda spread in a number of places that we somehow &quot;encourage&quot; rudeness. We absolutely don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments about &quot;what if sexism/racism arises? will that be removed?&quot; seem to be a sort of [appeal to emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion), but anyway - such content is often illegal in a number of countries, including the European Union where PO's servers are hosted, and where PO's registrant lives, and therefore does become a natural exception to the user rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the relationship between the two sites, PhysicsOverflow has zero issues with PSE. Links to answers on PSE are completely welcome (although it is preferred to link to an imported copy, as those tend too have more content), and PhysicsOverflow very much does want to maintain at least a neutral, if not a cordial relationship with Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this feeling is not reciprocated from the other side. While I understand the reason for my ban for &quot;promotional content&quot; (although I would have preferred a warning beforehand), I really do not understand the reason for Dilaton's ban for the same stated pretext; Dilaton only posted links to PO threads once the questions were actually answered, yet was suspended for a year for doing so. I wonder if SE would have a similiar reaction, if a user posted links to Wikipedia, or Quora, or Physicsforums, or another Stack Exchange site repeatedly. Is it so bad to post some useful links to help the OP and other people interested in the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope to see these issues resolved soon, because unlike say, PF, PO is not intended to be a competitor to PSE at all, rather a completely different platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="db404f1c-6562-4f94-ad6c-c35756451e1a" CreationDate="2015-04-22T17:11:23.883" UserId="23119" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** I don't really have any hard feelings against SE any longer; I honestly do understand their point of view and way of functioning. It's just that the goals of PO are very different from those of StackExchange. I also figured out that a lot of my complaints when active here were unjustified (I'm talking about the &quot;wrong answers should be deleted&quot; nonsense that I liked to spread).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fundamental differences between PhysicsOverflow and Physics Stack Exchange, besides just the scope and level. Dilaton has already mentioned the difference in scope and level, but received a lot of flak for not mentioning what I initially thought were minor differences in policy, but upon further thought are actually important to point out, as mentioned by Emilio Pisanty and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main goal of PO is to support academic communities. SE's main goal is to support a library of interesting content (as their unofficial motto says, to &quot;make the internet better&quot;. I think both points of view are perfectly reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fundamental difference is from where a lot of the policy differences come from. For instance, PhysicsOverflow has a [user rights](http://physicsoverflow.org/user-rights) document, the [moderator manual](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ra1Ss1E-rWN3cyRC1zalAtT1U/edit) is made public and prominent from the PO homepage, and so on. PO's reviews section is a completely original idea, although there's also ArXiV-Analytics, but there are subtle differences which means the two aren't competitors either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are viewed as first-class citizens on PO, as they are important for an open discussion forum. Stack Exchange views them as somewhat inferior forms of content, again, because they do hinder the goal of forming neat Q&amp;A libraries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also true that PO does not have strict rules against rudeness. We have, however, recently adopted some guidelines that *encourage* politeness, although don't mandate them. It's a surprising kind of propaganda spread in a number of places that we somehow &quot;encourage&quot; rudeness. We absolutely don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments about &quot;what if sexism/racism arises? will that be removed?&quot; seem to be a sort of [appeal to emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion), but anyway - such content is often illegal in a number of countries, including the European Union where PO's servers are hosted, and where PO's registrant lives, and therefore does become a natural exception to the user rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the relationship between the two sites, PhysicsOverflow has zero issues with PSE. Links to answers on PSE are completely welcome (although it is preferred to link to an imported copy, as those tend too have more content), and PhysicsOverflow very much does want to maintain at least a neutral, if not a cordial relationship with Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this feeling is not reciprocated from the other side. While I understand the reason for my ban for &quot;promotional content&quot; (although I would have preferred a warning beforehand), I really do not understand the reason for Dilaton's ban for the same stated pretext; Dilaton only posted links to PO threads once the questions were actually answered, yet was suspended for a year for doing so. I wonder if SE would have a similiar reaction, if a user posted links to Wikipedia, or Quora, or Physicsforums, or another Stack Exchange site repeatedly. Is it so bad to post some useful links to help the OP and other people interested in the question? I mean, you guys even made a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all links to PO here! What was that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope to see these issues resolved soon, because unlike say, PF, PO is not intended to be a competitor to PSE at all, rather a completely different platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="7025cc9b-2c61-42fb-991e-ffe0cf13e771" CreationDate="2015-04-22T17:25:22.017" UserId="23119" Text="***preamble:-*** This is not related to my 1-year suspension which just expired, I understand the reasons for that, because my comments were really spam (because I posted links to PO threads before they were answered there. Note that I'm also not asking for the reasons for any suspension, but rather asking for some clarification regarding a policy that doesn't seem clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [Dilaton](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton) was suspended for posting links to [PhysicsOverflow](http://physicsoverflow.org) threads that answers questions posted here on Physics.SE. Dilaton took explicit care to only post links to answers on PO which already had a positive number of upvotes, learning from my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am completely sure that this is the precise reason for his/her suspension, because I know from communication with him/her, the precise warnings that Dilaton received and the correspondence that went through. A moderator also tried to get some community support (although he failed to do so) for this decision beforehand by asking people in the hbar for their opinions. Furthermore, another moderator even created a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all mentions of PhysicsOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is there a list/blacklist of such &quot;controversial&quot; sites?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="7025cc9b-2c61-42fb-991e-ffe0cf13e771" CreationDate="2015-04-22T17:25:22.017" UserId="23119" Text="Is it inappropriate behaviour to post links?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="7025cc9b-2c61-42fb-991e-ffe0cf13e771" CreationDate="2015-04-22T17:25:22.017" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|comments|links|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="4a36f406-1674-4050-ab3a-27b4662aaccd" CreationDate="2015-04-22T21:38:56.577" UserId="23389" Text="I certainly don't see anything wrong with links per se or repeatedly posting links to helpful webpages (e.g. wiki). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspect of your question regarding links to sites in which you hold a vested interest is partially covered by Jeff Atwood's answer to the mother-meta question, [Limits for self-promotion in answers][1]. He answered that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *May I promote products I am affiliated with here?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The community generally frowns on overt self-promotion and tends to vote it down and flag it as spam, so be careful. Post good, relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers, and if they happen to be about your product, so be it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, you must disclose your affiliation with the product in your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers. Also, if a huge percentage of your posts include a mention of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your product, you're clearly here for the wrong reasons. Our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; details. We also offer free vote-based advertising for open source&#xD;&#xA;&gt; projects.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there appeared to be consensus behind this sentiment, it is stated that it became a site policy (though I can't find any more details). This, admittedly, is slightly ambiguous; it leaves open the question of whether a user who predominantly promotes a site in which they hold a vested interest and is here &quot;for the wrong reasons&quot; ought to be stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know anything about dilaton or much about Physice Overflow - my answer has no subtextual meaning or references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that if a particular comment is an example of self-promotion and of limited help, flag it and it should be deleted. If it's helpful - and even if that user posts other links that aren't helpful - then it's a small but welcome contribution. Of course, full answers on this site are much preferred over links to external websites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose in rare cases in which a user repeatedly flouts the community guidelines and sentiments re self-promotion, their comments would have to be judged en masse and we would have to apply the ordinary warnings and penalties for dealing with users who persist in breaking rules - I don't think self-promotion needs to be a special case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57497/limits-for-self-promotion-in-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="986ff244-9f66-4519-8cbf-67160e5e556d" CreationDate="2015-04-22T21:44:38.260" UserId="23389" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="I certainly don't see anything wrong with links per se or repeatedly posting links to helpful webpages (e.g. wiki). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspect of your question regarding links to sites in which you hold a vested interest is partially covered by Jeff Atwood's answer to the mother-meta question, [Limits for self-promotion in answers][1]. He answered that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *May I promote products I am affiliated with here?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The community generally frowns on overt self-promotion and tends to vote it down and flag it as spam, so be careful. Post good, relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers, and if they happen to be about your product, so be it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, you must disclose your affiliation with the product in your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers. Also, if a huge percentage of your posts include a mention of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your product, you're clearly here for the wrong reasons. Our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; details. We also offer free vote-based advertising for open source&#xD;&#xA;&gt; projects.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there appeared to be consensus behind this sentiment, it is stated that it became a site policy (though I can't find any more details). This, admittedly, is slightly ambiguous; it leaves open the question of whether a user who predominantly promotes a site in which they hold a vested interest and is here &quot;for the wrong reasons&quot; ought to be stopped. Although this policy is limited to answers, I think a similar policy ought to apply to comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know anything about dilaton or much about Physics Overflow - my answer has no subtextual meaning or references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that if a particular comment is an example of self-promotion and of limited help, flag it and it should be deleted. If it's helpful - and even if that user posts other links that aren't helpful - then it's a small but welcome contribution. Of course, full answers on this site are much preferred over links to external websites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose in rare cases in which a user repeatedly flouts the community guidelines and sentiments re self-promotion, their comments would have to be judged en masse and we would have to apply the ordinary warnings and penalties for dealing with users who persist in breaking rules - I don't think self-promotion needs to be a special case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57497/limits-for-self-promotion-in-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="cd95994b-d922-4aa3-800b-0a30361d2ae3" CreationDate="2015-04-22T21:50:35.907" UserId="23389" Comment="clarification" Text="I certainly don't see anything wrong with links per se or repeatedly posting links to helpful webpages (e.g. wiki). I doubt that there's a blacklist of forbidden links, but you should not post links to offensive/inappropriate material or even irrelevant material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspect of your question regarding links to sites in which you hold a vested interest is partially covered by Jeff Atwood's answer to the mother-meta question, [Limits for self-promotion in answers][1]. He answered that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *May I promote products I am affiliated with here?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The community generally frowns on overt self-promotion and tends to vote it down and flag it as spam, so be careful. Post good, relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers, and if they happen to be about your product, so be it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, you must disclose your affiliation with the product in your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers. Also, if a huge percentage of your posts include a mention of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your product, you're clearly here for the wrong reasons. Our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; details. We also offer free vote-based advertising for open source&#xD;&#xA;&gt; projects.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there appeared to be consensus behind this sentiment, it is stated that it became a site policy (though I can't find any more details). This, admittedly, is slightly ambiguous; it leaves open the question of whether a user who predominantly promotes a site in which they hold a vested interest and is here &quot;for the wrong reasons&quot; ought to be stopped. Although this policy is limited to answers, I think a similar policy ought to apply to comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know anything about dilaton or much about Physics Overflow - my answer has no subtextual meaning or references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that if a particular comment is an example of self-promotion and of limited help, flag it and it should be deleted. If it's helpful - and even if that user posts other links that aren't helpful - then it's a small but welcome contribution. Of course, full answers on this site are much preferred over links to external websites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose in rare cases in which a user repeatedly flouts the community guidelines and sentiments re self-promotion, their comments would have to be judged en masse and we would have to apply the ordinary warnings and penalties for dealing with users who persist in breaking rules - I don't think self-promotion needs to be a special case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57497/limits-for-self-promotion-in-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="b65c21b0-1d4f-4eb3-9cbe-87b7480ab2a4" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:27:04.017" UserId="25301" Text="&gt; Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever *be* banned. What *should* be banned is the *repeated* posting of a link  to an alternative physics Q&amp;A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. It is the  *repetitive* nature of the act that is considered  as [spam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The leaving of the comments acts as a source of free advertising&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; for the alternative site while (possibly) detracting users from our site. This is a lose-lose situation for SE and should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Q&amp;A site, I have no idea why it is being categorized alongside Quora &amp; PO as some sort of viable alternative to a Q&amp;A site. Links to Wiki are uncontroversial simply because it is *not* a competitor in any sense of the word&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Q&amp;A sites, such as Quora, Physics Overflow &amp; Physics Forums, *are*, by their very nature, competitors to the SE network. So if your only actions were posting comments that led users to *competitor* sites, then yes it should be banned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is up to the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I feel it necessary to point out that it was I who noticed the fact that Dilaton's *sole action for **many** days* was leaving promotional comments for PO (i.e., spamming) and [asked a mod in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18462499#18462499) about it; the situation died rather quickly in chat with an inconclusive resolution. The suspension that arose from that comment was not my goal at any point in time, despite that [claim to the contrary](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18504893#18504893); it even took me about an hour [to catch on what he was getting at](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18506109#18506109).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 AFAIK, our advertising is free anyways, we [simply prefer to have a vote on it](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 A similar argument can be made for arXiv that you &amp; Dilaton somehow view as equivalent to Quora, PO &amp; PF, even though it is simply a hosting platform for scientific publications and not in any way a Q&amp;A site.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="b49a8dbc-debb-426b-90ab-6d79c724b918" CreationDate="2015-04-23T03:45:42.380" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1156 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** This is not related to my 1-year suspension which just expired, I understand the reasons for that, because my comments were really spam (because I posted links to PO threads before they were answered there. Note that I'm also not asking for the reasons for any suspension, but rather asking for some clarification regarding a policy that doesn't seem clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [Dilaton](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton) was suspended for posting links to [PhysicsOverflow](http://physicsoverflow.org) threads that answers questions posted here on Physics.SE. Dilaton took explicit care to only post links to answers on PO which already had a positive number of upvotes, learning from my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am completely sure that this is the precise reason for his/her suspension, because I know from communication with him/her, the precise warnings that Dilaton received and the correspondence that went through. A moderator also tried to get some community support (although he failed to do so) for this decision beforehand by asking people in the hbar for their opinions. Furthermore, another moderator even created a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all mentions of PhysicsOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is there a list/blacklist of such &quot;controversial&quot; sites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***edit after Kyle Kanos's clarifications:-*** It seems that the policy is that no links to other Q&amp;A sites is allowed. This is a bizarre policy to say the least, but I will take it to be policy, since no moderator has corrected him. So I ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where is this policy documented? Where can I read the details of the policy? Specifically, I'm interested why comments (often posted by moderators here) like &quot;Cross-posted to PhysicsForums&quot; are allowed, even without the guarantee of any useful additional information being present on the linked site (showing a sharp contrast with the links to PhysicsOverflow threads, which already contain direct answers to the question).&#xD;&#xA; - Has this policy been implemented in the past? For example, if Anton Geraschenko had linked to a post on MathOverflow that answers the OP's question, would he also have faced a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'd like to clarify, that the issue is absolutely not &quot;advertisements of other Q&amp;A sites&quot; - rather, it's about posting links to direct answers to a particular question asked here. It's not too different from posting links to a wikipedia article that answers the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="f9984316-e57f-4ed1-b6d0-cf86b0dfc9cf" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:22:08.907" UserId="23119" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** This is not related to my 1-year suspension which just expired, I understand the reasons for that, because my comments were really spam (because I posted links to PO threads before they were answered there. Note that I'm also not asking for the reasons for any suspension, but rather asking for some clarification regarding a policy that doesn't seem clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [Dilaton](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton) was suspended for posting links to [PhysicsOverflow](http://physicsoverflow.org) threads that answers questions posted here on Physics.SE. Dilaton took explicit care to only post links to answers on PO which already had a positive number of upvotes, learning from my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am completely sure that this is the precise reason for his/her suspension, because I know from communication with him/her, the precise warnings that Dilaton received and the correspondence that went through. A moderator also tried to get some community support (although he failed to do so) for this decision beforehand by asking people in the hbar for their opinions. Furthermore, another moderator even created a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all mentions of PhysicsOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is there a list/blacklist of such &quot;controversial&quot; sites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***edit after Kyle Kanos's clarifications:-*** It seems that the policy is that no links to other Q&amp;A sites is allowed. This is a bizarre policy to say the least, but I will take it to be policy, since no moderator has corrected him. So I ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where is this policy documented? Where can I read the details of the policy? Specifically, I'm interested why comments (often posted by moderators here) like &quot;Cross-posted to PhysicsForums&quot; are allowed, even without the guarantee of any useful additional information being present on the linked site (showing a sharp contrast with the links to PhysicsOverflow threads, which already contain direct answers to the question).&#xD;&#xA; - Has this policy been implemented in the past? For example, if Anton Geraschenko had linked to a post on MathOverflow that answers the OP's question, would he also have faced a suspension?&#xD;&#xA; - What if I leave some other comments, too? Would the links to PO then still be considered spam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'd like to clarify, that the issue is absolutely not &quot;advertisements of other Q&amp;A sites&quot; - rather, it's about posting links to direct answers to a particular question asked here. It's not too different from posting links to a wikipedia article that answers the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="f9984316-e57f-4ed1-b6d0-cf86b0dfc9cf" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:22:08.907" UserId="23119" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="|support|comments|links|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="40e6b1e5-7f6e-4d29-8a53-086745c66e21" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:31:07.850" UserId="23119" Text="(**note:** this is different from [*Is it inappropriate behaviour to post links?*][1]; I am now asking for a debate on the existing policy, rather than asking whether the policy exists)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Kanos's answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links/6729#6729) to the forementioned thread claims that it is not allowed to post links to other Q&amp;A sites outside the Stackexchange network, and that it's up to a moderator to suspend a user for doing so. While he has not been able to cite the link to this policy, no moderator has corrected him, and his answer is gaining upvotes, so I'll assume that this is indeed policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this is a bizarre policy to have. What's the reason to maintain such a policy? Is it a network-wide policy, and is it irrevocable like &quot;Be Nice&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="40e6b1e5-7f6e-4d29-8a53-086745c66e21" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:31:07.850" UserId="23119" Text="Should linking to competitor sites really get you banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="40e6b1e5-7f6e-4d29-8a53-086745c66e21" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:31:07.850" UserId="23119" Text="|discussion|comments|links|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="bb5bfbe8-b7fa-4740-8a84-f60911843714" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:40:04.287" UserId="6634" Text="So I've read his answer many times now and I don't see how you reach the conclusion you reached here. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever be banned.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What should be banned is the repeated posting of a link to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternative physics Q&amp;A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc)1. It is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; repetitive nature of the act that is considered as spam,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is lost in the formatting here, but he even emphasized &quot;repeated&quot; twice as the problem. Since the italics didn't seem to convey the message, I will just repeat it here using bold instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever be banned.&#xD;&#xA;What should be banned is the **repeated** posting of a link to an&#xD;&#xA;alternative physics Q&amp;A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc). It is the&#xD;&#xA;**repetitive** nature of the act that is considered as spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully bold makes it clear for you. The problem is doing it **repeatedly** and **as the bulk of your contributions without disclosing your affiliation**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your question there focused on Q&amp;A sites, he mentioned Q&amp;A sites. I would say that **repeated** posting of links to **any** other site is spam. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18181" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="d5ab1ca0-f798-460f-af7d-ad3934c572ea" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:50:21.693" UserId="23119" Comment="edited title" Text="Should linking to competitor sites really get you suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="03a2302c-3d6f-4e01-a758-ddbdc9ee4dac" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:55:07.440" UserId="23119" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** This is not related to my 1-year suspension which just expired, I understand the reasons for that, because my comments were really spam (because I posted links to PO threads before they were answered there. Note that I'm also not asking for the reasons for any suspension, but rather asking for some clarification regarding a policy that doesn't seem clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [Dilaton](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton) was suspended for posting links to [PhysicsOverflow](http://physicsoverflow.org) threads that answers questions posted here on Physics.SE. Dilaton took explicit care to only post links to answers on PO which already had a positive number of upvotes, learning from my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am completely sure that this is the precise reason for his/her suspension, because I know from communication with him/her, the precise warnings that Dilaton received and the correspondence that went through. A moderator also tried to get some community support (although he failed to do so) for this decision beforehand by asking people in the hbar for their opinions. Furthermore, another moderator even created a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all mentions of PhysicsOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is there a list/blacklist of such &quot;controversial&quot; sites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***edit after Kyle Kanos's clarifications:-*** It seems that the policy is that no links to other Q&amp;A sites is allowed. This is a bizarre policy to say the least, but I will take it to be policy, since no moderator has corrected him. So I ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where is this policy documented? Where can I read the details of the policy? Specifically, I'm interested why comments (often posted by moderators here) like &quot;Cross-posted to PhysicsForums&quot; are allowed, even without the guarantee of any useful additional information being present on the linked site (showing a sharp contrast with the links to PhysicsOverflow threads, which already contain direct answers to the question).&#xD;&#xA; - Has this policy been implemented in the past? For example, if Anton Geraschenko had linked to a post on MathOverflow that answers the OP's question, would he also have faced a suspension?&#xD;&#xA; - What if I leave some other comments, too? Would the links to PO then still be considered spam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'd like to clarify, that the issue is absolutely not &quot;advertisements of other Q&amp;A sites&quot; - rather, it's about posting links to direct answers to a particular question asked here. It's not too different from posting links to a wikipedia article that answers the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It simply isn't advertising - I know the statistics of how useful the comments are for PO, and it's hardly noticeable. It would be pretty silly of me to post such comments to advertise PO, when it achieves little or nothing for PO (but it helps the OP), don't you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="4adf3184-62e5-4e9e-8556-46d56d49c32c" CreationDate="2015-04-23T10:21:06.700" UserId="1325" Text="The Physics SE is a community, and like all communities it needs everyone to pull together to keep it vibrant. The two most important things we expect of site members are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ask interesting and informed questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. provide interesting and informed answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course other supporting activities like processing the review queues, up and downvoting, flagging and probably others I haven't thought of, but these are background activities not immediately visible to site users. What the users see are the questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of us agree that *link only* answers are bad because they run the risk of link rot and they detract from the site's aim of being a repository of searchable information. If I repeatedly posted link only answers I'd expect to be censured for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also agree that providing answers in comments is deprecated, because if you're going to post an answer it should be a properly thought out and written answer that is both interesting and informative. Comments are just for clarification, suggesting corrections and possibly providing background information about questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is it controversial that providing link only answers in comments is a bad thing? At best it shows you're too idle to write a proper answer and at worst it sucks the lifeblood out of the site, as users wander off to other sites instead of devoting their energies to make the Physics SE a better place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the risk of making this personal, ask yourself why you are a member of this site. If you want to ask good questions or provide good answers then you're most welcome, as indeed is anyone else who shows that commitment. If the only activity you plan is to lurk in the background and post links to other Q/A sites as comments to questions, then you are contributing nothing to the site and you are actively hurting it by diverting resource away to other sites. At the risk of using emotive language, that behaviour is parasitic and offensive to everyone who does work hard to make this site a good place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="7113cd4a-736c-4efc-a3e9-a1b7e5e06a1d" CreationDate="2015-04-23T11:08:56.473" UserId="23119" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="(**note:** this is different from [*Is it inappropriate behaviour to post links?*][1]; I am now asking for a debate on the existing policy, rather than asking whether the policy exists. I would be fine if this is closed, but only after a moderator confirms what tpg2114 says below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Kanos's answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links/6729#6729) to the forementioned thread claims that it is not allowed to post links to other Q&amp;A sites outside the Stackexchange network, and that it's up to a moderator to suspend a user for doing so. While he has not been able to cite the link to this policy, no moderator has corrected him, and his answer is gaining upvotes, so I'll assume that this is indeed policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this is a bizarre policy to have. What's the reason to maintain such a policy? Is it a network-wide policy, and is it irrevocable like &quot;Be Nice&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="ba0559f6-07cc-4f09-9361-4f101853234c" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:26:32.177" UserId="8563" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned comments that are now [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18110760#18110760), is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will let slide a good bit more unpoliteness than you'll see here. It is certainly the case that their stance towards abuse is relatively hazy. The main thing that worries me about PO is well encapsulated by the question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, that answer is hardly conclusive, and it seems that the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do have a section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) on their FAQ, which I feel is hazy regarding abuse on the site, directing readers to a contact link. Mostly, they really shy away from providing any guidelines on what sort of behaviour is and is not acceptable on the site. Personally, I would be worried that certain types of very cutting *ad hominem* attacks - of the kind that has been observed and frowned upon on this site before - will be given a lot of free rein on PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, PO moderators have [stated informally](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se/6213?noredirect=1#comment20823_6213) that abuse will not be tolerated there, but I'm not sure how that squares with the comment above. At the very least, this is unclear and confusing as a PO user; personally, I would expect that some pretty bad stuff will inevitably slip through the cracks of that lack of clarity. I do not, however, advise people curious about PO to stay away from the site - instead, be aware of these points and make up your own mind whether you want to be part of that community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [previous one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites) (active until October 2014). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like PO to adopt an approach like [arXiv Analytics](http://arxitics.com/), which states on its front page, in crisp and clear language, that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We encourage frank, open, and constructive conversation, but frankness doesn't mean lack of civility or lack of respect for others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, though, that they're still reluctant to put any qualifiers behind 'frankness is allowed'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="77feb526-940c-414d-8cdc-5f930aaf7bb4" CreationDate="2015-04-23T13:19:15.830" UserId="7924" Comment="changed availability" Text="Specialties: quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, Lie algebras in physics, statistical physics, foundations of physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty: See my profile for availability.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6734" RevisionGUID="75a07e42-9c7c-4e51-acc3-4f1bbea4f75b" CreationDate="2015-04-23T15:39:54.140" UserId="8563" Text="As a general rule, if a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - contains a link to information that is directly pertinent to the OP's question, and to any future visitors interested in the post, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think it should be deleted. I do not think that repeated postings of such comments should be cause for concern, with the strong proviso that each and every comment must link to content specifically tailored to the post above it. I do not think that this practice is grounds for a suspension, really. I am troubled by the existence of programmatic ways to hunt for this type of links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this is a problem in terms of PO 'stealing' audience from this site as yet. If it does become a 'problem' - if PO does become much better than PSE at providing answers to PSE questions - then it is a sign of success on their part, so more power to them! If it becomes a problem in terms of this site losing audience and experts to a competitor, then it is this site's problem: the problem of becoming a better venue for its content and its community. The links themselves are not it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you're being disingenuous by pretending that this is the only thing that is happening. A cursory look at [Dilaton's comment history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton?tab=activity&amp;sort=comments) shows a bigger picture. For the majority of those posts, the timeline appears to be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - PSE user Alice posts a question on this site.&#xD;&#xA; - PO user Bob posts a link to the question on the [PO import queue](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/4536/import-queue) meta thread.&#xD;&#xA; - PO moderator Charlie imports the post from PSE to PO.&#xD;&#xA; - PO user Dave posts an answer on PO.&#xD;&#xA; - PO user Ed posts a link to the answer under the question on PSE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is perfectly legal, as Alice's post was licensed under CC-BY-SA and PO complies with the attribution requirements. However, it is a lot harder not to characterize this pattern as antisocial. One thing that makes this hard to evaluate is because it's hard to distinguish whether the pairs (Bob, Dave), (Bob, Ed) and (Charlie, Ed) are the same person, as there is no public record on PO of who actually imported the content; it is also hard to see how many imports were directly initiated by Charlie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally feel it was perfectly OK for PO to kick-start its content trove with imported content from PSE, particularly since a large chunk of it came from the unsuccessful Theoretical Physics site. However, importing PSE content posted *after* PO really got rolling is different, and I don't find it a welcome addition to the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me turn the tables a bit, and tell me how you'd feel about this perfectly legal coda to the above timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - PSE user Frank sees Ed's link and follows it. He sees Dave's answer and thinks &quot;This is brilliant! It's exactly what Alice was looking for! You know what, I'll go back to PSE and turn Ed's link-only-answer-turned-comment into the full thing.&quot; He then returns to PSE and adds a CW answer which contains Dave's PO post verbatim, with an addendum inside `&lt;sub&gt;` tags at the bottom linking Dave's PO profile and Dave's PO post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, this is something Ed might have done, but didn't do. One could argue that this is what Ed should have done if s/he simply wanted to help Alice and had no other interests at play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all of this going on, I don't see how you can expect this site not to see this behaviour as antisocial. You are in effect actively trying to co-opt audience that came specifically to this site, and I do not see why you should expect this site's support for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the timeline above pokes big holes in the claims that `PO and PSE are not competitors, they are simply different communities` and that `PO is self-sustaining in terms of users and content`. If either of them were the case, PO wouldn't *still* be importing content from PSE. It also leaves statements like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not too different from posting links to a Wikipedia article that answers the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;out in the cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issue is something that I think should really be addressed by PO in terms of what its mission is before you demand a resolution from this side. Is its purpose to aggressively take over from PSE? In that case, please don't fault the PSE community for finding such behaviour antisocial. Is it part of the PO mission to answer interesting questions from PSE? This can easily be done by answering directly in PSE. Is this sort of thing only to provide a home for content that was not well received in PSE? Then limit it to closed and tumbleweed questions, instead of pulling content that's less than a day old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all of this, I *still* don't think it's a good idea to remove those links. If there are gray-area cross-posted versions of PSE content on other sites, it is in PSE's interest to keep links to those versions around, instead of pretending that they simply don't exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="b8412d0a-99a7-42f9-bc4d-94abdbb39d67" CreationDate="2015-04-23T17:56:15.280" UserId="77928" Text="May I ask from someone ,through a comment, who gave an answer to a question relevant to a another question of mine, to check my question and tell me his opinion commenting or if he wishes answering it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="b8412d0a-99a7-42f9-bc4d-94abdbb39d67" CreationDate="2015-04-23T17:56:15.280" UserId="77928" Text="About comments to questions relative to others" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="b8412d0a-99a7-42f9-bc4d-94abdbb39d67" CreationDate="2015-04-23T17:56:15.280" UserId="77928" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="ac08cd20-6ada-433d-ad02-d44774a9c2b0" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:21:09.743" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="There is no mechanism for contacting users about a post if they have not already participated in that post, and for good reason. This is not meant to be a social network, and there is a real concern that relatively famous users would get so many unsolicited requests for help they would simply leave the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the two questions are really very closely linked, it would be okay to leave a comment like &quot;you might want to have a look at this related question of mine.&quot; But don't make a habit of it, and try not to focus on a select few users. The key is to not pester anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, most questions that can be answered can be answered by many users here, and if you always seek out one person in particular, while flattering for that person, can come off as a bit dismissive of everyone else's ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception to the &quot;don't go around asking particular people to solve your problems&quot; rule, and that is our [list of pingable users][1]. If anyone has listed themselves there, they are okay with being notified of questions in their topics of interest. That said, I'm fairly certain very few people utilize that resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="cefec489-c39a-4802-9f48-e464f5a0bfaf" CreationDate="2015-04-25T06:23:13.463" UserId="23119" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** This is not related to my 1-year suspension which just expired, I understand the reasons for that, because my comments were really spam (because I posted links to PO threads before they were answered there. Note that I'm also not asking for the reasons for any suspension, but rather asking for some clarification regarding a policy that doesn't seem clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [Dilaton](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton) was suspended for posting links to [PhysicsOverflow](http://physicsoverflow.org) threads that answers questions posted here on Physics.SE. Dilaton took explicit care to only post links to answers on PO which already had a positive number of upvotes, learning from my experience (because the moderator who had banned me had stated that it's OK to link to already-answered questions on PO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am completely sure that this is the precise reason for his/her suspension, because I know from communication with him/her, the precise warnings that Dilaton received and the correspondence that went through. A moderator also tried to get some community support (although he failed to do so) for this decision beforehand by asking people in the hbar for their opinions. Furthermore, another moderator even created a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all mentions of PhysicsOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is there a list/blacklist of such &quot;controversial&quot; sites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***edit after Kyle Kanos's clarifications:-*** It seems that the policy is that no links to other Q&amp;A sites is allowed. This is a bizarre policy to say the least, but I will take it to be policy, since no moderator has corrected him. So I ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where is this policy documented? Where can I read the details of the policy? Specifically, I'm interested why comments (often posted by moderators here) like &quot;Cross-posted to PhysicsForums&quot; are allowed, even without the guarantee of any useful additional information being present on the linked site (showing a sharp contrast with the links to PhysicsOverflow threads, which already contain direct answers to the question).&#xD;&#xA; - Has this policy been implemented in the past? For example, if Anton Geraschenko had linked to a post on MathOverflow that answers the OP's question, would he also have faced a suspension?&#xD;&#xA; - What if I leave some other comments, too? Would the links to PO then still be considered spam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'd like to clarify, that the issue is absolutely not &quot;advertisements of other Q&amp;A sites&quot; - rather, it's about posting links to direct answers to a particular question asked here. It's not too different from posting links to a wikipedia article that answers the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It simply isn't advertising - I know the statistics of how useful the comments are for PO, and it's hardly noticeable. It would be pretty silly of me to post such comments to advertise PO, when it achieves little or nothing for PO (but it helps the OP), don't you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="5e0a78a1-e8ac-4bbe-991a-396469dfaa20" CreationDate="2015-04-25T06:27:03.473" UserId="23119" Comment="added 720 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** I don't really have any hard feelings against SE any longer; I honestly do understand their point of view and way of functioning. It's just that the goals of PO are very different from those of StackExchange. I also figured out that a lot of my complaints when active here were unjustified (I'm talking about the &quot;wrong answers should be deleted&quot; nonsense that I liked to spread).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fundamental differences between PhysicsOverflow and Physics Stack Exchange, besides just the scope and level. Dilaton has already mentioned the difference in scope and level, but received a lot of flak for not mentioning what I initially thought were minor differences in policy, but upon further thought are actually important to point out, as mentioned by Emilio Pisanty and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main goal of PO is to support academic communities. SE's main goal is to support a library of interesting content (as their unofficial motto says, to &quot;make the internet better&quot;. I think both points of view are perfectly reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fundamental difference is from where a lot of the policy differences come from. For instance, PhysicsOverflow has a [user rights](http://physicsoverflow.org/user-rights) document, the [moderator manual](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ra1Ss1E-rWN3cyRC1zalAtT1U/edit) is made public and prominent from the PO homepage, and so on. PO's reviews section is a completely original idea, although there's also ArXiV-Analytics, but there are subtle differences which means the two aren't competitors either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are viewed as first-class citizens on PO, as they are important for an open discussion forum. Stack Exchange views them as somewhat inferior forms of content, again, because they do hinder the goal of forming neat Q&amp;A libraries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also true that PO does not have strict rules against rudeness. We have, however, recently adopted some guidelines that *encourage* politeness, although don't mandate them. It's a surprising kind of propaganda spread in a number of places that we somehow &quot;encourage&quot; rudeness. We absolutely don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments about &quot;what if sexism/racism arises? will that be removed?&quot; seem to be a sort of [appeal to emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion), but anyway - such content rarely arises on a professional physics site, and is illegal in a number of countries, including the European Union where PO's servers are hosted, and where PO's registrant lives, and therefore does become a natural exception to the user rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the relationship between the two sites, PhysicsOverflow has zero issues with PSE. Links to answers on PSE are completely welcome (although it is preferred to link to an imported copy, as those tend too have more content), and PhysicsOverflow very much does want to maintain at least a neutral, if not a cordial relationship with Physics.SE. In fact, we even link to Physics.SE in the email we send to newly registered users, which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists (including theoretical physicists, experimental physicists, phenomenologists, astronomers, and so on), including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular physics questions and Undergraduate/K-12 level questions are better suited on Quora or Physics Stack Exchange; Purely mathematical questions will be better received on MathOverflow if research-level, and Mathematics Stack Exchange if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks for your registration!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physicsoverflow.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this feeling is not reciprocated from the other side. While I understand the reason for my ban for &quot;promotional content&quot; (although I would have preferred a warning beforehand), I really do not understand the reason for Dilaton's ban for the same stated pretext; Dilaton only posted links to PO threads once the questions were actually answered, yet was suspended for a year for doing so. I wonder if SE would have a similiar reaction, if a user posted links to Wikipedia, or Quora, or Physicsforums, or another Stack Exchange site repeatedly. Is it so bad to post some useful links to help the OP and other people interested in the question? I mean, you guys even made a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all links to PO here! What was that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope to see these issues resolved soon, because unlike say, PF, PO is not intended to be a competitor to PSE at all, rather a completely different platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="c834f246-6985-4106-974b-7382f9b137ad" CreationDate="2015-04-25T08:36:28.730" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 277 characters in body" Text="***preamble:-*** I don't really have any hard feelings against SE any longer; I honestly do understand their point of view and way of functioning. It's just that the goals of PO are very different from those of StackExchange. I also figured out that a lot of my complaints when active here were unjustified (I'm talking about the &quot;wrong answers should be deleted&quot; nonsense that I liked to spread).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fundamental differences between PhysicsOverflow and Physics Stack Exchange, besides just the scope and level. Dilaton has already mentioned the difference in scope and level, but received a lot of flak for not mentioning what I initially thought were minor differences in policy, but upon further thought are actually important to point out, as mentioned by Emilio Pisanty and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main goal of PO is to support academic communities. SE's main goal is to support a library of interesting content (as their unofficial motto says, to &quot;make the internet better&quot;. I think both points of view are perfectly reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fundamental difference is from where a lot of the policy differences come from. For instance, PhysicsOverflow has a [user rights](http://physicsoverflow.org/user-rights) document, the [moderator manual](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ra1Ss1E-rWN3cyRC1zalAtT1U/edit) is made public and prominent from the PO homepage, and so on. PO's reviews section is a completely original idea, although there's also ArXiV-Analytics, but there are subtle differences which means the two aren't competitors either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are viewed as first-class citizens on PO, as they are important for an open discussion forum. Stack Exchange views them as somewhat inferior forms of content, again, because they do hinder the goal of forming neat Q&amp;A libraries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also true that PO does not have strict rules against rudeness. We have, however, recently adopted some guidelines that *encourage* politeness, although don't mandate them. It's a surprising kind of propaganda spread in a number of places that we somehow &quot;encourage&quot; rudeness. We absolutely don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments about &quot;what if sexism/racism arises? will that be removed?&quot; seem to be a sort of [appeal to emotion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion), but anyway - such content rarely arises on a professional physics site, and is illegal in a number of countries, including the European Union where PO's servers are hosted, and where PO's registrant lives, and therefore does become a natural exception to the user rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the relationship between the two sites, PhysicsOverflow has zero issues with PSE. Links to answers on PSE are completely welcome (although it is preferred to link to an imported copy, as those tend too have more content), and PhysicsOverflow very much does want to maintain at least a neutral, if not a cordial relationship with Physics.SE. In fact, we even link to Physics.SE in the email we send to newly registered users, the relevant section is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular physics questions and Undergraduate/K-12 level questions are better suited on Quora or Physics Stack Exchange; Purely mathematical questions (that are not relevant for physicists) will be better received on MathOverflow if research-level, and Mathematics Stack Exchange if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this feeling is not reciprocated from the other side. While I understand the reason for my ban for &quot;promotional content&quot; (although I would have preferred a warning beforehand), I really do not understand the reason for Dilaton's ban for the same stated pretext; Dilaton only posted links to PO threads once the questions were actually answered, yet was suspended for a year for doing so. I wonder if SE would have a similiar reaction, if a user posted links to Wikipedia, or Quora, or Physicsforums, or another Stack Exchange site repeatedly. Is it so bad to post some useful links to help the OP and other people interested in the question? I mean, you guys even made a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all links to PO here! What was that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope to see these issues resolved soon, because unlike say, PF, PO is not intended to be a competitor to PSE at all, rather a completely different platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="6ae3b21f-6cda-4c8f-9510-7b838c770713" CreationDate="2015-04-25T16:29:52.690" UserId="25605" Text="According to one of the answers to my post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics.SE is not a homework help site, it is not meant to be a resource to teach people physics, and it is not a resource intended to help right conceptual misconceptions in students. When it was originally created, this site was meant to be a place where active physicists doing active research could come and ask/answer questions. It was intended to be a resource for physicists to be able to find answers to common questions they may want to ask. Much like how SO is most useful to programmers that are trying to program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that means we need another site (newly from Area 51) or any other existing site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that really means we need or I need a different place as a student to help me get my doubts cleared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="6ae3b21f-6cda-4c8f-9510-7b838c770713" CreationDate="2015-04-25T16:29:52.690" UserId="25605" Text="Clarification regarding conceptual doubts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="6ae3b21f-6cda-4c8f-9510-7b838c770713" CreationDate="2015-04-25T16:29:52.690" UserId="25605" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="16d14793-6de6-4ea0-86d4-53033df4070b" CreationDate="2015-04-26T01:04:41.637" UserId="25301" Text="Yes, we are not a homework help site; there are other venues for that (see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh for more details), if that is what you really need/want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the SE level, each SE site has their own self-given rules about what is on-topic and what is off-topic. While [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [StackOverflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com) might approve of doing someone else's homework, we don't. And we're not really interested in opening the flood gates for that, as [you can read in the many posts here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework+is%3Aquestion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you *do* want some physics homework help on SE &quot;turf,&quot; there is an area51 proposal already active to this end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a long way to go (40 Q's with &gt;9 score and 42 more people following it), but it *could* happen *if it gathers momentum*. This could only happen if people who *want it* will go out and *promote it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So that really means we need or I need a different place as a student to help me get my doubts cleared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your doubts are numerically based (e.g., *I entered &quot;this&quot; into my equation and got the wrong answer! Help me!*) then yes. If your doubts are conceptually based (e.g., *How can quasars emit anything if they are black holes?*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), then you are at the correct spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many (but likely not all) of the numerically based questions *could* be turned into a decent conceptual question, *if* (big stress there) the OP takes the time to think about *what* is troubling them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Asked and answered [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137837/)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="0442cd38-2f0f-4eb1-983e-8be6d3d920e1" CreationDate="2015-04-26T07:27:35.170" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="49fe3457-3171-4d2a-95d1-8171ab0ed407" CreationDate="2015-04-26T12:07:00.657" UserId="8563" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Science][30]][29]&#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Homework questions][38]][37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][28]][27]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][32]][31]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][36]][35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65426/open-science&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65426.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://datascience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/55053.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="811746f2-6d29-489f-aee2-21890346070e" CreationDate="2015-04-26T12:08:50.327" UserId="8563" Text="[![Physics homework questions Q&amp;A][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18207" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="28b5e01e-a5b7-466c-9eb4-3a949a2518a2" CreationDate="2015-04-26T12:08:50.327" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="18208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="640c2188-75d2-4bda-876d-b87c3be4962e" CreationDate="2015-04-26T14:20:49.327" UserId="78777" Text="http://www.thephysicsforum.com/forum.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="5e0e744a-d957-4989-b5bf-763aa38de2c5" CreationDate="2015-04-26T14:23:47.087" UserId="78777" Text="http://physicshelpforum.com/physics-help-forum.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18210" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="c09a6e30-5e0b-48f9-ad56-e2d08d3a1e4a" CreationDate="2015-04-26T19:01:12.410" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6727],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23389,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;innisfree&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dimensio1n0&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="3bfe1e88-6cea-4ebf-940b-6aa81a9523cc" CreationDate="2015-04-26T19:21:51.537" UserId="7743" Text="When I typing my post MathJax re-render the preview after each key press, leading to an annoying flicker in the preview area as I'm typing. When there are lots of formulas it also slows down the entire thing making my characters appear in the editing window with a noticeable delay as it renders. My computer isn't a recent fast one so it's quite annoying when my post contains lots of formulas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to add some delay so it re-renders it let's say a second after the last keypress?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="3bfe1e88-6cea-4ebf-940b-6aa81a9523cc" CreationDate="2015-04-26T19:21:51.537" UserId="7743" Text="Formulas are flickering in the preview as I type" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="3bfe1e88-6cea-4ebf-940b-6aa81a9523cc" CreationDate="2015-04-26T19:21:51.537" UserId="7743" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="440fe878-2426-484a-bf23-e16eb99ec72a" CreationDate="2015-04-26T19:56:38.643" UserId="7743" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="When I typing my post MathJax re-render the preview after each key press, leading to an annoying flicker in the preview area as I'm typing. When there are lots of formulas it also slows down the entire thing making my characters appear in the editing window with a noticeable delay as it renders. My computer isn't a recent fast one so it's quite annoying when my post contains lots of formulas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to add some delay so it re-renders it let's say a second after the last keypress?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Operating system: Linux &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results of `uname -a`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Linux calmarius-desktop 3.2.0-80-generic #116-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 23 17:11:03 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The browser is Google Chrome 42.0.2311.90 (64-bit) without addons.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="63679f39-ba10-4b22-9197-f530b156d8fa" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:13:05.543" UserId="2447" Text="They are separate tags right now, should they be linked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="63679f39-ba10-4b22-9197-f530b156d8fa" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:13:05.543" UserId="2447" Text="Should tags centripetal-force and centrifugal-force be linked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="63679f39-ba10-4b22-9197-f530b156d8fa" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:13:05.543" UserId="2447" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="ff4ada18-60f8-4aac-b649-8e1132f18392" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:14:52.787" UserId="8563" Comment="Added links for convenience." Text="The tags [tag:centripetal-force] and [tag:centrifugal-force] are currently separate tags. Should they be linked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18220" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="ff4ada18-60f8-4aac-b649-8e1132f18392" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:14:52.787" UserId="8563" Comment="Added links for convenience." Text="|discussion|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="36aa498f-0328-469b-9ee3-d93ddb67dd3f" CreationDate="2015-04-27T12:53:41.997" UserId="124" Text="I think it's fine to keep them separate, since they're different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![XKCD 123](//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png)](//xkcd.com/123/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="7d7ecc3a-282a-43b5-b59e-02aeea497127" CreationDate="2015-04-28T02:46:40.557" UserId="25605" Text="[![Proposed Q&amp;A site for people preparing for competitive exams, especially in India (and outside too) to come and discuss about their queries and help others solve problems with national and international exams and Olympiads. A little reasonable advice could also be given.][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yhyRT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams?referrer=uQtcXaMCGQOGlwjYmelKJA2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18223" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="92d80fd7-f287-4212-8596-8a85dc839878" CreationDate="2015-04-28T02:46:40.557" UserId="25605" />
  <row Id="18224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4c2d5f63-a97d-488b-9ea8-266fd7caf034" CreationDate="2015-04-28T02:51:45.110" UserId="25605" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Science][30]][29]&#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Homework questions][38]][37]&#xD;&#xA;[![Competitive Exams][40]][39]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][28]][27]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][32]][31]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][36]][35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65426/open-science&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65426.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://datascience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/55053.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [39]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [40]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="622e8c37-3f35-455c-a21d-d5011eeabd62" CreationDate="2015-04-28T03:05:30.907" UserId="25605" Comment="deleted 254 characters in body" Text="[![Competitive Exams][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yhyRT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams?referrer=uQtcXaMCGQOGlwjYmelKJA2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="83b50cbc-95d8-4495-9e3a-fa97f3944f89" CreationDate="2015-04-28T03:07:18.610" UserId="25605" Comment="added 569 characters in body" Text="According to one of the answers to my post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics.SE is not a homework help site, it is not meant to be a resource to teach people physics, and it is not a resource intended to help right conceptual misconceptions in students. When it was originally created, this site was meant to be a place where active physicists doing active research could come and ask/answer questions. It was intended to be a resource for physicists to be able to find answers to common questions they may want to ask. Much like how SO is most useful to programmers that are trying to program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that means we need another site (newly from Area 51) or any other existing site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that really means we need or I need a different place as a student to help me get my doubts cleared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;According to the anawers I am thinking that probably one these two would be then useful for me (I'm following both). I hope people will help these, as they still are in definiton `:(` :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Physics homework questions Q&amp;A][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Competitive Exams][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yhyRT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams?referrer=uQtcXaMCGQOGlwjYmelKJA2&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="be3503f0-fe98-4aef-8be9-5334c36a3486" CreationDate="2015-04-28T10:29:09.897" UserId="8563" Comment="Fixed competitive exams link" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Science][30]][29]&#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Homework questions][38]][37]&#xD;&#xA;[![Competitive Exams][40]][39]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Chemistry][16]][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][28]][27]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][32]][31]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][36]][35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65426/open-science&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65426.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://datascience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/55053.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [39]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [40]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="cf2213c5-b521-4ce0-9b5a-f9f86f9db6ff" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:07:23.417" UserId="8563" Text="So this was closed again, this time as Too Broad. I disagree with this: the question is perfectly well posed with a concise (and quite demanding) set of requirements on its possible answers. Yes, it could conceivably receive more than one answer, but so do many questions on this site. If it starts receiving a plethora of answers, then we can put them all into a single CW answer (which in fact is probably a good idea anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't vote to reopen again but I really disagree with this closure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="b232875d-fc1d-4b8d-8291-3cab71239964" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:12:19.537" UserId="62952" Text="So I was trying to update [this question][1] with a link to another well asked question [here][2] - I tried twice, but each time my answer did not appear- I am wondering if it is being checked because I asked the original question and already posted one answer...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...the idea was to post [good examples of homework questions][3] as separate answers, which is why I want to add a second answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what is going on? I typed out an answer twice and both hit post both times, but nothing seemed to appear....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam#comment379180_178722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="b232875d-fc1d-4b8d-8291-3cab71239964" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:12:19.537" UserId="62952" Text="Problems trying to post a second answer to question (second from same user)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="b232875d-fc1d-4b8d-8291-3cab71239964" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:12:19.537" UserId="62952" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="705cf5d5-2bff-42ee-8b1e-44d1721acdea" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:30:48.067" UserId="2451" Text="It's probably caused by a [SE script](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/202805) that automatically converts short answers into [comments](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions#comment25159_6442)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="1c336f77-c2a7-400b-a3e8-2d7939a890f7" CreationDate="2015-04-28T12:12:58.277" UserId="76233" Text="I'm in the situation of having a long answer but no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[regarding this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can discard the answer so nobody has any benefit from it and the time I spent writing it is deemed wasted.&#xD;&#xA;**Or** I could post that answer somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the later, asking for verification of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;It got put on hold, because it should: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **should ask about a specific physics concept**, which it does: a height&#xD;&#xA; - **show some effort**, which is plain wrong and a bit of an insult&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an attempt to explain these unfitting probably predefined statements, I receive this comment from [Emilio Pisanty][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; check-my-work questions are not really on topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank for the clarification Emilio, it is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I get it. If the source of a question is stigmatised with the possibility of being homework, [treat it differently as discussed here.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me wondering what I should have been doing differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point of posting the answer was that I thought that there could be some value for the community in it. Being told to be unspecific, lacking effort and off topic as a response is **not exactly encouraging to create exhaustive answers in the future and provide such to this community**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do in a situation like that?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178833/how-to-find-the-height-where-the-collision-of-two-balls-occurs?noredirect=1#comment379181_178833&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="1c336f77-c2a7-400b-a3e8-2d7939a890f7" CreationDate="2015-04-28T12:12:58.277" UserId="76233" Text="What should I do with long exhaustive answers in lack of a question and in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="1c336f77-c2a7-400b-a3e8-2d7939a890f7" CreationDate="2015-04-28T12:12:58.277" UserId="76233" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="3514e80a-ddcf-4f5e-80dd-81a69d3413b5" CreationDate="2015-04-28T13:20:24.597" UserId="8563" Text="The problem with this type of question is that it is *very* unlikely to be helpful to anyone who has not been staring for half an hour at the precise same problem that you have. The problem itself is pretty artificial and the only reason to care about that height is because you saw it in a book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In addition, your working is extremely hard to read and is unlikely to be helpful even to someone with the same problem, as it takes a good bit of decoding. It is never enough to just provide a long list of equations that sort of go somewhere; you need to provide some connecting tissue to tell the reader what you're doing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't be offended at the 'show some effort' bit. This is an automatic message that needs to cover a wide range of cases. Its purpose is to give users a sense of what's wrong with their question and redirect them to more detailed information - which you did find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this is that it is *not* a conceptual question. Saying that it is about &quot;a height&quot; is not enough - all questions *include* concepts, but this does not equate to be asking *about* them. The problem in your question is a routine calculation with no conceptual content. For more information, please read [our guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) carefully. To get a more detailed breakdown of this community's attitudes towards homework(-like) questions, see the [Bite-sizing homework](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) thread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="bc34ddc4-5eb4-4368-adba-9cdeaf0e65bf" CreationDate="2015-04-28T23:11:04.113" UserId="62952" Text="&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;This is a well asked question about mechanics and forces [see determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I particularly like about the question is that it is clearly laid out and it is possible to see the thought process of the person asking the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="e6bfa48e-dfdb-48ed-87d1-42e74a276ea7" CreationDate="2015-04-29T00:42:33.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/593213746576760832" />
  <row Id="18239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="0ec5c6fe-f9ed-4611-8f28-8008577b8b17" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:49:28.077" UserId="1325" Text="I would reinforce what Emilio says. In this particular case the answer is unlikely to be a valuable long term resource for the site. However, to provide a more general answer to the question: exactly the same thing happened to me, and my response was basically the same as yours i.e. I posted a fresh question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then posted the answer I'd spent all that time writing. The Physics SE supports, and indeed encourages, the posting of [canonical questions and answers][1] where these will be helpful to the Physics community. You'll note that when you're posting a new question there is a tick box labelled *Answer your own question* with [a link to explain the principles involved][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="7637d51c-3e2d-4698-8f54-80282e91d329" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:34:41.270" UserId="1325" Text="Take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/179002/dark-matter-clumping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question and [the answer is not at all obvious][1]. I assume it was downvoted just because it's a duplicate, but is this really appropriate? Downvoting can be used to make questions disappear from the home page, and also to deter people from answering, but neither of those reasons apply in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/174983/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="7637d51c-3e2d-4698-8f54-80282e91d329" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:34:41.270" UserId="1325" Text="We seem to be over eager to downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="7637d51c-3e2d-4698-8f54-80282e91d329" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:34:41.270" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6755" RevisionGUID="9a844607-41ff-4158-b828-6b86c3adb7da" CreationDate="2015-04-29T10:00:28.940" UserId="24653" Text="I'm not sure if you're trying to make a broader argument here, but I don't really see any serious issue with the question you've linked. It was only downvoted once, which may just as well be explained in a number of different ways (e.g. someone thinking dark matter is a myth, personally disliking the OP or other kinds of uninteresting stuff). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's simply too little evidence to draw any serious conclusions from: Every experienced user knows that unexplained and seemingly unreasonable downvotes are part of the game, and that's just how it is. To me, it seems clear that there was no excessively negative response to the question. If you think that we're dealing with a larger trend here, then maybe it would be a good idea to address that in another meta post. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="743e5e21-de3f-4295-b5b9-70967cb1dcbd" CreationDate="2015-04-29T10:05:46.180" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to Danu" Text="Take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/179002/dark-matter-clumping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question and [the answer is not at all obvious][1]. I assume it was downvoted just because it's a duplicate, but is this really appropriate? Downvoting can be used to make questions disappear from the home page, and also to deter people from answering, but neither of those reasons apply in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re Danu's answer: I mention this question because it's the one that caught my eye most recently, but it seems to me I see an increasing trend of downvoting questions that I don't think deserve it. It also seems to me that once a question has attracted the first downvote a slew of bandwagon downvotes rapidly follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a question, more a rant, so it doesn't really have an answer. But while I'm here ranting let me urge site members to consider whether their downvote will actually achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/174983/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="ee2f22f7-b678-4954-abe7-9088be451101" CreationDate="2015-04-29T15:24:22.660" UserId="46399" Text="(_The mentioned question does not have my downvote, so this is not a response to that. I only flagged it as a duplicate and moved on._)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While any individual user can not (and _should not_) create an official voting policy which is followed (in general) by others, I would still like to advance my personal viewpoint regarding voting on (obvious) duplicates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that duplicate questions should be sitting on a positive score. Using the search bar on right-top is intended to be a precondition before posting a question, and in the case of obvious duplicates, going through this procedure would lead them to the answer that they want. If that doesn't address the OP concerns completely, he/she can always post a follow-up question (liking to the original, of course). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people start upvoting (obvious) duplicates, based on the argument that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is an excellent question and the answer is not at all obvious, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it creates a possibility of gaining unfair reputation from the system in the following manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 1 - I use the search bar to find &quot;_excellent_&quot; questions, let us say of around 3 years back (so that only a few (old) users have seen them before. Others can only use the search bar to find out whether that has been asked before, but that's extra effort, which most people won't do. So, chances of being caught reduce.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 2 - I rephrase them in my own words, making them the proverbial _old wine in new bottle_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 3 - Wait for John Rennie to visit my post! There will be at least one upvote. (And/or) If an occasional answer comes along, even better. I'll upvote it/accept it, and the post won't be deleted then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, by carrying out the above procedure, I have shown no research effort, yet I get a positive score (+5, or +7, depending on whether or not it got answered.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - maybe if I keep posting duplicates, I could be in trouble with some automatic scripts on SE. But all such scripts come with certain thresholds, and one such &quot;game&quot; post, followed by three/four normal posts, can always escape detection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note - When I say duplicate questions should not be sitting on a positive score, I am not suggesting that they deserve to be sitting at -1 or -2 either. The right score for them is 0, no gain and no loss. Therefore, the best policy here seems to be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Flag, and move on!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="1b135e23-ed85-46d9-8175-3c4e871c126c" CreationDate="2015-04-29T17:47:10.407" UserId="62952" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;This is a well asked question about mechanics and forces [see determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I particularly like about the question is that it is clearly laid out and it is possible to see the thought process of the person asking the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;Edit arfter great comment from @KyleKanos.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.... The question is well laid out and clear, but narrowly focuses on one aspect of a problem so it may not be helpful to other people to look at.. Probably it is for this reason that the question has been closed now. Generally homework type questions should ask about particular concepts of physics that will be useful to other people in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="aab64990-a27d-44d8-b023-2043a49a214b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:18:37.270" UserId="77928" Text="I would like to ask if questions about connections between different interpretations of physical theories can be posted(let me be exact: an example of a question like that is &quot;What are the connections between Relational and Bohmian Quantum Mechanics?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="aab64990-a27d-44d8-b023-2043a49a214b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:18:37.270" UserId="77928" Text="Connections between interpretations of theories" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="aab64990-a27d-44d8-b023-2043a49a214b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:18:37.270" UserId="77928" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="6ecf165b-d433-4590-a44d-b30a3f1ed808" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:37:19.477" UserId="23473" Text="There's potential for such a question to be too broad or opinion-based. But as long as you keep it concise and on-topic, it should be fine. There isn't anything wrong with the type of question per se. Just be careful with what and how you ask things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="8453b4aa-8623-4f5f-8a68-3e552697533a" CreationDate="2015-04-29T20:10:51.277" UserId="78910" Text="I have a controversial opinion about this. I think there isn't any harm in answering questions that have been answered before. There are usually multiple ways to answer and many different styles of presentation. But it should be acknowledged that the question was answered before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="1244243a-9005-430f-86c8-d54440157587" CreationDate="2015-04-29T23:17:43.387" UserId="73774" Text="I haven't enough experience on Stack to have formed a view about down-voting in general, but as personal testimony I was really put off Stack for quite a while - I've only just returned today - by a down-voting event I was at the receiving end of. I will obviously link to the question I had asked at the bottom, and for that reason I won't give details that are available there, and will assume anyone taking an interest in my answer will obviously want to check my account by looking at the question itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was I asked a question that was commented on by a user with significant reputation effectively dismissing the question. The user had already been given a significant ++points for his comment, and my question and been down-voted and stood at -1. When I returned, I pointed out that I was literally quoting (well, paraphrasing) a very senior cosmologist and provided the YouTube link. I also pointed out that my question actually supposed what the cosmologist said had to be false and gave my reasons. So even without clarifying, just in the question itself, there were no grounds at all for being dismissed. This matter got sorted out in the question/answer process, in that the answers all confirmed the cosmologist's position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that was fine. But my negative down-vote was not corrected - even back to 0. Nor were the generous number of points awarded the initial commenter who got it totally wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I felt like this totally invaded and violated my integrity. OK I'm just making that up tee hee.....if an isolated event it's doesn't really matter I can see that. But the reason I suspect it isn't, is because that kind of patter, I would imagine, corresponds to one aspect of the negative dimension to any kind of social reputation system. Which o the whole is obviously a great idea and even if it wasn't, it's just a reality for humans anyway. But there are down-sides that should be well understood and taken serious so as to minimize their effects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is over-trusting people with higher reputation. Not a problem for beginners and casuals...but becomes a potential problem for more senior people, such as those with moderating rights in context of StackExchange, if they have the power to down-vote beginner questions based on high-value users if they comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is - and this is relevant to the question above - a kind of statistical tendency for people to play it too safe. Reason being there's a lot of cranks and agendas out there, that aren't really very scientific at basis. So there's a need to keep StackExchange scientific in line with its goals, and that tends to make it necessary to quote consensus positions only. And this then tends to intersect with the reputation system with the result the basis of reputation, the higher up you go, becomes all the more squeezed into very conservative non-risk taking positions. Which leaves a lot of questions unanswered or answered in a way that implicitly rewrites the question to exclude components that speculate beyond what is safe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to really emphasise here, that in hindsight I think leaving stack for weeks over this was an over-reaction. I think the system is really fabulous and I haven't observed a single incident involving a moderator or anyone else that can reasonably be called 'badly motivated' Everyone wants to teach and learn and share and that's terrific. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for that reason I want to conclude by suggestion a solution based on the above personal experience - which may be biased and probably is so please go look - and personal thoughts about 'reputation' which may be wrong and probably is. Furthermore my solutions, for all I know are already in place, in which case....whatever! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is for three new workflow components. Both of these changes assume the good-will and best intentions of moderators and others, which I've observed. It's still down to their personal judgement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Alter the Stack-exchange application, such that a 'down-vote' action is changed from a simple control event, into a process that begins with the down-voting event, and completes a few days later when the task shows up on the same person's 'to-do' list, to simply review the decision based on subsequent events if any. At that point they can either confirm the down-vote, mark it for second-opinion, reverse the decision, change it, whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Have a new status for questions that defaults to something like &quot;answerable within consensus&quot;, but other statuses like &quot;speculative/risky&quot; and then &quot;tagged for deletion&quot;. Include an explanation about the reality of the world being full of non-scientific explanations and agendas and the need for stack-exchange to maintain scientific integrity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. add a new status to individual comments/answers that corresponds to the status of the question at the time. So in other words, it becomes possible to give a risky answer to a risky question. It's still going to be more risky than answering within consensus, and there are good reasons why it should be. But it will allow people to take measured risks...in the knowledge that anyone judging will have sight of the context that the question itself was risky. It's still down to personal judgement, how risky is reasonable, and how much is too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concluding remarks&#xD;&#xA;I think changes like this will have a small but compounding effect. Over time and over many many events and people, the impact will continue to grow and eventually it will become dramatic/striking. This is because it directly mitigates the down-side of reputation without diluting reputation. And reputation is fundamental to human society, so the impacts are larger over larger intervals. Thank you for reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The promised link: &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170937/why-are-orbits-around-black-holes-stable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="ce0140e6-b561-4c14-b894-97ac1e086269" CreationDate="2015-04-29T23:50:09.113" UserId="36652" Text="This isn't an answer, but I can't post it as a comment. Dan's comment &quot;I think it's simply too little evidence to draw any serious conclusions from&quot; reminded me of an [earlier post on meta.tex.stackexchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence is pretty easy to get using the [DataExplorer Query][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    neg     zero        pos         total       %neg            %zero           %pos&#xD;&#xA;    tex             313	    15317	    189068	    204698	    0.1529081867	7.482730657	    92.36436116&#xD;&#xA;    mathoveflow	    1582	12921	    145288	    159791	    0.990043244	    8.086187583	    90.92376917&#xD;&#xA;    ux	            811	    14175	    47473	    62459	    1.298451784	    22.69488785	    76.00666037&#xD;&#xA;    math	        14317	262857	    779308	    1056482	    1.355157968	    24.88040497	    73.76443707&#xD;&#xA;    super user	    15751	252728	    410831	    679310	    2.318676304	    37.2036331	    60.4776906&#xD;&#xA;    programmers	    4917	28655	    132933	    166505	    2.953064473	    17.2096934	    79.83724212&#xD;&#xA;    stackoverflow	738773	10471867	13648708	24859348	2.97181165	    42.1244636	    54.9072475&#xD;&#xA;    physics	        4700	29547	    101190	    135437	    3.47024816	    21.81604731	    74.71370453&#xD;&#xA;    English	        10230	38334	    136987	    185551	    5.513309009	    20.65954913	    73.82714186&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes: physics.stackexchange has more down votes than other &quot;technical&quot; stack exchanges. [Of course, that isn't necessarily bad, but it might be...I don't know!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/tex-se-really-are-nicer-voters&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/159549/meaness-of-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6763" RevisionGUID="b168190b-18a3-45cd-813b-6007ab651e31" CreationDate="2015-04-30T03:01:01.897" UserId="68181" Text="I wouldn't usually downvote a duplicate, but it seems to me that people should be checking for duplicates first, before they upvote any question. I've been trying to do that more myself recently. In response to The Dark Side's point: if a question is flagged as a duplicate, then are any reputation gains for upvotes on the question reversed? If not, maybe they should be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="8fe2dc40-01e8-4236-9806-2b68ab7d1ac4" CreationDate="2015-04-30T03:42:35.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/593621441343520768" />
  <row Id="18260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="3cd42bc4-68fe-45f3-9b25-7d702fd8cfc7" CreationDate="2015-04-30T11:51:25.037" UserId="36652" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="This isn't an answer, but I can't post it as a comment. Dan's comment &quot;I think it's simply too little evidence to draw any serious conclusions from&quot; reminded me of an [earlier post on meta.tex.stackexchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence is pretty easy to get using the [DataExplorer Query][2]. Here are some statistics on **questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    neg     zero        pos         total       %neg            %zero           %pos&#xD;&#xA;    tex             313	    15317	    189068	    204698	    0.1529081867	7.482730657	    92.36436116&#xD;&#xA;    mathoveflow	    1582	12921	    145288	    159791	    0.990043244	    8.086187583	    90.92376917&#xD;&#xA;    ux	            811	    14175	    47473	    62459	    1.298451784	    22.69488785	    76.00666037&#xD;&#xA;    math	        14317	262857	    779308	    1056482	    1.355157968	    24.88040497	    73.76443707&#xD;&#xA;    super user	    15751	252728	    410831	    679310	    2.318676304	    37.2036331	    60.4776906&#xD;&#xA;    programmers	    4917	28655	    132933	    166505	    2.953064473	    17.2096934	    79.83724212&#xD;&#xA;    stackoverflow	738773	10471867	13648708	24859348	2.97181165	    42.1244636	    54.9072475&#xD;&#xA;    physics	        4700	29547	    101190	    135437	    3.47024816	    21.81604731	    74.71370453&#xD;&#xA;    English	        10230	38334	    136987	    185551	    5.513309009	    20.65954913	    73.82714186&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (Data collected 4/29/2015.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes: physics.stackexchange has more down votes than other &quot;technical&quot; stack exchanges. [Of course, that isn't necessarily bad, but it might be...I don't know!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/tex-se-really-are-nicer-voters&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/159549/meaness-of-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="60d9056c-1296-4675-97a7-45facf2c90f3" CreationDate="2015-04-30T11:56:50.663" UserId="36652" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="This isn't an answer, but I can't post it as a comment. Danu's comment &quot;I think it's simply too little evidence to draw any serious conclusions from&quot; reminded me of an [earlier post on meta.tex.stackexchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence is pretty easy to get using the [DataExplorer Query][2]. Here are some statistics on **questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    neg     zero        pos         total       %neg            %zero           %pos&#xD;&#xA;    tex             313	    15317	    189068	    204698	    0.1529081867	7.482730657	    92.36436116&#xD;&#xA;    mathoveflow	    1582	12921	    145288	    159791	    0.990043244	    8.086187583	    90.92376917&#xD;&#xA;    ux	            811	    14175	    47473	    62459	    1.298451784	    22.69488785	    76.00666037&#xD;&#xA;    math	        14317	262857	    779308	    1056482	    1.355157968	    24.88040497	    73.76443707&#xD;&#xA;    super user	    15751	252728	    410831	    679310	    2.318676304	    37.2036331	    60.4776906&#xD;&#xA;    programmers	    4917	28655	    132933	    166505	    2.953064473	    17.2096934	    79.83724212&#xD;&#xA;    stackoverflow	738773	10471867	13648708	24859348	2.97181165	    42.1244636	    54.9072475&#xD;&#xA;    physics	        4700	29547	    101190	    135437	    3.47024816	    21.81604731	    74.71370453&#xD;&#xA;    English	        10230	38334	    136987	    185551	    5.513309009	    20.65954913	    73.82714186&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (Data collected 4/29/2015.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes: physics.stackexchange users down vote questions more often than other &quot;technical&quot; stack exchanges. [Of course, that isn't necessarily bad, but it might be...I don't know!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/tex-se-really-are-nicer-voters&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/159549/meaness-of-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="67c599e0-b49a-4eb2-93d7-cd6f69757ee4" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:30:26.350" UserId="36652" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="This isn't an answer, but I can't post it as a comment. Danu's comment &quot;I think it's simply too little evidence to draw any serious conclusions from&quot; reminded me of an [earlier post on meta.tex.stackexchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence is pretty easy to get using the [DataExplorer Query][2]. Here are some statistics on **questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    neg     zero        pos         total       %neg            %zero           %pos&#xD;&#xA;    tex             313	    15317	    189068	    204698	    0.1529081867	7.482730657	    92.36436116&#xD;&#xA;    mathoveflow	    1582	12921	    145288	    159791	    0.990043244	    8.086187583	    90.92376917&#xD;&#xA;    ux	            811	    14175	    47473	    62459	    1.298451784	    22.69488785	    76.00666037&#xD;&#xA;    math	        14317	262857	    779308	    1056482	    1.355157968	    24.88040497	    73.76443707&#xD;&#xA;    biology	        260	    2342	    16344	    18946	    1.372321334	    12.36144833	    86.26623034&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry	    411	    2913	    15248	    18572	    2.21300883	    15.684902	    82.10208917&#xD;&#xA;    super user	    15751	252728	    410831	    679310	    2.318676304	    37.2036331	    60.4776906&#xD;&#xA;    programmers	    4917	28655	    132933	    166505	    2.953064473	    17.2096934	    79.83724212&#xD;&#xA;    stackoverflow	738773	10471867	13648708	24859348	2.97181165	    42.1244636	    54.9072475&#xD;&#xA;    physics	        4700	29547	    101190	    135437	    3.47024816	    21.81604731	    74.71370453&#xD;&#xA;    English	        10230	38334	    136987	    185551	    5.513309009	    20.65954913	    73.82714186&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (Data collected 4/29/2015.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes: physics.stackexchange users down vote questions more often than other &quot;technical&quot; stack exchanges. [Of course, that isn't necessarily bad, but it might be...I don't know!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/tex-se-really-are-nicer-voters&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/159549/meaness-of-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="de995858-d5c1-4632-89f5-0b176e770883" CreationDate="2015-05-01T15:05:40.527" UserId="26063" Text="I have an extremely curious question relating to time-travel paradoxes which I believe has not been thought of before. Can I ask it in the main site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="de995858-d5c1-4632-89f5-0b176e770883" CreationDate="2015-05-01T15:05:40.527" UserId="26063" Text="Can we ask time-travel questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="de995858-d5c1-4632-89f5-0b176e770883" CreationDate="2015-05-01T15:05:40.527" UserId="26063" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6766" RevisionGUID="655916f3-9ab2-496d-81c2-ddf63bfacb83" CreationDate="2015-05-01T15:41:15.420" UserDisplayName="user12029" Text="You can ask questions on time travel in the framework of relativity or some other accepted theory, but you can't just ask about &quot;time travel&quot; in general. You need to be working in the framework of some theory. If it has absolutely nothing to do with an accepted theory in physics, it might still be relevant on [the scifi stackexchange][1]. If your question starts out with, &quot;say you have a time machine&quot;, it probably isn't a good fit for physics stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say that if you ask it, it will be voted up. There are are a *lot* of questions on this site about the &quot;paradoxes&quot; of special relativity already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="b3c64c2d-655e-44e1-94b4-6484aead030b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:16:36.133" UserId="2451" Comment="added 65 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have an extremely curious question relating to [time-travel](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/time-travel) paradoxes which I believe has not been thought of before. Can I ask it in the main site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18270" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="b3c64c2d-655e-44e1-94b4-6484aead030b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:16:36.133" UserId="2451" Comment="added 65 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18271" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="fc3b8820-95d3-497f-bcf1-697813f5224d" CreationDate="2015-05-02T13:22:19.503" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6767" RevisionGUID="a0712a7d-4590-470b-bd7b-e11b60214dd1" CreationDate="2015-05-03T12:55:41.920" UserId="50583" Text="Alright, everyone, I'm the bad guy: With 2314 downvotes I am the user on this SE [with the most downvotes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/302120/top-100-users-with-most-downvotes?MinDownVotes=100), not counting the Community bot. In only 10 months of activity I've cast more downvotes than any single one of you. I've also cast 1126 upvotes, for whatever it's worth. So I'll tell you why and how I vote, and you may decide if &quot;we&quot; are indeed overky eager to downvote. But let me tell you from the start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that **we are too reluctant to downvote and too eager to upvote low-quality questions**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, votes are *quality* indicators. When I pass through and see a highly upvoted question, I think *&quot;Oh, nice, this is what physics is about, what physicists find interesting and how questions here should be&quot;*. When I see a highly upvoted answer (without fights in the comments), I think: *&quot;This is probably correct and/or a useful way to think about the question - why else would they all upvote it?&quot;* What votes are emphatically *not* are judgements of the users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it may be disheartening to get downvotes, but votes are, not counting revenge voters and other &quot;illegal&quot; schemes, really just relating to the post they are cast on. They are no judgement of the user as a whole, and not casting a downvote because you are afraid of the effect it might have on the user just defeats the whole purpose of downvoting in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You let content you do not actually believe to be a good fit for the site slide by without an indicator (the -1) saying so. This, in turn, might invite more questions like it (since people can see similar questions have not been badly received). Additionally, it makes low positive vote counts essentially meaningless - if almost no downvotes are cast, votes in the 1-4 ranges are quite meaningless, because one or two upvotes are often quickly cast on almost all types of questions, even the blatantly off-topic and the really bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. By making downvotes rare, you *intensify* the psychological effect a downvote has when it is actually cast, leading to &quot;*Why -1, step forward, cowardly downvoter!&quot;*-type comments and accusations for merely casting a downvote. This, in turn, leads to people thinking it is actually a grave decision to cast a downvote (since other don't seem to cast them lightly), and they might grow to use them more sparingly themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it is clear from this why I think that not downvoting because of the effect on the user is a *Bad Idea*&lt;sup&gt;TM&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me finish with personal anecdote time for too eagerly upvoting low-quality questions (just as John's opening post is also rather anecdotal ;) ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I very often see *blatant* homework questions which are just the exercise text pasted into the question box with a *&quot;What do I do?*&quot; tagged on that have one or even more upvotes. My propensity to downvote is partly so that a positive score might tell me that a question is *not* of this type. (To be fair, such blatant do-my-work questions usually end up at a negative score, but the fact that they are upvoted at all still bothers me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The general vote score on questions that are technical (or &quot;high-level&quot;, but I don't want to use that notion) is *very low*, and I've seen many worthy questions sit only at +2 or +3. At the same time, I have seen absolutely crap technical questions (no research effort whatsoever, no indication what the question is actually about if you don't already know it, etc.) *also* at +2 or +3. This is another reason I am quick to downvote - if I, personally, can make a score difference of 2 between these questions, then it is best that I do. That one vote cast is an up- and the other a downvote is tangential." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6768" RevisionGUID="2258ca98-e060-4524-b9c6-daa6ae4a75e4" CreationDate="2015-05-03T21:30:57.837" UserId="26071" Text="The question is subjective, but as I'm human, I appreciate being down-voted because I ask stupid questions all the time.  I drove my college professors crazy, along with the other students. Should my question be real stinker, I delete it quickly.  It is a means of providing feedback to someone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="da9742cf-7d3d-4a8e-8e4b-603ff683e77f" CreationDate="2015-05-07T08:34:03.127" UserId="23389" Text="I've noticed that other stack exchange sites have a [new style of user profile][1]. The new style has a different layout, as well as more statistics, such as [&quot;people reached&quot;][2], which is interesting. Is the new style coming to physics? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My profile pages on other stack exchange sites have the new template, but my physics one doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244534/were-working-on-a-new-stat-to-help-convey-the-reach-of-your-posts-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="da9742cf-7d3d-4a8e-8e4b-603ff683e77f" CreationDate="2015-05-07T08:34:03.127" UserId="23389" Text="Is the new profile style on SE coming to Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="da9742cf-7d3d-4a8e-8e4b-603ff683e77f" CreationDate="2015-05-07T08:34:03.127" UserId="23389" Text="|discussion|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="416e66ca-6763-40e8-b1dd-4f558d7c658f" CreationDate="2015-05-07T08:57:40.240" UserId="124" Text="Yes, it is coming; no, I don't know when, and nor does anyone else (except _maybe_ the design team, but I'm not sure if their scheduling algorithm is any more sophisticated than &quot;what site do we feel like working on today?&quot;). There is [a list of sites which have had the update and those which have not](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed), but it's in random order, and they haven't released a schedule for when the remaining sites will be getting the updates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="d65e099a-b5c3-4dbd-b8e2-fee654c05be2" CreationDate="2015-05-08T05:19:15.683" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="f3ea4a04-7c55-49e0-9023-a77054255bd9" CreationDate="2015-05-08T12:46:09.487" UserId="71413" Text="I just lost 13 reputation points due to a user beeing removed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It apperars though that the  [user] [1] has not been removed. And equally strange is that I only gained 2 reputation through him or her because i upvoted their answer so how did i loose even more than that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/53026/sagittarius-a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="f3ea4a04-7c55-49e0-9023-a77054255bd9" CreationDate="2015-05-08T12:46:09.487" UserId="71413" Text="Bug with user removal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="f3ea4a04-7c55-49e0-9023-a77054255bd9" CreationDate="2015-05-08T12:46:09.487" UserId="71413" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="065dcd20-c46b-4a20-a98a-65db86b8e91b" CreationDate="2015-05-08T13:17:15.963" UserId="50583" Text="Your loss through &quot;User removed&quot; has been 15 reputation points. This means someone who upvoted three of your questions or one question and one answer has been removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how you concluded that this should be the user you link to, but it evidently isn't - there is no way to tell for us ordinary users which user removal your reputation lass was caused by." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="8c4b19c6-9e7f-43c6-8fc8-ccdc6479e01c" CreationDate="2015-05-08T15:22:25.013" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I just lost 13 reputation points due to a user being removed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears though that the [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] is again suspended? has not been removed. And equally strange is that I only gained 2 reputation through him or her because I upvoted their answer so how did I loose even more than that?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="8c4b19c6-9e7f-43c6-8fc8-ccdc6479e01c" CreationDate="2015-05-08T15:22:25.013" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="d92d0011-f3b8-4f8a-af38-3f71576f37a1" CreationDate="2015-05-08T21:11:11.680" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="I just lost 13 reputation points due to a user being removed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears though that the [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] has not been removed. And equally strange is that I only gained 2 reputation through him or her because I upvoted their answer so how did I loose even more than that?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18291" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="e9e297f9-37fe-411d-9f6b-4ce5228d0225" CreationDate="2015-05-09T04:15:31.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/596891222213525504" />
  <row Id="18292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="21999f48-8b93-4568-b400-e593337a4bca" CreationDate="2015-05-09T11:13:35.400" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="[![arXiv.org -- open access to over 800 000 e-prints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSP7m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="a0193eed-252c-4549-ae21-2fa209228237" CreationDate="2015-05-09T12:20:25.173" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited title" Text="Take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/179002/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question and [the answer is not at all obvious][1]. I assume it was downvoted just because it's a duplicate, but is this really appropriate? Downvoting can be used to make questions disappear from the home page, and also to deter people from answering, but neither of those reasons apply in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re Danu's answer: I mention this question because it's the one that caught my eye most recently, but it seems to me I see an increasing trend of downvoting questions that I don't think deserve it. It also seems to me that once a question has attracted the first downvote a slew of bandwagon downvotes rapidly follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a question, more a rant, so it doesn't really have an answer. But while I'm here ranting let me urge site members to consider whether their downvote will actually achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/174983/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="a0193eed-252c-4549-ae21-2fa209228237" CreationDate="2015-05-09T12:20:25.173" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited title" Text="We seem to be over-eager to downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="cba8d3d1-5194-4c22-b8d5-fe2ac2421381" CreationDate="2015-05-09T20:32:59.490" UserId="74103" Text="Don't be afraid to downvote. Downvotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - quickly notify someone that their post is not good, and enough downvotes should get them to either:&#xD;&#xA;  - remove a bad question/answer, thereby cleaning this site up of clutter, or hopefully;&#xD;&#xA;  - edit their post to be more suitable, and appreciated&#xD;&#xA; - should encourage more thought put into an answer or question the next time. Hopefully people learn from their mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously some people will be a bit too sensitive, and take umbrage. I have on occasion, especially when I first joined, but hopefully they will develop a thicker skin, pick themselves up and continue using the site, but be a better poster for it. In extreme cases, they may be scared off, which *is* a shame, but you can't pander to everyone's sensibilities. There are lots of new visitors each day, so if some get lost in downvotes then so be it, they will be replaced, and maybe they can find a home on some other site, where they feel more comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It goes without saying that downvotes should always be accompanied by a comment, else how will people know what they have done wrong. However, if a suitable comment has already been left pointing out the error, I see no harm in adding to the downvote cont, without having to repeat the comment, unless more info can be added.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="f3ae4fb9-49ec-4cf4-8880-fe2cd08ca797" CreationDate="2015-05-09T21:56:47.313" UserId="62614" Text="[![Worldbuilding Workshop - building worlds so you don't have to][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/X2gkr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://github.com/Worldbuilding-Workshop" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18297" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="9e8f2a07-add3-4998-9b14-4e0afa6a5e8c" CreationDate="2015-05-09T21:56:47.313" UserId="62614" />
  <row Id="18298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="138b257e-444c-4b04-bf09-088e217b5cf2" CreationDate="2015-05-09T22:58:04.770" UserId="80827" Text="Contradictions, contradictions everywhere!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, note that this is a forum, not a scientific institution. The majority of people use a forum because they want to obtain a solution to a certain problem in cooperation with other people. Facts and solution to most exercises or other scientific data can be found on databases, books etc. If merely I wanted to obtain a solution to a problem there is no need for a forum like this. It is far more valuable to work out the solution under guideance of experienced people step by step, than rather looking it up. It is the responsibility of the commenter not to give a way too much of the solution, but let the questioner think and get the solution himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what is wrong about discussions? Again, for example I for myself, joined this forum to discuss and to solve problems with other people. The topics I have seen already in Physics or Mathematics are mostly basic undergraduate matter which can be looked up easily. It indeed are discussions itself and getting to know the view of other, maybe more experience members, that make forums useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And people who downvote a question, not formulated perfectly: Every thought about people posting who are, say 14 years old and go to school? Formulating questions and answers understandably for others also needs some pratice. People who try to contribute or extent their knowledge are discouraged if they see like 5 downvotes on their posts. How about teaching or showing them their mistakes and helping them to formulate their questions correctly? This also is a valuable process of learning. Or have you written your first publication with perfect style and experience? If yes, I would really appreciate reading it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning duplicates: If the question is not completely identical, why downvote it? The above said applies and by the means of a forum, help them people solve it step by step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have joined various scientific forums and the quality of the answers are comparable, if not better, although no downvote system is implemented. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6777" RevisionGUID="989b4d0e-e2ae-4507-ace4-bc7e79d39f02" CreationDate="2015-05-10T01:38:59.177" UserId="72068" Text="I think the content of the Physics Stack Exchange may be the reason for the &quot;unusual&quot; down-vote percentage.  For one thing, I think the Physics Stack Exchange is going to attract more quacks than, say, the Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange for obvious reasons.  This could be what increases down-voting relative to other technical Forums.  Additionally, Physics is also a common &quot;difficult&quot; subject in school and this increases the number of worthless do-my-homework-style question post, which also increases the number of down-votes relative to other Forums regarding subjects with typically less difficult homework in corresponding subject courses.  Finally, since every Stack Exchange forum is different, every forum will typically have different down-vote percentages. This would be the case even if the exact same community contributed to the votes on every forum.  One of those forum will just so happen to have the highest down-vote percentage, but this clearly doesn't necessarily mean the community contributing to that forum is the pickiest. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="17da51e3-09ad-4e41-b3d3-b476bd74528d" CreationDate="2015-05-10T21:07:58.153" UserId="68030" Text="Today as I was answering a question I noticed that $\oiint$ doesn't work in Physics SE. Is it some kind of a bug or am I missing something obvious? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="17da51e3-09ad-4e41-b3d3-b476bd74528d" CreationDate="2015-05-10T21:07:58.153" UserId="68030" Text="\oiint doesn't seem to work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="17da51e3-09ad-4e41-b3d3-b476bd74528d" CreationDate="2015-05-10T21:07:58.153" UserId="68030" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="6aaf6ab2-33ba-40e8-be97-d6d618b3c082" CreationDate="2015-05-11T17:35:17.933" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="dbb7ea78-45f2-47f9-98ae-19c77d722b81" CreationDate="2015-05-12T05:25:37.300" UserId="1492" Text=" [This question][1] and its answer are an example of what I mean .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is interesting and it will be caught by a search engine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do Physics concepts build on top of other concepts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The content is about difficulties of a student, answered adequately in the comments.  There is one answer that is not a real answer to the title and a wishy washy  for the content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition the questioner has not appeared in the site since 2013 a week after asking this question and the answerer has over a year to appear on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the final objective is to have a good reference for physics questions for future aspiring physicist coming up with such a question/answer defeats the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might answer the title question but a searcher might come up with just the question and dismiss it because it is obvious a student question, and never, look at the more general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some judicial moderation would be useful, deleting similar fluff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sintagespareas.gr/sintages/agries-agkinares-ston-atmo-a-la-polita.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="dbb7ea78-45f2-47f9-98ae-19c77d722b81" CreationDate="2015-05-12T05:25:37.300" UserId="1492" Text="should some questions revived by community be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="dbb7ea78-45f2-47f9-98ae-19c77d722b81" CreationDate="2015-05-12T05:25:37.300" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="8c09ed98-707c-4bfe-95ce-e8e636ee4a9e" CreationDate="2015-05-12T05:35:29.923" UserId="1492" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text=" [This question][1] and its answer are an example of what I mean .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is interesting and it will be caught by a search engine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do Physics concepts build on top of other concepts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The content is about difficulties of a student, answered adequately in the comments.  There is one answer that is not a real answer to the title and a wishy washy  for the content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition the questioner has not appeared in the site since 2013 a week after asking this question and the answerer has over a year to appear on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the final objective is to have a good reference for physics questions for future aspiring physicist coming up with such a question/answer defeats the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might answer the title question but a searcher might come up with just the question and dismiss it because it is obvious a student question, and never, look at the more general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some judicial moderation would be useful, deleting similar fluff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77473/do-physics-concepts-build-on-top-of-other-concepts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="eb3f3334-d2e6-42e2-84e6-f3249ee030a4" CreationDate="2015-05-12T05:42:18.483" UserId="124" Text="I've noticed this as well. As stated in the [answer to the Math Meta post dmckee linked](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/9975/1190), MathJax simply does not support this symbol. You could consider it a bug in MathJax if you want - or more accurately, a feature request - but it's not something for Stack Exchange to handle. So the place to report this would be on [the MathJax website](https://www.mathjax.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless and until this is implemented in MathJax, I would recommend just using `\oint`, which gets the point across. It's quite common anyway for physicists to use a single integral symbol regardless of how many dimensions the integration region has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6782" RevisionGUID="675f7ea5-b72b-46b3-a65e-bfb18c5a13d6" CreationDate="2015-05-12T05:48:53.437" UserId="124" Text="Speaking on behalf of the moderators: in general, we try not to delete things (questions and answers) manually, unless they are spam or offensive. The system will automatically delete posts satisfying certain criteria, and we think those criteria are good ones to use to draw the line about what should be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, a question like this could be an exception. Off the top of my head, I'd say probably having a meta post about it, or mentioning it in chat, is a good idea, so that anyone who can think of a reason not to delete it can speak up, and then if there are no objections after a little while, we can go ahead and delete the post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6782" RevisionGUID="8b760d70-d732-44e0-9cd1-fd6a6ebb04bf" CreationDate="2015-05-12T06:19:28.123" UserId="124" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Speaking on behalf of the moderators: in general, we try not to delete things (questions and answers) manually, unless they are spam or offensive. The system will automatically delete posts satisfying certain criteria, and we think those criteria are good ones to use to draw the line about what should be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the best way to have questions like this deleted is to downvote them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, there could be occasional exceptions. Off the top of my head, I'd say probably having a meta post about it, or mentioning it in chat, is a good idea, so that anyone who can think of a reason not to delete it can speak up, and then if there are no objections after a little while, we can go ahead and delete the post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="b069fc63-bc68-4839-b205-b1c0e208b504" CreationDate="2015-05-12T12:54:28.723" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text=" [This question][1] and its answer are an example of what I mean .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is interesting and it will be caught by a search engine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do Physics concepts build on top of other concepts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The content is about difficulties of a student, answered adequately in the comments.  There is one answer that is not a real answer to the title and a wishy washy  for the content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition the questioner has not appeared in the site since 2013 a week after asking this question and the answerer has over a year to appear on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the final objective is to have a good reference for physics questions for future aspiring physicist coming up with such a question/answer defeats the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might answer the title question but a searcher might come up with just the question and dismiss it because it is obvious a student question, and never, look at the more general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some judicial moderation would be useful, deleting similar fluff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77473/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="b069fc63-bc68-4839-b205-b1c0e208b504" CreationDate="2015-05-12T12:54:28.723" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Should some questions revived by community be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18314" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="b069fc63-bc68-4839-b205-b1c0e208b504" CreationDate="2015-05-12T12:54:28.723" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="c694085c-e33f-4844-80e7-a1ba9429456f" CreationDate="2015-05-13T07:46:31.650" UserId="31790" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles (and how to fix a couple of them)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][3]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][4]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][5]&#xD;&#xA;6. [Need help solving physics problem][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a grammatically well-formed question if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Capitalize only the first word and [proper nouns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun) in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183696/need-help-solving-physics-problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="bc78c02e-ea1c-44d4-ac30-0638b72208a8" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:47:45.973" UserId="23473" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third winner was: **Jim the Enchanter** (with a nice profile pic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on **June 13**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="8b52aba5-e914-40bd-9a55-7ff3d1d0b31f" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:02.840" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jim the Enchanter.&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would have to be my profile pic if this name is chosen&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yalfO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="c2ab3257-939c-4b9c-a9b3-1f2bb89a4c71" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:13.130" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours).&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that do as a tree level approximation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just been pointed out to me that [Jimnosperm's have light¹ cones][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ 10-100g depending on the species&lt;/spu&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nurturestore.co.uk/pine-cone-math-station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="fe2c5d8f-3122-47d9-a49d-d2ee83c6ca7f" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:21.250" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I'm surprised nobody suggested... Jims Bond.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="1fd60ad7-29eb-423f-bd86-e64fd338c92c" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:28.983" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I propose *ACuriousJim*.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="b33d8cc2-30cf-47d3-915f-7ee1f4793424" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:36.283" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimself&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="aadc9213-7217-4b9b-89ba-253cce6fd492" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:46.133" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Sweep all before you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeree&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and next month it could be...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeroo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="bafdd254-ba5f-4f83-b877-70b9474745c4" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:48:52.903" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I will also suggest &quot;The Jim&quot;.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="44a6f673-2438-4900-bdeb-cf901e038aae" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:03.033" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The Jimtimidator is another option...&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="b1bda4f4-57cc-4d76-b349-07030c30ec80" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:11.977" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Flip it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ɯᴉſ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be hard to ping, but who cares. It's *awesome*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="4a50c8f9-64ed-46c2-b2a4-4ad19c45e365" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:19.037" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about LEEEEROY JIMKINS for a name?&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="81c3daac-4ae0-449f-90c5-822540da7a2f" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:27.003" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnasium&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(play on [gymnasium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="9a74bbe1-b475-483d-a023-9224437213bb" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:35.710" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimdalf the Grey  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="ce37551c-6785-46e0-ac54-d8670bc20e32" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:45.327" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jim Rennie, the first disciple of [the one and only](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="6903e1b6-a13f-4896-abe5-fc2246ac296e" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:50.867" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimothy&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[good reference here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXxkXGK1rQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="e8c40d03-f84e-4163-b3aa-8f609be495d0" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:49:58.657" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimperator&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Perhaps [the most apt](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperator) title for the leader of Jims&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="ee39053b-8bbf-4229-a041-6cc2e2e6bc58" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:04.763" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimronimo - this is my proposal&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="d58dc723-84d0-4b71-a732-143658b97dc2" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:10.380" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jiminy Cricket, for a childhood throwback.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="a8a35bc2-831d-4683-a49a-f61318e97f57" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:19.817" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want.  &#xD;&#xA;But as the owner of this thread said, Jimeese sound more like Jim language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="1e6d6c96-036d-4ea5-9574-ea0b2b742b12" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:29.103" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="What about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim.&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the period spoken explicitly, as &quot;Jim - Period!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="31e80f13-bc60-4ea7-81f3-afe42769a3be" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:34.610" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jim_me_boy (hawkins) with pirate accent&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="a6ceaa06-704c-49ac-a80f-c2977e44a530" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:45.577" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimulhu&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recognition of Jim being part of the great Cthulhu diaspora" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="d65cbba7-1065-4efa-83d0-01f091b3ab1b" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:50:58.087" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jimmy Dodger - a play on &quot;Jammy Dodger&quot; which is a word with many meanings. Including a delicious biscuit that's a favorite (or favourite?) of the Doctor.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="90d534ef-07c5-4e69-b966-00e7113a2797" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:07.763" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jim &quot;your surname&quot;. I've noticed that most people seem to be satisfied with that as an identifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="70224968-1aa6-4a74-bd8a-1f79a79e592f" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:15.663" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="[Jim Post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9789/tim-post). To get rid of the multiple-Jims confusion and replace it with confusion for those who have no idea who Tim Post is.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="fc44cfa1-3f42-47da-b0fc-313e563f42bb" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:22.280" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Keep it simple: [Jimbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU)&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="8c336dc2-4b1c-4078-a95f-1fcf952acfae" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:32.777" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthworm Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slim Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jimiroquai&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="0bcfe8d1-fc31-4510-b563-4ad0c18b1890" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:42.957" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Invert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MIJ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the central problem was &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will work unless one of the other Jims also lands up on this post! This is because there is no uniqueness theorem for usernames on the site, so MIJ's already taken doesn't mean it can't be taken again. But I guess that holds for every single of the suggestions above and below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think inverted usernames are employed on this site. e.g. inverting [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib) gives bigguy, which makes sense as a username!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="73f91907-c66f-4bb6-a8d7-9e4c1f20f9f1" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:53.287" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jimb.   The b is silent.  And pronounced like &quot;climb&quot; instead of &quot;limb&quot;.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="f5d791d9-424e-4118-bbe5-9fb51f2b7be0" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:51:58.737" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about,&quot;Lord Jim&quot;? .........&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6533" RevisionGUID="7754fc6f-6885-48a5-965d-94b93422de83" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:52:09.280" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Dread Pirate Jimbeard &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="3b7a75a5-3398-4d7a-9b11-b3cd47768f00" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:52:19.180" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I went with Jiminion, and I'm stuck with it for a month." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="cc59f8c8-dd9b-467d-a169-316d9ec19d0b" CreationDate="2015-05-14T13:52:27.117" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="High King of Jimtopia&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="c52a52dd-60d8-49fe-a57c-f563a20e8f75" CreationDate="2015-05-14T19:20:02.643" UserId="68030" Text="I'm not sure if this is on topic on meta but we don't have a meta-meta to ask whether it is appropriate to ask this on meta. Anyway my question is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much time do you spend on average on Physics SE per day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="c52a52dd-60d8-49fe-a57c-f563a20e8f75" CreationDate="2015-05-14T19:20:02.643" UserId="68030" Text="Time you spend on Physics SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="c52a52dd-60d8-49fe-a57c-f563a20e8f75" CreationDate="2015-05-14T19:20:02.643" UserId="68030" Text="|discussion|stackexchange|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="4bae8543-3528-4f0d-b565-c792a5a028af" CreationDate="2015-05-15T05:51:32.860" UserId="1325" Text="It's very variable. I check the questions in the morning, at lunchtime and in the evening, but how long I spend on the site depends on whether any of the questions catch my eye.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can take a surprisingly long time to write a thorough answer, especially since the answers that are most fun are the ones at the edge of my knowledge, so I have to spend time researching them. It's not unusual for me to spend an hour on an involved answer. Some of the canonical Q/As I've written have taken a day or more, but that's a special case as it's more akin to writing an article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the reason we so often see experienced site members posting brief answers as comments is because it can take such an investment in time to write a proper answer. I trust the OPs appreciate just how much effort is put in on their behalf :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="6835a480-8c88-458b-8739-8b92800dedc3" CreationDate="2015-05-15T13:54:37.523" UserId="25301" Text="Just take a look at the stats page of each of the [review pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) (or my 4 [Steward badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward?userid=25301)) and my [Marshal badge](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/82/marshal?userid=25301) and you can see *how* I spend most of my time on Physics.SE (which is also a subtle hint for those with 2k+ rep to start reviewing what you can &amp; those with 3k+ rep to start reviewing the close queue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually spend about 20-30 minutes in the morning (while cooking breakfast &amp; drinking coffee) on the [(Android) mobile app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stackexchange.marvin&amp;hl=en) looking at questions that were posted (trying to manually review, since there isn't a review page on the app) and voting up/down as I see fit. I typically spend another hour or so in the afternoon (during the kids' nap time) and at night (after the kids' bed time) reviewing and answering/commenting what I can. All tolled, that's between **2 and 3 hours per day** and less on weekends that I actually spend time doing things on the site.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like John, if I find a question that interests me I'll think about the answer for a bit (usually while reviewing and doing daily duties) and spend at least 20 minutes writing one up (usually longer if I need to find links or if the wife and/or kids need attention)--this number is subtracted from the time spent on reviews, so the net 2-3 hours is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The numbers quoted here are for my *active* time on Physics; the tab is open in the background in my browser always, so once the computer is un-suspended (re-animated?) I'm technically &quot;on.&quot; In this case, the number is probably closer to 6 hours a day (and longer when I was still a student working 10 hours days).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="8b314726-95fb-491b-a5b5-b7033143ff4d" CreationDate="2015-05-16T08:19:41.947" UserId="71413" Text="I just saw this show up in my reputation timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+2	7 hours ago	removed	How is the average particle density defined in condensed matter physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me why this was removed? It does not show up as revently deleted post. Do i have any means of looking at it? I don't want to loose stuff i post here. I am not sure if this was a question i answered myself but if so i would really regret not being able to look at it if i need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So were can I see what that was and can anyone give a hint why it was deleted, for general couriosity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one point more. Do i need to be afraid posts like [this][1]&#xD;&#xA; can be deleted? Where i answered myself so no votes and no accepted answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165924/contructive-proof-of-2nd-quantization-form-of-operators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="8b314726-95fb-491b-a5b5-b7033143ff4d" CreationDate="2015-05-16T08:19:41.947" UserId="71413" Text="Why delete this post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="8b314726-95fb-491b-a5b5-b7033143ff4d" CreationDate="2015-05-16T08:19:41.947" UserId="71413" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="711fa393-2a13-4682-a5e4-0f476ad0e304" CreationDate="2015-05-16T11:28:43.597" UserId="2451" Text="1. FYI, [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165545/2451) was deleted by the [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) user following [these](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006) SE rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165924/2451) is not deleted by the same SE rules, since it has an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="b21776ad-7eda-4fcf-a0cd-4f62de2d9f40" CreationDate="2015-05-16T12:05:46.573" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="6010382c-38f3-4e70-91c1-a211b20fb36a" CreationDate="2015-05-16T12:06:06.567" UserId="2451" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="1. FYI, [OP's question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165545/2451) was deleted by the [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) user following [these](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006) SE rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, [this question of OP](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165924/2451) is not deleted by the same SE rules, since e.g. it has an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="b21776ad-7eda-4fcf-a0cd-4f62de2d9f40" CreationDate="2015-05-16T12:05:46.573" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I just saw this show up in my reputation timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+2	7 hours ago	removed	[How is the average particle density defined in condensed matter physics?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165545/2451)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me why this was removed? It does not show up as revently deleted post. Do i have any means of looking at it? I don't want to loose stuff i post here. I am not sure if this was a question i answered myself but if so i would really regret not being able to look at it if i need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So were can I see what that was and can anyone give a hint why it was deleted, for general couriosity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one point more. Do i need to be afraid posts like [this][1]&#xD;&#xA; can be deleted? Where i answered myself so no votes and no accepted answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165924/contructive-proof-of-2nd-quantization-form-of-operators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="66b339dd-de1d-41c7-ae0f-c111f3fbae5f" CreationDate="2015-05-16T17:17:13.343" UserId="7433" Text="[![Haikus are awesome/ Chemistry is more so/ Ask straight away!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B2pJJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18365" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="8160dbf7-c659-48ba-8d20-13c25f7cf396" CreationDate="2015-05-16T17:17:13.343" UserId="7433" />
  <row Id="18366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="758dbd56-fe3f-4095-aa0d-e49c17c23b36" CreationDate="2015-05-17T17:47:01.473" UserId="8563" Text="It seems that we're somewhere in the queue for a site CSS adjustment, accompanied by [the new profile pages](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns). Since the CSS is getting a makeover, I would like to float this idea: can we change the font to something that gets along better with the MathJax font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, posts with MathJax look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099)). Note how the math tends to stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that I often to things like `10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; s`, unless I really need the maths, to keep the text streamlined. Ideally, within the LaTeX paradigm - i.e. in the style used by all serious physics journals - the math will blend in perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (image to come when the site image uploader starts working again.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know that this is quite a lot to ask, since the site font is currently very sans-serif, but over in [Chemistry SE's gorgeous new design](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) it does work much better (with a serif font):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl3i2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we move over in that direction somewhat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="758dbd56-fe3f-4095-aa0d-e49c17c23b36" CreationDate="2015-05-17T17:47:01.473" UserId="8563" Text="Can we have a font which harmonizes better with MathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="758dbd56-fe3f-4095-aa0d-e49c17c23b36" CreationDate="2015-05-17T17:47:01.473" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="af9e8036-3a15-44ca-97f7-5a4726639a39" CreationDate="2015-05-17T17:55:26.077" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It seems that we're somewhere in the queue for a site CSS adjustment, accompanied by [the new profile pages](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns). Since the CSS is getting a makeover, I would like to float this idea: can we change the font to something that gets along better with the MathJax font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, posts with MathJax look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099)). Note how the math tends to stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that I often to things like `10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; s`, unless I really need the maths, to keep the text streamlined. Ideally, within the LaTeX paradigm - i.e. in the style used by all serious physics journals - the math will blend in perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cp7e6.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know that this is quite a lot to ask, since the site font is currently very sans-serif, but over in [Chemistry SE's gorgeous new design](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) it does work much better (with a serif font):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl3i2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we move over in that direction somewhat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="2f2711e9-92b0-492b-b21d-afa7e9a95cc7" CreationDate="2015-05-17T22:38:31.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/600067902855872512" />
  <row Id="18371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="0541358e-ca4e-44ff-a30d-b27b66c656a9" CreationDate="2015-05-17T23:58:53.990" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It seems that we're somewhere in the queue for a site CSS adjustment, accompanied by [the new profile pages](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns). Since the CSS is getting a makeover, I would like to float this idea: can we change the font to something that gets along better with the MathJax font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, posts with MathJax look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099)). Note how the math tends to stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that I often do things like `10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; s` to keep the text streamlined, unless I really need the maths. Ideally, within the LaTeX paradigm - i.e. in the style used by all serious physics journals - the math will blend in perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cp7e6.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know that this is quite a lot to ask, since the site font is currently very sans-serif, but over in [Chemistry SE's gorgeous new design](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) it does work much better (with a serif font):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl3i2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we move over in that direction somewhat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="0897bc88-4558-423a-b978-05011b2aed2b" CreationDate="2015-05-18T03:16:58.610" UserId="25301" Text="Not much of an answer to the real question because (a) it's a single-user solution rather than the whole user-base of Physics and (b) it applies to *all* websites and not just this one, but you *can* change the font yourself. For Firefox, for example, you can select&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Edit &gt; Preferences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then under the `Content` tab, select `Advanced`:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom is the option *Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above*:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you unselect that, then you can choose whatever font you want &amp; have the same fonts as Chemistry. Thus, your example becomes  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't use Chrome, but I suspect that there is a similar option hidden somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jrFfT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8g1d.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q8kcC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="cff50cd0-33cf-4922-b737-3ca959b7be9b" CreationDate="2015-05-18T03:24:16.817" UserId="25301" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="Not much of an answer to the real question because (a) it's a single-user solution rather than the whole user-base of Physics and (b) it applies to *all* websites and not just this one&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but you *can* change the font yourself. For Firefox, for example, you can select&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Edit &gt; Preferences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then under the `Content` tab, select `Advanced`:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom is the option *Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above*:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you unselect that, then you can choose whatever font you want &amp; have the same fonts as Chemistry. Thus, your example becomes  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't use Chrome, but I suspect that there is a similar option hidden somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I've not tested it, but this [SuperUser post](http://superuser.com/questions/527774/replace-fonts-in-firefox-on-only-certain-websites-and-only-certain-fonts) says that there is a work-around for particular sites that involves writing a CSS and enabling Firefox to see it.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jrFfT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8g1d.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q8kcC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="7aac130d-a28c-4184-bf7e-3c3fb234305f" CreationDate="2015-05-18T14:20:18.350" UserId="81537" Text="Ask and you shall receive. This site is in line for CSS conversion, and, while we're in there, we'll make sure that we match the serif font in the body like Chemistry SE and Math SE. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="744d3de2-38f4-40ce-8c29-56a40b6c8bc5" CreationDate="2015-05-18T15:37:06.577" UserId="46399" Text="Sorry if I appear to whining, but it appears to me that we don't have a clear policy about reporting cross-posting. This is prompted by the following instances/examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_3][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It probably isn't right to draw conclusions from a sample space of 1 (I don't remember there being any other instance of a cross-post reporting flag being declined). Also, it makes no statistical difference to me whether a flag is helpful or declined, [especially now](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/82/marshal?userid=46399), but after you have been around for as long as I have been, getting a policy incorrect seems alarming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the undercurrent here seems to be that I am (we are ?) not very clear about what the official policy about reporting cross-posting on another site is. The three issues that need to be clarified here are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a user, if I find an instance of cross-posting, am I supposed to flag, or simple comment and leave it there? And does the answer to Q1 change is there is an existing comment already? If somebody else 'catches it' before me, am I supposed to do nothing about this (except probably upvote that comment)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QP2jc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lAgNS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ekucq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wP5Gq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="744d3de2-38f4-40ce-8c29-56a40b6c8bc5" CreationDate="2015-05-18T15:37:06.577" UserId="46399" Text="Reporting cross-posting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="744d3de2-38f4-40ce-8c29-56a40b6c8bc5" CreationDate="2015-05-18T15:37:06.577" UserId="46399" Text="|discussion|policy|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="73d5002b-9f1b-4f41-94d2-c9b7edd78709" CreationDate="2015-05-18T18:47:23.923" UserId="6634" Text="Cross-posting is not a violation of any written rule. It's kinda rude (if not done correctly, ie. targeting the question to the specific audience, making clear that it's posted multiple places, and looking for domain-specific answers from each specific site), I don't like it, and we as a community generally frown upon it, but it's not breaking a rule really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why flagging isn't appropriate. The moderators don't need to &quot;deal&quot; with cross-posting, other than alerting the community that it is cross-posted. That's done through a comment. So what your flag is doing is basically saying &quot;Hey moderator, this is cross-posted, please post a comment saying it's cross-posted.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general, you're better off just cutting out the middle-man and not giving the mods extra work and post the comment yourself. The same amount of typing that goes into your flag, but now everybody can see it! And if you see somebody already commented saying it's a cross-post, you can upvote the comment if you want, or you can answer the question here and on the cross-post, or you can do what I do and ignore the question entirely because I consider it rude. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="fcd4b386-f594-4463-83c2-d507bcc74480" CreationDate="2015-05-18T18:48:16.763" UserId="5739" Text="Occasionally, I pass over a question merely because I don't understand an abbreviation or acronym.  I wonder if the instructions should encourage the definition of these things in the body of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes acronyms are well known, QFT and SHM are examples.  Others are less well known, or perhaps known to people in particular geographic regions, or graduates of certain schools.  An example I saw recently is &quot;SM&quot;.    Even after reading the question and having some understanding that I was out of my league on that one (and quickly eliminating &quot;Statistical Mechanics&quot;), I couldn't figure out SM.  Finally Standard Model came to mind, and I'm guessing that that's the correct meaning.  Even if that's the correct meaning, it's still certainly the first time I've ever seen that abbreviation.    Another recent example is &quot;IVP&quot;, for which I fully understood the question but still don't understand the abbreviation.   And some things are known by different names:  KVL to some is the loop rule to others.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then there is the case where the abbreviation is well-known to those practiced in the art, in which case it doesn't matter at all if I don't understand the question.  In any event, in all the above cases, I'm annoyed that the OP couldn't be bothered to be more clear.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this worth a mention in the help/instructions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="fcd4b386-f594-4463-83c2-d507bcc74480" CreationDate="2015-05-18T18:48:16.763" UserId="5739" Text="Should abbreviations and acronyms be discouraged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="fcd4b386-f594-4463-83c2-d507bcc74480" CreationDate="2015-05-18T18:48:16.763" UserId="5739" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6796" RevisionGUID="7d21895d-968a-478d-b8cf-713365ee5b6e" CreationDate="2015-05-18T18:57:47.507" UserId="6634" Text="I would look at it like giving a technical presentation to experts in my field (because this site is, afterall, a place to ask questions from experts in the field of the question). So if I stood up in a front of a room of my peers and said &quot;Here is the CFL number for my simulation,&quot; nobody would think twice about it and know exactly what I meant. The janitor walking down the hall who overheard it may not know what that means, but I don't care -- that's not the intended target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's the same thing here. If somebody posts a question like &quot;When X happens and we get the ASLKJYF effect, is that right?&quot; -- I don't care if I know what that means if it's not my field. But if somebody posts a question with acronyms and terms I have never seen before in a question about fluid dynamics, I will take a quick search to make sure it's not something I just don't know and if a quick search reveals nothing, I'll ask for clarification. This happens often with people saying &quot;In a paper I read, the authors say f(x) = 10 but I don't know how they got it&quot; and I have to go back and ask for which paper and which authors if it's not something commonplace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we are not really supposed to be a general audience site but we are supposed to be a site for technical questions in an area to get answered by experts in that same area, if an acronym is common and known amongst experts, no further explanation should be required. If I see an acronym in a field I don't know, I don't mind that it's there because I don't know it. If I see one I don't know in my own field and I look it up and can't immediately understand what it means, I'll ask for details of where it comes from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="05e496de-8d01-4a5f-8dc0-772406aaca85" CreationDate="2015-05-19T00:59:01.900" UserId="2451" Text="Abbreviations and acronyms should preferably be explained, especially if in the title. Avoid abbreviations in titles, such as, e.g., [TDR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/158625/2451), [BGK](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66989/2451), [GTO](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159611/2451), [EFE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/162105/2451), etc. Spell them out instead (as editors have later done in some of the above examples). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, but the most important part of the Phys.SE community is actually not the questioners nor the answerers but the readers. The readers are what keeps this site alive. If the only persons who read a post is the asker and the answerers, this site would not survive. In fact, it is likely what killed e.g. [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics): No readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, by making the title incomprehensible, the reader is force to click the question to read the main body, which defeats the purpose of having a title in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the Phys.SE community has some pretty smart users around, who might be able to answer, even if they are not from exactly the same subfield. So as an asker, why shoot yourself in the foot by unnecessarily limit your potential answerers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="0f240f50-d75d-44ff-99d2-1e89e4e9d147" CreationDate="2015-05-19T12:52:25.110" UserId="46399" Comment="Typos + bulleted the three questions instead of the prosaic paragraph (i.e. improved formatting)" Text="Sorry if I appear to whining, but it appears to me that we don't have a clear policy about reporting cross-posting. This is prompted by the following instances/examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_3][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It probably isn't right to draw conclusions from a sample space of 1 (I don't remember there being any other instance of a cross-post reporting flag being declined). Also, it makes no statistical difference to me whether a flag is helpful or declined, [especially now](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/82/marshal?userid=46399), but after you have been around for as long as I have been, getting a policy incorrect seems alarming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the undercurrent here seems to be that I am (we are ?) not very clear about what the official policy about reporting cross-posting on another site is. The three issues that need to be clarified here are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As a user, if I find an instance of cross-posting, am I supposed to flag, or simply comment and leave it there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does the answer to Q1 change is there is an existing comment already? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If somebody else 'catches it' before me, am I supposed to do nothing about this (except probably upvote that comment)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QP2jc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lAgNS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ekucq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wP5Gq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="3eea0b4f-4ef8-4469-8b3f-aeeeca7beff1" CreationDate="2015-05-21T13:49:03.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/601384209345880064" />
  <row Id="18386" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="537c6178-591a-4e0d-b36f-6bbf68c55efa" CreationDate="2015-05-21T19:49:01.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/601474799915900928" />
  <row Id="18387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="013cc562-5e29-4eb9-83b6-587e280f753a" CreationDate="2015-05-22T04:22:36.740" UserId="66165" Text="I accidentally clicked the flag button while on mobile. I have done this twice now and it would be nice to be able to undo the flag within a 5 minute window or something if I accidentally clicked it. Just like I can edit comments within 5 minutes before it's locked in. &#xA;&#xA;There has been discussion of this here: &#xA;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87500/cancel-misclicked-flags&#xA;&#xA;And here &#xA;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96950/can-we-have-a-way-to-undo-a-flag&#xA;&#xA;What is the status on this issue? Some of these feature requests are quite old. Why hasn't it been added? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="013cc562-5e29-4eb9-83b6-587e280f753a" CreationDate="2015-05-22T04:22:36.740" UserId="66165" Text="Can I undo a flag? Has this feature been added?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="013cc562-5e29-4eb9-83b6-587e280f753a" CreationDate="2015-05-22T04:22:36.740" UserId="66165" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="8d1fa035-c70c-433b-9209-e5815a70c366" CreationDate="2015-05-22T07:25:56.590" UserId="67944" Text="[![If you want down-to-earth answers to your questions][1]](http://earthscience.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q4Y6D.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18391" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="d742a3df-8ced-481f-b511-1258f0f236b1" CreationDate="2015-05-22T07:25:56.590" UserId="67944" />
  <row Id="18392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="a8d91dfd-1f00-40f2-a456-061322126b72" CreationDate="2015-05-22T17:12:08.680" UserId="8563" Text="We just got *another* EmDrive question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185380/emdrive-in-relation-to-newest-nasa-article-does-it-extract-energy-out-of-the-q, and much as you would expect it swiftly got closed and an OP probably went away feeling fairly upset. I feel we get enough EmDrive questions that this is something we ought to handle with more care and specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts on the subject seem to be along several different lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;could it possibly work?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;how do its proponents claim it works?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;do those claims have merit?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;if not, how do they fail?&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;assuming that it works, how does it do so?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at them like that, they are not really all that bad. The problem is that posters tend to pretty much always ask that final question, and that tips the question definitely into the territory [discouraged by our non-mainstream physics guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539). The third question is on the boundary (we are not here to evaluate pet theories) but if the question is appropriately phrased, for something this recurrent, I feel we're better off showing a bit more flexibility and allowing a few canonical questions about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I propose is separating these different components, which will help us better address the ones that we can, and cleanly close the ones that we can't. I have therefore asked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185437/what-are-the-proposed-theoretical-explanations-for-the-emdrive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and provided a basic answer. (I do not think, though, that there are any more worthwhile references. The ones I did find are singularly thin on the theory even by my low prior expectations. However, if you can find more references, by all means add them in.) This addresses question (2) above. With this in place, questions asking what the claims are can be referred there. If they don't find the resources there sufficient - i.e. if they don't find this community's response to be thorough enough in helping them scour the web for references - well, tough luck. They can look for their own and add them there, or they can offer a bounty on it to try and draw attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23725/is-the-emdrive-or-relativity-drive-possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does a very good job at addressing (1). In the absence of multiple peer-reviewed tests performed in vacuum and published in reputable journals, question (5) is very clearly off-topic. Questions (3) and (4) can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but are almost certainly off-topic as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="a8d91dfd-1f00-40f2-a456-061322126b72" CreationDate="2015-05-22T17:12:08.680" UserId="8563" Text="Splitting EmDrive questions into reference-request and reference analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="a8d91dfd-1f00-40f2-a456-061322126b72" CreationDate="2015-05-22T17:12:08.680" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="60b1076f-f03a-4909-99d9-ded5f245e6b2" CreationDate="2015-05-22T17:12:36.670" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="6bf143b4-ed84-4370-929f-eb96bdd47183" CreationDate="2015-05-23T16:17:11.360" UserId="4962" Text="When a question is asked on the wrong site, it can be migrated to another site via the flagging function. Why is this migration limited to only a few sites? It should rather be a list of all sites to choose between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, from my point of view a specific [question][1] is better off on the Engineering SE site. But I only have the math SE site and the meta site as possibilities for migration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185468/how-can-i-measure-a-length-of-over-4-feet-to-an-accuracy-of-1-100th-of-an-inch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mpH0q.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="6bf143b4-ed84-4370-929f-eb96bdd47183" CreationDate="2015-05-23T16:17:11.360" UserId="4962" Text="Why is question-migration limited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="6bf143b4-ed84-4370-929f-eb96bdd47183" CreationDate="2015-05-23T16:17:11.360" UserId="4962" Text="|bug|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="6508b65a-f285-4a9b-8777-220231fec6e2" CreationDate="2015-05-23T23:24:41.540" UserId="8563" Text="There are two main concerns here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Migrating questions to beta sites is strongly discouraged. This is mostly because beta sites are still in testing and there is no guarantee that they will succeed. Many of them do, but some (like [Theoretical Physics](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail)) don't really generate enough traffic, questions, experts, and overall liveliness to make a sustainable critical mass. Migrating questions to a site that then gets closed is a poor service to the OP. For some sites, like Chemistry, this was not really an issue (and indeed Chemistry just graduated to a full site), but Engineering is *very* new (about four months), so migrating content over there should be done on a case-by-case, as-needed basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   An additional reason for this is that if the migration channel gets too big, even a small fraction of the questions from a big site can be overwhelming for a small beta site. We want the community behind Engineering to come up with a site flavour of their own, not to build a site around Physics exports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More generally, though, default migration channels are generally quite tightly controlled, because flaggers will know what's off-topic *here*, but they don't necessarily know what is or is not on-topic on the target site. Within the SE network this is a bigger issue with large sites like Stack Overflow and Super User, but as a result the SE team is very reluctant to add default migration pathways to any site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this does not mean it's impossible to migrate content. Moderators can migrate to any site and will do so if you flag the question and the migration is appropriate. There is at present a low load of migration candidates and it can be managed well by the moderators. Within the past 90 days there have been 39 migrations to math, 19 to electronics (with 15% rejected), 9 to History of Science and Maths (with one rejected), 8 to Chemistry (with 2 rejected), and 5 to Engineering. It's really not worth it to set up a default channel - even for Chemistry, which is already graduated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="2bb9ba4a-4742-47dc-b398-f9c3caaac693" CreationDate="2015-05-24T11:37:40.570" UserId="12798" Text="I posted an review comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored will further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. Moderators please do not interfere. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed by [David Z][1] on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="2bb9ba4a-4742-47dc-b398-f9c3caaac693" CreationDate="2015-05-24T11:37:40.570" UserId="12798" Text="Problem of unnecessary censorship in Physics stack exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="2bb9ba4a-4742-47dc-b398-f9c3caaac693" CreationDate="2015-05-24T11:37:40.570" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="1e6bbac3-ebc4-4972-aa65-501daa41899d" CreationDate="2015-05-24T11:50:55.863" UserId="12798" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I posted an review comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored will further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed by [David Z][1] on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="b719a991-e635-4bda-a0d2-dbac19af8d9e" CreationDate="2015-05-24T12:12:32.033" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I posted a [review][1] comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is written purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored may further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed by [David Z][2] on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="078ebe62-9bcb-4806-a724-89c31a035a17" CreationDate="2015-05-24T12:39:03.763" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I posted a [review][1] comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is written purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored may further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was deleted by [David Z][2] on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="078ebe62-9bcb-4806-a724-89c31a035a17" CreationDate="2015-05-24T12:39:03.763" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="|discussion|moderation|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6805" RevisionGUID="bb3ed4e8-4bee-4e6a-a05b-3d70bf8ed4b9" CreationDate="2015-05-24T12:46:41.167" UserId="50583" Text="Your rant about your personal experiences here and on PhysicsOverflow is in no way an objective answer what the differences and similarities between Physics.SE and PhysicsOverflow are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing your anecdotal evidence to the other answers to the question (which do a good job of being rather objective and level-headed even if their authors are not &quot;neutral&quot;), it seems that you did not add any actual information at all. Using insults like &quot;abuse&quot; to describe the actions that you observed is also not appropriate, in my opinion, unless you can actually substantiate that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, such a post would be sent into the Low Quality review queue and the reviewers would decide whether it is to be deleted or not, and in that case the unilateral deletion by a moderator would have been a bit overkill, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta, there is no LQ review queue, and all flags go directly for moderator review, as far as I can see. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that circumstance, I think deletion of a post that does not actually add something the question *and* is phrased in a defamatory way is a defensible action.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6806" RevisionGUID="054cd739-57d3-43b7-9063-ca713a99a642" CreationDate="2015-05-24T12:49:28.093" UserId="56299" Text="I agree that this is not an answer. Part of the reason is its appearance - rant-like and one-sided. There are clearly moderation differences between the two sites, which have been discussed before. At this point, its best to avoid them altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You focused *solely* on Physics Stack Exchange in the answer, aside from one paragraph at the end about Physics Overflow. *It reads a lot like a rant.* A better answer would contrast the two in depth. As it stands, this is pretty much one-sided.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; And given that most users here know about what Physics Stack Exchange, it's not too productive to describe it in detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for a simpler test of &quot;Not an Answer&quot;, look at the question title:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your answer would not tell me anything about Physics Overflow, while the others would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;This logic would still hold if you wrote an answer that was polarized in the other direction, i.e. ranting against Physics Overflow. Neither one would be productive.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="2502886d-f9df-49d3-a7e1-6b09de26a787" CreationDate="2015-05-24T13:53:37.410" UserId="12798" Comment="added 482 characters in body" Text="I posted a [review][1] comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is written purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored may further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was deleted by [David Z][2] on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT1:** Please note the following, On this thread I don't want to discuss if my answer is biased and so on. It was On topic to the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;, that is all that matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I am interested in talking about why a viewpoint must be deleted if a select members of the community disagree with it. If you want to talk about that then please participate in this discussion. Moderators are requested to delete any off topic comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="8057a05f-5afe-4c1e-9853-5a857f417f12" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:44:52.267" UserId="12798" Text="Upon forceful deletion my previous answer, by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long suspensions of accounts. The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="f9c94520-a5a4-4575-8bbf-335671e07e23" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:51:03.217" UserId="12798" Text="Please reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44647/physics-based-derivation-of-the-formula-for-entropy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have complied with David Z requestion indicated in the comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="f9c94520-a5a4-4575-8bbf-335671e07e23" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:51:03.217" UserId="12798" Text="Requesting reopening of question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="f9c94520-a5a4-4575-8bbf-335671e07e23" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:51:03.217" UserId="12798" Text="|support|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="06b63a60-331d-4efe-b0cc-7eea4fc74d64" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:52:40.133" UserId="12798" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Upon forceful deletion of my [previous answer][1], by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long suspensions of accounts). The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/problem-of-unnecessary-censorship-in-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="dc389a8e-fb1e-4576-95a4-a59af4dec679" CreationDate="2015-05-24T18:16:17.960" UserId="12798" Comment="edited body" Text="Upon forceful deletion of my [previous answer][1], by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long) suspensions of accounts. The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/problem-of-unnecessary-censorship-in-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="61f816e3-e046-4da3-9bbb-99c95a3c47cc" CreationDate="2015-05-24T20:17:31.107" UserId="12798" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Please reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44647/physics-based-derivation-of-the-formula-for-entropy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have complied with David Z request indicated in the comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="8b522257-ef7e-48a9-8bf9-14d364859298" CreationDate="2015-05-24T22:00:39.203" UserId="12798" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="Upon forceful deletion of my [previous answer][1], by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long) suspensions of accounts. The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Physics Overflow Implements Rotating of moderator positions(currently 1 yr cycle), to facilitate the process of understanding the position of both the moderators and users from a practical point of view.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange implements Life time moderatorship. Some reasons being listed [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/problem-of-unnecessary-censorship-in-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="8f72060b-0f98-477b-8669-108a06b3e5f8" CreationDate="2015-05-25T00:17:02.530" UserId="12798" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the User's opinion on the site.&#xD;&#xA;Both positive and Negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Ofcourse you don't have to answer all the question posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of Network Wide policy? Is there any particular Network wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researchers interest? Such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="8f72060b-0f98-477b-8669-108a06b3e5f8" CreationDate="2015-05-25T00:17:02.530" UserId="12798" Text="How would you review your experiences at Physics Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="8f72060b-0f98-477b-8669-108a06b3e5f8" CreationDate="2015-05-25T00:17:02.530" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="bd89d7ee-a6a2-4b22-ba74-5811f4306799" CreationDate="2015-05-25T00:30:26.313" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the User's opinion on the site.&#xD;&#xA;Both positive and Negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Ofcourse you don't have to answer all the questions posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of Network Wide policy? Is there any particular Network wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researchers interest? Such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="dccd68ef-afef-42a8-809a-f2473a1aef9e" CreationDate="2015-05-25T01:07:54.923" UserId="25301" Text="I'll bite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. For the most part, I am happy with the questions asked here, zero-effort homework questions being the obvious candidate for 'wish we didn't have those...' The answers are usually more than satisfactory &amp; provide for good resources for my own learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The demographics seem to be split as 'under-grad', 'grad-student', and 'post-grad' (meaning graduated from grad school with the MS or PhD and working). Seems to be well-balanced to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Yes, the moderators do a fantastic job here. I've never been unfairly treated, nor have I ever seen anyone being treated unfairly. The mods do a fantastic job at what they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Yes, I am comfortable with the implementation of Network Wide policies (which ultimately boils down to 'Be nice.').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. I am not disturbed by anyone's life choices surrounding any internet site, be it here, Google+, Twitch, or whatever. If *[insert known user]* left because of (what appears to be) their own problems that they had with authority &amp; civil conduct with society, so be it. The only person who can 'fix the issue' is *[&#xD;&#xA;insert known user]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. AFAIK, no one has been suspended unfairly. SE policies on bans are progressive ([1 day, 1 week, 1 month, &amp; possibly 1 year](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174118/), with each longer date requiring a previous suspension as well as continued inappropriate behavior in a 30 day window). The policies of suspensions are very reasonable (because it expects people to actually learn from mistakes, rather than keep making the same stupid ones over &amp; over again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Yes, this site satisfies my research interests. There are many questions on my field of expertise, as well as some outside my expertise that I'm interested in learning (specifically, GR). I think there are plenty of professional physicists, just need more active reviewers to help keep up the closing of unfit questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="d8968941-6e92-47eb-8016-f4680f380fe5" CreationDate="2015-05-25T01:12:21.107" UserId="25301" Text="After gaining the [necessary 5 votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/44647/revisions), the question is now reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that you can force a closed question into the automatic review queues by making edits to the question. Making a separate Meta post is not a necessity (though, in this case, it is possible that the age of the question might have prevented that?).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="6095c258-43a1-4f27-9349-7c080947b60a" CreationDate="2015-05-25T10:29:40.037" UserId="8563" Text="I think the deletion of [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6802/8563) was indeed one-sided and was completely mishandled. Deleting content on meta without any indication to the poster of what is wrong with it is as aggressive as it sounds and does nothing to further reasonable discussion on this (meta) forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, indeed, not great. However, it has a very honest account of a user's (negative) experience on this site, which this site and its community should take very seriously, not least because these points have been raised several times before. If people felt that that post was in an inappropriate location, then that should have been the feedback (i.e. &quot;Please post this as a separate discussion&quot;). If people felt that the content was uncomfortable - well, shucks. If people felt that this was not an answer, then the correct course of action was to comment on the post to give the poster a chance to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally on the main site flagging as Not An Answer will put the post on the Low Quality Posts review queue. (This will not leave any visible mark for the OP; this is necessary for flags to be anonymous, which is a crucial feature for the flagging system to work.) Beyond this, though, if reviewers further flag the post as Not AN Answer this will post a canned comment which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives the OP time to respond while the review process is carried out. (Further, since reviews are public this does not jeopardize anonymity.) On main, there is a process in place to let posters know that there are issues with their posts and allow them to respond or edit their posts before they are deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta things are different. For good reasons, flags do not go to a community-manned review queue and are instead handled exclusively by moderators. However, because moderator actions are binding, they are under the obligation to allow users to respond before they take these binding actions - to do otherwise is what ends up being rightly noticed as &quot;unilateral action&quot;. **It was wrong for a moderator to delete this post without giving the OP a chance to respond.** Regardless of the existence of previous flags, this is a unilateral action. Moderators are meant to *mediate* disputes and bring flag wars down to reasonable discourse. Direct closure without a chance to respond is none of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond all of this, I feel the post under discussion does answer the question. It lists a number of things which Physics Overflow is *not*, which I find to be descriptive enough. If the description of PSE offered fits you, then PO may be for you; if not then maybe not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="8691589f-9803-44a4-98a3-835005cbb38d" CreationDate="2015-05-25T11:53:40.177" UserId="8563" Comment="Completely changed my mind on this." Text="I was going to rail about this when it came out, but I decided to give it a few more days like the team asked. Well, it's been a few days, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &lt;strike&gt;I still don't like it.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;strike&gt;I don't like the black bar being black. One of the reasons I use chrome is that it respects the very valuable real estate at the top of the browser window. It packs the maximum of information into just three bars. The black bar increases this space, which I like to be as minimal as possible, by a whopping 30%.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;strike&gt;I don't like the bright blue logo at all. Why have colours in there in the first place? They're bound to clash with *some* site design, no matter what you choose. Why not have it the same shade of grey as the inbox sign? As it is, it clashes horribly with the greenish turquoise of our main site. In meta it's even worse, and on a question page it has far and away the biggest chroma of the whole page. If you *must* keep it, why not damp it down to grey?&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Some credit to the UI designers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like it now. It took a bit of a while to sink in but I think pretty much everyone has gotten used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rl6d7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="a17ecc2d-1449-41f1-a7cb-5eb1f65ca5f6" CreationDate="2015-05-25T14:19:51.123" UserId="56299" Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="10f1cc6f-fd33-4035-96a3-cd8f66d2ace6" CreationDate="2015-05-25T14:24:27.753" UserId="56299" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the users' opinions on the site. Both positive and negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Of course you don't have to answer all the questions posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well-balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of network-wide policy? Is there any particular network-wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researcher's interest, such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have a sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6815" RevisionGUID="64c93e74-04cf-4058-9123-d1e52a2604f5" CreationDate="2015-05-25T15:43:46.707" UserId="63690" Text="I recently had a non-multiple of 5 rep points for an answer (specifically, 18).  I assume that is due to 2 positive votes and one negative, but there was no comment explaining the down vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I look back at the answer, I see it has a total of +1, but there doesn't seem to be a way to view the individual votes.  Is there a way to view them?  I don't know that it would serve any important purpose other than to satisfy curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6815" RevisionGUID="64c93e74-04cf-4058-9123-d1e52a2604f5" CreationDate="2015-05-25T15:43:46.707" UserId="63690" Text="How can I view the breakdown of votes on an answer versus the simple total?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6815" RevisionGUID="64c93e74-04cf-4058-9123-d1e52a2604f5" CreationDate="2015-05-25T15:43:46.707" UserId="63690" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="bc4bf2e5-7cec-4e78-817c-1f6293bf4a9b" CreationDate="2015-05-25T16:42:12.700" UserId="8563" Text="This is only possible with the [**Established User**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user) privilege at 1,000 rep. Click on the post's score and you'll see the upvote/downvote breakdown. On occasion, this can be quite useful - particularly on meta for things like polls. (As an extreme example, [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6399/), currently at +24-21.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &lt;1k rep users, you can find out the vote counts on your own posts via [the reputation tab of your profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post), which will show the net upvotes and downvotes for each post, per day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="3c84edbb-189d-4ec9-9df7-358b9e0bcc32" CreationDate="2015-05-25T17:32:49.750" UserId="56299" Comment="Clarification." Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I should also mention that I do *not* equation research-level with published papers; the one does not imply the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="73cfeb83-811b-4e95-bc2f-1f405b4c45a8" CreationDate="2015-05-26T02:28:56.520" UserId="4826" Comment="Twitter changed it so that this old URL format, if you're not logged into Twitter, goes to the Twitter homepage. This linkfix should universally work for logged in and anonymous browsers." Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/spBJn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="0a3d1d6d-3e28-48da-9211-1ba1c1fa2f59" CreationDate="2015-05-26T12:37:58.750" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed reference to David Z. Please go after the ball. Not the man." Text="I posted a [review][1] comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is written purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored may further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was deleted by a moderator on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT1:** Please note the following, On this thread I don't want to discuss if my answer is biased and so on. It was On topic to the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;, that is all that matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I am interested in talking about why a viewpoint must be deleted if a select members of the community disagree with it. If you want to talk about that then please participate in this discussion. Moderators are requested to delete any off topic comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="c9842590-91dd-4c68-a64e-07ed420ac519" CreationDate="2015-05-26T12:57:29.723" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="Abbreviations and acronyms should preferably be explained, especially if in the title. Avoid abbreviations in titles, such as, e.g., [TDR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/158625/2451), [BGK](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66989/2451), [GTO](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159611/2451), [EFE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/162105/2451), etc. Spell them out instead (as editors have later done in some of the above examples). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, but the most important part of the Phys.SE community is actually not the questioners nor the answerers but the readers. The readers are what keeps this site alive. If the only persons who read a post is the asker and the answerers, this site would not survive. In fact, it is likely what killed e.g. [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics): No readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, by making the title incomprehensible, a reader browsing the [front page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) is forced to click the question to read the main body, which defeats the purpose of having a title in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the Phys.SE community has some pretty smart users around, who might be able to answer, even if they are not from exactly the same subfield. So as an asker, why shoot yourself in the foot by unnecessarily limit your potential answerers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="b44fd5ad-cd58-4243-addd-56695aa96f4f" CreationDate="2015-05-26T13:27:40.217" UserId="46239" Text="  [![enter image description here][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TreQA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18448" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="23d933fd-23e3-4f65-99f6-8f1ee9485347" CreationDate="2015-05-26T13:27:40.217" UserId="46239" />
  <row Id="18449" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="52ef5a21-71d8-424a-a735-b6f8069e236d" CreationDate="2015-05-26T19:21:09.610" UserId="653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6818" RevisionGUID="8317cde4-c084-4620-9702-90db07a7cf3c" CreationDate="2015-05-27T09:24:12.480" UserId="30247" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.    I can see a lot of activity on the homework front, but the tags I am mostly interested in (quantum mechanics and mathematical physics) do have a fair amount of interesting questions and good answers. I can also learn something from other research-level tags. But I believe there is a very big flaw with your question here: You ask &quot;Has [the site] the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion&quot;. This site is not about discussion. It is a question/answer site. If I want to truly discuss a matter, I can either go to chat or to other sites. Of course I can ask for clarification and leave comments, but it is not supposed to be a whole discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.    There are people of all audience, the people with more reputation have usually more experience, so yes, I believe the demographic to be sufficiently balanced. For my taste, there could be a few more researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.    Never been unfairly treated, my interaction with moderators was minimal so far. To be honest, nearly always when I see people upset, it's because they ask questions not fit for this site. We agreed we wanted conceptual questions and many people don't really understand that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.    In my eyes, everything seems to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.    There are people that have left that I enjoy reading, mostly before I arrived. From what I can see, the site works for most valuable users and there are problem with at most a few of them. Every area where a number of people interact has these problems, so it is not necessarily a problem of the site, but the interaction with the site and some user personalities (NB: this is not judging the user personalities, it's just a description of what happens). If there were no tries to resolve problems, this would be a problem. However, it seems that moderators/the community do try to resolve issues, so that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.    I think I don't have the information to comment on this. It is a conscious decision (community + site owners) that certain discussions are not open for everyone. If you don't agree, that's your, not the site's problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.    For my field of expertise (quantum information), I know at least three highly prolific researchers who regularly visit the site. That's not too much and I sometimes wish there were more, but it's not nothing. This usually means that all questions that I find interesting and can't answer myself do get answers - and good ones. It would be nice to have something like MO for physics, but I don't see participation to be much greater from the physicists in total. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="363e1d95-0826-4488-a40d-026496ed5fef" CreationDate="2015-05-27T11:21:27.570" UserId="1325" Text="The last few days I've been logging in only first thing in the morning (I'm on holiday, and the family get annoyed if I'm on the Physics SE all day :-) and there have been more than 20  questions with close votes in the review queue. So all my 20 close votes get used up before I've even finished the review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can argue about the close policy, but that's a separate issue. Given our current policy on closing I have too few close votes to effectively implement the site policy. I don't know if the number of close votes is SE wide, or whether it's tweakable on a site by site basis, but given the Physics SE (probably) closes more questions than any other SE it would be nice if we could have more votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the flaming starts, please note that I am not commenting on whether our policies on closing questions are right or wrong. I'm just saying that 20 close votes per &gt;3k user is insufficient to implement those policies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="363e1d95-0826-4488-a40d-026496ed5fef" CreationDate="2015-05-27T11:21:27.570" UserId="1325" Text="Can we have more close votes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="363e1d95-0826-4488-a40d-026496ed5fef" CreationDate="2015-05-27T11:21:27.570" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="d0ebbdef-f43a-4b4b-8c6e-4c626da65af9" CreationDate="2015-05-27T14:08:12.377" UserId="7894" Text="There's a difference between close votes and close vote reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other sites give people more than 24 close votes per day (for example, the number was bumped from 24 to 50 on ServerFault a couple of months ago).  But I think StackOverflow is the only site that gives people more than 20 reviews per day (and even for SO, I'm not positivie it's more than 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So more close votes per day can be increased on a per-site basis, and has been on sites with lots of questions, but reviews per day is unlikely to be increased.  The main reason has been mentioned in comments - instead of a few people doing more reviews, more people should be doing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="151354d7-cc11-4865-9b40-41b91c975212" CreationDate="2015-05-27T14:46:18.777" UserId="8563" Text="This started as a comment but it got too long. I will not attempt to answer the original questionnaire, but you can take the following as a partial answer to question 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to bring back some of the nuance which [some users](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange?noredirect=1#comment26466_6810) seem determined to strip away. I consider MO to be a very successful site as a forum for mathematicians to discuss research-level mathematics. There are several independent measures of this success. A non-exhaustive list of success measures includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians can take high-level questions which come up in their work to MO and resolve them quickly;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians seem to find the content on MO to be stimulating and thought-provoking at a level commensurate with e.g. attending a research seminar;&#xD;&#xA; - a nontrivial fraction of the online discussion of research-level mathematics takes place on MO;&#xD;&#xA; - discussions on MO have sparked a significant number of off-MO collaborations which their participants have found to be rewarding research projects;&#xD;&#xA; - some of these collaborations have published their findings. These measures are related but independent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like PSE to be all of this and more. Some of this does happen, but I feel that we are not at the level of MO or anywhere near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing, though, is that this is obviously field-dependent. As regards the parts of physics where I do most of my research, the activity on this site is very low, and I do not feel I can successfully bring here a high-level question related to my work and resolve it quickly. (One example should do: take [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=high+harmonic+generation) and exclude my contributions.) I find this site to be useful and often very thought-provoking, but I do not consider it a useful tool for my research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, others may find that PSE does cater much more to their research interests. There are a number of different ways in which PSE can be helpful for a researcher, and I'd be interested to know, for the people that do find it useful for their research, how exactly they find it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="6f420134-b33c-49f2-b732-fd9cc749e27c" CreationDate="2015-05-27T15:39:20.830" UserId="8563" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="This started as a comment but it got too long. I will not attempt to answer the original questionnaire, but you can take the following as a partial answer to question 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to bring back some of the nuance which [some users](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange?noredirect=1#comment26466_6810) seem determined to strip away. I consider MO to be a very successful site as a forum for mathematicians to discuss research-level mathematics. There are several independent measures of this success. A non-exhaustive list of success measures includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians can take high-level questions which come up in their work to MO and resolve them quickly;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians seem to find the content on MO to be stimulating and thought-provoking at a level commensurate with e.g. attending a research seminar;&#xD;&#xA; - a nontrivial fraction of the online discussion of research-level mathematics takes place on MO;&#xD;&#xA; - discussions on MO have sparked a significant number of off-MO collaborations which their participants have found to be rewarding research projects;&#xD;&#xA; - some of these collaborations have published their findings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These measures are related but ultimately independent. I would like PSE to be all of this and more. Some of this does happen, but I feel that we are not at the level of MO or anywhere near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing, though, is that this is obviously field-dependent. As regards the parts of physics where I do most of my research, the activity on this site is very low, and I do not feel I can successfully bring here a high-level question related to my work and resolve it quickly. (One example should do: take [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=high+harmonic+generation) and exclude my contributions.) I find this site to be useful and often very thought-provoking, but I do not consider it a useful tool for my research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, others may find that PSE does cater much more to their research interests. There are a number of different ways in which PSE can be helpful for a researcher, and I'd be interested to know, for the people that do find it useful for their research, how exactly they find it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="6d1cf64d-72c6-4a56-80e6-1631ffeaa204" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:46:23.090" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo fixed" Text="There's a difference between close votes and close vote reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other sites give people more than 24 close votes per day (for example, the number was bumped from 24 to 50 on ServerFault a couple of months ago).  But I think StackOverflow is the only site that gives people more than 20 reviews per day (and even for SO, I'm not positive it's more than 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So more close votes per day can be increased on a per-site basis, and has been on sites with lots of questions, but reviews per day is unlikely to be increased.  The main reason has been mentioned in comments - instead of a few people doing more reviews, more people should be doing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="2696e626-5b26-4c13-83d9-e215d71d549c" CreationDate="2015-05-29T21:48:06.880" UserId="12798" Text="There has been a lot of discussion in the past in regard to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a page on [Area51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that page you will find a suggestion, to change the name of the site to ***Physics Learners***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a very good idea to keep well understood and text book level physics separate from current research topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise details may arrived at through a discussion, however what you think of the general premise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="2696e626-5b26-4c13-83d9-e215d71d549c" CreationDate="2015-05-29T21:48:06.880" UserId="12798" Text="Revisiting the creation of a new site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="2696e626-5b26-4c13-83d9-e215d71d549c" CreationDate="2015-05-29T21:48:06.880" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6823" RevisionGUID="ce2a549c-427f-4354-8119-2cfee82dbe72" CreationDate="2015-05-29T22:04:15.637" UserId="74685" Text="&quot;I think this is a very good idea to keep well understood and text book level physics separate from current research topics.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this is a horrible idea. Why keep them separate? We answer both. Our highest upvoted question is about cooling tea down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6824" RevisionGUID="0eac3869-3d2c-45e2-80db-827c3ce2ad18" CreationDate="2015-05-29T22:17:20.617" UserId="23389" Text="I have two objections, one practical and one more subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a practical point of view, I think low-level questions would receive less attention under your proposal. I think I probably quite often answer questions that you would filter to Physics Learners. If high- and low-level questions were separated, I doubt I'd ever look at Physics Learners or answer questions there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm certainly not saying that my contributions are at all significant, but I suspect that a lot of people who might answer such questions might behave similarly to me, and ignore them if they are streamed into a separate site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a subjective point of view, I like the diversity of questions, users and backgrounds on Physics Stack Exchange - I think your proposal would damage the atmosphere and ethos behind the site. I enjoy a mixture of high- and low-level questions - even low-level questions can be quite stimulating, uncovering a new detail that I didn't know, or making me brush-up on something I once knew and have forgotten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="a78c2f15-93b1-4525-abd0-d15dba06ef24" CreationDate="2015-05-30T00:01:18.077" UserId="2451" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="There has been a lot of discussion in the past in regard to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a page ***Physics homework questions*** on [Area51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that page you will find a suggestion, to change the name of the site to ***Physics Learners***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a very good idea to keep well understood and text book level physics separate from current research topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise details may arrived at through a discussion, however what you think of the general premise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18464" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="a78c2f15-93b1-4525-abd0-d15dba06ef24" CreationDate="2015-05-30T00:01:18.077" UserId="2451" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Revisiting the creation of a new site: Physics Learners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="a78c2f15-93b1-4525-abd0-d15dba06ef24" CreationDate="2015-05-30T00:01:18.077" UserId="2451" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6825" RevisionGUID="198930a3-649b-423c-9a40-cf6230815625" CreationDate="2015-05-30T05:48:49.007" UserId="34274" Text="It can really go either way if you ask me, but generally its good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The type of questions can be pretty interesting or just good for enlightening other newbies but I feel like a few of the mods are too quick to start acting belligerent if they don't particularly like the question. There's always room for improvement on that front but sometimes there are really bad judgement calls being made and there is a bit of a mental inertia that some of the mods refuse to overcome. I'd rather see a good few real rebuttals to the various sub-questions of the EmDrive then a million closed questions that mods respond are duplicates of other closed questions. If NASA is talking about it it's not exactly fringe anymore so at least we should get the EmDrive out of our system. As a whole I think if moderation got a bit laxer the site would benefit alot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="f40326fc-847d-4108-9fad-621f930318f0" CreationDate="2015-05-30T14:31:41.533" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="removed a typo" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the users' opinions on the site. Both positive and negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Of course you don't have to answer all the questions posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well-balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of network-wide policy? Is there any particular network-wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researcher's interest, such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have a sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="503baa05-7b99-47db-9cc5-78d24df43f8d" CreationDate="2015-05-30T15:16:24.627" UserId="12798" Comment="added 466 characters in body" Text="There has been a lot of discussion in the past in regard to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a page ***Physics homework questions*** on [Area51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that page you will find a suggestion, to change the name of the site to ***Physics Learners***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a very good idea to keep well understood and text book level physics separate from current research topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise details may arrived at through a discussion, however what you think of the general premise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 1:**&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of the kind of questions that I definitely want to separate out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an [example][2], I hope it will help making my point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note technically this is not a homework question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not to say this is a bad question, I am sure everyone has asked that at some point in their life. But really is a distraction to a research community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186624/units-about-weight" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="fe3dfd7a-6afb-47ec-b0e6-e6f98e50830d" CreationDate="2015-05-30T15:21:31.900" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Yes, I do miss [@wolphram jonny](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny) who answered most of my questions during the late 14 - early 15. Suddenly I saw he was banished due to some sort of problems for one year! I'm not complaining against the moderation, but yes if he were here, it would be different:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation is really good here. But it does depend or you can say the perspective of each of the individuals. See you can't seek a utopian scheme but we do want more. Take me; On an average, I remain on the site for over 3 hrs &amp; during that hour, I come to junk questions like &quot;solve this, urgent&quot;; &quot;can you check this?&quot;....Day in &amp; day out , we advise to please show some effort &amp; even cite the meta link but of no avail. They have no eager to read even the advice on the right side of the &quot;ask question&quot; page.It becomes really bothering to me; this site isn't for dumping waste. Another that really bothers me is the indifferent attitude of the person who ask the question. Though I ask most of the times(hey I'm still a student!), I try my best to contribute something to the site &amp; answer questions that are competent.Take this [quo](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184966/can-ke-and-pe-of-a-small-element-of-a-transverse-progressive-wave-be-maximum-sim/184982#184982); I answered this &amp; got decent votes, but the asker never came again! This is irritating!! Then why ask???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the moderation, I would say again that it is really pretty here: just think about them: they've taken a part of the time to devote here &amp; make it a part-&amp;-parcel of their lives. Salute to them. At some point, I thought they are really rude, but then could comprehend &quot;yes, it was my fault&quot; Compromise?? Yes/No! But in the long run it is really comfortable. However there are some members , who are really not at all happy with this &quot;moderation-atmosphere&quot;, like [him](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon). However, I do respect their predicament:) And so do everyone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="d162b8ba-83e9-438a-9410-71ccf644274e" CreationDate="2015-05-30T15:45:52.027" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="modified the body" Text="Yes, I do miss [@wolphram jonny](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny) who answered most of my questions during the late 14 - early 15. Suddenly I saw he was banished due to some sort of problems for one year! I'm not complaining against the moderation, but yes if he were here, it would be different:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation is really good here. But it does depend, or you can say, the perspective of each of the individuals. See you can't seek a utopian scheme but we do want more. Take me; On an average, I remain on the site for over 3 hrs &amp; during that hour, I come to junk questions like &quot;solve this, urgent&quot;; &quot;can you check this?&quot;....Day in &amp; day out , we advise to please show some effort &amp; even cite the meta link but of no avail. They have no eager to read even the advice on the right side of the &quot;ask question&quot; page.It becomes really bothering to me; this site isn't for dumping waste. Another that really bothers me is the indifferent attitude of the person who ask the question. Though I ask most of the times(hey I'm still a student!), I try my best to contribute something to the site &amp; answer questions that are competent.Take this [quo](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184966/can-ke-and-pe-of-a-small-element-of-a-transverse-progressive-wave-be-maximum-sim/184982#184982); I answered this &amp; got decent votes, but the asker never came again! This is irritating!! Then why ask, if you negligent to your very own query??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, to me the horrendous one, problem is the abuse of downvoting. If you have the time to downvote, you ought have time to write the cause. Though a notification appears, but this doesn't stop him/her to downvote without presenting the cause. I have no problem with downvoting; this is essential but it is the duty to make aware of the flaw which attracted downvoting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the moderation, I would say again that it is really pretty here: just think about them: they've taken a part of the time to devote here &amp; make it a part-&amp;-parcel of their lives. Salute to them. At some point, I thought they are really rude, but then could comprehend &quot;yes, it was my fault&quot; Compromise?? Yes/No! But in the long run it is really comfortable. However there are some members , who are really not at all happy with this &quot;moderation-atmosphere&quot;, like [him](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon). However, I do respect their predicament:) And so do everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As that of professional physicists, They themselves know much about that as expressed in the other answers. There is even another [counterpart](http://www.physicsoverflow.org) that deals with the interest of them. However, to me, this is the place where I get **moksha** from the evils of **confusion, uncomprehandable stuffs** . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For man may come, &amp; man may go, I'll will come here forever!** (sorry Alfred Tennyson!!) This will evidently reflect my attitude towards this wonderful community:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="cef0341b-afe1-4063-b91e-7dc23221339e" CreationDate="2015-05-30T15:50:36.943" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="modified the body" Text="Yes, I do miss [@wolphram jonny](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny) who answered most of my questions during the late 14 - early 15. Suddenly I saw he was banished due to some sort of problems for one year! I'm not complaining against the moderation, but yes if he were here, it would be different:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation is really good here. But it does depend, or you can say, the perspective of each of the individuals. See you can't seek a utopian scheme but we do want more. Take me; On an average, I remain on the site for over 3 hrs &amp; during that hour, I come to junk questions like &quot;solve this, urgent&quot;; &quot;can you check this?&quot;....Day in &amp; day out , we advise to please show some effort &amp; even cite the meta link but of no avail. They have no eager to read even the advice on the right side of the &quot;ask question&quot; page.It becomes really bothering to me; this site isn't for dumping waste. Another that really bothers me is the indifferent attitude of the person who ask the question. Though I ask most of the times(hey I'm still a student!), I try my best to contribute something to the site &amp; answer questions that are competent.Take this [quo](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184966/can-ke-and-pe-of-a-small-element-of-a-transverse-progressive-wave-be-maximum-sim/184982#184982); I answered this &amp; got decent votes, but the asker never came again! This is irritating!! Then why ask, if you are negligent to your very own query??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, to me the horrendous one, problem is the abuse of downvoting. If you have the time to downvote, you ought have time to write the cause. Though a notification appears, but this doesn't stop him/her to downvote without presenting the cause. I have no problem with downvoting; this is essential but it is the duty to make aware of the flaw which attracted downvoting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the moderation, I would say again that it is really pretty here: just think about them: they've taken a part of the time to devote here &amp; make it a part-&amp;-parcel of their lives. Salute to them. At some point, I thought they are really rude, but then could comprehend &quot;yes, it was my fault&quot; Compromise?? Yes/No! But in the long run it is really comfortable. However there are some members , who are really not at all happy with this &quot;moderation-atmosphere&quot;, like [him](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon) or [here](http://www.quora.com/Are-Math-Overflow-and-Math-Stack-Exchange-more-successful-than-Physics-Overflow-Physics-Stack-Exchange-If-so-why) as one of the founders of Physics Overflow wrote his allegations. However, I do respect their predicament:) And so do everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As that of professional physicists, they themselves know much about that as expressed in the other answers. There is even another [counterpart](http://www.physicsoverflow.org) that deals with the interest of them. However, to me, this is the place where I get **moksha** from the evils of **confusion, uncomprehandable stuffs** . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For man may come, &amp; man may go, I'll will come here forever!** (sorry Alfred Tennyson!!) This will evidently reflect my attitude towards this wonderful community:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="d86fa984-8b4e-4269-b868-65cd9a617a08" CreationDate="2015-05-30T17:16:51.220" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="removed a typo" Text="Yes, I do miss [@wolphram jonny](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny) who answered most of my questions during the late 14 - early 15. Suddenly I saw he was banished due to some sort of problems for one year! I'm not complaining against the moderation, but yes if he were here, it would be different:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation is really good here. But it does depend, or you can say, the perspective of each of the individuals. See you can't seek a utopian scheme but we do want more. Take me; On an average, I remain on the site for over 3 hrs &amp; during that hour, I come to junk questions like &quot;solve this, urgent&quot;; &quot;can you check this?&quot;....Day in &amp; day out , we advise to please show some effort &amp; even cite the meta link but of no avail. They have no eager to read even the advice on the right side of the &quot;ask question&quot; page.It becomes really bothering to me; this site isn't for dumping waste. Another that really bothers me is the indifferent attitude of the person who asks the question. Though I ask most of the times(hey I'm still a student!), I try my best to contribute something to the site &amp; answer questions that are competent.Take this [quo](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184966/can-ke-and-pe-of-a-small-element-of-a-transverse-progressive-wave-be-maximum-sim/184982#184982); I answered this &amp; got decent votes, but the asker never came again! This is irritating!! Then why ask, if you are negligent to your very own query??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, to me the horrendous one, problem is the abuse of downvoting. If you have the time to downvote, you ought have time to write the cause. Though a notification appears, but this doesn't stop him/her to downvote without presenting the cause. I have no problem with downvoting; this is essential but it is the duty to make aware of the flaw which attracted downvoting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the moderation, I would say again that it is really pretty here: just think about them: they've taken a part of the time to devote here &amp; make it a part-&amp;-parcel of their lives. Salute to them. At some point, I thought they are really rude, but then could comprehend &quot;yes, it was my fault&quot; Compromise?? Yes/No! But in the long run it is really comfortable. However there are some members , who are really not at all happy with this &quot;moderation-atmosphere&quot;, like [him](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon) or [here](http://www.quora.com/Are-Math-Overflow-and-Math-Stack-Exchange-more-successful-than-Physics-Overflow-Physics-Stack-Exchange-If-so-why) as one of the founders of Physics Overflow wrote his allegations. However, I do respect their predicament:) And so do everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As that of professional physicists, they themselves know much about that as expressed in the other answers. There is even another [counterpart](http://www.physicsoverflow.org) that deals with the interest of them. However, to me, this is the place where I get **moksha** from the evils of **confusion, uncomprehandable stuffs** . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For man may come, &amp; man may go, I'll will come here forever!** (sorry Alfred Tennyson!!) This will evidently reflect my attitude towards this wonderful community:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18475" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="d2175ffd-55fb-40b0-b617-cee972d7059b" CreationDate="2015-05-30T17:32:19.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/604701889255600128" />
  <row Id="18476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="6b1f7d6a-898d-48fc-9446-d8d6a3c29402" CreationDate="2015-05-30T22:31:02.653" UserId="12798" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="There has been a lot of discussion in the past in regard to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a page ***Physics homework questions*** on [Area51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that page you will find a suggestion, to change the name of the site to ***Physics Learners***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a very good idea to keep well understood and text book level physics separate from current research topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise details may arrived at through a discussion, however what you think of the general premise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 1:**&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of the kind of questions that I definitely want to separate out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an [example][2], I hope it will help making my point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note technically this is not a homework question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not to say this is a bad question, I am sure everyone has asked that at some point in their life. But really is a distraction to a research community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit2:** If we make a new site, question such as [this one][3] would have receive ample attention, as it would stay on the main page for much longer and so on, it would not be lost in a flood of questions of the former type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186624/units-about-weight&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183575/can-you-take-the-cutoff-to-infinity-at-a-conformal-fixed-point" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="9a02c095-b953-4a18-a715-89fead1cf57f" CreationDate="2015-05-31T00:26:07.487" UserId="12798" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the moment I am writing this answer not one question on the main page is interesting enough to keep me thinking for hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="7172a377-8c52-4dbe-8e56-780433f9b720" CreationDate="2015-05-31T00:32:25.307" UserId="12798" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention Zero questions on Supersymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the moment I am writing this answer not one question on the main page is interesting enough to keep me thinking for hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Don't ponce on the specific choice of subjects, it was meant as a mere representative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="3a18f848-78e2-481c-b28d-880451e42f31" CreationDate="2015-05-31T00:50:43.223" UserId="12798" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention Zero questions on Supersymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was time when questions here would really interest me, and challenge me. Now there are hardly any questions like this. And they lost in the swarm of essentially trivial question. This site need a revival if it wants to hold a reseach community. The only idea I could think of was heavily [downvoted][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Don't ponce on the specific choice of subjects, it was meant as a mere representative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6822/revisiting-the-creation-of-a-new-site-physics-learners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="7c9140ac-dadf-4f0c-8f03-413252c3f23b" CreationDate="2015-05-31T00:56:41.723" UserId="12798" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention Zero questions on Supersymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was time when questions here would really interest me, and challenge me. Now there are hardly any questions like this. And the few are lost in a swarm of essentially trivial question. This site need a revival if it wants to hold a reseach community. The only idea I could think of was heavily [downvoted][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Don't ponce on the specific choice of subjects, it was meant as a mere representative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6822/revisiting-the-creation-of-a-new-site-physics-learners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="3911f8fd-142e-4472-87c9-a2e35343b9d0" CreationDate="2015-05-31T05:18:22.840" UserId="1492" Text=" I am of the impression that we want the questions and answers to be searchable and provide a good reference for physics students and above when using search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exist questions asked by ~15 year old kids and answered by the same age group, and checked as correct within a very short time. [Here][1] is a recent  example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have great sympathy for all these young kids enthusiastic about physics, who should not be discouraged. But the level is sliding downwards, because often checked answers might not be looked at by somebody with more experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the moderators checking the content of checked answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order not to discourage the young I would be willing to add a more sophisticated answer to bring up the level, and have often done it, but these are one off cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think maybe there could be a list of questions, regardless if they are checked or not, for the attention for more senior physicists, as with  &quot;unanswered questions&quot;, example: &quot;new  answers useful&quot;. Then one  could have a look if one could contribute something better, raising the physics sophistication level of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186885/stopping-a-body-travelling-at-the-speed-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="3911f8fd-142e-4472-87c9-a2e35343b9d0" CreationDate="2015-05-31T05:18:22.840" UserId="1492" Text="Point of this site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="3911f8fd-142e-4472-87c9-a2e35343b9d0" CreationDate="2015-05-31T05:18:22.840" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="9d2c56e7-46ec-4db4-8b5a-e37d28cabeb7" CreationDate="2015-05-31T10:36:58.883" UserId="23389" Text="Your question, if it is one, is part of recurring trend of (a few) users worrying about the level of physics questions at this site. I find your particular worry strange - the ages of our users ought to have no bearing on whether we judge their questions or contributions as valuable. It shouldn't matter whether a user is 15, 50 or 500 years old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example you cite is a strange one - it's a question about an infinite mass moving at the speed of light. The question is now on-hold as non-mainstream, but, in the meantime, received answers that I found quite reasonable. The original poster didn't accept an answer immediately - he decided to, in his own words, &quot;wait for more answers to clear the confusion. And, then accordingly choose the wisest answer.&quot; You are willing to write a more sophisticated answer - what exactly would you say? I find nothing problematic about that example - everything is operating as it should. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I'm often amazed that simple questions receive sophisticated answers, probably unintelligible to the original poster but of interest to the broader community here. I haven't seen any evidence that the level of physics is sliding downwards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for review, first-posts are already reviewed and I see no reason why accepted answers need the approval of a moderator. The conventional stack exchange system of voting seems to be working just fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="7c0302cd-fc6e-4223-a21c-17b62c5ccad1" CreationDate="2015-05-31T15:18:40.287" UserId="76162" Text="*1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not totally. I thought this was a site for physicists, but there seems to be an awful lot of high-school kids asking homework questions.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some answers are very good, some not so good. Ditto for the people. The only issue I've noticed is a tendency for some people to close down questions they can't answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*2. Is there a well-balanced demographic?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not bad, but see 1 above.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, no, no.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of network-wide policy?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. But I am relatively new here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*6. Has anyone's account been suspended unfairly?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to my knowledge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*7. Does the site satisfy a researcher's interest, such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have a sufficient mass of professional physicists?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO no, because there's too many homework and/or naïve questions drowning out the good stuff. If there was another site where there wasn't, I'd be interested to hear about it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="912ba3a3-c7ac-4ce4-bf6d-bac353303292" CreationDate="2015-05-31T19:51:18.113" UserId="520" Text="The diamond moderators don't have any more control over checked answers than unprivileged users (i.e. we can accept answers to our own questions). So the answer to that part of your question is &quot;No, not as such.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only realistic response to a poor accepted answer is to downvote it and either upvote an existing better answer or if no better answers exists to provide one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prevent this situation from developing in the first place the correct procedure would seem to one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Closing questions which don't conform to the site guidelines with respect to style and content as quickly as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Providing correct answer to questions which do conform to the guidelines. My very unscientific observation is that these young askers will uncritically accept *anything* if it is the only answer they get, but at least sometime will exhibit a bit more caution if they have more than one answer, especially if they are contradictory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously no single user can make this happen: it is going to take a broadbased commitment to policing the site while on-line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a consistent, if modest sized, majority of users who don't want to but some kind of hard limit on the level of acceptable questions, so we're going to continuing seeing these grade-school pop-sci queries. We can insist that they live up to the &quot;framed like a scientist&quot; expectation and we can try to emulate John R. and the other expert users who write really accessible but *good* answers to these questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="b7b58d48-ce15-4805-af3c-c80a08cf0220" CreationDate="2015-05-31T20:02:26.833" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="The diamond moderators don't have any more control over checked answers than unprivileged users (i.e. we can accept answers to our own questions). So the answer to that part of your question is &quot;No, not as such.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only realistic response to a poor accepted answer is to downvote it and either upvote an existing better answer or if no better answers exists to provide one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prevent this situation from developing in the first place the correct procedure would seem to one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Closing questions which don't conform to the site guidelines with respect to style and content as quickly as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Providing correct answer to questions which do conform to the guidelines. My very unscientific observation is that these young askers will uncritically accept *anything* if it is the only answer they get, but at least sometime will exhibit a bit more caution if they have more than one answer, especially if they are contradictory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously no single user can make this happen: it is going to take a broadbased commitment to policing the site while on-line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a consistent, if modest sized, majority of users who don't want to put some kind of hard limit on the level of acceptable questions, so we're going to continuing seeing these grade-school pop-sci queries. We can insist that they live up to the &quot;framed like a scientist&quot; expectation and we can try to emulate John R. and the other expert users who write really accessible but *good* answers to these questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18488" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="9ce0e029-6b69-4a57-8890-24ba2c490dba" CreationDate="2015-05-31T20:33:07.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/605109775731437568" />
  <row Id="18489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="cf364d25-9e99-4ab0-a9e9-25c8a74510d0" CreationDate="2015-05-31T23:21:40.720" UserId="31790" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get a lot of posts asking several related by independent questions [1].&#xD;&#xA;Often the posts are even formatted as enumerated lists, making it clear that the author knows that he/she is asking more than one question.&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the quality of the question/answer system increases if each post contains a single focused question.&#xD;&#xA;It's my understanding that other users generally agree with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [site tour](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) does not particularly emphasize the importance of focusing on one question per post.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for us to make it more obvious to new users that posts should focus on a single question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regardless of the specific rules of the site, I would point out that asking more than one question at a time frequently indicates that further effort by the asker to identify what in his/her own mind is actually unclear would greatly improve the question/answer process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site tour is somewhat saturated with fancy animations and has a low amount of information per screen space. This may be related to the main focus of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: [Here's a recent example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186992/questions-concerning-bcs-theory-particularly-the-pairing-hamiltonian). Note that in the original version the list contained *six* items.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="cf364d25-9e99-4ab0-a9e9-25c8a74510d0" CreationDate="2015-05-31T23:21:40.720" UserId="31790" Text="Is there a way to make it more obvious that each post should contain *one* question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="cf364d25-9e99-4ab0-a9e9-25c8a74510d0" CreationDate="2015-05-31T23:21:40.720" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="36b6cb3c-eebd-43de-bb0c-391d384b9896" CreationDate="2015-05-31T23:28:58.333" UserId="31790" Text="1. For the most part, yes. I do wish there were more post-graduates around and more folks well versed in things like quantum noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The demographic is massively skewed towards theorists, and it seems particularly folks interested in field theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. AFAICT the site is fair because it's based on up/down votes and what questions people think are interesing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I have no idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I have no idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I think there are not enough professional physicists in my field. As far as I know there's only one other user who can give good answers to questions I really care about.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="bb212636-c14e-468f-b65d-1c3587f708d3" CreationDate="2015-06-01T00:12:30.927" UserId="31790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get a lot of posts asking several related but independent questions [1].&#xD;&#xA;Often the posts are even formatted as enumerated lists, making it clear that the author knows that he/she is asking more than one question.&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the quality of the question/answer system increases if each post contains a single focused question.&#xD;&#xA;It's my understanding that other users generally agree with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [site tour](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) does not particularly emphasize the importance of focusing on one question per post.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for us to make it more obvious to new users that posts should focus on a single question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regardless of the specific rules of the site, I would point out that asking more than one question at a time frequently indicates that further effort by the asker to identify what in his/her own mind is actually unclear would greatly improve the question/answer process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site tour is somewhat saturated with fancy animations and has a low amount of information per screen space. This may be related to the main focus of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: [Here's a recent example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186992/questions-concerning-bcs-theory-particularly-the-pairing-hamiltonian). Note that in the original version the list contained *six* items.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18494" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="c4dca7c8-3065-4700-95a3-a26d0e0348b3" CreationDate="2015-06-01T17:33:09.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/605426873875734528" />
  <row Id="18495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="0b36a803-7523-4d38-8703-941e9bc7e186" CreationDate="2015-06-01T18:52:09.457" UserId="74" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Astronomy questions and answers are explicitly on topic. For a while there was a Astronomy.SE beta site and while it lived we did attempt to make a distinction between those question the definitely belonged on one site or the other (and necessarily recognized that some would be on topic on both). However, astro.se was ruled to be dying; its content was moved here and the site was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The matter of how people react to personal experience answers is entirely up to the people casting the votes. That's the deal with crowd-sourced evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not quite sure what you mean by &quot;physics education&quot; in this context---are you talking about &quot;physics education research&quot; (PER) in a formal sense, about the experience gained in teaching physics, or about the usual progression of the education of a physicist (bachelor's degree, grad school, maybe a some postdoctoral work...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We don't have a explicit policy on PER questions at this time. Now, I attend quite a few talks and seminars given by these guys because I find the topic fascinating and would really like some guidance from them; however there are a fair number of questions in PER that I (speaking personally rather than as a moderator) would *not* classify as on-topic here (and many that I *would* classify as on-topic---it depends on how much *physics* there is in the matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your personal experience as a teacher may be relevant, and you are welcome to answer on that basis. But see my point above about people being free to vote as they will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We have a number of existing questions on the normal (and sometimes abnormal) education of physicists. Some have been well received and some have not. Many are closed for not meeting the usual guidelines with respect to *having answers* and not being polls or discussion topics. A few have been made community wiki as a kind of compromise position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen some patently incorrect answers given and marked as correct, but containing terminology errors and/or conceptual errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I trust that have downvoted these and left comments explaining how they are wrong? Oh, good. Because that is about all any one person can do about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you want to bring them up on chat, which might be worth a try as this is usually a low traffic site; when we *do* get bursts of activity stuff can fall off the front page pretty quickly. Then some questions can be missed by those users who only check in occasionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="b5d87273-bb6c-4bab-809f-0a088b3029a0" CreationDate="2015-06-02T23:05:04.207" UserId="74685" Text="In my review queue, I have been seeing a lot of questions and comments put as answers. How can we make it clear were these things should go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="b5d87273-bb6c-4bab-809f-0a088b3029a0" CreationDate="2015-06-02T23:05:04.207" UserId="74685" Text="Comments and questions as answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="b5d87273-bb6c-4bab-809f-0a088b3029a0" CreationDate="2015-06-02T23:05:04.207" UserId="74685" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="ffeff95b-f894-4453-b92d-ac0dfc63c54d" CreationDate="2015-06-03T00:17:48.030" UserId="74685" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="In my review queue, I have been seeing a lot of questions and comments put as answers. How can we make it clear were these things should go? For example, [**this**][1] (the link might stop working when that answer is deleted) guy does this a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/187386/gravity-effect-on-moving-bodies/187389#187389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="d1346eb4-1eb8-47ad-99e9-32d1b359f6ac" CreationDate="2015-06-03T00:30:47.327" UserId="74685" Comment="deleted 214 characters in body" Text="In my review queue, I have been seeing a lot of questions and comments put as answers. How can we make it clear were these things should go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="c05587ac-223b-47c2-8ccd-c7eedbdf6a5a" CreationDate="2015-06-03T04:48:53.817" UserId="3257" Text="I am much more active on math than physics, though my degree (long ago) is physics.  I see a huge contrast in reaction to homework problems between the two sites.  The stated policies are similar, but physics is much quicker to close anything that looks like homework than math, even if the poster has shown effort and isolated the problem s/he is having.  That may reflect the fact that math has many more readers, some of whom are eager to show off what they know.  On math, many (far from all) homework problems get solved before they are closed, even if OP has not shown any effort.  I try to give hints and am often frustrated that somebody else solves it completely. That said, I feel physics is poorer for its behavior.  Homework problems are usually more carefully stated than others because the textbook author has given serious thought to making a problem with a clear answer.  They are also often designed to illustrate some point.  I have learned a lot reading/hinting/trying to solve homework problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="8aff5615-13f6-44b4-a45c-e81389eb252c" CreationDate="2015-06-03T04:57:16.123" UserId="124" Text="I don't think there's a good way to do it. All we can really do to _prevent_ &quot;mis-posting&quot; is expose new members to instructions telling them what should and shouldn't be posted as an answer, but most of them aren't going to read instructions. I think the best we can do in practice is stay on top of the moderation: watch out for non-answers in the queues and while browsing questions, and flag them as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="75f21758-a1ca-4003-99b8-df5d21848db2" CreationDate="2015-06-04T10:26:07.373" UserId="40456" Text="My experience on other Stack Exchange sites is that the problem of getting a lot of questions that break guidelines is essentially insoluble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Most people don't read the tour or the help centre before posting so editing the text there can only have a minor effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On [Theoretical Computer Science SE](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/), only research-level questions are on topic. To try to reduce the number of undergrads asking for homework help on CS questions that weren't even necessarily theoretical, we changed the [title text prompt for new questions](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) to &quot;What's your research-level theoretical computer science question? Be specific&quot;, I guess about a year ago. I didn't notice that having any effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's possible to add [warning messages when specific tags are used](http://meta.aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1588/add-tag-specific-popup-to-accidents). That would probably be useful for specific subjects that attract a lot of bad questions but doesn't help in this case, since the issue is with the form of the question, not its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, prevention isn't feasible. The focus needs to be on improving or closing inappropriate questions. Improvements, ideally, need to be done quickly. On a recent question on [Computer Science SE](http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/), I edited out a paragraph that added a vaguely related but independent question and left a comment saying it was a great question and encouraging them to ask it separately, explaining how they could retrieve the text from the edit history. Unfortunately, somebody had already provided a sketchy answer to that part of the question on the back of an excellent answer to the main question, so the asker never bothered to repost it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="81d2c3f8-0909-4f3b-af31-e92e0589e7da" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:11:52.103" UserId="29816" Text="I improved the following [very detailed answer][1] in which a vector (column) is wrongly written as a 3 by 3 matrix and which has internal links to some equations that don't work in math stackexchange (one sees (???)), and that I put by hand. Why is this rejected, did someone even check that the corrections were true? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also did other minor changes. Here is the [&quot;edit rejected&quot;][2] page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147243/how-to-get-result-3-otimes-3-6-oplus-bar3-for-su3-irreducible-repre/187561#187561&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/86049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="81d2c3f8-0909-4f3b-af31-e92e0589e7da" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:11:52.103" UserId="29816" Text="Community rejected that edit even though it is correcting obvious mistakes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="81d2c3f8-0909-4f3b-af31-e92e0589e7da" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:11:52.103" UserId="29816" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6841" RevisionGUID="6c014d8e-3ba4-40db-baa5-2c56132c725d" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:24:56.790" UserId="50583" Text="The &quot;edit rejected&quot; page actually tells you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*&quot;This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning that the post has been edited (in this case by its owner) since you submitted the edit. If a post is edited, all other suggested edits for it are automatically discarded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="303dda25-c011-42bc-8194-46bd227f3109" CreationDate="2015-06-04T22:03:36.493" UserId="12798" Text="I don't mind If a post contains more than one but essentially related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance if a questioner asks &#xD;&#xA;Is there a phase transition in So and So model of statistical mechanics?&#xD;&#xA;What is the Order Parameter that drives the phase transition, if any?&#xD;&#xA;Does any thermodynamic quantity diverge at the phase transition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;I would not like such a question split for sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question referenced, clearly Question 2 Had to be a separate one because it was completely orthogonal to the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could go either way about separating 1 and 3, I would lean towards not breaking it up because it asks why this interaction and not that, which is related to why this coupling constant and not that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now regarding stack exchange's model of accepting answers, I would accept the most helpful answer, that's all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="c45ee785-1852-4eef-adc8-652d17c3de49" CreationDate="2015-06-06T05:50:03.750" UserId="26076" Text="I refer to [this deleted question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/187569/26076) and my question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize the deleted question: cites this book [&quot;How Einstein Ruined Physics&quot;](http://www.amazon.com.au/How-Einstein-Ruined-Physics-Revolution-ebook/dp/B004ZSC3QM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1433566139&amp;sr=1-1) by Roger Schlafly, one of whose main premises seems to be the notion that Einstein was a fraud because Poincaré, Lorentz (not to mention, unwittingly, Maxwell himself) and others made important contributions to STR that were unacknowledged by Einstein at the time. The OP asked for an opinion as to how valid this viewpoint is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question was probably against the rules of this site owing to its opinion-dependent nature, but I was rather concerned that it was deleted as &quot;Offensive&quot; instead of being migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this question was trolling. Maybe it was genuine. Either way, the notion of Einstein's fraud can be soundly repudiated by discussion, not censorship. I wrote an answer that was upvoted thrice very swiftly: I emphasize that I really don't give the nether end of a rat about the reputation, but I do care that the arguments against a fairly fashionable idea in some circles couldn't be put, either by me or by someone else - I really don't care. The upvotes seem to say that people had valid thoughts on this question. Moreover, after I wrote my answer, several people made highly valid comments that I hadn't thought of and should also have been put to repudiate what the OP seemed to be implying (or seeking confirmation of). Like it or not, many lay people read this site and form opinions about science grounded on its practices. Some will take from this question's deletion the impression that bad ideas are censored rather than rationally repudiated and *shown*, with evidence, to be bad ideas as should, IMO, be the wont of scientists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In deleting the question, we lost the chance to describe an important aspect of the scientific method. That is, science is a culture and we all benefit from the ideas of our forerunners. Hopefully we cite these other ideas, but sometimes they become deeply enmeshed in the culture and body of knowledge that we forget that there was a time before them. Add to this Einstein's  odd, intense, somewhat isolated personality that lead to his being *e.g.* stuck in his building's elevator many cycles lost in his thoughts before realizing it was time to get off, you have someone who was perhaps a little less adept at citation than he might have been. Einstein - crucially - lived in a world where communication was very different from today and it was not as easy to keep abreast of ideas. I recall a sign in my faculty library in the 1980s advertising a course in Dialog (an ancient forerunner to the WWW) bearing the slogan &quot;Information Revolution Got You Down?&quot; In those days I certainly felt this way, much more so than now where, thanks to the WWW and decent search engines, I do not feel overwhelmed by information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So science is a culture that shares ideas that everyone benefits from. Einstein was no different from any other scientist in this way. Does that make Einstein a fraud? Absolutely not: without the protagonists, including Einstein, there is NO culture and there is NO science. The author of the book in question as a professional geometer liked Poincaré's insights into special relativity and the geometric / group theoretic description more than Einstein's. If the truth be known, probably I do too. So what. We all think differently. My understanding of the history is that Einstein was first to uniquely take time dilation as just that: a real effect on time itself rather than arising from Lorentz's &quot;local time&quot; which was not taken as being &quot;true&quot; or &quot;real&quot;: Poincaré himself described it as having no meaning by itself and resulting only from convention. Moreover, as one commenter pithily put it, Einstein's contribution was hardly only special relativity, or even only GTR and STR put together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand the viewpoint that the question was not a good fit for this site. I disagree that challenges such as the OP's to mainstream viewpoints can be offensive. He/She attacked no-one personally on this site. I disagree with the question's deletion and believe that it should have been migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've banged on enough, so could someone please give any further insight into why this question was deleted rather than migrated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="c45ee785-1852-4eef-adc8-652d17c3de49" CreationDate="2015-06-06T05:50:03.750" UserId="26076" Text="Concern About Question Deletion: Science Can Look After Itself and Repudiate &quot;Offensive&quot; Questions by Rational Repudiation and Evidence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="c45ee785-1852-4eef-adc8-652d17c3de49" CreationDate="2015-06-06T05:50:03.750" UserId="26076" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18516" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="cf2856c3-246b-4a7b-8488-8bc9ce3ce1ec" CreationDate="2015-06-06T09:45:12.843" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="Concern about question deletion: Science can look after itself and repudiate &quot;offensive&quot; questions by rational repudiation and evidence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="bed9e74b-f517-4e6a-b00c-0d7fb456aaba" CreationDate="2015-06-06T12:52:09.423" UserId="23389" Text="Physics Stack Exchange isn't the place to ask questions about the history or sociology of physics. A question about a priority dispute in special relativity is definitely off-topic, even if we could, as you suggest, demonstrate &quot;the scientific method&quot; by rebutting claims in the question. Science can indeed (usually) look after itself, but this just isn't a question about science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, it doesn't sound offensive, though I haven't read the original question, only your description. I think that the question was rightly deleted but for the wrong reason. The OP is free to ask his question elsewhere, including on other SE sites (let's hope that the history of science is equally adept at looking after itself ;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just don't see much here to be particularly concerned about - we recorded the wrong reason for closing a question, and that's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="11cde621-f08c-4dd6-b0e0-c4e3c826d862" CreationDate="2015-06-06T12:56:48.977" UserId="41634" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B0mml.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: health.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18520" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="2c7d29ed-8c16-4fce-a0b7-bc904bfb8b07" CreationDate="2015-06-06T12:56:48.977" UserId="41634" />
  <row Id="18521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="dca3f0dd-9f7f-47bb-b10a-ca41959a8e56" CreationDate="2015-06-06T13:10:03.827" UserId="7433" Text="The question was asked [before by the same user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/187567/was-einstein-a-fraud), in mostly the same form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contained references to the &quot;Jewish Media&quot;. This is a common phrase slung about in anti-semetic contexts, and is a marker for bigotry and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the post is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - About a likely anti-semetic book&#xD;&#xA; - Completely off topic&#xD;&#xA; - Open ended anyway (&quot;What do you think of this book&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Totally inappropriate for any Stack Exchange site. _Perhaps_ okay for HSM, but the first and third points still sort of apply. And we are under no obligation to migrate; the user can repost to that site if they want. Migrations should not be used as a way to shovel garbage (or non-garbage mediocre stuff) off the site; only use it if the other site really wants the question. We don't think they will, so we won't migrate. The OP can repost if they want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="3b8a39ab-6192-4ef3-b433-cf6ddc773f40" CreationDate="2015-06-06T17:46:23.907" UserId="25301" Comment="fixed link" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B0mml.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://health.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="62c567f9-d0e4-4282-acf4-ee14cd784023" CreationDate="2015-06-07T13:50:54.237" UserId="2451" Comment="Linking a named user to a suspension should be avoided due to privacy concerns." Text="Yes, I do miss [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] who answered most of my questions during the late 14 - early 15. Suddenly I saw he was banished due to some sort of problems for one year! I'm not complaining against the moderation, but yes if he were here, it would be different:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation is really good here. But it does depend, or you can say, the perspective of each of the individuals. See you can't seek a utopian scheme but we do want more. Take me; On an average, I remain on the site for over 3 hrs &amp; during that hour, I come to junk questions like &quot;solve this, urgent&quot;; &quot;can you check this?&quot;....Day in &amp; day out , we advise to please show some effort &amp; even cite the meta link but of no avail. They have no eager to read even the advice on the right side of the &quot;ask question&quot; page.It becomes really bothering to me; this site isn't for dumping waste. Another that really bothers me is the indifferent attitude of the person who asks the question. Though I ask most of the times(hey I'm still a student!), I try my best to contribute something to the site &amp; answer questions that are competent.Take this [quo](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184966/can-ke-and-pe-of-a-small-element-of-a-transverse-progressive-wave-be-maximum-sim/184982#184982); I answered this &amp; got decent votes, but the asker never came again! This is irritating!! Then why ask, if you are negligent to your very own query??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, to me the horrendous one, problem is the abuse of downvoting. If you have the time to downvote, you ought have time to write the cause. Though a notification appears, but this doesn't stop him/her to downvote without presenting the cause. I have no problem with downvoting; this is essential but it is the duty to make aware of the flaw which attracted downvoting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the moderation, I would say again that it is really pretty here: just think about them: they've taken a part of the time to devote here &amp; make it a part-&amp;-parcel of their lives. Salute to them. At some point, I thought they are really rude, but then could comprehend &quot;yes, it was my fault&quot; Compromise?? Yes/No! But in the long run it is really comfortable. However there are some members , who are really not at all happy with this &quot;moderation-atmosphere&quot;, like [him](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon) or [here](http://www.quora.com/Are-Math-Overflow-and-Math-Stack-Exchange-more-successful-than-Physics-Overflow-Physics-Stack-Exchange-If-so-why) as one of the founders of Physics Overflow wrote his allegations. However, I do respect their predicament:) And so do everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As that of professional physicists, they themselves know much about that as expressed in the other answers. There is even another [counterpart](http://www.physicsoverflow.org) that deals with the interest of them. However, to me, this is the place where I get **moksha** from the evils of **confusion, uncomprehandable stuffs** . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For man may come, &amp; man may go, I'll will come here forever!** (sorry Alfred Tennyson!!) This will evidently reflect my attitude towards this wonderful community:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="56039714-7de2-45a2-aad2-44f1e12e3c0b" CreationDate="2015-06-07T13:52:49.140" UserId="2451" Comment="Spelling semetic -&gt; semitic" Text="The question was asked [before by the same user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/187567/), in mostly the same form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contained references to the &quot;Jewish Media&quot;. This is a common phrase slung about in anti-semitic contexts, and is a marker for bigotry and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the post is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - About a likely anti-semitic book&#xD;&#xA; - Completely off topic&#xD;&#xA; - Open ended anyway (&quot;What do you think of this book&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Totally inappropriate for any Stack Exchange site. _Perhaps_ okay for HSM, but the first and third points still sort of apply. And we are under no obligation to migrate; the user can repost to that site if they want. Migrations should not be used as a way to shovel garbage (or non-garbage mediocre stuff) off the site; only use it if the other site really wants the question. We don't think they will, so we won't migrate. The OP can repost if they want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="e3b8a8ce-3fe7-42c5-b321-e26ec846d91a" CreationDate="2015-06-08T00:07:00.747" UserId="56299" Text="I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at [the version provided by John Rennie](http://www.ratsauce.co.uk/deletedquestion.pdf) (thanks!), and considering [Manishearth's three points](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6843/concern-about-question-deletion-science-can-look-after-itself-and-repudiate-of/6846#6846), I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is *not* okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So point number one isn't a killer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we boil it down to &quot;Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?&quot;, then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I don't think it's *too* open-ended, but I am concerned by&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was&#xD;&#xA;Einstein a fraud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Please also comment if you haven't read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is *not* good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a *terrible* source to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which [tag:history] is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the &quot;Don't Migrate Crap&quot; policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and *then* possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18526" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="c1c07544-ae02-44a4-aac7-8bd660bcd5b8" CreationDate="2015-06-08T02:45:58.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/607740321485737984" />
  <row Id="18527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="143b3826-cf74-4a9e-ab9d-843a1b8c942c" CreationDate="2015-06-08T05:54:25.587" UserId="1325" Comment="Remove link" Text="I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the version provided by John Rennie, and considering [Manishearth's three points](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6843/concern-about-question-deletion-science-can-look-after-itself-and-repudiate-of/6846#6846), I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is *not* okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So point number one isn't a killer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we boil it down to &quot;Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?&quot;, then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I don't think it's *too* open-ended, but I am concerned by&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was&#xD;&#xA;Einstein a fraud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Please also comment if you haven't read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is *not* good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a *terrible* source to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which [tag:history] is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the &quot;Don't Migrate Crap&quot; policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and *then* possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="e7451dc5-4836-46ab-b4cd-f77832cad022" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:51:18.007" UserId="28955" Text="I want to make some homemade magnets (the stronger the better), but am not sure whether these types of questions are really welcomed on this site. Any other site's suggested if I should not post it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="e7451dc5-4836-46ab-b4cd-f77832cad022" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:51:18.007" UserId="28955" Text="Would a &quot;How to make magnets&quot; question be allowed on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="e7451dc5-4836-46ab-b4cd-f77832cad022" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:51:18.007" UserId="28955" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="11dae186-7c54-4d9a-8bf9-88853787212a" CreationDate="2015-06-08T14:38:59.913" UserId="28955" Comment="Added an example question." Text="I want to make some homemade magnets (the stronger the better), but am not sure whether these types of questions are really welcomed on this site. Any other site's suggested if I should not post it here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question would be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to make some strong homemade magnets to use in science experiments, what process would I follow and what materials would I need to use? Bearing in mind of course that only materials readily to the layman can be used, so not any rare earth metals etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="7ca7388d-caf9-4be4-b924-1f507c5ca642" CreationDate="2015-06-08T14:43:10.330" UserId="44126" Text="The Stack Exchange model for solving these sorts of problems seems to be to turn them into a game and give out badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reviews we already have the custodian/reviewer/steward badge series, which awards the total number of reviews over the lifetime of an account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here seems to be that we want more people to spend more time reviewing the queues.  You could cultivate that habit in people by awarding a bronze badge for exhausting all your review tasks for a day (á la the &quot;mortarboard&quot; for getting the maximum number of points in a day).  Next step up might be a silver badge for using all your review tasks on five consecutive days, and a gold badge for using all your review tasks on thirty consecutive days.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="89301a1f-e210-42d2-b323-5743e0ecf63d" CreationDate="2015-06-08T14:51:28.097" UserId="44126" Text="Go ahead and ask the question!  If it's not on topic, you will get suggestions for improving it, and/or advice about a better place to ask it.  It might get downvoted or closed, which would be annoying but otherwise harmless, or it might get upvoted because you are asking your question in a new or interesting way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="de3b8f34-0af2-41c9-ac5f-ef906efa63a4" CreationDate="2015-06-08T15:51:38.517" UserId="6634" Text="Okay, so I'll preface this like I always do -- my answer here is my personal opinion and does not reflect what may actually happen. It takes 5 votes to close something and I would just be one. Likewise, it takes 5 to reopen something and I would just be one there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I will wager that this question as worded would be off-topic under the engineering close reason, which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your question kind of hits the very definition of using physics to construct a solution to a very specific problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is something that you could certainly ask about in the chat room and people might be willing to help there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll close by saying that the best way to do this is to build an electromagnet. I did this back in high school physics -- I found a 2&quot; iron bar about 2 feet long, hooked it up to a lathe so I could quickly wrap a ridiculous quantity of wire around it and then I went to every Radio Shack in a 50 mile radius of my house to buy up every single 12V lantern battery I could find. I didn't think ahead about how much heat it would generate and melted my first iron bar, but then I did it again and got my teacher to let me pump liquid nitrogen around the rod and we were able to lift about 500lbs. The magnet could have done more, but we weren't strong enough to hold up much more on the end of it and we didn't build a giant rig to deal with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So -- electromagnets. Go read up on those and I bet if you have specific questions about construction, the folks over at the Electrical Engineering SE may be interested in helping. And if you have questions about **why** or **how** they work, there's probably a dozen questions you could ask on here to help you with that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="363ce5c1-96f9-47ae-b506-39dc97abc7f5" CreationDate="2015-06-08T16:28:27.130" UserId="6634" Comment="added 972 characters in body" Text="Okay, so I'll preface this like I always do -- my answer here is my personal opinion and does not reflect what may actually happen. It takes 5 votes to close something and I would just be one. Likewise, it takes 5 to reopen something and I would just be one there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I will wager that this question as worded would be off-topic under the engineering close reason, which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your question kind of hits the very definition of using physics to construct a solution to a very specific problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is something that you could certainly ask about in the chat room and people might be willing to help there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On further thought, you might actually be able to ask some engineering-like questions from this because it is used for a scientific experiment. I know it gets tricky to [figure out what is engineering and what is experimental design](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design). I still think that asking how to build the magnetic would be off-topic. But once you have a design in mind, asking things related to the construction *as it pertains to the experiment* might be okay. For instance, maybe questions about how to isolate the magnet from the sensors to prevent/eliminate interference would be okay. Or maybe... I dunno, I guess we would have to know what your actual experiment was like to know what kinds of questions come up. But if you can frame your question about building something where your experiment imposes unique constraints or challenges, it may be on topic again. So it's a fine line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll close by saying that the best way to do this is to build an electromagnet. I did this back in high school physics -- I found a 2&quot; iron bar about 2 feet long, hooked it up to a lathe so I could quickly wrap a ridiculous quantity of wire around it and then I went to every Radio Shack in a 50 mile radius of my house to buy up every single 12V lantern battery I could find. I didn't think ahead about how much heat it would generate and melted my first iron bar, but then I did it again and got my teacher to let me pump liquid nitrogen around the rod and we were able to lift about 500lbs. The magnet could have done more, but we weren't strong enough to hold up much more on the end of it and we didn't build a giant rig to deal with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So -- electromagnets. Go read up on those and I bet if you have specific questions about construction, the folks over at the Electrical Engineering SE may be interested in helping. And if you have questions about **why** or **how** they work, there's probably a dozen questions you could ask on here to help you with that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="93218fc3-52a9-4495-ab66-a9ef46e860d3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:00:00.750" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="First off, I have absolutely no idea of how difficult it is to change the wording of the question box on PhysicsSE.  Also there is the fact that there must be a duplicate of this question somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pointing  out that duplicate out to me would be an answer in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, as in the title, (and as a newbie) is to seek other (more experienced) opinions on trying to balance two opposing aspects of the site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP was asked to provide an indication of their knowledge/study background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers would be more appropriate to the background of the OP and this may save a lot of time and effort in the use of the comments section, trying to establish information that the OP could easily provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this idea, is that, to me, the value of this website, is the **range** of answers provided for each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for other users with more background and / or experience, they may gain a lot from looking through the differing level of answers  and I do appreciate that this element of the website is crucial, so I would guess that anything that potentially  limits this aspect of PhysicsSE is not a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="93218fc3-52a9-4495-ab66-a9ef46e860d3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:00:00.750" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="Why does the question box not ask, &quot;at what level are you at in study&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="93218fc3-52a9-4495-ab66-a9ef46e860d3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:00:00.750" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="50c522bc-5165-446c-a44d-783e297f83ea" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:06:44.120" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="First off, I have absolutely no idea of how difficult it is to change the wording of the question box on PhysicsSE.  Also there is the fact that there must be a duplicate of this question somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pointing  out that duplicate out to me would be an answer in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, as in the title, (and as a newbie) is to seek other (more experienced) opinions on trying to balance two possibly opposing aspects of the site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP was asked to provide an indication of their knowledge/study background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers would be more appropriate to the background of the OP and this may save a lot of time and effort in the use of the comments section, trying to establish information that the OP could easily provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this idea, is that, to me, the value of this website, is the **range** of answers provided for each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for other users with more background and / or experience, they may gain a lot from looking through the differing level of answers  and I do appreciate that this element of the website is crucial, so I would guess that anything that potentially  limits this aspect of PhysicsSE is not a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="08739da1-68a7-4e21-96ec-cc49874a9287" CreationDate="2015-06-08T20:55:39.983" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="deleted 154 characters in body" Text="First off, I have absolutely no idea of how difficult it is to change the wording of the question box on PhysicsSE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, as in the title, (and as a newbie) is to seek other (more experienced) opinions on trying to balance two possibly opposing aspects of the site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP was asked to provide an indication of their knowledge/study background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers would be more appropriate to the background of the OP and this may save a lot of time and effort in the use of the comments section, trying to establish information that the OP could easily provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this idea, is that, to me, the value of this website, is the **range** of answers provided for each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for other users with more background and / or experience, they may gain a lot from looking through the differing level of answers  and I do appreciate that this element of the website is crucial, so I would guess that anything that potentially  limits this aspect of PhysicsSE is not a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="dc3df036-e120-4e1a-ad9f-847e9df0bf47" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:41:25.720" UserId="520" Text="Two things are important in my view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fundamentally questions and answers on Stack Exchange sites are not just about the OP. They are very much also about other visitors who come along later who may be of all different levels of preparation, so it is actually advantageous to have answers to a single question covering several levels of sophstication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If We had *&quot;Why is water wet (for fifth graders)&quot;* then We'd need *&quot;Why is water wet (for eights graders)&quot;* and *&quot;Why is water wet (for college physics)&quot;* and so on. Yeach!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, The users of the site have regularly said that this is a site mainly for physicists and that it is not a &quot;learn physics here&quot; resource. I know I must sound like a broken record on this point, because many new users seem to conceive of Physics as a learning resource, but that not how most of the regulars see it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="5a6c99bb-267e-4c96-91db-c1336acee13b" CreationDate="2015-06-10T02:29:08.960" UserId="56299" Comment="Hm, I may have changed my mind a bit." Text="I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the version provided by John Rennie, and considering [Manishearth's three points](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6843/concern-about-question-deletion-science-can-look-after-itself-and-repudiate-of/6846#6846), I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is *not* okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So point number one isn't a killer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we boil it down to &quot;Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?&quot;, then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I don't think it's *too* open-ended, but I am concerned by&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was&#xD;&#xA;Einstein a fraud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Please also comment if you haven't read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is *not* good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a *terrible* source to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which [tag:history] is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the &quot;Don't Migrate Crap&quot; policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and *then* possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more thinking, I'm seriously reconsidering my original position. I've done some reading, and Schlafly is not someone I would want to cite in, say, anything. The guy's biased, to say the least. In order to have a good question, one would have to assume that the information it is based off is accurate and neutral. I wouldn't feel safe making that assumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="327827c4-5c11-4219-9f5e-73c02d8131e2" CreationDate="2015-06-10T06:47:18.337" UserId="46399" Text="[tag:half-life] into [tag:radioactivity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new tag [_half-life_](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/half-life) introduced is really a subset, and radioactivity is sufficient for identification purposes and subsuming. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18544" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="62732384-64e4-4116-b038-291afb2d0afa" CreationDate="2015-06-10T06:47:18.337" UserId="46399" />
  <row Id="18545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="cc48b4a9-b8ff-4c18-9b2e-9a6680eaea7e" CreationDate="2015-06-10T10:29:30.957" UserId="124" Comment="add note about talking to colleagues or friends" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Think_ about the question. What do you already know that relates to it? Narrow it down to the specific physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). You may find it useful to use a dedicated scientific search engine, such as [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net), or [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- If you have friends, colleagues, teachers, or so on who would know something about your question, ask them for input.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can, if you want, post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, it's going to look like you didn't do your research, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that show a particular lack of research effort [may be put on hold (or &quot;closed&quot;)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions). In many of these cases, the advice in our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714) may be useful in improving the question enough to have it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="74e65674-7a9e-4cb7-bbed-97880cc9f55d" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:57:51.293" UserId="74685" Text="I just lost 55 reputation because a user was removed. I know that there is not much that I can do about this, but is there anyway that I could see which user was removed?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="74e65674-7a9e-4cb7-bbed-97880cc9f55d" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:57:51.293" UserId="74685" Text="Finding which user was removed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="74e65674-7a9e-4cb7-bbed-97880cc9f55d" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:57:51.293" UserId="74685" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="996a933c-9d63-4dd0-9171-4c7ef709aef9" CreationDate="2015-06-14T17:18:08.347" UserId="25301" Text="[This Mother Meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/140063/user-was-removed-need-to-show-which-answer-question-loses-its-reputation) (*User was removed need to show which answer/question loses its reputation*) seems to be relevant with the answer including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As Flexo pointed out in comments, this would also undermine the anonymity of voting. I don't see that sufficient advantage is gained by showing this information to offset this problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="f6af7430-54dd-4e92-95c2-5f076cb545bb" CreationDate="2015-06-14T17:30:25.327" UserId="74685" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="I just lost 55 reputation because a user was removed. I know that there is not much that I can do about this, but is there anyway that I could see which user was removed or at least from what posts my reputation loss came from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="1b015d49-a9a3-4a3a-9e93-186f04641746" CreationDate="2015-06-14T20:13:01.650" UserId="25301" Comment="added extra information" Text="[This Mother Meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/140063/user-was-removed-need-to-show-which-answer-question-loses-its-reputation) (*User was removed need to show which answer/question loses its reputation*) seems to be relevant with the answer including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As Flexo pointed out in comments, this would also undermine the anonymity of voting. I don't see that sufficient advantage is gained by showing this information to offset this problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the posts you lost the rep on, the Android App (as of the latest version) shows, on the rep notification, the posts that were upvoted by the removed user (so `-10 &lt;post name&gt;` appears). There was a Mother Meta post on this, but I can't find it at the moment; I'm also unsure if this is possible on the Apple App." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="38ed3bfe-9ac1-4ec8-add8-6da5e408f018" CreationDate="2015-06-15T13:53:05.570" UserId="23473" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third winner was: **Jim the Enchanter** (with a nice profile pic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth winner was again: **Jim the Enchanter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur **whenever another name overtakes the current one**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="e29dfc3d-d560-4101-a190-c0cbd6119944" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:25:43.257" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriated setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier for six months. One whole half year. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third winner was: **Jim the Enchanter** (with a nice profile pic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth winner was: **Jims Bond**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on **July 15**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="b7a5ee1d-b7fb-4068-a837-414d5e2e42fc" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:26:07.107" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I'm surprised nobody suggested... Jims Bond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="de26ce6a-98f3-4071-9bfb-60538760fb50" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:26:18.777" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jim the Enchanter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would have to be my profile pic if this name is chosen&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yalfO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="4519690c-a2e4-44db-8b82-75ac131d4b0b" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:26:27.390" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I propose *ACuriousJim*.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="b7e50bba-dab2-4585-8556-cf62a63a91fa" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:26:37.567" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnosperm (not that I wish to start any rumours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that do as a tree level approximation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just been pointed out to me that [Jimnosperm's have light¹ cones][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ 10-100g depending on the species&lt;/spu&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nurturestore.co.uk/pine-cone-math-station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="7ea9df4c-aff3-476a-b200-221a5559771a" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:26:47.947" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimself&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="2a0c8560-c91c-41af-8b87-b5e4c9ad1e05" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:26:56.773" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Sweep all before you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and next month it could be...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JimJimjeroo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="294fa9e4-7551-4ecd-adf8-157d6782d6d7" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:27:03.577" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I will also suggest &quot;The Jim&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="b388ae20-f88d-4e3d-9bbd-cb3317d40291" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:27:16.810" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Flip it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ɯᴉſ**&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be hard to ping, but who cares. It's *awesome*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="07a159b5-365d-4be9-b986-5a58ba5ed0dc" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:27:27.310" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="For those of you who have been on StackOverflow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Jim Skeet&quot;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="6fcca076-3412-48de-81dc-1572375501d5" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:27:34.923" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The Jimtimidator is another option...&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="f934ff93-5f88-4ad1-b31d-a70599d7001d" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:27:43.633" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimnasium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(play on [gymnasium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="13266256-124e-4754-a4e4-728e942aa30f" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:27:50.387" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Jim Rennie, the first disciple of [the one and only](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="8ddbc234-c78b-4d67-98ec-347087efd15e" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:00.227" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about LEEEEROY JIMKINS for a name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="76edea46-20f1-4c63-8c25-62a1d0958320" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:07.463" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimdalf the Grey  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="04e90b9f-5c1f-4ed2-963c-dac360c541a0" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:18.307" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimothy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[good reference here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXxkXGK1rQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="c53e86bf-52c4-484f-97f8-d9ce2a97ada7" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:25.440" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimperator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Perhaps [the most apt](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperator) title for the leader of Jims&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="e1e7ca3f-ac87-457e-8b5f-87b5d671b8f2" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:33.657" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimronimo - this is my proposal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="f847c4bb-281e-4d04-a4a0-020915e96f21" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:40.893" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jiminy Cricket, for a childhood throwback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="32cc272f-5c02-4af9-b03f-cf020bf1985a" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:28:52.787" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Jimeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, it's Jim and cheese combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like cheese, and I'm sure you do too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simplify Jimeese into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want.  &#xD;&#xA;But as the owner of this thread said, Jimeese sound more like Jim language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="dada0c59-4481-406d-90a9-2e6a1df3879f" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:00.273" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="What about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the period spoken explicitly, as &quot;Jim - Period!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="5b9b601f-390d-4dd7-a300-143c35269c6c" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:08.113" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jim_me_boy (hawkins) with pirate accent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="4f06e432-2e5d-4085-a75a-4b23bb872c1e" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:17.360" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimulhu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recognition of Jim being part of the great Cthulhu diaspora" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="042dc70e-5f39-445d-852f-4e7a52ffaf89" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:25.017" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jimmy Dodger - a play on &quot;Jammy Dodger&quot; which is a word with many meanings. Including a delicious biscuit that's a favorite (or favourite?) of the Doctor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="b261c636-6889-4211-ad93-13b5205fa67d" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:36.223" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How about Jim &quot;your surname&quot;. I've noticed that most people seem to be satisfied with that as an identifier.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="1e0fc979-6159-4f1a-a940-a41e160939db" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:46.203" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="[Jim Post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9789/tim-post). To get rid of the multiple-Jims confusion and replace it with confusion for those who have no idea who Tim Post is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="0522e619-b162-4861-9735-8a5f4020a60d" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:29:54.407" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Keep it simple: [Jimbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="5172a1bc-e5c1-4736-a009-e35c0619aa43" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:30:12.627" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Invert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MIJ**&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the central problem was &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will work unless one of the other Jims also lands up on this post! This is because there is no uniqueness theorem for usernames on the site, so MIJ's already taken doesn't mean it can't be taken again. But I guess that holds for every single of the suggestions above and below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think inverted usernames are employed on this site. e.g. inverting [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib) gives bigguy, which makes sense as a username!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="ea701693-ec61-4ae3-8a3a-994995b4744f" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:30:25.090" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Jimb.   The b is silent.  And pronounced like &quot;climb&quot; instead of &quot;limb&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="22d5f3a3-41da-42bf-817b-3d3904961a44" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:30:31.707" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How about,&quot;Lord Jim&quot;? ........." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6533" RevisionGUID="c03dc05e-e70a-4ab4-996c-b0f5dba45599" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:30:44.963" UserId="23473" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Dread Pirate Jimbeard &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="bc29cefe-5ece-4c93-b08a-ab7620554212" CreationDate="2015-06-15T14:30:54.123" UserId="23473" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="High King of Jimtopia&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="19549a31-acf4-420a-a47f-6283975bc70b" CreationDate="2015-06-15T16:14:27.197" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="First off, I have absolutely no idea of how difficult it is to change the wording of the question box on PhysicsSE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, as in the title, (and as a newbie) is to seek other (more experienced) opinions on trying to balance two possibly opposing aspects of the site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP was asked to provide an indication of their knowledge/study background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answers would be more appropriate to the background of the OP and this may save a lot of time and effort in the use of the comments section, trying to establish information that the OP could easily provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Against this idea, is that, to me, the value of this website is the **range** of answers provided for each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for other users with more background and / or experience, they may gain a lot from looking through the differing level of answers  and I do appreciate that this element of the website is crucial, so I would guess that anything that potentially  limits this aspect of PhysicsSE is not a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="2396f04b-f45a-4853-a4dd-e62ff8384cc7" CreationDate="2015-06-16T18:14:32.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/610873101300183040" />
  <row Id="18588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="a9bc107b-5773-4b21-89a4-3ec122df139c" CreationDate="2015-06-17T14:33:53.303" UserId="31746" Text="Regarding the thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189249/total-charge-on-grounded-conducting-plane-with-electric-dipole-point-charge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is considered off topic and was put on hold. Why?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably it seems like &quot;fix my homework&quot;, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I invested quite an effort, including a descriptive image which I created.&#xD;&#xA; 2. I asked regarding a specific physics concept which is normally solved with the [Method of image charges][1]. So, in contrast to most students, who simply hear a proof and nod for agreement - I tried to prove it - to actually show that it works! How on earth that could be bad for this site? *I didn't need to do this for the homework* - I simply wanted to see how the proof works.  &#xD;&#xA;Really, don't you think you're overreacting? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_image_charges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="a9bc107b-5773-4b21-89a4-3ec122df139c" CreationDate="2015-06-17T14:33:53.303" UserId="31746" Text="My question is off topic - though I asked about proof of a specific concept" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="a9bc107b-5773-4b21-89a4-3ec122df139c" CreationDate="2015-06-17T14:33:53.303" UserId="31746" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="7d16c219-8479-4fe7-b86a-06171adb6b60" CreationDate="2015-06-17T16:13:46.890" UserId="520" Text="To explain the difference between between patching the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Please explain why the method of image charges makes sense in this scenario?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;onto the end of a check-my-work problem and Jim's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider that the answer to *every* Why is the Method-of-Images-appropriate question is *&quot;Because of [the uniqueness theorem for solutions to Poisson's equation][2].&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said there is a conceptual question that you could usefully ask here. To find it, you have have to think about what you do and don't understand about what you are trying to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just guessing, but you seem to understand that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you are going to install some virtual charges on the other side of the conductor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you *might* understand &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* that this is to get the electric field at the conductor to have the right properties (everywhere perpendicular) while still maintaining Gauss's Law on &quot;real&quot; side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you don't seem to understand &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* how to deduce the amount of the resulting surface charge without going through a lot of tedious and error-prone math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ask about the thing that is actually giving you trouble, already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheesh!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5969/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniqueness_theorem_for_Poisson%27s_equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6861" RevisionGUID="bcc7d69b-2d84-4cf2-8e2c-a723db6569b3" CreationDate="2015-06-19T03:51:24.563" UserId="59444" Text="Jim Moriarty&#xD;&#xA;http://bakerstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Jim_Moriarty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="f21a268b-1f8d-47a5-b941-1bc4476ad4c2" CreationDate="2015-06-19T15:47:26.830" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Calorimetry is still one of the most important aspects of experimental physics, despite being boring. A tumbleweed topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="f21a268b-1f8d-47a5-b941-1bc4476ad4c2" CreationDate="2015-06-19T15:47:26.830" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Why no &quot;Calorimetry&quot; tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="f21a268b-1f8d-47a5-b941-1bc4476ad4c2" CreationDate="2015-06-19T15:47:26.830" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6863" RevisionGUID="140fe581-0d0b-463f-b31d-ee7f8e34b45a" CreationDate="2015-06-20T00:17:06.817" UserId="44126" Text="You [have the privilege to create tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags). If there are questions in the archive which could usefully be grouped together under the heading of &quot;calorimetry,&quot; then tag them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no such questions, then ask them! (and then tag them!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="582812ea-1173-4ea5-8ad1-8349e2ff908c" CreationDate="2015-06-20T19:52:26.023" UserId="12798" Text="Please reopen the following question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190222/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, @DavidBarMoshe has something to say, and I would be interesting in listening to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do consider that rules are only meant as guidelines to benefit the community, hence the interest of the community must be taken into due weight, rather that a literal interpretation of the rules in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="582812ea-1173-4ea5-8ad1-8349e2ff908c" CreationDate="2015-06-20T19:52:26.023" UserId="12798" Text="Please reopen this question of mine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="582812ea-1173-4ea5-8ad1-8349e2ff908c" CreationDate="2015-06-20T19:52:26.023" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|support|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="f482596a-5c7e-4c02-9d56-4f074225034a" CreationDate="2015-06-20T20:10:07.703" UserId="12798" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Please reopen the following question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190222/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, @DavidBarMoshe has something to say, and I would be interested in listening to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do consider that rules are only meant as guidelines to benefit the community, hence the interest of the community must be taken into due weight, rather that a literal interpretation of the rules in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="7e62eefd-982e-4005-b934-b012cf0c4b64" CreationDate="2015-06-20T20:21:00.967" UserId="520" Text="I see that it has been three days since the [math version][1] and two since the [mathoverflow version][2], both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those attitudes say that cross-posting is a form of prioritizing your desire for a large audience ahead of the desire of other users to see only a selected fraction of the available traffic as indicated by their choice of which [usenet groups|stack exchange sites] to read. That was historically interpreted as a kind of rudeness---putting ones own desired first it ones of the core attributes of rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Stack Exchange isn't usenet, but [the users have been polled on their opinions on this issue][3], and it is clear that the usenetesque view is dominate on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We understand that you don't agree. Well, there is no harm in disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I disagree. You've made a fairly minimal set of textual changes, but you are still asking the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't get an answer elsewhere I'll reopen it sometime tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1329146/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/209604/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="bc5af4cb-99b7-485b-8b99-d51a0e2f7496" CreationDate="2015-06-20T22:55:49.113" UserId="24653" Comment="edited body" Text="I see that it has been three days since the [math version][1] and two since the [mathoverflow version][2], both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those attitudes say that cross-posting is a form of prioritizing your desire for a large audience ahead of the desire of other users to see only a selected fraction of the available traffic as indicated by their choice of which [usenet groups|stack exchange sites] to read. That was historically interpreted as a kind of rudeness---putting ones own desired first it ones of the core attributes of rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Stack Exchange isn't usenet, but [the users have been polled on their opinions on this issue][3], and it is clear that the usenetesque view is dominant on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We understand that you don't agree. Well, there is no harm in disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I disagree. You've made a fairly minimal set of textual changes, but you are still asking the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't get an answer elsewhere I'll reopen it sometime tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1329146/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/209604/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="2a54eaf1-5b7f-4c30-8a55-b75b56949c89" CreationDate="2015-06-21T20:23:56.730" UserId="12798" Comment="edited body" Text="Please reopen the following question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190222/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, @DavidBarMoshe has something to say, and I would be interested in listening to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do consider that rules are only meant as guidelines to benefit the community, hence the interest of the community must be taken into due weight, rather than a literal interpretation of the rules in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="f23ba731-ee76-4b33-862b-cbd0daf5b561" CreationDate="2015-06-21T22:34:43.123" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|status-completed|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="bf786da1-d221-4676-b66b-aa5b85bbd5b8" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:02:26.060" UserId="71860" Text="In SE sites other than SO, there is a less strict &quot;policy&quot;. Less down-votes, easier to up-vote, more &quot;caring&quot; people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **big** upside for an SE site to being less strict: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it promotes growth. Not displeasing users will make them come more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terrible:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a **huge** downside to it: **Quality goes down.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users that have no understanding of physics get easily voting rights,&#xD;&#xA;   because  most of their questions will get up-voted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then they ll proceed to up-vote any answer they see in a post since&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;it looked like the writer knows what he is talking about&quot;. As a consequence, *actual scientists will be disheartened by the low quality and many of them will never come back*, lowering quality even further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damage will be long lasting, or even worse, permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen moderators that protect questions because of a 1 rep user posting a useless answer. The moderator did not comment on it and, seeing the answer had 0 score and the user had 1 rep, I assume no down-vote either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**    &#xD;&#xA;What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1:   &#xD;&#xA;There is great content here, I am not implying the opposite. But there is also bad content, more than there should be and this is what bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:   &#xD;&#xA;Down-vote statistics are of no use since there are many factors that can't be quantified. E.g. we might be having a higher down-vote ratio than other SO, but then again we could be getting much more low quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related][1]: Pretty much the opposite of this &quot;question&quot;, and perhaps my &quot;question&quot; could have been an answer there. However, I decided to post it as a question to encourage others to down-vote more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="bf786da1-d221-4676-b66b-aa5b85bbd5b8" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:02:26.060" UserId="71860" Text="Why isn't bad content downvoted and commented on enough" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="bf786da1-d221-4676-b66b-aa5b85bbd5b8" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:02:26.060" UserId="71860" Text="|discussion|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="b65f589a-ce63-4973-aa1f-b0a2ebc0693a" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:08:04.923" UserId="71860" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="In SE sites other than SO, there is a less strict &quot;policy&quot;. Less down-votes, easier to up-vote, more &quot;caring&quot; people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **big** upside for an SE site to being less strict: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it promotes growth. Not displeasing users will make them come more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terrible:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a **huge** downside to it: **Quality goes down.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users that have no understanding of physics get easily voting rights,&#xD;&#xA;   because  most of their questions will get up-voted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then they ll proceed to up-vote any answer they see in a post since&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;it looked like the writer knows what he is talking about&quot;. As a consequence, *actual scientists will be disheartened by the low quality and many of them will never come back*, lowering quality even further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damage will be long lasting, or even worse, permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen moderators that protect questions because of a 1 rep user posting a useless answer. The moderator did not comment on it and, seeing the answer had 0 score and the user had 1 rep, I assume no down-vote either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**    &#xD;&#xA;What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1:   &#xD;&#xA;There is great content here, I am not implying the opposite. But there is also bad content, more than there should be and this is what bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:   &#xD;&#xA;Down-vote statistics are of no use since there are many factors that can't be quantified. E.g. we might be having a higher down-vote ratio than other SO, but then again we could be getting much more low quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 1][1]: Pretty much the opposite of this &quot;question&quot;, and perhaps my &quot;question&quot; could have been an answer there. However, I decided to post it as a question to encourage others to down-vote more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 2][2]: A good post on what should be done (more frequently) with bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="b5cf8e58-1d52-46fb-af44-eff6f88d8c6b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:43:42.130" UserId="71860" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In SE sites other than SO, there is a less strict &quot;policy&quot;. Less down-votes, easier to up-vote, more &quot;caring&quot; people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **big** upside for an SE site to being less strict: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it promotes growth. Not displeasing users will make them come more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terrible:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a **huge** downside to it: **Quality goes down.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users that have no understanding of physics get easily voting rights,&#xD;&#xA;   because  most of their questions will get up-voted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then they ll proceed to up-vote any answer they see in a post since&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;it looked like the writer knows what he is talking about&quot;. As a consequence, *actual scientists will be disheartened by the low quality and many of them will never come back*, lowering quality even further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damage will be long lasting, or even worse, permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen moderators that protect questions because of a 1 rep user posting a useless answer, without commenting on it and (seeing the answer had 0 score and the user had 1 rep) I assume he didn't down-vote either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**    &#xD;&#xA;What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1:   &#xD;&#xA;There is great content here, I am not implying the opposite. But there is also bad content, more than there should be and this is what bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:   &#xD;&#xA;Down-vote statistics are of no use since there are many factors that can't be quantified. E.g. we might be having a higher down-vote ratio than other SO, but then again we could be getting much more low quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 1][1]: Pretty much the opposite of this &quot;question&quot;, and perhaps my &quot;question&quot; could have been an answer there. However, I decided to post it as a question to encourage others to down-vote more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 2][2]: A good post on what should be done (more frequently) with bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="fb342489-195b-43c6-950b-3f2c9003b463" CreationDate="2015-06-23T14:45:36.313" UserId="25301" Text="**TL;DR:** Voting is one of the things that makes the SE sites work (the [**review queues**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) being another big one); if you aren't downvoting, you are **not** helping this place work; so downvote on the bad answers as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting &quot;you&quot; here as plural (rather than me specifically), I can think of three reasons why one would avoid downvoting: (1) time (2) knowledge (3) low score. For commenting, only (1) and (2) apply and for similar reasons to what I'll write below, so I'll be skipping out commenting (unless someone cannot infer correctly, then I guess I'll edit it in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (1) Time&#xD;&#xA;There are almost 56,000 questions asked on this site. At [almost 3 answers per question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), that's around 150,000 answers to scroll through. Since we're only allowed to vote on [30 posts per day](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) (combined up &amp; down, there are 10 extra votes for questions-only, however) and assuming that 20% of the answers are &quot;bad,&quot; that's still 30,000 answers and at a maximum of 30 answers per day, it'd take almost 3 years to downvote each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we're never actually going to get to downvoting *all* the bad answers on this site, however **we should still downvote the bad answers as we see them**; it is, after all, the means by which we let future visitors know what is a good/correct answer and what is a bad/incorrect answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (2) Knowledge&#xD;&#xA;I think that bandwagon&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; voting is bad way to vote, but it is something we have to live with on this Q&amp;A site (e.g., the [hot-network-question effect](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5826/unusual-upvote-trends-discussion/5827#5827)). So the best (only?) way to vote on a post is to have some knowledge on the subject being asked; if you don't have the knowledge you probably shouldn't vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem to contradict the previous assertion to downvote bad answers, but I'd say it does not contradict it because in order to discern what makes a bad answer, you need to have knowledge in the subject matter. So, again, **downvote the answers you know are wrong** as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (3) Low Score&#xD;&#xA;Questions with less than `-2` net score are faded to suggest that the answer is bad and could/should be ignored. Some people may think that downvoting it beyond that mark isn't necessary because it's already in an &quot;ignorable&quot; state. However, there are a small subset of users on this site who make it their goal to upvote all posts *especially heavily downvoted ones*.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We should not let a &lt;-3 score stop us from downvoting** an answer we know to be bad; it's a bad answer and the (minimal) appropriate response is downvoting. Similarly, we should not let a *positive* score affect our voting; if it's wrong, it's wrong and should be downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 A bandwagon vote is one in which a person votes (either direction) simply because that is the &quot;popular&quot; consensus&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The thought is that the arbitrary scoring system of a website can, somehow, be psychologically damaging to the user; upvotes are some sort of positive reinforcement. There is no evidence for this position, despite continued requests for some (other sites that use voting systems, like [imgur](http://www.imgur.com) and [reddit](http://www.reddit.com), do not seem to have this &quot;problem;&quot; users often make fun of themselves for getting downvoted).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="8659a677-ce47-401b-a06a-cdab5ea50745" CreationDate="2015-06-24T07:15:57.203" UserId="1325" Text="It's easy to become to focussed on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6870" RevisionGUID="c162cdeb-a7c3-4ae9-862b-b8179a18fb50" CreationDate="2015-06-24T08:53:21.530" UserId="57075" Text="This answer got me thinking :&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/191025/57075&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually supposed to be a comment on some other guy's answer, but the guy doesn't have enough rep to comment. Maybe it's a valuable critique to the other guy's answer. Should I flag such answers or not ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6870" RevisionGUID="c162cdeb-a7c3-4ae9-862b-b8179a18fb50" CreationDate="2015-06-24T08:53:21.530" UserId="57075" Text="Line of action for special cases of an answer supposed to be a comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6870" RevisionGUID="c162cdeb-a7c3-4ae9-862b-b8179a18fb50" CreationDate="2015-06-24T08:53:21.530" UserId="57075" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="e756dc51-e701-4829-ba71-8ef86557f40b" CreationDate="2015-06-24T09:11:17.147" UserId="50583" Text="Comments are comments, not answers.  Flag them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6872" RevisionGUID="79e6a479-179a-4c3e-93a8-a1042c94b73b" CreationDate="2015-06-24T10:50:59.710" UserId="8563" Text="In this particular case, I feel this is indeed an answer. Not particularly complete, but an answer nonetheless. In general, though, if it looks like a comment, flag it as such. If the comment is still valuable then a mod can convert it to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="8cc77249-25f9-4d5a-93be-8e56a744b483" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:58:50.447" UserId="25301" Comment="wrote questions when I meant answers, oops" Text="**TL;DR:** Voting is one of the things that makes the SE sites work (the [**review queues**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) being another big one); if you aren't downvoting, you are **not** helping this place work; so downvote on the bad answers as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting &quot;you&quot; here as plural (rather than me specifically), I can think of three reasons why one would avoid downvoting: (1) time (2) knowledge (3) low score. For commenting, only (1) and (2) apply and for similar reasons to what I'll write below, so I'll be skipping out commenting (unless someone cannot infer correctly, then I guess I'll edit it in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (1) Time&#xD;&#xA;There are almost 56,000 questions asked on this site. At [almost 3 answers per question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), that's around 150,000 answers to scroll through. Since we're only allowed to vote on [30 posts per day](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) (combined up &amp; down, there are 10 extra votes for questions-only, however) and assuming that 20% of the answers are &quot;bad,&quot; that's still 30,000 answers and at a maximum of 30 answers per day, it'd take almost 3 years to downvote each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we're never actually going to get to downvoting *all* the bad answers on this site, however **we should still downvote the bad answers as we see them**; it is, after all, the means by which we let future visitors know what is a good/correct answer and what is a bad/incorrect answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (2) Knowledge&#xD;&#xA;I think that bandwagon&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; voting is bad way to vote, but it is something we have to live with on this Q&amp;A site (e.g., the [hot-network-question effect](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5826/unusual-upvote-trends-discussion/5827#5827)). So the best (only?) way to vote on a post is to have some knowledge on the subject being asked; if you don't have the knowledge you probably shouldn't vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem to contradict the previous assertion to downvote bad answers, but I'd say it does not contradict it because in order to discern what makes a bad answer, you need to have knowledge in the subject matter. So, again, **downvote the answers you know are wrong** as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (3) Low Score&#xD;&#xA;Answers with less than `-2` net score are faded to suggest that the answer is bad and could/should be ignored. Some people may think that downvoting it beyond that mark isn't necessary because it's already in an &quot;ignorable&quot; state. However, there are a small subset of users on this site who make it their goal to upvote all posts *especially heavily downvoted ones*.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We should not let a &lt;-3 score stop us from downvoting** an answer we know to be bad; it's a bad answer and the (minimal) appropriate response is downvoting. Similarly, we should not let a *positive* score affect our voting; if it's wrong, it's wrong and should be downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: I'm not suggesting that we downvote to -infinity here, only that the *current score* on a question should not be a deterrent from our voting (this goes for up as well as down); the basis of our vote should be on the quality &amp; content of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 A bandwagon vote is one in which a person votes (either direction) simply because that is the &quot;popular&quot; consensus&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The thought is that the arbitrary scoring system of a website can, somehow, be psychologically damaging to the user; upvotes are some sort of positive reinforcement. There is no evidence for this position, despite continued requests for some (other sites that use voting systems, like [imgur](http://www.imgur.com) and [reddit](http://www.reddit.com), do not seem to have this &quot;problem;&quot; users often make fun of themselves for getting downvoted).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="aeeb43cd-b9aa-4f71-ab18-b65b95599c70" CreationDate="2015-06-24T18:45:10.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/613779916350431232" />
  <row Id="18634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6873" RevisionGUID="89fbe2d3-190d-40e8-b50f-aaa1c8721dfe" CreationDate="2015-06-24T23:09:39.577" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing makes me avoid casting downvotes on bad answers but keep in mind that *bad* is subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt if any of the regulars here *avoid* casting downvotes on answers they believe to be *bad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What one regular considers bad 'enough' for a downvote may not be for another user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as others have pointed out, one must first find the questions and answers interesting enough to read and evaluate before the question of whether to downvote or not comes into context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="966" RevisionGUID="3bdf02ed-d22c-4891-8324-b8a4bad37e42" CreationDate="2015-06-25T05:02:20.343" UserId="124" Comment="clarify" Text="&gt; Do you find that answers in comments are a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Any time &quot;answering information&quot; is posted as a comment instead of as an answer, it makes it more difficult for people to find, and we also lose access to the mechanism of voting as an indicator of the quality of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever you see someone post something as a comment that seems like it should be an answer, ask them to make it an answer. Or post it as an answer yourself. (It'd be good etiquette to give the commenter a chance to convert their comment into an answer first, but you have no obligation to do so. And it's good for the site to have things that are answers posted as answers.)&#xD;&#xA;- Sometimes people post answering information, especially links, in a comment because they don't have time to make a full-fledged answer out of it. We should encourage people to make these posts as answers instead:&#xD;&#xA; - If you have a partial answer - more than just a link, of course, but anything that actually does answer the question, no matter how short or lacking in detail - post it with a note that you'll come back and edit more detail in when you have time. (And of course, actually come back and edit more detail in when you have time.)&#xD;&#xA; - If you downvote a post where the author has indicated they are going to come back and improve it later, make sure to check back after a few days and adjust your vote accordingly. You may, if you wish, leave a comment to indicate that you will do so. This is a further incentive for the author to make the edit.&#xD;&#xA; - If you see that someone else has posted a link-only answer, as long as it seems relevant and not spammy, it's best to edit the answer to contain the relevant material from the link. If you can't easily identify what the relevant part of the linked content is, then go ahead and flag it as not-an-answer. The moderators will encourage the author to add in the relevant part of the content.&#xD;&#xA; - Remember that the criterion for downvoting answers is that they are not useful. If an answer is sparse on detail or less complete than you'd like, but still useful, don't downvote it. If the lack of detail causes it not to be useful, then sure, go ahead and downvote, but check back after a while to see if the answer has been edited, and change your vote if needed.&#xD;&#xA;- On the moderators' side, we will continue deleting comments that exceed the scope of what comments are meant to be used for. **This includes answers posted as comments**, although we do prefer to encourage the poster to convert the comment to an answer before we delete it. Still, be aware that if you post answering information as a comment, don't expect it to last." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="43a9962e-51a3-4d14-bc84-93f4918b3a19" CreationDate="2015-06-25T15:35:00.377" UserId="53062" Text="During reviewing, I stumbled upon the following situation as e.g. in [this thread](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10606/explicit-variation-of-gibbons-hawking-york-boundary-term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question was asked, answered and accepted. Now somebody else posts an answer which actually is somewhat of a follow-up to the existing answer. Of course one could flag it as not being an answer and ask for a separate question (which is a fine option to have). On the other hand, the original question is refined through this answer. If the user, who posted the second question as answer, would edit the original question, it would be fine according to the site rules. Yet (if I understood it correctly), the original author would potentially be credited for a nice question, which was actually later created by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there be a way to combine the two questions, so that all questions and answers show up on one page, with shared credits for both asking users?&#xD;&#xA;Somehow it sounds appealing to me as everything would be in one place rather than having another question on the same or a very similar topic, which probably just looks like a duplicate and would potentially need to be answered with a copy of the original answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's best practice in such a situation as reviewer? Strictly flagging it as a non-answer? Suggesting an edit to the original question?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="43a9962e-51a3-4d14-bc84-93f4918b3a19" CreationDate="2015-06-25T15:35:00.377" UserId="53062" Text="Is there or should there be a way to combine or append to existing questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="43a9962e-51a3-4d14-bc84-93f4918b3a19" CreationDate="2015-06-25T15:35:00.377" UserId="53062" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="ff8f02cf-2791-40e4-811e-9f099f909143" CreationDate="2015-06-25T16:40:59.843" UserId="25301" Text="&gt; Yet (if I understood it correctly), the original author would potentially be credited for a nice question, which was actually later created by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a non-issue &amp; not sure why it was raised in the first place. If someone wants reputation and/or badges for a question, they should ask it themselves, rather than hedging it'd be poorly received &amp; editing someone else's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your points on the topic of the post itself,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it would be a valid edit to the original question (which was really asking for a source to the derivation) because it's asking for more information about the cancellation of a term, which would be best served as a comment to Robert's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If he takes my suggestion from the comments, he could link to the question if he felt it necessary. This would be the better option, as far as I can tell, compared to merging two questions or editing in. Two caveats on the new post:&#xD;&#xA;  - It seems to me that it'd be pretty close to the [*derive this equation/law for me*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5968/25301)-type question that we've deemed off-topic and could be closed (if 5 people agree to this view). &#xD;&#xA;  - Closing it as a duplicate because both questions are about the HGY boundary term might be a little bit of a stretch; I would think it'd be closed for the previous bullet than duplicate, but I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your job as the reviewer is to decide whether the post answers the question or is meant to be something else (comment, new question, spam, etc). If you think the post itself answers the question, then you can hit &quot;No Review Needed&quot;. I personally thought it was not an answer and commented &amp; flagged it as such when I reviewed it in the *Late Answers* queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* a way to [*merge* posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158066/what-are-merged-questions) (can be done by moderators only), but, from my understanding, it is somewhat complicated/involved and is rarely done on this site. I do not think it would be necessary in the case that MatterFr posts a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="03a5a907-deee-433b-b584-977abad30810" CreationDate="2015-06-25T17:02:38.547" UserId="57925" Text="The new imgur-based image dropper is not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image URL works (https://i.stack.imgur.com/6tI9Q.jpg), but the embedded link does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See my post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[image not working][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191324/advantages-of-a-deadblow-hammer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="03a5a907-deee-433b-b584-977abad30810" CreationDate="2015-06-25T17:02:38.547" UserId="57925" Text="New image dropper is not working" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="03a5a907-deee-433b-b584-977abad30810" CreationDate="2015-06-25T17:02:38.547" UserId="57925" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="fc812648-94b2-4f96-ab09-39131c2f9ca4" CreationDate="2015-06-25T17:27:49.927" UserId="25301" Text="Adding 4 spaces to the beginning of a line makes it a [**code block**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22186/how-do-i-format-my-code-blocks). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Click 'edit' to see the four spaces before this line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is useful on the programming sites (e.g., StackOverflow) where there is [syntax highlighting](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184108/what-is-syntax-highlighting-and-how-does-it-work) enabled on those (something we don't have/need here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've deleted those 4 spaces &amp; the picture now appears." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="afac31e9-4ef0-4c32-82d7-63971d0cec82" CreationDate="2015-06-25T17:30:25.983" UserId="25301" Comment="minor formatting of body" Text="The new imgur-based image dropper is not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image URL works (https://i.stack.imgur.com/6tI9Q.jpg), but the embedded link does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See my post: [Advantages of a deadblow hammer?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191324/advantages-of-a-deadblow-hammer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="57bf81cd-ddf7-4c77-91cf-436df5f8ffa3" CreationDate="2015-06-25T18:51:33.300" UserId="84334" Text="I'm sorry but I'm quite new to the inner workings of this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer from @fibonatic here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108640/what-is-an-intuitive-explanation-using-forces-for-the-equatorial-bulge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom it mentions that any value inbetween 0/90 degrees it would be positive, but this is untrue - just keep taking psi smaller until the second term dominates. Unfortunately I can't comment to let him know since I lack reputation, can't PM since there is no function to, and I don't want to edit his answer because I don't know what the *right* answer is. I just want to make him aware so it gets changed correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="57bf81cd-ddf7-4c77-91cf-436df5f8ffa3" CreationDate="2015-06-25T18:51:33.300" UserId="84334" Text="Contacting a user over a mistake in his answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="57bf81cd-ddf7-4c77-91cf-436df5f8ffa3" CreationDate="2015-06-25T18:51:33.300" UserId="84334" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="d844c8ab-0961-4f15-a5e2-c37cec0282fb" CreationDate="2015-06-25T19:15:00.353" UserId="31790" Text="If you notice a mistake and know how to fix it, submit an edit to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If don't know how to fix it, leave a comment (requires 50 rep).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have enough rep to comment, ask someone who has enough rep to do it via [The h Bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (requires 20 rep).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have enough rep to use chat, answer or ask good questions to get more rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="81872c76-77bf-412c-8331-79e265eee9ba" CreationDate="2015-06-25T21:22:38.267" UserId="84334" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I'm sorry but I'm quite new to the inner workings of this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer from @fibonatic here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108640/what-is-an-intuitive-explanation-using-forces-for-the-equatorial-bulge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom it mentions that any value inbetween 0/90 degrees it would be positive, but this is untrue - just keep taking psi smaller until the second term in the denominator dominates. Unfortunately I can't comment to let him know since I lack reputation, can't PM since there is no function to, and I don't want to edit his answer because I don't know what the *right* answer is. I just want to make him aware so it gets changed correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="77920f1f-0631-4454-a448-d8ab68196099" CreationDate="2015-06-26T08:51:38.440" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="I never downvote questions, and in many cases questions that are in the negative I will upvote unless they are so stupid I don't bother. IMHO too many questions that are quite reasonable from a non-scientist perspective get downvoted because they are not framed in the approved language of science. Or you get comments like &quot;I have no idea what the question is about&quot; (downvote) when it is quite clear to me what is being asked, albeit in an unorthodox manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6881" RevisionGUID="1ca39bbf-2896-4993-8a9c-64897a9ca56f" CreationDate="2015-06-26T09:00:27.407" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Another answer is that people like me, an electronics and s/w engineer, come here for specific information not generally available elsewhere (or cannot be found). Now, I have a degree in physics, but my overall knowledge of physics varies from &quot;forgotten all that decades ago&quot; to &quot;I am now working on the cutting edge of some obscure experimental physics&quot;. In this case, education level is irrelevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18653" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="86cdcd28-6f99-4f03-91d0-dbe2c7c5b1de" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:10:40.953" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191518/how-do-i-get-50-reputation" />
  <row Id="18654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="9afbb0d8-a799-4018-bf93-11369d5ebbfb" CreationDate="2015-06-26T21:50:18.920" UserDisplayName="user84562" Text="I was going to comment that the atmosphere takes about 1/3 to 1/2 the mussel velocity based on my 1987 paper on the Flight of Passive Launch Vehicles. I am about to re-do the paper and am working from memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I try but get the note I need 50 Reputation to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get this reputation to do so? If it is more than a day’s work forget it and don’t reply this email. This is in relation to sweep / survey research (who’s doing work in the field now) not home base research to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yours truly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ed Wilson, P. Eng., M.Sc., P.E.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="9afbb0d8-a799-4018-bf93-11369d5ebbfb" CreationDate="2015-06-26T21:50:18.920" UserDisplayName="user84562" Text="How do I get 50 Reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="9afbb0d8-a799-4018-bf93-11369d5ebbfb" CreationDate="2015-06-26T21:50:18.920" UserDisplayName="user84562" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18657" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="57f589a6-6882-4dcd-a68b-ca8bec344b81" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:42:08.583" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="f02cf8d6-d747-4742-999f-bd385cf7103c" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:55:31.233" UserId="2843" Text="Ask questions about physics, or answer them: people upvote your posts to give you reputation. It should take less that 10 decent posts to get 50 reputation. Note: the amount of upvotes you get and hence reputation is as much related to how popular the question is as how good of an answer you give and whether there are competing answers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="527cfff3-dee8-434c-b35f-43b2a9fb711d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T23:25:23.770" UserId="62726" Comment="edited body" Text="Ask questions about physics, or answer them: people upvote your posts to give you reputation. It should take less than 10 decent posts to get 50 reputation. Note: the amount of upvotes you get and hence reputation is as much related to how popular the question is as how good of an answer you give and whether there are competing answers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="7cd2d5b4-3080-4984-bf9d-b0ca7da18937" CreationDate="2015-06-26T23:54:21.397" UserId="26969" Text="Pick a tag you know something about (fluid mechanics perhaps?). Find an interesting question that you can answer. Write a good answer (diagrams, references). See if comments / questions come back. Respond, improve your answer. If you pick up just four upvotes and an accept you will collect 55 rep points.&#xA;&#xA;That may not happen with your first or second answer but soon you will hit a good one. &#xA;&#xA;Half an hour a day for three days ought to be more than enough if you follow the site rules (be polite etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="cd56170b-31d1-4204-af66-d8f9caec2a0b" CreationDate="2015-06-27T16:00:13.170" UserId="78942" Text="In the past days I've encountered a particular user who has made a &quot;serial answering&quot;: he has answered several different (even uncorrelated) question with almost the same answer and the same sketches. The problem is that some things in those answer are misleading, and some others plainly wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw one of these post, I downvoted it and left a comment explaining the downvote. Then encountered (by chance) other similar answer, and I find that very weird. So I looked the profile of this user, and I found that at least three more answer have the same content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that all of these post are worth downvoting (and that this user's actitude of spreading the same answer only makes it worse). But I don't want to commit serial downvoting. What should I do? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="cd56170b-31d1-4204-af66-d8f9caec2a0b" CreationDate="2015-06-27T16:00:13.170" UserId="78942" Text="Downvoting serial answers without serial downvoting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="cd56170b-31d1-4204-af66-d8f9caec2a0b" CreationDate="2015-06-27T16:00:13.170" UserId="78942" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="bd6fd46e-e3cc-4e01-b358-bee59de7e1cf" CreationDate="2015-06-27T17:24:42.507" UserId="25301" Text="First off, if they're copying the answers without *attributing* their first answer, then they're actually violating the CC-by-SA copyright license (cf. [this Meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/112084/handling-answers-that-build-heavily-on-or-are-copied-outright-from-existing-an) and comments therein). So the first action might be to either edit in the original source *or* leave a comment suggesting they do so (or a combination of the two).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you think the answers are incorrect, downvote and comment are the correct actions ([flagging as *not an answer*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) could apply, if it's way off base to the question). No one knows what the formula for serial downvoting is, but I would think that a few in a day *probably* isn't going to trigger it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="8a98808f-b167-4b5f-b6a0-279a142631cb" CreationDate="2015-06-27T17:53:42.843" UserId="520" Text="In addition to [what Kyle said][1], feel free to flag one instance for moderator attention with a custom flag reason. Giving us some links to the others in the flag is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll look at them for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* appropriateness to individual questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the degree to which they might constitute spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the possibility that if they really are warranted on those several question we should be merging the questions as duplicates (and then killing the duplicated answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6886/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="62e87231-8806-49ca-8967-6e7ea01044b7" CreationDate="2015-06-28T04:36:15.663" UserId="30877" Text="I recently wanted to post an answer to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191425/is-it-possible-to-build-a-thermoelectric-nuclear-power-plant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at the bottom of the page, I saw the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, I have 60 reputation, unless I'm misunderstanding what _reputation_ means in this context (I clicked on the link to [reputation][1] and as far as I can tell I'm not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't I answer this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="62e87231-8806-49ca-8967-6e7ea01044b7" CreationDate="2015-06-28T04:36:15.663" UserId="30877" Text="Why can't I answer protected questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="62e87231-8806-49ca-8967-6e7ea01044b7" CreationDate="2015-06-28T04:36:15.663" UserId="30877" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="f2b14dc8-e3a6-4657-abe8-1758f5400d33" CreationDate="2015-06-28T10:59:08.777" UserId="2451" Comment="Change title as the reason is not certain" Text="I recently wanted to post an answer to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191425/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at the bottom of the page, I saw the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, I have 60 reputation, unless I'm misunderstanding what _reputation_ means in this context (I clicked on the link to [reputation][1] and as far as I can tell I'm not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't I answer this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18670" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="f2b14dc8-e3a6-4657-abe8-1758f5400d33" CreationDate="2015-06-28T10:59:08.777" UserId="2451" Comment="Change title as the reason is not certain" Text="Why can't I answer question 191425?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="f2b14dc8-e3a6-4657-abe8-1758f5400d33" CreationDate="2015-06-28T10:59:08.777" UserId="2451" Comment="Change title as the reason is not certain" Text="|bug|answers|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="16bb31fd-67b1-4cfb-aae5-0bfc9ed25567" CreationDate="2015-06-28T11:46:57.213" UserId="2451" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 50 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty, which does not count as points earned on Phys.SE. So effectively you have earned 10 p on Phys.SE, which might be a border case. Perhaps your 2p edit does not count? So it seems that you indeed was blocked by the 10 p protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="18c37c93-f75d-4b64-834e-a94f5367edb5" CreationDate="2015-06-28T11:53:03.390" UserId="2451" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 50 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty, which does not count as points earned on Phys.SE. So effectively you have earned 10 p on Phys.SE, which might be a border case because of various minor events in your reputation history. Perhaps a 2p edit does not count? So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="f7a58fef-44fc-4650-8fa1-d311cf471567" CreationDate="2015-06-28T11:59:16.153" UserId="2451" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 51 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty plus 1 initial p, which does not count as points earned on Phys.SE. So effectively you have earned 9 p on Phys.SE. So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="723effee-6cc6-49cb-9cdd-99e3879b8597" CreationDate="2015-06-28T14:07:21.940" UserId="2451" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 51 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty plus 1 initial p, which do not count as points earned on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So effectively you have earned 60 p - 51 p = 9 p on Phys.SE. So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="0524f8b9-5589-415d-a715-577c890b7a13" CreationDate="2015-06-29T01:12:47.913" UserId="25301" Comment="removed incorrect part" Text="If you think the answers are incorrect, downvote and comment are the correct actions ([flagging as *not an answer*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) could apply, if it's way off base to the question). No one knows what the formula for serial downvoting is, but I would think that a few in a day *probably* isn't going to trigger it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18677" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="9398201c-722a-44a9-b3fe-664fcb2dbc59" CreationDate="2015-06-29T06:19:37.613" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5424],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="b75f8efa-d479-4f8c-a28e-080286f0c557" CreationDate="2015-06-29T06:20:14.697" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|answers|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="698e8073-aaac-4d9a-84da-77a1bce79298" CreationDate="2015-06-29T07:32:21.580" UserId="31790" Text="Suppose we have a question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it has an accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;Now suppose another user posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why X? Specifically, what is the mathematical description of X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might go ahead and mark the second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not certain this is the best thing to do from a utilitarian point of view. The author of the second question does not seem to have a way of getting the mathematical perspective on X via the existing question for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He/she cannot accept a different answer on that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He/she cannot draw attention to it by setting a bounty because there's already an accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Posting a comment on the first question would get the attention only of the first question's author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Even if the author of the second question could draw attention to his/her desire for a mathematical perspective, people are less likely to take time to write a nice new answer to the first question because there is less rep to be gained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering whether questions asking for a specific perspective on X should be allowed even if X has been explained previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="698e8073-aaac-4d9a-84da-77a1bce79298" CreationDate="2015-06-29T07:32:21.580" UserId="31790" Text="Should we allow questions asking for a specific perspective on something which has already been more generically explained?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="698e8073-aaac-4d9a-84da-77a1bce79298" CreationDate="2015-06-29T07:32:21.580" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="6442da55-3365-4f79-8cb6-a5f643f59a84" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:20:33.297" UserId="31790" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Suppose we have a question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it has an accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;Now suppose another user posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why X? Specifically, what is the mathematical description of X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might go ahead and mark the second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not certain this is the best thing to do from a utilitarian point of view. The author of the second question does not seem to have a way of getting the mathematical perspective on X via the existing question for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He/she cannot accept a different answer on that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **(Wrong! see below)** He/she cannot draw attention to it by setting a bounty because there's already an accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Posting a comment on the first question would get the attention only of the first question's author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Even if the author of the second question could draw attention to his/her desire for a mathematical perspective, people are less likely to take time to write a nice new answer to the first question because there is less rep to be gained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering whether questions asking for a specific perspective on X should be allowed even if X has been explained previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out you can set bounties on questions with accepted answers. Perhaps this is the best way to get new/different answers to these questions!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="a2eabcf6-05d0-4b85-8973-4fd4d4bfc6ab" CreationDate="2015-06-29T12:06:21.683" UserId="1325" Text="This is a purely personal viewpoint, and not a comment on the site rules, but unless a question is an exact duplicate I'm not sure it does any harm to allow it through. With potential duplicates it's often the case that the second question has a different emphasis to the first and as a result will attract different answers. I have answered a question knowing that it's a duplicate (though not an exact one) because I thought I could make a point that wouldn't be appropriate for the first answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site's long term aim is to be a searchable repository of knowledge. If we ended up with dozens of duplicate questions and answers then that makes searching hard, because it makes it hard to find the best or most definitive answer. If it's just a single duplicate, or a few duplicates, and they have a different emphasis then I think that makes it more likely the searcher will find exactly what they are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case I would look at both questions. You've obviously given rather abbreviated examples so it's hard to tell how different they are, but in real life the first question would probably be from a beginner wanting a simple explanation and the second from a more advanced student wanting a more rigorous answer. If so my instinct would be to allow both. That way a future searcher of the site would find exactly the question they want whether they are a beginner or an advanced student." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18684" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="34d32222-a170-4a0c-b12b-5104c849b5f5" CreationDate="2015-06-29T15:41:42.860" UserId="2451" Comment="Rolled back the title since cause is now understood" Text="Having 60 reputation points, why can't I answer protected questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="660389c4-f51a-4ffa-87f4-a05af088da36" CreationDate="2015-06-29T17:41:23.877" UserId="1325" Text="Earlier today I downvoted an answer, then after the OP had edited it I retracted my downvote. In between I had hit the daily rep limit of 215 (including one accept) and now after retracting my downvote I find I have 216 rep for the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the determined gamer's strategy should be to make lots of downvotes early in the day then retract them all at the end of the day :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="660389c4-f51a-4ffa-87f4-a05af088da36" CreationDate="2015-06-29T17:41:23.877" UserId="1325" Text="Bug in the daily rep limit code?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="660389c4-f51a-4ffa-87f4-a05af088da36" CreationDate="2015-06-29T17:41:23.877" UserId="1325" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="14d6da40-4dd7-4356-be18-0458be59b1a8" CreationDate="2015-06-29T20:57:41.420" UserId="76162" Text="If you downvote with a valid explanation, I really don't think you will fall foul of serial downvoting. There's so many questions on the site that concern say electromagnetism that we're bound to see some similar answers. It's a fact of life. And of course, you could always refer _to_ those similar answers. In addition you could spread your activity over a few days. On top of that it might help if you could refer here to examples of this &quot;serial answering&quot; so people can gauge the situation for themselves. Do note that answering questions is what Physics Stack Exchange is all about.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you could consider is giving a better answer that explains things in a superior fashion. If your answer has sufficient clarity and logic it will surely show  why the other answer is wrong without any descent into unseemly unprofessional animosity. I would urge you to put some effort into this, because in my experience it can be most rewarding. Feynman was known as [the great explainer][1], and there's a saying which is sometimes attributed to Einstein: _&quot;You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother&quot;._ I think it's true. We might think we understand something, but if we can't actually explain it, then we don't. So if you find yourself struggling, you need to stop and think. Particularly if the other answer _is_ clear and simple, and refers to Maxwell/Minkowski/Einstein/Jackson/etc. If your answer is as clear as mud, or is full of &quot;it just is&quot; mathematics that confuses field and force, or says these guys are wrong, it's possible that _your_ answer is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't discount this possibility. We are all wrong from time to time. Knowing this and admitting to the possibility is what distinguishes the scientific community from a medieval theocracy. Indeed, it's why we have scientific progress. Remember: it's the Physics Stack Exchange. Not the Spanish Inquisition.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=feynman+great+explainer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="6180c09d-fe0a-4bd7-b096-81c2bae2d3ef" CreationDate="2015-06-30T04:00:37.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/615731641227603968" />
  <row Id="18691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6895" RevisionGUID="12a01945-3a4e-4bd6-8910-ca212a7a3a1c" CreationDate="2015-07-01T04:39:02.693" UserId="40681" Text="&gt; Suggest Jim then. If it's most popular, who am I to argue –  Jim Feb 11 at 17:52 [[source](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6510/a-jim-for-all-seasons?page=1&amp;tab=votes#comment24160_6514)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="784317e2-3a5c-4626-b53d-4e1c70cc63d7" CreationDate="2015-07-01T08:27:35.940" UserId="30877" Comment="edited title" Text="Message incorrectly claims I need 10 reputation points to answer, when I already have 10 points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="784317e2-3a5c-4626-b53d-4e1c70cc63d7" CreationDate="2015-07-01T08:27:35.940" UserId="30877" Comment="edited title" Text="I recently wanted to post an answer to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191425/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at the bottom of the page, I saw the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, I have 60 reputation, unless I'm misunderstanding what _reputation_ means in this context (I clicked on the link to [reputation][1] and as far as I can tell I'm not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;duplicate&quot; post shows a different message. In that message, the intent is clear (you must have _earned_ reputation). I got a different, erroneous message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18694" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="c2e4f60c-b71c-4957-a42c-bda2892faecd" CreationDate="2015-07-01T13:45:38.423" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="8675a99e-62a2-48aa-a997-09d7286571b9" CreationDate="2015-07-01T22:59:41.190" UserId="30877" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="I recently wanted to post an answer to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191425/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at the bottom of the page, I saw the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, I have 60 reputation, unless I'm misunderstanding what _reputation_ means in this context (I clicked on the link to [reputation][1] and as far as I can tell I'm not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;duplicate&quot; post shows a different message. In that message, the intent is clear (you must have _earned_ reputation). I got a different, erroneous message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE: posted on Meta SE: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/259878/incorrect-wording-in-protected-question-status**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="7b92e1ea-61b5-4f02-98be-6b35d70c7c44" CreationDate="2015-07-02T15:11:55.653" UserId="51934" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen several dangerous suggestions on Physics and Chemistry Stack Exchange, and normally what happens when this is pointed out, is that the suggestor thanks people for their concern about safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] asks how to test a robot under a simulated depth of 40ft of water. Several answers have mentioned pressure vessels, either mentioning caution from the outset or editing it in when concern was raised. However the poster of [this answer][2] has told both myself and another commentor that we need to get a &quot;sense of perspective.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He advocates getting a reject propane tank, half filling it with water and pressurizing it with an air compressor. I have pointed out to him that there would be approximately 240kJ of stored energy in the compressed air in the tank, which would be extremely dangerous if the vessel were to fail: I have even pointed him to a video of an exploding beer bottle (admittedly at higher pressure, but much smaller volume and total energy.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He correctly points out that the design pressure of a propane tank is much higher than the pressure required, but even so, when considering a reject tank, this is playing Russian roulette.  It's not the likelihood of something going wrong that concerns me - it's the potential consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've pointed out in the comments and in [my own answer][3] that the safe way to do this is to completely fill the tank with an incompressible fluid such as water before pressurizing in order to eliminate all air and hence the possibility of stored energy (I have professional experience with testing pressure vessels and that is how we prefer to do it: test failures with water are safe events, provided air is fully eliminated from the vessel.) This is completely compatible with what the OP wanted to do but the answer poster continues to argue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've downvoted the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy on answers suggesting something dangerous? Should they be downvoted? Flagged? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure deletion would be helpful, I think the discussion in the comments on the answer is in a way quite useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/192108/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192129/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192146/51934" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="7b92e1ea-61b5-4f02-98be-6b35d70c7c44" CreationDate="2015-07-02T15:11:55.653" UserId="51934" Text="What to do when an answer suggests something dangerous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="7b92e1ea-61b5-4f02-98be-6b35d70c7c44" CreationDate="2015-07-02T15:11:55.653" UserId="51934" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="09f29f96-d0dd-408e-83f8-c95d9cbe396e" CreationDate="2015-07-02T15:29:26.643" UserId="51934" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have seen several dangerous suggestions on Physics and Chemistry Stack Exchange, and normally what happens when this is pointed out, is that the suggestor thanks people for their concern about safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] asks how to test a robot under a simulated depth of 40ft of water. Several answers have mentioned pressure vessels, either mentioning caution from the outset or editing it in when concern was raised. However the poster of [this answer][2] has told both myself and another commentor that we need to get a &quot;sense of perspective.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He advocates getting a reject propane tank, half filling it with water and pressurizing it with an air compressor. I have pointed out to him that there would be approximately 240kJ of stored energy in the compressed air in the tank, which would be extremely dangerous if the vessel were to fail: I have even pointed him to a video of an exploding beer bottle (admittedly at higher pressure, but much smaller volume and total energy.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He correctly points out that the design pressure of a propane tank is much higher than the pressure required, but even so, when considering a reject tank, this is playing Russian roulette.  It's not the likelihood of something going wrong that concerns me - it's the potential consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've pointed out in the comments and in [my own answer][3] that the safe way to do this is to completely fill the tank with an incompressible fluid such as water before pressurizing in order to eliminate all air and hence the possibility of stored energy (I have professional experience with testing pressure vessels and that is how we prefer to do it: test failures with water are safe events, provided air is fully eliminated from the vessel.) This is completely compatible with what the OP wanted to do but the answer poster continues to argue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some discussion of my concerns with the answer poster, I downvoted the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy on answers suggesting something dangerous? Should they be downvoted? Flagged? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure deletion would be helpful, I think the discussion in the comments on the answer is in a way quite useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/192108/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192129/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192146/51934" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="fb8bcc5d-46e3-45b0-b079-45fc87092633" CreationDate="2015-07-02T15:31:16.370" UserId="31790" Comment="Removed un-necessary priming statement about author's voting decision" Text="I have seen several dangerous suggestions on Physics and Chemistry Stack Exchange, and normally what happens when this is pointed out, is that the suggestor thanks people for their concern about safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] asks how to test a robot under a simulated depth of 40ft of water. Several answers have mentioned pressure vessels, either mentioning caution from the outset or editing it in when concern was raised. However the poster of [this answer][2] has told both myself and another commentor that we need to get a &quot;sense of perspective.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He advocates getting a reject propane tank, half filling it with water and pressurizing it with an air compressor. I have pointed out to him that there would be approximately 240kJ of stored energy in the compressed air in the tank, which would be extremely dangerous if the vessel were to fail: I have even pointed him to a video of an exploding beer bottle (admittedly at higher pressure, but much smaller volume and total energy.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He correctly points out that the design pressure of a propane tank is much higher than the pressure required, but even so, when considering a reject tank, this is playing Russian roulette.  It's not the likelihood of something going wrong that concerns me - it's the potential consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've pointed out in the comments and in [my own answer][3] that the safe way to do this is to completely fill the tank with an incompressible fluid such as water before pressurizing in order to eliminate all air and hence the possibility of stored energy (I have professional experience with testing pressure vessels and that is how we prefer to do it: test failures with water are safe events, provided air is fully eliminated from the vessel.) This is completely compatible with what the OP wanted to do but the answer poster continues to argue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy on answers suggesting something dangerous? Should they be downvoted? Flagged? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure deletion would be helpful, I think the discussion in the comments on the answer is in a way quite useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/192108/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192129/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192146/51934" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18702" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="a68cf69f-a330-413b-9da6-bdf474456968" CreationDate="2015-07-02T15:35:03.817" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[996],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="8059e7fe-ad23-4452-a63d-923f189d9508" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:15:31.080" UserId="84046" Text="So I found [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/85027/niggerassrape) user. His username needs nuking / something similar. Can a mod do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="8059e7fe-ad23-4452-a63d-923f189d9508" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:15:31.080" UserId="84046" Text="Reset username for user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="8059e7fe-ad23-4452-a63d-923f189d9508" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:15:31.080" UserId="84046" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="2b850009-8a26-418c-9d36-b9580cf7c361" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:20:38.970" UserId="52290" Text="#Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;they can,&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;let's wait for one to come.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="092c81e4-58ed-44f4-9b82-2c2aa1bf0ee0" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:23:03.760" UserId="84046" Comment="NUKEZ FOR ME" Text="So I found [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/85027/niggerassrape) user. His needs nuking. Can a mod do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="d149a058-9539-4e2a-a908-0c4fa784653a" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:30:24.280" UserId="52290" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="#Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;they can,&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;let's wait for one to come.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**o.0**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This user was destroyed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="7f134646-5268-4d81-8db3-6f90c9752dd7" CreationDate="2015-07-03T13:53:49.507" UserId="23473" Text="Jimbiwan Kenobi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The Jim is strong with this one&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="905e7a47-2c43-4c43-9797-d53023872c9e" CreationDate="2015-07-03T18:55:45.160" UserId="6634" Comment="Removed the actual text of the username from the link; the userID is enough information." Text="So I found [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/85027) user. His needs nuking. Can a mod do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="b6caf82c-6cc6-44cd-be68-22c6b66156ce" CreationDate="2015-07-03T19:38:55.327" UserId="44216" Text="I'm posting this on meta because I'm not entirely sure if this is the site for it. The sidebar suggested I that this was the place to put it, so I'm doing here. *Is this question appropriate for this stack exchange? If not, where ought this question go?* Mouse over to see the questionable question here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! I have an item which is made of some magnetic metal. Obviously, testing if a metal is magnetic or not eliminates many alloys and metals (such as Al), but it does not let me know the grade or quality and composition of the metal. I would like to know if it is a stainless steel or a carbon steel (and if it is a mid or high carbon steel)! What tests can I run at home to determine what metal this item is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="b6caf82c-6cc6-44cd-be68-22c6b66156ce" CreationDate="2015-07-03T19:38:55.327" UserId="44216" Text="Identifying Metals at Home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="b6caf82c-6cc6-44cd-be68-22c6b66156ce" CreationDate="2015-07-03T19:38:55.327" UserId="44216" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18714" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="8c29674d-77dc-4587-8e68-2d899073ea0c" CreationDate="2015-07-04T15:38:13.810" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="b90181a9-088c-42c9-a28a-b5c35da6f860" CreationDate="2015-07-05T05:47:01.420" UserId="62521" Text="I'm trying to either: draw an analogy between quantum mechanics and real life or get to a point where I'm not able to create an analogy anymore and I give up.  Odds are I'll be in the second boat :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My background:  I'm now a Software Engineer.  My coursework was in Computational Mathematics.  I generally like any topic so long that its interesting.  I want to understand where the break between quantum mechanics and my understanding of the world is.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping this will be the kind of thing where I will say:  this is my understanding at the high level, and I think this analogy accurately fits what is happening at the quantum level.  Then, someone with actual knowledge about quantum mechanics will say &quot;No, your analogy fails at this point&quot; And they will explain to me why my analogy doesn't correspond to quantum.  Then I will either change my analogy to suite what quantum mechanics says, dispute the point in which they say my analogy doesn't match quantum, or agree that that is correct and I'm unable to create an analogy with the real world to match what is observed at the quantum level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this type of question appropriate for this forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="b90181a9-088c-42c9-a28a-b5c35da6f860" CreationDate="2015-07-05T05:47:01.420" UserId="62521" Text="Is this question appropriate for this forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="b90181a9-088c-42c9-a28a-b5c35da6f860" CreationDate="2015-07-05T05:47:01.420" UserId="62521" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="bbfe0a16-640b-4a81-bab1-7fc4f956644f" CreationDate="2015-07-05T06:36:53.853" UserId="124" Text="Probably not. It sounds like you're looking for a back-and-forth discussion, rather than a specific question that can be answered. You might try [chat](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), or a more traditional forum where people can reply to you repeatedly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="81782f3a-0546-4b25-9fb9-bf0576679e9b" CreationDate="2015-07-05T21:22:02.447" UserId="27367" Text="I remember posting some comments under [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192567/27367), but they aren't there now (in particular there was a comment about question edit and another that lead to [this reply](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192561/how-does-the-heat-death-looks-like-from-inside-the-system#comment410044_192567)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite sure I didn't delete them myself, there were a few of them and they are all gone. Hence, I suspect moderator action. As I am new to the physics.SE community I would like to ask why these comments were removed, or more importantly why there was no note left. I tried searching help center and meta for some info or policies, but to no avail. I did find that &quot;moderators reserve right to delete comments without notice&quot; and I'm aware of general SE policy that &quot;comments are ephemeral in nature&quot;, but removing several comments from a new member without any note just seems not right (I participate a bit in other SE communities being &quot;trusted user&quot; in two and I don't remember any such thing happening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody let me know what happened? Is this a standard thing here? Is there any community norm help page so that I can read it and avoid at least a part of stepping on your toes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="81782f3a-0546-4b25-9fb9-bf0576679e9b" CreationDate="2015-07-05T21:22:02.447" UserId="27367" Text="Missing comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="81782f3a-0546-4b25-9fb9-bf0576679e9b" CreationDate="2015-07-05T21:22:02.447" UserId="27367" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="01fe1030-b35f-43a3-9679-efde06d748cc" CreationDate="2015-07-05T23:30:16.217" UserId="76162" Comment="added 1284 characters in body" Text="If you downvote with a valid explanation, I really don't think you will fall foul of serial downvoting. There's so many questions on the site that concern say electromagnetism that we're bound to see some similar answers. It's a fact of life. And of course, you could always refer _to_ those similar answers. In addition you could spread your activity over a few days. On top of that it might help if you could refer here to examples of this &quot;serial answering&quot; so people can gauge the situation for themselves. Do note that answering questions is what Physics Stack Exchange is all about.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you could consider is giving a better answer that explains things in a superior fashion. If your answer has sufficient clarity and logic it will surely show  why the other answer is wrong without any descent into unseemly unprofessional animosity. I would urge you to put some effort into this, because in my experience it can be most rewarding. Feynman was known as [the great explainer][1], and there's a saying which is sometimes attributed to Einstein: _&quot;You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother&quot;._ I think it's true. We might think we understand something, but if we can't actually explain it, then we don't. So if you find yourself struggling, you need to stop and think. Particularly if the other answer _is_ clear and simple, and refers to Maxwell/Minkowski/Einstein/Jackson/etc. If your answer is as clear as mud, or is full of &quot;it just is&quot; mathematics that confuses field and force, or says these guys are wrong, it's possible that _your_ answer is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't discount this possibility. We are all wrong from time to time. Knowing this and admitting to the possibility is what distinguishes the scientific community from a medieval theocracy. Indeed, it's why we have scientific progress. Remember: it's the Physics Stack Exchange. Not the Spanish Inquisition.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 6/7/2015 00:30**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see Bosoneando has been inciting posters to downvote my answers [in the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/22572316#22572316). It would seem that what he's really asking in this question is _How can I get away with serial downvoting?_ Since my request for moderation led to the deletion of my comments whilst Bosoneando's  ad-hominem &quot;chat&quot; remains, and since there are [other missing comments](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/22579671#22579671), _and_ since some  moderators obviously [sympathise](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/22577255#22577255) with serial downvoting [which continues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/76162/john-duffield?tab=reputation), I've emailed the stackexchange team to bring the matter to their attention. Malicious downvoting is obviously an issue here, and it's obviously important to get the physics such as electromagnetism right. Physics stack exchange should not be a place where envious people who [do not understand it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/181277/do-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-of-an-electromagnetic-wave-really-genera) are able to persuade others that correct answers with robust references are to be disregarded.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=feynman+great+explainer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6905" RevisionGUID="5baf6d9c-fadc-4b8b-afdd-8fd1f5b7cfe4" CreationDate="2015-07-05T23:55:44.730" UserId="520" Text="In this case I deleted three comments because they seemed to represent a completed exchange starting with suggestions to improve the post, an indication that the improvements had been made and an acknowledgement from the person making the suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mission accomplished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="003ffa89-b19d-4aa9-8184-a6756fd1c164" CreationDate="2015-07-06T04:42:38.667" UserId="46399" Text="_[dmckee gave a very succinct answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6905/46399), but perhaps he was short on time or likewise, so that answer is not self contained. I am including the part that he left out._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this guide-post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post) regarding flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the valid comment flags is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obsolete*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;obsolete&quot; flag is for comments that have served their purpose or outlived their usefulness, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - suggestions for changes which have been incorporated into the post, or which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - requests for clarification which have been answered, and their answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - responses to comments which have been deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - pretty much any comment older than a week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading dmckee's answer in this light, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I deleted three comments because they seemed to represent a completed exchange starting with suggestions to improve the post, an indication that the improvements had been made and an acknowledgement from the person making the suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which means the reason above the bullets directly applies here, and coupled with the ephemeral nature of the comments, they could be deleted as normal cleanup on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mission accomplished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18734" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="aa60feb0-159a-4929-b2cd-1a91db08c2d8" CreationDate="2015-07-06T04:52:29.763" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [14d6da40-4dd7-4356-be18-0458be59b1a8]" Text="If you downvote with a valid explanation, I really don't think you will fall foul of serial downvoting. There's so many questions on the site that concern say electromagnetism that we're bound to see some similar answers. It's a fact of life. And of course, you could always refer _to_ those similar answers. In addition you could spread your activity over a few days. On top of that it might help if you could refer here to examples of this &quot;serial answering&quot; so people can gauge the situation for themselves. Do note that answering questions is what Physics Stack Exchange is all about.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you could consider is giving a better answer that explains things in a superior fashion. If your answer has sufficient clarity and logic it will surely show  why the other answer is wrong without any descent into unseemly unprofessional animosity. I would urge you to put some effort into this, because in my experience it can be most rewarding. Feynman was known as [the great explainer][1], and there's a saying which is sometimes attributed to Einstein: _&quot;You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother&quot;._ I think it's true. We might think we understand something, but if we can't actually explain it, then we don't. So if you find yourself struggling, you need to stop and think. Particularly if the other answer _is_ clear and simple, and refers to Maxwell/Minkowski/Einstein/Jackson/etc. If your answer is as clear as mud, or is full of &quot;it just is&quot; mathematics that confuses field and force, or says these guys are wrong, it's possible that _your_ answer is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't discount this possibility. We are all wrong from time to time. Knowing this and admitting to the possibility is what distinguishes the scientific community from a medieval theocracy. Indeed, it's why we have scientific progress. Remember: it's the Physics Stack Exchange. Not the Spanish Inquisition.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=feynman+great+explainer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="df8cdadc-fb33-4159-a371-4bdde2e77b2b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T05:09:15.537" UserDisplayName="user74563" Text="Is it correct to close (*) a meta question simply because the OP is not interested in the answer? Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) example here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="df8cdadc-fb33-4159-a371-4bdde2e77b2b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T05:09:15.537" UserDisplayName="user74563" Text="when to close a meta question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="df8cdadc-fb33-4159-a371-4bdde2e77b2b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T05:09:15.537" UserDisplayName="user74563" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="085c078a-603f-40e3-ba26-072abba7010c" CreationDate="2015-07-06T06:24:20.833" UserId="46907" Text="I intend to ask the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I install [Geant4][1] ([wiki][2]) alongside GEANT-3 ([wiki][3]) on my Ubuntu 15.04? I have already installed GEANT3. How can I install Geant4 without making any problems?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I ask the question on Physics StackExchange?&#xD;&#xA;May be we should introduce a tag or site for computing packages and resources for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already asked similar question on StackOverflow Meta [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geant4.org/geant4/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geant4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEANT-3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/298562/3623705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="085c078a-603f-40e3-ba26-072abba7010c" CreationDate="2015-07-06T06:24:20.833" UserId="46907" Text="Installing Geant4 alongside GEANT3: Question for Physics StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="085c078a-603f-40e3-ba26-072abba7010c" CreationDate="2015-07-06T06:24:20.833" UserId="46907" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="756dc17f-1e98-448a-8d3f-d87bc43a1390" CreationDate="2015-07-06T13:00:19.103" UserId="46399" Text="&gt; Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there isn't any long-term utility to care about. The question part of your post &#xD;&#xA;was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the difference between an unclear question and a question you are unable to answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody in here closes questions because an answer is not immediately obvious. You can click on the unanswered tab of questions, and find enough examples to the same effect. [This comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26960_6906) best clarifies the stance people have regarding the question which got closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the rest of that meta post, and the comments below that post, are just an extended rant. We get it, everybody feels upset when their question gets closed, and having been on this site for more than an year, I have seen many of them resort to angry ranting in chat or meta. When you are in chat, you can still get away with it, but content-less rants in meta, and especially those accompanied by statements like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm not really interested in your answer. I simply think that it would be [in principle, theoretically] useful for you to write down an answer [of course you will sort of &quot;copy and paste&quot; another wrong answer, so it won't be useful at all].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;really provide no lasting retention value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relax. It is an internet community of anonymous strangers, and you are an anonymous user too. A question got closed, ego felt bruised probably, but its no big deal. You will get over it in a day or too. But if you keep spamming meta with more and more content-less rants, you potentially risk being deemed an angry spammer, and would perhaps eventually face a _cool-down suspension_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I advise you to relax, and take some time off. A question by an anonymous user, getting closed, is really no big deal. But making a mess out of it, is!    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6911" RevisionGUID="5d0e34a5-9285-4cc6-8b42-73bb7ec46992" CreationDate="2015-07-06T13:11:34.420" UserId="23473" Text="In terms of this specific question: The definition of what is meant by an &quot;unclear&quot; question is quite explicitly laid out in many places around the meta site and in the banner that appears on a question closed as such. This means that the only reason to discuss what it means would be context specific; we would discuss it only in terms of the linked question and only clarify it insofar as the OP or whoever is confused requires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the OP of the meta post indicated quite clearly that they are not actually interested in any clarifying answer, there is not much to be done on this post. In its current form, the only way to answer the question would be with a general outline of what makes a question unclear enough to close. There are so many meta posts about this already and plenty of meta posts on the mother meta site that address what makes a question unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feedback on the closed question itself reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be more clear? That indicates that, regardless what the OP may think, at least 5 3k+ users (or a combination of &lt; 5 3k+ users and 1 mod) thought the wording of the question was sufficiently unclear that they couldn't be sure what it asked and how an answer to it should be formed. That is the general case on what separates a clear question from an unclear one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing left after that is to ask what specifically makes a given question unclear, which the OP of this meta post explicitly indicates is not what they are interested in. That means there really isn't anything being asked by the post. At best, this becomes a duplicate of any number of &quot;What does unclear mean for a question?&quot; posts. But this question also requests us to give the distinction between closing as &quot;unclear&quot; and closing as &quot;unable to answer&quot;. Since there is no such thing or any occurrences of a closing as &quot;unable to answer&quot;, that makes this meta post, at worst, itself unclear (which would be a tad ironic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would have found a nice duplicate for it rather than closing it as off-topic, but the question was closed already. I'm not going to have it reopened just so I can close it properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="1edc52a4-d8fd-4fef-b402-18aab12f8cd6" CreationDate="2015-07-06T13:57:48.507" UserId="46399" Comment="added 109 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it correct to close (*) a meta question simply because [the OP is not interested in the answer?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26953_6906) Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) example here: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18745" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="1edc52a4-d8fd-4fef-b402-18aab12f8cd6" CreationDate="2015-07-06T13:57:48.507" UserId="46399" Comment="added 109 characters in body; edited title" Text="When to close a meta question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="07631383-3866-49ff-8e1f-b76a018cc232" CreationDate="2015-07-06T19:44:41.597" UserId="520" Text="In an earlier age of the this site the moderators allowed certain parties to use meta questions as a forum for sly insinuations---one that they knew we wouldn't answer because of the moderator agreement---and other forms of character assassination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I got sick of it, so I'm not very bothered that you prevented from launching a rant with no actual purpose beyond venting your pique. Sorry, but that is how it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what defines an unclear question, that is mind bogglingly simple: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quorum of users vote to close it as unclear and no quorum votes to re-open it then it qualifies as unclear for the purposes of closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the whole shebang because this is a crowd sourced platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="2220592e-6a6b-4a55-b060-812a28ccb7ef" CreationDate="2015-07-06T19:55:49.267" UserId="520" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In an earlier age of the this site the moderators allowed certain parties to use meta questions as a forum for sly insinuations---one that they knew we wouldn't answer because of the moderator agreement---and other forms of character assassination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I got sick of it, so I'm not very bothered that you were prevented from launching a rant with no actual purpose beyond venting your pique. Sorry, but that is how it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what defines an unclear question, that is mind bogglingly simple: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quorum of users vote to close it as unclear and no quorum votes to re-open it then it qualifies as unclear for the purposes of closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the whole shebang because this is a crowd sourced platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="edaad6c7-4728-4ae6-a4a8-d41523893031" CreationDate="2015-07-07T06:07:49.190" UserId="14088" Text="Couldn't something like &quot;verified accounts&quot; help? If an account could be verified as belonging to someone holding a PhD in physics, either the daily voting limit could be extended or the weight of the vote could be increased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be people who would see this as &quot;undemocratic&quot;, but the main purpose of Stackexchange is not to simulate a direct democracy. In science, the answer of a (verified) expert should have more weight than the opinion of a random user with possibly no understanding in physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18750" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="7e4d99af-1262-4f49-8a24-465c78fe9787" CreationDate="2015-07-07T13:56:13.687" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192958/is-helping-others-grasp-difficult-ideas-concepts-or-theories-not-considered-giv" />
  <row Id="18753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="63bd61f2-9358-4518-95ff-7bc2fd93c8bb" CreationDate="2015-07-07T12:52:35.333" UserId="85295" Text="I know you could just leave a comment, but not in this case I couldn't. I just found this awesome app while researching on my passion, physics. I stumbled across a question about time dilation, not the easiest concept to grasp, and a commenter had his own question within his comment, just wasn't  looking at the answer correctly. So, I stared at this screen, going to different links forever and it was impossible since I have no, &quot;points&quot;, since I just signed up. I clicked on, &quot;answer&quot; and FINALLY, it let me speak. Intellectual curiosity is an amazing thing. Well, next thing I know, I got my first comment and flag all in one. All you scientists know how important it is for more and more people to have a scientific world view if we're planning on living on this planet for much longer. So I gave him an easy layman's answer to fully understand the answer.  We all know you don't have to know the math to have that burning curiosity of the unknown, and the want to understand and wrap your mind around things you had no idea was wrappable. I believe I gave this user a just as valid answer as the mathematical answer. Do you? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="63bd61f2-9358-4518-95ff-7bc2fd93c8bb" CreationDate="2015-07-07T12:52:35.333" UserId="85295" Text="Is helping others grasp difficult ideas, concepts or theories not considered giving an answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="63bd61f2-9358-4518-95ff-7bc2fd93c8bb" CreationDate="2015-07-07T12:52:35.333" UserId="85295" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="7c645fe2-4ee7-4a18-baf4-55baa21bc7f2" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:18:28.777" UserId="124" Text="Anything which answers the posted question should be posted as an answer; anything which does not, should not. It's that simple. (Although there _are_ cases in which it's debatable whether a post answers the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post you made [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192950/124) (which I'm guessing is the one you are asking about) does not answer the question, and should not have been posted as an answer. The fact that you addressed your post to someone who is not the asker is a dead giveaway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="ee11686c-67a1-46fd-9409-dfe9a1edcd95" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:22:06.593" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18759" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="455495d1-8a45-46f8-a0dd-4ad3299e00a0" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:23:52.157" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="5e69d5fd-8a49-4180-b520-cfb75e67876d" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:24:01.063" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="675a398e-0e22-4d26-b434-a4886fcad17b" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:26:10.757" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="I don't know why you are making a non-issue an issue. I probably guess that you have answered to the asker who haven't actually asked the question &amp; a question that actually wasn't matching the OP's question;You have every right to explain the physics to a layman _ we are not having a problem with that, nor we discourage anyone to answer anyone's question. However, since the question was not the same to that of OP, you could probably comment to him/her; oh! you are a new user - then you have to _bid_ your time:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18762" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="0458e2f5-b4f1-4a3d-9604-ba1fc6c90f53" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:29:35.647" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18763" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="30be8b00-4542-4984-bdcf-32978b4cac7f" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:29:46.077" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18764" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="9e220ee9-ba9b-450a-9b76-929e024683e1" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:29:56.137" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="15cd98fe-4cc5-4174-90d5-25734b7d0e04" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:31:39.940" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't know why you are making a non-issue an issue. I probably guess that you have answered to the asker who haven't actually asked the question &amp; a question that actually wasn't matching the OP's question. You have every right to explain the physics to a layman _ we are not having a problem with that, nor we discourage anyone to answer anyone's question. However, since the question was not the same to that of OP, you could probably comment to him/her; oh! you are a new user - then you have to _bid_ your time:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18766" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="21bdedd9-2c73-4538-9d4b-68332ca47b90" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:31:40.637" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|site-faq|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="3f58b8e9-7068-4d89-a23c-1b436ebd3eb3" CreationDate="2015-07-08T22:24:49.150" UserId="520" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="In addition to [what Kyle said][1], feel free to flag one instance for moderator attention with a custom flag reason. Giving us some links to the others in the flag is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll look at them for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* appropriateness to individual questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the degree to which they might constitute spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the possibility that if they really are warranted on those several question we should be merging the questions as duplicates (and then killing the duplicated answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to add that the policy of voting the content and not the user is usually interpreted as implying that you should not single out a single user for down-votes. If you find yourself using the &quot;all actions&quot; tab in another user's profile to hunt down post to dislike you are straying into the dark side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote the posts that you see as you judge them and trust in the crowd to do the right thing in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6886/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="ad41fa75-2c0a-4935-9377-e114d1cd93ec" CreationDate="2015-07-10T00:39:50.070" UserId="520" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="I know you could just leave a comment, but not in this case I couldn't. I just found this awesome app while researching on my passion, physics. I stumbled across [a question about time dilation][1], not the easiest concept to grasp, and a commenter had his own question within his comment, just wasn't  looking at the answer correctly. So, I stared at this screen, going to different links forever and it was impossible since I have no, &quot;points&quot;, since I just signed up. I clicked on, &quot;answer&quot; and FINALLY, it let me speak. Intellectual curiosity is an amazing thing. Well, next thing I know, I got my first comment and flag all in one. All you scientists know how important it is for more and more people to have a scientific world view if we're planning on living on this planet for much longer. So I gave him an easy layman's answer to fully understand the answer.  We all know you don't have to know the math to have that burning curiosity of the unknown, and the want to understand and wrap your mind around things you had no idea was wrappable. I believe I gave this user a just as valid answer as the mathematical answer. Do you? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90745/gravity-on-the-international-space-station-general-relativity-perspective/192950#192950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="d4346d39-4517-42d5-9321-a5166883fcb4" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:56:13.520" UserId="85543" Text="I wrote this: http://www.lind-i.com/Docs/EconomicCircuitry.pdf and a couple other related papers and I'd like to discuss, where should I go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="d4346d39-4517-42d5-9321-a5166883fcb4" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:56:13.520" UserId="85543" Text="Where should I ask a question about abstract physics/economics/information theory that I invented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="d4346d39-4517-42d5-9321-a5166883fcb4" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:56:13.520" UserId="85543" Text="|discussion|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="fd596688-0133-4e7e-be60-6267fb413ded" CreationDate="2015-07-10T09:13:06.107" UserId="124" Text="Not here, and probably not anywhere on Stack Exchange. These sites are not for discussion. You should find some place that admits reviews of original research. (Well, _actually_ what you should do is try to get it published, but that's a whole separate issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try bringing it up in [chat](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) to see if anyone would care to discuss it with you, but no guarantees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="31ccd1ce-6021-44af-ab44-de88dc238486" CreationDate="2015-07-10T11:27:33.370" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I wrote [this](http://www.lind-i.com/Docs/EconomicCircuitry.pdf) and a couple other related papers and I'd like to discuss, where should I go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="f0e2d0c1-9dfd-47c1-867c-7382eb9b500f" CreationDate="2015-07-14T16:23:07.820" UserId="23473" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriate setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier each month for twelve months. One whole year *[insert subtle reference to the appropriateness of the title here]*. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third winner was: **Jim the Enchanter** (with a nice profile pic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth winner was: **Jims Bond**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change will occur on **July 15**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired; however, due to lack of interest on the part of the community, this may be the last name change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="a23b5d00-004b-45e5-b7e5-dc086f83e1a6" CreationDate="2015-07-15T13:17:36.530" UserId="28745" Text="Once in while, &#xD;&#xA;someone will insist dark matter is no particles, which is totally possible, but not likely, and insist curved space (or ________) is the only possible. When you explain this to him or her, he will reply you something totally irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't understand is why they so insist? &#xD;&#xA;What should I do with that? Only downvote? These people really making the atmosphere not good. Downvote so far seem not working very effectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="a23b5d00-004b-45e5-b7e5-dc086f83e1a6" CreationDate="2015-07-15T13:17:36.530" UserId="28745" Text="Why some people insist one unlikely possibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="a23b5d00-004b-45e5-b7e5-dc086f83e1a6" CreationDate="2015-07-15T13:17:36.530" UserId="28745" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="3d883f6a-24d2-45f5-b484-6ca6e50632a8" CreationDate="2015-07-15T14:17:11.980" UserId="23473" Text="There are a few different types of users that can be known to behave like this. Some we can do something about, some we can't, and some we can but shouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first type of user likely to exhibit this behaviour is the **next Einstein** user; one that is not well-studied in physics and has thought up their own &quot;theory&quot; concerning the issue. Often times, they will learn some idea from pop-science that is either wrong or misunderstood. The theory they create will be, to them at least, simple, intuitive, and obvious, yet still based on the incorrect physics ideas. When you confront them about it and give reasons why their way of thinking is either wrong or not the only way of thinking, they *usually* cite meaningless examples or ideas and claim you are missing the point of their genius. These users are easy to deal with and sometimes fun to engage. Often, their posts are non-mainstream and can be closed. Their answers don't usually attempt to answer the question and can be deleted. If they do have a valid attempt at an answer, it can be downvoted if wrong. Basically, treat their posts like any others and don't let it bother you that they won't be swayed. Next Einstein users will always be a problem, you just have to learn to live with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next type of user likely to exhibit this behaviour is a **technically proficient troll**. These users know enough about the subject matter to be able to answer questions, but they choose to do so in ways that are deliberately misleading and/or obfuscating. Sadly, there's not much we can do about them. Do not engage these users. That way lies madness. A technically proficient troll knows how to work the system so that they don't get banned and their answers don't get deleted. Just ignore them if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next type of user is what I call a **fringe physicist**. These users are people that know the physics fully well, but they seem to strongly dislike adhering to mainstream viewpoints. This may be because they secretly cling to their own theories, which skews their perspective of the real physics, or perhaps because they are simply the physics version of hipsters. It doesn't really matter. These users are arguably the most annoying of the bunch because they will always find a way to argue with you about accepted physics and will always make their posts emphasize the fringe or less accepted theories (with the occasional reference to their own unsubstantiated viewpoints) and will always try to downplay or cast doubt on accepted theories. You *can* attempt to reason with these users, and that is their redeeming quality. Usually they will accept that you are trying to showcase the accepted mainstream viewpoints so long as you give the fringe ideas an honorable mention. But when you confront them about a post and tell them they should omit personal viewpoints or mention the more accepted theories, they will usually mention some unrelated details and complicate the issue. Sadly, there is not much that can be done here. If you disagree with how they present their answer, downvote it, that is all. I don't like it any more than you when someone that knows the physics focuses on fringe or non-mainstream ideas to explain a simple concept to someone. It's misleading and it makes physics look like it has no clue what it is doing (and I suspect some of them are trying to get exactly that message across). These users will likely accuse you of being dogmatic and of having a restrictive view of the world. Don't let it bother you. This site is primarily meant to showcase the accepted and mainstream views of physics, not explore or emphasize fringe ideas. They just don't seem to remember that fact most of the time. However, these users are still valuable members of the community because a majority of cases they will present answers to questions where there are no fringe theories and knowing their stuff, they will get it right. Fringe physicists are all around. You will have to deal with many of them and learn how to get along. Do not let them push you around and be vigilant to make sure they do not lead people too far astray. But in general, avoid them if you know they will be acting fringey and be friendly all the other times. These people have chosen a valid point of view, it's just a bit grating at times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last type of user I can think of is the **active researcher**; an actual physicist working on a paper or research of some kind in that area. For instance, if a physicist is working heavily on $f(R)$ theories or on massive gravity, they might be more likely to focus only on those alternatives to dark energy/dark matter. This is fine. They can provide valuable insight into alternative theories about a topic. Unlike the previous class of users, these ones have excellent reasons for wanting to focus solely on the alternatives to mainstream. They will likely not hesitate to briefly mention the mainstream theories if pressed, but it's probable that they are leaving it out of their posts so that someone more experienced with them can write about them. We absolutely like these users and even if we could do something about them, we shouldn't. Physicists working on not-yet-mainstream research should be encouraged but sometimes reminded that their work is not the only solution. They can forget that sometimes; it happens to the best of us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, however, treat a post like any other. If you don't agree with it, downvote it and leave a nice comment explaining what you dislike (DON'T engage the technically proficient troll!). If it's irrelevant or not a fit for where it was posted, flag it for close/deletion. If you explain yourself and make it clear they haven't included a mainstream viewpoint but they still insist their view is the only possible solution, ignore them. Unless you know how to deal with this situation, it's usually best to ignore  it. Don't wear yourself out trying to convince people, just address their errors, downvote it, do what you can, then move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="b094936f-4853-4b6a-a7eb-6da84bfbeb11" CreationDate="2015-07-15T14:41:59.963" UserId="23473" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriate setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier each month for twelve months. One whole year *[insert subtle reference to the appropriateness of the title here]*. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third winner was: **Jim the Enchanter** (with a nice profile pic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth winner was: **Jims Bond**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fifth winner was: **Jimself** (by a technicality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change (if it happens) will occur on **August 14**. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired; however, due to lack of interest on the part of the community, this may be the last name change (back to Jim)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="16042014-e3a1-4774-8ad0-7f8648aaa19b" CreationDate="2015-07-15T15:12:21.800" UserId="23473" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There are a few different types of users that can be known to behave like this. Some we can do something about, some we can't, and some we can but shouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first type of user likely to exhibit this behaviour is the **next Einstein** user; one that is not well-studied in physics and has thought up their own &quot;theory&quot; concerning the issue. Often times, they will learn some idea from pop-science that is either wrong or misunderstood. The theory they create will be, to them at least, simple, intuitive, and obvious, yet still based on the incorrect physics ideas. When you confront them about it and give reasons why their way of thinking is either wrong or not the only way of thinking, they *usually* cite meaningless examples or ideas and claim you are missing the point of their genius. These users are easy to deal with and sometimes fun to engage. Often, their posts are non-mainstream and can be closed. Their answers don't usually attempt to answer the question and can be deleted. If they do have a valid attempt at an answer, it can be downvoted if wrong. Basically, treat their posts like any others and don't let it bother you that they won't be swayed. Next Einstein users will always be a problem, you just have to learn to live with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next type of user likely to exhibit this behaviour is a **technically proficient troll**. These users know enough about the subject matter to be able to answer questions, but they choose to do so in ways that are deliberately misleading and/or obfuscating. Sadly, there's not much we can do about them. Do not engage these users. That way lies madness. A technically proficient troll knows how to work the system so that they don't get banned and their answers don't get deleted. Just ignore them if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next type of user is what I call a **fringe physicist**. These users are people that know the physics fully well, but they seem to strongly dislike adhering to mainstream viewpoints. This may be because they secretly cling to their own theories, which skews their perspective of the real physics, or perhaps because they are simply the physics version of hipsters. It doesn't really matter. These users are arguably the most annoying of the bunch because they will always find a way to argue with you about accepted physics and will always make their posts emphasize the fringe or less accepted theories (with the occasional reference to their own unsubstantiated viewpoints) and will always try to downplay or cast doubt on accepted theories. You *can* attempt to reason with these users, and that is their redeeming quality. Usually they will accept that you are trying to showcase the accepted mainstream viewpoints so long as you give the fringe ideas an honorable mention. But when you confront them about a post and tell them they should omit personal viewpoints or mention the more accepted theories, they will usually mention some unrelated details and complicate the issue. Sadly, there is not much that can be done here. If you disagree with how they present their answer, downvote it, that is all. I don't like it any more than you when someone that knows the physics focuses on fringe or non-mainstream ideas to explain a simple concept to someone. It's misleading and it makes physics look like it has no clue what it is doing (and I suspect some of them are trying to get exactly that message across). These users will likely accuse you of being dogmatic and of having a restrictive view of the world. Don't let it bother you. This site is primarily meant to showcase the accepted and mainstream views of physics, not explore or emphasize fringe ideas. They just don't seem to remember that fact most of the time. However, these users are still valuable members of the community because in a majority of cases they will present answers to questions where there are no fringe theories and, knowing their stuff, they will get it right. Fringe physicists are all around. You will have to deal with many of them and learn how to get along. Do not let them push you around and be vigilant to make sure they do not lead people too far astray. But in general, avoid them if you know they will be acting fringey and be friendly all the other times. These people have chosen a valid point of view, it's just a bit grating at times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last type of user I can think of is the **active researcher**; an actual physicist working on a paper or research of some kind in that area. For instance, if a physicist is working heavily on $f(R)$ theories or on massive gravity, they might be more likely to focus only on those alternatives to dark energy/dark matter. This is fine. They can provide valuable insight into alternative theories about a topic. Unlike the previous class of users, these ones have excellent reasons for wanting to focus solely on the alternatives to mainstream. They will likely not hesitate to briefly mention the mainstream theories if pressed, but it's probable that they are leaving it out of their posts so that someone more experienced with them can write about them. We absolutely like these users and even if we could do something about them, we shouldn't. Physicists working on not-yet-mainstream research should be encouraged but sometimes reminded that their work is not the only solution. They can forget that sometimes; it happens to the best of us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, however, treat a post like any other. If you don't agree with it, downvote it and leave a nice comment explaining what you dislike (DON'T engage the technically proficient troll!). If it's irrelevant or not a fit for where it was posted, flag it for close/deletion. If you explain yourself and make it clear they haven't included a mainstream viewpoint but they still insist their view is the only possible solution, ignore them. Unless you know how to deal with this situation, it's usually best to ignore  it. Don't wear yourself out trying to convince people, just address their errors, downvote it, do what you can, then move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="87b18fc0-d2f6-4cb1-b732-524cb5437625" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:11:32.013" UserId="63055" Text="Say I have an answer which gets 30 upvotes. After a time I realize the answer is wrong. Should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a) delete the answer?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b) edit the answer to be correct?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern with the approach in b) is that whatever I write in my new answer will not be vetted by the 30 people who upvoted my original answer. Since they aren't notified of the changes, I don't think it is fair to keep their stamp of approval attached to whatever I write. That would amount to the 30 upvotes being an endorsement of me as a knowledge source rather than an endorsement of the ideas in the original answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, according to the [help page on editing][1], edits are to be used for correcting minor mistakes or clarifications which *do not change the meaning* of the post. I believe the reasoning behind that is to address the above concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-post is in reference to [Fundamental question about dimensional analysis][2] as suggested by dmckee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/fundamental-question-about-dimensional-analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="87b18fc0-d2f6-4cb1-b732-524cb5437625" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:11:32.013" UserId="63055" Text="If I have a highly upvoted answer that I realize to be wrong, should I delete it or edit it to be correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="87b18fc0-d2f6-4cb1-b732-524cb5437625" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:11:32.013" UserId="63055" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6924" RevisionGUID="8de3d460-0674-4d1e-bc6c-bb5336220e15" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:35:30.443" UserId="4846" Text="Just deleting a wrong answer is not good, especially if it is far from obvious that the answer is wrong. Silently correcting the answer is not much better either. You could instead leave the original answer basically untouched, add a warning at the begin that the answer is wrong, and possibly add an appendix explaining why the answer is wrong, and how this might be fixed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="85076896-4e4b-4203-b341-18dc2305fca8" CreationDate="2015-07-15T19:14:45.697" UserId="63055" Comment="Emphasis on general application of question" Text="Say I have an answer which gets 30 upvotes. After a time I realize the answer is wrong. Should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a) delete the answer?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b) edit the answer to be correct?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern with the approach in b) is that whatever I write in my new answer will not be vetted by the 30 people who upvoted my original answer. Since they aren't notified of the changes, I don't think it is fair to keep their stamp of approval attached to whatever I write. That would amount to the 30 upvotes being an endorsement of me as a knowledge source rather than an endorsement of the ideas in the original answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, according to the [help page on editing][1], edits are to be used for correcting minor mistakes or clarifications which *do not change the meaning* of the post. I believe the reasoning behind that is to address the above concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please treat the scope of this question as general, but the discussion was spurred by  [Fundamental question about dimensional analysis][2] as suggested by dmckee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/fundamental-question-about-dimensional-analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="e18511b1-8c14-44d6-874f-f4a75b5dfdcf" CreationDate="2015-07-15T19:21:01.330" UserId="25301" Text="This was addressed in this [**Mother Meta post**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8879/). The answers there basically say there are three things you can/should do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote &amp; comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Provide a new, correct answer&#xD;&#xA; 3. Flag for moderator attention (reserved for *dangerously* incorrect &amp; *doesn't answer the question* answers; though neither really make sense in context of a highly upvoted answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Editing isn't discussed at all in that Meta post, which suggests that it shouldn't be done. I also have [argued in the past](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/) about **not** correcting incorrect answers (except for the case of a typo, as DavidZ mentions in a comment on my post there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, dmckee did mark the post in question as Community Wiki, giving control over the post to the *Physics.SE community* to own &amp; edit. I cannot find anything in Mother Meta about this particular case (links welcome!), which suggests that it's probably pretty rare (read: handled case-by-case per site) or may not have happened before (read: no network-wide precedence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="dd190730-2bdc-48b2-b2f5-b51ea69d0f5b" CreationDate="2015-07-15T19:39:41.953" UserId="25301" Comment="corrected answer." Text="A similar case was addressed in this [**Mother Meta post**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155049/) (does not mention &quot;high vote,&quot; but I expect that the answer is the same regardless). The accepted answer there says that you should **edit it** if there is no existing correct answer and **delete it** if there is an existing correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even further, Shawn Chin states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Better yet, to keep the post clean, replace the wrong answer with an footnote which mentions your previous answer and include a link to the relevant revision of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because revision histories are public, anyone (even unregistered users) can see them, so why not give them a direct link to the old wrong answer&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This will let future visitors see the history of what was the original answer, if they so desire, but keep the *correct* answer present for all to see first (which is more important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt; Like [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/e18511b1-8c14-44d6-874f-f4a75b5dfdcf/view-source) for this particular post. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6924" RevisionGUID="6abef140-d0f8-48ba-b4e1-afa090c75a4f" CreationDate="2015-07-15T19:55:24.550" UserId="4846" Comment="We are talking about a specific case here, so I might just as well add details of this specific case." Text="Just deleting a wrong answer is not good, especially if it is far from obvious that the answer is wrong. Silently correcting the answer is not much better either. You could instead leave the original answer basically untouched, add a warning at the begin that the answer is wrong, and possibly add an appendix explaining why the answer is wrong, and how this might be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is also what dmckee did initially (http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/7673/5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###**Addendum:** It has been brought to my attention that the argument herein is specious. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See [DOI: 10.1021/ed1000476](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed1000476) *&quot;Can One Take the Logarithm or the Sine of a Dimensioned Quantity or a Unit? Dimensional Analysis Involving Transcendental Functions&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When later comments asked for more details about why the argument is specious, he made the answer a community wiki, such that somebody else could add these details, if he cares enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruslan cared enough to provide those details. Funnily enough, he initially also provided an argument why the cited paper is wrong and the original answer is correct. He later weakened this to saying that the cited paper is only physically wrong, but mathematically correct. My guess is that the paper is just wrong, but Ruslan is unsure how to nail down the mathematical mistake, so he tries to stay on the safe side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6926" RevisionGUID="0635bc8e-fa00-40df-bc26-e3073fa80757" CreationDate="2015-07-15T20:12:49.433" UserId="63055" Text="We are allowed to edit [without changing the meaning][1] of our posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because if I espouse Theory A and you upvote my post and then I realize Theory A is wrong and change my post to say Theory B is right, then it appears that the community supports Theory B. Regardless of whether Theory B is actually right or not, the community *never got to vote on Theory B*, and that is bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I believe we should recommend that if an OP realizes their answer is wrong that they delete it and post the correct answer separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6926" RevisionGUID="eeff974e-795a-4a60-91c1-70d8e184f6cb" CreationDate="2015-07-15T20:56:39.990" UserId="63055" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="We are allowed to edit [without changing the meaning][1] of our posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because if I espouse Theory A and you upvote my post and then I realize Theory A is wrong and change my post to say Theory B is right, then it appears that the community supports Theory B. Regardless of whether Theory B is actually right or not, the community *never got to vote on Theory B*, and that is bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I believe we should recommend that if an OP realizes their answer is wrong that they delete it and post the correct answer separately (if they know it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="db54d3e6-dd0f-4ba6-93ce-9319d8d98eb8" CreationDate="2015-07-16T01:49:20.997" UserId="25301" Comment="added 1097 characters in body" Text="A similar case was addressed in this [**Mother Meta post**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155049/) (does not mention &quot;high vote,&quot; but I expect that the answer is the same regardless). The accepted answer there says that you should **edit it** if there is no existing correct answer and **delete it** if there is an existing correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even further, Shawn Chin states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Better yet, to keep the post clean, replace the wrong answer with an footnote which mentions your previous answer and include a link to the relevant revision of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because revision histories are public, anyone (even unregistered users) can see them, so why not give them a direct link to the old wrong answer&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This will let future visitors see the history of what was the original answer, if they so desire, but keep the *correct* answer present for all to see first (which is more important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer has been accepted by the OP, you cannot delete it without moderator intervention. What you can do here is try asking the OP to unaccept your answer (comments under their question would probably be best) so that you could then attack it as above (edit if no correct answer is there, delete if a correct answer exists). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they *don't* respond then you're in a bit of a pickle: do you (a) edit it for future viewers, OP's non-acceptance be damned or (b) post a new, correct answer, and never get the *right* answer accepted&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;? This, of course, is the dilemma we face here, as the OP in the question in question has not visited the site since September of 2011 (and has only asked *that one* question). I'd probably lean towards (a) myself, but it really is a judgement call best left to the answerer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Like [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/e18511b1-8c14-44d6-874f-f4a75b5dfdcf/view-source) for this particular post. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Technically speaking, the accepted answer only indicates that that answer helped OP the most. Contrary to the opinion held by many people on this site, it does **not** signify correctness of the answer. So really this point is kinda a non-issue.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="74b6558a-a876-4f4b-a682-78be26e8d0a4" CreationDate="2015-07-16T15:39:45.633" UserId="57075" Text="A month or so ago, we had a [question](https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2uvj.png) stemming from legal interests. The question mostly follows the site's guidelines, and it doesn't seem promotional in content. But certain characteristics of the questions make it seem of an interest not those of &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy&quot; as specified in the site definition. The question was later closed as off-topic due to the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question might have some educational value useful for the community, but making use of the sincere services of users who want to contribute to society, for something else is not fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions challenge the very definition of Physics and other sites. Therefore, should we change the site definition to indicate utilisation of the site for such interests are not encouraged ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="74b6558a-a876-4f4b-a682-78be26e8d0a4" CreationDate="2015-07-16T15:39:45.633" UserId="57075" Text="How do we deal with people utilising Physics for interests other than that specified in the site definition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="74b6558a-a876-4f4b-a682-78be26e8d0a4" CreationDate="2015-07-16T15:39:45.633" UserId="57075" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="962908d5-8a1f-4688-9223-20f1b1f7e90e" CreationDate="2015-07-16T16:49:01.170" UserId="22254" Text="This is a subtype of 'solve my exam for me' questions. Legally binding opinions are off-topic on most Stack Exchange sites, and &quot;do my work for free&quot; is quickly closed anyway. In ye olde days, it was 'too localized', now it can be closed as 'Blatantly off-topic'. Until the poster appeals on meta, I can see no reason to change the FAQ/on-topic blurbs. BTW, upvoted your post this time, although you could inline the image for _more clarity_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="b5d6e3af-63d2-48ad-af25-4cf2d612d488" CreationDate="2015-07-17T05:40:17.143" UserId="1325" Text="Much as I'd like to make it a capital offence, we can't stop people posting inappropriate questions (or answers). We just have to put in place the mechanisms for dealing with them. And it seems to me these worked well in this case. The question was closed in about eight hours, and subsequently [automatically deleted][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a shame it took eight hours to close what was obviously an inappropriate question, but we only have a limited number of members who are active reviewers, and some of them have real lives. The way to improve the site is to encourage wider participation in reviewing. You only need 3,000 rep to take part in reviewing, though the 10,000 rep needed to vote to delete is a bit more ambitious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78048/enable-automatic-deletion-of-old-unanswered-zero-score-questions-after-a-year/92006#92006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="894d9a40-fa0e-4980-8599-dc41e7af9a67" CreationDate="2015-07-17T07:51:41.607" UserId="57075" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="A month or so ago, we had a [question](https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2uvj.png) stemming from legal interests. The question mostly follows the site's guidelines, and it doesn't seem promotional in content. But certain characteristics of the questions make it seem of an interest not those of &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy&quot; as specified in the site definition. The question was later closed as off-topic due to the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question might have some educational value useful for the community, but making use of the sincere services of users who want to contribute to society, for something else is not fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions challenge the very definition of Physics and other sites. Therefore, should we modify the FAQs or any other appropriate place which form the guidelines of the site to formally indicate utilisation of the site for such interests are not encouraged ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="894d9a40-fa0e-4980-8599-dc41e7af9a67" CreationDate="2015-07-17T07:51:41.607" UserId="57075" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Should we modify the site guidelines to deal with people utilising Physics for interests other than that specified in the site definition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="3b21f4ca-dc0f-45d0-ab4f-b8638f739ebb" CreationDate="2015-07-17T08:02:09.317" UserId="57075" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="A month or so ago, we had a [question](https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2uvj.png) stemming from legal interests. The question mostly follows the site's guidelines, and it doesn't seem promotional in content. But certain characteristics of the questions make it seem of an interest not those of &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy&quot; as specified in the site definition. The question was later closed as off-topic due to the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question might have some educational value useful for the community, but making use of the sincere services of users who want to contribute to society, for something else is not fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions challenge the very definition of Physics and other sites. Therefore, should we modify the guidelines of the site to formally indicate utilisation of the site for such interests are not encouraged ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="2834b3ab-4497-48b8-b6a7-cf1e1020aab8" CreationDate="2015-07-17T16:46:11.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/622084894139752449" />
  <row Id="18805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="0b9976e2-7b91-4220-bf97-376c39bce110" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:46:52.943" UserId="31790" Text="There's always been a bit of fuzz around the issue of on-topic-ness of math (and engineering, but that's a discussion for another day) type questions on our site.&#xD;&#xA;Many questions which are in content strictly mathematical would best be answered by a physicist because either the math topic is known mostly to physicists, because the asker is interested in the mathematics mostly as it relates to a physical system, or because the asker wants a physicist's perspective on the math itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From one point of view, the fact that a physicist's answer is wanted doesn't matter; math questions belong on [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;This is unsatisfying though, as those who frequent Physics.SE do not necessarily frequent Math.SE, so good answers for the type of question described above may be difficult to obtain if we just post such questions to Math.SE (or migrate them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What combination of the following strategies should we use to draw attention to their physics-oriented, yet strictly mathematical in content, questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Post to Math.SE and advertise the question in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Campaign to get users of Physics.SE to subscribe to the Physics and Mathematical-Physics tags on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Provide a link on Physics.SE to Physics tagged questions on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. or any other ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, what can we do to keep strictly math questions off Physics.SE while encouraging our users to answer those questions on Math.SE?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="0b9976e2-7b91-4220-bf97-376c39bce110" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:46:52.943" UserId="31790" Text="How can we encourage our users to answer physics oriented math questions on Math.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="0b9976e2-7b91-4220-bf97-376c39bce110" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:46:52.943" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6931" RevisionGUID="4e09242a-802e-455f-9102-6e4283567ef9" CreationDate="2015-07-20T06:14:51.880" UserId="124" Text="Choice (1), linking to the question in chat, is an old standby and usually works pretty well. These links often get starred so they draw attention even after they've rotated out of the main chat window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choice (3) is feasible through a community ad, which could link to the relevant tag pages on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choice (2) could be handled on chat - it'd be a decent topic for our biweekly chat sessions, i.e. highlighting recent physics-themed questions of interest on Math.SE. But the main site doesn't really provide a good venue for this sort of campaign. (By design.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="9f7f781e-3559-4c05-b6f8-214582a96718" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:08:26.657" UserId="50583" Text="How about&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Jimtrinsic&#xA;&#xA;where jimtrinsic qualities are the Jim-like qualities every Jim inherently possesses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="59c895bf-ce03-43b5-9f89-b331d8de5fe8" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:55:44.343" UserId="23473" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are a few different types of users that can be known to behave like this. Some we can do something about, some we can't, and some we can but shouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first type of user likely to exhibit this behaviour is the **&quot;next Einstein&quot;** user; one that is not well-studied in physics and has thought up their own &quot;theory&quot; concerning the issue. Often times, they will learn some idea from pop-science that is either wrong or misunderstood. The theory they create will be, to them at least, simple, intuitive, and obvious, yet still based on the incorrect physics ideas. When you confront them about it and give reasons why their way of thinking is either wrong or not the only way of thinking, they *usually* cite meaningless examples or ideas and claim you are missing the point of their genius. These users are easy to deal with and sometimes fun to engage. Often, their posts are non-mainstream and can be closed. Their answers don't usually attempt to answer the question and can be deleted. If they do have a valid attempt at an answer, it can be downvoted if wrong. Basically, treat their posts like any others and don't let it bother you that they won't be swayed. Next Einstein users will always be a problem, you just have to learn to live with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next type of user likely to exhibit this behaviour is a **technically proficient troll**. These users know enough about the subject matter to be able to answer questions, but they choose to do so in ways that are deliberately misleading and/or obfuscating. Sadly, there's not much we can do about them. Do not engage these users. That way lies madness. A technically proficient troll knows how to work the system so that they don't get banned and their answers don't get deleted. Just ignore them if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next type of user is what I call a **fringe physicist**. These users are people that know the physics fully well, but they seem to strongly dislike adhering to mainstream viewpoints. This may be because they secretly cling to their own theories, which skews their perspective of the real physics, or perhaps because they are simply the physics version of hipsters. It doesn't really matter. These users are arguably the most annoying of the bunch because they will always find a way to argue with you about accepted physics and will always make their posts emphasize the fringe or less accepted theories (with the occasional reference to their own unsubstantiated viewpoints) and will always try to downplay or cast doubt on accepted theories. You *can* attempt to reason with these users, and that is their redeeming quality. Usually they will accept that you are trying to showcase the accepted mainstream viewpoints so long as you give the fringe ideas an honorable mention. But when you confront them about a post and tell them they should omit personal viewpoints or mention the more accepted theories, they will usually mention some unrelated details and complicate the issue. Sadly, there is not much that can be done here. If you disagree with how they present their answer, downvote it, that is all. I don't like it any more than you when someone that knows the physics focuses on fringe or non-mainstream ideas to explain a simple concept to someone. It's misleading and it makes physics look like it has no clue what it is doing (and I suspect some of them are trying to get exactly that message across). These users will likely accuse you of being dogmatic and of having a restrictive view of the world. Don't let it bother you. This site is primarily meant to showcase the accepted and mainstream views of physics, not explore or emphasize fringe ideas. They just don't seem to remember that fact most of the time. However, these users are still valuable members of the community because in a majority of cases they will present answers to questions where there are no fringe theories and, knowing their stuff, they will get it right. Fringe physicists are all around. You will have to deal with many of them and learn how to get along. Do not let them push you around and be vigilant to make sure they do not lead people too far astray. But in general, avoid them if you know they will be acting fringey and be friendly all the other times. These people have chosen a valid point of view, it's just a bit grating at times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last type of user I can think of is the **active researcher**; an actual physicist working on a paper or research of some kind in that area. For instance, if a physicist is working heavily on $f(R)$ theories or on massive gravity, they might be more likely to focus only on those alternatives to dark energy/dark matter. This is fine. They can provide valuable insight into alternative theories about a topic. Unlike the previous class of users, these ones have excellent reasons for wanting to focus solely on the alternatives to mainstream. They will likely not hesitate to briefly mention the mainstream theories if pressed, but it's probable that they are leaving it out of their posts so that someone more experienced with them can write about them. We absolutely like these users and even if we could do something about them, we shouldn't. Physicists working on not-yet-mainstream research should be encouraged but sometimes reminded that their work is not the only solution. They can forget that sometimes; it happens to the best of us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, however, treat a post like any other. If you don't agree with it, downvote it and leave a nice comment explaining what you dislike (DON'T engage the technically proficient troll!). If it's irrelevant or not a fit for where it was posted, flag it for close/deletion. If you explain yourself and make it clear they haven't included a mainstream viewpoint but they still insist their view is the only possible solution, ignore them. Unless you know how to deal with this situation, it's usually best to ignore  it. Don't wear yourself out trying to convince people, just address their errors, downvote it, do what you can, then move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="1a8c5334-ebfe-449e-be07-3776c4a9f46b" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:59:19.300" UserId="124" Text="In the interest of keeping meta clear of unanswered questions: I suspect this would not be appropriate. If you were to justify why this needs to be done in the context of a research-level physics experiment, then it might be acceptable, but in general I'd expect it to get closed if you post it on the main site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="cb4e8a52-d7fc-4d46-9aa8-e0abca7f9490" CreationDate="2015-07-21T15:22:39.927" UserId="37286" Text="I never liked how rude the tone here becomes if one asks question about a mathematical concept that is used in a physical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who exactly decided and more importantly why, that mathematical concepts which are used exclusively by physicists nowadays shouldn't be discussed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematicians and almost everyone at Math.SE care about different things than physicist. Even if one gets an answer at Math.SE it is seldom satisfactory for a physicists. Many topics that are very important for physicists aren't interesting for mathematicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tag, which makes clear that a question is about a specific mathematical concept that is used in a physical theory/framework, would be a much better solution than writing comments below every such questions: &quot;This belongs to Math.SE&quot; etc. Everyone who dislikes such questions can then block this tag.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18813" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="29403487-5cca-48d0-ad61-842bfda77789" CreationDate="2015-07-22T14:12:21.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/623858120763252737" />
  <row Id="18814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="ceb3d503-c2e8-46d7-bc5f-3e65fd560a1f" CreationDate="2015-07-23T03:56:04.410" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added link to common grammar mistake" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles (and how to fix a couple of them)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][3]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][4]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][5]&#xD;&#xA;6. [Need help solving physics problem][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a [grammatically well-formed question][7] if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Capitalize only the first word and [proper nouns][8] in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183696/need-help-solving-physics-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/20730/why-do-my-how-to-questions-often-get-renamed-to-how-do-i&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="6723f282-43eb-4678-b955-34a8aaea18b3" CreationDate="2015-07-23T16:54:17.503" UserId="63690" Text="I have seen several answers that I would like to add to a set of handouts or a departmentally generated text.&#xD;&#xA;1) How do I get permission, or is it granted automatically by the nature of this site?&#xD;&#xA;2) How do I give credit, especially if the author uses a pseudonym?&#xD;&#xA;2a) Is there a way to notify an author you would like to contact them offsite without giving others (the general population) your direct contact info?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="6723f282-43eb-4678-b955-34a8aaea18b3" CreationDate="2015-07-23T16:54:17.503" UserId="63690" Text="Getting permission to reproduce an answer (with authorship credit) for a class handout/text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="6723f282-43eb-4678-b955-34a8aaea18b3" CreationDate="2015-07-23T16:54:17.503" UserId="63690" Text="|discussion|etiquette|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="72e88038-6363-4d70-9e4d-a20eb51254c1" CreationDate="2015-07-23T16:59:11.587" UserId="520" Text="The license is set out in the &quot;[legal][1]&quot; link to be found in the footer of every page. It's a Creative commons attribution based license. I believe that the Creative Commons people feel that crediting a pseudonym covers the attribution requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can attempt to contact individual authors on the site, or you can look in their profile for other contact information. You can assume that users who don't put contact info in their profiles probably don't want to be bothered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="b342e6ab-c34e-4f06-bc76-7e617b004890" CreationDate="2015-07-23T17:05:29.447" UserId="520" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="The license is set out in the &quot;[legal][1]&quot; link to be found in the footer of every page. It's a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. I believe that the Creative Commons people feel that crediting a pseudonym covers the attribution requirement, and it is at least conceivable that a pseudonymous author may not want their real identity associated with the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can attempt to contact individual authors on the site, or you can look in their profile for other contact information. You can assume that users who don't put contact info in their profiles probably don't want to be bothered. In my case you could work out my real contact info from a little digging, but I don't want to be pestered; so, please, only contact me directly for issues of import.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="bbd78532-79a4-44c0-bbd3-177ef879ba65" CreationDate="2015-07-23T17:58:20.893" UserId="23473" Text="The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/195610/newtons-second-law is awesome. It gives the problem, what the OP did to solve it, and then it asks a conceptual question about something that didn't make sense to the OP. They got the answer correctly and the question shows a clear desire to learn more about the actual physics. This is the ideal we all look for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="22fa8d67-eca5-4196-9903-edbd732829b2" CreationDate="2015-07-24T01:05:30.533" UserId="31790" Text="|JimUp&gt;+|JimDown&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, each time someone pings you in chat you have to collapse to either |JimUp&gt; or |JimDown&gt; for the rest of the session :P" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18822" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="18db94f7-7f18-4c40-969b-811d30e905cb" CreationDate="2015-07-24T02:12:22.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/624401705111785472" />
  <row Id="18823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="1a2b4404-da2c-4ee4-b600-acf1590efe45" CreationDate="2015-07-25T17:21:31.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/624992889903448064" />
  <row Id="18824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="5e0fe761-face-4943-bf01-f027268a57b5" CreationDate="2015-07-26T12:43:22.693" UserId="2843" Text="Why not migrate the noob &quot;check my answer&quot; type questions to math.se where they are receptive to them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Economics&quot; Stackexchange never made it out of Beta: there were soo many noob questions that no experts could stand the place. &#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[quantitative finance][1]&quot; site however has such an intimidating name that it successfully scares off the homework &quot;check my answer&quot; type people that regularly encounter the &quot;closed as off topic&quot; homework tag here on Physics.SE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we appear too approachable. Maybe something more intimidating like &quot;Quantitative Science&quot; might scare off the noobs. Till then, why not migrate the noob &quot;check my answer&quot; questions to math.se where they are receptive to them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I believe that the Mechanical Engineering SE Beta failed for the same reason as Economics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://quant.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="5e0fe761-face-4943-bf01-f027268a57b5" CreationDate="2015-07-26T12:43:22.693" UserId="2843" Text="Migrate Homework to Math.SE instead of close?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="5e0fe761-face-4943-bf01-f027268a57b5" CreationDate="2015-07-26T12:43:22.693" UserId="2843" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="13e263d5-c1fb-4e9c-9564-3a15b3fcc32c" CreationDate="2015-07-26T13:35:48.547" UserId="24653" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Why not migrate the low-level &quot;check my answer&quot; type questions to math.se where they are receptive to them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Economics&quot; Stackexchange never made it out of Beta: there were so many beginner's level questions that no experts could stand the place. &#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[quantitative finance][1]&quot; site however has such an intimidating name that it successfully scares off the homework &quot;check my answer&quot; type people that regularly encounter the &quot;closed as off topic&quot; homework tag here on Physics.SE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we appear too approachable. Maybe something more intimidating like &quot;Quantitative Science&quot; might scare off unwanted questions. Till then, why not migrate the &quot;check my answer&quot; questions to math.se where they are receptive to them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I believe that the Mechanical Engineering SE Beta failed for the same reason as Economics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://quant.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="21fd0ae5-b265-4930-835a-32aae7d393ab" CreationDate="2015-07-26T13:36:47.420" UserId="24653" Text="The answer is really very simple: This is a bad idea, because *not all physics homework exercises are on-topic on a different site* (in fact, I suspect most aren't). If a question is about physics, it makes zero sense to migrate it to Math.SE. As for homework-type questions that are purely mathematical in nature, I believe we're *already* migrating those to Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="136dbd99-6704-4af5-905f-be4d0bc9e590" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:34:22.943" UserId="63690" Text="Physics (PSE) often gets questions from beginner physics students that would easily be answered in person, and are basic physics contained in a text: &quot;How do I calculate the potential 3 cm from a point charge?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless PSE is trying to become a compendium of introductory textbook physics, I wonder if a better answer would be &quot;go ask your teacher&quot; because then the user could easily answer related follow-up questions without cluttering the comment stream.  (Admittedly, I've never shifted things to a chat room because I don't like on-line live conversations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really mind answering the basics of a first basic question, but when follow-ups begin flowing, and it's obvious the questioner needs a lot of help, I believe that in-person face-to-face interaction would be better for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="136dbd99-6704-4af5-905f-be4d0bc9e590" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:34:22.943" UserId="63690" Text="Is it appropriate to tell someone to ask their teacher first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="136dbd99-6704-4af5-905f-be4d0bc9e590" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:34:22.943" UserId="63690" Text="|discussion|answers|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18832" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="d8076f91-1448-4c81-bb20-03942818e274" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:37:07.123" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|answers|comments|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="9947454c-2cbd-4b83-be2b-3e462512709d" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:45:22.267" UserId="63690" Comment="added 379 characters in body" Text="Physics (PSE) often gets questions from beginner physics students that would easily be answered in person, and are basic physics contained in a text: &quot;How do I calculate the potential 3 cm from a point charge?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless PSE is trying to become a compendium of introductory textbook physics, I wonder if a better answer would be &quot;go ask your teacher&quot; because then the user could easily answer related follow-up questions without cluttering the comment stream.  (Admittedly, I've never shifted things to a chat room because I don't like on-line live conversations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really mind answering the basics of a first basic question, but when follow-ups begin flowing, and it's obvious the questioner needs a lot of help, I believe that in-person face-to-face interaction would be better for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or an alternate response could be: That's a related, but separate question. Post it as a new question.  But if it is a student, why aren't they asking their teacher?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;philosophical pondering&gt; I wonder if some students are uncomfortable with human interaction. Or maybe teachers don't like answering questions and &quot;telegraph&quot; that to their students. &lt;/philosophical pondering&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="1ea8ace9-1f34-41e2-a3ee-9183269c0265" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:59:22.330" UserId="8563" Text="The re-use of all the user-provided content on this site is permitted and encouraged. If you found the answers here helpful and you want to share them with your students, then by all means do so! We only ask that you attribute the content appropriately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More technically, the legal conditions for reuse are spelled out on the footer of every page on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;user contributions licensed under [**cc by-sa 3.0**](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) with [**attribution required**](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific requirements of attribution are given in the second link. Specifically, and quoting from there, you must:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow or the Stack Exchange network in some way. It doesn't have to be obnoxious, a discreet text blurb is fine; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Show the author names for every question and answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, if you publish this content online, you must:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g., `http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345`); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site (e.g., `http://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally you should include the URLs also in printed content. For more details see section 3 (Subscriber Content) of the [Stack Exchange Terms of Service](http://stackexchange.com/legal#attribution), which is available under `legal` on the footer of every page on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an additional requirement from the CC BY-SA license, which is a bit fuzzier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that if you remix the content or you edit parts of it, you must do so in a way which makes that evident and which enables your audience to find the author's original version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding pseudonyms, if a user's profile allows you to personally identify them, then it is indeed nice to provide both the name they publish under and their Stack Exchange pseudonym when giving credit. If the user has not provided their name, then it is perfectly OK to simply attribute the pseudonym: the user contributed the content in the understanding that it was available to all under CC BY-SA with attribution set to the pseudonym. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you nevertheless want to attribute someone personally, it is OK to attempt to contact them as long as you don't do so too often. The first port of call is checking whether the user is available over at [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), our chatroom. If they are not, a short and polite comment under the answer you want to re-use is acceptable. As D. McKee mentioned, doing minor detective work to find the real-life identity of users is generally OK, but please use a good deal of caution and do not pester users off-site!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6943" RevisionGUID="6415a026-1128-4a0e-92db-faf7eaf11da8" CreationDate="2015-07-27T16:31:21.483" UserId="8563" Text="Jim Joyce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/James_Joyce_28_Campden_Grove_blue_plaque.jpg/257px-James_Joyce_28_Campden_Grove_blue_plaque.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="cc66f233-f361-4bd5-82c0-21f49458b8d3" CreationDate="2015-07-27T18:15:10.857" UserId="26539" Text="Of course, if it's difficult to understand a question due to poor wording or grammar, then that would be an appropriate edit. What about edits that change the wording, or alter the writing style without changing the underlying meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point, what about edits that alter the intent or emphasis of the post? e.g. An editor thinks that a certain interpretation is important, and changes an existing answer to emphasize that interpretation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="cc66f233-f361-4bd5-82c0-21f49458b8d3" CreationDate="2015-07-27T18:15:10.857" UserId="26539" Text="Are edits that change writing style or stylistic voice appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="cc66f233-f361-4bd5-82c0-21f49458b8d3" CreationDate="2015-07-27T18:15:10.857" UserId="26539" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18839" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="f532c4ad-5f9e-462d-97a4-2329aa3cf2b7" CreationDate="2015-07-27T19:59:46.457" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="733e8eed-a6a4-4556-869c-e48542c754f8" CreationDate="2015-07-27T20:00:39.320" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="7010b0e6-d333-44e4-aafb-e5dd0aa2af2b" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:27:11.130" UserId="78126" Text="I lost reputation worth 30 points because 'user was removed'.Why should my reputation be lost if someone else's account is deleted.I had give correct answer to the question for which I had initially gained reputation.Why did this happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="7010b0e6-d333-44e4-aafb-e5dd0aa2af2b" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:27:11.130" UserId="78126" Text="Reputation lost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="7010b0e6-d333-44e4-aafb-e5dd0aa2af2b" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:27:11.130" UserId="78126" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="25cabbdd-ac23-4630-9c30-674be2d8ee40" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:38:09.053" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I lost reputation worth 30 points because 'user was removed'.Why should my reputation be lost if someone else's account is deleted.I had give correct answer to the question for which I had initially gained reputation. Why did this happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="25cabbdd-ac23-4630-9c30-674be2d8ee40" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:38:09.053" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18846" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="423d8573-6bef-443a-b618-29013da96abf" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:58:01.100" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6655,1289],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6946" RevisionGUID="7bc8f73a-9558-429e-b37a-3fc67453d152" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:07:17.183" UserId="124" Text="&gt; What about edits that change the wording, or alter the writing style without changing the underlying meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that changing the writing style (or wording) is not _itself_ a reason for an edit to be inappropriate. But it's not a reason to edit either. Yes, if a question is outright _unclear_ because of the writing style, go ahead and fix that, but if it is perfectly understandable and you simply don't like the style, leave it alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another point, what about edits that alter the intent or emphasis of the post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This I'd be more wary of because the choice of emphasis in a post can be a reflection of an author's intent. For example, there are cases where a perfectly valid answer already exists on a question, but I don't feel that it emphasizes the right point, so I post another answer that does emphasize what I think is the important part. If the choice of emphasis is a valid reason to post an entirely separate answer, it follows that altering the choice of emphasis could change an answer from one that represents the OP's intent to one that does not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18848" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="63b7dc3e-8459-48f5-9768-c012a45c034a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:09:52.157" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6947" RevisionGUID="4bd9cf8e-40af-42fa-b036-a3c8cbb5e733" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:28:31.233" UserId="124" Text="&gt; &quot;How do I calculate the potential 3 cm from a point charge?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions like this are the sort of thing we do not want to encourage on this site, for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If that's literally just what the poster asks, it's quite lazy, and we don't want to encourage that. (This community has a strong sense of justice, in the sense that if you want someone to help you, you earn it by helping yourself first.) &#xD;&#xA;- If people ask a lot of these questions on this site, they'll swamp out interesting higher-level or more intricate questions.&#xD;&#xA;- As you said, often people who post these questions need more back-and-forth interaction than we are set up to provide. So they'll receive better help from their teacher, or at least from a traditional forum with a discussion-based posting model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, in many cases it is appropriate to tell someone to ask their teacher first, or to refer them to another site like [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com) which has a dedicated homework help section. If you're going to do this, I would suggest doing so _before_ getting involved in the question. Ideally, flag it for closure, if it qualifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="376a5b62-a48e-45f8-842b-136add14330e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T15:48:10.053" UserId="1325" Text="A while ago a meta post clarified what we expect from members in the way of [prior research][1]. Armed with this very detailed and precise discussion I now vote to close questions if I think they show insufficient prior research. This has in the past raised some controversy, though more recently the site members have either come to agree with me or have got bored with telling me not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all contribute our time and the sweat of our brows for free because we think it makes the world of physics a better place. In return all we ask is that questioners don't take the piss. When they do their questions simply don't deserve to be on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't apply this rule dogmatically because, well, we were all enthusiastic youngsters at one time and enthusiasm can lead you to post first and think second. I'm generally happy to answer a simple question if I think it's been asked out of a genuine interest in the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="eb331c0f-9cd2-4bfd-9251-51b69b6bbc44" CreationDate="2015-07-29T05:03:59.587" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="A while ago a meta post clarified what we expect from members in the way of [prior research][1]. Armed with this very detailed and precise discussion I now vote to close questions if I think they show insufficient prior research. This has in the past raised some controversy, though more recently the site members have either come to agree with me or have got bored with telling me not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all contribute our time and the sweat of our brows for free because we think it makes the world of physics a better place. In return all we ask is that questioners don't take the piss. When they do, their questions simply don't deserve to be on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't apply this rule dogmatically because, well, we were all enthusiastic youngsters at one time and enthusiasm can lead you to post first and think second. I'm generally happy to answer a simple question if I think it's been asked out of a genuine interest in the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="09343dbc-578c-43b3-856b-49ec1538f00a" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:48:30.050" UserId="83359" Text="Every now and then, there are very interesting science questions being posted on the Physics StackExchange. Some of these questions concern very up-to-date research. Does anyone know if any publication has resulted from a post on Physics StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="09343dbc-578c-43b3-856b-49ec1538f00a" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:48:30.050" UserId="83359" Text="Has any new physics problem been solved as a result of discussion on Physics StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="09343dbc-578c-43b3-856b-49ec1538f00a" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:48:30.050" UserId="83359" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18855" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="71c11a43-e9a2-4eca-8e39-5934e67285c0" CreationDate="2015-07-29T22:37:25.257" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-bydesign|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="cebe5ad9-55dd-4bd3-a767-eb2ce45439ee" CreationDate="2015-07-30T15:45:50.717" UserId="78057" Text="Actually, the book question should be kept and any question on resource recommendations should be automatically linked to it.&#xD;&#xA;It is an extremely useful question as it allows for a person to find books on &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="aa2af0f4-31e6-4f33-9848-f5324c6e5599" CreationDate="2015-07-31T04:02:10.403" UserId="57075" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="A month or so ago, we had a [question](https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2uvj.png) (credit to Kyle Kanos for the screenshot) stemming from legal interests. The question mostly follows the site's guidelines, and it doesn't seem promotional in content. But certain characteristics of the questions make it seem of an interest not those of &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy&quot; as specified in the site definition. The question was later closed as off-topic due to the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question might have some educational value useful for the community, but making use of the sincere services of users who want to contribute to society, for something else is not fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions challenge the very definition of Physics and other sites. Therefore, should we modify the guidelines of the site to formally indicate utilisation of the site for such interests are not encouraged ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18858" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="4e22f638-7e1f-40dc-b537-9ebe0e68441a" CreationDate="2015-08-01T11:38:49.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/627443361998352384" />
  <row Id="18859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="a22cda68-03c7-444c-befd-ba8a4bddd4e2" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:43:16.610" UserId="31790" Text="When writing quantum mechanics answers I typically start with something like this at the top:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\renewcommand{ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right\rangle}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a custom macro like this means that I can type \ket{\Psi} instead of \left| \Psi \right\rangle when I want to indicate a quantum state.&#xD;&#xA;This has several benefits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Less typing for me, and I'm less likely to make a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;* Easier for other people to edit my post because it's easier for them to read the TeX.&#xD;&#xA;* Other folks editing the TeX may learn something new about TeX!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it appropriate to add a note explaining the use of \renewcommand (or \newcommand) to the [help center page on MathJax](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="a22cda68-03c7-444c-befd-ba8a4bddd4e2" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:43:16.610" UserId="31790" Text="Should we indicate the use of \renewcommand in the help center?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="a22cda68-03c7-444c-befd-ba8a4bddd4e2" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:43:16.610" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="d06d2a4b-a332-42e3-ac41-005dfbdcf372" CreationDate="2015-08-02T07:33:47.883" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="**Absolutely not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, `\renewcommand` really shouldn't be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Because the title, question, answers, and comments on a page are not in separate MathJax environments. If you use `\renewcommand` (or even `\newcommand`, though that's not quite as bad) you risk clobbering others' contributions. All of a sudden their text will be rendered differently from what they were shown in the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you check that no one else has used the command, you've silently altered the MathJax environment for any future posters. Imagine the frustration from a user unfamiliar with this feature when faced with their answer giving rendering errors in one place that are not reproduceable elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\renewcommand` in a multi-user, evolving environment is the equivalent of re`#define`ing key parts of a language in a public header file. Anyone who loads the file will be unknowingly using your personal variant of the language rather than the standard one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want `\ket` to have some particular meaning, the first step is to have this as a MathJax package (I don't know whether or not this exists), and the second step is to convince the SE team to automatically load this package on physics pages. The other option is to have the team somehow implement MathJax in isolated environments, one per post. (I don't even know if this is feasible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, a little verbosity never hurt anyone. Besides, I'm not sure adding another layer of obfuscation via macros is the best way to help newcomers learn a language. It seems more like giving them a fish (&quot;here, just use this header; don't ask what's in it&quot;) than teaching them to fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the side, I don't think the proposed definition of `\ket` is itself bad (aside from the [erroneous use](http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/498/mid-vertical-bar-vert-lvert-rvert-divides) of `|` rather than `\lvert`...). It's just that this sets a precedent for others to develop more and more complicated macros, probably just copying and pasting from an ever-growing file of personal preferences with more and more ways to potentially break things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="7f180b04-e92e-401d-9e10-d73857ef2d79" CreationDate="2015-08-02T21:19:20.913" UserId="31790" Comment="Slightly language clarification" Text="**Absolutely not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, `\renewcommand` really shouldn't be used at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Because the title, question, answers, and comments on a page are not in separate MathJax environments. If you use `\renewcommand` (or even `\newcommand`, though that's not quite as bad) you risk clobbering others' contributions. All of a sudden their text will be rendered differently from what they were shown in the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you check that no one else has used the command, you've silently altered the MathJax environment for any future posters. Imagine the frustration from a user unfamiliar with this feature when faced with their answer giving rendering errors in one place that are not reproduceable elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\renewcommand` in a multi-user, evolving environment is the equivalent of re`#define`ing key parts of a language in a public header file. Anyone who loads the file will be unknowingly using your personal variant of the language rather than the standard one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want `\ket` to have some particular meaning, the first step is to have this as a MathJax package (I don't know whether or not this exists), and the second step is to convince the SE team to automatically load this package on physics pages. The other option is to have the team somehow implement MathJax in isolated environments, one per post. (I don't even know if this is feasible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, a little verbosity never hurt anyone. Besides, I'm not sure adding another layer of obfuscation via macros is the best way to help newcomers learn a language. It seems more like giving them a fish (&quot;here, just use this header; don't ask what's in it&quot;) than teaching them to fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the side, I don't think the proposed definition of `\ket` is itself bad (aside from the [erroneous use](http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/498/mid-vertical-bar-vert-lvert-rvert-divides) of `|` rather than `\lvert`...). It's just that this sets a precedent for others to develop more and more complicated macros, probably just copying and pasting from an ever-growing file of personal preferences with more and more ways to potentially break things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="0325fefd-8ac9-423a-af45-6fa739a0aef3" CreationDate="2015-08-03T16:53:34.073" UserId="8563" Text="For future reference: if you see a user with a username you consider offensive, the correct procedure is probably to flag the post with a custom flag explaining it. Moderator action will probably follow quickly. As a second avenue, try [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), and if both of those are unavailable then raise the matter on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="2495e970-8fcd-4ff8-be43-729ac2a9fa84" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:06:43.713" UserId="8563" Text="I'll say this here in case it's useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is unlike TeX in that it recognizes as valid characters a bunch of unicode junk that TeX will rightfully call out as jibberish. This includes greek letters, used to great effect [on Mathematica.SE](http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/additional-useful-buttons-for-our-m-se-editor), clever sundries like ≠ and ±, and the ever useful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ⟨ and ⟩.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My solution for easy bra-ket input is to have ⟨ and ⟩ hard keylinks on my keyboard (AltGr+[ and AltGr+], if you're wondering). Typing something like `⟨\phi|\psi⟩` takes more keystrokes on the meat than on the bread, which is as it should be, and it gets rendered correctly. You can argue that this is terrible form, but it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example in action see the [source](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/8c98cc5f-9e0d-4f0a-bf78-3691797605d0/view-source) for [this post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/197509/8563)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="5a9b3a74-aa63-4739-bd2a-7008106422b8" CreationDate="2015-08-03T19:34:42.933" UserId="8563" Text="This is a minor quibble but since the site's CSS is in review I thought I'd bring it up. I just found out, via [this MSE answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/79754/184688), that if you ask a question and then comment on the answers below it, your username gets a slight background shading. I was surprised to hear this since in three years of using the site I'd never seen anything like it but if you look closely it is indeed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, for example, at an example from [this post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197491/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7EqUY.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shading is so slight it's essentially useless. Maybe trim the CSS to give it a bit more contrast? Otherwise just turn it off, there's not much point in having invisible features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while we're at this, I thought I'd open up the floor: are there other much-too-subtle changes in colouring which you think should get a fortifier on the CSS overhaul?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="5a9b3a74-aa63-4739-bd2a-7008106422b8" CreationDate="2015-08-03T19:34:42.933" UserId="8563" Text="Can the OP comment highlighting be turned up a bit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="5a9b3a74-aa63-4739-bd2a-7008106422b8" CreationDate="2015-08-03T19:34:42.933" UserId="8563" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="70b42e80-2002-470d-89d7-c91bf51c8e43" CreationDate="2015-08-04T02:10:14.250" UserId="3253" Text="This site actively discourages the kind of back-and-forth argumentation that is essential to the problem-sovling process (at least the way I solve problems). I solved some pretty good physics problem back when I used to go to physicsforums.com until the jackasses who oversee the site got me banned for life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [thread][1] illustrates the kind of horrifying argumentation that the guardians of this site are determined to avoid. But the reality is that I need the human element to get me stimulated. Without the hysterical insulting behavior of my correspondents at physicsforums.com, I probably woulnd't have been driven to come up with the explanation of how the light from a distant star can drive the transition on an ordinary photographic plate ([quantum siphoning][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-decoherence-not-fully-solve-the-measurement-problem.385341/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://marty-green.blogspot.ca/2014/12/wave-function-collapse-explained-by.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="3706b941-02cc-42c7-ba59-c7e391c1f457" CreationDate="2015-08-05T20:23:44.987" UserId="3253" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="This site actively discourages the kind of back-and-forth argumentation that is essential to the problem-sovling process (at least the way I solve problems). I solved some pretty good physics problem back when I used to go to physicsforums.com until the jackasses who oversee the site got me banned for life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [thread][1] illustrates the kind of horrifying argumentation that the guardians of this site are determined to avoid. But the reality is that I need the human element to get me stimulated. Without the hysterical insulting behavior of my correspondents at physicsforums.com, I probably woulnd't have been driven to come up with the explanation of how the light from a distant star can drive the transition on an ordinary photographic plate ([quantum siphoning][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: This question has been up for a week and no one has posted a single example of a problem that's been solved thanks to a discussion on this site. I've posted an explanation of WHY no one is solving problems hear, and I've got eight downvotes so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't this tell you people anything? I'm cheating to get some discussion going here by posting this as an edit rather than a comment. But that's why nothing gets solved here...because there's no format for discussion. And don't tell me about the chat room...I'm not fourteen years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-decoherence-not-fully-solve-the-measurement-problem.385341/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://marty-green.blogspot.ca/2014/12/wave-function-collapse-explained-by.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="831572bf-2b61-4c51-bc6f-0e4bc24ee2c7" CreationDate="2015-08-07T19:59:44.500" UserId="8563" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Copy-pasteable template: `[tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master]` .)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="56fb30bf-300c-4b91-a826-cabad140f8c6" CreationDate="2015-08-08T00:48:30.547" UserDisplayName="user60894" Text="I think this question is just an assertion that none of the posted questions are actually new. Here's one that is: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197941/what-is-the-smallest-possible-electronic-transistor I do have in mind " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="4d9b0e08-98a2-4584-bd11-a846e5b0a0dd" CreationDate="2015-08-08T00:53:30.630" UserDisplayName="user60894" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="I think this question is just an assertion that none of the posted questions are genuinely new. Here's one that is: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197941/what-is-the-smallest-possible-electronic-transistor I do have in mind a 'radically different technique' for building it which has been posted (elsewhere) but the linked question is about the design/possibility of such a thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW How can I add superscript in comments? I can't find out anywhere..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="26a8a6fb-0ff1-4b07-b902-762b2172999d" CreationDate="2015-08-08T02:48:00.387" UserDisplayName="user60894" Text="I noticed that other people can use superscript in comments but sup&gt;text&lt;\sup&gt; doesn't work so how do they do it? I can't find the answer anywhere..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="26a8a6fb-0ff1-4b07-b902-762b2172999d" CreationDate="2015-08-08T02:48:00.387" UserDisplayName="user60894" Text="Why are formatting methods different for comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="26a8a6fb-0ff1-4b07-b902-762b2172999d" CreationDate="2015-08-08T02:48:00.387" UserDisplayName="user60894" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="840c7d06-ed5f-4c8e-8f8f-1350b9c9f11d" CreationDate="2015-08-08T03:11:23.570" UserId="25301" Text="There are two possibilities here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The are using [**MathJax**](//physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation), which enables the Latex-like markdown, is enabled in comments. Specifically, using `$^2$` in the comment box would get the appropriate superscript (NB: MathJax is *not* enabled on this Meta site, so you cannot test it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Using [**Unicode**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts) to get the appropriate superscript, e.g. getting x² straight from the linked Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you know all of the Unicode commands or have a link accessible for copy+paste, it's probably easier to use Option #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the comments to [this Meta.StackExchange post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/261080/) as well as [this post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2115/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="ed505592-7265-4352-9cee-368c3950bb98" CreationDate="2015-08-08T04:29:24.363" UserDisplayName="user60894" Comment="edited body" Text="I noticed that other people can use superscript in comments but &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;sup&gt;text&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doesn't work so how do they do it? I can't find the answer anywhere..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="f391e145-0090-4e5d-85ba-8ef4a3b02714" CreationDate="2015-08-08T05:03:28.050" UserDisplayName="user60894" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="I think this question is just an assertion that none of the posted questions are genuinely new. Here's one that is: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197941/what-is-the-smallest-possible-electronic-transistor I do have in mind a 'radically different technique' for building it which has been posted (elsewhere) but the linked question is about the design/possibility of such a thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="01061cf8-56d6-4403-8d36-d6522c73a61b" CreationDate="2015-08-08T07:00:19.817" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor fix" Text="There are two possibilities here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They are using [**MathJax**](//physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation), which enables the Latex-like markdown, is enabled in comments. Specifically, using `$^2$` in the comment box would get the appropriate superscript (NB: MathJax is *not* enabled on this Meta site, so you cannot test it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Using [**Unicode**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts) to get the appropriate superscript, e.g. getting x² straight from the linked Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you know all of the Unicode commands or have a link accessible for copy+paste, it's probably easier to use Option #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the comments to [this Meta.StackExchange post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/261080/) as well as [this post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2115/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="3a57b05a-a2a0-47ea-afc3-44e60e11780a" CreationDate="2015-08-08T12:47:49.023" UserId="25301" Comment="added curly brace in regards to comment" Text="There are two possibilities here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They are using [**MathJax**](//physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation), which enables the Latex-like markdown, is enabled in comments. Specifically, using `$^{2}$` in the comment box would get the appropriate superscript (NB: MathJax is *not* enabled on this Meta site, so you cannot test it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Using [**Unicode**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts) to get the appropriate superscript, e.g. getting x² straight from the linked Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you know all of the Unicode commands or have a link accessible for copy+paste, it's probably easier to use Option #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the comments to [this Meta.StackExchange post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/261080/) as well as [this post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2115/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="9e206109-ccda-45cf-a03a-1cfb0db1f1c0" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:18:01.693" UserId="65616" Text="All my other accounts have newer stackexchange profiles and better websites. why are we still only using the older version of stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="9e206109-ccda-45cf-a03a-1cfb0db1f1c0" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:18:01.693" UserId="65616" Text="Why aren't we using the new stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="9e206109-ccda-45cf-a03a-1cfb0db1f1c0" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:18:01.693" UserId="65616" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="34138030-62ea-43fa-bea4-a01618c95342" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:31:09.780" UserId="7433" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="302a50dc-41e7-431c-8efd-0796f42561a2" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:31:18.793" UserId="7433" Text="The profile rollout is gradual across Stack Exchange IIRC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="9c5cc148-e5a1-4f28-9ced-9f9df2d25e1c" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:35:26.100" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 136 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've noticed that other stack exchange sites have a [new style of user profile][1]. The new style has a different layout, as well as more statistics, such as [&quot;people reached&quot;][2], which is interesting. Is the new style coming to physics? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My profile pages on other stack exchange sites have the new template, but my physics one doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/244238/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/244534/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="9c5cc148-e5a1-4f28-9ced-9f9df2d25e1c" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:35:26.100" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 136 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18895" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="04a04a49-482f-4ee1-93c2-611d0a15bc10" CreationDate="2015-08-08T18:35:45.147" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="248a90c3-3f0c-4311-bd56-018bb522e085" CreationDate="2015-08-09T14:36:34.847" UserId="16039" Text="I would like to draw attention to the users here at Physics.SE to a question I posted in StackOverflow. It borders the line of being a pure physics question rather than a programming one, and a mathematical solution would be sufficient (as opposed to an answer with code).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this question on-topic for Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;- Should I cross-post, and if so, what is the proper way of doing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [link to the question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/q/31889513/890899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="248a90c3-3f0c-4311-bd56-018bb522e085" CreationDate="2015-08-09T14:36:34.847" UserId="16039" Text="Cross Post From StackOverflow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="248a90c3-3f0c-4311-bd56-018bb522e085" CreationDate="2015-08-09T14:36:34.847" UserId="16039" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6964" RevisionGUID="0fc18df6-ddb1-45b7-9fa5-deacea4a701a" CreationDate="2015-08-09T15:21:37.287" UserId="520" Text="Stack Exchange in general does not encourage cross-posting as such---pick the site you think mostly like to get a good answer and try there, then if you don't get an answer in a couple of days try another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you certainly shouldn't post a non-question intended as a re-direct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet may well be to draw attention to it in our main chat room: [the h bar][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="70be8e09-eff3-446d-9f89-f195442d7035" CreationDate="2015-08-09T15:34:07.880" UserId="25301" Text="Typically cross-posting is the copy-paste of your question on multiple sites (where it may or may not border on-topicness) within a short period of time (e.g., within one day). The question you have on SO is a programming question, so a direct copy-paste is obviously not going to work here and it would be quickly closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question appears to be about describing the motion of stars in a field of view as functions of x,y, so you should ask about that can be described mathematically. You *may* want to provide the SO link as a reference, but it isn't required (and probably not needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that we do have a [**homework policy**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) that applies also to not-in-class-assigned-problems (and saying &quot;This isn't homework!&quot; doesn't help prevent closure). So you need to carefully construct your question to as to avoid the policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="dcacdad4-dd80-45ea-9961-28f8f307b01b" CreationDate="2015-08-09T20:41:05.223" UserId="6634" Comment="We don't want people *avoiding* the policy, but following it." Text="Typically cross-posting is the copy-paste of your question on multiple sites (where it may or may not border on-topicness) within a short period of time (e.g., within one day). The question you have on SO is a programming question, so a direct copy-paste is obviously not going to work here and it would be quickly closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question appears to be about describing the motion of stars in a field of view as functions of x,y, so you should ask about that can be described mathematically. You *may* want to provide the SO link as a reference, but it isn't required (and probably not needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that we do have a [**homework policy**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) that applies also to not-in-class-assigned-problems (and saying &quot;This isn't homework!&quot; doesn't help prevent closure). So you need to carefully construct your question to as to comply with the policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18902" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="c9ddc8b4-540f-4c71-9213-da6bf78e05b1" CreationDate="2015-08-10T11:19:20.583" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6769],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10851,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="e3b19806-2cc9-43ea-8d23-8a04450fcbc1" CreationDate="2015-08-11T15:18:36.780" UserId="75876" Text="Imagine if when reading a question about a theory or paper by Michio Kaku, you scrolled down to see an answer &quot;When I wrote this theory, [...]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought it'd be neat to see something like that here - has it happened? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, has any question, citing a specific theory or work recieved an answer by someone who self-identifies as being the author of the work / theory in question? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="e3b19806-2cc9-43ea-8d23-8a04450fcbc1" CreationDate="2015-08-11T15:18:36.780" UserId="75876" Text="Has any physicist answered a question citing his own work on PhysicsSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="e3b19806-2cc9-43ea-8d23-8a04450fcbc1" CreationDate="2015-08-11T15:18:36.780" UserId="75876" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="c7cd7571-227b-4fa0-bac7-11fb5a7596e8" CreationDate="2015-08-11T15:54:43.737" UserId="25301" Text="A pretty famous guy, [G. t'Hooft](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11205/g-t-hooft), wrote a response about one of his papers: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18586/deterministic-quantum-mechanics/160193#160193 on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing a search of [`&quot;my paper&quot;`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22my+paper%22) presents a few more users who have at least cited their works in their answers (discounting vixra because it's usually not reputable works hosted there), though not usually the case that the question itself is about their works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Xiao-Gang Wen](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9444/xiao-gang-wen)&#xD;&#xA;  - http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A9444+my+paper&#xD;&#xA; - [Arnold Neumaier](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7924/arnold-neumaier)&#xD;&#xA;  - http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7924+my+paper&#xD;&#xA; - [Luboš Motl](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1236/lubo%C5%A1-motl)&#xD;&#xA;  - http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A1236+my+paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="8875ef20-1d5b-489e-9e58-9ec0167b2858" CreationDate="2015-08-12T05:26:21.203" UserId="88907" Text="Perhaps somebody of more authority may know the time (of a specific timezone) where most people are online and offline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="8875ef20-1d5b-489e-9e58-9ec0167b2858" CreationDate="2015-08-12T05:26:21.203" UserId="88907" Text="What would be the best and worst time to ask questions on Physics Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="8875ef20-1d5b-489e-9e58-9ec0167b2858" CreationDate="2015-08-12T05:26:21.203" UserId="88907" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="be75e45f-91d6-46b8-b439-17c62437ce61" CreationDate="2015-08-12T14:08:39.943" UserId="75809" Text="Would this question be allowed to migrate to Physics.Main?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are the specs of the components I would need to make a 1050 kph, non-rocket-propelled motorbike?](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21815/what-are-the-specs-of-the-components-i-would-need-to-make-a-1050-kph-non-rocket)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm allowed to migrate, would/could I get answers like this? Keeping in mind that this is the kind of answer that I want...:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming a rider that weighs X kg/lb/[Whatever], axles that have efficiency Z, a chassis that has weight Q, [Any other assumptions and stuff...] ... You need an engine that outputs Y Newtons/Joules/[Somethings]. (Y is defined by an equation dependent on X, Z, Q and other variables that come up...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="be75e45f-91d6-46b8-b439-17c62437ce61" CreationDate="2015-08-12T14:08:39.943" UserId="75809" Text="Would this question be allowed to migrate to Physics.Main?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="be75e45f-91d6-46b8-b439-17c62437ce61" CreationDate="2015-08-12T14:08:39.943" UserId="75809" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="e5f49005-d646-4bcb-9ff9-5b4600f9cd1d" CreationDate="2015-08-12T14:59:25.833" UserId="75809" Comment="Asking for a spoilering..." Text="Would this question be allowed to migrate to Physics.Main?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are the specs of the components I would need to make a 1050 kph, non-rocket-propelled motorbike?](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21815/what-are-the-specs-of-the-components-i-would-need-to-make-a-1050-kph-non-rocket)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm allowed to migrate, would/could I get answers like this? Keeping in mind that this is the kind of answer that I want...:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming a flat, asphalt road, and a rider that weighs X kg/lb/[Whatever], to get your motorcycle moving, your wheels need T torque, which means your engine needs to output E [Energy or CCs or whatever...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And that's assuming that everything is 100% efficient. If it's not, then your engine needs more power, and that power is dependent on the efficiency of engine to wheel torque, Z. The equation for the power needed for an inefficient engine, is E/Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And *that's* assuming that your chassis is weightless. If your chassis has weight W, [explain equation for motor energy for that scenario...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then the material of your wheel has to do this and that... [Stuff]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, the material of your chassis has to do [Stuff] to handle moving at 1050 mph...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone spoiler the following?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Okay... this seems really silly now... 'Cause the initial idea for this question was to figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;If such a motorcycle is possible, what has to change about physics?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which led to this chain of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What the requirements for those motorcycle parts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Are any of those requirements achievable by real-world physics, and for the parts that aren't, what bits of physics would need to change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. What would the implications of those physics changes be on the capabilities of technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.5. How do I have humans live in a world with those physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those last two questions seem to be reasonable worldbuilding questions, if the changes weren't too broad...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in combination, that's a big jumble of theoretical physics and worldbuilding... And even the initial questions seem a bit much for a SE site... *One facepalm is not enough...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="aaa4ab0f-12bc-4657-907d-6c31d137daa4" CreationDate="2015-08-12T15:13:51.397" UserId="75809" Comment="Tell how I want this spoilered..." Text="Would this question be allowed to migrate to Physics.Main?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are the specs of the components I would need to make a 1050 kph, non-rocket-propelled motorbike?](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21815/what-are-the-specs-of-the-components-i-would-need-to-make-a-1050-kph-non-rocket)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm allowed to migrate, would/could I get answers like this? Keeping in mind that this is the kind of answer that I want...:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming a flat, asphalt road, and a rider that weighs X kg/lb/[Whatever], to get your motorcycle moving, your wheels need T torque, which means your engine needs to output E [Energy or CCs or whatever...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And that's assuming that everything is 100% efficient. If it's not, then your engine needs more power, and that power is dependent on the efficiency of engine to wheel torque, Z. The equation for the power needed for an inefficient engine, is E/Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And *that's* assuming that your chassis is weightless. If your chassis has weight W, [explain equation for motor energy for that scenario...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then the material of your wheel has to do this and that... [Stuff]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, the material of your chassis has to do [Stuff] to handle moving at 1050 mph...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone spoiler the following?** Like with this: [Achille Hui's spoiler](https://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/13736/hierarchical-spoilers/13738#13738)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Okay... this seems really silly now... 'Cause the initial idea for this question was to figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;If such a motorcycle is possible, what has to change about physics?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which led to this chain of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What the requirements for those motorcycle parts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Are any of those requirements achievable by real-world physics, and for the parts that aren't, what bits of physics would need to change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. What would the implications of those physics changes be on the capabilities of technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.5. How do I have humans live in a world with those physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those last two questions seem to be reasonable worldbuilding questions, if the changes weren't too broad...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in combination, that's a big jumble of theoretical physics and worldbuilding... And even the initial questions seem a bit much for a SE site... *One facepalm is not enough...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6970" RevisionGUID="d24646cf-80b9-4d26-a057-b65bac326514" CreationDate="2015-08-12T15:49:23.827" UserId="520" Text="**Short version:** No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question would fall firmly under [our policy on engineering question][1]. You're not concerned with anything fundamental about how parts work or with [building an experimental apparatus][2], so while many physicist would find the question fascinating, it is not a *physics question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="17212a53-15d8-4f99-a5c1-d31a9c2e4586" CreationDate="2015-08-12T22:07:02.480" UserId="88907" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Perhaps somebody may know the time (of a specific timezone) where most people are online and offline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="15a9e7b7-d827-472b-9d34-f34e3f3cae2f" CreationDate="2015-08-14T06:09:31.223" UserId="46399" Text="The context is the following post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hooke's Law and Bungee Jumping](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200111/hookes-law-and-bungee-jumping)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the revision history can be viewed [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/revisions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see from the revision history, the post owner himself/herself vandalized the post, removing the entire content, and replacing it with a stream of &quot;aaa...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, [this edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/93456) was suggested by another user, which merely reverted to an earlier version of the question. I was one of the two people who reviewed this, and instinctively, went for the approve button (as did the other reviewer), since the edit was setting right, what was messed up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, thinking about it afterwards, this edit was _clearly in conflict with the OP's intentions_, which were, ummm... _deliberately destructive_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises two questions - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Does being the post owner entitle you to self-destruct your posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the event of suggested edits like these, as a reviewer, am I supposed to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Approve it, because it cures self-vandalism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Reject it, because it conflicts with the OP's intentions?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="15a9e7b7-d827-472b-9d34-f34e3f3cae2f" CreationDate="2015-08-14T06:09:31.223" UserId="46399" Text="What to do regarding suggested edits that cure self-vandalism by post owners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="15a9e7b7-d827-472b-9d34-f34e3f3cae2f" CreationDate="2015-08-14T06:09:31.223" UserId="46399" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="9090d5a3-728a-402a-9090-c7d1e5585dd3" CreationDate="2015-08-14T08:21:47.247" UserId="46399" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The context is the following post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hooke's Law and Bungee Jumping](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200111/hookes-law-and-bungee-jumping)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the revision history can be viewed [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/revisions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see from the revision history, the post owner himself/herself vandalized the post, removing the entire content, and replacing it with a stream of &quot;aaaaaa...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, [this edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/93456) was suggested by another user, which merely reverted to an earlier version of the question. I was one of the two people who reviewed this, and instinctively, went for the approve button (as did the other reviewer), since the edit was setting right, what was messed up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, thinking about it afterwards, this edit was _clearly in conflict with the OP's intentions_, which were, ummm... _deliberately destructive_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises two questions - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Does being the post owner entitle you to self-destruct your posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the event of suggested edits like these, as a reviewer, am I supposed to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Approve it, because it cures self-vandalism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Reject it, because it conflicts with the OP's intentions?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="9090d5a3-728a-402a-9090-c7d1e5585dd3" CreationDate="2015-08-14T08:21:47.247" UserId="46399" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="58de5703-5743-4f9e-a9d9-d136fcc790a8" CreationDate="2015-08-14T09:52:28.523" UserId="78942" Text="I don't quite understand why the OP would vandalize his/her own post. If his intention is to eliminate the question, he can delete it instead of self-vandalizing it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the aim of this site is to help anyone who have the same question, not only the OP. Therefore, in my opinion the rollback is the best option for the whole community. Maybe you should also a comment to the OP explaining the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="a59d86d1-b21d-48d1-98e2-64e95475b451" CreationDate="2015-08-14T11:29:24.863" UserId="1325" Text="If you have a gold badge in a tag then you can immediately close as a duplicate any question that has that tag. So for example I have a gold badge in [general-relativity] and [newtonian-mechanics] and *should* be able to close as duplicates any questions tagged with these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I just VTC'd as duplicate the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200346/what-would-be-gravity-in-one-spatial-dimension and it didn't close. The question has the [general-relativity] tag, but it was added (before my VTC) by Qmechanic, so the question wasn't originally tagged with [general-relativity].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recently VTC'd as duplicate the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200330/what-makes-neutron-heavier-than-a-proton and it did immediately close even though it has neither the [general-relativity] nor [newtonian-mechanics] tags. However I note that it did originally have the [newtonian-mechanics] tag but this was removed (before my VTC) by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks to me as if the immediate close as duplicate code looks at the tags the question originally had, and not any changes made afer the question was posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this is just to stop me randomly closing any question by editing the tags before voting to close :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="a59d86d1-b21d-48d1-98e2-64e95475b451" CreationDate="2015-08-14T11:29:24.863" UserId="1325" Text="Bug in closing as duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="a59d86d1-b21d-48d1-98e2-64e95475b451" CreationDate="2015-08-14T11:29:24.863" UserId="1325" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="f1e7f7b6-d083-4c29-91d5-fe50e615d39d" CreationDate="2015-08-14T11:48:06.727" UserId="8563" Text="Note that you can't delete a question that has an accepted upvoted answer, as per [this Mother Meta FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221/). In this particular case, then, the post owner seems to have tried to delete the question and, when that failed, they vandalized the post. This is supported by a detailed breakdown in the [question timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/timeline): The question is already upvoted when the OP comments &quot;Don't worry, I solved it :)&quot; and vandalizes the post four minutes later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, being the post owner does **not** entitle you to vandalize your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a legal perspective, you have granted a CC-CY-SA license to the site to display any and all the versions you post. While the site generally respects the OP's wishes as to which version will be displayed, by posting you do cede a measure of control over your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a moral perspective, if you post you are soliciting work from others in the community, and if you receive an answer then you are receiving work from community members. This is freely given, with the payback being shiny internet points and having their content up. By deleting a question, you deprive the people who worked to give you an answer of the chance to have their content displayed, and to gain more shiny internet points in the future. This is why you can't delete questions that have upvoted answers, and it works exactly the same for vandalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you encounter a self-vandalized post, you should roll it back to the last working version. If you see edit suggestions that cure self-vandalism, you should approve them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="68d7e1dd-6f50-4c00-9931-2e390583711d" CreationDate="2015-08-14T11:57:49.837" UserDisplayName="user59991" Text="This is not a bug.  &#xD;&#xA;The gold badge privilege is described [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/230865/increase-close-vote-weight-for-gold-tag-badge-holders/231212#231212) as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can instantly close *as a duplicate* any question that was **originally** asked with a tag you have a gold badge for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can instantly reopen any question *closed as a duplicate* that was **originally** asked with a tag you have a gold badge for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question has a tag where you have a gold badge, and it was part of the **original set of tags** applied to the question, you can mark it as a duplicate with a single vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, if you have a gold tag badge in one of the **original tags** of something marked as a duplicate and feel a mistake was made, you can re-open it with a single vote and (optionally) mark it as a duplicate of another (theoretically better) question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="c01eb38a-e34d-4b95-86b2-ddebbfc5cbe5" CreationDate="2015-08-14T12:58:12.670" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If you have a gold badge in a tag then you can immediately close as a duplicate any question that has that tag. So for example I have a gold badge in [general-relativity] and [newtonian-mechanics] and *should* be able to close as duplicates any questions tagged with these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I just VTC'd as duplicate the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200346/what-would-be-gravity-in-one-spatial-dimension and it didn't close. The question has the [general-relativity] tag, but it was added (before my VTC) by Qmechanic, so the question wasn't originally tagged with [general-relativity].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recently VTC'd as duplicate the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/200330/ and it did immediately close even though it has neither the [tag:general-relativity] nor [tag:newtonian-mechanics] tags. However I note that it did originally have the [tag:newtonian-mechanics] tag but this was removed (before my VTC) by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks to me as if the immediate close as duplicate code looks at the tags the question originally had, and not any changes made after the question was posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this is just to stop me randomly closing any question by editing the tags before voting to close :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="c01eb38a-e34d-4b95-86b2-ddebbfc5cbe5" CreationDate="2015-08-14T12:58:12.670" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="c5732922-fc71-422e-a850-c5abf015191d" CreationDate="2015-08-14T13:16:02.967" UserId="8563" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Note that you can't delete a question that has an accepted or upvoted answer, as per [this Mother Meta FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221/). In this particular case, then, the post owner seems to have tried to delete the question and, when that failed, they vandalized the post. This is supported by a detailed breakdown in the [question timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/timeline): The question is already upvoted when the OP comments &quot;Don't worry, I solved it :)&quot; and vandalizes the post four minutes later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, being the post owner does **not** entitle you to vandalize your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a legal perspective, you have granted a CC-CY-SA license to the site to display any and all the versions you post. While the site generally respects the OP's wishes as to which version will be displayed, by posting you do cede a measure of control over your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a moral perspective, if you post you are soliciting work from others in the community, and if you receive an answer then you are receiving work from community members. This is freely given, with the payback being shiny internet points and having their content up. By deleting a question, you deprive the people who worked to give you an answer of the chance to have their content displayed, and to gain more shiny internet points in the future. This is why you can't delete questions that have upvoted answers, and it works exactly the same for vandalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you encounter a self-vandalized post, you should roll it back to the last working version. If you see edit suggestions that cure self-vandalism, you should approve them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18931" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="a99bf5f8-37ee-44a6-8673-4a752698f661" CreationDate="2015-08-14T23:32:16.227" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200436/how-should-you-decide-whether-to-post-on-physics-stackexchange-com-or-on-phys" />
  <row Id="18932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="6f9f0147-63f3-43bc-bbad-44d8fa889fea" CreationDate="2015-08-14T23:09:06.610" UserId="62834" Text="What is the main difference between questions asked on The 'Physics StackExchange' website, and those asked on the 'Physicsoverflow.org' website - it seems to me that 'Physics Overflow' is more detailed higher level Physics, but I may be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="6f9f0147-63f3-43bc-bbad-44d8fa889fea" CreationDate="2015-08-14T23:09:06.610" UserId="62834" Text="How should you decide whether to post on 'Physics.stackexchange.com' or on 'Physicsoverflow.org'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="6f9f0147-63f3-43bc-bbad-44d8fa889fea" CreationDate="2015-08-14T23:09:06.610" UserId="62834" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18935" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="56096410-8d1f-4d8e-a13e-5b1b50eff8db" CreationDate="2015-08-15T00:15:36.560" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6196],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18939" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="ece95655-4647-4464-be5b-e876a21cc36c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T00:59:25.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/632718269871321088" />
  <row Id="18940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="79a9287d-3a74-4d5b-b7f9-ba9b7370b220" CreationDate="2015-08-16T08:02:18.410" UserId="83398" Text="There are a lot of questions that have totally incorrect premises, ask for &quot;a formula&quot; for something where no such formula exists (e.g. &quot;given the gravitational acceleration, what is the formula for position?&quot;), or don't even make syntactic sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several times, I've responded to these questions with an answer that directly addresses what the OP might have been thinking about. [Here's][1] an example. I notice the following things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nobody else ever does the same thing: either they post a comment saying the question is bad, or occasionally they post an extremely long answer that beautifully generalizes OP's question into something that makes physical sense, and answers that question using some very high-powered math. (I don't do this because I don't think it would help the OP in any way.)&#xD;&#xA;- Nobody has ever given me any feedback, good or bad, on any such answers I've written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I committing a huge faux pas by shooting out these short, two-sentence answers? Is it better for the site to write those answers in a comment instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200663/function-of-observables-in-mathematical-words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="79a9287d-3a74-4d5b-b7f9-ba9b7370b220" CreationDate="2015-08-16T08:02:18.410" UserId="83398" Text="How should one respond to ill-formed questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="79a9287d-3a74-4d5b-b7f9-ba9b7370b220" CreationDate="2015-08-16T08:02:18.410" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="e8a819cc-6187-4b8e-a30a-2b9e7d5f7df2" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:13:34.347" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="I posted an answer to [Why is any number divided by 0 is infinite?](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1399099/why-is-any-number-divided-by-0-is-infinite#200686); it was rather too short, I confess [but correct], &amp; this might prompted someone to downvote me; my rep got decreased by 2. Then I thought, why to waste my rep?? I deleted my answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I saw, it was migrated to MSE. I thought to extend my answer &amp; explain OP elaborately. The answer was accepted &amp; I got +25. But then I noticed my PSE rep still showed a decrease of 2! I checked my profile &amp; saw it was the same downvote to the answer of the same question I deleted. I don't know why it is so:( What is the logic for continuing the downvote to a __deleted__ answer?? Can anyone explain why it happened? Is there any to avert it??  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="e8a819cc-6187-4b8e-a30a-2b9e7d5f7df2" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:13:34.347" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Why does the downvote still persist even after I removed my downvoted answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="e8a819cc-6187-4b8e-a30a-2b9e7d5f7df2" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:13:34.347" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="0c40c894-6771-4491-a77f-73bba113c20a" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:35:25.403" UserId="2451" Text="The original phys.SE thread still exists for some overlap period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the migration is successful, the original physics thread will eventually be deleted, with corresponding changes in the reputation for the users involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the migration is rejected, the original physics thread will remain, thereby keeping its reputation scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, the migration will likely be rejected by Math.SE due to multiple duplicates. It will then turn into a closed thread on Phys.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="ad2e0eda-c38f-48fe-b5db-6ac9b71dce34" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:38:26.563" UserId="2451" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="The [original phys.SE thread](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/200680/2451) still exists for some overlap period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the migration is successful, the original physics thread will eventually be deleted, with corresponding changes in the Phys.SE reputation for the users involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the migration is rejected, the original physics thread will remain, thereby keeping its Phys.SE reputation scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, the migration will likely be rejected by Math.SE due to multiple duplicates. It will then turn into a closed thread on Phys.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18948" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="f59fdb26-e4e3-4627-8430-1b08bf966300" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:53:54.917" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="f59fdb26-e4e3-4627-8430-1b08bf966300" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:53:54.917" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I posted an answer to [Why is any number divided by 0 is infinite?](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1399099/); it was rather too short, I confess [but correct], &amp; this might prompted someone to downvote me; my rep got decreased by 2. Then I thought, why to waste my rep?? I deleted my answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I saw, it was migrated to MSE. I thought to extend my answer &amp; explain OP elaborately. The answer was accepted &amp; I got +25. But then I noticed my PSE rep still showed a decrease of 2! I checked my profile &amp; saw it was the same downvote to the answer of the same question I deleted. I don't know why it is so:( What is the logic for continuing the downvote to a __deleted__ answer? Can anyone explain why it happened? Is there any to avert it?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="ae811f0f-23c0-4e20-9774-3ffa3e3e84f2" CreationDate="2015-08-16T13:33:57.840" UserId="50583" Text="1. If you are actually answering the question as it is posed, it is completely fine to write an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the question is actually so unclear that you don't know what it is asking and would be just guessing what it is that confuses the asker, you should flag (or vote, if you have more than 3k reputation) for closure as *unclear what you're asking*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Strictly speaking, you should never answer in a comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5966/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="e19bfecd-bb60-4cd1-9753-cdf2a3833c87" CreationDate="2015-08-16T23:59:58.957" UserId="64669" Text="For my experience with the stake exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I am seeing the banner that I will be blocked from asking anymore questions due to a recent downvote in response to my recent edit to a [(fortunately) now answered question][1] which I suspect my recent edit (changing the title) make my question become &quot;unreadable&quot; to the down voter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my records, since 2015, I have 3 questions (in the span of one month) in total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. another pop science question that ask about dimensions due to a TEDxBoulder video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. and a question that ask about an evolutionary mechanism that applies to the universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have either received down votes (-1 to -2) and/or closed by moderators (usually John Rennie and David Z). Questions 2 and 3 were later deleted by the community due to how the SE system works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Put on hold as unclear what you're asking by (skipped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that suffer from these 3 questions is that, **the premise is either wrong or already found to be implicity violated some SE rules** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e.g. I am made aware that the multiverse is considered highly speculative (hence question closure attracting) only when question 3 was closed then deleted by SE, e.g. I don't know that the guy in that TEDxBoulder video that form my basis for question 2. is a crank and thus I should not have asked about the physics of that video, which cause that question to be branded an &quot;off topic&quot; flag before being deleted by community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus even if they can be edited, they cannot be fixed because they are already broken from the start&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given obviously my level in physics is still not very steady, attempting to answer questions to prevent myself from getting question banned by SE is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there anything I can do about this scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB There's actually a 4th question which I suspect will be of this type in the pipeline (something to do with interpreting the second law as wavefunction degeneracy using De Broglie relations as a premise), which fortunately thanks to ACuriousMind help clarified question 1 thus shooting down the premise needed to ask that question 4, it is prevented from being asked. Otherwise I think I will be in deep trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197655/why-the-nonexistence-of-a-one-sentence-layman-phrase-for-the-de-broglie-relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="e19bfecd-bb60-4cd1-9753-cdf2a3833c87" CreationDate="2015-08-16T23:59:58.957" UserId="64669" Text="How to fix unfixable questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="e19bfecd-bb60-4cd1-9753-cdf2a3833c87" CreationDate="2015-08-16T23:59:58.957" UserId="64669" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="19def635-8925-4340-b8e6-fd8822333d3e" CreationDate="2015-08-17T00:11:29.777" UserId="64669" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="For my experience with the stake exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I am seeing the warning banner that I will be blocked from asking anymore questions due to a recent downvote in response to my recent edit to a [(fortunately) now answered question][1] which I suspect my recent edit (changing the title) make my question become &quot;unreadable&quot; to the down voter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my records, since 2015, I have 3 questions (all being answered, either in the comments or as an actual answer, in the span of one month) in total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the above (Answered in a discussion which I then summarise the results)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. another pop science question that ask about dimensions due to a TEDxBoulder video (answered by a guy that pointed out my wrong premise and the correct meaning of dimensions in physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. and a question that ask about an evolutionary mechanism that applies to the universe (answered by John Rennie who referred me to a book that talked about related ideas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have either received down votes (-1 to -2) and/or closed by moderators (usually John Rennie and David Z). Questions 2 and 3 were later deleted by the community due to how the SE system works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Put on hold as unclear what you're asking by (skipped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that suffer from these 3 questions is that, **the premise is either wrong or already found to be implicity violated some SE rules** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e.g. I am made aware that the multiverse is considered highly speculative (hence question closure attracting) only when question 3 was closed then deleted by SE, e.g. I don't know that the guy in that TEDxBoulder video that form my basis for question 2. is a crank and thus I should not have asked about the 'physics' of that video, which cause that question to be branded an &quot;off topic&quot; flag before being deleted by community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus even if they can be edited, they cannot be fixed because they are already broken from the start&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given obviously my level in physics is still not very steady, attempting to answer questions to prevent myself from getting question banned by SE is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there anything I can do about this scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB There's actually a 4th question which I suspect will be of this type in the pipeline (something to do with interpreting the second law as wavefunction degeneracy using De Broglie relations as a premise), which fortunately thanks to ACuriousMind help clarified question 1 thus shooting down the premise needed to ask that question 4, it is prevented from being asked. Otherwise I think I will be in deep trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197655/why-the-nonexistence-of-a-one-sentence-layman-phrase-for-the-de-broglie-relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="eead0a85-e731-4f2f-a71a-fdaf4b40dc86" CreationDate="2015-08-17T00:16:35.477" UserId="64669" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="For my experience with the stack exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I am seeing the warning banner that I will be blocked from asking anymore questions due to a recent downvote in response to my recent edit to a [(fortunately) now answered question][1] which I suspect my recent edit (changing the title) make my question become &quot;unreadable&quot; to the down voter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my records, since 2015, I have 3 questions (all being answered, either in the comments or as an actual answer, in the span of one month) in total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the above (Answered in a discussion which I then summarise the results)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. another pop science question that ask about dimensions due to a TEDxBoulder video (answered by a guy that pointed out my wrong premise and the correct meaning of dimensions in physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. and a question that ask about an evolutionary mechanism that applies to the universe (answered by John Rennie in the comments who referred me to a book that talked about related ideas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have either received down votes (-1 to -2) and/or closed by moderators (usually John Rennie and David Z). Questions 2 and 3 were later deleted by the community due to how the SE system works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Put on hold as unclear what you're asking by (skipped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that suffer from these 3 questions is that, **the premise is either wrong or already found to be implicity violated some SE rules** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e.g. I am made aware that the multiverse is considered highly speculative to PSE (hence question closure attracting) only when question 3 was closed then deleted by SE, e.g. I don't know that the guy in that TEDxBoulder video that form my basis for question 2. is a crank and thus I should not have asked about the 'physics' of that video, which cause that question to be branded an &quot;off topic&quot; flag before being deleted by community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus even if they can be edited, they cannot be fixed because they are already broken from the start&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given obviously my level in physics is still not very steady, attempting to answer questions to prevent myself from getting question banned by PSE is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there anything I can do about this scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I do from now on, besides careful proofreading of my questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB There's actually a 4th question which I suspect will be of this type in the pipeline (something to do with interpreting the second law as wavefunction degeneracy using De Broglie relations as a premise), which fortunately thanks to ACuriousMind help clarified question 1 thus shooting down the premise needed to ask that question 4, it is prevented from being asked. Otherwise I think I will be in deep trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197655/why-the-nonexistence-of-a-one-sentence-layman-phrase-for-the-de-broglie-relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="0fa7c061-1392-4d24-a8e5-fe9d5adac2b7" CreationDate="2015-08-17T00:27:51.643" UserId="64669" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="For my experience with the stack exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I am seeing the warning banner that I will be blocked from asking anymore questions due to a recent downvote in response to my recent edit to a [(fortunately) now answered question][1] which I suspect my recent edit (changing the title) make my question become &quot;unreadable&quot; to the down voter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my records, since 2015, I have 3 questions (all being answered, either in the comments or as an actual answer, in the span of one month) in total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the above (Answered in a discussion which I then summarise the results)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. another pop science question that ask about dimensions due to a TEDxBoulder video (answered by a guy that pointed out my wrong premise and the correct meaning of dimensions in physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. and a question that ask about an evolutionary mechanism that applies to the universe (answered by John Rennie in the comments who referred me to a book that talked about related ideas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have either received down votes (-1 to -2) and/or closed by moderators (usually John Rennie, Kyle Kanos and David Z). Questions 2 and 3 were later deleted by the community due to how the SE system works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Put on hold as unclear what you're asking by (skipped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that suffer from these 3 questions is that, **the premise is either wrong or already found to be implicity violated some SE rules** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e.g. I am made aware that the multiverse is considered highly speculative to PSE (hence question closure attracting) only when question 3 was closed then deleted by SE, e.g. I don't know that the guy in that TEDxBoulder video that form my basis for question 2. is a crank and thus I should not have asked about the 'physics' of that video, which cause that question to be branded an &quot;off topic&quot; flag before being deleted by community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus even if they can be edited, they cannot be fixed because they are already broken from the start&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given obviously my level in physics is still not very steady, attempting to answer questions to prevent myself from getting question banned by PSE is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there anything I can do about this scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I do from now on, besides careful proofreading of my questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB There's actually a 4th question which I suspect will be of this type in the pipeline (something to do with interpreting the second law as wavefunction degeneracy using De Broglie relations as a premise), which fortunately thanks to ACuriousMind help clarified question 1 thus shooting down the premise needed to ask that question 4, it is prevented from being asked. Otherwise I think I will be in deep trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197655/why-the-nonexistence-of-a-one-sentence-layman-phrase-for-the-de-broglie-relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="a0cc705c-f2d5-4841-8b8c-688b48d67471" CreationDate="2015-08-18T15:54:36.950" UserId="23473" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="**Note: This contest is currently inactive. It may be resumed again in the future.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of Jims, I'm offering, as a diplomatic envoy to the rest of Physics.SE, the chance for us to decide the title of Jims' fearless leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the appropriate setting. Suggest your new name, something with Jim in it, and everyone will vote on it. The most popular name will be my new identifier each month for twelve months. One whole year *[insert subtle reference to the appropriateness of the title here]*. After that, I will step down and resume my title of Jim (unless a public outcry keeps me in office). If another name rises to be the most popular, I'll switch to that name for the remaining time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make some suggestions to give you an idea of what is possible. Be creative or don't, *so long as it's clearly a **Jim** name* (i.e. has &quot;Jim&quot; in it; &quot;James&quot; doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah, this post isn't strictly on-topic for meta. But it's a chance to have some fun. Close it if you must (but if you're name is Jim, be prepared to face the wrath of your king).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important update: It seems I can only change my display name once a month. So each month I'll switch to the new most popular (if it changes so far in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;The first winner was: **Jimnosperm**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second winner was: **ACuriousJim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third winner was: **Jim the Enchanter** (with a nice profile pic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth winner was: **Jims Bond**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fifth winner was: **Jimself** (by a technicality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next name change (if it happens) will occur whenever I'm convinced to start this up again. After that, all answers will be edited to allow votes to be changed if so desired. At present, my name is going to remain as **Jim** while this is dormant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="83f13097-4ba8-4986-b899-9d3ac37bf066" CreationDate="2015-08-18T17:20:17.220" UserId="23473" Text="Here is my advice on how to make your questions more presentable. I can't guarantee it will help, but it works for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Make sure you are clear and concise. It is vitally important that we can understand what exactly you are trying to ask; clarity is of primary import. However, do not write a novel. Be concise and try to ask your question in as short a post as possible. If it takes 2 hours to read your question, nobody will read your question. They will skip through most of it, likely find it unclear (not having read it all) and judge it as unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Provide details. There's a trade off between providing the right amount of detail and keeping a post appropriately short. Not too long, but sufficient detail. Strive for that. If you ask &quot;Why is this light red?&quot; That's unclear. Provide details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Check your facts. Many times, we'll close a question as unclear because it asks about something that just doesn't happen. For instance, if you thought somehow that gravity made things fall up and asked us &quot;Why do things fall up?&quot;, we'd close the question as unclear. Things don't generally fall up, so we have no idea what you're asking about when you imply they do. This can be solved two ways. Check your facts first. If you find things don't generally fall up, revise your question to &quot;I thought that gravity makes things fall up in general, but it turns out they fall down. Why do things fall down? Or why don't they fall up?&quot;. Alternatively, you can add context and details. &quot;Why do things, like balloons, fall up?&quot;. But always check your facts. Do prior research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Spelling and grammar. Use punctuation. Period. Make sure you spell things properly. spell like u r irl cuz i and evry1 else h8s and wont read chatspeak. Make sure sentences have nouns AND verbs (and whatever else they may need). Bad spelling and grammar can easily make a question impossible to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Check the site for related questions. For instance, we don't need another question asking how the twin paradox is resolved. If you have a question, first check to make sure it wasn't asked and answered somewhere else. That way you can avoid having a question closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should cover the essentials. Here's a few tips, just for consideration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- try to avoid posting links to videos. Sometimes our users work in offices or libraries and can't have videos playing. Some of them just don't want to have to watch through an entire video just to get the context of your question. It's like posting articles. Avoid it if possible and include a brief summary of relevant material if you have to post a link. This also avoids the problem of dead links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- don't be discouraged by downvotes, we all get those. Just ask how to improve your post. If they say make it more clear or they say it has a faulty premise, fix it. Add detail, be more concise, and turn your question around to ask why that premise is faulty (and how that affects the whole system if that's the core of your question), rather than why it's true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- don't include your own speculation or theories in a question. Don't. I'm not saying you do or that I think you would, I'm just saying don't because that's something that I always want to ensure people know not to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="3f1b8c8f-0172-4e3c-89bd-8b5303bbcdb4" CreationDate="2015-08-18T17:42:07.563" UserId="23473" Text="I've tried to chart when questions usually get more views and answers or when answers of my own get more attention. It seems to have little to do with time. There are usually a fair number of users online at all times. There is a rise and fall in activity on the site and the rate of asked/answered/modified posts through the day, however I never could find a significant relationship between the time and the probability of a question getting a good answer or an answer getting a decent amount of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During peak activity, there are more users, but posts become buried in the active page quicker. During the least active times, there are less users but posts stay on the active page longer. Not only this, but there are good answering users available all through the day. However, the best users to answer your question (based on the topic of the question) may or may not be online at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that since it is a diurnal cycle of activity, after about a day (based on my observations and controlled for quality of the thread) you have about the same amount of activity for a question no matter when it was posted. Good questions will be upvoted, viewed, and answered. Bad questions will be downvoted, closed, and/or ignored. In all cases, you usually get 1 to 2 days of activity for a given question. Unless it's a HNQ, which can get *up to* a week extra on our site. After that, only editing the posts will get it a few more views (this is all for average posts. Posts at either ends of the curve will obviously be susceptible to irregular activity)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="43ffc88f-cb8f-4003-8040-c1d7dc4ca35f" CreationDate="2015-08-18T19:09:30.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/633717374605230081" />
  <row Id="18961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="02731871-3a4c-4cdb-b03c-aeec92e44deb" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:07:58.927" UserId="88907" Text="Physics is a field that should be up for interpretation always, and consistently being challenged by people who can think differently. Just as Galilean relativity was improved by Einstein's theory of relativity, and Newtonian (Classical) mechanics was added on by the ever-growing field of Quantum Mechanics, there is a large probability that the way we visualize how the world works today may be completely different to how people 200-300 years from now will see it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It truly is a scary thought to think that most of our ideas we believe today will just be abandoned. Far beyond our lifetime, newer concepts will be accepted over older ones that will bring even more light to the scope of what science enables humanity to see. The more amazing thought, though, is to be a part of the community of people who can bring more light to the areas of physics that are not fully understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **DISCUSSIONS** section next to the **QUESTIONS** section of this website would influence people to question areas of science that aren't fully accepted, and even areas that are conventionally accepted by the science community. I understand that there is already a chat section on this website, but it is generally not a formal way to discuss sophisticated and intricate topics. These discussions should be unfocused on people having a wide knowledge of terminology, and rather focus more on intellectual reasoning. As well, it is essential to make a comfortable environment for people to feel unworried about challenging a generally accepted concept with a more refined one, or to bring up an entirely new concept to explain a specific phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP would be posting a **topic of discussion**. People can discuss about the topic with either: **Agree**, **Disagree**, or **Append**. These responses are the same as an answer to a question, but geared towards discussing why the topic may be true, why it can't be true, and how the topic should rather be looked at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a response gets enough up-votes, they will be taken to the top of the discussion, where people will more likely be able to see it, similar to how the most up-voted answer typically goes to the top. Although, if an **Append** response gets 10 more up-votes than the topic of discussion made by the OP, the appending response will take over the topic of discussion. The original poster's post (, as well as anybody else's appending post that got appended over,) will be available to anybody by clicking on **Show Previous Poster(s)** at the top of the current topic of discussion. As well, you can see the previous discussions associated with those poster's topic of discussion by pressing on **Show Discussion**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The newer topic of discussion has a new slate in which people can then **Agree**, **Disagree**, or **Append**. The topic of discussion's title will always stay the same, unless there could be a method of requesting it to be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A discussion's section would allow for the community to be able to develop their idea's upon intellect rather than pure logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All of this is up for interpretation, but is a general idea of what is possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tell me what you think about this idea. I do understand that there are many related posts to this, I am just tackling it from a different angle. Finally, don't let my reputation influence what you think about this, I still am a human being with intellectual thoughts just like anyone else on this website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="02731871-3a4c-4cdb-b03c-aeec92e44deb" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:07:58.927" UserId="88907" Text="DISCUSSIONS section" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="02731871-3a4c-4cdb-b03c-aeec92e44deb" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:07:58.927" UserId="88907" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="395cf313-4107-474e-b7d0-ddb607b45218" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:13:14.190" UserId="88907" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Physics is a field that should be up for interpretation always, and consistently being challenged by people who can think differently. Just as Galilean relativity was improved by Einstein's theory of relativity, and Newtonian (Classical) mechanics was added on by the ever-growing field of Quantum Mechanics, there is a large probability that the way we visualize how the world works today may be completely different to how people 200-300 years from now will see it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It truly is a scary thought to think that most of our ideas we believe today will just be abandoned. Far beyond our lifetime, newer concepts will be accepted over older ones that will bring even more light to the scope of what science enables humanity to see. The more amazing thought, though, is to be a part of the community of people who can bring more light to the areas of physics that are not fully understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **DISCUSSIONS** section next to the **QUESTIONS** section of this website would influence people to question areas of science that aren't fully accepted, and even areas that are conventionally accepted by the science community. I understand that there is already a chat section on this website, but it is generally not a formal way to discuss sophisticated and intricate topics. These discussions should be unfocused on people having a wide knowledge of terminology, and rather focus more on intellectual reasoning. As well, it is essential to make a comfortable environment for people to feel unworried about challenging a generally accepted concept with a more refined one, or to bring up an entirely new concept to explain a specific phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP would be posting a **topic of discussion**. People can discuss about the topic with either: **Agree**, **Disagree**, or **Append**. These responses are the same as an answer to a question, but geared towards discussing why the topic may be true, why it can't be true, and how the topic should rather be looked at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a response gets enough up-votes, they will be taken to the top of the discussion, where people will more likely be able to see it, similar to how the most up-voted answer typically goes to the top. Although, if an append response gets 10 more up-votes than the topic of discussion made by the OP, the appending response will take over the topic of discussion. The original poster's post (, as well as anybody else's appending post that got appended over,) will be available to anybody by clicking on **Show Previous Poster(s)** at the top of the current topic of discussion. As well, you can see the previous discussions associated with those poster's topic of discussion by pressing on **Show Discussion** on the specific previous person's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The newer topic of discussion has a new slate in which people can then Agree, Disagree, or Append. The topic of discussion's title will always stay the same, unless there could be a method of requesting it to be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A discussion's section would allow for the community to be able to develop their idea's upon intellect rather than pure logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All of this is up for interpretation, but is a general idea of what is possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tell me what you think about this idea. I do understand that there are many related posts to this, I am just tackling it from a different angle. Finally, don't let my reputation influence what you think about this, I still am a human being with intellectual thoughts just like anyone else on this website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="3638e840-d051-404a-b224-f9f053da5205" CreationDate="2015-08-19T02:01:27.163" UserId="520" Text="You'll find that resistance to setting up a discussion section has a long a storied history on Stack Exchange sites going right back to Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core problem is that the engine is not well suited to holding a proper discussion. Oh, we press the engine into that service on the meta site when ever there is a big decision needed, but it work very poorly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Even if it stay confined to a single question (which it rarely does) the discussion ends up scattered through into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question.&#xD;&#xA;* A bunch of answers, whose sort order is user selectable and therefore not consistent (and the default value of votes first gives no hints on temporal ordering), and each of which may have been edited one or more times since being originally written further muddying the temporal picture.&#xD;&#xA;* A bunch of comment threads. And while each thread is in chronological order once expanded, (a) they can be collapsed bringing up-ticked comments to the fore in a list where they may have no visible context and (b) there is no way to see the time-ordering of comments under different posts except a laborious manual reconstruction, which *no one* does when you start talking about discussion with hundreds of different context items (posts and comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, long story short: the stack exchange engine is a really crappy discussion engine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that is because it is optimized as a Q&amp;A engine, and *that is not going to change*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="4326f778-b051-4119-9478-e3288c9c344c" CreationDate="2015-08-19T03:15:57.963" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You'll find that resistance to setting up a discussion section has a long a storied history on Stack Exchange sites going right back to Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core problem is that the engine is not well suited to holding a proper discussion. Oh, we press the engine into that service on the meta sites whenever there is a big decision needed, but it works very poorly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Even if it stay confined to a single question (which it rarely does) the discussion ends up scattered through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question.&#xD;&#xA;* A bunch of answers, whose sort order is user selectable and therefore not consistent (and the default value of votes first gives no hints on temporal ordering), and each of which may have been edited one or more times since being originally written further muddying the temporal picture.&#xD;&#xA;* A bunch of comment threads. And while each thread is in chronological order once expanded, (a) they can be collapsed bringing up-ticked comments to the fore in a list where they may have no visible context and (b) there is no way to see the time-ordering of comments under different posts except a laborious manual reconstruction, which *no one* does when you start talking about discussion with hundreds of different context items (posts and comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, long story short: the stack exchange engine is a really crappy discussion engine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that is because it is optimized as a Q&amp;A engine, and *that is not going to change*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6987" RevisionGUID="3fe9e49b-b169-491c-a18a-06e00ff0fd28" CreationDate="2015-08-19T08:52:24.527" UserId="1325" Text="Your first paragraph is certainly true, but you underestimate just how far physics has come and how far away the leading edge is from most of us. To get even a basic understanding of the current frontiers in physics requires years of work and is beyond the vast majority of us (it's certainly beyond me :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your idea that a discussion section here would usefully contribute to the advancement of physics is a pipe dream. In practice a discussion section would become full of questions from interested amateurs wanting to learn more of established physics and crackpots wanting to air their latest fantasies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are already various places on the Internet where you can discuss physics, but you'll find they all provide an unsatisfactory experience (unless of course you are a crackpot wanting to air your latest fantasies). The Stack Exchange is unique in managing to attract and retain experienced physicsts willing to put in considerable effort (for free!) to answer physics questions, but it has managed that only by being tightly focussed and strictly regulated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="266d66ca-825d-4a09-a005-418caf455e3a" CreationDate="2015-08-19T13:18:41.587" UserId="41376" Comment="Update" Text="&gt;**Update 19/08/2015** I just recently found the *thought-experiment* tag which is identical to the one I was discouraged from in my proposal below. Did something change in the arguments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to bring this issue to your attention and it would be very nice to know other position and comments on this, I think something useful can come out of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Motivation**: After reading many questions and comments I have seen that several questions are oriented to better understanding the principles and corollaries of a theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I see is that they receive lots of comments which point out irrelevant observations, I mean in relation to real purpose of the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, comments adding information from other areas of physics, or pointing out the infeasibility of the experiment. Nevertheless, when discussing about a certain theory, pointing a paradox or drawing conclusion from it, even if the scenario proposed includes other phenomena not explained by this theory, the relevant discussion might not always need the detailed knowledge of those phenomena which might render this scenario impossible, and the question still be a very valid one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**: Let us think about Einstein's famous gedanken, or thought experiment, of the relativistic train and the 2 observers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is aimed to better understand consequences the theory of relativity and is completely valid. Comments or answers focusing on how the mechanisms for switching light on would work, or how the persons can not see something passing at these speeds, etc., all are arguably valid but out of scope in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the point is, assuming all conditions imposed in the scenario, and not contained in the theory, hold: how do the we explain/understand the consequences and their relation to the theory postulates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**: Using this tag would have the benefits of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **clarify the type of answer desired**: this separates questions wanting details, numbers, technicalities, from those exploring underlying principles, or reflecting misunderstandings of a theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **preventing out of scope comments and answers**: the people will only contribute with posts of relevant aspects, when they have a clear idea of what they are talking about and not bring to attention their knowledge on tangential-to-question subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="f8ab40cb-1719-4ba7-b3a3-a1e575b2ecd8" CreationDate="2015-08-19T14:00:47.767" UserId="23473" Text="As mentioned in the comments, the Stack Exchange Network does not host forums. This site is not a forum for discussion nor is it at all the intention for this site to be a place for discussion. This site is a question and answer site that is meant to allow physicists to ask other physicists questions and answer them. The content on this site is not meant to push the frontiers of physics at all. The physics we present on this site is restricted to published, accepted, and/or mainstream viewpoints. This is the case because we want this to be a repository of information where physicists can find the current or accepted physics about any given topic. As John Rennie pointed out, this narrow approach to our purpose is what has kept our site relevant and what allows us to establish ourselves as an authority on the internet. If you like, there are other sites that can allow for physics discussions. I won't go so far as to say that is not a great idea, it may well be; however, our site is only to be a Q&amp;A about physics. That's the way we want it. That's the way the entire Stack Exchange Network operates. It is a Q&amp;A network about various topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that we feel your idea necessarily wouldn't work; it's just not what the site is about. We intend for this to be a place where there is no new physics; just explanations of current physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="dcd24a30-b4af-49bc-9ec9-2daaef2ef886" CreationDate="2015-08-20T00:04:53.173" UserId="22623" Text="I tried to make a suggested edit for a post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that was otherwise great, but the OP had made a single-character typo. When I tried to correct the typo, I was told that the edit needed to be 6 characters. As it was, the OP had an image there with the default  `[image description goes here]` text, so I just deleted that as unnecessary, but what is the correct way to do this? The comments in [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5402/edits-must-be-6-characters-long) seem to suggest that you should just add some random unprinted nonsense to the question or something, but that can't possibly be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is to be done? Seems like the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;* Suggest the edit and do something to circumvent the 6-character restriction (e.g. `&lt;!--add a comment--&gt;`).&#xD;&#xA;* Leave a comment so the OP or someone with higher rep might make the fix themselves.&#xD;&#xA;* Try and find something else more significant to &quot;improve&quot; about the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like the first bullet is not a desirable outcome for the community, the second one can't possibly be the right recommendation, the third is apt to leave pointless detritus in the comments section, and the fourth is probably not always possible or desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't want to call it out specifically because I don't want there to be a big public-facing record talking about a 1-character typo in an interesting and informative answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="dcd24a30-b4af-49bc-9ec9-2daaef2ef886" CreationDate="2015-08-20T00:04:53.173" UserId="22623" Text="How to suggest an edit to fix a 1-character typo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="dcd24a30-b4af-49bc-9ec9-2daaef2ef886" CreationDate="2015-08-20T00:04:53.173" UserId="22623" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="8b8e2ec9-5786-463c-a29d-416bc6b3f71d" CreationDate="2015-08-20T03:16:55.707" UserId="6634" Text="My best advice is to look for other ways to improve it first. Can you find a picture that illustrates a concept in the post? Can you add links to definitions of words that are used in it? Can you reformat equations to make them more readable? Can you fix a passive voice sentence? Maybe a split infinitive? Did they use &quot;which&quot; and &quot;that&quot; clauses correctly and include the comma if needed? Unless they have written an answer worthy of Annual Reviews in X-topic, can you add references for further reading?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the off chance that you really did find a perfect answer where even Strunk himself couldn't find an issue to improve upon, then fix your 1 character and find a trivial way to alter 5 more characters. But I bet you could always find something else to change or an improvement/definition to add. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6991" RevisionGUID="a94fdcab-7ddc-4f53-bf70-fa27d1b83614" CreationDate="2015-08-20T03:37:10.217" UserId="25301" Text="Well there's actually a [Data Query for that](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/352479/best-time-for-an-answer?MaxTimeDiff=1440)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. The results of which are seen below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plot of mean time between question posted &amp; answer given][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top 8 days, hours &amp; time difference for the shortest times between question posted and answer given (and for the last year) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Day  |  Hour  |  Time difference&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;      Sun  |  1300  |     78 min&#xD;&#xA;      Sat  |  1700  |     83 min&#xD;&#xA;      Tue  |  1600  |     86 min&#xD;&#xA;      Thu  |  1200  |     88 min&#xD;&#xA;      Mon  |  1400  |     91 min&#xD;&#xA;      Mon  |  1300  |     91 min&#xD;&#xA;      Sun  |  1100  |     91 min&#xD;&#xA;      Fri  |  2000  |     92 min&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I stated in a comment, *quality* answers are what you should be wanting, not *fastest* answers. In this case, you may be waiting some time (hours into days into weeks) for a *good* answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I've modified [the original version](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/155028/best-time-to-ask-questions-on-stackexchange-get-answer-faster) to eliminate some, IMO, goofy options&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KFZzi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="c70ec6a2-b3e8-4baa-b79b-79bed078e098" CreationDate="2015-08-20T03:53:54.387" UserId="25301" Text="After noting that one-character mistake, your *first action* should be to look for more mistakes &amp; correct those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all you can find is that one-character edit, then you need to think about whether that one character makes all the difference. If, for instance, the post writes that the kinetic energy is `$$T=\frac{1}{2}kx2$$` (i.e. , no caret), then clearly suggesting the `^` would be wise. But if it's merely changing the *spelling* of a word **do not** suggest it. *If* you feel strongly about it, you *can* leave a comment&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; with the suggestion, but please don't waste reviewers time with trivial edits like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you should think about it this way: does changing *that one character* make the post any more readable *or* make the post correct? If it does not change the readability of the post, you shouldn't make it. If it doesn't change the correctness of the post, you shouldn't make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Commenting does require [more than 50 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) on the site. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="f887e39e-57d3-4cad-a558-2ec63d8c4e37" CreationDate="2015-08-20T03:59:54.200" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="[tpg2114 makes a good point][1] that there is pretty much always extra improvement to be done. However I would suggest that in the rare case no other improvement can be found, then the right thing to do is leave the post alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background about how the site works: Edits bump a post to the front page. *Any* edits, no matter how small. This is intentional. The idea is that changes shouldn't go on behind the scene; they should be visible to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is a cost associated with edits (if nothing else the opportunity cost of users' attention that could be given to other posts), there is a lower limit to how small an edit is deemed acceptable. This is why the system doesn't allow small changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not a system that should be circumvented. The fact is, this is the internet, not an immutable, copy-edited production. Typos happen. In fact, I *know* of typos in some of my own posts, and I don't bother to correct them because the posts are on the whole as good as they are going to get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is if the typo critically alters the post (e.g. omission of &quot;not,&quot; or some important factor of 2 misplaced). Then feel free to leave a comment to the post owner if there are not enough worthwhile changes to be suggested. It's okay to leave such comments (and you can even delete them yourself once the change has been made), and this is preferable to forcing changes for the sake of bypassing the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when you see `[image description goes here]`, a good change would be to replace it with an actual description. This can be used for, e.g., visually impaired people, or for text-based browser types (ok, so only one of these groups should really be accommodated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6990/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6991" RevisionGUID="f40f8f97-1f25-4eaa-a93f-f24e1e55592a" CreationDate="2015-08-20T15:55:52.540" UserId="25301" Comment="added more about the image and included mean time" Text="Well there's actually a [Data Query for that](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/352479/best-time-for-an-answer?MaxTimeDiff=1440)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. The results of which are seen below. The y-axis is the average time (in minutes) between the question posting and the answer posted, the x-axis is the day &amp; hour binning of the week in [UTC time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plot of mean time between question posted &amp; answer given][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top 8 days, hours &amp; time difference for the shortest times between question posted and answer given (and for the last year) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Day  |  Hour  |  Time difference&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;      Sun  |  1300  |     78 min&#xD;&#xA;      Sat  |  1700  |     83 min&#xD;&#xA;      Tue  |  1600  |     86 min&#xD;&#xA;      Thu  |  1200  |     88 min&#xD;&#xA;      Mon  |  1400  |     91 min&#xD;&#xA;      Mon  |  1300  |     91 min&#xD;&#xA;      Sun  |  1100  |     91 min&#xD;&#xA;      Fri  |  2000  |     92 min&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mean time across the week is **170 minutes** (or 2 hours, 50 minutes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I stated in a comment, ***quality*** answers are what you *should* be wanting, not *fastest* answers. In this case, you may be waiting some time (hours into days into weeks) for a *good* answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I've modified [the original version](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/155028/best-time-to-ask-questions-on-stackexchange-get-answer-faster) to eliminate some, IMO, goofy options&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2  Here is a handy [UTC Time Now calculator](http://time.unitarium.com/utc/) in case you don't know what your local time is in UTC.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KFZzi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="5815792b-b027-487d-a53e-421af8aa25d2" CreationDate="2015-08-21T02:54:04.433" UserId="75809" Text="Is this a good question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come Land Speed Records for Cars get higher speeds than motorcycles? (Even though they're less aerodynamic?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it because more rocket can be packed onto a car, as compared to a motorbike?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="5815792b-b027-487d-a53e-421af8aa25d2" CreationDate="2015-08-21T02:54:04.433" UserId="75809" Text="Is this a good question? - How come Land Speed Records for Cars get higher speeds than motorcycles? (Even though they're less aerodynamic?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="5815792b-b027-487d-a53e-421af8aa25d2" CreationDate="2015-08-21T02:54:04.433" UserId="75809" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="d934cc1e-d534-4cba-ad17-a4a677fb26c8" CreationDate="2015-08-21T07:35:31.087" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Such a question would probably fall afoul of our [engineering policy][1]. There are many, many factors to consider, a number of which are simply not physics. In fact you've already covered the physics -- the aerodynamics. Factors such as difficulty of construction and human safety (do *you* want to be going at supersonic speeds with just a leather jacket protecting you?) would be needed to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="3fabee1d-23e0-45a6-99d1-d2c50f2cb98f" CreationDate="2015-08-21T13:02:35.937" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Is this a good question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come Land Speed Records for Cars get higher speeds than motorcycles? (Even though they're less aerodynamic?) Is it because more rocket can be packed onto a car, as compared to a motorbike?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="3fabee1d-23e0-45a6-99d1-d2c50f2cb98f" CreationDate="2015-08-21T13:02:35.937" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="858e858c-68da-4700-9c84-2f863131657e" CreationDate="2015-08-21T22:05:08.763" UserId="75809" Comment="Added a link to posted version" Text="Is this a good question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come Land Speed Records for Cars get higher speeds than motorcycles? (Even though they're less aerodynamic?) Is it because more rocket can be packed onto a car, as compared to a motorbike?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posted, and flagged for a move to Engineering: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201819/what-are-the-biggest-reasons-that-land-speed-records-for-cars-are-than-motorcycl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="59ac3b14-ea39-4387-bdd6-d477efc81b59" CreationDate="2015-08-21T22:37:52.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/634856972949581824" />
  <row Id="18986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="1c316d4c-1cfe-434b-a396-0660d36c252a" CreationDate="2015-08-22T15:07:25.623" UserId="28745" Text="Can I ask a Fermi question on Physics Stack Exchange and looking for creative and plausible answers? Even that may sound silly? Such as: How much sea level will it rise if you pee at the sea? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="1c316d4c-1cfe-434b-a396-0660d36c252a" CreationDate="2015-08-22T15:07:25.623" UserId="28745" Text="Can I ask silly Fermi questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="1c316d4c-1cfe-434b-a396-0660d36c252a" CreationDate="2015-08-22T15:07:25.623" UserId="28745" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="d7c23f31-9851-417c-8098-6bbd7bd2d92c" CreationDate="2015-08-22T17:34:21.727" UserId="24653" Comment="fixed spelling error in Dutch name " Text="A pretty famous guy, [G. 't Hooft](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11205/g-t-hooft), wrote a response about one of his papers: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18586/deterministic-quantum-mechanics/160193#160193 on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing a search of [`&quot;my paper&quot;`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22my+paper%22) presents a few more users who have at least cited their works in their answers (discounting vixra because it's usually not reputable works hosted there), though not usually the case that the question itself is about their works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Xiao-Gang Wen](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9444/xiao-gang-wen)&#xD;&#xA;  - http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A9444+my+paper&#xD;&#xA; - [Arnold Neumaier](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7924/arnold-neumaier)&#xD;&#xA;  - http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7924+my+paper&#xD;&#xA; - [Luboš Motl](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1236/lubo%C5%A1-motl)&#xD;&#xA;  - http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A1236+my+paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="28843226-6319-416e-adeb-d6c31d568bbe" CreationDate="2015-08-23T05:19:45.470" UserId="124" Text="I'm inclined to say no. This probably falls under the part in the help center where it talks about asking practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face; now, that's not meant to be interpreted _too_ literally, but the reason it says that is to discourage precisely these sorts of just-for-fun puzzle-type questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="84de454f-9db6-4ae1-aeb3-ab6d9d6c0ba0" CreationDate="2015-08-24T08:02:35.397" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="There are two problems with Fermi problems here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, this site isn't meant to have open-ended questions, or challenge questions. Answerers aren't meant to be competing against one another for the most interesting solution. Rather, we answer questions in order to build up a knowledge base and help disseminate facts and results in physics. Many Fermi problems have multiple acceptable answers depending on what assumptions are made, and this platform simply isn't designed to handle such cases. Remember, there can exist insightful/entertaining/good things in life that are nonetheless off-topic for this site, and there is nothing that needs fixing with this state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, and more subtly, many Fermi problems simply aren't physics. The classic &quot;how many piano tuners are in Chicago?&quot; is a prime example of this. The solution is to make educated guesses for some input parameters, and then perform simple stoichiometry to convert units. This might demonstrate rational thinking, and it might require a decent background in everyday life, but it really isn't physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a Fermi question is objectively answerable, is not posed as a quiz for the site's userbase, and is actually about a physics concept, then it is okay. The question must stand on its own; taking the form of idle musing purportedly had by some long-dead physicist is not sufficient to make a post on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18997" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="3ca2e46e-0bd1-4968-aede-bdf817d2f8d4" CreationDate="2015-08-24T22:56:51.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/635948916022865920" />
  <row Id="18998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="be224f3e-de82-4ad1-a03e-4b3b084a0b22" CreationDate="2015-08-26T05:23:25.447" UserId="84725" Text="How do I post a free body diagram or any rough sketch in a question? Is there a code or something else? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="be224f3e-de82-4ad1-a03e-4b3b084a0b22" CreationDate="2015-08-26T05:23:25.447" UserId="84725" Text="How do I post diagrams in a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="be224f3e-de82-4ad1-a03e-4b3b084a0b22" CreationDate="2015-08-26T05:23:25.447" UserId="84725" Text="|discussion|questions|stackexchange|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="d88de944-acc5-4d6d-ad0c-6de2f203957c" CreationDate="2015-08-26T05:47:47.923" UserId="1325" Text="I draw my diagrams using [Google Draw][1], then I screengrab the picture and paste it into my favourite image editor (Paint Shop Pro), tidy it up and save it as a GIF. The GIF can then be inserted into your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="aa4e8f71-8e23-44a4-979d-4737ad8c6f17" CreationDate="2015-08-26T18:50:02.533" UserId="46399" Comment="hyperlink doesn't have to extend over the entire question body - minor fix" Text="When I check [this page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/review), it says that there' is a suggested edit queue. But aren't suggested edits disallowed on meta? Where did this come from? Is it outdated?. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="c96bf544-8cfa-4256-abf2-8eefe86fbeab" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:21:57.373" UserId="71413" Text="Just interested in what happened, why would someone delete their accepted answer to my question [question][1] that actually helped me?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And isn't ACuriousMind's comment just wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201952/quantum-liouville-propagator-operator-trace-identity/202027#202027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="c96bf544-8cfa-4256-abf2-8eefe86fbeab" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:21:57.373" UserId="71413" Text="were did this answer go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="c96bf544-8cfa-4256-abf2-8eefe86fbeab" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:21:57.373" UserId="71413" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7003" RevisionGUID="27878ab3-c494-45df-9d53-7bbd835b8744" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:40:38.610" UserId="50583" Text="The answer was deleted by DavidZ in accordance with the homework policy, under which full/explicit answers to homework-like questions get deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="956e84d8-5e37-450a-8d5c-fe07c882d0a5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T18:33:53.883" UserId="11053" Text="When a question comes up in the re-open queue because it was edited, the default is to show the side-by-side comparison of the pre- and post- edit. There is another 'tab' available that will show the question as it appears after the edit. The view highlighting the changes is fine, and probably what I want to look at first, but there is a key piece of information missing, which is why the question was closed in the first place. This substantially increases the required effort to review the question, since I first need to try to assess why the question is closed by either skimming it or switching tabs to see the close reason and comments, then go on to assess whether the edit makes enough difference to warrant re-opening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To those who may protest &quot;but you should spend enough time to thoroughly assess the question no matter what&quot;, I assure you that I do give each question I review a fair assessment, however some reviews would be much speeded along if I started off knowing why the question was closed in the first place. Particularly for edits that simply add a paragraph to the end of the question (about half the questions I see in re-open, I'd estimate), it's usually straightforward to see whether the new paragraph makes the question more on-topic, or more clear, or narrower, but if I conclude that the edit makes the question clearer then realize the question is a duplicate, it's just frustrating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, would it be possible to add the close reason somewhere on the default view of the re-open queue? For instance, there is a banner that says something like &quot;this question was edited after it was closed, should it be re-opened?&quot;; that could read &quot;this question was edited after it was closed for being off-topic (homework/engineering/non-mainstream)/too broad/duplicate/etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is better suited to mother-meta could migrate it there, but as close-reasons are on a per-site basis, presumably this needs some consideration on a per-site basis as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="956e84d8-5e37-450a-8d5c-fe07c882d0a5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T18:33:53.883" UserId="11053" Text="Re-open review queue default tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="956e84d8-5e37-450a-8d5c-fe07c882d0a5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T18:33:53.883" UserId="11053" Text="|feature-request|review|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="680952e0-5001-46d7-85c6-29dd3da8fddd" CreationDate="2015-08-27T18:52:28.057" UserId="23473" Text="Quite frankly, it shouldn't matter what the close reason was (unless it was closed as a duplicate, in which case that information *is* visible on the default page). No matter why it was closed, when you review a question for reopen, you should read through the post and assess whether or not you think the question is suitable to be open on our site based on its current state and nothing more. Understandably, it is sometimes necessary to get input from others or to figure out if the new version of the question has addressed the problems that originally had it closed, but checking things like this should be done only after you have assessed it yourself and decided it is a good fit (if you think it should be closed, no point to check why it was closed already).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Displaying the close reason right away can add a bias to a reviewer's decision. We want reviewers to review fairly and objectively. To that end, it makes more sense for the original close reason to not be immediately apparent. You may say that you aren't influenced by how others voted or by the original reason for closure, and perhaps that's true; however, some reviewers are and by hiding the close reason, we allow those reviewers to pass judgement without that being a possible source of bias. If you want, you can click a button and check for yourself. This gives everyone the option to go without knowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not ashamed to admit that while I usually address each reopen vote fairly, there have been a few times where I realized I was letting the close reason affect my judgement and was being unfairly harsh or lenient because of it. Because that's always a possibility, I now always make sure to judge a question's content *before* looking at the close reason, just to ensure that cannot ever be a source of bias in my decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is (with the exception of duplicates, which usually shouldn't be changed significantly enough to warrant reopening), the close reason should be hidden to allow reviewers to choose whether or not they want to know it before deciding if a question should be closed or not. Putting the close reason in the top banner effectively removes the option of not seeing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="0eb90d66-5485-4ab2-8ce0-4b95e6974b80" CreationDate="2015-08-28T16:27:29.313" UserId="11053" Text="While ACuriousMind's answer covers most cases, there is one other that I occasionally come across - where you seem to be the only one to be able to understand the OP's post (at least of people who have read it and/or commented). Perhaps this is because you're intimately familiar with the topic, giving you some extra insight, or because the OP's first language is the same as yours helping you see what may have been lost in translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're confident that you understand the question, but that it may be unclear to others, it's acceptable to edit the question (often substantially) yourself, at which point you can reasonably post an answer. When I do this I usually leave a note to the OP asking that they check that I haven't misinterpreted them, and instructions on how to roll back the edit if they don't like it. Presumably this is encouraged behaviour since you can get [a few dozen yellow pixels][1] if you do it enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/1219/illuminator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="e14fc42a-8339-4fd0-94e7-f56858156938" CreationDate="2015-08-29T00:42:08.613" UserId="56521" Text="While not all of my questions are the best, I often find they stay at very low views for longer periods with neither up votes nor down votes and after a while they simply get buried with no chance of every being found due to the way questions are arranged. Is there any way individuals can increase chances of their question being spotted by a possible answerer beyond accurate title and tags or anything they can do once it is buried and is there anything we can do as community to avoid questions getting buried? Note: I am aware of bounties, I'm looking for other possible solutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="e14fc42a-8339-4fd0-94e7-f56858156938" CreationDate="2015-08-29T00:42:08.613" UserId="56521" Text="How to handle questions getting buried?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="e14fc42a-8339-4fd0-94e7-f56858156938" CreationDate="2015-08-29T00:42:08.613" UserId="56521" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="cc485d84-9037-4137-837b-fcd9c3bcf28b" CreationDate="2015-08-29T01:58:12.960" UserId="520" Text="On reviewing your questions I recall seeing some of them, finding the titles intriguing enough to warrant a quick read of the question and then moving on without leaving a comment of answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that you have moved beyond the mindset of most beginners (and congratulations), but haven't fully internalized the lessons of introductory coursework yet (no surprise there, it takes a while). That makes your text read like it was written by a physicist, but means your questions are not particularly interesting to me. At the same time, the presentation may be going over the heads of some users who would find the questions both interesting and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Possible suggestion:* spend some more time trying to answer questions; attempt to write lengthy and complete answers to basic questions. In the processes you may uncover some weak spots in your own understanding of the basics. Then (search the site and if you don't find answers) ask after those weaknesses in particular. There tend to be patterns in the blind-spots and misunderstandings that people develop as they go along and asking a carefully crafted question about one of those will resonate with both teachers and students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="7e9109ec-cf79-46c0-b901-3c51e71b1025" CreationDate="2015-08-29T08:08:59.213" UserId="63547" Text="Most of the anonymous suggested edits I've seen till now are something of this sort (might be my misfortune.): &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XRPbR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;As far as I've seen, most SE members here are active enough and keep editing stuff that needs to be edited. Are anonymous edits useful at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="7e9109ec-cf79-46c0-b901-3c51e71b1025" CreationDate="2015-08-29T08:08:59.213" UserId="63547" Text="Why do we allow anonymous users to suggest edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="7e9109ec-cf79-46c0-b901-3c51e71b1025" CreationDate="2015-08-29T08:08:59.213" UserId="63547" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="a681f323-4fe0-453f-9eab-ee5beefd4b08" CreationDate="2015-08-29T10:43:49.347" UserId="6982" Text="Yes, anonymous edits are useful. There are two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you are SE user on another SE subsite, but not on Physics.SE, your edits will show up as anonymous (as far as I know). I, for example, sometimes read interesting questions on subsites on which I do not have an account. If I see questions or answer where multiple issues can be improved (language, style, etc), then I will suggest an edit to improve the question/answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Some people will end up on Physics.SE via search engines. They do not have an account, but may be very familiar with the field. If they spot mistakes in a post, they should not be discouraged to correct them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, examples as you show are just vandalism, but in my experience they are not so common. It is one of the reasons we do have the review queue, so that edits do not show up immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="d65324ee-20cf-425e-8696-8181decb1717" CreationDate="2015-08-29T14:28:50.007" UserId="86889" Text="[This question was asked nearly 24 h ago][1] and didn’t receive an answer so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was downvoted 6 times, presumably because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	It’s homework and the OP didn’t show any effort at working out an answer.&#xD;&#xA;2.	The question was poorly formatted (mostly a screenshot of an exam/homework site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP was also unresponsive to comments made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve tried working out the problem but haven’t come up with anything worthy of an answer. But I’m very interested to see if this problem has a solution and if so which is it? For that reason I’d like to post the question again, as my own, properly formatted and with partial workings out because I believe posted that it that way, may attract those who may know how to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*But I’m afraid the new question would be flagged as a duplicate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other possibility is to heavily edit the existing question but there’s the risk that this will be interpreted as not in the spirit of the OP’s question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another possibility is to allow more time, hoping someone will provide an answer but considering the *6 down votes and the hold status* that seems unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203089/how-to-solve-the-following-question-about-quantum-mechanical-wave-function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="d65324ee-20cf-425e-8696-8181decb1717" CreationDate="2015-08-29T14:28:50.007" UserId="86889" Text="Is it permissible to re-post another member’s unanswered question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="d65324ee-20cf-425e-8696-8181decb1717" CreationDate="2015-08-29T14:28:50.007" UserId="86889" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="6684e7b2-afaf-48da-b0e7-46106ff20bef" CreationDate="2015-08-29T15:10:25.143" UserId="25301" Text="Points 1 and 2 are precisely why I downvoted the post in question (which will likely be auto-deleted soon, so I've saved the screenshot and linked [it here][1]); I suspect that the same reasons are why it was closed as well (though more for 1 than 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting the *same* question would mean that you are running afoul of the [**homework policy**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) *and* duplicating the question; both would get your question closed (I'd lean more towards the HW reason if I saw it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as much as people say it in comments, adding your effort doesn't actually prevent your homework question from being closed as homework. Note that the **tl;dr** on the HW policy says,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is quite in line with the community's opinion on [**check my work**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic) questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, you *can* repost the question yourself **if** you make it about the *particular physical concept*, and not &quot;How is this question solved?&quot; that it currently is posed as. This will probably take some thinking on your part on how to phrase it such that it doesn't violate the site policies, but I imagine it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8onD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="15033cc1-b800-480f-8eef-fe8799326a76" CreationDate="2015-08-29T17:39:12.190" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="**No, anonymous edits are not useful.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone can't be bothered to register an account (with anonymity! they can be user137103820382), they are unlikely to care about the well-being of the site. Moreover, they are almost certainly unaware of the site's culture and policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most every anonymous edit I've seen has been vandalism. And the few that were good-intentioned were things that should be rejected as too minor, or things that too drastically deviated from the author's intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of noise is detrimental to the site. Especially because poor edits *do* leak through the review. We have a number of users who auto-approve every edit they review, and my own experiences tell me careful reviewers are outnumbered by the careless on the site (I've had to reverse a number of harmful edits to my own posts -- edits that were approved so fast I never even saw them pending.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="e31f8ebe-13f4-4ac2-a6e1-2ef51d743d0c" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:00:10.273" UserId="27232" Text="Often, commenters will respond to a specific previous comment by commenter 'Bob' like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;@Bob: Good idea, but ther's a problem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some months later, Bob changes his name to 'Bobby'. Now, his comments will be signed with 'Bobby', but the  comment referring to his still reads '@Bob'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the admins refactor the site so all @Bob references get changed to @Bobby?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issure can become confusing or even indecipherable in a comment discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="e31f8ebe-13f4-4ac2-a6e1-2ef51d743d0c" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:00:10.273" UserId="27232" Text="Name changes don't get fixed in comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="e31f8ebe-13f4-4ac2-a6e1-2ef51d743d0c" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:00:10.273" UserId="27232" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7003" RevisionGUID="c18cee73-4f1b-44c8-9234-c741aecea85f" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:40:33.667" UserId="2451" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="The answer was deleted by a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) in accordance with the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), under which full/explicit answers to homework-like questions get deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="5f7984d6-2901-4725-b977-c7a58a05d3c2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:41:23.857" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Just interested in what happened, why would someone delete their accepted answer to my question [question][1] that actually helped me?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And isn't ACuriousMind's comment just wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/201952/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19032" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="5f7984d6-2901-4725-b977-c7a58a05d3c2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:41:23.857" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Where did this answer go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="5f7984d6-2901-4725-b977-c7a58a05d3c2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T08:41:23.857" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="2bd189ab-76ff-4ae1-a35c-bda4dc88aa95" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:30:43.210" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7017" RevisionGUID="b7975881-1c2b-48b7-b691-98769005032b" CreationDate="2015-08-31T02:59:48.237" UserId="124" Text="I'm not an admin, but I suspect if you ask them, they would say no, for the following reason: comments are ephemeral. They're meant for requesting clarification or suggesting changes, both of which are inherently temporary purposes. By the time a few months pass, a comment will have outlived its usefulness, and if it contains a confusing reference to another member, the better solution is to just delete the comment. (Corollary: please flag such comments!) Keeping all comments updated with name changes would be a waste of a considerable amount of computing power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will note that we don't _actively_ enforce the rules on what comments can be used for (i.e. clarification and changes), but still, this feature would only be relevant for comments that should be deleted anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="a20ae188-ef9b-4c12-ad72-aaa63c7abf52" CreationDate="2015-08-31T08:18:13.517" UserId="83398" Text="I just bumped into [this question][1], which was closed shortly after being posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was definitely a badly-written, super ambiguous question. But somebody provided a really nice answer: one that was practically useful, comprehensible to the layman, and nontrivial to nonlaymen. I feel like the community lost something by closing this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I believe &quot;naive&quot; layman questions about everyday life, phrased in everyday language, are better than the majority of questions on this site. They're certainly better than the flood of nonsense 'if the Higgs boson, then does time exist' questions, or the 'help me do exercise #28' questions; they also have better odds of producing interesting answers. Why do such questions get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154793/does-it-matter-which-blanket-i-take-below-and-which-one-above-when-i-cover-mysel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="a20ae188-ef9b-4c12-ad72-aaa63c7abf52" CreationDate="2015-08-31T08:18:13.517" UserId="83398" Text="What's the policy on ill-formed, laymen questions that have interesting answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="a20ae188-ef9b-4c12-ad72-aaa63c7abf52" CreationDate="2015-08-31T08:18:13.517" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="f8f1a951-2e1f-4dc2-86fb-9ef8f27e5af3" CreationDate="2015-08-31T08:56:47.687" UserId="124" Text="I would first note that this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They're certainly better than the flood of nonsense 'if the Higgs boson, then does time exist' questions, or the 'help me do exercise #28' questions; they also have better odds of producing interesting answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not a justification for keeping interesting layperson questions around, because interesting layperson questions and bad layperson questions are not mutually exclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is supposed to be an expert-level site, which basically means we want to retain a core community of experts and keep the site interesting for them. Regardless of whether we actually do that effectively, that is the goal. Having a core community of experts doesn't exclude participation by non-specialists, but they are not the target audience and if their participation is detrimental to the core goal of maintaining a community of experts, then it's in our interest to regulate or restrict that participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These layperson questions, even when they are interesting, are often considered some of the _most_ detrimental questions on the site by many well-established members. Sure, they're not as bad as the no-effort homework help questions or the like, but they tend to become very popular, much more so than more advanced questions which _also_ contain interesting physics and are the sort of questions we really want to dominate the site. So what we tend to do is require non-specialist questions to be particularly well-formed and interesting to our experts; otherwise they get closed. That way, even the questions which do become popular still capture experts' interest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="41f62c6c-7a4d-4782-bf3d-148a81c11fa8" CreationDate="2015-08-31T16:45:07.967" UserId="8563" Comment="Open Science is now closed. Chemistry is now graduated. Some braver soul than me can do the re-numbering." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider following these sites and helping out with their definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Homework questions][38]][37]&#xD;&#xA;[![Competitive Exams][40]][39]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider visiting, and participating in, [the sites that are currently in beta phase](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta), which include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][28]][27]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][32]][31]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][36]][35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://datascience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/55053.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [39]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [40]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="1e9b6285-8d11-47e2-af37-3d9d365ee562" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:34:27.483" UserId="89965" Text="I answered a certain question correctly on ***p-n-p transistors and doping*** in **PhysicsSE** and the answer was accepted and voted up. I got +25 reputation for that. Today I came to know that the question has been migrated to **Electrical Engineering** community. Side by side, I have lost 25 reputation for no valid reason. Are the events interlinked? Can the reputation be somehow gained back or is it lost forever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="1e9b6285-8d11-47e2-af37-3d9d365ee562" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:34:27.483" UserId="89965" Text="What happens to reputation earned when question is migrated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="1e9b6285-8d11-47e2-af37-3d9d365ee562" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:34:27.483" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="7a7dfe5a-2f33-40a1-8d57-ff46f7fc895d" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:55:25.060" UserId="2451" Comment="added 79 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I answered a certain question correctly on ***p-n-p transistors and doping*** in [**Phys.SE**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) and the answer was accepted and voted up. I got +25 reputation for that. Today I came to know that the question has been migrated to [**Electrical Engineering.SE**](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) community. Side by side, I have lost 25 reputation for no valid reason. Are the events interlinked? Can the reputation be somehow gained back or is it lost forever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19052" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="7a7dfe5a-2f33-40a1-8d57-ff46f7fc895d" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:55:25.060" UserId="2451" Comment="added 79 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What happens to reputation earned when question is migrated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="7a7dfe5a-2f33-40a1-8d57-ff46f7fc895d" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:55:25.060" UserId="2451" Comment="added 79 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|reputation|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="c9d18f4d-c306-443f-b95b-1d290e831d3f" CreationDate="2015-09-01T10:58:01.757" UserId="2451" Text="You can regain the migrated reputation by creating an account on EE.SE that is linked to your Phys.SE account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="5880558f-d505-4634-aae1-ae0b343924a7" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:06:27.723" UserId="89965" Text="My question got upvoted on Meta but I got no reputation for that. All of my questions which got upvoted on Phy.SE gave me reputation. Any plausible reason for that not happening in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="5880558f-d505-4634-aae1-ae0b343924a7" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:06:27.723" UserId="89965" Text="Can one earn reputation on Physics Meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="5880558f-d505-4634-aae1-ae0b343924a7" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:06:27.723" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="e08e165c-6cee-4282-b754-e3c9c7ce03c9" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:30:56.460" UserId="50583" Text="Meta is for discussion and support for the main site, and questions and answers here are not based on physical expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, you don't get any reputation here (but you also don't lose reputation for getting downvoted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the case for all per-site-metas, cf. [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/136091/263383). meta.SE is the only meta-like site on the network which has reptuation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="da7b1982-8ae6-439e-a5af-e81b998a25e0" CreationDate="2015-09-01T14:31:52.283" UserId="28810" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="5453fd9e-1424-47dc-8eed-7706e6f52a43" CreationDate="2015-09-01T16:24:10.570" UserId="8563" Text="We have a certain number of users of the site who have been here for some time, but still retain their original username of the form userXXXX. I find it relatively annoying as I'm never sure whether I've interacted with them or not, so they all sort of blend into a single user. I wanted to test how much of a thing this is, and the resulting query,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Anonymous users (userXXXX) by reputation, last access date, and time since creation](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/343307/anonymous-users-userxxxx-by-reputation-last-access-date-and-time-since-creati)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;took me a bit by surprise. There are 18 userXXXXs with 1k rep or more, generally with over a year on the site, and they total between them almost 50k rep. At the lower bar of 300 rep there's over 60 such users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To users with such usernames: please consider changing your username to something more distinctive. If nothing else, it will make it easier for other users to interact with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the rest of the community: are these numbers bigger than we'd like? If so, how can we encourage people away from this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="5453fd9e-1424-47dc-8eed-7706e6f52a43" CreationDate="2015-09-01T16:24:10.570" UserId="8563" Text="(How) can we encourage non-newbie users to change away from userXXXX?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="5453fd9e-1424-47dc-8eed-7706e6f52a43" CreationDate="2015-09-01T16:24:10.570" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="58b9c301-5f24-400c-a82f-657af22946f0" CreationDate="2015-09-01T17:26:21.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/638764843147898880" />
  <row Id="19064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="2c2a1471-2b6b-44db-8fc8-63fe8743261a" CreationDate="2015-09-01T17:55:53.773" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor spelling mistake" Text="Meta is for discussion and support for the main site, and questions and answers here are not based on physical expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, you don't get any reputation here (but you also don't lose reputation for getting downvoted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the case for all per-site-metas, cf. [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/136091/263383). Meta.SE is the only meta-like site on the network which has reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7027" RevisionGUID="c6d33e81-496b-4262-bee6-4a3ea24415dd" CreationDate="2015-09-02T14:47:54.757" UserId="50583" Text="I'm undecided on whether or not it is desirable to have people change away from `user&lt;userID&gt;`. Here are some points to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **SE is about questions and answers, not about people**: We should judge questions and answers on the basis of their actual content, not on the basis of who has written them. However, the fact that we aren't *all* `user&lt;userID&gt;` means we do not consider identifiability to be absolutely detrimental to that (and it can perhaps lend credibility to an answer if you know the user has reliably answers similar questions in the past).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **We are/aim to be a community**: We want to be a community of physicists of all kinds. It's difficult to be a community if you don't know if you've seen the other person around or not every time you meet someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **The choice to be anonymous should be respected**: There are many valid reasons to want to remain anonymous, and even if you don't have a &quot;valid reason&quot;, it's still everyone's own *choice* to reveal something about themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...I dunno, we could say to them *&quot;Hey, it would be nice if you chose a username we can recognize&quot;*, but I don't think we should put particular pressure/encouragement into it - if they *want* to be `user&lt;userID&gt;`, it's completely fine. So, unless there is a large number of such users who don't *know* they could pick a new name, I don't think we can (or should) do anything to change the portion of anonymous users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7028" RevisionGUID="8092d572-e78d-4e54-8737-01d9f407df33" CreationDate="2015-09-02T16:14:03.583" UserId="90736" Text="Instead of making unique names an opt-in feature, it should be default. New users can get a unique name, such as `&lt;random adjective&gt; &lt;random verb&gt; &lt;random noun&gt;`. That would allow privacy-oriented people to keep their Stack activity divorced from their identity while being recognizable on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If users don't want to be recognizable, they can manually set their name to userXXXX." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19073" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="494c800b-480e-4da9-9e1c-ead0fd00fad7" CreationDate="2015-09-02T20:26:40.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/639172613168828417" />
  <row Id="19074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="c24c62e0-9439-4862-ae57-9fc69e92a5bc" CreationDate="2015-09-03T14:41:56.977" UserId="89965" Text="In my profile page, there is a section below &quot;*bio*&quot;,&quot;*visit*&quot;,&quot;*stats*&quot; named &quot;*private*&quot;. This part contains 2 things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Real name**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **My Email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other users, I find that there is no such *private* when I view their profiles.&#xD;&#xA;So mainly for privacy, I tried to erase my real name and also my email via &quot;*edit*&quot;. But it still remained. Can anyone tell me if this &quot;*private*&quot; exists for all and only the user himself can view this? Or is it that there is some kind of an option to do so which others have used but I cannot find?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="c24c62e0-9439-4862-ae57-9fc69e92a5bc" CreationDate="2015-09-03T14:41:56.977" UserId="89965" Text="Is the private part present on every profile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="c24c62e0-9439-4862-ae57-9fc69e92a5bc" CreationDate="2015-09-03T14:41:56.977" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="0389cf71-4678-463a-af12-968d60c4dbcd" CreationDate="2015-09-03T15:18:52.210" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Can anyone tell me if this &quot;private&quot; exists for all and only the user himself can view this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, exactly. That's what &quot;private&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, moderators (those with a diamond after their names) and select Stack Exchange employees with privileged access can also view the information you enter there. So it's not _just_ you. But site members at large cannot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="a5f31017-fb41-4bc9-aaa8-a0735c2faf2d" CreationDate="2015-09-03T19:46:21.917" UserId="12262" Text="In [this recent question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7024) (and following comments) the problem is identified that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;_some in the community are bugged [or] annoyed by_&quot; the particular appearance or choice of display names of some users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, for any particular alphanumeric string there may some reason be found for it being imperfect or inappropriate as display name of a particular PSE user. (Even the real name of any user, which cannot itself be deemed objectionable by anyone as a matter of principle, may nevertheless fail to satisfy demands of anonymity.) Therefore the possibility can and must be entertained that there may be members of the community for whom **any** particular selection of display name is annoying to some in the community (possibly themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if any one particular selection cannot satisfy everyone, then why not let everyone set their own individual preference?:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let each specific user select a preferred display name (as it is presently possible already) as default;     &#xD;&#xA;but, moreover, **give everyone else in the community the individual option to substitute** this default display name (of any specific user under consideration) by a name string of their own preference (separately for each specific user under consideration) for display **in their individual view**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concretely, given `userABC`'s default setting     &#xD;&#xA;`ABC_display_name := &quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,    &#xD;&#xA;any other `userXYZ`'s optional setting     &#xD;&#xA;`XYZ_replacement_display_name_for_ABC := &quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then any text which `userABC` (wrote and) views as containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;`userXYZ` would view as text with the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and any other `userHJK` who didn't customize the individual `HJK_replacement_display_name_for_ABC` preference option, or anyone who isn't logged in, would view the text with the occurences of string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`, just as `userABC` does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, any text which `userXYZ` (wrote and) views as text containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;would be viewed by `userABC` as well as by any default user as text with the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It might be advantageous, however, if these substutions are suppressed for occurances of these strings under consideration which are enclosed in suitable escape characters, such as in pairs of backticks: &amp;#96;`&quot;&lt;...&gt;&quot;`&amp;#96;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be implemented, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="a5f31017-fb41-4bc9-aaa8-a0735c2faf2d" CreationDate="2015-09-03T19:46:21.917" UserId="12262" Text="Can we make the appearance of the display name of any user an individual preference option for each viewer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="a5f31017-fb41-4bc9-aaa8-a0735c2faf2d" CreationDate="2015-09-03T19:46:21.917" UserId="12262" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7032" RevisionGUID="a414789b-2bbc-494f-826b-7ef393ebb305" CreationDate="2015-09-04T03:22:32.683" UserId="124" Text="What you're talking about are aliases, which are used by some social media sites and other systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not the one with the power to decide whether this gets implemented, but I _highly_ doubt those who do have that power would seriously consider it. There just isn't a good justification for it. If you would simply prefer to see one username rather than another, well... you're not going to like everything you read on the internet. That's just the way it is. And if you make the argument that having customizable username aliases would make it easier to distinguish different members, that's true, but SE is about the content, not the people, so you don't really need to distinguish different members anyway. (So the argument goes. This could be debated, I guess, in the sense that distinguishing users is important for building a community.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="b0b0661f-a303-4a6d-a236-39dec08e245a" CreationDate="2015-09-04T19:05:34.820" UserId="89965" Text="I see suggested edits need to be reviewed for them to get applied on the post. How many such reviews are needed for every edit? Does this anyhow depend on the post(question/answer), or the reputation of the asker/respondant, or the reputation of the reviewer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently found an edit of mine already approved by one but still pending review. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="b0b0661f-a303-4a6d-a236-39dec08e245a" CreationDate="2015-09-04T19:05:34.820" UserId="89965" Text="How many approved reviews are required to get an edit applied for a question/answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="b0b0661f-a303-4a6d-a236-39dec08e245a" CreationDate="2015-09-04T19:05:34.820" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7034" RevisionGUID="339103cd-0c4c-492d-ad43-56059e3a1faf" CreationDate="2015-09-04T21:21:33.853" UserId="24653" Text="I think it's a &quot;best of three&quot; system, i.e. 2 approvals means it gets implemented, while 2 rejections means it gets discarded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="abfb1383-67ca-4594-8f0b-b99995df6a47" CreationDate="2015-09-04T23:34:50.017" UserId="56299" Text="From [How do suggested edits work?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work) (specifically, [the answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/76284/274942)):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Two (or three on SO) accept or reject votes are required to remove the suggested edit from the queue and either apply the edit to the post or discard it. [It used to be a single vote (two on SO)](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151586/59303)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An edit will get approved if two out of three reviewers approve it, and rejected if two out of three reviewers reject it. The exception is if one of the reviewers is the original poster, in which case they can singlehandedly approve the edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19087" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="04bdb7e9-fd69-4ddb-a9e3-43c057609f84" CreationDate="2015-09-05T08:51:08.813" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="98d25a3a-ab44-4cff-8e67-a278ebee49b7" CreationDate="2015-09-06T15:05:18.990" UserId="56299" Comment="Slight clarification." Text="From [How do suggested edits work?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work) (specifically, [the answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/76284/274942)):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Two (or three on SO) accept or reject votes are required to remove the suggested edit from the queue and either apply the edit to the post or discard it. [It used to be a single vote (two on SO)](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151586/59303)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An edit will get approved if two out of three reviewers approve it, and rejected if two out of three reviewers reject it. The exception is if one of the reviewers is the original poster, in which case they can singlehandedly approve or reject the edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="ce835ae1-db7e-45bc-83f9-84c05b5307f7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T16:23:03.453" UserId="8563" Text="As of today there's a pretty neat new privilege, [site analytics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics), that lets you see a couple of neat graphs. I was playing around with it and noticed something odd: a very strong spike in downvotes in May 2013. Here it is in its glory: the weekly total of downvotes since the site's graduation in February 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Downvotes for Jan 2012 - Jan 2015](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r8NqL.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contains 972 downvotes for that week, with current totals around 650. It's concentrated on the 6th and 7th, with 233 and 282 votes, and with 143 and 147 on the 8th and 9th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dug around the data explorer and didn't find anything, which makes me suspect the offending posts have been deleted (and therefore makes me hesitate to ask this question) but I'm still curious. Can anyone pinpoint the origin of this thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That said, I might as well make this useful and urge others with the privilege to [go look](http://physics.stackexchange.com/site-analytics), and to encourage those in the 10-25k range to keep going. Also, kudos to joshphysics for referring to the site more traffic than MO and just under half the traffic from reddit!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="ce835ae1-db7e-45bc-83f9-84c05b5307f7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T16:23:03.453" UserId="8563" Text="A weird spike in downvotes in May 2013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="ce835ae1-db7e-45bc-83f9-84c05b5307f7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T16:23:03.453" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|down-votes|site-statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="415baabd-9b26-490b-862c-1e72c8d94caf" CreationDate="2015-09-07T17:48:46.037" UserId="8563" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="As of today there's a pretty neat new privilege, [site analytics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics), that lets you see a couple of neat graphs. I was playing around with it and noticed something odd: a very strong spike in downvotes in May 2013. Here it is in its glory: the weekly total of downvotes since the site's graduation in February 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Downvotes for Jan 2012 - Jan 2015](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r8NqL.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contains 972 downvotes for that week, with current totals around 650. It's concentrated on the 6th and 7th, with 233 and 282 votes, and with 143 and 147 on the 8th and 9th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dug around the data explorer and didn't find anything, which makes me suspect the offending posts have been deleted (and therefore makes me hesitate to ask this question) but I'm still curious. Can anyone pinpoint the origin of this thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The localized nature of the spike suggests that it's one or two related posts driving it (in which case they totalled 3x as many downvotes as the rest of the site's average) or e.g. a sockpuppet racket, in which case the data should not really include them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That said, I might as well make this useful and urge others with the privilege to [go look](http://physics.stackexchange.com/site-analytics), and to encourage those in the 10-25k range to keep going. Also, kudos to joshphysics for referring to the site more traffic than MO and just under half the traffic from reddit!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="574f4d39-fe5c-4566-98ee-09cb84bba59a" CreationDate="2015-09-08T14:10:28.860" UserId="2451" Text="Yes, this downvoting peak was caused by the infamous (and very persistent) love spammer, who offered solutions to everybody's love lives, cf. [records](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9308818#9308818) from May 7th, 2013. (Link only accessible to moderators and SE team). The spammer used multiple Phys.SE accounts, such as, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24107) and [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24076)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="e9188b14-ead9-4feb-b247-fb27b95197ec" CreationDate="2015-09-08T15:02:18.197" UserId="2451" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="Yes, this downvoting peak was caused by the infamous (and very persistent) love spammer, who offered solutions to everybody's love lives, cf. [records](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9308818#9308818) from May 7th, 2013. (Link only accessible to moderators and SE team). The spammer used multiple Phys.SE accounts, such as, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24107) and [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24076).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incident spurred [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4270/2451) and possibly [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4297/2451) meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="734396e0-6976-4d3a-8479-af1b6a77e454" CreationDate="2015-09-09T06:48:17.597" UserId="1492" Text="For me it is important that I can recognize a user in deciding whether I should chime in with an answer or not. I tend to have in my head a data base of trust in the physics level for certain users, that their answer will not be wrong or quirky or even personal theory based. These random numbers after user do not help in this. And often they are new people with even cranky proposals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly prefer nicknames as they are memory friendly, and I do not see why they are not obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also do not like the many Jims  etc, and I do not understand why the system does not number them sequentially on order of appearance, so as to keep the individuality evident in the answers. After all there will not be 15000 jims answering here,  numbers up to four digits are not too bad for memory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="fa34d923-21a8-4368-a14b-5d24416e5a18" CreationDate="2015-09-09T22:06:16.170" UserId="50583" Text="Yes, we've had this debate before. Unfortunately, there's no definite consensus to be found about their community wiki status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Good list, bad list](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561/50583) (from July 2013) has the top voted answer (with a meager +11/-2) saying that book recommendation questions need to be *actively moderated by the community* and should be made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583) (from August 2013) implements the *&quot;Good list, bad list&quot;* top scored answer by setting rules for what a good res. rec. answer must contain, and that all answers *prior to that policy* should be moved to one single community wiki answer that gets an additional notice. No mention of making the question or its policy-conforming answers community wiki is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5307/50583) (from December 2013, about the [great book list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/50583)) has no answers of positive score. The great book list itself is closed and has a single large community wiki answer that does not conform to the answer policy, but also lacks the additional notice mentioned in the faq post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, already the three main questions I can find on the book recommendation questions disagree on how to exactly handle these questions, or have just largely been ignored. It gets even more confusing when looking into practice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation]. Many of them are closed as duplicate of the big book list, others as primarily opinion-based, but only **174** of them have been made community wiki. No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No pattern as to which ones are closed as *duplicates of the book list*, which ones are closed as *primarily opinion-based* and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are **1.063** answers to [tag:resource-recommendation] questions, of which **544** are community wiki. This indicates that it's mostly the *closed questions* which are not made community wiki, because the percentage of answers that are wiki is much higher than that of the questions. But again, no clear policy is apparent. Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears no clear policy exists, or at least, none is enforced in practice. The topic of this meta discussion is therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should resource recommendation questions be on-topic, on-topic but community wiki, or off-topic?**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;To search for wiki/non-wiki questions, add `wiki:yes` or `wiki:no` to your query. Combine with `is:q` or `is:a` to get only questions or only answers.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;I have purposefully tried to refrain from making an argument for either case in the question, so that people can vote on the respective answers with their argumentation as they come in.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="fa34d923-21a8-4368-a14b-5d24416e5a18" CreationDate="2015-09-09T22:06:16.170" UserId="50583" Text="Book recommendations: On-topic, on-topic but community wiki, or off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="fa34d923-21a8-4368-a14b-5d24416e5a18" CreationDate="2015-09-09T22:06:16.170" UserId="50583" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="2cc4c8e0-70b8-4b3a-a910-78409cd79e74" CreationDate="2015-09-09T23:06:13.847" UserId="124" Text="First of all, I think there is a clear precedence order among these posts. I may as well give the full ordering as I see it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The help center&#xD;&#xA;2. The canonical (generally, top) answer in an [meta-tag:faq] post on this meta&#xD;&#xA;3. The canonical answer in an [faq](//meta.stackexchange.com/tags/faq) post on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;4. If there is not an FAQ post on the topic, answers in non-FAQ posts on this meta, with answers to later questions overriding those to earlier questions&#xD;&#xA;5. As in #4, but for answers on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendations and discussions on the [Stack Exchange blog](https://blog.stackexchange.com), and any other sources that come directly from the SE team, don't really _set_ policy, but they should be taken into account when interpreting policies or deciding how to handle situations that aren't explicitly covered by an FAQ post. If I had to place them in the list I'd put them roughly between steps 3 and 4, but in a fuzzy way that indicates their influence on all five levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the questions you linked, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583 is the only one with the [meta-tag:faq] tag, and thus (as far as I'm concerned) it sets the site policy on the matter, since there's nothing relevant in the help center. It says nothing about making resource recommendation questions community wiki, therefore I don't make them community wiki. If we want to change that, we should build a consensus as a community (as we might do with this question) and then edit (or, in more extreme cases, replace) the relevant [meta-tag:faq] post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think we should change that. The reason I hold that view is fairly well summarized by [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) (also see [this more recent one](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) which continues the same argument). In short, there should be no such thing as a question which is good enough to be on the site, but not good enough to earn reputation for its asker. We want to host good questions _and only good questions_, and it makes sense to reward people for asking good questions. That is what reputation is for. Take away reputation, and you take away the incentive to keep question quality high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR book recommendations should be on topic (subject to guidelines) and not community wiki**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we do have some inconsistencies in how this is handled in practice, as you pointed out. (The following is to be considered descriptive and not part of the recommendation that constitutes the first part of my post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably has more to do with which moderator took action on the post than anything else. We haven't gotten together to hash out an agreement about whether those posts should be wikified or not. Actually until recently I didn't know that anyone was still making questions CW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No pattern as to which ones are closed as duplicates of the book list, which ones are closed as primarily opinion-based and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally close questions as duplicates of the book list when they're asking for books that would also be listed under _more than one_ of the &quot;standard&quot; book recommendation questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are 1.063 answers to resource-recommendation questions, of which 544 are community wiki.... Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers are an entirely different issue. Posters still have the option to wikify their own answers if they want, to indicate that those answers should reflect contributions from multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the recommendation post notice is for questions, not answers. If you meant questions, a lot of old questions don't have it because we don't go back and systematically add the post notice to all of them. If you see one, flag it as needing the recommendation notice and we'll add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, probably. I'd say flag them, probably as NAA but a custom flag works too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7041" RevisionGUID="2cb4b083-a750-47e6-9512-d14e2cac8132" CreationDate="2015-09-10T00:13:29.647" UserId="50583" Text="Resource recommendation questions should be **on-topic, but community wiki** (and with the same expectation for the content of the answers as currently set in the [tag:faq] post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendation questions cost no effort to ask. There is not much research one can do for them (since disallowing certain recommendations just because asker has already looked at them would be very strange, considering questions should *not* merely be about helping the asker, but anyone finding the question). One can't write them particularly well, since they're always going to follow the same scheme. Upvotes will indicate the popularity of the topic that is being asked about, but nothing else. For this, one should not get or lose reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendation answers are easy to write - pick your favourite book on the subject and describe why you like it, what it contains, and why it is appropriate for the topic being asked about. Expertise in the topic would be *ideal*, but is in no way required for recommending a book. Upvotes and downvotes indicate not &quot;factual correctness&quot; of the answer nor the effort poured into it, but how much the userbase likes or dislikes the particular book being recommended. One should not gain or lose reputation based on how much other people like one particular book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, resource recommendation questions provide a valuable...resource for people trying to find books or other sources on specific topics. Unlike reviews at book stores or the like, Physics.SE provides the unique possibility to source those recommendations from a community of physicists. This is why they should not be entirely off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we would take a *principled stance* against making *any* questions CW by policy (which [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) also linked by DavidZ seems to indicate), then resource recommendation questions should be off-topic, since for the reasons above one should not gain or lose reputation from them. However, this policy, though talked about in the blog, is not implemented network-wide: At least [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/) still habitually makes questions community wiki which are *broad* or *opinion-based*, but nevertheless considered worthwhile by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="5fe8bcad-3a71-4771-a991-657934d34402" CreationDate="2015-09-10T10:09:01.130" UserId="84305" Text="I believe that the question linked to below meets all the criteria for homework questions listed at the Physics Stack Exchange meta site, and that therefore it has been inappropriately put on hold. In a comment I left on the question I asked the people who did this to explain their actions and they have not answered. I have seen this kind of thing on the Physics Stack Exchange before, and I don't like it. I thought this was a place where beginners could seek help, but it is also a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange. Unless the hold is removed from this question, I intend  remove myself (for a second time) from Physics Stack Exchange, only this time permanently, which would be a loss for you, because (to the best of my knowledge) there is no one alive better qualified to answer questions about The Feynman Lectures (without speculation) than I, it's editor for 15 years, publisher of the online edition, and coauthor of its official supplement. I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics, which is antithetical to my pedagogical philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205689/water-evaporation-problem-exercise-from-feynmans-lectures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="5fe8bcad-3a71-4771-a991-657934d34402" CreationDate="2015-09-10T10:09:01.130" UserId="84305" Text="question put on hold for no clear reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="5fe8bcad-3a71-4771-a991-657934d34402" CreationDate="2015-09-10T10:09:01.130" UserId="84305" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="d13d900f-c31e-4eff-861d-758105e6e86b" CreationDate="2015-09-10T10:15:04.487" UserId="84305" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="I believe that the question linked to below meets all the criteria for homework questions listed at the Physics Stack Exchange meta site, and that therefore it has been inappropriately put on hold. In a comment I left on the question I asked the people who did this to explain their actions and they have not answered. I have seen this kind of thing on the Physics Stack Exchange before, and I don't like it. I thought this was a place where beginners could seek help, but it is also a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange. Unless the hold is removed from this question, I intend to remove myself (for a second time) from the Physics Stack Exchange, only this time permanently, which would be a loss for you, because (to the best of my knowledge) there is no one alive better qualified to answer questions about The Feynman Lectures on Physics (without speculation) than I, it's editor for 15 years, publisher of the online edition, and coauthor of its official supplement. I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics. Such treatment  discourages, rather than nourishes, youthful interests, and is antithetical to my pedagogical philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205689/water-evaporation-problem-exercise-from-feynmans-lectures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mike Gottlieb / Editor, The Feynman Lectures on Physics New Millennium Edition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="e1ee61ac-9e4f-4ebd-a9e1-0febf5bff964" CreationDate="2015-09-10T10:26:59.260" UserId="84305" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I believe that the question linked to below meets all the criteria for homework questions listed at the Physics Stack Exchange meta site, and that therefore it has been inappropriately put on hold. In a comment I left on the question I asked the people who put it on hold to explain their actions and they have not answered. I have seen this kind of thing on the Physics Stack Exchange before, and I don't like it. I thought this was a place where beginners could seek help, but it is also a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange. Unless the hold is removed from this question, I intend to remove myself (for a second time) from the Physics Stack Exchange, only this time permanently, which would be a loss for you, because (to the best of my knowledge) there is no one alive better qualified to answer questions about The Feynman Lectures on Physics (without speculation) than I, it's editor for 15 years, publisher of the online edition, and coauthor of its official supplement. I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics. Such treatment  discourages, rather than nourishes, youthful interests, and is antithetical to my pedagogical philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205689/water-evaporation-problem-exercise-from-feynmans-lectures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mike Gottlieb / Editor, The Feynman Lectures on Physics New Millennium Edition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19106" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="f95802de-745f-4c6d-8a6a-38dcb05507ac" CreationDate="2015-09-10T10:33:24.543" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="Question put on hold for no clear reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="06f349a7-19d9-4568-ab85-5350db97341c" CreationDate="2015-09-10T11:41:32.397" UserId="124" Text="Let me start by saying that sometimes questions get put on hold by mistake. In those cases you can bring the discussion to meta, as you did, or post about it in [our chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms 71/the-h-bar) (an &quot;appeal&quot; in a sense) and make your case that the question shouldn't be on hold. Those cases tend to be resolved quickly and you either get enough attention drawn to the post to reopen it, or you get a reasonably detailed explanation of why (most people believe) it _is_ appropriate for it to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that does _not_ help your case is threatening to leave. Doing so makes me think as follows: if a single mistaken closure is enough to prompt you to quit contributing, you will probably have a hard time with our consensus-based governance and maybe you'd be happier if you _do_ just leave. And now I'm much less motivated to fix whatever issue led you to complain in the first place. See how that works? Now, to be clear, I'm _not_ saying you _will_ be unhapppy here, and I'm _not_ saying you should leave the site - just that it's not a very effective threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought this was a place where beginners could seek help, but it is also a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well... it is a place where beginners _can_ seek help, but it is _not_ a site _for_ beginners. We are trying to be an expert-level site, and that means doing what it takes to retain experts. Part of that is expecting our average question to be interesting and show effort on the part of the asker, and expecting the asker to have the appropriate physics background to understand answers. We've had multiple experts leave in the past because they thought we had too many questions that _don't_ meet that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the issue is, does the question you linked to meet the standard? Maybe, maybe not. If it does, then we reopen it. If not, hopefully one or more of the close voters will contribute an answer that explains why, and the votes will show if the community generally agrees with it. As I mentioned above I'm not all that motivated to form an opinion on the matter since you may be on the verge of leaving anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say this: if you honestly consider putting a question on hold to be bullying, you probably will not be comfortable here. In that case I _would_ recommend that you take your expertise elsewhere - to be clear, this is not me _telling_ you to leave, just pointing out a possible reason why it may be in your best interest to do so. If you do decide to leave the site, we wish you well helping people learn physics elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="c6329743-237e-4bdf-a2b1-1b12aac8cbac" CreationDate="2015-09-10T11:43:07.087" UserId="24653" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Let me start by saying that sometimes questions get put on hold by mistake. In those cases you can bring the discussion to meta, as you did, or post about it in [our chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (an &quot;appeal&quot; in a sense) and make your case that the question shouldn't be on hold. Those cases tend to be resolved quickly and you either get enough attention drawn to the post to reopen it, or you get a reasonably detailed explanation of why (most people believe) it _is_ appropriate for it to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that does _not_ help your case is threatening to leave. Doing so makes me think as follows: if a single mistaken closure is enough to prompt you to quit contributing, you will probably have a hard time with our consensus-based governance and maybe you'd be happier if you _do_ just leave. And now I'm much less motivated to fix whatever issue led you to complain in the first place. See how that works? Now, to be clear, I'm _not_ saying you _will_ be unhapppy here, and I'm _not_ saying you should leave the site - just that it's not a very effective threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought this was a place where beginners could seek help, but it is also a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well... it is a place where beginners _can_ seek help, but it is _not_ a site _for_ beginners. We are trying to be an expert-level site, and that means doing what it takes to retain experts. Part of that is expecting our average question to be interesting and show effort on the part of the asker, and expecting the asker to have the appropriate physics background to understand answers. We've had multiple experts leave in the past because they thought we had too many questions that _don't_ meet that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the issue is, does the question you linked to meet the standard? Maybe, maybe not. If it does, then we reopen it. If not, hopefully one or more of the close voters will contribute an answer that explains why, and the votes will show if the community generally agrees with it. As I mentioned above I'm not all that motivated to form an opinion on the matter since you may be on the verge of leaving anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a place where they get bullied by people who have a lot of time to garner points and power on the Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say this: if you honestly consider putting a question on hold to be bullying, you probably will not be comfortable here. In that case I _would_ recommend that you take your expertise elsewhere - to be clear, this is not me _telling_ you to leave, just pointing out a possible reason why it may be in your best interest to do so. If you do decide to leave the site, we wish you well helping people learn physics elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="b5748bef-728b-40d8-9e6e-eb6bb9d711cc" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:09:20.550" UserId="8563" Text="I don't see the 'disagreement' you talk about. The [Good list, bad list](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4561) is general and its conclusions are supported and made specific by the faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697). On the other hand, [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5307) asks about [one specific question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175) and has no bearing on general [tag:resource-recommendations] posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation] [...] but only **174** of them have been made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because re-processing old threads is a labour-intensive manual process that cannot be done in intense bursts, and we simply haven't done all of them. As you correctly point out, the [policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697) does not indicate whether old questions should be made community wiki. **In general, they should**, to conform with current practice, and because of the reasons [you outlined](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7041). (Some cases, though, are not so clear. Should [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/108649) be forbidden from earning rep?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old questions, the procedure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Check that the existing answers conform to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consolidate the ones that don't into a single CW answer with the banner from the [policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Overall spelling / formatting checks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flag for the banner on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the moderator will also turn the question into CW unless there's some specific reason not to. If it's already been processed but it's not CW, flag it for a moderator to CWify it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bumps the old post to the front page, so it should be done sparingly (i.e. no more than five at a time or so) to avoid flooding the front page. There's currently [some three hundred](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+is%3Aq+wiki%3Ano+closed%3Ano+duplicate%3Ano) open non-CW resource recommendations questions, so there's still plenty of room for keen-eyed eager volunteers to reprocess old posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7041" RevisionGUID="4f1ae73b-2f2f-40b7-8f61-9524324860c4" CreationDate="2015-09-10T13:36:26.657" UserId="50583" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Resource recommendation questions should be **on-topic, but community wiki** (and with the same expectation for the content of the answers as currently set in the [tag:faq] post). The [tag:faq] post should be altered to reflect that both old and new [tag:resource-recommendation] questions should be turned into community wiki posts, as indicated in the top-voted answer of &quot;Good list, bad list&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendation questions cost no effort to ask. There is not much research one can do for them (since disallowing certain recommendations just because asker has already looked at them would be very strange, considering questions should *not* merely be about helping the asker, but anyone finding the question). One can't write them particularly well, since they're always going to follow the same scheme. Upvotes will indicate the popularity of the topic that is being asked about, but nothing else. For this, one should not get or lose reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendation answers are easy to write - pick your favourite book on the subject and describe why you like it, what it contains, and why it is appropriate for the topic being asked about. Expertise in the topic would be *ideal*, but is in no way required for recommending a book. Upvotes and downvotes indicate not &quot;factual correctness&quot; of the answer nor the effort poured into it, but how much the userbase likes or dislikes the particular book being recommended. One should not gain or lose reputation based on how much other people like one particular book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, resource recommendation questions provide a valuable...resource for people trying to find books or other sources on specific topics. Unlike reviews at book stores or the like, Physics.SE provides the unique possibility to source those recommendations from a community of physicists. This is why they should not be entirely off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we would take a *principled stance* against making *any* questions CW by policy (which [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) also linked by DavidZ seems to indicate), then resource recommendation questions should be off-topic, since for the reasons above one should not gain or lose reputation from them. However, this policy, though talked about in the blog, is not implemented network-wide: At least [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/) still habitually makes questions community wiki which are *broad* or *opinion-based*, but nevertheless considered worthwhile by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="9e8a7504-81cd-4ade-ae04-9cc0cd5c2651" CreationDate="2015-09-10T16:11:01.987" UserId="24653" Text="When an unclear or otherwise lacking question is posted on this site, it often happens that one of the more experienced users posts a comment asking for clarification. Fairly often, the asker responds in a comment to the original post, attempting to clarify or otherwise improve the question. With the additional information, the question may (or may not...) become significantly clearer/better. However, the original post is often left unedited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue concerning this situation that I've bumped into many times: When reviewing (in the sense of the site's *review queues*) a question where something like this has happened, should a reviewer take the information contained exclusively in the comments into account when deciding whether to e.g. cast a vote to close the question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="9e8a7504-81cd-4ade-ae04-9cc0cd5c2651" CreationDate="2015-09-10T16:11:01.987" UserId="24653" Text="Should information provided in the comments be taken into account when evaluating the merits of a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="9e8a7504-81cd-4ade-ae04-9cc0cd5c2651" CreationDate="2015-09-10T16:11:01.987" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|comments|vote-to-close|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7046" RevisionGUID="01c026bf-e16a-4a59-ba93-44801daa9428" CreationDate="2015-09-10T16:16:17.063" UserId="24653" Text="*No*, information that is only presented in a comment should not be taken into account when judging whether to close a question. Comments are meant to be *temporary* and thus should not be used to hold any vital information that could (or *does*) make a difference to the quality of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that it is important to tell askers to *edit their post* whenever they discover that they would like to add any useful information. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="a41cc126-591b-4f60-8c7f-2eb6bf9418f4" CreationDate="2015-09-10T16:23:35.947" UserId="24653" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="When an unclear or otherwise lacking question is posted on this site, it often happens that one of the more experienced users posts a comment asking for clarification. Fairly often, the asker responds in a comment to the original post, attempting to clarify or otherwise improve the question. With the additional information, the question may (or may not...) become significantly clearer/better. However, the original post is often left unedited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue concerning this situation that I've bumped into many times: When reviewing (in the sense of the site's *review queues*) a question where something like this has happened, should a reviewer take the information contained exclusively in the comments into account when deciding whether to e.g. cast a vote to close the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to establish an &quot;official course of action&quot; for this type of scenario. Feel free to post your suggestion as an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19116" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="422ae1a0-efa6-426d-8291-87ad5a335f13" CreationDate="2015-09-10T20:52:09.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/642078125216632833" />
  <row Id="19117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7047" RevisionGUID="80efd83c-a6b1-40b7-96df-96902c4b2d00" CreationDate="2015-09-11T01:21:32.953" UserId="6634" Text="If the comments from OP add clarity, and if they are new users, I would personally edit the comments into the question myself. I would then leave a comment to the effect of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @OP I took the liberty of editing the clarifications from your comments into the question. Please let me know if I did not represent your intentions correctly. On future questions, please use the comments as a guide and include the recommendations and clarifications from them in the post yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit is that if OP disappears, the information is preserved. If it's a totally new user, they may not know that they can edit questions or how to do so. Or even why they should (the whole comments are temporary thing). It's also a nice way to show new users that this is a collaborative community and that we may ask questions and challenge assumptions, but it is only to suss out the real intent and to avoid [XY problems](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a more experienced user, it's okay to be a bit more... terse?... and ask them to edit it in themselves. But after having done so, it might be a good idea to wait a bit and if it isn't done, do it yourself. After all, if the information really did make it better, then it needs to be moved lest it be lost. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="553cb2ca-be1d-4c80-a78a-2de5f9560a1e" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:41:12.207" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="While I was waiting for answer for my newly posted question, I noticed one question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/194141/a-confusion-regarding-an-example-in-the-feynman-lectures; there [@user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82794/diracpaul) posted an excellent answer; I cherished his answer especially for the amazing pics he used. But there it was written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Answer deleted by _________ in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was amazed &amp; asked why he did that but got no response; I wandered what he was actually talking of 'to comply to the site policy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I noticed that he has actually did this to many of his answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201462/obtain-the-lagrangian-from-the-system-of-coupled-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191296/is-magnitude-of-velocity-same-as-speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190303/how-is-quantization-related-to-commutation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189924/why-the-induced-field-is-ignored-in-faradays-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;citing the same reason &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know why he did this, what was his reason or so; it is simply his decision to delete his answer. But actually he didn't delete it rather cited the reason 'in order to comply to the site policy'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone please explain which _site policy_ did compel him to partially delete many of @__________ answers??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="553cb2ca-be1d-4c80-a78a-2de5f9560a1e" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:41:12.207" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="553cb2ca-be1d-4c80-a78a-2de5f9560a1e" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:41:12.207" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="e334ebf2-1c4e-42b4-a829-048166c937d9" CreationDate="2015-09-11T07:24:36.787" UserId="46399" Text="&gt; Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that at the moment, the user stands temporarily suspended for a day, &quot;to cool down&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it most likely appears that he/she is pissed for some reason (most likely the site's [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), which appears controversial to many users), and has taken to self-vandalism of his/her posts, perhaps as a mark of protest/retaliation. He/she could personally divulge the reasons behind this action (i.e. if he/she _wants_ to divulge them), after the suspension period is over, and he/she can again use the features as before. Please note that moderators can not reveal the same information (generically, details of individual suspensions), as they have repeatedly stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding the issue of self-vandalism of his/her posts, the community had recently observed, in response to my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6971/what-to-do-regarding-suggested-edits-that-cure-self-vandalism-by-post-owners &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that by posting, one is ceding some measure of control over one's posts to the site, and that being the post owner does NOT entitle one to self-vandalize one's posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of the above, and as was suggested by [Emilio Pisanty, in his answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6974/46399) to the above question, the correct course of action for the &gt; 2k rep members of the community, is to edit-back those posts to the last working version. This shall restore all content.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vt2bJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="ba28f0c2-b658-4b9f-80a1-1005a7b51b54" CreationDate="2015-09-11T07:26:47.910" UserId="124" Text="I'm as confused as you are. Certainly there is no site policy that requires deleting an answer, and I can't even think of any policy that could be _misinterpreted_ to justify this. Of course, in my experience, once people go far enough down the road of misinterpreting policies, there is no logic in their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, what this user did was itself a violation of our policies on vandalism. You're not allowed to completely gut the content of your post with an edit. (If you want to delete a post, do it using the &quot;delete&quot; link below the post.) So these posts will almost certainly be restored very soon, either by 2k+ users or by moderators. (I'm waiting to check with the other mods whether there's any reason not to restore, but I doubt it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="2a2801b6-32c6-4654-bd43-2b7cde130ddc" CreationDate="2015-09-11T07:42:11.880" UserId="46399" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that at the moment, the user stands temporarily suspended for a day, &quot;to cool down&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it most likely appears that he/she is pissed for some reason (most likely the site's [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), which appears controversial to many users), and has taken to self-vandalism of his/her posts, perhaps as a mark of protest/retaliation. He/she could personally divulge the reasons behind this action (i.e. if he/she _wants_ to divulge them), after the suspension period is over, when he/she can again use the site as before. Please note that moderators can not reveal the same information (generically, details of individual suspensions), as they have repeatedly stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding the issue of self-vandalism of his/her posts, the community had recently observed, in response to my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6971/what-to-do-regarding-suggested-edits-that-cure-self-vandalism-by-post-owners &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that by posting, one is ceding some measure of control over one's posts to the site, and that being the post owner does NOT entitle one to self-vandalize one's posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of the above, and as was suggested by [Emilio Pisanty, in his answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6974/46399) to the above question, the correct course of action for the &gt; 2k rep members of the community, is to edit-back those posts to the last working version. This shall restore all content.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vt2bJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="2ada06d9-cb12-433b-87b5-ab49851e6612" CreationDate="2015-09-11T09:25:39.297" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="While I was waiting for answer for my newly posted question, I noticed one question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/194141/a-confusion-regarding-an-example-in-the-feynman-lectures; there [@user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82794/diracpaul) posted an excellent answer; I cherished his answer especially for the amazing pics he used. But there it was written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Answer deleted by _________ in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was amazed &amp; asked why he did that but got no response; I wandered what he was actually talking of 'to comply to the site policy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I noticed that he has actually done this to many of his answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201462/obtain-the-lagrangian-from-the-system-of-coupled-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191296/is-magnitude-of-velocity-same-as-speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190303/how-is-quantization-related-to-commutation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189924/why-the-induced-field-is-ignored-in-faradays-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;citing the same reason &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know why he did this, what was his reason or so; it is simply his decision to delete his answer. But actually he didn't delete it rather cited the reason 'in order to comply to the site policy'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone please explain which _site policy_ did compel him to partially delete many of @__________ answers??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His last words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Can I know what is going on? –  user36790&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@user36790 Many thanks for all comments, approvals and support. In 2-3 hours we can't contact each other any more. Good Luck to your personal and scientific life. –  _________" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="310e45b4-6a4c-4895-bdb1-17af7b167133" CreationDate="2015-09-11T09:31:46.823" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="While I was waiting for answer to my newly posted question, I noticed one question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/194141/a-confusion-regarding-an-example-in-the-feynman-lectures; there [@user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82794/diracpaul) posted an excellent answer; I cherished his answer especially for the amazing pics he used. But there it was written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Answer deleted by _________ in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was amazed &amp; asked why he did that but got no response; I wandered what he was actually talking of 'to comply to the site policy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I noticed that he has actually done this to many of his answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201462/obtain-the-lagrangian-from-the-system-of-coupled-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191296/is-magnitude-of-velocity-same-as-speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190303/how-is-quantization-related-to-commutation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189924/why-the-induced-field-is-ignored-in-faradays-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;citing the same reason &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know why he did this, what was his reason or so; it is simply his decision to delete his answer. But actually he didn't delete it rather cited the reason 'in order to comply to the site policy'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone please explain which _site policy_ did compel him to partially delete many of @__________ answers??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His last words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Can I know what is going on? –  user36790&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@user36790 Many thanks for all comments, approvals and support. In 2-3 hours we can't contact each other any more. Good Luck to your personal and scientific life. –  _________" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="7d9565e5-93ba-4a7b-aa93-b7eef789392d" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:14:26.763" UserId="89073" Text="When experienced users make the first comment on a &quot;bad&quot; question, they are often condescending. This is fair enough, if the question is bad. However, this discourages other, less experienced users with less reputation, from attempting to answer the question. Particularly if the question is an interesting one and the &quot;experienced user&quot; who initially commented, has perhaps misunderstood it. The example I use is here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206440/does-a-gun-exert-enough-gravity-on-the-bullet-it-fired-to-stop-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether there should be some process for flagging unnecessarily condescending and useless comments, particularly from experienced contributors, which may discourage other users from answering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="7d9565e5-93ba-4a7b-aa93-b7eef789392d" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:14:26.763" UserId="89073" Text="Should there be a way to flag comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="7d9565e5-93ba-4a7b-aa93-b7eef789392d" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:14:26.763" UserId="89073" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="1d0b2017-d730-4c88-ab61-38ed4b2b9e1a" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:14:47.507" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed name" Text="While I was waiting for answer to my newly posted question, I noticed one question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/194141/; there [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] posted an excellent answer; I cherished his answer especially for the amazing pics he used. But there it was written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Answer deleted by [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] in order to comply to the site policy._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was amazed &amp; asked why he did that but got no response; I wandered what he was actually talking of 'to comply to the site policy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I noticed that he has actually done this to many of his answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/201462/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191296/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/190303/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/189924/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;citing the same reason &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know why he did this, what was his reason or so; it is simply his decision to delete his answer. But actually he didn't delete it rather cited the reason 'in order to comply to the site policy'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone please explain which _site policy_ did compel him to partially delete many of his answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His last words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Can I know what is going on? –  user36790&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@user36790 Many thanks for all comments, approvals and support. In 2-3 hours we can't contact each other any more. Good Luck to your personal and scientific life. –  [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19130" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="1d0b2017-d730-4c88-ab61-38ed4b2b9e1a" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:14:47.507" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed name" Text="Why is [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="b441392c-6fcf-494f-987b-50210d10445a" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:16:47.960" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed picture" Text="&gt; Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that at the moment, the user stands temporarily suspended for a day, &quot;to cool down&quot;&#xD;&#xA;it most likely appears that he/she is pissed for some reason (most likely the site's [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/), which appears controversial to many users), and has taken to self-vandalism of his/her posts, perhaps as a mark of protest/retaliation. He/she could personally divulge the reasons behind this action (i.e. if he/she _wants_ to divulge them), after the suspension period is over, when he/she can again use the site as before. Please note that moderators can not reveal the same information (generically, details of individual suspensions), as they have repeatedly stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding the issue of self-vandalism of his/her posts, the community had recently observed, in response to my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6971/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that by posting, one is ceding some measure of control over one's posts to the site, and that being the post owner does NOT entitle one to self-vandalize one's posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of the above, and as was suggested by [Emilio Pisanty, in his answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6974/46399) to the above question, the correct course of action for the &gt; 2k rep members of the community, is to edit-back those posts to the last working version. This shall restore all content.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vt2bJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="88a4eb05-9e50-4f59-9755-6aed98d8e615" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:22:29.257" UserId="89073" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="When experienced users make the first comment on a &quot;bad&quot; question, they are often condescending. This is fair enough, if the question is bad. However, this discourages other, less experienced users with less reputation, from attempting to answer the question. Particularly if the question is an interesting one and the &quot;experienced user&quot; who initially commented, has perhaps misunderstood it. The example I use is here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206440/does-a-gun-exert-enough-gravity-on-the-bullet-it-fired-to-stop-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of anyone's opinion on the example mentioned, my question is whether there should be some process for flagging unnecessarily condescending and useless comments, particularly from experienced contributors, which may discourage other users from answering, or encourage less experienced users to &quot;jump on the bandwagon&quot; simply because of the reputation of the comment writer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="41ca55d7-d628-4cbb-ae94-cc6b574b429d" CreationDate="2015-09-11T12:28:47.837" UserId="124" Text="There is a process: click the flag that shows up when you **hover over the left side of a comment**, and flag the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of a comment with the flag visible][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there's nothing wrong with this particular comment except that it's old)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6375/124) lists the different kinds of comment flags and what they should be used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that if a question is bad, those high-reputation users may be _intentionally_ trying to discourage people from answering it. Of course, the proper way to do that is by voting to close, but sometimes a comment gives a little extra boost to that effort before the question does get closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zZYI1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="a5567873-8c96-438a-97da-26617321227b" CreationDate="2015-09-11T14:08:58.410" UserId="89965" Text="It is written in the '**Badges**' page that the '**Cleanup**' badge is awarded for the &quot;***first rollback***&quot;. What does this mean? I could not understand. Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="a5567873-8c96-438a-97da-26617321227b" CreationDate="2015-09-11T14:08:58.410" UserId="89965" Text="What is the Cleanup badge awarded for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="a5567873-8c96-438a-97da-26617321227b" CreationDate="2015-09-11T14:08:58.410" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="832ed569-d0a8-4289-8214-96060043e6ae" CreationDate="2015-09-11T14:43:22.833" UserId="6634" Text="When somebody makes an edit to a post that is bad (wrong, defacing, spam, etc), somebody can come along and &quot;rollback&quot; the version to a previous one. Essentially throw out the edit and go back to a &quot;good&quot; version of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature appears under the revision history of a post. I am on my phone right now or I would post a screenshot to show you where it is and what it looks like (and if somebody wants to come along and pitch in a screenshot, much appreciated)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19139" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="550cebbb-3ec5-47fa-a920-c13adebc745f" CreationDate="2015-09-11T15:00:15.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/642351955948474368" />
  <row Id="19140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="d6f34736-f816-4dfa-a810-976702ce4226" CreationDate="2015-09-11T15:48:40.483" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body" Text="I'm as confused as you are. Certainly there is no site policy that requires deleting an answer, and I can't even think of any policy that could be _misinterpreted_ to justify this. Of course, in my experience, once people go far enough down the road of misinterpreting policies, there is no logic in their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, what this user did was itself a violation of our policies on vandalism. You're not allowed to completely gut the content of your post with an edit. (If you want to delete a post, do it using the &quot;delete&quot; link below the post.) &lt;s&gt;So these posts will almost certainly be restored very soon, either by 2k+ users or by moderators.&lt;/s&gt; The edits have now been reverted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="006836e7-5a48-48c6-8d45-391ed47d2e36" CreationDate="2015-09-11T17:09:19.850" UserId="6634" Comment="added 514 characters in body" Text="When somebody makes an edit to a post that is bad (wrong, defacing, spam, etc), somebody can come along and &quot;rollback&quot; the version to a previous one. Essentially throw out the edit and go back to a &quot;good&quot; version of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature appears under the revision history of a post. You can view the revision history of a post by clicking on the circled link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you click on that link, you will be shown the revision history for the post. The latest version and a difference of changes is shown. Previous versions include a &quot;rollback&quot; link which allows you to revert to that version. This is circled here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't shown here, but the mouse over text for the link says that this will make an older version the current one, undoing all changes newer and this is done to revert an &quot;offensive&quot; post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LnDL4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7uBmw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="98b3baf7-9f07-463a-9bae-0b9843e42ef5" CreationDate="2015-09-12T06:37:35.317" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="I, today, saw one new thing below my question `cite` . I pressed it &amp; this appeared:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Example citation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;user36790 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790), Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?, URL (version: 2015-07-31): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BibTeX  amsrefs &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@MISC {197101,&#xD;&#xA;    TITLE = {Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?},&#xD;&#xA;    AUTHOR = {user36790 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790)},&#xD;&#xA;    HOWPUBLISHED = {Physics Stack Exchange},&#xD;&#xA;    NOTE = {URL:http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101 (version: 2015-07-31)},&#xD;&#xA;    EPRINT = {http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101},&#xD;&#xA;    URL = {http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;\bib\{197101}{misc}{    &#xD;&#xA;    title={Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?},    &#xD;&#xA;    author={user36790 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790)},    &#xD;&#xA;    note={URL: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101 (version: 2015-07-31)},    &#xD;&#xA;    eprint={http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101},    &#xD;&#xA;    organization={Physics Stack Exchange}  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even yesterday I didn't see it. I really don't know what these mean; I am really ignorant of these stuffs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain what this `cite` is actually meant for? What is its function?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="98b3baf7-9f07-463a-9bae-0b9843e42ef5" CreationDate="2015-09-12T06:37:35.317" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="What is the function of `cite` below each question &amp; answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="98b3baf7-9f07-463a-9bae-0b9843e42ef5" CreationDate="2015-09-12T06:37:35.317" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="2bb3b467-8a8b-4b18-937a-57c5df53defe" CreationDate="2015-09-12T07:00:36.217" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added pic" Text="I, today, saw one new thing below my question `cite` . I pressed it &amp; this appeared:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Example citation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;user36790 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790), Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?, URL (version: 2015-07-31): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BibTeX  amsrefs &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@MISC {197101,&#xD;&#xA;    TITLE = {Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?},&#xD;&#xA;    AUTHOR = {user36790 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790)},&#xD;&#xA;    HOWPUBLISHED = {Physics Stack Exchange},&#xD;&#xA;    NOTE = {URL:http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101 (version: 2015-07-31)},&#xD;&#xA;    EPRINT = {http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101},&#xD;&#xA;    URL = {http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;\bib\{197101}{misc}{    &#xD;&#xA;    title={Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?},    &#xD;&#xA;    author={user36790 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790)},    &#xD;&#xA;    note={URL: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101 (version: 2015-07-31)},    &#xD;&#xA;    eprint={http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101},    &#xD;&#xA;    organization={Physics Stack Exchange}  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even yesterday I didn't see it. I really don't know what these mean; I am really ignorant of these stuffs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain what this `cite` is actually meant for? What is its function?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image without &quot;cite&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Es3TKEihtBI/VfPLp1FFdEI/AAAAAAAAAEY/veZc6zGwmLs/s912-Ic42/screenshot-physics.stackexchange.com%2525202015-09-12%25252012-15-29.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image with &quot;cite&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v6UQ-mixcDA/VfPNPFGwXhI/AAAAAAAAAEk/7T0xMJTVL0w/s912-Ic42/_1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="50c57b4e-55e0-4e58-a53e-730b70725acf" CreationDate="2015-09-12T07:49:58.760" UserId="7894" Text="I'm surprised SE didn't post something about it themselves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you check [this answer to a post on meta.Mathoverflow,][1] it looks like having a &quot;cite&quot; link originated on Mathoverflow, back in the SE 1.0 days.  SE recently changed the way the cite link is laid out (based on comments/complaints about it 2 years ago) and applied the change to MO, Phys.SE and a couple other SE sites.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/a/2436/35355" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="c8d3aab2-c148-40b3-ac22-68c3a5da6614" CreationDate="2015-09-12T15:26:00.487" UserId="6634" Text="The posts made on any StackExchange site are licensed by the [CC-SA-3.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) license with [attribution required](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/). This means if you use the content, or derive from the content, on the site you must provide a link to the original and to the original user (essentially -- I summarized, go read those links for more information).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you did this on a website, that's pretty easy to manually include the `&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;` tags and do what you need to do. However, if you are writing lecture notes, or a journal article, or a thesis, or something like that, it isn't always as easy. The `cite` button that you refer to gives you a citation in [BibTeX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX) format as well as a LaTeX `bibitem` format. One can use these when typesetting a document using [LaTeX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX) and a citation will occur where desired and the bibliography will contain the full information required by the license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="e5f09431-7dbc-4c22-9687-5a8ef4509734" CreationDate="2015-09-12T22:59:35.157" UserId="56299" Text="Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="ddd4904d-12a0-4e10-8ca1-02798e0d0299" CreationDate="2015-09-13T13:29:22.513" UserId="24653" Text="http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="01a568a8-8ef4-4474-b1f8-ac3c92a34a67" CreationDate="2015-09-13T13:53:40.160" UserId="89073" Text="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="2effd0d6-80f2-475b-b897-c1e9631cad4e" CreationDate="2015-09-13T14:04:48.170" UserId="56299" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="&lt;strike&gt;Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The question has now been reopened.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="2169734f-ffd2-4904-9d37-d03cd3dab217" CreationDate="2015-09-13T15:15:39.547" UserId="89965" Text="Can someone tell me the significance of these badges:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Precognitive** : Followed the *Area 51* proposal for this site before it entered the commitment phase&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Beta** : Voted 10 times, added 3 posts score &gt; 0, and visited the site on 3 separate days during the private beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is this **private beta**? Is it meta ?&#xD;&#xA; 2. I went to the *Area 51* link but understood nothing about what the badge is awarded for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone pitch in with an answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="2169734f-ffd2-4904-9d37-d03cd3dab217" CreationDate="2015-09-13T15:15:39.547" UserId="89965" Text="Why are Precognitive and Beta badges awarded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="2169734f-ffd2-4904-9d37-d03cd3dab217" CreationDate="2015-09-13T15:15:39.547" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="e96a2385-7f41-4ba2-a1b5-65f44601fc3d" CreationDate="2015-09-13T15:25:52.677" UserId="520" Text="Area51 is where new sites are incubated. Sites proposals have several phases, and user can &quot;follow&quot; a proposal while it is still being defined, then commit to it. When enough people commit, it will launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Launched sites are initially (seven days) available only to people who committed to the proposal. That initial period is called the private beta. It is followed by an open beta when anyone can join.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, both these badges are awarded for participating in the creation process of a site and can not be earned by users who join later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Exchange/Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault and Super User are exception to that flow as they predate Area51." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="d20f0ac3-fc85-4a05-976a-ac3df6c58d17" CreationDate="2015-09-13T15:29:56.523" UserId="2451" Comment="added link" Text="[Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) is where new sites are incubated. Sites proposals have several phases, and user can &quot;follow&quot; a proposal while it is still being defined, then commit to it. When enough people commit, it will launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Launched sites are initially (seven days) available only to people who committed to the proposal. That initial period is called the private beta. It is followed by an open beta when anyone can join.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, both these badges are awarded for participating in the creation process of a site and can not be earned by users who join later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Exchange/Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault and Super User are exception to that flow as they predate Area51." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="b67529f8-f027-4962-bb7e-67ee8e3e86e9" CreationDate="2015-09-13T17:51:43.220" UserId="73490" Text="&gt;Well, I don't know why he did this, what was his reason or so; it is simply his decision to delete his answer. But actually he didn't delete it rather cited the reason 'in order to comply to the site policy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can anyone please explain which site policy did compel him to partially delete many of his answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the very difficult **policies on homework-like questions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is Stack? What is PSE?&#xD;&#xA;The Stack system is a dynamic community FAQ which works by a combination of the psychological &quot;rush&quot; of earning points (even if those points are, so to speak, pointless), community reviews of popular questions, and having an unusually low impedance for both questions and answers. Traditionally a FAQ grows by a community finally getting upset that the same questions get asked so many times of its members, and someone rises to the occasion to create one document which others can link. The biggest curiosity in all of this is that the causality is flipped from  &quot;community nuisance &amp;rarr; FAQ&quot; to &quot;FAQ &amp;rarr; community nuisance,&quot; as the community in question does not actually exist for any other reason than to participate in the making of the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics has three properties, at least, which complicate this mission:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is deeply technical. Physics tersely summarizes the world in a specialized language which takes years to speak fluently.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is intrinsically popular, or maybe &quot;popularizable&quot; is a better term. It is popular in the sense that translations of its terse summaries are deeply interesting to people who do not speak the language. &#xD;&#xA;3. It is required. Everybody in a civilized society is expected to learn some of the basics of the language and some of the most common idioms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Stack Overflow, which the Stack system was designed for, only has about half of property (1) to deal with, and none of properties (2) or (3). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to these, there are generally fewer qualified answerers than askers, and a lot of questions which are fundamentally the same (they depend on the same grammar error in different sentences) appear as very different-sounding questions with no easy way to mark them as &quot;duplicates&quot; of each other. Furthermore, we get a lot of 'pop-sci' questions which cannot easily be answered, as well as a lot of homework questions from a lot of unspecified textbooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack is not a very suitable match for the latter two, and degenerates essentially into Yahoo! Answers: one-on-one tutoring that may potentially be seen by some other people, but is not long-term in the way that a FAQ is meant to be long-term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, though it is hard to measure, it means that our `(qualified answerer)/asker` ratio at any given skill-level is much lower than that for Stack Overflow. This makes qualified answerers a rarer commodity, and more precious. Probably it should be a community goal to make people who can answer the tough questions feel like royalty; I would hope at least that people like Emilio Pisanty (just as an example, I could write several paragraphs of names that I respect here!) know that people like me look up to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What are the policies and why do they complicate things for answerers?&#xD;&#xA; There are two basic homework policies: first off, we close homework-like questions for not &quot;putting some thought into it&quot;; this is a way of simply setting a floor of minimum competency-with-the-language before allowing a question to be asked, trying to improve the ratio. (We might want to consider a similar policy for pop-science posts!). Usually this doesn't disturb the answerers, though if they've already written out a good answer it may rob them of a +15-point psychological reward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we sometimes delete answers to homework-like questions for getting *too close to the answer*. This is *unbelievably irritating.* Like, even if you know *why* this policy exists (to further discourage those homework questions, and to get qualified answerers to spend more time on meatier questions), it still takes the form of telling our qualified answerers &quot;you did something wrong!&quot; and it is probably what induced the above rage-quit.&#xD;&#xA;It caused me to rage-quit for a while when I was starting out, too. Fundamentally it says &quot;that hour you poured into this question has hereby been wasted by administrative vote.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first problem with this policy is that it is intrinsically *vague*, which is probably why the user in question just started *deleting everything*. He writes (wrote?) lots of very visual, long, comprehensive answers: and if he poured several hours into a post which was then deleted, essentially because he poured too much time into it, it's no wonder that he goes back to everything that he's poured a lot of time into, editing them all to say &quot;Hey, apparently I spent too much time on this which means that rather than editing down the answer, site policy requires us to delete it all.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the other big problem for me is that I feel disrespected as a *volunteer* when this happens. I feel like it is my right to make the choice up-front of &quot;I'm going to pour some time into this,&quot; a right that is only taken away by closing the question before I get to it. By deleting my answer after I've already sunk my time into it moderators are effectively saying &quot;your voluntary effort here was garbage.&quot; It's very tempting to respond to those feelings of disrespect with a, &quot;that's fine, I'll just volunteer somewhere else where people actually respect my contributions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have had no involvement in this particular user's case, but that's my first thought of why the user would think that all of their contributions were illegal according to site policy: it's that they *were* if you judge the vague policy broadly enough, and probably they were upset that it was being judged just broadly enough to delete something that he'd poured several hours of his time into." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="8a9a58bc-28bb-41a6-b751-50fbeba3a2d8" CreationDate="2015-09-14T05:08:27.087" UserId="124" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about a closed question like the one that prompted this post, which has upvotes and/or upvoted answers, or doesn't meet the criteria for automatic deletion for some reason? Do people think that moderators should be deleting closed questions in general, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="8a9a58bc-28bb-41a6-b751-50fbeba3a2d8" CreationDate="2015-09-14T05:08:27.087" UserId="124" Text="Should moderators manually delete off-topic questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="8a9a58bc-28bb-41a6-b751-50fbeba3a2d8" CreationDate="2015-09-14T05:08:27.087" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|moderation|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19167" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="d510d330-3f60-4d07-b21a-e6047d8c9f02" CreationDate="2015-09-14T05:10:54.610" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="0d275f99-6ec0-4ede-bfe5-0d60f3526c29" CreationDate="2015-09-14T05:18:35.563" UserId="124" Comment="edited title" Text="Should moderators manually delete closed questions? Under what circumstances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="0343116e-e99a-4ec2-bae4-7085d5bd8748" CreationDate="2015-09-14T06:04:12.147" UserId="1325" Text="I have been in the position of asking a question on an SE site (not this one) that I subsequently realised was inappropriate for that site. In that case I asked the mods to delete it and they did, for which I was grateful as I was a bit embarrassed to have posted the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe you should accede to the OP's request and delete the question. This is what I would want were I in the OP's position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question were a valuable one then there might be an argument for refusing i.e. that it would harm the site to do so. I don't think this question (or any of the answers) falls into that category. It's true that Siraj R Khan and Ernie will lose reputation as a result of the deletion, but while this would be annoying if it happened to me it's one of the things you have to live with on the SE sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="92a1ef27-848c-4e3e-83a3-e10696562493" CreationDate="2015-09-14T16:54:03.800" UserId="77452" Text="My highest voted question on this site involves the skipping of rocks [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176108/equation-derivation-for-skipping-rocks). It sits at 11 up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second most up voted question actually has multiple candidates. However, in the spirit of fairness, I choose [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196315/how-was-this-one-probability-amplitude-derived-by-mattuck). It had a bounty, and was a question involving the derivation of a probability amplitude in QFT. It stands at 2 up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201348/is-stress-a-property-only-relevant-on-surfaces) candidate. It involves a more intuitive question about the stress tensor on a surface. It also has two up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally prefer to get answers over up votes/comments. From my own experience on this site however, most of the attention given to answering questions goes to questions that involve little to no advanced mathematics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in my first question, a moderator informed me that it'd be best if I *hadn't* asked about the physical validity of the mathematical model I had constructed. After removing this from my question, I lost interest in having it answered on this site. This was because the question was no longer about the model *I* had guessed. It was now about why rocks skip across water, with an addendum showing my guess work. Still a good question, but not at all what I had intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my other examples, I ask inherently mathematical questions about physical processes. However, I receive little to no attention in these questions. For instance, in the QFT question, I had to place a bounty to get an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Point:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a site for asking semi-technical questions about the mathematics involved behind physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm under the opinion that this is *not* the case. I believe that this site has a bias towards questions that can be answered *without* mathematics, and involve pictures and other diagrams in the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my premise is correct, how do we fix this? It seems odd to have a physics site where you can't directly discuss things such as the validity and improvement of physical model, i.e. the skipping rocks question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note on meaning:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say that this site has a bias towards not using mathematics, I mean that questions and answers rarely make mathematical/logical arguments towards a solution. Instead, they will only reference mathematical properties and describe things in &quot;every-day&quot; language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="92a1ef27-848c-4e3e-83a3-e10696562493" CreationDate="2015-09-14T16:54:03.800" UserId="77452" Text="Is this site for asking mathmatical physics questions, questions on intuition, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="92a1ef27-848c-4e3e-83a3-e10696562493" CreationDate="2015-09-14T16:54:03.800" UserId="77452" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="3981b83d-fa00-4dea-ab79-6332f37444c1" CreationDate="2015-09-14T17:08:28.670" UserId="77452" Comment="added 103 characters in body; edited title" Text="My highest voted question on this site involves the skipping of rocks [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176108/equation-derivation-for-skipping-rocks). It sits at 11 up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second most up voted question actually has multiple candidates. However, in the spirit of fairness, I choose [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196315/how-was-this-one-probability-amplitude-derived-by-mattuck). It had a bounty, and was a question involving the derivation of a probability amplitude in QFT. It stands at 2 up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201348/is-stress-a-property-only-relevant-on-surfaces) candidate. It involves a more intuitive question about the stress tensor on a surface. It also has two up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally prefer to get answers over up votes/comments. From my own experience on this site however, most of the attention given to answering questions goes to questions that involve little to no advanced mathematics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in my first question, a moderator informed me that it'd be best if I *hadn't* asked about the physical validity of the mathematical model I had constructed. After removing this from my question, I lost interest in having it answered on this site. This was because the question was no longer about the model *I* had guessed. It was now about why rocks skip across water, with an addendum showing my guess work. Still a good question, but not at all what I had intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my other examples, I ask inherently mathematical questions about physical processes. However, I receive little to no attention in these questions. For instance, in the QFT question, I had to place a bounty to get an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Point:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a site good for asking semi-technical questions about the mathematics involved behind physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm under the opinion that this is *not* the case. I believe that this site has a bias towards questions that can be answered *without* mathematics, and involve pictures and other diagrams in the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my premise is correct, how do we fix this? It seems odd to have a physics site where you can't directly discuss things such as the validity and improvement of physical model, i.e. the skipping rocks question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not correct, what should I change about how I ask questions, to get better answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note on meaning:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say that this site has a bias towards not using mathematics, I mean that questions and answers rarely make mathematical/logical arguments towards a solution. Instead, they will only reference mathematical properties and describe things in &quot;every-day&quot; language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19174" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="3981b83d-fa00-4dea-ab79-6332f37444c1" CreationDate="2015-09-14T17:08:28.670" UserId="77452" Comment="added 103 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is this site primarily for asking mathmatical physics questions, questions on intuition, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="256c2cd4-e8e3-46c8-991a-c037c73a6f98" CreationDate="2015-09-14T17:47:43.843" UserId="6982" Text="&gt; Is this site primarily for asking mathmatical physics questions, questions on intuition, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a preference for most users. All questiosn that fits within the rules is more than welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I believe that this site has a bias towards questions that can be answered without mathematics, and involve pictures and other diagrams in the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is an obvious reason why some questions attract (much) more attention. The more people understand the question, the more upvotes it will get. Questions that I do not really understand, I will routinely skip, and of course not upvote. &quot;Easier&quot; question has a much larger potential base of users who can answer the question, and thus will quickly attract some answers. If you are in a rare outskirt of physics, your question may be easily overlooked by the few expert, because there are many question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If my premise is correct, how do we fix this? It seems odd to have a physics site where you can't directly discuss things such as the validity and improvement of physical model, i.e. the skipping rocks question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do we need to fix this? StackExchange is a question and answer site, not a discussion platform. So if you want an extensive discussion on your model, you can go to the chatroom, but the site itself does not offer the right platform.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="051b08cc-b1a4-4894-8fdb-16c4f794bb69" CreationDate="2015-09-14T18:04:26.200" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typos" Text="&gt; Is this site primarily for asking mathmatical physics questions, questions on intuition, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a preference for most users. All questions that fit within the rules are more than welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I believe that this site has a bias towards questions that can be answered without mathematics, and involve pictures and other diagrams in the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is an obvious reason why some questions attract (much) more attention. The more people understand the question, the more upvotes it will get. Questions that I do not really understand, I will routinely skip, and of course not upvote. &quot;Easier&quot; question has a much larger potential base of users who can answer the question, and thus will quickly attract some answers. If you are in a rare outskirt of physics, your question may be easily overlooked by the few expert, because there are many question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If my premise is correct, how do we fix this? It seems odd to have a physics site where you can't directly discuss things such as the validity and improvement of physical model, i.e. the skipping rocks question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do we need to fix this? StackExchange is a question and answer site, not a discussion platform. So if you want an extensive discussion on your model, you can go to the chatroom, but the site itself does not offer the right platform.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="6895bf4b-7ca6-4326-be67-5f9f980fea3d" CreationDate="2015-09-14T21:30:16.240" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="David, thanks for posting this on meta.  Like many other users I am anonymous, so although I completely cringe when I see my question, personally it's not going to affect me in a week's  time. But the reputation of the site would suffer if many more superficially coherent, (I say this because it had 3 up votes at the start and was answered) but actually badly worded / unchecked / nonsense questions like mine were left up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually easier to find duplicates and questions posted on this site using Google than the internal site search engine itself, which affects the reputation of the site for potential new users finding the site through Google, then reading posts such as mine and understandably  moving on quickly when they realise they are reading rubbish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got stuck on rules that worked against both of us in sorting this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly the rollback process eliminated my apology and plea to ignore the post that I had edited in when I realised the mess I had made of it and attempted to clean it up .Then the  word  vandalism just increased my panic, TBH,  as that was the opposite of what I thought I was doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the edit lock prevented me from trying to apologise again on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was left with no option but to try to reply to each individual comment pointing out the error, which is not as effective as writing directly on the post, as you can see from the number of up flags on the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In hindsight, rather than panic, I should have asked the initial answerer, (if that's a word) to remove his answer then attempted to delete the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the comments on the post, I accept the rules of the site and that it put you in a difficult position, but overall if the reputation of the site will suffer,  then that should be the criterion to delete, at least temporarily, a post such as mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the harm in having the power to **temporarily** suspend posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, on a personal note, I changed my user name to count to ten, as a reminder to do exactly that before future posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="b293847d-47b8-42c5-a1f3-d66fe1f95527" CreationDate="2015-09-14T21:43:13.200" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="David, thanks for posting this on meta.  Like many other users I am anonymous, so although I completely cringe when I see my question, personally it's not going to affect me in a week's  time. But the reputation of the site would suffer if many more superficially coherent, (I say this because it had 3 up votes at the start and was answered) but actually badly worded / unchecked / nonsense questions like mine were left up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean no offence of any kind to the people that answered, they did realise the mess I had made of it and tried to help me in a diplomatic  and friendly way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually easier to find duplicates and questions posted on this site using Google than the internal site search engine itself, which affects the reputation of the site for potential new users finding the site through Google, then reading posts such as mine and understandably  moving on quickly when they realise they are reading rubbish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got stuck on rules that worked against both of us in sorting this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly the rollback process eliminated my apology and plea to ignore the post that I had edited in when I realised the mess I had made of it and attempted to clean it up .Then the  word  vandalism just increased my panic, TBH,  as that was the opposite of what I thought I was doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the edit lock prevented me from trying to apologise again on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was left with no option but to try to reply to each individual comment pointing out the error, which is not as effective as writing directly on the post, as you can see from the number of up flags on the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In hindsight, rather than panic, I should have asked the initial answerer, (if that's a word) to remove his answer then attempted to delete the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the comments on the post, I accept the rules of the site and that it put you in a difficult position, but overall if the reputation of the site will suffer,  then that should be the criterion to delete, at least temporarily, a post such as mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the harm in having the power to **temporarily** suspend posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, on a personal note, I changed my user name to count to ten, as a reminder to do exactly that before future posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="93c04170-e736-49fc-8c32-573bd70603ff" CreationDate="2015-09-15T11:08:32.907" UserId="124" Comment="clarify that this question is not about the specific example linked" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about other closed questions, which don't meet the criteria for automatic deletion? For example, those that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- have upvoted answers (like the one that prompted this post)&#xD;&#xA;- have upvotes themselves&#xD;&#xA;- are recently posted&#xD;&#xA;- are recently closed&#xD;&#xA;- have reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, should we (moderators) be deleting these questions, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? Or some subset of them? (e.g. delete all closed questions more than 9 days old regardless of other factors) If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="cab44718-ab48-45da-aa31-f07de2bc827b" CreationDate="2015-09-15T11:19:46.557" UserId="124" Comment="added 575 characters in body" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about other closed questions, which don't meet the criteria for automatic deletion? For example, those that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- have upvoted answers (like the one that prompted this post)&#xD;&#xA;- have upvotes themselves&#xD;&#xA;- are recently posted&#xD;&#xA;- are recently closed&#xD;&#xA;- have reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, should we (moderators) be deleting these questions, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? Or some subset of them? (e.g. delete all closed questions more than 9 days old regardless of other factors) If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to think about: deleting a question that has upvotes and/or upvoted answers, simply because it's closed, is especially tricky because several people expressed a belief that the post is useful - either on its own merits, or because it inspired a useful answer. Now, it is a common occurrence that &quot;upvotes lie&quot; - in other words, we know that people _will_ upvote some things that are bad fits for the site. But I don't think it should be part of the moderators' regular job to make the distinction between &quot;popular and useful&quot; and &quot;popular but bad for the site&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="ea5655a5-c6ad-4cec-a6db-ddf2724cb9bb" CreationDate="2015-09-15T13:51:27.790" UserId="8563" Text="In terms of keeping the site clean, I think the current situation does just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of solicited deletions, then I think the example you give is pretty much the only contentious issue - questions with upvoted answers which the OP would like to delete. In particular, in this situation the accepted answer represents 20% of its poster's rep, so you are balancing the OP's embarrassment with their post versus the reward to the answerers' efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think that in such cases you should err on the side of keeping the question.** The OP's asked something embarrassing but in receiving answers they lost a measure of control over the thread. Specifically, they have solicited input from the community and those community members have put in work to give that input. The OP owes it to them to keep those answers up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some posts do cause embarrassment, to be sure. However, a notice saying 'sorry, I didn't think this through' is surely enough - particularly for someone posting pseudonymously. I don't think it reflects negatively on the site, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular example, you might say 'well, the answers simply point out the obvious', but answering the question as posed is taking a risk that the OP will turn intransigent and argumentative (which, to their credit, they didn't). It reminds me of [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44017/have-i-discovered-how-to-calculate-the-protons-mass-using-only-integers) (which if I recall correctly generated many more comments than currently displayed) - I'm slightly embarrassed at earning so much rep from stating the obvious, but it did end up becoming a bit of a grind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="3a473c05-4daf-41ec-9d68-fb23fd1a2602" CreationDate="2015-09-15T19:43:44.177" UserId="5374" Text="I'm of the opposite of your opinion. All names should blend in and people should acquire points just to obtain features, not for public display. &#xD;&#xA;Foremostly, it would be very good if points for answers were given without people knowing who answered. Answers would be judged for their content, not because well-known-10k-user answered it and people just trust it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="b3af70ca-bc0c-4b26-809e-de9800ba2093" CreationDate="2015-09-15T23:12:49.733" UserId="92732" Text="My interests primarily pertain to Astrophysics (and Astrochemistry). This subject appears to have two masters: Physics SE and Astronomy SE. How do I decide where to post, and how would you characterize the astrophysics sub-community on each SE? Does double posting of Q's make sense? I will be posting this meta-Q on the other meta-SE also." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="b3af70ca-bc0c-4b26-809e-de9800ba2093" CreationDate="2015-09-15T23:12:49.733" UserId="92732" Text="Are sophisticated Astrophysics Q's better asked in the Physics SE or Astronomy SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="b3af70ca-bc0c-4b26-809e-de9800ba2093" CreationDate="2015-09-15T23:12:49.733" UserId="92732" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|community-wiki|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="70b65b9e-1f23-489c-8984-15abe1883cdf" CreationDate="2015-09-15T23:58:16.587" UserId="56299" Text="It depends on what the question is about. I sometimes have to make this choice, because I'm reasonably active on both sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a substantial amount of temptation to go where the user base is. There are, without question, more astronomers and astrophysicists studying at an advanced/professional level and actively answering questions on Physics Stack Exchange than there are on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Most of these spend their time exclusively on Physics, although the one notable exception is Rob Jeffries, who joined Astronomy this past year and has been avidly answering questions ever since. So it's possible that you're more likely to get a question answered by a professional if you ask it one Physics than if you ask it on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Well, the relative sizes of the sites is certainly the major factor. It's evident in other ways, too: Physics has [783 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics?page=3&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=15) tagged [tag:astrophysics], while Astronomy has [48 questions](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics) tagged [tag:astrophysics]. Even taking into account the fact that Physics is older, it still has a higher rate of astrophysics questions coming in (although it has a higher percentage of unanswered questions, though not by much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do I decide where to post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your call. However, I would recommend going to Physics from a purely chance-of-getting-the-question-answered standpoint.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For astronomy questions, though, I would absolutely recommend Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how would you characterize the astrophysics sub-community on each SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The astrophysics community is stronger on Physics than on Astronomy. Same with chat, by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Does double posting of Q's make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said in the comments that this is a bad thing, so I'll just reiterate: In most situations, [**cross-posting is a bad idea**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be posting this meta-Q on the other meta-SE also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if agree with this. having two discussions will help get the input of both communities, but it also splits up the advice you'll get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 That said, more astrophysics questions would certainly help Astronomy. . .&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19188" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="583cbe3e-a8e1-4945-8f4c-1cc9b26c3bed" CreationDate="2015-09-16T00:22:25.010" UserId="92732" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|chat|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="9b4aa9a5-765c-4f8f-b88d-56cdd9703e2c" CreationDate="2015-09-16T03:18:30.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/643987293909422080" />
  <row Id="19190" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="a0a9395d-1691-4baa-ac32-fd856832d225" CreationDate="2015-09-16T05:05:02.200" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19191" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="98273bec-8fa6-44e5-9dcb-680025c1811e" CreationDate="2015-09-16T06:18:33.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/644032606158352384" />
  <row Id="19192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="04414285-b06f-4709-b2f2-c929eef4c521" CreationDate="2015-09-16T10:51:56.603" UserId="1325" Text="Site members are free to answer whatever questions they want. The answers that give me most satisfaction are detailed quantitative answers to hard questions (typically about GR) but those are a lot of work. By *a lot of work* I mean it can take me an hour before I'm satisfied with an answer. That's a long time for people who have to work to pay for a living. By contrast [a simple answer can be dashed off in a few seconds][1], and (there being no justice) can often accumulate far more rep than a hard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any time management expert will warn strongly against doing the quick easy tasks first and neglecting the long hard ones, but we're only human and none of us are being paid for this. I frequently succumb to the temptation to dash off an easy answer, and given the manifest lack of god-like forebearance on the part of the other frequent answerers I'm sure they do the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point is that if you post a hard mathematical physics question I will look at it but there's a far chance that either it's outside my area of expertise or I don't have the time to do it justice. Hopefully someone will respond, but inevitably only a small fraction of the site members will have the knowledge to answer a hard question, and they too may not have the free time at that moment. You can always put a bounty on the question if you want to attract more attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207295/when-i-boil-a-kettle-what-stops-all-the-water-from-turning-exploding-in-to-s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="0149ad4d-1bb4-4422-b207-d9b1a2a0c3e7" CreationDate="2015-09-17T02:00:39.470" UserId="75916" Text="Yesterday I've been awarded the Enthusiast badge because I visited Physics Stack Exchange 30 days in a row (31 days now). However when I click on the &quot;Recent achievements&quot; icon, I can see that the next badge is the &quot;Enthusiast Badge&quot; and that it's completed at 30/30. Is this intended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot attached: [![bug?][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CXZfU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="0149ad4d-1bb4-4422-b207-d9b1a2a0c3e7" CreationDate="2015-09-17T02:00:39.470" UserId="75916" Text="Bug about the Enthusiast Badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="0149ad4d-1bb4-4422-b207-d9b1a2a0c3e7" CreationDate="2015-09-17T02:00:39.470" UserId="75916" Text="|bug|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="cd58c2ea-6a8e-4010-8900-5c020205a513" CreationDate="2015-09-17T05:56:29.743" UserId="1325" Text="The next badge info is indeed buggy. My display tells me my next badge is the [black-holes] badge but I earned that four days ago. I would guess that tpg2114 is correct and the data is only updated intermittently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="71b2e549-b90b-48dd-98fc-08e884a57d94" CreationDate="2015-09-17T06:05:11.853" UserId="1325" Comment="Add link" Text="The next badge info is indeed buggy. My display tells me my next badge is the [black-holes] badge but I earned that four days ago. I would guess that tpg2114 is correct and the data is only updated intermittently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note there are similar questions on the main Meta, for example: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/261008/user-profile-badge-progress-bar-shows-a-completed-bar-not-the-next-one-to-get. The question hasn't been answered, but the comments suggest that it's because cached data is being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are quite a few questions on the main meta related to the badge progress display. This is a new feature and it appears to be still a work in progress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19198" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="4f7ffe57-c4f5-43dd-9905-2555dc5a8690" CreationDate="2015-09-17T09:23:40.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/644441581433561088" />
  <row Id="19199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="3139fe74-502c-487b-aaa0-589fa00c0005" CreationDate="2015-09-17T18:58:13.783" UserId="89965" Text="Recently I edited a post and it was approved by the COMMUNITY. But some other user(I won't mention the name) felt the edit was not perfect and re-edited it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Till now, it is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I felt that this re-edit was unnecessary. So I went for a rollback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again , fine till now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now I found that this rollback of mine was REJECTED. Okay I might be wrong in my edit opinion. **BUT I WAS REJECTED BY THE SAME USER WHO HAD DONE THE RE-EDIT**.How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite obvious that a person will favour his own edit more than mine and reject mine (with or without bias). You can check it from these 2 pages:[here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that is my question. How can a reviewer also be the editor of the same post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there not be some kind of a feature prohibiting this kind of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No offence to anyone,please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/98181&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207551/escape-velocity-of-an-object-from-the-surface-of-the-moon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="3139fe74-502c-487b-aaa0-589fa00c0005" CreationDate="2015-09-17T18:58:13.783" UserId="89965" Text="How can a reviewer also be the editor of the same post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="3139fe74-502c-487b-aaa0-589fa00c0005" CreationDate="2015-09-17T18:58:13.783" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="fda260b6-bdbf-40cb-872d-28b4321ecd5c" CreationDate="2015-09-17T19:15:44.717" UserId="26969" Text="With reputation come certain privileges - including the privilege to edit without review, and the privilege to review others' edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that higher-reputation folks have earned that reputation - something the FAQ calls &quot;a measure of how much the community trusts you&quot;. So it is somewhat deliberate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the case of the edit in question - using $\times$ instead of $\cdot$ is indeed generally considered wrong; it's not something to get into an edit war over. Especially when the question has many downvotes and is closed..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="da5300fd-1faa-4be5-9320-d5b9ddd2efe6" CreationDate="2015-09-17T19:29:06.633" UserId="26969" Comment="added 492 characters in body" Text="With reputation come certain privileges - including the privilege to edit without review, and the privilege to review others' edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that higher-reputation folks have earned that reputation - something the FAQ calls &quot;a measure of how much the community trusts you&quot;. So I think it's a deliberate design choice - not a bug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the case of the edit in question - using $\times$ instead of $\cdot$ is indeed generally considered wrong; it's not something to get into an edit war over. Especially when the question has many downvotes and is closed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally - as far as I can tell from the edit history, when Sebastian encountered your edit, he did not approve it; instead he improved (in his opinion) your edit. Since he has sufficient reputation, his edit was automatically approved (by &quot;Community&quot; - that is a bot of sorts). Thus, your edit never really &quot;made it&quot;; it was the edit of the edit that really was approved (but this showed up as two separate edits, so that your own effort was still visible)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="9b93ab09-bcf3-49e8-b630-a5d9c57ec4bf" CreationDate="2015-09-18T12:13:23.757" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="I want to ask a question about the Hierarchy Problem and I searched for previous questions. Each of the duplicates has 1 single answer each, and none of the answers is pitched at my own level, (which is somewhere between the end of a QM course and the lowest slopes of QFT.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the way it goes on this site sometimes, and that's ok, I am just unlucky enough not to get the spread of answers that some other questions get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can rephrase the title, but essentially I am asking the same question, just looking for a startup (simpler) answer until, if ever, I can follow the current answers on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies if I missed a question that IS at my level, I just could not see one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="9b93ab09-bcf3-49e8-b630-a5d9c57ec4bf" CreationDate="2015-09-18T12:13:23.757" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="Can I ask a question that has several duplicate questions, none of which I can understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="9b93ab09-bcf3-49e8-b630-a5d9c57ec4bf" CreationDate="2015-09-18T12:13:23.757" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="99443a82-fb78-4447-a32e-beb20e541868" CreationDate="2015-09-18T12:20:26.667" UserId="8563" Text="Yes, you can. If you have that problem then there is a significant chance that others will in the future, and having a thread at that level will make the site a better resource overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you need to be very careful to explain how your question is different from the previous iterations - in this case in terms of level. Carefully explain what you do and do not know about the topic. List all the previous iterations that you can find, and for each of them explain why you find them confusing and particularly where you got lost - that will make it easier for your answerers to know what level to pitch their posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19208" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="34a7fda1-08a9-4306-831d-106bd15bdd18" CreationDate="2015-09-18T15:31:37.983" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I ask a question that has duplicate questions, with answers none of which I can understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="20961815-41f7-4222-9ad9-6828f82fe3dd" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:44:23.287" UserId="25301" Text="One other thought is that, if it's essentially the same question as one already posted &amp; answered but at a higher level than what you want, then you can always [**offer a bounty**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) on the question with the specific request of a lower level answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="70c9d621-399d-462f-bfe5-69013642c573" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:29:51.050" UserId="63690" Text="I ask this having already read [a question about minor edits.][1] I've seen several edits in which the only change was replacing capital letters in a title with lower-case letters.  This seems, to me, to not improve the post enough to accept as a worthy edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there enough consensus about not having capital letters in a title that this type of edit should be accepted? (appearance is important?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the edit so minor that it should not be accepted (user scrounging for rep points)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or do we really care one way or another?  (I lie in the &quot;too minor to accept&quot; camp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6282/how-do-you-guys-feel-about-minor-edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="70c9d621-399d-462f-bfe5-69013642c573" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:29:51.050" UserId="63690" Text="Are capital letters in titles annoying or innocuous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="70c9d621-399d-462f-bfe5-69013642c573" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:29:51.050" UserId="63690" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="218f7ca7-f2e4-4373-b62e-34cec03f1b5c" CreationDate="2015-09-18T23:14:16.133" UserId="21345" Text="Needless or wrong use of capitalisation make me read the words with emphasises.  E.g. &quot;How do I Do This&quot; will be read as &quot;How do.&quot; &quot;I.&quot; &quot;Do&quot; &quot;This.&quot;. This makes it much harder to interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus if I have a legit reason to edit then I will also correct bad capitalisation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find one or two erroneous capitals in a title is too minor to correct though, but it most certainly is annoying or worse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="ede5943f-ee9a-408d-bcfb-a84e97ea03b9" CreationDate="2015-09-19T04:39:46.610" UserId="31790" Text="See item #6 in our [FAQ on writing question titles](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improper punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and formatting make questions harder to read.&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, clear, and most importantly *consistent* formatting in a medium like this is critical as it helps would-be answerers spend as little brain power as possible parsing the written word and therefore as much as possible digesting the content and composing a useful response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fix capitalization errors in titles a lot.&#xD;&#xA;When lower rep users put in proposed edits to fix title capitalization I will accept it every time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="d21b9c5b-4789-4be2-9b6e-998e00811f1c" CreationDate="2015-09-19T05:37:48.550" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo" Text="Recently physics.SE has seen more users regularly including salutations and sign-off in their posts. That [behavior has been strongly discouraged on Stack Overflow][1] for a very long time, and I would prefer the same here. But I'm not ready to start a major editing campaign without polling the locals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Editing for Brevity?][2] (Closed as a duplicate of the above, but much more recent and containing some additional discussion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/37439/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="0dc21f2b-97b9-4045-9117-d2d520136d09" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:08:36.087" UserId="91948" Text="My question was put on hold 5 days ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206880/the-mechanics-of-accelerating-a-massive-body-in-a-vacuum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The mechanics of accelerating a massive body in a Vacuum [closed]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did edit the question as I was told that it was on hold because it was too vague.(and that I should amend it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hoped I had narrowed the question to make it more answerable .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I waited 5 days   to be told whether I would get an answer to my now edited question but the question has just passed from &quot;on hold&quot; to &quot;closed&quot; without an explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="0dc21f2b-97b9-4045-9117-d2d520136d09" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:08:36.087" UserId="91948" Text="Why was my question closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="0dc21f2b-97b9-4045-9117-d2d520136d09" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:08:36.087" UserId="91948" Text="|discussion|support|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="cb7efcb1-e2be-4851-ab75-402caa0a57cf" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:18:01.070" UserId="50583" Text="The reviewers [do evidently not agree with you](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/97726) (one voted to reopen, three voted to leave closed) that you narrowed down the question sufficiently. In my view, it still asks for a list of possible propulsion methods, adding &quot;in a vacuum&quot; does not remove that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="3f1b48ba-6fab-46c1-b0c8-273b60f9568f" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:18:21.553" UserId="90134" Text="The reasoning is because it IS too vague. What kind of massive body? What's your definition of massive? Cars are pretty massive. Just put it in neutral and start pushing down a hill. You wouldn't even require a vacuum for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="0d4d53d6-ea4a-4001-96b2-54965b2adcc4" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:55:35.803" UserId="124" Text="I think there are actually quite a few reasons this question isn't appropriate for the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It's too broad. You're asking for an open-ended list.&#xD;&#xA;- It's an engineering question (you're asking how to accomplish some task, presumably by building a device), not a physics question&#xD;&#xA;- It's so blatantly not physics, in fact, that people may be assuming you must be describing a physics question and simply doing a really bad job of it. Under that assumption, it's not clear what is the actual _physics_ you're asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't really think of a way to fix your question without fundamentally changing what it's asking, and that sort of a change will have to come from you. It may be best to just give up on this question. You can keep trying to fix it up if you like, but I just don't know what to tell you about how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19224" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="25d7c920-2533-400e-a78e-9cc85a8e45c6" CreationDate="2015-09-20T03:39:46.747" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I ask a question that has duplicates, with answers none of which I can understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="52d7513a-7fa8-4813-8fdc-2dbeca7302da" CreationDate="2015-09-20T08:14:20.470" UserId="1325" Text="If I add a comment, then realise I've forgotten to add the @fred to ping a user I can either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. edit my comment and put in the @fred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. delete the comment and retype it with the @fred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Fred get pinged in both cases? Specifically, in case (1) if I edit an existing comment and add the @fred does that cause Fred to be pinged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose there's a corollary: if I edit the comment as many times as I can in the 5 minutes allowed can I generate multiple pings and really annoy Fred?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="52d7513a-7fa8-4813-8fdc-2dbeca7302da" CreationDate="2015-09-20T08:14:20.470" UserId="1325" Text="Pinging a user in a comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="52d7513a-7fa8-4813-8fdc-2dbeca7302da" CreationDate="2015-09-20T08:14:20.470" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="cc91dab6-249e-414a-b342-9ea14b8bfd2d" CreationDate="2015-09-20T13:16:24.970" UserId="56299" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="It depends on what the question is about. I sometimes have to make this choice, because I'm reasonably active on both sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a substantial amount of temptation to go where the user base is. There are, without question, more astronomers and astrophysicists studying at an advanced/professional level and actively answering questions on Physics Stack Exchange than there are on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Most of these spend their time exclusively on Physics, although the one notable exception is Rob Jeffries, who joined Astronomy this past year and has been avidly answering questions ever since. So it's possible that you're more likely to get a question answered by a professional if you ask it on Physics than if you ask it on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Well, the relative sizes of the sites is certainly the major factor. It's evident in other ways, too: Physics has [783 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics?page=3&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=15) tagged [tag:astrophysics], while Astronomy has [48 questions](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics) tagged [tag:astrophysics]. Even taking into account the fact that Physics is older, it still has a higher rate of astrophysics questions coming in (although it has a higher percentage of unanswered questions, though not by much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do I decide where to post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your call. However, I would recommend going to Physics from a purely chance-of-getting-the-question-answered standpoint.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For astronomy questions, though, I would absolutely recommend Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how would you characterize the astrophysics sub-community on each SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The astrophysics community is stronger on Physics than on Astronomy. Same with chat, by the way. I often take minor astronomy/astrophysics questions to the Physics chat room instead of the Astronomy chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Does double posting of Q's make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said in the comments that this is a bad thing, so I'll just reiterate: In most situations, [**cross-posting is a bad idea**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be posting this meta-Q on the other meta-SE also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if agree with this. Having two discussions will help get the input of both communities, but it also splits up the advice you'll get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 That said, more astrophysics questions would certainly help Astronomy. . .&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="cc23e9ee-90d2-4a23-b868-1cd23a27d4fb" CreationDate="2015-09-20T15:51:49.917" UserId="1325" Comment="Clarification" Text="If I add a comment, then realise I've forgotten to add the @fred to ping a user I can either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. edit my comment and put in the @fred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. delete the comment and retype it with the @fred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Fred get pinged in both cases? Specifically, in case (1) if I edit an existing comment and add the @fred does that cause Fred to be pinged when I save the changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose there's a corollary: if I edit the comment as many times as I can in the 5 minutes allowed can I generate multiple pings and really annoy Fred?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7093" RevisionGUID="88d778a1-c147-464d-a586-62a0201e459d" CreationDate="2015-09-20T18:22:35.467" UserId="1335" Text="I think the main confusion is between &quot;full communiti wiki&quot;, driving to only one collective answer, and partial community wiki: each resource goes to an answer, so people can still vote to order them, but all the resource descriptions can be edited. Here I would like to propose to use the second method:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- question is community wiki&#xD;&#xA;- answers separate, one by resource&#xD;&#xA;- answers which are no community wiki should generically not be upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Resource&quot; can be actually a collective resource: website, all the books of an author, all the work in a research branch, etc... the glanularity should be specified in the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="7a5fdfa2-4b86-46ed-ab22-b6df514989b1" CreationDate="2015-09-20T18:30:49.667" UserId="8563" Text="In general, I tend to have a much lower bar for the amount of improvement to approve or implement edits in the title. This is because question titles appear in many more places than just the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The front page&#xD;&#xA; - On-site search results&#xD;&#xA; - Related and Linked sidebars on other questions on this site&#xD;&#xA; - Hot Network Questions on this site and others in the Stack Exchange Networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having well-groomed titles is important. Fixes like LaTeX improvements, bad grammar, picky grammar issues (e.g. 'How to X' → 'How do I X'), spelling, and so on are definitely worthwhile. Larger fixes (like making the question title accurately describe the actual question in sufficient detail) are a must.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, having title case is... pretty much not a problem for me. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the Physical Meaning of Commutators in Quantum Mechanics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;read just fine and don't jolt the reader too much into a 'hmm, what's with the language there?' note (I tend to find). I don't fix such titles and would tend to reject as Too Minor if that is really the only possible improvement on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a quick perusal of the current front page indicates that the questions whose titles lend themselves to the use of title case (currently the only one being [A Confusion in Rotational Dynamics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208042/a-confusion-in-rotational-dynamics)) have the sorts of titles which are not particularly descriptive of the question. Longer, full-sentence titles which actually ask a question will tend to look weirder in title case than short statements about what area the question is generally in. In such cases, the question is better off getting a completely new title which actually describes what is being asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="7e3be2a2-20e2-4431-a7ab-153e6e728f04" CreationDate="2015-09-20T20:23:41.410" UserId="78466" Text="I am wondering as to the exact policy of flagging answers. I have flagged answers which promote non mainstream science four times. Of these four times, the first three times the flag was accepted. However, the fourth time the flag was declined with the following message: &quot;flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.&quot; I am thus wondering why the first three flags were accepted instead of declined with this reason. What is the exact ruling with regards to flagging answers involving non mainstream science? Has there been a change in flagging policy (and what is the relevant meta post), or should the first three flags have been declined.? Thanks for any clarifications on the ruling, I will for now *down vote instead of flag answers* outside the mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TR8OX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TdEJx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oclHE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="7e3be2a2-20e2-4431-a7ab-153e6e728f04" CreationDate="2015-09-20T20:23:41.410" UserId="78466" Text="Question about flagging policies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="7e3be2a2-20e2-4431-a7ab-153e6e728f04" CreationDate="2015-09-20T20:23:41.410" UserId="78466" Text="|discussion|flagging|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="c5419395-87ef-4d7f-8863-78f567d08958" CreationDate="2015-09-21T01:13:17.047" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="This is a small point, but a lot of my vote to close choices have been about homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to have that homework option come up on the first page of the &quot;Why should this question be closed&quot;, page,  rather than go to another screen to vote?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea of the split between  the reasons for closing votes, but I guess homework would be a significant number, again I appreciate that this is not a major issue, just a suggestion to save time, for possibly lots of users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="c5419395-87ef-4d7f-8863-78f567d08958" CreationDate="2015-09-21T01:13:17.047" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="Streamlining the vote to close homework option page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="c5419395-87ef-4d7f-8863-78f567d08958" CreationDate="2015-09-21T01:13:17.047" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7097" RevisionGUID="c1aab6f4-28f6-4d46-932a-296ec94afeae" CreationDate="2015-09-21T05:41:15.443" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="All Stack Exchange site have the same primary options in the closing dialog: only the off-topic subgroup is site-specific. So, it's extremely unlikely that this request will be implemented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a surrogate, I suggest using my bookmarklet [Close as OT reason #1](http://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/#closeOT): just drag it to the browser toolbar, and you will be able to close homework questions with __one__ click on the bookmark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: it works in Close Review and Low Quality Review, too. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="6c683df1-23b0-4d88-aac7-093724e3853e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T08:42:37.770" UserId="78942" Text="*Note: my answer is about the site and how it works/should work; it is NOT about any user or group of users.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, wrong answers and non-mainstream answers are completely different, and should be dealt with differently. The definition of non-mainstream physics given in [the FAQ](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/78942)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What defines mainstream physics?**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is rather objective: the papers backing your answer either do exist or do not exist. It's not subjective, and has nothing to do with squaring with personal views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that bad answers should be _downvoted_ and non-mainstream answers should be _flagged_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The scope of this site (as discused in the tour, the help center and several meta posts) is only _mainstream physics_, not physics in general. Therefore, any non-mainstream answer is off-topic, and should be removed. On the other hand, a wrong answer is perfectly on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Non-mainstream answers harm this site. Imagine that someone answers that &quot;the Earth is flat&quot;, and that answer is not deleted. It will attract some downvotes and will be grayed out, I know, but it will be still hosted by our site, and with our logo as a kind of _seal of approval_. This site is a reference of good content, and has a potential audience of thousands of people. We are saying to that audience that the whole community (except the few downvoters, who disagree) regard the &quot;flat Earth theory&quot; as acceptable for our site. If non-mainstream physics proliferate, the reputation of the site will suffer, and we won't be a useful resource anymore. **Non-mainstream physics is an attack against Physics.SE, and the community should defend itself**, and that's the purpose of flags. On the other hand, a wrong answer, marked as such, can have an educational value (showing common pitfalls, teaching something to both OP and answerers...), and be benefical for the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvoting has a cost (yeah, I know, only one little shiny internet point, but that's the point of gamification...) which discourages downvoting. In the case of wrong answers it makes sense: you have to ponder if the answer is bad enough for a downvote, or if it needs only a comment. But pointing non-mainstream answers _always_ helps the community, and shouldn't be punished. Using flags seems to be the best option (better that meta or chat, that are too public for sensible matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - People who get downvotes tend to regard them as personal attacks. Non-mainstream answers usually attract lots of downvotes, and they might think that that is the result of some sort of non-existent collusion. If their posts are dealt with by the site instead of some of the users, that (hopefully) would ease their mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="52eaeeb0-3b45-43d8-a332-7a670fd34041" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:04:19.407" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="aec602c1-7652-42bd-96a4-4c0ef7122918" CreationDate="2015-09-22T12:23:01.483" UserId="25301" Text="We close list-based question as *too broad*. We also close questions asking for opinion as *primarily opinion-based*. Resource recommendations are a hybrid of these two types of questions: they're posted to get one's *opinion* about which of *many options* to pick from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also argue that there isn't any physics content to a resource recommendation question. While the subject matter may be *about* physics, the question asked is about what someone should read and *not* about the physics itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, we should make resource recommendation questions **completely off topic**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, while it might prove to be useful to include a &quot;top few&quot; key books for each subject within the relevant tag wikis, I think it to be impractical to define, develop &amp; maintain that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="f26079f8-9975-4736-9fd7-0fba3b458c27" CreationDate="2015-09-22T16:33:09.233" UserId="1492" Text="[This question][1] that was wrongly  marked as duplicate by Carl Witthoft, ACuriousMind, Hritik Narayan, Kyle Kanos, CuriousOne 2 hours ago , to [this question][2] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marked one asks &quot;How can the unstable particles of the standard model be considered particles in their own right if they immediately decay into stable particles?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the suggested original &quot;What is the essential difference between a resonance and a particle? &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers to the last do not address the problem. The Z and W mesons are more than  resonances, they are elementary particles of the standard model . The  &quot;duplicate&quot; asks if the elementary particles could be excitations of a single particle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the moderators have a look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208410/how-can-the-unstable-particles-of-the-standard-model-be-considered-particles-in&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/188015/what-is-the-essential-difference-between-a-resonance-and-a-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="f26079f8-9975-4736-9fd7-0fba3b458c27" CreationDate="2015-09-22T16:33:09.233" UserId="1492" Text="wrongly marked as duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="f26079f8-9975-4736-9fd7-0fba3b458c27" CreationDate="2015-09-22T16:33:09.233" UserId="1492" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19249" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="8f552404-1ca9-4ed4-9229-0b5409b12af3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T17:22:13.150" UserId="1492" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1492,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;anna v&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19250" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="a36f58ec-766a-4a37-bebd-7121ce7c7b5e" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:32:50.420" UserId="1492" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1492,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;anna v&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="108260c9-00d0-4ace-85cb-e19983f0e3e3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:40:26.413" UserId="1492" Comment="after case changed" Text="[This question][1] that was wrongly  marked as duplicate by Carl Witthoft, ACuriousMind, Hritik Narayan, Kyle Kanos, CuriousOne 2 hours ago , to [this question][2] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marked one asks &quot;How can the unstable particles of the standard model be considered particles in their own right if they immediately decay into stable particles?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the suggested original &quot;What is the essential difference between a resonance and a particle? &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers to the last do not address the problem. The Z and W mesons are more than  resonances, they are elementary particles of the standard model . The  &quot;duplicate&quot; asks if the elementary particles could be excitations . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the moderators have a look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: question is open with votes. see my comment below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208410/how-can-the-unstable-particles-of-the-standard-model-be-considered-particles-in&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/188015/what-is-the-essential-difference-between-a-resonance-and-a-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19252" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="a9577195-9960-47db-b07d-7d7ed5ce89c8" CreationDate="2015-09-23T00:39:38.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/646484030284763136" />
  <row Id="19253" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="b5fab478-b317-4ee7-99c0-d611f247739d" CreationDate="2015-09-23T06:28:25.133" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="5c5c0282-f5b0-4618-9447-2bea8c4c6e64" CreationDate="2015-09-23T06:29:11.110" UserId="124" Text="Just posting so that this doesn't count as unanswered: the question was reopened by the community. (As it should be. This isn't something that really _needs_ moderator intervention.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19255" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="5c5c0282-f5b0-4618-9447-2bea8c4c6e64" CreationDate="2015-09-23T06:29:11.110" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="19257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="f0cdc344-8a8f-44de-9b0c-e4ffa233fe1d" CreationDate="2015-09-23T11:43:42.277" UserId="29202" Text="Just musing -- there are a measurable number of questions which, while more or less physics-related, are a much better fit for what-if.xkcd.   Is it worth creating a &quot;what-if&quot; tag for these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1557/are-outlandish-xkcd-style-what-if-questions-welcome-here seems to suggest at least some interest in this type of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="f0cdc344-8a8f-44de-9b0c-e4ffa233fe1d" CreationDate="2015-09-23T11:43:42.277" UserId="29202" Text="how about a what-if tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="f0cdc344-8a8f-44de-9b0c-e4ffa233fe1d" CreationDate="2015-09-23T11:43:42.277" UserId="29202" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="bff20319-2746-4981-9f8e-346d93764f19" CreationDate="2015-09-23T13:02:42.200" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Just musing -- there are a measurable number of questions which, while more or less physics-related, are a much better fit for what-if.xkcd.   Is it worth creating a &quot;what-if&quot; tag for these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1557 seems to suggest at least some interest in this type of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19261" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="bff20319-2746-4981-9f8e-346d93764f19" CreationDate="2015-09-23T13:02:42.200" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How about a what-if tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19262" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="bff20319-2746-4981-9f8e-346d93764f19" CreationDate="2015-09-23T13:02:42.200" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="c04532df-62ea-4959-81d9-e30d50b43d70" CreationDate="2015-09-23T17:26:18.650" UserId="25301" Text="No because it would necessarily be a [meta tag](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/), which is generally discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask) specifically states that,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;• you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so these &quot;what-if&quot; style questions are actually off-topic, according to current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19264" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="fcd2844c-3496-41a0-958d-f26931968c21" CreationDate="2015-09-24T09:41:39.733" UserId="84506" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="4edc92d5-d8cc-4410-a748-d56063ca579f" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:09:50.403" UserId="89965" Text="For the past few days I have noticed that for no reason that my reputation is decreasing. I mean to say that when I am logging out one day, I see a certain reputation and when I log in the next day, I see my reputation has decreased by about 20 points or so and in my reputation change bar, there is no such change visible. I further checked but found no downvoting of question nor answer or any other things(migration). I don't have exact records but I can show you one proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to what I came to know, one gets to review first posts and late answers after getting a reputation of 500 at least. Now if you read my [Review][1] history you will see that I started reviewing on 20th Sept. 2015. But my [Reputation change][2] history will show you that I attained 500 rep only on 21st Sept. And I am quite confident that it is no minor computer or server error. This thing is happening to me for the last two to three days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody tell me what is wrong? Is there any other way of losing rep that I don't know or have not considered? It may be that some user might have deleted his/her account. But I was not informed about it or my rep loss concerning his account removal.Please help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/history?userId=89965&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="4edc92d5-d8cc-4410-a748-d56063ca579f" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:09:50.403" UserId="89965" Text="Reputation decreases without reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="4edc92d5-d8cc-4410-a748-d56063ca579f" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:09:50.403" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="99fdf32d-f553-4f4f-931c-676a90dda5c8" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:30:14.130" UserId="50583" Text="You are editing a lot of posts which are closed and have a negative score. Such questions are regularly deleted by an [automatic deletion routine](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) (often termed the &quot;roomba&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question is deleted, all associated reputation gains and losses are reversed. In particular, the 2 reputation you gained from suggesting an edit that was subsequently approved are lost. I don't believe that there is an indication in the reputation history that this happens - the +2 from a week ago or so simply vanish from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want this to happen, don't make edits to posts that do not fix the reasons for closure/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for losing reputation is [users that are removed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1289/50583) and have upvoted you, but this is usually indicated by a `user was removed` in your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="335a19a2-997e-4d3a-8783-081a4e31e9d2" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:33:50.110" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For the past few days I have noticed that for no reason that my reputation is decreasing. I mean to say that when I am logging out one day, I see a certain reputation and when I log in the next day, I see my reputation has decreased by about 20 points or so and in my reputation change bar, there is no such change visible. I further checked but found no downvoting of question nor answer or any other things(migration). I don't have exact records but I can show you one proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to what I came to know, one gets to review first posts and late answers after getting a reputation of 500 at least. Now if you read my [Review][1] history you will see that I started reviewing on 20th Sept. 2015. But my [Reputation change][2] history will show you that I attained 500 rep only on 21st Sept. And I am quite confident that it is no minor computer or server error. This thing is happening to me for the last two to three days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody tell me what is wrong? Is there any other way of losing rep that I don't know or have not considered? It may be that some user might have deleted his/her account. But I was not informed about it or my rep loss concerning his account removal.Please help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/history?userId=89965&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19270" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="335a19a2-997e-4d3a-8783-081a4e31e9d2" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:33:50.110" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="7a715f30-db26-4454-95dd-9b48d25dfcf2" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:08:23.263" UserId="2451" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="It depends on the question. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a question of the form  _What does this notation/terminology mean?_ is on-topic if it cannot immediately be answered by a simple Google search/Wikipedia lookup.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a question of the form _What is the standard notation for this quantity?_ or _Why do we use this notation?_ is off-topic/not constructive/primary opinion-based, and should go to chat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: If the site gets swamped by notational/terminology soft-questions instead of conceptional physics questions, we might want to rethink this policy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="4f4d1631-ddcc-4b69-941f-24cdec957735" CreationDate="2015-09-25T10:13:05.853" UserId="73136" Text="There are certain concepts I think I know but I am not sure if that's the right way to understand it, so is it acceptable question on physics stack exchange. And how should that question be framed, should be it be sort of yes-no, or should it have an element of discussion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="4f4d1631-ddcc-4b69-941f-24cdec957735" CreationDate="2015-09-25T10:13:05.853" UserId="73136" Text="Is it okay to ask question to which you know the answer but not sure of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="4f4d1631-ddcc-4b69-941f-24cdec957735" CreationDate="2015-09-25T10:13:05.853" UserId="73136" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="29da700c-301f-49c5-bab3-1450f60f1931" CreationDate="2015-09-25T10:20:31.363" UserId="2451" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="It depends on the question. As a rule of thumb, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a question of the form  _What does this notation/terminology mean?_ is on-topic if it cannot immediately be answered by a simple Google search/Wikipedia lookup.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a question of the form _What is the standard notation for this quantity?_ or _Why do we use this notation?_ is off-topic/not constructive/primary opinion-based, and should go to chat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. a question of the form _What is the historic origin/motivation of this notation/terminology?_ should go to [History of Science and Mathematics](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: If the site gets swamped by linguistic/notational/terminology soft-questions instead of conceptional physics questions, we might want to rethink this policy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19278" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="110a79d5-f6fc-484f-af53-3743acf2fffe" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:35:34.853" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1013],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="19288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="519c6da6-9527-4904-9fb3-5a2b641de5c8" CreationDate="2015-09-26T09:10:43.290" UserId="27939" Text="So I've been eagerly waiting for an answer to my question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207766/solving-the-quantum-an-harmonic-oscillator-pertubatively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, for some reason I haven't got it ... What is the general procedure to transfer a question to another stackexchange like Math-stackexchange (after my bounty expires)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="519c6da6-9527-4904-9fb3-5a2b641de5c8" CreationDate="2015-09-26T09:10:43.290" UserId="27939" Text="Procedure to transfer a question to another stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="519c6da6-9527-4904-9fb3-5a2b641de5c8" CreationDate="2015-09-26T09:10:43.290" UserId="27939" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="97a8e4b5-1d1b-4718-9569-bddda0248678" CreationDate="2015-09-26T09:23:37.947" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="So I've been eagerly waiting for an answer to my question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/207766/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, for some reason I haven't got it ... What is the general procedure to transfer a question to another stackexchange like Math-stackexchange (after my bounty expires)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19292" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="97a8e4b5-1d1b-4718-9569-bddda0248678" CreationDate="2015-09-26T09:23:37.947" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Procedure to migrate a question to another stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="97a8e4b5-1d1b-4718-9569-bddda0248678" CreationDate="2015-09-26T09:23:37.947" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="817d12b8-7d20-46b2-86bd-309e1bcb0af4" CreationDate="2015-09-26T12:13:56.283" UserId="24653" Text="The general procedure for getting your question migrated to another stack exchange site is to flag it yourself, with a custom flag explaining the situation. The moderators will typically oblige. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="cdae1e2e-350d-45f4-85c6-c87469abd5c4" CreationDate="2015-09-26T19:47:04.973" UserId="92732" Text="PO has CPR, rotating administration, catagories, a high floor for level of Q's and a user's rights policy. All things I personally find very attractive. What it does not have is a broad menu of subjects (though it is repeatedly asserted that they want that), and a low-hostility culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the title Q is answered affirmatively by enough people, there would be two paths that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) Implement some of these feature here. A floor could be handled with a red tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) Take PO's assertion that it is a site for all of Physics at face value and form a colony of pilgrims focused on a particular field of Physics (for me that would be Molecular Astrophysics and closely related fields). This is crucial: communication would primarily be amongst themselves because of matching research interests, so they would have their own peer-enforced culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretical Physicists create PO, but, by stated policy, they do not **OWN** PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking over some past discussions, it would seem AstroSE and PO are looked at as competitors rather than complements. Really it does not have to be like that. PhysicsSE is healthiest SE outside of Math. PhysicsSE is in absolutely no danger of decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related discussion going on at [achieving critical population for quiescent Q&amp;A categories: nucleation theory][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsoverflow.org/33457/achieving-critical-population-quiescent-categories-nucleation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="cdae1e2e-350d-45f4-85c6-c87469abd5c4" CreationDate="2015-09-26T19:47:04.973" UserId="92732" Text="Would a site w/ all the features (eg, Comm Peer Rev) of Ph Overflow, but focused on all of Physics, be useful to you personally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="cdae1e2e-350d-45f4-85c6-c87469abd5c4" CreationDate="2015-09-26T19:47:04.973" UserId="92732" Text="|discussion|scope|site-promotion|review-tools|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="ecd03b88-3a5e-4280-a462-02f48c2b0f7e" CreationDate="2015-09-26T19:56:11.340" UserId="92732" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="PO has CPR, rotating administration, catagories, a high floor for level of Q's and a user's rights policy. All things I personally find very attractive. What it does not have is a broad menu of subjects (though it is repeatedly asserted that they want that), and a low-hostility culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the title Q is answered affirmatively by enough people, there would be two paths that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) Implement some of these feature here. A floor could be handled with a red tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) Take PO's assertion that it is a site for all of Physics at face value and form a colony of pilgrims focused on a particular field of Physics (for me that would be Molecular Astrophysics and closely related fields). This is crucial: communication would primarily be amongst themselves because of matching research interests, so the pilgrims would have their own peer-enforced culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretical Physicists created PO, but, by stated policy, they do not **OWN** PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking over some past discussions, it would seem AstroSE and PO are looked at as competitors rather than complements. Really it does not have to be like that. PhysicsSE is healthiest SE outside of Math. PhysicsSE is in absolutely no danger of decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related discussion going on at [achieving critical population for quiescent Q&amp;A categories: nucleation theory][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsoverflow.org/33457/achieving-critical-population-quiescent-categories-nucleation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="a70ed4ac-7786-4396-92b9-5adefdc5477c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T23:01:28.697" UserId="25301" Comment="neither about reviewing or the community user bot" Text="|discussion|scope|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19302" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="a0f82221-9012-4a5b-8869-f1086097ead5" CreationDate="2015-09-27T01:31:04.350" UserId="124" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:56299,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;HDE 226868&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="0c87790e-674d-49d2-a240-e385cfaa11a7" CreationDate="2015-09-27T05:26:13.340" UserId="92732" Comment="Attempting to conform with suggested reformation." Text="*If I edit this in the way suggested, Which I am quite willing to do, the comments so far will not make any sense. Perhaps the best way to handle this is to leave this post suspended or hidden, and I will start a new clean post in the form of a feature[s] request.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PO has CPR, rotating administration, categories, a high floor for level of Q's and a user's rights policy. All things I personally find very attractive. What it does not have is a broad menu of subjects (though it is repeatedly asserted that they want that), and a low-hostility culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the title Q is answered affirmatively by enough people, there would be two paths that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) Implement some of these feature here. A floor could be handled with a red tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) Take PO's assertion that it is a site for all of Physics at face value and form a colony of pilgrims focused on a particular field of Physics (for me that would be Molecular Astrophysics and closely related fields). This is crucial: communication would primarily be amongst themselves because of matching research interests, so the pilgrims would have their own peer-enforced culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretical Physicists created PO, but, by stated policy, they do not **OWN** PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking over some past discussions, it would seem AstroSE and PO are looked at as competitors rather than complements. Really it does not have to be like that. PhysicsSE is healthiest SE outside of Math. PhysicsSE is in absolutely no danger of decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related discussion going on at [achieving critical population for quiescent Q&amp;A categories: nucleation theory][1]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsoverflow.org/33457/achieving-critical-population-quiescent-categories-nucleation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19306" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="0c87790e-674d-49d2-a240-e385cfaa11a7" CreationDate="2015-09-27T05:26:13.340" UserId="92732" Comment="Attempting to conform with suggested reformation." Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19307" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="2469843b-e9d4-45cc-87d0-af542c72ebaa" CreationDate="2015-09-27T06:40:02.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/648024280635191296" />
  <row Id="19308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="d90e62be-63cf-4caf-8c72-bccd9a6c9bbf" CreationDate="2015-09-27T07:25:23.333" UserId="24653" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="The general procedure for getting your question migrated to another stack exchange site is to flag it yourself, with a custom flag explaining the situation. The moderators will typically oblige (**disclaimer**: These flags are handled on a case-by-case basis, so the moderators will assess if your request is reasonable before acting). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19309" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="c84485c0-d58a-45dc-8fb2-3011788861e1" CreationDate="2015-09-27T13:28:03.340" UserId="56299" Comment="Rollback to [a70ed4ac-7786-4396-92b9-5adefdc5477c]" Text="PO has CPR, rotating administration, catagories, a high floor for level of Q's and a user's rights policy. All things I personally find very attractive. What it does not have is a broad menu of subjects (though it is repeatedly asserted that they want that), and a low-hostility culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the title Q is answered affirmatively by enough people, there would be two paths that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) Implement some of these feature here. A floor could be handled with a red tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) Take PO's assertion that it is a site for all of Physics at face value and form a colony of pilgrims focused on a particular field of Physics (for me that would be Molecular Astrophysics and closely related fields). This is crucial: communication would primarily be amongst themselves because of matching research interests, so the pilgrims would have their own peer-enforced culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretical Physicists created PO, but, by stated policy, they do not **OWN** PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking over some past discussions, it would seem AstroSE and PO are looked at as competitors rather than complements. Really it does not have to be like that. PhysicsSE is healthiest SE outside of Math. PhysicsSE is in absolutely no danger of decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related discussion going on at [achieving critical population for quiescent Q&amp;A categories: nucleation theory][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsoverflow.org/33457/achieving-critical-population-quiescent-categories-nucleation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19310" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="c84485c0-d58a-45dc-8fb2-3011788861e1" CreationDate="2015-09-27T13:28:03.340" UserId="56299" Comment="Rollback to [a70ed4ac-7786-4396-92b9-5adefdc5477c]" Text="|discussion|scope|site-promotion|" />
  <row Id="19311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="e2e74f1d-5e11-4304-91d7-fc4905e6f532" CreationDate="2015-09-27T19:42:09.783" UserId="92732" Comment="Completely rewritten in the form of a feature request." Text="Or perhaps Community [***Publication***, ***Paper*** or ***Article***] Review?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19312" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="e2e74f1d-5e11-4304-91d7-fc4905e6f532" CreationDate="2015-09-27T19:42:09.783" UserId="92732" Comment="Completely rewritten in the form of a feature request." Text="~Q relaunch~ Would a Community Peer Review feature similar to the CPR of Physics Overflow be useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19313" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="e2e74f1d-5e11-4304-91d7-fc4905e6f532" CreationDate="2015-09-27T19:42:09.783" UserId="92732" Comment="Completely rewritten in the form of a feature request." Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|site-promotion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19314" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="4146b6c2-f8ed-4768-8989-2ddb8541d66d" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:00:11.943" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Would a Community Peer Review (CPR) feature similar to the CPR of Physics Overflow be useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19315" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="8100ae7d-fd56-462e-ae67-d32aa5bc0f03" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:04:19.940" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/209472/why-do-many-users-on-this-forum-approach-laypeople-with-arrogance" />
  <row Id="19316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="36d0c3bd-1c58-40b4-95e8-0ca3d838b106" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:02:01.627" UserId="86531" Text="I find it antithetical to the spirit of learning that many questions on this forum are approached by the regular users with an air of intellectual arrogance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to leave my comment in response to the unwarranted animosity towards an admitted layperson for their question on why relative velocity causes time dilation, but was halted by yet another example of exclusion in the form of not having the required &quot;reputation points&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;So I must gain some reputation before I'm allowed to share ideas? Interesting approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone, learned or otherwise, has come to a forum of this nature asking questions, they obviously have some desire to understand, and your regular users are doing humanity a disservice by scoffing at requests to simplify things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a person not allowed to be curious without needing to take a university physics course just to receive respect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I highly expect this comment to be removed, but maybe some admin will actually hear what I'm saying and not censor criticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="36d0c3bd-1c58-40b4-95e8-0ca3d838b106" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:02:01.627" UserId="86531" Text="Why do many users on this forum approach laypeople with arrogance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="36d0c3bd-1c58-40b4-95e8-0ca3d838b106" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:02:01.627" UserId="86531" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7115" RevisionGUID="0c266ef6-2df8-4643-8620-b32f580a20f3" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:12:07.373" UserId="520" Text="You don't have a claim on the time and effort of the community here unless and until you are willing and able to follow the group norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's really that simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that you would like an answer to something that has been bothering you doesn't empower you to demand that a particular gathering of people give their time to providing that answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet sites have cultures and mores every bit as much as gathering in physical space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ours are laid out in the [tour][1] and especially in the [help center][2] pages about [what to ask][3] and [what not to ask][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wouldn't barge into a church and demand that people doing advanced bible study tale time out to recount to you the story of the flood, would you? Nor storm into the lunch room at a major nuclear physics lab walk up to a table and ask the people there to do your homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you approach nicely, when other things are not going on, you might get a positive response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="9286f399-ee9e-4c4e-94d5-657dccd1f62f" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:20:38.827" UserId="89073" Text="It's not a site for beginners, it's just not. When people who don't know what they're talking about try to ask big questions which clearly don't have any real basis in knowledge it makes them very difficult to answer. It also often makes the person who's trying to help come off as arrogant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of vouching for the *positive* impact of the community here, I'm a Maths undergrad who recently moved to do a placement in reasonably involved nuclear physics. My physics when I started was slim on the ground, and still is. Many of my posts, I'm sure, were viewed as reasonably basic. However, in basically every occasion I got a good answer and, also, good reading material with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone trots up to a Mathematician and says &quot;What's a group?&quot; When they only did algebra up to GCSE, they're going to have a tough time. That *doesn't* mean that I'm saying that beginners should not ask questions. You should just ask reasonable questions for your level of knowledge I guess. The point to note however is that if beginners have questions, the answers are almost always out there already. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7117" RevisionGUID="1a280495-5d70-431f-ad99-ad0354de4939" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:23:17.150" UserId="56299" Text="User X joins Physics Stack Exchange, creates an account, and starts perusing the site. Unbeknownst to everyone else, User X is a spammer, and will do everything he can to add spam links, rude language, and offensive messages wherever he goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the 50 reputation barrier for posting comments, it's fair to say that User X has the ability to completely ruin a good portion of the site in about 30 minutes, especially if one of the moderators isn't around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User Y joins Physics Stack Exchange. User Y cares about physics and about helping people. He's also curious, and wants to ask questions. Yet when User Y begins exploring, he sees the work of User X and other spammers everywhere. Saddened that Physics Stack Exchange has become one more crappy Internet forum, User Y leaves forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try that again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User X joins Physics Stack Exchange, creates an account, and starts perusing the site. Unbeknownst to everyone else, User X is a spammer, and will do everything he can to add spam links, rude language, and offensive messages wherever he goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User X tries to comment, but quickly learns that he must first gain 50 rep. He decides to start asking and answering questions with lots of spam. It is harder for him to do so because high-rep users can delete posts that are offensive/spam/not-made-in-good-will (the same is not true for comments). User X is frustrated and soon leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User Y joins Physics Stack Exchange. User Y cares about physics and about helping people. He's also curious, and wants to ask questions. He realizes that he needs to gain 50 rep to comment, and so he asks and answers questions, like he planned. Within a day, he has gained that amount and much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="ccd78d82-3667-4eb0-86f3-b8097ac247f8" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:27:50.990" UserId="92732" Comment="Complete outline of this feature, as described on another website, added." Text="*Or perhaps Community [**Publication**, **Paper** or **Article**] Review?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another site, can't remember which, does it this way:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Reviews section is devoted to open refereeing, defending and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discussing of physics papers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - People vote only when they feel they have an insight regarding the    topic, and understand the material well enough to make a decision   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarding the subject matter. Optimally, up and down votes concerning &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the accuracy and originality of the papers are accompanied by   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; detailed explanatory (supporting or critical) reviews and comments   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; respectively, such that the present judgement of the paper by the ... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; community is transparent and motivated by physics arguments. Also,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes can be changed later if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users with at least 100 reputation may create a submission (through    this page) from a research paper, seminar, conference paper, or   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; review paper that is available online.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users without the required amount of reputation may suggest the    submission of an ArXiV paper here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A reviewing system where anybody may review the accuracy of the    submission. These reviews can also be voted on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on submission where anybody may review the    originality of the submission (by pointing out papers which have done &#xD;&#xA;&gt; work in a similar direction, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on the reviews where anybody can discuss the    review and the author or anyone else may also defend the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A summarizing system where anyone (including the author) can    summarize the paper by editing or suggesting edits on the submission.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Multiple authors may be added to the submission by an administrator.    Each author obtains the full reputation points (five&#xD;&#xA;&gt; times the    overall score of the submission) from the votes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Paper authors may claim authorship (be added as an author) to a paper    by following the instructions here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A completely open and transparent reject-to-review policy. Papers are    usually accepted for open community review, however, they may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be    rejected in certain situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The above outline is clearly too formal for PSE, but you get the idea.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7117" RevisionGUID="f51d2641-af2d-4e04-a645-18926f8f6254" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:28:46.307" UserId="56299" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="User X joins Physics Stack Exchange, creates an account, and starts perusing the site. Unbeknownst to everyone else, User X is a spammer, and will do everything he can to add spam links, rude language, and offensive messages wherever he goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the 50 reputation barrier for posting comments, it's fair to say that User X has the ability to completely ruin a good portion of the site in about 30 minutes, especially if one of the moderators isn't around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User Y joins Physics Stack Exchange. User Y cares about physics and about helping people. He's also curious, and wants to ask questions. Yet when User Y begins exploring, he sees the work of User X and other spammers everywhere. Saddened that Physics Stack Exchange has become one more crappy Internet forum, User Y leaves forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try that again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User X joins Physics Stack Exchange, creates an account, and starts perusing the site. Unbeknownst to everyone else, User X is a spammer, and will do everything he can to add spam links, rude language, and offensive messages wherever he goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User X tries to comment, but quickly learns that he must first gain 50 rep. He decides to start asking and answering questions with lots of spam. It is harder for him to do so because high-rep users can delete posts that are offensive/spam/not-made-in-good-will&lt;sup&gt;[[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools),[[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user)&lt;/sup&gt; (the same is not true for comments). User X is frustrated and soon leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User Y joins Physics Stack Exchange. User Y cares about physics and about helping people. He's also curious, and wants to ask questions. He realizes that he needs to gain 50 rep to comment, and so he asks and answers questions, like he planned. Within a day, he has gained that amount and much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19324" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="c8f8861a-b542-44ca-a373-9286b147efcc" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:29:37.953" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:56299,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;HDE 226868&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19325" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="76f63808-bca9-4646-9df4-6a84dde2b13e" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:38:51.330" UserId="25301" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="bd6d44ec-e53e-4f40-a50b-f43f103a724b" CreationDate="2015-09-27T20:43:09.193" UserId="92732" Comment="Fixed broken lines." Text="*Or perhaps Community [**Publication**, **Paper** or **Article**] Review?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another site, can't remember which, does it this way:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Reviews section is devoted to open refereeing, defending and discussing of physics papers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - People vote only when they feel they have an insight regarding the    topic, and understand the material well enough to make a decision regarding the subject matter. Optimally, up and down votes concerning the accuracy and originality of the papers are accompanied by detailed explanatory (supporting or critical) reviews and comments respectively, such that the present judgement of the paper by the ... community is transparent and motivated by physics arguments. Also, votes can be changed later if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users with at least 100 reputation may create a submission (through this page) from a research paper, seminar, conference paper, or review paper that is available online.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users without the required amount of reputation may suggest the submission of an ArXiV paper here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A reviewing system where anybody may review the accuracy of the submission. These reviews can also be voted on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on submission where anybody may review the originality of the submission (by pointing out papers which have done work in a similar direction, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on the reviews where anybody can discuss the review and the author or anyone else may also defend the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A summarizing system where anyone (including the author) can summarize the paper by editing or suggesting edits on the submission.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Multiple authors may be added to the submission by an administrator. Each author obtains the full reputation points (five times the overall score of the submission) from the votes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Paper authors may claim authorship (be added as an author) to a paper by following the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A completely open and transparent reject-to-review policy. Papers are    usually accepted for open community review, however, they may be rejected in certain situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The above outline is clearly too formal for PSE, but you get the idea.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="b4dcbe8c-c436-41e7-a17c-42d0180af4d3" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:16:29.887" UserId="92732" Comment="Abandon proposal, redirect to alternatives." Text="Proposal abandoned, but see Answer[s] for possible alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Or perhaps Community [**Publication**, **Paper** or **Article**] Review?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another site, can't remember which, does it this way:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Reviews section is devoted to open refereeing, defending and discussing of physics papers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - People vote only when they feel they have an insight regarding the    topic, and understand the material well enough to make a decision regarding the subject matter. Optimally, up and down votes concerning the accuracy and originality of the papers are accompanied by detailed explanatory (supporting or critical) reviews and comments respectively, such that the present judgement of the paper by the ... community is transparent and motivated by physics arguments. Also, votes can be changed later if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users with at least 100 reputation may create a submission (through this page) from a research paper, seminar, conference paper, or review paper that is available online.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users without the required amount of reputation may suggest the submission of an ArXiV paper here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A reviewing system where anybody may review the accuracy of the submission. These reviews can also be voted on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on submission where anybody may review the originality of the submission (by pointing out papers which have done work in a similar direction, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on the reviews where anybody can discuss the review and the author or anyone else may also defend the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A summarizing system where anyone (including the author) can summarize the paper by editing or suggesting edits on the submission.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Multiple authors may be added to the submission by an administrator. Each author obtains the full reputation points (five times the overall score of the submission) from the votes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Paper authors may claim authorship (be added as an author) to a paper by following the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A completely open and transparent reject-to-review policy. Papers are    usually accepted for open community review, however, they may be rejected in certain situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The above outline is clearly too formal for PSE, but you get the idea.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/strike&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="b4dcbe8c-c436-41e7-a17c-42d0180af4d3" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:16:29.887" UserId="92732" Comment="Abandon proposal, redirect to alternatives." Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="7b116c7e-4a1d-474a-acfe-d48267885ad2" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:28:32.887" UserId="92732" Comment="Reformulated proposal" Text="It has become clear to me that the CPR idea redacted below is *waaay* too complex to succeed. The less ambitious **[&quot;Journal Club&quot;][1]** idea of 2 years ago was enthusiastically received, then fizzled. I feel that was too ambitious also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More realistically, I would propose that there can be questions based on particular papers, preprints or articles that can only be sensibly answered if that paper has been read. Perhaps with a *research-paper* tag? The question can be as basic as &quot;what do you think of this paper?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could achieve some of the goals of a &quot;Journal Club&quot;, such as providing higher level content, without the off-putting procedural overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Or perhaps Community [**Publication**, **Paper** or **Article**] Review?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another site, can't remember which, does it this way:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Reviews section is devoted to open refereeing, defending and discussing of physics papers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - People vote only when they feel they have an insight regarding the    topic, and understand the material well enough to make a decision regarding the subject matter. Optimally, up and down votes concerning the accuracy and originality of the papers are accompanied by detailed explanatory (supporting or critical) reviews and comments respectively, such that the present judgement of the paper by the ... community is transparent and motivated by physics arguments. Also, votes can be changed later if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users with at least 100 reputation may create a submission (through this page) from a research paper, seminar, conference paper, or review paper that is available online.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Users without the required amount of reputation may suggest the submission of an ArXiV paper here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A reviewing system where anybody may review the accuracy of the submission. These reviews can also be voted on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on submission where anybody may review the originality of the submission (by pointing out papers which have done work in a similar direction, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A commenting system on the reviews where anybody can discuss the review and the author or anyone else may also defend the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A summarizing system where anyone (including the author) can summarize the paper by editing or suggesting edits on the submission.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Multiple authors may be added to the submission by an administrator. Each author obtains the full reputation points (five times the overall score of the submission) from the votes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Paper authors may claim authorship (be added as an author) to a paper by following the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A completely open and transparent reject-to-review policy. Papers are    usually accepted for open community review, however, they may be rejected in certain situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The above outline is clearly too formal for PSE, but you get the idea.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="7b116c7e-4a1d-474a-acfe-d48267885ad2" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:28:32.887" UserId="92732" Comment="Reformulated proposal" Text="Would Q's that require reading a particular paper be useful to Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19333" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="7b116c7e-4a1d-474a-acfe-d48267885ad2" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:28:32.887" UserId="92732" Comment="Reformulated proposal" Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|tags|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="dd0dd5bc-f3c4-43cc-a5db-f81d243f5d90" CreationDate="2015-09-28T08:33:12.113" UserId="24653" Text="The proposal as it currently stands (v12) is pretty much vacuous: The type of questions that you propose is *already* on-topic on this site. They typically do not attract much attention or a great answer, because the chances that someone here has read [insert random arXiv paper] is pretty small, and most people wouldn't read an entire paper just to answer a question on this site. However, they're definitely allowed and thus you're not proposing anything new. [Here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189617/question-about-blandford-znajek-original-paper) is a typical example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="41b808fd-e978-43ec-9dbf-1511ebf6b1fc" CreationDate="2015-09-28T13:42:52.013" UserId="1492" Comment="updated as the question has been reopened" Text="[This question][1] that was wrongly  marked as duplicate (has been reopened since) to [this question][2] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marked one asks &quot;How can the unstable particles of the standard model be considered particles in their own right if they immediately decay into stable particles?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the suggested original &quot;What is the essential difference between a resonance and a particle? &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers to the last do not address the problem. The Z and W mesons are more than  resonances, they are elementary particles of the standard model . The  &quot;duplicate&quot; asks if the elementary particles could be excitations . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the moderators have a look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: question is open with votes. see my comment below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208410/how-can-the-unstable-particles-of-the-standard-model-be-considered-particles-in&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/188015/what-is-the-essential-difference-between-a-resonance-and-a-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="13e173c9-7e96-4a93-9b5a-57049475038a" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:31:28.603" UserId="84488" Text="I am not entirely sure whether this can be asked here, however I will give it a go. I have seen that most of the SE sections have very pretty designs for the up-down vote arrow buttons, that are most of the times related to the subject the page deals with. Physics should pave the way for that, but we seem not to have a particular fancy one. Has this been a choice to maintain sobriety or is there any idea to modify them in the early future? What do you think about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="13e173c9-7e96-4a93-9b5a-57049475038a" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:31:28.603" UserId="84488" Text="design for up-down buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="13e173c9-7e96-4a93-9b5a-57049475038a" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:31:28.603" UserId="84488" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19339" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="4bb3b99d-de5f-48ee-b304-bab2e4d71cde" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:53:18.333" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Design for up-down buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="4bb3b99d-de5f-48ee-b304-bab2e4d71cde" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:53:18.333" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7121" RevisionGUID="f5aa545b-e024-4edb-872d-adde4653162f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T00:15:17.423" UserId="124" Text="If you check out some of the related questions at the right, you can see the history of how we came to our current design. A few people proposed ideas for themed upvote/downvote buttons, but none of them were particularly compelling. And after our first site design (which was considerably more physics-themed) turned out to be difficult to read and use, the community at the time decided we preferred a simpler, more generic design that stays out of the way and lets us focus on the questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, I think the reasons for not having themed voting arrows still apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="29b9470f-d073-4f75-8bbf-7c75ec145c3a" CreationDate="2015-09-29T05:48:36.257" UserId="35952" Text="If I have question in Computational Physics, I sometimes feel more comfortable putting up this question in compsci.SE, but nevertheless the response at that site is extremely slow and poor (since its a beta version and there are few users). Therefore, sometimes I am compelled to post the same question on Physics.SE, is this a problem ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS : I would suggest that it will be nice, if there can be a option to put up a question in more than one SE sites (with may be one as primary), such that certain question lie in the intersection of more than one domains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="29b9470f-d073-4f75-8bbf-7c75ec145c3a" CreationDate="2015-09-29T05:48:36.257" UserId="35952" Text="Similar/Same question on two SE sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="29b9470f-d073-4f75-8bbf-7c75ec145c3a" CreationDate="2015-09-29T05:48:36.257" UserId="35952" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="6f347501-2d21-41a1-a5a8-e6f4bcdbc46b" CreationDate="2015-09-29T06:15:44.793" UserId="35952" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If I have question in Computational Physics, I sometimes feel more comfortable putting up this question in compsci.SE, but nevertheless the response at that site is extremely slow and poor (since its a beta version and there are few users). Therefore, sometimes I am compelled to post the same question on Physics.SE, is this a problem ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS : I would suggest that it will be nice, if there can be a option to put up a question in more than one SE sites (with may be one as primary), such that certain questions lie in the intersection of more than one domains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7123" RevisionGUID="d1565553-3565-4bc8-a2d4-e2cb3fccce3b" CreationDate="2015-09-29T06:37:54.817" UserId="124" Text="Yes, it is a problem: the same question shouldn't be posted to multiple SE sites because it tends to result in duplication of effort and different answerers missing each others' contributions. If we find that a question has been cross-posted, we'll consolidate it on one of the sites where it is on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a question that is on topic on more than one site, there are a couple things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Split it into two questions; ask the computational part on the computational science site and the physics part on this site. Most questions that you _think_ fit on multiple sites actually don't, because they're too broad and should be split up this way. The communities of related sites usually coordinate to make sure their scope are split in this way, i.e. so that there's very little overlap. (Usually; not always.)&#xD;&#xA;- If the question really is on topic on both of the sites, choose one or the other to post it on. Make sure to adapt the question to the audience of that site - for example, if you're asking a computational physics question here, make sure it reads like a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The facilities for handling questions that cross multiple sites' scopes are not the best. People have raised this issue often on [Meta SE](//meta.stackexchange.com), so I'd suggest checking there if you want to support better cross-posting or multi-posting features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="510284fe-5882-4d9e-b149-527e4bb62184" CreationDate="2015-09-29T07:14:55.877" UserId="1325" Text="It isn't acceptable to be discourteous in an answer or a comment, but it's something we're all prey to for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly answering a layman's question is much, much harder than answering a question from another physicist. With another physicist we can answer using maths and that's clear and unambiguous. With a layman we have to find some way of converting really hard concepts (like proper time in this case) to something a layman can understand. This requires a lot of though and a lot of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, every layman asking yet another question about time dilation is asking that question for the first time. But for us long time site members we're seeing the question for the thousandth time, and a certain degree of frustration is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination of these two means that when we see yet another minor variant of a question that's a lot of effort to answer it's hard not to get frustrated. If we all had the patience of an angel our answers would always be sweetness and light, but angels tend not to become physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have a lot of sympathy with your position. But you also need to have sympathy with ours. We put a great deal of effort into this site for no material reward. It's true that we need to consider the feels of the laymen, but the laymen also need to consider our feelings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="653d0261-86dc-46f8-adae-93ed9b43407e" CreationDate="2015-09-29T07:16:30.160" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="If I have question in Computational Physics, I sometimes feel more comfortable putting up this question in compsci.SE, but nevertheless the response at that site is extremely slow and poor (since its a beta version and there are few users). Therefore, sometimes I am compelled to post the same question on Physics.SE, is this a problem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS : I would suggest that it will be nice, if there can be a option to put up a question in more than one SE sites (with may be one as primary), such that certain questions lie in the intersection of more than one domains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19349" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="653d0261-86dc-46f8-adae-93ed9b43407e" CreationDate="2015-09-29T07:16:30.160" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Crossposting similar/same question on two SE sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="2e26a522-8cfb-4a10-a496-72fa17b06721" CreationDate="2015-09-29T07:20:51.353" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="It isn't acceptable to be discourteous in an answer or a comment, but it's something we're all prey to for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly answering a layman's question is much, much harder than answering a question from another physicist. With another physicist we can answer using maths and that's clear and unambiguous. With a layman we have to find some way of converting really hard concepts (like proper time in this case) to something a layman can understand. This requires a lot of though and a lot of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, every layman asking yet another question about time dilation is asking that question for the first time. But for us long time site members we're seeing the question for the thousandth time, and a certain degree of frustration is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination of these two means that when we see yet another minor variant of a question that's a lot of effort to answer it's hard not to get frustrated. If we all had the patience of an angel our answers would always be sweetness and light, but angels tend not to become physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have a lot of sympathy with your position. But you also need to have sympathy with ours. We put a great deal of effort into this site for no material reward. It's true that we need to consider the feelings of the laymen, but the laymen also need to consider our feelings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19351" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="434fb771-51f6-4841-a5b3-8f08f83fb066" CreationDate="2015-09-29T07:21:30.613" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Cross-posting similar/same question on two SE sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19352" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="434fb771-51f6-4841-a5b3-8f08f83fb066" CreationDate="2015-09-29T07:21:30.613" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="bf6adb5b-d692-4760-95cb-4490b58d9ae8" CreationDate="2015-09-29T14:41:37.087" UserId="89965" Text="I have a thing that is bugging me for the time being. I just discovered that there is an option called &quot;**show removed posts**&quot;. And when I enabled it, I saw (-2) rep corresponding to several of my posts.... check out the [Link][1] here. Yes I know that when a post edited by me gets deleted or removed, I lose the 2 rep I got for the edit. But now on seeing the linked page, I am confused if this means that apart from losing the 2 rep I had got for the edit, I also lose an additional 2 rep for editing a post that got removed. I don't know but is this speculation of mine true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean that the rep written beside a particular post usually denotes the **net rep gained from it**. So (-2) rep must mean that I have lost 2 rep in total...whereas it should have been so that I lost the 2 rep I gained from the post...that is the net rep beside the removed posts must be 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So am I right? What is actually happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post&amp;StartDate=2015-09-29%2014:18:32Z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="bf6adb5b-d692-4760-95cb-4490b58d9ae8" CreationDate="2015-09-29T14:41:37.087" UserId="89965" Text="Net reputation from removed posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="bf6adb5b-d692-4760-95cb-4490b58d9ae8" CreationDate="2015-09-29T14:41:37.087" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="92dc01fa-558f-4591-8d62-c06382a0347e" CreationDate="2015-09-29T14:56:06.850" UserId="124" Text="There is no reputation penalty for editing a post that gets removed. Your reputation is simply adjusted to what it would have been without that edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, I don't think the number beside a post in the rep list denotes the _net_ reputation gained from it. What you see in the list is mostly individual reputation-change events - individual upvotes, downvotes, accepts, edits, bounties, etc. But when a post is deleted or a user is removed, your reputation is adjusted to what it would have been without that post or user, and the adjustment is a single event no matter how many events contributed to giving you that reputation in the first place. (For example, if a post of yours gets upvoted 5 times and then deleted, you see 5 upvote events giving +10 rep each but only one removal event giving -50 rep.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="84580738-522c-4d6c-9445-8eda9192f624" CreationDate="2015-09-29T15:15:09.937" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="It isn't acceptable to be discourteous in an answer or a comment, but it's something we're all prey to for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly answering a layman's question is much, much harder than answering a question from another physicist. With another physicist we can answer using maths and that's clear and unambiguous. With a layman we have to find some way of converting really hard concepts (like proper time in this case) to something a layman can understand. This requires a lot of thought and a lot of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, every layman asking yet another question about time dilation is asking that question for the first time. But for us long time site members we're seeing the question for the thousandth time, and a certain degree of frustration is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination of these two means that when we see yet another minor variant of a question that's a lot of effort to answer it's hard not to get frustrated. If we all had the patience of an angel our answers would always be sweetness and light, but angels tend not to become physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have a lot of sympathy with your position. But you also need to have sympathy with ours. We put a great deal of effort into this site for no material reward. It's true that we need to consider the feelings of the laymen, but the laymen also need to consider our feelings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="67be14e0-15d3-4c6a-8dc2-1d8a47beba5b" CreationDate="2015-09-29T20:38:42.993" UserId="38675" Text="So all of a sudden today the Late Answer review queue exploded to more than 500 posts. All that I looked at were not new, but something kicked them back in to play. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a still newish person here, what happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="67be14e0-15d3-4c6a-8dc2-1d8a47beba5b" CreationDate="2015-09-29T20:38:42.993" UserId="38675" Text="Late Answer review queue explosion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="67be14e0-15d3-4c6a-8dc2-1d8a47beba5b" CreationDate="2015-09-29T20:38:42.993" UserId="38675" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="166cd1bd-e2f4-47e1-8d5b-d570215b2cc2" CreationDate="2015-09-30T02:51:33.333" UserId="124" Comment="remove the obsolete part" Text="It has become clear to me that the CPR idea redacted below is *waaay* too complex to succeed. The less ambitious **[&quot;Journal Club&quot;][1]** idea of 2 years ago was enthusiastically received, then fizzled. I feel that was too ambitious also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More realistically, I would propose that there can be questions based on particular papers, preprints or articles that can only be sensibly answered if that paper has been read. Perhaps with a *research-paper* tag? The question can be as basic as &quot;what do you think of this paper?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could achieve some of the goals of a &quot;Journal Club&quot;, such as providing higher level content, without the off-putting procedural overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7128" RevisionGUID="ce4bbf88-08d6-48b2-9a07-90675f0e8f56" CreationDate="2015-09-30T11:09:30.523" UserDisplayName="user59991" Text="The [Late Answers Review Queue][1] contains answers which were posted by new users much later than when the question was asked. Late answers tend to be seen by fewer people than answers posted soon after the question was asked, so the review queue helps ensure that these answers meet the same quality standards as all other answers.&lt;sup&gt;[\[source\]][2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following this [meta discussion][3], **the decision threshold for late answers to enter the Late Answers Review Queue has been raised from 10 to 50 reputation.** This applies to all sites, not just physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to this change, many old answers retroactively entered the Late Answers Review Queue. This caused a spike in the number of answers in the queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/266696/271002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="88063f15-252d-45de-9ce1-8437cade6e78" CreationDate="2015-09-30T16:13:24.870" UserId="1325" Text="In the absence of an answer from on high, a few experiments were attempted during the last physics chat. It appears that if you initially omit the ping, then edit the comment and add the ping, a notification is generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issues that have been left unresolved include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you edit the comment and change the ping to a different user does that user get a notification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you repeatedly edit out then edit in the ping does the victim, err, user get repeated notifications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19364" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="6908e217-4cd6-417e-96eb-6c6eb7889b27" CreationDate="2015-09-30T21:53:11.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/649341244682989568" />
  <row Id="19365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="94f6c1cb-0ada-49a7-a13c-5dc74cbb8f1c" CreationDate="2015-10-02T08:05:14.453" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="I believe there is an argument for a separate group for experimentalist. I have found the standard physics group to be far too theoretically oriented and where easily answered trivia comes to dominate discussion. To the extent that working physicists (and engineers) such as myself find it almost useless from a professional POV." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="94f6c1cb-0ada-49a7-a13c-5dc74cbb8f1c" CreationDate="2015-10-02T08:05:14.453" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="A separate group for experimental physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="94f6c1cb-0ada-49a7-a13c-5dc74cbb8f1c" CreationDate="2015-10-02T08:05:14.453" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="|discussion|stackexchange|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7131" RevisionGUID="daae8fac-b9b2-4632-8d30-6625055a5f8b" CreationDate="2015-10-02T08:45:19.717" UserId="1325" Text="Anyone can start a new SE site on [Area 51][1]. However I suspect your chances of ending up with a viable group are small. It take a lot of commitment to get a Stack Exchange site going and I doubt there is enough interest from experimentalists for the site to succeed. Still, you will never know unless you try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="569b0377-881a-4067-b1c2-a263ff9bc878" CreationDate="2015-10-02T08:53:49.343" UserId="124" Text="Consider this: if experimentalists are not motivated to post here, where their questions would be well received (given that they are, in fact, about experimental physics), what would make them motivated to post on a separate site which would have even less of a community at first? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this I think starting a new site is less productive than trying to improve participation here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm assuming that by &quot;group&quot; you mean a Stack Exchange site.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="4d8fcf1c-8c81-48e8-9805-9c3076c47485" CreationDate="2015-10-02T09:28:12.480" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="A separate SE site for experimental physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="883030ed-3409-4fae-80f1-b8038d7a440b" CreationDate="2015-10-02T13:19:37.510" UserId="10655" Text="Good suggestion. It's been obvious for a number of years that the culture on physics stack exchange is not representative or welcoming of ideas in condensed matter, computational or experimental physics, at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theoretical questions and answers are not a problem in themselves, but for the apparent sense of entitlement I see among the established order of the 'community' who seem to want to impose their culture on everyone who seeks to ask and answer physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the current community are not willing to share this space with others, then all we can do is set up a new one which is more inclusive of those interested in solving real world physics problems, beginners and those &quot;[layman][1]&quot; who should be able to have somewhere to ask conceptual questions on physics. I'd support an [area 51][2] proposal like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7114/why-do-many-users-on-this-forum-approach-laypeople-with-arrogance/7124?noredirect=1#comment27890_7124&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="f9c6e455-db92-45a3-a40d-c34766ca25d3" CreationDate="2015-10-02T14:16:48.233" UserId="89965" Text="While editing, I have often come across re-edits by the 2k+ rep members like [this][1](*just an example*) where I have seen minor editing changes like the one in given [link][2]. I know the raw *(the one containing the TEX language*) version of the post looks quite bad with the type of editing I have done in the stated case but the actual output i.e. the post (*the one viewed by everybody*) looks the same in both the cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can give another example. I don't remember the post but I am illustrating the case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose I want to write 5 m/s using TEX. In that case, both the following write-ups have the same output: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - $5$ $m/s$ &#xD;&#xA;- $5 \,\mathrm{m/s}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*So my question is*: Why is this re-edit important? I know there must be some reason. But since the final result is the same in such cases, I don't see these edits as that much important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** Nothing to do with page linked. Please do not come up with answers like ACuriousMind is right and you are wrong and so on. I know I am wrong and ACuriousMind has been here for a longer time than I have been. I just want the logic, nothing else. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/100529&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/210254/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="f9c6e455-db92-45a3-a40d-c34766ca25d3" CreationDate="2015-10-02T14:16:48.233" UserId="89965" Text="Why need to edit when edited and unedited versions have the same final look but different TEX?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="f9c6e455-db92-45a3-a40d-c34766ca25d3" CreationDate="2015-10-02T14:16:48.233" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="29d80d7f-8157-41ec-863c-80d69604b246" CreationDate="2015-10-02T14:30:47.643" UserId="50583" Text="The final look is *not* the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not include text in a `\text{}`, then the standard math mode rendering of TeX means that the text will be rendered as *individual, italicized letters*. The spacing is different than it would be for letters belonging to a single word, and there is no visible difference between such text and actual variables that are meant to be multiplied together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you, however, do use `\text{}` for text, it will be written in an upright font and the spacing will be as it is for words. There now is a visible difference between letters belonging to English words and letters that are variables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="4d499246-c9d5-48a1-a14a-3f81458979ca" CreationDate="2015-10-02T14:42:28.380" UserId="124" Text="When it comes to comparing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $5$ $m/s$&#xD;&#xA;    $5\,\mathrm{m/s}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As ACuriousMind said, they _don't_ look the same. In the first one, &quot;m&quot; and &quot;s&quot; will be italic (representing variables) but in the second one they're in upright font, representing units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you fix that and write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $5$ $\mathrm{m/s}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may look the same to you, but what about to everyone else? What about to people whose browsers can't load MathJax? Or who use a different font that uses differently sized spaces? Or who use console browsers? What about screen readers? The reason there are standards for proper use of MathJax is precisely so that it can render the right way in a _wide_ variety of different environments. And going beyond that, the source code of a post can also be used by fully automatic parsers. We'd like them to be able to figure out what is meant by a certain piece of markup, e.g. being able to identify that &quot;5 m/s&quot; is a single quantity with a unit, rather than two independent pieces of math. So the source code should contain information about the _intended meaning_ of what you're writing, not just the information required to make it look the way you want. This is called semantic markup, and it's why you'll see valid edits that combine different MathJax elements, correct `\text` to `\mathrm` or vice versa, standardize the Markdown formatting in posts, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, we'd like to have something like `\quantity{5}{\meter\per\second}`. In LaTeX, you can do this using the `siunitx` package (you'd write `\SI{5}{m/s}`), but no equivalent exists in MathJax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7137" RevisionGUID="a513bd86-a10b-4dd5-bec5-1f358cdd9f60" CreationDate="2015-10-02T16:51:34.480" UserId="81209" Text="I have a (i.e. only one) helpful flag on my profile page and being relatively new to this community, am not sure what it means. Is it a good or bad thing and why/how did I get this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7137" RevisionGUID="a513bd86-a10b-4dd5-bec5-1f358cdd9f60" CreationDate="2015-10-02T16:51:34.480" UserId="81209" Text="What's a helpful flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7137" RevisionGUID="a513bd86-a10b-4dd5-bec5-1f358cdd9f60" CreationDate="2015-10-02T16:51:34.480" UserId="81209" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7138" RevisionGUID="951166f6-deb3-4dac-a660-3548a6e6146d" CreationDate="2015-10-02T17:10:15.813" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="If you click on the number, it will take you to a summary of your flagging history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you flag a post (for not being an answer, or for rudeness, or for being a duplicate, etc.), it gets extra attention by high-rep users who can take action to close/delete the post. Or in cases of custom write-your-own-text flags, only moderators will see the message, and they can choose to take action based on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the high-rep users end up doing what your flag suggested, it is automatically marked as helpful. If the moderator who sees the flag agrees it was a good thing to flag, they will mark it as helpful (this is independent of whether they actually take action or not). Thus helpful flags are a **good** thing -- they indicate that the community things you did a good job bringing something to our attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, after a while everyone accumulates a few unhelpful flags too. Don't stress over those, but take them as feedback from the community that you don't need to worry about those posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="59d979b2-e296-4416-a16f-03f00f09f9ba" CreationDate="2015-10-02T20:01:35.410" UserId="38675" Text="As an example of the issue Dirk raises, I'll point to [This recent question][1]. Now, perhaps it is not the cleanest of questions, but it did come up today. It was put on hold as off-topic, with comments about how it would be best for engineering or materials. Now, given that it was tagged solid-state-physics and superconductivity (and applies to them), and that materials-science is also a reasonably used tag here on Physics SE, I think this is pretty indicative of the general feeling around here. It is pretty hard to argue with Dirk, but I also think that Physics SE should be the place for his experimental questions, as well as questions like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210088/synthesis-of-fe-based-superconductors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="7495bb39-c35f-4ac9-852e-95cbc0f1b5c8" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:19:15.610" UserId="5477" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically &quot;about&quot; a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210552/what-really-is-a-dirac-delta-function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="7495bb39-c35f-4ac9-852e-95cbc0f1b5c8" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:19:15.610" UserId="5477" Text="Are questions about mathematics used in physics always off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="7495bb39-c35f-4ac9-852e-95cbc0f1b5c8" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:19:15.610" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="80fe10f8-f3fe-4917-b02f-2779e71b5ca6" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:30:19.907" UserId="5477" Comment="I'm not really sure what I was trying to get at with those random quotation marks" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210552/what-really-is-a-dirac-delta-function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="cb7b27eb-3886-46d2-94d6-5bbdbca6f022" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:40:16.120" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/210552/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="cb7b27eb-3886-46d2-94d6-5bbdbca6f022" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:40:16.120" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="864b35a9-08bb-4d25-9d46-7535978457f1" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:44:19.293" UserId="5477" Comment="added 799 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Ah, the difficultly of searching meta. I've found [a previous discussion on this topic.][2] The accepted answer, with +16 votes, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a question which focuses entirely on mathematical details, whilst perhaps appropriate for the mathematics SE, should be kept on the physics SE if it is motivated by physics, even though it may not necessarily be [obvious] regarding how it is precisely applied to a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would suggest that the linked question is just on topic, period. Still, it seems worth bringing up again to see if that's still the consensus, and perhaps to remind active close-voters that the agreed policy isn't quite as exclusive as they might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/210552/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19389" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="864b35a9-08bb-4d25-9d46-7535978457f1" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:44:19.293" UserId="5477" Comment="added 799 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="f077405c-fde6-43ae-861e-eb16ff47d88e" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:53:12.713" UserId="5477" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Ah, the difficultly of searching meta. I've found [a previous discussion on this topic.][2] The accepted answer, with +16 votes, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a question which focuses entirely on mathematical details, whilst perhaps appropriate for the mathematics SE, should be kept on the physics SE if it is motivated by physics, even though it may not necessarily be regarding how it is precisely applied to a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would suggest that the linked question is just on topic, period. Still, it seems worth bringing up again to see if that's still the consensus, and perhaps to remind active close-voters that the agreed policy isn't quite as exclusive as they might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/210552/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="28a65d60-be61-4216-bfde-76ec4805adc0" CreationDate="2015-10-04T15:35:29.653" UserId="6634" Text="To answer the titular question, **no**, they are not. But just because a question is about math used in physics does not make it on-topic either. All of calculus is used in physics and I would be hard pressed to say that somebody asking a question about the formal definition of a derivative or a limit would be on-topic here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is easy to imagine questions that are basically only math but where physicists can provide more applicable information. One example I can think of from fluid dynamics is our somewhat... relaxed... use of Einstein summation notation and things like the Levi-Civita symbol or Kronecker delta. Mathematicians could provide an answer to questions about that, sure, and they would be absolutely correct to boot, but I think many people (myself included) might not understand the answers because the level at which we need to know them and apply them is much more limited in scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the gist of [the selected answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5717/6634) the last time we talked about this. Without some tie to physics (aside from the fact the topic in question is named for a physicist or invented by one -- Newton being a physicist doesn't make basic calculus questions on topic) or without some way that somebody experienced in physics can provide more insight (aside from just giving examples where the thing is used), it just isn't on topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you linked to about the Dirac delta function just doesn't provide anything that I am aware of that makes it uniquely physics. It has formal definitions, which OP listed in the question, that are based solely on math. It has alternate definitions/approximations, which are based solely on mathematical constructions (Fourier transform, infinitely narrow Gaussian). Just because it is used in physics (system dynamics, quantum mechanics, etc) does not make it on-topic. We use basic algebra operations too and we wouldn't want questions on how to FOIL a polynomial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why I voted to close it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="3efc5b39-3d6e-4234-af92-9ebef16e4f90" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:00:19.030" UserId="86889" Text="I provided an answer to a question that was later put on hold. While the question was on hold, a member commented on my answer along the lines of 'That's not what **I** [my emph.] asked'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The commenter was not the same member who had posted the question, the usernames and profiles were very different, so it seemed odd for the commenter to comment in the first person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minutes later I wanted to ask (by comment) whether the commenter and OP were by any chance the same person but the comment had disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although my evidence isn't very strong, I suspect sock puppetry at play here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="3efc5b39-3d6e-4234-af92-9ebef16e4f90" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:00:19.030" UserId="86889" Text="Is sock puppetry allowed on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="3efc5b39-3d6e-4234-af92-9ebef16e4f90" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:00:19.030" UserId="86889" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="d2320f03-558b-4a9c-b7cd-5c4f5deae4b6" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:07:57.937" UserId="520" Text="There is a mother meta question on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short version is that sock puppetry *per se* is OK, but any kind of interaction between the personalities is suspect. In particular accounts voting for each other, or writing comments in support of each other or even voting for comments of the other account are definitely out of bounds. Anything that attempts to change the crowd evaluation *or* the sense of consensus is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any strong evidence of sock puppetry please bring it to the attention of the moderation team." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="5712f14a-bd42-4a4f-8d3f-95f9031b08c7" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:12:29.387" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="497b15a1-6ef9-452a-bd83-8b32290de94c" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:14:25.937" UserId="520" Comment="added 585 characters in body" Text="There is a mother meta question on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short version is that sock puppetry *per se* is OK, but any kind of interaction between the personalities is suspect. In particular accounts voting for each other, or writing comments in support of each other or even voting for comments of the other account are definitely out of bounds. Anything that attempts to change the crowd evaluation *or* the sense of consensus is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that what is disallowed is all the usual things that people might want to do with multiple accounts. The kind of legitimate uses that are envisioned are are mostly related to getting the new user or low rep user view of the site: seeing the site with the adds that are removed for active users, or testing allegations that posts are treated differently according to the reputations (either site mechanics or social) of the poster. All those uses should be completely invisible on the site: you shouldn't be able to figure them out unless the puppet master tells you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any evidence of sock puppetry beyond &quot;I think they sound the same&quot; please bring it to the attention of the moderation team." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19398" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="9cecd790-a2af-490c-b4ae-cf9caf87fde8" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:15:59.437" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5657],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="656a685c-d573-42dc-b432-b4ccded2135a" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:33:10.547" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There is a mother meta question on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short version is that multiple accounts *per se* is OK, but any kind of interaction between the personalities is suspect. In particular accounts voting for each other, or writing comments in support of each other or even voting for comments of the other account are definitely out of bounds. Anything that attempts to change the crowd evaluation *or* the sense of consensus is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that what is disallowed is all the usual things that people might want to do with multiple accounts. The kind of legitimate uses that are envisioned are are mostly related to getting the new user or low rep user view of the site: seeing the site with the adds that are removed for active users, or testing allegations that posts are treated differently according to the reputations (either site mechanics or social) of the poster. All those uses should be completely invisible on the site: you shouldn't be able to figure them out unless the puppet master tells you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any evidence of multiple accounts beyond &quot;I think they sound the same&quot; please bring it to the attention of the moderation team." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="72dbfa86-c629-4f0b-a4b5-036a04d992a5" CreationDate="2015-10-04T18:43:56.823" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There is a mother meta question on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short version is that multiple accounts *per se* is OK, but any kind of interaction between the personalities is suspect. In particular accounts voting for each other, or writing comments in support of each other or even voting for comments of the other account are definitely out of bounds. Anything that attempts to change the crowd evaluation *or* the sense of consensus is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that what is disallowed is all the usual things that people might want to do with multiple accounts. The kind of legitimate uses that are envisioned are are mostly related to getting the new user or low rep user view of the site: seeing the site with the ads that are removed for active users, or testing allegations that posts are treated differently according to the reputations (either site mechanics or social) of the poster. All those uses should be completely invisible on the site: you shouldn't be able to figure them out unless the puppet master tells you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any evidence of multiple accounts beyond &quot;I think they sound the same&quot; please bring it to the attention of the moderation team." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="5c996616-fc76-4fa3-8c99-6c0b9a55ccfd" CreationDate="2015-10-04T22:23:43.727" UserId="2451" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/774831/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/765211/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/764631/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/761917/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/754449/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/747413/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/746432/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/744131/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/735556/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/726177/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/722339/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/718567/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/285642/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="ff9bbd88-d840-4a23-845c-33dfdf7262bc" CreationDate="2015-10-05T00:08:45.557" UserId="5477" Comment="I misinterpreted this on a first reading, so clarifying. " Text="To answer the titular question, **no**, they are not always off topic. But just because a question is about math used in physics does not make it on-topic either. All of calculus is used in physics and I would be hard pressed to say that somebody asking a question about the formal definition of a derivative or a limit would be on-topic here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is easy to imagine questions that are basically only math but where physicists can provide more applicable information. One example I can think of from fluid dynamics is our somewhat... relaxed... use of Einstein summation notation and things like the Levi-Civita symbol or Kronecker delta. Mathematicians could provide an answer to questions about that, sure, and they would be absolutely correct to boot, but I think many people (myself included) might not understand the answers because the level at which we need to know them and apply them is much more limited in scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the gist of [the selected answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5717/6634) the last time we talked about this. Without some tie to physics (aside from the fact the topic in question is named for a physicist or invented by one -- Newton being a physicist doesn't make basic calculus questions on topic) or without some way that somebody experienced in physics can provide more insight (aside from just giving examples where the thing is used), it just isn't on topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you linked to about the Dirac delta function just doesn't provide anything that I am aware of that makes it uniquely physics. It has formal definitions, which OP listed in the question, that are based solely on math. It has alternate definitions/approximations, which are based solely on mathematical constructions (Fourier transform, infinitely narrow Gaussian). Just because it is used in physics (system dynamics, quantum mechanics, etc) does not make it on-topic. We use basic algebra operations too and we wouldn't want questions on how to FOIL a polynomial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why I voted to close it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="25dbd533-cbae-4863-b893-84bd517d3969" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:28:55.300" UserId="41634" Text="Today I find a physics meme: [spherical cow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q: How does a physicist milk a cow?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;A: Well, first let us consider a spherical cow...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the notorious Schrodinger's cat, I think a list of meme in physics would be fun. What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wdh38.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="25dbd533-cbae-4863-b893-84bd517d3969" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:28:55.300" UserId="41634" Text="Make a list of physics meme?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="25dbd533-cbae-4863-b893-84bd517d3969" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:28:55.300" UserId="41634" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7145" RevisionGUID="d23f211b-145d-4643-82a7-b56d58bb47a3" CreationDate="2015-10-05T12:24:48.120" UserId="124" Text="Fun, sure, but this site is not the place for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="7ff2a408-35dd-48fa-9814-97495413cb27" CreationDate="2015-10-05T16:37:48.200" UserId="46399" Text="Maybe not a list of memes, but somewhat on related lines was this (now closed) question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, there also a deleted question - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70740/do-good-physics-jokes-exist, which was also removed for the reasons of moderation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you scroll through the existing comments on the linked page, you can appreciate the reasons why it got closed. Still for reasons of completeness, apart from [DavidZ's answer above](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7145/46399), it makes sense to reiterate [dmckee's point](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline#comment145498_71067) in the original thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no format in which you can ask this question. First, the Stack Exchange engine has been carefully built and tuned to deal well with question that have right and wrong answers; and it does not mange lists well. Second, while these kinds of questions are enormously popular that very popularity makes them destructive to the question &amp; answer environment that is what we seek here: &quot;best this&quot; and &quot;favorite that&quot; question push out the substantial content. It took more than two years for a majority of the active users on Stack Overflow to understand this, so we learned the hard way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, long story cut short - even though most people would really like that question and the answers, SE sites are not the appropriate place for such big list questions. Sorry :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19409" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="6891d328-2188-4f64-9c76-cd3d6d39fe5f" CreationDate="2015-10-06T04:21:09.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/651250816012144641" />
  <row Id="19410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="11094394-eb92-4c24-9c02-edac5a69e036" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:39:26.180" UserId="89965" Text="Recently I flagged 2 posts by an user named *Harsh Raj* (a new user, could not find his profile) as one was a spam and the other was of poor quality (includes poor grammar and bad spelling and irrelevant points). The posts were in reply to an answer to [this question][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the first post was flagged by me as a spam and the flag was deemed helpful. Minutes later, he came up with the 2nd post, which was of poor quality as earlier mentioned. I flagged it as an answer of *very poor quality*. **But this flag of mine was claimed to be disputed** as per this [link][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when I returned to the question, i found that his post had been deleted (either by him or by the moderators, I don't know). So why was my flag deemed disputed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please specify if there is any reason for claiming my flag to be disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130654/inertia-and-momentum/210974#210974&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/89965" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="11094394-eb92-4c24-9c02-edac5a69e036" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:39:26.180" UserId="89965" Text="Flag to post (finally deleted) deemed disputed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="11094394-eb92-4c24-9c02-edac5a69e036" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:39:26.180" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|bug|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7148" RevisionGUID="0cb35ef6-7231-48e4-9f79-0f6919108f58" CreationDate="2015-10-06T16:16:10.353" UserId="50583" Text="The flag is &quot;disputed&quot; because the [low quality review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/101002) was completed with the result *Looks OK* since two out of three reviewers voted for that. (*Why* they voted like that I can't tell, of course)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post was deleted by means other than the review of your flag, which is why the deletion didn't cause the flag to be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="24a5b01b-2bdc-4496-8799-c12d9e5576bf" CreationDate="2015-10-06T16:51:25.390" UserId="8563" Text="Some points to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Take it easy on disputed and declined flags. The net effect of raising a flag and it being disputed is essentially nothing. If you consistently raise flags that get disputed then it's worth having a look at why and then changing that behaviour. If it's a single flag, just say OK and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130654/inertia-and-momentum/210974#210974) (10k+ &amp; mods; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/s9X7z.png)) is pretty bad but it's not terrible. It's an honest attempt to address the question that simply doesn't get there. It's always been a bit unclear whether the Very Low Quality flag should apply to these (I would say it does, and it would send them to a review queue where the community can deal with them more effectively to keep the site clean) but overall the consensus seems to be that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Thus the thing to do is downvote, comment if you feel it's appropriate, and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, the comments there are pretty unfriendly to a new site member. There's times where new users do need to be met with a cold shower, but I wouldn't say this was one of them. We want a cool site with lots of high-quality answers but that doesn't mean we need to be rude to newcomers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, as ACuriousMind has explained, the flag was marked as disputed because most reviewers thought it Looked OK (with the alternative being Recommend Deletion, which wasn't appropriate). It's unclear, though, why this was deleted at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="75ac6fc4-06fe-4812-98c5-9db93685443d" CreationDate="2015-10-06T17:25:44.693" UserId="8563" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="Some points to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Take it easy on disputed and declined flags. The net effect of raising a flag and it being disputed is essentially nothing. If you consistently raise flags that get disputed then it's worth having a look at why and then changing that behaviour. If it's a single flag, just say OK and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Your flag summary (`https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/your-user-number`) is obviously private, though moderators and SE team members have access to it. Linking to it without providing a screenshot of the relevant flag is only useful to moderators and the SE team, so it's good practice to indicate 'mod only' on the links or provide a screenshot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130654/inertia-and-momentum/210974#210974) (10k+ &amp; mods; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/s9X7z.png)) is pretty bad but it's not terrible. It's an honest attempt to address the question that simply doesn't get there. It's always been a bit unclear whether the Very Low Quality flag should apply to these (I would say it does, and it would send them to a review queue where the community can deal with them more effectively to keep the site clean) but overall the consensus seems to be that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Thus the thing to do is downvote, comment if you feel it's appropriate, and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, the comments there are pretty unfriendly to a new site member. There's times where new users do need to be met with a cold shower, but I wouldn't say this was one of them. We want a cool site with lots of high-quality answers but that doesn't mean we need to be rude to newcomers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, as ACuriousMind has explained, the flag was marked as disputed because most reviewers thought it Looked OK (with the alternative being Recommend Deletion, which wasn't appropriate). It's unclear, though, why this was deleted at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="76b55602-0d39-4381-9fab-a89c886b0924" CreationDate="2015-10-07T13:24:26.263" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="1b3f72f1-7495-45d1-8ba5-0ed049918c57" CreationDate="2015-10-07T14:22:25.780" UserId="8563" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Recently I flagged 2 posts by an user named *Harsh Raj* (a new user, could not find his profile) as one was a spam and the other was of poor quality (includes poor grammar and bad spelling and irrelevant points). The posts were in reply to an answer to [this question][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the first post was flagged by me as a spam and the flag was deemed helpful. Minutes later, he came up with the 2nd post, which was of poor quality as earlier mentioned. I flagged it as an answer of *very poor quality*. **But this flag of mine was claimed to be disputed** as per this [link][2] (mods &amp; SE team only). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when I returned to the question, i found that his post had been deleted (either by him or by the moderators, I don't know). So why was my flag deemed disputed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please specify if there is any reason for claiming my flag to be disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130654/inertia-and-momentum/210974#210974&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/89965" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="0d296be1-e84d-4dc0-aa50-d459d0b00dff" CreationDate="2015-10-08T15:17:33.367" UserId="6719" Text="I was wondering if this is even discussed anywhere in the policies of this network?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="0d296be1-e84d-4dc0-aa50-d459d0b00dff" CreationDate="2015-10-08T15:17:33.367" UserId="6719" Text="Can one moderator cancel or reduce the suspension given out by another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="0d296be1-e84d-4dc0-aa50-d459d0b00dff" CreationDate="2015-10-08T15:17:33.367" UserId="6719" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7151" RevisionGUID="495a8cd9-a933-4c8a-a2f0-0151d054b807" CreationDate="2015-10-08T15:26:40.983" UserId="24653" Text="This has already been answered [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160246/how-can-a-temporary-account-suspension-be-lifted/160250#160250). Yes, it can be done, as explained in the post I just linked. Of course, such a measure must be possible since the moderators themselves are not infallible. One cannot run the risk of a &quot;rogue mod&quot; ruining an entire site, or something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19422" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="8de8796e-f12b-4ced-9757-21df1db73e8b" CreationDate="2015-10-08T17:14:00.177" UserId="46399" Comment="Added tags" Text="|discussion|moderation|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19423" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="dbaf0016-c27d-4859-9114-f0357be3717a" CreationDate="2015-10-08T17:15:12.837" UserId="9426" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="8d29841f-088a-4845-a358-d17a72083574" CreationDate="2015-10-09T11:31:22.833" UserId="8563" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PrE5E.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thecostofknowledge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19428" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="0e71558e-8033-48c7-a573-b8dffdef260f" CreationDate="2015-10-09T11:31:22.833" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="19430" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="a0cf4054-b198-42ad-b577-9f37273c49c6" CreationDate="2015-10-09T14:44:29.987" UserId="46399" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:46399,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;The Dark Side&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19431" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="6823695b-0e75-43dd-8fdf-f600e8f48c12" CreationDate="2015-10-09T14:47:40.333" UserId="46399" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:46399,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;The Dark Side&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="08b8c68e-a494-4afb-aee3-f1027b08d1fa" CreationDate="2015-10-10T18:07:49.813" UserId="89965" Text="What is the criteria that a question needs to satisfy in order to have it protected by a moderator? It seems to me that this protection is some sort of honor to a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="08b8c68e-a494-4afb-aee3-f1027b08d1fa" CreationDate="2015-10-10T18:07:49.813" UserId="89965" Text="Eligibility for being a protected question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="08b8c68e-a494-4afb-aee3-f1027b08d1fa" CreationDate="2015-10-10T18:07:49.813" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="919d1516-1736-42db-8ab7-3d3b48e8e953" CreationDate="2015-10-10T18:13:58.903" UserId="520" Text="A moderator needs to decide that it is attracting (or will attract) to many low quality answers from people not part of our site culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any post that ends up on the Hot Network Questions is likely to need protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion many questions which need protection are not particularly good questions for the stated mission of the site, but are instead very accessible questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="6e5bf0e3-39f3-42d9-86aa-1623f7f46e3d" CreationDate="2015-10-10T18:32:51.027" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil and clarify that no honor is intended" Text="A moderator needs to decide that it is attracting (or will attract) too many low quality answers from people not part of our site culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any post that ends up on the Hot Network Questions is likely to need protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not an honor, but a means of protecting the site from  sudden and unfocused inflows of people who have no interest in participating in the site's culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion many questions which need protection are not particularly good questions for the stated mission of the site, but are instead very accessible questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="718efddf-cac6-4fba-8942-3e399522b29a" CreationDate="2015-10-14T15:54:09.463" UserId="16639" Text="As of right now, the sidebar is appearing below the content, with vertical and horizontal scrollbars around the #content div. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine there is a red freehand circle around the misplaced sidebar...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears on Physics and Physics Meta, but I haven't seen it on any other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Google Chrome 45.0.2454.101 provided by Google's Yum repository, on Fedora 22. I don't see it in other browsers, so I think it may be something specific to Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot-physics.stackexchange.com 2015-10-14 11-45-59.png][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ePVG7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="718efddf-cac6-4fba-8942-3e399522b29a" CreationDate="2015-10-14T15:54:09.463" UserId="16639" Text="Site sidebar appears below content in Google Chrome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="718efddf-cac6-4fba-8942-3e399522b29a" CreationDate="2015-10-14T15:54:09.463" UserId="16639" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="58ddd952-a459-4a60-b63f-da00881f8f2f" CreationDate="2015-10-14T16:00:31.997" UserId="16639" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As of right now, the sidebar is appearing below the content, with vertical and horizontal scrollbars around the #content div. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine there is a red freehand circle around the misplaced sidebar...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears on Physics and Physics Meta, but I haven't seen it on any other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Google Chrome 45.0.2454.101 provided by Google's Yum repository, on Fedora 22 with KDE. I don't see it in other browsers, so I think it may be something specific to Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, when I reduce zoom from 100% to 90%, then the scrollbars disappear and the sidebar returns to its proper place, but then everything's too small...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot-physics.stackexchange.com 2015-10-14 11-45-59.png][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ePVG7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="dd4e4469-b648-43c4-a4fb-45e57bfd0b76" CreationDate="2015-10-14T16:26:24.773" UserId="26932" Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The norm seems to be 15px. On #feed-link the original style is being overwritten, changing margin-left to 30px, which is double the usual value of 15px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* left margin 30px here is causing the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* default style being overwritten*/&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="4dd94345-5e02-4806-946a-97ef94fb447e" CreationDate="2015-10-14T17:14:47.720" UserId="26932" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The norm seems to be 15px. On #feed-link the original style is being overwritten, changing margin-left to 30px, which is double the usual value of 15px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* left margin 30px here is causing the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* default style being overwritten*/&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="8f81db56-4855-4c69-947a-6248374d25ac" CreationDate="2015-10-14T17:22:20.900" UserId="16639" Comment="Updated Chrome, no change" Text="As of right now, the sidebar is appearing below the content, with vertical and horizontal scrollbars around the #content div. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine there is a red freehand circle around the misplaced sidebar...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears on Physics and Physics Meta, but I haven't seen it on any other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Google Chrome &lt;s&gt;45.0.2454.101&lt;/s&gt; 46.0.2490.71 provided by Google's Yum repository, on Fedora 22 with KDE. I don't see it in other browsers, so I think it may be something specific to Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, when I reduce zoom from 100% to 90%, then the scrollbars disappear and the sidebar returns to its proper place, but then everything's too small...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot-physics.stackexchange.com 2015-10-14 11-45-59.png][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ePVG7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="134e914d-63b5-4597-b575-cf76c2983625" CreationDate="2015-10-14T19:12:46.783" UserId="26932" Comment="added solution summary." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The norm seems to be 15px. On #feed-link the original style is being overwritten, changing margin-left to 30px, which is double the usual value of 15px. The horizontal scroll bars are likely a result of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* left margin 30px here is causing the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* default style being overwritten*/&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reverting the value to 15px (or excluding #feed-link from the selector) should resolve this display issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="5b3a60c1-40b1-48db-9bbf-58e901adc140" CreationDate="2015-10-14T19:32:20.420" UserId="26932" Comment="revised problem and solution." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the problem in particular is the #feed-link element, the strange behavior is caused by the margin declaration. Adding a non-zero margin to the bottom margin will resolved this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* margin declaration here is causing the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* default style being overwritten*/&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="0fd1f9f3-5d8f-4581-ac4b-454410dadbf9" CreationDate="2015-10-14T19:48:40.170" UserId="26932" Comment="revised problem and solution." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the problem in particular is the #feed-link element, the strange behavior is caused by the margin declaration. Adding a non-zero margin to the bottom margin will resolved this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the exact cause of this problem is but there are three elements related to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \#content&#xD;&#xA;- \#mainbar&#xD;&#xA;- \#feed-link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with #content is that on Physics.SE the width is 975px, while on other SEs, Like Arqade (a graduated site with a custom style) and Anime.SE (a graduated site with no custom style), the margin is 1000px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #mainbar is different here vs other sites for some reason...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rendered style on Anime.SE (which I assume is the beta template without the beta in the name) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;        padding: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on Physics.SE, it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 10px 10px 20px 0;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;\#feed-link is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* margin declaration here is related to the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* default style being overwritten*/&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't had the time to investigate further, but adding a positive value for the bottom margin (e.g, `margin: 15px 15px 1px 30px;`) fixes the issue with the scroll bars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's likely one of these or a combination of factors causing this display issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="4f908c29-ac5b-42b8-9d61-0143acc5e052" CreationDate="2015-10-14T19:54:02.287" UserId="26932" Comment="revised problem and solution." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the problem in particular is the #feed-link element, the strange behavior is caused by the margin declaration. Adding a non-zero margin to the bottom margin will resolved this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the exact cause of this problem is but there are three elements related to these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \#content&#xD;&#xA;- \#mainbar&#xD;&#xA;- \#feed-link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with #content is that on Physics.SE the width is 975px, while on other SEs, like Arqade (a graduated site with a custom style) and Anime.SE (a graduated site with no custom style), the margin is 1000px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #mainbar is different here vs other sites for some reason...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rendered style on Anime.SE (which I assume is the beta template without the beta in the name) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;        padding: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on Physics.SE, it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 10px 10px 20px 0;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;\#feed-link is like this on Physics.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* margin declaration here is related to the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites like Anime.SE, the #feed-link selector comes before the #permalink, #feed-link selector (the latter takes precedence over the former in the case of Physics.SE). As the values seem a bit redundant, I don't really understand why these two selectors exist, instead of using just one for both element ids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0px 30px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't had the time to investigate further, but adding a positive value for the bottom margin (e.g, `margin: 15px 15px 1px 30px;`) fixes the issue with the scroll bars and the sidebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's likely one of these or a combination of factors causing this display issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="a445349e-a561-42e4-b9de-a455ee6994fb" CreationDate="2015-10-14T20:01:45.680" UserId="26932" Comment="revised problem and solution." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the problem in particular is the #feed-link element, the strange behavior is caused by the margin declaration. Adding a non-zero margin to the bottom margin will resolved this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the exact cause of this problem is but there are three elements related to these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \#content&#xD;&#xA;- \#mainbar&#xD;&#xA;- \#feed-link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with #content is that on Physics.SE the width is 975px, while on other SEs, like Arqade (a graduated site with a custom style) and Anime.SE (a graduated site with no custom style), the margin is 1000px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #mainbar is different here vs other sites for some reason...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rendered style on Anime.SE (which I assume is the beta template without the beta in the name) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;        padding: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on Physics.SE, it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 10px 10px 20px 0;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;\#feed-link is like this on Physics.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* margin declaration here is related to the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites like Anime.SE, the #feed-link selector comes before the #permalink, #feed-link selector (the latter takes precedence over the former in the case of Physics.SE). As the values seem a bit redundant, I don't really understand why these two selectors exist, instead of using just one for both element ids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0px 30px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't had the time to investigate further, but adding a positive value for the bottom margin (e.g, `margin: 15px 15px 1px 30px;`) fixes the issue with the scroll bars and the sidebar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Increasing the width of #content will fix the sidebar but not the scrollbars, the same result occurs when reducing the left margin on #mainbar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's likely one of these or a combination of factors causing this display issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="e59ebc24-f444-4030-a372-5457ec661a5e" CreationDate="2015-10-14T20:13:51.233" UserId="26932" Comment="revised solution again." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the problem in particular is the #feed-link element, the strange behavior is caused by the margin declaration. Adding a non-zero margin to the bottom margin will resolved this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the exact cause of this problem is but there are three elements related to these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \#content&#xD;&#xA;- \#mainbar&#xD;&#xA;- \#feed-link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with #content is that on Physics.SE the width is 975px, while on other SEs, like Arqade (a graduated site with a custom style) and Anime.SE (a graduated site with no custom style), the margin is 1000px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #mainbar is different here vs other sites for some reason...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rendered style on Anime.SE (which I assume is the beta template without the beta in the name) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;        padding: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on Physics.SE, it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 10px 10px 20px 0;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;\#feed-link is like this on Physics.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* margin declaration here is related to the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites like Anime.SE, the #feed-link selector comes before the #permalink, #feed-link selector (the latter takes precedence over the former in the case of Physics.SE). As the values seem a bit redundant, I don't really understand why these two selectors exist, instead of using just one for both element ids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0px 30px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible solution:** The culprit is very likely to be an element within #feed-link, if not the element itself. I haven't had the time to investigate further, but adding a positive value for the bottom margin (e.g, `margin: 15px 15px 1px 30px;`) fixes the issue with the scroll bars and the sidebar. Therefore I must conclude that there's something within the #feed-link container element that's likely causing this display issue, because by applying `overflow: hidden;` to this element fixes the problem as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Increasing the width of #content will fix the sidebar but not the scrollbars, the same result occurs when reducing the left margin on #mainbar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="a9d35726-aa5e-477a-9c50-314966f0e9bb" CreationDate="2015-10-14T20:19:28.800" UserId="26932" Comment="revised solution again." Text="This is an issue with the margin-left on the #feed-link element. I see this on Chrome  45.0.2454.101 and Firefox 41.0.1 as well. 100% Zoom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the problem in particular is the #feed-link element, the strange behavior is caused by the margin declaration. Adding a non-zero margin to the bottom margin will resolved this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the exact cause of this problem is but there are three elements related to these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \#content&#xD;&#xA;- \#mainbar&#xD;&#xA;- \#feed-link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with #content is that on Physics.SE the width is 975px, while on other SEs, like Arqade (a graduated site with a custom style) and Anime.SE (a graduated site with no custom style), the margin is 1000px.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #mainbar is different here vs other sites for some reason...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rendered style on Anime.SE (which I assume is the beta template without the beta in the name) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;        padding: 0px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on Physics.SE, it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #mainbar, .mainbar {&#xD;&#xA;        float: left;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 10px 10px 20px 0;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 728px;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;\#feed-link is like this on Physics.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0 30px; /* margin declaration here is related to the issue */&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites like Anime.SE, the #feed-link selector comes before the #permalink, #feed-link selector (refer below, the latter (#permalink, #feed-link) takes precedence over the former (#feed-link) in the case of Physics.SE). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: right;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: nowrap;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #permalink, #feed-link {&#xD;&#xA;        text-align: left;&#xD;&#xA;        width: 200px;&#xD;&#xA;        float: right;&#xD;&#xA;        clear: both;&#xD;&#xA;        margin: 15px 15px 0px 30px;&#xD;&#xA;        white-space: normal;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible solution:** The culprit is very likely to be an element within #feed-link, or more likely something inherited by the #feed-link-text element. I haven't had the time to investigate further, but adding a positive value for the bottom margin (e.g, `margin: 15px 15px 1px 30px;`) fixes the issue with the scroll bars and the sidebar. Therefore I must conclude that there's something within the #feed-link container element that's likely causing this display issue, because by applying `overflow: hidden;` to this element fixes both problems as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Increasing the width of #content will fix the sidebar but not the scrollbars, the same result occurs when reducing the left margin on #mainbar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="49f46565-3164-48a4-82a9-975fe3bf73d1" CreationDate="2015-10-14T21:29:37.440" UserId="44126" Text="[Why do bosons and fermions exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212589/why-do-bosons-and-fermions-exist) (or, question A) is currently nominated to be closed as a duplicate of [Why must fermions be antisymmetric?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207459/why-must-fermions-be-antisymmetric) (question B). This seems fair at first glance, since the questions are quite similar and there's a reasonable answer at B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, question B is also closed.  If A is also closed, it won't be possible for normal mortals to add answers to either question.  Seems like a squicky way of avoiding answering a question at all, rather than a useful way to consolidate information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some guideline on closing one question as a duplicate of another question, which is also already closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="49f46565-3164-48a4-82a9-975fe3bf73d1" CreationDate="2015-10-14T21:29:37.440" UserId="44126" Text="Duplicate of closed question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="49f46565-3164-48a4-82a9-975fe3bf73d1" CreationDate="2015-10-14T21:29:37.440" UserId="44126" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19471" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="fad42d06-80c1-432a-8e84-c4c1e2cf8525" CreationDate="2015-10-15T00:03:11.730" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6564],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:56299,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;HDE 226868&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="19472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="9d22ba8e-22bc-4ef9-9e32-3b51e88dd985" CreationDate="2015-10-15T04:28:44.497" UserId="31790" Text="The homework policy is a constant source of confusion for new (and sometimes established) users.&#xD;&#xA;We see this confusion, for example, when users respond to closures based on the homework policy by defending their post with &quot;This is not a homework problem&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;Some users have even been conditioned to claim a non-homework basis for their posts preemptively. &#xD;&#xA;It seems the word &quot;homework&quot; throws people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we modify the help center, associated close reason, and our own language to make clear that whether or not a question comes from homework isn't the real issue, and rather what matters is that all questions ask about a *specific concept*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is very similar to [a previous one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not only asking about the tag.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking about the help center, close reason, and language used by users as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="9d22ba8e-22bc-4ef9-9e32-3b51e88dd985" CreationDate="2015-10-15T04:28:44.497" UserId="31790" Text="Should we rename the homework policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="9d22ba8e-22bc-4ef9-9e32-3b51e88dd985" CreationDate="2015-10-15T04:28:44.497" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="56c1ed84-4e39-4cdc-b124-11ae025600e9" CreationDate="2015-10-15T04:28:44.497" UserId="31790" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Problem solving questions, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a problem solving service. If you have a question about a specific problem, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;Homework-like&lt;/s&gt; Problem solving questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="c94a18bb-37e2-45fd-875f-8eb1d94dedb8" CreationDate="2015-10-15T11:15:51.327" UserId="6634" Text="I have the same objection to this that [dmckee had last time we talked about this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4982/6634). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, everybody who posts a question on this site wants a problem solved. The problem may be lack of understanding, or it may be homework, or it may be just about anything else. But the very existence of a question implies there is a problem to be solved, and such a tag would then apply to everything under the sun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would rather see the meta tag go away entirely and we downvote bad &quot;homework-like&quot; questions into oblivion and close them just as fast as we are now. There's no need for a tag to point out garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;good&quot; questions (ie. the ones that already conform to the policy) don't need a separate tag to tell us that they conform to the policy. They will be well-posed questions looking for conceptual explanations and thus no different from any other good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the close reason needs to say &quot;Homework like ...&quot; nor &quot;Problem solving ...&quot;, it could simply say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then means that close reason can apply to all of the really bad questions that come in and make no sense nor effort to justify them. It's kind of a &quot;non-mainstream&quot; close reason for mainstream topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the help center, I would say it doesn't need changed because we do want to forbid homework questions as they are defined there. And we want to forbid bad questions as defined elsewhere in the help center. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="2f74d538-aa6e-41d3-b0af-543aeb5b0796" CreationDate="2015-10-15T11:22:58.220" UserId="6634" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="I have the same objection to this that [dmckee had last time we talked about this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4982/6634). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, everybody who posts a question on this site wants a problem solved. The problem may be lack of understanding, or it may be homework, or it may be just about anything else. But the very existence of a question implies there is a problem to be solved, and such a tag would then apply to everything under the sun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would rather see the meta tag go away entirely and we downvote bad &quot;homework-like&quot; questions into oblivion and close them just as fast as we are now. There's no need for a tag to point out garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;good&quot; questions (ie. the ones that already conform to the policy) don't need a separate tag to tell us that they conform to the policy. They will be well-posed questions looking for conceptual explanations and thus no different from any other good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the close reason needs to say &quot;Homework like ...&quot; nor &quot;Problem solving ...&quot;, it could simply say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then means that close reason can apply to all of the really bad questions that come in and make no sense nor effort to justify them. It's kind of a &quot;non-mainstream&quot; close reason for mainstream topics. We want all of our questions to be about specific physics concepts -- that's part of what makes us unique from [World Building.SE](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com). We close questions that start &quot;Imagine if the sun instantly disappeared...&quot; as non-physical, so this kind of close reason would work for that as well as &quot;A ball is rolling down a 45 degree ramp...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the help center, I would say it doesn't need changed because we do want to forbid homework questions as they are defined there. And we want to forbid bad questions as defined elsewhere in the help center. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7165" RevisionGUID="33dcb8cd-d82e-4b7c-9519-84af7c60710c" CreationDate="2015-10-15T15:30:39.477" UserId="1325" Text="Back in the good old days there was no option to close as *homework*. Instead we had a close reason described as *too localised*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of *too localised* was that it was of interest to too few people i.e. it did not fit with the long term aim of the site to become a repository of **useful** information about physics. Homework questions often (but not always) fall into this category because the answer is of interest only to the person doing the homework. I much preferred the *too localised* option to *homework* because it allowed a lot more flexibility. For example it allowed me to answer a homework question if by doing so I could explore an interesting and useful concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't privy to the reasons why the *too localised* option was removed, but I would guess that it was viewed as too vague. You could argue that an answer to a blatant homework question taken from Gravitation would be useful to more people than a answer about some complex bit of string theory. While I can see this, I don't see it as a problem. My view is that *too localised* means what the &gt;3000 rep users think it means and I don't see that it would cause any more arguments that the current *homework* option does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe we should can the *homework* option and bring back *too localised* instead. I think this is basically equivalent to Daniel's suggestion, and I don't really care what exact words are used in the close reason as long as the spirit is the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7165" RevisionGUID="9811c5b1-fbc6-45cf-88b4-20a7311dad9b" CreationDate="2015-10-15T16:19:38.773" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to comment" Text="Back in the good old days there was no option to close as *homework*. Instead we had a close reason described as *too localised*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of *too localised* was that it was of interest to too few people i.e. it did not fit with the long term aim of the site to become a repository of **useful** information about physics. Homework questions often (but not always) fall into this category because the answer is of interest only to the person doing the homework. I much preferred the *too localised* option to *homework* because it allowed a lot more flexibility. For example it allowed me to answer a homework question if by doing so I could explore an interesting and useful concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't privy to the reasons why the *too localised* option was removed, but I would guess that it was viewed as too vague. You could argue that an answer to a blatant homework question taken from Gravitation would be useful to more people than a answer about some complex bit of string theory. While I can see this, I don't see it as a problem. My view is that *too localised* means what the &gt;3000 rep users think it means and I don't see that it would cause any more arguments that the current *homework* option does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe we should can the *homework* option and bring back *too localised* instead. I think this is basically equivalent to Daniel's suggestion, and I don't really care what exact words are used in the close reason as long as the spirit is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to ACuriousMind's comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ACuriousMind says in a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It probably was removed because people like you used it as a flexible close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I freely concede this is probably absolutely correct. My argument is that this is a **good** thing not a bad thing and it should be encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have lots of &gt;3k rep users, so lots of people can vote to close or reopen. I don't see why we need any legalistically precise prescriptions for when a question can or can't be closed. If I vote to close a question as *too localised* then any of the many &gt;3k rep users can vote to keep the question open or vote to reopen it. In the end the questions that are closed will reflect the views of the majority (of &gt;3k rep users) as to what this site should look like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="afa7e73a-4464-45f9-b64d-a742ae342045" CreationDate="2015-10-15T19:59:29.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/654748447082352640" />
  <row Id="19481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="17e19cb9-b2bd-4882-b6da-d7cedf1593d2" CreationDate="2015-10-16T11:12:56.267" UserId="24653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="270fd637-59c7-4570-aad6-9c97c5f025a1" CreationDate="2015-10-16T18:42:06.557" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The homework policy is a constant source of confusion for new (and sometimes established) users.&#xD;&#xA;We see this confusion, for example, when users respond to closures based on the homework policy by defending their post with &quot;This is not a homework problem&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;Some users have even been conditioned to claim a non-homework basis for their posts preemptively. &#xD;&#xA;It seems the word &quot;homework&quot; throws people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we modify the help center, associated close reason, and our own language to make clear that whether or not a question comes from homework isn't the real issue, and rather what matters is that all questions ask about a *specific concept*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is very similar to [a previous one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4977/).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not only asking about the tag.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking about the help center, close reason, and language used by users as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="270fd637-59c7-4570-aad6-9c97c5f025a1" CreationDate="2015-10-16T18:42:06.557" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19484" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="2ab24d60-4a6d-4dce-8aeb-db37d5f2e158" CreationDate="2015-10-17T00:19:01.390" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="f7a9238e-58cb-4fc7-9500-7bbc673667fd" CreationDate="2015-10-17T12:39:20.520" UserId="23389" Text="Sometimes I come across a homework question, like this one &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212839/terminal-velocity-of-a-sky-diver/212863#212863&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is of little value to our collection, as any answer is only of interest and benefit to the original poster (OP). I know the question will be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I think the OP really wants to learn, however, I occasionally still answer such questions, in the hope that I might help someone. In these cases, I tend to make broad points and suggestions, rather than provide a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this alright? Should I stop answering HW questions that will likely be closed? I know HW is a thorny issue on this site. I've read elsewhere that HW questons should be quickly shutdown and downvoted etc. Whenever I answer such a question, I'm (in a small way) undermining that strategy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="f7a9238e-58cb-4fc7-9500-7bbc673667fd" CreationDate="2015-10-17T12:39:20.520" UserId="23389" Text="Answering homework questions that will be closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="f7a9238e-58cb-4fc7-9500-7bbc673667fd" CreationDate="2015-10-17T12:39:20.520" UserId="23389" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="452acd42-cb60-4a46-ab63-8f33494db10f" CreationDate="2015-10-17T15:05:48.903" UserId="2451" Text="OP's meta question is a much-needed initiative to improve/change/update the homework policy wordings of the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help), the [meta question 714](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), the [wiki discription](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework-and-exercises/info), and close reason; to make them useful and consistent, and stress that the issue is not whether the question is _actual_ homework, but rather whether it asks a conceptional question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested policy makers and editors in these matters are encouraged to come forward and meet in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, about a year ago (October 22nd, 2014), the [tag:homework] tag was already changed after several and long discussions on meta and various chat sessions to the self-explanatory [tag:homework-and-exercise] tag, which has for the past year mostly run smoothly and as intended. Any further change in the tag name seems to warrant a separate meta post, which could possibly be conducted after an overhaul of the above mentioned policy texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder to not forget that that the main objective is to first-and-foremost serve the Phys.SE community of _active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,_ as it says in the [intro pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). In plain English: The interests of people asking off-topic questions might not coincide with the best interests of the Phys.SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7168" RevisionGUID="f6e2f0a2-9efe-4f29-b3f4-f07dcb579457" CreationDate="2015-10-17T15:09:10.017" UserId="63690" Text="Rather than using the term &quot;homework-like questions&quot; or &quot;problem-solving questions&quot;, or the &quot;too localized&quot; concept, a better descriptor for our objections might be &quot;drill-oriented or standard instructional question&quot; or &quot;standard drill problem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the questions that have come through in the past weeks are stock physics drill questions designed to give students practice in learning a concept or technique. These would be questions which have been asked and answered over and over for years.   Many of the OPs say something like &quot;I don't know where to begin,&quot; or &quot;I'm lost.&quot; My first mental response is &quot;Get off the computer and go ask your instructor this question.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we already have a catalogue/collection of drill-problem type answered questions we could have a standard link to give to questioners. &quot;This is a standard drill problem. Go to this link and find your related concept.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my short association with this site, I have concluded, happily, that Physics.SE doesn't want to be the first-stop-shop of physics students seeking a drill-problem answer (like Answers.com [gag!], but a compendium of good physics thinking for conceptual questions encountered along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH, if a questioner gives some statement about their thoughts on a drill problem which indicates a poor concept, we could give them a nudge in the right direction, and I've noticed this happening in comments ( Wouldn't those nudges be more suited for a brief Answer?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is fair to tell questioners &quot;This problem/question is a standard drill problem that has been asked and answered many times. Try to get some local assistance.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="2de274d3-233d-4bff-819b-62d6cc0c3a99" CreationDate="2015-10-17T17:44:27.847" UserId="520" Text="The tension here, as I see it, is between a general desire to help someone who is struggling (especially when it would be *so* easy for you), and the danger of rewarding behavior that we don't want (thereby encouraging more of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *of course* every time you answer such a question you've ever so slightly undermined the &quot;don't give them what they want&quot; strategy for suppressing the homework rate (which only works so well in the first place). You have to weigh that against the possibility that *this* user could be nudged over the line to be a positive contributor to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to stake out of bright line in that murky landscape I'll ask that if you *do* help them out, please frame it in a pedagogical way: ask them the question whose answer will help them find their own solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="79fa870b-5e34-4c15-a550-6a67a1e0f6d2" CreationDate="2015-10-18T10:17:01.570" UserId="1325" Text="If someone appears to be genuinely interested in physics and is willing to put the effort into understanding it then I can rarely resist the temptation to answer them even when the question is teetering on the edge of the homework precipice. But I agree completely with the point dmckee makes in the last paragraph of his answer. if I yield to the temptation to answer it's because I want to help the OP to understand the principles involved. That means posting an answer that discusses the concepts involved, and not simply giving them the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example my answer to [How do I derive the Lorentz contraction from the invariant interval?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80511/how-do-i-derive-the-lorentz-contraction-from-the-invariant-interval). This question could easily have been closed as homework (it got tagged as such) but I think my answer was worthwhile, and the OP (now an experienced member of the site with 192 answers to his credit) [thinks so too][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until I master telepathy it's impossible to know whether the OP will really benefit from your answer or whether they'll just transcribe it into their problem sheet then forget it. But if I'm going to err I prefer to err on the side of making the world of physics a slightly better place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212674/why-cannot-a-perfect-clock-exist/212885#comment456331_212885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7171" RevisionGUID="455f76d1-7d43-4b76-b9dd-477718a1223d" CreationDate="2015-10-18T16:25:24.493" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Should I stop answering HW questions that will likely be closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should. This goes for all types of questions that will be closed; it's nothing specific to homework-like questions. The entire point of closure (a.k.a. putting on hold) is to prevent low quality, off topic, etc. questions from receiving answers, both so that people realize those questions should not be asked without improvement, and also because sometimes the question can't effectively be answered until it is improved. (If it's unclear what is being asked, for example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this: if putting a question on hold is not meant to prevent it from receiving answers, what is the point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="41d1e0a5-020f-4fde-b6ad-dbd1aff68665" CreationDate="2015-10-18T19:17:30.730" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body; edited title" Text="Sometimes I come across a homework-like question, like this one &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/212839/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is of little value to our collection, as any answer is only of interest and benefit to the original poster (OP). I know the question will be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I think the OP really wants to learn, however, I occasionally still answer such questions, in the hope that I might help someone. In these cases, I tend to make broad points and suggestions, rather than provide a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this alright? Should I stop answering HW-like questions that will likely be closed? I know HW is a thorny issue on this site. I've read elsewhere that HW-like questions should be quickly shutdown and downvoted etc. Whenever I answer such a question, I'm (in a small way) undermining that strategy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="41d1e0a5-020f-4fde-b6ad-dbd1aff68665" CreationDate="2015-10-18T19:17:30.730" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body; edited title" Text="Answering homework-like questions that will be closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7171" RevisionGUID="e7e16ab3-f03e-4ddd-b69f-51438a20b44b" CreationDate="2015-10-18T19:18:18.227" UserId="2451" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; Should I stop answering HW-like questions that will likely be closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should. This goes for all types of questions that will be closed; it's nothing specific to homework-like questions. The entire point of closure (a.k.a. putting on hold) is to prevent low quality, off topic, etc. questions from receiving answers, both so that people realize those questions should not be asked without improvement, and also because sometimes the question can't effectively be answered until it is improved. (If it's unclear what is being asked, for example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this: if putting a question on hold is not meant to prevent it from receiving answers, what is the point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="6d7a5699-f835-4d24-844d-6a569c5a061e" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:04:33.677" UserId="89965" Text="I was reviewing a post now and due to certain flaws of the post, I had to flag it. Just then  I saw this message at the bottom of the flagging window.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked my flagging history by clicking on the &quot;**review**&quot; link given in the message and this is what I saw...&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: *Is 1 declined post too many? That too many days back? What am I to understand from this untimed message?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of help is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RDU63.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OsbBR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="6d7a5699-f835-4d24-844d-6a569c5a061e" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:04:33.677" UserId="89965" Text="Flag Post Warning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="6d7a5699-f835-4d24-844d-6a569c5a061e" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:04:33.677" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19499" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="5d9fd1d9-a248-46eb-bef1-bffdd7a3cbb9" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:24:07.207" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:56299,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;HDE 226868&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10833,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Edward Hughes&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23389,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;innisfree&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="36359fb8-2372-4280-b117-2ef60dc7ab59" CreationDate="2015-10-19T15:58:25.043" UserId="520" Text="The criteria for that message are set to try to catch well meaning but overzealous flaggers early. Your flagging history is very helpful overall and you should look at the declined flag as a chance to tune your understanding of when to flag rather than a big problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19501" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="802f4945-6d06-458c-8df8-94fd6d972068" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:33:14.113" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="5a252f96-c2a3-4374-906d-7a827242e69c" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:03:24.993" UserDisplayName="user59991" Text="According to this [meta answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/175405/271002), flaggers with at least 10 handled flags in the past 7 days where at least 10 % of flags were declined will see the warning when they flag again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Attention: some of your recent flags have been declined - please review them before flagging this post!](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rWqKJ.png) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, you just met these criteria when 10 of your flags were handled in the past 7 days and 1 flag (i.e. 10 %) was declined.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="ba4c1863-57cc-4cef-acb5-35dba89f24c2" CreationDate="2015-10-22T18:53:26.310" UserDisplayName="user20936" Text="I'll prefix this with &quot;I'm not an active physics.SE participant&quot;, I'm over on another P.SE - programmers. And we too have a problem with homework questions in that the vast majority of the time, they aren't good questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this, end, I wrote a post titled [Open letter to students with homework problems](http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/q/6166/40980) trying to explain what the problem with just copying and pasting homework problems into the text area is, and that even if we *do* answer the question, it may lead to problems for the student's future learning endeavors (they learn a short cut that works 90% of the time, but completely fail to learn the long way of doing it needed to understand why it fails in the 10%, or other topics).  This post has since become the highest voted post on Programmers.SE's meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key thing to all this is not so much &quot;its homework, its bad&quot; but rather that the student needs to learn how to ask good questions. This, unfortunately, isn't often a skill taught by many institutions and learned the hard way.  In the context of StackExchange, this is often learned through down votes and closed questions - which, while a necessary and *critical* tool for StackExchange is a less than ideal one for pedagogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the focus of a homework policy (named that or anything else) should be on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reinforcing good question quality on Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;* Setting the expectation of what can (and can't) be answered and timeframes (how often does one see the &quot;urgent - need answer by 5pm&quot; in questions?)&#xD;&#xA;* Note the possible problems that a student who asks a question here may encounter (inadvertently skipping around in the syllabus without proper comprehension of previous material - its in that order for a reason).&#xD;&#xA;* Encourage that someone needs to *discuss* a topic, that chat may be a better resource than a main site question and its comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a quote that I'm fond of from Programmers.SE, slightly tweaked to Physics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Picture Physics like a room with a whiteboard. No computer, no books, no papers. You write your question on the whiteboard and experts walk by. Someone sees one that they can answer, they stop in and help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="0af65767-c443-4d8b-8ace-de5642f9e685" CreationDate="2015-10-23T18:08:05.350" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="f02fee5b-270f-4f9b-9e2c-4c3cf0817ad8" CreationDate="2015-10-24T18:11:59.957" UserId="46399" Text="[![What if? Serious scientific answers to absurd hypothetical questions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8wlTb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://what-if.xkcd.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19511" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="ce888dbb-bf20-4f62-ba32-093b7d531e9c" CreationDate="2015-10-24T18:11:59.957" UserId="46399" />
  <row Id="19512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="86620286-1435-44a3-8927-08c3e4bda248" CreationDate="2015-10-26T03:52:53.113" UserId="5477" Text="Some time ago I proposed [banning homework questions altogether][1], which was a reasonably popular proposal. While I don't quite have the energy to keep pushing for this, I still support it. In the context of your question, I think it would be a good and workable solution. To be clear, the solution would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;homework policy&quot; would be replaced with a new document, which states that homework questions (in a strict sense) are completely banned. No ifs, no buts: your question will be closed if it looks like you're trying to get help with your homework, even if you actually aren't. This takes care of the original purpose of the homework policy, which was to prevent Physics.SE from being a homework help site, and it also provides very clear guidelines that are easy to follow for those who are active in the review queues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We *also* have a new policy along the lines of what you suggest, which can be adjusted to taste independently of the related but distinct goal of making sure we don't supply answers to school/undergrad homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that this would be less confusing for the users. The current policy of &quot;you can ask homework questions if you ask about a concept&quot; is pretty confusing to the uninitiated and means that a judgement call has to be made every time a homework question appears in the review queue. &quot;No homework, or anything that looks like it&quot; is much clearer for both askers and reviewers. The &quot;it has to be about a concept&quot; policy would then require a judgement call only in the minority of cases where it doesn't look like a homework problem, but is nevertheless judged not to be conceptual enough for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5168/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="66274770-ecf6-4b45-9d39-bb5e738a0ccb" CreationDate="2015-10-26T04:03:37.017" UserId="5477" Comment="added 546 characters in body" Text="Some time ago I proposed [banning homework questions altogether][1], which was a reasonably popular proposal. While I don't quite have the energy to keep pushing for this, I still support it. In the context of your question, I think it would be a good and workable solution. To be clear, the solution would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;homework policy&quot; would be replaced with a new document, which states that homework questions (in a strict sense) are completely banned. No ifs, no buts: your question will be closed if it looks like you're trying to get help with your homework, even if you actually aren't. The only way you can get help with your homework is by asking a conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We *also* have a new policy along the lines of what you suggest, which can be adjusted to taste independently of the related but distinct goal of making sure we don't supply answers to school/undergrad homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first point takes care of the original purpose of the homework policy, which was to prevent Physics.SE from being a homework help site, and it also provides very clear guidelines that are easy to follow for those who are active in the review queues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I feel that this would be less confusing for the users. The current policy of &quot;you can ask homework questions if you ask about a concept&quot; is pretty confusing to the uninitiated and means that a judgement call has to be made every time a homework question appears in the review queue. &quot;No homework, or anything that looks like it&quot; is much clearer for both askers and reviewers. The &quot;it has to be about a concept&quot; policy would then require a judgement call only in the minority of cases where it doesn't look like a homework problem, but is nevertheless judged not to be conceptual enough for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **homework *is* an issue** on this site. It is an issue not because homework questions tend to be non-conceptual but because they are homework questions. Answering them here is bad for the students' education and bad for the quality of this site, so let's just have a clear and straightforward policy of not doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-conceptual problems are *also* an issue, but they are a separate one, and better addressed using a separate policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5168/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="1b888055-43c1-45b6-813b-dae885913dd4" CreationDate="2015-10-26T04:10:02.220" UserId="5477" Comment="added 546 characters in body" Text="Some time ago I proposed [banning homework questions altogether][1], which was a reasonably popular proposal. While I don't quite have the energy to keep pushing for this, I still support it. In the context of your question, I think it would be a good and workable solution. To be clear, the solution would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;homework policy&quot; would be replaced with a new document, which states that homework questions (in a strict sense) are completely banned. No ifs, no buts: your question will be closed if it looks like you're trying to get help with your homework, even if you actually aren't. The only way you can get help with your homework is by asking a conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We *also* have a new policy along the lines of what you suggest, which can be adjusted to taste independently of the related but distinct goal of making sure we don't supply answers to school/undergrad homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I feel that this would be less confusing for the users. The current policy of &quot;you can ask homework questions if you ask about a concept&quot; is pretty confusing to the uninitiated and means that a judgement call has to be made every time a homework question appears in the review queue. &quot;No homework, or anything that looks like it&quot; is much clearer for both askers and reviewers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;it has to be about a concept&quot; policy would then require a judgement call only in the minority of cases where it doesn't look like a homework problem, but is nevertheless judged not to be conceptual enough for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **homework *is* an issue** on this site. It is an issue not because homework questions tend to be non-conceptual but because they are homework questions. Answering them here is bad for the students' education and bad for the quality of this site, so let's just have a clear and straightforward policy of not doing so. Non-conceptual problems are *also* an issue, but they are a separate one, and better addressed using a separate policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5168/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="c138e5f5-ea74-4dc1-b02e-532f4051b7c8" CreationDate="2015-10-26T09:28:35.480" UserId="57018" Text="I was wondering if it is possible to calculate the velocity of a surface to air missile like the THAAD missile system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="c138e5f5-ea74-4dc1-b02e-532f4051b7c8" CreationDate="2015-10-26T09:28:35.480" UserId="57018" Text="Can I ask this question? Is it possible to calculate the velocity of a surface to air missile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="c138e5f5-ea74-4dc1-b02e-532f4051b7c8" CreationDate="2015-10-26T09:28:35.480" UserId="57018" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="b5acdc38-04b7-48c8-a881-8a43f6835c99" CreationDate="2015-10-26T09:29:44.407" UserId="124" Text="In general, if you're not sure if a question can be asked or not, just ask it. It may _sound_ like we're being harsh when (if) we tell you it's off topic, but we won't hold it against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since you asked, this question sounds like it would be off topic for us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19519" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="d5542638-d4f4-44e3-91ce-526757820208" CreationDate="2015-10-26T10:10:52.463" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="bd8ac5d3-71f4-40d7-800c-843e4685d428" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:56:14.487" UserId="45613" Text="It was sometime back that I realized what we are synthesizing here (possibly) is an **archive** for an expert system. Put the Physics Stack Exchange together with an AI machine and you have a super-physicist. The same might be said of other Stack areas, knowledge bases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will the stack eventually become? Are there longer range goals than to just ask/answer questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="bd8ac5d3-71f4-40d7-800c-843e4685d428" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:56:14.487" UserId="45613" Text="Ultimately, what will the Physics Stack Exchange Become? Are there long range goals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="bd8ac5d3-71f4-40d7-800c-843e4685d428" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:56:14.487" UserId="45613" Text="|discussion|scope|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="d6e4eea9-9599-4217-b0fa-860d1e75071a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T14:34:41.173" UserId="24653" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="It was sometime back that I realized what we are synthesizing here (possibly) is an **archive** for an expert system. Put the Physics Stack Exchange together with an AI machine and you have a super-physicist. The same might be said of other Stack areas, knowledge bases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will the stack eventually become? Are there longer term goals than to just ask/answer questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="d6e4eea9-9599-4217-b0fa-860d1e75071a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T14:34:41.173" UserId="24653" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Ultimately, what will the Physics Stack Exchange Become? Are there long term goals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7183" RevisionGUID="4efeb598-4d7c-4954-bd4e-6fb54f87100a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T16:44:21.300" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Eventually what it will become is a place where anyone who asks any question will be referred to a previous answer before their question is closed down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="42a9c519-b6e4-4e95-ab19-f76ff4531557" CreationDate="2015-10-27T21:46:13.160" UserId="47511" Text="Humans will cease to exist within a few generations, they'll be replaced by machines. It's likely that our civilization will give rise to one superintelligence, all knowledge acquired by us will be absorbed by it. Digital records are then more useful than paper records, so the files stored on servers containing the contents of this site may make it into the brains of this superintelligence. A lot of the content will likely be interpreted as examples of how primitive biological beings approach physics problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19533" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="5bbead72-2344-43c5-9127-d0c0255730f3" CreationDate="2015-10-29T05:44:33.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/659606727990579200" />
  <row Id="19534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="f6964511-4bc4-4457-bd3e-c8f82a3dcb61" CreationDate="2015-10-29T10:48:48.220" UserId="89073" Text="The post I speak of is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215259/what-does-the-discovery-of-a-pentaquark-signify/215293#215293&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst OP has hardly been perfect in their articulation of the question, it does to me seem to be clear what they're asking. They want to know about what the discovery of the Pentaquark means for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular media has been reporting about the discovery of the Pentaquark in CERN this July. For those of us who watched much of the Higgs Boson media campaign, it's reasonably obvious that the reporting of big physics news in popular media isn't exactly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, that for those people who want to know about more exact implications of such discoveries on the Physics world, they might come here and ask questions. I'm guessing that that's what OP was trying to do above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a bit of a problem with comments on the question like some of the ones that are there. Someone's genuinely curious about the wider applications in Physics that a discovery might have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly the way in which this question has been answered, to me, seems condescending and disparaging. Perhaps if the more knowledgable users in the community are not willing to read into these questions to try and work out what OP is actually trying to ask (albeit without much finesse), they should keep the unhelpful comments to themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure what solution I'm proposing here. I understand the frustration when someone asks a vague question, but answering it with pointless comments which can be interpretted as condescending seems to compound the problem, not help. I hope this doesn't appear to be a rant about a specific case, either. This is just a recent example which I'm using." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="f6964511-4bc4-4457-bd3e-c8f82a3dcb61" CreationDate="2015-10-29T10:48:48.220" UserId="89073" Text="Pointless comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="f6964511-4bc4-4457-bd3e-c8f82a3dcb61" CreationDate="2015-10-29T10:48:48.220" UserId="89073" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7186" RevisionGUID="a68cde4c-abe3-432e-b97b-4aecf1109d1f" CreationDate="2015-10-29T12:12:26.477" UserId="124" Text="You can flag the comments. For comments like these, the &quot;not constructive&quot; flag [is typically appropriate](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post), or if it's particularly vicious, use &quot;rude or offensive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth keeping in mind that we want most people who ask questions on this site to be those who care about their questions and the broader physics context. In other words, &quot;I was just curious&quot;-type questions are not really what we're here for. So if someone asks a question without bothering to do simple things [like checking Wikipedia, searching the web, etc.](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), we will _intentionally_ fail to be particularly accommodating. Same goes for when a poster is asking a question where they are clearly out of their depth (like, hypothetically: &quot;I don't know any calculus but prove to me that the pentaquark should exist&quot;-type questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19538" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="034a85be-0148-4cc8-9591-a09ae640ffb5" CreationDate="2015-10-29T20:44:37.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/659833236311384066" />
  <row Id="19539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="acd7733b-b556-47a8-b35e-6b9f2aeeb1e8" CreationDate="2015-10-30T08:42:29.703" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no black bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complaints of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="acd7733b-b556-47a8-b35e-6b9f2aeeb1e8" CreationDate="2015-10-30T08:42:29.703" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Why is the main page of PSE looking so weird in my Opera browser?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="acd7733b-b556-47a8-b35e-6b9f2aeeb1e8" CreationDate="2015-10-30T08:42:29.703" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="bfff73b4-0411-4b66-b050-1c74fb3ef2c5" CreationDate="2015-10-30T09:48:03.237" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no black bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complains of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="388e10eb-1b5a-46dc-b1b6-4b86cd317fce" CreationDate="2015-10-30T11:44:48.453" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no grey bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complains of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latest Update: Miracle!! I don't know how but the hot-questions list has come back to its original place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fonts are still irregularly big &amp; that grey side-bar is still there:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrJDl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="f4aed6da-0aa1-46cf-ba33-3670b2da5fec" CreationDate="2015-10-30T12:05:35.853" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no grey bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complains of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latest Update 1: Miracle!! I don't know how but the hot-questions list has come back to its original place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fonts are still irregularly big &amp; that grey side-bar is still there:(&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: ****! Really no words to say :X It is in coma again;(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrJDl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LCLtp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="cf677b8e-31a1-4bc6-bd8a-8e89a746204c" CreationDate="2015-10-30T12:17:29.897" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="c42048b2-8b0a-445b-afcb-a656f2205498" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:34:40.690" UserId="89965" Text="Sometimes questions are protected to prevent low-key answers. Is this applicable to comments as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I want to say that sometimes users with &gt;10 rep also make bad responses. There are plenty of such cases faced by us editors of late answers and other questions. So I request the bar for protected questions to be raised to 50 rep at least." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="c42048b2-8b0a-445b-afcb-a656f2205498" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:34:40.690" UserId="89965" Text="Raise in reputation bar for protection of questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="c42048b2-8b0a-445b-afcb-a656f2205498" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:34:40.690" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7189" RevisionGUID="331c8f2a-ff1b-433b-ad35-18621367a0ef" CreationDate="2015-10-31T01:28:10.583" UserId="6634" Text="If you suggest a number like 50, I would (and I would imagine the people who actually have to implement it) like to see proof that a substantial number of bad responses comes from people with 10 &lt; rep &lt; 50 and that it would make a dent at all in the signal-to-noise ratio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are approximately 2800 users with between 10 and 50 rep who have been seen in the past 180 days that would be impacted by this change. This is out of roughly 30000 total registered users who have also been seen during that time. So your proposed change to the barrier would affect somewhere around 9% of the &quot;active&quot; user-base. For comparison, there are approximately 20000 users in the past 180 days with a reputation of less than 10 or exactly 101 (the association bonus). So the current barrier limits posting such that only 33% of the active participants can post. Your proposed barrier would limit the participation to 25%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Disclaimer: All of these numbers were found by poking around in the Data Explorer today -- the last data dump was Oct 25, 2015 so it should be close to current numbers. If anybody in the future decides to run the numbers again, they may not match exactly!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you must somehow show that a non-negligible number of the bad posts to which you are referring are posted by this 9% of the site and that changing the barrier would significantly reduce the amount of bad posts. These numbers are based on your proposed barrier of 50, if you pick a different barrier, the same analysis would apply and the same requirement to justify the number exists. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="3f19dd2b-91a7-4223-a205-4f898a422b51" CreationDate="2015-10-31T10:40:43.910" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Not another atom. Absolutely. Maybe some logo with a $\Psi$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Energy for &quot;not found&quot;, of course, will do. But I think the most suitable here would be the higgs boson (at least up to now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've checked how other launched sites look like and I really don't like the look of some of them. Too many bright colors or too many tiny details are really distracting. I actually like the present &quot;scetchy&quot; look -- maybe one can adopt it from &quot;notebook scetchy&quot; to &quot;white/blackboard scetchy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is what I made a minute ago, using my blackboard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Black board][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to use ladder operators but they didn't look nice...  &#xD;&#xA;While I think that bra-s or ket-s (better ket-s) should be used for tags, don't they? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IIxMH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="5d04b7ca-b238-4e3e-957e-f55ebbb76437" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:51:07.573" UserId="96438" Text="I have seen many posts where people refer to the op of the question. So what does OP stand for? is it the asker of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="5d04b7ca-b238-4e3e-957e-f55ebbb76437" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:51:07.573" UserId="96438" Text="When people say Op on this meta what does it mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="5d04b7ca-b238-4e3e-957e-f55ebbb76437" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:51:07.573" UserId="96438" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7191" RevisionGUID="7db244b2-d3e3-4d08-bd88-c13bd8fcd31e" CreationDate="2015-11-01T06:24:15.977" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="__OP__ means __O__ riginal __P__ oster of the question or answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="5ccd0515-d1b7-4523-a03e-bbd66f2a533d" CreationDate="2015-11-01T07:16:08.947" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Recently I flagged an [answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/215636/36790) to this [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149092/36790) citing `not an answer` as it was providing only a link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, link-only answers are not encouraged here as they may become worthless when the link becomes dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But I was surprised when the flag was not `helpful`; it was `disputed`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what is the reason for disputing my flag to that 'link-only' answer? Has the community changed their view on the 'link-only' answers??  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="5ccd0515-d1b7-4523-a03e-bbd66f2a533d" CreationDate="2015-11-01T07:16:08.947" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Why was my flag on a 'link-only' answer disputed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="5ccd0515-d1b7-4523-a03e-bbd66f2a533d" CreationDate="2015-11-01T07:16:08.947" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="86bcd348-1d91-409f-816c-03736108ac59" CreationDate="2015-11-01T08:18:03.083" UserId="1325" Text="[The disputed flag means one or more of the other site members disagreed with your review][1]. In this case I would guess someone disagreed with you because the post is an answer - just not a very good one. The appropriate action would be to downvote the answer rather than flagging it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4737/what-does-the-disputed-status-of-a-flag-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="14aa877b-0793-4560-a4f9-5be7c894b5bc" CreationDate="2015-11-01T08:18:06.000" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I have seen many posts where people refer to the OP of the question. So what does OP stand for? is it the asker of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19563" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="14aa877b-0793-4560-a4f9-5be7c894b5bc" CreationDate="2015-11-01T08:18:06.000" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="When people say OP what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="7cd9e62b-8a7e-400e-8c08-e33f177a210a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T08:22:54.193" UserId="2451" Text="The flag was disputed by the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), i.e. some users. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="0d1ddaf6-702a-468b-ade2-1e9bb6eb6ad5" CreationDate="2015-11-01T16:30:19.420" UserId="124" Comment="edit in comments" Text="The post I speak of is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215259/what-does-the-discovery-of-a-pentaquark-signify/215293#215293&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst OP has hardly been perfect in their articulation of the question, it does to me seem to be clear what they're asking. They want to know about what the discovery of the Pentaquark means for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular media has been reporting about the discovery of the Pentaquark in CERN this July. For those of us who watched much of the Higgs Boson media campaign, it's reasonably obvious that the reporting of big physics news in popular media isn't exactly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, that for those people who want to know about more exact implications of such discoveries on the Physics world, they might come here and ask questions. I'm guessing that that's what OP was trying to do above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a bit of a problem with comments on the question like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I was first tempted to answer this in more detail, I decided to merely point out that it isn't exactly a physics question. &quot;Significance&quot; is primarily a matter of opinion. Was it necessary to search for these states that are being predicted by the standard model? Yes, it was absolutely necessary and it will be necessary to check the prediction against the measurements to see if there are significant discrepancies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The QCD still works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Is there a theory that it supports or something like that?&quot;... Yes, the theory has been around for decades. It is called Quantum Chromodynamics and it is part of the Standard Model. Pentaquarks are not a surprise and we do not need any new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone's genuinely curious about the wider applications in Physics that a discovery might have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly the way in which this question has been answered, to me, seems condescending and disparaging. Perhaps if the more knowledgable users in the community are not willing to read into these questions to try and work out what OP is actually trying to ask (albeit without much finesse), they should keep the unhelpful comments to themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure what solution I'm proposing here. I understand the frustration when someone asks a vague question, but answering it with pointless comments which can be interpretted as condescending seems to compound the problem, not help. I hope this doesn't appear to be a rant about a specific case, either. This is just a recent example which I'm using." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="a0dcebe0-a0ff-43fc-9ee0-816f24aadbb0" CreationDate="2015-11-01T21:35:12.983" UserId="2451" Comment="added 532 characters in body" Text="1. Technically, the flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the post to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users completed the review cycle with the following votes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Because of the mixed verdict, the Community♦ apparently provides the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. The post is not delete. See also [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254539/209806) related meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. In the present case the post was later deleted by a moderator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="70aa2fbb-48cf-4170-b4bc-e1b61b842bc2" CreationDate="2015-11-01T21:40:13.923" UserId="2451" Comment="added 532 characters in body" Text="1. Technically, the flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the post to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users completed the review cycle with the following votes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Because of the mixed verdict, the Community♦ apparently provides the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. Moreover, the post is not delete. See also [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254539/209806) related meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. In the present case the post was later deleted by a moderator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="129781b8-a2df-48d4-a9ea-d166ab92c3f8" CreationDate="2015-11-01T22:00:47.660" UserId="2451" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="1. Technically, the flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the post to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users completed the review cycle with the following votes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provides the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. This is likely caused by a up-vote on the post. Moreover, the post is not delete. See also [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) and [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254539/209806) meta posts for further details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. In the present case, the post was later deleted by a moderator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19570" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="d1fe70fd-0b7f-4c96-b895-14089122c4eb" CreationDate="2015-11-01T22:02:19.663" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|flagging|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="bc981377-432a-42f9-a220-f830fa172325" CreationDate="2015-11-02T20:37:23.610" UserId="2451" Comment="Added explanation" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) completed the review cycle with the following votes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict, or an up-vote on the post. The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed fag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the post is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to _Delete_ directly as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="d8095cf0-4fa7-41f2-86f7-4fee0f38d7eb" CreationDate="2015-11-02T22:02:29.560" UserId="2451" Comment="Added explanation" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) completed the review cycle with the following votes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="f503907b-be2c-448f-b2a5-8045c9de8376" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:24:52.840" UserId="1492" Text="The suggested edit  , erased the first line in [my answer][1] and replaced it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*I think that gravity has an effect on any particle in our universe. Even the photons are attracted by the back holes (despite the fact that some physicists consider photons as having no mass !)* But in quantic physics, particles may adopt one these two behaviours: being &quot;real objects&quot; i.e with a mass or being a wave! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the mass ? Does the mass really exist ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit suggested by anonymous user. It was approved by SuperCiocia !!  and I just managed to catch it and reject it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are anonymous users allowed to mess up things? At least if an anonymous user does the editing the person who wrote the entry should be primarily responsible for approval or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215997/what-is-the-smallest-item-for-which-gravity-has-been-recorded-or-observed/216021#216021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="f503907b-be2c-448f-b2a5-8045c9de8376" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:24:52.840" UserId="1492" Text="maybe anonymous users should not be allowed edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="f503907b-be2c-448f-b2a5-8045c9de8376" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:24:52.840" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="53cd9863-6221-4328-85fe-756443ebed25" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:30:46.163" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed explicit name of reviewer" Text="The suggested edit  , erased the first line in [my answer][1] and replaced it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*I think that gravity has an effect on any particle in our universe. Even the photons are attracted by the back holes (despite the fact that some physicists consider photons as having no mass !)* But in quantic physics, particles may adopt one these two behaviours: being &quot;real objects&quot; i.e with a mass or being a wave! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the mass ? Does the mass really exist ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit suggested by anonymous user. It was approved by one reviewer and I just managed to catch it and reject it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are anonymous users allowed to mess up things? At least if an anonymous user does the editing the person who wrote the entry should be primarily responsible for approval or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="53cd9863-6221-4328-85fe-756443ebed25" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:30:46.163" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed explicit name of reviewer" Text="|feature-request|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19579" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="53cd9863-6221-4328-85fe-756443ebed25" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:30:46.163" UserId="2451" Comment="Removed explicit name of reviewer" Text="Maybe anonymous users should not be allowed edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="d50b5911-2f83-4d0b-87ab-d2ad422f76fa" CreationDate="2015-11-03T16:48:38.060" UserId="1492" Comment="made clear it is a feature request" Text="The suggested edit  , erased the first line in [my answer][1] and replaced it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*I think that gravity has an effect on any particle in our universe. Even the photons are attracted by the back holes (despite the fact that some physicists consider photons as having no mass !)* But in quantic physics, particles may adopt one these two behaviours: being &quot;real objects&quot; i.e with a mass or being a wave! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the mass ? Does the mass really exist ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit suggested by anonymous user. It was approved by one reviewer and I just managed to catch it and reject it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are anonymous users allowed to mess up things? At least if an anonymous user does the editing the person who wrote the entry should be primarily responsible for approval or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking, a feature request,   for a veto from the original person who wrote the question/answer that was edited by an anonymous user, as in this case already there was an approval! It would have made the answer really stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="745ca9ae-ec00-40d1-b01a-bdaf4727f8f4" CreationDate="2015-11-03T19:17:50.523" UserId="70429" Text="I disagree with Dirk Bruere. Althogh I hardly post here, on any site you will have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* homework with some solution attempts, so probably worth giving a particularized answer. Sending the asker to a different problem/example is not that different from telling him to RTFM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* tumbleweed questions that usually are too hard to [actually] answer. My SO questions are mostly like that. Well, I get some answers, but it's usually not what I asked... more like extended comments. A small percentage of these will probably get an actual answer over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="9c88a06f-ccef-4148-84db-6bd6ab683e1b" CreationDate="2015-11-03T19:26:11.377" UserId="70429" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="I disagree with Dirk Bruere. Although I hardly post here, on any site you will have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* homework with some solution attempts, so probably worth giving a particularized answer. Sending the asker to a different problem/example is not that different from telling him to RTFM. And there's an inexhaustible number of homework problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* tumbleweed questions that usually are too hard to [actually] answer. My SO questions are mostly like that. Well, I get some answers, but it's usually not what I asked... more like extended comments. A small percentage of these will probably get an actual answer over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two issues are [actually connected](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/885618/g%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="ce753697-ec76-4d3e-87ad-076a77d358b1" CreationDate="2015-11-04T04:51:58.823" UserId="1492" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="The suggested edit  , erased the first line in [my answer][1] and replaced it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*I think that gravity has an effect on any particle in our universe. Even the photons are attracted by the back holes (despite the fact that some physicists consider photons as having no mass !)* But in quantic physics, particles may adopt one these two behaviours: being &quot;real objects&quot; i.e with a mass or being a wave! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the mass ? Does the mass really exist ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit suggested by anonymous user. It was approved by one reviewer and I just managed to catch it and reject it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are anonymous users allowed to mess up things? At least if an anonymous user does the editing the person who wrote the entry should be primarily responsible for approval or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking, a feature request,   for a veto from the original person who wrote the question/answer that was edited by an anonymous user, as in this case already there was an approval! It would have made the answer really stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit in response to comment by  @user36790.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Rolling back is an option that corrects things, **IF** the original author reads the site often. We have many good answers by very good physicists who have stopped looking in everyday or even month and some not at all. A  distortion of their answers might go unnoticed and get approval by ignoramuses  and destroy the integrity of the site. Moderators cannot be reading everything as postings go through first page very fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="0d2ce45c-3636-41ae-a770-d0c743278152" CreationDate="2015-11-05T13:41:14.973" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="As a completely self studying student, with no friendly post grads around when you need one, I wonder is a question of the format outlined below acceptable here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of what I mean is: I currently understand say, the basic role of the Lagrangian in QFT and the math behind it. From there I would like to ultimately understand how to get to the math description of the weak force gauge bosons, going through group theory or  whatever areas of mathematical knowledge, are needed along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note I would not expect the answer to contain even one line of mathjax, as learning the math involved is obviously entirely up to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would define my starting point, and state what exactly my destination is, and ask for a schematic of the intermediate steps involved. In 99 percent of the text books I own, there no &quot;block diagram&quot; of how concept A is used, through concept B, C.., to the end point.  If you are lucky, the summary at the end might describe the process but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't misunderstood my motivation, I am not trying to avoid the sheer necessity of the application needed by all students  to fully understand a concept, as I would not be studying physics if I did not enjoy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder, as this site is intended mainly for full time students in regular education courses, is a question using this schematic approach (with well defined start and end points, involving a small area of physics) suitable for this site, especially when studying alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="0d2ce45c-3636-41ae-a770-d0c743278152" CreationDate="2015-11-05T13:41:14.973" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="Is a schematic type question acceptable on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="0d2ce45c-3636-41ae-a770-d0c743278152" CreationDate="2015-11-05T13:41:14.973" UserDisplayName="user81619" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="fda59762-ee72-4499-a4fc-66e0e9fdc708" CreationDate="2015-11-05T14:03:26.403" UserId="124" Text="If I understand correctly, you'd be asking for a visual outline of the concepts you'd need to study to get from what you now understand (e.g. QFT Lagrangians), to what you want to understand (e.g. weak force), showing the connections between those concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have an explicit rule about this, as far as I know, but I suspect people would consider it off topic. This is how we've treated other questions about educational prerequisites that have come up in the past. But you can certainly post the question and see what happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason to frown on this sort of question is that questions and answers should be searchable. Text is searchable; images are not. So a question that absolutely needs to be answered with an image is not really well suited for this site. That's not a major issue, though, because an equivalent answer that presents an image and describes its contents in text would be just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also point out one thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just wonder, as this site is intended mainly for full time students in regular education courses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually that's not quite true. The site is _intended_ for researchers and students. It's just that there are a lot more students than researchers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="4c012ed8-a4dc-438f-8208-2a8208f9da3d" CreationDate="2015-11-05T14:05:11.897" UserDisplayName="user81619" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="As a completely self studying student, with no friendly post grads around when you need one, I wonder is a question of the format outlined below acceptable here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of what I mean is: I currently understand say, the basic role of the Lagrangian in QFT and the math behind it. From there I would like to ultimately understand how to get to the math description of the weak force gauge bosons, going through group theory or  whatever areas of mathematical knowledge, are needed along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note I would not expect the answer to contain even one line of mathjax, as learning the math involved is obviously entirely up to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would define my starting point, and state what exactly my destination is, and ask for a schematic of the intermediate steps involved. In 99 percent of the text books I own, there no &quot;block diagram&quot; of how concept A is used, through concept B, C.., to the end point.  If you are lucky, the summary at the end might describe the process but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't misunderstood my motivation, I am not trying to avoid the sheer necessity of the application needed by all students  to fully understand a concept, as I would not be studying physics if I did not enjoy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder, as this site is intended mainly for full time students in regular education courses, is a question using this schematic approach (with well defined start and end points, involving a small area of physics) suitable for this site, especially when studying alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;EDIT I may have inadvertently rewritten this question, which I just spotted: [Knowing X, how do I get to Y][1] and if so, my apologies,  if the above is a duplicate END EDIT&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1355/how-do-i-learn-x-knowing-y-and-other-user-specific-type-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="81b55198-a7a3-43fd-9bdd-1723a593f843" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:21:49.777" UserId="8521" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like eachother).&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark stuff).&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and uncertainty exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="81b55198-a7a3-43fd-9bdd-1723a593f843" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:21:49.777" UserId="8521" Text="List of answers to &quot;why can't ____ be explained by ____ instead?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="81b55198-a7a3-43fd-9bdd-1723a593f843" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:21:49.777" UserId="8521" Text="|discussion|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="363a4934-4a40-4920-af71-e261b84d54d1" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:50:17.503" UserId="8521" Comment="added 479 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like eachother).&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark stuff).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and uncertainty exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="34a0ba35-467b-45d6-b9f4-ee90a123b20d" CreationDate="2015-11-05T21:15:36.490" UserId="8521" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like eachother).&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="278a5184-35a1-4867-a76e-8f24d348a6d1" CreationDate="2015-11-05T21:22:09.073" UserId="8521" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like eachother).&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Isn't the uncertainty principles just a technological limitation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24068/isnt-the-uncertainty-principle-just-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current)&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="fce64e65-f2d7-42fb-b8ef-9f34fcf1ef50" CreationDate="2015-11-06T13:18:23.293" UserId="8563" Comment="Added link to edit suggestion &amp; review page." Text="[This suggested edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/104598) erased the first line in [my answer][1] and replaced it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*I think that gravity has an effect on any particle in our universe. Even the photons are attracted by the back holes (despite the fact that some physicists consider photons as having no mass !)* But in quantic physics, particles may adopt one these two behaviours: being &quot;real objects&quot; i.e with a mass or being a wave! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the mass ? Does the mass really exist ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit suggested by anonymous user. It was approved by one reviewer and I just managed to catch it and reject it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are anonymous users allowed to mess up things? At least if an anonymous user does the editing the person who wrote the entry should be primarily responsible for approval or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking, a feature request,   for a veto from the original person who wrote the question/answer that was edited by an anonymous user, as in this case already there was an approval! It would have made the answer really stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit in response to comment by  @user36790.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Rolling back is an option that corrects things, **IF** the original author reads the site often. We have many good answers by very good physicists who have stopped looking in everyday or even month and some not at all. A  distortion of their answers might go unnoticed and get approval by ignoramuses  and destroy the integrity of the site. Moderators cannot be reading everything as postings go through first page very fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="2e15f605-8373-4f17-a267-ea1b08372941" CreationDate="2015-11-06T13:38:41.140" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor edit fix (two words merged)" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like each other).&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Isn't the uncertainty principles just a technological limitation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24068/isnt-the-uncertainty-principle-just-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current)&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="2e15f605-8373-4f17-a267-ea1b08372941" CreationDate="2015-11-06T13:38:41.140" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor edit fix (two words merged)" Text="|discussion|questions|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="25024715-f1dc-47b8-be2a-2bb0390fb6e2" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:23:30.193" UserId="8563" Text="Single cases and anectodal evidence are tricky bases to work with here. We notice the ugly suggested edits, but who's to say that there isn't a large body of reasonable suggested edits by drive-by anonymous users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sort this out, I've written two SEDE queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Suggested edits by anonymous users**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386363/suggested-edits-by-anonymous-users), and&#xD;&#xA; - [**Suggested edits by registered users**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386364/suggested-edits-by-registered-users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious observation is that anonymous edits do have a much higher rejection rate than edit suggestions from registered users - 56% approved for anonymous suggestions vs. 87% for registered users, over the latest 500 edits of each. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are also much less common: as [Frequency of anonymous suggested edits](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386316/frequency-of-anonymous-suggested-edits?NumberOfEdits=5000#graph) shows, about one every 10 suggested edits in the entire site history is an anonymous suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that overall this is an acceptable state of affairs, and that the ~45% of bad apples in the anonymous-suggestions apple cart is well handled by the combination of a review queue and a notification for the OP. The thing to do is for people to dig into the actual edit suggestions by anonymous users and form an opinion on whether they're generally salvageable or mostly just rubbish that occasionally passes the bar, and whether there are hidden gems in there that make the whole pile worth it. (I'll leave that bit to others - writing SQL is more fun than looking at a hundred edit reviews.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's make this decision based on the actual overall quality of the edit submissions we get, rather than anecdotal impressions from a few ugly ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="1f925ce0-6225-40ea-8d80-958b658113ff" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:29:39.847" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1020 characters in body" Text="Single cases and anectodal evidence are tricky bases to work with here. We notice the ugly suggested edits, but who's to say that there isn't a large body of reasonable suggested edits by drive-by anonymous users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sort this out, I've written two SEDE queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Suggested edits by anonymous users**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386363/suggested-edits-by-anonymous-users), and&#xD;&#xA; - [**Suggested edits by registered users**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386364/suggested-edits-by-registered-users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious observation is that anonymous edits do have a much higher rejection rate than edit suggestions from registered users - 56% approved for anonymous suggestions vs. 87% for registered users, over the latest 500 edits of each. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are also much less common: as [Frequency of anonymous suggested edits](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386316/frequency-of-anonymous-suggested-edits?NumberOfEdits=5000#graph) shows, about one every 10 suggested edits in the entire site history is an anonymous suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that overall this is an acceptable state of affairs, and that the ~45% of bad apples in the anonymous-suggestions apple cart is well handled by the combination of a review queue and a notification for the OP. The thing to do is for people to dig into the actual edit suggestions by anonymous users and form an opinion on whether they're generally salvageable or mostly just rubbish that occasionally passes the bar, and whether there are hidden gems in there that make the whole pile worth it. (I'll leave that bit to others - writing SQL is more fun than looking at a hundred edit reviews.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will also note that in [this particular case](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/104598) the problem is not the fact that the suggested edit was bad, but that the review was bad: this was one bad edit that might have got through the review queue when it shouldn't. (It's speculation whether someone else would've let it through had anna not intervened. I tend to think it wouldn't, with other reviewers stepping in and the review queue working like it should, but it's a moot question now.) This particular bad edit happened to come from an anonymous user, but I think it's a red herring unless one can rule out the existence of similar bad-edits-that-slipped-the-net from registered users. Unfortunately those are really hard to find, and getting reliable statistics will be even harder. However, I don't see why the review queue should function less well for anonymous suggestions than for registered-user ones - if anything, the anonymous source ought to make reviewers more wary of the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make this decision based on the actual overall quality of the edit submissions we get, rather than anecdotal impressions from a few ugly ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="40812acc-1530-40b9-8102-7589f9f8ecfb" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:37:04.127" UserId="8563" Comment="Added link to review." Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) [completed the review cycle with the following votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/104087):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="1dc1ca98-9dd1-4ba4-943f-c3a187f8134c" CreationDate="2015-11-06T16:54:38.570" UserId="8521" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like each other).&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114990/is-it-possible-that-galaxies-redshift-is-caused-by-something-else-than-the-expa&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38779/why-the-red-shift-of-distant-galaxies-is-considered-to-be-the-effect-of-expandin&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108609/how-does-measuring-redshift-make-us-conclude-that-rate-universe-expansion-is-acc&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Isn't the uncertainty principles just a technological limitation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24068/isnt-the-uncertainty-principle-just-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current)&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19603" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="1dc1ca98-9dd1-4ba4-943f-c3a187f8134c" CreationDate="2015-11-06T16:54:38.570" UserId="8521" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="Standard answers to &quot;why can't ____ be explained by ____ instead?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="f861e451-5e3c-445e-8951-cc023289a90d" CreationDate="2015-11-06T20:07:01.573" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) [completed the review cycle with the following votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/104087) listed chronologically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="45ace55a-2920-4794-8f7c-64e4b587d188" CreationDate="2015-11-07T14:33:03.480" UserId="90882" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in PSE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/566/is-the-precautionary-closing-of-immature-questions-so-very-necessary&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="45ace55a-2920-4794-8f7c-64e4b587d188" CreationDate="2015-11-07T14:33:03.480" UserId="90882" Text="Why is PSE so restrictive in the Q&amp;A it is willing to accept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="45ace55a-2920-4794-8f7c-64e4b587d188" CreationDate="2015-11-07T14:33:03.480" UserId="90882" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="d977f80f-611a-43d7-845d-ce6c6d03b848" CreationDate="2015-11-07T14:43:42.707" UserId="520" Text="For the same reason we weren't a homework help site before Physics Overflow was a thing: *because we don't want to be that kind of site*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of this site have debated the places that introductory exercises have in this site repeatedly since anna v's question that you link and the current policy is the outcome of those debates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the more prominent instances of that debate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="229cfe8f-8b8f-4d48-a6d1-c65900386c6f" CreationDate="2015-11-07T14:46:05.673" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in PSE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="229cfe8f-8b8f-4d48-a6d1-c65900386c6f" CreationDate="2015-11-07T14:46:05.673" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="e986a047-f92b-49ff-883b-84c297bc9e23" CreationDate="2015-11-07T15:11:39.267" UserId="520" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="For the same reason we weren't a homework help site before Physics Overflow was a thing: *because we don't want to be that kind of site*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of this site have debated the places that introductory exercises have in this site repeatedly since anna v's question that you link and the current policy is the outcome of those debates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the more prominent instances of that debate (in most-recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="e1922236-4721-441a-8e17-711ab305513c" CreationDate="2015-11-07T15:36:28.593" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Why is PSE so restrictive in the Q&amp;A it is willing to accept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like dmckee said, Physics Stack Exchange doesn't want to be a homework help site. Such questions tend to drown out the other stuff and turn the site into the sort of place where non-students don't want to post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in PSE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite apart from the homework thing, there are some separate issues here. IMHO there are some &quot;naysayer trolls&quot; who don't seem to contribute much at all. They just hang around sniping and doling out close votes and downvotes. I try to lean on guys like dmckee to do more about it, but it's not always easy to get the balance right, especially when you believe in free speech in science. Personally I don't think votes should be anonymous, and I don't think posters should be anonymous either. But it's not my call.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on limiting their number than eliminating them all together, which is what here seems to be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe they should be politely relocated a Physics Homework-help Stack Exchange site or something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there's much censoring going on here. Unfortunately the question anna v referred to has been _removed from Physics Stack Exchange for reasons of moderation_. But there's not a lot that gets deleted. I've seen nastiness deleted, but not much physics getting deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmmmn. I'd say one of the problems here is that questions have been answered really badly, and the guy who gave the bad answer is very quick to claim that some other question is a duplicate that's already been answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This relates to the question by Anna V. Is the precautionary closing of immature questions so very necessary? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say not. I share anna v's view on this.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't know, I've only been around for about 7 months. But I've noticed that there are some professional physicists who don't post here any more. Maybe because of the homework, maybe because of the naysayers. I don't know. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="e578aaa3-d16b-441b-9111-017de02ba6bf" CreationDate="2015-11-07T15:39:53.137" UserId="90882" Comment="added 442 characters in body" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in PSE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the overwhelming policing:  This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was &quot;protected&quot; to avoid spam, &quot;me too&quot; or &quot;thanks&quot;kind of answers. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217126/feynman-diagram-for-attractive-forces/217154#217154 You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="a1616add-6d32-4b00-9bbb-883f2d3e60f5" CreationDate="2015-11-07T15:45:16.737" UserId="2451" Comment="PSE -&gt; Phys.SE" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the overwhelming policing:  This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was &quot;protected&quot; to avoid spam, &quot;me too&quot; or &quot;thanks&quot;kind of answers. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/ You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19615" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="a1616add-6d32-4b00-9bbb-883f2d3e60f5" CreationDate="2015-11-07T15:45:16.737" UserId="2451" Comment="PSE -&gt; Phys.SE" Text="Why is Phys.SE so restrictive in the Q&amp;A it is willing to accept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7206" RevisionGUID="7f954af9-05c5-4236-9d05-9c166e6cc539" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:36:44.717" UserId="52028" Text="Let us suppose that a user of this site receives an answer to a question of his or hers, but (s)he cannot understand some passages in the proof and, after asking the answerer for clarifications, either the answerer refuses to explain the passages or does not answer after a reasonably long time - say two weeks, for example - has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is appropriated in such a case to do in order to ask for clarifications? Let us notice that clarifications could benefit not only the asker, but also other people reading the site and having the same difficulties, or even lead to the correction of errors that might well exist in a human made proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be allowed to post a separate question containing only the passages that have not been understood? If it would, how should one word a question asking for such clarifications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, does an official Stack Exchange policy exists or can the rules change from a site to another?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologise if this question already existed, but, after searching some keywords, I cannot find an answer to this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7206" RevisionGUID="7f954af9-05c5-4236-9d05-9c166e6cc539" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:36:44.717" UserId="52028" Text="Asking to clarify an answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7206" RevisionGUID="7f954af9-05c5-4236-9d05-9c166e6cc539" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:36:44.717" UserId="52028" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7207" RevisionGUID="8b7b4aca-b0aa-4c2a-83fb-24e3b51a5f73" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:55:38.077" UserId="31790" Text="1. Make a comment asking for clarifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you don't get what you want, try advertising your question in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If that doesn't work, put up a bounty. That's what they're for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If you don't want to put up a bounty because you don't have enough rep, then that's the rep system doing it's job. You haven't done enough on the site for the site to trust you're judgement about what questions deserve more attention. Go earn more reputation by answering questions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="0b13fc4a-a37c-4b0b-8827-a9ec33eea474" CreationDate="2015-11-07T21:16:22.497" UserId="8521" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  **Here are some of the common issues and best responses (*in my opinion*)**.  I hope that this question will open discussions about what other common duplicate questions are, and what the best answers are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like each other).&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114990/is-it-possible-that-galaxies-redshift-is-caused-by-something-else-than-the-expa&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38779/why-the-red-shift-of-distant-galaxies-is-considered-to-be-the-effect-of-expandin&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108609/how-does-measuring-redshift-make-us-conclude-that-rate-universe-expansion-is-acc&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Isn't the uncertainty principles just a technological limitation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24068/isnt-the-uncertainty-principle-just-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current)&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="813c9d69-b29f-4426-9baf-d154414139c3" CreationDate="2015-11-08T19:15:12.930" UserId="24774" Text="I would love to see this kind of website evolve into a new place where research may be published and reviewed. Voters and answerers would be the referees, and their *reputation* may indicate the strength of their votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="5ce13f95-4538-42d1-b5c2-f70ce9a33304" CreationDate="2015-11-08T20:56:23.267" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="After a clarifying discussion I see that my downvote was not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to wait until the post is edited and then upvote or is there another possibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="5ce13f95-4538-42d1-b5c2-f70ce9a33304" CreationDate="2015-11-08T20:56:23.267" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|editing|down-votes|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19626" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="5abda1bb-dd0d-4c1b-8318-4e3e6d82ec25" CreationDate="2015-11-09T09:07:14.280" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6060],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="19627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="a50aa5f8-ca11-42ff-8bc3-c7db072c0545" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:58:11.480" UserId="26969" Text="I saw [a question about the smallest effect of gravity ever measured](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/26969), and posted what I believed to be an interesting answer about the forces in an AFM. When I came back a few hours later, I saw that my answer got a single down-vote, and zero up-votes. Further, some other answers had appeared. Based on the comments that had also appeared (to the question and other answers), I realized that the OP was asking for something altogether different, and deleted my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, it bothered me that existing questions were not quite getting the point.  So the following day I wrote a completely new answer. Not a minor edit of the previously deleted one - it was as though I was answering a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me a comment from QMechanic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the future, please edit a downvoted answer rather than deleting and adding a second answer. It may be seen as gaming the reputation system to avoid a downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the point of up/downvotes was to separate the wheat from the chaff. I had clearly misinterpreted the intention of the OP, so I deleted the irrelevant answer. Good riddance. Then I set about writing a better one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to hear others' opinions: does one need to keep a bad answer around? Should you delete the entire body of your answer and write the new one &quot;in place of the old one&quot;? Or is what I did OK - just rip up the old one and start again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider this &quot;gaming the system&quot;? I hope I don't sound like I'm whining - I just wanted to calibrate myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 1, 20:19 - posted original answer&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 2,  1:41 - deleted answer&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 3,  2:38 - posted new answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're interested, here is the [link to the deleted answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/216017/26969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="a50aa5f8-ca11-42ff-8bc3-c7db072c0545" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:58:11.480" UserId="26969" Text="Deleting an answer and posting another one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="a50aa5f8-ca11-42ff-8bc3-c7db072c0545" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:58:11.480" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="d8749a1e-4383-4ede-bf08-45c0f1ab6ca6" CreationDate="2015-11-09T22:12:07.600" UserId="50583" Text="I see nothing wrong with deleting an answer and posting another one that is completely unrelated to it. I mean, one can even post multiple answers to the same question if they are unrelated, so deleting one and posting a different approach is not inherently seen as bad by the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you delete an answer and only post a fleshed out version of it anew, I'd say that's questionable, but if your new answer really hasn't much to do with the one you deleted - as I'd argue is the case here - I don't think it should be considered &quot;gaming the system&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="d7f5cb0f-84ca-4e46-b417-26a1c0cc7b2d" CreationDate="2015-11-09T23:38:03.220" UserId="2451" Text="Generally speaking, there might be cases, where it is difficult to decide whether a new answer should be considered related or unrelated. Therefore, to keep the system simple and robust, it is better to not distinguish between related or unrelated answers. Which bring us to the main rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the rule is, that one should edit posts rather than deleting and creating a second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the chronology is here important. If one has different/unrelated answers, it is allowed to post multiple answers. What is frown upon, is if one first deletes a down-voted answer, only to later post a new answer, be it related or unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="812a184c-75a6-42a4-adbd-1653be3e6912" CreationDate="2015-11-10T00:07:24.827" UserId="2451" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Generally speaking, there might be cases, where it is difficult to decide whether a new answer should be considered related or unrelated. Therefore, to keep the system simple and robust, it is better to not distinguish between related or unrelated answers. Which brings us to the main rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the rule is, that one should edit an answer rather than deleting and creating a second answer in the same thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the chronology plays a role here. It is allowed to post multiple different/unrelated answers. What is frown upon, is, if one first deletes a downvoted answer, only to later post a new answer, be it related or unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="10ff0bf1-e96f-4ab0-bd4a-0fb2874ec943" CreationDate="2015-11-10T05:10:34.737" UserId="1492" Text="[This question][1] is not a duplicate of the one quoted , and further more, the one quoted is also called a duplicate . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose as the data base increases this nesting of duplicates will increase, and some thought should be given before assigning duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question under discussion is not talking about &quot;touching&quot; but about the infinity coming from the 1/r  electromagnetic potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will flag it for opening because it is a bad picture of the site, sending readers on a random walk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217432/why-can-protons-collide/217454?noredirect=1#comment468221_217454" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="10ff0bf1-e96f-4ab0-bd4a-0fb2874ec943" CreationDate="2015-11-10T05:10:34.737" UserId="1492" Text="wrong duplicate assignement, and nested duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="10ff0bf1-e96f-4ab0-bd4a-0fb2874ec943" CreationDate="2015-11-10T05:10:34.737" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a3535562-69b1-4fc3-9e2a-ecece593c3a9" CreationDate="2015-11-10T05:20:38.380" UserId="124" Text="I think you have a point. Though I'd say your last line (&quot;...because it is a bad picture of the site, sending readers on a random walk&quot;) is hyperbolic - in the language sense, not the math sense, of course. I don't feel so strongly about it, and in particular not strongly enough to override the community votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do believe the question would be improved if it were edited to explicitly identify apparent duplicates and explain why it's not already covered by them. This is, of course, always recommended any time you think a question has been wrongly marked as a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="0beaa47b-437f-4be4-a9b2-d1f1822f1f20" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:22:31.473" UserId="8563" Text="I just saw [this post](http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/should-we-ask-for-tag-warnings) on the Mathematica SE meta, referencing [this one](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/14237) on Ask Ubuntu, with a new feature SE is trialling in SO. These are &quot;tag warnings&quot;, which are meant to alert users about things they should be doing in the course of adding tags to their question. Here is a relevant screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tag warning example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AZhJW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes with a warning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, **note that this feature is still experimental**, so we don't know how well it performs, if at all (and **we might eventually remove it**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they could still be useful, and we could volunteer to field-test it in a non-code SE site. Off the top of my head, this could be a good place for the ugly caps in the [tag:mathematics] and [tag:mathematical-physics] tags, which have a steady stream of people that ignore them. It could also be a good place for a gentle nudge towards our homework-and-exercises meta page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something we should ask for? Or is it too much trouble? If we do want it, what tags need it and what messages should go with them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="0beaa47b-437f-4be4-a9b2-d1f1822f1f20" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:22:31.473" UserId="8563" Text="Should we ask for tag warnings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="0beaa47b-437f-4be4-a9b2-d1f1822f1f20" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:22:31.473" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="7546e867-66e5-4e23-8180-86e0533621b4" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:41:30.187" UserId="8563" Text="I have never understood nested duplicates. I agree with Anna that it sends a pretty bad picture of the site, and it is completely unnecessary. When voting to close a question A, it is perfectly clear that the proposed duplicate (call it B) is itself a duplicate (of, say, C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Efhxw.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few situations that could cause this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - C contains answers that answer the concerns in A. The correct course of action is to mark A as a duplicate of C, directly.&#xD;&#xA; - B contains answers that address the concerns in A, and the answers to C don't, but those concerns are indeed in the question in C. B and C should probably be merged - this is done by moderator action through a flag.&#xD;&#xA; - B contains answers that address the concerns in A, and those concerns are not relevant to the question in C. B and C are likely to not actually be duplicates, so B should be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no situation where it's advantageous to have a chain of duplicates. Moreover, doing that deprives C of having A on its `Linked` sidebar, which makes it harder to gauge its importance as a frequently-duplicated question. If the intent is to make B known to the readers of A, it is still in the `Linked` sidebar of C and one can still drop a 'Related: ...' comment on A if really necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, I don't get nested duplicates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="3d818583-c33a-4837-a20b-a613cc5c340b" CreationDate="2015-11-10T13:52:28.317" UserId="1325" Text="On the broader question of duplicates of duplicates, I have occasionally VTC'd a question as a duplicate of a question that was already closed as a duplicate. I've done this when I thought both previous questions added value because they and their answers had different emphases. By voting this way I am recommending the OP will gain value from reading both previous questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see anything wrong with doing this. The argument that it looks bad strikes me as irrelevant. This is a site for professional physicists, where by *professional* I mean people who know some physics and are willing to work to learn more. Despite the recent upsurge in questions from well intentioned non-physicsts it is the members who are (and I quote from the tour) *active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy* that my activities here are aimed at. Such people won't have any problem following a duplicate chain and indeed might find it entertaining reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To dispose of the specific case Anna raises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217432/why-can-protons-collide **is** a duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93600/do-particles-ever-touch-each-other-during-a-collision and closing it as a duplicate **is** justified. However http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93600/do-particles-ever-touch-each-other-during-a-collision **is not** a duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23797/what-does-it-mean-for-two-objects-to-touch - I note I made a comment saying as much at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appropriate resolution of this is to leave http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217432/why-can-protons-collide closed, then reopen http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93600/do-particles-ever-touch-each-other-during-a-collision and add an answer explaining what physicists mean by scattering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="e840a501-6633-4386-8eef-778bf99720b2" CreationDate="2015-11-10T18:33:50.360" UserId="27489" Text="While Fabrication (usually referring to MEMS/NEMS technology) is a fundamental part of physics, somehow I feel the physics stack isn't the place for it. The physics stack seems most suitable for discussions pertaining to theoretical and experimental results, and posting a question about fabrication techniques seems slightly out of place to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think? Is the physics stack a good place for discussing how to fabricate MEMS/NEMS devices or should this be placed in engineering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="e840a501-6633-4386-8eef-778bf99720b2" CreationDate="2015-11-10T18:33:50.360" UserId="27489" Text="Fabrication Discussion - Is Physics the place for it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="e840a501-6633-4386-8eef-778bf99720b2" CreationDate="2015-11-10T18:33:50.360" UserId="27489" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="6ddcdf12-0bc1-4a61-8b68-12b15a8db9e9" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:41:47.333" UserId="520" Text="As with any other equipment-related questions they could be on- or off-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably on-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the underlying physics of how they work&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to their direct application at experimental equipment.&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the construction, characterization, calibration and tuning of one-of-a-kind experimental versions.&#xD;&#xA;* Other cases where a solution is unlikely to come from anyone other than a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably off-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question pertains to engineering of these system in general.&#xD;&#xA;* The question is related to COTS units applied outside of an experimental setting.&#xD;&#xA;* The question concerns hypothetical impacts of society.&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of other cases where there is no obvious reason that a physicist should be involved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References (most recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental Physics &amp; Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [What is engineering and what is experimental design?][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?][3] Note: [tag:faq].&#xD;&#xA;* [Should “How do I solve this experimental problem?” questions be on-topic][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6135/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5553/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="d633135a-d528-44db-a014-dcfcc18f3292" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:43:30.967" UserId="2451" Comment="added 115 characters in body; edited tags" Text="While Fabrication (usually referring to MEMS/NEMS&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; technology) is a fundamental part of physics, somehow I feel the physics stack isn't the place for it. The physics stack seems most suitable for discussions pertaining to theoretical and experimental results, and posting a question about fabrication techniques seems slightly out of place to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think? Is the physics stack a good place for discussing how to fabricate MEMS/NEMS devices or should this be placed in engineering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; MEMS = Micro-ElectroMechanical System and NEMS  = Nano-ElectroMechanical System." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19647" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="d633135a-d528-44db-a014-dcfcc18f3292" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:43:30.967" UserId="2451" Comment="added 115 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="e1eee70e-1165-4cd9-91c3-8f1b54d17e60" CreationDate="2015-11-11T02:48:16.917" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="While Fabrication (usually referring to MEMS/NEMS&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; technology) is a fundamental part of physics, somehow I feel the physics stack isn't the place for it. The physics stack seems most suitable for discussions pertaining to theoretical and experimental results, and posting a question about fabrication techniques seems slightly out of place to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think? Is the physics stack a good place for discussing how to fabricate MEMS/NEMS devices or should this be placed in engineering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; MEMS = Micro-ElectroMechanical System and NEMS  = Nano-ElectroMechanical System." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19649" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="b98b7a2d-43db-4769-b201-30c3ee70a2a7" CreationDate="2015-11-11T18:40:29.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/664513039996207104" />
  <row Id="19650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="c1b6fd78-c20d-4625-bed9-9504fe27b789" CreationDate="2015-11-11T19:39:15.840" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil" Text="As with any other equipment-related questions they could be on- or off-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably on-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the underlying physics of how they work&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to their direct application as experimental equipment.&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the construction, characterization, calibration and tuning of one-of-a-kind experimental versions.&#xD;&#xA;* Other cases where a solution is unlikely to come from anyone other than a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably off-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question pertains to engineering of these system in general.&#xD;&#xA;* The question is related to COTS units applied outside of an experimental setting.&#xD;&#xA;* The question concerns hypothetical impacts on society.&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of other cases where there is no obvious reason that a physicist should be involved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References (most recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental Physics &amp; Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [What is engineering and what is experimental design?][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?][3] Note: [tag:faq].&#xD;&#xA;* [Should “How do I solve this experimental problem?” questions be on-topic][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6135/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5553/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="f77aab5a-310d-4dea-8037-8a2a5afb228c" CreationDate="2015-11-12T19:16:12.997" UserId="83835" Text="The question basically says it all. I am in the midst of writing a thermodynamics textbook, and there is a question I would like to answer that could be answered by pretty much just copying and pasting the relevant sections of the book. Is this a bad idea? Is it considered copyright infringement if I post here *first* and then later on include the same text in the published book? If it's not a problem, would I need to include copyright information in the book that references my answer and Physics.SE and such?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="f77aab5a-310d-4dea-8037-8a2a5afb228c" CreationDate="2015-11-12T19:16:12.997" UserId="83835" Text="How does copyright here work if I include some of my own posts basically verbatim in a textbook that will be published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="f77aab5a-310d-4dea-8037-8a2a5afb228c" CreationDate="2015-11-12T19:16:12.997" UserId="83835" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7220" RevisionGUID="2fa8db08-50d0-4320-bd7e-b8207d3189ab" CreationDate="2015-11-12T20:09:57.677" UserId="124" Text="First, the obligatory disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. For a commercial project like a textbook (well, if you're planning to sell it), you should probably get a real legal opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I think this is a pretty clear case under US law: with one possible exception that I can think of, posting something here has no effect on your ability to put that same content in a textbook you write, or to syndicate it to a blog, post it on social media, or so on. This is because, when you post content on a Stack Exchange site, you retain ownership of the copyright on that content, and the license you grant to SE to distribute it is _nonexclusive_. As the copyright owner, you can continue to copy, distribute, transform, etc. that content in absolutely any way you want. You can also give other people permission to do the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that SE receives the content under a particular Creative Commons license is ultimately irrelevant. That only affects what Stack Exchange is allowed to do with your content, and what people who get your content from Stack Exchange can do with it. It doesn't affect what _you_, as the copyright owner, can do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one exception I mentioned is this: _if_ you are using a commercial publisher for your textbook, they _may_ require that the content you submit to them has not been distributed elsewhere, and they _may_ additionally require that you grant them an exclusive license to distribute that content. Exclusive, of course, means that they will be the only ones allowed to redistribute it. If you have already submitted the content to Stack Exchange, then obviously it _has_ been distributed, and you can't give your publisher an exclusive license to distribute it. So you will have to either negotiate some different terms with them, or find a different publisher. And if you submit content to your publisher and give them an exclusive license to distribute it, you can certainly no longer submit it to SE - at least not as a verbatim copy. (Unless it falls under the fair use exception, which could get complicated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this exception is all just stuff that your publisher might include in the legal agreements you sign with them. It's not part of copyright law itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="0c840326-51c1-42b5-b7cc-7af844f19b57" CreationDate="2015-11-12T21:29:47.007" UserId="46774" Text="I recently answered -[How much forward force is exerted by an idling automatic car](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217756/how-much-forward-force-is-exerted-by-an-idling-automatic-car/217990?noredirect=1#comment469162_217990)- but it was closed as too broad.  I dont particularly care either way, and I respect the moderators judgment, but its closure confused me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is a general question, broad because it does not specify the type of car, engine, transmission, etc. required to arrive at a precise value.  But, **in my opinion, lack of specificity does not invalidate the intent of the physical question asked**.  It is possible to demonstrate the physics involved; applying reasonable assumptions, a useful answer is possible.  Even fully specified, an exact answer is not possible (without extensive experimental data) or required to provide a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many broad, useful questions without exact answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example - [Is it (practically) possible for a large building to be a Faraday cage?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215809/is-it-practically-possible-for-a-large-building-to-be-a-faraday-cage): Dimensions, materials, and signal strengths are not specified (needed to determine the effective strength).  The physical concept is discussed in relative terms, yet this is undoubtedly a useful answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physical concepts and practical assumptions often provide useful answers to questions that lack specificity.  Unless explicitly stated, we assume collisions act on the centers of mass, etc.  Concepts and approximations are often more useful than mathematical proofs.  How are these factors considered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When are questions considered broad enough to be closed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="0c840326-51c1-42b5-b7cc-7af844f19b57" CreationDate="2015-11-12T21:29:47.007" UserId="46774" Text="What makes a question too broad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="0c840326-51c1-42b5-b7cc-7af844f19b57" CreationDate="2015-11-12T21:29:47.007" UserId="46774" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="9345af3a-35c8-4329-92b2-567365b420af" CreationDate="2015-11-12T22:13:20.217" UserId="25301" Text="I tend to use the too broad close vote for one of three reasons:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the answer would need to cover a lot of ground &amp; be rather lengthy (e.g., &quot;a book chapter&quot; long) &#xD;&#xA;2. there is too little information in the post to give a meaningful answer&#xD;&#xA;3. the post is looking for a list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I thought there to be not enough information (the answer depends on car type, car size, engine size &amp; power, road conditions, and so on down the line) and voted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note here, probably simply as an aside, that answers do *not* make a question on topic. So when we vote, we're looking at the content of the question itself and judging on that alone. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, in my opinion, lack of specificity does not invalidate the intent of the physical question asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I think your statement here could be used as the basis for eliminating the *too broad* close reason altogether. Think about it: if someone can fill in values for missing parameters with &quot;whatever sounds reasonable,&quot; then why bother saying that someone needs to narrow their question down? Someone could just &quot;fill in the blanks.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so I reject this notion entirely. A requirement of a minimum level of specificity is absolutely needed to ensure a quality answer to a quality question (though I imagine that minimum level is *probably* subjective, but that's why we require 5 reviewers). I don't think that was the case for this particular question (though it could probably be improved &amp; reopened), and it seems that I was [**agreeing with 4 other people &amp; disagreeing with 1 person**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/105586)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="2261054e-77b7-4641-8328-ffd9ca1bbe95" CreationDate="2015-11-13T09:35:17.610" UserId="81048" Text="I recently proposed Science Educators, a site where teachers and tutors of any field of science (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) can ask questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided to join forces with all sciences since Mathematics Educators is not getting sufficient traffic, therefore I considered it unlikely that any of the sites could get launched an Educators site on there own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you are interested, please follow the proposal, and create and vote for example questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=MuGFDueEC-U1&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/92559.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Science Educators&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="2261054e-77b7-4641-8328-ffd9ca1bbe95" CreationDate="2015-11-13T09:35:17.610" UserId="81048" Text="Area 51 proposal: Science Educators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="2261054e-77b7-4641-8328-ffd9ca1bbe95" CreationDate="2015-11-13T09:35:17.610" UserId="81048" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="8185825b-7b56-45f5-87e7-df0e236f0abf" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:20:35.627" UserId="89965" Text="I was reading the questions on RECENTLY ACTIVE tab which I don't often do (I usually look up the newest questions tab) and found this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I had viewed the question just a few minutes before that and after this so-called modification by the Community, I re-viewed the question and found it exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;This is the second time I am seeing this and that is why I want to know what is this modification done by the Community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just to bring an old question into the recently active part or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aCmtt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="8185825b-7b56-45f5-87e7-df0e236f0abf" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:20:35.627" UserId="89965" Text="Modification by Community to question in Recently active tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="8185825b-7b56-45f5-87e7-df0e236f0abf" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:20:35.627" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7225" RevisionGUID="a20ee84d-3099-4e94-b08d-b326a1e52f90" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:31:22.613" UserId="50583" Text="Yes, exactly, this is an automatized bump of old unanswered questions. The relevant conditions for this to happen are [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/48578/263383) on meta.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="9f04aa83-2d7e-4058-8da9-910d05693d4a" CreationDate="2015-11-13T17:16:42.097" UserId="46399" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was reading the questions on the _Recently Active_ tab which I don't often do (I usually look up the newest questions tab) and found this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I had viewed the question just a few minutes before that and after this so-called modification by the Community, I re-viewed the question and found it exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;This is the second time I am seeing this and that is why I want to know what is this modification done by the Community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just to bring an old question into the recently active part or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aCmtt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="9f04aa83-2d7e-4058-8da9-910d05693d4a" CreationDate="2015-11-13T17:16:42.097" UserId="46399" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|community-user|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="db3f9ec4-80d3-42f9-b3b9-cd457ae9651e" CreationDate="2015-11-13T19:50:15.420" UserId="8563" Text="In an overwhelming majority of cases, this is the bump on old unanswered questions that ACuriousMind describes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, though, this can represent actual alterations. This includes edits suggested by anonymous visitors, which are then [owned by the Community user](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). As a quick way to tell the difference, look on the upper right-hand corner of the page, for the metrics bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Asked   9 Months Ago&#xD;&#xA;    Viewed  116 Times&#xD;&#xA;    Active  Today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Today` (or some date) is a hyperlink that will take you to the most recent activity on the thread. If it's a community-user bump, it will send you to the top of the page. If it's an actual edit it will take you there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="8e79a1a5-4640-4684-83a2-0a72e941afa1" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:15:02.070" UserId="89965" Text="Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted? This is in relation to this [question of mine][1] where there is only one and that too downvoted answer..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205877/explanation-of-supplees-paradox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="8e79a1a5-4640-4684-83a2-0a72e941afa1" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:15:02.070" UserId="89965" Text="Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="8e79a1a5-4640-4684-83a2-0a72e941afa1" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:15:02.070" UserId="89965" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="13b932db-29fa-4621-9209-7898d669203a" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:33:48.573" UserId="50583" Text="You never have to award a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you choose not to manually award a bounty, it may be automatically awarded to an answer, but not if that answer is downvoted. From the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you do not award your bounty within 7 days (plus the grace period), the highest voted answer created after the bounty started with a minimum score of 2 will be awarded half the bounty amount. If two or more eligible answers have the same score (i.e., their scores are tied), the oldest answer is awarded the bounty. If there's no answer meeting those criteria, the bounty is not awarded to anyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, the bounty will not be automatically awarded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="4d88a7ed-906e-4b16-af42-e13b099e9080" CreationDate="2015-11-14T19:45:54.430" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted? This is in relation to this [question of mine][1] where there is only one and that too downvoted answer..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/205877/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="4d88a7ed-906e-4b16-af42-e13b099e9080" CreationDate="2015-11-14T19:45:54.430" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="2d73dfd5-b16b-42e3-82c9-a2bfb4240c5b" CreationDate="2015-11-15T00:45:55.987" UserId="8521" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  **Here are some of the common issues and best responses (*in my opinion*)**.  I hope that this question will open discussions about what other common duplicate questions are, and what the best answers are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like each other).&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114990/is-it-possible-that-galaxies-redshift-is-caused-by-something-else-than-the-expa&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38779/why-the-red-shift-of-distant-galaxies-is-considered-to-be-the-effect-of-expandin&#xD;&#xA;    + http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108609/how-does-measuring-redshift-make-us-conclude-that-rate-universe-expansion-is-acc&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/does-mond-make-good-predictions&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123661/do-alternate-theories-for-dark-matter-like-mond-explain-its-effect-on-gravitat&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Isn't the uncertainty principles just a technological limitation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24068/isnt-the-uncertainty-principle-just-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current)&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="9f3ee62e-43a9-41ed-b81f-984ead5a75a7" CreationDate="2015-11-15T08:31:04.490" UserId="41634" Comment="added 1048 characters in body; edited title" Text="Thank you for your attempt to edit my post better, and I appreciate every edit you make. However please keep in mind that I intentionally use *lagrangian*, not *Lagrangian*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that *Lagrangian* is widely accepted and if I write it differently, you will find something not right, and you have the itch to fix it. When you read the words, you are not spelling every character it has, but recognize it as a whole gesture. By remember the whole gesture, your speed of reading will be enhanced, therefore your brain saves the energy for other task, such as truly understanding the text. That's why misspelling words are irritated because it interrupts your reading flows. Seeing it lowercased while you expecting it uppercased makes you feel the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have my own rationale. *Google* is a company name, a proper noun, but *google* is a verb; *Fermi* is a person name, a proper noun, but *fermion* is a noun. I think writing *lagrangian* in lowercase is not wrong; In his book, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integral, Feynmann also wrote *lagrangian* in lowercase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, nor I'm absolutely right. There is no wrong or right in languages, just majority and minority. Therefore I don't mind if I see *Lagrangian*. However, please let me write it in the way I feel right. Thank you for your understanding and sorry if this makes any inconvenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if you downvote this. I preset this line so that every time I foresee that someone will uppercase *lagrangian*, *hamiltonian*, etc, then all I need is just copy this line in my post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;sub&gt;[I intentionally write *lagrangian* in lowercase](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6257/41634)&lt;/sub&gt;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19679" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="9f3ee62e-43a9-41ed-b81f-984ead5a75a7" CreationDate="2015-11-15T08:31:04.490" UserId="41634" Comment="added 1048 characters in body; edited title" Text="Thanks to let me write &quot;lagrangian&quot; in lowercase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="8b519f5d-5e5e-473e-9593-594121f98b0c" CreationDate="2015-11-15T09:03:21.307" UserId="41634" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Thank you for your attempt to edit my post better, and I appreciate every edit you make. However please keep in mind that I intentionally use *lagrangian*, not *Lagrangian*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that *Lagrangian* is widely accepted and if I write it differently, you will find something not right, and you have the itch to fix it. When you read the words, you are not spelling every character it has, but recognizing it as a whole gesture. By remember the whole gesture, your speed of reading will be enhanced, therefore your brain saves the energy for other task, such as truly understanding the text. That's why misspelling words are irritated because it interrupts your reading flows. Seeing it lowercased while you expecting it uppercased makes you feel the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have my own rationale. *Google* is a company name, a proper noun, but *google* is a verb; *Fermi* is a person name, a proper noun, but *fermion* is a noun. I think writing *lagrangian* in lowercase is not wrong; In his book, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integral, Feynmann also wrote *lagrangian* in lowercase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, nor I'm absolutely right. There is no wrong or right in languages, just majority and minority. Therefore I don't mind if I see *Lagrangian*. However, please let me write it in the way I feel right. Thank you for your understanding and sorry if this makes any inconvenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if you downvote this. I preset this line so that every time I foresee that someone will uppercase *lagrangian*, *hamiltonian*, etc, all I need is just copy this line in my post.  &#xD;&#xA;`&lt;!-NOTE: I intentionally write &quot;lagrangian&quot; in lowercase. See http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6257/41634-&gt;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="8b519f5d-5e5e-473e-9593-594121f98b0c" CreationDate="2015-11-15T09:03:21.307" UserId="41634" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19682" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="7632d43f-6003-429c-99ee-dea70a1509a8" CreationDate="2015-11-15T09:57:30.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/665830978758303744" />
  <row Id="19683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="d1b3f9b1-d972-4f2a-958e-8a616fade61b" CreationDate="2015-11-15T10:06:00.700" UserId="41634" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Thank you for your attempt to edit my post better, and I appreciate every edit you make. However please keep in mind that I intentionally use *lagrangian*, not *Lagrangian*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that *Lagrangian* is widely accepted and if I write it differently, you will find something not right, and you have the itch to fix it. When you read the words, you are not spelling every character it has, but recognizing it as a whole gesture. By remember the whole gesture, your speed of reading will be enhanced, therefore your brain saves the energy for other task, such as truly understanding the text. That's why misspelling words are irritated because it interrupts your reading flows. Seeing it lowercased while you expecting it uppercased makes you feel the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have my own rationale. *Google* is a company name, a proper noun, but *google* is a verb; *Fermi* is a person name, a proper noun, but *fermion* is a noun. I think writing *lagrangian* in lowercase is not wrong; In his book, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integral, Feynmann also wrote *lagrangian* in lowercase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, nor I'm absolutely right. There is no wrong or right in languages, just majority and minority. Therefore I don't mind if seeing *Lagrangian*. However, please let me write it in the way I feel right. Thank you for your understanding and sorry if this makes any inconvenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if you downvote this. I preset this line below so that every time I foresee that someone will uppercase *lagrangian*, *hamiltonian*, etc, all I need is just copy this line into my post.  &#xD;&#xA;`&lt;!-NOTE: I intentionally write &quot;lagrangian&quot; in lowercase. See http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6257/41634-&gt;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="e7e5a756-8ca4-4e2e-982d-266de198ee34" CreationDate="2015-11-15T10:09:26.483" UserId="41634" Comment="edited body" Text="#Quantum of knowledge&#xD;&#xA;Just to get this barest seed of an idea out there, the phrase comes to mind. I'm not sure what we could do with it. If you have ideas, edit them in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="f4503dd9-a9b7-4843-8e9d-08b212085ef5" CreationDate="2015-11-15T10:10:40.527" UserId="41634" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="#Answers to the multiverse's most basic questions. And some trivial ones too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sold on the word 'trivial' though, suggestions welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="bf9bab9c-a60b-4f14-b261-7b0e50bc2f0b" CreationDate="2015-11-15T10:12:02.810" UserId="41634" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="#Don't panic! Now the force is with you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy and StarWars combined :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="7d88e20c-6c54-43df-888e-c2ef673fcb46" CreationDate="2015-11-15T10:15:04.813" UserId="41634" Text="#Einstein asks, Schrödinger answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19688" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="26f6915f-d403-4316-b608-378c4b7e4dcc" CreationDate="2015-11-15T10:15:04.813" UserId="41634" />
  <row Id="19689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="58fb041d-9e63-4255-9aba-49e22b87c7c6" CreationDate="2015-11-15T13:11:45.470" UserId="2451" Comment="Added comment in responds to comment." Text="Generally speaking, there might be cases, where it is difficult to decide whether a new answer should be considered related or unrelated. Therefore, to keep the system simple and robust, it is better to not distinguish between related or unrelated answers. Which brings us to the main guideline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the guideline is, that one should edit an answer rather than deleting and creating a second answer in the same thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the chronology plays a role here. It is allowed to post multiple different/unrelated answers. What is frown upon, is, if one first deletes a downvoted answer, only to later post a new answer, be it related or unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I posted a comment below a deleted answer of Floris (which was meant only for Floris to see, but can also be viewed by 10k+ users, if they scroll down). I had not read Floris's answer (among other things because I didn't bother to open his link), and hence did not check on beforehand if it was related or not. I should stress, that I at no point had disciplinary action in mind with my comment. It was purely meant as an advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="c354c660-5c7f-4ca4-873e-501b8369b589" CreationDate="2015-11-15T14:32:57.360" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Personally I have seen naive but perfectly reasonable questions being downvoted. Presumably the mindset behind that is &quot;Have a downvote dummy - anyone with a basic physics education can answer that&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand Physics.SE seems snobbish, and on the other fairly useless to people like me who want to know specifics at the leading edge of research. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="98056402-8a3b-4a50-9fdf-ebe0bbd66602" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:12:44.807" UserId="41634" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fNOGN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=kJpAFl8x1jOj1x29D-RukA2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19692" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="3ba3d230-9e34-49f8-a3fe-30432ea9ee5d" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:12:44.807" UserId="41634" />
  <row Id="19693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="467a7ea2-aefd-46b1-a56a-6cd257153680" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:35:57.983" UserId="41634" Text="I see that there are many links in comments that don't have link text, therefore hard for me to know if the link is worth to click. For example, this link: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are hesitate to click on that, right? You are feeling to wasting time if you click on that, aren't you? So, if possible, please consider to add the title of the link in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this userscript to shorten the time and effort to do that: [Convert share links to markdown \[title\](url)](http://stackapps.com/q/4905/29559) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="467a7ea2-aefd-46b1-a56a-6cd257153680" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:35:57.983" UserId="41634" Text="Use this userscript when you share a link" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="467a7ea2-aefd-46b1-a56a-6cd257153680" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:35:57.983" UserId="41634" Text="|discussion|comments|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19696" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="ed1a8b4a-c3cd-4fc0-b768-53e8197d58b4" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:57:33.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/665921586986246144" />
  <row Id="19697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="c9467ce0-e8ba-4d68-97d6-936c88fd9985" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:58:12.270" UserId="41634" Text="For example, the comments in this answer: [Entropy and the principle of least action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/47588/41634).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are viewed as biased views and crackpottery, should we delete them? Should I flag them if I meet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="c9467ce0-e8ba-4d68-97d6-936c88fd9985" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:58:12.270" UserId="41634" Text="Should &quot;biased views and crackpottery&quot; comments be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="c9467ce0-e8ba-4d68-97d6-936c88fd9985" CreationDate="2015-11-15T15:58:12.270" UserId="41634" Text="|discussion|scope|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="5f498bf1-21e1-4f89-8810-60bc978b57b7" CreationDate="2015-11-15T16:31:14.777" UserId="70392" Text="At the time of writing this there where 64,202 questions according to the figure given on the questions-newest tab. What does this number represent, is it the total number of questions on the website, the total number of unique questions (i.e. so that duplicates aren't included), does it include questions closed or put on hold etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="5f498bf1-21e1-4f89-8810-60bc978b57b7" CreationDate="2015-11-15T16:31:14.777" UserId="70392" Text="Does the question count inculde duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="5f498bf1-21e1-4f89-8810-60bc978b57b7" CreationDate="2015-11-15T16:31:14.777" UserId="70392" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="d297b729-1588-44d4-8061-e03eb69977f8" CreationDate="2015-11-15T17:29:10.810" UserId="81048" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed Science Educators, a site where teachers and tutors of any field of science (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) can ask questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided to join forces with all sciences since Mathematics Educators is not getting sufficient traffic to graduate (currently at 1.5 questions out of 10 per day, which is low since the site is quite old), therefore I considered it unlikely that any of the sites (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) could get launched an Educators site on there own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you are interested, please follow the proposal, and create and vote for example questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=MuGFDueEC-U1&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/92559.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Science Educators&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="e8b9f841-56c1-4fb6-987b-8dba883f937c" CreationDate="2015-11-15T17:31:43.113" UserId="70392" Comment="edited title" Text="What does the question count inculde?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="c43b8669-857b-441a-9aa7-cb3a889be4c6" CreationDate="2015-11-15T17:52:16.243" UserId="520" Comment="added 1127 characters in body" Text="For example, the comments in this answer: [Entropy and the principle of least action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/47588/41634).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original comment sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are many issues in this answer. For instance, it confounds the general concept of &quot;entropy&quot; with the approx. macroscopic entropy used in classical thermodynamics. The entropies used in nanothermodynamics, thermodynamics of small systems and in quantum thermodynamics are not defined &quot;at macroscopic scales&quot;... – juanrga Dec 30 '12 at 14:15    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not sure what exact problems you have with my answer. Reading it again, I have used the oportunity to expand it significantly. Let me know in case you believe anything in my answer is incorrect or didactically sub-optimal. – Johannes Dec 30 '12 at 16:51    &#xD;&#xA;   	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As said &quot;there are many&quot; I gave one example in my previous post, which you have ignored. Your edit adds more misunderstandings and false statements. E.g., your recent &quot;the second law of thermodynamics tells us entropy doesn't decrease&quot; is a typical misunderstanding of the second law repeated by anti-evolucionists for instance... – juanrga Dec 31 '12 at 11:59    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's stick to physics and avoid biased views and crackpottery. – Johannes Jan 1 '13 at 9:36  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are viewed as biased views and crackpottery, should we delete them? Should I flag them if I meet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7235" RevisionGUID="9776d7b2-dcab-4530-9424-be46921af674" CreationDate="2015-11-16T03:23:06.700" UserId="124" Text="Well, in theory, _all_ comments should be deleted _eventually_. (Comments are meant to be transient.) But the question is, should such comments be deleted more quickly than others, just because they are considered to express biased or crackpot views? I don't think so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the principles of good moderation is that the moderators should not be specially trusted to decide whether a comment or answer is _correct_. Any trusted (i.e. high-rep, in most cases) user is equally qualified to make that decision. And accordingly, we shouldn't be using moderation tools to handle posts that are just wrong. We have downvotes (on answers) and the ability to post followup comments for that. These are better ways to handle posts believed to be crackpottery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, comments can be deletable for other reasons. For example, they might not usefully contribute to clarifying their parent post (the question or answer), in which case they are not constructive. They may have been acknowledged by the parent post's author, but the author declines to make any changes in light of the comments, in which case they are obsolete. They might constitute a discussion of something unrelated to the parent post, in which case they are too chatty. Or, it's frequently (not always) the case that accusations of crackpottery are rude, and the comments can be deleted on that basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="558f59a5-4d97-4398-b9b5-1d854b6933f1" CreationDate="2015-11-16T06:08:42.853" UserId="41634" Comment="added 124 characters in body; added 109 characters in body" Text="I see that there are many links in comments that don't have link text, therefore hard for me to know if the link is worth to click. For example, this link: [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are hesitate to click on that, right? You are feeling to wasting time if you click on that, aren't you? So, if possible, please consider to add the title of the link in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this userscript to shorten the time and effort to do that: [Convert share links to markdown \[title\](url)](http://stackapps.com/q/4905/29559) &#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19709" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="5f341088-4837-4070-a843-33a5c0c892d0" CreationDate="2015-11-16T06:38:23.257" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="What does the question count include?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="ac4a1783-8594-4157-b73e-ac43abc2e7d5" CreationDate="2015-11-16T13:31:46.173" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="I see that there are many links in comments that don't have link text, therefore hard for me to know if the link is worth to click. For example, this link: [`http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/...`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are hesitate to click on that, right? You are feeling to wasting time if you click on that, aren't you? So, if possible, please consider to add the title of the link in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this userscript to shorten the time and effort to do that: [Convert share links to markdown \[title\](url)](http://stackapps.com/q/4905/29559) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="30c8d92b-660b-4daa-8eda-ca723575d8cc" CreationDate="2015-11-16T13:33:48.833" UserId="41634" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I see that there are many links in comments that don't have link text, therefore hard for me to know if the link is worth to click. For example, this link: [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are hesitate to click on that, right? You are feeling to wasting time if you click on that, aren't you? So, if possible, please consider to add the title of the link in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this userscript to shorten the time and effort to do that: [Convert share links to markdown \[title\](url)](http://stackapps.com/q/4905/29559) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="057fa82c-2222-453d-81fa-da8c6b21c759" CreationDate="2015-11-16T22:24:37.073" UserId="46774" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users who's reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218647/how-does-an-ammeter-in-a-circuit-work/218691#218691)).  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this example, [this user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97420/energizer777?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest) answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, this undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might we discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount (maybe -5 [rep./DV] vs. the current -2)?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="057fa82c-2222-453d-81fa-da8c6b21c759" CreationDate="2015-11-16T22:24:37.073" UserId="46774" Text="Increase weight of downvotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="057fa82c-2222-453d-81fa-da8c6b21c759" CreationDate="2015-11-16T22:24:37.073" UserId="46774" Text="|discussion|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="e94821e1-490b-4160-a77d-4236b30b9e67" CreationDate="2015-11-16T22:44:21.780" UserId="520" Text="This request has a long history [going back to the early days of Stack Overflow][1]. You'll notice that question is marked as declined. It was actually [tag:status-pending] for months before being declined and [instead the question up-vote value was reduced to 5][2] (from the original value of 10 just like questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the team will be willing to revisit this decision unless we can show that it represents a real problem (i.e. that a significant number of problem users are gaining access to powerful tools). But I sympathize with your desire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/42769/should-the-weight-of-question-upvotes-be-reduced?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7238" RevisionGUID="adc0b344-9624-4607-b2fc-a868659d52ec" CreationDate="2015-11-16T22:58:33.290" UserId="9887" Text="After about three years participating more or less regularly here, I've seen a number of what one might judge as disreputable users come and go so, on my view, the system is working (in the mean) to discourage such users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like dmckee, I sympathize with your concern but honestly, I'm not aware of any regular contributor here that is concerned with deflation of their reputation by the occasional opportunistic or disreputable user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I suspect that the greatest concern is with the quality of questions of late rather than the quality of answers.  But that's a different topic.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="bdff0276-8877-4105-b79f-d8cfe81cec95" CreationDate="2015-11-16T23:45:35.857" UserId="46774" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users who's reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218647/how-does-an-ammeter-in-a-circuit-work/218691#218691)).  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this example, [this user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97420/energizer777?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest) answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might we discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount (maybe -5 [rep./DV] vs. the current -2)?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="3d4db92a-c2fb-4d94-a492-9ce6d5653555" CreationDate="2015-11-16T23:51:20.227" UserId="46774" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users who's reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218647/how-does-an-ammeter-in-a-circuit-work/218691#218691)).  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this example, [this user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97420/energizer777?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest) answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might we discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="723c1261-706c-459b-90e9-d2b023f49618" CreationDate="2015-11-17T00:21:27.253" UserId="46774" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users who's reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218647/how-does-an-ammeter-in-a-circuit-work/218691#218691)).  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, [this user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97420/energizer777?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest) answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="7964f271-155e-41bd-a227-2d329043fb23" CreationDate="2015-11-17T01:54:35.513" UserId="95713" Text="[![New site for researches interested in structure determination][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EoUXC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/91841/crystallography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19721" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="276290ec-3de2-4c18-b497-c6a755a261fd" CreationDate="2015-11-17T01:54:35.513" UserId="95713" />
  <row Id="19722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="7296e84f-9b11-4273-a2b4-d445dffbd0c8" CreationDate="2015-11-17T03:12:46.360" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="This request has a long history [going back to the early days of Stack Overflow][1]. You'll notice that question is marked as declined. It was actually [tag:status-pending] for months before being declined and [instead the question up-vote value was reduced to 5][2] (from the original value of 10 just like answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the team will be willing to revisit this decision unless we can show that it represents a real problem (i.e. that a significant number of problem users are gaining access to powerful tools). But I sympathize with your desire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/42769/should-the-weight-of-question-upvotes-be-reduced?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="7494ffa3-9ef0-4b2f-844f-a13a8c23852b" CreationDate="2015-11-17T03:56:05.360" UserId="44126" Comment="Shameless copied answer prompt from other site's related question" Text="I just saw [this post](http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/should-we-ask-for-tag-warnings) on the Mathematica SE meta, referencing [this one](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/14237) on Ask Ubuntu, with a new feature SE is trialling in SO. These are &quot;tag warnings&quot;, which are meant to alert users about things they should be doing in the course of adding tags to their question. Here is a relevant screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tag warning example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AZhJW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes with a warning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, **note that this feature is still experimental**, so we don't know how well it performs, if at all (and **we might eventually remove it**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they could still be useful, and we could volunteer to field-test it in a non-code SE site. Off the top of my head, this could be a good place for the ugly caps in the [tag:mathematics] and [tag:mathematical-physics] tags, which have a steady stream of people that ignore them. It could also be a good place for a gentle nudge towards our homework-and-exercises meta page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think Physics.SE should experiment with this feature, please provide a tag and corresponding warning as an answer (consider including an explanation, too!). Upvote suggestions you agree with, downvote suggestions you disagree with.  If, on the other hand, you think Physics should stay out of this, leave an answer to that effect instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="1f3f2d10-7c2a-42d6-a715-550cd6ee2564" CreationDate="2015-11-17T05:06:32.350" UserId="46774" Comment="edited body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers ([example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218647/how-does-an-ammeter-in-a-circuit-work/218691#218691)).  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, [this user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97420/energizer777?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest) answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="f3f8ccfe-704d-4064-9c20-ee7616b8d451" CreationDate="2015-11-17T10:46:33.660" UserId="84488" Text="I agree with all the above. However, would a simple rule like the one active on [Physics Overflow][1] solve (or, at least, limit) the issue? Namely, I refer to the fact of always showing the total amount of up and down votes, instead of summing them up evening out all the contributions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="a6557f3c-f16b-4477-a239-3b6ffe462468" CreationDate="2015-11-17T14:37:48.637" UserId="2451" Comment="Added paragraph" Text="Generally speaking, there might be cases, where it is difficult to decide whether a new answer should be considered related or unrelated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Moreover, it is a general principle on SE that moderators should not evaluate the physics content of a post. This should be done by user votes and user reviews. In particular, it should be up to the down voter to decide whether to retract his downvote if it is no longer relevant for the edited answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, to keep the system simple and robust, it is better to not distinguish between related or unrelated answers. Which brings us to the main guideline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the guideline is, that one should edit an answer rather than deleting and creating a second answer in the same thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the chronology plays a role here. It is allowed to post multiple different/unrelated answers. What is frown upon, is, if one first deletes a downvoted answer, only to later post a new answer, be it related or unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I posted a comment below a deleted answer of Floris (which was meant only for Floris to see, but can also be viewed by 10k+ users, if they scroll down). I had not read Floris's answer (among other things because I didn't bother to open his link), and hence did not check on beforehand if it was related or not. I should stress, that I at no point had disciplinary action in mind with my comment. It was purely meant as an advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="c083dea9-a7c5-4bb1-ae8b-fa048702698c" CreationDate="2015-11-17T14:46:32.610" UserId="2451" Comment="No need to make a hall of shame." Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers.  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="c8a72f10-71fb-4abb-af00-c5e1c87ed6eb" CreationDate="2015-11-18T01:04:24.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/666783981682208769" />
  <row Id="19733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="05a74452-c82b-4e4f-b981-352006bd4f27" CreationDate="2015-11-19T07:15:00.570" UserId="74688" Text="Sorry, I don't know if this question should be asked here (feel free to remove if this doesn't), since this is only regarding the stack exchange app, my main concern is that I cannot view latex on the comments section, I don't know if this is a problem with the android version I have (Jelly Bean), or not compatible with my phone (which probably isn't) or is it a bug in the App. Is there anyone else who is facing the same issue? should the developers be notified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="05a74452-c82b-4e4f-b981-352006bd4f27" CreationDate="2015-11-19T07:15:00.570" UserId="74688" Text="Cannot view Latex on the comments section in the stack exchange app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="05a74452-c82b-4e4f-b981-352006bd4f27" CreationDate="2015-11-19T07:15:00.570" UserId="74688" Text="|feature-request|bug|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="b7e95585-f4f6-4047-ba41-ce598ffc814a" CreationDate="2015-11-19T15:22:24.803" UserId="74688" Comment="added 298 characters in body; edited tags; edited title; added 1 character in body" Text="Sorry, I don't know if this question should be asked here (feel free to remove if this doesn't), since this is only regarding the stack exchange app, my main concern is that I cannot view LaTex on the comments section and the title, I don't know if this is a problem with the android version I have, or compatibility with my phone (which probably isn't) or a bug in the App. Is there anyone else who is facing the same issue? This happens with other communities too.&#xA;&#xA;Android version: 4.2.2 (Jellybean)&#xA;&#xA;App version: 1.0.75 (latest available version for my phone)&#xA;&#xA;![here's a picture for reference][1]&#xA;&#xA;You can see that the LaTex doesn't seem to be parsed in the comments and the title sections, it's taking as plain text.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cUlng.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19737" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="b7e95585-f4f6-4047-ba41-ce598ffc814a" CreationDate="2015-11-19T15:22:24.803" UserId="74688" Comment="added 298 characters in body; edited tags; edited title; added 1 character in body" Text="Cannot view LaTex on the Comments section and the Title in the stack exchange app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19738" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="b7e95585-f4f6-4047-ba41-ce598ffc814a" CreationDate="2015-11-19T15:22:24.803" UserId="74688" Comment="added 298 characters in body; edited tags; edited title; added 1 character in body" Text="|feature-request|bug|design|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="e6440edf-8f90-48dd-9beb-b480327acaf9" CreationDate="2015-11-19T15:47:07.610" UserId="74688" Comment="edited body" Text="Sorry, I don't know if this question should be asked here (feel free to remove if this doesn't), since this is only regarding the stack exchange app, my main concern is that I cannot view LaTeX on the comments section and the title, I don't know if this is a problem with the android version I have, or compatibility with my phone (which probably isn't) or a bug in the App. Is there anyone else who is facing the same issue? This happens with other communities too.&#xA;&#xA;Android version: 4.2.2 (Jellybean)&#xA;&#xA;App version: 1.0.75 (latest available version for my phone)&#xA;&#xA;![here's a picture for reference][1]&#xA;&#xA;You can see that the LaTeX doesn't seem to be parsed in the comments and the title sections, it's taking as plain text.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cUlng.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="63b0bfb2-3259-4b61-9185-0adc2088f1f1" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:04:03.423" UserId="74688" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Sorry, I don't know if this question should be asked here (feel free to remove if this doesn't), since this is only regarding the stack exchange app, my main concern is that I cannot view LaTeX on the comments section and the title, I don't know if this is a problem with the android version I have, or compatibility with my phone (which probably isn't) or a bug in the App. Is there anyone else who is facing the same issue? This happens with other communities too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Android version: 4.2.2 (Jellybean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;App version: 1.0.75 (latest available version for my phone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![here's a picture for reference][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the LaTeX doesn't seem to be parsed in the comments and the title sections, it's taking as plain text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cUlng.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19741" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="63b0bfb2-3259-4b61-9185-0adc2088f1f1" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:04:03.423" UserId="74688" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Cannot view LaTeX on the Comments section and the Title in the stack exchange app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="6651bff6-64c4-4f28-9a48-695b4e722d0f" CreationDate="2015-11-19T18:32:03.340" UserId="1325" Text="Just a reminder to please be nice with the comments. It seems to me (in a completely statistically unsound survey based on my own impressions) that we're getting a bit snarky with the comments at the the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly concede that we seem to be getting some spectacularly stupid questions recently, but responding to them with snide or snarky comments isn't the best way to deal with them. If you don't want to take the time to politely explain to the OP how their question could be improved¹ then please just downvote, vote to close or vote to delete as your reputation allows, then go and calm down with a nice cup of coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ e.g. by incineration - of the question that is, not of the OP, though sometimes I wonder if that might not be appropriate too" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="6651bff6-64c4-4f28-9a48-695b4e722d0f" CreationDate="2015-11-19T18:32:03.340" UserId="1325" Text="Be nice with the comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="6651bff6-64c4-4f28-9a48-695b4e722d0f" CreationDate="2015-11-19T18:32:03.340" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="3f21f6ba-3c3f-4a67-8968-d5549dda69cd" CreationDate="2015-11-20T06:59:12.223" UserDisplayName="user96370" Text="I was about to ask a question, when this warning appeared:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wait! Some of your past questions have not been well-received, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **you're in danger of being blocked from asking any more.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For help formulating a clear, useful question, see: How do I ask a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Title&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked six question and not a single one is negative, should I ignore that warning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="3f21f6ba-3c3f-4a67-8968-d5549dda69cd" CreationDate="2015-11-20T06:59:12.223" UserDisplayName="user96370" Text="An incomprehensible warning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="3f21f6ba-3c3f-4a67-8968-d5549dda69cd" CreationDate="2015-11-20T06:59:12.223" UserDisplayName="user96370" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="6db9b81b-04fd-483b-a105-d719ea435b1d" CreationDate="2015-11-20T07:07:47.303" UserId="46399" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was about to ask a question, when this warning appeared:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wait! Some of your past questions have not been well-received, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **you're in danger of being blocked from asking any more.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For help formulating a clear, useful question, see: How do I ask a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Title&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked six questions and not a single one of them has scored negative. Should I ignore this warning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="6db9b81b-04fd-483b-a105-d719ea435b1d" CreationDate="2015-11-20T07:07:47.303" UserId="46399" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|bug|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="9114fc4b-d6d5-40ed-926e-458fa6977a9c" CreationDate="2015-11-20T07:15:15.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/667602085316161536" />
  <row Id="19756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="2d5fbf44-da7c-4d94-965d-a50ac9353cc8" CreationDate="2015-11-20T07:34:40.683" UserId="124" Text="Hmmm... this is kind of odd. Your posting history stacks up as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One zero-score deleted question&#xD;&#xA;- One zero-score deleted-and-closed question&#xD;&#xA;- One zero-score migrated question&#xD;&#xA;- One positive-score closed/on hold question&#xD;&#xA;- One zero-score open question&#xD;&#xA;- Three upvoted open questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems like a perfectly reasonable set of questions to me. So I would say you should ignore the warning...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...except that this warning is part of an automated system, and not something that can be manually overridden. It indicates that you're getting close to some threshold of an overall question quality score. I don't know the formula for this score, nor the threshold, and I'm a little surprised that your questions come close to it, but regardless, if you do happen to run over the threshold, the fact that it seems strange isn't going to help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice is to keep posting, and don't take the warning as a sign that you're doing anything wrong, but just be a little bit more cautious about your next couple questions. Don't ask &quot;risky&quot; questions; instead, stick to asking things that you're reasonably confident will not get downvoted, and that you won't want to delete later on. Considering that none of your other questions are downvoted, this shouldn't be a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="b1064076-46ce-47c3-a7d2-6610c3e85782" CreationDate="2015-11-21T01:15:15.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/667873877834473473" />
  <row Id="19764" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="b193bd51-54be-4ed8-a84e-8970115b5f99" CreationDate="2015-11-21T02:07:33.777" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/219672/i-can-not-log-in-meta-physics-stackexchange-why" />
  <row Id="19765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="3e26c759-dc39-4d98-9821-cdb50a0b86eb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:31:14.270" UserId="99158" Text="For example, I want to write an answer to the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/be-nice-with-the-comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that has the address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/be-nice-with-the-comments&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I press &quot;log in&quot; the effect is zero. Why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am redirected to the same link:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;without any warning like &quot;you are not allowed to log in&quot; or other explanation. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pcp9R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="3e26c759-dc39-4d98-9821-cdb50a0b86eb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:31:14.270" UserId="99158" Text="I can not log in &quot;meta.physics.stackexchange&quot;. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="3e26c759-dc39-4d98-9821-cdb50a0b86eb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:31:14.270" UserId="99158" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="ff8d3afa-a95e-459c-8118-7bbe4412ddaf" CreationDate="2015-11-21T06:55:29.170" UserDisplayName="user96370" Text="If you edit a comment 100 times during the 5-minute grace period only the final message is generated to the answer-and/or-question owner and to pinged user. No trace remains in the database about previous versions. If you simply delete it and do not replace it, nobody will ever know what you wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you delete a comment and change its content and/or ping,  the old message is cancelled and the new one remains in the inbox(es), but both versions are recorded in the database. If the 'victim' hasn't opened their mailbox in-between, they will not be aware of the change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="559fbf49-0dee-4dd5-8a63-6ee2622814dc" CreationDate="2015-11-21T07:00:46.673" UserDisplayName="user96370" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="If you edit a comment 100 times during the 5-minute grace period only the final message is generated to the answer-and/or-question owner and to pinged user. No trace remains in the database about previous versions. If you simply delete it and do not replace it, nobody will ever know what you wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you delete a comment after 5 minutes and change its content and/or ping,  the old message is cancelled and the new one remains in the inbox(es), but both versions are recorded in the database. If the 'victim' hasn't opened their mailbox in-between, they will not be aware of the change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="ccb030ae-f10f-494f-9eb5-f3b235ac0e4b" CreationDate="2015-11-21T10:02:48.097" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No you don't, but there is a certain &quot;honour&quot; at work here. I've offered a bounty before, and awarded it even though I wasn't happy with the answers. See for example [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191617/can-you-depict-the-electrons-electromagnetic-field). As a result people know that they can trust me. If you offer a bounty and then don't award it, next time you won't get one answer, you'll get none.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is in relation to this question of mine where there is only one and that too downvoted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should ask the posters here if they downvoted that answer. And if so, why they didn't offer an answer of their own. Do note that there are some downvoting issues here on physics Stack Exchange, see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote) meta question. Always remember that physics is not a democracy. Votes don't make a right answer wrong, or vice versa. You should look to the evidence and explanation and references, and ask for elaboration in the comments. Or ask a new question to tease out the issue and get to the underlying problem.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="949407e1-955c-4d3d-9818-8e2d080b3b72" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:19:36.133" UserId="96487" Text="What does the star which appear on the top of each question mean?&#xD;&#xA;What happens if we click it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="949407e1-955c-4d3d-9818-8e2d080b3b72" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:19:36.133" UserId="96487" Text="what does star which appear on top of question mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="949407e1-955c-4d3d-9818-8e2d080b3b72" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:19:36.133" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="79eab9b8-5e07-41a7-88dc-b4348342ea27" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:46:32.597" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&gt; &quot;This is a favorite question (click again to undo)&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is what you get if you position the mouse pointer on that star that appears besides each question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What effect does that star have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19775" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="79eab9b8-5e07-41a7-88dc-b4348342ea27" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:46:32.597" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the mark &quot;favorite question&quot; for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19776" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="79eab9b8-5e07-41a7-88dc-b4348342ea27" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:46:32.597" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|questions|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="44dc2058-6009-43ea-8ce0-05b5009075e7" CreationDate="2015-11-22T17:53:04.513" UserId="96487" Text="I want to upload an image to support my question from my mobile browser.I cannot see any option to do it. How can I do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="44dc2058-6009-43ea-8ce0-05b5009075e7" CreationDate="2015-11-22T17:53:04.513" UserId="96487" Text="How do I include a picture to a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="44dc2058-6009-43ea-8ce0-05b5009075e7" CreationDate="2015-11-22T17:53:04.513" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7258" RevisionGUID="18df16f9-b161-4f8e-a8ad-353e55734ff7" CreationDate="2015-11-22T18:45:13.207" UserId="50583" Text="The mobile *site* currently lacks an image upload button, see [this meta.SE question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/153551/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the mobile *app* has the button, cf. [this meta.SE question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/191537/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you need to either use the app, or switch to the desktop version of the site to submit an image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19790" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="4ecfd8b2-e9c9-44f3-866c-3c627328ce2e" CreationDate="2015-11-23T13:59:29.083" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5098],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="4a52f2fc-dfce-405c-9bcf-d89bba78c327" CreationDate="2015-11-23T18:03:20.053" UserId="46399" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Hmm... well, I think there are legitimate questions about the universe that could be tagged [tag:universe] (probably along with either [tag:cosmology] or [tag:astrophysics], or both). There _could_ even be some legitimate questions about space. ([Does anything exist in the intergalactic space?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/560/does-anything-exist-in-the-intergalactic-space) might be an example, but you could argue that that's an astronomy question, not really astrophysics.) But I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of [tag:space].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the [tag:space] questions right now are either really about spacetime, or have nothing to do with space. I'll go through and retag some of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="534d98d8-5d02-41b2-a67c-d256ef9f6b7a" CreationDate="2015-11-24T06:15:58.327" UserId="1325" Comment="Remove controversial footnote" Text="Just a reminder to please be nice with the comments. It seems to me (in a completely statistically unsound survey based on my own impressions) that we're getting a bit snarky with the comments at the the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly concede that we seem to be getting some spectacularly stupid questions recently, but responding to them with snide or snarky comments isn't the best way to deal with them. If you don't want to take the time to politely explain to the OP how their question could be improved then please just downvote, vote to close or vote to delete as your reputation allows, then go and calm down with a nice cup of coffee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="3b7c5dc3-cceb-4963-ab7d-0b393d6d5c66" CreationDate="2015-11-24T19:25:30.213" UserId="46774" Comment="Edit to address comments" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers.  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit to address comments:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think lazy, incomplete answers are a detriment to the goals of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this exemplifies a misunderstanding of the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer!  **When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.**  In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I accept that the system is largely unaffected by the minority of [unnamed-users] that exploit its rules, but I maintain that incentives for incomplete answers should be reduced- in my opinion, they counter the values and goals of Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="01a0e125-8463-4324-be1d-4b198438e1a5" CreationDate="2015-11-24T19:31:43.707" UserId="46774" Comment="Edit to address comments" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers.  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit to address comments:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think lazy, incomplete answers are a detriment to the goals of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer!  **When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.**  In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I accept that the system is largely unaffected by the minority of [unnamed-users] that exploit its rules, but I maintain that incentives for incomplete answers should be reduced- in my opinion, they counter the values and goals of Physics.SE community.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="9c62cd9c-0de3-4957-9390-19c8d84da86f" CreationDate="2015-11-24T20:31:51.537" UserId="46774" Comment="deleted 276 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers.  I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer!  **When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.**  In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="e76dc044-9584-49a8-baca-85c2d2124d63" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:11:48.023" UserId="46774" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers.  I actively downvote incorrect answers when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer!  **When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (and the community's) ability to learn and objectively evaluate the answer.**  In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, incomplete answers 'misinform' simply because they are not adequately explained- the OP is unable to evaluate brilliant from BS.  Similarly, if the OP does not feel qualified to evaluate an answer (often the reason the question was asked), they will likely defer to reputation.  Reputation carries weight, especially for trivial questions with accepted physics: Whose answer would you bet on, @JohnRennie or @OneRepPoint?&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="1aa436a3-f44b-4bf8-b47f-1b4b230ef0be" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:17:35.400" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid you _are_ being rather naïve here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest recurring issue is homework questions and naïve questions drowning out &quot;the good stuff&quot;. Another issue is downvoting, see [the various threads](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote) including [we seem to be over-eager to downvote](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of poor answers out there. But if you think an answer is poor, you could provide a better one yourself. It isn't enough just to downvote, particularly if you don't comment either. You've been here for 18 months and [you've only answered 9 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46774/thenamescross?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so. While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really need some examples of such poor opportunistic answers, and then we need to pick them apart. Otherwise there's no meat to your argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at some of those answers. They might be wonderful, with references to rock-solid physics, and yet they might have a lot of unexplained downvotes. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, without supporting evidence your argument has no weight. For all you know those _downvotes_ are undermining the system.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement. I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, your argument is weightless without evidence. This is a science website, and the science is settled by evidence, not opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post). In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, what's your evidence? Do you know what this user was suspended for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look carefully and you'll perhaps notice that there are expert users who are ex users. The current mechanisms have filtered _them_ over time. Luboš Motl is hardly ever here, nor is Ben Crowell or Carl Brannen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy! However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer! When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no undermining if the answer includes references to peer-reviewed papers and hard scientific evidence. The OP is free to follow up those references to objectively decide if the answer is correct. However there is undermining if the answer receives a slew of downvotes. That will discourage the OP from even looking at the answer. See [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220208/76162) for example. You can follow up on the references to Einstein/Shapiro/etc check that I'm not talking out of my hat. And yet there's 10 downvotes, with comments from only one downvoter, who has obviously not even read the answer, let alone followed up on the references.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they do. But here the scientific enquiry is in following up those references and others. Not on simply accepting what somebody else tells you.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;What changes are possible within Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see. But if you want to call for changes, you really need to support your case with evidence and references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="f87e2928-dd8c-40ce-a800-d1e82a138c70" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:23:54.053" UserId="76162" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid you _are_ being rather naïve here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest recurring issue is homework questions and naïve questions drowning out &quot;the good stuff&quot;. Another issue is downvoting, see [the various threads](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote) including [we seem to be over-eager to downvote](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of poor answers out there. But if you think an answer is poor, you could provide a better one yourself. It isn't enough just to downvote, particularly if you don't comment either. You've been here for 18 months and [you've only answered 9 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46774/thenamescross?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so. While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really need some examples of such poor opportunistic answers, and then we need to pick them apart. Otherwise there's no meat to your argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at some of those answers. They might be wonderful, with references to rock-solid physics, and yet they might have a lot of unexplained downvotes. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, without supporting evidence your argument has no weight. For all you know those _downvotes_ are undermining the system.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement. I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, your argument is weightless without evidence. This is a science website, and the science is settled by evidence, not opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post). In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, what's your evidence? Do you know what this user was suspended for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look carefully and you'll perhaps notice that there are expert users who are ex users. The current mechanisms have filtered _them_ over time. Luboš Motl is hardly ever here, nor is Ben Crowell or Carl Brannen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy! However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer! When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no undermining if the answer includes references to peer-reviewed papers and hard scientific evidence. The OP is free to follow up those references to objectively decide if the answer is correct. However there is undermining if the answer receives a slew of downvotes. That will discourage the OP from even looking at the answer. See [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220208/76162) for example. You can follow up on the references to Einstein/Shapiro/etc to check that I'm not talking out of my hat. And yet there's 10 downvotes, with comments from only one downvoter, who has obviously not even read the answer, let alone followed up on the references.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they do. But here the scientific enquiry is in following up those references and others. Not on simply accepting what somebody else tells you.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;What changes are possible within Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see. But if you want to call for changes, you really need to support your case with evidence and references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="b10bb76b-4225-4dc0-ace3-73142db1ac7c" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:47:06.003" UserId="46774" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy) (answers that dont contain references, list equations without explanation, a single picture, etc.).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers. I actively downvote incorrect answers when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter incomplete, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer!  When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (and the community's) ability to learn and objectively evaluate the answer.  In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, incomplete answers 'misinform' simply because they are not adequately explained- the OP is unable to evaluate brilliant from BS.  Similarly, if the OP does not feel qualified to evaluate an answer (often the reason the question was asked), they will likely defer to reputation.  Reputation carries weight, especially for trivial questions with accepted physics: Whose answer would you bet on, @JohnRennie or @OneRepPoint?&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="29ac6787-b8d3-42fc-a91a-b167bbc131dc" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:59:41.383" UserId="84314" Text="I [asked][1] a question about some natural network and after about one hour the question came &quot;On Hold&quot;, and [there][2] is something similar.&#xD;&#xA;But there is many physicist that work on this area(some thing like ecology network, biology network, finance network and models related to them). &#xD;&#xA;what is the difference between a physicist that wok on a special laser and another one work on special network? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81961/what-is-the-difference-between-scale-free-network-and-small-world-network?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="29ac6787-b8d3-42fc-a91a-b167bbc131dc" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:59:41.383" UserId="84314" Text="Network science can be a branch of physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="29ac6787-b8d3-42fc-a91a-b167bbc131dc" CreationDate="2015-11-24T22:59:41.383" UserId="84314" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="4d9923ec-c58c-4d82-80d0-2ac0fa4be5cd" CreationDate="2015-11-24T23:02:39.763" UserId="46774" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy) (answers that dont contain references, list equations without explanation, a single picture, etc.).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers. I actively downvote incorrect answers when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter incomplete, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer!  When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (and the community's) ability to learn and objectively evaluate the answer.  In effect, incomplete answers place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, incomplete answers 'misinform' simply because they are not adequately explained- the OP is unable to evaluate brilliant from BS.  Similarly, if the OP does not feel qualified to evaluate an answer (often the reason the question was asked), they will likely defer to reputation.  Reputation carries weight, especially for trivial questions with accepted physics: Whose answer would you bet on, @JohnRennie or @OneRepPoint?&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="30ec885f-45fa-4b3d-95c6-50d32382f0f0" CreationDate="2015-11-24T23:16:35.513" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="f319506d-ef36-46c0-9b6b-dcfcd29fe3b6" CreationDate="2015-11-24T23:30:13.493" UserId="31790" Comment="Grammar, clarity" Text="I [asked][1] a question about some natural network and after about one hour the question came &quot;On Hold&quot;. A similar thing happened [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;There is many physicists that work on this area, such as ecology networks, biology networks, finance networks, and models related to them. &#xD;&#xA;What is the difference, in terms of being on topic, between questions of interest to physicists who work on a special laser and questions of interest to physicists who work on a special network? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81961/what-is-the-difference-between-scale-free-network-and-small-world-network?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="097f1f95-88b8-445c-b1c2-aaccf953603d" CreationDate="2015-11-25T00:26:36.413" UserId="46774" Comment="deleted 385 characters in body" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy) (answers that dont contain references, list equations without explanation, a single picture, etc.).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers. I actively downvote incorrect answers when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter incomplete, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer.  Incomplete answers (correct or incorrect), undermine the OP's (and the community's) ability to learn and objectively evaluate the answer.  In effect, incomplete answers place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus).  In that sense, they 'misinform' simply because they are not adequately explained.  &#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if the OP does not feel qualified to evaluate an answer (often the reason the question was asked), they will likely defer to reputation.  Reputation carries weight, especially for trivial questions with accepted physics: Whose answer would you bet on, @JohnRennie or @OneRepPoint?&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="bd6e1f9f-b1f8-441b-a353-ba67c09157c3" CreationDate="2015-11-25T02:08:54.737" UserId="6634" Text="I'm not exactly positive what these network models are, but it sounds like they are a mathematical tool that can be applied to a wide-range of applications (including the ones you listed, and most likely more). I can't say if it is on topic here because, frankly, I don't know enough about it to judge. I will say in response to your comment, though, that just because something is closest to on-topic here and there is no other site available, doesn't mean that it should be allowed here. It's possible that there are questions that are off-topic on every stack exchange site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to point out (and I wish I could find where I've said it before, but I can't at the moment) that just because a topic is *of interest* to physicists doesn't make it on-topic here. Our scope is questions about physics, not questions by physicists... if a Nobel Prize winner in physics posts a question here about the best apple pie recipe because he/she is interested in cooking, it doesn't mean that it is on-topic. So the focus needs to be on the *physics* and not just a question a practitioner of physics might have. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding something that seems to have such a broad range of applications, perhaps my suggestion is best revealed by [this xkcd comic](https://xkcd.com/435/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, one could argue that all science is a subset of physics. But physics can be thought of as a subset of math. So perhaps [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com) or [math overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net) could be better fits, even if you are looking at a physical application? I can't say with any certainty because I don't participate there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, if you are looking for numerical approaches to these models, [scicomp.SE](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) would work. But... I don't know, I don't personally get my hopes up about things there. Our running joke in chat[\[1\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13959297#13959297)[\[2\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13934821#13934821)[\[3\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13923981#13923981)[\[4\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13934852#13934852)[\[5\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=25553945#25553945) is that unless your question can be answered by &quot;Use petsc,&quot; it won't get answered.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dqxk9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="5a6ddc8b-2822-4901-9500-ae2a0e35de4a" CreationDate="2015-11-25T13:12:54.730" UserId="6634" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm not exactly positive what these network models are, but it sounds like they are a mathematical tool that can be applied to a wide-range of applications (including the ones you listed, and most likely more). I can't say if it is on topic here because, frankly, I don't know enough about it to judge. I will say in response to your comment, though, that just because something is closest to on-topic here and there is no other site available, doesn't mean that it should be allowed here. It's possible that there are questions that are off-topic on every stack exchange site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to point out (and I wish I could find where I've said it before, but I can't at the moment) that just because a topic is *of interest* to physicists doesn't make it on-topic here. Our scope is questions about physics, not questions by physicists... if a Nobel Prize winner in physics posts a question here about the best apple pie recipe because he/she is interested in cooking, it doesn't mean that it is on-topic. So the focus needs to be on the *physics* and not just a question a practitioner of physics might have. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding something that seems to have such a broad range of applications, perhaps my suggestion is best revealed by [this xkcd comic](https://xkcd.com/435/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, one could argue that all science is a subset of physics. But physics can be thought of as a subset of math. So perhaps [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com) or [math overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net) could be better fits, even if you are looking at a physical application? I can't say with any certainty because I don't participate there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, if you are looking for numerical approaches to these models, [scicomp.SE](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) would work. But... I don't know, I don't personally get my hopes up about things there. Our running joke in chat[\[1\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13923981#13923981)[\[2\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13959297#13959297)[\[3\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13934821#13934821)[\[4\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=13934852#13934852)[\[5\]](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=25553945#25553945) is that unless your question can be answered by &quot;Use petsc,&quot; it won't get answered.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dqxk9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7262" RevisionGUID="f906753b-8873-4941-a0c1-b145fc37d857" CreationDate="2015-11-25T14:12:31.733" UserId="25301" Text="tpg2114 makes a good argument on why things used by physicists isn't necessarily physics, so I'm not going to dive in that, but I wanted to put in my perspective on voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was originally hesitant about closing the question because network theory *is* part of statistical mechanics &amp; is studied by physicists. I decided to look up some information about the use of network theory and animal social behaviors (bored while waiting for compiling at work) and posted my findings in two comments on the first link by OP (replicated here in case of deletion and to prevent needing to leave the page):&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will admit that, despite networks being studied by physicists, this doesn't really seem to be physics. Google led me to [this book by Croft et al *Exploring Animal Social Networks*](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8841.html) that may be of interest.  &#xD;&#xA;([link](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network#comment475013_220370))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is also [this arxiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6074) (which is categorized more on social side than physics).  &#xD;&#xA;([link](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network#comment475014_220370))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book description in the first comment I made says,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a practical guide for researchers, undergraduates, and graduate students in ecology, evolutionary biology, animal behavior, and zoology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the preprint I linked in the second comment was categorized as *Populations and Evolution (q-bio.PE)*, the q-bio being [*quantitative biology*](http://arxiv.org/list/q-bio/recent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So because neither of these two sources of information were categorized as physics (or some sub-category thereof), I voted to close. It is possible that [Biology SE](http://biology.stackexchange.com) *might* take this question because of the categorizations of the two resources above, but I am not sure as I'm not active on that site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="40bc5925-fe15-4cad-9c48-699a826b2ac3" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:13:11.577" UserDisplayName="user97621" Text="Recently, I had a question closed because it was, strictly, a math difficulty.  It occurred during my reading of a physics text named in the question.  Admittedly, it was not a profound question, and I did demonstrate my effort to understand the statement, but was self-dissatisfied because my method was tedious though correct.  I thought I ought have seen the answer more quickly.   A reader gave me the quick method I sought, and I was pleased.  Then, another reader with a high reputation commented that my question had no physical content, and closed it.   I did not mind the closing of the question, but I thought the criticism was legalistic.  If a reader of a stated physics text finds a math difficulty and is discouraged from using your site, then you are not being helpful nor encouraging, in my opinion.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="40bc5925-fe15-4cad-9c48-699a826b2ac3" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:13:11.577" UserDisplayName="user97621" Text="Questions with strictly no phyiscs content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="40bc5925-fe15-4cad-9c48-699a826b2ac3" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:13:11.577" UserDisplayName="user97621" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="9104ea28-f18d-4782-8b63-46d02c01929a" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:51:43.813" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Recently, I had a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218658/the-dual-of-a-surface-element-in-4-space) closed because it was, strictly, a maths difficulty.  It occurred during my reading of a physics text named in the question.  Admittedly, it was not a profound question, and I did demonstrate my effort to understand the statement, but was self-dissatisfied because my method was tedious though correct.  I thought I ought have seen the answer more quickly. A reader gave me the quick method I sought, and I was pleased.  Then, another reader with a high reputation commented that my question had no physical content, and closed it. I did not mind the closing of the question, but I thought the criticism was legalistic. If a reader of a stated physics text finds a maths difficulty and is discouraged from using your site, then you are not being helpful nor encouraging, in my opinion.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7264" RevisionGUID="417727e7-2d61-45d4-8987-faa8d3dd551b" CreationDate="2015-11-26T18:23:33.533" UserId="1325" Text="Your question was closed due to five close votes by site members, not by anyone in an official role, so the closure doesn't reflect any official site policy but just some of the site members' personal views. Those five people didn't include me, and indeed I would have left the question open were I asked (mainly because I didn't understand it :-). I note the question has a *reopen* vote, though since you have your answer it's not obvious that reopening the question would achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be wary of attaching any great significance to the closure of your question. We get so many homework questions that we are sometimes a bit gun happy when it comes to clicking the *close* button. Sometimes mistakes are made and we close a question that should have been left open, and sometimes we fail to close a question that really should be closed. Such failings are an inevitable result of the democratic nature of the site, but I think the site works pretty well most of the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="c9ab4ecc-01ef-4095-85b3-f11ebec0da94" CreationDate="2015-11-26T18:31:34.630" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Recently, I had a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/218658/) closed because it was, strictly, a maths difficulty.  It occurred during my reading of a physics text named in the question.  Admittedly, it was not a profound question, and I did demonstrate my effort to understand the statement, but was self-dissatisfied because my method was tedious though correct.  I thought I ought have seen the answer more quickly. A reader gave me the quick method I sought, and I was pleased.  Then, another reader with a high reputation commented that my question had no physical content, and closed it. I did not mind the closing of the question, but I thought the criticism was legalistic. If a reader of a stated physics text finds a maths difficulty and is discouraged from using your site, then you are not being helpful nor encouraging, in my opinion.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19818" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="c9ab4ecc-01ef-4095-85b3-f11ebec0da94" CreationDate="2015-11-26T18:31:34.630" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Questions with strictly no physics content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="c9ab4ecc-01ef-4095-85b3-f11ebec0da94" CreationDate="2015-11-26T18:31:34.630" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7264" RevisionGUID="085ca8e1-a029-4bb5-a4ab-11e91675951c" CreationDate="2015-11-27T15:49:18.463" UserId="1325" Comment="Tweak" Text="Your question was closed due to five close votes by site members, not by anyone in an official role, so the closure doesn't reflect any official site policy but just some of the site members' personal views. Those five people didn't include me, and indeed I would have left the question open were I asked (mainly because I didn't understand it :-). I note the question has a *reopen* vote, though since you have your answer it's not obvious that reopening the question would achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be wary of attaching any great significance to the closure of your question. We get so many homework questions that we are sometimes a bit trigger happy when it comes to clicking the *close* button. Sometimes mistakes are made and we close a question that should have been left open, and sometimes we fail to close a question that really should be closed. Such failings are an inevitable result of the democratic nature of the site, but I think the site works pretty well most of the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="e687d0ff-6173-43ee-a19d-e6ebc49d814e" CreationDate="2015-11-28T22:41:59.100" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/670734406798196736" />
  <row Id="19824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="2146be06-6d4c-4333-9b60-2508b4a427e7" CreationDate="2015-12-02T06:55:42.280" UserId="1325" Text="John Baez's old web site has disappeared, presumably since he's no longer associated with the university whose server they were on. In particular his page on the relativistic rocket equations is gone, and that was a useful article for gathering all the equations together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking of asking the question *What are the equations describing the motion of a relativistic rocket?* and posting a tidied up summary of the article as an answer. That way we have a copy in perpetuity (or until the SE goes bust :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we aren't a blog and our mission isn't to save every physics blog that disappears, so I thought I'd check here before posting. If you want to check what I'm talking about a cached copy of the page is [temporarily available here][1]. I'd probably omit all the stuff about the fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions please - shall I go ahead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ratsauce.co.uk/rr.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="2146be06-6d4c-4333-9b60-2508b4a427e7" CreationDate="2015-12-02T06:55:42.280" UserId="1325" Text="A canonical relativistic rocket question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="2146be06-6d4c-4333-9b60-2508b4a427e7" CreationDate="2015-12-02T06:55:42.280" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="7f288251-a9c8-40f2-b78c-ca70054726c6" CreationDate="2015-12-02T08:34:14.047" UserId="124" Text="Sounds perfectly valid to me - of course, with the standard advice about making sure it is actually a _question_. I don't think this should be too hard in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, Baez's page wasn't a blog either. Not that that has much to do with anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7268" RevisionGUID="e3977aa8-1d7f-457c-8975-2d426f4a994e" CreationDate="2015-12-02T14:11:56.043" UserId="76162" Text="It can't do any harm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm rather in the dark. I'm at work, I can't view the cached ratsauce page, it's classified as &quot;personal sites&quot;. And I don't know what old web site you're referring to. There's this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then there's a relativistic rocket page which used to be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now it's this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only that was written my Phil Gibbs and amended by Don Koks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="77270fde-aff9-4be9-abc9-5e772129a1ce" CreationDate="2015-12-02T16:01:55.980" UserId="1325" Comment="Respond to John Duffield's answer" Text="John Baez's old web site has disappeared, presumably since he's no longer associated with the university whose server they were on. In particular his page on the relativistic rocket equations is gone, and that was a useful article for gathering all the equations together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking of asking the question *What are the equations describing the motion of a relativistic rocket?* and posting a tidied up summary of the article as an answer. That way we have a copy in perpetuity (or until the SE goes bust :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we aren't a blog and our mission isn't to save every physics blog that disappears, so I thought I'd check here before posting. If you want to check what I'm talking about a cached copy of the page is [temporarily available here][1]. I'd probably omit all the stuff about the fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions please - shall I go ahead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, it appears the article has not been deleted but [has just been moved to this address][2]. Thanks to John Duffield for pointing out its new location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panic over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ratsauce.co.uk/rr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="7a60fa04-3b1f-4954-b5b5-9c015ded3dca" CreationDate="2015-12-03T03:03:34.477" UserId="25568" Text="I had asked [this question][1] some time back. What I intended to know was understood perfectly by the person who has answered it. Since then, the question has been viewed a thousand times earning me a 'popular' badge. It shows that lot of people had that question in mind. Surprisingly, I have only one up vote for my question but that is the least of my concern. I feel 'closing' this and similar questions based on some technicality will stop people from asking curious question.Curiosity is the mother of physics. Let us encourage it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/145110/how-can-a-black-hole-reduce-the-speed-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="7a60fa04-3b1f-4954-b5b5-9c015ded3dca" CreationDate="2015-12-03T03:03:34.477" UserId="25568" Text="Why more than a thousand views for my 'closed' question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="7a60fa04-3b1f-4954-b5b5-9c015ded3dca" CreationDate="2015-12-03T03:03:34.477" UserId="25568" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="d1d8382e-acb9-47b4-bcdb-576af856c8b6" CreationDate="2015-12-03T03:44:58.737" UserId="46399" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I had asked [this question][1] some time back. What I intended to know was understood perfectly by the person who has answered it. Since then, the question has been viewed a thousand times earning me a 'popular' badge. It shows that lot of people had that question in mind. Surprisingly, I have only one up vote for my question but that is the least of my concern. I feel 'closing' this and similar questions based on some technicality will stop people from asking curious questions. Curiosity is the mother of physics. Let us encourage it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/145110/how-can-a-black-hole-reduce-the-speed-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19834" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="d1d8382e-acb9-47b4-bcdb-576af856c8b6" CreationDate="2015-12-03T03:44:58.737" UserId="46399" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7270" RevisionGUID="75e5ad2d-d5e2-49fb-950f-3cff80cb6556" CreationDate="2015-12-03T08:05:17.747" UserId="63226" Text="In my brief study of quantum mechanics I have found that math done using operators typically breaks from traditional mathematics. Almost certainly between linear algebra and probably something else there is plenty of mathematics to accurately sum up operators. That being said, does it make sense to ask questions about the math of operators on math stackexchange when the math is describing entirely physical systems? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example if you have the operators A and B that both correspond to observables and you have a question on a bit of math involving them, doesn't it make more sense here where you can simply say that you are doing quantum and one immediately understands how to work with the operators? If you asked in math you would have to 1) be able to appropriately tag your question under the relevant fields of math (who knows what they are) and 2) have to explain very well the background to where the math was coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, sometimes things such as the canonical commutation relation throw a wrench into the works in a way that mathematicians might not pick up. For example when helping someone from a physics standpoint you would know that problems involving **x** and **p** might lead to having an **i hbar d/dt** pop out somewhere. Whereas in the math forums you would have to explicately remind people that this is something that exists that they could potentially work with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just seems like most math questions that stem from quantum mechanics are much more relevant on the physics forum than on the math forum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7270" RevisionGUID="75e5ad2d-d5e2-49fb-950f-3cff80cb6556" CreationDate="2015-12-03T08:05:17.747" UserId="63226" Text="Are math only questions relevant when the math is that of quantum mechanics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7270" RevisionGUID="75e5ad2d-d5e2-49fb-950f-3cff80cb6556" CreationDate="2015-12-03T08:05:17.747" UserId="63226" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="293860f7-acd6-42e2-843a-da955e04c7a6" CreationDate="2015-12-03T08:15:02.947" UserId="1325" Text="I'm a bit surprised this got closed as *unclear*. It's really a duplicate and could have been closed on that basis, though I chose to answer the question because I judged it wanted a less technical answer than the duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow I have edited the question in an attempt to make it clearer what is being asked. Jay, please feel free to undo my change if you don't think it fairly represents what you are asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the question has an accepted answer it's debatable what will be achieved by reopening it. However I can see that it's annoying to have your question closed when it's a perfectly good question so I have voted to reopen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7272" RevisionGUID="ef646264-d780-405b-8b71-f1d37b05bbd8" CreationDate="2015-12-03T09:36:53.237" UserId="50546" Text="There are plenty of mathematicians who know physics; in fact mathematical physics is considered (in most countries) a branch of mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In math.SE there is, as in phys.SE, the tag &quot;mathematical-physics&quot; to address questions like the ones you are suggesting. However, to ask a question about operators on math.SE you have to know the mathematical language of operator theory (and functional analysis). Operators are studied in mathematics in many branches: e.g. analysis of PDEs, functional analysis, theory of operator algebras. And the terminology, once you get used to it, is not so far from the one used in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I think that ***physically relevant*** pure math questions concerning QM are ok in phys.SE. In addition, I have seen more people from mathematical physics active on phys.SE than math.SE (so you would probably get an answer that has a more physical &quot;taste&quot;, nevertheless being mathematically accurate). On the contrary, a pure mathematical question that is only vaguely related to QM because it talks about operators is more suitable for math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give two concrete examples, I would say that a math question like this is ok for phys.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the sufficient conditions on the classical phase space to uniquely define (up to *-isomorphisms) the algebra of canonical commutation relations? And to have then a unique irreducible representation (up to unitary equivalence)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a question like this is not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does there exist an m-sectorial operator with compact resolvent whose real part has not compact resolvent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19840" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="24a0b7f8-0012-480f-90e4-15eb1130d887" CreationDate="2015-12-03T11:17:53.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/672374186472562688" />
  <row Id="19841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="bdb97fb0-b3ef-483f-9693-2a478fe3acb8" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:03:03.663" UserId="96278" Text="Most people on this website, who happen to have some &quot;reputation&quot;, don't want to solve homework questions, all they want to do is put questions on hold, because apparently , the questions are &quot;off-topic&quot;, and frankly quite stupid, or so I have read. Which coerces me to question, what is the topic? If one asks the process which a gas undergoes in a thermodynamics questions, under the thermodynamics tag, I suppose one's on point , alright . But instead of answering the question, these reputed members of this community put the question on hold. They instead prefer to solve questions which are way simpler, such as questions regarding simple free-body diagrams,because that stuff is dauntingly hard right? Or instead, they love to talk about physics in a  rather random sense, discussing things much beyond their own scope of understanding, and asking away whimsically. The perfect way to support this community, as I seem to perceive it, is to blabber about physics , google some more, and then blabber some more again, redundantly. &#xD;&#xA;What's the point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="bdb97fb0-b3ef-483f-9693-2a478fe3acb8" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:03:03.663" UserId="96278" Text="Why run the home-work and exercises tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="bdb97fb0-b3ef-483f-9693-2a478fe3acb8" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:03:03.663" UserId="96278" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="39dab8e9-f0c0-45b0-a46c-3b422adb6378" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:09:02.140" UserId="96278" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="Most people on this website, who happen to have some &quot;reputation&quot;, don't want to solve homework questions, all they want to do is put questions on hold, because apparently , the questions are &quot;off-topic&quot;, and frankly quite stupid, or so I have read. Which coerces me to question, what is the topic? If one asks the process which a gas undergoes in a thermodynamics questions, under the thermodynamics tag, I suppose one's on point , alright . But instead of answering the question, these reputed members of this community put the question on hold. They instead prefer to solve questions which are way simpler, such as questions regarding simple free-body diagrams,because that stuff is dauntingly hard right? Or instead, they love to talk about physics in a  rather random sense, discussing things much beyond their own scope of understanding. The nature of most of their questions is quite whimsical, and more often than not, the said questions reflect no effort on their part, and yet they are the reputed members of this community, just because they took time to edit grammatical or formatting errors in other posts.The perfect way to support this community, as I seem to perceive it, is to blabber about physics , google some more, and then blabber some more again, redundantly. &#xD;&#xA;What's the point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7274" RevisionGUID="b1f9829c-babc-4acf-b154-777be34ca627" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:32:14.800" UserId="6634" Text="Against better judgement, I will engage but with the warning now that I don't really plan on participating in a discussion; I will simply post my answer and move on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is our [sandbox](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions/6108#6108). We (as in the people who have been around for awhile, and who have discussed and voted on policies, and who participate regularly and enjoy the site) have talked about homework and answering those types of questions. And although there is some dissent, we *just don't like doing it and don't consider them to be on-topic*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, that's just not the sandbox we want to play in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your closed question specifically -- and I think somebody left a comment there to this effect -- you didn't even put in the effort to properly type and format the question. You took a picture of your homework and stuck it in there and didn't show any effort/respect for the way the site likes to operate. I can't say that typing it up properly and adding your own diagram and explaining your thought process clearly in a way that isn't just a wall of text would salvage the question. But it would certainly earn a bit more respect, at least for the effort made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lastly, even if it were open, I don't think many people would be interested in answering it. You ask for the name of something and the formula. That's not interesting. It may be helpful to you, may be helpful to somebody later who searches for something similar (another reason to type your question as text -- nobody will be able to search for and find your question as related when it's all in a picture) but it just isn't *interesting* to name something and move on. We're all volunteers here and we participate for [our own varied reasons](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions) and [when it works for us](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4551/is-it-true-that-physics-se-gets-bored-often). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if somebody doesn't see the challenge or fun in answering, it won't get answered. And the challenge/fun may be to educate somebody, or because it is thought provoking, or whatever. But naming a formula to use in a photo of a homework question doesn't strike me as either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="8122efb3-1c28-4492-ac3d-1649d51813b2" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:48:18.340" UserId="25301" Text="The point of this site can be found on the [**Tour page**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And like every Stack Exchange site, we have [**certain policies**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) in place to ensure that we can deliver the stated goal of the site. It may take some time for you to read through them, but those linked Q&amp;A's are important to understand the purpose of this site &amp; what is &quot;on topic&quot; (though a shorter summary can be [**found here**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among those, is the [**homework policy**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) that you have come across. I urge you to read through it (it's actually well-reasoned, despite your assertions it's not). Simply put, we  do **not** want the reputation of being a homework help site. We want to be a site that contains high-quality *conceptual* questions about physics (and no, answering homework questions *isn't* a concept).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want your homework questions answered by someone else, [there are plenty of other places online](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391/) with that expressed purpose; it just isn't what we do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="f6f4cbcf-e706-421b-8245-16365649bbd3" CreationDate="2015-12-03T14:09:48.397" UserId="25301" Text="I present a few counter-points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - this list of [390 closed questions with &gt;950 views &amp; is closed (but not a dupe)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+views%3A950+closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano)&#xD;&#xA; - this list of [211 closed questions with &gt;5 votes &amp; is closed (but not a dupe)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+score%3A5+closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put: there is *no* correlation between views or votes and topicality. Questions that are ill posed, which your original formulation certainly was, can still acquire rep &amp; views, despite a closed status, which is how you got your badge about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't at all believe we should let the view counts (which can *never* decrease) or votes influence whether a question is on-topic or not. That should be decided by the question itself (and the required 5 voters opinions on the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if your question *is* closed, feel free to *ask* why it was closed (preferably in a *timely* fashion, but 1 year is fine too if you want to wait that long) and how you might make it better to get it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="fed8c5c1-2fbc-4a13-9e3c-2c475627e11a" CreationDate="2015-12-03T16:43:17.150" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2073 characters in body" Text="I think this is not a particularly big problem given the nature of most common links in this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your two examples, Wikipedia and arXiv updates are natural and linking to an old version is bad practice. If the Wikipedia edits are radical enough that the original point is lost then there is always the edit history both on their side and ours that it's possible to reconstruct what the original link was. ArXiv edits are very rarely substantive enough to remove crucial information, and if they are it is a strong indication that that content was unreliable (and, again, there is the edit history to fall back on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other links, it's more of a case-by-case thing. The [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/) now enables visitors to archive pages ([unless forbidden by the site's robots.txt file](https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#14)), and **it is generally good practice to make sure that the Wayback Machine has a suitable copy** archived before linking to a webpage on this site, and particularly if the link looks susceptible to link rot. However, the link should always point to the current live version. If the link rots in the future, or the target page changes, then the link can be re-directed to the archived version if and when than happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of links which is more fragile (if relatively less common on this site) is YouTube videos, which can disappear for a variety of reasons and leave [essentially no traces behind them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzyv-sUTgag) ([stable image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/heUah.jpg)). If you're linking to a video, make sure that the video's title is preserved either in your post or in an archived version of the page. Archival services, in general, won't archive the video, but they make it possible to understand what the link was and, if there is an equivalent video available, to redirect the link to the new location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in general, here are some guidelines for when and how to take active steps to prevent link rot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Always use DOI links when linking to online articles.** A Digital Object Identifier is a permanent link and will always follow the document, while journal website urls can change and even be inaccessible to users in other locations. Find the DOI marker on the page, e.g. `doi:10.1038/nature12422`, and link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12422. For books that don't have DOI's, a good alternative is an [Open Library](http://openlibrary.org/) url.&#xD;&#xA; - While we're at this, when linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page (arxiv.org/abs/...) and not directly to the pdf. This is a courtesy to users on lower bandwidths and mobile browsers (which can automatically redirect to separate pdf viewer apps), who can then evaluate, from the abstract page, whether they want to actually download the paper.&#xD;&#xA; - If the paper has been published (which will be noted on the arXiv abstract), include a link to the journal version, even if it's paywalled, if only as a courtesy to the referees' hard work. In some fields of physics it is standard practice to upload the last, published version to the arXiv, but [this is not true in all fields](http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12052). Moreover, journals collect download and usage statistics and make them available to the authors, which the arXiv does not do. In any case, linking to the official, journal version (as well as the arXiv!) helps the author by improving the search engine ranking of their paper, and it probably helps us in that regard as well. &#xD;&#xA; - If citing a pdf of a paper or similar that is _not_ on the arXiv or a similar repository (e.g. a university repository), **use a web citation service to protect it**, ideally the [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/), or at least make a local copy.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing Wikipedia or the arXiv, **always cite the most recent version**. Revisions will most likely be improvements, and if it is unclear what the reference was for there is enough edit history to reconstruct that.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing external websites, always cite the page's current position, and make sure that there is an appropriate version of the page in the [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/).&#xD;&#xA; - When linking to YouTube or similar services, make sure that the title and other information of the content are preserved in your post, to make the linked content easier to trace if it vanishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demanding permanent links is rather too harsh and will slow down the site, particularly with new users. If someone posts a particularly fragile link, change it to a more permanent one (using WebCite, the Wayback Machine, or similar if appropriate) and refer them to this question. More experienced users should be proactive in editing such links when they look fragile.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19854" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="41f6277a-d6a7-4afc-b48b-b486cb36a051" CreationDate="2015-12-04T05:25:15.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/672647833963651072" />
  <row Id="19859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="af9526d7-a305-4290-9307-ae1e562938f9" CreationDate="2015-12-04T15:09:34.147" UserId="70392" Text="I recently put a bounty on this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155795/kinetic-theory-derivation-of-viscosity-of-a-gas which is not my own. As such, at the moment to check if someone has answered it I am having to physically go onto that question (instead of just looking at my inbox). I think this is a wider issue, lets say there is a question which has been asked and I am interested to know the answer, if this question has currently no answer, I would have to keep going onto that question to see if an answer has been posted. So is there away to get notifications for other peoples question (perhaps even ones that I have no involvement in what so ever)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="af9526d7-a305-4290-9307-ae1e562938f9" CreationDate="2015-12-04T15:09:34.147" UserId="70392" Text="Getting notifications for other peoples questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="af9526d7-a305-4290-9307-ae1e562938f9" CreationDate="2015-12-04T15:09:34.147" UserId="70392" Text="|support|notifications|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="155f0c11-bd92-4bda-810c-9492bed09d88" CreationDate="2015-12-04T15:14:52.360" UserId="520" Text="There are RSS feeds for questions, users, and tags. Look at the bottom right hand corner of the page on the full (not mobile) site for links." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19863" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="cde84b2b-5f47-4639-bd74-de60eb8480ba" CreationDate="2015-12-05T02:52:58.517" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|notifications|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7281" RevisionGUID="97da065b-4b4c-4466-af31-64ea5469dfdd" CreationDate="2015-12-05T03:57:50.590" UserId="75809" Text="Is this too vague?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What are the physical limitations that I have to keep in mind, when writing about nanobots?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like maximum effective speed, waste heat minimums, computation ability minimums, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I move to Worldbuilding, or does this have enough physics content to count as a Physics question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7281" RevisionGUID="97da065b-4b4c-4466-af31-64ea5469dfdd" CreationDate="2015-12-05T03:57:50.590" UserId="75809" Text="Is this too vague? : What are the physical limitations that I have to keep in mind, when writing about nanobots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7281" RevisionGUID="97da065b-4b4c-4466-af31-64ea5469dfdd" CreationDate="2015-12-05T03:57:50.590" UserId="75809" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7282" RevisionGUID="b8b7d071-7fe9-40e7-b159-0c29b3aa47b6" CreationDate="2015-12-05T04:37:09.190" UserId="124" Text="Yeah, I'd say it's too broad. But more than that, it's not actually about physics, so it's completely off topic for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, given that your concern seems to be _writing_ about nanobots, rather than building or designing them, Worldbuilding is probably the place to start. You would have to ask them whether they consider it too broad for that site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="ddb98668-6b47-49ea-9b56-6550037e661f" CreationDate="2015-12-05T16:14:55.587" UserId="86889" Text="[In the comments to this question][1] I advised that giving a full answer to a HW&amp;E question is not what we should do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question which contains nothing of conceptual value, is clearly a HW question and isn't well formatted, appears eligible for 'close' votes (but I haven't voted to close yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After my advice to the member providing the answer the member then asked for upvotes. *Per se* there may be nothing wrong with a bit of self-promotion but is it really acceptable? And what would happen to any upvotes if the question was closed later anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222357/finding-tension-of-ropes-between-objects-attached-via-pulleys-on-an-inclined-pla" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="ddb98668-6b47-49ea-9b56-6550037e661f" CreationDate="2015-12-05T16:14:55.587" UserId="86889" Text="Soliciting for upvotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="ddb98668-6b47-49ea-9b56-6550037e661f" CreationDate="2015-12-05T16:14:55.587" UserId="86889" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7284" RevisionGUID="661572fe-a144-431d-b870-a57ca6c814c5" CreationDate="2015-12-05T17:59:17.377" UserId="124" Text="&gt; _Per se_ there may be nothing wrong with a bit of self-promotion but is it really acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a one-time thing, it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone says something like &quot;please upvote this answer&quot; (or worse, &quot;please upvote my answer [link]&quot; posted somewhere else), that is somewhat frowned upon, and if they make a _habit_ of it, they can expect to get a stern talking-to from the regulars, if not also the mods. On the other hand, &quot;please upvote this answer if you think it's correct and useful&quot; is just a reminder of what we should be doing anyway, so that's fine. Basically, a lot depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And what would happen to any upvotes if the question was closed later anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing happens to votes when a question is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is _deleted_, then under most circumstances the reputation from any votes on that question or its answers will be revoked. The main exception is when a deleted post has been visible for 60 days and had a score of 3 or more at the time of deletion. More [details are on Meta SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222/56541)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7285" RevisionGUID="3a769241-2953-47af-b625-e7866c40db98" CreationDate="2015-12-06T11:10:29.950" UserId="93956" Text="If a person opens a particular question more than once, are the *views incremented just once or multiple times?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7285" RevisionGUID="3a769241-2953-47af-b625-e7866c40db98" CreationDate="2015-12-06T11:10:29.950" UserId="93956" Text="Views for a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7285" RevisionGUID="3a769241-2953-47af-b625-e7866c40db98" CreationDate="2015-12-06T11:10:29.950" UserId="93956" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19875" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="a62d54c7-dd6d-4621-9d48-6da939c8abea" CreationDate="2015-12-06T13:58:57.823" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:34382,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;JamalS&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9887,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alfred Centauri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50546,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;yuggib&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="381a043d-7062-4807-8efb-32ceaf2da11d" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:05:20.023" UserId="73067" Text="I like the answer http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77280/73067 but have a follow-up question. Should rather create a new question than asking the author to elaborate more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="381a043d-7062-4807-8efb-32ceaf2da11d" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:05:20.023" UserId="73067" Text="Follow-up question, how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="381a043d-7062-4807-8efb-32ceaf2da11d" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:05:20.023" UserId="73067" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7287" RevisionGUID="6796c83f-5956-4538-8ff4-41648b2bdd30" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:14:11.870" UserId="124" Text="Yes, you should create a new question. It's probably a good idea to include a link to the post that inspired it (but strictly speaking, you don't _have_ to)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="30ff9db9-0179-42f7-ac3e-a8131df668da" CreationDate="2015-12-06T19:28:52.287" UserId="32185" Text="What is the standard for the formatting of the titles of posts? What is the standard for editing the titles of posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been away for a while, and when I logged in today I noticed that the title of one of my posts had been edited: &quot;Spin Glass Prince Rupert's Drop&quot; has been changed to &quot;[Spin glass Prince Rupert's drop](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90463/spin-glass-prince-ruperts-drop).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with this edit and am curious about what the standard for such edits are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, I was under the impression that the standard for formatting edits was to clarify and universalize (i.e. break up blocks of text, add wiki links for important concepts, fix spelling or syntactical errors, remove superfluous fluff like &quot;Thanks!&quot; and &quot;I hope this gets answered. :D&quot;, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title. ([Here's](http://www.santarosa.edu/~kthornle/30/CapitalizationMLAStyle.pdf) a little PDF I found from a quick Google search that sums up what I understand to be the standard for title formatting.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited. I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the standards for formatting edits and post titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="30ff9db9-0179-42f7-ac3e-a8131df668da" CreationDate="2015-12-06T19:28:52.287" UserId="32185" Text="Guidelines for Title Formatting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="30ff9db9-0179-42f7-ac3e-a8131df668da" CreationDate="2015-12-06T19:28:52.287" UserId="32185" Text="|discussion|suggested-edits|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7289" RevisionGUID="bcb6dbe9-119b-4041-bab4-0ce4f6e42f2d" CreationDate="2015-12-07T06:13:59.550" UserId="124" Text="The First Law of Editing: if an edit makes your question less clear (to readers, not necessarily just to _you_), revert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, your assumption that post titles follow the capitalization conventions of titles in other works is not correct, because the titles of SE questions are more like summaries, not actual _titles_ per se. A question post's title should be a single sentence that represents the actual question which is being asked, or at least a phrase that conveys the core of that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept that the proper capitalization is not &quot;Title Case&quot; but &quot;Sentence case&quot;, then the question remains of whether it's worth making an edit to fix title capitalization and nothing else. I tend to agree with the view posted in [this answer to another question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7086/124), which is that these edits span a range from slightly-too-minor to just-significant-enough, depending on how much of the capitalization needs to be fixed. Specifically, if a title has just one capital letter where there shouldn't be one, that's probably too minor to fix, but if _all_ the words (with, say, a 5-word title) are capitalized according to the wrong convention, it's probably worth an edit. Our view on minor edits here tends to be that any edit which makes the post better is acceptable, and we only consider edits &quot;too minor&quot; when they don't make any improvement to the post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This edit was never about clarity, it was about standardization. In any case, I think the position that the edit makes the question _less_ clear to a majority of readers is difficult to justify. If this truly is the case - that is, if people will understand the _meaning_ of the title differently because it is missing some capital letters - then by all means the edit should be rolled back, but I don't think that's what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="59d2d045-ba23-4908-ac11-9f0d97f7df00" CreationDate="2015-12-07T18:47:29.967" UserDisplayName="user32023" Text="The experiments at LUX and Xenon500 have all but ruled out particle form of dark matter. If DM exists in our galaxy and interacts with matter, we would have seen it by now. Also, there have been several studies recently confirming that the Higgs particle found in 2013 is the Standard Model Higgs, which pretty much shuts the door on SUSY (unless we redefine SUSY to be any particle that is just beyond the energy level of our accelerators - which seems to be the fashion). I can theorize that it's purple unicorns that makes objects in galaxies spin faster. Since the probability of a dark matter particle is quickly approaching the probability of purple unicorns, when is it appropriate on this forum to ask the question: What other models would explain our universe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="59d2d045-ba23-4908-ac11-9f0d97f7df00" CreationDate="2015-12-07T18:47:29.967" UserDisplayName="user32023" Text="When is it appropriate on the Physics Forum to ask the question: What other models would explain our universe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="59d2d045-ba23-4908-ac11-9f0d97f7df00" CreationDate="2015-12-07T18:47:29.967" UserDisplayName="user32023" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="e2b4beae-3924-49ef-967f-8adcacd09289" CreationDate="2015-12-07T18:55:14.390" UserDisplayName="user32023" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The experiments at LUX and Xenon500 have all but ruled out particle form of dark matter. If DM exists in our galaxy and interacts with matter, we would have seen it by now. Also, there have been several studies recently confirming that the Higgs particle found in 2013 is the Standard Model Higgs, which pretty much shuts the door on SUSY (unless we redefine SUSY to be any particle that is just beyond the energy level of our accelerators - which seems to be the fashion). I can theorize that it's purple unicorns that makes objects in galaxies spin faster. Since the probability of a dark matter particle is quickly approaching the probability of purple unicorns, when is it appropriate on this forum to ask the question: **What other models would explain our universe?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7291" RevisionGUID="7e42b97c-5e4c-4e7f-b600-de122305888a" CreationDate="2015-12-07T19:04:33.220" UserId="124" Text="This isn't the Physics Forum, it's Physics Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, you've got two things going on in this question. First, you are presenting evidence to support the claim that dark matter is ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The experiments at LUX and Xenon500...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...is quickly approaching the probability of purple unicorns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of that is relevant to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second thing you have going on is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...when is it appropriate on this forum to ask the question: **What other models would explain our universe?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sense that you probably mean it, never. This site is not the place for a comprehensive listing of models that explain anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be reasonable, I think, is to ask what alternatives to a certain model exist _within mainstream physics_. In other words, you could ask what competing explanations are being seriously considered and actively researched by the community of scientists in the field. Of course, this requires you to (1) know what you're talking about well enough, and (2) do enough prior research, to establish that there _are_ competing models within mainstream physics. If you ask about alternatives to, say, quantum field theory, it's not going to go over very well. (Actually I'm not sure that's true; it's not my area, but perhaps there are competing models that are actively being researched. But it's about as well established a theory as I can think of at the moment.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19889" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="1ce9ed0c-96d2-4944-8239-ec8bd5ad3200" CreationDate="2015-12-07T19:21:31.127" UserDisplayName="user32023" Comment="edited title" Text="When is it appropriate on the Physics forum to ask the question: What other models would explain our universe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="a6048666-c670-4d17-ba78-abe4bc045a7f" CreationDate="2015-12-08T01:47:27.470" UserId="32185" Text="**This is a pretty long post, but if you want to just get the gist, you can read the bolded lines and the summary at the end.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I begin, I'll mention that I don't disagree with most of the statements that have been made in this thread or in others; however, I do take issue with some of the more pointed ideas. In this post, I will lay out what I think the standards for title formatting and minor edits ought to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) Minor Edits -** &#xD;&#xA;Many edits are objective improvements to a post. For instance, they might correct spelling, grammar, and/or math. However, the sort of edit at issue here falls into the gray area of judgment calls: &quot;Does this edit improve clarity? If so, by how much?&quot; or &quot;Does this edit help the post conform more closely to the expectations of our users?&quot; As a result, we must all use our best judgment when making and reviewing such edits. As David Z points out, we must try to make edits that improve the experience not only for ourselves but for everyone. For this reason, I think that **editorial restraint** is the most important standard for minor edits. That is to say: **&quot;Even if a post might be *slightly improved* by my edit I should not make this edit if the post is *good enough* already.&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither I nor anyone else knows what style or structure is most clear for the majority of users on this site because we are all - each of us - only one person. Therefore, just as we ought to try and put ourselves in others shoes when reviewing whether to keep an edit or not, we should also do that when deciding whether to make an edit in the first place. **It is not our place to make sure that every post on this site is as good as it possibly can be, and even if it were, we have no way of knowing that the small stylistic change we are about to make will improve anyone's experience but our own.** As a result, we ought to err on the side of the author when deciding whether a post is &quot;good enough already.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Title Formatting -** **There are two slightly different standards for capitalizing titles at issue here.** The first represents most written works and other works or art (for which I will follow David Z's lead and refer to it as &quot;Title Case&quot;). The second is a common but not entirely universal standard for titling academic papers (which I'll call &quot;Sentence case&quot;). I contend that **both have a place among post tiles on this site** and that there is no reason to apply one standard over the other in all circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my opinion that a good post title conveys the most important information about the post clearly and in the fewest words possible. Sometimes the best way to do this is with a short phrase consisting mostly of nouns - this way the topic is presented cleanly and directly. Sometimes the best way is to use a short sentence fragment usually starting with a participle (this is a style common among academic papers). And sometimes the best way to do this is to ask the question itself in the title; however, this is often not possible because the topic is either too complicated or not understood well-enough by the questioner to allow for this. **The first type of title benefits from &quot;Title Case&quot; while the second two make more sense using &quot;Sentence case.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's address this specific example. &quot;Spin Glass Prince Rupert's Drop&quot; is a newly coined phrase that is the combination of two existing phrases: &quot;spin glass&quot; and &quot;Prince Rupert's drop.&quot; Each word in this new phrase is equally important, and de-emphasizing any of them muddles its meaning. Of course I can only speak for myself, but when reading titles I tend to skim. I read all of the words but really only pay attention to the most important words, and I take my cues on what is important from the capitalization of the title. This is because I have an expectation that the author will both make sense with his words and convey meaningful information to me. I largely ignore lower-case words as essential to the *sense* of the title but not to the title's *meaning*. Therefore, changing the title to &quot;Spin glass Prince Rupert's drop&quot; is a detriment to the reader because he will instinctively take the title's meaning from &quot;Spin Prince Rupert's&quot; and be forced to focus more closely or read the title again to avoid missing a significant portion of the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, I re-emphasize that this is only a marginal decrease in clarity. **The title works either way, but it is for precisely that reason that it should not have been changed.** Editorial restraint ought to be the standard for edits of this sort, and this edit demonstrates anything but.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) The Uses of Different Titles -** As I mentioned earlier, I think that both capitalization conventions have their place. &quot;Title Case&quot; is good for short titles that are conveying a large amount of meaning in a small space, while &quot;Sentence case&quot; is much more suitable to longer titles that are expressing more nuanced ideas. It would be silly to use &quot;Title Case&quot; in a question or a long sentence fragment because it would muddle the readers ability to parse the sentence's meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the title &quot;Finding the electric field outside of a uniformly charged sphere&quot; is vastly superior to &quot;Electric Field outside of a Uniformly Charged Sphere&quot; and slightly better than &quot;How do I find the electric field outside of a uniformly charged sphere?&quot; My reasoning is that the first title emphasizes the fact that the question is about computation while including the necessary information about what the computation will address. On the other hand, the second title is not only exhausting to read it is also vague - &quot;What about the electric field?&quot; the reader is forced to ask. Finally, the question form of that title is pretty good, but it is unnecessarily long and buries all of the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As a result, each of these types of titles is good for different sorts of questions.** Short, &quot;Title Case&quot; titles are good for analogical or existential questions and toy problems. Sentence fragment titles are good for computational problems and problem solving. Question titles are good for succinct, direct questions (like, &quot;What causes a double rainbow?&quot; or &quot;Is there a hottest possible temperature?&quot;). But of course, this is just my opinion and other people might disagree with me. Someone might title a question &quot;The Formation of Double Rainbows,&quot; and I probably wouldn't feel the need to edit it despite the fact that I think that it is a sub-optimal title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is for these reasons that I think that the original title of the post in question is still the best. &quot;Spin Glass Prince Rupert's Drop&quot; is short, direct, and puts all of the important information on display. &quot;Spin glass Prince Rupert's drop&quot; is pretty good but obfuscates the important information unnecessarily. And the post's current title &quot;Is there a spin glass version of a Prince Rupert's Drop?&quot; is astoundingly bad because it buries all of the important information and wastes a large number of words to do it. **It is by no means necessary that all posts have a question for their title: this is a site specifically designed for people to ask questions; we know that they are going to ask a question in the post the title just needs to tell us what the question is going to be about.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, **there is no pressing need for the title to be the whole post.** A well-written post will present its question and the motivation for it clearly. Take, for example, the title post of this very thread. It does not follow some of the conventions that have been put forward by other users, but I doubt that most people would find it confusing or unclear. The title clearly states the issue, the first two sentences ask the specific questions, and the final sentence restates those questions in a different way. **Titles are important, but the content and structure of posts are vastly more important.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4) Summary -** In short, I feel that edits (especially those made by users who do not require approval) should not be made unless its contribution to the post is substantial. Likewise, reverting edits should follow the same rule of thumb. In other words, we should micromanage less and trust the judgment of users more. Additionally, I don't think that there is a compelling reason to enforce &quot;Sentence case&quot; over &quot;Title Case&quot; in post titles since they both have a place and can be used in different circumstances to varying effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="d0e7348f-a0ba-4f31-b248-21f84571bd14" CreationDate="2015-12-08T05:48:46.850" UserId="31790" Text="&gt; Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;[We discussed titles at length in the meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;One of the things the FAQ says is [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the FAQ tag there, which I believe indicates that the post there and its accepted answer is considered site standard.&#xD;&#xA;We should follow that standard whether or not we agree with the stylistic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter; we have a site standard and we should adhere to it.&#xD;&#xA;Consistency is much more important than choosing the right convention.&#xD;&#xA;For example, programmers have a variety of opinions on issues such as `camelCase` versus `lower_case_with_underscores` conventions for variable names.&#xD;&#xA;Most people agree that the choice doesn't matter nearly as much as consistency within a language or project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made that edit.&#xD;&#xA;I did it because we have a site standard for titles and I think it makes the front page much easier to read if all the titles conform to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DavidZ already pointed out, that edit was not about clarity, it was about conforming to site standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note that although I wrote both the question and answer, it was edited in accordance with the input from other users. I'm not just promoting my own opinion here. For example, I definitely do not have the ability to put the FAQ tag on meta posts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="1399793f-6e4a-46ac-9212-4dca2939bd7d" CreationDate="2015-12-08T07:29:44.807" UserId="1325" Text="The number one priority for the site is that we have members prepared to work at posting good questions and good answers. Right now we have a serious deficit of the former, and while we have lots of people working hard at the latter more are always welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to this any debates about about capitalisation in titles are utterly trivial. The idea that we would turn away a good contributor to the site because they insisted on a certain capitalisation standard is ludicrous, if not also rather arrogant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like the edit then revert it. The OP always has the last say and the only sanction for site members is to close and/or delete the question - neither of which would be done in this case. Your question makes a net positive contribution to the Physics SE regardless of how you format the title." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19893" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="099db0f4-a762-4b4d-9517-5da75ff74470" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:26:41.183" UserId="2451" Comment="It is confusing to talk about Physics Forum when it is Phys. SE" Text="When is it appropriate on Phys.SE to ask the question: What other models would explain our universe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="099db0f4-a762-4b4d-9517-5da75ff74470" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:26:41.183" UserId="2451" Comment="It is confusing to talk about Physics Forum when it is Phys. SE" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="099db0f4-a762-4b4d-9517-5da75ff74470" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:26:41.183" UserId="2451" Comment="It is confusing to talk about Physics Forum when it is Phys. SE" Text="The experiments at LUX and Xenon500 have all but ruled out particle form of dark matter. If DM exists in our galaxy and interacts with matter, we would have seen it by now. Also, there have been several studies recently confirming that the Higgs particle found in 2013 is the Standard Model Higgs, which pretty much shuts the door on SUSY (unless we redefine SUSY to be any particle that is just beyond the energy level of our accelerators - which seems to be the fashion). I can theorize that it's purple unicorns that makes objects in galaxies spin faster. Since the probability of a dark matter particle is quickly approaching the probability of purple unicorns, when is it appropriate on this Q&amp;A to ask the question: **What other models would explain our universe?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="cc60fd38-1541-48e7-8639-3eb5f1cae277" CreationDate="2015-12-08T21:11:05.883" UserId="31790" Comment="Point out that I didn't make the rules." Text="&gt; Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;[We discussed titles at length in the meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;One of the things the FAQ says is [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the FAQ tag there, which I believe indicates that the post there and its accepted answer is considered site standard.&#xD;&#xA;We should follow that standard whether or not we agree with the stylistic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter; we have a site standard and we should adhere to it.&#xD;&#xA;Consistency is much more important than choosing the right convention.&#xD;&#xA;For example, programmers have a variety of opinions on issues such as `camelCase` versus `lower_case_with_underscores` conventions for variable names.&#xD;&#xA;Most people agree that the choice doesn't matter nearly as much as consistency within a language or project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made that edit.&#xD;&#xA;I did it because we have a site standard for titles and I think it makes the front page much easier to read if all the titles conform to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DavidZ already pointed out, that edit was not about clarity, it was about conforming to site standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note that although I wrote both the question and answer, it was edited in accordance with the input from other users. I'm not just promoting my own opinion here. In fact, **the part about not capitalizing all words in titles was not written by me**. Also, I do not have the ability to put the FAQ tag on meta posts, so someone else with way more power than I decided to make that Q&amp;A the standard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19897" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="f4cb9fc0-867c-4878-81ae-c653d896e8bd" CreationDate="2015-12-08T21:16:55.370" UserId="31790" />
  <row Id="19902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7296" RevisionGUID="b5fe6f93-f6f3-4674-98a3-1c32fbcc8320" CreationDate="2015-12-08T23:37:35.037" UserId="84488" Text="&gt; For example if you have the operators A and B that both correspond to observables...If you asked in math you would have to 1) be able to appropriately tag your question under the relevant fields of math (who knows what they are) and 2) have to explain very well the background to where the math was coming from...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you correctly state the question in terms of mathematical objects, mathematicians will understand and will immediately refer to the corresponding areas. In the case at hand I do not see any particular difficulty to address the theory of operators as suggested tag and I do not want to believe that you have to explain where the mathematics comes from; that those are observables in quantum mechanics or mere self-adjoint operators, it makes no difference (that is exactly the entire purpose of using the formalism in physics). For example, the below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Question: let A, B be two self-adjoint operators such that [A,B] \subset i1 on their domains of definition. Prove that given any L^2 function on the circle then...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perfectly addresses any physical question related to the uncertainty principle and similars. This said, I am nevertheless a strong supporter of keeping the mathematics questions on the physics area because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. despite any personal opinion, mathematics **does** play a prominent role in modern physics, especially in QFT, string theory, quantum gravity and related areas. Most of nowadays research in the aforementioned is mainly carried exploiting mathematics rather than physical ideas (for instance I do not see any physics in the renormalisation procedures in QFT, to say one, but that could as well just be me...)&#xD;&#xA; 2. physicists are, according to me, far better than mathematicians in the area of *mathematical physics*.&#xD;&#xA; 3. (warning, very irrelevant!) those questions are the only ones I answer and understand ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7296" RevisionGUID="c9c7099b-f043-4d0c-83bf-b5df5348ccd7" CreationDate="2015-12-08T23:52:32.703" UserId="84488" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; For example if you have the operators A and B that both correspond to observables...If you asked in math you would have to 1) be able to appropriately tag your question under the relevant fields of math (who knows what they are) and 2) have to explain very well the background to where the math was coming from...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you correctly state the question in terms of mathematical objects, mathematicians will understand and will immediately refer to the corresponding areas. In the case at hand I do not see any particular difficulty to address the theory of operators as suggested tag and I do not want to believe that you have to explain where the mathematics comes from; that those are observables in quantum mechanics or mere self-adjoint operators, it makes no difference (that is exactly the entire purpose of using the formalism in physics). For example, the below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Question: let A, B be two self-adjoint operators such that [A,B] \subset i1 on their domains of definition. Prove that given any L^2 function on the circle then...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perfectly addresses any physics question related to the uncertainty principle and similars. This said, I am nevertheless a strong supporter of keeping the mathematics questions on the physics area because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. despite any personal opinion, mathematics **does** play a prominent role in modern physics, especially in QFT, string theory, quantum gravity and related areas. Most of nowadays research in the aforementioned is mainly carried exploiting mathematics rather than physical ideas (for instance I do not see any physics in the renormalisation procedures in QFT, to say one, but that could as well just be me...)&#xD;&#xA; 2. physicists are, according to me, far better than mathematicians in the area of *mathematical physics*.&#xD;&#xA; 3. (warning, very irrelevant!) those questions are the only ones I answer and understand ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7296" RevisionGUID="c40d10a5-3610-4a71-9513-d3ff441ac007" CreationDate="2015-12-09T10:18:32.143" UserId="84488" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="&gt; For example if you have the operators A and B that both correspond to observables...If you asked in math you would have to 1) be able to appropriately tag your question under the relevant fields of math (who knows what they are) and 2) have to explain very well the background to where the math was coming from...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you correctly state the question in terms of mathematical objects, mathematicians will understand and will immediately refer to the corresponding areas. In the case at hand I do not see any particular difficulty to address the theory of operators as suggested tag and I do not want to believe that you have to explain where the mathematics comes from; that those are observables in quantum mechanics or mere self-adjoint operators, it makes no difference (that is exactly the entire purpose of using the formalism in physics). For example, the below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Question: let A, B be two self-adjoint operators such that [A,B] \subset i1 on their domains of definition. Prove that given any L^2 function on the circle then...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perfectly addresses any physics question related to the uncertainty principle and similars that can be asked on the mathematics platform. This said, I am nevertheless a strong supporter of keeping the mathematics questions on the physics area because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. despite any personal opinion, mathematics **does** play a prominent role in modern physics, especially in QFT, string theory, quantum gravity and related areas. Most of nowadays research in the aforementioned is mainly carried exploiting mathematics rather than physical ideas (for instance I do not see any physics in the renormalisation procedures in QFT, to say one, but that could as well just be me...)&#xD;&#xA; 2. physicists are, according to me, far better than mathematicians in the area of *mathematical physics*.&#xD;&#xA; 3. (warning, very irrelevant!) those questions are the only ones I answer and understand ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="24e6494a-0041-41ec-912f-404b47a186f9" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:40:54.457" UserId="8563" Text="I'm completely stumped by this. The question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223313/energy-expectation-value uses the LaTeX command `\bk`, which is definitely not a standard LaTeX command. Quite fittingly, it fails to display correctly on the question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7eMkj.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing this, I clicked on the `edit` button to fix that LaTeX, but to my great surprise I was met by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwOAs.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, in particular, that the `\bk`s evaluate as bra-ket pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will go ahead and change this into more standard LaTeX, as there exist devices on which this fails to display correctly, but I'm more interested in why and how on Earth this happened. Evidently the display and edit pages are calling different instances of MathJax, but how come they support different command sets? This strikes me as a bug (the OP here thought it would display correctly and it didn't), for one, but more than fixing it I'm interested in any details of the back end that are responsible for this behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm running Google Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (64-bit) over Ubuntu 14.04." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="24e6494a-0041-41ec-912f-404b47a186f9" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:40:54.457" UserId="8563" Text="MathJax rendering `\bk` differently in question display and edit modes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="24e6494a-0041-41ec-912f-404b47a186f9" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:40:54.457" UserId="8563" Text="|support|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="8173e3b0-4623-4e45-ba62-69da35626545" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:46:11.517" UserId="8563" Comment="added 581 characters in body" Text="I'm completely stumped by this. The question [Enegy Expectation Value](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/223313/2) uses the LaTeX command `\bk`, which is definitely not a standard LaTeX command. Quite fittingly, it fails to display correctly on the question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7eMkj.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing this, I clicked on the `edit` button to fix that LaTeX, but to my great surprise I was met by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwOAs.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, in particular, that the `\bk`s evaluate as bra-ket pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will go ahead and change this into more standard LaTeX, as there exist devices on which this fails to display correctly, but I'm more interested in why and how on Earth this happened. Evidently the display and edit pages are calling different instances of MathJax, but how come they support different command sets? This strikes me as a bug (the OP here thought it would display correctly and it didn't), for one, but more than fixing it I'm interested in any details of the back end that are responsible for this behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm running Google Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (64-bit) over Ubuntu 14.04.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aha, Sebastian Riese [points out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223313/energy-expectation-value#comment481409_223313) that the responsible line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\newcommand{\bk}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;needs to be at the top of the post for this to work on question display mode. This is definitely the expected behaviour, and I'm confused as to why the edit mode thinks it's OK. Maybe it's running MathJax multiple times over the post, and picking up definitions for the next round? This strikes me as buggy behaviour, to be honest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="8173e3b0-4623-4e45-ba62-69da35626545" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:46:11.517" UserId="8563" Comment="added 581 characters in body" Text="MathJax rendering \bk differently in question display and edit modes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="4053b1da-5693-4460-8732-2b52d085384d" CreationDate="2015-12-10T14:34:36.603" UserId="124" Text="My guess is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When you first _view_ the question, the MathJax processor goes through the page rendering math, encountering several instances of `\bk` which it doesn't recognize, and renders them as errors, as you'd expect.&#xD;&#xA;2. Then it gets to the `\newcommand`, which adds `\bk` into the list of recognized macros.&#xD;&#xA;3. Then when you go to _edit_ the post, what happens is that Stack Exchange's Javascript constructs the text box and an empty preview pane and inserts them into the page in place of the question.&#xD;&#xA;4. Then another piece of Javascript runs which interprets the contents of the textbox as Markdown, converts it to HTML, and inserts the resulting HTML into the preview pane.&#xD;&#xA;5. That script triggers _another_ run of the MathJax processor, this time only operating on the contents of the preview pane (i.e. the rendered HTML from the previous step). Since the page hasn't been reloaded, the macro definitions from the original page (before you started editing) are still in effect, and thus the MathJax processor is able to render `\bk` to a braket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to check this, go to a question (or start writing a new question) and define some MathJax macro with `\newcommand`, wait for the preview to update, and then remove the `\newcommand` macro from the text of the post and let the preview update again. Your definition should still be in place. (In this example, if you remove the `\newcommand{\bk}{...}` and let the preview update, you will still see the `\bk`s rendered as brakets. Of course actually _submitting_ that edit will make them show up as errors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure whether to consider this a bug, because it exceeds the scope of where MathJax is meant to be used, namely static pages where the MathJax processor runs _once_, or at the most, live-update pages where content is added on at the end, not replaced in the middle of the page. But on the other hand, it is undesirable behavior. The fix is _conceptually_ straightforward; SE would have to adjust their preview function so that any definitions made within the post itself are &quot;sandboxed&quot;, and cleared out each time the preview refreshes. It's probably easier said than done, though I'm not sure how much easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="161709ab-2ba5-480e-ac08-759d451c89e0" CreationDate="2015-12-10T18:29:33.650" UserId="8563" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text="I'm completely stumped by this. The question [Enegy Expectation Value](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/223313/2) uses the LaTeX command `\bk`, which is definitely not a standard LaTeX command. Quite fittingly, it fails to display correctly on the question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7eMkj.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing this, I clicked on the `edit` button to fix that LaTeX, but to my great surprise I was met by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwOAs.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, in particular, that the `\bk`s evaluate as bra-ket pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will go ahead and change this into more standard LaTeX, as there exist devices on which this fails to display correctly, but I'm more interested in why and how on Earth this happened. Evidently the display and edit pages are calling different instances of MathJax, but how come they support different command sets? This strikes me as a bug (the OP here thought it would display correctly and it didn't), for one, but more than fixing it I'm interested in any details of the back end that are responsible for this behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm running Google Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (64-bit) over Ubuntu 14.04.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aha, Sebastian Riese [points out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223313/energy-expectation-value#comment481409_223313) that the responsible line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\newcommand{\bk}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;needs to be at the top of the post for this to work on question display mode. This is definitely the expected behaviour, and I'm confused as to why the edit mode thinks it's OK. Maybe it's running MathJax multiple times over the post, and picking up definitions for the next round? This strikes me as buggy behaviour, to be honest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we're at this, I'll indulge in a small experiment. The above code, in this answer, modified to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    \newcommand{\bk}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}&#xD;&#xA;    \bk{E}&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;produces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;\newcommand{\bk}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}&#xD;&#xA;\bk{E}&#xD;&#xA;$$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19912" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="580aae25-3860-4622-81fb-26fa218a28d5" CreationDate="2015-12-10T18:29:49.757" UserId="8563" Comment="Rollback to [8173e3b0-4623-4e45-ba62-69da35626545]" Text="I'm completely stumped by this. The question [Enegy Expectation Value](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/223313/2) uses the LaTeX command `\bk`, which is definitely not a standard LaTeX command. Quite fittingly, it fails to display correctly on the question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7eMkj.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing this, I clicked on the `edit` button to fix that LaTeX, but to my great surprise I was met by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwOAs.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, in particular, that the `\bk`s evaluate as bra-ket pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will go ahead and change this into more standard LaTeX, as there exist devices on which this fails to display correctly, but I'm more interested in why and how on Earth this happened. Evidently the display and edit pages are calling different instances of MathJax, but how come they support different command sets? This strikes me as a bug (the OP here thought it would display correctly and it didn't), for one, but more than fixing it I'm interested in any details of the back end that are responsible for this behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm running Google Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (64-bit) over Ubuntu 14.04.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aha, Sebastian Riese [points out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223313/energy-expectation-value#comment481409_223313) that the responsible line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\newcommand{\bk}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;needs to be at the top of the post for this to work on question display mode. This is definitely the expected behaviour, and I'm confused as to why the edit mode thinks it's OK. Maybe it's running MathJax multiple times over the post, and picking up definitions for the next round? This strikes me as buggy behaviour, to be honest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="a4e92317-f6e4-41ca-b3db-1204659f8f6a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T03:37:02.520" UserId="42618" Text="My question is: *Is it acceptable to notify users who ask &quot;solve this for me&quot; questions of a site built specifically for that purpose?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is post a comment on &quot;solve this problem&quot; questions referencing how to get help with homework on PSE the right way, and referencing the site where they may find and are encouraged to ask for a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it could be good for PSE by redirecting those questions from the site, and it would be good for the site by giving it traffic it would not otherwise see. I wanted to ask and make sure before doing so however, because I have built the site and do not believe it would be ethical to promote it here without the permission of the PSE community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some background about the project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a physics and computer science major from Indiana that created a website structured a bit like a stack exchange site (Question answer format, votes, comments) with a sole focus on generating and providing solutions to STEM major problems you might find in textbooks or in homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spent a lot of time scrounging the web for solutions to problems for a variety of reasons over my year of physics courses and am a believer that seeing it done can be a great way to learn efficiently, check your work on problems without answers in the book, and to find some missing details you may have missed while trying to solve a problem without spending an hour trying to realize you forgot something like cm^2 = 10^-4 =/= 10^-2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The website is [ToughSTEM.com][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://toughstem.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="a4e92317-f6e4-41ca-b3db-1204659f8f6a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T03:37:02.520" UserId="42618" Text="Ethics - Redirecting homework solution seeking questions to a website built for that purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="a4e92317-f6e4-41ca-b3db-1204659f8f6a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T03:37:02.520" UserId="42618" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7300" RevisionGUID="4c7cf941-f982-4056-97be-d44c8e94f7c8" CreationDate="2015-12-12T11:40:07.197" UserId="25301" Text="My observations are that it is actually rare for someone to post more than the copy &amp; paste question &amp; rebuttal that &quot;It's not homework!&quot; or &quot;I just need the answer!&quot; before they leave for good&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that someone does post more than that, I think leaving a comment to the [**My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391) Meta post, where you've already posted a link to your site, would suffice those users who are really begging for help. A message I've saved on my [**Auto-comment**](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (but almost never used) is something along the lines of,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site, but if you do want that kind of help, you can [take a look at this thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391) for a list of free online homework help resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I would say that if you constantly promoted *just* your site on HW questions, it probably would end up being flagged as *promotional content* which can get the comment deleted and, if you're persistent enough, give you [a suspension](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). I'm sure you would love traffic to your site, but whether risking a suspension here for that is worth it is up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different story and I'd rather not derail this question on that.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="8e5bd343-c993-4f9e-b222-24cc884fecfa" CreationDate="2015-12-12T16:12:33.907" UserId="70392" Text="This question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155795/kinetic-theory-derivation-of-viscosity-of-a-gas has an accepted answer. That answer, however, does not contain the amount of detail that I want for a specific part of the question. I have (in the recent past) placed a bounty on the question asking for more detail, however no other answers where forthcoming. I am guessing that if I re-asked the part of the question I require, it would rather quickly be closed as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any situations where a duplicate is ok, and if so does my above case fall into one of these situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="8e5bd343-c993-4f9e-b222-24cc884fecfa" CreationDate="2015-12-12T16:12:33.907" UserId="70392" Text="When is asking a duplicate ok?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="8e5bd343-c993-4f9e-b222-24cc884fecfa" CreationDate="2015-12-12T16:12:33.907" UserId="70392" Text="|support|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7302" RevisionGUID="9a44621c-0ad5-40d3-8410-97b55d95abd6" CreationDate="2015-12-12T16:49:12.293" UserId="25301" Text="If the bounty asking for an extension/explanation of part of the question did not work, I think it should be okay to post a new question on that extensions/explanation you want. *But* you will need to frame it in such a way that you specify exactly *why* it is different from the older one. For example, saying something like,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This other question (link as well) asks why X is possible, but the answer doesn't describe feature Y that I think is partly responsible or otherwise important. Could someone explain if this feature Y performs the function as I expressed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would go a lot further than simply asking the same thing again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="d98f299f-d97d-4a28-aa0d-54eff49c8d0a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T16:56:18.653" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19922" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="4aecc71a-37ed-4805-acc4-6e582d2a4cce" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:02:28.663" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="97153c80-3997-4e4c-8c61-e019f76f556a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:04:26.990" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 162 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="[This question][1] that was wrongly  marked as duplicate (has been reopened since) to [this question][2] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marked one asks &quot;How can the unstable particles of the standard model be considered particles in their own right if they immediately decay into stable particles?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the suggested original &quot;What is the essential difference between a resonance and a particle? &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers to the last do not address the problem. The Z and W mesons are more than  resonances, they are elementary particles of the standard model . The  &quot;duplicate&quot; asks if the elementary particles could be excitations . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the moderators have a look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: question is open with votes. see my comment below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208410/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188015/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19924" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="97153c80-3997-4e4c-8c61-e019f76f556a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:04:26.990" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 162 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Wrongly marked as duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="97153c80-3997-4e4c-8c61-e019f76f556a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:04:26.990" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 162 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|status-completed|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="e43053de-b3a2-4f48-a9d9-76dcee12ba0a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:06:50.763" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="8f2825eb-7a4f-47b9-b59d-6012ba7412bb" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:08:06.353" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19928" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="c479bafc-6f54-4c1d-b692-883458807130" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:09:17.357" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|duplicates|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="dee2eec5-a751-4e01-bb90-3fcac4880846" CreationDate="2015-12-12T17:10:33.860" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="41a17770-162c-4249-ae38-32dcd871b088" CreationDate="2015-12-13T09:10:08.307" UserId="1492" Text="I must have missed something. What is this &quot;cite&quot;  in the same line as &quot;edit&quot; and &quot;close&quot; in a question, and &quot;edit&quot; and &quot;flag&quot; in an answer. Cite what and where?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="41a17770-162c-4249-ae38-32dcd871b088" CreationDate="2015-12-13T09:10:08.307" UserId="1492" Text="what is this &quot;cite&quot; in the same line as edit and close" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="41a17770-162c-4249-ae38-32dcd871b088" CreationDate="2015-12-13T09:10:08.307" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19933" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="f97f473b-91d9-4421-a2fb-48876218cd9f" CreationDate="2015-12-13T17:07:19.710" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7056],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="8aeef80a-1803-4f88-89b5-e43ff158805c" CreationDate="2015-12-14T05:33:09.713" UserId="1492" Text="I want your opinions on how useful it is to throw second quantization at students when they have not understood first quantization. I tend to add a simpler answer when I see this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the emphasis on second quantization and statements of the type &quot;all space is filled with electron fields /particle fields etc&quot;  instead of &quot;one can describe mathematically that the ground state of the electron wave function  covers all space&quot; gives a false &quot;aether type&quot; impression . False because if there is no electron at (x,y,z,t) the ground state gives zero probability of finding one, and the impression given is that there exists something there except zero. It is a similar conceptual problem as with virtual versus real. Creating this aether of all  fields  in mathematics does not mean a real physical existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can fit the shape of my computer with a fourier series expansion or another complete mathematical series expansion from here to infinity. This does not mean that part of my computer is at infinity. It makes mathematics as a reality, which is not the current physics point of view imo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="8aeef80a-1803-4f88-89b5-e43ff158805c" CreationDate="2015-12-14T05:33:09.713" UserId="1492" Text="second quantization and elementray questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="8aeef80a-1803-4f88-89b5-e43ff158805c" CreationDate="2015-12-14T05:33:09.713" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="daf5b708-9e88-4555-9f40-2e24583fcfbb" CreationDate="2015-12-14T06:00:13.077" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo fix" Text="I want your opinions on how useful it is to throw second quantization at students when they have not understood first quantization. I tend to add a simpler answer when I see this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the emphasis on second quantization and statements of the type &quot;all space is filled with electron fields /particle fields etc&quot;  instead of &quot;one can describe mathematically that the ground state of the electron wave function  covers all space&quot; gives a false &quot;aether type&quot; impression . False because if there is no electron at (x,y,z,t) the ground state gives zero probability of finding one, and the impression given is that there exists something there except zero. It is a similar conceptual problem as with virtual versus real. Creating this aether of all  fields  in mathematics does not mean a real physical existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can fit the shape of my computer with a Fourier series expansion or another complete mathematical series expansion from here to infinity. This does not mean that part of my computer is at infinity. It makes mathematics as a reality, which is not the current physics point of view imo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19939" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="daf5b708-9e88-4555-9f40-2e24583fcfbb" CreationDate="2015-12-14T06:00:13.077" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo fix" Text="second quantization and elementary questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7305" RevisionGUID="73ffa8ee-69c6-49a4-8f12-a347d86fbbe5" CreationDate="2015-12-14T11:22:00.877" UserId="25301" Text="With respect to answers to questions on this site, I think that as long as the answer addresses the concerns of the OP, it is okay to use language &amp; mathematics beyond their ken. You probably won't get terribly many upvotes or accepted answers doing that, but I don't think that's a bad thing&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the answers we post here aren't necessarily for the actual OP, they're for the [100 people who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM) (~45 min lecture by SE founder [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky); the hypertext phrase is a paraphrase of something he says in the video). So your answer, while likely advanced for the OP, could actually be beneficial to someone else at another point in time, which is a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I mean that, since reputation isn't really useful outside of [some privileges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges), not gaining more doesn't do anything bad.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19941" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="a09d4a33-b2e1-4617-8fef-6db02b60020a" CreationDate="2015-12-14T11:56:45.130" UserId="46399" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:46399,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;The Dark Side&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19942" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="bf23e16c-2fd6-4753-91f7-2d172d7b0122" CreationDate="2015-12-14T11:57:17.990" UserId="46399" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:46399,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;The Dark Side&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19951" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7270" RevisionGUID="b7ee6265-72b9-42d9-86e0-391d462879fb" CreationDate="2015-12-16T06:20:33.530" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/677010404774715393" />
  <row Id="19952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7308" RevisionGUID="ff6752ea-100d-4092-a11b-e048920359a1" CreationDate="2015-12-16T13:45:01.457" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; I want your opinions on how useful it is to throw second quantization at students when they have not understood first quantization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that it might not be very useful, but you do need to give a correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I tend to add a simpler answer when I see this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's understandable. If it's a simpler version of the correct answer who could possibly object? I think the issue comes if you start getting sucked into [&quot;lies to children&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also the emphasis on second quantization and statements of the type &quot;all space is filled with electron fields/particle fields etc&quot; instead of &quot;one can describe mathematically that the ground state of the electron wave function covers all space&quot; gives a false &quot;aether type&quot; impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't false. Einstein talked of space as the [aether of general relativity](http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html), check out [the arXiv](http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+aether/0/1/0/all/0/1), and see what Robert B Laughlin said [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum) about quantum vacuum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; False because if there is no electron at (x,y,z,t) the ground state gives zero probability of finding one, and the impression given is that there exists something there except zero. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is something there. Space is not nothing. What's false is the notion that the electron is a point particle located at (x,y,z,t). It just doesn't match the hard scientific evidence of electron diffraction etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is a similar conceptual problem as with virtual versus real. Creating this aether of all fields in mathematics does not mean a real physical existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But space exists, electromagnetic fields exist, gravitational fields exist, and so on. It doesn't mean to say that electron fields and photon fields and gluon fields etc all exist, but something does. See Einstein talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields [in 1929](http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html): _&quot;It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds&quot;_. According to Einstein, a field is a state of space. And how many states of space are there where an electron is? _One_. IMHO little things like this are the key to unification, and the multiple fields of QFT are pulling in the wrong direction.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One can fit the shape of my computer with a Fourier series expansion or another complete mathematical series expansion from here to infinity. This does not mean that part of my computer is at infinity. It makes mathematics as a reality, which is not the current physics point of view imo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO some people elevate mathematics above reality, and don't pay enough attention to the scientific evidence.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7308" RevisionGUID="c8aa0319-b1b8-4242-b136-5b6a75138667" CreationDate="2015-12-16T13:50:55.600" UserId="76162" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="&gt; I want your opinions on how useful it is to throw second quantization at students when they have not understood first quantization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that it might not be very useful, but you do need to give a correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I tend to add a simpler answer when I see this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's understandable. If it's a simpler version of the correct answer who could possibly object? I think the issue comes if you start getting sucked into [&quot;lies to children&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also the emphasis on second quantization and statements of the type &quot;all space is filled with electron fields/particle fields etc&quot; instead of &quot;one can describe mathematically that the ground state of the electron wave function covers all space&quot; gives a false &quot;aether type&quot; impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't false. Einstein talked of space as the [aether of general relativity](http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html), check out [the arXiv](http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+aether/0/1/0/all/0/1), and see what Robert B Laughlin said [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum) about quantum vacuum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; False because if there is no electron at (x,y,z,t) the ground state gives zero probability of finding one, and the impression given is that there exists something there except zero. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is something there. Space is not nothing. What's false is the notion that the electron is a point particle located at (x,y,z,t). It just doesn't match the hard scientific evidence of electron diffraction etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is a similar conceptual problem as with virtual versus real. Creating this aether of all fields in mathematics does not mean a real physical existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But space exists, gravitational fields exist, electromagnetic fields exist, and so on. It doesn't mean to say that electric fields and magnetic fields exist as separate unrelated things. Or that photon fields and electron fields and gluon fields etc all exist as separate unrelated things. But something exists. See Einstein talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields [in 1929](http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html): _&quot;It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds&quot;_. According to Einstein, a field is a state of space. And how many states of space are there where an electron is? _One_. IMHO little things like this are the key to unification, and the multiple fields of QFT are pulling in the wrong direction.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One can fit the shape of my computer with a Fourier series expansion or another complete mathematical series expansion from here to infinity. This does not mean that part of my computer is at infinity. It makes mathematics as a reality, which is not the current physics point of view imo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO some people elevate mathematics above reality, and don't pay enough attention to the scientific evidence.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7311" RevisionGUID="07dc598f-d4e9-453c-a9d8-cd97ccbbe967" CreationDate="2015-12-18T06:41:06.910" UserId="1492" Text="I think that for the occasional homework question if it remains without some hints in the answers or has no answers, it would be OK to refer to another site. The policy for homework here is that the site will help if effort is shown, but not to the point of solving the problem for them. But I am afraid adding your site for each homework tag will not be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem for me too, the referencing to another site, because comments of mine have been deleted when referencing a theoretical site where I know many high level theorists are involved. I try to do that when after some time there are no answers or adequate answers, as it is a pity not to point out somebody to a resource that exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="5a9fe7aa-4617-46d2-862b-6a4849c04c35" CreationDate="2015-12-18T06:45:39.523" UserId="1492" Text="In [this question][1]  there are eleven downvotes. I know from downvotes I have gotten that each downvote subtracts 2 points. 2x11=22 should be deleted. The user has a remainder of 8. How is this possible? Even if he/she came with the dowry of 100 from another site, still 8 is not what it should be:78 is not 8. Is there another rule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="5a9fe7aa-4617-46d2-862b-6a4849c04c35" CreationDate="2015-12-18T06:45:39.523" UserId="1492" Text="arithmetic question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="5a9fe7aa-4617-46d2-862b-6a4849c04c35" CreationDate="2015-12-18T06:45:39.523" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="7e638034-cdce-40df-aced-f27e2a1f3767" CreationDate="2015-12-18T07:00:11.057" UserId="7894" Text="When I look at his reputation log:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12803/thomas-an?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see reputation-altering events that add up +35 (7 upvotes) and -28 (mostly downvotes, but also a couple &quot;user was removed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add in the +1 for what the user presumably started at, and it makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the &quot;rule&quot; you're forgetting is that rep can't go below 1, so when you look at his first day, he started at 1, got 1 upvote (+5) and 6 downvotes.  But the first 4 of those downvotes didn't count against him because rep can't go below 1 and they came before he got any upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that also applies to the -1 showing for a downvote the next day: he only had 2 rep, that downvote only cost him 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="be0387f8-e0bd-44bf-bf66-5ee6b8e22faa" CreationDate="2015-12-18T07:31:36.440" UserId="124" Comment="improve title and add tag" Text="How did this member get a reputation of 8 from 4 upvotes and 11 downvotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="be0387f8-e0bd-44bf-bf66-5ee6b8e22faa" CreationDate="2015-12-18T07:31:36.440" UserId="124" Comment="improve title and add tag" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="a86c25a2-897e-4595-9f76-7472e09116fe" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:02:53.760" UserId="1325" Text="I get the impression that the Darth Vader hat is the most popular. I can't imagine why, anyone would think that (a) physicists are all sci-fi geeks and (b) there's a new Star Wars film out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, is there a way to find the numbers of Physics SE members currently wearing each hat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="a86c25a2-897e-4595-9f76-7472e09116fe" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:02:53.760" UserId="1325" Text="Can we get the hat frequencies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="a86c25a2-897e-4595-9f76-7472e09116fe" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:02:53.760" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="f6af1056-b424-43d8-89fe-747a265a54dc" CreationDate="2015-12-19T13:44:58.977" UserId="101515" Text="What's wrong with this community? Only here, I am experiencing such blunt closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224413/if-spacetime-is-discrete-what-would-space-expansion-mean -- This question has been corrected. Nevertheless, no one seems to bother to reopen it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224789/implications-of-observable-universe-growing-indefinitely?noredirect=1#comment484877_224789 -- what is so unclear? How could people answer and comment then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both questions have been upvoted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="f6af1056-b424-43d8-89fe-747a265a54dc" CreationDate="2015-12-19T13:44:58.977" UserId="101515" Text="Unclear remark that my question is unclear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="f6af1056-b424-43d8-89fe-747a265a54dc" CreationDate="2015-12-19T13:44:58.977" UserId="101515" Text="|discussion|questions|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="0764e8b5-90c2-43af-9a0c-dd00c1bbb7ee" CreationDate="2015-12-19T14:15:24.620" UserId="25301" Text="The first question (currently) has 2 reopen votes, but [3 people said to leave it closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/110249), so it has been removed from the [reopen queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It takes 5 people to reopen it (or one mod), so you need 3 more people with the appropriate level of privileges to get it reopened (oftentimes, bringing the post to Meta will result in the &quot;Meta effect&quot; where questions are reopened (deserved or not)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't think the second question is unclear](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/110410), but 5 other people thought so. Though in retrospect, your first part might be considered a duplicate of [**As the universe ages, will we see more stars or less?**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/90024/). It might be the second part that is considered unclear, though I'm not sure I'd agree with that and would hope one of the 5 close voters can comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there ***isn't*** a requirement that anyone comment on a question about *why* they're voting such a way that they have. It has been my experience that the first close-voter on a question would leave a comment about why they're voting such a way (e.g., &quot;It's not clear to me what you mean by ...&quot; or &quot;We are not a homework help site ...&quot;). I'm not sure why it wasn't done in this case, but, again, it's not a requirement so I *personally* am not concerned about the lack of the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I wouldn't put much stock in that as a rationale for your post being okay because (a) there is a small contingent of users on this site that give sympathy votes to (somehow) balance out downvotes and (b) even wildly off-topic questions get upvotes &amp; views simply because (interested) users like the question (I discussed this [previously as well](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question/7276#7276))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="67bd8d7d-d703-41ba-99f6-d84a7784be5e" CreationDate="2015-12-19T14:25:21.710" UserId="25301" Comment="accidentally deleted the votes bit of the last paragraph that made it sense (happens when you restructure a paragraph)" Text="The first question (currently) has 2 reopen votes, but [3 people said to leave it closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/110249), so it has been removed from the [reopen queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It takes 5 people to reopen it (or one mod), so you need 3 more people with the appropriate level of privileges to get it reopened (oftentimes, bringing the post to Meta will result in the &quot;Meta effect&quot; where questions are reopened (deserved or not)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't think the second question is unclear](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/110410), but 5 other people thought so. Though in retrospect, your first part might be considered a duplicate of [**As the universe ages, will we see more stars or less?**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/90024/). It might be the second part that is considered unclear, though I'm not sure I'd agree with that and would hope one of the 5 close voters can comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there ***isn't*** a requirement that anyone comment on a question about *why* they're voting such a way that they have. It has been my experience that the first close-voter on a question would leave a comment about why they're voting such a way (e.g., &quot;It's not clear to me what you mean by ...&quot; or &quot;We are not a homework help site ...&quot;). I'm not sure why it wasn't done in this case, but, again, it's not a requirement so I *personally* am not concerned about the lack of the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I wouldn't put much stock in using votes as a rationale for your post being okay because (a) there is a small contingent of users on this site that give sympathy votes to (somehow) balance out downvotes and (b) even wildly off-topic questions get upvotes &amp; views simply because (interested) users like the question (I discussed this [previously as well](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question/7276#7276))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="75b97607-a110-426f-826e-2e6def753c7c" CreationDate="2015-12-19T18:43:39.580" UserId="8521" Text="While most questions/answers seem to be pretty good about including the link to articles (etc) where they take images from, it seems like it might be good to consistently encourage that the original URL be provided along with the included images." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="75b97607-a110-426f-826e-2e6def753c7c" CreationDate="2015-12-19T18:43:39.580" UserId="8521" Text="Should we encourage citations/references to included images?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="75b97607-a110-426f-826e-2e6def753c7c" CreationDate="2015-12-19T18:43:39.580" UserId="8521" Text="|discussion|citation|image|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7319" RevisionGUID="eb93d91c-b5c3-480b-b330-6032b81221f1" CreationDate="2015-12-19T21:26:14.430" UserId="124" Text="I guess the implicit question is whether we should actually do this (though it would be better to be explicit); anyway, yes, this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever you include an image from elsewhere on the web in your own posts, link to the original source, and preferably also identify it in the text.&#xD;&#xA;- If you see someone else's post which includes an image whose source is not identified, it's a valid edit to update the post with a link and reference to the original source, if you can find it. The only exception is when the poster created the image themselves. There is no need for attribution when using your own image. And when seeing an image in a post (not as part of a quote), our default assumption should be that the image is the poster's own creation, unless there is reason to believe otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="c9fc48cb-7ec5-425a-be49-657d3054736c" CreationDate="2015-12-20T09:23:56.240" UserId="100841" Text="I am a computer science student working on information evolution in scientific literature. Recently I found the `APS` [data-set][1] which seems to be appropriate for my works. the data-set includes the following journals :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical Review A: **Atomic,molecular and optics physics.**&#xD;&#xA; - Physical Review B: **Condensed Matter and Materials Physics.**&#xD;&#xA; - Physical Review C: **Nuclear Physics.**&#xD;&#xA; - Physical Review D: **Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology.**&#xD;&#xA; - Physical Review E: **Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://journals.aps.org/datasets/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the aggregated data of all of them impose a high computational cost so I decided to choose one of them to work. In computer science some fields change very rapidly. Concepts rapidly emerge and vanish and some fields change slowly and the researches are rather classic. I imagine that the Physics should be fairly similar. I want to know which of this fields is more trendy and evolving over the time to show the evolutionary nature of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="c9fc48cb-7ec5-425a-be49-657d3054736c" CreationDate="2015-12-20T09:23:56.240" UserId="100841" Text="Which field of physics is more evoloving and trendy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="c9fc48cb-7ec5-425a-be49-657d3054736c" CreationDate="2015-12-20T09:23:56.240" UserId="100841" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="2591e99c-aec5-444d-8d23-d67b7915f9d1" CreationDate="2015-12-20T09:39:52.580" UserId="101515" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="What's wrong with this community? Only here, I am experiencing such blunt closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224413/if-spacetime-is-discrete-what-would-space-expansion-mean -- This question has been corrected. Nevertheless, no one seems to bother to reopen it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224789/implications-of-observable-universe-growing-indefinitely?noredirect=1#comment484877_224789 -- what is so unclear? How could people answer and comment then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both questions have been upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is wrong now? Did the second question become yet more unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="ef32ddcf-9585-4f57-948c-31c7ef551c47" CreationDate="2015-12-20T16:01:24.240" UserId="101515" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="What's wrong with this community? Only here, I am experiencing such blunt closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224413/if-spacetime-is-discrete-what-would-space-expansion-mean -- This question has been corrected. Nevertheless, no one seems to bother to reopen it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224789/implications-of-observable-universe-growing-indefinitely?noredirect=1#comment484877_224789 -- what is so unclear? How could people answer and comment then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both questions have been upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is wrong now? Did the second question become yet more unclear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions get upvoted. Why not to reopen? What's the problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19992" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="b0cf4068-5530-4e8f-908f-10568b609cc0" CreationDate="2015-12-20T16:30:29.013" UserId="520" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7300" RevisionGUID="808d1f49-67af-474d-b41b-3755b8ad5f2a" CreationDate="2015-12-21T13:20:33.257" UserId="12613" Comment="One paragraph was a little hard fo me to understand - so I expanded it for clarity." Text="My observations are that it is actually rare for someone to post more than the copy &amp; paste question &amp; rebuttal that &quot;It's not homework!&quot; or &quot;I just need the answer!&quot; before they leave for good&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that someone does post more than that, I think leaving a comment containing a link to the Meta post [**My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391), where you've already posted a link to your site, would suffice for those users who are really begging for help. A message I've saved on my [**Auto-comment**](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (but almost never used) is something along the lines of,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site, but if you do want that kind of help, you can [take a look at this thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391) for a list of free online homework help resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I would say that if you constantly promoted *just* your site on HW questions, it probably would end up being flagged as *promotional content* which can get the comment deleted and, if you're persistent enough, give you [a suspension](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). I'm sure you would love traffic to your site, but whether risking a suspension here for that is worth it is up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different story and I'd rather not derail this question on that.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="b9b48aef-6e9f-4ae5-bb28-8bf315b233c8" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:15:39.393" UserId="99926" Text="How do I find my answers to questions? I see no way to search for them or anything I wrote. And, why do I have to even ask this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="b9b48aef-6e9f-4ae5-bb28-8bf315b233c8" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:15:39.393" UserId="99926" Text="How do I find my answers or anything I wrote here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="b9b48aef-6e9f-4ae5-bb28-8bf315b233c8" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:15:39.393" UserId="99926" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="be57e949-7a06-4a4a-84ac-37d644f633f5" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:27:06.027" UserId="50583" Text="Just go to your profile and click on `answers`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sohEz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="b45bee9d-0237-4a22-a0f7-5492645ebb27" CreationDate="2015-12-22T01:00:57.783" UserId="98364" Text="Now, I know the need to create standards for asking questions.  However, particularly for first time users, the ability to ask questions in a way that this forum expects can be difficult, often due to a lack of language surrounding the topic they are asking about.  As a result, their question gets closed, they get directed to a site that gives generalities about how to ask a good question rather than specific information about how they could improve their specific question, consequently they get discouraged and never return.  Many would then tell anyone that would listen that this site is pointless, problematic or (put your own adjective here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, a couple of times I have been in the middle of answering a question, only to have it closed under me - wasting my time and reducing my willingness to provide further answers.  In these cases, yes the questions were a bit vague, but a little bit of teacher's nous could see the concept, and often the misconception, that the asker was really grappling with.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I do understand that there is a tension between attracting experts (whose expertise is in subject matter and often a predilection towards correct science) and attracting teachers (with expertise in pedagogy and understanding the learning process, which is messy at best).  But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed? Or to flag potential answerers that the question will close in x hours?  (Perhaps I am just not familiar enough with the mechanics of this site - correct me if I aren't and these warnings/options do exist.)   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="b45bee9d-0237-4a22-a0f7-5492645ebb27" CreationDate="2015-12-22T01:00:57.783" UserId="98364" Text="Is over-vigilant monitoring of questions driving people away from the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="b45bee9d-0237-4a22-a0f7-5492645ebb27" CreationDate="2015-12-22T01:00:57.783" UserId="98364" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="2bb63921-ed6c-4083-b578-013680f80e35" CreationDate="2015-12-22T01:32:01.643" UserId="25301" Text="The following three points contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some thinke [that is the convergence](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="87d424a0-f1e7-4108-99f7-d818a16fbcc2" CreationDate="2015-12-22T03:56:19.440" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo fix" Text="The following three points contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="35380f46-595b-4a0b-bf79-367cd43e3b24" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:02:38.440" UserId="3485" Text="I've raised a question that was put on hold, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could a falling office tower cause the melting of its iron or steel support structure?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to post about a topic for discussion about why the question was put on hold.  I would preface that I don't want to offend anyone, raise defences, bring questions where not welcome, or rattle an apple cart.  I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, or anything being out of line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am having trouble understanding the nature of the rejection of the question, and would appreciate understanding the rationale, and I feel like that might be important for the community of users and potential users.  Any insight would be sincerely appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I asked struck me as a curious one. The physics were interesting so I napkin-speculated as to the answer but I did not feel myself competent to make any reliable conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel – and it initially appeared — that this would be a physics question appropriate for this site, and I was (and remain) open to whatever conclusion comes from the application of the physics to the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, all I wanted was an answer to a relatively straightforward physics question that was beyond my capabilities – to learn something.  Thanks to the answers posted, I did.  Then the question was put on hold, and comments became what I perceived as speculative yet judgmental and hostile.  This appears to be because the data and curiosity is comes from the geopolitical event we call 9/11. This is, to me, an inexplicable taboo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the tangentiality of the relationship: The question I asked has never mentioned or implied a relation to any events at all. I made what was evidently the mistake of commenting on an answer that the reason I was asking was related to a theory.  Immediately upon being accused of using the Physics site as a vehicle for linking to a WTC &quot;controlled explosion&quot; theory, I deleted my comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I've summarized from the Skeptics.SE sister–site here (where I, for what it's worth, enjoy a little reputation).  It might be worth taking a moment to summarize its content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On 9/11, was Building 7 destroyed in a controlled explosion?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/31144/1792)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That theory linked is not a conspiracy theory, in any sense, which by definition attempts to blame someone. The theory linked only indicates that there is evidence yet–unexplained by NIST, and posits an alternative (which alternative could very well be discredited, particularly by physics or engineering expertise).  It is also not a conspiracy theory in the sense that the theory is readily falsifiable – potentially, it occurred to me, *by way of the question above*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a question about another geopolitical event, like the Challenger disaster, would be perfectly acceptable.  Which makes me wonder, where does the taboo come from?  I could understand a concern if the question was unanswerable, vague or speculative, or the questioner argumentative or unwilling to accept answers that dismissed the theory.  However, my question was easily and evidently answerable, and I am (and always remain) completely open to a credible conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leaves me wondering what the purpose of the site is.  The tour says it's meant for asking about explanations of observed phenomenon.  But that seems to not be adequate. There are contemporaneous and forensic observations of melted iron and steel found at the WTC site, and the question was about a possible explanation of that observed phenomenon.  The tour gives criteria for dismissal, such as being a homework question, outside mainstream physics, based on opinion, lengthy answers, or need for lengthy discussion, but none seem to apply. So there's no apparent (or given) basis for dismissal, other than its relation to a geopolitical event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It always struck me that this site could have questions that are beacons of sensibility, expertise, and (dare I say) sanity in contrast with an Internet chock full of unsubstantiated speculation.  I would like to think that this site could discuss and bring illumination about events of importance, and so ideally &quot;conspiratorial-type&quot; questions would be not just permitted but encouraged precisely to debunk conspiratorial wish-wash.  The answers I received were interesting and useful, precisely because.  I wish this could be a place where I could ask more; there are criteria for dismissing bad questions but relation to a geopolitical event is an arbitrary, capricious, and fragile criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should not the criteria for dismissing questions be independent of the origin of the curiosity causing the question and the source for the data?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is all to say, dismissing the question I asked for the reasons given feels wrong – I clearly am missing the boat on the concern.  In addition to not seeing the basis for dismissal, accepting physics questions about geopolitical events will give the site a value beyond its borders, precisely on those topics where illumination on the Internet is most wanting.  Those with greater capabilities have a duty to those who do not to share their illumination, and this site could serve as a place for spreading knowledge about physics related to events that affect our lives.  Otherwise, what is the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to start an argument, upset the apple cart, or step into the unwelcome.  I am not blaming or accusing anyone of anything, nor asking that the question be reviewed or re-opened, nor that any theories be reviewed or speculated upon, nor that any changes be made to the site, its governance, or its policies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't need a response or to be part of a discussion, but I feel a discussion should be had because the criteria for closing questions seems to include a taboo of things tangentially related to geopolitical events, even where such dismissal is contrary to the guidelines the site offers to the public.  Something about that doesn't sit right with me, and it shouldn't sit right with you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="35380f46-595b-4a0b-bf79-367cd43e3b24" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:02:38.440" UserId="3485" Text="Questions related to geopolitical events" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="35380f46-595b-4a0b-bf79-367cd43e3b24" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:02:38.440" UserId="3485" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7327" RevisionGUID="7d672fd2-b8ba-4638-b7e5-1274313d20af" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:06:55.630" UserId="124" Text="&gt; But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh goodness no. That defeats the entire point of putting questions on hold (a.k.a. closing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there is a way, of sorts: edit the question to make it good, and then it gets taken off hold (reopened). That's exactly what we _want_ to happen, in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or to flag potential answerers that the question will close in x hours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the point of this. The only reason I can think of to notify people in advance that a question is going to be put on hold is so that they can hurry up and post answers before it happens, and again, that makes closing entirely useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, it's not technically possible. You never know if a question is going to accumulate enough close votes to be closed until it actually does; certainly not hours in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7328" RevisionGUID="e2455b8a-9489-4bcc-a646-a2302e98eeec" CreationDate="2015-12-22T05:16:32.053" UserId="124" Text="&gt; The tour says it's meant for asking about explanations of observed phenomenon. But that seems to not be adequate.... The tour gives criteria for dismissal, such as being a homework question, outside mainstream physics, based on opinion, lengthy answers, or need for lengthy discussion, but none seem to apply. So there's no apparent (or given) basis for dismissal, other than its relation to a geopolitical event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tour is a brief introduction to the site, not a rulebook. So the argument that there's nothing in the tour that forbids a particular type of question doesn't make it on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are contemporaneous and forensic observations of melted iron and steel found at the WTC site, and the question was about a possible explanation of that observed phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What observed phenomenon? If you were asking whether iron and steel can melt, or what temperature/pressure/etc. it takes for them to do so, _that_ would be a physics question. An exceedingly basic one, sure, and for that reason probably not a good one, but it is at least a physics question. When you extend that to asking whether the conditions for melting existed at the WTC site, that's no longer physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would like to think that this site could discuss and bring illumination about events of importance, and so ideally &quot;conspiratorial-type&quot; questions would be not just permitted but encouraged precisely to debunk conspiratorial wish-wash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what [Skeptics](//skeptics.stackexchange.com) is for. Our purpose is questions about the study of physics. I don't think this is one. If a question happens to refer to politics, conspiracies, whatever, that in itself doesn't make it off topic here, but it does need to be very tightly focused on the underlying physics and not the events or applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that being said, the main reason your question was closed was because it's just asking us to do a calculation, not really asking about an underlying concept. You haven't shown any effort to work through it yourself. Those sorts of questions don't get a good reception here, and they tend get classified as homework-like as per our [homework policy](//meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7328" RevisionGUID="516994ea-622c-4314-9c97-1abf783f5b35" CreationDate="2015-12-22T06:21:29.963" UserId="124" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="&gt; The tour says it's meant for asking about explanations of observed phenomenon. But that seems to not be adequate.... The tour gives criteria for dismissal, such as being a homework question, outside mainstream physics, based on opinion, lengthy answers, or need for lengthy discussion, but none seem to apply. So there's no apparent (or given) basis for dismissal, other than its relation to a geopolitical event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tour is a brief introduction to the site, not a rulebook. So the argument that there's nothing in the tour that forbids a particular type of question doesn't make it on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are contemporaneous and forensic observations of melted iron and steel found at the WTC site, and the question was about a possible explanation of that observed phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What observed phenomenon? If you were asking whether iron and steel can melt, or what temperature/pressure/etc. it takes for them to do so, _that_ would be a physics question. An exceedingly basic one, sure, and for that reason probably not a good one, but it is at least a physics question. When you extend that to asking whether the conditions for melting existed at the WTC site, that's no longer physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would like to think that this site could discuss and bring illumination about events of importance, and so ideally &quot;conspiratorial-type&quot; questions would be not just permitted but encouraged precisely to debunk conspiratorial wish-wash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what [Skeptics](//skeptics.stackexchange.com) is for. Our purpose is questions about the study of physics. I don't think this is one. If a question happens to refer to politics, conspiracies, whatever, that in itself doesn't make it off topic here, but it does need to be very tightly focused on the underlying physics and not the events or applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that being said, the main reason your question was closed was because it's just asking us to do a calculation, not really asking about an underlying concept. You haven't shown any effort to work through it yourself. Those sorts of questions don't get a good reception here, and they tend get classified as homework-like as per our [homework policy](//meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closure didn't have anything to do with the fact that the question is asking about the World Trade Center collapse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="91451e49-992c-46b9-b6bf-998d4115dacc" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:15:50.450" UserId="85657" Text="I was asking for a *clarification*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. My question was not *Homework type*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I had *worked out a solution* myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="91451e49-992c-46b9-b6bf-998d4115dacc" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:15:50.450" UserId="85657" Text="My question was held off by vote for wrong reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="91451e49-992c-46b9-b6bf-998d4115dacc" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:15:50.450" UserId="85657" Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7331" RevisionGUID="dbaf5546-97eb-40d7-8ed7-871c6e9afa88" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:34:49.433" UserId="124" Text="In [your question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225112/electric-field-at-a-distance-above-one-end-of-a-straight-line-segment-of-a-unifo), what you actually ask is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...is my answer right? or is there a mistake in the calculation. Kindly discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking whether your answer is right is not on topic here. That's why it was put on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you focus your question more on _why_ you think your answer might not be right, that would be a good start toward writing a better question for this site (and perhaps getting it taken off hold)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="573ab51b-d5f3-41aa-a0b8-7e2473d1fb8f" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:54:23.457" UserId="26969" Text="Clearly, &quot;debunk this crazy theory&quot; is primarily the bailiwick of skeptics.se - but I think that sometimes the wider physics community can be asked to comment on particular aspects of physics, especially when the calculation is not totally obvious. We should be a resource, not a clique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that spirit I answered the question that was originally asked by OP, and which go subsequently closed as &quot;too homework like&quot;, with a bunch of &quot;we don't want no conspiracy theories on our site&quot; comments. I thought the tone of some of those comments did not reflect the openness and civility that I would like to believe are the hallmarks of physics.se - but that's just my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually the one who, by making an allusion of &quot;historical events&quot;, may have created the association of the WTC7 event that was the subject of a skeptics question, and which OP subsequently linked in a comment, triggering the comment stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree it might not have been the &quot;best&quot; physics question - but it wasn't a terrible one either, and didn't feel like a homework question to me (otherwise I would have tagged it as such with a comment). I feel more and more that there is a lot of shouting at newcomers, at the expense of the over all quality of the site. We were all new on this site at one point - and we stayed because we felt welcome. Let's do unto others as was done unto us - guiding them to the mores of the site with a gentle firmness, not abuse.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="cedf56f1-285a-42de-aa3f-7049d58b0ec7" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:56:03.803" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="1182f473-ed4b-43c1-85fd-e07fe71af25f" CreationDate="2015-12-22T14:12:24.270" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|closed-questions|close-reasons|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="f177bf21-f19b-45a6-8637-d9b5b3c50b01" CreationDate="2015-12-22T15:43:13.110" UserId="3257" Text="The question was closed officially as &quot;too homework like&quot;.  I don't think it is, at least it was quite paraphrased if it is homework.  I see people wondering about things like this from time to time-obviously there is potential energy in building materials and it takes energy to melt steel.  Which is greater?  Usually, as here, there is a large difference in the energies involved and it helps one get a picture of the world to know which direction the comparison comes out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are crazy theories about geopolitical events, a simple calculation like this will not influence the true believers.  I think we should ignore those and get on with life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7334" RevisionGUID="3f4c0176-8123-4ca0-867d-af4e40f682fc" CreationDate="2015-12-22T17:58:36.607" UserDisplayName="user46925" Text="the other solution is to use the [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may help to move a question to another site with another policy, accepting both homeworks and answers of another kind.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="cc8865f2-d5da-41fe-a1ae-2508447f98ec" CreationDate="2015-12-22T18:18:10.520" UserId="1325" Text="I have a lot of sympathy with your position and I will generally put some effort into trying to interpret questions that are awkwardly phrased. However I think it's reasonable to expect someone asking a question to put as much effort into researching and writing it as they expect us to put in to answering it. As much can be learned from posting a carefully written question as will be learned from the answers to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not, and has never attempted to be, aimed at the Discovery Channel watching masses. It is intended for people who are serious about physics and willing to put effort into learning about it. OK, we all started out knowing no physics and I'm keen to encourage enthusiastic newcomers. But this has to be a two way process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too has had questions closed while I was writing an answer. Where I thought I could provide a good answer I have reposted the question myself so my answer wasn't lost. An example of this is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe, which turned out to be reasonably well received. You need to be careful with this strategy, but it's something you should consdier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="b990b71c-534e-42f4-91a5-dfe8391bb0ee" CreationDate="2015-12-23T05:03:59.937" UserId="1325" Comment="Add link" Text="I was asking for a *clarification*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [My question][1] was not *Homework type*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I had *worked out a solution* myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225112/electric-field-at-a-distance-above-one-end-of-a-straight-line-segment-of-a-unifo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="61f63f5c-7c2a-4a1c-a071-e621147e9984" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:35:03.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/679596068087160832" />
  <row Id="20026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="eadfb8fb-5e1f-41d4-bffe-177729388a8e" CreationDate="2015-12-23T13:47:30.803" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was asking for a *clarification*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [My question][1] was not *Homework type*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I had *worked out a solution* myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/225112/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20027" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="eadfb8fb-5e1f-41d4-bffe-177729388a8e" CreationDate="2015-12-23T13:47:30.803" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="a12a6042-e15e-4f02-87e8-063056d60ca5" CreationDate="2015-12-25T07:19:23.387" UserId="1325" Comment="Typos" Text="I have a lot of sympathy with your position and I will generally put some effort into trying to interpret questions that are awkwardly phrased. However I think it's reasonable to expect someone asking a question to put as much effort into researching and writing it as they expect us to put in to answering it. As much can be learned from posting a carefully written question as will be learned from the answers to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not, and has never attempted to be, aimed at the Discovery Channel watching masses. It is intended for people who are serious about physics and willing to put effort into learning about it. OK, we all started out knowing no physics and I'm keen to encourage enthusiastic newcomers. But this has to be a two way process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too have had questions closed while I was writing an answer. Where I thought I could provide a good answer I have reposted the question myself so my answer wasn't lost. An example of this is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe, which turned out to be reasonably well received. You need to be careful with this strategy, but it's something you should consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="e39174e2-2fd0-4a90-bda3-d43f974a882a" CreationDate="2015-12-25T23:35:23.123" UserId="84038" Text="I just reasently asked a question which get &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related mata-posts; ie.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialoque to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache.&quot; Translated; &quot;It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="e39174e2-2fd0-4a90-bda3-d43f974a882a" CreationDate="2015-12-25T23:35:23.123" UserId="84038" Text="Closed by; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="e39174e2-2fd0-4a90-bda3-d43f974a882a" CreationDate="2015-12-25T23:35:23.123" UserId="84038" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="4eb7e448-d109-4d33-bbc4-65eedf899879" CreationDate="2015-12-26T05:09:21.810" UserId="46399" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title; added 4 characters in body" Text="I just recently asked a question which get &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related meta-posts, i.e.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialogue to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;_Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache_&quot;. Translated: &quot;_It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem_&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="4eb7e448-d109-4d33-bbc4-65eedf899879" CreationDate="2015-12-26T05:09:21.810" UserId="46399" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title; added 4 characters in body" Text="Can we stop closing questions as &quot;unclear what you are asking&quot; for OPs above certain reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="4eb7e448-d109-4d33-bbc4-65eedf899879" CreationDate="2015-12-26T05:09:21.810" UserId="46399" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title; added 4 characters in body" Text="|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="6ffc159a-ee0a-472d-8cff-635e241eda97" CreationDate="2015-12-26T07:32:12.443" UserId="46399" Comment="edited body" Text="I just recently asked a question which got &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related meta-posts, i.e.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialogue to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;_Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache_&quot;. Translated: &quot;_It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem_&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="b3a40708-6ede-445a-88db-ec33c509baa9" CreationDate="2015-12-26T14:10:05.187" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7337" RevisionGUID="da352f13-b5d2-41b3-979d-88e945def54b" CreationDate="2015-12-26T15:08:50.853" UserId="124" Text="I'm quite confident that the SE team would not support this, because it adds complexity to the system without really doing anything useful. To show that it would be useful, you'd have to demonstrate that the &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; close reason, when it is applied to posts by high-reputation users,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. is so often _wrongly_ applied that evidently people cannot be trusted to use it properly on high-rep users' posts, and&#xD;&#xA;2. is so rarely _correctly_ applied that the impact on the site from losing the ability to use this close reason, when it _is_ warranted, is minimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't imagine that the data support that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would note that the close reason is meant not just for questions which aren't clear to you (i.e. a single close voter) individually. It's meant for questions which are unclear to the target population of answerers and readers as a whole. This includes questions which can be interpreted to be asking any of several very different things, depending on who's reading them, as well as questions that even experts in the relevant field would consider difficult to understand due to overly complex or nonsensical language. It also includes questions that simply make some statement but don't actually _ask_ anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7338" RevisionGUID="26f67e43-d41d-46af-a1c8-2bfff84c1588" CreationDate="2015-12-26T16:23:39.690" UserId="25301" Text="There is nothing about rep that magically makes some whose first language isn't English suddenly become a master at the language. Nor is there some way rep prevents someone from asking a meaningless question. So, to the titular question, *No, there should not be a rep threshold for unclear question.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should be done in cases of unclear questions, *regardless of the asker's rep*, is comments asking for clarification (e.g., *Why do you think X?* or *Your internet translator didn't work, can you more carefully translate this question?*). This is one of the [points of comments](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment), so we really shouldn't have &quot;drive by&quot; close votes as unclear. It has been my experience on this site that questions that are voted to close as unclear *do* have such comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your most [recent question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/225721/25301), I commented questioning your [original statement of the Navier Stokes being wrong](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/225721/1) simply because you couldn't find *one* particular simulation or solution. It's not clear to me why you think that it's wrong due to one simulation given the [list of analytic solutions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60476/) (not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands, of accurate simulations employing the NS equations). I felt that you did not attempt to clarify the question in your responses to me such that I would retract my close vote while 4 other people felt that your question was also unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've since amended your question, asking for that single simulations, which I also commented as being *too narrow*, in that you're looking for a Yes/No answer: *Does X exist?*  These types of questions aren't good fits for this site because the answer (Yes or No) isn't long enough to even be a valid answer; even asking for a link to the simulation would probably cause the answer to be deleted as a [link-only answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers). It would be better for you to formulate your question asking for something that is more than a yes/no or link-only answer (but also within the [boundaries of acceptable](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="c62b34b9-58e9-419d-9664-448dae9933d9" CreationDate="2015-12-26T16:38:16.917" UserId="84038" Text="A question mostly needs only a single answer, and must be thus clear only for a single answerer. After it's answered it will be also clear for a wider audience. It will never be clear for &quot;readers as a Whole&quot;. If it would, what's the point to even ask?   &#xD;&#xA;I recall my first answer to the site; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159970/is-it-possible-to-generate-one-half-of-a-karman-vortex-street/190285#190285 the answer was voted to be deleted, but it actually answered the question! What else would you have? The question was also only Yes/No-type of question, and it obviously had also some unclearness-problems before it was answered. &#xD;&#xA;To me the &quot;V1&quot; of this question was as good as the &quot;v4&quot;. I barely note any difference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I now look my answer, I easily notice how I could improve this answer. For this you first need to be familiar with the consept. - and have the motivation to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another answer from my &quot;first day&quot; was this; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/can-a-divider-laminarize-turbulent-flow-and-thus-reduce-friction/190295#190295 It's another Yes/no type of question which obviously wasn't clear if you look the comments. There is also a discussion what is meant with &quot;a divider&quot;. The asker has &gt;10 k reply. At the comments he writes; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So maybe that terminology should be trashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points out how established users makes questions where the &quot;unclearness&quot; comes from the terminology problems. But to me it was clear what was asked, and after the answer -I think- it's clear also to others. (and yes, now I could improve also this answer.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am constructive trying to improve the motivation to use this PSE-tool further. This site is about asking and getting answers. If the future looks like I need all the time ask &quot;how to ask&quot;, the motivation to stay around will finally disappear. As according to my life experience my &quot;terminology problems&quot; aren't going to disappear. I would really wish more ignorance rather than a debate from the used terminology. Providing a promise that you will get rid of this &quot;problem&quot; after you are an established user, would motivate to continue. In the real life it might even happen that when the limit is reached the problem has got smaller. But the multiple Meta-posts, ie this;   &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7324/is-over-vigilant-monitoring-of-questions-driving-people-away-from-the-site?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;Points out there is a problem, and **this might be a solution for it.**  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="eed8864d-8fdb-47d4-86de-f92e78a3ab6f" CreationDate="2015-12-26T17:54:15.177" UserId="102232" Text="I've just got a surge of 100 &quot;zorkmids&quot; on every of my accounts. I don't object, but I can't find any information why that happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to my experience any meta-question will be punished by lots of downvotes, please answer only via comments, so I can shed off the downvotes by simply deleting this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="eed8864d-8fdb-47d4-86de-f92e78a3ab6f" CreationDate="2015-12-26T17:54:15.177" UserId="102232" Text="Surge of reputaiton ... don't oppos but just why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="eed8864d-8fdb-47d4-86de-f92e78a3ab6f" CreationDate="2015-12-26T17:54:15.177" UserId="102232" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20044" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="54235677-b969-4275-baa0-b54d96e2595c" CreationDate="2015-12-26T18:02:05.767" UserId="102232" Comment="tyop" Text="Surge of reputaiton ... don't oppose but just why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7341" RevisionGUID="b784ffde-3441-44cc-b507-9398a53885a0" CreationDate="2015-12-26T18:15:40.433" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="&gt; If you are an experienced Stack Exchange network user with 200 or more reputation on at least one site, you will receive a starting +100 reputation bonus to get you past basic new user restrictions. This will happen automatically on all current Stack Exchange sites where you have an account, and on any other Stack Exchange sites at the time you log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- from [What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation) in Help Center " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7342" RevisionGUID="3da8e9c2-ab1c-4d89-b18d-e0a32bc94567" CreationDate="2015-12-26T19:32:49.707" UserId="45605" Text="This is a Stack Exchange problem, not a Physics Stack Exchange problem. I have had many questions closed on me across SE, and for many reasons. It is often discouraging, and after a question is closed, I sometimes can reword it and get it open, but more often I abandon the attempt entirely and turn to a forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not wish to offend anyone. This is not a rant, nor complaining. But to help illustrate the problem, here are some thoughts I have actually had while using various SE sites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SE is full of snobs.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why did I even bother asking here?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Oh yeah, I forgot, I need to spend three hours crafting my question after spending two hours researching it.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What good is a site with experts if they only answer black and white questions? What about subjective answers from people with years more background than I have?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SE is more concerned with policing itself than helping people.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every criticism should be avoided, and hurt feelings are part of life. That said, below are some thoughts on how to reduce the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) Not all subjective questions are bad.** This may go against the SE grain, and policing good vs bad subjectives may be too difficult to realistically do. However, I firmly believe that the best questions experts can answer are those that do not have one correct answer. No amount of research on my part could give me the years of physics background others here already have, and therefore the best questions are those that cannot be answered by quoting a textbook. If subjective questions were ever to be allowed, a label such as &quot;subjective&quot; or &quot;opinion based&quot; may be required, but I know I would love to have the opinions of experts here over the musings of random people on forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Tell users why you voted to close their question.** Often comments are left, but often those comments are too vague. &quot;This question makes no sense&quot; may be very accurate, but it obviously made sense to whoever asked it. Sometimes a question is so confusing there could be no better comment, but often a little explanation of *what* doesn't make sense goes a long way to keeping discouragement down. In general, provide as detailed a comment as possible for why you are voting to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) This shouldn't be mistaken to mean that an adequate explanation need be long. Saying &quot;this isn't a homework site&quot; is probably enough to convey why you voted to close a question. The comment should help the person either rephrase their question, or explain why the question is outside SE's scope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="ca963588-230e-4c79-9bee-df9361bd3a59" CreationDate="2015-12-26T20:01:30.377" UserId="124" Comment="improve tags and title and remove fluff" Text="I've just got a surge of 100 &quot;zorkmids&quot; on every of my accounts. I don't object, but I can't find any information why that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20048" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="ca963588-230e-4c79-9bee-df9361bd3a59" CreationDate="2015-12-26T20:01:30.377" UserId="124" Comment="improve tags and title and remove fluff" Text="Why get 100 reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20049" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="ca963588-230e-4c79-9bee-df9361bd3a59" CreationDate="2015-12-26T20:01:30.377" UserId="124" Comment="improve tags and title and remove fluff" Text="|discussion|votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20050" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="94aaffed-7f0e-4ea5-ac8a-bcabb055b5af" CreationDate="2015-12-27T05:07:08.423" UserId="46399" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="dc8e2210-9d32-4dc0-b7f6-d5622a991af9" CreationDate="2015-12-27T08:07:42.297" UserId="101708" Text="Why has my question intitled [Automobile Air Bags][1] has  been closed ?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This really leaves me baffled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked a conceptual question regarding the question above ,I've shown my efforts to understand it,I've shown what was the particular point in detail which gives me trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't written one only formula just to show that the question was regarding the structure it self of the question.But nothing,it has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this really disappointing as I find my self to have respected all the rules of asking  questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226032/automobile-air-bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="dc8e2210-9d32-4dc0-b7f6-d5622a991af9" CreationDate="2015-12-27T08:07:42.297" UserId="101708" Text="Why has my question been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="dc8e2210-9d32-4dc0-b7f6-d5622a991af9" CreationDate="2015-12-27T08:07:42.297" UserId="101708" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="0b7f0417-3298-48c9-aa52-56ae8e0b6028" CreationDate="2015-12-27T08:13:22.680" UserId="101708" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Why has my question, intitled [Automobile Air Bags][1],   been closed ?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This really leaves me baffled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked a conceptual question regarding the question above ,I've shown my efforts to understand it,I've shown what was the particular point in detail which gives me trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't written one only formula just to show that the question was regarding the structure it self of the question.But nothing,it has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this really disappointing as I find my self to have respected all the rules for asking  questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226032/automobile-air-bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7344" RevisionGUID="b3a23eae-ebbc-482a-8526-663be3713700" CreationDate="2015-12-27T10:19:02.643" UserId="1325" Text="I wouldn't (and didn't) vote to close your question, but I can see why others might have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework and exercises policy is intended to discourage questions that won't enhance your knowledge of physics. The real target is questions where the principles involved are clear but the answer requires a long and tedious calculation. Since no new principles are involved no-one is going to learn anything, and only the person asking the question is likely to be interested enough to read through the calculation. Questions don't actually have to be homework to fall into this category, hence the description &quot;homework **and exercises**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a superficial glance it looks as if your question is about what acceleration is required to stop an object moving with velocity *v* in a distance *s*, and this is the sort of thing we'd close. A more careful reading reveals that your question is deeper than this, and it seems to me a perfectly good question that shouldn't have been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my guess is that your question was closed because the people who voted to close it didn't read the question properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously this is bad, but I'm reluctant to criticise the people involved. We get lots and lots of homework questions and trying to keep up with the flood requires a lot of effort from site members who do it on their own time and for no personal reward. Your post is a bit long and rambling, and I can see why the reviewers may have just skimmed it rather than reading it thoroughly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to deal with such miscarriages of justice is to mention them here, as you have done. I have voted to reopen your question, though it will take four more votes before the question is reopened and I note that in any case you do have an answer that you liked enough to accept it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="9bec0003-cc5d-4672-94d2-eb8972dbdb90" CreationDate="2015-12-27T14:25:31.790" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why has my question, intitled [Automobile Air Bags][1], been closed?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This really leaves me baffled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked a conceptual question regarding the question above ,I've shown my efforts to understand it,I've shown what was the particular point in detail which gives me trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't written one only formula just to show that the question was regarding the structure it self of the question. But nothing, it has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this really disappointing as I find my self to have respected all the rules for asking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/226032/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20057" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="9bec0003-cc5d-4672-94d2-eb8972dbdb90" CreationDate="2015-12-27T14:25:31.790" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20058" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="7bc7714a-cdc3-4cfd-95fb-3b8e5c3d9b2d" CreationDate="2015-12-27T14:25:58.260" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20061" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="400f56a2-fcca-4cff-a95a-aba1b5ec1a4d" CreationDate="2015-12-27T17:31:30.267" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5851],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="20077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="c75c2909-1eef-4828-9f04-3540c841f33f" CreationDate="2015-12-28T10:24:15.047" UserId="53062" Text="Just had a case during review process, where two identical questions, both asked by first time users, appeared in my queue. Yet, I can not flag one as duplicate of the other since neither has an accepted or upvoted answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, it would help, if I could flag such a question as duplicate. Particularly, if it's phrased identically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it would be nice to see identical titles (and question text) pop up in the list of possible duplicates. If I hadn't gotten both right after each other for review, I wouldn't have known about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I flagged the second question for moderator attention. Is there a more elegant solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="c75c2909-1eef-4828-9f04-3540c841f33f" CreationDate="2015-12-28T10:24:15.047" UserId="53062" Text="How to flag identical question as duplicate if both don't have accepted or upvoted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="c75c2909-1eef-4828-9f04-3540c841f33f" CreationDate="2015-12-28T10:24:15.047" UserId="53062" Text="|feature-request|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="475f218b-6827-4efc-bc08-05e295afdf80" CreationDate="2015-12-28T12:52:41.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/681457743455240192" />
  <row Id="20081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="16385f81-d99a-497c-bb57-838bc6ad30aa" CreationDate="2015-12-28T13:08:07.453" UserId="102101" Text="I'm going to be honest here, i haven't been here long and I've only asked two questions, and already both questions have been been put on hold due to them being &quot;Wrong questions&quot; And &quot;Unclear questions&quot; even though the questions themselves I'm sure a highschooler would be able to understand them (Perhaps not answer them) I believe the entire thing needs a re-vamp with more consideration towards new users and how they are shown in the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="e1661f04-25e6-4396-8717-d1270ef41bf5" CreationDate="2015-12-28T14:26:55.130" UserId="101077" Text="I think it's a matter of using the software intelligently and compassionately. This is a stack exchange problem not just limited to physics. When people get moderator privileges they have the tendency to act very strict by down voting and closing topics liberally. These sort of functions should be used with respect and caution only for the sake of preserving the integrity of the place. One particular annoyance on another stack exchange I frequent is being down voted for a response without a reference, even though my response falls in line of being a well thought conclusion based on common knowledge within that field.  Simply asking for a reference is harmless, but if you're doing so just to put the *stamp* of authority on the post as opposed to seeking actual clarification, this is misguided. Just because something is written in a book doesn't make it correct. Even canonical books are known to contain errors, interpolations, and mistranslations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say some moderation is necessary to keep the place clean, but to be honest the only question I have seen that truly deserved to be closed was some guy asking about freezing urine, which by its language came across as more of an attempt to harass people than acquire real knowledge. One person I saw who got closed, was asking for a QFT reference in a manner similar, but not quite addressed by another post. I think providing the links to the other posts addressing it is great, but I think closing and downvoting should definitely be used with more reservation. This person was frustrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it reflects an overall negative quality in the minds of people, who are out to prove each other wrong or incompetent rather than being compassionate and helpful in guiding people to the truth. This is a grey area. There is a lot of good being done here, I am sure. But we can certainly work on being less combative with our key strokes and mouse clicks, and more intentional with conveying actual knowledge and guidance, treating every question and answer with respect where it is due." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7352" RevisionGUID="83a1904a-f22f-47b7-8fbc-a9f4b3fa0c57" CreationDate="2015-12-28T17:15:14.410" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Is over-vigilant monitoring of questions driving people away from the site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think so. Only I think it isn't just &quot;over-vigilant monitoring&quot; going on. I see good questions closed by the same old names. Or marked as a duplicate by the same old names. Even when the alleged duplicate isn't a duplicate at all, or when the answers to the duplicate are wrong, and have been supplied by the same old names. Who will of course hotly deny there's any problem, even though we can all see that a lot of users are ex-users. And that some of them were expert users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, I know the need to create standards for asking questions. However, particularly for first time users, the ability to ask questions in a way that this forum expects can be difficult, often due to a lack of language surrounding the topic they are asking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure we all appreciate that. The site is not meant to be a homework help site, or a site for &quot;lazy&quot; questions. The issue comes when the question is _none of the above_, but still gets closed down. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, their question gets closed, they get directed to a site that gives generalities about how to ask a good question rather than specific information about how they could improve their specific question, consequently they get discouraged and never return. Many would then tell anyone that would listen that this site is pointless, problematic or (put your own adjective here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noted. People don't just make this stuff up. There is an issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, a couple of times I have been in the middle of answering a question, only to have it closed under me - wasting my time and reducing my willingness to provide further answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this particularly irritating. particularly when it's closed by the same old people who are obviously on some kind of ego trip. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In these cases, yes the questions were a bit vague, but a little bit of teacher's nous could see the concept, and often the misconception, that the asker was really grappling with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen questions closed down for being unclear when they're crystal clear. What's also crystal clear is that some people who close down questions aren't always being genuine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, I do understand that there is a tension between attracting experts... and attracting teachers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO the real tension is between people who think of themselves as the experts and the people who really are the experts, and who can and do answer questions. Next time you see a reasonable-looking question closed down, take a note of the names, and look at how many questions they've answered recently.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="d239fb2c-10dd-4ead-b59d-7d0a52781723" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:44:21.230" UserId="148704" Text="Most of the moderators are just trying to help you get a good answer. There are truly dumb questions regardless of what your 5th grade teacher said and they need to be filtered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="0dc23c07-4873-41f1-83a1-c212b812df2a" CreationDate="2015-12-29T18:16:52.837" UserId="31790" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;(I write &quot;problem solving&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Problem solving questions, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a problem solving service. If you have a question about a specific problem, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;Homework-like&lt;/s&gt; Problem solving questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="beb47d12-9388-4fa6-8e20-bdf1fe5ad60f" CreationDate="2015-12-29T21:36:08.547" UserId="148704" Text="I had the privilege taken from me. Is this permanent or is there a place I can see my time for restriction?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mIDMF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="beb47d12-9388-4fa6-8e20-bdf1fe5ad60f" CreationDate="2015-12-29T21:36:08.547" UserId="148704" Text="Not able to flag anyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="beb47d12-9388-4fa6-8e20-bdf1fe5ad60f" CreationDate="2015-12-29T21:36:08.547" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20098" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="c849e86c-9f5c-450d-8e95-8bc37334b222" CreationDate="2015-12-29T21:41:33.717" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7357" RevisionGUID="bc5c53fa-9523-41a4-8df4-352af00a0340" CreationDate="2015-12-29T21:58:03.497" UserId="124" Text="Flagging bans are described in [this post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173878/allow-recovery-from-flag-hellban/175405#175405) on Meta Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **If at least 25% of your flags from the past 7 days were declined**, you're blocked from flagging anything. Depending on when and how those declined flags were cast, this block could last for as little as a day, and won't ever be longer than a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So sometime between now and 7 days from now, you'll be able to flag posts again. This reflects the fact that a flag ban isn't really a big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, I suggest reviewing your flag history and the guidelines for flagging to learn how to target your flags better. If you have any questions on how to use flags, you can ask here on meta or in the chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="9b546bdb-18b3-46af-beb2-071c584249d3" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:52:25.667" UserId="67597" Text="I see that in [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics) a proposal exists to create an independent *Biophysics* SE site. &#xD;&#xA;I have mixed feelings, but I support the initiative (so far its popularity is low). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I think that in Physics SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (I think in particular to the molecular and cellular level, nm to tens of micron) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;Actually I wish the tag will grow strong in Physics SE together with a stronger (and accurate) biological side. The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if moderators are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is today research-level Biophysics too much pluridisciplinary or borderline for the (mainly quantum mechanics/relativity oriented) moderators in Physics SE? I'll be happy if  I'm worrying for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(So far few example questions can be found in the [Area51 link](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics), and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="9b546bdb-18b3-46af-beb2-071c584249d3" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:52:25.667" UserId="67597" Text="Should &quot;Biophysics&quot; fork?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="9b546bdb-18b3-46af-beb2-071c584249d3" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:52:25.667" UserId="67597" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="aa4b3103-e73e-4786-b567-360216c30be3" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:24:54.107" UserId="2451" Comment="Change 'moderators' into 'Phys.SE community', as scope is decided by Phys.SE community not moderators." Text="I see that in [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics) a proposal exists to create an independent *Biophysics* SE site. &#xD;&#xA;I have mixed feelings, but I support the initiative (so far its popularity is low). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I think that in Physics SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (I think in particular to the molecular and cellular level, nanometers to tens of micron) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;Actually I wish the tag will grow strong in Physics SE together with a stronger (and accurate) biological side. The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is today research-level Biophysics too much pluridisciplinary or borderline for the (mainly quantum mechanics/relativity oriented) Phys.SE community? I'll be happy if  I'm worrying for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(So far few example questions can be found in the [Area51 link](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics), and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20108" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="aa4b3103-e73e-4786-b567-360216c30be3" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:24:54.107" UserId="2451" Comment="Change 'moderators' into 'Phys.SE community', as scope is decided by Phys.SE community not moderators." Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="3969db89-edaa-480b-88e8-2bb5562c55a0" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:27:55.233" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I see that in [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics) a proposal exists to create an independent *Biophysics* SE site. &#xD;&#xA;I have mixed feelings, but I support the initiative (so far its popularity is low). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (I think in particular to the molecular and cellular level, nanometers to tens of micron) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;Actually I wish the tag will grow strong in Phys.SE together with a stronger (and accurate) biological side. The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is today research-level Biophysics too much pluridisciplinary or borderline for the (mainly quantum mechanics/relativity oriented) Phys.SE community? I'll be happy if  I'm worrying for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(So far few example questions can be found in the [Area51 link](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics), and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7360" RevisionGUID="c1f9c4bc-0adb-48e3-b561-af7ee4232da8" CreationDate="2015-12-30T23:03:57.723" UserId="41837" Text="If we are on a SE site, especially a physics site, I think the assumption is that we are capable of learning new concepts, constructs, and approaches for understanding, appreciating, and interacting with the world around us whether in the domain of physics, computer science, literature etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Learning&quot; implies coming to know or becoming more intimately acquainted with some process or idea that we previously didn't know or previously didn't understand and in most cases being able to somehow apply that new knowledge in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get answers to our queries, we must &quot;learn&quot; how to ask a question in a standardized way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't say we want to learn about the complex nature of reality and the physical universe, but we are incapable of learning how to structure our query in a way that prevents misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's because my field is computer science that I find this to be irrational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not just SE, but think about our search engines. We have to &quot;learn&quot; how to enter search terms in a way that will get the answers we are looking for. A bad search produces unhelpful and possibly harmful results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also think about it in terms of databases. Structured Query Language (SQL) is the most common method of retrieving data from a database, but as the name implies, the &quot;query&quot; must be &quot;structured&quot; or standardized so that the database management system (DBMS) can unambiguously determine what we are asking before attempting to respond to our query. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing a DBMS does when queried is analyze the query itself to determine if it is structured in an understandable way. A poorly structured query will be rejected by any DBMS for the same reason that SE moderators close questions, they are not constructed in a way that can be clearly understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the problem is that I think we change our expectations of SE since we know that there is a live person on the other end of a keyboard somewhere reading our question. Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order. Instead of thinking of SE like a community of &quot;expert people&quot;, we should think of it as a highly advanced computer system where each &quot;expert&quot; on an SE site is simply a database that we want to pull data (answers) from, but to do so, at minimum, we must form our query (ask our question) in a structured (standard) way that can be processed by all the &quot;databases&quot; (experts) or else the results we get will be unhelpful and possibly harmful. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="4f02d1a3-32ea-46b2-8ec7-d6b248e87ddd" CreationDate="2015-12-31T02:31:58.817" UserId="40229" Text="If you think a question is unclear or too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points, however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way, which you lords of the 'ON HOLD' button didn't realize was possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that this question isn't put on hold, my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, it is one of the biggest dreams of all great physicists to pursue a theory of everything. 'M Theory' as some like to call it. One simple elegant theory that forms the basis of an infinitely broad ocean of science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="4f02d1a3-32ea-46b2-8ec7-d6b248e87ddd" CreationDate="2015-12-31T02:31:58.817" UserId="40229" Text="Isn't putting questions on hold similar to putting freedom of speech on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="4f02d1a3-32ea-46b2-8ec7-d6b248e87ddd" CreationDate="2015-12-31T02:31:58.817" UserId="40229" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7363" RevisionGUID="23020396-ea97-4864-aad1-eeef48892909" CreationDate="2015-12-31T02:58:54.323" UserId="520" Text="No several different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stack Exchange is not a government, and doesn't have the power to keep you from saying anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Freedom of speech does not imply that you have the freedom of someone else's channel with which to promote that speech. You can say what you want with your own resources, but you are not entitled to those of Stack Overflow unless they want to let you use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Freedom of speech has never guaranteed an audience. You don't get to force anyone to listen to your political manifest and you don't get to force anyone to read your questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a community and it has mores and traditions that have been developed by the users over time. These include limitations on what belongs here. You don't wander into someone club house and demand that they listen to you orate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7363" RevisionGUID="edd60e8b-d213-4aa8-96c7-25663aca0633" CreationDate="2015-12-31T03:29:21.453" UserId="520" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="No several different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stack Exchange is not a government, and doesn't have the power to keep you from saying anything, so there is no issue of censorship even possible. Go forth and say what you want certain that Stack Overflow won't stop you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Freedom of speech does not imply that you have the freedom of someone else's channel with which to promote that speech. You can say what you want with your own resources, but you are not entitled to those of Stack Overflow unless they want to let you use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Freedom of speech has never guaranteed an audience. You don't get to force anyone to listen to your political manifest and you don't get to force anyone to read your questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a community and it has mores and traditions that have been developed by the users over time. These include limitations on what belongs here. You don't wander into someone club house and demand that they listen to you orate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="9430eea1-f8f3-441c-9945-3195f4251d36" CreationDate="2015-12-31T03:53:44.257" UserId="40229" Comment="deleted 80 characters in body" Text="If you think a question is too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points, however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that this question isn't put on hold, my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, it is one of the biggest dreams of all great physicists to pursue a theory of everything. 'M Theory' as some like to call it. One simple elegant theory that forms the basis of an infinitely broad ocean of science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="349191d7-1431-41ff-afa3-a28dbfc8173f" CreationDate="2015-12-31T04:30:26.380" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="Why has my question, entitled [Automobile Air Bags][1], been closed?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This really leaves me baffled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked a conceptual question regarding the question above ,I've shown my efforts to understand it,I've shown what was the particular point in detail which gives me trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't written one only formula just to show that the question was regarding the structure it self of the question. But nothing, it has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this really disappointing as I find my self to have respected all the rules for asking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/226032/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7365" RevisionGUID="c83faf47-54d6-4735-b5c8-d2d85bdab491" CreationDate="2015-12-31T05:26:42.130" UserId="98734" Text="I think it is important to establish a collegial relationship between us. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the riot act for questions that may actually have a good point, but may be worded in a way that is not appropriate to the moderators, does not display an attitude of trying to pull each other up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe guiding the inquisitor to clarify, and working with them a bit to show them how to reach your standards, would be better for everyone concerned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, all of us on this site are very interested in the same things and more so than not, we are all like-minded in our love of understanding our universe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="94872f23-3ae4-40dc-a64d-3ce2812d26c3" CreationDate="2015-12-31T05:33:58.873" UserId="98734" Text="One other thing: The unfortunate truth is that sometimes, especially for complex (and not-so-intuitive) subjects, such as QM, the question is somewhat bury in the mind of the inquisitor. Yet, they may well be on to something valid and interesting. Therefore, someone with more expertise can help the inquisitor clarify and formulate the question in their own mind. This is how we can pull each other up. People should not be penalized for confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7365" RevisionGUID="4321ed3a-acf7-41d0-b508-2cfd69ec760f" CreationDate="2015-12-31T05:35:47.367" UserId="98734" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think it is important to establish a collegial relationship between us. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the riot act for questions that may actually have a good point, but may be worded in a way that is not appropriate to the moderators, does not display an attitude of trying to pull each other up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe guiding the inquisitor to clarify, and working with them a bit to show them how to reach your standards, would be better for everyone concerned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, each of us on this site is very interested in the same things and. more so than not, we are all like-minded in our love of understanding our universe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7367" RevisionGUID="eae70857-03c8-488b-b7f9-11a62713bea8" CreationDate="2015-12-31T12:52:00.473" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;If you think a question is too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally we do. Supposing this is [personal experience here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/226129/), you *were* told why it was too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, preventing an answer is exactly the point of closing such questions. The reasons for that [can be found on the Help Center page on closed questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every question posed on this site is acceptable, we have limits on what types of questions we want here; see [this Help Center page on acceptable questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) and [this Help Center page on unacceptable questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If* you feel your question was inappropriately closed, the *proper* action is to post a question on this Meta site asking *Why was my question closed?* with an explanation as to why you think it was wrongly closed and should be [reopened](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions) (please read this link carefully). Asking the question you have here doesn't help you any (as you can see by all the downvotes on your question and answer), as the old adage goes [*you catch more flies with honey than vinegar*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_can_catch_more_flies_with_honey_than_with_vinegar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20128" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="f397ca25-aa05-402e-8973-c50b117d2d49" CreationDate="2015-12-31T13:02:26.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/682547359579029508" />
  <row Id="20131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="aba617fa-f87f-45ae-a91b-cd86975a1787" CreationDate="2015-12-31T17:53:03.660" UserId="40531" Text="It seems that Reddit is a good alternative solution, and perhaps the strict question closing policy will drive people away frow this site. Rightfully so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you feel like the policy here is too strict for you then use Reddit, I tell from experience that Reddit is very open community and wellcomes questions that would not be a good fit for SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a way Reddit is the liberal SE. I highly recommend using Reddit as a QA site ! Many of my opinion based questions (which would be closed here)  were super well received there and got lot of upvotes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the standards? Why closing? Why not just downvote if the question is bad ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="d219fe59-7554-4da5-baa0-481dc2f1089d" CreationDate="2015-12-31T18:21:52.517" UserId="25301" Comment="added more as to why the metrics make sense so idiots stop thinking otherwise, added details on close rates here vs other sites as to why we're not doing something wrong" Text="The following three points combine to contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over-moderation would necessarily lead to a *larger* ratio of questions being closed, there is no way around that aspect. Since #3 above shows a fairly static close question count and #1 above shows an increasing question count, then the above three metric strongly suggest that there is no evidence of over-moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, note that there are currently [~5600 questions closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano) (and not duplicates), which represents about 8% of the total questions asked&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. For reference, the other sciences (and SO) closed-non-dupe fractions are approximately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com): 6%&#xD;&#xA; - [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Computer Science](http://cs.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we are on the higher end of the spectrum, we are not egregiously overboard as compared to similar sites. I believe that some of the difference is the fact that Math.SE allows homework questions whereas [we do not](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714), preferring conceptual questions instead. Not sure Cross Validated's position on HW questions. I think we're in good company on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Of course, there are many more deleted questions, so this number isn't necessarily real, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's a useful metric when comparing among other sites.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="ff54e8f6-cfd6-4adf-8db5-e968b029de1f" CreationDate="2015-12-31T20:00:33.693" UserId="25301" Comment="clarified 2nd paragraph" Text="The following three points combine to contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are positing that PSE has *always* been over-moderated, over-moderation would necessarily lead to a *larger* ratio of questions being closed over time, there is no way around that aspect. Since #3 above shows a fairly static close question count and #1 above shows an increasing question count, then the above three metric strongly suggest that there is no evidence of over-moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, note that there are currently [~5600 questions closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano) (and not duplicates), which represents about 8% of the total questions asked&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. For reference, the other sciences (and SO) closed-non-dupe fractions are approximately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com): 6%&#xD;&#xA; - [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Computer Science](http://cs.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we are on the higher end of the spectrum, we are not egregiously overboard as compared to similar sites. I believe that some of the difference is the fact that Math.SE allows homework questions whereas [we do not](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714), preferring conceptual questions instead. Not sure Cross Validated's position on HW questions. I think we're in good company on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Of course, there are many more deleted questions, so this number isn't necessarily real, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's a useful metric when comparing among other sites.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="62ec14a6-b315-482e-9378-58780dba1a83" CreationDate="2015-12-31T22:59:54.490" UserId="148704" Comment="add text" Text="&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Most of the moderators are just trying to help you get a good answer. There are truly dumb questions regardless of what your 5th grade teacher said and they need to be filtered including half of mine. It's expected and appreciated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="3de3467e-a6fa-4a9b-a6f0-4912d4531279" CreationDate="2016-01-01T21:05:38.393" UserId="31790" Text="No, Biophysics should not fork.&#xD;&#xA;There may be few biophysics questions on this site, but we should fix that by assimilating biophysicists into the fold, not by fracturing the already small community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (...) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question focuses on the physics it's on topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that such questions would be closed, but that would be a mistake and I (and others) would object, discuss in the chat room or on the meta, and set things right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the considerations relevant to this meta post are similar to those which have come up in the past regarding questions with mathematical or engineering flavors.&#xD;&#xA;When engineering questions are closed because the question really isn't about physics, then everything's fine and the user is directed to the engineering site.&#xD;&#xA;In cases where the question is of an engineering flavor but particularly relevant to e.g. physics lab work, is of a nature such that only physicists can answer, or aims to get a uniquely physics perspective, then I think the question is appropriate for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;I feel exactly the same way about biophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detailed and justified the opinion outlined above in a [meta post on engineering questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering).&#xD;&#xA;As that answer was upvoted and accepted I think it likely reflects the general consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that there's little sense in speculating about what will and will not be closed.&#xD;&#xA;We all encourage biophysicists to post questions and answers here.&#xD;&#xA;We can analyze the results quantitatively using the very nice SQL tools integrated into Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overzealous closing does happen.&#xD;&#xA;It's happened before with engineering; this resulting in *discussion* and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;If biophysics questions are overzealously closed, please come to the chat room or the meta and point it out.&#xD;&#xA;The community here is pretty good about self-observation and improvement so I have faith we can work through any initial bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So far few example questions can be found in the Area51 link, and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that instead you please tell everyone there to not be afraid to pose on Physics.SE!&#xD;&#xA;Asking us to support the Area51 proposal pushes us *away* from where we want to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="6e1d9324-210b-4080-8d46-13597dfe3866" CreationDate="2016-01-01T21:26:28.073" UserId="25301" Comment="added link to chatroom for easy access" Text="No, Biophysics should not fork.&#xD;&#xA;There may be few biophysics questions on this site, but we should fix that by assimilating biophysicists into the fold, not by fracturing the already small community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (...) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question focuses on the physics it's on topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that such questions would be closed, but that would be a mistake and I (and others) would object, discuss in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) or on the meta, and set things right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the considerations relevant to this meta post are similar to those which have come up in the past regarding questions with mathematical or engineering flavors.&#xD;&#xA;When engineering questions are closed because the question really isn't about physics, then everything's fine and the user is directed to the engineering site.&#xD;&#xA;In cases where the question is of an engineering flavor but particularly relevant to e.g. physics lab work, is of a nature such that only physicists can answer, or aims to get a uniquely physics perspective, then I think the question is appropriate for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;I feel exactly the same way about biophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detailed and justified the opinion outlined above in a [meta post on engineering questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering).&#xD;&#xA;As that answer was upvoted and accepted I think it likely reflects the general consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that there's little sense in speculating about what will and will not be closed.&#xD;&#xA;We all encourage biophysicists to post questions and answers here.&#xD;&#xA;We can analyze the results quantitatively using the very nice SQL tools integrated into Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overzealous closing does happen.&#xD;&#xA;It's happened before with engineering; this resulting in *discussion* and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;If biophysics questions are overzealously closed, please come to the chat room or the meta and point it out.&#xD;&#xA;The community here is pretty good about self-observation and improvement so I have faith we can work through any initial bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So far few example questions can be found in the Area51 link, and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that instead you please tell everyone there to not be afraid to pose on Physics.SE!&#xD;&#xA;Asking us to support the Area51 proposal pushes us *away* from where we want to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="de416160-6346-45ae-b829-cfbc3582ab35" CreationDate="2016-01-01T23:53:00.587" UserId="40229" Comment="deleted 228 characters in body" Text="If you think a question is too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points, however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that this question isn't put on hold, my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="91aa92b3-af40-4021-8fc3-aef2790560e9" CreationDate="2016-01-02T14:14:42.540" UserId="31790" Comment="re-order and reword middle section" Text="No, Biophysics should not fork.&#xD;&#xA;There may be few biophysics questions on this site, but we should fix that by assimilating biophysicists into the fold, not by fracturing the already small community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (...) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, is there any *evidence* that biophysics questions are closed here?&#xD;&#xA;If not, this speculation that they *would* be closed is probably not useful.&#xD;&#xA;Just post the questions, and if they get closed we will discuss why in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) or on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question focuses on the physics it's on topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that such questions would be closed, but that would be a mistake and I (and others) would object, discuss in the chat room or on the meta, and set things right.&#xD;&#xA;We are aware of over-zealous close voting and also of users picking the &quot;off topic&quot; reason when they really should be choosing one of the various versions of &quot;poor quality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the considerations relevant to this meta post are similar to those which have come up in the past regarding questions with mathematical or engineering flavors.&#xD;&#xA;When engineering questions are closed because the question really isn't about physics, then everything's fine and the user is directed to the engineering site.&#xD;&#xA;In cases where the question is of an engineering flavor but particularly relevant to e.g. physics lab work, is of a nature such that only physicists can answer, or aims to get a uniquely physics perspective, then I think the question is appropriate for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;I feel exactly the same way about biophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detailed and justified the opinion outlined above in a [meta post on engineering questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering).&#xD;&#xA;As that answer was upvoted and accepted I think it likely reflects the general consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overzealous closing does happen.&#xD;&#xA;It's happened before with engineering; this results in *discussion* and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;If biophysics questions are overzealously closed, please come to the chat room or the meta and point it out.&#xD;&#xA;The community here is pretty good about self-observation and improvement so I have faith we can work through any initial bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So far few example questions can be found in the Area51 link, and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that instead you please tell everyone there to not be afraid to pose on Physics.SE!&#xD;&#xA;Asking us to support the Area51 proposal pushes us *away* from where we want to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="473c3604-a082-45d5-a0b0-35ab2e5f518b" CreationDate="2016-01-02T14:23:39.063" UserId="31790" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;**(I write &quot;problem solving&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Problem solving questions, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a problem solving service. If you have a question about a specific problem, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;Homework-like&lt;/s&gt; Problem solving questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="7c77db83-edf2-49e9-ace8-3d74ab5f5cc2" CreationDate="2016-01-02T19:38:43.887" UserId="102232" Text="I have a phenomenon in mind but can't remember the name. Without name or other keywords, I can google for the rest of my life. Where, in general, should I ask in such a case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concrete thing I can't remember the name of right now is the relativistic effect that alters classical gravitational orbits to lose energy so the orbiting objects will finally collide. (Each object &quot;sees&quot; the other at some point slightly behind the position where it would be in the classical case, so gravitational pull is not exactly perpendicular to the orbit.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="7c77db83-edf2-49e9-ace8-3d74ab5f5cc2" CreationDate="2016-01-02T19:38:43.887" UserId="102232" Text="Can not remember the name of an effect --- where should I ask?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="7c77db83-edf2-49e9-ace8-3d74ab5f5cc2" CreationDate="2016-01-02T19:38:43.887" UserId="102232" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="b1743b7d-2f26-4409-8d02-aa0c5100bc4d" CreationDate="2016-01-02T20:28:24.160" UserId="25301" Text="As per the [notation/terminology policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1083/are-physics-related-notation-and-terminology-questions-on-topic), it would best asked in [the h-bar (i.e., physics chat room)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), rather than a question on the main page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7374" RevisionGUID="d94815df-1082-4a0c-900b-548adebe363f" CreationDate="2016-01-02T20:50:34.500" UserId="65616" Text="**TL;DR** - I believe that the expertise in biophysical techniques and biology is low over here and many times biophysics questions are closed due to being too biological. Therefore, another SE website might be needed to fix these issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is Biophysics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biophysics is defined as the &quot;the science of the application of the laws of physics to biological phenomena.&quot; As you can see, biophysics is mainly a subtopic of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why fork?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biophysics have many of its own techniques and methods for analyzing biological systems. Some of these methods may be applied to a broader class of physical systems but still, the expertise on these topics is very low. Being in the field of biophysics (doing a research project in quantum biology), I myself have experienced this. My interest is in the environment assisred quantum transport of excitons. Recently I was researching on Forster Resonance Energy Transfer, a theory describing how the excitons are transferred in certain conditions. I have asked a few questions on that over here. For example [This question was orginally asked on Physics.SE](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/32966/forster-rate-dependence-on-temperature) but got no responses. Similarly, [this one also got no responses on Physics.SE](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/32946/multichromophoric-generalization-of-forster-theory). If there were a biophysics.SE I believe that it would be more specific to biophysical techniques and that it would bd much easier to find people with the expertise in the field. Therefore, questions like mine, although are purely physics questions, have a better chance of being answered if there is a successful Biophysics.SE website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let me simply analyze some of the questions under the biophysics tag. The first question is about the [eye](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226404/why-do-our-eyes-only-pick-up-electromagnetic-radiation-which-has-been-classified). This question is mainly physics, but some biology knowledge is needed to understand and answer the question. It seems that not many (active) people in the community have that kind of knowledge or otherwise it would have been answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a question I do realize is a little bit on the bad question side but even with research, let's say the question is adapted to more like &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why can't rod receptors only allow us to visualize grey and black at night? What necessary physical factors about the rod receptors would be needed so we could see color at night?&#xD;&#xA;Based on the reasoning seen in the comments, it seems that it still would be closed as off topic since &quot;it is about eyes, not physics&quot;. On the other hand, if there is a Biophysics.SE site, this question would be definitely on-topic and would make a great question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question is about [why do ears pop?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/187905/why-do-our-ears-pop). In the comments, there are five people agreeing that this is off-topic because it is about human physiology. Them there are another five people agreeing that this is on-topic (the 6th upvote is by me). This seems to be very debatable. However, with a Biophysics.SE site, we can have such great questions being perfectly on-topic!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let me analyze some of the questions on the Biophysics.SE website. Let me start with [this one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics/93206#93206). Certainly, this is a physics question, but you need to know the operation of the dorsal closure of fruit flies. Does anybody here know about that? I don't think so (I do admit I do not know either, but that is irrelevant). Plus. I think many would agree that this requires too much knowledge about a biological process for it to be on-topic on Physics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics/93966#93966) also would have a problem with needing too much biology knowledge about ATP and concentration gradients and molecular motor. I believe that this would also be closed on Physics.SE as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After doing an analysis by sampling questions and including my own experience, here are the main points that support the forking of the biophysics community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is not much expertise in the biophysical techniques in the Physics.SE community&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There can be too much biological knowledge needed to answer a question, even though it may be mainly physics-based&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many times the questions will be closed because it is too biological and does not ask much about physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20150" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="675a646b-6271-413e-b949-e023cdf9d44d" CreationDate="2016-01-03T01:11:52.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/683455704166969344" />
  <row Id="20151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="297f30dc-1b2f-4142-9246-7c5405f56000" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:56:15.430" UserId="148704" Text="Do moderators know when you are down or up voting all their answers? Is it anonymity for all? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="297f30dc-1b2f-4142-9246-7c5405f56000" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:56:15.430" UserId="148704" Text="Up and Down Voting a Moderator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="297f30dc-1b2f-4142-9246-7c5405f56000" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:56:15.430" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7377" RevisionGUID="7943071d-6c8e-4dd3-b36e-a441c4b3b906" CreationDate="2016-01-03T09:47:44.673" UserId="124" Text="Nope, moderators have no idea who votes on their answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can get access to some aggregate information about votes to use for identifying fraudulent behavior. For example, if two (or more) accounts are suspected of belonging to the same person, we have a tool that reveals whether there is a suspicious pattern in how the accounts are voting. But the information we get never extends to the level of individual posts. In other words, the tools never show us who voted on a particular post, whether it's our own post or someone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, even if we did know, we wouldn't care. (There are some cases where we can _guess_ who cast a vote, using the same logic that anyone else might use, and we don't care about those.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="30022627-4488-439d-8097-4e44d7446d84" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:18:52.423" UserId="148704" Text="More than half of us probably are not even qualified to ask a proper physics question let alone answer one. Would it be ok to add Lamon answers or examples to harder answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="30022627-4488-439d-8097-4e44d7446d84" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:18:52.423" UserId="148704" Text="The Lamon Answer Alternative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="30022627-4488-439d-8097-4e44d7446d84" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:18:52.423" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|feature-request|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="cbbc8aec-57e2-47f4-a57e-5470b6c1705b" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:26:03.317" UserId="148704" Comment="grammer" Text="More than half of us probably are not even qualified to ask a proper physics question let alone answer one. Would it be ok to add Laymon answers or examples to harder answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20160" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="cbbc8aec-57e2-47f4-a57e-5470b6c1705b" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:26:03.317" UserId="148704" Comment="grammer" Text="The Laymon Answer Alternative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="758e5562-e1a6-4f26-8937-6016c5e9b7e3" CreationDate="2016-01-03T11:32:15.653" UserId="50546" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="More than half of us probably are not even qualified to ask a proper physics question let alone answer one. Would it be ok to add Layman answers or examples to harder answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="758e5562-e1a6-4f26-8937-6016c5e9b7e3" CreationDate="2016-01-03T11:32:15.653" UserId="50546" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="The Layman Answer Alternative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7377" RevisionGUID="7d0631a6-2d12-4f02-ac54-f9decaea077c" CreationDate="2016-01-03T12:44:49.833" UserId="124" Comment="clarify wording" Text="Nope, moderators don't know who votes on their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can get access to some aggregate information about votes to use for identifying fraudulent behavior. For example, if two (or more) accounts are suspected of belonging to the same person, we have a tool that reveals whether there is a suspicious pattern in how the accounts are voting. But the information we get never extends to the level of individual posts. In other words, the tools never show us who voted on a particular post, whether it's our own post or someone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, even if we did know, we wouldn't care. (There are some cases where we can _guess_ who cast a vote, using the same logic that anyone else might use, and we don't care about those.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7379" RevisionGUID="43f8b838-3114-41ad-b2a1-ffab99c9f693" CreationDate="2016-01-03T17:11:27.840" UserId="6634" Text="I won't give my opinion on this directly, but I would like to point out the site description from the [first line of the Tour page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would read that to mean that answering questions for the layman (qualified in your post as people not qualified to answer nor ask a question) is not within the scope of the site. Likewise, lay-questions are not within the scope of the site. It is possible somebody could interpret &quot;student&quot; to mean anybody with a passing curiosity -- and the community is a bit mixed on that. We do have many questions and answers that are approachable and deal with basic, real-life curiosities. And there are some who feel that is good, and some who feel that it is bad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="e03eeb7b-b7aa-448c-aff5-2318fdc3e18a" CreationDate="2016-01-04T06:44:29.250" UserId="1325" Text="The question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227391/trajectory-of-projectile-launched-from-planets-surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;raises an interesting issue. The SE system allows for *Answer your own question* posts as a sort of mini-blog way of posting interesting information. I think this is a good thing and I've used it several times myself. However here we have a case of an *Answer your own question* post being used to provide the solution to a worked example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble is that we have long regarded worked examples as falling into the *homework-and-exercises* category. If I posted the original question and sat back to await answers my question would be rapidly closed. So what should we do in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward, if this question is OK then it establishes the principle that worked examples can be answered - if only in an *Answer your own question* context. That would open the doors to, for example, people using the site to provide answers to the questions in MTW, Wald, etc. Actually I'm quite sympathetic to answers to worked examples being available on the web, though I don't think this is the right place for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="e03eeb7b-b7aa-448c-aff5-2318fdc3e18a" CreationDate="2016-01-04T06:44:29.250" UserId="1325" Text="Answer your own question - worked examples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="e03eeb7b-b7aa-448c-aff5-2318fdc3e18a" CreationDate="2016-01-04T06:44:29.250" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="437d4193-069a-4269-a7a8-8911158fcc2f" CreationDate="2016-01-04T08:03:46.700" UserId="84038" Text="Good question. I have been struggling in asking recently. One reason is language. I just found a wiki article [&quot;Research question&quot;][1] about the issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There in &quot;Types and purposes&quot; is quite well defined &quot;how to ask&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is Creswell's (2009) example of a script for a **qualitative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research central question:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (How or what) **is the** _________ (&quot;story for&quot; for narrative research; &quot;meaning of&quot; the phenomenon for phenomenology; &quot;theory that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explains the process of&quot; for grounded theory; &quot;culture-sharing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pattern&quot; for ethnography; &quot;issue&quot; in the &quot;case&quot; for case study) **of**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (central phenomenon) **for** _________ (participants) **at** _________ (research site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is Creswell's (2009) **example of a script for a quantitative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research question:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Does** _________ (name the theory) **explain the relationship between**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (independent variable) **and** _________ (dependent variable)**, controlling for the effects of** _________ (control variable)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alternatively, a script for a quantitative null hypothesis might be as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **There is no significant difference between** _________ (the control and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; experimental groups on the independent variable) **on** _________&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (dependent variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I also studied the exact definitions for the terms, I present them here to help the other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Independet Variable][2]; Input, the &quot;X&quot; in Y = Xa   &#xD;&#xA;[Dependent variable][2]; Output, the &quot;Y&quot; in Y = Xa  &#xD;&#xA;Control variable; constant, the &quot;a&quot; in Y = Xa &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this site there is also forbidden questions. The Wikipedia has also a page for [Question.][3] And there was a quote from Buddha, where the questions were defined through the expected answers in four categories; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. &#xD;&#xA;**2. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].**  &#xD;&#xA;3. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.  &#xD;&#xA;4. There are questions that should be put aside. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular site seems to be only for the category 2 questions.  &#xD;&#xA;1. Being too narrow or simple ones.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Being discussion generating and opinion based.  &#xD;&#xA;4. Being &quot;please do me my (home)work?&quot; - questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this post, is that I would found it helpful, if newcomers could immediately have such an clear example &quot;how to ask&quot; in the tour, or atleast this could be added on this help page;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_question#Types_and_purpose&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7382" RevisionGUID="18ca77f8-234a-4005-bdfc-a2ee6c284af8" CreationDate="2016-01-04T10:06:51.463" UserId="124" Text="This is something to take into consideration when we reformulate the homework policy. (It's happening. Slowly.) For now, I'd say just judge the question on its own merits, i.e. without considering the answer. If you saw this question posted by itself, without an answer, would you consider it to be off topic as homework-like? If so, go ahead and vote to put it on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also take a look at the answer and decide according to our usual criteria whether it should be temporarily deleted, as we generally do to complete answers to homework-like problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="41d8ce22-8662-4ae4-8175-a57469d315c4" CreationDate="2016-01-04T10:50:10.887" UserId="148704" Text="How many times can your edits on another persons question be rejected before it's disabled?&#xD;&#xA;How long is the penalty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="41d8ce22-8662-4ae4-8175-a57469d315c4" CreationDate="2016-01-04T10:50:10.887" UserId="148704" Text="Editing Rejections and Penalty Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="41d8ce22-8662-4ae4-8175-a57469d315c4" CreationDate="2016-01-04T10:50:10.887" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20175" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="68549dc7-0a1f-42b0-a3dc-b69b12434dcd" CreationDate="2016-01-04T10:53:32.367" UserId="148704" Comment="grammer" Text="Flagging Rejections and Penalty Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="68549dc7-0a1f-42b0-a3dc-b69b12434dcd" CreationDate="2016-01-04T10:53:32.367" UserId="148704" Comment="grammer" Text="I had the privilege of Flagging taken from me. How many times can I get rejected before it is disabled? Is this permanent or is there a time for restriction?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mIDMF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="b48b163f-71d8-4905-bb44-5f9643100e7c" CreationDate="2016-01-04T12:19:32.443" UserId="84038" Comment="just small improvements" Text="Good question. I have been struggling in asking recently. One reason is language. I just found a wiki article [&quot;Research question&quot;][1] about the issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There in &quot;Types and purposes&quot; is quite well defined &quot;how to ask&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is Creswell's (2009) example of a script for a **qualitative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research central question:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (How or what) **is the** _________ (&quot;story for&quot; for narrative research; &quot;meaning of&quot; the phenomenon for phenomenology; &quot;theory that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explains the process of&quot; for grounded theory; &quot;culture-sharing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pattern&quot; for ethnography; &quot;issue&quot; in the &quot;case&quot; for case study) **of**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (central phenomenon) **for** _________ (participants) **at** _________ (research site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is Creswell's (2009) **example of a script for a quantitative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research question:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Does** _________ (name the theory) **explain the relationship between**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (independent variable) **and** _________ (dependent variable)**, controlling for the effects of** _________ (control variable)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alternatively, a script for a quantitative null hypothesis might be as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **There is no significant difference between** _________ (the control and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; experimental groups on the independent variable) **on** _________&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (dependent variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I also studied the exact definitions for the terms, I present them here to help the other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Independet Variable][2]; Input, the &quot;X&quot; in Y = Xa   &#xD;&#xA;[Dependent variable][2]; Output, the &quot;Y&quot; in Y = Xa  &#xD;&#xA;Control variable; constant, the &quot;a&quot; in Y = Xa &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this site there is also forbidden questions. The Wikipedia has also a page for [Question.][3] And there was a quote from Buddha, where the questions were defined through the expected answers in four categories; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. There are questions that should be put aside. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular site seems to be only for the category 2 questions.  &#xD;&#xA;1. Being too narrow or simple ones.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Being discussion generating and opinion based.  &#xD;&#xA;4. Being &quot;please do me my (home)work?&quot; - questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this physics forum has a particular Problem in the questions, as the need for **defining or redefining the terms** builds unclear to the structure, which makes the moderation really challenging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed Change in &quot;how to ask&quot; might help to cope with this challenge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this post, is that I would found it helpful, if newcomers could immediately have such an clear example &quot;how to ask&quot; in the tour, or atleast this could be added on this help page;  http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_question#Types_and_purpose&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7384" RevisionGUID="1ccdd576-f7e7-49ea-b82c-130de71ebe5f" CreationDate="2016-01-04T17:20:23.103" UserId="8563" Text="From [this post on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/91392/too-many-of-your-edits-were-rejected-try-again-in-7-days),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When deciding on whether we should ban or not, we now look at your last **7 days** of activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If `(rejects - (approvals / 3)) &gt;= 5`, you will be auto-banned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78129/is-there-a-penalty-for-ones-edit-suggestion-being-rejected) puts the penalty at seven days of edit banning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both posts are fairly old, though [this newer thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173604/losing-the-ability-to-suggest-edits) confirms them. The exact details might have changed slightly. This is **not** to say that you should go and experimentally figure out where the boundaries currently sit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more, see the [edit-ban tag on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/edit-ban?page=2&amp;sort=votes&amp;pagesize=15)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="c48b02fa-a5f5-4e77-95d3-c8b72f8c4937" CreationDate="2016-01-04T17:46:08.187" UserId="8563" Text="Your profile contains a wealth of information about your activity on the site, including specific breakdowns of your questions, answers, and - under `all actions` - your edits, comments, reviews, and more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, the [search tool](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=) on the site is relatively sophisticated if you know how to use it, and it has a handy guide accessible by clicking the `Advanced Search Tips` link on the right sidebar. Some notables are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `user:me` to search for your own posts (or e.g. `user:50583` to search for, say, ACuriousMind's posts, since their user id (the number in the url of their profile) is 50583)&#xD;&#xA; - `is:question` and `is:answer` to limit the search to just questions or just answers&#xD;&#xA; - flags for `closed`, `deleted`, `migrated`&#xD;&#xA; - and a whole host of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also perform specific searches subject to those constraints, and order them using the tabs just below the search bar on the results page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7319" RevisionGUID="19290497-1530-40d1-8104-dba4e2882125" CreationDate="2016-01-04T18:21:05.330" UserId="124" Comment="add note on copyright" Text="I guess the implicit question is whether we should actually do this (though it would be better to be explicit); anyway, yes, this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever you include an image from elsewhere on the web in your own posts, link to the original source, and preferably also identify it in the text.&#xD;&#xA;- If you see someone else's post which includes an image whose source is not identified, it's a valid edit to update the post with a link and reference to the original source, if you can find it. The only exception is when the poster created the image themselves. There is no need for attribution when using your own image. And when seeing an image in a post (not as part of a quote), our default assumption should be that the image is the poster's own creation, unless there is reason to believe otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above might be considered our own site policy against plagiarism (though if there is a post that makes it official, this is not it). There is also the _separate_ matter of copyright. As far as copyright goes, content is submitted to SE under the terms of the license identified in the [terms of service](https://stackexchange.com/legal), which at the moment is [Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/). This license presumably applies to inline images as well as text, so if you include an image from elsewhere on the web, you had better make sure the use is legal just as you would with a block of text. That _usually_ means that the image itself must be released under the CC-BY-SA or CC-BY license. And in those cases, the license _requires_ attribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the default licensing is &quot;all rights reserved&quot;, meaning that it's not legal to use an image unless you have an explicit statement (e.g. a license) saying that it's okay. In some cases, the fair use exemption in copyright law can sometimes make the use of an image legal despite it not being under a compatible license, but these cases are probably relatively rare on our site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20182" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="578047fb-a57c-4850-9063-9d86e6392020" CreationDate="2016-01-05T04:17:26.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/684227177970294784" />
  <row Id="20183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="3b4dba3b-8636-4844-abfc-6f172849c1f4" CreationDate="2016-01-06T19:58:07.983" UserId="520" Text="## The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, biophysics questions run a wide range from those that are primarily biology questions with a little physics input to those that are primarily physics questions applied to a situation that appears in a biological processes or system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And presumably some fraction of them are on-topic for [physics.se].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is soliciting reasoned and explained opinions about what kinds of questions are definitely on-topic, off-topic and living in a fuzzy gray area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed texts for the [tag:biophysics] summary would be one (good) way to condense your thoughts, but are not required. For reference, the current tag summary reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of methods from the physical sciences to aid in the study of biological systems. Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a recent [conversation concerning the need for or utility of possible Biophysics beta site][1] we received [a question on the main site concerning the mechanisms of protein action (and a few other issues)][2]. A subsequent [informal poll of the chat room][3] revealed surprising diversity of opinion on the matter including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On-topic (at least in part): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635714#26635714 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635720#26635720 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635920#26635920 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Send it to [chemstry.se]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635657#26635657&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Off-topic (no alternate suggestion): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640394#26640394 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640561#26640561 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26641857#26641857 (or should that go on the chemistry bullet?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suggested refinements that would make it definitely on-topic (suggesting to me that the speaker thinks it is borderline as it is): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26642643#26642643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should be closed for reasons not relating to topicality. (Not providing separate links for these because they evade the point of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta-question is *not* mainly about the place of post 227647 on [physics.se], but about the broader criteria for deciding such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/should-biophysics-fork&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635361#26635361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="3b4dba3b-8636-4844-abfc-6f172849c1f4" CreationDate="2016-01-06T19:58:07.983" UserId="520" Text="What are the bondaries of &quot;biophysics&quot; on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="3b4dba3b-8636-4844-abfc-6f172849c1f4" CreationDate="2016-01-06T19:58:07.983" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|scope|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20186" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="6483b36c-c9e5-4507-a800-eba6fdd7a170" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:03:55.367" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the boundaries of &quot;biophysics&quot; on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="6483b36c-c9e5-4507-a800-eba6fdd7a170" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:03:55.367" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="## The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, biophysics questions run a wide range from those that are primarily biology questions with a little physics input to those that are primarily physics questions applied to a situation that appears in a biological processes or system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And presumably some fraction of them are on-topic for the Physics.SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is soliciting reasoned and explained opinions about what kinds of questions are definitely on-topic, off-topic and living in a fuzzy gray area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed texts for the [tag:biophysics] summary would be one (good) way to condense your thoughts, but are not required. For reference, the current tag summary reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of methods from the physical sciences to aid in the study of biological systems. Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a recent [conversation concerning the need for or utility of possible Biophysics beta site][1] we received [a question on the main site concerning the mechanisms of protein action (and a few other issues)][2]. A subsequent [informal poll of the chat room][3] revealed surprising diversity of opinion on the matter including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On-topic (at least in part): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635714#26635714 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635720#26635720 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635920#26635920 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Send it to [chemstry.se]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635657#26635657&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Off-topic (no alternate suggestion): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640394#26640394 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640561#26640561 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26641857#26641857 (or should that go on the chemistry bullet?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suggested refinements that would make it definitely on-topic (suggesting to me that the speaker thinks it is borderline as it is): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26642643#26642643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should be closed for reasons not relating to topicality. (Not providing separate links for these because they evade the point of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta-question is *not* mainly about the place of post 227647 on [physics.se], but about the broader criteria for deciding such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/should-biophysics-fork&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635361#26635361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="3471d802-9ca1-4183-ae2c-1063c779f41f" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:06:38.900" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="## The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, biophysics questions run a wide range from those that are primarily biology questions with a little physics input to those that are primarily physics questions applied to a situation that appears in a biological processes or system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And presumably some fraction of them are on-topic for the Physics.SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is soliciting reasoned and explained opinions about what kinds of questions are definitely on-topic, off-topic and living in a fuzzy gray area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed texts for the [tag:biophysics] summary would be one (good) way to condense your thoughts, but are not required. For reference, the current tag summary reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of methods from the physical sciences to aid in the study of biological systems. Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a recent [conversation concerning the need for or utility of possible Biophysics beta site][1] we received [a question on the main site concerning the mechanisms of protein action (and a few other issues)][2]. A subsequent [informal poll of the chat room][3] revealed surprising diversity of opinion on the matter including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On-topic (at least in part): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635714#26635714 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635720#26635720 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635920#26635920 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Send it to [chemstry.se]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635657#26635657&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Off-topic (no alternate suggestion): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640394#26640394 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640561#26640561 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26641857#26641857 (or should that go on the chemistry bullet?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suggested refinements that would make it definitely on-topic (suggesting to me that the speaker thinks it is borderline as it is): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26642643#26642643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should be closed for reasons not relating to topicality. (Not providing separate links for these because they evade the point of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta-question is *not* mainly about the place of post 227647 on Physics SE, but about the broader criteria for deciding such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/should-biophysics-fork&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635361#26635361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="180ff2a7-8c61-4ca3-a018-558fe0e36159" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:09:11.473" UserId="3485" Comment="Some language cleanup; A few clarifications, simplifications, added comment re. logical fallacy, etc." Text="I've raised a question that was put on hold, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could a falling office tower cause the melting of its iron or steel support structure?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to post for discussion the reason the question was put on hold.  I would preface that I don't want to offend anyone, raise defences, bring questions where not welcome, or rattle an apple cart.  I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, or anything being out of line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am having trouble understanding the nature of the rejection of the question, and would appreciate understanding the rationale, and I feel like that might be important for the community of users and potential users.  Any insight shall be sincerely appreciated, but this discussion is not intended for my benefit, but for that of the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I asked struck me as a curiosity. The physics were interesting to me so I napkin-speculated as to the answer but I did not feel myself competent to make any reliable conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel – and it initially appeared — that this would be a question appropriate for this site, and I was (and remain) open to whatever conclusion comes from the application of the physics to the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, all I wanted was an answer to a relatively straightforward physics question that was beyond my capabilities – to learn something.  Thanks to the answers posted (but since deleted), I did.  Then the question was put on hold, and comments became what I perceived as speculative yet judgmental and hostile.  This appears to be because the data and curiosity comes from the geopolitical event we call 9/11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the tangentiality of the relationship: The question I asked was and remains purely hypothetical, a timeless inquiry into the nature of the relations in the physical world; it has never mentioned or implied a relation to any events at all.  That said, I made what was evidently the mistake of commenting on an answer that the reason I was asking was related to a thread on Skeptics.SE.  Shortly thereafter I was accused of using the Physics site as a vehicle for linking to a WTC &quot;controlled explosion&quot; theory, whereupon I deleted my comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, from the Skeptics.SE sister–site here (where I, for what it's worth, enjoy a little reputation), shall summarize its content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On 9/11, was Building 7 destroyed in a controlled explosion?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/31144/1792)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That theory in the linked answer on Skeptics.SE is not a conspiracy theory, in any defensible sense, as by definition a conspiracy theory attempts to find blame. The answer linked only indicates that there is evidence yet–unexplained by NIST, and posits an alternative (which alternative could very well be discredited, particularly by physics or engineering expertise).  It is also not a conspiracy theory in the sense that it is readily falsifiable – potentially, it occurred to me, *by way of an answer to the question I posted here*.  It also a genetic fallacy to conclude that by being from a so-called conspiracy one must dismiss the question as not being a curiosity of physics.  Nevertheless, in spite of the logical fallacy and being semantically incorrect, the assertion that the question posted here was a conspiracy theory was evidently fatal to the inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a question about another geopolitical event, like the Challenger disaster, would be perfectly acceptable, or similarly the same question in a different era or different country.  Which makes me wonder, where does the condemnation and taboo come from?  Certainly there are legitimate concerns if the question was unanswerable, vague or speculative, or the questioner argumentative or unwilling to accept answers that dismissed the theory.  However, my question was easily and evidently answerable, and I am (and always remain) completely open to a credible conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern was raised on the comments that the question I posted here would become a conduit for a conspiracy theory, but the Skeptics.SE question is already quite popular, and in any case the link was in a comment to an answer – hardly a prominent exposure.  It was certainly and apparently not the intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leaves me wondering what the governance and purpose of the site is.  The tour says it's meant for asking about explanations of observed phenomenon.  But that seems to not be adequate. There are contemporaneous and forensic observations of melted iron and steel found at the WTC site, and the question was presented as a hypothetical for possible explanations of that observed phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tour gives criteria for dismissal, such as being a homework question, outside mainstream physics, based on opinion, lengthy answers, or need for lengthy discussion, but none seem to apply.  While being a homework question may be improper, the site itself states that it generally should not be a problem. So there's no apparent (or given) basis for dismissal, other than its relation to a geopolitical event, even though such dismissal is inconsistent with the values and rules espoused.  Why bother having the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It always struck me that this site could have questions that are beacons of sensibility, expertise, and (dare I say) sanity in contrast with an Internet chock full of unsubstantiated speculation.  I would like to think that this site could discuss and bring illumination about events of importance, and so ideally &quot;conspiratorial-type&quot; questions would be not just permitted but encouraged precisely to debunk conspiratorial wish-wash.  The answers I received were interesting and useful, precisely because.  I wish this could be a place where I could ask more; there are criteria for dismissing bad questions but relation to a geopolitical event is not one — it is arbitrary, capricious, and fragile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should not the criteria for dismissing questions be independent of the origin of the curiosity causing the question and the source for the data?  Is that not the essence of scientific inquiry, the critical distinction that allows intellectual curiosity to overcome rumination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is all to say, dismissing the question I asked for the reasons given feels wrong – I clearly am missing something.  I feel like closing the question necessitates employing things in opposition to ideals I believe are fundamentally good, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Engaging and involving those curious about physics;&#xD;&#xA;2. illuminating relevant details about important events that affect lives; &#xD;&#xA;3. honouring the rules of the site presented to the public; and&#xD;&#xA;4. linking to and building relationships with other StackExchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel the site is missing an opportunity for topics where illumination on the Internet is most wanting.  I've always believed those with greater capabilities have a duty to those who do not to share their illumination, and this site could serve as a place for spreading knowledge about physics related to events that affect our lives.  Otherwise, what is the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to start an argument, upset the apple cart, or step into the unwelcome.  I am not blaming or accusing anyone of anything, nor asking that the question be reviewed or re-opened, nor that any theories be reviewed or speculated upon, nor that any changes be made to the site, its governance, or its policies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't need a response or to be part of a discussion, but I feel a discussion should be had because the criteria for closing questions seems to divert from reason and common sense, to include a taboo of things tangentially related to an important geopolitical event, even where such dismissal is contrary to the guidelines the site offers to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something about that doesn't sit right with me, and if this site and its community are important to you then this shouldn't sit right with you either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20190" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="625cdf8f-3d60-4274-951b-efe450b72078" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:11:05.887" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|answers|flagging|review-tools|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="7b0321ef-4332-4c75-bd11-12720847a6a5" CreationDate="2016-01-07T00:21:14.033" UserId="148704" Text="Do moderators here get any kind of compensation for all their efforts and help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="7b0321ef-4332-4c75-bd11-12720847a6a5" CreationDate="2016-01-07T00:21:14.033" UserId="148704" Text="Compinsation for Full Time Moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="7b0321ef-4332-4c75-bd11-12720847a6a5" CreationDate="2016-01-07T00:21:14.033" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20194" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="3d2b538e-644c-4131-9890-069311412295" CreationDate="2016-01-07T00:58:27.600" UserId="8563" Comment="Spelling on the title." Text="Compensation for Full Time Moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="e1fb5e5e-a5ba-4f17-808d-9710834c002d" CreationDate="2016-01-07T01:10:07.343" UserId="8563" Text="From PersonArtPhoto's [answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/169222/184688) on the Meta Stack Exchange question linked to in the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The benefits of being a moderator:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A huge say in the direction of a site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Access to the site views.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The ability to choose an organization of a list of a few to receive $100 once a year from Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. More direct access to the Stack Exchange employees.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That warm fuzzy feeling of making a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Access to the Teacher's Lounge, a chat room for moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Once in a blue moon, SE will hire one of the community moderators as &quot;Community Managers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As has been noted, SE staff also has access, who do get paid. But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are some 200+ (Maybe even more?) moderators, including myself,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who don't receive a dime for their services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it needs to be said explicitly, [moderators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) do not receive any financial compensation for their activities on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20196" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="f8f51c9f-a7f0-4310-aebc-fae13440c9a8" CreationDate="2016-01-07T02:01:15.383" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1197],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10851,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:82798,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Daniel Griscom&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:24653,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Danu&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="e21c07fc-66f6-43c5-ba65-f84d70818e40" CreationDate="2016-01-07T06:00:44.960" UserId="124" Comment="alter to match FAQ" Text="It's not possible to change the flag/VTC reasons, other than the few custom reasons that appear under &quot;off topic&quot; (and that's only for questions). I mean, it would be _technically_ possible, but the feature doesn't exist in the SE system. So I think we can safely conclude that adding a custom flag reason to catch non-mainstream answers won't happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an [FAQ post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) specifying that non-mainstream answers should be deleted, so if you see one, you can just flag it. According to our [guidance on flag use](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6374/124), a custom flag for moderator attention is the one to use for a non-mainstream answer that legitimately attempts to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can happen that a person posts an answer which promotes a non-mainstream theory but is utterly and _obviously_ unrelated to the question, and in those cases flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I don't like the idea of deleting non-mainstream answers; I don't think there's a clear line between &quot;non-mainstream&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot;, and the latter is definitely supposed to just be downvoted. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the reason you can't carry over the reasoning from questions (&quot;we have a non-mainstream close reason, why not delete non-mainstream answers?&quot;) is that, first of all, answers are not questions. They fill different roles in the site and there's no reason to expect the same sets of rules to apply to both. Beyond that, our non-mainstream close reason is mostly meant to curtail a specific kind of request: that where someone posts their pet theory that is going to overthrow relativity (or whatever) and challenges us to find something wrong with it. Requests like this are a drain on the attention of professional physicists and grad students (check your spam folder :-p), and we don't want to entertain them on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="d8ed54a4-eb6f-4435-aadd-c3b11557b34d" CreationDate="2016-01-07T13:51:17.407" UserId="101428" Text="It was called [&quot;Need A Collection Textbooks To Use As Stepping Stones to QFT&quot;][1] In my mind, asking about a &quot;no-nonsense intro to QFT&quot; and asking for a set of textbooks together which would prepare one to even read a QFT intro, from the position of only having completed Griffith's Introduction to QM, are two completely different things. QMechanic even admitted to it not being a true duplicate, but closed it anyway, and I really don't buy his explanation of it being &quot;opinion based&quot;, since the thread that I was supposedly duplicating should also have been &quot;opinion based&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226186/need-a-collection-textbooks-to-use-as-stepping-stones-to-qft&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="d8ed54a4-eb6f-4435-aadd-c3b11557b34d" CreationDate="2016-01-07T13:51:17.407" UserId="101428" Text="Why was my question about a *collection* of textbooks to use to *prepare* for QFT closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="d8ed54a4-eb6f-4435-aadd-c3b11557b34d" CreationDate="2016-01-07T13:51:17.407" UserId="101428" Text="|discussion|questions|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="4fa80d08-c0a8-458d-9a2a-354146912f57" CreationDate="2016-01-07T14:05:48.577" UserId="50583" Text="I didn't close it as duplicate, I closed it as being *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our book recommendations policy is rather strict (see [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698/50583) and [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/50583)), and your question doesn't ask for a single book for QFT (which would already be quite broad), but also for a series of books *preparing* you for it. This is more study advice than a recommendation of a book for a specific topic, because you are not searching for a resource containing a defined topic, but you are asking *the answerers* to come up with the specific topic you must learn to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the question is very broad - the recommended resources in one answer could even be about different topic that those in another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7392" RevisionGUID="def29dd0-b75d-4990-94f7-bd9d215ad73a" CreationDate="2016-01-07T18:11:09.013" UserId="7743" Text="It says nowhere that this site is restricted to only theoretical or conceptual Physics questions only, and everything related to physics problem solving is banned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tell me if I'm wrong about this and point me to the reference, or make a new thread to discuss it to change the scope officially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me quote [Mew][1]'s comment below [this answer][2] from another related question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't believe that providing complete solutions is detrimental to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students, and in fact I believe the best way for students to learn the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basics of physics is to look at as many complete solutions as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. I believe this method is far superior than asking the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student to attempt to solve the problem by themselves. When a student&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has seen many problems, I believe they will have no trouble in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developing an intuition to solve far more physics problems, and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have much more refined thought process than the students who went off&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on tangents trying to solve problems using unconventional methods – Mew&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was a student I always got A+ for all may physics exams in high school, because they always included problems of types the teacher already showed us how to solve (not the same problems, but with different numbers and conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to my performance I always went to Physics competitions but I weren't too successful in them initially. The reasons: the problems they gave me to solve was of types I never seen before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me show you an example. Electric circuits. Most students learn how to calculate the resistance, inductance and capacitance when these elements connected in series or parallel. But what do you do when you are faced with an arbitrary graph of capacitors, resistances or coils which you cannot rearrange into the usual series parallel structure? I was flinched by these tasks, I didn't even know how to start at all! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually after sending and receiving lots of letters (I didn't even had internet that time), discussing with peers other competitors and teachers, I managed to learn helluva lots of tricks and tips and approaches you can't find in any text book, which eventually got me to the final rounds and took the 4th prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have 10k+ reputation so I can't open the linked question in the example. But I think catch-all questions self answered or not, that ask&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What approach should I use when solving problems of this class&quot; (without actual numbers plugged in) would be very useful for students who are preparing for competitions or exams, engineers writing simulation software looking for the methods, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again if this site isn't for helping students learn the methods and know/how of problem solving than we should point that out in the tour and the help/ontopic as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/12350/mew&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="a97eaa36-1767-4423-815c-04a8569dd20e" CreationDate="2016-01-08T01:38:15.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/685274281832493057" />
  <row Id="20208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="d649fe0e-0d05-440e-af03-1283bd535578" CreationDate="2016-01-08T13:47:42.903" UserId="8563" Text="Some [six to eight weeks ago](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=days+since+april+14+2015), Stack Exchange announced a programme to re-design the CSS and tweak the site styles throughout the network, including the [completely redesigned profile pages](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2015/04/two-new-user-pages-one-new-stat-this-on/). Since then, we've [made some big requests](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax) to come with the re-design, so we've remained &quot;on deck&quot; for some time. It seems, however, that the deck currently contains... just us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a problem - I'm sure we would all rather they get it right than they get it out fast. However, I'm curious as to know how this matches with the [recently announced change in the width of the sidebar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1), which is admittedly a smaller change in the site design, but still. Moreover, I expect that the change in the sidebar is the reason for the [slight delay in the 2016 community ads thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/community-ads), since [the new ads will need to conform to the new width](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1#comment885010_272563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In which order will the CSS redesign, the new sidebar, and the community ads thread launch?&#xD;&#xA; - Are there known timelines for them? Or will the sidebar launch on par with everyone else on the 12th, with no fixed timeline for the CSS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to pressure the team, but since we're last on the line I thought it wouldn't be too much to ask politely :). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="d649fe0e-0d05-440e-af03-1283bd535578" CreationDate="2016-01-08T13:47:42.903" UserId="8563" Text="Is there a known timeline for the deployment of the new CSS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="d649fe0e-0d05-440e-af03-1283bd535578" CreationDate="2016-01-08T13:47:42.903" UserId="8563" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="f3d4476b-61e8-4cb8-8367-2221fe5881ef" CreationDate="2016-01-09T14:55:16.473" UserId="5739" Text="I just tried to down vote an answer.  The vote count went *up*.  I hit the down button again, and the count went up again!   I'm afraid to try it again.  FYI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="f3d4476b-61e8-4cb8-8367-2221fe5881ef" CreationDate="2016-01-09T14:55:16.473" UserId="5739" Text="Downvote caused upvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="f3d4476b-61e8-4cb8-8367-2221fe5881ef" CreationDate="2016-01-09T14:55:16.473" UserId="5739" Text="|bug|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7396" RevisionGUID="39f05341-8923-46d4-ace7-81913c075ddd" CreationDate="2016-01-09T15:13:19.903" UserId="124" Text="Who knows, maybe two other people upvoted the answer at the same time? I wouldn't worry too much about the number. Just refresh the page or open it in a new tab and see if that shows a more reasonable number. The SE database stores individual _votes_, and the post scores are derived from that, so if the number is wrong, it will work itself out next time the post score is recalculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more important is to check that the vote you cast on the answer (if any) is the one you intended to cast. Refresh or reopen the page and see whether one of the arrows is highlighted, indicating the vote that has been recorded for you. If that's not the vote that you wanted to cast, click the arrow again to undo it. But you only have 5 minutes to do this, so in this case it's too late, unless the answer is edited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="c0040d0a-5888-4a95-94d7-7a35825b5d2e" CreationDate="2016-01-10T11:24:43.847" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="I think that it was a big mistake to begin your question with a ridiculous theory of your fellow. Even worse, the question itself is just the last two lines and the rest of the text is some nonsense that I would rather not read and that is why I downvoted your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: even worse, some naive person would read it and then remember that he saw a theory at Physics.SE about how oil was formed because of the asteroid impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="13b18b42-2524-44ff-8e35-cc03a44b2385" CreationDate="2016-01-10T12:37:38.547" UserId="46399" Comment="edited title" Text="Why was my question, about a collection of textbooks to use to prepare for QFT, closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20222" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="6d618259-92c2-42e1-b029-6d5c6042bcc3" CreationDate="2016-01-10T16:59:55.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/686231001404686337" />
  <row Id="20223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="8ef751e2-3955-4d7a-a664-bf0f06e090c5" CreationDate="2016-01-10T17:19:14.223" UserId="148704" Text="In Physics I asked a question and got 3 answers, 1 from a moderator and 2 from users. All 3 are good answers, but the moderator is spot on. I can tell 1 of the users are close in quality and took some thought. Since the moderator has 56k reputation and the user 300 would it be ok to award a bounty to a lesser answer while checking the moderator as the preferred answer?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="8ef751e2-3955-4d7a-a664-bf0f06e090c5" CreationDate="2016-01-10T17:19:14.223" UserId="148704" Text="2nd place gets the bounty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="8ef751e2-3955-4d7a-a664-bf0f06e090c5" CreationDate="2016-01-10T17:19:14.223" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|answers|moderators|bounty|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="b159077e-f9cf-4c42-8f28-6c9002dd3928" CreationDate="2016-01-10T17:37:33.773" UserId="50583" Text="You can award your bounty to whomever you like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="4c8c9cb6-e420-48e1-b88a-8d24247d93ae" CreationDate="2016-01-11T10:09:51.243" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7399" RevisionGUID="6bfa644e-b0d7-4749-828e-0ff00015cfe7" CreationDate="2016-01-11T10:30:49.503" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="Physics Stack Exchange is changed! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even at 11:30-12:00 IST, the site was as usual. But when I visited the site again at 2 IST, the appearance of Physics SE. was different!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picture speaks more than words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is the snapshot of a question of mine at the _past_:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it appears as:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is my profile icon with small badges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now it looks like this with bigger badges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now with the favourite mark star appearing smaller: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Now: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And many others like the favourite, reviews, responses numbers are marked in blue while then they were marked in red; and the most important the logo of _Physics Meta Stack Exchange_ contains only _me_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That'all what grabbed my notice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what actually happened? Is my laptop not working or something else has happened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/m3phQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AXDWS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dknpu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DUoVm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PXXWa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6FaL5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tDfqd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a7qzz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pFvxn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hzhZ0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1VSAk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6g8MN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7399" RevisionGUID="6bfa644e-b0d7-4749-828e-0ff00015cfe7" CreationDate="2016-01-11T10:30:49.503" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="What happened to the appearance of Physics Stack Exchange all on a sudden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7399" RevisionGUID="6bfa644e-b0d7-4749-828e-0ff00015cfe7" CreationDate="2016-01-11T10:30:49.503" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="4218d64e-5e7d-4b5b-bbf2-deb337a1d3c6" CreationDate="2016-01-11T20:07:33.593" UserId="31790" Text="I just took at look at the question linked in this post, version 4.&#xD;&#xA;I think the question was closed because it's vague and too broad, not really because it's about biology.&#xD;&#xA;I think this happens a lot on our site and warrants discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems with the [example post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the first three paragraphs of the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's, for example, take a ribosome. It is an enzyme that is in turn just a molecule that must follow the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I'm wrong, but it can be looked upon as a molecular machine made up of several pieces. What exactly makes those pieces work together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA? Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more? Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four question marks by the end of the third paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;What exactly makes those pieces work together?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Why  does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having multiple questions is alone a problem.&#xD;&#xA;When faced with multiple questions, a would-be answer writer has to read, understand, think about, formulate answers for, and then write answers for multiple questions.&#xD;&#xA;If the probability that a given reader can do those things for one question is p &lt;&lt; 1, then the probability that a given reader can do them for four questions is p^4, which is absolutely tiny.&#xD;&#xA;This puts a reader at a disposition to regard the question as unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, a deeper problem is that the questions bounce back and forth from specific and physics-oriented to broad and biology oriented.&#xD;&#xA;Questions #1 and #2 are very broad and sound biology-ish.&#xD;&#xA;A typical physicist probably feels that only a phenomenological bio or so-broad-as-to-be-useless physics answer can possibly suffice.&#xD;&#xA;This, puts the physicist at a mind to vote for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in question #3 we get physics: &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;. *That* is a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;Or at least it suggests one.&#xD;&#xA;We could rewrite the entire post around that one question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ribosomes perform complex tasks in the organism, but in the end they are just molecules and therefore governed by the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;What physical principles are the most crucial for understanding how a ribosome is able to function as it does?&#xD;&#xA;To choose a specific example, is electrostatics enough to explain why a ribosome sticks to a strand of RNA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we then get question #4: &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is again vague and broad.&#xD;&#xA;Does the asker want an explanation from the bio point of view or a purely electrodynamical description?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why (I think) the post was closed&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vague, broad posts like this invite closure because they're hard to answer.&#xD;&#xA;As they translate to &quot;how does X work?&quot;, they invite too many possible levels of scope.&#xD;&#xA;Posts like this could reasonable be closed as &quot;too broad&quot; or &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, I think its psychologically easier for readers to perceive a question as possibly ok *for another audience* rather than stick their chin out and tell the OP that their question is *bad*.&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we see a lot of questions closed as &quot;off topic&quot; where &quot;too broad&quot; and &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would make more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's my guess.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a great situation because &quot;off topic&quot; tells OP to go somewhere else, rather than learn how to ask questions better.&#xD;&#xA;We definitely want better questions more than we want to turn people away, so...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do to&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use &quot;off topic&quot; only as a last resort.&#xD;&#xA;Prioritize close reasons which help OP learn to ask better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you can, edit the post to zero in on the relevant question.&#xD;&#xA;The example I pose above is probably too big of an edit, but a comment can help OP get there.&#xD;&#xA;It may also be ok to make a substantial organizational edit and post a comment reminding OP that they can roll it back if it misses the mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about the place of biophysics?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually don't think there's a special problem to fix.&#xD;&#xA;I think interdisciplinary questions get closed a lot because, as illustrated above, it's easy to lose focus and put readers in a state of mind where they feel like the question gets so large that a good physics answer can't address it.&#xD;&#xA;I think biophysics questions in the vein of my example rewrite given above are solidly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="1ed94468-4f90-470f-a100-ffbf925dd4a0" CreationDate="2016-01-11T20:24:11.473" UserId="31790" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="I just took at look at the question linked in this post, version 4.&#xD;&#xA;I think the question was closed because it's vague and too broad, not really because it's about biology.&#xD;&#xA;I think this happens a lot on our site and warrants discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems with the [example post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the first three paragraphs of the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's, for example, take a ribosome. It is an enzyme that is in turn just a molecule that must follow the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I'm wrong, but it can be looked upon as a molecular machine made up of several pieces. What exactly makes those pieces work together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA? Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more? Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four question marks by the end of the third paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;What exactly makes those pieces work together?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Why  does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having multiple questions is alone a problem.&#xD;&#xA;When faced with multiple questions, a would-be answer writer has to read, understand, think about, formulate answers for, and then write answers for multiple questions.&#xD;&#xA;If the probability that a given reader can do those things for one question is p &lt;&lt; 1, then the probability that a given reader can do them for four questions is p^4, which is absolutely tiny.&#xD;&#xA;This puts a reader at a disposition to regard the question as unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, a deeper problem is that the questions bounce back and forth from specific and physics-oriented to broad and biology oriented.&#xD;&#xA;Questions #1 and #2 are very broad and sound biology-ish.&#xD;&#xA;A typical physicist probably feels that only a phenomenological bio or so-broad-as-to-be-useless physics answer can possibly suffice.&#xD;&#xA;This, puts the physicist at a mind to vote for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in question #3 we get physics: &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;. *That* is a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;Or at least it suggests one.&#xD;&#xA;We could rewrite the entire post around that one question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ribosomes perform complex tasks in the organism, but in the end they are just molecules and therefore governed by the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;What physical principles are the most crucial for understanding how a ribosome is able to function as it does?&#xD;&#xA;To choose a specific example, is electrostatics enough to explain why a ribosome sticks to a strand of RNA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we then get question #4: &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is again vague and broad.&#xD;&#xA;Does the asker want an explanation from the bio point of view or a purely electrodynamical description?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why (I think) the post was closed&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vague, broad posts like this invite closure because they're hard to answer.&#xD;&#xA;As they translate to &quot;how does X work?&quot;, they invite too many possible levels of scope.&#xD;&#xA;Posts like this could reasonable be closed as &quot;too broad&quot; or &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, I think its psychologically easier for readers to perceive a question as possibly ok *for another audience* rather than stick their chin out and tell the OP that their question is *bad*.&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we see a lot of questions closed as &quot;off topic&quot; where &quot;too broad&quot; and &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would make more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's my guess.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a great situation because &quot;off topic&quot; tells OP to go somewhere else, rather than learn how to ask questions better.&#xD;&#xA;We definitely want better questions more than we want to turn people away, so...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do to&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use &quot;off topic&quot; only as a last resort.&#xD;&#xA;Prioritize close reasons which help OP learn to ask better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you can, edit the post to zero in on the relevant question.&#xD;&#xA;The example I pose above is probably too big of an edit, but a comment can help OP get there.&#xD;&#xA;It may also be ok to make a substantial organizational edit and post a comment reminding OP that they can roll it back if it misses the mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about the place of biophysics?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually don't think there's a special problem to fix.&#xD;&#xA;I think interdisciplinary questions get closed a lot because, as illustrated above, it's easy to lose focus and put readers in a state of mind where they feel like the question gets so large that a good physics answer can't address it.&#xD;&#xA;I think biophysics questions in the vein of my example rewrite given above are solidly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I realize this post doesn't really answer OP's question, but I think the information contained herein is relevant, so I chose to post it anyway. This is the meta, after all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="71b0cc8d-8df1-4c63-aefa-b5eff1068f31" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:35:20.197" UserId="148704" Text="How many times can add bounties edits before it's disabled? How long is the penalty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="71b0cc8d-8df1-4c63-aefa-b5eff1068f31" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:35:20.197" UserId="148704" Text="Bounty Rejections and Penalty Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="71b0cc8d-8df1-4c63-aefa-b5eff1068f31" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:35:20.197" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|bug|design|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="04678d54-7afc-41d6-9249-94209f110724" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:38:40.627" UserId="31790" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="I just took at look at the question linked in this post, version 4.&#xD;&#xA;I think the question was closed because it's vague and too broad, not really because it's about biology.&#xD;&#xA;I think this happens a lot on our site and warrants discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems with the [example post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the first three paragraphs of the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's, for example, take a ribosome. It is an enzyme that is in turn just a molecule that must follow the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I'm wrong, but it can be looked upon as a molecular machine made up of several pieces. What exactly makes those pieces work together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA? Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more? Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four question marks by the end of the third paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;What exactly makes those pieces work together?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Why  does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having multiple questions is alone a problem.&#xD;&#xA;When faced with multiple questions, a would-be answer writer has to read, understand, think about, formulate answers for, and then write answers for multiple questions.&#xD;&#xA;If the probability that a given reader can do those things for one question is p &lt;&lt; 1, then the probability that a given reader can do them for four questions is p^4, which is absolutely tiny.&#xD;&#xA;This puts a reader at a disposition to regard the question as unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, a deeper problem is that the questions bounce back and forth from specific and physics-oriented to broad and biology oriented.&#xD;&#xA;Questions #1 and #2 are very broad and sound biology-ish.&#xD;&#xA;A typical physicist probably feels that only a phenomenological bio or so-broad-as-to-be-useless physics answer can possibly suffice.&#xD;&#xA;This, puts the physicist at a mind to vote for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in question #3 we get physics: &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;. *That* is a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;Or at least it suggests one.&#xD;&#xA;We could rewrite the entire post around that one question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ribosomes perform complex tasks in the organism, but in the end they are just molecules and therefore governed by the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;What physical principles are the most crucial for understanding how a ribosome is able to function as it does?&#xD;&#xA;To choose a specific example, is electrostatics enough to explain why a ribosome sticks to a strand of RNA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we then get question #4: &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is again vague and broad.&#xD;&#xA;Does the asker want an explanation from the bio point of view or a purely electrodynamical description?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why (I think) the post was closed&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vague, broad posts like this invite closure because they're hard to answer.&#xD;&#xA;As they translate to &quot;how does X work?&quot;, they invite too many possible levels of scope.&#xD;&#xA;Posts like this could reasonable be closed as &quot;too broad&quot; or &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, I think its psychologically easier for readers to perceive a question as possibly ok *for another audience* rather than stick their chin out and tell the OP that their question is *bad*.&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we see a lot of questions closed as &quot;off topic&quot; where &quot;too broad&quot; and &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would make more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's my guess.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a great situation because &quot;off topic&quot; tells OP to go somewhere else, rather than learn how to ask questions better.&#xD;&#xA;We definitely want better questions more than we want to turn people away, so...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do to&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use &quot;off topic&quot; only as a last resort.&#xD;&#xA;Prioritize close reasons which help OP learn to ask better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you can, edit the post to zero in on the relevant question.&#xD;&#xA;The example I pose above is probably too big of an edit, but a comment can help OP get there.&#xD;&#xA;It may also be ok to make a substantial organizational edit and post a comment reminding OP that they can roll it back if it misses the mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about the place of biophysics?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think interdisciplinary questions get closed a lot because, as illustrated above, it's easy to lose focus and put readers in a state of mind where they feel like the question gets so large that a good physics answer can't address it.&#xD;&#xA;I think biophysics questions in the vein of my example rewrite given above are solidly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;So, with all this said, I really think the only legit answer here is that **we need to see more *good* biophysics questions before we can even consider writing down explicit descriptions of which ones are and are not on topic**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="2a279ad6-2cb6-4d1d-8b65-9fb661931020" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:41:50.360" UserId="148704" Comment="grammar" Text="How many times can a bounty edit me made before it's disabled? How long is the penalty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="6ab9214d-6f94-477a-adab-eaef1799a005" CreationDate="2016-01-12T00:06:05.330" UserId="148704" Comment="grammer" Text="How many times can a bounty be placed before it's disabled? How long is the penalty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="1d8f466a-1b57-4063-be16-3d0dad0a08f1" CreationDate="2016-01-12T00:45:42.273" UserId="8563" Text="Bounties are well explained in the help center, both [in their own page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) and on [the set bounties privilege page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/set-bounties). It's not quite clear exactly what it is you're asking but here are some points to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can have up to three bounties active at any given time on each SE site.&#xD;&#xA; - You must wait at least 24 hours before you award a bounty.&#xD;&#xA; - If you have three bounties active, you can offer a new one as soon as you award one of the active ones.&#xD;&#xA; - You can have each bounty active for up to seven days.&#xD;&#xA; - You cannot edit the bounty message after you have posted it.&#xD;&#xA; - Of course, you can add any number of comments on the question, unless the bounty brings you under [50 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) and the question isn't yours.&#xD;&#xA; - Any reputation you offer on a bounty is lost forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, this and many of your recent questions can be answered much more quickly by having a good look in the [**Help Center**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and in [**Meta Stack Exchange**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/) (i.e. the site-wide meta, where pretty much any question you may have about the workings of the site has already been asked). I don't want to discourage you from asking questions here on Meta - believe me, we do notice and appreciate it when newcomers make an effort to figure out the rules of the game, and we're here to help you figure them out. However, more often than not you'll get your answer faster by learning to use the resources that are already there than by waiting for us to see your posts and respond ;-). For small questions like this, it is also worth checking if there's anyone in [the chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) who can help - it's also faster than Meta, and it's easier for us to figure out exactly what it is you're asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="533293ec-d2f7-4023-b35e-da8ae1ffdbf3" CreationDate="2016-01-12T08:33:38.887" UserId="148704" Comment="grammer" Text="What would prevent you from placing a bounty? How long is the penalty time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="4500a049-9720-4394-ba05-22d4a609a0a6" CreationDate="2016-01-12T08:56:47.627" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="fd7ff7d8-a116-4b2a-ae9b-31e6c3b5067d" CreationDate="2016-01-12T13:46:59.167" UserId="40289" Text="I wrote a program that computes the fast __insert_name_here__ transform of a matrix. I am at a loss of what its application is, what its proper name should be, and find an existing algorithm for it. I posted this question in Computer Science, and one of their members suggested it might be better served here. Does this [question][1] belong in Physics? Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/51446/what-can-i-do-with-this-algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="fd7ff7d8-a116-4b2a-ae9b-31e6c3b5067d" CreationDate="2016-01-12T13:46:59.167" UserId="40289" Text="Does the question belong in Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="fd7ff7d8-a116-4b2a-ae9b-31e6c3b5067d" CreationDate="2016-01-12T13:46:59.167" UserId="40289" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20254" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="732a015e-d719-409b-bddd-8537427893bc" CreationDate="2016-01-12T14:13:08.733" UserId="46399" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Does this question belong in Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="732a015e-d719-409b-bddd-8537427893bc" CreationDate="2016-01-12T14:13:08.733" UserId="46399" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7406" RevisionGUID="03214dbd-46ad-4a26-8682-9ad660bba6d0" CreationDate="2016-01-12T14:24:08.227" UserId="25301" Text="The question in the linked post is essentially *What is the primary algorithm that solves this problem?* which really isn't a physics question but an algorithm identification one. I also somewhat doubt that the question could be rewritten to be a physics question, but I could be wrong on that. So I would say, *No this would not be on topic here.*&#xA;&#xA;The question as posed *could* be on topic at [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com), which covers scientific programming, broadly speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="2a00002e-e54b-4cf8-92f9-1e7675cd388e" CreationDate="2016-01-12T16:05:25.043" UserId="124" Text="In our last chat session two weeks ago (sorry for the delay), we had a [discussion about updating the homework policy and homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason). I'm making this post to summarize that discussion and solicit feedback on how to proceed afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The current status&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [homework policy](https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714), questions are considered &quot;homework-like&quot; (or &quot;educational&quot;) and fall under the policy whenever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[the question's] value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely _not_ of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it. We do have [a policy on showing effort](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), separate from the homework policy, but it doesn't justify _closing_ those questions. (Also, it was meant to catch questions that the homework policy doesn't.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most people believe that questions where the poster asks us to do some simple calculation for them should be off topic. However, it's not clear _exactly_ where we should draw the boundary of what sorts of questions are off topic, and what reason is best to give for considering them off topic. There have been a number of discussions on this in the past, among them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation (November 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy (December 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session (March 2015)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy (October 2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will probably want to create a new policy that replaces the current homework policy, and gives a different criterion for a question that is off topic. This new policy would become the new justification for closing low-effort homework questions (those where it _is_ clear that it's a homework/educational question), so whatever we wind up going with, it should be some criterion that does catch those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few options that I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic&#xD;&#xA;2. Questions which don't show sufficient effort are off topic (I suppose this is the nice wording for the poster being lazy)&#xD;&#xA;3. A combination of the previous two - kind of like our current homework policy, except that the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the most likely contenders, but for completeness, some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Questions which ask for a conceptual understanding of something are on topic, and everything else is not (this is _kind of_ like #1, but excludes more questions)&#xD;&#xA;5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. etc. And for comparison, our current policy would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Questions which are educational in nature are off topic unless they ask a conceptual question _and_ show effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The issues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have some ideas for what kind of criterion should replace our current homework policy. For each of these ideas, we should consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there a significant number of questions which are off topic under our current homework policy which would be on topic under the new policy? If so, should they be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;- Exactly what sorts of questions would become off topic under the new policy which are not covered by current close reasons? Do we want them to be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully the answers we come up with will help us focus the new close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point in the future, we will also have to discuss the role of the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag in this new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="2a00002e-e54b-4cf8-92f9-1e7675cd388e" CreationDate="2016-01-12T16:05:25.043" UserId="124" Text="Generalizing the homework policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="2a00002e-e54b-4cf8-92f9-1e7675cd388e" CreationDate="2016-01-12T16:05:25.043" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="18309677-9509-4118-8b79-c25cd172c0f9" CreationDate="2016-01-12T16:45:38.787" UserId="50583" Text="I'll comment on the options for the new policy you name in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generally yes, but** questions which show that standard calulation methods in the field are *not* sufficient to obtain the result should be considered on-topic, because then there is very likely a conceptual argument hidden in some step of this calculation. This is a bit different from &quot;requiring effort&quot;, because it requires a *certain type of effort*. No amount of effort shown should save a question whose answer is just pages of boring index manipulations, or solving some particularly resilient integrals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Questions which don't show sufficient effort are off topic (I suppose this is the nice wording for the poster being lazy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once thought the proper course of action for those would be to downvote them. But downvoting them has not the desired effect of *deterring people to ask such questions*. The downvoted questions get pity upvotes (or upvotes from people as lazy as the asker), and get an answer sooner or later because the answer is, well, easy to find and it's quickly earned reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, because I see no value in us becoming a repository of questions which are already easily answered by typing the relevant keywords into a search engine, I have come around to the view that we *should* close effortless questions. This, however, is wholly distinct from the homework policy - conceptual question like *&quot;Why do rocks fall down?&quot;* can also be effortless. In particular, showing effort as such is not sufficient to make a question on-topic if there is some other reason for it to be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A combination of the previous two - kind of like our current homework policy, except that the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to all questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we should &quot;combine&quot; those policies - they are, to me, about entirely orthogonal issues. Questions which just ask us to calculate something are off-topic. Questions which are lazy are also off-topic. I don't see an *intrinsic* relation between those two types of question that would mean the policy should really be &quot;combined&quot;. In any case, I think we can drop the phrase of questions &quot;of an educational nature&quot; entirely, I've never been wholly clear on what that means anyway, and it doesn't reflect any actual practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Questions which ask for a conceptual understanding of something are on topic, and everything else is not (this is kind of like #1, but excludes more questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind of a strange phrasing, and probably too prohibitive. In particular, this will lead to endless fights over what exactly &quot;conceptual understanding&quot; means, even more so than the homework policy we already have. Don't do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just...no. For one, because we *cannot* honestly enforce this, but even if we could, if there's a perfectly interesting conceptual question coming from a homework assignment, I do not see why we shouldn't answer it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Altogether**, I say we enforce 1. and 2. as policies, with a bit of leniency on 1. if the question shows that the &quot;calculation&quot; most likely involves conceptual arguments. Of course it would be preferable to rephrase such question to not make them look as if they're asking for calculations, but I'm not completely sure this is possible in all cases. Additionally, we drop any mention of &quot;educational nature&quot; in our policies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="d37ce7ec-cf76-4aea-9811-9dc1cc736fc1" CreationDate="2016-01-12T16:52:37.237" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="adee9330-5361-4c2a-bb41-73a9814cdd70" CreationDate="2016-01-12T17:05:56.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/686957294941270016" />
  <row Id="20263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7409" RevisionGUID="dad54bac-dce3-4ade-ba11-02e8de5d9b12" CreationDate="2016-01-12T20:00:47.120" UserId="44126" Text="&gt; 1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is too broad.  I recognize that it's intended to head off boring copied-from-homework questions like &quot;what's the optimal angle for a 45 mph banked turn if the coefficient of friction is μ = 0.233457821234 also are all those digits important kthxbye&quot;.  However calculation questions like &quot;what's the average antimatter content of a banana?&quot; or &quot;with my eyes closed at sea level, how often should I expect to see Cherenkov flashes from cosmic ray muons in my vitreous humor?&quot; are interesting entrées into a host of more complicated topics.  It'd be the responsibility of the asker to elaborate on *which* of these other topics is really at issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I find that turning my conceptual questions into model calculations gives me better answers than asking in vague terms, and I'm loath to see such questions closed.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, many of my favorite questions on this site have inspired clever calculations from answerers; I would prefer to encourage these sorts of answers with inviting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might propose as an alternative: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria.  That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20264" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="4e8cfdcc-accf-451b-a89e-6201919ed9fc" CreationDate="2016-01-12T20:05:56.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/687002593378316288" />
  <row Id="20265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="e8ffdb0f-7a18-4c7f-b831-761218655fc4" CreationDate="2016-01-13T00:16:30.327" UserId="25301" Text="I think the most confusing bit of the homework policy is the &quot;and show effort&quot; aspect found in the close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept *and show some effort* to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when the [**link in that message**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) opens with,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even aside from the fact that the community appears to be [**against &quot;check my work&quot; problems**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301), I feel that including the &quot;show work&quot; bit is both contradictory and confusing. It suggests that if someone simply adds their attempt to their &quot;do my homework for me question,&quot; then it'd get reopened and answered; even some [**high rep users are of the opinion**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7311/25301) that &quot;showing work&quot; would/should prevent closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the point of the &quot;show work&quot; is meant to encourage askers to not pose questions without having thought about the answer. I don't think that the current phrase encourages this position. It would be better if we did one of the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. eliminate the phrase so that questions asking us to &quot;do some math for them&quot; are *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA; 2. leave the phrase so that questions asking us to &quot;do some math for them&quot; are *on topic*&#xD;&#xA; 3. replace the phrase with one that more accurately represents what is meant by it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that #3 is the better option of these, though I cannot think of a good phrase outside of something along the lines of requiring OP showing their rationale--I'm completely open to suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="5f0e14e1-58c0-465b-812b-ae88e4a8d90f" CreationDate="2016-01-13T18:33:14.800" UserId="63055" Text="The question from today [How much difference to interior temperature would a white car roof make?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229145/how-much-difference-to-interior-temperature-would-a-white-car-roof-make) says essentially &quot;My car is hot so I'm thinking of painting the roof white. How much would that affect the temperature?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question from Feb 2014 [Temperature behavior over time of black or white cars in hot, sunny regions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96574/temperature-behavior-over-time-of-black-or-white-cars-in-hot-sunny-regions) says &quot;Some claim the black car will stay hotter [than the white car], some others claim it will be the same whatever the color. Do all cars have the same temperature inside in the long run, or are some of them hotter?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I marked the new question as duplicate but it was declined. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="5f0e14e1-58c0-465b-812b-ae88e4a8d90f" CreationDate="2016-01-13T18:33:14.800" UserId="63055" Text="Car Color-Temperature Duplicate Declined" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="5f0e14e1-58c0-465b-812b-ae88e4a8d90f" CreationDate="2016-01-13T18:33:14.800" UserId="63055" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="22dd5291-a76c-46d1-902b-aec1a191fb67" CreationDate="2016-01-13T19:15:11.630" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 160 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The question from today [How much difference to interior temperature would a white car roof make?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu/229145/) says essentially &quot;My car is hot so I'm thinking of painting the roof white. How much would that affect the temperature?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question from Feb 2014 [Temperature behavior over time of black or white cars in hot, sunny regions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/96574/) says &quot;Some claim the black car will stay hotter [than the white car], some others claim it will be the same whatever the color. Do all cars have the same temperature inside in the long run, or are some of them hotter?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I marked the new question as duplicate but it was declined. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="22dd5291-a76c-46d1-902b-aec1a191fb67" CreationDate="2016-01-13T19:15:11.630" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 160 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="3f223aa6-c153-4e7b-8efe-51c82d60d1b4" CreationDate="2016-01-13T19:51:38.573" UserId="25301" Comment="fixed link" Text="The question from today [How much difference to interior temperature would a white car roof make?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229145/) says essentially &quot;My car is hot so I'm thinking of painting the roof white. How much would that affect the temperature?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question from Feb 2014 [Temperature behavior over time of black or white cars in hot, sunny regions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/96574/) says &quot;Some claim the black car will stay hotter [than the white car], some others claim it will be the same whatever the color. Do all cars have the same temperature inside in the long run, or are some of them hotter?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I marked the new question as duplicate but it was declined. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="8b7ec26e-e627-48b8-94ed-ee8935bc8a35" CreationDate="2016-01-13T22:34:24.457" UserId="89908" Text="I was wondering if it was accepted. In my case, for instance, I asked a question in other SE site (astronomy) that would be also on topic here. Unfortunately it didn't get much attention since that site is smaller. I was wondering if I could ask it here too. I've read the FAQ and it doesn't seem to mention this, so I don't think this would be a problem, but I want to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is OK, should I delete the other question first or that is not necessary? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="8b7ec26e-e627-48b8-94ed-ee8935bc8a35" CreationDate="2016-01-13T22:34:24.457" UserId="89908" Text="Is it OK to ask a question that you previously asked in other SE site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="8b7ec26e-e627-48b8-94ed-ee8935bc8a35" CreationDate="2016-01-13T22:34:24.457" UserId="89908" Text="|discussion|questions|site-faq|stackexchange|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7414" RevisionGUID="998c5cf3-2a8c-4107-b4c6-c7d02d1c5b34" CreationDate="2016-01-13T22:53:57.423" UserId="65616" Text="Cross posting is not allowed on Stack-exchange. See this - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could delete the Astronomy one and post on this site if you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="c3e26233-c957-4fa9-ac65-e7d5f795deed" CreationDate="2016-01-13T23:17:27.993" UserId="67597" Text="This is how I see things in the world of biophysics out there.&#xD;&#xA;The work (and fun) of biophysicists is to ask questions about biological systems. In their answers, they use (and build from) all the experimental and theoretical tools that the other physicists use in the many other physical disciplines. In this view, a &quot;biophysics question&quot; cannot be about physics, it has to be about a biological system. I'm not talking here about a question on this site, what I mean is that the ultimate object of a biophysical question (or of a biophysical research) is a biological system, not a physical principle, otherwise you have to drop the &quot;bio&quot;. The biophysical *answer*, on the other hand, is (and has to be) deeply rooted in the way a physicist reasons, and this makes the difference between biophysics and biology. The difference is more in the answer than in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question like `How does the ribosome work?` cannot be simply categorized. A categorization is easier to do for the possible different answers, which can be more chemistry-oriented (*catalysis of new peptide bonds*), biology-oriented (*protein synthesis by reading a mRNA template*), or physics-oriented (*nano-machine at low Reynolds that moves on a periodic potential*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to translate this to Physics SE? From what I said, I have to conclude that the tag description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about physics.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a contradiction. Like &quot;Note that relativity-related questions are allowed only if about semiconductors&quot;, if I may exaggerate. But I think it is understandable what that means: *we want to focus on physics, not biology*, which is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my 2 cents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that biophysics questions, which have a biological system as an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object, should both be answered and answerable from a physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perspective, using descriptions, modeling and tools from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics&#xD;&#xA;                     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this, I hope that people with right to vote &quot;off topic&quot; will recognize that &quot;how the ribosome works?&quot; is surely *answerable* by a physicist, therefore absolutely on topic, and potentially very interesting for this site. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="5e247919-be05-4ce2-b52c-e06f10233122" CreationDate="2016-01-13T23:31:35.727" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Cross-posting is [strongly discouraged][1]. That said, we are sometimes [lenient][2]. Ultimately, what we really don't want is someone posting in multiple places but not disclosing this, an a scattershot attempt to get any sort of answer from anyone. This can potentially lead to wasted, duplicate effort in answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore say there are two cases where you can post the same question somewhere else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You want a different take on the answer from a different community's perspective. Tailor the question appropriately, and note on both the old and new posts that there is a closely related question on another site. This doesn't really apply just if one community seems &quot;better;&quot; you really need to be looking for something &quot;different.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. You posted a question but either realized it belongs elsewhere or got no satisfactory response, and there is another site where it is on topic. This seems to be your case. In that case it's probably best to *migrate* the question rather than duplicate it. Use a custom moderator flag on the question and request it be migrated to the other site. The moderators can then do this (or not, if they so choose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4133/should-i-cross-post-this-question-in-chemistry-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="6c6b4dd9-d652-4c61-b043-96e62dcf4284" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:13:21.350" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7417" RevisionGUID="e35baab5-b19f-4d0c-ad71-409882f43469" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:16:04.950" UserId="7186" Text="The new CSS has been deployed... uh, sometime in the last week. The new sidebar went live on Tuesday. And the community ads thread should be coming shortly. (I don't have a more specific ETA than that, unfortunately.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We did, however, forget to enable new user profiles when the CSS update happened. I flipped the relevant switches, so that's fixed up now. Sorry about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any issues with the updated design, please report them here on meta with [meta-tag:bug] and [meta-tag:design] tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="28127aa7-5814-4de9-8860-362f795f04e9" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:37:11.627" UserId="6634" Text="There are two minor issues with the profile layout/design. First, when mousing over the impact number, the box is clipped at the top by the top layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most of the explanation text boxes are that black background shown above, except for the post edits, helpful flags, and votes cast boxes -- those have an older-style tan background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/talw3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JlscK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="28127aa7-5814-4de9-8860-362f795f04e9" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:37:11.627" UserId="6634" Text="Minor flaws in the new profile design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="28127aa7-5814-4de9-8860-362f795f04e9" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:37:11.627" UserId="6634" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="ce71fadf-ef4d-405b-b4e3-6c0ceb3e0dd3" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:43:22.613" UserId="6634" Text="Last year, we asked http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax and the [answer was yes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6792/6634), it would be included in the CSS rollout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the [CSS and profile rollout is complete](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7417/6634), it was [pointed out in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26763306#26763306) that we do not yet have the serif fonts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this removed from the CSS redesign? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="ce71fadf-ef4d-405b-b4e3-6c0ceb3e0dd3" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:43:22.613" UserId="6634" Text="Serif fonts like Chemistry and Math" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="ce71fadf-ef4d-405b-b4e3-6c0ceb3e0dd3" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:43:22.613" UserId="6634" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="4ffbfeb1-93df-46ff-8976-4246aa5d4ffb" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:46:03.537" UserId="6634" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are two minor issues with the profile layout/design. First, when mousing over the impact number, the box is clipped at the top by the top layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most of the explanation text boxes are that black background shown above, except for the post edits, helpful flags, and votes cast boxes -- those have an older-style white background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/talw3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JlscK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="91b3d622-7147-4951-a52a-93eda2909053" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:49:34.477" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added freehand circles" Text="There are two minor issues with the profile layout/design. First, when mousing over the impact number, the box is clipped at the top by the top layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![clipped box][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most of the explanation text boxes are that black background shown above, except for the post edits, helpful flags, and votes cast boxes -- those have an older-style white background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![color choice][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q9qdS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TW6UL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="e46639f3-a06c-4d4f-88a4-f5ca44ff7efb" CreationDate="2016-01-14T07:52:52.193" UserId="6634" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="There are two minor issues with the profile layout/design. First, when mousing over the impact number, the box is clipped at the top by the top layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![clipped box][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most of the explanation text boxes are that black background shown above, except for the post edits, helpful flags, and votes cast boxes -- those have an older-style white background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![color choice][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poking around in the CSS, it looks like anything displayed with the `title` property has the white backgrounds, which also includes the `badge{1,2,3}-alternate` classes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q9qdS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TW6UL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="10b7453f-26c9-44c2-acbb-82e3b0c1cceb" CreationDate="2016-01-14T08:14:15.383" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it OK to cross-post a question that you previously asked in other SE site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20295" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="10b7453f-26c9-44c2-acbb-82e3b0c1cceb" CreationDate="2016-01-14T08:14:15.383" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="7f2c8597-ad6f-4a99-b408-31a8adc6fcc4" CreationDate="2016-01-14T09:33:34.003" UserId="3948" Comment="typo" Text="If the site does launch then there is absolutely no need to migrate existing astronomy and astrophysics questions to the site. There are several reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They are still on topic for Physics.&#xD;&#xA;2. Migrating old (&gt; 60 day old) questions is no longer possible - not even for moderators.&#xD;&#xA;3. Dumping a whole load of questions onto a new site is not a nice thing to do to the new site. It distorts the reputation of the users on the site and potentially creates a bunch of high rep users who have no interest in using the site in the future.&#xD;&#xA;4. If the questions were off topic in the past they are still off topic and should just remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happened with Programmers and old questions from Stack Overflow and it wasn't pleasant I can tell you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the astronomy and astrophysics site does look like it's going to succeed then we can have a discussion about tweaking the scope of Physics - but even then the rule about migrating old questions still applies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="5de0cf11-ea55-489a-b514-2babfe5df06a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:51:17.080" UserId="3" Text="You may have noticed some minor updates to site design this week, they are part of a SE network-wide update to a new base css framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updates allow us to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use SVG icons for retina display&#xD;&#xA;- Fix layout bugs&#xD;&#xA;- More easily add new features to all of our sites in the future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **But more importantly, it gives you access [to the new profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current)!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any bugs please let us know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="5de0cf11-ea55-489a-b514-2babfe5df06a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:51:17.080" UserId="3" Text="Minor design updates to site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="5de0cf11-ea55-489a-b514-2babfe5df06a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:51:17.080" UserId="3" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="155fc91c-7f01-44fd-88bc-20c88f4f35a6" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:58:17.223" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="I heard that the first [Astronomy.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/) finally merged with Physics.SE after private beta. But, the second [Astronomy.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709) is under a *hot progress*. One question and it enters the commitment phase. We have two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It succeeds the beta and the site is launched - If this would happen, should we have to move (migrate) the astronomy, astrophysics and other related tags along with the questions over there ? I think it would be a *lot-of-work*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On the other hand, it fails. (I strongly believe that this would happen) Then, do we have to migrate the posts from there to here. Its perhaps a dirty situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** I still support Astronomy.SE because I really like it. But as Eduardo says in the previous post, it wouldn't survive (compete) with Physics. What about migration then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: [Astronomy.SE](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/) beta phase was launched in 2013.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20301" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="155fc91c-7f01-44fd-88bc-20c88f4f35a6" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:58:17.223" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do we really need to be concern about the new Astronomy.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7421" RevisionGUID="3331f711-d360-44fa-83f8-f0dc3ed31528" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:06:17.807" UserId="26969" Text="In my opinion, in this discussion there is too much focus on the &quot;question&quot; and not enough on the &quot;value of the question plus the answer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the goal of the site is to be a &quot;resource&quot; to all serious students of physics, we need to make sure that the question-plus-answer becomes something of lasting value. &quot;I need an answer to this homework question before 8 am tomorrow&quot; is always a bad start to a question - but if the homework question is in itself interesting enough, the solution to that problem may have some lasting value. I have learnt quite a lot from answering such questions myself; for example, answering [this question about a ball rolling down a slope](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165453/26969) clarified some concepts for me - so although the question was closed as &quot;homework-like&quot;, I have actually referred back to the analysis a number of times in my answers to other questions (not all of which were homework-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second example, when I thought about the [recent question about the frequency response of vinyl records](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229076/26969) I discovered some interesting relationships regarding distortion of a vinyl recording as a function of signal amplitude, track velocity, frequency of the signal, and radius of the stylus. That particular question was closed as &quot;engineering&quot;, when in factI think that such analysis, while it is &quot;application of science&quot;, is a nice demonstration of the power of physics-based reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be an outlier in this - but when I answer questions, I do it for my own benefit and that of the community, and not just for the OP. And that's the perspective I would encourage us all to use when we consider how to apply the close vote. That doesn't mean we should feed the lazy students solutions - but I, for one, am willing (perhaps more than others) to answer questions that have an &quot;interesting&quot; angle to them. Where &quot;interesting&quot; is of course a very personal judgment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20303" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="15c97eb1-8e72-4688-8b62-92690f8ae6d9" CreationDate="2016-01-14T16:18:28.487" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|design|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="4bd93da7-6dc5-49d0-bd3c-64197af95af3" CreationDate="2016-01-14T16:20:04.130" UserId="124" Comment="update to be current" Text="(Edited to reflect the current situation) We now have the new CSS and profile page layout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to this, nobody knew when it was coming (except _maybe_ the design team, but I'm not sure if their scheduling algorithm is any more sophisticated than &quot;what site do we feel like working on today?&quot;). There is/was [a list of sites which have had the update and those which have not](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed), but it was kept in random order without any indication of when the remaining sites would get their design update." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="0a3b9cc5-dd94-488c-accb-71892105f55b" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:17:41.280" UserId="8563" Comment="More minor fixes, particularly the title spelling, now that this is on the front page." Text="I heard that the first [Astronomy.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/) finally [merged with Physics.SE after private beta](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/). But, the second [Astronomy.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709) is under a *hot progress*. One question and it enters the commitment phase. We have two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It succeeds the beta and the site is launched - If this happens, will we have to move (migrate) the astronomy, astrophysics and other related tags along with the questions over there ? I think it would be a *lot-of-work*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, it could fail. (I strongly believe that this would happen.) Then, do we have to migrate the posts from there to here. It's perhaps a dirty situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** I still support Astronomy.SE because I really like it. But as Eduardo says in the previous post, it wouldn't survive (compete) with Physics. What about migration then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: [Astronomy.SE](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/) beta phase was launched in 2013.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20310" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="0a3b9cc5-dd94-488c-accb-71892105f55b" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:17:41.280" UserId="8563" Comment="More minor fixes, particularly the title spelling, now that this is on the front page." Text="Do we really need to be concerned about the new Astronomy.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="490aedba-1dbb-47d3-92d3-b86e4c683db8" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:29:51.027" UserId="8563" Text="I'm not sure whether this is a problem with the new design or if it was there in the old one, but it's there. If I click on the `edit` button on the Favorite Tags sidebar, it brings up a text box and an `Add` button, as well as deletesy `x`s on the tags that are already there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hAuBC.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't however, move the focus to the text box, and there's no reason why it shouldn't. I either want to delete tags, which I can only do with the mouse, or I want to get typing some new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minor change but still worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="490aedba-1dbb-47d3-92d3-b86e4c683db8" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:29:51.027" UserId="8563" Text="Move focus to text box when editing favourite tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="490aedba-1dbb-47d3-92d3-b86e4c683db8" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:29:51.027" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="2711e274-7b9d-4629-be95-f8cfc063b3c1" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:56:21.423" UserId="8563" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="29f28348-7b10-414c-b240-bccd811ce9a0" CreationDate="2016-01-14T22:20:20.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Consider the following chain of questions, presented in chronological order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshifting of Light and the expansion of the universe][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Have red shifted photons lost energy and where did it go?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Do photons lose energy due to gravitational redshift? If so, where does the lost energy go?][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshift due to a static gravitational field and the conservation of energy][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second was marked a duplicate of the first, and the third a duplicate of the second. Now the fourth is being voted closed as a duplicate of the third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree the fourth is a duplicate of the third, as both ask about *gravitational* redshift. The first, however, asks about *cosmological* redshift. These are quite different, and indeed the asker for the latest questions points out that the cries of &quot;Noether doesn't apply&quot; in response to the earliest question are just wrong in this newest context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link is the second question, and to be honest I don't know whether it is about gravitational or cosmological redshift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a general flaw in the system, but I'm not sure what the fix is. Two options come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Just ignore this condition. If we close *A* as a duplicate of *B* and *B* as a duplicate of *C*, then even if *A* is not really a duplicate of *C*, they'll be related enough that the person can piece together an answer on their own. Besides, *B* usually accumulated *B*-specific answers before being closed, and these probably answer *A*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Restrict ourselves to only marking *exact* duplicates (in concept if not in words). (I feel the word &quot;exact&quot; used to be here in this context, but I can  no longer find it.) I have anecdotally noticed over the years that as we experienced users see more and more questions, we are more likely to see *similarities* to other questions, and are perhaps a bit quick with declaring questions to be duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do people think? Is there something wrong here? What can we do to fix it? See also [Liberal definition of duplicate questions and the health of physics stack exchange.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21603&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/172854&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="29f28348-7b10-414c-b240-bccd811ce9a0" CreationDate="2016-01-14T22:20:20.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What can we do about imperfect transitivity in marking duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="29f28348-7b10-414c-b240-bccd811ce9a0" CreationDate="2016-01-14T22:20:20.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="c306d4fb-a5ff-45b7-9430-a72b5294f538" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:05:11.530" UserId="4826" Text="It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if retina.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **40 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="c306d4fb-a5ff-45b7-9430-a72b5294f538" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:05:11.530" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="c306d4fb-a5ff-45b7-9430-a72b5294f538" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:05:11.530" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="0d649314-03da-4771-95e9-70115d9a3b53" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:05:11.530" UserId="4826" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zzY6I.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="b75621aa-1545-494b-9f95-c9ed6a779940" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:16:26.173" UserId="1325" Text="I was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229606/is-there-really-a-direction-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is yet another question related to the flow of time, and I was thinking that it would be nice to have a master *Flow of Time* question that we could direct people to. I don't think such a question exists. Searching the site I find the following popular questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104031/is-the-flow-of-time-regular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71823/is-there-a-proof-of-existence-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52048/what-is-the-speed-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well of dozens of related questions with fewer upvotes. I think these three questions pretty much cover the ground between them, and I was wondering if it would be useful to write a grand unified question that grouped all the information in one place. Obviously there would be duplication of existing material, but I think it would be worth it. I'm willing to have a go at writing a question and answer, but it would be Community Wiki so anyone can contribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions please. Upvote if you want someone to write this question and downvote if you don't want to see this question posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="b75621aa-1545-494b-9f95-c9ed6a779940" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:16:26.173" UserId="1325" Text="Canonical question about the flow of time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="b75621aa-1545-494b-9f95-c9ed6a779940" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:16:26.173" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="04f600f4-b20d-4aa1-bf2a-1ceafccf87f6" CreationDate="2016-01-15T11:59:56.510" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229606/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is yet another question related to the flow of time, and I was thinking that it would be nice to have a master *Flow of Time* question that we could direct people to. I don't think such a question exists. Searching the site I find the following popular questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17056/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52048/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71823/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104031/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well of dozens of related questions with fewer upvotes. I think these three questions pretty much cover the ground between them, and I was wondering if it would be useful to write a grand unified question that grouped all the information in one place. Obviously there would be duplication of existing material, but I think it would be worth it. I'm willing to have a go at writing a question and answer, but it would be Community Wiki so anyone can contribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions please. Upvote if you want someone to write this question and downvote if you don't want to see this question posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20334" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="04f600f4-b20d-4aa1-bf2a-1ceafccf87f6" CreationDate="2016-01-15T11:59:56.510" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="25f16c5c-8162-46da-9d3b-daf6abf90ed1" CreationDate="2016-01-15T12:02:32.783" UserId="1325" Comment="Tweak Qmechanic's edit" Text="I was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229606/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is yet another question related to the flow of time, and I was thinking that it would be nice to have a master *Flow of Time* question that we could direct people to. I don't think such a question exists. Searching the site I find the following popular questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17056/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52048/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71823/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104031/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well of dozens of related questions with fewer upvotes. I think these questions pretty much cover the ground between them, and I was wondering if it would be useful to write a grand unified question that grouped all the information in one place. Obviously there would be duplication of existing material, but I think it would be worth it. I'm willing to have a go at writing a question and answer, but it would be Community Wiki so anyone can contribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions please. Upvote if you want someone to write this question and downvote if you don't want to see this question posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="76e8b789-cb24-484a-be4a-548fcce4fdb1" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:17:39.607" UserId="124" Text="The idea behind closing one question (A) as a duplicate of another (B) is that **any valid answer to A would also be a valid answer, or part of a valid answer, to B**. I don't mean that you should be able to copy an answer from A and paste it into the answer box on B, but more that the core concepts, or &quot;answering ideas&quot;, of the answer-post to A would also be &quot;answering ideas&quot; in an answer-post to B. (I hope my invented terms of &quot;answering idea&quot; and &quot;answer-post&quot; are clear enough.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, in this situation, you might as well post the answer to B instead of A. It helps everyone when the knowledge is centralized in one place as much as possible. (Of course, this assumes that B is still narrow enough that it _can_ reasonably be addressed in a single answer.) If there is one question that we can treat as canonical on a certain subject, one which many other questions can be marked as duplicates of, that often helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, as I post this I haven't yet read the specific questions being referenced, but in general I would say this: the chain of duplicates should be broken at the point where a marked duplicate question (i.e. a question that has been closed as a duplicate) is asking something that the target of its duplicate link is not, and thus the criterion I listed in bold above doesn't apply. If there is no such point in the chain, then there's no problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the theory, anyway. In practice, sometimes a question (A) is a duplicate of a few other questions (B,C,...), in the sense that each concept contained in a valid answer-post to A is also an &quot;answering idea&quot; to one of the other questions, B or C or so on, but perhaps no single one of B,C,... entirely incorporates A. In this case, we can't always put all of B,C,... in the duplicate link list - in other words, it's not always possible to close as a duplicate of multiple questions. It requires at least as many (non-binding) close votes as there are target duplicates (B,C...). So sometimes extra duplicates will be indicated in comments or something, and we should take that into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [tag:resource-recommendation] questions are a bit of a special case, and beyond the scope of this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="d3344d27-42e3-4783-ac26-584677643380" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:26:57.593" UserId="46399" Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20339" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="d3344d27-42e3-4783-ac26-584677643380" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:26:57.593" UserId="46399" />
  <row Id="20345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="1291fb6f-0f8b-4603-ad11-8cef93096aa2" CreationDate="2016-01-15T19:22:31.967" UserId="8563" Comment="added 333 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; # N.B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The size requirements for adverts have changed. It is **NOT** appropriate to simply copy over the images from previous years - they won't work. Images need to be **300×250px** or 600×500px for retina displays, up from 220×250px in previous years. If an image is taller than it is wide, it's the wrong size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if retina.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **40 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="f3f37b5a-91b7-4ec2-a3d9-63e4332467b3" CreationDate="2016-01-15T20:02:30.397" UserId="8563" Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WGpvF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20347" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="d6b73eae-9d3f-4c47-ac08-faae7d363a91" CreationDate="2016-01-15T20:14:01.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/688091790889611264" />
  <row Id="20348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="334a8be5-ac03-4d89-af1c-c76e4369bc67" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:12:41.500" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv.org - over a million papers, free to access][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S7nmM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="40b2d7c0-1dfa-4839-a215-9ac7f4bb608c" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:29:05.310" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv.org: the leading open access eprint repository][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziQXb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7440" RevisionGUID="5c1a7ebd-1831-4c40-a6f1-9f8ca92fb27e" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:46:49.647" UserId="8563" Text="[![The Cost of Knowledge - join the Elsevier boycott and take back our scientific publishing!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vu8lo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thecostofknowledge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7441" RevisionGUID="1c46d543-e002-42e8-9b13-1355079b3c1d" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:50:48.147" UserId="84967" Text="Comments are limited to 600 characters, which I believe is done so that comments are actually comments, instead of lengthy discussions or answers to the question in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is obviously useful, **I believe certain characters should not be counted** in the 600 limit, because 1) they are not actually displayed (so counting them is irrelevant for the purpose of the char-limit) and 2) because these chars are used to make a more readable comment. Let me make my point clear with some examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Some characters, such as `$`, `*`, `**`, `\text`, `\frac`, `\mathbb` are not actually displayed, but they are useful for emphasis/nice formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Some commands, such as , `\leftrightarrow`, `\left(` are displayed, but when rendered the display is way shorter that the char-count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is: sometimes, when I see that I'm getting close to the char-limit, the only way to fit my comment is to delete some commands, which don't actually make my comment longer (when rendered), but they **do** make it more readable. For example, instead of writing `\left(\frac{\mathrm df}{\mathrm dx}\right)` I would end up writing `(df/dx)`. When rendered, both are equally long, which mean they are equivalent length-wise. But the first option, despite having a higher char-count, is (IMHO) much more readable and nice-looking than the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: the character limitation, while very necessary, can be counter-productive in some cases. I believe it could be useful to include certain exceptions to the character-count of comments:  the examples above, as well as the `\` in every math command, `\!`, `\_`, (`\`+white space), `\mathcal`, `^`, `_`, `{}`, `\overline`, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that this is my first Meta post: any suggestion is highly appreciated)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7441" RevisionGUID="1c46d543-e002-42e8-9b13-1355079b3c1d" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:50:48.147" UserId="84967" Text="Is it possible to make the SE engine to ignore some characters in the character count of comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7441" RevisionGUID="1c46d543-e002-42e8-9b13-1355079b3c1d" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:50:48.147" UserId="84967" Text="|feature-request|comments|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="da68a6ec-9809-4207-b28d-f6fc522f9e63" CreationDate="2016-01-15T22:37:44.067" UserId="8563" Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ur36R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20355" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="8b460dcf-e2e4-4b62-adb2-c2e006ec6cd9" CreationDate="2016-01-15T22:38:44.713" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[848],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:82798,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Daniel Griscom&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4888,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Norbert Schuch&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="90f9db62-3a96-4fd1-ac11-57221ae3ab48" CreationDate="2016-01-15T22:52:49.180" UserId="8563" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cbf0s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7444" RevisionGUID="df32fd92-457c-4c25-b0a8-c7bdfe924c7a" CreationDate="2016-01-15T23:01:00.003" UserId="8563" Text="[![Retraction Watch][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://i.stack.imgur.com/NFP26.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://retractionwatch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20359" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="3c33768f-1e5f-4286-9374-d60fa4b1072b" CreationDate="2016-01-15T23:14:03.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/688137094212927488" />
  <row Id="20360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="6c213b8e-2dd1-4f43-8b3d-851700de5ed0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T23:23:59.683" UserId="8563" Text="[![Community ads are decided by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tac3N.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="52bed320-191c-4612-bf27-327f99a27baf" CreationDate="2016-01-16T01:06:02.103" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9G7PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20363" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="42134af8-7920-49e9-a49e-c2fa2f9c5302" CreationDate="2016-01-16T05:12:41.047" UserId="46399" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:46399,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;The Dark Side&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7446" RevisionGUID="8f304299-b4b6-41fd-9cb7-1be3820efedf" CreationDate="2016-01-16T07:32:53.063" UserId="1325" Text="If you're running into length problems because of MathJax then you should probably be posting an answer instead, so I don't find this a compelling argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it does annoy me that when I post links in comments the link URL is counted in the comment length. To this extent I agree with AFT's post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7448" RevisionGUID="8b3b7c35-3769-4b4e-bf63-84b60d2055cc" CreationDate="2016-01-16T14:40:53.120" UserId="7924" Text="&#xD;&#xA;[![physicsoverflow.org][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/PO/PO2016.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="7811686d-a0ba-4c98-b2bd-11c519dc0a37" CreationDate="2016-01-16T18:38:51.283" UserId="25301" Text="[![Physics Stack Exchange Review Queue][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oJVXr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7452" RevisionGUID="a6a3abb9-8588-4c4b-ab34-2586c0ceb82a" CreationDate="2016-01-17T09:28:31.457" UserId="124" Text="It's not a bad idea, but I doubt this will be implemented because it would make the comment system much more complicated under the hood for little gain. It's not something we (i.e. this community) can do ourselves; it would require the time of an SE developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's a really important feature to have, for a couple of reasons: first, with respect to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My point is: sometimes, when I see that I'm getting close to the char-limit, the only way to fit my comment is to delete some commands, which don't actually make my comment longer (when rendered), but they do make it more readable. For example, instead of writing `\left(\frac{\mathrm df}{\mathrm dx}\right)` I would end up writing `(df/dx)`. When rendered, both are equally long, which mean they are equivalent length-wise. But the first option, despite having a higher char-count, is (IMHO) much more readable and nice-looking than the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are transient, and they don't really need to be as readable as possible. They just need to make their point once, to one or two people: the author of the post you're commenting on, and the other commenter who you're replying to. Maybe a few others who are also involved in an exchange in the comments, in some cases. Still, that group is small enough, and familiar enough with the context of the question or answer, that they'll understand what you mean even if you have some mis-sized parentheses and incorrect fonts. So in a case like the one you've described, just write `(df/dx)` if that's what it takes to fit your comment into the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that you can post multiple comments. If you run out of space in one, continue it into another one. I've been known to do something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @somebody ...blah blah blah (cont.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(next comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (cont.) blah blah blah...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if you find yourself having to do this, think of it as a &quot;warning flag&quot; of sorts, and check whether you really have to post so much. I find that it's often possible to compress something to fit into the 600 character limit by removing unnecessary words and phrases. We don't have rules against posting multiple comments in a row precisely because we should be able to trust each other not to ramble on and on when it's not necessary (and as things are now, that trust is justified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with many of these things, the rules/guidelines/recommendations/etc. are a little looser on meta because it's more discussion-oriented, so you may see more multi-comment replies here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7448" RevisionGUID="a833bcc5-10aa-4e4c-ba46-62fc9faecda7" CreationDate="2016-01-17T13:43:07.197" UserId="23119" Comment="updated advertisement upon the suggestion of Emilio Pisanty" Text="[![physicsoverflow.org][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pqs48.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="cdfa0914-ce29-4a00-960f-b88aa8287b61" CreationDate="2016-01-18T01:54:28.867" UserId="77210" Text="My first downvote was reported as an unupvote in my rep score. It cost 10 points. I thought that was normal until I received another downvote and discovered that it cost only 2 rep points. What is the difference between a downvote and an unupvote? I Googled it and got nothing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="cdfa0914-ce29-4a00-960f-b88aa8287b61" CreationDate="2016-01-18T01:54:28.867" UserId="77210" Text="What is an unupvote and why does it cost more rep points than a downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="cdfa0914-ce29-4a00-960f-b88aa8287b61" CreationDate="2016-01-18T01:54:28.867" UserId="77210" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="693b13ad-2633-477b-a66b-aefab26839c1" CreationDate="2016-01-18T01:58:48.183" UserId="520" Text="An &quot;unupvote&quot; is the removal of an upvote, and consequently removes the rep gain associated with that vote. In my experience they are fairly rare. They are distinct from a down vote (though the effect on a question's score is essentially the same if you neglect that the voter had previously increased the questions score).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users are allow to cancel a vote during a brief window after casting it or after an intervening edit. The user may have changed their mind becuase they read some other answers or didn't like a clarification in the comments or they may not have liked an edit that you (or someone else) made to your post after they initially voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When you reach 1000 rep you'll gain the ability to click on post scores and see a up/down breakdown as well as the net.][1] Under those conditions the difference is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="7699686a-49f9-472e-88d6-f671d31e0523" CreationDate="2016-01-18T08:50:16.857" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="9f09e92e-f856-4dbe-b9a1-721cd609b612" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:12:30.943" UserId="8563" Text="So the sidebar got [stretched by about 30%](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). No problem. This entails a change to the network-provided ads (not visible above certain rep thresholds) and to the community ads. No problem. Some old ads [ran with some extra whitespace](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884976_272563) while they were updated. No problem. We need to [update all our community ads](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884977_272563) [to the new size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment885010_272563). Grumble, but no problem, it's a good opportunity to spiff up the graphics on some of them. The community ads thread got delayed a bit this year. Absolutely fine. We [don't really know when the 2016 ads kick in](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016#comment29266_7426). Not awesome on the lack of clarity, but not a problem as long as nothing terrible comes of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/urgvy.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ad is currently running and it comes from [the 2015 thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6388#6399). For comparison, here is that advert as posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If you're going to run 2015 community ads in the expanded sidebar, pad them out with whitespace instead of stretching them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite simple, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question [first posted on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273255/please-dont-stretch-the-old-community-ads). Re-posted here as a signpost as it affects this site; give the MSE question some love if you agree with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="9f09e92e-f856-4dbe-b9a1-721cd609b612" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:12:30.943" UserId="8563" Text="Please don't stretch the old community ads!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="9f09e92e-f856-4dbe-b9a1-721cd609b612" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:12:30.943" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7444" RevisionGUID="a6db49cf-c4ae-4a69-80df-f6d6ca203753" CreationDate="2016-01-18T14:11:28.757" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed to small image size to meet file size requirements." Text="[![Retraction Watch][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFSyZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://retractionwatch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="daae3576-9675-444c-ad8a-f0b624b7889a" CreationDate="2016-01-18T14:13:02.577" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed to small image size to meet file size requirements." Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JsRWC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="21188396-a7a6-4f0e-8078-11ae0aa37a63" CreationDate="2016-01-18T14:13:47.070" UserId="8563" Text="[![Are your papers available in an open access repository? Check with Dissemin][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dev.dissem.in/img/stackexchange.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dissem.in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="826ac0ef-2adb-4a4f-bd67-6b935a3fed42" CreationDate="2016-01-18T14:58:44.463" UserId="8563" Comment="Added green background throughout." Text="[![Physics Stack Exchange Review Queue][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ef9Hl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="77498724-4aed-4f09-b139-ecc5913b8719" CreationDate="2016-01-18T18:20:42.310" UserId="8563" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ln6N5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://academia.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="73630925-206c-44bf-95f2-93cf8e67fb3a" CreationDate="2016-01-18T19:41:08.207" UserId="8563" Text="[![History of Science and Mathematics at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4dO2f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="8fcfc258-cc0e-4db2-8815-34988a8a0641" CreationDate="2016-01-18T20:55:58.923" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv Analytics: specialized web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ANuxU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="a30173bf-139a-4b9b-b975-b04619d13c18" CreationDate="2016-01-18T21:37:27.223" UserId="8563" Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pefiz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7464" RevisionGUID="8bbc8321-f216-4f72-9085-3e07ee9f659d" CreationDate="2016-01-18T21:55:43.943" UserId="8563" Text="So this has been resolved over on the mother meta. Quoting from a member of the SE team:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Looks like we jumped the gun on a sidebar change for community ads.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry about that.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change has been reverted, and the updated build is rolling out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into production as I type this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="728eb9ae-5209-42a2-9988-8dcb4c843d17" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:21:16.163" UserId="8563" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/toYiP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="8d77ffd6-0dfe-48fe-a629-b8c155a0bd1b" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:36:05.487" UserId="8563" Text="[![Overleaf: Free online collaborative LaTeX editor with real-time PDF preview][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SaONO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.overleaf.com/latex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7467" RevisionGUID="c8b86487-cef6-4c5f-8dcc-06a0e78d51a5" CreationDate="2016-01-19T02:16:47.760" UserId="8563" Text="[![Computational Science at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="838c2eb9-339f-431f-beed-851b20ac931e" CreationDate="2016-01-19T07:52:01.973" UserId="104362" Text="[![Haikus are awesome/ Chemistry is more so/ Ask straight away!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/noaFv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20414" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="838c2eb9-339f-431f-beed-851b20ac931e" CreationDate="2016-01-19T07:52:01.973" UserId="104362" />
  <row Id="20415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="e44bfece-a098-4f97-9c3d-e83a2e9ca74e" CreationDate="2016-01-19T14:24:53.333" UserId="8563" Text="[![Wayback Machine: experience the Web as it was][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kieQs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="0807e5b4-5fb7-4be1-8b7f-2233b5a90c31" CreationDate="2016-01-19T16:45:13.860" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="8ce52d10-e874-41db-af50-9f47344c8b73" CreationDate="2016-01-19T17:11:45.347" UserDisplayName="user854" Text="http://openstudy.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[SE requires at least 9 more characters ... how lame!]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7471" RevisionGUID="0a8ba436-6800-466b-be60-a264b0e7187c" CreationDate="2016-01-19T19:46:24.583" UserId="8563" Text="[![archive.org - the public library of the internet][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ij43t.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="a02638f6-fcac-4c45-80c1-516783330b53" CreationDate="2016-01-19T20:00:38.020" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Wayback Machine: experience the Web as it was][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1wvvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7472" RevisionGUID="6651a3bb-ecf6-40bd-8aa2-598419fe64ae" CreationDate="2016-01-20T18:38:39.500" UserId="1325" Text="A somewhat late answer, but it occurs to me that there are circumstances where doing a calculation in an answer may be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sometimes see questions that don't ask *do this calculation* but rather *how is this calculation done?* i.e. what are the concepts behind the calculation? For example look at my answer to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36167/does-juggling-balls-reduce-the-total-weight-of-the-juggler-and-balls in which I basically just do a calculation. If the OP had asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Prove you can't cross the bridge by juggling the balls blah blah&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it would have been closed as homework and closed, and my answer (with 89 upvotes!!) would never have been posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that I've written quite a few answers like this i.e. answers that are basically just calculations but their value lies in showing how the calculation is done. I imagine most of us would agree this is a fair way to answer, but it feels as though there is a resistance to any answers that are essentially just calculations and I wouldn't want to be prevented from answering in this way in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="d66619f2-608d-45b8-becc-3455a2c70cb9" CreationDate="2016-01-21T03:33:50.840" UserId="93655" Text="A lot of students, including myself, have to write lab reports for school. So I would like to ask, is questions regarding how to correctly write a good report allowed here (like how to correctly state a hypothesis, etc) or is it limited to pure physics only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="d66619f2-608d-45b8-becc-3455a2c70cb9" CreationDate="2016-01-21T03:33:50.840" UserId="93655" Text="Can we ask about how to write reports" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="d66619f2-608d-45b8-becc-3455a2c70cb9" CreationDate="2016-01-21T03:33:50.840" UserId="93655" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7474" RevisionGUID="82c3ecce-97c0-41ff-8145-5ee3b036a15e" CreationDate="2016-01-21T03:49:21.103" UserId="520" Text="To my mind this would be a bad question for Physics SE because it is at once&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Too general** There are many different level of detail, many different conventions that the instructor might want you to follow or to ignore. Some instructors expect a rigid report format some don't, and among those that do there is no universal agreement on what the format should be. Different instructors have different pet peeves about graphs; about the absolute necessity of including error bars (or not); about the need for at least seven data point to draw a line (or not) and so on. The level of detail expected in the report varies, as does the level of citation when you're talking about educational labs. Which mechanism should be used for reporting measurement uncertainties? Depends on the class and the instructor.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; This stuff is endless...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Too narrow** If you resolve the ambiguities then the question is only applicable to your particular situation and doesn't help anyone else (which is one of the goals of a good question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="9fefbf9a-0948-469f-a316-5cd8c3de8d59" CreationDate="2016-01-21T07:18:09.683" UserId="46399" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="A lot of students, including myself, have to write lab reports for school. So I would like to ask, is questions regarding how to correctly write a good report allowed here (like how to correctly state a hypothesis, etc) or is it limited to pure physics only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="c62e5b24-eaf9-4950-9fc7-00bbd4402aea" CreationDate="2016-01-21T07:28:37.413" UserId="46399" Comment="There are also other ways of going around the minimum character count, than calling SE lame." Text="[Openstudy.com](http://openstudy.com/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7475" RevisionGUID="74e11449-430f-47c7-9231-0d3e99f6be3d" CreationDate="2016-01-21T09:01:46.980" UserId="124" Text="In addition to what dmckee said, I see this site as being for questions about physics, and asking something about how to write a report is not a question about physics. So, no, I'd say it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you manage to find a question which is neither too broad nor too narrow, it might fit on another SE site, such as [Academia](//academia.stackexchange.com), [English Language &amp; Usage](//english.stackexchange.com), or [Writers](//writers.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="11315cec-e6f5-4afd-abcd-d38e765baf94" CreationDate="2016-01-24T11:42:59.493" UserId="81048" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=MuGFDueEC-U1&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/92559.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Science Educators&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="62e8b707-7cb3-4967-975c-27cd67d7089f" CreationDate="2016-01-24T11:49:56.990" UserId="81048" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text="[![][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z63Pl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=MuGFDueEC-U1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="9b20a0ce-50fc-4a0a-ad8c-dfb3812addc9" CreationDate="2016-01-25T00:33:17.167" UserId="148704" Text="What happens to good physic questions and answers lost by people who lost their accounts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="9b20a0ce-50fc-4a0a-ad8c-dfb3812addc9" CreationDate="2016-01-25T00:33:17.167" UserId="148704" Text="Contributations Lost in Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="9b20a0ce-50fc-4a0a-ad8c-dfb3812addc9" CreationDate="2016-01-25T00:33:17.167" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="45cc7863-f8f2-436b-835e-a4e83dc0adcc" CreationDate="2016-01-25T00:39:34.803" UserId="148704" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="What happens to good physic questions and answers lost by people who lost their accounts either which a way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="ebc50f3f-1699-4bcd-9550-9b6f9c76e306" CreationDate="2016-01-25T01:25:06.403" UserId="8563" Text="If someone loses access to their account, the posts remain, but the user will be unable to edit them (as the OP) until they regain access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accounts are usually deleted (1) because of administrative reasons such as sockpuppetting or voting fraud, in which case there are likely no salvageable posts, or (2) because the user has requested it. In this case the posts also remain, stripped of a link to the poster's profile and with the poster username sometimes changed to the form userXXXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as before, seriously: all this information is available with minimal digging at the [Help Center](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/help) and in [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/). If you're asking for a specific reason we can help, but if you're just randomly wondering about stuff, please have a thorough look in those places first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7480" RevisionGUID="ac63611c-078c-4ff5-ab77-477fa4c5b95b" CreationDate="2016-01-26T23:00:00.973" UserId="42618" Text="[![A community on a mission to solve all STEM][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GxO66.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ToughSTEM.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="4f84b1b6-d133-46e4-8f5d-da52f052f8ef" CreationDate="2016-01-27T08:53:28.260" UserId="67944" Text="[![For those seeking down-to-earth answers to their questions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lkIwY.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="06747f02-9d9e-4260-8217-77a8cf9d1bfd" CreationDate="2016-01-27T14:17:36.483" UserId="46399" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What happens to good Physics questions and answers lost by people who lost their accounts either which a way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20445" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="06747f02-9d9e-4260-8217-77a8cf9d1bfd" CreationDate="2016-01-27T14:17:36.483" UserId="46399" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Contributions Lost in Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="50570f41-a8ef-4875-b675-4dfa7d4d200c" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:07:40.180" UserId="67944" Comment="edited body" Text="[![For those seeking down-to-earth answers to their questions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="bd30fdb6-1cb2-43bd-b1c6-d9e92df77daf" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:44:44.250" UserId="102021" Text="I joined 1 or 2 weeks before and i have observed here that people prefer to downvote rather than just making an asker understand the fault in his question . Well , i agree that downvoting must exist in answers , so that every get asker gets the best reliable answer but voting on an **question** may mislead a random searcher into thinking that votes is the quality of an question. For example we have a millions of questions asking the same thing &quot;why does law of conservation of momentum hold true&quot; , but every single question gets the different votes. This system is really misleading.It would be better if there was a vote of wrong concepts involved only in the post (not right concepts involved because it would again led a system of favoritisized questions) .So should it work the other way or not ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="bd30fdb6-1cb2-43bd-b1c6-d9e92df77daf" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:44:44.250" UserId="102021" Text="Should downvoting really exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="bd30fdb6-1cb2-43bd-b1c6-d9e92df77daf" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:44:44.250" UserId="102021" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7484" RevisionGUID="5bfd81b4-aeaf-4626-bf07-96cd909e6a4d" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:07:09.857" UserId="124" Text="Voting on questions isn't perfect, sure, but the fact is, we do get a lot of bad questions. Sometimes they come from people cheating on their homework, sometimes they come from people who don't know the first thing about physics but are convinced they have disproven relativity, sometimes they come from ordinary curious people and they're just really trivial questions where the asker couldn't be bothered to do a simple Google search to find the answer first. And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need some way to distinguish bad questions from good ones, because part of what attracts people to this site is that they can come to read and answer good questions. That's why voting on questions exists. Again, we know it's not a perfect system, but nobody has an idea that's much better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why we are fine with the system the way it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7485" RevisionGUID="b0dbb732-e799-4846-bccd-7101767782eb" CreationDate="2016-01-30T05:29:22.170" UserId="44833" Text="I recently asked a question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/232114/44833 which has become much more popular than I originally anticipated, and has since been closed as a duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind too much that it was marked as a dupe since both questions are useful in their own right and the titles at least are clearly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today someone emailed me with a piece of info that should have been posted as an answer, but he said he didn't have the reputation to post since the question is protected. I resolved to post it on his behalf, but then I realized that it is not possible to add answers to duplicate questions. I suppose the idea is that the new answers should be added to the other question, but it doesn't seem to fit as well there, which makes me think that perhaps it shouldn't be a duplicate after all (although it is certainly a useful related reading).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one commenter points out, there is a difference of wording - &quot;show the Earth is round&quot; vs. &quot;show the Earth is not flat&quot;. My question is geared specifically to collecting practical experiments or observations that disprove the falsifiable physical component of the Flat Earth Theory espoused by the FES, not to showing the earth is round in the abstract. (There is also a social component, that is, showing that NASA is not involved in a coverup, but that's not as on-topic here.) The other question appears to have a more theoretical focus (probably &quot;simplest&quot; in the title was interpreted as &quot;conceptually simplest&quot;), and contains experiments like Eratosthenes that only work if you have already accepted the round-earth model to some degree (one of the answers on my question uses three-point Eratosthenes to circumvent this issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't appear that the question has quite finished its active period, and I would request that it be reopened. Would it be alright if I add a notice at the top pointing to the other question, but with less forceful wording than &quot;this question is a duplicate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7485" RevisionGUID="b0dbb732-e799-4846-bccd-7101767782eb" CreationDate="2016-01-30T05:29:22.170" UserId="44833" Text="Adding an answer to a duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7485" RevisionGUID="b0dbb732-e799-4846-bccd-7101767782eb" CreationDate="2016-01-30T05:29:22.170" UserId="44833" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|duplicates|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="0aae40e4-aa59-4480-8504-acee2c95aa8c" CreationDate="2016-01-30T08:26:46.447" UserId="124" Text="To echo what [user36790](//meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790) said in a comment, when you think a question (B) which has been closed as a duplicate of another question (A) is not really a duplicate, you should edit it to make it _clear_ that it's not a duplicate. After editing, the duplicate question (B) should&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ask something that the original (A) does not, _and_&#xD;&#xA;- explain _clearly_ and _explicitly_ why the thing that B is asking is not covered by A (see also below), _and_&#xD;&#xA;- link to the original question A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side effect of editing is that the question gets placed into a queue to be reviewed for reopening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link and reference to the original question doesn't need to be at the top, the way the automatic duplicate notice is. In fact, I think it's better if it's not at the top. The first paragraph or two of a question should probably give the main point of what you want to ask, and while showing your prior research is important, it's not the main question. Here's [one example](//physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48497) of how I would do it. (Maybe not the best example, but I think it's good enough to serve as a guideline.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When question B is asking something not covered by question A, that means that any potential valid answer to B would not answer question A. Or in other words, a post that _does_ answer question B, if it were posted to question A, would _clearly_ be going above and beyond what is required to actually address question A. The fact that one could interpret B to include something that A does not is not itself enough to prevent B from being considered a duplicate. And the fact that the _existing_ answers to A don't address B is _definitely_ not enough. (Duplicate status is determined based on the question itself, not the answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your particular case, editing the question to ask &quot;How can I show the Earth is not flat without assuming that it's round?&quot; might be a good way to start (of course that would be just the title; what really matters is how you edit the body of the question). Though it's hard to say for sure without knowing what you have in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="d75f4c6d-2951-4243-98c6-f68d4e3de7b2" CreationDate="2016-01-31T08:47:48.253" UserId="46399" Text="[![cryptography.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7HljC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://crypto.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20461" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="d75f4c6d-2951-4243-98c6-f68d4e3de7b2" CreationDate="2016-01-31T08:47:48.253" UserId="46399" />
  <row Id="20462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="2fbbde00-37cd-421f-800d-ea9da2906aba" CreationDate="2016-01-31T15:07:21.153" UserId="2751" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="PhysicsOverflow is meant to be some kind of a rebirth of the untimely passed away [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and a little physics brother of [MathOverflow](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to the former theoretical physics site, we have slightly lowered the bar to ask questions to graduate-level upward and broadened the scope to include experimental physics and phenomenology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the high-level Q&amp;A, PhysicsOverflow offers also a [Reviews section](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/4657#a4807), dedicated to discuss and peer review (mostly ArXiv but other sources can be considered too) papers publicly and &quot;in real time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PhysicsOverflow was built outside the SE network to not have to fullfill any externally prescribed activity criteria for graduation (Area51 statistics). As Danu hinted at, this also allows us to avoid having to obey the &quot;SE model&quot; or SE rules, policies, and guidelines where they would clash with the goals of a high-level academic community (MathOverflow negociated a [special agreement](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow/970#970) with SE before joining the network).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find a full description of the site in our [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq) and a short summary of its purpose in our [official announcement](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live) on MathOverflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="27eb2c33-e374-4e94-a047-15ffae946d4d" CreationDate="2016-01-31T20:31:19.763" UserId="83518" Text="[![Check out the Area 51 Remote Sensing Proposal][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90327.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90327/geomatics-and-remote-sensing?referrer=8G2asYAyI_To9RoVf1VtPg2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7409" RevisionGUID="cbed5f5f-6345-41e2-9547-47e5c56704dd" CreationDate="2016-02-01T23:43:31.517" UserId="44126" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is too broad.  I recognize that it's intended to head off boring copied-from-homework questions like &quot;what's the optimal angle for a 45 mph banked turn if the coefficient of friction is μ = 0.233457821234 also are all those digits important kthxbye&quot;.  However calculation questions like &quot;what's the average antimatter content of a banana?&quot; or &quot;with my eyes closed at sea level, how often should I expect to see Cherenkov flashes from cosmic ray muons in my vitreous humor?&quot; are interesting entrées into a host of more complicated topics.  It'd be the responsibility of the asker to elaborate on *which* of these other topics is really at issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I find that turning my conceptual questions into model calculations gives me better answers than asking in vague terms, and I'm loath to see such questions closed.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, many of my favorite questions on this site have inspired clever calculations from answerers; I would prefer to encourage these sorts of answers with inviting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might propose as an alternative: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria.  That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="92afb7f0-aa0f-4678-81e5-e01d14692f52" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:30:33.190" UserId="50770" Text="Every 2-3 days a question pops up on the site related to basic definition/misunderstanding of entropy/black holes. In the process of searching for related questions, I find that there are many answers covering many interesting and valid points. The number of such posts having quality content is so much that going through all of them takes a huge amount of time. I want some  suggestions for a suitable good answers to be redirected to for clearing these basic issues rightaway. Or does a master question for entropy as given in John Rennie's http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time needs to be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="92afb7f0-aa0f-4678-81e5-e01d14692f52" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:30:33.190" UserId="50770" Text="Redirecting questions related to basic definition/misunderstanding of entropy and black holes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="92afb7f0-aa0f-4678-81e5-e01d14692f52" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:30:33.190" UserId="50770" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="5f37b8b5-1500-4b28-89a8-0f74c0ea5826" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:33:45.830" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Every 2-3 days a question pops up on the site related to basic definition/misunderstanding of entropy/black holes. In the process of searching for related questions, I find that there are many answers covering many interesting and valid points. The number of such posts having quality content is so much that going through all of them takes a huge amount of time. I want some  suggestions for a suitable good answers to be redirected to for clearing these basic issues right away. Or does a master question for entropy as given in John Rennie's http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7431/ needs to be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20469" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="5f37b8b5-1500-4b28-89a8-0f74c0ea5826" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:33:45.830" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="cea819cc-675c-47ae-b796-30f2c8f231c6" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:43:27.783" UserId="50770" Text="In the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233045/why-is-uhf-so-much-more-popular-than-other-frequencies-for-radio/233068#233068 the problem was supposed to be solved by applying basic physics, even though it was inspired by electrical engineering. I don't understand why the question was closed. What are the exact boundaries of engineering on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="cea819cc-675c-47ae-b796-30f2c8f231c6" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:43:27.783" UserId="50770" Text="Are questions related to physical aspects of engineering supposed to be closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="cea819cc-675c-47ae-b796-30f2c8f231c6" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:43:27.783" UserId="50770" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="3d03ba6b-e9e5-46b4-8399-316aeabf11ba" CreationDate="2016-02-03T21:18:40.653" UserId="148704" Text="If you are being serial down voted how do you stop it? and stop them from voting on your stuff in the future? perpetuate " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="3d03ba6b-e9e5-46b4-8399-316aeabf11ba" CreationDate="2016-02-03T21:18:40.653" UserId="148704" Text="Serial down voting and stopping it in perpetuate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="3d03ba6b-e9e5-46b4-8399-316aeabf11ba" CreationDate="2016-02-03T21:18:40.653" UserId="148704" Text="|support|questions|answers|down-votes|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="feb58a37-ccc2-4acb-8fda-b02b22301bfa" CreationDate="2016-02-04T02:51:55.693" UserId="148704" Text="&#xD;&#xA;  	&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;You should realize that receiving a lot of downvotes does not mean that there is a &quot;serial downvoter&quot; (in the sense that the downvotes are there because the post is by you). It could also be that your posts are just of low quality, like this one: Spelling errors, no capitalization at the start of sentences, the word &quot;perpetuate&quot; dangling at the end with unclear meaning. – ACuriousMind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="fab602d9-a325-4dea-91b9-1fec02bbe530" CreationDate="2016-02-04T04:29:12.933" UserId="148704" Comment="grammar" Text="How does one know if you are being serial down voted? How do you reverse it and stop them from voting on your stuff in the future? Recognize " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20478" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="fab602d9-a325-4dea-91b9-1fec02bbe530" CreationDate="2016-02-04T04:29:12.933" UserId="148704" Comment="grammar" Text="Serial Voting and How to Recognize It" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7493" RevisionGUID="d92745b7-ff6a-4812-aca6-efa0b1aff97d" CreationDate="2016-02-04T08:33:58.133" UserId="1325" Text="The question is around the borderline between physics and engineering. I didn't vote to close, but neither am I dismayed it got closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you revisit your answer you'll find it does not address any basic physics. You make points like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a smaller antenna is able to transmit/receive the signals due to the low wavelength of such waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- operating using high frequency supports a greater bandwidth as compared to the low frequency operation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the noise levels are much reduced in this domain as compared to the other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all of which are perfectly true and good answers. However you don't explain the physical principles behind the three points. This type of answer is symptomatic of a question that is engineering rather than physics. Explaining how the voltage induced in an aerial is related to the geometry and wavelength, why bandwidth can be increased at high frequencies and why noise levels are lower would expand the answer into an essay, so you are forced to give a general answer that will not satisfy any research physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a broader issue of where the focus of this site should be, though whether this is the venue to debate the issue is questionable. The fact is that most of the prolific answerers are professional (ex-professional in my case) scientists whose interest is in fundamentals of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now we are experiencing a flood of general and poor quality questions and the site is perceptibly moving away from the vision of an authoritative source of information on physics. On my own part this makes me less tolerant of questions that are very general, show little attempt at research or are poorly thought through. I can't speak for the other site members but I suspect my views are not unique." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="1426f9f2-db5d-4d79-9c63-eb266a68eb47" CreationDate="2016-02-04T09:26:44.510" UserId="124" Comment="Make it clear what's being quoted" Text="&gt; You should realize that receiving a lot of downvotes does not mean that there is a &quot;serial downvoter&quot; (in the sense that the downvotes are there because the post is by you). It could also be that your posts are just of low quality, like this one: Spelling errors, no capitalization at the start of sentences, the word &quot;perpetuate&quot; dangling at the end with unclear meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– ACuriousMind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7493" RevisionGUID="3cc919ac-4452-4e71-a786-7ff56677b2d0" CreationDate="2016-02-04T12:38:51.830" UserId="1325" Comment="Tweak" Text="The question is around the borderline between physics and engineering. I didn't vote to close, but neither am I dismayed it got closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you revisit your answer you'll find it does not address any basic physics. You make points like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a smaller antenna is able to transmit/receive the signals due to the low wavelength of such waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- operating using high frequency supports a greater bandwidth as compared to the low frequency operation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the noise levels are much reduced in this domain as compared to the other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all of which are perfectly true and good answers. However you don't explain the physical principles behind the three points. This type of answer is symptomatic of a question that is engineering rather than physics. Explaining the fundamental reasons for how the voltage induced in an aerial is related to the geometry and wavelength, why bandwidth can be increased at high frequencies and why noise levels are lower would expand the answer into an essay, so you are forced to give a general answer that will not satisfy any research physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a broader issue of where the focus of this site should be, though whether this is the venue to debate the issue is questionable. The fact is that most of the prolific answerers are professional (ex-professional in my case) scientists whose interest is in fundamentals of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now we are experiencing a flood of general and poor quality questions and the site is perceptibly moving away from the vision of an authoritative source of information on physics. On my own part this makes me less tolerant of questions that are very general, show little attempt at research or are poorly thought through. I can't speak for the other site members but I suspect my views are not unique." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20482" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="735722ae-41e9-4eb4-aae5-8eab4bd6bc0e" CreationDate="2016-02-04T20:03:13.457" UserId="148704" Comment="upgrade" Text="I am Being Serial Down Voted or Something Else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="8e76ce96-c51c-4983-b517-b94d7fc2d849" CreationDate="2016-02-05T07:38:54.740" UserId="124" Comment="add attribution links" Text="&gt; You should realize that receiving a lot of downvotes does not mean that there is a &quot;serial downvoter&quot; (in the sense that the downvotes are there because the post is by you). It could also be that your posts are just of low quality, like this one: Spelling errors, no capitalization at the start of sentences, the word &quot;perpetuate&quot; dangling at the end with unclear meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind), in [a comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else#comment29402_7491)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="2ca028ab-80b6-4ab3-a8a1-887d98f8fb9a" CreationDate="2016-02-05T08:09:33.103" UserId="148704" Comment="grammar" Text="&gt; You should realize that receiving a lot of down votes does not mean that there is a &quot;serial down voter&quot; (in the sense that the down votes are there because the post is by you). It could also be that your posts are just of low quality, like this one: Spelling errors, no capitalization at the start of sentences, the word &quot;perpetuate&quot; dangling at the end with unclear meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind), in [a comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else#comment29402_7491)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="02ceb353-5437-4da0-a149-907639935628" CreationDate="2016-02-05T08:31:22.120" UserId="148704" Text="An answer is placed in the comment box on your question and it would make an answer. As long as you quote it is it OK to use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Comments at [this question][1] for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="02ceb353-5437-4da0-a149-907639935628" CreationDate="2016-02-05T08:31:22.120" UserId="148704" Text="Using Comments as Answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="02ceb353-5437-4da0-a149-907639935628" CreationDate="2016-02-05T08:31:22.120" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|answers|comments|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="8d97ba5f-9e37-4176-bbde-eed88c74728d" CreationDate="2016-02-05T08:51:05.763" UserId="124" Text="Good idea to make this a question so I can post my comment there as an answer: yes, this is fine. Actually, in order to avoid arguments over whether it does constitute an answer or not, I'll say this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The fact that the content of an answer is taken from someone else's comment is not, itself, a problem.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you can post the content of someone else's comment as an answer, as long as the answer is appropriate in other ways. It is _polite_ to offer them a chance to post the answer themselves, sure, but there is no _requirement_ to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to do this, you do need to follow our guidelines on plagiarism, as well as the Creative Commons license that covers all contributed content on SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Following our plagiarism guidelines requires that you identify the quoted comment as a quote, and that you acknowledge the source (specifically, the user who posted it).&#xD;&#xA;- Following the CC license requires, among other things, a certain kind of attribution. As I write this, the attribution requirements include linking to the profile of the original poster, and to the original source of the post (which would be the comment you're copying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course the answer is subject to all the rules and review procedures any other answer would be subject to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no requirement that the answer be community wiki. (Some people would say this because it's not fair to get reputation for someone else's content, but I say if the original commenter wants the rep, they should post their answer as an answer in the first place.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="2bfe7f72-25d5-421f-960b-8d1796ed4694" CreationDate="2016-02-05T17:18:56.320" UserId="96487" Text="I am unable to add more tags in questions I review.&#xD;&#xA;Is their some specific way to add multiple tags in any question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="2bfe7f72-25d5-421f-960b-8d1796ed4694" CreationDate="2016-02-05T17:18:56.320" UserId="96487" Text="How so I add multiple tags for a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="2bfe7f72-25d5-421f-960b-8d1796ed4694" CreationDate="2016-02-05T17:18:56.320" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="7170aa79-3468-48b3-a178-266e5ee3085c" CreationDate="2016-02-05T17:36:53.230" UserId="8563" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, things are not quite there yet, particularly with comments: consider for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uN04D.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seen [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/234007/8563), and obviously suffering from Sore Thumb syndrome. (Running chrome v48 over ubuntu, MathJax 2.6 with local STIX fonts, in case it's needed. It would be good to hear from others whether it displays this badly in other systems.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="ad60e8ca-db8e-4a5d-9af1-c0f42623e2a8" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:20:30.263" UserId="96487" Text="Just for stats I want to know which nation has its dominance or maximum user on physics.stackexhange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="ad60e8ca-db8e-4a5d-9af1-c0f42623e2a8" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:20:30.263" UserId="96487" Text="Which country holds maximum dominance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="ad60e8ca-db8e-4a5d-9af1-c0f42623e2a8" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:20:30.263" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="7c9af2aa-4964-4a36-8c3e-5d8ba2e434c5" CreationDate="2016-02-05T19:51:24.530" UserId="8563" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, things are not quite there yet, particularly with comments: consider for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uN04D.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seen [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/234007/8563), and obviously suffering from Sore Thumb syndrome. (Running chrome v48 over ubuntu, MathJax 2.6 with local STIX fonts, in case it's needed. It would be good to hear from others whether it displays this badly in other systems.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for that same comment, it appears that Firefox (v41 over Windows 7, MathJax 2.6 using web TEX fonts) produces this horrifying sight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZILfC.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="f419ee8a-10ca-4923-b5f0-425490779deb" CreationDate="2016-02-06T11:46:11.573" UserId="148704" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="How does one know if you are being serial down voted? How do you reverse it and stop them from voting on your stuff in the future? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7498" RevisionGUID="a827832c-7d55-490e-be49-fc174104fc37" CreationDate="2016-02-06T16:04:28.447" UserId="8563" Text="Serial voting is well addressed in the Meta Stack Exchange post [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me), and the short of it is that in essentially all the cases that matter, serial voting (which usually means someone going through your profile and either upvoting everything or downvoting a bunch of posts) gets automatically detected and reversed within 24 hours. The precise details of the algorithm are not made widely available to avoid people gaming the system, but the thresholds are generally enough that when serial downvotes really begin to bite the script will kick in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One common point of confusion for new users is when a single post accumulates a lot of downvotes in a short expanse of time. Here it's important to note that users can only vote on a post once, so by definition this behaviour is not serial downvoting - it is just a bunch of different users who disagree with the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serial downvoting usually looks like a series of votes on different posts (with few posts receiving more than one vote), often with those posts having been inactive for some time. If you do see behaviour like that, the thing to do is to wait 24 hours for the script to kick in. If it doesn't, then see [What should you do if you're serial downvoted &amp; it isn't automatically reversed within 24 hours?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed) - in essence, that probably means that the downvotes originated from different users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still think that there's a suspicious pattern you can flag one of the posts with a custom moderator flag explaining the situation. There is probably not much that a site moderator can do to help, since by design they cannot see voting histories, but if it does look suspicious they will pass this along to a Stack Exchange team member who can look and see if there is behaviour that requires corrective action. If you do raise such a flag, be very attentive to any feedback you get, and please be receptive to such information and apply it in the future; do not abuse the moderator flag privilege as it does put an undue strain on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you said deserves mention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do you reverse it and stop them from voting on your stuff in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post of voting is to deliver a clear signal about the quality of each post to prospective visitors and to provide a way for quality content to be more easily visible and accessible; this is obviously an integral part of the model. As such, there will *never* be a facility for you to block any specific user, named or not, from voting on your posts. (This is distinct from voting *irregularities*, like serial voting and [sockpuppetting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)), which are abuses of the voting system and for which the system already has comprehensive defences in place.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you're getting significant amount of downvotes, what it probably means is that people's opinion of the post aligns with the tooltip on the downvote button: `This answer is not useful` or `This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful`. Downvotes on a post (particularly multiple downvotes) should be a flag for you to look carefully and critically at their quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that your grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax is top-notch. The goal here is to build a repository of quality content that will last a long time; poor language shws &amp; if posts r bdly spellled or the bad grammar then th pst becoms much h4rder t read &amp; mch &lt; useful 4 de futur visitors. On the spectrum between [txtspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language) and textbook language we are shooting for maybe just below textbook level, and the care and polish you put into your posts will directly impact their perceived quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Double-check that your content is very much correct, and be open and receptive to any comments that claim otherwise. Scour your references to make sure that you've represented them correctly, and make sure that you've represented them fully, provide those references in full, and then go scour the web some more to find better ones. Think critically about your post and look for ways you could be wrong, or alternative angles that cast doubt on your approach; if you find those then it can help to mention them as pitfalls to be aware of (without necessarily needing to delete your post). Recognize when you're out of your depth and be open to the possibility that you might actually not know the answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you are actually addressing the question as posed, and that you're not going off on a tangent or providing an unrelated rant. This means you need to carefully and critically read the question and identify what is and is not being asked; address the former and delete any content that addresses the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you're asking a properly self-contained, cohesive, well-researched, well-posed question, that the prospective answers will be of a suitable length and require a reasonable level of effort, and that you've provided all the information necessary for answerers to address your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, to reiterate, this and similar questions can be answered by an appropriate search on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/). I would also **strongly** encourage you to do a systematic readthrough of the [**FAQ for Stack Exchange Sites**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7931/faq-for-stack-exchange-sites), which contains clear explanation of all of the essentials of the dynamics on the network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20499" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="0a594595-af96-49f0-aa39-34e911e1149c" CreationDate="2016-02-06T17:39:23.850" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20500" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="0a594595-af96-49f0-aa39-34e911e1149c" CreationDate="2016-02-06T17:39:23.850" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="How do I add multiple tags for a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="29ecc219-221e-40a0-829c-34d9a56662db" CreationDate="2016-02-06T17:55:19.893" UserId="8563" Text="There is a [limited amount of site analytics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics) available to high-rep users but this does not include any geographical information. Geographical data on visitors (not users) is presumably available to the SE team but it is not made available through that channel; you'd have to ask the SE team directly to get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-declared user location data is available through the Data Explorer, but as e.g. [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432881/user-locations) shows, being user-provided it is a huge mixed bag and you'd need some sophisticated language processing to make statistical sense of it. On the other hand, [StackMaps](http://stackapps.com/questions/3367/stackmaps-interactive-maps-of-stack-exchange-communities) can help provide a geographical view (but not quite a statistical one) on this information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're unlikely to find further sources for this information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="bd1611bb-2a19-4dc6-badd-01db19c436a9" CreationDate="2016-02-06T18:13:33.707" UserId="8563" Comment="added 931 characters in body" Text="There is a [limited amount of site analytics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics) available to high-rep users but this does not include any geographical information. Geographical data on visitors (not users) is presumably available to the SE team but it is not made available through that channel; you'd have to ask the SE team directly to get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-declared user location data is available through the Data Explorer, but as e.g. [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432881/user-locations) shows, being user-provided it is a huge mixed bag and you'd need some processing to make statistical sense of it. [This query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432882/user-count-by-location) makes things a bit easier to handle, and the corresponding code described [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/where-in-the-world-do-stack-overflow-users-say-they-are-from) can help draw some inferences if that's where you're headed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a similar track, [StackMaps](http://stackapps.com/questions/3367/stackmaps-interactive-maps-of-stack-exchange-communities) can help provide a geographical view (but not quite a statistical one) on this information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, though, this information is hard to come by and to handle. Visitor geographic data is not available, and user geographic data is self-reported, so for one you should take its accuracy with a grain of salt, and there is an enormous selection bias  you need to take into account: 48k of 105k users have not provided any location, and some fraction have provided fictional location. Moreover, it is at least likely that whether a user reports their location is correlated with the location itself (so users from e.g. Africa might feel that declaring their location is not advantageous, so that location gets (severely?) under-represented in the self-reported data)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7498" RevisionGUID="71649597-f8dd-4a22-8e25-305f37147c97" CreationDate="2016-02-06T19:36:38.500" UserId="50583" Comment="typo fix" Text="Serial voting is well addressed in the Meta Stack Exchange post [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me), and the short of it is that in essentially all the cases that matter, serial voting (which usually means someone going through your profile and either upvoting everything or downvoting a bunch of posts) gets automatically detected and reversed within 24 hours. The precise details of the algorithm are not made widely available to avoid people gaming the system, but the thresholds are generally enough that when serial downvotes really begin to bite the script will kick in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One common point of confusion for new users is when a single post accumulates a lot of downvotes in a short expanse of time. Here it's important to note that users can only vote on a post once, so by definition this behaviour is not serial downvoting - it is just a bunch of different users who disagree with the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serial downvoting usually looks like a series of votes on different posts (with few posts receiving more than one vote), often with those posts having been inactive for some time. If you do see behaviour like that, the thing to do is to wait 24 hours for the script to kick in. If it doesn't, then see [What should you do if you're serial downvoted &amp; it isn't automatically reversed within 24 hours?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed) - in essence, that probably means that the downvotes originated from different users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still think that there's a suspicious pattern you can flag one of the posts with a custom moderator flag explaining the situation. There is probably not much that a site moderator can do to help, since by design they cannot see voting histories, but if it does look suspicious they will pass this along to a Stack Exchange team member who can look and see if there is behaviour that requires corrective action. If you do raise such a flag, be very attentive to any feedback you get, and please be receptive to such information and apply it in the future; do not abuse the moderator flag privilege as it does put an undue strain on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you said deserves mention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do you reverse it and stop them from voting on your stuff in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of voting is to deliver a clear signal about the quality of each post to prospective visitors and to provide a way for quality content to be more easily visible and accessible; this is obviously an integral part of the model. As such, there will *never* be a facility for you to block any specific user, named or not, from voting on your posts. (This is distinct from voting *irregularities*, like serial voting and [sockpuppetting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)), which are abuses of the voting system and for which the system already has comprehensive defences in place.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you're getting significant amount of downvotes, what it probably means is that people's opinion of the post aligns with the tooltip on the downvote button: `This answer is not useful` or `This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful`. Downvotes on a post (particularly multiple downvotes) should be a flag for you to look carefully and critically at their quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that your grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax is top-notch. The goal here is to build a repository of quality content that will last a long time; poor language shws &amp; if posts r bdly spellled or the bad grammar then th pst becoms much h4rder t read &amp; mch &lt; useful 4 de futur visitors. On the spectrum between [txtspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language) and textbook language we are shooting for maybe just below textbook level, and the care and polish you put into your posts will directly impact their perceived quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Double-check that your content is very much correct, and be open and receptive to any comments that claim otherwise. Scour your references to make sure that you've represented them correctly, and make sure that you've represented them fully, provide those references in full, and then go scour the web some more to find better ones. Think critically about your post and look for ways you could be wrong, or alternative angles that cast doubt on your approach; if you find those then it can help to mention them as pitfalls to be aware of (without necessarily needing to delete your post). Recognize when you're out of your depth and be open to the possibility that you might actually not know the answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you are actually addressing the question as posed, and that you're not going off on a tangent or providing an unrelated rant. This means you need to carefully and critically read the question and identify what is and is not being asked; address the former and delete any content that addresses the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you're asking a properly self-contained, cohesive, well-researched, well-posed question, that the prospective answers will be of a suitable length and require a reasonable level of effort, and that you've provided all the information necessary for answerers to address your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, to reiterate, this and similar questions can be answered by an appropriate search on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/). I would also **strongly** encourage you to do a systematic readthrough of the [**FAQ for Stack Exchange Sites**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7931/faq-for-stack-exchange-sites), which contains clear explanation of all of the essentials of the dynamics on the network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20504" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="5755c9a8-cac3-4afc-a7d5-c1d47c6ab40d" CreationDate="2016-02-07T15:19:30.827" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234331/what-constitutes-an-answer-to-a-physics-question-on-this-forum" />
  <row Id="20505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="eb92cc17-4a94-4386-a3ef-ef4e8db92846" CreationDate="2016-02-07T14:18:49.017" UserId="106212" Text="On this page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203449/dr-pierre-marie-robitaille-on-the-validity-of-kirchhoffs-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are the following comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*this might enlighten you rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille . There was a discussion here on his cosmic background radiation ideas, which really are bizarre. – anna v Sep 1 '15 at 2:44* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*You are being too kind--indeed inaccurate--by calling it &quot;highly controversial&quot;. He's completely wrong and everyone knows it. There's no &quot;controversy&quot; here at all. – Steve B Sep 4 '15 at 13:36*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Looks like you're right, Steve. I saw the rationalwiki link anna v posted above, he's not just making a strange misunderstanding of a physics law, but rather there is some weird motivation about disproving the standard explanation of the cosmic microwave background. – Nanite Sep 8 '15 at 7:07*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do the above remarks answer the physics question on the page cited above, or are they just irrelevant comments? If the latter why was the following 'comment' deleted by the administrators?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nanite - You are mistaken. Professor Robitaille has NOT claimed that epsilon/alpha is dependent upon angle. What he has argued is that unless a cavity contains a black material, such as soot, at thermal equilibrium, the radiation within the cavity is NOT black, and so the radiation always depends upon the nature of the cavity walls, contrary to Kirchhoff who asserted, without any experimental evidence, that the radiation is independent of the nature and form of the cavity walls. Also, thermal equilibrium CAN and IS reached by arbitrary materials, but unless the material is black, the radiation is not black. At thermal equilibrium Stewart's Law applies, i.e. emission = absorption. It does not follow that the emission and absorption are total (i.e. black). Arbitrary materials have reflection as well (unless the material is black when reflection = 0). Reflection cannot build up a black field on its own without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, and so it does not. Reflection can build up a black field only if it can be driven by input of energy via the walls and a black material, such as a piece of carbon in contact with the walls. In the case of arbitrary cavity walls, infusion of heat into the walls will not produce enough photons from the walls to build black radiation inside the cavity because the temperature of the cavity walls will rise, and thereby drop out of thermal equilibrium.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="eb92cc17-4a94-4386-a3ef-ef4e8db92846" CreationDate="2016-02-07T14:18:49.017" UserId="106212" Text="What constitutes an answer to a physics question on this forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="eb92cc17-4a94-4386-a3ef-ef4e8db92846" CreationDate="2016-02-07T14:18:49.017" UserId="106212" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="fabb12f6-a49c-4e80-b964-67224d840569" CreationDate="2016-02-07T15:34:31.170" UserId="96487" Comment="added 359 characters in body" Text="I am unable to add more tags in questions I review.&#xD;&#xA;Is their some specific way to add multiple tags in any question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean Existing Tags and less than 5. &#xD;&#xA;I use my mobile to review under full site mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I directly edit tags or review, both are not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Opera mini and inbuilt browser of my KitKat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I go to edit option.&#xD;&#xA;Then I edit question .&#xD;&#xA; Then I add new tag.&#xD;&#xA;Then I click on Save edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result: Question is edited but no change in tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7501" RevisionGUID="8af11854-0489-4b1a-810a-fc12d8b4b08c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T17:02:12.513" UserId="520" Text="What Kyle said in a comment. You tried to put a comment into an answer, but that comment did not answer the question. So it was deleted as &quot;not an answer&quot; because it was not an answer. Nor is &quot;what I wanted to say took more than 600 characters&quot; a defense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's very easy to lose track of the main mission of this site (which is accumulating good answers to good questions) because a lot of interesting stuff happens in the comments, but for all that comments are strictly side-show stuff and if you find yourself trying to defend a position in the comments you're doing it wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things you can do if you feel the need to debate in the comments and it won't fit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Write an *answer to the question* that addresses the point in play.&#xD;&#xA;* Write a question about the point in play and write an answer to it.&#xD;&#xA;* Invite the other party to chat if they are willing.&#xD;&#xA;* Live with the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll occasionally see some people string comments together but I would like to discourage that. From my point of view if you can't condense it into a single comment it is too extensive a issue to be treated in the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7502" RevisionGUID="11c90ed7-119d-4bcc-b4c7-08df97efd824" CreationDate="2016-02-07T18:27:23.620" UserId="74688" Text="Jen, I've seen that your posts are attracting a lot of downvotes, and as dmckee mentioned it is not due to a serial downvoter, so chances are that the quality of your questions are not upto the mark, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that most of your questions are about blackholes and other pop-science stuff, It is great that you want to know about these topics, for which I would say that you are doing a wonderful job trying to understand science (considering most of today's teens), but there is a systematic way to do it. Any good answer to these questions will involve concepts of physics and math that I doubt you would have come across, In order to have a deep understand of physics you need to start with the basics and work your way towards the top. There is no shortcut. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd say you start out with basics and start asking questions about concepts you find hard to grasp, i bet nobody would downvote these&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And please remember that this is _not_ to discourage you, this is intended to motivate you in the right path&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rPoFM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7501" RevisionGUID="ebb7b45b-5a1a-4b9a-9427-4dd3bfed1e40" CreationDate="2016-02-07T18:48:53.563" UserId="520" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="Hmmm. I just noticed that your rep does not currently allow access to the comment system. That makes many of the remarks below inapplicable to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best thing for the site would be to have a question on the issue at hand so that you can answer it. Which would solve the rep issue as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;What Kyle said in a comment. You tried to put a comment into an answer, but that comment did not answer the question. So it was deleted as &quot;not an answer&quot; because it was not an answer. Nor is &quot;what I wanted to say took more than 600 characters&quot; a defense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's very easy to lose track of the main mission of this site (which is accumulating good answers to good questions) because a lot of interesting stuff happens in the comments, but for all that comments are strictly side-show stuff and if you find yourself trying to defend a position in the comments you're doing it wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things you can do if you feel the need to debate in the comments and it won't fit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Write an *answer to the question* that addresses the point in play.&#xD;&#xA;* Write a question about the point in play and write an answer to it.&#xD;&#xA;* Invite the other party to chat if they are willing.&#xD;&#xA;* Live with the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll occasionally see some people string comments together but I would like to discourage that. From my point of view if you can't condense it into a single comment it is too extensive a issue to be treated in the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="29b3ba1a-a9ea-449b-8038-d04cdf25e480" CreationDate="2016-02-07T22:02:51.490" UserId="148704" Text="What are ways to earn reputation other than &quot;Good&quot; Questions and Answers that do and do not strain moderators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="29b3ba1a-a9ea-449b-8038-d04cdf25e480" CreationDate="2016-02-07T22:02:51.490" UserId="148704" Text="Alternative Ways to Earn Reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="29b3ba1a-a9ea-449b-8038-d04cdf25e480" CreationDate="2016-02-07T22:02:51.490" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|feature-request|reputation|policy|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="90991735-849a-4de4-84fa-11cec4e1c9ca" CreationDate="2016-02-07T22:09:02.803" UserId="148704" Comment="add text" Text="What are ways to earn reputation other than &quot;Good&quot; Questions and Answers that do and do not strain moderators on Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="65355e44-80a3-4185-b95f-df1c8be71eb5" CreationDate="2016-02-07T22:26:33.263" UserId="148704" Comment="add support" Text="What are ways to earn reputation other than &quot;Good&quot; Questions and Answers that do and do not require time and effort for a moderator on each [action][1] on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="5c7b504e-083a-4d95-9f7a-fd4fe90a0484" CreationDate="2016-02-07T23:47:15.960" UserId="520" Text="&gt; that do and do not require time and effort for a moderator on each action on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about way to *not* make unnecessary work for the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and foremost thing to do is to pay attention to how *your* flags are resolved. Click on the &quot;helpful flags&quot; test in your profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every time a flag is declined you're being told that the moderator who processed it thought you were wasting their time. If you're doing a good overall job of flagging your helpful flags will outnumber your declined ones by a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, stop adding bad or out-of-place content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Every comment posted as an answer is flagged and most come to a moderator's attention.&#xD;&#xA;* Every answer that doesn't come anywhere even close to answering a question gets flagged and most of those come to a moderator's attention. &#xD;&#xA;* Every question without a clear physics question gets flagged and most come to a moderator's attention.&#xD;&#xA;* Every question so garbled that the average reader has no idea what it's about generates flags and most come to a moderator's attention. &#xD;&#xA;* Every time someone posts three or four badly written variants of the same questions generates flags which come to a moderator's attention.&#xD;&#xA;* Every time someone flag a question because they want it re-opened they are directly making work ***and*** it won't help them because we expect the review queue to take care of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HE9Ic.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7502" RevisionGUID="cfb9cb3c-de18-4657-a898-7a5e758ee96a" CreationDate="2016-02-08T03:48:38.923" UserId="74688" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Jen, I've seen that your posts are attracting a lot of downvotes, and as dmckee mentioned it is not due to a serial downvoter, so chances are that the quality of your questions are not upto the mark, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that most of your questions are about blackholes and other pop-science stuff, It is great that you want to know about these topics, for which I would say that you are doing a wonderful job trying to understand science (considering most of today's teens), but there is a systematic way to do it. Any good answer to these questions will involve concepts of physics and math that I doubt you would have come across, In order to have a deep understand of physics you need to start with the basics and work your way towards the top. There is no shortcut. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd say you start out with basics and start asking questions about concepts you find hard to grasp, I bet nobody would downvote these&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And please remember that this is _not_ to discourage you, this is intended to motivate you in the right path&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rPoFM.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Internet)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7505" RevisionGUID="54414fcd-4533-4b92-b3d8-1f0ea62c10ae" CreationDate="2016-02-08T05:34:01.600" UserId="1492" Text="Actually this site is not appropriate for the enthusiastic amateur/teenager, i.e. somebody who has not sat through a course  relevant to the subject under question. Discussing quantum mechanics at the hand waving level is not the purpose of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have answered some of your questions, because I am sympathetic to the enthusiasm  displayed , and it is good to encourage open questions and the interest of the young in physics, but you have to realize that most trained physicists get impatient with naive questions. So you should shrug  but  try to learn from the negative votes, particularly if there is a comment explaining the -1 . It is all in the process of growing up in physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="44deebde-0f30-4cdb-bea3-30a9ee9f05bc" CreationDate="2016-02-08T05:46:21.990" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; that do and do not require time and effort for a moderator on each action on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about way to *not* make unnecessary work for the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and foremost thing to do is to pay attention to how *your* flags are resolved. Click on the &quot;helpful flags&quot; test in your profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every time a flag is declined you're being told that the moderator who processed it thought you were wasting their time. If you're doing a good overall job of flagging your helpful flags will outnumber your declined ones by a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, stop adding bad or out-of-place content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Every comment posted as an answer is flagged and most come to a moderator's attention.&#xD;&#xA;* Every answer that doesn't come anywhere even close to answering a question gets flagged and most of those come to a moderator's attention. &#xD;&#xA;* Every question without a clear physics question gets flagged and most come to a moderator's attention.&#xD;&#xA;* Every question so garbled that the average reader has no idea what it's about generates flags and most come to a moderator's attention. &#xD;&#xA;* Every time someone posts three or four badly written variants of the same questions generates flags which come to a moderator's attention.&#xD;&#xA;* Every time someone flags a question because they want it re-opened they are directly making work ***and*** it won't help them because we expect the review queue to take care of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HE9Ic.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20521" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="dbc871d4-23e8-4be8-8662-c5598339318b" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:24:03.030" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:59215,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;0celo7&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="1134e931-5326-44a1-9fea-d2b62048c815" CreationDate="2016-02-08T18:50:33.463" UserId="52028" Text="I have searched meta questions, but I find nothing about what is necessary to do to have the yellow *This question may already have an answer here* text from one's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has appeared at the top of [this recent question][1] of mine with a link to [an answer][2], which I have studied and understood, to [a question][3], which is also mine (notwithstanding the fact that I am not a teenage student, but an adult worker wishing to study physics and mathematics just for love of these sciences, I am not so old as to forget a question I asked one month ago), which is blatantly different from my new question, as it is clear from the very title, although both relates to the derivation of Ampère's law from the Biot-Savart one, the older question in the case of a linear distribution of current, and the newer in the case of a tridimensional distribution of current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were possible to generalise a proof for the case of the linear distribution to the case of the tridimensional distribution, such a generalisation should be proved, and could even constitute an answer, but, unless such a generalisation is produced, I wonder how can my new question be considered a duplicate...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to contact the moderators by flagging my question and explaining the issue, but I suspect that something has not worked, since I honestly do not think that a moderator, or any other person, having fully read the two posts or even only their titles, would ever think that the two posts are duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue constitutes a problem for me because I have even been told [in a comment][4] that the words I had added at the top of my post (which were *This question focusses on the tridimensional distribution of current, different from the case discussed in another post of mine, whose answer relates to a linear distribution where* **B**(**x**) = [...] *is a line integral. I wrote it from the very beginning - and it also is definitely clear even from the very title - but it did not prevent the appearing of a &quot;duplicate&quot; message above*) were a distraction keeping answerers away, but I frankly have to admit that I fear that the *This question may already have an answer here* warning may keep potential answerer away even more than the text I had written before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/rigorous-proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227477/amp%C3%A8res-law-from-biot-savart-law-for-linear-currents-with-multivariate-calculus/227557#227557&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227477/amp%C3%A8res-law-from-biot-savart-law-for-linear-currents-with-multivariate-calculus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/rigorous-proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law#comment512016_234360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="1134e931-5326-44a1-9fea-d2b62048c815" CreationDate="2016-02-08T18:50:33.463" UserId="52028" Text="&quot;This question may already have an answer here&quot; warning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="1134e931-5326-44a1-9fea-d2b62048c815" CreationDate="2016-02-08T18:50:33.463" UserId="52028" Text="|support|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7507" RevisionGUID="4088876d-0bbd-449c-a2d4-3ba086bb0c4f" CreationDate="2016-02-08T19:16:16.503" UserId="50583" Text="No one except you can see that banner, so it will not &quot;deter potential answerers&quot;. It is a message designed to streamline the duplicate close vote procedure, and give askers the opportunity to shorten the process if they agree with the vote, and force them to make their question more precise if they don't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your edit is *not* supposed to become an explicit argument for why your question should not be closed as duplicate, rather, the edit should focus on *stressing* the aspects of the question that are different, and *contrasting* it with the duplicate to make clear why the duplicate does not solve your problem. In particular, do not explicitly reference &quot;duplicate votes&quot; in the edit or use &quot;Edit:&quot; to mark it - a post is supposed to stand on its own, without knowledge of its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on this comparatively recent feature see [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/250981/263383)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="46c6e83e-4a7c-4cf5-ab0c-fa007114fc72" CreationDate="2016-02-08T22:27:26.970" UserId="8563" Text="We've all seen them: short comments saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/..., and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we've all seen bunches of useful links to closely-related questions on the `Linked` sidebar over on the right, which are a very useful way to navigate the site. Also, you know what's useful for navigating the site? Correctly-tagged posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that happens by itself, but mostly it requires active attention and maintenance, and while we all do our equal share, some users have more equal shares than others in this game. I've been keeping my eye on some of the stats, and we just passed a milestone I would like not to go by unmarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A single user is responsible for [over 3000 comments of the form &quot;Related:...&quot; or &quot;...therein&quot;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/382526/qmechanics-amazing-post-linking-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - For comparison, [the next user down has 150 such comments](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433533/users-by-related-and-therein-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - Freeing the query from that particular form, this user has [4500 comments that include an in-site link, to &lt;1k by the next user down](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433534/users-by-in-site-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - This user also has [eleven times more tag edits than the next most prolific tag editor](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433535/users-by-number-of-tag-edits).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this has a very definite, very positive impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know who you are. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="46c6e83e-4a7c-4cf5-ab0c-fa007114fc72" CreationDate="2016-02-08T22:27:26.970" UserId="8563" Text="In praise of &quot;... and links therein&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="46c6e83e-4a7c-4cf5-ab0c-fa007114fc72" CreationDate="2016-02-08T22:27:26.970" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|moderators|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="44abeb28-f77b-417c-b460-c4180ae1d142" CreationDate="2016-02-08T22:44:39.083" UserId="52028" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I have searched meta questions, but I find nothing about what is necessary to do to have the yellow *This question may already have an answer here* text removed from one's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has appeared at the top of [this recent question][1] of mine with a link to [an answer][2], which I have studied and understood, to [a question][3], which is also mine (notwithstanding the fact that I am not a teenage student, but an adult worker wishing to study physics and mathematics just for love of these sciences, I am not so old as to forget a question I asked one month ago), which is blatantly different from my new question, as it is clear from the very title, although both relates to the derivation of Ampère's law from the Biot-Savart one, the older question in the case of a linear distribution of current, and the newer in the case of a tridimensional distribution of current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were possible to generalise a proof for the case of the linear distribution to the case of the tridimensional distribution, such a generalisation should be proved, and could even constitute an answer, but, unless such a generalisation is produced, I wonder how can my new question be considered a duplicate...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to contact the moderators by flagging my question and explaining the issue, but I suspect that something has not worked, since I honestly do not think that a moderator, or any other person, having fully read the two posts or even only their titles, would ever think that the two posts are duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue constitutes a problem for me because I have even been told [in a comment][4] that the words I had added at the top of my post (which were *This question focusses on the tridimensional distribution of current, different from the case discussed in another post of mine, whose answer relates to a linear distribution where* **B**(**x**) = [...] *is a line integral. I wrote it from the very beginning - and it also is definitely clear even from the very title - but it did not prevent the appearing of a &quot;duplicate&quot; message above*) were a distraction keeping answerers away, but I frankly have to admit that I fear that the *This question may already have an answer here* warning may keep potential answerer away even more than the text I had written before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/rigorous-proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227477/amp%C3%A8res-law-from-biot-savart-law-for-linear-currents-with-multivariate-calculus/227557#227557&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227477/amp%C3%A8res-law-from-biot-savart-law-for-linear-currents-with-multivariate-calculus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/rigorous-proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law#comment512016_234360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="93fbff84-473b-431f-b0e6-42024876efd0" CreationDate="2016-02-08T23:00:20.420" UserId="8563" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="We've all seen them: short comments saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/..., and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we've all seen bunches of useful links to closely-related questions on the `Linked` sidebar over on the right, which are a very useful way to navigate the site. Also, you know what's useful for navigating the site? Correctly-tagged posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that happens by itself, but mostly it requires active attention and maintenance, and while we all do our equal share, some users have more equal shares than others in this game. I've been keeping my eye on some of the stats, and we just passed a milestone I would like not to go by unmarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A single user is responsible for [over 3000 comments of the form &quot;Related:...&quot; or &quot;...therein&quot;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/382526/qmechanics-amazing-post-linking-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - For comparison, [the next user down has 150 such comments](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433533/users-by-related-and-therein-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - Freeing the query from that particular form, this user has [4500 comments that include an in-site link, to &lt;1k by the next user down](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433534/users-by-in-site-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - This user also has [eleven times more tag edits than the next most prolific tag editor](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433535/users-by-number-of-tag-edits), at the completely mind-boggling count of 19,920 such edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this has a very definite, very positive impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know who you are. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20531" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="d607d0d4-cac6-4c0e-bc39-9d3283e59e9b" CreationDate="2016-02-09T13:38:06.493" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="This is not a forum." Text="What constitutes an answer to a physics question in Physics Stack Exchnage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="afcf0cc9-ba83-4e13-a440-6dff43941195" CreationDate="2016-02-09T14:51:53.517" UserId="6634" Comment="If one is going to change the title, one should at least spell correctly. Also, naming the site is superfluous. " Text="On this page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203449/dr-pierre-marie-robitaille-on-the-validity-of-kirchhoffs-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are the following comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this might enlighten you rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille . There was a discussion here on his cosmic background radiation ideas, which really are bizarre. – anna v Sep 1 '15 at 2:44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are being too kind--indeed inaccurate--by calling it &quot;highly controversial&quot;. He's completely wrong and everyone knows it. There's no &quot;controversy&quot; here at all. – Steve B Sep 4 '15 at 13:36*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Looks like you're right, Steve. I saw the rationalwiki link anna v posted above, he's not just making a strange misunderstanding of a physics law, but rather there is some weird motivation about disproving the standard explanation of the cosmic microwave background. – Nanite Sep 8 '15 at 7:07*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do the above remarks answer the physics question on the page cited above, or are they just irrelevant comments? If the latter why was the following 'comment' deleted by the administrators?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nanite - You are mistaken. Professor Robitaille has NOT claimed that epsilon/alpha is dependent upon angle. What he has argued is that unless a cavity contains a black material, such as soot, at thermal equilibrium, the radiation within the cavity is NOT black, and so the radiation always depends upon the nature of the cavity walls, contrary to Kirchhoff who asserted, without any experimental evidence, that the radiation is independent of the nature and form of the cavity walls. Also, thermal equilibrium CAN and IS reached by arbitrary materials, but unless the material is black, the radiation is not black. At thermal equilibrium Stewart's Law applies, i.e. emission = absorption. It does not follow that the emission and absorption are total (i.e. black). Arbitrary materials have reflection as well (unless the material is black when reflection = 0). Reflection cannot build up a black field on its own without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, and so it does not. Reflection can build up a black field only if it can be driven by input of energy via the walls and a black material, such as a piece of carbon in contact with the walls. In the case of arbitrary cavity walls, infusion of heat into the walls will not produce enough photons from the walls to build black radiation inside the cavity because the temperature of the cavity walls will rise, and thereby drop out of thermal equilibrium.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20533" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="afcf0cc9-ba83-4e13-a440-6dff43941195" CreationDate="2016-02-09T14:51:53.517" UserId="6634" Comment="If one is going to change the title, one should at least spell correctly. Also, naming the site is superfluous. " Text="What constitutes an answer to a physics question on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="2e86c02e-28b5-449b-9c2b-de15da28eaa2" CreationDate="2016-02-09T19:19:08.273" UserId="106205" Text="Well Thank you folks. This is wonderful site. I got on to it recently and think should have found it long back. Answers here helped me to get rid of the mystery surrounding my mind in context of quantum entanglement. Now the observed behavior makes complete sense, which is a big relief for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest/request adding experiment groups where people can collaborate with local folks to carry out interesting experiments.&#xD;&#xA;This is specially applicable to quantum entanglement experiments because it is hard to get access to such equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally wish to do few variations of the experiment to verify a semi quantum semi classical explanation of entanglement behavior.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="2e86c02e-28b5-449b-9c2b-de15da28eaa2" CreationDate="2016-02-09T19:19:08.273" UserId="106205" Text="Adding groups called experiments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="2e86c02e-28b5-449b-9c2b-de15da28eaa2" CreationDate="2016-02-09T19:19:08.273" UserId="106205" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="fc2d8e55-a42a-45bb-89da-0d688474f73b" CreationDate="2016-02-09T20:25:18.047" UserId="520" Text="&gt; *I suggest/request adding experiment groups where people can collaborate [...]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a dead end on Stack Exchange. These site were designed from the ground up to be good at one thing: getting good answers to good questions quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you propose requires a different interaction model, so it's not going to happen. But you don't need to take my word for it: go over to [the mother meta][1] and poke around for [questions suggesting way to use Stack Overflow or Stack Exchange as a collaboration platform][2] (that search isn't as good as I'd like, but it is not an easy thing to search for) and see how they were met.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=collaboration%20[feature-request]%20is%3Aq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20538" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="3e059d7e-841f-4ce0-a0ec-ab2488e89b7c" CreationDate="2016-02-11T03:30:21.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/697623679795126276" />
  <row Id="20539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7511" RevisionGUID="6e5c462f-b758-4274-941f-1afdf8e82045" CreationDate="2016-02-11T07:36:53.443" UserId="6432" Text="&quot;no one is using maths just for its own sake&quot; ?  Au contraire, all too many answers simply calculate, throwing spherical harmonics at the problem, without considering the physical meaning (or possible symmetries) at all.  Yes, maths is a language, but as with all writing, one should strive to use the simplest words possible, plain English, and not a slew of catch-phrases and verbiage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the OP requests it or not, we should always strive to use as little maths as possible, even at the cost of imprecision and not making it clear how it should be generalised to other situations.  This is parallel to the common feeling among mathematicians that the best proof is a &quot;conceptual&quot; one, that uses the properties of the objects concerned, and as few formulas as possible, rather than &quot;a tedious calculation yields the result.  The details are omitted for reasons of space&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="ab2c6c6a-32df-4db2-afce-48517db6dac4" CreationDate="2016-02-11T17:13:01.923" UserId="6432" Text="Recently,and my browser and configuration have not changed, hardly any maths formulas are exhibited in the question.  Sometimes there is not even a red phrase about an error...nothing to indicate that the formula or symbol is missing.  Has the site changed its rendering or something? &#xD;&#xA;     And this is recent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="ab2c6c6a-32df-4db2-afce-48517db6dac4" CreationDate="2016-02-11T17:13:01.923" UserId="6432" Text="Math rendering errors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="ab2c6c6a-32df-4db2-afce-48517db6dac4" CreationDate="2016-02-11T17:13:01.923" UserId="6432" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7513" RevisionGUID="ec4218be-96af-44b5-ac09-c5eef169d719" CreationDate="2016-02-12T02:36:34.750" UserId="6432" Text="It seems as though reloading the page resolves the issue.  But this never used to be necessary.  I will keep myself posted, and thanks for the suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="455c40ce-2ad4-4d84-aa3b-be46cd4948ca" CreationDate="2016-02-12T02:41:01.373" UserId="6432" Comment="more info, per commenter's request" Text="Recently,and my browser and configuration have not changed, hardly any maths formulas are exhibited in the question.  Sometimes there is not even a red phrase about an error...nothing to indicate that the formula or symbol is missing.  Has the site changed its rendering or something? &#xD;&#xA;     And this is recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OS is Redhat Linux 17 like for years.  Browser is Mozilla firefox 37.0.2, like for years.  And I didn't have this problem last week..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7514" RevisionGUID="b074e870-7e63-4e2b-9a22-46424c2a856c" CreationDate="2016-02-12T11:19:27.647" UserId="1325" Text="Right, the first draft is now at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All comments welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="6c5d341e-8b9b-47bd-9b91-6c2997c32e65" CreationDate="2016-02-13T00:25:18.880" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="cf1a0c5c-98e3-4c79-88dd-7bc7b7b88964" CreationDate="2016-02-13T04:47:58.823" UserId="93522" Text="[![Discover our universe][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jOkG5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="be3836a8-5730-43ce-a364-89c3322495e8" CreationDate="2016-02-13T14:39:44.500" UserId="27853" Comment="edited body" Text="[![cryptography.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AkQzj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://crypto.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="dc565175-e5f2-4966-a9fe-d696c22e1f66" CreationDate="2016-02-13T22:09:16.167" UserId="10908" Text="&gt; What peer review style questions are acceptable to ask on Physics SE and what actions, if any, should be taken against unacceptable questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I originally encountered [this question][1] and its accompanying comments (note the question has since been edited), the asker appeared to be making clear the only acceptable answers for the question were ones that would require a full peer review of an older article, a second paper linked in the post, or both. The linked question may have other issues that I do not intend to address with this meta question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally of the belief that there was likely a rule against such a request, I searched the wiki in vain for something that mentions it. I asked a moderator in Physics SE chat for an opinion, and the response suggested ambiguity in the actions that would be appropriate in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question was eventually put on hold as &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot; A [comment][2] by one of the closers states it is because the question should be self-contained, a problem any peer review style question would almost certainly share. A [later comment][3] on the same question states that Physics SE is not a substitute for peer review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will produce some example fictional questions with commentary here to illustrate what I'm asking about and the variety of questions that could elicit varying responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it seems likely questions of this type will overlap with non-mainstream physics questions, which are against the rules according to the site wiki. In these example questions I will assume they are asking about mainstream physics, but it is possibly worth describing how they would be dealt with differently if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) `I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could be everything from a misunderstanding of the situation to a literal request that we review the article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) `I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question improves upon the previous one by asking about a specific part of the paper, but it's unclear whether or not it is appropriate to expect site members to go through the entire paper to address the concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) `I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) `I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what types of questions could be asked, but is merely intended to be a small list of examples illustrating variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the opinion of the community for how peer review questions should be dealt with and why? How should I report the ones deemed inappropriate? Should there be any uniform approach here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513059_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513934_234449" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="dc565175-e5f2-4966-a9fe-d696c22e1f66" CreationDate="2016-02-13T22:09:16.167" UserId="10908" Text="Is Physics SE an appropriate location for peer review?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="dc565175-e5f2-4966-a9fe-d696c22e1f66" CreationDate="2016-02-13T22:09:16.167" UserId="10908" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="ca843138-51dd-4e15-a565-f1f9dfbd0a65" CreationDate="2016-02-13T22:19:05.133" UserId="10908" Comment="added scope tag" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="d5768e3e-ea9e-4ec9-980d-893b3b6e79ea" CreationDate="2016-02-13T22:57:09.253" UserId="10908" Comment="clarified non-mainstream" Text="&gt; What peer review style questions are acceptable to ask on Physics SE and what actions, if any, should be taken against unacceptable questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I originally encountered [this question][1] and its accompanying comments (note the question has since been edited), the asker appeared to be making clear the only acceptable answers for the question were ones that would require a full peer review of an older article, a second paper linked in the post, or both. The linked question may have other issues that I do not intend to address with this meta question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally of the belief that there was likely a rule against such a request, I searched the wiki in vain for something that mentions it. I asked a moderator in Physics SE chat for an opinion, and the response suggested ambiguity in the actions that would be appropriate in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question was eventually put on hold as &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot; A [comment][2] by one of the closers states it is because the question should be self-contained, a problem any peer review style question would almost certainly share. A [later comment][3] on the same question states that Physics SE is not a substitute for peer review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will produce some example fictional questions with commentary here to illustrate what I'm asking about and the variety of questions that could elicit varying responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it seems likely questions of this type will overlap with non-mainstream physics questions, which are deemed inappropriate according to the [Help Center][4]. In these example questions I will assume they are asking about mainstream physics, but it is possibly worth describing how they would be dealt with differently if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) `I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could be everything from a misunderstanding of the situation to a literal request that we review the article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) `I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question improves upon the previous one by asking about a specific part of the paper, but it's unclear whether or not it is appropriate to expect site members to go through the entire paper to address the concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) `I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) `I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what types of questions could be asked, but is merely intended to be a small list of examples illustrating variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the opinion of the community for how peer review questions should be dealt with and why? How should I report the ones deemed inappropriate? Should there be any uniform approach here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513059_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513934_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="3e17613a-1033-4594-a6ef-163d01850ddd" CreationDate="2016-02-13T23:05:57.447" UserId="10908" Comment="help center" Text="&gt; What peer review style questions are acceptable to ask on Physics SE and what actions, if any, should be taken against unacceptable questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I originally encountered [this question][1] and its accompanying comments (note the question has since been edited), the asker appeared to be making clear the only acceptable answers for the question were ones that would require a full peer review of an older article, a second paper linked in the post, or both. The linked question may have other issues that I do not intend to address with this meta question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally of the belief that there was likely a rule against such a request, I searched the Help Center in vain for something that mentions it. I asked a moderator in Physics SE chat for an opinion, and the response suggested ambiguity in the actions that would be appropriate in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question was eventually put on hold as &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot; A [comment][2] by one of the closers states it is because the question should be self-contained, a problem any peer review style question would almost certainly share. A [later comment][3] on the same question states that Physics SE is not a substitute for peer review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will produce some example fictional questions with commentary here to illustrate what I'm asking about and the variety of questions that could elicit varying responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it seems likely questions of this type will overlap with non-mainstream physics questions, which are deemed inappropriate according to the [Help Center][4]. In these example questions I will assume they are asking about mainstream physics, but it is possibly worth describing how they would be dealt with differently if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) `I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could be everything from a misunderstanding of the situation to a literal request that we review the article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) `I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question improves upon the previous one by asking about a specific part of the paper, but it's unclear whether or not it is appropriate to expect site members to go through the entire paper to address the concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) `I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) `I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what types of questions could be asked, but is merely intended to be a small list of examples illustrating variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the opinion of the community for how peer review questions should be dealt with and why? How should I report the ones deemed inappropriate? Should there be any uniform approach here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513059_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513934_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="74644f4a-0f79-4120-b8bd-e704af8c56df" CreationDate="2016-02-14T02:09:25.157" UserId="10908" Comment="changed rendering" Text="&gt; What peer review style questions are acceptable to ask on Physics SE and what actions, if any, should be taken against unacceptable questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I originally encountered [this question][1] and its accompanying comments (note the question has since been edited), the asker appeared to be making clear the only acceptable answers for the question were ones that would require a full peer review of an older article, a second paper linked in the post, or both. The linked question may have other issues that I do not intend to address with this meta question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally of the belief that there was likely a rule against such a request, I searched the Help Center in vain for something that mentions it. I asked a moderator in Physics SE chat for an opinion, and the response suggested ambiguity in the actions that would be appropriate in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question was eventually put on hold as &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot; A [comment][2] by one of the closers states it is because the question should be self-contained, a problem any peer review style question would almost certainly share. A [later comment][3] on the same question states that Physics SE is not a substitute for peer review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will produce some example fictional questions with commentary here to illustrate what I'm asking about and the variety of questions that could elicit varying responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it seems likely questions of this type will overlap with non-mainstream physics questions, which are deemed inappropriate according to the [Help Center][4]. In these example questions I will assume they are asking about mainstream physics, but it is possibly worth describing how they would be dealt with differently if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could be everything from a misunderstanding of the situation to a literal request that we review the article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question improves upon the previous one by asking about a specific part of the paper, but it's unclear whether or not it is appropriate to expect site members to go through the entire paper to address the concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. `I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what types of questions could be asked, but is merely intended to be a small list of examples illustrating variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the opinion of the community for how peer review questions should be dealt with and why? How should I report the ones deemed inappropriate? Should there be any uniform approach here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513059_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513934_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="6a95dccc-7753-435d-9733-98c8f2619b2f" CreationDate="2016-02-14T02:39:33.167" UserId="8563" Text="Generally speaking: **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is very definitely not a *replacement* of traditional peer review. We simply do not have a community that is broad and varied enough to connect a given paper with an expert that is sufficiently qualified, interested enough, and with enough available time, to review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is also not a very good *venue* for peer review, generally because it leads to a much broader discussion than the format can really accommodate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For one, there's a mechanics issue: peer review requieres back-and-forth discussion over a long list of specific issues, which the Q&amp;A format does not handle well at all, and the discussion will be left as a sorry mess of interlinking questions, answers, comments, edits to the question, edits to the answers, comments pointing to revision histories, more edits to the answers, and so on. This is completely opposite to the purpose of this site, which is (roughly) providing a useful resource for future visitors which can be parsed immediately without going through ten pages of forum discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are also a bunch of actual problems, which depend on the specific way the request is phrased. So let's go over your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much too broad. It can depend on the specifics of the question (particularly if it's halfway between here and type 2) but in general these should be flagged/close-voted as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a reason why we close things as Too Broad, and it is that they are particularly unrewarding to answer. A question that is Too Broad as posed tends to require enormous amounts of work to answer (more commensurate with a full paper or even textbook than a simple ~blog post) and it is beyond what you really should be asking of strangers on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, if someone does try to answer, there is a definite danger that the OP will not be satisfied: &quot;you did all of that work over on that side, but I was actually interested on that bit over there&quot;, so that huge amount of work comes with little reward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why we require that questions be posed in a way that an answer can be recognized as such, and not as soliciting essays on a given topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, depending on the tone, this is a very tricky question to ask, because we're not here to engage in long-winded discussions. In particular, if it appears that the OP already has made up their mind about the topic and they are only here to stir up controversy (as was definitely the case in the posts you link to, but with several milder variants also possible) then the thread is a non-starter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are here to respond to specific, answerable questions, not to engage in long-winded back-and-forth discussions which can be incredibly draining of time, energy, and passion for engaging with random strangers' curiosity on the internet. Questions which are a bait-and-switch, pretending to be the former but obviously hiding a huge chunk of the latter, are very identifiable as a drain of experts' time and energy which should be spent elsewhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases, the close/flag reason Primarily Opinion Based applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much more workable. Depending on how specific the post is it could still be too broad, but in general that just describes a bona fide question about a paper in the literature. Prospective answerers know what are the concepts that need clarifying, and if there are obvious issues with the work they can be brought out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As posed, this can be a legitimate request for an evaluation of contradicting literature. However, there is very little we can do here: depending on exactly how this is phrased, it amounts to a request of full peer review of not one but two papers, and this is really beyond our scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there's very little chance that we'll be able to produce anything near definitive - our community is simply not big enough - and providing inconclusive answers for the consumption of the internet does very little to set the record straight and much to cloud it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless it is very obvious that there is an objective answer (e.g. the second paper makes a very compelling case, with only a very weak response from the authors of the first one), this is probably over the Primarily Objection Based line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reads as a bona fide, self-contained question: is the argument the OP laid down correct, or not? (Unless, that is, the OP outsources the [outline] to some other journal paper, possibly of their authorship, in which case 'self-contained' obviously does not apply.) Prospective answerers are given a specific thing to address, with sufficient context, so this is probably a good use of the site and its resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a question. The post solicits essays and opinions, and there is no criterion at all for when an 'answer' is 'correct' or not. This is textbook flag/closevote as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, with questions of this type, it is generally unclear what it is the OP actually wants from the post. Do they want community acceptance to rain down on them? Are they soliciting expert opinions about the correctness or significance of the paper? If so, exactly which experts, and which sections of the community, are they hoping to engage with, and what guarantees do they have that they frequent the site and will see the paper? (Again, we're not big enough to undertake this sort of thing.) Are they expecting problems with their paper to actually surface? (And, if so, will they react in a civil way once they do? Is that something prospective answerers can count on just from reading the question?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post does actually detail the claim, then this passes the self-containment bar, but it's still not really a question. What is it the OP wants? cf. the above, and again Too Broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few extra comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The business of bringing together manuscripts that need review with referees with enough time and expertise to review them is a Hard Thing. Academic publishing has sort of kind of got it down to a reasonable standard (but even they still fail often enough at it). At least, they've got it to a standard that has a kind-of acceptable rate of letting bad stuff through, and they've reached some form of equilibrium between the spectrum of (always take the literature with a grain of salt) / (if it's published it at least had a qualified set of eyeballs on it) versus how much energy the community can spend refereeing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are all sorts of problems with the current peer review model in academic publishing (though physics seems luckily to be less troubled than medicinal chemistry and psychology) and there are all sorts of problems with academic publishing in general. Non-commercial (or small enterprise) academic publishing has done a good bit over the past decade pushing this process to a place where the peer review does only require a talented and well-connected volunteer editor (without the overhead of an editorial office), but even then it's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Hoping that just putting a random collection of internet strangers from all over physics next to a random collection of manuscripts about all sorts of topics will somehow manage to work, and work better than academic publishing, has always seemed very strange to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On another track, we're not alone on the attitudes I detailed above. MathOverflow, in particular, is much better posed as a site for professional mathematicians, and they make it pretty clear that they too are no substitute for peer review, cf. [Using Math Overflow to check whether or not a proof is correct](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265/using-math-overflow-to-check-whether-or-not-a-proof-is-correct) and [On discussion of published papers at MO](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2328/on-discussion-of-published-papers-at-mo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, [PhysicsOverflow](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) does have an [open paper refereeing section](http://physicsoverflow.org/activity/refereeing), which you can check out and see how it's working. If you're looking to solicit feedback on a manuscript, that's one place to turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7518" RevisionGUID="8737e4e8-9662-4c6b-ade5-ff7c54566600" CreationDate="2016-02-14T02:43:39.803" UserId="25301" Text="I firs want to state that, in general, &quot;Am I right&quot; and &quot;Is this correct&quot; type questions are usually terrible questions to ask here because the answer, &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no,&quot; is not long enough to be a valid answer on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that many questions that are closed as off-topic can be easily modified (by OP) to be reopened, peer-review type questions are probably among these. The presentation of the question should be clear and specific, asking the very broad &quot;can you review this n-page-long paper&quot; is a quick way to lose rep (downvotes) and get it closed. However, beating around the bush can *also* be viewed as duplicitous and get some downvotes and a close vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Off-topic: it's definitively **too broad** to be answered here.&#xD;&#xA;2. Can be On-topic: If the question were *can you explain why X is the case here?* would be alright. One could do better with, *I'd expect Y to be the case, but they argue X the case; why is that?*&#xD;&#xA;3. Off topic: we are not a peer review system.&#xD;&#xA;4. Can be On-topic: it could be too broad if OP is critiquing too much of the article, but if it's a small enough section I'd think it okay (though, for similar reasons as `2.`, it could use some work).&#xD;&#xA;5. Off-topic: it's basically spam and hardly about physics&#xD;&#xA;6. Off-topic: as written, it's not a question and what question could be there is the terrible type of &quot;am I right&quot; questions mentioned at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say it's probably safe to say it's likely that peer review type questions **will get closed as off-topic**, but there may be ways to get around that. It **definitely** will require the OP to *present the arguments the paper gives in detail* and **not** require a potential answerer to download &amp; read a paper. And it will require asking a specific physics concept about that section (e.g., &quot;How is this claim made?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="0ac5a615-1f3d-457f-869b-e990f2c5d99d" CreationDate="2016-02-14T03:25:13.420" UserId="93868" Text="I posted a question 2 days ago, which I think is reasonably well worded and clear to understand, but it has no response:&#xA;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/235551/93868&#xA;&#xA;Generally when I post a question, I get an answer within a few hours. If not an answer, I at least get a response of some sort: a comment, upvote or downvote. What I want to know: &#xA;&#xA;1) How long does someone generally need to wait before getting a response?&#xA;&#xA;2) What should you do to get your question noticed if you get no response at all?&#xA;&#xA;(I assumed two days is enough to take care of the time zone differences. Also, I think after a longer period of time, the question will be drowned with all the newer ones and may never be seen.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="0ac5a615-1f3d-457f-869b-e990f2c5d99d" CreationDate="2016-02-14T03:25:13.420" UserId="93868" Text="How long should I wait to get a question answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="0ac5a615-1f3d-457f-869b-e990f2c5d99d" CreationDate="2016-02-14T03:25:13.420" UserId="93868" Text="|discussion|support|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="ad4f4fa6-dc80-4bd2-af2c-34f0f0811ebc" CreationDate="2016-02-14T03:31:24.593" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I posted a question 2 days ago, which I think is reasonably well worded and clear to understand, but it has no response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/235551/93868&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally when I post a question, I get an answer within a few hours. If not an answer, I at least get a response of some sort: a comment, upvote or downvote. What I want to know: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) How long does someone generally need to wait before getting a response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) What should you do to get your question noticed if you get no response at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I assumed two days is enough to take care of the time zone differences. Also, I think after a longer period of time, the question will be drowned with all the newer ones and may never be seen.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="ad4f4fa6-dc80-4bd2-af2c-34f0f0811ebc" CreationDate="2016-02-14T03:31:24.593" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7518" RevisionGUID="0f29a2df-b4b1-436d-a2ca-7a1df86a45a9" CreationDate="2016-02-14T03:45:17.013" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I first want to state that, in general, &quot;Am I right&quot; and &quot;Is this correct&quot; type questions are usually terrible questions to ask here because the answer, &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no,&quot; is not long enough to be a valid answer on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that many questions that are closed as off-topic can be easily modified (by OP) to be reopened, peer-review type questions are probably among these. The presentation of the question should be clear and specific, asking the very broad &quot;can you review this n-page-long paper&quot; is a quick way to lose rep (downvotes) and get it closed. However, beating around the bush can *also* be viewed as duplicitous and get some downvotes and a close vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Off-topic: it's definitively **too broad** to be answered here.&#xD;&#xA;2. Can be On-topic: If the question were *can you explain why X is the case here?* would be alright. One could do better with, *I'd expect Y to be the case, but they argue X the case; why is that?*&#xD;&#xA;3. Off topic: we are not a peer review system.&#xD;&#xA;4. Can be On-topic: it could be too broad if OP is critiquing too much of the article, but if it's a small enough section I'd think it okay (though, for similar reasons as `2.`, it could use some work).&#xD;&#xA;5. Off-topic: it's basically spam and hardly about physics&#xD;&#xA;6. Off-topic: as written, it's not a question and what question could be there is the terrible type of &quot;am I right&quot; questions mentioned at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say it's probably safe to say it's likely that peer review type questions **will get closed as off-topic**, but there may be ways to get around that. It **definitely** will require the OP to *present the arguments the paper gives in detail* and **not** require a potential answerer to download &amp; read a paper. And it will require asking a specific physics concept about that section (e.g., &quot;How is this claim made?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="00d89a1a-c3b8-4e52-8be3-af7b4950b307" CreationDate="2016-02-14T09:43:03.340" UserId="10908" Comment="clarified" Text="&gt; What peer review style questions are acceptable to ask on Physics SE and what actions, if any, should be taken against unacceptable questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I originally encountered [this question][1] and its accompanying comments (note the question has since been edited), the asker appeared to be making clear the only acceptable answers for the question were ones that would require a full peer review of an older article, a second paper linked in the post, or both. The linked question may have other issues that I do not intend to address with this meta question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally of the belief that there was likely a rule against such a request, I searched the Help Center in vain for something that mentions it. I asked an active user in Physics SE chat for an opinion, and the response suggested ambiguity in the actions that would be appropriate in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question was eventually put on hold as &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot; A [comment][2] by one of the closers states it is because the question should be self-contained, a problem any peer review style question would almost certainly share. A [later comment][3] on the same question states that Physics SE is not a substitute for peer review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will produce some example fictional questions with commentary here to illustrate what I'm asking about and the variety of questions that could elicit varying responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it seems likely questions of this type will overlap with non-mainstream physics questions, which are deemed inappropriate according to the [Help Center][4]. In these example questions I will assume they are asking about mainstream physics, but it is possibly worth describing how they would be dealt with differently if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could be everything from a misunderstanding of the situation to a literal request that we review the article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question improves upon the previous one by asking about a specific part of the paper, but it's unclear whether or not it is appropriate to expect site members to go through the entire paper to address the concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. `I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what types of questions could be asked, but is merely intended to be a small list of examples illustrating variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the opinion of the community for how peer review questions should be dealt with and why? How should I report the ones deemed inappropriate? Should there be any uniform approach here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513059_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513934_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7520" RevisionGUID="70a10ddd-5697-49a9-9743-673961cbc4d7" CreationDate="2016-02-14T11:18:09.203" UserId="124" Text="&gt; 1) How long does someone generally need to wait before getting a response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To properly answer this would take some data on the answering times of past questions, which might be available at the [SE data explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com), but off the top of my head I think 24 hours is a reasonable time to wait. After 24 hours, it's likely that most of the people who are going to look at your question have already done so. Of course, you might still get answers later; some questions take a long time to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) What should you do to get your question noticed if you get no response at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can bring it up in [chat](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and/or put a bounty on it to attract attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Editing also bumps it to the top of the active questions list, but you shouldn't overuse this. If there is a good edit to be made that significantly improves or clarifies the question, it's fine to strategically choose _when_ you make that edit so that it brings extra attention to the question. But it's not okay to make a bad or trivial edit just to bump the question, and it's not okay to make an excessive number of edits to keep it at the top of the list. (A rough rule of thumb is that any more than 3-4 edits is excessive, but this has a lot to do with how significant and useful the edits are.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="4d843287-26c6-4a2c-a4a8-01b22c2c7a64" CreationDate="2016-02-14T12:41:17.763" UserId="52028" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a certain domain, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][1] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][2] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="4d843287-26c6-4a2c-a4a8-01b22c2c7a64" CreationDate="2016-02-14T12:41:17.763" UserId="52028" Text="How much mathematics is allowed to be the focus of questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="4d843287-26c6-4a2c-a4a8-01b22c2c7a64" CreationDate="2016-02-14T12:41:17.763" UserId="52028" Text="|support|scope|questions|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="1e61a8e0-a8ba-44e0-b038-9188644c3e40" CreationDate="2016-02-14T13:30:59.377" UserId="52028" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a certain domain, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] question, linked by Qmechanic, whom I thank, is quite related to what I am asking here, but I am focussing on a rather different issue: the &quot;on-topicness&quot; of questions about mathematical proofs involving mathematical objects subjected to assumptions defined by the methods of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][2] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][3] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="7967c039-23fa-4c4e-a6e6-b40e3bdec4fd" CreationDate="2016-02-14T15:22:54.420" UserId="52028" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a *certain* subset -not necessarily all of the domain where the function is defined-, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] question, linked by Qmechanic, whom I thank, is quite related to what I am asking here, but I am focussing on a rather different issue: the &quot;on-topicness&quot; of questions about mathematical proofs involving mathematical objects subjected to assumptions defined by the methods of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][2] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][3] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="0fc11022-6910-4d13-b2f5-d36a9e058314" CreationDate="2016-02-15T12:22:36.790" UserId="23389" Text="I don't think I need to tell you that recently there was an historic discovery that captured the interest of the popular press and general public, as well, of course, as that of the broader scientific community. As a consequence, we saw many questions about LIGO (see the [ligo][1] tag); some simple, others more involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  moment, we deal with these events in an ad hoc manner, treating questions about them like any other questions. This works OK, and I applaud the efforts of those involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case (and in many similar cases), the announcement was anticipated. Though admittedly such occasions aren't that common, I wondered whether we were failing to exploit the full potential of PSE during similar moments of intense interest in a scientific result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Prepare high-quality questions and answers, or&#xD;&#xA; 2. Invite/encourage experimental groups to utilise PSE by e.g. having verified users (like on e.g. twitter) spending time answering a few questions, or&#xD;&#xA; 3. Organize a set of the best questions and answers about the topic, to make a cool resource, and e.g. display something like &quot;Coming here for LIGO? Click here&quot; on the main page&#xD;&#xA; 4. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? (preferably on the general idea rather than the concrete examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ligo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="0fc11022-6910-4d13-b2f5-d36a9e058314" CreationDate="2016-02-15T12:22:36.790" UserId="23389" Text="Maximizing potential of PSE around major announcements in physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="0fc11022-6910-4d13-b2f5-d36a9e058314" CreationDate="2016-02-15T12:22:36.790" UserId="23389" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="85b85c81-e506-442c-91c8-ed5692b66350" CreationDate="2016-02-15T12:55:16.440" UserId="23389" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="I don't think I need to tell you that recently there was an historic discovery that captured the interest of the popular press and general public, as well, of course, as that of the broader scientific community. As a consequence, we saw many questions about LIGO (see the [ligo][1] tag); some simple, others more involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  moment, we deal with these events in an ad hoc manner, treating questions about them like any other questions. This works OK, and I applaud the efforts of those involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case (and in many similar cases), the announcement was anticipated. Though admittedly such occasions aren't that common, I wondered whether we were failing to exploit the full potential of PSE during similar moments of intense interest in a scientific result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Prepare high-quality questions and answers in anticipation to make a cool resource, and e.g. display something like &quot;Coming here for LIGO? Click here&quot; on the main page, or &#xD;&#xA; 2. Invite/encourage experimental groups to utilise PSE by e.g. having verified users (like on e.g. twitter) spending time answering a few questions, or&#xD;&#xA; 3. Organize a set of the best questions and answers recieved about the topic (no prepared answers as in 1.), and as in 1., display them prominently&#xD;&#xA; 4. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? (preferably on the general idea rather than the concrete examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ligo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20576" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="00cff168-531a-45c1-9372-ab50abc8792c" CreationDate="2016-02-16T06:50:37.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/699486019872288768" />
  <row Id="20577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="ef5b0f3e-7841-49b1-9120-0e034a5a8fcb" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:35:01.987" UserId="105657" Text="I wanted to know something about the education in physics. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I like so-and-so field of physics. Then which course would be better for me to pursue in future? &#xD;&#xA; 2. I want to study something that is an intersection of Physics and some-other-field (Example: Computer Science). Which course would be better for me then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does this question belong to academia? But according to me, the physicists should be able to answer such question accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="ef5b0f3e-7841-49b1-9120-0e034a5a8fcb" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:35:01.987" UserId="105657" Text="Is it relevant to ask questions regarding careers in physics and not actually some physics concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="ef5b0f3e-7841-49b1-9120-0e034a5a8fcb" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:35:01.987" UserId="105657" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="982ef422-2243-4f10-90ba-b4612fb50478" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:49:31.740" UserId="124" Text="Questions about educational planning and careers are off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could check on [Academia](//academia.stackexchange.com) and see if they would take these questions there, but I suspect they don't. I think questions about academic planning are considered off topic unless they are relevant to grad students or professors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20581" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="8d8b826b-1615-4eeb-85fc-cd29083bfade" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:49:55.730" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="392665c0-a5ef-4ea3-a8fb-4fa42a81cfef" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:54:46.383" UserId="105657" Text="I asked a question on StackExchange:Engineering . It was active for few days. I edited it again, but I didn't get the response after that. Can I ask the theoretical part related to Physics that was used in that again on Physics? Is there anyway I can transfer the question to StackExchange:Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="392665c0-a5ef-4ea3-a8fb-4fa42a81cfef" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:54:46.383" UserId="105657" Text="Can I ask a question that I asked in the Engineering stack exchange here, if I don't receive the desired answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="392665c0-a5ef-4ea3-a8fb-4fa42a81cfef" CreationDate="2016-02-16T07:54:46.383" UserId="105657" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="93733e47-fcbc-4377-a9ed-bde15b652af0" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:11:08.767" UserId="124" Text="Sure, you can do this. There are two ways to go: first, if the question is off topic on Engineering, you can ask the moderators there to migrate it to Physics, in which case it will be removed from Engineering and sent over to us along with any existing answers and comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's on topic on Engineering, you can still post a version of the same question here on Physics. There are a few rules to follow when posting a question on multiple sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don't just copy and paste; instead, rewrite the question to focus on the aspects that are on topic for the site you're posting it on. (You could say that it's not really the _same_ question on multiple sites; it's different questions addressing different perspectives on the same underlying issue.)&#xD;&#xA;- If your reposted question would be quite similar to the original, wait a few days for a response to the original before reposting on another site. The idea is that we don't want nearly-identical questions active at the same time on different sites. (The more your repost differs from the original, the less important it is to wait.)&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever you do post a question on more than one site, make sure the repost includes a link to any previous versions of the question on other sites. For example, if you repost a question from Engineering on Physics, the one you post on Physics should include a link to the original question on Engineering. It's also probably a good idea to edit the original question on Engineering to include a link to the new post on Physics, though it's really up to the community at Engineering whether you should do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, you should check that the question actually is on topic on the new site and follows relevant policies, as you would with any other question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7527" RevisionGUID="bc9912f1-21c3-45f0-8a37-0fb98be1491c" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:39:17.957" UserId="1325" Text="I'm not a big fan of live Q/A because I don't think they produce really good answers. Personally I find a good answer requires me to go offline for a few minutes and think about exactly what is being asked and the best strategy for answering it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I think the chat session worked really well and was very enjoyable. many thanks to everyone involved. That is certainly worth doing again if a similar situation presents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strength of this site lies in the fact that we have knowledgable users who are willing to sit down and take the time to write well thought through answers, and I think we should continue to play to this strength. We aren't especially well positioned for instant science journalism and I don't think we should try. Pre-writing canonical Q/As is a nice idea, but in practice we could easily find ourselves wrong footed if we fail to anticipate the announcement correctly. Also writing canonical Q/As is a massively time consuming business and I doubt the resource to do it exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="e7dbb35e-937f-4c40-ad45-58c499559f81" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:41:22.633" UserId="124" Comment="add note about chat" Text="Questions about educational planning and careers are off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could check on [Academia](//academia.stackexchange.com) and see if they would take these questions there, but I suspect they don't. I think questions about academic planning are considered off topic unless they are relevant to grad students or professors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also bring up such questions in [our chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), although it gets less exposure there than on an SE site. You may or may not get good feedback depending on who is in chat at the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="0a03a4a8-fae3-4c52-8279-dba61f4a9d4e" CreationDate="2016-02-16T11:12:36.160" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I asked a question on StackExchange:Engineering. It was active for few days. I edited it again, but I didn't get the response after that. Can I ask the theoretical part related to Physics that was used in that again on Physics? Is there anyway I can transfer the question to StackExchange:Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="0a03a4a8-fae3-4c52-8279-dba61f4a9d4e" CreationDate="2016-02-16T11:12:36.160" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="a5d7c7ac-4d8b-4207-8afa-b08d1c3d3d29" CreationDate="2016-02-16T17:09:53.603" UserId="104538" Text="I'm pretty new here but I was struck by the number of duplicate questions about gravitational waves in the wake of the LIGO discovery a few days ago. This lead me to wonder, perhaps not uniquely, whether it might be prudent to have some sort of temporarily sticky FAQ type posts associated with such high profile news. If these posts stayed at the top for as long as the associated news item remained popular and if previous questions on the subject were collated in them that might discourage reposting of the same questions at least to some degree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="a5d7c7ac-4d8b-4207-8afa-b08d1c3d3d29" CreationDate="2016-02-16T17:09:53.603" UserId="104538" Text="Suggestion: sticky posts for topical questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="a5d7c7ac-4d8b-4207-8afa-b08d1c3d3d29" CreationDate="2016-02-16T17:09:53.603" UserId="104538" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7530" RevisionGUID="390a5117-121a-4595-aa25-33e73299961d" CreationDate="2016-02-17T16:44:19.383" UserId="124" Text="The system doesn't have the technical capability to do this. There are two options we do have for giving a question more exposure than usual:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Put a bounty on it, which causes it to show up on the &quot;featured&quot; tab and to get higher placement in the list of active questions&#xD;&#xA;- Put a link in the community bulletin, the yellow(?) box off to the right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these automatically catches the eye of every visitor the way a stickied question would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in principle this feature _could_ be added by the SE developers, but I suspect they wouldn't do it. Sticky posts are one of those forum-like features that I think they would consider to distract from the core Q&amp;A mission. And they'd be right, on Stack Overflow, but I do kind of see how that could be a useful feature (mod-only, presumably) on smaller communities like ours which actually have major events. Basically, it wouldn't hurt to bring it up, I just don't think there's much of a chance that would happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the underlying issue of reposted questions: the core problem seems to be that a lot of people just don't read. The SE people have been studying this for a long time. There are a lot of cases where very obviously placed notices don't stop people from doing exactly what the notices tell them not to do. Of course sticky posts wouldn't have to _completely_ block duplicate questions to be worthwhile, but it's quite possible that they would barely make a difference at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="a33efad5-1a81-4a3e-b359-f4861d8230ad" CreationDate="2016-02-17T22:27:30.543" UserId="90483" Text="[![Auto-Latex Equations add-on for Google Docs][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iPh7Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-latex-equations/iaainhiejkciadlhlodaajgbffkebdog?utm_source=physicsSOAd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="83f5ad8e-009a-4225-8685-57c0b0d99c50" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:43:59.297" UserId="124" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238159/are-derivations-of-physical-laws-less-important-than-the-laws-themselves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is attracting a lot of attention, but there is a significant disagreement about whether it's on topic. I want to bring it up here to give the issue more exposure. I don't think I can give any summary that would be an acceptable substitute for reading it, so go read [the question](//physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238159/are-derivations-of-physical-laws-less-important-than-the-laws-themselves), and consider this: should it be on topic? Why or why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary question: if it is on topic, what tags should it have? (other than [tag:soft-question])" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="83f5ad8e-009a-4225-8685-57c0b0d99c50" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:43:59.297" UserId="124" Text="Is this question about the meaning of derivations on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="83f5ad8e-009a-4225-8685-57c0b0d99c50" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:43:59.297" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7535" RevisionGUID="4bce5189-b222-4645-87d8-fd347ec7f938" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:49:59.633" UserId="124" Text="An answer to represent the reason I bring this up in the first place: I think the question is about the &quot;meta-study&quot; of how we do physics (epistemiology), or perhaps the process of physics, not about physics itself. It contains a specific example which is physics, yes, but the example is only used to illustrate the deeper issue actually being asked about, namely how derivations affect our knowledge of the validity of physical laws. I think this should be off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any topical tags we have that would meaningfully apply to this question, which I take to be (slight) evidence of it being off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7535" RevisionGUID="2b8a3237-96c3-4fbc-a661-592d6fd1a2c8" CreationDate="2016-02-18T18:00:04.327" UserId="124" Comment="expand discussion about tags" Text="An answer to represent the reason I bring this up in the first place: I think the question is about the &quot;meta-study&quot; of how we do physics (epistemiology), or perhaps the process of physics, not about physics itself. It contains a specific example which is physics, yes, but the example is only used to illustrate the deeper issue actually being asked about, namely how derivations affect our knowledge of the validity of physical laws. I think this should be off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any topical tags we have that would meaningfully apply to this question, which I take to be evidence in favor of it being off topic. It's a pretty general rule that if question is on topic, there should be at least one topical tag which characterizes what it's about (so, not things like [tag:soft-question] or [tag:homework-and-exercises]). We can, of course, create a new tag if the question really should be on topic but no appropriate topical tag exists, but we should think long and hard before doing so about why there was never a need for the new tag in the 5-year history of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7536" RevisionGUID="e3c0b088-2aae-49c3-8e6f-80833cd189d8" CreationDate="2016-02-18T18:26:07.260" UserId="81537" Text="It was not removed. The request was overlooked. Our apologies. We've now updated the site font to match more closely to Chemistry and Math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20617" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="c2ee957a-32ea-4926-9003-405cf5c5c392" CreationDate="2016-02-18T18:26:19.247" UserId="81537" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="c0f24a1e-ae7d-4c2a-8578-0ffcd73e74b4" CreationDate="2016-02-18T18:26:37.643" UserId="81537" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-completed|design|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="fad5fc10-043b-473f-9e75-9c804a0dadb5" CreationDate="2016-02-18T21:29:25.170" UserId="24653" Text="As you all might have noticed, our posts appear in a brand new font since today. However, there are some places where the font has not been implemented, and this leads to some silly &quot;design bugs&quot;. I took a screenshot of one of them (note the two different zeros), but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones too. Is this temporary? Accidental? Intentional? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I guess I'm requesting that the font be consistently implemented. If anyone objects, I'd like to hear so in the comments, or an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bea1L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="fad5fc10-043b-473f-9e75-9c804a0dadb5" CreationDate="2016-02-18T21:29:25.170" UserId="24653" Text="Was the new font incompletely implemented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="fad5fc10-043b-473f-9e75-9c804a0dadb5" CreationDate="2016-02-18T21:29:25.170" UserId="24653" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="50f83f6b-a7fb-44c6-a3cf-ae705b8c17e6" CreationDate="2016-02-18T21:43:25.213" UserId="24653" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="As you all might have noticed, our posts appear in a brand new font since today ([as requested long ago](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7419/serif-fonts-like-chemistry-and-math). However, there are some places where the font has not been implemented, and this leads to some silly &quot;design bugs&quot;. I took a screenshot of one of them (note the two different zeros), but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones too. Is this temporary? Accidental? Intentional? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I guess I'm requesting that the font be consistently implemented. If anyone objects, I'd like to hear so in the comments, or an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bea1L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20623" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="a7b6f3c7-056a-4f93-a8bd-425baa6b8d25" CreationDate="2016-02-18T22:49:12.007" UserId="6634" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7538" RevisionGUID="4d44a600-4165-47a5-a883-643e82b04ff7" CreationDate="2016-02-19T07:18:51.223" UserId="1325" Text="A good question and answer for this site will be one that future generations of physicists¹ will benefit from. That is, having encountered something they don't understand their Google search will lead them here and they'll find the answer to all their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a lofty ideal, and in practice few questions and answers will reach it, but I think it's one worth striving for. However the question being discussed here is just a complaint that physicists sometimes appear casual about the level of proof they demand. There is no definitive answer to this, and I can't see how any opinions we express in an answer will benefit anyone including the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussions like this are great fun in the coffee room (better still in the bar, especially after a few drinks have gone down :-) but they are out of place here. Leave it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ basically that means physics students" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="8ac148bd-593f-419a-930e-7643da8c6e2d" CreationDate="2016-02-19T14:17:48.310" UserId="30247" Text="In my opinion, this site could be about two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. Questions should ask about the concepts of the mainstream body of physical theories or how to probe them, which means that ideally, every question has a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. All conceptual questions when studying physics are allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one actually describes the status quo, while the second one is more what we say what the site is about. Let me quote John Renie's answer above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good question and answer for this site will be one that future generations of physicists¹ will benefit from. That is, having encountered something they don't understand their Google search will lead them here and they'll find the answer to all their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my problem: A question about the rigour in mathematics or what one should focus on when learning theories is something that many (future) physicists stumble upon and need an answer to. This is also something all physicists have (at least implicitly) thought about at some point in their life. Ergo, many (future) physicists will benefit from answers to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how to do physics are in principal a matter of philosophy. This does not mean that anything goes - quite the contrary - but it does mean that most users and even most expert physicists will be unfamiliar with many aspects that good answers should incorporate. On the other hand, (mainstream) physics is what physicists do and not what philosophers want them to do, so the answers, while lacking in certain aspects, could help students assess the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest possibility is always to just refer every question that touches about philosophy of science to philosophy.stackexchange. There, we have the experts. The problem is that the experts in philosophy might not know how it is actually implemented in reality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;The Q&amp;A-format can support questions about how things are done. They will generate a lot of bad answers (and one will have to enforce rigid non-discussion policies) but the mere fact that we allow for several answers to the same question and we have a sorting by votes means that meaningful answers will be swept to the top. We might want to have a tag &quot;opinion-based&quot; with a similar disclamer as the &quot;resource-recommendations&quot; and we would need to adapt the close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to draw the line? Questions about how to write a paper or how to collaborate with other people are clearly off-topic - they are not about conceptual questions when studying physics. But many cases will be borderline, so this needs some discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, those questions could be made on-topic, but we should create a special tag and special implementation rules. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="134d35be-d0c8-4fd9-a232-4dd44ad274a6" CreationDate="2016-02-19T14:42:46.107" UserId="30247" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="In my opinion, this site could be about two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. Questions should ask about the concepts of the mainstream body of physical theories or how to probe them, which means that ideally, every question has a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. All conceptual questions when studying physics are allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one actually describes the status quo, while the second one is more what we say what the site is about. Let me quote John Renie's answer above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good question and answer for this site will be one that future generations of physicists¹ will benefit from. That is, having encountered something they don't understand their Google search will lead them here and they'll find the answer to all their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my problem: A question about the rigour in mathematics or what one should focus on when learning theories is something that many (future) physicists stumble upon and need an answer to. This is also something all physicists have (at least implicitly) thought about at some point in their life. Ergo, many (future) physicists will benefit from answers to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how to do physics are in principal a matter of philosophy. This does not mean that anything goes - quite the contrary - but it does mean that most users and even most expert physicists will be unfamiliar with many aspects that good answers should incorporate. On the other hand, (mainstream) physics is what physicists do and not what philosophers want them to do, so the answers, while lacking in certain aspects, could help students assess the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest possibility is always to just refer every question that touches about philosophy of science to philosophy.stackexchange. There, we have the experts. The problem is that the experts in philosophy might not know how it is actually implemented in reality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;The Q&amp;A-format can support questions about how things are done. They will generate a lot of bad answers (and one will have to enforce rigid non-discussion policies) but the mere fact that we allow for several answers to the same question and we have a sorting by votes means that meaningful answers will be swept to the top. We might want to have a tag &quot;opinion-based&quot; with a similar disclamer as the &quot;resource-recommendations&quot; and we would need to adapt the close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to illustrate what could be possible and might help physics students in understanding the field (although the answer is far from good - it would definitely need to elaborate and explain the last paragraph and even then, I'm not quite the expert on the matter that I would like to be), see [this answer of mine][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to draw the line? Questions about how to write a paper or how to collaborate with other people are clearly off-topic - they are not about conceptual questions when studying physics. But many cases will be borderline, so this needs some discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, those questions could be made on-topic, but we should create a special tag and special implementation rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238383/methodology-how-to-deal-with-non-rigorous-derivations/238403#238403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="79a412c6-9ade-4207-bdca-a163ff704c65" CreationDate="2016-02-19T14:44:58.190" UserId="50583" Text="This question is **off-topic** as a mixture of *too broad* and *primarily opinion-based*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I contend that this is not primarily due to its philosophical nature, but to the specific content of the question: It asks for the &quot;meaning&quot; of &quot;derivations&quot; in &quot;physics&quot;. But there is no such unique meaning - the meaning of rigor and mathematical detail in physics varies from subfield to subfield, from person to person and from specific case to specific case. There is no general answer, although I am certain that a sizeable fraction of people will try and convince you *their* stance is the only one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that there is no &quot;meaning *in physics*&quot; here. The question is *too broad* and *primarily opinion-based* simply because it will solicit many different answers which are neither right nor wrong - they're just viewpoints, which may be more accurate in some subfields and less accurate in others. So, while I can certainly determine what a *bad* answer to this question is, how do I determine a good one? Do I vote for the one that aligns most closely with my own? Do I vote for one that tries to list the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Are those advantages and disadvantages universal, or again dependent on the specific case? So I find myself unable to objectively determine what a *good* answer would be although I expect many different ones to be given. That's pretty much the definition of being *too broad* and *primarily opinion-based*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not really reliant on the question begin philosophical (although it is). I think the discussion of how much philosophy is too much philosophy is not relevant to this specific question, since it is already off-topic just by the broadness of its scope and the subjective nature of its answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="67c79cfd-5ecc-4fcc-a485-f4f47d786580" CreationDate="2016-02-19T16:50:26.997" UserId="30247" Comment="reaction to Kyle Kanos' comment." Text="I see the following two ways one could think of as what &quot;Physics Stack Exchange&quot; might be about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. Questions should ask about the concepts of the mainstream body of physical theories or how to probe them, which means that ideally, every question has a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. All conceptual questions when studying physics are allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one actually describes the status quo and is a &quot;physics based&quot;-approach, while the second one is a &quot;physics education based&quot;-approach. Let me quote John Renie's answer above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good question and answer for this site will be one that future generations of physicists¹ will benefit from. That is, having encountered something they don't understand their Google search will lead them here and they'll find the answer to all their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my problem: A question about the rigour in mathematics or what one should focus on when learning theories is something that many (future) physicists stumble upon and need an answer to. This is also something all physicists have (at least implicitly) thought about at some point in their life. Ergo, many (future) physicists will benefit from answers to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how to do physics are in principal a matter of philosophy. This does not mean that anything goes - quite the contrary - but it does mean that most users and even most expert physicists will be unfamiliar with many aspects that good answers should incorporate. On the other hand, (mainstream) physics is what physicists do and not what philosophers want them to do, so the answers, while lacking in certain aspects, could help students assess the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest possibility is always to just refer every question that touches about philosophy of science to philosophy.stackexchange. There, we have the experts. The problem is that the experts in philosophy might not know how it is actually implemented in reality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;The Q&amp;A-format can support questions about how things are done. They will generate a lot of bad answers (and one will have to enforce rigid non-discussion policies) but the mere fact that we allow for several answers to the same question and we have a sorting by votes means that meaningful answers will be swept to the top. We might want to have a tag &quot;opinion-based&quot; with a similar disclamer as the &quot;resource-recommendations&quot; and we would need to adapt the close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to illustrate what could be possible and might help physics students in understanding the field (although the answer is far from good - it would definitely need to elaborate and explain the last paragraph and even then, I'm not quite the expert on the matter that I would like to be), see [this answer of mine][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to draw the line? Questions about how to write a paper or how to collaborate with other people are clearly off-topic - they are not about conceptual questions when studying physics. But many cases will be borderline, so this needs some discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, those questions could be made on-topic, but we should create a special tag and special implementation rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238383/methodology-how-to-deal-with-non-rigorous-derivations/238403#238403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="27421e80-f412-4b50-806d-9a304cc6ceba" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:05:52.373" UserId="45613" Text="I suspect that many of the questions asked in the physics stack exchange are based on misconception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I don't necessarily support down voting or eliminating such questions (assuming it's not really far-fetched like &quot;turtles on turtles backs&quot;), it would be helpful if we had a *misconception* tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users that aren't sure could immediately add the tag if they are not sure their question is based in misconception, or the tag could be added after it's determined to be a misconception." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="27421e80-f412-4b50-806d-9a304cc6ceba" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:05:52.373" UserId="45613" Text="Should we add a 'misconception' tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="27421e80-f412-4b50-806d-9a304cc6ceba" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:05:52.373" UserId="45613" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="bd70dab8-46da-4f20-bbc9-813824429669" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:28:27.110" UserId="50583" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be a meta tag - it has nothing to do with the actual *topic* of the question, it doesn't help to define its scope, all it tells you is either &quot;this question is based on a misconception&quot; or &quot;this user thinks they are confused&quot;. The former is entirely useless information, the latter is pretty much par for the course if you're asking a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's really not much of a problem with questions that have a misconception somewhere in them - they certainly don't need to be closed or downvoted in general. Good answers correct the misconceptions in a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problematic questions are those where the question is of the form &quot;Given that X, how about Y?&quot;, where X is just false, and Y really has nothing to do with X. One can't really answer them because one is  not answering the question about Y when one says &quot;X is false&quot;, and they are not going to be useful to anyone else than persons with that specific misconceptions. I'm not really sure what to do with those *in general*, but I think *unclear what you're asking* is a perfectly valid close reason for most of those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="08235f14-8379-461e-9957-69b705cd56fc" CreationDate="2016-02-20T08:48:09.360" UserId="105657" Text="I have come across many questions that I want to know answer of to. But All I do is favourite the question. So I want to make a suggestion to the community to add a feature that would notify me about any new answers added to the questions. So that I don't have to check the question every day from my favorites page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be more efficient and productive! Please present your opinion. :D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="08235f14-8379-461e-9957-69b705cd56fc" CreationDate="2016-02-20T08:48:09.360" UserId="105657" Text="Should we add a notify/follow a question feature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="08235f14-8379-461e-9957-69b705cd56fc" CreationDate="2016-02-20T08:48:09.360" UserId="105657" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="8253c92b-6514-4d09-8327-f3ea49cd489d" CreationDate="2016-02-20T09:37:50.907" UserId="24653" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="As you all might have noticed, our posts appear in a brand new font since today ([as requested long ago](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7419/serif-fonts-like-chemistry-and-math). However, there are some places where the font has not been implemented, and this leads to some silly &quot;design bugs&quot;. I took a screenshot of one of them (note the two different zeros), but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones too. I think it is important to note that this &quot;bug&quot; (for lack of a better term) does not occur on e.g. [math.se], where the old font is kept for both the answer count and the vote count. Is this temporary? Accidental? Intentional? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I guess I'm requesting that the font be consistently implemented. If anyone objects, I'd like to hear so in the comments, or an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bea1L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="e699e95b-02a5-4c4e-8180-ee9fae755800" CreationDate="2016-02-20T13:25:25.070" UserId="24653" Text="The title says it all, really. Normally, when one hasn't done anything the &quot;I'm done&quot; option in the First Post review queue is greyed-out. Now, it is no longer so, but one still cannot click it. Similarly, after having done something, the &quot;No Action Needed&quot; button is not greyed-out, yet unclickable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I speculate that this bug was introduced with the new font (I noticed it more than one day, but not much more than that, ago), though I have no evidence to support that claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="e699e95b-02a5-4c4e-8180-ee9fae755800" CreationDate="2016-02-20T13:25:25.070" UserId="24653" Text="There is a subtle bug in the (first post) review queue(s?): The (up to recently) normally greyed-out options are no longer greyed out" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="e699e95b-02a5-4c4e-8180-ee9fae755800" CreationDate="2016-02-20T13:25:25.070" UserId="24653" Text="|bug|design|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="6b4ed065-bfc0-48c1-b63c-1d65a4b7c8cb" CreationDate="2016-02-20T13:28:19.087" UserId="24653" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="acaf7b6c-bf0c-49b4-a8d4-0a73c4771e3c" CreationDate="2016-02-20T15:51:35.743" UserId="520" Text="## We have a favorite feature for questions already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below the voting arrows on a question you'll see a star icon (this is on the full site, the mobile app does not have this interface). That is the control for the favorite feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Access to your favorited questions is found in your profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## We use RSS for following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions, tags and users all have RSS feeds at the bottom right of the layout in the full site (again, the mobile app is more limited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uus74.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4ZlB5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wr0W1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M46MK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7546" RevisionGUID="b5ebcf9f-3d2e-4fe3-83f3-e9aaf9690368" CreationDate="2016-02-20T22:11:10.837" UserId="25301" Text="This was proposed about 5 years ago on Meta Stack Exchange&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83343/adding-favorites-to-the-stack-exchange-global-inbox  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think if you follow [this list of related/duplicate questions](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/83343?sort=newest), the story is that this *was* implemented at one point, but people actually hated the idea and they *removed* the feature. I somewhat doubt it'll come back, despite the continued requests for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;It was probably actually asked on Meta Stack Overflow before MSE was created, but that's neither here nor there&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="db3b126a-5d5d-4ded-9073-8e0fa5bd583a" CreationDate="2016-02-20T23:11:10.173" UserId="93522" Comment="Better colors" Text="[![Discover our universe][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DxDaW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="0dfe951b-1663-48df-9f24-a517232f1e20" CreationDate="2016-02-21T10:30:50.360" UserId="24653" Comment="added 55 characters in body; edited title" Text="The title says it all, really. Normally, when one hasn't done anything the &quot;I'm done&quot; option in the First Post review queue is greyed-out. Now, it is no longer so, but one still cannot click it. Similarly, after having done something, the &quot;No Action Needed&quot; button is not greyed-out, yet unclickable. The same happens in e.g. the Late Answers review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I speculate that this bug was introduced with the new font (I noticed it more than one day, but not much more than that, ago), though I have no evidence to support that claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20649" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="0dfe951b-1663-48df-9f24-a517232f1e20" CreationDate="2016-02-21T10:30:50.360" UserId="24653" Comment="added 55 characters in body; edited title" Text="There is a subtle bug in the review queues: The (up to recently) normally greyed-out options are no longer greyed out (yet remain unclickable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="35ab1351-bf7a-4448-8d3b-35f6143d7a9c" CreationDate="2016-02-21T22:41:13.707" UserId="93522" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[![Discover our universe][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VPr7x.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="d6f382b7-a2ac-4c26-9872-e1632eeb2285" CreationDate="2016-02-22T06:37:22.790" UserId="89991" Text="Will it be better if a user gets some reputations for views of his question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="d6f382b7-a2ac-4c26-9872-e1632eeb2285" CreationDate="2016-02-22T06:37:22.790" UserId="89991" Text="Reputations per view of a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="d6f382b7-a2ac-4c26-9872-e1632eeb2285" CreationDate="2016-02-22T06:37:22.790" UserId="89991" Text="|discussion|feature-request|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7550" RevisionGUID="d14e4f0f-25f8-4fd3-a99a-dc456ec480e6" CreationDate="2016-02-22T12:02:01.300" UserId="6634" Text="Consider a really bad question. It takes at least 5 users to vote to close it, which means 5 people looked at it. Should somebody get rep just because the first 5 people voted to close the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's borderline and 30 people look at it before it collects 5 votes to close. Or maybe 100 people look at it and think it's off-topic but they don't have the rep to close it as such. Should rep be awarded on those views?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I write a bot that scans the site looking for who knows what, but it loads every question page. Each time I scan it, it increments the view count on the question. Should rep be awarded then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are just the first examples that came to mind. Reputation needs to be something reliable and needs to be a measure of quality, not a measure of popularity. If a question is bad, it gets downvoted. If it is good, it gets upvoted. If nobody sees it because it is very narrow or very uninteresting, well, try to make it less narrow or try to make it more interesting. In the end, if you want rep, just make better questions that are well done and provide a challenge people want to take on by answering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you solve that problem, then views will come and rep will come. Start the beginning and build a good foundation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20661" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="fe7e627f-ed7e-43a9-b4cd-80ec77b1580c" CreationDate="2016-02-22T17:31:31.090" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7140],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:24653,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Danu&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:80706,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sebastian Riese&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="61465f29-9b3e-42c9-9f2c-f70ae8d6b4f2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T00:43:45.930" UserId="98932" Text="I took a quick peek at the newest '[soft-question][1]' questions when I noticed something particularly disturbing, most of them are marked either as [closed] or [duplicate].  There were so many that I thought it worth the while to bring it to mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking through the first 10 pages of the 'soft-question' tag to get a feel of what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="61465f29-9b3e-42c9-9f2c-f70ae8d6b4f2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T00:43:45.930" UserId="98932" Text="Has the &quot;soft-question&quot; tag become a bad idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="61465f29-9b3e-42c9-9f2c-f70ae8d6b4f2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T00:43:45.930" UserId="98932" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7552" RevisionGUID="e3108cbd-419a-41ad-8bc8-c227fef5c039" CreationDate="2016-02-23T03:58:55.423" UserId="124" Text="If you ask me, it's _always_ been a bad idea. I'm pretty sure the only reason we have it is historical; it's one of those tags that gets created on every new site right in the beginning, before we figure out what kinds of questions we want. But these days, as you've noticed, pretty much anything that deserves the tag [tag:soft-question] turns out to be off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be in favor of blacklisting or burninating (technical term) the tag so that new posters can't use it anymore. Of course, if we do that people will probably continue to post those questions and they won't be so easy to find, but for organizational consistency, we probably shouldn't have a tag whose questions are so often off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7553" RevisionGUID="0277f40f-0924-43ff-892e-3f3dae9c8bce" CreationDate="2016-02-23T13:02:03.397" UserId="24653" Text="Upvote this answer if you think [tag:soft-question] should be burninated (i.e. all instances removed, and making it unavailable for future askers), or downvote it if you think that that's a bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="afa9278b-1c2e-4f23-88d3-c59c283c2179" CreationDate="2016-02-23T14:15:23.980" UserId="44126" Text="As suggested in a comment above, I have created a tag [tag:probably-off-topic] and proposed it as a synonym for [tag:soft-question].  [This seems to require a community vote.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/soft-question/synonyms)  My proposal for the way forward is to replace the one with the other, so that people who attempt to use [tag:soft-question] are not-so-gently guided towards this meta question by the renamed tag wiki." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="4bd71ebd-8222-418d-bc13-e8210ae349b4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:42:56.427" UserId="101770" Text="My questions are getting closed a lot as &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot;, which I understand might be entirely my fault.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I don't quite understand is why [this][1] question got put on hold. I was really just asking about the state of current research with regard to a particular topic. My question got answered in the comments, but I think it's a shame that it got closed down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: **How should I ask questions about the state of current research without falling into the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; category?** Of course people are going to disagree on the topic since the physical problem might or might not be solved, although I don't think that makes such a question subject to opinions in the sense of subjective accounts of the topic (which is what I thought the close option was for).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239142/did-leggett-and-caldeira-solve-the-measurement-problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="4bd71ebd-8222-418d-bc13-e8210ae349b4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:42:56.427" UserId="101770" Text="How do I ask a question about the state of current research without falling in the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; category&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="4bd71ebd-8222-418d-bc13-e8210ae349b4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:42:56.427" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="77a82583-1902-42a4-ae27-32f1c3a1ce9e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:20:24.603" UserId="93522" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[![Discover our universe][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="cfc0a1f1-4417-4e0f-a1c9-16f3e90afa17" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:50:46.833" UserId="1325" Text="I feel your question was unnecessarily closed (and I've voted to reopen) but right now we are struggling to maintain the quality of the site under an onslaught of ill thought out, poorly phrased or even utterly barking questions. With too few reviewers chasing too many bad questions mistakes get made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the standard types of question we get is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why do physicists think that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this isn't a question we can answer, unless I suppose we organise some sort of poll of all physicists. It's really an attempt to open a discussion not a request for a specific answer, and these questions therefore rapidly get closed as *opinion based*. in your question you asked (in bold text!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is it not widely accepted that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I suspect many reviewers would read no further than the word *that* before reaching for the close button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You defer the technical issues to a final *For clarification* paragraph, and many people would have given up before reaching it. Had you started with the technical stuff I doubt your question would have been closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="0fe2d5cc-aebd-4a73-ae44-62cb8ccfee67" CreationDate="2016-02-24T07:21:56.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/702393002619228161" />
  <row Id="20674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="36ac83a2-bd02-465a-b806-4b64e5a60a09" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:45:26.323" UserId="102232" Text="I am wondering how an  Archimedean screw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_screw) could be made. Especially, I would be interested who ancient civilizations would do it, say early Greek or Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;physics.stackexchange does not look like the place to ask this, but for all *.stackexchange it looks like the least mismatch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="36ac83a2-bd02-465a-b806-4b64e5a60a09" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:45:26.323" UserId="102232" Text="Where should I ask engeneering/manufacturing questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="36ac83a2-bd02-465a-b806-4b64e5a60a09" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:45:26.323" UserId="102232" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7558" RevisionGUID="03d209f0-a888-4795-845a-a22d8a0a5296" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:24:08.020" UserId="520" Text="I'm supposing that some features of your question on on topic at [History of Math and Science][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others might be on topic at [Engineering][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the most part it would be off topic on Physics unless it was placed in a very specific experimental context, and frankly I don't see it: pumps are a CoTS thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, of course, no guarantee that every question will find a place on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="5a9044b4-d016-43ff-8ded-b219cfee6a48" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:11:56.667" UserId="70842" Text="I posted [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/239433/70842), which I suspect is getting downvotes because I have a bunch of karma from it but it only has a score of 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter leads me to believe people find the answer unsatisfactory because they are mixing up the result of Bell's Inequality with the concept of measurement resolution.  If this is true, I may as well set the record straight with a detailed edit.  If I'm not getting that many downvotes, I'll just make a quick reply comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone with enough rep please tell me how many downvotes I have on that answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="5a9044b4-d016-43ff-8ded-b219cfee6a48" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:11:56.667" UserId="70842" Text="How many downvotes does this answer have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="5a9044b4-d016-43ff-8ded-b219cfee6a48" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:11:56.667" UserId="70842" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="8669ede9-cddb-4033-8388-2d73c6655a1f" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:37:39.290" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="If all voting activity so far happened within the same day (as here), it's easiest &#xD;&#xA;to go to your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation), group the events by post, and expand the post of interest. The upvotes and downvotes are listed there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, one needs a userscript or a bookmarklet. There is a popular userscript [“View Vote totals” without 1000 rep](http://stackapps.com/q/3082) for this purpose. I tend to use my own bookmarklet [vote split](http://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/#split) instead; this is how I see +8 -5 split without having 1000 rep here. (To use, drag the bold link from that page to your browser bar; then navigate to the post and click the bookmarklet.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="d39c45bf-f94f-494e-9ad3-18855718875b" CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:09:28.160" UserId="5477" Text="There is nothing wrong with the [tag:soft-question] tag. The issue is that we rarely get *good* soft questions, and the reason for that is that most experienced users of the site know they will be closed as off topic. We should keep the tag, and adapt our policies to be more accommodating to high-quality questions that are of interest to physicists but which are not necessarily &quot;hard&quot; questions about physics. We will be a more useful site that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20683" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="2bf4866d-4df2-48b5-8d71-2ad04152c14f" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:26:46.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/702892502970458112" />
  <row Id="20684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="093bfd98-f32d-4c57-a840-a2d9a5245b60" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:30:54.370" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I am wondering how an  [Archimedean screw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_screw) could be made. Especially, I would be interested how ancient civilizations would do it, say early Greek or Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange does not look like the place to ask this, but for all SE it looks like the least mismatch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7558" RevisionGUID="8d97add1-b399-42a1-ab0e-47c7ecc4f1d0" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:33:21.887" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm supposing that some features of your question are on topic at [History of Math and Science][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others might be on topic at [Engineering][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the most part it would be off topic on Physics unless it was placed in a very specific experimental context, and frankly I don't see it: pumps are a CoTS thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, of course, no guarantee that every question will find a place on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="554cf3e8-6ee1-48bd-93b3-d779e1ed4b7d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:48:53.727" UserId="4826" Comment="Not the only size bit that changed. " Text="&gt; # N.B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The size requirements for adverts have changed. It is **NOT** appropriate to simply copy over the images from previous years - they won't work. Images need to be **300×250px** or 600×500px for retina displays, up from 220×250px in previous years. If an image is taller than it is wide, it's the wrong size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **150 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20687" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="9f1fd934-3d12-4acc-a8f8-01db9f4a8b5b" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:43:57.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/703440410434211840" />
  <row Id="20688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7562" RevisionGUID="287f78d8-0742-4f94-a76d-0b68ece054dd" CreationDate="2016-02-27T07:28:12.740" UserId="70392" Text="Using MathJax it is possible to make text of a different colour using e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; $\color{red}{\text{this text would appear in red}}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I rarely see this done and the times I have done it, it has always been edited out. Clearly, this feature could be misused (e.g. by changing the colour of large chunks of text making it harder to read) but it could be used to emphasis key points within a question or answer making them easier to read. So what are people's views on using this feature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7562" RevisionGUID="287f78d8-0742-4f94-a76d-0b68ece054dd" CreationDate="2016-02-27T07:28:12.740" UserId="70392" Text="Coloured text in questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7562" RevisionGUID="287f78d8-0742-4f94-a76d-0b68ece054dd" CreationDate="2016-02-27T07:28:12.740" UserId="70392" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7563" RevisionGUID="35dfe196-a1b9-41ea-ba1e-7e0e99b2b87e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:38:15.793" UserId="124" Text="My view is that you should use MathJax markup for things which are math (notation), and that is all. If that means you can't use color in the body of a post, that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For various reasons, we care about _semantic_ markup here, which basically means using the markup commands to indicate what type of content something is, not to make it look the way you want it. When you use the MathJax delimiters, you are implicitly telling the system &quot;this is math&quot;. It might get treated specially by search engines, summarizers, screen readers, and so on. So you shouldn't indicate that something is math when it isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize a key point of a post, we already have markup for that: either `**bold**` or `_italic_`, depending on whether you want the emphasized text to stick out at first glance or just to be stressed without disrupting the normal flow of reading. I'm not denying that there can be good ways to use color in text, but I think we can get by without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, math notation is more limited, so it's often useful to have more ways of marking up the notation than just bold and italic; for example, to distinguish between different instances of the same variable, or to show significant vs. insignificant figures, or to track part of an expression through a computation. Color is useful in these cases. (Not to mention, bold and italic already have standard meanings in most mathematical notation.) I think the reasons we don't need color in text don't carry over so well to math, so I wouldn't support removing the ability to use color in MathJax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7564" RevisionGUID="045a46af-e7ea-4a46-91a0-ce6d2b53bacb" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:17:41.757" UserId="520" Text="&gt; *&quot;However, I rarely see this done &quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;and the times I have done it, it has always been edited out&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be because it is a horrible, visually distracting thing to do. It's only one step better than blinking. Don't use color for emphasis. You shouldn't even need bold very much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20693" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="e1d0ad72-ee1e-480b-86ef-ef689a44f51f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:44:37.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/703712366047924224" />
  <row Id="20694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7552" RevisionGUID="50b3f55f-5e0e-4cb0-87a1-e45172d2130d" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:31:16.663" UserId="124" Comment="add paragraph about tag warnings" Text="If you ask me, it's _always_ been a bad idea. I'm pretty sure the only reason we have it is historical; it's one of those tags that gets created on every new site right in the beginning, before we figure out what kinds of questions we want. But these days, as you've noticed, pretty much anything that deserves the tag [tag:soft-question] turns out to be off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be in favor of blacklisting or burninating (technical term) the tag so that new posters can't use it anymore. Of course, if we do that people will probably continue to post those questions and they won't be so easy to find, but for organizational consistency, we probably shouldn't have a tag whose questions are so often off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we don't want to do that, SE is starting to experiment with [tag warnings](https://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/14237/tag-warnings-on-ask-ubuntu) on other sites: little popup boxes that display some warning text whenever someone tries to use a particular tag. Perhaps we could request a tag warning for [tag:soft-question] which points out that questions with the tag are likely to be off topic, and linking to a meta post (to be written) giving guidance on what sorts of soft questions are likely or unlikely to be okay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20695" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="a2ba289c-68a2-4610-a514-6d441ff28d46" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:25:09.993" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="35f31808-32b6-41e8-bd5f-53dd017f9d0f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:21:11.687" UserId="5477" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="There is nothing wrong with the [tag:soft-question] tag. The issue is that we rarely get *good* soft questions, and the reason for that is that most experienced users of the site know they will be closed as off topic. We should keep the tag, and adapt our policies to be more accommodating to high-quality questions that are of interest to physicists but which are not necessarily &quot;hard&quot; questions about physics. We will be a more useful site that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see what I mean, take a look at the [soft questions over at Theoretical Computer Science][1]. This is every bit as &quot;hard&quot; a discipline as physics, but I think their site shows that soft questions, when done well, can nevertheless be useful for the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="8a897a05-35da-4502-bd06-c9a608831772" CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:27:43.563" UserId="8563" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="Generally speaking: **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is very definitely not a *replacement* of traditional peer review. We simply do not have a community that is broad and varied enough to connect a given paper with an expert that is sufficiently qualified, interested enough, and with enough available time, to review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is also not a very good *venue* for peer review, generally because it leads to a much broader discussion than the format can really accommodate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For one, there's a mechanics issue: peer review requieres back-and-forth discussion over a long list of specific issues, which the Q&amp;A format does not handle well at all, and the discussion will be left as a sorry mess of interlinking questions, answers, comments, edits to the question, edits to the answers, comments pointing to revision histories, more edits to the answers, and so on. This is completely opposite to the purpose of this site, which is (roughly) providing a useful resource for future visitors which can be parsed immediately without going through ten pages of forum discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are also a bunch of actual problems, which depend on the specific way the request is phrased. So let's go over your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much too broad. It can depend on the specifics of the question (particularly if it's halfway between here and type 2) but in general these should be flagged/close-voted as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a reason why we close things as Too Broad, and it is that they are particularly unrewarding to answer. A question that is Too Broad as posed tends to require enormous amounts of work to answer (more commensurate with a full paper or even textbook than a simple ~blog post) and it is beyond what you really should be asking of strangers on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, if someone does try to answer, there is a definite danger that the OP will not be satisfied: &quot;you did all of that work over on that side, but I was actually interested on that bit over there&quot;, so that huge amount of work comes with little reward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why we require that questions be posed in a way that an answer can be recognized as such, and not as soliciting essays on a given topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, depending on the tone, this is a very tricky question to ask, because we're not here to engage in long-winded discussions. In particular, if it appears that the OP already has made up their mind about the topic and they are only here to stir up controversy (as was definitely the case in the posts you link to, but with several milder variants also possible) then the thread is a non-starter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are here to respond to specific, answerable questions, not to engage in long-winded back-and-forth discussions which can be incredibly draining of time, energy, and passion for engaging with random strangers' curiosity on the internet. Questions which are a bait-and-switch, pretending to be the former but obviously hiding a huge chunk of the latter, are very identifiable as a drain of experts' time and energy which should be spent elsewhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases, the close/flag reason Primarily Opinion Based applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much more workable. Depending on how specific the post is it could still be too broad, but in general that just describes a bona fide question about a paper in the literature. Prospective answerers know what are the concepts that need clarifying, and if there are obvious issues with the work they can be brought out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As posed, this can be a legitimate request for an evaluation of contradicting literature. However, there is very little we can do here: depending on exactly how this is phrased, it amounts to a request of full peer review of not one but two papers, and this is really beyond our scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there's very little chance that we'll be able to produce anything near definitive - our community is simply not big enough - and providing inconclusive answers for the consumption of the internet does very little to set the record straight and much to cloud it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless it is very obvious that there is an objective answer (e.g. the second paper makes a very compelling case, with only a very weak response from the authors of the first one), this is probably over the Primarily Objection Based line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reads as a bona fide, self-contained question: is the argument the OP laid down correct, or not? (Unless, that is, the OP outsources the [outline] to some other journal paper, possibly of their authorship, in which case 'self-contained' obviously does not apply.) Prospective answerers are given a specific thing to address, with sufficient context, so this is probably a good use of the site and its resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a question. The post solicits essays and opinions, and there is no criterion at all for when an 'answer' is 'correct' or not. This is textbook flag/closevote as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, with questions of this type, it is generally unclear what it is the OP actually wants from the post. Do they want community acceptance to rain down on them? Are they soliciting expert opinions about the correctness or significance of the paper? If so, exactly which experts, and which sections of the community, are they hoping to engage with, and what guarantees do they have that they frequent the site and will see the paper? (Again, we're not big enough to undertake this sort of thing.) Are they expecting problems with their paper to actually surface? (And, if so, will they react in a civil way once they do? Is that something prospective answerers can count on just from reading the question?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post does actually detail the claim, then this passes the self-containment bar, but it's still not really a question. What is it the OP wants? cf. the above, and again Too Broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few extra comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The business of bringing together manuscripts that need review with referees with enough time and expertise to review them is a Hard Thing. Academic publishing has sort of kind of got it down to a reasonable standard (but even they still fail often enough at it). At least, they've got it to a standard that has a kind-of acceptable rate of letting bad stuff through, and they've reached some form of equilibrium between the spectrum of (always take the literature with a grain of salt) / (if it's published it at least had a qualified set of eyeballs on it) versus how much energy the community can spend refereeing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are all sorts of problems with the current peer review model in academic publishing (though physics seems luckily to be less troubled than medicinal chemistry and psychology) and there are all sorts of problems with academic publishing in general. Non-commercial (or small enterprise) academic publishing has done a good bit over the past decade pushing this process to a place where the peer review does only require a talented and well-connected volunteer editor (without the overhead of an editorial office), but even then it's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Hoping that just putting a random collection of internet strangers from all over physics next to a random collection of manuscripts about all sorts of topics will somehow manage to work, and work better than academic publishing, has always seemed very strange to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On another track, we're not alone on the attitudes I detailed above. MathOverflow, in particular, is much better posed as a site for professional mathematicians, and they make it pretty clear that they too are no substitute for peer review, cf. [Using Math Overflow to check whether or not a proof is correct](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265/using-math-overflow-to-check-whether-or-not-a-proof-is-correct), [On discussion of published papers at MO](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2328/on-discussion-of-published-papers-at-mo), and [Appropriate or not: “To what extent are the results in Paper X correct?”](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2762/appropriate-or-not-to-what-extent-are-the-results-in-paper-x-correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, [PhysicsOverflow](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) does have an [open paper refereeing section](http://physicsoverflow.org/activity/refereeing), which you can check out and see how it's working. If you're looking to solicit feedback on a manuscript, that's one place to turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="c027ffe4-b66f-4c24-a8b4-93f9122a1ce7" CreationDate="2016-03-01T10:01:15.990" UserId="92700" Text="I want to plot some phase diagrams that look professional ([Example][1]). I don't really know what tools are usually used to do this kind of diagrams, I've been looking around and found some alternative but I would like to know what is usually used by professional researchers to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen that there is a software tag but there is no usage guidance for that tag so I don't know if it would be on or off topic. Would a question like the above be on topic on this site? If not, where in the SE network could I ask it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://yt-project.org/doc/_images/simple_phase__galaxy0030_2d-Profile_density_temperature_cell_mass.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="c027ffe4-b66f-4c24-a8b4-93f9122a1ce7" CreationDate="2016-03-01T10:01:15.990" UserId="92700" Text="It is on topic to ask about computer software useful to do some particular task?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="c027ffe4-b66f-4c24-a8b4-93f9122a1ce7" CreationDate="2016-03-01T10:01:15.990" UserId="92700" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20701" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="6a351f00-b73b-4d4c-82ec-eeb6e481f12e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:11:21.830" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20702" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="6a351f00-b73b-4d4c-82ec-eeb6e481f12e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:11:21.830" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="It is on-topic to ask about computer software useful to do some particular task?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7566" RevisionGUID="a1f7a7c6-bc9a-4fc6-a056-98d297c21713" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:17:30.343" UserId="2451" Text="No, use http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ (which was launched in 2012) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="2946a167-b481-4cdc-9259-5cfc9c239758" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:17:57.923" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am doing a  lot of physics on Mathematica and am running into questions regarding the software. Are these ok to ask in the main section? Anywhere where they might be more appropriate?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20705" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="2946a167-b481-4cdc-9259-5cfc9c239758" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:17:57.923" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Questions on Mathematica permissable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20706" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="2946a167-b481-4cdc-9259-5cfc9c239758" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:17:57.923" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20707" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="6655d0ad-2559-45f7-83e1-9ff38c9a5cc0" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:20:35.267" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="a4653f35-46c2-4d7a-848e-ca924dba004b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:32:40.063" UserId="124" Text="I think [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3) is the most recent word on the matter, and that says software recommendation questions are off topic. I would group the question you're thinking about asking in the same category, and consider it off topic. It could also easily qualify as opinion-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could bring your question up in our [chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), or it might be on topic at the [Scientific Computation](//scicomp.stackexchange.com) site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7568" RevisionGUID="1f7358a0-9117-4b2d-a7a4-7cb7dee4c027" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:35:17.330" UserId="6634" Text="As always, this will boil down to the exact wording of the question on hand. If you just want to know how to plot the data like that, then no -- it won't be on topic. Valid answers are Excel, R, Matplotlib (python), Matlab, Mathmatica, Tecplot, gnuplot, and probably dozens more. Each is capable of generating a scatter plot/heatmap plot and that's all you are looking for there. All with varying amounts of effort and financial investment of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to know how to use software may be used to *analyze* data and come up with whatever it is showing, the answer is a pretty solid **maybe**. But odds are good, for that image at least, the answer is going to just be &quot;Get your data, read it into your plotting program of choice, generate image.&quot; Now, if you had the data and it was in some specialized file format that only astrophysicts would know how to use, that puts it back into the on-topic area here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Places that it may appear on topic with different rules -- [SciComp](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) if you want help writing code to analyze data in some cool way or [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com) if you want help with reducing dimensionality/understanding statistical descriptions of data and visualizing the results. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="6bb67569-d012-421c-9ab2-56afb4b8f25c" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:35.410" UserId="50583" Text="We know that [plagiarism is bad](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/542/50583), and unacknowledged citations *will* be dealt with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what about answers that properly acknowledge their sources, but consist of nothing but quotes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe such answers do not consititute sufficient effort to be actually counted as answers, and should be deleted. If a user cannot be bothered to phrase the answer to a question in their own words, or to explain and give context to their quotes, they do not deserve to derive reputation from such a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="6bb67569-d012-421c-9ab2-56afb4b8f25c" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:35.410" UserId="50583" Text="What is our position on answers that consist almost entirely of copied content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="6bb67569-d012-421c-9ab2-56afb4b8f25c" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:35.410" UserId="50583" Text="|discussion|answers|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20713" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="f1e4b4e7-7ffb-42ae-b689-e48fe88428e4" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:56:59.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/705255629758267396" />
  <row Id="20714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="6048ac98-f34f-42d9-adae-ec9f50e94c25" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:44:18.727" UserId="83488" Text="Recently I asked a question on physics stack exchange. It was closed with a reference to [faq guidelines][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the question that was closed: [Maximum period of a vertically spinning ball][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that while this was not a &quot;homework&quot; question, I can understand that it is classified as a homework question according to the faq referenced above. The wisdom of applying &quot;homework&quot; tag to my question is still mysterious to me since the definition of that tag is so general that it can be applied to almost any question that asks for application of general concepts to a particular problem. But that's not the issue that I want addressed. Let's assume that it is indeed a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that I want to address is **(1) how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines][1]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do not find any inconsistencies with the guidelines myself, I have to assume that such inconsistency does exist since it was closed. If that inconsistency can be pointed, I'd also appreciate a pointer or two on **(2) how to ask an &quot;acceptable&quot; question that qualifies as &quot;homework&quot; under the guidelines.** By &quot;acceptable&quot; I mean a question that won't be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239661/maximum-period-of-a-vertically-spinning-ball" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="6048ac98-f34f-42d9-adae-ec9f50e94c25" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:44:18.727" UserId="83488" Text="Incosistent policy on &quot;homework&quot; questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="6048ac98-f34f-42d9-adae-ec9f50e94c25" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:44:18.727" UserId="83488" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="69ca4f3c-d1ad-4cb9-9ad5-f2bcc7c4430a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:27:39.627" UserId="8563" Text="Unacknowledged or unmarked quotes are plagiarism, plain and simple, and they deserve the full weight of community displeasure to be heaved on them: comments, downvotes, and eventual deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if an answer consists completely of well-acknowledged quotations then it deserves to stay on the site - it's not doing anything against the rules, so deletion is not appropriate. In general, though, such answers are of very low quality, and do very little to actually address the problem, so they deserve what all bad answers do: to be downvoted into grayness, with comments expressing this displeasure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are indeed cases where &quot;something is so complete and well-written to begin with&quot; that it would  &quot;make it worse&quot; to require the poster to paraphrase it, and if that's the case - the quotation is completely on the mark that it fully answers the question in a self-contained but well-referenced fashion - then kudos to the poster and an upvote for providing a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, though, I say let votes show that we don't like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="81761859-5f4f-4dd9-9a0a-7b809c6d6ea9" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:37:48.570" UserId="8563" Text="The question [at the time of closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7) contains a lot of fluff which makes it an easy target for the gray area around the homework policy. The question in its [current form](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/9) is far from excellent but it passes the test as it explicitly asks a conceptual question; I have voted to reopen it and hopefully others will agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that your edit invalidates much of the existing answer, which is a big sign that the question was ill-posed to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your general point - the guidelines are not inconsistent, but they do include a significant amount of value judgement which, when applied incorrectly, is resolved exactly as you have - by posting here on meta. There is a long-standing effort to reduce this ambiguity but that is a hard problem; the latest bout is [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy). If you have any constructive suggestions we'll be glad to hear them out - just be aware that this is a long and [storied](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) problem, and you do need to understand both what the problem is, what the previous solutions have been, and what their pitfalls were, to have a real chance at proposing something that will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="def9d38f-7f7f-4925-825d-d8f3edc66203" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:03:43.397" UserId="124" Text="For the record, we ourselves consider those guidelines a bit of a mess. But I'll bypass that issue and just answer based on the existing homework policy as it stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidance in that FAQ can be summarized in two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ask a specific conceptual question&#xD;&#xA;2. Show some work toward answering that conceptual question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your post certainly meets condition #1; there is a specific conceptual question, namely whether the stated assumption is correct. But in its current form, it fails condition #2: it doesn't show any attempt to understand whether the assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [the revision at which it was closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7), I think the same is true. In that revision you show work toward solving the underlying problem - in fact you have a complete solution - but none of that work addresses the issue you're asking about, namely whether the assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask me, to make this _clearly_ not close-worthy/hold-worthy, it would need to expand on the issue of whether the assumption you've made is correct. A good place to start would be identifying some reason you think it might not be correct. For example, is there some alternative assumption you could make that also seems reasonable? Or do you get nonsensical results by making the assumption? Are you unable to find a justification for the assumption in any references you have access to, despite expecting that it should be justified somewhere? Do you find it necessary to make the assumption even though you think it shouldn't be necessary? Or so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="62fb382f-89a6-4f04-b4e3-16cefdb5f836" CreationDate="2016-03-03T14:30:06.567" UserId="124" Comment="update note on policy regarding deletion" Text="To answer your question directly, there is no automatic plagiarism detection (as far as I know). Generally we rely on alert users to notice when something appears to be copied and pasted from another source. If you see something that you suspect might be plagiarized and you'd like to do something about it, pick out a distinctive phrase or two and run it through Google. If you have access to plagiarism detection software and you'd like to use it on the post, although that'd be a little more extreme, there's nothing wrong with doing so (assuming it doesn't violate the terms of your license to use that software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, by any method, you find a match from which the post content has been copied, flag it for moderator attention, including the source in the flag description. The policy is that content which is copied from another source should be either deleted, or edited to make it clear what was copied and where it came from. If it happens repeatedly, it could lead to moderator action. Plagiarism is not tolerated on the site as an ethical matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that moderators are only authorized to handle cases of plagiarism, not copyright violations. When you cast your flag, make sure to say &quot;plagiarism,&quot; not &quot;copyright violation&quot; (because if you do the latter, there are potentially tricky legal implications). If you do want to report content as a copyright violation, not as an instance of plagiarism, you will need to go through the DMCA takedown process described on the [legal page](http://stackexchange.com/legal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20721" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="9bc32530-53b6-4060-9740-9ad6827589cc" CreationDate="2016-03-03T20:02:39.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/705483548279627776" />
  <row Id="20722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7574" RevisionGUID="d5d2b661-4275-4e2d-99dd-cf26469d2a06" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:55:29.473" UserId="43351" Text="As Floris remarks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If a good and complete answer can simply be copied from elsewhere, I suggest that the question deserves the downvotes / closure for lack of effort... But apart from that - if it answers the question, it's an answer. If it answers the question well, it's a good answer that deserves upvotes. If someone write a comment that should be an answer, and after prompting they don't convert it to an answer, you can and should copy it and promote it to answer - with attribution, and possibly without embellishment. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7574" RevisionGUID="046e6067-43a2-436a-b799-ab5ee12906a9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:59:09.397" UserId="43351" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="As Floris remarks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;If a good and complete answer can simply be copied from elsewhere, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggest that the question deserves the downvotes / closure for lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effort... But apart from that - if it answers the question, it's an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer. If it answers the question well, it's a good answer that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deserves upvotes. If someone write a comment that should be an answer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and after prompting they don't convert it to an answer, you can and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should copy it and promote it to answer - with attribution, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly without embellishment. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though I think this depends on just how much effort is put into putting the material in context. Blanket cutting and pasting is really poor and if that's all that people are doing it is no more worthy than a comment featuring a link to the page in question. I rarely upvote anything that contains big blocks of cut and pasted text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="960ae0f7-db7f-473b-8030-d20c282b7be9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:59:10.703" UserId="26969" Text="If a good and complete answer can simply be copied from elsewhere, I suggest that the question deserves the downvotes / closure for lack of effort... But apart from that - if it answers the question, it's an answer. If it answers the question well, it's a good answer that deserves upvotes. If someone write a comment that should be an answer, and after prompting they don't convert it to an answer, [you can and should copy it and promote it to answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7494/26969) - with attribution, and possibly without embellishment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="2bd83159-0102-47d2-bb7f-e181fcf94c70" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:29:55.060" UserId="103999" Text="As far as I know on this physics stack are far more questions posted than other stacks. But why is that. I cann't imagine that a study of biology, chemistry or history etc. would comprise more detailled information or question. Is that because in physics is so much unclear comparing to other studies or is it very difficult to understand is well, or are there just more students doing physics or is it just more interesting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="2bd83159-0102-47d2-bb7f-e181fcf94c70" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:29:55.060" UserId="103999" Text="What is the reason that there are so many questions at this stack (physics) comparing to the others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="2bd83159-0102-47d2-bb7f-e181fcf94c70" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:29:55.060" UserId="103999" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="ad0c92c7-dde1-410c-a35f-19c057917863" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:58:11.323" UserId="103999" Comment="edited body" Text="As far as I know on this physics stack are far more questions posted than other stacks. But why is that. I cann't imagine that a study of biology, chemistry or history etc. would comprise less detailled information or question. Is that because in physics is so much unclear comparing to other studies or is it very difficult to understand is well, or are there just more students doing physics or is it just more interesting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="1e00eaad-df8d-4c7c-8d76-64aa4f8918e2" CreationDate="2016-03-05T10:40:43.110" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typos" Text="As far as I know on this physics stack are far more questions posted than other stacks. But why is that. I can't imagine that a study of biology, chemistry or history etc. would comprise less detailed information or question. Is that because in physics is so much unclear comparing to other studies or is it very difficult to understand is well, or are there just more students doing physics or is it just more interesting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7577" RevisionGUID="0c5113e6-a3d1-44c1-a728-cdbbc81ebbd2" CreationDate="2016-03-05T12:45:40.573" UserId="25301" Text="Looking at the sciences only,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the total numbers can be [found here](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questions) (sorted by total number of questions). I've made an abridged table here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site          Quest.&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Math         573,000&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         74,000&#xD;&#xA;    Physics       72,000&#xD;&#xA;    MathOverflow  69,000&#xD;&#xA;    Chemistry     14,000&#xD;&#xA;    Biology       11,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these sites are more than 3 years old (with MO, Math, Stats &amp; Physics all being more than 5), so I don't think time is a factor here. What probably *is* a factor is the number of users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site          Users &#xD;&#xA;    --------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Math         241,000&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         78,000&#xD;&#xA;    Physics       81,000&#xD;&#xA;    MathOverflow  53,000&#xD;&#xA;    Chemistry     16,000&#xD;&#xA;    Biology       14,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 5 times as many users on Physics as Chemistry &amp; Biology, which seems to correlate to the 5 times as many questions found here than there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why there are 5 times as many users here, I'm not sure. This [Google Trends search of the three](https://google.com/trends/explore#q=physics%2C%20chemistry%2C%20biology) suggests that they're about as popular as each other, which might rule out general popularity/interest. I'm not terribly active on not-physics sites, so I can't give an clue/reason as to why they would not have a user base as large as ours; perhaps someone active on all the other sites might be able to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. The technology sites dominate, with Stack Overflow having over 11 *million* questions at the time of writing; Ask Ubuntu &amp; SuperUser have more than 200,000 questions as well. All three of those sites have more than 300,000 users as well. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="c2b07428-671e-4cf7-97f0-78311a1d7165" CreationDate="2016-03-06T16:42:09.997" UserId="103999" Text="In http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17404/e-mc2-why-is-it-c2-and-not-just-c is this question posted. I'm really interested in the answer but why is this question not very broad answered and even bad received. Is it really just a matter of accepting.....?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="c2b07428-671e-4cf7-97f0-78311a1d7165" CreationDate="2016-03-06T16:42:09.997" UserId="103999" Text="Why is a question about the squarity of c in E=mc2 so bad received?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="c2b07428-671e-4cf7-97f0-78311a1d7165" CreationDate="2016-03-06T16:42:09.997" UserId="103999" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="78bb90e1-d648-4d3d-aaf5-e4e91d88d65a" CreationDate="2016-03-06T17:05:22.957" UserId="520" Text="Though I haven't looked at that question recently I can offer at least three reasons that I have for not liking it. Some of the voters might have had similar reactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The suggestion suggestion is dimensionally inconsistent which makes it [&quot;Not even wrong&quot;][1]. This is a skill that should be mastered early in a first course in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It is totally unmotivated. One can do experimental work based on simple-minded fitting to experimental results, but this is not suggesting in the context of data which makes it theory. Theory is done by reasoning from things already known and perhaps extending them in a consistent way. But the poster either hasn't done that or hasn't shown the first indication that (s)he did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The question is un-researched in a really extreme way. We already had questions on this site addressing where the $c^2$ comes from including the one offered by Qmechanic in the comments. And basic issues in relativity have been addressed at the popular level for the last hundred years or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="abc2238a-e7b8-4701-9857-67570dde6924" CreationDate="2016-03-06T18:19:45.553" UserId="46399" Comment="Removed accidental repitition" Text="Though I haven't looked at that question recently I can offer at least three reasons that I have for not liking it. Some of the voters might have had similar reactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The suggestion is dimensionally inconsistent which makes it [&quot;Not even wrong&quot;][1]. This is a skill that should be mastered early in a first course in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It is totally unmotivated. One can do experimental work based on simple-minded fitting to experimental results, but this is not suggesting in the context of data which makes it theory. Theory is done by reasoning from things already known and perhaps extending them in a consistent way. But the poster either hasn't done that or hasn't shown the first indication that (s)he did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The question is un-researched in a really extreme way. We already had questions on this site addressing where the $c^2$ comes from including the one offered by Qmechanic in the comments. And basic issues in relativity have been addressed at the popular level for the last hundred years or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="e58a9503-87e2-4407-b17c-070bda54cfb9" CreationDate="2016-03-06T18:53:25.630" UserId="520" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Though I haven't looked at that question recently I can offer at least three reasons that I have for not liking it. Some of the voters might have had similar reactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The suggestion is dimensionally inconsistent which makes it [&quot;Not even wrong&quot;][1]. This is a skill that should be mastered early in a first course in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It is totally unmotivated. One can do experimental work based on simple-minded fitting to experimental results, but that poster is not making his (or her) suggestion in the context of data; so it's pure whiteboard theory. Theory is done by reasoning from things already known and perhaps extending them in a consistent way. But the poster either hasn't done that or hasn't shown the first indication that (s)he did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The question is un-researched in a really extreme way. We already had questions on this site addressing where the $c^2$ comes from including the one offered by Qmechanic in the comments. And basic issues in relativity have been addressed at the popular level for the last hundred years or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="d7825543-e3c7-494a-97cc-645704602947" CreationDate="2016-03-07T18:57:31.357" UserId="34464" Text="Somehow my flag for too broad got declines on this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really . Just the fact that the answer spans over 3 actually answers proofs by definition that this question doesn't below on a StackExchange site. There is a limit on answer length with a reason. Wanted to flag http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox as well now, because it's clearly too broad as well, but even this one isn't as absolutely terrible as the original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="d7825543-e3c7-494a-97cc-645704602947" CreationDate="2016-03-07T18:57:31.357" UserId="34464" Text="How is this question not too broad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="d7825543-e3c7-494a-97cc-645704602947" CreationDate="2016-03-07T18:57:31.357" UserId="34464" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="8619dc1c-6f37-4b7b-b458-8b9369480805" CreationDate="2016-03-07T19:11:08.693" UserId="1325" Text="That question, along with the twin paradox one and the first in the series, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction are intended as canonical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where we get lots of questions on the same topic it's nice to have a definitive answer that we can point people to. But that definitive answer is necessarily rather lengthy because it has to cover lots of details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether canonical questions are a good idea was discussed in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers and the general conclusion seemed to be that they were. In the absence of other guidance I decided to write some canonical Q/As on subjects I was particularly interested in and hope that others found them interesting as well. So far the number of upvotes suggests that the questions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20741" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="1da7b8ca-80c8-45c1-940f-664a74cef65f" CreationDate="2016-03-08T13:18:17.283" UserId="2451" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:80706,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sebastian Riese&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="122f574a-da53-4f7c-897e-34171dc785e7" CreationDate="2016-03-08T17:44:39.907" UserId="25301" Comment="added tag, fixed grammar" Text="Somehow my flag for too broad got declines on this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really. Just the fact that the answer spans over 3 actually answers proves, by definition, that this question doesn't belong on a StackExchange site. There is a limit on answer lengths for a reason. I wanted to flag http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox as well now because it's clearly too broad as well, but even this one isn't as absolutely terrible as the original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="122f574a-da53-4f7c-897e-34171dc785e7" CreationDate="2016-03-08T17:44:39.907" UserId="25301" Comment="added tag, fixed grammar" Text="|discussion|support|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20744" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="f4657bea-8c8c-4dea-9b1e-8e38e4559050" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:30:04.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/707438281466757121" />
  <row Id="20745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="db1b1993-4c47-40ce-b187-62f2eb6d1ad4" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:24:10.653" UserId="8563" Comment="Updated image." Text="[![Community ads are decided by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="1eae809a-d56b-4e0f-8e4d-444a5987ca07" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:24:48.890" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo in question title" Text="I am doing a  lot of physics on Mathematica and am running into questions regarding the software. Are these ok to ask in the main section? Anywhere where they might be more appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20747" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="1eae809a-d56b-4e0f-8e4d-444a5987ca07" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:24:48.890" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo in question title" Text="Questions on Mathematica permissible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="444d796c-e0a9-4124-9027-d66d5fa58c00" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:26:38.010" UserId="8563" Comment="Bigger image to use the expanded file size." Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E9D64.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="0c1ba2c9-6331-47e0-952b-cfc0687d9f19" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:28:50.673" UserId="8563" Comment="Image edits for file size." Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="3cf02b21-ce39-4743-a5ba-ab4a9bd1b391" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:38:04.063" UserId="8563" Comment="Edited image." Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5A7af.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://academia.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="057a5033-095c-4663-ace2-860f16489ae0" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:40:54.577" UserId="8563" Comment="Image size bump now that filesize limit is bigger." Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NS3GV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20752" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="faf24101-913f-4efb-acf2-f4546cf5afcb" CreationDate="2016-03-09T21:30:41.137" UserId="2451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20753" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7562" RevisionGUID="b5aa2d98-cd61-4a40-85e6-e3f4fa91c612" CreationDate="2016-03-11T02:38:34.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/708119899185487872" />
  <row Id="20754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7577" RevisionGUID="9e016b8e-8541-41f9-a494-029c8fbcdbc5" CreationDate="2016-03-11T03:05:20.070" UserId="25301" Comment="added response to criticism" Text="Looking at the sciences only,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the total numbers can be [found here](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questions) (sorted by total number of questions). I've made an abridged table here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site          Quest.&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Math         573,000&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         74,000&#xD;&#xA;    Physics       72,000&#xD;&#xA;    MathOverflow  69,000&#xD;&#xA;    Chemistry     14,000&#xD;&#xA;    Biology       11,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these sites are more than 3 years old (with MO, Math, Stats &amp; Physics all being more than 5), so I don't think time is a factor here.&lt;sup&gt;see below&lt;/sup&gt; What probably *is* a factor is the number of users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site          Users &#xD;&#xA;    --------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Math         241,000&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         78,000&#xD;&#xA;    Physics       81,000&#xD;&#xA;    MathOverflow  53,000&#xD;&#xA;    Chemistry     16,000&#xD;&#xA;    Biology       14,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 5 times as many users on Physics as Chemistry &amp; Biology, which seems to correlate to the 5 times as many questions found here than there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why there are 5 times as many users here, I'm not sure. But, I suspect it boils down to several factors: site policy, popularity (both academic &amp; general interest), and difficulty of subject among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Response to criticism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was presented in the comments that age *should* be a factor in the number of questions. On a naive level, it makes sense: if you've been around longer, you're likely to accrue more questions. And this is sorta backed by data:&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All data taken from [the SE team](http://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#oldest), but I'm putting a cap at 1e5 (which ignores a few sites, including Math.SE &amp; SO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at ~40500 (which corresponds to about 5 years, 8 months ago). That's quite the spread of question totals on a single date! Look at the table below, these are the sites that are 5 years, 8 months old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Site         Q       U&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Web Apps      19k     69k&#xD;&#xA;    Arqade        65k     82k&#xD;&#xA;    Webmasters    23k     45k&#xD;&#xA;    Cookign       14k     29k&#xD;&#xA;    GameDev       31k     61k&#xD;&#xA;    Photography   16k     31k&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         76k     79k&#xD;&#xA;    Math         576k    242k&#xD;&#xA;    DIY           22k     31k&#xD;&#xA;    GIS           65k     49k&#xD;&#xA;    TeX          108k     79k&#xD;&#xA;    AskUbuntu    219k    328k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is just fairly inconsistent with the naive hypothesis that age should be important. Going back to the graph, there are some *younger* sites that have *more questions* than older sites, including [Russian SO](http://ru.stackoverflow.com/) (81k questions in 1 year)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while it's reasonably true on a very naive level, I don't see how someone can claim it as an important factor, as was done in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. The technology sites dominate, with Stack Overflow having over 11 *million* questions at the time of writing; Ask Ubuntu &amp; SuperUser have more than 200,000 questions as well. All three of those sites have more than 300,000 users as well. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. A log-linear version of the plot can be [found here][2]; this shows the roughly linear fit (meaning power-law relation, roughly n=-71 at R-sq=0.47).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgCwA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OatBO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="b27304a8-0483-4f7d-9066-951e68f0f59b" CreationDate="2016-03-11T08:52:07.627" UserId="84895" Text="As the title stays: It got alot of downvotes and put on hold while recieving just jerkish or rude comments that don't take my post serious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it that way? I was serious with the post, tryed to pretty miuch express what is my motivation about asking, and what aspects I'm refering to. while in comments this just got ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is ti the styl in which I wrote? Or is the question at all just off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242632/84895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="b27304a8-0483-4f7d-9066-951e68f0f59b" CreationDate="2016-03-11T08:52:07.627" UserId="84895" Text="Why this post is against the guidelines and especially not about physics itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="b27304a8-0483-4f7d-9066-951e68f0f59b" CreationDate="2016-03-11T08:52:07.627" UserId="84895" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="eb70d855-bc69-414f-ab68-e3bf7a2356aa" CreationDate="2016-03-11T09:29:25.097" UserId="110834" Text="I recently asked this question on Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242499/is-there-an-underlying-physical-reason-why-the-coriolis-force-is-similar-to-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I didn't accept any of the answers, I can't find it in the unanswered questions list. Is there a possible reason why this is happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I should clarify I'm totally new here, so please excuse me if I'm missing something)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="eb70d855-bc69-414f-ab68-e3bf7a2356aa" CreationDate="2016-03-11T09:29:25.097" UserId="110834" Text="Why is my question not appearing in the unanswered questions list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="eb70d855-bc69-414f-ab68-e3bf7a2356aa" CreationDate="2016-03-11T09:29:25.097" UserId="110834" Text="|bug|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="0e243e29-4a12-40fa-91a8-6c04dbfa653f" CreationDate="2016-03-11T09:36:42.037" UserId="46399" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="The context is the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242632/84895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title stays, this got a lot of downvotes and got put on hold while receiving just rude comments that don't take my post seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it that way? I was serious with the post, tried to pretty much express what is my motivation about asking, and what aspects I'm referring to, but all this got ignored in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it the style in which I wrote? Or is the question at all just off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20762" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="0e243e29-4a12-40fa-91a8-6c04dbfa653f" CreationDate="2016-03-11T09:36:42.037" UserId="46399" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Why is this post against the guidelines and especially not about physics itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20763" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="0e243e29-4a12-40fa-91a8-6c04dbfa653f" CreationDate="2016-03-11T09:36:42.037" UserId="46399" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="91baa5cc-1008-4fc8-8ba7-39ab918458d1" CreationDate="2016-03-11T13:19:52.007" UserId="124" Text="As [PhillS](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/96973/phills) pointed out in a comment, the matter of what it takes to kill a person is a matter of biology/physiology, not physics. So in general, we consider questions asking how to kill a person (or kill an animal, cause brain damage, break a bone, shrink a tumor, etc.) off topic because there is a significant component of them that is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to handle these sorts of questions is to break them up into a biology part and a physics part. In your case: respectively, (1) how much current does it take to kill a person, and (2) can you generate [amount of current] from a 1.5V battery? The biology part you can take to [the corresponding SE site](//biology.stackexchange.com), though there's no guarantee they will accept it there. Once you have an amount of current, you could try to ask here whether it's possible to produce it from a battery, but even that is kind of on the engineering side, and may still be considered off topic. If you did some research to try to figure out yourself how much current can be produced from a battery, you could ask about some of the physics concepts you encounter in that research, and _those_ sorts of questions would be much more likely to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good of you to come to meta to ask why your question was voted off topic, by the way. We always like to see people considering the community's feedback on their questions, and staying involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Now that I look at it again, the style in which you wrote the question is also not the best, but that's not such a big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="1b04e3a2-978c-4a7d-8b4a-8bdc5b0dbc61" CreationDate="2016-03-11T13:46:19.183" UserId="8563" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7585" RevisionGUID="782fdf5e-f3a3-4f39-b794-74a147102e36" CreationDate="2016-03-11T15:18:36.430" UserId="25301" Text="A question is considered answered if one of the posted answers has a score of &gt;1, which is the case here for your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20768" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="4674e136-82de-409f-9a48-879158c3d982" CreationDate="2016-03-12T07:30:47.787" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="ebb0f955-0a0c-46f0-8147-92dd2682f0d7" CreationDate="2016-03-12T19:13:47.260" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="1) If one has enough reputation points, it is possible to directly propose tag synonyms. (Note in particular, that reputation points in the corresponding master tag are needed.) In OP's concrete example, one should go e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, if one doesn't have enough reputation points, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In OP's concrete example, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many users upvote a proposal a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="751593f7-17d9-4946-8353-512c3630796d" CreationDate="2016-03-12T19:32:45.977" UserId="2451" Comment="Added more examples" Text="&#xD;&#xA;This is prompted by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which asks why _s_ is used as the letter for position. Here are some more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67928/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/91933/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/101920/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134412/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139800/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/144079/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/156879/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159722/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/203720/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208870/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/211829/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/213214/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Feel free to edit in more examples as long as they are not prone to the auto-deletion script. No need to have dead links.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions on topic? They're not really about physical concepts, but they are about matters that are fairly specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20771" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="751593f7-17d9-4946-8353-512c3630796d" CreationDate="2016-03-12T19:32:45.977" UserId="2451" Comment="Added more examples" Text="|discussion|scope|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20772" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="751593f7-17d9-4946-8353-512c3630796d" CreationDate="2016-03-12T19:32:45.977" UserId="2451" Comment="Added more examples" Text="Are physics-related notation and terminology questions on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="351f5923-3ca0-4cce-97fd-f341ce0ee93c" CreationDate="2016-03-13T01:32:16.357" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It depends on the question. As a rule of thumb, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a question of the form  _What does this notation/terminology mean?_ is on-topic if it cannot immediately be answered by a simple Google search/Wikipedia lookup.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a question of the form _What is the standard notation for this quantity?_ or _Why do we use this notation?_ is off-topic/not constructive/primarily opinion-based, and should go to chat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. a question of the form _What is the historic origin/motivation of this notation/terminology?_ should go to [History of Science and Mathematics](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: If the site gets swamped by linguistic/notational/terminology soft-questions instead of conceptional physics questions, we might want to rethink this policy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="c8713e14-bbeb-4e91-bbe7-601af5d63dca" CreationDate="2016-03-13T16:10:56.120" UserId="84038" Text="I agree that high amount of Low Quality posts are preventing to use much time for each review tasks, and thus produces a deleting habit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what is the point of closing/deleting posts, which has even received a bounty?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ie. this answer of me received even a Bounty; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75222/where-does-gravity-get-its-energy-from/238804#238804 &#xD;&#xA;...but it was still deleted! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Answer received also the Bounty; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234697/how-can-a-bowling-ball-curve-in-both-directions/241137#241137 &#xD;&#xA;... it's also down voted and is proposed to be deleted, at the Comments is said; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This does not provide an answer to the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the person who asked, even provided me a Bounty for my answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think the main problem is that some actively moderating persons are just down voting and closing questions in &quot;Facebook-style&quot;; 5 sec preview and Thumb up/down.** I noticed this behaviour clearly in this deleted question; [Mysterious temperatures of Mimas?][1] where every one can see through it's comments how difficult it might sometime's be. The Question might got closed just because it used the word &quot;mysterious&quot; in it's title, though this was a direct phrasing used in the original source of the explaining picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Text from question; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 3 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 5 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;What is the physical explanation for dramatical conductivity variations across the surface of Mimas?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then suddenly, when the word &quot;Mystery&quot; is away; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why didn't you make THAT your question in the first place... – CuriousOne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that this [&quot;CuriousOne&quot;][2] haven't ever asked a single question by himself. With this I don't want to attack against the persons of moderation, but it seems that there should be some mechanism to prevent this &quot;Facebook-like&quot; dalmatian-species-specific-moderation-style to reproduce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the problematic I have talked before; &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7336/can-we-stop-closing-questions-as-unclear-what-you-are-asking-for-ops-above-cer  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own deleted-examples about this &quot;Unclear what you are asking&quot; problem;  &#xD;&#xA;[Capillarity, QED explanation?][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[Physics of craters in moons?][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Also [this question][5] is rather &quot;unclear&quot; than &quot;not Mainstream.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;Unclears&quot; are also about to be Deleted;  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240979/why-in-thermosphere-is-he-and-o-divided-as-measured/241007#241007  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227542/how-is-it-possible-that-thermosphere-can-maintain-so-much-heat  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225721/numerical-model-for-a-air-core-vortex-why-its-still-so-limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question;**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240766/mysterious-temperatures-of-mimas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56997/curiousone&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240602/capillarity-qed-explanation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240840/physics-of-craters-in-moons-planets-only-impact-or-is-there-other-explanations&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241012/neutron-electron-and-proton-mass-dark-matter-and-dark-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="c8713e14-bbeb-4e91-bbe7-601af5d63dca" CreationDate="2016-03-13T16:10:56.120" UserId="84038" Text="Answer received Bounty but got closed/deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="c8713e14-bbeb-4e91-bbe7-601af5d63dca" CreationDate="2016-03-13T16:10:56.120" UserId="84038" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|bounty|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="2310adcb-d014-4301-bb58-b096770ea440" CreationDate="2016-03-13T18:00:17.183" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any posted answer that does not answer the question should be deleted, regardless of upvotes &amp; bounties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think either of your posts answered the questions asked. The one that was deleted made the preposterous claim that gravity doesn't exist and all mass is photons with frequencies less than 1 Hz when the question asked was *Where does gravity get its energy?* The post doesn't answer the question. &#xD;&#xA;In the second case, you're basically explaining *what* is occurring in the video OP linked and not giving an answer as to *why* it is curving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, anyone [with sufficient reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) can and should vote as they think about the question. There is already a maximum of 24 votes allowed per day (24 hour GMT time), with a maximum of [20 reviews](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) per day, any more limitation would, in my opinion, be a detriment to the system and the site. I would much prefer an *increase* in votes and reviews allowed per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any single person with sufficient reputation [can flag a post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts). After that, it [goes to review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/) for those with [sufficient reputation to vote to delete the post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/); it takes 3 votes from those with &gt;20k rep to delete or 6 votes from those with &lt;20k rep. Again, the 20 reviews per day holds here as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="f934a17e-680e-4cfb-91f2-a7002594085a" CreationDate="2016-03-13T18:58:32.163" UserId="25301" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="&gt;Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any posted answer that does not answer the question should be deleted, regardless of upvotes &amp; bounties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think either of your posts answered the questions asked. The one that was deleted made the preposterous claim that gravity doesn't exist and all mass is photons with frequencies less than 1 Hz when the question asked was *Where does gravity get its energy?* The post doesn't answer the question. &#xD;&#xA;In the second case, you're basically explaining *what* is occurring in the video OP linked and not giving an answer as to *why* it is curving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, anyone [with sufficient reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) can and should vote as they think about the question. There is already a maximum of 24 votes allowed per day (24 hour GMT time), with a maximum of [20 reviews](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) per day, any more limitation would, in my opinion, be a detriment to the system and the site. I would much prefer an *increase* in votes and reviews allowed per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any single person with sufficient reputation [can flag a post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts). After that, it [goes to review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/) for those with [sufficient reputation to vote to delete the post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/); it takes 3 votes from those with &gt;20k rep to delete or 6 votes from those with &lt;20k rep. Again, the 20 reviews per day holds here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;For flagging purposes, a user initially gets 10 flags per day. This increases by 1 for every 2000 rep gained plus a bonus 1 for every 10 accepted flags. The maximum flag count one can accrue is 100 per day. I don't think I've ever come close to using the 100 flags I have available to me, so *maybe* I could see decreasing this, but on larger sites (e.g., Stack Overflow) it is probably very useful &amp; not with implementing on a per-site basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="8c2235d7-4b7d-46d6-8b5e-7df2be10722b" CreationDate="2016-03-14T03:59:05.193" UserId="55515" Text="I am a novice at this, and I believe I have only asked a handful of questions in total.  The first were all rapidly tagged as &quot;opinion-based&quot;, and I can see why.  I don't see how to ask for suggestions in any context if that sort of thing is declared to be off limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today for the first time in a long while I asked a detailed question about an electrical wiring error I'd like to understand, and the first answers I received are unhelpful and to tell the truth somewhat angry sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that there's a warning in my home page (or whatever it should be called) that says I'm going to be locked out if I ask any more inappropriate questions.  I am surprised at how aggressive the forces seem to be that would discourage me to be a user here.  Am I just being unlucky or are others having similar unfriendly reception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I am not trying to be an irritant, but I am coming to the conclusion that I may as well give up.  Or is there a solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="8c2235d7-4b7d-46d6-8b5e-7df2be10722b" CreationDate="2016-03-14T03:59:05.193" UserId="55515" Text="Struggling to not draw ire in responses to my few questions ... failing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="8c2235d7-4b7d-46d6-8b5e-7df2be10722b" CreationDate="2016-03-14T03:59:05.193" UserId="55515" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="8dcf30af-28be-4aca-9585-b18562b8b034" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:25:37.327" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="&gt;Today for the first time in a long while I asked a detailed question about an electrical wiring error I'd like to understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not how much effort or details you've put into; the question is whether it _really_ belongs to __Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people fail to differentiate between __engineering__ and __natural science__; same thing is applied here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you really think you've enquired about a physics concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You detailed the problem; but did the problem really _seek_ any __Physics__?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first answers I received are unhelpful and to tell the truth somewhat angry sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know what answers you are talking about, for I'm not seeing any (I can't see any deleted answer). If you are asking about the comments, then I'm not seeing any kind of _angry_ talks; the user there who voted to close the question put a legitimate reason for doing so- this doesn't sound rude. Others have also advised you to go at [_Electrical Engineering_](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/)- a very reasonable, __helpful__, _non-rude_ and expected behaviour from the users here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I noticed that there's a warning in my home page (or whatever it should be called) that says I'm going to be locked out if I ask any more inappropriate questions. I am surprised at how aggressive the forces seem to be that would discourage me to be a user here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Aggressive_? _Forces_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;We are not any fascist regime&lt;/strike&gt;. We are not against a particular user; there is no, I mean _no_, kind of vengeance acting here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange is a __no-nonsense__ Q&amp;A site; we are here to create noise-free, useful archive of __quality__ Q&amp;As based on __concepts of Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We definitely discourage _low-quality questions_ like _Do-the-Work_, _Check-my-Work_; __Engineering__; _Opinion-based_; __Broad__ questions. Physics SE is not at all meant for all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't discourage any new user but in order to acquaint with what questions are compatible, these sort of warnings are given. They are, _in no way_ harsh or in the sense you are describing the scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Am I just being unlucky or are others having similar unfriendly reception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You misinterpret the _scope_ of the site and misconstrue the warnings and moderations that explicitly and implicitly tried to uplift the quality of your questions that are suitable for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I am coming to the conclusion that I may as well give up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or is there a solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the problem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked three questions; two of which are voted to close on valid grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question was asking about _Concepts of Physics_ and you got a good response at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the solution to the apparent problem is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Ask questions based on _Physics_, that are not too broad to answer and not opinion-based__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions like _wire-problem_ is definitely frowned at as it is not related to physics anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't misapprehend the warnings, moderations, comments; don't try to judge things from one side. We don't have any intention to discourage any newbie to ask here. But questions must be _within_ the scope of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="6432e8ae-f5ae-46cb-923a-2adfbf08e7a6" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:41:06.877" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;Today for the first time in a long while I asked a detailed question about an electrical wiring error I'd like to understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not how much effort or details you've put into; the question is whether it _really_ belongs to __Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people fail to differentiate between __engineering__ and __natural science__; same thing is applied here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you really think you've enquired about a physics concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You detailed the problem; but did the problem really _seek_ any __Physics__?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first answers I received are unhelpful and to tell the truth somewhat angry sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know what answers you are talking about, for I'm not seeing any (I can't see any deleted answer). If you are asking about the comments, then I'm not seeing any kind of _angry_ talks; the user there who voted to close the question put a legitimate reason for doing so- this doesn't sound rude. Others have also advised you to go at [_Electrical Engineering_](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/)- a very reasonable, __helpful__, _non-rude_ and expected behaviour from the users here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I noticed that there's a warning in my home page (or whatever it should be called) that says I'm going to be locked out if I ask any more inappropriate questions. I am surprised at how aggressive the forces seem to be that would discourage me to be a user here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Aggressive_? _Forces_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;We are not any fascist regime&lt;/strike&gt;. We are not against a particular user; there is no, I mean _no_, kind of vengeance acting here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange is a __no-nonsense__ Q&amp;A site; we are here to create noise-free, useful archive of __quality__ Q&amp;As based on __concepts of Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We definitely discourage _low-quality questions_ like _Do-the-Work_, _Check-my-Work_; __Engineering__; _Opinion-based_; __Broad__ questions. Physics SE is not at all meant for all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't discourage any new user but in order to acquaint with what questions are compatible, these sort of warnings are given. They are, _in no way_ harsh or in the sense you are describing the scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Am I just being unlucky or are others having similar unfriendly reception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You misinterpret the _scope_ of the site and misconstrue the warnings and moderations that explicitly and implicitly tried to uplift the quality of your questions that are suitable for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I am coming to the conclusion that I may as well give up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or is there a solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the problem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked three questions; two of which are voted to close on valid grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question was asking about _Concepts of Physics_ and you got a good response at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the solution to the apparent problem is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Ask questions based on _Physics_, that are not too broad to answer and not opinion-based__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions like _wire-problem_ is definitely frowned at as it is not related to physics anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't misapprehend the warnings, moderations, comments; don't try to judge things from one side. We don't have any intention to discourage any newbie to ask here. But questions must be _within_ the scope of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7590" RevisionGUID="349eadee-fa3a-4c2b-851e-d32b868ed09f" CreationDate="2016-03-14T10:45:31.220" UserId="124" Text="I think you're getting a _little_ unlucky, in that most of the questions you've asked happen to be off topic for various reasons. And I agree that some of the responses to your question (they were comments, not answers) were harsher than they needed to be. But the major underlying issue is that, judging by your question history, you don't seem to know the scope of the site - that is, the rules that determine what we consider on-topic and off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that's not so bad. We do understand that new people won't know our scope right from the beginning. If you show that you're willing to learn about how we do things, as you're doing by asking this very question, we'll be pretty forgiving. The thing is, there are a lot of people who _aren't_ willing to learn what sorts of questions fit here or don't; they just post off-topic questions one after another without caring that they're effectively polluting our site. To prevent that sort of thing from getting out of hand, we have several automatic quality control mechanisms built in. They trigger when someone posts just a few questions that get closed or deleted or heavily downvoted, and then you see the kinds of warnings you're getting. The warnings are written in a &quot;no-nonsense&quot; manner to make sure that they get through to people who normally don't read things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the system doesn't really _know_ whether you're going to be a good contributor; all it can do is guess based on how your posts have been received. So don't worry _too_ much about the warnings. I think the fact that you're asking this question shows that you probably _are_ going to be a good contributor, if you decide to stick around. You should definitely take a look at our [help center](//physics.stackexchange.com/help) and read the items about what sorts of questions you should and shouldn't ask here, if you haven't already. You can also ask for clarification here on meta, or in our [chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every _good_ (i.e. on topic, sufficiently focused, not opinion-based, not &quot;lazy&quot;) question you ask gets you further away from the automatic question ban, so once you learn about our scope and post a couple good questions, you won't be in danger of that anymore, and the warnings will disappear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="132ef212-e3f6-46d3-9bbf-1d1096549707" CreationDate="2016-03-14T11:41:56.667" UserId="124" Comment="clarify the kind of question we'd like here" Text="As [PhillS](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/96973/phills) pointed out in a comment, the matter of what it takes to kill a person is a matter of biology/physiology, not physics. So in general, we consider questions asking how to kill a person (or kill an animal, cause brain damage, break a bone, shrink a tumor, etc.) off topic because there is a significant component of them that is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to handle these sorts of questions is to break them up into a biology part and a physics part. In your case: respectively, (1) how much current does it take to kill a person, and (2) how can I tell how much current can be generated from a 1.5V battery? The biology part you can take to [the corresponding SE site](//biology.stackexchange.com), though there's no guarantee they will accept it there. As for the current question, you could try to ask here how to determine whether it's possible to produce a certain amount of current from a battery, but even that is kind of on the engineering side, and may still be considered off topic. If you did some research to try to figure out yourself how much current can be produced from a battery, you could ask about some of the physics concepts you encounter in that research, and _those_ sorts of questions would be much more likely to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good of you to come to meta to ask why your question was voted off topic, by the way. We always like to see people considering the community's feedback on their questions, and staying involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Now that I look at it again, the style in which you wrote the question is also not the best, but that's not such a big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="08ae43de-221d-4e2e-bd14-0762bc975024" CreationDate="2016-03-14T17:57:09.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/709438229817085952" />
  <row Id="20788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="46057a03-c721-41bf-b252-31edc14808ec" CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:10:38.353" UserId="85616" Text="I have already two questions *[on-hold][1]* and *[closed][2]* because they were considered as homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these people are exaggerating. Who told these people that my questions were about homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think users should stop prejudicing why did I ask a question, rather I think it's a better choice to ask the questioner at the comments what was his reason for asking the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, resolving homework questions leave doubts and often misunderstandings. Therefore if a person does a general question it should be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, why can't this Questions and Answers site be like [Mathematics][3]? There is ton of homework questions and they are not taken unacceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there misunderstandings? I would want to know what were my mistakes in my questions so I can do better questions that will be more *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243050/is-there-conservation-of-momentum-if-theres-conservation-of-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238663/does-the-kinetic-energy-change-depending-on-the-direction-of-the-velocity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="46057a03-c721-41bf-b252-31edc14808ec" CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:10:38.353" UserId="85616" Text="Why are &quot;homework questions&quot; redundant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="46057a03-c721-41bf-b252-31edc14808ec" CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:10:38.353" UserId="85616" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="e6213152-35cb-4508-8c0f-b77c1551503d" CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:37:05.650" UserId="85616" Comment="deleted 186 characters in body" Text="I have already two questions *[on-hold][1]* and *[closed][2]* because they were considered as homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these people are exaggerating. Who told these people that my questions were about homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, resolving homework questions leave doubts and often misunderstandings. Therefore if a person does a general question it should be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, why can't this Questions and Answers site be like [Mathematics][3]? There is ton of homework questions and they are not taken unacceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there misunderstandings? I would want to know what were my mistakes in my questions so I can do better questions that will be more *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243050/is-there-conservation-of-momentum-if-theres-conservation-of-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238663/does-the-kinetic-energy-change-depending-on-the-direction-of-the-velocity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7592" RevisionGUID="3a54fa62-0034-4741-90ad-31d695e5c99c" CreationDate="2016-03-15T07:33:01.350" UserId="1325" Text="The closure of the two questions you link does seem a bit unkind and I've voted to reopen them, though I note that both got good answers before they were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just at the moment we are experiencing a flood of homework, poorly written and just plain lazy questions, and I suspect we are getting a little trigger happy with the close button." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="75448f42-496e-4a5a-89e3-0d29be729962" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:31:15.473" UserId="25301" Text="Questions that ask *How do I prove...* or *How do I calculate...*, as is the case for both of yours, will almost always get flagged for closure because it's a [homework-like question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), defined *on this site* as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of us spent several years in college and doctoral programs and we're really not interested in doing your work for you (as you can [see as you peruse this Meta.Physics.SE list of questions tagged *homework*](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework)), but we *are* interested in answering questions about tough concepts &amp; clearing up your misunderstandings. So to prevent closure, consider what *specific physics concept* you are having troubles with and ask about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="ed46112a-e5ec-4dc8-9699-047bf68641d9" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:14:57.770" UserId="96487" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233232/what-will-be-final-velocity-of-three-charges-q-q-2q&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I reopen it? All concepts come out from questions. If I know how to solve it, I would know concept automatically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="ed46112a-e5ec-4dc8-9699-047bf68641d9" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:14:57.770" UserId="96487" Text="How can I reopen it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="ed46112a-e5ec-4dc8-9699-047bf68641d9" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:14:57.770" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20802" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="191f0878-e345-4989-802c-8cdf42548b6e" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:16:33.333" UserId="124" Comment="from http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7594/how-can-i-reopen-it" />
  <row Id="20805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="81e5ae06-8165-4653-b15c-f14f4599ff48" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:20:00.647" UserId="124" Text="Asking how to solve problems like that is not on topic here. If you want the question reopened, you'll need to make it ask something else. Identify the specific issue that is blocking you from getting to the solution, and ask about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="3ef3ac2d-8350-4979-a6e5-074c12ad9dea" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:22:00.333" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="3ef3ac2d-8350-4979-a6e5-074c12ad9dea" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:22:00.333" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/233232/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I reopen it? All concepts come out from questions. If I know how to solve it, I would know concept automatically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="9e6cf0c8-49fe-42f5-8697-505b27fc9042" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:46:17.943" UserId="81357" Text="Is it really on topic to ask questions regarding an exact proof/how to approach the proof of a particular identity, or a physical equation ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="9e6cf0c8-49fe-42f5-8697-505b27fc9042" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:46:17.943" UserId="81357" Text="questions regarding the proof of a physical identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="9e6cf0c8-49fe-42f5-8697-505b27fc9042" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:46:17.943" UserId="81357" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20811" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="c3c3825e-7bfc-448e-a5df-9b46ebaa08f0" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:51:52.177" UserId="81357" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="4667f386-02e6-4ed0-87da-de7778196758" CreationDate="2016-03-15T20:11:04.817" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is it really on topic to ask questions regarding an exact proof/how to approach the proof of a particular identity, or a physical equation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20813" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="4667f386-02e6-4ed0-87da-de7778196758" CreationDate="2016-03-15T20:11:04.817" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Questions regarding the proof of a physical identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="ca31cb95-53ff-44a5-bbeb-86ca93c6c033" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:31:55.167" UserId="55515" Comment="added 747 characters in body" Text="I am a novice at this, and I believe I have only asked a handful of questions in total.  The first were all rapidly tagged as &quot;opinion-based&quot;, and I can see why.  I don't see how to ask for suggestions in any context if that sort of thing is declared to be off limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today for the first time in a long while I asked a detailed question about an electrical wiring error I'd like to understand, and the first answers I received are unhelpful and to tell the truth somewhat angry sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that there's a warning in my home page (or whatever it should be called) that says I'm going to be locked out if I ask any more inappropriate questions.  I am surprised at how aggressive the forces seem to be that would discourage me to be a user here.  Am I just being unlucky or are others having similar unfriendly reception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I am not trying to be an irritant, but I am coming to the conclusion that I may as well give up.  Or is there a solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:  I appreciate the answers and comments so far.  I think the first statements from CuriousOne that were stated in a way that seemed to speak on behalf of the entire community were what I found most bothersome, and that is why I reacted negatively and posted this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe I somewhat follow the logic of placing a question in the most relevant category (here in Electrical Engineering), but isn't there surely a connection between that and physics?  Can't the same question be useful in both places? I don't quite see what the benefit of putting questions on hold is in the first place.  Why not just leave them out there in case someone offers a response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must be missing the point in a major way.  I am still confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="d5d276db-ea6e-4cfc-a84e-212ebbe732a4" CreationDate="2016-03-17T03:49:20.017" UserId="4993" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with spacetime diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster has apparently gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.  (I hesitate to give his name, but in order for readers to identify the offending comments, I'll overcome that hesitation --- he is barrycarter.)  Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the willful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="d5d276db-ea6e-4cfc-a84e-212ebbe732a4" CreationDate="2016-03-17T03:49:20.017" UserId="4993" Text="A Problem With a User" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="d5d276db-ea6e-4cfc-a84e-212ebbe732a4" CreationDate="2016-03-17T03:49:20.017" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="675211d4-3945-47aa-8ca9-0b5eabb44d11" CreationDate="2016-03-17T03:54:31.847" UserId="4993" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with spacetime diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.  (I hesitate to give his name, but in order for readers to identify the offending comments, I'll overcome that hesitation --- he is barrycarter.)  Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the willful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="ff0839c4-c808-4197-aa77-ab480e9204b3" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:01:37.067" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.  (I hesitate to give his name, but in order for readers to identify the offending comments, I'll overcome that hesitation --- he is [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named].)  Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20828" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="ff0839c4-c808-4197-aa77-ab480e9204b3" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:01:37.067" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="A Problem With a [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="6fed43ba-013f-4712-89dc-32ab226efc32" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:15:28.817" UserId="4993" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.  (I hesitate to give his name, but in order for readers to identify the offending comments, I'll overcome that hesitation --- he is [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named].)  Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178743/space-contraction-near-lightspeed/178784?noredirect=1#comment535094_178784&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is one more pretty egregious example.  There are others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="365601de-5630-4a7b-a08a-4ca6a279d760" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:18:57.193" UserId="4993" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.  (I hesitate to give his name, but in order for readers to identify the offending comments, I'll overcome that hesitation --- he is [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named].)  Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="78d0bf10-5b23-4cbe-905e-3a42ca47e3e0" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:21:13.537" UserId="4993" Comment="deleted 179 characters in body; edited title" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.   Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20834" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="78d0bf10-5b23-4cbe-905e-3a42ca47e3e0" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:21:13.537" UserId="4993" Comment="deleted 179 characters in body; edited title" Text="A Problem With a User" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="b80fd61c-2de0-48d7-a045-c1a1fe7a0fb6" CreationDate="2016-03-17T07:23:18.867" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is: wait a few days and flag them as obsolete, and we'll go through and purge the comment threads completely. Before doing so, make sure that you've checked the comments for suggestions for improvement and implemented any suggestions you want to, and if there's anything you do want to save from the comments, copy it into a text file or something. (You should _always_ be doing this within a week or so of comments being posted on your questions and answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we don't delete comments for being wrong, because moderator powers shouldn't be used to distinguish correct from incorrect posts. That's what voting is for, or in the case of comments, posting followup comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, come to think of it, there is another roundabout way to get wrong comments deleted: just keep responding until either the OP gives up, or there are so many comments that we can justify moving them to a chat room. That's not something I would really _recommend_ with a commenter who is being argumentative and persistent, but it does get the comments off the post quicker than would otherwise be the case (or at least it lets you get the last word in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Is there anything else I should be doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just the usual, watch the comments and flag anything that becomes outright rude or inappropriate. Otherwise, don't worry about it. There will always be some people who will downvote without good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is good to make the moderators _aware_ of this sort of thing, which you did via this meta post but ordinarily can be done with a flag. We'll keep an eye on any voting trends. Any significant spurt of targeted downvotes should be caught and reversed by an automatic script within 24-48 hours; if that doesn't happen in this case, we'll follow up on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20836" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="48ea2202-f2c4-4654-8613-c4af1b81dbf4" CreationDate="2016-03-17T08:33:56.843" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="4484c45c-e865-439e-9200-06cd21a6e1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-17T10:10:35.913" UserId="109928" Text="Yesterday I asked a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/243740) which was based on a conceptual confusion, as was revealed by the excellent answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It made me think that it would be nice if that fact was visible straight away for anyone coming to the page. There would be a second line of tags, relating to the nature of the question, and in my case one could see in that line the tag &quot;misconception&quot; (that I would have added after having read the answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tags that come to mind would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;technical&quot; for the discussion of a technical point&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;perspective&quot; for open questions such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242814&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;common-misconception&quot; for questions such as the ones listed &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6063/109928&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;reference&quot; for well-posed questions with good answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;canonical&quot; for even better-posed questions with even better answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;speculative&quot; for questions found to be not quite in line with mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;basic&quot;, &quot;conceptual&quot;, &quot;experimental&quot;, &quot;thought-experiment&quot;, &quot;factual&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a set of tags would make the site even more useful. For example I would love to browse the &quot;experimental&quot; collection in &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;, or the &quot;reference&quot; one in &quot;electromagnetism&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respectively, coming to a page and be able to see right away that the question is a &quot;misconception&quot; puts you in the right mindset for better understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now who would be allowed to set those tags? Probably the OP (although I can easily see how the OP would find very tempting to remove a not too glorious tag), the author of an accepted or upvoted answer, and also anyone with a large enough reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell this proposal would give a qualitative dimension to the question metric currently based on votes that would also take the answers into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="4484c45c-e865-439e-9200-06cd21a6e1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-17T10:10:35.913" UserId="109928" Text="Would having a second set of tags relating to the nature of the question make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="4484c45c-e865-439e-9200-06cd21a6e1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-17T10:10:35.913" UserId="109928" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="a6ec2a32-451d-4ecc-b73a-fb75a8979b0f" CreationDate="2016-03-17T10:12:38.377" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7603" RevisionGUID="a98c16fd-24dc-4af7-978d-3758a5a3eedb" CreationDate="2016-03-17T10:22:56.410" UserId="25301" Text="No, they would all be meta-tags&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which are [strongly discouraged](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Tags that, by themselves, are meaningless/vacuous/useless, and can only have meaning if added *in addition to* other tags.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="8219839c-54fe-43f3-b79b-2331cf107a1a" CreationDate="2016-03-17T11:54:33.323" UserId="50583" Text="**No, we should not introduce such meta-tags.** If you are not convinced of the general uselessness of meta-tags, let me address your proposals specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;technical&quot; is hopelessly subjective. What's technical to one user is pretty straightforward and easy to see to another. This is already apparent in the non-meta tag [mathematical-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics), which is often misused for questions that just include math, and would only get worse with such a pure meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;perspective&quot;...what makes a question &quot;open&quot;? Is a question &quot;open&quot; simply because it is vague and imprecise? Should questions not be *edited and clarified* instead of staying vague? This tag sounds like another variant of the already existing [soft-question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question), which is already a [pretty bad tag](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7551/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have already rejected the misconception tag [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7542/50583). As for &quot;common&quot;, who decides what is &quot;common&quot;? Does it suffice if the misconception is common among non-physicists (we are supposedly a site primarily for physicists, after all)? Do &quot;misconceptions&quot; count that are really more [lies-to-children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children)? What would a question *gain* from being tagged as being about a misconception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The idea of tagging &quot;well-posed questions and answers&quot; with special tags serves no purpose because there already is a mechanism in place to promote well-posed questions and well-written answers: Voting. Good content is highly upvoted, bad content is downvoted. If you see a need to tag questions with regard to their quality because the votes are not a good indicator of quality, then I would rather say [we need to change our voting behaviour](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) (I wrote that almost a year ago, but I would not say the situation has changed), not introduce tags for quality, as that would just lead to needless drama over who has the power to add or remove those tags and which questions should receive them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream questions get [closed](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4538/50583), not tagged as &quot;speculative&quot;. Speculative question without firm grounding in physics also get closed as *too broad* or *primarily opinion-based*, I don't see many questions that can be on-topic that would deserve this tag, or of what use it would be to tag them such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;basic&quot; is again as subjective as &quot;technical&quot;, [every question should be &quot;conceptual&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583), we already have an [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics) tag (which is fine as it actually tells you something about the topic opf the question), there is already a [thought-experiment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thought-experiment) tag and its content looks rather random to me and not deserving of a common tag, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="6ecc8590-ebfd-4ace-8987-329b36889060" CreationDate="2016-03-17T11:56:20.793" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7605" RevisionGUID="34ffd924-f632-4803-82ce-c190fcf50e7f" CreationDate="2016-03-18T10:27:17.377" UserId="25301" Text="Simply asking &quot;*How does line X.Z come from line X.Y?*&quot; is likely to get your question closed as [homework-like](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) (or maybe *unclear* if you don't quote the relevant section of the text/paper you're referring to). So for it to remain open and answered, it needs to be framed to be more about the *physics* of what the math is saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one could ask about the assumptions underlying the derivation, but I think it important to include your expectation of *why* you think something is screwy with the derivation (e.g., *Why do we take the small x limit here, can't x be big because Reason Y?*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="5c8b202b-a01b-4d23-a547-b0dab84d485c" CreationDate="2016-03-18T10:47:54.213" UserId="70392" Text="Let us say that I want source of information that gives worked examples for a very specific topic (let us call it X). I have access to a (pretty good) library and have searched both this and the world wide web endlessly for some examples - to no avail. Clearly what I am after can not be found by a quick google search. Would it be appropriate to ask for such a resource on PSE or would it likely get closed of been off topic. (I suspect the latter hence why I am checking here first)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="5c8b202b-a01b-4d23-a547-b0dab84d485c" CreationDate="2016-03-18T10:47:54.213" UserId="70392" Text="Resource recomendation - very specfic topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="5c8b202b-a01b-4d23-a547-b0dab84d485c" CreationDate="2016-03-18T10:47:54.213" UserId="70392" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20848" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="652fb022-cd04-4576-a352-ef53a23007c8" CreationDate="2016-03-18T11:07:28.937" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="Resource recomendation - very specific topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="8ba5e232-1432-40bb-844d-f693afe74c30" CreationDate="2016-03-18T14:12:34.877" UserId="76162" Text="We've recently had John Rennie asking &quot;canonical&quot; questions which he's answered himself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time, does it flow, and if so what defines its direction?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time dilation really?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He says his answers are intended to be definitive and authoritative, and that he [welcomes comments]( http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time/7514#7514). But he doesn’t. He said [&quot;why not post your view as an answer?&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/235512/76162) but he deleted my point-by-point view without discussion. There were also polite but challenging comments from another poster, followed by John Rennie saying &quot;let's continue this in chat&quot;, but now those comments have vanished without trace. And more importantly, those &quot;definitive&quot;, &quot;authoritative&quot; answers are not correct. Time really isn't &quot;just a coordinate&quot;. A clock really isn't something that &quot;measures distances&quot;. The resolution to the twins paradox really isn't &quot;the metric you use to do the calculation is not the same as the metric I use to do the calculation&quot;. Whilst those answers have received an awful lot of upvotes, I must point out that science is not a democracy. All the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all , I think this canonical sort of thing is fraught with problems. It's the sort of thing that will harm physics stack exchange by saddling it with bad-science lies-to-children answers that can’t be corrected. It is in essence saying “mine is the right answer and all other answers aren’t worth looking at”. It’s imposing an orthodoxy, and it’s the sort of hubristic mindset that gets in the way of scientific progress. It’s more suited to a medieval theocracy than 21st Century physics. IMHO there's already problems with closevotes wherein the alleged duplicate isn't really a duplicate, and/or all the answers are wrong, and/or the closevoter is the author of one of them. This is only going to make it worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think we should discourage &quot;canonical&quot; questions with &quot;canonical&quot; answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="8ba5e232-1432-40bb-844d-f693afe74c30" CreationDate="2016-03-18T14:12:34.877" UserId="76162" Text="Should we discourage &quot;canonical&quot; questions with &quot;canonical&quot; answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="8ba5e232-1432-40bb-844d-f693afe74c30" CreationDate="2016-03-18T14:12:34.877" UserId="76162" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7608" RevisionGUID="241bf1a4-db99-47e3-ba5d-a7fae3f897e9" CreationDate="2016-03-18T14:33:32.233" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them. Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the general idea!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions. Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took a look at your examples, and to be honest I think you're making too big a deal out of this. He's being a bit critical, which is not good. But you've ended up dismissing him and calling him names. That's not good either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223), for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry Will, but I think he's right about that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831) is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid he does have a point when he said if you start out 8 light years away and get closer, you'll never be 13.33 light years away.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong. This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer here, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can your provide examples please? The two examples so far are not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers. (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, please can you provide examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating. The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating. What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line). I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that. Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls. I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake. Is there anything else I should be doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you should respond to comments that you think are incorrect or misguided, and/or you should flag them. Not responding, and then making a fuss here and calling the guy a troll is _not_ the right approach.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="fbd8c7a5-2cdc-4c45-8ae8-5e1769bfe721" CreationDate="2016-03-18T14:41:39.307" UserId="2451" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="This is prompted by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which asks why _s_ is used as the letter for position. Here are some more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67928/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/91933/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/101920/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134412/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139800/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/144079/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/156879/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159722/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/203720/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208870/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/211829/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/213214/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/244010/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Feel free to edit in more examples. Posts not prone to the auto-deletion script is preferred.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions on topic? They're not really about physical concepts, but they are about matters that are fairly specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="e02b8549-7b2e-48e0-ba65-cd4c5e51d7b0" CreationDate="2016-03-18T14:53:57.167" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is prompted by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which asks why _s_ is used as the letter for position. Here are some more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67928/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/91933/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/101920/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134412/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139800/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/144079/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/156879/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159722/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/203720/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208870/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/211829/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/213214/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/244010/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Feel free to edit in more examples. Posts not prone to the auto-deletion script are preferred.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions on topic? They're not really about physical concepts, but they are about matters that are fairly specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="80a5fb42-9a5f-47e6-8e96-f2fe7dbe94cd" CreationDate="2016-03-18T16:27:19.950" UserId="1325" Text="We have always had canonical questions/answers, it’s just that until Danu’s post here in the Meta we didn’t call them canonical. A canonical question/answer is one where the question is so apposite and the answer so clearly explained it ends up being cited many times. Sorting the questions by votes will quickly reveal many such questions. My own favourites include (to list just a few):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53802/what-is-delta-t-in-the-time-energy-uncertainty-principle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95366/why-does-stephen-hawking-say-black-holes-dont-exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though of course everyone will have their own favourites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the Physics SE isn’t a blog and shouldn’t be treated like one. If we all started writing what amounted to blog posts just because there was some subject that we found fascinating that would quickly alienate the site members. Setting out to deliberately write a canonical Q/A (as opposed to achieving it as a side effect, like the three examples above) is something that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I want to keep things general and avoid specific issues let’s take the three Q/As of mine that John mentions as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the most prolific poster of answers on this site (note that I’m claiming no special merit here, unless you regard fecundity as a virtue :-) I have seen lots and lots of questions and answers - I’ve probably at least glanced at every question on the site for the last five years. As a result I get a feel for when the same topic is being questioned again and again, and the question *What is time* in its various forms has been asked countless times. When this finally annoyed me once too often I posted on the Meta asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and got the general impression that a deliberate attempt at a canonical Q/A would be well received. Even then it took me a month to decide how best to write one. So this was not a spur of the moment impulse because I was bored. It was a considered decision based on consultation. In the end I wrote three questions, but they’re all one Q/A really - I just split them into three to make them more digestible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not my three recent Q/As are a long term benefit to this community remains to be seen. I’ve already used them several times as duplicates, or I’ve posted them in comments as a related question, but I haven’t attempted to analyse how many times others have linked them. They have ended up with a middling number of upvotes, but as John says the number of upvotes is a poor guide to quality, especially when a question makes the Hot Questions list as at least one of mine did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the question of canonical Q/As is broader than just the three questions mentioned in John’s question. I have linked my three favourite Q/As mentioned above many, many times, and the site would be a considerably poorer place without them. But of course those questions weren’t deliberately posted to be canonical, they just happened to hit the target, and I think the crux of John’s question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should site members deliberately post questions and answers intended to be canonical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps surprisingly my answer to this is that no they should not. Just because a subject seems interesting to you is no guarantee that it will be interesting to anyone else, and no guarantee that an attempted canonical Q/A on the subject will be useful. You should at the very least discuss it in the Meta before posting, and perhaps bring it up at the fortnightly physics chats before setting pen to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, and again this is a general point although I’ll address the specific issue of the Q/As mentioned by John. Posting a canonical question and answer does not mean no-one else can answer the question. Indeed, there are frequently many different perspectives on a complicated issue and ideally a canonical question will attract answers from several site members who want to post different perspectives. Indeed this is what has happened with all three of the questions that John mentions. Naturally I think my own answers are the best :-), and they have attracted the most upvotes, but anyone add their own answer if they think they can do a better job.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="97937785-4a0e-4cba-95b1-37fee6714ef4" CreationDate="2016-03-18T16:32:21.763" UserId="1325" Comment="Add link" Text="We have always had canonical questions/answers, it’s just that until [Danu’s post][1] here in the Meta we didn’t call them canonical. A canonical question/answer is one where the question is so apposite and the answer so clearly explained it ends up being cited many times. Sorting the questions by votes will quickly reveal many such questions. My own favourites include (to list just a few):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53802/what-is-delta-t-in-the-time-energy-uncertainty-principle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95366/why-does-stephen-hawking-say-black-holes-dont-exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though of course everyone will have their own favourites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the Physics SE isn’t a blog and shouldn’t be treated like one. If we all started writing what amounted to blog posts just because there was some subject that we found fascinating that would quickly alienate the site members. Setting out to deliberately write a canonical Q/A (as opposed to achieving it as a side effect, like the three examples above) is something that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I want to keep things general and avoid specific issues let’s take the three Q/As of mine that John mentions as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the most prolific poster of answers on this site (note that I’m claiming no special merit here, unless you regard fecundity as a virtue :-) I have seen lots and lots of questions and answers - I’ve probably at least glanced at every question on the site for the last five years. As a result I get a feel for when the same topic is being questioned again and again, and the question *What is time* in its various forms has been asked countless times. When this finally annoyed me once too often I posted on the Meta asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and got the general impression that a deliberate attempt at a canonical Q/A would be well received. Even then it took me a month to decide how best to write one. So this was not a spur of the moment impulse because I was bored. It was a considered decision based on consultation. In the end I wrote three questions, but they’re all one Q/A really - I just split them into three to make them more digestible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not my three recent Q/As are a long term benefit to this community remains to be seen. I’ve already used them several times as duplicates, or I’ve posted them in comments as a related question, but I haven’t attempted to analyse how many times others have linked them. They have ended up with a middling number of upvotes, but as John says the number of upvotes is a poor guide to quality, especially when a question makes the Hot Questions list as at least one of mine did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the question of canonical Q/As is broader than just the three questions mentioned in John’s question. I have linked my three favourite Q/As mentioned above many, many times, and the site would be a considerably poorer place without them. But of course those questions weren’t deliberately posted to be canonical, they just happened to hit the target, and I think the crux of John’s question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should site members deliberately post questions and answers intended to be canonical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps surprisingly my answer to this is that no they should not. Just because a subject seems interesting to you is no guarantee that it will be interesting to anyone else, and no guarantee that an attempted canonical Q/A on the subject will be useful. You should at the very least discuss it in the Meta before posting, and perhaps bring it up at the fortnightly physics chats before setting pen to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, and again this is a general point although I’ll address the specific issue of the Q/As mentioned by John. Posting a canonical question and answer does not mean no-one else can answer the question. Indeed, there are frequently many different perspectives on a complicated issue and ideally a canonical question will attract answers from several site members who want to post different perspectives. Indeed this is what has happened with all three of the questions that John mentions. Naturally I think my own answers are the best :-), and they have attracted the most upvotes, but anyone add their own answer if they think they can do a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="ca0a69d7-aa65-48cd-a72e-ba36dad476a3" CreationDate="2016-03-18T23:58:27.947" UserId="8563" Comment="Updated background opacity." Text="[![History of Science and Mathematics at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7605" RevisionGUID="db72029b-806b-4b5a-8577-27c505d4ac8a" CreationDate="2016-03-19T12:24:04.577" UserId="25301" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Simply asking &quot;*How does line X.Z come from line X.Y?*&quot; is likely to get your question closed as [homework-like](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714) (or maybe *unclear* if you don't quote the relevant section of the text/paper you're referring to). So for it to remain open and answered, it needs to be framed to be about the *physics* of what the math is saying, rather than *how* to do the math.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one could ask about the assumptions underlying the derivation, but I think it important to include your expectation of *why* you think something is screwy with the derivation (e.g., *Why do we take the small x limit here, can't x be big because Reason Y?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Such a question would likely be on topic over at [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="c57a6bad-a1f8-4208-a85e-788ae3eec4c7" CreationDate="2016-03-19T17:15:58.820" UserId="85616" Text="Some of my questions were on-hold and closed. As everyone knows, it comes a yellow rectangle where it explains what it means and why is your question not so good.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Yellow rectangle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, this rectangle doesn't explain enough why was the question closed or put on-hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it okay to write in the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm a bit new in this site and I would like to know what were my mistakes if this question is going to be closed or on-hold. Please write at the comments what were the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it redundant? Will people take this as bad? I'm asking this because many times they can put the question closed or on-hold, and the explanation in the rectangle isn't enough for understanding the mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will these moderators explain the problem at the comments as I asked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D516U.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="c57a6bad-a1f8-4208-a85e-788ae3eec4c7" CreationDate="2016-03-19T17:15:58.820" UserId="85616" Text="Asking moderators favors when looking at questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="c57a6bad-a1f8-4208-a85e-788ae3eec4c7" CreationDate="2016-03-19T17:15:58.820" UserId="85616" Text="|discussion|comments|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="19a7eaa4-ef16-484f-9dce-f080d7780c78" CreationDate="2016-03-19T17:51:25.650" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="48d5cdb3-e4b2-4385-adf7-b207b874038a" CreationDate="2016-03-19T18:10:30.377" UserId="2451" Text="Asking for close-reasons is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE members try to leave comments whenever the standard banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE members are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on help pages and various Phys.SE meta posts. Alternatively you can also try to ask for clarification in the hbar chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="55622729-739b-4912-b6f4-3f212a4e2466" CreationDate="2016-03-19T18:12:23.637" UserId="2451" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Asking for close-reasons is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE members try to leave comments whenever the standard banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE members are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/). Alternatively you can also try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="3925d201-f5b4-4732-9e5b-8e55c0e554a8" CreationDate="2016-03-19T18:25:43.047" UserId="2451" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Asking for close-reasons in comments is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE members try to leave comments whenever the standard banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE members are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above didn't work, you can also post a new meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="291d15e6-772b-42cb-941b-dbeafd81141f" CreationDate="2016-03-20T13:12:12.473" UserId="2451" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Asking for close-reasons in comments is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE users try to leave comments whenever the standard close-reason banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE users are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (requires 20+ reputation points).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above didn't work, you can also post a new meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20867" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="333db1bc-fad2-46f6-947a-00a37f7deb3c" CreationDate="2016-03-20T15:19:49.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/711572962332295169" />
  <row Id="20868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="c2f4f4e7-55e9-4a1c-b6b6-928246fb0a43" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:02:38.947" UserId="148704" Text="How do I use pictures and copyrighted stuff as material. If you can quote someone why can you not quote their work as well? The teacher said in your own words. Does that fix the problem? Does that mean  have to redraw a picture or find one not copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="c2f4f4e7-55e9-4a1c-b6b6-928246fb0a43" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:02:38.947" UserId="148704" Text="Using Copyrighted Material as Answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="c2f4f4e7-55e9-4a1c-b6b6-928246fb0a43" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:02:38.947" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|answers|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="8d2260a6-915d-46e9-9bd9-bb765cce585c" CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:27:53.923" UserId="148704" Comment="updated stuff" Text="For this sight and academics: How do I use pictures and copyrighted stuff as material. If you can quote someone why can you not quote their work as well? The teacher said in your own words. Does that fix the problem? Does that mean  have to redraw a picture or find one not copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20872" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="1b195f71-1e75-4503-a6f7-4e7ffcc9cf22" CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:30:28.047" UserId="148704" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:102013,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20873" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="0a1e7992-8caf-48b8-8b04-2cf1ad3073f3" CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:30:32.170" UserId="148704" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:102013,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="69c456d8-7612-4bc3-9f25-35ac97a45af6" CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:33:08.793" UserId="148704" Comment="updated stuff" Text="For this sight and academics: How do I use pictures and copyrighted stuff as material. If you can quote someone why can you not quote their work as well? The teacher in a previous class not physics told us not to copy word for word but to recall material in our own words. Does that bypass the problem with plagiarism being used as an answer? Does that also mean I have to redraw an illustration or find one not copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7613" RevisionGUID="00578658-2ffd-4105-aacc-a10075db8235" CreationDate="2016-03-21T00:39:23.137" UserId="520" Text="Plagiarism and violations of copyright are two different ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Plagiarism** is the use of another persons words *or ideas* without giving proper credit. It's an academic idea and a violation of academic ethics.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Plagiarism is against the rules, and physics being an academic discipline, the users of this site mostly take those rules very seriously. You can expected plagiarized posts to be deleted. Moreover, you may find that some users don't approve of large-scale copying *even when* it is properly cited. That disapproval might be expressed in terms of down votes.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  You should note that long established physics is *understood* to be long established and you won't see users citing Newton every time they take force as proportional to acceleration, so there is a degree practicality to the application of citation rules. None-the-less, when there is any doubt you should cote sources.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Certainly if you quote any material from a source directly you should (a) use quotation markup (begin lines with `&gt; `), (b) report where you got it with a link and or bibliographic information, and (c) name the actual author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Copyright violation** Is the un-licensesd use of copyrighted material in a way no covered by fair use. This is at a minimum a civil violation of the law (and in some cases can be a criminal violation, though that seems unlikely to apply when we're talking about a Stack Exchange post even though [IANAL][1]).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Posts that violate copyright should be deleted or edited to conform, and that can mean finding replacements for figure that are in the public domain or covered by a permissive license (google advance search can help with that). In the worst case you might have to construct your own figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7613" RevisionGUID="8851c5a0-14d1-4d27-b859-87e884a1f500" CreationDate="2016-03-21T00:44:44.183" UserId="520" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Plagiarism and violations of copyright are two different ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Plagiarism** is the use of another persons words *or ideas* without giving proper credit. It's an academic idea and a violation of academic ethics.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Plagiarism is against the rules, and physics being an academic discipline, the users of this site mostly take those rules very seriously. You can expected plagiarized posts to be deleted. Moreover, you may find that some users don't approve of large-scale copying *even when* it is properly cited. That disapproval might be expressed in terms of down votes.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  You should note that long established physics is *understood* to be long established and you won't see users citing Newton every time they take force as proportional to acceleration, so there is a degree practicality to the application of citation rules. None-the-less, when there is any doubt you should cite sources.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Certainly if you quote any material from a source directly you should (a) use quotation markup (begin lines with `&gt; `), (b) report where you got it with a link and or bibliographic information, and (c) name the actual author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Copyright violation** Is the un-licensesd use of copyrighted material in a way not covered by the doctrine of fair use. This is at a minimum a civil violation of the law (and in some cases can be a criminal violation, though that seems unlikely to apply when we're talking about a Stack Exchange post even though [IANAL][1]).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Posts that violate copyright should be deleted or edited to conform, and that can mean finding replacements for copyrighted materials that are in the public domain or covered by a permissive license (google advance search can help with that). In the worst case you might have to construct your own figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20877" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="2ed5e20c-7ef4-4a90-a831-2ef57a41b941" CreationDate="2016-03-21T04:04:18.843" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/244603/causes-of-down-downvoting-questions" />
  <row Id="20878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="70f34072-2829-49ee-a31b-9ebf8bdd14fc" CreationDate="2016-03-21T03:53:23.807" UserId="111868" Text="Why can't I ask hypothetical questions about situations that cant't happen in the first place, if I'm interested in the resulting phenomena and/or said situation will cause?&#xD;&#xA;And can I try to funny,or is that looked down upon here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="70f34072-2829-49ee-a31b-9ebf8bdd14fc" CreationDate="2016-03-21T03:53:23.807" UserId="111868" Text="Causes of down downvoting questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="70f34072-2829-49ee-a31b-9ebf8bdd14fc" CreationDate="2016-03-21T03:53:23.807" UserId="111868" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="138a7524-ff9a-443f-9e88-ccebff527818" CreationDate="2016-03-21T07:23:45.967" UserId="56997" Text="The simple answer is that science is a description of reality and not a speculative discipline. If you are speculating about a scenario that is not well understood, you can do it as part of hypothesis testing, but if something is well understood, like energy conservation in most regimes, then asking what would happen if it was strongly violated is simply not a scientific question. We can't know what would happen if the laws of nature would not be what they are.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="f65d9744-0ce2-49fd-9595-09a417919d5c" CreationDate="2016-03-21T07:42:12.870" UserId="56997" Comment="added 2365 characters in body" Text="The simple answer is that science is a description of reality and not a speculative discipline. If you are speculating about a scenario that is not well understood, you can do it as part of hypothesis testing, but if something is well understood, like energy conservation in most regimes, then asking what would happen if it was strongly violated is simply not a scientific question. We can't know what would happen if the laws of nature would not be what they are. Pretty much everything in science is, directly or indirectly, strongly intertwined with everything else. Every one scientific construct is checked and cross-checked for consistency with everything else over and over, again. It's a tightly woven logical fabric. Take one thread out and the entire construction unravels in ways that would require a complete reanalysis that may be just as complex as the process of building what we have now in the first place was... and we would be lacking any guidance from nature, which would turn it, at best, into a field of mathematics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are asking about violations because you are trying to understand the significance of a law or a particular phenomenon, then you can always formulate the question in another way, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why is the law of energy conservation so fundamental in physics?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Can we imagine ways in which the law of energy conservation may be broken without unravelling all of physics?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are actual questions that some physicists are asking for good, both theoretically and experimentally, and they do have important answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes we get questions from science fiction authors (or people who are toying with the idea of becoming one) who want a particular plot device validated by science. My advice for those would be to go one of two ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Invent a world with completely different physics. That's safe and it gives you many more means of artistic expression. Some of the best  science fiction and fantastic literature is based on that premise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If you can't do 1), stick slavishly to textbook physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every attempt to walk the fine line between the two that I have seen ended up unmasking the author's inability to stick to his or her own logic. If you need examples for the latter type of literary catastrophy, pretty much every story ever written that has an &quot;ansible&quot; in it belongs into this category and so do almost all stories about time travel. It is extremely difficult to make up scenarios where a plot device lets the author do one particular thing but wouldn't give rise to a much more logical story line that uses the same device in a different way. Unless you are very good at constructing self-consistent story lines (in which case you would likely be making millions in Hollywood, already, and wouldn't have to ask us), don't go there.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="07db5d74-e582-4516-81dc-adadec3e6954" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:40:53.440" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Why can't I ask hypothetical questions about situations that can't happen in the first place, if I'm interested in the resulting phenomena and/or said situation will cause?&#xD;&#xA;And can I try to funny,or is that looked down upon here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="07db5d74-e582-4516-81dc-adadec3e6954" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:40:53.440" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="172274e8-c482-41d7-8764-06eaed5bae47" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:10:54.260" UserId="1325" Text="Is there any way to find out how many times a question has been referenced by other questions? Obviously this can be done because when you look at a question you can see linked questions on the right under the heading &quot;Linked&quot;, though what I'm after is a simple count rather than a list of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably I'll have to resort to the data explorer, though even then it isn't clear how the list of linked questions has been built. Some of the linked questions have been closed as duplicates, but others appear to just mention the target question somewhere in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because I'm curious as to how effective the various canonical questions I've posted have been, and one obvious measure of this is how often they have been cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="172274e8-c482-41d7-8764-06eaed5bae47" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:10:54.260" UserId="1325" Text="How many times has my question been referenced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="172274e8-c482-41d7-8764-06eaed5bae47" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:10:54.260" UserId="1325" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7617" RevisionGUID="b4a2870a-8a64-417a-8ad8-bbe186a55dcf" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:30:48.907" UserId="50583" Text="The count is available in the upper right corner if you click on the *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* below the column of linked questions. If there is no such *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* link, then it means the sidebar is already showing all linked questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this also counts questions that have been linked *to* from the question or one of its answers or comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7618" RevisionGUID="645a9d17-f5a7-4631-b20e-fc79a7320ccb" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:46:18.297" UserId="124" Text="According to [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/266034/link-the-title-of-the-linked-questions-sidebar-to-the-list-of-linked-questions) and other questions on Meta Stack Exchange, you can get to the list of linked questions for a given question by going to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://[site].stackexchange.com/questions/linked/[question-ID]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This page displays a count at the top right. [Example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/136860):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![example of count of links][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [SOUP](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) app transforms the &quot;Linked&quot; header into a link to the page of links, if you want a convenient access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GkJkX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="e094f925-b966-4f3f-a607-e13427f097af" CreationDate="2016-03-21T14:09:06.500" UserId="2451" Comment="distinguish between reference vs citation" Text="Is there any way to find out how many times a question has been cited by other questions? Obviously this can be done because when you look at a question you can see linked questions on the right under the heading &quot;Linked&quot;, though what I'm after is a simple count rather than a list of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably I'll have to resort to the data explorer, though even then it isn't clear how the list of linked questions has been built. Some of the linked questions have been closed as duplicates, but others appear to just mention the target question somewhere in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because I'm curious as to how effective the various canonical questions I've posted have been, and one obvious measure of this is how often they have been cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20892" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="e094f925-b966-4f3f-a607-e13427f097af" CreationDate="2016-03-21T14:09:06.500" UserId="2451" Comment="distinguish between reference vs citation" Text="How many times has my question been cited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="1e854911-c6f0-4632-aadc-9ce70f686eb3" CreationDate="2016-03-21T14:11:34.460" UserId="148704" Comment="updated" Text="For this sight and academics: How do I use pictures and copyrighted stuff as material. If you can quote someone why can you not quote their work as well? The teacher in a previous class not physics told us not to copy word for word but to recall material in our own words. Does that bypass the problem with plagiarism and copyrighted material being used as an answer? Does that also mean I have to redraw an illustration or find one not copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="97979178-ef39-446e-935d-b9ab319149eb" CreationDate="2016-03-21T15:31:21.973" UserId="46399" Comment="edited title" Text="Causes of downvoting questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7617" RevisionGUID="2dc53488-3973-4241-9efc-cba69bc6c157" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:06:42.250" UserId="1325" Comment="Add link to query" Text="The count is available in the upper right corner if you click on the *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* below the column of linked questions. If there is no such *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* link, then it means the sidebar is already showing all linked questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this also counts questions that have been linked *to* from the question or one of its answers or comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick edit by JR: ACuriousMind managed to find a Data Explorer query that lists questions in order of their number of links. I've done some minor hackery on this and the results are at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/454039&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top question is the book recommendations post. The runner up is, well, modesty forbids me from saying ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7617" RevisionGUID="8c893317-f868-4212-9ef0-0b514dac2b10" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:56:16.600" UserId="6634" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="The count is available in the upper right corner if you click on the *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* below the column of linked questions. If there is no such *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* link, then it means the sidebar is already showing all linked questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this also counts questions that have been linked *to* from the question or one of its answers or comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick edit by JR: ACuriousMind managed to find a Data Explorer query that lists questions in order of their number of links. I've done some minor hackery on this and the results are at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/454039&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top question is the book recommendations post. The runner up is, well, modesty forbids me from saying ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another quick edit to answer the titular question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/454081/order-questions-by-links-for-selected-user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just pop in your user ID number and it will rank *your* questions in order of most linked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="d09dd722-aa1c-4cf4-b14a-866ec769661e" CreationDate="2016-03-22T02:02:37.613" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="&gt;Today for the first time in a long while I asked a detailed question about an electrical wiring error I'd like to understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not how much effort or details you've put into; the question is whether it _really_ belongs to __Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people fail to differentiate between __engineering__ and __natural science__; same thing is applied here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you really think you've enquired about a physics concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You detailed the problem; but did the problem really _seek_ any __Physics__?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first answers I received are unhelpful and to tell the truth somewhat angry sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know what answers you are talking about, for I'm not seeing any (I can't see any deleted answer). If you are asking about the comments, then I'm not seeing any kind of _angry_ talks; the user there who voted to close the question put a legitimate reason for doing so- this doesn't sound rude. Others have also advised you to go at [_Electrical Engineering_](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/)- a very reasonable, __helpful__, _non-rude_ and expected behaviour from the users here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I noticed that there's a warning in my home page (or whatever it should be called) that says I'm going to be locked out if I ask any more inappropriate questions. I am surprised at how aggressive the forces seem to be that would discourage me to be a user here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Aggressive_? _Forces_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; We are not against a particular user; there is no, I mean _no_, kind of vengeance acting here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange is a __no-nonsense__ Q&amp;A site; we are here to create noise-free, useful archive of __quality__ Q&amp;As based on __concepts of Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We definitely discourage _low-quality questions_ like _Do-the-Work_, _Check-my-Work_; __Engineering__; _Opinion-based_; __Broad__ questions. Physics SE is not at all meant for all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't discourage any new user but in order to acquaint with what questions are compatible, these sort of warnings are given. They are, _in no way_ harsh or in the sense you are describing the scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Am I just being unlucky or are others having similar unfriendly reception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You misinterpret the _scope_ of the site and misconstrue the warnings and moderations that explicitly and implicitly tried to uplift the quality of your questions that are suitable for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I am coming to the conclusion that I may as well give up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or is there a solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the problem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked three questions; two of which are voted to close on valid grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question was asking about _Concepts of Physics_ and you got a good response at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the solution to the apparent problem is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Ask questions based on _Physics_, that are not too broad to answer and not opinion-based__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions like _wire-problem_ is definitely frowned at as it is not related to physics anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't misapprehend the warnings, moderations, comments; don't try to judge things from one side. We don't have any intention to discourage any newbie to ask here. But questions must be _within_ the scope of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="62649abe-7ec3-437a-a863-b94c9189d1b7" CreationDate="2016-03-22T13:04:04.257" UserId="2451" Comment="My firefox browser writes 'Your connection is not secure' when I click https links. Changing then into http." Text="I've been following the [tag:history] tag for some time now, and it led me to [this Phys.SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/174047/), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/156/) (also [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6421/)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though. I'm neutral on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20899" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="62649abe-7ec3-437a-a863-b94c9189d1b7" CreationDate="2016-03-22T13:04:04.257" UserId="2451" Comment="My firefox browser writes 'Your connection is not secure' when I click https links. Changing then into http." Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7617" RevisionGUID="825be2df-6c17-4667-9ad3-91605113536b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T13:38:54.563" UserId="1325" Comment="Add latest query" Text="The count is available in the upper right corner if you click on the *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* below the column of linked questions. If there is no such *&quot;see more linked questions&quot;* link, then it means the sidebar is already showing all linked questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this also counts questions that have been linked *to* from the question or one of its answers or comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick edit by JR: ACuriousMind managed to find a Data Explorer query that lists questions in order of their number of links. I've done some minor hackery on this and the results are at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/454039&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top question is the book recommendations post. The runner up is, well, modesty forbids me from saying ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another quick edit to answer the titular question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/454081/order-questions-by-links-for-selected-user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just pop in your user ID number and it will rank *your* questions in order of most linked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And not to be outdone Emilio has created a related query to order posts by the number of times they link to other questions. The results are available at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/443461/posts-by-a-user-ordered-by-number-of-links-they-contain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="42e39748-5a2c-44c2-8a34-3766ee1e4c59" CreationDate="2016-03-23T09:40:41.613" UserId="124" Comment="update tag links and improve formatting of excerpt" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from. It should have the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:specific-reference] question, which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dealing with old recommendation posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note&#xD;&#xA;    that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly&#xD;&#xA;    discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation&#xD;&#xA;    questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**.&#xD;&#xA;    This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have&#xD;&#xA;    commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20902" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="069f5e9b-bccd-4d8d-9d2a-e77a15cc520e" CreationDate="2016-03-24T03:26:54.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/712843101623226368" />
  <row Id="20903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="84c5c05a-bc09-4828-8c21-77762c37d8c2" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:09:20.640" UserId="101770" Text="I find myself casting quite a lot of up-votes on questions, usually reaching the daily limit and was wondering if I might be polluting the site with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are other people's mindsets about casting votes?** Do you have a certain criterion other than that the question has to fulfill the rules of the site that you decide on wether to cast an up-vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="84c5c05a-bc09-4828-8c21-77762c37d8c2" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:09:20.640" UserId="101770" Text="What is a good mentality about casting votes responsibly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="84c5c05a-bc09-4828-8c21-77762c37d8c2" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:09:20.640" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|voting|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7620" RevisionGUID="07beb6ba-db9f-4b7c-8483-ec3506a3cd90" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:41:56.040" UserId="124" Text="Voting isn't really meant to be about satisfying the rules of the site. We have other mechanisms for discouraging/improving posts that don't follow the rules (like putting on hold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The intent of votes is that you upvote things which contribute to making this site a valuable resource _for you_, and downvote things which detract from that goal.** In saying this, I'm trusting you to remember that this site is nothing without a community to support it, and a post which you _personally_ do not find useful can still be a good contribution if it helps build the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That criterion still leaves a lot of freedom for each individual person to decide how to use their own votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For questions, you might want to upvote questions which you find interesting, because presumably if you find them interesting, other people will also find them interesting, so those questions bring more attention to the site - though I would point out that not all attention is necessarily good attention. Or you could upvote questions which seem to be well-researched, under the logic that they'll set a good example for other askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You might upvote questions that are at a high level, since they tend to attract professionals. Or you might upvote low-level questions from beginning students of physics, because you want to site to be helpful as a resource to students - though much of the community does not really favor this position, and in fact may prefer to _downvote_ such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're like most of us, you'll also want to downvote questions which are &quot;lazy&quot; or don't seem to be well thought out by their askers, because those don't really help the site.&#xD;&#xA;- For answers, you'll probably want to upvote answers which clearly and completely answer the questions they were posted on. That's the point of answers, after all. You could upvote answers that show a really good effort on the part of the poster, even if they fall short of answering the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It's probably not a good idea to upvote answers that are wrong! Those don't make the site useful at all. You should downvote them. (Though it's not like anyone checks.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Similarly, it probably makes sense to downvote answers that are correct but completely unclear. Bear in mind that what is unclear to you might be very clear to somebody else, and not every answer has to be useful to everybody. In fact, not every answer has to be useful to the original asker of the question! Think of other people who stop by and see the question later, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the community nature of this site, voting (both up and down, as appropriate) helps everybody. I really think people should vote more.&#xD;&#xA;If we have a lot of people casting a lot of votes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- we can more easily distinguish good content from bad&#xD;&#xA;- we reward good contributors and keep them coming back&#xD;&#xA;- we discourage bad contributors and get them to change their ways (or not come back)&#xD;&#xA;- we also have more people with enough reputation to vote, flag, edit, use review queues, close and reopen questions, and all that other stuff which is necessary to keep the site working!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you're not polluting the site by upvoting a lot of questions. If you use up your votes, as long as you're using them to distinguish good contributions from bad ones (rather than upvoting _everything_ to make people feel good), that's great! You're helping. We even have a [badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/72/vox-populi) for it, to encourage people to do exactly that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="e0a68866-fc87-4372-9489-c6b71895690a" CreationDate="2016-03-25T04:40:57.417" UserId="148704" Comment="some grammar corrected" Text="For this sight and academics: How do I can use copyrighted stuff as material. If you can quote someone why can you not quote their work as well? The teacher in a previous class not physics told us not to copy word for word but to recall material in our own words. Does that bypass the problem with plagiarism and copyrighted material being used as an answer? Does that also mean I have to redraw an illustration or find one not copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="2d18a958-7d3a-42e2-b69f-b20bb78daa35" CreationDate="2016-03-25T17:04:59.677" UserId="8563" Comment="Actually correct grammar." Text="For this site and in general for academic purposes: How can I use copyrighted stuff as material? If you can quote someone why can you not quote their work as well? The teacher in a previous class (not physics) told us not to copy word for word but to recall material in our own words. Does that bypass the problem with plagiarism and copyrighted material being used as an answer? Does that also mean I have to redraw an illustration or find one not copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="46cf8958-db1a-461d-a081-6a26b4bbf9e5" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:09:00.173" UserId="109388" Text="For users to progress with badges they have to criticise. Is there a worry that if the badge is earned by criticising someone with little background in the subject will put them off asking questions? Should the &quot;criticise&quot; step be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="46cf8958-db1a-461d-a081-6a26b4bbf9e5" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:09:00.173" UserId="109388" Text="user progression" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="46cf8958-db1a-461d-a081-6a26b4bbf9e5" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:09:00.173" UserId="109388" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="17b54986-bafc-4dbd-80c6-baf25b892d26" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:12:50.837" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20914" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="17b54986-bafc-4dbd-80c6-baf25b892d26" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:12:50.837" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="User progression" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="118d5713-2bc9-4ff0-a726-1521c2c7faad" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:18:29.477" UserId="109388" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="For users to progress with badges they have to criticise. Is there a worry that if the badge is earned by criticising someone with little background in the subject will put them off asking questions? Should the &quot;critic&quot; step be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="cfbfc988-264b-4f9a-bf4a-0110da650c72" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:24:25.277" UserId="6634" Text="There seems to be two ideas behind the badges -- introduce people to concepts/tools/features of the site, and encourage people to do things that are needed but may be tedious. The Critic badge you refer to is the former, while badges encouraging X number of edits is the latter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are essential for the health of the website. It is how we distinguish between good and correct answers and bad, incorrect answers. There is no mechanism other than downvoting to establish if an answer is factually accurate. Comments could be left, but they are temporary. Flags are not supposed to be used for wrong answers and so they won't get deleted unless the original poster does so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves downvotes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The badge does not say &quot;Cast downvotes out of spite on a new user.&quot; Like all voting decisions, it leaves it up to each person to vote how they see fit. And that's a good thing. Hopefully somebody is using their downvote wisely and is contributing to the health of the site. If not, well, these things happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So like all of the badges, downvotes earn a badge because it is an essential feature of the site and can be tedious to go through and study questions and answers for their correctness and then vote accordingly. But it needs to be done, or the site dies off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="944b1d17-be6b-4373-bd0d-a393eef3dd90" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:39:16.303" UserId="2451" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For users to progress with badges they have to [criticise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/7/critic). Is there a worry that if the badge is earned by criticising someone with little background in the subject will put them off asking questions? Should the &quot;critic&quot; step be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20918" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="944b1d17-be6b-4373-bd0d-a393eef3dd90" CreationDate="2016-03-27T15:39:16.303" UserId="2451" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="af263ef6-0722-4686-9e57-c6cf19d0c734" CreationDate="2016-03-29T18:35:29.213" UserId="101770" Text="One of my questions got answered in a comment. What do I do? I could formulate it into an answer myself and write that down, or should I just leave it? Maybe delete the question even?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="af263ef6-0722-4686-9e57-c6cf19d0c734" CreationDate="2016-03-29T18:35:29.213" UserId="101770" Text="What is the procedure if you're question is answered in a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="af263ef6-0722-4686-9e57-c6cf19d0c734" CreationDate="2016-03-29T18:35:29.213" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="41cea7d1-fd96-4c46-bcb5-6a45e73646f2" CreationDate="2016-03-29T19:01:17.277" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="b95a957a-4e22-4f63-81b0-8b18ced602fb" CreationDate="2016-03-29T22:55:15.250" UserId="83398" Text="Several times, I've seen 'why' questions dismissed unfairly when a better answer could be given, because of a kneejerk reaction that a 'why' question can never have an answer, because physics is built to model reality. Below are some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A questions about [Ito and Stratonovich calculus](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245692/it%C3%B4-or-stratonovich-calculus-which-one-is-more-relevant-from-the-point-of-view), asking why we choose one over the other in physics. There are lots of disparaging comments about how such a question is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;- A really deep question about [QCD bound states](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38137/whats-the-deepest-reason-why-qcd-bound-states-have-integer-charge), which received an answer saying &quot;physics does not answer why questions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- A question about [SU(4) symmetry](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246036/why-is-there-no-fundamental-force-following-from-the-su4-symmetry#246036), which is being received poorly.&#xD;&#xA;- A question about [the spin of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14932/why-do-we-not-have-spin-greater-than-2), which I can totally imagine being received poorly today, but happened to get a fantastic answer when it was asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As shown by the last example, there are lots of good possible answers to a 'why X' question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can show that if X weren't true, there would be some internal contradiction, or you would lose some important, more fundamental principle.&#xD;&#xA;- You can show by analogy with simpler theories (e.g. classical limit) that X makes sense. Or, if there are deeper theories, you can derive X from one of them.&#xD;&#xA;- You can use anthropics, i.e. argue that something would go horribly wrong with the universe if X weren't true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these things answer &quot;why&quot; in the philosophical sense, but they do answer it perfectly well in the physical sense. Can we just assume that question posters mean the latter, instead of ridiculing them for possibly meaning the former?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="b95a957a-4e22-4f63-81b0-8b18ced602fb" CreationDate="2016-03-29T22:55:15.250" UserId="83398" Text="Poor reception of 'why' questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="b95a957a-4e22-4f63-81b0-8b18ced602fb" CreationDate="2016-03-29T22:55:15.250" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="d84ecac7-7b0c-48fb-8bd4-3570a56f181d" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:17:50.750" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 290 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Several times, I've seen 'why' questions dismissed unfairly when a better answer could be given, because of a kneejerk reaction that a 'why' question can never have an answer, because physics is built to model reality. Below are some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A questions about [Ito and Stratonovich calculus](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/245692/), asking why we choose one over the other in physics. There are lots of disparaging comments about how such a question is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;- A really deep question about [QCD bound states](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/38137/), which received an answer saying &quot;physics does not answer why questions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- A question about [SU(4) symmetry](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246036/), which is being received poorly.&#xD;&#xA;- A question about [the spin of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14932/), which I can totally imagine being received poorly today, but happened to get a fantastic answer when it was asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As shown by the last example, there are lots of good possible answers to a 'why X' question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can show that if X weren't true, there would be some internal contradiction, or you would lose some important, more fundamental principle.&#xD;&#xA;- You can show by analogy with simpler theories (e.g. classical limit) that X makes sense. Or, if there are deeper theories, you can derive X from one of them.&#xD;&#xA;- You can use anthropics, i.e. argue that something would go horribly wrong with the universe if X weren't true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these things answer &quot;why&quot; in the philosophical sense, but they do answer it perfectly well in the physical sense. Can we just assume that question posters mean the latter, instead of ridiculing them for possibly meaning the former?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20930" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="d84ecac7-7b0c-48fb-8bd4-3570a56f181d" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:17:50.750" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 290 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7626" RevisionGUID="9eaab391-9903-4615-894a-4fce1a1c8c5d" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:54:32.160" UserId="50583" Text="Not all &quot;Why X?&quot; questions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appearance of the word &quot;why?&quot; alone tells you nothing about a question. Let's go through your examples first to see explicitly what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question title [Itô or Stratonovich calculus: which one is more relevant from the point of view of physics?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/245692/50583) is badly chosen. The actual question seems to be: &quot;How do I decide when to use Itô and when to use Stratonovich calculus in physics?&quot;, but the title is what people first see (and based on which, I will admit, I first thought this was a primarily opinion-based question). The &quot;lots of disparaging comments&quot; are all from one user, that is hardly representative of any community viewpoint. I don't see why you would label this a &quot;why&quot; question at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The &quot;really deep question&quot; about [QCD bound states and fractional charges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/38137/50583) is well-received (9 upvotes, no downvotes), and has no answer in the Standard Model (the Rishon model in the other answer is currently not believed to be realized in nature, as far as I know). The answer that &quot;this is what we experimentally find, there is no deeper reason&quot; is a perfectly fine answer from the currently accepted viewpoint, I don't know what irks you about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [poorly received question about SU(4) symmetry](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246036/50583) was rightfully poorly received. It shows no awareness of how predictions of a SU(4) theory would differ from what we experimentally observe, and it is not clear what sort of &quot;why&quot; it asks for: &quot;Why&quot; is the SU(4) not part of the Standard Model? (Because we don't observe it, duh!) &quot;Why&quot; is an SU(4) not possible in QFT? (Meaningless question, as it is possible) The edit asks: *&quot;Can the Standard Model be extended in a straightfoward way to include an SU(4) gauge field?&quot;* which is a much better and more precise question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [question about spin-2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14932/50583) is indeed a good one, and I would see it well-received &quot;even&quot; today. That is because it is *not* a vague &quot;Why don't we have spin-2?&quot; type of question, but it *specifically* asks about the reason one cannot construct consistent interacting QFTs with higher spin. It's a fine question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altogether, I dispute your claim that &quot;Why X?&quot; questions are poorly received. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is poorly received are &quot;Why X?&quot; questions that additionally happen to ask about nothing specific, or that seem non-sensical. For instance, &quot;Why is X not part of the Standard Model?&quot; always has the trivial answer &quot;because we don't observe what X predicts.&quot;, and is a boring question and should be poorly received. &quot;Why is there no consistent theory with X?&quot;, &quot;Is there an extension of the Standard Model with X?&quot; or &quot;Is X possible in &lt;your favourite not-QFT theory here&gt;?&quot; are perfectly fine questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="4a67a66c-fbee-4eca-b76d-0ceb2fc57e43" CreationDate="2016-03-30T09:49:24.100" UserId="124" Text="There is a [chat bot called Smoke Detector](https://github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector), active on several other SE sites, that automatically checks for potentially low-quality posts and writes chat messages to notify people about them. These messages can be posted to a dedicated chat room, as [for Mathematics SE](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2165/c-r-u-d-e), or to the main site chat, as [for English SE](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/95/english-language-usage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would we like this active for our site? There is little cost to enabling it, but not much to gain either unless people are watching the corresponding chat room and acting on the messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we do want it, should messages go into the main site chat or a separate, dedicated room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="4a67a66c-fbee-4eca-b76d-0ceb2fc57e43" CreationDate="2016-03-30T09:49:24.100" UserId="124" Text="Do we want chat notifications of potentially low-quality posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="4a67a66c-fbee-4eca-b76d-0ceb2fc57e43" CreationDate="2016-03-30T09:49:24.100" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|chat|community-moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7628" RevisionGUID="f8d74d0f-267f-438e-94a8-a165b8a97d04" CreationDate="2016-03-30T12:07:54.743" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="As one of SmokeDetector developers, I'd like to clarify its scope: it's not targeting low quality posts in a  broad sense, but rather spam and trolling: the kind of posts that can be flagged  &quot;spam&quot; or &quot;rude/abusive&quot;.  Some low-quality posts do get caught by the filter, but this is just a side-effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics has very little spam compared to the site's size. (It seems that science sites are not very attractive to spammers). You can see the [log of reports][1] of Physics posts, which has only 20 reports in the last month. Only one spam answer in a month,  several inane or offensive posts, and quite a few false positives.  Not impressive, really. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are frequently hit sites where paying extra attention to SmokeDetector reports is worth the effort: Stack Overflow, Ask Ubuntu, Personal Finance and Money, etc. Physics does not appear to be one of those.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&amp;title=&amp;body=&amp;username=&amp;why=&amp;site=Physics&amp;feedback=&amp;reason=&amp;user_rep_direction=%3E%3D&amp;user_reputation=0&amp;commit=Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20936" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="ad5b74f0-a532-45ea-b921-43e5c30fc934" CreationDate="2016-03-30T12:47:31.350" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7494],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="20937" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="c8432f99-15f6-42c1-9e1d-d57118719d01" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:34:28.743" UserId="8563" Comment="Title spelling before this goes down into the books." Text="What is the procedure if your question is answered in a comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20938" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="ba0fcfed-951f-4feb-b04d-fcc1792f6497" CreationDate="2016-03-30T22:56:12.233" UserId="-1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:82798,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Daniel Griscom&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="28c7ddfe-fa2b-432a-92a6-dd3066114172" CreationDate="2016-03-31T00:58:56.247" UserId="36574" Text="I agree that users of physics.SE (new and/or old) can't curb their need to ask for resources based on [this question][1] (based on the tag), as explained [herein][2]. However, many users still ask questions which are duplicate. For example, [this thread][3]. So, would it be possible to create a new tag so as to open the Book recommendation FAQ (after necessary edits), so that it could be linked/suggested to users who might ask duplicate questions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/Or, can we have a library feature/tab added somewhere at physics.SE which comes to the immediate notice of most users, if not all (i.e., as soon as they open physics.SE w/o login in/signing up, and which should not come off as an ad or notification, but can be viewed all the time)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above), and it may be able to stop the &quot;abuse&quot; of the tag &quot;resource-recommendation&quot; as well as build a library of sorts for physics.SE which would, in turn, benefit many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245821/what-is-a-good-primer-on-the-subject-of-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="28c7ddfe-fa2b-432a-92a6-dd3066114172" CreationDate="2016-03-31T00:58:56.247" UserId="36574" Text="Creation of a new tag for books/resource recommendation and having a resource library for physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="28c7ddfe-fa2b-432a-92a6-dd3066114172" CreationDate="2016-03-31T00:58:56.247" UserId="36574" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="bae86e9b-60da-4242-9156-702016d1378d" CreationDate="2016-03-31T01:14:44.670" UserId="36574" Comment="Added a part which I forgot to add, earlier." Text="I agree that users of physics.SE (new and/or old) can't curb their need to ask for resources based on [this question][1] (based on the tag), as explained [herein][2]. However, many users still ask questions which are duplicate. For example, [this thread][3]. So, would it be possible to create a new tag so as to open the Book recommendation FAQ (after necessary edits), so that it could be linked/suggested to users who might ask duplicate questions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/Or, can we have a library feature/tab added somewhere at physics.SE which comes to the immediate notice of most users, if not all (i.e., as soon as they open physics.SE w/o login in/signing up, and which should not come off as an ad or notification, but can be viewed all the time)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above), and it may be able to stop the &quot;abuse&quot; of the tag &quot;resource-recommendation&quot; as well as build a library of sorts for physics.SE which would, in turn, benefit many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I also noticed that the Book recommendation FAQ of physics.SE is missing references to discussions on book requests for special relativity. Although I couldn't find many questions asking for books on SR, I found [this thread][4] which should be linked in the Book recommendation FAQ (in future after necessary edits, if at all), IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245821/what-is-a-good-primer-on-the-subject-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95609/textbook-on-the-geometry-of-special-relativity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="f75d5e03-bd5b-40c2-bb0f-7743777eabfd" CreationDate="2016-03-31T03:55:20.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/715386972026638336" />
  <row Id="20944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7630" RevisionGUID="29d1fd19-e45d-465a-9610-2215c3beabe6" CreationDate="2016-03-31T07:43:25.230" UserId="124" Text="I don't understand what purpose this new tag would serve. We already have [tag:resource-recommendation] to identify resource recommendation requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have an established procedure for dealing with duplicate questions, namely flagging. (Or voting to close if you have enough reputation.) Overly broad recommendation requests can be closed as duplicates of the master book recommendation question, while others can be closed as duplicates of specific topical recommendation questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="6289081f-9222-4e8f-a263-9f34908c580b" CreationDate="2016-03-31T12:58:23.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/715523636854173696" />
  <row Id="20946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="10ab3622-f639-4dbe-803c-173624ba7ee2" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:53:37.577" UserId="8563" Text="The question [Book recommendations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) is a historical artifact, from days before recommendation questions were banned (and later on re-allowed), and it is really an experiment that did not work. It really serves no purpose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you want to browse the book recommendation questions on this site, you can [look directly at the tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - If you want to look for book recommendation questions about a specific topic, you can [search for questions with the tag, using the syntax [resource-recommendations], and whatever keywords you want](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those enable many more features than just a static text list, both in terms of sorting (newest / frequent / active / votes / relevance to search terms) and in terms of further search within those lists. The site also has a lot of [advanced search options](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) that can help you dig deeper into those results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only element that the overarching [Book recommendations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) question offers is curation: some form of guarantee that the questions will be good and represent our top-of-the-line selection. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We already have a system for sorting the good posts from the bad posts: it's called voting. This is why you can sort search results by their scores.&#xD;&#xA; - Curation requires an active curator: that is, for an overarching book-recommendations question to actually work, it requires a group of people to actively dedicate their time to maintain it. So far, there is a small number of people who have kept the *tag* itself in good repair, and none of them have shown any interest in maintaining that question. If that changes, then we could bring it up again, but until it does I don't see the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you envisioning further functionality than what I addressed above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing you seem to be proposing is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not really something that has worked well in our format. We deal well in specifics, but categories like &quot;video lectures on physics&quot; are much broader than what we can address here. We do have a bunch of [tag:resource-recommendations] questions [specifically asking for video lectures](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+video), and each of those is more specific and therefore works. If you want an overarching list of the content we do have, use that search; if you want content added to the site, ask a (suitably specific) question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suffers from the same problem pointed out above. Recruiting users for this sort of effort has in general proved very hard. If you can show that there's a sizable population of people willing to invest the time into this, then that's a different story - but you need to show it first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7630" RevisionGUID="8355711e-2d3c-48ce-af81-22306bf4a9a3" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:53:53.187" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't understand what purpose this new tag would serve. We already have [tag:resource-recommendations] to identify resource recommendation requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have an established procedure for dealing with duplicate questions, namely flagging. (Or voting to close if you have enough reputation.) Overly broad recommendation requests can be closed as duplicates of the master book recommendation question, while others can be closed as duplicates of specific topical recommendation questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="6c916d84-0b0e-4727-8556-70e9aad34078" CreationDate="2016-04-02T05:23:40.543" UserId="111507" Text="I recently asked a question that was originally put &quot;on-hold&quot; (you can look at the question here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245079/su2-rotation-matrices-problem-from-halzen-and-martin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I’ve read the homework policies several times, in an attempt to edit my problem so that it is more in concurrence with the site’s policy. I’ve edited the question already twice. I don’t understand why the question has not been reopened, since my purpose is to understand how to manipulate an operator when dealing with a higher spin system **in general**, not specifically for the case of my posted problem, which I’ve been working on for awhile now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what can be done to get this re-opened? Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate? I want to respect the site’s policies, and I understand that the Moderators don’t want to be haggled with homework questions, but at the same time... I’d like to get some clarification on the concept I stated above. Thanks in advance for the response! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="6c916d84-0b0e-4727-8556-70e9aad34078" CreationDate="2016-04-02T05:23:40.543" UserId="111507" Text="What can be done in order to re-open a closed question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="6c916d84-0b0e-4727-8556-70e9aad34078" CreationDate="2016-04-02T05:23:40.543" UserId="111507" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7634" RevisionGUID="eded1d66-1d27-4186-9adc-e3a67e26d7dc" CreationDate="2016-04-02T06:05:22.250" UserId="1325" Text="A quick note on this: Matt posted his question in a series of edits that took about half an hour to reach the final form. I saw the question at an intermediate stage and it looked very like homework hence the close vote. In it's current form the key bit of the question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How can one obtain the eigenvalues of a higher spin system than ${1/2}$ when operated on by a rotation matrix operator, like $e^{-i{\theta}J_{i}}$, where $J_{i}$ is the rotation group around any of the 1, 2, or 3rd axes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this seems to me to be a reasonable question. However the lengthy preamble and in particular the images that make up the first part of the question do make it look like an attempt to get us to do a problem, and I suspect many site members would have lost the will to live before they reach the actual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meta posts like this one have a high success rate in getting questions reopened, but that doesn't necessarily mean the question will attract good answers. I would be inclined to rethink what exactly is being asked and post a new question that is better focused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="7aff5f70-d35e-4afb-9848-e92126120dca" CreationDate="2016-04-02T06:12:21.373" UserId="124" Text="I think the question is now perfectly acceptable, and I personally would vote to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it's not very good for the community moderation model if I go around closing and opening things willy-nilly. Your question was reviewed twice since you edited it ([first review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124093), [second review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124324), and all four reviewers thought it was still inappropriate for the site. We should find out why. Hopefully at least one of them stops by to provide an answer (and I'll see if I can bug them about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, don't do _that_. Deleting and reposting questions is against our rules (of course as a new member, you probably wouldn't have known). If further edits are required, you can just keep editing the same question. Just try to batch up your edits so that you make all the changes required at once, and that you don't wind up editing the post too many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few edits you could make to your question that would vastly improve it, and even though these shouldn't be the _cause_ for it to stay on hold, given human nature, these might help the question's chances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don't post a screenshot of text from a book. Instead, retype the relevant parts of the text, making sure to use a quote block to indicate what you have copied from the book. (Make sure to acknowledge the source, too.)&#xD;&#xA;- Improve the math formatting by using the operator macros `\sin` and `\cos`, and writing kets as `\lvert jm\rangle` instead of `|jm&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps most important, give your question [a better title](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles). Even though the decision to put a question on hold should be based on the body, not the title, whatever title you do choose is your question's first impression to readers and it can influence their judgement of the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In your case, &quot;SU(2) Rotation Matrices Problem from Halzen and Martin&quot; says nothing about what you're actually asking. Besides, the key word in the title is &quot;Problem&quot;, which suggests that you want the solution to the problem from the book, even though that's not what you're actually asking in the body. A better title would highlight the conceptual issue you're actually asking about. Based on your wording in the body, you could go with something like &quot;How can one obtain the eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system?&quot;, or if you want it shorter, &quot;Eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system&quot;. (Titles don't _have_ to be questions, though in my experience it's often easier to write a good title if you make it a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="379cff47-417f-42e5-9164-0d462af6f9c2" CreationDate="2016-04-02T06:57:18.750" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="379cff47-417f-42e5-9164-0d462af6f9c2" CreationDate="2016-04-02T06:57:18.750" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I recently asked a question that was originally put &quot;on-hold&quot; (you can look at the question here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/245079/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I’ve read the homework policies several times, in an attempt to edit my problem so that it is more in concurrence with the site’s policy. I’ve edited the question already twice. I don’t understand why the question has not been reopened, since my purpose is to understand how to manipulate an operator when dealing with a higher spin system **in general**, not specifically for the case of my posted problem, which I’ve been working on for awhile now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what can be done to get this re-opened? Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate? I want to respect the site’s policies, and I understand that the Moderators don’t want to be haggled with homework questions, but at the same time... I’d like to get some clarification on the concept I stated above. Thanks in advance for the response! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="48495b25-58f4-464d-a2c2-5dfd8acb8df0" CreationDate="2016-04-02T12:56:40.870" UserId="5739" Text="I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739).  Is there a better statement somewhere?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was hard enough to find.  Perhaps a entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise.  Do we have a consensus?  If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I think a clear statement in help would give us something to point to as a reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="48495b25-58f4-464d-a2c2-5dfd8acb8df0" CreationDate="2016-04-02T12:56:40.870" UserId="5739" Text="Guidelines for *answering* homewore-like questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="48495b25-58f4-464d-a2c2-5dfd8acb8df0" CreationDate="2016-04-02T12:56:40.870" UserId="5739" Text="|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20959" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="84ef7b4b-317a-4ebf-a48d-fffd83833f17" CreationDate="2016-04-02T12:57:32.610" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20960" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="d4212f00-9640-49f3-a471-acd719a54e80" CreationDate="2016-04-02T14:16:08.453" UserId="1325" Comment="Homewhore?" Text="Guidelines for *answering* homework-like questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="2d1109b8-67b6-4c02-a75c-f3c132bcff91" CreationDate="2016-04-02T15:04:40.123" UserId="46399" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739).  Is there a better statement somewhere?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was hard enough to find.  Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise.  Do we have a consensus?  If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I think a clear statement in help would give us something to point to as a reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20962" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="d339ec43-d960-45b6-b689-6555c8c982ac" CreationDate="2016-04-02T15:19:34.950" UserId="46399" Comment="edited title" Text="Guidelines for answering homework-like questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7637" RevisionGUID="c454a2fc-ce16-4c7a-b0f9-db40009b6388" CreationDate="2016-04-02T15:53:56.323" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739). Is there a better statement somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, what you found is the official, authoritative policy on homework-like questions. You might find a post that explains a particular point of the homework policy more clearly, but in general, that is the best available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That was hard enough to find. Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mean like this entry in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![picture of help center][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between this and the fact that this post is linked from _every_ question closed as homework-like, I think we've made it relatively easy to find. If there is a specific situation in which it would make sense to add another link to the post, we can do that, but we'd need more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise. Do we have a consensus? If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you don't see is the many weeks of discussion in chat and previous posts on meta that went into crafting that policy. Keep in mind that people who agree with the policy (and in particular, those who were involved in the discussions that created it) have no need to comment on the post. There is a selection bias which makes the comments under the post more likely to oppose it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should probably delete those comments as they are very old, and any changes to the policy inspired by the comments will already have been made. (This doesn't stop people from proposing such changes via new meta posts, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kalgd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="941af694-d57a-4bbb-a7d8-c7b77626350b" CreationDate="2016-04-02T16:25:21.687" UserId="5739" Text="This week I've seen several complete solutions posted to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One author asked if he should delete his answer.  I'm inclined to answer yes, he should delete it, but I'm putting the question up here to see what others think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah ... the author deleted it on his own, so I can't link to it.  But my question still stands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="941af694-d57a-4bbb-a7d8-c7b77626350b" CreationDate="2016-04-02T16:25:21.687" UserId="5739" Text="Should we suggest that authors of complete solutions to homework-like questions delete them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="941af694-d57a-4bbb-a7d8-c7b77626350b" CreationDate="2016-04-02T16:25:21.687" UserId="5739" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20967" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="1681b681-06de-42d3-b8d5-3f6f39d8256a" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:19:55.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/716661516519477248" />
  <row Id="20968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7639" RevisionGUID="7e9f3269-eb45-48f3-a87d-1511fa2abef2" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:36:15.970" UserId="106752" Text="I think you all are still correct but some of us have some personal problems due to which we come to sites like this. I think we should be treated well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7639" RevisionGUID="7e9f3269-eb45-48f3-a87d-1511fa2abef2" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:36:15.970" UserId="106752" Text="Why are homework questions not given proper answers and they don't have much value here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7639" RevisionGUID="7e9f3269-eb45-48f3-a87d-1511fa2abef2" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:36:15.970" UserId="106752" Text="|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="f1d3fabc-3f80-4ca7-9f2b-c9d0935d41ac" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:50:57.700" UserId="520" Text="At this point I have written and erased several strongly worded paragraphs expressing my intense frustration with the *entitlement* expressed in your question. You seem to assume that our purpose here is to be a resource for you in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if that is not why we are gathered here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things you could have done to find out if we were going to want to solve elementary problems for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could have taken [the tour][1].&#xD;&#xA;* You could have read some of the pages in [the help center][2]. Particularly those about [what kinds of questions are welcome][3] and [what kinds are not][4].&#xD;&#xA;* After [your first questions][5] was put on-hold as being too homework-like, you could have read [the link included in the system generated on-hold message][6] that contains guidance on how to ask questions about elementary topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I note that some of your questions have been left open and answered. That's because we're not responding negatively to you as a person but to a particular request that you keep making of us: we don't want to be a homework help-site, and we don't care if the questions were assigned as part of a class or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point *you* have to take responsibility for understanding what this site is and is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246899/the-efficiency-of-a-rough-inclined-plane-is-given-90-the-energy-spent-in-raisi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="9c54da24-949d-4d71-a701-2b6ba2b7b70c" CreationDate="2016-04-03T21:46:44.370" UserId="25301" Text="I somewhat regularly mod-flag answers that are complete solutions to (no-effort) homework problems &amp; request deletion. This is in line with what is stated in the [Homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if an *answerer* questions whether they should delete their answer for breaking the policy, then I would say that *Yes, they should be recommended to self-delete* and link them to the relevant policy (q/714 on meta.physics.se) as a reminder as to *why* the policy is as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7642" RevisionGUID="5ea5872f-1407-4d71-94c4-004954590ae3" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:36:29.647" UserId="30247" Text="Imagine the following scenarios: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason, maybe you want to study abroad, you need to write a letter of motivation in a language you are not very good at. Now, this needs to be very good, but you don't want to bother your friends with correcting it. You pass by some notice where some language enthusiast club for this particular language advertises their meetings. So you decide to go there and just say &quot;Hey, can anyone quickly correct this letter, please? I'm not very good at it and it's urgent!&quot; Would you expect a good response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you have a dispute with your friend about some grammatical finepoint of your mother tongue (if it was English, maybe you ask yourself about how to correctly use the passive voice in a very intricate and very specific example). What do you do? Well, first you look it up in your English book, but the explanation is somewhat intricate and you don't really want to spend time trying to decipher it. So you decide it's quicker to just ask the experts: you look up your local university and call the dean of the language faculty to ask him or her about that particular problem of yours. Would you expect a good response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, I suspect that the recipients of your requests will tell you that this is not the place and tell you the rules or show you where to look them up. Sometimes they will be patient, othertimes they will react sullenly, because they are tired of similar requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two examples are not exactly the same as a homework question on this site, but pretty close. In &quot;real life&quot; most people understand that for every question and matter, there are different places to ask - you don't start with the expert, because other people can answer your questions equally well and are willing to do so because they still learn and like to learn from these types of questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to understand that it's the same on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="33bc8e4c-cd16-4961-8e59-152f421118c1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T11:44:32.470" UserId="89260" Text="I have had a big problem over many months with a question. I try to tell the story as factually as possible. Help is appreciated. Here we go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked a [question][1] on Jan 27 at 14:29.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed as unclear on Jan 29 at 23:20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited for clarity on Jan 30 at 15:45, messaging all who closed it if it was now OK (in the comments). It was not reopened and message was not responded too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited for further clarity again on Feb 8 at 15:49, messaging all who closed it asking of it was now OK. It was not reopened and message was not responded too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see on the link, somebody then deleted these comments, leaving only the comment to define symbols - which was done immeadiately in the first edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By Mar 19 at 12:30, I had given up hope those who closed question would let the reworded question open. I took drastic step to repost it [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was marked as duplicate on Mar 21 at 7:11. This was of the course the case - a duplicate of the reworded closed question. In fact, I said this in the quesion &quot;(Full disclosure: this is reworded version of closed question)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1) How can my question appear on the website without stigma of &quot;closed&quot; or &quot;duplicate&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2) Why do moderators refuse to say why a question was closed?  Notably, it seems to me all symbols are defined and perfectly reasonable equations are given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I try to be good person. All I wanted was reason moderators kept question closed after I completed edits that they required. I believe the aim should be to increase quality of question until it can be reopened. I do not see how it can happen if moderators refuse to communicate. If you look at the question, I do not believe it is so unclear that no amount of future editing would ever render it comprehensible to anyone on this site. It does not seem plausible situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/232086/edge-states-of-kitaev-chain?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/244358/majorana-modes-in-kitaev-chain?noredirect=1#comment543322_244358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="33bc8e4c-cd16-4961-8e59-152f421118c1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T11:44:32.470" UserId="89260" Text="How to get moderators to explain why question is unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="33bc8e4c-cd16-4961-8e59-152f421118c1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T11:44:32.470" UserId="89260" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|moderators|vote-to-close|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20977" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="eddbf750-9c6e-4fee-9a5d-2b6bf96e80d1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T11:51:01.823" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="How to get explanation why question is unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20978" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="eddbf750-9c6e-4fee-9a5d-2b6bf96e80d1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T11:51:01.823" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="eddbf750-9c6e-4fee-9a5d-2b6bf96e80d1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T11:51:01.823" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="I have had a big problem over many months with a question. I try to tell the story as factually as possible. Help is appreciated. Here we go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked a [question][1] on Jan 27 at 14:29.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed as unclear on Jan 29 at 23:20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited for clarity on Jan 30 at 15:45, messaging all who closed it if it was now OK (in the comments). It was not reopened and message was not responded too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited for further clarity again on Feb 8 at 15:49, messaging all who closed it asking of it was now OK. It was not reopened and message was not responded too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see on the link, somebody then deleted these comments, leaving only the comment to define symbols - which was done immediately in the first edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By Mar 19 at 12:30, I had given up hope those who closed question would let the reworded question open. I took drastic step to repost it [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was marked as duplicate on Mar 21 at 7:11. This was of the course the case - a duplicate of the reworded closed question. In fact, I said this in the quesion &quot;(Full disclosure: this is reworded version of closed question)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1) How can my question appear on the website without stigma of &quot;closed&quot; or &quot;duplicate&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2) Why do reviewers refuse to say why a question was closed?  Notably, it seems to me all symbols are defined and perfectly reasonable equations are given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I try to be good person. All I wanted was reason reviewers kept question closed after I completed edits that they required. I believe the aim should be to increase quality of question until it can be reopened. I do not see how it can happen if moderators refuse to communicate. If you look at the question, I do not believe it is so unclear that no amount of future editing would ever render it comprehensible to anyone on this site. It does not seem plausible situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/232086/ &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/244358/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="5bc5b502-835e-42ac-a6b1-91774df15897" CreationDate="2016-04-04T19:07:21.187" UserId="101770" Text="I can't find how to see the badge counts etc on the phone app. is it not an implemented feature or am I blind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="5bc5b502-835e-42ac-a6b1-91774df15897" CreationDate="2016-04-04T19:07:21.187" UserId="101770" Text="How to access badges in phone app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="5bc5b502-835e-42ac-a6b1-91774df15897" CreationDate="2016-04-04T19:07:21.187" UserId="101770" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="ae480170-1e24-421e-ba80-4ba616822dac" CreationDate="2016-04-04T19:16:17.990" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20984" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="1d8c60bf-ba70-414c-9ef5-9ef2350fd648" CreationDate="2016-04-04T22:26:06.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/717116059577425920" />
  <row Id="20985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="dc0bb050-df40-48f7-8bc5-6d12a41c7611" CreationDate="2016-04-05T04:31:30.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/717208014470705154" />
  <row Id="20986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="4b738227-34a3-4c72-a633-efc97c692081" CreationDate="2016-04-05T13:54:03.680" UserId="124" Text="&gt; TL;DR: post examples of current questions which are edge cases for the new policy, look through the list, and vote answers up if you think they should be on topic or down if you think they should be off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we last left [the ongoing examination](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) of [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714), the community had come to something of a consensus that [certain low-effort questions asking for calculations should be off topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124). In addition, I've been watching actual question closures over the past couple months since we had that discussion, and I see more and more questions getting closed for displaying unacceptably low effort, whether using the existing homework-like close reason, or a custom reason written in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think it's time we start formulating a new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new policy, along with one or two associated close reasons, will prescribe how we should decide whether questions are off topic for being low-effort and/or being calculation requests. It will _replace_ the current homework policy, and in the future, we will use the associated close reason(s) for homework questions, _instead_ of using the existing homework-like close reason (which will no longer be active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have in mind is a process in 4 steps, of which this is the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Collect examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Prepare and edit a draft of the new policy that implements the consensus on the examples as well as possible. This may take a while.&#xD;&#xA;3. Decide on the wording of one or two new close reasons that will be associated with the new policy. Two reasons would be an option in case we want both low-effort questions and calculation requests to be off topic and we can't come up with one reason to cover them both.&#xD;&#xA;4. Make an official [meta-tag:faq] post with the content of the new policy, deprecate the current homework policy, and swap the new close reasons in for the existing homework-like close reason. This is the easy part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Collecting examples of on/off-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to guide the development of a new policy, I think it will help to have many examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic. So I'm making this post to solicit these examples from the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it will work: each answer should contain a link to _one_ question that is currently on the site. Vote up each answer if you would like to see that question be on topic under the _new_ policy (that we are going to write), and vote down if you think the question should be off topic under the new policy. It doesn't matter so much whether the question is _currently_ open or closed. If you have feedback arguing one way or another for a particular link, leave it in the comments on that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot of questions, the decision is obvious. We don't really need to post those. What I'm _most_ interested in are &quot;interesting&quot; cases, such as questions which are currently on topic but which you'd like to see be off topic under the new policy, or vice versa. Borderline questions, which are not _clearly_ on-topic or off-topic, are also good candidates for posting here. For inspiration, you can look at our previous discussions on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;- [Chat session on homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6165/does-insufficient-effort-cover-previous-se-questions&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on, e.g. linked and related questions in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus that emerged from the last meta question is represented by [rob's answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124), which suggested the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria. That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this as a starting point to help judge which questions are likely to be edge cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="4b738227-34a3-4c72-a633-efc97c692081" CreationDate="2016-04-05T13:54:03.680" UserId="124" Text="Replacing the homework policy 1: what existing questions should be on/off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="4b738227-34a3-4c72-a633-efc97c692081" CreationDate="2016-04-05T13:54:03.680" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|homework-and-exercises|insufficient-effort|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20989" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="7b558e1a-944b-4f99-be48-db50202062ea" CreationDate="2016-04-06T01:43:12.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/717528047147212800" />
  <row Id="20990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="ae567432-40f4-4788-8297-29f42b46de07" CreationDate="2016-04-06T02:07:22.493" UserId="25301" Text="Perusing [Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) leads me to [this question &amp; answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257836/) from June 2015. The answers to the question both say the app isn't meant to be a replacement for the the main site, that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the app is therefore optimised for this, allowing you to view, comment on, answer, vote and flag posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the (current) answer is that you cannot see the badges you've earned on the site (unless it was a recent one that'd be in your Achievements list, but clicking on that would lead you to the mobile site)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="cee388a0-bef0-4917-a513-72bb920e523d" CreationDate="2016-04-06T07:08:42.457" UserId="1325" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is probably homework because it's really just asking how to solve a problem. However you could argue it's conceptual in the sense that it's asking about how to approach this sort of problem for arbitrary geometries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="751a8f07-e5bc-426d-b362-467216c2eecf" CreationDate="2016-04-06T07:30:57.483" UserId="1325" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247547/extension-in-a-vertically-hanging-rod&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework question, and the OP admits it's a homework question. However the OP isn't asking us to do the problem, they are asking about the physics behind it making more of a *homework inspired* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would leave this one open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7649" RevisionGUID="622f8596-3cc1-4666-ba9f-b2a2aacd4f6c" CreationDate="2016-04-06T09:55:26.880" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247730/does-this-length-refer-to-wavelength-or-length (as of revision 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meets the conceptual question requirement of our current homework policy, but it seems not to show any effort. On the other hand, it's not clear to me what sort of effort we could expect to be shown for a question like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="a934f1ec-9fbf-4c0f-b418-15d2bd768088" CreationDate="2016-04-06T10:20:11.110" UserId="1325" Comment="Add footnote" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is probably homework because it's really just asking how to solve a problem. However you could argue it's conceptual in the sense that it's asking about how to approach this sort of problem for arbitrary geometries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A belated footnote: the simplest approach I've seen to doing this requires the use of the [reciprocity theorem][1], and specifically that the potential energy of a quadrupole charge distribution in the electrostatic potential from a monopole is the same as the potential energy of a monopole in an electrostatic potential from a quadrupole. Wouldn't answering aalong these lines count as conceptual?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)#Green.27s_reciprocity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7649" RevisionGUID="f8a2965c-8199-4240-8ce2-cb9ab954a4bf" CreationDate="2016-04-06T15:04:03.330" UserId="124" Comment="add reminder about voting" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247730/does-this-length-refer-to-wavelength-or-length (as of revision 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meets the conceptual question requirement of our current homework policy, but it seems not to show any effort. On the other hand, it's not clear to me what sort of effort we could expect to be shown for a question like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="3ca31972-911c-4610-bb7e-305724b56fe5" CreationDate="2016-04-06T17:57:30.177" UserId="63690" Text="[Speed of RF waves and IR waves is same as 3*10^8 m/s][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a very elementary question with a straight-forward answer which can be found in every introductory physics text.  I have not, however, been able to find this basic question on PSE with a straight-forward, well-reasoned, not-overly-complicated answer (or any answer for that matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want a collection of elementary questions such as this, if they aren't duplicates, even if the answer is easily found in a text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247829/speed-of-rf-waves-and-ir-waves-is-same-as-3-10-8-m-s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7652" RevisionGUID="b942237a-6c0f-42f1-ad23-e7fd9b1a3de1" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:02:43.147" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/163014/how-to-calculate-the-electric-energy-caused-by-eletrostatic-field-stored-in-a-re&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question shows a good attempt at a solution, but it doesn't ask anything more specific than what the poster has done wrong (which makes it off topic under the _current_ policy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="ad5914bb-b366-43f6-99a8-a123006cfde6" CreationDate="2016-04-07T12:25:19.177" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247999/sound-pitch-of-glass-with-water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a homework or homework-like question, it's not a calculation request, it's completely conceptual, but the question doesn't show any prior research, or any evidence that the poster has made an effort to figure out the answer themselves. You might think that's perfectly fine. On the other hand, if you believe the poster should have shown more effort, what would you expect them to have done? (You can address this in the comments on this answer if you like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="ab773fa3-e9a0-4a05-b235-7704d964bf13" CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:11:52.160" UserId="23389" Text="I agree with a comment from @Mew: Feynman's legendary tetchy response to a ['why' question (why magnets repel) from an interviewer][1] made an impression on many physicists. Feynman insisted that whilst it was an excellent question, it was also problematic, as any answer might precipitate a further question, and, depending on the interviewer's knowledge of physics, be incomplete or dishonest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynman's reaction to 'why' questions has become something of a platitude that, when invoked inappropriately, closes the door on many reasonable and scientific lines of thought and questions. Unfortunately, the hagiography surrounding Feynman means that it's likely to stick around. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="7cc14459-84bc-46c2-bde6-fccd57e87b5f" CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:16:04.080" UserId="38675" Text="[Specific heat ratio difference between dry air and moist air][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly standard homework question that probes if you understand what the difference between heat capacity at constant volume vs pressure means. Seems black and white to me, but lets test the boundary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the most likely issue for the poster is not unwrapping the ratio of the two to get back to the heat capacities proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248024/specific-heat-ratio-difference-between-dry-air-and-moist-air" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="761c2464-df23-4eef-95eb-a1d6088a12ac" CreationDate="2016-04-07T19:27:47.273" UserId="8563" Text="I'm going to go off the script David proposed and emphasize one point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **This programme needs to consider very seriously the role of the [tag:homework] tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, as I wrote [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework), one of the main lessons that came out of [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) previous attempt to reformulate the policy. More specifically, it is an inconsistent position to say &quot;homework is banned&quot; and still keep a [tag:homework] tag, or at least it is something that is very hard to write around. It will be easier now that the tag actually reads [tag:homework-and-exercises] but the problem has by no means gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to express (here and now) an opinion on whether we should change the policy or the usage of the tag. But a discussion of the role of the tag is integral in any attempt to reformulate the policy. One big reason for this is that the first encounter of most new users with the fact that not all homework questions are on-topic will be with the tag wiki excerpt that's shown when you try to tag something as homework. Another big reason is simply that the tag is an integral structural part of how we handle these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this discussion needs to include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to change which questions are tagged as [tag:homework-and-exercises]?&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to keep the tag at all? Do we want to [burninate](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120640/what-does-it-mean-to-burninate-a-tag) and black-list it?&#xD;&#xA; - What does the tag documentation - tag wiki and tag wiki excerpt - need to look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not putting forth any position on these issues at this time, but they do need to be on the agenda; if not, it will simply prove impossible (or at least very, very difficult) to write a consistent set of documentation for the new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="1e22f428-abd6-44c2-a26c-34c7dfa053c5" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:32:16.447" UserId="47511" Text="[Power dissipation in AC RC circuit][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should seriously consider not allowing such questions here. Under the current policy this is allowed homework, because the OP did a reasonable effort to solve the problem. I.m.o., however, we're better off forgetting about the whole homework issue and focus only on how interesting a question is from purely a physics point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can then be the case that a homework-like question is very interesting but it would not be allowed under the current policy because of lack of effort. On the other hand you can also have questions like this which are not all that interesting but because the poor student did go through all the trouble of working seriously on the problem, we're going to address it. It's better to not take such irrelevant issues into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/248039/47511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7659" RevisionGUID="55e50cdf-bec1-4a1f-9e07-0e66e6093616" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:47:37.583" UserId="83398" Text="Most of my questions are about quantum field theory. They tend to get extremely few views and a handful of positive votes before sinking off the bottom of the active list. My non-QFT questions are pretty well-received, so I'd like to think I'm not asking totally trivial questions, but almost all the time, to get a QFT answer, I need to give the question a bounty. I think I've given out about 10 bounties at this point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I doing something wrong? I feel like this wouldn't be necessary if I could bump the question a few times, but I never see anybody doing this. Is that allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7659" RevisionGUID="55e50cdf-bec1-4a1f-9e07-0e66e6093616" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:47:37.583" UserId="83398" Text="Is it okay to bump questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7659" RevisionGUID="55e50cdf-bec1-4a1f-9e07-0e66e6093616" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:47:37.583" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7660" RevisionGUID="0a2ad28c-0c46-43f6-831c-478b444ff5ce" CreationDate="2016-04-08T12:02:22.140" UserId="106752" Text="Some days ago I gave answer to my own question &quot; what is dark matter and dark energy &quot;, it was actually a copy of an old question asked months before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my concern is that I wanted to share some viewpoints related to the concerned problem and wanted to show it to every member here. But as you all know answering old questions is not useful as they won't be seen in the latest questions list. Ultimately my goal won't be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any solution to so that people don't ask me to remove this question for it is a copy and still it can be seen in the active list (for some time)??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7660" RevisionGUID="0a2ad28c-0c46-43f6-831c-478b444ff5ce" CreationDate="2016-04-08T12:02:22.140" UserId="106752" Text="Can we post question answer in a form of article?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7660" RevisionGUID="0a2ad28c-0c46-43f6-831c-478b444ff5ce" CreationDate="2016-04-08T12:02:22.140" UserId="106752" Text="|feature-request|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7661" RevisionGUID="2b5d842e-81e1-421d-bcc3-92f1d0660756" CreationDate="2016-04-08T12:04:29.673" UserId="124" Text="&gt; But as you all know answering old questions is not useful as they won't be seen in the latest questions list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, answering a question bumps it up to the top of the list on the main page of the site, so people will see it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="77c8991c-be2f-4ca2-aa6f-638394a0c38a" CreationDate="2016-04-08T15:51:54.467" UserId="124" Text="Since the moderators all have lives, we've been thinking about getting some additional eyes on chat in the form of _room owners_ for [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most chat rooms, ownership is meant [to indicate who is &quot;in charge&quot; of a room](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/243942/56541) and should be the point of contact for outsiders with questions about its culture. But since The h Bar is a primary site chat room, it's &quot;owned&quot; by the community, not by specific people. What we have in mind is probably more like a room _maintainer_ than an _owner_. We think it'd be better if the chat community didn't always have to rely on the mods to keep the star wall clean, or to add feeds, or bring in new users who don't meet the rep requirement, schedule additional events, or kick-mute people if the conversation starts to get out of hand. (Kick-mute keeps a user from participating in that chat room for a short period of a few minutes.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owners get [a few privileges](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/87773/56541), beyond those available based on reputation, that would allow them to take care of these matters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * __room owner__:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. edit the room name and description&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. [pin a message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#star) (a pin is a super-star)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. remove stars from messages&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. grant explicit read or write access&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. grant room ownership&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. create and remove feeds&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. move messages to a different room&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. schedule events&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. kick-mute users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, ideally using these powers would be rare, and most of the time room owners would just hang around chatting as usual. And if there are serious problems, they'd just ping a moderator anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owners would be appointed by the moderators from trustworthy candidates who are willing to take on the role. It's not really worth going through a whole election process for what is ultimately a very small change in the status quo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'm making this post to focus on the _general_ idea of having room owners, not as a forum to debate who it's going to be. Thoughts? Any objections we haven't thought of? In the spirit of &quot;better safe than sorry&quot;, I figured I should probably put _something_ on meta before we just go and make it happen - even though it's very possible there is not really anything to say about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="77c8991c-be2f-4ca2-aa6f-638394a0c38a" CreationDate="2016-04-08T15:51:54.467" UserId="124" Text="Additional chat room owners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="77c8991c-be2f-4ca2-aa6f-638394a0c38a" CreationDate="2016-04-08T15:51:54.467" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="31290191-ae5c-47e5-9e4d-685a76b50c0d" CreationDate="2016-04-09T02:32:24.070" UserId="6432" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="It's still wrong to hyphenate it that way.  It should be &quot;stress-energy tensor&quot;....sigh{{Citation needed}}&#xD;&#xA;An underscore as is traditional in Unix should get the tag thing to work:&#xD;&#xA;stress--energy_tensor.  And others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="e45b83bb-16fc-4062-917f-823bd4b3205c" CreationDate="2016-04-10T17:01:47.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/719208768094015488" />
  <row Id="21026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="921ad99a-cc03-42b9-b85e-fda365334bff" CreationDate="2016-04-10T22:45:46.850" UserId="110443" Text="The question [Reliable length scales in nature][1] has been received very poorly, for reasons I don't really understand.  In the help center, it is stated that questions concerning &quot;Experimental designs and results&quot; and &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are on topic.  I can reasonably interpret a question about how to make a ruler from objects in nature as falling under both of these headings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spirit of the question I asked was about how to make a measurement.  I suspect that if I had instead asked how to determine a length scale from, say, observations of astronomical objects, it would have been much better received.  (The question of length scales in astronomy is in fact very important for physics--see [the cosmic distance ladder][2].)  The differences I can identify between a question about astronomical objects and about terrestrial objects are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. We have sophisticated ways of measuring distances on earth that render length scales of nature unnecessary. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Plants and animals which provide reliable length scales are also within the purview of biology, and thus are not exclusively of interest to physicists.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why would you need to use natural objects for measuring things anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question to the stackexchange community is: For which of these reasons (or for what other reasons) was the question dismissed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My responses to the above points are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Not everyone has access to laser range finders all the time.  It is still of interest to be able to measure things in a primitive way.  (This is also why &quot;back of the envelope physics&quot; is still an important skill.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Science is not mutually exclusive. &#xD;&#xA; 3. See response 1.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by the way, there are good answers (in my opinion) to the question in question.  E.g. atmospheric pressure and a lake can furnish a length scale: You could fill up an airtight bag and sink it into water until its volume was half what it was at the surface.  The depth of the bag is then 33 feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248310/reliable-length-scales-in-nature&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="921ad99a-cc03-42b9-b85e-fda365334bff" CreationDate="2016-04-10T22:45:46.850" UserId="110443" Text="Why is this question about measurement off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="921ad99a-cc03-42b9-b85e-fda365334bff" CreationDate="2016-04-10T22:45:46.850" UserId="110443" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="a4738e2d-bb10-4f84-8722-832ae53ddb1d" CreationDate="2016-04-10T23:27:54.887" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The question [Reliable length scales in nature][1] has been received very poorly, for reasons I don't really understand.  In the help center, it is stated that questions concerning &quot;Experimental designs and results&quot; and &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are on topic.  I can reasonably interpret a question about how to make a ruler from objects in nature as falling under both of these headings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spirit of the question I asked was about how to make a measurement.  I suspect that if I had instead asked how to determine a length scale from, say, observations of astronomical objects, it would have been much better received.  (The question of length scales in astronomy is in fact very important for physics--see [the cosmic distance ladder][2].)  The differences I can identify between a question about astronomical objects and about terrestrial objects are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. We have sophisticated ways of measuring distances on earth that render length scales of nature unnecessary. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Plants and animals which provide reliable length scales are also within the purview of biology, and thus are not exclusively of interest to physicists.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why would you need to use natural objects for measuring things anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question to the stackexchange community is: For which of these reasons (or for what other reasons) was the question dismissed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My responses to the above points are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Not everyone has access to laser range finders all the time.  It is still of interest to be able to measure things in a primitive way.  (This is also why &quot;back of the envelope physics&quot; is still an important skill.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Science is not mutually exclusive. &#xD;&#xA; 3. See response 1.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by the way, there are good answers (in my opinion) to the question in question.  E.g. atmospheric pressure and a lake can furnish a length scale: You could fill up an airtight bag and sink it into water until its volume was half what it was at the surface.  The depth of the bag is then 33 feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/248310/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21030" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="a4738e2d-bb10-4f84-8722-832ae53ddb1d" CreationDate="2016-04-10T23:27:54.887" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|close-reasons|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="e29c242f-bddc-45eb-b0f7-4e4581c9571f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T02:38:43.807" UserId="96487" Text="A question received let +40 votes.&#xD;&#xA;Then someone else post a duplicate question .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then should it be down voted besides being flagged for duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="e29c242f-bddc-45eb-b0f7-4e4581c9571f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T02:38:43.807" UserId="96487" Text="If a question is duplicate , should it be downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="e29c242f-bddc-45eb-b0f7-4e4581c9571f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T02:38:43.807" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7666" RevisionGUID="20f22bd8-922e-4c11-b9fb-8df4ac1cc1ac" CreationDate="2016-04-11T04:59:50.507" UserId="1325" Text="I've always felt it is a bit harsh to downvote a question just because it is a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the fact the question is a duplicate shows a lack of effort from the OP because they should have searched the site first. However the site search isn't especially good and I often only spot duplicates because I remember seeing the original and possibly even answered it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do get cases where even a trivial search would have found the original, and in these cases I find myself strongly tempted to downvote though I usually just leave an acerbic comment instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the end of the day site members can, and should, downvote according to their consciences. We are, after all, just trying to make the Physics Stack Exchange a better place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21035" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="956ea007-7ebc-40a8-8752-c9ee64fd1a3f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T05:04:33.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/719390660835610624" />
  <row Id="21036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="25ac21c5-15f2-468c-afb2-2b14d8ff46f6" CreationDate="2016-04-11T07:18:48.730" UserId="124" Text="I don't know exactly why the question was not well received; for that you'd have to get responses from the people who voted to close it, or downvoted it (if they care to identify themselves). That being said, my guess is that your reason #1 is pretty close. We have better ways to measure terrestrial quantities than comparing to natural objects. Sure, not everyone has laser range finders and electronic timers. But not everyone does physics. And when people _are_ doing physics, they use laser range finders and electronic timers, or more generally, whatever measuring tools are most appropriate for the job. That renders questions about _natural_ measurement standards likely off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In astrophysics, the situation is different because astrophysicists actually do use things like pulsars and spectral lines for measurement. So the preceding reasoning wouldn't apply to questions about natural measurements used in astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I wouldn't say that questions about measuring tools are automatically on topic. One of the principles that determines the scope of this site is that it should be about the physics and not about the tools used to do physics. This is why questions about using Mathematica, for example, are off topic (and have always been off topic, even before there was a dedicated site for such questions). We can also extend the same reasoning to say that questions about math itself are off topic. That being said, we've softened our stance on such questions over the years, so it's possible that a good question on using, say, a photogate timer would be considered on topic now. But it would be a _huge_ stretch to extend that to something like a bag of air in a lake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other reason the question would be considered off topic is that it's an open-ended list question. The SE model doesn't handle such questions well; we prefer specific questions that have a right answer. So in addition to any issues your question may have with fitting into the site's topical scope, it's also too broad, if you ask me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7668" RevisionGUID="c38791c4-a2b6-4fbe-baa2-d2c028660079" CreationDate="2016-04-11T09:43:27.863" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248365/three-dimensional-isotropic-harmonic-oscilator-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an advanced question (on quantum mechanics) that shows detailed effort. It doesn't actually ask anything beyond &quot;what am I doing wrong?&quot;, though (which makes it off topic under our current policy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7668" RevisionGUID="6a7b946f-fba0-4d3a-a8a6-b94854ce0fcf" CreationDate="2016-04-11T10:03:53.637" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248365/three-dimensional-isotropic-harmonic-oscilator-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an advanced question (on quantum mechanics) that shows detailed effort. It could be argued that it doesn't actually ask anything beyond &quot;what am I doing wrong?&quot;, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21039" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="45d4ed12-5fbb-4938-a542-a5e101f7e402" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:08:45.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/719482311197257728" />
  <row Id="21040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7669" RevisionGUID="ffc24aab-cad0-499b-b785-32630fd1ed25" CreationDate="2016-04-11T19:48:37.787" UserId="62614" Text="**I say yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I know my opinion doesn't carry a massive weight on this site itself, but since I'm around the chat a reasonable amount I thought I'd drop it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the past few months there have been a number of flags from The h Bar. Only some of them have been valid, but each one has required a little moderator time to resolve (yes, I'm aware 10k users can see chat flags, but — forgive me — it's been a while since I saw a 10k'er resolve a situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me of another chatroom I hang around. Or rather, of how that chatroom *used* to be — the attitudes in it are changed now, along with the flagging culture. I think that's in part down to the fact that the room got some room owners who could be around — not to *impose*, but to gently guide conversations away from topics that would trigger, and to help mediate in disputes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I don't see that much *harm* could come from this action (unless the power gets given to someone ill-qualified to wield it, but that can be dealt with easily enough). That leaves us with a win—no-change situation, where we never *lose* anything. It's worth giving a try, at least." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="aba1d3d5-3a58-41f9-a2ff-35d21f858f09" CreationDate="2016-04-12T10:32:23.027" UserId="25301" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249065/free-falling-horizontal-motion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP clearly isn't asking for help on the problem, they are asking what something in the question means. I think these types of questions are the similar enough to the types of problems that are supposed to be accepted under the policy that we should let them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="d67525b0-6b6f-43a7-8db0-30a6bcc8ac83" CreationDate="2016-04-12T19:46:40.250" UserId="47511" Text="Thanks to dmckee for digging up an old deleted question asked by me a long time ago here. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a plane of mass $M$ flies at constant velocity at a height $h$ above the ground. If $h$ is much larger than the size of the aircraft, what is the pressure increase on the ground as a function of the position relative to the point directly underneath the aircraft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then added a heuristic way to tackle the problem (some of it was in the comments):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the velocity field were (on average) to have a radial component that decays like 1/r^2, this amounts to a source, which violates conservation of mass. But you can then imagine a sink nearby, in the limit that they get infinitely close and the sources get infinitively strong, you should get a dipole like velocity field. Then this decays like 1/r^3 at large distances. At the ground we impose zero velocity boundary conditions, the pressure should thus behave like 1/r^6 = 1/(h^2 + d^2)^3 where d is the distance on the ground from the point directly underneath the aircraft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Integrating the total pressure over the surface should yield the weight of the aircraft. If we write the pressure as A/(h^2 + d^2)^3, then the integral of 2 pi A d/(h^2 + d^2)^3 over d from 0 to infinity should equal M g. Solving for A then yields the pressure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P(d) = 2 Mg h^4/pi 1/(h^2 + d^2)^3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all this is on the basis of purely intuitive reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question that i.m.o. should be allowed on this site, is to ask about a more rigorous treatment of this problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="65f8e785-58dc-46f4-b154-b7ef7fe4fb51" CreationDate="2016-04-13T02:15:16.503" UserId="520" Comment="block quote the question to make it distinguishable from the surrounding commentary" Text="Thanks to dmckee for digging up an old deleted question asked by me a long time ago here. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Suppose a plane of mass $M$ flies at constant velocity at a height $h$ above the ground. If $h$ is much larger than the size of the aircraft, what is the pressure increase on the ground as a function of the position relative to the point directly underneath the aircraft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I then added a heuristic way to tackle the problem (some of it was in the comments):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the velocity field were (on average) to have a radial component that decays like 1/r^2, this amounts to a source, which violates conservation of mass. But you can then imagine a sink nearby, in the limit that they get infinitely close and the sources get infinitively strong, you should get a dipole like velocity field. Then this decays like 1/r^3 at large distances. At the ground we impose zero velocity boundary conditions, the pressure should thus behave like 1/r^6 = 1/(h^2 + d^2)^3 where d is the distance on the ground from the point directly underneath the aircraft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrating the total pressure over the surface should yield the weight of the aircraft. If we write the pressure as A/(h^2 + d^2)^3, then the integral of 2 pi A d/(h^2 + d^2)^3 over d from 0 to infinity should equal M g. Solving for A then yields the pressure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;P(d) = 2 Mg h^4/pi 1/(h^2 + d^2)^3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But all this is on the basis of purely intuitive reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The question that i.m.o. should be allowed on this site, is to ask about a more rigorous treatment of this problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="783590e8-53e9-440c-830c-1f59026d7f6a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T23:01:14.367" UserId="101770" Text="Of course the questions with a current bounty are in the featured list. But how to get the questions that used to have a bounty? I'd like to have a look through them since other than votes a bounty is a decent indicator if the question was any good/valuable to someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(by &quot;used to have a bounty&quot; I mean where the bounty has been awarded some time ago)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="783590e8-53e9-440c-830c-1f59026d7f6a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T23:01:14.367" UserId="101770" Text="How to get list of questions that used to have a bounty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="783590e8-53e9-440c-830c-1f59026d7f6a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T23:01:14.367" UserId="101770" Text="|support|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="9c5bb10d-e13c-445a-a945-297565ab2cc1" CreationDate="2016-04-13T23:37:53.797" UserId="4485" Text="I have this theory that an answer today given to an old question is unlikely to be up-voted highly, if at all. I believe this is because people tend to lose interest in old questions, and can't be bothered to go through all the other answers to see if the new answer adds anything of value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some sort of badge for **giving a highly up-voted recent answer to a very old question** to check this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="9c5bb10d-e13c-445a-a945-297565ab2cc1" CreationDate="2016-04-13T23:37:53.797" UserId="4485" Text="Is there a badge for giving a highly up-voted recent answer to a very old question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="9c5bb10d-e13c-445a-a945-297565ab2cc1" CreationDate="2016-04-13T23:37:53.797" UserId="4485" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="2530de5b-52f3-4b70-a011-0e212c5ed4e3" CreationDate="2016-04-14T08:15:05.720" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249329/relationship-between-velocity-and-position-due-to-constant-jerk-proof-check&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question shows a detailed derivation, and then asks us to check whether the derivation is correct. It also asks whether there is a simpler derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="5a9fdd63-913e-4990-bbfc-45d786312d80" CreationDate="2016-04-14T08:57:29.693" UserId="8563" Text="The Stack Exchange Data Explorer query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Questions with bounties awarded in the past](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/471411/questions-with-bounties-awarded-in-the-past),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;written by yours truly, gets you that list. If you want more specific search criteria (like tags or bounty amounts) it is easy to fork the query and make it do what you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="a854a1d2-9b88-491a-b3f4-f8fb48aeb9cd" CreationDate="2016-04-14T10:08:48.153" UserId="25301" Comment="added link to screenshot" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249065/free-falling-horizontal-motion, [screen-shot link here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP clearly isn't asking for help on the problem, they are asking what something in the question means. I think these types of questions are the similar enough to the types of problems that are supposed to be accepted under the policy that we should let them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QpW2W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="661a9c0b-6576-4bf7-be23-d10c1a7c2c0b" CreationDate="2016-04-14T11:06:35.650" UserId="105680" Text="I'm a relatively new user and have already noticed a lack of users with interest in Astrophysics, compared to Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory. I have interest in these more popular areas as well, so I am still enjoying the site, but it would be great to see more Astrophysicists on here! Is there any way we can encourage this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By Astrophysics I also refer to basic GR, Cosmology and Structure Formation as well as more typical areas like Galactic Dynamics, because the majority of answers on GR and Cosmology I have seen are also related in some way to QFT.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="661a9c0b-6576-4bf7-be23-d10c1a7c2c0b" CreationDate="2016-04-14T11:06:35.650" UserId="105680" Text="How can we encourage more Astrophysicists on SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="661a9c0b-6576-4bf7-be23-d10c1a7c2c0b" CreationDate="2016-04-14T11:06:35.650" UserId="105680" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="b3590b6d-e4a9-45d7-b04a-030de4601b02" CreationDate="2016-04-14T13:52:09.937" UserId="51930" Text="I am aware that stack exchange allows me to write beautifully typeset equations in LaTeX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if, however, I am really lazy. Instead I write my problem out on paper and then take a picture and upload it?&#xD;&#xA;Will I get a whole load of moderators moaning at me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often find that the amount of time that I would have to spend writing up my questions in LaTeX stops me from asking them on here, which is a shame really" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="b3590b6d-e4a9-45d7-b04a-030de4601b02" CreationDate="2016-04-14T13:52:09.937" UserId="51930" Text="Posting a picture of my working" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="b3590b6d-e4a9-45d7-b04a-030de4601b02" CreationDate="2016-04-14T13:52:09.937" UserId="51930" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="af636a29-3dcc-4db7-9559-b5713db74ed9" CreationDate="2016-04-14T14:10:19.097" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|links|image|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="a99434f1-c534-4d0c-b797-b8b6f96d55aa" CreationDate="2016-04-14T14:11:46.130" UserId="1325" Text="No-one here is paid to answer your questions. In fact no-one here receives any reward for answering your questions other than the feeling of satisfaction that we've left the world of physics a slightly better place than we've found it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you expect to attract good answers to your questions you're going to have to convince the site members that taking the time and trouble (often both considerable) to answer your question is a worthwhile undertaking. And one way to do that is to demonstrate that you take your question seriously enough to put a lot of effort into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't necessarily mean no-one will answer your question if you can't be bothered to format it properly, but it does mean your question will attract less attention than competing questions that have been written with more care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7679" RevisionGUID="60445962-0f9c-4ead-b8e2-060e16b8cfc7" CreationDate="2016-04-14T14:40:43.640" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Will I get a whole load of moderators moaning at me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Not just moderators, but the whole spectrum of site members (as Kyle Kanos mentioned in a comment). And it's not just _moaning_; questions which include pictures of something that could be typed out attract downvotes and close votes. They look unprofessional, and (as Qmechanic mentioned in a comment) they are not searchable and are susceptible to link rot or invisible edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes someone will help you out by transcribing the contents of the image. It's not guaranteed, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a new poster does this because they don't know MathJax syntax (or because they don't know how much we hate pictures of text), that's more forgivable, but afterwards we expect you to learn. The basics of MathJax are not hard, and there's a guide built into the posting box. Someone who makes a _habit_ of posting pictures of text or math is going to find their posts getting a poor reception, and _could_ even wind up getting blocked from the site for excessively low-quality contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="3344c7d8-dbeb-4149-8cc4-3f71221a83b9" CreationDate="2016-04-14T17:46:34.677" UserId="51930" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I am aware that stack exchange allows me to write beautifully typeset equations in LaTeX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if, however, I am really lazy. Instead I write my problem out on paper and then take a picture and upload it?&#xD;&#xA;Will this be annoying for everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often find that the amount of time that I would have to spend writing up my questions in LaTeX stops me from asking them on here, which is a shame really" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="6893add0-b4bf-4e16-bd7b-5b9418761b30" CreationDate="2016-04-15T11:53:39.693" UserId="11053" Text="This is probably answered somewhere, so apologies for my weak search-fu...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can a question have two tags that are synonyms? Shouldn't the synonym instead appear as its &quot;parent&quot; tag? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89380/calculus-used-by-gauss-to-find-ceres-position, [astronomy] and [observational-astronomy] both appear, even though [observational-astronomy] is a synonym of [astronomy]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="6893add0-b4bf-4e16-bd7b-5b9418761b30" CreationDate="2016-04-15T11:53:39.693" UserId="11053" Text="Why can a question have both a tag and its synonym simultaneously?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="6893add0-b4bf-4e16-bd7b-5b9418761b30" CreationDate="2016-04-15T11:53:39.693" UserId="11053" Text="|bug|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7681" RevisionGUID="017729df-9d56-4e28-ab0a-11d324445baf" CreationDate="2016-04-15T12:02:49.393" UserId="2451" Text="Creation of synonyms does not alter posts retroactively. If a question is edited after the synonym was created, the tags of the question will conform with the new synonym rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7681" RevisionGUID="34c363d0-4b87-4317-bdaa-a2f52a1177c5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T12:09:01.050" UserId="2451" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Contrary to merging of tags, the creation of synonyms does not alter posts retroactively. If a question is edited after the synonym was created, the tags of the question will conform with the new synonym rules.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21069" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="9063cbf7-ec5c-44ed-99bc-a0baadbf4637" CreationDate="2016-04-15T13:03:45.470" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="3729dbaa-6a04-4648-84d1-b8c2b5ef7beb" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:14:18.210" UserId="2451" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="This is prompted by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which asks why _s_ is used as the letter for position. Here are some more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67928/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/91933/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/101920/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134412/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139800/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/144079/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/156879/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159722/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/203720/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208870/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/211829/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/213214/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/244010/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Feel free to edit in more examples. Posts not prone to the auto-deletion script are preferred.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions on topic? They're not really about physical concepts, but they are about matters that are fairly specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="a34c360a-9335-4fa6-b838-b84746b8372b" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:58:54.060" UserId="1325" Text="Suppose I see a post in the chat room that I think is potentially inflammatory, what is the best way to bring it to a moderator's attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flagging seems a near nuclear option, and I've been specifically told not to do this by a chat moderator (not one of our home grown ones). I can use an @moderator in a message, but I may want to keep quiet the fact I'm flagging other users' posts - partly from cowardice of course but partly to avoid inflaming things further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there a way/what is the best way discretely to tell the moderators there is a post in the chat room that they may want to look at?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="a34c360a-9335-4fa6-b838-b84746b8372b" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:58:54.060" UserId="1325" Text="Raising issues with the chat room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="a34c360a-9335-4fa6-b838-b84746b8372b" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:58:54.060" UserId="1325" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="8d0eda6a-7073-42e6-9d8d-5082a4a15808" CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:07:55.800" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="be8533ff-d620-494c-856e-b947b00aace2" CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:14:43.647" UserId="124" Text="Actually, this is _exactly_ what flagging is for. If other chat moderators are telling you not to flag offensive/inflammatory content _at all_, well, they shouldn't be saying that. (Let's discuss the details separately, and I'll ask around and see if I can clear things up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's important not to _overflag_ things in chat. Unlike flags on the site, which only show up for moderators (4 of us) or 10k users (a few dozen) depending on the type, when you cast a flag in chat it becomes visible to something like 300+ chat moderators and probably _thousands_ of high-rep users across the whole SE network. Obviously not everyone is online at any given time, but still, that's a _lot_ of people seeing a flag. So they should be used with care. If you've been told not to flag things in chat, it's probably because moderators thought flags were being overused at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, when you cast a flag in chat, do so with the expectation that the flagged message will be deleted and the posting user will be suspended. For anything that _doesn't_ meet that standard... well, you'll probably have to just ping one of us. The system doesn't give us a way to privately notify _only_ the site mods about a message in chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="3fd6ef0d-3769-418f-8fb9-3f91196eb237" CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:23:51.423" UserId="1325" Comment="Oops" Text="Suppose I see a post in the chat room that I think is potentially inflammatory, what is the best way to bring it to a moderator's attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flagging seems a near nuclear option, and I've been specifically told not to do this by a chat moderator (not one of our home grown ones). I can use an @moderator in a message, but I may want to keep quiet the fact I'm flagging other users' posts - partly from cowardice of course but partly to avoid inflaming things further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there a way/what is the best way discreetly to tell the moderators there is a post in the chat room that they may want to look at?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="6e45bab8-8eb6-48f4-bfde-77f6fde32a52" CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:51:24.620" UserId="1325" Comment="Clarify question" Text="Suppose I see a post in the chat room that I think is potentially inflammatory, what is the best way to bring it to a moderator's attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flagging seems a near nuclear option, and I've been specifically told not to do this by a chat moderator (not one of our home grown ones). I can use an @moderator in a message, but I may want to keep quiet the fact I'm flagging other users' posts - partly from cowardice of course but partly to avoid inflaming things further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there a way/what is the best way discreetly to tell the moderators there is a post in the chat room that they may want to look at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A quick footnote:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've probably all been in situations where we can tell a conversation is about to turn nasty, but nothing offensive has been said **yet**. Nipping such exchanges in the bud is usually the best way to keep things from getting heated. However [the last time I attempted this I was told][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Flagging isn't for when someone says something that might turn the conversation unpleasant. It's for after the conversation has already turned unpleasant in spite of attempts to remediate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point is that flagging notifies all chat room mods across the entire SE, and since they're strangers to the Physics chat they can't know why an apparently innocuous comment could start a fire. That makes flagging pretty useless in this context, but that's is the way the SE chat is designed and there's nothing we can do about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question was how to notify just the Physics mods, who will know enough of the background to judge if a comment should be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/28838924#28838924" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="0e63c639-1aac-4588-a587-9e038a28df20" CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:49:12.763" UserId="124" Comment="rework in response to changes in the question" Text="OK, there are a couple different things going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Potentially_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that chat bystanders can often tell when a conversation is _about_ to turn nasty. And you're definitely right that it's better to prevent nasty exchanges from breaking out in the first place than to allow them to happen and deal with them afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, _you don't need moderators to do this_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any community, when someone starts behaving inappropriately, the first and best way to stop that behavior is for other people in the community to **come right out and call them on it**. A simple &quot;dude, don't say that&quot; or &quot;I'd rather you not talk about [whatever]&quot; or &quot;let's drop this for now&quot; or something like that is often all it takes. If different people disagree on what's appropriate, the whole group can get together and discuss it, and come to some consensus. There's no need for moderators or any higher authority to get involved, and that's _good_ - a community like our chat room should be able to maintain itself without having a moderator constantly watching over everyone's shoulder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Actually_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually talking to people works when everyone is being reasonable and civil. But that's not always the case in practice. People's tempers flare up sometimes and their control can slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask someone to drop an issue or tell them something they said is inappropriate, sometimes they respond by insulting you or spouting profanity and completely ignoring what you're trying to tell them. When calling someone out on their inappropriate posts doesn't work, and they escalate to &quot;conversational violence&quot; (insults, rudeness, etc.), _that's_ what flagging is for. Flagging brings a post to the attention of the chat moderators and 10k-rep users from across the SE network. Sometimes a forceful word from a moderator is all it takes to get the discussion back on track, but if not, moderators (or a consensus of enough 10-rep users) have the power to remove chatters who don't have the sense to remove themselves from an argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the thing, though: flags show up to a _lot_ of people. Unlike on the site, where we only have 4 moderators and a few dozen 10k-rep users, there are over 300 chat moderators and probably thousands of people with 10k reputation. Obviously not everyone is online at any given time, but still, that's a _lot_ of people seeing a flag. So flags should be used with care. You shouldn't be casting flags unless things have really escalated so badly that the people in the room can't deal with it anymore. (Or for spam, but that rarely happens.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical outcome of a flag is that the flagged message will be deleted and the posting user suspended for 30 minutes (or longer if circumstances warrant). For anything that _doesn't_ deserve that kind of a response... well, is it really so bad you (people in the room) can't handle it yourself? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that nowhere in here did I address the main point of the question, which was how to contact _only_ the site mods privately. Honestly, that's probably not that useful. If we (mods) are logged in at the time, we're probably watching the chat room anyway, and we'll step in when things start to get out of hand. Otherwise, we're not going to see any message you might send us until we do log in, by which time it will be too late to defuse the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, chat moves fast, and blowups in chat should be likewise be handled fast. So once things get to the point where you need to call in outside help (and remember, they should not get to that point easily), it makes sense for that call to reach someone who can respond quickly. If one of us Physics mods isn't already in the room, it's better to bring in a chat mod from another site rather than waiting around for one of us to get there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="cc0c9ee1-fba0-4e78-9744-cf67fce225f7" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:41:36.347" UserId="103999" Text="Beside the word physics is drawn a figure which looks like a mexican head/ sombrero. Where does it stands for and why is this used. Does it has to do something with condensations??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="cc0c9ee1-fba0-4e78-9744-cf67fce225f7" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:41:36.347" UserId="103999" Text="Where does the mexican head logo of this stack stands for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="cc0c9ee1-fba0-4e78-9744-cf67fce225f7" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:41:36.347" UserId="103999" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="7e336727-4c40-4143-aa31-9054e62233df" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:54:36.553" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Beside the word physics is drawn a figure which looks like a mexican hat/sombrero. Where does it stands for and why is this used. Does it has to do something with condensations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21083" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="7e336727-4c40-4143-aa31-9054e62233df" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:54:36.553" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does the mexican hat/sombrero logo of Phys.SE stands for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="7e336727-4c40-4143-aa31-9054e62233df" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:54:36.553" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21085" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="51b98ea9-ec18-47f0-bfdd-4daa6fbe2712" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:56:47.793" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[949],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7685" RevisionGUID="2f7d0ea9-a526-46b8-8a14-97a1cf965fa0" CreationDate="2016-04-15T22:19:01.557" UserId="62614" Text="David Z has it right. As a moderator who spends a lot of time moderating chat myself, I'll clear up a few misconceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Flagging&#xD;&#xA;That flag button on the right-hand end of a message? That one is for **offensive or inappropriate messages**. It's not designed to be used for messages that aren't themselves offensive, but might turn a conversation toxic, because it draws far too much negative attention. You should use this button when someone has said something out of line with the [Be Nice](/help/be-nice) policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The message menu (obtained by clicking the dropdown arrow on the left hand end of a message) has an option called *flag for moderator*. This is the one you want to use to discreetly signal moderators. It will not go out only to the site mods, but to every mod currently on the chat network, which can be a blessing or a curse. Feel free to ask for a moderator who has room experience to handle the flag and step in (even if it doesn't happen, it's worth a shot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The &quot;never flag anything&quot; attitude&#xD;&#xA;This attitude refers to the former type of flag (the offensive/inappropriate flag). It's designed to stop people flagging things because it draws the attention of 10k users and moderators across the entire chat network, not all of whom come into the room to be helpful, but to mock and complain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's also false and damaging.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not flagging things that *need* to be flagged because they're offensive is a Bad Idea. If someone's out of line, you can talk to them if you think they'll respond to that. More often than not, they won't - and it's time to signal someone who has the tools to resolve the situation. An accurate offensive flag puts that power in the hands of 6 10k users, which is essential for getting stuff removed quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any users turn up in the chatroom and complain or mock people, you can signal for mod attention with a moderator flag, or offensive flag again if they say something out of line. More often than not, a moderator or two will turn up along with the first flag and will prevent those users from grouching about things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="c09505c7-c1a4-4098-b404-12e4e9658d79" CreationDate="2016-04-15T23:10:13.637" UserId="101770" Text="I am a relatively new member of the site and haven't spent enough time to read through rules and meta posts yet to really understand how it all works. So when I see the occasional discussion in the comment section between highly ranked members of the site, I tend to make up my mind intuitively, keeping in mind that it should help the site remain an *open* forum, where *reasonable questions* about *physics* can be asked. Like I said, most people here have probably spent a lot more time thinking carefully about how to run the site and I appreciate that, but this is just how I generally think a forum should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I really enjoy this site and how it is run for the most part, but there are some questions where I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site. In particular the &quot;off-topic&quot; tag seems a bit off sometimes (sorry for the pun), since modern science is hardly ever part of a single subject (The most common overlap is gonna be [maths][1], but increasingly [biology][2] etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course one needs it to prevent questions that are nothing to do with physics. My main question here is: **when there is a physics component in the question and when in doubt wether it can be answered here, shouldn't the decision go in favor of the question?** I am happy to get to know about how the actual rules are intended, but I'd also like to know from an intuitive perspective for a new member of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other supporting factors, e.g. when the question has a good vote reception. The reason I am writing this post is such an example: [evolution/gluon question][3]. I can not see at all how this is off-topic and @Nathaniel comments seem quite reasonable in this context. There was a similar discussion on [this][4] one, but it luckily stayed open. Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have elaborated why I don't understand this type of off-topic closing of question, now I'd like to return to the title question and ask more generally than &quot;is Math always off-topic&quot; or &quot;is Biophysics always off-topic&quot;: **What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for? And why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7386/what-are-the-boundaries-of-biophysics-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249606/why-have-our-eyes-not-evolved-to-see-gluons&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248333/symbolic-dynamics-of-a-multidimensional-system/248842#248842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="c09505c7-c1a4-4098-b404-12e4e9658d79" CreationDate="2016-04-15T23:10:13.637" UserId="101770" Text="Off-topic: what is it for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="c09505c7-c1a4-4098-b404-12e4e9658d79" CreationDate="2016-04-15T23:10:13.637" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="c2dccba3-8d6d-4858-a81f-0e5b78dbfff2" CreationDate="2016-04-16T00:04:15.550" UserId="50583" Text="Not sure if this will be a coherent answer, but let me comment on some points here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] it should help the site remain an open forum, where reasonable questions about physics can be asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are [not a forum](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92110/263383). The intent is *not* to facilitate discussion. The intent is to provide a place where *specific questions with clear answers* can be asked, and where every response should be an attempt at answering the question posed (answers) or an attempt to clarify  or add to the question (comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that things posted as question which cannot conceivably have an objectively correct answer are not a good fit for the site. no matter whether they actually are about physics or not. This might incur closing as *too broad* or *unclear what you're asking*, but it might also draw a custom close reason where the close voter more specifically addresses the question (usually detectable by the stock phase *&quot;I am voting to close this question as off-topic because&quot;* at the beginning), which, if chosen as the main close reason, will mark the question as &quot;off-topic&quot;, even if the custom close reason gives a reason that is not, strictly speaking, saying it is *off-topic* in the sense that it is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main (and arguably sole) purpose of closing a question is to declare that it is not welcome here. Closing a question prohibits adding further answers, and is meant to *discourage the asking of similar questions* by communicating to everyone that such questions do not, in the view of the &quot;community&quot;, belong here. It is crucial to realize that this is *not* necessarily saying the question is not about physics, or that it is a stupid question. It's saying that *we* do not want this question *here*. Physics.SE is intended to cover a broad range of physics, but the intent is expressly not to answer everything that has some connection to physics and ends with a question mark. Being somehow about physics is a *necessary*, but not *sufficient* condition for being on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;community&quot; there is a rather nebulous term, and might arguably *not* necessarily reflect a majority position: A question is closed when five close votes are cast on it. To not let five users decide the status of a question forever, five reopen votes will reopen a question. Both types of votes are available to all users with more than 3000 reputation, and the first instance of such a vote will send a question into the corresponding [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Three &quot;Leave Open&quot; votes in the close queue will remove a question from the queue, and three &quot;Leave Closed&quot; votes will remove it from the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, also addressing your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a]nd why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the &quot;when in doubt&quot; case seems rather well-handled to me: Closing and reopening is a perfectly symmetric process, no bias is made either way, and in the case of a 50:50 split of votes, the process defaults to the status quo. The reason for not generically being in favour of questions staying open is simply the signal-to-noise ratio. The primary purpose of the site is to provide a knowledge base of precise questions with precise answers. Leaving open all borderline questions just tends to drown out all the *really good ones*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the entire reason we have repeated and lengthy debates on meta about e.g. the [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) is that users simply have differing opinions on what constitutes a &quot;bad&quot; question that &quot;pollutes&quot; the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search for closed questions, simply add a `closed:yes` to your search query. To access a more comprehensive list of such search modifiers, click on `Advanced Search Tips` to the right of the [search interface](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The review queues are the most direct and most powerful way in which *we, the users* can shape this site. Use them! Don't only go there when you see a question you really like and want to stay open, go there *whenever you find the time*! The more users participate in reviews, the better the average results of the review queue will reflect the actual average opinion of the users here. I keep hitting my maximum daily amount of close reviews - which indicates to me that there is a less-than-ideal number of users doing those reviews. The closing and editing and reopening of questions does not happen by some miracle algorithm, it happens through us individual users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="d0c8d393-1430-4be4-9ff9-0193f83cadf2" CreationDate="2016-04-16T00:21:51.507" UserId="6719" Text="Why was it increased from 24 hours to 29 days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="d0c8d393-1430-4be4-9ff9-0193f83cadf2" CreationDate="2016-04-16T00:21:51.507" UserId="6719" Text="I must protest the 29 day suspension given to 0celo7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="d0c8d393-1430-4be4-9ff9-0193f83cadf2" CreationDate="2016-04-16T00:21:51.507" UserId="6719" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="f15f23e9-ed4a-4fb1-8ad7-85ed399a1170" CreationDate="2016-04-16T00:59:18.027" UserId="520" Text="The longer sentence was imposed after a day's consultation between the physics moderators; the delay occurred because we're always reluctant to impose suspensions on regular users and try not to act hastily in such cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usually, we will not discuss the reasons in public, but 0celo7 was sent a mod message and might divulge it's contents either after his return to chat or in some other place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A couple of asides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I think it took effect some time after the one day suspension imposed by a passing moderator from another site had expired, rather than extending it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*Toward a philosophy of Chat*][1] is worth reading if you're thinking along the lines of &quot;But *our* room culture...&quot;. There is only so much allowance for room culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/270587/toward-a-philosophy-of-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="aaaf2253-54d9-47a7-8ef5-c514ff48ac6f" CreationDate="2016-04-16T09:59:53.823" UserId="1325" Text="Ideally an answer in the Physics SE should make the reader a better physicist i.e. help them understand physics better. This doesn't just apply to the person posting the question. Other site members might find the question interesting and be helped by the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question is off-topic if no reasonable answer to it is going to achieve this end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate this is a somewhat extreme view, and in practice I will usually stretch the point and answer questions from interested bystanders if I think it illustrates some point in physics, especially if that point is frequently misrepresented in popular science programmes. However our starting point should always be that this site is, and [I quote from the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We aren't the Discovery Channel and we shouldn't try to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="b1260230-eb4d-4149-bb1e-68a40974c8ad" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:13:27.317" UserId="124" Comment="add footnote about flag types" Text="OK, there are a couple different things going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Potentially_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that chat bystanders can often tell when a conversation is _about_ to turn nasty. And you're definitely right that it's better to prevent nasty exchanges from breaking out in the first place than to allow them to happen and deal with them afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, _you don't need moderators to do this_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any community, when someone starts behaving inappropriately, the first and best way to stop that behavior is for other people in the community to **come right out and call them on it**. A simple &quot;dude, don't say that&quot; or &quot;I'd rather you not talk about [whatever]&quot; or &quot;let's drop this for now&quot; or something like that is often all it takes. If different people disagree on what's appropriate, the whole group can get together and discuss it, and come to some consensus. There's no need for moderators or any higher authority to get involved, and that's _good_ - a community like our chat room should be able to maintain itself without having a moderator constantly watching over everyone's shoulder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Actually_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually talking to people works when everyone is being reasonable and civil. But that's not always the case in practice. People's tempers flare up sometimes and their control can slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask someone to drop an issue or tell them something they said is inappropriate, sometimes they respond by insulting you or spouting profanity and completely ignoring what you're trying to tell them. When calling someone out on their inappropriate posts doesn't work, and they escalate to &quot;conversational violence&quot; (insults, rudeness, etc.), _that's_ what flagging is for. Flagging brings a post to the attention of the chat moderators, and possibly also 10k-rep users, from across the SE network.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Sometimes a forceful word from a moderator is all it takes to get the discussion back on track, but if not, moderators (or a consensus of enough 10k-rep users) have the power to remove chatters who don't have the sense to remove themselves from an argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the thing, though: flags show up to a _lot_ of people. Unlike on the site, where we only have 4 moderators and a few dozen 10k-rep users, there are over 300 chat moderators and probably thousands of people with 10k reputation. Obviously not everyone is online at any given time, but still, that's a _lot_ of people seeing a flag. So flags should be used with care. You shouldn't be casting flags unless things have really escalated so badly that the people in the room can't deal with it anymore. (Or for spam, but that rarely happens.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical outcome of a flag is that the flagged message will be deleted and the posting user suspended for 30 minutes (or longer if circumstances warrant). For anything that _doesn't_ deserve that kind of a response... well, is it really so bad you (people in the room) can't handle it yourself? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that nowhere in here did I address the main point of the question, which was how to contact _only_ the site mods privately. Honestly, that's probably not that useful. If we (mods) are logged in at the time, we're probably watching the chat room anyway, and we'll step in when things start to get out of hand. Otherwise, we're not going to see any message you might send us until we do log in, by which time it will be too late to defuse the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, chat moves fast, and blowups in chat should be likewise be handled fast. So once things get to the point where you need to call in outside help (and remember, they should not get to that point easily), it makes sense for that call to reach someone who can respond quickly. If one of us Physics mods isn't already in the room, it's better to bring in a chat mod from another site rather than waiting around for one of us to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;As [Shog9](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) pointed out, there are two kinds of flags. The inappropriate/offensive flag goes to mods and 10k-rep users, but there is also a custom flag that is only seen by mods. The situations described in this answer will _typically_ only need a generic inappropriate/offensive flag, if any. See [more information about chat flags on Meta Stack Exchange](//meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat/271268#271268)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="0c97bfa0-0bea-4909-8131-be9cb24b8b63" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:08:57.740" UserId="46399" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why was 0celo7's chat suspension sentence increased from 24 hours to 29 days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21098" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="0c97bfa0-0bea-4909-8131-be9cb24b8b63" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:08:57.740" UserId="46399" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Increase in the duration of chat suspension for a user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="0c97bfa0-0bea-4909-8131-be9cb24b8b63" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:08:57.740" UserId="46399" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|chat|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="69b394b1-c3cf-4a3a-9b6a-5dc85026f315" CreationDate="2016-04-17T08:27:21.070" UserId="8563" Comment="Minor grammar fix. " Text="OK, there are a couple different things going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Potentially_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that chat bystanders can often tell when a conversation is _about_ to turn nasty. And you're definitely right that it's better to prevent nasty exchanges from breaking out in the first place than to allow them to happen and deal with them afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, _you don't need moderators to do this_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any community, when someone starts behaving inappropriately, the first and best way to stop that behavior is for other people in the community to **come right out and call them on it**. A simple &quot;dude, don't say that&quot; or &quot;I'd rather you not talk about [whatever]&quot; or &quot;let's drop this for now&quot; or something like that is often all it takes. If different people disagree on what's appropriate, the whole group can get together and discuss it, and come to some consensus. There's no need for moderators or any higher authority to get involved, and that's _good_ - a community like our chat room should be able to maintain itself without having a moderator constantly watching over everyone's shoulder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Actually_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually talking to people works when everyone is being reasonable and civil. But that's not always the case in practice. People's tempers flare up sometimes and their control can slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask someone to drop an issue or tell them something they said is inappropriate, sometimes they respond by insulting you or spouting profanity and completely ignoring what you're trying to tell them. When calling someone out on their inappropriate posts doesn't work, and they escalate to &quot;conversational violence&quot; (insults, rudeness, etc.), _that's_ what flagging is for. Flagging brings a post to the attention of the chat moderators, and possibly also 10k-rep users, from across the SE network.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Sometimes a forceful word from a moderator is all it takes to get the discussion back on track, but if not, moderators (or a consensus of enough 10k-rep users) have the power to remove chatters who don't have the sense to remove themselves from an argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the thing, though: flags show up to a _lot_ of people. Unlike on the site, where we only have 4 moderators and a few dozen 10k-rep users, there are over 300 chat moderators and probably thousands of people with 10k reputation. Obviously not everyone is online at any given time, but still, that's a _lot_ of people seeing a flag. So flags should be used with care. You shouldn't be casting flags unless things have really escalated so badly that the people in the room can't deal with it anymore. (Or for spam, but that rarely happens.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical outcome of a flag is that the flagged message will be deleted and the posting user suspended for 30 minutes (or longer if circumstances warrant). For anything that _doesn't_ deserve that kind of a response... well, is it really so bad you (people in the room) can't handle it yourself? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that nowhere in here did I address the main point of the question, which was how to contact _only_ the site mods privately. Honestly, that's probably not that useful. If we (mods) are logged in at the time, we're probably watching the chat room anyway, and we'll step in when things start to get out of hand. Otherwise, we're not going to see any message you might send us until we do log in, by which time it will be too late to defuse the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, chat moves fast, and blowups in chat should likewise be handled fast. So once things get to the point where you need to call in outside help (and remember, they should not get to that point easily), it makes sense for that call to reach someone who can respond quickly. If one of us Physics mods isn't already in the room, it's better to bring in a chat mod from another site rather than waiting around for one of us to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;As [Shog9](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) pointed out, there are two kinds of flags. The inappropriate/offensive flag goes to mods and 10k-rep users, but there is also a custom flag that is only seen by mods. The situations described in this answer will _typically_ only need a generic inappropriate/offensive flag, if any. See [more information about chat flags on Meta Stack Exchange](//meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat/271268#271268)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7691" RevisionGUID="0ff2d14e-e433-4e68-863e-5da5147c644b" CreationDate="2016-04-17T09:01:59.763" UserId="124" Text="Our first appointments as additional room owners are Chris White and John Rennie. Welcome to your new role!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chris White](//physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/10851.png)](//physics.stackexchange.com/users/10851/chris-white)&#xD;&#xA;[![John Rennie](//physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/1325.png)](//physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll continue to add additional room owners in the future as needed, and as qualified candidates become available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="09190beb-9810-4509-b506-e1645315f0f5" CreationDate="2016-04-17T15:10:04.807" UserId="96487" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;  	&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thanks for your answer. Because i gave the bounty to other answer i will upvote other answers of yours in this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can we do something like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="09190beb-9810-4509-b506-e1645315f0f5" CreationDate="2016-04-17T15:10:04.807" UserId="96487" Text="Is showing thanks like this acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="09190beb-9810-4509-b506-e1645315f0f5" CreationDate="2016-04-17T15:10:04.807" UserId="96487" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="a52a4e28-6544-40f7-8133-0e281a07fc44" CreationDate="2016-04-17T15:15:46.797" UserId="50583" Text="No. Votes on answers (or questions) should be votes on answers (or questions) - upvoting or downvoting answers because of their authors instead of their content defeats the whole purpose of voting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="8c2a162c-8c03-4ecb-93c0-358bbd2ac5e4" CreationDate="2016-04-17T17:54:47.770" UserId="50583" Text="The tag [tag:efficient-energy-use] seems to be rather ill-defined. The tag wiki excerpt states:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use the tag *Efficient Energy Use* in questions having to do with processes or engines or constructions where energy is spent or transfered and the efficiency thereof. Efficiency means both the measurement and the techniques and principles for its optimization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not seem to be a useful tag. What &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; *doesn't* transfer energy in some way? Optimizing a given &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; is not physics, it is engineering, and hence [off-topic here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4535/50583). Measuring the efficiency of some &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; seems *very* specific and doesn't deserve its own tag, in my opinion - tagging questions about the measurement of energy efficiency with [tag:energy] seems perfectly sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose the tag be removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="8c2a162c-8c03-4ecb-93c0-358bbd2ac5e4" CreationDate="2016-04-17T17:54:47.770" UserId="50583" Text="Stop [efficient-energy-use]!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="8c2a162c-8c03-4ecb-93c0-358bbd2ac5e4" CreationDate="2016-04-17T17:54:47.770" UserId="50583" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="42b1719c-3fe0-48dc-a68c-26ca522cfc4e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:07:42.700" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;  	&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks for your answer. Because I gave the bounty to other answer I will upvote other answers of yours in this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we do something like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21110" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="42b1719c-3fe0-48dc-a68c-26ca522cfc4e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:07:42.700" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is showing thanks via serial upvoting acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21111" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="42b1719c-3fe0-48dc-a68c-26ca522cfc4e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:07:42.700" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|answers|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="b2f36d47-903d-48c4-beb5-5ae77b66eb1f" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:12:24.083" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="Why was [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]'s chat suspension sentence increased from 24 hours to 29 days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21113" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="b2f36d47-903d-48c4-beb5-5ae77b66eb1f" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:12:24.083" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="Increase in the duration of chat suspension for [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="492664f0-9a66-4a28-b082-717638ff08b7" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:13:11.463" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="The longer sentence was imposed after a day's consultation between the physics moderators; the delay occurred because we're always reluctant to impose suspensions on regular users and try not to act hastily in such cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usually, we will not discuss the reasons in public, but [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] was sent a mod message and might divulge it's contents either after his return to chat or in some other place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A couple of asides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I think it took effect some time after the one day suspension imposed by a passing moderator from another site had expired, rather than extending it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*Toward a philosophy of Chat*][1] is worth reading if you're thinking along the lines of &quot;But *our* room culture...&quot;. There is only so much allowance for room culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/270587/toward-a-philosophy-of-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="ff4b8d0c-6a30-4fcb-b2df-8e542f237d64" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:23:32.037" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="The tag [tag:efficient-energy-use] seems to be rather ill-defined. The tag wiki excerpt states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use the tag *Efficient Energy Use* in questions having to do with processes or engines or constructions where energy is spent or transfered and the efficiency thereof. Efficiency means both the measurement and the techniques and principles for its optimization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not seem to be a useful tag. What &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; *doesn't* transfer energy in some way? Optimizing a given &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; is not physics, it is engineering, and hence [off-topic here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4535/50583). Measuring the efficiency of some &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; seems *very* specific and doesn't deserve its own tag, in my opinion - tagging questions about the measurement of energy efficiency with [tag:energy] seems perfectly sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose the tag be removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21116" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="ff4b8d0c-6a30-4fcb-b2df-8e542f237d64" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:23:32.037" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Stop [efficient-energy-use] tag!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7696" RevisionGUID="9e2ae822-1374-4b9b-b4b5-18d6e0f85e7c" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:29:15.310" UserId="32426" Text="On my opinion, every homework question should be offtopic. It is because science has very high ethical standards, and although it is only an enthusiast site, the spirit of these standards should be followed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Letting others solve our homework on the internet,&#xD;&#xA;* Solving somebodys homework instead of him,&#xD;&#xA;* And finally, giving the homework to a teacher and saying that it is my work,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...all of them are very strongly against the spirit of these standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think, answering a homework question should be also punishable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the community can't examine if a question is really a homework question. Well-formulated questions, especially if the OP is capable to _argument_ for that it is _not_ a homework, could probably get their answers below the radar. It would also mean, the OP must consistently lie, cheat and commit plagiarism, but from our side it is impossible to decide about that. Anyways, considering the mean communication level of the homework OPs, if they are capable to credibly argument for that their question is _not_ a homework, they are on a highly above the average level of the homework OPs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, in most cases, the OP is perfectly incapable even to use the formulas in his task. In very many cases they are even lazy to type in their question and they simply send scanned papers. And they do this from a very new account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, in their case their accounts should be caged for some weeks - most high school homework questions have a much narrower deadline. And they should also get a moderator message about this policy, and that they will be welcomed after the weeks pass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;99% of them will then go away, and never come back. Actually, they will simply forgot even the existence of the physics SE in the moment, as they understand that the site won't help them in plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining 1% will be good members of the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="49448556-4065-4bc9-83a0-b059fc6d2854" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:03:40.430" UserId="124" Comment="clarify current recommendations for handling plagiarism" Text="To answer your question directly, there is no automatic plagiarism detection (as far as I know). Generally we rely on alert users to notice when something appears to be copied and pasted from another source. If you see something that you suspect might be plagiarized and you'd like to do something about it, pick out a distinctive phrase or two and run it through Google. If you have access to plagiarism detection software and you'd like to use it on the post, although that'd be a little more extreme, there's nothing wrong with doing so (assuming it doesn't violate the terms of your license to use that software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, by any method, you find a match from which the post content has been copied, you have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Edit the post to bring it into compliance with our guidelines on plagiarism. Specifically, that means it needs to identify exactly what was copied (using quote blocks or quotation marks or some other clear method), and it needs to say where each piece was copied from.&#xD;&#xA;2. If you can't do that (or don't want to), leave a comment on the post including the source and mentioning what was copied, and flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The policy is that content which is copied from another source should be either deleted, or edited to make it clear what was copied and where it came from. If it happens repeatedly, it could lead to moderator action. Plagiarism is not tolerated on the site as an ethical matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that moderators are only authorized to handle cases of plagiarism, not copyright violations. When you cast your flag, make sure to say &quot;plagiarism,&quot; not &quot;copyright violation&quot; (because if you do the latter, there are potentially tricky legal implications). If you do want to report content as a copyright violation, not as an instance of plagiarism, you will need to go through the DMCA takedown process described on the [legal page](http://stackexchange.com/legal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="cf042bf9-e4ab-4813-874a-0d3aed78d57d" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:14:31.937" UserId="124" Comment="some clarifications" Text="&gt; TL;DR: post examples of current questions which are edge cases for the new policy, look through the list, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers UP if you think they should be ON TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers DOWN if you think they should be OFF TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we last left [the ongoing examination](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) of [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714), the community had come to something of a consensus that [certain low-effort questions asking for calculations should be off topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124). In addition, I've been watching actual question closures over the past couple months since we had that discussion, and I see more and more questions getting closed for displaying unacceptably low effort, whether using the existing homework-like close reason, or a custom reason written in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think it's time we start formulating a new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new policy, along with one or two associated close reasons, will prescribe how we should decide whether questions are off topic for being low-effort and/or being calculation requests. It will _replace_ the current homework policy, and in the future, we will use the associated close reason(s) for homework questions, _instead_ of using the existing homework-like close reason (which will no longer be active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have in mind is a process in 4 steps, of which this is the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Collect examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Prepare and edit a draft of the new policy that implements the consensus on the examples as well as possible. This may take a while.&#xD;&#xA;3. Decide on the wording of one or two new close reasons that will be associated with the new policy. Two reasons would be an option in case we want both low-effort questions and calculation requests to be off topic and we can't come up with one reason to cover them both.&#xD;&#xA;4. Make an official [meta-tag:faq] post with the content of the new policy, deprecate the current homework policy, and swap the new close reasons in for the existing homework-like close reason. This is the easy part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Collecting examples of on/off-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to guide the development of a new policy, I think it will help to have many examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic. So I'm making this post to solicit these examples from the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it will work: each answer should contain a link to _one_ question that is currently on the site. Vote up each answer if you would like to see that question be on topic under the _new_ policy (that we are going to write), and vote down if you think the question should be off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please vote based on **how the question is currently written**, not based on how you think it could be written if it were improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter so much whether the question is _currently_ open or closed. If you have feedback arguing one way or another for a particular link, leave it in the comments on that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot of questions, the decision is obvious. We don't really need to post those. What I'm _most_ interested in are &quot;interesting&quot; cases, such as questions which are currently on topic but which you'd like to see be off topic under the new policy, or vice versa. Borderline questions, which are not _clearly_ on-topic or off-topic, are also good candidates for posting here. For inspiration, you can look at our previous discussions on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;- [Chat session on homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6165/does-insufficient-effort-cover-previous-se-questions&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on, e.g. linked and related questions in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus that emerged from the last meta question is represented by [rob's answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124), which suggested the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria. That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this as a starting point to help judge which questions are likely to be edge cases and how you would vote on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="a6788023-a33d-4a70-96e0-accca1a19234" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:15:16.067" UserId="124" Comment="add voting instructions" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is probably homework because it's really just asking how to solve a problem. However you could argue it's conceptual in the sense that it's asking about how to approach this sort of problem for arbitrary geometries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A belated footnote: the simplest approach I've seen to doing this requires the use of the [reciprocity theorem][1], and specifically that the potential energy of a quadrupole charge distribution in the electrostatic potential from a monopole is the same as the potential energy of a monopole in an electrostatic potential from a quadrupole. Wouldn't answering aalong these lines count as conceptual?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)#Green.27s_reciprocity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="abd83586-0d73-4e83-b978-adee565ba8d9" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:15:32.320" UserId="124" Comment="add voting instructions" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247547/extension-in-a-vertically-hanging-rod&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework question, and the OP admits it's a homework question. However the OP isn't asking us to do the problem, they are asking about the physics behind it making more of a *homework inspired* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would leave this one open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="0019df03-99d2-47e7-8ba9-2d7636bc7739" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:15:59.023" UserId="124" Comment="add voting instructions" Text="Thanks to dmckee for digging up an old deleted question asked by me a long time ago here. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Suppose a plane of mass $M$ flies at constant velocity at a height $h$ above the ground. If $h$ is much larger than the size of the aircraft, what is the pressure increase on the ground as a function of the position relative to the point directly underneath the aircraft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I then added a heuristic way to tackle the problem (some of it was in the comments):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the velocity field were (on average) to have a radial component that decays like 1/r^2, this amounts to a source, which violates conservation of mass. But you can then imagine a sink nearby, in the limit that they get infinitely close and the sources get infinitively strong, you should get a dipole like velocity field. Then this decays like 1/r^3 at large distances. At the ground we impose zero velocity boundary conditions, the pressure should thus behave like 1/r^6 = 1/(h^2 + d^2)^3 where d is the distance on the ground from the point directly underneath the aircraft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrating the total pressure over the surface should yield the weight of the aircraft. If we write the pressure as A/(h^2 + d^2)^3, then the integral of 2 pi A d/(h^2 + d^2)^3 over d from 0 to infinity should equal M g. Solving for A then yields the pressure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;P(d) = 2 Mg h^4/pi 1/(h^2 + d^2)^3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But all this is on the basis of purely intuitive reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="78caf949-4740-4abd-a957-9f188f68708b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:16:10.197" UserId="124" Comment="add voting instructions" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249329/relationship-between-velocity-and-position-due-to-constant-jerk-proof-check&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question shows a detailed derivation, and then asks us to check whether the derivation is correct. It also asks whether there is a simpler derivation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="c2dd41f4-eeb9-4e57-8cfa-47ab467b2b49" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:16:27.683" UserId="124" Comment="add voting instructions" Text="[Power dissipation in AC RC circuit][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should seriously consider not allowing such questions here. Under the current policy this is allowed homework, because the OP did a reasonable effort to solve the problem. I.m.o., however, we're better off forgetting about the whole homework issue and focus only on how interesting a question is from purely a physics point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can then be the case that a homework-like question is very interesting but it would not be allowed under the current policy because of lack of effort. On the other hand you can also have questions like this which are not all that interesting but because the poor student did go through all the trouble of working seriously on the problem, we're going to address it. It's better to not take such irrelevant issues into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/248039/47511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7697" RevisionGUID="700fa3e9-4d62-4f7e-877e-907240d93521" CreationDate="2016-04-18T20:42:18.197" UserId="31790" Text="I find that most (all) posts that include an enumerated list of sub-questions are bad.&#xD;&#xA;Outwardly, this is because they're too broad: a good answer would have to go through too much material.&#xD;&#xA;Often, the OP has encountered several manifestations of some underlying lack of knowledge and hasn't taken the time to focus the post down to that underlying issue (in some cases this may be a result of that issue being subtle, but in my opinion it usually is not).&#xD;&#xA;In other cases, there is one obvious real question, and then a bunch of related follow-up questions that aren't really related to the important issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find myself often commenting on these posts, asking the OP to either split the post into several smaller, more focused posts, or to just focus on the thing they actually want to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we update the help center to specifically remind people that lists of sub-questions are usually not a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7697" RevisionGUID="700fa3e9-4d62-4f7e-877e-907240d93521" CreationDate="2016-04-18T20:42:18.197" UserId="31790" Text="Should we explicitly tell people that enumerated lists of questions are usually a bad idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7697" RevisionGUID="700fa3e9-4d62-4f7e-877e-907240d93521" CreationDate="2016-04-18T20:42:18.197" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7699" RevisionGUID="83c9902a-57ec-4bf0-a99b-b33895d1020a" CreationDate="2016-04-18T22:04:52.687" UserId="2451" Text="More than one question per thread is of course allowed, but let me here list some reasons why there should preferably only be *one* question per thread if that is not immediately clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The meaning of voting becomes obscure. Should one upvote/downvote a question/answer if the subquestions/subanswers are not uniformly good/bad? How should one compare an answer that only answers subquestion 1 versus an answer that only answers subquestion 2? Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Often readers only read the title question, and ignore other subquestions hidden in the main text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a question is not already in the title, it becomes hard to search for similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The number of possible threads becomes unnecessarily large, especially if the subquestions are unrelated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Certain subquestions may already be duplicates of other posts, while others are not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7700" RevisionGUID="bcd854bf-af31-4e08-9bd2-2f07715dc81b" CreationDate="2016-04-19T09:06:51.133" UserId="11053" Text="I'll add a note for users who don't have enough rep yet to participate in the queues - if you want to express your opinion on opening/closing questions, use comments. I can't speak for all reviewers, but comments are the first place I look when I run into a question that's a bit of an edge case. If there's a well reasoned argument there for/against re-opening/closing a question I take it into account when casting my vote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7699" RevisionGUID="dadede1b-d042-4fa0-8c91-42e3210ee832" CreationDate="2016-04-19T09:32:38.983" UserId="2451" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="More than one question per thread is of course allowed, but let me here list some reasons why there should preferably only be *one* question per thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The meaning of voting becomes unclear. Should one upvote/downvote a question/answer if the subquestions/subanswers are not uniformly good/bad? How should one compare an answer that only answers subquestion 1 versus an answer that only answers subquestion 2? Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question becomes too broad. Potential answerers may only answer partially, or get discouraged before they get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Often readers only read the title question, and ignore other subquestions hidden in the main text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a question is not already in the title, it becomes harder to search for similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The combinatorical number of possible threads on the site becomes unnecessarily large, especially if the subquestions are unrelated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Certain subquestions may already be duplicates of other posts, while others are not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="25d3907c-244f-4c35-a4c9-3b7878ec2efe" CreationDate="2016-04-19T10:08:47.267" UserId="124" Text="If this were to go in the help center, it would probably fit in the [how to ask page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask), and we don't have the ability to edit that. It's the same network-wide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I doubt that people typically read the help center before asking. I think the most effective way to get the information to them is to post a comment - have them learn in context. You can also just edit out all but one question from a post, if it's clear enough how to do so and if you wouldn't invalidate the answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="e5572214-ade4-4d98-b690-1df42fda74b6" CreationDate="2016-04-20T07:09:13.200" UserId="111951" Text="I don't know how I can type math in physics.stackexchange when I ask a question or answer. I type math in the Office word and use print screen. May anyone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21140" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="e5572214-ade4-4d98-b690-1df42fda74b6" CreationDate="2016-04-20T07:09:13.200" UserId="111951" Text="How can I type math?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21141" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="e5572214-ade4-4d98-b690-1df42fda74b6" CreationDate="2016-04-20T07:09:13.200" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21142" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="61c9b7f0-5e3e-4dc0-bb3b-cfec2ca0485c" CreationDate="2016-04-20T07:29:41.827" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="21143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="330be214-6fe8-479e-a155-f8512a3ba9ff" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:45:01.780" UserId="124" Text="Some variation of this question gets asked _a lot_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have 2 point masses, $m$ and $M$ in a perfect world separated by radius $r$. Starting from rest, they both begin to accelerate towards each other. So we have the gravitational force between them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$F_g = \frac{GMm}{r^2}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we find out at what time they will collide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two instances that seem to be emerging as &quot;canonical&quot;, or at least that both seem to be the _target_ of frequent duplicate closures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14700/the-time-that-2-masses-will-collide-due-to-newtonian-gravity (where the above quote comes from)&#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3534/dont-heavier-objects-actually-fall-faster-because-they-exert-their-own-gravity (has more upvotes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should pick one of these (or potentially another version of this same question) to be the canonical target of duplicate closures. I would probably go ahead and pick #2 except that I happen to have the accepted answer on that question, and I wouldn't want people to think I'm doing it to accumulate reputation. Besides, there _are_ some advantages to #1, namely that the question is more cleanly asked (IMO) and the accepted answer is much more direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we go with? #1 or #2, or another existing version of this, or write an entirely new canonical question for it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="330be214-6fe8-479e-a155-f8512a3ba9ff" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:45:01.780" UserId="124" Text="Canonical question for two masses falling in Newtonian gravity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="330be214-6fe8-479e-a155-f8512a3ba9ff" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:45:01.780" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="17730170-4140-4574-b121-3b7d6d5a1b39" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:55:03.887" UserId="6634" Text="Usually people get mad because we close things too quickly without considering whether they are really on topic or not. But http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments has been open for 2 days and only has 2 close votes, despite being the very definition of too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something on why this hasn't been closed yet, either by the community or by moderators? I'm really surprised that it hasn't been closed yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="17730170-4140-4574-b121-3b7d6d5a1b39" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:55:03.887" UserId="6634" Text="How is this question still open?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="17730170-4140-4574-b121-3b7d6d5a1b39" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:55:03.887" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|scope|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="e5296187-df39-41b3-8a4d-f06007156744" CreationDate="2016-04-20T16:15:27.307" UserId="124" Text="I can offer the moderator perspective (well, at least my own): when I last looked at it, it had _zero_ close votes, and I didn't feel like it was obviously enough off topic to close it unilaterally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="f10ba4a4-4e5f-47c3-b57e-3d7f3356596e" CreationDate="2016-04-20T18:18:19.460" UserId="30247" Text="This is how I read the question, which is admittedly a bit more concrete than the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are huge experiments which are going to run in the future and are currently under development (which means that at least part of the funding is already secured and people start building something). By &quot;huge experiments&quot; I mean experiments of the LHC,LIGO type, which means that a) at least hundreds of people of all continents are involved and spend or will spend a majority of their time on the project and b) the experiment really is one big experiment (such as one telescope, one detector, etc.) and not a very tightly connected net of smaller experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is a big-list question and, as you state, in principle off-topic. I don't think this is a reason to &quot;close as off-topic&quot;, because it's just a general &quot;big lists are off-topic&quot;. We should have a look at why big lists are off-topic. The best (?) reasons I could find are summarised by DavidZ: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi &#xD;&#xA;&gt;List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that these reasons are invalid for this particular question and that this particular question does well into the framework. Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question (as stated above) is precise, i.e. there is an objective way of judging the correctness of the answer: Is the experiment truly huge? Is it a physics experiment trying to explore physical concepts (on this ground, ITER might not really be a physics experiment) Is it past the initial exploration phase and under development? Is the experiment anticipated by parts of the physics community? This means that it is not overly opinion-based either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is sufficiently focused. Indeed, I would argue that it is not too broad per se: the number of experiments that fits the bill won't be too huge. I bet there are less than twenty experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Stack Exchange framework does allow for a number of good answers and can, in principle, support small lists (I'm not so sure about lists like on mathoverflow with dozens of pages) and it is particularly good for questions where maybe not one person has the complete answer, but a complete picture emerges from several good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While the question might not really &quot;end&quot;, activity is very restricted. Only every few years will there be new experiments that fit the bill. Also, by the nature of the question, even without additions it will stay up-to-date for several years, if not a decade. For me, this is stable enough (who knows what happens with Stack Exchange in ten years?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is interesting to researchers and enthusiasts alike. Hardly anyone knows all of these experiments, but many like to know whats going on outside their fields at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two points that might be problematic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a sense, this gives a lot of reputation for easy answers, because of the popularity of the question. To counteract this, one might impose a similar rule as on mathoverflow, where all answers are immediately community-wiki. Then again, almost everybody gets their reputation from easy answers, so maybe this is not a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clearly, the question garners a lot of attention. Maybe it draws away attention from better questions. I do not have a good counterargument other than that I feel this is true for almost all hot network questions, whether they are on-topic or not. Often, the physical content is even less than one can learn from the answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: I think that this is one of the very rare instances where such a list-based question should actually be on-topic for this site and I argued that the reasoning behind the close-policies allow for such a question to be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="f628b2f4-a245-4ce3-af90-29dae710d1d3" CreationDate="2016-04-20T18:25:23.823" UserId="30247" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This is how I read the question, which is admittedly a bit more concrete than the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are huge experiments which are going to run in the future and are currently under development (which means that at least part of the funding is already secured and people start building something). By &quot;huge experiments&quot; I mean experiments of the LHC,LIGO type, which means that a) at least hundreds of people of all continents are involved and spend or will spend a majority of their time on the project and b) the experiment really is one big experiment (such as one telescope, one detector, etc.) and not a very tightly connected net of smaller experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is a big-list question and, as you state, in principle off-topic. I don't think this is a reason to &quot;close as off-topic&quot;, because it's just a general &quot;big lists are off-topic&quot;. We should have a look at why big lists are off-topic. The best (?) reasons I could find are summarised by DavidZ: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi &#xD;&#xA;&gt;List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that these reasons are invalid for this particular question and that this particular question fits into the framework. Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question (as stated above) is precise, i.e. there is an objective way of judging the correctness of the answer: Is the experiment truly huge? Is it a physics experiment trying to explore physical concepts (on this ground, ITER might not really be a physics experiment) Is it past the initial exploration phase and under development? Is the experiment anticipated by parts of the physics community? This means that it is not overly opinion-based either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is sufficiently focused. Indeed, I would argue that it is not too broad per se: the number of experiments that fits the bill won't be too huge. I bet there are less than twenty experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Stack Exchange framework does allow for a number of good answers and can, in principle, support small lists (I'm not so sure about lists like on mathoverflow with dozens of pages) and it is particularly good for questions where maybe not one person has the complete answer, but a complete picture emerges from several good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While the question might not really &quot;end&quot;, activity is very restricted. Only every few years will there be new experiments that fit the bill. Also, by the nature of the question, even without additions it will stay up-to-date for several years, if not a decade. For me, this is stable enough (who knows what happens with Stack Exchange in ten years?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is interesting to researchers and enthusiasts alike. Hardly anyone knows all of these experiments, but many like to know whats going on outside their fields at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two points that might be problematic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a sense, this gives a lot of reputation for easy answers, because of the popularity of the question. To counteract this, one might impose a similar rule as on mathoverflow, where all answers are immediately community-wiki. Then again, almost everybody gets their reputation from easy answers, so maybe this is not a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clearly, the question garners a lot of attention. Maybe it draws away attention from better questions. I do not have a good counterargument other than that I feel this is true for almost all hot network questions, whether they are on-topic or not. Often, the physical content is even less than one can learn from the answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: I think that this is one of the very rare instances where such a list-based question should actually be on-topic for this site and I argued that the reasoning behind the close-policies allow for such a question to be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="6e485153-5658-4c3d-8eeb-365c6ee31955" CreationDate="2016-04-20T21:55:39.540" UserId="30247" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="This is how I read the question, which is admittedly a bit more concrete than the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are huge experiments which are going to run in the future and are currently under development (which means that at least part of the funding is already secured and people start building something). By &quot;huge experiments&quot; I mean experiments of the LHC,LIGO type, which means that a) thousands of people of all continents are involved and spend or will spend a majority of their time on the project and b) the experiment really is one big experiment (such as one telescope, one detector, etc.) and not a very tightly connected net of smaller experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is a big-list question and, as you state, in principle off-topic. I don't think this is a reason to &quot;close as off-topic&quot;, because it's just a general &quot;big lists are off-topic&quot;. We should have a look at why big lists are off-topic. The best (?) reasons I could find are summarised by DavidZ: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi &#xD;&#xA;&gt;List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that these reasons are invalid for this particular question and that this particular question fits into the framework. Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question (as stated above) is precise, i.e. there is an objective way of judging the correctness of the answer: Is the experiment truly huge? Is it a physics experiment trying to explore physical concepts (on this ground, ITER might not really be a physics experiment) Is it past the initial exploration phase and under development? Is the experiment anticipated by parts of the physics community? This means that it is not overly opinion-based either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is sufficiently focused. Indeed, I would argue that it is not too broad per se: the number of experiments that fits the bill won't be too huge. I bet there are less than twenty experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Stack Exchange framework does allow for a number of good answers and can, in principle, support small lists (I'm not so sure about lists like on mathoverflow with dozens of pages) and it is particularly good for questions where maybe not one person has the complete answer, but a complete picture emerges from several good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While the question might not really &quot;end&quot;, activity is very restricted. Only every few years will there be new experiments that fit the bill. Also, by the nature of the question, even without additions it will stay up-to-date for several years, if not a decade. For me, this is stable enough (who knows what happens with Stack Exchange in ten years?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is interesting to researchers and enthusiasts alike. Hardly anyone knows all of these experiments, but many like to know whats going on outside their fields at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two points that might be problematic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a sense, this gives a lot of reputation for easy answers, because of the popularity of the question. To counteract this, one might impose a similar rule as on mathoverflow, where all answers are immediately community-wiki. Then again, almost everybody gets their reputation from easy answers, so maybe this is not a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clearly, the question garners a lot of attention. Maybe it draws away attention from better questions. I do not have a good counterargument other than that I feel this is true for almost all hot network questions, whether they are on-topic or not. Often, the physical content is even less than one can learn from the answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: I think that this is one of the very rare instances where such a list-based question should actually be on-topic for this site and I argued that the reasoning behind the close-policies allow for such a question to be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7708" RevisionGUID="4a1e4fda-b5f4-4151-b43f-296c81cc8597" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:53:03.377" UserId="2451" Text="This question comes in different versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without reduced mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without non-radial motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without relativistic effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without initial velocity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- taking the finite radii of the two bodies into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- only asking for total time, or asking for radial coordinate as a function of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this question is often asked by beginners of physics, it is important to provide duplicates which are at the level of OP. E.g. I have often used http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19388/2451 as a duplicate since it is easy to read and understand, and provides links for the interested reader. In other words, there doesn't seem to be currently a FAQ that adequately covers all cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="7f0240fe-ac53-4e41-b7d2-ce81405cc118" CreationDate="2016-04-21T11:37:31.327" UserId="1325" Text="A canonical question, that is a question specifically intended to act as a definitive reference, is distinct from a question that just happens to cover the same topic. If I were writing a canonical question I would tailor the question to make it absolutely clear that the question was intended as a reference and to explain what it did and didn't cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in this case I would write a brand new question and answer that combined the best aspects of the two questions you mention, the question Qmechanic links and indeed any other related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't feel desperately strongly about this (at least, not strongly enough to volunteer to do it :-) and it's a lot of work writing a canonical Q/A in this fashion. However if you are attempting to provide the best possible reference i think a new question and answer are the best course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21163" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="7af4a28b-4e7a-47a1-84ec-c532808103c8" CreationDate="2016-04-22T09:02:09.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/723436719463272448" />
  <row Id="21164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7711" RevisionGUID="471ebb11-1b11-4997-a098-81aaaffd1ad7" CreationDate="2016-04-22T15:57:55.067" UserId="25680" Text="FYI I'm an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how much overlap there is between users of Physics SE and Astronomy SE, but it may be possible that there are some astrophysicists on Astronomy SE that are not on Physics SE (and vice versa).  Is there any way to determine this and/or invite astrophysicists on Astronomy SE to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can probably imagine, the questions asked on Astronomy SE have a pretty full spectrum in the amount of physics involved in asking/answering a question.  Some questions are very observational in nature (such as [Jupiter appearing odd through a 6&quot; reflector][1]) while others are quite physical (such as [Does the radius of the Universe correspond to its total entropy][2]).  I don't know how that plays out with the fraction of people on Astronomy SE who would be able to contribute to Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/14589/jupiter-appearing-odd-through-a-6-reflector&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/6562/does-the-radius-of-the-universe-correspond-to-its-total-entropy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21165" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="e5676ac2-3856-40e7-be70-f54c36597a11" CreationDate="2016-04-23T00:02:09.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/723663211560620033" />
  <row Id="21166" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="29e45ecd-e5c4-4973-9b2c-261974d0533a" CreationDate="2016-04-23T00:07:07.193" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="How can we encourage more Astrophysicists on physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="07b310f8-b23a-4a15-9a7f-3c8c6e00c3ce" CreationDate="2016-04-24T00:39:53.037" UserId="114696" Text="I am a newcomer to the site.  I am dismayed to see so many questions being put on hold which appear to me to be reasonable, thought-provoking and 'on topic.'   For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aaron, URL (version: 2016-04-19): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250549&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AdamG, URL (version: 2016-04-18): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250301&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether these questions are homework or not, discussion of the conceptual difficulties which the questioners have would benefit the site's users.  The problems might be pedestrian but the conceptual misunderstandings are fundamental and common.  The questioners have clearly thought about their problems.  I do not understand why these questions are 'on hold'.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think such questioners are possibly being penalised simply because they are novices.  Surely it is to be expected that they will lack the skill or understanding to be able to pin-point the source of their difficulty and to express it clearly in orthodox terms.  What they need is help to refine and clarify their questions.  That requires open dialog and time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, questions tagged 'Quantum Field Theory' are rarely put 'on hold' although there is - in my opinion - less excuse for these academic questioners not fully researching and putting in sufficient effort before posting their questions.  I appreciate that fewer moderators feel confident about judging such advanced topics.  However, I don't feel it is right to treat novices less favourably simply because their questions are easier to judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="4dcfe79f-37a1-4f43-9676-775d89ae1e83" CreationDate="2016-04-24T00:48:25.113" UserId="114696" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="I am a newcomer to the site.  I am dismayed to see so many questions being put on hold which appear to me to be reasonable, thought-provoking and 'on topic' as defined by the criteria in John Rennie's post above.   For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aaron, URL (version: 2016-04-19): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250549&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AdamG, URL (version: 2016-04-18): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250301&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether these questions are homework or not, discussion of the conceptual difficulties which the questioners have would benefit the site's users.  The problems might be pedestrian but the conceptual misunderstandings are fundamental and common.  The questioners have clearly thought about their problems.  I do not understand why these questions are 'on hold'.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think such questioners are possibly being penalised simply because they are novices.  Surely it is to be expected that they will lack the skill or understanding to be able to pin-point the source of their difficulty and to express it clearly in orthodox terms.  What they need is help to refine and clarify their questions.  That requires open dialog and time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, questions tagged 'Quantum Field Theory' are rarely put 'on hold' although there is - in my opinion - less excuse for these academic questioners not fully researching and putting in sufficient effort before posting their questions.  I appreciate that fewer moderators feel confident about judging such advanced topics.  However, I don't feel it is right to treat novices less favourably simply because their questions are easier to judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="7136a1a0-f70f-4884-bd82-0b987991211c" CreationDate="2016-04-26T01:18:20.360" UserId="62755" Text="I'm sorry if this isn't a question fit for this site, but what exactly is the function that's plotted in the website logo/picture? It looks kind of like a simple decaying exponential multiplied by a sinusoid, but I feel like it may be something really interesting that the creator put for a good story/laugh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r2YjL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="7136a1a0-f70f-4884-bd82-0b987991211c" CreationDate="2016-04-26T01:18:20.360" UserId="62755" Text="What is the function in the Physics StackExchange website picture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="7136a1a0-f70f-4884-bd82-0b987991211c" CreationDate="2016-04-26T01:18:20.360" UserId="62755" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21173" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="fb6d7a2a-11ff-4cf4-8f39-27c46ba705a9" CreationDate="2016-04-26T01:25:41.530" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[949],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10851,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="21175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="b8c27327-41e0-461a-9cc6-d0a48393833d" CreationDate="2016-04-26T04:21:00.467" UserId="8521" Text="One simple thing that would help is better tagging things as `astronomy` and `astrophysics`.  While they are often tagged with things like `black-hole` or `general-relativity`, it's really helpful (as an astrophysics person) to just have to search through one or two tags (e.g. `astrophysics`) instead of all related phenomena.  I try to do this when I notice, but I'm honestly not here too often these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="fa7408fd-f859-40ff-ae5a-c360513127a9" CreationDate="2016-04-26T04:57:02.880" UserId="96487" Text="I want to upvote an answer, I previously down voted. It shows  &#xA;&quot;You haven't cast a vote to undo&quot;.&#xA;.&#xA;How do I cast one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="fa7408fd-f859-40ff-ae5a-c360513127a9" CreationDate="2016-04-26T04:57:02.880" UserId="96487" Text="What is , &quot;You haven't cast a vote to undo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="fa7408fd-f859-40ff-ae5a-c360513127a9" CreationDate="2016-04-26T04:57:02.880" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="806e27ee-c9ba-43ba-bf5d-409782fe1757" CreationDate="2016-04-26T08:32:13.567" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-norepro|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="929cc6bb-73dd-4ff2-9a2f-c93504646e58" CreationDate="2016-04-26T08:40:11.987" UserId="24653" Text="Whenever I click a hyperlink to meta.PSE (as posted by e.g. the &quot;Physics Meta&quot; bot) in the h bar, I get the following screen: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I choose to proceed anyways (bottom hyperlink), I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the URL looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other times, I just immediately get this screen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do manage to get to the correct page by simply deleting the `https://` part of the URL and pressing enter. What's going wrong? For reference, I'm on Windows 10, using Google Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HEvvm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DX54a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/21E1G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ozd7C.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="929cc6bb-73dd-4ff2-9a2f-c93504646e58" CreationDate="2016-04-26T08:40:11.987" UserId="24653" Text="I can't follow links from the h bar chatroom to meta.PSE. What's going wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="929cc6bb-73dd-4ff2-9a2f-c93504646e58" CreationDate="2016-04-26T08:40:11.987" UserId="24653" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7719" RevisionGUID="9334b979-3a6c-4337-9281-f89b5c9e6b35" CreationDate="2016-04-26T09:00:10.070" UserId="124" Text="This problem is [well known](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265918/accessing-per-site-metas-gives-403-forbidden-from-cloudflare-nginx), and has been for years. The problem is simply that you cannot access any Stack Exchange meta sites using HTTPS. It has nothing to do with chat, or your browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In detail, in order to access a site using HTTPS (an encrypted connection), the site needs to provide a certificate which contains the site's name, an associated encryption key, and a certification that these values are associated with each other. The certificate specification allows a single leading wildcard; for example, it's possible to make a certificate that gives one encryption key to be used by any domain of the form `*.stackexchange.com` (where `*` can be anything). But it's not possible to make a certificate that can be used by `meta.*.stackexchange.com`, or `*.*.stackexchange.com`, which is what would be needed to make the meta sites accessible over HTTPS. The certification process StackExchange uses is expensive, and they understandably don't want to go through it to get a separate certificate for each meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until Stack Exchange changes their site architecture to solve the problem (if they ever do), a workaround _may_ be to use the [HTTPS Everywhere](https://www.eff.org/HTTPS-everywhere) extension, if it's available for your browser. Its main purpose is to enforce HTTPS usage; it prevents your browser from making unencrypted connections to certain sites which are known to work with HTTPS. But as a side effect, I _believe_ it also prevents the browser from making encrypted connections to a few sites which are known _not_ to work with HTTPS, including the SE meta sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="5de379f8-2558-4b10-aa62-b751d5e6ecc8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T05:31:45.133" UserId="115391" Text="Everyone have questions and most of them may be stupid but we must encourage them right? Even some of Newton's questions were pointless.So the negative votes may cause the curious minds to be unhappy and feel that they are dumb. So why should a question have negative vote in StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="5de379f8-2558-4b10-aa62-b751d5e6ecc8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T05:31:45.133" UserId="115391" Text="Why should there be a -ve vote for questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="5de379f8-2558-4b10-aa62-b751d5e6ecc8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T05:31:45.133" UserId="115391" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21189" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="2f39ce1f-adb1-42be-b628-aff3e8e39001" CreationDate="2016-04-27T05:51:04.923" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Why should there be a negative vote for questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7721" RevisionGUID="81b03d6f-37bc-4c32-9900-24e1058630ad" CreationDate="2016-04-27T05:53:59.497" UserId="520" Text="Downvotes send a very clear message: this is not the kind of post we want on the site. (If downvotes outnumber upvotes that suggests the opinion is not that of one grumpy curmudgeon but is perhaps a consensus; if not then the user comes out ahead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For answers that means posts that are wrong, muddled, head off on a tangent unrelated to the questions or are just difficult to read and understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions that means things that are not physics, that presume off-the-mainstream theories, that ask us to do someone's homework, that constitute the eleventy first duplicate of something that *everybody* asks (search first, seriously) or that demonstrate that the asker would rather we spend our time typing than they spend theirs reading, say, the wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We *certainly* don't have some obligation to answer—or even welcome—every question. Sorry, but that's the truth: this site isn't answerable to every vaguely curious person on the internet. It's like [the tour][1] says: *&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&quot;* It doesn't say anything about being for every internet user who has heard something about gravitational waves being observed; suddenly noticed that time dilation is weird; or read some book by a pop-sci celebrity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less the site is actually pretty welcoming to rank beginners if they take the time to understand how things are done here. If they learn to frame those basic questions in terms of concepts rather than problems and to focus on the part of the Wikipedia article they're tripping on with an awareness of what other paragraphs say. In other words, if they starting learning to ask questions like a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="ef651ca9-8d99-4f48-9491-a0a0f2aceb9b" CreationDate="2016-04-27T07:27:32.137" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Everyone have questions and most of them may be stupid but we must encourage them right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. Not at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is the pithy version of what dmckee said.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="75b0c505-f86e-44c1-90fc-7deaed482c20" CreationDate="2016-04-27T11:50:21.610" UserId="96487" Text="Hi and welcome to the Physics SE! Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic).&#xA;&#xA;While reviewing I have to make this comment certain times. How do I make it?&#xA;&#xA;Do I have to keep its copy somewhere else and copy-paste it every time?&#xA;&#xA;Or there is some shortcut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="75b0c505-f86e-44c1-90fc-7deaed482c20" CreationDate="2016-04-27T11:50:21.610" UserId="96487" Text="How do I make this comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="75b0c505-f86e-44c1-90fc-7deaed482c20" CreationDate="2016-04-27T11:50:21.610" UserId="96487" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="1a7474c3-f65e-47ab-b863-3ce57ba2ae25" CreationDate="2016-04-27T14:17:15.743" UserId="114696" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250549&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; – CuriousOne, John&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rennie, AccidentalFourierTransform, MAFIA36790, ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please&#xD;&#xA;&gt; edit the question.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Commentators viewed this question as a request for homework help, of the &quot;check my work&quot; variety. I think it asks more than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this question is judged to be off-topic. It asks about a specific physics concept (motion of centre of mass).  The questioner demonstrates his attempt to solve it, but asks whether a simpler approach is possible.  He prefaces the question : &quot;I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this conceptually.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not the problem has been set as homework is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is whether it contains a conceptual difficulty, a discussion of which would be instructive to the broader community of users of this website.  I think the answer to this question is a clear Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="a51ab82a-5222-4687-a8d5-c75e5a9ed6b5" CreationDate="2016-04-27T14:50:18.490" UserId="114696" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/252007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; put on hold as off-topic by AccidentalFourierTransform, MAFIA36790, CuriousOne,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question probably arises from homework but the questioner has posted a detailed calculation, obtaining the correct answer after a &quot;very nasty&quot; integration.  He then asks if there is a simpler method of arriving at the answer.  Such a method is suggested by M.Enns and a detailed explanation posted as an answer by John Rennie.  The solution is very instructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this is deemed to be 'off topic.'   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="8a2fee74-8457-4892-9df1-a0a0d003ce75" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:48:53.437" UserId="29202" Text="Questions which have been (or are in the process of being closed as a duplicate) often get answers posted anyway.  What's the best way to deal with these answers?  The problem with upvotes (even to the answers, let alone to the question) is that it more or less pulls focus away from the preferred original question and its answers.  OTOH, it doesn't make sense to downvote an answer purely because the question is a dupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it best just to ignore the answers?  Would it be useful to  have some sort of automated migration or removal of answers once the question is closed?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="8a2fee74-8457-4892-9df1-a0a0d003ce75" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:48:53.437" UserId="29202" Text="How to deal with answers to duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="8a2fee74-8457-4892-9df1-a0a0d003ce75" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:48:53.437" UserId="29202" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7727" RevisionGUID="91b2e034-3802-45a9-bcd9-f7d9de932a0b" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:02:02.360" UserId="111951" Text="I upvoted a post mistakenly. Then I tried to cancel my vote but I couldn't because my reputation isn't enough. How can I cancel my vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7727" RevisionGUID="91b2e034-3802-45a9-bcd9-f7d9de932a0b" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:02:02.360" UserId="111951" Text="I want to cancel my vote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7727" RevisionGUID="91b2e034-3802-45a9-bcd9-f7d9de932a0b" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:02:02.360" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7728" RevisionGUID="6314fa54-3dd6-41de-b89c-8e4275bc82cc" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:05:44.490" UserId="520" Text="You cancel a vote by re-clicking the arrow for that vote, which you have the rep for that vote. That is, you cancel a upvote by clicking the up-arrow again. And the rep limit for that is the same as for casting the vote in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you tried to cast a downvote which is a separate action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there is a time limit for canceling votes. After 5 minutes (I think) you won't be able to cancel that vote unless the post has been edited in the mean time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="31607c5e-8703-4ff8-b6e8-58a1095a7226" CreationDate="2016-04-27T22:08:56.117" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="f84737ba-6e9a-4179-aee8-371df970f2ab" CreationDate="2016-04-28T09:43:10.760" UserId="8563" Text="There is no in-built mechanism for automated comment insertion. Many people who leave similar messages often either re-type them by hand every time, or have a text file or other location from which they copy-paste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are several third-party scripts at [stack**apps**](http://stackapps.com/) which modify the SE sites' functionality to add this sort of feature, such as e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which enables you to write your own pre-written comments using a quick button:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L3Cqp.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I've never used this script, but it looks straightforward enough.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="f6a39ae7-5767-40d3-ad4c-42796c752f84" CreationDate="2016-04-28T09:44:16.277" UserId="8563" Comment="Edited for clarity." Text="While reviewing I often have to make this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hi and welcome to the Physics SE! Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automated way to write this comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to keep its copy somewhere else and copy-paste it every time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or there is some shortcut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7731" RevisionGUID="77f232fe-fd7b-456a-a811-4242fd0d4d68" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:37:59.473" UserId="65389" Text="I sponsor a high school astronomy club. Most of my students have completed AP Calculus BC and are ready for a calculus-based discussion of astronomical physics. I am searching for a source-book to use for discussions at club meetings. Is Physics.SE a good place to ask &quot;What is an overview of appropriate texts for this purpose?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7731" RevisionGUID="77f232fe-fd7b-456a-a811-4242fd0d4d68" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:37:59.473" UserId="65389" Text="Is Physics SE a good place to ask for textbook references?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7731" RevisionGUID="77f232fe-fd7b-456a-a811-4242fd0d4d68" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:37:59.473" UserId="65389" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7731" RevisionGUID="6b068019-7df3-48ce-a738-3dc08e3e70a9" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:46:31.103" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="9cd90166-d1f2-42b9-aa79-91cc836372ca" CreationDate="2016-04-28T19:47:32.873" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="b99c7c9e-eb7a-4d81-9e95-808b88d07252" CreationDate="2016-04-29T10:18:25.570" UserId="124" Text="Yes, this _would_ be a very good fit for our [tag:resource-recommendations] tag... if this question didn't already exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44882/what-are-good-books-for-graduates-undergraduates-in-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question is very general, so you can browse through the list of resources recommended there and pick out the ones that are at an appropriate level. Thus I don't see a need for a separate question that duplicates a subset of the existing one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="daab6e07-2a65-45d4-b771-8d118bb002fa" CreationDate="2016-04-29T10:27:38.333" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="070b3899-c4da-4283-911f-ffd4aa40ece0" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:00:04.213" UserId="114696" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250549&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; – CuriousOne, John&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rennie, AccidentalFourierTransform, MAFIA36790, ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please&#xD;&#xA;&gt; edit the question.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Commentators viewed this question as a request for homework help, of the &quot;check my work&quot; variety. I think it asks more than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this question is judged to be off-topic. It asks about a specific physics concept (motion of centre of mass).  The questioner demonstrates his attempt to solve it, but asks whether a simpler approach is possible.  He prefaces the question : &quot;I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this conceptually.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not the problem has been set as homework is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is whether it contains a conceptual difficulty, a discussion of which would be instructive to the broader community of users of this website.  I think the answer to this question is a clear Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="334513e1-cdcf-4a23-b94f-8f0fc685971a" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:01:19.977" UserId="114696" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/252007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; put on hold as off-topic by AccidentalFourierTransform, MAFIA36790, CuriousOne,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question probably arises from homework but the questioner has posted a detailed calculation, obtaining the correct answer after a &quot;very nasty&quot; integration.  He then asks if there is a simpler method of arriving at the answer.  Such a method is suggested by M.Enns and a detailed explanation posted as an answer by John Rennie.  The solution is very instructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this is deemed to be 'off topic.'   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="9d4aed88-d6a2-45f1-9e11-921175ccc0c6" CreationDate="2016-04-29T22:05:30.563" UserId="26221" Text="Why is this? Should we do something about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="9d4aed88-d6a2-45f1-9e11-921175ccc0c6" CreationDate="2016-04-29T22:05:30.563" UserId="26221" Text="Heat is both a tag, and an alias of thermodynamics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="9d4aed88-d6a2-45f1-9e11-921175ccc0c6" CreationDate="2016-04-29T22:05:30.563" UserId="26221" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="731d5c77-8283-48eb-9b7d-99ec3ed426f1" CreationDate="2016-04-29T22:50:49.500" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Heat is both a tag, and a synonym of thermodynamics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="b7523ac5-b227-49da-bf98-032a745be881" CreationDate="2016-04-30T04:43:10.833" UserId="63690" Text="[Net acceleration of an object if too many forces are acting on it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This questions has a concept in it but it is so simplistic/nonsensical that it should be closed.  I don't find a descriptive &quot;close&quot; category for it. It's very clear what the question is, but the question is so simple as to be stupid. The OP obviously hasn't thought about the topic long enough before asking.  Can we add another &quot;reason&quot; for closure to take care of thoughtless questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253025/net-acceleration-of-an-object-if-too-many-forces-are-acting-on-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7735" RevisionGUID="5b37c9e4-60f0-43c6-a7ce-c2f509fa2eb3" CreationDate="2016-05-02T13:02:39.273" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253477/specific-function-is-a-linear-combination-of-energy-eigenstates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a purely conceptual question (one which does not fall under our _current_ homework policy, for whatever that's worth) that nevertheless shows no effort on the part of the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="2d7f63d5-49a3-4125-8163-f57a38c5218a" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:49:00.277" UserId="1280" Text="I just posed a question in causal set notation (in general relativity), referencing papers 50 years old and 5 years old, seeking to know whether notation has changed or usage is a matter of personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been put on hold as being &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what I want to know is the *fact* of whether it is a matter of opinion or whether there is some authority or consensus for one form or another; I am writing a paper intended for submission and need to be correct in my notation if I am to avoid avoidable referee objections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also can't see how to discuss this with the admin who put it on hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are such questions to be managed when, as in this case, the asker acknowledges that the answer may involve discussion of matters of opinion but is not seeking opinions about opinions (if they are such) but facts about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Getting rather more meta than I would like, but I can't see how to avoid it!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="2d7f63d5-49a3-4125-8163-f57a38c5218a" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:49:00.277" UserId="1280" Text="Questions held for being opinion based" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="2d7f63d5-49a3-4125-8163-f57a38c5218a" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:49:00.277" UserId="1280" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="77566952-d09f-40a0-b610-1a2b10e8a4af" CreationDate="2016-05-02T17:28:13.770" UserId="1280" Comment="Added link to question as requested" Text="I just posed a question in causal set notation (in general relativity), referencing papers 50 years old and 5 years old, seeking to know whether notation has changed or usage is a matter of personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been put on hold as being &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what I want to know is the *fact* of whether it is a matter of opinion or whether there is some authority or consensus for one form or another; I am writing a paper intended for submission and need to be correct in my notation if I am to avoid avoidable referee objections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also can't see how to discuss this with the admin who put it on hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are such questions to be managed when, as in this case, the asker acknowledges that the answer may involve discussion of matters of opinion but is not seeking opinions about opinions (if they are such) but facts about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Getting rather more meta than I would like, but I can't see how to avoid it!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253515/causal-set-notation-round-brackets-vs-square-brackets?noredirect=1#comment559239_253515)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="6ceb4516-c328-4e2c-b2b8-27a1fc4f937f" CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:12:15.883" UserDisplayName="user854" Comment="revamped entire answer" Text="This is a cut-paste copy of a personal blog post I made that combines the resources above (and a few others) into a single post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;stackexchange.com is a great site to ask questions and receive&#xD;&#xA;professional answers, but it usually takes time to get an answer and&#xD;&#xA;questions are sometimes closed unnecessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - If your question is closed on physics.stackexchange.com (which is&#xD;&#xA;  plagued by &quot;overly aggressive moderators&quot;), try posting on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - math.stackexchange.com if your question is mostly mathematical,&#xD;&#xA;    or mathoverflow.net if your question is mathematical and fairly&#xD;&#xA;    high-level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - astronomy.stackexchange.com if your question is about astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - space.stackexchange.com if your question is about space&#xD;&#xA;    exploration, rocket launches, or anything similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - earthscience.stackexchange.com if your question relates to Earth&#xD;&#xA;    science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - gis.stackexchange.com if your question is about GIS or geography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - mathematica.stackexchange.com if you are working physics&#xD;&#xA;    problems with Mathematica(tm) software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - programmers.stackexchange.com if you are writing a computer&#xD;&#xA;    program to do physics (also stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - scifi.stackexchange.com if you're wondering how physics works in&#xD;&#xA;    an existing science fiction world, or&#xD;&#xA;    worldbuilding.stackexchange.com if you're trying to create a world&#xD;&#xA;    and need help with your fictional physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - The other answers to this question may also provide additional resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also try visiting the Physics StackExchange chat room:&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar where the atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;is generally friendlier. In many cases, they will help you with&#xD;&#xA;homework, even if your problem was closed on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - If you need help more urgently, or your question was closed on a&#xD;&#xA;  different StackExchange site, you might try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - openstudy.com: near-real-time help, somewhat&#xD;&#xA;    difficult-to-naviate interface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - wolframalpha.com: if you just need to check your answers, this&#xD;&#xA;    can be helpful, but it's been having a few serious problems later,&#xD;&#xA;    so proceed with caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - quora.com: if your question is more philosophical or&#xD;&#xA;    discussion-based (instead of looking for a specific answer), Quora&#xD;&#xA;    might be the place to post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like any other sites listed here, please let me know. The&#xD;&#xA;listings below are from individual users, and I have not vetted them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - toughstem.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="58de24a2-6743-4fbb-81c6-66997f0d6c2e" CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:15:24.400" UserId="1325" Comment="Add link" Text="[I just posed a question in causal set notation][1] (in general relativity), referencing papers 50 years old and 5 years old, seeking to know whether notation has changed or usage is a matter of personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been put on hold as being &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what I want to know is the *fact* of whether it is a matter of opinion or whether there is some authority or consensus for one form or another; I am writing a paper intended for submission and need to be correct in my notation if I am to avoid avoidable referee objections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also can't see how to discuss this with the admin who put it on hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are such questions to be managed when, as in this case, the asker acknowledges that the answer may involve discussion of matters of opinion but is not seeking opinions about opinions (if they are such) but facts about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Getting rather more meta than I would like, but I can't see how to avoid it!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253515/causal-set-notation-round-brackets-vs-square-brackets?noredirect=1#comment559239_253515)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253515/causal-set-notation-round-brackets-vs-square-brackets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="9e725045-f09c-4fcf-945c-7ecf2a4d8dc0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T23:31:59.140" UserId="8563" Text="[Quick question on rotational motion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253583/quick-question-on-rotational-motion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is based on a set piece and it starts off with it. The poster has some conceptual questions which are relatively well laid out. On the other hand, the question is rather straightforward and there's not that much to explain other than going through the procedure with the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7739" RevisionGUID="8ab8a757-64c2-4b9a-96cd-3503bfaefc1a" CreationDate="2016-05-03T08:10:08.977" UserId="101770" Text="From the rules on awarding bounties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How is a bounty awarded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bounty period lasts 7 days. Bounties must have a minimum duration of at least 1 day. After the bounty ends, there is a grace period of 24 hours to manually award the bounty. Simply click the bounty award icon next to each answer to permanently award your bounty to the answerer. (You cannot award a bounty to your own answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you do not award your bounty within 7 days (plus the grace period), the highest voted answer created after the bounty started with a minimum score of 2 will be awarded half the bounty amount. If two or more eligible answers have the same score (their scores are tied), the oldest answer is chosen. **If there's no answer meeting those criteria, no bounty is awarded to anyone.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the bounty was started by the question owner, and the question&#xD;&#xA; owner accepts an answer posted during the bounty period, and the&#xD;&#xA; bounty expires without an explicit award then we assume the bounty&#xD;&#xA; owner liked the answer they accepted and award it the full bounty&#xD;&#xA; amount at the time of bounty expiration.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a special bonus, any reputation you earn from being awarded a bounty is exempt from the daily reputation cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless I can't read it doesn't seem to say anywhere what happens to the reputation if no question meets the requirements when the bounty expires. **Does it get refunded to whoever started the bounty? Does it get lost?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7739" RevisionGUID="8ab8a757-64c2-4b9a-96cd-3503bfaefc1a" CreationDate="2016-05-03T08:10:08.977" UserId="101770" Text="What happens to bounty reputation when no question meets the criteria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7739" RevisionGUID="8ab8a757-64c2-4b9a-96cd-3503bfaefc1a" CreationDate="2016-05-03T08:10:08.977" UserId="101770" Text="|support|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="28ab0c8e-0e78-471b-bea1-edff261d94cd" CreationDate="2016-05-03T09:19:26.160" UserId="8563" Text="This is explained in the [What is a bounty?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) page in the help center:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. It is funded by the personal reputation of the user who offers it, and is **non-refundable**. If you see a question that has not gotten a satisfactory answer, a bounty may help attract more attention and more answers. Slice off anywhere from +50 to +500 of your own hard-earned reputation, and [attach it to any question as a bounty](http://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties). You do not need to be the asker of the question to offer a bounty on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **All bounties are paid for up front and non-refundable under any circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If your new reputation brings you below the requirement for any [privileges](http://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges), you will lose access to those privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users may only have three active bounties at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Questions may only have one active question bounty at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Additionally, if you offer multiple bounties on the same question, the minimum spend doubles with each subsequent bounty (50 reputation on the first bounty, 100 reputation on the second, 200 on the third, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You may not cancel a bounty once it has been started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis in the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is precedent for moderator-enacted (or possibly by SE team members?) bounty refunds, but this applies only if you can convince them that you set the bounty in error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="cb119d8b-01a3-440d-b5af-75ef22cb4647" CreationDate="2016-05-03T09:57:40.703" UserId="8563" Comment="added 716 characters in body" Text="This is explained in the [What is a bounty?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) page in the help center:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. It is funded by the personal reputation of the user who offers it, and is **non-refundable**. If you see a question that has not gotten a satisfactory answer, a bounty may help attract more attention and more answers. Slice off anywhere from +50 to +500 of your own hard-earned reputation, and [attach it to any question as a bounty](http://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties). You do not need to be the asker of the question to offer a bounty on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **All bounties are paid for up front and non-refundable under any circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If your new reputation brings you below the requirement for any [privileges](http://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges), you will lose access to those privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users may only have three active bounties at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Questions may only have one active question bounty at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Additionally, if you offer multiple bounties on the same question, the minimum spend doubles with each subsequent bounty (50 reputation on the first bounty, 100 reputation on the second, 200 on the third, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You may not cancel a bounty once it has been started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis in the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is [precedent](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14591/how-can-we-close-questions-with-bounties/27103#27103) for moderator-enacted (or possibly by SE team members?) bounty refunds, but this applies only if you can convince them that you set the bounty in error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? The question [How does the bounty system work?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work) on the mother meta has more on the rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What happens if there's no answer after the bounty period?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If after the end of the bounty period a question has no answers, no bounty will be awarded and the question will no longer be featured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bounties are best understood as exchanging reputation for higher question visibility and increased answerer motivation. A bounty does **not** guarantee a response and is **not refunded** if none are received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="242c2e98-ae3d-4389-a0aa-362abf5789ed" CreationDate="2016-05-03T10:54:32.020" UserId="8563" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="This is explained in the [What is a bounty?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) page in the help center:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. It is funded by the personal reputation of the user who offers it, and is **non-refundable**. If you see a question that has not gotten a satisfactory answer, a bounty may help attract more attention and more answers. Slice off anywhere from +50 to +500 of your own hard-earned reputation, and [attach it to any question as a bounty](http://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties). You do not need to be the asker of the question to offer a bounty on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **All bounties are paid for up front and non-refundable under any circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If your new reputation brings you below the requirement for any [privileges](http://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges), you will lose access to those privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users may only have three active bounties at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Questions may only have one active question bounty at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Additionally, if you offer multiple bounties on the same question, the minimum spend doubles with each subsequent bounty (50 reputation on the first bounty, 100 reputation on the second, 200 on the third, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You may not cancel a bounty once it has been started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis in the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is [precedent](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14591/how-can-we-close-questions-with-bounties/27103#27103) for moderator-enacted (or possibly by SE team members?) bounty refunds in exceptional cases, but this applies only if you can convince them that you set the bounty in error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? The question [How does the bounty system work?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work) on the mother meta has more on the rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What happens if there's no answer after the bounty period?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If after the end of the bounty period a question has no answers, no bounty will be awarded and the question will no longer be featured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bounties are best understood as exchanging reputation for higher question visibility and increased answerer motivation. A bounty does **not** guarantee a response and is **not refunded** if none are received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7731" RevisionGUID="1fac3c4b-f212-4164-8448-eac3ed88072d" CreationDate="2016-05-03T12:36:12.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/727476851191496705" />
  <row Id="21245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="a485a417-4988-4619-a01c-70811987ec4c" CreationDate="2016-05-05T02:58:01.553" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="I want to delete my question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253947/area-as-a-vector/253965#253965&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i am not able to delete it? How to do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="a485a417-4988-4619-a01c-70811987ec4c" CreationDate="2016-05-05T02:58:01.553" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="How to delete a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="a485a417-4988-4619-a01c-70811987ec4c" CreationDate="2016-05-05T02:58:01.553" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="50786926-cc42-465f-bf5e-c854021a6fcc" CreationDate="2016-05-05T04:15:52.587" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want to delete my question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/253947/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i am not able to delete it? How to do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="50786926-cc42-465f-bf5e-c854021a6fcc" CreationDate="2016-05-05T04:15:52.587" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7742" RevisionGUID="fe177601-dff2-426d-97ca-99e6ac3030b6" CreationDate="2016-05-05T06:59:04.843" UserId="124" Text="If a &quot;delete&quot; link appears below the question, at the left just under the tags, then click that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't see that link, it means that something about the question or one of its answers makes it worth keeping. There are [various reasons this can happen](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222/56541)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7743" RevisionGUID="13cff4bc-4929-4227-84cd-35bbe5d8adcc" CreationDate="2016-05-05T20:21:14.510" UserId="148704" Text="Many times I have answered questions only to be told to site it. So I research and find somebody has already published it. With as much brains around here is it not possible to arrive at the same answer and not have to site everything. I believe Einstein was a victim of this. &#xD;&#xA;When I draw a correct answer or even an answer that is a theory without proof do I have to site it if I came up with the answer myself? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7743" RevisionGUID="13cff4bc-4929-4227-84cd-35bbe5d8adcc" CreationDate="2016-05-05T20:21:14.510" UserId="148704" Text="Siting all your work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7743" RevisionGUID="13cff4bc-4929-4227-84cd-35bbe5d8adcc" CreationDate="2016-05-05T20:21:14.510" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|scope|answers|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7743" RevisionGUID="fa9cebcf-867c-440f-a73b-8d47295efd9c" CreationDate="2016-05-05T20:48:15.223" UserId="148704" Comment="grammar" Text="Many times I have answered questions only to be told to cite it. So I research and find somebody has already published it. With as much brains around here is it not possible to arrive at the same answer and not have to cite everything. I believe Einstein was a victim of this. &#xD;&#xA;When I draw a correct answer or even an answer that is a theory without proof do I have to cite it if I came up with the answer myself? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21255" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7743" RevisionGUID="fa9cebcf-867c-440f-a73b-8d47295efd9c" CreationDate="2016-05-05T20:48:15.223" UserId="148704" Comment="grammar" Text="Citing all your work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7744" RevisionGUID="578bb58a-0d38-47ec-89be-0ca9ee691c5f" CreationDate="2016-05-05T21:40:33.730" UserId="6634" Text="Without specific instance of where this occurred, I can only give general advice. This site is intended for professional physicists and students who are working towards that. We welcome non-professionals and non-physicists of course, but only when their questions and answers are up to the standards expected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, most people here are academics or were trained in an academic setting. We therefore expect questions and answers to support the claims and conclusions made in them. This is done through citations of relevant information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we aren't as hardcore as a journal or conference. But for the most part, we expect answers to be supported by facts. These facts can include derivations and proofs if you did the work yourself and it is (mostly) original. And if the statement is so obvious that everybody in the field knows it to be true, then no citation is needed. For instance, nobody except a troll would demand a citation for $e=mc^2$. But if you came out and said &quot;The equation you want is $e = mc^2 + 10$&quot; -- well, you better be prepared to either cite where that comes from or provide all the details of how you derived it because that is not considered totally obvious to the experts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So -- if you come up with an answer yourself, that's great, but you need to provide supporting facts if they are not immediately obvious. And if somebody is asking you to cite something, it means it is not immediately obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is true on this site, but more importantly it is true in all the work you do. It doesn't matter if it is an essay in high school or a journal paper that nets you a Nobel Prize. You must always cite claims and statements, or provide the derivations yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="151e229a-0a27-4115-86ff-da62d6cbbc0f" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:16:21.267" UserId="96487" Text="[Can you deduce absolute motion through magnetism][1]&#xA;&#xA;I loved above question . All my doubts at one place.&#xA;&#xA;But is it too broad?&#xA;It seems to ask a lot.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/252869/can-you-deduce-absolute-motion-through-magnetism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="151e229a-0a27-4115-86ff-da62d6cbbc0f" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:16:21.267" UserId="96487" Text="Is this question too broad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="151e229a-0a27-4115-86ff-da62d6cbbc0f" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:16:21.267" UserId="96487" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="e5d450f1-cf33-4557-8c8c-a75fd927fc03" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:21:55.197" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[Can you deduce absolute motion through magnetism][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I loved above question. All my doubts at one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is it too broad?&#xD;&#xA;It seems to ask a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/252869/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="e5d450f1-cf33-4557-8c8c-a75fd927fc03" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:21:55.197" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="f2e9cfdb-65e8-4d24-a7a4-e69dd29c8716" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:37:25.773" UserId="124" Text="Oh yes, _absolutely_ too broad. It asks six different questions, and should have been posted as six different posts. (Maybe 4 or 5 if a couple of the questions can be consolidated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is such an egregious case, I've removed the bounty and put the question on hold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="a29d85a1-0c7b-4f2a-b43c-375dbc27b554" CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:34:07.620" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|insufficient-effort|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="4effe06c-c9a7-474a-841f-2941f792c065" CreationDate="2016-05-07T15:49:17.620" UserId="114810" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP is asking about _gravitational_ redshift, which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="4effe06c-c9a7-474a-841f-2941f792c065" CreationDate="2016-05-07T15:49:17.620" UserId="114810" Text="Why are all my edits to a certain question being rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="4effe06c-c9a7-474a-841f-2941f792c065" CreationDate="2016-05-07T15:49:17.620" UserId="114810" Text="|discussion|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="7fed822d-4ee2-4d31-9e4b-644860e0feae" CreationDate="2016-05-07T15:54:40.633" UserId="114810" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="91cd57d0-85a7-49f3-b3fe-6742bb0d56e9" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:00:28.023" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254162/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="91cd57d0-85a7-49f3-b3fe-6742bb0d56e9" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:00:28.023" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="4de4571d-4840-44fa-b56a-e20d59bd360c" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:19:59.607" UserId="520" Text="You've offered the same edit three time and a substantially similar one an additional time. All have been rejected. You have another one pending. In effect you've been engaging in an edit war which is *always* discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When uses have a disagreement about the proper disposition of a post and can't agree on the result then the proper thing for all parties to do is disengage. Leave that question for others to worry about and move on. Or flag for a moderator if you feel strongly about it, but *quit arguing*. It's not personal and you don't have to fix the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Six different reviews have weighed in on those edits. The count is five against and one for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it is incumbent on the OP to unambiguously clarify what (s)he means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="fae0456c-e076-48e1-96db-0d8f15eb5a0e" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:23:44.517" UserId="114810" Comment="added more thoughts" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254162/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Is it possible that certain high-reputation members involved are acting unethically or abusing their privileges? It's seeming quite possible that the member _CuriousOne_ has informed  other members not to allow me to edit the question in anyway, since doing so would put the question back at the top and allow more people to see CuriousOne's somewhat embarrassing behavior in the comments of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="555970fe-eef4-4a78-bc44-a82fe4e19d28" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:32:17.387" UserId="114810" Comment="clarification" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254162/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Is it possible that certain high-reputation members involved are acting unethically or abusing their privileges? It's seeming quite possible that the member _CuriousOne_ has informed  other members not to allow me to edit the question in any way (since doing so would put the question back at the top and allow more people to see CuriousOne's somewhat embarrassing behavior in the comments of the question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21273" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="88fe6501-02c5-43d0-a3b9-24a905fcd0aa" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:34:56.753" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [fae0456c-e076-48e1-96db-0d8f15eb5a0e]" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254162/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Is it possible that certain high-reputation members involved are acting unethically or abusing their privileges? It's seeming quite possible that the member _CuriousOne_ has informed  other members not to allow me to edit the question in anyway, since doing so would put the question back at the top and allow more people to see CuriousOne's somewhat embarrassing behavior in the comments of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21274" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="e22e8956-f850-44a7-91d6-a1a42cca0fd9" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:35:58.883" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [7fed822d-4ee2-4d31-9e4b-644860e0feae]" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21275" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="e22e8956-f850-44a7-91d6-a1a42cca0fd9" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:35:58.883" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [7fed822d-4ee2-4d31-9e4b-644860e0feae]" Text="|discussion|support|specific-question|" />
  <row Id="21276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="2ea12625-6ec2-436d-b947-c0d003e5a5f8" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:43:26.397" UserId="114810" Comment="added to clarify" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Is it possible that certain high-reputation members involved are acting unethically or abusing their privileges? It's seeming quite possible that the member ********* has informed other members not to allow me to edit the question in anyway, since doing so would put the question back at the top and allow more people to see *******'s somewhat embarrassing behavior in the comments of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21277" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="78045614-2257-4d66-a773-9b2c6b69107d" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:47:03.630" UserId="520" Comment="Rollback to [7fed822d-4ee2-4d31-9e4b-644860e0feae]" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21278" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="584bd126-7868-46f8-a65f-8fce36a566ff" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:47:26.273" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21279" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="db3ec345-c3d8-4e7b-8b44-c09fd462223a" CreationDate="2016-05-07T16:47:26.273" UserId="520" Comment="1024" />
  <row Id="21280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="0abae748-b09a-4f7c-bb63-dbb8c1366d0a" CreationDate="2016-05-07T17:55:35.197" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="You've offered the same edit three time and a substantially similar one an additional time. All have been rejected. You have another one pending. In effect you've been engaging in an edit war which is *always* discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When uses have a disagreement about the proper disposition of a post and can't agree on the result then the proper thing for all parties to do is disengage. Leave that question for others to worry about and move on. Or flag for a moderator if you feel strongly about it, but *quit arguing*. It's not personal and you don't have to fix the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Six different reviews have weighed in on those edits. The count is four against and two for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it is incumbent on the OP to unambiguously clarify what (s)he means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7731" RevisionGUID="2f75dd6e-6844-4c74-ac2a-19e65d20c8b0" CreationDate="2016-05-08T03:24:05.620" UserId="520" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="I sponsor a high school astronomy club. Most of my students have completed AP&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Calculus BC and are ready for a calculus-based discussion of astronomical physics. I am searching for a source-book to use for discussions at club meetings. Is Physics.SE a good place to ask &quot;What is an overview of appropriate texts for this purpose?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; These are advanced college placement exams for high school students in the US and a few other places." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7749" RevisionGUID="cbba1d20-c4db-4682-a790-41784c73721f" CreationDate="2016-05-08T12:19:36.350" UserId="8563" Text="[Basic circuit problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254734)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question poses a set piece, shows the OP's working, and asks us to explain what is wrong with their working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a bit of work, it can be rephrased into something that's less dependent on the set piece and helping the OP understand how that circuit behaves as he's being told it behaves. However, even if fixed, it probably wouldn't be a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7749" RevisionGUID="bccfced4-ca67-468c-9a93-0e0eedbfb89b" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:12:39.207" UserId="8563" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="[Basic circuit problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254734)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question poses a set piece, shows the OP's working, and asks us to explain what is wrong with their working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a bit of work, it can be rephrased into something that's less dependent on the set piece and helping the OP understand how that circuit behaves as he's being told it behaves. It has an accepted answer which does a good job at addressing the conceptual difficulty at the heart of the question. However, even if fixed, it probably wouldn't be a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="2175fd7e-6525-4f7c-9c1b-6ed0271059a4" CreationDate="2016-05-09T20:59:59.160" UserId="520" Comment="Who voted to close is immaterial" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/252007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question probably arises from homework but the questioner has posted a detailed calculation, obtaining the correct answer after a &quot;very nasty&quot; integration.  He then asks if there is a simpler method of arriving at the answer.  Such a method is suggested by M.Enns and a detailed explanation posted as an answer by John Rennie.  The solution is very instructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this is deemed to be 'off topic.'   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="aea38946-8c17-4d91-bf68-1daf13756e74" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:17:51.540" UserId="109388" Text="When answering a question on Physics, should answers that make reference to non-peer review material that is found on, for example, arxiv, be discouraged, or even removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="aea38946-8c17-4d91-bf68-1daf13756e74" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:17:51.540" UserId="109388" Text="answers quoting non peer reviewed material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="aea38946-8c17-4d91-bf68-1daf13756e74" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:17:51.540" UserId="109388" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="41684a21-3c7d-49e3-9032-c3cebe18a259" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:21:15.313" UserId="2451" Text="Absolutely not. A non-peer reviewed reference is better than no reference. The reader can judge the legitimacy of the reference him/herself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="0da8409a-ed58-4814-bbdd-91ac6db275b2" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:26:47.873" UserId="2451" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="No. A non-peer reviewed reference is better than no reference. The reader can judge the legitimacy of the reference him/herself. In general, Phys.SE encourages answerers to back up claims with references. (Concerning self-citations, see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/582/2451) meta post.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="cee7a92a-fe14-4d92-92b8-448b54af17fb" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:22:25.670" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="When answering a question on Physics, should answers that make reference to non-peer reviewed material that is found on, for example, arXiv, be discouraged, or even removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21292" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="cee7a92a-fe14-4d92-92b8-448b54af17fb" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:22:25.670" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Answers quoting non-peer reviewed material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="cee7a92a-fe14-4d92-92b8-448b54af17fb" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:22:25.670" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|answers|links|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21294" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="e0598d19-31bb-47fb-876a-d6562efe5477" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:27:02.770" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|links|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="2464460e-43c8-4ae5-8eee-908813975771" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:28:28.760" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If someone answers a question but refers to a Wikipedia link as a definitive source for the answer, should that answer be deleted or flagged somehow? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reasons and explanation for my question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The academic use section on Wikipedia states &quot;However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source&quot; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use). Please do not cite the irony of my linking to wikipedia for this source as it is probably not a community-driven page and it is what Wikipedia itself states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that it is useful to refer somebody to Wikipedia to give them a general idea of some problem they may be considering, but it is another matter to use Wikipedia as an authoritative, definitive source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that when somebody gives an answer to a question and that answer depends on the authority of others then any link treated as authoritative ought to refer to a credible source that has a process for peer review and is not simply editable by the community at large. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason why I am asking this is to make sure I do not answer any questions in a way that negatively impacts the community here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="2464460e-43c8-4ae5-8eee-908813975771" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:28:28.760" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|links|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21297" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="2464460e-43c8-4ae5-8eee-908813975771" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:28:28.760" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Should answers that link to Wikipedia be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="829d6fb8-ac70-452c-bf57-29cd453f13a8" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:31:10.053" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/7687/2451) I cited some work I did a while ago.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what extent should we allow self-linking?  I have noticed in some cases there is self-linking that is only tangentially related to the question.  (I'll give the example I had in mind if need be, but if not it'd be nicer not to call the user out before we've discussed the issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What policy should we have to deal with cases of vanity-linking? I would propose that any time a user puts a link to content they have generated (or participated in generating), they explicitly state that it's their content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21299" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="829d6fb8-ac70-452c-bf57-29cd453f13a8" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:31:10.053" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|answers|links|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="10a44e6a-fa16-4b40-8463-8faf96020959" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:34:37.180" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="No. A non-peer reviewed reference is better than no reference. The reader can judge the legitimacy of a reference him/herself. In general, Phys.SE encourages answerers to back up claims with references. (Concerning self-citations, see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/582/2451) meta post.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="fc8e67ef-8195-4c6b-884f-18ac9f4e80c0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T15:39:11.093" UserId="101770" Text="According to [this question][1] the marking a question as &quot;favorite&quot; is so that you can come back to it, i.e. it is sort of a bookmark. This is also how I have been using it, but for mainly two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I see a question that does not have a satisfactory answer and I think I know enough about the topic to **write an answer in the future**, but need to do some research first to make it sound.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A good answer/question that is useful to me and that I would like to **read and understand in more detail later**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it turns out that the favorite tag is not actually very good for that. I marked a lot of questions that I could answer with favorite, but never got around to doing that. Now I can't find the questions that I wanted to read in detail anymore, cause they are buried in all the others. Of course that is really just my fault for using the feature in a stupid way. I was wondering though **how other people organize their favorite question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore would it be possible to **implement a feature that makes this organization easier?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/what-is-the-mark-favorite-question-for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="fc8e67ef-8195-4c6b-884f-18ac9f4e80c0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T15:39:11.093" UserId="101770" Text="Organizing favorite questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="fc8e67ef-8195-4c6b-884f-18ac9f4e80c0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T15:39:11.093" UserId="101770" Text="|feature-request|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7753" RevisionGUID="cef1b6bf-4338-41af-afb8-823e659bc27f" CreationDate="2016-05-11T15:54:46.293" UserId="50583" Text="There is currently no way to &quot;organize&quot; your favorite, although that is an [open feature request](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/75944/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you *can* search your (or other users') favorites by adding `infavorites:&lt;userid&gt;` to a search term , where `&lt;userid&gt;` is, well, the user's ID (the number in the link to their profile). For your own favorites, you can substitute `mine` for `&lt;userid&gt;`. You can combine this with searching for tags (e.g. by adding `[quantum-field-theory]` to the search term) to quickly narrow down the list of stuff you have to scroll through. If you rememeber a specific keywords of the favorite you're looking for, even better - unless you favorite unusually many things, you'll get a modest amount of results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="324cc7ce-f053-4426-a9ed-3261b8e6309a" CreationDate="2016-05-11T19:15:56.767" UserId="2451" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="No. A non-peer reviewed reference is better than no reference. The reader can judge the legitimacy of a reference him/herself. In general, Phys.SE encourages answerers to back up claims with references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Concerning self-citations, see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/582/2451) meta post. For link-only answers, see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/859/2451) meta post.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21307" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="2a3fc2f3-c325-4a24-b866-308d89ba9f1c" CreationDate="2016-05-12T04:17:46.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="21309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7755" RevisionGUID="ae9bf04f-7595-430a-bbc0-5b30dcd42d7a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T08:47:13.453" UserId="51950" Text="What the site will do if a user with little/no knowledge of physics down-votes me when I answer his question correctly, but that user assumes that my answer is not helpful-answer to the question posed by him/her?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7755" RevisionGUID="ae9bf04f-7595-430a-bbc0-5b30dcd42d7a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T08:47:13.453" UserId="51950" Text="What the site will do if a user with little/no knowledge of physics down-votes me when I answer his question correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7755" RevisionGUID="ae9bf04f-7595-430a-bbc0-5b30dcd42d7a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T08:47:13.453" UserId="51950" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7755" RevisionGUID="7fbdebbc-3e26-4fde-b770-828bfe3c6c58" CreationDate="2016-05-12T08:49:12.840" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7755" RevisionGUID="96c42d0f-7a29-45a9-b643-809964133e38" CreationDate="2016-05-12T09:08:44.623" UserId="51950" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="What the site will do if a user with little/no knowledge of physics down-votes me when I answer his/her question correctly, but that user assumes that my answer is not helpful-answer to the question posed by him/her?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7756" RevisionGUID="8a9de453-c193-47b9-a054-07771321e7b4" CreationDate="2016-05-12T09:21:59.667" UserId="124" Text="The site won't do anything. Generally speaking, if the user assumes your answer is not helpful, then it's _not_ helpful to them, and they have every right (perhaps even a responsibility) to downvote it. Note that being correct is not the same as being helpful, although I would hope the two are usually related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you write answers that are helpful to many more people than not, you will get more upvotes than downvotes over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7757" RevisionGUID="157677d9-c101-4e9e-b1bd-6926eab39d62" CreationDate="2016-05-12T20:00:27.480" UserId="70392" Text="Can we have some MathJax functions pre-defined so that it is easier to write. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\ket{\psi} giving |\psi \rangle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\braket{\psi_1}{\psi_2} giving \langle \psi_1 | \psi_2 \rangle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\f{1}{2} giving \frac{1}{2}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\l giving \left(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\r giving \right)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know each one of these alone does not seem like a big save on writing time but for longer expressions they may make it less of a pain to right. If not why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7757" RevisionGUID="157677d9-c101-4e9e-b1bd-6926eab39d62" CreationDate="2016-05-12T20:00:27.480" UserId="70392" Text="Can we have some MathJax functions pre-defined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7757" RevisionGUID="157677d9-c101-4e9e-b1bd-6926eab39d62" CreationDate="2016-05-12T20:00:27.480" UserId="70392" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21318" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7757" RevisionGUID="688cec77-01a7-41b7-89e0-7775ad5dc76a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T20:47:52.553" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7757" RevisionGUID="0e3ef65d-d409-4b3d-81e9-5ec3132075df" CreationDate="2016-05-13T06:48:15.750" UserId="124" Comment="formatting improvements" Text="Can we have some MathJax functions pre-defined so that it is easier to write. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `\ket{\psi}` giving `|\psi \rangle`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `\braket{\psi_1}{\psi_2}` giving `\langle \psi_1 | \psi_2 \rangle`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `\f{1}{2}` giving `\frac{1}{2}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `\l` giving `\left(`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `\r` giving `\right)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know each one of these alone does not seem like a big save on writing time but for longer expressions they may make it less of a pain to right. If not why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="d3a56797-191e-46e8-a9cc-8987e03b1b58" CreationDate="2016-05-13T09:19:33.573" UserId="1325" Text="This is so obvious that I hesitate to post it as an answer, but I deal with questions I want to answer but haven't the time right now by dragging a shortcut onto the desktop. Then I eventually delete them, unanswered, and wish I had more time :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions I want to keep for future reference I drag into a nested series of folders with the folder names acting a rudimentary catalogue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21333" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="5ffd5b99-f0be-4460-b0a9-2fefccb17ed3" CreationDate="2016-05-13T13:01:58.787" UserId="23119" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;centralcharge&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21334" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="bbfbbedd-6ed5-4d5e-ad2d-b61772d1d181" CreationDate="2016-05-13T13:02:05.973" UserId="23119" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;centralcharge&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="4dee0a6b-220d-4522-aa44-2c6d33a6ec8b" CreationDate="2016-05-15T14:31:06.753" UserId="101770" Text="Can I answer a Stackexchange question if some of the content will be published in a paper in the near future? Could it impede my publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="4dee0a6b-220d-4522-aa44-2c6d33a6ec8b" CreationDate="2016-05-15T14:31:06.753" UserId="101770" Text="Answering questions on SE before publishing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="4dee0a6b-220d-4522-aa44-2c6d33a6ec8b" CreationDate="2016-05-15T14:31:06.753" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7762" RevisionGUID="49434dbf-6819-465f-8f5a-9348ffb00449" CreationDate="2016-05-15T15:33:29.063" UserId="8563" Text="That depends exclusively on the policies of the journal. Most journals have a policy that excludes some forms of previously published content, but what counts as 'publishing' on that account varies very much from journal to journal. Some venues take that to mean exclusively publication of exactly that material in a peer-reviewed journal; others use broad definitions where any publicly accessible material counts. In physics, most journals tend to go towards the first case (so e.g. a preprint in arXiv doesn't count as a previous publication of the material), but in other fields this is not necessarily the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing to do, then, (as always when pre-publishing material that may wind up in a journal publication,) is to check your prospective venue's policies on that regard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7763" RevisionGUID="a062a2d6-738e-4de4-bfb8-645c00ea1bd8" CreationDate="2016-05-18T13:48:29.210" UserId="124" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/256585/entropy-of-unattended-music-streaming-and-other-useless-processes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(because you can never have too much data)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21353" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="740c47c8-7be9-48fe-a86a-cd4e77998a23" CreationDate="2016-05-19T10:41:26.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/733246177353797632" />
  <row Id="21354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7697" RevisionGUID="0197d961-b05e-461b-8218-d3a5ee2a3d91" CreationDate="2016-05-19T11:00:14.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="21355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="7ca4e9ba-f4f1-4518-81d7-8d985192222c" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:24:10.067" UserId="117402" Text="Is there a sandbox area where I could test the formatting of my equations without the 5 minute reply limit kicking in?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a long set of equations to type and I'm trying to learn how to format stuff on StackExchange.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="7ca4e9ba-f4f1-4518-81d7-8d985192222c" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:24:10.067" UserId="117402" Text="Scratch area where I can try formatting my equations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="7ca4e9ba-f4f1-4518-81d7-8d985192222c" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:24:10.067" UserId="117402" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="2a9b635f-86d1-44a0-ba82-6e9a2075ef72" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:42:48.120" UserId="124" Text="When you type in the answer box, a preview of your answer appears below the box where you're typing. That preview includes the rendered MathJax. Just look at the preview to see how your post is going to look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're talking about checking comments before you post them, you can still use the answer box as a previewer. Compose your comment in the answer box and copy and paste the Markdown into the comment box. The MathJax rendering is the same between comments and answers. Just try to avoid display-style equations (with `$$...$$` or `\begin{align}...\end{align}` etc.) in comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="d82bb7c5-d175-4105-8a5f-b458af22ea1f" CreationDate="2016-05-19T19:26:27.407" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Scratch/sandbox area where I can try formatting my equations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21360" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="d82bb7c5-d175-4105-8a5f-b458af22ea1f" CreationDate="2016-05-19T19:26:27.407" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7766" RevisionGUID="60f07564-d4f7-40b4-b9b0-0ed59d8028f2" CreationDate="2016-05-19T19:31:41.513" UserId="2451" Text="It seems natural to mention that meta actually has a [sandbox](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/389/2451) (although MathJax/TeX does not work here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="8638d53d-295f-4389-b721-415e6512356b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T10:04:31.937" UserId="8563" Text="If you're looking for an off-site markdown editor where you can write drafts of Stack Exchange posts and see their formatting (including math), and save these drafts to come back to later, then [**StackEdit**](https://stackedit.io/) is probably the best tool for the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![StackEdit screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/j7JzX.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(No affiliation or relation, by the way.)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7768" RevisionGUID="d90b80fa-e48c-479c-9475-b79f44823b6c" CreationDate="2016-05-20T15:51:02.913" UserId="33566" Text="[![physics chat][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHgvq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="3047a548-1d6f-4398-8b1c-c5d309e03066" CreationDate="2016-05-21T10:08:57.713" UserId="7901" Text="There is [this sandbox](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4666/sandbox-for-drafts-of-long-complex-posts) on meta.math.se that seems to be set up for the purpose you propose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="4c6d509d-a7e3-40b4-ad55-f1d8fc5fdcd4" CreationDate="2016-05-21T12:20:33.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="21366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="69a7ccbc-f96a-4b2e-9ee2-86ba6568f004" CreationDate="2016-05-23T06:45:35.540" UserId="96487" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="I am unable to add more tags in questions I review.&#xD;&#xA;Is their some specific way to add multiple tags in any question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean Existing Tags and less than 5. &#xD;&#xA;I use my mobile to review under full site mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I directly edit tags or review, both are not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Opera mini and inbuilt browser of my KitKat.&#xD;Edit:Now lollipop.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I go to edit option.&#xD;&#xA;Then I edit question .&#xD;&#xA; Then I add new tag.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;Then I click on Save edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result: Question is edited but no change in tags.&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;It works on Google Chrome where I get a dialog box to select a tag.&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EymRd.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jGrD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7770" RevisionGUID="146a0a8d-6b21-438d-90eb-04811efda6a0" CreationDate="2016-05-23T08:55:46.647" UserId="101770" Text="When I browse through old questions I usually find myself reading the question and maybe the top few answers. Same thing when there is an old question appearing on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I've gathered other people must be proceeding similarly. Even when there is a good question (many upvotes) and the top answers do not resolve the problem, but an answer that was written much later does, it seems to go largely unnoticed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Is there anything the site can do to improve this? Or is it only a problem in my mind?**&#xD;&#xA; - **What can I personally do if I am writing such an answer?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7770" RevisionGUID="146a0a8d-6b21-438d-90eb-04811efda6a0" CreationDate="2016-05-23T08:55:46.647" UserId="101770" Text="Answering old questions and getting noticed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7770" RevisionGUID="146a0a8d-6b21-438d-90eb-04811efda6a0" CreationDate="2016-05-23T08:55:46.647" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7770" RevisionGUID="38044f4d-e00c-46bb-aa39-654f447a5ffa" CreationDate="2016-05-23T09:01:05.690" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="When I browse through old questions I usually find myself reading the question and maybe the top few answers. Same thing when there is an old question appearing on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I've gathered other people must be proceeding similarly. Even when there is a good question (many upvotes) and the top answers do not resolve the problem, but an answer that was written much later does, it seems to go largely unnoticed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Is there anything the site can do to improve this? Or is it only a problem in my mind?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **What can I personally do if I am writing such an answer?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21371" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7770" RevisionGUID="38044f4d-e00c-46bb-aa39-654f447a5ffa" CreationDate="2016-05-23T09:01:05.690" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|up-votes|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="0f3bb73e-e83b-49c2-87d6-9e0a786a6b35" CreationDate="2016-05-23T09:01:42.630" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|best-practices|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="f144a1a4-2a2d-4a0e-b717-6bfb9d8e381a" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:26:31.500" UserId="2451" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am unable to add more tags in questions I review.&#xD;&#xA;Is their some specific way to add multiple tags in any question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean Existing Tags and less than 5. &#xD;&#xA;I use my mobile to review under full site mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I directly edit tags or review, both are not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Opera mini and inbuilt browser of my KitKat.&#xD;&#xA;Edit:Now lollipop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I go to edit option.&#xD;&#xA;Then I edit question .&#xD;&#xA; Then I add new tag.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;Then I click on Save edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result: Question is edited but no change in tags.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works on Google Chrome where I get a dialog box to select a tag.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EymRd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jGrD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="f144a1a4-2a2d-4a0e-b717-6bfb9d8e381a" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:26:31.500" UserId="2451" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|bug|tags|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21375" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="f2bb6e5a-8446-49a3-884a-1d3af9b33eee" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:26:39.487" UserId="2451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:96487,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anubhav Goel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21376" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="e70444e9-8f89-46d5-92df-e1257716ca83" CreationDate="2016-05-23T11:43:33.733" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified setting in title. Reduced image sizes and paragraphing for better visibility." Text="How do I add multiple tags for a question (Opera over Android 5)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="e70444e9-8f89-46d5-92df-e1257716ca83" CreationDate="2016-05-23T11:43:33.733" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified setting in title. Reduced image sizes and paragraphing for better visibility." Text="I am unable to add more tags in questions I review.&#xD;&#xA;Is their some specific way to add multiple tags in any question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean Existing Tags and less than 5. &#xD;&#xA;I use my mobile to review under full site mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I directly edit tags or review, both are not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Opera mini and inbuilt browser of my KitKat.&#xD;&#xA;Edit:Now lollipop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I go to edit option.&#xD;&#xA;Then I edit question .&#xD;&#xA; Then I add new tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/EymRd.jpg&quot; width=&quot;275&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I click on Save edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result: Question is edited but no change in tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jGrD.jpg&quot; width=&quot;275&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works on Google Chrome where I get a dialog box to select a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7771" RevisionGUID="9590680c-3ceb-49cd-86a3-98672d3d0bf8" CreationDate="2016-05-23T11:52:59.533" UserId="8563" Text="This is not a direct answer, but it's important to note that *not* every browser is officially supported by Stack Exchange. For a full list see &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56161/which-browsers-are-officially-supported-and-what-else-do-i-need&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on Meta Stack Exchange. As noted there, Opera on mobile is not really officially supported. That means that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not one of those, it still may work, but you probably shouldn't expect support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so most of the site should still work, but those little bits of javascriptsy interactingness may or may not work. In particular, [regarding Opera mini](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177509/184688),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Unfortunately at the moment we don't support Opera mini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Reason: a combination of amount of work required and amount of visitors using the browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it works, then excellent. If it doesn't, then there isn't really much that anyone can do, short of convincing the Stack Exchange developer team that Opera Mini really is big enough of a platform to be worth supporting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7772" RevisionGUID="76084d21-0400-4162-a733-d12d8162928e" CreationDate="2016-05-23T19:44:37.647" UserId="11053" Text="If you notice a good answer down the list, you can offer a bounty to reward the existing answer if you think it's worthy. When you put up the bounty, make sure to point out the answer in the bounty message. Leave the bounty up for the full duration of 7 days to maximize exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When writing an answer... just make it good, I guess. If appropriate, you might comment on one of the highly voted answers pointing out a flaw and referring to your answer, or comment on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about all I've got for ideas..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21380" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7770" RevisionGUID="530342ae-3ef7-4610-acf3-02c47abb9313" CreationDate="2016-05-23T19:49:20.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/734833611527073792" />
  <row Id="21389" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7775" RevisionGUID="8555487f-1062-4c7f-87e7-36a40ef14bab" CreationDate="2016-05-25T04:00:36.730" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257811/homework-guidance" />
  <row Id="21390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7775" RevisionGUID="3255c2dc-f72e-4e9f-a165-63cf3b18c915" CreationDate="2016-05-24T23:24:11.290" UserDisplayName="user118255" Text="I don't know where else to place this comment because I think I deleted my earlier question.  This afternoon I asked a question about whether or not it was feasible for a gust of wind to alter the course of a car in a 48 ft. flyover.    The responses I received were very nasty.  Posters were quick to tell me they wouldn't help me, that the accident was strictly my husband's fault, they wouldn't help me in court, etc.  I posed a question here because I thought that those who were gifted in math and sciences would help me.  Instead, I was made out to feel as if I were some sort of criminal and that my husband was totally at fault for an accident.  I was not asking anyone to testify in court; all I wanted to know if it/the wind could have been responsible for the car moving leaving the lane.  Might I ask of you that, in the event someone like me asks a question like this, would you at the very least treat that person with some respect....something that I was never shown.  Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7775" RevisionGUID="3255c2dc-f72e-4e9f-a165-63cf3b18c915" CreationDate="2016-05-24T23:24:11.290" UserDisplayName="user118255" Text="Homework guidance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7775" RevisionGUID="3255c2dc-f72e-4e9f-a165-63cf3b18c915" CreationDate="2016-05-24T23:24:11.290" UserDisplayName="user118255" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="0cc44f2b-a0ed-4411-91ad-db2b80823a75" CreationDate="2016-05-25T05:47:50.443" UserId="1325" Text="The comments on the deleted question were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I've flagged this question for removal because it is simply not about physics. This website is not meant to provide justice to those who may have been potentially wronged by the traffic authorities. – Eh-whaaa 9 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps the question could be rephrased along the lines &quot;What factors would cause a car of mass 3100 lbs travelling and is hit by a gust of wind ....&quot; – jim 9 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because we are not court appointed expert witnesses and we can not help with legal matters. – CuriousOne 9 hours ago  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These don't seem particularly malicious to me. I should add it's possible that a moderator may have deleted more offensive comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7777" RevisionGUID="ee0a4e07-c94a-4a5d-a0b5-72ab88528352" CreationDate="2016-05-25T12:21:02.073" UserId="124" Text="The kind of help you're seeking is not within the scope of this site. Specifically, we don't offer &quot;calculational services&quot; where you present the particulars of some situation and somebody completes the calculation for you. This is a website for people who are interested in physics as an intellectual endeavor, and the questions we accept are those which serve that purpose; what you're asking is not such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [resources for new members](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) which explain this. Posting a question which clearly does not fit our scope shows a lack of respect for the site, and one might think, if you come into our community and don't show respect to us, why should we show respect to you? I'm not saying one is necessarily _right_ to think this way, but it is a natural and common viewpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have a rule that members are required to act with basic civility at all times. I've reviewed the comments on your post, and they don't violate that guideline. If people are saying they won't help you, or that the accident was your husband's fault, that may not be what you want to hear (and it probably would have been better for them to avoid commenting on the details of your situation), but it's not inherently rude or offensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="c7ca6b20-7f83-4ee4-b09c-51ffc8d5867c" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:38:06.243" UserId="31790" Text="There's been talk in the hbar of starting an &quot;Ask me Anything&quot; (AMA) series in which featured guests would answer questions from other users.&#xD;&#xA;These questions would be about physics, the guest's career, or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What format would work well for a Physics Stack Exchange AMA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reddit style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Reddit is a forum style website.&#xD;&#xA;Users post comments to the original post, or as child comments of existing comments.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, a reddit thread is a tree of comments.&#xD;&#xA;In Reddit AMA's, the main post introduces the guest and the top level comments (those which are children of the main post) ask questions.&#xD;&#xA;The guest answers the question in a comment which is a child of the question comment.&#xD;&#xA;Other users can post follow-up questions as child comments of the answer, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This style probably cannot work in a chat room, but it could work as a meta post.&#xD;&#xA;Questions could be submitted as comments on the main post, and the guest could write answers as answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Interview style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In this style, users submit questions ahead of time, e.g. here in the meta.&#xD;&#xA;A moderator (not necessarily a site moderator) filters the questions, e.g. by meta votes, and then conducts a real-time interview with the guest, in the chat room, based on those questions.&#xD;&#xA;Some allowance for on-the-spot questions during the interview would be good.&#xD;&#xA;We could open a side chat room for these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Free-for-all&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;We could just open the chat room for any and all questions from users and answers from the guest.&#xD;&#xA;How would the guest keep track of the questions?&#xD;&#xA;How would participants keep track of the answers if they’re interrupted by messages from other people?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="c7ca6b20-7f83-4ee4-b09c-51ffc8d5867c" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:38:06.243" UserId="31790" Text="What format should we use for Physics Stack Exchange AMA's?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="c7ca6b20-7f83-4ee4-b09c-51ffc8d5867c" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:38:06.243" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7779" RevisionGUID="d908ede3-114b-495c-9122-b33930decf9e" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:38:37.807" UserId="31790" Text="Reddit style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Reddit is a forum style website.&#xD;&#xA;Users post comments to the original post, or as child comments of existing comments.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, a reddit thread is a tree of comments.&#xD;&#xA;In Reddit AMA's, the main post introduces the guest and the top level comments (those which are children of the main post) ask questions.&#xD;&#xA;The guest answers the question in a comment which is a child of the question comment.&#xD;&#xA;Other users can post follow-up questions as child comments of the answer, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This style probably cannot work in a chat room, but it could work as a meta post.&#xD;&#xA;Questions could be submitted as comments on the main post, and the guest could write answers as answers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7780" RevisionGUID="9eb1abcb-98a6-469f-acf5-057ff73ed010" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:39:43.417" UserId="31790" Text="Interview style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In this style, users submit questions ahead of time, e.g. here in the meta.&#xD;&#xA;A moderator (not necessarily a site moderator) filters the questions, e.g. by meta votes, and then conducts a real-time interview with the guest, in the chat room, based on those questions.&#xD;&#xA;Some allowance for on-the-spot questions during the interview would be good.&#xD;&#xA;We could open a side chat room for these questions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="768b279c-dadf-4aca-aed4-570ee6383121" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:40:43.073" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 1396 characters in body" Text="There's been talk in the hbar of starting an &quot;Ask me Anything&quot; (AMA) series in which featured guests would answer questions from other users.&#xD;&#xA;These questions would be about physics, the guest's career, or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What format would work well for a Physics Stack Exchange AMA?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="7d79f12f-aea4-423f-a5cc-007a7de00542" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:40:54.247" UserId="31790" Text="Free-for-all&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;We could just open the chat room for any and all questions from users and answers from the guest.&#xD;&#xA;How would the guest keep track of the questions?&#xD;&#xA;How would participants keep track of the answers if they’re interrupted by messages from other people?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7780" RevisionGUID="7111e680-e062-442a-ac61-5d242b179052" CreationDate="2016-05-29T12:36:53.230" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Interview style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In this style, users submit questions ahead of time, e.g. here in the meta.&#xD;&#xA;A moderator (not necessarily a site moderator) filters the questions, e.g. by meta votes, and then conducts a real-time interview with the guest, in the chat room, based on those questions.&#xD;&#xA;Some allowance for on-the-spot questions during the interview would be good.&#xD;&#xA;We could open a side chat room for these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Only upvote (and not downvote) this post if you think _Interview style_ format would work well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="0a12edcf-8b9a-4e7b-9e80-1ba0a2fa1bee" CreationDate="2016-05-29T12:37:00.217" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Free-for-all&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;We could just open the chat room for any and all questions from users and answers from the guest.&#xD;&#xA;How would the guest keep track of the questions?&#xD;&#xA;How would participants keep track of the answers if they’re interrupted by messages from other people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Only upvote (and not downvote) this post if you think _Free-for-all_ format would work well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7779" RevisionGUID="c066c291-c19e-466f-aacf-9483c64925b9" CreationDate="2016-05-29T12:38:17.047" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Reddit style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Reddit is a forum style website.&#xD;&#xA;Users post comments to the original post, or as child comments of existing comments.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, a reddit thread is a tree of comments.&#xD;&#xA;In Reddit AMA's, the main post introduces the guest and the top level comments (those which are children of the main post) ask questions.&#xD;&#xA;The guest answers the question in a comment which is a child of the question comment.&#xD;&#xA;Other users can post follow-up questions as child comments of the answer, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This style probably cannot work in a chat room, but it could work as a meta post.&#xD;&#xA;Questions could be submitted as comments on the main post, and the guest could write answers as answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Only upvote (and not downvote) this post if you think _Reddit style_ format would work well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="1c0912fe-1f7f-42d0-980b-87563219a1f4" CreationDate="2016-05-29T12:44:03.007" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="There's been talk in the hbar of starting an &quot;Ask me Anything&quot; (AMA) series in which featured guests would answer questions from other users.&#xD;&#xA;These questions would be about physics, the guest's career, or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What format would work well for a Physics Stack Exchange AMA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Only upvote that post which mentions the apt format according to you. Downvotes won't be considered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21412" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="61930b9a-ca56-419c-8a27-b294b577a767" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:35:46.357" UserId="31790" Comment="Rollback to [768b279c-dadf-4aca-aed4-570ee6383121]" Text="There's been talk in the hbar of starting an &quot;Ask me Anything&quot; (AMA) series in which featured guests would answer questions from other users.&#xD;&#xA;These questions would be about physics, the guest's career, or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What format would work well for a Physics Stack Exchange AMA?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21413" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7780" RevisionGUID="31ce2ef2-4685-4bbf-9f53-160115d2f710" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:36:14.293" UserId="31790" Comment="Rollback to [9eb1abcb-98a6-469f-acf5-057ff73ed010]" Text="Interview style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In this style, users submit questions ahead of time, e.g. here in the meta.&#xD;&#xA;A moderator (not necessarily a site moderator) filters the questions, e.g. by meta votes, and then conducts a real-time interview with the guest, in the chat room, based on those questions.&#xD;&#xA;Some allowance for on-the-spot questions during the interview would be good.&#xD;&#xA;We could open a side chat room for these questions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21414" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7779" RevisionGUID="d9d8101c-36ae-4b4b-913f-1591909a3d90" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:36:37.873" UserId="31790" Comment="Rollback to [d908ede3-114b-495c-9122-b33930decf9e]" Text="Reddit style&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Reddit is a forum style website.&#xD;&#xA;Users post comments to the original post, or as child comments of existing comments.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, a reddit thread is a tree of comments.&#xD;&#xA;In Reddit AMA's, the main post introduces the guest and the top level comments (those which are children of the main post) ask questions.&#xD;&#xA;The guest answers the question in a comment which is a child of the question comment.&#xD;&#xA;Other users can post follow-up questions as child comments of the answer, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This style probably cannot work in a chat room, but it could work as a meta post.&#xD;&#xA;Questions could be submitted as comments on the main post, and the guest could write answers as answers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21415" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="4e0ad6e0-9f74-4c6c-9432-5b2438d3fe9a" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:36:52.013" UserId="31790" Comment="Rollback to [7d79f12f-aea4-423f-a5cc-007a7de00542]" Text="Free-for-all&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;We could just open the chat room for any and all questions from users and answers from the guest.&#xD;&#xA;How would the guest keep track of the questions?&#xD;&#xA;How would participants keep track of the answers if they’re interrupted by messages from other people?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="120b2236-1fe3-4ffc-94fb-97da07cab0ad" CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:15:01.297" UserId="4066" Comment="added 460 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [the long list of science-ish proposals on Area 51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][44]][43] &#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][42]][41] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][26]][25] &#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Homework questions][38]][37]&#xD;&#xA;[![Competitive Exams][40]][39]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][14]][13]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][18]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][20]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][24]][23]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][28]][27]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][32]][31]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][36]][35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/44550.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/58070.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://datascience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/55053.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [39]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [40]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [41]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;  [42]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [43]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [44]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="5f4d51e8-1940-486e-a78c-4b9b08391764" CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:23:18.540" UserId="36941" Text="Hey I'm the scheduled guest for the june 14th Physics AMA and I was told to maybe make a little presentation and asks for any questions for the AMA people might have, so here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am Samuel Lereah, got a Master degree in particle physics from the university of Nantes. My [master thesis][1] was on the topic of non-relativistic path integrals in Riemannian spaces, focused on the problem of operator ordering (with stochastic integrals, phase space quantization and those kind of things). Currently not working in the field of physics (due to job market troubles), but in softwares, but I am still very much so into doing physics as a hobby (I am also still looking to do a PhD, if anyone has some to offer!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interests are mainly in general relativity and quantum field theory. I quite like odd topics in those fields and the AMA will be about causality in physics, mostly on the topic of spacetimes with closed timelike curves (ie time machines, for a more casual term). Probably something along the lines of a general outline of the history of the topic, some important theorems, the behaviour of matter in such spacetimes and the many limitations preventing them from occuring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have any questions on that topic you'd like me to answer during this AMA feel free to ask in this thread and I'll do my best to try to answer it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19940612/Science/M%C3%A9moire%20Samuel%20Lereah.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="5f4d51e8-1940-486e-a78c-4b9b08391764" CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:23:18.540" UserId="36941" Text="Questions for the june 14th AMA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="5f4d51e8-1940-486e-a78c-4b9b08391764" CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:23:18.540" UserId="36941" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="9d1e6d10-c691-41f3-a7eb-becfa7425286" CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:32:13.460" UserId="4066" Comment="added 460 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Competitive Exams][7]][8]&#xD;&#xA;[![Physics Homework questions][9]][10]&#xD;&#xA;[![Popular Science][11]][12]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;[![Science educators][15]][16] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][17]][18]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][31]][32]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][21]][22]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][19]][20]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][23]][24]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][25]][26]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][27]][28]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][29]][30]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][33]][34]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/36296.png&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="6cf09652-6c1d-4277-9bc0-815d6a2ddd56" CreationDate="2016-05-30T08:41:03.203" UserId="4066" Comment="deleted 153 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][35]][36]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Astronomy][17]][18]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][25]][26]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][31]][32]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][21]][22]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][19]][20]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Computational Science][23]][24]&#xD;&#xA;[![History of Science and Mathematics][27]][28]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][29]][30]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][33]][34]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/28815.png&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4d05124b-eb2f-4bd9-b4ef-8d8feaa96f4f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T09:31:57.473" UserId="4066" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][5]][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][35]][36]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][13]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][18]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][24]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][25]][26]&#xD;&#xA;[![Engineering][31]][32]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][28]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][21]][22]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][19]][20]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][29]][30]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][33]][34]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/86609.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86609/competitive-exams&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/77677.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/82253.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/82253/popular-science&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/79366.png&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="f0e8c563-3e0f-41f6-bea8-762fa72431f1" CreationDate="2016-05-30T10:00:38.177" UserId="8563" Comment="Updated Engineering ad. Reorganized for better maintainability." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Earth Science][25]][26]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][32]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][28]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][21]][22]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][19]][20]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][29]][30]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][33]][34]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/65204.png&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="863eac80-e535-4c71-9c86-1fd8273e5b67" CreationDate="2016-05-30T10:07:47.367" UserId="8563" Comment="Updated Engineering ad. Reorganized for better maintainability." Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="af89e0d7-99a5-485c-8a15-ab8e480ab0fc" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:34:23.680" UserId="31790" Text="Purpose&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schedule&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Links to completed AMA transcripts will be posted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 17 June 2016, [question pool](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), to be determined&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contributing&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resources&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="af89e0d7-99a5-485c-8a15-ab8e480ab0fc" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:34:23.680" UserId="31790" Text="Physics Stack Exchange &quot;Ask me anything&quot; (AMA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="af89e0d7-99a5-485c-8a15-ab8e480ab0fc" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:34:23.680" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7768" RevisionGUID="0a94dd5d-4078-4d50-89d4-47f6e4da6286" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:39:49.730" UserId="31790" Comment="Improve link" Text="[![physics chat][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHgvq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-amas&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="19379ab8-dff1-4a4e-a584-0835b8741db8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:45:07.410" UserId="31790" Comment="Correct a typo. Improve link text" Text="Purpose&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schedule&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Links to completed AMA transcripts will be posted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016, [question pool and other details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), to be determined&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contributing&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resources&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7784" RevisionGUID="81c0c798-c97c-4681-924d-d759d7934f64" CreationDate="2016-05-30T21:32:06.550" UserId="31790" Text="The topic of stochastic processes is very valuable in real physics research, yet it is barely mentioned much less taught in the typical physics curriculum (at least in the USA).&#xD;&#xA;How did you, personally, acquire your knowledge of stochastic integrals etc?&#xD;&#xA;What was your trajectory through books/papers/courses in coming to a useful understanding of stochastic processes?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21431" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="b7736feb-8690-4b66-a9a1-9913e28b5499" CreationDate="2016-05-31T05:18:51.630" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/737513650894737408" />
  <row Id="21432" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="e8dfedc0-eff2-4ead-9c89-b34987a99fd3" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:23:53.703" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat-events|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21433" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="dd521f97-8540-487d-9856-c14740131b33" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:24:18.250" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat-events|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="f9eaa1c1-f60e-4008-9ffe-f57bb2de922b" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:24:26.000" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat-events|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="ed3692a7-a1ed-4f9a-bc76-542234cafcbe" CreationDate="2016-05-31T11:50:20.103" UserId="36941" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Hey I'm the scheduled guest for the june 14th Physics AMA and I was told to maybe make a little presentation and asks for any questions for the AMA people might have, so here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be on tuesday june 14 at 16:00 UTC, in the Physics Stack Exchange chatroom, the [h-bar][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am Samuel Lereah, got a Master degree in particle physics from the university of Nantes. My [master thesis][2] was on the topic of non-relativistic path integrals in Riemannian spaces, focused on the problem of operator ordering (with stochastic integrals, phase space quantization and those kind of things). Currently not working in the field of physics (due to job market troubles), but in softwares, but I am still very much so into doing physics as a hobby (I am also still looking to do a PhD, if anyone has some to offer!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interests are mainly in general relativity and quantum field theory. I quite like odd topics in those fields and the AMA will be about causality in physics, mostly on the topic of spacetimes with closed timelike curves (ie time machines, for a more casual term). Probably something along the lines of a general outline of the history of the topic, some important theorems, the behaviour of matter in such spacetimes and the many limitations preventing them from occuring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have any questions on that topic you'd like me to answer during this AMA feel free to ask in this thread and I'll do my best to try to answer it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19940612/Science/M%C3%A9moire%20Samuel%20Lereah.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21436" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="ea28bc8e-4154-44a6-b50a-1686aaea437d" CreationDate="2016-05-31T13:43:51.630" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed initials from title as it is in the sticky yellow box." Text="Questions for the June 14th Ask Me Anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21437" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="84c5df0e-ff36-40be-a49c-c4e89302a655" CreationDate="2016-05-31T13:44:32.893" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed initials from title as it is in the sticky yellow box." Text="What format should we use for Physics Stack Exchange Ask Me Anything events?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7785" RevisionGUID="2b0228c8-c21d-46b7-8def-8f23e8ad3887" CreationDate="2016-06-01T02:30:32.407" UserId="108333" Text="Since your interests are GR and Quantum Gravity (QG) could you summarize, with some technical reasoning/equations, what is known and what key findings are still needed for Hawking et al's conjecture that the BMS super translation symmetries and conserved charges are the basis for doing away with the information paradox, and can that also lead to a QG theory to explain what actually happens at GR black hole singularities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7785" RevisionGUID="f6b86bd2-3f2a-48dd-8f25-b6fcb5a24a38" CreationDate="2016-06-01T02:36:05.733" UserId="108333" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Since your interests are GR and Quantum Field Theory, with maybe some insight into Quantum Gravity (QG), could you summarize with some technical reasonings, what is known and what key findings are still needed for Hawking et al's conjecture that the BMS super translation symmetries and conserved charges are the basis for doing away with the information paradox? And can that also lead to a QG theory to explain what actually happens at GR black hole singularities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7785" RevisionGUID="a3b6b7e2-1531-406f-8dde-43d8ad71dada" CreationDate="2016-06-01T03:02:56.930" UserId="108333" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body" Text="Since your interests are GR and Quantum Field Theory, with maybe some insight into Quantum Gravity (QG), could you summarize with some technical reasonings, what is known and what key findings are still needed for Hawking et al's conjecture that the BMS super translation symmetries and conserved charges are the basis for doing away with the information paradox?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="f591a916-19c1-4418-b5b8-a47f1607a675" CreationDate="2016-06-01T07:50:35.567" UserId="59208" Text="I wonder how the (bleep) did this answer get &quot;accepted&quot;, and looked at the question.  The account http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/15889/anand-krish was created and only this one post was ever made.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="f591a916-19c1-4418-b5b8-a47f1607a675" CreationDate="2016-06-01T07:50:35.567" UserId="59208" Text="Is A.K. a sockpuppet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="f591a916-19c1-4418-b5b8-a47f1607a675" CreationDate="2016-06-01T07:50:35.567" UserId="59208" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7787" RevisionGUID="8aa1b2d0-ac2c-40be-ba8a-723e00424f13" CreationDate="2016-06-01T08:42:12.730" UserId="124" Text="We (moderators) don't discuss details of moderation actions, so we're not going to answer the question of whether a particular account is a sockpuppet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For future reference, the appropriate way to report something like this, which concerns a specific account, is via a flag, not a meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21445" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="10f54bd9-d918-42b7-b274-f5ebc86e2b98" CreationDate="2016-06-01T08:42:49.170" UserId="124" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="11c50e16-3ab4-4152-8d7d-55536ac83741" CreationDate="2016-06-01T09:49:13.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="I wonder how the (bleep) did this answer get &quot;accepted&quot;, and looked at the question. The account [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] was created and only this one post was ever made.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21447" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="11c50e16-3ab4-4152-8d7d-55536ac83741" CreationDate="2016-06-01T09:49:13.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="Is [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] a sockpuppet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="796a9fcf-5f0f-4661-8e3a-7c363b74cd76" CreationDate="2016-06-01T16:33:35.593" UserId="31790" Comment="Link to AMA page and add section headers" Text="Hey I'm the scheduled guest for the june 14th [Physics AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) and I was told to maybe make a little presentation and asks for any questions for the AMA people might have, so here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### About me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am Samuel Lereah, got a Master degree in particle physics from the university of Nantes. My [master thesis][2] was on the topic of non-relativistic path integrals in Riemannian spaces, focused on the problem of operator ordering (with stochastic integrals, phase space quantization and those kind of things). Currently not working in the field of physics (due to job market troubles), but in softwares, but I am still very much so into doing physics as a hobby (I am also still looking to do a PhD, if anyone has some to offer!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interests are mainly in general relativity and quantum field theory. I quite like odd topics in those fields and the AMA will be about causality in physics, mostly on the topic of spacetimes with closed timelike curves (ie time machines, for a more casual term). Probably something along the lines of a general outline of the history of the topic, some important theorems, the behaviour of matter in such spacetimes and the many limitations preventing them from occuring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have any questions on that topic you'd like me to answer during this AMA feel free to ask in this thread and I'll do my best to try to answer it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Time and date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be on tuesday june 14 at 16:00 UTC, in the Physics Stack Exchange chatroom, the [h-bar][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19940612/Science/M%C3%A9moire%20Samuel%20Lereah.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="9eeaa28e-f8a9-48f6-b71b-90d2cb5906cd" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:21:40.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/738239136080003072" />
  <row Id="21450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="38aa4b31-b59a-4d1b-838f-107136c35c49" CreationDate="2016-06-02T10:43:10.177" UserId="8563" Comment="Simplified language." Text="I wonder how the (bleep) did this answer get &quot;accepted&quot;, and looked at the question. The account [redacted] was created and only this one post was ever made.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="38aa4b31-b59a-4d1b-838f-107136c35c49" CreationDate="2016-06-02T10:43:10.177" UserId="8563" Comment="Simplified language." Text="Is this user a sockpuppet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="c04eefb4-b409-44c0-966c-ec82633f9ba5" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:48:52.230" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5A7af.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://academia.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="a0797667-ca0d-4e36-99fd-7a9fca81f40a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:49:46.120" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NS3GV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="110d8f00-3179-4695-8734-1456f8cad52b" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:49:54.420" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pefiz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="e44e27d5-5aa6-4073-a64a-b4deba61a0ca" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:50:03.027" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![cryptography.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AkQzj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://crypto.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="96789f1f-9abf-4696-9dd0-c9e07d559b1e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:50:11.293" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[![For those seeking down-to-earth answers to their questions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="4f3c776e-8697-4888-9406-f2bf4eeebb31" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:50:30.967" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[![][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z63Pl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=MuGFDueEC-U1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="ed83a368-1156-46f8-9a88-a9b743bce14a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:50:43.653" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7440" RevisionGUID="f7a0fd69-6b50-4959-99f9-862804b9ca5a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:51:08.560" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[![The Cost of Knowledge - join the Elsevier boycott and take back our scientific publishing!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vu8lo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thecostofknowledge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7448" RevisionGUID="58aed0e8-f36a-4aec-b2bb-86e4bcd98e82" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:51:43.903" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[![physicsoverflow.org][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pqs48.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="b76efe56-95d6-4cdd-a711-1c007e9dff92" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:51:57.090" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7471" RevisionGUID="7e22d08b-cda6-4a00-a5a4-3535f25e05d9" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:52:15.763" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![archive.org - the public library of the internet][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ij43t.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7444" RevisionGUID="5a431c4f-4086-4eb0-86b0-62a9efe20b6b" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:52:51.153" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Retraction Watch][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFSyZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://retractionwatch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="90808ec1-9f53-4e3b-b745-2e0fe8ec5d1a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:53:18.763" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Wayback Machine: experience the Web as it was][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1wvvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="4f870cd1-7dee-4e91-b100-e5ea2c1792e0" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:53:25.887" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Overleaf: Free online collaborative LaTeX editor with real-time PDF preview][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SaONO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.overleaf.com/latex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="819b1b1d-b84e-4fcd-9f9e-f292a1c0b24d" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:53:39.090" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![arXiv Analytics: specialized web portal dedicated to reading &amp; discussing arXiv eprints][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ANuxU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxitics.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="f5dbe7c8-1f0b-49d9-947c-1faa11e35779" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:53:50.077" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Community ads are decided by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="222c4431-0900-4254-a41a-7b85aa693757" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:54:01.607" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Discover our universe][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7467" RevisionGUID="8e93d02f-4b07-4597-93cb-136dbcac88cb" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:54:08.827" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Computational Science at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="28d1dcf5-03e5-43cf-bd75-5f94b0a58ce3" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:54:18.903" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[![History of Science and Mathematics at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="92f98ab9-5c3a-4e16-8e7d-36d4663854d7" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:54:38.903" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/toYiP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="6cd84ef6-4e4e-4352-83fa-ac37da50b17e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:54:52.340" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E9D64.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="16c71ae9-6ac2-4b27-b0ba-7b53c07e6d7d" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:54:59.967" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Haikus are awesome/ Chemistry is more so/ Ask straight away!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/noaFv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="0111af97-006e-4bd2-aa5e-0d72386116d1" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:55:09.607" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![Physics Stack Exchange Review Queue][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ef9Hl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="2269ecd8-5406-44c5-a394-383423f8bdd6" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:55:34.780" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed image to https." Text="[![arXiv.org: the leading open access eprint repository][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziQXb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="9693a566-0378-410a-947b-e63e7a5c185b" CreationDate="2016-06-04T11:29:43.630" UserId="101770" Text="Before I got the &quot;Electorate&quot; badge which is awarded for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vote on 600 questions and 25% or more of total votes are on questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that their is a difference between the vote count it shows and the &quot;votes cast&quot; counter on the profile. First I thought that it is because of the 25%, i.e. it only counts maximum 3 answer upvotes for every question upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now my friend has a similar problem and definitely has way more than 25% of the votes on questions. **Why this disparity?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="9693a566-0378-410a-947b-e63e7a5c185b" CreationDate="2016-06-04T11:29:43.630" UserId="101770" Text="Disparity between votes cast and electorate badge count" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="9693a566-0378-410a-947b-e63e7a5c185b" CreationDate="2016-06-04T11:29:43.630" UserId="101770" Text="|bug|badges|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7789" RevisionGUID="792783e2-0ae1-458f-899c-43a946909196" CreationDate="2016-06-05T00:23:34.147" UserId="8563" Text="I imagine you're referring to the count on the badge tracker in your profile page. The Electorate badge is awarded for 600 votes cast on questions, so the count on the tracker will reflect that (i.e. it will tell you the number of votes you've cast on questions), and this is clarified in the display if you click on the progress bar. On the other hand, on the statistics on the right hand side gives the 'total number of up and down votes cast' (as per the tooltip), i.e. all your votes on questions plus all your votes on answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/slDoA.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two numbers are obviously completely independent, and subject only to (total votes) ≥ (question votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the 25% thing, it works by preventing you from getting the badge if you have too many answer votes per question votes: thus, if at the time of your 600th question vote you have more than 1800 answer votes (i.e. you have 600 question votes, but &lt;25% of your total votes is on questions) then you won't get the badge. If you then cast more question votes, slower than you cast answer votes, you'll get the badge when you have cast less than three answer votes per question vote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="e5ccb720-ec0d-4d3a-881a-21131bbeeb52" CreationDate="2016-06-05T00:24:02.227" UserId="8563" Comment="Fixed annoying spelling mistake." Text="Before I got the &quot;Electorate&quot; badge which is awarded for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vote on 600 questions and 25% or more of total votes are on questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that there is a difference between the vote count it shows and the &quot;votes cast&quot; counter on the profile. First I thought that it is because of the 25%, i.e. it only counts maximum 3 answer upvotes for every question upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now my friend has a similar problem and definitely has way more than 25% of the votes on questions. **Why this disparity?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="e16f0b9e-1260-460e-8e99-8c751a27b674" CreationDate="2016-06-05T17:13:37.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="12d97307-8844-4891-917e-6d31400bdba9" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:34:08.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="Lately I've noticed **a lot** of close votes, down votes, and comments to the effect of &quot;this question is too low level&quot; or &quot;the answer is on the internet if you search for it&quot; or &quot;you should already know this.&quot; And those are just my attempt at rephrasing things in a more friendly way. This isn't from one user either, but rather from many (sometimes it seems like most) of the active reviewers on the site. Some recent examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Is there a weak magnetic field, coming forth from particles with a weak charge?][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [How are thermometers calibrated?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Problem understanding energy of a electric field][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are we trying to accomplish? I don't think this was ever satisfactorily addressed [the last time this issue was raised][4]. Indeed there's hardly any consensus this should even be a valid close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is just about trying to keep things at a high enough level&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; But the more I see these comments the more it seems each high-rep user's threshold is nothing more or less than the boundary between what they can trivially answer and what they can't. Should I really vote to close questions on the basis that I know how to answer them off the top of my head?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular form this takes is closing because the question is &quot;based on a misconception.&quot; What questions aren't, though? Either the person has a misconception (and a valid answer is &quot;this is your misconception&quot;!), or else they just haven't worked everything out yet (so we would close as homework).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next thought is that we're trying to not duplicate Wikipedia or other standard references. I agree we shouldn't try to match Wikipedia in *general-purpose, expository* articles, given they've been refining those articles with an order of magnitude more contributors for many years. But I question how much physics is left for us to do that can't be *derived* and *applied* from the information in Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure just about every one of the 502 answers I've written could be replicated with nothing more than access to Wikipedia. In fact, 207 of those answers explicitly link to the relevant Wikipedia articles.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Should I go back and vote to close all those questions? After all, I doubt more than 10 answers of mine display anything more than a bachelor's level of physics knowledge (if anyone disagrees, I challenge you to give me a list of 11 such answers). And where does it end? If the world's leading expert in X is on the site, is that person obligated to close all questions about X since they would all appear trivial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all comes down to these key questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What does &quot;insufficient effort&quot; mean to the community?&#xD;&#xA;  - Is there some level of insufficient effort that warrants *closure* (as opposed to, say, downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;  - If yes, what *objective* guidelines should we have on the issue? Given the many orders of magnitude difference in expertise here between different users in different topics, any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful, without at the very least some reduction criterion (&quot;this is trivial for everyone&quot; and &quot;this is trivial for at least one person&quot; are objective; &quot;this is trivial for *me*&quot; is not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a philosophical bonus, given how every meta discussion about scope always seems to be about *bad* questions, I'll add two more discussion points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the ideal question here, one that everyone agrees is great?&#xD;&#xA;  - If the above exists, are we obligated to close anything falling short of the ideal? Must we be at the extremal tip of the generality-quality curve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Separate but related issue: We have neither a policy nor a notification to users about how advanced a topic must be to be allowed on the site, either in absolute terms or relative to our perceptions of where questioners should be in their education. I **strongly** suggest those who keep voting to close for such reasons should formalize this notion and **get consensus from the community**. I for one won't vote to close based on an entirely undocumented reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Get a list of all answers with Wikipedia links made by a given user with [this script][5]. It probably misses some, for example links to other language pages or to explicit mobile pages.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Explicit mobile links (e.g. `en.m.wikipedia.org`) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259404/is-there-a-weak-magnetic-field-coming-forth-from-particles-with-a-weak-charge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259430/how-are-thermometers-calibrated&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/260886/problem-understanding-energy-of-a-electric-field&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/495383/answers-with-references-to-wikipedia-by-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="12d97307-8844-4891-917e-6d31400bdba9" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:34:08.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="What does everyone mean by &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="12d97307-8844-4891-917e-6d31400bdba9" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:34:08.570" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="|discussion|scope|insufficient-effort|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22484" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="749ee097-37a2-4375-982b-e80019783ed8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T02:24:35.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/739644123074953216" />
  <row Id="22485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="01f98664-e77e-4667-8857-3a1747e88108" CreationDate="2016-06-06T06:30:16.520" UserId="1325" Text="Given that I'm probably [the leading exponent of closing questions on the basis of insufficient prior research][1] I'm relieved to see I'm not implicated in the examples Chris cites (I did VTC one of them, but because I thought it was unclear rather than lazy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what I can add here that isn't already covered by my [previous statement on the subject][2]. My view is that the Physics SE is a quite extraordinary resource for aspiring young physicists. I suspect many of the regulars don't realise just how amazing it is that a teenage physics nerd can ask a question and get answers from real live working (mostly friendly) physicists. Speaking as one who was a teenage physics nerd back in the 70s I would have given my right arm for an opportunity like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the opportunity is abused it will disappear. What I find really rewarding is when an OP comments to thank me and say that they now understand something that had previously been frustrating them. This makes me feel I have left the world a better place than I found it, which surely only the most cynical of us wouldn't be pleased about. What I dislike is when I feel I'm being used as a lazy alternative to the OP putting in any effort for themselves, and if the latter type of question were to dominate then that would seriously put me off contributing to the site. Although I've stated a purely personal opinion here I'm guessing I'm not untypical and many others will feel the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the judgement I make is whether the question shows a real interest, and the only way I can judge this is to look at the question. How well is it written? Does it show any evidence of independant though? Most importantly how much effort has been put into writing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris' first question asks what *insufficient effort* means to the community, and the above hopefully makes it clear what I think it means. It has nothing to do with how simple/complex the question is or whether the OP is a physicist, schoolchild, OAP or whatever. It is purely a matter of whether the issue matters enough to the OP that they have done their best to research it before coming here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the second question: lazy and ill motivated questions are actively harmful to this community and they need to be deterred. Downvoting is not enough. The point of closing is that it prevents the question being answered and therefore prevents the offender from being rewarded for their idleness. If lazy and ill motivated questions receive answers that just encourages the asking of such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the third question: there is no objective measure of this - it's a hopelessly subjective judgement. I have to try and guess whether the OP is genuinely interested and will benefit from the effort I put in to answer it. Maybe this is an arrogant approach - who am I to judge my fellow man? That's a fair criticism and I respond by trying to be generous and error on the side of caution. Chris says *any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful* but I disagree with this. At the end of the day the questions are answered by individuals willing to put considerable effort into answering questions for no reward other than the inner glow of having made the world a better place. Deter those individuals and you leave the PSE no better than the myriad of other physics sites that litter the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rant is running out of momentum now, and I should really come up up with some pithy closing statement, but I find myself lost for one. I suppose my basic principle is that we are all here because we want to help, specifically help anyone interested in physics to understand more about it. All I would ask of OPs is to respect that and not to take the piss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%20I%27m%20voting%20to%20close%20this%20question%20as%20off-topic%20because%20it%20shows%20insufficient%20prior%20research%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6005/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8791" RevisionGUID="a830ac41-ab18-4020-819f-c8e6c5c2f0f4" CreationDate="2016-06-06T12:51:05.263" UserId="101770" Text="Since you mentioned closed timelike curves aka &quot;time machines&quot;: Are they likely to exist in our universe? And how could they be observationally confirmed in a universe where they exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could maybe give a layman's explanation as well as mathematical detail?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="83063fea-6933-4550-b4ff-7bade4d33cb8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T22:19:03.823" UserId="114696" Text="This question might be directed at me.  I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not offended.  Debate is good.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet, and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources.  In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity.  (&quot;...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and &quot;just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field.&quot;  However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable.  Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks.  However, instead of reading or researching, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research.  They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers.  This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged.  If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for &quot;homework-like&quot; questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done.  That is a positive response, not a negative one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says.  Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg &quot;I was wondering, what would happen if...?&quot;).  Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I agree that no objective criterion can be devised for what is &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;.  However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg &quot;What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?&quot;  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="00464d14-8bd2-4811-971b-fcd3f4178ce7" CreationDate="2016-06-06T22:44:19.303" UserId="114696" Comment="added 417 characters in body" Text="This question might be directed at me.  I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not offended.  Debate is good.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet, and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources.  In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity.  (&quot;...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and &quot;just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field.&quot;  However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable.  Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks.  But instead of reading or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking.  They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers.  This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged.  If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for &quot;homework-like&quot; questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done.  That is a positive response, not a negative one.  Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says.  Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg &quot;I was wondering, what would happen if...?&quot;).  Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I agree that no objective criterion can be devised for what is &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;.  However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg &quot;What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?&quot;  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no problem with &quot;low level&quot; questions.  I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also.  My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="e02f3c5a-f802-4157-ad89-9121b5e056c4" CreationDate="2016-06-06T23:25:18.460" UserId="114696" Comment="added 767 characters in body" Text="This question might be directed at me.  I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not offended.  Debate is good.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet, and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources.  In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity.  (&quot;...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and &quot;just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field.&quot;  However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable.  Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks.  But instead of reading or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking.  They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers.  This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged.  If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for &quot;homework-like&quot; questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done.  That is a positive response, not a negative one.  Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says.  Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg &quot;I was wondering, what would happen if...?&quot;).  Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I agree that no objective criterion can be devised for what is &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;.  However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg &quot;What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?&quot;  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no problem with &quot;low level&quot; questions.  I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also.  My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening.  Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254485, &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246253), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially &quot;homework-like&quot;.  And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8793" RevisionGUID="4acee25d-665d-4e9d-a34d-d43008404108" CreationDate="2016-06-07T01:20:00.727" UserId="120291" Text="To offer another perspective, perhaps the issue is simply that we, the community, are not clear enough about our expectations. Whilst forethought and clarity are integral to the education and formation of those of us who are doctors, masters or graduates of physics, it is not necessarily so for the enthusiasts and students in our community. However, we all appear to agree that would would like not to discourage the latter of us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the PSE introduction (help) the following points are given as guidance for what *not* to post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions&#xD;&#xA; - Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories&#xD;&#xA; - Anything else not directly related to physics&#xD;&#xA; - Questions that are primarily opinion-based&#xD;&#xA; - Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an&#xD;&#xA;   extremely long answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These points offer good general guidance, but they are very much open to interpretation. How does one distinguish between a &quot;Do my homework&quot;-type question and the type of *valid* question which one would tag as &quot;homework and exercises&quot;? To a non-physics graduate, what is considered non-mainstream? Where is the mention of what comprises reasonable effort in one's forethought and research?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those without a very high level of education often lack the most basic research skills, and for some of them a forum such as this is their first port-of-call. It would appear to me that the mechanisms by which we temper their questions should be more constructive and directive. This is already done organically through the community itself: commentators often request that a question be clarified or reconsidered, and they often give directions to an external link or appropriate Internet search string. In the best instances, this is done with courtesy and grace. And kudos do those who have the patience and take the time. In doing so, they are improving our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps all that is required is some clearer guidance for inexperienced users: a more detailed help file, or and handful of useful flags which commentators can apply to offer recurring advice on the improvement to the questions under scrutiny. I believe that such minor changes would encourage the right types of questions without discouraging those who hope to ask them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="91a78373-35c6-4969-abed-1e732f26b145" CreationDate="2016-06-07T01:47:06.007" UserId="114696" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="This question might be directed at me.  I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not offended.  Debate is good.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources.  In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity.  (&quot;...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and &quot;just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field.&quot;  However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable.  Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks.  But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking.  They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers.  This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged.  If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for &quot;homework-like&quot; questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done.  That is a positive response, not a negative one.  Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says.  Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg &quot;I was wondering, what would happen if...?&quot;).  Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;.  However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg &quot;What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?&quot;  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no problem with &quot;low level&quot; questions.  I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also.  My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening.  Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254485, &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246253), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially &quot;homework-like&quot;.  And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="1dd5b909-8449-4411-9102-69d38faa09aa" CreationDate="2016-06-07T01:57:50.113" UserId="114696" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="This question might be directed at me.  I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not offended.  Debate is good.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources.  In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity.  (&quot;...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and &quot;just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field.&quot;  However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable.  Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks.  But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking.  They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers.  This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged.  If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for &quot;homework-like&quot; questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done.  That is a positive response, not a negative one.  Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says.  Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg &quot;I was wondering, what would happen if...?&quot;).  Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;.  However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg &quot;What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?&quot;  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no problem with &quot;low level&quot; questions.  I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also.  My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening.  Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254485, &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246253), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially &quot;homework-like&quot;.  And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied consistently.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="d040ee8e-03e9-4a39-9414-2ae0b34eb47b" CreationDate="2016-06-07T14:28:18.867" UserId="77928" Text="Maybe a discussion on geometries explaining the expansion of the universe, it's acceleration and some connections with quantum mechanics or QFT. On this basis, some thoughts on the arbitrariness of theoretical models for the expansion, how can we limit them down and what's the potential role of QM or QFT on this subject and on observations that may be based on the last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="e8cc1564-09e6-4fcf-ad81-1491bb752d9a" CreationDate="2016-06-07T16:36:49.690" UserId="8563" Text="[![Digital Open Access Identifier - a DOI resolver that prioritizes open access][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5SXTY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doai.io" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="28bbdc9f-ada3-46d9-8f67-a127138728f8" CreationDate="2016-06-07T17:46:18.330" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="I recently noticed a joke post; a user intentionally asked and answered a question that was a very subtle mockery of research-level physics papers and had no application as an actual question on this site. I've got a sense of humour, it was pretty funny, so I thought &quot;we can let this slide. Close the question, but enjoy the joke while it's here&quot; But I checked out his account anyway. It seems this user (not going to name names for privacy's sake, and [redacted] other reasons) has maybe 1 or 2 out of about 40 posts that are remotely serious. All of his posts are &quot;jokes&quot; aimed at intentionally misleading, asking nonsensical questions, or generally mocking physics in some way. If reading one of his answers, it is important to keep in mind the entire time that it **is** a joke. Some answers can seem very sane an reasonable because of his ability to use jargon. The important thing is that upon closer inspection, many of them say nothing or say the wrong thing seemingly intentionally. Granted, some of them are pretty funny, but the fact remains that it's damaging to have someone running around giving false facts or generally making us look bad/disreputable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thus, I'd love to have the discussion about at what point we decide something should be done and what to do in the case that they are way out of line.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start it off, obviously we're all a big fan of something that's funny. So I assume it goes without saying that if you want to throw some jokes into a question or answer, feel free. I just think there should still be some serious content. Sometimes, an answer can be entirely silly and still be acceptable, an example being http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/70851/23473 where the top answer is entirely silly. But I think it becomes unaccpetable when, instead of a one-time thing, a user is constantly posting questions/answers that do more harm than good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what to do when one is found, to that I have no answer. What would you say would be the appropriate action for an intentionally disruptive user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4817" RevisionGUID="e294b67c-6ad8-49dc-bae1-e5d5b6762a15" CreationDate="2016-06-07T17:50:28.927" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="In this case, I think you did the right thing by posting here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [redacted] has either been trolling the site, or has written a lot of posts that are unintentionally very low quality (as someone mentioned elsewhere - any sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinuishable from trolling); either way, it's time for that to stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having drawn it to the attention of general posters like me, I hope that the bad questions and answers will continue to receive downvotes - and that's down to people reading this, to review the user [redacted]'s Q &amp; A, and upvote or downvote (not in batches, as serial voting will get reversed automatically) as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I trust that the moderators will take appropriate action against the user.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8796" RevisionGUID="6cd41554-3254-4ac8-8466-295a7f4bb1f0" CreationDate="2016-06-07T23:28:33.877" UserId="33566" Text="*thanks very much* for accepting the invited speaker invitation as the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; guest! here are some miscellaneous mostly not-so-formal questions that may be of interest to others, partly based on your own (extensive!) prior dialog in the physics chat room [H Bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (which btw for anyone interested and isnt aware, is in a searchable transcript). note some of these can be considered somewhat general &amp; applicable to other guests also who might choose to answer from it. (as reflected here, interestingly the sessions may give us all a chance to focus on more subjective/ personal areas than are typically addressed in the normally tight/ objective-leaning SE format.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* can you talk about testability or falsifiability of CTCs (closed timelike curves)? is anyone working in this area? do any modern experiments/ measurements have any connection to CTCs? do you think its relevant to the field or do you consider yourself more a mathematical physicist not so concerned about physical plausibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* youve mentioned you saw the movie [interstellar](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/) (you maybe seem to like other scifi movies also) which features some advanced science ideas on CTCs and utilized expert advisors in the area like Kip Thorne to some degree. what are your thoughts on the movie, whats it like to watch, was there anything glaring about it? should hollywood try to avoid serious science, or does it fit in somehow? what other hollywood/ scifi movies do you like, and do any of them also have physics angles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* youve mentioned the challenges of moving forward to a physics Phd. what do you think of the Phd system wrt physics or more generally? does it work or have flaws? what could be changed about it to make it better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you have very strong grasp of US/ American (pop) culture and say youve visited on occasion, however your nationality is (apparently) French, and you pepper chat with funny memes etc. can you say anything about the occasional rivalry between these countries, have you noticed it? does it ever come up in chat? where did you get so much enthusiasm for US culture? or is it maybe partly internet culture also? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* can you talk about your experience in school getting your undergraduate/ graduate degree? how did your school compare to neighboring schools? what was your thinking in choosing it in particular? was there anything particularly memorable about the experience? did you &quot;hang out/ socialize&quot; with other physics students or were you more the type to focus on the education?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you work in software engineering as a day job and have written about it as a necessity. what elements of this appeal to you? do you see some connection with physics? did you do any algorithmic work relating to physics in school or otherwise? do you have some languages/ areas you like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* what do you think are some of the leading areas of physics to do research in? besides CTCs, what areas do you focus on? is this a good age for physics? where is it all going/ leading, what does the future hold for the field and you in particular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* whats your opinion on top physics schools or your favorite journals? if you could choose any school in the world to do a Phd or postdoc at, which would it be and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* what do you think of the physics stackexchange site? do you recall how you 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; heard about it? what does it mean to you? what kind of direction is it going in? whats there to like/ dislike?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22498" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="edc3bcec-5ac2-442a-8846-16363e94a094" CreationDate="2016-06-09T06:16:58.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/740789769018429440" />
  <row Id="22499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8797" RevisionGUID="94a5d3ff-7ea5-44ac-b33a-74b5ed7f6ef1" CreationDate="2016-06-09T19:27:01.867" UserId="23785" Text="This is similar to DanielSank's [idea](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7779/23785).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a meta question is made, asking what questions should be asked to the subject of the AMA. People post their questions as answers to this meta post. Then, there is a period of time where people upvote the questions they want to see answered. Maybe these get community wiki'd to not mess up rep too much. After this voting period ends, the subject of the AMA edits his initial answer into each of the questions (where each question, remember, is an &quot;answer&quot; to a meta post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the subject of the ama makes his initial answer to a given question, discussion can continue in the form of comments, which will get moved to chat. Thus each quetion has its own chat room where a free form discussion can take place. After discussion of one question dies down, the subject of the AMA moves on to the next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A downside is that a moderator will need to continually edit the original meta post to indicate which question's chat room the subject of the AMA is currently in. The advantage is that the questions are more easily browsable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8798" RevisionGUID="49273934-4fed-47d8-92bf-28e322748530" CreationDate="2016-06-10T03:17:30.203" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; What does everyone mean by “insufficient research effort”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for everyone but only, of course, for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, I choose to Vote To Close For Insufficient Research Effort (VTCFIRE) in the case that (1) the answer can *easily* be found (typically, on this very site), (2) it's a bald question without something like &quot;I'm puzzled by the other answers because...&quot;, i.e., *there is essentially no evidence of research period*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other regulars here most likely have different criteria for their VTCFIRE and that's fine with me.  This is a community of *individuals* each with their own, perhaps evolving criteria for voting as each does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="8644cb63-709c-408a-b511-9b35e88b95df" CreationDate="2016-06-11T05:06:30.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="d07a74d1-db3a-4bbb-9efa-108f9322e836" CreationDate="2016-06-13T18:43:25.380" UserDisplayName="user41404" Text="my question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262321/large-numbers-in-physics was closed. Two users gave a &quot;reason&quot;. The first one didnt make any sense at all. And the second one I have adjusted my question to take care of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now could we reopen? If not, can I get a reason? I dont get what people have agaisnt my question. I get at first 10 different reasons for closing, why are people so interested in trying to find flaws with the question instead of answering it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do this to any question, if it got any math, just say its not physics, if it got some QFT, just say its not rigorous so it doesnt make sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="d07a74d1-db3a-4bbb-9efa-108f9322e836" CreationDate="2016-06-13T18:43:25.380" UserDisplayName="user41404" Text="Question reopening" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="d07a74d1-db3a-4bbb-9efa-108f9322e836" CreationDate="2016-06-13T18:43:25.380" UserDisplayName="user41404" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22509" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="d50e780c-7fb5-4bf3-8984-2b0132df8852" CreationDate="2016-06-13T18:53:16.267" UserDisplayName="user41404" Comment="edited title" Text="The best Question Grand reopening - Gather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="e8a7d8e6-152b-4dab-8282-e7f358c16828" CreationDate="2016-06-13T19:14:15.593" UserId="50583" Text="I voted to close your question because it is unclear what is being asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What constitutes a &quot;number in physics&quot;? Does any dimensionless combination of physical parameters count? How could one possibly determine the *correct* answer to this question? What does *&quot;No numbers which can be defined strictly mathematically is allowed.&quot;* mean? *Every* number can be &quot;defined strictly mathematically - numbers are a mathematical concept after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond these technical problems with the question, it's unclear what the goal here is - why is this question *physically interesting*? (This alone would not be grounds for closing, as long as the question is about physics) Often one can determine what a user is really trying to ask if their motivation is known, but you've given us nothing of the sort.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="9bd32770-c904-4625-9324-5fe9da5a0a28" CreationDate="2016-06-13T20:57:15.117" UserId="120647" Text="This may seem like a silly question but there is some merit to it. From what I have seen, most of the questions with the electric-circuits tag get voted off or get multiple comments that it should be in the [Electrical Engineering SE][1]. Even though engineering (especially electrical) has large overlapping areas with physics, I can understand most physics members not wanting to answer EE questions because it feels like you're outside of your zone. So my question is, with this current state, why not just get rid of the tag to discourage hardware questions on our feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="9bd32770-c904-4625-9324-5fe9da5a0a28" CreationDate="2016-06-13T20:57:15.117" UserId="120647" Text="Why do we have the electric-circuits tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="9bd32770-c904-4625-9324-5fe9da5a0a28" CreationDate="2016-06-13T20:57:15.117" UserId="120647" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8803" RevisionGUID="56b3737f-b5f5-491c-8168-417b93944478" CreationDate="2016-06-13T21:21:21.807" UserId="124" Text="The reason we have the tag is that _basic_ circuits are a part of any standard introductory electromagnetism class. It's a matter of some opinion where you draw the line for &quot;basic&quot;, but it's usually taken to include batteries, switches, resistors (including light bulbs and wires), capacitors, inductors, various kinds of (idealized) meters, and maybe diodes. Simple circuits are a very effective way of introducing some core physics concepts that get used all the way up through quantum field theory etc., so if you wanted to argue that even these simple circuits should not be within our scope, I suspect you'd have a tough time of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any more complicated circuits are generally taken to be beyond the scope of physics. I don't think we get many of those questions, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="245a4a43-8357-4740-ad63-d199d2deacd3" CreationDate="2016-06-14T08:56:52.847" UserId="109388" Text="Who should the onus fall on to check if a question has already been asked, the person who asks the question (who may not have much background in the question they are asking) or the person answering the question (especially if they give a different answer to those previously presented)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="245a4a43-8357-4740-ad63-d199d2deacd3" CreationDate="2016-06-14T08:56:52.847" UserId="109388" Text="duplicate questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="245a4a43-8357-4740-ad63-d199d2deacd3" CreationDate="2016-06-14T08:56:52.847" UserId="109388" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="c8f81437-f1f4-4683-9c7b-4b8fb12134e9" CreationDate="2016-06-14T09:25:30.917" UserDisplayName="user41404" Text="My question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262427/spawning-a-vw-beetle was closed. I dont want to speculate on reasons, as none where given. I here give close-voters a chance to explain themselves. If no reason is given, then reopening must ensue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this an abuse of the system to close good questions for abusive reasons, can the users in question get banned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that this is the same 5 users who closed my other question, which have a personal vendetta against me, can something be done about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="c8f81437-f1f4-4683-9c7b-4b8fb12134e9" CreationDate="2016-06-14T09:25:30.917" UserDisplayName="user41404" Text="URGENT MATTER - reopening of question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="c8f81437-f1f4-4683-9c7b-4b8fb12134e9" CreationDate="2016-06-14T09:25:30.917" UserDisplayName="user41404" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8806" RevisionGUID="12a0fc54-89d0-4ef4-b6b8-76913a25241b" CreationDate="2016-06-14T10:59:26.797" UserId="1325" Text="The reason we close duplicate questions is to try and make it easier for visitors to find answers. The site search isn't stunningly good at the best of times, and if a search for *do masses fall at the same rate* produces dozens of hits for slightly different questions that only makes matters worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But posting a duplicate isn't an offence and there's no sense in which we punish OPs for asking a duplicate, or punish site members for replying to it. I get the impression some members will downvote a question on the grounds it's a duplicate. This isn't something I would do, and in fairness the downvotes may simply be to remove the question from the home page and not necessarily indicate disapproval. Note that neither the OP nor any answerers lose rep if a question is closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be pro-active in flagging duplicate questions, but that's mainly so the OP can see what has been asked before and decide if they are asking something new or whether their question is a duplicate and the close vote is justified. If the OP objects I'm generally happy to give them the benefit of the doubt and withdraw my close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think duplicates are necessarily bad, as long as they aren't exact duplicates. Similar questions may actually be exploring slightly different issues. It may also be the case that the answers to a previous duplicate have emphasised one aspect of the question and I feel it's worth starting again to provide an answer that highlights a different aspect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8807" RevisionGUID="97359ad7-510c-4a95-9f5e-d7ce2b29cb04" CreationDate="2016-06-14T11:34:49.337" UserId="1325" Text="There is no onus on site members to justify their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will generally try and provide a helpful comment if I have voted to close and if I think the question was asked in good faith. For example when I have voted to close on the grounds that a question is unclear I will often add a comment explaining what I think the problem is and how the question could be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am not required to do this, and sometimes I don't leave a comment because I don't think it would help. The fact I have decided not to leave a comment is not grounds for cancelling my close vote and reopening the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take the question you link as an example, I would have voted to close as unclear because the question is simply unanswerable. There is no accepted mathematical model to describe the formation or otherwise of Boltzmann brains. The handwaving argument is generally that vacuum fluctuations create random collections of matter that have a small but non-zero probability of forming a brain (or in this case a VW Beetle). But the precise mechanisms involved are unclear and [as the Wikipedia article describes][1] there are physicists who think the whole idea is misconceived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way to answer your question would be to review the current models for Boltzmann brain formation, explain which model we are using then do a long and tedious calculation to end up with a number. This type of answer is too long to be suitable for this site, and in any case it would require a heroic effort to write. It is on these grounds that I would vote to close (as unclear) and I believe those who did vote feel the same way. Your question would need to be a lot more precise before it could be answered i.e. state what assumptions you're making. Alternatively you could ask about how the Boltzmann brain calculation would be done and what assumptions are necessary, though I think you'd need to show some evidence you had attempted to research this yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final point that needs to be mentioned is that this site operates on good will. No-one here has to answer a question and no-one here receives any material reward for doing so. We take the often considerable trouble to answer questions out of a desire to help and because it's nice when we are thanked for providing an answer. Taking a confrontational attitude will simply deter the site members from providing answers or even helpful comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#Proposed_resolutions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8808" RevisionGUID="8b9f9ccb-cfeb-4f4c-be71-786f2859319c" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:46:16.560" UserId="124" Text="The onus falls on _everybody_. Anyone can point out that a question is (or appears to be) a duplicate of a previous one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, we do expect the poster to do some prior research, which includes checking related questions that already exist on the site. If those pre-existing questions are closely related, the onus is on the asker to make it clear how what they're asking isn't already covered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="22f4c7fb-8b11-4788-ba5f-9db6396180d4" CreationDate="2016-06-14T16:09:06.083" UserId="59215" Text="1. What is the necessary mathematical/physical background for general relativity and quantum field theory?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you had to pick one book as an introduction to GR and one as an introduction to QFT, what would they be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What are the standard &quot;advanced&quot; references for GR and QFT (books, seminal papers)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. What is the standard introduction to time travel research? How about advanced material?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="0a16a781-54b0-4ba3-a00d-1d1e0d902071" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:24:44.073" UserId="120647" Text="I often have questions about the field of physics itself (as opposed to physics questions). For example questions about the current state of a sub-field of physics, or questions about the implications of experiment results. The latter is especially important to me because my knowledge of physics is focused around classical electromagnetism, so I occasionally am confused about the significance of certain experiments. I am wondering if such questions are considered off-topic, or too opinion-driven to be asked here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="0a16a781-54b0-4ba3-a00d-1d1e0d902071" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:24:44.073" UserId="120647" Text="Are questions about the field of physics off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="0a16a781-54b0-4ba3-a00d-1d1e0d902071" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:24:44.073" UserId="120647" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="612bd6f7-f029-475a-aa31-a5db82fc9b10" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:30:02.683" UserId="124" Text="I'd say some, perhaps most, of these questions are physics questions, and thus I'd consider them on topic. Perhaps some other such questions are off topic. I couldn't say without having a better idea of what kinds of questions you're talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I'd advise you to just ask them, and if they get closed, you'll learn something about what sorts of questions are considered off topic by the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="5d85312e-e40f-4c76-83c2-0dc749d7d78e" CreationDate="2016-06-15T19:19:24.463" UserId="148704" Text="I found an old question asked 5 years ago. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/how-much-power-to-keep-surface-of-aluminum-plate-at-given-temperature/262674#262674. How do I answer this in a physics kind of way?&#xD;&#xA;This is my original answer: By running a current through one kilogram of metal using a adjustable D/C power supply 1 volt to 12v and slowly increasing the voltage until you read enough resistance to achieve the temperature desired. You can also get an adjustable amperage as well but may cost more. Also try using an after market defroster for back windows of cars. Just stick it on the underside. The plastic insulator should keep the metal safe to touch and will be more efficient. Like a light it is the resistance to the flow of electricity that gives off the light and heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="5d85312e-e40f-4c76-83c2-0dc749d7d78e" CreationDate="2016-06-15T19:19:24.463" UserId="148704" Text="Engineering questions and answers that are closely related to Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="5d85312e-e40f-4c76-83c2-0dc749d7d78e" CreationDate="2016-06-15T19:19:24.463" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|scope|questions|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8813" RevisionGUID="1bc2db2a-f0f1-4ef6-9bb7-84c9b06da087" CreationDate="2016-06-16T00:17:30.747" UserId="6634" Text="Well... in this case, I don't know that it is possible to answer in a physics sort of way. I actually just voted to close it as an engineering question and thus off-topic for our site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the broader question of how to answer &quot;engineering&quot; questions with a physics way, I actually just attempted to do the same on a new post: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262798/prevention-of-fluid-vortex-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As written, the question is sort of on the border -- it is clearly looking to solve a particular problem, but it is also asking for the concepts that are needed for the solution. The concepts are the physics, the design/numbers are the engineering. So to answer &quot;engineering&quot; questions in a &quot;physics&quot; way, it is usually sufficient to address the underlying processes that are needed to solve the problem. In the question I linked, it is explaining how/why the vortex forms and what the equation looks like so somebody could try to design whatever they needed based on the physics of the equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, a &quot;physics&quot; answer would explain the mechanisms that lead to heating (the current flow for example) and the mechanisms that lead to cooling (radiation, convection, conduction, etc). Explain the relevant scales -- things like the non-dimensional numbers that describe the problem. Explain the assumptions made -- what does well insulated really mean? How does it change the equations or assumptions? Based on these things, perhaps provide some information on what terms are important or are insignificant in the governing equations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all that is done, the OP should be able to solve whatever problem they wanted because you've explained the physics of the problem. The numbers, the techniques, the actual devices to get the solution are all off-topic. But the understanding of the mechanisms and equations, that's all physics and is spot on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="7e844ff2-b00d-4a68-aa18-0c05f9cc06ab" CreationDate="2016-06-16T00:19:44.077" UserId="6634" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I found an old question asked 5 years ago. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/how-much-power-to-keep-surface-of-aluminum-plate-at-given-temperature/262674#262674. How do I answer this in a physics kind of way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my original answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By running a current through one kilogram of metal using a adjustable D/C power supply 1 volt to 12v and slowly increasing the voltage until you read enough resistance to achieve the temperature desired. You can also get an adjustable amperage as well but may cost more. Also try using an after market defroster for back windows of cars. Just stick it on the underside. The plastic insulator should keep the metal safe to touch and will be more efficient. Like a light it is the resistance to the flow of electricity that gives off the light and heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="91650fa3-1159-4ff5-8dbb-7832d9e41803" CreationDate="2016-06-16T07:06:57.670" UserId="50546" Text="I will be the next [AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) guest. So here it is a brief introduction of myself, and you can suggest some topic/questions that can be discussed during the session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Academic Background.** I graduated in theoretical physics almost ten years ago, working on the regularization of path integrals for supersymmetric QM models of particles in curved (Euclidean) background space. In particular, I focused on the mode regularization, both for the phase space and usual path integral, in N=1,2 SUSY sigma models. It has been a while, however, since I abandoned those topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, following the same *cursus honorum* as many others in [my community](http://www.iamp.org/page.php?page=page_start), I shifted towards mathematics. My motivation was - and still is - that I don't like the sloppiness with which many subtle and interesting mathematical problems are dealt with in theoretical physics. I therefore did a Ph.D. in mathematics, with analysis and mathematical physics as main topics. During my Ph.D. I started working on the so-called mean field and classical limits of quantum (field) theories; i.e. on rigorously proving the emergence of classical/mean-field effective dynamics starting from the full quantum description of a given system. This is still my main area of research, but I also work in scattering theory (e.g. for Lindblad superoperators) and nonlinear partial differential equations of physical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggested topics.** Below you can find a list of the topics on which it is more probable that I would have something meaningful to say, but feel free to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Classical and mean field approximation of quantum systems (e.g. Bohr's correspondence principle; the emergence of Hartree, Gross-Pitaevskii, Vlasov, Hartree-Fock dynamics from many-body quantum systems; ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - The interplay between rigorous mathematical results and physics (e.g. Haag's theorem, the von Neumann measurement scheme, representation theory for the algebra of canonical commutation relations, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Partial Differential Equations &quot;of evolution&quot; (e.g. Schrödinger, Wave, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory;&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantization (from a mathematician's point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think I could at least point to some references if you ask me questions about mathematical physics, apart from some topics on which I am quite ignorant (like e.g. all things related to homology/cohomology applied to physics, string theory, general relativity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even if I am not at all an expert, I like to read about logic, set theory, and in general the problems that arise in foundational mathematics. So this could also be a topic for a (very informal but interesting) discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When and where.** The AMA session will take place in the hbar chat room, the 12th of July at 16:00 UTC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="91650fa3-1159-4ff5-8dbb-7832d9e41803" CreationDate="2016-06-16T07:06:57.670" UserId="50546" Text="Ask Me Anything 12th July: guest's introduction and questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="91650fa3-1159-4ff5-8dbb-7832d9e41803" CreationDate="2016-06-16T07:06:57.670" UserId="50546" Text="|discussion|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="6c3662c0-b43f-40a0-a56b-9ab98c79e527" CreationDate="2016-06-16T08:06:54.447" UserId="6719" Text="Do you have any suggestions or improvements for the next one on the [12th of July](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="6c3662c0-b43f-40a0-a56b-9ab98c79e527" CreationDate="2016-06-16T08:06:54.447" UserId="6719" Text="What was your impression of the the first &quot;Ask Me Anything&quot; (AMA) event?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="6c3662c0-b43f-40a0-a56b-9ab98c79e527" CreationDate="2016-06-16T08:06:54.447" UserId="6719" Text="|discussion|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="d40ae665-e607-4aee-acb4-20caaedfe785" CreationDate="2016-06-16T08:27:36.250" UserId="50546" Text="Even if sadly I could not attend, I had the impression from the post-session comments that it was not so easy to follow the Q-As because of the &quot;background noise&quot; made by side comments, or independent hbar chatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And @DanielSank (if I recall correctly) suggested a solution: posting AMA questions in boldface, and answering using the reply feature of the chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will reprise that suggestion, in the following form for maximal visual improvement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; AMA questions to the guest should be in a single post (if possible, or contiguous posts) with ***slanted boldface letters*** (*** at the beginning and end of the post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Answers should also be either in one post or in contiguous ones (not so easy at times), with the appropriate reply tag, and in **boldface letters** (** at the beginning and end of the post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should sufficiently improve readability, but maybe it makes the chat screen too heavy. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="8ebd9bdf-4242-4a64-b782-d48d34974947" CreationDate="2016-06-16T09:11:23.847" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="dfc24f18-1d85-427a-beed-7f65b530afa6" CreationDate="2016-06-16T10:21:18.583" UserId="50546" Comment="deleted 243 characters in body" Text="Even if sadly I could not attend, I had the impression from the post-session comments that it was not so easy to follow the Q-As because of the &quot;background noise&quot; made by side comments, or independent hbar chatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And @DanielSank (if I recall correctly) suggested a solution: posting AMA questions in boldface, and answering using the reply feature of the chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will reprise that suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; AMA questions to the guest should be in a single post (if possible, or contiguous posts) with **boldface letters** (** at the beginning and end of the post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Answers should also be either in one post or in contiguous ones (not so easy at times), and contain the appropriate reply tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8817" RevisionGUID="62abf3d6-8413-4c57-bc81-1b55b00dc3a4" CreationDate="2016-06-16T10:23:40.927" UserId="1325" Text="I enjoyed the chat session and I will certainly attend future AMAs. I've long felt the chat room is an underused resource and it was nice to see the chat room so lively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ... (there's always a *but* on these occasions) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we attracted many people bar the regulars. I went through the log and I counted 31 questions (after eliminating the frivolous ones). The askers were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    vzn          11 (doing his bit as chairman :-)&#xD;&#xA;    secret        5&#xD;&#xA;    obliv         4&#xD;&#xA;    3075          3&#xD;&#xA;    qmd           2&#xD;&#xA;    constantine   2&#xD;&#xA;    daniel        2&#xD;&#xA;    mafia         1&#xD;&#xA;    me            1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around half of the questions were non-technical e.g. *Why did you decide to study physics?*. Of the remainder the majority were fairly general e.g. *what are the major areas or unsolved questions*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, there was quite a bit of discussion on CTCs and for me this was the most interesting thing about the AMA. We could have just declared a one hour chat session on CTCs, but I suspect that would ramble a bit. I thought it worked well that much of the meeting was in effect *ask Sam about CTCs* as that kept things focussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think we learned a lot about CTCs, and I don't think it was an effective exercise in evangelising. But is was fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record here are the 31 non-frivolous questions I counted. I don't guarantee I haven't missed any or that my definition of *frivolous* is trutsworthy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Obliv: @slereah Do you live in france? (since you got a degree at a french uni)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3075: @Slereah Why did you decide to study physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: did your MS thesis have connections to CTCs or did you do a lot of separate research in the area? how did you get into/ specialize in CTCs in particular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- qmd: @Slereah What advice would you give to an undergrad student or someone who has just started studying physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- MAFIA36790: @Slereah: Do you want to go to other country for phd?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Obliv: @slereah Do you think the job market for physics research in France is more difficult than in the U.S. or other countries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- secret: What is the major research topic in riemannian space in your thesis, i.e. what is the problem your thesis is going to address in terms of the GR research field (or differential geometry in general)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- obliv: @slereah What other subject of study interests you, outside of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- secret: I see, what are the major results you found during your research in the thesis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3075: @Slereah what is your profile image?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: S did you do a masters thesis presentation/ defense with advisors? guess that happens &quot;usually&quot; in US, dont know EU/ france...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah how long was the session? how many advisors or attendees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- obliv: @slereah when did you and @0celo7 start a blog together at einsteinandtheevidence.wordpress.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Constantine Black: Greetings. I see there is a discussion about the system of Master and PhD. May I ask your opinion on how the system works? Would you say you were satisfied in general and maybe if there are certain problems that need to be addressed? Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @0celo7 do you have any plans for blog S? news to me that you (co)contributed. (encourage everyone who chats frequently to experiment with blogs, it doesnt take much more effort &amp; allows math formulas etc) =D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- qmd: @Slereah If you could go back to your first year at university, would you still do physics? why or why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- secret: In your opinion, what are the major areas or uunsolved questions that any aspiring CTC researchers need to focus more on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah what would you say about CTC vs string theory researchers? small overlap? compatible somehow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Constantine Black: chronology protection conjecture : Do we need a quantum gravity theory to attack this problem and why would you say so? Why GR isn't enough. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- John Rennie: If you have a spacetime you could imaging geodesics flowing through it almost like streamlines. A CTC would then look I suppose a bit like a vortex in a flow. Wouldn't there be some very strange behaviour at the stagnation points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah whats your take on hawking? modern near-einstein? what about his pop science books/ rep vs hard core science? (0celo7 is lately studying him intensely although will prob not admit it) :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah did you see &quot;theory of everything&quot;? any reaction? have you heard opinions on it from others? etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah re &quot;not that big on string theory&quot; ... ie somewhat skeptical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah lol (nope! still have ~15m!) slereah re your admitted collaboration with 0celo7 on blog, if you could cowrite a book with him, what would it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3075: @Slereah did you know much physics in high school?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- secret: (this is more of a general public style question) What is the most important difference between CTCs and the popscience and scifi notion of stable time loops? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StableTimeLoop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- DanielSank: At some level then, you learned the mechanics of stochastic integration and use it effectively? No need to get into the details?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah re books, youre a big collector, how many do you think you have on physics anyway? do you also use ebooks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- DanielSank: @Slereah Would you say this book can be understood by a physicist with typical math background?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vzn: @Slereah sounds a lot like virtual particles though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- secret: @vzn but since the time evolution of a quantum state is deterministic, then it should not be a big deal?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="371fa947-c4fa-4010-be6e-326c1ef52929" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:08:18.630" UserId="83380" Text="Here's [my question][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, my other question is about verification of a phenomenon and a value (1 solar mass). This question is about theory of possible transfer of energy in gravitational waves back to matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why do I have to explain why the answerless, different question is not the answer to my question that has a good answer?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my linked question - where I'm supposed to find the answer, instead of the [good answer here][2] citing Feynman thoughts on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lppwk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/262947/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lpsML.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="371fa947-c4fa-4010-be6e-326c1ef52929" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:08:18.630" UserId="83380" Text="Drive-by &quot;Possible Duplicate&quot; there is not even an answer there!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="371fa947-c4fa-4010-be6e-326c1ef52929" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:08:18.630" UserId="83380" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="9f80e802-9dca-4600-b12b-87feae0f28c3" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:14:10.193" UserId="83380" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Here's [my question][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, my other question is about verification of a phenomenon and a value (1 solar mass). This question is about theory of possible transfer of energy in gravitational waves back to more familiar forms of energy, or matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why do I have to explain why the answerless, different question is not the answer to my question that has a good answer?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While handing duplicate questions is important, I think doing it recklessly causes undue duress to those really trying to learn how to ask a good question here. Was this duplicate marking though out? Is it justified, or is it more of a &quot;drive-by&quot; in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my linked question - where I'm supposed to find the answer, instead of the [good answer here][2] citing Feynman thoughts on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lppwk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/262947/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lpsML.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8819" RevisionGUID="fa763325-4aad-4ec1-ae7d-b83b49765458" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:38:48.297" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Why do I have to explain why the answerless, different question is not the answer to my question that has a good answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, your question is not currently _closed_ as a duplicate, so you don't _have_ to do anything at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened is that one person voted to close your question as a duplicate of the earlier one. This is nothing to get worked up about. Just because one person thinks a question is a duplicate, doesn't mean it _is_ a duplicate. There's a reason it takes _five_ votes to actually prevent new answers on a question; there needs to be a consensus of sorts to cause such direct action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, one duplicate vote does mean that one person didn't understand what makes your new question different from the earlier one. I'd take that as motivation to edit your new question (or, in this case, the earlier question) to make it more clear how they are different. Again, you don't _have_ to do so, but if you don't, you may be passing up on an opportunity to improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR** It's just one vote, don't worry about it, and I don't think anything needs to be done about this, but consider using the feedback to improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm sure somebody is going to object that moderators and gold badge holders can close questions as duplicates unilaterally. That's a bit different because mods are &quot;trained&quot; to be conservative about unilaterally marking duplicates; we're aware that just because we think something is a duplicate doesn't mean it is, and so if it's not an obvious case, we often defer to the community. And gold badge holders are expected to have a really good intuition about what questions are really duplicates, due to their extensive experience in the tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22549" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="5c60ed88-4913-4d02-96fb-ab5a0a9ce381" CreationDate="2016-06-16T15:40:51.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/743468388178067456" />
  <row Id="22550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="57345453-dc89-4b4d-8f47-856fc5be46ed" CreationDate="2016-06-17T05:29:47.890" UserId="50546" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I will be the next [AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) guest. So here it is a brief introduction of myself, and you can suggest some topic/questions that can be discussed during the session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Academic Background.** I obtained a master degree in theoretical physics almost ten years ago, working on the regularization of path integrals for supersymmetric QM models of particles in curved (Euclidean) background space. In particular, I focused on the mode regularization, both for the phase space and usual path integral, in N=1,2 SUSY sigma models. It has been a while, however, since I abandoned those topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, following the same *cursus honorum* as many others in [my community](http://www.iamp.org/page.php?page=page_start), I shifted towards mathematics. My motivation was - and still is - that I don't like the sloppiness with which many subtle and interesting mathematical problems are dealt with in theoretical physics. I therefore did a Ph.D. in mathematics, with analysis and mathematical physics as main topics. During my Ph.D. I started working on the so-called mean field and classical limits of quantum (field) theories; i.e. on rigorously proving the emergence of classical/mean-field effective dynamics starting from the full quantum description of a given system. This is still my main area of research, but I also work in scattering theory (e.g. for Lindblad superoperators) and nonlinear partial differential equations of physical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggested topics.** Below you can find a list of the topics on which it is more probable that I would have something meaningful to say, but feel free to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Classical and mean field approximation of quantum systems (e.g. Bohr's correspondence principle; the emergence of Hartree, Gross-Pitaevskii, Vlasov, Hartree-Fock dynamics from many-body quantum systems; ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - The interplay between rigorous mathematical results and physics (e.g. Haag's theorem, the von Neumann measurement scheme, representation theory for the algebra of canonical commutation relations, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Partial Differential Equations &quot;of evolution&quot; (e.g. Schrödinger, Wave, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory;&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantization (from a mathematician's point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think I could at least point to some references if you ask me questions about mathematical physics, apart from some topics on which I am quite ignorant (like e.g. all things related to homology/cohomology applied to physics, string theory, general relativity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even if I am not at all an expert, I like to read about logic, set theory, and in general the problems that arise in foundational mathematics. So this could also be a topic for a (very informal but interesting) discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When and where.** The AMA session will take place in the hbar chat room, the 12th of July at 16:00 UTC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="7a5332f8-4c0f-45bc-af56-bf2145a0ade4" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:29:06.850" UserId="50546" Comment="added 228 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Purpose&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schedule&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Links to completed AMA transcripts will be posted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016, [question pool and other details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016, [question pool and other details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), to be determined&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contributing&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resources&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="7a5332f8-4c0f-45bc-af56-bf2145a0ade4" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:29:06.850" UserId="50546" Comment="added 228 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="99de2a76-38f8-4a62-8834-1ff16626e80f" CreationDate="2016-06-18T00:57:52.530" UserId="121000" Text="I've noticed that some members provide a perfectly good answer to a perfectly good question in the *comments* area under the question rather than posting their response as a standalone *answer*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this practice often occurs among members of high standing in the community, it seems to be acceptable, but I'm wondering why it isn't discouraged. After all, a big disadvantage of this practice is that the original question will appear to be unanswered in the search listing, discouraging a user from drilling down on the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a general principle people are using governing when an answer is better off being provided as a comment than as a separate answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="99de2a76-38f8-4a62-8834-1ff16626e80f" CreationDate="2016-06-18T00:57:52.530" UserId="121000" Text="The practice of answering a question in its comments area" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="99de2a76-38f8-4a62-8834-1ff16626e80f" CreationDate="2016-06-18T00:57:52.530" UserId="121000" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8822" RevisionGUID="a633cd46-349b-45b2-8874-19e084b55caa" CreationDate="2016-06-18T01:52:20.983" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="The main reason I suspect this is done is that some of us (especially those of us who've been here a long time and have high rep) hold ourselves to very high standards for quality answers. There are questions we see and know right away what the answer is, or at least how to find the answer, and we envision the perfect explanation. We have in mind an answer so clear it will dispel any and all misconceptions, enlightening a new generation of students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then we realize how long it would take to write such an answer. We might not be particularly interested or we might have other things to do. But then we don't want to leave the question without any answer at all. And so we dump our thoughts in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't an excuse, just an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, this probably isn't a healthy practice. Answers should be preserved as answers for many reasons, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Comments cannot be downvoted;&#xD;&#xA;  - Comments can be deleted at any time, leaving no record of their existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as someone who has left answers in comments before, I can say that I hope someone will turn them into full answers. Ideally with the details filled in, but I can't begrudge anyone for just copying the ideas as they stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what should you do if you come across a comment you feel really should be an answer? I would suggest this course of action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. (Optional) Ping the commenter and suggest they make the comment an answer.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Post the answer yourself. If you use the exact words of the comment, it's probably best to attribute the quotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say (1) is optional because in my mind once I've posted something as a comment I've lost any sense of ownership over that idea (not just legally, but morally). Regarding (2), I've seem some behaviors on the network that indicate a hesitation to do something that might be perceived as benefiting from others' work, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Marking the answer as Community Wiki so that it earns the answerer no reputation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Praising the commenter for their insightfulness, even when no direct quotes are used and the answer clearly builds upon the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not be the median opinion on the issue, but I think the above points are unnecessary. If you post an answer, you deserve the credit. If you insist on thanking the commenter for making the comment in the first place, I suggest adding the thanks as a comment to your answer. This way it is as ephemeral as the comment itself. (There are a number of answers on the network that start with &quot;I'll just rephrase the excellent comment by @userwhatever...&quot; except the comment has long since been deleted, so this whole sentence becomes just noise.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8822" RevisionGUID="fe4b415c-84b5-4a80-89e8-a77a9529f9d7" CreationDate="2016-06-18T02:06:16.337" UserDisplayName="user10851" Comment="added footnote" Text="The main reason I suspect this is done is that some of us (especially those of us who've been here a long time and have high rep) hold ourselves to very high standards for quality answers.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; There are questions we see and know right away what the answer is, or at least how to find the answer, and we envision the perfect explanation. We have in mind an answer so clear it will dispel any and all misconceptions, enlightening a new generation of students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then we realize how long it would take to write such an answer. We might not be particularly interested or we might have other things to do. But then we don't want to leave the question without any answer at all. And so we dump our thoughts in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't an excuse, just an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, this probably isn't a healthy practice. Answers should be preserved as answers for many reasons, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Comments cannot be downvoted;&#xD;&#xA;  - Comments can be deleted at any time, leaving no record of their existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as someone who has left answers in comments before, I can say that I hope someone will turn them into full answers. Ideally with the details filled in, but I can't begrudge anyone for just copying the ideas as they stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what should you do if you come across a comment you feel really should be an answer? I would suggest this course of action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. (Optional) Ping the commenter and suggest they make the comment an answer.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Post the answer yourself. If you use the exact words of the comment, it's probably best to attribute the quotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say (1) is optional because in my mind once I've posted something as a comment I've lost any sense of ownership over that idea (not just legally, but morally). Regarding (2), I've seem some behaviors on the network that indicate a hesitation to do something that might be perceived as benefiting from others' work, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Marking the answer as Community Wiki so that it earns the answerer no reputation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Praising the commenter for their insightfulness, even when no direct quotes are used and the answer clearly builds upon the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not be the median opinion on the issue, but I think the above points are unnecessary. If you post an answer, you deserve the credit. If you insist on thanking the commenter for making the comment in the first place, I suggest adding the thanks as a comment to your answer. This way it is as ephemeral as the comment itself. (There are a number of answers on the network that start with &quot;I'll just rephrase the excellent comment by @userwhatever...&quot; except the comment has long since been deleted, so this whole sentence becomes just noise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;More cynically, if you play around with the [Data Explorer][1] enough, you'll start finding niche statistics that you excel at. For example, I'm unhealthily proud of my position in [this list][2] among those with at least 100 answers (or better yet 500).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/360094/users-ranked-by-average-answer-score" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22563" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="64ac8cd5-68d7-4aa9-81ad-6d3b79be8ad1" CreationDate="2016-06-18T06:54:04.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/744060594211405825" />
  <row Id="22564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="3c2095ff-9135-4fe5-87b0-46ed928e96da" CreationDate="2016-06-18T16:30:50.280" UserId="124" Text="To offer an &quot;official&quot; response: the mods support what Chris said. If you see an answer posted as a comment, you are welcome (and encouraged) to make an answer out of it. You are not required to make your post community wiki nor to credit the commenter in any way beyond what is required by the CC license and our [rules on plagiarism](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add to that (otherwise I would have posted the above as a comment):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As this practice often occurs among members of high standing in the community, it seems to be acceptable, but I'm wondering why it isn't discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again &quot;officially&quot;, it's not acceptable. The thing is, there's no way to prevent it, other than the posters themselves being careful, and still, posting an answer as a comment is a really easy mistake to make. The best we can do is to educate people, and try not to leave these answer-comments sitting around to serve as an example to newer members like yourself. So any time you see an answer posted as a comment, there are three helpful things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Post the answer yourself&#xD;&#xA;- Reply to the comment to remind the poster that it should have been an answer&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the comment as &quot;not constructive&quot; so it can be deleted by a mod" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22569" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="9ceb7a81-f262-43bd-97e9-13a60d9e1b09" CreationDate="2016-06-18T17:47:17.973" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22570" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="2ad10b42-2fc5-4406-9615-789096708f0d" CreationDate="2016-06-18T17:48:00.070" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="5b11fb0a-c794-4c84-b255-634512cc5bee" CreationDate="2016-06-18T20:06:26.580" UserId="8563" Text="This is not really a question about this site (though it does have some impact), but I'm not sure where exactly to raise it and I'd like to pose it to this community, which can probably / hopefully help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I discovered that the Wikipedia data I used to produce [an Astronomy Stack Exchange answer I'm rather proud of](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/539/how-many-planets-are-there-in-this-solar-system/592#592) was, in fact, incorrect. The Wikipedia page has since been corrected (and I'll update that answer shortly), but I'm worried about what happened when I dug deeper for the original data to see where exactly I went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I went to [the corresponding page in the edit history of Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearing_the_neighbourhood&amp;oldid=575282009), and the data shown there are simply plain wrong; specifically, the data table in the Details section is missing the exponent markers and is therefore unusable. This is made very clear by [the corresponding version of that page on the Wayback Machine](http://web.archive.org/web/20131015071825/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood), which has the original incorrect data with exponent markers present. This seems to be more of a formatting issue, since there are exponents in the plaintext source, but the html shown in the edit history is still wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm rather disturbed by this episode. Wikipedia editability is always a problem when linking to it, and that is resolved by the edit history, which is always there to resolve ambiguities about what exactly was being linked to. If the edit history is fallible, though, it's a red flag on the whole mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my questions for this community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To be honest, I just wanted to vent.&#xD;&#xA; - Can others confirm that this is indeed what's displayed?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there anyone more familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia formatting who can clarify exactly what went on there?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a specific place in Wikipedia where I can raise this issue? This feels more like a general thing than something for the article's talk page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, on our side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there anything we can do to adapt our practices given that this can happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="5b11fb0a-c794-4c84-b255-634512cc5bee" CreationDate="2016-06-18T20:06:26.580" UserId="8563" Text="On the infallibility of Wikipedia edit histories" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="5b11fb0a-c794-4c84-b255-634512cc5bee" CreationDate="2016-06-18T20:06:26.580" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="b1a36fd3-0318-461b-b569-5a900a8f5e90" CreationDate="2016-06-19T17:01:03.160" UserId="120647" Text="Sometimes on my own questions and other people's questions, I see users posting very useless comments that just show they only read the title of the question, and blazed through the specifics explained below. I have even seen answers that are like this, and it is extremely annoying, because they basically restate the OP's assumptions as their answer, then the OP has to refer them to the full text of the question and ask the question again. I understand that part of the rules are to read the question fully and understand it before you can answer, but how can we encourage users to actually do this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="b1a36fd3-0318-461b-b569-5a900a8f5e90" CreationDate="2016-06-19T17:01:03.160" UserId="120647" Text="Encouraging users to read the full question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="b1a36fd3-0318-461b-b569-5a900a8f5e90" CreationDate="2016-06-19T17:01:03.160" UserId="120647" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22577" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="c7cbeb15-f706-4be7-9a43-dfffc16183df" CreationDate="2016-06-19T17:43:41.557" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8827" RevisionGUID="7f913295-f7d5-444f-9708-e472f368f9e1" CreationDate="2016-06-19T17:52:36.007" UserId="520" Text="This is a technical writing problem, and it is *your* problem as the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Start with a good, representative title.** If your title reads like a different or simpler question than you intend then *you* have communicated something other than what you intended.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; If you can't state the question in the title there is a good chance you are trying to cram too much into a single question. Remember the model is one-questions-multiple-answers, not several-questions-many-answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Make sure the question is suitable for the site.** Many beginners want to hear opinions on the ontology of various branches of physics and think a question of this sort would automatically be good for the site without realizing that regulars have seen them many, many times and often consider them to be unproductive philosophy suitable mostly for post-tenure noodling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the right vocabulary.** If the problem has a usual name or formulation, use it. This implies that you need to to done a bit research, but that is OK, because if your question is really simple you may find the answer on your own before you post.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; More broadly, choosing your words carefully is a part of good technical writing. The ideas we want to express are often pretty complicated and it does not help to introduce extra ambiguity by using an not-quite-right word. Similarly, awkward and unnecessarily-long sentences add to the reader's mental burden. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Be aware that the formulation used in pop-sci treatments is often different from that used by professionals in important ways. Professional quantum physicists rarely perform &quot;the double slit experiment&quot; as such but often perform &quot;diffractive scattering&quot; experiments (a more general category that works on the same physical principles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Consider including an abstract paragraph.** Tell them what you're going to ask them as early as possible.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Don't bog the reader down with a lot of detail without letting them know where the effort of reading and understanding all that stuff is going to take them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Make good use of the formatting tools available.** Note in particular that &quot;good&quot; does not mean &quot;copious&quot;. If everything is emphasized, then nothing is emphasized.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Don't overlook that the tools on Stack Exchange sites include headings, lists, horizontal rules, and images in addition to changing the typeface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I&quot;ll note that good technical writing is not easy and is a learned skill. The effort you put into doing a good job writing posts and comments on technical Stack Exchange sites will be rewarded not only here, but on the job if you are in (or go into) a technical field of work (because communication is a big part of every job in all such fields). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8827" RevisionGUID="a9a79d75-f641-4f9a-843c-f8ad4518e6ef" CreationDate="2016-06-19T17:58:03.490" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is a technical writing problem, and it is *your* problem as the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Start with a good, representative title.** If your title reads like a different or simpler question than you intend then *you* have communicated something other than what you intended.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; If you can't state the question in the title there is a good chance you are trying to cram too much into a single question. Remember the model is one-question-multiple-answers, not several-questions-many-answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Make sure the question is suitable for the site.** Many beginners want to hear opinions on the ontology of various branches of physics and think a question of this sort would automatically be good for the site without realizing that regulars have seen them many, many times and often consider them to be unproductive philosophy suitable mostly for post-tenure noodling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the right vocabulary.** If the problem has a usual name or formulation, use it. This implies that you need to have done a bit research, but that is OK, because if your question is really simple you may find the answer on your own before you post.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; More broadly, choosing your words carefully is a part of good technical writing. The ideas we want to express are often pretty complicated and it does not help to introduce extra ambiguity by using an not-quite-right word. Similarly, awkward and unnecessarily-long sentences add to the reader's mental burden. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Be aware that the formulation used in pop-sci treatments is often different from that used by professionals in important ways. Professional quantum physicists rarely perform &quot;the double slit experiment&quot; as such but often perform &quot;diffractive scattering&quot; experiments (a more general category that works on the same physical principles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Consider including an abstract paragraph.** Tell them what you're going to ask them as early as possible.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Don't bog the reader down with a lot of detail without letting them know where the effort of reading and understanding all that stuff is going to take them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Make good use of the formatting tools available.** Note in particular that &quot;good&quot; does not mean &quot;copious&quot;. If everything is emphasized, then nothing is emphasized.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Don't overlook that the tools on Stack Exchange sites include headings, lists, horizontal rules, and images in addition to changing the typeface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I&quot;ll note that good technical writing is not easy and is a learned skill. The effort you put into doing a good job writing posts and comments on technical Stack Exchange sites will be rewarded not only here, but on the job if you are in (or go into) a technical field of work (because communication is a big part of every job in all such fields). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22584" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="1cddc72d-8bdf-43c3-b76b-20520065c6b3" CreationDate="2016-06-20T09:40:10.160" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263609/general-question-on-the-sites-mechanism" />
  <row Id="22585" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="1ea2e0a1-08da-4cc2-b258-35799d7133f5" CreationDate="2016-06-20T09:40:10.160" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263609/general-question-on-the-sites-mechanism/263619#263619" />
  <row Id="22586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="cfc7c6af-79f0-4ce5-9b56-10f6cbf7ad7f" CreationDate="2016-06-20T07:31:30.450" UserId="1325" Text="The ideal question on this site will ask about some concept in physics. The aim is that after reading the question and its answer people will end up knowing more about physics than when they started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason we don't like homework questions is that in general they are just about solving some specific question so all anyone reading the answer learns is how to solve one question. Unless answering the question illustrates some general principle the answer won't be of much use to anyone but the person asking the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of all this is that if you're asking a homework question that doesn't help explain some wider concept we won't care whether or not you show how much effort you've put into it - we will close the question anyway. This isn't because we're mean and/or sadistic, it's because by posting questions like this you make the site a worse place for everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you're going to post a homework question make sure you write it to highlight the concept in physics that you don't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="46d239b8-8dac-4054-b07d-9f2cce50020f" CreationDate="2016-06-20T06:30:35.523" UserId="121509" Text="This is my first post. I need to know if I can ask some homework problems on here. Not full problems but after I provide my attempt at the problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="46d239b8-8dac-4054-b07d-9f2cce50020f" CreationDate="2016-06-20T06:30:35.523" UserId="121509" Text="General question on the site's mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="46d239b8-8dac-4054-b07d-9f2cce50020f" CreationDate="2016-06-20T06:30:35.523" UserId="121509" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="e812abb1-5c0a-4e8c-99df-a244fd491cc5" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:33:37.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="e812abb1-5c0a-4e8c-99df-a244fd491cc5" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:33:37.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="This is my first post. I need to know if I can ask some homework problems on here? Not full problems but after I provide my attempt at the problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22592" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="e812abb1-5c0a-4e8c-99df-a244fd491cc5" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:33:37.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I need to know if I can ask some homework problems on here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22593" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="c9fa28b1-dd8c-4bad-a918-e0235bb8b944" CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:01:27.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/744877824629182465" />
  <row Id="22594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8831" RevisionGUID="e6c2a065-1f37-4d19-947d-a10066772399" CreationDate="2016-06-20T14:59:00.933" UserId="71103" Text="Since Chris White has given the PoV of a member in high standing, I'll offer a n00b's view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do this, I'll typically do it because I am confident that there are currently no correct answers, and I feel I can add to the discussion, but not to the level of a full answer. So perhaps I can give a synopsis of the right answer, an explanation of why existing answers are insufficient, and/or references to more info, but not enough to constitute more than a one-liner answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So either way (comment-answer or one-line-answer) I'll be in the wrong, and I'm not going to try to fake an answer by padding it out with unnecessary words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="b6ea4230-0ff9-4e2c-9367-a55b7b0fbcd1" CreationDate="2016-06-20T21:10:42.527" UserId="83398" Text="After seeing some close votes on [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263623/example-for-riccati-equation-in-physics), I'm confused about the rationale behind closing list-based questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that almost any question can be rephrased into a list question, and vice versa. Consider the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- List: where is technique X applied in physics?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: is technique X useful to physics?&#xD;&#xA;- List: when is the solution to equation X unique?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: does equation X always have a unique solution?&#xD;&#xA;- List: where does approximation X break down?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: what is the useful range of validity of approximation X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each of these pairs, the OP is asking for the exact same information, but we chastise them if they happen to pick the first phrasing. It ends up looking like we're very touchy about a particular taboo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we either stop doing this, or start editing list questions into non-list form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="b6ea4230-0ff9-4e2c-9367-a55b7b0fbcd1" CreationDate="2016-06-20T21:10:42.527" UserId="83398" Text="Why close list-based questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="b6ea4230-0ff9-4e2c-9367-a55b7b0fbcd1" CreationDate="2016-06-20T21:10:42.527" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="ed882af2-6c2f-4976-af2d-1f32387f7f92" CreationDate="2016-06-20T21:15:37.383" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8833" RevisionGUID="ef3c6e16-1569-4ebd-b22b-c8d30f6d0034" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:57:20.997" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples.  As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers.  Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists.  I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **make the crucial question prominent and clear**, preferably summarised in the title, and&#xD;&#xA;2. **include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined**, but not so much that reading it becomes a chore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.   &#xD;&#xA;(See : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8833" RevisionGUID="67499dda-a3ea-4aab-8fda-94aa1eb8c3c4" CreationDate="2016-06-22T20:03:21.250" UserId="114696" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples.  As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers.  Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists.  I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **make the crucial question prominent and clear**, preferably summarised in the title, and&#xD;&#xA;2. **include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined**, but not so much that it obscures the crucial question or that reading it becomes a chore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.   &#xD;&#xA;(See : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="b4dd233c-22d7-4f93-9f49-2cbfff71a5c1" CreationDate="2016-06-24T00:39:23.410" UserId="71340" Text="I posted this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263881/is-running-in-a-zigzag-helpful-in-avoiding-being-shot-by-an-arrow/263912?noredirect=1#comment586118_263912&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has at least 7 upvotes, and the answer has at least 6 upvotes. I want to give the answerer a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't because my question is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I revise my question to be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="b4dd233c-22d7-4f93-9f49-2cbfff71a5c1" CreationDate="2016-06-24T00:39:23.410" UserId="71340" Text="Revise zigzag question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="b4dd233c-22d7-4f93-9f49-2cbfff71a5c1" CreationDate="2016-06-24T00:39:23.410" UserId="71340" Text="|discussion|scope|closed-questions|review|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="ed70c6e2-6500-4c9e-b3f9-48cc7ff129ea" CreationDate="2016-06-24T01:09:35.980" UserId="56299" Comment="Revised link to the question itself." Text="I posted this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/263881/56299&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has at least 7 upvotes, and the answer has at least 6 upvotes. I want to give the answerer a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't because my question is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I revise my question to be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22606" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="3e82fb9b-f0f8-4a4f-9d16-551d1a16f832" CreationDate="2016-06-24T01:58:04.177" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I revise my 'running in zigzag' question to be on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="3e82fb9b-f0f8-4a4f-9d16-551d1a16f832" CreationDate="2016-06-24T01:58:04.177" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="f332a8c0-f784-400d-8a98-524b8848efab" CreationDate="2016-06-24T17:16:02.000" UserId="120291" Text="I have noticed that the responses, comments and criticisms (down-voting) of many regular users indicate that they are approaching every question as though it were a postgraduate research topic. Questions on basic Newtonian mechanics are invariably dragged into the realm of relativity. Enquiries into the fundamental characteristics of fluid flow are greeted with equations requiring a thorough understanding of calculus. Any discussion of light or waves is necessarily treated with quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is equally concerning, and undoubtedly frustrating for the original posters in these instances, is that the respondents' answers are subsequently up-voted by other users of similar educational level. The more highly educated users are naturally the more frequent ones, so their responses are consequently deemed to be the *best* answers in each case, but this is clearly incorrect if we value the question of the original poster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not surprising to me, then, that there would appear to be disproportionately little participation from lower level users. I suspect that many arrive and leave in frustration, if not humiliation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any presenter, teacher, communicator should always assess his or her audience before formulating an explanation. If the concepts being presented by the original poster are introductory or fundamental, we should respond accordingly. If the original poster is clearly at school or undergraduate level, our response should be congruous with the materials covered at those levels. There is ample opportunity to discuss higher level themes related to the same topic in another post. If a post is not pitched at a level that interests us, it is our prerogative not respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean to suggest that there is no value in introducing more advanced topics related to a post - sometimes it is warranted - but rather that those themes should *not* be presented as our primary responses. Nor should we up-vote a response as such. We should take care to consider and address each question at its level and context. To use a teaching term, our responses should be *learner focused*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it is a consequence of its game format, but it would appear that too many of us treat this forum as nothing more than a competition and an opportunity to showcase our brilliance. It is hard to avoid the perception of academic arrogance amongst some of us. But this is not productive, it is not erudite, and it is not positive for the field of physics. First and foremost, we should agree to respect each member of our community by addressing *their* needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="f332a8c0-f784-400d-8a98-524b8848efab" CreationDate="2016-06-24T17:16:02.000" UserId="120291" Text="Respondents' consideration of the level of question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="f332a8c0-f784-400d-8a98-524b8848efab" CreationDate="2016-06-24T17:16:02.000" UserId="120291" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="014eea20-20b2-43fa-b451-1312243f29e5" CreationDate="2016-06-24T18:34:58.433" UserId="83398" Text="The help message that comes up when asking a question says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a lot of homework questions that show a _huge_ amount of effort. Sometimes, they even have disclaimers attached, like, &quot;look! I showed absolutely everything I did, please don't close&quot;. We even get questions on meta where people are confused about why their homework question was closed (see [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy)) when they read the policy and showed effort just as it said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a problem with wording. The 'show some effort' clause comes second, is shorter, and sounds more final, making it stick in people's heads better. But our actual homework policy (i.e. the de facto community standards, not the blurb) emphasizes the first clause a lot more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a rewording of the blurb to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Don't just tell us you're confused; tell us why you're confused, and what you've tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't change anything about our policies, but I bet it would decrease the amount of questions we have to close. Does this sound effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="014eea20-20b2-43fa-b451-1312243f29e5" CreationDate="2016-06-24T18:34:58.433" UserId="83398" Text="Slight rephrasing of homework question policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="014eea20-20b2-43fa-b451-1312243f29e5" CreationDate="2016-06-24T18:34:58.433" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="c71d60fa-e1f1-451d-a21b-ffc05ccb8141" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:26:26.937" UserId="114696" Text="Fortunately I posted an Answer before your question was put On Hold.  This allowed me to develop it further without competition (or interest) from anyone else.  The challenge of the question is its own reward : I do not feel robbed without the bounty you would like to offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My disappointment with the On Hold decision is that it prevents any alternative solutions and contrary views from being explored, such as M Barbosa's vector approach.  The Up Votes show that it is a popular and slightly controversial question (perhaps Game of Thrones fans like you), so I would have expected at least 2 more Answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the consensus even among those who did not Vote to Close seems to be that the question is &quot;off topic&quot;.  Personally I disagree.  It is Applied Mathematics, and requires calculations of speed, time and distance - but so is any question on kinematics or projectile motion, which are &quot;on topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if those who did Vote to Close, or up-voted the &quot;off topic&quot; comment, were more willing to discuss where they think the boundary lies between what is on- and off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cynically, I think M Barbosa is right : If you had replaced the Game of Thrones context with an artificial one using plenty of physics concepts - eg neutrinos being fired at neutrons which can somehow be steered left and right (you don't need to say how) - then I think it would never have been put On Hold! My own Answer goes a little in this direction by mentioning &quot;collision cross-section.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you might include gravity in your model (which is already there in the GoT scenario), making it explicitly a question about projectile motion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8838" RevisionGUID="4fd63fd1-e023-4e58-ab98-944f8c384c25" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:33:42.730" UserId="124" Text="I doubt this would have any effect on the number of questions we have to close, because most of the people who ask those questions have never seen this banner in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may change how often people try to argue for reopening of their question despite not really understanding why it was closed. But I suspect the reduction in people complaining that they showed effort would be offset by an increase in people complaining that they asked a specific physics question, where in many of those cases it will turn out that they didn't show any effort at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe alternatives without the &quot;show effort&quot; clause were considered when we first formulated the homework-like close reason. A lot of discussion went into it, and although I don't remember the details, there _were_ reasons for deciding on the wording we came up with as opposed to any of several alternatives. I'm not saying we got it right, just pointing out that this has probably been considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, we're throwing out the whole homework policy (and close reason) soon, when I get time to get back to guiding the process, and replacing it with something else. I don't think it's necessary to change the wording in such a well-entrenched close reason so soon before we scrap it entirely. We can definitely take this feedback into account when coming up with whatever will replace the current homework close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22617" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="ca7bd433-1ce8-459e-a4dc-4b0e4ce98b69" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:34:32.997" UserId="83398" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="c4aebba5-dd47-4f42-a38d-eeec9cec2e29" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:41:58.387" UserId="120291" Text="I think that the respondents in some instances simply do not appreciate the effort that the original poster has put into their question, or otherwise assume that no effort was made due to its apparent simplicity. Of course, there are many instances in which there was none, so judgement plays a role in one's approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many homework-type questions, the OP simply does not know where to start for lack of understanding of the underlying concepts. This does not necessarily imply that he or she has not done due diligence in *trying* to understand them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that what might be simple or obvious for one person is not necessarily obvious for another. Furthermore, many of the most simple physical concepts are explained in textbooks and the Internet in a manner that is unclear, presumptuous or even obfuscating. It takes little effort and costs nothing to provide a quick introduction to the theory or a hint at the process to get people going." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="01a7e223-fe45-480c-9a36-b3557aced819" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:49:10.697" UserId="114696" Comment="added 975 characters in body" Text="Fortunately I posted an Answer before your question was put On Hold.  This allowed me to develop it further without competition (or interest) from anyone else.  The challenge of the question is its own reward : I do not feel robbed without the bounty you would like to offer, particularly since I had no competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My disappointment with the On Hold decision is that it prevents any alternative solutions and contrary views from being explored, such as M Barbosa's vector approach.  Good Answers emerge from healthy debate.  The Up Votes show that it is a popular and slightly controversial question (perhaps Game of Thrones fans like you), so I would have expected at least 2 more Answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the consensus even among those who did not Vote to Close seems to be that the question is &quot;off topic&quot;.  Personally I disagree.  It is Applied Mathematics, and requires calculations of speed, time and distance - but so is any question on kinematics or projectile motion, which are &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the broader context of the question requires the development of an appropriate mathematical model, instead of being handed one on a plate.  This involves deciding which factors are the most significant, how they can be represented mathematically, and what approximations to make.  Seeing the different approaches and solutions that working physicists with different backgrounds bring to modelling the same situation can be very instructive for everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if those who did Vote to Close, or up-voted the &quot;off topic&quot; comment, were more willing to discuss where they think the boundary lies between what is on- and off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cynically, I think M Barbosa is right : If you had replaced the Game of Thrones context with an artificial one using a few physics concepts - eg neutrinos being fired at neutrons which can somehow be steered left and right (you don't need to say how, just call it a Thought Experiment) - then I think it would never have been put On Hold! My own Answer goes a little in this direction by mentioning &quot;collision cross-section.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you might include gravity in your model (which is already there in the GoT scenario), making it explicitly a question about projectile motion.  You might also consider replacing the Newtonian Mechanics tag (which is not strictly applicable) with Applied Physics.  Finally, flag the question for Moderator attention, explaining what changes you've made and why you think it is now &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no evidence that this would be successful.  I have appealed against the closure of several questions, without any success." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="b705ef85-0c80-40d0-90d5-78a47caa6c01" CreationDate="2016-06-24T20:03:44.940" UserId="114696" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Fortunately I posted an Answer before your question was put On Hold.  This allowed me to develop it further without competition (or interest) from anyone else.  The challenge of the question is its own reward : I do not feel robbed without the bounty you would like to offer, particularly since I had no competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My disappointment with the On Hold decision is that it prevents any alternative solutions and contrary views from being explored, such as M Barbosa's vector approach.  Good Answers emerge from healthy debate.  The Up Votes show that it is a popular and slightly controversial question (perhaps Game of Thrones fans like you), so I would have expected at least 2 more Answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the consensus even among those who did not Vote to Close seems to be that the question is &quot;off topic&quot;.  Personally I disagree.  It is Applied Mathematics, and requires calculations of speed, time and distance - but so is any question on kinematics or projectile motion, which are &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the broader context of the question requires the development of an appropriate mathematical model, instead of being handed one on a plate.  This involves deciding which factors are the most significant, how they can be represented mathematically, and what approximations to make.  Seeing the different approaches and solutions that working physicists with different backgrounds bring to modelling the same situation can be very instructive for everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if those who did Vote to Close, or up-voted the &quot;off topic&quot; comment, were more willing to discuss where they think the boundary lies between what is on- and off-topic.  Or at least provided Answers to this Meta question.  Merely pointing you to the Help Center is not very helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cynically, I think M Barbosa is right : If you had replaced the Game of Thrones context with an artificial one using a few physics concepts - eg neutrinos being fired at neutrons which can somehow be steered left and right (you don't need to say how, just call it a Thought Experiment) - then I think it would never have been put On Hold! My own Answer goes a little in this direction by mentioning &quot;collision cross-section.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you might include gravity in your model (which is already there in the GoT scenario), making it explicitly a question about projectile motion.  You might also consider replacing the Newtonian Mechanics tag (which is not strictly applicable) with Applied Physics.  Finally, flag the question for Moderator attention, explaining what changes you've made and why you think it is now &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no evidence that this would be successful.  I have appealed against the closure of several questions, without any success." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="23536ba8-e386-4977-bdf0-1b3186350838" CreationDate="2016-06-24T20:09:03.140" UserId="114696" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Fortunately I posted an Answer before your question was put On Hold.  This allowed me to develop it further without competition (or interest) from anyone else.  The challenge of the question is its own reward : I do not feel robbed without the bounty you would like to offer, particularly since I had no competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My disappointment with the On Hold decision is that it prevents any alternative solutions and contrary views from being explored, such as M Barbosa's vector approach.  Good Answers emerge from healthy debate.  The Up Votes show that it is a popular and slightly controversial question (perhaps Game of Thrones fans like you), so I would have expected at least 2 more Answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the consensus even among those who did not Vote to Close seems to be that the question is &quot;off topic&quot;.  Personally I disagree.  It is Applied Mathematics, and requires calculations of speed, time and distance - but so is any question on kinematics or projectile motion, which are &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the broader context of the question requires the development of an appropriate mathematical model, instead of being handed one on a plate.  This involves deciding which factors are the most significant, how they can be represented mathematically, and what approximations to make.  Seeing the different approaches and solutions that working physicists with different backgrounds bring to modelling the same situation can be very instructive for everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if those who did Vote to Close, or up-voted the &quot;off topic&quot; comment, were more willing to discuss where they think the boundary lies between what is on- and off-topic.  Or at least provided Answers to this Meta question.  Merely pointing you to the Help Center is not very helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cynically, I think M Barbosa is right : If you had replaced the Game of Thrones context with an artificial one using a few physics concepts - eg neutrinos being fired at neutrons which can somehow be steered left and right (you don't need to say how, just call it a Thought Experiment) - then I think it would never have been put On Hold! My own Answer goes a little in this direction by mentioning &quot;collision cross-section.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you might **include gravity in your model** (which is already there in the GoT scenario), making it explicitly a question about projectile motion.  You might also consider replacing the Newtonian Mechanics tag (which is not strictly applicable) with Applied Physics.  Finally, **flag the question for Moderator attention**, explaining what changes you've made and why you think it is now &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no evidence that this would be successful.  I have appealed against the closure of several questions, without any success." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="8f54156d-60b7-40df-a3a4-b39c4a2f0065" CreationDate="2016-06-24T20:40:05.497" UserId="520" Text="One of the interesting feature of Stack Exchange is that answer (and questions) are intended to have a life after the original asker is satisfied and goes their own way. We're building an archive of well-answered, high-quality questions here so having each question answered at a variety of levels is purely a good thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8841" RevisionGUID="4cd20634-b955-4b97-b61e-754f18cf076e" CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:11:31.600" UserId="114696" Text="I am with knzhou in asking you to provide concrete examples.  Although, I appreciate your reluctance to be seen to criticise other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that there is a tendency in some cases to provide excessively technical Answers.  I think the motivation is that Questions (and Answers) are expected to be of benefit not only to the person posting the question but also to the broader community. There is also an innate tendency in our profession to generalise.  But this sometimes conflicts with the questioner's need for a simple, specific answer pitched at his/her level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, again like knzhou, I don't have the impression that this is widespread or a problem for the question-poster.  Regardless of how many up-votes a technical Answer gets, the OP's choice is what really counts as Best Answer to the Question actually posted.  And I have seen a few embarrassing comments like &quot;Fine, but can you explain what this means - I'm only in Grade 12.&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too notice quite a lot of abandoned questions, but not because of getting a technical response.  Instead, when challenged to &quot;show your attempt&quot; to a bare question.  To me this shows the questioner is ill-motivated, and I feel no remorse if my comment and down-vote has discouraged posting further questions.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In the same vein, I come across too many instances of what knzhou cites - lay questions about popular science topics well above the OP's ability to understand, often rather fanciful &quot;What would happen if...?&quot; questions.  Suggesting that the OP come back after learning some basic physics may seem rude but is entirely in line with the purpose of this site : to help serious students and researchers become better physicists, not to answer every idle question about physics which anyone can possibly think of. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="1ea7a89f-e582-4e44-8592-af54fa474ef3" CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:20:42.847" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="One of the interesting feature of Stack Exchange is that answers (and questions) are intended to have a life after the original asker is satisfied and goes their own way. We're building an archive of well-answered, high-quality questions here so having each question answered at a variety of levels is purely a good thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="9a753a69-10eb-48e6-b943-a5b0a74b3547" CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:33:27.020" UserId="114696" Text="I disagree with John Rennie's opinion.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very difficult to learn about physics without discussing and working on specific problems.  That is how I learnt physics.  And judging by the volume of very specific problems at the end of every chapter of almost every physics textbook, the experts in physics education agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that there is no difference between a homework problem and any other problem.  The real issue is : What attempt have you made to solve it?  What we are trying to discourage is lazy students who just want an answer without having to think.  So our policy is to provide hints to help you to answer the question for yourself as much as possible.  That way you get the most benefit from the 'exercise'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="b442b687-bd9d-4a5f-b921-82081410fc3b" CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:36:16.700" UserId="83398" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="The help message that comes up when asking a question says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a lot of homework questions that show a _huge_ amount of effort. Sometimes, they even have disclaimers attached, like, &quot;look! I showed absolutely everything I did, please don't close&quot;. We even get questions on meta where people are confused about why their homework question was closed (see [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy), [3](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here)) when they read the policy and showed effort just as it said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a problem with wording. The 'show some effort' clause comes second, is shorter, and sounds more final, making it stick in people's heads better. But our actual homework policy (i.e. the de facto community standards, not the blurb) emphasizes the first clause a lot more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a rewording of the blurb to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Don't just tell us you're confused; tell us why you're confused, and what you've tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't change anything about our policies, but I bet it would decrease the amount of questions we have to close. Does this sound effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="68914881-a7f7-428a-a7e7-68731340b56d" CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:48:40.210" UserId="114696" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="I disagree with John Rennie's opinion.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very difficult to learn about physics without discussing and working on specific problems.  That is how I learnt physics.  And judging by the volume of very specific situation-type problems at the end of every chapter of almost every physics textbook, the experts in physics education agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping everything general and abstract is frustrating for the student, and frustrating for the person trying to answer the student's questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that there is no difference between a homework problem and any other problem.  The real issue is : What attempt have you made to solve it?  What we are trying to discourage is lazy students who just want an answer without having to think.  So the site policy is to provide hints to help you to answer the question for yourself as much as possible.  That way you get the most benefit from the 'exercise'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="8bcc59dc-889a-4835-810b-71a3723ea20b" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:22:02.930" UserId="114696" Text="Yes I agree.  The stock reason given for putting questions on hold - viz. that &quot;homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to solve the problem&quot; - is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not that the 1st phrase is being overlooked because the 2nd is distracting, but that many users (even those with &gt; 2k rep) do not appreciate the very literal meaning which is intended for it.  The 2nd phrase is not distracting but misleading and confusing if (as in your examples) it does not in fact apply.  And the meaning of &quot;homework-like&quot; is obscure and inconsistent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree with your removal of the 2nd phrase if it does not apply.  These are 2 distinct reasons for closing and should not be lumped together unless both apply.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your amendment **does** attempt to explain what is meant by the 1st phrase, which I still find ambiguous after 3 months as a very active user.  **But** does it fully express the meaning of the policy-makers?  Judging by your examples, it seems to me that it does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way that I (and probably most newbies) interpret the 1st phrase is that there must be some identifiable physics within the question - ie it must be clearly within the standard physics syllabus and answerable by the application of physical concepts and principles.  Thus a question about solving a system of pulleys or the static equilibrium of forces on a ladder is presumed implicitly to &quot;ask about a specific physics concept.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The responses to the Meta questions which you cite show that the policy-makers expect this phrase to be interpreted literally - and to a varying extent also rigidly.  The question (and answer) must be confined to asking for (or providing) an explanation of a physical concept. The OP must identify what his/her own conceptual misunderstanding or confusion is.  As Chris White says in (1) &quot;We cannot read your mind about what you do or do not understand.&quot; And if there are multiple sources of confusion in the question, instead of one, it might be rejected for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="523b8933-56aa-4273-83cf-7f738d69120e" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:50:29.370" UserId="114696" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="Yes I agree.  The stock reason given for putting questions on hold - viz. that &quot;homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to solve the problem&quot; - is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not that the 1st phrase is being overlooked because the 2nd is distracting, but that many users (even those with &gt; 2k rep) do not appreciate the very literal meaning which is intended for it.  The 2nd phrase is not distracting but misleading and confusing if (as in your examples) it does not in fact apply.  And the meaning of &quot;homework-like&quot; is obscure and inconsistent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree with your removal of the 2nd phrase if it does not apply.  These are 2 distinct reasons for closing and should not be lumped together unless both apply. The criterion of &quot;asking about a specific physics concept&quot; should surely apply to **all** questions.  I don't see any justification for discriminating against &quot;homework-like&quot; questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your amendment **does** attempt to explain what is meant by the 1st phrase, which I still find ambiguous after 3 months as a very active user.  **But** does it fully express the meaning of the policy-makers?  Judging by your examples, it seems to me that it does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way that I (and probably most newbies) interpret the 1st phrase is that there must be some identifiable physics within the question - ie it must be clearly within the standard physics syllabus and answerable by the application of physical concepts and principles.  Thus a question about solving a system of pulleys or the static equilibrium of forces on a ladder is presumed implicitly to &quot;ask about a specific physics concept.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The responses to the Meta questions which you cite show that the policy-makers expect this phrase to be interpreted literally - and to a varying extent also rigidly.  The question (and answer) must be confined to asking for (or providing) an explanation of a physical concept. The OP must identify what his/her own conceptual misunderstanding or confusion is.  As Chris White says in (1) &quot;We cannot read your mind about what you do or do not understand.&quot; And if there are multiple sources of confusion in the question, instead of one, it might be rejected for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="a2df74ce-730c-4986-ac20-e08eea007bb9" CreationDate="2016-06-25T07:56:05.173" UserId="84895" Text="In my post http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264427/84895 I asked something that came into my mind and I wasn't able to find a answer for it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I posted it, the list of related posts (the list under the title before posting didn't!) Showed a question whar seemed to be the same. I had a look, found there my answer and marked my post as dup of that one. now after that was done I'm getting more and more downvotes for it. What might this reason be? Should I have deleted the post instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="a2df74ce-730c-4986-ac20-e08eea007bb9" CreationDate="2016-06-25T07:56:05.173" UserId="84895" Text="Is this considered bad attitude?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="a2df74ce-730c-4986-ac20-e08eea007bb9" CreationDate="2016-06-25T07:56:05.173" UserId="84895" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="c0c5ea30-0046-4a80-b344-610f5146c3ca" CreationDate="2016-06-25T08:10:31.800" UserId="1325" Text="No, you have done the right thing. With some many questions on the site it's very easy to miss the fact that a duplicate exists, and to be fair the site search isn't as great as it could be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't attach too much significance to the downvotes. It's easy to feel that downvotes are a personal criticism, but really they are just a statement that the question isn't appropriate for the site. Personally I don't downvote duplicates just because they are duplicates, though I know some site members feel differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting does remove the question from the site home page, so there is an argument that a question should be downvoted when we don't want it to appear there. Maybe that's why you have the two downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it's generally bad form to delete a question. I can't remember the reasons for this, but I'm sure I have seen comments from the moderators that in general questions shouldn't deleted. Just leave the question - there is an automated cleanup process for downvoted questions that springs into life after a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth you should be congratulated for responding to the duplicate link, reviewing the duplicate and deciding that your question is indeed answered by the existing one. Too many people just abandon their duplicate questions and leave it to the moderators to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="3e600141-bb8e-4a54-b397-2b5feb40af93" CreationDate="2016-06-25T11:02:23.497" UserId="1325" Comment="Extend answer" Text="No, you have done the right thing. With some many questions on the site it's very easy to miss the fact that a duplicate exists, and to be fair the site search isn't as great as it could be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't attach too much significance to the downvotes. It's easy to feel that downvotes are a personal criticism, but really they are just a statement that the question isn't appropriate for the site. Personally I don't downvote duplicates just because they are duplicates, though I know some site members feel differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting does remove the question from the site home page, so there is an argument that a question should be downvoted when we don't want it to appear there. Maybe that's why you have the two downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it's generally bad form to delete a question. I can't remember the reasons for this, but I'm sure I have seen comments from the moderators that in general questions shouldn't deleted. Just leave the question - there is an automated cleanup process for downvoted questions that springs into life after a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth you should be congratulated for responding to the duplicate link, reviewing the duplicate and deciding that your question is indeed answered by the existing one. Too many people just abandon their duplicate questions and leave it to the moderators to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick footnote to summarise David's comments below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit hasty to suggest you shouldn't delete your question. The Stack Exchange has various checks to detect users who it thinks aren't being serious, and it will eventually block those users from asking any more questions. One of the criteria it uses is the number of times the user asks a question then deletes it - hence my vague memory that deleting your own questions is a bad thing. However deleting one question, or even a few questions, isn't likely to cause a problem. So you should feel free to delete your question if you want to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8846" RevisionGUID="b9b6b112-deff-4d6b-be7f-ac8c85c03f56" CreationDate="2016-06-25T13:28:36.077" UserId="52112" Text="&gt; This seems to be more of a formatting issue, since there are exponents in the plaintext source, but the html shown in the edit history is still wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a formatting issue. Wikipedia does not store the HTML. It instead stores a page's wiki markup text. The problem is that the meaning of that markup language changes. Old pages are rendered to HTML using the current definition of the markup language rather than the definition at the time the page was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's exactly what happened here. The October 2013 version of the referenced wikipedia page used (for example) `1.7{{Esp|6}}` to represent what we would write as $1.7\times10^6$ as LaTeX code to be rendered by MathJax. (What? No LaTeX on meta.physics.SE?) The `Esp` wiki markup template no longer exists; it now redirects to the `ESp` template, which apparently has something to do with semi-protected pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrast that to the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) works. It captures and stores a page's HTML. That doesn't mean that old captured pages will always display correctly. Some elements of HTML4 marked as deprecated were marked as obsolete in HTML5, and apparently even more stuff will become obsolete with HTML6." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="7898b3c6-3d56-42d3-9c5b-4567fb17b530" CreationDate="2016-06-25T13:57:26.170" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In my post http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264427/84895, I asked something that came into my mind and I wasn't able to find an answer for it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I posted it, the list of related posts (the list under the title before posting didn't!) showed a question what seemed to be the same. I had a look, found there my answer and marked my post as dupe of that one. Now after that was done I'm getting more and more downvotes for it. What might this reason be? Should I have deleted the post instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22637" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="74ec3f76-a993-43e8-b245-03f946ca0aa5" CreationDate="2016-06-25T14:24:46.877" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|specific-question|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="3151d597-212b-464f-aa32-eda0dfc302f5" CreationDate="2016-06-26T15:05:44.997" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with JohnRennie's **original** view - that you should **not** delete your question -  especially if Answers have been posted.  Those Answers might be valuable to the people who posted them, as well as to the wider community.  They might be better than the Answers in the Question you are duplicating.  Comments can also provide valuable information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if no answers or comments have been posted yet, users might be preparing an Answer and it is very frustrating to have done all that work just to find that the Question has been deleted already.  (That has happened to me several times on other sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree that by **not** deleting and heading your question with a note that it is a duplicate, you did the best you could do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slight problem with this option is that you take the risk of attracting down-votes, which cost you rep.  That is unfair - you should not suffer from doing the right thing.  However, I think it might be difficult to alter the site programming to avoid such a penalty without leaving the rep system open to abuse (posting marked duplicate questions to gain upvotes without the risk of downvotes). Also, the cost is small (-2 per downvote) and few downvotes are likely to be cast if the question is already marked as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a **tougher dilemma** occurs if you realise that the question is actually a stupid one, or is clearly &quot;off topic&quot;, hence is likely to (or starting to) attract many down-votes.  Should you delete it then, even if no Answers are posted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you should likewise mark it **in the title** eg &quot;Withdrawn - awaiting auto-deletion&quot; but not delete it, and again allow the system to delete it according to the auto-delete criteria.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is less of a case for doing this, compared with a duplicate question, since you are unlikely to have gotten any actual or pending Answers - just a lot of negative comments.  Nevertheless, I think it is best not to delete in this case also.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="58e46f62-1da4-4b16-8aa7-06f0483b2d64" CreationDate="2016-06-26T20:34:07.390" UserId="108333" Text="My two cents. I've seen it and understand the reasons stated, both from high rep and others. Good reasons. But really it defeats the purpose of both comments and answers. If you think you know spend the time to answer it right. If you are not sure it's complete or totally right, or cannot take the time to answer it right, let others take their chance. Sometimes one goes to answer a question just 30 minutes after being posted, and there is already comments - sometimes some saying it is a bad question, some giving a 1 line or worse 2 word answer (in effect saying a stupid and obvious question that 2 words will answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it can not easily be controlled, except moderators can certainly make it clear the site preferences and rules, and try to enforce it in some extreme cases. I am not advocating for a censure-like approach on comments, just to have some minimal controls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the purpose of comments, I understood it was to comment on what is posted in the question or answer. Such as clarify your question on this xxx topic, or it does not make sense for this xxx reason, or it is an interesting question that could be modified in tHis xxx specific way to be more to the point, or other comments. Not grammatical minor issues, but comments on the topic clarification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then let the people who would try to answer give it a try. One can be quality comment on answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like it's been said before, comments are not for extended discussions. Many questions and answers do merit extended discussions, I know it's in chat that you're supposed to do it, but I have not seen really if that works. When I go to chat I see a million things except some thing I was looking for. I probably don't know how to really use it, but just a point that the extended discussions may not be working well (they don't for me, others may know better).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line, comments should not be answers or answers to answers, just comments. Many of you have Ben here longer so you may not better, just my two cents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="1f287272-7a7c-4ac0-8424-8a944164faff" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:03:46.163" UserId="108333" Text="I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="1f287272-7a7c-4ac0-8424-8a944164faff" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:03:46.163" UserId="108333" Text="Few questions by medium and high reputation participants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="1f287272-7a7c-4ac0-8424-8a944164faff" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:03:46.163" UserId="108333" Text="|discussion|questions|reputation|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8850" RevisionGUID="bd7fb3b5-444b-471c-ac77-a1ee0c37cfc4" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:41:06.563" UserId="50583" Text="As someone who voted to close, I would say you *cannot* make this question on-topic because it is inherently not about physics - it is about choosing some model for how an archer aims/shoots/hits a target and then computing the outcomes of that model for the two different paths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is not apparent what the *physical* aspect of this question is, and specifically what physics is being asked about. I would think the primary aspect is actually whether or not human beings can reliably aim such that they hit a zig-zagging object, and I don't consider human archery ability to be an aspect of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As minor supporting evidence of this not being about physics, the existing answer does not actually use any specific *physics* to develop a model of probability for the archer hitting the target: A certain way of determining the probability of whether the archer hits or not is chosen, and then the outcomes computed. The model of probability just says &quot;assume an inverse square law&quot;, and then purely geometrical considerations lead to the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But many other models are possible, including or excluding certain physical and unphysical factors (like wind, gravity, the archer's eyesight, the archer's tiredness, the (un)balancedness fo the arrows,...) will give rise to different models. So the question is not only about something of dubious physical constant, but also too broad: Regardless of how physical the answers are, how do we determine the correct one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="989ebe9b-389d-4878-be85-38ef3f961998" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:48:08.910" UserId="108333" Comment="added 1104 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED, added from here on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is not why it happens. there were previous questions eg,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that asked that, and the answers were truthful, in my opinion, and elucidated the reasons. My question is whether there might be a way to get those to increase. Some were mentioned in the answers in that url, but if we'd like to increase quality perhaps there are also other ways also. Those mentioned a couple years back didn't seem to take hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Increase the number of points for positive votes for questions&#xD;&#xA;2 increase more the number of points for positive votes on questions and say more than 3K reputation (I know, sounds like favoritism, propose an alternate)&#xD;&#xA;3 create a few more tags for eg, for news exploration, paper reviews or comments -- where the question/answer explains the relevance of some new findings, or describes a paper and asks a question on it&#xD;&#xA;4  others I can't think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is are there other good ideas for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22645" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="989ebe9b-389d-4878-be85-38ef3f961998" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:48:08.910" UserId="108333" Comment="added 1104 characters in body; edited title" Text="Few questions by medium and high reputation participants - EDITED: how to get more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="1d58362c-26e5-4cc4-b020-c233c2fe8811" CreationDate="2016-06-26T23:11:26.490" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1385 characters in body" Text="I agree with JohnRennie's **original** view - that you should **not** delete your question -  especially if Answers have been posted.  Those Answers might be valuable to the people who posted them, as well as to the wider community.  They might be better than the Answers in the Question you are duplicating.  Comments can also provide valuable information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if no answers or comments have been posted yet, users might be preparing an Answer and it is very frustrating to have done all that work just to find that the Question has been deleted already.  (That has happened to me several times on other sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree that by **not** deleting and heading your question with a note that it is a duplicate, you did the best you could do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slight problem with this option is that you take the risk of attracting down-votes, which cost you rep.  That is unfair - you should not suffer from doing the right thing.  However, I think it might be difficult to alter the site programming to avoid such a penalty without leaving the rep system open to abuse (posting marked duplicate questions to gain upvotes without the risk of downvotes). Also, the cost is small (-2 per downvote) and few downvotes are likely to be cast if the question is already marked as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a **tougher dilemma** occurs if you realise that the question is actually a stupid one, or is clearly &quot;off topic&quot;, hence is likely to (or starting to) attract many down-votes.  Should you delete it then, even if no Answers are posted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you should likewise mark it **in the title** eg &quot;Withdrawn - awaiting auto-deletion&quot; but not delete it, and again allow the system to delete it according to the auto-delete criteria.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is less of a case for doing this, compared with a duplicate question, since you are unlikely to have gotten any actual or pending Answers - just a lot of negative comments.  Nevertheless, I think it is best not to delete in this case also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE in response to Comment by ACuriousMind :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that, once the Question is posted, other users may acquire a stake in it.  For example, those who are typing/researching an Answer, and those who are debating it via comments or in the chatroom.  The OP may decide that he/she no longer requires an answer, or that the question is stupid, but that should not be decisive.  Others might disagree, suggest edits, and upvote it.  If there are no developments within 30 days, the clean-up process takes care of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This view is consistent with that expressed by dmckee that the purpose of Physics SE is not merely to satisfy users' immediate needs for explanations, but to build an archive of Answers for future use. If the only purpose of Physics SE is to satisfy the immediate needs of the OP, then of course the OP should do as he/she wishes, and delete even if Answers have been posted.  Furthermore, all questions might as well be deleted if the OPs no longer needs them.  But if Questions and Answers have value to the Community of Users, then the OP should not have sole control over their fate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of marking in the title is to alert potential respondents that the OP no longer requires an answer.  That will discourage some (probably most)  users from answering.  Exactly what is marked (and where) is up for debate.  This is only a suggestion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="8cb85f1b-5e01-4fc4-be3b-d79d33c9d8b1" CreationDate="2016-06-26T23:16:18.657" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1385 characters in body" Text="I agree with JohnRennie's **original** view - that you should **not** delete your question -  especially if Answers have been posted.  Those Answers might be valuable to the people who posted them, as well as to the wider community.  They might be better than the Answers in the Question you are duplicating.  Comments can also provide valuable information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if no answers or comments have been posted yet, users might be preparing an Answer and it is very frustrating to have done all that work just to find that the Question has been deleted already.  (That has happened to me several times on other sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree that by **not** deleting and heading your question with a note that it is a duplicate, you did the best you could do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slight problem with this option is that you take the risk of attracting down-votes, which cost you rep.  That is unfair - you should not suffer from doing the right thing.  However, I think it might be difficult to alter the site programming to avoid such a penalty without leaving the rep system open to abuse (posting marked duplicate questions to gain upvotes without the risk of downvotes). Also, the cost is small (-2 per downvote) and few downvotes are likely to be cast if the question is already acknowledged to be a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a **tougher dilemma** occurs if you realise that the question is actually a stupid one, or is clearly &quot;off topic&quot;, hence is likely to (or starting to) attract many down-votes.  Should you delete it then, even if no Answers are posted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you should likewise mark it **in the title** eg &quot;Withdrawn - awaiting auto-deletion&quot; but not delete it, and again allow the system to delete it according to the auto-delete criteria.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is less of a case for doing this, compared with a duplicate question, since you are unlikely to have gotten any actual or pending Answers - just a lot of negative comments.  Nevertheless, I think it is best not to delete in this case also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE in response to Comment by ACuriousMind :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that, once the Question is posted, other users may acquire a stake in it.  For example, those who are typing/researching an Answer, and those who are debating it via comments or in the chatroom.  The OP may decide that he/she no longer requires an answer, or that the question is stupid, but that should not be decisive.  Others might disagree, suggest edits, and upvote it.  If there are no developments within 30 days, the clean-up process takes care of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This view is consistent with that expressed by dmckee that the purpose of Physics SE is not merely to satisfy users' immediate needs for explanations, but to build an archive of Answers for future use. If the only purpose of Physics SE is to satisfy the immediate needs of the OP, then of course the OP should do as he/she wishes, and delete even if Answers have been posted.  Furthermore, all questions might as well be deleted if the OPs no longer needs them.  But if Questions and Answers have value to the Community of Users, then the OP should not have sole control over their fate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of marking in the title is to alert potential respondents that the OP no longer requires an answer.  That will discourage some (probably most)  users from answering.  Exactly what is marked (and where) is up for debate.  This is only a suggestion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22648" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="d6aefe1a-dbe4-4909-818f-4458552ee8b5" CreationDate="2016-06-27T01:26:06.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/747239551052156929" />
  <row Id="22649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="3c03028a-4c88-4456-a8f1-728ba4158664" CreationDate="2016-06-27T02:02:01.283" UserId="114696" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I agree with JohnRennie's **original** view - that you should **not** delete your question -  especially if Answers have been posted.  Those Answers might be valuable to the people who posted them, as well as to the wider community.  They might be better than the Answers in the Question you are duplicating.  Comments can also provide valuable information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if no answers or comments have been posted yet, users might be preparing an Answer and it is very frustrating to have done all that work just to find that the Question has been deleted already.  (That has happened to me several times on other sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree that by **not** deleting and heading your question with a note that it is a duplicate, you did the best you could do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slight problem with this option is that you take the risk of attracting down-votes, which cost you rep.  That is unfair - you should not suffer from doing the right thing.  However, I think it might be difficult to alter the site programming to avoid such a penalty without leaving the rep system open to abuse (posting marked duplicate questions to gain upvotes without the risk of downvotes). Also, the cost is small (-2 per downvote) and few downvotes are likely to be cast if the question is already acknowledged to be a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a **tougher dilemma** occurs if you realise that the question is actually a stupid one, or is clearly &quot;off topic&quot;, hence is likely to (or starting to) attract many down-votes.  Should you delete it then, even if no Answers are posted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you should likewise mark it **in the title** eg &quot;Withdrawn - awaiting auto-deletion&quot; but not delete it, and again allow the system to delete it according to the auto-delete criteria.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is less of a case for doing this, compared with a duplicate question, since you are unlikely to have gotten any actual or pending Answers - just a lot of negative comments.  Nevertheless, I think it is best not to delete in this case also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE in response to Comment by ACuriousMind :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that, once the Question is posted, other users may acquire a stake in it.  For example, those who are typing/researching an Answer, and those who are debating it via comments or in the chatroom.  The OP may decide that he/she no longer requires an answer, or that the question is stupid, but that should not be decisive.  Others might disagree, suggest edits, and upvote it.  If there are no developments within 30 days, the clean-up process takes care of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This view is consistent with that expressed by dmckee that the purpose of Physics SE is not merely to satisfy users' immediate needs for explanations, but to build an archive of Answers for future reference. If the only purpose of Physics SE were to satisfy the immediate needs of the OP, then of course the OP should do as he/she wishes, and delete even if Answers have been posted.  Furthermore, all questions might as well be deleted if the OPs no longer need them.  But if Questions and Answers have value to the Community of Users, then the OP should not have sole control over their fate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of marking in the title is to alert potential respondents that the OP no longer requires an answer.  That will discourage some (probably most)  users from answering.  Exactly what is marked (and where) is up for debate.  This is only a suggestion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="0d7f9814-51a1-4c12-b6ad-387a2c83b9ad" CreationDate="2016-06-27T16:36:59.027" UserId="111951" Text="What is the positive question record in figure below?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0yd4Y.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="0d7f9814-51a1-4c12-b6ad-387a2c83b9ad" CreationDate="2016-06-27T16:36:59.027" UserId="111951" Text="What is the &quot;positive question record&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="0d7f9814-51a1-4c12-b6ad-387a2c83b9ad" CreationDate="2016-06-27T16:36:59.027" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="f5b22bc6-65f2-4d66-a0d8-b05491091a83" CreationDate="2016-06-27T17:58:19.797" UserId="114696" Comment="added 470 characters in body" Text="Fortunately I posted an Answer before your question was put On Hold.  This allowed me to develop it further without competition (or interest) from anyone else.  The challenge of the question is its own reward : I do not feel robbed without the bounty you would like to offer, particularly since I had no competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My disappointment with the On Hold decision is that it prevents any alternative solutions and contrary views from being explored, such as M Barbosa's vector approach.  Good Answers emerge from healthy debate.  The Up Votes show that it is a popular and slightly controversial question (perhaps Game of Thrones fans like you), so I would have expected at least 2 more Answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the consensus even among those who did not Vote to Close seems to be that the question is &quot;off topic&quot;.  Personally I disagree.  It is Applied Mathematics, and requires calculations of speed, time and distance - but so is any question on kinematics or projectile motion, which are &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the broader context of the question requires the development of an appropriate mathematical model, instead of being handed one on a plate.  This involves deciding which factors are the most significant, how they can be represented mathematically, and what approximations to make.  Seeing the different approaches and solutions that working physicists with different backgrounds bring to modelling the same situation can be very instructive for everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if those who did Vote to Close, or up-voted the &quot;off topic&quot; comment, were more willing to discuss where they think the boundary lies between what is on- and off-topic.  Or at least provided Answers to this Meta question.  Merely pointing you to the Help Center is not very helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cynically, I think M Barbosa is right : If you had replaced the Game of Thrones context with an artificial one using a few physics concepts - eg neutrinos being fired at neutrons which can somehow be steered left and right (you don't need to say how, just call it a Thought Experiment) - then I think it would never have been put On Hold! My own Answer goes a little in this direction by mentioning &quot;collision cross-section.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you might **include gravity in your model** (which is already there in the GoT scenario), making it explicitly a question about projectile motion.  You might also consider replacing the Newtonian Mechanics tag (which is not strictly applicable) with Applied Physics.  Finally, **flag the question for Moderator attention**, explaining what changes you've made and why you think it is now &quot;on topic&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no evidence that this would be successful.  I have appealed against the closure of several questions, without any success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since posting the above Answer, I now appreciate why the question is deemed off-topic by those who voted to close it. A change of terminology, or even focussing on projectile motion, would not have altered the decision, for the reasons given by ACuriousMind in his Answer. I think such problem-solving questions *should not* be off-topic for the site, but I agree that, as a matter of fact, according to the current site policy this one is off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="5c3208a3-1198-43a8-89db-4f4512a14daa" CreationDate="2016-06-27T23:45:30.110" UserId="8563" Text="This was answered in the comments, but to make it more formal: the documentation for this and all badges is in the help centre and in the cross-network [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com); in this case in [Asking days badges](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/234259/asking-days-badges). Quoting from there,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **positive question record**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         (total questions - negative questions - closed - deleted)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                                         /total questions &gt;= 0.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   It _triple counts_ a question that is downvoted, closed, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deleted. If you ask one that hits that trifecta, you'll need to ask&#xD;&#xA;&gt; three better questions to dig yourself out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And just to emphasise again, the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/) is the first place to check for these things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="fd6528eb-22e4-44df-9fd8-325cf4a94d2a" CreationDate="2016-06-28T11:20:10.927" UserId="1325" Comment="Extend answer" Text="No, you have done the right thing. With some many questions on the site it's very easy to miss the fact that a duplicate exists, and to be fair the site search isn't as great as it could be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't attach too much significance to the downvotes. It's easy to feel that downvotes are a personal criticism, but really they are just a statement that the question isn't appropriate for the site. Personally I don't downvote duplicates just because they are duplicates, though I know some site members feel differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting does remove the question from the site home page, so there is an argument that a question should be downvoted when we don't want it to appear there. Maybe that's why you have the two downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it's generally bad form to delete a question. I can't remember the reasons for this, but I'm sure I have seen comments from the moderators that in general questions shouldn't deleted. Just leave the question - there is an automated cleanup process for downvoted questions that springs into life after a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth you should be congratulated for responding to the duplicate link, reviewing the duplicate and deciding that your question is indeed answered by the existing one. Too many people just abandon their duplicate questions and leave it to the moderators to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A quick footnote to summarise David's comments below**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit hasty to suggest you shouldn't delete your question. The Stack Exchange has various checks to detect users who it thinks aren't being serious, and it will eventually block those users from asking any more questions. One of the criteria it uses is the number of times the user asks a question then deletes it - hence my vague memory that deleting your own questions is a bad thing. However deleting one question, or even a few questions, isn't likely to cause a problem. So you should feel free to delete your question if you want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A footnote to the footnote**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens the issue of how deleted questions affect your status has just arisen in the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8851/what-is-the-positive-question-record. This explains why having lots of deleted question is bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22656" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="1758632e-995e-459a-95dd-78816e97638a" CreationDate="2016-06-28T22:38:57.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/747922260300816384" />
  <row Id="22657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8853" RevisionGUID="0a9f5202-36b5-4c94-a2bf-456796bcad67" CreationDate="2016-06-29T07:51:12.510" UserId="118178" Text="It's my impression that the ones that show least effort are the ones that don't get closed.&#xD;&#xA;Posts with 1, 2 or 3 sentences, either why? how? or what?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why do we want the 2-form ω to be closed? What if it is not?* (quoted in full)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Why is there no factor of 1/2 in the lagrangian ..*?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*What is the irreducible decomposition of the tensor product of left and right weyl spinor...*?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*From Goldstein's Classical Mechanics (2nd ed.), problem 38 of chapter 9 ...*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not supposed to help kids with their homework, but papers for university students, that's ok? That they live on a campus doesn't mean it's not homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about pulleys and weights, about velocity and acceleration, about momentum and collisions, etc.. are also physics. Wouldn't be too much work to sort them, create a decent overview, and display a prominent message when people want to register, telling them such questions are no longer accepted because there is a complete overview available, with link. But a collection of questions without clear and complete answers is useless, so that's not an option..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="a94d0649-c384-45c4-a1db-cb76a15cb01f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T10:44:07.230" UserDisplayName="user118752" Text="Why is there a complete homework and exercise tag, when all the question asked under that category are termed as of topic. This tab accounts as the second largest tab but still the moderators down vote and also mark the topics under this tag even after providing a complete attempt done by the person who is asking the question. Why don't you people just discard the tag of 'homework and exercise'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second thing, do even conceptual question account for homework and exercise questions?  Recently I just asked a simple question, whether the force in some direction should be zero or not, i even  presented my own view and I didn't even ask the PSE to give me the complete answer to the question(I had only written the conceptual part in which I was facing problem) which I wanted to solve, still the question was regarded as belonging to homework and exercises. Pretty much abstruse!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="a94d0649-c384-45c4-a1db-cb76a15cb01f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T10:44:07.230" UserDisplayName="user118752" Text="Homework and Exercise Tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="a94d0649-c384-45c4-a1db-cb76a15cb01f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T10:44:07.230" UserDisplayName="user118752" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="227a3faa-4d18-40be-bdcb-17dbce5ab71b" CreationDate="2016-06-29T10:48:22.860" UserId="2451" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="1. Why is there a complete homework and exercise tag, when all the question asked under that category are termed as off-topic. This tab accounts as the second largest tab but still the moderators down vote and also mark the topics under this tag even after providing a complete attempt done by the person who is asking the question. Why don't you people just discard the tag of 'homework and exercise'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Second thing, do even conceptual question account for homework and exercise questions?  Recently I just asked a simple question, whether the force in some direction should be zero or not, i even  presented my own view and I didn't even ask the PSE to give me the complete answer to the question(I had only written the conceptual part in which I was facing problem) which I wanted to solve, still the question was regarded as belonging to homework and exercises. Pretty much abstruse!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="227a3faa-4d18-40be-bdcb-17dbce5ab71b" CreationDate="2016-06-29T10:48:22.860" UserId="2451" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8855" RevisionGUID="20937aec-c034-459d-94df-a1b98d2a082a" CreationDate="2016-06-29T12:29:37.073" UserId="124" Text="The tag exists for people who don't want to see homework-motivated questions. They can ignore the tag to filter those questions out of their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As people pointed out in the comments, your premise that all [tag:homework-and-exercises] questions are off topic is false. There are questions which are on topic and yet should have the tag, but it takes some care to ask such a question. In summary, it needs to ask about a concept (i.e. not for an answer or a procedure) and it needs to show how the concept in question emerges in the process of solving the problem. (This is part of what we consider &quot;effort&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, our homework policy is changing soon. Perhaps at that point, we will get rid of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="5244ed82-1d9d-438d-a8f8-e47ac119c0f9" CreationDate="2016-06-29T18:34:38.337" UserId="83398" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="The help message that comes up when asking a question says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a lot of homework questions that show a _huge_ amount of effort. Sometimes, they even have disclaimers attached, like, &quot;look! I showed absolutely everything I did, please don't close&quot;. We even get questions on meta where people are confused about why their homework question was closed (see [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy), [3](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here), [4](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8854/homework-and-exercise-tag)) when they read the policy and showed effort just as it said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a problem with wording. The 'show some effort' clause comes second, is shorter, and sounds more final, making it stick in people's heads better. But our actual homework policy (i.e. the de facto community standards, not the blurb) emphasizes the first clause a lot more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a rewording of the blurb to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Don't just tell us you're confused; tell us why you're confused, and what you've tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't change anything about our policies, but I bet it would decrease the amount of questions we have to close. Does this sound effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="a6e655dc-aded-4238-b398-0d179c9f5c69" CreationDate="2016-06-29T20:29:34.370" UserId="8563" Comment="Improved reference for better findability." Text="I personally don't have that much patience for this sort of hullaballoo, which seems to come and go periodically. Nevertheless we do play a role in it, and I think it's important that we respond to these sorts of questions appropriately. The flow goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Scientist comes up with crazy idea, and (a bit surprisingly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - actually comes up with some plausible-looking maths that merit a closer look, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - they send it off to a journal, and it passes peer-review with referee comments along the lines of &quot;don't think it will take off, but this much is technically sound and worth publishing so people can find why exactly it won't work, maybe we'll learn something in the process&quot;. However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the journal's publicity department doesn't see the referee report and, caught by the trendy title and snazzy possibilities in the abstract, ships it off to a trendy news outlet mentioning the snazzy possibilities and dropping all the qualifiers behind the result, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - it gets reported on some credible news site, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a bunch of readers get confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our role is to stop it right there. Point out that it depends on frictionless cows and spherical surfaces. Give precise pointers to why the Established Theory does work and to the Mountain of Evidence that supports it. Explain why the new theory needs to explain a substantial fraction of that Mountain of Evidence before we'll start taking it as a real candidate for What Actually Happens in the World.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, we sort of need to interrupt the science news cycle pointed out by PhD Comics' Jorge Cham,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The Science News Cycle - from PhD Comics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zM20b.png)](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about halfway through. We want it to look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zj2qJ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the paper in question is indeed a peer-reviewed journal publication, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the paper in question does initially contradict a well established theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we should be a bit more lax in terms of keeping these questions open. A few comments on the usual close reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;It's non-mainstream&quot;** doesn't hold if it's actually in a peer-reviewed publication, because of [how we structure that in the first place](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's unclear what you're asking** is a pretty high bar for something like this. It's often the case that *we* as professional physicists are confused by one of these, and it takes us time to get to grips with what the paper is saying. For a student or someone in the general public, we should set a slightly lower bar if they see something in mainstream media which is backed up by a peer-reviewed publication, and are simply confused about how credible it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's primarily opinion-based** and it most likely will remain so, with anything that's speculative like this. We do need to make an effort to keep it concise and to the point, but I think this is effort we need to make on keeping the answers trim and as low on discussion as possible, rather than something that makes us close the question immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for the long, rambly post. Feel free to shoot me down with reasoned arguments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22666" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="27366deb-e078-4ba5-b9d0-2f3382190c17" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:45:02.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/748422075891724289" />
  <row Id="22667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="b779b909-d35c-467f-8992-c8b20d14583f" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:10:24.180" UserId="111951" Text="If a user offers some bounty for his own question and awards it, can he offer bounty for the same question again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="b779b909-d35c-467f-8992-c8b20d14583f" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:10:24.180" UserId="111951" Text="Can a question be offered for bounty twice by a same user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="b779b909-d35c-467f-8992-c8b20d14583f" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:10:24.180" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8857" RevisionGUID="6730ea02-e8e7-4aa5-994c-033fc7983fc9" CreationDate="2016-06-30T11:10:28.810" UserId="8563" Text="Yes, questions (and answers) can be awarded multiple bounties, both by multiple users and by the same user. Examples can be found using [this Data Explorer query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/406949/answers-awarded-multiple-bounties)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8857" RevisionGUID="77ee8a45-ee10-4545-80e4-bd4d129abafb" CreationDate="2016-06-30T11:50:10.277" UserId="8563" Comment="added 365 characters in body" Text="Yes, questions (and answers) can be awarded multiple bounties, both by multiple users and by the same user. Examples can be found using the Stack Exchange Data Explorer queries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Answers awarded multiple bounties](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/406949/answers-awarded-multiple-bounties)&#xD;&#xA; - [Questions with multiple bounties by any users](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/506465/questions-with-multiple-bounties-by-any-users)&#xD;&#xA; - [Questions with multiple bounties by the same user](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/506472/questions-with-multiple-bounties-by-the-same-user)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="6465b810-46f4-4168-9cea-a8626d4325ce" CreationDate="2016-06-30T12:41:12.890" UserId="101770" Text="I have been looking at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations which is a catalogue of links to resource recommendation questions. For me it has been (in combination with the individual resource recommendations that are linked in the wiki) one of the most useful things on physics.SE. So thank you to the creators! I absolutely love it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wanted to ask if it is still getting updated?** I've found a few questions that would maybe fit in quite well (although I'm not sure what the criteria are exactly are other than &quot;not too specialised&quot;). Just to give a few of the questions that don't seem to be listed and seem to fit the criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maths: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127376/resources-for-theory-of-distributions-generalized-functions-for-physicists&#xD;&#xA; - QFT: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft/41601#41601&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-question seems related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was there a conclusion/decision about the topic? It doesn't seem to say in the meta-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="6465b810-46f4-4168-9cea-a8626d4325ce" CreationDate="2016-06-30T12:41:12.890" UserId="101770" Text="Does the resource catalogue question still get updated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="6465b810-46f4-4168-9cea-a8626d4325ce" CreationDate="2016-06-30T12:41:12.890" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8859" RevisionGUID="29bd719d-808e-4977-8d2b-9597d2a42576" CreationDate="2016-06-30T13:16:00.313" UserId="124" Text="You can certainly add links into the answer there, but I don't think it's a comprehensive list anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original idea was that only resource recommendation questions of the form &quot;books at [level] about [subject]&quot; would be allowed, where &quot;[subject]&quot; would be one of the big fields like thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, quantum field theory, etc. That meant the number of resource recommendation questions would be quite limited, and they could all be listed in one question. But at some point, the community changed its mind in favor of allowing a much broader variety of resource recommendation questions. Given that, it's no longer practical to have a complete list in one place. That's why we haven't really bothered to keep the master recommendation question up to date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="2ebcd8be-ed05-42bc-88df-4bedd381b845" CreationDate="2016-06-30T13:18:16.140" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 135 characters in body" Text="I have been looking at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations which is a catalogue of links to resource recommendation questions. For me it has been (in combination with the individual resource recommendations that are linked in the wiki) one of the most useful things on physics.SE. So thank you to the creators! I absolutely love it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wanted to ask if it is still getting updated?** I've found a few questions that would maybe fit in quite well (although I'm not sure what the criteria are exactly are other than &quot;not too specialised&quot;). Just to give a few of the questions that don't seem to be listed and seem to fit the criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maths: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127376&#xD;&#xA; - QFT: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-question seems related: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was there a conclusion/decision about the topic? It doesn't seem to say in the meta-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="c4d895ae-923d-41bd-a87e-6947a117f1a2" CreationDate="2016-06-30T14:08:26.080" UserId="8563" Text="If you want to know if it's still being updated, the [edit history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/12176/revisions) will tell you what's been going on there lately. There's some activity there, but really not that much compared to the activity of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've advocated before, the overall books question is of rather limited utility when compared to the site's advanced search features. If you're looking for highly-upvoted questions about topic X in the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag, then [you can simply search for topic X in conjunction with the [resource-recommendations] syntax, and order by votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=topic+X+%5Bresource-recommendations%5D). It's not immediately as useful as the overarching books question - you do need to adjust your search to what you're looking or browsing for - but with some search-fu you can get a lot of good stuff that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the searches don't get you a curated list of recommendation questions. The reason for this is that there hasn't been enough interest from the community in *curating* such a list. The tag itself takes a fair amount of work to curate (as per the [site policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/)) and it took ages to bring the old posts in line with the new policy (which I think is mostly done now?). However, there haven't been any volunteers to commit time to the upkeep of that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that were to change, though, I don't think anyone would mind much, at least at the start (particularly provided that the edits to the overarching question are relatively infrequent, so it's not on the front page *all* the time). So if you, or someone else, wants to dig in and make that list answer better - go for it, it's a community project. Just don't complain that the answer is being neglected if you're not personally willing to take charge of its maintenance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="3ccdbd9c-32c8-4279-bf84-69a638b14a99" CreationDate="2016-06-30T15:36:51.000" UserId="111951" Text="Form [Help Center:][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;But this happened for [my answer.][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I6h75.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/252725/stable-sides-of-polygon-objects/252810#252810&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wtePG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="3ccdbd9c-32c8-4279-bf84-69a638b14a99" CreationDate="2016-06-30T15:36:51.000" UserId="111951" Text="Acceptance of an answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="3ccdbd9c-32c8-4279-bf84-69a638b14a99" CreationDate="2016-06-30T15:36:51.000" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="f5ab1ff9-4973-46e6-a993-54f8e6998eef" CreationDate="2016-06-30T15:53:53.680" UserId="1325" Text="I think this is just a misinterpretation of the language used. The phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;they may not change the accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doesn't mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;they **cannot** change the accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;they **might** not change the accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means that even if a better answer comes along the OP isn't necessarily going to change which answer they have accepted. They may not think the new answer is better, or they may simply have abandoned the site and never returned to check for new answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have had answers of mine unaccepted months or I think even years after they were originally accepted. There is no time limit for an OP to change which of the answers to their question they accept." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="bb0c0681-c7de-4617-b6ba-9ef031b59a5f" CreationDate="2016-06-30T22:05:07.197" UserId="114696" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum qualification in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 10 votes (net) seems good to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="dbfe1690-ed22-4146-9b8a-8dc8bb2712cf" CreationDate="2016-06-30T22:27:40.757" UserId="114696" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum qualification in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 10 votes (net) seems good to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="e3d88f07-26b6-4ed1-96be-576e3f6439dd" CreationDate="2016-06-30T22:34:42.513" UserId="114696" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum education in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 10 votes (net) seems good to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions, and unable to understand the level of physics which high-rep users ask about. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="ddd7391b-09de-41ac-bbaf-579116891350" CreationDate="2016-07-01T01:24:44.860" UserId="118178" Text="It's indeed a template issue, as Hammen writes. The edit histories of both pages and templates are preserved, but the old pages are displayed using the current templates. Which makes some sense from an editor's perspective: you see what the page will look like when/if you restore that version. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some wikimedia extensions can display old pages with the old templates:  [BackwardsTimeTravel][1], which implements it for history pages, and the [Memento extension][2], supporting the Memento protocol which allows you to browse the web at a chosen date in the past (or at least that small part of the web that supports the protocol). Not available on wikipedia or other wikimedia sites however, the only website listed is w3.org. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the use of such a poorly designed template seems more problematic. A missing or wrong template should not result in a different value being shown, and there is already a template offering way more formatting options that doesn't have that problem, [Val][3]: {{val|3.14e4}} will display 3.14 x 10&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; when the template can be found, and nothing or an error message otherwise, but it won't display only 3.14. &quot;Val&quot; has plenty of people maintaining it, &quot;Esp&quot; seems to have been the work of one person who wanted a tiny bit more space between the x and the 10. Fortunately it's not popular, when the redirect was re-targeted in Aug 2015, it was used 76 times on wikipedia, 48 of those were in the article mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BackwardsTimeTravel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Memento&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Val" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22686" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="1799f913-39cc-477d-9c15-0f01a318090a" CreationDate="2016-07-01T04:46:58.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/748739651670642690" />
  <row Id="22687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="8ac5b4c8-9190-4191-b38f-e97a5f8f1c65" CreationDate="2016-07-01T06:32:40.930" UserId="1492" Text="This question [Thus, what mediates the electric interaction between two particles][1] which in the question essentially asks: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QTF experts say that there are no virtual particles, they are just a calculation trick. So, ok, no particle mediates the electrostatic interaction, what mediates it then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was given as a duplicate the &quot;[deriving the coulomb force equation from the idea of photon exchange][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the reference I do not think that the OP will be wiser even though there is a clear derivation of the coulomb force from tree level, it does not address simply  the &quot;mediation&quot; question,  and is , imo, way over the level of the original  OP's background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It boils down on whether one wants layman or beginning physics questions here. It is not just the titles that should declare duplication, and I think that , as in this example, the people who jump on the &quot;duplicate&quot; choice have not really read the content of the one they propose in order  to check if it is on the physics background level of  the original questioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265593/thus-what-mediates-the-electric-interaction-between-two-electrons&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="8ac5b4c8-9190-4191-b38f-e97a5f8f1c65" CreationDate="2016-07-01T06:32:40.930" UserId="1492" Text="precipitate duplicate declaration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="8ac5b4c8-9190-4191-b38f-e97a5f8f1c65" CreationDate="2016-07-01T06:32:40.930" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="f6d971d9-20a6-4bab-b7c1-463b4da65a88" CreationDate="2016-07-01T07:53:16.593" UserId="1325" Text="I have to say that I disagree. The question is a clear duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange. I take your point that the answers to that question are somewhat technical, but the solution is to add a less technical answer to the existing question not to leave the duplicate open. I note also that the duplicate does link to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange and that has some more accessible answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="5f5da4ec-83c1-4231-b428-2ce14d6ee2bf" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:05:21.017" UserId="1492" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I have to say that I disagree. The question is a clear duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange. I take your point that the answers to that question are somewhat technical, but the solution is to add a less technical answer to the existing question not to leave the duplicate open. I note also that the duplicate does link to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2244/the-exchange-of-photons-gives-rise-to-the-electromagnetic-force and that has some more accessible answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="efc427b3-5333-4b0d-9ae3-b87c2aaeb591" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:43:47.727" UserId="114696" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum education in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 5 votes (net) seems reasonable to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.  However, I don't think many of us ask or answer questions just for the rep.  The incentive will have little effect except encouraging those who are chasing rep to post good questions which they have found on other sites, or even on this site but with sufficient change of wording and tags to avoid obvious detection as a duplicate.  The penalty will be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions, and unable to understand the level of physics which high-rep users ask about. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="8221d3f2-b85e-4f96-95fd-9089522ac2b1" CreationDate="2016-07-01T14:11:54.537" UserId="118178" Comment="longer answer to Emilio" Text="It's indeed a template issue, as Hammen writes. The edit histories of both pages and templates are preserved, but the old pages are displayed using the current templates. Which makes some sense from an editor's perspective: you see what the page will look like when/if you restore that version. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some wikimedia extensions can display old pages with the old templates:  [BackwardsTimeTravel][1], which implements it for history pages, and the [Memento extension][2], supporting the Memento protocol which allows you to browse the web at a chosen date in the past (or at least that small part of the web that supports the protocol). Not available on wikipedia or other wikimedia sites however, the only website listed is w3.org. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the use of such a poorly designed template seems more problematic. A missing or wrong template should not result in a different value being shown, and there is already a template offering way more formatting options that doesn't have that problem, [Val][3]: {{val|3.14e4}} will display 3.14 x 10&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; when the template can be found, and nothing or an error message otherwise, but it won't display only 3.14. &quot;Val&quot; has plenty of people maintaining it, &quot;Esp&quot; seems to have been the work of one person who wanted a tiny bit more space between the x and the 10. Fortunately it's not popular, when the redirect was re-targeted in Aug 2015, it was used 76 times on wikipedia, 48 of those were in the article mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I doubt that raising these issues at wikipedia (one of the [village pumps][4], policy pages?, noticeboards?, [Jimmy Wales's talk page][5]) would have any impact, because:&lt;br&gt;- editors are already aware that old pages may not appear correctly&lt;br&gt;- they usually look at the wikitext rather than the rendered page&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- all the content is in this case still available, so verification is still possible&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source, so concerns about using it as source, especially using the old versions as source won't carry much weight &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- link-rot is a big problem, many of the sources used in old pages won't work anymore, making the incorrect display of the content a rather minor issue in comparison&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- wikipedia doesn't keep all history: old versions of deleted pages and templates can't be retrieved, so the problem will always exist. Making these available to editors is on the list of perennial proposals, always comes back and always rejected. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- a proposal to install the memento extension could get some support, but there is so much criticism about almost every technical development coming from the WMF that most would prefer that they first fix all the existing problems (visual editor etc...)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Basically, I don't think it would be considered an issue, at least not more than it was already. Most editors have a list of improvements they want to see, things that help editors (better wikipedia search for example). While this could make it somewhat easier to view old pages, editors look mostly at diffs (differences between versions), which are shown in wikitext anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- on second thought, I may have overstated the &quot;risks&quot; of such a badly designed template. Problems with templates are more typically caused by editors pushing changes in existing templates against concensus. This one is used on some 40 articles, all about astronomy it seems. Probably the persons who wrote it, so they will be alerted when anything happens to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BackwardsTimeTravel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Memento&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Val&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="19aac4cc-61a4-415e-a268-105463005fe6" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:24:48.540" UserId="78942" Text="Today I had some issues regarding an answer (now deleted) that I encountered in the Low Quality queue. [The question][1] asked for clarification about a solution by Michael A. Gottlieb, and included a screenshot of that solution without its copyright notice. The reviewed answer recommended to ask Michael A. Gottlieb. I marked the answer to recommend deletion, before noticing that the answer was written by Michael A. Gottlieb himself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards, I got a notification of a comment to my review (I didn't know those existed) from Gottlieb, who asked me to remove the copyrighted material. I edited out the screenshot and flagged the question with a custom flag. I also commented Gottlieb that he should have edited the question and/or contacted the mods, instead of posting a non-answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the answer has been converted to a comment by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question about this incident are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;* In a [previous meta answer][2], DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;* The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265664/virtual-work-problem-from-feynmans-tips-on-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4613/78942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="19aac4cc-61a4-415e-a268-105463005fe6" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:24:48.540" UserId="78942" Text="Deleting copyrighted material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="19aac4cc-61a4-415e-a268-105463005fe6" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:24:48.540" UserId="78942" Text="|discussion|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8869" RevisionGUID="f9c4fe60-e762-4cad-bc41-0086f44d51fa" CreationDate="2016-07-01T21:35:49.993" UserId="124" Text="Hm. Well, this is a complicated situation because there are a bunch of individual problems to fix, none of which are really related to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- First, the main issue on your mind: the possible copyright infringement. I'm not a lawyer and not an official representative of SE, so I can't really give an _authoritative_ answer to this, but the following is my understanding based on what I've heard and read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    When you see content on SE that you suspect is infringing copyright, you _may_, if you wish, track down the copyright owner and let them know about the infringement. **Otherwise, you should do nothing about copyright infringement.** It's pointless to alert the mods (we legally can't do anything about it), and also pointless to alert the SE team (they legally can't do anything about it), actively harmful to edit it out if copyright infringement is the reason for the edit (but you can edit it out for other reasons, see below), etc etc etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Basically, once you have either notified the copyright owner or decided not to do so, you should completely _ignore_ the fact that the content may be infringing someone's copyright. You can then proceed to deal with other problems that the content may have, just as you would if there were no issue of copyright at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Now that you're not thinking about copyright, the likely next problem to check for is plagiarism. We have [rules about referencing material](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing) taken from other sources, whether that material is an idea, a quotation, a screen capture, or whatever. As a rough summary, the rules amount to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. Any substantial content or original idea taken from an external source should be attributed to that source&#xD;&#xA;    2. Anything that is _copied_ from an external source must be identified as being copied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Violation of our referencing rules constitutes plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you see content that qualifies as plagiarism, you're welcome to fix it yourself. If you know the source and can edit in the attribution required to bring it in line with the rules, go right ahead and do that. Otherwise, if the content isn't essential to the post, you can edit it out. Otherwise, you can always flag for mod attention and let us figure it out. (Especially if you notice someone repeatedly or blatantly plagiarizing, you should bring it to the mods' attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Do keep in mind that when you make any edits or cast any flags of this sort, you are dealing with a _plagiarism_ problem. _Not_ a copyright problem. The two do often go together - when someone plagiarizes, they are often also committing copyright infringement - but you should ignore the copyright issue and only deal with the plagiarism. Don't mention copyright in your flags or your edit summaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In the specific case you're asking about, the source of the content in the picture was not identified, so I would consider that an instance of plagiarism. It would be an easy one to fix by editing in a link to the source, assuming you knew the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There's yet another problem in the post, which is that one should never post an image with textual content. Or in other words, anything that can be typed out should be typed out, not posted as an image. Again, this is an easy one to fix: when you see an image of text, just transcribe the text. When it's a mix of text and pictures, crop the image to include only the parts that you really can't type out and upload the cropped version in place of the original, in the same edit where you type out the text you cropped out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your individual questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hopefully I covered this above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; In a previous meta answer, DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well, as long as lawyers are not involved, we don't consider screenshots to be materially different from quotations. In fact screenshots should be replaced with quotations whenever possible, as I said above. If the lawyers do get involved, it's up to a court to determine whether they're different, and whether either of them qualifies as fair use. In any case, fair use is a copyright thing, and to really underscore my point that we do not and cannot care about copyright, I'm going to refrain from giving my opinion as to whether this constitutes fair use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The only reason we might care if something like this is visible in the edit history is copyright infringement - but again, we should not worry about copyright infringement. So we should not do anything about the content being visible in the edit history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8869" RevisionGUID="98d29fa4-4cdf-4f73-b27a-bb09eea630cc" CreationDate="2016-07-02T00:34:32.260" UserId="124" Comment="clarify claims" Text="Hm. Well, this is a complicated situation because there are a bunch of individual problems to fix, none of which are really related to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- First, the main issue on your mind: the possible copyright infringement. I'm not a lawyer and not an official representative of SE, so I can't really give an _authoritative_ answer to this, but the following is my understanding based on what I've heard and read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    When you see content on SE that you suspect is infringing copyright, **you are not required to do anything about it.** The best thing you _can_ do is alert the copyright owner, since it's their responsibility to deal with infringements of their copyright. They have the legal authority to force a response from SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It's pointless to alert the mods; we won't, and perhaps legally can't, do anything about it. You could try bringing it to the attention of the SE team, but they may or may not do anything about it. You shouldn't edit it out, not if copyright infringement is the reason for the edit, because you're not qualified to make a legal judgement on whether a claim of copyright infringement is valid. (But you can edit it out for other reasons - see below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    For a TL;DR of sorts: once you have either notified the copyright owner or decided not to do so, the recommended course of action completely _ignore_ the fact that the content may be infringing someone's copyright. You can then proceed to deal with other problems that the content may have, just as you would if there were no issue of copyright at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Now that you're not thinking about copyright, the likely next problem to check for is plagiarism. We have [rules about referencing material](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing) taken from other sources, whether that material is an idea, a quotation, a screen capture, or whatever. As a rough summary, the rules amount to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. Any substantial content or original idea taken from an external source should be attributed to that source&#xD;&#xA;    2. Anything that is _copied_ from an external source must be identified as being copied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Violation of our referencing rules constitutes plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you see content that qualifies as plagiarism, you're welcome to fix it yourself. If you know the source and can edit in the attribution required to bring it in line with the rules, go right ahead and do that. Otherwise, if the content isn't essential to the post, you can edit it out. Otherwise, you can always flag for mod attention and let us figure it out. (Especially if you notice someone repeatedly or blatantly plagiarizing, you should bring it to the mods' attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Do keep in mind that when you make any edits or cast any flags of this sort, you are dealing with a _plagiarism_ problem. _Not_ a copyright problem. The two do often go together - when someone plagiarizes, they are often also committing copyright infringement - but you should ignore the copyright issue and only deal with the plagiarism. Don't mention copyright in your flags or your edit summaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In the specific case you're asking about, the source of the content in the picture was not identified, so I would consider that an instance of plagiarism. It would be an easy one to fix by editing in a link to the source, assuming you knew the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There's yet another problem in the post, which is that one should never post an image with textual content. Or in other words, anything that can be typed out should be typed out, not posted as an image. Again, this is an easy one to fix: when you see an image of text, just transcribe the text. When it's a mix of text and pictures, crop the image to include only the parts that you really can't type out and upload the cropped version in place of the original, in the same edit where you type out the text you cropped out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your individual questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hopefully I covered this above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; In a previous meta answer, DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well, as long as lawyers are not involved, we don't consider screenshots to be materially different from quotations. In fact screenshots should be replaced with quotations whenever possible, as I said above. If the lawyers do get involved, it's up to a court to determine whether they're different, and whether either of them qualifies as fair use. In any case, fair use is a copyright thing, and to really underscore my point that we do not and cannot care about copyright, I'm going to refrain from giving my opinion as to whether this constitutes fair use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The only reason we might care if something like this is visible in the edit history is copyright infringement - but again, we should not worry about copyright infringement. So we should not do anything about the content being visible in the edit history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="339fd574-0289-4747-b394-58df81742f14" CreationDate="2016-07-02T17:28:22.720" UserId="114696" Comment="added 812 characters in body" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum education in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 5 votes (net) seems reasonable to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.  However, I don't think many of us ask or answer questions just for the rep.  The incentive will have little effect except encouraging those who are chasing rep to post good questions which they have found on other sites, or even on this site but with sufficient change of wording and tags to avoid obvious detection as a duplicate.  The penalty will be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions, and unable to understand the level of physics which high-rep users ask about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not a new one.  See :http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that Meta Question, posted 3 years ago, which currently has 28 up-votes, Dilaton writes :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The About of Physics SE still says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So : What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople questions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... If the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="590f44f9-62ce-40a6-b04e-03d213fffd65" CreationDate="2016-07-03T14:34:00.143" UserId="4993" Text="I do not understand why &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264708/special-relativity-problem-whats-wrong-here&quot;&gt;this elementary question&lt;/a&gt; was closed.  The official reason calls it a &quot;homework-like question&quot; and asks the poster to &quot;show some effort&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue about whether this is homework-like (though it seems clear to me that this is not an assigned problem, but rather something the poster stumbled upon while, quite admirably, attempting to invent and work out an illustrative example).  But surely it shows an appropriate level of effort.  The OP used the relativistic momentum formula (not the Newtonian formula as alleged in a comment) to compute momentum in an unambiguously defined frame before and after an explosion, came up with different numbers, is disturbed that momentum appears not to be conserved, and wants to know what's wrong here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the OP did all the relevant calculations, what additional effort was expected of him?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="590f44f9-62ce-40a6-b04e-03d213fffd65" CreationDate="2016-07-03T14:34:00.143" UserId="4993" Text="Why Was This Elementary Question Closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="590f44f9-62ce-40a6-b04e-03d213fffd65" CreationDate="2016-07-03T14:34:00.143" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="088af8f0-98ba-40df-bac2-c1e7e88c89ca" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:04:40.900" UserId="52112" Text="[This question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8861/acceptance-of-an-answer) identified a grammatically incorrect phrase in the [What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer) help center page. (Note: This particular page appears to be used across the stackexchange network. The problem is endemic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, there's no edit button that lets one propose a change to a Help Center page. In fact, from what I can see, there's no feedback mechanism, period. My question isn't about that particular page. It's more generic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is there a mechanism by which mere mortals can suggest improvements to Help Center pages*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="088af8f0-98ba-40df-bac2-c1e7e88c89ca" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:04:40.900" UserId="52112" Text="How to suggest edits for help center pages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="088af8f0-98ba-40df-bac2-c1e7e88c89ca" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:04:40.900" UserId="52112" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="b52a2094-579b-46bb-87b7-430ac04b79b5" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:34:25.403" UserId="52112" Text="&gt; Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You understood the underlined clause, *they may not change the accepted answer*, perfectly. That clause is in the present tense and uses *may* as a modal verb to denote permission (or in this case, the denial of permission). Since questioners are allowed to change the selected answer, the clause is grammatically incorrect. The clause should have been phrased in the past perfect rather than the present tense, and because it reflects a possibility that might or might not have happened, it should use *might* rather than *may*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A correct rewording is *they might not have changed the accepted answer*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="80aaa9aa-a998-468c-9f6f-981f8e12fabc" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:46:11.777" UserId="124" Text="You're making a couple of common mistakes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You are incorrectly assuming that the question was closed for not showing enough effort. There are two main points to the (summary of the) homework policy: (1) show effort **and** (2) **ask a specific conceptual question**. I see no way for you to know that it was the effort criterion that caused this question to get closed.&#xD;&#xA;- It seems you are incorrectly assuming that the homework policy only applies to _assigned_ questions. It does not. It applies to all questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the problem is done, not in getting the answer itself. This is the _first sentence_ of the full [homework policy](/questions/714).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... seriously, _read_ the policy before you complain about how it's not being followed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You caught me at a moment of low patience. Sorry for the brusqueness, but I stand by the underlying point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, you could argue that this _is_ a conceptual question: asking _why_ the Newtonian formula for momentum doesn't work. I could see that being a valid argument for reopening the question. It's still not a particularly well written question, and could do with some editing before getting reopened, but I think there is an argument to be made that it's fine; just not the argument you happened to put forth in this meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8874" RevisionGUID="2ef303cf-3832-4b3e-b3e4-0a8b0d434805" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:48:08.160" UserId="124" Text="Your best bet is probably the &quot;contact us&quot; link in the footer, which sends a message directly to the people at Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also ask a moderator about it in chat, and we can pass on the message for you, but that's less direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you could make a post on [mother meta](//meta.stackexchange.com), where it will benefit from the attention of the entire SE network - at least, those who care enough to check in on that site. If the post gets enough support, it will (again) come to the attention of the SE team and perhaps they will fix it. This is probably better for contentious changes or those that might need some discussion to figure out the correct course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a couple small exceptions, mods don't have the ability to edit the help center ourselves. It's standardized across all sites and has to be done at the &quot;top level&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8875" RevisionGUID="d127ee5c-51aa-4894-9d53-e7e9cc10c286" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:53:55.783" UserId="1325" Text="This was going to be a comment, but it got a bit long winded (as usual for me :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The initial version of the question was rubbish and was rightly closed in accordance with our policy. It has since been edited and now I think it's a lot better. Indeed when it's reopened (as it surely will be) I'll be interested in answering (assuming someone doesn't beat me to it). I think it will be a nice demonstration of why we use four-vectors in SR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the mods are going to let us do the voting to reopen, but as it's already got two reopen votes the (re)opening ceremony shouldn't be far off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="8b13af8a-0977-432f-a657-dd6489b8c011" CreationDate="2016-07-03T16:18:54.007" UserId="52112" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&gt; Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You understood the underlined clause, *they may not change the accepted answer*, perfectly. That clause is in the present tense and uses *may* as a modal verb to denote permission (or in this case, the denial of permission). Since questioners are allowed to change the selected answer, the clause is grammatically incorrect. The clause should have been phrased in the present perfect tense rather than the present tense, and because it reflects a possibility that might or might not have happened, it should use *might* rather than *may*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A correct rewording is *they might not have changed the accepted answer*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="28b22023-d4d4-4f2c-92a5-df6e73c7917b" CreationDate="2016-07-04T08:30:28.947" UserId="124" Comment="improve wording" Text="I can't say why it _was_ closed since I'm not the one who closed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But... as I understand it, the argument you make here is that (1) the homework policy perhaps shouldn't apply to the question in the first place, and (2) the question did show enough effort not to be closed. That's true, but it's not a valid argument against closing the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The homework policy applies to all questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the problem is done, not in getting the answer itself. Not only to assigned questions. In fact this is the _first sentence_ of the full [homework policy](/questions/714).&#xD;&#xA;2. There are two main points to the (summary of the) homework policy: (1) show effort **and** (2) **ask a specific conceptual question**. This question shows effort, yes, but you _also_ have to consider whether it's asking a conceptual question (as opposed to how to do the problem, what's the next step, or similar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, you could argue that this _is_ a conceptual question: asking _why_ the Newtonian formula for momentum doesn't work. I could see that being a valid argument for reopening the question. It's still not a particularly well written question, and could do with some editing before getting reopened, but I think there is an argument to be made that it's fine; just not the argument you happened to put forth in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to directly answer your question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given that the OP did all the relevant calculations, what additional effort was expected of him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None. But that's not the whole story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22716" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="def1901a-1899-4899-9e56-62e4327f8613" CreationDate="2016-07-04T20:04:19.807" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22717" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="2b89a454-5a6e-4b18-bf60-87ac152c7fed" CreationDate="2016-07-04T20:04:19.807" UserId="124" Comment="1025" />
  <row Id="22719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="443bb371-7c58-4c38-a3e6-2b84abf0cae3" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:26:52.833" UserId="101770" Text="The question in question is: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265027/what-is-the-optimal-distance-to-sit-from-a-tv&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see how there are several issues with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could argue that it is **off-topic** because it does *not only* involve physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Some people commented that the question is **too broad**, which I can also understand partially. There may be a variety of answers to it based on different phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can *not* understand is how it is not clear what I am asking. The question is asking to explain an observation, and that observation is clear. Please explain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="443bb371-7c58-4c38-a3e6-2b84abf0cae3" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:26:52.833" UserId="101770" Text="How is my TV question &quot;unclear what you are asking&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="443bb371-7c58-4c38-a3e6-2b84abf0cae3" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:26:52.833" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="fe409182-6f75-4485-8d62-8cb2e2af15b0" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:35:24.130" UserId="122066" Text=" 1. Are people who do not speak english fluently not allowed here on SE-physics?&#xA;&#xA; 2. What can we do if we are being harassed by another user(s)?&#xA;&#xA;Ive come to notice some elitists and trolls that post comments not related to the physics question or ridicule others for asking a question they find elementary or uneccesarry.&#xA;&#xA;How can we combat these behaviors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="fe409182-6f75-4485-8d62-8cb2e2af15b0" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:35:24.130" UserId="122066" Text="English as a second language and more" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="fe409182-6f75-4485-8d62-8cb2e2af15b0" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:35:24.130" UserId="122066" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="30ec674e-1f75-42df-acb0-b264c177add6" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:35:30.127" UserId="121464" Text="I read your question, and I found it unclear as well. To simply explain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you are watching a show on your computer. You're going to have to be a whole lot closer to watch it properly than if it was on a giant, 48&quot; flat-screen TV. Of course, this is a bit of an exaggeration to make a point, but you haven't given any factors for the situation. You give some example parameters, but you don't tell us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How good your theoretical person's eyes are&#xD;&#xA; - How big your theoretical TV is&#xD;&#xA; - What the pixel size/resolution of the screen is&#xD;&#xA; - etc., etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever parameters you want to include. Just saying, &quot;Here are some possible parameters...do whatever you want&quot; means it isn't really possible to get an answer. People might be able to make some vague, generalistic statements (i.e., the bigger the screen the farther away the ideal seat could be) but nothing that makes it a question worth answering, because I find that generalistic statement rather obvious. If you want an equation, you have to list the parameters, and give us a way to measure data/take data. This also kind of covers why it is broad...there are too many ways to answer it without knowing who you've designed this experiment for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the box that says &quot;question isn't clear&quot; also says &quot;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need.&quot; That's exactly what we need...additional detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the way, I don't see how it really involves physics at all, but that's just me.) Anyway, I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="45d95e05-6d51-4442-a45a-7f81c77f5e8b" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:39:02.357" UserId="122066" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text=" 1. Are people who do not speak english fluently not allowed here on SE-physics? (Since they may not be able to format properly or choose the clearest words).  Usually i can understand what someone is talking about by context but ive seen complaints and closures.&#xA;&#xA; 2. What can we do if we are being harassed by another user(s)?&#xA;&#xA;Ive come to notice some elitists and trolls that post comments not related to the physics question or ridicule others for asking a question they find elementary or uneccesarry.&#xA;&#xA;How can we combat these behaviors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8880" RevisionGUID="443a77e4-9aa5-4c2f-ae4c-d0950a64896f" CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:04:14.373" UserId="520" Text="Physics Stack Exchange runs in English, but that is not to exclude people for whom English is not a native tongue. When you see what appears to be someone struggling with the language you can (a) ask them if your re-phrasing is what they mean, or if you are fairly confident (b) simple edit (assuming you have that privilege) and make a comment to the effect that you have tried to improve the working and was that correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two aspirations at work here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The users of Physics should be trying to make the question as good as they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The original poster should take the time to make their question as clear as possible, and actively interact with and support users who are trying to help improve the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions *are* more likely to get closed, but if they can be cleaned up they should be fairly easy to get re-opened as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="4f47ff83-a660-4625-bcfa-43068376c54b" CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:33:03.653" UserId="122066" Text="This stuff is really difficult.&#xA;&#xA;How do i make my editted question visable again so that i may hope to find an answer since im not able to post again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="4f47ff83-a660-4625-bcfa-43068376c54b" CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:33:03.653" UserId="122066" Text="Trying to re-post a question to find an answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="4f47ff83-a660-4625-bcfa-43068376c54b" CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:33:03.653" UserId="122066" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="70489417-9a36-4281-91fe-8b43f123f1ad" CreationDate="2016-07-05T01:56:24.723" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="I don't think this is a problem of there being unspecified pieces of data. After all, we all know how to leave quantities as variables rather than plugging in numbers. However, the thing that is missing is the *definition* of &quot;optimal.&quot; This is a subjective term, and I don't think you grasp how much it will vary from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, person A might seek &quot;the maximum distance such that the perceived resolution is no worse than a particular number.&quot; Person B might enjoy &quot;whatever distance fills 85% of my field of view.&quot; And person C might be in favor of &quot;close enough so that my screen's resolution matches that of my eyes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself am some combination of A and B, but the number of people who keep buying larger and/or higher resolution screens without changing their distance indicates they're using some completely different criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unclear which of these you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note too that the close banner is **broken**. The system selects *one* reason to present, no matter how many different reasons were chosen by the up to five close voters. That is, quite often it simply lies about what users said. This has been [brought to the developers' attention][1] before, and [again][2], and [again][3], and [again][4]. For reasons that can only be attributed to some combination of stupidity, malice, or monumental laziness, this request has been ignored every time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926/show-all-voted-close-types-when-a-question-is-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54917/distinguish-close-votes-by-reason&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/172654/could-the-close-vote-banner-please-be-made-less-well-wrong&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/268887/how-can-se-more-properly-represent-close-voters-reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8883" RevisionGUID="c6372430-9fb9-4b72-b046-33b107ef9457" CreationDate="2016-07-05T04:01:48.093" UserId="122594" Text="[Can relativistic mass be treated as rest mass?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266221/can-relativistic-mass-be-treated-as-rest-mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear, pointed, and of broad interest. I doubt most introductory students of physics could answer it without thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8883" RevisionGUID="c6372430-9fb9-4b72-b046-33b107ef9457" CreationDate="2016-07-05T04:01:48.093" UserId="122594" Text="What's wrong with this question? Why did it get downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8883" RevisionGUID="c6372430-9fb9-4b72-b046-33b107ef9457" CreationDate="2016-07-05T04:01:48.093" UserId="122594" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="f9f0a7a9-0657-4b8a-97f1-6b64b8811a0f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:51:43.827" UserId="36360" Text="I noticed some answers that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* have nothing or little to do with the question;&#xD;&#xA;* include an undisclosed link to a paper that is either by the answer’s author or particularly liked by the answer’s author – as evidenced by their profile and number of links (22) to that paper in other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take the current wording of the spam flag (“Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.”) literally, these answers are not spam as they do not promote a product or service.&#xD;&#xA;However, they clearly abuse this site for publicity, which is more or less what the spam flag is about. [(In the old wording of the spam flag, these answers were spam.)](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/256602/255554)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I flagged some of these answers as spam either with the spam flag or a custom flag for explanation. In one case the flag was declined, while in the other case the flags were marked helpful, but the respective post was not deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should posts that meet the criteria for spam (exist only for promotion; no disclosure) with the exception that they advertise a paper (instead of a product or service) be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If yes, how should those posts be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note that I intentionally did not include links to the respective post to avoid publicly shaming anybody. Moderators can obtain them from [my recent flag history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/36360).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="f9f0a7a9-0657-4b8a-97f1-6b64b8811a0f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:51:43.827" UserId="36360" Text="How to deal with “spam” for papers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="f9f0a7a9-0657-4b8a-97f1-6b64b8811a0f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:51:43.827" UserId="36360" Text="|discussion|flagging|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8885" RevisionGUID="a7728ffd-a87a-47ad-bbcf-3238f3629af2" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:53:44.317" UserId="1236" Text="I've just added another (just second) negative vote to the original question once my suspicion was confirmed: It is not really a question, it is an attempt to promote obvious misconceptions about relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dmckee gave an answer (which I upvoted). Some of its general lessons are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One should discuss the energy-momentum vectors, not just &quot;masses and velocities&quot; to meaningfully describe collisions in relativity.&#xD;&#xA;* The final motion of products of elastic collisions is determined from the dispersion relations; and from the energy-momentum conservation law.&#xD;&#xA;* The rest masses of composite systems aren't additive as you demonstrably kept on assuming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also added technicalities but these three key observations should have been enough for you to try to refine your wrong &quot;derivations&quot;. But you, Will, just ignored everything in the answer and continued to promote your misunderstandings. When I realized that you ignored the answer, my suspicion was confirmed and I downvoted your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also downvoted your &quot;answer&quot; to your own question because it doesn't answer the original question what happens in the collision. The answers should answer the original question. When they don't, they may be reasonably downvoted, even if we ignore the &quot;awkward&quot; fact that the author of the answer and the author of the question are the same person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on the meta-website, I downvoted your question because I find it absolutely unacceptable for users to complain about every single negative vote they receive, especially when it must be pretty much obvious to them that there are very good reasons to downvote these questions and answers. That's how spoiled brats, not constructive users of a questions-and-answers website, behave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these negative votes (for which I sacrifice -1 of my reputation, so it's not for free), I am giving the system some information which is service to the community, too. One of the reasons of the negative vote is that I want you to discourage from posting additional questions and answers to this server because I am gradually concluding that additional contributions of yours won't lead to anything positive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="e09e400b-6eee-4600-a52e-f0c6a9122031" CreationDate="2016-07-05T10:15:16.323" UserId="8563" Text="Any edits to any post will bump it to the top of the front page. Note, however, that minor edits meant solely to bump a question (i.e. take attention away from questions with actual recent activity) are *not* welcome on this site. The edit rate for [your latest question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265670/why-precisely-do-we-use-regulators-for-infinite-sums) - nine edits in 45 min - is pretty close to the border, but I'm more put off by the belligerence of the text than by any trivial bump edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edits within five days of closure will also put the question on a review queue for reopen votes, which typically clears quite quickly. The [review page for your question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/136911) shows that three independent people thought it was not clear enough for re-opening, so it's left the queue now. I'm unsure whether another edit will put it back on the queue but if you do edit it then please make a single, comprehensive edit instead of a series of belligerent ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also ask you to keep down the formatting emphasis. If everything is emphasized, nothing is (and, instead, you get a rather jarring, irritating, and hard to read post, for no reason at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to draw attention to a question, the best way is to use a [bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). However, I would advise you at present not to spend your reputation points on that; for a bounty to be useful the question needs to be phrased in a way that lets the community know what sort of answer you're expecting (and also in a way that doesn't make potential answerers think that the only thing they've got to gain by posting is a long, angry discussion). I don't think your question's problems at the moment are lack of attention, to be honest - but it's up to you to solicit people's time and help on how to phrase the question in a constructive way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="6f4bf482-a8b3-446e-98cb-bfe73bd2216d" CreationDate="2016-07-05T14:04:06.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/750329410595815424" />
  <row Id="22741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="040246ab-9676-4e4c-ba0e-37233ee757e5" CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:20:20.647" UserId="52112" Comment="added 765 characters in body" Text="&gt; Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You understood the underlined clause, *they may not change the accepted answer*, perfectly. That clause is in the present tense and uses *may* as a modal verb to denote permission (or in this case, the denial of permission). Since questioners are allowed to change the selected answer, the clause is grammatically incorrect. The clause should have been phrased in the present perfect tense rather than the present tense, and because it reflects a possibility that might or might not have happened, it should use *might* rather than *may*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A correct rewording is *they might not have changed the accepted answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-on to this question, I asked [how to suggest edits for help center pages](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8871/how-to-suggest-edits-for-help-center-pages). It was suggested that I use the &quot;contact us&quot; link. I did just that and suggested a rewording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wording at the cited Help Center page has just been changed. It now reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question has now been answered perfectly. It simply means that the author received an answer that worked for him or her personally. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="1c1ead40-200c-4ca1-8b09-80468db7786e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:52:45.180" UserId="26665" Text="There must be a reply option under each comment, So that I click on it, and reply to that comment directly, rather than writing new comments, again and again!.&#xD;&#xA;(for example: see facebook)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="1c1ead40-200c-4ca1-8b09-80468db7786e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:52:45.180" UserId="26665" Text="Unable to reply to a comment directly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="1c1ead40-200c-4ca1-8b09-80468db7786e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:52:45.180" UserId="26665" Text="|bug|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="545db8f2-72b3-40bb-b602-5458c8b664ab" CreationDate="2016-07-05T17:04:13.570" UserId="124" Text="Are you asking for replies to a comment to be displayed under that comment, instead of at the end of the full list of comments? If so, I think you may be using comments for something beyond what they're intended for. Comments are meant for requesting clarification and suggesting improvements to the post, and sometimes for linking to related resources. A threaded discussion model is overkill for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can usually [reply to a comment](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work) by just starting with &quot;@author&quot; (using the name of the comment's author). In the few cases where that's not clear enough, I would use something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @author (4 comments up): blah blah blah&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If even that doesn't work well enough for you, you should probably be using [chat](//chat.stackexchange.com) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find the [&quot;Reply&quot; links on comments](https://stackapps.com/questions/2051/reply-links-on-comments) userscript useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness: there may be something to this idea, if it helps to encourage a request-response model of commenting. But it would have to come along with further constraints on commenting, of the sort [being discussed on mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/278859/56541)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="2d4d8131-407f-4ba1-ace3-4ffbc093419e" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:09:28.463" UserId="111951" Text="I asked [this][1] question yesterday. Someone posted a comment that was saying: ***&quot;This is a very common question. Google your exact title : there are 3+ pages of answers.&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I have some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which properties should questions have? I think the **all** of question exist some where in the books, internet, people's brain, past, present, future, etc. So, if a question exists somewhere (except PSE), then that question mustn't be asked in physics stack exchange? If so, then 99.999999 % existent questions in PSE hadn't be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should the question be **very very very hard**? If someone asks a simple and common question, then he is wrong? His question should be downvoted? If so, I personally know some people that 99.999999 % existent questions in PSE are so simple and common for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266264/why-do-we-not-see-stars-during-the-day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="2d4d8131-407f-4ba1-ace3-4ffbc093419e" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:09:28.463" UserId="111951" Text="Which questions should be asked in physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="2d4d8131-407f-4ba1-ace3-4ffbc093419e" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:09:28.463" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="45789a03-603d-4173-bdd1-716ff5196d10" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:32:42.960" UserId="520" Text="Focusing on the question, of how much research you are expected to have done before asking here, and answering only for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote [an answer][1] for [a similar questions about Stack Overflow][2] some time ago. The gist of it is that asking the site things that you could have easily (or perhaps trivially) googled that comes down to wasting the time of people looking at your question, and those questions shouldn't be asked. The final expression of that idea as I expressed it there was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is the same as not asking when the answer is in the furnished manual or the first half-dozen links that Google brings up. The answer being in some obscure usenet archive or 400 comments down in a slashdot thread on some other topic is no impediment to asking Stack Exchange, but their being dozens of answer instances all across the internet is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure the situation on Physics is similar, but not necessarily exactly the same, because it is (in my opinion) easier to to see but not understand a treatment in physics even when you have the minimum preparation for the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking before you have looked at those resources that Google brings up right at the top is a waste of other people's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you *have* looked and still don't get it, tell us what you found unsatisfactory about those treatments. And *&quot;I didn't understand&quot;* doesn't count; say where your understanding broke down. I you stuck on a step in the math or on how it could be written in terms of that math in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be clear about your level of preparation. I've seen so many questions where the OP claims to understand field theory and relativity, but has actually just read some pop-sci book that I can usually guess what the case it, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by muddying the water that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking for a detailed description of a topic at your level when you simply aren't prepared to deal with the math is a waste of other people's time. We have been open to &quot;layman's terms&quot; questions, but you have to accept that those answer will *be in layman's terms*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, part of the goal here is to build a comprehensive database of good questions with good answer. So, shouldn't we allow ever good question, even if they have been answered well elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we should, but it is fair to insist that we work on *really good* versions of those questions, and that really calls for [someone who knows the topic to craft the canonical version of the question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, those are my thoughts I've wanted for some time to sit and hammer on them to find where they might not be internally consistent, but I never seem to find the time. So perhaps some of the rest of you can show me those spots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/192136/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8889/which-questions-should-be-asked-in-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="cef2ad28-1c80-4761-9d39-0eb698d9c213" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:36:30.213" UserId="111951" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I asked [this][1] question yesterday. Someone posted a comment that was saying: ***&quot;This is a very common question. Google your exact title : there are 3+ pages of answers.&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I have some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which properties should questions have? I think that **all** of question exist some where in the books, internet, people's brain, past, present, future, etc. So, if a question exists somewhere (except PSE), then that question mustn't be asked in physics stack exchange? If so, then 99.999999 % existent questions in PSE hadn't be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should the question be **very very very hard**? If someone asks a simple and common question, then he is wrong? His question should be downvoted? If so, I personally know some people that 99.999999 % existent questions in PSE are so simple and common for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266264/why-do-we-not-see-stars-during-the-day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="56014e26-59bd-47b3-9cc5-8d7bc54a272e" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:38:39.367" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="Focusing on the question, of how much research you are expected to have done before asking here, and answering only for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote [an answer][1] for [a similar questions about Stack Overflow][2] some time ago. The gist of it is that asking the site things that you could have easily (or perhaps trivially) googled comes down to wasting the time of people looking at your question, and those questions shouldn't be asked. The final expression of that idea there was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is the same as not asking when the answer is in the furnished manual or the first half-dozen links that Google brings up. The answer being in some obscure usenet archive or 400 comments down in a slashdot thread on some other topic is no impediment to asking Stack Exchange, but their being dozens of answer instances all across the internet is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure the situation on Physics is similar, but not necessarily exactly the same, because it is (in my opinion) easier to to see but not understand a treatment in physics even when you have the minimum preparation for the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking before you have looked at those resources that Google brings up right at the top is a waste of other people's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you *have* looked and still don't get it, tell us what you found unsatisfactory about those treatments. And *&quot;I didn't understand&quot;* doesn't count; say where your understanding broke down. I you stuck on a step in the math or on how it could be written in terms of that math in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be clear about your level of preparation. I've seen so many questions where the OP claims to understand field theory and relativity, but has actually just read some pop-sci book that I can usually guess what the case it, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by muddying the water that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking for a detailed description of a topic at your level when you simply aren't prepared to deal with the math is a waste of other people's time. We have been open to &quot;layman's terms&quot; questions, but you have to accept that those answer will *be in layman's terms*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, part of the goal here is to build a comprehensive database of good questions with good answer. So, shouldn't we allow ever good question, even if they have been answered well elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we should, but it is fair to insist that we work on *really good* versions of those questions, and that really calls for [someone who knows the topic to craft the canonical version of the question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, those are my thoughts I've wanted for some time to sit and hammer on them to find where they might not be internally consistent, but I never seem to find the time. So perhaps some of the rest of you can show me those spots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/192136/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8889/which-questions-should-be-asked-in-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="bf45b30c-6ffb-47d9-83f0-552ded06aeaf" CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:20:29.343" UserId="111951" Text="When a moderator or some high rep users mark a question as a duplicate, it doesn't mean (I think) that the new question is a completely copy of the old one (word by word). Is this true? I said this because I thought maybe someone says that there is no duplicate answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a policy about duplicate answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="bf45b30c-6ffb-47d9-83f0-552ded06aeaf" CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:20:29.343" UserId="111951" Text="Is there a policy about duplicate answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="bf45b30c-6ffb-47d9-83f0-552ded06aeaf" CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:20:29.343" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="fb8c0973-60be-425b-a640-f9135fa2398d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T14:23:19.010" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Focusing on the question, of how much research you are expected to have done before asking here, and answering only for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote [an answer][1] for [a similar questions about Stack Overflow][2] some time ago. The gist of it is that asking the site things that you could have easily (or perhaps trivially) googled comes down to wasting the time of people looking at your question, and those questions shouldn't be asked. The final expression of that idea there was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is the same as not asking when the answer is in the furnished manual or the first half-dozen links that Google brings up. The answer being in some obscure usenet archive or 400 comments down in a slashdot thread on some other topic is no impediment to asking Stack Exchange, but there being dozens of answer instances all across the internet is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure the situation on Physics is similar, but not necessarily exactly the same, because it is (in my opinion) easier to to see but not understand a treatment in physics even when you have the minimum preparation for the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking before you have looked at those resources that Google brings up right at the top is a waste of other people's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you *have* looked and still don't get it, tell us what you found unsatisfactory about those treatments. And *&quot;I didn't understand&quot;* doesn't count; say where your understanding broke down. I you stuck on a step in the math or on how it could be written in terms of that math in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be clear about your level of preparation. I've seen so many questions where the OP claims to understand field theory and relativity, but has actually just read some pop-sci book that I can usually guess what the case it, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by muddying the water that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking for a detailed description of a topic at your level when you simply aren't prepared to deal with the math is a waste of other people's time. We have been open to &quot;layman's terms&quot; questions, but you have to accept that those answer will *be in layman's terms*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, part of the goal here is to build a comprehensive database of good questions with good answer. So, shouldn't we allow ever good question, even if they have been answered well elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we should, but it is fair to insist that we work on *really good* versions of those questions, and that really calls for [someone who knows the topic to craft the canonical version of the question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, those are my thoughts I've wanted for some time to sit and hammer on them to find where they might not be internally consistent, but I never seem to find the time. So perhaps some of the rest of you can show me those spots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/192136/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/192123/should-stack-overflow-be-a-last-resort-resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22756" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="0b19e633-da79-455d-b5ae-8085ce08656e" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:09:25.517" UserId="26969" Comment="typo in the title - &quot;the the&quot;" Text="What was your impression of the first &quot;Ask Me Anything&quot; (AMA) event?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="f4a6a590-15cb-45a0-866d-b950625b0ffd" CreationDate="2016-07-07T02:40:25.647" UserId="111951" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="When a moderator or some high rep users mark a question as a duplicate, it doesn't mean (I think) that the new question is a completely copy of the old one (word by word). Is this true? I said this because I thought maybe someone says that there is no duplicate answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if an answer is recognized as a duplicate, is there a policy about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="cc865213-e16e-4098-9fb3-e8d4a46a06b1" CreationDate="2016-07-07T08:22:04.167" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="aa845aff-7cf0-4265-a4ec-6ed21734033c" CreationDate="2016-07-07T10:54:28.377" UserId="111951" Comment="deleted 277 characters in body" Text="If an answer is recognized as a duplicate, is there a policy about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="b835b662-b8d2-4a4b-a549-647a3b50fe69" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:40:32.790" UserId="121464" Text="About five minutes before I posted this, a question came up in the feed asking users to come up with innovative project ideas for a highschool project with a photoresistor. The question had no research, and it was posted originally without a homework tag. While this question was deleted (maybe a moderator/high-rep user can post a link to this question) after about five minutes, it is still disturbing that a question like this could even come up. &#xA;&#xA;While this is an extreme example, and I know there are other Meta questions discussing the problem of deteriorating question quality and terrible homework questions, nothing has been done. Perhaps we should delete the homework tag and go through all of those questions, deleting and editing where appropriate, maybe we need to have a better homework policy, I don't know. But *something* needs to be done. Besides, this would conclude many back and forth Meta discussions. =) &#xA;&#xA;So if anyone has any ideas on how to help this situation, post them as answers and the community can vote up or down to show which ideas are the best. Perhaps moderators can implement them.&#xA;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="b835b662-b8d2-4a4b-a549-647a3b50fe69" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:40:32.790" UserId="121464" Text="Problem with questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="b835b662-b8d2-4a4b-a549-647a3b50fe69" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:40:32.790" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8893" RevisionGUID="46fc53bf-4f5f-4969-9890-86d6f7f18154" CreationDate="2016-07-07T17:03:35.537" UserId="8563" Text="Given two answers to the same question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If they are textual copies of each other, then this is a plagiarism offence, and it is best handled by a custom moderator flag explaining the situation. If they are not identical but still very similar, this can still be a plagiarism case, handled similarly, though there is a big gray area on where it stops being plagiarism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, it's perfectly possible for two answers to have essentially the same content without being copies of each other. This is all in the game and both answers are in a fair competition for votes; ideally the clearest one should rise to the top. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you suspect foul play, flag for moderator attention or make your views known in a comment. If the flag is way off base then the mod that handles it will leave appropriate feedback when declining it. It's not a problem to err on the side of flagging unless it's a repetitive failure on the same issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="c1e151e4-a9a2-4486-a157-86beff21dcf9" CreationDate="2016-07-07T21:39:13.393" UserId="122066" Text="Ive looked everywhere on the SE interface and i cannot, for the life of me, find any way whatsoever to perform a search of previous SE questions without resorting to exiting the program and using google search&#xA;&#xA;What gives? Is it buried somewhere?  Am i missing something obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="c1e151e4-a9a2-4486-a157-86beff21dcf9" CreationDate="2016-07-07T21:39:13.393" UserId="122066" Text="How to perform a search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="c1e151e4-a9a2-4486-a157-86beff21dcf9" CreationDate="2016-07-07T21:39:13.393" UserId="122066" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="5f04ffdd-ac61-4ba7-a673-7ebe02b0191a" CreationDate="2016-07-07T22:09:56.383" UserId="56299" Comment="Specified that this is the phone interface, as explained in the comment below my (now-deleted) answer." Text="Ive looked everywhere on the SE mobile interface and I cannot, for the life of me, find any way whatsoever to perform a search of previous SE questions without resorting to exiting the program and using a Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? Is it buried somewhere? Am I missing something obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22769" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="5f04ffdd-ac61-4ba7-a673-7ebe02b0191a" CreationDate="2016-07-07T22:09:56.383" UserId="56299" Comment="Specified that this is the phone interface, as explained in the comment below my (now-deleted) answer." Text="How to perform a mobile search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="6bcdd7a7-8643-48e1-930e-cc2f8dce19cb" CreationDate="2016-07-07T22:15:05.227" UserId="122066" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="Ive looked everywhere on the SE mobile interface and I cannot, for the life of me, find any way whatsoever to perform a search of previous SE questions without resorting to exiting the program and using a Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? Is it buried somewhere? Am I missing something obvious?&#xA;&#xA;Should i be punished for not performing a search prior to asking a question if i cannot perform a search of SE explicitly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8896" RevisionGUID="1d8dd66e-50cf-4bf3-b4f2-3f309e3768aa" CreationDate="2016-07-08T09:00:13.610" UserId="111951" Text="I personally don't believe that there is a stupid question. I have a question that related to judgment about questions (and also answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked [this][1] question today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (completely believe) if my reputation was 200000, then **all** (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;*Oh! What a nice question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they offence and ridicule me because my reputation is very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (completely believe) if I was writing in my profile that &quot;*I am a post doctor of physics, I am full professor of physics, I have Gauss' chair at the moment, etc.*&quot; then **all** (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;*Oh! What a nice question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they offence and ridicule me because I am just a nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (completely believe) if I had answered some questions about quantum mechanic or relativity before then **all** (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;*Oh! What a nice question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they offence and ridicule me because I just know a little bit about laws of Newton and a little bit about thermodynamics laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above argument is valid about answers too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266913/do-we-not-need-a-zeroth-law-of-motion-similar-to-the-zeroth-law-of-thermodynamic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8896" RevisionGUID="1d8dd66e-50cf-4bf3-b4f2-3f309e3768aa" CreationDate="2016-07-08T09:00:13.610" UserId="111951" Text="About questions that seem stupid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8896" RevisionGUID="1d8dd66e-50cf-4bf3-b4f2-3f309e3768aa" CreationDate="2016-07-08T09:00:13.610" UserId="111951" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="2e9830a1-5680-4c3f-a39c-fae496aa5972" CreationDate="2016-07-08T09:05:18.620" UserId="1236" Text="On the third line of the mobile version of the Physics SE page, there is &quot;All questions&quot; in bold face. When you wait for the page to fully load, a magnifying glass icon appears on the right side from &quot;All questions&quot;. Clicking at this icon gives the same search box that you find immediately in the upper right corner of the desktop edition of the page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="964a19e7-acef-45cc-9146-de98775b2a79" CreationDate="2016-07-08T10:46:47.307" UserId="8563" Comment="Added screenshot." Text="On the third line of the mobile version of the Physics SE page, there is &quot;All questions&quot; in bold face. When you wait for the page to fully load, a magnifying glass icon appears on the right side from &quot;All questions&quot;. Clicking at this icon gives the same search box that you find immediately in the upper right corner of the desktop edition of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/SyI6F.png&quot; width=&quot;250&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8898" RevisionGUID="c43090ce-8840-4a18-bfef-69d0a12de5df" CreationDate="2016-07-08T12:29:43.490" UserId="78942" Text="DISCLAIMER: I haven't voted or commented in any of your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the main issue is your attitude. Watching your profile, you have 109 posts, and only two of them have a negative score. I don't think that you have any reason to claim that you are a victim of ridicule or fraudulent voting patterns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, your last question has received a lot of downvotes. You're trying to modify Newton Laws, just for the sake of it, without even proposing a justification. &quot;Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence&quot;, and you have provided none. It's normal that lots of people agree that your question is bad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But they are just judging your question, they aren't judging *you*.** Don't take it as a personal affront, because it isn't. Take it as a chance to improve your question and learn something from the comments and votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice: try to calm yourself and don't visit the page in a couple of days. When you come back, please read some of your comments like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that you will realize that your attitude was not adequate, and you will do the correct thing as you did here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I'm trying to help you, that my intention is not to offend you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/va0ZE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWPal.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FqvmM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8899" RevisionGUID="0a9160d0-9eb6-4c07-98d8-8d2e00c0b9e3" CreationDate="2016-07-09T00:50:44.047" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; I think (completely believe) if my reputation was 200000, then all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;Oh! What a nice question!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is remarkable though, to be honest, not unexpected, that your post is all about how you believe participants here &quot;offence and ridicule&quot; *you* - and yet you're evidently profoundly *oblivious* to just how insulting the remark above is likely be to those that regularly participate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've essentially painted *all* that participate here as shallow human beings that look at one's reputation points as a measure of the quality of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blatant contradiction is this:  if you &quot;completely believe&quot; this, *why on Earth are you interested in answers from such human beings?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm voting to close your question but honestly, I *completely believe* that you should consider deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="96ba8aca-ece1-45ad-a5ee-daacf42774ad" CreationDate="2016-07-09T03:23:42.280" UserId="122066" Text="Can anyone offer me some help on how to change my username and other settings using the cellphone application?&#xA;&#xA;Id have performed a search to see if this question had been answered yet but there appears to be no way to search SE through the mobile application either!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="96ba8aca-ece1-45ad-a5ee-daacf42774ad" CreationDate="2016-07-09T03:23:42.280" UserId="122066" Text="Mobile Application and user settings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="96ba8aca-ece1-45ad-a5ee-daacf42774ad" CreationDate="2016-07-09T03:23:42.280" UserId="122066" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22782" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8896" RevisionGUID="2815bc2e-1e9f-451d-891e-8c3b10e884ef" CreationDate="2016-07-09T06:57:01.123" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9887,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alfred Centauri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;MAFIA36790&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="de8dae59-473f-4906-b65f-9c6fddae6b15" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:31:44.523" UserId="122066" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Ive looked everywhere on the android SE mobile interface and I cannot, for the life of me, find any way whatsoever to perform a search of previous SE questions without resorting to exiting the program and using a Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? Is it buried somewhere? Am I missing something obvious?&#xA;&#xA;Should i be punished for not performing a search prior to asking a question if i cannot perform a search of SE explicitly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="266ecb84-f959-42c3-83d2-4f1b66eee9eb" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:10:37.757" UserId="8563" Text="It's not clear to me, at all, what you think is the problem - but then again, I don't normally use the app. However, I just installed it, clicked on the menu button at top left, and selected a random site, which gives this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/JXq24.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the site homepage within the app looks different on your device (in which case you need to provide some screenshots) I really don't see how one would manage to miss the search interface." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="2f5c4958-e302-4363-8290-40ad9a2e976c" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:40:05.917" UserId="122066" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title; added 3 characters in body" Text="Can anyone offer me some help on how to change my username and other settings using the android cellphone application?&#xA;&#xA;Id have performed a search to see if this question had been answered yet but there appears to be no way to search SE through the mobile application either! :p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22786" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="2f5c4958-e302-4363-8290-40ad9a2e976c" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:40:05.917" UserId="122066" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title; added 3 characters in body" Text="Android Mobile Application and user settings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8902" RevisionGUID="84c3d49d-c825-4572-bf42-d2de5ecc8abd" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:45:06.367" UserId="8563" Text="It doesn't seem to be possible to edit user profiles from within the Android app. The [Meta Stack Exchange page that introduced it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/191301/profile-page-for-android-app) does not mention it, and the feature request http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/201594/ability-to-update-profile-from-the-stackexchange-android-app has been open since October 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unclear what you mean by 'settings'. On the desktop site, going to your profile &gt; Edit Profile &amp; Settings &gt; Preferences, there are what would normally be considered 'settings' for the site - there's really no chance of those being editable from the Android app. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you click the menu button (upper left hand on the app) and scroll to the bottom, there is a Settings button that allows you to control the notification settings (on/off, vibrate on/off, notification sound, quiet hours), but that's about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to emphasize a bit - if you have questions about the network-wide functioning of the engine, and particularly with specialized topics like the Android and iOS apps, the mother meta at [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) is a *much* better place to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="e42b356f-be25-4e53-8b3f-79153d3d6bfd" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:46:41.650" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title better reflect the question. Removed misleading allegations of missing functionality." Text="Can anyone offer me some help on how to change my username and other settings using the android cellphone application?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="e42b356f-be25-4e53-8b3f-79153d3d6bfd" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:46:41.650" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title better reflect the question. Removed misleading allegations of missing functionality." Text="How can I change my username, profile, and other settings on the Android mobile application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8903" RevisionGUID="ba3dc80d-0d67-4e75-8f92-f645bcb68310" CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:24:00.117" UserId="121464" Text="I created a tag today, [tag:sparticles], that I thought would be useful to the community. It seemed like there were a decent number of questions that talked specifically about sparticles as opposed to just supersymmetry. Here are some questions I thought would be good with this tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17841/sparticles-relationship-to-supersymmetry-and-dark-matter&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9258/why-are-the-third-generation-superpartners-lighter-than-the-other-sfermions-in-m&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93774/how-to-find-susy-with-near-degenerate-masses&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159067/what-does-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson-mean-for-susy&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229854/to-which-type-of-particles-gauginos-are-supposed-to-couple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be a useful tag to have beyond just a supersymmetry tag. Please tell me what you think of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8903" RevisionGUID="ba3dc80d-0d67-4e75-8f92-f645bcb68310" CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:24:00.117" UserId="121464" Text="Sparticles tag - usefulness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8903" RevisionGUID="ba3dc80d-0d67-4e75-8f92-f645bcb68310" CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:24:00.117" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8903" RevisionGUID="42276a6e-6d2c-4bd0-b235-12204ed27e25" CreationDate="2016-07-09T15:06:12.403" UserId="121464" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="I created a tag today, [tag:sparticles], that I thought would be useful to the community. It seemed like there were a decent number of questions that talked specifically about sparticles as opposed to just supersymmetry. Here are some questions I thought would be good with this tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17841/sparticles-relationship-to-supersymmetry-and-dark-matter&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9258/why-are-the-third-generation-superpartners-lighter-than-the-other-sfermions-in-m&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93774/how-to-find-susy-with-near-degenerate-masses&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159067/what-does-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson-mean-for-susy&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229854/to-which-type-of-particles-gauginos-are-supposed-to-couple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be a useful tag to have beyond just a supersymmetry tag. Please tell me what you think of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just out of curiosity, I created the tag, but for some reason it now shows that Community created the tag...why would that be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="87617d68-0531-48b9-84c1-bb69bbdea97a" CreationDate="2016-07-09T15:11:06.323" UserId="124" Text="Sure, why not... tags shouldn't be too hard to create for people with enough experience with the site to know when a new one is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we do prefer verbose tag names over abbreviated ones, so I think [tag:supersymmetric-particles] or [tag:superpartner-particles] would be better. The former just fits within the limit of 25 characters for tag names (which is why we don't have [tag:cosmic-microwave-background]). If people are not opposed to this, one of the mods can rename the tag. You wouldn't need to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're proposing going back and editing existing questions to have the new tag, that's another story. Every edit bumps its question to the top of the front page, so we'd rather not have large batches of edits being done all at once. It's fine to apply the tag to old questions as long as you do only a few at a time (5, perhaps), and make sure to fix any other problems with the questions as you go through them, to minimize the total number of times they need to be edited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="a9245eb9-1b27-4574-8cfc-45a86631c410" CreationDate="2016-07-09T15:57:50.563" UserId="124" Comment="add note about Community creating stuff, and indicate the name has been changed" Text="Sure, why not... tags shouldn't be too hard to create for people with enough experience with the site to know when a new one is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we do prefer verbose tag names over abbreviated ones, so I think [tag:supersymmetric-particles] or [tag:superpartner-particles] would be better. The former just fits within the limit of 25 characters for tag names (which is why we don't have [tag:cosmic-microwave-background]). If people are not opposed to this, one of the mods can rename the tag. You wouldn't need to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[meta-tag:status-completed] the tag name has been changed.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're proposing going back and editing existing questions to have the new tag, that's another story. Every edit bumps its question to the top of the front page, so we'd rather not have large batches of edits being done all at once. It's fine to apply the tag to old questions as long as you do only a few at a time (5, perhaps), and make sure to fix any other problems with the questions as you go through them, to minimize the total number of times they need to be edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus answer: when you see &quot;created by Community&quot; or the like, I believe what you're looking at is the tag _wiki_ edit history, not the history of the tag itself. The tag wiki is an editable information page that is supposed to describe the tag. When a new tag gets created, the system (represented by the Community account) creates a blank tag wiki page to go with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="b8e62320-3da7-422d-9bc3-b90805db1ea7" CreationDate="2016-07-09T20:17:06.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/751872828023140352" />
  <row Id="22797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="273ef1d6-d755-4d2d-bfc8-62ab52ac79d1" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:05:12.470" UserId="122066" Text="Why is it that i have a question that was closed but users can continue to downvote it? &#xA;&#xA; 1. Am i misunderstanding what a closed question is? &#xA;&#xA; I thought a closed question was such that it is locked from either being seen, answered, or commented on&#xA;&#xA; 2. Does a closed question imply that users are not allowed to ask that particular question which was closed (since questions cannot be asked twice)?  &#xA;&#xA; 3. Is it okay to ask a different user to post a question that i had previously asked which was closed?&#xA;&#xA;Apologies, im still learning and i dont quite understand this whole &quot;closed question&quot; stuff&#xA;&#xA;For reference purposes the question was: Why exactly do we use regulators for infinite sums? and was closed due to being &quot;unclear&quot; (still seems like a really clearly worded question to me /shrug)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="273ef1d6-d755-4d2d-bfc8-62ab52ac79d1" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:05:12.470" UserId="122066" Text="Voting on closed questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="273ef1d6-d755-4d2d-bfc8-62ab52ac79d1" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:05:12.470" UserId="122066" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="66b1e72a-27ae-4590-9e8f-acd98dd73f2b" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:19:21.847" UserId="520" Text="1. A closed question can no longer have answers added to it (well, there is a grace period for answers started before the close took effect, but it is limited and post-close answers are rare). Closing a question means that the users voting for that state believe that it is not *currently* suitable for the site (and indeed the phrase &quot;on hold&quot; is used for the first few days to emphasize the potential for reversing the state). A subsequent set of users can reverse a closure under the same sort of rules that we used to close it in the first place. This is all part of the normal workflow for rating and moderating questions.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Closed question should either be edited to make them suitable or they can be expected to remain closed indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Closed questions can still be voted on and edited. Comments can be made to the question and all un-deleted answers. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  If it is your question *and* it does not have an up-voted or accepted answer you can delete it.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Locking a question is different from closing it. It signifies that the question is in someway unusual and needs to be handled outside the usual workflow. Locked question can neither be edited, voted on, nor commented on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If a question remains closed it means a quorum of high-rep users believe it is not suitable for the site. Re-posting an identical question is clearly inappropriate, as it offering only a slight variation that does not address the reason for the closure. **Edit the original instead.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  You may ask a substantially different question on the same topic, but if you post it shortly after the closure of the original it will be subject to considerable scrutiny. Seriously, edit the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The first edit to a closed question posts it to the review queue for re-consideration. High-rep users will see it there and act (or not) as they judge best. So, make that edit count. Find out what was wrong with the original, understand the policy under which it was closed and *craft* the edit to make it clear that your question is now in a form suitable for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Working around the rule in part 2 is just as bad as re-posting it yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="d2ef0a0d-24a9-4719-8c3d-76db842030fd" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:04:21.047" UserId="122066" Text="Im trying to delete a question i had posted which has been closed but i cant find a button for deletion nor can i delete the text of the question.  I also tried flagging it for moderator intervention sonce i cant find a delete button&#xA;&#xA;How can i make this thing go away so that people stop downvoting it?&#xA;&#xA;Any help will be kindly appreciated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="d2ef0a0d-24a9-4719-8c3d-76db842030fd" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:04:21.047" UserId="122066" Text="How to delete a question using android application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="d2ef0a0d-24a9-4719-8c3d-76db842030fd" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:04:21.047" UserId="122066" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8908" RevisionGUID="aa6fdba4-5b61-4a66-8dd4-e4920b6742ae" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:06:22.340" UserId="520" Text="You ***can not*** delete your own question when it has an up-voted answer. That question has an up-voted answer, so you ***can not*** delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="db18f458-cbe3-4586-aa74-6db6f285615d" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:20:13.357" UserId="122066" Text="im trying to delete an answer to a question i posted because the answer does not answer the question i posted.&#xA;&#xA;How can i do this on android application?&#xA;&#xA;To further complicate matters ive been banned from editing my question to try and make it match the answer and the question has been closed while it racks up downvotes.&#xA;&#xA;I either want to delete the question or edit my question. I had previously tried deleting the text of the question since i had been instructed to delete it which is what lead to me being banned from editing it (i dont have a delete button ony android application amd im still learning the ins and outs)&#xA;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated.&#xA;&#xA;Im having a difficult time with this question and just want it to go away" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="db18f458-cbe3-4586-aa74-6db6f285615d" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:20:13.357" UserId="122066" Text="How to delete an answer that is incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="db18f458-cbe3-4586-aa74-6db6f285615d" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:20:13.357" UserId="122066" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="a1c05dd3-5c14-4f00-b8f2-7e36198a7461" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:27:18.897" UserId="122066" Comment="added 95 characters in body; added 107 characters in body; added 25 characters in body; added 71 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="im trying to delete an answer to a question i posted because the answer does not answer the question i posted.&#xA;&#xA;How can i do this on android application?&#xA;&#xA;To further complicate matters ive been banned from editing my question to try and make it match the answer and the question has been closed while it racks up downvotes.&#xA;&#xA;I either want to delete the question (by deleting the answer) or edit my question. I had previously tried deleting the text of the question since i had been instructed to delete it which is what lead to me being banned from editing it (i dont have a delete button ony android application and im still learning the ins and outs so i thought that deleting the text was how it was supposed to be done)&#xA;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated.&#xA;&#xA;Im having a difficult time with this question and just want it to go away.  This is my only source of negative points because i dont know how to ask my question correctly.  Ive earned quite a bit of points so if think there should be a moderator that is understanding out there" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="a82fa3a3-d959-47af-8e6f-4a399f41b65d" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:36:49.907" UserId="122066" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="im trying to delete an answer to a question i posted because the answer does not answer the question i posted.&#xA;&#xA;How can i do this on android application?&#xA;&#xA;To further complicate matters ive been banned from editing my question to try and make it match the answer and the question has been closed while it racks up downvotes.&#xA;&#xA;I either want to delete the question (by deleting the answer) or edit my question. I had previously tried deleting the text of the question since i had been instructed to delete it which is what lead to me being banned from editing it (i dont have a delete button ony android application and im still learning the ins and outs so i thought that deleting the text was how it was supposed to be done)&#xA;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated.&#xA;&#xA;Im having a difficult time with this question and just want it to go away.  This is my only source of negative points because i dont know how to ask my question correctly.  Ive earned quite a bit of points so if think there should be a moderator that is understanding out there&#xA;&#xA;Some people are just mean and disagreeable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8910" RevisionGUID="d10a7028-ccdc-4cba-8edf-772d564e4609" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:52:23.497" UserId="124" Text="According to [this Q&amp;A on mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/216962/allow-us-to-vote-to-delete-from-the-android-app), the Android app does not allow you to delete posts because some of the required infrastructure (like viewing deleted posts) is not implemented in the app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the website, you can delete one of your answers by clicking the &quot;delete&quot; link under it. The exception is if the answer has been accepted; in that case, you won't see a &quot;delete&quot; link, and you're not allowed to delete it. See more information on deletion in [this mother meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that removing the text of a post with an edit is never acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in this case I believe you're asking how to delete someone _else's_ answer. That's not possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8911" RevisionGUID="4b40e4c7-e763-4417-8d97-923577c194bf" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:26:39.903" UserId="122066" Text="How can i tell if a moderator editted my question on android?&#xA;&#xA;I want to edit it but ill get in punishment if i try and edit it in case moderator had recently editted it.&#xA;&#xA;Im told to make the question more clear so im trying to do that but first need to know if moderator says it's okay before trying&#xA;&#xA;This stuff is so confusing and difficult&#xA;&#xA;Is there a messaging system or anything that a moderator can contact me thru in order to let me know that i have a green light to try and ask my question more clearly?&#xA;&#xA;Or should i just make a new meta post every tike i want to edit a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8911" RevisionGUID="4b40e4c7-e763-4417-8d97-923577c194bf" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:26:39.903" UserId="122066" Text="Editting a moderated question on android" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8911" RevisionGUID="4b40e4c7-e763-4417-8d97-923577c194bf" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:26:39.903" UserId="122066" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="15a7dc31-def7-4160-93db-b99d9806bafd" CreationDate="2016-07-10T11:26:13.897" UserId="124" Text="&gt; How can i tell if a moderator editted my question on android?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All edits made to the question appear in the edit history, whether they are made by a moderator or not. However, it seems that the edit history is not viewable in the Android app. There is a [feature request to add it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/228440/add-the-revision-history-to-the-android-app).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I want to edit it but ill get in punishment if i try and edit it in case moderator had recently editted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is not true. You don't get punished for editing a question further after a moderator's edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="7012ed8f-d2a3-48f0-80bd-3ed5768266b0" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:46:04.550" UserId="122066" Text="what the hell?!  I had a question about regularization that had a beautiful answer by a kind user named tparker and david z deleted EVERYTHING and removed it from physics!!!&#xA;&#xA;It was a question about quantum field theory and the answer totally and unequivocally helped me and received several upvotes&#xA;&#xA;I cant help but think moderators are intentionally targetting me trying to prevent me from asking questions about regularization.&#xA;&#xA;This is getting ridiculous&#xA;&#xA;Question:  how does one ask a question related to regularization without it getting deleted?&#xA;&#xA;Am i seriously being screwed with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="7012ed8f-d2a3-48f0-80bd-3ed5768266b0" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:46:04.550" UserId="122066" Text="Question deleted?!1234567890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="7012ed8f-d2a3-48f0-80bd-3ed5768266b0" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:46:04.550" UserId="122066" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="55cb9036-7348-4fb8-88ec-daa79d7dd793" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:52:05.737" UserId="122066" Text="My understanding is that physicists use regularization in aspects of quantum field theory&#xA;&#xA;Why am i not allowed to ask about regularization in physics SE?&#xA;&#xA;If regularization is not an acceptable physics SE question then please let me know and ill stop trying to learn about it here&#xA;&#xA;Any kind help would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="55cb9036-7348-4fb8-88ec-daa79d7dd793" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:52:05.737" UserId="122066" Text="Regularization and physics1234567890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="55cb9036-7348-4fb8-88ec-daa79d7dd793" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:52:05.737" UserId="122066" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="4f7efd51-1e9f-4001-9cb9-eb88a10ecf14" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:00:59.213" UserId="121464" Text="A conversation with DavidZ prompted this question (see [this question's][1] comments). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking about the [tag:soft-question] tag: when should it be used? Putting it on a [tag:resource-recommendation] question is kind of redundant...that's what the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag is for. Also, looking at [tag:soft-question] questions, most are on hold, closed, etc. Finally, it seems like having such a tag encourages such questions - and honestly, that's not what this site is about (as evidenced by the down-votes, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with this in mind, I have three questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the [tag:soft-question] tag *supposed* to be used for? What uses are now appropriate?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Do we really need the [tag:soft-question] tag? I don't think so, but I want to know what others think. &#xD;&#xA; 3. If the answer to two is no, or not really, should we delete the soft-question tag? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks! I'm interested to see what others think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267339/how-do-i-build-a-transfer-cavity-system-for-lasers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="4f7efd51-1e9f-4001-9cb9-eb88a10ecf14" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:00:59.213" UserId="121464" Text="Do we really need the soft-question tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="4f7efd51-1e9f-4001-9cb9-eb88a10ecf14" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:00:59.213" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="0c66bd3d-0a02-438f-9cb7-79e398e83437" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:17:42.640" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="cc1f2e83-a00d-42c7-a1a3-7e6e45bd83c6" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:19:34.383" UserId="124" Text="My _personal_ viewpoint: there are no valid uses for [tag:soft-question] and we should burninate it (i.e. purge it from the system and forbid future use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, basically all questions which are given the [tag:soft-question] tag are either off topic, or don't really need the tag. I'm not entirely sure [what it means for a question to be soft](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273/what-is-the-soft-question-tag-for), anyway, but the questions we do allow that would fit most people's definition of &quot;soft&quot; are already identified by more focused tags like [tag:resource-recommendation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer emerges as the community consensus, we (mods) will arrange to have the tag removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="2d8a4bbd-adc1-40bc-82af-2679c7e87744" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:23:15.840" UserId="124" Comment="improve phrasing and title and add tags" Text="My understanding is that physicists use regularization in aspects of quantum field theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I not allowed to ask about regularization in physics SE? Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If regularization is not an acceptable physics SE question then please let me know and I'll stop trying to learn about it here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22827" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="2d8a4bbd-adc1-40bc-82af-2679c7e87744" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:23:15.840" UserId="124" Comment="improve phrasing and title and add tags" Text="Are questions about regularization on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="2d8a4bbd-adc1-40bc-82af-2679c7e87744" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:23:15.840" UserId="124" Comment="improve phrasing and title and add tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="1f44a52b-dac2-4d3c-af50-b3e876c87dad" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:27:08.077" UserId="122066" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="My understanding is that physicists use regularization in aspects of quantum field theory.&#xD;indeed you will find regularization in EVERY book on quantum field theory (which in my understanding IS physics)&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I not allowed to ask about regularization in physics SE? Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If regularization is not an acceptable physics SE question then please let me know and I'll stop trying to learn about it here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="a8ef899b-a899-4c4b-86f3-9e3fbca6c8e0" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:27:36.270" UserId="121464" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="A conversation with DavidZ prompted this question (see [this question's][1] comments). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking about the [tag:soft-question] tag: when should it be used? Putting it on a [tag:resource-recommendation] question is kind of redundant...that's what the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag is for. Also, looking at [tag:soft-question] questions, most are on hold, closed, etc. Finally, it seems like having such a tag encourages such questions - and honestly, that's not what this site is about (as evidenced by the down-votes, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with this in mind, I have three questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the [tag:soft-question] tag *supposed* to be used for? What uses are now appropriate?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Do we really need the [tag:soft-question] tag? I don't think so, but I want to know what others think. &#xD;&#xA; 3. If the answer to two is no, or not really, should we delete the soft-question tag? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks! I'm interested to see what others think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might also add that while I definitely agree with DavidZ's answer, I'd like to see what the community thinks, and hopefully everyone will come to a consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267339/how-do-i-build-a-transfer-cavity-system-for-lasers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="da0c6b70-fc51-41fb-9f92-17541b121550" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:32:16.897" UserId="2451" Comment="added 107 characters in body; edited tags" Text="what the hell?!  I had a Phys.SE [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/267230/2451) about regularization that had a beautiful answer by a kind user named tparker and a moderator migrated it to [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1854967/11127)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was a question about quantum field theory and the answer totally and unequivocally helped me and received several upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cant help but think moderators are intentionally targetting me trying to prevent me from asking questions about regularization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is getting ridiculous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  how does one ask a question related to regularization without it getting deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am i seriously being screwed with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22832" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="da0c6b70-fc51-41fb-9f92-17541b121550" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:32:16.897" UserId="2451" Comment="added 107 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8917" RevisionGUID="bc37b2f3-c57e-4029-b7b8-6629f0fefb95" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:30:46.353" UserId="2451" Text="The subject of [tag:regularization] is on-topic if adequately put in a physics context. For some well-received examples of this, see e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3096&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26877 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57965&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73403&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/92411&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="f1018a2f-30d4-473d-ad4c-73f768dbc579" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:34:46.300" UserId="2451" Text="This question was migrated to Math.SE for various reason, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the first subquestion was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Are ALL infinite sums not divergent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The most natural interpretation of this question (and the one used in the answer) is that OP is asking if an [infinite series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_%28mathematics%29) a_1+a_2+... can be divergent. This appears to be a pure math question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The second subquestion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If not then how can one determine whether a sum is divergent or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This also appears to be pure math question. Moreover, it is preferred to only ask one subquestion per post cf. [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6833/2451) meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general one criteria for a math question to belong to Phys.SE is that it is put in a physics context, and one could argue this was not done to a sufficient degree for OP's question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the on-topicness of the subject of  [tag:regularization], see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/8914/2451) meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="3e82c3fd-7eef-4d01-ab5d-14ae1381250e" CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:02:40.727" UserId="8563" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="bece8769-3582-45f0-8a31-524ccc65c919" CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:09:07.713" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1092 characters in body" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22837" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="efcb1f1c-8e56-4ef3-8287-0d429acb82da" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:34:43.557" UserId="114696" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="e61ee3e8-2538-4d15-8655-a611fea48093" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:55:51.390" UserId="122066" Text="Are non-physicists allowed to ask questions on physics SE?&#xA;&#xA;I get the impression that only people with a good (vast?) knowledge of physics are allowed to ask questions here.&#xA;&#xA;Should we turn people away when they say theyre 16 years old  or e.g. if someone expresses a lack of understanding of unitarity or if they dont know whatthe weinberg mixing angle is?&#xA;&#xA;Or is it that anyone is open to ask questions here and shouldnt be driven away or belittled?&#xA;&#xA;Sorry if this is known...im still learning the culture and rules here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="e61ee3e8-2538-4d15-8655-a611fea48093" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:55:51.390" UserId="122066" Text="Physics SE is for who?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="e61ee3e8-2538-4d15-8655-a611fea48093" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:55:51.390" UserId="122066" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8922" RevisionGUID="6559cfab-44ed-42a1-88ca-1159831792ed" CreationDate="2016-07-11T06:56:59.920" UserId="124" Text="From the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are not in that target audience may have a bit of a harder time asking questions, because our sense of what constitutes a good question is calibrated to the kinds of questions that students and (sometimes) researchers ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are no level requirements, not in the sense of &quot;you must know [topic] and [topic] etc. to ask a question here&quot;. We only expect that people ask questions which are appropriate to whatever level they are at. In short, don't ask a question for which you're not prepared to understand the answers. For example, if someone who's never studied quantum mechanics asks about the uncertainty principle, it's likely not going to be well received. Similarly if someone who's never studied relativity asks about the interior of a black hole. Or if a complete layperson, who's never studied even basic kinematics, asks about, say, calculating orbits. (These are all rough guidelines; any specific case could be an exception, depending on how the question is asked.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also expect that people do a bit of research before asking their questions, enough to get acquainted with the topic and make _some_ progress toward solving their problem. For example, as was brought up in the comments, someone asking a question about absolute zero would be expected to do enough research to know that it's impossible to make a real object have that temperature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="4a78e12c-aa7e-44f3-b2c2-4ad4acc2df8c" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:43:12.200" UserId="26665" Text="Is there simple way to color background, highlight some parts of background, equation or some parts of equation?&#xD;&#xA;something like these Latex codes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. {\bgcolor{color name}{equation}} or {\bg{color name}{equation}} for background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. {\color{color name}{equation}} or {\mathcolor{color name}{equation}} to color equations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="4a78e12c-aa7e-44f3-b2c2-4ad4acc2df8c" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:43:12.200" UserId="26665" Text="Is there simple way to color latex equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="4a78e12c-aa7e-44f3-b2c2-4ad4acc2df8c" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:43:12.200" UserId="26665" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="a229cfd6-8a1a-4650-9283-d9fa002e032e" CreationDate="2016-07-11T16:26:14.707" UserId="8563" Text="One long-standing feature requests for the Stack Exchange engine is the implementation of *trackbacks* for mentions of the arXiv on Stack Exchange sites. In general, if you have a blog and you blog about an arXiv eprint, you can send the arXiv a specially crafted http message, and then your blog gets listed on a page of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://arXiv.org/tb/paper-id&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that lists a bunch of internet locations that discuss the eprint. Some more examples of how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [Here](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658) is a list of trackbacks to the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658) from various blogs. My feature-request is that if a future SE post mentions an arXiv number, say, [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658), then a trackback is automatically sent to the arXiv.org who then adds the SE post to the [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/30320/2451) SE answer mentions the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0707.2895](http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895). With trackbacks to the arXiv, it would be possible to see on the corresponding [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0707.2895) that this preprint is mentioned on SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _More Examples:_ ([SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9727/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1103.5222)); &#xD;&#xA;([SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48292/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0545), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1211.0545)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent trackbacks from across the internet to the whole of arXiv, see http://arxiv.org/tb/recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trackback mechanism was implemented and put online on [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/) in 2013, and it has been ticking along ever since. A feature request was posted at about that time on [Meta Stack Excange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/) to enable this across all the science Stack Exchange sites, at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [Trackbacks from SE to the arXiv.org?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has received a lot of love over the years (currently at score 62) but apparently this has not been enough. So: do you think this mechanism should be enabled on this site? If so, either post an answer here saying Aye, or go show that feature-request some (more) love." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="a229cfd6-8a1a-4650-9283-d9fa002e032e" CreationDate="2016-07-11T16:26:14.707" UserId="8563" Text="Please consider supporting arXiv trackbacks on the mother Meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="a229cfd6-8a1a-4650-9283-d9fa002e032e" CreationDate="2016-07-11T16:26:14.707" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="6f382cc6-02e4-446c-8059-da8651ca5647" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:04:44.747" UserId="26665" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Is there simple way to color background, highlight some parts of background, equation or some parts of equation?&#xD;&#xA;something like these Latex codes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. {\bgcolor{color name}{equation}} or {\bg{color name}{equation}} for background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. {\color{color name}{equation}} or {\mathcolor{color name}{equation}} to color equations&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;examples:&#xD;&#xA;* $a^2 + {\color{red a^2}}=c^2$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="db05ef8e-62a2-4702-a1ae-3c7e5feac07b" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:11:12.140" UserId="26665" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Is there simple way to color background, highlight some parts of background, equation or some parts of equation?&#xD;&#xA;something like these Latex codes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. {\bgcolor{color name}{equation}} or {\bg{color name}{equation}} for background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. {\color{color name}{equation}} or {\mathcolor{color name}{equation}} to color equations&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* by this code $a^2 + {\color{red} b^2}=c^2$ b^2 must become red&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* and by this one $a^2 + {\bg{red}b^2}=c^2$ its background must become red.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22856" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="1c7be3ac-e967-47d6-99e4-461bfb7c6f37" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:30:34.983" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267552/regarding-off-topic-questions-whats-wrong-with-my-question" />
  <row Id="22857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8376772a-16e1-427d-aad1-99a8a8358957" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:24:55.850" UserId="122884" Text="On the page http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266602 I have asked a question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the special theory of relativity been disproved theoretically i.e. logically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the news: The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically http://bit.ly/1WTwbwF via @EurekAlertAAAS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it was soon closed because several people thought it was off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?.&quot; – CuriousOne, Diracology, John Rennie, lemon, Cosmas Zachos*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The paper is published by the international peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays and the news is published by AAAS's EurekAlert. Both are credible sources for academic news and researches. If there is any problem with the news, EurekAlert would have removed the news for a long time, but it has been there for more than four months. EurekAlert has never been spreading hoaxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's wrong with the question?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8376772a-16e1-427d-aad1-99a8a8358957" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:24:55.850" UserId="122884" Text="Regarding off-topic questions, what's wrong with my question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8376772a-16e1-427d-aad1-99a8a8358957" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:24:55.850" UserId="122884" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8926" RevisionGUID="1e3bf0ec-f1bd-4267-a9f0-bed03e5ca552" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:43:29.810" UserId="4993" Text="Aside from all that's been said in the comments, this question would (in my opinion) be off-topic even if the paper were clearly mainstream and had been published in a major journal --- because there is absolutely no indication that you actually attempted to &lt;b&gt;read&lt;/b&gt; the paper before asking this question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question about how the statement in paragraph 7 follows from the statements in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 might be on topic.  A question along the lines of &quot;What is in this paper?&quot; seems to me to be totally out of bounds.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="5aa5a253-1ac4-41db-8a89-4deec98fe88f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T02:17:26.527" UserId="10024" Text="What publications (papers, books, etc.) have cited questions or answers of Physics StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="5aa5a253-1ac4-41db-8a89-4deec98fe88f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T02:17:26.527" UserId="10024" Text="Publications Citing Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="5aa5a253-1ac4-41db-8a89-4deec98fe88f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T02:17:26.527" UserId="10024" Text="|discussion|citation|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8928" RevisionGUID="eae0d344-2eba-42da-ad9d-f07bbfe147ec" CreationDate="2016-07-12T06:40:35.687" UserId="1325" Text="Note that [the introductory tour of the site][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't mean that we won't answer questions from non-physicists, but it does mean that we expect the same sort of effort to be put into the question as we'd expect from a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you have cited one of the many, many *Einstein was wrong* articles floating around the Internet but you have made no attempt to look into the article yourself. So your question boils down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Here's an article claiming Einstein was wrong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which isn't even a question, though to be charitable there is the implied question of whether the article is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason we (well I) closed this is that there is no shortage of crackpots out there and if we spent our time debunking their claims we'd have no time left for doing any physics. That doesn't mean we completely rule out such questions, but you have to show some effort first. For example your question could have been along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've read a paper by Joe Bloggs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results and on page 4 he claims that *blah blah* and I don't see how his follows from equation 666.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even then I suspect you'd find little enthusiasm among the site members to spend their time looking into the more, erm, esoteric claims but at least the question wouldn't be instantly closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Your profile][2] doesn't give any clues about your background, and it may well be that you haven't sufficient experience to read the paper for yourself. If so you could try asking [in the chat room][3] or you could try on one of the many less rigorous sites where people are willing to discuss this sort of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/122884/toronto&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="2409c53e-b1c3-46bc-bf87-1a22a78e877c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T11:06:18.180" UserId="124" Text="When we [last visited the issue of history questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6662/revisiting-history), the dedicated [History of Science and Mathematics Stack Exchange](//hsm.stackexchange.com) was in its early stages. At that time, we decided against closing questions for being historical, but with the implication that it may make sense to revisit that decision someday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that HSM SE is well established, the time seems right to do that revisit. So, going forward from here, do we want history-of-physics questions to be on topic? Where exactly should we draw the line between on-topic and off-topic historical questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind this is primarily asking about history-of-physics questions to be asked in the future, not old ones that have already been asked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="2409c53e-b1c3-46bc-bf87-1a22a78e877c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T11:06:18.180" UserId="124" Text="Should history of physics questions be on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="2409c53e-b1c3-46bc-bf87-1a22a78e877c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T11:06:18.180" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8931" RevisionGUID="b4104073-3d9d-42c1-a2b7-a41d864c4c66" CreationDate="2016-07-12T12:30:45.570" UserId="23473" Text="In general, I'd say no, they should not be on topic here. However, I could see myself making an exception for questions asking how a problem in physics was historically solved. I don't mean a homework-like problem; I mean, for instance, how the Bohr model was realized to be incorrect and replaced with the more modern model. Questions asking about the history behind the development of strictly modern physics are probably okay. Questions asking about the history of the physicists themselves, the history of non-modern physics, or about historical practices in physics are probably off-topic. So, I would say that a question asking what the Ptolemaic model was replaced with would be off-topic because it doesn't directly involve modern physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="c1acac5b-f10f-446e-af3d-e573ec292c0e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T15:34:26.787" UserId="7924" Text="When trying to go to ther highlighted discussion&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;my chromium browser gives an error message ''Your connection is not private&#xD;&#xA;Attackers might be trying to steal your information from meta.physics.stackexchange.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''This server could not prove that it is meta.physics.stackexchange.com; its security certificate is from *.stackexchange.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar on firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's wrong?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="c1acac5b-f10f-446e-af3d-e573ec292c0e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T15:34:26.787" UserId="7924" Text="Privacy error for SE link" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="c1acac5b-f10f-446e-af3d-e573ec292c0e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T15:34:26.787" UserId="7924" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="ecfbfa71-ffe3-487b-9288-bc7269c2aa03" CreationDate="2016-07-12T15:41:16.177" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="You are trying to access the meta site over HTTPS. This is not supported yet, because it's impossible to configure a certificate for all (150+ of them) meta.*.stackexchange.com sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to make things work, SE developers will switch the meta URLs to *.meta.stackexchange.com, for example this site will be http://physics.meta.stackexchange.com. This is [being worked on](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/327639/use-https-for-snippets-because-some-features-are-https-only#comment365342_327639). Until then, either use HTTP for accessing the meta, or ignore the warning about invalid certificate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="9b1accfd-5291-483b-a857-3be983bd08fe" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:08:14.080" UserId="111951" Text="I suggest to change the title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;AMA&quot; ask me **any**thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it should be changed to &quot;AMAT&quot; ask me **appropriate** things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the phrase of appropriate should be elaborated or I suggest that the questions are posted one day before the session for recognizing their appropriateness by competent people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22876" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="aac53eaa-684b-40af-8fd7-a2cd6f8c5746" CreationDate="2016-07-13T09:41:35.150" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-planned|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="b719a001-ed48-4da9-b036-d1fbb4ecec33" CreationDate="2016-07-13T10:30:32.493" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more descriptive of the problem. Some formatting for reading clarity." Text="When trying to go to the highlighted discussion&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;my chromium browser gives an error message,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your connection is not private&#xD;&#xA;Attackers might be trying to steal your information from meta.physics.stackexchange.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This server could not prove that it is meta.physics.stackexchange.com; its security certificate is from *.stackexchange.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar on firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's wrong?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22878" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="b719a001-ed48-4da9-b036-d1fbb4ecec33" CreationDate="2016-07-13T10:30:32.493" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more descriptive of the problem. Some formatting for reading clarity." Text="Privacy (https) error for AMA link in the Upcoming Events list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="66cc8489-1a4d-4fa8-b9f8-75707abed62d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T12:44:59.527" UserId="8563" Text="I think we should stay open to a significant set of history questions, and we should keep the [tag:history] tag. Unlike mathematics, the historical perspective is very often one of the key ways to understand the world and our knowledge about physics. The way physics is structured is very often centered around key experiments, and these are generally thought of as historical events and their contribution and motivation is understood in a historical perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be that way: you can perfectly well motivate, say, special relativity as [one of only two possible cases](https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045), with the Galilean case ruled out through muon lifetime measurements, but you don't - you usually start with the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell the story from there. (Math, on the other hand, does not do this: you start with whatever axioms and definitions you want to work with, and you build your theory, and later on you might comment that the axioms went through this and then that version before people found the Right Version to use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through [recent, good-score questions on the history tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhistory%5d%20closed%3ano%20is%3aquestion%20score%3a5) yields plenty of questions that are definitely of a historical character and yet have direct bearing on our understanding of physics, and which I think should definitely be on topic here. Taking a few non-rigorous picks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267036/how-did-physicists-know-that-only-negative-charges-move&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266246/how-did-physicists-know-that-there-are-two-kind-of-charges&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262251/why-was-the-first-discovered-neutrino-an-anti-neutrino&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249392/how-did-we-realize-that-light-travels-at-a-finite-speed&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243144/why-is-a-second-equal-to-the-duration-of-exactly-9-192-631-770-periods-of-radiat&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229169/did-newton-conduct-any-experiments-to-find-something-called-momentum-or-was-he&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201149/why-was-the-stark-effect-discovered-much-later-than-the-zeeman-effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there *are* questions that should be moved to the history site, because they require a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, and because they have minimal or null bearing on our modern understanding of physics. From the first page of the search above, for example, this could include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233765/bohr-on-wholeness&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246015/what-was-newtons-own-explanation-of-newtons-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find that the set of questions that satisfy that criterion strictly is really rather small. There is, though, a relatively large gray area of questions that are primarily of historical interest, but that still illuminate aspects of how we think about physics and why we no longer think or do certain things. Some examples from this category are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/202342/was-leverrier-adams-prediction-of-neptune-a-lucky-coincidence&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208901/the-role-of-anharmonic-oscillators-in-heisenbergs-1925-paper&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217590/what-are-the-original-papers-on-the-hydrogen-spectral-lines&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249507/were-the-michelson-morley-results-a-surprise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions should be allowed here: they could also be asked at HSM if the OP is interested in a science historian's perspective, but there is no need to migrate them if asked here, in which case the focus should be (because it can be) on how that part of the historical record helps explain how we think of physics. If the OP wants to shift the focus specifically to what some historical character thought and did, what information they had available, and so on, then it can move to HSM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="c4937072-6031-420c-89e7-6c8317531a5f" CreationDate="2016-07-13T13:15:36.153" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="I think we should stay open to a significant set of history questions, and we should keep the [tag:history] tag. Unlike mathematics, the historical perspective is very often one of the key ways to understand the world and our knowledge about physics. The way physics is structured is very often centered around key experiments, and these are generally thought of as historical events and their contribution and motivation is understood in a historical perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be that way: you can perfectly well motivate, say, special relativity as [one of only two possible cases](https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045), with the Galilean case ruled out through muon lifetime measurements, but you don't - you usually start with the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell the story from there. (Math, on the other hand, does not do this: you start with whatever axioms and definitions you want to work with, and you build your theory, and later on you might comment that the axioms went through this and then that version before people found the Right Version to use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through [recent, good-score questions on the history tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhistory%5d%20closed%3ano%20is%3aquestion%20score%3a5) yields plenty of questions that are definitely of a historical character and yet have direct bearing on our understanding of physics, and which I think should definitely be on topic here. Taking a few non-rigorous picks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267036/how-did-physicists-know-that-only-negative-charges-move&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266246/how-did-physicists-know-that-there-are-two-kind-of-charges&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262251/why-was-the-first-discovered-neutrino-an-anti-neutrino&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249392/how-did-we-realize-that-light-travels-at-a-finite-speed&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243144/why-is-a-second-equal-to-the-duration-of-exactly-9-192-631-770-periods-of-radiat&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229169/did-newton-conduct-any-experiments-to-find-something-called-momentum-or-was-he&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201149/why-was-the-stark-effect-discovered-much-later-than-the-zeeman-effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there *are* questions that should be moved to the history site, because they require a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, and because they have minimal or null bearing on our modern understanding of physics. From the first page of the search above, for example, this could include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233765/bohr-on-wholeness&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246015/what-was-newtons-own-explanation-of-newtons-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find that the set of questions that satisfy that criterion strictly is really rather small. There is, though, a relatively large gray area of questions that are primarily of historical interest, but that still illuminate aspects of how we think about physics and why we no longer think or do certain things. Some examples from this category are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/202342/was-leverrier-adams-prediction-of-neptune-a-lucky-coincidence&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208901/the-role-of-anharmonic-oscillators-in-heisenbergs-1925-paper&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217590/what-are-the-original-papers-on-the-hydrogen-spectral-lines&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249507/were-the-michelson-morley-results-a-surprise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions should be allowed here: they could also be asked at HSM if the OP is interested in a science historian's perspective, but there is no need to migrate them if asked here, in which case the focus should be (because it can be) on how that part of the historical record helps explain how we think of physics. If the OP wants to shift the focus specifically to what some historical character thought and did, what information they had available, and so on, then it can move to HSM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="f3398a0b-1775-4a9a-8a7d-b8a92e1dc6cf" CreationDate="2016-07-13T15:57:46.427" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="718b6715-c92f-4b90-b641-cdc7356051a9" CreationDate="2016-07-13T16:37:34.040" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22883" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="1e36203d-ca1a-4d4c-adeb-f4a148fc468a" CreationDate="2016-07-14T08:24:07.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/753505340688310272" />
  <row Id="22884" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="b73fbe2c-bd60-4c35-9289-17b91f2622b5" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:24:02.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/753595915982733312" />
  <row Id="22885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="38f97e71-25ce-4c16-934e-e8cd1e91d91f" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:29:41.160" UserId="75628" Text="I think that opinion-based questions are not accepted in Physics Stack Exchange but I just wanted to ask:&#xD;&#xA;Can I post a question requesting opinions on certain books in Physics Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="38f97e71-25ce-4c16-934e-e8cd1e91d91f" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:29:41.160" UserId="75628" Text="Can I post a question requesting opinions on certain books in Physics Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="38f97e71-25ce-4c16-934e-e8cd1e91d91f" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:29:41.160" UserId="75628" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="3021433a-e613-49f7-bb39-0a8abb57460b" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:34:33.563" UserId="2451" Text="_No._ In fact one of the current close reasons is precise that answers would be _primarily opinion-based._ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="8284d1ce-7b68-4853-b66a-0f9ee767437e" CreationDate="2016-07-14T15:07:23.957" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="_No._ In fact one of the current close reasons is precisely that answers would be _primarily opinion-based._ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="065e308f-16e4-4073-9524-3f8526d17246" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:54:23.763" UserId="99820" Text="www.wzyant.com  is a tutoring site but where you can post your question (homework)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22893" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="991988dc-3350-4ec7-b0db-3a67811462de" CreationDate="2016-07-14T23:24:02.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/753731811801460736" />
  <row Id="22894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="6be29ed3-c3c9-48d8-b26b-505b88a45dae" CreationDate="2016-07-15T06:53:12.217" UserId="99820" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="https://www.wyzant.com/&#xD;&#xA;  is a tutoring site but where you can post your question (homework)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="9fd752ec-6a2f-4724-9776-8a7515619feb" CreationDate="2016-07-15T13:58:53.490" UserId="103999" Text="If you want to delete a question with an answer, you have an option to delete that question. But when you have made that option to delete the question it seems not possible. Is that a mistake of this program or is there an other reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="9fd752ec-6a2f-4724-9776-8a7515619feb" CreationDate="2016-07-15T13:58:53.490" UserId="103999" Text="Why cann't a question be deleted with answers while there is first a note given that it is only not advisable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="9fd752ec-6a2f-4724-9776-8a7515619feb" CreationDate="2016-07-15T13:58:53.490" UserId="103999" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22898" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="3b2549aa-dc76-4c38-8f9c-f39ccf9b0c38" CreationDate="2016-07-15T14:01:26.467" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why can't a question be deleted with answers while there is first a note given that it is only not advisable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22899" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="3b2549aa-dc76-4c38-8f9c-f39ccf9b0c38" CreationDate="2016-07-15T14:01:26.467" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|bug|questions|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22905" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="753fa6da-aa34-454d-98c3-cd645f0be86e" CreationDate="2016-07-15T21:58:03.813" UserId="32426" Comment="edited title" Text="How to suggest edits for help center pages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8942" RevisionGUID="69fc9c3a-80a9-420e-9b1f-08527f6ba829" CreationDate="2016-07-16T08:00:40.690" UserId="77928" Text="About the language, I don't think there is a formal solution. In the end, if physics becomes a main discipline for you, you will be in need of learning better English so you can read papers and articles. On the trolling staff, just don't pay attention on the way a comment or a message is being phrased. Rather, consider if there is anything from that comment that might help you evolve. If it is completely irrelevant, ignore it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="52ba56f2-52b0-4794-a174-71daa52b3563" CreationDate="2016-07-16T09:33:00.720" UserId="124" Text="If I understand correctly, you're asking why you can't delete [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/268192/) (which you identified in the comments). The reason is that you have accepted an answer. A question with an accepted answer cannot be deleted (except by moderators). However, you can unaccept the answer, which then may allow you to delete the question. (If there is an answer with positive score, you will still not be able to delete the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full description of when an answer can be deleted or not is [in the FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22908" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="725c2489-9dd4-4761-a3e6-9c1d77ab39e1" CreationDate="2016-07-16T09:33:12.267" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|questions|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="35751cd4-6d32-41cd-8a1f-c5a689c181e0" CreationDate="2016-07-16T10:01:46.190" UserId="103999" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="If you want to delete a question with an answer, you have an option to delete that question. But when you have made that option to delete the question it seems not possible. Is that a mistake of this program or is there an other reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: there was one answer but not accepted or upvoted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22910" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="35751cd4-6d32-41cd-8a1f-c5a689c181e0" CreationDate="2016-07-16T10:01:46.190" UserId="103999" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Why can't a question be deleted with answers which are not upvoted or accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="81611405-7612-42d9-93ea-2394d77f60e4" CreationDate="2016-07-16T11:44:38.197" UserId="124" Comment="fix mistake" Text="If I understand correctly, you're asking why you can't delete [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/268192/) (which you identified in the comments). The reason is that you have accepted an answer. A question with an accepted answer cannot be deleted (except by moderators). However, you can unaccept the answer, which then may allow you to delete the question. (If there is an answer which has received an upvote - note, this is not the same as having a positive score - you still can't delete the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full description of when an answer can be deleted or not is [in the FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="0421de10-1741-421c-b789-d1b08e515df9" CreationDate="2016-07-16T13:16:14.847" UserId="4993" Text="I am troubled by the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268345/traveling-at-speed-of-light-seeing-light&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and many others like it.  The (obviously very naive) questioner posits a physically impossible situation (often FTL travel as in this case, but there are other examples), asks what it would imply, and gets jumped on for positing something impossible in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But positing things and trying to understand their consequences is a perfectly good --- indeed admirable --- way to learn.  Professional physicists, mathematicians, and others do it all the time.  We trace the consequences of a hypothesis, sometimes discover that those consequences are absurd, and if so reject the hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posters like this one are often doing exactly that, though with hypotheses that more sophisticated readers have already realized are impossible.  Instead of being told &quot;your hypothesis is impossible&quot; in a tone that implies their curiosity is reprehensible, maybe it would be better to encourage that curiosity with pointers to the absurd consequences of the hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I object to the closing message that says this is &quot;Not mainstream physics&quot;.  On the contrary, thought experiments like this very much &lt;b&gt;are&lt;/b&gt; mainstream physics.  An experiment (thought or otherwise) does not become non-mainstream just because somebody else has already performed that experiment and knows how it will end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't mean we should tolerate questions of the form &quot;Ha ha, you guys think that FTL travel is impossible and I'm going to prove you wrong&quot;.  It also doesn't mean that questions like this should stay open; in fact they are almost always duplicates and should be closed on those grounds.  But it does mean that  people who are (as far as we know) making a genuine effort reason their way through things should not be shamed for their curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="0421de10-1741-421c-b789-d1b08e515df9" CreationDate="2016-07-16T13:16:14.847" UserId="4993" Text="Very Naive Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="0421de10-1741-421c-b789-d1b08e515df9" CreationDate="2016-07-16T13:16:14.847" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="e39efc00-cd55-48d6-80a3-6fb9c7ede4ce" CreationDate="2016-07-16T13:36:56.830" UserId="4993" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I am troubled by the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268345/traveling-at-speed-of-light-seeing-light&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and many others like it.  The (obviously very naive) questioner posits a physically impossible situation (often FTL travel as in this case, but there are other examples), asks what it would imply, and gets jumped on for positing something impossible in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But positing things and trying to understand their consequences is a perfectly good --- indeed admirable --- way to learn.  Professional physicists, mathematicians, and others do it all the time.  We trace the consequences of a hypothesis, sometimes discover that those consequences are absurd, and if so reject the hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posters like this one are often doing exactly that, though with hypotheses that more sophisticated readers have already realized are impossible.  Instead of being told &quot;your hypothesis is impossible&quot; in a tone that implies their curiosity is reprehensible, maybe it would be better to encourage that curiosity with pointers to the absurd consequences of the hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I object to the closing message that says this is &quot;Not mainstream physics&quot;.  On the contrary, thought experiments like this very much &lt;b&gt;are&lt;/b&gt; mainstream physics.  An experiment (thought or otherwise) does not become non-mainstream just because somebody else has already performed that experiment and knows how it will end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't mean we should tolerate questions of the form &quot;Ha ha, you guys think that FTL travel is impossible and I'm going to prove you wrong&quot;.  It also doesn't mean that questions like this should stay open; in fact they are almost always duplicates and should be closed on those grounds.  But it does mean that  people who are (as far as we know) making a genuine effort to reason their way through things should not be shamed for their curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="df499650-7402-4b73-be41-89fb1fcefe80" CreationDate="2016-07-16T14:03:18.517" UserId="4993" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am troubled by the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268345/traveling-at-speed-of-light-seeing-light&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and many others like it.  The (obviously very naive) questioner posits a physically impossible situation (often FTL travel as in this case, but there are other examples), asks what it would imply, and gets jumped on for positing something impossible in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But positing things and trying to understand their consequences is a perfectly good --- indeed admirable --- way to learn.  Professional physicists, mathematicians, and others do it all the time.  We trace the consequences of a hypothesis, sometimes discover that those consequences are absurd, and if so reject the hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posters like this one are often doing exactly that, though with hypotheses that more sophisticated readers have already realized are impossible.  Instead of telling them &quot;your hypothesis is impossible&quot; in a tone that implies their curiosity is reprehensible, maybe it would be better to encourage that curiosity with pointers to the absurd consequences of the hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I object to the closing message that says this is &quot;Not mainstream physics&quot;.  On the contrary, thought experiments like this very much &lt;b&gt;are&lt;/b&gt; mainstream physics.  An experiment (thought or otherwise) does not become non-mainstream just because somebody else has already performed that experiment and knows how it will end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't mean we should tolerate questions of the form &quot;Ha ha, you guys think that FTL travel is impossible and I'm going to prove you wrong&quot;.  It also doesn't mean that questions like this should stay open; in fact they are almost always duplicates and should be closed on those grounds.  But it does mean that  people who are (as far as we know) making a genuine effort to reason their way through things should not be shamed for their curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="7e7dab05-9fb7-41b4-893e-bc439e42530f" CreationDate="2016-07-16T18:57:54.923" UserId="520" Text="## Topicality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that thee is a conflict between what we say this site is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a very wide-spread belief that it is OK for complete newcomers to a subject to raise their question is absolutely any place on the web that seems to cover the same site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a strongly held belief of many Stack Exchanges (especially those from the earliest days who watched and participated in the original forging of the Stack Overflow we know today) that being completely accepting of either &quot;fun&quot; or know-nothing questions drives out high quality question, reduces the value of the site to its intended audience, and eventually drives out expert answerers. (I am a subscriber to that belief, BTW).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there are few places on the web for a rank beginner to go and get good answer to really basic questions like that, but that is not the mission of this site as I understand it and allowing it will only result in endless repetition of the same question and answers over and over again. I say it on BBSs in the 80s and on usenet in the 90s and you can look around the internet right now and see it on &quot;forum&quot; type internet sites all over the place. You can see it right now on this site by just looking for the insane number of question users who are convinced that they have discovered something wrong with special relativity and can prove it with yet another boring and unenlightening variation on the twin paradox (how many have we had this week, anyway?); of course all that each such question proves is that the asker hadn't really understood the theory in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Rudeness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, there is a second issue. That's the sometimes brusque tone with which such askers are met. If you troll through the archive of meta.stackoverflow.com you'll find *many* places where the team came on and asked people to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice to people asking off topic questions while firmly closing the questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag places where people are not being nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Exert what social pressure they can to support the culture of niceness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And when they do it works for a while—months most of the time—before things start to drift away again. That happens because it is fatiguing to hold ones metaphoric thumb in the dike and in time people get frustrated and lash out. Which isn't fair to the poor soul who has made his or her very first overture to this site, but frankly the pure repetitiveness of dealing with one &quot;I don't know any thing about physics but I have a theory...&quot; questions after another for weeks on end isn't really fair to the regular users here either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What you can do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Be an active participant in getting off-topic questions closed *quickly* and nicely.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As fast close is a firm message, and if it is a *nice* but firm message then the user can go elsewhere without hard feelings.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't answer off topic question. No, not in the comments either. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  I know you think that answering them is nice, but it tell that user that they can get what they want from us *even when what they want is outside the bounds of what we say we do*. If you answer them, they will be back.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag comments where people are being not nice. With enough user flags those go away even before a moderator sees them: the community can insist on niceness.&#xD;&#xA;* If you disagree with a closure argue the point without calling the people doing the closure names. Namecalling isn't nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="ef1fc89c-534b-4735-bb2e-0498c12f9510" CreationDate="2016-07-16T19:23:21.530" UserId="520" Comment="blue pencil stuff" Text="## Topicality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that thee is a conflict between [what we say this site is][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a very wide-spread belief that it is OK for complete newcomers to a subject to raise their question is absolutely any place on the web that seems to cover the same topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a strongly held belief of many Stack Exchange users (especially those from the earliest days who watched and participated in the original forging of the Stack Overflow we know today) that being completely accepting of either &quot;fun&quot; or know-nothing questions drives out high quality question, reduces the value of the site to its intended audience, and eventually drives out expert answerers. (I am a subscriber to that belief, BTW).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there are few places on the web for a rank beginner to go and get good answer to really basic questions in physics like that, but that is not the mission of this site as I understand it and allowing it will only result in endless repetition of the same question and answers over and over again. I say it on BBSs in the 80s and on usenet in the 90s and you can look around the internet right now and see it on &quot;forum&quot; type internet sites all over the place. You can see it right now on this site by just looking for the insane number of question users who are convinced that they have discovered something wrong with special relativity and can prove it with yet another boring and unenlightening variation on the twin paradox (how many have we had this week, anyway?); of course all that each such question proves is that the asker hadn't really understood the theory in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Rudeness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, there is a second issue. That's the sometimes brusque tone with which such askers are met. If you troll through the archive of meta.stackoverflow.com you'll find *many* places where the team came on and asked people to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice to people asking off topic questions while firmly closing the questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag places where people are not being nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Exert what social pressure they can to support the culture of niceness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And when they do it works for a while—months, most of the time—before things start to drift away again. That happens because it is fatiguing to hold one's metaphoric thumb in the dike and in time people get frustrated and lash out. Which isn't fair to the poor soul who has made his or her very first overture to this site, but frankly the pure repetitiveness of dealing with one &quot;I don't know any thing about physics but I have a theory...&quot; questions after another for weeks on end isn't really fair to the regular users here either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What you can do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Be an active participant in getting off-topic questions closed *quickly* and nicely.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As fast close is a firm message, and if it is a *nice* but firm message then the user can go elsewhere without hard feelings.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't answer off topic question. No, not in the comments either. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  I know you think that answering them is nice, but it tells that user that they can get what they want from us *even when what they want is outside the bounds of what we say we do*. If you answer them, they will be back.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag comments where people are being not nice. With enough user flags those go away even before a moderator sees them: the community can insist on niceness.&#xD;&#xA;* If you disagree with a closure argue the point without calling the people doing the closure names. Namecalling isn't nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="962f257f-ee5e-4dda-a7f6-d478fba5cb70" CreationDate="2016-07-16T19:53:57.420" UserId="84230" Text="My question is, whether one should downvote a question just because he dosen't understand it or he finds the O.P's formatting or editing as poor.  &#xD;&#xA;I will like reason it with my example.The place I live is 80% natural.Only recently there has been a craze to use smartphones, but only after after 20s.I never worked so badly on Internet,forgot even the basics of HTML and don't have time to learn it for I have lots of other things to concentrate, as I am a student, but I am having lots of questions and doubts in my mind.Formatting,[editing](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268399/how-pressure-energy-term-is-equal-to-atmospheric-pressure-here/268403?)is my weak point especially when working with HTML.I am sure I will become an expert in future but currently my hands are cuffed and if I spend lots of time in these things I fear a dark future.  &#xD;&#xA;I basically came to this site to get answers to my question which are usually turndown in classrooms as being not specific to examinations which they call 'I am not doing smart work.'But I can't help as I am not able to remember things without understanding it and also I have limited time.I have great expectations from this site but I am blind over here.So being anxious and worried for posts being voted down for the above mentioned reason as mentioned in first para is another waste of time for me.Either you can tell me honestly to abandon this site if I am not compatible for it, or you may like to find some solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="962f257f-ee5e-4dda-a7f6-d478fba5cb70" CreationDate="2016-07-16T19:53:57.420" UserId="84230" Text="Should a question be voted down for poor formatting or editing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="962f257f-ee5e-4dda-a7f6-d478fba5cb70" CreationDate="2016-07-16T19:53:57.420" UserId="84230" Text="|discussion|editing|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="9218c940-c478-4e76-9968-03248b060345" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:02:10.313" UserId="84230" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="My question is, whether one should downvote a question just because he dosen't understand it or he finds the O.P's formatting or editing as poor.  &#xD;&#xA;I will like to reason something with my example.The place I live is 80% natural environment.Only recently there has been a craze to use smartphones,and that only after 20s.I never worked so badly on Internet,forgot even the basics of HTML and don't have time to learn it for I have lots of other things to concentrate as I am a student. But I am having lots of questions and doubts in my mind.Formatting,[editing](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268399/how-pressure-energy-term-is-equal-to-atmospheric-pressure-here/268403?)is my weak point especially when working with HTML.I am sure I will become an expert in future but currently my hands are cuffed and if I spend lots of time in these things I fear a dark future.  &#xD;&#xA;I basically came to this site to get answers to my question which are usually turndown in classrooms as being not specific to examinations which they call 'I am not doing smart work.'But I can't help as I am not able to remember things without understanding it but I have limited time.I have great expectations from this site but I am blind over here.So being anxious and worried for posts being voted down for the above mentioned reason as I had mentioned in first para has become another waste of time for me.Either you can tell me honestly to abandon this site if I am not compatible for it, or you may like to find some solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="3f97a97e-6c6e-439a-b76e-6dfc239ab073" CreationDate="2016-07-17T00:57:55.460" UserId="8563" Text="I have always felt that the criteria for the use of the Very Low Quality flag are fuzzy, confusing, and ultimately wrong, and I recently had a VLQ flag declined that I would like some clarifications on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer in question is [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/268366/8563), which I'll quote as an image in case it is deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184186/, is relatively poor to begin with, but depending on your perspective, this answer is either (i) a load of waffle with very little to do with the question, (ii) a push for a non-mainstream personal theory, (iii) just plain wrong, or (iv) a load of waffle that doesn't even manage to mean much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I find that this answer is in active detriment to the site, and it needs to be downvoted and deleted relatively quickly. As such, a VLQ flag is precisely the thing to put this answer in front of review-minded individuals with independent perspectives and a handy Recommend Deletion button that can remove bad content when acted upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore did just that, and I flagged it as VLQ. The reviewers [apparently agreed with me](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138149), giving it three Recommend Deletion votes to one Looks OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nRj9p.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, despite the reviewers agreeing with the flag, it still got declined with the usual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really, really, *really* don't get this. The flag text reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it is very low quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the answer ticks all the boxes. It is definitely very low quality, it has severe content problems, it cannot be salvaged without a complete re-do, and as it stands it needs to be removed. A VLQ flag is the organic mechanism we have to deal with content that's so bad that it needs to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it seems that I am currently banned from raising that specific kind of flag, partly from this incident and a VLQ flag on [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/267914/8563), which received a [single review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/137912) that also agreed with the flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have a number of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that there is a lot of inertia here, and that there is some amount of general guidance that emanates from the Stack Exchange team and broader community, and that some of our moderators take this guidance very explicitly to heart. However, I do **not** think that the answer to any of the above questions should be &quot;because SE says so&quot;. That's just intentionally crippling the community moderation mechanisms without any amount of critical analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, we need to recognize that the flagging and reviewing mechanisms are tools provided by Stack Exchange to multiple communities, that they need to be uniform to keep the development process manageable, and that they therefore need to take a very general form that is able to serve over 130 different sites with different requirements. However, these are still only tools, and it is up to us to find the ways and community processes to use these tools that work for us as a site, and that respond to the unique pressures that this site is under. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this includes crackpot answers (particularly the lower tier, the ones for which &quot;non-mainstream&quot; is a stretched compliment) that only serve to make this site look unattractive to prospective experts. We have a software tool (VLQ flags then queue) that enables us to efficiently clean these up as a community without unilateral action. What is there, beyond blind SE dogma, that forces us to shoot ourselves in the foot and disable this tool from use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the long rant, but I really don't see it. Rant aside, I really am interested in the answers to the questions above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="3f97a97e-6c6e-439a-b76e-6dfc239ab073" CreationDate="2016-07-17T00:57:55.460" UserId="8563" Text="Why was this Very Low Quality flag declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="3f97a97e-6c6e-439a-b76e-6dfc239ab073" CreationDate="2016-07-17T00:57:55.460" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="83cdd6b1-cd96-4e98-8ae9-c8a18a6de64a" CreationDate="2016-07-17T01:04:10.867" UserId="8563" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="My question is, whether one should downvote a question just because he doesn't understand it or he finds the O.P's formatting or editing as poor. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I will like to reason something with my example.The place I live is 80% natural environment. Only recently there has been a craze to use smartphones,and that only after 20s. I never worked so badly on Internet, forgot even the basics of HTML and don't have time to learn it for I have lots of other things to concentrate as I am a student. But I am having lots of questions and doubts in my mind. Formatting, [editing](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268399/how-pressure-energy-term-is-equal-to-atmospheric-pressure-here/268403?)is my weak point especially when working with HTML. I am sure I will become an expert in future but currently my hands are cuffed and if I spend lots of time in these things I fear a dark future.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically came to this site to get answers to my question which are usually turned down in classrooms as being not specific to examinations which they call &quot;I am not doing smart work&quot;. But I can't help as I am not able to remember things without understanding it but I have limited time.I have great expectations from this site but I am blind over here. So being anxious and worried for posts being voted down for the above mentioned reason as I had mentioned in first paragraph has become another waste of time for me. Either you can tell me honestly to abandon this site if I am not compatible for it, or you may like to find some solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="92833e50-25b8-43de-b32e-7062156bb28b" CreationDate="2016-07-17T01:17:09.913" UserId="8563" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My question is, whether one should downvote a question just because he doesn't understand it or he finds the O.P's formatting or editing as poor. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I will like to reason something with my example.The place I live is 80% natural environment. Only recently there has been a craze to use smartphones,and that only after 20s. I never worked so badly on Internet, forgot even the basics of HTML and don't have time to learn it for I have lots of other things to concentrate as I am a student. But I am having lots of questions and doubts in my mind. Formatting and [editing](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268399/how-pressure-energy-term-is-equal-to-atmospheric-pressure-here/268403?) is my weak point especially when working with HTML. I am sure I will become an expert in future but currently my hands are cuffed and if I spend lots of time in these things I fear a dark future.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically came to this site to get answers to my question which are usually turned down in classrooms as being not specific to examinations which they call &quot;I am not doing smart work&quot;. But I can't help as I am not able to remember things without understanding it but I have limited time.I have great expectations from this site but I am blind over here. So being anxious and worried for posts being voted down for the above mentioned reason as I had mentioned in first paragraph has become another waste of time for me. Either you can tell me honestly to abandon this site if I am not compatible for it, or you may like to find some solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8948" RevisionGUID="7fa51ccf-1f5a-464d-891c-00768dfafd8c" CreationDate="2016-07-17T01:35:44.740" UserId="8563" Text="You *should* care about formatting your posts to the point where they are easily legible by everyone, but for a different reason: it will make it easier for you to get answers, and it will improve the quality of the answers you do get. Why? because every second that a potential answerer spends being annoyed by poor formatting is one less second of them thinking about the physics, and one second closer to them deciding to simply leave the post aside and going to find another one. Having a question that is correctly formatted, easy to read, and which clearly conveys the heart of the question, is the number one fix to getting better answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is formatted so badly that it takes a lot of effort to even begin to understand what it's saying, then some people can and do get annoyed enough that they'll downvote before leaving. This is allowed for the same reasons that there is no requirement for anyone to explain their posts, because it promotes uninhibited voting based on the usefulness of the question, and it helps clear, interesting, useful questions float to the top. A question with terrible formatting is less clear and less useful, so it is right that it does not get to the top.&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the post has minor formatting problems, a lot of times the response is simply for users to jump in and help with the formatting to help the 'real' question shine better; the cases where this doesn't happen are often because the post is so muddled that we can't even tell what the user means to ask in the first place. Want to see some examples? Take our [recent prolific editors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Editors&amp;filter=quarter) and see their recent edits (profile &gt; activity &gt; all actions &gt; revisions). You'll find a lot of people jumping at posts that have issues and fixing them instead of downvoting them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, there are two very clear things you can do that will make your posts more readable by a very wide margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Adding a space after every punctuation. In English, all forms of punctuation used in text (`. , ! ? ) : ;`) are directly followed by whitespace. Skipping that whitespace (as in e.g.skipping the whitespace,like this) is visually very jarring, stops the visual flow, and takes attention away from your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Correct use of paragraph breaks. Paragraphs need to be of an appropriate length (roughly two to four sentences) and they need to be separated by a blank line in the source text to display correctly. Skipping this blank line produces paragraphs which are joined together (either as a single paragraph or as two immediately contiguous ones) which produce a 'wall of text' that's very hard to digest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an example of how this looks like when it is done incorrectly, consider the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   which renders as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Note that there are three white spaces after the end of the first paragraph, which cause the joined-but-malformed paragraphs. Instead, you need to introduce a blank line between paragraphs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   which renders as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and this is *miles* easier to read for most English speakers, particularly with longer paragraphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are easy to implement and they will visibly improve the quality of your posts; all you need is discipline in implementing them consistently. This might take some effort, but you need to accept that we *all* spend effort here to produce the best-crafted questions and answers that we can, and you need to match the effort you put into your questions to the effort you expect answerers to spend on their responses, both in terms of content and in terms of formatting and readability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="9ad8924f-6fed-4f8d-9169-18520f2b6e35" CreationDate="2016-07-17T09:31:11.790" UserId="124" Text="Let me address the root of the problem first: the criteria for using a Very Low Quality flag, at least as far as the moderators are concerned (currently), are laid out in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a VLQ flag appears in the moderator flag queue, my thought process is basically &quot;Can I read this? Yes: decline/No: accept&quot;. The answer in question is certainly readable, and I think we would agree that it does not meet the criteria quoted above. Its main problem is that it's wrong. That calls for it to be downvoted, but not flagged. If it were to be deleted by three delete votes from non-moderators, that wouldn't be the worst thing, but a VLQ flag is meant to indicate that something is so obviously worthless that it deserves swift and ruthless deletion, even from a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now let me address your individual points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, I checked and I'm the one who declined both those flags. (It shouldn't matter _who_ exactly did it, but I'm just saying you're getting the closest thing to an authoritative answer here.) This was done from the _moderator_ flag queue, not from the low-quality review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As described in [this MSE question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), if VLQ flags sit in their own queue for 15 minutes without being handled by the community, they are then added into the moderator flag queue. When the flags appear in the mod queue, we don't get any information about whether they are under review by the community or what the status of that review is; we only know that they have been sitting around for a certain amount of time and the community hasn't handled them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One _could_ take this as a sign that the VLQ queue is not doing its job, but it could also be the case that 15 minutes is too short to reflect the activity level for this site. This was discussed in the comments on that post, so I'd point you there for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, the biggest problem with these answers is that they are wrong. We already have a mechanism to distinguish right from wrong, namely voting. This takes into account that reasonable people often disagree on what is correct and what is not. If we additionally use flags to enforce consequences on wrong answers, that puts each individual moderator in the position of deciding right from wrong, and that's really not what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I've said I disagree with the premise. I think the system is designed the way it is for a reason: there is no other review mechanism for posts like these precisely because the site doesn't need to be kept clean from such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I think you have a point. While I would always like to see more high-rep users active in moderation, I do think the community is capable of handling most of its own moderation, and it might be useful to tweak the thresholds of the review system so that flags aren't bumped up to the moderator queue so quickly. This would require a bit of data analysis on flag handling times, but if people are agreed on that conclusion, we could make a request to the SE team to change the thresholds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nothing compels us to host this kind of content. But again, the tricky part is deciding which content is worthy of hosting and which content is not, and in particular, _who_ makes that decision. Like I said, individual moderators shouldn't be expected to distinguish right from wrong. A consensus of high-rep users is better equipped to do it, but still, the main mechanism to indicate wrongness is by voting, not deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means stuff like &quot;jasfoijaw3fjpawejfp0awjefp0asj0pfoajks09ojk3meosoifmasd&quot;. (Yes, we do get posts like that.) Things that you can't even read. &quot;Severe content problems&quot; doesn't refer to the content being _wrong_, it refers to the content being _unintelligible_. The sort of thing that _any_ competent English speaker, whether or not they have any knowledge of physics, would be unable to make sense of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8952" RevisionGUID="516ff339-b3e4-4f25-b870-7f2d58820b11" CreationDate="2016-07-17T10:33:29.260" UserId="50583" Text="I agree, the very low quality flag is currently somewhere between useless and horribly confusing. Not only I agree, several posts on meta.SE also agree: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Remove VLQ as a flag option](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/278794/263383), top answer says should be removed for questions, and renamed just &quot;delete&quot; on answers - which I think would be even more useless, considering we do not delete answers that are not either &quot;not an answer&quot; or flaggable as offensive/spam. Shog9's answer has an interesting bit on the purpose of the low quality flag: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; See, back in 2011, folks were posting a lot of really terrible stuff. Not exactly nonsense mind you; just... Embarrassingly-bad questions and answers. Stuff that wasn't even wrong so much as just... Annoying. Txt-speak explanations that don't explain anything. Code-only answers where the code isn't formatted and also is copied directly from the question. Questions that are copied from an assignment somewhere, with a few round-trips through a machine translation service en route. Stuff that, given infinite time and patience and clairvoyance could maybe be fixed, but in practice just saps the energy of everyone reading and makes us long for the quality and clarity we used to have over on Yahoo! Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Rename “Very low quality” in “unintelligible”](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/276982/263383), only answer says &quot;rename to delete&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Is the “very low quality” flag necessary?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/104782/263383), top voted answer says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A bad/incorrect answer or an answer that's difficult to understand can still answer the question, albeit badly. I don't think &quot;not an answer&quot; the same as &quot;very low quality&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in summary, most people seem to agree that either &quot;very low quality&quot; *should* mean posts like the ones you are flagging - posts that technically try to answer the question, but horribly fail at providing anything useful to the reader - or should be abolished. I'll now address a point DavidZ makes in his answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very low quality is *not* needed for gibberish posts. [Shog9 explicitly recommends](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234035/263383) flagging gibberish as &quot;rude or abusive&quot;, and &quot;not an answer&quot; would apply equally well to gibberish. If &quot;Can I read this: Yes/No&quot; is the criterion for acception/declining low quality flags, there is truly no point to this flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And reading Shog9's description of what the low quality flag was created for, it's explicitly for posts that are **not** gibberish, but nevertheless so worthless they do not deserve to be hosted on this site. Now, you may say that &quot;downvotes&quot; are there to fix that. But downvotes **do not fix that**, in particular when the post is written in correct English but contains no information of value - it *still* gets upvoted by someone, and it takes five downvotes against one upvote to even make that a zero sum game. It is perfectly possible (and it happens!) to get net positive reputation just by posting garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there's still a case to be made that we *shouldn't*, on the grounds of some imagined fairness, vote to delete answers that try to answer the question just because of our judgement of their content. But when I read crackpots pushing their personal theories, answers that have no grounding in physics whatsoever, I cannot help but thinking that the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it is not a moderator's place to pass such judgement on the content of answer (although I would not have a problem with that). But it should be the community's place to pass judgement on bad answers, and yes, even decide that they do not deserve a space in this community and should be deleted. So my idea would be that low quality flags *should not be declined* by moderators if they are not obviously cast in bad faith for some reason, but if the moderator in question doesn't feel they have the right to unanimously validate the flag, they should just refrain from acting on it. Let the review queue do its job. Because, in many cases, I have found that the community rather unanimously decides to get rid of obvious crackpottery and stuff that is so wrong as to be unsalvagable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not at all the intended way the VLQ flag and its review queue should be used, then the flag option needs to be removed, since currently it *is* effectively used that way unless a moderator manually declines the flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="c35fb839-841c-4ee5-9507-e288d76f1d5a" CreationDate="2016-07-17T15:08:19.857" UserId="8563" Comment="added 697 characters in body" Text="I have always felt that the criteria for the use of the Very Low Quality flag are fuzzy, confusing, and ultimately wrong, and I recently had a VLQ flag declined that I would like some clarifications on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer in question is [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/268366/8563), which I'll quote as an image in case it is deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184186/, is relatively poor to begin with, but depending on your perspective, this answer is either (i) a load of waffle with very little to do with the question, (ii) a push for a non-mainstream personal theory, (iii) just plain wrong, or (iv) a load of waffle that doesn't even manage to mean much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I find that this answer is in active detriment to the site, and it needs to be downvoted and deleted relatively quickly. As such, a VLQ flag is precisely the thing to put this answer in front of review-minded individuals with independent perspectives and a handy Recommend Deletion button that can remove bad content when acted upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore did just that, and I flagged it as VLQ. The reviewers [apparently agreed with me](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138149), giving it three Recommend Deletion votes to one Looks OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nRj9p.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, despite the reviewers agreeing with the flag, it still got declined with the usual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really, really, *really* don't get this. The flag text reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it is very low quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the answer ticks all the boxes. It is definitely very low quality, it has severe content problems, it cannot be salvaged without a complete re-do, and as it stands it needs to be removed. A VLQ flag is the organic mechanism we have to deal with content that's so bad that it needs to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it seems that I am currently banned from raising that specific kind of flag, partly from this incident and a VLQ flag on [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/267914/8563), which received a [single review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/137912) that also agreed with the flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have a number of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that there is a lot of inertia here, and that there is some amount of general guidance that emanates from the Stack Exchange team and broader community, and that some of our moderators take this guidance very explicitly to heart. However, I do **not** think that the answer to any of the above questions should be &quot;because SE says so&quot;. That's just intentionally crippling the community moderation mechanisms without any amount of critical analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, we need to recognize that the flagging and reviewing mechanisms are tools provided by Stack Exchange to multiple communities, that they need to be uniform to keep the development process manageable, and that they therefore need to take a very general form that is able to serve over 130 different sites with different requirements. However, these are still only tools, and it is up to us to find the ways and community processes to use these tools that work for us as a site, and that respond to the unique pressures that this site is under. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this includes crackpot answers (particularly the lower tier, the ones for which &quot;non-mainstream&quot; is a stretched compliment) that only serve to make this site look unattractive to prospective experts. We have a software tool (VLQ flags then queue) that enables us to efficiently clean these up as a community without unilateral action. What is there, beyond blind SE dogma, that forces us to shoot ourselves in the foot and disable this tool from use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the long rant, but I really don't see it. Rant aside, I really am interested in the answers to the questions above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit, just to have a clear tl;dr proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers which are (i) flat-out incorrect, (ii) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make them useful or constructive, and (iii) so completely incorrect that they are actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be flagged as VLQ, which then feeds directly to the Low Quality Posts queue. There, if people agree with that three-point assessment, they should vote Recommend Deletion (or, if 20k+, Delete). Flags should sit there for X hours (where X is much bigger than 1/4), and should only be handed over to the moderator review queue after that time, or if there is obvious conflict in the review outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="8e4ace30-a754-49cf-8cf8-eccf162248d1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T17:59:38.960" UserId="111951" Text="[This question][1] of mine merged with [this one][2] while the questions were pretty different with each other. And [this answer][3] of Gennaro Tedesco (before is edited by me, even after that!) is completely meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why **must** those questions be merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could explain clearly why those questions were merged if the moderator who merged the questions, wasn't deleting comments related to that answer of Gennaro Tedesco. But now, I cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to deleted comments and you can recover them, please help for clarification of this matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266771/why-does-the-clock-work-slowly-at-higher-speed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really/266773#266773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="8e4ace30-a754-49cf-8cf8-eccf162248d1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T17:59:38.960" UserId="111951" Text="About merging of questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="8e4ace30-a754-49cf-8cf8-eccf162248d1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T17:59:38.960" UserId="111951" Text="|discussion|moderators|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8954" RevisionGUID="72ecbe2a-ea36-46f2-9c21-8e8c54c652f9" CreationDate="2016-07-17T18:54:02.273" UserId="520" Text="This represents a misstep on my part, but it is not easily reversed. (Indeed, I don't know if it can be reversed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time I was concerned that there was a single answer to a closed question that uses slightly unusual language that—in my opinion—might mislead the reader not withstanding that it isn't &quot;wrong&quot; *per se*. I felt that by putting it in the context of other good answers it would be less likely to mislead, but overlook the fundamentally different phrase of the (same underlying) question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22944" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="2fe96de4-9b8e-4353-af8d-7a3c9d3fdb23" CreationDate="2016-07-18T02:28:47.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/754865469430099968" />
  <row Id="22945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="25cfdf8f-7e7a-4d5e-8304-86e91d467ada" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:16:03.967" UserId="111951" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="25cfdf8f-7e7a-4d5e-8304-86e91d467ada" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:16:03.967" UserId="111951" Text="About close votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="25cfdf8f-7e7a-4d5e-8304-86e91d467ada" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:16:03.967" UserId="111951" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="d54cb4bd-1000-47f9-a607-4743a2fbefb8" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:36:24.187" UserId="111951" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][5], the same question of mine has been reviewed once before this time. I wonder how dose the closure process start by a &quot;Leave open&quot; vote? (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:30 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/137518&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mwplu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="4238757e-a73d-458d-861f-b96a01c254ff" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:48:01.657" UserId="111951" Comment="added 461 characters in body" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][5], the same question of mine has been reviewed once before this time. I wonder how dose the closure process start by a &quot;Leave open&quot; vote? (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:30 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][7], this question of mine has been closed by five votes. But there is just one close vote in the [review][8] page. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:45 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/137518&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mwplu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8896/about-questions-that-seem-stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/214&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YLVgO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="8801cd33-34ce-4025-8b3b-39cdfec05011" CreationDate="2016-07-18T07:22:10.533" UserId="8563" Text="Review pages only show close votes cast as part of the review process, and they do not show any votes cast independently, i.e. directly on the question page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, questions are put on the queue by a direct vote to close, so there is usually one more close vote than there are reviews. If more people vote independently of the queue, this difference can increase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, some questions end up on the queue through a flag as off-topic by a &lt;3k user, in which case all the votes could come from review. I don't know how often this happens, though.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="219dedeb-c036-4865-9649-dc54815f97e2" CreationDate="2016-07-18T10:35:36.180" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8957" RevisionGUID="67b2f4ff-8fa6-4399-844d-6f5d96ee0c2a" CreationDate="2016-07-18T10:39:20.900" UserId="121428" Text="I have read through the responses and am one of those individuals who did not understand the actual purpose of this site was for the active researcher, the academic and for students with an eye toward becoming a physicist or an astronomer. It was only after I had posed my first question and moved on to my second that I began to realize the nature of this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there was no discourtesy in the responses I received. What I would have appreciated was a response telling me that this question was already asked and answered with a link to the original question. Perhaps before a question is posted it could be vetted by volunteers and handled this way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me tell you that there is a lot of misinformation and trolls lurking around on the internet. When I found this site and saw that it was populated by people who would take a question seriously and give a serious response, I was surprised. Surprised nd very pleased. The people I have encountered here have not tried to make me uncomfortable with my simplistic questions, lack of education and general ignorance. It has been a good experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems that this is not the site for people who are just curious. I am a retired blue collar worker and have time on my hands. Looking into things that I often wondered about but never had time for is one of the things I looked forward to when I reached this age. I hope to find a site that is similar to this one but intended to reach people like myself. Interested in this world of ours but not interested in starting a new career or obtaining a degree. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22953" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="67f6ef9e-8147-4b17-b070-c404b892292c" CreationDate="2016-07-18T11:15:35.833" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|vote-to-close|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22954" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="7756485e-8ed3-41ce-ba16-a0fe29bba0b9" CreationDate="2016-07-18T23:37:24.147" UserId="8563" Comment="edited title" Text="Why don't close-vote counts agree with the number of close votes on review pages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22955" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="1ecf860e-ac3c-4d61-a35d-794ba22ed9bb" CreationDate="2016-07-19T10:07:52.023" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="28ef2a32-54bf-46f4-b88c-bf0593148ece" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:07:41.060" UserId="8563" Comment="added 634 characters in body" Text="I think we should stay open to a significant set of history questions, and we should keep the [tag:history] tag. Unlike mathematics, the historical perspective is very often one of the key ways to understand the world and our knowledge about physics. The way physics is structured is very often centered around key experiments, and these are generally thought of as historical events and their contribution and motivation is understood in a historical perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be that way: you can perfectly well motivate, say, special relativity as [one of only two possible cases](https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045), with the Galilean case ruled out through muon lifetime measurements, but you don't - you usually start with the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell the story from there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Math, on the other hand, does not have to do this: you can simply start with whatever axioms and definitions you want to work with, and you build your theory. Later on, or as an aside or a brief introduction, you might comment, as motivation, that the axioms went through this and then that version before people found the Right Version to use, but the brunt of the work tends to follow from the axioms to the consequences rather than the historical refinements of the axioms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through [recent, good-score questions on the history tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhistory%5d%20closed%3ano%20is%3aquestion%20score%3a5) yields plenty of questions that are definitely of a historical character and yet have direct bearing on our understanding of physics, and which I think should definitely be on topic here. Taking a few non-rigorous picks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267036/how-did-physicists-know-that-only-negative-charges-move&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266246/how-did-physicists-know-that-there-are-two-kind-of-charges&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262251/why-was-the-first-discovered-neutrino-an-anti-neutrino&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249392/how-did-we-realize-that-light-travels-at-a-finite-speed&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243144/why-is-a-second-equal-to-the-duration-of-exactly-9-192-631-770-periods-of-radiat&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229169/did-newton-conduct-any-experiments-to-find-something-called-momentum-or-was-he&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201149/why-was-the-stark-effect-discovered-much-later-than-the-zeeman-effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there *are* questions that should be moved to the history site, because they require a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, and because they have minimal or null bearing on our modern understanding of physics. From the first page of the search above, for example, this could include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233765/bohr-on-wholeness&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246015/what-was-newtons-own-explanation-of-newtons-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find that the set of questions that satisfy that criterion strictly is really rather small. There is, though, a relatively large gray area of questions that are primarily of historical interest, but that still illuminate aspects of how we think about physics and why we no longer think or do certain things. Some examples from this category are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/202342/was-leverrier-adams-prediction-of-neptune-a-lucky-coincidence&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208901/the-role-of-anharmonic-oscillators-in-heisenbergs-1925-paper&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217590/what-are-the-original-papers-on-the-hydrogen-spectral-lines&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249507/were-the-michelson-morley-results-a-surprise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions should be allowed here: they could also be asked at HSM if the OP is interested in a science historian's perspective, but there is no need to migrate them if asked here, in which case the focus should be (because it can be) on how that part of the historical record helps explain how we think of physics. If the OP wants to shift the focus specifically to what some historical character thought and did, what information they had available, and so on, then it can move to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;History questions are welcome on this site whenever they have any bearing on our modern understanding of physics. However, if a question has only minimal or null bearing on our current understanding, or it specifically requires a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, then it should be migrated to the [History of Science and Maths](http://hsm.stackexchange.com) Stack Exchange site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22957" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="8220e691-5292-471d-8cbf-1766425afc46" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:34:57.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/755365305845706752" />
  <row Id="22958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8958" RevisionGUID="dd1e59b8-88d2-44af-8efa-bd9ae8978fd5" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:44:37.680" UserId="84246" Text="I think they are doing worldbuilding. Most of them did not study college physics.&#xA;&#xA;I am not a physics student in college too. Sometimes I need to confirm the correctness of my setting, however I can't find my answer on google. I really need to ask someone who have studied physics in college. Before I make some scifi settings, I tried to study some materials related to that topic, but I don't want to use to much time to fully understand all college physics, it is too demanding for a scifi writer. May be he/she doesn't know worldbuilding SE, so he/she asked that question here. I think we can ask whether he/she is trying to make some scifi setting, if yes, we can move it to worldbuilding SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="38da1e94-20dd-4324-94ea-563dbb043d9c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:15:17.250" UserId="83380" Text="I'm pretty sure I flagged my question [Why do they think WT1190F is low density?][1] a few days ago, suggesting/requesting that it be migrated to Space Exploration Stackexchange. When I originally asked the question 8 months ago, I wasn't very familiar with either site, but now I can see that there is probably a better chance of specific knowledge on this object there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can double check that I did flag this question with this request, and if so find out if it is going to happen? I think a workaround would be to delete and copy/paste repost, but aren't situations like this what migration is for to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/214700/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="38da1e94-20dd-4324-94ea-563dbb043d9c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:15:17.250" UserId="83380" Text="How to check on what's happened after I flag my question for migration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="38da1e94-20dd-4324-94ea-563dbb043d9c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:15:17.250" UserId="83380" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="c114e055-8c80-4d10-933b-74c87ba47655" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:31:37.213" UserId="63723" Text="It's best to see once than to hear (or read) a convoluted explanation a thousand times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to answer one question and it was begging for a drawing. So I thought, OK, I draw it on paper, then photo, then send to myself , then edit, then upload. And at that point I decided it's not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we speak physics we speak formulas and drawings, so in this particular SE an drawing applet should be bolted to the editor and this is the feature I hereby request :D." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="c114e055-8c80-4d10-933b-74c87ba47655" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:31:37.213" UserId="63723" Text="Javascript applet for drawing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="c114e055-8c80-4d10-933b-74c87ba47655" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:31:37.213" UserId="63723" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8961" RevisionGUID="ba5b37cc-e0b7-4bc3-ad44-6c8fb7923fa7" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:35:01.657" UserId="124" Text="Go to your profile page, click on the &quot;Activity&quot; tab, and look toward the top right of the pane that appears. You'll see a link &quot;[#] helpful flags&quot;. Click on that, and it shows you a listing of your flag activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of activity page][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding this particular case: your question wasn't migrated because only questions asked within the last 60 days are eligible for migration, and yours is older than that. Also, migration is only for questions that are off topic here. I think this question is on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want it to be on [Space Exploration](//space.stackexchange.com) instead, since the question doesn't have any upvoted (or accepted) answers, you can delete it here and repost it there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gpEJT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8962" RevisionGUID="0d2b41d2-d9db-47c5-bda8-2e8291ee45d7" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:35:32.097" UserId="8563" Text="You can check on your flagging history from your profile: on the Activity tab, at top right, there's a line with how many helpful flags you've raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TxvYm.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on that link and it will take you to your flagging history: which flags were marked helpful, and which ones were not and why they were not. If this was a declined custom moderator flag, then it will likely have a comment from the moderator that handled it explaining the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, migration is not possible because, generally speaking,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only questions which are less than 60 days old can be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10249/what-is-migration-and-how-does-it-work over on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) (which is generally the recommended first port of call for general questions about the SE platform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, your question looks on-topic here, so I would recommend that you cross-post it to Space Exploration (or possibly [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com)), and explicitly mark the cross-post on both versions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="614df44b-b32b-40b7-b98e-2e893e8c5911" CreationDate="2016-07-19T12:54:32.823" UserId="83380" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="I'm pretty sure I flagged my question [Why do they think WT1190F is low density?][1] a few days ago, suggesting/requesting that it be migrated to Space Exploration Stackexchange. When I originally asked the question 8 months ago, I wasn't very familiar with either site, but now I can see that there is probably a better chance of specific knowledge on this object there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can double check that I did flag this question with this request, and if so find out if it is going to happen? I think a workaround would be to delete and copy/paste repost, but aren't situations like this what migration is for to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**edit:** Based on recommendataions here I've just posted the question in space exploration stackexchange as [Why do (did) they think WT1190F is low density?][2] with minor edits for tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/214700/83380&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/q/17312/12102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="f366ff3b-5e67-46b8-850f-fa0ab18e9b06" CreationDate="2016-07-19T13:04:55.030" UserId="8563" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you *do* find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](http://stackapps.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22969" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="fc7ce05b-7c0c-4844-8ec2-41a049051ff8" CreationDate="2016-07-19T13:05:46.797" UserId="83380" Comment="Rollback to [38da1e94-20dd-4324-94ea-563dbb043d9c]" Text="I'm pretty sure I flagged my question [Why do they think WT1190F is low density?][1] a few days ago, suggesting/requesting that it be migrated to Space Exploration Stackexchange. When I originally asked the question 8 months ago, I wasn't very familiar with either site, but now I can see that there is probably a better chance of specific knowledge on this object there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can double check that I did flag this question with this request, and if so find out if it is going to happen? I think a workaround would be to delete and copy/paste repost, but aren't situations like this what migration is for to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/214700/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="2a355ccd-d359-4904-a95f-03cf9e5b21b8" CreationDate="2016-07-19T13:43:28.947" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm pretty sure I flagged my question [Why do they think WT1190F is low density?][1] a few days ago, suggesting/requesting that it be migrated to Space Exploration Stackexchange. When I originally asked the question 8 months ago, I wasn't very familiar with either site, but now I can see that there is probably a better chance of specific knowledge on this object there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can double check that I did flag this question with this request, and if so find out if it is going to happen? I think a workaround would be to delete and copy/paste repost, but aren't situations like this what migration is for to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/214700/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="2a355ccd-d359-4904-a95f-03cf9e5b21b8" CreationDate="2016-07-19T13:43:28.947" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to check what's happened to my flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="2a355ccd-d359-4904-a95f-03cf9e5b21b8" CreationDate="2016-07-19T13:43:28.947" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22973" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="6b5dca20-c50e-45f0-ae61-46a8b926d078" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:43:08.030" UserId="83398" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="41e07af5-090f-4445-8348-61f7b5284470" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:44:27.037" UserId="83398" Comment="added 512 characters in body" Text="I'm confused about the rationale behind closing list-based questions. The problem is that almost any question can be rephrased into a list question, and vice versa. Consider the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- List: where is technique X applied in physics?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: is technique X useful to physics?&#xD;&#xA;- List: when is the solution to equation X unique?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: does equation X always have a unique solution?&#xD;&#xA;- List: where does approximation X break down?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: what is the useful range of validity of approximation X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each of these pairs, the OP asks for the same information, but we chastise them if they happen to pick the first phrasing. It ends up looking like we're very touchy about a particular taboo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we either stop doing this, or start editing list questions into non-list form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I'm reviving this because of [this example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268852/is-there-an-example-where-filling-in-a-removable-discontinuity-produces-a-wron). The OP interacts with two high-level users. The first thinks it's obvious that _no_ examples exist. The other thinks it's obvious that so many examples exist that the question is list-based. This is completely unhelpful and makes it look like we collectively have no idea what we're talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="3cefe409-f469-46b1-9ba5-eb52c1b2a89b" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:43:43.980" UserId="63097" Text="There were two questions marked as duplicated of each other in the closed votes list today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/231495/why-doesnt-an-electrons-charge-rip-the-electron-apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268818/if-like-charges-repel-why-doesnt-a-charge-break-itself-apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is older but apparently got few attention. The second was posted today and attracted much more attenction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy to be followed in such cases? I mean, which question should be closed, the most popular or the most recent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="3cefe409-f469-46b1-9ba5-eb52c1b2a89b" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:43:43.980" UserId="63097" Text="Which duplicated question should be closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="3cefe409-f469-46b1-9ba5-eb52c1b2a89b" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:43:43.980" UserId="63097" Text="|discussion|policy|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="1e79f4e5-1d4d-4640-bb62-08a898f3ec57" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:48:36.303" UserId="520" Text="There are several competing desires for how to close (and possibly merge) duplicates (listed in my preferred order, but that shouldn't be taken to represent official policy): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Priority to the *best* question.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority to the *oldest* question.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority to the *most popular* question (As indicated by views or by votes or by number of non-trivial answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual policy seems to be &quot;whatever the people who get off their backsides and do it decide&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="da0071e1-97ab-4ed0-9fee-2f280fad5697" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:13:18.750" UserId="63097" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There were two questions marked as duplicated of each other in the closed votes list today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/231495/why-doesnt-an-electrons-charge-rip-the-electron-apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268818/if-like-charges-repel-why-doesnt-a-charge-break-itself-apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is older but apparently got few attention. The second was posted today and attracted much more attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy to be followed in such cases? I mean, which question should be closed, the most popular or the most recent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8966" RevisionGUID="f74edc3f-8ec4-4b07-a284-2b47d3bf7469" CreationDate="2016-07-19T22:25:21.390" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with Kyle Kanos that A2 and A3 are answers, however poor in quality, since they attempt to address the Question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with tpg2114 that A2 Answers require development.  This can be done more conveniently if comments are addressed to this Answer, rather than to the Question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we would all agree that A3 Answers have no value on this site.  However &#xD;&#xA;if, as Kyle points out, A3 Answers do not fall within the official criteria for deletion - eg because they are comments - then I think they must be - officially - *acceptable.*  This situation is not ideal.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Suggestion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get round this, I suggest that acceptable Answers on Physics SE should not only **address the Question** but also **use mainstream physics to do so**.  A3 would then be unacceptable and meet the criteria for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This criterion corresponds with the requirement that Questions must be *on topic* and can be closed and deleted if *off topic*.  Answers must likewise be *on topic* in my view.  If Questions which ask about Chemistry or Mathematics or Biology or Technology etc can be deemed *off topic* then Answers which do the same - with no physics content - ought also to be *off topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty with my suggestion is that fairness probably requires Voting to Close - ie the judgement of one's peers - as with Questions.  But there is currently no facility to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="62e9b1d9-3aa9-46cf-945e-26f90968ca52" CreationDate="2016-07-19T23:42:12.057" UserId="70958" Text="Thanks for posting this topic. Yes. There are an unfortunate number of rude people on this site. I refer to them as &quot;Sheldons&quot; because, although they may have significant scientific knowledge, they completely lack social skills. They are not normal in that regard. Their social IQs are very low indeed. Their effect is to deter people from exploring science. It's a shame." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="b2865572-aed2-4e77-b4c6-ae446207fc4c" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:32:30.310" UserId="114696" Text="**Topicality**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question comes in 2 parts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st is about the possibility of crossing the light barrier using a rocket.  Clearly impossible as it would violate SR, and is not something that is likely to change as physics develops.  If the questioner had asked only this I think there would be no dispute over deletion, would there?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd part is about what you would see if you were already travelling faster than light.  This does not violate SR, I think.  We have a tag for tachyons, so I presume we accept questions about them.  I think this part of the question is acceptable.  It is hypothetical, but worth exploring, like Dirac's willingness to think about negative energy solutions to his equation for the electron.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is *not* an issue of what the majority of physicists think is possible, but of whether the scenario actually does violate established laws or theories.  The site is, after all, one for active researchers, and as has been pointed out this is the kind of question academics ask themselves every day.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO the question could be edited to make it acceptable, and I have suggested that the OP do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rudeness**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we are talking about brusqueness, not abusiveness nor even just belittling someone.  Some OPs - and some commentators - are offended even by constructive criticism.  eg My ubiquitous &quot;Have you done an internet search?&quot; and &quot;What have you tried already?&quot;  Some newcomers seem to think they are entitled to an answer, because elsewhere nobody regulates what kind of questions can be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been suggested that we be more tolerant.  While I sympathise with that view, it is inconsistent with current policy and aims.  dmckee's advice about being firm has its merits in being efficient and consistent with policy.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="7162d221-4934-4bef-8406-d933e8d838ae" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:10:21.410" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1118 characters in body" Text="**Topicality**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question comes in 2 parts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st is about the possibility of crossing the light barrier using a rocket.  Clearly impossible as it would violate SR, and is not something that is likely to change as physics develops.  If the questioner had asked only this I think there would be no dispute over deletion, would there?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd part is about what you would see if you were already travelling faster than light.  This does not violate SR, I think.  We have a tag for tachyons, so I presume we accept questions about them.  I think this part of the question is acceptable.  It is hypothetical, but worth exploring, like Dirac's willingness to think about negative energy solutions to his equation for the electron.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is *not* an issue of what the majority of physicists think is possible, but of whether the scenario actually does violate established laws or theories.  The site is, after all, one for active researchers, and as has been pointed out this is the kind of question academics ask themselves every day.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO the question could be edited to make it acceptable, so I have posted a comment suggesting that the OP do so and advising how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Naive Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and ACuriousMind suggest that the *intrinsic value* of the question is all that counts in deciding whether to close it.  I would like to question that view, playing Devil's Advocate since I am mostly in agreement with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I define a naive question is one posed by a person who is asking about an issue outside of his/her understanding.  We might find some instrinsic value in it which the OP did not have in mind and which is possibly even beyond the OP's comprehension.  I think it then becomes our question, not the OP's.  Do we then accept the question because answers could be useful to the broader community, or reject it because answers would not address what the OP had in mind or would be incomprehensible to him/her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side issue here is acting consistently between questions.  I do not think it is consistent to tolerate naive or lazy conceptual questions and walk the OP through a detailed explanation yet refuse to help a different OP by pointing out where they went wrong in solving a problem which they have made a fair attempt at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rudeness**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we are talking about brusqueness, not abusiveness nor even just belittling someone.  Some OPs - and some commentators - are offended even by constructive criticism.  eg By my ubiquitous &quot;Have you done an internet search?&quot; and &quot;What have you tried already?&quot;  Some newcomers seem to think they are entitled to an answer, because elsewhere nobody regulates what kind of questions can be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been suggested that we be more tolerant.  While I sympathise with that view, it is inconsistent with current policy and aims.  dmckee's advice about being firm has its merits in being efficient and consistent with policy.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="1469c9cf-0eb8-491c-a6c8-acf8434ba7f0" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:19:11.877" UserId="114696" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="**Topicality**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question comes in 2 parts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st is about the possibility of crossing the light barrier using a rocket.  Clearly impossible as it would violate SR, and is not something that is likely to change as physics develops.  If the questioner had asked only this I think there would be no dispute over deletion, would there?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd part is about what you would see if you were already travelling faster than light.  This does not violate SR, I think.  We have a tag for tachyons, so I presume we accept questions about them.  I think this part of the question is acceptable.  It is hypothetical, but worth exploring, like Dirac's willingness to think about negative energy solutions to his equation for the electron.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is *not* an issue of what the majority of physicists think is possible, but of whether the scenario actually does violate established laws or theories.  The site is, after all, one for active researchers, and as has been pointed out this is the kind of question academics ask themselves every day.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO the question could be edited to make it acceptable, so I have posted a comment suggesting that the OP do so and advising how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Naive Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and ACuriousMind suggest that the *intrinsic value* of the question is all that counts in deciding whether to close it.  I would like to question that view, playing Devil's Advocate since I am mostly in agreement with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I define a naive question as one posed by a person who is asking about an issue outside of his/her understanding.  We might find some intrinsic value in it which the OP did not have in mind and which is possibly even beyond the OP's comprehension.  Such a situation might be what DavidZ is describing in his comment above to LukeH about good questions from those who are merely curious.  I think it then becomes our question, not the OP's.  Do we then accept the question because answers could be useful to the broader community, or reject it because answers would not address what the OP had in mind or would be incomprehensible to him/her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side issue here is acting consistently between questions.  I do not think it is consistent to tolerate naive or lazy conceptual questions and walk the OP through a detailed explanation yet refuse to help a different OP by pointing out where they went wrong in solving a problem which they have made a fair attempt at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rudeness**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we are talking about brusqueness, not abusiveness nor even just belittling someone.  Some OPs - and some commentators - are offended even by constructive criticism.  eg By my ubiquitous &quot;Have you done an internet search?&quot; and &quot;What have you tried already?&quot;  Some newcomers seem to think they are entitled to an answer, because elsewhere nobody regulates what kind of questions can be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been suggested that we be more tolerant.  While I sympathize with that view, it is inconsistent with current policy and aims.  dmckee's advice about being firm has its merits in being efficient and consistent with policy.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="7111aa3b-da0f-4d74-8343-e659e25ac07e" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:31:01.610" UserId="114696" Text="I got off my backside and, spurred into action by Qmechanic, proposed closure of the earlier question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that is the right decision here.  The recent question is not quite as clear - I'm still waiting for the OP to confirm that he is asking about sub-atomic particles rather than macroscopic charged bodies - but it is broader and the answers are considerably more developed.  It makes sense to me that further answers should be posted where they are most likely to be found - on the more popular question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="56473ad5-65a3-40fa-ae15-52afa28c7d92" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:01:28.730" UserId="114696" Comment="added 492 characters in body" Text="I got off my backside and, spurred into action by Qmechanic, proposed closure of the earlier question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that is the right decision here.  The recent question is not quite as clear - I'm still waiting for the OP to confirm that he is asking about sub-atomic particles rather than macroscopic charged bodies - but it is broader and the answers are considerably more developed.  It makes sense to me that further answers should be posted where they are most likely to be found - on the more popular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was quite an easy decision.  Generally it isn't easy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a new question is posted and gets several upvotes. However, before any answers are posted an exact duplicate is found, with one answer which the OP finds unsatisfactory.  Should the new Qn be closed?  According to policy, I think it has to be closed.  But if it is closed, the OP is unlikely to get an answer, unless somehow the earlier Qn is publicised.  This situation seems bad for the site as well as for the OP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8970" RevisionGUID="06978d51-7e3e-47a2-8872-12a41c60e034" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:12:59.063" UserId="63055" Text="Maybe this is splitting hairs, but while I do not agree there should be a &quot;this answer is wrong&quot; flag (or use of the VLQ flag for this purpose) I do agree with part of Emilio's sentiment—there should be a flag called &quot;non-mainstream physics **answer**&quot; similar to the one we have for questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrectness = handle with downvotes. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Crackpottery = handle with flags (and downvotes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="5cf2ccd5-4bdf-4add-b8c4-2437f3fa3107" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:37:21.840" UserId="114696" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="**Topicality**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question comes in 2 parts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st is about the possibility of crossing the light barrier using a rocket.  Clearly impossible as it would violate SR, and is not something that is likely to change as physics develops.  If the questioner had asked only this I think there would be no dispute over deletion, would there?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd part is about what you would see if you were already travelling faster than light.  This does not violate SR, I think.  We have a tag for tachyons, so I presume we accept questions about them.  I think this part of the question is acceptable.  It is hypothetical, but worth exploring, like Dirac's willingness to think about negative energy solutions to his equation for the electron.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is *not* an issue of what the majority of physicists think is possible, but of whether the scenario actually does violate established laws or theories.  The site is, after all, one for active researchers, and as has been pointed out this is the kind of question academics ask themselves every day.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO the question could be edited to make it acceptable, so I have posted a comment suggesting that the OP do so and advising how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Naive Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and ACuriousMind suggest that the *intrinsic value* of the question is all that counts in deciding whether to close it.  I would like to question that view, playing Devil's Advocate since I am mostly in agreement with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I define a naive question as one posed by a person who is asking about an issue outside of his/her understanding.  We might find some intrinsic value in it which the OP did not have in mind and which is possibly even beyond the OP's comprehension.  Such a situation might be what DavidZ is describing in his comment above to LukeH about good questions from those who are merely curious.  I think it then becomes our question, not the OP's.  Do we then accept the question because answers could be useful to the broader community, or reject it because answers would not address what the OP had in mind or would be incomprehensible to him/her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side issue here is acting consistently between questions.  I do not think it is consistent to tolerate naive or lazy conceptual questions and walk the OP through a detailed explanation yet refuse to help a different OP by pointing out where they went wrong in solving a problem which they have made a fair attempt at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rudeness**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we are talking about **brusqueness**, not abusiveness nor even just belittling someone.  Some OPs - and some commentators - are offended even by constructive criticism.  eg By my ubiquitous &quot;Have you done an internet search?&quot; and &quot;What have you tried already?&quot;  Some newcomers seem to think they are entitled to an answer, because elsewhere nobody regulates what kind of questions can be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been suggested that we be more tolerant.  While I sympathize with that view, it is inconsistent with current policy and aims.  dmckee's advice about being firm has its merits in being efficient and consistent with policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have hesitated to use my privilege to VTC, but I can see the sense in getting questions closed ASAP if they are *off topic*. When answers have been posted, it is more difficult to deal with the closure issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="7d08c410-0cbb-4d11-b17a-99025bf44306" CreationDate="2016-07-20T16:56:20.897" UserId="1325" Text="While you're waiting, I use Google Draw to create diagrams for my posts on the Physics SE. It's free, and with some practice you can create reasonably convincing diagrams. You can download your drawings in a variety of formats, though I usually just screen grab and paste into my favourite bitmap editor for tweaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="43c14e01-e0b6-4df5-b524-472c58fcc5cf" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:21:17.590" UserId="32426" Text="([related PSE post][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][2] which he refers in his post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision and clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of a new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not destruction.* It is especially for @ACuriousMind. You can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as you can, but maybe even you can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - *if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer*. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][3] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated, only here not. (I replay: only if his content is really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="43c14e01-e0b6-4df5-b524-472c58fcc5cf" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:21:17.590" UserId="32426" Text="Probably HQ user but with LQ start, I suggest tolerance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="43c14e01-e0b6-4df5-b524-472c58fcc5cf" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:21:17.590" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="01b971ba-98c5-4cb6-b786-7462b4fe0dfe" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:27:48.760" UserId="32426" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="([related PSE post][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][2] which he refers in his post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision and clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not destruction.* It is especially for @ACuriousMind. You can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as you can, but maybe even you can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][3] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated, only here not. (I replay: only if his user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="002a0466-b0f5-4dcf-8fc5-dc9a77bebfeb" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:33:18.897" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="([related PSE post][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][2] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision and clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not destruction.* It is especially for @ACuriousMind. You can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as you can, but maybe even you can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][3] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated, only here not. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="e0e800a4-ecae-4249-ad0e-3ae876e2db46" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:57:28.950" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="([related PSE post][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][2] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision and clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not disciplining.* It is especially for @ACuriousMind. You can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as you can, but maybe even you can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][3] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated, only here not. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="e719c42e-e330-4056-88a2-16ac27b54619" CreationDate="2016-07-21T00:11:52.477" UserId="32426" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="([related PSE post][1], [related VLQ review entity][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][3] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision by clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not disciplining.* It is especially for @ACuriousMind. You can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as you can, but maybe even you can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][4] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated, only here not. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8973" RevisionGUID="470ac72c-0c70-427d-bea8-5213d76c6c15" CreationDate="2016-07-21T00:29:28.077" UserId="520" Text="The usual mantra is that we don't judge users, just content. (And, yeah, human beings probably can't achieve that, but the point is to try.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By all means give promising looking users a pointer to our expectations, and make suggestions to help them either fit in with our culture or, if that's not what they want to go away without hard feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But their posts *are* what we are suppose to judge. If they are writing poor posts, then that is what needs fixing not the quality control system of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="823fd69f-1a90-4ba2-bf96-1fc13a6faa2c" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:54:43.147" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="([related PSE post][1], [related VLQ review entity][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][3] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision by clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not disciplining.* We can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as we can, but most of us can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][4] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated, only here not. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="2628fc15-78bc-4bf0-a392-288c6a382006" CreationDate="2016-07-21T02:00:53.020" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="([related PSE post][1], [related VLQ review entity][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][3] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision by clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not disciplining.* We can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as we can, but most of us can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][4] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="78839870-4eb5-4b81-9057-9eacaa3b99f1" CreationDate="2016-07-21T03:39:51.437" UserId="122766" Text="What should I do if I find a question that I want to ask but does not have satisfactory answers, how can I make it active or re-ask the question without it being marked duplicate? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="78839870-4eb5-4b81-9057-9eacaa3b99f1" CreationDate="2016-07-21T03:39:51.437" UserId="122766" Text="Reasking a Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="78839870-4eb5-4b81-9057-9eacaa3b99f1" CreationDate="2016-07-21T03:39:51.437" UserId="122766" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8975" RevisionGUID="126a68d7-dd10-44e2-9ba8-65562a9b4d8d" CreationDate="2016-07-21T10:13:19.063" UserId="124" Text="If you can find a good edit to make to the question (or one of its answers), editing will bump the question to the top of the front page. This is an easy way to draw some attention to the question. However, make sure your edit actually _improves_ the question (or answer). An edit that just changes something but doesn't make the post better is not appropriate. You may want to read [our guidelines on editing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit) to get a sense of what constitutes an appropriate edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you have less than 2000 reputation, any edits you make will have to be reviewed by high-rep users before they get applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to bring attention to a question is to join [the chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and ask about it. Maybe someone else there can answer it, or at least will be willing to help you promote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the most effective way to bring attention to a question is to put a bounty on it, but you need to have at least 75 reputation for that. When you place a bounty, you give up your own reputation equal to the bounty amount, but in exchange the question gets [featured](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=featured) on the front page for a week. At the end of that time, you can award the bounty to an answer which was posted during that time period, and the poster of that answer gets an amount of reputation equal to what you gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should **not** ask the same question again. It'll get closed as a duplicate, and possibly downvoted for [insufficient research effort](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) (because we expect people to do some searching before posting a question, and your search should have turned up the earlier version of the question if you didn't already know about it). Even if you don't like the answers on the preexisting question, that doesn't stop it from being a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you're asking something _more_ than what the previous question asked, in the sense that a complete answer to the previous question would not answer what you're asking, then you can go ahead and post a new question. In this case you should link to the previous question and explain _very clearly_ what you are adding to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23004" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="43afd145-3650-4d78-8684-aefb1d23f10d" CreationDate="2016-07-21T11:16:51.760" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Re-asking a Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23005" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="43afd145-3650-4d78-8684-aefb1d23f10d" CreationDate="2016-07-21T11:16:51.760" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|questions|duplicates|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="a089b5dd-7909-446a-9525-9d07c6d3c832" CreationDate="2016-07-21T15:45:49.597" UserId="111951" Text="I had been faced with this several times before. But this time I decide to ask it in a Meta post. I typed this phrase in the search box of the PSE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;What is the field in the physics really?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the results [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [question with exactly similar title][2] is the seventh one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I typed the same phrase in the Google search box. You can see the results [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the same question with exactly similar title belong to PSE is the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why does Google search PSE's own pages, better than itself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=What%20is%20the%20field%20in%20the%20physics%20really%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13157/what-is-a-field-really&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=What%20is%20the%20field%20in%20the%20physics%20really%3F&amp;rlz=1C1RLNS_enIR698IR698&amp;oq=What%20is%20the%20field%20in%20the%20physics%20really%3F&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.1802j0j8&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="a089b5dd-7909-446a-9525-9d07c6d3c832" CreationDate="2016-07-21T15:45:49.597" UserId="111951" Text="Why does Google give better results than PSE search about PSE's own pages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="a089b5dd-7909-446a-9525-9d07c6d3c832" CreationDate="2016-07-21T15:45:49.597" UserId="111951" Text="|discussion|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="48d5a3dc-4dc6-4af0-8155-cea3f77c28c2" CreationDate="2016-07-21T17:34:26.927" UserId="8563" Text="This has been discussed on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) several times already - see [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254399), [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/185758/should-so-include-a-custom-google-search), [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135753/when-searching-is-it-better-to-use-the-built-in-so-search-or-use-google), [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/107211/how-does-stack-overflows-search-compare-with-googles-site-specific-search), and probably others I haven't caught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google was founded in 1998 on a business model based on a search engine. Stack Exchange was founded in 2008 on a business model based on a Q&amp;A engine. [This](http://stackoverflow.com/company/team#Engineering) is the current SE dev team - how much money and manpower Google invests/has invested on Search is anyone's guess. It's not particularly surprising that Google is good at search (considering, in addition, that SE spends a lot of time and infrastructure making sure that SE is well ranked by Google).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also perfectly possible to restrict Google searches to only Stack Exchange pages - try [adding the `site:physics.stackexchange.com` operator to your search](https://www.google.de/search?q=What+is+the+field+in+the+physics+really%3F+site:physics.stackexchange.com). That's a good way to search PSE if you're looking for something specific and having trouble using the site search. (On the other hand, you lose access to the [SE advanced search features](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) that do use the internal characteristics of the posts database, like the `score:` or `is:question` operators.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="33a3e86e-87b3-4987-8863-90b55b0c210a" CreationDate="2016-07-21T22:43:06.040" UserId="114696" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited title" Text="What should I do if I want to ask a question which has already been asked but does not have satisfactory answers? How can I make the older question active again, or re-ask the question without it being marked duplicate? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23011" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="33a3e86e-87b3-4987-8863-90b55b0c210a" CreationDate="2016-07-21T22:43:06.040" UserId="114696" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited title" Text="Re-asking a Duplicate Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23012" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="72dfc772-5d62-43a6-927a-c5bf49009b23" CreationDate="2016-07-22T08:39:48.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/756408388972675072" />
  <row Id="23013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="925bd74d-84e6-4681-906d-92be901bcd69" CreationDate="2016-07-22T11:02:25.643" UserId="1325" Text="It seems to me that we get lots of questions from people baffled about the way light behaves given that it's made up of photons. For the latest example see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/269356/how-does-a-photon-know-when-to-reflect-in-case-of-refraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we need a canonical Q/A explaining the relationship between light beams and photons? Then we can close questions like the above as duplicates of the canonical question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="925bd74d-84e6-4681-906d-92be901bcd69" CreationDate="2016-07-22T11:02:25.643" UserId="1325" Text="Do we need a canonical question linking photons and light beams?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="925bd74d-84e6-4681-906d-92be901bcd69" CreationDate="2016-07-22T11:02:25.643" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="ab6fe4f1-b76a-4ff8-99cf-eba8c2c9d934" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:29:18.483" UserId="121464" Text="So, a few questions recently came up on the feed:&#xA;&#xA; - What is Venus's core made of&#xA; - How can core of Mercury be a molten liquid&#xA;&#xA;They made me wonder: when does something belong on the astronomy.SE and when does something belong on the physics.SE (this could also apply for chemistry, electrical engineering, etc)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="ab6fe4f1-b76a-4ff8-99cf-eba8c2c9d934" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:29:18.483" UserId="121464" Text="The fine line between astronomy and physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="ab6fe4f1-b76a-4ff8-99cf-eba8c2c9d934" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:29:18.483" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="f6191822-3365-4e07-bb27-7098a33a170f" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:16:18.887" UserId="2451" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="So, a few questions recently came up on the feed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/269376/2451&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/269401/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They made me wonder: when does something belong on the astronomy.SE and when does something belong on the physics.SE (this could also apply for chemistry, electrical engineering, etc)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="f6191822-3365-4e07-bb27-7098a33a170f" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:16:18.887" UserId="2451" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="0aaaf836-0053-40b5-a4ab-4e9b856c5a33" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:20:22.407" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I noticed that this question was migrated to the new Astronomy beta site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1845/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding was that since the merger with the old astronomy site, all astronomy questions were on topic here, including practical, non-physicsy ones like this. In practice we don't really see much of this type of question, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally if a question is on topic it won't be migrated (unless the OP asks for it, which I guess could have happened here), but this one was migrated very rapidly, so I was wondering whether our policy on this type of question has changed now that the new site is online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only asking out of curiosity. Such a change in policy would be very reasonable under the circumstances - I just didn't see any discussion of it on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23022" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="0aaaf836-0053-40b5-a4ab-4e9b856c5a33" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:20:22.407" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23023" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="b248264f-0d11-4709-99ba-39783fdb30d9" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:22:31.027" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="de410b8f-6f56-4c51-a646-949c371ecc35" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:54:55.873" UserId="520" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="My usual position is that questions that are well suited to either site stay where the OP puts them. This *does* have the side effect of creating duplicate question on the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will suggest some principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about *particular* astronomical objects (i.e. the X ray source in Cygnus as opposed to a general question about black hole emissions which could go to either site) belong on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about astronomical observations, instruments (again *&quot;How telescopes work?&quot;* is good on either, *&quot;What are the current limits on angular resolution of ground based optical telescopes&quot;* is astronomy specific) , and data sets belong on Astronomy. Likewise for questions about getting telescope time or other cultural issues (if you are accepting those).&#xD;&#xA;* Questions where the answer is in some sense wrapped up in the politics of the discipline (i.e. *&quot;What qualifies a body as a planet and why are these conditions important enough to justify demoting Pluto?&quot;*) got to Astronomy. {*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;I see that there is a [*&quot;What should we do with questions which are really physics questions&quot;*][1] entry on meta.astronomy, and it already hosts some suggests for the kinds of questions that should be moved here.&lt;/s&gt; That link pointed at a question on the meta of the first [astronomy.se] which dies in beta. The same numbered meta question on the current [astronomy.se] seems to be about naming the chatroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{*} Aside: I was lucky enough to talk to Clive Tombaugh a couple of times during the last years of his life. Seemed like a nice guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/16/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="73581272-0279-48be-a98d-0debfac949fa" CreationDate="2016-07-22T20:27:38.887" UserId="124" Text="Since astronomy is [within our scope](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono), most things that would fit on Astronomy SE also fit here. If they are asked here, they should not be migrated. There are probably a few corner cases that are off topic for us and on topic for them, but those are rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other topics, in principle it's straightforward: a question which is about physics (or astronomy) is on topic here, one which is not about physics (or astronomy) is off topic here. Of course, there can be some debate about whether something is about physics/astronomy or not, but again, those ambiguous cases are relatively rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23026" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="e664d10e-f41c-4ae7-bcd8-8f2e3271d555" CreationDate="2016-07-22T22:55:37.403" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5543],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="23028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="b94a856d-3fd1-480a-94bc-8b68039fbd46" CreationDate="2016-07-24T10:03:30.003" UserId="31790" Comment="Add DanielSank date" Text="Purpose&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schedule&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Links to completed AMA transcripts will be posted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016, [question pool and other details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016, [question pool and other details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 23 August, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contributing&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resources&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="8e05b6e5-943e-458c-ac57-ed1882ce7328" CreationDate="2016-07-24T11:11:00.750" UserId="31790" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 23 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence lab.&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise, both in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise) and as related to qubit coherence.&#xD;&#xA;I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Smash Brothers Melee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="8e05b6e5-943e-458c-ac57-ed1882ce7328" CreationDate="2016-07-24T11:11:00.750" UserId="31790" Text="August 23 Physics AMA with Daniel Sank: question pool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="8e05b6e5-943e-458c-ac57-ed1882ce7328" CreationDate="2016-07-24T11:11:00.750" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="9577bfcd-ebb9-4e95-be0b-2b6f76c5af96" CreationDate="2016-07-24T11:26:55.023" UserId="24653" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 23 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence lab.&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise, both in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise) and as related to qubit coherence.&#xD;&#xA;I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23033" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="29e8d8f3-0444-406f-9677-04de8cfee4f8" CreationDate="2016-07-24T14:46:40.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/757225492143628288" />
  <row Id="23034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="4ce01ce4-63ae-418a-92f2-338a381ebed8" CreationDate="2016-07-24T19:42:28.073" UserId="31790" Comment="Add Quantum AI Lab link" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 23 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise, both in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise) and as related to qubit coherence.&#xD;&#xA;I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="39938e78-ab0d-4537-a7a6-e80637e4dee5" CreationDate="2016-07-24T19:49:50.730" UserId="31790" Comment="Add Quantum AI Lab link" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 23 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise, both in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise) and as related to qubit coherence.&#xD;&#xA;I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="9904d4ef-5263-4940-8895-e0d38a8d8b43" CreationDate="2016-07-24T20:07:26.480" UserId="31790" Comment="Add noise link" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 23 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="dcbf7710-f23d-4e8b-8d12-315147b17f06" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:11:16.217" UserId="32426" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site it quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules are mainly destructive and despite their algorithmical style, they are often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody move unpredictable and as you try to hold it together, so stronger it tries to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the case of Math, the different sites of the mathoverflow and the math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the friendliest SE sites, although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody want take part only on high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, they can do it by using the MO only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clean. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user is gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but only it wasn't admitted, it resulted that this interest produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics -like site exist - but only out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you won't a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="a9ee45c4-54a6-49dc-850b-dd6e5579790f" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:19:39.540" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site it quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules have a mainly destructive nature packed as cleanup. Despite their algorithmical style, their behavior is often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody moves unpredictably and as you try to hold them together, so stronger they try to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the case of Math, the different sites of the mathoverflow and the math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the friendliest SE sites, although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody wants to take part only in high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, (s)he can do this by using only the MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clean. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user has gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but it wasn't admitted, it produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics -like site exist - but out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you don't need a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="f527f997-6c41-4a58-a1f0-960550ed54dc" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:34:06.260" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site are quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules have a mainly destructive nature packed as cleanup. Despite their algorithmical style, their behavior is often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody moves unpredictably and as you try to hold them together, so stronger they try to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the case of Math, the division between the mathoverflow and the math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the most friendly, and most well going SE sites. Although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody wants to take part only in high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, (s)he can do this by using only the MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clean. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user has gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but it wasn't admitted, it produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics -like site exist - but out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you don't need a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="e2b6639b-6a0f-4d0d-ab7d-daaf5922c9de" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:43:17.877" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site are quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules have a mainly destructive nature packed as cleanup. Despite their algorithmical style, their behavior is often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody moves unpredictably and as you try to hold them together, so stronger they try to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the case of Math, the division between the mathoverflow and the math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the most friendly, and most well going SE sites. Although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody wants to take part only in high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, (s)he can do this by using only the MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clear. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user has gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but it wasn't admitted, it produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics exists again - it is but out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you don't need a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="fb0235a7-7eb2-4118-be4b-7ffcb2fe7609" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:49:58.623" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site are quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules have a mainly destructive nature packed as cleanup. Despite their algorithmical style, their behavior is often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody moves unpredictably and as you try to hold them together, so stronger they try to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the case of Math, the division between the mathoverflow and the math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the most friendly, and most well going SE sites. Although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody wants to take part only in high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, (s)he can do this by using only the MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clear. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user has gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but it wasn't admitted, it produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics exists again - but it is out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you don't need a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="daf35bf1-4929-4314-933c-98118c5451eb" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:59:56.080" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site are quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules have a mainly destructive nature packed as cleanup. Despite their algorithmical style, their behavior is often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody moves unpredictably and as you try to hold them together, so stronger they try to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the case of Math, the division between the mathoverflow and the math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the most friendly, and best going SE sites. Although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody wants to take part only in high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, (s)he can do this by using only the MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clear. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user has gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but it wasn't admitted, it produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics exists again - but it is out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you don't need a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="dd25392e-bfe1-4109-8abd-520c2e06ea28" CreationDate="2016-07-24T23:11:44.870" UserId="32426" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="On my opinion, the users of the site are quite different in their behavior and also in their physical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Newbies with low rep and low activity, asking mostly very naive questions. There is a lot.&#xD;&#xA;2. Enthusiasts with limited knowledge. They can answer the questions of (1) and get often a lot of rep by that.&#xD;&#xA;3. Professionals with very high level knowledge. Their communication is more important as the whole site, and group (2) find probably highly interesting to try to decipher it. They are surprisingly active to answer the questions of (1), but not so in the questions of (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the social / moderating behavior, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Deletionists. They are mostly trying to apply rules algorithmically. These rules have a mainly destructive nature packed as cleanup. Despite their algorithmical style, their behavior is often unpredictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. &quot;Nice people&quot; trying to advice and answer everybody. They are ineffective in cleanup tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conflicts of the past happened mainly between (I) and (II), and not between (2) and (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These differences are leading to continuous troubles on the site and trying to hold the community together leaded only to escalation in the past. The collective behavior is like an ideal gas: everybody moves unpredictably and as you try to hold them together, so stronger they try to escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing a lot of other SE sites, the Physics SE looks to me like the silence after a storm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the math, the division between the Mathoverflow and the Math SE solved the problem. Yes, I know, mathoverflow is done by some special agreement with the SE Inc, but it doesn't mean that a similar division wouldn't be useful also here. Now the math SE is one of the most friendly, and best going SE sites. Although there is a significant part of low level content here, if somebody wants to take part only in high level communication with only a limited level of moderation, (s)he can do this by using only the MO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always said that a similar division in the case of the PSE would be also useful, it would make the things clear. Once a Theoretical Physics SE existed, it was closed probably in the lack of interest. Now that many HQ user has gone, this lack of interest was made finally real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, as the interest existed, but it wasn't admitted, it produced what it wants and now a Theoretical Physics exists again - but it is out of the SE network. Grat, good work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suggest to not commit the same mistake again. If you don't need a different HQ site, then see how things are being done on the Math SE. If you want a well going site, this is the only way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="09c98a35-f005-4aee-8b44-610244bd8f65" CreationDate="2016-07-24T23:17:36.663" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="## Topicality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that thee is a conflict between [what we say this site is][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a very wide-spread belief that it is OK for complete newcomers to a subject to raise their question is absolutely any place on the web that seems to cover the same topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a strongly held belief of many Stack Exchange users (especially those from the earliest days who watched and participated in the original forging of the Stack Overflow we know today) that being completely accepting of either &quot;fun&quot; or know-nothing questions drives out high quality question, reduces the value of the site to its intended audience, and eventually drives out expert answerers. (I am a subscriber to that belief, BTW).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there are few places on the web for a rank beginner to go and get good answer to really basic questions in physics like that, but that is not the mission of this site as I understand it and allowing it will only result in endless repetition of the same question and answers over and over again. I saw it on BBSs in the 80s and on usenet in the 90s and you can look around the internet right now and see it on &quot;forum&quot; type internet sites all over the place. You can see it right now on this site by just looking for the insane number of question users who are convinced that they have discovered something wrong with special relativity and can prove it with yet another boring and unenlightening variation on the twin paradox (how many have we had this week, anyway?); of course all that each such question proves is that the asker hadn't really understood the theory in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Rudeness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, there is a second issue. That's the sometimes brusque tone with which such askers are met. If you troll through the archive of meta.stackoverflow.com you'll find *many* places where the team came on and asked people to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice to people asking off topic questions while firmly closing the questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag places where people are not being nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Exert what social pressure they can to support the culture of niceness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And when they do it works for a while—months, most of the time—before things start to drift away again. That happens because it is fatiguing to hold one's metaphoric thumb in the dike and in time people get frustrated and lash out. Which isn't fair to the poor soul who has made his or her very first overture to this site, but frankly the pure repetitiveness of dealing with one &quot;I don't know any thing about physics but I have a theory...&quot; questions after another for weeks on end isn't really fair to the regular users here either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What you can do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Be an active participant in getting off-topic questions closed *quickly* and nicely.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As fast close is a firm message, and if it is a *nice* but firm message then the user can go elsewhere without hard feelings.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't answer off topic question. No, not in the comments either. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  I know you think that answering them is nice, but it tells that user that they can get what they want from us *even when what they want is outside the bounds of what we say we do*. If you answer them, they will be back.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag comments where people are being not nice. With enough user flags those go away even before a moderator sees them: the community can insist on niceness.&#xD;&#xA;* If you disagree with a closure argue the point without calling the people doing the closure names. Namecalling isn't nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="336d063c-45d5-4645-9542-ef9a543d3abe" CreationDate="2016-07-25T07:15:36.310" UserId="31790" Comment="Formatting and link to DS question pool" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Next: [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 23 August, 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8983" RevisionGUID="892c7a62-5248-4c59-bb24-7330deb6eea1" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:11:01.720" UserId="77928" Text="If I could attend to your interview, I have some ideas on subjects that would interested me and hopefully others :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)Education&#xD;&#xA;Some of your ideas for physics in schools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your opinion on the current existing system of higher education over the world. What do you believe for the way the Masters and PhDs are working in physics. For example, do you think that they are too much directed towards the needs of the working sector or not. Any ideas and experiences on the field. Also, maybe a brief discussion for the PhD program of the USA, do you think it works, should it be like this, is it a good opportunity for someone to study physics in the US and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, as you mentioned for the noise in systems an that it was completely a missing subject in your education, are there any thoughts on reshaping- reformulating the universities programs and towards what directions- what classes should be omitted and what should be added?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end to put it compact, do you have any ideas on the didactics of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)Physics&#xD;&#xA;This is also important, unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to approach your scientific interests. But, the reason I wrote this post is mainly because I think I can follow a discussion by you of a new paper I found on chaotic behaviour and entanglement- if I am not mistaken you participated on this work. I t would be very interesting to learn something about this since the possibilities this work opens for future understanding of nature are, in my opinion, exceptional. Here is a link: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-blur-line-classical-quantum-physics.html?utm_source=nwletter&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I can attend to this meeting( I missed yuggibs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="ae920753-dd79-4f5c-9d1d-2f3969f03a16" CreationDate="2016-07-25T11:15:22.930" UserId="101770" Text="you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am facing a similar problem! I would like to ask: How did you acquire your knowledge about this branch of statistical mechanics? Would you be able to provide any good references? Most standard statistical mechanics books seem to be omitting this topic largely. I found some stuff in Altland and Simons, but would appreciate your input and potentially a systematic structuring of how to learn about the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8985" RevisionGUID="effdc22e-03e8-4a4c-b44d-4ce45b42e230" CreationDate="2016-07-25T13:10:22.043" UserId="23389" Text="What inspired or motivated you to become a physicist? Were any teachers or family particularly important? or did you discover science yourself through books, TV and the internet? Were there ever any barriers - financial or social, or other - to your career or education? If so, how did you overcome them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="1c3cab58-f760-476b-a283-f6a36d6a1645" CreationDate="2016-07-26T08:32:17.023" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's best to see once than to hear (or read) a convoluted explanation a thousand times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to answer one question and it was begging for a drawing. So I thought, OK, I draw it on paper, then photo, then send to myself , then edit, then upload. And at that point I decided it's not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we speak physics we speak formulas and drawings, so in this particular SE a drawing applet should be bolted to the editor and this is the feature I hereby request :D." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="9cd1c75a-341a-457f-8771-7efe879d84e7" CreationDate="2016-07-26T10:47:58.650" UserId="101770" Text="Another question about noise: what is your view on the current state of a universal theory of noise vs detailed process dependent theories of noise, particularly concerning of 1/f noise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="07485771-b955-427f-9460-d4586f7d67d7" CreationDate="2016-07-26T16:35:52.190" UserId="121464" Text="Is there a flag for flagging as insufficient research effort? Or do I need to use a custom reason flag? (Should I even flag a question as such? I know a lot of people do...)&#xA;&#xA;Sorry if this is a dumb question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="07485771-b955-427f-9460-d4586f7d67d7" CreationDate="2016-07-26T16:35:52.190" UserId="121464" Text="Not enough research effort flag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="07485771-b955-427f-9460-d4586f7d67d7" CreationDate="2016-07-26T16:35:52.190" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|flagging|insufficient-effort|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8988" RevisionGUID="a56544bb-e07c-43f2-8f7e-725cd879a581" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:06:31.500" UserId="124" Text="At this time, there is not a flag for insufficient research effort. And I would say you shouldn't flag for that. If you have the ability to vote to close with a custom reason, you can do that, and downvoting is also a good idea, but it's not the sort of thing we're really comfortable handling with unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have been talking about replacing the homework policy with a new policy which will likely focus on insufficient effort. So when that process is complete, we probably _will_ have a close reason (and a flag) for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23055" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="c973b6d1-23cb-4153-af48-59fb318ace5e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T00:11:45.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/758092476523679744" />
  <row Id="23057" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="a8b978bf-f1ea-4fe2-b0f1-4e5e2d0f7e83" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:13:00.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/758228686877450240" />
  <row Id="23058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="6aef8012-f03a-487e-a4f4-cf4c71955ad1" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:22:24.193" UserId="101770" Text="I've had a recurring problem when writing answers: a massive lag between typing and seeing the text appear. In got unbearable for [this][1] question, probably due to the enormous length of the answers and the many formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this is a problem with my system (I use Mac OS and Safari is my browser... so yeah, the trouble could well originate there ;) ). If other people are experiencing this issue too, I think it should definitely be fixed (if that's the case maybe ask on main meta site?). It severely impedes the writing of answers, I had to pre-write my answer in a text document and copy it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266261/trouble-reconciling-doppler-shift-for-energy-and-momentum-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="6aef8012-f03a-487e-a4f4-cf4c71955ad1" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:22:24.193" UserId="101770" Text="Lag problems when writing answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="6aef8012-f03a-487e-a4f4-cf4c71955ad1" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:22:24.193" UserId="101770" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="7bc88462-2d89-4d87-84c2-ec0875fe8599" CreationDate="2016-07-27T13:07:04.413" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="I've had a recurring problem when writing answers: a massive lag between typing and seeing the text appear. It got unbearable for [this][1] question, probably due to the enormous length of the answers and the many formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this is a problem with my system (I use Mac OS and Safari is my browser... so yeah, the trouble could well originate there ;) ). If other people are experiencing this issue too, I think it should definitely be fixed (if that's the case maybe ask on main meta site?). It severely impedes the writing of answers, I had to pre-write my answer in a text document and copy it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266261/trouble-reconciling-doppler-shift-for-energy-and-momentum-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="04ec83ff-d060-43e0-91d4-c9a2968690d2" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:11:02.490" UserId="8563" Text="This is generally dependent on the user's system, so the only surefire way to consistently improve it is to upgrade your system. That said, there will always be a point where the page is too big for the MathJax update to work smoothly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been answered in the Mathematics Meta site, [Feature request: user script or option to turn off instant MathJax rendering](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/feature-request-user-script-or-option-to-turn-off-instant-mathjax-rendering). Quoting Jack Schmitt's answer there directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know how you want to do user scripts.  I use bookmarklets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mostly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To pause it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     javascript:(function(){MathJax.Hub.queue.pending=1;})();&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To turn it back on:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     javascript:(function(){MathJax.Hub.queue.pending=0;})();&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Presumably something similar can be done with automatic solutions like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; greasemonkey.  The turn-it-back-on does not request an immediate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; render, but you can add the:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;, MathJax.Hub, &quot;wmd-preview&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the bookmarklet yourself if you'd like.  Turning it back on may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause a delay; if so I can adjust the script to more drastically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disable mathjax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bookmarklet is simply a bookmark where the URL has been switched to the given javascript code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are writing a very long answer, I find [StackEdit](http://stackedit.io) to be a good tool, and it enables you to draft and save long posts in Markdown + MathJax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a more extreme solution, you can get Privacy Badger (which is a good thing to have anyway) and temporarily disable all content from cdn.mathjax.org to disable all math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the lags persist even with MathJax disabled then that is definitely something to report." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="6bbfe364-ba44-4545-8cd9-f3dae484a466" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:16:45.620" UserId="8563" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="This is generally dependent on the user's system, so the only surefire way to consistently improve it is to upgrade your system. That said, there will always be a point where the page is too big for the MathJax update to work smoothly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been answered in the Mathematics Meta site, [Feature request: user script or option to turn off instant MathJax rendering](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/feature-request-user-script-or-option-to-turn-off-instant-mathjax-rendering). Quoting Jack Schmitt's answer there directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know how you want to do user scripts.  I use bookmarklets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mostly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To pause it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     javascript:(function(){MathJax.Hub.queue.pending=1;})();&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To turn it back on:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     javascript:(function(){MathJax.Hub.queue.pending=0;})();&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Presumably something similar can be done with automatic solutions like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; greasemonkey.  The turn-it-back-on does not request an immediate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; render, but you can add the:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;, MathJax.Hub, &quot;wmd-preview&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the bookmarklet yourself if you'd like.  Turning it back on may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause a delay; if so I can adjust the script to more drastically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disable mathjax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bookmarklet is simply a bookmark where the URL has been switched to the given javascript code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep the updating but just make the wait longer for each refresh of the preview, [this userscript](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/690/30935) should be able to do the job with a suitable delay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are writing a very long answer, I find [StackEdit](http://stackedit.io) to be a good tool, and it enables you to draft and save long posts in Markdown + MathJax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a more extreme solution, you can get Privacy Badger (which is a good thing to have anyway) and temporarily disable all content from cdn.mathjax.org to disable all math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the lags persist even with MathJax disabled then that is definitely something to report." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="378af59c-c29e-453a-902e-0e0ae0781ca8" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:28:38.347" UserId="84895" Text="I made [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/139548) rollback of an edit of Cort Ammon, where he removed an (in my eyes) good example that was a way to verify one has got him correctly in what he was saying. At least another user stated in a comment he was thinking so too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thought it would be a loss removing that example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the reviewers of my edit a) didn't carefully enough check the overall case as they identifyed my edit just as beeing a comment to the question or a seperate answer (what definately is not the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or b) I simply missed something about this SE site, where it was not good behaving of myself rolling back in his example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what exactly went wrong in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="378af59c-c29e-453a-902e-0e0ae0781ca8" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:28:38.347" UserId="84895" Text="Should one delete an example that could cause confusion but allready helped multiple users to better udnerstand the matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="378af59c-c29e-453a-902e-0e0ae0781ca8" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:28:38.347" UserId="84895" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="e85074c0-3e84-4826-9385-04ce47f908de" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:49:20.207" UserId="50583" Text="The [revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/270058/revisions) contains CortAmmon's following edit description for the deletion of the example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  	I couldn't find a reference for the glass breaking trick, and it may have been confusing, so I removed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While posts on StackExchange can and should be edited by anyone who feels they can be improved, non-community-wiki posts are ultimately considered to be written *by their original authors*, and edits that contradict the intent of the authors *should be rejected*, there is an explicit rejection reason for this (and I'm a bit puzzled why that wasn't chosen by the reviewers in this case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what went wrong is that you proposed an edit that explicitly ran counter to the stated intent of the author, and what went right is that it was rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="b3d88af1-11ce-4dab-a5ef-c2a42ecb0330" CreationDate="2016-07-27T15:13:11.337" UserId="50583" Comment="fixing grammar; typos" Text="I made [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/139548) rollback of an edit by Cort Ammon, where he removed an (in my eyes) good example that was a way to verify one has understood him correctly in what he was saying. At least another user stated in a comment he was thinking so too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thought it would be a loss to remove that example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the reviewers of my edit a) didn't carefully enough check the overall case as they identified my edit just as beeing a comment to the question or a seperate answer (which definitely is not the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or b) I simply missed something about this SE site, where it was not good behaviour of myself to roll back his edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what exactly went wrong in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23069" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="b3d88af1-11ce-4dab-a5ef-c2a42ecb0330" CreationDate="2016-07-27T15:13:11.337" UserId="50583" Comment="fixing grammar; typos" Text="Should one delete an example that could cause confusion but already helped multiple users to better understand the matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="142afb89-b821-4b06-9ff4-24feb1d6c59d" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:02:55.820" UserId="83398" Text="On this site, there is a tendency for users to answer questions with terse comments. It's especially prevalent for low quality questions which are in danger of being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've been noticing a lot of comments that are misleading or downright incorrect, especially on lower quality questions. I want to respond to them somehow, but I see no way to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can't downvote comments, and existing flag reasons don't apply to incorrect comments.&#xD;&#xA;- I can't reply in a comment, for two reasons: long discussions in comments are frowned upon and often deleted, and it often takes many more words to correct a misconception than to make one. 500 words often isn't enough to respond.&#xD;&#xA;- I can't reply in an answer, because answers should address the question, not its comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are no easy responses, and there's no glory to be had anyway (these questions usually quickly plummet off the front page), these comments almost always stand uncorrected. This misleads the OP and gives our site a bad name to anybody who knows their stuff and sees the question later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we deal with this issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="142afb89-b821-4b06-9ff4-24feb1d6c59d" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:02:55.820" UserId="83398" Text="How should we deal with incorrect comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="142afb89-b821-4b06-9ff4-24feb1d6c59d" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:02:55.820" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="06809eab-43b2-4036-9700-24728ea9215f" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:18:40.027" UserId="520" Text="This *is* an issue on the site right now. For my own part I've started trying very hard not to write pseudo-answers in the comments and I am more willing to consider pseudo-answer as &quot;not constructive&quot; comments than I had been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside: I wrote this in as a comment first. But, I'm trying not to write pseudo-answer so much these days...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Poll (use votes on this post to indicate your feelings):** How do people feel about the prospect of mods killing pseudo-answer comments if the same notion appears in an answer (by anyone, not just the author of the comment)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="80fb0841-f769-47a7-a535-65d005f4ee44" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:32:49.223" UserId="118847" Text="I am aware that this is not a solution, especially for stubborn users, but a friendly comment to the point of &quot;you are misleading/mixing things up/wrong here&quot; will still work wonders for a number of the more reasonable users. Your own comment can then easily be deleted by you after you've achieved your goal. A bit of a hassle, though ..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from them, in the flagging options for comments, I see both &quot;unconstructive&quot; and &quot;other&quot;. Isn't especially the first one useful for exactly that? A misleading short pseudo answer **is** unconstructive and depending on the way the people who have access to the flag queue handle this / interpret this, this could be an easy way to get rid of those, would it not?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, dmckee's suggestion could prove useful **because** people might be discouraged from giving pseudo-answers in comments if they see them deleted. Thus, the overall amount of pseudo-answers (and thus the wrong ones, too) might decrease." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="a7d71720-fd52-415e-8e82-a34dd7c0f907" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:16:38.693" UserId="121464" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xA;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xA;&#xA;That's just my two cents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="4541378e-d04f-4f17-a610-43e85bb6f819" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:24:40.787" UserId="121464" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xA;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xA;&#xA;Along this line of thought, maybe comments should be restructured so people don't post comment-answers. What that would entail, I don't know...probably a Meta question for another time. =)&#xA;&#xA;That's just my two cents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8997" RevisionGUID="b6bce585-a45a-4eda-9993-96a303f0b786" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:42:04.020" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I can't reply in a comment, for two reasons: long discussions in comments are frowned upon and often deleted, and it often takes many more words to correct a misconception than to make one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an easy way to solve both problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This is incorrect because (short summary reason). If you'd like&#xD;&#xA;    to discuss this further, we can do so in [chat].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if the original commenter then ignores your invitation to chat and tries to respond in another comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As I said, we can continue to discuss this in [chat].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't actually want to get into an argument, that's fine; you can take the discussion to the chat room and respond once or twice then give up. Heck, you don't even have to follow it up in chat at all. The point of making this comment is not to actually start a debate. The point is (1) to show that there _exists_ a counterargument to the original comment, and (2) if the original commenter does want to argue their point, to remove that argument from the wrong venue (the comment section) and put it in the right one (a chat room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I especially want to emphasize that our reluctance to hold discussions in the comments is _not_ a reason to avoid responding to comments. Yes, extended comment discussions are frowned upon, but one or two rounds of back-and-forth commenting do not count as an extended discussion. What does make an extended discussion is when you have several rounds of comments _and_ it shows no signs of stopping. And even if you do get sucked into a discussion, it's not really that bad. Nobody gets _punished_ for that. The worst that happens (or some might say best) is that the whole comment chain gets moved to chat or deleted - which, in fact, is a roundabout way of getting rid of the original, allegedly incorrect comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8997" RevisionGUID="4538d2c6-3174-40aa-b1bf-776e8678e9e9" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:56:03.953" UserId="124" Comment="improve formatting and phrasing" Text="The preferred way to deal with incorrect comments is to respond with a comment of your own. Now, you made a fair point about why you might not want to do that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't reply in a comment, for two reasons: long discussions in comments are frowned upon and often deleted, and it often takes many more words to correct a misconception than to make one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but here's an easy way to solve both problems: write something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is incorrect because (short summary reason). If you'd like to discuss this further, we can do so in [chat].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if the original commenter then ignores your invitation to chat and tries to respond in another comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As I said, we can continue to discuss this in [chat].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and leave it at that. If you don't actually want to get into an argument, that's fine; you can take the discussion to the chat room and respond once or twice then give up. Heck, you don't even have to follow it up in chat at all. (In that case, you could use wording along the lines of &quot;the place to discuss this is [chat]&quot;) The point of making this comment is not to actually start a debate. The point is (1) to show that there _exists_ a counterargument to the original comment, and (2) if the original commenter does want to argue their point, to remove that argument from the wrong venue (the comment section) and put it in the right one (a chat room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I especially want to emphasize that our reluctance to hold discussions in the comments is _not_ a reason to avoid responding to comments. Yes, extended comment discussions are frowned upon, but one or two rounds of back-and-forth commenting do not count as an extended discussion. What does make an extended discussion is when you have several rounds of comments _and_ it shows no signs of stopping. And even if you do get sucked into a discussion, it's not really that bad. Nobody gets _punished_ for that. The worst that happens (or some might say best) is that the whole comment chain gets moved to chat or deleted - which, in fact, is a roundabout way of getting rid of the original, allegedly incorrect comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="d75bbca9-3c50-4fef-ab68-512cd5e35cca" CreationDate="2016-07-28T11:35:50.153" UserId="50583" Text="This ties directly into a larger issue with flag that [recently came up](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/8947/50583). The moderators are currently not deleting answer for being wrong because it is not they who should pass that judgement unilaterally, so it seems inconsistent if they deleted comments for being wrong. So there are two options here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The nuclear option: Delete *any* comment that gives an answer if it is flagged as *not constructive*, no matter its correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Do nothing: Leave answers in comments alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I belong to the users who leave answers in comments if I'm too lazy or too busy to expand them into a full answer, or because I plainly don't think the question deserves that much effort on my part, or also because some of my comment-like answers have incurred a number of upvotes that are frankly ridiculuous and I don't want my rep to be inflated by giving such effortless answers, I say: **Nuke answers in comments if they are flagged.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are for clarifying questions, pointing out inconsistencies, giving reasons for close/delete/down votes or otherwise improving the post being commented on. They are, obviously, often used for other things - making jokes, giving pseudo-answers, debating related topics, and more. Which is fine as long as no one is bothered by those comments. But as soon as such comment bother someone - indicated by a flag - all comments *not* evidently serving the primary purpose of comments should be deleted, mercilessly and without considering the abstract &quot;value&quot; or &quot;correctness&quot; of their content. The unique quality of the SE model is precisely that it does *not* allow the free form of forums, and we should not compromise on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="000f6007-30c7-45f1-bfb6-bc04640ee66c" CreationDate="2016-07-28T15:19:13.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/758683236205723648" />
  <row Id="23084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="afb612c4-e35b-490a-9ed9-099ed969074b" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:02:04.040" UserId="121464" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along this line of thought, maybe comments should be restructured so people don't post comment-answers. What that would entail, I don't know...probably a Meta question for another time. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per a discussion in chat with DavidZ and EmilioPisanty, what if there was a flag queue for non-moderators (maybe users with 15k+ rep) that covered all comment flags. Another flag for comments would be added for pseudo-answers, and these flags would also go into this same queue, therefore allowing either the original finder of the pseudo-answer to fix it, or 15k+ users to fix it. Then the system could down vote or up vote as the answer's content entails. I'm posting this as a feature request to the mother meta; I'll provide the link here shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this addresses some of the concerns brought up in the comments below this answer and concerns brought up in the discussion with DavidZ. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="1c1ddfef-ed0f-4dab-bd6c-50142b77cc41" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:30:43.473" UserId="121464" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along this line of thought, maybe comments should be restructured so people don't post comment-answers. What that would entail, I don't know...probably a Meta question for another time. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per a discussion in chat with DavidZ and EmilioPisanty, what if there was a flag queue for non-moderators (maybe users with 15k+ rep) that covered all comment flags. Another flag for comments would be added for pseudo-answers, and these flags would also go into this same queue, therefore allowing either the original finder of the pseudo-answer to fix it, or 15k+ users to fix it. Then the system could down vote or up vote as the answer's content entails. I posted this (at Emilio Pisanty's suggestion) as a **feature request on the mother meta [here][1]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this addresses some of the concerns brought up in the comments below this answer and concerns brought up in the discussion with DavidZ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/281783/comment-queue-for-non-moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="3ed08385-af1d-48e9-afd0-3d780b590b72" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:51:47.143" UserId="121464" Text="I was looking around on the mother meta, and I saw [this][1] interesting post. The second answer mentions [this][2] page on stack overflow for new users, where they must check the box at the bottom to confirm before asking their question. I know that there have been a lot of discussions on this meta about homework questions and otherwise bad questions. Could we add this page and design it such that it would give some of these new users pause before posting a bad question? Could this possibly reduce the problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/277607/ways-to-give-users-some-specific-education-about-question-quality-and-topicality&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask/advice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="3ed08385-af1d-48e9-afd0-3d780b590b72" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:51:47.143" UserId="121464" Text="Add &quot;is your question on-topic&quot; page for new users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="3ed08385-af1d-48e9-afd0-3d780b590b72" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:51:47.143" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="99ed3613-0d9e-4f78-9bfa-ed8afce1f75d" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:53:53.267" UserId="121464" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along this line of thought, maybe comments should be restructured so people don't post comment-answers. What that would entail, I don't know...probably a Meta question for another time. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per a discussion in chat with DavidZ and EmilioPisanty, what if there was a flag queue for non-moderators (maybe users with 15k+ rep) that covered all comment flags. Another flag for comments would be added for pseudo-answers, and these flags would also go into this same queue, therefore allowing either the original finder of the pseudo-answer to fix it, or 15k+ users to fix it. Then the system could down vote or up vote as the answer's content entails. I posted this (at Emilio Pisanty's suggestion) as a **feature request on the mother meta [here][1]**. Please up vote this feature request if you think this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this addresses some of the concerns brought up in the comments below this answer and concerns brought up in the discussion with DavidZ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/281783/comment-queue-for-non-moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="b65486f8-e773-41e3-a231-5c4e406a963d" CreationDate="2016-07-29T11:57:00.247" UserId="121464" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along this line of thought, maybe comments should be restructured so people don't post comment-answers. What that would entail, I don't know...probably a Meta question for another time. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per a discussion in chat with DavidZ and EmilioPisanty, what if there was a flag queue for non-moderators (maybe users with 15k+ rep) that covered all comment flags. Another flag for comments would be added for pseudo-answers, and these flags would also go into this same queue, therefore allowing either the original finder of the pseudo-answer to fix it, or 15k+ users to fix it. Then the system could down vote or up vote as the answer's content entails. I posted this (at Emilio Pisanty's suggestion) as a feature request on the mother meta [here][1]. Please up vote this feature request if you think this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this addresses some of the concerns brought up in the comments below this answer and concerns brought up in the discussion with DavidZ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The new feature request is [here][2]**; I started a bounty on it as it is 3 years old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/281783/comment-queue-for-non-moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/213691/create-flagged-comments-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9001" RevisionGUID="a6829ad6-83ec-485a-aa56-93cc1535adb4" CreationDate="2016-07-30T01:59:57.190" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with rob - although I cannot tell if he is being serious or sardonic when he says that &quot;terse, incisive comments are always correct&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is not an issue. Heather asked for examples but none have been provided. There are far more serious issues which need addressing, such as the Homework Policy which almost daily causes rancour among those who don't agree with the Vote-to-Close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Asker does not show signs of being mislead by incorrect comments, I suggest that there is no need to correct them, and it is best to ignore them. Comments do not have the status of an official Answer which has been upvoted by the community.  As the Help Centre says, they are &quot;temporary post-it notes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are bothered by incorrect comments, the most constructive response you can make is to **post a clearly correct Answer** - which does not have to be encyclopaedic.  If a terse comment is always correct, this must be even more true of a terse answer.  And however terse, it is almost certain to be upvoted if it is correct.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting and down-voting an incorrect answer is unnecessary and counter-productive.  Posting it as an Answer only draws attention to something which may have been buried and forgotten in a babble of comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="1eacd366-936b-48f4-84c2-a7c95e9bf374" CreationDate="2016-07-30T04:10:41.973" UserId="31790" Comment="Use physics.SE profile for Daniel Sank instead of meta." Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Next: [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 23 August, 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="178a6dab-0722-43e1-9451-bce8e0247386" CreationDate="2016-07-30T20:15:23.807" UserId="114696" Text="Yes, this would be a useful feature, in my opinion.  Not a check-box as WORDS implies, but an invitation to state (in WORDS!) what steps have been taken to undertake the expected &quot;prior research&quot;.  Thus reminding the OP of his/her obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggested the same feature myself a couple of months ago, but I cannot find where it was that I did so. Perhaps in a comment. (Yes, I know - &quot;answering in comments&quot;!)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="b5b4748d-4e26-420f-9d78-384a51f55a04" CreationDate="2016-07-31T02:24:28.930" UserId="31790" Comment="Add links to chat sessions" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Next: [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 23 August, 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="8c699c4e-8a47-473b-8949-942d15dfc296" CreationDate="2016-07-31T08:48:53.803" UserId="47033" Text="As the title suggests, I would like to hear everyone's opinion on who should be allowed to downvote. I have seen youngsters downvote good answers simply because they could not understand it. They should instead request a clearer explanation rather than downvoting. What do you think ? Should the reputation for downvote be increased?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="8c699c4e-8a47-473b-8949-942d15dfc296" CreationDate="2016-07-31T08:48:53.803" UserId="47033" Text="raise the minimum reputation required for downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="8c699c4e-8a47-473b-8949-942d15dfc296" CreationDate="2016-07-31T08:48:53.803" UserId="47033" Text="|feature-request|reputation|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9004" RevisionGUID="bcee3626-a4b2-4dd9-aac7-b737239584d2" CreationDate="2016-07-31T10:44:30.460" UserId="78942" Text="Let's examine the facts: according to the [last data available][1], only 705 users with reputation between 125 and 250 had casted any downvote (out of 4065). From them, only 33 had casted 10 or more downvotes. Yes, there is [an exceptional case][2], but the rest seems perfectly normal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you don't know what posts did these users voted (because votes are secret!!!), you don't know their motives, and you don't know whether these users are in fact knowledgeable new users. You don't really know anything about downvotes, but you're proposing to change the whole system based in your prejudices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the technical part, the privilege system isn't controlled by the Physics.SE site, it is a part of the SE engine. In order to propose a change, you have to go to [mother meta][3]. And believe me, you will need much stronger arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/519697/downvotes-by-low-rep-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/60480&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="6b2b1f9e-baca-4d60-b8cf-1dacf02aa82d" CreationDate="2016-07-31T11:55:25.710" UserId="121464" Text="On the meta question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8789/what-does-everyone-mean-by-insufficient-research-effort, in the third note below the question, user Chris White says &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in the comments, user Emilio Pisanty says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good point on explicit mobile links. [7.6k of them][1]! In the tens of percent of all Wikipedia links, too. Is that something we should fix? That's a pretty sizable project there, something like fifteen Copy Editor badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, should I go through the linked list and edit them so the links aren't explicit? It seems like it would be a good thing to do, but I want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume if it was to be done it would be done only a couple question/answers at a time, so as to not mess with the &quot;active&quot; question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=en.m.wikipedia.org%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com&amp;gws_rd=ssl&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="6b2b1f9e-baca-4d60-b8cf-1dacf02aa82d" CreationDate="2016-07-31T11:55:25.710" UserId="121464" Text="Explicit links: should I edit to fix them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="6b2b1f9e-baca-4d60-b8cf-1dacf02aa82d" CreationDate="2016-07-31T11:55:25.710" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|editing|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="00a55de0-2f6f-45bc-9689-3eab2169f97a" CreationDate="2016-07-31T12:13:49.963" UserId="121509" Text="The site says we are no longer accepting questions from this account when I try to submit a question in physics section. I don't even have a bad reputation. All I asked was one single question which got me two upvotes. So I don't even know why I'm being targeted or something like that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="00a55de0-2f6f-45bc-9689-3eab2169f97a" CreationDate="2016-07-31T12:13:49.963" UserId="121509" Text="Mistaken block on asking questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="00a55de0-2f6f-45bc-9689-3eab2169f97a" CreationDate="2016-07-31T12:13:49.963" UserId="121509" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="85b35924-b1ee-4dc0-8d87-9d9c4a32a7ea" CreationDate="2016-07-31T12:20:48.700" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-bydesign|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23107" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="44f8de1b-aaf1-4ddf-9ea5-69efaaf0d4a0" CreationDate="2016-07-31T12:38:14.880" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="f8b558ad-1d91-490f-bdba-4a6fdf415267" CreationDate="2016-07-31T13:07:20.547" UserId="121464" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="On the meta question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8789/what-does-everyone-mean-by-insufficient-research-effort, in the third note below the question, user Chris White says &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in the comments, user Emilio Pisanty says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good point on explicit mobile links. [7.6k of them][1]! In the tens of percent of all Wikipedia links, too. Is that something we should fix? That's a pretty sizable project there, something like fifteen Copy Editor badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, should I go through the linked list and edit them so the links aren't explicit? It seems like it would be a good thing to do, but I want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume if it was to be done it would be done only a couple question/answers at a time, so as to not mess with the &quot;active&quot; question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: this is not about mobile links...the conversation below with ACuriousMind was about a specific edit I had made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=en.m.wikipedia.org%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com&amp;gws_rd=ssl&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="05b25a19-c670-4a07-aaa7-484b5383f520" CreationDate="2016-07-31T13:13:55.987" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 123 characters in body; edited title" Text="On the meta question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8789/what-does-everyone-mean-by-insufficient-research-effort, in the third note below the question, user Chris White says &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in the comments, user Emilio Pisanty says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good point on explicit mobile links. [7.6k of them][1]! In the tens of percent of all Wikipedia links, too. Is that something we should fix? That's a pretty sizable project there, something like fifteen Copy Editor badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, should I go through the linked list and edit them so the links aren't explicit? It seems like it would be a good thing to do, but I want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume if it was to be done it would be done only a couple question/answers at a time, so as to not mess with the &quot;active&quot; question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=en.m.wikipedia.org%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com&amp;gws_rd=ssl&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23110" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="05b25a19-c670-4a07-aaa7-484b5383f520" CreationDate="2016-07-31T13:13:55.987" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 123 characters in body; edited title" Text="Explicit mobile links: should I edit to fix them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="6b40f3c4-7592-412f-94e5-1d5f020dcc8f" CreationDate="2016-07-31T13:18:56.397" UserId="124" Text="&gt; So, my question is, should I go through the linked list and edit them so the links aren't explicit? It seems like it would be a good thing to do, but I want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, the change we're talking about is changing `en.m.wikipedia.org` to `en.wikipedia.org`, and similarly for other mobile-optimized URLs. That's a fine change to make but it seems quite minor to me, and I'd shy away from making an edit which _only_ makes that change and nothing else. However, if you fix other problems with the post at the same time, it's fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other people may have different opinions on whether an edit which makes that change and no other would be appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="5daaa9c2-163b-4f55-a01d-4f43ef2e0ec8" CreationDate="2016-07-31T14:46:39.910" UserId="114696" Comment="added 2288 characters in body" Text="Yes, this would be a useful feature, in my opinion.  Not a check-box as WORDS implies, but an invitation to state (in WORDS!) what steps have been taken to undertake the expected &quot;prior research&quot;.  Thus reminding the OP of his/her obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggested the same feature myself a couple of months ago, but I cannot find where it was that I did so. Perhaps in a comment. (Yes, I know - &quot;answering in comments&quot;!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update in Response to Comments**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Do you envision this applying only to prospective homework questions, or to all new users' first question? – Emilio Pisanty*&#xD;&#xA;  	  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I would expect the feature **to apply to all questions**, irrespective of rep or type of question. I see no justification for discriminating in either case. All users would benefit from the reminder. My understanding is that all questions should show some prior research effort, not only those which are &quot;homework-like&quot;. Users who have made the effort will not mind stating what they've done; those who aren't willing to make any effort will hopefully go away!&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*I would suggest it apply to users with less than 100 rep, somewhere where the users are sort of established.– heather*&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it should apply to all users, because   &#xD;&#xA;1. I have seen users with &gt;1k rep post questions without making any internet search - perhaps high reps post so few questions that they need the reminder?;  &#xD;&#xA;2. it helps the OP try to resolve his/her own problem and narrow down the difficulty;  &#xD;&#xA;3. it lets potential answerers know what has already been tried, so that they do not waste effort doing the same;  &#xD;&#xA;4. discrimination should be avoided wherever possible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many already provide this information in the question, so it should be no additional burden to them. &#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*What if the requirements decreased for higher rep users? – heather*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the feature should operate uniformly, the same for everyone, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.  It could include check boxes for &quot;searched this site for duplicates&quot; and &quot;searched the internet,&quot; to minimize typing. I think asking them to confirm they have &quot;read help centre info&quot; is too broad a request and too burdensome. The feature itself should remind the OP - as succinctly as possible - of the minimum requirements for &quot;prior research/effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typed description should be mandatory - but with a low minimum of perhaps only 30 characters. Requiring an essay will not be received well. The OP should decide how much is appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the feature is (1) to remind the OP of his/her obligations, and (2) to elicit useful information which will guide potential answerers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="31d3724f-9a2c-4b32-b9c2-c06a6a6017a9" CreationDate="2016-07-31T15:23:20.663" UserId="114696" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Yes, this would be a useful feature, in my opinion.  Not a check-box as WORDS implies, but an invitation to state (in WORDS!) what steps have been taken to undertake the expected &quot;prior research&quot;.  Thus reminding the OP of his/her obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggested the same feature myself a couple of months ago, but I cannot find where it was that I did so. Perhaps in a comment. (Yes, I know - &quot;answering in comments&quot;!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update in Response to Comments**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Do you envision this applying only to prospective homework questions, or to all new users' first question? – Emilio Pisanty*&#xD;&#xA;  	  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I would expect the feature **to apply to all questions**, irrespective of rep or type of question. I see no justification for discriminating in either case. All users would benefit from the reminder. My understanding is that all questions should show some prior research effort, not only those which are &quot;homework-like&quot;. Users who have made the effort will not mind stating what they've done; those who aren't willing to make any effort will hopefully go away!&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*I would suggest it apply to users with less than 100 rep, somewhere where the users are sort of established.– heather*&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it should apply to all users, because   &#xD;&#xA;1. I have seen users with &gt;1k rep post questions without making any internet search - perhaps high reps post so few questions that they need the reminder?;  &#xD;&#xA;2. it helps the OP try to resolve his/her own problem and narrow down the difficulty;  &#xD;&#xA;3. it lets potential answerers know what has already been tried, so that they do not waste effort doing the same;  &#xD;&#xA;4. discrimination should be avoided wherever possible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many already provide this information in the question, so it should be no additional burden to them. &#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*What if the requirements decreased for higher rep users? – heather*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the feature should operate uniformly, the same for everyone, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.  It could include check boxes for &quot;searched this site for duplicates&quot; and &quot;searched the internet,&quot; to minimize typing. I think asking them to confirm they have &quot;read help centre info&quot; is too broad a request and too burdensome. The feature itself should remind the OP - as succinctly as possible - of the minimum requirements for &quot;prior research/effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typed description should be mandatory - but with a low minimum of perhaps only 30 characters. Requiring an essay will not be received well. The OP should decide how much is appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the feature is (1) to remind the OP of his/her obligations, and (2) to elicit useful information which will guide potential answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*************************&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I have focussed on the &quot;prior research effort&quot; requirement, but the &quot;appropriate subject&quot; requirement (&quot;asking about a specific concept of physics&quot;) should not be forgotten in the feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="da5315cd-965b-4555-9a35-6fbd4199ab38" CreationDate="2016-07-31T15:28:46.540" UserId="114696" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Yes, this would be a useful feature, in my opinion.  Not a check-box as WORDS implies, but an invitation to state (in WORDS!) what steps have been taken to undertake the expected &quot;prior research&quot;.  Thus reminding the OP of his/her obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggested the same feature myself a couple of months ago, but I cannot find where it was that I did so. Perhaps in a comment. (Yes, I know - &quot;answering in comments&quot;!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update in Response to Comments**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Do you envision this applying only to prospective homework questions, or to all new users' first question? – Emilio Pisanty*&#xD;&#xA;  	  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I would expect the feature **to apply to all questions**, irrespective of rep or type of question. I see no justification for discriminating in either case. All users would benefit from the reminder. My understanding is that all questions should show some prior research effort, not only those which are &quot;homework-like&quot;. Users who have made the effort will not mind stating what they've done; those who aren't willing to make any effort will hopefully go away!&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*I would suggest it apply to users with less than 100 rep, somewhere where the users are sort of established.– heather*&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it should **apply to all users**, because   &#xD;&#xA;1. I have seen users with &gt;1k rep post questions without making any internet search - perhaps high reps post so few questions that they need the reminder?;  &#xD;&#xA;2. it helps the OP try to resolve his/her own problem and narrow down the difficulty;  &#xD;&#xA;3. it lets potential answerers know what has already been tried, so that they do not waste effort doing the same;  &#xD;&#xA;4. discrimination should be avoided wherever possible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many already provide this information in the question, so it should be no additional burden to them. &#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*What if the requirements decreased for higher rep users? – heather*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the feature should operate uniformly, the same for everyone, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.  It could include check boxes for &quot;searched this site for duplicates&quot; and &quot;searched the internet,&quot; to minimize typing. I think asking them to confirm they have &quot;read help centre info&quot; is too broad a request and too burdensome. The feature itself should remind the OP - as succinctly as possible - of the minimum requirements for &quot;prior research/effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typed description should be mandatory - but with a low minimum of perhaps only 30 characters. Requiring an essay will not be received well. The OP should decide how much is appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the feature is (1) to remind the OP of his/her obligation to ensure the question is &quot;on topic&quot;, and (2) to elicit useful information which will guide potential answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*************************&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I have focussed on the &quot;prior research effort&quot; requirement, but the &quot;appropriate subject&quot; requirement (&quot;asking about a specific concept of physics&quot;) should not be forgotten in the feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="c66a1aa0-3aaf-4657-a2d5-4d988fbd02a6" CreationDate="2016-07-31T15:38:52.920" UserId="520" Text="You have been subjected to one of several automated bans that are active on the network. These bans are temporary, but we can't tell you how long they will last. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can suggest that you follow and read the links in the message you get when you attempt to post a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can tell you about any deleted question associated with your account if you wish, however that is something that will be in public view. Just comment here asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="368ff8db-559a-4709-8ba4-a79c4983ccd6" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:11:12.813" UserId="4993" Text="I've just voted to close &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270930/relativity-and-time-dilation&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;, which I will slightly paraphrase because I'm sure it will soon be deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know in simple words why time slows down and lengths change when I am in my private rocket traveling near the speed of light.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I think that almost everyone will agree this should be closed, it's not so clear which of the close reasons to choose.  (In fact, I ended up choosing one pretty much arbitrarily and no longer remember what it was.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this question is a duplicate many times over, but I can't choose  that reason without pointing to a specific prior question, which I'd rather not do, partly because I don't want to spend time hunting up that question and more importantly because I don't want to send a message that posters who can't be bothered doing their own searches can post questions like this and expect others to do their searching for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not really unclear what's being asked.  &quot;Too broad&quot; and &quot;primarily opinion based&quot; don't seem to fit.  That leaves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's pretty good, but unfortunately I can't choose it without choosing a sub-reason.  And none of those sub-reasons seems to fit.  This is not a homework-like question, it's not about engineering, and it doesn't (to my knowledge) belong on another site on the Stack Exchange network.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it non-mainstream physics?  Well, sort of, in the sense that it seems to confuse a &quot;change in (proper?) length&quot; with a change in the assignment of coordinates, but I think there is a difference between being non-mainstream and being a little confused.  Besides, there are many other questions at about this level which are even more mainstream than this one, but still equally in need of closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me with the option of formulating a custom close reason, which requires a little extra effort on my part --- all the more so because that custom close reason automatically becomes publicly visible as a comment, so that although all I want to do is cast a close vote and move on, I feel like I need to spend an extra minute or so making sure my comment is fit for public consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this and other such questions, I would be much happier if it were possible to close with the reason &quot;This question does not appear to be about physics as defined in the help center&quot;, where it is stated upfront that this site is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close by saying that we get a lot of questions at this level, some of which show more thought  than this one does (e.g. the questions that arise periodically where someone has actually given some thought to what it would be like to ride on a light wave, has discovered an apparent paradox, and wants to know how to resolve it).  I think it's important to discourage such posts without discouraging the spirit of inquiry that lies behind them.  Telling people that they are engaged in &quot;non-mainstream physics&quot; is, I think, likely to be perceived as disparaging --- which is doubly unfortunate because thought-experiments like this &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; mainstream physics.  (Yes, these thought-experiments have already been done and other people know the results, but naively repeating someone else's experiment---thought or otherwise---is still mainstream physics.)  So I don't want to choose that option, but I do want to dispose of these posts quickly and effectively, and &quot;not within the scope of the site&quot; seems like a far better option than &quot;non-mainstream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 1:&lt;/b&gt;  Can we please be given the option of closing as &quot;Not within the scope...as defined in the help center&quot;, without having to choose or formulate a sub-reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 2:&lt;/b&gt;  Does someone have a better suggestion? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="368ff8db-559a-4709-8ba4-a79c4983ccd6" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:11:12.813" UserId="4993" Text="Reasons for Closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="368ff8db-559a-4709-8ba4-a79c4983ccd6" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:11:12.813" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="e664814b-6376-4872-b03d-f091c314932f" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:45:15.540" UserId="121464" Text="I started to type this as a comment, and then it became an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize if I'm mistaken, but I've heard that the homework close policy may be reformulated soon to be more along the lines of not enough effort. It seems like this is really what you want, because as you said in your question, it is more about being a little confused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, though, I think it should be closed as one of the following two. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Duplicate** - It definitely is a duplicate, as you said. I think this is the best thing to close it as, because then the guy gets an answer (or a partial answer) to his question, along with the one already there. I can sympathize with your point about it making posters lazier, but I don't know if that's really the case. And, honestly, question quality is a whole other problem that other meta discussions have gone over.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Too Broad** - As Emilio Pisanty said, this is another great close reason. While opinions on this might vary from person to person, the question is basically &quot;Explain general relativity to me.&quot; We're not Wikipedia. Sure, we can provide a summary, and I personally think it being a duplicate is a better close reason because of that, but this is still a valid close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is definitely not a &quot;not mainstream physics&quot; question. General relativity is mainstream, and being confused about general relativity is also mainstream. Besides, even if most people understood general relativity, being a little confused is the *whole point of a question* and I think that we need to respect that. Perhaps this guy should've done more research. (The user certainly needed to search for duplicates.) But it is a valid question on the physics.SE forum in terms of topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents; I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="613cb733-2ca8-4f83-9970-ace81fc6effc" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:55:55.867" UserId="50583" Text="For the abstract questions you pose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No**, if you close something as being out of scope, you have to explain *why* it is out of scope. The pre-existing reasons cover the most common reasons, for the others, you'll have to write a comment explaining yourself. The close reason is there to give the asker feedback *what exactly they did wrong*, and just telling them it's &quot;out of scope&quot; doesn't really tell them what went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from providing valuable feedback to the asker (that is sadly all too often ignored, or taken as a personal insult, but that's another issue), a specific close reason is also valuable for other voters - especially reviewers - to agree or disagree with. But if you just choose &quot;out of scope&quot;, then that doesn't give your peers something to argue with: Either they already agree it's out of scope or they don't, but &quot;out of scope&quot; is so vague as to make it impossible to constructively disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;finally, I don't have a better suggestion because we don't *need* a better suggestion. If you think a post is non-mainstream then you should close it as non-mainstream. Votes are judgements of questions and answers, not of users. The feedback they provide is valuable only if given honestly - I see no value in *not* voting as you want to vote because of the psychological consequences you fear it may have on the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [*specific question*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270930/50583) you're talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the least controversial way to close this is as *too broad*. It's a question that basically asks &quot;Explain special relativity to me&quot;, without any research effort shown and without any *specific question*. It's not clear to me how one could determine a &quot;correct&quot; answer specifically to this question, i.e. how one would decide when it is actually *answered*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also had two close votes as *homework-like*, now hidden by the majority close reason *too broad*. I don't really understand those, it's not a question that falls under our homework policy by any stretch of the imagination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't understand your suggestion that you wanted to close it as &quot;non-mainstream&quot;, either - it's not non-mainstream, it's a question about basic special relativity, no personal theory in sight, just confusion (and little effort on part of the asker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there are so many introductory resources to special relativity both on and off this site, I think closing because of *insufficient effort* (as a custom close reason) would also have been defensible if you think we should be closing questions for that. See meta discussions [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/8789/50583), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and at further links in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *duplicate* close reason is different. You vote to close as duplicate because you have *already found* the question it's a duplicate of. Duplicate questions are neither off-topic nor unclear nor too broad nor any other of these reasons. Closing a question as duplicate just says that we already have a sufficiently similar question here. If you're thinking the question should be closed anyway, go ahead and close it for another reason, but *never* forcefully try to make another reason fit *just* because you can't be bothered to search for the duplicate. (I'm not accusing you specifically of this, but I think it's worth explicitly stating in general.) I personally think that there's no value in closing a question that should be closed for another reason as duplicate, *unless* one then proceeds to close the duplicate for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="9604970f-3b8f-4243-b147-c0d074a50a3b" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:58:57.917" UserId="121464" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="I started to type this as a comment, and then it became an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize if I'm mistaken, but I've heard that the homework close policy may be reformulated soon to be more along the lines of not enough effort. It seems like this is really what you want, because as you said in your question, it is more about being a little confused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, though, I think it should be closed as one of the following two. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Duplicate** - It definitely is a duplicate, as you said. I think this is the best thing to close it as, because then the guy gets an answer (or a partial answer) to his question, along with the one already there. I can sympathize with your point about it making posters lazier, but I don't know if that's really the case. And, honestly, question quality is a whole other problem that other meta discussions have gone over.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Too Broad** - As Emilio Pisanty said, this is another great close reason. While opinions on this might vary from person to person, the question is basically &quot;Explain special relativity to me.&quot; We're not Wikipedia. Sure, we can provide a summary, and I personally think it being a duplicate is a better close reason because of that, but this is still a valid close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is definitely not a &quot;not mainstream physics&quot; question. Special relativity is mainstream, and being confused about special relativity is also mainstream. Besides, even if most people understood special relativity, being a little confused is the *whole point of a question* and I think that we need to respect that. Perhaps this guy should've done more research. (The user certainly needed to search for duplicates.) But it is a valid question on the physics.SE forum in terms of topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ACuriousMind says exactly my point of view on the new close reason you suggest. It is so vague that it doesn't help the asker or reviewers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents; I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="1037ab0e-a9c7-4eec-8cbd-9d74769dc70c" CreationDate="2016-07-31T23:00:38.710" UserId="50583" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="For the abstract questions you pose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No**, if you close something as being out of scope, you have to explain *why* it is out of scope. The pre-existing reasons cover the most common reasons, for the others, you'll have to write a comment explaining yourself. The close reason is there to give the asker feedback *what exactly they did wrong*, and just telling them it's &quot;out of scope&quot; doesn't really tell them what went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from providing valuable feedback to the asker (that is sadly all too often ignored, or taken as a personal insult, but that's another issue), a specific close reason is also valuable for other voters - especially reviewers - to agree or disagree with. But if you just choose &quot;out of scope&quot;, then that doesn't give your peers something to argue with: Either they already agree it's out of scope or they don't, but &quot;out of scope&quot; is so vague as to make it impossible to constructively disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I don't have a better suggestion because we don't *need* a better suggestion. If you think a post is non-mainstream then you should close it as non-mainstream. Votes are judgements of questions and answers, not of users. The feedback they provide is valuable only if given honestly - I see no value in *not* voting as you want to vote because of the psychological consequences you fear it may have on the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [*specific question*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270930/50583) you're talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the least controversial way to close this is as *too broad*. It's a question that basically asks &quot;Explain special relativity to me&quot;, without any research effort shown and without any *specific question*. It's not clear to me how one could determine a &quot;correct&quot; answer specifically to this question, i.e. how one would decide when it is actually *answered*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also had two close votes as *homework-like*, now hidden by the majority close reason *too broad*. I don't really understand those, it's not a question that falls under our homework policy by any stretch of the imagination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand the suggestion to close it as &quot;non-mainstream&quot;, either - it's not non-mainstream, it's a question about basic special relativity, no personal theory in sight, just confusion (and little effort on part of the asker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there are so many introductory resources to special relativity both on and off this site, I think closing because of *insufficient effort* (as a custom close reason) would also have been defensible if you think we should be closing questions for that. See meta discussions [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/8789/50583), [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and at further links in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *duplicate* close reason is different. You vote to close as duplicate because you have *already found* the question it's a duplicate of. Duplicate questions are neither off-topic nor unclear nor too broad nor any other of these reasons. Closing a question as duplicate just says that we already have a sufficiently similar question here. If you're thinking the question should be closed anyway, go ahead and close it for another reason, but *never* forcefully try to make another reason fit *just* because you can't be bothered to search for the duplicate. (I'm not accusing you specifically of this, but I think it's worth explicitly stating in general.) I personally think that there's no value in closing a question that should be closed for another reason as duplicate, *unless* one then proceeds to close the duplicate for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="c62e5322-ddf7-49b8-becc-d14e4d7d1f7c" CreationDate="2016-07-31T23:35:28.470" UserId="4993" Comment="added 563 characters in body" Text="I've just voted to close &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270930/relativity-and-time-dilation&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;, which I will slightly paraphrase because I'm sure it will soon be deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know in simple words why time slows down and lengths change when I am in my private rocket traveling near the speed of light.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I think that almost everyone will agree this should be closed, it's not so clear which of the close reasons to choose.  (In fact, I ended up choosing one pretty much arbitrarily and no longer remember what it was.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this question is a duplicate many times over, but I can't choose  that reason without pointing to a specific prior question, which I'd rather not do, partly because I don't want to spend time hunting up that question and more importantly because I don't want to send a message that posters who can't be bothered doing their own searches can post questions like this and expect others to do their searching for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not really unclear what's being asked.  &quot;Too broad&quot; and &quot;primarily opinion based&quot; don't seem to fit.  That leaves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's pretty good, but unfortunately I can't choose it without choosing a sub-reason.  And none of those sub-reasons seems to fit.  This is not a homework-like question, it's not about engineering, and it doesn't (to my knowledge) belong on another site on the Stack Exchange network.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it non-mainstream physics?  Well, sort of, in the sense that it seems to confuse a &quot;change in (proper?) length&quot; with a change in the assignment of coordinates, but I think there is a difference between being non-mainstream and being a little confused.  Besides, there are many other questions at about this level which are even more mainstream than this one, but still equally in need of closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me with the option of formulating a custom close reason, which requires a little extra effort on my part --- all the more so because that custom close reason automatically becomes publicly visible as a comment, so that although all I want to do is cast a close vote and move on, I feel like I need to spend an extra minute or so making sure my comment is fit for public consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this and other such questions, I would be much happier if it were possible to close with the reason &quot;This question does not appear to be about physics as defined in the help center&quot;, where it is stated upfront that this site is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close by saying that we get a lot of questions at this level, some of which show more thought  than this one does (e.g. the questions that arise periodically where someone has actually given some thought to what it would be like to ride on a light wave, has discovered an apparent paradox, and wants to know how to resolve it).  I think it's important to discourage such posts without discouraging the spirit of inquiry that lies behind them.  Telling people that they are engaged in &quot;non-mainstream physics&quot; is, I think, likely to be perceived as disparaging --- which is doubly unfortunate because thought-experiments like this &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; mainstream physics.  (Yes, these thought-experiments have already been done and other people know the results, but naively repeating someone else's experiment---thought or otherwise---is still mainstream physics.)  So I don't want to choose that option, but I do want to dispose of these posts quickly and effectively, and &quot;not within the scope of the site&quot; seems like a far better option than &quot;non-mainstream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 1:&lt;/b&gt;  Can we please be given the option of closing as &quot;Not within the scope...as defined in the help center&quot;, without having to choose or formulate a sub-reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 2:&lt;/b&gt;  Does someone have a better suggestion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add:&lt;/b&gt;  Some have responded that &quot;Too Broad&quot; fits this question perfectly.   Whether or not that is the case, it does not dispose of the general issue.  What about questions of the form &quot;I imagined myself riding on a lightbeam, and I don't see how I can square the obvious consequences with the fact that the speed of light is supposed to be invariant&quot;?  This is (I think) far too specfic to be &quot;Too Broad&quot;, far too honest an effort to think things through from first principles to be &quot;Non-Mainstream&quot;, and a bad fit for all the others too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9012" RevisionGUID="f75dea2d-a4de-458d-8800-73d2fc4bbbe1" CreationDate="2016-07-31T23:57:06.603" UserId="52112" Text="Yes, this can be a problem, but as Bosoeando showed in his answer, with one exception, it's a very small problem. Keep in mind that the cure to a small problem is oftentimes worse than the disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the biggest areas where this could be a problem have already been addressed. One potential problem is serial down-voting, which is mostly committed by users with a low reputation. The SE software automatically detects and corrects most of these serial voting problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another potential problem is questions that have made the SE hot list. These hot questions are an open invitation to people from elsewhere on the SE network to join the site. The problem was that users with a high enough reputation elsewhere on the SE network receive 100 points just for signing up with another element of the network. The solution is to quickly mark these hot questions as protected. Newbies who receive those freebie 100 reputation points cannot vote, up or down, on protected questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="79ed9873-81d8-412e-8b46-0a2c8b88b302" CreationDate="2016-08-01T05:18:42.983" UserDisplayName="user124734" Text="I have a fundamental disagreement with the explanation of a real world phenomenon. That fundamental disagreement renders the current explanations of that phenomenon completely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest way I could think of to bring everyone's attention to it was by asking a question on PSE (Physics Stack Exchange). It is being met with not just criticism but huge opposition. When I ask the question, it is marked as duplicate. Yes, it is duplicate because other people had same curiosity and they asked it. However, *all* the answers on previous questions are based on same fundamental which I find flawed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody answers my question. Some down-vote it and some vote for it to be closed. (Down-votes and VTCs are fellow SO users' right. No issues with that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unrealistic to go to all current answers and point to the answerer how their answer is wrong. I tried to do this with one answer which was accepted and had 28 up-votes and after some time the answerer stopped responding. I cannot make that person justify his/her answer when he/she doesn't want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm left with only one choice and that is to ask a question but I have already seen what happens to my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions to Meta-PSE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How do I invite a sensible discussion on my question? What's happening now is that first people google the topic, second they find a link, third they add it in a comment and finally they proceed to argue. *Nobody* has attempted to answer the question, for whatever reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My state is something like that I'm saying &quot;Earth is spheroid&quot; when everyone is hell bent on believing &quot;Earth is flat.&quot;. How do I write a question in a manner that people give it an unbiased consideration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Most people have probably already seen them by now, but [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270957/124734) and [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270298/124734) are the questions I asked. I hope to have someone answer the meta question of mine without any bias towards the PSE question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="79ed9873-81d8-412e-8b46-0a2c8b88b302" CreationDate="2016-08-01T05:18:42.983" UserDisplayName="user124734" Text="How to ask question about a phenomenon that has been wrongly 'understood' at a global level?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="79ed9873-81d8-412e-8b46-0a2c8b88b302" CreationDate="2016-08-01T05:18:42.983" UserDisplayName="user124734" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="05d9b0a8-2ca7-472e-9a02-81a86c8a065c" CreationDate="2016-08-01T06:17:47.873" UserId="1325" Text="I would have closed it as a duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question seems as close to an exact duplicate as one could ask, the only caveat being the request in the original question for *in simple words*. But then there is a limit to how simple an explanation can be made before it becomes meaningless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="6b4fa25f-57c3-4a6e-8ab9-9e5d9e9155bd" CreationDate="2016-08-01T11:27:39.460" UserId="1325" Comment="Extend answer" Text="I would have closed it as a duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question seems as close to an exact duplicate as one could ask, the only caveat being the request in the original question for *in simple words*. But then there is a limit to how simple an explanation can be made before it becomes meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I can't choose that reason without pointing to a specific prior question, which I'd rather not do, partly because I don't want to spend time hunting up that question and more importantly because I don't want to send a message that posters who can't be bothered doing their own searches can post questions like this and expect others to do their searching for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but taking the time and effort to do this is an important part of managing the site. The SE policy is that duplicates are valuable signposts that point visitors to the (hopefully) definitive answer. That is, the duplicates increase the likelyhood of a search finding a relevant question. So if you want to help make the site a better place then I'm afraid the search for duplicates is an essential part of the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9015" RevisionGUID="1d9c100d-ae30-4aa4-9973-018795bee4e5" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:21:55.383" UserId="8563" Text="I would urge you to reconsider the possibility that your calculations are, in fact, missing something, and that that makes them incorrect. Tone matters a great deal here: you come across (in [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270957) but particularly on this meta thread) as someone who has come to a conclusion and will only listen to people that will confirm it, and that's not particularly inviting. To be honest, the response to your second question looks a bit over the top to me, but that simply tells you that you need to be crystal clear with your posts.&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;So, some suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make it very clear what parts of the standard theory you do agree with or not. If you claim that the tidal bulge exists in the oceans, then you'll simply get an appropriate [link](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/121830) that explains that it doesn't and why it doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  From what I gather, though, you mostly have a problem with the forcing term (e.g. the section 'the tidal force' in David Hammen's answer to the link above). If that's the case, then I suggest that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. you make it crystal clear that this is the part you're having problems with. If you have maths that conflict with the [diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihwq2.gif), then I would urge you to really consider the possibility that your maths is missing something. This means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. post the maths in a clear and well-formatted manner, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ask whether there is a mistake in the workings or a hypothesis you missed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, tone is very important - you come across as very entitled and certainly not as someone that's likely to have constructive discussions; you're scaring away all the reasonable people that could answer your question constructively. That's up to you but think it carefully.&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;And, as a meta note: these are all suggestions for you to use or not as you see fit. I'm not particularly interested in further discussion, though (and particularly if you show the same attitude as in the comment threads and endless re-edits you linked to)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="969e3fc4-d173-4223-bfd4-47622b4586da" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:31:18.207" UserId="114696" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="Yes, this would be a useful feature, in my opinion.  Not a check-box as WORDS implies, but an invitation to state (in WORDS!) what steps have been taken to undertake the expected &quot;prior research&quot;.  Thus reminding the OP of his/her obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggested the same feature myself a couple of months ago, but I cannot find where it was that I did so. Perhaps in a comment. (Yes, I know - &quot;answering in comments&quot;!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update in Response to Comments**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Do you envision this applying only to prospective homework questions, or to all new users' first question? – Emilio Pisanty*&#xD;&#xA;  	  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I would expect the feature **to apply to all questions**, irrespective of rep or type of question. I see no justification for discriminating in either case. All users would benefit from the reminder. My understanding is that all questions should show some prior research effort, not only those which are &quot;homework-like&quot;. Users who have made the effort will not mind stating what they've done; those who aren't willing to make any effort will hopefully go away!&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*I would suggest it apply to users with less than 100 rep, somewhere where the users are sort of established.– heather*&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it should **apply to all users**, because   &#xD;&#xA;1. I have seen users with &gt;1k rep post questions without making any internet search - perhaps high reps post so few questions that they need the reminder?;  &#xD;&#xA;2. it helps the OP try to resolve his/her own problem and narrow down the difficulty;  &#xD;&#xA;3. it lets potential answerers know what has already been tried, so that they do not waste effort doing the same;  &#xD;&#xA;4. discrimination should be avoided wherever possible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many already provide this information in the question, so it should be no additional burden to them. &#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;*What if the requirements decreased for higher rep users? – heather*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the feature should operate uniformly, the same for everyone, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.  It could include check boxes for &quot;searched this site for duplicates&quot; and &quot;searched the internet,&quot; to minimize typing. I think asking them to confirm they have &quot;read help centre info&quot; is too broad a request and too burdensome. The feature itself should remind the OP - as succinctly as possible - of the minimum requirements for &quot;prior research/effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typed description should be mandatory - but with a low minimum of perhaps only 30 characters. Requiring an essay will not be received well. The OP should decide how much is appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the feature is (1) to remind the OP of his/her obligation to ensure the question is &quot;on topic&quot;, and (2) to elicit useful information which will guide potential answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*************************&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I have focussed on the &quot;prior research effort&quot; requirement, but the &quot;appropriate subject&quot; requirement (&quot;asking about a specific concept of physics&quot;) should not be forgotten in the feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have opened a [**ChatRoom**]( http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/43299/new-feature-is-your-question-on-topic?tab=general) for anyone wishing to participate in or discuss R&amp;D towards a proposal for this feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="a6e8a2a6-337a-4046-81cb-a592b6483043" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:41:48.877" UserId="121464" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="I was looking around on the mother meta, and I saw [this][1] interesting post. The second answer mentions [this][2] page on stack overflow for new users, where they must check the box at the bottom to confirm before asking their question. I know that there have been a lot of discussions on this meta about homework questions and otherwise bad questions. Could we add this page and design it such that it would give some of these new users pause before posting a bad question? Could this possibly reduce the problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** per Emilio Pisanty's suggestion (see comments below sammy gerbil's answer), I have started to work on a query for the stack exchange data explorer. While it is not yet quite done, there is some data you can see currently, so [here][3] is the query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/277607/ways-to-give-users-some-specific-education-about-question-quality-and-topicality&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask/advice&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/519816/downvoted-posts-and-rep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9016" RevisionGUID="824e47cd-4d8e-4e61-987a-68598532963e" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:46:19.333" UserId="8563" Text="[Falling hailstones on windshield](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271004/falling-hailstones-on-windshield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is well laid out, the set-piece components are clearly labelled, and the OP has clearly put in the work and isolated a specific question. However, it is still essentially a check-my-work question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9017" RevisionGUID="7cec5053-748f-47cc-bcfc-66ea1fbc5d00" CreationDate="2016-08-01T15:12:49.970" UserId="121464" Text="Emilio Pisanty says most of what I want to say, but I do want to add two points (the main sentences are bolded).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Users *did* try to help you, but I remember your question was not very clear, and it was not until I had read through a bajillion (okay, over 40) comments until I kind of understood what you wanted, and even then, you didn't have your math posted, and I didn't understand your specific objections. **Try to make your questions as clear as possible, and include all the necessary information to answer them.**&#xD;&#xA; 2. Your tone didn't really help matters. Your small print before I edited it seemed to imply a sort of &quot;I have the answer, but I want to see you all be wrong so I can argue with you.&quot; You didn't post necessary information, which also made it seem like you were kind of looking for a &quot;fight&quot;. And, in the comments, you acted in a way that annoyed many people. Tone really threw people off - your responses in comments made it harder for people to listen to you because they weren't super polite, and they made it sound like you were looking for everyone to admit, &quot;yeah, you're right, here's the nobel prize.&quot; **Try to act like you are wrong, not like everyone else is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I might add that I have nothing against you. I am simply pointing out things that would help your question. (Oh, and don't post the same question twice. People will be ticked off.) I think that if you follow suggestions for the formatting of your question, it will get reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9018" RevisionGUID="32ecff51-3236-4e98-9f6f-466af70c915f" CreationDate="2016-08-01T15:37:28.077" UserId="43351" Text="You are going about this in the wrong way. Your question should not be - does the Moon cause the tides? To which *you* think the answer is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, the whole of the scientific world thinks the Moon ultimately causes tides (along with the Sun, the Earth's rotation and other more minor contributions), so your question should be along the lines of - here is an analysis (giving details) of why I think the Moon cannot be responsible for tides on the Earth; is there a flaw in my argument?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just stop and think. Do you really believe that you alone have discovered something that has eluded the millions of people who have thought about this problem already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement is not along the lines of &quot;I'm saying 'Earth is spheroid' when everyone is hell bent on believing 'Earth is flat'&quot;; actually it is completely the other way around. You are arguing that the Earth is flat and so *you* need to provide your evidence and invite the rest of us to critically assess that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="c672da83-ab4c-46e2-8387-6f3bd44100e9" CreationDate="2016-08-01T18:31:37.497" UserId="4993" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="I've just voted to close &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270930/relativity-and-time-dilation&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;, which I will slightly paraphrase because I'm sure it will soon be deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know in simple words why time slows down and lengths change when I am in my private rocket traveling near the speed of light.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I think that almost everyone will agree this should be closed, it's not so clear which of the close reasons to choose.  (In fact, I ended up choosing one pretty much arbitrarily and no longer remember what it was.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this question is a duplicate many times over, but I can't choose  that reason without pointing to a specific prior question, which I'd rather not do, partly because I don't want to spend time hunting up that question and more importantly because I don't want to send a message that posters who can't be bothered doing their own searches can post questions like this and expect others to do their searching for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not really unclear what's being asked.  &quot;Too broad&quot; and &quot;primarily opinion based&quot; don't seem to fit.  That leaves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's pretty good, but unfortunately I can't choose it without choosing a sub-reason.  And none of those sub-reasons seems to fit.  This is not a homework-like question, it's not about engineering, and it doesn't (to my knowledge) belong on another site on the Stack Exchange network.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it non-mainstream physics?  Well, sort of, in the sense that it seems to confuse a &quot;change in (proper?) length&quot; with a change in the assignment of coordinates, but I think there is a difference between being non-mainstream and being a little confused.  Besides, there are many other questions at about this level which are even more mainstream than this one, but still equally in need of closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me with the option of formulating a custom close reason, which requires a little extra effort on my part --- all the more so because that custom close reason automatically becomes publicly visible as a comment, so that although all I want to do is cast a close vote and move on, I feel like I need to spend an extra minute or so making sure my comment is fit for public consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this and other such questions, I would be much happier if it were possible to close with the reason &quot;This question does not appear to be about physics as defined in the help center&quot;, where it is stated upfront that this site is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close by saying that we get a lot of questions at this level, some of which show more thought  than this one does (e.g. the questions that arise periodically where someone has actually given some thought to what it would be like to ride on a light wave, has discovered an apparent paradox, and wants to know how to resolve it).  I think it's important to discourage such posts without discouraging the spirit of inquiry that lies behind them.  Telling people that they are engaged in &quot;non-mainstream physics&quot; is, I think, likely to be perceived as disparaging --- which is doubly unfortunate because thought-experiments like this &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; mainstream physics.  (Yes, these thought-experiments have already been done and other people know the results, but naively repeating someone else's experiment---thought or otherwise---is still mainstream physics.)  So I don't want to choose that option, but I do want to dispose of these posts quickly and effectively, and &quot;not within the scope of the site&quot; seems like a far better option than &quot;non-mainstream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 1:&lt;/b&gt;  Can we please be given the option of closing as &quot;Not within the scope...as defined in the help center&quot;, without having to choose or formulate a sub-reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 2:&lt;/b&gt;  Does someone have a better suggestion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add:&lt;/b&gt;  Some have responded that &quot;Too Broad&quot; fits this question perfectly.   Whether or not that is the case, it does not dispose of the general issue.  What about questions of the form &quot;I imagined myself riding on a lightbeam, and I don't see how I can square the obvious consequences with the fact that the speed of light is supposed to be invariant&quot;?  This is (I think) far too specfic to be &quot;Too Broad&quot;, far too honest an effort to think things through from first principles to be &quot;Non-Mainstream&quot;, and a bad fit for all the others too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add further:&lt;/b&gt;  I've just noticed that moderators already have access to the exact close reason I'm asking for, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271022/ideal-coin-toss-experiment-do-previous-trials-affect-the-outcome-of-future-tria&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Apparently someone thought it was a good idea for moderators to have this option, and apparently at least one moderator thinks it's a good idea to use it.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="d4624da4-ce43-46fc-bb34-f50c5591fd3a" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:13:28.090" UserId="71860" Text="Automating a big part of tuition through interactive e-books. Is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current tuition system involves a professor explaining, motivating, guiding students, and students reading at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some big issues with that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Pace**:   &#xD;&#xA;When there are 20-50 students in a classroom being taught the same subject simultaneously, it is impossible to match everyone's pace of learning. Some people learn much faster, and being taught at a slower pace is a waste of their time.&#xD;&#xA;- **Requires physical presence in a physical room**:   &#xD;&#xA;While it might seem negligible, the cost of moving everyday into and out of the room, the cost of building the room, the cost of paying a professor every day for 40 years to go into the room and lecture. &#xD;&#xA;- **Writing on a backboard**:   &#xD;&#xA;It has its benefits, but it is also time-consuming. It might seem small, but multiplying the repetitive actions every day by 40 years or so becomes **huge**. One wonders why most of this process hasn't been automated by everyone. &#xD;&#xA;- **Paper books**:   &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be understood at school (or university), so students need to read a book at home. A book that often has errors, or concepts that can be explained in a much better way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some irreplaceable benefits:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Motivation**:   &#xD;&#xA;Along with being motivated by a professor that loves his subject, there is also pressure for being on time when it comes to homework; both due to knowing your professor expects the homework and also due to (inevitably) comparing comparing yourself to other students. &#xD;&#xA;- **Guidance**:     &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be written in a book, or can be easily found. A student can ask a professor for more reliable advice than looking up specific subjects on their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The above lists are not exhaustive of course)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that for centuries there has been a waste of human resources during tuition, mostly due to lack of tools. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those tools now exist:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Jupyter (formerly known as ipython)&#xD;&#xA;- StackExchange.... no really. The model of &quot;contribute improvements and we'll reward you with imaginary trophies&quot; has proven to be extremely successful &#xD;&#xA;- There is also Mathematica's CDF which allows creating easily interactive e-books (but then again the **cost** of proprietary software is a big no for some institutions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to have (university) students gradually rewrite all books in electronic, interactive form, guided by their professors? Their reward: experience on technologies like LateX, Python, and a small bonus to their grades (that's the imaginary trophy), and most importantly, a better book for their peers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more errors (or at least they'll get fixed extremely fast), concepts can be animated and interactively explained, at the appropriate pace for each student, no more hundreds of thousands of man-hours spent by professors repeating the same thing over and over again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching through a book will be as easy as pressing &lt;kbd&gt;ctr&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;f&lt;/kbd&gt;. Going to another book could be as easy as clicking a hyperlink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor-student interaction will not be replaced, it will simply be made more efficient. Instead of repeating something an interactive e-book can teach, professors and students can spend more &quot;quality time&quot; on things a book can't provide. There will also be more time for experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="f560b7df-d1ba-47a2-88ad-5139fb6f77b1" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:48:16.790" UserId="71860" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Automating a big part of tuition through interactive e-books. Is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current tuition system involves a professor explaining, motivating, guiding students, and students reading at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some big issues with that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Pace**:   &#xD;&#xA;When there are 20-50 students in a classroom being taught the same subject simultaneously, it is impossible to match everyone's pace of learning. Some people learn much faster, and being taught at a slower pace is a waste of their time.&#xD;&#xA;- **Requires physical presence in a physical room**:   &#xD;&#xA;While it might seem negligible, the cost of moving everyday into and out of the room, the cost of building the room, the cost of paying a professor every day for 40 years to go into the room and lecture. &#xD;&#xA;- **Writing on a backboard**:   &#xD;&#xA;It has its benefits, but it is also time-consuming. It might seem small, but multiplying the repetitive actions every day by 40 years or so becomes **huge**. One wonders why most of this process hasn't been automated by everyone. &#xD;&#xA;- **Paper books**:   &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be understood at school (or university), so students need to read a book at home. A book that often has errors, or concepts that can be explained in a much better way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some irreplaceable benefits:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Motivation**:   &#xD;&#xA;Along with being motivated by a professor that loves his subject, there is also pressure for being on time when it comes to homework; both due to knowing your professor expects the homework and also due to (inevitably) comparing comparing yourself to other students. &#xD;&#xA;- **Guidance**:     &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be written in a book, or can be easily found. A student can ask a professor for more reliable advice than looking up specific subjects on their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The above lists are not exhaustive of course)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that for centuries there has been a waste of human resources during tuition, mostly due to lack of tools. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those tools now exist:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Jupyter (formerly known as ipython)&#xD;&#xA;- StackExchange.... no really. The model of &quot;contribute improvements and we'll reward you with imaginary trophies&quot; has proven to be extremely successful &#xD;&#xA;- There is also Mathematica's CDF which allows creating easily interactive e-books (but then again the **cost** of proprietary software is a big no for some institutions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to have (university) students gradually rewrite all books in electronic, interactive form, guided by their professors? Their reward: experience on technologies like LateX, Python, and a small bonus to their grades (that's the imaginary trophy), and most importantly, a better book for their peers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more errors (or at least they'll get fixed extremely fast), concepts can be 3D animated and interactively explained, at the appropriate pace for each student, no more thousands of man-hours spent by professors repeating the same thing over and over again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching through a book will be as easy as pressing &lt;kbd&gt;ctr&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;f&lt;/kbd&gt;. Going to another book could be as easy as clicking a hyperlink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor-student interaction will not be replaced, it will simply be made more efficient. Instead of repeating something an interactive e-book can teach, professors and students can spend more &quot;quality time&quot; on things a book can't provide. There will also be more time for experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="d33f957e-24ee-46f2-bad6-268e5c78057d" CreationDate="2016-08-02T10:28:22.867" UserId="71860" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Automating a big part of tuition through interactive e-books. Is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current tuition system involves a professor explaining, motivating, guiding students, and students reading at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some big issues with that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Pace**:   &#xD;&#xA;When there are 20-50 students in a classroom being taught the same subject simultaneously, it is impossible to match everyone's pace of learning. Some people learn much faster, and being taught at a slower pace is a waste of their time.&#xD;&#xA;- **Requires physical presence in a physical room**:   &#xD;&#xA;While it might seem negligible, the cost of moving everyday into and out of the room, the cost of building the room, the cost of paying a professor every day for 40 years to go into the room and lecture. &#xD;&#xA;- **Writing on a backboard**:   &#xD;&#xA;It has its benefits, but it is also time-consuming. It might seem small, but multiplying the repetitive actions every day by 40 years or so becomes **huge**. One wonders why most of this process hasn't been automated by everyone. &#xD;&#xA;- **Paper books**:   &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be understood at school (or university), so students need to read a book at home. A book that often has errors, or concepts that can be explained in a much better way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some irreplaceable benefits:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Motivation**:   &#xD;&#xA;Along with being motivated by a professor that loves his subject, there is also pressure for being on time when it comes to homework; both due to knowing your professor expects the homework and also due to (inevitably) comparing comparing yourself to other students. &#xD;&#xA;- **Guidance**:     &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be written in a book, or can be easily found. A student can ask a professor for more reliable advice than looking up specific subjects on their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The above lists are not exhaustive of course)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that for centuries there has been a waste of human resources during tuition, mostly due to lack of tools. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those tools now exist:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Jupyter][1] (formerly known as ipython)&#xD;&#xA;- StackExchange.... no really. The model of &quot;contribute improvements and we'll reward you with imaginary trophies&quot; has proven to be extremely successful &#xD;&#xA;- There is also [Mathematica][2] which allows easily creating  interactive e-books (but then again the **cost** of proprietary software is a big no for some institutions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to have (university) students gradually rewrite all books in electronic, interactive form, guided by their professors? Their reward: experience on technologies like LateX, Python, and a small bonus to their grades (that's the imaginary trophy), and most importantly, a better book for their peers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more errors (or at least they'll get fixed extremely fast), concepts can be 3D animated and interactively explained, at the appropriate pace for each student, no more thousands of man-hours spent by professors repeating the same thing over and over again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching through a book will be as easy as pressing &lt;kbd&gt;ctr&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;f&lt;/kbd&gt;. Going to another book could be as easy as clicking a hyperlink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor-student interaction will not be replaced, it will simply be made more efficient. Instead of repeating something an interactive e-book can teach, professors and students can spend more &quot;quality time&quot; on things a book can't provide. There will also be more time for experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/TU-ekKJ3n7o?t=8m33s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="4b7868ae-27db-46f0-aac3-907720ef5e34" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:20:48.667" UserId="23473" Text="I recognize that you are in a fairly frustrated state from this. I imagine that in your position, I would be fairly frustrated too. However, given that you are trying to point out that modern physics is flawed, here is the way I would answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You do not invite a discussion here. This site is not a place for discussion on physics. It is a question and answer site; people ask questions about physics and other people give answers about what modern accepted physics has to say on the matter. Whether or not your point of view has merit, you are simply in the wrong place. This isn't a place to definitively change physics; only to state what the viewpoints of physicists would be. You may notice people respond and argue anyway. That is because it is very tempting to engage in discussion anyway; however, site policy remains that we do not discuss new physics. We give accepted physics. To change it, you need to publish a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. Only then will we change our answers. It may seem close-minded of us but remember, we are not offering our point of view, we are offering the explanations of accepted physics whether or not we agree with them. To change our answers, you cannot simply change our viewpoints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We do our best to give every question an unbiased chance. It helps if you are not explicitly calling everyone on Earth wrong. Statistically speaking, that is unlikely. The major problem is that your questions seem too off-topic for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're in a good mood and willing to be facetious/farcical about your situation, [read this blog post](http://www.rapiddiffusion.com/science/crackpots-bane-science/). If you find yourself relating to John Smith, then you should be worried." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="57f0dc4c-1b7d-4490-ab0d-36fc52a51f78" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:01:46.527" UserId="121464" Text="I just reached 3000 rep (yay!) yesterday and I immediately went to the close vote review queue. After working through twenty it said I was out of close votes. Same thing today. Now, I remember reading somewhere (not sure where) that you gain close votes with rep, or review tasks done, or something like that. What I read could've been about flags, I guess, but then I have a question about that too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: what are the flag/close-vote increase points, if that makes sense? At what point do the number of close-votes or flags I have increase? (I do know that you have 10 close votes outside of review queues.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to ask if there are any specific things I should be doing as a 3k user besides going through the review queues (which I have been doing as they became open to me). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="57f0dc4c-1b7d-4490-ab0d-36fc52a51f78" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:01:46.527" UserId="121464" Text="Number of close votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="57f0dc4c-1b7d-4490-ab0d-36fc52a51f78" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:01:46.527" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="5580bf3e-f790-4457-8b8b-2936b72e7a5e" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:34:03.030" UserId="50583" Text="It's a good thing that you're so motivated to go through the review queues!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What increases with successful flagging is the [number of flags you're allowed to cast per day](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/185890/263383). Unfortunately, after you hit 3k, you won't ever use all those flags because all your off-topic &quot;flags&quot; on questions are now *close votes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You get 24 close votes per day, and 20 reviews in the queue per day. This doesn't scale with rep. Every close vote you cast in the queue is deducted from the 24 votes per day you have. You cannot review when you're out of close votes even if you haven't done 20 reviews that day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23145" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="07defed0-494b-463e-869d-a07fef22680a" CreationDate="2016-08-02T18:44:30.917" UserId="8563" Comment="Made title more descriptive of the actual question." Text="How many close votes do 3k+ users get per day? Is there any way to increase it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="8173b03a-da87-4588-b2df-56c21da71cee" CreationDate="2016-08-03T08:40:02.033" UserId="68136" Text="In the stack overflow site where people post questions on programming, it makes sense to have a policy where the question asked should state the efforts made by the asker to solve the problem and the problems he is facing in that implementation. But should this policy be applied to the the Stack Physics site as well? I've seen people pontificate on this one point on many questions. The problem with physics is that there are many questions which aren't application oriented and are more theoretical in nature. Further, many of the askers are new to the subject or are just rookies. Should such a policy be encouraged in their cases too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="8173b03a-da87-4588-b2df-56c21da71cee" CreationDate="2016-08-03T08:40:02.033" UserId="68136" Text="Policy on asking questions in physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="8173b03a-da87-4588-b2df-56c21da71cee" CreationDate="2016-08-03T08:40:02.033" UserId="68136" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23149" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="438fce06-6dfa-46d1-875d-970c78e6dd21" CreationDate="2016-08-03T08:45:29.210" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|insufficient-effort|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9024" RevisionGUID="48492274-d5b7-432f-ad26-624b439bf3ad" CreationDate="2016-08-03T08:53:35.817" UserId="118847" Text="The point, in my view, is that it is an insult to just quickly spit out a question and expect for someone to take the time and effort to answer it. If someone tells me or shows me the effort he has made or the research he has gone through, this is, for one, a basic form of courtesy. Further, it makes sense because in case of research questions, I myself know where not to look. In case of more calculation based questions, I can tell him where he went wrong or astray. Both of these are actually helpful for the process of obtaining a good answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But apart from this, it is just more motivating to answer a question which shows that there has been thinking, time and interest included. I have recently spent quite a bit of time on an answer to a question I would normally probably have flagged for closure if it had not stated concisely what the problem, the interest and the motivation for the question are. I think apart from it being a rule that is more or less inforced here on physics SE, this is also just a good strategy to make potential answerers want to deal with your problem and answer your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9025" RevisionGUID="9b2ac6a3-0b40-466b-b441-077968b8d3e5" CreationDate="2016-08-04T06:11:21.013" UserId="32426" Text="In my opinion, there are no large differences between PSE and SO in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both on the SO, and also here, there is a requirement from the OP to show his attempts to solve his problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the SO, most of the VLQ questions are coming from beginner programmers in a strong need to provide the software what they are incapable to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the PSE, most of the VLQ questions are coming from physics students in a strong need to provide the homework what they are incapable to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases is it possible to show, what you tried. A similar requirement would be also a useful defense on the PSE against its degradation to an online, free homework solving service. But there is a such requirement already, and I've seen a _lot_ of homework questions closed on this reason (what I agree in most cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A remark: people _likes_ to solve problems, despite that they know, it makes them like a w*. People motivated by such urges, can become later productive users of the site. This is the probable reason, what makes the MathSE a well-going site. And, although the OPs of the VLQ questions don't seem really useful content producers of the future, their answerers do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this behavior of the MathSE clearly worsens its mean quality, but if there is a finetuned, predictable way to deal with the [help vampires and the repwhores][1] (*), to use their significant content-producing power to serve the site, it can help more as it harms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) I link here a MSO _answer_, describing the main sociological structure on the SE on a quite funny way :-) I didn't link the question (what is irrelevant in our current context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/251758/why-is-stack-overflow-so-negative-of-late/252077#252077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8997" RevisionGUID="d97d78f8-a703-4d8e-9038-aa62a09cb13b" CreationDate="2016-08-04T11:38:28.967" UserId="124" Comment="clarify that I'm not talking about answers in comments" Text="*This answer addresses the case where a comment is valid as a comment - that is, it's attempting to improve its parent post, not to answer the question - but it's simply wrong.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preferred way to deal with incorrect comments is to respond with a comment of your own. Now, you made a fair point about why you might not want to do that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't reply in a comment, for two reasons: long discussions in comments are frowned upon and often deleted, and it often takes many more words to correct a misconception than to make one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but here's an easy way to solve both problems: write something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is incorrect because (short summary reason). If you'd like to discuss this further, we can do so in [chat].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if the original commenter then ignores your invitation to chat and tries to respond in another comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As I said, we can continue to discuss this in [chat].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and leave it at that. If you don't actually want to get into an argument, that's fine; you can take the discussion to the chat room and respond once or twice then give up. Heck, you don't even have to follow it up in chat at all. (In that case, you could use wording along the lines of &quot;the place to discuss this is [chat]&quot;) The point of making this comment is not to actually start a debate. The point is (1) to show that there _exists_ a counterargument to the original comment, and (2) if the original commenter does want to argue their point, to remove that argument from the wrong venue (the comment section) and put it in the right one (a chat room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I especially want to emphasize that our reluctance to hold discussions in the comments is _not_ a reason to avoid responding to comments. Yes, extended comment discussions are frowned upon, but one or two rounds of back-and-forth commenting do not count as an extended discussion. What does make an extended discussion is when you have several rounds of comments _and_ it shows no signs of stopping. And even if you do get sucked into a discussion, it's not really that bad. Nobody gets _punished_ for that. The worst that happens (or some might say best) is that the whole comment chain gets moved to chat or deleted - which, in fact, is a roundabout way of getting rid of the original, allegedly incorrect comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="adfcd348-0bfd-4f41-9ce4-bf0d060ad2e6" CreationDate="2016-08-04T16:44:35.283" UserId="41998" Text="[An apparent inconsistency in the form of Spin-z operator for spin 1/2 system [on hold]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework type question in that it is an exercise from Sakurai's QM book basically about forms of the zero and projection operators for hermitian operators. I think the close tag doesn't suit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows a lot of effort (most of the question is done and they even latex'd it in the link). As I've commented in the post that the close reason is essentially &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*punishing a user for doing more work than less work. One could've easily said 'I don't know what the operator in part b) is' and done nowhere near as much work as op. If op didn't have a mistake he/she wouldn't have asked the question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in fairness Sakurai is a fairly well used book so in principle could be useful to future users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However* it is essentially a **where's my mistake** type problem which isn't on topic, so I understand that, but I also don't agree with the reasoning  &quot;*If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher*&quot; - [here on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) which might for example punish a student that is self motivated to work over a summer break, where the teacher/lecturer is busy, and maybe other classmates/friends don't want to be doing physics over a break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271287/an-apparent-inconsistency-in-the-form-of-spin-z-operator-for-spin-1-2-system?noredirect=1#comment607868_271287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="b07baf0d-7845-41ec-9015-6360831e6f9a" CreationDate="2016-08-04T17:53:54.373" UserId="8563" Comment="Added text since question was deleted." Text="[Specific heat ratio difference between dry air and moist air][1], which reads&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For dry air cp/cv = 1.4, but for moist air it is smaller: cp/cv ~ 1.3. What is the reason for this difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly standard homework question that probes if you understand what the difference between heat capacity at constant volume vs pressure means. Seems black and white to me, but lets test the boundary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the most likely issue for the poster is not unwrapping the ratio of the two to get back to the heat capacities proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248024/specific-heat-ratio-difference-between-dry-air-and-moist-air" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7735" RevisionGUID="ff39812a-6810-41f0-8ea4-4e13c6095b3d" CreationDate="2016-08-04T17:55:38.967" UserId="8563" Comment="added 487 characters in body" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253477/specific-function-is-a-linear-combination-of-energy-eigenstates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My lecturer made a statement: In the infinite square well potential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $x\psi_n(x)$ (where $\psi_n$ is just the spatial part of an energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eigenstate) can be expressed as a linear combination of the energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eigenstates of the infinite square well, i.e. $x\psi_n(x) = \sum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c_m\psi_m(x)$. This came about by applying the position operator on an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arbitrary wavefunction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't see how this function is a linear combination of the energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eigenstates.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a purely conceptual question (one which does not fall under our _current_ homework policy, for whatever that's worth) that nevertheless shows no effort on the part of the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="e9ffadc3-8934-481e-bcfb-4293709d3c79" CreationDate="2016-08-04T19:44:25.760" UserId="8563" Text="The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;screenshot&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;screenshot&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete questions that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="e9ffadc3-8934-481e-bcfb-4293709d3c79" CreationDate="2016-08-04T19:44:25.760" UserId="8563" Text="Flagging low quality answers: an experiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="e9ffadc3-8934-481e-bcfb-4293709d3c79" CreationDate="2016-08-04T19:44:25.760" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|flagging|review|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="2d70590e-574c-4c02-9145-916cb35c21ba" CreationDate="2016-08-04T22:29:31.240" UserId="121464" Text="So, I know there have been several questions asked about this, but I wanted to see what the current viewpoint was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions in question are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going through the re-open review queue and the first one was the first question linked. I looked at it, understood that it wasn't exactly with the site policy (too broad, etc) but I thought that since there seemed to be a bunch of support for it in both the number of votes (59 on the question, and 32 on the most upvoted answer) and it also seemed like an interesting exception to have, I voted to re-open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the next question that came up was the second question linked. I read through the comment discussion, and was about to vote to re-open because I thought it was another interesting exception (coincidence that they came up at the same time?) and there was a lot of support in the comments. However, I saw [this Meta discussion][1] in the comments and stopped to read it. Since there were conflicting answers with a fairly close number of upvotes, I wanted to know what site policy was before continuing to vote to close (I could've skipped, but I wanted to know in case others came up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I have a official answer on this (or, if there's conflict, or a maybe, an explanation of the boundaries)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="2d70590e-574c-4c02-9145-916cb35c21ba" CreationDate="2016-08-04T22:29:31.240" UserId="121464" Text="List type questions in the re-open queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="2d70590e-574c-4c02-9145-916cb35c21ba" CreationDate="2016-08-04T22:29:31.240" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="942d1927-4b65-4671-b7cf-609a1f74a018" CreationDate="2016-08-05T12:22:23.933" UserId="23473" Text="If a question is close-worthy under the official close reasons, then it *should* be closed, regardless of popularity. This site strives to be a place where quality and professionalism find a home. We intend ourselves to be a place where physicists can turn for answers. Making exceptions for interesting or popular questions creates the problem where questions unsuited for the site's goals can do well and even outperform questions that are a perfect fit for the site. Not only that, it establishes a precedent. Each exception we make increases the difficulty in turning away those kinds of unwelcome questions in the future. Furthermore, making exceptions purely on the basis of votes shows that we more favour popularity over physics. Because of the large number of non-professional physicist users, many low-level and/or incompatible questions can become very popular. Our site's ambitions favour the higher-level questions. Favouring popularity, therefore, can be counterproductive towards making this a quality site for professionals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of all of this, one must ask where it ends. There is a slippery slope from allowing any questions that are popular or interesting to closing questions for being uninteresting. I know that sounds ridiculous and I'm sure no one here would ever start doing that, but if new users see us making exceptions for interesting questions, they might get the idea that interest is more important than quality. When the site turns over and we here are no longer in the majority of high-rep users, they (not knowing any better) might consider it okay to close questions that are uninteresting. Can't you just see this being a meta post in the future: &quot;If we can re-open off-topic questions that are interesting, shouldn't we be able to close on-topic questions that are uninteresting?&quot; To which an answer might be &quot;Yeah, we've done this as long as I've been a mod. I'm hesitant to say yes to closing any on-topic questions, but let's see what the rest of the users think&quot;. Abracadabra, all of a sudden the site is no longer about quality for professionals and it is now about serving popular physics to the general public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I went off on a bit of a rant there. Long story short, questions closed for a good reason should remain closed. No exceptions because of popularity or general interest. This is StackExchange, not Quora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="a4821c1e-277c-42d8-8aa9-e08634b8fdfb" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:10:30.353" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who says they're flat out incorrect? You? What if _your_ answers are flat out incorrect? What if you're asking for is censorship of correct answers so that your incorrect answers have no competition? This proposal would allow physics stack exchange to be hijacked and censored by a &quot;cabal of quacks&quot; working in concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: _no_. If there are very-low-quality answers, you _explain_ why they're very low quality. You hold them up to your own answers in comparison. You do not censor the competition with some vague insinuations that _that's not mainstream_. Not when answers like [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation/267328#267328) get twelve downvotes despite the multiple references to Einstein. Not when what's _actively harmful to the site_ are self-appointed &quot;experts&quot; who are sneering and scathing to newcomers and juniors, and whose arrogance is only exceeded by their ignorance.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BqN6K.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="de46936b-38b2-4244-9105-b06d063de835" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:57:44.473" UserId="31790" Comment="Update date" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 12 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="de46936b-38b2-4244-9105-b06d063de835" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:57:44.473" UserId="31790" Comment="Update date" Text="August 12 Physics AMA with Daniel Sank: question pool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="7371568d-2051-4bc7-a8b5-a3edfd7bcb7c" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:58:19.050" UserId="31790" Comment="Update DanielSank AMA date" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Next: [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August, 2016, [question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="10774a95-eec5-4a76-ae23-cdd9680755e0" CreationDate="2016-08-05T17:19:01.957" UserId="78942" Text="The flag reason for non-answers is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems clear, doesn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I read [this post][1], and I flagged it as a non-answer, since it didn't attempt to answer the question. Let's see, point by point, the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In this part, OP ask specifically for a mathematical analysis of his problem. But the post doesn't present a single formula. Zero. Just a collection of generalities about diffraction. Maybe fine as a comment, but doesn't attempt to answer the specific question of the OP.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Sorry, I don't know&quot;. Is this an answer?&#xD;&#xA; 3. OP asks for boundary conditions for the Schrödinger equation. But the post talks about solenoids and water waves. No relation at all. Clearly, the post isn't attempting to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;Sorry, I don't know&quot;. Again.&#xD;&#xA; 5. In this last part, we learn that a wave function is... a wavefunction! This is Physics.SE, not the [tautology club][2]. Even worst, it says &quot;So you might think the electron is pointlike&quot;, but OP didn't say a word about electrons being pointlike: the only purpose of this post is to say &quot;I'm smarter than you&quot;. Again, the post isn't attempting to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather unsurprisingly, the flag was deemed as _disputed_. Yet I don't see even a minimal attempt to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the requirements to flag non-answers? Is it OK to answer &quot;I don't know&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/272747/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://xkcd.com/703/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="10774a95-eec5-4a76-ae23-cdd9680755e0" CreationDate="2016-08-05T17:19:01.957" UserId="78942" Text="What constitutes non-answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="10774a95-eec5-4a76-ae23-cdd9680755e0" CreationDate="2016-08-05T17:19:01.957" UserId="78942" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9032" RevisionGUID="65062d44-43dd-4f8d-adc0-5d4964be31df" CreationDate="2016-08-05T18:28:51.830" UserId="124" Text="Yes, it is okay to answer &quot;I don't know.&quot; It's the least helpful answer possible, but it is an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could see making an exception for an answer which says &quot;I don't know&quot; and adds absolutely _nothing_ else. But I have never seen an answer posted which would meet that criterion. At the very least, someone who posts &quot;I don't know&quot; will typically use that as a springboard to some useful analysis of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, when it comes to flagging answers as &quot;not an answer&quot;, we're talking about things that are not answers even in the remotest sense. Separate questions, for example. Or requests for clarification of the question. Or additions to the question, which should have been edited in. Basically, **a not-an-answer flag means the poster probably didn't understand the purpose of the form field they were typing in**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific post you're asking about does not even come _close_ to meeting the criteria for a not-an-answer flag. One giant clue is that it is written in a quote-response form, where it quotes the question parts of the question-post and includes responses to them. A post written in that style is pretty much always an answer, because you generally don't write that way unless you understand that you are answering a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question, it sounds like you're considering the answer on its technical merits, and whether it is sufficiently helpful to the questioner. Generally speaking, you shouldn't consider those factors when deciding whether to flag. You _should_ consider them when deciding to vote up or down, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9033" RevisionGUID="bf77d5d4-b49c-4f5c-9ed1-01dfd163eeae" CreationDate="2016-08-05T20:31:45.520" UserId="1325" Text="I heartily support Emilio's proposal, but to explain why I support it will require a bit of rambling. So please bear with me and I'll try not to make this too painful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Physics Stack Exchange has evolved into an educational resource. We hoped it would be a research tool akin to the MathOverflow but for whatever reason that didn't happen. It appears that the culture amongst research physicists just doesn't lend itself to this goal. The Theoretical Physics SE got canned due to lack of traffic and the Physics Overflow is withering on the vine. So an educational tool is what we have ended up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the above sounds a bit downbeat let me emphasise just how important I think the Physics SE is in its role as an educational tool. Over the five years (good grief!) I've been a member I have explained basic principles of (for example) special relativity to students who have gone on to do PhDs, and it's hugely rewarding to think I might have contributed in some small way to the next generation of scientists. Most of us would, at least in principle, like to make the world a better place and this is one way you can really do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, and it's a big but, if you're going to take on the role of teacher then you have the responsibility of ensuring you teach the truth and only the truth. If a student repeats misinformation that you've given them in an exam, and fails as a result, then you deserve to lie awake at night feeling guilty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point I'm working my way round to is that given our role as an educational resource it is important that our answers here are unimpeachable. This is not a place for trotting out your preconceptions and personal biases. Any answer posted here should not raise eyebrows if it appeared in a mainstream physics textbook. Well that's a grand goal, and of course one we are bound to fail at as long as answers are written by humans, but that's the goal to strive for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I think we are pretty good at the peer review process. Not perfect of course, but on the whole I think we do a decent job. We spot answers that are confused, misleading or plain wrong and indicate by comments and downvoting that the OP should not trust the answer (not if they want to pass their exams that is). The point of Emilio's proposal is to make this process still better, and that's why I support it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="8a891fc6-16ae-4ce3-8f1c-890df3b7c3ee" CreationDate="2016-08-05T21:11:52.230" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|flagging|review|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="672d7c11-20ae-42f5-a4cc-d4c526868256" CreationDate="2016-08-06T01:08:44.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/761730695052070913" />
  <row Id="23174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="c9c3ea1d-d311-4fd8-a4b7-255db2e41fa6" CreationDate="2016-08-06T08:35:14.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="4a7836df-ed81-43c7-9ac2-d472c1cb4ef9" CreationDate="2016-08-06T14:23:10.297" UserId="110206" Text="I would like to enquire about this post I have made on StackExchange Physics-&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270200/conformal-group-in-2d-being-a-subgroup-of-diff-x-weyl-polchinksis-string-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post was closed very quickly after being posted, for being unclear, though one of those who voted to close it left an answer in the comments (which indicated that the person understood what I was asking). Subsequently, there were two other users who discussed the question and provided solutions and references. I had also edited the question several times for clarity and detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the 3rd of August, Qmechanic commented, 'To reopen this post (v5), consider replacing the word Weyl group with group of Weyl transformations'. I made this change, and replied accordingly to Qmechanic in the comments section. However, instead of the post being reopened, I found that Qmechanic's comment and my reply were deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I waited patiently, and reread my question several times hoping to make it clearer, and made another edit to this end. However, there is still no response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really strange that a question which has elicited detailed responses from four other users can be closed for being unclear. Moreover, the question is about an important point in string theory, and an answer would be helpful for students. Finally, it should be noted that the question has received one upvote, and has been favorited by two users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe such a question which has spurred a healthy discussion involving several users should be reopened. I would be more than happy to make further improvements to the question, I am just trying to help myself and future users learn something important. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="4a7836df-ed81-43c7-9ac2-d472c1cb4ef9" CreationDate="2016-08-06T14:23:10.297" UserId="110206" Text="Question with a lot of discussion in comments remains closed for being unclear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="4a7836df-ed81-43c7-9ac2-d472c1cb4ef9" CreationDate="2016-08-06T14:23:10.297" UserId="110206" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9035" RevisionGUID="a4efa128-c2fb-414d-9fdc-d49f719a0ed2" CreationDate="2016-08-06T16:12:09.543" UserId="33566" Text="thx for agreeing to the speaker session and being flexible on the date! some misc questions/ topics that have come to mind over the months&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* do you have any knowledge of or can comment on the background on the Martinis-Google arrangement/ merger? it seemed to be a &quot;bolt from the blue&quot; without a lot of behind-the-scenes info available. was wondering who initiated this. were Brin/ Page personally involved? had they expressed earlier interest in quantum computing? what caught their eye in particular about the lab? what is their thinking on allowing the lab to be independent vs acquired by Google? did the environment change somehow after the acquisition? has it been a smooth transition etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* what initially inspired you to get into physics/ quantum computing? did you have exposure/ ideas on it even as an undergraduate? do you have any particular heroes in the field, and why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* what were particular challenges with your Phd you recall? any &quot;lessons learned&quot;? it appears you skipped the masters degree, what was your decision process there, and are you satisfied with that choice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* quantum computing has a lot of sci fi aspects and probably public misconceptions. what are common misconceptions? what do you think are the short and long term prospects for QM computing? where does it fit with conventional computing approaches?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there are many labs worldwide pursuing QM computing. could you contrast your own lab approach to them? how much do you &amp; other lab staff follow other research? is anyone particularly on the wrong or right track in your opinion? is your lab focusing on all key aspects or is there some area thats being left to others? also theres a lot of media dedicated to DWave. whats your professional/ personal opinion of their approaches, can you comment? also it looks like your lab has no experiments on adiabatic computing, whats your take on this variant? has potential, or a dead end, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there are QM computing skeptics, one that has come to mind and been &quot;debunked&quot; by others is Dyakonov. some other skeptics argue that noise will not scale well in QM computing systems and will be a severe roadblock. whats your take on noise scaling in QM computing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Aaronson is a very prominent QM computing advocate/ writer offering near &quot;play by play&quot; commentary on his blog and elsewhere and has critiqued Dwave strongly and seems to highly favor the Martinis lab approaches. fair/ well informed/ accurate? whats your take on his statements/ attitude?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* youve been active in the hbar chatroom for many months. what drew you into the chat room? what do you regard as its strengths/ weaknesses? if you could change one thing about the site or the chat room, what would it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* from hbar transcripts, recently you got married _(congratulations!)_. any comments on work/life balance in science/ physics? possible, challenging, difficult? does this have any affect on your scientific research; is your routine changed at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you have quite a bit of experience in programming. how does this connect with your scientific research? any advice on programming abilities/ skills for scientists? whats your favorite language, how do you use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you mentioned in the chat room some challenging issues with peer review in submitting publication(s). whats your take on the peer review process, does it mostly work for you? could it be improved somehow? whats the biggest challenge with it? etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* many nations have substantial quantum computing science (govt funded) budgets, Australia and Europe come to mind (the latter just announced recently). do you have any opinion/ comment on whether a national science budget for QM computing makes sense in the US? is the private funding sufficient or could there be some major additional benefit with public funding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* what advice would you have for the younger generation for getting into physics, studying it, advancing, etc? does it have a big future? has it overall been a great/ fulfilling choice for you? can you name any downsides/ obstacles/ admonitions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="f86da72b-a0d7-48e9-b38e-604ff733edb3" CreationDate="2016-08-07T08:23:48.627" UserId="124" Comment="add a summary" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;screenshot&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;screenshot&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete questions that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9037" RevisionGUID="19fc8186-2f11-4004-ba8d-f1a9d996c923" CreationDate="2016-08-07T09:06:02.937" UserId="76162" Text="Quantum computing has been around now for nearly forty years, and hasn't delivered anything. Meanwhile ordinary computing has advanced in leaps and bounds. So: is quantum computing just some two-bit jam-tomorrow hype that's never going to deliver anything? Is it going to quietly fade away like string theory, having consumed millions of publicly-funded man-hours, all for nought? Man hours that could have been productively spent on say optical computing, as per [Taming Light at the Nanoscale](https://www.google.co.uk/#q=taming+light+at+the+nanoscale)?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="41ff412f-d9c6-493e-87b9-b69bd2457943" CreationDate="2016-08-07T10:25:20.750" UserId="71860" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="Automating a big part of tuition through interactive e-books. Is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current tuition system involves a professor explaining, motivating, guiding students, and students reading at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some big issues with that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Pace**:   &#xD;&#xA;When there are 20-50 students in a classroom being taught the same subject simultaneously, it is impossible to match everyone's pace of learning. Some people learn much faster, and being taught at a slower pace is a waste of their time.&#xD;&#xA;- **Requires physical presence in a physical room**:   &#xD;&#xA;While it might seem negligible, the cost of moving everyday into and out of the room, the cost of building the room, the cost of paying a professor every day for 40 years to go into the room and lecture. &#xD;&#xA;- **Writing on a backboard**:   &#xD;&#xA;It has its benefits, but it is also time-consuming. It might seem small, but multiplying the repetitive actions every day by 40 years or so becomes **huge**. One wonders why most of this process hasn't been automated by everyone. &#xD;&#xA;- **Paper books**:   &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be understood at school (or university), so students need to read a book at home. A book that often has errors, or concepts that can be explained in a much better way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some irreplaceable benefits:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Motivation**:   &#xD;&#xA;Along with being motivated by a professor that loves his subject, there is also pressure for being on time when it comes to homework; both due to knowing your professor expects the homework and also due to (inevitably) comparing yourself to other students. &#xD;&#xA;- **Guidance**:     &#xD;&#xA;Not everything can be written in a book, or can be easily found. A student can ask a professor for more reliable advice than looking up specific subjects on their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The above lists are not exhaustive of course)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that for centuries there has been a waste of human resources during tuition, mostly due to lack of tools. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those tools now exist:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Jupyter][1] (formerly known as ipython)&#xD;&#xA;- StackExchange.... no really. The model of &quot;contribute improvements and we'll reward you with imaginary trophies&quot; has proven to be extremely successful &#xD;&#xA;- There is also [Mathematica][2] which allows easily creating  interactive e-books (but then again the **cost** of proprietary software is a big no for some institutions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to have (university) students gradually rewrite all books in electronic, interactive form, guided by their professors? Their reward: experience on technologies like LateX, Python, and a small bonus to their grades (that's the imaginary trophy), and most importantly, a better book for their peers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more errors (or at least they'll get fixed extremely fast), concepts can be 3D animated and interactively explained, at the appropriate pace for each student, no more thousands of man-hours spent by professors repeating the same thing over and over again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching through a book will be as easy as pressing &lt;kbd&gt;ctr&lt;/kbd&gt;+&lt;kbd&gt;f&lt;/kbd&gt;. Going to another book could be as easy as clicking a hyperlink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor-student interaction will not be replaced, it will simply be made more efficient. Instead of repeating something an interactive e-book can teach, professors and students can spend more &quot;quality time&quot; on things a book can't provide. There will also be more time for experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/TU-ekKJ3n7o?t=8m33s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="c248374f-7745-4582-83cb-ac1a3c2cd393" CreationDate="2016-08-07T23:55:47.733" UserId="84488" Text="I honestly doubt that notorious and institutional characters would contribute to the contents of this site *more than anybody else already does*. Let me rephrase the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have personally learnt and enjoyed the most physics here in answers (and comments) provided by users who, according to their profiles, are currently students, PhD students or PostDocs in any non-Harvard-or-Princeton University. People, I mean, who, still being professional physicists and reputed mathematicians, have the actual time and desire to write a complete and sensible answer to the posed question, contributing to the details and the comments, without the claim to advertise their last work soon to revolutionise modern quantum physics or tenure positions at the top rank University. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us not work around the fact that, due to many reasons, this site is not a researchers resource or the last frontier for brand new physics to emerge. It is a collection of (still interesting) average questions about standard physics that most (under)-graduate students could correctly answer with no headaches. Although strong emeriti physicists and Nobel Price awardees might be unbelievably gifted scientists, they would hardly contribute to detailed answer for the average questions we have - which is what we aim for, if I have correctly understood the purpose of the site. This with the due exceptions - luckily there are already strong experts who answer *some* questions (usually in their very own research field).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different would be the case if the site were indeed a resource for research in physics; in that case we should indeed promote the best player to stay on the field unless specified otherwise. But it is not (is it?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him as usual - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be, as already pointed out by [the answer above][1], in contrast with the purpose of the site. We judge the content, not the person, and if they provide sensible value according to the rules we are going by (whether good or bad they are) be they welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/8973/84488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="0c80e356-be25-42b9-893b-fc7a1882a7ca" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:46:17.183" UserId="83398" Text="When a question makes the HNQ list, upvotes and answers from outsiders flood in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The score distributions on these questions are highly abnormal. Often, a mediocre answer that misses the actual point of the question is voted up. Rarely, a totally incorrect answer gets voted to the top: the public loves 'quantum woo', and mysterious but poetic sounding not-explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I see a question starting to take off like this, how can I prevent this situation from happening? There are no flag reasons that apply, and I have only one downvote to give. That's not enough when five upvotes can come in within five minutes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="0c80e356-be25-42b9-893b-fc7a1882a7ca" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:46:17.183" UserId="83398" Text="How should we deal with incorrect answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="0c80e356-be25-42b9-893b-fc7a1882a7ca" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:46:17.183" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23190" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="f5df043c-a695-42ef-b436-ba97a268473a" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:48:59.573" UserId="83398" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23191" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="f86cc8c1-d140-492c-9517-49ea9120501f" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:50:42.720" UserId="83398" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="c9f8796c-c51f-4bfb-b15d-b55e78ff5768" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:51:29.817" UserId="83398" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="When a question makes the HNQ list, upvotes and answers from outsiders flood in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The score distributions on these questions are highly abnormal. Often, a mediocre answer that misses the actual point of the question is voted up. Rarely, a totally incorrect answer gets voted to the top: the public loves 'quantum woo', and mysterious but poetic sounding non-explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I see a question starting to take off, how can I prevent this situation from happening? There are no flag reasons that apply, and I have only one downvote to give. That's not enough when five upvotes can come in within five minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is a different discussion from Emilio's VLQ flag change, because the VLQ flag can only be applied to answers with zero upvotes. In the situation I'm describing, upvotes accumulate very quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9040" RevisionGUID="e0debcb6-957a-4a65-b5a0-d6d37667a571" CreationDate="2016-08-08T05:01:15.130" UserId="124" Text="There are no flags for this situation by design. The purpose of flagging is to bring a post which requires moderator action to the attention of the moderators (though it may make its way through a review queue first), and moderators do not judge correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all the ways I can think of to deal with an incorrect answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Downvote&#xD;&#xA;- Comment to say that the answer is wrong, and why&#xD;&#xA;- Post your own, correct answer which explains the problems&#xD;&#xA;- Post in chat to bring attention to the answer, and get other people to vote on it appropriately (though note that telling people how to vote, e.g. &quot;please vote this down&quot;, is not kosher - you should stick to &quot;please vote this down if you consider it justified&quot; or &quot;vote on this as you see fit&quot; or the like)&#xD;&#xA;- If it qualifies as flaggable for some other reason, such as not being an answer, flag it accordingly. In the rare cases where something is truly nonsense (moderator-deletion-worthy nonsense, not just wrong) and somehow gets an upvote anyway, you can flag for moderator attention saying that it should be deleted, and why, and mention that you were unable to cast a VLQ flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a side channel of sorts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Check whether the _question_ deserves to be closed. This probably applies in some of those &quot;quantum woo&quot; cases. Closing the question won't remove the answer, of course, nor will it give any indication that the answer is incorrect, but it will take it off the hot network question list, and that stems the tide of gratuitous upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="99c1c767-da47-4216-8ee4-3f8099984798" CreationDate="2016-08-08T10:23:20.603" UserId="101770" Text="I've noticed some **account suspensions** recently. I thought this feature was meant for people who do not contribute to the site in a valuable way and do not follow the rules of asking/answering questions repeatedly. However the two accounts that were affected recently were two high reputation users who I personally haven't had any bad experience with. The suspension reason is &quot;voting irregularities&quot; and one of the suspension is **a year long**, which seems seems quite severe to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Do I have to worry that this could happen to myself? How come such a severe punishment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify: I don't mean to interfere with moderator activity and the punishment is probably appropriate, but it would be helpful to understand what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="99c1c767-da47-4216-8ee4-3f8099984798" CreationDate="2016-08-08T10:23:20.603" UserId="101770" Text="Account suspensions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="99c1c767-da47-4216-8ee4-3f8099984798" CreationDate="2016-08-08T10:23:20.603" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="ef308f0b-ba9b-45f3-960e-225d96802935" CreationDate="2016-08-08T11:23:07.417" UserId="124" Text="[Suspensions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/125268/my-account-has-been-temporarily-suspended-what-does-that-mean) go to people who [break the rules of the site, are warned about it, and don't stop](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). There is no requirement that the user does not contribute to the site in a valuable way - or in other words, even if someone is making valuable contributions in asking, answering, and editing, that doesn't make them immune from suspensions. No amount of rep puts you above the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, &quot;voting irregularities&quot; typically means the person used multiple accounts (&quot;sockpuppets&quot; as we call them) to vote or participate in a way that they wouldn't be allowed to using one account. For example, voting multiple times on the same posts, voting on their own posts, using multiple usernames to give the illusion of broad support in a discussion (most relevant for meta posts), and so on. You can't really trust the reputation of these users because some of it may have been earned invalidly, by voting their own posts up, or by sockpuppet accounts awarding bounties to the main account. There is some [more information on this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me) on Meta Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal progression of suspensions is that you first get a warning, then a 7-day suspension, then a 30-day suspension, then a 365-day suspension. So when you see someone who has been suspended for a year, that typically means they have been told to stop what they were doing at least 3 times in the past, but they didn't. Now, those are just guidelines, not strictly enforced limits on suspension length, but we rarely deviate from that procedure, and I don't think there's ever been a case on this site of a user being suspended for 365 days without getting the three prior warnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever a suspension is issued, it is accompanied by a message which usually looks like the following (taken from [my answer on MSE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/281184/56541)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm writing in reference to your Secret Agent Stack Exchange account:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://spies.stackexchange.com/users/007/bond-james-bond&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Due to clear signs of falsified accounts being used to artificially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inflate your reputation, your account has been temporarily suspended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for 7 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not fair to other users of Secret Agent Stack Exchange to allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users to gain reputation through sockpuppets.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The offending accounts have been removed and the votes invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please refrain from this behavior in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regards, M  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secret Agent Stack Exchange moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever relevant (e.g. in cases of rudeness), we usually quote 3 or 4 examples of the offending behavior in the message itself. Warning messages are usually similar, except for the part about actually suspending the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My question is: Do I have to worry that this could happen to myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why, what have you been getting away with? :-P But seriously, I hope the above will convince you that you are not going to get suspended by surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To clarify: I don't mean to interfere with moderator activity and the punishment is probably appropriate, but it would be helpful to understand what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, people are welcome to ask about the suspension process in general, _as long as specific users and specific suspensions are kept out of it_. The system is designed to avoid public shaming. For that reason, we (mods) do not discuss specific suspensions, and we prefer that other members don't either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, all suspensions are audited by the SE team. If you believe something inappropriate is going on with a specific user's suspension, you should [contact them](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="424933ef-d156-4af3-8629-7ef11d501d39" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:28:50.887" UserId="124" Comment="add note about skipping the warning in egregious cases" Text="[Suspensions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/125268/my-account-has-been-temporarily-suspended-what-does-that-mean) go to people who [break the rules of the site, are warned about it, and don't stop](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). There is no requirement that the user does not contribute to the site in a valuable way - or in other words, even if someone is making valuable contributions in asking, answering, and editing, that doesn't make them immune from suspensions. No amount of rep puts you above the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, &quot;voting irregularities&quot; typically means the person used multiple accounts (&quot;sockpuppets&quot; as we call them) to vote or participate in a way that they wouldn't be allowed to using one account. For example, voting multiple times on the same posts, voting on their own posts, using multiple usernames to give the illusion of broad support in a discussion (most relevant for meta posts), and so on. You can't really trust the reputation of these users because some of it may have been earned invalidly, by voting their own posts up, or by sockpuppet accounts awarding bounties to the main account. There is some [more information on this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me) on Meta Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal progression of suspensions is that you first get a warning, then a 7-day suspension, then a 30-day suspension, then a 365-day suspension. So when you see someone who has been suspended for a year, that typically means they have been told to stop what they were doing at least 3 times in the past, but they didn't. Now, those are just guidelines, not strictly enforced limits on suspension length - sometimes we adjust the suspension length, or skip the warning in egregious cases (e.g. voting irregularities with new accounts, where the poster doesn't have an established record of good contributions) - but we rarely deviate from the default procedure, and I don't think there's ever been a case on this site of a user being suspended for 365 days without going through the full sequence of prior warnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever a suspension is issued, it is accompanied by a message which usually looks like the following (taken from [my answer on MSE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/281184/56541)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm writing in reference to your Secret Agent Stack Exchange account:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://spies.stackexchange.com/users/007/bond-james-bond&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Due to clear signs of falsified accounts being used to artificially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inflate your reputation, your account has been temporarily suspended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for 7 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not fair to other users of Secret Agent Stack Exchange to allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users to gain reputation through sockpuppets.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The offending accounts have been removed and the votes invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please refrain from this behavior in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regards, M  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secret Agent Stack Exchange moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever relevant (e.g. in cases of rudeness), we usually quote 3 or 4 examples of the offending behavior in the message itself. Warning messages are usually similar, except for the part about actually suspending the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My question is: Do I have to worry that this could happen to myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why, what have you been getting away with? :-P But seriously, I hope the above will convince you that you are not going to get suspended by surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To clarify: I don't mean to interfere with moderator activity and the punishment is probably appropriate, but it would be helpful to understand what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, people are welcome to ask about the suspension process in general, _as long as specific users and specific suspensions are kept out of it_. The system is designed to avoid public shaming. For that reason, we (mods) do not discuss specific suspensions, and we prefer that other members don't either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, all suspensions are audited by the SE team. If you believe something inappropriate is going on with a specific user's suspension, you should [contact them](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="40bfa1f6-2879-459b-993d-6bdd367f913e" CreationDate="2016-08-08T19:42:09.163" UserId="8563" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9044" RevisionGUID="aad1e52d-f8cb-4411-8650-e7818769fd12" CreationDate="2016-08-09T13:21:38.020" UserId="64669" Text="Recently I and others are playing the science simulation game [Quantum moves][1]. As we solve the levels and read about the nature article we have some questions about quantum computing in the technical context of manipulating atoms with optical tweezers (which is expanded by question 1 into a more general question that ask about the experimental aspects of quantum computing and the various type of problem in the implementation of a quantum computer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Besides the Atomic Transport problem mentioned in the nature article that talked about the data obtained from this game, what other technical aspects in terms of manipulation via optical tweezers is important in the context of realising a quantum computer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. (A more specific version of question 1) On the final level of the game &quot;Get it Together&quot; the aim requires to &quot;fuse&quot; an atom with a bimodal wavefunction together into one that resembles the ground state wavefunction by moving the well left and right and changing its depth. What context in quantum computing requires the fusing of wavefunction of atoms together. Is it in general a hard problem in the building of quantum computers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Moves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="1a9f27d9-8178-4e36-b40c-592253de6057" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:19:01.193" UserId="7898" Text="I suggested one edit to a post, but when it was approved I received rep for it twice. I know there's some sort of autmated rep cleanup done regularly (nightly?), but I'm not sure if this is a known issue covered by that or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S6Uei.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="1a9f27d9-8178-4e36-b40c-592253de6057" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:19:01.193" UserId="7898" Text="Received rep twice for the same edit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="1a9f27d9-8178-4e36-b40c-592253de6057" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:19:01.193" UserId="7898" Text="|bug|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23210" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="7c08dba9-cda1-46cc-8a18-55e818cbd6a7" CreationDate="2016-08-09T17:17:04.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="d235fc03-d79b-4d6e-bc1a-f0d1fd4ce10b" CreationDate="2016-08-09T18:45:17.323" UserId="126646" Text="After posting an [answer][1] I received good comments highlighting an error in my understanding. To correct it would be a major edit, drastically and conceptually changing around half the text of my answer. But when I go to edit it, I am presented with a text box telling me to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;► fix grammatical or spelling errors&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► clarify meaning without changing it&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► correct minor mistakes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► add related resources or links&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► always respect the original author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to allow the major revision that I want to make. [This accepted answer][2] says that &quot;Edits that turn an incorrect answer into a correct one is a **drastic** change and should not be done by anyone&quot;. Does &quot;anyone&quot; include the original author? Should I post a completely new answer instead? In that case, what should I do with the old, partially incorrect answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me  it feels the most natural to just edit the old answer and mention the edit in the corrected version. But I want to know for sure whether that is the best practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273124/expectation-value-of-hamiltonian/273154#273154&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6012/126646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="d235fc03-d79b-4d6e-bc1a-f0d1fd4ce10b" CreationDate="2016-08-09T18:45:17.323" UserId="126646" Text="How to make a major correction to your own answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="d235fc03-d79b-4d6e-bc1a-f0d1fd4ce10b" CreationDate="2016-08-09T18:45:17.323" UserId="126646" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="d2cf73a4-5f90-4c7e-81f5-ead90eec8f2c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T19:33:13.090" UserId="8563" Text="Generally, I don't think it's a problem if the OP introduces rather dramatic fixes. If the answer is highly upvoted (I'd put the line at around +5, maybe?) then it's worth putting in a note that says that the current version supersedes a previous one that was incorrect because this-or-that, as a courtesy to previous readers who go  back and may be confused. (For example, I did that [here](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/539/how-many-planets-are-there-in-this-solar-system/592#592).) It's better to switch out content on people who had already voted for it than to leave incorrect content up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="93c55173-6c92-41d4-aad2-a27cf87c9cb5" CreationDate="2016-08-09T21:17:55.927" UserId="32426" Text="On some SE sites, it is normal that the closing reasons contain also a link to another SE site, where the question could have a better chance to survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other SE sites, it is unthinkable and even suggesting this results around -20 on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. this question is _not_ a duplicate of [this][1]: that post is asking a *migration path* to the Engineering SE, while I am questioning about the advantages/disadvantages of a *link to the Engineerign SE in the close reason*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6501/should-the-engineering-close-vote-be-changed-in-light-of-the-new-engineering-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="93c55173-6c92-41d4-aad2-a27cf87c9cb5" CreationDate="2016-08-09T21:17:55.927" UserId="32426" Text="Would it be useful to link the engineering SE on closed engineering questions or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="93c55173-6c92-41d4-aad2-a27cf87c9cb5" CreationDate="2016-08-09T21:17:55.927" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="f2191c3c-694c-4ca8-9781-2fbd21bb670a" CreationDate="2016-08-09T21:23:28.870" UserId="32426" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="On some SE sites, it is normal that the closing reasons contain also a link to another SE site, where the question could have a better chance to survive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other SE sites, it is unthinkable and even suggesting this results around -20 on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. this question is _not_ a duplicate of [this][2]: that post is asking a *migration path* to the Engineering SE, while I am questioning about the advantages/disadvantages of a *link to the Engineering SE in the close reason*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DP11s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6501/should-the-engineering-close-vote-be-changed-in-light-of-the-new-engineering-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="7900e3d8-9d6b-4117-9ed2-656697bd1bc5" CreationDate="2016-08-09T22:18:59.657" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="On some SE sites, it is normal that the closing reasons contain also a link to another SE site, where the question could have a better chance to survive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other SE sites, it is unthinkable and even suggesting this results around -20 on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. this question is _not_ a duplicate of [this][2]: that post is asking a *migration path* to the Engineering SE, while I am questioning about the advantages/disadvantages of a *link to the Engineering SE in the close reason*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JsefT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6501/should-the-engineering-close-vote-be-changed-in-light-of-the-new-engineering-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="40eaf2da-2c99-479e-8699-f839355f0a0e" CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:35:55.003" UserId="31790" Text="&gt; Would it be useful to link the engineering SE on closed engineering questions or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, obviously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I want to remind everyone that applied physics has a lot of overlap with what you (particularly theorists) think of as &quot;engineering&quot;. If someone posts here asking about lab equipment etc. please do not jump for the &quot;off topic&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [talked about this before](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering) and I gave a [well received opinion on how to think about engineering-ish posts on our site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering/6136#6136).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="e995129c-700f-4deb-8ee4-dbe98d5884b1" CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:37:20.160" UserId="31790" Comment="potential -&gt; fields" Text="&gt; What objectively separates **engineering** questions from **experimental** physics ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue that trying to formulate such a distinction is not the correct way to attack the problem of deciding what questions should and shouldn't be considered on-topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;A better approach is to ask whether or not physics or engineering flavor is more appropriate in the *answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a question of answers&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to build a waveguide resonator with low dielectric loss.&#xD;&#xA;I could post the following question to either Physics SE or Electrical Engineering SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I design the geometry of a waveguide resonator so that it has the minimal dielectric loss?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae.&#xD;&#xA;If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging fields at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.&#xD;&#xA;Heck, if I pose it to the right person I might learn about numerical recipes to solve electrostatics problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example illustrates that the appropriate place for a question can depend on what kind of answer the person posing question wants.&#xD;&#xA;It would be wise to keep this in mind when judging the appropriateness of questions on this site.&#xD;&#xA;Before knee-jerk voting to close a question, we must ask ourselves if the asker may have had a reason to post it here instead of somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who is reading your question?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our capacity as experimental physicists, my colleagues and I spend &gt;99% of our time building equipment, fixing equipment, and programming a computer.&#xD;&#xA;These are all activities which could be classified as &quot;engineering&quot;, yet we identify as physicists.&#xD;&#xA;I frequent Physics SE and not Electrical Engineering SE.&#xD;&#xA;This is not without reason: I am far more qualified to answer questions here than I am on Electrical Engineering and, even when I'm asking an engineeringy question, I would rather get the benefit of people who work in similar environments and with similar equipment as myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point here is that another important aspect to deciding whether a question should be categorized as &quot;engineering&quot; is the readership of the site.&#xD;&#xA;If I ask a question about a machine, the Physics Lab Quizzwopper 2000X, nobody on Electrical Engineering SE will ever have heard of it.&#xD;&#xA;So, while a theorist might find a *question* about equipment off-topic, an experimentalist will not, because the experimentalist wants the *answer* which only a physicists can give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audiences aren't well delineated&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I use the symmetries of physical system XYZ in order to vectorize my simulation program in computer memory for optimal performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to objectively categorize this *question* as &quot;physics&quot; or &quot;engineering&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;All we can say is that the person most like to give a useful *answer* to this question is someone who has solved a similar problem in the past.&#xD;&#xA;This could be a &quot;physicist&quot; who had to learn some programming or an &quot;engineer&quot; who had to solve a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's probably reasonable to let the question sit wherever the asker put it, and if it doesn't get any attention, that person can move it somewhere else and try again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I have avoided proposing an objective criterion by which to decide whether a given question is appropriate for this site, as that issue is not strictly within the scope of the original question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="0c1b7acb-7bbb-49da-9ad1-f0ef901bf1bd" CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:53:51.193" UserId="31790" Text="&gt; 3. ...the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;That.&#xD;&#xA;As I've argued [elsewhere](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy/7163#7163), there is absolutely no reason at all that the criteria for judging a post should depend on whether or not that post comes from a homework assignment or from an educational institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, that distinction is absurd; should questions arising from original research done in graduate *school* be subjected to different criteria than questions arising from my *job* in an industrial lab?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="b70950e8-589a-4fa2-be0e-37be8a54c3b4" CreationDate="2016-08-10T07:01:11.613" UserId="31790" Comment="added 916 characters in body" Text="&gt; 3. ...the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;That.&#xD;&#xA;As I've argued [elsewhere](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy/7163#7163), there is absolutely no reason at all that the criteria for judging a post should depend on whether or not that post comes from a homework assignment or from an educational institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, that distinction is absurd; should questions arising from original research done in graduate *school* be subjected to different criteria than questions arising from my *job* in an industrial lab?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;That's not only hard to enforce, it's pants-on-our-head stupid.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a physics question comes from homework is entirely irrelevant to whether or not that question adds value to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large fraction of posts coming from homework *are* bad, but it's not because they're from homework, it's because the posts don't ask anything conceptual or show any effort.&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate by a converse example, suppose I were to post this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is the transition rate of a two level quantum system coupled by strength g to a thermal environment at temperature T?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a question straight out of my real research job; it's not homework, but it's also not a good post.&#xD;&#xA;I should show some work and identify the conceptual (or even technical) step where I'm stuck, and then focus my question on that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="28ac29f3-6153-444a-a427-04b47c7641bc" CreationDate="2016-08-10T07:07:41.740" UserId="31790" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;The homework tag should not exist in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question elicits the thought &quot;*I shouldn't give a straight answer because I'd be giving too much away*&quot;, then the question is off-topic to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;Any homework-like (or exercises-like or whatever the hell we should be calling this [a]) questions should show effort and focus on a particular conceptual or technical issue that has the OP stumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beg all reading this to comment on homework-like questions helping the OP pose more focused and well-posed questions whenever you can spare the few seconds it takes to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a]: Please read [this meta post regarding re-naming the homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="d9d4a355-fb82-4993-9f3b-93475d2b70bd" CreationDate="2016-08-10T08:07:56.593" UserId="55690" Text="[![Sage Mathematical Software Environment][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sagemath.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xcgnf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="c6d471a9-32f7-4c2e-a254-f24b8cba53de" CreationDate="2016-08-10T16:05:07.113" UserId="31790" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;The homework tag should not exist in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;We shouldn't categorize questions that need partial &quot;hint&quot; answers because such questions are antithetical to the Stack Exchange format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question elicits the thought &quot;*I shouldn't give a straight answer because I'd be giving too much away*&quot;, then the question is off-topic to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;Any homework-like (or exercises-like or whatever the hell we should be calling this [a]) questions should show effort and focus on a particular conceptual or technical issue that has the OP stumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beg all reading this to comment on homework-like questions helping the OP pose more focused and well-posed questions whenever you can spare the few seconds it takes to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a]: Please read [this meta post regarding re-naming the homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="8c3b4753-b344-433f-bb57-97bd2637f098" CreationDate="2016-08-10T17:09:55.470" UserId="114696" Text="How I tackle the problem is to leave the original answer intact, headed &quot;Original Answer&quot;, and put my new answer at the top of the text box, headed &quot;Revised Answer&quot;. Usually I also state why I am revising my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might actually be neater to post the revised answer in a separate text box as a new answer. Then it is clearer which version is being addressed by new comments, and which version is being up- or down-voted. So I would recommend this as best practice for any fundamental revision of an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="e774cf80-107f-402e-b001-0c81a2c36efe" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:25:32.233" UserId="64669" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study. Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings. &#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. Experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lo of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA; - Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="e774cf80-107f-402e-b001-0c81a2c36efe" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:25:32.233" UserId="64669" Text="September 6 Physics AMA Secret: question pool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="e774cf80-107f-402e-b001-0c81a2c36efe" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:25:32.233" UserId="64669" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="e82622a0-e827-497f-a918-67ccf81dc9be" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:31:45.087" UserId="64669" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study. Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings. &#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. Experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lo of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA; - Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="0e36fb75-2dce-4344-8934-feb674003d3e" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:41:36.223" UserId="64669" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study. Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings. &#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. Experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lo of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="352c9ed1-5007-4a33-b4ee-e35b89e3fc9d" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:46:37.350" UserId="64669" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study. Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings. &#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. Experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lo of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="a9fd9ec8-db69-4f1a-b51e-62b3d90272cc" CreationDate="2016-08-11T04:47:29.930" UserId="64669" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings. &#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="52476b66-3fcb-4a8d-b83c-50ce4b240cac" CreationDate="2016-08-11T06:25:00.000" UserId="64669" Comment="added 614 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory. Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="45d5a5a2-1879-4f84-9b3f-c7a18c0eed96" CreationDate="2016-08-11T06:35:38.397" UserId="64669" Comment="added 614 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience reseaches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="5ad332c5-ca33-4d73-8f26-d7ed6ca6299d" CreationDate="2016-08-11T07:20:48.257" UserId="64669" Comment="added 2783 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][9] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][10].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][11]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23246" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="431a1c37-df0a-46e3-bdbb-aad790701dc1" CreationDate="2016-08-11T13:48:59.080" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="6c2cdfcf-7657-407f-9d6f-ea257995e916" CreationDate="2016-08-11T13:49:45.303" UserId="124" Comment="Put the summary at the top" Text="&gt; # Summary&#xD;&#xA;History questions are welcome on this site whenever they have any bearing on our modern understanding of physics. However, if a question has only minimal or null bearing on our current understanding, or it specifically requires a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, then it should be migrated to the [History of Science and Maths](http://hsm.stackexchange.com) Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should stay open to a significant set of history questions, and we should keep the [tag:history] tag. Unlike mathematics, the historical perspective is very often one of the key ways to understand the world and our knowledge about physics. The way physics is structured is very often centered around key experiments, and these are generally thought of as historical events and their contribution and motivation is understood in a historical perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be that way: you can perfectly well motivate, say, special relativity as [one of only two possible cases](https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045), with the Galilean case ruled out through muon lifetime measurements, but you don't - you usually start with the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell the story from there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Math, on the other hand, does not have to do this: you can simply start with whatever axioms and definitions you want to work with, and you build your theory. Later on, or as an aside or a brief introduction, you might comment, as motivation, that the axioms went through this and then that version before people found the Right Version to use, but the brunt of the work tends to follow from the axioms to the consequences rather than the historical refinements of the axioms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through [recent, good-score questions on the history tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhistory%5d%20closed%3ano%20is%3aquestion%20score%3a5) yields plenty of questions that are definitely of a historical character and yet have direct bearing on our understanding of physics, and which I think should definitely be on topic here. Taking a few non-rigorous picks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267036/how-did-physicists-know-that-only-negative-charges-move&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266246/how-did-physicists-know-that-there-are-two-kind-of-charges&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262251/why-was-the-first-discovered-neutrino-an-anti-neutrino&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249392/how-did-we-realize-that-light-travels-at-a-finite-speed&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243144/why-is-a-second-equal-to-the-duration-of-exactly-9-192-631-770-periods-of-radiat&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229169/did-newton-conduct-any-experiments-to-find-something-called-momentum-or-was-he&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201149/why-was-the-stark-effect-discovered-much-later-than-the-zeeman-effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there *are* questions that should be moved to the history site, because they require a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, and because they have minimal or null bearing on our modern understanding of physics. From the first page of the search above, for example, this could include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233765/bohr-on-wholeness&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246015/what-was-newtons-own-explanation-of-newtons-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find that the set of questions that satisfy that criterion strictly is really rather small. There is, though, a relatively large gray area of questions that are primarily of historical interest, but that still illuminate aspects of how we think about physics and why we no longer think or do certain things. Some examples from this category are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/202342/was-leverrier-adams-prediction-of-neptune-a-lucky-coincidence&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208901/the-role-of-anharmonic-oscillators-in-heisenbergs-1925-paper&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217590/what-are-the-original-papers-on-the-hydrogen-spectral-lines&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249507/were-the-michelson-morley-results-a-surprise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions should be allowed here: they could also be asked at HSM if the OP is interested in a science historian's perspective, but there is no need to migrate them if asked here, in which case the focus should be (because it can be) on how that part of the historical record helps explain how we think of physics. If the OP wants to shift the focus specifically to what some historical character thought and did, what information they had available, and so on, then it can move to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9058" RevisionGUID="d15cc401-43d9-44c6-abf7-dc284ec53a92" CreationDate="2016-08-11T14:15:50.917" UserId="114696" Text="Formulating a policy is only half of the problem. The more difficult part is enforcing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present anyone can ask or answer a question. Few users study the site policy before doing either. The result is that while some are busy reviewing new questions to see if they comply with policy, others are busy answering them regardless of policy. By the time a VTC decision has been reached, the question has often accumulated up-votes and answers which themselves are up-voted. It is rather pointless to close the question in this situation. The only thing we have done is prevent anyone posting a better answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is just as bad for duplicates. Sometimes the new question receives more answers and up-votes than the original, again making it rather pointless to close the new question. If a duplicate is closed with answers on it, we still have answers to the same question in two (or more) places. Which defeats the purpose of this policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see only two consistent options : either (1) abandon any attempt to control the posting or answering of questions, or (2) place questions 'on hold' as soon as they are posted, and do not open them until they have been approved by reviewers who understand and agree with site policy, rather than those who have their own interpretations of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="9abaebb5-e9f3-4433-824c-0eb2b86eec05" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:36:21.480" UserId="148704" Text="How many times can a moderator or super user vote a user over time? I know i go to another user's profile an down voted multiple Q&amp;A then the votes could get retracted as serial votes. So is there a time between votes that would not red flag? I believe I may be serial down voted slowly. Can there be a cap to how many times one person can down vote another? I feel I ask relevant questions but they are not a smart as they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="9abaebb5-e9f3-4433-824c-0eb2b86eec05" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:36:21.480" UserId="148704" Text="Serial up and down voting my a moderator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="9abaebb5-e9f3-4433-824c-0eb2b86eec05" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:36:21.480" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="e9df2ec3-0573-4b0e-9084-f0b70dd9639c" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:41:57.310" UserId="148704" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="How many times can a moderator or super user vote a user over time? I know if I go to another user's profile and up and down voted multiple Q&amp;A then the votes could get retracted as serial votes. So is there a time between votes that would not red flag? I believe I may be serial down voted slowly. Can there be a cap to how many times one person can down vote another? I feel I ask relevant questions but they are not a smart as they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23253" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="e9df2ec3-0573-4b0e-9084-f0b70dd9639c" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:41:57.310" UserId="148704" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Serial up and down voting by a moderator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23254" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="1a91eec6-84a5-4ce0-8523-3e214fa73566" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:57:34.877" UserId="148704" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9060" RevisionGUID="b6e351e7-3e8c-4007-90c3-b84fff9ae56f" CreationDate="2016-08-11T17:37:27.367" UserId="32426" Text="Also mods can't vote more than once to a post. The only possibility to vote multiple times, if you use multiple accounts for the task. Doing this &quot;correctly&quot;, the SE has no way to know, that they are socks. But they are watching quite sophistically the cases, where they aren't done correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to check, if you are serially downvoted, you can do this by sorting the reputation changes in your profile page by time. By default, it is sorted by post. Click [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes in short time, but to your different posts, are coming probably from the same person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is visible on your reputation changes, that you aren't serial downvoted, but somebody doesn't like your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't need mod privileges to serial downvote somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are enthusiast in the Physics, and a high school beginner. You have a lot of ideas, and a lot of questions. Some of them are good, some not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your place my main problem wouldn't be the downs, but the closes of my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/102013/jen?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9061" RevisionGUID="f29300eb-04e2-4913-b10a-d9784f7f3f2e" CreationDate="2016-08-11T17:38:55.443" UserId="520" Text="Voting by moderators works exactly the same way it works for other users, and moderators are subject to the same voting restrictions as other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The serial voting detection and reversal mechanism is an automatic system process (no human intervention) and it works the same on moderators as it does on unprivileged users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the system provides some information to moderators on long-term voting tends and cliques which allows for possible human intervention in cases where some user attempts to slip in a slow trickle of votes directed at another user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23257" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="60e4988b-fb09-4cd3-b73f-7815c1dc2f84" CreationDate="2016-08-11T19:33:59.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/763820780807389184" />
  <row Id="23258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="eeedfe20-6b59-4af0-af15-4b79da338415" CreationDate="2016-08-11T22:34:00.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/763866079500402689" />
  <row Id="23259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9062" RevisionGUID="9adafd38-9672-4466-90bd-a615de9fb784" CreationDate="2016-08-12T02:03:45.753" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; If I see a question starting to take off, how can I **prevent** this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; situation from happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will certainly attract disagreement but, on my view, the desire of one ('I') to have the power here to *prevent* said situation is damning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm all for *discouraging*, through rational argument and pointed comment, behavior one finds wrong or inappropriate here but the power to *prevent* said behavior should not, on my view, belong to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="da677ca4-5f16-4f85-a0f3-ce501e57080f" CreationDate="2016-08-12T05:53:26.270" UserId="64669" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][9])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][10] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][11].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][12]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="5d231f74-7afb-4663-80a0-86b898909d72" CreationDate="2016-08-12T17:10:02.727" UserId="31790" Comment="update DanielSank links" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9063" RevisionGUID="8bd7c4f3-312a-4333-a2e1-ca639d72bbe5" CreationDate="2016-08-12T23:25:07.660" UserId="7186" Text="Take a closer look at the post links there. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You proposed two edits - one on the question and one on an answer. They happened to be approved within seconds of each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="fa506ecb-deba-4d38-9db2-578d88849b5d" CreationDate="2016-08-12T23:25:14.347" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="cd9f8a55-d181-4c7e-ab5b-fe2d09a7c575" CreationDate="2016-08-13T10:31:13.553" UserId="64669" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][9])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][10] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][11].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][12]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="afab64f3-7ba1-4f1f-9791-c069ced15f05" CreationDate="2016-08-13T14:16:27.863" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|status-declined|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="0ee30291-5a00-4b26-b5d5-6f8c986508bf" CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:33:34.103" UserId="78942" Text="There's something strange going on with [this answer][1]. I seem to recall reading exactly the same answer written by the same users some days ago. It received some comments about the aether theory, and got negative rep. Nevertheless, the current answer is dated some minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is some kind of déjà-vu. I highly suspect that the original answer was deleted, and then it war repost word-by-word by the same user. I can't check my suspicions since I don't have 10k rep and I can't see deleted posts. Note that this is different from [this question][2], since the deleted and new answers are the same (iirc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone have a look at this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/274161/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7209/deleting-an-answer-and-posting-another-one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="0ee30291-5a00-4b26-b5d5-6f8c986508bf" CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:33:34.103" UserId="78942" Text="Déjà-vu answer, or a blatant case of reposting a deleted post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="0ee30291-5a00-4b26-b5d5-6f8c986508bf" CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:33:34.103" UserId="78942" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23271" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="658e1775-74c4-401b-9686-1b9dcd7039f5" CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:44:17.890" UserId="2451" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23272" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="b82c3e82-7cfe-4e0d-a974-cf4836a3d489" CreationDate="2016-08-13T15:53:27.563" UserId="2451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9065" RevisionGUID="45f35cf0-ffe9-4b2c-bef9-dc321dd00409" CreationDate="2016-08-13T17:19:44.467" UserId="50583" Text="You are correct, there [is a deleted post that is exactly the same](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/273121/50583) (only visible to &gt;10k users). I have flagged the reposted answer for moderator attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="f002410c-a85b-4f08-9ce9-2a2fbd5961cf" CreationDate="2016-08-13T19:43:22.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/764547917369765888" />
  <row Id="23275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="9297326d-efb0-4d4e-be31-45878aaaa2a8" CreationDate="2016-08-14T14:18:54.343" UserId="32426" Text="This question is not about the usefulness of this tag, but about the usefulness of its topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathSE finds it useful.][1] They are the [best going][2] StackExchange site after the SO.&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathOverflow, too,][3] despite they are a grad-level community with quite harsh moderation customs, having many Big Names between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now think, which direction find you better to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/sites&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/soft-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="cc66c809-8449-4036-8b21-74961d5f861f" CreationDate="2016-08-14T14:25:14.900" UserId="32426" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="This question is not about the usefulness of this tag, but about the usefulness of its topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathSE finds it useful.][1] They are the [best going][2] StackExchange site after the SO.&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathOverflow, too,][3] despite they are a grad-level community with quite harsh moderation customs, having many Big Names between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now think, which direction find you better to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Additional info][4] about the main sociological structure of the SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/sites&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/252077/1783163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="37c14494-b728-48bf-86c2-c53ff4e66ba3" CreationDate="2016-08-14T17:54:03.897" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There's something strange going on with [this answer][1] (visible to 10k+ users only). I seem to recall reading exactly the same answer written by the same users some days ago. It received some comments about the aether theory, and got negative rep. Nevertheless, the current answer is dated some minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is some kind of déjà-vu. I highly suspect that the original answer was deleted, and then it war repost word-by-word by the same user. I can't check my suspicions since I don't have 10k rep and I can't see deleted posts. Note that this is different from [this question][2], since the deleted and new answers are the same (iirc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone have a look at this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/274161/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7209/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="37c14494-b728-48bf-86c2-c53ff4e66ba3" CreationDate="2016-08-14T17:54:03.897" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="579887ad-db29-4a03-accf-704c893e8200" CreationDate="2016-08-15T16:12:07.833" UserId="121464" Text="A bunch of answers just came into the review queue (coincidentally, many by the same user...) and they all share one characteristic: they are incorrect, but they do attempt to answer the question. Just to confirm: because they attempt to answer the question, I should click &quot;looks OK&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: like I said, many were by the same user, and the answers were ranging from years ago to recent. Was someone digging through the user's answers? Seems a little too many for coincidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="579887ad-db29-4a03-accf-704c893e8200" CreationDate="2016-08-15T16:12:07.833" UserId="121464" Text="Low-quality answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="579887ad-db29-4a03-accf-704c893e8200" CreationDate="2016-08-15T16:12:07.833" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|answers|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="be2cc18e-cec0-4979-ae81-16d40c7996b1" CreationDate="2016-08-15T18:04:32.287" UserId="121464" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="A bunch of answers just came into the low quality review queue (coincidentally, many by the same user...) and they all share one characteristic: they are incorrect, but they do attempt to answer the question. Just to confirm: because they attempt to answer the question, I should click &quot;looks OK&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: like I said, many were by the same user, and the answers were ranging from years ago to recent. Was someone digging through the user's answers? Seems a little too many for coincidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="67cdbe5a-540c-4782-84fc-b403285c58b5" CreationDate="2016-08-15T18:48:57.410" UserId="8563" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="I want to point out one aspect of the question closure procedure which is relevant here but is not apparent to &lt;3k users (and even then takes a while to realize). When voting to close a question, one gets to choose between the multiple options, but after you have five close votes the question gets closed regardless of what the mix of options is. (That is, three non-mainstream votes and two unclear votes will cause a question to be closed.) Further, **only the reason with the most votes gets reported, and the other ones are not visible**, either publicly or to 3k+ or 10k+ users.* It is therefore possible that those questions  have, say, two non-mainstream votes, two unclear votes, and one too-broad vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that question closure mostly reflects that the community thinks a question is closable, but the reason stated is slightly more of an indicative thing and does not necessarily reflect a consensus among the close-voters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* At some point, I think after this answer was written, it became possible to see which close-voting users actually used the reported reason, as shown [here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2dLmY.png). Unless such a tagline is shown, then it is not appropriate to attribute closure reasons to any individual close voter in the absence of further evidence.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="10a36c61-531e-4ce5-80f4-6774d8f14963" CreationDate="2016-08-15T23:34:19.170" UserId="33566" Text="the new Physics SE guest chat sessions have gone generally well this summer (some brief [summary/ history](https://vzn1.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/daniel-sank-phd-google-quantum-computing-lab-stackexchange-physics-guest-speaker-aug-12-2016/)); we now have 3 basically successful events with talented/ qualified speakers and am personally pleased/ happy with the outcome so far which for me is mostly &quot;better than expected&quot; overall. it seems there was a lot of excitement initially over the project that has subsided somewhat; the ongoing/ day-to-day logistics are challenging. not sure exactly what all the initial excitement was related to, maybe partly the idea of increasing the scale/ impact to Reddit size (which is quite substantial/ formidable/ far away if ever!), however another key element of interest was _who to invite_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we all have physics heroes we admire, working in fields of our maybe strong personal tastes/ interests. so its &quot;really cool&quot; to imagine them accepting invitations and showing up to this corner of cyberspace so to speak, or even better, having topnotch guests volunteer for the effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the basic idea for this post is as a **call for desired guests**. who would be your dream guest you would invite to our meetings and why? the built-in stackexchange voting can serve as an informal polling mechanism, and also a public indication of community interest for the targeted guests to weigh/ consider. for now, let there be no constraint on _feasibility_. this will just be a list without regard to actual feasibility or availability. its a whole other (open) question of how to encourage/ lean on/ incentivize the top desired guests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there were some key names that popped up in the chat of people that others wanted to invite, and have been tracking them &amp; may add them to this post later if there are no immediate objections, have many other ideas on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(response format: it would be nice to have separate answers/ voting for every single guest, but that could get unwieldy with a lot of responses, so am not sure which is preferred/ would work best right now, maybe others have some idea there. also note that anyone _already a member of stackexchange_ may have a better chance of participating.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="10a36c61-531e-4ce5-80f4-6774d8f14963" CreationDate="2016-08-15T23:34:19.170" UserId="33566" Text="guest chat session top guest wishlist/ call for desired speakers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="10a36c61-531e-4ce5-80f4-6774d8f14963" CreationDate="2016-08-15T23:34:19.170" UserId="33566" Text="|discussion|chat-events|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23287" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="1f52c063-cd1f-47f7-b2d5-6829149dae06" CreationDate="2016-08-16T01:44:14.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/765363504782184448" />
  <row Id="23288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="eee341cd-1563-4a8a-9f25-c984ca211f37" CreationDate="2016-08-17T00:10:51.293" UserId="9887" Text="Is [this][1] meta question in scope for meta?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my view, the general question of &quot;Is reposting a deleted answer acceptable?&quot; is clearly in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it isn't clear to me that the linked question is.  It seems plausible that &quot;Can someone look have a look at this?&quot; type questions aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9064/9887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="eee341cd-1563-4a8a-9f25-c984ca211f37" CreationDate="2016-08-17T00:10:51.293" UserId="9887" Text="Is this (meta question) in scope for meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="eee341cd-1563-4a8a-9f25-c984ca211f37" CreationDate="2016-08-17T00:10:51.293" UserId="9887" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9070" RevisionGUID="fc25e7fc-5f99-4f11-9626-d552ab8f4320" CreationDate="2016-08-17T07:17:05.720" UserId="124" Text="Sure. It's about the site itself, which generally speaking puts it in scope for meta, and we don't have any rules against such questions that would override that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people start posting a lot of these questions, to the point where they overwhelm other meta posts, then we might have to change that. But as it is, they're quite rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9071" RevisionGUID="dd8aea59-f843-4b4b-8056-f05ba5994554" CreationDate="2016-08-17T07:18:37.713" UserId="124" Text="Just to wrap this up, the question has been reopened by community review." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="67629a71-3939-4f24-acb4-d2843214bb25" CreationDate="2016-08-17T11:39:57.663" UserId="9887" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Is [this][1] meta question in scope for meta?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tthe general question of &quot;Is reposting a deleted answer acceptable?&quot; is clearly in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it isn't clear to me that the linked question is.  It seems plausible that &quot;Can someone look have a look at this?&quot; type questions aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9064/9887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23294" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="95e633d3-f454-42d0-8f78-011fc74c1de6" CreationDate="2016-08-17T17:54:58.743" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5778],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:121464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;heather&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36790,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;MAFIA36790&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="28bd2be8-3e73-4b07-8325-56f1786fe02f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T22:43:01.140" UserId="101770" Text="Sometimes when reading the comments under a question/answer I get very confused. Then I realise that there are random @someones without that person making a comment before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean I get the point why people can delete comments and that is a very useful tool. But why is there not at least an indicator on where/how many comments got deleted? &lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt; I feel like it would greatly improve the clarity of some discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt; (1) The moderators tend to say when they delete comments, but the useres don't. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="28bd2be8-3e73-4b07-8325-56f1786fe02f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T22:43:01.140" UserId="101770" Text="Why is it not indicated anywhere how many comments got removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="28bd2be8-3e73-4b07-8325-56f1786fe02f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T22:43:01.140" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23298" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="9c1913cf-95d8-4178-a153-fe3d35615e5c" CreationDate="2016-08-18T22:55:53.237" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="7006b27f-2653-448d-8db9-76445d56983d" CreationDate="2016-08-18T23:08:40.763" UserId="2498" Text="This is almost certainly because comments are not considered a core part of Stack Exchange - they are to request clarification or explanation, and ideally removed once the post has been updated or the issue sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most mods do try to clarify what has been removed, or remove an entire obsolete discussion, but if individuals remove comments I'm not sure having an indicator that said something was deleted would actually help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="4fdbb069-9970-4155-830d-ac9e28fd1084" CreationDate="2016-08-19T08:48:38.630" UserId="2498" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="This is almost certainly because comments are not considered a core part of Stack Exchange - they are to request clarification or explanation, and ideally removed once the post has been updated or the issue sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If comments are removed, I'm not sure having an indicator that said something was deleted would actually help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="95462a15-eb3d-4cfb-a8bc-0e15c5d15e8e" CreationDate="2016-08-20T16:34:51.193" UserId="2754" Text="Yet again at least 6 people skimmed the first paragraph and voted to close as duplicate before reading the actual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rephrased this into the most trivial, obvious manner to make it absolutely 100% clear this is completely different, and yet only one of them retracted the close-vote and voted to reopen. I flagged it for moderator attention a couple hours ago, no reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This community is broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&#xD;&#xA;What is the latent heat of fusion and vaporization of water at 620Pa? \[duplicate\]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275242/what-is-the-latent-heat-of-fusion-and-vaporization-of-water-at-620pa?noredirect=1#comment617565_275242)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="95462a15-eb3d-4cfb-a8bc-0e15c5d15e8e" CreationDate="2016-08-20T16:34:51.193" UserId="2754" Text="If you don't understand the question, don't vote to close as duplicate of something vaguely sounding the same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="95462a15-eb3d-4cfb-a8bc-0e15c5d15e8e" CreationDate="2016-08-20T16:34:51.193" UserId="2754" Text="|support|duplicates|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="7cfb3a01-b08e-42c6-b783-6dd74a2e73b3" CreationDate="2016-08-20T17:18:45.327" UserId="520" Text="In it's current form your question looks painfully like an exceedingly specific *&quot;do my research for me&quot;* demand. And perhaps you were just missing one notion, but when I googled `steam tables latent heat of vaporization` the first three non-sponsored links included tables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, for one of them you needed to know that engineer sometime talk about the &quot;enthalpy&quot; of vaporization rather than latent heat, but the others used the term you expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, making assumptions about the knowledge and motives of other users is generally a mistake and casting aspersion in public site is heading afoul the &quot;Be nice.&quot; policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="1c866565-e303-4483-ae17-b0a0b59454fa" CreationDate="2016-08-20T21:29:41.613" UserId="8563" Text="To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions *are* very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm aware of a previous question [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64031/what-is-the-effect-of-an-increase-in-pressure-on-latent-heat-of-vaporization), which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, &quot;Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?&quot;, with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, sincerely, saying that this community is &quot;broken&quot; and &quot;analphabete&quot;, when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23308" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="9a2453fb-4d28-4ff1-8688-d7584f59ba9d" CreationDate="2016-08-22T08:39:28.887" UserId="81048" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81048,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;wythagoras&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="f547f848-dae3-4ce5-bae9-406752ffd064" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:27:41.320" UserId="121464" Text="Broken? Nope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the blame for it being closed in the first place is (kind of) on you. Once the possible-not-duplicate was pointed out to you, you should have updated your question like Emilio Pisanty said, just adding a simple clarification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the question was reopened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, I was kind of tempted to leave the question be because of the way you made your complaint. Seriously, the best way to get your question reopened would have been to *avoid* insulting the physics.SE community. There are many smart people on here (though I don't claim to be one of them), and there is no need to make claims about the system being broken or people skimming. Before insulting people, think about the possibility that your question *isn't* clear, or can otherwise be improved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are just my thoughts. Hope you get an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="53a00ee3-ef5d-4007-90f9-3b84aec4b5fc" CreationDate="2016-08-23T09:08:50.797" UserId="124" Comment="fix link" Text="[An apparent inconsistency in the form of Spin-z operator for spin 1/2 system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework type question in that it is an exercise from Sakurai's QM book basically about forms of the zero and projection operators for hermitian operators. I think the close tag doesn't suit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows a lot of effort (most of the question is done and they even latex'd it in the link). As I've commented in the post that the close reason is essentially &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*punishing a user for doing more work than less work. One could've easily said 'I don't know what the operator in part b) is' and done nowhere near as much work as op. If op didn't have a mistake he/she wouldn't have asked the question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in fairness Sakurai is a fairly well used book so in principle could be useful to future users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However* it is essentially a **where's my mistake** type problem which isn't on topic, so I understand that, but I also don't agree with the reasoning  &quot;*If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher*&quot; - [here on meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) which might for example punish a student that is self motivated to work over a summer break, where the teacher/lecturer is busy, and maybe other classmates/friends don't want to be doing physics over a break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271287/an-apparent-inconsistency-in-the-form-of-spin-z-operator-for-spin-1-2-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="283d5725-3392-493c-b7b9-10c52813e466" CreationDate="2016-08-23T09:10:48.900" UserId="124" Comment="add link to questionnaire" Text="&gt; TL;DR: post examples of current questions which are edge cases for the new policy, look through the list, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers UP if you think they should be ON TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers DOWN if you think they should be OFF TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, if you feel motivated, fill out [this questionnaire about the answers](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we last left [the ongoing examination](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) of [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714), the community had come to something of a consensus that [certain low-effort questions asking for calculations should be off topic](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124). In addition, I've been watching actual question closures over the past couple months since we had that discussion, and I see more and more questions getting closed for displaying unacceptably low effort, whether using the existing homework-like close reason, or a custom reason written in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think it's time we start formulating a new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new policy, along with one or two associated close reasons, will prescribe how we should decide whether questions are off topic for being low-effort and/or being calculation requests. It will _replace_ the current homework policy, and in the future, we will use the associated close reason(s) for homework questions, _instead_ of using the existing homework-like close reason (which will no longer be active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have in mind is a process in 4 steps, of which this is the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Collect examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Prepare and edit a draft of the new policy that implements the consensus on the examples as well as possible. This may take a while.&#xD;&#xA;3. Decide on the wording of one or two new close reasons that will be associated with the new policy. Two reasons would be an option in case we want both low-effort questions and calculation requests to be off topic and we can't come up with one reason to cover them both.&#xD;&#xA;4. Make an official [meta-tag:faq] post with the content of the new policy, deprecate the current homework policy, and swap the new close reasons in for the existing homework-like close reason. This is the easy part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Collecting examples of on/off-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to guide the development of a new policy, I think it will help to have many examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic. So I'm making this post to solicit these examples from the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it will work: each answer should contain a link to _one_ question that is currently on the site. Vote up each answer if you would like to see that question be on topic under the _new_ policy (that we are going to write), and vote down if you think the question should be off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please vote based on **how the question is currently written**, not based on how you think it could be written if it were improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter so much whether the question is _currently_ open or closed. If you have feedback arguing one way or another for a particular link, leave it in the comments on that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot of questions, the decision is obvious. We don't really need to post those. What I'm _most_ interested in are &quot;interesting&quot; cases, such as questions which are currently on topic but which you'd like to see be off topic under the new policy, or vice versa. Borderline questions, which are not _clearly_ on-topic or off-topic, are also good candidates for posting here. For inspiration, you can look at our previous discussions on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;- [Chat session on homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6165/does-insufficient-effort-cover-previous-se-questions&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on, e.g. linked and related questions in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus that emerged from the last meta question is represented by [rob's answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124), which suggested the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria. That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this as a starting point to help judge which questions are likely to be edge cases and how you would vote on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="5e521240-3b52-4f28-9ab3-3420a62afd63" CreationDate="2016-08-23T10:26:00.833" UserId="124" Comment="incorporate clarifications from comments" Text="Under the circumstances stated, no. When we're considering disciplinary action, we don't care about anything that has happened outside this site ([Physics Stack Exchange](http://physics.stackexchange.com/), [Physics Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com), the [main site chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) and [its alternate](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775), and possibly but not necessarily any other associated chat rooms). Even if someone is linking to this site, that doesn't make it any business of ours. We can't and don't control what people link to from elsewhere on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the people in charge on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, we do care about things that have happened _on this site_. If information posted elsewhere on the web helps the moderators understand something that is happening _here_, then you certainly can bring that to our attention. Use a private channel: a custom flag, or if flagging isn't sufficient, you can ask to open a private chat room with the mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In public - a meta post - it's a little more touchy. Technically it's not against the rules to mention things that go on elsewhere on the web, but if you're doing so in an attempt to shame the person whose behavior on another site is being discussed, that may qualify as a personal attack, which is definitely not appropriate here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="607c0dc8-21e0-4f27-943d-10c2410caedd" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:46:00.833" UserId="94353" Text="As you can see, every time someone favorites a question, which is already favorited by at least 25 users, an extra &quot;Favorite Question&quot; is awarded to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CCYST.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="607c0dc8-21e0-4f27-943d-10c2410caedd" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:46:00.833" UserId="94353" Text="Same badge awarded several times" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="607c0dc8-21e0-4f27-943d-10c2410caedd" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:46:00.833" UserId="94353" Text="|bug|badges|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="783f6736-b502-4e49-a6e7-7808bc7143bd" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:52:07.337" UserId="94353" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="As you can see, every time somebody favorites a question, which is already favorited by at least 25 users, an extra &quot;Favorite Question&quot; badge is awarded to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CCYST.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23317" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="783f6736-b502-4e49-a6e7-7808bc7143bd" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:52:07.337" UserId="94353" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Favorite Question&quot; badge awarded multi times" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="8d796839-2042-4999-afe6-a42d299d9448" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:58:38.147" UserId="94353" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="As you can see, every time somebody favorites a question, which is already favorited by at least 25 users, **it appears that**(although actually it's not) an extra &quot;Favorite Question&quot; badge is awarded to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CCYST.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23319" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="8d796839-2042-4999-afe6-a42d299d9448" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:58:38.147" UserId="94353" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="|bug|badges|notifications|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23320" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="b83ce4a5-a5df-4f87-84e1-f3dcee8d9100" CreationDate="2016-08-23T17:44:05.063" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|flagging|review|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9080" RevisionGUID="57d86579-40d3-4bd0-bf25-3c39fce7281c" CreationDate="2016-08-24T14:49:33.467" UserId="1325" Text="The aim of our site is to be an authoritative source of information for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy, and we want the posts here to be interesting, informative and reliable. To this end we sometimes close questions that don’t fit with the goals of the site. This answer explains why we sometimes close questions as *homework and exercises*, and how you can word your question to avoid it being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two main things we consider when deciding whether to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first criterion is fairly obvious: the physics community isn’t going to take us seriously if there’s any perception that we help people to cheat with their course work. So if you post a question that’s obviously been copied and pasted from a homework assignment we’re going to close it immediately. We can’t read your mind, so we can’t be sure whether your question really is homework or not, but we will err on the side of caution. If your question looks like homework we will close it. If your question isn’t homework then it’s down to you to explain that in your post, which brings us to the second criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second criterion is a little more subtle and is related to our aim to be interesting and informative. As a general rule homework problems and/or worked exercises are used to reinforce something you’ve been taught. For example if you do a special relativity course you will be taught about time dilation and how to calculate it using the Lorentz transformations. Then you’ll be given endless homework problems requiring you to do basically routine calculations like finding the lifetime of atmospheric muons or whether a fast moving pole will fit in a barn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our view is that while the routine calculations are important this site isn’t the place for them. The problem is that (a) they are routine and (b) there are a near infinite variety of such questions, and they would swamp the site. So if you post a question that is of this type we’ll probably close it with the tag [homework-and-exercises]. That doesn’t mean we think it’s a bad question, just that this site isn’t the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself wanting help with a *homework-like* question then it’s probably possible to rephrase it into a more conceptual question. For example rather than asking about the lifetime of a muon traveling at $0.99$ you could reword your question to ask how we use the Lorentz transformations to calculate time dilations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23322" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9080" RevisionGUID="c127081a-3c6b-433e-94d9-d11a52bd5c11" CreationDate="2016-08-24T14:49:33.467" UserId="1325" />
  <row Id="23323" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9080" RevisionGUID="abd278d1-3c51-469a-a089-17f4dcd1453a" CreationDate="2016-08-24T14:50:04.600" UserId="1325" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="640a7020-062d-4dbf-9b84-eabbb6ab4f58" CreationDate="2016-08-24T17:29:27.380" UserId="64669" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][9])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][10] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][11].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][12]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="21ed65f0-dc12-4b15-a98a-6c729d89091b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T09:35:51.270" UserId="64669" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="8df1f339-1447-4f93-97d1-9ce2d891551f" CreationDate="2016-08-25T13:46:47.283" UserId="162" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|badges|notifications|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="d3faa584-5d82-4eb7-be0a-cfa33ca6dae3" CreationDate="2016-08-26T07:24:17.303" UserId="4846" Text="&gt; The moderators tend to say when they delete comments, but the useres don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a strong indication that this is a reasonable feature request. Whether it is possible to implement this sufficiently unobstrusive is a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In chat, deleted messages are indicated as &quot;(removed)&quot; with the user name still associated with the message, which feels much too intrusive. A suitable number of additional grey lines between two successive comments might be a nice indication of how many comments have been deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9082" RevisionGUID="572c1461-5234-40ec-b430-e25074693020" CreationDate="2016-08-26T13:23:49.627" UserId="114696" Text="I do not see where you have provided a definition of the term &quot;harmfully incorrect.&quot; I very much doubt such answers exist. I think those who are advocating the view that some answers are so incorrect that they are positively &quot;harmful&quot; are not acting scientifically, since no evidence of such &quot;harmfulness&quot; has been provided. It seems to me that the &quot;harm&quot; is imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with John Rennie when he says that Answers on this site should be &quot;unimpeachable&quot;. That is setting too high a standard which even those with the highest academic standing in this community may not consistently reach. It is an elitist view which would require most of the Answers on this site to be deleted, and would deter many users from participating by offering an Answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current peer-review system of commenting on mildly incorrect Answers, and &quot;down-voting to oblivion&quot; those which are &quot;harmfully incorrect,&quot; seems perfectly adequate to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Science tolerates alternative views, thrives in a climate on honest debate, and is stifled by the censorship of anything unorthodox. The fact that Answers are not mainstream or not wholly correct should not prevent them from being expressed. The advantages of maintaining freedom of speech outweigh any illusory &quot;harmfulness&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9083" RevisionGUID="1f320bc1-15fb-40e3-9cdc-ba0b9a6acc8a" CreationDate="2016-08-26T13:41:19.760" UserId="114696" Text="Are you sure the Answers (rather than the Questions) were from years ago? I have noticed some new users posting brief, comment-like answers to old Questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is the same as that of Kyle Kanos expressed in these 2 posts :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5995/what-to-do-with-low-quality-posts-that-you-just-cant-delete?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/is-it-appropriate-to-use-the-low-quality-review-system-to-get-rid-of-bad-answe?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to deal with &quot;bad&quot; or &quot;incorrect&quot; answers is to comment and/or down-vote, not to delete.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="69393d1e-ab23-4f22-8978-4f5f88769f53" CreationDate="2016-08-26T14:29:34.713" UserId="64669" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="c32d48b7-9873-44f8-a831-844dbdbbff90" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:17:46.177" UserId="32426" Text="**Bad:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your question looks: *&quot;Here is my homework, solve it instead me now&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* You scanned/photographed your textbook&#xD;&#xA;* You don't show effort or curiosity to the solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't asking the numerical solution, you want to understand, how can you solve it for yourself&#xD;&#xA;* You are using Latex / MathJax formatting ([tutorial here][1])&#xD;&#xA;* You explain: 1) what you want 2) what you tried 3) why it doesn't go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget: question closing is mostly a subjective decision. The reviewers see a &quot;close&quot; and a &quot;leave open&quot; button next to your question. Although there are site rules, it is mainly up to them, how do they interpret them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23332" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="73e6ea44-ac6d-42a4-bb28-e3618f5cf965" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:17:46.177" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="23333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="ba50b8a3-5845-4d4b-81c2-c889f6aebc0f" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:22:53.163" UserId="32426" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="**Bad:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your question looks: *&quot;Here is my homework, solve it instead me now&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;* You scanned/photographed your textbook.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't show effort or curiosity to the solution.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't bore to beginning the sentences with capital cases or ending them with a &quot;.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't asking the numerical solution, you want to understand, how can you solve it for yourself&#xD;&#xA;* You are using Latex / MathJax formatting ([tutorial here][1])&#xD;&#xA;* You explain: 1) what you want 2) what you tried 3) why it doesn't go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget: question closing is mostly a subjective decision. The reviewers see a &quot;close&quot; and a &quot;leave open&quot; button next to your question. Although there are site rules, it is mainly up to them, how do they interpret them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23334" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="73f7ba74-7ec8-4d2e-a912-a845857d99ad" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:24:04.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/769314498553475072" />
  <row Id="23336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="1577a864-b787-44db-ab29-2d0c87e726ba" CreationDate="2016-08-27T10:48:48.533" UserId="124" Text="**Abstract**: Analyzing the data from the last replace-the-homework-policy question was inconclusive. So back to the drawing board, or really back to [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy): what do we _really_ mean when we vote to close questions as homework-like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some/many/most people are aware, we are in the midst of a [long-term project](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) to replace our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714) with another set of guidelines that better reflects what people actually want to see on the site. In the [first phase of this project](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic), we collected some example questions and voted on whether they should be on or off topic, to help clarify the policy. I also collected some opinions on various qualities of these questions in [a separate survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform). The goal was to try to find some correlation between the topicality of the questions, as represented by the score, and one or a few of the attributes, and that would tell us what are the main factors people consider while voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out... that doesn't work very well. I spent a long time [tinkering with the data](https://gist.github.com/diazona/dc434e5121c441e5a31fa0c934ab725d) and basically what I found is that people's opinions vary widely, making it hard to draw meaningful conclusions. The first thing I checked was whether any individual factor from the survey correlated well to people's impression of whether a question was on topic. There were some correlations with physical context and interest, and to a lesser extent level and effort, and an anticorrelation with tediousness (this means that within our data set, people are more likely to consider questions which concern tedious calculations _on topic_), but none of these are very strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![correlation heatmap between factors and scores][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also looked at whether a combination of factors could provide a good discriminator between on-topic and off-topic questions, in a couple different ways. First, a partial least squares regression to test whether some linear combination of ratings would be able to accurately predict the scores of the questions, but that didn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plot of predicted vs measured scores][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other approach, which I think best mirrors how the actual close-voting logic works, is to find a set of factors such that the on-topic questions rate highly on all factors but each off-topic question rates low on one or more of them. This plot shows the mean minus one standard deviation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the distribution of ratings for each of the highest-score (most clearly on-topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean minus standard deviation of on-topic question ratings][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is the equivalent, showing mean plus one standard deviation, for the lowest-score (most clearly off topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean plus standard deviation of off-topic question ratings][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a group of one or a few rating factors such that the corresponding columns in the top plot are all red or white, and the columns in the bottom plot between them contain one blue cell for each question. Unfortunately, there is no clear candidate. I even had the computer go through all possible combinations of rating factors to test them out, and all the combinations in which the on-topic questions rank high have large uncertainties in the off-topic questions, and vice-versa. The one factor that does keep popping up is &quot;check-my-work-ness&quot;, which _may_ be an indicator that people agree that questions just asking us to check work are off topic and that we do okay at identifying which questions those are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the point seems to be that none of the factors in the survey are a particularly good proxy for how we decide whether questions are on or off topic. (And remember, we're mostly talking about questions which we currently close or might consider closing using the homework-like reason.) So before we proceed, I want to throw the question back to the community in a revisit of [the question where I first tried to collect possible close reasons](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7407/124). In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we _actually_ have in mind? Or, how could we do more research to work this out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The idea is to identify clearly on-topic questions as those for which something approximating the 68% confidence interval of the score is entirely positive, indicating a high score and clear agreement on that score. It's basically the same idea underlying e.g. the [reddit scoring algorithm](https://medium.com/hacking-and-gonzo/how-reddit-ranking-algorithms-work-ef111e33d0d9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLtzX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kGI3m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cprj9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AjzVK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="1577a864-b787-44db-ab29-2d0c87e726ba" CreationDate="2016-08-27T10:48:48.533" UserId="124" Text="Replacing the homework policy 1b: what is our scope anyway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="1577a864-b787-44db-ab29-2d0c87e726ba" CreationDate="2016-08-27T10:48:48.533" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|insufficient-effort|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="0560a3c5-f7a0-4faf-b27d-6d8970d6aec7" CreationDate="2016-08-27T12:34:59.390" UserId="81048" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed Science Educators, a site where teachers and tutors of any field of science (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) can ask questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided to join forces with all sciences since Mathematics Educators is not getting sufficient traffic to graduate (currently at 1.5 questions out of 10 per day, which is low since the site is quite old), therefore I considered it unlikely that any of the sites (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) could get launched an Educators site on there own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you are interested, please follow the proposal, and create and vote for example questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92559/science-educators?referrer=MuGFDueEC-U1&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/92559.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Science Educators&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** This one was closed, here is a new proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/102351/science-educators?referrer=x3vAYCrjklWOc4m-0_EyxA2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/102351.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Science Educators&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="657f0648-dae2-460e-91c3-0723b6e4ae3f" CreationDate="2016-08-27T12:37:57.920" UserId="81048" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="[![][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/102351.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/102351/science-educators?referrer=x3vAYCrjklWOc4m-0_EyxA2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23341" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="3397d753-69cf-4a40-a290-e6d411cdd5e1" CreationDate="2016-08-27T12:38:02.127" UserId="81048" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81048,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;wythagoras&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="a92dd810-14e6-4e60-b38d-3c9f434b0930" CreationDate="2016-08-27T14:03:36.043" UserId="50583" Text="## The current situation and its problems (yes, again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we actually have in mind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking your data, and indeed the continual disagreement in most past meta posts about this topic, at face value it appears that there is no single reason people close something as homework-like, showing that the current close reason is also probably more used as a proxy for a host of different reasons than what's actually written in the policy, or whatever *would* be actually written in the policy once we'd chosen one or more &quot;main&quot; reason to close something as homework-like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an uncomfortable situations, and it also *explains* why this policy continues to be discussed (other than, say, the non-mainstream policy, about which there seems to be general agreement, and only dissatisfaction about its application in isolated specific cases). However, it also means that &quot;replacing&quot; the homework policy by the things it's used as proxy for is infeasible, because there's no agreement *what* it is used as proxy for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the policy was *initially* conceived to ban *actual homework* to stave off using the site as a cheating resource. This has two issues: How to tell whether something is &quot;actual&quot; homework, and what about *good questions* that someone could conceivably encounter otherwise, but that are assigned as homework in the case of the asker? So the homework policy mutated into the &quot;homework-like&quot; policy, looking at the *content* rather than the *origin* of the question. However, what exactly is &quot;homework-like content&quot; was, at least from some points of view, insufficiently (and somewhat contradictorily) codified in the policy post as such, which is argued e.g. in [this meta answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7163/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That therefore the *policy as written* is actually not what motivates many closures is what triggered this whole debate, cf. the opening statement of *[Generalizing the homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7407/50583)*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely not of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A radical solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the homework close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I mean that. I *don't* mean to imply that we should leave any of the question *open* that we currently close as homework-like, but this whole debate shows that &quot;homework-like&quot; is really just a proxy for a bunch of more specific close reasons, which would be more helpful to the people asking the question and more helpful to avoid arguments between reviewers over whether something is &quot;homework-like&quot;, when the arguing parties really mean two different things by that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we don't have enough slots for pre-generated reasons left to cover all of the partial reasons for closing as &quot;homework-like&quot;. Fortunately, the &quot;other&quot; close reason allows for an infinite variety of close reasons, so we only have to decide which reason deserves to be in the pre-generated spot and which ones the reviewers have to type out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have discussions on [insufficient effort](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and [&quot;check my work&quot;](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) as close reasons. We have broad support for [closing &quot;tedious&quot; calculations without context](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7409/50583). There are upvoted [arguments](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7164/50583) that being a conceptual question and showing effort, as in the current &quot;homework-like&quot; close banner, should apply to all questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of these discussions about policy, each of which covers a certain subset of why people want to close homework-like questions, is worth having. These are specific topics on which people can take a stand for or against, and we can sort out where the general community trend lies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This discussion about the &quot;homework policy&quot;, however, and about a catch-all proxy reason for all the *actual* reasons it encodes is *not* worth having anymore. It's too confusing, people are talking past each other, and we have both historical and analytical data showing a consensus is nowhere in sight. So let's just axe this reason and start having constructive discussions about more specific close reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="26bfc7b7-a993-4cce-98ba-da2aa3d5e768" CreationDate="2016-08-27T16:56:58.197" UserId="124" Comment="attempt to improve clarity of question" Text="**Abstract**: Analyzing the data from [the last replace-the-homework-policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic) was inconclusive. So back to the drawing board, or really back to [our starting point](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy): what kinds of questions do we _really_ want to see closed? In particular, what are better ways to characterize our actual reasons for closing questions where we currently use the &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Important note**, because I guess this hasn't been clear in the past: the purpose of this series of posts is to come up with a _brand new_ set of guidelines for question closure. We are not reformulating or tweaking or improving our current homework policy. We are _replacing_ it entirely - that means we are getting rid of it and developing a new set of policies and close reasons, which will presumably make no mention of &quot;homework&quot; or &quot;homework-like&quot;. Once this process is done, there will be no homework policy and no &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some/many/most people are aware, we are in the midst of a [long-term project](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) to replace our [homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714) with a new set of guidelines that better reflect what people actually consider on topic and off topic. In the [first phase of this project](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic), we collected some example questions and voted on whether they should be on or off topic, to help clarify the new guidelines we want to come up with. I also collected some opinions on various qualities of these questions in [a separate survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform). The goal was to try to find some correlation between the topicality of the questions, as represented by the score, and one or a few of the attributes, and that would tell us what are the main factors people consider while voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out... that doesn't work very well. I spent a long time [tinkering with the data](https://gist.github.com/diazona/dc434e5121c441e5a31fa0c934ab725d) and basically what I found is that people's opinions vary widely, making it hard to draw meaningful conclusions. The first thing I checked was whether any individual factor from the survey correlated well to people's impression of whether a question was on topic. There were some correlations with physical context and interest, and to a lesser extent level and effort, and an anticorrelation with tediousness (this means that within our data set, people are more likely to consider questions which concern tedious calculations _on topic_), but none of these are very strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![correlation heatmap between factors and scores][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also looked at whether a combination of factors could provide a good discriminator between on-topic and off-topic questions, in a couple different ways. First, a partial least squares regression to test whether some linear combination of ratings would be able to accurately predict the scores of the questions, but that didn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plot of predicted vs measured scores][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other approach, which I think best mirrors how the actual close-voting logic works, is to find a set of factors such that the on-topic questions rate highly on all factors but each off-topic question rates low on one or more of them. This plot shows the mean minus one standard deviation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the distribution of ratings for each of the highest-score (most clearly on-topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean minus standard deviation of on-topic question ratings][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is the equivalent, showing mean plus one standard deviation, for the lowest-score (most clearly off topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean plus standard deviation of off-topic question ratings][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a group of one or a few rating factors such that the corresponding columns in the top plot are all red or white, and the columns in the bottom plot between them contain one blue cell for each question. Unfortunately, there is no clear candidate. I even had the computer go through all possible combinations of rating factors to test them out, and all the combinations in which the on-topic questions rank high have large uncertainties in the off-topic questions, and vice-versa. The one factor that does keep popping up is &quot;check-my-work-ness&quot;, which _may_ be an indicator that people agree that questions just asking us to check work are off topic and that we do okay at identifying which questions those are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the point seems to be that none of the factors in the survey are a particularly good proxy for how we decide whether questions are on or off topic. (And remember, we're mostly talking about questions which we currently close or might consider closing using the homework-like reason.) So before we proceed, I want to throw the question back to the community in a revisit of [the question where I first tried to collect possible close reasons](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7407/124). In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we _actually_ have in mind? Or, how could we do more research to work this out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The idea is to identify clearly on-topic questions as those for which something approximating the 68% confidence interval of the score is entirely positive, indicating a high score and clear agreement on that score. It's basically the same idea underlying e.g. the [reddit scoring algorithm](https://medium.com/hacking-and-gonzo/how-reddit-ranking-algorithms-work-ef111e33d0d9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLtzX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kGI3m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cprj9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AjzVK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="dd58a519-a2c7-4cf9-a31e-79c36600d654" CreationDate="2016-08-27T19:17:09.990" UserId="121464" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of objectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Conceptual**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, not about a specific physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still working on the not conceptual one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I think one more important thing should happen. ***We should burninate the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag.*** Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We don't need it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All questions, once the new close reasons are implemented, should be tagged based on topic. *That's it.* The community can then judge whether or not they are on-topic without the burden of that tag, which I personally think makes people (most people, and at least a little) biased against a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's a meta tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag add to describe a question? Nothing, really. So far, we've almost been using it as &quot;Oh, hey, this question needs to be closed. Editing to add homework tag!&quot; If there will no longer be a homework close reason, what purpose does it serve? Even as a meta tag, it isn't super useful (as compared to, for example, [tag:resource-recommendation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It detracts from the value of this site.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When physicists come and look at this site, what do you think attracts them more: a [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag, or the absence of one? The absence of one, no doubt. We don't need a tag where questions go because they are bad! It only makes the site look worse. Physics.SE is a unique place on the internet, and the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is really only a reminder of other places on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="b38163d3-7e4d-4503-b29d-538d6d4f53f6" CreationDate="2016-08-27T20:40:42.813" UserId="8563" Comment="This is a community ad - please don't put your own referrer handle on it." Text="[![][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/102351.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/102351/science-educators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="7f28fd33-05a1-49e6-beb1-f36c970ca06a" CreationDate="2016-08-27T21:16:57.407" UserId="121464" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of objectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Conceptual**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, not about a specific physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not conceptual&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be **outsourcing a calculation** to the community without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept or provide more context. For more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I think one more important thing should happen. ***We should burninate the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag.*** Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We don't need it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All questions, once the new close reasons are implemented, should be tagged based on topic. *That's it.* The community can then judge whether or not they are on-topic without the burden of that tag, which I personally think makes people (most people, and at least a little) biased against a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's a meta tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag add to describe a question? Nothing, really. So far, we've almost been using it as &quot;Oh, hey, this question needs to be closed. Editing to add homework tag!&quot; If there will no longer be a homework close reason, what purpose does it serve? Even as a meta tag, it isn't super useful (as compared to, for example, [tag:resource-recommendation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It detracts from the value of this site.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When physicists come and look at this site, what do you think attracts them more: a [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag, or the absence of one? The absence of one, no doubt. We don't need a tag where questions go because they are bad! It only makes the site look worse. Physics.SE is a unique place on the internet, and the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is really only a reminder of other places on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="995dd91f-83fc-4111-9b7a-e2c8a854e329" CreationDate="2016-08-27T21:22:35.330" UserId="121464" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy, or (hasn't been asked) &quot;Why do rocks fall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of subjectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Purely Calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, not about a specific physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Purely Calculation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be **outsourcing a calculation** to the community without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept, show work and explain where you got stuck, or provide more context. For more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I think one more important thing should happen. ***We should burninate the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag.*** Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We don't need it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All questions, once the new close reasons are implemented, should be tagged based on topic. *That's it.* The community can then judge whether or not they are on-topic without the burden of that tag, which I personally think makes people (most people, and at least a little) biased against a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's a meta tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag add to describe a question? Nothing, really. So far, we've almost been using it as &quot;Oh, hey, this question needs to be closed. Editing to add homework tag!&quot; If there will no longer be a homework close reason, what purpose does it serve? Even as a meta tag, it isn't super useful (as compared to, for example, [tag:resource-recommendation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It detracts from the value of this site.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When physicists come and look at this site, what do you think attracts them more: a [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag, or the absence of one? The absence of one, no doubt. We don't need a tag where questions go because they are bad! It only makes the site look worse. Physics.SE is a unique place on the internet, and the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is really only a reminder of other places on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I originally worded the title to the third possible close reason rather poorly, and changed it. The third close reason is meant for purely calculation questions, as the title says, and I'll be adding more examples of questions that would be closed under this reason soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="0eb48e41-bf07-47ee-b991-25a0954bb8e4" CreationDate="2016-08-27T22:19:13.443" UserId="114696" Text="https://www.slader.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Live Tutoring*  &#xD;&#xA;Tutoring on Slader provides users a platform to chat and share concepts visually through images and a live shared drawing board. Slader users can request help from other students in the same subject, host a tutoring session with friends through a unique link, or choose a certified pro tutor (who charges gold). Two brains are always better than one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Textbook Solutions*  &#xD;&#xA;Slader features millions of solutions to the most popular textbooks in the United States. All of the homework solutions on Slader are written by the&#xD;&#xA;Slader community. Anyone can contribute solutions to textbook problems, which are viewed and rated by the Slader community. Solutions are always free to view and we encourage contribution to the site in all productive forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Question and Answer*  &#xD;&#xA;Slader's Q&amp;A platform is where non-textbook based questions in any subject can be asked and answered. Asking questions and providing answers benefit all users and makes the learning process easier and more enjoyable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="922604b6-a388-4a07-8a3f-67f7bc26870e" CreationDate="2016-08-28T03:38:44.150" UserId="114696" Text="**The Problem as I see it**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that the site is being flooded by a rising tide of poor quality questions which show little or no effort and often lack even a basic understanding of physics. I am not being elitist, I simply deplore lazy questions from those who are obviously not even students of anything, especially not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since reaching 3k rep, I spend more than half of my time on the site reviewing questions. Currently I vote to close around 7/10 in the &quot;new unanswered questions&quot; queue and a higher proportion in the &quot;Close Votes&quot; queue. This counts questions which I do not feel competent to judge, which I do not touch. Recently I am regularly running out of close votes within 2 hours of getting them, and have to make do with down-voting and commenting instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expectation is that if this trend continues then in the near future the pool of active reviewers will not have enough votes or time to keep up, with the result that the average standard of questions will fall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing questions is frequently pointless. By the time the crucial 5th vote has been cast, answers have often been posted so the question does not get deleted. A few new users respond by posting the same question again. Closure prevents good answers from being posted to bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting-to-close questions provokes resentment and animosity, not only from those posting questions but also other users. Explaining to the OP and others why I have VTC also takes up time - although this is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current policy is inconsistent. We routinely close questions to which the &quot;homework&quot; tag applies, even when they show considerable effort, because they don't &quot;ask about a specific concept&quot;. Yet we tolerate conceptual questions which show little or no effort and are ill-motivated (&quot;I was just wondering...&quot;). The site is advertised as being &quot;for students, researchers and academics of physics and astronomy&quot; but we allow anyone, even those with no physics background whatsoever, to post any question. We cannot expect high standards if we adopt inconsistent policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever policy is formulated, the most difficult part is implementing it -  getting users (especially new ones) to read it, agree to it and follow it. Unless there is a requirement for users to do so, many will not bother. They come here to ask and answer questions, not to study and enforce site policies. It was only after I reached reviewer status that I accepted the closure criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An Even More Radical Solution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I repeat my suggestions given in my answer to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/9058#9058.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see only two consistent options : either (1) abandon any attempt to control the posting or answering of questions, or (2) place questions 'on hold' as soon as they are posted, and do not open them until they have been approved by reviewers who understand and agree with site policy, rather than those who have their own interpretations of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that both options are highly unpopular, but at least they are workable, efficient and **self-consistent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Abandoning Control**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason for closing questions should be that they are *off topic*, which should mean that they cannot be answered using mainstream physics. It should be open to any user to decide for him/herself whether or not a question meets his personal standards regarding quality or usefulness or research effort or clarity or broadness etc, and to answer or up/down-vote or comment accordingly. Lack of effort and usefulness are already addressed in the up/down-voting feature, so these should not be reasons for closing a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my preferred option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most users simply want to ask or answer questions. Those who ask usually want a quick response. Few use the site for research. Pre-occupation with question quality is inconsistent with allowing unrestricted posting of questions. Minimising reasons for closure will reduce the growing burden on reviewers, and avoid many bad experiences on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is patronising of us to decide that some questions should not be answered, and to prevent users who have no objections to the question from doing so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abandoning control will allow more poor-quality questions onto the site, but there are plenty of those already which have been closed but not deleted. Voting already identifies good (and/or interesting) questions. If necessary, a periodic purge could remove questions with many down-votes, perhaps via a review queue.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**2. Voting To Open (VTO) New Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turns the VTC decision on its head by proposing that all new questions (or perhaps only those from new users with less than say 300 rep, or those with a poor history of closed questions) should be put *on hold* until approved by reviewers. Criteria for what is *on topic* would still have to be re-formulated (see below) : the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that policy is implemented effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is far more effective to get rid of poor questions, and deter poor question-setters, before they have gotten an answer rather than after. Those who need quick answers to trivial questions (&quot;Is this right?&quot; &quot;Where have I gone wrong?&quot; &quot;What am I missing?&quot;) will turn away in frustration if it takes 24-48 hours before the question is approved. We would also need to be stricter about &quot;answering in comments&quot; - perhaps by increasing the rep required to comment and flagging such comments for immediate deletion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently impossible to prevent users from answering questions which are under review, making subsequent closure pointless. For the same reason VTO retains the option of migrating the question instead of closing it. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;VTO is consistent with the avowed purpose of the site. Students, researchers and academics will have spent considerable time and effort already working on the problem, and are unlikely to expect immediate answers. Good quality answers to good quality questions often require further research or mathematical analysis, which cannot often be delivered within 24 hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also consistent with the policy of avoiding duplicates, because there is more time to identify duplicates before answers are posted to the new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reformulation of Closure Policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with ACM and heather that the &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot; tag should be removed and the related policy scrapped. All questions should be subject to the same criteria, whatever those may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated above, my view is that **the only reason** for closing a question  should be that it is *off topic*, meaning that it cannot be *addressed* by applying mainstream physics concepts and principles. The question itself need not be mainstream physics, since good science tolerates the unorthodox. I say *addressable* because for some questions it may not be possible to give an authoritative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of subjectivity in the other criteria, which I think are not worthwhile :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates** : It is very difficult to avoid them, and checking is tedious. Even where they are identified before new answers are posted, existing answers may be unsatisfactory, or there may be a subtle difference. Reviving an old question is not easy for a new user (see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8974/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Unclear what you're asking** : Easily dealt with by asking questions to identify exactly what the problem is. This is what comments are for. Very subjective anyway. It is rather contradictory for a question to be closed for this reason when an answer has been posted - and possibly accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Too broad** : Easily narrowed down through comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primarily opinion-based** : Many such questions (eg resource recommendations, career advice) would be *off topic* under the above definition (not addressable by applying mainstream physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homework-like** : No justification for discriminating based on style of question rather than its content. Questions asking how to *apply* physics are as much a part of physics as those asking for explanation of a concept or phenomenon - especially for students. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mainstream physics** : Questions about unorthodox physics (eg cold fusion, time travel, perpetual motion machines, warp drive, etc) are *addressable* using mainstream physics, so they are *on topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engineering** : &quot;The application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem&quot; is what we do all the time as students and experimenters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insufficient Research Effort** : Too subjective, difficult to judge, and already addressed by down-voting. The reason quickly becomes pointless when somebody provides an answer or even just points out a duplicate or makes a suggestion. If the OP's laziness disgusts you, ignore the question!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="478a4898-502c-4773-8f47-baf705633fe5" CreationDate="2016-08-28T04:36:32.203" UserId="114696" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="**The Problem as I see it**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that the site is being flooded by a rising tide of poor quality questions which show little or no effort and often lack even a basic understanding of physics. I am not being elitist, I simply deplore lazy questions from those who are obviously not even students of anything, especially not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since reaching 3k rep, I spend more than half of my time on the site reviewing questions. Currently I vote to close around 7/10 in the &quot;new unanswered questions&quot; queue and a higher proportion in the &quot;Close Votes&quot; queue. This counts questions which I do not feel competent to judge, which I do not touch. Recently I am regularly running out of close votes within 2 hours of getting them, and have to make do with down-voting and commenting instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expectation is that if this trend continues then in the near future the pool of active reviewers will not have enough votes or time to keep up, with the result that the average standard of questions will fall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing questions is frequently pointless. By the time the crucial 5th vote has been cast, answers have often been posted so the question does not get deleted. A few new users respond by posting the same question again. Closure prevents good answers from being posted to bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting-to-close questions provokes resentment and animosity, not only from those posting questions but also other users. Explaining to the OP and others why I have VTC also takes up time - although this is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current policy is inconsistent. We routinely demand that &quot;homework-like&quot; questions must &quot;show effort to work through the problem,&quot; yet we tolerate conceptual questions which show little or no effort and are ill-motivated (&quot;I read somewhere... Is this true?&quot; &quot;While I was in the bath I had a thought...&quot; &quot;I was just wondering...&quot;). The site is advertised as being &quot;for students, researchers and academics of physics and astronomy&quot; but we allow anyone, even those with no physics background whatsoever, to post any question. We cannot expect high standards if we adopt inconsistent policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever policy is formulated, the most difficult part is implementing it -  getting users (especially new ones) to read it, agree to it and follow it. Unless there is a requirement for users to do so, many will not bother. They come here to ask and answer questions, not to study and enforce site policies. It was only after I reached reviewer status that I accepted the closure criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An Even More Radical Solution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I repeat my suggestions given in my answer to http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/9058#9058.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see only two consistent options : either (1) abandon any attempt to control the posting or answering of questions, or (2) place questions 'on hold' as soon as they are posted, and do not open them until they have been approved by reviewers who understand and agree with site policy, rather than those who have their own interpretations of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that both options are highly unpopular, but at least they are workable, efficient and **self-consistent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Abandoning Control**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason for closing questions should be that they are *off topic*, which should mean that they cannot be answered using mainstream physics. It should be open to any user to decide for him/herself whether or not a question meets his personal standards regarding quality or usefulness or research effort or clarity or broadness etc, and to answer or up/down-vote or comment accordingly. Lack of effort and usefulness are already addressed in the up/down-voting feature, so these should not be reasons for closing a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my preferred option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most users simply want to ask or answer questions. Those who ask usually want a quick response. Few use the site for research. Pre-occupation with question quality is inconsistent with allowing unrestricted posting of questions. Minimising reasons for closure will reduce the growing burden on reviewers, and avoid many bad experiences on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is patronising of us to decide that some questions should not be answered, and to prevent users who have no objections to the question from doing so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abandoning control will allow more poor-quality questions onto the site, but there are plenty of those already which have been closed but not deleted. Voting already identifies good (and/or interesting) questions. If necessary, a periodic purge could remove questions with many down-votes, perhaps via a review queue.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**2. Voting To Open (VTO) New Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turns the VTC decision on its head by proposing that all new questions (or perhaps only those from new users with less than say 300 rep, or those with a poor history of closed questions) should be put *on hold* until approved by reviewers. Criteria for what is *on topic* would still have to be re-formulated (see below) : the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that policy is implemented effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is far more effective to get rid of poor questions, and deter poor question-setters, before they have gotten an answer rather than after. Those who need quick answers to trivial questions (&quot;Is this right?&quot; &quot;Where have I gone wrong?&quot; &quot;What am I missing?&quot;) will turn away in frustration if it takes 24-48 hours before the question is approved. We would also need to be stricter about &quot;answering in comments&quot; - perhaps by increasing the rep required to comment and flagging such comments for immediate deletion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently impossible to prevent users from answering questions which are under review, making subsequent closure pointless. For the same reason VTO retains the option of migrating the question instead of closing it. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;VTO is consistent with the avowed purpose of the site. Students, researchers and academics will have spent considerable time and effort already working on the problem, and are unlikely to expect immediate answers. Good quality answers to good quality questions often require further research or mathematical analysis, which cannot often be delivered within 24 hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also consistent with the policy of avoiding duplicates, because there is more time to identify duplicates before answers are posted to the new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reformulation of Closure Policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with ACM and heather that the &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot; tag should be removed and the related policy scrapped. All questions should be subject to the same criteria, whatever those may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated above, my view is that **the only reason** for closing a question  should be that it is *off topic*, meaning that it cannot be *addressed* by applying mainstream physics concepts and principles. The question itself need not be mainstream physics, since good science tolerates the unorthodox. I say *addressable* because for some questions it may not be possible to give an authoritative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of subjectivity in the other criteria, which I think are not worthwhile :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates** : It is very difficult to avoid them, and checking is tedious. Even where they are identified before new answers are posted, existing answers may be unsatisfactory, or there may be a subtle difference. Reviving an old question is not easy for a new user (see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8974/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Unclear what you're asking** : Easily dealt with by asking questions to identify exactly what the problem is. This is what comments are for. Very subjective anyway. It is rather contradictory for a question to be closed for this reason when an answer has been posted - and possibly accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Too broad** : Easily narrowed down through comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primarily opinion-based** : Many such questions (eg resource recommendations, career advice) would be *off topic* under the above definition (not addressable by applying mainstream physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homework-like** : No justification for discriminating based on style of question rather than its content. Questions asking how to *apply* physics are as much a part of physics as those asking for explanation of a concept or phenomenon - especially for students. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mainstream physics** : Questions about unorthodox physics (eg cold fusion, time travel, perpetual motion machines, warp drive, etc) are *addressable* using mainstream physics, so they are *on topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engineering** : &quot;The application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem&quot; is what we do all the time as students and experimenters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insufficient Research Effort** : Too subjective, difficult to judge, and already addressed by down-voting. The reason quickly becomes pointless when somebody provides an answer or even just points out a duplicate or makes a suggestion. If the OP's laziness disgusts you, ignore the question!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="026ba9ba-a9e6-4fb1-abff-2d4c3c84c5cb" CreationDate="2016-08-28T12:19:35.013" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 1346 characters in body" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy, or (hasn't been asked) &quot;Why do rocks fall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of subjectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Purely Calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, not about a specific physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Purely Calculation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be **outsourcing a calculation** to the community without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept, show work and explain where you got stuck, or provide more context. For more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I originally worded the title to the third possible close reason rather poorly, and changed it. The third close reason is meant for purely calculation questions, as the title says, and I'll be adding more examples of questions that would be closed under this reason soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="c828ddf8-d86e-4c94-8e49-e0b48621b8da" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:19:12.503" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="There should be a flag to raise complaints like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Lacks research efforts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Transfer to Chemistry SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276969/how-supersonic-plan-could-create-shock-wave&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276969/how-supersonic-plan-could-create-shock-wave)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="c828ddf8-d86e-4c94-8e49-e0b48621b8da" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:19:12.503" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="Addition to the flags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="c828ddf8-d86e-4c94-8e49-e0b48621b8da" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:19:12.503" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9092" RevisionGUID="74cde05a-ee4f-46bf-8ff1-3f5bcb35a472" CreationDate="2016-08-29T11:16:23.167" UserId="124" Text="&gt; 1) Lacks research efforts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, this is not something to be flagged. Just downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Transfer to Chemistry SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this one, if you really have reason to believe the question would be on topic at Chemistry (for instance, you are a regular participant on that site and you know their scope), just use a custom moderator flag with wording like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Off topic here, but may be suitable for migration to Chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure whether it would be on topic there, just choose &quot;Blatantly off topic&quot;. Those who have enough reputation to vote to close with a custom off-topic reason can do that instead. I recommend the following wording:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off topic because it's about chemistry, not physics or astronomy. It may be appropriate on [chemistry.SE]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23357" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="e1fd24de-3a09-4d57-89f6-b970523edd08" CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:35:04.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/770268536245784576" />
  <row Id="23358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="426463df-f2d3-4b2b-b8cc-97f006bc0e04" CreationDate="2016-08-29T18:25:53.567" UserId="64669" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: The relation of it with science and religion. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in esoteric thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23359" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="b4ed6b73-96fb-4680-9a2f-c2abb75bd065" CreationDate="2016-08-30T14:35:07.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/770630936295776256" />
  <row Id="23360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="ad598f29-a278-4207-becd-4c6a35357200" CreationDate="2016-08-30T23:18:52.143" UserId="108554" Text="Title says it all.  My profile picture pattern just changed automatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked my old one better.  How can I restore it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIS8V.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="ad598f29-a278-4207-becd-4c6a35357200" CreationDate="2016-08-30T23:18:52.143" UserId="108554" Text="My profile picture pattern just changed automatically; how can I restore the old one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="ad598f29-a278-4207-becd-4c6a35357200" CreationDate="2016-08-30T23:18:52.143" UserId="108554" Text="|bug|profile-page|image|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="95316773-1223-4851-a0ab-474c73a36b2e" CreationDate="2016-08-30T23:54:12.473" UserId="8563" Text="Have you got an email address associated with your account? [Usually](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139071/) the stock profile picture (a.k.a. 'gravatar') is based on the [hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function) of your email address, but if you haven't linked one to this account then it reverts to the hash of your IP address. In that case, if you want the old picture you need to re-log in from your old IP, save the picture, and put it in specifically as a custom pic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="03bf9b4b-ea85-4fbf-a04a-9d49e7b4986b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T00:55:29.933" UserId="2451" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="Title says it all.  My profile picture pattern just changed automatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked my old one better.  How can I restore it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIS8V.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Documentation: My old has a 's=32':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8f797ea833cc6940de4268873d28c616?s=32&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8f797ea833cc6940de4268873d28c616?s=32&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while my new  has a 's=64':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8f797ea833cc6940de4268873d28c616?s=64&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8f797ea833cc6940de4268873d28c616?s=64&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="74dff146-75c0-4808-8f56-53d73d59a48b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:30:36.870" UserId="8563" Comment="added 608 characters in body" Text="Have you got an email address associated with your account? [Usually](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139071/) the stock profile picture (a.k.a. 'gravatar') is based on the [hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function) of your email address, but if you haven't linked one to this account then it reverts to the hash of your IP address. In that case, if you want the old picture you need to re-log in from your old IP, save the picture, and put it in specifically as a custom pic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you do have an email address associated with your account, it looks like something has indeed changed behind the scenes, and the solution probably involves setting a custom profile pic if you can recover the old one. Googling your username reveals this pretty interesting result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/35Djz.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old picture is still in the Google cache, but it's obviously pulling the new one now, so here it is for you before it disappears,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LMiM.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LMiM.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that may be your best shot at it. (If it is, in fact, your old pic - I don't really know what it looked like.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="8c7bad71-2a17-40ea-b195-e503d0ce9088" CreationDate="2016-08-31T12:33:13.297" UserId="23473" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="**Bad:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your question looks like: *&quot;Here is my homework. Solve it instead of me, now&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;* You scanned/photographed your textbook.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't show effort or curiosity towards the solution.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't bother to begin sentences with capital cases or end them with a &quot;.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't asking for the numerical solution; you want to understand how you can solve it for yourself&#xD;&#xA;* You are using Latex / MathJax formatting ([tutorial here][1])&#xD;&#xA;* You explain: 1) what you want 2) what you tried 3) why it doesn't work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget: closing a question is mostly a subjective decision. The reviewers see a &quot;close&quot; and a &quot;leave open&quot; button next to your question. Although there are site rules, it is mainly up to them how to interpret these rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23367" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="f89a5c1d-4d7d-47eb-8c3c-df637015a84d" CreationDate="2016-08-31T13:15:09.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="ad8688d5-75ea-4ea2-b5f4-aac13e14d982" CreationDate="2016-08-31T15:01:46.583" UserId="64669" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="cf494228-e51d-493a-8e91-6a51ba362cb1" CreationDate="2016-08-31T15:07:08.550" UserId="27166" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|image|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="af4e70dd-4bad-4217-bcac-ebfc2cab2671" CreationDate="2016-08-31T15:07:59.500" UserId="64669" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general. So, in a sense, people who don't understand me actually understood me better than myself and those who understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="ea8f03c7-f9b4-4ef0-b59b-0137705ea497" CreationDate="2016-08-31T21:31:51.067" UserId="121464" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy, or (hasn't been asked) &quot;Why do rocks fall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of subjectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that the check my work close reason should only be used for trivial calculation errors; questions about a conceptual mistake (for example, whether a certain formula is appropriate in a given situation) are on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Purely Calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, and a trivial calculation mistake, not a physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Purely Calculation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be **outsourcing a calculation** to the community without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept, show work and explain where you got stuck, or provide more context. For more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I originally worded the title to the third possible close reason rather poorly, and changed it. The third close reason is meant for purely calculation questions, as the title says, and I'll be adding more examples of questions that would be closed under this reason soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="b2e1d75f-0da8-4471-a7b7-f437797abf41" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:20:03.770" UserId="4846" Comment="The comments indicate that the quoted line may not be true. I don't want to discuss whether it is true, so I just make it clear that I quoted it." Text="&gt; The moderators tend to say when they delete comments, but the useres don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this were true (the comments indicate that it is not), then it would be a strong indication that this is a reasonable feature request. Whether it is possible to implement this sufficiently unobtrusive is a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In chat, deleted messages are indicated as &quot;(removed)&quot; with the user name still associated with the message, which feels much too intrusive. A suitable number of additional grey lines between two successive comments might be a nice indication of how many comments have been deleted. But ten grey lines would already become obtrusive again, so maybe it would be best to just have one additional grey line (in addition to the default grey line separating two comments) for a single deleted comment, and two additional grey lines for two or more deleted comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9095" RevisionGUID="c42fbfda-b3bb-4615-9f15-9d4af37d4c34" CreationDate="2016-09-02T11:06:53.160" UserId="30247" Text="Here is my take on the matter. First, let's think about what Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites are good for and what they are not good for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Q&amp;A site needs Questions, which can be answered in a concise fashion. There may be several good answers, but if a question needs books to be answered or many answers covering different topics (and thus many pages of answers), it's not a good fit.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that are an especially good fit are questions where there can be different angles from which to approach it so that many good answers can emerge. This also gives meaning to question ranking.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that spark discussions are a bad fit. &#xD;&#xA;- The specific idea of Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites is that the answers to questions and the questions themselves should be interesting to a broader audience. &#xD;&#xA;- If the questions are not interesting for very many people, they need to be of research quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as I see it, we have some tradeoff: If Q is the quality of the question in terms of how many people could answer it (&quot;research quality&quot;) and A is the audience that can get some new understanding from the question, then the product QA should be large for good questions. This leaves room for conceptual questions about basic theories as well as high level and extremely specific questions about research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we agree on the above, here is my take on what should be closed and what shouldn't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check-my-work:** Questions like &quot;Where is my mistake?&quot; or &quot;Did I do it right?&quot; come in two flavours: The first questions make one of a few very common mistakes. Those mistakes are common, because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. They should be closed but could be reworded to ask a conceptual question about the theory, which is interesting for many people. The other type of questions are just algebraic/mathematical mistakes. There are a myriad ways to make mistakes and thus the answer to the question is mostly only interesting to the asker and it usually also is of bad &quot;research quality&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; Close as check-my-work. If you think there is actually an interesting conceptual misunderstanding in the question, rewrite it and/or leave a comment. Then the question can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really low research effort:** Since most of the audience arrives by search engines, those people will actually do a Google search. If this will directly lead them to a Wikipedia article, what do they gain by coming here? So aside from the fact that low effort questions might disparage researchers from staying on the site, they should be closed because they don't actually have an audience: Why should you come here to get a link to the Wikipedia page you could already see in your Google search results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;  Close as &quot;low effort&quot;, if the question could be commented on by &quot;What about this [Wikipedia/other well-known source that pops up if you type the question into a search engine] is unclear&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are in my opinion the &quot;easy&quot; ones. Now come the &quot;hard&quot; ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Low effort) problems:** These are questions that essentially ask for the solution to a homework problem while providing or not providing own ideas. The problem with these questions is two-fold: a) if the asking party actually wants to understand the problem, you'd need to discuss with them --&gt; that's not a good fit for Q&amp;A, b) the audience for these questions is often only the asker him/herself (see &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a close reason such as &quot;no sufficient audience&quot; won't work and will only spark more discussion, as will &quot;homework&quot; ('oh, but that's not homework, I thought about this exercise myself'). One of the biggest problems is also that these questions are best answered by working with the person and asking questions and giving rough sketches and approaches - so they are just a bad fit anyway. This is particularly true for many questions where the author posts a lengthy and detailed list of her own failed effort. While those questions do signal that the author of the question doesn't just try to dump his problem on us, they are just generally a bad fit for Q&amp;A sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One idea could be the following: Introduce a close reason &quot;not conceptual&quot; and apply it to any questions, asking for one solution to a problem where most variables come with numbers attached. This would allow questions asking about how to generally approach inclined plane problems where a set of parameters is given, but it would disallow questions asking about inclined plane problems with a specific set of parameters (for instance and angle of 45°). Having a rule like &quot;A questions where a lot of variables are fixed is closed&quot; would eliminate some of the ambiguity of the word &quot;conceptual&quot;. It would also allow questions asking for different ways to approach some problem, which in my opinion is a valid conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pure calculations:** Calculations are also difficult, because they can come at any level - and any difficulty. Most calculation questions are only interesting for the person asking them, so they should be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often when somebody reads a paper, he/she may stumble over some step in a calculation or some line of an argument that they don't understand. What about such questions? Now, often, we can refer those questions to math.stackexchange and be done with it, but often the questions may involve physical approximations and are better left here. Not understanding some equation in a paper is something extremely common - sometimes the equation is also just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a platform to ask these questions would be a valuable aid to research, because it could save a lot of time (the idea of course being that I invest some time to explain details in a paper that I understood easily, saving the asker hours or days of searching, while some other times, I am the one asking). In principle, they are also a good fit for Q&amp;A and they should have a decent QA product. If we had arXiv-feedback, this could actually help other readers of the paper and enhance overall research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't want to explain simple equivalence transformations in middle school textbooks, where the person was just too lazy to think about it for five minutes. And we don't want to do tedious calculations in research papers that were left out, because they are lengthy but &quot;clear&quot; to researchers and the asking person is just too lazy to do them him/herself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to distinguish these two? If we want to have more people here who are doing research, it might be a good idea to allow paper questions and disallow all others (this would at least get rid of ambiguities). This is somewhat in line with the idea (http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/7409#7409)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but tries to be a bit more inclusive for research-level questions and a bit more exclusive to avoid ambiguities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One suggestion (needs work): Close non-paper related questions, which want to do outsource calculations with a specific &quot;tedious calculation&quot; close-reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="81fbd866-37ef-4469-9420-71b91e971f59" CreationDate="2016-09-02T13:13:01.350" UserId="23473" Text="Determining how to redefine this policy is a tricky subject. Not only because of the varying and contradictory opinions about it, but also because we seem to be tackling the issue from the middle. Admittedly, in football, that is a sound strategy, but in politics (and that's just what this is), it's often best to start from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we get ahead of ourselves, we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first question we need to ask ourselves is simply **&quot;What are the goals of this site?&quot;** What is it we want this site to represent? What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? Should it be by physicists and for physicists? Should it be a place where people can learn physics concepts? Should it be a homework help site? Again, many of you may think this an unnecessary step, but when there exists so much disagreement concerning a policy, it makes sense to retreat to a position where we can all agree on something and build from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question we should ask ourselves is **&quot;How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals and ideals of this site?&quot;** If the site's goals are to make it a place for professional physicists to ask/answer about research-level physics, how much leeway should we give for users to ask more basic questions? This answer needs to be weighed with how much any amount of deviation will detract from the ability of our site to live up to the goals we agree on. It also serves to provide necessary background and understanding so that everyone can be on the same logical page moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we get into some of the more contentious questions. Most close reasons are easy to determine; the ones we need to decide on are the off-topic sub-reasons. So the next thing we must ask ourselves is **&quot;What types/topics/formats of questions would be actively harmful towards meeting the goals/ideals of the site?&quot;** This should be applied to questions at all levels. By determining what is actively harmful towards the proposed site goals, we can more easily determine what is off-topic. We should also take this opportunity to realize that the freedoms we established in question 2 may indicate sub-goals of the site and that it may be the case that some questions, which do not directly contribute to the primary goals, may be beneficial or detrimental to the sub-goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last question we should be asking is **&quot;What commonalities in these harmful questions can be isolated as reasons to close a question as off-topic?&quot;** Here is the important step. This is a place to identify the important patterns in the questions we found to harm the site's objectives. We also should use this step to recognize any biases we have. For example, if we find that everyone is more lenient towards interesting questions, then we need to decide if policy should reflect this or not; allowing exceptions based on general interest or requiring that decisions be made with no regard to the popularity of the question. By approaching this from a standpoint of &quot;Why are these questions harmful to the goals of the site?&quot;, we can more easily divine the set of rules that would prevent such questions. But, again, in order to do that properly, we need to have the answers to all the previous questions agreed on and made explicit. I would expect that reasons like the non-mainstream one will remain, but we may find that our homework-like policy never enters into it. We may also find that much of the misuse of some close reasons spawn from a general disinterest of users, and not from any rational source. That would, of course, be a worst case scenario; I'm just giving examples. At any rate, this step also needs to keep in mind how enforceable any close-reason can be. As we once discovered, closing a question purely because it is taken from a homework assignment is not very enforceable. All one needs to do is slightly reword it and claim it is a genuine curiosity. Furthermore, something like closing because a question is too tedious is too subjective to be adequate. Obviously, reasons should be clear, defined, and effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I may jump back to the beginning of my post, we've been approaching this starting from the third question (David Z's thorough research). While I definitely see the appeal in this strategy and advocate it being a good first attempt, once this fails (as we noticed it did), we should go back and truly start from the beginning. It's a longer process that *should* help to create a more permanent solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, some of you may point out that I haven't actually done anything towards saying how we could answer these questions, nor have I suggested any way the home-work policy should be changed or researched. You're right. At the moment, I don't see much point in trying to directly address the homework policy, nor can I imagine a situation where we could conduct research a find a clear solution. And if I had included my own answers to the questions I presented, you'd all have voted on whether or not you agree with my answers to those questions as opposed to agreeing with the issue of whether or not the questions need to be addressed at all. Additionally, as demonstrated, people don't seem to have any one thing in mind when they use the homework reason, so the only way I know to fix that is to establish a basis that gets everyone on the same page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to be building a house on sand and every time the tide comes in, we question why part of this house gets washed away and every time, we try to rebuild that section newer and better. Instead, I merely suggest we tear it all down and lay a proper foundation before attempting to build it back up. The tide may eventually erode the foundation, but at least it'll last a good while longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="5d6b948d-e0bc-4d69-82c1-aef6aaee8e95" CreationDate="2016-09-02T13:48:09.013" UserId="23473" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Determining how to redefine this policy is a tricky subject. Not only because of the varying and contradictory opinions about it, but also because we seem to be tackling the issue from the middle. Admittedly, in football, that is a sound strategy, but in politics (and that's just what this is), it's often best to start from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we get ahead of ourselves, we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first question we need to ask ourselves is simply **&quot;What are the goals of this site?&quot;** What is it we want this site to represent? What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? Should it be by physicists and for physicists? Should it be a place where people can learn physics concepts? Should it be a homework help site? Again, many of you may think this an unnecessary step, but when there exists so much disagreement concerning a policy, it makes sense to retreat to a position where we can all agree on something and build from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question we should ask ourselves is **&quot;How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals and ideals of this site?&quot;** If the site's goals are to make it a place for professional physicists to ask/answer about research-level physics, how much leeway should we give for users to ask more basic questions? This answer needs to be weighed with how much any amount of deviation will detract from the ability of our site to live up to the goals we agree on. It also serves to provide necessary background and understanding so that everyone can be on the same logical page moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we get into some of the more contentious questions. Most close reasons are easy to determine; the ones we need to decide on are the off-topic sub-reasons. So the next thing we must ask ourselves is **&quot;What types/topics/formats of questions would be actively harmful towards meeting the goals/ideals of the site?&quot;** This should be applied to questions at all levels. By determining what is actively harmful towards the proposed site goals, we can more easily determine what is off-topic. We should also take this opportunity to realize that the freedoms we established in question 2 may indicate sub-goals of the site and that it may be the case that some questions, which do not directly contribute to the primary goals, may be beneficial or detrimental to the sub-goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last question we should be asking is **&quot;What commonalities in these harmful questions can be isolated as reasons to close a question as off-topic?&quot;** Here is the important step. This is a place to identify the important patterns in the questions we found to harm the site's objectives. We also should use this step to recognize any biases we have. For example, if we find that everyone is more lenient towards interesting questions, then we need to decide if policy should reflect this or not; allowing exceptions based on general interest or requiring that decisions be made with no regard to the popularity of the question. By approaching this from a standpoint of &quot;Why are these questions harmful to the goals of the site?&quot;, we can more easily divine the set of rules that would prevent such questions. But, again, in order to do that properly, we need to have the answers to all the previous questions agreed on and made explicit. I would expect that reasons like the non-mainstream one will remain, but we may find that our homework-like policy never enters into it. We may also find that much of the misuse of some close reasons spawn from a general disinterest of users, and not from any rational source. That would, of course, be a worst case scenario; I'm just giving examples. At any rate, this step also needs to keep in mind how enforceable any close-reason can be. As we once discovered, closing a question purely because it is taken from a homework assignment is not very enforceable. All one needs to do is slightly reword it and claim it is a genuine curiosity. Furthermore, something like closing because a question is too tedious is too subjective to be adequate. Obviously, reasons should be clear, defined, and effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I may jump back to the beginning of my post, we've been approaching this starting from the third question (David Z's thorough research). While I definitely see the appeal in this strategy and advocate it being a good first attempt, once this fails (as we noticed it did), we should go back and truly start from the beginning. It's a longer process that *should* help to create a more permanent solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, some of you may point out that I haven't actually done anything towards saying how we could answer these questions, nor have I suggested any way the home-work policy should be changed or researched. You're right. At the moment, I don't see much point in trying to directly address the homework policy, nor can I imagine a situation where we could conduct research and find a clear solution. And if I had included my own answers to the questions I presented, you'd all have voted on whether or not you agree with my answers to those questions as opposed to agreeing with the issue of whether or not the questions need to be addressed at all. Additionally, as demonstrated, people don't seem to have any one thing in mind when they use the homework reason, so the only way I know to fix that is to establish a basis that gets everyone on the same page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to be building a house on sand and every time the tide comes in, we question why part of this house gets washed away and every time, we try to rebuild that section newer and better. Instead, I merely suggest we tear it all down and lay a proper foundation before attempting to build it back up. The tide may eventually erode the foundation, but at least it'll last a good while longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9095" RevisionGUID="bee6faa9-f8ea-4c33-9641-ad4692de7d70" CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:05:04.623" UserId="30247" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Here is my take on the matter. First, let's think about what Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites are good for and what they are not good for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Q&amp;A site needs Questions, which can be answered in a concise fashion. There may be several good answers, but if a question needs books to be answered or many answers covering different topics (and thus many pages of answers), it's not a good fit.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that are an especially good fit are questions where there can be different angles from which to approach it so that many good answers can emerge. This also gives meaning to question ranking.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that spark discussions are a bad fit. &#xD;&#xA;- The specific idea of Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites is that the answers to questions and the questions themselves should be interesting to a broader audience. &#xD;&#xA;- If the questions are not interesting for very many people, they need to be of research quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as I see it, we have some tradeoff: If Q is the quality of the question in terms of how many people could answer it (&quot;research quality&quot;) and A is the audience that can get some new understanding from the question, then the product QA should be large for good questions. This leaves room for conceptual questions about basic theories as well as high level and extremely specific questions about research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we agree on the above, here is my take on what should be closed and what shouldn't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check-my-work:** Questions like &quot;Where is my mistake?&quot; or &quot;Did I do it right?&quot; come in two flavours: The first questions make one of a few very common mistakes. Those mistakes are common, because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. They should be closed but could be reworded to ask a conceptual question about the theory, which is interesting for many people. The other type of questions are just algebraic/mathematical mistakes. There are a myriad ways to make mistakes and thus the answer to the question is mostly only interesting to the asker and it usually also is of bad &quot;research quality&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; Close as check-my-work. If you think there is actually an interesting conceptual misunderstanding in the question, rewrite it and/or leave a comment. Then the question can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really low research effort:** Since most of the audience arrives by search engines, those people will actually do a Google search. If this will directly lead them to a Wikipedia article, what do they gain by coming here? So aside from the fact that low effort questions might disparage researchers from staying on the site, they should be closed because they don't actually have an audience: Why should you come here to get a link to the Wikipedia page you could already see in your Google search results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;  Close as &quot;low effort&quot;, if the question could be commented on by &quot;What about this [Wikipedia/other well-known source that pops up if you type the question into a search engine] is unclear&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are in my opinion the &quot;easy&quot; ones. Now come the &quot;hard&quot; ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Low effort) problems:** These are questions that essentially ask for the solution to a homework problem while providing or not providing own ideas. The problem with these questions is two-fold: a) if the asking party actually wants to understand the problem, you'd need to discuss with them --&gt; that's not a good fit for Q&amp;A, b) the audience for these questions is often only the asker him/herself (see &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a close reason such as &quot;no sufficient audience&quot; won't work and will only spark more discussion, as will &quot;homework&quot; ('oh, but that's not homework, I thought about this exercise myself'). One of the biggest problems is also that these questions are best answered by working with the person and asking questions and giving rough sketches and approaches - so they are just a bad fit anyway. This is particularly true for many questions where the author posts a lengthy and detailed list of her own failed effort. While those questions do signal that the author of the question doesn't just try to dump his problem on us, they are just generally a bad fit for Q&amp;A sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One idea could be the following: Introduce a close reason &quot;not conceptual&quot; and apply it to any questions, asking for one solution to a problem where most variables come with numbers attached. This would allow questions asking about how to generally approach inclined plane problems where a set of parameters is given, but it would disallow questions asking about inclined plane problems with a specific set of parameters (for instance and angle of 45°). Having a rule like &quot;A questions where a lot of variables are fixed is closed&quot; would eliminate some of the ambiguity of the word &quot;conceptual&quot;. It would also allow questions asking for different ways to approach some problem, which in my opinion is a valid conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pure calculations:** Calculations are also difficult, because they can come at any level - and any difficulty. Most calculation questions are only interesting for the person asking them, so they should be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often when somebody reads a paper, he/she may stumble over some step in a calculation or some line of an argument that they don't understand. What about such questions? Now, often, we can refer those questions to math.stackexchange and be done with it, but often the questions may involve physical approximations and are better left here. Not understanding some equation in a paper is something extremely common - sometimes the equation is also just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a platform to ask these questions would be a valuable aid to research, because it could save a lot of time (the idea of course being that I invest some time to explain details in a paper that I understood easily, saving the asker hours or days of searching, while some other times, I am the one asking). In principle, they are also a good fit for Q&amp;A and they should have a decent QA product. If we had arXiv-feedback, this could actually help other readers of the paper and enhance overall research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't want to explain simple equivalence transformations in middle school textbooks, where the person was just too lazy to think about it for five minutes. And we don't want to do calculations in research papers that were left out, because they are tedious but foundational to the field and can be looked up in text books asking person is just too lazy to do them him/herself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to distinguish these two? If we want to have more people here who are doing research, it might be a good idea to allow paper questions and disallow all others (this would at least get rid of ambiguities). This is somewhat in line with the idea (http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/7409#7409)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but tries to be a bit more inclusive for research-level questions and a bit more exclusive to avoid ambiguities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One suggestion (needs work): Close non-paper related questions, which want to do outsource calculations with a specific &quot;tedious calculation&quot; close-reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="6923d406-61b8-466d-aeee-d4de8251ce4c" CreationDate="2016-09-03T03:00:09.953" UserId="148704" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277688/space-elevator-solved&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand what is unclear about this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="6923d406-61b8-466d-aeee-d4de8251ce4c" CreationDate="2016-09-03T03:00:09.953" UserId="148704" Text="How does a simple question get put hold for being unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="6923d406-61b8-466d-aeee-d4de8251ce4c" CreationDate="2016-09-03T03:00:09.953" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="7d63e477-f8ee-4573-ba68-966f0c8d5ddc" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:28:24.653" UserId="106205" Text="I think I my questions have been clear enough and still they have been put on hold, or closed. There are a couple of members who are always among the close voters. Is there a way I can stop this bias?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="7d63e477-f8ee-4573-ba68-966f0c8d5ddc" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:28:24.653" UserId="106205" Text="How can you challenge if I think my questions are unfairly closed or put on hold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="7d63e477-f8ee-4573-ba68-966f0c8d5ddc" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:28:24.653" UserId="106205" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="efaaeadf-9af2-47a9-b6a6-1096c99f10d1" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:42:16.013" UserId="106205" Comment="added 651 characters in body" Text="I think I my questions have been clear enough and still they have been put on hold, or closed. There are a couple of members who are always among the close voters. Is there a way I can stop this bias?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are my questions that I think were closed in spite of my repeated attempt to clarify. These are my last four questions in a row. You can see few members being there pretty frequently voting for close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/quantum-entanglement-observation-in-experimental-data-that-may-be-unexpected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275678/quantum-entanglement-correlations-role-of-probability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273507/memory-loophole-in-quantum-entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270780/what-is-meant-by-when-we-say-more-than-two-say-4-particles-are-entangled&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="1e5c29bd-9dad-40e0-aae0-1645ab532886" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:03:00.063" UserId="118847" Text="In general, I think the correct way to challenge any closing behaviour that seems weird is to write a meta post and discuss it here, so I think it was a good idea to open this thread.  &#xD;&#xA;I however think your description of the situation is a bit dramatic. There is one person who actually voted to close in all four cases - who just happens to be a rather active member here and probably just went to check the queue more often. Otherwise, if I have counted correctly, the 16 hold votes were cast by 13 different people. So there is quite a broad spectrum.  &#xD;&#xA;And I have to admit that I really do not understand what you are asking in any of the four questions either - I am really and honestly sorry for that, but I do not understand it. Maybe talking about the topic with someone in the chat to crystallise the question would be a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="ffc3712f-136e-48d2-a24a-1f465ba66ae3" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:18:22.393" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I think I my questions have been clear enough and still they have been put on hold, or closed. There are a couple of members who are always among the close voters. Is there a way I can stop this bias?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are my questions that I think were closed in spite of my repeated attempt to clarify. These are my last four questions in a row. You can see few members being there pretty frequently voting for close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/quantum-entanglement-observation-in-experimental-data-that-may-be-unexpected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275678/quantum-entanglement-correlations-role-of-probability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273507/memory-loophole-in-quantum-entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270780/what-is-meant-by-when-we-say-more-than-two-say-4-particles-are-entangled" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23390" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="ffc3712f-136e-48d2-a24a-1f465ba66ae3" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:18:22.393" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can you challenge if I think my questions are unfairly closed or put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="13544beb-4355-4ff9-b6e1-f2b9e92cb6d5" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:27:59.613" UserId="32426" Text="You have more that 2000 reputation points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I am the single 3k+ user on the site regularly revisiting the VtC votes and tries to save, what is salvageable. There are some others, too, but they are not really active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we have an inner circle around in 4-6 persons who are regular voters and don't hesitate to close your question if they think it is maybe homework-like, or it is maybe unclear. Or any other. The close reasons of the site are far *too broad* and *unclear*, and it seems they don't hesitate to interpret them always the possible most widely. Their real reason, why they have to continously annoy and harm goodstanding people, is still unclear to me. Asking them for that, I got mostly arrogant reactions and algorithmic citation of well-know rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you are now at 2k+, then the 3k+ is also not too far. The site requires lenience, friendliness and the spectrum of the VtC had to get to an end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest to get the 3k+ ASAP and try to help our VtC voters to differentiate between the *really* offtopic posts and the answerable ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="def3acd0-b49e-474d-8836-e8ffe1079917" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:34:22.157" UserId="32426" Comment="added 632 characters in body" Text="You have more that 2000 reputation points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I am the single 3k+ user on the site regularly revisiting the VtC votes and tries to save, what is salvageable. There are some others, too, but they are not really active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we have an inner circle around in 4-6 persons who are regular voters and don't hesitate to close your question if they think it is maybe homework-like, or it is maybe unclear. Or any other. The close reasons of the site are far *too broad* and *unclear*, and it seems they don't hesitate to interpret them always the possible most widely. Their real reason, why they have to continously annoy and harm goodstanding people, is still unclear to me. Asking them for that, I got mostly arrogant reactions and algorithmic citation of well-know rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you are now at 2k+, then the 3k+ is also not too far. The site requires lenience, friendliness, the spectrum of the VtC reasons needs to be cleared, and the current VtC rampage had to get to an end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest to get the 3k+ ASAP and try to help our VtC voters to differentiate between the *really* offtopic posts and the answerable ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the StackOverflow was in a quite similar state until around the spring 2015 moderator election. After that, their behavior suddenly changed. It is already a surprisingly friendly site. Some vehement moderators silently stepped down, others toke back. Some particularly hostile inner circle members became quite friendly moderators after they got their long-wanted diamond. I don't know, what was in the background, probably I won't ever know it, but I suspect it was actually an induced change from the CM side. I suspect, some similar could happen also there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="2e3c9917-138d-4074-a30f-2c7d8fd3f9e7" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:51:15.943" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="You have more that 2000 reputation points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I am the single 3k+ user on the site regularly revisiting the VtC votes, trying to save, what is salvageable. There are some others, too, but they are not really active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we have an inner circle around in 4-6 persons who are regular voters and don't hesitate to close your question if they think it is maybe homework-like, or it is maybe unclear. Or any other. The close reasons of the site are far *too broad* and *unclear*, and it seems they don't hesitate to interpret them always the possible most widely. Their real reason, why they have to continously annoy and harm goodstanding people, is still unclear to me. Asking them for that, I got mostly arrogant reactions and algorithmic citation of well-know rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you are now at 2k+, then the 3k+ is also not too far. The site requires lenience, friendliness, the spectrum of the VtC reasons needs to be cleared, and the current VtC rampage has to get to an end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest to get the 3k+ ASAP and try to help our VtC voters to differentiate between the *really* offtopic posts and the answerable ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the StackOverflow was in a quite similar state until around the spring 2015 moderator election. After that, their behavior suddenly changed. It is already a surprisingly friendly site. Some vehement moderators silently stepped down, others toke back. Some particularly hostile inner circle members became quite friendly moderators after they got their long-wanted diamond. I don't know, what was in the background, probably I won't ever know it, but I suspect it was actually an induced change from the CM side. I suspect, some similar could happen also there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="ed0e6e29-b712-43c3-b698-ce4487b1390e" CreationDate="2016-09-03T22:16:50.190" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="You have more than 2000 reputation points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I am the single 3k+ user on the site regularly revisiting the VtC votes, trying to save, what is salvageable. There are some others, too, but they are not really active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we have an inner circle around in 4-6 persons who are regular voters and don't hesitate to close your question if they think it is maybe homework-like, or it is maybe unclear. Or any other. The close reasons of the site are far *too broad* and *unclear*, and it seems they don't hesitate to interpret them always the possible most widely. Their real reason, why they have to continously annoy and harm goodstanding people, is still unclear to me. Asking them for that, I got mostly arrogant reactions and algorithmic citation of well-know rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you are now at 2k+, then the 3k+ is also not too far. The site requires lenience, friendliness, the spectrum of the possible close reasons needs to be cleared, and the current VtC rampage has to get to an end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest to get the 3k+ ASAP and try to help our VtC voters to differentiate between the *really* offtopic posts and the answerable ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the StackOverflow was in a quite similar state until around the spring 2015 moderator election. After that, their behavior suddenly changed. It is already a surprisingly friendly site. Some vehement moderators silently stepped down, others toke back. Some particularly hostile inner circle members became quite friendly moderators after they got their long-wanted diamond. I don't know, what was in the background, probably I won't ever know it, but I suspect it was actually an induced change from the CM side. I suspect, some similar could happen also there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="375c98fa-c7bc-418a-9071-e063f8df72b7" CreationDate="2016-09-03T23:30:06.230" UserId="83398" Text="I voted to close [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275678/quantum-entanglement-correlations-role-of-probability) for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It was extremely unclear when it was posted. I asked you to make several clarifications, after which it was _still_ unclear. After more requests from clarification from two separate users, and seven revisions in total, it finally made sense. But most close votes had been cast before then.&#xD;&#xA;- All four of your questions are about 'quantum entanglement', but none of them clearly define what quantum system you're working with. You keep asking about the 'statistical correlation', but you don't define what you're correlating, and you often mix up entanglement with correlation, when these phenomena are totally distinct. (This problem is invisible to people who don't know quantum mechanics, because your question _was_ phrased in grammatically correct English sentences, but it's clear to people who do. That's why you need 3k+ to vote to close.)&#xD;&#xA;- All four of your questions are made to promote your personal theory of quantum entanglement. If you want feedback on this theory, you should just state outright what it is. If you don't, we're just going to answer with what standard quantum mechanics says, and in all 4 of your questions, it just says &quot;no&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="4c0a24b8-31a0-40fd-9408-5bd3a1d17a32" CreationDate="2016-09-03T23:36:05.507" UserId="83398" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="I voted to close [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275678/quantum-entanglement-correlations-role-of-probability) for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It was extremely unclear when it was posted. I asked you to make several clarifications, after which it was _still_ unclear. After more requests from clarification from two separate users, and seven revisions in total, it finally made sense. But most close votes had been cast before then.&#xD;&#xA;- All four of your questions are about 'quantum entanglement', but none of them clearly define what quantum system you're working with. You keep asking about the 'statistical correlation', but you don't define what you're correlating, and you often mix up entanglement with correlation, when these phenomena are totally distinct. (This problem is invisible to people who don't know quantum mechanics, because your question _was_ phrased in grammatically correct English sentences, but it's clear to people who do. That's why you need 3k+ to vote to close.)&#xD;&#xA;- All four of your questions are made to promote your personal theory of quantum entanglement. If you want feedback on this theory, you should just state outright what it is. If you don't, we're just going to answer with what standard quantum mechanics says, and in all 4 of your questions, it just says &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the above, I think your questions were rightly closed. Some of them may be accidentally reopened by people who aren't paying too much attention (because it looks vaguely grammatically correct, as in my second point)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="cb737e79-4951-462b-b6eb-a55fb2a6907a" CreationDate="2016-09-04T11:32:46.003" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You have more than 2000 reputation points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I am the single 3k+ user on the site regularly revisiting the VtC votes, trying to save, what is salvageable. There are some others, too, but they are not really active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we have an inner circle around in 4-6 persons who are regular voters and don't hesitate to close your question if they think it is maybe homework-like, or it is maybe unclear. Or any other. The close reasons of the site are far *too broad* and *unclear*, and it seems they don't hesitate to interpret them always the possible most widely. Their real reason, why they have to continously annoy and harm goodstanding people, is still unclear to me. Asking them for that, I got mostly arrogant reactions and algorithmic citation of well-known rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you are now at 2k+, then the 3k+ is also not too far. The site requires lenience, friendliness, the spectrum of the possible close reasons needs to be cleared, and the current VtC rampage has to get to an end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest to get the 3k+ ASAP and try to help our VtC voters to differentiate between the *really* offtopic posts and the answerable ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the StackOverflow was in a quite similar state until around the spring 2015 moderator election. After that, their behavior suddenly changed. It is already a surprisingly friendly site. Some vehement moderators silently stepped down, others toke back. Some particularly hostile inner circle members became quite friendly moderators after they got their long-wanted diamond. I don't know, what was in the background, probably I won't ever know it, but I suspect it was actually an induced change from the CM side. I suspect, some similar could happen also there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="e1ce70af-c2a9-429d-8d2a-b0f72268273c" CreationDate="2016-09-04T20:53:20.343" UserId="108333" Text="I have only been a member for a few months, but find the site both very good, and pretty fair. Not saying all is perfect, but enough good, imo. I looked to see if there was a similar question to the one posed, didn't find one, but I do think the topic has been discussed before. If so, just point me to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have observed, and maybe a little more specifically in the last couple of weeks, a number of questions that are basically arguing that some known physics is false. I've seen it a few time for relativity and Einstein's work. But it seems to be more general, though that topic surfaces plenty. Some of the time the questions are put on hold and maybe later closed, but not always. Worse, I see that answers that attempt to answer the questions, which are often but not always pretty good, tend to get votes, as well as the questions. Sometimes the answers or comments are more of the same physics negation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those questions or comments seem to come from users without a significant reputation. [But to insure it is clear I am not impugning those members, sometimes new ones, most of low reputation members questions are actually very good, and of value to the whole community, imo]. So my question is, is there a kind of targeting of this site by some groups to introduce a kind of anti physics or some other intent that devalues the policies of this site? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is random I wouldn't be concerned, it just seems like a lot of nonsense sometimes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="e1ce70af-c2a9-429d-8d2a-b0f72268273c" CreationDate="2016-09-04T20:53:20.343" UserId="108333" Text="Is Physics SE being targeted by people opposing the modern view of physics, and so called myth busters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="e1ce70af-c2a9-429d-8d2a-b0f72268273c" CreationDate="2016-09-04T20:53:20.343" UserId="108333" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|comments|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="2ca03b05-bcae-40a9-8fa2-a67fda4f31f6" CreationDate="2016-09-04T20:59:12.847" UserId="108333" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="I have only been a member for a few months, but find the site both very good, and pretty fair. Not saying all is perfect, but enough good, imo. I looked to see if there was a similar question to the one posed, didn't find one, but I do think the topic has been discussed before. If so, just point me to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have observed, and maybe a little more specifically in the last couple of weeks, a number of questions that are basically arguing that some known physics is false. I've seen it a few time for relativity and Einstein's work. But it seems to be more general, though that topic surfaces plenty. Some of the time the questions are put on hold and maybe later closed, but not always. Worse, I see that answers that attempt to answer the questions, which are often but not always pretty good, tend to get votes, as well as the questions. Sometimes the answers or comments are more of the same physics negation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those questions or comments seem to come from users without a significant reputation. [But to insure it is clear I am not impugning those members, sometimes new ones, most of low reputation members questions are actually very good, and of value to the whole community, imo]. So my question is, is there a kind of targeting of this site by some groups to introduce a kind of anti physics or some other intent that devalues the policies of this site? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is random I wouldn't be concerned, it just seems like a lot of nonsense sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent example I saw was http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278178/does-einsteins-derivation-of-the-lorentz-transformation-have-a-mathematical-err" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="d644cbe3-6e3b-4837-bd4f-298be86d04e9" CreationDate="2016-09-04T22:15:59.700" UserId="32426" Text="In my opinion, this question tried to validate a non-mainstream &lt;strike&gt;ideology&lt;/strike&gt; theory. I think it could have a better place on the Skeptics SE, but it is border case in the PSE. In an ideal world, it had been migrated there. Actually, we can try to migrate it to there, although it needs a moderator intervention, and they will do it only after they have got the approval of the target site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far I know, there are no &lt;strike&gt;pseudoscience fans&lt;/strike&gt; non-mainstram physics advocates here, although some questions relating the wormholes, white holes, and similar not yet observed GR things, are closed with surprising probability as non-mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a single user advocating his non-mainstream theory, except that he is sad because they aren't accepted, he is being tolerated. And his theory is not so bad, only not really believable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From no one I know from the unpopular members and ex-members of this community to be a non-mainstream theorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also debates about the policies of the site, for example, currently a significant part of the questions are unfairly closed as &quot;homework&quot; even if they clearly aren't, and they would be a nice content here. There are also other problems as well, but not from this side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="1381b9fb-39a6-4802-bf72-b7cceb4d6be6" CreationDate="2016-09-04T23:45:30.657" UserId="8563" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="Have you got an email address associated with your account? [Usually](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139071/) the stock profile picture (a.k.a. 'gravatar') is based on the [hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function) of your email address, but if you haven't linked one to this account then it reverts to the hash of your IP address. In that case, if you want the old picture you need to re-log in from your old IP, save the picture, and put it in specifically as a custom pic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you do have an email address associated with your account, it looks like something has indeed changed behind the scenes, and the solution probably involves setting a custom profile pic if you can recover the old one. Googling your username reveals this pretty interesting result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/35Djz.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old picture is still in the Google cache, but it's obviously pulling the new one now, so here it is for you before it disappears,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LMiM.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LMiM.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that may be your best shot at it. (If it is, in fact, your old pic - I don't really know what it looked like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here is @Qmechanic's in case s/he wants the old picture back:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ELOe1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new one weirds me out, to be honest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="f7c440ec-fab9-4676-b0b9-a5f4bc254ea2" CreationDate="2016-09-05T02:06:28.837" UserId="106205" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I challenge if I think my questions are unfairly closed or put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="56be20ce-d36a-4fd1-8db3-37f5498d01b4" CreationDate="2016-09-05T02:28:18.047" UserId="90492" Text="A lot of times after asking a question I can think of some people on StackExchange who may be interested in my question, or even able to answer my question. It would be very convenient if on the some page of my question, there is a button to message those people about my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="56be20ce-d36a-4fd1-8db3-37f5498d01b4" CreationDate="2016-09-05T02:28:18.047" UserId="90492" Text="Can we add an &quot;ask to answer&quot; feature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="56be20ce-d36a-4fd1-8db3-37f5498d01b4" CreationDate="2016-09-05T02:28:18.047" UserId="90492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="9820eaa7-5ee6-4504-beb0-d7ac401bae1a" CreationDate="2016-09-05T05:08:34.490" UserDisplayName="user10851" Text="There is already a thread on meta dedicated to something like this: [Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions][1]. If a person has opted in there, feel free to place a comment under their post to let them know about a question they might be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is definitely opt-in -- there is not, [nor will there ever be][2], a feature to allow arbitrary pinging of users who haven't even participated in a thread. Remember, this is a question and answer site, not a social network, and the experts are already giving precious time to answer questions as it is. If the site allowed anyone to initiate conversations with anyone else requesting assistance, all of the experts would quickly abandon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note there is a tendency for inexperienced members to single out certain high-rep individuals as being the only people capable of answering questions. You should avoid this tendency. For the vast majority of questions asked on this site, *many* people can give equally satisfactory answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/431/any-way-to-send-a-personal-message-to-another-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="b1781570-c310-4b2f-a38d-9f3db324c1bc" CreationDate="2016-09-05T09:06:38.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="924117c2-a72a-4162-ae63-e28bd8680c83" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:23:59.243" UserId="83398" Text="There are a lot of questions posted which ask about what mainstream physics says about something, but imply that the OP has a completely different opinion. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278393/lets-get-back-to-the-ether-what-is-it. The OP has some theory about the ether, as shown in their answers on other questions, and wants to get opinions &quot;before giving my own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/does-this-observation-in-a-probabilistic-experiment-indicate-presence-of-a-balan. This question (v1) asks if some experimental data is a &quot;coincidence&quot;. The OP has already published a paper claiming that it is _not_ a coincidence and is evidence for a non-mainstream modification of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266904/in-einsteins-relativity-of-simultaneity-thought-experiment-would-not-the-pas In this question (v1), OP asked if I &quot;admit&quot; that special relativity says something happens in a thought experiment. 10 comments later, OP triumphantly reveals that an extension to this thought experiment is supposed to disprove special relativity (it does not).&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon The OP already has extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like answering any of these questions, because they feel fundamentally unproductive. The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion, or as an opening to argue with people posting answers. They can't learn anything from the answers because they already have their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's no close reason that directly addresses this kind of question. I believe all of these questions _should_ be closed, but all close reasons above are incorrect. For example, one might try to close as 'non mainstream' or 'opinion based', but neither of those are true. The actual questions have clear, non-opinion-based, mainstream answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people try to use the 'unclear what you're asking' close reason, because this is also incorrect, because there _is_ a well-defined question in each of these. I think people use this reason because it looks like OP really has another, completely different question (e.g. &quot;is my theory correct&quot;) in mind, but this takes some reading between the lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example above, Emilio Pisanty states that the question should be closed because it's a &quot;request for peer review&quot;, but there's no close reason for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should these types of questions be handled?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="924117c2-a72a-4162-ae63-e28bd8680c83" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:23:59.243" UserId="83398" Text="Questions with an ulterior motive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="924117c2-a72a-4162-ae63-e28bd8680c83" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:23:59.243" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9111" RevisionGUID="7fa18fc4-30a5-4f40-82a2-b9500db2bcfe" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:47:29.257" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; How should these types of questions be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should answer them. If you can't answer them, so be it. Don't carp and complain and make up all sort of fatuous reasons why such questions should be closed *because* you can't answer them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I do not have _&quot;extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is.&quot;_ I refer to peer-reviewed papers and robust scientific evidence in my questions and answers. However some people reject it all as &quot;non-mainstream&quot; because it doesn't square with some popscience lies-to-children they've accepted unquestioningly. For example they reject aether out of hand despite [what Einstein said](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity), despite [what Robert Laughlin said](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum), and despite [all the papers on the arXiv](http://arxiv.org:443/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+aether/0/1/0/all/0/1). Because they think they know better, when they don't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions with an ulterior motive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detect a certain irony here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZzCzk.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="3542a7a9-c101-4d12-8c4c-94766e2e17ce" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:09:18.743" UserId="32426" Text="Somewhere I've heard a rumor that a post gets out of the review queue if a 3k+ user edits it as part of the review. It may be an unintended side-effect, or a non-trivial interpretation of the spirit of the review votes from the software development side of the SE engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens if a 3k+ user makes this edit out of the review queue? (I.e. right click on the post title, opening it in a new tab and doing the edit in it?) Does this side-effect happen also in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="3542a7a9-c101-4d12-8c4c-94766e2e17ce" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:09:18.743" UserId="32426" Text="If a 3k+ user edits a post out of the VtC review, does it get out of the review queue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="3542a7a9-c101-4d12-8c4c-94766e2e17ce" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:09:18.743" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="9083df3c-99d8-4664-928b-3d76139988aa" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:17:41.963" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I've heard on the chat, that a post gets out of the review queue if a 3k+ user edits it as part of the review. More details can be found [here][1]. It may be an unintended side-effect, or a non-trivial interpretation of the spirit of the review votes from the software development side of the SE engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens if a 3k+ user makes this edit out of the review queue? (I.e. right click on the post title, opening it in a new tab and doing the edit in it?) Does this side-effect happen also in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/162058/259412" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="c55453f1-0905-4cd5-895a-946934a69e0a" CreationDate="2016-09-05T22:01:03.577" UserId="50583" Text="If the question itself is mainstream and merely appears to be asked &quot;in bad faith&quot;, this is not a reason for closure. We judge *questions*, not their *askers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, many of these questions trot out questions asked before. The usual duplicate policies apply, and should be stringently enforced. Unless a *specific* question is asked that distinguishes the new question from older ones, these questions should be closed as duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is otherwise on-topic, that means that the &quot;ulterior motive&quot; itself cannot be a relevant part of it. References to personal theories or &quot;alternative viewpoints&quot; should be removed by editing, especially if they are of a promotional nature. In the cases where the non-standard material cannot be removed without making the question non-sensical, then you've found the close reason: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's &quot;non-mainstream&quot;, because it then is asking about the evaluation of non-mainstream theories instead of asking about accepted physics. It might also be *too broad*, or off-topic by the part of the &quot;non-mainstream&quot; policy against requests for review, because removing the material the asker wanted to have validated might turn the question into a request for redoing that entire analysis (correctly). Either way, there's your close reason perfectly within the already established close reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="302547dd-8c09-4d9c-9eea-23b979ab8975" CreationDate="2016-09-05T22:42:00.547" UserId="83398" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="There are a lot of questions posted which ask about what mainstream physics says about something, but imply that the OP has a completely different opinion. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278393/lets-get-back-to-the-ether-what-is-it. The OP has some theory about the ether, as shown in their answers on other questions, and wants to get opinions &quot;before giving my own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/does-this-observation-in-a-probabilistic-experiment-indicate-presence-of-a-balan. This question (v1) asks if some experimental data is a &quot;coincidence&quot;. The OP has already published a paper claiming that it is _not_ a coincidence and is evidence for a non-mainstream modification of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266904/in-einsteins-relativity-of-simultaneity-thought-experiment-would-not-the-pas In this question (v1), OP asked if I &quot;admit&quot; that special relativity says something happens in a thought experiment. 10 comments later, OP triumphantly reveals that an extension to this thought experiment is supposed to disprove special relativity (it does not).&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon The OP already has extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like answering any of these questions, because they feel fundamentally unproductive. The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion, or as an opening to argue with people posting answers. They can't learn anything from the answers because they already have their own. And half the time the OP drags answerers in long and unproductive debates in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's no close reason that directly addresses this kind of question. I believe all of these questions _should_ be closed, but all close reasons above are incorrect. For example, one might try to close as 'non mainstream' or 'opinion based', but neither of those are true. The actual questions have clear, non-opinion-based, mainstream answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people try to use the 'unclear what you're asking' close reason, because this is also incorrect, because there _is_ a well-defined question in each of these. I think people use this reason because it looks like OP really has another, completely different question (e.g. &quot;is my theory correct&quot;) in mind, but this takes some reading between the lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should these types of questions be handled?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="b97f0ba0-fe48-46d3-9d41-969dfb89a5cf" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:16:08.757" UserId="121464" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - Who is this site for?&#xD;&#xA; - Should this be a concept-only site, a problem-only site, both, a homework help site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be creating some skeleton answers, just for voting purposes. At the end, hopefully the community will have reached a consensus and an overall answer will be written summarizing these answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="b97f0ba0-fe48-46d3-9d41-969dfb89a5cf" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:16:08.757" UserId="121464" Text="What are the goals of this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="b97f0ba0-fe48-46d3-9d41-969dfb89a5cf" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:16:08.757" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="9474dca1-72df-40b4-990e-5186fbc24cc6" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:21:58.753" UserId="121464" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - Who is this site for?&#xD;&#xA; - Should this be a concept-only site, a problem-only site, both, a homework help site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be creating some skeleton answers, just for voting purposes, for the &quot;option&quot; type questions. The broader questions can be answered by other answers. At the end, hopefully the community will have reached a consensus and an overall answer will be written summarizing these answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="026c475a-4ed6-434b-9cd6-f21f6d843b17" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:33:19.850" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 207 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - Who is this site for?&#xD;&#xA; - Should this be a concept-only site, a problem-only site, both, a homework help site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9122" RevisionGUID="9405c108-a904-478e-ac98-d8756c7b934c" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:37:24.277" UserId="520" Text="The conception of the founding members is expressed in the tour:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;students&quot; are explicitly included among the audience envisioned for the site, but the members have been very negative on the idea of becoming a resource to which beginners turn to finish an assignment or avoid having to do some basic reading and thinking about concepts that are widely addressed in basic pedagogical materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has taken the form of a much debated and repeatedly mutated 'homework' policy (where 'homework' has never really meant 'something that you were assigned for class', but something more like 'questions copied from texts or that seem to exist in order to teach the subject).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And frankly I don't think there is a large contingent interested in changing those basic parameters (inclusive, but not here to solve endless problems for students who should be practicing those problems). The linked posts are about trying to get a good consensus on what we do and don't want and how to express that in a comprehensible form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose that the site should be *&quot;for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy&quot;*, and that we should encourage posters to think of the site as a tool for jump starting their thinking and not one for getting their work done for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="fabec83f-a92d-46dd-b997-58cda837e886" CreationDate="2016-09-05T23:57:20.407" UserId="121464" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - Who is this site for?&#xD;&#xA; - Should this be a concept-only site, a problem-only site, both, a homework help site?&#xD;&#xA; - What do we define, as, say, a student?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="7c5ee706-1123-4388-997e-f22eaf07b997" CreationDate="2016-09-06T00:44:57.463" UserId="121464" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - Should it be by physicists and for physicists? &#xD;&#xA; - Should it be a place where people can learn physics concepts? &#xD;&#xA; - Should it be a homework help site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="e8499673-29ed-434e-9cf9-ef35c3bc304e" CreationDate="2016-09-06T00:54:52.867" UserId="90492" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A lot of times after asking a question I can think of some people on Stack Exchange who may be interested in my question, or even able to answer my question. It would be very convenient if on the some page of my question, there is a button to message those people about my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="319192e8-eb5f-4ff7-8e84-361623a92d4f" CreationDate="2016-09-06T00:57:30.693" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 158 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway). The three main questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What are the goals of this site?&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="184f27dc-89e8-49e9-8308-6dd9f98c29bf" CreationDate="2016-09-06T08:02:47.797" UserId="64669" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Degrees of freedom in discrete data sets, distributions and systems (Suppose we turn every derived quantity of an n dimensional data into points, how many paramters do these points have in order to reproduce the original data set?)&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general. So, in a sense, people who don't understand me actually understood me better than myself and those who understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23459" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="82e07964-6d72-4a8c-9514-8997fd90fbb0" CreationDate="2016-09-06T11:53:04.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/773126871261249536" />
  <row Id="23460" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="642b9a82-b84f-42cf-881a-9ba7e4b78f41" CreationDate="2016-09-06T13:32:11.063" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="a8bf7d5d-8218-4155-899d-aae907880879" CreationDate="2016-09-07T03:22:55.433" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; What are the goals of this site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not volitional and thus does not have goals.  While some of those that participate here may not have goals, most do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is it we want this site to represent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interests of those that volunteer their time here.  If it doesn't, there will be no volunteers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trader principle - participants here (ideally) trade value for value to mutual benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="4a9b3490-1627-4651-a0bd-5f63665ca050" CreationDate="2016-09-07T09:19:24.807" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9124" RevisionGUID="33e4c815-93dd-4003-9815-398695e1b3c9" CreationDate="2016-09-07T17:36:16.850" UserId="1152" Text="There are very few good reason to *close* questions at all. Even ones that are borderline off-topic.  What should be closed is basically just spam, outright crankery, flames, etc.  The rest can be dealt with through the normal upvote/downvote mechanism.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="0c62ab4d-85c4-43da-9b6f-36aafb3440fa" CreationDate="2016-09-07T18:53:16.047" UserId="121464" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway). The main question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to think about when answering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - What do we want the site to be seen as? (i.e., how do we want it to look to outsiders?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="993c08fa-92a9-4474-a58c-30e7fa041813" CreationDate="2016-09-08T05:40:54.493" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="This is a request for quote marks to be used solely for their original purpose, that is to quote **verbatim** a statement made in a post. They should not to be used as part of a logical fallacy /straw man argument. This has happened to me twice in  two days by users with undoubtedly the best of motives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But by basing your argument or point on a personal interpretation or summing up  rather than the **actual** statement made  is completely unfair, imo and is compounded by a lack of courtesy/respect in not acknowledging the fact of improper attribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would ask users not to alter the words in someone's else's post, leave a set of quotes around it, along with an implication based on the altered version and then dissappear, leaving the original poster frustrated by a lack of a response after fruitlessly looking to edit a statement that was never made.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="993c08fa-92a9-4474-a58c-30e7fa041813" CreationDate="2016-09-08T05:40:54.493" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="Improper use of quote punction marks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="993c08fa-92a9-4474-a58c-30e7fa041813" CreationDate="2016-09-08T05:40:54.493" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23468" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="c8e0929d-9931-4201-b81b-23ae3cb24cc9" CreationDate="2016-09-08T05:46:11.820" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="edited title" Text="Improper use of quote marks and straw man logical fallacies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="c8e0929d-9931-4201-b81b-23ae3cb24cc9" CreationDate="2016-09-08T05:46:11.820" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="edited title" Text="This is a request for quote marks to be used solely for their original purpose, that is to quote **verbatim** a statement made in a post. They should not to be used as part of a logical fallacy /straw man argument. This has happened to me twice in  two days by users with undoubtedly the best of motives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But by basing your argument or point on a personal interpretation or summing up  rather than the **actual** statement made  is completely unfair, imo and is compounded by a lack of courtesy/respect in not acknowledging the fact of improper attribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would ask users not to write a comment, altering the words in someone's else's post,  leave a set of quotes around it, along with an implication based on the altered version and then dissappear, leaving the original poster frustrated by a lack of a response after fruitlessly looking to edit a statement that was never made.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="8e2f7f3f-4d47-49b6-8494-9ea79342e464" CreationDate="2016-09-08T13:40:35.173" UserId="50583" Text="It's both impossible and undesirable to police people's writing styles. Who's going to be on the Commitee For Proper Use Of Quotation Marks (CFPUOQM)? How will they enfore the restrictions? Why can't you just point the error out to the person using quotation marks &quot;wrongly&quot; like one would with any other error?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there is a *significant pattern* of multiple people using quotation marks improperly, consider that your idea of how quotation marks should be used might be overly narrow and not shared by the general population. In particular, I see *no issue* with putting a paraphrase in quotation marks - yes, if the paraphrase is inaccurate, this is building a strawman, but *not using quotation marks* wouldn't have changed that being a fallacy, would it? Unless the quotation marks are accompanied by an explicit &quot;You said that:&quot;, I don't think that such marks always imply a verbatim quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people are misunderstanding you and putting words in your mouth, the problem isn't that they are using quotation marks to do so, it's that they *misunderstood what you were trying to say*! You're trying to solve this communication problem from entirely the wrong angle, in my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="286848cc-7802-4cf2-ab31-cf796c933dd8" CreationDate="2016-09-08T21:17:28.213" UserId="32426" Text="I've made a test on [this question][1], the answer is **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More exactly: after reloading the review entity, it was still an open review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279038/what-is-the-spatial-extent-of-single-photon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="c0e49096-8636-46a6-99fc-ffd7bfac0adc" CreationDate="2016-09-08T23:31:41.593" UserId="148704" Text="I keep getting down voted instantly and as a quick as I flagged my last question it got denied without reason. Can moderator or a user with privileges be kicked for down voting to much? Is there a way to check who keeps instantly down voting me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279094/electric-powered-blimps-plane-and-rail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="c0e49096-8636-46a6-99fc-ffd7bfac0adc" CreationDate="2016-09-08T23:31:41.593" UserId="148704" Text="Can moderator be held to the rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="c0e49096-8636-46a6-99fc-ffd7bfac0adc" CreationDate="2016-09-08T23:31:41.593" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|scope|flagging|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="af151be4-a108-4a0b-b9b7-5afb0bccfe3b" CreationDate="2016-09-08T23:53:04.047" UserId="520" Text="The main mechanism for the reversal of serial voting is automated, because the moderators have access only to summaries of inter-user voting, (not to detailed records) *even when our tools alert us to the existence of unusual patterns in voting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alleging that the moderators aren't doing their job on this is simply silly: it's mostly not our job because the scripts take care of it. None-the-less I've looked into the findings of the automated system related to your account. I can assure you that the system has found no unusual pattern of downvoting directed at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to you to think up some alternative explanation for the large number of downvotes that you receive. Or you could ask for opinions in the chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to take this further, use the &quot;[contact us][1]&quot; link to be found at the bottom of every page: it will let you message the system wide moderation team directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="0871e155-dba4-41c2-a3b3-3149b3e4dace" CreationDate="2016-09-09T04:19:55.687" UserId="63994" Text="One thing that I might suggest we keep in mind is that an answer is in general not intended only for the OP of a question, but anyone else who is interested. The &quot;What is a photon&quot; question is an extreme example of this- whatever you may think of the OP, there were obviously plenty of other readers who were interested in the responses and not satisfied with those given to the previous versions of the question. I think they were generally well served by the answers that it got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a lower-profile example, I answered a question [some time ago][1] before realizing that the OP was asking a question about his own paper, and certainly wasn't going to accept my answer that critiqued it. But the question itself was of sufficiently broad interest and worded reasonably enough by the OP that I don't feel like it was a waste of time to answer it even though I stood no chance of having the answer accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some of the cases you give, the questions themselves were not good in addition to promoting an agenda. That's a separate issue. But when the question would be worthwhile in a vacuum, it should be kept and answered for the broader benefit if nothing else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250970/bells-theorem-and-fluid-mechanical-experiments-using-droplets-are-local-hidden/251838" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="6606c86f-943e-4da2-8080-f2c8a3cb78a9" CreationDate="2016-09-09T05:50:01.577" UserId="7993" Text="Aren't these questions easily ignored? Its not like a conversation where some-one interrupting is taking up valuable talking time. If you don't like the headline question then don't click on it; and if you do decide to click on it, and then don't like the body of the question then again ignore it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one problem that can occur is that it encourages more posts of a similar nature - but given that there is a certain level of sobriety in physics; and that there are enough physicists grounded in mainstream physics that are participating this shouldn't be a huge problem as it is for sites struggling to increase participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-mainstream positions are an index of healthy curiousity - so long as they don't get out of hand; simply by being what they are they're unlikely to attract expert attention - this is why they're non-mainstream. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9132" RevisionGUID="4119ff31-466d-410a-9db5-3304e2c6e18d" CreationDate="2016-09-09T20:57:33.983" UserId="32426" Text="Mods can be de-modded if they violate their rules, but they do this only rarely. Although they are elected by the community, this election is lifelong, except if a Community Moderator decides against it. They can de-mod moderators any time. This all is very democratic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically mods belongs to the deletionist line of the sites, but they are following the majority opinions of the sites, which is also deletionist, at least on the big ones. It is the result of an unfortunate social selection mechanism: deciding about questions and voting to close them is quite boring after taking part in hundreds of such decisions, thus the only people doing this on the long-term is the few exceptions who enjoy it. This overweights the deletionist line on most sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in your case, not this is happened. Not the mods are harming you, simple users are harming you. As I understand, your main problem is the downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This harm is not really groundless. I am watching you, not because I want to vote you down, but because I want to make your questions salvageable. But it is hard, very hard, mainly because also I can't understand many of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9132" RevisionGUID="123e14f6-912a-4fd6-9524-88ed0af2afbb" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:02:35.837" UserId="32426" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Mods can be de-modded if they violate their rules, but they do this only rarely. Although they are elected by the community, this election is lifelong, except if a Community Moderator decides against it (or they retire, this is much more common). They can de-mod moderators any time. This all is very democratic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically mods belongs to the deletionist line of the sites, but they are following the majority opinions of the sites, which is also deletionist, at least on the big ones. It is the result of an unfortunate social selection mechanism: deciding about questions and voting to close them is quite boring after taking part in hundreds of such decisions, thus the only people doing this on the long-term is the few exceptions who enjoy it. This overweights the deletionist line on most sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in your case, not this is happened. Not the mods are harming you, simple users are harming you. As I understand, your main problem is the downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This harm is not really groundless. I am watching you, not because I want to vote you down, but because I want to make your questions salvageable. But it is hard, very hard, mainly because also I can't understand many of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="39a17945-6bd3-417c-85bc-20fc078839b0" CreationDate="2016-09-10T03:09:07.677" UserId="83398" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="There are a lot of questions posted which ask about what mainstream physics says about something, but imply that the OP has a completely different opinion. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278393/lets-get-back-to-the-ether-what-is-it. The OP has some theory about the ether, as shown in their answers on other questions, and wants to get opinions &quot;before giving my own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/does-this-observation-in-a-probabilistic-experiment-indicate-presence-of-a-balan. This question (v1) asks if some experimental data is a &quot;coincidence&quot;. The OP has already published a paper claiming that it is _not_ a coincidence and is evidence for a non-mainstream modification of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266904/in-einsteins-relativity-of-simultaneity-thought-experiment-would-not-the-pas In this question (v1), OP asked if I &quot;admit&quot; that special relativity says something happens in a thought experiment. 10 comments later, OP triumphantly reveals that an extension to this thought experiment is supposed to disprove special relativity (it does not).&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon The OP already has extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is.&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279189/prove-that-classical-physics-gives-the-wrong-answer The OP is &quot;issuing a challenge&quot; to the community, to basically prove that quantum mechanics works. They've already written an article saying that quantum mechanics doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like answering any of these questions, because they feel fundamentally unproductive. The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion, or as an opening to argue with people posting answers. They can't learn anything from the answers because they already have their own. And half the time the OP drags answerers in long and unproductive debates in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's no close reason that directly addresses this kind of question. I believe all of these questions _should_ be closed, but all close reasons above are incorrect. For example, one might try to close as 'non mainstream' or 'opinion based', but neither of those are true. The actual questions have clear, non-opinion-based, mainstream answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people try to use the 'unclear what you're asking' close reason, because this is also incorrect, because there _is_ a well-defined question in each of these. I think people use this reason because it looks like OP really has another, completely different question (e.g. &quot;is my theory correct&quot;) in mind, but this takes some reading between the lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should these types of questions be handled?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9132" RevisionGUID="33d820f1-9d2a-44d8-97a0-53f840b2b0f4" CreationDate="2016-09-10T09:35:58.153" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Mods can be de-modded if they violate their rules, but they do this only rarely. Although they are elected by the community, this election is lifelong, except if a Community Manager decides against it (or they retire, this is much more common). They can de-mod moderators any time. This all is very democratic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically mods belong to the deletionist line of the sites, but they are following the majority opinions of the sites, which is also deletionist, at least on the big ones. It is the result of an unfortunate social selection mechanism: deciding about questions and voting to close them is quite boring after taking part in hundreds of such decisions, thus the only people doing this on the long-term is the few exceptions who enjoy it. This overweights the deletionist line on most sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in your case, not this is happened. Not the mods are harming you, simple users are harming you. As I understand, your main problem is the downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This harm is not really groundless. I am watching you, not because I want to vote you down, but because I want to make your questions salvageable. But it is hard, very hard, mainly because also I can't understand many of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="b91b6ac1-ad60-4677-8c7d-272a5424c5e1" CreationDate="2016-09-10T18:48:52.170" UserId="32426" Text="I get regularly the feedback in comments to use Latex or MathJax. Also I would write beautiful formulas what I can do only on pen &amp; paper. Where can I get info about these?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="b91b6ac1-ad60-4677-8c7d-272a5424c5e1" CreationDate="2016-09-10T18:48:52.170" UserId="32426" Text="What is the Latex and MathJax, how can I write beautiful formulas in my posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="b91b6ac1-ad60-4677-8c7d-272a5424c5e1" CreationDate="2016-09-10T18:48:52.170" UserId="32426" Text="|support|mathjax|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="a9f9c6c6-5640-4573-b9c8-89ba36f79715" CreationDate="2016-09-10T18:48:52.170" UserId="32426" Text="(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![enter image description here][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![enter image description here][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![enter image description here][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![enter image description here][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![enter image description here][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![enter image description here][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![enter image description here][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![enter image description here][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![enter image description here][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![enter image description here][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![enter image description here][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![enter image description here][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![enter image description here][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate the well-known time dilation formula of the SR ([![enter image description here][14]][14]) in MathJax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rhl8Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HOLBn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jOv7Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/muHUh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lWZQs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V3b12.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wS5yz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTpuD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FBySr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S5lMW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AXOo5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NaVyc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j2GzN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z5HCs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23486" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="f730eb33-2c88-4aa6-b220-89ccc89dd6c3" CreationDate="2016-09-10T18:48:52.170" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="23487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="fb034f9d-cbc4-4efb-a70e-396229bb616c" CreationDate="2016-09-10T19:44:27.800" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![enter image description here][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![enter image description here][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![enter image description here][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![enter image description here][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![enter image description here][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![enter image description here][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![enter image description here][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![enter image description here][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![enter image description here][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![enter image description here][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![enter image description here][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![enter image description here][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![enter image description here][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate in MathJax the well-known time dilation formula of the SR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJJvP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMr03.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgYls.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DDgEa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4uL6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zB3j0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pM117.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bx4aO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YThrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y2Via.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bEW9g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ0f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7myD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZOmF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="b8cef0b4-d857-472f-b230-8d47cd368809" CreationDate="2016-09-10T19:51:04.570" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![$a^b$][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![$+, -$][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![$ab$][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![$a\cdot b$][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![$\frac{a}{b}$][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![$a^b$][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![$a_b$][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![$\sqrt{a}$][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![$\pi, \delta, \epsilon$][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![$\Pi, \Delta$][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![$\circ$][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![$42^\circ$][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![$\infty$][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate in MathJax the well-known time dilation formula of the SR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good work!][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJJvP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMr03.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgYls.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DDgEa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4uL6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zB3j0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pM117.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bx4aO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YThrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y2Via.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bEW9g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ0f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7myD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZOmF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="e0fa6983-eb38-471c-9c3f-ef71aa06bbfb" CreationDate="2016-09-10T19:59:45.260" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please avoid the Parkinsonisation of this post. This post shouldn't be a complex document, it should be a quickstart. Thus, it must remain so simple as possible. If everybody adds his Latex knowledge into it, the users won't be able to even find in it what they need. This is very visible in the similar MathJax tutorial of the MathSE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In this answer should be _only_ the possible smallest minimum, only the most common markups of the PSE,&#xD;&#xA;* But, significant new content could be also added, in different answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![$a^b$][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![$+, -$][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![$ab$][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![$a\cdot b$][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![$\frac{a}{b}$][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![$a^b$][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![$a_b$][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![$\sqrt{a}$][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![$\pi, \delta, \epsilon$][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![$\Pi, \Delta$][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![$\circ$][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![$42^\circ$][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![$\infty$][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate in MathJax the well-known time dilation formula of the SR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good work!][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJJvP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMr03.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgYls.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DDgEa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4uL6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zB3j0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pM117.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bx4aO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YThrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y2Via.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bEW9g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ0f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7myD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZOmF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="5dfaecff-41bc-4af0-96d0-abe6aa8a7136" CreationDate="2016-09-10T21:15:23.540" UserId="32426" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please avoid the Parkinsonisation of this post. This post shouldn't be a complex document, it should be a PSE-centric quickstart. Thus, it must remain so simple as possible. If everybody adds his Latex knowledge into it, the users won't be able to even find in it what they need. This is very visible in the similar MathJax tutorial of the MathSE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think something is here more important as the current markups, then please get something out. (I will put these into a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In this answer should be _only_ the possible smallest minimum, only the most common markups of the PSE,&#xD;&#xA;* But, significant new content could be also added, in different answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![$a^b$][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![$+, -$][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![$ab$][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![$a\cdot b$][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![$\frac{a}{b}$][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![$a^b$][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![$a_b$][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![$\sqrt{a}$][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![$\pi, \delta, \epsilon$][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![$\Pi, \Delta$][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![$\circ$][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![$42^\circ$][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![$\infty$][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate in MathJax the well-known time dilation formula of the SR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good work!][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJJvP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMr03.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgYls.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DDgEa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4uL6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zB3j0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pM117.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bx4aO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YThrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y2Via.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bEW9g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ0f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7myD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZOmF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="2c58c5b3-5191-4dd2-96d1-3d6bf5e1bd6c" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:51:56.953" UserId="55261" Text="Seems to me this `site' is one of those entities that exists in the perpetual state of an identity crisis. When I read: &quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,&quot; I cannot help being somewhat amused. The reality from what I see is quite different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've been a member of this site for a while, I've only been really active (if you can call it that) for a fairly short while. So, I'm still a bit of a newcomer/outsider. I came upon this site more or less in the way that I think 99% of people discover it, by searching the web with a particular physics question. As a result my untested impression was that the goal of this site is **to promote or raise the general physics knowledge of the internet population at large.** No wonder I was rather surprised at the severely draconian drive to *close questions*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The irony is the way it works. One does not need to submit your CV to become a member (not I am suggesting that). Anybody can basically become a member and then build up a `reputation.' How? By getting votes! So basically anybody can get a high reputation simply by sticking around and being popular. Almost anybody can vote. I've seen the most horribly wrong answers getting high positive votes. So my guess is that the portion of the membership that consists of active researchers and academics is rather low. I do believe there are many students, but they tend to be early career students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is high time that the goals of this site is taken into consideration. So I think this is a very pertinent question. And if you find that the actual operational goal of this site has developed into the one I stated in bold above rather than the one quoted in the first paragraph, isn't it time that you drop this draconian drive to close questions? Allow the site to be the organic mess that it is turning into anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Active researchers and academics work on very focused topics. Those questions that appear on this site dealing with such highly specialized topics seldom get answers that are useful. So what's the point? Who are you trying to fool? Open the gates for the populace and allow those ignorant young students that don't yet understand enough to formulate a &quot;clear question&quot; to receive some help. It's happening anyway in spite of your best attempts to keep them away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9136" RevisionGUID="77f3b076-c8c6-410b-b912-5687c02668a5" CreationDate="2016-09-12T11:23:31.690" UserId="8563" Text="While this seems like a well-intentioned thread, there is already a comprehensive tutorial over on the [Mathematics Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/) site, at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##[MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and there really isn't that much point in duplicating the enormous amount of work that has gone into writing that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="5f666706-9fdb-4185-ab8b-f9a49ee359bc" CreationDate="2016-09-12T11:42:12.033" UserId="8563" Text="The Ask a Question page shown to new users contains a lot of guidance, including a link to MathJax help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are [strong UI reasons why this link is nowhere near as useful as we'd hope](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/), but we can at least make it point to something that's actually useful. It currently points to [this tutorial](http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/), which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EDeHv.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which is nowhere near a useful resource. Despite the claims in a [recent attempt](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9133/) to duplicate a bunch of work and create a local tutorial of limited usefulness, we do in fact have a long-standing go-to tutorial for MathJax, over on the Mathematics meta site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent link over on Maths.SE links to their tutorial. Since we're already linking off-site for this, why don't we also link to theirs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="5f666706-9fdb-4185-ab8b-f9a49ee359bc" CreationDate="2016-09-12T11:42:12.033" UserId="8563" Text="Please link the MathJax help to the Meta.Math.SE tutorial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="5f666706-9fdb-4185-ab8b-f9a49ee359bc" CreationDate="2016-09-12T11:42:12.033" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="0a80948a-742a-4f76-bf9a-f4d7d6dd8d4f" CreationDate="2016-09-12T12:06:27.803" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post shouldn't be a complex document, it should be a PSE-centric quickstart. Thus, it must remain so simple as possible. If everybody adds his Latex knowledge into it, the users won't be able to even find in it what they need. This is very visible in the similar MathJax tutorial of the MathSE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think something is here more important as the current markups, then please get something out. (I will put these into a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In this answer should be _only_ the possible smallest minimum, only the most common markups of the PSE,&#xD;&#xA;* But, significant new content could be also added, in different answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![$a^b$][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![$+, -$][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![$ab$][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![$a\cdot b$][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![$\frac{a}{b}$][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![$a^b$][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![$a_b$][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![$\sqrt{a}$][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![$\pi, \delta, \epsilon$][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![$\Pi, \Delta$][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![$\circ$][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![$42^\circ$][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![$\infty$][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate in MathJax the well-known time dilation formula of the SR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good work!][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJJvP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMr03.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgYls.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DDgEa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4uL6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zB3j0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pM117.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bx4aO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YThrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y2Via.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bEW9g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ0f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7myD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZOmF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="02f23dc0-0698-4e1c-9a7a-70dd91f43383" CreationDate="2016-09-12T12:17:49.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/775307424983023616" />
  <row Id="23498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="0cb8686c-8bdc-4701-a836-efaae4f8124e" CreationDate="2016-09-12T12:36:04.703" UserId="32426" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post shouldn't be a complex document, it should be a PSE-centric quickstart. Thus, it must remain so simple as possible. If everybody adds his Latex knowledge into it, the users won't be able to even find in it what they need. This is very visible in the similar MathJax tutorial of the MathSE (which is quite usable as a reference, but impractical for a quickstart with zero previous latex knowledge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think something is here more important as the current markups, then please get something out. (I will put these into a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In this answer should be _only_ the possible smallest minimum, only the most common markups of the PSE,&#xD;&#xA;* But, significant new content could be also added, in different answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(La)tex is a extensible textual document format for mathematical symbols. Although it is huge, you need only to know a very small subset of it to be able to write real formulas in your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a Javascript library what makes the Latex formatting usable in a HTML/Javascript/Css environment. The StackExchange site network uses MathJax on most of the sites what requires it, the Physics SE is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its markup on the level you need is very simple, much easier even as the HTML. Here is what is enough for you. You can learn it in around 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anything what you want to be shown in page as formula, you have to include between two \$s. So, `a text like $a^b$` will be shown so: [![$a^b$][1]][1].&#xD;&#xA;* If you use double dollars, the formula will be center-aligned in a new line.&#xD;&#xA;* `+` and `-` are working as common: [![$+, -$][2]][2].&#xD;&#xA;* For multiplication, you can use 1) nothing (`$ab$` is [![$ab$][3]][3]) 2) `\cdot` (`$a\cdot b$` is [![$a\cdot b$][4]][4]) 3) and some others.&#xD;&#xA;* For fractions, there is a more complex syntax: [![$\frac{a}{b}$][5]][5] is expressed by `$\frac{a}{b}$`.&#xD;&#xA;* Here you can see, you can use `{}` for grouping the terms. It is essentially like `()` in math, but it is only for the positioning of the elements and it will be invisible in the result.&#xD;&#xA;* You can use powers, or you can write anything in the top-right index with a `^`. For example, `$a^b$` will be [![$a^b$][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;* You can get things into the bottom-right index by a `_`: `$a_b$` will be [![$a_b$][7]][7].&#xD;&#xA;* Square root is going so: `$\sqrt{a}$` will be [![$\sqrt{a}$][8]][8].&#xD;&#xA;* For the common functions, e (in the sense of 2.71...), h (the Planck constant) and c (speed of light), you can use them simply as texts (thus, without the leading `\`).&#xD;&#xA;* [![$\pi, \delta, \epsilon$][9]][9] and the other greek letters can be expressed by a leading backslash, like: `$\pi$`, `$\delta$`, `$\epsilon$`. The capital greek letters can be done usually by capital markup: `$\Pi$`, `$\Delta$`, will be [![$\Pi, \Delta$][10]][10].&#xD;&#xA;* Degree, grad is a little bit tricky. There is the `$\circ$` to show a little circle: [![$\circ$][11]][11]. Put this into the top-right index: `$42^\circ C$` will be [![$42^\circ$][12]][12].&#xD;&#xA;* Infinity is `\infty` ([![$\infty$][13]][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good option to exercise if you start to write a question or an answer on the main site. Below your textbox, you will see, how it will seem after post (**Warning: don't post your tries, it will contaminate the site! Discard them after you're ready!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework: formulate in MathJax the well-known time dilation formula of the SR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good work!][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJJvP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMr03.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgYls.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DDgEa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4uL6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zB3j0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pM117.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bx4aO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YThrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y2Via.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bEW9g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ0f.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7myD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZOmF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23499" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="3bfd0649-9c7b-4680-a2d9-ea28cc235d04" CreationDate="2016-09-13T12:20:01.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/775670368489115648" />
  <row Id="23500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9138" RevisionGUID="7ab71f41-46aa-43bb-afe7-017e541b3f5d" CreationDate="2016-09-13T18:43:57.987" UserId="41680" Text="If you think the person is only pretending to ask to get an audience, then downvote and say so.  It may be that you misjudged, but if enough people agree with you, the questioner might get the message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="779193d2-f63d-49c3-9a7f-4be9e3df3723" CreationDate="2016-09-13T20:26:25.783" UserId="68482" Text="I noticed when viewing a question here that a hot network question from Money.SE was formatted strangely. Presumably because it's interpreting the title as math markup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot from this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot from another site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uocV2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PgqrL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="779193d2-f63d-49c3-9a7f-4be9e3df3723" CreationDate="2016-09-13T20:26:25.783" UserId="68482" Text="Hot Network Question titles are interpreted as LaTeX / MathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="779193d2-f63d-49c3-9a7f-4be9e3df3723" CreationDate="2016-09-13T20:26:25.783" UserId="68482" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="ac4f15b2-8671-4c78-8995-fc97280b91e8" CreationDate="2016-09-14T02:50:28.953" UserId="124643" Text="What do answers with zero votes mean? &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Can I trust them? Does it mean that there is something wrong but not so noticable in the answer? Does it mean that their answer should not be considered to be a totally complete answer to the question? Or perhaps no one is knowledgeable enough to judge if the answer is correct or not? Or perhaps the answer is too obvious to be upvoted? Or the answer seems to not show any effort, so doesn't deserve an upvote?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="ac4f15b2-8671-4c78-8995-fc97280b91e8" CreationDate="2016-09-14T02:50:28.953" UserId="124643" Text="What do answers with zero votes mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="ac4f15b2-8671-4c78-8995-fc97280b91e8" CreationDate="2016-09-14T02:50:28.953" UserId="124643" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="a59a2d56-49f1-4295-81c1-b0f9a92a62a0" CreationDate="2016-09-14T03:12:22.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="6d42b864-3f7f-41ab-b799-7776874a2e92" CreationDate="2016-09-14T03:21:59.253" UserId="56299" Text="If you see an answer with a net score of zero, it means one of three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not enough people saw the answer to read it, let alone vote.&#xD;&#xA; - People read it, but thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *bad*, but it isn't good enough to warrant an upvote.&quot; Alternatively, they might have thoughtt, &quot;Meh, this is *good*, but it isn't bad enough for me to downvote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - There were an equal number of upvotes and downvotes on the answer (you can see the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes [at 1,000 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first possibility, I'd guess, happens quite a lot. The answerer may have been &quot;late to the party&quot;, so to speak, and answered long after the question was asked, or the answer was simply overshadowed by other answers that accumulated a lot of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second possibility simply means that the answer wasn't good or bad. (Yes, people are generally more willing to upvote than dowvote, which is why I included a caveat: some people won't want to give up one rep point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third possibility means that the answer was controversial; this does happen, and means that people have quite strong views on it. If you check the vote count (once you reach 1,000 rep) and see that the voting's split, be wary, and read the comments under the answer to try to understand the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using that as a segue, you really should judge for yourself the answer, if possible; always read the comments below it, and the answer itself in its entirety.  You shouldn't decide to &quot;trust&quot; or &quot;distrust&quot; an answer based solely on how other people have voted. Votes don't always correlate with quality; some of my best answers (in my opinion) have gotten very few or no votes, while some of my less good answers have gotten inordinate amounts of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The takeaway? Judge for yourself. See if you can follow the logic of the answer, and ask questions of the answerer in a comment if you don't fully understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treat/trust them no differently from one-vote, minus-one-vote, or X-vote answers: Judge them based on how well you can follow them. Don't choose to blindly trust them if you don't understand them; always investigate for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23515" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="05c7daea-fd81-4f47-8481-f8d0c4313218" CreationDate="2016-09-14T04:14:47.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="fa2a9c6d-9ead-4837-b9c1-1b9d2c9179e5" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:04:58.733" UserId="83398" Text="Just today, the Community bot bumped a [three-year old question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table). It's also recently bumped a [half-year old question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now about 1/10 of the posts on the 'active questions' meta tab are bumps from Community. I don't think this helps all, and it worsens the signal-to-noise ratio. Can this be disabled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="fa2a9c6d-9ead-4837-b9c1-1b9d2c9179e5" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:04:58.733" UserId="83398" Text="Turn off Community bumping for meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="fa2a9c6d-9ead-4837-b9c1-1b9d2c9179e5" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:04:58.733" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="ef6c2f4c-a618-4eaf-b844-aadd14ee4357" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:13:03.243" UserId="83398" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Just today, the Community bot bumped a [three-year old question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table). It's also recently bumped a [half-year old question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now about 1/10 of the posts on the 'active questions' meta tab are bumps from Community. I don't think this helps at all, and it worsens the signal-to-noise ratio. Can this be disabled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9144" RevisionGUID="901039e3-7da0-4ea0-8282-f32ed214d086" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:43:59.593" UserId="124" Text="This is a [known issue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/229363/exclude-tex-se-question-titles-from-mathjax-parsing-in-hot-network-questions). As a workaround, you can install [SOUP](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) (Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch), which will prevent MathJax rendering in HNQ titles unless the site is known to have MathJax enabled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9145" RevisionGUID="3ef835ac-67fd-4312-b532-2bbd63810b50" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:52:24.023" UserId="124" Text="[Requests on MSE to modify the bumping behavior](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bfeature-request%5D+community+bump) have been consistently (ignored or) declined, so no, this is probably not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it worsens the SNR anyway, because these old questions still count in the &quot;signal&quot; category; just because a question is old doesn't make it undeserving of attention. If you think a particular question that has been bumped should not be exposed on the front page, there are [several ways to fix that](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Vote the question down if it's bad&#xD;&#xA;- Vote up a good answer, if one exists&#xD;&#xA;- Post a good answer, if one doesn't already exist&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for closure if appropriate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="3fe08a14-7e2d-4ae1-b514-e97e3664ee88" CreationDate="2016-09-14T12:51:37.003" UserId="8563" Text="This has come up before on meta, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors) was bumped despite having an answer with score 2, which doesn't really fit with the known documentation. (Maybe because it was self-answered?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23523" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="c8c63535-e08b-4467-b33b-c3718f9ee6e8" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:02:16.657" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="bd61e2a7-9e4d-434a-a3ee-ae9c3af07190" CreationDate="2016-09-14T15:20:28.237" UserId="56299" Comment="Fixed typo and added clarification." Text="If you see an answer with a net score of zero, it means one of three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not enough people saw the answer to read it, let alone vote.&#xD;&#xA; - People read it, but thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *bad*, but it isn't good enough to warrant an upvote.&quot; Alternatively, they might have thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *good*, but it isn't bad enough for me to downvote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - There were an equal number of upvotes and downvotes on the answer (you can see the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes [at 1,000 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first possibility, I'd guess, happens quite a lot. The answerer may have been &quot;late to the party&quot;, so to speak, and answered long after the question was asked, or the answer was simply overshadowed by other answers that accumulated a lot of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second possibility simply means that the answer wasn't good or bad. (Yes, people are generally more willing to upvote than dowvote, which is why I included a caveat: some people won't want to give up one rep point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third possibility means that the answer was controversial; this does happen, and means that people have quite strong views on it. If you check the vote count (once you reach 1,000 rep) and see that the voting's split, be wary, and read the comments under the answer to try to understand the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using that as a segue, you really should judge for yourself the answer, if possible; always read the comments below it, and the answer itself in its entirety.  You shouldn't decide to &quot;trust&quot; or &quot;distrust&quot; an answer based solely on how other people have voted. Votes don't always correlate with quality; some of my best answers (in my opinion) have gotten very few or no votes, while some of my less good answers have gotten inordinate amounts of upvotes. This is often due to a question getting onto the [Hot Network Questions list](http://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot), as [knzhou pointed out](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/what-do-answers-with-zero-votes-mean#comment34213_9142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The takeaway? Judge for yourself. See if you can follow the logic of the answer, and ask questions of the answerer in a comment if you don't fully understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treat/trust them no differently from one-vote, minus-one-vote, or X-vote answers: Judge them based on how well you can follow them. Don't choose to blindly trust them if you don't understand them; always investigate for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23525" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="a01c29c6-f6e3-4034-9d99-05ee20c8f2d6" CreationDate="2016-09-14T15:24:43.273" UserId="148704" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|scope|down-votes|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23526" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="a01c29c6-f6e3-4034-9d99-05ee20c8f2d6" CreationDate="2016-09-14T15:24:43.273" UserId="148704" Comment="edited tags" Text="Can moderator or super user be held to the rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9147" RevisionGUID="e15e542a-33f2-4286-9268-606fa8018962" CreationDate="2016-09-14T16:17:10.180" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; What do answers with zero votes mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means nobody has voted for them, or the upvotes match the downvotes. That's all.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I trust them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. But you can't trust an answer with 10 upvotes either. Sometimes I see an answer with a whole barrelful of upvotes, and it's totally utterly wrong. One of the issues here at physics stack exchange is that a popscience wrong answer get a lot of upvotes, whilst a hard-science correct answer gets none. See how HDE226868 said: _&quot;or the answer was simply overshadowed by other answers that accumulated a lot of votes&quot;_. What tends to happen is that people vote for the answer with the most votes, and I suspect that some posters who know this &quot;game the system&quot;. They post an answer, then advertise it in the chatroom expecting their friends to upvote their answer and downvote others. Once one answer gets more upvotes than the rest, the rest tend to languish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does it mean that there is something wrong but not so noticeable in the answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe. Maybe not.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does it mean that their answer should not be considered to be a totally complete answer to the question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe. Maybe not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or perhaps no one is knowledgeable enough to judge if the answer is correct or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe. Maybe not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or perhaps the answer is too obvious to be upvoted? Or the answer seems to not show any effort, so doesn't deserve an upvote? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, maybe not. Maybe nobody has voted for it yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is no. Nor can you trust non-zero-vote answers. Nor can you trust that downvoted answers are wrong as per knzhou's suggestion. Particularly if there are robust references in the answer and no comments below it. Voting is not always honest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BqN6K.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="cfa21f22-0804-4e36-bb0a-2bdbd792fe5c" CreationDate="2016-09-14T16:17:31.230" UserId="8563" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="This has come up before on meta, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors) was bumped despite having an answer with score 2, which doesn't really fit with the known documentation. (Maybe because it was self-answered?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta: the idea sounds nice, sure, but it is a very blunt tool that does not work at all for the intended objective. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="71d659de-2861-46cf-9cda-135e15ff99f6" CreationDate="2016-09-14T16:56:27.863" UserId="148704" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="I keep getting down voted instantly and as a quick as I flagged my last question it got denied without reason. Can moderator or a user with privileges be kicked for down voting to much? Is there a way to check who keeps instantly down voting me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="30674b0c-d093-4498-886b-18ac57700965" CreationDate="2016-09-14T17:15:10.483" UserId="148704" Comment="edited title" Text="Can moderator or user with high reputation be held to the rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="6d6b1fbd-0219-40de-a1df-c5048bd546f8" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:15:07.140" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body" Text="This has come up before on meta, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors)'s answer was upvoted after the bump (it's also an old bug report which is useless to bring back up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta: the idea sounds nice, sure, but it is a very blunt tool that does not work at all for the intended objective. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9148" RevisionGUID="8179186a-d71f-4eba-b32a-5ca41e23c9f2" CreationDate="2016-09-15T19:19:44.177" UserId="78445" Text="I have just attempted to ask a question in the regular site but before i was able to i was prompted that my previous questions had been poorly recieved and that i should think about my question before i ask it. I have had several questions that have been uprated and my last question had been responded by a member as a good question.That question has since not been answered by anyone significantly and has not been provided with a definite answer. I am confused are people being punished for asking question that the scientific community don't have answers to. I think this is a narrow minded attitude and i hope others have not suffered as i have. and have not been put off by members answering question they cant answer by a simple statement &quot;we do not know currently&quot; and then putting restrictions on them asking further questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9148" RevisionGUID="8179186a-d71f-4eba-b32a-5ca41e23c9f2" CreationDate="2016-09-15T19:19:44.177" UserId="78445" Text="How to appeal against and remove restrictions on asking questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9148" RevisionGUID="8179186a-d71f-4eba-b32a-5ca41e23c9f2" CreationDate="2016-09-15T19:19:44.177" UserId="78445" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="5fdd3d0c-e684-4de2-8f86-ff0ecc9e98bc" CreationDate="2016-09-15T19:34:23.983" UserId="520" Text="Your profile does not show that you are currently affected by any unusual restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the [contact us][1] lint at the bottom of each page allows you to contact the Stack Exchange community-wide moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="6c08200b-53a5-48a6-a95b-b13daf03728b" CreationDate="2016-09-15T20:07:36.413" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="Your profile does not show that you are currently affected by any unusual restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the [contact us][1] link at the bottom of each page allows you to contact the Stack Exchange community-wide moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9150" RevisionGUID="e3618983-470d-4971-8f01-e448c5fff7d0" CreationDate="2016-09-15T22:14:15.977" UserId="8563" Text="By the sound of it, you have not actually been subjected to an automated question ban (or, if you have, it was short-lived), you've just come close enough that you triggered a system warning. Three of your seven (non-deleted) questions were closed; please take the warning as a prompt to look at those closed questions and understand why they were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can edit [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/179067/age-of-the-universe) into something coherent that contains an actual on-topic question then that will certainly help with the prospect of a question ban. Please take the closure of [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229487/faster-than-the-speed-of-light) as a sign of some things that don't really fly here (&quot;I know this has been asked a million times before, and I know it's off-topic, but yo, check this out, if you break physics then physics breaks&quot; ring a bell?), and please take [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177618/why-should-i-believe-that-matter-does-not-expand-along-with-the-space-between-it) as a reminder that if you know the question has been asked before then you do need to check for duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, this is the automated system working as designed: you have produced a significant fraction of off-topic questions, and it is asking you to think carefully about your next posts before the site actually stops taking questions from your IP address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if I may: lashing out against the community for being &quot;narrow minded&quot; and punishing people for &quot;asking question that the scientific community don't have answers to&quot; is hardly a way to make friends. In particular, your closed questions are well short of the mark in terms of the amount of thought that you need to put into them before you can really claim that you're challenging the established scientific consensus. You're being told that you need to put in the time yourself before you go asking others to put in theirs, and I would counsel you to listen to that. It's OK to express frustration (though not in the rude way that you're doing it now), but you do need to step up to the fact that you've asked bad questions, period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="5e53136e-a6f5-4b34-a0a1-ad16dbe31192" CreationDate="2016-09-16T12:34:12.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="bcfa181a-1f73-4b50-9c4f-37c19b68df09" CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:19:17.023" UserId="10968" Text="I believe this should be on-topic, since a lot of companies, governments and investors now pouring money into it again, despite it was debunked by mainstream science 25 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Cold fusion: Science's most controversial technology is back][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Bill Gates Reportedly Funds LENR Research at Texas Tech University][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The sleuths at lenr-forum.com have uncovered some pretty convincing evidence Bill Gates aka William H. Gates III made a $4 or $5 million dollar donation to the Texas Tech Foundation “to be expended expeditiously and essentially entirely on research for the express purpose of … obviating the major extant technical ambiguities surrounding the set of phenomena in metal hydrides generally known as Anomalous Heat Effects (AHE).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per above article which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services declared it was “aware of recent positive developments” in developing LENRs and noted their potential to “produce ultra-clean, low-cost renewable energy” and their “strong national security implications”. Highlighting too the interest of Russia, China, Israel and India, it suggested the US could not afford to be left behind, and requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a briefing on the science by [22 September][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the research is back, then I don't see why this should be off-topic on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ecat.org/2016/bill-gates-reportedly-funds-lenr-research-at-texas-tech-university/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-W000795-Amdt-ETCEB1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="c86df86f-b4eb-4967-b8bb-7d44b5abbde4" CreationDate="2016-09-17T11:58:18.270" UserId="10968" Comment="added 955 characters in body" Text="I believe this should be on-topic, since a lot of companies, governments and investors now pouring money into it again, despite it was debunked by mainstream science 25 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Cold fusion: Science's most controversial technology is back][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Bill Gates Reportedly Funds LENR Research at Texas Tech University][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The sleuths at lenr-forum.com have uncovered some pretty convincing evidence Bill Gates aka William H. Gates III made a $4 or $5 million dollar donation to the Texas Tech Foundation “to be expended expeditiously and essentially entirely on research for the express purpose of … obviating the major extant technical ambiguities surrounding the set of phenomena in metal hydrides generally known as Anomalous Heat Effects (AHE).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per above article which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services declared it was “aware of recent positive developments” in developing LENRs and noted their potential to “produce ultra-clean, low-cost renewable energy” and their “strong national security implications”. Highlighting too the interest of Russia, China, Israel and India, it suggested the US could not afford to be left behind, and requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a briefing on the science by [22 September][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the research is back, then I don't see why this should be off-topic on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per this [US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services document][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The committee is aware of **recent positive developments in developing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)**, which produce ultra-clean,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implications. For example, according to the **Defense Intelligence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agency (DIA), ifLENR works it will be a &quot;disruptive technology that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; could revolutionize energy production and storage.&quot;** The committee is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; findings that other countries including **China and India are moving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward with LENR programs** of their own and that Japan has actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russia, China, Israel, and **India are now devoting significant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resources to LENR development**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ecat.org/2016/bill-gates-reportedly-funds-lenr-research-at-texas-tech-university/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-W000795-Amdt-ETCEB1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="6244b027-b2ca-4205-9429-d13bbfb7608a" CreationDate="2016-09-19T15:16:56.983" UserId="124" Text="Today I've seen a bunch of examples on the site of a certain type of question. In order to avoid priming responses, I'm not going to give this type of question a name. Instead, let me show by example what I'm talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281123/how-to-get-a-constant-force-parallel-to-the-inclined&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281120/would-someone-help-me-with-a-physics-question-about-current-density-and-magnetic&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281103/finding-displacement-through-non-constant-acceleration&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281066/dose-any-body-know-how-to-solve-the-problem-in-the-picture&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281031/solid-state-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree this type of question should be off topic. What I want to ask is, _why_ should it be off topic? In other words, what reason do you, the community, think should be used to justify marking these questions off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This contributes to the ongoing discussion about replacing our homework policy. Actually, it would probably have been better to ask this later on in the process, but since there were so many examples today I thought this would be a good time to make this post, before I forget. I'm not really looking for a quick answer, though; this is one to think about for a while, and we will come back to it later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="6244b027-b2ca-4205-9429-d13bbfb7608a" CreationDate="2016-09-19T15:16:56.983" UserId="124" Text="Why are these off-topic questions off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="6244b027-b2ca-4205-9429-d13bbfb7608a" CreationDate="2016-09-19T15:16:56.983" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="5f61457d-76f5-49cc-9506-ddfda23af632" CreationDate="2016-09-19T17:51:29.187" UserId="31790" Comment="Numbered list to make responses easier" Text="Today I've seen a bunch of examples on the site of a certain type of question. In order to avoid priming responses, I'm not going to give this type of question a name. Instead, let me show by example what I'm talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281123/how-to-get-a-constant-force-parallel-to-the-inclined&#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281120/would-someone-help-me-with-a-physics-question-about-current-density-and-magnetic&#xD;&#xA;3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281103/finding-displacement-through-non-constant-acceleration&#xD;&#xA;4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281066/dose-any-body-know-how-to-solve-the-problem-in-the-picture&#xD;&#xA;5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281031/solid-state-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree this type of question should be off topic. What I want to ask is, _why_ should it be off topic? In other words, what reason do you, the community, think should be used to justify marking these questions off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This contributes to the ongoing discussion about replacing our homework policy. Actually, it would probably have been better to ask this later on in the process, but since there were so many examples today I thought this would be a good time to make this post, before I forget. I'm not really looking for a quick answer, though; this is one to think about for a while, and we will come back to it later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9153" RevisionGUID="07e6b5bd-a0b8-4d8a-9cf6-6ec1899b82b4" CreationDate="2016-09-19T18:02:46.863" UserId="31790" Text="Several of these are off topic for reasons other than what I would generally lump under the homework-like umbrella.&#xD;&#xA;I think it's important that we make a habit of information OP of that in these situations because the more specific a reason we can give for a question being off topic the easier it is for OP to improve the post and make steps toward being a higher level contributor to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Not a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Asks for an answer to a specific calculation without identifying a specific conceptual issue at which OP is stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Too many questions *and* they all lack effort and do not not identify a specific conceptual issue on which OP is stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Exact same problem as #3 *and* almost unintelligibly written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, numbers 4 and 5 have awful titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers 3 and 5 are the clearest examples of questions which are off topic because they ask for the answer to a calculation without showing any effort and without identifying a specific conceptual issue on which OP is stuck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="34754c38-93aa-4c1c-a171-97ce7a1a74ba" CreationDate="2016-09-19T18:14:41.887" UserId="124" Comment="clarify that I'm asking about choosing between different reasons for closure" Text="Today I've seen a bunch of examples on the site of a certain type of question. In order to avoid priming responses, I'm not going to give this type of question a name. Instead, let me show by example what I'm talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281123/how-to-get-a-constant-force-parallel-to-the-inclined&#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281120/would-someone-help-me-with-a-physics-question-about-current-density-and-magnetic&#xD;&#xA;3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281103/finding-displacement-through-non-constant-acceleration&#xD;&#xA;4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281066/dose-any-body-know-how-to-solve-the-problem-in-the-picture&#xD;&#xA;5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281031/solid-state-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree this type of question should be off topic. What I want to ask is, _why_ should it be off topic? (Don't say homework. We're getting rid of that.) In other words,  what reason do you, the community, think should be used to justify marking these questions, and others like them, off topic? Questions like these have several shortcomings, but we can only expect to have one close reason displayed on each question; what should it be? We'll want to strike a balance between having custom close reasons be general enough that we can cover most off-topic questions with three of them, while still being specific enough to help askers who would like to improve their questions understand how to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I'm not concerned about how to handle these _specific_ questions; my concern is on how to handle future questions of this type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This contributes to the ongoing discussion about replacing our homework policy. Actually, it would probably have been better to ask this later on in the process, but since there were so many examples today I thought this would be a good time to make this post, before I forget. I'm not really looking for a quick answer, though; this is one to think about for a while, and we will come back to it later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="41fa5d8d-5634-4e57-8c47-0aec1e6f2d42" CreationDate="2016-09-19T20:23:51.963" UserId="4826" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="41fa5d8d-5634-4e57-8c47-0aec1e6f2d42" CreationDate="2016-09-19T20:23:51.963" UserId="4826" Text="2016 Moderator Election Q&amp;A - Question Collection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="41fa5d8d-5634-4e57-8c47-0aec1e6f2d42" CreationDate="2016-09-19T20:23:51.963" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|featured|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="e7c0f04c-cf63-46f8-88e8-31b844a9c75f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T20:23:51.963" UserId="4826" Text="Here is a set of general questions, gathered as very common questions asked every election. As mentioned in the instructions, the first two questions are guaranteed to show up in the Q&amp;A, while the others are if there aren't enough questions (or, if you like one enough, you may split it off as a separate answer for review within the community's 8). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments? &#xD;&#xA; - How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In your opinion, what do moderators do? &#xD;&#xA; - A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that? &#xD;&#xA; - In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9156" RevisionGUID="806d8c3f-0a35-453f-b3c0-0679937b8a3e" CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:20:09.920" UserId="86781" Text="How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="fbbb8626-4881-484b-b5bd-c156cd67325e" CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:37:41.537" UserDisplayName="user59991" Text="Effective communication in the physical sciences, technology, and education relies on extensive internationally standardized terminology, nomenclature, quantities, units, symbols, and typography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How seriously do you take conformity with these requirements with regard to this site? If applicable, what do you consider to be the roles of the moderators or other users in achieving conformity with the requirements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23554" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="c303411d-bbc7-4bb7-8ae1-a16ec716d77e" CreationDate="2016-09-20T00:33:20.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/778029240721768449" />
  <row Id="23555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="b1d56264-ebec-43be-8163-1f4355ae511a" CreationDate="2016-09-20T09:30:40.633" UserId="124" Text="For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="b195fa91-1346-45ec-8eec-791a02d105e9" CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:13:41.683" UserId="24653" Text="I've taken this question from the &quot;standard questions&quot; answer by Grace Note: It is one of the optional questions. I'm putting it in a separate answer because it will otherwise probably not be selected, while I think it's a very good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="b1613a68-e9cd-437f-868d-cbda92685e9b" CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:18:03.067" UserId="8563" Text="So, [apparently](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection), we're 'scheduled' to have a moderator election later this month. What changes, exactly, will this election entail? Are any of the [existing moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) stepping down? How many new moderators will be elected? Is the number of moderators changing? If so, does this mean that the current load is more than what's reasonable for the current crew to handle as effectively as they'd like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="b1613a68-e9cd-437f-868d-cbda92685e9b" CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:18:03.067" UserId="8563" Text="What changes will the upcoming election bring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="b1613a68-e9cd-437f-868d-cbda92685e9b" CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:18:03.067" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|moderators|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="8793837c-5c72-4adb-b1f7-6b9767123150" CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:19:43.640" UserId="24653" Text="This is a modified version of a question from the &quot;standard questions&quot; answer by Grace Note: It is one of the optional questions. I'm putting it in a separate answer because it will otherwise probably not be selected, while I think it's a very good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do---and refrain from doing---on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9162" RevisionGUID="58e8f83e-4416-4bea-8378-aee41fd9af57" CreationDate="2016-09-20T11:25:18.783" UserId="24653" Text="Very brief answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The main change is the addition of two moderators to make the work load easier on the existing moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Two new moderators will be elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Yes, see above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Yes, the current load is more than the current crew is comfortable handling: They are the ones that requested the election.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a bit more general information, see [the chat transcript linked by Qmechanic in the comments](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32331390#32331390). This is all that's known, for now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9163" RevisionGUID="fcfa4bda-d789-4aca-94e6-1b1727744fb1" CreationDate="2016-09-20T13:08:47.420" UserId="56299" Text="Not everyone agrees with every policy on Physics; there's always some disagreement. Do you think that, as a moderator, you'll be able to enforce, if necessary, a policy or section of policy you disagree with? Will you put your own interests aside for the community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9162" RevisionGUID="dfb279a7-a152-430e-8a72-fd252c839b81" CreationDate="2016-09-20T15:19:02.413" UserId="24653" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Very brief answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The main change is the addition of two moderators to make the work load easier on the existing moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Two new moderators will be elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Yes, see above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. David Z elaborated a bit on this: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When all four of us are available, we have no problem with the current workload. But if a couple mods are traveling or without internet access, it becomes hard to keep up, and that happens often enough that we'd like to expand the moderation team to avoid being shorthanded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a bit more general information, see [the chat transcript linked by Qmechanic in the comments](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32331390#32331390). This is all that's known, for now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="c3fc60d9-af91-457c-aa91-01af2df379c0" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:10:55.613" UserId="31790" Comment="Add some resources" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="cbcd269a-af0c-4014-8f0e-dc99d6feecc4" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:21:52.443" UserId="1325" Text="With a moderator election looming it would be useful to hear from our current moderators how much the role affects their use of the site. Some obvious questions would be how many hours a day does it require, and what are are the day to day tasks you need to do in that time. However it would also be good to hear what it stops you doing. For example being a moderator means you cannot cast a non-binding close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is to find out *how much would my life change if I became a moderator?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="cbcd269a-af0c-4014-8f0e-dc99d6feecc4" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:21:52.443" UserId="1325" Text="What activities are involved in being a Physics SE mod?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="cbcd269a-af0c-4014-8f0e-dc99d6feecc4" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:21:52.443" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="000b407f-9688-4dea-97ca-1a56579418ea" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:28:59.893" UserId="31790" Comment="Link to election page, clarification of purpose" Text="With a [moderator election](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3) looming it would be useful to hear from our current moderators how much the role affects their use of the site. Some obvious questions would be how many hours a day does it require, and what are are the day to day tasks you need to do in that time. However it would also be good to hear what it stops you doing. For example being a moderator means you cannot cast a non-binding close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is to find out *how much would my life change if I became a moderator?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is already a meta post for [questions to ask candidates in the election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;This post is intended as a place to current moderators to record what they think is relevant information about how being a mod affects their use of the site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23569" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="000b407f-9688-4dea-97ca-1a56579418ea" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:28:59.893" UserId="31790" Comment="Link to election page, clarification of purpose" Text="In 2016 (pre-election) what activities are involved in being a Physics SE mod?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="e7ea49ca-d127-4981-a625-e0e3ae05a56a" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:33:41.533" UserId="31790" Comment="Add resource" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9163" RevisionGUID="6576387b-302c-43a6-8255-270829861ba8" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:36:16.540" UserId="56299" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="Not everyone agrees with every policy on Physics; there's always some disagreement. Do you think that, as a moderator, you'll be able to enforce, if necessary, a policy or section of policy you disagree with? Will you put your own interests aside for the community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I don't have any particular policy, issue, or user in mind here, and I'm not aware of this ever being an issue on Physics Stack Exchange, but it *could* happen in the future, and I'd bet it's happened elsewhere on Stack Exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="a00b5221-a9dd-41b4-ae5f-4a8eefb4c854" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:56:42.363" UserId="31790" Text="* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Question pool for potential moderators](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). This is important; in order to vote for a moderator we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="a00b5221-a9dd-41b4-ae5f-4a8eefb4c854" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:56:42.363" UserId="31790" Text="2016 moderator election README" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="a00b5221-a9dd-41b4-ae5f-4a8eefb4c854" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:56:42.363" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="fa14bdcf-25dd-41b0-8cc2-810aac534a31" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:10:24.433" UserDisplayName="user106015" Text="**Q.What would be your highest priority between these options as a moderator?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Growth of the site &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Quality of the questions and answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23576" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="0fb35f4d-4291-40a1-9baa-4a9e1d834d14" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:16:26.023" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="General information concerning the 2016 moderator elections" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23577" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="b65b981f-d7db-4d50-8d31-f6f7086be71e" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:29:13.463" UserId="31790" Comment="better title" Text="Links/resources for the 2016 moderator elections" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9167" RevisionGUID="ac28871f-0e27-43e4-9bdc-7bf419523a43" CreationDate="2016-09-20T21:16:43.587" UserId="44126" Text="Most of these questions seems to be after an *answer*, probably a number, rather than a *solution* which would be useful in other contexts.  A reply which would satisfy the asker would have essentially no value to anyone else ever again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something I've found myself telling my students lately.  I could spend all day making up stupid little problems with stupid little answers and they could spend all day telling me stupid little numbers and nobody would learn anything.  The *numerical answer* to a made-up example problem is almost never interesting (though some texts do better than others).  The reason educators assign problems is to cultivate the skill of finding solutions to *similar* problems later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A secondary problem with a few of these questions is that they are essentially plagiarized from some textbook or course notes or other source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9168" RevisionGUID="a97ccd09-6031-41d4-94c2-f7811b0fbfa5" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:25:26.123" UserId="23785" Text="Questions one two and four are off-topic because it is unclear what they are asking. For example in the first question, the asker is nominally asking for a value of the force. However, if we were just to answer by saying ten newtons (or whatever the correct answer is), the asker would be unsatisfied, because he can't just write down ten newtons on his homework assignment. The asker would wind up editing the question or asking for more details in a comment, and then the answerer would have to change his answer and this might iterate a few times and waste everyone's time. Therefore, the burden should be on the asker to specify exactly what he needs to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions one, two, and four can be fixed to ask for a full solution to the problem, and questions three and five already do ask for a full solution; however, I would say that these questions should be closed as too broad. I believe that for an on-topic question, the asker cannot simply ask for a full explanation on every detail of a given topic. The asker must pose a question, but then also give his prior knowledge of the topic, explain how he has tried to use this prior knowledge to answer his question, and it should be clear how an expert could use their expertise to answer the question. This will tend to focus the question so it will not be so broad. It also makes less work for an expert answerer because they can focus just on using their expertise when needed and not (a) on reviewing background material that is already known by the asker as well as being easily obtainable on the internet or (b) answering menial check-my-work type questions for which no particular physics expertise is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9169" RevisionGUID="0e18750e-57ac-4b73-92f4-46c23ebf907e" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:47:00.947" UserId="5477" Text="I'd say something along the lines of the old &quot;too localized&quot; close reason would be a good fit here, for all five questions. Perhaps we could make a more specific version of &quot;too localized&quot; that would cover questions with this issue. Maybe something like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Too specific.** Questions should deal with conceptual issues on a broad enough level that the answers will help future visitors to solve their own questions. Consider editing the question to focus on the underlying concepts rather than the details of the calculation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="1a4688a0-ad76-44dd-9c26-bad97b960c8f" CreationDate="2016-09-21T06:39:00.867" UserId="31790" Comment="replace &quot;problem solving&quot; with better phrase" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;**(I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked, e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a problem solving or review service. If you have a question about a specific problem, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions about particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself or a request to have your work checked, should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="7c4b49a7-7cd6-4c40-90d9-7b09952d1727" CreationDate="2016-09-21T08:53:21.617" UserId="31790" Comment="Further refinement to close reason and help center suggestions." Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;**(I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked, e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a calculation service or a work checking service. If you need help with a particular calculation, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. Make sure your question cannot be answered with a small amount of research and show that you've made effort to resolve the issue yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions about particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself or a request to have your work checked, must ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="6871eb2b-a5a7-4653-af43-2b6e8bed456f" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:19:11.813" UserId="23473" Text="A somewhat obvious question that should be asked is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think its important that we can rely on the moderator we choose to be there and actually moderate. Obviously, I'm not looking to vote someone in if they'll be absent long periods of time or if they'll only be online an hour a week or something. A permanent position means I expect the elected mod to live up to the responsibilities and be around for the long haul. If you don't think you can put the time into it, you shouldn't be running." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9171" RevisionGUID="e390557a-8619-45db-b4dc-6214ebbb8e24" CreationDate="2016-09-21T18:21:18.190" UserId="118847" Text="I will be a bit brutal here, but I think they should all be closed under a new close reason called &quot;insufficient effort&quot; which applies if it is obvious that someone did not go through the minimal effort of thinking for two seconds on his own or using wikipedia/some appropriate source in the case of clear university level problems. This is subjective, but it at least personally for me is a better subjective than the current homework-like close reason. And, I will admit, it would still allow people to ask &quot;homework-like&quot; questions if they really show some effort and there is a usefulness (and not just a simple algebra error, like in the case of many &quot;check my work&quot;-stuff - because that IS insufficient effort) to well-written questions about problems if someone is conceptually stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could helpfully be added to the tour/help centre is that a question asking for the calculation of a specific numerical value will be off topic in 95% of the time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23585" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="0c1a7f5a-7d40-4cb3-ba52-ad4f4a655229" CreationDate="2016-09-21T18:37:52.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/778664558693085184" />
  <row Id="23586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="56e0941e-bc81-4655-b16d-be94916b4896" CreationDate="2016-09-21T19:52:20.597" UserId="10968" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="I believe this should be on-topic, since a lot of companies, governments and investors now pouring money into it again, despite it was debunked by mainstream science 25 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Cold fusion: Science's most controversial technology is back][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Bill Gates Reportedly Funds LENR Research at Texas Tech University][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The sleuths at lenr-forum.com have uncovered some pretty convincing evidence Bill Gates aka William H. Gates III made a $4 or $5 million dollar donation to the Texas Tech Foundation “to be expended expeditiously and essentially entirely on research for the express purpose of … obviating the major extant technical ambiguities surrounding the set of phenomena in metal hydrides generally known as Anomalous Heat Effects (AHE).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per above article which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services declared it was “aware of recent positive developments” in developing LENRs and noted their potential to “produce ultra-clean, low-cost renewable energy” and their “strong national security implications”. Highlighting too the interest of Russia, China, Israel and India, it suggested the US could not afford to be left behind, and requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a briefing on the science by [22 September][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the research is back, then I don't see why this should be off-topic on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per this [US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services document][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The committee is aware of **recent positive developments in developing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)**, which produce ultra-clean,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implications. For example, according to the **Defense Intelligence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agency (DIA), ifLENR works it will be a &quot;disruptive technology that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; could revolutionize energy production and storage.&quot;** The committee is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; findings that other countries including **China and India are moving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward with LENR programs** of their own and that Japan has actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russia, China, Israel, and **India are now devoting significant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resources to LENR development**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, please see this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/281332/10968&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ecat.org/2016/bill-gates-reportedly-funds-lenr-research-at-texas-tech-university/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-W000795-Amdt-ETCEB1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="4fff02c0-0a7f-4bf5-bd6b-d56fc5b4c90d" CreationDate="2016-09-21T21:37:52.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/778709858082103296" />
  <row Id="23588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9172" RevisionGUID="16ff5b66-f5ab-4312-9a70-3b7c65aafc80" CreationDate="2016-09-21T22:26:22.813" UserId="520" Text="It's hard to be sure, but I think I spend perhaps 15-30 minutes a day on routine moderation stuff stuff like check the flags and act on the easy ones; scan through the days questions (I do this while looking for stuff I want to answer which feeds into my uncertainty about how long the moderating takes) looking for places where the discussion may be going off the rails and casting votes that see appropriate; pop in to chat to take the pulse of that subset of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of that is much different from what a high-rep user who is active in the review queues would do except that my votes are binding and I tend to adopt a wait-in-see approach to borderline cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the time spent on less routine things varies enormously. &quot;Less routine stuff&quot; includes investigating the less obvious flags, taking part in the on-going but asynchronous discussions we hold in the moderation chat rooms, and sometimes doing so investigation of hunches (which mostly come up negative, BTW, but have occasionally turned up attacks on the system using many accounts or multiple sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that is optional and I simply won't do it on busy weeks; particularly the exploratory investigations. But some less routine stuff needs timely action and I have felt obliged a couple of times when I was very busy in &quot;real&quot; life (say when grading final) to take some time off that pressing work for a PSE moderation issue. It's not common, but it happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a lot of social pressure to be active every day, but the system keeps score of who is handling the most flags and things like that, so you can see if you are slacking or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two changes I noticed when I started moderating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to be more judicious in picking things I want to argue for (or against) in public.&#xD;&#xA;Because I speak with a `official' voice, I have to be careful to distinguish my opinions and preferences from site policy and I have to keep in mind that my utterances are going to be scrutinized. I've felt at times that I needed to apologize for things I wrote that I might have just left if speaking with the diamond appended to my name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I haven't missed visiting the site for a single day since becoming a moderator unless I was stay-in-bed-groaning ill or spent at least six hours traveling. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9172" RevisionGUID="63f31472-b49a-476f-89f6-fceb85691a4f" CreationDate="2016-09-22T01:44:13.517" UserId="520" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="It's hard to be sure, but I think I spend perhaps 15-30 minutes a day on routine moderation stuff stuff like check the flags and act on the easy ones; scan through the days questions (I do this while looking for stuff I want to answer which feeds into my uncertainty about how long the moderating takes) looking for places where the discussion may be going off the rails and casting votes that seem appropriate; pop in to chat to take the pulse of that subset of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of that is much different from what a high-rep user who is active in the review queues would do except that my votes are binding and I tend to adopt a wait-in-see approach to borderline cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the time spent on less routine things varies enormously. &quot;Less routine stuff&quot; includes investigating the less obvious flags, taking part in the on-going but asynchronous discussions we hold in the moderation chat rooms, and sometimes doing some investigation of hunches (which mostly come up negative, BTW, but have occasionally turned up attacks on the system using many accounts or multiple sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that is optional and I simply won't do it on busy weeks; particularly the exploratory investigations. But some less routine stuff needs timely action and I have felt obliged a couple of times when I was very busy in &quot;real&quot; life (say when grading final) to take some time off that pressing work for a PSE moderation issue. It's not common, but it happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a lot of social pressure to be active every day, but the system keeps score of who is handling the most flags and things like that, so you can see if you are slacking or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two changes I noticed when I started moderating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to be more judicious in picking things I want to argue for (or against) in public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Because I speak with a `official' voice, I have to be careful to distinguish my opinions and preferences from site policy and I have to keep in mind that my utterances are going to be scrutinized. I've felt at times that I needed to apologize for things I wrote that I might have just left if speaking without the diamond appended to my name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I haven't missed visiting the site for a single day since becoming a moderator unless I was stay-in-bed-groaning ill or spent at least six hours traveling. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9173" RevisionGUID="704a60bd-fe5d-47de-8393-044c5f55cf0d" CreationDate="2016-09-22T02:11:32.973" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; why should it be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Do my work for me* questions are off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23591" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="905d2302-add7-4120-9b27-76e91b4e1939" CreationDate="2016-09-22T06:37:50.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/778845744535048192" />
  <row Id="23592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="e697967d-2567-44c0-864f-f0effe7a2392" CreationDate="2016-09-22T08:23:29.757" UserDisplayName="user130529" Text="I am very dissapointed by my experiment on this site. Four days ago, I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/280899/numerical-simulation-of-the-double-slit-experiment-including-watching-the-electr .&#xD;&#xA;After less that 24 hours, it was put [on hold] by 5 persons as being unclear. So I edited my question a first time in the hope the [on hold] would be removed so that people can answer it, unfortunately it remained in the on hold state. I read from the rules that &quot;Questions that are not reopened within five days will change from [on hold] to [closed]&quot;, so I went deaper in reading the rules from page http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions where it is suggested to re-edit the question and  &quot;Flag the question for moderator attention. Again, explain why it should be reopened. There is more than one moderator, and moderators do reconsider their decisions&quot;. So I followed these steps and flaged the question, explaining the moderator why in my opinion the question should be reopened. I was then surprised to get the following answer from a moderator: &quot;declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention&quot;. Hence either he or me does not comply to the stackexchange policy... being novice here I guess that it is my fault, but could someone explain me what I did wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I am very dissapointed: I have now spent many hours having to justify myself for askinq a question which, unless I am completely stupid, has clearly some interest, and lost hope of getting a answer. I write it here again for information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double-slit &quot;thought experiment&quot; described by Feynman in [Lectures on Physics Volume 3 section I-6 Watching the electrons](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html) consists in firing electrons through a double-slit to observe the interference of electron waves, and watching them after passing the slits with a light source placed behind the double-slit, at equal distance of each slit. As electric charges scatter light, one can &quot;detect&quot; which slit the electron went through if the photon wavelength is small enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: has this &quot;thought experiment&quot; been simulated by solving numerically the underlying Schrödinger equation? I am aware about numerical experiments of the double-slit, but did not find any including the interaction between the electrons and the photons just after the double-slit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerical simulation can address other types of particles, the crucial point being the simulation of the observation (here the photons being scattered by the electrons) and its effect on the wavefunction. Its interest could be in particular to better understand in which precise way the observation progressively becomes inoperative when the photon wavelength increases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="e697967d-2567-44c0-864f-f0effe7a2392" CreationDate="2016-09-22T08:23:29.757" UserDisplayName="user130529" Text="Very dissapointed by my experiment on this site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="e697967d-2567-44c0-864f-f0effe7a2392" CreationDate="2016-09-22T08:23:29.757" UserDisplayName="user130529" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="8de57828-a6a2-4fc6-8f9c-c7eca7a3fbe5" CreationDate="2016-09-22T08:44:13.963" UserDisplayName="user130529" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I am very dissapointed by my experiment on this site. Four days ago, I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/280899/numerical-simulation-of-the-double-slit-experiment-including-watching-the-electr .&#xD;&#xA;After less that 24 hours, it was put [on hold] by 5 persons as being unclear. So I edited my question a first time in the hope the [on hold] would be removed so that people can answer it, unfortunately it remained in the on hold state. I read from the rules that &quot;*Questions that are not reopened within five days will change from [on hold] to [closed]*&quot;, so I went deeper in reading the rules from page http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions where it is suggested to re-edit the question and  &quot;*Flag the question for moderator attention. Again, explain why it should be reopened. There is more than one moderator, and moderators do reconsider their decisions*&quot;. So I followed these steps, re-edited the question a second time and flagged the question, explaining the moderator why in my opinion the question should be reopened. I was then surprised to get the following answer from a moderator: &quot;declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention&quot;. Hence either he or me does not comply to the stackexchange policy... being novice here I guess that it is my fault, but could someone explain me what I did wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I am very disappointed: I have now spent many hours having to justify myself for asking a question which, unless I am completely stupid, has clearly some interest, and lost hope of getting a answer. I write it here again for information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double-slit &quot;thought experiment&quot; described by Feynman in [Lectures on Physics Volume 3 section I-6 Watching the electrons](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html) consists in firing electrons through a double-slit to observe the interference of electron waves, and watching them after passing the slits with a light source placed behind the double-slit, at equal distance of each slit. As electric charges scatter light, one can &quot;detect&quot; which slit the electron went through if the photon wavelength is small enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: has this &quot;thought experiment&quot; been simulated by solving numerically the underlying Schrödinger equation? I am aware about numerical experiments of the double-slit, but did not find any including the interaction between the electrons and the photons just after the double-slit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerical simulation can address other types of particles, the crucial point being the simulation of the observation (here the photons being scattered by the electrons) and its effect on the wavefunction. Its interest could be in particular to better understand in which precise way the observation progressively becomes inoperative when the photon wavelength increases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23596" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="f0f28f01-a205-4fc2-85fb-65cb55e9a8e2" CreationDate="2016-09-22T08:58:53.673" UserDisplayName="user130529" Comment="detail added, spelling, tags" Text="|discussion|support|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="7e0aff5a-14b0-4adc-8fa4-4e27b80b1ed7" CreationDate="2016-09-22T09:15:39.410" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 87 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am very disappointed by my experiment on this site. Four days ago, I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/280899/  .&#xD;&#xA;After less that 24 hours, it was put [on hold] by 5 persons as being unclear. So I edited my question a first time in the hope the [on hold] would be removed so that people can answer it, unfortunately it remained in the on hold state. I read from the rules that &quot;*Questions that are not reopened within five days will change from [on hold] to [closed]*&quot;, so I went deeper in reading the rules from page http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions where it is suggested to re-edit the question and  &quot;*Flag the question for moderator attention. Again, explain why it should be reopened. There is more than one moderator, and moderators do reconsider their decisions*&quot;. So I followed these steps, re-edited the question a second time and flagged the question, explaining the moderator why in my opinion the question should be reopened. I was then surprised to get the following answer from a moderator: &quot;declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention&quot;. Hence either he or me does not comply to the stackexchange policy... being novice here I guess that it is my fault, but could someone explain me what I did wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I am very disappointed: I have now spent many hours having to justify myself for asking a question which, unless I am completely stupid, has clearly some interest, and lost hope of getting a answer. I write it here again for information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double-slit &quot;thought experiment&quot; described by Feynman in [Lectures on Physics Volume 3 section I-6 Watching the electrons](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html) consists in firing electrons through a double-slit to observe the interference of electron waves, and watching them after passing the slits with a light source placed behind the double-slit, at equal distance of each slit. As electric charges scatter light, one can &quot;detect&quot; which slit the electron went through if the photon wavelength is small enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: has this &quot;thought experiment&quot; been simulated by solving numerically the underlying Schrödinger equation? I am aware about numerical experiments of the double-slit, but did not find any including the interaction between the electrons and the photons just after the double-slit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerical simulation can address other types of particles, the crucial point being the simulation of the observation (here the photons being scattered by the electrons) and its effect on the wavefunction. Its interest could be in particular to better understand in which precise way the observation progressively becomes inoperative when the photon wavelength increases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="7e0aff5a-14b0-4adc-8fa4-4e27b80b1ed7" CreationDate="2016-09-22T09:15:39.410" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 87 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23599" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="d4f9b8a5-d011-41a0-9c7f-3f93d61d5a82" CreationDate="2016-09-22T09:25:27.227" UserDisplayName="user130529" Comment="spelling, details, tags" Text="Very disappointed by my experiment on this site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="d4f9b8a5-d011-41a0-9c7f-3f93d61d5a82" CreationDate="2016-09-22T09:25:27.227" UserDisplayName="user130529" Comment="spelling, details, tags" Text="I am very disappointed by my experiment on this site. Four days ago, I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/280899/  .&#xD;&#xA;After less that 24 hours, it was put [on hold] by 5 persons as being unclear. So I edited my question a first time in the hope the [on hold] would be removed so that people can answer it, unfortunately it remained in the [on hold] state. I read from the rules that &quot;*Questions that are not reopened within five days will change from [on hold] to [closed]*&quot;, so I went deeper in reading the rules from page http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions where it is suggested to re-edit the question and  &quot;*Flag the question for moderator attention. Again, explain why it should be reopened. There is more than one moderator, and moderators do reconsider their decisions*&quot;. So I followed these steps, re-edited the question a second time and flagged the question, explaining the moderator why in my opinion the question should be reopened. I was then surprised to get the following answer from a moderator: &quot;declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention&quot;. Hence either he or me does not comply to the stackexchange policy... being novice here I guess that it is my fault, but could someone explain me what I did wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I am very disappointed: I have now spent many hours having to justify myself for asking a question which, unless I am completely stupid, has clearly some interest, and lost hope of getting an answer. I write it here again for information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double-slit &quot;thought experiment&quot; described by Feynman in [Lectures on Physics Volume 3 section I-6 Watching the electrons](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html) consists in firing electrons through a double-slit to observe the interference of electron waves, and watching them after passing the slits with a light source placed behind the double-slit, at equal distance of each slit. As electric charges scatter light, one can &quot;detect&quot; which slit the electron went through if the photon wavelength is small enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: has this &quot;thought experiment&quot; been simulated by solving numerically the underlying Schrödinger equation? I am aware about numerical experiments of the double-slit, but did not find any including the interaction between the electrons and the photons just after the double-slit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerical simulation can address other types of particles, the crucial point being the simulation of the observation (here the photons being scattered by the electrons) and its effect on the wavefunction. Its interest could be in particular to better understand in which precise way the observation progressively becomes inoperative when the photon wavelength increases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="496e5158-c5d4-4ec1-be65-198b8e87b433" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:10:54.153" UserDisplayName="user87265" Text="I recently asked a question about a real phenomenon I saw at the end of a documentary, I can't help that at the time the only thing I could find on it was at the end of this documentary which isn't something most would consider 'real' science, however the device shown is a known and real phenomenon called an Ionocraft (I now know this). I understand that the name of the documentary may have mislead some, but I assure you that I am asking about something perfectly real and proven to exist in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before asking the question I looked at the site's help question and I thought this would be on-topic because of this bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena&#xD;&#xA;    Example: Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281423/how-does-the-lifter-device-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that it can be reopened or at least for me to be given a proper explanation of why it was closed. Saying you won't answer a perfectly real question and just saying it's &quot;non-mainstream&quot; seems ridiculous to me if it's accepted in science to be real and there is proof for it. If there is a better SE site to ask about this on, then please let me know. Or of how I could improve my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="496e5158-c5d4-4ec1-be65-198b8e87b433" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:10:54.153" UserDisplayName="user87265" Text="Why was my question closed as off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="496e5158-c5d4-4ec1-be65-198b8e87b433" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:10:54.153" UserDisplayName="user87265" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="71eba70e-2e49-4738-a5e2-4be7a2ef6f91" CreationDate="2016-09-22T11:19:35.393" UserId="9887" Text=" &gt; for me to be given a proper explanation of why it was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question was closed *because* 5 users here judged that it was off-topic, should be closed, and voted to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to know their reason(s) for judging it to be close worthy, you will have to ask *them*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or of how I could improve my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kudos for asking!  I recommend improving your question by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) not asking that anyone reading your question go to youtube to view a video; this is just *bad form*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) as you've discovered, if a volunteer here gets a whiff of pseudoscience, he/she is *very* likely to vote to close.  The title of the video and your insistence that you're asking about a &quot;perfectly real phenomenon&quot; is more than a whiff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) good questions show some effort at researching the topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) good questions are not overly broad or open ended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking &quot;how does X work?&quot; without additional context is not good form. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9177" RevisionGUID="2438efbd-8c8d-4f94-98f6-215ed1312c0c" CreationDate="2016-09-22T11:47:48.377" UserId="124" Text="Questions which are edited are put into a queue to be reviewed for reopening. This is the _primary_ mechanism by which questions get reopened after being put on hold. Flagging for moderator attention is a backup option, to be used when the review process isn't working - either because the question is too old to be reviewed, or, if you really believe that the outcome of the review process was wrong and have a good argument for it, you can make that case in a flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in your case, [the review hasn't been completed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/146574). It's not time to invoke the backup option yet. So your main mistake was flagging immediately after you edited. That being said, a declined flag isn't a big deal. When a flag is declined, it means the mods are just advising you to avoid flagging things like that in the future. In this case specifically, avoid flagging questions for reopening without waiting for the review. (Though to be fair, this review has been sitting around incomplete for quite a while.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple other things which I would advise you to do differently. First of all, you didn't actually explain a reason for reopening the question in your flag reason. If you want a moderator to reopen a question, your best bet is to briefly mention in the flag reason itself why the question should be reopened. This can be very simple; for example, &quot;I've edited the question to clarify the issues brought up in the comments.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the way you worded your flag message is rather rude. Flag messages are considered private, so our normal &quot;be nice&quot; policy doesn't apply to them as strictly as it would apply to public posts, but bear in mind that when you cast a flag to ask someone for help, they will be more willing to help if you do phrase the message politely, and they will be _less_ willing to help if you are impolite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one example of how you could write a perfectly reasonable flag message for when you want a question reopened:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Edited to address the issues brought up in comments; the question should be clear now, but I have been waiting a long time since the edits. Could you review this for reopening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="a9601b3c-2b4c-4b42-9ab8-526b1b65db6f" CreationDate="2016-09-22T15:56:51.473" UserId="1325" Text="[Courtesy of a comment to your original question][1] you now know the craft in the video is called an ionocraft, and [there is a Wikipedia article that explains how they work][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read the Wikipedia article and run into problems understanding it then please come back to us with more questions specifically targeted at whatever aspect of the physics you are running into difficulties with. Alternatively if you fully understand the Wikipedia article that's great. Either way there's nothing to be gained by reopening the original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281423/how-does-the-lifter-ionocraft-device-work#comment631628_281423&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="36940947-ef27-4814-8b75-995169503408" CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:06:45.460" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently asked a question about a real phenomenon I saw at the end of a documentary, I can't help that at the time the only thing I could find on it was at the end of this documentary which isn't something most would consider 'real' science, however the device shown is a known and real phenomenon called an Ionocraft (I now know this). I understand that the name of the documentary may have mislead some, but I assure you that I am asking about something perfectly real and proven to exist in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before asking the question I looked at the site's help question and I thought this would be on-topic because of this bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena&#xD;&#xA;    Example: Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/281423/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that it can be reopened or at least for me to be given a proper explanation of why it was closed. Saying you won't answer a perfectly real question and just saying it's &quot;non-mainstream&quot; seems ridiculous to me if it's accepted in science to be real and there is proof for it. If there is a better SE site to ask about this on, then please let me know. Or of how I could improve my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="36940947-ef27-4814-8b75-995169503408" CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:06:45.460" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="c29e137c-c8ab-4e4b-ba51-016999abe777" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:45:57.773" UserId="64669" Text="This is a common phenomenon that plagues not just questions asked on PSE, but actually all of SE and any non face-to-face communication media:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin, a question is actually built by a chain of reasoning and has a structure. Only by addressing an important node in the chain can a question be answered (henceforth we refer this as &quot;killing the question&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, we have [this question][1]. An analysis of the question structure in the [chat][2] was carried out. The structure was found to be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: The Heisenberg uncertainty relation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: There's a limit to the accuracy of physical measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X: A ---&gt; B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: not X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E: We should be able to observe large fluctuations by making precise measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D: C ---&gt; E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't observe E, so by contrapositive, X is true, and so B is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;The question thus boils down to asking whether D is true, even though the truth value of X is the one presented as the question. Therefore **in order to kill this question, D needs to be addressed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was then closed as a duplicate. However a detailed look at the comments and the alleged duplicated questions that is suggested to OP, it was found that while they have addressed X or B, **D was never addressed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's follow up comment then want to tell the readers that none of the comments addressed D, however the comments that followed still only addressed X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical fate of these questions are: **D was overlooked**, OP want to clarified it is D, ***people lost patience for follow up questions and thus no extra response followed***, question was effectively abandoned, result in dissatisfied OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;Therefore we want to raise an important take home message to not just PSE readers, but all netizens in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The author of the answers and comments must **take time to understand why OP is confused**. It's **not enough** to identify **one particular** (usually the easiest to address) proposition in the chain of logic, say that this proposition is false (and maybe cite stuff) and claimed the question is killed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281657/uncertainty-principle-in-macroscopic-world&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32501360#32501360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="c29e137c-c8ab-4e4b-ba51-016999abe777" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:45:57.773" UserId="64669" Text="Major issue in answering and judging questions: Killing the wrong node in a question's logical chain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="c29e137c-c8ab-4e4b-ba51-016999abe777" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:45:57.773" UserId="64669" Text="|discussion|questions|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="40cef602-b048-4cc7-b1fc-e0ef7b8c0fa0" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:25:43.137" UserId="31790" Comment="Grammar, more reserved text emphasis" Text="This is a common phenomenon that plagues not just questions asked on PSE, but actually all of SE and any non face-to-face communication media:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin, a question is actually built by a chain of reasoning and has a structure. Only by addressing an important node in the chain can a question be answered (henceforth we refer this as &quot;killing the question&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, we have [this question][1]. An analysis of the question structure in the [chat][2] was carried out. The structure was found to be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: The Heisenberg uncertainty relation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: There's a limit to the accuracy of physical measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X: A ---&gt; B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: not X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E: We should be able to observe large fluctuations by making precise measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D: C ---&gt; E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't observe E, so by contrapositive, X is true, and so B is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;The question thus boils down to asking whether D is true, even though the truth value of X is the one presented as the question. Therefore *in order to kill this question, D needs to be addressed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was then closed as a duplicate. However a detailed look at the comments and the alleged duplicated questions that is suggested to OP, it was found that while they have addressed X or B, *D was never addressed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's follow up comment then want to tell the readers that none of the comments addressed D, however the comments that followed still only addressed X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical fate of these questions is: *D was overlooked*, OP wants to clarify D, people lose patience for follow up questions and thus no extra response is given, question was effectively abandoned, result in dissatisfied OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;Therefore we want to raise an important take home message to not just PSE readers, but all netizens in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The author of the answers and comments must take time to understand *why* OP is confused. It's not enough to identify one particular (usually the easiest to address) proposition in the chain of logic, say that this proposition is false (and maybe cite stuff) and claimed the question is killed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281657/uncertainty-principle-in-macroscopic-world&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32501360#32501360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23613" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="40cef602-b048-4cc7-b1fc-e0ef7b8c0fa0" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:25:43.137" UserId="31790" Comment="Grammar, more reserved text emphasis" Text="Killing the wrong node in a question's logical chain: a common mistake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9180" RevisionGUID="31ae1260-dd4e-41b5-83d5-17969bf928a4" CreationDate="2016-09-23T14:01:25.900" UserId="124" Text="1. Yes, of course you're right...&#xD;&#xA;2. ...but the next step after all this is to edit the question to guide future readers to the real reason why the OP is confused. In other words, once it's been determined in the comments that the question is really about D, edit the question to ask explicitly about D, and make it clear that the proposed duplicate doesn't answer D. That latter part could be addressed like this, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; I've looked at [question] and it addresses X, but it doesn't say anything about D, which is what I really want to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (this would be in addition to changing the core of the question itself to ask about D, not X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This is usually a moderate-to-major edit, and should probably be made by the OP. But if they don't feel comfortable making the edit themselves, someone else can do the edit while coordinating with the OP so that they check it afterwards. The important thing is really that we know the poster is okay with the post-edit version of the question appearing with their name under it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="323b00c2-ba7c-4998-8d29-e5f66c9219ff" CreationDate="2016-09-23T19:31:01.380" UserId="32426" Text="What is your open/close/reopen/leave closed vote statistic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing the same proportion as a mod, what effect will it have to the site, and particularly to its growth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="b8e45e23-0ba9-4be3-bdb0-a600ae49f92b" CreationDate="2016-09-23T22:42:04.807" UserId="31790" Comment="soften tone (a lot)" Text="I noticed a question on which an interesting misunderstanding lead to inappropriate closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the moment, let's think of a question as a chain of proposals linked together through reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;Only by addressing an important node in the chain can a question be answered (henceforth we refer this as &quot;killing the question&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, we have [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;An analysis of the question structure in the [chat][2] reduced it to the following logical structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: The Heisenberg uncertainty relation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: There's a limit to the accuracy of physical measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X: A ---&gt; B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: not X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E: We should be able to observe large fluctuations by making precise measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D: C ---&gt; E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't observe E, so by contrapositive, X is true, and so B is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question boils down to asking whether D is true, even though the truth value of X is the one presented as the question.&#xD;&#xA;The question was then closed as a duplicate, but while the alleged duplicated questions, and the comments, address X or B, D was never addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's follow up comment then want to tell the readers that none of the comments addressed D, however the comments that followed still only addressed X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the typical fate of these questions is: D was overlooked, OP wants to clarify D, people lose patience for follow up questions and thus no extra response is given, question was effectively abandoned, result in dissatisfied OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all, just wanted to point out what I think is a somewhat common pattern of misunderstanding so we can all be aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281657/uncertainty-principle-in-macroscopic-world&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32501360#32501360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23617" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="b8e45e23-0ba9-4be3-bdb0-a600ae49f92b" CreationDate="2016-09-23T22:42:04.807" UserId="31790" Comment="soften tone (a lot)" Text="Killing the wrong node in a question's logical chain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="9abb5480-fe58-4d2c-83bc-ed99f69f9d63" CreationDate="2016-09-23T23:53:42.963" UserId="148704" Text="There is a [user][1] who down votes 90% of the time and that is his privilege. How many time can I down vote him before I am interrupted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="9abb5480-fe58-4d2c-83bc-ed99f69f9d63" CreationDate="2016-09-23T23:53:42.963" UserId="148704" Text="How many times can I down vote a particular user over in a given time frame?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="9abb5480-fe58-4d2c-83bc-ed99f69f9d63" CreationDate="2016-09-23T23:53:42.963" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="8f955ed9-ad8e-450b-96d4-d79f26f85c18" CreationDate="2016-09-23T23:58:05.433" UserId="520" Text="To be very frank: you shouldn't even be contemplating this questions; you should always vote the quality of the content and never the user who posted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor will anyone tell you what the limits of the automated vote-misuse detection system are. That would rather defeat their purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23622" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="6fea54c1-8bb9-4d0d-82c8-38a56950146e" CreationDate="2016-09-23T23:58:25.087" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|status-declined|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="53eaec98-19f6-4e96-83e9-70bad200b3b9" CreationDate="2016-09-24T00:21:03.243" UserId="56299" Text="A few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The user you refer to has cast quite a few votes, but only about 81.7% of them are downvotes, not 90%. Call this pedantry, but I think it's important to distinguish between claims and facts.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **[Vote on the posts, not on the person.](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58804/274942)** Targeted serial voting like this is unacceptable and may result in disciplinary action.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Stack Exchange does not reveal the details of the voting algorithms to any users, even to moderators. If people *did* know, they could do what you're proposing, and try to beat the system.&#xD;&#xA; 4. You've posted a number of questions that have been downvoted. I wouldn't be surprised if the user you mention has indeed voted on some of those questions, and indeed downvoted some of them. This shouldn't be a surprise, because some of your questions haven't been that great; you've gotten some feedback in this regard and I hope it will lead to better questions in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; All that said, you should *not* - I repeat, *not* - make assumptions about the actions of others. There's no way to see who voted which way on what post, and even if there was, you shouldn't assume that the voting was unjustified. The user in question does downvote a lot of posts; he or she simply has different standards than the next person. Who are any of us to say that this user is incorrect in the way they vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="a004de7d-26b3-45af-8918-bf167a28da17" CreationDate="2016-09-24T06:44:36.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/779572224336523264" />
  <row Id="23625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="41155dca-2fe1-452e-bb85-c70bcf4f4fa0" CreationDate="2016-09-24T07:50:49.127" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="That's it! He did it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John Rennie](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie), on 24-09-2016 became the first man ever in the realms of [Phys.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) to reach the summit of 200k!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For over five years, he travelled and saved people from the evils of confusion in almost every nook and corner of the kingdom of Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now he has crossed this landmark for the very first time in our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the community congratulates the beloved John Rennie for his magnificent  achievement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_May the light of this old (handsome) nerd may never be quelled_ ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tloDr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="41155dca-2fe1-452e-bb85-c70bcf4f4fa0" CreationDate="2016-09-24T07:50:49.127" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="John Rennie, the nerd, crosses the 200k. Congratulations!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="41155dca-2fe1-452e-bb85-c70bcf4f4fa0" CreationDate="2016-09-24T07:50:49.127" UserDisplayName="user36790" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="56db7ceb-20b5-434f-9813-5a9a08fb68d5" CreationDate="2016-09-24T08:02:02.127" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="That's it! He did it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John Rennie](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie), on 24-09-2016 became the first man ever in the realms of [Phys.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) to reach the summit of 200k!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For over five years, he travelled and saved people from the evils of confusion in almost every nook and corner of the kingdom of Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now he has crossed this landmark for the very first time in our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the community congratulates the beloved John Rennie for his magnificent  achievement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_May the light of this old (handsome) nerd never be quelled_ ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tloDr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="d3a28c58-4d7e-45a7-9b2e-ced907501db3" CreationDate="2016-09-24T10:33:07.337" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="That's it! He did it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John Rennie](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie), on 23-09-2016 became the first man ever in the realms of [Phys.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) to reach the summit of 200k!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For over five years, he travelled and saved people from the evils of confusion in almost every nook and corner of the kingdom of Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now he has crossed this landmark for the very first time in our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the community congratulates the beloved John Rennie for his magnificent  achievement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_May the light of this old (handsome) nerd never be quelled_ ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tloDr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9186" RevisionGUID="b4e11048-dae5-4a65-859e-107686742d41" CreationDate="2016-09-24T11:07:31.957" UserId="1325" Text="I would place a slightly different emphasis on this and instead highlight the progress of the Physics SE. A quick play with the Data Explorer tells me that between us the site members have written about 112,000 answers, and the average upvotes per answer is about 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an extraordinary achievement. Not only are we providing a huge number of answers to questions about physics, but we are providing a huge number of **useful** answers to questions about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all enjoy the neverending arguments about whether we have the balance of the site just right, whether we should be more or less lenient about homework questions, whether we're too aggressive with closing questions, and so on, and so on. But we shouldn't let our tendency to self criticism blind us to just how much has been achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something of a hobby horse of mine, and apologies to everyone I have bored before on this subject, but as an enthusiastic physics nerd growing up in the UK in the 1970s it was inconceivable that I could ask questions of real live physicists. That todays young physicists can do this is quite remarkable and a testament to **everyone** who freely gives their time to make this site such a success." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="fa30c50d-2418-40c8-bbd3-a4521a121e8d" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:19:08.213" UserId="5477" Text="Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9188" RevisionGUID="ab68fbea-dc1b-4a75-8751-2cb1baf58669" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:28:46.367" UserId="5477" Text="Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="65857504-4b8c-4ebb-ab0f-7585bd57197b" CreationDate="2016-09-24T15:47:40.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/779708890271416321" />
  <row Id="23634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="2121d99a-9025-41a0-b1cc-80160ac383d1" CreationDate="2016-09-25T07:24:56.200" UserId="47033" Text="I was thinking of asking the moderators to publish a journal annually, containing the best 100 questions of the year , and their detailed discussion sessions, so that if someone searches for a particular topic 6 years later, it shows up in the journal , along with its detailed discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="2121d99a-9025-41a0-b1cc-80160ac383d1" CreationDate="2016-09-25T07:24:56.200" UserId="47033" Text="publish annual q/a journal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="2121d99a-9025-41a0-b1cc-80160ac383d1" CreationDate="2016-09-25T07:24:56.200" UserId="47033" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9190" RevisionGUID="a4e59c94-57f9-4d27-8e19-262a5830d8fc" CreationDate="2016-09-25T07:54:49.177" UserId="1325" Text="This seems like a lot of work to ask the moderators to do. However there's nothing to stop you from doing it if you think it's a worthwhile undertaking. I have to say that it's not obvious to me that this would be especially useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="cefb0045-3aad-407d-9489-aa1cb68726b4" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:32:40.587" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was thinking of asking the moderators to publish a journal annually, containing the best 100 questions of the year, and their detailed discussion sessions, so that if someone searches for a particular topic 6 years later, it shows up in the journal, along with its detailed discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23639" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="cefb0045-3aad-407d-9489-aa1cb68726b4" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:32:40.587" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Publish annual Q&amp;A journal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="cefb0045-3aad-407d-9489-aa1cb68726b4" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:32:40.587" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|feature-request|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="54fc2166-695b-4e00-b179-930cd82aa8e3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:26:37.527" UserId="148704" Text="I have this [user][1] who is always the first to close and down vote most if not all my work if you can call it that. I do not want him on my stuff. I truly feel harassed even though he has not really broke any rules. I just want him to leave me and my stuff alone forever! What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="54fc2166-695b-4e00-b179-930cd82aa8e3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:26:37.527" UserId="148704" Text="Can I ask to have a block or left alone by a user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="54fc2166-695b-4e00-b179-930cd82aa8e3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:26:37.527" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="b2eb5444-878b-4e82-8bed-38f421e015a0" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:50:15.947" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a user who is always the first to close and down vote most if not all my work if you can call it that. I do not want him on my stuff. I truly feel harassed even though he has not really broke any rules. I just want him to leave me and my stuff alone forever! What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23645" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="b2eb5444-878b-4e82-8bed-38f421e015a0" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:50:15.947" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|status-declined|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="b3c7d9e2-8f06-4887-b080-2c3f85291064" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:03:34.893" UserId="520" Text="##No. You can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ever user with the requisite rep is entitled to vote on the content you post. That's by design: we use a crowd-sourced evaluation. There may exist users that cast more downvotes than up, and that is allowed. It just means that user have very stringent standards of quality; as long as those standards are applied evenly the user is free to continue in that mode and anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor is the problem that you have that a single user is after you: if it was you would never get more than a single down-vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem that you *are* having is that a lot of the content you post is *widely* viewed as failing to live up to the standards of Physics Stack Exchange. I am being rather blunt here because you have posted to meta several times and have apparently not taken subtle suggestions to heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are not a criticism of you as a person, but they are a criticism of the post on which they are applied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="0264f6e8-3314-47fc-bcda-42c9d321ea2b" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:16:59.277" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="##No. You can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ever user with the requisite rep is entitled to vote on the content you post. That's by design: we use a crowd-sourced evaluation. There may exist users that cast more downvotes than up, and that is allowed. It just means that user has very stringent standards of quality; as long as those standards are applied evenly the user is free to continue in that mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor is the problem that you have that a single user is after you: if it was you would never get more than a single down-vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem that you *are* having is that a lot of the content you post is *widely* viewed as failing to live up to the standards of Physics Stack Exchange. I am being rather blunt here because you have posted to meta several times and have apparently not taken subtle suggestions to heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are not a criticism of you as a person, but they are a criticism of the post on which they are applied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="7e5e97c8-773e-4bed-96dc-f8c7a05c6067" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:55:11.373" UserId="148704" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="I have a [user][1] who is always the first to close and down vote most if not all my work if you can call it that. I do not want him on my stuff. I truly feel harassed even though he has not really broke any rules. I just want him to leave me and my stuff alone forever! What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23651" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="8803b823-5b68-4171-9742-7d3af06192be" CreationDate="2016-09-25T19:49:58.727" UserId="56299" Comment="Rollback to [b2eb5444-878b-4e82-8bed-38f421e015a0]" Text="I have a user who is always the first to close and down vote most if not all my work if you can call it that. I do not want him on my stuff. I truly feel harassed even though he has not really broke any rules. I just want him to leave me and my stuff alone forever! What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="c620ffb8-4fa9-46a5-b22c-5335032e1128" CreationDate="2016-09-25T20:01:47.523" UserId="148704" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="I have a user who is always the **first to close** and down vote most if not all my work if you can call it that. I do not want him on my stuff. I truly feel harassed even though he has not really broke any rules. I just want him to leave me and my stuff alone forever! What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281831/could-a-levitron-work-above-earth&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="524c4db1-22be-4d8b-838a-86db6017b071" CreationDate="2016-09-25T20:23:07.653" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="##No. You can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every user with the requisite rep is entitled to vote on the content you post. That's by design: we use a crowd-sourced evaluation. There may exist users that cast more downvotes than up, and that is allowed. It just means that user has very stringent standards of quality; as long as those standards are applied evenly the user is free to continue in that mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor is the problem that you have that a single user is after you: if it was you would never get more than a single down-vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem that you *are* having is that a lot of the content you post is *widely* viewed as failing to live up to the standards of Physics Stack Exchange. I am being rather blunt here because you have posted to meta several times and have apparently not taken subtle suggestions to heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are not a criticism of you as a person, but they are a criticism of the post on which they are applied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="a197cd21-29ef-4509-bdab-6513f99cd3e2" CreationDate="2016-09-25T20:46:35.467" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="There is a user who down votes 90% of the time and that is his privilege. How many time can I down vote him before I am interrupted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="5ea33389-de60-41d2-ab5d-978453d3b802" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:25:36.167" UserId="46774" Text="As a user that frequents SE sites intermittently (and with less reputation than most, including yourself), interpret my upcoming critique as independent from the high-rep user/users you believe are targeting you.  You seem to be intentionally ignoring the community's critique, falsely assuming that you are the victim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your curiosity - it will serve you well if you put in the work required to graduate from curiosity to knowledge.  But understand that knowledge comes via research, frustration, research, work, work, work, then questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current asking criteria deserves downvotes, and I have personally downvoted at least two of your posts (purely on their content).  Avoiding debates on a per question basis, Ill simply say that your questions contained spelling errors, incorrect and/or out of context information with no references, and no visible effort on your part.  &#xD;&#xA;To me (and I presume to other users), that is a clear sign of disrespect to the community.  You should expect to spend as much time and effort to [research, research](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users), contemplate, then write your question as the answer you hope to receive.  To be clear, a link and/or picture helps, but only to clarify concepts - dont mistake them for research or effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please appreciate the amount of effort it takes to research, develop a (correct) answer, and then write that answer in order to help you. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The last is especially true for the monumental questions you have asked recently:  Do you think succinct answers are possible?  Do you think its reasonable to spend ~2 minutes asking a whimsical question, and expect an answer that essentially invents/validates a non-existent technology (in a page or two, no less)!?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are great.  Thats why we all choose to participate here.  But realize that when you ask a question, the community expects you to care enough about your question to try, really try to answer it yourself.  Do every calculation you know you should.  Read every article you can find.  Struggle to find the answer on your own, then ask.  Questions should articulate what you dont understand in order to continue answering your larger question - remember, its your question, not ours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given multiple closed and downvoted questions, I urge you to reconsider your asking criteria - to reiterate @dmckee, realize that a single user cannot be responsible for closure and multiple downvotes.  I think you should accept that users really do vote on content, not on personal grudges.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerly hope this isnt taken as an attack - its intended to be a candid rebuttal of your question - and I look forward to your future contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="abd67fd1-e201-4271-bea9-0779e5e9e3b0" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:30:41.307" UserId="46774" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="As a user that frequents SE sites intermittently (and with less reputation than most, including yourself), interpret my upcoming critique as independent from the high-rep user/users you believe are targeting you.  You seem to be intentionally ignoring the community's critique, falsely assuming that you are the victim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your curiosity - it will serve you well if you put in the work required to graduate from curiosity to knowledge.  But understand that knowledge comes via research, frustration, research, work, work, work, then questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current asking criteria deserves downvotes, and I have personally downvoted at least two of your posts (purely on their content).  Avoiding debates on a per question basis, Ill simply say that your questions contained spelling errors, incorrect and/or out of context information with no references, and no visible effort on your part.  &#xD;&#xA;To me (and I presume to other users), that is a clear sign of disrespect to the community.  You should expect to spend as much time and effort to [research, research](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users), contemplate, then write your question as the answer you hope to receive.  To be clear, a link and/or picture helps, but only to clarify concepts - dont mistake them for research or effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please appreciate the amount of effort it takes to research, develop a (correct) answer, and then write that answer in order to help you. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The last is especially true for the monumental questions you have asked recently:  Do you think succinct answers are possible?  Do you think its reasonable to spend ~2 minutes asking a whimsical question, and expect an answer that essentially invents/validates a non-existent technology (in a page or two, no less)!?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are great.  Thats why we all choose to participate here.  But realize that when you ask a question, the community expects you to care enough about your question to try, really try to answer it yourself.  Do every calculation you know you should.  Read every article you can find.  Struggle to find the answer on your own, then ask.  Questions should articulate what you dont understand in order to continue answering your larger question - remember, its your question, not ours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given multiple closed and downvoted questions, I urge you to reconsider your asking criteria - to reiterate @dmckee, realize that a single user cannot be responsible for closure and multiple downvotes.  I think you should accept that users really do vote on content, not on personal grudges.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerly hope this is not recieved as an attack against you personally - its intended to be a candid rebuttal of your question - and I look forward to your future contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="e9be3a4f-998c-4363-9356-88ca2a4996a3" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:38:47.573" UserId="46774" Comment="Spelling and tone improvements." Text="As a user that frequents SE sites intermittently (and with less reputation than most, including yourself), please interpret my upcoming critique as independent from the high-rep user/users you believe are targeting you.  You seem to be intentionally ignoring the community's critique, falsely assuming that you are the victim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your curiosity - it will serve you well if you put in the work required to graduate from curiosity to knowledge.  But understand that knowledge comes via research, frustration, research, work, work, work, then questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current asking criteria deserves downvotes, and I have personally downvoted at least two of your posts (purely on their content).  Avoiding debates on a per question basis, Ill simply say that your questions contained spelling errors, incorrect and/or out of context information with no references, and no visible effort on your part.  &#xD;&#xA;To me (and I presume to other users), that is a clear sign of disrespect to the community.  You should expect to spend as much time and effort to [research, research](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users), contemplate, then write your question as the answer you hope to receive.  To be clear, a link and/or picture helps, but only to clarify concepts - dont mistake them for research or effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please appreciate the amount of time and effort it takes to research, develop a (correct) answer, and then write that answer in order to help you. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The last is especially true for the monumental questions you have asked recently:  Do you think succinct answers are possible?  Do you think its reasonable to spend ~2 minutes asking a whimsical question, and expect an answer that essentially invents/validates a non-existent technology (in a page or two, no less)!?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are great.  Thats why we all choose to participate here.  But realize that when you ask a question, the community expects you to care enough about your question to try, really try to answer it yourself.  Do every calculation you know you should.  Read every article you can find.  Struggle to find the answer on your own, then ask.  Questions should articulate what you dont understand in order to continue answering your larger question - remember, its your question, not ours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given multiple closed and downvoted questions, I urge you to reconsider your asking criteria - to reiterate @dmckee, realize that a single user cannot be responsible for closure and multiple downvotes.  I think you should accept that users really do vote on content, not on personal grudges.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely hope this is not recieved as an attack against you personally - its intended to be a candid rebuttal of your question - and I look forward to your future contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23658" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="a8f919ed-95a9-434b-b21c-d031633c5fe2" CreationDate="2016-09-26T03:56:20.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/780254650910081024" />
  <row Id="23659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="211bc95e-227d-4bcd-99db-d51f79aecbde" CreationDate="2016-09-26T06:56:20.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/780299951628771328" />
  <row Id="23660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="858b97c1-58fb-416b-baf4-488758d1dd6a" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:50:24.300" UserId="70392" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9191/can-i-ask-to-have-a-block-or-left-alone-by-a-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: 'The opening downvove [sic] caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an **independent** decision, **without preconceptions**, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the weather or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="858b97c1-58fb-416b-baf4-488758d1dd6a" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:50:24.300" UserId="70392" Text="Is one 'close vote' all it needs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="858b97c1-58fb-416b-baf4-488758d1dd6a" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:50:24.300" UserId="70392" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="f85a13d2-08a6-499a-8c7a-4685ab13cdc5" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:55:03.997" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9191/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: 'The opening downvote [sic] caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an **independent** decision, **without preconceptions**, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the whether or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:00:11.293" UserId="4826" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:00:11.293" UserId="4826" Text="2016 Moderator Election Q&amp;A - Questionnaire" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:00:11.293" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|featured|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="07a774e3-864f-4d08-857e-8ce4a7424b3b" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:01:06.423" UserId="4826" Comment="Next stage revonisation" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="226f80df-d3e2-4f38-b5ab-cedf2094ce6a" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:08:44.937" UserId="31790" Comment="Add link to official questionnaire" Text="* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). This is important; in order to vote for a moderator we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="91478be9-655e-4e5e-8edb-20f6c7648198" CreationDate="2016-09-26T21:49:26.917" UserId="50583" Text="# [ACuriousMind's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am rather dismayed that it is possible that this happens, I don't think this is a problem that can or should be solved by moderator intervention - at least, not by using any of the additional privileges a moderator has. That this is possible is an inherent property of the SE engine and the weights it attaches to up- and downvotes. Of course, if significant support for the idea of raising the weight of downvotes was present in the community, it would perhaps fall to the moderators to present this position to the SE team - but then again, everyone can make such a feature request at the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question intends to imply that maybe moderators should delete the answers of such users or suspend them, then I don't think that either can be justified. Also, deleting their wrong answers potentially leads to the users *gaining more reputation*, depending on what exactly the vote count on the wrong answer was, which doesn't solve the problem at all. Selectively deleting only the answers which contribute to their positive reputation would appear capricious and targeting a specific user instead of specific posts, which is generally inappropriate. Suspensions are only appropriate when an explicit rule was broken - and &quot;posting wrong stuff&quot; is annoying, but not in violation of any policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality. I do think the general voting behavior on this SE currently encourages questions that are much too lazy and ill-thought out. I wrote about this [some time ago](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) and although the numbers are of course off by now, I still stand by everything I've written there. However, I don't see how this priority of mine would be any more relevant as a moderator than it was as a high reputation user - the primary means of quality control is *upvoting high-quality questions and downvoting low-quality questions*, which is completely unaffected by moderatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly wait for consensus regarding suspensions, except in cases where one is immediately needed for the user to &quot;cool off&quot;. I would also, at least at the beginning, wait for input before dismissing custom moderator flags, but perhaps not before validating them, if the case appears clear cut. I would not wait for consensus when reopening or closing a question, but I expect to be casting both reopen and close votes much less than I currently do since I don't want to overuse the unilateral character of these votes. I would also not wait for consensus before deleting obsolete, rude or irrelevant comments, since those are supposed to be ephemeral by design anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guarantee a minimum of an hour per day for at least the next year. My time &quot;spent&quot; on the site is usually more, but I'm often doing other things while occasionally checking the site, so the actual time *invested* into the site is difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that 99% of what I have posted will not reflect badly, and that most of it reflects rather well. I can remember some stray comments and chat messages where I might have been less charitable than I should have been, but there is nothing that I would be ashamed of. The most significant change to my routine in the site would probably be that I don't do the &quot;ordinary&quot; review queues anymore, which I currently visit almost every day, and that I might be a bit more careful to distinguish site policy from my personal opinion when commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think our scope is generally quite alright as it is. The very nature of these interdisciplinary questions is that it is difficult to make general policies that cover them - this is where community moderation has to shine, hashing out whether a given question is &quot;just enough physics&quot; or &quot;not enough physics&quot; by several close/reopen cycles if need be, or just by a bit of comment/chat/meta discussion about the specific question. As a moderator, I would refrain from casting my unilateral votes in any binding manner on those questions, i.e. I would only cast them as fifth votes. We don't elect moderators to *make* policy, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't make me more effective. Moderators aren't supposed to be &quot;more effective&quot; versions of ordinary users, they're supposed to be trusted janitors who clean up the messes and do the behind-the-scenes work that's unsuitable for community moderation but nevertheless needs to be done to keep the site running smoothly. I love this site and I want to be part of the reason it's working. In the past, I've done so by participating in the review queues every day, which is something I *strongly* encourage every user with sufficient reputation to do. Now, I get the opportunity to do so in another role - if you want me to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there should be boundaries in terms of &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think there currently are. There are good and bad questions at a layman's or high schooler's level, and there are good and bad questions at research level. I've seen plenty of all of those. What I expect from a question is a reasonable amount of research effort, and an attempt to communicate clearly the *conceptual question* the asker is having. I strongly dislike all stances that think questions have merit simply because of their level. Questions have merit because they are *good, well-posed questions* that can be answered with physical insight. Note, however, that just because you can write an amazing answer to a question that doesn't necessarily make the question itself any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case where I see a question closed merely because of its *level*, I would strongly consider unilaterally reopening it. We don't have a policy about &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think we should have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what kinds of flag exactly this user generates. Generating a lot of &quot;obsolete&quot; flags is a *good* thing, since it indicates the user leaves a lot of comments leading to posts being improved, making the comment obsolete in the process. Generating a lot of &quot;not constructive&quot; or &quot;too chatty&quot; flags is worse, although it might just indicate a chatty user. I'd advise the user to use comments only for relevant communication and take longer reply chains to chat instead, but probably take no further action. On repeated offense, I'd be more quick to move the discussions to chat, but if everything's civil, I don't see a need for other actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generating a lot of &quot;rude/offensive&quot; flags is a lot worse, and would probably warrant a suspension if warnings to be nicer do not succeed. As I said above, I would not impose a suspension without waiting for consensus from the rest of the moderators, unless the user is currently generating those flags and no end is in sight. In that case I would impose a short &quot;cool off&quot; suspension to de-escalate the immediate situation, and then consult the other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd first make sure I understand the reasons for which the other moderator took that action. If I still disagree with the result, I'd take the issue to meta. Moderators should not make policy on their own, so if two of us are in strong disagreement what to do with a certain question, this indicates that the community's larger position on that type of question is unclear or needs to be re-evaluated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="8485f9da-ae87-46df-9af6-128025a1a5f0" CreationDate="2016-09-26T21:50:20.400" UserId="50583" Comment="adding my answers to the list as requested" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23682" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="8c70f456-56c8-4067-b5be-c6239437ccfd" CreationDate="2016-09-26T22:05:33.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/780528764572798976" />
  <row Id="23684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="3350f4ca-0be9-4117-8023-d6c0d0d865b6" CreationDate="2016-09-26T23:24:45.043" UserId="121464" Text="I would say &quot;Purely Calculation&quot; (different from doesn't show work):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be outsourcing a calculation to the community&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept, show&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work and explain where you got stuck, or provide more context. For&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above would be my close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="431d9163-26cc-42bf-958e-c5ba07469387" CreationDate="2016-09-27T03:22:21.607" UserId="6634" Text="# [tpg2114's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) questionnaire answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Side note -- thanks to [ACuriousMind's](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/6634) post for being the first and setting a format)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand such users can, in mild cases, generate resentment about the way the system works, and in more serious cases, gain access to the tools awarded high-reputation users that may be inappropriately used and/or abused. The disparity between reputation for upvotes and downvotes is [a question I have raised previously](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4858/what-would-it-look-like-if-rep-for-questions-counted-the-same-more-than-answers) for discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at the time resulted in something that I still believe is true: a majority of high reputation users are not doing it for the reputation. [They are doing it to educate others and to share their passion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions/6568). So while some users may be able to game the system by producing mixed content, it will be relatively few. And I feel it would take a long time before they earned a high enough reputation to really do frustrating, site-harming levels of damage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long before that point, I would expect such users to either get bored or to mature to the point that it is no longer a problem. I don't think moderator intervention is required until actual damage is done, at which point the StackExchange platform and policies allow easy reversal of the damage and tools to remedy the situation with the user in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On some level, I challenge the premise of the question. I don't see that the two are diametrically opposed -- I believe the two go hand-in-hand. Quality questions and answers come from returning users, and the site grows by providing quality questions and answers so that users do return. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in that frame of reference, my focus would be on the **quality** of the site. By providing a wealth of information on a wide-variety of topics in physics, people will be driven to the site. And those who return will bring questions (and hopefully answers) that challenge and engage the users already here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, the role of a moderator in this process is relatively limited. Ultimately, moderators are an insignificant percentage of the content generators/handlers for the site -- the users must be engaged in quality and growth. To that end, as a moderator, my priority is ensuring that quality is maintained in a form that is welcoming and encouraging to users who want to be active participants in the goals of the site. Contrary to many of the debates the site has had previously, quality and friendliness are not opposites; rudeness is not required to communicate one's point effectively. This is, of course, balanced by the limited content length in comments (this is not a forum, after all) and the impersonal nature of the internet that may lead one to feel things are more personal and rude than they actually are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consensus is essential when there is uncertainty. Or at the very least, advice and guidance from those with more experience is essential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some actions create obvious situations where action must be taken. I can't enumerate a list here, but I will paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ([read about the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio)) and Lord-Justice Stuart-Smith ([the so-called Elephant Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test#Elephant_test)) -- I'll know it when I see it. Spam, derogatory and offensive language, threats, etc. are all obvious and require immediate action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle topics, particularly those involving returning users, require some discussion and consensus building. Particularly because it may be a one-off instance or it may be a repeat problem, something that a new moderator (or even an existing one) may not be aware of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put, as much as is needed. It would be hard to estimate how much time I actively spend on the site currently, I generally pop in and hang out for 10-15 minutes at a time, every few hours. As a result, it would be easy to catch things as they occur and deal with it accordingly. Naturally, more important or time consuming tasks can be completed as needed with very few scheduling constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the next several months, I will graduate. Given my current position in my research lab, virtually any job I take will be less time-consuming than what I am doing now. I may not be able to spare 10-15 minutes every few hours during the workday, but I will be able to dedicate longer stretches of time as needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I am biased in my perception, but I feel that all of my material on the site has been constructive, and most importantly, something I stand behind. My activity on [Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) has been focused on formulating policies and helping to define the role of the site. I haven't won every argument, but I feel that I have always been civil, level-headed and supported the results, even when I don't agree with them. I have also engaged in discussions with users who, at various times, have rubbed others the wrong way or been rubbed the wrong way themselves. In the cases I can recall participating, I have tried to remain objective and impersonal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than champion myself, I would encourage everybody to review my participation on the site (and for that matter, on the entire StackExchange network). I will happily discuss any content, past or present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest change in day-to-day activity is refraining from pulling the trigger on the close vote since it is now binding. As a regular user, I have no problem expressing my opinion about whether a question is off-topic -- a question takes 4 others to agree and if I'm wrong as a regular user, no harm. As a moderator, that luxury no longer exists. On the other hand, I don't see putting a question &quot;on hold&quot; as a death sentence or a condemnation of the user or the topic. It is a chance to improve the question in a way that is fair to those who will spend time answering (nobody likes writing an elaborate answer only to have the question change drastically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this area, more than any others, is the best use of my skills as part of the moderation team. I have started several conversations directly regarding this area: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design &#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4540/what-is-the-fate-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/big-list-resource-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as extensive participation in related areas (as well as the dreaded &quot;homework&quot; topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7565/it-is-on-topic-to-ask-about-computer-software-useful-to-do-some-particular-task/7568#7568&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/network-science-can-be-a-branch-of-physics/7261#7261&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center/5604#5604&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5519/realistically-are-atmospheric-physics-questions-on-topic-and-acceptable/5520#5520&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic/7141#7141&#xD;&#xA;1. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I firmly believe that we should not look at Physics.SE as isolated from the other sites in the StackExchange network. The entire network is like a library -- there is no reason to go to the physics shelf if I have a question about chemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gray areas are okay, provided the content is asking for an underlying explanation of the physics. My favorite punchline whenever this comes up is this: This is a site of **physics**, not **physicists** -- asking for a good apple pie recipe is not on-topic just because you are a physicist. Likewise, how to take derivatives are not on topic just because it came up in a mechanics class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a moderator, I would continue to bring up topics for discussion that may reside in these gray areas. I want to make sure the community can provide clarity for what it expects, and I enjoy leading those discussions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two simple answers: first, I will become more effective because I will get access to the moderation tools immediately; second, many flags and interactions with users require moderators and are not available to high-rep users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reputation-earning participation on the site has always been in a small subset of the community, the [tag:fluid-dynamics] questions. Because it is a small subset, it would be difficult to get from 10k to 20k and so I would be able to contribute more, immediately, as a moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a site for researchers of physics and students of physics. This is subtly different from physics students and physics researchers. I feel this site is best served by catering to those whom require and can share knowledge of the many areas of physics and not by catering to those who happen to be students in a physics class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A business major desperately trying to pass a kinematics class is a physics student and not the target audience. But an engineering student who needs to understand why a bridge may collapse is welcome (provided the questions and answers are about the underlying physics) because such a person is a student of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, we are not limited to physics researchers (those who research topics one would classically consider physics). A chemist who would like to understand the statistical mechanics underpinning of chemical reactions is welcome here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a moderator, I don't see how my views directly influence my actions. The community decides the scope of the site and it may grow, shrink, or otherwise adapt over time. My position as moderator is to lead the discussions, help formulate the resulting policies, and help educate users in the enforcement of the policies. The community is self-policing and will enforce the standards set forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a broad view of a users activity to understand whether there is a problem or not. We've all had bad days and so maybe the comments are out of character. It is also possible that, given the limited length of comments, that some things come across as rude/abrupt because they are succinct. This generally is the case when relatively new users feel slighted because they expect the site to behave like a traditional forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nature of the flags must also be considered. No user, no matter how knowledgeable, no matter how much reputation, may be threatening, post spam, nor make extremely offensive statements. To a lesser extent, *ad hominem* attacks are not welcome either. Content should be criticized, not people. And even in the criticism of content, it doesn't need to be rude to communicate effectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, the approach would be to build up a good understanding regarding the track record of the user in question and try to determine the motivations. It may be temporary, it may be targeted (the users in question may have a history together), it may be an overly-sensitive person flagging, or it may be a legitimate problem. And in some cases, it could be a combination of all of the above. Once the problem is understood, it can be approached accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to open a dialogue. Just because I feel something shouldn't have happened, doesn't mean that I am correct. It also doesn't mean that I am impartial -- perhaps I feel something shouldn't have been closed, but the policies are quite clear that it should have been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that moderators should create policy, but they do act as arbiters of policy and as a result, their actions may lead to policies expanding or contracting without it ever being formally written down. As this happens, it is important for other moderators (and especially for the users) to start a dialogue when they feel the actions have extended beyond the scope of the written policy. Maybe the result of the discussion is the actions should be formally written down because it is better for the site; perhaps the result is that the policy is clarified in an opposite direction of the actions taken. In either case, the role of the other moderators is to lead a discussion with the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is strong enough now that I would be hard pressed to imagine a truly egregious action would not be called to attention by regular users. And I hope that is the case -- the users are the ultimate resource of the site and the wishes of the community need to be respected. I would encourage users to discuss the rules and moderation of the site openly -- and most importantly -- in a civil and constructive fashion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="3e058257-5f93-4bbe-97fe-92b4be7c7e7c" CreationDate="2016-09-27T03:23:10.510" UserId="6634" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="1039675b-cdd1-428f-bd46-6b8235a5fc62" CreationDate="2016-09-27T06:10:37.860" UserId="31790" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I think it's reasonable to edit the question, including the title and tags, a bit. I think the clearest form of a question can only be written by someone who already knows the answer. You have to be careful not to post an answer to a different question, then edit the question so that it asks the question that you answer (this would be a bit rude to the OP). But the worst that can happen is that people will disagree with your added interpretation of the question and the edit will be rolled back, so I don't think there's much harm in trying, provided you make a reasonable effort to keep the original intent of the question intact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23695" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="a1eb98d1-bf80-457d-91d7-a713fdee7212" CreationDate="2016-09-27T07:13:38.597" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="a1eb98d1-bf80-457d-91d7-a713fdee7212" CreationDate="2016-09-27T07:13:38.597" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I recently answered the question [&quot;Which Is More Fundamental, Fields or Particles?&quot;][1] essentially by explaining what second quantization is and why it makes so much more sense than first quantization. The answer has been well received suggesting that some users benefited from a good explanation of second quantization. However, if I search &quot;what is second quantization&quot; I do not find my answer. This is not surprising because the question I answered does not have &quot;second quantization&quot; in the title or tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when a user posts a question asking &quot;Why X?&quot;, the best answer involves explaining topic Y. A user may post a good explanation of Y. If X and Y share no meaningful key words, users searching for the answer to &quot;What is Y?&quot; may not find the answer. Therefore, what should be done in this situation to help future users wondering about Y find the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/122570/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="72000c3b-b3ef-451f-a8b8-4a06859c45aa" CreationDate="2016-09-27T12:55:00.073" UserId="50583" Comment="added Marcel's answers, who submitted them but apparently forgot to edit them in here" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA; - [Marcel](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9204/50583)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="1b9d2e36-dc5d-46cb-abdf-9894c3dc23a2" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:33:33.093" UserId="56299" Text="Well, we're a day into the nomination phase of Physics Stack Exchange's [third election](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). We already have 8 candidates for the two positions available, and no doubt we'll get plenty more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern has begun to emerge, and it's not hard to see where it's leading. In both nominations and comments, a *lot* of fairly negative remarks have been made about some of the candidates and other users. Here are some that caught my attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; In my experience, [user X] is most rude and arrogant user&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Not only you should not be a moderator, you should be deprived of privilege of casting close votes. People like you are a scourge of this site.&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Seeing the candidates debate tonight, it's clear our democratic process has failed. [Referring to two early candidates]&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Asking you about your vision on the site, you produced only arrogant reaction, and initiated the now quite common &quot;ignore culture&quot; on the chat.&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; As long as [user Y] continues his whining attitude towards his unconventional positions of physics, I don't think he will ever make a good moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are others, as well as quite a few more implicit insults aimed at moderators and other users, but these are some of the main ones, coming from all sides (additionally, some others have been deleted, thankfully). Are they *all* over-the-top? Not really. But they build up to something that doesn't really give me confidence in this site. If I walked in without any prior knowledge about the candidates, I'd think that most were incompetent, mean, power-hungry wanna-be Scourges of Stack Exchange. I wouldn't want to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ad hominem* attacks are, in general, not a good way to start any discussion about the way a site will evolve over time. The way things are going, I'm not convinced that this election will end well, and it certainly won't if people continue with name-calling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can we try to be a little bit *nicer* during this election? It's not impossible; I've seen it done before on Stack Exchange. I'm not saying we need to talk only about sunshine and daisies; constructive criticism is fine. We just need to tone things down a little. Or a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="1b9d2e36-dc5d-46cb-abdf-9894c3dc23a2" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:33:33.093" UserId="56299" Text="Can we try to cut the vitriol during this election?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="1b9d2e36-dc5d-46cb-abdf-9894c3dc23a2" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:33:33.093" UserId="56299" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="fc92c487-7746-4ea7-b1c3-2bb6b0df37ae" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:52:19.100" UserId="23473" Text="&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That really depends on the specifics of the situation? Is the user trying their best? Are they a form of technically proficient troll? Is is simply a matter of poor use of language skills? It's difficult to judge at a glance. I'd probably have to go through several of their posts and try to establish a trend. Even then, the system itself allows for this to happen. Obviously, you need to keep an eye out for suspicious voting patterns. Make sure there is no sock-puppets. However, in the general case where it's purely innocent, there's not much that can be done. Perhaps I could encourage the user to consider what they write more carefully; properly format their posts; and possibly include references wherever possible. However, if they are getting enough upvotes to sustain a score in the thousands, then I'm not going to take negative action against them without them doing something directly against policy and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My highest priority would definitely be quality of questions and answers. In my opinion, our size is large enough to be sustainable for the long term. Furthermore, as a moderator, I feel that maintaining quality and standards is a necessary responsibility of the role. I could not sit idly by and let the quality of posts on this site slip all in the name of allowing it to grow larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, I think I'd be generally unsure of actions. I'd probably ask more established mods for advice. Overall, I'd say I'm in the middle. For small tasks or things where the course of action seems fairly obvious, I'm likely to go ahead and take action. But when it comes to an action with significant ramifications or non-refundable results, I'd probably wait for consensus. I generally like to give everything proper consideration. I like to get all the facts I can before deciding, and I always try to ensure I've considered the perspective of whomever I can. Being a moderator is about being moderate; impartial; reasonably stand-off-ish. But when all is said and done, if an action must be taken, I'm the person that won't hesitate to take it, won't hesitate to admit when I'm wrong or don't know, and will ask for help or consensus when I need to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually not around on the weekends. I'm off and on most of the day otherwise and I can try to give a solid 1-3 hours at the beginning of my day (I'm on eastern time, fyi). It's not much, but that's all I can offer for sure. I can't imagine any reason why that should diminish in the future. I'll always have time at my computer first thing in the morning. In fact, it might increase in the future. Really depends how my life plays out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, I think I've been fairly impartial and diplomatic so far. The added responsibility means I'd probably be a bit more serious (dang it) and I'd probably stop complaining about users (all 3 times I think I've ever done that). But seeing as I usually end up telling people &quot;This is nothing personal, this post is simply not a good fit for our site&quot; or something like that, I'd say my tendencies are already fairly in-line with moderating. Although, I won't lie, I'm definitely going to joke around about my having a diamond on my name. So be forewarned, if you don't have a sense of humour and can't understand that me joking about my omnipotence doesn't actually mean I'd ever consider abusing power, then 1) you should probably avoid all contact with humans in the future and 2) be prepared to be offended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of our scope and topics is something that is user-defined. Therefore, it falls to the community to decide the appropriate scope for the site. What I believe is irrelevant. I can offer my opinion of what I think the scope should be on meta, but once decided, all I have to do is enforce it. If a question belongs in another discipline according to our community, I'll move it. If not, it stays. If there's a grey zone and I'm not sure what to do, I'll ask for input from others. It really isn't my call how the site should evolve. That's the community's choice. I would just moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tough to say. It'll certainly give my word more weight (which, as King of all Jims, says a lot). I suppose I'd also be able to do something about obvious sock-puppets more than simply following them or flagging for a mod. I'd also be able to read the new posts by new users to old questions and actually be able to get rid of the random garbage ones (like &quot;PHYSX SUX!! LOLOLOL!!1!&quot;) rather than just flagging them. At the moment, however, I'm not entirely sure what all the moderator tools are yet. I have no doubt they'll improve my ability to moderate, much like how reaching 10k rep significantly improved that ability, I just don't know what way that will be yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I adequately covered this question under #6. This even starts out the exact same way as #6. I'm not answering the same question twice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This question has been marked as a duplicate by: Jim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Life isn't black and white. Things are complex. Stop asking me what I'd do in a situation without any specific details whatsoever. I have no idea how I would handle this yet. Is the person genuinely passionate about an obscure realm of physics? Are they trolling? All manner of details need to be discovered. If they produce valuable answers, then they're worth keeping around. Comments are transient and mostly don't matter. Remind them to be polite and civil and keep my actions within protocol. Consult the &lt;s&gt;Jedi&lt;/s&gt; Moderator Council if I really can't decide what should be done but am sure that an action should be taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the other mod aside (likely to a private chat or something) and discuss with them why I think they were mistaken. You don't want to show mod in-fighting in front of our subjects. Hash it out with them, agree on what should be done, then do it. If we can't agree, then call in another mod for a tie-breaker. Or open it up to the community, depending on the situation. I'm not going to subvert the authority of other mods. I respect that they may have a perspective I lack and I'm not going to get into a war with them. Things can be handled with words. If I'm overruled, then I can accept that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="526b4f64-67cc-493e-9126-0f886328af4a" CreationDate="2016-09-27T13:59:45.260" UserId="4993" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA; - [Marcel](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9204/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="960d5709-a45d-4d8f-ace1-818eaf7adde4" CreationDate="2016-09-27T14:01:30.643" UserId="23473" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="# [Jim's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That really depends on the specifics of the situation? Is the user trying their best? Are they a form of technically proficient troll? Is is simply a matter of poor use of language skills? It's difficult to judge at a glance. I'd probably have to go through several of their posts and try to establish a trend. Even then, the system itself allows for this to happen. Obviously, you need to keep an eye out for suspicious voting patterns. Make sure there is no sock-puppets. However, in the general case where it's purely innocent, there's not much that can be done. Perhaps I could encourage the user to consider what they write more carefully; properly format their posts; and possibly include references wherever possible. However, if they are getting enough upvotes to sustain a score in the thousands, then I'm not going to take negative action against them without them doing something directly against policy and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My highest priority would definitely be quality of questions and answers. In my opinion, our size is large enough to be sustainable for the long term. Furthermore, as a moderator, I feel that maintaining quality and standards is a necessary responsibility of the role. I could not sit idly by and let the quality of posts on this site slip all in the name of allowing it to grow larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, I think I'd be generally unsure of actions. I'd probably ask more established mods for advice. Overall, I'd say I'm in the middle. For small tasks or things where the course of action seems fairly obvious, I'm likely to go ahead and take action. But when it comes to an action with significant ramifications or non-refundable results, I'd probably wait for consensus. I generally like to give everything proper consideration. I like to get all the facts I can before deciding, and I always try to ensure I've considered the perspective of whomever I can. Being a moderator is about being moderate; impartial; reasonably stand-off-ish. But when all is said and done, if an action must be taken, I'm the person that won't hesitate to take it, won't hesitate to admit when I'm wrong or don't know, and will ask for help or consensus when I need to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually not around on the weekends. I'm off and on most of the day otherwise and I can try to give a solid 1-3 hours at the beginning of my day (I'm on eastern time, fyi). It's not much, but that's all I can offer for sure. I can't imagine any reason why that should diminish in the future. I'll always have time at my computer first thing in the morning. In fact, it might increase in the future. Really depends how my life plays out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, I think I've been fairly impartial and diplomatic so far. The added responsibility means I'd probably be a bit more serious (dang it) and I'd probably stop complaining about users (all 3 times I think I've ever done that). But seeing as I usually end up telling people &quot;This is nothing personal, this post is simply not a good fit for our site&quot; or something like that, I'd say my tendencies are already fairly in-line with moderating. Although, I won't lie, I'm definitely going to joke around about my having a diamond on my name. So be forewarned, if you don't have a sense of humour and can't understand that me joking about my omnipotence doesn't actually mean I'd ever consider abusing power, then 1) you should probably avoid all contact with humans in the future and 2) be prepared to be offended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of our scope and topics is something that is user-defined. Therefore, it falls to the community to decide the appropriate scope for the site. What I believe is irrelevant. I can offer my opinion of what I think the scope should be on meta, but once decided, all I have to do is enforce it. If a question belongs in another discipline according to our community, I'll move it. If not, it stays. If there's a grey zone and I'm not sure what to do, I'll ask for input from others. It really isn't my call how the site should evolve. That's the community's choice. I would just moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tough to say. It'll certainly give my word more weight (which, as King of all Jims, says a lot). I suppose I'd also be able to do something about obvious sock-puppets more than simply following them or flagging for a mod. I'd also be able to read the new posts by new users to old questions and actually be able to get rid of the random garbage ones (like &quot;PHYSX SUX!! LOLOLOL!!1!&quot;) rather than just flagging them. At the moment, however, I'm not entirely sure what all the moderator tools are yet. I have no doubt they'll improve my ability to moderate, much like how reaching 10k rep significantly improved that ability, I just don't know what way that will be yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I adequately covered this question under #6. This even starts out the exact same way as #6. I'm not answering the same question twice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This question has been marked as a duplicate by: Jim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Life isn't black and white. Things are complex. Stop asking me what I'd do in a situation without any specific details whatsoever. I have no idea how I would handle this yet. Is the person genuinely passionate about an obscure realm of physics? Are they trolling? All manner of details need to be discovered. If they produce valuable answers, then they're worth keeping around. Comments are transient and mostly don't matter. Remind them to be polite and civil and keep my actions within protocol. Consult the &lt;s&gt;Jedi&lt;/s&gt; Moderator Council if I really can't decide what should be done but am sure that an action should be taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the other mod aside (likely to a private chat or something) and discuss with them why I think they were mistaken. You don't want to show mod in-fighting in front of our subjects. Hash it out with them, agree on what should be done, then do it. If we can't agree, then call in another mod for a tie-breaker. Or open it up to the community, depending on the situation. I'm not going to subvert the authority of other mods. I respect that they may have a perspective I lack and I'm not going to get into a war with them. Things can be handled with words. If I'm overruled, then I can accept that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9207" RevisionGUID="569051db-626b-419a-b92a-98c1225de69a" CreationDate="2016-09-27T14:54:17.990" UserId="9426" Text="I have deleted a few comments, including a conversation about wrongly used close votes. As a relative outsider (who nevertheless has enough reputation to vote), those comments did not help me understand the issues and concerns with the nomination they were attached to. Comments are a poor substitute for a meta question where arguments may be laid out without character or formatting restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, I allowed a few comments that verge toward violations of our [Be Nice policy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice) to remain. To be clear, that policy applies to nomination comments as everywhere else. However, running for moderator (and, in fact, _being_ a moderator) puts your actions on the site in front of the community for review. If a user closes questions carelessly (to take a criticism made this election) the time to raise the issue with the community is before the election begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even so, I will continue to delete comments that stray too far off track or read more as insults and less as criticisms. As always, if you find yourself getting agitated with another user, it's better to walk away from the computer than risk typing something regrettable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="c0d7bdb5-7cc8-4912-8caf-4cfbfe7b266e" CreationDate="2016-09-27T15:57:49.377" UserId="11053" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="I think it's reasonable to edit the question, including the title and tags, a bit. I think the clearest form of a question can only be written by someone who already knows the answer. You have to be careful not to post an answer to a different question, then edit the question so that it asks the question that you answer (this would be a bit rude to the OP). But the worst that can happen is that people will disagree with your added interpretation of the question and the edit will be rolled back, so I don't think there's much harm in trying, provided you make a reasonable effort to keep the original intent of the question intact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Revision: it now seems to be explicitly encouraged to edit questions that you answer to improve them, as evidenced by the existence of the Explainer/Refiner/Illuminator badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23708" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="572287b4-d9f1-4370-9cb8-caaea89760cd" CreationDate="2016-09-27T16:19:03.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/780803951771914240" />
  <row Id="23709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="d3173989-d762-467e-8870-86f29b8c93f7" CreationDate="2016-09-27T17:30:22.417" UserId="56299" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Well, we're a day into the nomination phase of Physics Stack Exchange's [third election](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). We already have 8 candidates for the two positions available, and no doubt we'll get plenty more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern has begun to emerge, and it's not hard to see where it's leading. In both nominations and comments, a *lot* of fairly negative remarks have been made about some of the candidates and other users. Here are some that caught my attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; In my experience, [user X] is most rude and arrogant user&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Not only you should not be a moderator, you should be deprived of privilege of casting close votes. People like you are a scourge of this site.&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Seeing the candidates debate tonight, it's clear our democratic process has failed. [Referring to two early candidates]&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Asking you about your vision on the site, you produced only arrogant reaction, and initiated the now quite common &quot;ignore culture&quot; on the chat.&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; As long as [user Y] continues his whining attitude towards his unconventional positions of physics, I don't think he will ever make a good moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are others, as well as quite a few more implicit insults aimed at moderators and other users, but these are some of the main ones, coming from all sides (additionally, some others have been deleted, thankfully). Are they *all* over-the-top? Not really. But they build up to something that doesn't really give me confidence in this site. If I walked in without any prior knowledge about the candidates, I'd think that most were incompetent, mean, power-hungry wanna-be Scourges of Stack Exchange. I wouldn't want to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ad hominem* attacks are, in general, not a good way to start any discussion about the way a site will evolve over time. The way things are going, I'm not convinced that this election will end well, and it certainly won't if people continue with name-calling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can we try to be a little bit *nicer* during this election? It's not impossible; I've seen it done before on Stack Exchange. I'm not saying we need to talk only about sunshine and daisies; constructive criticism is fine. We just need to tone things down a little. Or a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this an explicit question, do people think this is an issue, and can we avoid it in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="b7fc01e5-52d8-48e6-a3b7-1f6161cff53b" CreationDate="2016-09-27T18:48:40.563" UserId="31790" Comment="Add Jess Riedel" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* C. Jess Riedel: [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="07cc5510-cf46-4d8f-a2e7-f07ad2b9ee7f" CreationDate="2016-09-27T19:50:02.197" UserId="56299" Comment="deleted 282 characters in body" Text="Well, we're a day into the nomination phase of Physics Stack Exchange's [third election](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). We already have 8 candidates for the two positions available, and no doubt we'll get plenty more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern has begun to emerge, and it's not hard to see where it's leading. In both nominations and comments, a *lot* of fairly negative remarks have been made about some of the candidates and other users. Here are some that caught my attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; In my experience, [user X] is most rude and arrogant user&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Not only you should not be a moderator, you should be deprived of privilege of casting close votes. People like you are a scourge of this site.&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Asking you about your vision on the site, you produced only arrogant reaction, and initiated the now quite common &quot;ignore culture&quot; on the chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are others, as well as quite a few more implicit insults aimed at moderators and other users, but these are some of the main ones, coming from all sides (additionally, some others have been deleted, thankfully). Are they *all* over-the-top? Not really. But they build up to something that doesn't really give me confidence in this site. If I walked in without any prior knowledge about the candidates, I'd think that most were incompetent, mean, power-hungry wanna-be Scourges of Stack Exchange. I wouldn't want to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ad hominem* attacks are, in general, not a good way to start any discussion about the way a site will evolve over time. The way things are going, I'm not convinced that this election will end well, and it certainly won't if people continue with name-calling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can we try to be a little bit *nicer* during this election? It's not impossible; I've seen it done before on Stack Exchange. I'm not saying we need to talk only about sunshine and daisies; constructive criticism is fine. We just need to tone things down a little. Or a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this an explicit question, do people think this is an issue, and can we avoid it in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="2337758e-a514-4cf0-8d9f-e3938e7bdf56" CreationDate="2016-09-28T05:47:08.023" UserId="31790" Comment="Add link to election meta post" Text="* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Meta post about election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9197/2016-community-moderator-election)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). This is important; in order to vote for a moderator we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="ac58a280-e4eb-4cef-aa18-a7ea3f6aca6e" CreationDate="2016-09-28T10:52:04.247" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9210" RevisionGUID="c12819df-4471-4ba7-bd38-b6fbec5a5994" CreationDate="2016-09-28T12:19:56.080" UserId="75518" Text="If there are users that bear grudges against certain nominees, those comments shouldn't be deleted. It will only lead to even further confirmation of the kind of attitude you described: that there is a certain establishment on this site that acts kind of aggressive when it comes to counteracting policies and opinions they don't share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those comments should be seen as a chance to show leadership and maybe settle those accusations with some moderate and reasonable replies. That in turn could show voters who can actually step aside  his opinions and represent the most of this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it troubling that there is a repeated shutdown and censorship of those people that feel to be underrepresented. Nevertheless, insults should be dealt with in the usual manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="0dd3be63-a642-44dc-b8d1-b6e07a83813d" CreationDate="2016-09-28T16:11:39.073" UserId="70392" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9191/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: '.. opening downvote  caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an **independent** decision, **without preconceptions**, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the whether or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="922aff14-d323-4d85-a0c5-21067755b044" CreationDate="2016-09-28T18:43:05.013" UserId="32426" Text="This [question][1] is offtopic on 2 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is mainly math, although its markup and formulation clearly shows the described problem is a physical problem. The current review practice is that also this type of questions are closed as offtopic.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is considered as a homework question (not by me, but it is a different topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the problem is that if you vote to close this question as homework, it won't be migrated to the MathSE, it will be simply closed. This is what happened. As I voted this question (to migrate to MathSE), it had already 2 close votes as homework and 2 close votes to migration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vote to migrate resulted that the question was closed as homework. The criteria to fulfill to migrate a question is hard(*), but there is no reason to not try to fulfill if the question is okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question had been migrated to the MathSE, it could have been received very well there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it a little bit dishonest, because I hadn't ever voted this to close on the homework close reason, despite that the close reason shows as if it had been also my decision. I voted to migrate it to the MathSE, where it would be ontopic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, and similar cases, if you think a question should be closed on multiple reasons, and at least one of them is migration, please vote for migration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) From the 5 close votes, at least 3 or 4 should vote to migrate, and to the same site. If this requirement is not passed, the question is simply closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/282907/looking-for-the-proof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="922aff14-d323-4d85-a0c5-21067755b044" CreationDate="2016-09-28T18:43:05.013" UserId="32426" Text="Note: why the migration close reasons are stronger as the others" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="922aff14-d323-4d85-a0c5-21067755b044" CreationDate="2016-09-28T18:43:05.013" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="6c809c01-de1b-4ce3-8a21-ee2c9cd56a5e" CreationDate="2016-09-28T18:50:15.587" UserId="32426" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="This [question][1] is now closed as offtopic on 2 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is mainly math, although its markup and formulation clearly shows the described problem is a physical problem. The current review practice is that also this type of questions are closed as offtopic and sometimes migrated to the MathSE.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is considered as a homework question (not by me, but it is a different topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the problem is that if you vote to close this question as homework, it won't be migrated to the MathSE, it will be simply closed. This is what happened. As I voted this question (to migrate to MathSE), it had already 2 close votes as homework and 2 close votes to migration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vote to migrate resulted that the question was closed as homework. The criteria to fulfill to migrate a question is hard(*), but there is no reason to not try to fulfill it, if the question is okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question had been migrated to the MathSE, it could have been received very well there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it a little bit dishonest, because I hadn't ever voted this to close on the homework close reason, despite that the close reason shows as if it had been also my decision. I voted to migrate it to the MathSE, where it would be ontopic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In this, and similar cases, if you think a question should be closed on multiple reasons, and at least one of them is migration, please vote for migration.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) From the 5 close votes, at least 3 or 4 should vote to migrate, and to the same site. If this requirement is not passed, the question is simply closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/282907/looking-for-the-proof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="0cc2bcb3-4f95-4512-ab26-809dab416776" CreationDate="2016-09-29T01:07:19.563" UserId="8563" Text="At the risk of you going off on a rail and misinterpreting it, here is the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent close reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546155/recent-close-reviews-and-their-outcomes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the data you might want, going beyond this, is also public, in the SEDE. Given that you already know it exist, I don't think it's appropriate to raise this sort of allegation without at least some evidence of having tried to dig into the data.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data shows that a strong majority of close-vote reviews end up with question closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, one thing missing from the public data: **you cannot know the frame of mind of the people who reviewed posts** because **you cannot know the frame of mind of people, period**, and it is not appropriate to raise accusations that could only be proven if you had psychic powers. You stop short of making the explicit accusation that reviewers are not &quot;making an independent decision, without preconceptions&quot;, but the implication is pretty clear. This accusation is of this latter kind: you could only prove it by reading minds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, and to double down on [a previous comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9195/is-one-close-vote-all-it-needs#comment34420_9195), I don't think that any amount of public data will support your hypothesis. In particular, consider the following possible explanations for the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reviewers are by and large a fickle bunch and they tend to just close-vote anything in the review queue because it's there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Close-vote reviewers and 3k+ users at large have a generally robust consensus of the type of question that is on- and off-topic for the site, which naturally results in consistent reviews, and tends to put only close-worthy questions in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(These are, of course, *not* the only possible explanations.) Both scenarios explain the data, and neither can really be disproved without public data. The lesson I infer from that is that the question was flawed to begin with, but then I suspect I have about a snowball's chance in the [door to hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell) at convincing you of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do want to stress that raising this sort of accusation without data, where you *know* the data is there, is pretty inflammatory and unconstructive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="1b596b6a-30af-40da-a2c0-8a5047b46849" CreationDate="2016-09-29T01:40:50.610" UserId="8563" Comment="added 913 characters in body" Text="At the risk of you going off on a rail and misinterpreting it, here is the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent close reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546155/recent-close-reviews-and-their-outcomes)&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent reopen reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546195/recent-reopen-reviews-and-their-outcomes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the data you might want, going beyond this, is also public, in the SEDE. Given that you already know it exist, I don't think it's appropriate to raise this sort of allegation without at least some evidence of having tried to dig into the data.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data shows that a strong majority of close-vote reviews end up with question closure. Most reopen reviews end up with a leave-closed outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is important to note that this sort of dumb counting, without actually looking at the posts and whether they warranted closure/reopening or not. Since you do not have access to the queues it is understandable that you do not have a gauge on the typical content there, but the links above give plenty of information of what actually makes it to the queue. In particular, the second conclusion - few questions are reopened in the queue - bears a close match to the experience of reviewing that queue: for example, a significant fraction of questions on the queue are minor edits that barely begin addressing the problems with the post. The fraction that even approaches reopen-ability is rather low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, moreover, one crucial thing missing from the public data: **you cannot know the frame of mind of the people who reviewed posts** because **you cannot know the frame of mind of people, period**, and it is not appropriate to raise accusations that could only be proven if you had psychic powers. You stop short of making the explicit accusation that reviewers are not &quot;making an independent decision, without preconceptions&quot;, but the implication is pretty clear. This accusation is of this latter kind: you could only prove it by reading minds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, and to double down on [a previous comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9195/is-one-close-vote-all-it-needs#comment34420_9195), I don't think that any amount of public data will support your hypothesis. In particular, consider the following possible explanations for the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reviewers are by and large a fickle bunch and they tend to just close-vote anything in the review queue because it's there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Close-vote reviewers and 3k+ users at large have a generally robust consensus of the type of question that is on- and off-topic for the site, which naturally results in consistent reviews, and tends to put only close-worthy questions in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(These are, of course, *not* the only possible explanations.) Both scenarios explain the data, and neither can really be disproved without public data. The lesson I infer from that is that the question was flawed to begin with, but then I suspect I have about a snowball's chance in the [door to hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell) at convincing you of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do want to stress that raising this sort of accusation without data, where you *know* the data is there, is pretty inflammatory and unconstructive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="aa630972-6e38-4e80-99bf-d75f68bd20ff" CreationDate="2016-09-29T15:21:52.807" UserId="70392" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9191/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: '.. opening downvote  caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an independent decision, without preconceptions, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the whether or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="07a33ae2-ddb8-449a-b5d5-5c58401c162b" CreationDate="2016-09-29T17:02:20.373" UserId="31790" Text="This is a tricky situation because we don't want to migrate bad questions, but we're not as familiar with other sites' quality standards as we are with our own, so we're not as good at judging what &quot;bad&quot; means for other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a question is pure math with no physics at all, and it's also terrible, like this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is a polynomial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't want to migrate that because then we're making our trash someone else's problem.&#xD;&#xA;I *think* this is a case where we and the math site users are all better off just closing (insufficient research?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, we could have a question which is pure math, violates *our* homework policy, but would be perfectly acceptable on the math site.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [real example](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1946690/inverse-trig-function-equation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you suggest I go about solving this question? I've been thinking about it for ages and nothing comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$\arcsin(x) + \arccos(x) = \pi/2 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example clearly violates our homework policy as it has zero research effort shown, but it's perfectly fine on the math site.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, we should migrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *we need to be aware of the rules of the sites to which we can migrate questions*.&#xD;&#xA;Vote to migrate if the question doesn't fit on our site, but does fit on another site in terms of both topic and quality.&#xD;&#xA;Vote to close if the question falls short of quality standards on our site and on any of the migration targets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that OP of a closed question can always re-post elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say we should overzealously close questions, but if you do vote to close something that you think *might* fit on another site, do OP a favor and leave a brief, polite comment directing them to the other site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="7bdd0352-1b72-4beb-9f9e-1fe004c33a1f" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:08:51.707" UserId="31790" Comment="simplify wording" Text="We don't want to migrate bad questions, but we're not as familiar with other sites' quality standards as we are with our own, so we're not as good at judging what &quot;bad&quot; means for other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a question is pure math with no physics at all, and it's also terrible, like this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is a polynomial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't want to migrate that because then we're making our trash someone else's problem.&#xD;&#xA;I *think* this is a case where we and the math site users are all better off just closing (insufficient research?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, we could have a question which is pure math, violates *our* homework policy, but would be perfectly acceptable on the math site.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [real example](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1946690/inverse-trig-function-equation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you suggest I go about solving this question? I've been thinking about it for ages and nothing comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$\arcsin(x) + \arccos(x) = \pi/2 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example clearly violates our homework policy as it has zero research effort shown, but it's perfectly fine on the math site.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, we should migrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *we need to be aware of the rules of the sites to which we can migrate questions*.&#xD;&#xA;Vote to migrate if the question doesn't fit on our site, but does fit on another site in terms of both topic and quality.&#xD;&#xA;Vote to close if the question falls short of quality standards on our site and on any of the migration targets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that OP of a closed question can always re-post elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say we should overzealously close questions, but if you do vote to close something that you think *might* fit on another site, do OP a favor and leave a brief, polite comment directing them to the other site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="14cf7cd0-c4fa-49d9-a6d4-5339fa8bdb6e" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:03:24.823" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is not explicitly stated, I assume the user is not violating any current rules and thus, the question should be instead *How would you deal with those that complain about this user?*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my view, this site is an experiment in *community* moderation.  I've enjoyed watching the site and myself evolve over the time that I've participated here.  If I were a moderator, I would act to let the experiment continue with only the occasional intervention now and then when it's clear that genuine malice towards this experiment is involved.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growth, or lack thereof, would not be a priority at all.  The quality of questions of answers flows directly from the quality of those that freely participate here and, as long as one behaves as an adult, one is free to participate here.  I know that for some, this state of affairs just wont do.  I do not share that view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about when to do this and when to just take action directly without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is *my* judgment that immediate action is necessary, I will act in accord with my judgment based on the knowledge I have at the time and I'll be prepared to accept the consequences.  If immediate action is unnecessary and I'm unsure of the proper action (including no action), I'll seek advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site? (A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guess) Also, do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would significantly decrease in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more than an hour a day on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be a good moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various grey areas between physics and other disciplines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is interesting and has some relationship, even if small, to &quot;physics&quot;, it's a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than it is now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little if any at all.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if I misunderstand but this questions seems to be asking if I feel being a moderator will make me more effective as a moderator.  I think I'll just move on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even rank beginners can ask interesting questions and producing a quality answer that a beginner can understand is not trivial and often rewarding.  The downvote button hover over includes &quot;This question does not show any research effort&quot; but does not include &quot;This questions is not at a high enough level&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends.  Life is full of valuable people that just don't know how to play well with others and there is no one 'formula' that works in every case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recognize it as a situation requiring action.  However, if I find that I *often* disagree with another mod's close/delete/etc. actions, I'll begin by asking what it is that I'm not seeing, i.e., *help me understand what you see in these questions that make them, on your view, close worthy?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="42698073-a766-43d9-911e-2001127ae7d3" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:10:21.783" UserId="9887" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="4536a5c1-2a04-4078-823f-d1eea0ff6d51" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:10:51.123" UserId="9887" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is not explicitly stated, I assume the user is not violating any current rules and thus, the question should be instead *How would you deal with those that complain about this user?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my view, this site is an experiment in *community* moderation.  It's been interesting watching the site and myself evolve over the time that I've participated here.  If I were a moderator, I would act to let the experiment continue with only the occasional intervention now and then when it's clear that genuine malice towards this experiment is involved.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growth, or lack thereof, would not be a priority at all.  The quality of questions and answers flows directly from the quality of those that freely participate here and, as long as one behaves as an adult, one is free to participate here.  I know that for some, this state of affairs just wont do.  I do not share that view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about when to do this and when to just take action directly without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is *my* judgment that immediate action is necessary, I will act in accord with my judgment based on the knowledge I have at the time and I'll be prepared to accept the consequences.  If immediate action is unnecessary and I'm unsure of the proper action (including no action), I'll seek advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site? (A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guess) Also, do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would significantly decrease in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more than an hour a day on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be a good moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various grey areas between physics and other disciplines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is interesting and has some relationship, even if small, to &quot;physics&quot;, it's a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than it is now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broader is fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little if any at all.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if I misunderstand but this questions seems to be asking if I feel being a moderator will make me more effective as a moderator.  I think I'll just move on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even rank beginners can ask interesting questions and producing a quality answer that a beginner can understand is not trivial and often rewarding.  The downvote button hover over includes &quot;This question does not show any research effort&quot; but does not include &quot;This questions is not at a high enough level&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends.  Life is full of valuable people that just don't know how to play well with others and there is no one 'formula' that works in every case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recognize it as a situation requiring action.  However, if I find that I *often* disagree with another mod's close/delete/etc. actions, I'll begin by asking what it is that I'm not seeing, i.e., *help me understand what you see in these questions that make them, on your view, close worthy?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="40ce4f02-b81c-43f8-8543-694c7e861139" CreationDate="2016-09-29T23:31:39.000" UserId="9887" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is not explicitly stated otherwise, I assume the user is not violating any current rules and thus, the question should be instead *How would you deal with those that complain about this user?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my view, this site is an experiment in *community* moderation.  It's been interesting watching the site and myself evolve over the time that I've participated here.  If I were a moderator, I would act to let the experiment continue with only the occasional intervention now and then when it's clear that genuine malice towards this experiment is involved.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growth, or lack thereof, would not be a priority at all.  The quality of questions and answers flows directly from the quality of those that freely participate here and, as long as one behaves as an adult, one is free to participate here.  I know that for some, this state of affairs just wont do.  I do not share that view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about when to do this and when to just take action directly without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is *my* judgment that immediate action is necessary, I will act in accord with my judgment based on the knowledge I have at the time and I'll be prepared to accept the consequences.  If immediate action is unnecessary and I'm unsure of the proper action (including no action), I'll seek advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site? (A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guess) Also, do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would significantly decrease in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No more than an hour a day on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be a good moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various grey areas between physics and other disciplines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is interesting and has some relationship, even if small, to &quot;physics&quot;, it's a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than it is now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broader is fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little if any at all.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if I misunderstand but this questions seems to be asking if I feel being a moderator will make me more effective as a moderator.  I think I'll just move on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even rank beginners can ask interesting questions and producing a quality answer that a beginner can understand is not trivial and often rewarding.  The downvote button hover over includes &quot;This question does not show any research effort&quot; but does not include &quot;This questions is not at a high enough level&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends.  Life is full of valuable people that just don't know how to play well with others and there is no one 'formula' that works in every case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recognize it as a situation requiring action.  However, if I find that I *often* disagree with another mod's close/delete/etc. actions, I'll begin by asking what it is that I'm not seeing, i.e., *help me understand what you see in these questions that make them, on your view, close worthy?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9216" RevisionGUID="bae9af68-aeba-49d2-b6a0-033bc4a6f0dd" CreationDate="2016-09-30T03:02:47.653" UserId="131647" Text="Long question short: Changing Minecraft's Gravity via Code: StackOverflow, Math, Physics, or SciFi&amp;Fantasy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Actual Question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Premise:&#xD;&#xA;So, some quick background on the question I want to answer. The Minecraft world is generally depicted as a large cube (which, of course, doesn't make physical sense anyway, concentration of mass and all that), but, assuming it is a cube, I want to write a modification that employs accurate gravity. It does not need to be a perfect model, Newtonian is fine, furthermore, I have to apply force vectors **as well as** cancel out minecraft's preexisting gravity, which is [a bit odd](http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Entity#Motion_of_entities).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Conundrum:&#xD;&#xA;So, as you can see, I'm quite split. I am writing **code** to implement **physics**, using **math** in a **fantasy** world. So, what site do I use? I get the feeling it would be on topic here, since I am trying to be accurate to real-world physics, but then is the question of how to cancel the preexisting gravity also on-topic? I don't have any specific difficulties with the code, as I'm fairly well-versed, so I assume stack overflow is a no go, furthermore, there are too many other parts to my question for it to fit on math, and I see nothing in SciFi&amp;Fantasy's on-topic guidelines that match this question, so that only leaves physic, but the on-topic page for physics specifically states that made-up physics is off-topic. I, however, want to apply real physics to a made-up world... would that make this on-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I just wanted to make sure what I'm asking is allowed... maybe there's another site this would be even more suited for. Regardless, any help is appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9216" RevisionGUID="bae9af68-aeba-49d2-b6a0-033bc4a6f0dd" CreationDate="2016-09-30T03:02:47.653" UserId="131647" Text="Is Minecraft On-Topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9216" RevisionGUID="bae9af68-aeba-49d2-b6a0-033bc4a6f0dd" CreationDate="2016-09-30T03:02:47.653" UserId="131647" Text="|support|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="3f28692b-778d-4d5b-afbf-630d758ce1bb" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:28:25.003" UserId="520" Text="[The gory details of coding physics simulations are off-topic, even though the details of the physics to be simulated are on-topic.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you left [Computational Science (sometimes called &quot;scicomp&quot; after their URL)][2] off your list of possible sites. If you know enough about the foundation of numeric modeling that might be the site on which to seek truly expert help to refine a implementation. However, I'm not clear on how interested they are in hearing from someone with no experience in numerical work trying to get a first project off the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5623/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9218" RevisionGUID="ee185530-fb67-478d-938a-180df6b6c9e6" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:33:43.270" UserId="124" Text="Minecraft is not on topic because, in short, it's a fantasy world which is not generally studied by physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you can transform your question into one that asks about &quot;real physics&quot;, then it could be fine. But you should follow the advice in our [homework policy](/q/714) (even though this is not homework; it's generally good advice): specifically, you should set up the problem yourself, make an attempt to solve it, and when you ask your question, ask about the specific step that you get stuck on. You can ask for help formulating your question in the [chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-b-har)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="853ee528-9162-4868-b202-80045e0b6aa1" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:04:37.467" UserId="124" Text="Our next [regularly scheduled chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule), October 4 at 16:00 UTC/12:00 EDT, will be devoted to the current election. We'll be holding the session in [our dedicated election chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election), _not_ in [the main site chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) as we usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _tentative_ plan is to split the session into two parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A few minutes at the beginning to address any procedural questions about the election process. (Of course, such questions can also be posted here on meta at any time.)&#xD;&#xA;2. The remainder of the session will be open for anyone to ask the candidates questions on the topic of moderation. I hope to run this in town-hall style, as done in [our last election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). This will complement the [existing questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire) by allowing for more back-and-forth discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll update this post with further details as we work them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, this is an announcement, not a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="853ee528-9162-4868-b202-80045e0b6aa1" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:04:37.467" UserId="124" Text="2016 Moderator Election Chat October 4 16:00 UTC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="853ee528-9162-4868-b202-80045e0b6aa1" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:04:37.467" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23747" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="1010866e-274e-499b-961e-5b688527c7e5" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:05:37.167" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="b9fee0fd-be8c-40d5-9c24-c8c4fb3607d9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:59:28.313" UserId="124" Comment="add chat room link" Text="* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Meta post about election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9197/2016-community-moderator-election)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). This is important; in order to vote for a moderator we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="b9fee0fd-be8c-40d5-9c24-c8c4fb3607d9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:59:28.313" UserId="124" Comment="add chat room link" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23750" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="79ff546c-db5d-4561-9674-6986989b8dce" CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:59:00.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="e7176fbf-e268-4a86-ad21-7cd8f2295422" CreationDate="2016-09-30T18:19:14.457" UserId="129433" Text="Very few questions can not be answered by searching the web, and if repeat questions are not allowed. The site will slowly move from a forum to a data base. Is the site concerned about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="e7176fbf-e268-4a86-ad21-7cd8f2295422" CreationDate="2016-09-30T18:19:14.457" UserId="129433" Text="Have you considered that eventually most questions will be repeat questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="e7176fbf-e268-4a86-ad21-7cd8f2295422" CreationDate="2016-09-30T18:19:14.457" UserId="129433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="34ab6d45-c1a0-4b3a-ae89-646150dc4da4" CreationDate="2016-09-30T18:24:32.163" UserId="6634" Text="It was never a forum to begin. The goal of the site is to provide high quality Q&amp;A from experts in the field. If we've answered every question, then mission accomplished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since science progresses, we will never be able to keep up with the questions at the leading edge of it. If science stops progressing and there is nothing new in the broad areas covered by the site, then there's a lot more to worry about than the future of the site here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, I'm not concerned about it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And maybe to clear up another point of concern -- yes, most things can be found by using your favorite search engine. But unless the first hit, with the most comprehensive and accessible approach to answer your question, is not this site, then there's still work to be done. If you can get your answer by stitching together a few Wikipedia articles and some Yahoo Ask questions, cool. But that doesn't mean that question (and the resulting researched answer) shouldn't appear here too, as a single, authoritative source. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="90082134-78eb-4063-8a3b-b457e9075870" CreationDate="2016-09-30T20:35:32.643" UserId="106205" Text="A question was asked by someone in March 2015. It had 4 answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a (fifth) answer on 26th Sep, 2016 (18 months later) and the question was put on hold the next day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please explain if this sounds normal, or my answer had a reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is -  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171581/entanglement-real-or-just-math" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="90082134-78eb-4063-8a3b-b457e9075870" CreationDate="2016-09-30T20:35:32.643" UserId="106205" Text="A question put on hold one and half years after it was asked" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="90082134-78eb-4063-8a3b-b457e9075870" CreationDate="2016-09-30T20:35:32.643" UserId="106205" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="d10beb73-fe30-4d24-a92b-7ad01ccd3609" CreationDate="2016-09-30T20:47:30.367" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="A question was asked by someone in March 2015. It had 4 answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a (fifth) answer on 26th Sep, 2016 (18 months later) and the question was put on hold the next day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please explain if this sounds normal, or my answer had a reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is  http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/171581/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="d10beb73-fe30-4d24-a92b-7ad01ccd3609" CreationDate="2016-09-30T20:47:30.367" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9223" RevisionGUID="9022543f-50af-47d7-b795-ba9a3ca6bb3f" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:09:02.963" UserId="6634" Text="The comments on the post seem to indicate that those closing thought it was unclear. It has nothing to do with your answer -- well, not exactly anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you edit a post or answer a question, it bumps the question back to the front page of the website. When you answered the question, that put it back on the front page and that meant people would notice it. Maybe they hadn't before, maybe they did, who knows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this time, it got put on the front page and enough people voted to put it on hold that it is now there, pending clarification. It's also started to accumulate reopen votes, so at least somebody disagrees with the close reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely the question slipped through unnoticed early on and when it got bumped to the front page, it opened it up for inspection again and at least 5 people found it to be unclear. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9224" RevisionGUID="b8d3b227-3f07-497d-9259-7e606e0ee1e4" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:48:33.927" UserId="83398" Text="None of the above. Physics simulations in videogames belong on the [Game Development SE](http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/). They even have a tag, [physics-engine](http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physics-engine), for this exact purpose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="73512310-2401-45d2-8a24-ba744d74dae0" CreationDate="2016-10-01T17:04:52.457" UserDisplayName="user107153" Text="I think that a certain density of repeat questions is a good thing, and should be supported.&#xA;&#xA;The reason I think this is that repeat questions encourage new answers, and the *answers* may not be repeats.  It's tempting to say 'but physics is a hard science, there's only ever one right answer', but I think that's not true: new answers can present and encourage new ways of thinking about an existing area, and that's a good thing.  This is why, for instance, new textbooks on old areas of physics can still be interesting.&#xA;&#xA;So I think a certain, not too high, ratio of repeat questions should be allowed.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, this is just my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="627b460e-f28d-4b86-adb3-91a746241f2b" CreationDate="2016-10-01T18:26:35.273" UserId="31790" Comment="Put most important link in bold" Text="* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Meta post about election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9197/2016-community-moderator-election)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="cfce75bb-8313-4b88-b321-4a738255799c" CreationDate="2016-10-01T18:36:09.767" UserId="31790" Comment="Port info from obsolete meta post, and delete link to that obsolete meta post" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="dc2b1421-a4e1-4741-80c8-641f9721a22c" CreationDate="2016-10-01T22:19:38.507" UserId="121464" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [heather][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9226/121464" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9227" RevisionGUID="37f8406d-0334-4bde-9ea0-d467c8ff5fed" CreationDate="2016-10-02T13:43:00.710" UserId="121464" Text="Jimius Caeser, leader of the Holy Roman Jimpire (or just Jimius Caesar) because, as you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But all you should be concerned about is that Jimius Caesar, leader of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Holy Roman Jimpire, is commanding you to grant him additional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; powers. You now have two options. Obey him, or face his wrath. - [Moderator nomination][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3#post-282705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="917aed64-924b-4d09-b9c5-59b1053991a7" CreationDate="2016-10-02T19:22:59.660" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23772" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="091389ad-92d0-48aa-adfe-1f71c74ee20b" CreationDate="2016-10-03T05:38:50.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/782817162062954497" />
  <row Id="23773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="96a2c854-5e0d-4a7c-9781-abea5e5bb91d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:49:29.820" UserId="5705" Text="I answered a question where I put a few things into proper quotation marks, i.e. `“` and `”`. When there is an [edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/283732/2) which converts those into `&quot;` which are second or inch marks. I do not understand why this edit has been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the “loose → lose“ thing I just learned that “to loose” means “to unfasten” whereas “to lose” is what I actually meant, the process of having a loss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="96a2c854-5e0d-4a7c-9781-abea5e5bb91d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:49:29.820" UserId="5705" Text="Why did somebody change my quotation marks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="96a2c854-5e0d-4a7c-9781-abea5e5bb91d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:49:29.820" UserId="5705" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="a2fb5961-cb1e-4211-89f6-abdcba451229" CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:04:18.067" UserId="124" Text="I can only guess, but here are my guesses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why the edit suggested changing the quotation marks: plain text does not allow for proper (curly) quotation marks, so the `&quot;` character has become the standard to represent quotation marks in plain text and text-based contexts (as opposed to rich text) online. Granted, this part of the edit is probably not an _improvement_, because it's rare that a modern browser would have any problem with curly quotes, but given the ubiquity of the straight quote, it's no more than a marginal change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why the edit was approved: since the quotes are a marginal change, the validity of the edit is mostly determined by the single most significant change, which fixes a piece of incorrect grammar. Therefore, the edit is considered a net improvement that doesn't introduce a significant problem and it gets approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, those are only my guesses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="2f8d3316-537d-4964-b223-92a88de860d7" CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:10:55.450" UserId="5705" Comment="edited body" Text="I answered a question where I put a few things into proper quotation marks, i.e. `“` and `”`. Then there is an [edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/283732/2) which converts those into `&quot;` which are second or inch marks. I do not understand why this edit has been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the “loose → lose“ thing I just learned that “to loose” means “to unfasten” whereas “to lose” is what I actually meant, the process of having a loss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="e9a39fa9-41ab-4dbe-a08c-15fd5e9ccd60" CreationDate="2016-10-03T19:29:31.603" UserId="8563" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Town Hall chat transcript from the previous elections: [2011](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/631/2011-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest) and [2012](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest). Useful for background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9230" RevisionGUID="6f87ecd6-f1da-4b8e-8f13-18a1e837c445" CreationDate="2016-10-03T21:25:59.653" UserId="44126" Text="&gt; 1.       How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first place, I'd trust the community systems to sort things out.  Physics.SE doesn't (so far) have issues with controversial high-vote, zero-score answers.  Controversial answers in this community tend to instead attract more clearly-written answers from other users.  So a string of low-quality contributions is, at best, an inefficient way to gain reputation.  So to some extent I challenge the premise of the question: this doesn't really seem like an issue for a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation issue arises if a moderate- or high-rep user who provides consistently low-quality contributions also annoys or drives away users who produce high-quality content.  Then we have to have a conversation about what the people involved are trying to achieve and what sorts of behaviors can and can't be tolerated.  But that's a conversation that can be had out in the open, at a relatively slow pace, and the first few times it happens I'll be able to draw on the experience of the rest of the moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.       As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality drives growth, not the other way around.  There are attractive, high-quality questions and answers at all levels of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.       For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect that I'll start off cautious and become more proactive as I grow into the role.  For edge cases I'll take the (in)action that seems likely to cause the least damage if it's wrong.  The most obvious cases where I might have a doubt and *not* want to wait for consensus would be if some sort of comment-thread discussion goes off the rails into argument territory; the right response is to move it to a chatroom and try to de-escalate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.       How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site? (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect to contribute a half-hour to an hour most days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.       A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm proud of my contributions to this site in the past.  I have made a point, when reviewing questions, to be welcoming and encouraging to new users and to encourage high-quality answers, especially from commenters.  I see this role continuing whether I'm chose as a moderator or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.       Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to swing broader on this question than some other contributors do.  There are plenty of questions asked here that have one foot in physics and another foot in biology or chemistry or engineering or information theory or some other interesting discipline that get closed as &quot;not physics&quot; but which could benefit from an insightful answer with a physicist's perspective.  Currently I vote to keep these open when I see them in the close queue and vote to reopen them if I notice they've been closed.  As a moderator I would want to be more cautious about unilaterally reopening these sorts of questions; I suppose I would work harder to find them better home elsewhere on the SE network, and reopen if this really is the best home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    7.   In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the previous paragraph for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8.        Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should be open to *interesting* questions at all levels.  I don't vote to close questions because the answers are &quot;obvious&quot; or &quot;trivial&quot; to me, because they weren't always; I don't vote to close questions that are over my head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9.        How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd invite that user over to my house for dinner.  At dinner, we'd have a conversation about what it means to be a part of a community.  Probably we would both learn things.  (Nota bene: if you'd like to come over for dinner, generating flags is less efficient than just bringing it up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10.        How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd ask about it, and we'd have a conversation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="dc157f54-a9bb-4999-a633-fb51f3732256" CreationDate="2016-10-03T21:27:05.913" UserId="44126" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [rob](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9230/44126)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="57d61426-7e81-4efb-8f02-84bdade68846" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:06:43.263" UserId="124" Comment="add a link to the transcript" Text="**The election chat has concluded; see [the transcript](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/conversation/2016-election-chat-session).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our next [regularly scheduled chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule), October 4 at 16:00 UTC/12:00 EDT, will be devoted to the current election. We'll be holding the session in [our dedicated election chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election), _not_ in [the main site chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) as we usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _tentative_ plan is to split the session into two parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A few minutes at the beginning to address any procedural questions about the election process. (Of course, such questions can also be posted here on meta at any time.)&#xD;&#xA;2. The remainder of the session will be open for anyone to ask the candidates questions on the topic of moderation. I hope to run this in town-hall style, as done in [our last election](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). This will complement the [existing questionnaire](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire) by allowing for more back-and-forth discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll update this post with further details as we work them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, this is an announcement, not a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="8307ab5f-1a79-4bc9-ab4a-99b94ecdd75f" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:10:52.393" UserId="121464" Text="Just for reference, the question has now been reopened. It seems that enough people disagreed with the close reason to reopen it. However, this really doesn't mean that it was somehow &quot;wrong&quot; to vote to close after it had been favorited and answered and upvoted. It just means users believed it was or wasn't on topic. In this case, there are enough users for each side that it swung back and forth. As an aside, I might ask a new meta question asking whether it is or isn't on-topic, as I think that will be an interesting discussion. Finally, as for your answer, it is currently at -6 downvotes and counting. I doubt, however, that this was the reason that users closed it (or at least, it shouldn't have been, in my mind)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="010fdde9-9168-4be6-877a-1c9ed2c812c1" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:26:41.470" UserId="121464" Text="I understand a new moderator is elected whenever one steps down or there is an increase in traffic to the point that the current moderator team cannot handle it. However, my question is more about when physics.SE might reach that point - i.e., using the current rate of increase in traffic, when will it become too much for the soon-to-be six moderators? Or is there a standard time for moderators to serve and then step down, even though it is technically a life term? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="010fdde9-9168-4be6-877a-1c9ed2c812c1" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:26:41.470" UserId="121464" Text="Next physics election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="010fdde9-9168-4be6-877a-1c9ed2c812c1" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:26:41.470" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="23bce82b-6ad2-4171-a889-9db2dd4798ac" CreationDate="2016-10-04T18:34:29.203" UserId="8563" Text="This is really a complete unknown. As you mention, elections are held whenever existing mods step down, or increased traffic calls for an expanded squad, and there's no way to tell when either will happen. There's no way to tell when any of the existing mods' situation might change, and there's no way to tell how the site will grow in the future, or how mod-intensive that future traffic might be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no standard time for moderators to step down - if mods can continue in their role, we want them there, as it's not worth the hassle of an election. If there is a problem with the mods, it can and should be brought up on this meta at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's any guidance, there have been two elections in the past, in [2011](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/1) and [2012](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/2). Only one moderator ([mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)) has stepped down, without stating any reasons that I know of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23794" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="e0ac6197-fe3e-4e35-ab1c-4c56102a88ce" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:36:02.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="2ecdad97-1dd0-4dbd-902b-e3b81fd89925" CreationDate="2016-10-05T17:07:51.167" UserId="121464" Text="I was reading through some old meta discussions recently, and I was interested in some of the points made, but they never quite seemed to be implemented or discussed further. So, I am asking the current community what they think of the following points; I will post my own personal opinion as an answer soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Too many questions that have math in them are closed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current stance on engineering questions is too harsh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions on these two appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;Examples of closed questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64250/why-is-r-r2-1-r&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277838/expectation-value-of-p2-coming-out-complex&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147696/do-logarithms-appear-inside-the-divergent-uv-integrals-if-so-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="2ecdad97-1dd0-4dbd-902b-e3b81fd89925" CreationDate="2016-10-05T17:07:51.167" UserId="121464" Text="Math and engineering questions: where do we draw the line?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="2ecdad97-1dd0-4dbd-902b-e3b81fd89925" CreationDate="2016-10-05T17:07:51.167" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="e0626de8-9835-4c09-bd21-7a349dba5417" CreationDate="2016-10-05T18:36:48.747" UserId="121464" Comment="added 649 characters in body" Text="I was reading through some old meta discussions recently, and I was interested in some of the points made, but they never quite seemed to be implemented or discussed further. So, I am asking the current community what they think of the following points; I will post my own personal opinion as an answer soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Too many questions that have math in them are closed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current stance on engineering questions is too harsh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions on these two appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of closed questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64250/why-is-r-r2-1-r&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277838/expectation-value-of-p2-coming-out-complex&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147696/do-logarithms-appear-inside-the-divergent-uv-integrals-if-so-why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;**Previous Meta Posts:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65/are-engineering-questions-ok&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="dcda277e-8efd-4c53-9341-9a066b773294" CreationDate="2016-10-05T18:42:51.863" UserId="121464" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="I was reading through some old meta discussions recently, and I was interested in some of the points made, but they never quite seemed to be implemented or discussed further. They also seemed to be buried among the various conversations about physics overflow and the various controversies surrounding that. So, I am asking the current community what they think of the following points; I will post my own personal opinion as an answer soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Too many questions that have math in them are closed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current stance on engineering questions is too harsh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions on these two appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of closed questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64250/why-is-r-r2-1-r&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277838/expectation-value-of-p2-coming-out-complex&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147696/do-logarithms-appear-inside-the-divergent-uv-integrals-if-so-why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;**Previous Meta Posts:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65/are-engineering-questions-ok&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23800" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="779177c4-ea76-4f28-9128-60c2a5b80ca0" CreationDate="2016-10-06T06:09:03.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/783911932365574144" />
  <row Id="23801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="f90a2730-e483-4718-91ab-a4f345c295f8" CreationDate="2016-10-06T17:02:28.437" UserId="3253" Text="I just had a very dirty trick played on me by another correspondent. I was having a discussion about the Stern Gerlach experiment where I claimed that you cannot split a ray into two dots. First people said I was a crackpot (and that was OK with me). But then when I started to gain traction and show that I was write, one DMcKee posted a comment saying essentially &quot;So what? Everyone knows that the two dots are just a simplified explanation. No one claims the experiment has actually been done&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wrote back and said, &quot;I love this site. First they call you a crackpot, and then when you prove you're right, they say &quot;so what? everybody know's that's true.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This apparently embarassed McKee, so he took down his comment! Now my comment is just sitting there by itself not making sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that is a very dirty way to play the game. You make a post, you should stand by it. When someone proves you wrong, it is the height of cowardice to delete your post. I am disgusted at this kind of behavior on this site (and it's not the first time.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="f90a2730-e483-4718-91ab-a4f345c295f8" CreationDate="2016-10-06T17:02:28.437" UserId="3253" Text="Should people stand behind their posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="f90a2730-e483-4718-91ab-a4f345c295f8" CreationDate="2016-10-06T17:02:28.437" UserId="3253" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="844df8e4-de02-48dc-bd14-bd22148d9239" CreationDate="2016-10-06T17:23:35.480" UserId="124" Text="Frankly, if you're disgusted by that kind of behavior, you should not be participating on this site (and probably not on SE sites in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate, comments are ephemeral. They can and should be deleted once they no longer have a purpose to serve, with respect to improving the post they are attached to. They may be deleted for many other reasons, or for no reason at all (i.e. simply that the commenter didn't want to have the comment up in public anymore). If you respond to a comment that you later find out is deleted, the proper response is to delete your own reply. If you see that someone else has posted a reply to a deleted comment, the proper response is to flag the reply as obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _can_ complain about it, but you will find that any argument for _preventing_ people from deleting their comments will not be well received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions and answers are a separate issue; there are more stringent rules about when we allow people to delete their own questions and answers. But in general, when someone proves you wrong, if you are able to delete your post, doing so is perfectly reasonable. While we wouldn't go so far as to _force_ deletion of wrong answers or questions based on wrong information, if you choose to do so, you are presumably reducing the amount of wrong information on the site and thus making it a better resource, which is a good thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9239" RevisionGUID="2ee6bc9c-003d-426a-bffd-8d8d971a833e" CreationDate="2016-10-07T08:09:45.597" UserId="78942" Text="I don't like the attitude of this question. Don't forget that your ultimate goal when writing a question, answer or comment should be helping other people, not [winning internet arguments][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you have found a comment that you know it's wrong. Since you want to help people, you respond with a comment pointing out the error in order to warn future visitors. You even ping the other commentator, so he can read your correction and learn from his mistake. That's fine. Now, the other commentator realizes that he was wrong, and deletes his comment. In that way, future readers don't need to waste their time digging in a back-and-forth only to found out that the original comment was wrong and not relevant for the answer at all. Therefore, deleting the wrong comment is _the perfect outcome_ of your interaction in terms of the site's goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't feel disgusted because someone didn't stand behind his wrong comment. You should feel proud because the site works as intended, and you've been a part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://xkcd.com/386/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="b54074a4-678d-4a14-8fe1-0c22d6951fe4" CreationDate="2016-10-07T11:02:18.537" UserDisplayName="user107153" Comment="noted that the add-new-answer thing does not work" Text="I think that a certain density of repeat questions is a good thing, and should be supported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think this is that repeat questions encourage new answers, and the *answers* may not be repeats.  It's tempting to say 'but physics is a hard science, there's only ever one right answer', but I think that's not true: new answers can present and encourage new ways of thinking about an existing area, and that's a good thing.  This is why, for instance, new textbooks on old areas of physics can still be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One answer to this is 'well, you can just add new answers to old questions'.  However, if old questions already have accepted answers then any new answer is extremely unlikely to be accepted.  So anyone interested in reputation is thus going to be put off by that.  Of course, one could then argue that, well, you should not be interested in reputation: that's nice in theory but, in fact, people are interested in reputation and the whole site is predicated on that.  Thus not allowing duplicates is likely to actively suppress new answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think a certain, not too high, ratio of repeat questions should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is just my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="02be2c2f-1481-4644-b672-194b58133661" CreationDate="2016-10-07T13:20:44.640" UserId="124" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Frankly, if you're disgusted by that kind of behavior, you should not be participating on this site (and probably not on SE sites in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate, comments are ephemeral. They can and should be deleted once they no longer have a purpose to serve, with respect to improving the post they are attached to. They may be deleted for many other reasons, or for no reason at all (i.e. simply that the commenter didn't want to have the comment up in public anymore). If you respond to a comment that you later find out is deleted, the proper response is to delete your own reply. If you see that someone else has posted a reply to a deleted comment, the proper response is to flag the reply as obsolete.&#xD;Same goes if you delete your own comment and there are replies to it; you should flag the replies (at least the first two or three, if there are many) as obsolete. &#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _can_ complain about it, but you will find that any argument for _preventing_ people from deleting their comments will not be well received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions and answers are a separate issue; there are more stringent rules about when we allow people to delete their own questions and answers. But in general, when someone proves you wrong, if you are able to delete your post, doing so is perfectly reasonable. While we wouldn't go so far as to _force_ deletion of wrong answers or questions based on wrong information, if you choose to do so, you are presumably reducing the amount of wrong information on the site and thus making it a better resource, which is a good thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="35d8283d-1f0c-4978-a19a-fd6369829126" CreationDate="2016-10-07T18:52:10.750" UserId="23473" Text="Can I point out that deleting a comment once proven wrong *is* a form of admitting one is wrong. The conversation is between the involved people at first. If one points out what they think is an error and the other points out that there is no error and the person is wrong, the comment should be deleted. The objective was to inform the author, but the informant was himself corrected. Everyone involved knows what happened, it doesn't serve anyone to keep the comment. The goal is *not* to keep something around to show that any person was wrong, it is to improve inaccuracies in the post. Keeping these comments around if they are wrong only serves to embarrass people with &quot;see, people disagreed and they were wrong&quot;. That's not the point. It is spiteful and arrogant to force someone who disagreed with you when you were right to be put on display as an example of them being wrong. dmckee saw he was wrong and admitted it by removing the incorrect assertion. The only way he could have failed to admit his error is if he had left it there and either said nothing or continued arguing the same point. But that's not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should also be pointed out that had it been the case that he had deleted the comment and left you only with the comments from others that corrected it, other readers would see a response comment, not see the original comment and think &quot;Oh, the other person must have realized they were wrong and removed their comment&quot;. The only problem you seem to have arises because you followed up his actions with a broad accusatory statement that intentionally attempted to further humiliate the person who disagreed with you. It was revenge (whether or not you intended it that way, this is the common unconscious motivation for such actions). They stood against you and tried to belittle what you said and in response, you attempted to point them out as fools. It occurs to me that had you not opted to act out of revenge and spite, there would be no issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The removal of the comment was justified and the most reasonable course of action. When the objective is not to point out someone's folly and only to improve the content on the site, it becomes logical that anything counter-productive to this goal be removed. The comment was wrong, it was removed. Keeping it around does *not* improve the quality of content on the site. Had the comment been correct, it could be left there until a corresponding change was made in the post. Once the issues addressed in the comment are dealt with, right or wrong, it can and should be removed. Obsolete or wrong comments only add to clutter and confusion. And for the record, I do strongly advocate removing correct comments if the issue was dealt with. The objective is not to showcase that one was correct in pointing out a fault, that is just as arrogant as forcing incorrect comments to remain. The correcting comment should only stay if the issue was not fixed in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can fight against this policy all you like, but the idea is to have good and correct questions and answers, not to have records of the myriads of discussions that led to a good answer. We are not here to show how well we can correct other people nor how often other are wrong. We are here to present correct answers to questions. If a proposed correction is wrong, there's no benefit in having it remain. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to utilise the SE network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="44d3a473-ee93-4d9c-98b2-7e1f974a10d5" CreationDate="2016-10-08T09:17:23.633" UserId="124834" Text="We have a question that has been unresolved for a few months. I have now found a section of a book (1-2 pages) which is excellently written and I wish to share as a possible answer. Am I allowed to just copy the whole section out and reference the source. I fear any attempt by me to paraphrase it will lose some crucial meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="44d3a473-ee93-4d9c-98b2-7e1f974a10d5" CreationDate="2016-10-08T09:17:23.633" UserId="124834" Text="Can I copy a whole section from a book as an answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="44d3a473-ee93-4d9c-98b2-7e1f974a10d5" CreationDate="2016-10-08T09:17:23.633" UserId="124834" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="ae69f175-2e19-43b0-b77e-976e2f65d231" CreationDate="2016-10-08T11:30:01.183" UserId="124" Text="Well... I can't imagine that a quote from a book (and a lengthy one at that) will really be an ideal answer. It's allowed to quote a passage from a book, sure, but at least add something to your answer. Like a summary or something in your own words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="0149883d-f707-43e7-aceb-6c3b7e1f9979" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:52:46.720" UserId="5477" Text="In the upcoming moderator election we each get three votes - a first, second and third choice. In order to use these effectively, I would like to understand the mechanics of how they will use to determine the election's outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side panel on [the election page][1] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We will calculate the winners using [OpenSTV][2] with the [Meek STV method][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but unfortunately that second link leads to a section on a Wikipedia page that assumes you've already read the quite substantial amount of text about other transferrable vote systems that preceeds it, so it's not very self-contained and not very easy to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interests of us all understanding the rules of the election, I'm wondering whether someone who's already done the work of understanding it would be willing to post a brief self-contained outline of how it works. I'll attempt to do that myself if I get a chance in the next couple of days, but with only three days until the election it might be quicker if someone else can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opavote.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek.27s_method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="0149883d-f707-43e7-aceb-6c3b7e1f9979" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:52:46.720" UserId="5477" Text="Can someone explain the voting system for the upcoming moderator election?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="0149883d-f707-43e7-aceb-6c3b7e1f9979" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:52:46.720" UserId="5477" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="4fc41c20-684a-4482-b9c1-1ed8e9ef5c1a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T03:03:32.957" UserId="5477" Comment="added 673 characters in body" Text="In the upcoming moderator election we each get three votes - a first, second and third choice. In order to use these effectively, I would like to understand the mechanics of how they will be used to determine the election's outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side panel on [the election page][1] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We will calculate the winners using [OpenSTV][2] with the [Meek STV method][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but unfortunately that second link leads to a section on a Wikipedia page that assumes you've already read the quite substantial amount of text about other transferrable vote systems that preceeds it, so it's not very self-contained and not very easy to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interests of us all understanding the rules of the election, I'm wondering whether someone who's already done the work of understanding it would be willing to post a brief self-contained outline of how it works. I'll attempt to do that myself if I get a chance in the next couple of days, but with only three days until the election it might be quicker if someone else can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(This is important because it affects tactical voting choices. Suppose, for example, that there is one candidate, &quot;A&quot;, who I really like but I don't think is likely to win; another candidate, &quot;B&quot;, who I like almost as much who seems much more likely to win; and a third candidate, &quot;C&quot;, who I don't think would do the job in a way I'd approve of. In some voting systems I would have to put candidate A as my top choice in order to minimise the probability of C being elected, whereas in others this would be achieved equally well by voting honestly, putting B as my first choice and A as my second. It isn't clear to me which of these is the case when it comes to Meek STV.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opavote.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek.27s_method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="d65c5a73-c0b9-40c5-abaa-b5faec3b7b85" CreationDate="2016-10-09T03:12:25.753" UserId="520" Text="I'm sure [it is explained in some detail on the mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77541/how-are-moderator-election-votes-counted-in-plain-english). It's a fairly run-of-the-mill single-transferable-vote system except that you are only allowed a short slate. If I recall correctly anyone with a majority is elected, then the person with the fewest first-place votes is dropped and any votes directed at them fail over tho those voters' next choices. Repeat until you have filled the open seats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah. Now that I've found the link I see that there is a partial transfer of votes not fully needed to elect people too. Now *that's* a swanky extra." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="26138ad4-387b-4665-8535-62327b1beade" CreationDate="2016-10-09T03:14:34.303" UserId="5477" Comment="deleted 270 characters in body" Text="In the upcoming moderator election we each get three votes - a first, second and third choice. In order to use these effectively, I would like to understand the mechanics of how they will be used to determine the election's outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side panel on [the election page][1] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We will calculate the winners using [OpenSTV][2] with the [Meek STV method][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but unfortunately that second link leads to a section on a Wikipedia page that assumes you've already read the quite substantial amount of text about other transferrable vote systems that preceeds it, so it's not very self-contained and not very easy to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interests of us all understanding the rules of the election, I'm wondering whether someone who's already done the work of understanding it would be willing to post a brief self-contained outline of how it works. I'll attempt to do that myself if I get a chance in the next couple of days, but with only three days until the election it might be quicker if someone else can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The reason it's important is because it affects tactical voting systems. The aim of STV is to make tactical voting less important, i.e. you can put the person you like the most as your first choice, even if you don't think they're likely to win, because your vote will carry over to your other choices if they don't. I would like to fully understand how that process works in this particular version of the system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opavote.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek.27s_method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="c93d79c1-c442-430c-b54b-205baebb75be" CreationDate="2016-10-09T08:23:30.970" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="e1ae04a4-be9c-419e-b42b-730800570d77" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:00:12.993" UserId="83380" Text="I don't think that [this question][1] is too hard actually. There must be some way to solve this and I know there are plenty of people here with a solid background in physics and the mathematics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else further can I do to encourage someone to have a go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/278664/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="e1ae04a4-be9c-419e-b42b-730800570d77" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:00:12.993" UserId="83380" Text="No answers - is this question too hard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="e1ae04a4-be9c-419e-b42b-730800570d77" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:00:12.993" UserId="83380" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="e3eb3c01-16bf-430b-81da-7e40a084f7ac" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:06:31.723" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="e3eb3c01-16bf-430b-81da-7e40a084f7ac" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:06:31.723" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="No answers - is this question too hard? I don't think that [this question][1] is too hard actually. There must be some way to solve this and I know there are plenty of people here with a solid background in physics and the mathematics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else further can I do to encourage someone to have a go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/278664/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23826" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="e3eb3c01-16bf-430b-81da-7e40a084f7ac" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:06:31.723" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="No answers - What else further can I do to encourage someone to answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="391fe5fd-a6e7-40d1-b49b-3cc9dede964f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:10:02.557" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 112 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I had asked a [question][1] which was initially poorly stated. However, I tried to revise the question continually (about ten times) to make my question clearer. But yet the revisions to the question did not push it to the 'active' or the 'newest' list even though the question was improved to a large extent. Neither did it appear in any other 'list'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I added a few comments to the question to try to make it appear in the 'active' list.  Still, the question did not appear in any of the lists. Now, I do not want to utilize my reputation for a bounty as it is already less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me how to attract more attention for my question without placing a bounty on it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do take a look at my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/138565/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="391fe5fd-a6e7-40d1-b49b-3cc9dede964f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:10:02.557" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 112 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|unanswered-questions|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="290a8b9a-b208-401d-b3c6-d718cab6aca2" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:28:58.190" UserId="50583" Text="That a question gets no answer does not necessarily mean it is &quot;too hard&quot;. It could mean that, but it could also mean that no one knowing the answer found the question interesting enough to spend the time writing up the answer or that no one knowing the answer *saw* the question (your question has 78 view, which is not that many). Or the people knowing the answer didn't have time to write an answer and then later forgot to come back. You often can't know the reason a question stays unanswered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to migitate some of the possibilities I said, then the &quot;standard&quot; way to increase the visibility of a question is to [place a bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). This additionally offers additional incentive in the form of reputation points to the people knowing the answer to actually spend the time writing it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, you could edit your question to make it more easily answerable and more easily readable. The longer a question, the better your writing must be so that people actually read through it instead of finding something faster to read (it's debatable whether this behaviour is a *good* thing, but that's how it is). Ask yourself: Do you explain why this question is *interesting* at the beginning to get reader interested and read on? Are all those pictures really necessary? If &quot;the question is short&quot;, then why is the question so long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do edit your question, then that will put it on the top of the &quot;active&quot; questions list again. Please do not use this feature by making trivial edits (e.g. adding whitespace, correcting one typo every ten minutes, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [posts shouldn't look like revision histories](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5886/50583). A new reader doesn't care *why* you added the second part historically. They care what it has to do with the question, and how it's supposed to make answering it easier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="6ac5ad08-e346-4680-81a1-dee88c8d0f26" CreationDate="2016-10-09T13:34:56.117" UserId="1492" Text="It seems that [here][1] , while making the question more intelligible, the edit also answered it partially with a link, making the questioner not only negligent in previous research, but also stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![q1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result the person got two down votes. I had commented with a link , and got notified on his question about downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in the title, editing with links  which answer the question should be avoided, imo.Some questions are naive, which is different than stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/285134/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/df1X5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="6ac5ad08-e346-4680-81a1-dee88c8d0f26" CreationDate="2016-10-09T13:34:56.117" UserId="1492" Text="editors of questions please do not add links which answer the question when editing it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="6ac5ad08-e346-4680-81a1-dee88c8d0f26" CreationDate="2016-10-09T13:34:56.117" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="aa657eda-8968-4b4e-8434-2c327de09917" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:09:04.533" UserId="2451" Text="1. Speaking generically, links and reference makes a question more accessible, and editors are encouraged to improve the question any way they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning the specific question, I guess as the editor I'm to blame here. I was indeed debating with myself whether it was too much to add the wiki link or not, cf. anna v's above vivid comment: _It made the question stupid rather than naive._ I apologies if it did. This was not my aim. My aim is to ensure the quality of Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The specific example is indeed a very naive question with not sufficient research, so it doesn't make sense to use this specific example to set general rules&amp;restrictions for editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="1f2c915c-a4a8-4d8a-a53c-ec7667f01593" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:16:05.307" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="1. Speaking generically, links and reference make a question more accessible, and editors are encouraged to improve the question any way they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning the specific question, I guess as the editor I'm to blame here. I was indeed debating with myself whether it was too much to add the wiki link or not, cf. anna v's above vivid comment: _It made the question stupid rather than naive._ I apologies if it did. This was not my aim. My aim is to ensure the quality of Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The specific example is indeed a very naive question with not sufficient research, so it doesn't make sense to use this specific example to set general rules &amp; restrictions for editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="1e393bfa-0913-462a-a4d5-96f5eb36375e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:49:36.953" UserId="2451" Comment="Grammar" Text="1. Speaking generically, links and reference make a question more accessible, and editors are encouraged to improve the question any way they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning the specific question, I guess as the editor I'm to blame here. I was indeed debating with myself whether it was too much to add the wiki link or not, cf. anna v's above vivid comment: _It made the question stupid rather than naive._ I apologize if it did. This was not my aim. My aim is to ensure the quality of Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The specific example is indeed a very naive question with not sufficient research, so it doesn't make sense to use this specific example to set general rules &amp; restrictions for editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="cff59089-c034-482d-a93a-ffaddf0450a8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T11:27:06.870" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 337 characters in body" Text="I was reading through some old meta discussions recently, and I was interested in some of the points made, but they never quite seemed to be implemented or discussed further. They also seemed to be buried among the various conversations about physics overflow and the various controversies surrounding that. So, I am asking the current community what they think of the following points; I will post my own personal opinion as an answer soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Too many questions that have math in them are closed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current stance on engineering questions is too harsh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions on these two appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;**Previous Meta Posts:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65/are-engineering-questions-ok&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="63d8bd15-b990-4948-b716-f234ca9d1fa8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:25:42.087" UserId="128861" Text="I have seen that many question get a bunch of upvotes after a start,there are many questions which remain unnoticed for several time and once it get some upvotes its popularity start increasing.&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't that indicate that most of the people upvote a question because it is upvoted by others.&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't this thing be stopped,that is the reason some exellent questions remain unnoticed.&#xD;&#xA;Hope my message reach to those who are responsible for this.&#xD;&#xA;thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="63d8bd15-b990-4948-b716-f234ca9d1fa8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:25:42.087" UserId="128861" Text="the reason why some questions get massive amount of upvotes and other not so much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="63d8bd15-b990-4948-b716-f234ca9d1fa8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:25:42.087" UserId="128861" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23840" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="0d1b1222-962a-4d22-a55d-3a1a489169a4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:55:09.117" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="The reason why some questions get massive amount of upvotes and other not so much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23841" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="0d1b1222-962a-4d22-a55d-3a1a489169a4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:55:09.117" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|bug|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="d0c0a215-3c87-4c8b-b52e-fa38ff920a73" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:02:07.653" UserId="5922" Comment="Correct a punctuation error. Since the same error occurred every time, I surmise that whoever wrote this doesn't know that this is not &quot;mainstream&quot; English." Text="##Is non-mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, questions and answers about non-mainstream physics are not allowed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, the question will need to be specific in order to fit this format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What defines mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of questions and answers are disallowed by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any post that attempts to work within the bounds of what we have determined to be &quot;mainstream physics&quot; is considered on topic for this site barring any other issues. For example, a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if a question or answer uses a non-mainstream theory as its premise and attempts to go forward in that direction, it can be safely closed or deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non-mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, be certain that it is indeed off topic by the above rules. Note that if a post is simply _wrong_, leave a constructive comment explaining why, and downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is indeed non-mainstream, leave a comment stating the fact and linking to this meta post. For questions, flag or vote to close as non-mainstream. For answers, use a custom moderator flag mentioning that it is non-mainstream." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="4493319c-5c6e-437d-bfc8-fdf80ee9e54f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:02:25.800" UserId="5922" Comment="punctuation correction" Text="- Is non-mainstream physics allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;- What defines non-mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;- What sort of questions and answers are disallowed by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;- What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non-mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23844" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="4493319c-5c6e-437d-bfc8-fdf80ee9e54f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:02:25.800" UserId="5922" Comment="punctuation correction" Text="Is non-mainstream physics appropriate for this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="f366f141-07e6-4cef-98fa-a55d961cc3b8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:21:22.287" UserId="5922" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285307/is-this-an-adequate-resolution-of-the-paradox-of-the-arrow-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was closed on the grounds that it is not &quot;mainstream physics&quot;, and I was referred to [this page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).  That page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that criterion, my question would be allowed.  It did not propose a new concept or paradigm as far as I know, but it asked for evaluation of an idea within the context of mainstream physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="f366f141-07e6-4cef-98fa-a55d961cc3b8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:21:22.287" UserId="5922" Text="Why was this question closed as &quot;non-mainstream&quot; when it asked about mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="f366f141-07e6-4cef-98fa-a55d961cc3b8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:21:22.287" UserId="5922" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="b472f25e-e405-4903-ba9e-d1fc6ab35b61" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:31:07.963" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body; edited tags" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was closed on the grounds that it is not &quot;mainstream physics&quot;, and I was referred to [this page](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4538/).  That page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that criterion, my question would be allowed.  It did not propose a new concept or paradigm as far as I know, but it asked for evaluation of an idea within the context of mainstream physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23849" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="b472f25e-e405-4903-ba9e-d1fc6ab35b61" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:31:07.963" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="0215795b-6874-495f-88c4-1b8e161df31c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:46:26.560" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="OK - so I rephrase the question to hightlight the physics content as suggested and... zilch. It still stays on hold.&#xD;&#xA;So the only option appears to be to re-post the revised question under a different heading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that how this is supposed to work or should the person who put it on hold actually check on it to see if it was re-edited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="0215795b-6874-495f-88c4-1b8e161df31c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:46:26.560" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Put on hold and rephrasing the question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="0215795b-6874-495f-88c4-1b8e161df31c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:46:26.560" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="12a01596-9fcc-4601-aca3-717f8ba07831" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:02:35.737" UserId="2451" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="OK - so I rephrase the [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285415/) to highlight the physics content as suggested and... zilch. It still stays on hold.&#xD;&#xA;So the only option appears to be to re-post the revised question under a different heading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that how this is supposed to work or should the person who put it on hold actually check on it to see if it was re-edited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="12a01596-9fcc-4601-aca3-717f8ba07831" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:02:35.737" UserId="2451" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9252" RevisionGUID="887c5834-1558-49ea-b674-d5763890dce8" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:18:20.433" UserId="124" Text="After a question is put on hold and edited, it gets put into a queue to be reviewed for reopening. If enough reviewers think the question is suitable for the site after the edit, the hold will be removed. Otherwise, it stays on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not repost a question on hold to give it another chance. Doing so is considered (a mild form of) abuse of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="754f94a1-bc27-448b-b1ce-71e21249fe71" CreationDate="2016-10-11T10:24:22.023" UserId="2451" Text="It seems that the [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/2451) (v2) is a valid mainstream conceptional question concerning the thermodynamical [arrow of time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) in the same category as, say, inquiries about the [Boltzmann H-theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem) and [Loschmidt's paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox). The question should therefore be reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="93a50c2e-2205-423b-8754-cc34950c3108" CreationDate="2016-10-11T10:39:12.490" UserId="2451" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="It seems that the [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/2451) (v2) is a valid mainstream conceptional question concerning the thermodynamical [arrow of time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) in the same category as, say, inquiries about the [Boltzmann H-theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem) and [Loschmidt's paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox). The question should therefore be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why this particular post was closed as non-mainstream: Well, it seems it was a mistake. I guess the moral is that reviewers should skip a review if they are in doubt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to use this opportunity to stress that our reviewers usually do good and competent work, and encourage more 3k+ users to participate in the reviewing process. Without reviewers, Phys.SE could not function. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9252" RevisionGUID="835d720a-725e-44fc-bd47-49ae5e420e32" CreationDate="2016-10-11T11:14:26.787" UserId="124" Comment="add link to the review" Text="After a question is put on hold and edited, it gets put into a queue to be reviewed for reopening. If enough reviewers think the question is suitable for the site after the edit, the hold will be removed. Otherwise, it stays on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, [the review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/148926) has been completed, and the reviewers do not believe the changes make the question on topic, so unless there are further edits, the hold will stay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not repost a question on hold to give it another chance. Doing so is considered (a mild form of) abuse of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23863" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="5781ff79-082b-4b6e-83e5-9891113d60f6" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:13:02.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/785921164971544576" />
  <row Id="23864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="375e92fe-4c16-40f0-bd8c-e6da80a9f67e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:19:17.393" UserId="9426" Text="Physics's [third moderator election][1] has come to a close, the votes have been tallied, and the 2 new moderators are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ACuriousMind][mod1pic]][mod1] [![rob][mod2pic]][mod2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They'll be joining [the existing crew][6] shortly — please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice with them as they learn the ropes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details on how the voting played out, you can download the election results [here][1], or [view a summary report online][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3&#xD;&#xA;  [mod1pic]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/50583.png&#xD;&#xA;  [mod1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583&#xD;&#xA;  [mod2pic]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/44126.png&#xD;&#xA;  [mod2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/44126&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.opavote.org/results/5609110007447552/0 &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="375e92fe-4c16-40f0-bd8c-e6da80a9f67e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:19:17.393" UserId="9426" Text="2016 Community Moderator Election Results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="375e92fe-4c16-40f0-bd8c-e6da80a9f67e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:19:17.393" UserId="9426" Text="|discussion|featured|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9257" RevisionGUID="8c856634-c9b7-4505-b91a-4787174a3dfa" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:27:47.127" UserId="121464" Text="Congratulations to both new moderators! You'll both be a fabulous addition to the moderator team. Thank you so much for volunteering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JwqHE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="b59086fc-2030-424c-9d74-71f995b529c4" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:36:17.403" UserId="9887" Text="My sincere congratulations to ACM and rob and I second heather's thank you for volunteering your time.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="29426ac9-a136-4e8f-91a6-bd163ab5643b" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:46:55.863" UserId="78942" Text="I can't answer for the rest of voters, but I can sort-of explain my own decission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the line between &quot;a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm&quot; and a non-mainstream question is too blurry. You introduce a new concept, &quot;temporally asymmetric initial conditions&quot;, and as @knzhou commented, you didn't define it at all. For me, this was an indicator to decide that your question lies past the blurry line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common pitfall of non-mainstream posts is that they tend to be arrogant: they have solved one of greatest mysteries of all times where everyone before has failed, and they won't stop bragging about it. Your question is a very mild case of arrogance, but I definitely did not get a good impression the first time I read it. Now I'm inclined to think that it wasn't intentional, but I'd recommend you to tone it down a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I must say that I had to meditate my decission because I wasn't sure at all. It seems that the community disagrees with me (since the question is now reopen), so I have to admit that I was wrong, after all. No problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, closure is not a death sentence for a question, it is an opportunity to rethink, rewrite and improve it. I still think that your question needs a bit of work, along the lines I've explained above, in order to be a good question. I encourage you to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="81f6bc98-ca35-461e-8c48-82035e05979b" CreationDate="2016-10-11T22:14:38.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/785966869010325504" />
  <row Id="23871" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="83eede95-4a68-498a-b778-5da723c51f02" CreationDate="2016-10-12T04:40:28.493" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="fcd9e88b-eadf-4ccd-8be9-3568c37edd06" CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:36:08.917" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="Well, I tried to play the game and join in (hence my 10,100 points) but this forum is almost totally useless for anyone doing experimental physics. I particularly dislike the snobbish attitude of some moderators who cannot tell the difference between experimental physics and that stinking low class &quot;engineering&quot; stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last straw as my question on laser-metal interactions being put on hold and not re-opened. After much googling (in scholar) and elsewhere I discovered the answer I sought. And guess what - it's physics. Clue - plasma frequency v wavelength of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output I get from here is vastly less than the time I have put in, and I have a job being a real physicist (and engineer - but let's not mention that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am unsubbing and won't be back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dirk Bruere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="4ff091a6-b105-4ff3-a879-728af4fd7851" CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:51:11.730" UserDisplayName="user56903" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Well, I tried to play the game and join in (hence my 10,100 points) but this forum is almost totally useless for anyone doing experimental physics. I particularly dislike the snobbish attitude of some moderators who cannot tell the difference between experimental physics and that stinking low class &quot;engineering&quot; stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last straw as my question on laser-metal interactions being put on hold and not re-opened. After much googling (in scholar) and elsewhere I discovered the answer I sought. And guess what - it's physics. Clue - plasma frequency v wavelength of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output I get from here is vastly less than the time I have put in, and I have a paying job being a real physicist (and engineer - but let's not mention that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am unsubbing and won't be back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dirk Bruere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="07a91fae-303a-47f8-828b-53f250217826" CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:54:22.840" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="How do I unsubscribe from SE physics?&#xD;&#xA;I have looked on my profile but can see no method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="07a91fae-303a-47f8-828b-53f250217826" CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:54:22.840" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="My last question - how do I unsubscribe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="07a91fae-303a-47f8-828b-53f250217826" CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:54:22.840" UserDisplayName="user56903" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="551e2bd7-ed6c-4380-9724-011d7cebfef8" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:15:01.140" UserId="50583" Text="Use the [contact us](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact) link at the bottom of the page and choose the reason &quot;I need to delete my user profile&quot;, then follow the instructions (if any) that you receive. It may take a few days for the request to be processed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [How can I delete my account?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7979/263383) at Meta Stack Exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="3d93bd26-64c5-4d32-b393-42d23dc18fe1" CreationDate="2016-10-12T09:00:51.280" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was wondering how to completely leave this community. Please guide me. I have gone through FAQ section but of no use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23879" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="3d93bd26-64c5-4d32-b393-42d23dc18fe1" CreationDate="2016-10-12T09:00:51.280" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to quit physics.stackexchange.com completely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="1d1e62e6-11ab-4ff4-91f9-407bd79b596f" CreationDate="2016-10-12T12:52:25.540" UserId="23473" Text="As Jim, the High King, I officially recognize your meritorious service to the Jimdom. Furthermore, in light of the training, popular approval, and special services rendered to the King (specifically, stepping up to do the job that I really didn't want to have to do) I bestow on you the highest honours that I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;As of this day, I dub thee **Sir rob** and **Sir** [*insert name here*], **Knights Moderatus**; members of the Court of Jimelot; with all the lands and dues afforded this rank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rise and never forget the oaths you have sworn this day, defenders of PSE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="986f67f9-d990-4015-8dda-aa61f9ab8990" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:28:06.550" UserId="130714" Text="Actually [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285830/what-is-the-significance-of-null-zero-vector) was asked in PSE and after googling it I gat same question on [yahoo](https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100603025915AAxYW7Q) with an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;can we copy paste that answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="986f67f9-d990-4015-8dda-aa61f9ab8990" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:28:06.550" UserId="130714" Text="Is it okay to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="986f67f9-d990-4015-8dda-aa61f9ab8990" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:28:06.550" UserId="130714" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9265" RevisionGUID="d81f5def-4af0-40ef-b6dc-a966bbebcf6c" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:43:34.570" UserId="23473" Text="According to a non-mod [answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/256939/262980) on the mother meta site, it is very much frowned on to copy a Yahoo Answer without attributing it, but it seems perfectly okay from a legal standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend going through that post and any related posts to be sure, but so long as you cite your answer, you should be fine for the most part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9266" RevisionGUID="41963214-0381-40d3-ad0d-d9f1e16da129" CreationDate="2016-10-12T15:14:13.177" UserId="56299" Text="Here's a checklist to run through when considering this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Is this really the best source to use?** Perhaps I'm overly harsh, but Yahoo! Answers, is generally not the best choice when it comes to even referencing an answer. If you insist on copying an external source, try to find something of higher quality. Stack Exchange is better than sites like Yahoo! Answers; why should we drop to that level?&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Could you rephrase the content in your own words?** This is highly recommended; see e.g. [the tag wiki on plagiarism](http://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/plagiarism/info). The odds that the phrasing you've found is the single greatest way to explain the concept are slim to none, and you might as well try to improve on the wording. See if you can rewrite the explanation, adding ideas of your own. At the very least, write better than the &quot;best answer&quot; there, which opens with&#xD;&#xA; &gt; this smthg abt zero vector and its uses... &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Did you cite the source correctly?** If you're still bent on copying the text, note that [plagiarism on Stack Exchange is not okay](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/160071/274942), and *could* be deleted, although it's more likely someone will simply add in the link. Now, I don't know if the text on Yahoo! Answers is copyrighted, but if it is, the answer may be removed outright. If you can't confirm that it's okay to copy the text (with attribution), [don't](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/141240/274942).&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Should you make the post community wiki?** I recall that a Community Manager once recommended this, for a couple reasons. First, you didn't really do much work if you just copied-and-pasted a block of text; should you necessarily receive reputation for it. Second, if the explanation isn't &quot;yours&quot;, it's more properly the community's, if that makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I see no reason whatsoever to do what you're doing, but yes, legally and by the rules of Stack Exchange, you can do it (again, if the content isn't copyrighted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it recommended? No. Is it allowable? Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="fd50bf63-8c0b-48d1-8fac-739dd8ea9a76" CreationDate="2016-10-12T15:14:32.533" UserId="44126" Text="This is an answer to your question from my perspective, not wearing my moderator's hat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That particular answer was written by someone else and is their intellectual property, which they've explicitly licensed to Yahoo (via the appropriate Terms of Service) but not necessarily elsewhere.  For you to take those exact words and display them elsewhere as if you had written them yourself wouldn't be honest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that you, Ramanujan, are perfectly capable of distilling the differences between the existing answer on the question you link and the answer you have found elsewhere, and the world would be a better place for your efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there is something ineffable about the answer you've found that can't be reproduced by your efforts, a link in a comment would sit better with me than a big block quotation in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that any of your options here are wrong in a way that would cause trouble, but copy-pasting content from elsewhere is my least favorite among them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9266" RevisionGUID="3c6435fd-f759-419a-807e-b27801c76df0" CreationDate="2016-10-12T16:16:51.957" UserId="56299" Comment="deleted 363 characters in body" Text="Here's a checklist to run through when considering this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Is this really the best source to use?** Perhaps I'm overly harsh, but Yahoo! Answers, is generally not the best choice when it comes to even referencing an answer. If you insist on copying an external source, try to find something of higher quality. Stack Exchange is better than sites like Yahoo! Answers; why should we drop to that level?&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Could you rephrase the content in your own words?** This is highly recommended; see e.g. [the tag wiki on plagiarism](http://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/plagiarism/info). The odds that the phrasing you've found is the single greatest way to explain the concept are slim to none, and you might as well try to improve on the wording. See if you can rewrite the explanation, adding ideas of your own. At the very least, write better than the &quot;best answer&quot; there, which opens with&#xD;&#xA; &gt; this smthg abt zero vector and its uses... &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Did you cite the source correctly?** If you're still bent on copying the text, note that [plagiarism on Stack Exchange is not okay](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/160071/274942), and *could* be deleted, although it's more likely someone will simply add in the link. Now, I don't know if the text on Yahoo! Answers is copyrighted, but if it is, the answer may be removed outright. If you can't confirm that it's okay to copy the text (with attribution), [don't](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/141240/274942).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I see no reason whatsoever to do what you're doing, but yes, legally and by the rules of Stack Exchange, you can do it (again, if the content isn't copyrighted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it recommended? No. Is it allowable? Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="08f7f2e4-ea56-4583-a73f-a6faaf8cc0c0" CreationDate="2016-10-12T18:24:25.980" UserId="2451" Text="[JIM mechanism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIM_mechanism)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9269" RevisionGUID="1b37626c-f6e7-4213-b2dc-0940d4769f8c" CreationDate="2016-10-12T18:24:47.013" UserId="2451" Text="[Gator's girls use jimmies](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386588/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23894" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="d5fc6bfa-9a94-4e95-9b3b-a829bc44d2a4" CreationDate="2016-10-13T08:41:20.680" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[886],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23895" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="1b495d7a-8362-4cde-87a2-1095a0d094b9" CreationDate="2016-10-13T08:41:56.253" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2632],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="e940a044-39e1-40cb-a2cd-d9057a4ce7c7" CreationDate="2016-10-13T08:45:52.353" UserId="8563" Comment="Minor spelling fix." Text="There is [no][1] private [messaging][2] system, [nor will there ever be][3]. The team has been [quite firm][4] on this. The mantra is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is not a social network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Options that are available to you][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in a comment (which you should probably delete afterwards)&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in chat&#xD;&#xA;* Looking in the user's profile: people who want to be contacted out-of-band can provide the means there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/4830/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/57203/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/85255/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/431/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57537/how-do-i-contact-other-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="4603b539-8f73-4700-b149-189867efc502" CreationDate="2016-10-13T09:27:27.897" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Actually [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285830/what-is-the-significance-of-null-zero-vector) was asked in PSE and after googling it I gave the same question on [yahoo](http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100603025915AAxYW7Q) with an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;can I copy paste that answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23898" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="4603b539-8f73-4700-b149-189867efc502" CreationDate="2016-10-13T09:27:27.897" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can I copy paste an answer from an (external) webpage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23899" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="4603b539-8f73-4700-b149-189867efc502" CreationDate="2016-10-13T09:27:27.897" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="1efd4f52-997d-42e5-bae9-9677ca1f564f" CreationDate="2016-10-13T09:33:26.667" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It seems that the [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/2451) (v2) is a valid mainstream conceptional question concerning the thermodynamical [arrow of time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) in the same category as, say, inquiries about the [Boltzmann H-theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem) and [Loschmidt's paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox). The question should therefore be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why this particular post was closed as non-mainstream: Well, it seems it was a mistake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to use this opportunity to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Remind reviewers to skip a review if they are in any way in doubt. &#xD;&#xA;- Stress that our reviewers usually do good and competent work.&#xD;&#xA;- Encourage more 3k+ users to participate in the reviewing process. Without reviewers, Phys.SE can not function. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="07bc9ac3-8f21-4b28-8187-0d3508c860b1" CreationDate="2016-10-13T20:09:00.697" UserId="123649" Text="I agree with the other users here, if you make a post, you think it is right, if someone shows that your post is incorrect then it is perfectly reasonable to take it down, there isn't some sort of contractual obligation to stick by something you know is wrong. It's much better to swallow your pride and just delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23903" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="bef024e9-0c89-405c-85c3-23595894354e" CreationDate="2016-10-14T01:40:39.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/786743488683573249" />
  <row Id="23904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="eb0534e4-60fc-4be4-899e-35ceea497de8" CreationDate="2016-10-14T03:24:20.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23905" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="62160064-f5de-4a50-9f8d-b4e058859386" CreationDate="2016-10-14T04:41:21.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/786788962538893312" />
  <row Id="23906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="c31ac878-1abe-4c15-aaff-651f04c2b34d" CreationDate="2016-10-14T10:41:21.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/786879561824960512" />
  <row Id="23909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="e04218e8-f7e4-44f0-bf7c-ab478c080de1" CreationDate="2016-10-14T15:44:39.187" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="It seems that OP's [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/2451) (v3) is a valid mainstream conceptional question concerning the thermodynamical [arrow of time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) in the same category as, say, inquiries about the [Boltzmann H-theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem) and [Loschmidt's paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox). The question should therefore be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why OP's question was closed as non-mainstream: Well, it seems it was a mistake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to use this opportunity to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Remind reviewers to skip a review if they are in any way in doubt. &#xD;&#xA;- Stress that our reviewers usually do good and competent work.&#xD;&#xA;- Encourage more 3k+ users to participate in the reviewing process. Without reviewers, Phys.SE can not function. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23920" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="baab1425-8cbd-44ff-83bb-500cdd1013b3" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:05:43.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="15cc7569-354c-4d12-b848-2d0555a7a8d2" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:17:06.583" UserId="131999" Text="My main issue with how the sight deals with 'homework questions' is about assumptions. I am an A level physics student and I never ask homework questions on this sight. However I will ask questions about things I am struggling to understand. However these questions are often about basic things I need a greater understanding of but because these are basic questions people instantly assume it's a homework question and there for I get the old 'this isn't a homework help site' and then a homework tag is added, etc. When my question wasn't a homework question but purely a question most on this website would see as basic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could potentially drive away people such as myself who are learning physics at not an advanced level but still would like to ask genuine physics questions on SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="15cc7569-354c-4d12-b848-2d0555a7a8d2" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:17:06.583" UserId="131999" Text="Homework policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="15cc7569-354c-4d12-b848-2d0555a7a8d2" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:17:06.583" UserId="131999" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="ba7674c4-ada9-4539-b61d-c83609da521d" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:24:18.627" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="My main issue with how the sight deals with 'homework questions' is about assumptions. I am an A level physics student and I never ask homework questions on this site. However I will ask questions about things I am struggling to understand. However these questions are often about basic things I need a greater understanding of but because these are basic questions people instantly assume it's a homework question and there for I get the old 'this isn't a homework help site' and then a homework tag is added, etc. When my question wasn't a homework question but purely a question most on this website would see as basic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could potentially drive away people such as myself who are learning physics at not an advanced level but still would like to ask genuine physics questions on SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="ba7674c4-ada9-4539-b61d-c83609da521d" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:24:18.627" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="2c6900c5-5a72-4161-94d4-68ac97778330" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:33:18.540" UserId="131999" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="My main issue with how the site deals with 'homework questions' is about assumptions. I am an A level physics student and I never ask homework questions on this site. However I will ask questions about things I am struggling to understand. However these questions are often about basic things I need a greater understanding of but because these are basic questions people instantly assume it's a homework question and there for I get the old 'this isn't a homework help site' and then a homework tag is added, etc. When my question wasn't a homework question but purely a question most on this website would see as basic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could potentially drive away people such as myself who are learning physics at not an advanced level but still would like to ask genuine physics questions on SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is lot's of talk on meta about how the 'quality' of questions must be improved which makes it sound like we're trying to push the site into an elitist form where a question has to be a certain level of complexity to be deemed 'high quality'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9275" RevisionGUID="db95d216-013f-4c1f-986f-56dc5505bb2b" CreationDate="2016-10-16T20:44:32.587" UserId="121464" Text="I don't understand why you are complaining. I looked at your account. You have only two questions, and both are not on hold *and* they are answered! Not only that, both *are* homework questions. Before you yell at me for being prejudiced too, please let me explain real quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of your questions are looking for answers that are sort of &quot;calculate for me, do my work for me&quot; questions. It doesn't matter whether or not they are actually homework, it is about the type of question they are: &quot;do my work&quot; type problems (which is why we are trying to reformulate the policy, because the close reasons aren't as clear as we'd like). That is why people are asking you to read the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm not sure you've quite been on this site long enough to see what sometimes comes up. We get questions saying stuff like &quot;solve this problem&quot; with nothing of their own work. Once, we got a question asking for users to come up with &quot;new and innovative ideas&quot; for a project for school. We get some pretty bad questions. When we say on meta &quot;improve quality of questions&quot; we mean trying to make it more clear that that stuff is not allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about being elitist, or forbidding basic questions. Actually, some of the most upvoted questions might be considered &quot;basic&quot; by a good number of users on this site. Further, some of my questions have been well-upvoted, not closed, and answered, but they've been kind of basic sorts of questions. So the whole elitist thing isn't true at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please, don't go off making accusations without actually considering what is going on. I hope that makes sense, and I hope your future on this site is a tad more pleasant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9275" RevisionGUID="4f6360c8-385d-434b-bbfd-0bcbe020f18a" CreationDate="2016-10-16T21:02:16.930" UserId="121464" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="I don't understand why you are complaining. I looked at your account. You have only two questions, and both are not on hold *and* they are answered! Not only that, both *are* homework questions. Before you yell at me for being prejudiced too, please let me explain real quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of your questions are looking for answers that are sort of &quot;calculate for me, do my work for me&quot; questions. It doesn't matter whether or not they are actually homework, it is about the type of question they are: &quot;do my work&quot; type problems (which is why we are trying to reformulate the policy, because the close reasons aren't as clear as we'd like). That is why people are asking you to read the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm not sure you've quite been on this site long enough to see what sometimes comes up. We get questions saying stuff like &quot;solve this problem&quot; with nothing of their own work. Once, we got a question asking for users to come up with &quot;new and innovative ideas&quot; for a project for school. We get some pretty bad questions. When we say on meta &quot;improve quality of questions&quot; we mean trying to make it more clear that that stuff is not allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about being elitist, or forbidding basic questions. Actually, some of the most upvoted questions might be considered &quot;basic&quot; by a good number of users on this site. Further, some of my questions have been well-upvoted, not closed, and answered, but they've been kind of basic sorts of questions. So the whole elitist thing isn't true at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please, don't go off making accusations without actually considering what is going on. I hope that makes sense, and I hope your future on this site is a tad more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At DanielSank's request, here are two questions I've asked that in my mind are simple (especially in their respective areas of physics) questions which are both upvoted and answered. In fact, the first one got 27 upvotes (!) which surprised me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/282286/why-ket-and-bra-notation&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274558/boltzmann-formulation-of-entropy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="c8384f9e-a5e0-44b6-90f8-23c07a3bf112" CreationDate="2016-10-18T09:30:10.700" UserId="8563" Text="I recently saw that [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92301/what-color-would-you-see-if-you-place-2-mirrors-in-opposit-when-one-is-a-one-way) has been closed as a duplicate, and I couldn't disagree more, but for some reason it has [passed review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/149686) with a Leave Closed outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The currently-closed question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92301/what-color-would-you-see-if-you-place-2-mirrors-in-opposit-when-one-is-a-one-way) asks, in essence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Could someone [...] explain why the reflections [between two opposite mirrors] curve away instead of meeting at a perspective point within the reflections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   i.e. entirely a geometric affair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The proposed duplicate](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92301/what-color-would-you-see-if-you-place-2-mirrors-in-opposit-when-one-is-a-one-way) asks what would happen if one of the mirrors were 'one-way' and the observation were done from behind it (in a pretty rambling way), involving a completely different set of concepts, and also an invalid premise (the existence of one-way mirrors) that requires careful unthreading in the leading answer that makes up the bulk of the required response, and which is entirely absent from the currently-closed question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How on Earth are these two duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="c8384f9e-a5e0-44b6-90f8-23c07a3bf112" CreationDate="2016-10-18T09:30:10.700" UserId="8563" Text="How are these two questions duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="c8384f9e-a5e0-44b6-90f8-23c07a3bf112" CreationDate="2016-10-18T09:30:10.700" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="71771ef7-d4c7-42d2-a924-c50b9377f90a" CreationDate="2016-10-18T09:35:33.340" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 119 characters in body" Text="I recently saw that [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93421/mirrors-into-infinity) has been closed as a duplicate, and I couldn't disagree more, but for some reason it has [passed review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/149686) with a Leave Closed outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The currently-closed question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93421/mirrors-into-infinity) asks, in essence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Could someone [...] explain why the reflections [between two opposite mirrors] curve away instead of meeting at a perspective point within the reflections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   i.e. entirely a geometric affair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The proposed duplicate](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92301/what-color-would-you-see-if-you-place-2-mirrors-in-opposit-when-one-is-a-one-way) asks what would happen if one of the mirrors were 'one-way' and the observation were done from behind it (in a pretty rambling way), involving a completely different set of concepts, and also an invalid premise (the existence of one-way mirrors) that requires careful unthreading in the leading answer that makes up the bulk of the required response, and which is entirely absent from the currently-closed question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How on Earth are these two duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="55a8b74f-5d3b-4ccd-89ad-6445afd7b3d6" CreationDate="2016-10-18T10:42:45.970" UserId="55261" Text="A short while ago I've received a request from another user to connect via facebook. Well, apart from the fact that I'm not very active on facebook, I'd definitely not like to provide any contact details on this site. That said, I was wondering whether there is some mechanism on this site whereby one can make this possible without the danger of unwanted contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice from previous questions that one cannot send private messages because &quot;this is not a social network.&quot; I can understand that (tong in cheek), and I respect that. So this is not a suggestion for such a messaging system, but perhaps some other mechanism to take discussions to a different medium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="55a8b74f-5d3b-4ccd-89ad-6445afd7b3d6" CreationDate="2016-10-18T10:42:45.970" UserId="55261" Text="Is there a safe way to contact other users privately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="55a8b74f-5d3b-4ccd-89ad-6445afd7b3d6" CreationDate="2016-10-18T10:42:45.970" UserId="55261" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="4cbf897d-4ada-4fa0-b17e-b2fc89deabd5" CreationDate="2016-10-18T10:45:31.180" UserId="2451" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="A short while ago I've received a request from another user to connect via facebook. Well, apart from the fact that I'm not very active on facebook, I'd definitely not like to provide any contact details on this site. That said, I was wondering whether there is some mechanism on this site whereby one can make this possible without the danger of unwanted contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice from previous meta [questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/886/2451) that one cannot send private messages because &quot;this is not a social network.&quot; I can understand that (tong in cheek), and I respect that. So this is not a suggestion for such a messaging system, but perhaps some other mechanism to take discussions to a different medium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23948" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="f4753a95-4085-4dfc-88d2-beb019b8ae32" CreationDate="2016-10-18T13:27:31.207" UserId="124" Comment="Rollback to [c8c63535-e08b-4467-b33b-c3718f9ee6e8]" Text="|discussion|featured|scope|content-level|" />
  <row Id="23949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="752dfc25-e56d-4a33-a45b-b2fc0e13dee2" CreationDate="2016-10-18T13:41:50.057" UserId="44126" Text="Yep, those are very different questions.  Currently both are open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="ac64657f-53a0-4859-b4d2-cc021363d41b" CreationDate="2016-10-20T04:04:02.900" UserId="55261" Comment="corrrect spelling" Text="A short while ago I've received a request from another user to connect via facebook. Well, apart from the fact that I'm not very active on facebook, I'd definitely not like to provide any contact details on this site. That said, I was wondering whether there is some mechanism on this site whereby one can make this possible without the danger of unwanted contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice from previous meta [questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/886/2451) that one cannot send private messages because &quot;this is not a social network.&quot; I can understand that (tongue in cheek), and I respect that. So this is not a suggestion for such a messaging system, but perhaps some other mechanism to take discussions to a different medium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23951" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="cf2f1a42-3eff-4afd-9aa8-2e314066e3f5" CreationDate="2016-10-21T02:04:29.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/789286200888664065" />
  <row Id="23952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="68cf2d68-e818-4df7-8572-8ad4ba0d636e" CreationDate="2016-10-21T02:39:50.323" UserId="133406" Text="New user here.&#xD;&#xA;I asked this question a few days back. (first post)&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287142/relative-motion-acceleration &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And i did not get a satisfactory answer for the above question. &#xD;&#xA;so I framed my question better this time and asked again as I dont see any activity with my previous question&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/287809/revisions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one moderator has removed my second post saying its a duplicate. How can i get attention to my first post in this case ( as I haven't got the answer yet ? ) or can I keep the second one deleting the first one ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: This is not a homework problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="68cf2d68-e818-4df7-8572-8ad4ba0d636e" CreationDate="2016-10-21T02:39:50.323" UserId="133406" Text="Repeating question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="68cf2d68-e818-4df7-8572-8ad4ba0d636e" CreationDate="2016-10-21T02:39:50.323" UserId="133406" Text="|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9282" RevisionGUID="d0c6d476-8be0-46ce-b989-e496ff3e1d03" CreationDate="2016-10-21T08:22:36.560" UserId="124" Text="See [this question on the &quot;mother meta&quot; site](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7046/getting-attention-for-unanswered-questions) which rob linked in a comment. Basically, these are your options, roughly in the order I recommend trying them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If it were someone else's question, upvoting it would help, but that's not applicable here.&#xD;&#xA;2. If you have edits that legitimately improve the question (for example, by clarifying it), you can edit the question, which will bump it up to the top of the front page of the site. This is particularly relevant when people have answered your question but the answers are not satisfactory: you can edit to make it clear what you're really looking for in an answer, but in a way that doesn't totally invalidate the existing answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Don't go overboard on this; you probably shouldn't be editing your own post more than 3 or 4 times total. But you can strategically choose _when_ you edit to give the post more attention.&#xD;&#xA;3. You can ask about it in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), if you have access to chat (requires 20 reputation total across the SE network). You might find someone who can answer your question, or you might get suggestions about how to improve it so that another person can answer it. (Or both.)&#xD;&#xA;4. You can share the question outside the site by using the &quot;share&quot; link underneath it.&#xD;&#xA;5. You can offer a bounty on the question, which places it in the featured questions list. Or perhaps you can find a high-reputation user who will be willing to place a bounty on it for you. Just don't be pushy when you ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the mother meta post says, **do not repost your question again**. We try hard to avoid duplication of questions. And especially don't do anything that makes it seem like you're trying to get around the rules against duplication - for example, if you delete your first question before reposting it, or if you continue to make duplicate posts after being told that you shouldn't. (Not that I think you would, but people do try it sometimes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that asking a separate followup question is a different story. If you have a followup question - and it has to be a _different_ question - then you can post that separately. In such cases it helps to link to the original question and explain clearly how the new one differs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23956" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="ab6cb6ae-8b28-4bde-89ff-277f5c465f12" CreationDate="2016-10-21T09:57:51.070" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|closed-questions|specific-question|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="55548c94-695b-4958-afe6-6cd510bb1358" CreationDate="2016-10-21T15:56:43.183" UserId="123649" Text="I am an A level physics student, and whilst I see people using this as a homework site, there are students like me who use this site to expand knowledge through asking questions and viewing others' questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I think the goal of this site is to teach through community knowledge, to grow the site that more may hear about it and contribute where they can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="1281f8c9-7e41-44cc-b28a-b6d81a518532" CreationDate="2016-10-22T03:45:58.500" UserId="132707" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Possible reactionless drive](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/286855/possible-reactionless-drive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My question is [on hold] as &quot;unclear what asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;From my analysis the system should work and start to move after photons injection on trajectory and my question is if someone find an error in my reasoning and the (closed) system actuallly don't move.&#xD;&#xA;It should work with current physics so i don't understand why my question is a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="1281f8c9-7e41-44cc-b28a-b6d81a518532" CreationDate="2016-10-22T03:45:58.500" UserId="132707" Text="I don't understand what is &quot;unclear&quot; with my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="1281f8c9-7e41-44cc-b28a-b6d81a518532" CreationDate="2016-10-22T03:45:58.500" UserId="132707" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="fb548a69-7d99-40ad-b87b-828fb460efe7" CreationDate="2016-10-22T04:20:12.967" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Possible reactionless drive](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/286855/possible-reactionless-drive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My question is [on hold] as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my analysis the system should work and start to move after photons injection on trajectory and my question is if someone find an error in my reasoning and the (closed) system actually won't move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should work with current physics so I don't understand why my question was put on hold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23962" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="fb548a69-7d99-40ad-b87b-828fb460efe7" CreationDate="2016-10-22T04:20:12.967" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="43df002a-35f2-4815-bffa-c5a3782af220" CreationDate="2016-10-22T04:22:36.840" UserId="44126" Text="I didn't vote to close your question, and I wouldn't have picked the reason &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot;  (And not all of the reviewers picked that reason, either, though [that information is not obvious](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/280545).)  However, I agree that your question as it currently stands (v7) is [a poor fit for Physics.SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4538/44126).  You've started with a system at rest that can be described using electrodynamics and relativity, both of which exactly conserve linear momentum, and you're asking whether that system can spontaneously develop nonzero linear momentum.  From symmetry, the answer is: no, you've missed something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9286" RevisionGUID="1ac53ea5-ab98-48ff-9f69-88479914c51f" CreationDate="2016-10-22T10:23:35.713" UserId="124" Text="The mechanism to take discussions to a different medium already exists: you can provide contact information in your profile, or you can share it with another user in a chat room, or in a comment (although I hesitate to really _recommend_ using comments for that purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, note that all these methods are public. That's by design. The purpose of Stack Exchange sites is to facilitate public communication, primarily Q&amp;A but also discussion in chat; it's not really part of our mission to facilitate private communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're concerned about unwanted contact, I'd suggest something like this: have a dummy email address (or Twitter account or whatever) in your profile that you only use for initial communication from strangers. When you actually want to connect with someone, have them send you an email at that public address (or a DM on Twitter, or whatever), and then reply with your private contact info. Otherwise, you can ignore anything sent to the public address." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="859a2d42-e2e4-448f-ab49-61789c29c257" CreationDate="2016-10-23T09:15:32.440" UserId="130714" Text="How could community downvote or upvote any questions or answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On its [profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community?tab=profile) it claims that it is not really a person but it's total downvotes are 11,168 . And it's last seen was Nov 1'10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="859a2d42-e2e4-448f-ab49-61789c29c257" CreationDate="2016-10-23T09:15:32.440" UserId="130714" Text="How can community do downvotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="859a2d42-e2e4-448f-ab49-61789c29c257" CreationDate="2016-10-23T09:15:32.440" UserId="130714" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9288" RevisionGUID="b24cdc52-ff60-456e-b864-29b4e0fc0553" CreationDate="2016-10-23T09:32:14.833" UserId="24653" Text="Did you read the profile? It literally says how this is possible: One of the things it does is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Own downvotes on spam/evil posts that get permanently deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="11c200b8-d4ff-4994-8857-9930a1102fd1" CreationDate="2016-10-23T17:00:28.930" UserId="101770" Text="I have noticed that since the moderator election my flags are getting declined significantly more frequently. Specifically I placed 9 flags since the election, 5 of which got declined. What I find particularly annoying is that some of those post I flagged got dealt with even though my flag got denied. (Example: very low quality -&gt; &quot;declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it&quot;. The question is on hold now with 3 downvotes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I just been unlucky in this sample or is has a new spirit entered the moderator board with the last election? I am trying to help by raising flags (and I think above numbers indicate that I don't raise them carelessly). I also take pride in getting a &quot;helpful&quot; on the flags, but if my &quot;helpful&quot;-rate from now on is gonna be 44% (it used to be 82%, for what that's worth) I'd probably stop flagging altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="11c200b8-d4ff-4994-8857-9930a1102fd1" CreationDate="2016-10-23T17:00:28.930" UserId="101770" Text="Are the new moderators running a different flag policy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="11c200b8-d4ff-4994-8857-9930a1102fd1" CreationDate="2016-10-23T17:00:28.930" UserId="101770" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9290" RevisionGUID="201be201-6989-44f9-9544-9babf40a45e1" CreationDate="2016-10-23T17:12:04.950" UserId="520" Text="Well, I handled one of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flags that can cost users rep and flag accounts as possible bad actors (spam and offensive) should be used with care and only for cases that fall under the aegis of that flag: things that are offensive and attempts to use Physics as a sales venue or propaganda platform. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9291" RevisionGUID="8c9901df-a6c3-4b7c-a03d-b41aa3883db2" CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:39:57.173" UserId="124" Text="To whatever extent we have a flag-handling policy, it hasn't changed since before the election.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has always been, and always will be, some variation in how different mods handle flags - it's simply impossible to eliminate. But the mods, including the new ones, have been pretty good about checking our responses to flags with each other, to try to minimize that variation. So my _guess_ is that what you're seeing is not a consequence of having new moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked over your recent flags and it does seem possible that this may be a statistical fluctuation. Let me try to be clear what I mean by that. When you get a flag declined, it (almost certainly) indicates some discrepancy between how you think flags should be used and how flags should actually be used. I'm not saying you should ignore that; you _should_ use declined flags to improve your understanding of what should and shouldn't be flagged. But it is a learning process, and it's totally normal that you get flags declined from time to time just because you didn't happen to know the expected usage of that kind of flag. It's possible that you randomly hit a run of those kinds of posts. Maybe even likely, I would say, looking at your recent flags. You can take this as a learning opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going to include details of your flagging history here in a meta post, but you are welcome to discuss it with any of the mods in a chat room. Especially if you see inconsistencies in how your flags have been handled since the election compared to how they were handled before the election, that would be a good thing to bring to our attention, and then we can work on explaining the decisions to you and try to be more consistent in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="7e105cec-f715-4283-951e-471dc98d7a66" CreationDate="2016-10-24T11:10:23.440" UserId="44126" Text="Since I'm one of the new mods, I feel like I should chime in and admit that the moderator flag interface doesn't *always* do quite what I expect it to, and there have been a couple of times already where I've handled something one way and thought later that it was a mistake.  So this is a fair question and I'm happy to talk about it or similar questions in the future, either here on Meta or in a chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said: looking at your flagging history, I think DavidZ is right that you just hit a run of unusual posts.  (My inner statistician would like to point out that the change which prompted you to post — four of nine flags helpful, when you were expecting 7/9 or 7.1/9 — is not statistically significant, even at the 2σ level.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr: learning curves all round, hugs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="1de49a6b-66d7-4085-bb8f-3fa4648c229f" CreationDate="2016-10-24T13:19:00.203" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="Well, I tried to play the game and join in (hence my 10,100 points) but this site is almost totally useless for anyone doing experimental physics. I particularly dislike the snobbish attitude of some moderators who cannot tell the difference between experimental physics and that stinking low class &quot;engineering&quot; stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last straw as my question on laser-metal interactions being put on hold and not re-opened. After much googling (in scholar) and elsewhere I discovered the answer I sought. And guess what - it's physics. Clue - plasma frequency v wavelength of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output I get from here is vastly less than the time I have put in, and I have a paying job being a real physicist (and engineer - but let's not mention that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am unsubbing and won't be back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dirk Bruere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23976" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="72eb45d6-30c2-485f-8158-8a128dded128" CreationDate="2016-10-25T13:01:15.817" UserId="8563" Comment="Rollback to [4ff091a6-b105-4ff3-a879-728af4fd7851]" Text="Well, I tried to play the game and join in (hence my 10,100 points) but this forum is almost totally useless for anyone doing experimental physics. I particularly dislike the snobbish attitude of some moderators who cannot tell the difference between experimental physics and that stinking low class &quot;engineering&quot; stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last straw as my question on laser-metal interactions being put on hold and not re-opened. After much googling (in scholar) and elsewhere I discovered the answer I sought. And guess what - it's physics. Clue - plasma frequency v wavelength of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output I get from here is vastly less than the time I have put in, and I have a paying job being a real physicist (and engineer - but let's not mention that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am unsubbing and won't be back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dirk Bruere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="5f9482ab-b384-4aad-a7f5-b0d6c468eceb" CreationDate="2016-10-25T15:04:40.290" UserId="133816" Text="As it looks like for me at least, the question is difficult to read and to understand because it is asked at the end of your calculations. However I don't think that's is a reason to close it, and I actually think it is a good question which deserves a proper answer, even if it it has a negative answer based on simple arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you should consider rewriting it in a more easy to follow way, AND moderators to consider reopening the issue... For example you can postpone your calculations after the question is asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="708d71ad-bb40-40ba-9c30-c7dea62486f4" CreationDate="2016-10-25T17:31:49.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/790969125371777024" />
  <row Id="23979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="1ff91c21-f618-446a-8387-616f6e4a6301" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:29:33.690" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="First, and most importantly,  a serious thank you to everybody who has taught me a hell of a  lot about physics over the last year or so, especially the mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have decided to delete my account because I have been accused of plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I have already been found guilty if you count having an answer deleted before the charge is  formally presented to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post concerned is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288689/why-do-meteors-heat-up-when-they-fall-through-the-atmosphere/288694?noredirect=1#comment648835_288694&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the greatest respect and admiration for the moderators, and I have learned that taking anything personally is the wrong approach on this site, so I want to avoid that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the reference to plagiarism, ( which in fairness is probably boilerplate text) &quot; I am told &quot; I could &#xD;&#xA;probably get away with&quot;...&quot;and shrugging the issue off won't do&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, but, but...I have absolutely no intention of even thinking of doing either of those things.  I have written over 300 answers, with suitable attribution on each of them and I think if plagiarism was a fault of mine it would surfaced by now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I feel there is a lack of sensitivity and balance when making a serious charge of plagiarism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I simply want to have a charge of plagiarism dealt with exactly the same way as if the site was any serious institution,  with no immediate punishment, other than temporary hold, a notice of the charge and especially **no prior assumption regarding what I would say in my defense.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel strongly you can't have it both ways, trying to uphold the highest standards for the site, but at the same time forbidding any discussion. This is PhysicsSE, does that mean anything in the way serious charges are dealt with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the site is not a formal institution, but it should not be a star chamber either. A comment asking about the post takes 1 minute to write. A temporary hold is also obviously in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again my sincere thanks to all that have helped me learn physics, I have learned so much I don't know where to start, and I hope I have made some contribution in return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I absolutely don't  want  any answers to this post, it is not a discussion point**. I  know the good intentions of 99 percent of the users of this site, especially the mods, it's just a feature request that plagiarism charges be treated in a more sensitive manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the post length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="1ff91c21-f618-446a-8387-616f6e4a6301" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:29:33.690" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="Withdrawal from site due to plagarism accusations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="1ff91c21-f618-446a-8387-616f6e4a6301" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:29:33.690" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="16e784b6-861d-4b51-afe0-71099d05a489" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:38:22.133" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="First, and most importantly,  a serious thank you to everybody who has taught me a hell of a  lot about physics over the last year or so, especially the mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have decided to delete my account because I have been accused of plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I have already been found guilty if you count having an answer deleted before the charge is  formally presented to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post concerned is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288689/why-do-meteors-heat-up-when-they-fall-through-the-atmosphere/288694?noredirect=1#comment648835_288694&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the greatest respect and admiration for the moderators, and I have learned that taking anything personally is the wrong approach on this site, so I want to avoid that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the reference to plagiarism, ( which in fairness is probably boilerplate text) &quot; I am told &quot; I could &#xD;&#xA;probably get away with&quot;...&quot;and shrugging the issue off won't do&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, but, but...I have absolutely no intention of even thinking of doing either of those things.  I have written over 300 answers, with suitable attribution on each of them and I think if plagiarism was a fault of mine it would have surfaced by now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I feel there is a lack of sensitivity and balance when making a serious charge of plagiarism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I simply want to have a charge of plagiarism dealt with exactly the same way as if the site was any serious institution,  with no immediate punishment, other than temporary hold, a notice of the charge and especially **no prior assumption regarding what I would say in my defense.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel strongly you can't have it both ways, trying to uphold the highest standards for the site, but at the same time forbidding any discussion. This is PhysicsSE, does that mean anything in the way serious charges are dealt with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the site is not a formal institution, but it should not be a star chamber either. A comment asking about the post takes 1 minute to write. A temporary hold is also obviously in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again my sincere thanks to all that have helped me learn physics, I have learned so much I don't know where to start, and I hope I have made some contribution in return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I absolutely don't  want  any answers to this post, it is not a discussion point**. I  know the good intentions of 99 percent of the users of this site, especially the mods, it's just a feature request that plagiarism charges be treated in a more sensitive manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the post length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23983" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="d7700728-b7d8-4c83-8422-3d96aa9236c6" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:57:28.273" UserId="124" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="02611712-c8e2-4398-a6e5-731a04a9336b" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:58:51.603" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="cb25fb27-4567-4f28-80de-a1e655175a6a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:59:38.887" UserId="8563" Text="In a [recent question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link at the moment) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page you consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are your own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with your post, and it does fall on you to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="cb25fb27-4567-4f28-80de-a1e655175a6a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:59:38.887" UserId="8563" Text="Was this plagiarism flag correctly handled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="cb25fb27-4567-4f28-80de-a1e655175a6a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:59:38.887" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23988" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="40071f45-79c7-42cb-a87b-451e9d0a5bd4" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:04:58.480" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="f28cad75-abea-44b3-a89a-4d2fdc4fad48" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:14:32.067" UserId="8563" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="In a [recent question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page you consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are your own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with your post, and it does fall on you to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="70f43d24-d168-4e14-839c-4ffc6530fd58" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:25:26.393" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="altered text " Text="First, and most importantly,  a serious thank you to everybody who has taught me a hell of a  lot about physics over the last year or so, especially the mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have decided to delete my account because I have been accused of plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I have already been found guilty if you count having an answer deleted before the charge is  formally presented to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post concerned is http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288689/why-do-meteors-heat-up-when-they-fall-through-the-atmosphere/288694?noredirect=1#comment648835_288694&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the greatest respect and admiration for the moderators, and I have learned that taking anything personally is the wrong approach on this site, so I want to avoid that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the reference to plagiarism, ( which in fairness is probably boilerplate text)  I am told &quot;I could probably get away with&quot;...&quot;and shrugging the issue off won't do&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, but, but...I have absolutely no intention of even thinking of doing either of those things.  I have written over 300 answers, with suitable attribution on each of them and I think if plagiarism was a fault of mine it would have surfaced by now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I feel there is a lack of sensitivity and balance when making a serious charge of plagiarism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I simply want to have a charge of plagiarism dealt with exactly the same way as if the site was any serious institution,  with no immediate punishment, other than obviously  a temporary hold, a notice of the charge and especially **no prior assumption regarding what I would say in my defense.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel strongly you can't have it both ways, trying to uphold the highest standards for the site, but at the same time forbidding any discussion. This is PhysicsSE, does that mean anything in the way serious charges are dealt with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the site is not a formal institution, but it should not be a star chamber either. A comment asking about the post takes 1 minute to write. A temporary hold is also obviously in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again my sincere thanks to all that have helped me learn physics, I have learned so much I don't know where to start, and I hope I have made some contribution in return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT  Please excuse my arrogant, stupidly written  paragraph  below, I have absolutely no right to stop anybody posting anything    END EDIT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_I absolutely don't  want  any answers to this post, it is not a discussion point. I  know the good intentions of 99 percent of the users of this site, especially the mods, it's just a feature request that plagiarism charges be treated in a more sensitive manner._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the post length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="70f43d24-d168-4e14-839c-4ffc6530fd58" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:25:26.393" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="altered text " Text="Plagarism accusations : a better way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="0369c3b1-b61e-4188-b05e-7c97a095fe86" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:29:15.127" UserId="8563" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="In a [recent question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (&lt;s&gt;10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)&lt;/s&gt; answer now undeleted, see the [answer timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/288694/timeline) for more details) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page you consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are your own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with your post, and it does fall on you to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="0d89fb4f-237a-4f28-a514-06c6ec917fe0" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:46:37.417" UserId="8563" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="In a [recent question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (&lt;s&gt;10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)&lt;/s&gt; answer now undeleted, see the [answer timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/288694/timeline) for more details) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page the OP consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are the OP's own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison, as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with the answer, and it does fall to the OP to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9296" RevisionGUID="330e71a4-d3f1-4964-8ba9-ae3b709c96fc" CreationDate="2016-10-26T17:07:05.143" UserId="520" Text="The fault here is mine. I didn't take enough care in checking the match between the post and the proposed source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only offer by apologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9296" RevisionGUID="6f451cc7-5ac4-499c-a2df-aac830501a67" CreationDate="2016-10-26T17:07:48.940" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="edited body" Text="The fault here is mine. I didn't take enough care in checking the match between the post and the proposed source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only offer my apologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9296" RevisionGUID="9365f23f-8bf1-419f-b4ce-49ad650c038c" CreationDate="2016-10-26T17:08:30.543" UserId="520" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="The fault here is mine. I didn't take enough care in checking the match between the post and the proposed source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only offer by apologies and delete the accusatory comment on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="3b2d8453-323c-4085-a120-84f106336c50" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:10:11.093" UserId="116059" Text="I'd like to strongly suggest that the powers that be on this site carefully re-examine the following question and the reasons it was put on hold or regarded as not a good enough question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288987/varying-angular-frequency-in-shm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's question about the potential energy being $|x|^3$ but it then described as simple harmonic motion seem completely legitimate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="3b2d8453-323c-4085-a120-84f106336c50" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:10:11.093" UserId="116059" Text="Please re-examine this question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="3b2d8453-323c-4085-a120-84f106336c50" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:10:11.093" UserId="116059" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="c20eff63-0941-4f8c-be42-5a5b4a67b901" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:43:07.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/791424951882489856" />
  <row Id="24001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="d7d5a98b-4c4b-4219-9abd-bd4a32bdaa86" CreationDate="2016-10-27T00:29:29.027" UserId="114696" Text="The explanation given suggests that the OP has not shown effort to solve the problem himself, and has not asked about a conceptual difficulty. It is not because the question is not &quot;legitimate&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24002" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="104af119-80a0-4a4e-982d-0c114a7b7e1a" CreationDate="2016-10-27T00:30:44.817" UserId="114696" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:114696,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sammy gerbil&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="10549cd8-d654-4514-abef-a5069cb79cb0" CreationDate="2016-10-27T00:48:09.937" UserId="116059" Comment="Take comments and put them in the question." Text="I'd like to strongly suggest that the powers that be on this site carefully re-examine the following question and the reasons it was put on hold or regarded as not a good enough question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288987/varying-angular-frequency-in-shm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's question about the potential energy being $|x|^3$ but it then described as simple harmonic motion seem completely legitimate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution from the book doesn't satisfy the equation it is supposed to solve, as OP said there very clearly. What effort could OP be expected to make, for example explicitly trying and failing to solve the differential equation using the wrong solution? I don't think there is a reasonable effort lacking here, on the part of OP. As to the people voting to close the question and calling it homework, at the risk of being rude, I'm far from impressed about their level of effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also clearly isn't a homework-like problem. OP asked whether that is a case of simple harmonic motion as the textbook says. The answer is that it isn't, and that the textbook he showed the image from is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="2267b8ef-d225-440e-9aba-b5b8a8cce13e" CreationDate="2016-10-27T01:21:12.687" UserId="114696" Comment="added 591 characters in body" Text="I agree. Not only the solution but also the answer is given, so it is difficult to understand the view that this is a &quot;homework-like&quot; question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has identified a conceptual issue with the solution provided in the image text. He is not asking &quot;How do I solve this?&quot; but &quot;Is this solution incorrect or am I missing something?&quot; Like you, I don't see what additional work could be attempted by the OP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question looks &quot;homework-like&quot; and has very little text from the OP. The tag was added by an early editor. Probably the decision was made because of what the question looks like rather than what it is. I think it is easy for reviewers to follow the crowd and VTC because other reviewers (especially those with high rep) have already done so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have voted to reopen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24005" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="c2b4ce4a-1c85-4644-a7e8-f97e6bbb8205" CreationDate="2016-10-27T01:21:19.537" UserId="114696" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:114696,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sammy gerbil&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="ff3df511-9a3d-457f-a94b-7614ea172dea" CreationDate="2016-10-27T02:02:25.350" UserId="44126" Text="In its current form (v5), the question looks distractingly like a low-effort question about a photograph of a homework problem.  It takes some effort, including squinting at the text in the photo, to determine that the asker is not having some trivial confusion about simple harmonic motion.  As Emilio Pisanty points out in a comment, that makes the question fair game for closing as &quot;unclear.&quot;  We don't make a habit here of re-opening poor questions which were closed for the wrong reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *are* several interesting questions that could be asked about the $|x|^3$ potential as presented in that question, such as how the amplitude affects the frequency (already answered) and whether the textbook's solution is justified in approximating the motion as harmonic with some frequency (for which Fourier analysis suggests yes, it's justified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question were edited to clarify which of those issues is of interest, the edits would [probably](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/196078/280545) place the question in the reopen [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review), where [any user with 3k reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) can vote to reopen or to leave closed.  In that case, re-opening the question becomes a community decision rather than a favor bestowed by the moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="831dde39-a4a7-4d0c-9c39-9662af2f12da" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:49:56.150" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="attempted to be more focused in my feature request." Text="I was recently  accused of plagiarism and this is a summary of the process that I think could be improved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a moderator is notified of possible plagiarism, the post can be deleted even before you have been notified that you might be guilty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's OK in my opinion, a temporary hold is required until the issue is resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the reference to plagiarism, (which in fairness is probably boilerplate text) you are told &quot;you could probably get away with&quot;...&quot;and shrugging the issue off won't do&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel there is a lack of sensitivity and balance when making a serious charge of plagiarism and  wording similar to the above should be revised and the user given a chance to make his or her own defence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I simply want to have a charge of plagiarism dealt with exactly the same way as if the site was the same as any serious institution,  with no immediate punishment, other than obviously  a temporary hold, a notice of the charge and especially no prior assumption regarding any defence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the site is not a formal institution, but it should not be a star chamber either. A comment from the moderator referring &#xD;&#xA;to the offending  post and giving the users a chance to reply takes 1 minute to write and I feel this should be incorporated into the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="0f315eb8-3a95-48ac-9f7e-201739a42cc9" CreationDate="2016-10-27T11:53:17.023" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'd like to strongly suggest the Phys.SE community to carefully re-examine the following question and the reasons it was put on hold or regarded as not a good enough question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/288987/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's question about the potential energy being $|x|^3$ but it then described as simple harmonic motion seem completely legitimate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution from the book doesn't satisfy the equation it is supposed to solve, as OP said there very clearly. What effort could OP be expected to make, for example explicitly trying and failing to solve the differential equation using the wrong solution? I don't think there is a reasonable effort lacking here, on the part of OP. As to the people voting to close the question and calling it homework, at the risk of being rude, I'm far from impressed about their level of effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also clearly isn't a homework-like problem. OP asked whether that is a case of simple harmonic motion as the textbook says. The answer is that it isn't, and that the textbook he showed the image from is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="0f315eb8-3a95-48ac-9f7e-201739a42cc9" CreationDate="2016-10-27T11:53:17.023" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="9264d190-b7ff-424d-8885-d9a903707d0f" CreationDate="2016-10-27T20:53:22.430" UserId="114696" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="I agree. Not only the solution but also the answer is given, so it is difficult to understand the view that this is a &quot;homework-like&quot; question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has identified a conceptual issue with the solution provided in the image text. He is not asking &quot;How do I solve this?&quot; but &quot;Is this solution incorrect or am I missing something?&quot; Like you, I don't see what additional work could be attempted by the OP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question looks &quot;homework-like.&quot; The problem is pasted in as an image; there is very little text from the OP and no calculation (v5). The homework tag was added by the 1st editor. Probably the decision to close was made because of what the question looks like rather than what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is easy for reviewers to follow the crowd and VTC because other reviewers (especially those with high rep) have already done so. On more than one occasion I have suggested (wrongly) that a question is a duplicate because of a superficial similarity, and other reviewers followed my lead swiftly and closed the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the question and voted to reopen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="14a58455-3281-45f1-b59a-74619ed70bef" CreationDate="2016-10-28T04:14:08.687" UserId="124" Text="I want to address the accusation of plagiarism. This is definitely a supplementary (not full) answer, but the level of appropriateness of the response could be judged differently depending on whether there actually was plagiarism or not, so it is potentially relevant information.&#xA;&#xA;The answer includes this passage:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; As the fireball travels through the air, a layer of extremely hot gas forms in front of the meteor, which is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This results in a &quot;hydrodynamic cushion&quot; that provides the meteor with a measure of protection from direct collisions,&#xA;    &#xA;&gt; This hydrodynamic cushion creates two macrostates ahead of the meteor: One is at 3500-5000K, and one at 10000K.&#xA;    &#xA;Meanwhile, the [source](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html) includes this passage:&#xA;    &#xA;&gt; As the fireball travels through the atmosphere, the hot vapor from ablation is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This creates an air cap or hydrodynamic cushion that protects the meteor from direct collisions, which can be seen in the figure below.&#xA;    &#xA;&gt; _[figure omitted]_&#xA;    &#xA;&gt; This barrier creates two macrostates in front of the meteor: One at 3500-5000K, which we will call the main spectrum, and one at 10000K, which we will call the second spectrum.&#xA;    &#xA;The similarity of these two passages without any indication of the relationship between the source text and the answer text qualifies this part of the answer as plagiarism.&#xA;    &#xA;To prevent this from being plagiarism, one could add an indicator like, &quot;To paraphrase [this site](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html),&quot; along with clear marking of where the paraphrasing begins and ends, and that would be one way to bring the post in line with [our referencing guidelines](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing).&#xA;&#xA;Again, this answer only concerns the existence of an instance of plagiarism, and not (directly) the appropriateness of the response given that an instance exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9301" RevisionGUID="803120f4-01a2-4003-a5cd-e205564a2e07" CreationDate="2016-10-28T06:35:29.380" UserId="1325" Text="This is really a comment to DavidZ's answer, but it got a bit long and I'd also be interested to see if others agree with me (i.e. how this answer gets voted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that I think David sets an unreasonably high benchmark for what constitutes plagiarism. If I look back through my own answers then there have been many occasions where I've done little more than paraphrase an article I've found on the Internet. This is what CountTo10 did, and I cannot condemn him for plagiarism unless I want to tar myself with the same brush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been many occasions when I've seen a question that I could not answer and thought it was interesting. So I've gone off and Googled until I understood the subject. Then if I'm confident I understood it correctly I would write an answer, and inevitably that answer bore a considerable similarity to the articles I'd read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems entirely reasonable to me. Plagiarism implies you are benefiting from someone else's work, and it offends our sense of fairness. In an academic context it generally means you're trying to advance your career by parasitising other researchers and everyone finds that repugnant. But the reason we try to answer questions here **is to be helpful**. No-one's career is going to be advanced by posting here. A high rep on the Physics SE does not bring fame, fortune and the intimate attentions of whatever gender you favour - you can trust me on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there limits. If someone has just copied and pasted large parts of their answer verbatim few of us would be impressed. And if I have relied heavily on a particular article I would cite it on some vague grounds that it seems good karma. But I don't think the fact an answer relies heavily on another article makes it plagiarism is the sense normally used in academia, especially when considerable effort has gone into writing the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="d028b2fd-d27b-4523-8f4d-2ba364cf205c" CreationDate="2016-10-28T12:38:27.223" UserId="46512" Text="Here is my 2 cents, as a low-rep user of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all many of the sites on this network appear to be dysfunctional (with the exception of the super dorky ones, because dorks are typically decent people who get along well with each other) and generate frustration for both novice and experienced users. Stack Overflow is very similar in its high influx of low-quality questions, high threshold to gather up-votes, and frequent closing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of this site as per Stack Exchange's philosophy, should be to **create and curate a collection of questions** about physics **that are likely to be useful to future visitors and people googling with similar inquiries.** With this mindset one can derive an appropriate strategy about closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This goal, more often than not, conflicts or is not completely aligned with what many new users imagine this site is for: getting a quick answer to *their specific problem* that would mostly benefit themselves. Hence the frustration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another key frustration point is the lack of recognition for users, experienced or not, who put tremendous amounts of effort in answers with little to no reward. The voting culture varies a lot between sites and this one is on the least enthusiastic side of the spectrum. (Think of some of the &quot;soft&quot; sites on this network, like Academia or -shrug- &quot;Expatriates&quot; where junk answers will gather at least 5 up-votes and it's not uncommon to see low-quality and lazy answers get 5o+ up-votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that perspective, here is my modest proposals for a list of idealistic objectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Emphasize the objective of the site** to new and existing users to ensure people know what to expect, and don't take it personally when their question is dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; - **Work on the form** when addressing new users about the issue in their question or answer. It's perfectly possible to curate for quality without being rude.&#xD;&#xA; - **Meticulously close** all questions that do not match the goal stated above, and all duplicates as such, but be more lenient on &quot;unclear&quot; or badly formulated ones. Very good answers can emerge from a poorly written but original question.  &#xD;&#xA; - **Encourage** non-trivial content creation with more up-votes.&#xD;&#xA; - **Challenge** wrong, incomplete and frivolous content *via* moderation or comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="5b846135-5a57-4d22-81f3-426de030fe67" CreationDate="2016-10-28T12:51:21.613" UserId="46512" Comment="deleted 219 characters in body" Text="Here is my 2 cents, as a low-rep user of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all many of the sites on this network appear to be dysfunctional (with the exception of the super dorky ones, because dorks are typically decent people who get along well with each other) and generate frustration for both novice and experienced users. Stack Overflow is very similar in its high influx of low-quality questions, high threshold to gather up-votes, and frequent closing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of this site as per Stack Exchange's philosophy, should be to **create and curate a collection of questions** about physics **that are likely to be useful to future visitors and people googling with similar inquiries.** With this mindset one can derive an appropriate strategy about closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This goal, more often than not, conflicts or is not completely aligned with what many new users imagine this site is for: getting a quick answer to *their specific problem* that would mostly benefit themselves. Hence the frustration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another key frustration point is the lack of recognition for users, experienced or not, who put tremendous amounts of effort in answers with little to no reward. The voting culture varies a lot between sites and this one is on the least enthusiastic side of the spectrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that perspective, here is my modest proposals for a list of idealistic objectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Emphasize the objective of the site** to new and existing users to ensure people know what to expect, and don't take it personally when their question is dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; - **Work on the form** when addressing new users about the issue in their question or answer. It's perfectly possible to curate for quality without being rude.&#xD;&#xA; - **Meticulously close** all questions that do not match the goal stated above, and all duplicates as such, but be more lenient on &quot;unclear&quot; or badly formulated ones. Very good answers can emerge from a poorly written but original question.  &#xD;&#xA; - **Encourage** non-trivial content creation with more up-votes.&#xD;&#xA; - **Challenge** wrong, incomplete and frivolous content *via* moderation or comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="bc94b0f3-e81d-4e5a-b1ec-ae4651fff919" CreationDate="2016-10-28T16:33:14.827" UserId="124" Comment="add clarifying details" Text="I want to address the accusation of plagiarism. This is definitely a supplementary (not full) answer, but the level of appropriateness of the response could be judged differently depending on whether there actually was plagiarism or not, so it is potentially relevant information. (Also, although this is my answer, I believe it reflects the consensus of all the moderators, so you can take this as semi-official.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer includes this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As the fireball travels through the air, a layer of extremely hot gas forms in front of the meteor, which is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This results in a &quot;hydrodynamic cushion&quot; that provides the meteor with a measure of protection from direct collisions,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This hydrodynamic cushion creates two macrostates ahead of the meteor: One is at 3500-5000K, and one at 10000K.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the [source](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html) includes this passage:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As the fireball travels through the atmosphere, the hot vapor from ablation is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This creates an air cap or hydrodynamic cushion that protects the meteor from direct collisions, which can be seen in the figure below.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _[figure omitted]_&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This barrier creates two macrostates in front of the meteor: One at 3500-5000K, which we will call the main spectrum, and one at 10000K, which we will call the second spectrum.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;The similarity of these two passages, specifically including phrases like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;As the fireball travels through the [air/atmosphere]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;This [hydrodynamic cushion/barrier] creates two macrostates ahead of the meteor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_without any indication_ of the relationship between the source text and the answer text qualifies this part of the answer as plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;To prevent this from being plagiarism, one could add an indicator like, &quot;To paraphrase [this site](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html),&quot; along with clear marking of where the paraphrasing begins and ends, and that would be one way to bring the post in line with [our referencing guidelines](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this answer only concerns the existence of an instance of plagiarism, and not (directly) the appropriateness of the response given that an instance exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="0e40f5a3-4839-4bf8-b4d9-5babf954aeec" CreationDate="2016-10-29T05:10:57.640" UserDisplayName="user131786" Text="**&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present Physics Stack Exchange is more inclined towards answering specific conceptual questions in Physics and not really meant for problem solving at the High School/Undergraduate/Graduate level. Check-my-work problems ( even if they contain the OP's efforts, are discouraged most of the times ). Moreover, we do not have any quality site on the Internet related to problem solving techniques in Physics ( specifically numerical problems ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that in my high school days I used to end up tearing my hairs even after spending hours on a particular numerical problem ( and my teachers weren't always available to discuss the solutions as they would quite busy ) . Several times I would have to wait weeks before I could get someone to explain me where I was going wrong during solving the numerical problem. So, I wish to make a site for students and physics enthusiasts so that they get a platform to discuss their methods of solving problems in Physics. Of course, homework questions with no effort is discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I proposed this site on Area 51 http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103955/physics-problem-solving/103962#103962 and if wish you can support the site by following it. Feel free to give suggestions regarding the new site proposal in comments or in form of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also feel that this could be a solution to the constant debate whether particular problem-solving question belongs to Physics Stack Exchange or not.&#xD;&#xA;Then Physics Stack Exchange can go back to its original ideal - that is to serve as a knowledge resource for researchers and academicians. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="0e40f5a3-4839-4bf8-b4d9-5babf954aeec" CreationDate="2016-10-29T05:10:57.640" UserDisplayName="user131786" Text="New site proposal specifically for problem solving in Physics on Area 51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="0e40f5a3-4839-4bf8-b4d9-5babf954aeec" CreationDate="2016-10-29T05:10:57.640" UserDisplayName="user131786" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="2e8587b8-eec1-4c71-9472-33d4cbea1507" CreationDate="2016-10-29T05:49:46.220" UserId="1325" Comment="Tidy link" Text="**&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present Physics Stack Exchange is more inclined towards answering specific conceptual questions in Physics and not really meant for problem solving at the High School/Undergraduate/Graduate level. Check-my-work problems ( even if they contain the OP's efforts, are discouraged most of the times ). Moreover, we do not have any quality site on the Internet related to problem solving techniques in Physics ( specifically numerical problems ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that in my high school days I used to end up tearing my hairs even after spending hours on a particular numerical problem ( and my teachers weren't always available to discuss the solutions as they would quite busy ) . Several times I would have to wait weeks before I could get someone to explain me where I was going wrong during solving the numerical problem. So, I wish to make a site for students and physics enthusiasts so that they get a platform to discuss their methods of solving problems in Physics. Of course, homework questions with no effort is discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I proposed this site here on on Area 51][1] and if wish you can support the site by following it. Feel free to give suggestions regarding the new site proposal in comments or in form of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also feel that this could be a solution to the constant debate whether particular problem-solving question belongs to Physics Stack Exchange or not.&#xD;&#xA;Then Physics Stack Exchange can go back to its original ideal - that is to serve as a knowledge resource for researchers and academicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103955/physics-problem-solving/103962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="9d6bfd71-9eb7-4de1-82d1-d8124d59e9b4" CreationDate="2016-10-29T05:51:08.977" UserDisplayName="user131786" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present Physics Stack Exchange is more inclined towards answering specific conceptual questions in Physics and not really meant for problem solving at the High School/Undergraduate/Graduate level. Check-my-work problems ( even if they contain the OP's efforts, are discouraged most of the times ). Moreover, we do not have any quality site on the Internet related to problem solving techniques in Physics ( specifically numerical problems ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that in my high school days I used to end up tearing my hairs even after spending hours on a particular numerical problem ( and my teachers weren't always available to discuss the solutions as they would quite busy ) . Several times I would have to wait weeks before I could get someone to explain me where I was going wrong during solving the numerical problem. So, I wish to make a site for students and physics enthusiasts so that they get a platform to discuss their methods of solving problems in Physics. Of course, homework questions with no effort is discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I proposed this site here on on Area 51][1] and if you wish you can support the site by following it. Feel free to give suggestions regarding the new site proposal in comments or in form of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also feel that this could be a solution to the constant debate whether particular problem-solving question belongs to Physics Stack Exchange or not.&#xD;&#xA;Then Physics Stack Exchange can go back to its original ideal - that is to serve as a knowledge resource for researchers and academicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103955/physics-problem-solving/103962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="4c7091d4-8cd9-43f6-9002-ce5eef604c97" CreationDate="2016-10-29T08:03:05.640" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="The homework policy is a constant source of confusion for new (and sometimes established) users.&#xD;&#xA;We see this confusion, for example, when users respond to closures based on the homework policy by defending their post with &quot;This is not a homework problem&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;Some users have even been conditioned to claim a non-homework basis for their posts preemptively. &#xD;&#xA;It seems the word &quot;homework&quot; throws people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we modify the help center, associated close reason, and our own language to make clear that whether or not a question comes from homework isn't the real issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is very similar to [a previous one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4977/).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not only asking about the tag.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking about the help center, close reason, and language used by users as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24024" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="135633f9-349b-4486-81de-dae771e9ded7" CreationDate="2016-10-29T13:28:41.357" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="How should we handle how-to-find-a-specific-reference requests?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24025" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="d124be9d-282e-4a1f-9ea7-0112989544e0" CreationDate="2016-10-29T15:33:46.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="080d2e2e-0106-4657-8b25-5ffde85fa504" CreationDate="2016-10-29T18:53:54.390" UserId="6634" Text="Let's ignore all the other things that I find wrong with this question for the moment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/289600/is-there-a-tool-online-that-lets-me-convert-acceleration-time-graphs-into-veloci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised to see the [tag:resource-recommendation] appear on it, given that it's more of a software recommendation rather than a book or paper. All of the meta talk I recall and even the tag wiki and banner seem to imply the tag is intended for *written* resources and not for software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are things like this the intended use for this tag? Should software recommendation questions include the [tag:resource-recommendation]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="080d2e2e-0106-4657-8b25-5ffde85fa504" CreationDate="2016-10-29T18:53:54.390" UserId="6634" Text="Is this what we intended for a resource recommendation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="080d2e2e-0106-4657-8b25-5ffde85fa504" CreationDate="2016-10-29T18:53:54.390" UserId="6634" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="830d075b-9648-4972-af3f-2c8eb11f0e5a" CreationDate="2016-10-29T19:17:09.533" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Let's ignore all the other things that I find wrong with this question for the moment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/289600/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised to see the [tag:resource-recommendation] appear on it, given that it's more of a software recommendation rather than a book or paper. All of the meta talk I recall and even the tag wiki and banner seem to imply the tag is intended for *written* resources and not for software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are things like this the intended use for this tag? Should software recommendation questions include the [tag:resource-recommendation]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24030" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="830d075b-9648-4972-af3f-2c8eb11f0e5a" CreationDate="2016-10-29T19:17:09.533" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|software-questions|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="e5c349d7-23ce-43cb-9dd8-9550d140c2b1" CreationDate="2016-10-29T21:02:22.593" UserId="114696" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="I agree. Not only the solution but also the answer is given, so it is difficult to understand the view that this is a &quot;homework-like&quot; question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has identified a conceptual issue with the solution provided in the image text. He is not asking &quot;How do I solve this?&quot; but &quot;Is this solution incorrect or am I missing something?&quot; Like you, I don't see what additional work could be attempted by the OP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question looks &quot;homework-like.&quot; The problem is pasted in as an image; there is very little text from the OP and no calculation (v5). The homework tag was added by the 1st editor. Probably the decision to close was made because of what the question looks like rather than what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is easy for reviewers to follow the crowd and VTC because other reviewers (especially those with high rep) have already done so. On more than one occasion I have suggested (wrongly) that a question is a duplicate because of a superficial similarity, and other reviewers followed my lead swiftly and closed the question. For example : [How does Newton's cradle with balls of different weight behaves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/284834)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the question and voted to reopen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="b9174cfd-cfed-4df4-87da-74ec9e3c023f" CreationDate="2016-10-30T10:16:58.317" UserId="2451" Text="Speaking in general, resource-recommendations also cover journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems fair to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="95c55324-e55e-40a9-ad94-d2e1b00b8228" CreationDate="2016-10-30T10:41:56.270" UserId="124" Text="The [tag:resource-recommendations] tag was originally &quot;my&quot; project, so I'm probably best placed to speak about the original intent of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have to consider the history of the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag. It started out as [tag:book-recommendations], and that tag was created with a very narrow purpose: to collect recommendations for _textbooks_ treating a certain topic at a certain level. Basically, a [tag:book-recommendations] question would be asked by someone looking to do the equivalent of taking a physics class, except that since they would be studying the material on their own or in a small group, they wouldn't have the benefit of a syllabus that tells them what books to use. The topic and level named in the question would act as the class specification, e.g. &quot;introductory Newtonian mechanics&quot; or &quot;undergraduate statistical mechanics&quot; or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually we generalized the tag to [tag:resource-recommendations] because some people got hung up on the word &quot;book&quot; and thought that only literal printed books should be allowed in answers. That was not the intent. Anything that fills the same role as a textbook would be a valid answer, e.g. a technical blog or a video series (like Khan Academy). However, using &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; was not intended to change the type of question that the tag would cover. It was still supposed to be for questions seeing recommendations of textbooks or textbook-like resources. The question you're asking about is certainly not of that type, and as far as I'm concerned it should not have the tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="5cb5ba36-e67a-4e8a-96b4-12ae3be21b53" CreationDate="2016-10-30T14:42:15.020" UserId="2451" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Speaking in general, resource-recommendations also cover journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from a practical point of view, why have different standards for books, software, etc? E.g. it seems they should all be [CW](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It seems relevant to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="fb7303eb-2586-4c29-96ce-3829e403ac8f" CreationDate="2016-10-30T14:44:54.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="eb2f3d39-13d8-4f8c-9beb-405f828a0091" CreationDate="2016-10-30T15:00:41.270" UserId="2451" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I) Speaking in general, the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag also covers journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from a practical point of view, why have different standards for books, software, etc? E.g. it seems they should all be [CW](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;II) It seems relevant to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="a108cada-1e4b-4805-be11-c389dfa90fec" CreationDate="2016-10-30T23:18:34.687" UserId="124" Comment="Update policy recommendation " Text="&gt; Could the moderators please take a step back on borderline questions and let the community decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with that is that the community closing process takes a long time to work, if it even works at all. We don't have anywhere near as many users with vote-to-close privileges as Stack Overflow, for example. I've actually tried your suggestion in the past, namely leaving more questions open and hoping that the community would close them. In most cases, it didn't happen; the questions just languish and collect bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current rate of closing questions is a direct reaction to recent posts on meta complaining about the decreasing quality of questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are of course free to vote to close, like anyone else with sufficient rep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually no, we don't have that ability. Moderator close votes are instantly binding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...meaning that you can spend a long time writing answer only to get a notification that you can no longer post it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're answering a question that you think might be closed... well, honestly, you shouldn't. But if you absolutely insist on posting an answer, bear in mind that there is a grace period of four hours, I believe, after a question is closed, after which you can submit an answer - as long as you started writing that answer before the closure, and you don't reload the question page after the closure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that is technically possible is to post a short &quot;placeholder&quot; answer (which must still be an answer, but it can omit details) to get it in before the question is closed, and then edit it later. That used to be a recommended procedure, but these days it's frowned upon. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24038" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="1c35e2f2-267c-4d51-b82e-8b6a2001674b" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:56:07.330" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4962,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Steeven&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:76162,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Duffield&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:121464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;heather&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="e242f288-b137-4e28-a87a-7aaa92b84478" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:11:09.030" UserId="132789" Text="It has recently come to my attention that the double surface intregral, namely \oiint, does not work for this site. How can we fix this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="e242f288-b137-4e28-a87a-7aaa92b84478" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:11:09.030" UserId="132789" Text="Rendering of the double surface integral, Tex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="e242f288-b137-4e28-a87a-7aaa92b84478" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:11:09.030" UserId="132789" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="49a6c244-05ef-4cf9-aaa7-f93b42256a6a" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:25:21.523" UserId="132789" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="It has recently come to my attention that the double surface intregral, namely \oiint, does not work for this site. How can we fix this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/286268/how-to-infer-what-integrals-and-derivatives-signify-and-when-to-take-them/290077#290077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24043" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="abeb35cd-6b35-46ba-9e69-b62d3ccd9e3c" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:33:05.113" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="b64766ba-fae1-42e8-94f0-fd9b74ebe714" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:34:44.273" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body; edited tags" Text="It has recently come to my attention that the double surface intregral, namely \oiint, does not work for this site. How can we fix this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/286268/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="b64766ba-fae1-42e8-94f0-fd9b74ebe714" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:34:44.273" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24046" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="b9d08316-08fc-4da6-8328-41b56e71a91b" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:37:20.590" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6779],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="35ac1b38-9fec-449c-8916-fa3ee04ad5ae" CreationDate="2016-11-01T13:04:19.120" UserId="44126" Text="It's been suggested via a flag that [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/286601/44126), currently visible only to users with undelete privileges, perhaps deserves to be un-deleted.  It was [deleted by Community](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/280545) after being closed for ten days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't understand the closure of this question: in its current form, it's a thoughtful, conceptual question that happens to be phrased in a mathematical way.&#xD;&#xA;If you're a person who thinks the closure and deletion was a good decision, I'd like to understand your reasoning.  If, on the other hand, you're a person who agrees with me, I'd like a million upvotes. And also a pony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Screen capture][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LsHEV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="35ac1b38-9fec-449c-8916-fa3ee04ad5ae" CreationDate="2016-11-01T13:04:19.120" UserId="44126" Text="Should this &quot;homework-like&quot; question about the AKLT Hamiltonian be undeleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="35ac1b38-9fec-449c-8916-fa3ee04ad5ae" CreationDate="2016-11-01T13:04:19.120" UserId="44126" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="d4020ce3-f1c4-4146-991f-837b1a842554" CreationDate="2016-11-01T13:16:42.747" UserId="44126" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="It's been suggested via a flag that [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/286601/44126), which was [deleted by Community](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/280545) after being closed for ten days, has value to other users asking similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't understand the closure of this question: in its current form, it's a thoughtful, conceptual question that happens to be phrased in a mathematical way.&#xD;&#xA;If you're a person who thinks the closure/deletion was a good decision, I'd like to understand your reasoning.  If, on the other hand, you're a person who agrees with me, I'd like a million upvotes. And also a pony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Screen capture][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LsHEV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9309" RevisionGUID="070e0106-c80a-43c9-8e9c-a833e534dac4" CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:39:29.673" UserId="4888" Text="Let me try to explain why I voted to close, and why I chose not to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question, as it is phrased now, seems to ask about very specific aspects of the AKLT model. However, in order to be able provide a specific answer (which does not form a full explanation of the AKLT model), the OP would have to supply sufficient information on their prior knowledge, i.e., lay out the overall scenario considered and their understanding of it to an extent which allows to answer the question in a concise way.  The way the question is phrased now, this is not the case: E.g. the screenshot from the paper is far from helpful for an answer and does not really explain which part of the construction the OP understands (also to me, such screenshots to some extent seem like a low-effort sign), one would have to basically explain the whole AKLT model, which would be a disproportional effort compared to the effort which went into the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm not generally against writing a detailed explanation of the AKLT model, but I feel it is slightly lost effort if it is posted as an answer to a question which is seemingly concerned with details -- another poster with questions about the AKLT model will likely not see that the answer contains the full explanation of the model, rather than just assume it is an answer to a very specific question.  Now given the apparent current interest in the AKLT model, I might consider writing such an answer for a question asking about the AKLT model in general. (The downside seems to me that as such, such a question -- which would basically just state &quot;Could someone please explain the AKLT model?&quot; might (rightfully) be badly received here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24052" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="a393a3b7-907c-477b-9591-713eed786b29" CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:46:56.003" UserId="44126" Comment="edited title" Text="Should this &quot;homework-like&quot; question about the AKLT Hamiltonian be reopened, or remain deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="411fdd3d-a240-4d17-b3f2-78169889456a" CreationDate="2016-11-01T19:29:54.593" UserId="8563" Text="This was reported [as issue #566 of the MathJax github page](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/566) back in 2013, but I just re-raised it to see what they'd say. The devs indicated that they are working on the fonts for MathJax v3.0, which should arrive next year, and this might solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, they suggested that we add a custom macro to the MathJax configuration for this site, i.e. something of the following form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You could use the equivalent of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     \def\oint{\mathop{\vcenter{\mathchoice&#xD;&#xA;         {\huge\unicode{x222E}\,}{\unicode{x222E}}{\unicode{x222E}}{\unicode{x222E}}&#xD;&#xA;        }\,}\nolimits}&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     \def\oiint{\mathop{\vcenter{\mathchoice&#xD;&#xA;         {\huge\unicode{x222F}\,}{\unicode{x222F}}{\unicode{x222F}}{\unicode{x222F}}&#xD;&#xA;        }\,}\nolimits}&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     \def\oiiint{\mathop{\vcenter{\mathchoice&#xD;&#xA;         {\huge\unicode{x2230}\,}{\unicode{x2230}}{\unicode{x2230}}{\unicode{x2230}}&#xD;&#xA;        }\,}\nolimits}&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to allow `\oint`, `\oiint`, and `\oiiint` to work with their respective unicode characters, with sizing reasonably for displaystyle, and being the proper TeX class to allow limits to be placed appropriately (though the lower limit will be a bit too far to the right, because with won't get the proper italic correction).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems excessive to me - there's no need to be hauling around that much specific TeX in the html header for every page on the site over such a seldom-used symbol. If people want to have that solution, they can just use the unicode directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    \mathop{\vcenter{&#xD;&#xA;       \huge\unicode{x222F}\,&#xD;&#xA;      }}&#xD;&#xA;    $$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="43bec6c3-fb29-440d-9038-fe1d3c6b52a3" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:20:44.723" UserId="12798" Text="My question was closed as being too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is [Evidence indicating that CO2 is responsible for Global warming][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has many reseach papers on the topic, However it is a very specific question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to suggest edits to re-open this question, I would be willing to listen. But I don't understand why It must be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I violated a Policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate the fact I have to talk about policy now. But If this question is closed even the question Such as &quot;What evidence do we have that GR(insert any theory) is correct?&quot; must also be closed. It is outrageous to me, but its your site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290358/evidence-indicating-that-co2-is-responsible-for-global-warming?noredirect=1#290358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="43bec6c3-fb29-440d-9038-fe1d3c6b52a3" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:20:44.723" UserId="12798" Text="This question cannot be made more precise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="43bec6c3-fb29-440d-9038-fe1d3c6b52a3" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:20:44.723" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="265d0141-f9ed-4329-8703-8b977b2325fd" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:29:20.640" UserId="50583" Comment="retag; proper title; grammar fixes; removing idiosyncratic capitalization" Text="My question [Evidence indicating that CO2 is responsible for Global warming][1] was closed as being too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many research papers on the topic, however it is a very specific question. If you are willing to suggest edits to re-open this question, I would be willing to listen, but I don't understand why it must be closed. Have I violated a policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate the fact I have to talk about policy now. But if this question is closed even questiond duch as &quot;What evidence do we have that GR(insert any theory) is correct?&quot; must also be closed. It is outrageous to me, but it's your site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290358/evidence-indicating-that-co2-is-responsible-for-global-warming?noredirect=1#290358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24059" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="265d0141-f9ed-4329-8703-8b977b2325fd" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:29:20.640" UserId="50583" Comment="retag; proper title; grammar fixes; removing idiosyncratic capitalization" Text="Why was my question closed as too broad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24060" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="265d0141-f9ed-4329-8703-8b977b2325fd" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:29:20.640" UserId="50583" Comment="retag; proper title; grammar fixes; removing idiosyncratic capitalization" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9313" RevisionGUID="49e9d268-d421-4bba-8be8-185ea4a9e4ca" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:35:43.457" UserId="1325" Text="You are asking us to do a literature review on the subject of carbon dioxide and global warming. A student starting a PhD on the subject would spend weeks doing a review like this. Your question was closed as too broad because, well, it's too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="d629fb79-415c-44be-94c9-84c05aa5c68a" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:42:30.037" UserId="12798" Comment="edited body" Text="My question [Evidence indicating that CO2 is responsible for Global warming][1] was closed as being too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many research papers on the topic, however it is a very specific question. If you are willing to suggest edits to re-open this question, I would be willing to listen, but I don't understand why it must be closed. Have I violated a policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate the fact I have to talk about policy now. But if this question is closed even questions such as &quot;What evidence do we have that GR(insert any theory) is correct?&quot; must also be closed. It is outrageous to me, but it's your site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290358/evidence-indicating-that-co2-is-responsible-for-global-warming?noredirect=1#290358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="0a1bd3ef-a4ab-40bc-a136-a34f88e15757" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:51:52.593" UserId="12798" Text="The title is [Methodology used in Climate models][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is annoying and I hate to do this, but I am looking for answers from experts working the field who have spent several years studying this subject. It is a huge topic and It is definitely not easy to get into. Is it by default that such questions are banned in this site? Is there anything I can do? Because as far as I am concerned it is a very precise question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290401/methodology-used-in-climate-models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="0a1bd3ef-a4ab-40bc-a136-a34f88e15757" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:51:52.593" UserId="12798" Text="How do I make this question more specific enough to be opened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="0a1bd3ef-a4ab-40bc-a136-a34f88e15757" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:51:52.593" UserId="12798" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24066" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="2782c0e2-8b93-447c-9b77-bd55e8a06ef0" CreationDate="2016-11-02T18:01:56.047" UserId="12798" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I make this question specific enough to be opened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="2782c0e2-8b93-447c-9b77-bd55e8a06ef0" CreationDate="2016-11-02T18:01:56.047" UserId="12798" Comment="edited title" Text="The title is [Methodology used in Climate models][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is annoying and I hate to do this, but I am looking for answers from experts working in the field who have spent several years studying this subject. It is a huge topic and It is definitely not easy to get into. Is it by default that such questions are banned in this site? Is there anything I can do? Because as far as I am concerned it is a very precise question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290401/methodology-used-in-climate-models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9315" RevisionGUID="e6fe910e-f690-4711-94b7-616e237fb32d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T20:14:11.610" UserId="8563" Text="An elementary approach to your question would be on the size of several textbooks, and it is nowhere *near* a &quot;very precise question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your question to be reopened, one approach is to simply make it a resource-recommendation question asking for good introductory textbooks to atmospheric and climate science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you think you can get an understanding of said &quot;methodology&quot; (because yeah, sure, there's only one such methodology, right?) without some serious study, then I'm afraid you're in for a rather steep disappointment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9316" RevisionGUID="ff75a282-b79a-43f6-80e2-2b1c0c25a872" CreationDate="2016-11-02T23:33:06.077" UserId="121464" Text="Well, a whole lot of things have happened, but in a nutshell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Our proposal was closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA; 2. We got an offer from physics overflow to host the site.&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Mew][1] is building the site by hand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want the relations between our new site, Physics Problems Q&amp;A, and Physics.SE to be friendly. Hopefully, once our site is firmly established, we can establish some sort of protocol for migrating questions between sites, or at the very least recommending the other site to users. We certainly do not want a relationship like that between Physics Overflow and Physics.SE. We would be glad to welcome any users to our site; please see our [first draft of our scope and guidelines](http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com/?qa=116/scope-%26-guidelines) to know what we expect. Moderators on the site are myself, S007, and Mew (username Einstein on the new site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is coming along quite well although there are still improvements to be made, both in the construction of the site and in the general guidelines. If you have any questions, the chatroom on the new site is still under construction, so please ping one of us at [this stack exchange chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/47874/physics-problem-solving). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12350/mew" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="78bed4b1-32cd-400a-9df3-f18551cae673" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:18:12.600" UserDisplayName="user131786" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="**&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present Physics Stack Exchange is more inclined towards answering specific conceptual questions in Physics and not really meant for problem solving at the High School/Undergraduate/Graduate level. Check-my-work problems ( even if they contain the OP's efforts, are discouraged most of the times ). Moreover, we do not have any quality site on the Internet related to problem solving techniques in Physics ( specifically numerical problems ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that in my high school days I used to end up tearing my hairs even after spending hours on a particular numerical problem ( and my teachers weren't always available to discuss the solutions as they would quite busy ) . Several times I would have to wait weeks before I could get someone to explain me where I was going wrong during solving the numerical problem. So, I wish to make a site for students and physics enthusiasts so that they get a platform to discuss their methods of solving problems in Physics. Of course, homework questions with no effort is discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I proposed this site here on on Area 51][1] and if you wish you can support the site by following it. Feel free to give suggestions regarding the new site proposal in comments or in form of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also feel that this could be a solution to the constant debate whether particular problem-solving question belongs to Physics Stack Exchange or not.&#xD;&#xA;Then Physics Stack Exchange can go back to its original ideal - that is to serve as a knowledge resource for researchers and academicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9316/131786&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103955/physics-problem-solving/103962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="cd735a7b-9c0c-4e29-b8cb-17a7737a9af5" CreationDate="2016-11-03T13:47:05.860" UserId="134947" Text="I wanted to know how to ask the question from my practice book &#xA;&#xA;I add the homework tag and obviously I myself want to know only the concept part and I also give information about what I did and how I approached the problem&#xA;But still my Question was put Off-topic&#xA;if I went wrong in the way of asking the question then I am Sorry for that ,&#xA;I am not that good a communicative english and I completely say and agree 100% that I only require some concept which I may be missing in my approach&#xA;&#xA;If anyone can tell how to ask these problems then it would be really helpful.&#xA;&#xA;I have already read the meta post but still not getting it&#xA;&#xA;and once again sorry for the bad way of asking my doubt&#xA;&#xA;I love physics and also feel it and completely go with concept only thing i am not understanding is how to convey what i want to know&#xA;really I have read the help center and all other stuff and I am trying my best to improve my asking skill in english&#xA;I am a school going student and want to understand the concepts even more by solving the questions itself &#xA;&#xA;So I am very sorry for hurting the community I never wanted the value or any thing like that i just needed the concept I wrote the whole question as I thought I would not be very good at asking the question and express my views in English&#xA;&#xA;I would and I promise that definately try to improve my communication skills and the way I ask&#xA;&#xA;regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="cd735a7b-9c0c-4e29-b8cb-17a7737a9af5" CreationDate="2016-11-03T13:47:05.860" UserId="134947" Text="apology and trying to improve" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="cd735a7b-9c0c-4e29-b8cb-17a7737a9af5" CreationDate="2016-11-03T13:47:05.860" UserId="134947" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24075" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="6116d9a9-ee23-4223-8a3b-1794bc7526e7" CreationDate="2016-11-03T14:02:48.397" UserId="134947" Comment="edited title" Text="How to ask a practice book question and apology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="9c67cb96-d6f0-4288-a6da-97c892df22ec" CreationDate="2016-11-03T14:16:13.073" UserId="118847" Text="Your three questions ([here][1], [here][2] and [here][3]) do not really *show* the work you have been putting in - maybe you can be a bit more explicit and write down more clearly and in more detail what your attempts are. Also, questions like &quot;I need to know how to approach this problem&quot; are usually not received as conceptual questions and often seen unfit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that is important to me - you did not hurt anyone's feelings. No one here is going to be insulted or mad because they feel a question might not fit within the policy of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="8a19af47-1b76-48e8-a8ac-7e05091080d9" CreationDate="2016-11-03T14:17:50.890" UserId="2451" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I wanted to know how to ask the question from my practice book &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I add the homework tag and obviously I myself want to know only the concept part and I also give information about what I did and how I approached the problem&#xD;&#xA;But still my Question was put Off-topic&#xD;&#xA;if I went wrong in the way of asking the question then I am Sorry for that ,&#xD;&#xA;I am not that good a communicative english and I completely say and agree 100% that I only require some concept which I may be missing in my approach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can tell how to ask these problems then it would be really helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already read the meta post but still not getting it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and once again sorry for the bad way of asking my doubt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I love physics and also feel it and completely go with concept only thing i am not understanding is how to convey what i want to know&#xD;&#xA;really I have read the help center and all other stuff and I am trying my best to improve my asking skill in english&#xD;&#xA;I am a school going student and want to understand the concepts even more by solving the questions itself &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am very sorry for hurting the community I never wanted the value or any thing like that i just needed the concept I wrote the whole question as I thought I would not be very good at asking the question and express my views in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would and I promise that definitely try to improve my communication skills and the way I ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="8a19af47-1b76-48e8-a8ac-7e05091080d9" CreationDate="2016-11-03T14:17:50.890" UserId="2451" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24079" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="8a19af47-1b76-48e8-a8ac-7e05091080d9" CreationDate="2016-11-03T14:17:50.890" UserId="2451" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to ask a practice book question and apology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="e68880bf-fcf8-45ed-a99a-f238e35e69a7" CreationDate="2016-11-03T17:31:53.027" UserId="83398" Text="I think this is a typical case where an initial close vote encouraged others, in a snowball effect. We've seen a very similar occurrence recently [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9277/how-are-these-two-questions-duplicates). This is worrying and should be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think much of this stems from a misguided urge to help the community, the thinking being that if a question already has close votes, it must be bad; hence anybody that can add close votes should do so, to 'get rid of the trash' faster. But the number of close votes required is set at 5 for a good reason, and this kind of thinking lowers the number to 1 or 2, making results much less reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close questions as duplicates unless they fully understand both questions, and their answers.&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close questions that contain equations as 'homework' unless they know how to answer the question themselves.&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close QM questions as 'unclear' unless they can confidently answer clear QM questions. (The same going for GR, QFT, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24081" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="fb31ac8e-1aa4-4250-b9f1-2b85dce64e8d" CreationDate="2016-11-03T18:14:59.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/794241478721761280" />
  <row Id="24082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="fd97e101-aa3c-494a-90a3-d0b06c6b86b3" CreationDate="2016-11-04T11:18:27.093" UserId="121464" Text="So, some of you may have heard of how a couple of us tried to propose a new physics site for less conceptual questions and more problem solving, the proposal was closed, and we ended up creating a new site outside of the stack exchange network (see [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) for more details). In this post, I'm going to explain the scope of the new site, the current site construction progress, and at the end, ask about what the community thinks about migrating questions and such matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Scope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is currently called [Physics Problems Q&amp;A][1], and is a site that is for students of physics, physics enthusiasts, and all those who love explaining physics. The purpose of the site is to help answer questions users have about solving specific problems about physics. We do require that work be shown, both the thought process and the actual math - to quote [our first meta post][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Defining &quot;efforts&quot; is most certainly not easy and merits some thought.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] We ask that you try to show two main things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Your train of thought, or why you were thinking what you were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking. So don't just put the math, necessarily, put why you thought&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that math was appropriate for the situation. Then, the answerer can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clarify whether or not that approach was appropriate, and why. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What you were thinking. This goes more along the lines of your actual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempt, i.e., the math you used to solve the problem. Sometimes this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not applicable like in situations where you have absolutely no idea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what to do. In that case we'd ask that you include #1 and why you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having trouble including #2. However, I would always include your math&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if you have it, even down to the more basic steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel welcome to join our site and read through this meta post to have an understanding of what our site is all about, and even contribute to the discussion!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Construction Progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is incredibly new. Shout-out to @Mew for developing this site so quickly! Currently, we have a meta, the main site, commenting, answering, flagging, closing, upvoting, downvoting, MathJax accommodation, a basic rep system (I'll be updating this with more information on that for the curious) - in general, the main features of a stack exchange site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main things we're missing is a full chat room - currently, it is moderators only and doesn't accommodate pictures and such, so currently we are using a [stack exchange chat room][3] (ping us there if you have any questions). We're also designing the background of the site, and the rep system might be updated as we find things we should fix. We're also editing the flagging and closing features such that you pick a reason instead of just typing in whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, please, please: ping us if you notice something terribly wrong or just something that bothers you - we'll work on that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Relations between Physics.SE and Physics Problems Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the open questions I have for the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some thoughts to get the ball rolling. Please, tell me what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=qa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=116/scope-%26-guidelines&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/47874/physics-problem-solving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="fd97e101-aa3c-494a-90a3-d0b06c6b86b3" CreationDate="2016-11-04T11:18:27.093" UserId="121464" Text="Physics Problem Solving Site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="fd97e101-aa3c-494a-90a3-d0b06c6b86b3" CreationDate="2016-11-04T11:18:27.093" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="775e04fa-fe39-4b35-ac3f-9cf3ed777048" CreationDate="2016-11-04T11:40:57.903" UserId="12350" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="So, some of you may have heard of how a couple of us tried to propose a new physics site for less conceptual questions and more problem solving, the proposal was closed, and we ended up creating a new site outside of the stack exchange network (see [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) for more details). In this post, I'm going to explain the scope of the new site, the current site construction progress, and at the end, ask about what the community thinks about migrating questions and such matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Scope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is currently called [Physics Problems Q&amp;A][1], and is a site that is for students of physics, physics enthusiasts, and all those who love explaining physics. The purpose of the site is to help answer questions users have about solving specific problems about physics. We do require that work be shown, both the thought process and the actual math - to quote [our first meta post][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Defining &quot;efforts&quot; is most certainly not easy and merits some thought.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] We ask that you try to show two main things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Your train of thought, or why you were thinking what you were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking. So don't just put the math, necessarily, put why you thought&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that math was appropriate for the situation. Then, the answerer can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clarify whether or not that approach was appropriate, and why. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What you were thinking. This goes more along the lines of your actual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempt, i.e., the math you used to solve the problem. Sometimes this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not applicable like in situations where you have absolutely no idea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what to do. In that case we'd ask that you include #1 and why you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having trouble including #2. However, I would always include your math&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if you have it, even down to the more basic steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel welcome to join our site and read through this meta post to have an understanding of what our site is all about, and even contribute to the discussion!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Construction Progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is incredibly new. Currently, we have a meta, the main site, commenting, answering, flagging, closing, upvoting, downvoting, MathJax accommodation, a basic rep system (I'll be updating this with more information on that for the curious) - in general, the main features of a stack exchange site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main things we're missing is a full chat room - currently, it is moderators only and doesn't accommodate pictures and such, so currently we are using a [stack exchange chat room][3] (ping us there if you have any questions). We're also designing the background of the site, and the rep system might be updated as we find things we should fix. We're also editing the flagging and closing features such that you pick a reason instead of just typing in whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, please, please: ping us if you notice something terribly wrong or just something that bothers you - we'll work on that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Relations between Physics.SE and Physics Problems Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the open questions I have for the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some thoughts to get the ball rolling. Please, tell me what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=qa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=116/scope-%26-guidelines&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/47874/physics-problem-solving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="b7eb69dc-eaf2-46ed-9849-b2dedf002f59" CreationDate="2016-11-04T15:18:03.653" UserId="8563" Text="I'll just post a quick note regarding your questions on 'migration'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the user-contributed content on the Stack Exchange platforms is licensed under a Creative Commons license, as indicated in the footer everywhere on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under [cc by-sa 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) with [attribution required](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you are free to re-post any user-provided content you find on any Stack Exchange sites, as long as you follow the attribution guidelines indicated on the link above (within a reasonable interpretation on the constraints of your platform). Normally this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Indicating that the content comes from the Stack Exchange site you took it from, with&#xD;&#xA; 2. a link to the page it appears in, and&#xD;&#xA; 3. a link to the user profile page of the author of the post, along with&#xD;&#xA; 4. visual indication of the author's username.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One site that does this correctly is Physics Overflow - if you head over to there and click some random question, odds are that you'll see the post import banner. It doesn't need to be in red, though - it just needs to be clearly visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus far for the &quot;legal&quot; part. As for what the community &quot;wants&quot;, that's mostly what the legal part is for: when users post on Stack Exchange, they agree that their content is re-postable anywhere under those guidelines. (And, of course, if this makes you uncomfortable, you should stop posting now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you build a site that's built entirely (or almost entirely) out of PSE questions then you might get a bit of evil eye from people. This is particularly so if you import questions which are open on PSE and try to hijack or co-opt those discussions (or do stuff that looks like that's what you're doing). If you only re-use closed questions, this is much less likely to be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, though one relatively sensitive issue, and it's to do with how and where you link to your site. If you reuse a closed homework-like question here, the polite thing to do is to inform the OP that you have done so, thus providing them with an avenue for answers on the terms of your new site. I personally don't find it that problematic (particularly for strict homework questions that are clearly not a fit here and which will eventually get sweeped up by the autodeletion mechanisms). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some people here take an exception to that, and it can be perceived as spam. This has happened in the past and it has led to suspensions, so: before you start doing systematic commenting campaigns that link to your new site, make sure that you have a significant consensus both of users and moderators that this is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your other question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will continue to accept questions as usual. If someone asks something on your site that's not a fit there but which would be on-topic here, feel free to send them this way. (Of course, we won't relax any standards just because it came from your site, either.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="957e4cca-667c-477a-9dd9-1139cbb815e0" CreationDate="2016-11-04T15:26:17.083" UserId="8563" Comment="added 755 characters in body" Text="I'll just post a quick note regarding your questions on 'migration'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the user-contributed content on the Stack Exchange platforms is licensed under a Creative Commons license, as indicated in the footer everywhere on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under [cc by-sa 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) with [attribution required](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you are free to re-post any user-provided content you find on any Stack Exchange sites, as long as you follow the attribution guidelines indicated on the link above (within a reasonable interpretation on the constraints of your platform). Normally this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Indicating that the content comes from the Stack Exchange site you took it from, with&#xD;&#xA; 2. a link to the page it appears in, and&#xD;&#xA; 3. a link to the user profile page of the author of the post, along with&#xD;&#xA; 4. visual indication of the author's username.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One site that does this correctly is Physics Overflow - if you head over to there and click some random question, odds are that you'll see the post import banner. It doesn't need to be in red, though - it just needs to be clearly visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus far for the &quot;legal&quot; part. As for what the community &quot;wants&quot;, that's mostly what the legal part is for: when users post on Stack Exchange, they agree that their content is re-postable anywhere under those guidelines. (And, of course, if this makes you uncomfortable, you should stop posting now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you build a site that's built entirely (or almost entirely) out of PSE questions then you might get a bit of evil eye from people. This is particularly so if you import questions which are open on PSE and try to hijack or co-opt those discussions (or do stuff that looks like that's what you're doing). If you only re-use closed questions, this is much less likely to be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, though one relatively sensitive issue, and it's to do with how and where you link to your site. If you reuse a closed homework-like question here, the polite thing to do is to inform the OP that you have done so, thus providing them with an avenue for answers on the terms of your new site. I personally don't find it that problematic (particularly for strict homework questions that are clearly not a fit here and which will eventually get sweeped up by the autodeletion mechanisms). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some people here take an exception to that, and it can be perceived as spam. This has happened in the past and it has led to suspensions, so: before you start doing systematic commenting campaigns that link to your new site, make sure that you have a significant consensus both of users and moderators that this is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and one more thing: If you import users in some way, and you make some user board that includes imported users, like Physics Overflow, then do *not* list imported users without some visual indication, on the user board itself, that this is what you've done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't do this, then you are making an implicit guarantee that the people you're listing endorse your site, when they may not even be aware of its existence or be less than thrilled at your reuse of the content. This isn't a great way to start a relationship, so be careful with how you present that: be mindful that many people contribute to Stack Exchange under their full names, and that using their names online in ways they haven't approved of is a breach of courtesy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your other question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will continue to accept questions as usual. If someone asks something on your site that's not a fit there but which would be on-topic here, feel free to send them this way. (Of course, we won't relax any standards just because it came from your site, either.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="68e2656a-a68a-42b1-93a0-8fa15f5ee592" CreationDate="2016-11-05T03:02:52.697" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1434 characters in body" Text="I'll just post a quick note regarding your questions on 'migration'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the user-contributed content on the Stack Exchange platforms is licensed under a Creative Commons license, as indicated in the footer everywhere on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under [cc by-sa 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) with [attribution required](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you are free to re-post any user-provided content you find on any Stack Exchange sites, as long as you follow the attribution guidelines indicated on the link above (within a reasonable interpretation on the constraints of your platform). Normally this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Indicating that the content comes from the Stack Exchange site you took it from, with&#xD;&#xA; 2. a link to the page it appears in, and&#xD;&#xA; 3. a link to the user profile page of the author of the post, along with&#xD;&#xA; 4. visual indication of the author's username.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One site that does this correctly is Physics Overflow - if you head over to there and click some random question, odds are that you'll see the post import banner. It doesn't need to be in red, though - it just needs to be clearly visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to these attribution requirements, you also need to comply with the Share-Alike component of the license. You can sell the content if you wish, but whenever you make the content available to other people it needs to be under the CC BY-SA license or [a compatible license](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/). Please make sure to take the time to understand this license before re-publishing any SE content - it's good for you, your site, your users, and the internet as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I would recommend that you weigh carefully whether you want to import content directly, as opposed to asking the OP to re-post on your site. That will get you a much more engaged asker, which is particularly important for your model. If the asker re-posts, the legal issues go away, even if it is an exactly identical post. This is because the OP retains the copyright for the content, and they are just licensing it to you separately to the license they gave to SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and, speaking of which, if you haven't done so already, you *need* to have a clear policy of the terms under which users contribute content to your site. I would recommend a CC BY-SA license as on SE sites and Wikipedia (which among other nice things enables you to use content from SE and Wikipedia), but ultimately it's up to you. Just choose *something*, and don't leave it in the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus far for the &quot;legal&quot; part. As for what the community &quot;wants&quot;, that's mostly what the legal part is for: when users post on Stack Exchange, they agree that their content is re-postable anywhere under those guidelines. (And, of course, if this makes you uncomfortable, you should stop posting now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you build a site that's built entirely (or almost entirely) out of PSE questions then you might get a bit of evil eye from people. This is particularly so if you import questions which are open on PSE and try to hijack or co-opt those discussions (or do stuff that looks like that's what you're doing). If you only re-use closed questions, this is much less likely to be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, though one relatively sensitive issue, and it's to do with how and where you link to your site. If you reuse a closed homework-like question here, the polite thing to do is to inform the OP that you have done so, thus providing them with an avenue for answers on the terms of your new site. I personally don't find it that problematic (particularly for strict homework questions that are clearly not a fit here and which will eventually get sweeped up by the autodeletion mechanisms). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some people here take an exception to that, and it can be perceived as spam. This has happened in the past and it has led to suspensions, so: before you start doing systematic commenting campaigns that link to your new site, make sure that you have a significant consensus both of users and moderators that this is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and one more thing: If you import users in some way, and you make some user board that includes imported users, like Physics Overflow, then do *not* list imported users without some visual indication, on the user board itself, that this is what you've done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't do this, then you are making an implicit guarantee that the people you're listing endorse your site, when they may not even be aware of its existence or be less than thrilled at your reuse of the content. This isn't a great way to start a relationship, so be careful with how you present that: be mindful that many people contribute to Stack Exchange under their full names, and that using their names online in ways they haven't approved of is a breach of courtesy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your other question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will continue to accept questions as usual. If someone asks something on your site that's not a fit there but which would be on-topic here, feel free to send them this way. (Of course, we won't relax any standards just because it came from your site, either.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24089" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="959cfc4c-2ae4-4bff-bacf-e2221c336ce2" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:15:27.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/794966372820389889" />
  <row Id="24090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="f0e6fa17-a736-496f-b8c2-8b900926a792" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:24:54.640" UserId="128755" Text="&lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290723/spring-in-a-railway-carriage/290923?noredirect=1#comment653536_290923&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can people please reopen this question.Or can they give me a reason as to why it is an off topic question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="f0e6fa17-a736-496f-b8c2-8b900926a792" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:24:54.640" UserId="128755" Text="CAN anyone please re examine this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="f0e6fa17-a736-496f-b8c2-8b900926a792" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:24:54.640" UserId="128755" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="d649a6f6-e65d-4d5d-b668-abef72f2cdec" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:30:27.253" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can people please reopen this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/290723/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can they give me a reason as to why it is an off-topic question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24094" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="d649a6f6-e65d-4d5d-b668-abef72f2cdec" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:30:27.253" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="d649a6f6-e65d-4d5d-b668-abef72f2cdec" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:30:27.253" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="CAN anyone please re-examine this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="5386486b-5894-49fc-b4f0-d3fe2e65578d" CreationDate="2016-11-05T20:21:11.007" UserId="121464" Text="I'm one of the people who voted to close. There are several ways this question took a wrong turn, and I'll try to explain them to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, one thing that annoys a lot of people to death is that you didn't show your work. You didn't show how you got your answer, you didn't show any work that the book did to get its answer, you just gave the problem, your answer, and the book's answer, and was like &quot;figure it out for me!&quot; and people get really annoyed by that kind of attitude. Why? The people on this site are volunteering their time to answer your questions. Most of these people are professors, physicists, and in short, very smart people [1]. You're asking these incredibly smart people who are volunteering their time here to do something as mundane as your homework; the least you can do is make it a little easier for them to figure out the problem by showing your work. If you show your work, people will respect you a lot more here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the problem is a homework problem. Homework is used in a bit looser of a way on this site. Basically, any problem that is some kind of arbitrary type exercise is a homework problem, and we don't exactly appreciate those here. What we simply ask, to prevent questions that just spill the problem onto the page and ask people to solve it, is that you ask a conceptual question - in other words, ask about the thought process, not the actual solving of the problem. You can give the problem to help explain the context, but in the end, we want the answer to your question to be applicable to other people's questions as well, so try to keep that in mind. If your question isn't generalized enough, that is, it really is just, solve this problem, it's probably going to get closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also a check my work question, which we just don't allow here. We find they aren't productive questions and don't help anyone else on the site. One thing to keep in mind is the purpose of this site isn't just to help you, it's to help everyone else who has questions about physics. A check my work type question only helps you, and while that is part of the purpose of this site, that isn't the full purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons, the question was closed, and will not be reopened. However, if you have a conceptual question, then please ask that, as a separate question, and if it follows the rules of the site, it will be answered. I hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] I am not one of those people, I am in fact a middle school student, and I'm very grateful to everyone on this site who takes their time to answer my often-dumb questions. In a nutshell, I don't want you to take this as a criticism of you - this is a mistake a lot of people make when trying to ask questions on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24097" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="167356eb-dc2c-4dff-91eb-18f98026e4b5" CreationDate="2016-11-05T23:51:43.130" UserId="8563" Comment="edited title" Text="Can anyone please re-examine this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="4125b362-6f1a-4100-b5b5-af11156a6c2e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T21:27:53.133" UserId="128957" Text="After I put some tags in a question in a certain order, the site sorts them as it finds best (sort of 'from the more to the less general', probably). At the same time, it seems that the order has importance. For example, the very first tag is prefixed to the question title in my browser bar.  &#xD;&#xA;I don't know if there are other effects: are there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see the rationale behind putting more general tags before, but personally I probably prefer exluding a 'related but not necessarily the main focus' tag than having it right before my title (because it seems like I wanted it there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, would it be possible to manually specify tags' order?  &#xD;&#xA;Should I stop caring about what is the first tag, since everybody know its being there means nothing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an example is helpful: [this][1] is, first of all, a question about cosmic rays and neutrons, and I would be okay in having any of them as the first tag. I assume the answer could be related to the way primary cosmics interact with atmosphere, thus 'atmospheric-science', but I don't see it as the perfect 'first tag'. Would deleting it the correct thing to do? At the beginning I added 'experimental-physics' for quite the same reason, but then deleted it because it struck as the first tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290768/why-are-neutrons-preferred-for-measuring-cosmic-flux-forbush" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="4125b362-6f1a-4100-b5b5-af11156a6c2e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T21:27:53.133" UserId="128957" Text="Manual tag ordering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="4125b362-6f1a-4100-b5b5-af11156a6c2e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T21:27:53.133" UserId="128957" Text="|support|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9326" RevisionGUID="37627f4d-c6e8-478b-86a6-53e915a692bf" CreationDate="2016-11-06T21:36:19.777" UserId="124" Text="It's [not possible to manually specify the tag order](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109531/how-do-i-edit-the-order-of-tags-on-a-question) (and [second reference](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77808/does-it-matter-the-order-you-tag-your-question)). They are ordered by popularity, from most-used to least-used, and the first one is included in the page title for search engine optimization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SE team has never expressed any interest in making it possible to specify tag ordering manually, so I would not expect this to be implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I would advise you _not_ to add or remove tags based on their order, or to try to get a particular tag to show up first. Just use the tags that apply to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="aa3ff7b9-4d37-4266-a459-be4a4c3ea792" CreationDate="2016-11-07T12:35:56.553" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work. Without false modesty, I am good at my job, and I want to use my experience to write a post that  I can refer some users to, as regards why their questions are not being answered, or how they could be written to increase their chances of being answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to act in the same way as a typical reader views a question, and point out how to improve them, regarding basic errors (in my opinion and experience) in question presentation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way.  I don't know physics as well as I know sales, the Internet and SEO, so please bear with me, as I feel I can contribute  much more here  than I can on the physics side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is mainly aimed at users with rep counts between 100 and 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of recent posts have committed one or more of these mistakes, see how your question compares:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Like this phrase or not, you are in effect selling both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting  both the content of the post **and the tags** you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If your link to a source involves a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. There are lots of free online image reduction sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck  around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly  lots of similar posts, but I want to write my own  bullet point list, that I can refer to some users to when I see, what to me are obvious mistakes in the presentation of their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions (or even well founded abuse) that serves to improve to this post, but I don't want it to be overlong. If I could summerise it with 10 bullet points, that would be fine. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="aa3ff7b9-4d37-4266-a459-be4a4c3ea792" CreationDate="2016-11-07T12:35:56.553" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="Improve your chances of an answer by writing your question properly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="aa3ff7b9-4d37-4266-a459-be4a4c3ea792" CreationDate="2016-11-07T12:35:56.553" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="ef380fac-48e7-4bca-b6a4-70a46202e864" CreationDate="2016-11-07T13:12:03.107" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 180 characters in body; edited title" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work. Without false modesty, I am good at my job, and I want to use my experience to write a post that  I can refer some users to, as regards why their questions are not being answered, or how they could be written to increase their chances of being answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way.  I don't know physics as well as I know sales, the Internet and SEO, so please bear with me, as I feel I can contribute  much more here  than I can on the physics side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is mainly aimed at users with rep counts between 100 and 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of recent posts have committed one or more of these mistakes, see how your question compares:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Like this phrase or not, you are in effect selling both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting  both the content of the post **and the tags** you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If your link to a source involves a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. The default image hosting site for StackExchange, which is Imgur, makes reduced-size images available for all uploads from Physics.SE by appending &quot;m&quot; for medium or &quot;s&quot; for small to the filename: for example, original medium small&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck  around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly  lots of similar posts, but I want to write my own  bullet point list, that I can refer to some users to when I see, what to me are obvious mistakes in the presentation of their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions (or even well founded abuse) that serves to improve to this post, but I don't want it to be overlong. If I could summerise it with 10 bullet points, that would be fine. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24113" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="ef380fac-48e7-4bca-b6a4-70a46202e864" CreationDate="2016-11-07T13:12:03.107" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 180 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I improve the chances of my question being answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="243ea539-95da-4706-adae-eb5e8eb397d0" CreationDate="2016-11-07T13:21:42.413" UserId="44126" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work. Without false modesty, I am good at my job, and I want to use my experience to write a post that  I can refer some users to, as regards why their questions are not being answered, or how they could be written to increase their chances of being answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way.  I don't know physics as well as I know sales, the Internet and SEO, so please bear with me, as I feel I can contribute  much more here  than I can on the physics side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is mainly aimed at users with rep counts between 100 and 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of recent posts have committed one or more of these mistakes, see how your question compares:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Like this phrase or not, you are in effect selling both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting  both the content of the post **and the tags** you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If your link to a source involves a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. The default image hosting site for StackExchange, which is Imgur, makes reduced-size images available for all uploads from Physics.SE by appending &quot;m&quot; for medium or &quot;s&quot; for small to the filename: for example, &#xD;&#xA;[original](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYi.png),&#xD;&#xA;[medium](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYim.png),&#xD;&#xA;[small](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYis.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck  around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly  lots of similar posts, but I want to write my own  bullet point list, that I can refer to some users to when I see, what to me are obvious mistakes in the presentation of their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions (or even well founded abuse) that serves to improve to this post, but I don't want it to be overlong. If I could summerise it with 10 bullet points, that would be fine. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="9b526ebd-a75b-48d0-8bb7-3bdf12725923" CreationDate="2016-11-07T14:52:24.007" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="deleted 2231 characters in body" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work. Without false modesty, I am good at my job, and I want to use my experience to write a post that  I can refer some users to, as regards why their questions are not being answered, or how they could be written to increase their chances of being answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way.  I don't know physics as well as I know sales, the Internet and SEO, so please bear with me, as I feel I can contribute  much more here  than I can on the physics side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is mainly aimed at users with rep counts between 100 and 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck  around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly  lots of similar posts, but I want to write my own  bullet point list, that I can refer to some users to when I see, what to me are obvious mistakes in the presentation of their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions (or even well founded abuse) that serves to improve to this post, but I don't want it to be overlong. If I could summerise it with 10 bullet points, that would be fine. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="75d10559-9484-4974-9566-6547faddd1e8" CreationDate="2016-11-07T14:58:29.933" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer by  considering the following points in the final draft of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting  both the content of the post **and the tags** you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If your link to a source involves a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. The default image hosting site for StackExchange, which is Imgur, makes reduced-size images available for all uploads from Physics.SE by appending &quot;m&quot; for medium or &quot;s&quot; for small to the filename: for example, &#xD;&#xA;[original](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYi.png),&#xD;&#xA;[medium](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYim.png),&#xD;&#xA;[small](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYis.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="469c607c-60f2-44af-8ab6-a19ffc1738d6" CreationDate="2016-11-07T15:21:22.090" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer by  considering the following points in the final draft of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, link to abstracts in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. The default image hosting site for StackExchange, which is Imgur, makes reduced-size images available for all uploads from Physics.SE by appending &quot;m&quot; for medium or &quot;s&quot; for small to the filename: for example, &#xD;&#xA;[original](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYi.png),&#xD;&#xA;[medium](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYim.png),&#xD;&#xA;[small](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYis.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="eead520c-d960-4020-b76d-bebf6fe88666" CreationDate="2016-11-07T15:29:59.353" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="deleted 1091 characters in body" Text="How can I write a post that will gain attention from the user's I want to reach. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what way should I write it to maximise my chance of obtaining a wide variety of answers, in case just one answer is impossible for me to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="4122b751-a4cc-4937-8faf-c72b62696898" CreationDate="2016-11-07T15:32:26.687" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 723 characters in body" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions (or even well founded abuse) that serves to improve to this answer, but I don't want it to be overlong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer by  considering the following points in the final draft of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, link to abstracts in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. The default image hosting site for StackExchange, which is Imgur, makes reduced-size images available for all uploads from Physics.SE by appending &quot;m&quot; for medium or &quot;s&quot; for small to the filename: for example, &#xD;&#xA;[original](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYi.png),&#xD;&#xA;[medium](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYim.png),&#xD;&#xA;[small](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DlFYis.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="5f3f6352-d6f2-485a-a65a-00b403c27d47" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:39:17.750" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="deleted 138 characters in body" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions (or even well founded abuse) that serves to improve to this answer, but I don't want it to be overlong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer by  considering the following points in the final draft of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write **as if** it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, link to abstracts in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][1] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="42a00d6f-e9ca-4bea-9f89-08cd01d8004a" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:46:32.030" UserId="4888" Text="What happens to comments which are moved to chat as times passes by? Are they conserved, or do they disappear after a time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is triggered by the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271230/ground-state-of-local-parent-hamiltonians-and-invariance-under-local-unitaries (which got bumped by the Community bot) -- I remember there being a number of comments about clarifying the question, and I don't believe that these discussions have made it into the question. Unfortunately, the link to chat leads to no-where -- is there a way to recover these comments, or are they forever lost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="42a00d6f-e9ca-4bea-9f89-08cd01d8004a" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:46:32.030" UserId="4888" Text="What happens to comments which have been moved to chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="42a00d6f-e9ca-4bea-9f89-08cd01d8004a" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:46:32.030" UserId="4888" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9330" RevisionGUID="a9762191-fe51-486a-928c-6d734206a015" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:56:48.017" UserId="520" Text="The answer to your question is in the [retention item][1] of the chat FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, moderators can still see the contents of the deleted room and [I have undeleted the one under discussion][2]. The system will doubtless reap it again in a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#retention&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/43639/discussion-on-question-by-jacquard-ground-state-of-local-parent-hamiltonians-and" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="835cb274-1285-4e8a-b9d3-c05aa5fcdc16" CreationDate="2016-11-07T21:40:45.797" UserId="8563" Text="As dmckee points out, the answer is in the [Message Retention section of the chat FAQ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#retention):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Will these rooms exist forever?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rooms will exist indefinitely, so long as there is at least one person actively talking in the room. A room is considered worth retaining if it has more than 15 messages by at least 2 users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![deleted and frozen rooms](http://cdn-chat.sstatic.net/chat/Img/faq-deleted-frozen-rooms.png?v=e77e86064bd6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rooms not worth retaining which are inactive for 7 days will be deleted. Rooms worth retaining which are inactive for 14 days will be frozen. Frozen rooms do not allow any new messages to be sent, and are not shown in the default room list to prevent cluttering the rooms interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thread you refer to has exactly 15 messages, so [apparently](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/191566/clarify-standards-for-rooms-worth-retaining-in-the-chat-faq) it was one message short of qualifying. (It needs a full 16 messages (i.e. (strictly) more than 15) to survive. At undeletion it had 15 - note that [this](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31545734#31545734) and [this](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31545735#31545735) are separate messages.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="99dc0c72-8c9e-4b88-96a7-2da19c18feec" CreationDate="2016-11-08T00:12:08.080" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="How can I write a post that will gain attention from the user's I want to reach? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what way should I write my question in order to maximise my chance of obtaining a wide variety of answers, in case I receive just one answer, which may be difficult, or even  impossible, for me to follow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="df8f24bd-5727-4e28-a798-8be8bbb8a6cc" CreationDate="2016-11-08T00:15:43.457" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="corrected spelling and grammer" Text="My background and full time job is based on sales and SEO related Internet work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve to this answer, but I don't want it to be overlong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, link to abstracts in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][1] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24132" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="a86e7f42-2dad-471a-a21c-7495bb7a98e1" CreationDate="2016-11-08T12:05:17.757" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:108787,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;CountTo10&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24133" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="0445cdc3-6b30-43f5-a4a6-4c89f0588c6c" CreationDate="2016-11-08T12:05:23.527" UserDisplayName="user108787" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:108787,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;CountTo10&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="16cfa816-30f5-49f4-95c3-ad7eef1aab3e" CreationDate="2016-11-08T12:13:06.593" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Think of how your post looks to the users. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid click bait titles, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, link to abstracts in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, put in a highlighted short relevant abstract of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][1] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Use paragraphs,  because white space is free. I have lost count of the number of big blocks of texts that should be broken up. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. Put your question at the **end** of your post, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="cdc257a6-65a9-4145-8020-c1984cf6ce84" CreationDate="2016-11-08T14:24:21.270" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 2000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, **put a short relevant abstract** of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][1] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="0a7040f5-932e-47ee-8ba1-bdef4632adf9" CreationDate="2016-11-08T14:40:28.770" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. Ideally your title should be some sentence reflecting as closely as possible the actual content of the post you use.  Reputation points are not &quot;that&quot; important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, **put a short relevant abstract** of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="1ffb7102-8923-468c-aa19-30d299ea1296" CreationDate="2016-11-08T14:45:36.123" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="My apologies if this is a duplicate or if it seems patronising in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and to remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, **put a short relevant abstract** of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images is a real pain on phones and tablets. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users may well know the details  better that you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24138" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="448c3d8e-d4d3-4bf2-83da-da832a9a3190" CreationDate="2016-11-09T06:32:16.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/796238960162930688" />
  <row Id="24139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="1293c1cc-c2fc-4201-b119-98d687e3c191" CreationDate="2016-11-09T18:04:44.197" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="My apologies if  this answer seems patronising in any way. It's based on mistakes I have made myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If possible, **put a short relevant abstract** of the PDF or article in your post, as lots of users do not like going off site, unless they think it's really worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images on phones and tablets will put users off. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users probably know the details of better than you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="bbc557a9-fa83-4f68-b982-16740cc788a2" CreationDate="2016-11-09T19:21:01.777" UserDisplayName="user131786" Comment="deleted 1767 characters in body" Text="**UPDATE:** The proposal has been closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24141" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="0d2117f8-6084-4540-bad1-e967fe0c9573" CreationDate="2016-11-09T19:35:01.887" UserDisplayName="user131786" Comment="Rollback to [78bed4b1-32cd-400a-9df3-f18551cae673]" Text="**&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present Physics Stack Exchange is more inclined towards answering specific conceptual questions in Physics and not really meant for problem solving at the High School/Undergraduate/Graduate level. Check-my-work problems ( even if they contain the OP's efforts, are discouraged most of the times ). Moreover, we do not have any quality site on the Internet related to problem solving techniques in Physics ( specifically numerical problems ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that in my high school days I used to end up tearing my hairs even after spending hours on a particular numerical problem ( and my teachers weren't always available to discuss the solutions as they would quite busy ) . Several times I would have to wait weeks before I could get someone to explain me where I was going wrong during solving the numerical problem. So, I wish to make a site for students and physics enthusiasts so that they get a platform to discuss their methods of solving problems in Physics. Of course, homework questions with no effort is discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I proposed this site here on on Area 51][1] and if you wish you can support the site by following it. Feel free to give suggestions regarding the new site proposal in comments or in form of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also feel that this could be a solution to the constant debate whether particular problem-solving question belongs to Physics Stack Exchange or not.&#xD;&#xA;Then Physics Stack Exchange can go back to its original ideal - that is to serve as a knowledge resource for researchers and academicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9316/131786&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103955/physics-problem-solving/103962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="4bff7c9c-2e8f-4b9f-a261-a22bd291901f" CreationDate="2016-11-10T18:51:08.417" UserId="62859" Text="I recently went trough the marginally pleasant experience of having to take both the [general][1] and the [physics subject GRE tests][2] in order to apply to graduate programs in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prepared exclusively using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. study material provided by [ETS][3], i.e. [practice books containing past exams][4] ([Ohio State University][5] makes a total of 4 books available for download each containing 100 multiple choice questions and an answer sheet indicating the correct choice for each),&#xD;&#xA; 2. online resources such as [GREphysics.net][6] and [physgre][7] for detailed answers, explanations, and, most importantly, extremely helpful discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I wouldn't generally recommend this method as a great way for learning anything, least of all the often deep concepts encountered when tackling *new* physics, I am quite happy with how my test results turned out. This leads me to believe that it is likely the most effective way of preparing for the GREs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, and this leads to my question, the online resources I mentioned under 2 seem hopelessly antiquated. Just take a look at (and then flee again from) [GREphysics.net][6] to see what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no doubt that [StackExchange][8] could provide a vastly superior platform and forum for GRE preparation. Think about it: from MathJax support and commenting to the question-and-answer format, it just seems like the perfect place for this. Someone would post a GRE question he or she is struggling with (or one might one think about systematically adding all questions to this site). Different solutions would then likely be provided and popular vote will identify the most concise/quick/accurate one. This rating of content, in my view, is one of the standout features of StackExchange and something none of the other GRE resources I encountered offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I'm unsure of, however, is what the community thinks of this idea. Searching the site for posts mentioning the GRE exam are sparse and even fewer contain actual exam questions. Is it just that there hasn't been a lot of interest from users or did the community decide for some reason to suppress any developments in this direction? In other words, what would happen if I went ahead and added a few GRE questions as a start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/physics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ets.org&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/practice_book_physics.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/undergrad/ugs_gre.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://grephysics.net/ans/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physgre.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="4bff7c9c-2e8f-4b9f-a261-a22bd291901f" CreationDate="2016-11-10T18:51:08.417" UserId="62859" Text="Could StackExchange serve as a resource for the physics subject GRE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="4bff7c9c-2e8f-4b9f-a261-a22bd291901f" CreationDate="2016-11-10T18:51:08.417" UserId="62859" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="2993cca5-a6a8-4533-9f6a-f017233fd621" CreationDate="2016-11-10T21:05:14.010" UserDisplayName="user131786" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="**&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present Physics Stack Exchange is more inclined towards answering specific conceptual questions in Physics and not really meant for problem solving at the High School/Undergraduate/Graduate level. Check-my-work problems ( even if they contain the OP's efforts, are discouraged most of the times ). Moreover, we do not have any quality site on the Internet related to problem solving techniques in Physics ( specifically numerical problems ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that in my high school days I used to end up tearing my hairs even after spending hours on a particular numerical problem ( and my teachers weren't always available to discuss the solutions as they would quite busy ) . Several times I would have to wait weeks before I could get someone to explain me where I was going wrong during solving the numerical problem. So, I wish to make a site for students and physics enthusiasts so that they get a platform to discuss their methods of solving problems in Physics. Of course, homework questions with no effort is discouraged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I proposed this site here on on Area 51][1] and if you wish you can support the site by following it. Feel free to give suggestions regarding the new site proposal in comments or in form of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also feel that this could be a solution to the constant debate whether particular problem-solving question belongs to Physics Stack Exchange or not.&#xD;&#xA;Then Physics Stack Exchange can go back to its original ideal - that is to serve as a knowledge resource for researchers and academicians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/103955/physics-problem-solving/103962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="eba47a87-3970-4c07-ba56-22187a3cf015" CreationDate="2016-11-10T23:45:24.443" UserId="134343" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange recently started a collaboration project with the University of Melbourne, in an attempt to improve the automatic detection of duplicate questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information on the project and a call for help from the community can be found here: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286329/project-reduplication-of-deduplication-has-begun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it, Tim Post mentions that Doris Hoogeveen (me) will post a message on the different meta sites to let you know that we're ready for help. This is it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a brief summary, the project is about finding ways to automatically determine if two questions are duplicates, and also to detect the opposite: falsely tagged duplicates. To validate our methods, we need manual judgements from people who really know the data. This is where we need your help. It is impossible to manually annotate all the data from Stack Exchange, and so we have applied several filters to make sure we only show you questions pairs with a high likelihood of being duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participation is completely optional, and there's no minimum time requirement. There's a reputation requirement however: only people who have duplicate question tagging rights on the site can participate. That is people with at least 3000 reputation points, or a gold badge. This is to ensure the annotations are compatible with StackExchange's quality standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in participating in the project, please head over to the annotation interface, which can be found here: http://hum.csse.unimelb.edu.au/se-annotate/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can log in with your Stack Exchange account, so no sign up is required. The site also contains some more information on the project, which might answer some questions you may have. And I'm also happy to answer them here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="eba47a87-3970-4c07-ba56-22187a3cf015" CreationDate="2016-11-10T23:45:24.443" UserId="134343" Text="Project Reduplication of Deduplication - Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="eba47a87-3970-4c07-ba56-22187a3cf015" CreationDate="2016-11-10T23:45:24.443" UserId="134343" Text="|discussion|support|duplicates|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24150" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="b729bd90-1789-4a33-8232-cf4e046c2b8d" CreationDate="2016-11-11T00:38:17.263" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|featured|duplicates|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="70beb155-c62f-4303-944b-cdd394842559" CreationDate="2016-11-11T08:12:04.960" UserId="62859" Comment="Made question more concise" Text="I recently went trough the marginally pleasant experience of having to take both the [general][1] and the [physics subject GRE tests][2] in order to apply to graduate programs in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prepared exclusively using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. study material provided by [ETS][3], i.e. [practice books containing past exams][4] ([Ohio State University][5] makes a total of 4 books available for download each containing 100 multiple choice questions and an answer sheet indicating the correct choice for each),&#xD;&#xA; 2. online resources such as [GREphysics.net][6] and [physgre][7] for detailed answers, explanations, and helpful discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I wouldn't generally recommend this method as a great way for learning anything, least of all the often deep concepts encountered when tackling *new* physics, I believe it is likely the most effective way of preparing for the GREs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, and this leads to my question, the online resources I mentioned under 2 seem hopelessly antiquated. Just take a look at (and then flee again from) [GREphysics.net][6] to see what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no doubt that [StackExchange][8] could provide a vastly superior platform and forum for GRE preparation. Think about it: from MathJax support and commenting to the question-and-answer format and a large knowledgeable user base, it just seems like the perfect place for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all of these test questions admit multiple ways to solve them. So whenever someone posts a GRE question he or she is struggling with (or one might one think about systematically adding all questions to this site), I would expect multiple answers in response. Popular vote can then identify the most concise/quick/accurate one. This rating of content, in my view, is one of the standout features of [StackExchange][8] and something none of the other GRE resources I encountered offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I'm unsure of is what the community thinks of this idea. Searching the site for [posts mentioning GRE][9] currently gives just 33 results and only a few of them contain actual exam questions. Is it just that there hasn't been a lot of interest from users or did the community decide for some reason to suppress any developments in this direction? In other words, what would happen if I went ahead and added a few GRE questions as a start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/physics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ets.org&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/practice_book_physics.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/undergrad/ugs_gre.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://grephysics.net/ans/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physgre.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=gre" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24152" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="96d1dd97-a677-4f49-930a-a1e184795005" CreationDate="2016-11-11T15:39:02.703" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24153" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="838dcc0e-37c3-4039-bcf9-b2c08d0a895a" CreationDate="2016-11-11T15:49:11.773" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|election|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="434ca0b1-da5f-4689-a3b1-3dc09a413a3b" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:03:29.053" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="My apologies if  this answer seems patronising in any way. It's based on mistakes I have made myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Don't write &quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **This type of 2 line question will be closed**. _The following data pertains to the performance test of single acting reciprocating air compressor with bore 15 cm and stroke 12 cm. Suction pressure and temperature = 1 bar and 20ºC. Make calculations for the volumetric efficiency._ It shows no effort, no research and basically comes across as a **demand** for an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images on phones and tablets will put users off. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users probably know the details of better than you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="77147d8e-1ba0-40e7-afc0-9ce3e895f1d7" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:10:25.503" UserDisplayName="user108787" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="My apologies if  this answer seems patronising in any way. It's based on mistakes I have made myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **This type of 2 line question will be closed**. _The following data pertains to the performance test of single acting reciprocating air compressor with bore 15 cm and stroke 12 cm. Suction pressure and temperature = 1 bar and 20ºC. Make calculations for the volumetric efficiency._ It shows no effort, no research and basically comes across as a **demand** for an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write **&quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images on phones and tablets will put users off. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users probably know the details of better than you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="6afaaab6-b6e5-49ed-8e13-394946a61728" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:14:18.877" UserId="121464" Text="This post is the second post of a series; the first can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/what-are-the-goals-of-this-site?cb=1) and the post that inspired this series of questions can be found [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway/9096#9096).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the last post, the goals of this site are (by popular vote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[this] site should be &quot;for active researchers, academics and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students of physics and astronomy&quot;, and that we should encourage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posters to think of the site as a tool for jump starting their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking and not one for getting their work done for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind, some points to think about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing users to ask more basic questions?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing users to ask about more practical applications of physics, such as experiment design?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing questions that could be on chemistry.SE, on biology.SE, on astronomy.SE?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing questions that are less conceptual?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community has reached consensus, as before, an answer will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: There will be one more foundational question after this one, and then we will return to the discussion of close votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="6afaaab6-b6e5-49ed-8e13-394946a61728" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:14:18.877" UserId="121464" Text="Leeway in deviating from goals of this site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="6afaaab6-b6e5-49ed-8e13-394946a61728" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:14:18.877" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="2dea45fa-a1b8-4a41-b8fa-6f22c0636aaa" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:15:08.310" UserId="121464" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway). The main question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to think about when answering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - What do we want the site to be seen as? (i.e., how do we want it to look to outsiders?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next question: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/leeway-in-deviating-from-goals-of-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9336" RevisionGUID="c840956a-1c7d-4ad8-bd62-6159ae56cb76" CreationDate="2016-11-12T07:43:58.903" UserId="1325" Text="In one of the many, many discussions of the homework policy I wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As a general rule homework problems and/or worked exercises are used to reinforce something you’ve been taught. For example if you do a special relativity course you will be taught about time dilation and how to calculate it using the Lorentz transformations. Then you’ll be given endless homework problems requiring you to do basically routine calculations like finding the lifetime of atmospheric muons or whether a fast moving pole will fit in a barn.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Our view is that while the routine calculations are important this site isn’t the place for them. The problem is that (a) they are routine and (b) there are a near infinite variety of such questions, and they would swamp the site. So if you post a question that is of this type we’ll probably close it with the tag [homework-and-exercises]. That doesn’t mean we think it’s a bad question, just that this site isn’t the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still believe this is a valid argument (though not everyone agrees) and it rules out the sort of questions you propose. However let me emphasise *that doesn’t mean I think it’s a bad question, just that this site isn’t the place for it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious next question is should there be a site for precisely this sort of question, and as mentioned in the comments to your question [an experiment to try this is currently underway][1]. How well this is going to work remains unclear, but at the least the experiment will shed an interesting light on the homework policy here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.qandaexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24166" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="faeaa251-a481-4aa0-b544-1ed2819a2419" CreationDate="2016-11-13T04:19:19.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="b926b7a6-e964-407d-ada3-927a6517463c" CreationDate="2016-11-13T19:29:38.833" UserId="135586" Text="My reputation is 76 and therefore I'm eligible for setting bounties, I can set a bounty for eligible questions and even on my own previous eligible questions, but when I want to set a bounty on my own question that I've given an answer myself (which is incomplete and I'm looking for other answers), instead of seeing &quot;start a bounty&quot;, I see &quot;question eligible for bounty since 6 hours ago&quot;. Clicking on that gets me to the help page. I thought that's because I've given an answer myself (which is fairly logical, but not written in the help page). Therefore, I tried copying my answer to the question details and deleting my answer, but after doing so, nothing changed and I still couldn't set a bounty. I thought maybe that's because I can still see my deleted answer! So I undeleted my answer and made it Community Wiki(!!!) thinking that doing so might help. Even after that, I can't set a bounty!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="b926b7a6-e964-407d-ada3-927a6517463c" CreationDate="2016-11-13T19:29:38.833" UserId="135586" Text="Why can't I set a bounty on my question that I've answered myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="b926b7a6-e964-407d-ada3-927a6517463c" CreationDate="2016-11-13T19:29:38.833" UserId="135586" Text="|bug|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="ffa939f1-3744-4302-ae5f-107d9c96c0cd" CreationDate="2016-11-13T19:43:14.307" UserId="50583" Text="From the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="01a20532-d443-436b-96fb-598abc63851f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T23:58:03.763" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="5eb8a3c5-861a-479b-8d05-487e66a8146c" CreationDate="2016-11-15T20:37:14.777" UserId="12813" Text="[StackExchange launched in September 2009.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did Physics StackExchange launch in history?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="5eb8a3c5-861a-479b-8d05-487e66a8146c" CreationDate="2016-11-15T20:37:14.777" UserId="12813" Text="When did Physics StackExchange launch?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="5eb8a3c5-861a-479b-8d05-487e66a8146c" CreationDate="2016-11-15T20:37:14.777" UserId="12813" Text="|discussion|stackexchange|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9341" RevisionGUID="8b430b07-4358-4535-b497-8a02d2666f57" CreationDate="2016-11-15T20:46:29.823" UserId="44126" Text="The [list of Stack Exchange site](http://stackexchange.com/sites) shows some statistics about each site, including its age.  Physics launched six years ago, apparently in November of 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="41fbd65d-3569-449f-b3c8-e140c194d5e2" CreationDate="2016-11-15T20:59:24.977" UserId="8563" Text="One handy place for this information is [the user page of the Community ♦ user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), which gives the bot's inception date as 1 November 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, you can go to [the original Area 51 proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which gives a detailed breakdown of the milestones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The original proposal was posted on 2 June 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Private beta started on 2 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Public beta started on 9 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - The site graduated from beta status on 24 February 2011 ([source](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="ec78df6f-dc00-4349-8a58-84e3de68a9bd" CreationDate="2016-11-19T00:55:13.490" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="eb9b0fa1-a4b1-4057-b6a5-0fc3bc67cfeb" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:04:57.410" UserId="115736" Text="I would like to discuss the creation of one or more tags for **[amorphous solids][1], [glasses][2] and [quasicrystals][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many question on the site which address specifically glasses and the glass transition, for example [this one][4] and [this one][5] and [this one][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions are about quasicrystals, like [this one][7] and [this one][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And other are about amorphous solids in general, like [this one][9], [this one][10] and [this one][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a tag for [spin glasses][12], but not a tag for *glasses*. I find this to be pretty absurd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently proposed the tag [**amorphous-solids**][13], but I'm wondering wether it could be useful to create the tags **glasses** and **quasicrystals**, since someone asking a question about glasses or quasicrystals will probably try to type &quot;glass&quot; and &quot;quasicrystal&quot; instead of &quot;amorphous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We could also try to be more specific and *renounce* to the tag *amprphous-solids* and just adopt the two tags *glasses* and *quasicrystals*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_solid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23686/nature-of-glass-transition&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76185/glass-properties&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65740/is-glass-a-liquid&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82841/why-do-quasicrystals-have-well-defined-fourier-transforms&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/289916/non-glassy-amorphous-solids&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220302/why-polymeric-solids-are-said-to-be-intermediate-between-crystalline-solids-and&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233430/why-is-amorphous-classified-solid/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/spin-glass&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/amorphous-solids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="eb9b0fa1-a4b1-4057-b6a5-0fc3bc67cfeb" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:04:57.410" UserId="115736" Text="Tag(s) for amorphous solids/glasses/quasicrystals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="eb9b0fa1-a4b1-4057-b6a5-0fc3bc67cfeb" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:04:57.410" UserId="115736" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="f1f49e67-9a3d-4e5a-bb71-e470acb4d2fa" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:08:00.290" UserId="115736" Comment="reformulated because of conceptual error" Text="I would like to discuss the creation of one or more tags for **[amorphous solids][1], [glasses][2] and [quasicrystals][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many question on the site which address specifically glasses and the glass transition, for example [this one][4] and [this one][5] and [this one][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others are about amorphous solids in general, like [this one][9], [this one][10] and [this one][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, other questions are about quasicrystals, like [this one][7] and [this one][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a tag for [spin glasses][12], but not a tag for *glasses*. I find this to be pretty absurd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently proposed the tag [**amorphous-solids**][13], but I'm wondering wether it could be useful to create the tag **glasses** (or glass) since someone asking a question about glasses or quasicrystals will probably try to type &quot;glass&quot; instead of &quot;amorphous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it could be useful to create a **quasicrystals** tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_solid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23686/nature-of-glass-transition&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76185/glass-properties&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65740/is-glass-a-liquid&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82841/why-do-quasicrystals-have-well-defined-fourier-transforms&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/289916/non-glassy-amorphous-solids&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220302/why-polymeric-solids-are-said-to-be-intermediate-between-crystalline-solids-and&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233430/why-is-amorphous-classified-solid/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/spin-glass&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/amorphous-solids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24190" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="f1f49e67-9a3d-4e5a-bb71-e470acb4d2fa" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:08:00.290" UserId="115736" Comment="reformulated because of conceptual error" Text="Tag(s) for amorphous solids, glasses and quasicrystals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="b7d5ba98-c1a7-4b3f-a502-a8a7cfa19608" CreationDate="2016-11-22T05:39:04.170" UserId="115736" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I would like to discuss the creation of one or more tags for **[amorphous solids][1], [glasses][2] and [quasicrystals][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many question on the site which address specifically glasses and the glass transition, for example [this one][4] and [this one][5] and [this one][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others are about amorphous solids in general, like [this one][9], [this one][10] and [this one][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, other questions are about quasicrystals, like [this one][7] and [this one][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a tag for [spin glasses][12], but not a tag for *glasses*. I find this to be pretty absurd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently proposed the tag [**amorphous-solids**][13], but I'm wondering wether it could be useful to create the tag **glasses** (or glass) since someone asking a question about glasses will probably try to type &quot;glass&quot; instead of &quot;amorphous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it could be useful to create a **quasicrystals** tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_solid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23686/nature-of-glass-transition&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76185/glass-properties&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65740/is-glass-a-liquid&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82841/why-do-quasicrystals-have-well-defined-fourier-transforms&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/289916/non-glassy-amorphous-solids&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220302/why-polymeric-solids-are-said-to-be-intermediate-between-crystalline-solids-and&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233430/why-is-amorphous-classified-solid/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/spin-glass&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/amorphous-solids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="ad04fcee-947f-4512-94ce-4948f0e5eeb3" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:05:32.573" UserId="121464" Text="Let's say I come across a post which solely says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; akdhlkfahsdkhfalsdhf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously this person is doing a little home-row bashing, but how are we supposed to flag this? My first thought was spam, but I wasn't sure if that was purely for promotional type stuff. My second thought was very low quality, which would've worked, except by the time I had thought that far, the answer had been deleted. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, given a gibberish post, are we supposed to flag it as spam or very low quality (or even not an answer)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the purpose of the spam flag just for promotional type material or for gibberish stuff as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="ad04fcee-947f-4512-94ce-4948f0e5eeb3" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:05:32.573" UserId="121464" Text="Spam - gibberish or just promotional stuff" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="ad04fcee-947f-4512-94ce-4948f0e5eeb3" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:05:32.573" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|flagging|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="394e7aaf-9e70-4aa0-b75f-668fdf650c78" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:09:45.890" UserId="121464" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Let's say I come across a post which solely says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; akdhlkfahsdkhfalsdhf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously this person is doing a little home-row bashing, but how are we supposed to flag this? My first thought was spam, but I wasn't sure if that was purely for promotional type stuff. My second thought was very low quality, which would've worked, except by the time I had thought that far, the answer had been deleted. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, given a gibberish post, are we supposed to flag it as spam or very low quality (or even not an answer)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the purpose of the spam flag just for promotional type material or for gibberish stuff as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment brought this to mind: would rude or abusive apply here? Or is that only for, uh, expletive-filled posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9347" RevisionGUID="ffb860e1-a939-4d20-8925-9d431c0b3fab" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:19:55.340" UserId="50583" Text="The *spam* flag is indeed intended only for promotional posts that have very little to do with the topic at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, utterly meaningless gibberish may well be flagged as rude or abusive. The flag description says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and posting something completely devoid of meaning is certainly inappropriate for respectful discourse. It doesn't need to be actively insulting. [Here's](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035/263383) the corresponding guidance from mother meta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Abuse of the system or community is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain no useful content at all – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;   asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cats are not allowed to walk across keyboards as part of Stack Exchange posts; this is abuse and should be flagged as such. ([Source](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/234032/263383))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9347" RevisionGUID="3fb87fd4-c297-4ade-95df-85a1af74f193" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:05:47.647" UserId="50583" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="The *spam* flag is indeed intended only for promotional posts that have very little to do with the topic at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, utterly meaningless gibberish may well be flagged as rude or abusive. The flag description says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and posting something completely devoid of meaning is certainly inappropriate for respectful discourse. It doesn't need to be actively insulting. Here's the corresponding guidance from [the faq post on spam and rude/abusive flags on mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035/263383):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Abuse of the system or community is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain no useful content at all – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;   asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cats are not allowed to walk across keyboards as part of Stack Exchange posts; this is abuse and should be flagged as such. ([Source](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/234032/263383))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="bcbc8ed5-0af1-4253-acc2-ad291ff20b60" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:59:17.560" UserId="26969" Text="The following question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/294243/26969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was marked as a duplicate of [Is the second defined arbitrarily?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/178660/26969) - which is itself a duplicate of &#xD;&#xA;[How is a second measured? And why is it measured that way?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73766/26969). None of these questions, or their associated answers, get to the heart of the closed question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could close the question for &quot;lack of effort&quot; - but it does explore an interesting aspect of physics, namely the work done to get &quot;truly fundamental&quot; definitions of the SI units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing it with reference to a closed question that itself doesn't address the question is sloppy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to calibrate my thought process. What do others think? I don't think &quot;lack of effort when formulating the question&quot; deserves &quot;lack of effort when closing the question&quot; - unless we make &quot;lack of effort&quot; a valid (and distinct) close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="bcbc8ed5-0af1-4253-acc2-ad291ff20b60" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:59:17.560" UserId="26969" Text="A dubious duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="bcbc8ed5-0af1-4253-acc2-ad291ff20b60" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:59:17.560" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="54da39cd-83c7-4d4e-9568-f4f8a8eb8c56" CreationDate="2016-11-23T00:03:42.837" UserId="115736" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="I would like to discuss the creation of one or more tags for **[amorphous solids][1], [glasses][2] and [quasicrystals][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many question on the site which address specifically glasses and the glass transition, for example [this one][4] and [this one][5] and [this one][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others are about amorphous solids in general, like [this one][9], [this one][10] and [this one][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, other questions are about quasicrystals, like [this one][7] and [this one][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a tag for [spin glasses][12], but not a tag for *glasses*. I find this to be pretty absurd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently proposed the tag [**amorphous-solids**][13], but I'm wondering wether it could be useful to create the tag **glasses** (or glass) since someone asking a question about glasses will probably try to type &quot;glass&quot; instead of &quot;amorphous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it could be useful to create a **quasicrystals** tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Update***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the response has been mainly positive (or no one seriously objected, anyway...) I will create the **glass** tag. As for the **quasicrystals** tag, I still haven't decided what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_solid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23686/nature-of-glass-transition&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76185/glass-properties&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65740/is-glass-a-liquid&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82841/why-do-quasicrystals-have-well-defined-fourier-transforms&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/289916/non-glassy-amorphous-solids&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220302/why-polymeric-solids-are-said-to-be-intermediate-between-crystalline-solids-and&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233430/why-is-amorphous-classified-solid/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/spin-glass&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/amorphous-solids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="10e11803-7759-42f5-9fc7-15b2f6afbb6a" CreationDate="2016-11-23T21:26:29.700" UserId="118847" Text="## Summary ##&#xD;&#xA;I made a week-long list of all the questions closed due to the homework flag and tried to gauge whether they were showing any effort at all. This idea came up during a chat session when we were talking about the new physics Q&amp;A site proposal and our homework policy. The hope is to give a few examples of questions that are discussion-worthy (and of questions that are definitely not) and to obtain a feeling for the relative amount of each of those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Introduction ##&#xD;&#xA;During the chat session of November the first, the question of the homework policy (reformulation) came up again, especially with reference to the [turned down new site proposal on SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) and [the newly opened help website](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site). This lead us to consider what kind of questions we would like to be answered there (but not here) and in what way this could affect this site here. (All quotes are from the [chat protocol](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-11-1-16).)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;David Z: I think it would be useful to have some examples of questions that would be considered good and on topic at the hypothetical new site, from those who are involved in setting it up.&#xD;&#xA;Better yet, to have examples of questions which would be on topic there and off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of searching I was not able to find many well written questions closed due to the homework reason and it was not only me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Rennie :Having gone through a few pages of the search I posted above it's striking how few questions do show significant effort by the OP. The vast majority just post the question and ask how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further down the conversation I asked whether the amount of questions which really showed effort but still get closed under the current site policy is that substantial at all. Questions of this form would e.g. be of the &quot;did I do something wrong?&quot;-kind or &quot;I am stuck at this point in my solution attempt&quot;-kind. David wanted to take that to the meta to discuss, but I wanted to collect a bit of data first.&#xD;&#xA;## Method ##&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st of November after the chat session until the 8th of November I regularly visited [this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=1&amp;tab=newest&amp;q=is%3aq%20closed%3ayes) of newly closed questions on Physics SE, went through the last 24h and singled out all questions closed for homework reasons. I recorded them and for each of them I gave an estimate whether they could - maybe with a small bit of editing - be made into nice questions that do not fit in with our policy but *do* show effort at solution by the OP. I realise that a) questions get deleted sometimes rather quickly, so I might have easily missed some, b) this is all a bit subjective and c) a week is not that much time. But still, to me it seems like it will be nice to have a bit of a data-based feeling for what we are actually talking about when we are talking about redoing the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;## Results ##&#xD;&#xA;From 87 questions that I recorded as closed due to homework-reasons, I would grade 64 as showing no effort at all. This is 74% of the questions closed for that reason, but still - 23 questions remain. This surprised me, to be honest, and in my mind it is a good reason to actually build up an alternative site for good, well-written &quot;homework&quot;-questions.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be happy about other people doing the same to obtain a bit more data :D I also hope this helps us to decide better when considering how and whether to modify the homework policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Appendix - List and Links of Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;showing effort&quot; or &quot;being salvagable through small edits&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove that internal energy for a system whose temperature is negative is bounded between 1/2 and 1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290321/how-to-prove-that-internal-energy-for-a-system-whose-temperature-is-negative-is)  &#xD;&#xA;[Molecular simulation of ideal gas- descriptive statistical analysis](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290173/molecular-simulation-of-ideal-gas-descriptive-statistical-analysis)  &#xD;&#xA;[Question about Galilean relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290362/question-about-galilean-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the charges on each Capacitor after a long time](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290636/find-the-charges-on-each-capacitor-after-a-long-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Work and kinetic energy on an incline?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290728/work-and-kinetic-energy-on-an-incline)  &#xD;&#xA;[A neutron (rest mass 940MeV/c 2 ) is measured in the lab to have energy 2GeV](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290729/a-neutron-rest-mass-940mev-c-2-is-measured-in-the-lab-to-have-energy-2gev)  &#xD;&#xA;[work and change of kenetic energy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290987/work-and-change-of-kenetic-energy)  &#xD;&#xA;[A block is pushed onto a conveyor belt](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290984/a-block-is-pushed-onto-a-conveyor-belt)  &#xD;&#xA;[Lagrangian for double Atwood machine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290922/lagrangian-for-double-atwood-machine)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the acceleration for a given mass and velocity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291081/find-the-acceleration-for-a-given-mass-and-velocity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Pully and Inclined Ramp](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291059/pully-and-inclined-ramp)  &#xD;&#xA;[Uncertainty in the angle by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291053/uncertainty-in-the-angle-by-using-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric Field at Centre of Hemispherical Cup](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291022/electric-field-at-centre-of-hemispherical-cup)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oscillation of charge problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291147/oscillation-of-charge-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the time of movement if the maximal height is equal to the distance of fall](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291133/find-the-time-of-movement-if-the-maximal-height-is-equal-to-the-distance-of-fall)  &#xD;&#xA;[Two flashes of light for two observers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291265/two-flashes-of-light-for-two-observers)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding the period of a system in simple harmonic motion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291253/finding-the-period-of-a-system-in-simple-harmonic-motion)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to find the amount of work done against gravity from an object moving diagonally?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291248/how-to-find-the-amount-of-work-done-against-gravity-from-an-object-moving-diagon)  &#xD;&#xA;[Propeller torque on the shaft when rotational speed and Thrust is given](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291171/propeller-torque-on-the-shaft-when-rotational-speed-and-thrust-is-given)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia, lab exercise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291377/moment-of-inertia-lab-exercise)  &#xD;&#xA;[Time needed for photon to reach the surface of a white dwarf ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291294/time-needed-for-photon-to-reach-the-surface-of-a-white-dwarf)  &#xD;&#xA;[Energy conservation … Basic qustion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291266/energy-conservation-basic-qustion)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantitative Study of Mirage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291535/quantitative-study-of-mirage)  &#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;no effort shown&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Linear motion problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290130/linear-motion-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron moving with 0.99c?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290129/magnitude-of-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electron-moving-with-0-99c)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is expected from switch S?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290098/what-is-expected-from-switch-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Minimum velocity for a charged particle to go through all the magnetic field's zone](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290075/minimum-velocity-for-a-charged-particle-to-go-through-all-the-magnetic-fields-z)  &#xD;&#xA;[conservation of momentum and energy to find speed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290051/conservation-of-momentum-and-energy-to-find-speed)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the flux of a charge through a finite plane](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290032/find-the-flux-of-a-charge-through-a-finite-plane)  &#xD;&#xA;[Statistical physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290031/statistical-physics)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the velocity of the particle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle)  &#xD;&#xA;[a question of pulley and monkey](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey)  &#xD;&#xA;[A projectile question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290236/classical-action)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oliver has a mass of 70.5kg and can throw a 542.0g rock with a speed of 10.4m/s. What would Oliver's recoil speed be if he were on an icy surface?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290285/oliver-has-a-mass-of-70-5kg-and-can-throw-a-542-0g-rock-with-a-speed-of-10-4m-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Parachutist jumps out of plane - Find work (parachute)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290286/parachutist-jumps-out-of-plane-find-work-parachute)  &#xD;&#xA;[Damped harmonic oscillator differential equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290292/damped-harmonic-oscillator-differential-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[A question of projectile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I find distance if I have acceleration and time?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290232/how-do-i-find-distance-if-i-have-acceleration-and-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the equivalent resistance seen from the E6 generator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290228/calculate-the-equivalent-resistance-seen-from-the-e6-generator)  &#xD;&#xA;[Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290218/eigenvalues-of-hamiltonian)  &#xD;&#xA;[Deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier-Stokes equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290175/deriving-bernoullis-equation-from-navier-stokes-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[state the different levels of stress and strain in a rigid body](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290361/state-the-different-levels-of-stress-and-strain-in-a-rigid-body)  &#xD;&#xA;[Bosonic and Fermionic harmonic oscillators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290365/bosonic-and-fermionic-harmonic-oscillators)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics of system of particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290372/mechanics-of-system-of-particles)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric field between three parallel plates](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290480/electric-field-between-three-parallel-plates)  &#xD;&#xA;[From special relativity to general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290461/from-special-relativity-to-general-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove the following Dirac matrices identity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290434/how-to-prove-the-following-dirac-matrices-identity)  &#xD;&#xA;[angular spread in the angle of refraction of the beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290418/angular-spread-in-the-angle-of-refraction-of-the-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[minimum area of the disc to collect all light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290415/minimum-area-of-the-disc-to-collect-all-light)  &#xD;&#xA;[Nutcracker problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290394/nutcracker-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantum Physics Easy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290667/quantum-physics-easy)  &#xD;&#xA;[By how much does the image move when the object is moved by 10cm in the given lens configuration?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290645/by-how-much-does-the-image-move-when-the-object-is-moved-by-10cm-in-the-given-le)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the acceleration of point D and E when F = 125N?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290644/what-is-the-acceleration-of-point-d-and-e-when-f-125n)  &#xD;&#xA;[Examination Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290641/examination-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I prove that a disk charge resembles a point charge if its radius shrinks to 0? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290573/how-do-i-prove-that-a-disk-charge-resembles-a-point-charge-if-its-radius-shrinks)  &#xD;&#xA;[How does the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor vary as the length of the dielectric inside it changes?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290546/how-does-the-capacitance-of-a-parallel-plate-capacitor-vary-as-the-length-of-the)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I express this. If I use Lorenz transform, It depends on mc2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290538/how-do-i-express-this-if-i-use-lorenz-transform-it-depends-on-mc2)  &#xD;&#xA;[moving object - vectors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290687/moving-object-vectors)  &#xD;&#xA;[The classical theory of fields - Landau book problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290710/the-classical-theory-of-fields-landau-book-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculating Magnitude of Force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290837/calculating-magnitude-of-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the relationships between radius, velocity and centripetal force on an object?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290739/what-are-the-relationships-between-radius-velocity-and-centripetal-force-on-an)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electrons during radioactive decay](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291006/electrons-during-radioactive-decay)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics problem and confusion regarding reference frame calculation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290965/mechanics-problem-and-confusion-regarding-reference-frame-calculation)  &#xD;&#xA;[An object that is not accelerating or decelerating has zero net force acting on it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290955/an-object-that-is-not-accelerating-or-decelerating-has-zero-net-force-acting-on)  &#xD;&#xA;[Confusion on conservation of angular momentum](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290938/confusion-on-conservation-of-angular-momentum)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational Imbalance](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290930/rotational-imbalance)&#xD;&#xA;[Does a current-carrying solenoid exert force on itself ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291079/does-a-current-carrying-solenoid-exert-force-on-itself)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291050/classical-mechanics)  &#xD;&#xA;[do you know why Q2 has negative sign?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291044/do-you-know-why-q2-has-negative-sign)  &#xD;&#xA;[Frame of reference and work done by pseudo force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291032/frame-of-reference-and-work-done-by-pseudo-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[Induced current in a circular loop](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291029/induced-current-in-a-circular-loop)  &#xD;&#xA;[X and Y collide, find angle of Y](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291023/x-and-y-collide-find-angle-of-y)  &#xD;&#xA;[Related to torque generated, to find input and output torque](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291117/related-to-torque-generated-to-find-input-and-output-torque)  &#xD;&#xA;[moment of inertia in beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291116/moment-of-inertia-in-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[Converting from rectangular to polar and vice-versa ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291108/converting-from-rectangular-to-polar-and-vice-versa)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are **Energy levels, Sublevels, and Orbitals**?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291096/what-are-energy-levels-sublevels-and-orbitals)  &#xD;&#xA;[Boundary layer flow directed radially towards a sink](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291230/boundary-layer-flow-directed-radially-towards-a-sink)  &#xD;&#xA;[Writing Fokker Planck equation for levy walker in a given potential](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291209/writing-fokker-planck-equation-for-levy-walker-in-a-given-potential)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the kinetic energy possessed by a battle tank belt whose mass is m if the tank is moving with a constant velocity v?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291174/what-is-the-kinetic-energy-possessed-by-a-battle-tank-belt-whose-mass-is-m-if-th)  &#xD;&#xA;[Simple Harmonic Motion Question With Explanation Please! ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291459/simple-harmonic-motion-question-with-explanation-please)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the height and the instant velocity of a geostationary satellite](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291444/find-the-height-and-the-instant-velocity-of-a-geostationary-satellite)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the image formations at different positions for plano convex and plano concave lenses? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291412/what-are-the-image-formations-at-different-positions-for-plano-convex-and-plano)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia of semicircular disc](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291367/moment-of-inertia-of-semicircular-disc)  &#xD;&#xA;[Poincare algebra](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291354/poincare-algebra)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding gravitational force on a body of unit mass by other three bodies](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291582/finding-gravitational-force-on-a-body-of-unit-mass-by-other-three-bodies)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational mech](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291548/rotational-mech)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="10e11803-7759-42f5-9fc7-15b2f6afbb6a" CreationDate="2016-11-23T21:26:29.700" UserId="118847" Text="An attempt at a homework-closure statistic and a bit of input concerning the ongoing policy debate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="10e11803-7759-42f5-9fc7-15b2f6afbb6a" CreationDate="2016-11-23T21:26:29.700" UserId="118847" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="d654eccf-8b3e-4210-86d1-c243cffc0c86" CreationDate="2016-11-23T22:06:39.580" UserId="8563" Comment="added some screenshots for currently deleted threads." Text="## Summary ##&#xD;&#xA;I made a week-long list of all the questions closed due to the homework flag and tried to gauge whether they were showing any effort at all. This idea came up during a chat session when we were talking about the new physics Q&amp;A site proposal and our homework policy. The hope is to give a few examples of questions that are discussion-worthy (and of questions that are definitely not) and to obtain a feeling for the relative amount of each of those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Introduction ##&#xD;&#xA;During the chat session of November the first, the question of the homework policy (reformulation) came up again, especially with reference to the [turned down new site proposal on SE](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) and [the newly opened help website](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site). This led us to consider what kind of questions we would like to be answered there (but not here) and in what way this could affect this site here. (All quotes are from the [chat protocol](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-11-1-16).)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;David Z: I think it would be useful to have some examples of questions that would be considered good and on topic at the hypothetical new site, from those who are involved in setting it up.&#xD;&#xA;Better yet, to have examples of questions which would be on topic there and off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of searching I was not able to find many well written questions closed due to the homework reason and it was not only me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Rennie :Having gone through a few pages of the search I posted above it's striking how few questions do show significant effort by the OP. The vast majority just post the question and ask how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further down the conversation I asked whether the amount of questions which really showed effort but still get closed under the current site policy is that substantial at all. Questions of this form would e.g. be of the &quot;did I do something wrong?&quot;-kind or &quot;I am stuck at this point in my solution attempt&quot;-kind. David wanted to take that to the meta to discuss, but I wanted to collect a bit of data first.&#xD;&#xA;## Method ##&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st of November after the chat session until the 8th of November I regularly visited [this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=1&amp;tab=newest&amp;q=is%3aq%20closed%3ayes) of newly closed questions on Physics SE, went through the last 24h and singled out all questions closed for homework reasons. I recorded them and for each of them I gave an estimate whether they could - maybe with a small bit of editing - be made into nice questions that do not fit in with our policy but *do* show effort at solution by the OP. I realise that a) questions get deleted sometimes rather quickly, so I might have easily missed some, b) this is all a bit subjective and c) a week is not that much time. But still, to me it seems like it will be nice to have a bit of a data-based feeling for what we are actually talking about when we are talking about redoing the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;## Results ##&#xD;&#xA;From 87 questions that I recorded as closed due to homework-reasons, I would grade 64 as showing no effort at all. This is 74% of the questions closed for that reason, but still - 23 questions remain. This surprised me, to be honest, and in my mind it is a good reason to actually build up an alternative site for good, well-written &quot;homework&quot;-questions.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be happy about other people doing the same to obtain a bit more data :D I also hope this helps us to decide better when considering how and whether to modify the homework policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Appendix - List and Links of Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;showing effort&quot; or &quot;being salvagable through small edits&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove that internal energy for a system whose temperature is negative is bounded between 1/2 and 1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290321/how-to-prove-that-internal-energy-for-a-system-whose-temperature-is-negative-is) ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BuuH0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Molecular simulation of ideal gas- descriptive statistical analysis](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290173/molecular-simulation-of-ideal-gas-descriptive-statistical-analysis)  ([png 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jz2e1.png), [png 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixTss.png))  &#xD;&#xA;[Question about Galilean relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290362/question-about-galilean-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the charges on each Capacitor after a long time](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290636/find-the-charges-on-each-capacitor-after-a-long-time)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Si8bJ.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Work and kinetic energy on an incline?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290728/work-and-kinetic-energy-on-an-incline)  &#xD;&#xA;[A neutron (rest mass 940MeV/c 2 ) is measured in the lab to have energy 2GeV](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290729/a-neutron-rest-mass-940mev-c-2-is-measured-in-the-lab-to-have-energy-2gev)  &#xD;&#xA;[work and change of kenetic energy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290987/work-and-change-of-kenetic-energy)  &#xD;&#xA;[A block is pushed onto a conveyor belt](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290984/a-block-is-pushed-onto-a-conveyor-belt)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSDFI.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Lagrangian for double Atwood machine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290922/lagrangian-for-double-atwood-machine)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGfwu.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the acceleration for a given mass and velocity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291081/find-the-acceleration-for-a-given-mass-and-velocity)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8JkA9.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Pully and Inclined Ramp](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291059/pully-and-inclined-ramp)  &#xD;&#xA;[Uncertainty in the angle by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291053/uncertainty-in-the-angle-by-using-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric Field at Centre of Hemispherical Cup](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291022/electric-field-at-centre-of-hemispherical-cup)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GaVyY.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Oscillation of charge problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291147/oscillation-of-charge-problem)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L6dS0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the time of movement if the maximal height is equal to the distance of fall](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291133/find-the-time-of-movement-if-the-maximal-height-is-equal-to-the-distance-of-fall)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wjIYQ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Two flashes of light for two observers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291265/two-flashes-of-light-for-two-observers)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qSXZZ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Finding the period of a system in simple harmonic motion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291253/finding-the-period-of-a-system-in-simple-harmonic-motion)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to find the amount of work done against gravity from an object moving diagonally?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291248/how-to-find-the-amount-of-work-done-against-gravity-from-an-object-moving-diagon)  &#xD;&#xA;[Propeller torque on the shaft when rotational speed and Thrust is given](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291171/propeller-torque-on-the-shaft-when-rotational-speed-and-thrust-is-given)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hkt61.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia, lab exercise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291377/moment-of-inertia-lab-exercise)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vticH.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Time needed for photon to reach the surface of a white dwarf ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291294/time-needed-for-photon-to-reach-the-surface-of-a-white-dwarf)  &#xD;&#xA;[Energy conservation … Basic qustion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291266/energy-conservation-basic-qustion)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BZ3RW.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Quantitative Study of Mirage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291535/quantitative-study-of-mirage)  &#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;no effort shown&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Linear motion problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290130/linear-motion-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron moving with 0.99c?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290129/magnitude-of-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electron-moving-with-0-99c)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is expected from switch S?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290098/what-is-expected-from-switch-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Minimum velocity for a charged particle to go through all the magnetic field's zone](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290075/minimum-velocity-for-a-charged-particle-to-go-through-all-the-magnetic-fields-z)  &#xD;&#xA;[conservation of momentum and energy to find speed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290051/conservation-of-momentum-and-energy-to-find-speed)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the flux of a charge through a finite plane](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290032/find-the-flux-of-a-charge-through-a-finite-plane)  &#xD;&#xA;[Statistical physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290031/statistical-physics)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the velocity of the particle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle)  &#xD;&#xA;[a question of pulley and monkey](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey)  &#xD;&#xA;[A projectile question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290236/classical-action)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oliver has a mass of 70.5kg and can throw a 542.0g rock with a speed of 10.4m/s. What would Oliver's recoil speed be if he were on an icy surface?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290285/oliver-has-a-mass-of-70-5kg-and-can-throw-a-542-0g-rock-with-a-speed-of-10-4m-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Parachutist jumps out of plane - Find work (parachute)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290286/parachutist-jumps-out-of-plane-find-work-parachute)  &#xD;&#xA;[Damped harmonic oscillator differential equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290292/damped-harmonic-oscillator-differential-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[A question of projectile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I find distance if I have acceleration and time?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290232/how-do-i-find-distance-if-i-have-acceleration-and-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the equivalent resistance seen from the E6 generator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290228/calculate-the-equivalent-resistance-seen-from-the-e6-generator)  &#xD;&#xA;[Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290218/eigenvalues-of-hamiltonian)  &#xD;&#xA;[Deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier-Stokes equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290175/deriving-bernoullis-equation-from-navier-stokes-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[state the different levels of stress and strain in a rigid body](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290361/state-the-different-levels-of-stress-and-strain-in-a-rigid-body)  &#xD;&#xA;[Bosonic and Fermionic harmonic oscillators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290365/bosonic-and-fermionic-harmonic-oscillators)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics of system of particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290372/mechanics-of-system-of-particles)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric field between three parallel plates](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290480/electric-field-between-three-parallel-plates)  &#xD;&#xA;[From special relativity to general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290461/from-special-relativity-to-general-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove the following Dirac matrices identity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290434/how-to-prove-the-following-dirac-matrices-identity)  &#xD;&#xA;[angular spread in the angle of refraction of the beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290418/angular-spread-in-the-angle-of-refraction-of-the-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[minimum area of the disc to collect all light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290415/minimum-area-of-the-disc-to-collect-all-light)  &#xD;&#xA;[Nutcracker problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290394/nutcracker-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantum Physics Easy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290667/quantum-physics-easy)  &#xD;&#xA;[By how much does the image move when the object is moved by 10cm in the given lens configuration?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290645/by-how-much-does-the-image-move-when-the-object-is-moved-by-10cm-in-the-given-le)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the acceleration of point D and E when F = 125N?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290644/what-is-the-acceleration-of-point-d-and-e-when-f-125n)  &#xD;&#xA;[Examination Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290641/examination-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I prove that a disk charge resembles a point charge if its radius shrinks to 0? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290573/how-do-i-prove-that-a-disk-charge-resembles-a-point-charge-if-its-radius-shrinks)  &#xD;&#xA;[How does the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor vary as the length of the dielectric inside it changes?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290546/how-does-the-capacitance-of-a-parallel-plate-capacitor-vary-as-the-length-of-the)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I express this. If I use Lorenz transform, It depends on mc2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290538/how-do-i-express-this-if-i-use-lorenz-transform-it-depends-on-mc2)  &#xD;&#xA;[moving object - vectors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290687/moving-object-vectors)  &#xD;&#xA;[The classical theory of fields - Landau book problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290710/the-classical-theory-of-fields-landau-book-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculating Magnitude of Force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290837/calculating-magnitude-of-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the relationships between radius, velocity and centripetal force on an object?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290739/what-are-the-relationships-between-radius-velocity-and-centripetal-force-on-an)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electrons during radioactive decay](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291006/electrons-during-radioactive-decay)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics problem and confusion regarding reference frame calculation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290965/mechanics-problem-and-confusion-regarding-reference-frame-calculation)  &#xD;&#xA;[An object that is not accelerating or decelerating has zero net force acting on it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290955/an-object-that-is-not-accelerating-or-decelerating-has-zero-net-force-acting-on)  &#xD;&#xA;[Confusion on conservation of angular momentum](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290938/confusion-on-conservation-of-angular-momentum)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational Imbalance](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290930/rotational-imbalance)&#xD;&#xA;[Does a current-carrying solenoid exert force on itself ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291079/does-a-current-carrying-solenoid-exert-force-on-itself)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291050/classical-mechanics)  &#xD;&#xA;[do you know why Q2 has negative sign?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291044/do-you-know-why-q2-has-negative-sign)  &#xD;&#xA;[Frame of reference and work done by pseudo force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291032/frame-of-reference-and-work-done-by-pseudo-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[Induced current in a circular loop](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291029/induced-current-in-a-circular-loop)  &#xD;&#xA;[X and Y collide, find angle of Y](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291023/x-and-y-collide-find-angle-of-y)  &#xD;&#xA;[Related to torque generated, to find input and output torque](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291117/related-to-torque-generated-to-find-input-and-output-torque)  &#xD;&#xA;[moment of inertia in beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291116/moment-of-inertia-in-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[Converting from rectangular to polar and vice-versa ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291108/converting-from-rectangular-to-polar-and-vice-versa)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are **Energy levels, Sublevels, and Orbitals**?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291096/what-are-energy-levels-sublevels-and-orbitals)  &#xD;&#xA;[Boundary layer flow directed radially towards a sink](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291230/boundary-layer-flow-directed-radially-towards-a-sink)  &#xD;&#xA;[Writing Fokker Planck equation for levy walker in a given potential](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291209/writing-fokker-planck-equation-for-levy-walker-in-a-given-potential)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the kinetic energy possessed by a battle tank belt whose mass is m if the tank is moving with a constant velocity v?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291174/what-is-the-kinetic-energy-possessed-by-a-battle-tank-belt-whose-mass-is-m-if-th)  &#xD;&#xA;[Simple Harmonic Motion Question With Explanation Please! ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291459/simple-harmonic-motion-question-with-explanation-please)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the height and the instant velocity of a geostationary satellite](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291444/find-the-height-and-the-instant-velocity-of-a-geostationary-satellite)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the image formations at different positions for plano convex and plano concave lenses? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291412/what-are-the-image-formations-at-different-positions-for-plano-convex-and-plano)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia of semicircular disc](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291367/moment-of-inertia-of-semicircular-disc)  &#xD;&#xA;[Poincare algebra](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291354/poincare-algebra)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding gravitational force on a body of unit mass by other three bodies](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291582/finding-gravitational-force-on-a-body-of-unit-mass-by-other-three-bodies)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational mech](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291548/rotational-mech)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9351" RevisionGUID="7151fae7-c6c7-4c92-a22a-660ef31704c1" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:40:29.343" UserId="114696" Text="Do you have an example? Or is this just hypothetical? I am willing to believe it does happen - but rarely. Is it worth worrying about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see anything rude or abusive about it. There's no promotion of anything so it isn't spam either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is gibberish but we have no idea what is intended by it. Assuming this is an answer, it could just be a placeholder awaiting a fuller post. Perhaps the poster already posted an answer, then decided it needs to be reconsidered, but fears deleting may prevent posting a new another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as answers go, such gibberish counts as &quot;not an answer&quot;. Or you could just ignore it and see what happens. It is surely not misleading anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24216" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="f96d2c37-0f71-444f-b238-a7d3312ad508" CreationDate="2016-11-24T10:32:33.983" UserId="24653" Comment="edited title" Text="Is the &quot;spam&quot; flag appropriate for gibberish posts, or is it reserved for promotional material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24217" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="553f267f-2a09-4df4-bcbd-7c14d0c3e500" CreationDate="2016-11-24T10:36:48.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/801736318371954688" />
  <row Id="24218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="9b856e41-faee-41c6-8503-8f0a84dc9070" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:46:40.157" UserId="121464" Text="I was going through the close review queue, I saw the question &#xD;&#xA;[Satellite is brought to the earth’s surface, it hits the earth with a velocity of 4 km/s - Determine the work done by friction [on hold]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294480/satellite-is-brought-to-the-earth-s-surface-it-hits-the-earth-with-a-velocity-o) and voted to close as homework. However, before doing so, I saw the close reason &quot;I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because '*Ive subtracted the values I got, but it says the answer is wrong*'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this an actual close reason? Would the person who posted that close reason explain their thinking, and/or someone explain if this type of more vague close reason is okay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="9b856e41-faee-41c6-8503-8f0a84dc9070" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:46:40.157" UserId="121464" Text="Misuse of custom close reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="9b856e41-faee-41c6-8503-8f0a84dc9070" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:46:40.157" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="a2200a0c-43db-4a98-8995-3563408ca838" CreationDate="2016-11-24T14:08:17.240" UserId="23473" Text="That person was, as you can see in the comments below the question, Alfred Centauri. He was apparently quoting a line from the question that must have, on its own, made the entire post seem close-worthy. I'd not call it a very professional thing to have done and would agree that closing it as homework would be the proper thing to do. My opinion would be that this type of thing is not really okay because it does not actually provide a non-listed but viable close reason, which is the whole point of the custom option. The OP has no feedback about why their post was not acceptable. And there existed another close reason that adequately covered the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, this isn't really good practice. At least, not according to Jim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="d9f7bbb3-1903-46b4-96a3-5bab9b278f47" CreationDate="2016-11-24T14:26:04.757" UserId="23473" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="That person was, as you can see in the comments below the question, Alfred Centauri. He was apparently quoting a line from one of the comments that must have, on its own, made the entire post seem close-worthy. I'd not call it a very professional thing to have done and would agree that closing it as homework would be the proper thing to do. My opinion would be that this type of thing is not really okay because it does not actually provide a non-listed but viable close reason, which is the whole point of the custom option. The OP has no feedback about why their post was not acceptable. And there existed another close reason that adequately covered the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, this isn't really good practice. At least, not according to Jim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9351" RevisionGUID="9b56c5c6-79a8-40bc-a314-de7cb2fdd53a" CreationDate="2016-11-24T19:15:06.080" UserId="114696" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Do you have an example? Or is this just hypothetical? I am willing to believe it does happen - but rarely. Is it worth worrying about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see anything rude or abusive about it. Surely if abuse is intended, something more obviously abusive would have been posted. There's no promotion of anything so it isn't spam either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is gibberish but we have no idea what is intended by it. Assuming this is an answer, it could just be a placeholder awaiting a fuller post. Perhaps the poster already posted an answer, then decided it needs to be reconsidered, but fears deleting may prevent posting another answer. We don't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as answers go, such gibberish counts as &quot;not an answer&quot; for which there is a flag reason. Or you could just ignore it and see what happens. It is surely not misleading anyone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="71484a95-602f-4035-b982-af65f7c4eae6" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:18:45.660" UserId="121464" Text="I've tried to enter both the mathematics and hbar chat rooms, but some weird stuff is happening. Here's what the site rooms page (when you click chat from the drop down stack exchange menu) looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what the hbar looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what the hbar transcript looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I restarted my computer; same problem. It was working a few hours ago, then I shut my computer and came back to it just now and it looked like this. I'm using a chromebook. What in the universe is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/phuhN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B8EfF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JSnTI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="71484a95-602f-4035-b982-af65f7c4eae6" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:18:45.660" UserId="121464" Text="Chat is showing up strangely" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="71484a95-602f-4035-b982-af65f7c4eae6" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:18:45.660" UserId="121464" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="85fec366-0b9e-406b-bdf8-83eee702d39d" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:25:33.967" UserId="121464" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="I've tried to enter both the mathematics and hbar chat rooms, but some weird stuff is happening. Here's what the site rooms page (when you click chat from the drop down stack exchange menu) looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what the hbar looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what the hbar transcript looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I restarted my computer; same problem. It was working a few hours ago, then I shut my computer and came back to it just now and it looked like this. I'm using a chromebook. I am at a coffee shop using their wifi, but I'm not sure why that would be a problem. What in the universe is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/phuhN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B8EfF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JSnTI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="5453d19f-c108-4fc0-9242-0069b4593009" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:34:00.393" UserId="121464" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="5be3e0ac-bec8-4d66-a82e-8dda1d32b78b" CreationDate="2016-11-25T22:38:40.347" UserId="44126" Text="This is the sort of thing that happens when a website's [HTML][1] loads but the [CSS][2] does not: you get the content, but presented with the default HTML style, which has a very 1997 look to it.  My wild guess is that the content and style information, perhaps also for the main site and the chat site, are all served from different machines, and for whatever reason your coffee shop internet is not able to reach the CSS server for the chat site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be plenty of people using the chat server this afternoon, which makes me suspect that the trouble is on your end.&#xD;&#xA;A check with mods from other sites doesn't raise any reports of problems.&#xD;&#xA;But I asked if there was any news of a problem on chat :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tentatively blame your coffee shop internet.  See if it's still weird when you get back to your usual configuration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="c58c9ba3-ec9e-414b-afaa-e0bcf9705813" CreationDate="2016-11-26T19:09:15.163" UserId="47511" Text="What most of us would probably not want to see happen is that in a decade or so this site has ceased to exist, that most of the content cannot be accessed anymore. To avoid this, we have to make sure that whatever we do here stays relevant, we need to adapt to new developments in society. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="e80aeb74-e1e8-400a-b4c5-5a6978dbb1cc" CreationDate="2016-11-28T00:33:08.713" UserDisplayName="user32229" Text="In the Badge reward section, what does it mean for the following badges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenacious: Zero score accepted answers: more than 5 and 20% of total  &#xD;&#xA;Unsung Hero:  Zero score accepted answers: more than 10 and 25% of total&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are **more than 5 and 20% of total,  more than 10 and 25% of total**???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="e80aeb74-e1e8-400a-b4c5-5a6978dbb1cc" CreationDate="2016-11-28T00:33:08.713" UserDisplayName="user32229" Text="Tenacious and Unsung Hero" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="e80aeb74-e1e8-400a-b4c5-5a6978dbb1cc" CreationDate="2016-11-28T00:33:08.713" UserDisplayName="user32229" Text="|discussion|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="5e157119-9856-43b6-af3a-00a4d8dad731" CreationDate="2016-11-28T00:39:21.733" UserId="520" Text="A &quot;zero score accepted&quot; answer is one the OP has awarded the green checkmark but has a net of zero votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thresholds are somewhat arbitrary, but they are designed to reward people who have a *lot* of such answers by comparison to their total pool of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mean that you have to have at least [5|10] such answers and those totals have to be at least [20|25]% of the total number of answers you have provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These badges are fairly rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="4a9fe0af-d998-4b13-8636-15b476dbe812" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:19:48.017" UserDisplayName="user32229" Text="When we see the number on the number count of views (such as 8K view) on a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that number counting based on the valid account or the valid IP address?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is based on the valid IP address, then it does not require a register account to count for the number of views?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="4a9fe0af-d998-4b13-8636-15b476dbe812" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:19:48.017" UserDisplayName="user32229" Text="The view count of a question: Counting on the valid account or the valid IP address" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="4a9fe0af-d998-4b13-8636-15b476dbe812" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:19:48.017" UserDisplayName="user32229" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="c746009d-ae33-4407-87a3-c7040ec2b895" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:19:51.983" UserId="50583" Comment="retag; removed superfluous question marks" Text="In the Badge section, what is meant by the following badges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tenacious: Zero score accepted answers: more than 5 and 20% of total  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Unsung Hero:  Zero score accepted answers: more than 10 and 25% of total&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are more than 5 and 20% of total, more than 10 and 25% of total?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="c746009d-ae33-4407-87a3-c7040ec2b895" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:19:51.983" UserId="50583" Comment="retag; removed superfluous question marks" Text="What exactly are the Tenacious and Unsung Hero badges awarded for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="c746009d-ae33-4407-87a3-c7040ec2b895" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:19:51.983" UserId="50583" Comment="retag; removed superfluous question marks" Text="|support|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24246" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="57a29600-aab9-4f55-9b3a-db34f582337f" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:20:24.983" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5405],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="fe9e8f26-58f9-4ea3-aa0e-af9a707ff042" CreationDate="2016-11-28T09:48:49.753" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="026d8226-e532-4b0e-abe2-e4697b0d78cc" CreationDate="2016-11-28T15:49:44.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="312a50dd-d6d0-44f7-98e0-320b9f24eb2c" CreationDate="2016-11-29T00:07:51.330" UserId="8563" Comment="Well, that was an embarrassing typo." Text="[![Digital Open Access Identifier - a DOI resolver that prioritizes open access][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cxWh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doai.io" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="49b0b9b7-ec22-4e81-a4eb-f66a435a9abd" CreationDate="2016-11-29T09:17:59.653" UserId="8563" Comment="Fixed I-period collision." Text="[![Digital Open Access Identifier - a DOI resolver that prioritizes open access][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ndeRs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doai.io" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24254" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="57cc8173-c268-42ee-8686-eb369450bf91" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:00:52.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="f5b24698-77a9-4298-ad97-6b7674d4a4e6" CreationDate="2016-11-29T18:47:29.510" UserId="117803" Text="I recently posted a question based on: &quot;spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation&quot; and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from rxiv.org a.k.a, [viXra.org](http://www.rxiv.org), and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone provide a list of sites which have reliable scientific knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="f5b24698-77a9-4298-ad97-6b7674d4a4e6" CreationDate="2016-11-29T18:47:29.510" UserId="117803" Text="Reliable sites for science research paper references" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="f5b24698-77a9-4298-ad97-6b7674d4a4e6" CreationDate="2016-11-29T18:47:29.510" UserId="117803" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="cef3539c-488b-4a02-84ff-84eb904a92fb" CreationDate="2016-11-29T19:11:54.103" UserId="117803" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I recently posted a question based on: &quot;spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation&quot; and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from rxiv.org a.k.a, [viXra.org](http://www.rxiv.org), and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone provide a list of sites which have reliable scientific knowledge, or rather that of the sites which are unreliable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24259" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="20bbbcfc-025e-4963-b3a0-d87c5407c577" CreationDate="2016-11-29T20:01:10.683" UserId="124" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24260" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="5a7011e4-b974-49f5-8040-2d7d7eb90745" CreationDate="2016-11-29T22:54:12.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/803733828997095424" />
  <row Id="24261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="0da3026c-8a3d-4e9c-96d5-e6ae6008db35" CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:57:14.610" UserId="8563" Text="Just to provide an update on this old thread: that type of question is not really on topic on this site any more; instead, **those questions should be asked on [Academia Stack Exchange](http://academia.stackexchange.com)**, which is a much better home and will tend to produce better answers. (Moreover, the rare cases that Academia SE is not well placed to answer some particular question can easily be handled on a case-by-case basis.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the questions mentioned in dmckee's answer may well be due for a historical lock at this point - they used to be OK, but if they were asked today they would be shipped straight to Academia SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="8abc31f3-d1e8-4c07-97af-f7fd145cc80c" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:57:14.340" UserId="117803" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="I recently posted a question based on: &quot;spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation&quot; and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from rxiv.org a.k.a, [viXra.org](http://www.rxiv.org), and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone provide a list of sites which have reliable scientific knowledge, or rather that of the sites which are unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the founder of viXra has to say- [click/touch here here](https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-serious-papers-on-viXra)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="71ec0320-18db-4b77-b5e4-1df96fde7cdf" CreationDate="2016-11-30T12:14:31.477" UserId="2451" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="I recently posted a Phys.SE [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/295580/2451) based on: &quot;spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation&quot; and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from [viXra.org](http://www.vixra.org), and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone provide a list of sites which have reliable scientific knowledge, or rather that of the sites which are unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the founder of viXra has to say- [click/touch here here](http://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-serious-papers-on-viXra)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="a7603363-4fd9-4e36-b27c-a72aadecda2b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T20:47:25.943" UserId="117803" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I recently posted a Phys.SE [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/295580/2451) based on: &quot;spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation&quot; and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from [viXra.org](http://www.vixra.org), and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone provide a list of acceptable(or unacceptable) sites which have reliable scientific papers, upon which questions can be based?&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the founder of viXra has to say- [click/touch here here](http://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-serious-papers-on-viXra)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24265" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="cf70f02c-feb6-4b8e-960d-685af11d6870" CreationDate="2016-12-01T04:07:58.680" UserId="520" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24266" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="cc8b8380-428b-4033-a981-d96834982281" CreationDate="2016-12-01T04:08:20.273" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24267" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="82a1609f-df5f-401d-ba86-122b6f2b4c4f" CreationDate="2016-12-01T17:50:56.003" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:117803,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Naveen Balaji&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:114696,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sammy gerbil&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9364" RevisionGUID="37715fa0-00d2-4936-ac66-55caacb59845" CreationDate="2016-12-01T17:54:14.597" UserId="124" Text="There is no site policy that makes it unacceptable to link to papers, or to ask questions based on papers, from any particular source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a short answer but that's really all there is to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that have higher or lower reputations in the research community, but meta is not the place to get into that. You could get a lot of information about it in chat, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="3402a574-64e0-49ea-92fd-946131588f26" CreationDate="2016-12-07T09:57:40.503" UserId="57983" Text="According to [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/57983/blaze) I have 14/5 for the Curious badge. So I have effectively 'earned' this badge almost 3 times over. So why haven't I received it yet? I have maintained a positive question record so what do I have to do to get this elusive badge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any chance a moderator could solve this issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="3402a574-64e0-49ea-92fd-946131588f26" CreationDate="2016-12-07T09:57:40.503" UserId="57983" Text="Is there some kind of bug preventing me from receiving the &quot;Curious&quot; badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="3402a574-64e0-49ea-92fd-946131588f26" CreationDate="2016-12-07T09:57:40.503" UserId="57983" Text="|support|feature-request|bug|badges|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24282" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="080ac3a7-f366-432f-ac08-fc353d16d604" CreationDate="2016-12-07T11:18:13.943" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|badges|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="f903ff45-da2a-4283-b092-7bb6f75e0360" CreationDate="2016-12-07T11:24:33.873" UserId="124" Text="If you click on the bronze bar, it shows that having a positive question record is the requirement you need to fulfull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of popup on profile][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full description of the requirements for the badge is available [on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions/67399#67399). It includes the requirement for a positive question record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A positive question record means you don't have too many closed, downvoted or deleted questions, overall. The formula is `(total questions - negative questions - closed - deleted)/total questions ≥ 0.5`. Questions that have been downvoted and closed and deleted count three times in this calculation!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking over your profile, I see that you have enough negative-score, closed, and/or deleted questions to make this statistic less than 0.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZdIzU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="c2bbc763-6bf5-4d27-aa1f-493896952909" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:29:12.560" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/57983/blaze) I have 14/5 for the Curious badge. So I have effectively 'earned' this badge almost 3 times over. So why haven't I received it yet? I have maintained a positive question record so what do I have to do to get this elusive badge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="c2bbc763-6bf5-4d27-aa1f-493896952909" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:29:12.560" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|status-bydesign|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="5dd6ed87-270b-4a12-8436-7ecdb932a224" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:49:24.393" UserId="114696" Text="**Proposal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When homework-and-exercises questions are voted *off topic* and put on hold then the OP should be directed to the Meta Question which offers a choice of alternative sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this proposal into effect, the notification box could be amended to read :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**put on hold** as off-topic by ...   &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. **If you cannot do so, recommendations for alternative sites are given in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note:* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally I had thought of re-directing the OP to the offshoot site [Physics Problems Q&amp;A](http://physics.qandaexchange.com/?qa=questions) set up by heather and Mew, but this might give the impression of official approval of that site by the Stack Exchange community. See :  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site/9321#9321  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7299/ethics-redirecting-homework-solution-seeking-questions-to-a-website-built-for/7300#7300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most questions in this category are asking specifically for help in solving problems. Typically they include &quot;Is this correct?&quot;, &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot;, &quot;How do I start?&quot; or &quot;What should I do next?&quot; It is far from easy to turn such difficulties into a question of a conceptual nature which would be *on topic* here, whereas the question as it stands would probably be *on topic* at sites specifically set up for help with homework or problem-solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a homework question is closed, the OP often either (i) asks for a recommendation of a website where the question might be suitable, or (ii) asks how the question can be edited to make it *on topic*, or (iii) argues that the question is **not** actually *off topic*. In the latter case the OP leaves the site having had a bad experience. Recommending where to get an answer will save effort in dealing with these 3 issues and increase the chances of the OP having a satisfactory experience of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please up-vote my question if you approve of my suggestion and would like to see it implemented, or down-vote if you disapprove.** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="5dd6ed87-270b-4a12-8436-7ecdb932a224" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:49:24.393" UserId="114696" Text="redirecting off-topic homework-and-exercises questions to appropriate sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="5dd6ed87-270b-4a12-8436-7ecdb932a224" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:49:24.393" UserId="114696" Text="|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="8265c656-5522-46e0-a738-6d8b20cf1e7d" CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:37:46.880" UserId="124" Text="For now, it would probably make sense to link to the list of alternate sites in the [homework policy](/q/714). (Actually, I thought that link was already there, but now that I look it's only in a comment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we develop new close reasons to replace the current &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason, we can consider incorporating the link directly into those close reasons. However, we don't have the ability to customize the close reason in the way you're suggesting. The only part we get to write is the middle paragraph,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="c146666e-0817-4b22-b8b6-70712288b818" CreationDate="2016-12-08T14:46:42.187" UserId="8563" Comment="added 404 characters in body" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="3ba1172a-4fe9-4ce2-8a5b-df325b4508ad" CreationDate="2016-12-08T15:34:08.003" UserId="8563" Text="I have added the following paragraph to the [existing homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; internet site where my question might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on-topic?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to refine the language further if you want to. It's currently at the end but, to be honest, I don't see a clearer place further up where it could go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of changing the close reason, I don't think that that's really feasible. That middle paragraph is the only thing we can access, and it has some pretty strict length restrictions. It is currently highly optimized and you cannot add stuff without taking stuff that's already there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't say any more about this eternal bone of contention, but let me assure you that I do understand where you're coming from - it's just for some reason a much more difficult problem to get movement on than we thought.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="5396c2af-47af-4120-919c-177a61f0178c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T18:45:05.533" UserId="1492" Text="I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. A random searcher will not know the rules of the site  and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot;  and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297729/can-a-photon-that-is-emitted-from-a-denser-part-of-the-universe-to-a-less-dense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="5396c2af-47af-4120-919c-177a61f0178c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T18:45:05.533" UserId="1492" Text="chosen answers with many negative votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="5396c2af-47af-4120-919c-177a61f0178c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T18:45:05.533" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24304" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="a246cae6-cc22-45a1-819e-06e684815885" CreationDate="2016-12-10T19:12:25.570" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Chosen answers with many negative votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="a246cae6-cc22-45a1-819e-06e684815885" CreationDate="2016-12-10T19:12:25.570" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|down-votes|voting|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="a246cae6-cc22-45a1-819e-06e684815885" CreationDate="2016-12-10T19:12:25.570" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. A random searcher will not know the rules of the site  and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot;  and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="b6107b08-d425-465f-9a7a-cd128014621f" CreationDate="2016-12-10T19:14:47.277" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|voting|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="a561dcec-b2b3-4b5a-bae2-8f050b06432c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T19:16:02.217" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited tags" Text="It's really frustrating to have -1 and -3 voted answers sit on top of a +99 voted answer. ([this question][1]).&#xD;&#xA;Please provide individual users the option to automatically arrange answers according to number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24309" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="a561dcec-b2b3-4b5a-bae2-8f050b06432c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T19:16:02.217" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|accepted-answer|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="fe1596f7-4dab-4d75-bc7e-9b9ff50e95b7" CreationDate="2016-12-11T06:56:30.423" UserId="1325" Text="Part of the problem is that we are not always sympathetic to questions from the less experienced physics fans. In this case the question had attracted two downvotes and no answers by the time I added my rather brief answer. So it's no surprise that when someone took time to write a detailed and apparently considered answer that answer would impress the OP enough to be accepted even though it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to see this happen the solution is to take the trouble to write a detailed, correct, and most importantly a sympathetic answer. I appreciate there can be various reasons why people don't feel motivated to do this, but if you won't put in the required effort you shouldn't be complaining about the outcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="7916241c-9eae-4581-bf44-22e8e3c97aec" CreationDate="2016-12-11T07:38:18.647" UserId="1325" Comment="Mellow out" Text="Part of the problem is that we are not always sympathetic to questions from the less experienced physics fans. In this case the question had attracted two downvotes and no answers by the time I added my rather brief answer. So it's no surprise that when someone took time to write a detailed and apparently considered answer that answer would impress the OP enough to be accepted even though it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we don't want to see this happen the solution is that we collectively have to take the trouble to write a detailed, correct, and most importantly a sympathetic answer. I appreciate there can be various reasons why people don't feel motivated to do this, but if we don't put in the required effort we can't complain about the outcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="75db4713-c46c-4a1d-867e-9773e72ada5a" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:28:46.723" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're bothered by an answer that's &quot;evidently&quot; wrong, you should make some comment to say why it's wrong. Better still you should provide an answer of your own which is correct, and clearly contrary to the answer you think is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the rules. And how do you know that the chosen answer is incorrect? Because it has a lot of negative votes? Judging answers by votes rather than by evidence and references is the mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A random searcher will not know the rules of the site and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot; and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A random searcher can soon find out the rules of the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's calling for censorship. I am opposed to that, especially when it's performed by people who get the physics wrong, and they're censoring Einstein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is the correct answer, and yet it has six downvotes. If you'd like to explain why it's incorrect, I'd be only too glad to hear it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="bea180be-e967-4560-b361-e7e71594a813" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:34:17.503" UserId="76162" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="&gt; I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're bothered by an answer that's &quot;evidently&quot; wrong, you should make some comment to say why it's wrong. Better still you should provide an answer of your own which is correct, and clearly contrary to the answer you think is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the rules. And how do you know that the chosen answer is incorrect? Because it has a lot of negative votes? Judging answers by votes rather than by evidence and references is the mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A random searcher will not know the rules of the site and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot; and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A random searcher can soon find out the rules of the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's calling for censorship. I am opposed to that, especially when it's performed by people who get the physics wrong, and they're censoring Einstein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is the correct answer, and yet it has six downvotes. I note  your comment _&quot;it is interesting that the OP unpicked the answer after this discussion&quot;_. Yes it is. If you'd like to explain why it's incorrect, I'd be only too glad to hear it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="e03b4740-5af0-42a9-bf6a-a39a69f85c0d" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:39:38.833" UserId="76162" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="&gt; I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're bothered by an answer that's &quot;evidently&quot; wrong, you should make some comment to say why it's wrong. Better still you should provide an answer of your own which is correct, and clearly contrary to the answer you think is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the rules. And how do you know that the chosen answer is incorrect? Because it has a lot of negative votes? Judging answers by votes rather than by evidence and references is the mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A random searcher will not know the rules of the site and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot; and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A random searcher can soon find out the rules of the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's calling for censorship. I am opposed to that, especially when it's performed by people who get the physics wrong, and they're censoring Einstein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is the correct answer, and yet it has six downvotes. I note  your comment _&quot;it is interesting that the OP unpicked the answer after this discussion&quot;_. Yes it is. If you'd like to try to explain why it's incorrect, I'd be only too glad to hear it. Ditto for anybody else. An objective of the site is to be a repository of good physics answers. But I'm afraid all too often what you _think_ is a good physics answers is _wrong_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24316" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="55c722b2-ac38-4c27-a75e-b1375c4cd801" CreationDate="2016-12-13T02:58:44.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/808506410216620032" />
  <row Id="24317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="e927a2c9-62bb-4cd1-b930-57bd5bbd8e75" CreationDate="2016-12-13T20:02:41.033" UserId="76162" Text="I'm concerned at Meta posts such as [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9374/chosen-answers-with-many-negative-votes?cb=1). That's where a poster claims that an answer to a physics question is _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_ when it isn't. Indeed [the answer concerned (mine)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/297857/76162) refers to the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/401?highlightText=frequency#/vol6-trans/401?ajax) to support its case: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated&quot;._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer now has 10 downvotes, but there are no comments explaining why it's _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_. Nor are there any other answers which would inform the reader as to why it's evidently wrong. That's because it isn't, because Einstein was correct. Since one of the aims of physics stack exchange is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, a large number of negative votes for a correct answer makes an absolute mockery of the site. A random searcher will assume the negative votes mean the answer is most definitely incorrect, and will assume other answers with a large number of upvotes are correct, even when they're definitely wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've felt this has been a problem for physics stack exchange for some time. I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes. It's as if we have some posters who firmly believe that _what they think_ is correct, regardless of any lack of references or references to the contrary. They then come out with statements to the effect that _this is the mainstream view_ when actually it's a popscience view based on a rather peculiar mixture of arrogance and ignorance. It surely cannot be good to give free rein to people who don't understand say relativity and allow them to conspire to downvote and demerit or even censor correct answers, then bully posters into removing acceptance flags whilst refusing to address the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some moderation would be reasonable to address this? I see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, and I think that this issue is the reason why, not the many questions from non-experts. Another solution might be to make a list of discrepancies or contested answers and actively discuss them to flush out the issue of what's right and wrong. Without any action, I fear physics stack exchange is in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation. What to do? Your answers please. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done. Science is not a democracy, all the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right and vice versa. Perhaps the stack exchange model is simply not suitable for science.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="e927a2c9-62bb-4cd1-b930-57bd5bbd8e75" CreationDate="2016-12-13T20:02:41.033" UserId="76162" Text="How can we combat arrogance and ignorance on physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="e927a2c9-62bb-4cd1-b930-57bd5bbd8e75" CreationDate="2016-12-13T20:02:41.033" UserId="76162" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9378" RevisionGUID="e90b7572-5c11-40af-a4d8-b69b826ed53a" CreationDate="2016-12-13T21:25:45.763" UserId="118847" Text="First of all, there are always multiple reasons for downvotes. Your answer begins with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm not quite clear what you're asking  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not downvote your answer, but to me, an answer from someone who's not sure of the question might in general be downvoted because I think it's a bad starting point to answer a question. Further, referencing some paper in a peer reviewed journal does not make the claim true. There has been wrong stuff published in peer reviewed journals by good scientists and we all know it. This cannot be the only criterion for scientific correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the record, I want to state that I have no background in GR and absolutely cannot comment on the *physics* of the question involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But deviating from your example, which as you said, is just an example and not the main issue: Would it be a problem if people without the necessary understanding of the physics involved kept on upvoting the wrong answers? Absolutely, yes. I do not want to deny that this does happen - wrong answers or answers without the adequate rigor or bad answers getting accepted and voted up while better answers stay unread, things like that. The question is - is it a widespread problem on this website? And to me, and I think to most of the users of the website, it does not seem like it - a small nuisance at most, probably not even that in most cases. I do assume that because I have not heard it brought up often. Therefore, what you will need to do is to provide us with examples to convince us of the issue. For the broader audience, it would probably help if they are a bit more accessible than general relativity (or does the phenomenom maybe only take place in that area?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="b2391de9-6436-40b5-b3a5-fe0bd032c5cd" CreationDate="2016-12-14T22:50:50.003" UserId="84488" Text="In the specific case at hand there are indeed comments on your answer, as well as there are other answers that are somehow more complete and address all the corner points of the question (maybe not all, but more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would expect from an answer to a question in physic would be at least a minimum amount of calculus to support the claims in the framework where the question takes place; that seems to be lacking for that specific case, as well as for some other links to answers of yours that you have provided. On the other hand, instead, it seems that your argument is to always take only one principium primum (conservation of the energy for instance) and blindly apply it with little to no context: especially for areas like quantum mechanics or general relativity, that are indeed quite complicated from the mathematical point of view, one has to be careful to all details, to the integrations paths, to the convergence of the integrals, to the self-adjointness of the operators and the like, otherwise the application of the principle itself makes no sense. In general relativity this often leads to wrong conclusions and I suppose this is what is meant by *&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;*. Those conclusions lack the precision of the details and as such are misleading and should be downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover the idea of providing this one reference of this one author or citing this one very famous physicist is a wrong approach to the scientific method. Something is either correct or not, no matter who the person is to claim it. Einstein has marvelously contributed to modern physics, but he is no better to be considered than any other physicist who do their job on a daily basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the second part of your concern&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly agree that the peer review on this exchange is not the best and we regularly have mediocre answers with too many upvotes. Perhaps the entire idea of accepting an answer does not really work on physics, as in most cases the original poster knows little no nothing to distinguish the good from the evil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="ca9f0532-1623-4923-b052-3380bf34eb16" CreationDate="2016-12-15T00:14:27.043" UserId="84488" Comment="edited body" Text="In the specific case at hand there are indeed comments on your answer, as well as there are other answers that are somehow more complete and address all the corner points of the question (maybe not all, but more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would expect from an answer to a question in physic would be at least a minimum amount of calculus to support the claims in the framework where the question takes place; that seems to be lacking for that specific case, as well as for some other links to answers of yours that you have provided. On the other hand, instead, it seems that your argument is to always take only one principium primum (conservation of the energy for instance) and blindly apply it with little to no context: especially for areas like quantum mechanics or general relativity, that are indeed quite complicated from the mathematical point of view, one has to be careful to all details, to the integrations paths, to the convergence of the integrals, to the self-adjointness of the operators and the like, otherwise the application of the principle itself makes no sense. In general relativity this often leads to wrong conclusions and I suppose this is what is meant by *&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;*. Those conclusions lack the precision of the details and as such are misleading and should be downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover the idea of providing this one reference of this one author or citing this one very famous physicist is a wrong approach to the scientific method. Something is either correct or not, no matter who the person is to claim it. Einstein has marvelously contributed to modern physics, but he is no better to be considered than any other physicist who do their job on a daily basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the second part of your concern&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly agree that the peer review on this exchange is not the best and we regularly have mediocre answers with too many upvotes. Perhaps the entire idea of accepting an answer does not really work on physics, as in most cases the original poster knows little to nothing to distinguish the good from the evil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="5905f8fd-d88f-4bcf-b13d-886712311e0a" CreationDate="2016-12-15T06:22:31.970" UserId="114696" Text="The answer which is &quot;accepted&quot; by the OP is merely that - the answer which the OP most approves of at the time. It is not intended to be the &quot;best answer&quot; and there is no guarantee that it is even &quot;correct&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that a random searcher might wrongly assume the &quot;accepted&quot; answer is &quot;correct.&quot; But that is a fault in the *presentation* of the feature rather than its *operation* - how it appears rather than what it is intended to do. And no sane visitor would think an answer &quot;correct&quot; if it has overwhelming down-votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Help Centre explains :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accepting an answer ... simply means that the author received **an answer that worked for him or her personally**. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of the site allow the OP complete freedom in choosing which answer to &quot;accept&quot; - even an answer which is &quot;obviously&quot; incorrect. Probably the choice in this case was intended to be a deliberate &quot;poke in the eye&quot; to those who criticised the question. However, any interference with this choice by a Moderator could only be done if there was an abuse of the system, and even then could only remove the check and not give it on another answer. I agree with John Duffield that such a practice would stray into censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing an &quot;accepted answer&quot; to ensure that it is the &quot;best answer&quot; would be altering the central purpose of the feature, and it would be fraught with difficulties. If the &quot;best answer&quot; is the one with the most upvotes the feature would be redundant. If it is the choice of some other user or group of users, then who exactly will have this privilege?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large number of upvotes is no guarantee that the answer is &quot;best&quot; or even correct. As with questions, it is only an indication of popularity. Votes for answers only indicate whether or not they are &quot;useful&quot;. This is explained in the Help Centre :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Why is voting important?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting is central to our model of providing quality questions and answers; it is how ...good content rises to the top...incorrect content falls to the bottom...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting up a question or answer signals to the rest of the community that a post is **interesting, well-researched, and useful**, while voting down a post signals the opposite: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information. The more that people vote on a post, the more certain future visitors can be of the quality of information contained within that post...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the two Johns that poor or incorrect content should be highlighted by :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. down-voting&#xD;&#xA;2. commenting&#xD;&#xA;3. posting a correct answer which others can up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*******************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Meta questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6867/  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="91457ec7-f1b5-43d0-ae5d-617ebfba90fb" CreationDate="2016-12-15T06:31:40.770" UserId="114696" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="The answer which is &quot;accepted&quot; by the OP is merely that - the answer which the OP most approves of at the time. It is not intended to be the &quot;best answer&quot; and there is no guarantee that it is even &quot;correct&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that a random searcher might wrongly assume the &quot;accepted&quot; answer is &quot;correct.&quot; But that is a fault in the *presentation* of the feature rather than its *operation* - how it appears rather than what it is intended to do. *(Perhaps the green tick needs to be replaced by something less evocative of official approval - a smiley face?)* And no sane visitor would think an answer &quot;correct&quot; if it has overwhelming down-votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Help Centre explains :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accepting an answer ... simply means that the author received **an answer that worked for him or her personally**. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of the site allow the OP complete freedom in choosing which answer to &quot;accept&quot; - even an answer which is &quot;obviously&quot; incorrect. Probably the choice in this case was intended to be a deliberate &quot;poke in the eye&quot; to those who criticised the question. However, any interference with this choice by a Moderator could only be done if there was an abuse of the system, and even then could only remove the green tick and not award it to another answer. I agree with John Duffield that such a practice would stray into censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing an &quot;accepted answer&quot; to ensure that it is the &quot;best answer&quot; would be altering the central purpose of the feature, and it would be fraught with difficulties. If the &quot;best answer&quot; is the one with the most upvotes the feature would be redundant. If it is the choice of some other user or group of users, then who exactly will have this privilege?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large number of upvotes is no guarantee that the answer is &quot;best&quot; or even correct. As with questions, it is only an indication of popularity. Votes for answers only indicate whether or not they are &quot;useful&quot;. This is explained in the Help Centre :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Why is voting important?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting is central to our model of providing quality questions and answers; it is how ...good content rises to the top...incorrect content falls to the bottom...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting up a question or answer signals to the rest of the community that a post is **interesting, well-researched, and useful**, while voting down a post signals the opposite: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information. The more that people vote on a post, the more certain future visitors can be of the quality of information contained within that post...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the two Johns that poor or incorrect content should be highlighted by :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. down-voting&#xD;&#xA;2. commenting&#xD;&#xA;3. posting a correct answer which others can up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*******************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Meta questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6867/  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24331" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="4eb6f7b0-820d-4101-ac32-67ef755a4022" CreationDate="2016-12-15T19:19:37.710" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:38675,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jon Custer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="193c0025-1a82-41e6-8fd2-ebc11777736c" CreationDate="2016-12-16T11:28:48.403" UserId="5913" Text="I see sometimes that some interesting questions that appear on the site have already been asked in the past and are flagged as duplicates. I thought it could be interesting to have a collection of the most asked, important and/or well-answered questions. It's still a vague idea, also because I don't know completely the dynamics of the site, but I think it could be interesting to have an easy-to-browse encyclopedia, yet at the same time different from the wikipedia style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="193c0025-1a82-41e6-8fd2-ebc11777736c" CreationDate="2016-12-16T11:28:48.403" UserId="5913" Text="Encyclopedia of the best questions and answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="193c0025-1a82-41e6-8fd2-ebc11777736c" CreationDate="2016-12-16T11:28:48.403" UserId="5913" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9383" RevisionGUID="ec89d192-b115-4f96-9fae-7f9a9b282ebc" CreationDate="2016-12-16T11:53:15.510" UserId="1325" Text="The question of how to decide what is right and wrong in science is a vexed one and always has been. The current approach is peer review, but of course the problem is how to select the peers. Eminent scientists have been wrong in the past and will be wrong again, so ultimately no-one’s judgement can be trusted without reservation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the academic publishing world the editors of journals will select reviewers who have at least proved they can satisfy a PhD panel that they have a reasonable grasp of the subject, and preferably have a track record of well cited publications. This doesn’t mean the reviewers will necessarily be correct in their judgement, but it means they are more likely to be right more of the time than people less qualified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that no review is utterly reliable, but we expect that most reviews will be mostly reliable most of the time, and this is probably the best we can hope for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between an academic journal and this site is that here the peers are self selected. Anyone can join the site and (subject to some very low reputation requirements) vote and comment on content. This makes the votes (up and down) a less reliable method of peer review than traditional academic peer review. The various deficiencies of the voting system have been mentioned in other answers so I won’t go into them here. In any case I want to make a different point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The best form of vote is to post an answer yourself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vote takes only a second to post. A comment takes a bit longer, but comments are short and there is a temptation is to be cavalier in comments because they can’t be downvoted and they can be deleted without trace in case of embarrassing blunders. But an answer takes time and effort to write, and by posting it you are publicly exposing yourself to the judgement of the site users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when a site member posts an answer contradicting some other answer that is the most effective form of peer review - far more effective than just clicking the up or downvote buttons. This is my own personal stance. If I disagree with an answer to the extent that I want to downvote it I will look to see if there is a better answer, and if there is no better answer I will post one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When competing answers exist this makes it far easier to judge their relative merits. What matters is not the absolute values of the votes received but the comparison between the votes on the two or more answers. The voting process is still subject to the sort of statistical scatter described in other answers, but to that scatter will affect all answers and to some extent even itself out. There is a further statistical averaging by looking at multiple cases where members of the site have posted contradictory answers. And of course site members can look at the profiles of the answerers to judge how well respected they are in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of all this is that I content that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the voting system is (about) as good as it can be under the circumstances&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. the way votes are used on competing answers is a good way to judge posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. the PSE is not *in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="b355279c-658c-43ff-8216-90350002723c" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:49:06.903" UserId="23473" Text="Well, first of all, I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to get involved with the topic that is the root of the rant-like part of your question. That there is what we call a &quot;no win&quot; scenario. I'm not touching it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let me, instead, address what is the face of your question. Namely, how to combat arrogance and ignorance on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrogance is defined as having or displaying an undeserved amount of pride in oneself. Acting like you're smarter, faster, stronger, or a better air guitar player than most would agree that you actually are. To some extent, this means that most people you come across will have some degree of arrogance about them. It's only natural that people tend to see themselves in a more positive light than others do. It's true, in this medium, the most common form of arrogance you will encounter is people who sees themselves as much smarter than any empirical evidence would support; this can sometimes be a big problem. I do not mean to say that it is a big problem for us when one person is being arrogant; I mean you will find a large number of people around here who are arrogant in this way (myself included. But I'm the almighty Jim, so my undeserved sense of self pride is completely deserved). This manifests itself in many ways. You will find those that stick to their initial beliefs about a topic, regardless of what references say. You will also find those who stick to what their favourite references say, regardless of what the actual mathematics (which trumps any reference like it was a presidential election (I hate that Donald has ruined the word &quot;trump&quot; for me (Yes! An aside within an aside within an aside. Inception!))) or even more modern references (which have the advantage of hindsight over some of the older, big-name references) might say. The problem that is most likely going to be debated in the comments below until I no longer care about this discussion for the exact same reasons as what I'm going to describe later on is this. That sentence makes sense. That is not the problem; I'm just saying that previous sentence actually makes sense. Go ahead, read it through again, I'll wait. The problem is that there is no universally true indicator for when you are being arrogant. I could say that any time it seems like pretty much everybody is against you and you aren't changing your opinion because you see yourself as right while everyone else is wrong, then you're being arrogant. While I consider that a true statement, it doesn't change the fact that there are times in history where everyone has been wrong except for one person and it's nearly impossible to tell if the loner fighter is actually correct. That said, they're still arrogant because they see themself as smarter, or more logical, than everyone else, which I guarantee you is not a true about anyone on Earth. However, it's tough to self-identify when you are being stubborn out of pure arrogance or because you are actually right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, it's exceptionally tough for a group of people to overcome the collective arrogance of &quot;We're right because there's more of us&quot;. What? No. That's really not the way it works. Statistically, you have higher odds of including the correct answer or noticing a mistake in a larger group of people, but that doesn't make it necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, so both sides of any deadlock are probably being arrogant, but both can't be right (both CAN be wrong). True, here's a few possible ways to deal with arrogance: 1) Accept that they're arrogant and work around it. We all have faults, forgive them and be patient. 2) If you can't get past it in a professional manner, just back off and avoid engaging them on that subject. That might mean that occasionally you have to go &quot;I'm not going to argue about this&quot; and let them think they've won, but you can keep giving your reasoning and conclusions when asked for them. 3) If it's a common cause for disagreement and you have to work through the issue to coexist, try arguing with yourself. Take on their point of view (you need to understand what it is first) and argue with yourself against your own point of view (here's the important part) *using their style of arguments*. If they are using math, you have to use math to argue their points. If you end up at a point where you're pretending to argue their side with &quot;It is right because I say so, even though your reference says otherwise&quot;, then you're doing it wrong. You're being arrogant there and failing to be open-minded to another's perspective. Don't feel bad, we all do that every day of our lives. If you can reach a point where you make good arguments for them, then you know how to argue against them. Use that, because nothing combats stubborn arrogance like using their own arguments against them. An arrogant person can't argue with themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for ignorance (right? That last part took a while). Ignorance is the choice (conscious or subconscious, either one) to ignore facts. If people are going to be ignorant, there's one easy solution: ignore them. If it's the entire community, then you're in the wrong place and you need to &quot;get the hell outta dodge&quot;. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now serving number 286." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="1cd82034-2ed8-46b0-b0d4-2984d1916060" CreationDate="2016-12-16T15:40:50.213" UserId="133159" Text="I think the &quot; Informed &quot; Badge must not be given so easily .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before giving the informed badge , newcomers should not only be briefed about basic rules and regulations of Physics SE , but also :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Be given more information about the system of badges and reputation .&#xD;&#xA;2. Be given a short article on using Mathjax and Latex .&#xD;&#xA;( I have seen many newcomers not being aware of these things )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="1cd82034-2ed8-46b0-b0d4-2984d1916060" CreationDate="2016-12-16T15:40:50.213" UserId="133159" Text="Awarding Informed Badge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="1cd82034-2ed8-46b0-b0d4-2984d1916060" CreationDate="2016-12-16T15:40:50.213" UserId="133159" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9386" RevisionGUID="5ce68ac4-f6c6-4968-91c8-af6f7847fcd2" CreationDate="2016-12-16T15:51:07.307" UserId="8563" Text="You mean kinda like [FAQ questions (on the main site)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4653/8563)? That's an old effort, though, and I would argue that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There are already plenty of automated solutions, including the ability to sort by `votes` and by `frequent` on the main page and on specific searches. These automated solutions go a long way for e.g. finding that duplicate that probably exists. My impression is that search-then-filter-then-sort-then browse is an underused way to find content on this site, and it's a lot more powerful than we give it credit for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To go beyond that, you'd need a curated list, and we don't really have the volunteering capacity to keep such a curated list up to date. (However, if we suddenly get five people jumping at the chance, then go for it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. More than that, curated lists have the problem that they're pretty subjective, and if you're relying on the list to be an indicator of things like &quot;good&quot; or &quot;interesting&quot; questions, then making it depend on someone's subjective judgement is not, I think, a direction this site should be taking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if people want to jump on the old thread I linked to above and keep it up to date, there's nothing really stopping them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="7c73dbb6-5bbf-4306-b8de-e51590dbec39" CreationDate="2016-12-16T15:58:19.300" UserId="8563" Comment="Added link." Text="I think the [Informed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/121/informed) Badge must not be given so easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before giving the informed badge, newcomers should not only be briefed about basic rules and regulations of Physics SE , but also :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Be given more information about the system of badges and reputation.&#xD;&#xA;2. Be given a short article on using Mathjax and Latex.&#xD;&#xA;( I have seen many newcomers not being aware of these things )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="fc0ce480-8908-4ce9-b3f0-627ae20159b7" CreationDate="2016-12-16T16:04:35.217" UserId="8563" Text="We have very little control over this. Physics Stack Exchange is part of a network of [160+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). All the sites share a common engine, so it *is* possible to request and obtain site-specific changes to the common behaviour, but they need to be very well justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to request changes to the engine is at the overarching meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), where it is easier to get the attention of the community team and the developers. Our meta site is better for issues specific to this site and its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I don't think it's particularly problematic. The entry-level badges are awarded easily as an incentive for new users to explore the site's features, by adding some fake internet sugar on top. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the MathJax side, though, you're right, but that's not quite the right approach - I advocated [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial) earlier but it's not yet implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="78f81de0-f952-4a56-84ca-51db56ad5c28" CreationDate="2016-12-16T16:16:55.463" UserId="8563" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="The Ask a Question page shown to new users contains a lot of guidance, including a link to MathJax help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are [strong UI reasons why this link is nowhere near as useful as we'd hope](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/), but we can at least make it point to something that's actually useful. It currently points to [this tutorial](http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/), which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GPta1.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which is nowhere near a useful resource. Despite the claims in a [recent attempt](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9133/) to duplicate a bunch of work and create a local tutorial of limited usefulness, we do in fact have a long-standing go-to tutorial for MathJax, over on the Mathematics meta site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HDjiu.png)](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent link over on Maths.SE links to their tutorial. Since we're already linking off-site for this, why don't we also link to theirs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a fair amount of support. Is it something the mods can change? Do we need to contact the community team? Have already done so? If so, have said whether it's feasible or not?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="b80b5241-3d7c-459d-8bb7-d891ba71f042" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:12:14.843" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="4aa33561-f6a4-438e-829c-5d7ec60b57fe" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:34:31.853" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="cfd73161-7f37-44f2-a99b-17e022d6e6f6" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:42:35.573" UserId="8563" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="We have very little control over this. Physics Stack Exchange is part of a network of [160+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). All the sites share a common engine, so it *is* possible to request and obtain site-specific changes to the common behaviour, but they need to be very well justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to request changes to the engine is at the overarching meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), where it is easier to get the attention of the community team and the developers. Our meta site is better for issues specific to this site and its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I don't think it's particularly problematic. The entry-level badges are awarded easily as an incentive for new users to explore the site's features, by adding some fake internet sugar on top. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the MathJax side, though, you're right, but that's not quite the right approach - I advocated [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial) earlier &lt;s&gt;but it's not yet implemented&lt;/s&gt; and it just went live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="16157abd-9cd8-4c11-b6b2-d920be8a6f3b" CreationDate="2016-12-16T22:04:13.940" UserId="1325" Text="I’m going to post this as a separate answer because it’s not a direct answer to the question. However I think, or at least I hope, it addresses the underlying problem that has led to your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The crux of the matter is that the theory of relativity taught to today’s physics students is not the same as the theory that Einstein developed in 1915. Yes the core principles are the same, but in many ways the theory has been changed to the point where Einstein would hardly recognise it. Ironically the main developments happened at around the time Einstein died, i.e. starting in the mid fifties, so he never saw them and whether he would have approved or not we can never know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally there is a nice article on this subject on the [web site of the Max Planck Institute]( https://www.mpg.de/dossier/einstein/relativity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the physicists answering questions today have been taught modern relativity and not the 1915 theory. Your position seems to be that the 1915 theory is sacrosanct and that any answer that deviates from it is wrong. Well, you’re entitled to your opinion but no-one taught modern relativity is going to agree with you, and when you post answers that contradict what modern students have been taught those answers are going to be downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your going in point in this question is that Anna V was *arrogant and ignorant* (your words) to post a question here stating that an answer of yours was *evidently wrong* (her words). I agree that Anna could have chosen her words more sensitively, but the fact of the matter is that your answer does not accord with modern relativity while the competing answers from me and Rob Jeffries do. The result is that everyone taught from a modern textbook (i.e. everyone) downvoted your answer and upvoted my and Rob’s answers, and this is a pattern we’ve seen consistently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not going to say who is right and who is wrong because I don’t think that’s particularly useful. What I will say is that your steadfast conviction in the 1915 theory places you in a minority of one, with the consequences that brings. We can proceed on that basis, but it will inevitably mean your answers are consistently downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How you wish to take this forward I will leave to you, but relativity has changed to make it more powerful and easier to learn and use, and no-one taught modern relativity is going to go back to the 1915 theory. However you personally may feel about this that is the way things are and they are not going to change.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24350" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="39528a7e-1813-4498-8729-4c6f7f773ced" CreationDate="2016-12-17T01:02:19.490" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|support|duplicates|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="a1e3ef5f-f2ea-4263-bb28-60b53d20d545" CreationDate="2016-12-17T02:25:07.423" UserId="121464" Text="Oh, the agony of questions like these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrogance, meh. Physicists should be a bit arrogant, they've certainly worked through enough degrees and years of maddening &quot;when will I ever get my PhD?&quot; craziness that, while it does sound incredibly fun, I think gives permission for a tad bit of arrogance. Besides, everyone knows that physicists are the best (at least according to xkcd&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein is rolling over in his grave&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; right now. How do I know this? I don't. But please, don't use his name as a banner of righteousness, because it's not. Einstein was, in fact, wrong&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; *(::gasps::)*. Besides, as Sir John Rennie's answer so nobly points out, general relativity circa 2016 is not the same as general relativity circa 1905. I know that it is shocking that science *advances* but, you know, it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've kind of fulfilled my sarcasm quota for the day (yes, this was sarcasm. shocking, I know) so I'll end this now. Except for footnotes, because everyone loves footnotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [![fields by purity][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Well, actually, he was cremated, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; For instance, he initially rejected the Big Bang, fudged out the cosmological constant...great (wo)men make mistakes too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is truly bothered by this admittedly very sarcastic (eh, probably overly sarcastic) answer, do let me know and I can remove it. This was merely to point out the comedic aspect of this question and its answers, and hopefully to make you grin at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jTkLl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="18187bc2-2507-482d-a726-86908d3325bd" CreationDate="2016-12-17T14:33:16.873" UserId="121464" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="Oh, the agony of questions like these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrogance, meh. Physicists should be a bit arrogant, they've certainly worked through enough degrees and years of maddening &quot;when will I ever get my PhD?&quot; craziness that, while it does sound incredibly fun, I think gives permission for a tad bit of arrogance. Besides, everyone knows that physicists are the best (at least according to xkcd&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein is rolling over in his grave&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; right now. How do I know this? I don't. But please, don't use his name as a banner of righteousness, because it's not. Einstein was, in fact, wrong&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; *(::gasps::)*. Besides, as Sir John Rennie's answer so nobly points out, general relativity circa 2016 is not the same as general relativity circa 1905. I know that it is shocking that science *advances* but, you know, it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've kind of fulfilled my sarcasm quota for the day (yes, this was sarcasm. shocking, I know) so I'll end this now. Except for footnotes, because everyone loves footnotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [![fields by purity][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Well, actually, he was cremated, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; For instance, he initially rejected the Big Bang, fudged out the cosmological constant...great (wo)men make mistakes too.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Yeah! Footnote in a footnote! Anyway, as Kyle Kanos points out, the cosmological constant was added back in, but Einstein made the mistake originally (and called it one of the biggest blunders in his life). Just to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is truly bothered by this admittedly very sarcastic (eh, probably overly sarcastic) answer, do let me know and I can remove it. This was merely to point out the comedic aspect of this question and its answers, and hopefully to make you grin at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jTkLl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="6fe66a74-8d43-4173-9010-f3ef28aa7dc7" CreationDate="2016-12-17T17:08:28.450" UserId="121464" Comment="added 676 characters in body" Text="Oh, the agony of questions like these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrogance, meh. Physicists should be a bit arrogant, they've certainly worked through enough degrees and years of maddening &quot;when will I ever get my PhD?&quot; craziness that, while it does sound incredibly fun, I think gives permission for a tad bit of arrogance. Besides, everyone knows that physicists are the best (at least according to xkcd&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein is rolling over in his grave&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; right now. How do I know this? I don't. But please, don't use his name as a banner of righteousness, because it's not. Einstein was, in fact, wrong&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; *(::gasps::)*. Besides, as Sir John Rennie's answer so nobly points out, general relativity circa 2016 is not the same as general relativity circa 1905. I know that it is shocking that science *advances* but, you know, it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know, I was reading the other day (I wasn't, really, but I need to set up this joke somehow) and I found an incorrect arxiv paper! I think arxiv isn't suitable for science! And neither is Elsevier, or any of the other journal publishers! And neither is stack exchange, because every once in a while there is a downvoted but wrong answer! It all makes a mockery of science and life in general! Exaggeration! Hyperbole! Exclamation points!!!&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've kind of fulfilled my sarcasm quota for the day (yes, this was sarcasm. shocking, I know) so I'll end this now. Except for footnotes, because everyone loves footnotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [![fields by purity][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Well, actually, he was cremated, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; For instance, he initially rejected the Big Bang, fudged out the cosmological constant...great (wo)men make mistakes too.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Yeah! Footnote in a footnote! Anyway, as Kyle Kanos points out, the cosmological constant was added back in, but Einstein made the mistake originally (and called it one of the biggest blunders in his life). Just to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Seriously though, just because something is wrong in some spots doesn't mean it is completely wrong. Otherwise we'd probably give up on physics itself. (Ahem, Newtonian mechanics, I'm looking at you.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is truly bothered by this admittedly very sarcastic (eh, probably overly sarcastic) answer, do let me know and I can remove it. This was merely to point out the comedic aspect of this question and its answers, and hopefully to make you grin at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jTkLl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="d20c9c71-ff5b-42ae-9486-e97ede28acc3" CreationDate="2016-12-17T18:19:20.277" UserDisplayName="user130529" Text="I have no intention being rude, and have been hesitating a long time before posting this question. The fact is that a user of the Physics SE, MAFIA36790, includes this quote in his [public profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/mafia36790): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, &amp; truth will again triumph.&quot;-Goebbels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether it is acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE. The problem is not in the claim itself, which, if it was not from Goebbels, wouldn't be shocking, but in the fact that a user willingly claims that he has no problem showing everyone that he quotes a Nazi. Knowing all the horrors done by the Nazis, I find this very shocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kindly suggest to MAFIA36790 to remove this quote from his profile, in respect to all people who died because of the ideas and the crimes of the Nazis. And, especially for a physicist, in respect to Einstein who was Jewish himself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="d20c9c71-ff5b-42ae-9486-e97ede28acc3" CreationDate="2016-12-17T18:19:20.277" UserDisplayName="user130529" Text="Is it acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="d20c9c71-ff5b-42ae-9486-e97ede28acc3" CreationDate="2016-12-17T18:19:20.277" UserDisplayName="user130529" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9391" RevisionGUID="ca55a9ed-69d6-462e-85b7-eacfd54b115b" CreationDate="2016-12-17T18:21:24.317" UserId="70392" Text="I for one (not that my opinion goes a long way around these parts) think this as a really good idea. With over 87,000 questions and answers on this site and with many of these answers written by seriously good communicators, if collected in properly they could make an outstanding resource (not saying that it's not already :) ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong Physics SE is great but one question, as you would expect, does not naturally lead onto the next. Let us say I am studying QFT and the 'S-matrix' and find a question on this site saying e.g. 'How is the S-matrix defined?' naturally the next thing I would want to know is 'What is the S-matrix used for?' and 'How do I use the S-matrix?' and then possibly  'Any examples of the S-matrix?'. As it currently stands I would find my self having to individually search for each of these answers on SE or in books or on the web&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be great would be a resource that had for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **S-Matrix**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - How is the S-matrix defined?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - What is the S-matrix used for? &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - How do I use the S-matrix? &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Any examples of the S-matrix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where one question naturally leads to the next and where they are chosen on quality and richness of information. Such a source may already exist, if so please direct me to it. If not I would be happy to contribute in the creation of something like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Rarely do I find a source that answers all the questions I have on a topic.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="585d99d8-5e7d-47c5-b50b-7d6ea494a126" CreationDate="2016-12-17T19:52:09.420" UserId="121464" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Oh, the agony of questions like these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrogance, meh. Physicists have certainly worked through enough degrees and years of maddening &quot;when will I ever get my PhD?&quot; craziness that, while it does sound incredibly fun, also is very difficult. Everyone knows that physicists are the best anyway (at least according to xkcd&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein is rolling over in his grave&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; right now. How do I know this? I don't. But please, don't use his name as a banner of righteousness, because it's not. Einstein was, in fact, wrong&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; *(::gasps::)*. Besides, as Sir John Rennie's answer so nobly points out, general relativity circa 2016 is not the same as general relativity circa 1905. I know that it is shocking that science *advances* but, you know, it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know, I was reading the other day (I wasn't, really, but I need to set up this joke somehow) and I found an incorrect arxiv paper! I think arxiv isn't suitable for science! And neither is Elsevier, or any of the other journal publishers! And neither is stack exchange, because every once in a while there is a downvoted but wrong answer! It all makes a mockery of science and life in general! Exaggeration! Hyperbole! Exclamation points!!!&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've kind of fulfilled my sarcasm quota for the day (yes, this was sarcasm. shocking, I know) so I'll end this now. Except for footnotes, because everyone loves footnotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [![fields by purity][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Well, actually, he was cremated, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; For instance, he initially rejected the Big Bang, fudged out the cosmological constant...great (wo)men make mistakes too.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Yeah! Footnote in a footnote! Anyway, as Kyle Kanos points out, the cosmological constant was added back in, but Einstein made the mistake originally (and called it one of the biggest blunders in his life). Just to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Seriously though, just because something is wrong in some spots doesn't mean it is completely wrong. Otherwise we'd probably give up on physics itself. (Ahem, Newtonian mechanics, I'm looking at you.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is truly bothered by this admittedly very sarcastic (eh, probably overly sarcastic) answer, do let me know and I can remove it. This was merely to point out the comedic aspect of this question and its answers, and hopefully to make you grin at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jTkLl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9392" RevisionGUID="098a9bd0-f733-4779-9d60-067f1c4e2f23" CreationDate="2016-12-17T20:58:57.437" UserId="124" Text="People can [put anything they want in the bio section of their profiles](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31504/rules-for-profiles/31505#31505), except for egregious hate speech and pornography. The mere fact that a quote was said by a Nazi, or is attributed to a Nazi, does not make it egregious hate speech. So this is fine (or at least, not deserving of moderator action). You can, of course, discuss it with the user yourself and _ask_ them to remove the quote, but if they ultimately choose to keep it there, that's their right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not extend quite the same tolerance to profile pictures and usernames, because those are displayed everywhere you post throughout the site. For example, using a swastika for your profile picture is not acceptable. (If one did so, a mod would clear the unacceptable content and send you a polite note to let you know that we did so. It's not a suspension-worthy offense, at least not the first time.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Prepared with the help of information heather, dmckee, and Kyle Kanos posted in the comments_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="898d0209-1313-457f-b687-70409c27b855" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:43:24.887" UserId="76162" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="I'm concerned at Meta posts such as [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9374/chosen-answers-with-many-negative-votes?cb=1). That's where a poster claims that an answer to a physics question is _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_ when it isn't. Indeed [the answer concerned (mine)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/297857/76162) refers to the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/401?highlightText=frequency#/vol6-trans/401?ajax) to support its case: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated&quot;._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer now has 10 downvotes, but there are no comments explaining why it's _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_. Nor are there any other answers which would inform the reader as to why it's evidently wrong. That's because it isn't, because Einstein was correct. Since one of the aims of physics stack exchange is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, a large number of negative votes for a correct answer makes an absolute mockery of the site. A random searcher will assume the negative votes mean the answer is most definitely incorrect, and will assume other answers with a large number of upvotes are correct, even when they're definitely wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've felt this has been a problem for physics stack exchange for some time. I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes. It's as if we have some posters who firmly believe that _what they think_ is correct, regardless of any lack of references or references to the contrary. They then come out with statements to the effect that _this is the mainstream view_ when actually it's a popscience view based on a rather peculiar mixture of arrogance and ignorance. It surely cannot be good to give free rein to people who don't understand say relativity and allow them to conspire to downvote and demerit or even censor correct answers, then bully posters into removing acceptance flags whilst refusing to address the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some moderation would be reasonable to address this? I see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, and I think that this issue is the reason why, not the many questions from non-experts. Another solution might be to make a list of discrepancies or contested answers and actively discuss them to flush out the issue of what's right and wrong. Without any action, I fear physics stack exchange is in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation. What to do? Your answers please. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done. Science is not a democracy, all the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right and vice versa. Perhaps the stack exchange model is simply not suitable for science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It's been 4 days now, and _still_ nobody has addressed the physics. _Why do you see that pulsar frequency increase when you go lower? Why do you see the frequency of the descending light beam increase when you go lower? Answer: gravitational time dilation. You and your clocks go slower when you're lower. You changed when you descended. The pulsar didn't increase in frequency, nor did the light beam._ I rest my case.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="973eb218-636a-4e89-a9c6-9d2b445fad16" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:48:50.383" UserId="76162" Comment="deleted 336 characters in body" Text="I'm concerned at Meta posts such as [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9374/chosen-answers-with-many-negative-votes?cb=1). That's where a poster claims that an answer to a physics question is _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_ when it isn't. Indeed [the answer concerned (mine)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/297857/76162) refers to the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/401?highlightText=frequency#/vol6-trans/401?ajax) to support its case: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated&quot;._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer now has 10 downvotes, but there are no comments explaining why it's _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_. Nor are there any other answers which would inform the reader as to why it's evidently wrong. That's because it isn't, because Einstein was correct. Since one of the aims of physics stack exchange is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, a large number of negative votes for a correct answer makes an absolute mockery of the site. A random searcher will assume the negative votes mean the answer is most definitely incorrect, and will assume other answers with a large number of upvotes are correct, even when they're definitely wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've felt this has been a problem for physics stack exchange for some time. I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes. It's as if we have some posters who firmly believe that _what they think_ is correct, regardless of any lack of references or references to the contrary. They then come out with statements to the effect that _this is the mainstream view_ when actually it's a popscience view based on a rather peculiar mixture of arrogance and ignorance. It surely cannot be good to give free rein to people who don't understand say relativity and allow them to conspire to downvote and demerit or even censor correct answers, then bully posters into removing acceptance flags whilst refusing to address the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some moderation would be reasonable to address this? I see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, and I think that this issue is the reason why, not the many questions from non-experts. Another solution might be to make a list of discrepancies or contested answers and actively discuss them to flush out the issue of what's right and wrong. Without any action, I fear physics stack exchange is in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation. What to do? Your answers please. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done. Science is not a democracy, all the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right and vice versa. Perhaps the stack exchange model is simply not suitable for science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It's been 4 days now, and _still_ nobody has addressed the physics. I rest my case.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="8d0c6f1e-ad4f-49d3-89ca-4662746952f7" CreationDate="2016-12-19T00:34:42.830" UserId="121464" Text="Hooray, hats! (Shameless plug towards a hat.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://winterbash2016.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hat options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am your father - post/vote on meta&#xD;&#xA; - Running ragged - earn 150 rep on three non-SO sites in 15 days&#xD;&#xA; - 011 - collect 11 hats&#xD;&#xA; - Snapchat - answer in 30 minutes, +3, and accepted&#xD;&#xA; - Other hats I haven't yet had time to add, I will =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus secret hats, of course...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="8d0c6f1e-ad4f-49d3-89ca-4662746952f7" CreationDate="2016-12-19T00:34:42.830" UserId="121464" Text="Winter bash 2016 - hats are live!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="8d0c6f1e-ad4f-49d3-89ca-4662746952f7" CreationDate="2016-12-19T00:34:42.830" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24367" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="5b2e4206-8ffa-489f-b920-92ce987c81b4" CreationDate="2016-12-21T15:17:40.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/811591471136698368" />
  <row Id="24368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="50ab0aba-0204-4149-882a-46e94dc22584" CreationDate="2016-12-22T12:33:07.337" UserId="8916" Text="I was about to post a question here, but felt unsure if it was topical here, or if I should post on World-Building instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, my question has a premise that something magical (and probably impossible) had happened and to ask what the implications of that happening would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm hesitant to post on World-Building is that I'm not asking for the sake of telling a story. I'm interested in the hard physics of my magical hypothetical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="50ab0aba-0204-4149-882a-46e94dc22584" CreationDate="2016-12-22T12:33:07.337" UserId="8916" Text="Are the implications of magic on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="50ab0aba-0204-4149-882a-46e94dc22584" CreationDate="2016-12-22T12:33:07.337" UserId="8916" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24371" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="7dfec253-fe44-4677-b10f-bc24a6df4101" CreationDate="2016-12-22T12:41:13.307" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="92a23fad-6e95-4781-b65b-2febd3683f05" CreationDate="2016-12-22T20:14:17.973" UserId="34382" Text="I could understand including the quotation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, forget who said it - how is the collapse of lies and the emergence of truth a bad thing, let alone anything resembling hateful speech? In physics, we are always after the pursuit of truths about the Universe and the way it behaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, although Goebbels was a Nazi, that does not invalidate or turn all of his statements into hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago, Prof. Walter Lewin at MIT was accused of sexual misconduct, and stripped of his Emeritus title. In addition, MIT removed *all* his online lectures, which rightfully caused an uproar, because they were a great contribution to physics education, and whether he was guilty or not, does not mean students can't benefit from them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, it applies generally that the contribution of a person is not invalidated by their behaviour, it can at most change one's perspective of their contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this quote is by no means any significant contribution, but including it in a profile certainly does not warrant a tantrum about it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9397" RevisionGUID="90fe3910-703e-423a-a110-7d46b3ee753b" CreationDate="2016-12-22T20:17:12.147" UserId="124" Text="No, questions involving magical situations are not generally on topic here. Our [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) lists &quot;questions about fictional physics&quot; as one of the off-topic categories. The reason is basically what Kyle Kanos said in a comment,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Pretend the laws of physics are broken, what does physics say happens later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those questions just don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, depending on what exactly you want to ask and how you ask it, _sometimes_ there is a way to make this okay. In particular, if your magical situation is something that could plausibly occur under the physical theory you're asking about, or at least something that makes a valid initial condition for the theory, you can probably frame that question in a way that makes it on topic. This should be considered &quot;advanced Physics SE usage&quot; though, and I would suggest seeking advice in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) before posting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="b5521f40-5844-4d7a-bfb3-6e720f9e15c0" CreationDate="2016-12-23T22:06:04.977" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24376" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="d2e16522-9596-4fd9-b416-750d4c13debe" CreationDate="2016-12-24T06:21:43.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/812543758982152192" />
  <row Id="24377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="baa009b3-44e9-484b-8863-caf46cf10590" CreationDate="2016-12-24T11:36:13.830" UserId="43351" Text="As you can see from my &quot;Buche de Noel&quot; hat (won on the 24th Dec); there appears to be a bug in the hat software!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="444984cf-a285-4db7-854f-f224c7e2724c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:05:41.730" UserId="31790" Text="e.g. shirts or hats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be fun.&#xD;&#xA;Post design proposals below as answers and we can take the top voted one after a couple weeks and place an order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to do the purchase and distribute the pieces to other users as appropriate, but if the mods can get the SE staff to do it for us that would be nice too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why?&#xD;&#xA;Because they're going to take our Winter Bash hats and that's just not cool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="444984cf-a285-4db7-854f-f224c7e2724c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:05:41.730" UserId="31790" Text="Let's design and get some Physics Stack Exchange swag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="444984cf-a285-4db7-854f-f224c7e2724c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:05:41.730" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="64227a56-b727-4abf-9beb-ecb571524192" CreationDate="2016-12-24T22:32:10.787" UserId="121464" Text="T-shirt design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Front:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;##Back:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: front image is of the equation for the standard model of particle physics; the back is a picture of a Mexican hat. The back picture could obviously be better, but I was in a tad bit of a hurry when I designed this. =) Designed on CustomInk, Gildan Ultra Cotton T-shirt, color: royal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1SZo9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j7hec.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9401" RevisionGUID="3c018202-1030-459f-909a-3b7e20e331a9" CreationDate="2016-12-25T03:27:24.020" UserId="140002" Text="Try a Philosophy of Science group. &#xD;&#xA;Actual magic means something unexplained has happened. That means a hidden explanation, potentially new physics. Provided the observations are sufficiently credible or reproducible it would be worthy of investigation.&#xD;&#xA;Science is founded on the idea that observed past behaviours can be used to predict the future. And if predicting the future is the aim, there's no better approach. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="1b960a86-7c21-494d-9095-93c6ec18118d" CreationDate="2016-12-25T04:46:44.833" UserId="37102" Text="is it permitted or not or frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i couldn't find a tag for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but i hope you'ld rather see discussions about *&quot;what is physics?&quot;* and *&quot;falsifiability&quot;* (and some of the stuff that Smolin complains about) here among physikers, than in a purely philosophy-bent forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can we ask in the physics.se about whether or not the following is **science** or is still philosophy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. string theory&#xD;&#xA;2. M theory&#xD;&#xA;3. multiverse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;grateful for any response, including downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="1b960a86-7c21-494d-9095-93c6ec18118d" CreationDate="2016-12-25T04:46:44.833" UserId="37102" Text="may i ask a question about philosophy of physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="1b960a86-7c21-494d-9095-93c6ec18118d" CreationDate="2016-12-25T04:46:44.833" UserId="37102" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="1d97954d-eab7-4888-80ee-0126c928db52" CreationDate="2016-12-25T05:27:05.857" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it permitted or not or frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find a tag for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I hope you'd rather see discussions about *&quot;what is physics?&quot;* and *&quot;falsifiability&quot;* (and some of the stuff that Smolin complains about) here among physikers, than in a purely philosophy-bent forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we ask in the [Physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com) about whether or not the following is **science** or is still philosophy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. string theory,&#xD;&#xA;2. M theory,&#xD;&#xA;3. multiverse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grateful for any response, including downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24387" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="1d97954d-eab7-4888-80ee-0126c928db52" CreationDate="2016-12-25T05:27:05.857" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="May I ask a question about philosophy of physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="1d97954d-eab7-4888-80ee-0126c928db52" CreationDate="2016-12-25T05:27:05.857" UserDisplayName="user36790" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9404" RevisionGUID="0fdec0db-4e8f-4530-ae0b-dc6f4ce9aa7f" CreationDate="2016-12-25T06:36:03.563" UserId="124" Text="You called it in the comments: no, those questions are generally off topic here. We consider things like the meaning of falsifiability not to be physics. They can be of interest to physicists, but that is not the criterion we use to determine what is on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For material of this nature, I suggest going to [Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com) and checking their [epistemology](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/epistemology) and [philosophy-of-science](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/philosophy-of-science) tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9405" RevisionGUID="9e9dda72-d324-4ca6-8e5b-21f22079871b" CreationDate="2016-12-25T20:17:18.233" UserId="34382" Text="Your queries about philosophy applied to things like grand unification (M-theory, string theory) are discussed in the book, *String Theory and the Scientific Method* which may be of interest to you. The book addresses more general issues such as testability for a theory, and Bayesian analysis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, to address your question about whether string theory or M-Theory is philosophy or science, it is obviously science. String theory emerged originally from bootstrap approaches to the S-matrix, and later on the worldsheet action was developed. What emerged was to a large extent simply the product of exploring their consequences and the constraints they give rise to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe to posit the starting point may be argued to be philosophy, but the process by which we have explored the framework that is string theory is certainly scientific. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24396" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="eca547b7-2082-4b1e-8b0e-6fb2c792f16b" CreationDate="2016-12-26T06:28:55.920" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/813270349609664516" />
  <row Id="24397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="ac21d1fb-c6f8-4847-8109-e6822387c194" CreationDate="2016-12-26T14:22:46.460" UserDisplayName="user130529" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="I have no intention being rude, and have been hesitating a long time before posting this question. The fact is that a user of the Physics SE, MAFIA36790, includes this quote in his [public profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/mafia36790): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, &amp; truth will again triumph.&quot;-Goebbels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether it is acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE. The problem is not in the claim itself, which, if it was not from Goebbels, wouldn't be shocking, but in the fact that a user willingly claims that he has no problem showing everyone that he quotes a Nazi. Knowing all the horrors done by the Nazis, I find this very shocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kindly suggest to MAFIA36790 to remove this quote from his profile, in respect to all people who died because of the ideas and the crimes of the Nazis. And, especially for a physicist, in respect to Einstein who was Jewish himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: user MAFIA36790 has removed the reference to Goebbels. I find it nice from him, it shows he feels concerned by what other people may feel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="c0c0d005-2790-4178-9bc9-73cbd559639c" CreationDate="2016-12-26T16:58:43.183" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; May I ask a question about philosophy of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can ask any such question of me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it permitted or not or frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From moderator David Z's response, it looks like such questions are frowned upon. For myself, I think that if you can't ask physicists about this stuff, and if instead you're sent away to some philosophy forum with a flea in your ear, that's not right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I hope you'd rather see discussions about &quot;what is physics?&quot; and &quot;falsifiability&quot; (and some of the stuff that Smolin complains about) here among physikers, than in a purely philosophy-bent forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would. I view Sean Carroll's stance on [falsifiability](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/) with alarm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we ask in the Physics.SE about whether or not the following is science or is still philosophy: 1.string theory, 2.M theory, 3.multiverse? Just curious. &#xD;&#xA;Grateful for any response, including downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can't ask on Physics.SE, but while we're on the subject, let me say this: there's no evidence for string theory or M-theory. And none for the multiverse. These hypotheses remain speculative even after decades. Moreover the M-theory &quot;nrane-leak&quot; claim as to why gravity is so weak contradictz GR, and the Goldilocks multiverse &quot;just right&quot; claim contradicts running constants. On top of that these speculations can never be disproven, and as such they're on a par with heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus. They aren't science. What they are is pseudoscience popscience horseshit masquerading as science. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="1e0967b6-f388-4167-9066-400b07cff070" CreationDate="2016-12-26T19:33:29.543" UserId="76162" Comment="typo on brane" Text="&gt; May I ask a question about philosophy of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can ask any such question of me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it permitted or not or frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From moderator David Z's response, it looks like such questions are frowned upon. For myself, I think that if you can't ask physicists about this stuff, and if instead you're sent away to some philosophy forum with a flea in your ear, that's not right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I hope you'd rather see discussions about &quot;what is physics?&quot; and &quot;falsifiability&quot; (and some of the stuff that Smolin complains about) here among physikers, than in a purely philosophy-bent forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would. I view Sean Carroll's stance on [falsifiability](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/) with alarm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we ask in the Physics.SE about whether or not the following is science or is still philosophy: 1.string theory, 2.M theory, 3.multiverse? Just curious. &#xD;&#xA;Grateful for any response, including downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can't ask on Physics.SE, but while we're on the subject, let me say this: there's no evidence for string theory or M-theory. And none for the multiverse. These hypotheses remain speculative even after decades. Moreover the M-theory &quot;brane-leak&quot; claim as to why gravity is so weak contradictz GR, and the Goldilocks multiverse &quot;just right&quot; claim contradicts running constants. On top of that these speculations can never be disproven, and as such they're on a par with heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus. They aren't science. What they are is pseudoscience popscience horseshit masquerading as science. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="9f301cee-5a35-4589-bc42-07a01573feda" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:26:19.623" UserId="99654" Text="I noticed asking various questions regarding quantum physics, that sometimes, the latex command \ket works ([here][1], for example), and other times, it does not, and I am obliged to use \left | \psi \right&gt;. Is there a special way to enable its use or did I miss something ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29443/adding-3-electron-spins/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="9f301cee-5a35-4589-bc42-07a01573feda" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:26:19.623" UserId="99654" Text="How to properly write kets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="9f301cee-5a35-4589-bc42-07a01573feda" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:26:19.623" UserId="99654" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9408" RevisionGUID="c5e99d42-d968-46ed-ae1f-ebefc4a468fe" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:41:39.063" UserId="5788" Text="If you look at the source, you see that they include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in their LaTeX. This defines a command `\ket` that makes a ket. So you have to define it on your own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9409" RevisionGUID="2a0e8880-732b-4e7a-9682-3ab16c78c6bd" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:44:56.300" UserId="44126" Text="The source for [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/29472/44126) to the question you link includes, at the top,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     $\newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\left|#1\right&gt;}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while [this other answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/29552/44126)&#xD;&#xA;includes, between &quot;the three vectors&quot; and the first displayed equation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     $\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on that page both `$\ket\psi$` and `$\Ket\psi$` do what you want, but the spacing for `\Ket` is better because that author used `\left` and `\right`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moral of story: the definition is brief, so include it yourself if it makes your life easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="46a6f570-d19e-43e1-991b-1984991055c4" CreationDate="2016-12-28T00:25:42.283" UserId="8563" Text="As an alternative to the other two answers: the bra-ket angles both have unicode incarnations, `⟨` and `⟩`, and they are both rendered correctly by MathJax. Thus, if you type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $⟨a|b⟩$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it will render correctly. (On the other hand, this only works for the single-size version, i.e. `\right⟩` won't work.) My solution is to have those characters hardwired into my software keyboard, and it really speeds up typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, this usage is directly in the spirit of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown): having a lightweight source which renders into a nice formatting, but which is also human-readable directly from the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is important to remark that this usage is exclusive to MathJax and it does not work under standard TeX renderers. (In fact, MathJax will correctly render a bunch of off-track unicode symbols, like ≠, ±, ≃, ° and [so on](http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_math_operators.html), that will send (La)TeX into a belly-up spin.) As such, I consider it impolite to use these characters when editing other people's posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a word of caution: **all the posts on a page share the same MathJax environment**, and in particular this means that **any commands that you define or `renew` can and will affect other posts on the same page**. This has been [discussed before on this meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6951/should-we-indicate-the-use-of-renewcommand-in-the-help-center), with the specific point that `renewcommand` should not be used on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a new command for `\ket`s and `\bra`s is not terrible, partly because even if other people on the same thread define it differently, you wouldn't expect real conflicts in the output. However, it's important to keep in mind that *any* use of `\newcommand`, particularly beyond the simplest, mildest, most standard definitions, can produce unexpected behaviour like e.g. [on this thread](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7297/mathjax-rendering-bk-differently-in-question-display-and-edit-modes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="136cbd30-af04-4a71-be9d-835813944f26" CreationDate="2016-12-28T08:32:03.363" UserId="12350" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZUBV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="acf77619-e3a6-4e97-8a5e-8a4d4dfc5a0e" CreationDate="2016-12-28T11:22:14.930" UserId="76162" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; May I ask a question about philosophy of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can ask any such question of me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it permitted or not or frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From moderator David Z's response, it looks like such questions are frowned upon. For myself, I think that if you can't ask physicists about this stuff, and if instead you're sent away to some philosophy forum with a flea in your ear, that's not right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I hope you'd rather see discussions about &quot;what is physics?&quot; and &quot;falsifiability&quot; (and some of the stuff that Smolin complains about) here among physikers, than in a purely philosophy-bent forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would. I view Sean Carroll's stance on [falsifiability](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/) with alarm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we ask in the Physics.SE about whether or not the following is science or is still philosophy: 1.string theory, 2.M theory, 3.multiverse? Just curious. &#xD;&#xA;Grateful for any response, including downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can't ask on Physics.SE, but while we're on the subject, let me say this: there's no evidence for string theory or M-theory. And none for the multiverse. These hypotheses remain speculative even after decades. Moreover the M-theory &quot;brane-leak&quot; claim as to why gravity is so weak contradicts GR, and the Goldilocks multiverse &quot;just right&quot; claim contradicts running constants. On top of that these speculations can never be disproven, and as such they're on a par with heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus. They aren't science. What they are is pseudoscience popscience horseshit masquerading as science. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24421" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="0fac0c28-a9f3-4fc9-9eee-c2e72ed1ed39" CreationDate="2016-12-28T16:34:10.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="bed37d3b-1d92-485e-b04c-830d0951f0bf" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:34:15.980" UserId="133159" Text="What is the difference between &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;     this ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are they supposed to be used ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="bed37d3b-1d92-485e-b04c-830d0951f0bf" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:34:15.980" UserId="133159" Text="Usage of some special formatting commands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="bed37d3b-1d92-485e-b04c-830d0951f0bf" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:34:15.980" UserId="133159" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="8d463ba2-813b-4810-ba43-e7630ee9a2f5" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:42:57.603" UserId="84967" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="What is the difference between &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This and (indentation by the character `&gt; `)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;     this (indentation by five spaces)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are they supposed to be used ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="70574b47-5f68-491b-917e-63af284a1f79" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:43:01.113" UserId="121464" Text="&gt; This is for quoting sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This is for code snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the second one is not often used on physics.SE, the formatting options (with the exception of MathJax, which varies from site to site) are the same across the network.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="32798a9a-ae29-4b64-bf61-f9f2b471caf2" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:43:23.007" UserId="84967" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="What is the difference between &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This (indentation by the character `&gt; `)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;    this (indentation by four spaces)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are they supposed to be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="e61febf4-73ae-45e0-8e30-d44b30453cc9" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:44:04.503" UserId="8563" Comment="Minor readability fix" Text="What is the difference between &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This (indentation by the character `&gt; `)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;    this (indentation by four spaces)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are they supposed to be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="1cd2e83b-c089-4a04-9d91-bceb3e0063d6" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:44:55.140" UserId="8563" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt; This is for quoting sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This is for code snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the second one is not often used on physics.SE, the formatting options (with the exception of MathJax, which varies from site to site) are the same across [the network](http://stackexchange.com/sites).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="b325b766-25fd-4757-86a6-041b0887f01e" CreationDate="2016-12-28T17:47:01.503" UserId="121464" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="&gt; This is for quoting sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This is for code snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the second one is not often used on physics.SE, the formatting options (with the exception of MathJax, which varies from site to site) are the same across [the network](http://stackexchange.com/sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There really isn't any other use for either of these. Please, don't use them for emphasis, that's what *italics* and **bold text** are for. (Don't overuse either of those, though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, it is good etiquette to properly format your answers. The code formatting retains indentation (which everyone in the universe appreciates) and please do use the formatting to note when you are quoting a source. If you don't use them in an obvious location, users will usually edit in the formatting (and some may even downvote) but it is not mandatory. It's just highly encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="ad13d872-b95d-4220-8581-836af36547e0" CreationDate="2016-12-28T23:45:14.197" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24436" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="e7254eb5-dbd5-45f0-a94e-7f18edc03e08" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:51:16.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24440" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="ed4a96cd-d2e8-47b3-ba48-c1913ee181dc" CreationDate="2016-12-30T11:46:04.563" UserId="12350" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12350,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kenshin&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="357245f3-55fb-441d-ae72-a9a2f69e0c42" CreationDate="2016-12-30T11:47:34.660" UserId="12350" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:  http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZUBV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24442" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="7a023646-962d-4f7c-ad48-471d5d64095d" CreationDate="2016-12-30T11:47:41.610" UserId="12350" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12350,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kenshin&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="4504c6ee-b6f2-4975-8804-87de2e8ed8c8" CreationDate="2016-12-31T12:15:03.203" UserId="133159" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="What is the difference between &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This (indentation by the character `&gt; `)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;    this (indentation by  one line and four spaces)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are they supposed to be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="c2b34bb1-30ed-4e06-b745-bbb84bf2a1ba" CreationDate="2016-12-31T15:21:13.557" UserId="139781" Text="I'm sorta new here, so this may already have a standard procedure, but I haven't found it anywhere if it exists. Anyway, I've been seeing a lot of questions along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What is the physical meaning of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Is there a physical interpretation of _____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Can someone give me a REAL explanation of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these questions generally handled? I've tried answering some, and it's very difficult to figure out exactly what people want here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="c2b34bb1-30ed-4e06-b745-bbb84bf2a1ba" CreationDate="2016-12-31T15:21:13.557" UserId="139781" Text="How to handle questions about &quot;physical meaning&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="c2b34bb1-30ed-4e06-b745-bbb84bf2a1ba" CreationDate="2016-12-31T15:21:13.557" UserId="139781" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="22f73d22-d109-44e5-bb4d-4713d8022d22" CreationDate="2016-12-31T15:43:37.530" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="22f73d22-d109-44e5-bb4d-4713d8022d22" CreationDate="2016-12-31T15:43:37.530" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I'm sorta new here, so this may already have a standard procedure, but I haven't found it anywhere if it exists. Anyway, I've been seeing a lot of questions along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;What is the physical meaning of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Is there a physical interpretation of _____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can someone give me a REAL explanation of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these questions generally handled? I've tried answering some, and it's very difficult to figure out exactly what people want here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="fa6a750d-670c-40ea-8694-d985c64c90f6" CreationDate="2016-12-31T15:57:02.597" UserId="139781" Comment="Added examples." Text="I'm sorta new here, so this may already have a standard procedure, but I haven't found it anywhere if it exists. Anyway, I've been seeing a lot of questions along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;What is the physical meaning of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Is there a physical interpretation of _____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can someone give me a REAL explanation of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these questions generally handled? I've tried answering some, and it's very difficult to figure out exactly what people want here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302096/physical-interpretation-of-amperes-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301894/physical-significance-of-product-of-two-charges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301171/meaning-of-the-poynting-vector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301589/a-real-explanation-of-the-electromagnetic-sine-dependency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="4b017bd5-5d26-4e8d-8ba3-a375db1f8ad0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T16:11:23.497" UserId="6634" Text="Well, if the questions are unclear, it is usually best to ask clarifying comments and/or flag/vote-to-close as unclear (we have a close reason dedicated just to that issue). Flagging it as &quot;Should be closed&quot; will put it into the review queue and more experienced members can decide if it should or should not be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some of your example questions, the best answer seems to be writing the equation and/or definition and explaining each term in it. For example, &quot;this is the time rate of change term, this is the flux term, this is the body force term, etc.&quot; with examples of what each of those signifies physically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I would say you're doing things correctly. You are asking clarifying questions in the comments when things are unclear. The only next step I would take is to flag the question for closing if you think it is too broad, based on opinion, more about philosophy than physics, or if it is still unclear and the original person has not clarified or refused to clarify. More senior members will decide and you can check back periodically to see if they agreed with you or not. It's the best way to cut your teeth on learning the policies of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="53302386-fa8c-4a69-8e72-9102f04a7f89" CreationDate="2016-12-31T16:53:54.110" UserId="70392" Text="I noticed that '&#xD;&#xA;Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf' have a best of 2016 meta competition kind of thing (see [here][1] for the post). Should we do the same? If not why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="53302386-fa8c-4a69-8e72-9102f04a7f89" CreationDate="2016-12-31T16:53:54.110" UserId="70392" Text="Best of PSE 2016?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="53302386-fa8c-4a69-8e72-9102f04a7f89" CreationDate="2016-12-31T16:53:54.110" UserId="70392" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="2bb13f3e-b799-407a-a858-ee33dd45e71f" CreationDate="2016-12-31T19:37:02.657" UserId="70392" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I noticed that '&#xD;&#xA;Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf' have a best of 2016 meta competition kind of thing (see [here][1] for the post). Should we do the same? If not why not? And if so how should we go about doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="2a98ba3f-3b31-4de6-aed8-ecbdfa016d04" CreationDate="2016-12-31T19:42:29.133" UserId="31790" Text="Yes, I think we should do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought that &quot;best of&quot; would be too vague to be successful, but looking at the [example from Puzzles and Code Golf](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1) I see that by establishing specific categories it is possible to come up with sensible best-of's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should move on to a meta post establishing the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="5ff12ad6-b1d7-4877-afbe-963f01163643" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:18:50.083" UserId="31790" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will vote for the best posts of 2016 and rewarded them with bounties and challenges.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, we reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;Voting on the categories will last around a week (I'll decide in the next couple days based on community input).&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="5ff12ad6-b1d7-4877-afbe-963f01163643" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:18:50.083" UserId="31790" Text="Best-of PSE 2016: description and categories" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="5ff12ad6-b1d7-4877-afbe-963f01163643" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:18:50.083" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9424" RevisionGUID="da6890f4-2736-455e-921d-b7e624ba7a81" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:20:17.240" UserId="31790" Text="# Rookie of the year&#xD;&#xA;User, who created their account in 2016, who has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and/or answers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this category is used, note that the nominations for winners will be in the form of links to user accounts, with a brief explanation of why that user should win, i.e. some links to their best questions/answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="594bc4c4-d436-4666-8c43-c5feb046baa7" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:21:42.810" UserId="31790" Text="# Best answer by a rookie&#xD;&#xA;Best answer by a user who created their account in 2016." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="04641ca2-950a-442c-8cd1-33340eb7fc38" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:26:44.947" UserId="31790" Text="# Best self-answer&#xD;&#xA;Best question/answer pair written by the same user, either because they figured out their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="163952ab-e6ea-481e-8ed4-e838a1473c9f" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:27:35.193" UserId="121464" Text="##Best layman's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer directed at the layman, which is very intuitive and well-explained. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="60fc4598-f552-4e1c-9629-0058dae1ceb5" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:29:20.383" UserId="121464" Text="#Most in-depth answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long answer which covers multiple aspects of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="462a4517-73c0-4731-b8b2-7884a3eb5885" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:31:09.070" UserId="121464" Text="#Best Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well researched, well formatted, and absolutely fabulous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="53a9cb07-4671-42df-936d-6cd2d99d3f4d" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:31:34.563" UserId="31790" Comment="A bit more explanation" Text="# Most complete or in-depth answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An answer which addresses a question from multiple angles, covering all aspects and showing, in depth, how these aspects are related." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="6f117714-eda7-4e1a-ba8e-ef5d990de8f0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:32:26.083" UserId="121464" Text="#Clarifying Comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment that helps clarify the question (no funny comments, sorry)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="430a93aa-4bac-4443-a802-5ab99813be0c" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:33:19.737" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="# Clarifying comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment that helps clarify the question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="e782f1e4-81e1-41a4-8a0a-84913c802536" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:33:43.213" UserId="31790" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="# Best question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well researched, well formatted, and absolutely fabulous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="e08e0eb9-329a-49a4-a907-21a51ded20a8" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:33:46.590" UserId="121464" Text="##Absolutely hilarious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funniest comment. Includes sarcasm. (If this was used, the prize would be small.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="d5bc91ef-019c-40ac-bcc1-59b80b48952d" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:34:41.013" UserId="31790" Comment="Remove irrelevance, more specific title" Text="# Hilarious comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funniest comment, including sarcasm.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="16e02dd2-4970-4da0-998e-3e4f04e8c180" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:40:32.720" UserId="121464" Text="#&lt;strike&gt;Best&lt;/strike&gt; Most Stereotypically English Englishman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ahem, [John Rennie](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie), I'm looking at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Seriously, 209,107 rep? Stop embarassing us, please! =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5uP30.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="ae2eecc3-7140-4666-b2a2-20e69088d20d" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:50:53.537" UserId="70392" Text="# Less is More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer to a question in the most concise and clear way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First suggested by [Martin Ender on PPCG][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/7911/53094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9435" RevisionGUID="75144c65-947f-49c8-9322-f16a19b4a2ef" CreationDate="2016-12-31T21:32:40.250" UserId="121464" Text="#Best Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarifies the question and turns it from terrible, groan-worthy madness to absolutely fabulous highly upvoted-ness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="4ae6c9c5-8c9d-498b-806c-2b583fa01df4" CreationDate="2016-12-31T23:57:41.320" UserId="31790" Text="# Most underrated answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awarded to an excellent answer which doesn't seem to have acquired as high a score at it probably should.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="ae913226-a7ca-4715-a334-4faca6502722" CreationDate="2017-01-01T00:00:22.040" UserId="31790" Text="# Never too old to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best question by a user who's account is at least two(?) years old." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="03286994-5039-47f3-afef-6e063b9ed87e" CreationDate="2017-01-01T05:06:00.900" UserId="12350" Text="[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7vEF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a black design inspired by: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designed by CustomInk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="bcf41cf5-071c-46ad-b70e-18c5926b0ff3" CreationDate="2017-01-01T08:23:57.947" UserId="70392" Text="#Baby Steps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer that starts from relativity simple physics and ends up at a result that is considered fairly complex. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="d948dbd9-b61d-4412-bc7b-024e3f79eece" CreationDate="2017-01-01T08:34:46.473" UserId="70392" Text="#Community Work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best community wiki answer or question where two (or more) authors contributed a significant amount." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9442" RevisionGUID="ec6a6c90-3fcb-4514-9589-6e76772ebbc3" CreationDate="2017-01-01T12:38:25.127" UserId="118847" Text="## Best first answer ##&#xD;&#xA;The best answer which was posted by someone as his first post after registering (i.e., before asking a question or posting an answer on another PSE question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="cc44376f-e3a7-4a79-a6a4-4258687e8b6c" CreationDate="2017-01-01T18:25:12.830" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will vote for the best posts of 2016 and rewarded them with bounties and challenges.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, we reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until 8 January**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="1e193b9c-f267-41f8-a87b-283b2660bc2a" CreationDate="2017-01-01T21:44:03.137" UserId="31790" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will vote for the best posts of 2016 and rewarded them with bounties and challenges.&#xD;&#xA;In this way, we reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until 8 January**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="24097903-7681-4ba6-8a42-8cb19ca1eb04" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:13:28.777" UserId="26969" Text="I have read various posts on bounties, as well as the help center. There, I find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;If you do not award the bounty within 24 hours of the bounty period ending, half the bounty value will be automatically awarded to the top voted answer posted after the bounty start, provided it has a score of at least 2. If no new answer matches this requirement, no reputation will be awarded at all, and the reputation used on the bounty will be lost forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I recently ran into a situation where [an old question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242953/26969) (to which I had posted an answer several months ago) was bumped with a (small) bounty from the OP. I decided to give it another shot, and improved my original answer with a substantial edit (which eventually led to my answer being accepted by the user, and several additional upvotes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However - the user did not manually award the bounty; and given that my answer was not &quot;new&quot; (in the sense that I did not post an answer after the start of the bounty period), the fact that it was &quot;new and improved&quot; apparently does not make it eligible for the &quot;automatic 50% bounty&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I don't care too much about 25 points - but I wonder: does this make sense? Would the &quot;auto&quot; rule make more sense if it was modified to award the bounty automatically to one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- new answer with &gt; 2 score&#xD;&#xA;- edited answer with &gt; 2 score increase&#xD;&#xA;- accepted answer with &gt; 2 score&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in all cases, it would be awarded the highest-scoring answer that meets at least one of these criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*) In the context of &quot;the exception that proves the rule&quot;, the verb &quot;prove&quot; actually means &quot;probe, test&quot;; in other words, it is by examining the exceptional cases that one gets a better understanding of the (limits of the) rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="24097903-7681-4ba6-8a42-8cb19ca1eb04" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:13:28.777" UserId="26969" Text="Bounty (not) awarded automatically - the exception that proves*) the rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="24097903-7681-4ba6-8a42-8cb19ca1eb04" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:13:28.777" UserId="26969" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24495" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="f40548c8-c57c-4466-ab57-2c197cee839b" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:43:43.090" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="61f74b6a-0465-4330-abfd-fd510952b2f6" CreationDate="2017-01-02T01:31:33.567" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until 8 January**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="df2147df-9723-48cf-a8f9-dc22f50f2ae7" CreationDate="2017-01-02T13:02:50.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/815906194313322497" />
  <row Id="24498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="efc9d67c-cd81-46ae-9718-3da90ae5e108" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:17:45.533" UserId="114696" Text="# Best Visual Effects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could include use of graphic illustrations and/or animation. It could apply to Questions or Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They should add insight to the Question or Answer, rather than merely be an impressive use of technology.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="b190d950-9e75-4446-9c5d-2c2a10549cf4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:45:05.733" UserId="114696" Text="#Most Original Question (or Answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions are very popular because they are topical. They might be &quot;doing the rounds&quot; on the internet, and may possibly have been re-posted from another Q &amp; A site. This award acknowledges personal observation and curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Criteria*  &#xD;&#xA;1. There should be some evidence of the personal origins of the question. eg &quot;While I was doing X I noticed Y.&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;2. The question should not be similar to any earlier question posted on PSE, and preferably should not be similar to any earlier question found on a major alternative site - eg Physics Forums, Quora, Reddit, Yahoo Answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="9218ed85-9ae2-40b3-8416-127a2621c78f" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:46:16.790" UserId="114696" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="# Best Visual Effects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could include use of graphic illustrations and/or animation. It could apply to Questions or Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The visual effects should add insight to the Question or Answer, rather than be merely an impressive use of technology.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="88c92f8e-a9c4-48ae-9536-ca8464793f77" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:53:06.780" UserId="114696" Text="#Most Under-rated Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To accompany Daniel Sank's &quot;Most Underrated Answer.&quot; A question which has received few or no answers, but is highly deserving of one.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="d485bd87-d2ac-430b-b400-0896e04fd900" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:58:35.307" UserId="114696" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="# Best Visual Effects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could include use of original graphic illustrations and/or animation. It could apply to Questions or Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The visual effects should add insight to the Question or Answer, rather than be merely an impressive use of technology.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="05a57b9d-b8d4-4bd8-8141-8b8719977cea" CreationDate="2017-01-03T04:28:22.367" UserId="31790" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="# Never too old to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best question asked in 2016 by a user who's account is at least two(?) years old." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="8e11a07f-b410-4153-b4ac-c3892bc67356" CreationDate="2017-01-03T04:29:07.350" UserId="31790" Comment="formatting" Text="#Most Original Question (or Answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions are very popular because they are topical. They might be &quot;doing the rounds&quot; on the internet, and may possibly have been re-posted from another Q &amp; A site. This award acknowledges personal observation and curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Criteria*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There should be some evidence of the personal origins of the question. eg &quot;While I was doing X I noticed Y.&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question should not be similar to any earlier question posted on PSE, and preferably should not be similar to any earlier question found on a major alternative site - eg Physics Forums, Quora, Reddit, Yahoo Answers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9447" RevisionGUID="581439d0-8144-429a-9a1e-c39129a665ef" CreationDate="2017-01-03T10:03:22.860" UserId="24774" Text="Everyday counts&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best question or answer about an [tag:everyday-life] physics effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="97b9c71e-4f79-4259-a2cf-d1588e4b8650" CreationDate="2017-01-03T12:59:49.470" UserId="23473" Comment="I deigned to grant the people the paragraph breaks they desired" Text="Well, first of all, I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to get involved with the topic that is the root of the rant-like part of your question. That there is what we call a &quot;no win&quot; scenario. I'm not touching it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let me, instead, address what is the face of your question. Namely, how to combat arrogance and ignorance on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrogance is defined as having or displaying an undeserved amount of pride in oneself. Acting like you're smarter, faster, stronger, or a better air guitar player than most would agree that you actually are. To some extent, this means that most people you come across will have some degree of arrogance about them. It's only natural that people tend to see themselves in a more positive light than others do. It's true, in this medium, the most common form of arrogance you will encounter is people who sees themselves as much smarter than any empirical evidence would support; this can sometimes be a big problem. I do not mean to say that it is a big problem for us when one person is being arrogant; I mean you will find a large number of people around here who are arrogant in this way (myself included. But I'm the almighty Jim, so my undeserved sense of self pride is completely deserved). This manifests itself in many ways. You will find those that stick to their initial beliefs about a topic, regardless of what references say. You will also find those who stick to what their favourite references say, regardless of what the actual mathematics (which trumps any reference like it was a presidential election (I hate that Donald has ruined the word &quot;trump&quot; for me (Yes! An aside within an aside within an aside. Inception!))) or even more modern references (which have the advantage of hindsight over some of the older, big-name references) might say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem that is most likely going to be debated in the comments below until I no longer care about this discussion for the exact same reasons as what I'm going to describe later on is this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sentence makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not the problem; I'm just saying that previous sentence actually makes sense. Go ahead, read it through again, I'll wait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that there is no universally true indicator for when you are being arrogant. I could say that any time it seems like pretty much everybody is against you and you aren't changing your opinion because you see yourself as right while everyone else is wrong, then you're being arrogant. While I consider that a true statement, it doesn't change the fact that there are times in history where everyone has been wrong except for one person and it's nearly impossible to tell if the lone fighter is actually correct. That said, they're still arrogant because they see themself as smarter, or more logical, than everyone else, which I guarantee you is not true about anyone on Earth. However, it's tough to self-identify when you are being stubborn out of pure arrogance or because you are actually right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, it's exceptionally tough for a group of people to overcome the collective arrogance of &quot;We're right because there's more of us&quot;. What? No. That's really not the way it works. Statistically, you have higher odds of including the correct answer or noticing a mistake in a larger group of people, but that doesn't make it necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, so both sides of any deadlock are probably being arrogant, but both can't be right (both CAN be wrong). True, here's a few possible ways to deal with arrogance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Accept that they're arrogant and work around it. We all have faults, forgive them and be patient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If you can't get past it in a professional manner, just back off and avoid engaging them on that subject. That might mean that occasionally you have to go &quot;I'm not going to argue about this&quot; and let them think they've won, but you can keep giving your reasoning and conclusions when asked for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If it's a common cause for disagreement and you have to work through the issue to coexist, try arguing with yourself. Take on their point of view (you need to understand what it is first) and argue with yourself against your own point of view (here's the important part) *using their style of arguments*. If they are using math, you have to use math to argue their points. If you end up at a point where you're pretending to argue their side with &quot;It is right because I say so, even though your reference says otherwise&quot;, then you're doing it wrong. You're being arrogant there and failing to be open-minded to another's perspective. Don't feel bad, we all do that every day of our lives. If you can reach a point where you make good arguments for them, then you know how to argue against them. Use that, because nothing combats stubborn arrogance like using their own arguments against them. An arrogant person can't argue with themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for ignorance (right? That last part took a while). Ignorance is the choice (conscious or subconscious, either one) to ignore facts. If people are going to be ignorant, there's one easy solution: ignore them. If it's the entire community, then you're in the wrong place and you need to &quot;get the hell outta dodge&quot;. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now serving number 286." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="f0820264-6592-4771-91ce-01b06c18146f" CreationDate="2017-01-03T14:09:20.260" UserId="31790" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="# Most underrated answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awarded to an excellent answer, posted in 2016, which doesn't seem to have acquired as high a score at it probably should.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="91324703-ba3e-4da9-bbd4-3d31588d8d3e" CreationDate="2017-01-03T17:38:15.020" UserId="63690" Text="In the past couple of days (Jan 1 &amp; 2, 2017), there have been questions asked that have received over 20 votes and over 2000 views. Answers have received dozens of upvotes. Look [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the questions are interesting, although the bridge question is more engineering oriented and could be considered by some to be off-topic, what concerns me most is the rapid build-up of positive votes.  It's almost like someone in a large group was chosen to post the question which would then be upvoted to get attention.  The questions really aren't that outstanding, IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators, what think ye?&#xD;&#xA;Public rabble, what think ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an issue of concern, or am I simply letting a bit of jealousy cloud my perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302555/why-doesnt-hydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302461/basic-physics-of-bridges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="91324703-ba3e-4da9-bbd4-3d31588d8d3e" CreationDate="2017-01-03T17:38:15.020" UserId="63690" Text="Is PSE getting &quot;flash mob&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="91324703-ba3e-4da9-bbd4-3d31588d8d3e" CreationDate="2017-01-03T17:38:15.020" UserId="63690" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="9c82c831-a02b-4e3a-a765-9a89403c7b73" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:10:41.867" UserId="2451" Comment="Mreta is not just for moderator opiniona" Text="In the past couple of days (Jan 1 &amp; 2, 2017), there have been questions asked that have received over 20 votes and over 2000 views. Answers have received dozens of upvotes. Look [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the questions are interesting, although the bridge question is more engineering oriented and could be considered by some to be off-topic, what concerns me most is the rapid build-up of positive votes.  It's almost like someone in a large group was chosen to post the question which would then be upvoted to get attention.  The questions really aren't that outstanding, IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What think ye? Public rabble, what think ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an issue of concern, or am I simply letting a bit of jealousy cloud my perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302555/why-doesnt-hydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302461/basic-physics-of-bridges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24514" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="9c82c831-a02b-4e3a-a765-9a89403c7b73" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:10:41.867" UserId="2451" Comment="Mreta is not just for moderator opiniona" Text="|discussion|questions|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="e9e4f48b-114b-461a-84b9-d897c1d47c0f" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:11:55.587" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="a4cee6e1-e31f-470e-aeaf-b899ab6a90c9" CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:41:22.403" UserId="114696" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic**, nor likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any necessity here for Moderator intervention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by votes. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;******************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please upvote my question if you agree that Moderators should reserve their unilateral intervention to exception handling** and leave routine decisions to the Reviewers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="a4cee6e1-e31f-470e-aeaf-b899ab6a90c9" CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:41:22.403" UserId="114696" Text="When should Moderators close questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="a4cee6e1-e31f-470e-aeaf-b899ab6a90c9" CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:41:22.403" UserId="114696" Text="|discussion|policy|vote-to-close|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="172aeb77-111b-4bcf-8259-e007e0cc97e8" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:00:48.267" UserId="114696" Comment="deleted 209 characters in body" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic**, nor likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any necessity here for Moderator intervention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by votes. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="730b813c-06b4-4b31-99c0-72bc2dc67384" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:24:23.163" UserId="114696" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic**, nor likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any **necessity** here for Moderator intervention, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05) which states that : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by votes. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view **the Moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="41367098-0f64-4c54-aca2-e1ccd430f955" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:38:09.297" UserId="84967" Text="I would say that moderators get it right most of the times. But sometimes they err, in which case I can think of four routes you can take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vote to reopen. If the question is very clearly on-topic, it should get reopened rather fast. I agree with your point that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; so this route is not always ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave a comment in the closed post asking for clarification. Sometimes you might get the moderator to reconsider their decision; if it was indeed a rushed and unjustified closure, I'm sure the moderator will agree and reopen the question. But sometimes the moderator will disagree. In this case, reviewers might read your comment and, if convincing, this will make up for the inherent bias from before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Bring the issue to Meta. If the question was improperly closed, most users will agree with you and quickly vote to reopen. If they disagree with you, there is not much you can do but accept that you were wrong this time and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You can always come to the chat, and ask other users (and even moderators) what they think about the closed question. You will usually find several high rep users which can vote to reopen if they agree with you. You can even interact in real time with the moderator that closed the question and they might clear up their reasons (see e.g., [this recent transcript](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=34153196#34153196) where a very similar issue was discussed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course only answers *what to do* when there are unilateral closures by moderators; I leave it to them (or other users) to discuss whether such a closure is improper or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="6a5fde5b-99c8-44f5-9c3e-595fc4bfbe5b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T22:14:00.267" UserId="114696" Comment="added 629 characters in body" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic** - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any **necessity** for Moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05) which states that : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ has pointed out to me that the Help Centre does not say Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely, but I think it is clear that that privilege is intended for **the exceptional** rather than the routine.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the Moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="859ace32-b22b-44c2-8096-cc5c06bfbe1d" CreationDate="2017-01-03T22:50:28.543" UserId="114696" Comment="added 836 characters in body" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic** - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any **necessity** for Moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05) which states that : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ has pointed out to me that the Help Centre *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for **the exceptional** rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by Moderators developed when there was a shortage of Reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps Moderators are frustrated that there is a shift of opinion in the Reviewer community away from closing questions as readily as they would like, and they are trying to compensate for the greater tolerance of current Reviewers. If this is the case, I suggest that it is an abuse of the democratic process, over-riding the community's decision by default to leave the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for Reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the Moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="06636b59-0047-4e27-b85c-d6aa69d9a909" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:16:21.803" UserId="116309" Text="Recently I have posted the question &quot;Einstein-Hilbert action as an effective field theory&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I have received a lot of downvotes and it's ok because it was unclear: in order to repair I tried to close it opening a more precise one of the same but now they are downvoting both. I would like to know what is so wrong with them. The new one is called&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Diffeomorphism invariance of Einstein-Hilbert action after fixing a background&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="06636b59-0047-4e27-b85c-d6aa69d9a909" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:16:21.803" UserId="116309" Text="Downvotes whitout explanation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="06636b59-0047-4e27-b85c-d6aa69d9a909" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:16:21.803" UserId="116309" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9452" RevisionGUID="b01250b2-fbfa-439c-a051-1bb12c3ada95" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:19:59.610" UserId="95184" Text="Afaict this is caused by &quot;hot network questions&quot;. A question that is approachable to laymen sees a burst of interest which gets it into the hot network questions list. This brings in a hoard of curious people from all across the network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="b889f0db-cf55-4635-a813-3f2293927c8e" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:24:07.273" UserId="44126" Comment="Links to questions." Text="Recently I have posted the question [Einstein-Hilbert action as an effective field theory](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301460/44126).&#xD;&#xA;I have received a lot of downvotes and it's ok because it was unclear: in order to repair I tried to close it opening a more precise one of the same but now they are downvoting both. I would like to know what is so wrong with them. The new one is&#xD;&#xA;[Diffeomorphism invariance of Einstein-Hilbert action after fixing a background](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302694/44126)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="b889f0db-cf55-4635-a813-3f2293927c8e" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:24:07.273" UserId="44126" Comment="Links to questions." Text="Downvotes without explanation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="6d0e3665-b419-49b2-b415-1951091e0b48" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:33:44.267" UserId="114696" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic** - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any **necessity** for Moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05) which states that : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ has pointed out to me that the Help Centre *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for **the exceptional** rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by Moderators developed when there was a shortage of Reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps Moderators are frustrated that there is a shift of opinion in the Reviewer community away from closing questions as readily as they would like, and they are trying to compensate for the greater tolerance of current Reviewers. If this is the case, I suggest that it is an abuse of the democratic process, because it over-rides the community's decision by default to leave the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for Reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the Moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="ae08db66-eddb-44a0-b7bf-58dbe8f878f3" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:46:46.030" UserId="44126" Text="To address your title: [downvoters don't owe you an explanation](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135/280545), which is [an intentional decision](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/250177/1650379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your concern that people are downvoting both of your questions: I think that's appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Please [don't re-post a question that wasn't well-received](http://meta.webapps.stackexchange.com/q/4068).  Instead follow [this advice](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7054/280545) to improve and promote the *original* question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You can &quot;bump&quot; your question by editing the question to **provide status and progress updates resulting from your own continued efforts to answer the question yourself**. I usually do that unless I really hit a dead end with no further clues to follow. Some times I eventually bring about enough understanding to realise the answer, and thus post a resolution to my own problem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you have at least **75** rep points, you can [offer a **bounty**][1], promising to give some of your points to the person who correctly answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Upvote** the original question - every upvote helps increase its profile on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Use the **share** button beneath the original question to advertise it to your networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/privileges/set-bounties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these bits of advice I might add:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Ask for guidance about the questions on Meta (hello!) or in the [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), and take any advice you get there to heart for present and future questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth I have closed your second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak to the physics content of your question, which is outside of my specialty, but I personally think it looks interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="c1e87f93-399b-43c1-81c7-3521a76e0a02" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:49:16.400" UserId="114696" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I have recently found instances of Moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the Community in the Review Queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are **not blatantly off-topic** - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to **disrupt the community**, as required by the [guidance for Moderators in the Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any **necessity** for Moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which states that : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Centre](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ has pointed out to me that the Help Centre *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for **the exceptional** rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by Moderators developed when there was a shortage of Reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps Moderators are frustrated that there is a shift of opinion in the Reviewer community away from closing questions as readily as they would like, and they are trying to compensate for the greater tolerance of current Reviewers. If this is the case, I suggest that it is an abuse of the democratic process, because it over-rides the community's decision by default to leave the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243  &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**********************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the Review Queue for Close Votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think Moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If Moderators think the Review Queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for Reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a Moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the Moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="3ca7aa3e-5d8f-49f6-a22d-7221678a6020" CreationDate="2017-01-04T03:16:14.360" UserId="124" Comment="remove inappropriate speculation and improve formatting" Text="I have recently found instances of moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the community in the review queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are not blatantly off-topic - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to disrupt the community, as required by the [guidance for moderators in the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any necessity for moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog post [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which states that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added) David Z has pointed out to me that the help center *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for the exceptional rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by moderators developed when there was a shortage of reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the review queue for close votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If moderators think the review queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="3ca7aa3e-5d8f-49f6-a22d-7221678a6020" CreationDate="2017-01-04T03:16:14.360" UserId="124" Comment="remove inappropriate speculation and improve formatting" Text="When should moderators close questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="e5db3cee-1899-46db-b3f7-6fcaa33f3c3c" CreationDate="2017-01-04T06:22:27.530" UserId="1325" Comment="Anal retentive edits" Text="I would say that moderators get it right most of the times. But sometimes they err, in which case I can think of four routes you can take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vote to reopen. If the question is very clearly on-topic, it should get reopened rather fast. I agree with your point that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by Reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so this route is not always ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave a comment in the closed post asking for clarification. Sometimes you might get the moderator to reconsider their decision; if it was indeed a rushed and unjustified closure, I'm sure the moderator will agree and reopen the question. But sometimes the moderator will disagree. In this case, reviewers might read your comment and, if convincing, this will make up for the inherent bias from before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Bring the issue to Meta. If the question was improperly closed, most users will agree with you and quickly vote to reopen. If they disagree with you, there is not much you can do but accept that you were wrong this time and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You can always come to the chat, and ask other users (and even moderators) what they think about the closed question. You will usually find several high rep users which can vote to reopen if they agree with you. You can even interact in real time with the moderator that closed the question and they might clear up their reasons (see e.g., [this recent transcript](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=34153196#34153196) where a very similar issue was discussed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course only answers *what to do* when there are unilateral closures by moderators; I leave it to them (or other users) to discuss whether such a closure is improper or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9454" RevisionGUID="d3bce61c-1838-42eb-80d6-7b5dab874b2a" CreationDate="2017-01-04T09:17:11.973" UserId="1325" Text="The fundamental rule of moderation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators can never win¹&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they don't close egregious homework questions the moment they are posted we moan and if they're over zealous about closing homework questions we moan. The best moderators can do is try not to lose too often, and I'd say they do that pretty well and deserve a hearty round of applause for their efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderation is different, and harder, here than in Stack Overflow or indeed any other SE site I can think of with the possible exception of the Maths SE. The difference is our homework policy. Yes, there are endless arguments about whether our approach to homework is justified or not, but while the policy exists you can't blame the moderators for doing their best to enforce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework policy only works if homework questions are closed off before someone unaware of the policy answers the question. If the OP gets an answer then it doesn't matter if the question is subsequently closed and/or the answer deleted. If the OP is getting answers that encourages them to ask more homework questions and the flood of homework gets ever deeper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is a lot of pressure on the mods to close off homework questions ASAP. The moderator uncertainty principle means some homework questions won't be closed while some questions will be closed unnecessarily. That's life. The main thing is that the moderators get it mostly right most of the time. You've highlighted some cases where you think the mods were wrong (I disagree on some of your examples) and ignored the many cases where they got it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's always worth keeping an eye on the closure of questions because I feel as though the moderatorial consensus drifts between (slightly) too severe and (slightly) too lax. Maybe it's edging towards the *too severe* end of the spectrum at the moment, and if so this discussion will probably be sufficient to nudge it back in the other direction. However I strongly disagree with your implication that there is a serious problem and that moderators should intervene only in exceptional cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ and people ask me why I didn't stand as a moderator at the last election :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="c70abfe6-83f2-4ba7-ac66-2a08e2676a99" CreationDate="2017-01-04T13:17:40.290" UserId="140807" Text="Moderators should never close a question for being off-topic in my opinion. Just get it on topic and you are done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24539" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="5087bf8a-06f9-4e1c-bd43-1621381240ce" CreationDate="2017-01-04T20:28:13.137" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="d35b48b8-5495-4cc6-a8e5-1d8b432b86f2" CreationDate="2017-01-05T04:24:02.957" UserId="9426" Text="Typically if MathJax is enabled on the main site, we turn it on for meta too. I'm not at all sure why it wasn't done here. No doubt there was a good reason (or at least an understandable one, such as &quot;we forgot&quot;). But I can't think of any reason that still holds given our current standards, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;late &gt; never&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="cdbe3904-28a0-4ea7-80c9-a5901e3a0956" CreationDate="2017-01-05T04:24:15.460" UserId="9426" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|mathjax|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24542" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="346a472c-3fda-4825-b67c-a6686040c5ab" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:03:01.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/817038703201808384" />
  <row Id="24543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="8fb53e5a-abc9-4c21-afd4-ee67dd3c7ef1" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:16:20.307" UserId="84967" Text="I'd like to address some points that [rob](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/44126/rob) didn't touch upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, I want to say something about your comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I just want to understand how to improve a post is good, maybe I made confusion because of my English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me tell you that I sympathise with you because English is not my first language either, and I too sometimes find it difficult to express my thoughts clearly. Like it or not, poor grammar will reduce the overall quality of the post. The reception of a post with poor grammar is automatically worse than than of a post with good grammar, even if the physical content is the same. And this happens even though most users try to focus on the physical content of the question; it is a subconscious process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason you (and I) have to make an extra effort when posting Q&amp;A here. You'll have to live with that. In any case, don't fret too much about it, as most users here have good intentions and they'll try to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your post(s). Your first question was edited several times. The first version **is indeed unclear**, and unfortunately it mentions *diffeomorphisms invariance*. Later on you edited it and deleted the part about diff. inv., but the question was still rather unclear&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;. You got an answer but it did not address your concerns (it didn't address your *true question*, because it was not clear what your *true question* was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you had two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **edit your question** and introduce some changes in order to make it clear what your *true question* is. The problem is that major edits that change the meaning of the question are discouraged if the question does already contain an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **post a new question**, which clearly highlights your concerns. You should only do this if the new question is significantly different than the first one; otherwise, it will be closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, your case is very complicated because a major edit to your first question is discouraged, but posting a new one was not well received either, as the second one was similar to the first one (the culprit seems to be that you mentioned *diffeomorphism invariance* in the first question, even though you deleted that part later on). If you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, the second one would have been significantly different and not closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first read your first question I didn't understand it, and when I read the second one I felt that you were asking the same thing twice. Now I realise that you didn't really have an alternative but to repost the question, because the first question didn't ask what you really wanted to ask. If only you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first one! In its current state, the first question does not mention diff. inv. anymore. Therefore, I would say that the second one is not a duplicate of the first one. Maybe we could ask to the rest of users to consider voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this moment, your first question is&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we construct the interaction terms of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian as a function of $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and your second question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we be sure that the diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is not lost upon the field redefinition $g=\eta+h$? Moreover, how can we prove that such an invariance is kept order by order in $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is about the *construction* of the Lagrangian, and JamalS's answer addresses that. The second one is about the *symmetries* of the Lagrangian once expanded, and as such, I'd say that it *is* significantly different than the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you also mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, but that part is already deleted and JamalS's answer does not address that. To me, the second question should be reopened (and I have already voted to reopen it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Consider replacing &quot;define&quot; with &quot;construct&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood your questions again. If that's the case please correct me in the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9458" RevisionGUID="4689bd0f-f11f-48a4-900d-2dcb75d134d5" CreationDate="2017-01-06T00:14:20.500" UserId="9426" Text="It's exciting that you all care about your site so much you want to wear your allegiance. The only concern I had when I heard about this was &quot;what would our pesky lawyers say?&quot;. As a rule, [&quot;It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/317531/1438). That said, our VP of Community Growth [says](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/244564/1438):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We do not object to your individual use of the logo in a personal and private manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like, say for using the logo on a tee shirt you plan to wear yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a bit tricky when it comes to selling shirts. But as long as the charge is just to defray costs and it doesn't turn it into a business of some sort, I don't see any problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we can't coordinate this event; y'all'll have to take care of that yourselves. You might have heard of our [#SOreadytohelp contest](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/303721/who-are-the-winners-in-the-soreadytohelp-t-shirt-drawing). It took [months](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/313937/10-million-questions-giveaway-what-happened) to distribute the prizes and we've concluded its just not one our strengths. Sorry about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9459" RevisionGUID="b307c689-3b49-4aba-934b-1b7f16712a02" CreationDate="2017-01-06T02:38:18.003" UserId="46115" Text="I will go with the simplest idea, a hat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![hat design][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shape of it might need some modification for it to be practical. But you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QEU9L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixb6d.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="21725de1-5ff0-441c-973a-64ec689a3953" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:14:17.500" UserId="66395" Text="Recently I tried to edit two questions, [this one][1] and [this one][2]. Both my edits were rejected by Community$\diamondsuit$, which I take as &quot;automatically rejected&quot;, because they conflicted with a subsequent edit. Both edits were simply formal: I edited math formulas to make it cleaner and more understandable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I see that the second question has been put on hold so maybe this is the reason behind my edit not being accepted (but, is it?); for the first one I can not think of a reason not to accept my edit; subsequent edits by moderators fixed the spelling but, in my opinion, did not make the post more readable by including LaTeX rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my edits were automatically rejected, what can be the reason of such a rejection? In particular, when there is conflict with a subsequent edit, which one is going to win? Is it reputation based, or decided by moderators, or what else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this post is by no means polemic, I think that there is something I am missing about edit &amp; review procedure so I would like to understand it in order to edit appropriately in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301933/boundary-conditions-in-poissons-equation-for-gravity &quot;1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302477/confusion-regarding-this-question &quot;2&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="21725de1-5ff0-441c-973a-64ec689a3953" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:14:17.500" UserId="66395" Text="Why are some edits automatically rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="21725de1-5ff0-441c-973a-64ec689a3953" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:14:17.500" UserId="66395" Text="|support|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="02277ee6-39a9-41e0-9b52-436a8a1a9d43" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:22:24.263" UserId="8563" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Typically if MathJax is enabled on the main site, we turn it on for meta too. I'm not at all sure why it wasn't done here. No doubt there was a good reason (or at least an understandable one, such as &quot;we forgot&quot;). But I can't think of any reason that still holds given our current standards, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;\mathrm{late} &gt; \mathrm{never}&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="7bed19ca-6190-4be8-b81c-4d333f8ffcc5" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:43:04.713" UserId="8563" Text="On [this edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157926), the edit was rejected because a user with full editing privileges (i.e. 2k+ reputation) started editing before you submitted your edit, as detailed [on this Meta Stack Exchange post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184992/why-does-the-community-user-approve-and-reject-edits):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###A user with full edit privileges saves an edit over yours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a user with full editing privileges for a post (including the original poster) begins editing the post at the same time as you, and they save their edit after you have already suggested it, then your suggested edit will be overridden in favor of their fully-privileged edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301933/boundary-conditions-in-poissons-equation-for-gravity), it's hard to tell unless you provide the review link (i.e. equivalent to [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157926), available from the review pages on the history tab)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="eb2ffa3e-1a0a-4090-a9ff-8cf8850d5d64" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:49:55.830" UserId="66395" Comment="added review links as suggested in answer" Text="Recently I tried to edit two questions, [this one][1] and [this one][2]. Both my edits were rejected by Community$\diamondsuit$, which I take as &quot;automatically rejected&quot;, because they conflicted with a subsequent edit. Both edits were simply formal: I edited math formulas to make it cleaner and more understandable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I see that the second question has been put on hold so maybe this is the reason behind my edit not being accepted (but, is it?); for the first one I can not think of a reason not to accept my edit; subsequent edits by moderators fixed the spelling but, in my opinion, did not make the post more readable by including LaTeX rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my edits were automatically rejected, what can be the reason of such a rejection? In particular, when there is conflict with a subsequent edit, which one is going to win? Is it reputation based, or decided by moderators, or what else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this post is by no means polemic, I think that there is something I am missing about edit &amp; review procedure so I would like to understand it in order to edit appropriately in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157565&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301933/boundary-conditions-in-poissons-equation-for-gravity &quot;1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302477/confusion-regarding-this-question &quot;2&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="efe588d3-cc5a-4c4a-a0a6-5c9e52801d2b" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:52:03.297" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 245 characters in body" Text="On both [this edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157926) and [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157565), the edit was rejected because a user with full editing privileges (i.e. 2k+ reputation) started editing before you submitted your edit, as detailed [on this Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184992/why-does-the-community-user-approve-and-reject-edits):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###A user with full edit privileges saves an edit over yours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a user with full editing privileges for a post (including the original poster) begins editing the post at the same time as you, and they save their edit after you have already suggested it, then your suggested edit will be overridden in favor of their fully-privileged edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="3287b7a9-d1bb-4343-878b-205d5f60b1f2" CreationDate="2017-01-06T14:41:52.097" UserId="8563" Text="Regarding your final statement,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My view is that the moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree. Moderators' question-closure duties **should** include routine closures, where questions are blatantly off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This applies in particular to blatant cases of off-topic non-mainstream and homework-like questions. Non-mainstream questions can prove quite harmful, through a variety of ways. Similarly, answers to do-my-work-for-me homework-like questions do a lot to weaken the policy, and there is a strong [broken windows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) argument that they should be closed before they get even a single answer. As such, if a question is clearly off-topic homework, then the site benefits from prompt closure even if it is via a unilateral moderator vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is particularly the case for your questions [two](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955) and [three](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875), and quite a bit for number [four](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301834). Regarding the [space needle question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302625), with its complete lack on the &quot;show some effort&quot; front, I'm confused why you think it is anything but blatantly off-topic in its present form: it can be edited into an on-topic form, which is precisely why it is currently closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, a moderator closure does not pre-empt a democratic look at whether the question is on-topic or not: that is what the reopen review queue is for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="fa253c93-8f6e-43d7-a635-48edcfd4257c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T15:23:13.693" UserId="121464" Comment="edited body" Text="#Baby Steps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer that starts from relatively simple physics and ends up at a result that is considered fairly complex. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="20b87f15-fea0-4f99-a6cd-7bbefb61a79d" CreationDate="2017-01-06T16:30:48.003" UserId="76162" Comment="Toned it down for heather" Text="&gt; May I ask a question about philosophy of physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can ask any such question of me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it permitted or not or frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From moderator David Z's response, it looks like such questions are frowned upon. For myself, I think that if you can't ask physicists about this stuff, and if instead you're sent away to some philosophy forum with a flea in your ear, that's not right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I hope you'd rather see discussions about &quot;what is physics?&quot; and &quot;falsifiability&quot; (and some of the stuff that Smolin complains about) here among physikers, than in a purely philosophy-bent forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would. I view Sean Carroll's stance on [falsifiability](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/) with alarm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we ask in the Physics.SE about whether or not the following is science or is still philosophy: 1.string theory, 2.M theory, 3.multiverse? Just curious. &#xD;&#xA;Grateful for any response, including downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can't ask on Physics.SE, but while we're on the subject, let me say this: there's no evidence for string theory or M-theory. And none for the multiverse. These hypotheses remain speculative even after many decades. Moreover the M-theory &quot;brane-leak&quot; claim as to why gravity is so weak contradicts GR, and the Goldilocks multiverse &quot;just right&quot; claim contradicts running constants. On top of that these speculations can never be disproven, and as such they're on a par with religious promises and claims. They aren't science. What they are is pseudoscience popscience _masquerading_ as science. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="6f3c9948-a537-4e06-8539-ac4e63e3e5af" CreationDate="2017-01-06T20:44:48.660" UserId="76591" Comment="deleted 251 characters in body" Text="I have no intention being rude, and have been hesitating a long time before posting this question. The fact is that a user of the Physics SE, includes this quote in his public profile: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, &amp; truth will again triumph.&quot;-Goebbels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether it is acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE. The problem is not in the claim itself, which, if it was not from Goebbels, wouldn't be shocking, but in the fact that a user willingly claims that he has no problem showing everyone that he quotes a Nazi. Knowing all the horrors done by the Nazis, I find this very shocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this quote from his profile, in respect to all people who died because of the ideas and the crimes of the Nazis? And, especially for a physicist, in respect to Einstein who was Jewish himself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="7d079c37-1d0b-4fd3-abce-51f2c29d8c03" CreationDate="2017-01-07T03:47:37.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24559" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="1d9a6730-7ff6-4aad-ad05-4bcbf83c730f" CreationDate="2017-01-07T04:47:39.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="77b8cfce-201b-4ac1-a681-8be16153c30c" CreationDate="2017-01-07T08:55:43.483" UserDisplayName="user130529" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="I have no intention being rude, and have been hesitating a long time before posting this question. The fact is that a user of the Physics SE includes this quote in his public profile: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, &amp; truth will again triumph.&quot;-Goebbels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether it is acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE. The problem is not in the claim itself, which, if it was not from Goebbels, wouldn't be shocking, but in the fact that a user willingly claims that he has no problem showing everyone that he quotes a Nazi. Knowing all the horrors done by the Nazis, I find this very shocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kindly suggest this user to remove this quote from his profile, in respect to all people who died because of the ideas and the crimes of the Nazis. And, especially for a physicist, in respect to Einstein who was Jewish himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: the user has removed the reference to Goebbels. I find it nice from him, it shows he feels concerned by what other people may feel (see the comments that were moved to chat)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="4c705729-4e7c-4649-8a91-ca5f6b901ce6" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:05:52.323" UserId="76188" Text="I just saw this in my rep tab:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The screenshot was taken on Saturday, January the 7th, around 15:03 in the Italian time zone, that is GMT+1, just before asking this. I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What user was removed to cause this? Why were they removed? And what exactly was the -2 due to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind losing 2 rep, I'm just curious as to why I lost it, i.e. who and why was removed and how he had given me those 2 points. I am guessing an accepted answer: is that so?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kzNkE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="4c705729-4e7c-4649-8a91-ca5f6b901ce6" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:05:52.323" UserId="76188" Text="&quot;user removed&quot;: who was removed? And what is the -2 due to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="4c705729-4e7c-4649-8a91-ca5f6b901ce6" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:05:52.323" UserId="76188" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24564" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="b3fb06c2-c864-4b46-8234-55e3bedd56f6" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:08:06.410" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1289],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="805f5c5e-99fb-4c0c-ac8c-274e650f73c4" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:45:08.943" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I just saw this in my rep tab:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The screenshot was taken on Saturday, January the 7th, around 15:03 in the Italian time zone, that is GMT+1, just before asking this. I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What user was removed to cause this? Why were they removed? And what exactly was the -2 due to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind losing 2 rep, I'm just curious as to why I lost it, i.e. who and why was removed and how he had given me those 2 points. I am guessing an accepted answer: is that so?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kzNkE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="805f5c5e-99fb-4c0c-ac8c-274e650f73c4" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:45:08.943" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|user-accounts|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24567" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="805f5c5e-99fb-4c0c-ac8c-274e650f73c4" CreationDate="2017-01-07T14:45:08.943" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="&quot;User removed&quot;: who was removed? And what is the -2 due to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="26f08f0a-be96-4e43-86be-9922c28a20c1" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:59:02.293" UserId="8563" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="As I have expressed mainly by my edits on such posts, video-based questions can indeed be rescued to give, I think, fairly high-quality content. This is definitely time-consuming and should only be done if you think the end product will be worth it, but I think the end results can be quite good, such as these two, in their before-and-after shots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rotor panorama](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75709/revisions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is coherent light required for interference in Young's double slit experiment?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/76692/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, it is extremely unhelpful to come to a post that says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs) is confusing, please explain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and nothing more. If you have the time, see the video and decide whether it's worth keeping into a full Q&amp;A. If it is, and you have the time and capacity, take the appropriate stills from the video, describe what's happening, and fill out the question. If you don't, then leave a comment to the OP explaining that they need to flesh out their post and set out a question that is not dependent on the video.* Refer them to this meta thread, too, to drive home the message that if they don't change their post soon then its likely future is lots of downvotes and no answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have time to look at the video, then also leave a comment and also refer them to this meta thread, it's [easy to find](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=videos). **Please avoid drive-by downvoting**, though, unless there already is an appropriate comment: it does little to help the site and very little to help the OP improve their post and get an answer to their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I note, though, that for users without image-upload privileges the whole thing is an uphill climb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="510e1867-fdc8-4417-953b-201b47a6055c" CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:15:47.877" UserId="111575" Text="Sometimes I'll have questions that I can't describe well in words, and I was wondering if there were any recommendations for how to draw it out, such as a free download to draw with or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="510e1867-fdc8-4417-953b-201b47a6055c" CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:15:47.877" UserId="111575" Text="What is the best way to draw out a physics question for this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="510e1867-fdc8-4417-953b-201b47a6055c" CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:15:47.877" UserId="111575" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24572" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="425ea6d3-4bd9-4393-b417-b8d4ef99e841" CreationDate="2017-01-08T00:00:31.427" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="b5e7c5b6-342f-480e-ac18-7f616c90a3a3" CreationDate="2017-01-08T00:09:47.320" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Here are two recent questions that I would consider low in quality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Is coherent light required for interference in the Young double slit experiment?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What theories explain the wave-particle duality as traveling-standing waves duality?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both refer to videos. The first one is a single sentence with a link to a very lengthy video. The second says he saw the video somewhere but can't find the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there are multiple problems that apply to almost all questions that are asked about videos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They usually don't take the trouble to write up what they think is going on in the video, so in order to answer the question, people would have to watch the video, which is very time-consuming. The asker usually doesn't even give a time index that can be skipped to for the relevant part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The other problem with people failing to write up anything is that the question no longer stands on its own. The video will at some point stop being available on youtube, or youtube will be superseded by something else, or whatever...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Physics.SE is supposed to be for &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,&quot; i.e., for people who are somewhat serious about the subject. People who show up here saying, &quot;I saw this video...&quot; are typically not at all serious about the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The video medium itself is just not well suited to presenting complex ideas. This also tends to drag down the level of the questions to something below what I perceive as the intended level of physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are exceptions to all of the above. For example, some people watch a video of a physics lecture online and show up here with a useful question, e.g., &quot;At 3:47, Feynman writes the equation $E=-\nabla\phi+\partial A/\partial t$, but isn't the sign of the second term wrong? It disagrees with the sign in Jackson, but is this just a different sign convention?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the more common case where the questions are of low quality, would it be helpful to set some kind of standard policy and/or consensus for how to respond to the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76800/what-theories-explain-the-wave-particle-duality-as-traveling-standing-waves-dual&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76692/is-coherent-light-required-for-interference-in-the-young-double-slit-experiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="cf88746f-c89c-4653-90f9-80c7b208c690" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:31:10.050" UserId="59419" Text="I noticed that a question (see below) I asked a while back was deleted without a trace or any notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have an issue with downvotes and closing. The question is admittedly fairly speculative. However, I don't see the purpose of outright deleting a question like this, since it doesn't contain any offensive content, and may in fact be of interest to some people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deleted question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is mass/energy a measure of computational capacity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously computation requires energy, and there are known entropy bounds in relation to this. Here, I am asking if they are the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sub-questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is quantum mechanics a mechanism of computational minimization?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is computational capacity preserved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is gravity a mechanism for clustering of computational capacity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is a black hole a computationally closed region, which attract computational capacity, but does not have computational power to transfer any subset of computational capacity outside the closed region?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="cf88746f-c89c-4653-90f9-80c7b208c690" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:31:10.050" UserId="59419" Text="Why was this question deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="cf88746f-c89c-4653-90f9-80c7b208c690" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:31:10.050" UserId="59419" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="fa734373-730a-410d-bd3c-35abf5c1b9a4" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:35:19.760" UserId="2451" Text="It was deleted by [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="ed46bc4c-96f7-4af6-8c41-f0f4f4e0da91" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:36:28.573" UserId="2451" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I noticed that a question (see below) I asked a while back was deleted without a trace or any notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have an issue with downvotes and closing. The question is admittedly fairly speculative. However, I don't see the purpose of outright deleting a question like this, since it doesn't contain any offensive content, and may in fact be of interest to some people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deleted question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is mass/energy a measure of computational capacity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/296580/2451)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously computation requires energy, and there are known entropy bounds in relation to this. Here, I am asking if they are the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sub-questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is quantum mechanics a mechanism of computational minimization?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is computational capacity preserved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is gravity a mechanism for clustering of computational capacity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is a black hole a computationally closed region, which attract computational capacity, but does not have computational power to transfer any subset of computational capacity outside the closed region?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="ed46bc4c-96f7-4af6-8c41-f0f4f4e0da91" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:36:28.573" UserId="2451" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24581" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="ad2e3dc4-f290-4a1d-a9ac-aaab10dcca30" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:37:23.060" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6787],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="be31fcdd-78c4-403b-bd29-ec4390816ea7" CreationDate="2017-01-08T20:50:44.293" UserId="2451" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="It was deleted by [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community). For more information, see [this](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6787/2451) meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="fd8819e8-d30b-4947-9d34-2ef13fc88e44" CreationDate="2017-01-10T04:24:36.887" UserId="124" Comment="update" Text="Good points, and I agree that these questions need some particular handling. My general rule for linked resources is this: **judge the question as if the links weren't there**, at least for purposes of deciding whether to downvote or vote to close it. Specifically, don't click on the link to the video and see whether the question still makes sense. In some cases it will be fine; in other cases it won't make any sense at all (and in that case &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; is likely to be an appropriate close reason), and there will also be cases between those two extremes where I would probably consider a downvote to be appropriate. A helpful comment explaining the downvote is also nice, but of course nobody is _obligated_ to explain their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag doesn't apply to cases like this. It's meant to be for questions (and answers) which are barely coherent, or otherwise have _serious_ quality problems of a non-technical nature. The presence or absence of a linked resource is not likely to make the difference between VLQ or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="b101fde9-7840-417b-ad80-843979984aa3" CreationDate="2017-01-10T06:41:28.587" UserId="31790" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="6375a620-6016-42ea-acac-c3a1886ce816" CreationDate="2017-01-10T07:52:19.590" UserId="130714" Text="**$\mathbf{Unsung}\mathbf{  question}$**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question which received alot of views but upvotes less than 5.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="7cb6b696-5e29-4126-bc3a-7c088e9fa0fe" CreationDate="2017-01-10T07:58:00.493" UserId="130714" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="##Unsung question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question which received alot of views but upvotes less than 5.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9468" RevisionGUID="d2db49f5-87f4-4998-b4a4-d1f2a0f91881" CreationDate="2017-01-10T14:03:29.690" UserId="32426" Text="As it was explained many times, the downvoters don't need to explain their reason. It is because the anonymity of the votes are considered more important by the SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't do too much with it, if they would require to give an explanation, there would be much fewer downvotes, and it would open the door before revenge attacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the other answerers didn't explain clearly: yes, it is not okay. It is particularly *evil*, if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* it is a first downvote&#xD;&#xA;* there are many downs, all without explanation&#xD;&#xA;* if the reason of the downvote isn't obvious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider this like an election. It would be hilarious if a not elected politician could challenge the people, why they didn't elect him. Although it is quite possible that their reason wasn't fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is not okay, but it seems it is the smallest evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are major differences between the behavior of the SE sites. I think, most people using multiple SE sites actively agree that the Physics SE isn't the friendliest one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, most of the downers won't go back to the post, thus the downvotes remain even if you already fixed your post. And you have no option to ask them for a vote change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the meta SE, it is a quite common suggestion to implement some feature into the SE software, which could - anonymously - re-attract the attention of the downvoters, after the OP thinks he fixed his post. Unfortunately, the SE (company) doesn't seem very sedulous to implement similar user requests since some years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some tricky ways, most of them is on the border case of misusing the site. Deleting the post and re-posting it would solve the problem, but it would be surely considered as a serious misuse, don't do it (10k+ users would see, what you did)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9468" RevisionGUID="058b82d0-a32d-4f56-8f75-ece160184d7d" CreationDate="2017-01-10T14:08:33.037" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="As it was explained many times, the downvoters don't need to explain their reason. It is because the anonymity of the votes are considered more important by the SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't do too much with it, if they would require to give an explanation, there would be much fewer downvotes, and it would open the door before revenge attacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the other answerers didn't explain clearly: yes, it is not okay. It is particularly *evil*, if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* it is a first downvote&#xD;&#xA;* there are many downs, all without explanation&#xD;&#xA;* if the reason of the downvote isn't obvious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider this like an election. It would be hilarious if a not elected politician could challenge the people, why they didn't elect him. Although it is quite possible that their reason wasn't fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is not okay, but it seems it is the lesser evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are major differences between the behavior of the SE sites. I think, most people using multiple SE sites actively agree that the Physics SE isn't the friendliest one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, most of the downers won't go back to the post, thus the downvotes remain even if you already fixed your post. And you have no option to ask them for a vote change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the meta SE, it is a quite common suggestion to implement some feature into the SE software, which could - anonymously - re-attract the attention of the downvoters, after the OP thinks he fixed his post. Unfortunately, the SE (company) doesn't seem very sedulous to implement similar user requests since some years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some tricky ways, most of them is on the border case of misusing the site. Deleting the post and re-posting it would solve the problem, but it would be surely considered as a serious misuse, don't do it (10k+ users would see, what you did)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9468" RevisionGUID="1052be77-9029-4eda-90db-8fca64b3d5e1" CreationDate="2017-01-10T14:15:35.690" UserId="32426" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="As it was explained many times, the downvoters don't need to explain their reason. It is because the anonymity of the votes are considered more important by the SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't do too much with it, if they would require to give an explanation, there would be much fewer downvotes, and it would open the door before revenge attacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the other answerers didn't explain clearly: yes, it is not okay. It is particularly *evil*, if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* it is a first downvote&#xD;&#xA;* there are many downs, all without explanation&#xD;&#xA;* if the reason of the downvote isn't obvious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider this like an election. It would be hilarious if a not elected politician could challenge the people, why they didn't elect him. Although it is quite possible that their reason wasn't fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is not okay, but it seems it is the lesser evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are major differences between the behavior of the SE sites. I think, most people using multiple SE sites actively agree that the Physics SE isn't the friendliest one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, most of the downers won't go back to the post, thus the downvotes remain even if you already fixed your post. And you have no way to ask them to consider a vote change. You can ask this in a comment, but most of them wouldn't see also that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the meta SE, it is a quite common suggestion to implement some feature into the SE software, which could - anonymously - re-attract the attention of the downvoters, after the OP thinks he fixed his post. Unfortunately, the SE (company) doesn't seem very sedulous to implement similar user requests since some years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some tricky ways, most of them is on the border case of misusing the site. Deleting the post and re-posting it would solve the problem, but it would be surely considered as a serious misuse, don't do it (10k+ users would see, what you did)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="e63239be-da91-46c8-8cb9-c2c1031862db" CreationDate="2017-01-11T01:32:20.890" UserId="45613" Text="Not that I'm suggesting censorship, but are there any checks in the Physics Stack Exchange system that exclude questions seeking answers that might be used for *evil* or *destructive* purposes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose people capable of answering such questions (and of sounder mind) would flag or else avoid answering and thus prevent or at least limit the outcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="e63239be-da91-46c8-8cb9-c2c1031862db" CreationDate="2017-01-11T01:32:20.890" UserId="45613" Text="Any checks for possible nefarious use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="e63239be-da91-46c8-8cb9-c2c1031862db" CreationDate="2017-01-11T01:32:20.890" UserId="45613" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24598" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="70855179-c5b6-4834-bcbc-e031106a2854" CreationDate="2017-01-11T01:53:26.190" UserId="130714" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:130714,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ramanujan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24599" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="fbae7ab1-c1fb-40d6-97f1-93596ae9b6b4" CreationDate="2017-01-11T01:53:31.060" UserId="130714" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:130714,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ramanujan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9471" RevisionGUID="6b881da4-8e35-4211-9154-9d4cfc7e7ea9" CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:06:17.783" UserId="32426" Text="I don't know how would be it a real problem, any feasible nefarious physics knowledge would require also a lot of [engineering][1] or [diy][2] effort, which is offtopic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, we can simply ignore the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://diy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="4e78ce9c-7e8e-4d18-8815-46ccfb7a144c" CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:30:56.910" UserId="116309" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Recently I have posted the question [Einstein-Hilbert action as an effective field theory](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301460/44126).&#xD;&#xA;I have received a lot of downvotes and it's ok because it was unclear: in order to repair I tried to close it opening a more precise one of the same but now they are downvoting both. I would like to know what is so wrong with them. The new one is&#xD;&#xA;[Breaking of diffeomorphism invariance after fixing a background metric](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302694/44126)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9472" RevisionGUID="9d55f596-3505-4c58-8111-1daa3c51c99e" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:51:45.240" UserId="23473" Text="We deal in physics here. Anyone with legitimately nefarious motives that present a danger to people would likely be smart enough to ask their question in a way that doesn't reveal their intents. But more than that, we aren't the only source of physics out there. If someone comes by and wants to know the physics of something that seems like it could be used to hurt people, we are still going to answer the question. Information is not evil. Now, we aren't going to instruct them on how to build a thermonuclear device in their tool shed. That would be off-topic as an engineering question. And it would probably be more suitable on DIY.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics isn't confidential and we don't keep secrets about it. The only thing holding back information could do is keep someone from realizing the safety hazards associated with an action, which might put more people at risk. Anyone actively looking to harm others isn't going to be able to do it with math equations alone (except Math Man, but he only does it in self-defense. Best superhero ever!) and we don't accept questions asking engineering or diy details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="b69c397f-45a0-46f7-be84-f09e251400f0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:18:24.240" UserId="8521" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  My only concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304413/rigorous-treatment-of-blackbody-radiation), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="b69c397f-45a0-46f7-be84-f09e251400f0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:18:24.240" UserId="8521" Text="Proposed Tag: 'derivation'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="b69c397f-45a0-46f7-be84-f09e251400f0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:18:24.240" UserId="8521" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="023e24a4-a725-46b6-856a-c943a746a671" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:24:26.053" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  My only concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/304413/), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="023e24a4-a725-46b6-856a-c943a746a671" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:24:26.053" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="974a1e77-7e27-41a2-a9bc-03c5efa82754" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:25:06.963" UserId="8521" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  In my experience, understanding derivations (at least of college-level physics material) can be extremely useful and insightful---often far better than memorizing a result.  A 'derivations' tag might be good to give these types of questions/answers more attention, and let people especially fond-of/expert-at them find them more easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).  Being a derivation, however, does directly address the content of the question itself and the relevant skills/material required to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional modifier might be good to distinguish &quot;derivation&quot; as in, 're-deriving an equation'; as apposed to derivative 'derivation', as in an anti-integral.  Especially for non-native english speakers, this could be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304413/rigorous-treatment-of-blackbody-radiation), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="974a1e77-7e27-41a2-a9bc-03c5efa82754" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:25:06.963" UserId="8521" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="e45d7052-35b6-4973-ab5a-d84625f8036b" CreationDate="2017-01-11T16:22:13.477" UserId="8521" Text="Thanks to @rob for linking to [Atwood's Meta-Tag post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) (which I somehow always forget about...).  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1] The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author's skill level[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2] Meta-tags are actually [...] dependent tags. These are tags that don't say anything by themselves - you can't tell what the question is about unless they're paired with some other tag[...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re [1]: I'd argue that 'derivation' is *not* consistent with [1] in that, like the much discussed 'homework' tag, it *does* describe the content of the question itself, and seeing the 'derivation' tag would indeed provide a keyword/description of the content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re [2]: I think [2] *does* apply, but only marginally.  A 'thermal-physics' could go-it-alone, and be perfectly sufficient, while a 'derivation' tag would be missing the actual physical content of the question.  But, that is to say 'derivation' would not be a *complete* description tag, much like ['computational-physics'](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-physics), ['forces'](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/forces), or ['mathematical-physics'](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics).  So I personally don't think [2] is a deal-breaker.  Comments welcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24611" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="ed401a8b-7190-4e10-9291-1d1f650f6bba" CreationDate="2017-01-11T16:41:22.523" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24612" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="5d9784e9-5a4f-4b9c-8020-ac45f44e47e4" CreationDate="2017-01-11T16:41:29.210" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[996],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:23473,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24613" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="fd61da36-efce-40b8-bd39-f62f8a3164be" CreationDate="2017-01-11T19:17:46.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/819262040787316740" />
  <row Id="24614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="2d56df62-183e-4515-a039-c8e79665133d" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:16:07.600" UserId="95563" Text="I posted this&#xA; http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/303764/95563&#xA;&#xA;And it was put on hold, then I added more info and explained that this is my attempt to a solution, but I got no answer and it's still on hold?&#xA;&#xA;Thank you for your help &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="2d56df62-183e-4515-a039-c8e79665133d" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:16:07.600" UserId="95563" Text="What's wrong with my post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="2d56df62-183e-4515-a039-c8e79665133d" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:16:07.600" UserId="95563" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="c431db5f-4e11-4948-a102-b55736cf623e" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:25:41.937" UserId="124" Text="The most obvious thing that's wrong with it is that you have posted an image of typeable text. Don't do that. You can use images for diagrams, but when it comes to things you can type, you should instead transcribe them into a post and put them in a quote block. You can use [MathJax](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) for math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next thing, and the reason it was put on hold, is that you're not asking a conceptual question. Actually, you don't really _ask_ anything, but the closest you come to stating a problem is when you say that you're not getting the right answer. That's not the sort of thing we handle. What we're looking for here are questions about procedures, like whether a particular formula is applicable to a particular situation, or how to choose the value of a certain variable, or whether you need to account for a certain force, or so on. So think about your question and identify what exactly it is that's holding you back from finding the solution. If you can't come up with anything other than that you're not getting the right answer, [this is not the place](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh) to ask your question. But if you are having a conceptual difficulty, like the examples I mentioned earlier, you can probably ask that here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="35f25e58-6136-4fce-b174-47650f96fd30" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:28:10.927" UserId="2451" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I posted this&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/303764/95563&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it was put on hold, then I added more info and explained that this is my attempt to a solution, but I got no answer and it's still on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="35f25e58-6136-4fce-b174-47650f96fd30" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:28:10.927" UserId="2451" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9477" RevisionGUID="7807414a-e30a-49ea-bf60-b294f59c2f7a" CreationDate="2017-01-11T23:52:10.137" UserId="134343" Text="The project is drawing to a close, and I am planning to take down the annotation interface this weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much to everyone who helped out, and thank you for all the valuable feedback and suggestions. Hopefully the collected annotations will lead to the development of better duplicate question detection systems, especially for StackExchange.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="e907c9a0-9685-4c98-99a7-dcbc43b832c2" CreationDate="2017-01-13T23:01:27.127" UserId="104964" Text="While any of us can need an explanation of some concept we need to get clear in our minds and can't quite grasp, it does seem sometimes that even the most basic step is sometimes lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could/Should a simple reminder be added above the text entry box saying e.g. &quot;Please do basic research ( e.g. web search, wikipedia etc. ) before asking a question.  Thank you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's already some guidance there, but I feel an explicit reference to this basic step is worth emphasizing ( in bold preferably ) to avoid some of the simple questions we're seeing ( that often get dealt with with comments directing people to Wikipedia or similar ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I do think there's some educational value is dealing with even the simplest questions, but that's not the same as dealing with questions from people who seems to be unwilling to do basic reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your thoughts please.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="e907c9a0-9685-4c98-99a7-dcbc43b832c2" CreationDate="2017-01-13T23:01:27.127" UserId="104964" Text="Remind users to do basic research before asking questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="e907c9a0-9685-4c98-99a7-dcbc43b832c2" CreationDate="2017-01-13T23:01:27.127" UserId="104964" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="eae8fa87-2e42-40f6-88cc-8ae53f20e12b" CreationDate="2017-01-13T23:21:16.057" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|scope|questions|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="3bcbd217-726a-44f7-a383-6aa351feea26" CreationDate="2017-01-14T00:08:39.213" UserDisplayName="user140606" Text="In a previous incarnation on this site, I wrote this meta question [**How do I improve the chances of my question being answered**][1], and in looking for it now to add to this answer, I see quite a few others very similiar to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the question box should contain a link to whatever the community eventually decides on what constitutes a good question, (perhaps it already does), anyway the big problem is that it will probably be ignored by new users, as the homework link is currently ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9327/how-can-i-improve-the-chances-of-my-question-being-answered/9328#9328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="321d804f-bf48-401e-99af-de8759ac158d" CreationDate="2017-01-14T17:19:41.830" UserId="110669" Text="My question about the bridges of ships is on the top of the hot questions for this month. A trivial, simple question has been upvoted 104 times up to now whereas questions that really deserved attention are neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also don't understand why my question was so interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="79171beb-138a-4490-acbd-f6c9ecb5e427" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:49:33.517" UserId="31790" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best question asked in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite question, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="79171beb-138a-4490-acbd-f6c9ecb5e427" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:49:33.517" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Best question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="79171beb-138a-4490-acbd-f6c9ecb5e427" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:49:33.517" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="25f74b59-7f82-441a-8899-b812aa5047ad" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:53:08.043" UserId="31790" Text="**Which user, who made their account in 2016, has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and answers*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to to a new user's profile and giving a *brief* description of why that user should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="25f74b59-7f82-441a-8899-b812aa5047ad" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:53:08.043" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Q&amp;A rookie of the year" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="25f74b59-7f82-441a-8899-b812aa5047ad" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:53:08.043" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="c3761caf-d6f1-497d-87cb-e6e44c3287ff" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:55:55.080" UserId="31790" Text="**What was the most impressively clear and concise answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a clear and concise to a very simple question is not necessarily particularly impressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to a clear and concise answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="c3761caf-d6f1-497d-87cb-e6e44c3287ff" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:55:55.080" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Less is more" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="c3761caf-d6f1-497d-87cb-e6e44c3287ff" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:55:55.080" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="5a0f94c4-56bc-4af0-9d32-40db98b43978" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:58:05.993" UserId="31790" Text="**What was the most underrated answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underrated could mean that an answer recieved little attention/upvotes despite being of excellent quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to an underrated answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="5a0f94c4-56bc-4af0-9d32-40db98b43978" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:58:05.993" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Most underrated answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="5a0f94c4-56bc-4af0-9d32-40db98b43978" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:58:05.993" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="2105d6f7-dec5-4577-80d2-ccb6a10e4ed4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:02:00.850" UserId="31790" Text="**What was the best self-answered post in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-answered posts exist because the OP solved their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by making a post linking to a self-answered question and giving a *brief* description of why that self-answered question should win, or by upvoting an existing submission,&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="2105d6f7-dec5-4577-80d2-ccb6a10e4ed4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:02:00.850" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Best self-answered post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="2105d6f7-dec5-4577-80d2-ccb6a10e4ed4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:02:00.850" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="41e7382c-b705-442c-b737-0e321528f267" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:02:29.123" UserId="31790" Comment="Add main meta post for this category" Text="# Best self-answer&#xD;&#xA;Best question/answer pair written by the same user, either because they figured out their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="76f6f096-0cc0-444c-a0cd-9d2dab63699c" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:03:09.937" UserId="31790" Comment="Add link to category thread" Text="# Most underrated answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awarded to an excellent answer, posted in 2016, which doesn't seem to have acquired as high a score at it probably should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="4e8ba8a7-d74b-4c5c-90b0-d7a52b3c68d0" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:03:45.077" UserId="31790" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="# Less is More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer to a question in the most concise and clear way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First suggested by [Martin Ender on PPCG][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/7911/53094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9424" RevisionGUID="772633cd-302d-4a40-b821-ad13cc8297c2" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:04:14.283" UserId="31790" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="# Rookie of the year&#xD;&#xA;User, who created their account in 2016, who has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and/or answers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this category is used, note that the nominations for winners will be in the form of links to user accounts, with a brief explanation of why that user should win, i.e. some links to their best questions/answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="8e1cf53c-f449-4685-9258-98b81f38b053" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:04:47.060" UserId="31790" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="# Best question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well researched, well formatted, and absolutely fabulous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="05567fc9-3e14-4ffb-9aa9-d9dfecbc07e7" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:06:23.693" UserId="31790" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best answer in 2016 which where two or more authors contributed a significant fraction of the content?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite community work, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="05567fc9-3e14-4ffb-9aa9-d9dfecbc07e7" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:06:23.693" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Best community work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="05567fc9-3e14-4ffb-9aa9-d9dfecbc07e7" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:06:23.693" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="49ce200c-8d72-42c1-a84d-bb6be7492630" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:06:38.860" UserId="31790" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="#Community Work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best community wiki answer or question where two (or more) authors contributed a significant amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f097a77d-b5ea-4ccc-bef5-7c4a9f51c117" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:08:36.623" UserId="31790" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best layman answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A layman answer is an answer directed at those without expert training in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite layman answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f097a77d-b5ea-4ccc-bef5-7c4a9f51c117" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:08:36.623" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Best answer directed at the layman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f097a77d-b5ea-4ccc-bef5-7c4a9f51c117" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:08:36.623" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="9fc3228a-034d-4478-88b2-f5d4ca248cb3" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:08:57.177" UserId="31790" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="##Best layman's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer directed at the layman, which is very intuitive and well-explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="9878f194-e32c-4a4f-942f-ef25a4e5b265" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:10:55.083" UserId="31790" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best baby-steps answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A baby-steps answer starts from simple principles and finishes with a complex and rich result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite baby-steps answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="9878f194-e32c-4a4f-942f-ef25a4e5b265" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:10:55.083" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Best baby-steps answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="9878f194-e32c-4a4f-942f-ef25a4e5b265" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:10:55.083" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="f9b28c4f-b8d7-401e-bc0d-3df5f5ba6ba4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:15:04.890" UserId="31790" Text="**What was the best answer posted in 2016 by a user whose account was made in or before 2014?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite qualifying answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="f9b28c4f-b8d7-401e-bc0d-3df5f5ba6ba4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:15:04.890" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Never too old to learn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="f9b28c4f-b8d7-401e-bc0d-3df5f5ba6ba4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:15:04.890" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="7089d37f-d8fc-4d92-bfa2-3da7b91f7d61" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:15:24.083" UserId="31790" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="# Never too old to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best question asked in 2016 by a user who's account is at least two(?) years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="7525e507-4b13-466f-bedd-73b3916fde17" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:18:50.300" UserId="31790" Text="**What was the best answer posted in 2016 by a user whose account was made in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite answer given by a rookie, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="7525e507-4b13-466f-bedd-73b3916fde17" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:18:50.300" UserId="31790" Text="Best of PSE 2016 - Best answer by a rookie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="7525e507-4b13-466f-bedd-73b3916fde17" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:18:50.300" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="0d852ab3-0da7-4982-b83c-941cbaf38417" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:19:05.797" UserId="31790" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="# Best answer by a rookie&#xD;&#xA;Best answer by a user who created their account in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="1313b2cd-eb00-42ee-a85f-bfec04acf207" CreationDate="2017-01-15T08:07:39.417" UserId="101770" Text="[heather][1] : For exceptional research effort in his answers and making the site more open to new users from all levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ~4500 reputation in the first 7 months says a lot, too...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="0b8b003c-2d9a-4bf6-b44b-7f55a3124a0a" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:58:26.287" UserId="84967" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[heather][1]: For exceptional research effort in her answers and making the site more open to new users from all levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ~4500 reputation in the first 7 months says a lot, too...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="aaf58b11-72e0-4676-8dc1-daa53cd5671a" CreationDate="2017-01-15T12:35:15.357" UserId="25301" Text="[This answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/296869/25301) by [tpg2114](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) to the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/296863/25301&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Boris algorithm is an integrator for solving Newton's laws numerically (well really any force law). For all the questions we have on solving this type of system, no one seems to have discussed how to *start* such a system (as the positions and velocities are solved at half-steps and typically we know $x(t=0),\,v(t=0)$ and not $x(t=0),\,v(t=\Delta t/2)$).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tpg2114 gave a good answer to an interesting problem, but it's a [tag:computational-physics] question so it got little love from the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="1f68f497-11b7-46f2-887f-9e7a4a0eb7bf" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:21:15.463" UserId="118847" Text="[This answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988) by [pglpm](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132418/pglpm) to the question [How can I adapt classical continuum mechanics equations in order to agree with general relativity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g) shows a very profound conceptual understanding of classical continuum mechanics and furthermore contains a vast amount of literature and research a very interesting/relevant open topic. To me, it is strange that it only got a few upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="c6915ce6-ff70-406d-89fb-af55989e4a4b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:22:13.550" UserId="141240" Text="So I am new to this site and I hope this is a proper forum to ask this - if not please do not punish me too harshly. I must seem like a narcissist to inquire - but I posted a question that has +6 up-votes for two answers but no one thinks the question itself is worth an up-vote. I probably won't do it even if I can but it is a bit weird that there can be very good answers to a blah question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="c6915ce6-ff70-406d-89fb-af55989e4a4b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:22:13.550" UserId="141240" Text="Can I up-vote my own question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="c6915ce6-ff70-406d-89fb-af55989e4a4b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:22:13.550" UserId="141240" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="e3fb44b6-5a39-455a-8339-6b173467500b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:33:44.593" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="Go ahead, try it. The site will tell you that's not possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I do think that there may occasionally be very good answers to a blah question; some answerers manage to [cook soup from a stone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="f2a634d8-a785-4bcf-b8d0-aa749db2d5ee" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:34:24.610" UserId="520" Text="The system will not let you cast a vote for a post created by the same user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using sock-puppet accounts to vote for yourself is forbidden, and moderators have access to tool for detecting such behavior which can lead to suspension from the site and deletion of secondary account(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="684aede0-180a-424d-adbc-242d973eec0b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:56:39.507" UserId="520" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="The system will not let you cast a vote for a post created by the same user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And though we know that most people can be counted on to understand this let me put the policy on sock-puppetry down, just for the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Using sock-puppet accounts to vote for yourself is forbidden, and moderators have access to tool for detecting such behavior which can lead to suspension from the site and deletion of secondary account(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24677" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="e92ecef5-3139-4910-83d2-bb75d23c1ab4" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:15:04.327" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|voting|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="6cbacb78-d287-4c11-ad21-00542e626b14" CreationDate="2017-01-16T02:54:01.210" UserId="25301" Text="[Bob Bee](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/108333/bob-bee) whose works on general relativity, black holes and gravitational waves are very enjoyable to read whilst bored at work (or other times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~5K rep in 11 months and active in the reviews, the makings of a great contributor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="a764f47d-eeb7-45ea-be70-b47f091f49aa" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:34:10.370" UserId="1325" Text="The name of the chat room was recently changed to [the h bar(becue)][1] as a joke because of the multiple posts about food made by the more rapscallionary members of the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen a few rather terse posts suggesting that not everyone is happy with this, so maybe we should try and arrive at a consensus about the room name, or more to the point about the process for any future changes to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I post this as an opportunity for site members to express their views. My own view is that I don't care what the room is called as long as the name isn't offensive or embarrassing, but I was a bit surprised it was changed without some form of consultation. Since it has obviously offended a few people I'd vote that the name goes back to *the h bar* until we collectively agree a new name or decide we don't care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-barbecue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="a764f47d-eeb7-45ea-be70-b47f091f49aa" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:34:10.370" UserId="1325" Text="Choosing the name of the chat room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="a764f47d-eeb7-45ea-be70-b47f091f49aa" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:34:10.370" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="74c7174a-43f9-40c8-8935-a47b8651a489" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:04:22.920" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="9944222f-f52a-45ea-a5d6-fbd2d0254813" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:11:31.590" UserId="44126" Text="As the guity(est) party, here's my timeline of the recent change, no comment on merits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [half-serious suggestion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34773649#34773649)&#xD;&#xA;  * [impossible criterion: moar pun](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34773657#34773657)&#xD;&#xA;  * [eventual winner](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34773765#34773765)&#xD;&#xA;  * [punny interpretation](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34774044#34774044)&#xD;&#xA;  * [resistance crumbles](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34774088#34774088)&#xD;&#xA;  * [who put those guys in charge of anything anyway](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34774143#34774143)&#xD;&#xA;  * [wise observation](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=34774163#34774163)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposal to implementation: [twenty minutes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="093ef192-2313-4489-adfe-378b91bdea9f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:17:21.490" UserId="44126" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As the guilty(est) party, here's my timeline of the recent change, no comment on merits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [half-serious suggestion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34773649#34773649)&#xD;&#xA;  * [impossible criterion: moar pun](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34773657#34773657)&#xD;&#xA;  * [eventual winner](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34773765#34773765)&#xD;&#xA;  * [punny interpretation](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34774044#34774044)&#xD;&#xA;  * [resistance crumbles](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34774088#34774088)&#xD;&#xA;  * [who put those guys in charge of anything anyway](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/34774143#34774143)&#xD;&#xA;  * [wise observation](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=34774163#34774163)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposal to implementation: [twenty minutes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="825e5942-a732-4f74-80ec-3b1a8f6b3997" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:51:42.430" UserId="124" Text="As much as I'm all for getting consensus before any significant changes to anything, the chat room name is not a terribly _important_ thing, and I can see the value in allowing a room owner to change it temporarily in the spirit of fun. Accordingly, how's this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Any future changes to the room name, description, or tags should be reverted after roughly 24 hours, unless there is a non-negatively-received meta question seeking to extend the change. By &quot;non-negatively-received&quot; I mean there is _not_ a clear consensus _against_ the name change proposal. Hopefully most of us should know that when we see it, but for people who like quantitative conditions, a score of -2 or less _probably_ indicates a consensus against the proposal. A slew of comments giving objections without a corresponding slew in support almost _certainly_ indicates such a consensus.&#xD;&#xA;2. In all cases, changes to the room name, description, or tags should be reverted within a week (168 hours) unless the community has expressed a consensus _for_ the change in a meta post. Again, consensus is something we should know when we see it, but in determining this we should take in to account votes as well as written responses.&#xD;&#xA;3. If the community finds a consensus in favor of this answer, then we'll change the room name, description, and tags back to what they were soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and while we're at it: we could formalize that changes to the room attributes should not be made by anyone _except_ a room owner or SE staff. This is kind of a moot point because the only ones with the power to do it are other chat mods, and they know better, but I suppose we might as well have it in writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="8d7df0a3-ec32-453c-b6a3-f6c607247f36" CreationDate="2017-01-16T16:29:05.033" UserId="8563" Text="I vote that we keep it as *the h bar*. It has the excellent property that it shares its name with the [postgraduate bar](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/food-and-drink/catering-outlets/h-bar/) back at my uni in London:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, not only is it a very clever name, but it is also thought to be a unique and clever name by a bunch of different institutions ([example](http://www.theheightsithaca.com/), [example](https://sharepoint.washington.edu/phys/facilities/Pages/H-bar.aspx), [example](https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186220-d2453787-Reviews-H_Bar_Restaurant-Bristol_England.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHLbI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="c6845776-38b8-4638-af61-4362e43c455c" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:02:32.540" UserId="56299" Text="My proposal is John Rennie's http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242043/56299, with [his answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/242044/56299) and [appendix](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/244323/56299), as well as several other answers from different users. It's one of quite a few self-answered posts he's written, including a couple others in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took an undergraduate special relativity course during the fall semester last year, and I was introduced to the [twin paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox), among other freaky results of special relativity. I read several good explanations of how the paradox is resolved, which helped me quite well. John's self-answered questions-and-answer, however, went a step further by explaining how the [Rindler metric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates) fits into all this - an addition that seems to be rather rare in discussions of the twin paradox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm recommending this question-and-answer pair because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It deals with a common problem that almost all beginners to special relativity face.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It is just as accessible as most treatments of the paradox, while still keeping all the gory details.&#xD;&#xA; 3. It combines equations with spacetime diagrams, the latter of which I've found to be extremely useful tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="8e29140e-b05d-465f-80e0-aa7f70de7762" CreationDate="2017-01-16T22:24:26.347" UserId="8563" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="**What was the best self-answered post in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-answered posts exist because the OP solved their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by making a post linking to a self-answered question and giving a *brief* description of why that self-answered question should win, or by upvoting an existing submission,&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, self-answered questions are not that easy to search for on the direct site search, so [here is a query for all of the 2016 ones](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/616423/self-answered-posts-from-2016), in case people find it useful (and which can then be refined by score / by tags / etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="14fd6518-e96a-4495-bebe-42a59ade6ecd" CreationDate="2017-01-17T08:04:33.270" UserId="12350" Text="My proposal is John Rennie's answer http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really/241773#241773.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the self answer is very comprehensive and informative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="b39da20a-5a1e-4d7e-855d-c5e9938aab70" CreationDate="2017-01-17T08:07:47.517" UserId="12350" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/104696/farcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This user has amassaed an amazing 19,265 reputation in just 11 months." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="86228518-8f31-4a91-b923-d051fdf54da4" CreationDate="2017-01-17T08:09:57.623" UserId="12350" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/114696/sammy-gerbil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great contributor having amassed nearly 10,000 reputation in just 9 months.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="6491a86c-a5f9-40b2-ba57-bb0489bfe2f0" CreationDate="2017-01-17T08:22:20.770" UserId="12350" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="[Farcher][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This user has amassaed an amazing 19,265 reputation in just 11 months by adding numerous high quality questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/104696/farcher" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="74ff29ac-3ca1-474d-a447-42f17ba00ee0" CreationDate="2017-01-17T08:24:08.980" UserId="12350" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="[sammy gerbil][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great contributor having amassed nearly 10,000 reputation in just 9 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/114696/sammy-gerbil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24694" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="28ef4ed1-7bb1-4647-95be-558f97f0244f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:35:59.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/821305056121257985" />
  <row Id="24696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="b69119c8-7e43-45c6-8f05-c767618a61c8" CreationDate="2017-01-17T18:02:16.277" UserId="1325" Text="Upvote this if you want the name changed back to *the h bar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using my superpowers as a room owner I will change the name back if this gets ten upvotes (provided no competing suggestion gets more upvotes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvote if you don't want the name changed back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="fefeaa5b-767b-49cb-9eb4-06eccf8b99b4" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:47:32.167" UserId="141240" Text="I am thinking about a new question that is based on a premise that I stated in (I did not claim that it - the premise -  was a new idea), and comments and answers  I received in response to a previous question that I posted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I (and, if so, should I- ethically/ or in good taste etc.) identify the question title for reference within the body of the text of the new question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - since the tag is not available, and since I am 900 rep short of adding it - may I suggest that the tag &quot;propriety&quot; be added? It is basically at the heart of this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="fefeaa5b-767b-49cb-9eb4-06eccf8b99b4" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:47:32.167" UserId="141240" Text="Can I refer to a previous question I asked within the content of a new question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="fefeaa5b-767b-49cb-9eb4-06eccf8b99b4" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:47:32.167" UserId="141240" Text="|discussion|ethics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="2be31533-6a44-49cc-9503-a830dbadd225" CreationDate="2017-01-18T03:00:06.960" UserId="124" Comment="remove tag request separate from main question" Text="I am thinking about a new question that is based on a premise that I stated in (I did not claim that it - the premise -  was a new idea), and comments and answers  I received in response to a previous question that I posted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I (and, if so, should I- ethically/ or in good taste etc.) identify the question title for reference within the body of the text of the new question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="402a3a44-6cf9-4d3d-8d8b-c1a18ec07807" CreationDate="2017-01-18T03:02:40.873" UserId="124" Text="Absolutely, it's a good idea to refer to previous questions (yours or other people's) when doing so is useful. But don't just use the question _title_; you should include a link to it. If you include just the URL of the question, the SE software will automatically convert the link to display the question title, e.g. if I write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9508&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then I get http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="9eb8ce4b-e691-40d4-a66d-a620ca9a4ff7" CreationDate="2017-01-18T03:02:49.497" UserId="6634" Text="Sure, why not?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* We can't really give you clear advice on yes or no without seeing the exact wording of the question in mind. But in most cases, it's fine. Imagine &quot;If pV = nRT, then what happens in a nozzle flow&quot; can easily lead to &quot;Why does pV = nRT anyway?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="845cba6a-013f-4639-9761-987b8bcec596" CreationDate="2017-01-18T03:18:45.103" UserId="124" Comment="add another example" Text="Absolutely, it's a good idea to refer to previous questions (yours or other people's) when doing so is useful. But don't just use the question _title_; you should include a link to it. If you include just the URL of the question, the SE software will automatically convert the link to display the question title, e.g. if I write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9508&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then I get http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9508.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can give your own link text by using the appropriate Markdown:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [the question about referring to previous questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives [the question about referring to previous questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="bd58e892-baca-4a69-8ef2-7d850e678f45" CreationDate="2017-01-19T02:33:25.137" UserId="29259" Text="I've posted a few questions here relating to physics of polymers in solution, and I am surprised every time that there is no dedicated tag for them. A couple of examples of my own questions: [Hindered rotation model for flexible polymers: deriving the Flory characteristic ratio][1], and [Scaling argument for friction force on a chain in shear flow][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't seem to find a good tag to appropriately direct this sort of question on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/256207/hindered-rotation-model-for-flexible-polymers-deriving-the-flory-characteristic&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305930/scaling-argument-for-friction-force-on-a-chain-in-shear-flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="bd58e892-baca-4a69-8ef2-7d850e678f45" CreationDate="2017-01-19T02:33:25.137" UserId="29259" Text="Proposed tag: polymer physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="bd58e892-baca-4a69-8ef2-7d850e678f45" CreationDate="2017-01-19T02:33:25.137" UserId="29259" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="1a94a74d-b3af-4ec7-b1bd-208fc51698be" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:23:00.777" UserId="141240" Text="As Above. And additional characters to qualify for posting. to elaborate how do I ask a question on chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="1a94a74d-b3af-4ec7-b1bd-208fc51698be" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:23:00.777" UserId="141240" Text="How do I access the &quot;chat&quot; function?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="1a94a74d-b3af-4ec7-b1bd-208fc51698be" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:23:00.777" UserId="141240" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="747a68a5-7b21-4c6f-88ed-e4a11b208c3f" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:36:10.403" UserId="124" Comment="remove fluff and fix tags" Text="How do access the chat room to ask a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24712" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="747a68a5-7b21-4c6f-88ed-e4a11b208c3f" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:36:10.403" UserId="124" Comment="remove fluff and fix tags" Text="How do I access chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="747a68a5-7b21-4c6f-88ed-e4a11b208c3f" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:36:10.403" UserId="124" Comment="remove fluff and fix tags" Text="|support|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="aea08b5f-588e-414e-914b-6e979c6e686e" CreationDate="2017-01-19T08:07:33.400" UserId="1325" Text="The URL is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively on the main site click the down triangle near the top left of the page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chat link][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and click on the word chat. Then click the link for the h Bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![h Bar][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NbaF5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SE83B.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24715" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="b865a334-23ea-4150-af08-2c73dbe25284" CreationDate="2017-01-19T10:58:52.647" UserId="25301" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9514" RevisionGUID="3aa20846-d2a4-43ee-96e6-eb7e94bd7e55" CreationDate="2017-01-19T15:10:01.300" UserId="8563" Text="I have added the [tag:polymers] tag to both of your questions. It's now your job to go through the search that tpg2114 mentioned and add the tag as a suggested edit where appropriate. (However, please only do this a few at a time - no more than 2-4 a day - so as not to overwhelm the front page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people reviewing those edits, please do take the due diligence to check that the tag actually applies to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="24ebd522-2992-4518-b271-4558e888af0d" CreationDate="2017-01-19T18:45:54.360" UserId="31790" Text="# http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287399/from-discrete-to-continuous-why-quantum-fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fundamental question invites us to revisit assumptions we probably originally take for granted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="67e19e9d-d289-4ee4-ade3-8ef79faaf627" CreationDate="2017-01-19T18:48:02.753" UserId="31790" Text="# http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like this question because it brings together two seemingly disparate areas of physics: noise (i.e. stochastic processes) and the partition function.&#xD;&#xA;The latter of these two is normally encountered in the context of statistical mechanics, so it's interesting and aesthetically pleasing to see a link established between teh partition function and stochastic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a *good question* because OP states the problem concisely, shows effort, and asks for help on a particular step.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="326a2908-7067-467e-83fb-05418c24ce5a" CreationDate="2017-01-19T18:56:09.783" UserId="31790" Text="I'll throw my own hat in here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302142/consistent-complete-and-generalized-description-of-the-quantum-harmonic-oscill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The harmonic oscillator is studied so much not only because it models many physical systems, but also because it's a useful exactly solvable system illustrating important principles.&#xD;&#xA;This self-answered post concisely lays out a pretty thorough set of relations for the quantum harmonic oscillator using variables and notation that are much more clear than typical textbook treatments.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="e702502b-1075-48f7-a0b5-26c1205b53c8" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:16:26.803" UserId="31790" Comment="Fix critical typo!" Text="**What was the best question asked in 2016 by a user whose account was made in or before 2014?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite qualifying question, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="b1dcf823-fa23-41ea-8b97-217a86c78fa2" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:23:10.743" UserId="31790" Text="I'll throw in my own question here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248754/what-do-the-wave-functions-associated-to-the-fock-states-of-each-mode-of-a-bound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question asks about the fundamental structure of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between single particle wavefunctions and the wave functions of Fock states for a single *mode* of a distributed system confuses even seasoned physicists (i.e. most of my research group!).&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, because the question asks about the basic elements of quantum mechanics, it should be interesting to beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that after ten years in research questions like this one remind me that I'm never too old to learn.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9519" RevisionGUID="207270f1-3e60-4749-8ab5-46ff13078fb4" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:04:51.940" UserId="12350" Text="I think http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191451/what-will-happen-if-the-photon-has-non-zero-mass/285624#285624&#xD;&#xA; is the most underrated answer of 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post is very informative and clearly a lot of effort went into its creation.  Unfortunately at the time of posting this, it has only obtained 1 up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="257e7ab3-362f-4a5e-8460-b0bd8a215453" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:19:50.243" UserId="12350" Text="I think the question below is fantastic and was asked in Jan 2016 by a user who's account was created in 2012.  The question accumulated over 30 up-votes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9519" RevisionGUID="0dd55234-f058-4ab3-936e-164420c2b2cf" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:20:38.347" UserId="12350" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I think this answer to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191451/what-will-happen-if-the-photon-has-non-zero-mass/285624#285624&#xD;&#xA; is the most underrated answer of 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post is very informative and clearly a lot of effort went into its creation.  Unfortunately at the time of posting this, it has only obtained 1 up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="10ef5424-30b8-4397-ac29-fb85eb8dc11e" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:27:21.743" UserId="12350" Text="I'd say the answer below is the best answer by a rookie in 2016.  A very informative answer by a user who created their account in 2016:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251001/how-does-zumberges-1981-gravitational-measurements-relate-to-gravitational-wave/251014#251014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="bbcc9a2f-6c05-4104-ae23-19756887e29b" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:33:17.747" UserId="12350" Text="I'll nominate my own answer for this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294763/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-existence-of-gravity/294771#294771&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very clear and concise answer targeted at the layman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="539ace0d-cb71-4c49-8f4a-11734e613d96" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:34:48.360" UserId="12350" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I think this question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase, is fantastic and was asked in Jan 2016 by a user who's account was created in 2012.  The question accumulated over 30 up-votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="ab6afab7-9bd5-4ef3-be97-d55bfea69e47" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:46:32.053" UserId="12350" Text="I would like to nominate the answer below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question provides a short but very informative answer highlighting that unlike in other areas of life, on Physics.SE size isn't everything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24731" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="f4ee0fd2-4a26-4ef5-a625-3f930bd6bdb3" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:51:47.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/822622689953218560" />
  <row Id="24732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="5e8d1112-7dbf-41b9-9879-358b4e3571c9" CreationDate="2017-01-21T07:51:50.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/822713300119064576" />
  <row Id="24733" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="790a84fb-a092-486e-a793-bbdcb6733900" CreationDate="2017-01-22T07:55:41.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/823076654960492544" />
  <row Id="24734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="e2d7b391-1b70-406d-ac07-f23b9f5f05a3" CreationDate="2017-01-22T20:30:55.933" UserId="31790" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'll throw in my own question here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248754/what-do-the-wave-functions-associated-to-the-fock-states-of-each-mode-of-a-bound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question asks about the fundamental structure of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between single particle wavefunctions and the wave functions of Fock states for a single *mode* of a distributed system confuses even seasoned physicists (i.e. most of my research group!).&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, because the question asks about the basic elements of quantum mechanics, it should be interesting to beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that after ten years in research questions like this one remind me that I'm never too old to learn.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="00c91582-3444-4cff-9c8f-9d78e8bb176d" CreationDate="2017-01-23T12:33:18.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="a902ed4f-cb00-49fd-83bf-95f231c572dd" CreationDate="2017-01-24T23:02:42.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/824029688326668290" />
  <row Id="24742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="2481f238-1053-44b0-b136-7d3b208cee56" CreationDate="2017-01-25T00:34:58.590" UserId="114696" Text="Currently it requires a reputation of 50 points or more to post comments to other users' posts. This creates some problems for new users :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. For example : http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is not about the **fairness** of this policy, as is the case in &#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6337 My concern is about the **practicality** of it. Are the difficulties which it creates greater than the benefits of the policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are temporary, subject to deletion by moderators, and of less importance than answers. It seems to me inconsistent that it requires more rep to post comments than answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should this policy be changed? Should the restriction on posting comments be removed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="2481f238-1053-44b0-b136-7d3b208cee56" CreationDate="2017-01-25T00:34:58.590" UserId="114696" Text="Should commenting be unrestricted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="2481f238-1053-44b0-b136-7d3b208cee56" CreationDate="2017-01-25T00:34:58.590" UserId="114696" Text="|discussion|feature-request|comments|reputation|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="1e0239cc-eb62-4071-8e18-22619c09678e" CreationDate="2017-01-25T01:27:34.510" UserId="44126" Text="I think that new askers are more likely to get their questions answered, and new answerers are more likely to have their answers actually help people, if they post questions and answers rather than comments.  Here are some reasons why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that's true, the mechanisms for alerting reviewers and other users to new answers are much more robust than for comments.  A not-useful comment, for instance, can't be downvoted --- only flagged for moderator attention.  It's much more efficient to have the entire community empowered to evaluate low-effort contributions from new or low-rep users than to ask the moderators to shoulder that entire burden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that asking people to write paragraph-complexity answers and questions that five or ten other users find voteworthy to be a pretty low bar for the privilege of leaving a sentence-complexity comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators can (and sometimes do) convert brief non-answers into comments, but I mostly encourage people to meet the participation threshold and come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the alternatives here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Comment from a new user to an old question: &quot;I don't understand any of the answers here, please explain more.&quot; Depending on the age of the question, its asker may never get notified about the comment.  Commenting doesn't bump a question to the front page, so other users don't notice the new comment either.  New user does not get help. The end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. Duplicate question from a new user: &quot;I don't understand the answers over there, please explain more.&quot; Question appears on the front page and the in the [First Posts Review Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts), where many people see it. Those people will vote and ask clarifying questions in the comments, possibly while the new user is still hanging around.  Maybe the question gets closed, and maybe it gets answered, and maybe both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. &quot;Duplicate&quot; question from new user: &quot;I don't understand the answers over there *for reasons A, B, C*.&quot;  That's potentially a good new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that there's a *path* from (2) to (3), via editing of the new question, but the path from (1) to (3) is much more tortuous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, as ACuriousMind says in a comment, I'm pretty sure that individual SE sites don't have the ability to muck around with the privilege hierarchy.  So this isn't something that could be implemented only on Physics --- you'd have to drag the entire network along.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="5520b813-dd15-4bb3-b054-0b7dd8b3a9f6" CreationDate="2017-01-25T04:14:00.503" UserId="520" Text="The structure of Stack Exchange site privileges is partly gamification to get you hooked, but it is also about controlling both malicious and negligent attacks on the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are not subject to downvotes and are designed to be transient so there is no penalty to a user when a comment is deleted. Which means that the represent a low risk channel for users to be obnoxious. Of course, established users risk being suspended for that behavior, but if we let users access the comment system fully without some kind of vetting than a malicious user could send the mods on a merry game of whack-a-mole as they post nasty comments, get cut off, re-appear from another IP and go 'round and 'round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relatively minor barrier of a low rep threshold represents a short time when a productive member of the community can't play a full role, but slows the hypothetical comment spammer considerably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might still ask if 50 is the right threshold (and I think it is set lower on beta sites), but I rather doubt anyone is going to get very worked up about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="13a3af9a-22e6-4e12-8858-b8cd11e77972" CreationDate="2017-01-25T04:54:51.313" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="The structure of Stack Exchange site privileges is partly gamification to get you hooked, but it is also about controlling both malicious and negligent attacks on the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are not subject to downvotes and are designed to be transient so there is no penalty to a user when a comment is deleted. Which means that the represent a low risk channel for users to be obnoxious. Of course, established users risk being suspended for that behavior, but if we let users access the comment system fully without some kind of vetting then a malicious user could send the mods on a merry game of whack-a-mole as they post nasty comments, get cut off, re-appear from another IP and go 'round and 'round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relatively minor barrier of a low rep threshold represents a short time when a productive member of the community can't play a full role, but slows the hypothetical comment spammer considerably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might still ask if 50 is the right threshold (and I think it is set lower on beta sites), but I rather doubt anyone is going to get very worked up about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="1006c309-593b-4208-ab83-ce493d3b43a3" CreationDate="2017-01-25T09:02:40.727" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The structure of Stack Exchange site privileges is partly gamification to get you hooked, but it is also about controlling both malicious and negligent attacks on the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are not subject to downvotes and are designed to be transient so there is no penalty to a user when a comment is deleted. Which means that they represent a low risk channel for users to be obnoxious. Of course, established users risk being suspended for that behavior, but if we let users access the comment system fully without some kind of vetting then a malicious user could send the mods on a merry game of whack-a-mole as they post nasty comments, get cut off, re-appear from another IP and go 'round and 'round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relatively minor barrier of a low rep threshold represents a short time when a productive member of the community can't play a full role, but slows the hypothetical comment spammer considerably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might still ask if 50 is the right threshold (and I think it is set lower on beta sites), but I rather doubt anyone is going to get very worked up about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="e3c6453b-7801-4382-8844-94da21be14ae" CreationDate="2017-01-25T12:50:19.403" UserId="8563" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="This has come up before on meta, at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Edit: recently, and even more ridiculously, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9393/winter-bash-2016-hats-are-live got bumped to the top of the front page. Because that very much required additional attention once the winter bash was over, you know.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors)'s answer was upvoted after the bump (it's also an old bug report which is useless to bring back up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta: the idea sounds nice, sure, but it is a very blunt tool that does not work at all for the intended objective. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="e8a0a4a6-3c1f-464a-a3e0-a51b8e1cec85" CreationDate="2017-01-26T05:09:30.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/824484386636754944" />
  <row Id="24752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9530" RevisionGUID="cc586480-d5cc-4b90-9919-b98ce3324674" CreationDate="2017-01-26T06:38:06.227" UserId="60891" Text="[Answer to &quot;What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer assumes that the OP is new to magnetostatics but is good at electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer starts by drawing the fundamental analogies between the electrostatics and magnetostatics. The answer then slowly explores more analogies through simple derivations and ultimately ends up answering the all of the OP's questions. On its way, it explains important concepts using simple ideas, for example, it explains why magnetic field lines are always closed after which it explains the cause for a zero on the right hand side of the Gauss Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="746acd52-b047-40b5-9228-85124de7d617" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:46:21.420" UserId="4993" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/307573/dancing-twins-one-travelling-in-a-rocket-ship-looking-through-telescopes-at-ea&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; &#xD;&#xA;asks whether a traveler looking through a telescope will see his earthbound twin moving in slow motion.  It is closed as a duplicate of about is closed as a duplicate of &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/300196/time-dilation-and-twin-paradox-if-they-twins-were-speaking-on-a-phone-of-some-k&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, which asks whether a traveler &lt;i&gt;moving away from earth&lt;/i&gt; will hear earth-originated telephone conversations in &quot;slow motion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't surprise me at all if the closed question were a duplicate of &lt;i&gt;something&lt;/i&gt;, but it's not a duplicate of the currently alleged duplicate.  That's because the answer to the closed question depends on whether the traveler is moving toward or away from earth, whereas the alleged duplicate addresses only the (less interesting) case where the traveler is moving away.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in particular, readers are told that &quot;This question already has an answer here&quot;, and then directed to a site where the more interesting part of the question is not answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again---I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's a real duplicate somewhere, but it would be good if readers were directed to that real duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="746acd52-b047-40b5-9228-85124de7d617" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:46:21.420" UserId="4993" Text="&quot;Duplicate&quot; not a duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="746acd52-b047-40b5-9228-85124de7d617" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:46:21.420" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="f95284c3-f20a-4769-a514-ebc09c706fcf" CreationDate="2017-01-26T16:05:27.263" UserId="4993" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/307573/dancing-twins-one-travelling-in-a-rocket-ship-looking-through-telescopes-at-ea&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; &#xD;&#xA;asks whether a traveler looking through a telescope will see his earthbound twin moving in slow motion.  It is closed as a duplicate of  &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/300196/time-dilation-and-twin-paradox-if-they-twins-were-speaking-on-a-phone-of-some-k&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, which asks whether a traveler &lt;i&gt;moving away from earth&lt;/i&gt; will hear earth-originated telephone conversations in &quot;slow motion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't surprise me at all if the closed question were a duplicate of &lt;i&gt;something&lt;/i&gt;, but it's not a duplicate of the currently alleged duplicate.  That's because the answer to the closed question depends on whether the traveler is moving toward or away from earth, whereas the alleged duplicate addresses only the (less interesting) case where the traveler is moving away.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in particular, readers are told that &quot;This question already has an answer here&quot;, and then directed to a site where the more interesting part of the question is not answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again---I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's a real duplicate somewhere, but it would be good if readers were directed to that real duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24757" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="d4dd4c3b-d3fe-4c9e-b115-f9d566dac297" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:24:08.830" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/307788/how-do-i-delete-my-account" />
  <row Id="24758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="9e3d0678-289d-4c1b-8af6-40da2e38c277" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:20:31.867" UserId="149671" UserDisplayName="user86072" Text="I don't want to use this site anymore, so how do I delete it? If it's not possible to delete, can I just be permanently blocked from using it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="9e3d0678-289d-4c1b-8af6-40da2e38c277" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:20:31.867" UserId="149671" UserDisplayName="user86072" Text="How do I delete my account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="9e3d0678-289d-4c1b-8af6-40da2e38c277" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:20:31.867" UserId="149671" UserDisplayName="user86072" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24761" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="f9864123-84b2-4621-b2a6-b156b2c1387d" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:25:07.853" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2632],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24762" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="e266ff53-4b9e-4a0b-acc0-478ea05d76ea" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:25:25.103" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="781d702a-317d-4a7f-8aaa-a355bd2f9829" CreationDate="2017-01-27T02:05:15.267" UserId="124" Comment="update for clarity" Text="To quit, all you need to do is to stop visiting the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to quit and also have your account deleted (which is **irreversible**), then you can find [instructions in the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion), as other answers have mentioned. You can also look at the [corresponding FAQ post on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/how-can-i-delete-my-account), but it doesn't really tell you anything useful beyond what you will find in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that the _content_ (questions, answers, and comments) you have contributed to Stack Exchange site does not get automatically deleted along with your account. It will be anonymized, so that it's no longer associated with your display name, but it will continue to appear on the site. (You agreed to this when you submitted it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24764" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="36973234-518f-4246-b1a4-459800169711" CreationDate="2017-01-27T16:39:17.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="135ecf64-1f53-4494-9520-cc6ad6cb1718" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:05:42.550" UserId="8563" Text="I was recently [talking on chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35050094#35050094) about the [analytics information available to 25k+ users](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/260849/proposed-micro-privilege-site-analytics). This is normally pretty boring, but I went to have a look and I was somewhat surprised. These are the top ten sites that have sent us traffic over the past month:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WoL4q.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(full statistics [here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bCREE.png).) A lot of this comes internally from the Stack Exchange network - I suspect, primarily, through the Hot Network Questions Sidebar - but we do have a fair amount of other external sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I was surprised to find that the topmost non-SE referrer is [news360.com](https://news360.com/), a web recommendations app, which is responsible for about 1% of visits. (This is because that chart only accounts for the 3.1% of visits that come referred from external sites. 7.2% are marked as direct visits, and 89% come from search engines, with 97% of those coming from Google.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remarkably, the news360 traffic is even bigger than what we get from Facebook: that's also around 1%, but a distinct 5% less than the news360 counts. This is for a site that's incomparably small (4M users according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News360) compared to Facebook's billion+ users, so there's probably something specific at play here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do I want to say about this? Well, first, this is a curious enough observation as is. Secondly, though, I would like to know if there are any ways we can explore what kind of questions that news360 traffic is landing on. With Stack Overflow, we mostly know where it's going on (HNQs, with all the good stuff and [all](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/286020/) [the](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/285889) [bad](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/238420) [stuff](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/272230/) [that](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/284929) [entails](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/222721)), but I'm in the dark as to what kind of content is getting extra attention from that external source, and I'm not sure the same kind of intuitions about facebook-driven traffic also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... is there something useful we can say about that traffic? And, if so, does it tell us something useful about the site and how we can improve it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="135ecf64-1f53-4494-9520-cc6ad6cb1718" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:05:42.550" UserId="8563" Text="The site that refers the most visits to Physics Stack Exchange is…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="135ecf64-1f53-4494-9520-cc6ad6cb1718" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:05:42.550" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|site-promotion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="2941df56-3978-4906-82c7-a450c74dad7c" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:52:22.503" UserId="8563" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I was recently [talking on chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35050094#35050094) about the [analytics information available to 25k+ users](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/260849/proposed-micro-privilege-site-analytics). This is normally pretty boring, but I went to have a look and I was somewhat surprised. These are the top ten sites that have sent us traffic over the past month:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WoL4q.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(full statistics [here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bCREE.png).) A lot of this comes internally from the Stack Exchange network - I suspect, primarily, through the Hot Network Questions Sidebar - but we do have a fair amount of other external sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I was surprised to find that **the topmost non-SE referrer is [news360.com](https://news360.com/)**, a web recommendations app, which is responsible for about 1% of visits. (This is because that chart only accounts for the 3.1% of visits that come referred from external sites. 7.2% are marked as direct visits, and 89% come from search engines, with 97% of those coming from Google.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remarkably, the news360 traffic is even bigger than what we get from Facebook: that's also around 1%, but a distinct 5% less than the news360 counts. This is for a site that's incomparably small (4M users according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News360) compared to Facebook's billion+ users, so there's probably something specific at play here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do I want to say about this? Well, first, this is a curious enough observation as is. Secondly, though, I would like to know if there are any ways we can explore what kind of questions that news360 traffic is landing on. With Stack Overflow, we mostly know where it's going on (HNQs, with all the good stuff and [all](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/286020/) [the](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/285889) [bad](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/238420) [stuff](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/272230/) [that](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/284929) [entails](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/222721)), but I'm in the dark as to what kind of content is getting extra attention from that external source, and I'm not sure the same kind of intuitions about facebook-driven traffic also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... is there something useful we can say about that traffic? And, if so, does it tell us something useful about the site and how we can improve it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24769" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="efdcb412-d0c4-4992-95e5-71ccb17daf7e" CreationDate="2017-01-28T16:01:44.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9534" RevisionGUID="1e744ae3-063b-4938-b03a-9e0ed89df1fb" CreationDate="2017-01-28T20:35:42.897" UserId="1954" Text="How has Schrodinger's Chat not been suggested? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's both alive and dead until you open it to observe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="9dbc8dcc-69af-45a2-ac81-bbc89c36f399" CreationDate="2017-01-29T17:43:39.543" UserId="52112" Text="On multiple occasions while browsing through the close votes queue, I've come across &quot;do my homework for me!!!&quot; questions that have a scanned image from a textbook where the the image is sideways. These are much worse than are the typical &quot;do my homework for me, please&quot; kinds of questions. At least they said &quot;please&quot;. Many of them have even have done a bit of work, but then got lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not ranting about those questions. I'm ranting about the questions with sideways images. IMHO, a very special category is needed for people who post a sideways image scanned from a textbook and haven't shown a spot of work. Humiliation would be a good start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just saying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="9dbc8dcc-69af-45a2-ac81-bbc89c36f399" CreationDate="2017-01-29T17:43:39.543" UserId="52112" Text="Close question because image is sideways" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="9dbc8dcc-69af-45a2-ac81-bbc89c36f399" CreationDate="2017-01-29T17:43:39.543" UserId="52112" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="2c9ab506-753f-45f0-b210-198f719fcd2d" CreationDate="2017-01-29T19:14:37.940" UserId="25301" Text="No, we shouldn't close questions simply because they are images of a textbook/web page/something else.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Instead you should either (a) transcribe it (assuming it's legible &amp; you have the time) or (b) leave a comment that such a question (i.e., image of textbook/web page/something) is not usually well-received and leave a link to the [MathJax tutorial](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt; I have found that these types of questions are often lazy &quot;do my homework for me&quot; type questions that do deserve closure, but it's because of that aspect and not the sideways image.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="b9b0f0ea-4fe6-4e20-86c6-94a9b888c903" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:26:59.270" UserId="148704" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting Lamond of answers and questions it would provide a SE for beginners in physics to learn. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="b9b0f0ea-4fe6-4e20-86c6-94a9b888c903" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:26:59.270" UserId="148704" Text="Can a new Pysics.SE 093 be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="b9b0f0ea-4fe6-4e20-86c6-94a9b888c903" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:26:59.270" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|feature-request|migration|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="2394b43e-a7cc-43c7-abb0-680d4a7a31ab" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:34:27.803" UserId="148704" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting Lamond of answers and questions it would provide a new Physics093.beta for beginners.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24779" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="a45090c0-f710-41cc-b9e4-ada6c4982fa6" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:37:28.950" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24780" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="50f25311-e824-4c4e-9333-93b4342197ed" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:38:01.157" UserId="148704" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Can a new Pysics SE 093 for beginners be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24781" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="50f25311-e824-4c4e-9333-93b4342197ed" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:38:01.157" UserId="148704" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24782" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="96f500cb-8e40-4bd8-acb2-f54239f3db2d" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:38:05.800" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Can a new Pysics SE 093 for beginners be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="96f500cb-8e40-4bd8-acb2-f54239f3db2d" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:38:05.800" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|homework-and-exercises|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="8ff0ad85-f265-430b-9f98-bdd0ce13bd64" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:42:31.080" UserId="148704" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting Lamond of answers and questions it would provide a new Physics093.beta for beginners. There is plenty of places to learn but not in the SE format that many prefer including myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24785" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="57ee1b22-b824-41e0-9dbc-0e067f1b26e3" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:50:21.907" UserId="148704" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a new Pysics SE 093 for beginners be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="57ee1b22-b824-41e0-9dbc-0e067f1b26e3" CreationDate="2017-01-29T23:50:21.907" UserId="148704" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting Lamond of answers and questions it would provide a new Physics093.beta for beginners. There is plenty of places to learn but not in the SE format that many prefer including myself. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="fa4ecda3-f8c1-4989-8190-3f19b4cd2bef" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:18:35.280" UserId="25301" Text="Such a question is not in scope for this particular Meta site, but can be proposed over at [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/), which is where Stack Exchange sites are proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there have been similar proposals (a short list among others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5697/25301&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these have been successful in garnering much interest (i.e., critical mass interest to actually support a site). I sincerely doubt your latest attempt would be any more successful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also [Heather &amp; Mew's Physics Problem site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site), but note that (a) it is *not* an SE site and (b) I have no idea what is going on there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="e56c80f5-4ef5-4fce-97ea-edc0b7fb1777" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:30:53.457" UserId="148704" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting of answers and questions for everyone to understand it would provide a new Physics093.beta for beginners. There is plenty of places to learn but not in the SE format that many prefer including myself. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="e56c80f5-4ef5-4fce-97ea-edc0b7fb1777" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:30:53.457" UserId="148704" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Can a new Pysics SE or physical science for beginners in physics be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="2d6e93f7-64b1-46f1-bbdd-3c7ed5aab247" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:49:47.560" UserId="148704" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting of answers and questions for everyone to understand it would provide a new Physics093.beta for beginners. There is plenty of places to learn but not in the SE format that many prefer including myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="a5dff3d4-574b-4ed0-a4d9-1cc054c955ce" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:55:35.833" UserId="148704" Comment="deleted 81 characters in body" Text="Can a simple physics SE be designed for people who have little or no training who are enthusiasts none the less? That way moderators can instant migrate lessor questions there instead of instant close? Consisting of answers and questions for everyone to understand it would provide a new Physics093.beta for beginners. There is plenty of places to learn but not in the SE format that many prefer including myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24792" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="a5dff3d4-574b-4ed0-a4d9-1cc054c955ce" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:55:35.833" UserId="148704" Comment="deleted 81 characters in body" Text="Can a new physical science SE for beginners in physics be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9539" RevisionGUID="d2b2b3fe-91f9-49d5-bb2c-a47da86007d4" CreationDate="2017-01-30T04:03:05.903" UserId="10334" Text="If someone is *genuinely* interested in learning physics, there are plenty of resources on the web that are infinitely better for learning than the SE question/answer format. This is likely the reason that previous attempts to start a &quot;popular physics&quot; SE haven't had much interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excellent [Khan academy][1] courses are a great starting point, as are the dozens of channels on YouTube that will walk you through anything you'd like to learn. After that, there's the entire catalog of [MIT OpenCourseWare][2] that contains astounding amounts of material, plus exams with solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9539" RevisionGUID="dea73b7c-26ff-4817-9854-3ca975d3f0d1" CreationDate="2017-01-30T04:36:54.957" UserId="10334" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="If someone is *genuinely* interested in learning physics, there are plenty of resources on the web that are infinitely better for learning than the SE question/answer format. This is likely the reason that previous attempts to start a &quot;popular physics&quot; SE haven't had much interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excellent [Khan academy][1] courses are a great starting point, as is Wikipedia, as well as the dozens of channels on YouTube that will walk you through anything you'd like to learn. After that, there's the entire catalog of [MIT OpenCourseWare][2] that contains astounding amounts of material, plus exams with solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's simply no reason to rehash elementary concepts on SE, when they're so readily accessible with the simplest web search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9540" RevisionGUID="9267cbe3-e2a7-45e4-a4a9-95d4e549cbc6" CreationDate="2017-01-30T05:23:00.777" UserId="32426" Text="I think the intra-SE and external traffic should be handled differently, but for the same goal: to attract more visitors. Maybe two circle diagrams from the internal and external sources could be more useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of the site would be to increase the visitor rate. It is an universal rule. Even the never acknowledged &quot;quality over quantity&quot; rule is clearly for that, because LQ content expels visitors, HQ content attracts them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attracting more visitors has these major effects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Popularizes the natural sciences.&#xD;&#xA;* Helps people to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;* Attracts new users with a capability and intention to produce high quality content here (which attracts yet more users).&#xD;&#xA;* Makes money for the SE Inc, helping it to take care more to our wishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing where the most hits are coming from, it opens the possibility to know the mechanisms and behavior of the source sites, and tune our content and traffic to help it to send more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: news360.com reflects probably to current events, these current events could be focused more on the front page. It could serve as a *hint* to know, that the site frontpage should reflect more the current events. If the top source site would be, for example, the wikipedia, then it would serve as a totally different hint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same could happen also in intra-SE relations, although here the rules are quite different. First, in the case of the intra-SE content, the goal shouldn't be to &quot;rob&quot; visitors from the other side, but a cooperative one: working together to extend the visitor rate of both sides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="6512c322-29dd-4a9e-bb97-fafac6af36ab" CreationDate="2017-01-30T08:37:55.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/825986388000653313" />
  <row Id="24797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9541" RevisionGUID="8119cd21-3ef6-4da5-96b0-0ad3a6f9eef4" CreationDate="2017-01-31T02:48:47.240" UserId="114696" Text="I don't think that would work out, Jen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If simple questions are migrated to another site, the experts will not go there to answer them. Users who want to answer questions will stay here, especially the experts who want to find difficult, interesting questions to tackle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The users whose questions have been migrated will not get the high-quality answers which they come here for. They will only get a few low-quality answers, because most users of that site will be looking for answers, and will not be able to provide good answers anyway. They will be disappointed and will not keep using the other site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect of migrating low-level problems will work out just the same as when they are closed on Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason users like you stay here is probably because they value the feedback they get from a broad community of physicists. Sometimes your questions are closed quickly, but even if that happens you still get a lot of feedback from comments, which is valuable even when it is critical. So you put up with the difficulties because they are outweighed by the advantages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="211759e3-594a-4405-9b49-a404bc0326e6" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:59:53.073" UserId="104696" Text="I have tried very hard to comply with the spirit of this forum but obviously still have not got the hang of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I write a short comment and then am told it should be an answer.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer a question and it is down voted but no reason is given.  &#xD;&#xA;Here is an example http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/307799/104696 which obviously flummoxed another contributor, @sammygerbil, to this forum.  &#xD;&#xA;If nothing else I think that this is inconsiderate and possibly rude.  &#xD;&#xA;It also does not help me to try and do better in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I wish to have guidance about this question and my answer.  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308809/1d-kinematics-at-2t-%e2%88%92-4-velocity-at-t-0-is-2-m-s-velocity-at-5-seconds/308810#308810   &#xD;&#xA;Having recently been told not to write answers as comments I wrote it as an answer.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason why I wrote an answer is because I thought that I would be helping this student about a Physics concept.  &#xD;&#xA;In this case it is the idea of a non uniform acceleration where the student thinks that one formula fits all situations.  &#xD;&#xA;At the start of learning Physics many students find this conceptually difficult.&#xD;&#xA;I did not give an answer or any working I just told him/her how acceleration is defined.  &#xD;&#xA;After writing the answer and before doing some gardening this afternoon I had an idea that there may be a contrary view when &quot;-1&quot; turned up but without a comment what was I supposed to do? &#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no objection to the forum being overseen but I do wish to be helped to do the right thing and a comment with regard to a down vote would help a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="211759e3-594a-4405-9b49-a404bc0326e6" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:59:53.073" UserId="104696" Text="Re: Downvoting with no feedback" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="211759e3-594a-4405-9b49-a404bc0326e6" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:59:53.073" UserId="104696" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="e44bf848-7e65-4abf-8810-1b51dde9cc50" CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:04:32.107" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have tried very hard to comply with the spirit of this forum but obviously still have not got the hang of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I write a short comment and then am told it should be an answer.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer a question and it is down voted but no reason is given.  &#xD;&#xA;Here is an example http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/307799/104696 which obviously flummoxed another contributor, @sammygerbil, to this forum.  &#xD;&#xA;If nothing else I think that this is inconsiderate and possibly rude.  &#xD;&#xA;It also does not help me to try and do better in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I wish to have guidance about this question and my answer.  http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/308810/2451&#xD;&#xA;Having recently been told not to write answers as comments I wrote it as an answer.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason why I wrote an answer is because I thought that I would be helping this student about a Physics concept.  &#xD;&#xA;In this case it is the idea of a non uniform acceleration where the student thinks that one formula fits all situations.  &#xD;&#xA;At the start of learning Physics many students find this conceptually difficult.&#xD;&#xA;I did not give an answer or any working I just told him/her how acceleration is defined.  &#xD;&#xA;After writing the answer and before doing some gardening this afternoon I had an idea that there may be a contrary view when &quot;-1&quot; turned up but without a comment what was I supposed to do? &#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no objection to the forum being overseen but I do wish to be helped to do the right thing and a comment with regard to a down vote would help a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24802" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="e44bf848-7e65-4abf-8810-1b51dde9cc50" CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:04:32.107" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="721bbdc3-084b-4e1b-9871-63c7f032fd25" CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:07:34.430" UserId="50583" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I have tried very hard to comply with the spirit of this forum but obviously still have not got the hang of it. I write a short comment and then am told it should be an answer.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer a question and it is down voted but no reason is given. &#xD;&#xA;Here is an example http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/307799/104696 which obviously flummoxed another contributor, @sammygerbil, to this forum. If nothing else I think that this is inconsiderate and possibly rude. It also does not help me to try and do better in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I wish to have guidance about this question and [my answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/308810/2451).&#xD;&#xA;Having recently been told not to write answers as comments I wrote it as an answer. The reason why I wrote an answer is because I thought that I would be helping this student about a physics concept. In this case it is the idea of a non-uniform acceleration where the student thinks that one formula fits all situations. At the start of learning physics many students find this conceptually difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not give an answer or any working I just told him/her how acceleration is defined. After writing the answer and before doing some gardening this afternoon I had an idea that there may be a contrary view when &quot;-1&quot; turned up but without a comment what was I supposed to do? I have absolutely no objection to the forum being overseen but I do wish to be helped to do the right thing and a comment with regard to a down vote would help a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9543" RevisionGUID="54367c8c-4238-4880-a6fe-40084f6d923f" CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:28:25.610" UserId="8563" Text="I would interpret the downvotes on the answers to both of those questions as saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;don't answer this kind of homework questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I agree with that perspective. Providing answers to obvious do-my-work-for-me questions only encourages more of them, and they are a clear drag on the quality of the site. This is a gray area, but if I see a Q&amp;A pair and think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this question is terrible, the OP is a freeloader, and the question harms the site, and in fact it's so bad that any answer to this question encourages similarly terrible questions, so your answer harms the site regardless of what's actually in it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then a downvote on the answer is pretty warranted. I think that that's the case for both of the questions you've linked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24805" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9544" RevisionGUID="7e8bbc71-0998-498c-9b91-997da742d301" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:36:47.220" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308862/upload-word-document-as-answer" />
  <row Id="24806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9544" RevisionGUID="41380af4-c1f3-4fe1-8a91-ec71e3ed7935" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:26:08.610" UserId="105027" Text="This might seem as a stupid question but I would like to upload a word document as an answer to a question. I can convert the document to html and copy its contents but most of the formula disappear when pasting into the stack exchange answer box.&#xD;&#xA;I dont have a website, which could refer the interested people to an URL. I do have Google Drive and a shared folder, but how can I reference this folder in the answer box." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9544" RevisionGUID="41380af4-c1f3-4fe1-8a91-ec71e3ed7935" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:26:08.610" UserId="105027" Text="Upload word document as answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9544" RevisionGUID="41380af4-c1f3-4fe1-8a91-ec71e3ed7935" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:26:08.610" UserId="105027" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="8c529f25-0a6e-4f9c-962b-9241e0b4590a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:41:44.273" UserId="1325" Text="We generally like answers to be written using the markup facilities provided so they are searchable. That's why we deprecate the posting of images containing the working. If your answer was a screengrab of the document or just a link to the document it would not be very popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I want to compose a long answer I generally write in Word then copy and paste into this site. However I will have already used MathJax to format equations. I'm guessing you've used the Word equation editor or something similar for equations. In that case the only option is to rewrite the equations using MathJax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If redoing the equations is impossibly time consuming then I'm afraid the best option is not to answer at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last desparate option might be to post a link to the document in the chat room and ask if anyone would be interested in converting the equations to MathJax. If it's one of the areas I'm particularly interested in (e.g. GR) then I might be willing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="92ec7328-3f58-45de-92c3-ff584c6b162e" CreationDate="2017-02-01T04:45:09.583" UserId="66322" Text="I asked [a question][1] ysterday. I explained there that I was unable to understand how can my speakers make sound when I receive a phone call. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is **put on hold** with a reason **This question appears to be about engineering**. There was the [link][2] to get more details. But I think the question is not about engineering. I read &quot;more details&quot; link. Still I think the question is valid for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308754/66322&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="92ec7328-3f58-45de-92c3-ff584c6b162e" CreationDate="2017-02-01T04:45:09.583" UserId="66322" Text="Things that occured in life are marked to be about engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="92ec7328-3f58-45de-92c3-ff584c6b162e" CreationDate="2017-02-01T04:45:09.583" UserId="66322" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24813" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="12fa7096-f17c-4377-9f70-da54ae52f273" CreationDate="2017-02-01T04:45:27.320" UserId="66322" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66322,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;afzalex&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24814" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="cdf7c531-b9aa-4944-b157-319807eb70cd" CreationDate="2017-02-01T04:45:42.380" UserId="66322" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66322,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;afzalex&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="90aeea08-24a7-4858-a45d-df169b4a4642" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:55:26.187" UserId="8821" Text="Several times when writing long and detailed answers, I am unable to find time to finish it all in one go. I know draft of unfinished answers are saved and if I visit the question again, I can continue working on it. However, I think there should be a separate section where all unfinished drafts are saved so that I don't have to go looking for the question everytime I want to finish a draft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="90aeea08-24a7-4858-a45d-df169b4a4642" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:55:26.187" UserId="8821" Text="Should we have an &quot;Answer Later&quot; section" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="90aeea08-24a7-4858-a45d-df169b4a4642" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:55:26.187" UserId="8821" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24819" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="3c04fe3e-8b86-4d05-a817-20fa8bfa9bfd" CreationDate="2017-02-01T18:24:58.673" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Should we have an &quot;Answer Later&quot; section?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="5bc5addc-5b75-47b4-a219-7b285fcad24a" CreationDate="2017-02-01T19:18:48.047" UserId="113265" Text="I have a question about forces required to lift weights, and I need someone to look over my math.  Should I ask this in Physics or Engineering community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="5bc5addc-5b75-47b4-a219-7b285fcad24a" CreationDate="2017-02-01T19:18:48.047" UserId="113265" Text="Is this a question for Physics or Engineering community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="5bc5addc-5b75-47b4-a219-7b285fcad24a" CreationDate="2017-02-01T19:18:48.047" UserId="113265" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="1b674740-5205-473f-b801-cf2a6380acba" CreationDate="2017-02-01T19:33:44.920" UserId="124" Text="If all you want is for someone to check your math, that is not on topic for this site. You could ask in [our chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for [Engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com), since that's a different site and I don't know their scope all that well. You would have to ask there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="f40b31ec-6e12-4fa3-9388-3185fc937d5a" CreationDate="2017-02-02T01:51:26.740" UserId="114696" Text="A practical way of doing the same thing is to delete the answer. Then all you need to do is search in the list of deleted answers in your profile - which hopefully is much shorter than the list of open answers. When you are finished you can undelete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the advantage that nobody comments on or (down-)votes your answer while it is still a &quot;work in progress&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantage is that draft answers will be mixed up with those which you have abandoned altogether, but cannot place in the trash can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="26ee95af-6e0f-4841-b863-1be1f1bb6ffe" CreationDate="2017-02-02T02:17:00.260" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with Emilio Pisanty that the question should not have been closed, for the reasons he gives in his comments. I have voted to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to criticise @DavidZ but I think this is a good example of why moderators should not close questions unilaterally for routine reasons - ie for the same reasons as reviewers. I have complained about this already in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9449/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="77dda249-d20c-4a20-8b2e-8806c5eeeaaa" CreationDate="2017-02-02T04:45:17.323" UserId="142085" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to what's physics and what's not, there shouldn't be any concern for whether or not a physical system is natural or artificial.  For example, why a speaker reacts the way that it does is no less a physics question than why stars do what they do; that speakers are constructed whereas stars formed doesn't make this any less true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Had the question been about how to design or build a speaker that doesn't suffer from interference, that might've been off-topic as it would've been about design rather than physical principles.  And it may've been a grey area if the question had been about why a specific brand of speaker acts differently from another, as that's more about the brands' specific designs than general physics.  But, generic speakers are extremely simple devices - moreso than stars - and easily within the realm of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="dbfa5448-597f-4db4-8a90-29776bf18fd1" CreationDate="2017-02-02T04:51:18.833" UserId="142085" Comment="deleted 392 characters in body" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether a physical system in question is naturally occurring or artificial; it's still just physics.  It only becomes Engineering when it's a how-to-design/make question.  It becomes Business when it's about a specific brand of commercial product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed question isn't about design or a specific commercial product.  It's a general physics question about a common physical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="21d08468-abeb-4b8c-87ab-cc2fcd692d00" CreationDate="2017-02-02T05:01:06.637" UserId="142085" Comment="deleted 392 characters in body" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether a physical system in question is naturally occurring or artificial; it's still just physics.  The distinction's in the primary intellectual content of an issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Physics__:  Primary intellectual content is about why a physical system behaves the way it does, including understanding observations and predicting future observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Engineering__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to design, construct, or improve a technology.  Engineering often involves intense physics, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on design rather than observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Business__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to gain economic advantage from technology, or how others are doing so.  Business questions may involve intense physics or engineering, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on marketability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed question isn't about how to design a speaker or a specific commercial product.  It's a general physics question about a common physical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="d47f6b7a-f2ed-41e9-9b9b-b7b11fe8d48b" CreationDate="2017-02-02T05:19:38.783" UserId="142085" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether a physical system in question is naturally occurring or artificial; it's still just physics.  The distinction's in the primary intellectual content of an issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Physics__:  Primary intellectual content is about why a physical system behaves the way it does, including understanding observations and predicting future observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Engineering__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to design, construct, or improve a technology.  Engineering often involves intense physics, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on design rather than observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Business__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to gain economic advantage from technology, or how others are doing so.  Business questions may involve intense physics or engineering, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on marketability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed question isn't about how to design a speaker or a specific commercial product.  It's a general physics question about a common physical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="252c9e70-ca9e-4cfb-a921-5e636470bd7b" CreationDate="2017-02-02T11:35:32.110" UserId="142085" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether a physical system in question is naturally occurring or artificial; it's still just physics.  The distinction's in the primary intellectual content of an issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Physics__:  Primary intellectual content is about why a physical system behaves the way it does, including understanding observations and predicting future observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Engineering__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to design, construct, or improve a technology.  Engineering often involves physics, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on design rather than observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Business__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to gain economic advantage from technology, or how others are doing so.  Business questions may involve physics or engineering, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on marketability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed question isn't about how to design a speaker or a specific commercial product.  It's a general physics question about a common physical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="c6a2a9f7-08c2-4d3f-91c2-7c11b8f887c5" CreationDate="2017-02-02T14:16:45.063" UserId="4826" Text="It is a bit late into this new year, being that we're already in the second month, but we are now cycling the Community Promotion Ads for 2017!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA; - If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ads/display/9554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="c6a2a9f7-08c2-4d3f-91c2-7c11b8f887c5" CreationDate="2017-02-02T14:16:45.063" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="c6a2a9f7-08c2-4d3f-91c2-7c11b8f887c5" CreationDate="2017-02-02T14:16:45.063" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="3699bc98-b812-4f1a-a9e3-c404c75fed2e" CreationDate="2017-02-02T14:16:45.063" UserId="4826" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zzY6I.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24837" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="b171e620-180d-432f-b6a1-9728680dfa3c" CreationDate="2017-02-02T15:19:54.057" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7426],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24838" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="b9e1e942-9f77-4611-bc62-6e8f6ce6d753" CreationDate="2017-02-02T15:20:40.653" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9554],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9556" RevisionGUID="6495413b-d836-40e4-9c74-1b26f6b55f0f" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:19:20.700" UserId="7924" Text="[![www.physicsoverflow.org][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pqs48.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="35a29a42-4720-4f3b-9d08-851291e80e80" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:05:17.250" UserId="114696" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="A practical way of doing the same thing is to post your first draft of an answer and delete it. Then all you need to do find the answer is search in the list of deleted answers in your profile. Hopefully this is much shorter than the list of non-deleted answers. When you are finished working on your answer you can undelete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the advantage that nobody comments on or (down-)votes your answer while it is still a &quot;work in progress&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantage is that draft answers will be mixed up with those which you have abandoned altogether but cannot place in the trash can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9557" RevisionGUID="8f881c13-ee9d-4cf4-9570-114b9d28978c" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:57:37.590" UserId="25301" Text="[![Physics Stack Exchange Review Queue][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ef9Hl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="38149244-6445-4303-b530-4cbc4bfb26bc" CreationDate="2017-02-02T21:07:24.250" UserId="114696" Text="As the first person who voted to close [Dancing Twins](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307573) as a duplicate, I think you make a valid point which is relevant generally. There is always going to be some difference between questions, or some aspect of the new question (or of both) which is not addressed in the original answers. I think the decision has to be made on the broad similarity of the central part of the question. See for example the discussions about [Do black holes exist?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5864/not-a-duplicate) and [Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9348/a-dubious-duplicate?rq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case I think you are making a distinction which does not actually exist in the questions. Neither specifies what the relative motion of the observers is. The rocket-bound twin could be circling the Earth-bound twin; this possibility is not addressed in either case. And Electrodynamist's answer to the original makes the same points as you that what is observed depends on the relative speed and is affected by both time dilation and the Doppler effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the question was closed you were able to post an answer which addressed the issue you raised. Even if the question had been closed before you answered, you could (and can still) post a thorough answer to the original question, contrasting the two questions and covering all scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might indeed be a better original of which this is the duplicate, but finding it takes time and effort, which mortals like us have in limited supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="824b29c3-985a-4cba-ab42-83acbb3b3b7f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T04:55:26.843" UserId="114696" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="I agree with Emilio Pisanty that the question should not have been closed as an engineering question, for the reason he gives, namely that the OP is asking for the physics behind a phenomenon rather than, for example, an explanation of a technical feature of his mobile phone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the question has some similarities to http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308331, it is readily recognizable in this case what the cause is, even though the &quot;strange sound&quot; is not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to criticise @DavidZ but I think this is a good example of why moderators should not close questions unilaterally for routine reasons - ie for the same reasons as reviewers. When judgement is called for, the requirement for 5 votes avoids the outcome being skewed by individual differences of opinion. I have complained about this already in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9449/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="ee9d989d-25f8-4b81-9536-190546d96049" CreationDate="2017-02-03T06:58:09.977" UserId="1325" Text="We have a chat session coming up next Tuesday at 16:00 UTC in the Physics chat room. Recent chats have been a bit amorphous, so if there are any issues you want to raise now is a good time to crystallise your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course just an excuse for me to highlight the single most important burning issue of the moment: please, please, please can we rename the chat room to *Schrödinger's chat* :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="ee9d989d-25f8-4b81-9536-190546d96049" CreationDate="2017-02-03T06:58:09.977" UserId="1325" Text="Agenda for Tuesday's chat session" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="ee9d989d-25f8-4b81-9536-190546d96049" CreationDate="2017-02-03T06:58:09.977" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24847" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="6ecbebd4-a051-4960-a2bb-c84eff06f766" CreationDate="2017-02-03T07:06:35.967" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat|chat-events|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="38a939f9-b505-473d-97dd-8f68017bbb5d" CreationDate="2017-02-03T07:21:42.967" UserId="44126" Text="In response to the renaming request: we *can* do it, but we also can't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9561" RevisionGUID="d1d63e95-b819-45ec-af7f-cb3d8617a3d1" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:42:05.630" UserId="1325" Text="Please upvote this if you support the change of the chat room name to *Schrödinger's chat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please downvote this if you disagree with the name change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="552d816b-af7f-4d58-beff-6c20af4a690d" CreationDate="2017-02-03T13:53:24.073" UserId="114696" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="As I understand it the problem is one of book-marking the question rather than having a convenient place to store the answer while it is being worked on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A practical way of doing this is to post your first draft of an answer and delete it. Then all you need to do find the answer again is to search in the list of deleted answers in your profile. Hopefully this is much shorter than the list of non-deleted answers. When you are finished working on your answer you can undelete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the advantage that nobody comments on or (down-)votes your answer while it is still a &quot;work in progress&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantage is that draft answers will be mixed up with those which you have abandoned altogether but cannot place in the trash can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you could mark the question as a *favorite*, if this is the only reason you use that feature. But this does not have the advantage of the *delete* feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="00120ba6-5678-4cf3-836d-98fcf03a481f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:08:40.180" UserId="70392" Text="I am looking for text books of the same style as 'Nuclear and Particle Physics' by W.S.C.Williams (that is with clearly labeled definitions and sections of concise explanation). However, I am looking for such textbooks in a range of subjects, GR, atomic physics etc. How is such a question best asked on this site. I feel if asked directly it will be closed for been to broad but if I was to ask for each individual topic it would needlessly clog up the home page. Is such a question appropriate for this site? and if so how is the best way to approach it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="00120ba6-5678-4cf3-836d-98fcf03a481f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:08:40.180" UserId="70392" Text="How broad can a resource-recommendation question be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="00120ba6-5678-4cf3-836d-98fcf03a481f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:08:40.180" UserId="70392" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24855" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="a4303346-b44e-475e-981b-45d6de3364b0" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:18:45.553" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|questions|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9564" RevisionGUID="c3c45b4f-94ab-4446-a091-dcebbba52c9c" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:06:42.453" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv.org: the leading open access eprint repository][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziQXb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9565" RevisionGUID="8198ef1d-79d2-4a2c-b63a-37c474a33c02" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:23:00.723" UserId="8563" Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E9D64.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9566" RevisionGUID="473f2631-3db3-4649-9276-07393d892d33" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:26:51.453" UserId="8563" Text="[![DLMF: an online encyclopaedia of special functions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/toYiP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9564" RevisionGUID="dbdf6324-b9eb-4988-981f-75e7fd69ea7f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:28:34.417" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[![arXiv.org: the leading open access eprint repository][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziQXb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9567" RevisionGUID="069b08e3-5c9d-4de7-bfb1-5b25880477cf" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:28:53.723" UserId="8563" Text="[![History of Science and Mathematics at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9568" RevisionGUID="23dcfdbb-f69d-417a-a054-3fb2abdbe813" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:30:28.490" UserId="8563" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9569" RevisionGUID="908cc54b-4230-49c4-b424-2109d7033e3e" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:32:07.383" UserId="8563" Text="[![Computational Science at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9570" RevisionGUID="44789eb5-c15f-4000-9547-ff0ef3820ac5" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:34:55.543" UserId="8563" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5A7af.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://academia.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9571" RevisionGUID="2e0db78a-2ab2-4235-800f-eb76276e920f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:36:06.617" UserId="8563" Text="[![Overleaf: Free online collaborative LaTeX editor with real-time PDF preview][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SaONO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.overleaf.com/latex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9572" RevisionGUID="e9e8d823-fdb1-449d-8348-46530430c1fb" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:39:08.670" UserId="8563" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9573" RevisionGUID="6688c19f-d074-465c-b96b-3e8582a2cb72" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:41:13.740" UserId="8563" Text="[![archive.org - the public library of the internet][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ij43t.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9574" RevisionGUID="9797d765-ac35-49f8-969f-da32a99f2ae4" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:41:58.917" UserId="8563" Text="[![Wayback Machine: experience the Web as it was][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1wvvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9575" RevisionGUID="2ceec61e-d2f6-415e-b77c-328b76a67558" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:42:45.827" UserId="8563" Text="[![Retraction Watch][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFSyZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://retractionwatch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="46386cb6-e7be-4d5a-8f92-192ce65273ad" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:43:31.270" UserId="8563" Text="[![Digital Open Access Identifier - a DOI resolver that prioritizes open access][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ndeRs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doai.io" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9577" RevisionGUID="f4bb934b-53b1-4e70-b9b4-19042f6a416d" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:45:45.580" UserId="8563" Text="[![The Cost of Knowledge - join the Elsevier boycott and take back our scientific publishing!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vu8lo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thecostofknowledge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9578" RevisionGUID="71908269-058b-419d-8207-0aaae5027659" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:46:16.273" UserId="8563" Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NS3GV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="f3a76ace-3ac3-40ca-93e3-54754537f417" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:47:13.237" UserId="25301" Comment="added tags, minor formatting" Text="I would like to ask the following question, and would like to know if it is allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What are the books similar to the books by David Griffiths, but in the following areas:&#xD;&#xA;Classical Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Mathematical Methods, Solid State, Atomic and Molecular Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I like the style of Griffiths, and would like to learn the basics of every area with the least pain possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just wondering if it is appropriate for physics.SE or if I should post this in physics forums." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24873" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="f3a76ace-3ac3-40ca-93e3-54754537f417" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:47:13.237" UserId="25301" Comment="added tags, minor formatting" Text="|discussion|questions|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9579" RevisionGUID="532a27c6-554e-4b8d-883b-087c51330c7f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:47:33.963" UserId="8563" Text="[![Are your papers available in an open access repository? Check with Dissemin][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dev.dissem.in/img/stackexchange.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dissem.in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="0e2d1a63-f4dc-44a1-a0da-83f528658eb8" CreationDate="2017-02-03T18:54:02.363" UserId="84967" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* C. Jess Riedel: [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9581" RevisionGUID="6a831d2a-3e5f-4f68-a450-f7728f867c2d" CreationDate="2017-02-03T23:43:40.027" UserId="124" Text="That's not the sort of thing we have in mind for [tag:resource-recommendation] questions. As the answer to [the recommendation question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It should be of the form &quot;What are good books to learn/study [subject] at [level]?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The style of the book shouldn't factor into the question. It's a fairly subjective thing, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recommended way for you to get the information you're looking for is to read through the existing answers to the recommendation questions for the topics you're interested in. Those answers should describe characteristics of the books, and you can judge which ones might have the style you're looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9583" RevisionGUID="959acd98-5212-4202-8184-a9f3ee01df11" CreationDate="2017-02-04T20:57:04.310" UserId="25301" Text="[![Discover our universe][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9584" RevisionGUID="857758c5-7fc8-422b-8260-a1be66dd18a6" CreationDate="2017-02-04T20:58:02.620" UserId="25301" Text="[![Sage Mathematical Software Environment][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sagemath.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xcgnf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="e8864075-f9d4-4c8f-94e4-df5b53110ab4" CreationDate="2017-02-05T05:13:10.023" UserId="114696" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I am looking for text books of the same style as 'Nuclear and Particle Physics' by W.S.C.Williams - that is, with clearly labeled definitions and sections of concise explanation. However, I am looking for such textbooks in a range of subjects - GR, atomic physics etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is such a question best asked on this site? I feel if asked directly it will be closed for being to broad but if I was to ask for each individual topic it would needlessly clog up the home page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such a question appropriate for this site? And if so what is the best way to approach it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="8cdc61f7-eea7-4876-86f8-6434bb2c0d12" CreationDate="2017-02-05T08:50:07.603" UserId="1325" Comment="Admit defeat" Text="We have a chat session coming up next Tuesday at 16:00 UTC in the Physics chat room. Recent chats have been a bit amorphous, so if there are any issues you want to raise now is a good time to crystallise your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course just an excuse for me to highlight the single most important burning issue of the moment: please, please, please can we rename the chat room to *Schrödinger's chat* :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Update ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is clearly no enthusiasm for renaming the chat room. You may consider this suggestion abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave the question open here in case anyone wants to use it to suggest other topics for the chat session." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="a607fca4-7f75-4f12-a519-139b4bfb048c" CreationDate="2017-02-05T15:19:36.843" UserId="121464" Text="[![math.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xbart.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: math.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9588" RevisionGUID="7379b0b9-6de0-4b3a-b6ef-90baffd2ac0f" CreationDate="2017-02-05T15:28:41.547" UserId="121464" Text="[![cryptography.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AkQzj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://crypto.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="07269377-a323-4141-b216-093b566c22ad" CreationDate="2017-02-05T15:58:05.570" UserId="121464" Text="[![chemistry.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/noaFv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="d3cf17dc-9fc2-466c-a3f6-c75e8216eae5" CreationDate="2017-02-05T16:01:40.663" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[![math.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tuKdN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: math.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9590" RevisionGUID="9526f145-99e9-4426-909d-0fe2a98d2e2b" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:00:53.673" UserId="148704" Text="I have been suspended for asking to many low quality questions. The are important to me. Is there a way to check how if I am close to getting suspended again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9590" RevisionGUID="9526f145-99e9-4426-909d-0fe2a98d2e2b" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:00:53.673" UserId="148704" Text="Can I get a warning before I am suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9590" RevisionGUID="9526f145-99e9-4426-909d-0fe2a98d2e2b" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:00:53.673" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|feature-request|moderators|suspensions|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24895" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="c8d5a22f-51ce-4b7e-9b53-cc91e6d910c9" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:03:43.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/828303103447400448" />
  <row Id="24896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9591" RevisionGUID="5c0d2b78-396b-46d9-bc2e-b29624c3887b" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:11:04.837" UserId="50583" Text="No. The algorithm for automatic low-quality suspensions is intentionally not public to avoid users gaming it, and manual suspensions (i.e. those issued by moderators and not the SE engine) rarely carry a warning with them for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly if a user already has been suspended in the past for the same behaviour, a warning is unlikely. They have already been told in the private message accompanying their last suspension what the behaviour leading to it was, and given tips on how to avoid it. Continuing the same behaviour after a suspension will inevitably lead to another one, without warning - the warning was the preceding suspension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9591" RevisionGUID="f8d53054-0382-43ec-9f8d-302c179d0e77" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:15:10.070" UserId="50583" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="No. The algorithm for automatic low-quality suspensions is intentionally not public to avoid users gaming it, and manual suspensions (i.e. those issued by moderators and not the SE engine) rarely carry a warning with them for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly if a user already has been suspended in the past for the same behaviour, a warning is unlikely. They have already been told in the private message accompanying their last suspension what the behaviour leading to it was, and given tips on how to avoid it. Continuing the same behaviour after a suspension will inevitably lead to another, typically a longer one, without warning - the warning was the preceding suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are certain behaviours for which you might receive a moderator message but not a suspension. These messages should *not* be seen as &quot;warnings&quot;, but as messages that are sent *before* the behaviour in question reaches a level that is worthy of suspension. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is according to general SE philosophy as laid out in [*A Day in the Penalty Box*](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9592" RevisionGUID="c1ef211f-78a0-449c-9ac6-5fb2665d7165" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:33:47.837" UserId="148704" Text="You want as many visitors possible. Ideally when some one googles a question your site would come up foremost. Even if it is copied word from word it makes your site another good source and increases the chance for a user finding an answer. As long as there is a link to the original there should be no problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google uses key words to find what the user is looking for as we all know. For example: Why does a balloon pop when it gets to high? But, there are many ways to ask that same question. Keeping the duplicates will assure a return to your site when Googled by new users more often. It is your policies that decide if you will be a Lycos or Google of Physics. Moderators should decide what is bad traffic and pseudoscience an handle it accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9590" RevisionGUID="5c23d574-b8d3-41d2-964d-59011deed59d" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:46:50.610" UserId="84967" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have been suspended for asking too many low quality questions. They are important to me. Is there a way to check how if I am close to getting suspended again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9593" RevisionGUID="2c20b81a-c9a4-4700-bae6-74e6d68028b4" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:26:28.860" UserId="121464" Text="[![space.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ckdoi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9594" RevisionGUID="9c6bfdeb-755f-4735-8348-3a631b07c9fa" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:56:47.957" UserId="121464" Text="[![tex.stackexchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yRoYg.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://tex.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="32a9bab9-3f14-4fee-8640-26f8735ab9ee" CreationDate="2017-02-06T04:33:48.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="e71184fa-fd2a-4606-9b39-1ea7b6f3cd76" CreationDate="2017-02-06T20:06:25.893" UserId="50583" Text="So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms fo the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="e71184fa-fd2a-4606-9b39-1ea7b6f3cd76" CreationDate="2017-02-06T20:06:25.893" UserId="50583" Text="Chat and the moderation thereof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="e71184fa-fd2a-4606-9b39-1ea7b6f3cd76" CreationDate="2017-02-06T20:06:25.893" UserId="50583" Text="|discussion|policy|chat|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="8a56c2ed-f735-4567-9a35-56a65563f995" CreationDate="2017-02-06T23:20:27.843" UserId="108333" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="EDITED after latest Pisante comment: I don't think that all items noted in the comments were part of answers before, not fully developed and explained, and which could be argued. I don't disagree with many of the comments, but find some to be not helpful. Still, this site is a meta site and opinions can be valid answers. I'd like to see some reasoned answers posted, if possible, but, it's been about 8 months since I posted it, it does not matter much at this point. I was just questioning, not creating a controversy, I thought. BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED, added from here on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is not why it happens. there were previous questions eg,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that asked that, and the answers were truthful, in my opinion, and elucidated the reasons. My question is whether there might be a way to get those to increase. Some were mentioned in the answers in that url, but if we'd like to increase quality perhaps there are also other ways also. Those mentioned a couple years back didn't seem to take hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Increase the number of points for positive votes for questions&#xD;&#xA;2 increase more the number of points for positive votes on questions and say more than 3K reputation (I know, sounds like favoritism, propose an alternate)&#xD;&#xA;3 create a few more tags for eg, for news exploration, paper reviews or comments -- where the question/answer explains the relevance of some new findings, or describes a paper and asks a question on it&#xD;&#xA;4  others I can't think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is are there other good ideas for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24913" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="f1311529-3b3a-4160-94fa-4eb343c35d82" CreationDate="2017-02-07T03:07:27.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/828802323971465217" />
  <row Id="24914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9597" RevisionGUID="5178a84d-95aa-442d-98d9-d978a2ab8b3e" CreationDate="2017-02-07T06:19:45.123" UserId="148704" Text="I have voted on questions and answers then pondered on it to undo my vote the next day and it is locked in. It says I cannot change my vote until it is edited, but unfairly the people are not notified of Q&amp;A edits that they have voted on. Can a feature be added to where one can be notified when a Q &amp; A has been revised that they have voted on? or is there a way to extend the time period where one can change there vote? Why is it done this way anyways? Sometime when I have a good question or answer I type it in right away not to forget it, but may take days or months to fine tune it the best I can or learn more about it down the road. If I try to re ask or answer it gets red flagged so I try to ask or answer Q &amp; A perfectly right the first time but sometimes is impossible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9597" RevisionGUID="5178a84d-95aa-442d-98d9-d978a2ab8b3e" CreationDate="2017-02-07T06:19:45.123" UserId="148704" Text="Vote locked in till the answer or question is edited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9597" RevisionGUID="5178a84d-95aa-442d-98d9-d978a2ab8b3e" CreationDate="2017-02-07T06:19:45.123" UserId="148704" Text="|feature-request|answers|editing|voting|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9597" RevisionGUID="69b4ef41-b6d9-455b-96a9-dd144f625702" CreationDate="2017-02-07T06:28:49.713" UserId="148704" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have voted on questions and answers then pondered on it to undo my vote the next day and it is locked in. It says I cannot change my vote until it is edited, but unfairly the people are not notified of Q&amp;A edits that they have voted on. Can a feature be added to where one can be notified when a Q &amp; A has been revised that they have voted on? or is there a way to extend the time period where one can change there vote? Why is it done this way anyways? Many times when I have a good question or answer I type it in right away not to forget it, but may take days or months to fine tune it the best I can or learn more about it down the road. If I try to re ask or answer it gets red flagged so I try to ask or answer Q &amp; A perfectly right the first time but sometimes is impossible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9598" RevisionGUID="7c8ed5fb-4a4c-4345-85d7-8df2cbe8db87" CreationDate="2017-02-07T06:57:00.113" UserId="124" Text="You can get notified when posts are edited by using the [Stack Overflow Extras extension script](https://stackapps.com/questions/6091/stack-overflow-extras-sox). However it's been [declined on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1751/allow-an-edit-to-notify-downvoters-i-think-ive-fixed-the-issue-now-please-c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were able to change your vote on a post as much as you want, that allows some methods of gaming the reputation system, which is why it's not allowed. You get five minutes after you cast your vote to change it, and after that it's locked in unless the post is edited. So be careful with your votes. If you find yourself often wanting to change a vote the next day, you should probably just wait: instead of casting a vote, just make a note of the post you want to vote on, and then come back the next day and if you still feel that it deserves the vote, then you can cast it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that, if you have already voted on a post and you were going to edit it anyway, it's fine to change your vote after making the edit. However, your edit _must materially improve the post_, as with all edits. Making trivial or harmful edits just to be able to change your votes on posts (or for any other reason, really) is abuse of the system. Don't do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="1e7a165c-4afc-44b5-a9ca-6b151fa8c9f9" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:22:49.227" UserId="8563" Comment="No need for personal call-outs, much less with misspelled surnames. " Text="EDITED after the question was marked as a possible duplicate: I don't think that all items noted in the comments were part of answers before, not fully developed and explained, and which could be argued. I don't disagree with many of the comments, but find some to be not helpful. Still, this site is a meta site and opinions can be valid answers. I'd like to see some reasoned answers posted, if possible, but, it's been about 8 months since I posted it, it does not matter much at this point. I was just questioning, not creating a controversy, I thought. BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED, added from here on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is not why it happens. there were previous questions eg,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that asked that, and the answers were truthful, in my opinion, and elucidated the reasons. My question is whether there might be a way to get those to increase. Some were mentioned in the answers in that url, but if we'd like to increase quality perhaps there are also other ways also. Those mentioned a couple years back didn't seem to take hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Increase the number of points for positive votes for questions&#xD;&#xA;2 increase more the number of points for positive votes on questions and say more than 3K reputation (I know, sounds like favoritism, propose an alternate)&#xD;&#xA;3 create a few more tags for eg, for news exploration, paper reviews or comments -- where the question/answer explains the relevance of some new findings, or describes a paper and asks a question on it&#xD;&#xA;4  others I can't think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is are there other good ideas for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9599" RevisionGUID="7b3c5de1-a24d-4aa3-bec2-21c99afef49c" CreationDate="2017-02-07T09:56:11.080" UserId="1325" Text="This is a purely personal view and does not reflect any official policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the last few months I’ve found the chat room to be a pleasant place to hang out. Everyone is good natured and friendly. I’ve had many useful discussions about physics, and the non-physics related discussions have been generally good humoured and sometimes very funny. Specifically the chat room has been conflict free. Let me highlight that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The chat room has been conflict free&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want conflict I have only to turn on the TV. If I don’t want conflict then, well, I hang out in the physics chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that any area in which people hold strong views is impossible to discuss in a relaxed and agreeable way. Even in real life, where we can judge how much offence we are causing by visual cues, arguments frequently get heated. In the relative anonymity of chat room heated arguments are the norm not the exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don’t want those topics discussed in the chat room, and politics is one of those areas. That’s my view, and many will claim this leads to a rather anodyne conversation. Yes, it does, and that’s just fine by me. I’m not saying these issues are unimportant and/or shouldn’t be discussed, I’m saying I don’t like them discussed in the h Bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that’s my view. As usual feel free to up/down vote to register agreement or disagreement. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="3c926671-885e-43b7-89b6-4cde5a9c1b29" CreationDate="2017-02-07T12:12:29.427" UserId="12350" Text="My view is that the h bar should be a place where the users of Physics SE can hang out and discuss any topic under the sun with other users of Physics SE while maintain respect for one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is likely the most commonly discussed topic, but I don't think topics that aren't physics related should be deemed off topic and I also welcome controversial topics such as politics provided they are discussed in a respectful way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9601" RevisionGUID="bdb5ac28-ff69-4715-92d8-6439d818ba3c" CreationDate="2017-02-07T13:36:46.597" UserId="50583" Text="Here are some points that were raised in the meta chat on Feb 6/7, starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263257#35263257). I'm posting this in order to inform users who might not have the patience or time to read through the entire transcript of some things that have been said. If you think there are some other good messages that should be added please leave a comment or edit it in (I favour a comment so we don't have an edit for every single message). I'm not really sure how to do voting on this thing, but I'm also not sure it's useful to anyone, so...maybe just vote this up if you think we should continue to give a such a &quot;digest&quot; of extended chat discussions as they happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# No user input/overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263329#35263329), 1 star:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My proposal is to give the regulars/members of the chat room significantly more say in what is okay and what is not, like in normal site moderation, and also to be a bit less...testy (dunno if that's the word for it) in your reaction to people stepping near boundaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263558#35263558), 1 star:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] the entire SE site runs basically on users saying what's okay and what's not. Why should chat be any different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265418#35265418):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my concern is because it has been heavily over enforced, in my view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35263996#35263996):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I don't care if you say &quot;be nice&quot;. People don't do it, but everybody agrees with it. if you say &quot;no politics&quot;, though, I'm upset. there's no reason to do it.&#xD;&#xA;(when the real problem is people aren't being nice.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replies by moderators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264084#35264084):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The problem is this. The probability that politics is going to lead to unpleasantness is *very* high, given previous incidents across the network. If we do as you say and &quot;lay in wait&quot; until people get to the point where they are violating the Be Nice policy, the damage has already been done: Insults have been slung, feelings hurt and the chat conversation disrupted. What *benefit* is there to allow that to happen in the middle of the main chat room if we can contain it in dedicated rooms?&#xD;&#xA;And if it doesn't happen, no harm has been done either, and the conversation continues happily in that dedicated room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Input from other moderators around the network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[HDE 226868](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263741#35263741):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do have confidence in the maturity of a lot of regulars in The h Bar - certainly those here now - but discussions do have a way of getting really heated, and that's never fun for anyone. Again, this is based on a lot of incidents network-wide. So the caution here doesn't have as much to do with what could happen as with what has happened and what will likely happen at some point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Shog9](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265887#35265887):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't... Really consider this overly strict, but I may be callous; I generally just delete (vs. move) discussions I feel are problematic, so this actually strikes me as a fairly light touch. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Politics is too unspecific/&quot;Everything is political&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DanielSank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264107#35264107): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The biggest problem here, with everything you're saying, is that &quot;politics&quot; is way to broad of a topic to ban given the evidence we have on PSE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264168#35264168):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your ban is not &quot;common sense&quot; like this is saying. mods have deleted every comment even mentioning politics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DanielSank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264178#35264178):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the other problem: you guys are using &quot;political&quot; to mean &quot;political stuff that's likely to cause trouble&quot;. That's just lazy language, plain and simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DanielSank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264200#35264200):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You guys are playing a dangerous game. You've written policy &quot;no politics&quot;, but then in reality you're willing to allow disobedience of the written policy so long as you're ok with the violation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DanielSank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264664#35264664), 1 star:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't ban &quot;politics&quot;. Start small, i.e. &quot;Recent discussions about the US immigration policy have been problematic, so we're temporarily banning it in hbar (but other rooms are unaffected) until we can craft a more precise policy&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response from users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[vzn](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264422#35264422):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; look guys (DS + heather) am all in favor of free speech/ no censorship but those concepts are sometimes a lot blurrier than you would think in cyberspace/ chat rooms &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[vzn](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264456#35264456):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you guys are all heated up about a single room on SE. there are zillions of rooms. admittedly its a cooler room, but anyway...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response from moderators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264582#35264582):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While it's evident we need to clarify what exactly the &quot;ban on politics&quot; entails, you should be prepared that there will always remain some sort of grey area. Working on minimizing it is good, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Input from moderators around the network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[HDE 226868](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264217#35264217):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I still stand by that the problematic discussions take away much more than the productive ones give, but again, that's based on negative experiences I've had in a variety of chat rooms, meaning that I think it's likely the same thing will happen in The h Bar in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Shog9](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265284#35265284):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's at best a useful guideline, to help folks gauge their own activity and to help mods / ROs identify potentially problematic discussions before they get out of control. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9602" RevisionGUID="926eeedd-9784-4fb8-9210-f6f05f7e0d64" CreationDate="2017-02-07T13:38:22.423" UserId="50583" Text="In order to also have it here: We will likely discuss [Chat and the moderation thereof](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9596/50583) unless no one present is interested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="35afed6a-f528-483d-a4e7-1b07b5007944" CreationDate="2017-02-07T13:59:36.630" UserId="84967" Text="It seems to me that one of the motivations for the &quot;no politics&quot; policy is that it often leads to uncivil behaviour, and moderators and chat owners want to avoid such a behaviour instead of correcting it when it happens. In other words, this is a pre-emptive measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like the moderators and chat owners to discuss/expand on this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;why is it such a bad thing to let things develop, and warn/ban a user if things get out of hand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that most of us want to avoid uncivil behaviour, but I really doubt that a discussion on politics will end up in threats, insults, and really bad behaviour in general. I don't think that such a discussion would escalate to a point that is intolerable. It seems to me that the worst case scenario is just a bit of profanity. And an outright ban of a topic, just to avoid a four-letter word, seems too much to me. It seems much more logical to allow any topic, and delete/move to trash those comments that step  over the line. And if things really escalate, to warn/ban the users that were involved in the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that mods and chat owners disagree with this, and I'd like to know why. I would really appreciate if someone would comment on this. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9604" RevisionGUID="0b8a5a33-5710-410d-8336-311f15b579db" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:03:48.677" UserId="50764" Text="The recent undertakings in making the chat conflict-free showed, in my opinion, a deep lack of prepare or consideration from the moderation team. I talk to most of you frequently, and I know you are all honest people (Except ACM who is a robot) trying to do the best for the site, but this is really not the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a little while now the approach to fixing problems in the h-bar is to simply shut down each and everything that is problematic, and although that does make moderation much easier it makes the usability of the chat deeply crippled. Let's be honest, the Politics ban was put in place to fight back the wave of political discussion that followed Donald Trump's election. My problem with this yielding the ban of all political discussion is simple. Let's take a look at the definition of moderator given by the [Cambridge Dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Someone who tries to help other people come to an agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Someone who makes certain that a formal discussion happens without problems and follows the rules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Someone who makes sure that the rules of an internet discussion are not broken, for example by removing any threatening or offensive messages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I posted the three I found meaningful in this context, and my point is it appears to me you simply take a narrow view of what it means and behave according to Definition `(3)`. To me, at least, definition `(2)` seems **much** more fruitful in a chat environment. You shouldn't automatically shut down every topic that goes rough every once in a while, you should actively engage in the conversation when it does and ensure the chat guidelines are being followed. There's nothing wrong with a heated discussion that doesn't break the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore I'd like to take a moment to criticise how this was put in place. You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as *casus belli* to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. I know you don't have to consult the members about room rules, not even the regulars, but just because you don't have to do it does not mean you can't or shouldn't do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand you're working on making the chat a more welcoming place for everyone, but killing it is not the right way to go forward. I'm sure you can arrive at solutions that don't involve painting topics with a broad brush and proceeding to ban them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moderator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9604" RevisionGUID="d56ab788-d2a4-4fba-b891-e3ea926d4da3" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:10:33.833" UserId="50764" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The recent undertakings in making the chat conflict-free showed, in my opinion, a deep lack of prepare or consideration from the moderation team. I talk to most of you frequently, and I know you are all honest people (Except ACM who is a robot) trying to do the best for the site, but this is really not the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a little while now the approach to fixing problems in the h-bar is to simply shut down each and every thing that is problematic, and although that does make moderation much easier it makes the usability of the chat deeply crippled. Let's be honest, the Politics ban was put in place to fight back the wave of political discussion that followed Donald Trump's election. My problem with this yielding the ban of all political discussion is simple. Let's take a look at the definition of moderator given by the [Cambridge Dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Someone who tries to help other people come to an agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Someone who makes certain that a formal discussion happens without problems and follows the rules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Someone who makes sure that the rules of an internet discussion are not broken, for example by removing any threatening or offensive messages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I posted the three I found meaningful in this context, and my point is it appears to me you simply take a narrow view of what it means and behave according to Definition `(3)`. To me, at least, definition `(2)` seems **much** more fruitful in a chat environment. You shouldn't automatically shut down every topic that goes rough every once in a while, you should actively engage in the conversation when it does and ensure the chat guidelines are being followed. There's nothing wrong with a heated discussion that doesn't break the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore I'd like to take a moment to criticise how this was put in place. You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as *casus belli* to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. I know you don't have to consult the members about room rules, not even the regulars, but just because you don't have to do it does not mean you can't or shouldn't do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand you're working on making the chat a more welcoming place for everyone, but killing it is not the right way to go forward. I'm sure you can arrive at solutions that don't involve painting topics with a broad brush and proceeding to ban them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moderator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="90a2ad23-496b-43b7-97af-41961124cf86" CreationDate="2017-02-08T08:57:05.067" UserId="32426" Text="[He was suspended for a year:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Muze][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What he did? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And he had a lot of interesting questions, too. He is a young titan. I would like to citate @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished his fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think he needs at least a significant reduction of his term. In his age, time is going much slower, a year for him is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/102013/muze&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D5YwQs.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="90a2ad23-496b-43b7-97af-41961124cf86" CreationDate="2017-02-08T08:57:05.067" UserId="32426" Text="Why was Muze suspended for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="90a2ad23-496b-43b7-97af-41961124cf86" CreationDate="2017-02-08T08:57:05.067" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9606" RevisionGUID="cbc9dc95-6a43-4902-a75e-0c8922f50796" CreationDate="2017-02-08T09:10:56.660" UserId="124" Text="The moderators do not discuss individual suspensions in public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose this doesn't technically answer the question, but then again all I can say is that there will be no answer to this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="4d844581-8f1d-45dd-862d-2b10297c0396" CreationDate="2017-02-08T09:49:32.950" UserId="32426" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="[He was suspended for a year:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Muze][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What he did? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And he had a lot of interesting questions, too. He is a young titan. I would like to citate @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished his fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think he needs at least a significant reduction of his term. In his age, time is going much slower, a year for him is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: just for 2 days ago, he asked: [Can I get a warning before I am suspended?][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/102013/muze&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D5YwQs.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9590/can-i-get-a-warning-before-i-am-suspended" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="dc74069d-63fc-4ada-9baa-07a3d1cf725a" CreationDate="2017-02-08T10:12:05.780" UserId="46774" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I haven't noticed a problem here... But... I firmly believe that Physics.SE should avoid politics (and equally contentious topics) - they should be left for the chat rooms or Q/A on sites where they are explicitly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere** because they are nearly impossible to ignore&#xD;&#xA;* **District from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - after all, people can discuss them on their relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we collectively agree to avoid such topics, I think chat rooms will remain more open-ended for other topics because limited oversight is required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [only when it suits them](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342903/well-always-endeavor-to-do-whats-right-well-try-to-do-it-better-next-time/343056#343056).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="a6a09763-bdf4-4757-8257-51f21fb8c38c" CreationDate="2017-02-08T10:15:32.403" UserId="27856" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="[They were suspended for a year:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Muze][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did they do? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they had a lot of interesting questions, too. They are a young titan. I would like to citate @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished their fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they need at least a significant reduction of their term. In their age, time is going much slower, a year for them is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: just for 2 days ago, they asked: [Can I get a warning before I am suspended?][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/102013/muze&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D5YwQs.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9590/can-i-get-a-warning-before-i-am-suspended" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="b2f03f89-4884-4a2e-83a7-536947281348" CreationDate="2017-02-08T10:31:23.200" UserId="46774" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I haven't noticed a problem here... But... I firmly believe that Physics.SE should avoid politics (and equally contentious topics) - they should be left for the chat rooms or Q/A on sites where they are explicitly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere** and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - after all, people can discuss them on their relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we collectively agree to avoid such topics, I think chat rooms will remain more open-ended for other topics because limited oversight is required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [only when it suits them](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342903/well-always-endeavor-to-do-whats-right-well-try-to-do-it-better-next-time/343056#343056).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="b8685bc7-5634-45fe-baba-c66d466ad504" CreationDate="2017-02-08T12:36:42.827" UserId="46774" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and **I dont think its been a problem**... But... In my opinion, Physics.SE should avoid politics (and equally contentious topics) - they should be left for the chat rooms or Q/A on sites where they are explicitly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere** and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - after all, people can discuss them on their relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If we collectively agree to avoid such topics, I think chat rooms will remain more open-ended for other topics because limited oversight is required.**  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342903/well-always-endeavor-to-do-whats-right-well-try-to-do-it-better-next-time/343056#343056).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="fb572220-01cb-4d80-9fe0-1dae922a5b80" CreationDate="2017-02-08T14:15:03.177" UserId="46774" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and **I dont think its been a (major) problem**... But... In my opinion, Physics.SE should avoid politics (and equally contentious topics) - they should be left for the chat rooms or Q/A on sites where they are explicitly on topic.  Given their (subjective) scope, sparse discussion is natural, but excessive debate should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - when discussed, they dominate conversation - after all, people can discuss them on their relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere** and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them.  Too often, they are disrespectful.  We have the 'Be Nice' policy... thats great, but its also been largely ineffective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If we collectively agree to avoid such topics, I think chat rooms will remain more open-ended for other topics because limited oversight is required.**  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342903/3623090).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="2e656b35-cd43-483e-9174-3457371342f5" CreationDate="2017-02-08T16:11:24.913" UserId="46774" Comment="Clarifications" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I dont think its been a (major) problem.  But, in my opinion, **the main chat room (&quot;the h Bar&quot;), should avoid politics and equally contentious topics**.  Given their (subjective) nature and scope, sparse discussion is natural, but excessive debate should be avoided or moved to other chat rooms within Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, joking, and doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - when discussed, they dominate conversation - after all, people can discuss them in other chat rooms within Physics.SE or on more relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere**, and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them.  Too often, they are disrespectful.  We have the 'Be Nice' policy... thats great, but its also been largely ineffective.  We dont need that in the main chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we avoid such topics on &quot;the h Bar&quot;, I think it would have a better atmosphere and allow  more open-ended topics, with limited oversight required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342903/3623090).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect in central venues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24941" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="87ffe250-fb56-43ab-839b-0b21e811bb43" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:08:45.290" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5042],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="6564d8a3-bdfe-47e0-b58c-eb37e6354b03" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:12:49.603" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="[Insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] were suspended for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did they do? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they had a lot of interesting questions, too. They are a young titan. I would like to citate @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished their fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they need at least a significant reduction of their term. In their age, time is going much slower, a year for them is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: just for 2 days ago, they asked: [Can I get a warning before I am suspended?][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9590/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24943" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="6564d8a3-bdfe-47e0-b58c-eb37e6354b03" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:12:49.603" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="Why was [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] suspended for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24944" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="6564d8a3-bdfe-47e0-b58c-eb37e6354b03" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:12:49.603" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="|discussion|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="f082fd00-4559-4cbc-8305-128376e73b0c" CreationDate="2017-02-08T19:13:18.967" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed redaction to something that doesn't compare the user with Voldemort." Text="[User] was suspended for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did they do? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they had a lot of interesting questions, too. They are a young titan. I would like to cite @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished their fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they need at least a significant reduction of their term. In their age, time is going much slower, a year for them is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: just for 2 days ago, they asked: [Can I get a warning before I am suspended?][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9590/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24946" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="f082fd00-4559-4cbc-8305-128376e73b0c" CreationDate="2017-02-08T19:13:18.967" UserId="8563" Comment="Changed redaction to something that doesn't compare the user with Voldemort." Text="Why was [user] suspended for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="b1c0a69e-6f28-49c6-9082-ab30ddcdc161" CreationDate="2017-02-08T19:21:24.690" UserId="44126" Comment="Remove fun Harry Potter reference." Text="I would like to know why [user] is suspended again, this time until Ago 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain to me what happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24948" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="b1c0a69e-6f28-49c6-9082-ab30ddcdc161" CreationDate="2017-02-08T19:21:24.690" UserId="44126" Comment="Remove fun Harry Potter reference." Text="Why is [user] again suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="d192e928-10c7-4c16-a9fc-a0c6698b666a" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:13:26.547" UserId="121464" Text="A brief summary of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods had an impressively poor stance in discussing this, back tracking on their own statements, being confusing, giving different definitions, not explaining what they meant, and generally giving other users the impression of being ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into delay, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. There are a few sections currently unwritten (my post is getting rather long, and I figured I can post and work on the sections as I have time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact I thank them for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="fcbd6a68-c917-4af6-b22a-110a8c52fd5e" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:20:17.930" UserId="121464" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="A brief summary of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods had an impressively poor stance in discussing this, back tracking on their own statements, being confusing, giving different definitions, not explaining what they meant, and generally giving other users the impression of being ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into delay, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. There are a few sections currently unwritten (my post is getting rather long, and I figured I can post and work on the sections as I have time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact I thank them for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="074f9bb1-8e64-4c20-aadb-d040c17ea6f7" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:33:17.340" UserId="121464" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods had an impressively poor stance in discussing this, back tracking on their own statements, being confusing, giving different definitions, not explaining what they meant, and generally giving other users the impression of being ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into delay, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. There are a few sections currently unwritten (my post is getting rather long, and I figured I can post and work on the sections as I have time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact I thank them for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="bad80720-a3d8-473d-b832-3dc4b13ca98f" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:40:30.817" UserId="121464" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into delay, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be written&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. There are a few sections currently unwritten (my post is getting rather long, and I figured I can post and work on the sections as I have time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact I thank them for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="eed2ea93-1307-489d-9736-517b16fd2f69" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:54:02.920" UserId="121464" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. There are a few sections currently unwritten (my post is getting rather long, and I figured I can post and work on the sections as I have time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact I thank them for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="e8adfacc-9f8a-408a-a2c7-aca4ada48015" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:03:40.933" UserId="121464" Comment="added 1085 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mention of user support also doesn't make much sense; as another meta post here that I agree with says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as casus belli to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. - [Bernard Meurer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9604/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starred messages in chat lead to the changing of the room name, and look what happened there. People got upset (though not as upset here, because it wasn't a super-serious issue, and everyone agreed on a policy to just change it back whenever it was changed). Why should this be any different? Starred messages in chat are not an indication of user agreement with a policy when made out of context, and even in context are not as reliable as a meta post - this is a more formal setting *meant* for the creation and implementation of policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments on this page (and in chat) like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. There are a few sections currently unwritten (my post is getting rather long, and I figured I can post and work on the sections as I have time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact I thank them for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="7c8c69ba-5ec1-450e-942e-ec8564c00930" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:08:47.947" UserId="121464" Comment="added 1085 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumbers in Eastern Europe came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mention of user support also doesn't make much sense; as another meta post here that I agree with says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as casus belli to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. - [Bernard Meurer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9604/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starred messages in chat lead to the changing of the room name, and look what happened there. People got upset (though not as upset here, because it wasn't a super-serious issue, and everyone agreed on a policy to just change it back whenever it was changed). Why should this be any different? Starred messages in chat are not an indication of user agreement with a policy when made out of context, and even in context are not as reliable as a meta post - this is a more formal setting *meant* for the creation and implementation of policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments on this page (and in chat) like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact **I thank them** for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="451284fe-4390-4ac5-8b43-e21c18d72245" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:32:46.010" UserId="121464" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumber regulations by the EU came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and mod fancy. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mention of user support also doesn't make much sense; as another meta post here that I agree with says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as casus belli to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. - [Bernard Meurer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9604/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starred messages in chat lead to the changing of the room name, and look what happened there. People got upset (though not as upset here, because it wasn't a super-serious issue, and everyone agreed on a policy to just change it back whenever it was changed). Why should this be any different? Starred messages in chat are not an indication of user agreement with a policy when made out of context, and even in context are not as reliable as a meta post - this is a more formal setting *meant* for the creation and implementation of policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments on this page (and in chat) like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact **I thank them** for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="9809fb7c-2af4-4059-8194-8f99e86ee36f" CreationDate="2017-02-08T22:16:13.927" UserId="144840" Text="If you convince your administrator to enable mhchem here – chemistry.SE does have it – then you could make use of MathJax/mhchem's `\pu` command.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $1.38 \times 10^{-23} \, \mathrm{J\,K^{-1}}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could then be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \pu{1.38E-23 J K^-1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See how it renders [at chemistry.SE](http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/3287/24052)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="e6dab7f7-064e-45b1-a50c-d340c7315689" CreationDate="2017-02-08T23:23:13.910" UserId="50583" Comment="added 799 characters in body" Text="After discussion at the biweekly chat session starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35277884#35277884) and looking at the answers and comments to this post, the feedback appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As anticipated at the end of the session [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35278976#35278976), it therefore seems that the second part of this meta post should be considered obsolete. Even though there was *some* positive feedback, we're not going to have a chat policy that is not backed by a clear majority of users. Going forward, the only policy governing the h bar is the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) itself, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms fo the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9611" RevisionGUID="a3c2e715-7e86-4d04-b0ff-388a7c2402fc" CreationDate="2017-02-09T00:55:50.717" UserId="124" Text="I've just noticed that there is an siunitx extension in the [MathJax third party extensions repository](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-third-party-extensions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="c22e66dd-74d8-46bf-8449-97fc7cbc2d66" CreationDate="2017-02-09T01:07:05.100" UserId="121464" Comment="added 1472 characters in body" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumber regulations by the EU came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and a decision made amongst themselves - with the best of intents, to be sure, but perhaps not as well backed up as they claim. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mention of user support also doesn't make much sense; as another meta post here that I agree with says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as casus belli to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. - [Bernard Meurer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9604/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starred messages in chat lead to the changing of the room name, and look what happened there. People got upset (though not as upset here, because it wasn't a super-serious issue, and everyone agreed on a policy to just change it back whenever it was changed). Why should this be any different? Starred messages in chat are not an indication of user agreement with a policy when made out of context, and even in context are not as reliable as a meta post - this is a more formal setting *meant* for the creation and implementation of policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Edit (to this section only):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to ACuriousMind's comment below that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;tiny, not really there 'precedent'&quot; was neither tiny nor &quot;not really there&quot; but it is in the nature of SE moderation that I can't point you to it because the offending conversations have been removed from the rooms where they happened. I can only point to the fallout in form of the meta.SE posts which I have repeatedly done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote my response in the comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand you discussed it, and that there may have been inflammatory conversations in other chat rooms, and that these may have lead to the meta posts you linked, but I am merely addressing what the linked meta posts say, and these truly have little to no precedent for the decision you made, which was to ban political discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate on my meaning there: inflammatory discussions don't equal precedent for banning that topic of discussion. All they should mean is to keep an extra eye on discussions of that sort. The meta posts caused by these inflammatory discussions would be the place where any precedent would be created, something along the lines of &quot;politics discussions should be banned&quot; - but that didn't happen in the meta posts, as I describe above. So I still must stand by my point that there is little to no precedent for the ban of political discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments on this page (and in chat) like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact **I thank them** for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="47d8718d-7cfb-4e88-b1ee-997aefe4b0be" CreationDate="2017-02-09T08:47:50.323" UserId="60891" Text="**Problem:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recent questions page tries to show a part of the content when the content is too big to be displayed fully. When a mathjax statement begins but is ended by the ellipsis, the mathjax statement appears instead of the actual equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible solutions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Remove the mathjax statement completely if it is going to be broken&#xD;&#xA;    by the ellipsis.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. Display the mathjax statement completely even if it exceeds the character limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pik4L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="47d8718d-7cfb-4e88-b1ee-997aefe4b0be" CreationDate="2017-02-09T08:47:50.323" UserId="60891" Text="Mathjax rendering bug in Recent Questions page when excess content is replaced by ellipsis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="47d8718d-7cfb-4e88-b1ee-997aefe4b0be" CreationDate="2017-02-09T08:47:50.323" UserId="60891" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24964" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="4190e1e8-ddb6-4a17-b823-639d677d5676" CreationDate="2017-02-09T11:25:50.873" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="4d7457d9-f099-4e5f-b59c-74f0b663307e" CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:05:25.613" UserId="144840" Comment="added Background information" Text="If you convince your administrator to enable mhchem here – chemistry.SE does have it – then you could make use of MathJax/mhchem's `\pu` command.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $1.38 \times 10^{-23} \, \mathrm{J\,K^{-1}}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could then be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \pu{1.38E-23 J K^-1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See how it renders [at chemistry.SE](http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/3287/24052).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Background information: &#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a LaTeX implementation, written in JavaScript. It is not a complete TeX engine, it just does a very similar job when looked at fromt he outside. Because it is completely different at the inside, one cannot simply load LaTeX packages. Instead, one has to create a completely new package in JavaScript. That's the reason, one cannot simply load siunitx with MathJax. You would need somebody to rewrite the whole behavior for a completely different framework. With mhchem, I did such an reimplementation. Because TeX and JavaScript are so different, the two packages look very different inside. They even behave slightly differently (with MathJax/mhchem having more features than the original LaTeX/mhchem)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9530" RevisionGUID="14e0d810-1a96-4a40-beec-09a9c953b47d" CreationDate="2017-02-10T13:06:21.390" UserId="60891" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="[Answer to &quot;What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer assumes that the OP is new to magnetostatics but is good at electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer starts by drawing the fundamental analogies between the electrostatics and magnetostatics. The answer then slowly explores more analogies through simple derivations and ultimately ends up answering the all of the OP's questions. On its way, it explains important concepts using simple ideas, for example, it explains why magnetic field lines are always closed or why a zero exists on the right hand side of the Gauss Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="e443bb7b-b1be-44c7-88d2-82103dcb5bf3" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:11:04.173" UserId="121464" Text="I'm [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the Google Martini Lab (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA;- How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA;- The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA;- I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA;- Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="e443bb7b-b1be-44c7-88d2-82103dcb5bf3" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:11:04.173" UserId="121464" Text="February 20th Ask Me Anything with heather: Question Pool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="e443bb7b-b1be-44c7-88d2-82103dcb5bf3" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:11:04.173" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="9d4ecb5b-69d0-4c9b-a54d-79018d304912" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:31:41.900" UserId="121464" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="I'm [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the Google Martini Lab (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade. I also love Physics.SE (and stack exchange in general) - I've earned 4.5k rep in approximately 7 months (though I've slowed down in the amount of rep I've earned...school's been busy recently) and also gotten on the close vote review queue leaderboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA;- How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA;- The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA;- I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA;- Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="ca7d8b29-01d8-4bf7-bee8-3662fbb99709" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:38:45.403" UserId="121464" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the [Google Martinis Lab](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/) (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade. I also love Physics.SE (and stack exchange in general) - I've earned 4.5k rep in approximately 7 months (though I've slowed down in the amount of rep I've earned...school's been busy recently) and also gotten on the close vote review queue leaderboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA;- How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA;- The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA;- I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA;- Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9614" RevisionGUID="c94517f9-6734-4337-a479-343cfba9649f" CreationDate="2017-02-11T03:13:56.780" UserId="64669" Text="Ok, to start with, a couple of rather general questions (some of these are more like broad headings than a question, you can decide to answer those live on the AMA in some form later as those broad headings will pop up in some form anyway) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tell us more about your experience in Google Martinis Lab&#xD;&#xA; - What's your strategy in self teaching, especially for highly technical topics?&#xD;&#xA; - Rock climbing experience&#xD;&#xA; - What are the important algorithms and procedures one need to know in quantum computing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9615" RevisionGUID="973af465-250c-4456-b2f7-5dd606bb169c" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:27:50.560" UserId="84967" Text=" - Do your parents know that you are internet-friends with people from all around the world, most of which are at least twice your age? What do they think about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You are more mature that most people my age (and certainly more mature than I!). That is not something very common, so I'd like to ask: what do you think is the reason for that? is it because your parents/some other role model? is it because you've read lots of books? or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What's the best physics book out there, a must-read for any physicist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cats or dogs? Batman or Superman? John or Paul? Beach or mountains? PC or Mac? Coffee or tea?..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24974" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="086d6e85-5281-4943-83be-309c02e4b51a" CreationDate="2017-02-11T14:08:41.250" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4571],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:121464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;heather&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24975" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="36a094bd-7703-42cb-9379-09490e924069" CreationDate="2017-02-11T14:12:29.830" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2640,4561],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:121464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;heather&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6634,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tpg2114&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="2106a950-295c-405c-ac00-e6cf419a487b" CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:12:37.143" UserId="121464" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* C. Jess Riedel: [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather) - Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9616" RevisionGUID="90e42dec-54c7-462e-964e-1eecf6a811b5" CreationDate="2017-02-11T17:23:22.830" UserId="20898" Text="* Have you ever had the experience of solving a *real* physics problem? &#xD;&#xA;by *real* I mean more than the end-of-chapter textbook problems: analyzing a real-world phenomena like a physicist (building a mathematical model, doing the required analysis, interpreting the results, etc.). If yes, tell us about your experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9616" RevisionGUID="992a23f9-d34e-4d91-ab05-6dda756df078" CreationDate="2017-02-11T18:23:26.870" UserId="20898" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="* Have you ever had the experience of solving a *real* physics problem? &#xD;&#xA;by *real* I mean more than the end-of-chapter textbook problems: analyzing a real-world phenomenon or observation like a physicist (building a mathematical model, doing the required analysis, interpreting the results, etc.). If yes, tell us about your experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And my emphasis here is on the *&quot;like a physicist&quot;* part. The problem can be any problem that lends itself to a physics-like analysis.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9617" RevisionGUID="6a8d73f7-c959-46b0-9dd4-aa4ed0371b45" CreationDate="2017-02-11T20:18:30.727" UserId="31790" Text="Do you experience any correlation between time spent rock climbing and your capacity for learning?&#xD;&#xA;I find that exercise strongly influences the flexibility of my mind and my ability to retain information.&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in whether someone considerably younger has the same experience.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9618" RevisionGUID="2a2b0be4-bd65-43d9-a3a2-dad05013486f" CreationDate="2017-02-11T20:21:36.693" UserId="31790" Text="How are your daily hours split between school/homework, family activities, exercise/sports, and pursuit of personal projects (learning non-school topics, programming, etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;Are you satisfied with the distribution?&#xD;&#xA;If not, how would you like to change it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="f259a857-b82b-455f-a698-920c638adddc" CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:03:12.643" UserId="31790" Comment="Added results" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9619" RevisionGUID="b6eec429-58de-4827-84c4-6f3872de6c29" CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:52:12.740" UserId="41431" Text="While I welcome anyone to disagree, it is completely plausible to me that scenarios involving a &quot;culture of down-voters&quot; could become a negative burden on the site, and actually discourage potential contributers of positive and/or useful answers to questions.  To me, that would not be a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I think the SE does a pretty good job of having rules and intentions surrounding down-votes, and outlining these.  For example, deducting reputation points from those who down-vote, often can make users weigh their reasons for down-voting more seriously.   There are rules regulating serial down-voting in place to prevent such disingenuous actions. I think these rules have clear intentions, in that they are meant to discourage actions that are negative to the site, while at the same time leaving the down-vote in play for the well thought out voter for such things as limiting posts, and responses that are detrimental to the quality of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, albeit subjectively speaking, I am not lately feeling sufficiently impressed with the voting trends, compared to when   I first joined, based on how I see votes assigned to a variety of posts.  I also see a number of posts reflecting the dissatisfaction of people who have been down-voted.  Of course, that does not mean the down-votes were not for good reasons each case (in many cases they are), nor that my subjective senses are objectively coherent.   Never-the-less I raise the question, objectively-- When does down-voting actually harm the site's culture, despite the voting guidelines, and how could such be assessed?  How are/ and are voting guidelines occasionally reviewed/ modified to keep things &quot;pleasant&quot; so to speak?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9619" RevisionGUID="b6eec429-58de-4827-84c4-6f3872de6c29" CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:52:12.740" UserId="41431" Text="When does down-voting become harmful to the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9619" RevisionGUID="b6eec429-58de-4827-84c4-6f3872de6c29" CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:52:12.740" UserId="41431" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24986" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="86908165-830a-478b-a7f6-7baf6f699f1a" CreationDate="2017-02-12T05:39:32.970" UserId="44126" Comment="edited title" Text="Best-of PSE 2016: description, categories, and results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="0bd5ec57-212f-441e-90ac-9d7b20e8be39" CreationDate="2017-02-12T06:11:28.303" UserId="12350" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294763/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-existence-of-gravity/294771#294771&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9621" RevisionGUID="fd807082-a7f6-45d3-9b6c-c02145df2c20" CreationDate="2017-02-12T06:28:39.470" UserId="102705" Text=" - What made you interested in Quantum Computing at such an early age ?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - I've seen you jump from one topic to another in very short spans of time (especially in Physics e.g. GR,QM,Quantum Computing and Mathematics e.g. Calculus). Are you really able to master them in short spans or you just go through the basics and leave the intricacies for the future? Do you feel your approach to learning the topics is the most suitable one for you? Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tell us a few *real world* problems (e.g. global warming, diseases, pollution) that you dream of being able to solve in the future for a better world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9622" RevisionGUID="adc4bddd-7cde-450e-a912-a00b8a6350d6" CreationDate="2017-02-12T08:55:19.493" UserId="20898" Text="Which approach do you prefer for learning physics?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(all the *namings* of the methods below by myself:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A) *lean* or *bulky*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **lean:** Read as little as possible (only the minimums required: introductory X, principles of X, reading only very elementary linear algebra before starting QM,...), and maximize time spent on problem-solving to gain more insight.&#xD;&#xA;* **bulky:** Maximize reading (Comprehensive X, multiple textbooks on X, read a serious textbook on linear algebra before starting QM,...), and solve the end-of-chapter problems sporadically just to make sure you've understood everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B) Top-down or bottom-up?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Top-down:** Reading (mostly) qualitative material on Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, Quantum Computing, etc. from various sources like Wikipedia articles, lecture notes, SE website,... and then delve into the math, details and prerequisites when necessary; and build your way through the subject and increase your resolution of the picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **bottom-up:** Similar to a standard physics curriculum: Start from reading Marion's (or Kleppner's) Classical Mechanics and Griffith's Electrodynamics and working through the required chapters thoroughly and solving all the problems; consult other sources only when necessary. Then start the next subject like quantum mechanics, maybe relativity, and continue expanding your physics knowledge this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9623" RevisionGUID="8509fdf0-f84f-4f77-95b0-d8e9c76fff15" CreationDate="2017-02-12T10:53:45.027" UserId="20898" Text="Einstein or Bohr? Harvard or MIT? Michelle or Melania? Tesla or Edison? Ubuntu or Fedora? Heisenberg or Schrödinger? Dems or Repubs? Strings or loops? Marx or Smith? Frequency or time?  Trump or Hitler? Emacs or Vim? David Z or Ron Maimon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9623" RevisionGUID="d3a18a0d-df34-4c6f-a8c2-98fe8e29ab40" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:23:43.187" UserId="20898" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Einstein or Bohr? Harvard or MIT? Michelle or Melania? Tesla or Edison? Ubuntu or Fedora? Heisenberg or Schrödinger? Dems or Repubs? Strings or loops? Marx or Smith? Frequency or time?  Trump or Hitler? David Z or Ron Maimon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9622" RevisionGUID="0ebd359e-1bc5-4f09-b5c3-8deb4758967e" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:57:25.857" UserId="20898" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Which approach do you prefer for learning physics?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(all the *namings* of the methods below by myself:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A) *lean* or *bulky*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **lean:** Read as little as possible (only the minimums required: introductory X, principles of X, reading only very elementary linear algebra before starting QM,...), and maximize time spent on problem-solving to gain more insight.&#xD;&#xA;* **bulky:** Maximize reading (Comprehensive X, multiple textbooks on X, read a serious textbook on linear algebra before starting QM,...), and then maybe solve the end-of-chapter problems sporadically just to make sure you've understood everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B) Top-down or bottom-up?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Top-down:** Reading (mostly) qualitative material on Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, Quantum Computing, etc. from various sources like Wikipedia articles, lecture notes, SE website,... and then delve into the math, details and prerequisites when necessary; and build your way through the subject and increase your resolution of the picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **bottom-up:** Similar to a standard physics curriculum: Start from reading Marion's (or Kleppner's) Classical Mechanics and Griffith's Electrodynamics and working through the required chapters thoroughly and solving all the problems; consult other sources only when necessary. Then start the next subject like quantum mechanics, maybe relativity, and continue expanding your physics knowledge this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9623" RevisionGUID="cf92aaf5-f7b0-4c9a-9f4c-cd481ba824b0" CreationDate="2017-02-12T12:55:52.250" UserId="20898" Comment="Clarification " Text="[Einstein or Bohr][1]? Harvard or MIT? Michelle or Melania? Tesla or Edison? Ubuntu or Fedora? [Heisenberg][2] or [Schrödinger][3]? Dems or Repubs? [Strings][4] or [loops][5]? Socialism or Capitalism? [Frequency][6] or [time][7]?  Trump or Hitler? David Z or Ron Maimon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_picture&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_picture&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_domain&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9624" RevisionGUID="3e0c62b6-94d4-4e55-b8ad-556c7519ecc2" CreationDate="2017-02-12T14:47:51.633" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; When does down-voting become harmful to the site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people collude to downvote good answers with robust references for insincere reasons. Of course, the flip side of this is harmful too. If people collude to upvote each other's poor answers, that's not good. Especially since doing this would provide ample &quot;ammo&quot; points for downvoting.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I welcome anyone to disagree, it is completely plausible to me that scenarios involving a &quot;culture of down-voters&quot; could become a negative burden on the site, and actually discourage potential contributors of positive and/or useful answers to questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think anybody could argue with that. What they might argue is that it doesn't happen much so it's not a big issue. I would say stack exchange &quot;officers&quot; have a tendency to downplay any issues and portray the site and the anonymous voting model as more perfect than it really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To me, that would not be a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agreed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Overall, I think the SE does a pretty good job of having rules and intentions surrounding down-votes, and outlining these. For example, deducting reputation points from those who down-vote, often can make users weigh their reasons for down-voting more seriously. There are rules regulating serial down-voting in place to prevent such disingenuous actions. I think these rules have clear intentions, in that they are meant to discourage actions that are negative to the site, while at the same time leaving the down-vote in play for the well thought out voter for such things as limiting posts, and responses that are detrimental to the quality of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it does. I seem to see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, a lot of popscience non-answers getting lots of upvotes, and a lot of good answers getting downvotes.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, albeit subjectively speaking, I am not lately feeling sufficiently impressed with the voting trends, compared to when I first joined, based on how I see votes assigned to a variety of posts. I also see a number of posts reflecting the dissatisfaction of people who have been down-voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doubtless.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that does not mean the down-votes were not for good reasons each case (in many cases they are), nor that my subjective senses are objectively coherent. Never-the-less I raise the question, objectively-- When does down-voting actually harm the site's culture, despite the voting guidelines &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and how could such be assessed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By talking through examples. By scientific debate. In for example a chat room. However in my experience such debate seem to be discouraged here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  How are/ and are voting guidelines occasionally reviewed/ modified to keep things &quot;pleasant&quot; so to speak?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't answer that. But I will say this: _science is not a democracy_. All the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right, and all the downvotes in the world won't make a right answer wrong. Personally I'm perfectly happy for people to know that I've downvoted an answer. When I do I usually say something.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="bcc53f07-4b28-46f3-8227-ee4e4facc985" CreationDate="2017-02-12T16:45:34.430" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="d288f193-17b1-4b7e-bc84-3c2644317432" CreationDate="2017-02-12T18:06:54.203" UserId="121464" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I'm [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the [Google Martinis Lab](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/) (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade. I also love Physics.SE (and stack exchange in general) - I've earned 4.5k rep in approximately 7 months (though I've slowed down in the amount of rep I've earned...school's been busy recently) and also gotten on the close vote review queue leaderboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA; - How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA; - The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA; - I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA; - Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA; - How to survive middle school - joking (sort of, anyway). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9625" RevisionGUID="dbfe7b8e-57d7-4be0-8792-b81b1404c699" CreationDate="2017-02-12T20:56:32.037" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;When does down-voting actually harm the site's culture, despite the voting guidelines, and how could such be assessed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that downvoting would actually harm the culture if all questions and answers were downvoted into oblivion. As long as there are a few competent voters, I have no concerns this would ever happen. Perhaps a looser constraint&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; would be if the number of downvotes over times increases to beyond the upvotes over time (i.e., more downvotes given than upvotes). But [that isn't happening](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/627313).&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple way to address such an active harm would be to post it on Meta as you've done (and [John Rennie as well](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6754/)). As JohnDuffield mentioned as well, [physics chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) is another place to bring this up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How are/ and are voting guidelines occasionally reviewed/ modified to keep things &quot;pleasant&quot; so to speak? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there *are* any voting guidelines on any SE site and I don't think there *should be* any guidelines. Ever. Your vote is yours to do with it as you please, even if it's to downvote an answer that is actually correct or give an upvote to an answer that is strongly downvoted.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I am not sure I'd believe such a statistic, but I think an argument could be made for this one.  &#xD;&#xA;2. The number of downvotes is increasing, but at a lower rate than posts made and upvotes granted.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Both actions are generally looked down upon here, but there is not actually anything that can be done about it, so we all just live with it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9626" RevisionGUID="dedb7061-f824-47bc-ab11-5389b53a2596" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:36:13.693" UserId="46757" Text="I've had downvotes to some of my questions and answers before probably with no comment and I didn't have an issue with it. There are other ways to learn how to write a good question or answer. If you write a question with a terrible body, it will be recognized by a bot as being terrible and block you from posting it in the first place until you fix up the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably better to write something as a comment if it doesn't properly answer the question and as an answer if it properly answers the question. It's better to think of a proper answer and write it as a comment than to write an answer that doesn't properly answer the question as a comment but the reason why people are encouraged to write an answer as an answer is probably because when they think of a proper answer, they're able to do something even better than writing an answer as a comment which is writing it as an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's probably a reason comments have a 500 character limit. We have no need for something longer than 500 characters that doesn't properly answer the question. If you have an answer longer than 500 characters but it doesn't properly answer the question, I don't think it's a good idea to write it as an answer because you can't write it as a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Emilio Pisanty said in their answer, one issue with some questions is that it's the homework question of the person who asked it. I don't think those question should be blocked. If they were blocked, so would those that weren't homework questions but looked like homework questions be. Homework is worth very small fraction of the total marks and for some courses, no marks and entirely to help students study for a test so people get get a much higher mark in a course than they deserve from asking those questions. In some cases, it might help them learn how to answer that type of question and they'll get a higher mark on a test and deserve it because they answered a question on the test properly with no help during the test because they asked that Stack Exchange question earlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25001" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="0157574a-31c6-4bd6-9213-e621c117c493" CreationDate="2017-02-13T09:37:27.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/831074798805647360" />
  <row Id="25002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="66b2e6c0-5821-4621-a8c7-0a38b8b486b7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T11:22:18.360" UserId="133629" Text="You can ask productivity and self improvement questions related to programming or computers on software engineering stack exchange .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example this question ,   &#xD;&#xA;http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/141860/should-i-be-concerned-that-i-cant-program-very-fast-without-google&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can we not have such tags on physics stack exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a very slow and inefficient learner ,thats why even if I have great love for  physics ,I get  average or below average grades.I would also like to improve my problem solving skills .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be there are other people like me having the same problems ,they can get help on physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not such tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="66b2e6c0-5821-4621-a8c7-0a38b8b486b7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T11:22:18.360" UserId="133629" Text="productivity and self improvement questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="66b2e6c0-5821-4621-a8c7-0a38b8b486b7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T11:22:18.360" UserId="133629" Text="|discussion|support|questions|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="a2cbaa1f-0c8b-47dc-b177-b1b110d2a458" CreationDate="2017-02-13T12:33:38.200" UserId="50583" Text="In my eyes, physics.SE is about the *science* of physics, not about the *practice* of physics. As such, questions about study advice, career advice, personal productivity when studying physics, etc. are off-topic here. We don't have tags for the things you ask about because having tags for questions which will almost surely be off-topic is not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be this way because all of these questions are inherently opinion-based - what works for me need not work for you, and every personal situation has more deciding factors than one can reasonably communicate through a single SE question. I come here in order to ask and answer *questions about physics*, and allowing questions about things not related to the science of physics as such would decrease the signal-to-noise ratio considerably from my viewpoint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9629" RevisionGUID="5f6ac15b-1393-44bc-8f90-b7f5fc82e886" CreationDate="2017-02-13T14:58:43.567" UserId="143577" Text="Anonymous downvotes should not be allowed. I also think that if you do issue a downvote you should be required to state why you did it in the comments. That will give the person who asked the question a chance to respond. There should be some risk to issuing downvotes. Right now there is no risk at all to the person who is issuing the downvotes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about. A moderator issued a downvote automatically, obviously without understanding what I was asking. Fortunately, he did add a comment. That gave me a chance to explain. Read the comments, they are self-explanatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the thread...&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311479/can-we-use-the-units-of-planks-constant-to-generalize-debroglies-equation-and-c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, downvotes should not be anonymous. Maybe you should not be required to post a comment explaining why you did it, but who you are should be recorded somewhere. That is the only way to see if a member is being targeted. There should be a list in every members account that shows who were the members who issued the downvotes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9629" RevisionGUID="3a5ed940-63aa-4cbe-b9c1-6f998bf272e1" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:03:51.770" UserId="143577" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Anonymous downvotes should not be allowed. I also think that if you do issue a downvote you should be required to state why you did it in the comments. That will give the person who asked the question a chance to respond. There should be some risk to issuing downvotes. Right now there is no risk at all to the person who is issuing the downvotes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about. A moderator issued a downvote. Fortunately, he did add a comment. That gave me a chance to explain. If you read the comments they will explain what happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the thread...&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311479/can-we-use-the-units-of-planks-constant-to-generalize-debroglies-equation-and-c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, downvotes should not be anonymous. Maybe you should not be required to post a comment explaining why you did it, but who you are should be recorded somewhere. That is the only way to see if a member is being targeted. There should be a list in every users account that shows who were the members who issued the downvotes to each question and answer made by the user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9630" RevisionGUID="8a79836d-a03a-44b1-b2fc-978e313d40f7" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:43:21.543" UserId="27856" Text="The process already has something to this effect incorporated into it: aside from [guidance on how to properly reference others' work][1], there's also a message template for when moderators reach out to users on these occasions. The relevant message reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It has come to our attention that several of your answers consisted primarily or entirely of text copied from other answers or websites. We prefer not to simply copy content already available elsewhere in lieu of creating something that adds value to this site *specifically*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whenever possible, we prefer that posts be your own original work, but when a great answer already exists elsewhere, including a small passage of text from another source can be a great way to support your solution. But please note that **we require full attribution** with a link to the original author, and please be sure you are ***not* copying content without permission**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When sent this message, the contacted user has the opportunity to reply back to the moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="411bd4d6-6203-4ede-9f42-81da91d31413" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:31:03.563" UserId="144840" Text="While thinking about if and how my MathJaX extension [could benefit](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9610/144840) Physics.SE, I had a look at some of your questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;I realized that you (I mean the community, not individuals) seem not to be overly concerned with the fine details of scientific typography.&#xD;&#xA;I see that you write units with an upright font. That is good.&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to subscripts, you don't seem to care if they are upright or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In [this question and its answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312019/144840), the subscripts `e` and `m` (for earth and moon) are used very often. They should be upright.&#xD;&#xA;$$\frac{GM_e}{r^2_e} = \frac{GM_m}{r^2_m}$$&#xD;&#xA;- [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311593/144840), the subscripts `c` (for center), `s` and `r` should be upright.&#xD;&#xA;$$T_\mathrm{s} = \sum_{i=1}^p (r_i - r_\mathrm{s}) \times F_i = \sum_{i=1}^p (r_i - r_\mathrm{c}) \times F_i + (r_\mathrm{c} - r_\mathrm{s}) \times \sum_{i=1}^p F_i$$&#xD;&#xA;- [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/208679/144840) `e` stands for equator.&#xD;&#xA;$$\tag{4} v_e~=~\omega_e r_e~=~\frac{2\pi r_e}{T_e}~\approx~2.02 ~{\rm km/s}.$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know that typing `G_\mathrm{m}` is much more effort than typing `G_m`. This is why I consider providing a little helper extension.&#xD;&#xA;However, even with a helper, it would be a few more keystrokes compared to `G_m`.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would like to hear from you. What do you think about this topic? If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="411bd4d6-6203-4ede-9f42-81da91d31413" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:31:03.563" UserId="144840" Text="Do you care about (micro) typography?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="411bd4d6-6203-4ede-9f42-81da91d31413" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:31:03.563" UserId="144840" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9632" RevisionGUID="ad0ab941-d13a-4a8e-8acf-03050d9924b6" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:51:18.833" UserId="520" Text="There is a point at which I stop caring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I think I care more about typography than most of our regular users (though not the most: we have a few users who are very detail oriented that way), but making one letter subscripts upright is on the wrong side of that line for me: I probably wouldn't even notice if someone else did this unless they called my attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would probably consider an edit that did *only* this as too trivial, but I wouldn't reject a more comprehensive edit of the typography because this kind of adjustment was included." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9615" RevisionGUID="1619480a-1019-4b1b-95c3-012487e8514b" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:29:35.063" UserId="84967" Comment="deleted 477 characters in body" Text="Do your parents know that you are internet-friends with people from all around the world, most of which are at least twice your age? What do they think about that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9633" RevisionGUID="ca749e4d-5b31-46ce-8432-1c51410e4141" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:35:47.770" UserId="124" Text="In my time in physics I've noticed a convention  where single-character subscripts are generally set in italic even if they represent an abbreviation rather than a variable. I grant that there's no good _reason_ for this convention other than ease of typing; nevertheless it does seem to be quite common, at least in my experience, and I'm fine with it. So on that basis, I dispute your premise that the subscripts you point out should be upright. (And I say this as one of the members here who _is_ most picky about typography.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, if someone proposed an edit that merely changes the font shape of single-character subscripts as you suggest and does nothing else, I would consider that too minor, assuming all the subscripts were consistent throughout that one post. However, if a post used single-character subscripts inconsistently, i.e. sometimes italic and sometimes upright within the same post, I think an edit that fixed that inconsistency would just barely squeak over the line that makes it acceptable to me. Of course it would be much preferred if the edit fixed other issues with the post as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9633" RevisionGUID="55d753f1-7f6b-49a0-a0b3-fe4c8ca3ffa4" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:53:10.313" UserId="124" Comment="add some reasoning" Text="In my time in physics I've noticed a convention  where single-character subscripts are generally set in italic even if they represent an abbreviation rather than a variable. I grant that there's no good reason to actively _choose_ this convention, other than ease of typing, but I don't think it's particularly harmful either. So on that basis, I dispute your premise that the subscripts you point out should be upright. (And I say this as one of the members here who _is_ most picky about typography.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's why I don't think this convention is a problem. Variable names in physics are pretty much always single characters. And, of course, they are always typeset in italic, as is standard. This means that when I see a run of consecutive italic characters, I immediately know that those characters are meant to be be interpreted _individually_, not as a unit.&#xD;&#xA;$$\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;xyz &amp;\implies \text{three things: $x$, $y$, $z$} \\&#xD;&#xA;\mathrm{xyz} &amp;\implies \text{one thing: xyz} \\&#xD;&#xA;\text{(for comparison) }\mathrm{x,y,z} &amp;\implies \text{three things: }\mathrm{x,y,z} \\&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}$$&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I contend that this distinction of whether I should consider consecutive characters as a single unit or individually is the _most useful_ piece of information conveyed by the choice of font shape, _not_ whether the character represents something variable or something fixed. The latter is a piece of information I should already know based on the definition of the symbol (and if I don't know the definition of the symbol, I've got bigger problems). Now, obviously, the distinction between one or multiple things represented is completely irrelevant when dealing with a single character. There is no difference, no ambiguity, in the number of things represented by either $x$ (one) or $\mathrm{x}$ (one). Accordingly, when writing a single character, it's not really _that_ useful to put it in an upright font. And, since we get used to this line of reasoning when looking at normal-size characters, we intuitively carry it over to subscripts and superscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if someone proposed an edit that merely changes the font shape of single-character subscripts as you suggest and does nothing else, I would consider that too minor, assuming all the subscripts were consistent throughout that one post. However, if a post used single-character subscripts inconsistently, i.e. sometimes italic and sometimes upright within the same post, I think an edit that fixed that inconsistency would just barely squeak over the line that makes it acceptable to me. (I'm not going to hold people to conventions but I will hold them to expectations of consistency within their own post, even down to fine typographical details.) Of course, as dmckee says in his answer, it would be much better if an edit that does this fixes other issues with the post as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="001f2723-6851-46ef-b412-45ea9bfa094a" CreationDate="2017-02-14T23:08:30.827" UserId="144840" Comment="Explained the convention" Text="While thinking about if and how my MathJaX extension [could benefit](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9610/144840) Physics.SE, I had a look at some of your questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;I realized that you (I mean the community, not individuals) seem not to be overly concerned with the fine details of scientific typography.&#xD;&#xA;I see that you write units with an upright font. That is good.&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to subscripts, you don't seem to care if they are upright or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In [this question and its answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312019/144840), the subscripts `e` and `m` (for earth and moon) are used very often. They should be upright.&#xD;&#xA;$$\frac{GM_e}{r^2_e} = \frac{GM_m}{r^2_m}$$&#xD;&#xA;- [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311593/144840), the subscripts `c` (for center), `s` and `r` should be upright.&#xD;&#xA;$$T_\mathrm{s} = \sum_{i=1}^p (r_i - r_\mathrm{s}) \times F_i = \sum_{i=1}^p (r_i - r_\mathrm{c}) \times F_i + (r_\mathrm{c} - r_\mathrm{s}) \times \sum_{i=1}^p F_i$$&#xD;&#xA;- [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/208679/144840) `e` stands for equator.&#xD;&#xA;$$\tag{4} v_e~=~\omega_e r_e~=~\frac{2\pi r_e}{T_e}~\approx~2.02 ~{\rm km/s}.$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know that typing `G_\mathrm{m}` is much more effort than typing `G_m`. This is why I consider providing a little helper extension.&#xD;&#xA;However, even with a helper, it would be a few more keystrokes compared to `G_m`.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would like to hear from you. What do you think about this topic? If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. The universal scientific convention ([IUPAP](http://iupap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/A4.pdf) section 1.1.2, [IUPAC](https://www.iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Green-Book-PDF-Version-2011.pdf) section 1.6 or [2-page summary](https://www.iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ICTNS-On-the-use-of-italic-and-roman-fonts-for-symbols-in-scientific-text.pdf), [NIST](http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/typefaces.pdf), [AMS](https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/authors/journal-and-bams-authors/journal-and-bams-authors-guide/mathematical-formulas-units-and-time-and-date/) (Meteorology), ISO, EN, DIN, ...) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Variables and physical constants are written in italic type.&#xD;&#xA;- Operators, units, **descriptive subscripts**, mathematical constants etc. are written in upright type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Examples:* $H$ denotes enthalpy, but $H_\mathrm{m}$ denotes molar enthalpy ($\mathrm{m}$ is a mnemonic label for molar, and&#xD;&#xA;is therefore roman). $C_p$ and $C_V$ denote the heat capacity at constant pressure $p$ and volume $V$,&#xD;&#xA;respectively; but $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}$ and $C_{V,\mathrm{m}}$ denote the molar heat capacity at constant $p$ and $V$, respectively (note the&#xD;&#xA;roman $\mathrm{m}$ but italic $p$ and $V$).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [from: IUPAC 2-page summary]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="63558789-7878-4f75-866d-d77a7425034e" CreationDate="2017-02-15T04:49:27.253" UserId="45786" Text="I just came across [this post][1], whose first link is to [here][2], which is actually broken and goes to a totally wrong post on a wrong site. I noticed that the **Linked** section on the right contains the correct link to [this post][3]. I guess what happened is that the link in the question pointed to the original location of the linked post, but it was subsequently migrated from Astronomy SE to Physics SE, and the link in the **Linked** section was updated correctly but the link in the post was not. Why is that so? Is there a bug in the SE software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26403/45786&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1211/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-de&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="63558789-7878-4f75-866d-d77a7425034e" CreationDate="2017-02-15T04:49:27.253" UserId="45786" Text="Broken internal link" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="63558789-7878-4f75-866d-d77a7425034e" CreationDate="2017-02-15T04:49:27.253" UserId="45786" Text="|discussion|bug|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="8796b319-28da-4bdd-9302-75a59ad59c54" CreationDate="2017-02-15T06:06:34.810" UserId="144840" Comment="Addes PPS" Text="PPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question here was based on the assumption that there is a universal scientific agreement on the typography of subscripts. I looked up IUPAP, IUPAC, NIST, ISO, EN, DIN. But over at [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9635/144840), I learned that there are also notable examples, APS being one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While thinking about if and how my MathJaX extension [could benefit](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9610/144840) Physics.SE, I had a look at some of your questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;I realized that you (I mean the community, not individuals) seem not to be overly concerned with the fine details of scientific typography.&#xD;&#xA;I see that you write units with an upright font. That is good.&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to subscripts, you don't seem to care if they are upright or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In [this question and its answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312019/144840), the subscripts `e` and `m` (for earth and moon) are used very often. They should be upright.&#xD;&#xA;$$\frac{GM_e}{r^2_e} = \frac{GM_m}{r^2_m}$$&#xD;&#xA;- [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311593/144840), the subscripts `c` (for center), `s` and `r` should be upright.&#xD;&#xA;$$T_\mathrm{s} = \sum_{i=1}^p (r_i - r_\mathrm{s}) \times F_i = \sum_{i=1}^p (r_i - r_\mathrm{c}) \times F_i + (r_\mathrm{c} - r_\mathrm{s}) \times \sum_{i=1}^p F_i$$&#xD;&#xA;- [Here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/208679/144840) `e` stands for equator.&#xD;&#xA;$$\tag{4} v_e~=~\omega_e r_e~=~\frac{2\pi r_e}{T_e}~\approx~2.02 ~{\rm km/s}.$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I know that typing `G_\mathrm{m}` is much more effort than typing `G_m`. This is why I consider providing a little helper extension.&#xD;&#xA;However, even with a helper, it would be a few more keystrokes compared to `G_m`.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would like to hear from you. What do you think about this topic? If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. The universal scientific convention ([IUPAP](http://iupap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/A4.pdf) section 1.1.2, [IUPAC](https://www.iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Green-Book-PDF-Version-2011.pdf) section 1.6 or [2-page summary](https://www.iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ICTNS-On-the-use-of-italic-and-roman-fonts-for-symbols-in-scientific-text.pdf), [NIST](http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/typefaces.pdf), [AMS](https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/authors/journal-and-bams-authors/journal-and-bams-authors-guide/mathematical-formulas-units-and-time-and-date/) (Meteorology), ISO, EN, DIN, ...) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Variables and physical constants are written in italic type.&#xD;&#xA;- Operators, units, **descriptive subscripts**, mathematical constants etc. are written in upright type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Examples:* $H$ denotes enthalpy, but $H_\mathrm{m}$ denotes molar enthalpy ($\mathrm{m}$ is a mnemonic label for molar, and&#xD;&#xA;is therefore roman). $C_p$ and $C_V$ denote the heat capacity at constant pressure $p$ and volume $V$,&#xD;&#xA;respectively; but $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}$ and $C_{V,\mathrm{m}}$ denote the molar heat capacity at constant $p$ and $V$, respectively (note the&#xD;&#xA;roman $\mathrm{m}$ but italic $p$ and $V$).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [from: IUPAC 2-page summary]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9637" RevisionGUID="daa7c45a-477d-48c1-ae5d-e0ae4b019966" CreationDate="2017-02-15T06:27:51.070" UserId="44126" Text="Educated guess: I think the answer here is that the current [Astronomy.SE](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) is the second iteration of that site. The first iteration failed at some stage in the Area51 process and Physics absorbed many of their questions. Later, apparently, a second Astronomy site was begun. I suppose it's possible that some post IDs got re-used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the correct link, to [physics.stackexchange.com/q/26461](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26461/44126), is to a question, while the link in the text, which redirects to [astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/1211](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/1211/1498), is to an answer.  When the new astronomy site accumulated enough new content that the post ID got re-used, then the link went from &quot;just broken&quot; to being broken in the confusing way that you noticed.  However the list of &quot;related posts&quot; is stored in a different table in the database and was apparently migrated correctly when Physics absorbed the first round of Astronomy questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rise and fall and re-rise of Astronomy happened before I joined this community, but there are old posts on Physics Meta about it and probably someone else will chime in with an approximate timeline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="3bb85cb3-2e1f-4471-abed-cbd2202c5b90" CreationDate="2017-02-15T08:05:11.077" UserId="31790" Comment="Removed link to &quot;layman&quot; answer: the answer is low quality and the editor was self-serving" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25028" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="56c6d367-5b50-4c17-993d-01fb417c631b" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:55:40.260" UserId="12350" Comment="Rollback to [bcc53f07-4b28-46f3-8227-ee4e4facc985]" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294763/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-existence-of-gravity/294771#294771&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25029" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="c764ccfd-1745-47e7-a0b7-105da2220da5" CreationDate="2017-02-15T12:44:49.043" UserId="121464" Comment="Rollback to [3bb85cb3-2e1f-4471-abed-cbd2202c5b90]" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25035" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="29114beb-72a3-4eae-b990-2525f33c0790" CreationDate="2017-02-15T18:58:47.193" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25036" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="dc67c5d3-eea3-4852-83aa-2b9132e375da" CreationDate="2017-02-15T18:58:47.193" UserId="520" Comment="1026" />
  <row Id="25037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9639" RevisionGUID="297f0f22-a3dc-45af-bb57-f7418c6a902d" CreationDate="2017-02-15T22:19:07.623" UserId="84967" Text="You are more mature that most people my age (and certainly more mature than I!). That is not something very common, so I'd like to ask: what do you think is the reason for that? is it because your parents/some other role model? is it because you've read lots of books? or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9640" RevisionGUID="fcba0187-7ce8-43ed-99d5-f9463d1bcebd" CreationDate="2017-02-15T22:20:36.257" UserId="84967" Text="What's the best physics book out there, a must-read for any physicist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25039" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="ecb9c718-e99a-47a3-8387-b4b3553c276f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:20:08.137" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/68589/why-cant-i-post-something-on-physics-exchange-for-2-days" />
  <row Id="25040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="c12573dc-04af-4f87-abc4-89bcba52ab36" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:18:31.290" UserId="145619" Text="WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY&#xD;&#xA;WHY CAN'T I DO IT WHY why can't I do it that's stupid I want to do more" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="c12573dc-04af-4f87-abc4-89bcba52ab36" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:18:31.290" UserId="145619" Text="Why can't I post something on Physics Exchange for 2 days?!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="c12573dc-04af-4f87-abc4-89bcba52ab36" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:18:31.290" UserId="145619" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9642" RevisionGUID="49827efc-48f0-4088-bbe7-aabf0cf6c1ae" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:33:23.920" UserId="520" Text="There are a set of automated quality control policies active on the site that set temporary (and no-so-temporary) bans on posting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These bans are specific to either questions or answers and are triggered when a user has too many recently closed, deleted, or down-voted posts of the same kind (question or answer). They are sometimes called the 'q-ban' (for questions) or 'a-ban' (for answers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get them to go away you need to *improve* your existing posts so that users will up-vote them (or at least rescind down-votes). I see that you deleted a number of your own posts, but I am afraid that won't help with the q-ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, of course, simply wait it out but you should be aware that when you come off such a ban the system will still know about those previous posts and will be near threshold for re-instituting the ban, so make sure that you provide *good* content afterward lest the system pounce again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="b1e9357f-3f35-433e-abb1-bbb0f9c3a9d3" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:47:37.963" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why can't I do it? It's stupid, I want to ask more questions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25045" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="b1e9357f-3f35-433e-abb1-bbb0f9c3a9d3" CreationDate="2017-02-16T01:47:37.963" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why can't I post something on Physics Exchange for 2 days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="e3c00be5-848a-41a1-9582-cbe93ba4d437" CreationDate="2017-02-16T02:47:05.147" UserId="145619" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Why can't I do it? It's stupid, I want to ask more questions!&#xD;&#xA;And why can't it be for only about 4 hours?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="4976b703-9ff5-45ab-adb6-a04d3876fe69" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:54:18.583" UserId="76162" Text="I note your interest in quantum computing. I have a deep interest in physics, but I'm a IT guy by profession, and I've taken careful note of the way digital electronic or &quot;ordinary&quot; computing has advanced in leaps and bounds over recent decades. Advances in computing has changed our lives, for the better. It affects us all, and it's close to our heart. Talking of which, I have a pretty good computer in my pocket, called a Samsung Galaxy J3! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that time I've seen a lot of articles about quantum computing. See for example [physicsworld](https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=EUM_VY2-Juiq8wfv_oCgDA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=physicsworld+quantum+computing&amp;tbs=li:1). It's been hailed as something wondrous for year after year. See [the timeline of quantum computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing) on Wikipedia. It's been kicking around for about thirty-five years now. And yet it has delivered nothing. Apart from jobs for researchers who promise jam tomorrow. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's been promoted and peddled and pimped for decades, even though it's delivered diddly squat. So my question to you is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_How long will you retain your interest in quantum computing if it delivers diddly squat?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for a bonus question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_How long do you think Google will retain their interest in quantum computing if it delivers diddly squat?_&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9644" RevisionGUID="752b171d-478a-4efa-af7a-d9a87ea85f5f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:07:43.843" UserId="8563" Text="An [old answer of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105347/is-it-foolish-to-distinguish-between-covariant-and-contravariant-vectors/105360#105360) was written, in March 2014, with a commutative diagram,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    \require{AMScd}&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{CD}&#xD;&#xA;    V @&gt;{T}&gt;&gt; W\\&#xD;&#xA;    @V{\sigma_V}VV @VV{\sigma_W}V \\&#xD;&#xA;    V^* @&lt;&lt;{T^*}&lt; W^*&#xD;&#xA;    \end{CD}&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYKsb.png&quot; width=&quot;125&quot; title=&quot;Commutative diagram&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which on meta renders correctly (at present) as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;\require{AMScd}&#xD;&#xA;\begin{CD}&#xD;&#xA;V @&gt;{T}&gt;&gt; W\\&#xD;&#xA;@V{\sigma_V}VV @VV{\sigma_W}V \\&#xD;&#xA;V^* @&lt;&lt;{T^*}&lt; W^*&#xD;&#xA;\end{CD}&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I noticed recently that the diagram was missing from the answer on main, and indeed if I try to add that code to a new question on main I get a `[Math Processing Error]`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KBzLY.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody explain what's going on? It looks pretty buggy to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9644" RevisionGUID="752b171d-478a-4efa-af7a-d9a87ea85f5f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:07:43.843" UserId="8563" Text="What happened to this question's commutative diagram?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9644" RevisionGUID="752b171d-478a-4efa-af7a-d9a87ea85f5f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:07:43.843" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9645" RevisionGUID="cf38d839-34ed-454c-ae3d-a87bc6d62576" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:53:11.160" UserId="7901" Text="This is a bug in the CommonHTML output for mathJax; see [issue 1691](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/1691) for details.  You probably are using HTML-CSS output here, but CommonHTML on the main site, which is why it works here for you but not there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9647" RevisionGUID="36ff704c-2719-4d0a-9b9f-d718a464c6f7" CreationDate="2017-02-16T20:56:22.130" UserId="2911" Text="This is the message you're shown when you try to ask a question. I'm quoting it in its entirety in the hope that you read it this time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;b&gt;It looks like you might need a break - take a breather and come back soon!&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've asked 4 questions recently, some of which have not been received very well by the community. Everyone learns at their own pace, and it’s okay to make some mistakes. However, the reception your questions have received thus far might ultimately block your account from asking questions entirely. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been 1 day since you asked your last question. We ask that you wait 2 days before asking again. Use this time to revisit &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=questions&quot;&gt;your previous questions&lt;/a&gt;, editing to address any issues that folks have pointed out in comments. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Recommended reading:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&quot;&gt;tips on asking great questions&lt;/a&gt; as well as our guidance on &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&quot;&gt;which questions are allowed here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Additional advice&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Examining highly-scored questions in the tags that interest you is a great way to study how to ask better questions, that also get better answers much sooner! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- We don’t demand perfection, but &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;please&lt;/i&gt; make sure you use proper grammar, spelling and capitalization&lt;/b&gt;, it really helps! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Improve downvoted questions rather than deleting them. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Do not delete your account, create new accounts, or otherwise attempt to circumvent these restrictions. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Do not contact us regarding these restrictions, they cannot be lifted. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failure to heed this advice may increase the severity of these restrictions. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;For more information&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/271542/why-wont-the-system-allow-me-to-ask-questions-for-several-days/271543#271543&quot;&gt;Why won’t the system allow me to ask questions for several days?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sometimes takes a few attempts at a good question in order to fully learn how our system works, and what the community expects from folks seeking answers. Just &lt;b&gt;do your best&lt;/b&gt; to make sure you've improved the quality of your existing questions, and we'll see you in 2 days!&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9614" RevisionGUID="eed3c90f-c903-418d-96d7-e6b37a3134a3" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:02:19.617" UserId="64669" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Ok, to start with, a couple of rather general questions (some of these are more like broad headings than a question, you can decide how and what to answer those live on the AMA in some form later as those broad headings will pop up in some form anyway) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tell us more about your experience in Google Martinis Lab&#xD;&#xA; - What's your strategy in self teaching, especially for highly technical topics?&#xD;&#xA; - Rock climbing experience&#xD;&#xA; - What are the important algorithms and procedures one need to know in quantum computing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="6d6a60d1-6e39-470c-8abd-2269823cb998" CreationDate="2017-02-17T11:05:28.683" UserId="133131" Text="&lt;p&gt;The question [&quot;What books an undergraduate needs to study to get a clear conception of rotational physics?&quot;][1] has been wrongly marked as a duplicate of [&quot;What are some good books for learning the concepts of Kinematics, Newton laws, 2D Motion of Object etc.?&quot;][2] when clearly the two questions ask for recommendations on different complexity levels on rotational physics. The first at an undergraduate level (apparently not restricted to 2 dimensions or the Newtonian formalism) while the other on 2-d rotations and kinematics apparently high-school level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am facing a similar problem: my post [&quot;Resource recommendation for rotational mechanics (especially gyroscopes)&quot;][3] has been wrongly marked as a duplicate of the above posts when my post is more specifically about gyroscopes.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moderators must understand that recommendation requests targetted at **different complexity levels** or **specific topics** under the same broad topic are not duplicates of one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/309624/resource-recommendation-for-rotational-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6068/recommendations-for-good-newtonian-mechanics-and-kinematics-books&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/312748/resource-recommendation-for-rotational-mechanics-especially-gyroscopes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="6d6a60d1-6e39-470c-8abd-2269823cb998" CreationDate="2017-02-17T11:05:28.683" UserId="133131" Text="Suggestion: Posts targetted at different complexity levels marked as duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="6d6a60d1-6e39-470c-8abd-2269823cb998" CreationDate="2017-02-17T11:05:28.683" UserId="133131" Text="|discussion|duplicates|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="89102a64-1567-40e9-9668-209f02503fa0" CreationDate="2017-02-17T11:16:46.250" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 205 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;p&gt;The question [&quot;What books an undergraduate needs to study to get a clear conception of rotational physics?&quot;][1] has been wrongly marked as a duplicate of [&quot;What are some good books for learning the concepts of Kinematics, Newton laws, 2D Motion of Object etc.?&quot;][2] when clearly the two questions ask for recommendations on different complexity levels on rotational physics. The first at an undergraduate level (apparently not restricted to 2 dimensions or the Newtonian formalism) while the other on 2-d rotations and kinematics apparently high-school level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am facing a similar problem: my post [&quot;Resource recommendation for rotational mechanics (especially gyroscopes)&quot;][3] has been wrongly marked as a duplicate of the above posts when my post is more specifically about gyroscopes.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moderators must understand that recommendation requests targetted at **different complexity levels** or **specific topics** under the same broad topic are not duplicates of one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/309624/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6068/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312748/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="89102a64-1567-40e9-9668-209f02503fa0" CreationDate="2017-02-17T11:16:46.250" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 205 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|duplicates|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="576cc872-cefe-4fda-9028-f85faeee8a3a" CreationDate="2017-02-17T11:36:22.867" UserId="8563" Text="Resource-recommendation questions are very hard to handle, and they were in fact deemed completely off-topic for several years until we managed to work out a consistent policy that lets the good stuff in without wreaking havoc. The result of the policy is at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and you should read it carefully (and ideally its previous revisions and their links to other questions here and elsewhere on the network and the Stack Exchange blog) to get a sense of where the rules come from. In particular, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list gives a good sense of what the problems are with unrestricted resource-recommendations questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems, specifically, is that if those questions are allowed to have arbitrary 'level' specifications, it spawns an unchecked granularization that renders them useless. Thus, if you allow &quot;books about rotational kinematics for undergraduates&quot; in addition to &quot;books about rotational kinematics&quot; in general, why not &quot;books about rotational kinematics if I'm halfway through my analytical mechanics&quot; or &quot;books about rotational kinematics for undergraduates but don't use fancy math&quot;, or.... . This makes all of the questions less useful, and it takes a definite toll on the signal-to-noise ratio of the site in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we tend to err on the side of making questions as coarse-grained as possible. If you don't like it, sorry: this site is not meant to be (and cannot be) all things to all people, and when some class of questions directly harms the site's ability to fulfill its core aspects, then those questions get restricted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your specific question, my feeling is that the proposed duplicate contains plenty of resources that address what you're looking for (and thus your new question would be harmful fragmentation of the existing lists). If you feel this isn't the case, you can offer a bounty on the old question asking specifically for answers that emphasize a certain subtopic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to propose a change in policy, you're welcome to do it, and this meta is the place to do it. However, as always, if you do it without understanding the problems that the existing structures were meant to solve, and providing alternative mechanisms to cope with those problems (or arguing conclusively that they're not actually problems), then your policy proposals will be of very little use indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="82b6b6f2-0bd2-44d3-a4c4-fc2607e6eb48" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:23:56.353" UserId="76162" Text="I'd like to raise a point for discussion. It concerns moderation, and I think the best way I can summarise it succinctly is _open justice v secret police_. It came up on [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9606/76162), where DavidZ said _&quot;the moderators do not discuss individual suspensions in public&quot;_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a degree of secrecy to the moderation at stack exchange, and that such is the wrong approach. If in the real world somebody is convicted of a crime, the public are aware of the facts. It's what underlies open justice. Without open justice there tends to be _in_ justice. Check out [family courts secret justice](https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=EUM_VY2-Juiq8wfv_oCgDA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=family+courts+secret+justice). Here in the UK we've had some grim stories of people jailed in secret for virtually nothing. See for example [this report](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/the-terrifying-tale-of-how-britains-most-secret-court-imprisoned/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;The latest case has elements of all these others. It again centres on a septuagenarian grandmother, who was last month sentenced to six months in jail for reasons which beggar belief. Her only offence was to have refused to sign a letter she regarded as 'quite improper', authorising British social workers to remove an 81-year-old man from Portugal, his native country, to bring him back to England against his wishes&quot;._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you might say that this can't be relevant to a mere website like stack exchange, but I think it is. Because I'm sorry to say, _power corrupts_. No offence to the moderators who give up their time here, but people are very good at confirmation bias and conviction. They have an amazing ability to persuade  themselves that some groupthink or &quot;official&quot; action they're taking is right and proper, even when it isn't. Particularly when self-interest is whispering in their ear. I'd say it's only public scrutiny that keeps them in check. _Open justice_. Without that, it's a slippery slope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators do not discuss suspensions at all, and there's no evidence of why a person has been suspended, you don't know if they've been suspended fairly or unfairly. So you don't know if you're getting into a _first they came for the socialists_ situation. You don't know whether your moderators are turning into thought police. And the crucial point is this: _nor do they_. I think that needs to change, because it could be bad for stack exchange. I don't think it needs to change totally. But I do think all warnings and suspensions should be listed with a reason and an example. On rare occasions I'd say it's OK not to give the example because it absolutely had to be deleted, but IMHO this should be the exception rather than the rule.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Discuss!_   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="82b6b6f2-0bd2-44d3-a4c4-fc2607e6eb48" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:23:56.353" UserId="76162" Text="Open justice v secret police" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="82b6b6f2-0bd2-44d3-a4c4-fc2607e6eb48" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:23:56.353" UserId="76162" Text="|discussion|moderation|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="851f6431-88bf-4a79-b7c5-15011d75b4dd" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:32:44.357" UserId="133131" Comment="The post which was earlier worded as an opinion has now been expressed as a question." Text="&lt;p&gt;The question [&quot;What books an undergraduate needs to study to get a clear conception of rotational physics?&quot;][1] has been marked as a duplicate of [&quot;What are some good books for learning the concepts of Kinematics, Newton laws, 2D Motion of Object etc.?&quot;][2] when clearly the two questions ask for recommendations on different complexity levels on rotational physics. The first at an undergraduate level (apparently not restricted to 2 dimensions or the Newtonian formalism) while the other on 2-d rotations and kinematics apparently high-school level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am facing a similar problem: my post [&quot;Resource recommendation for rotational mechanics (especially gyroscopes)&quot;][3] has been wrongly marked as a duplicate of the above posts when my post is more specifically about gyroscopes.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different posts target **different complexity levels** or **specific topics** under the same broad topic. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration when posts are being marked to be duplicates of one another?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This problem is especially relevant to resource recommendation requests (as in the examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/309624/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6068/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312748/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25071" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="851f6431-88bf-4a79-b7c5-15011d75b4dd" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:32:44.357" UserId="133131" Comment="The post which was earlier worded as an opinion has now been expressed as a question." Text="Should posts targetted at different complexity levels be marked as duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="84026e58-23e4-4d3a-afbe-8aa697da5b53" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:47:47.370" UserId="50583" Comment="removed soapboxing irrelevant to the actual question" Text="_How long will you retain your interest in quantum computing if it delivers diddly squat?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for a bonus question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_How long do you think Google will retain their interest in quantum computing if it delivers diddly squat?_&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9652" RevisionGUID="cab236db-7296-4bcc-b9bd-ef40bbf58073" CreationDate="2017-02-18T13:31:21.127" UserId="2451" Text="Note that the current 6 Phys.SE moderators are democratically elected. All moderators has (electronically) signed a moderator agreement, which de facto implies that moderators cannot discuss specific users &amp; suspensions publicly, and which in turn means that this meta discussion belongs on the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/) (rather than on Phys.SE meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence that one or more Phys.SE moderators misuse their positions or the community's trust in any way, then you can report it to the [SE team](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9652" RevisionGUID="8a7d77eb-6d13-4da1-a7f2-dd2a68120460" CreationDate="2017-02-18T13:36:34.213" UserId="84967" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Note that the current 6 Phys.SE moderators are democratically elected. All moderators have (electronically) signed a moderator agreement, which de facto implies that moderators cannot discuss specific users &amp; suspensions publicly, and which in turn means that this meta discussion belongs on the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/) (rather than on Phys.SE meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence that one or more Phys.SE moderators misuse their positions or the community's trust in any way, then you can report it to the [SE team](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="d87f0056-3507-4336-ba20-302f78387f0d" CreationDate="2017-02-18T16:30:40.197" UserId="76162" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd like to raise a point for discussion. It concerns moderation, and I think the best way I can summarise it succinctly is _open justice v secret police_. It came up on [this post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9606/76162), where DavidZ said _&quot;the moderators do not discuss individual suspensions in public&quot;_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a degree of secrecy to the moderation at Stack Exchange, and that such is the wrong approach. If in the real world somebody is convicted of a crime, the public are aware of the facts. It's what underlies open justice. Without open justice there tends to be _in_ justice. Check out [family courts secret justice](https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=EUM_VY2-Juiq8wfv_oCgDA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=family+courts+secret+justice). Here in the UK we've had some grim stories of people jailed in secret for virtually nothing. See for example [this report](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/the-terrifying-tale-of-how-britains-most-secret-court-imprisoned/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;The latest case has elements of all these others. It again centres on a septuagenarian grandmother, who was last month sentenced to six months in jail for reasons which beggar belief. Her only offence was to have refused to sign a letter she regarded as 'quite improper', authorising British social workers to remove an 81-year-old man from Portugal, his native country, to bring him back to England against his wishes&quot;._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you might say that this can't be relevant to a mere website like stack exchange, but I think it is. Because I'm sorry to say, _power corrupts_. No offence to the moderators who give up their time here, but people are very good at confirmation bias and conviction. They have an amazing ability to persuade  themselves that some groupthink or &quot;official&quot; action they're taking is right and proper, even when it isn't. Particularly when self-interest is whispering in their ear. I'd say it's only public scrutiny that keeps them in check. _Open justice_. Without that, it's a slippery slope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators do not discuss suspensions at all, and there's no evidence of why a person has been suspended, you don't know if they've been suspended fairly or unfairly. So you don't know if you're getting into a _first they came for the socialists_ situation. You don't know whether your moderators are turning into thought police. And the crucial point is this: _nor do they_. I think that needs to change, because it could be bad for Stack Exchange. I don't think it needs to change totally. But I do think all warnings and suspensions should be listed with a reason and an example. On rare occasions I'd say it's OK not to give the example because it absolutely had to be deleted, but IMHO this should be the exception rather than the rule.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Discuss!_   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="182c2147-a9c9-496e-96f5-147f839bbae1" CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:40:54.133" UserId="76162" Comment="Reinstate some of the background to the question" Text="I note your interest in quantum computing. I work in IT, and I've taken careful note of the way digital electronic or &quot;ordinary&quot; computing has advanced in leaps and bounds over recent decades. Advances in computing has changed our lives, for the better. In that time I've seen a lot of [very positive articles](https://www.google.co.uk/#q=physics+world+quantum+computing) about quantum computing. It's been around for about [thirty-five years now](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing). And yet it has delivered nothing. To be blunt, it has delivered diddly-squat. So my question to you is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_How long will you retain your interest in quantum computing if it delivers diddly-squat?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for a bonus question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_How long do you think Google will retain their interest in quantum computing if it delivers diddly-squat?_&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="b609b450-2ebe-49b5-a8b0-3a5335ba6463" CreationDate="2017-02-18T22:56:11.433" UserId="44126" Text="I wonder whether I've been a moderator here for long enough &#xD;&#xA;([four months now](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3))&#xD;&#xA;that I can&#xD;&#xA;talk about our decision-making process *in aggregate*, without&#xD;&#xA;revealing anything untoward about any particular suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How big is the Physics Stack Exchange community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, there are several answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a database person and you're probably not either, so here are&#xD;&#xA;some answers based on public information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're [one of the most active&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites):&#xD;&#xA;my count is about&#xD;&#xA;[4100 new questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest)&#xD;&#xA;since the start of 2017, a little under a hundred per day.&#xD;&#xA;If you assume we're maintaining our long-term average of about&#xD;&#xA;1.5 answers per question, that's about ten thousand posts to the site&#xD;&#xA;over the first six weeks of the year.&#xD;&#xA;It's a lot.&#xD;&#xA;There is not any one user that has read every contribution,&#xD;&#xA;and determining overall quality is a group effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quality of a post is estimated by the&#xD;&#xA;[voting and reputation systems](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour).&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that most votes occur on posts that are relatively&#xD;&#xA;fresh, so we can use the&#xD;&#xA;[list of users with reputation&#xD;&#xA;changes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Reputation&amp;filter=quarter &quot;Note: 'quarter' display currently begins 2017-01-01&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;to estimate the population of the site over a time interval.&#xD;&#xA;I count about 4700 users whose reputations went up&#xD;&#xA;and about 650 whose reputations went down over the past six weeks,&#xD;&#xA;so I estimate a population of five or six thousand logged-in users&#xD;&#xA;visiting in a typical quarter.&#xD;&#xA;Most of them must make one or two posts and not come back,&#xD;&#xA;to get to our ten thousand questions and answers over that period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also look at&#xD;&#xA;[voters](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&amp;filter=quarter)&#xD;&#xA;(current rough count: 450)&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;[editors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Editors&amp;filter=quarter)&#xD;&#xA;(rough count: 65)&#xD;&#xA;since the start of the year.&#xD;&#xA;And what we see is the unsurprising result that, as a participation&#xD;&#xA;task gets more complicated, the number of folks who participate in it&#xD;&#xA;is smaller.&#xD;&#xA;About 10% of our visiting population is actually voting on questions&#xD;&#xA;or answers.&#xD;&#xA;About 1% of our visiting population is involved in making edits, and&#xD;&#xA;a slightly different 1% has&#xD;&#xA;[enough reputation](http://stackexchange.com/leagues/62/alltime/physics/2010-11-02/)&#xD;&#xA;to access the &#xD;&#xA;[&quot;10k user&quot; moderation tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools).&#xD;&#xA;Close queue reviewers?&#xD;&#xA;This month,&#xD;&#xA;[there are about thirty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/admin/review/breakdown?queue=close&amp;daterange=Last30Days&amp;sort=Close&amp;min=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as monitoring the site, making good things appear and bad&#xD;&#xA;things disappear, we have somewhere at or around a hundred people.&#xD;&#xA;If you're reading this answer, you're probably one of them,&#xD;&#xA;and you'll probably recognize most of the names of the others.&#xD;&#xA;That's a small group, which matters for what I want to discuss next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was the size of the &quot;community&quot;, for a few definitions of the term.&#xD;&#xA;How big is the role played by the diamond moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [moderator activity &#xD;&#xA;log](http://physics.stackexchange.com/admin &quot;a link that probably won't work for you&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;lets me summarize activity&#xD;&#xA;over a quarter ---&#xD;&#xA;which we saw above corresponds to about 8,000 questions and 12,000 answers.&#xD;&#xA;During that interval, the six diamond mods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - processed&#xD;&#xA;   1200 [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;   Another 1200 flags were apparently handled by the community in the&#xD;&#xA;   [low-quality queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/stats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - removed 3000 comments (mostly to chat, in batches)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - closed 1300 posts, and deleted 500 posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - edited 2500 posts (of which probably [2000 tag-only&#xD;&#xA;   edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic?tab=activity&amp;sort=revisions)&#xD;&#xA;   --- Qmechanic is an amazing retagging machine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cast 4000 votes on questions and answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - created 250 posts and 2200 comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sent 28 private moderator messages, including 10 account&#xD;&#xA;   suspensions, of which 6 were for a week or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a lot of activity to see in aggregate!.&#xD;&#xA;(It works out to&#xD;&#xA;typically handling two or three flags per mod per day, which doesn't&#xD;&#xA;feel like much.)&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully two things leap out at you.&#xD;&#xA;First, a solid majority of the twenty thousand question and answer&#xD;&#xA;contributions to Physics Stack Exchange from its user community over&#xD;&#xA;the past three months didn't get any diamond moderator intervention at all.&#xD;&#xA;That's a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And second: reaching out to a user privately, and especially&#xD;&#xA;suspending a user, is *quite* rare for us --- about three times a&#xD;&#xA;month.&#xD;&#xA;About half of these suspensions have been for voting irregularities or&#xD;&#xA;misusing sockpuppet accounts; those problems we typically identify on our own.&#xD;&#xA;The other five-ish suspensions&#xD;&#xA;(one or two a month, if you're counting)&#xD;&#xA;were shared among other suspension reasons:&#xD;&#xA;continued low-quality contributions, vandalism or deletion of upvoted&#xD;&#xA;contributions, self-promotion, making other users get fighty with each&#xD;&#xA;other, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Those are things that happen in public, that are&#xD;&#xA;usually pointed out to us in flags or in chat by our 3k and 10k users.&#xD;&#xA;And the 10k users can continue to see material even after it's been&#xD;&#xA;deleted, if they feel like going hunting for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what's the *point* of issuing a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;[Suspensions are about behavior, not about&#xD;&#xA;people](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/).&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be&#xD;&#xA;recalculated, and your account will resume as normal. We don't hold&#xD;&#xA;grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the&#xD;&#xA;behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important part of making people feel welcomed back is allowing the&#xD;&#xA;community to forget about their punishment.&#xD;&#xA;But this is a website: literally the only we have to interact with&#xD;&#xA;each other here is by making entries in a searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;Once a thing is said, it's hard to un-say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not issue suspensions without substantial agreement among&#xD;&#xA;the diamond moderators, and the suspension messages are clear about&#xD;&#xA;the (mostly public) activities that led to the suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;But keeping the details private --- or at least, keeping our concise&#xD;&#xA;statement of these details private --- is an important part of making&#xD;&#xA;the user feel welcome to return after the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;What we'd like is to encourage our suspended users to return,&#xD;&#xA;make quality contributions,&#xD;&#xA;and eventually join the relatively small cadre of users who help to&#xD;&#xA;curate the site.&#xD;&#xA;And part of the clean slate that's needed to become active in that&#xD;&#xA;community is for the community to forget about old problems ---&#xD;&#xA;something that's harder if a concise description of those old problems&#xD;&#xA;is just a mouse click away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer to my first question is no: I can't say much more about&#xD;&#xA;suspensions in aggregate than I could individually.&#xD;&#xA;There have been so few suspensions that essentially any remark I made&#xD;&#xA;would permit you, an alert reader, to figure out who I was talking about.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="843dab1b-fc8e-4bc0-b8be-6cb5f1aaf826" CreationDate="2017-02-19T07:24:06.517" UserId="12350" Text="As you may be aware, Quora has created a physical book compiling some of the top contributions from a variety of topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if there would be any interest in publishing a similar hard-copy book compiling the top posts from Physics.SE or perhaps even have the top posts from a variety of different SE sites in the one book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you guys think?  Would anyone be interested in having such a book and do you think it should be for Physics only or include a variety of topics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we've determined the level of interest we can investigate the costs of publishing and if it is feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ILDNg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="843dab1b-fc8e-4bc0-b8be-6cb5f1aaf826" CreationDate="2017-02-19T07:24:06.517" UserId="12350" Text="The Best of Stack Exchange Book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="843dab1b-fc8e-4bc0-b8be-6cb5f1aaf826" CreationDate="2017-02-19T07:24:06.517" UserId="12350" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="21d65e50-8a65-4bc1-a4b6-e78fb8f46fb4" CreationDate="2017-02-19T08:53:22.523" UserId="12350" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="As you may be aware, Quora has created a physical book compiling some of the top contributions from a variety of topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if there would be any interest in publishing a similar hard-copy book compiling the top posts from Physics.SE or perhaps even have the top posts from a variety of different SE sites in the one book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you guys think?  Would anyone be interested in having such a book and do you think it should be for Physics only or include a variety of topics (e.g. include all science topics)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we've determined the level of interest we can investigate the costs of publishing and if it is feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ILDNg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25092" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="ef1c0a3f-0cf3-4d8e-a62b-6010c3b9a83e" CreationDate="2017-02-19T15:13:03.533" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="20fbb24c-220b-4d2b-bbc0-90543fdc580d" CreationDate="2017-02-19T16:12:16.757" UserId="44126" Comment="added 1305 characters in body" Text="I wonder whether I've been a moderator here for long enough &#xD;&#xA;([four months now](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3))&#xD;&#xA;that I can&#xD;&#xA;talk about our decision-making process *in aggregate*, without&#xD;&#xA;revealing anything untoward about any particular suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How big is the Physics Stack Exchange community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, there are several answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a database person and you're probably not either, so here are&#xD;&#xA;some answers based on public information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're [one of the most active&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites):&#xD;&#xA;my count is about&#xD;&#xA;[4100 new questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest)&#xD;&#xA;since the start of 2017, a little under a hundred per day.&#xD;&#xA;If you assume we're maintaining our long-term average of about&#xD;&#xA;1.5 answers per question, that's about ten thousand posts to the site&#xD;&#xA;over the first six weeks of the year.&#xD;&#xA;It's a lot.&#xD;&#xA;There is not any one user that has read every contribution,&#xD;&#xA;and determining overall quality is a group effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quality of a post is estimated by the&#xD;&#xA;[voting and reputation systems](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour).&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that most votes occur on posts that are relatively&#xD;&#xA;fresh, so we can use the&#xD;&#xA;[list of users with reputation&#xD;&#xA;changes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Reputation&amp;filter=quarter &quot;Note: 'quarter' display currently begins 2017-01-01&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;to estimate the population of the site over a time interval.&#xD;&#xA;I count about 4700 users whose reputations went up&#xD;&#xA;and about 650 whose reputations went down over the past six weeks,&#xD;&#xA;so I estimate a population of five or six thousand logged-in users&#xD;&#xA;visiting in a typical quarter.&#xD;&#xA;Most of them must make one or two posts and not come back,&#xD;&#xA;to get to our ten thousand questions and answers over that period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also look at&#xD;&#xA;[voters](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&amp;filter=quarter)&#xD;&#xA;(current rough count: 450)&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;[editors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Editors&amp;filter=quarter)&#xD;&#xA;(rough count: 65)&#xD;&#xA;since the start of the year.&#xD;&#xA;And what we see is the unsurprising result that, as a participation&#xD;&#xA;task gets more complicated, the number of folks who participate in it&#xD;&#xA;is smaller.&#xD;&#xA;About 10% of our visiting population is actually voting on questions&#xD;&#xA;or answers.&#xD;&#xA;About 1% of our visiting population is involved in making edits, and&#xD;&#xA;a slightly different 1% has&#xD;&#xA;[enough reputation](http://stackexchange.com/leagues/62/alltime/physics/2010-11-02/)&#xD;&#xA;to access the &#xD;&#xA;[&quot;10k user&quot; moderation tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools).&#xD;&#xA;Close queue reviewers?&#xD;&#xA;This month,&#xD;&#xA;[there are about thirty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/admin/review/breakdown?queue=close&amp;daterange=Last30Days&amp;sort=Close&amp;min=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as monitoring the site, making good things appear and bad&#xD;&#xA;things disappear, we have somewhere at or around a hundred people.&#xD;&#xA;If you're reading this answer, you're probably one of them,&#xD;&#xA;and you'll probably recognize most of the names of the others.&#xD;&#xA;That's a small group, which matters for what I want to discuss next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was the size of the &quot;community&quot;, for a few definitions of the term.&#xD;&#xA;How big is the role played by the diamond moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [moderator activity &#xD;&#xA;log](http://physics.stackexchange.com/admin &quot;a link that probably won't work for you&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;lets me summarize activity&#xD;&#xA;over a quarter ---&#xD;&#xA;which we saw above corresponds to about 8,000 questions and 12,000 answers.&#xD;&#xA;During that interval, the six diamond mods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - processed&#xD;&#xA;   1200 [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;   Another 1200 flags were apparently handled by the community in the&#xD;&#xA;   [low-quality queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/stats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - removed 3000 comments (mostly to chat, in batches)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - closed 1300 posts, and deleted 500 posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - edited 2500 posts (of which probably [2000 tag-only&#xD;&#xA;   edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic?tab=activity&amp;sort=revisions)&#xD;&#xA;   --- Qmechanic is an amazing retagging machine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cast 4000 votes on questions and answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - created 250 posts and 2200 comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sent 28 private moderator messages, including 10 account&#xD;&#xA;   suspensions, of which 6 were for a week or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a lot of activity to see in aggregate!&#xD;&#xA;(It works out to&#xD;&#xA;typically handling two or three flags per mod per day, which doesn't&#xD;&#xA;feel like much.)&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully two things leap out at you.&#xD;&#xA;First, a solid majority of the twenty thousand question and answer&#xD;&#xA;contributions to Physics Stack Exchange from its user community over&#xD;&#xA;the past three months didn't get any diamond moderator intervention at all.&#xD;&#xA;That's a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And second: reaching out to a user privately, and especially&#xD;&#xA;suspending a user, is *quite* rare for us --- about three times a&#xD;&#xA;month.&#xD;&#xA;About half of these suspensions have been for voting irregularities or&#xD;&#xA;misusing sockpuppet accounts; those problems we typically identify on our own.&#xD;&#xA;The other five-ish suspensions&#xD;&#xA;(one or two a month, if you're counting)&#xD;&#xA;were shared among other suspension reasons:&#xD;&#xA;continued low-quality contributions, vandalism or deletion of upvoted&#xD;&#xA;contributions, self-promotion, making other users get fighty with each&#xD;&#xA;other, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Those are things that happen in public, that are&#xD;&#xA;usually pointed out to us in flags or in chat by our 3k and 10k users.&#xD;&#xA;And the 10k users can continue to see material even after it's been&#xD;&#xA;deleted, if they feel like going hunting for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what's the *point* of issuing a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;[Suspensions are about behavior, not about&#xD;&#xA;people](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/).&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be&#xD;&#xA;recalculated, and your account will resume as normal. We don't hold&#xD;&#xA;grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the&#xD;&#xA;behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important part of making people feel welcomed back is allowing the&#xD;&#xA;community to forget about their punishment.&#xD;&#xA;But this is a website: literally the only we have to interact with&#xD;&#xA;each other here is by making entries in a searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;Once a thing is said, it's hard to un-say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not issue suspensions without substantial agreement among&#xD;&#xA;the diamond moderators, and the suspension messages are clear about&#xD;&#xA;the (mostly public) activities that led to the suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;But keeping the details private --- or at least, keeping our concise&#xD;&#xA;statement of these details private --- is an important part of making&#xD;&#xA;the user feel welcome to return after the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;What we'd like is to encourage our suspended users to return,&#xD;&#xA;make quality contributions,&#xD;&#xA;and eventually join the relatively small cadre of users who help to&#xD;&#xA;curate the site.&#xD;&#xA;And part of the clean slate that's needed to become active in that&#xD;&#xA;community is for the community to forget about old problems ---&#xD;&#xA;something that's harder if a concise description of those old problems&#xD;&#xA;is just a mouse click away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer to my first question is no: I can't say much more about&#xD;&#xA;suspensions in aggregate than I could individually.&#xD;&#xA;There have been so few suspensions that essentially any remark I made&#xD;&#xA;would permit you, an alert reader, to figure out who I was talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter asks whether prior suspensions are &quot;expunged&quot; somehow&#xD;&#xA;for purposes of escalating duration (usually a week, then a month,&#xD;&#xA;then a year).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The records  of private communications and suspensions are not deleted&#xD;&#xA;from the servers or hidden from the moderators;&#xD;&#xA;we exercise our judgement.&#xD;&#xA;For a hypothetical example, suppose a user had a temper tantrum,&#xD;&#xA;collected a bunch of rude/abusive flags, and needed a time-out.&#xD;&#xA;If their history showed a previous suspension for the same reason in the last&#xD;&#xA;year, we'd almost certainly escalate.&#xD;&#xA;But if their history showed a brief previous suspension for the same reason from&#xD;&#xA;five years ago, followed by a positive contribution record, I don't&#xD;&#xA;think we would hold that ancient history against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly is the boundary?&#xD;&#xA;That I can't say. It's a judgement call, which we'd try to make using&#xD;&#xA;all the information that's available to us.&#xD;&#xA;If a user is active in the community, makes good contributions, and is&#xD;&#xA;encouraging to and respected by other users, we would probably tend to&#xD;&#xA;be lenient.&#xD;&#xA;If a user spends a lot of time testing the boundaries of what is and&#xD;&#xA;isn't acceptable, we would tend to be more harsh.&#xD;&#xA;But I won't pigeonhole myself in the future by inventing some&#xD;&#xA;algorithm here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9657" RevisionGUID="f7c0d26d-72a8-4c4e-a6bb-431fc79b5096" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:33:52.633" UserId="124" Text="[![Physics Forums][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8vNwL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsforums.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9658" RevisionGUID="80262025-35f6-4a35-9511-a09928c98532" CreationDate="2017-02-19T21:07:41.937" UserId="60683" Text="My question is basically: what circumstances led you here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did you learn what physics is? What do your parents do for their living and what's the highest-level of their education? Do your parents encourage or reward you to learn physics on your own? Do they help you when you are stuck, and taught you how to look for answers when they don't have answers?&#xD;&#xA;What have your parents taught you academically? Did you see algebra for the first time in school? Do you have a tutor?&#xD;&#xA;Are you ahead of your math classes in school? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted another person your age to learn (and have interest in) physics as you do, what would you teach them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25098" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9080" RevisionGUID="24f09e71-e554-450a-9fe1-eadefe56c7b0" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:35:55.830" UserId="1325" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="2e2f4c2c-9dbc-4d4c-9a7a-49cb7642468b" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:22:17.567" UserId="4962" Text="Here comes an odd little low-practical question out of curiosity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does the review counter show**? The little counter in the upper bar is always showing a high number (fluctuating a bit) even when review queues are empty. I might have missed an explanation somewhere when being sworn in with the review privilege.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could of course just be because there are more queues than I am [allowed to review at my place in the hierarky][1] (odd that I would see a tempting counter in that case), but there [don't seem to be any queues hidden from me][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ik5wg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="2e2f4c2c-9dbc-4d4c-9a7a-49cb7642468b" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:22:17.567" UserId="4962" Text="What is the review counter showing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="2e2f4c2c-9dbc-4d4c-9a7a-49cb7642468b" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:22:17.567" UserId="4962" Text="|discussion|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9660" RevisionGUID="b8f2da2a-3371-4e60-a52c-c7aba954b08c" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:30:14.823" UserId="50583" Text="It shows the total number of flags whose review is pending, cf. [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/230726/263383). It also includes those you have already acted on (recall that many reviews need more than one user to complete them) and moderator flags which you cannot see. Additionally, the number is cached and may reflect an older status of the queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It annoys me to no end to have a number there but nothing to act on, but you learn to live with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="813f01a5-00c3-4e64-92b1-80eaaff64b9d" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:43:47.883" UserId="8563" Text="[This question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9636/broken-internal-link) pointed out that there are still a number of links to posts on the old Astronomy SE site kicking around, and that they mostly redirect to new, unrelated questions and answers in the new Astronomy site. I feel those links *should* have been automatically edited at the time of the migration, but it doesn't really matter, since a [quick query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/628571/links-to-the-old-astronomy-se-site) turns up ~30 or so sites, which can easily be edited manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do find one thing pretty weird, though: when those links are posted as a raw URL, they still format correctly, for some reason. As an example, see [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt), which [until recently](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/25789/revisions) contained the explicit URL &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a [broken link](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did) (i.e. should point [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did)) but nevertheless still formats correctly into a full title with the old link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zsed9.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feels weirdly buggy to me, though of course the real bug is that the URLs were not auto-updated to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="813f01a5-00c3-4e64-92b1-80eaaff64b9d" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:43:47.883" UserId="8563" Text="Why do defunct links to the old astronomy site still format correctly into a linked title?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="813f01a5-00c3-4e64-92b1-80eaaff64b9d" CreationDate="2017-02-22T13:43:47.883" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9662" RevisionGUID="76156de4-3400-4afa-a48a-4d74fe38c5c4" CreationDate="2017-02-23T01:14:23.203" UserId="9426" Text="To your first list, I'd like to add another point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Chat is a [third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)**: When it comes to effort, the primary focus should be on keeping the main site looking its best. The secondary focus is meta, where site policies and norms are crafted. Chat, as the place for social and informal gathering, should not require much, if any, moderation work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last few years we've noticed that as the number of chat participants grow, so do the odds that there will be conflict. At the same time, chat starts to seem more and more important for the community. And indeed, events such as the [AMA series](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) are excellent opportunities to bring people together and strengthen the community of this site. In turn, this lends extra urgency to chat moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, chat is supposed to be a relaxed social environment. It's less about important ideas (those are best for the main site) or site policies (meta) and more about whatever a bunch of people who are interested in physics might want to talk about. That might mean politics or sexy talk or the latest theories concerning baryon asymmetry or whether non-black turtlenecks are legitimate fashion statements. As long as those conversations are respectful and don't outstay their welcome, it's typically fine to talk about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another trouble that comes with bigger crowds is that topics often _do_ outstay their welcome. If I explain my views on non-black turtlenecks (grey is acceptable, but not white) odds are someone else will want to share their opinion too. And if two or three other people chime in with their amusing anecdote or ill-considered opinion, it quickly becomes overwhelming to people who just don't care. And if you actively dislike the topic, it can be infuriating to see it roll along ponderously for hours or even days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any upsides to using sexual innuendo in a large chat room and plenty of downsides. Putting the brakes on that seems like a good idea. Similarly, the next time someone is convinced to change their political views by conversations in public chat will be the first time. So there's great wisdom in avoiding these sorts of conversations that trip up so many growing chat rooms. That said, there can be just as much conflict over turtlenecks or baryons given the mix of people in the room. Simply banning topics of conversation just isn't sufficient to keep the peace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, [most people in a conversation](http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=19709) will adapt to the existing tone. If someone indicates they are uncomfortable with the current conversation, reasonable responses are to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Apologize,&#xD;&#xA;* Change the topic,&#xD;&#xA;* Find another place to continue the conversation, and/or&#xD;&#xA;* Go do something else altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a small segment of the population that take offense, claim censorship or just generally don't care what other people think. If those people refuse to be reasonable, we have a number of [moderation tools](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat) for chat mods, room owners and even other users. In extreme cases, troublesome users can be banned from chat. Far more than topic bans, removing unreasonable users is surprisingly effective at fixing a room's culture. (And even better, sometimes formally unreasonable people find their way to be reasonable. That's rarely possible when you try to moderate topics rather than behavior.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="15bd8f6d-dde4-47a3-acde-d864395b0c34" CreationDate="2017-02-23T04:50:19.153" UserId="25956" Comment="edited body" Text="After discussion at the biweekly chat session starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35277884#35277884) and looking at the answers and comments to this post, the feedback appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As anticipated at the end of the session [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35278976#35278976), it therefore seems that the second part of this meta post should be considered obsolete. Even though there was *some* positive feedback, we're not going to have a chat policy that is not backed by a clear majority of users. Going forward, the only policy governing the h bar is the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) itself, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms of the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="df759f3f-f651-4517-ba1d-10c7fc643230" CreationDate="2017-02-23T08:03:55.793" UserId="12350" Comment="added 626 characters in body" Text="**Update**:&#xD;&#xA;In response to the positive feedback progress is now being made towards producing the first ever physics SE book.  If you would like to see your own high quality answer in this book, please nominate your answer below and if there is sufficient interest I will include a section in the book with your requests.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are nominating your answer, please ensure both the question and answer doesn't include any images or references that may be copyright and please let me know of your nomination by **01/03/2017**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone is interested in reviewing the book prior to publishing please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may be aware, Quora has created a physical book compiling some of the top contributions from a variety of topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if there would be any interest in publishing a similar hard-copy book compiling the top posts from Physics.SE or perhaps even have the top posts from a variety of different SE sites in the one book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you guys think?  Would anyone be interested in having such a book and do you think it should be for Physics only or include a variety of topics (e.g. include all science topics)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we've determined the level of interest we can investigate the costs of publishing and if it is feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ILDNg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9663" RevisionGUID="d959ed2a-387b-4578-8f56-b22188c696ea" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:59:02.017" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="I have begun to notice that it's nearly impossible to get answers for queries on classical mechanics concepts on this website (despite them involving advanced ideas). While say a quantum mechanics question which asks a basic concept is buzzing in comparison. Why is this? Surely if people can answer advanced questions they should be able to answer the 'simple' ones as well? Why is the site so inactive except for when it comes to obscure (for most) professional physics? How do we allow it to accommodate people of all levels of understanding and knowledge? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, where somebody has a fundamental misunderstanding, their question does not make much physical sense and subsequently gets removed or ignored. Where somebody has a good understanding their question pretty much boils down to a maths problem. Essentially, it's preventing people who will get the most out of it from learning anything. Can we change this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9663" RevisionGUID="d959ed2a-387b-4578-8f56-b22188c696ea" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:59:02.017" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="Why is there so little answering of elementary physics questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9663" RevisionGUID="d959ed2a-387b-4578-8f56-b22188c696ea" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:59:02.017" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="|discussion|questions|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9665" RevisionGUID="097ac4e8-b77d-4feb-8909-dea7a1b25c1c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:38:11.773" UserId="23473" Text="This is not the first time someone has asked why simple physics questions are given less focus and/or ignored compared to more advanced material nor will this be the last. I will answer in the same way past and future incarnations of this question were and will be answered. This is not the case. Simply look at our most popular or highest voted posts or our most used tags and you'll find a great number of them are simple physics as opposed to complex topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, our simple physics questions usually get more and quicker answers than the more complicated questions. Easy topics are well understood by more people and are easier to write an answer for; whereas complex topics require more specific knowledge that is known to fewer people and take more time to write an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6272/23473) is the most recent incarnation of this question I can recall. Perhaps this and others like it will supplement my or others' answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9666" RevisionGUID="66b47fbb-df67-479e-a8ff-44b0eec91e1c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T17:40:29.967" UserDisplayName="user146020" Text="If I missed this in the comments, I apologise, but could you trial it on say,  the Kindle platform and see what the response is? I don't know Amazon's terms and conditions, and perhaps you have investigated this already. Best of luck with it anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="8be3cdd7-46e9-4ad4-8571-b93fbe9dc90d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T23:27:21.103" UserId="121464" Text="I had a question about best practices for keeping a lab journal (specifically, should one only record experiments, or should one also include research for experiments, or time spent looking around on say McMaster Carr for parts). Is this on topic or off topic? It would seem to fall under experimental physics style questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="8be3cdd7-46e9-4ad4-8571-b93fbe9dc90d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T23:27:21.103" UserId="121464" Text="Lab journal best practices - on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="8be3cdd7-46e9-4ad4-8571-b93fbe9dc90d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T23:27:21.103" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9668" RevisionGUID="dfc0a18e-dd2a-47b2-9e59-cf7f94bc6c7d" CreationDate="2017-02-24T00:33:50.310" UserId="124" Text="I can see this being argued either way, but I'm inclined to say that would be off topic. It's certainly a topic that is relevant to experimental physics, but I don't think it's actually _about_ physics, much like e.g. best practices for structuring a Mathematica notebook is relevant to computational physics but is not really about physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9669" RevisionGUID="dc081386-52a2-4160-b6f6-8d258dbcbc7b" CreationDate="2017-02-24T01:43:48.667" UserId="44126" Text="I'm going to answer more or less the same way as DavidZ, but phrased more encouragingly: I think that it's totally possible to construct a question about experimental record-keeping habits that would be on-topic here. (Of course it's also possible to construct such a question that would be off-topic.) I certainly have opinions about record-keeping that I try to pass on to my lab students as part of their physics education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the question rattling around in your head, go on and write it down.&#xD;&#xA;You may decide afterward that it's a good fit here, you may decide it's a better fit elsewhere, you may come up with an answer you like on your own, or your concern about the question might evaporate --- in any case, you'll have learned something interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="00a57339-716e-4940-988c-42aaf27ca7c8" CreationDate="2017-02-24T01:57:02.380" UserId="9426" Text="I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving their time. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, it's hard to get a job with one on your record. Some jobs, [particularly those that require a license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_against_persons_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States#Background), are prohibited from hiring ex-felons. &quot;Open justice&quot; on it's on is no protection against discriminatory practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does that apply to Stack Exchange? Well, one of the primary goals of the [penalty box system](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/) is rehabilitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and **your account will resume as normal**. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In California, ~65% of former prisoners [return to prison](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/). That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Physics at this moment, just under a quarter of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the site. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bigger question you are trying to get at is whether a secret system of justice can be fair. So let me explain our process a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We encourage moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended, so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Every message and every suspension is sent to the [community team](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-managers-and-what-do-they-do) for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or [poor guidance from the system](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288242/1438). The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. We encourage moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness as compared to other, similar networks on the internet. A good deal of the credit belongs to [the cadre of volunteer moderators](http://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) who have the power to suspend users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there's been some concern that moderators on Physics have suspended more users than on other sites. I looked at the statistics on all Stack Exchange sites and found that 150 currently have at least one user serving a suspension. By total suspensions, Physics is tied for 7&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; most. The top site, as you might imagine, is Stack Overflow. But it has an order of magnitude more users than Physics. So it makes more sense to compare the users per suspension rate. By that metric, Stack Overflow among the least frequent suspension site. Physics is ranked 81&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; or about average. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="e6d1a6b9-dc14-45fd-9c72-d841fed0a685" CreationDate="2017-02-24T02:02:29.550" UserId="9426" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving their time. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, it's hard to get a job with one on your record. Some jobs, [particularly those that require a license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_against_persons_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States#Background), are prohibited from hiring ex-felons. &quot;Open justice&quot; on it's on is no protection against discriminatory practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does that apply to Stack Exchange? Well, one of the primary goals of the [penalty box system](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/) is rehabilitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and **your account will resume as normal**. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In California, ~65% of former prisoners [return to prison](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/). That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Physics at this moment, just under a quarter of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the site. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bigger question you are trying to get at is whether a secret system of justice can be fair. So let me explain our process a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The system encourages moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended, so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Every message and every suspension is sent to the [community team](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-managers-and-what-do-they-do) for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or [poor guidance from the system](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288242/1438). The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system encourages moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness as compared to other, similar networks on the internet. A good deal of the credit belongs to [the cadre of volunteer moderators](http://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) who have the power to suspend users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there's been some concern that moderators on Physics have suspended more users than on other sites. I looked at the statistics on all Stack Exchange sites and found that 150 currently have at least one user serving a suspension. By total suspensions, Physics is tied for 7&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; most. The top site, as you might imagine, is Stack Overflow. But it has an order of magnitude more users than Physics. So it makes more sense to compare the users per suspension rate. By that metric, Stack Overflow among the least frequent suspension site. Physics is ranked 81&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; or about average. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="ce5c7914-fd25-4ed5-9015-7e9d6d0780ca" CreationDate="2017-02-24T02:29:26.027" UserId="9426" Comment="edited body" Text="I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving their time. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, it's hard to get a job with one on your record. Some jobs, [particularly those that require a license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_against_persons_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States#Background), are prohibited from hiring ex-felons. &quot;Open justice&quot; on its own is no protection against discriminatory practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does that apply to Stack Exchange? Well, one of the primary goals of the [penalty box system](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/) is rehabilitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and **your account will resume as normal**. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In California, ~65% of former prisoners [return to prison](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/). That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Physics at this moment, just under a quarter of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the site. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bigger question you are trying to get at is whether a secret system of justice can be fair. So let me explain our process a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The system encourages moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended, so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Every message and every suspension is sent to the [community team](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-managers-and-what-do-they-do) for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or [poor guidance from the system](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288242/1438). The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system encourages moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness as compared to other, similar networks on the internet. A good deal of the credit belongs to [the cadre of volunteer moderators](http://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) who have the power to suspend users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there's been some concern that moderators on Physics have suspended more users than on other sites. I looked at the statistics on all Stack Exchange sites and found that 150 currently have at least one user serving a suspension. By total suspensions, Physics is tied for 7&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; most. The top site, as you might imagine, is Stack Overflow. But it has an order of magnitude more users than Physics. So it makes more sense to compare the users per suspension rate. By that metric, Stack Overflow among the least frequent suspension site. Physics is ranked 81&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; or about average. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="73e0bb44-eba4-469a-bf87-facbf2688cbe" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:03:37.393" UserId="118759" Text="While answering a question, I usually do it as I would do it orally, which is using the simplest english I can and also trying to make it a bit fun, which is also just the way I speak. &#xD;&#xA;so the other day, when answering this question [electromagnetic...][1] I said &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; short answer : because Einstein said so.[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it was a way for me to emphasize that Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect.&#xD;&#xA;But it turns out people didn't like my answer ( I got a couple of downvotes in the beginning ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Fellow physicist I would like to know your opinion, is it ok to make jokes while answering questions ?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/312107/one-quantum-energy/312120#312120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="73e0bb44-eba4-469a-bf87-facbf2688cbe" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:03:37.393" UserId="118759" Text="Is it ok to make jokes on your answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="73e0bb44-eba4-469a-bf87-facbf2688cbe" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:03:37.393" UserId="118759" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="c4eff6b9-0b6d-48d6-9ac4-b43a0e741619" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:12:44.683" UserId="9426" Comment="The last paragraph was unclear. It is now less unclear." Text="I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving their time. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, it's hard to get a job with one on your record. Some jobs, [particularly those that require a license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_against_persons_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States#Background), are prohibited from hiring ex-felons. &quot;Open justice&quot; on its own is no protection against discriminatory practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does that apply to Stack Exchange? Well, one of the primary goals of the [penalty box system](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/) is rehabilitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and **your account will resume as normal**. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In California, ~65% of former prisoners [return to prison](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/). That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Physics at this moment, just under a quarter of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the site. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bigger question you are trying to get at is whether a secret system of justice can be fair. So let me explain our process a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The system encourages moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended, so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Every message and every suspension is sent to the [community team](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-managers-and-what-do-they-do) for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or [poor guidance from the system](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288242/1438). The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system encourages moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness as compared to other, similar networks on the internet. A good deal of the credit belongs to [the cadre of volunteer moderators](http://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) who have the power to suspend users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there's been some concern that moderators on Physics have suspended more users than on other sites. I looked at the statistics on all Stack Exchange sites and found that 150 currently have at least one user serving a suspension. By total suspensions, Physics is tied for 7&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; most. The top site, as you might imagine, is Stack Overflow. But it has an order of magnitude more users than Physics. So it makes more sense to compare the rate of suspensions per users active on the site in the last year. By that metric, Stack Overflow among the least frequent suspension site. Physics is ranked 81&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; or about average. Note, however, this includes network-wide suspensions, which are enforced by employees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9672" RevisionGUID="fa9753bd-67e5-4953-94c0-fd116638e5f1" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:19:03.677" UserId="44126" Text="There's nothing inherently wrong with an occasional jokey aside.  (But don't go overboard --- [we hate fun here](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the comment on your post, which links to a definition of &quot;argument from authority,&quot; is a good explanation of why that *particular* joke might have fallen flat.&#xD;&#xA;People don't believe in the photoelectric effect because Einstein described it.&#xD;&#xA;People tend to respect Einstein's ideas because he was the first person to describe the photoelectric effect correctly.  He was the first to explain several things correctly, but he certainly published his share of mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;Understanding the difference between &quot;I believe X because a smart person said so&quot; and &quot;I believe X because it fits observations&quot; is a big part of the difference between people who misunderstand science and people who are successful in the sciences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9673" RevisionGUID="8179cb90-bf9a-4c6b-b5a8-975bf8c40d3f" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:31:24.653" UserId="520" Text="Humor is (a) subjective and (b) a tool in the communications toolbox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting depends on the judgement of the audience, so you need to use humor that the audience will judge as improving—or at least not harming—the answer, and the answer still needs to be a good one on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you are getting comments that the humor is a problem then maybe you should take it out. Or you could wait to see how other users feel about the humor. Maybe someone will defend it too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="274a5eca-6d98-4290-8a7b-3248a3582836" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:34:01.767" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags" Text="While answering a question, I usually do it as I would do it orally, which is using the simplest english I can and also trying to make it a bit fun, which is also just the way I speak. &#xD;&#xA;so the other day, when answering this question [electromagnetic...][1] I said &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; short answer : because Einstein said so.[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it was a way for me to emphasize that Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect.&#xD;&#xA;But it turns out people didn't like my answer ( I got a couple of downvotes in the beginning ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Fellow physicist I would like to know your opinion, is it ok to make jokes while answering questions?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312107/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25136" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="274a5eca-6d98-4290-8a7b-3248a3582836" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:34:01.767" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="0a8b4a1a-858e-49a4-9292-4e7a9d5852ec" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:15:36.293" UserId="121464" Text="The [March for Science][1] is an event/protest/rally being held on April 22, 2017. The main march will occur in Washington D.C., but there will be marches all over the world and across the United States. There is an SE chat room dedicated to the march. As many of our community members are scientists and/or support science, I was wondering if we wanted a community event countdown to be shown on the main page. As the event is somewhat political in nature, I wanted to check with the community before creating an event. The countdown timer is not overbearing and is just a small item on the side bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A response to potential objections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This march is something relevant only to the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. While the main march is occurring in D.C., there will be marches all around the world (see [here](https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is an overally political thing to promote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is political, many scientific organizations are endorsing it, such as the AAAS (which publishes Science magazine), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Statistical Association (ASA) - you can read more about which organizations are endorsing it [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/will-they-or-won-t-they-what-science-groups-are-saying-about-joining-march-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A community ad will be a much better way to promote this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, for starters, I did create [a community ad](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9674/121464). However, I think this event is important enough that it's worth advertising beyond just a community ad. Also, I might point out again that the countdown timer is just a small item on the side bar, so it won't interfere with normal use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: some of this (the introduction) was pulled from [an equivalent post over on Academia.SE](http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3690/community-countdown-event-for-march-for-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.marchforscience.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="0a8b4a1a-858e-49a4-9292-4e7a9d5852ec" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:15:36.293" UserId="121464" Text="Community countdown event for March for Science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="0a8b4a1a-858e-49a4-9292-4e7a9d5852ec" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:15:36.293" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9676" RevisionGUID="6c04ee9f-9e23-4fe8-9208-e5049cce4f85" CreationDate="2017-02-25T00:12:24.837" UserId="67917" Text="[![March supporting government policy informed by science][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i4XPB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.marchforscience.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25143" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="27a6c7b2-387c-42c7-8a05-4379d6854c14" CreationDate="2017-02-25T07:36:00.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/835392891560345601" />
  <row Id="25144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9677" RevisionGUID="c05ab7a0-e0a4-4f80-90bf-019c98603402" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:55:25.680" UserId="1492" Text="This is [an example][1] , it was revived by Community . Could not Community acquire some intelligence? The user has been inactive since &quot;Last seen Jun 2 '15 at 23:00&quot; ,  All answers have a 0 vote count and two are later, I suppose from more revivals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could think that an &quot;and&quot; combination of  &quot;ifs&quot; like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long inactive user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;zero upvotes or negative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;perpetual motion&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would keep this question in limbo, to keep company with the OP, for good reasons and not waste our time in futile readings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all a search on &quot;perpetual&quot; would find it if somebody is interested in perpetual motion machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example, I am sure other logical &quot;ands&quot; would eliminate revivals other of useless posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186999/whats-wrong-with-this-idea-for-recover-energy-from-pressure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9677" RevisionGUID="c05ab7a0-e0a4-4f80-90bf-019c98603402" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:55:25.680" UserId="1492" Text="inactive users and Community revivals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9677" RevisionGUID="c05ab7a0-e0a4-4f80-90bf-019c98603402" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:55:25.680" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|community-moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9678" RevisionGUID="ebb9ea86-528d-4f9f-bce5-040779a7e051" CreationDate="2017-02-26T08:39:41.343" UserId="124" Text="Of course it would be technically possible to make the bumping algorithm more complicated in a way that prevents it from bumping certain posts. But there is a much simpler way: upvote an answer to the post. Or if none of the existing answers is worthy of an upvote, post your own that is. (Or if the question should be closed, vote to close it and use the usual methods to bring the attention of other close voters to it.) Otherwise, the post is probably still deserving of attention, which is the whole point of bumping it in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="63d609a2-b914-4b70-b10b-e0b2a2511b40" CreationDate="2017-02-26T14:35:52.070" UserId="121464" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The [March for Science][1] is an event/protest/rally being held on April 22, 2017. The main march will occur in Washington D.C., but there will be marches all over the world and across the United States. There is an SE chat room dedicated to the march. As many of our community members are scientists and/or support science, I was wondering if we wanted a community event countdown to be shown on the main page. As the event is somewhat political in nature, I wanted to check with the community before creating an event. The countdown timer is not overbearing and is just a small item on the side bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A response to potential objections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This march is something relevant only to the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. While the main march is occurring in D.C., there will be marches all around the world (see [here](https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is an overally political thing to promote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is political, many scientific organizations are endorsing it, such as the AAAS (which publishes Science magazine), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Statistical Association (ASA) - you can read more about which organizations are endorsing it [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/will-they-or-won-t-they-what-science-groups-are-saying-about-joining-march-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A community ad will be a much better way to promote this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, for starters, I did create a community ad (as did someone else; my version was downvoted to oblivion, theirs is at -2). However, I think this event is important enough that it's worth advertising beyond just a community ad. Also, I might point out again that the countdown timer is just a small item on the side bar, so it won't interfere with normal use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: some of this (the introduction) was pulled from [an equivalent post over on Academia.SE](http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3690/community-countdown-event-for-march-for-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.marchforscience.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9679" RevisionGUID="68ff8033-a39b-4b06-93f7-5e6b1e796e5c" CreationDate="2017-02-26T18:38:28.023" UserDisplayName="user146020" Text="Generally, no.....for the simple reason that you cannot go wrong  with a straight to the point answer, but there's always a very  good chance that  your sense of humour is not shared by everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People want answers first and foremost: not always dry textbook-like answers, so think of interesting **relevant** illustrations to make your point,  but the odds are in your favour if you keep it straight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a big, big difference between an entertaining answer and a &quot;funny&quot; one, you are in for a fall if you confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I write for websites with large audiences now and again, its not the same as giving a live talk, where you can judge the mood of your audience, on PSE you can't, so I wouldn't. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9680" RevisionGUID="57b40087-b437-49dc-b61a-6be4162760ac" CreationDate="2017-02-26T21:38:19.480" UserId="124" Text="Community events, as they're called, are used for advertising events happening _within the SE network_. The URL associated with each event [has to be a Stack Exchange URL](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/285947/allow-non-se-urls-in-community-events), which poses a technical restriction on using such an event for something happening outside SE, but even discounting the technical restriction, we should consider the intent of the SE developers in providing this feature and their reasons for doing it that way. Community events are supposed to be used for advertising things that are relevant for the community's participation _on this site_. The March for Science may be relevant to a lot of people here, but it's not relevant to how they participate in Stack Exchange, so I don't believe it deserves the privileged position of being advertised in the community bulletin (that's the proper name for the yellow sidebar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were, say, a chat event associated with the march happening simultaneously, that would be a different matter. Chat events are fine candidates for advertising in the bulletin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE doesn't really give us a good way to advertise external events. The closest we come is community ads, but they're better suited for permanent things, not events that occur at a specific time and then are done with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="3a996b3f-eb2c-4160-acc0-228a69cd09b7" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:53:51.993" UserId="84967" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* C. Jess Riedel: [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="6e267820-fd6f-40cc-b51d-014047f6b983" CreationDate="2017-02-26T23:00:19.763" UserId="8563" Comment="Added Jess Riedel user link." Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="da32e3ca-d9dc-4dc8-afa0-f074e8263877" CreationDate="2017-02-27T01:34:00.327" UserId="22964" Text="So I asked the question:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/314626/thought-experiment-ultra-fast-outward-push-inside-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there was a conversation I was having with one of the answerers (it didn't resolve my question but I wanted to read it all as there seemed to be some good substance there). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before I got a chance to see the response to my comment it was deleted. I googled around (and i admit I might be dumb) but I can't seem to find a way to see the deleted answer without a moderator's help as i'm below 10K rep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do? OR would one of the moderators be able to send an image of the answer + comment stream?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="da32e3ca-d9dc-4dc8-afa0-f074e8263877" CreationDate="2017-02-27T01:34:00.327" UserId="22964" Text="Want to view deleted answer and comment stream:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="da32e3ca-d9dc-4dc8-afa0-f074e8263877" CreationDate="2017-02-27T01:34:00.327" UserId="22964" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9682" RevisionGUID="976e0d09-eeae-426a-bf5a-92811bd869c9" CreationDate="2017-02-27T01:43:56.343" UserId="520" Text="Even with 10K you can't see deleted comments. There simply isn't such a facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the official response to complaints about the inconvenience of that can arise because of that is along the lines of *&quot;Put anything important in a post or take it to chat; comments are transient and the only official use case is to suggest improvements to the post, anyway&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the moderators understand that in practice they are used a little more widely than that. Try pinging one of us in chat to ask if there was anything interesting posted in response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case the comment was deleted not by a moderator but by the user who posted it, so I wouldn't feel comfortable making the contents public. Sorry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9682" RevisionGUID="080e670f-5be4-4d23-8d8c-a1d1087f4dc5" CreationDate="2017-02-27T01:50:43.510" UserId="520" Comment="added 710 characters in body" Text="Even with 10K you can't see deleted comments. There simply isn't such a facility. You *can* see non-deleted comments to deleted answers, however, which is a slightly different matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the official response to complaints about the inconvenience of that can arise because of that is along the lines of *&quot;Put anything important in a post or take it to chat; comments are transient and the only official use case is to suggest improvements to the post, anyway&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the moderators understand that in practice they are used a little more widely than that. Try pinging one of us in chat to ask if there was anything interesting posted in response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case there are several classes of comments to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are several deleted comments under the questions. These were deleted by the posters and I wouldn't feel comfortable making the contents public. Sorry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are some non-deleted comments associated with an answer that was deleted by the poster. Some of these seem to be part of a conversation including you. They were posted between 07:00 and 08:00 UTC by the user who posted the (now self-deleted) answer. If these are the ones you're asking about consider pinging the user who posted the answer in chat to find out if he'd be willing to copy them for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are some deleted comments associate with that deleted answer. These don't seem to have anything to do with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="55078b21-14de-45e1-aaa1-3a4c6ef084ec" CreationDate="2017-03-01T08:48:23.287" UserId="41634" Text="![](http://i64.tinypic.com/21l7uw2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the comments from the question [What is “relatively uniform resonant frequency”?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/315403/41634). I'm pretty sure that the colors are different, maybe their brightness. Is this normal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="55078b21-14de-45e1-aaa1-3a4c6ef084ec" CreationDate="2017-03-01T08:48:23.287" UserId="41634" Text="Are the colors of this two comments different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="55078b21-14de-45e1-aaa1-3a4c6ef084ec" CreationDate="2017-03-01T08:48:23.287" UserId="41634" Text="|bug|design|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="7112a378-88dc-4745-9382-94463d1fb5c6" CreationDate="2017-03-01T16:59:39.013" UserId="144840" Comment="Getting rid of most of the text that was based on wrong assumption" Text="&gt; [My original question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/9631/2) was based on the assumption that there is a universal scientific agreement on the typography of subscripts. However, I have been wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The discussion](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9635/144840) if there was a universal typographic standard was closed as **off-topic**. So this question (about enforcing this standard) is probably **off-topic** too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there was a universal typographic standard (but in physics, there isn't) that descriptive subscript should be typeset in upright font:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="80229a12-9420-4112-8a9c-3226ddddc757" CreationDate="2017-03-02T02:48:33.080" UserId="31790" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315730/express-laplace-transform-of-voltage-across-a-capacitor-in-terms-of-charge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be interested to hear folks' opinions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="80229a12-9420-4112-8a9c-3226ddddc757" CreationDate="2017-03-02T02:48:33.080" UserId="31790" Text="Should question 315730 have the homework-and-exercises tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="80229a12-9420-4112-8a9c-3226ddddc757" CreationDate="2017-03-02T02:48:33.080" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9687" RevisionGUID="91987f41-7940-4550-938c-2aa7b9ec3342" CreationDate="2017-03-02T04:55:20.177" UserId="124" Text="As our [current policy says](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/124), the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag should be applied to questions which arise in the context of doing &quot;educational exercises&quot;. The defining property of an educational exercise is that the purpose of solving the exercise is learning to use (or gaining further practice with) the method by which it is solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe that is the case in this question. It's been claimed that this is the exercise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a circuit consisting of a capacitor $C$, an impedance $\tilde{Z}(\omega)$, and a constant voltage source $V$ connected in a loop.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose in equilibrium the charge across the capacitor is $Q_e$.&#xD;&#xA;Now at time $t=0$ we drop some charge on the capacitor, making the total capacitor charge $Q_0$.&#xD;&#xA;We'd like to solve for the time dependent charge $Q(t)$ on the capacitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of solving this problem is not for you to learn the method by which it can be solved, I presume. If I understand correctly, the entire purpose of this problem is to provide context for the underlying conceptual question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The paper I'm reading writes an equation which leads me to believe that&#xD;&#xA;$$\hat{V}(p) = \frac{Q_e}{pC} - \frac{\hat{Q}(p)}{C} \, , \tag{$\star$}$$&#xD;&#xA;but I don't understand why that's the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is equation $(\star)$ correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's completely irrelevant (again if I understand correctly) whether you actually make any further progress in solving the exercise. That would not be the case if your purpose were to learn the method of solution. Therefore, I conclude the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is inappropriate for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As further justification, another property of _almost_ all educational exercises is that you get them from some other source: a textbook, a homework assignment, an old contest, a problem book, or so on. As I understand it, this is not the case here. Now, it is _possible_ to have a question which does not include an exercise from an external source but is nevertheless a [tag:homework-and-exercises] question, e.g. if the poster has made up an exercise for themselves to get practice with a certain technique. But this is quite rare. Rare enough that, when a question is _not_ based on an exercise from some external source, we should probably avoid applying the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag unless we know that the poster's intent is to practice the method. I certainly don't believe that is the case here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="a7450f2e-d1de-45b3-8272-b999936f92c7" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:39:37.347" UserId="114696" Comment="inclusion of relevant tags!" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="2f2262f2-6858-4ca7-812b-417e7819b89b" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:21:31.543" UserId="41634" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="![](http://i64.tinypic.com/21l7uw2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the comments from the question [What is “relatively uniform resonant frequency”?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/315403/41634). I'm pretty sure that the colors are different, maybe their brightness. Is this normal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Windows 7, with updated Firefox. I do install the [Stack Overflow Extras (SOX)](http://stackapps.com/q/6091/29559) script, but there is no option in it allow changing the comments' color. I notice that this is universal, every section of comments in every question or answer in every Stack Exchange site has this behavior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="80166895-8257-4e89-907a-3feb0bb20989" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:43:17.877" UserId="23068" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-norepro|design|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="52d5e147-fa7c-495a-b7a1-4dfaa897034d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:38:09.910" UserId="104964" Text="A couple of time I've come across minor typos and Mathjax fixes I wanted to make to (other people's) questions which turn out to be too few characters to be passed by the Save Edit checking code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, IMO, especially with Mathjax, even a relatively minor tweak can help readability and clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone feel the minimum character requirement is a bit restrictive ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be changed to a warning, rather than blocking small edits ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="52d5e147-fa7c-495a-b7a1-4dfaa897034d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:38:09.910" UserId="104964" Text="Minimum edit size a bit too strict" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="52d5e147-fa7c-495a-b7a1-4dfaa897034d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:38:09.910" UserId="104964" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9689" RevisionGUID="807faa7e-2622-46ff-a8e7-166c0da1f3b6" CreationDate="2017-03-02T23:13:43.927" UserId="8563" Text="Yes, this is a known 'issue'. The 6-character limit is inherited from SE-wide policy, and it was primarily designed for sites with overwhelmingly text-driven content where it is very rare (though still possible) for a two-character edit to really make a crucial difference in the meaning of a post. The presence of MathJax does change the equation (ho, ho, ho) a bit, making it more likely that a post will require very punctual but still crucial intervention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That edit still bumps up the post on the front page and other activity-driven listings, so it still degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of the site.&#xD;&#xA; - The six-character limit goes away at 2k with the ability to edit posts without going through peer review, and there is a healthy population of 2k+ edit-active users on the site.&#xD;&#xA; - It is really rare (though it does happen) that a post crucially needs a 2-character edit but has absolutely nothing else, at all, that can be fixed.&#xD;&#xA; - In the rare case that this happens and it's seen by a &lt;2k user, they can just point it out in [the chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or as a moderator flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, it's just so much of an edge case that it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Asking SE for site-specific alterations to the core Q&amp;A engine is possible but there needs to be a very compelling reason behind it; this doesn't make the bar by any stretch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9689" RevisionGUID="60396645-199f-44ab-af1a-135caacd8da3" CreationDate="2017-03-03T07:21:56.803" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is a known 'issue'. The 6-character limit is inherited from SE-wide policy, and it was primarily designed for sites with overwhelmingly text-driven content where it is very rare (though still possible) for a two-character edit to really make a crucial difference in the meaning of a post. The presence of MathJax does change the equation (ho, ho, ho) a bit, making it more likely that a post will require very punctual but still crucial intervention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That edit still bumps up the post on the front page and other activity-driven listings, so it still degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of the site.&#xD;&#xA; - The six-character limit goes away at 2k with the ability to edit posts without going through peer review, and there is a healthy population of 2k+ edit-active users on the site.&#xD;&#xA; - It is really rare (though it does happen) that a post crucially needs a 2-character edit but has absolutely nothing else, at all, that can be fixed.&#xD;&#xA; - In the rare case that this happens and it's seen by a &lt;2k user, they can just point it out in [the chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, it's just so much of an edge case that it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Asking SE for site-specific alterations to the core Q&amp;A engine is possible but there needs to be a very compelling reason behind it; this doesn't make the bar by any stretch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9690" RevisionGUID="eac69918-6417-4dd5-be40-d237ccd07947" CreationDate="2017-03-04T11:56:03.823" UserId="50583" Text="**Disclaimer**: I have written an answer to the question discussed here, so one might consider my opinion in this matter biased. I did not vote on the closure of the question in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question *should have* the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag, but should not be closed. Clearly, this is essentially an exercise in computing the behaviour of a specific circuit in a specific situation, and the question asks to understand a specific step in the derivation, clearly not because it is interested in the end result since the *end result is already known*. So &quot;primarily for educational value&quot; applies as well as being about a specific exercise, and therefore I think the tag should be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't think it should be closed - it shows some effort to work through the problem (the equation it asks about in the end was derived by that effort in the first place) and the question of why the voltage is computed in this way *is* conceptual. There is no straightforward &quot;plug-and-chug&quot; derivation that yields eq. ($\star$), it must be arrived at mainly by physical reasoning about the circuit, not computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As supporting evidence that this is not (or should not be) off-topic as homework-like, consider the [3:0 Leave Open review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/164914) this question received in the queue. Homework-like questions that are *clearly* off-topic usuaslly receive quick and almost always unanimous close reviews, so this at least shows it is not *clearly* off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9691" RevisionGUID="b366e9b8-f72d-4e54-9219-e91ff281c3ba" CreationDate="2017-03-04T21:28:58.100" UserId="1345" Text="I trust the tastes of the community generally, so I would like to nominate the most upvoted answers from the most [upvoted questions][1], starting with [Cooling Cup of Coffee with Spoon][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then it seems to make the whole point of the book pointless if anyone can access what's already conveniently here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5510#5510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="6e49dff6-c829-4f52-837a-8a79b9c92ec9" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:19:19.317" UserId="96435" Text="It would be very nice if this editor had a diagram drawer, don't yall think? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like with easy drag-and-drop tools to place boxes and vectors for free-body diagrams, springs, circuit components, etc. etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="6e49dff6-c829-4f52-837a-8a79b9c92ec9" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:19:19.317" UserId="96435" Text="Diagram Drawing Tool in Editor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="6e49dff6-c829-4f52-837a-8a79b9c92ec9" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:19:19.317" UserId="96435" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9694" RevisionGUID="00955897-92a9-4a43-a4b0-4497f5fc5afa" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:35:14.703" UserId="130714" Text="Unanswered question have answers in physics.se . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So stop trolling us and remove this bug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hld6W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9694" RevisionGUID="00955897-92a9-4a43-a4b0-4497f5fc5afa" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:35:14.703" UserId="130714" Text="Unanswered question tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9694" RevisionGUID="00955897-92a9-4a43-a4b0-4497f5fc5afa" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:35:14.703" UserId="130714" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9694" RevisionGUID="bdc9ba45-2261-42e0-be40-cc41d5dbfc0b" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:41:58.117" UserId="130714" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Unanswered question have answers in physics.se . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a bug or unaccepted answers also show up in this section?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hld6W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25202" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="03fad2a2-e360-4626-a60b-a18b84fd21aa" CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:28:14.583" UserId="520" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8960],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25203" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="143f493b-f83e-409b-8636-1fec4729c960" CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:30:35.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9695" RevisionGUID="024ae5a2-03f7-4aa3-8fe7-0d01a68efa1c" CreationDate="2017-03-05T20:50:39.347" UserId="8563" Text="From [Why does the “Unanswered Questions” tab show questions that have answers?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18870/why-does-the-unanswered-questions-tab-show-questions-that-have-answers) at Meta Stack Exchange,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The `Unanswered Questions` tab [shows questions](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/) that have no answers with a positive score nor an accepted answer. (That includes questions with no answers at all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentional, and it reflects the fact that just because someone has added content through the `answer` field it doesn't mean that the question has actually been answered. The Unanswered Questions tab is meant to get you to questions that have not been sufficiently addressed, and the criterion as posed does as good a job as any number-crunching machine algorithm to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading, see [OK, Now Define “Answered&quot;](https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/09/30/ok-now-define-answered/) on the Stack Overflow blog, back from 2008." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="368ea6aa-8b0d-4d39-a76d-dfdd17ab3988" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:07:00.490" UserId="8563" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](http://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25206" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9694" RevisionGUID="a801a4f3-4de1-4f17-9d72-7b3ec74fa694" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:31:10.090" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9696" RevisionGUID="f2167186-6c4b-4e57-8810-7af81b58a234" CreationDate="2017-03-07T03:49:35.973" UserId="145764" Text="actually if u r really interested in giving out a really quality book how about trying like this&#xA;for one question we can find so many different answers in stack exchange site and also in google we can get some info&#xA;along with that we have many questions which relate very closely to one questions in addition to be having many answers and moreover many links regarding the related stuff are available &#xA;from those links we can get some info &#xA;so how about putting all this info together?&#xA;i know it takes a lot paper work and time and all&#xA;but what i think is if u want to go for something,  it would be always better to go for the best&#xA;so what do u think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="a385e138-932e-4ca1-82f2-92ce56ba96c0" CreationDate="2017-03-08T13:37:47.047" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="I have 2 ques with one upvote, 3 ques with 2 upvotes and other one with 2 downvotes. Will i get banned if a question i post next is of low quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. : I got banned yesterday but the ban was lifted after my 2 ques got an upvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="a385e138-932e-4ca1-82f2-92ce56ba96c0" CreationDate="2017-03-08T13:37:47.047" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="Will i still get banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="a385e138-932e-4ca1-82f2-92ce56ba96c0" CreationDate="2017-03-08T13:37:47.047" UserDisplayName="user114592" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9699" RevisionGUID="a4534f6e-e51e-4f04-99bf-2b8c22878021" CreationDate="2017-03-08T14:49:16.640" UserId="50583" Text="There are different restrictions that may be imposed upon you, partly based on the performance of your previous posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **General rate limiting:** Users below 125 reputation can often only ask one question every 40 minutes network-wide, cf. [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164900/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Low-quality rate limiting:** If your questions or answers are poorly received, a [rolling rate limit](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243460/263383) ranging anywhere from 1 to 7 days may be imposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Anti-recidivism rate limiting:** If you deleted your account and created a new one, you may find yourself only being able to post a single question per week, cf. [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234610/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Comprehensive question ban**: This is the most severe automatic restriction, [recently enabled on all sites](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/263383). If you have posted a significant amount of poorly received posts, the system will ban you *permanently* from posting until these are improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can neither tell you whether you will be restricted from posting if your next contribution will be poorly received nor for how long because the algorithms that determine this are *intentionally* not public to avoid malicious users gaming them. However, the system will usually *warn* you that your last posts were poorly received before imposing a rate limit, and the permanent ban will only kick in after several such warnings and increasingly severe rate limits. If you follow the guidelines you are shown when a rate limit is imposed (shown by Shog9 in [this answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/9647/50583)), you should not be in danger of getting to that point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25217" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9663" RevisionGUID="fd7ef1cf-d3c6-468d-b66f-f8459c5c54f9" CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:11:32.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/839493795175616512" />
  <row Id="25218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="aa1ca149-1429-4128-a2ec-e6e88f9d34ec" CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:34:01.873" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="fa9bc84a-2fb0-4ec2-ade1-a52e2f6aeace" CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:35:13.073" UserId="84967" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have 2 questions with one upvote, 3 ques with 2 upvotes and other one with 2 downvotes. Will I get banned if a question I post next is of low quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I got banned yesterday but the ban was lifted after my 2 questions got an upvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25220" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="fa9bc84a-2fb0-4ec2-ade1-a52e2f6aeace" CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:35:13.073" UserId="84967" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Will I still get banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25221" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="fa9bc84a-2fb0-4ec2-ade1-a52e2f6aeace" CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:35:13.073" UserId="84967" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|suspensions|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="fd583f8c-671f-4464-8808-fd3641ba66e6" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:11:09.750" UserId="105751" Text="I want to ask a question along the lines of &quot;What would we see if there are four accessible spatial dimensions, and we are 'lifted up' then rotated in the fourth axis?&quot; **It will be hard to explain/assess this question without details, so please be patient:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Flatland][1], there exist fictional flat creatures who only know 2 spatial dimensions, or only 2 perpendicular spatial axes. In the 3-dimensional world, we can lift a Flatlander up from its flat habitat, and rotate it so as to make it no longer parallel to the plane of its original residence, this will allow the Flatlander to see the insides of its fellow flat creatures. (See picture below:)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I want to ask is: what would a human see if it is lifted up and rotated like that by a four dimension being in four dimensional space? In particular, how should the vision of such an individual be **depicted**? As in, should the person see the interior of other people's internal organs? Would the effect be as though the flesh on the observed be stripped off? What about hallways and solid geometric shapes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking the meta question to find out if such a question belong to the domain of physics S.E., or maybe visual design would be a better place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WG4sZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="fd583f8c-671f-4464-8808-fd3641ba66e6" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:11:09.750" UserId="105751" Text="Does questions pertaining the depiction of dimensionally abnormal space belong here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="fd583f8c-671f-4464-8808-fd3641ba66e6" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:11:09.750" UserId="105751" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9701" RevisionGUID="a85152bb-ee8d-4ef2-b396-bc7da9cf5d1c" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:48:42.040" UserId="44126" Text="My answer to these sorts of questions is generally &quot;just ask --- don't ask permission to ask.&quot;  If it's off-topic, it'll get closed, and there won't really be any hard feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said: seeing as how we don't have any evidence that our three-dimensional space is any sort of surface in a four-dimensional bulk (with thoughtful meditations on spacetime and brane theories omitted here), this particular question might be as happy or happier on [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="53753f5b-80f9-4b7a-9691-867263ebddd8" CreationDate="2017-03-10T04:48:55.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/840061885789675520" />
  <row Id="25227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9702" RevisionGUID="ea2582ec-b5e8-44cf-843b-8d5a0e8f4aaf" CreationDate="2017-03-11T06:22:56.710" UserId="46708" Text="[There](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/317780/what-is-the-difference-between-b-and-h-fields?noredirect=1#comment713842_317780) was a small dispute about the downvote of newcomers with less than 110 point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...the SE is supported by only a view enthusiasts. And they are doing this very well. But how to grow up more active people without giving them a chance to adopt to SE? It's really necessary to downvote somebody with less than 100 points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AccidentalFourierTransform thinks&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...of course I agree... The question is certainly good and there is no reason to downvote it. It is just a duplicate, but its a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Countto10 brightens the situation 	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... but it is normal practice either to include some reference you read, but could not follow, or to give your own idea of what the problem involves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not support newcomers and give them a chance to grow up? Why not establish a netquette about this or better not do give the possibility to downvote under zero? Ok, may be it should be possible if someone upvoted the question to downvote it to zero again, but I think this is contraproductive too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9702" RevisionGUID="ea2582ec-b5e8-44cf-843b-8d5a0e8f4aaf" CreationDate="2017-03-11T06:22:56.710" UserId="46708" Text="Downvote of newcomers with less than 100 points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9702" RevisionGUID="ea2582ec-b5e8-44cf-843b-8d5a0e8f4aaf" CreationDate="2017-03-11T06:22:56.710" UserId="46708" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9702" RevisionGUID="dea00212-a0c0-40d8-96f9-0a2b06946a3a" CreationDate="2017-03-11T06:30:46.750" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="483f7c86-9af3-4c2d-9bcd-54bbe7cf014d" CreationDate="2017-03-11T07:57:11.543" UserId="1325" Text="The question linked has been closed as a duplicate and was presumably downvoted because it was a duplicate. This has been discussed before in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7665/if-a-question-is-duplicate-should-it-be-downvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the broader question of downvoting new members, the voting on a question should be based on the question and only on the question. A bad question posted by a newcomer is still a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I do think we are a bit eager to downvote questions. Downvoting bad answers is very important because a wrong or misleading answer has no place on this site, but I consider downvoting questions to be less critical. Beginners to physics sometimes have problems writing a question clearly because they don't understand the terminology we use, and in this case I think we should be sympathetic. Where questions are lazy or a thinly disguised excuse for a polemic I feel less charitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="9fc9c805-6067-4d01-a9bf-d3c8d6816c80" CreationDate="2017-03-12T03:57:20.533" UserId="75725" Text="My post here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Book recommendation: [Book on condensed matter physics focusing on numerical method in quantum system \[duplicate\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I further improve my post so that it is not a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/318141/book-recommendation-book-on-condensed-matter-physics-focusing-on-numerical-meth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="9fc9c805-6067-4d01-a9bf-d3c8d6816c80" CreationDate="2017-03-12T03:57:20.533" UserId="75725" Text="How can I improve my post here so that it is not a duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="9fc9c805-6067-4d01-a9bf-d3c8d6816c80" CreationDate="2017-03-12T03:57:20.533" UserId="75725" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9705" RevisionGUID="668b56ec-99b7-41b5-9b34-3d94832f598e" CreationDate="2017-03-12T07:36:24.640" UserId="124" Text="Thanks for asking. But in this case, I don't believe there is any way to change your question such that it is not a duplicate, without making it an entirely different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations are treated somewhat specially, and one of the ways that they are treated specially is that the rules for what constitutes a duplicate are broader than normal questions. In particular, a recommendation question which shares its general topic and general level with another one is considered a duplicate. In your case, your question's general topic is condensed matter physics and its level is what we might call intermediate. There is already a recommendation question seeking intermediate-level condensed matter books. Yours is therefore a duplicate of that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you could do is ask the actual conceptual question you would hope to answer by reading the books. That would presumably be a fine question for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="77dad46e-c2b7-48ff-9c1d-990c131e2575" CreationDate="2017-03-12T09:15:37.360" UserId="57983" Comment="Updated question" Text="According to [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/57983/blaze) I have 17/5 for the Curious badge. So I have effectively 'earned' this badge more than 3 times over. So why haven't I received it yet? I have maintained a positive question record so what do I have to do to get this elusive badge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="be4fc23d-c024-4dfd-abae-898d7d103ace" CreationDate="2017-03-12T20:15:29.990" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="be4fc23d-c024-4dfd-abae-898d7d103ace" CreationDate="2017-03-12T20:15:29.990" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="My post here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Book recommendation: [Book on condensed matter physics focusing on numerical method in quantum system \[duplicate\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I further improve my post so that it is not a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/318141/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9706" RevisionGUID="8a025d6b-a499-4e04-a3f1-0d9729fb29d1" CreationDate="2017-03-15T11:03:31.453" UserId="130713" Text="I always get on physics.se in my free time. I've been doing this for around 2 years now. But I feel like, over the recent weeks, the site has slowed down dramatically. There are fewer people answering questions AND most importantly, most a lot of the questions are duplicates. Is it just me or are we running out of questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9706" RevisionGUID="8a025d6b-a499-4e04-a3f1-0d9729fb29d1" CreationDate="2017-03-15T11:03:31.453" UserId="130713" Text="Is Physics Stack Exchange even as active as before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9706" RevisionGUID="8a025d6b-a499-4e04-a3f1-0d9729fb29d1" CreationDate="2017-03-15T11:03:31.453" UserId="130713" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="30a537d1-7f93-49f0-9c6a-9450e64da3cb" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:06:16.123" UserId="94482" Text="If someone has suggestions for Physics Stack Exchange website's UI where/how or to whom he should make his suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="30a537d1-7f93-49f0-9c6a-9450e64da3cb" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:06:16.123" UserId="94482" Text="Physics Stack Exchange website's User Interface" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="30a537d1-7f93-49f0-9c6a-9450e64da3cb" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:06:16.123" UserId="94482" Text="|support|feature-request|user-interface|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9706" RevisionGUID="2a1385a7-e427-4732-a0b1-0e04d1d5debd" CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:22:28.017" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9708" RevisionGUID="61ff9bbd-dae9-4040-a176-5054897b7caa" CreationDate="2017-03-15T15:46:47.887" UserId="8563" Text="You can always ask it here, but for many feature requests the best place is [**Meta Stack Exchange**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). Physics Stack Exchange is part of a [large family of sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) which share the same core engine; as a pretty strong rule of thumb, if your question would be as applicable here as in, say, [Gardening &amp; Landscaping Stack Exchange](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/), then the place to ask is the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For smallish feature requests, like yours,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd like to suggest that for example a little icon be added next to the caption of some of the most frequently used tags (such as: homeworks, Quantum, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this can sometimes be implemented directly as a [userscript](https://github.com/OpenUserJs/OpenUserJS.org/wiki/Userscript-beginners-HOWTO), and they can eventually make it into SOUP (the [Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup)) if enough people use them. If you're enough of a coder, you can write such a userscript yourself; if not, you can e.g. ask for the feature on the mother meta and mention that you're open to using a userscript for it, in essence soliciting folks to write one for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, it requires a bit more finesse, because you want to modify the site in response to the details of the user's history. In this regard, if it is doable via the [Stack Exchange API](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs), i.e. if the API can provide the information you need, then yes, a userscript can do it; this does seem to be the case with [the tags you've been active in](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/me-tags#order=desc&amp;sort=popular&amp;filter=default&amp;site=physics&amp;run=true), as well as the [top answer tags](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/top-answer-tags-on-users) and [top question tags](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/top-question-tags-on-users) for a user. So happy coding ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9709" RevisionGUID="0e62aced-02f9-4a64-b4cc-1006e0b74cc6" CreationDate="2017-03-15T16:53:50.840" UserId="8563" Text="Much of the data is public, over at [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](https://data.stackexchange.com/), so you can go and do some number-crunching yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the data is available only to mods, and some is available to &gt;25k rep users, and it shows no such decline. Over the period since January 2015, we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qEuiA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xeyEq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eWGOg.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some seasonal variations (such as the obvious dips over the Christmas holidays, and some slower traffic over the summer) and a slow but steady growth. Now, of course, this is an incomplete picture, but the effects you mention should be measurable via the data explorer, so if they're there, you can go and do the number-crunching and convince us that indeed there are some worrisome metrics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(So much, of course, for the measurable stuff. The intangibles are another matter.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25248" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="7bf1dfbf-c5d3-4a7b-940c-31a1e856ac51" CreationDate="2017-03-15T17:10:03.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/842060335611826177" />
  <row Id="25249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="a2de1ec8-4f69-4db2-95dc-aab77cc93175" CreationDate="2017-03-15T20:56:44.707" UserDisplayName="user78217" Text="All possible sites given by this [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-anather-internet-site-wh) are very disappointing in dealing with question &amp; answer and the Physics.SE is by far the best (with respect to design and with respect to active users ) so I should ask two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why there is such a rigorous policy about homework questions and way this type of questions cannot live among other conceptual and more advanced questions? &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Usually, reeding the discussions here we get that more advanced resarches dont want people to ask 'bad' questions, but the edit possibility shouldn't be used to teach how to ask a good question?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why exactly homework-like questions should be deleted? This types of questions are very instructive to high-level reserche and they are the basis of our teaching standard methods in the world. Even graduate studants have tests and questions-type approachs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I'm thinkg if it is not possible to have a less-rigorous policy on the homework-questions, even destroing the tag and leaving this type of questions on site for (i) future studants (ii) future doubts on the same questions. Creating a tag for 'do this is correct' it is also important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to see that we should delete duplicate questions and questions that do not show effort on it and for homework question keep presenting just hints and not the full answer but, the way this site is, I think users deleting questions on physics of new users with such a rigorous approch is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think changing the policy would bring more people to study physics by their own and more advanced research level professionals in orther to answer questions on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="a2de1ec8-4f69-4db2-95dc-aab77cc93175" CreationDate="2017-03-15T20:56:44.707" UserDisplayName="user78217" Text="Should we change policy of physics.SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="a2de1ec8-4f69-4db2-95dc-aab77cc93175" CreationDate="2017-03-15T20:56:44.707" UserDisplayName="user78217" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="c3df00e2-46f9-453e-8988-098fe66368d2" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:02:07.223" UserDisplayName="user78217" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="All possible sites given by this [answer](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-anather-internet-site-wh) are very disappointing in dealing with question &amp; answer and the Physics.SE is by far the best (with respect to design and with respect to active users ) so I should ask two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why there is such a rigorous policy about homework questions and way this type of questions cannot live among other conceptual and more advanced questions? &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Usually, reading the discussions here we get that more advanced researches don't want people to ask 'bad' questions, but the edit possibility shouldn't be used to teach how to ask a good question?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why exactly homework-like questions should be deleted? This types of questions are very instructive to high-level research and they are the basis of our teaching standard methods in the world. Even graduate students have tests and questions-type approach's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I'm thinking if it is not possible to have a less-rigorous policy on the homework-questions, even destroying the tag and leaving this type of questions on site for (i) future students (ii) future doubts on the same questions. Creating a tag for 'do this is correct' it is also important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to see that we should delete duplicate questions and questions that do not show effort on it and for homework question keep presenting just hints and not the full answer but, the way this site is, I think users deleting questions on physics of new users with such a rigorous approach is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think changing the policy would bring more people to study physics by their own and more advanced research level professionals in order to answer questions on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25253" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="c450dc3e-5d39-468e-b705-74a1a97755dd" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:15:18.350" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Should we change homework policy of physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9711" RevisionGUID="5681e663-ba8d-44e4-9f9d-e805e34e1414" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:42:28.760" UserId="84967" Text="Some short comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You seem to like Physics.SE better than other sites. Have you thought that, perhaps, this site is better *because* of the strict policies? Have you thought of the possibility that, by relaxing the homework policy, most active users would leave?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You want to eliminate the `homework-and-exercises` tag, as if this tag was something bad - something you don't want your posts to be tagger with. Why? This tag is not supposed to highlight bad/unwanted posts, but to gather together all posts that are about, well, homework and exercises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Do you have any quantitative data to support your claim that closing homework questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9711" RevisionGUID="f812b6bb-dd70-46fa-8f76-8c6d14a3a04f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T22:15:39.260" UserId="84967" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Some short comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You seem to like Physics.SE better than other sites. Have you thought that, perhaps, this site is better *because* of the strict policies? Have you pondered over the possibility that, by relaxing the homework policy, most active users would leave?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You want to eliminate the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag, as if this tag was something bad - something you don't want your posts to be tagger with. Why? This tag is not supposed to highlight bad/unwanted posts, but to gather together all posts that are about, well, homework and exercises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Do you have any quantitative data to support your claim that closing homework questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9712" RevisionGUID="e8eb2d98-7529-4787-b4c3-8ecc288f6544" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:42:16.630" UserId="121464" Text="For the record, I do agree with some of what you say - some questions are overly-enthusiastically closed as homework questions just because they have some math in them (or at least, I've seen it happen). I don't think the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is very useful, either. I also find the homework policy a bit confusing in scope, and I hope that the endeavors to find a better structure for the policy soon come to fruition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I think AccidentalFourierTransform is right - the strict moderation and the focus on intuitive questions rather than problems is what makes this site so good. I don't think the lack of homework questions is killing the site - in fact, I think this site is thriving. Not only that, but I think allowing homework questions *would* kill the site. I certainly wouldn't be too happy if the five newest questions were all &quot;gimme teh answer&quot; just like Stack Overflow users wouldn't be happy if their newest questions were all &quot;gimme teh codez&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: the homework policy needs some work, yes. But overall, the idea behind it, of blocking the low quality questions that no expert wants to answer, is an excellent idea indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9713" RevisionGUID="9d255054-95ad-47d4-b445-fa3528730a05" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:50:38.307" UserId="36194" Text="I support the current homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;I &quot;discovered&quot; this site because some of my students has posted here a question I assigned in class.  I was *not* happy to discover this but  enchanted to see that the community ignored the question; it was eventually deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not impossible to ask &quot;good&quot; homework-type questions and I've answered a good number myself. In the good examples, the OP makes some incorrect assumptions or makes some technical error, and it is extremely constructive to provide corrections or hints without necessarily giving the whole cake away.  This is what good instructors do anyways when students come to their office to ask questions, and I'm fine with the &quot;show me your work and I'll help you untie some of the knots&quot; approach to answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, SE-Physics could easily become overwhelmed with people simply &quot;farming out&quot; their assignments without discrimination.  There is no value in this for anyone, except the cheaters who get their work done by someone else.  Professionally, I refuse to answer questions from students unless they come prepared to show some work.  This seems to be the accepted *modus operandi* here, and I salute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can higher-level questions coexists with &quot;homework-style questions&quot;? To some degree they do already, and personally I find that overall the balance to be ok.  The higher-level questions for me are often starting points for literature searches and fresh perspectives.  The questions linked and related to individual postings are often enough so that, with very few clicks, I end up getting the inspiration I was looking for.  If the balance is skewed towards too many homework questions, then it becomes a waste of time to search for useful information.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9713" RevisionGUID="a6100d29-6c98-41b5-bff0-c9e01ea76f5e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T04:16:46.007" UserId="36194" Comment="edited body" Text="I support the current homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;I &quot;discovered&quot; this site because some of my students had posted here a question I assigned in class.  I was *not* happy to discover this but  enchanted to see the community ignored the question; it was eventually deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not impossible to ask &quot;good&quot; homework-type questions and I've answered a good number myself. In the good examples, the OP makes some incorrect assumptions or makes some technical error, and it is extremely constructive to provide corrections or hints without necessarily giving the whole cake away.  This is what good instructors do anyways when students come to their office to ask questions, and I'm fine with the &quot;show me your work and I'll help you untie some of the knots&quot; approach to answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, SE-Physics could easily become overwhelmed with people simply &quot;farming out&quot; their assignments without discrimination.  There is no value in this for anyone, except the cheaters who get their work done by someone else.  Professionally, I refuse to answer questions from students unless they come prepared to show some work.  This seems to be the accepted *modus operandi* here, and I salute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can higher-level questions coexist with &quot;homework-style questions&quot;? To some degree they do already, and personally I find that overall the balance to be ok.  The higher-level questions for me are often starting points for literature searches and fresh perspectives.  The questions linked and related to individual postings are often enough so that, with very few clicks, I end up getting the inspiration I was looking for.  If the balance is skewed towards too many homework questions, then it becomes a waste of time to search for useful information.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="7d46e3a7-c48f-4eeb-95a2-934d5d68d033" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:32:26.950" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.webapps.stackexchange.com/ with https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;##A bit on those contests&#xD;&#xA;Those guys running the TOTW contests are SE Inc employees, part of the group known as CHAOS. These guys are assigned some sites and they help promote them (only a few sites have a CHAOS member assigned).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Prizes?&#xD;&#xA; Though cash prizes aren't a good idea, sometimes SE swag is a great way to motivate people to participate in contests. For example, see [the webapps second anniversary contest][1]. But, we may want to hold off on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Contest for us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm, I really like the idea. And I'd be willing to help organize it. BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We need to have a sizeable portion of the community willing to participate in this.** To that end, we'll probably have to gauge the comminity's response to this post. Most of our community isn't that active on meta, so getting such things started may take time..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, sites can't award unique badges :/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1250/webapps-second-anniversary-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="c955ccd1-7ac4-4b17-a751-399d8445227b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:32:26.950" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.webapps.stackexchange.com/ with https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To address your title: [downvoters don't owe you an explanation](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135/280545), which is [an intentional decision](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/250177/1650379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your concern that people are downvoting both of your questions: I think that's appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Please [don't re-post a question that wasn't well-received](https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4068).  Instead follow [this advice](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7054/280545) to improve and promote the *original* question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You can &quot;bump&quot; your question by editing the question to **provide status and progress updates resulting from your own continued efforts to answer the question yourself**. I usually do that unless I really hit a dead end with no further clues to follow. Some times I eventually bring about enough understanding to realise the answer, and thus post a resolution to my own problem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you have at least **75** rep points, you can [offer a **bounty**][1], promising to give some of your points to the person who correctly answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Upvote** the original question - every upvote helps increase its profile on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Use the **share** button beneath the original question to advertise it to your networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/privileges/set-bounties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these bits of advice I might add:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Ask for guidance about the questions on Meta (hello!) or in the [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), and take any advice you get there to heart for present and future questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth I have closed your second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak to the physics content of your question, which is outside of my specialty, but I personally think it looks interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="8468e956-c3d1-4aa6-841d-ee6379773bb2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:43:52.873" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll start by saying that I really despise encouraging participation in things by awarding prizes, especially money. That to me is over the top, especially for things that are supposed to be community driven like this site. I was poking around several different meta's on the sites where I typically lurk and some of the smaller ones ran Topic of the Week contests to drive up participation and/or expand the scope of the site by encouraging questions on less-frequently used tags ([UX][1], [SciFi][2], [Cooking][3]). The one on [Judiasm][4] works without any prizes at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly am not advocating prize money, I think that's a terrible idea. And this site doesn't need it really. But would it be something worth doing/entertaining to have a Topic of the [time period] type of recurring event? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I would say to a prize would be recognizing the questions and answers under the topic that got the highest votes during the time period -- the high voting gives rep points which is essentially the only reward system in place on the site. Or if individual sites can award unique badges, then a badge could be given for best answer/question under a specific topic contest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.ux.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/topic-of-the-week-contest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1138/topic-of-the-week-contest-updated-august-29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/the-end-of-a-contest-and-beginning-of-something-else&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1215/weekly-topic-challenge-5772-41-week-of-pinchas-5772-rashi?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="08d7d7a3-fe99-4126-8b25-14ff7343d268" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:43:52.873" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="ee4be313-e25c-45ca-9244-5db8a435fbd1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:43:52.873" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag you are proposing is what is known as a [meta tag](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/). These are in general discouraged, though if there are good reasons for making one then they can fulfil useful and specific functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues to keep in mind are well described in [this meta.cooking.se post](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/434/please-zap-the-meta-tags-and-dependent-tags):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tags of this sort generally end up being hard to maintain, as people use them in many unexpected ways which are not really their original intent. We have three such tags, [tag:homework], [tag:resource-recommendations], and [tag:specific-reference]; they all perform specific functions and they all require maintenance. Adding a new one is doable (though it adds to the moderator load) but it does need to be worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for a tag of this sort, and particularly if you expect users to behave differently when it's present, it needs to be something immediately recognizable by essentially all of the site's audience, or it will inevitably get misused. I have to say that it's not the case for Kapitza - I hadn't heard the name until this thread - and I don't think there's any other similar alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="a9252ebd-84ba-44f6-94d0-91278c1e6d6c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:03.183" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/ with https://photo.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I opened [a question on this topic on meta.photography.se][1] so that the proposed recipients can weight in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://photo.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2293/7441" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="45754b36-bf29-4ac3-a5b7-6024ca0d0cf6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:09.273" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The original idea comes form CrossValidated (see [here](https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/674/first-cross-validated-journal-club) and [here](https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/685/second-cross-validated-journal-club)); basically, each month users propose and select in voting one not too specific, yet intriguing or simply interesting OpenAcess paper that is later discussed during a special chat session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think we should try to implement it on Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="42639a06-34a2-41ea-95c1-449d4fd79495" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:09.273" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The mission of Stack Exchange is to make the internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. The Stack Exchange Fellowship Program aims to support students conducting research in subjects related to our academic Q&amp;A sites in order to (a) increase the quality of information in a particular subject and (b) facilitate the exchange of information between experts in the field. Individual awards range from 250 to 1000 dollars (USD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants should be advanced undergraduate, graduate students or professionals pursuing research related to one the following Stack Exchange sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [English][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Linguistics][2]&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Statistics][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Physics][4]  &#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis starting immediately. For more details and to apply, check out the [application][6]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are also accepting volunteers from the community to help review applications. Volunteers should have some level of expertise in the subject area (professors and those who have or are pursuing advanced degrees are ideal candidates). Following the first wave of submissions, those selected to be Stack Exchange Fellows will be asked to review 3 to 4 new applications. To facilitate the review process, reviewers will rate applications on several scales instead of making judgments on funding. You can find the Reviewer Form [here][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers and successful candidates are encouraged to customize the &quot;about me&quot; section of the user profile by including information on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Area of expertise and current occupation &#xD;&#xA; 2. Key academic goals/milestones&#xD;&#xA; 3. Role in the Fellowship program (applicant, reviewer, fellow, both)&#xD;&#xA; 4. SE grant project, if applicable &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions regarding the Fellowship Program, or would like more information about applying or becoming a reviewer, please email *academics@stackexchange.com*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited: Applications accepted on a rolling basis until December 31, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/q/2077/13231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/202/344&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/q/988/6064&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/SE%20Fellowship%20Application.docx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/Reviewer%20Sheet.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="a05068da-fd8d-41ca-98f9-7b3c494c7d3d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:09.273" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This idea is not totally original: there was at least an attempt at a journal club in chat [in 2011][1]. That, in turn, was inspired by mbq's (and [Cross Validated][2]) idea, which seems to have happened at least twice. We already have users do this, so I'm really just suggesting that we more actively encourage this. So here's some ideas I have. Feel free to add ideas for the process, suggest ideas for papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly) graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses the paper in some detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why would we want to do this?&#xD;&#xA;As several people have noted, and Manishearth has [summarized][3], we've been having some difficulty recently with long-term, highly-respected users leaving or cutting back their involvement. We are also seeing a lot of homework questions that are either too basic for the regular users' tastes, or simply don't show any work at all. I hope that this idea will help fix both of those. First, by providing more interesting questions of a higher technical level, I hope that we can both retain our current users' interest and make the site more inviting for professional physicists who aren't already here. Second, this will help populate the front page with questions that aren't homework, which should help discourage students from asking for help on their homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##So how would that work here?&#xD;&#xA;Someone finds a research paper they think is interesting. They develop a question about that paper, and post it to the main site. For a theory paper, this might be about a missing step in a derivation. For an experimental paper, this might be about the experimental setup. For a computational paper, this might be about the approximations underlying the computational model. **Regardless of the kind of paper, the question should otherwise be a valid, on-topic question for Physics.SE.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, we will also invite suggestions for papers. People can add papers to this question as Answers, and others can vote those papers up or down. Other users can then use those votes as a gauge of how interested people will be to see a question about a particular paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, there will be no restriction on the number of questions that can be asked about a particular paper. After all, any good physics paper *should* invite several questions. Some questions will be distinct enough that they can be asked in parallel, while other questions will be generated from the answer to a previous question. We may even want to suggest a time-period (say a week) where people try to focus on one particular paper, and dissect it with many questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of papers should I be looking for?&#xD;&#xA;Any paper, past or present, that is within the scope of the site. They can be historical, current, in your sub-discipline, something you need for your research, something only of passing interest to you, whatever. The only real limitation is that it should be published in a real journal or posted on a real pre-print server. This journal club will not be a place to ask for feedback on a manuscript you are working on, and it really won't be appropriate for discussing some crank's magnum opus about the earth sitting on top of [an infinite tower of turtles][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I worry about Open Access?&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. Not everyone here has access to many journals, so if you ask about a non-OA paper, you are excluding those who can't get a copy of that paper. That will presumably lower the quality of the response you get. On the other hand, some of the more prestigious journals *hate* Open Access, and many sub-disciplines of physics just haven't picked up on OA yet. So there are many papers that will produces good questions that just aren't OA papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, feel free to base your voting and preference on the accessibility of a paper, but don't feel obligated to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I tag such questions as journal-club, or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;**NO**. Tag these questions as you normally would. We will compile a list of these questions here so people can find them easily. But creating a new tag for this project isn't useful; it would be a meta-tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Ok. This sounds great. What can I do to help?&#xD;&#xA;Suggest papers here as answers. Vote on papers that you like. If you want to skip the whole suggestion-vote-ask process, just go ahead and ask a question about your paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##This sound okay, but it would be even better if you did...&#xD;&#xA;If you have suggestions for improvements, please feel free to add them, either as an answer/comment to this question, or by editing this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/674/first-cross-validated-journal-club&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="405fb6ca-22e7-4e55-bdd9-fb8614473101" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:09.273" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It would be nice to be able to make matrices with column and row names using &lt;code&gt;\bordermatrix{}&lt;/code&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Producing something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![bordermatrix][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has also been requested on [Cross Validated meta][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it hasn't been added yet I think. Any tips for making this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kU3hk.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/809/bordermatrix-in-mathjax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="b8672270-9ce0-44ee-932d-03ed1b25bd6f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Note that the site's current policy on homework questions is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will always have the current version of the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many communities must deal with this question sooner or later, might as well get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How should we deal with homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that the Mathematics.StackExchange site is handling things well. Here are some links to their deliberations on these matters. As a frequent user of that site, I must say that we have been fairly successful of handling these questions well: both supportive, but not too helpful to be destructive to the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to deal with HW questions.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More policy about HW questions.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to not give complete solutions.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Homework tags.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update July 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE votes on homework tag.](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/14981/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Result of voting.](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/16425/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/106/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/410/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/415/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/621/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="a6290370-daf6-4180-942d-ba92fac77ae5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="e8d31839-0eb6-452d-8c42-e5aa31ca8662" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="56fc6c3d-6137-49a4-a68e-2446216f58d0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't think so. The people at math.SE did come up with [something](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1773/do-we-have-an-equation-editing-howto) but it's not really a guide, just a pointer to some resources. I think if we developed a short (but not as short as the built-in help) LaTeX guide here, it would make a great [meta-tag:faq] question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="63fc3b02-44cd-47ca-94e9-cc53a62e2b11" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The folks over at Math.SE have put together a [brief summary of what you can do with MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the only thing left out for people completely new to TeX-style markup is *emphasizing* that all math is done in &quot;math mode&quot; delimited by one or two dollar signs. (Actually, I suppose `\begin{} ... \end{}` environments are recognized too, but details...) Aside from that and a somewhat dense layout, I think it suffices for showing the basics. Plus, it's already on the SE network, so the MathJax implementation is (presumably) the same as ours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="e757722f-2202-419b-bc58-58199d846faa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Expanding on Dilaton's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site (and most other stackexchange sites where such is appropriate) use the exact same implementation of [MathJax][1] for Latex markup. Basically, just enclose tex within `$` (inline) or `$$` (set apart equations). Most basic commands work, like `\frac` and `\sin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also begin some Latex environments without dollar signs. For example `\begin{align}...\end{align}` is a valid construct that will have its contents parsed by the tex parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to use Latex itself, independent of this site, well that is a large enough topic to have [its own stackexchange site][2]. For basic stuff to get started, try [this other FAQ topic][3]. For site-specific abilities, I can think of no better guide than what they have over at math.SE, found [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can always click the `Edit` button on any post to see how it was written. You are not committed to making any edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mathjax.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/804/is-there-a-standard-place-to-point-people-to-learn-how-to-typeset-their-equation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="878afd93-667d-4ea9-b25d-740546de1b65" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have asked a corresponding [question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/183321/184300) on MSO if the frontpage presented to anonymous or not logged in users could be made configurable, in order to be able to exchange tags and questions in the corresponding lists. Any support for this feature request on MSO would be highly welcome and urgently needed I think :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="1daff527-ac19-4818-b12d-cd96e21b85d2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="f6809eff-54d3-4e97-b71a-bbf9f4d9e510" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it ok to downvote an answer when the user refused to use `LaTeX` math formatting and instead wrote out all equations in **bold** text or worse no formatting at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example answer:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/82028/392&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. There is a little known FAQ on math formatting here:&#xD;&#xA;https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="8667a09b-b9fa-4da7-8bb0-650c4b327fe0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Mathjax is pretty similar to Latex I believe. I would recommend learning Latex since it is more comprehensive and will be more helpful in the long run. However, it is not really necessary. Math SE has good references regarding Mathjax&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="2ec37a9a-5fc5-44d3-bb0e-676e8555e084" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have noticed that some stack exchanges sites have different policies as compared to the stackoverflow.com. e.g. Math.SE has completely different policies for [comments](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/12743/103816) and [home-work](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1803/103816) questions.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the policy of Phys.SE for asking beginner level questions, that is can unintelligent persons ask questions here?  &#xD;&#xA;Is this site mainly for expert level questions?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I am not talking of home-work type questions. suppose  I want to ask a very simple, basic question which is a result of a simple logical failure or a misunderstanding or ignorance. I do some research but do not get the answer. Are those question on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="ceede519-4aa6-471d-b177-e2a4c16acabb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This thread is (as of August 2014) pretty outdated. This site's official homework policy is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent discussions about possible changes to this policy, see http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework, http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751, and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, also, that as of July 30 2014, math.SE has [banned the (homework) tag](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16425/fate-of-the-homework-tag-the-community-voted-now-what), though homework questions are [apparently still on-topic](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="224eccb4-29b2-44e7-ac89-ca1eb105d1e3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is [this sandbox](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4666/sandbox-for-drafts-of-long-complex-posts) on meta.math.se that seems to be set up for the purpose you propose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="c3db53cd-a4a2-4845-93c4-5b7d19102708" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Bad:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your question looks like: *&quot;Here is my homework. Solve it instead of me, now&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;* You scanned/photographed your textbook.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't show effort or curiosity towards the solution.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't bother to begin sentences with capital cases or end them with a &quot;.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't asking for the numerical solution; you want to understand how you can solve it for yourself&#xD;&#xA;* You are using Latex / MathJax formatting ([tutorial here][1])&#xD;&#xA;* You explain: 1) what you want 2) what you tried 3) why it doesn't work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget: closing a question is mostly a subjective decision. The reviewers see a &quot;close&quot; and a &quot;leave open&quot; button next to your question. Although there are site rules, it is mainly up to them how to interpret these rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9136" RevisionGUID="71e7254d-6316-44b0-9145-131f3662ecf3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:21.967" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="While this seems like a well-intentioned thread, there is already a comprehensive tutorial over on the [Mathematics Meta Stack Exchange](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/) site, at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##[MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and there really isn't that much point in duplicating the enormous amount of work that has gone into writing that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="c9211f2f-81a7-421f-b969-bb59111365ec" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:27.303" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced https://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Would this question be allowed to migrate to Physics.Main?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are the specs of the components I would need to make a 1050 kph, non-rocket-propelled motorbike?](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21815/what-are-the-specs-of-the-components-i-would-need-to-make-a-1050-kph-non-rocket)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm allowed to migrate, would/could I get answers like this? Keeping in mind that this is the kind of answer that I want...:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming a flat, asphalt road, and a rider that weighs X kg/lb/[Whatever], to get your motorcycle moving, your wheels need T torque, which means your engine needs to output E [Energy or CCs or whatever...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And that's assuming that everything is 100% efficient. If it's not, then your engine needs more power, and that power is dependent on the efficiency of engine to wheel torque, Z. The equation for the power needed for an inefficient engine, is E/Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And *that's* assuming that your chassis is weightless. If your chassis has weight W, [explain equation for motor energy for that scenario...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then the material of your wheel has to do this and that... [Stuff]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, the material of your chassis has to do [Stuff] to handle moving at 1050 mph...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone spoiler the following?** Like with this: [Achille Hui's spoiler](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13736/hierarchical-spoilers/13738#13738)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Okay... this seems really silly now... 'Cause the initial idea for this question was to figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;If such a motorcycle is possible, what has to change about physics?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which led to this chain of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What the requirements for those motorcycle parts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Are any of those requirements achievable by real-world physics, and for the parts that aren't, what bits of physics would need to change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. What would the implications of those physics changes be on the capabilities of technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.5. How do I have humans live in a world with those physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those last two questions seem to be reasonable worldbuilding questions, if the changes weren't too broad...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in combination, that's a big jumble of theoretical physics and worldbuilding... And even the initial questions seem a bit much for a SE site... *One facepalm is not enough...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="94fb7f92-bfc2-4652-af4f-4fa4ab1ad6bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:39.803" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go forth and answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are some sites where this can lead to issues. For example, on [StackOverflow][1] a number of users [race to be the first to post minimally helpful links][2], since that gets the most reputation per unit effort, resulting in a bunch of decidedly unhelpful tidbits that look like they were drawn from a live help session. As long as you are posting good, thorough answers, this isn't a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern on [TeX][3] is that there is a very small core of very good answerers (mostly the people who developed TeX and its brethren), and if they answer all the easy questions, [new users will be discouraged from participating in the community][4]. I doubt we will ever have that problem here. Between the number of questions we get and the breadth of topics they cover, no small group of people could answer them all (at least not well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other catch I'll mention is that you should not just blindly answer things. Take a look around at what established users take to be good questions. For example, if someone posts their homework assignment expecting us to just do it for them, we (high-rep users) *will* close it, and probably throw a few downvotes at it too. Our efforts at keeping up the quality and integrity of this site are made more difficult when new users quickly post solutions to these questions before we react.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should keep up your enthusiasm. My own experience is that after reaching 10k rep I grew far more picky in terms of which questions I would spend time answering. There are certainly posts where I know I could write a good answer, but I'm tired of explaining the same topic (e.g. the expansion of the universe) for the umpteenth time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tex.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1867/should-high-rep-users-hang-back-a-little" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="f3ab5e19-5a9b-4848-9c04-2ea838048d0a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:39.803" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This isn't an answer, but I can't post it as a comment. Danu's comment &quot;I think it's simply too little evidence to draw any serious conclusions from&quot; reminded me of an [earlier post on meta.tex.stackexchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence is pretty easy to get using the [DataExplorer Query][2]. Here are some statistics on **questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    neg     zero        pos         total       %neg            %zero           %pos&#xD;&#xA;    tex             313	    15317	    189068	    204698	    0.1529081867	7.482730657	    92.36436116&#xD;&#xA;    mathoveflow	    1582	12921	    145288	    159791	    0.990043244	    8.086187583	    90.92376917&#xD;&#xA;    ux	            811	    14175	    47473	    62459	    1.298451784	    22.69488785	    76.00666037&#xD;&#xA;    math	        14317	262857	    779308	    1056482	    1.355157968	    24.88040497	    73.76443707&#xD;&#xA;    biology	        260	    2342	    16344	    18946	    1.372321334	    12.36144833	    86.26623034&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry	    411	    2913	    15248	    18572	    2.21300883	    15.684902	    82.10208917&#xD;&#xA;    super user	    15751	252728	    410831	    679310	    2.318676304	    37.2036331	    60.4776906&#xD;&#xA;    programmers	    4917	28655	    132933	    166505	    2.953064473	    17.2096934	    79.83724212&#xD;&#xA;    stackoverflow	738773	10471867	13648708	24859348	2.97181165	    42.1244636	    54.9072475&#xD;&#xA;    physics	        4700	29547	    101190	    135437	    3.47024816	    21.81604731	    74.71370453&#xD;&#xA;    English	        10230	38334	    136987	    185551	    5.513309009	    20.65954913	    73.82714186&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (Data collected 4/29/2015.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes: physics.stackexchange users down vote questions more often than other &quot;technical&quot; stack exchanges. [Of course, that isn't necessarily bad, but it might be...I don't know!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/tex-se-really-are-nicer-voters&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/159549/meaness-of-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="6aad417c-b0bd-4b88-930f-e7529feb05ac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:52.993" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The mission of Stack Exchange is to make the internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. The Stack Exchange Fellowship Program aims to support students conducting research in subjects related to our academic Q&amp;A sites in order to (a) increase the quality of information in a particular subject and (b) facilitate the exchange of information between experts in the field. Individual awards range from 250 to 1000 dollars (USD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants should be advanced undergraduate, graduate students or professionals pursuing research related to one the following Stack Exchange sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [English][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Linguistics][2]&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Statistics][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Physics][4]  &#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis starting immediately. For more details and to apply, check out the [application][6]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are also accepting volunteers from the community to help review applications. Volunteers should have some level of expertise in the subject area (professors and those who have or are pursuing advanced degrees are ideal candidates). Following the first wave of submissions, those selected to be Stack Exchange Fellows will be asked to review 3 to 4 new applications. To facilitate the review process, reviewers will rate applications on several scales instead of making judgments on funding. You can find the Reviewer Form [here][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers and successful candidates are encouraged to customize the &quot;about me&quot; section of the user profile by including information on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Area of expertise and current occupation &#xD;&#xA; 2. Key academic goals/milestones&#xD;&#xA; 3. Role in the Fellowship program (applicant, reviewer, fellow, both)&#xD;&#xA; 4. SE grant project, if applicable &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions regarding the Fellowship Program, or would like more information about applying or becoming a reviewer, please email *academics@stackexchange.com*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited: Applications accepted on a rolling basis until December 31, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2077/13231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/202/344&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/q/988/6064&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/SE%20Fellowship%20Application.docx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/Reviewer%20Sheet.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="b0e98e4f-9e4e-440c-835a-2ea3182d26eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:44:59.523" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.ux.stackexchange.com/ with https://ux.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll start by saying that I really despise encouraging participation in things by awarding prizes, especially money. That to me is over the top, especially for things that are supposed to be community driven like this site. I was poking around several different meta's on the sites where I typically lurk and some of the smaller ones ran Topic of the Week contests to drive up participation and/or expand the scope of the site by encouraging questions on less-frequently used tags ([UX][1], [SciFi][2], [Cooking][3]). The one on [Judiasm][4] works without any prizes at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly am not advocating prize money, I think that's a terrible idea. And this site doesn't need it really. But would it be something worth doing/entertaining to have a Topic of the [time period] type of recurring event? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I would say to a prize would be recognizing the questions and answers under the topic that got the highest votes during the time period -- the high voting gives rep points which is essentially the only reward system in place on the site. Or if individual sites can award unique badges, then a badge could be given for best answer/question under a specific topic contest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ux.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/topic-of-the-week-contest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1138/topic-of-the-week-contest-updated-august-29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/the-end-of-a-contest-and-beginning-of-something-else&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1215/weekly-topic-challenge-5772-41-week-of-pinchas-5772-rashi?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="6acae8f7-bd40-4cb5-a32a-96693c91352b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:25.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by [this meta post on RPG.SE][1]: I think we should keep in mind that posts with lots of &quot;**Edit:**&quot; and &quot;**Update:**&quot; sections are a bit hard to read from beginning to end, and we should strive to avoid this style (which I'm certainly guilty of using from time to time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, sometimes we need to change what we've written. But the revision history for the post contains all past versions in case anyone is curious. And most future visitors probably aren't interested in the full history of how a great question or answer got to where it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is a call for us all to try to make smooth-flowing posts whenever we edit new information into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if editing another post for whatever reason, editors should feel free to incorporate updates smoothly into the post. (This last bit might be a bit more controversial here on Physics, where it seems most of us are loath to edit others' posts.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good idea? Am I missing some reason why physics posts should read like revision histories?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3454/dont-signal-your-edits-in-text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5337" RevisionGUID="afb5c10f-e1fb-4433-a5ed-10835889cc44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:37.583" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To insert pictures, you can click the handy &quot;Image&quot; button above the question/answer field:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will prompt you to locate the picture either on your computer or on the internet. It will upload it to StackExchange's special imgur account&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and insert the appropriate formatted link in the text field. Note that you are encouraged to replace the highlighted text with some image description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![pre-formatted image link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *making* diagrams, there is no particular toolset on the site.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; We do have many [suggestions][3], though, for standalone tools. Use whichever you want, and upload the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why nothing integrated into the site? You can make a request, but as you'll see in that last link, there are many different opinions about what works best. Besides, whatever option there is has to be amenable to integrating into websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You should do this rather than just format an appropriate link to the image. This way the picture is permanently stored even if there is link rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Unlike, for instance [Electrical Engineering][4], which has a [tool for making circuit diagrams][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lO6nf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SytVf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/401&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2708" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="5a5bba03-b99a-4fdd-8b3f-88c4d7ec1f55" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [I didn&amp;#39;t get my 100 starting reputation from associating this account to my other accounts.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;I fixed my problem by unlinking and relinking the accounts, like people were advising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="9f7cc242-777b-4b2b-bb50-97c2c7f27fb5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [I didn&amp;#39;t get my 100 starting reputation from associating this account to my other accounts.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;I fixed my problem by unlinking and relinking the accounts, like people were advising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="8e38ca00-2f63-4e96-986d-097f423930bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Note that the site's current policy on homework questions is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will always have the current version of the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many communities must deal with this question sooner or later, might as well get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How should we deal with homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that the Mathematics.StackExchange site is handling things well. Here are some links to their deliberations on these matters. As a frequent user of that site, I must say that we have been fairly successful of handling these questions well: both supportive, but not too helpful to be destructive to the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to deal with HW questions.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More policy about HW questions.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to not give complete solutions.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Homework tags.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update July 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE votes on homework tag.](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/14981/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Result of voting.](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/16425/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/106/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/410/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/415/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/621/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="8a21e114-a321-4526-9655-944b291f8b30" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Note that the site's current policy on homework questions is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will always have the current version of the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many communities must deal with this question sooner or later, might as well get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How should we deal with homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that the Mathematics.StackExchange site is handling things well. Here are some links to their deliberations on these matters. As a frequent user of that site, I must say that we have been fairly successful of handling these questions well: both supportive, but not too helpful to be destructive to the questioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to deal with HW questions.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More policy about HW questions.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to not give complete solutions.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Homework tags.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update July 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE votes on homework tag.](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/14981/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Result of voting.](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/16425/11127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/106/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/410/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/415/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/621/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="0c9cabb3-8fa2-48bc-9ad6-f8c6fd489d93" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Copy-pasteable template: `[tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master]` .)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="5f8832a1-6c38-4b44-ba06-40902178ff19" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Copy-pasteable template: `[tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master]` .)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="6f6ad1ed-5d85-4a1a-8301-7bafc7c5634f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Copy-pasteable template: `[tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master]` .)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="86c40842-76f5-47fc-b445-b0d065e19980" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="1c830609-4584-4e31-8d73-b23bde711590" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="6b72c5f2-a08c-4e60-b968-8f6a32c3d639" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would gladly nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** I am an Engineering student (specialized in Physics / Engineering Physics) from Brussels, Belgium. I am now starting a graduate program on Accelerator Physics and I am starting a PhD at CERN in the field of Accelerator Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already spent some time of Physics SE and I would appreciate to continue this experience as a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the [level of questions discussion][1] I think I am in the &quot;intermediate case&quot;: I hope the level will soon be higher than it is now, but I don't think we should restrict question to be at a pure &quot;research-level&quot; (see the discussion on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="3b259f65-12b8-4e96-aad8-557e7966a157" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current system is to add an answer to  [What questions should be considered to close by 500+ users?][1] for question to be closed, but it is not obvious what to do when the question are closed. The closed questions are then mixed with questions to be closed, which is impractical. Should we delete the closed questions ? Add another &quot;community wiki&quot; answer recording all closed questions ?  Use another system ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="305c9a1e-b031-4e29-9b0a-ff7c04356d10" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would gladly nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** I am an Engineering student (specialized in Physics / Engineering Physics) from Brussels, Belgium. I am now starting a graduate program on Accelerator Physics and I am starting a PhD at CERN in the field of Accelerator Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already spent some time of Physics SE and I would appreciate to continue this experience as a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the [level of questions discussion][1] I think I am in the &quot;intermediate case&quot;: I hope the level will soon be higher than it is now, but I don't think we should restrict question to be at a pure &quot;research-level&quot; (see the discussion on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="0f5e3d7b-407e-4c5d-9ac1-ae3dcad6e25c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="And in the voice of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/349/on-the-subject-of-moderation-by-single-individuals)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This place is not a discussion forum**. Simply. The structure and mechanism are not optimized to this purpose and effectively change each discussion (regardless of the disputants' intentions) into a clutter of randomly voted statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to discuss something, use chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have built a working time machine out of slinky and rare-earth magnets and even managed to transport a living triceratops into the backyard, send a paper to Nature or Science rather than downvote someone's answer claiming it is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your own formulation of quantum mechanics that involves nanobubble dynamics and lemon trees, don't enlighten a student that wants to understand quantization of angular momentum before his exam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="7c5f1594-3570-44c3-b5da-68505a4efd36" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Why not “home-experiment” questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236/why-not-home-experiment-questions)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;A point brought to my mind by [Evan's questions about shopping][1], is the place of demonstrations in our efforts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demos are effective teaching tools and can be powerful attractors for getting people (potential students, potential funders, general enthusiasts...) interested in what we do, and they can be surprisingly tricky to build and operate without letting small corrections &#xD;&#xA;detract from the rhetorical impact we'd like them to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are questions about the design, construction, care and operation of demonstration tools OK. I'll leave the question of acquisition of parts and/or whole apparatus to be discussed under Evan's topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/268/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="4b89b6ad-67f5-4da3-ae36-08b4460463a6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Why not “home-experiment” questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236/why-not-home-experiment-questions)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;A point brought to my mind by [Evan's questions about shopping][1], is the place of demonstrations in our efforts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demos are effective teaching tools and can be powerful attractors for getting people (potential students, potential funders, general enthusiasts...) interested in what we do, and they can be surprisingly tricky to build and operate without letting small corrections &#xD;&#xA;detract from the rhetorical impact we'd like them to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are questions about the design, construction, care and operation of demonstration tools OK. I'll leave the question of acquisition of parts and/or whole apparatus to be discussed under Evan's topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/268/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="5f7f6db2-5733-4c3e-bb40-7a4ee7cafa9b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would gladly nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** I am an Engineering student (specialized in Physics / Engineering Physics) from Brussels, Belgium. I am now starting a graduate program on Accelerator Physics and I am starting a PhD at CERN in the field of Accelerator Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already spent some time of Physics SE and I would appreciate to continue this experience as a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the [level of questions discussion][1] I think I am in the &quot;intermediate case&quot;: I hope the level will soon be higher than it is now, but I don't think we should restrict question to be at a pure &quot;research-level&quot; (see the discussion on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="37fca2a8-8be8-4c90-80cf-12c965049af1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I proposed this site my intention was to have a site for researchers, but also for the discussion of thought experiments and other things not related to their own field. These are questions also undergrads should be interested and be able to take part in and that was whom I meant with students. &quot;Basic&quot; questions where intended to go to [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science?referrer=nwBIGRh-wRAN5QfMOt5KEg2). The problem is, pop-sci didn't take off at all, maybe being too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I agree with [Robert Cartaino's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions/79#79). I didn't actually intend this site to become MO for physics, but also not &quot;only&quot; math.SE (personally, I like math.SE, but I sense some consider it not &quot;pure&quot; enough) but rather somewhere in between. If someone asks why a rainbow is coloured, either answer it professionally, or up-vote the correct answers, or skip that questions. I think first of all we need [moderators](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/100/97) to assist the community, but we also need everyone of us to actively help improving posts that have the potential to become good but just aren't well-posed right now. If questions are tagged and titled well, it should also be easy to skip questions of a level you don't like (at that time of the day that is...) and find the ones interesting / challenging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion:  &#xD;&#xA;Ask and answer questions of the level you desire,  &#xD;&#xA;vote on those you accept,  &#xD;&#xA;ignore those you consider wrong level but are still valid,  &#xD;&#xA;and vote to close the really bad ones or help improving them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="f714d56b-7a92-4489-86d2-2be32e44383f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Compare [this answer][1] on another physics-math related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People visiting the site are really looking for physical insight/understanding.  &#xD;&#xA;When the language is math, it may well be that mathematical rigorousness and exactness hides the fact that on a physical level one cannot really explain what is going on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, please note that I am not opposed to math or rigourness, on the contrary.  &#xD;&#xA;But I am even more interested in trying to understand what is &quot;really&quot; going on under the hood of math. And also in this physical field I am looking for &quot;exactness&quot; - please don't say its just math and one shouldn't try to understand physics. Its my personal opinion that that is the main challenge in theoretical physics today.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly this is a minority opinion, but I hope the site will also be a place for some of the minorities - would it be interesting enough otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164/mathematical-physics-does-it-belong-here&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="f4b5f843-54a5-495b-9696-8409b4e4f758" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was some positive feedback on [the previous question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat), so let's give it a try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief introduction:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Journal Club is intended to be a whole day meeting (with 3 meet-up sessions to seed the discussion) on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.  &#xD;&#xA;- The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting. It should be both interesting and understandable (at least in idea) for a broader audience.   &#xD;&#xA;- We (mods) will try to invite the author(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please suggest papers (each in one answer) and/or upvote propositions you like. The deadline for voting is 1.28.2011 23:59UTC and the first approximation of the JC itself is 2.4.2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="3d79e22f-d983-445e-9b5d-22eeb853e810" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was some positive feedback on [the previous question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat), so let's give it a try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief introduction:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Journal Club is intended to be a whole day meeting (with 3 meet-up sessions to seed the discussion) on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.  &#xD;&#xA;- The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting. It should be both interesting and understandable (at least in idea) for a broader audience.   &#xD;&#xA;- We (mods) will try to invite the author(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please suggest papers (each in one answer) and/or upvote propositions you like. The deadline for voting is 1.28.2011 23:59UTC and the first approximation of the JC itself is 2.4.2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="9bfa4368-d014-4d0c-8cee-4f9e25f12000" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[&lt;strike&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/strike&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;(declined) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="06f1b8ae-bb15-4d7c-817a-249349eef17b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I proposed this site my intention was to have a site for researchers, but also for the discussion of thought experiments and other things not related to their own field. These are questions also undergrads should be interested and be able to take part in and that was whom I meant with students. &quot;Basic&quot; questions where intended to go to [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science?referrer=nwBIGRh-wRAN5QfMOt5KEg2). The problem is, pop-sci didn't take off at all, maybe being too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I agree with [Robert Cartaino's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions/79#79). I didn't actually intend this site to become MO for physics, but also not &quot;only&quot; math.SE (personally, I like math.SE, but I sense some consider it not &quot;pure&quot; enough) but rather somewhere in between. If someone asks why a rainbow is coloured, either answer it professionally, or up-vote the correct answers, or skip that questions. I think first of all we need [moderators](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/100/97) to assist the community, but we also need everyone of us to actively help improving posts that have the potential to become good but just aren't well-posed right now. If questions are tagged and titled well, it should also be easy to skip questions of a level you don't like (at that time of the day that is...) and find the ones interesting / challenging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion:  &#xD;&#xA;Ask and answer questions of the level you desire,  &#xD;&#xA;vote on those you accept,  &#xD;&#xA;ignore those you consider wrong level but are still valid,  &#xD;&#xA;and vote to close the really bad ones or help improving them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="f652756d-81d3-48b6-b97c-80a406775a5f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I proposed this site my intention was to have a site for researchers, but also for the discussion of thought experiments and other things not related to their own field. These are questions also undergrads should be interested and be able to take part in and that was whom I meant with students. &quot;Basic&quot; questions where intended to go to [Popular Natural Sciences](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/popular-natural-science?referrer=nwBIGRh-wRAN5QfMOt5KEg2). The problem is, pop-sci didn't take off at all, maybe being too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I agree with [Robert Cartaino's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions/79#79). I didn't actually intend this site to become MO for physics, but also not &quot;only&quot; math.SE (personally, I like math.SE, but I sense some consider it not &quot;pure&quot; enough) but rather somewhere in between. If someone asks why a rainbow is coloured, either answer it professionally, or up-vote the correct answers, or skip that questions. I think first of all we need [moderators](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/100/97) to assist the community, but we also need everyone of us to actively help improving posts that have the potential to become good but just aren't well-posed right now. If questions are tagged and titled well, it should also be easy to skip questions of a level you don't like (at that time of the day that is...) and find the ones interesting / challenging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion:  &#xD;&#xA;Ask and answer questions of the level you desire,  &#xD;&#xA;vote on those you accept,  &#xD;&#xA;ignore those you consider wrong level but are still valid,  &#xD;&#xA;and vote to close the really bad ones or help improving them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="6c332cff-ada2-4257-82e5-99dba227e39d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="And in the voice of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/349/on-the-subject-of-moderation-by-single-individuals)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This place is not a discussion forum**. Simply. The structure and mechanism are not optimized to this purpose and effectively change each discussion (regardless of the disputants' intentions) into a clutter of randomly voted statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to discuss something, use chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have built a working time machine out of slinky and rare-earth magnets and even managed to transport a living triceratops into the backyard, send a paper to Nature or Science rather than downvote someone's answer claiming it is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your own formulation of quantum mechanics that involves nanobubble dynamics and lemon trees, don't enlighten a student that wants to understand quantization of angular momentum before his exam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="3127f3ee-6b26-4787-bcb4-8f32895d9073" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[&lt;strike&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/strike&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;(declined) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="c1129b28-241e-4583-8c82-c17aaf290d44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="And in the voice of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/349/on-the-subject-of-moderation-by-single-individuals)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This place is not a discussion forum**. Simply. The structure and mechanism are not optimized to this purpose and effectively change each discussion (regardless of the disputants' intentions) into a clutter of randomly voted statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to discuss something, use chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have built a working time machine out of slinky and rare-earth magnets and even managed to transport a living triceratops into the backyard, send a paper to Nature or Science rather than downvote someone's answer claiming it is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your own formulation of quantum mechanics that involves nanobubble dynamics and lemon trees, don't enlighten a student that wants to understand quantization of angular momentum before his exam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="c6564c33-a36b-478e-8ec7-65738b3b5431" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have the same problem, so I can't put this as a comment on this question. Regardless of if I need the reputation, it's a bug, so I just wanted to mention I experienced it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - I've got 6 rep now, so I cross-posted a question in [meta][1] that links here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - xbones: I've got accounts at SO,SU,SF,Ubuntu,Gaming,DIY and others. For each of them, I've always gotten the +100 at the new site I'm using, not the site I'm linking to. If this has changed, then it's changed, but I hadn't heard anything about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122/not-getting-100-rep-for-associating-accounts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="cc65aa2d-f80b-4b21-86d6-6654b6ba663e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Compare [this answer][1] on another physics-math related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People visiting the site are really looking for physical insight/understanding.  &#xD;&#xA;When the language is math, it may well be that mathematical rigorousness and exactness hides the fact that on a physical level one cannot really explain what is going on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, please note that I am not opposed to math or rigourness, on the contrary.  &#xD;&#xA;But I am even more interested in trying to understand what is &quot;really&quot; going on under the hood of math. And also in this physical field I am looking for &quot;exactness&quot; - please don't say its just math and one shouldn't try to understand physics. Its my personal opinion that that is the main challenge in theoretical physics today.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly this is a minority opinion, but I hope the site will also be a place for some of the minorities - would it be interesting enough otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164/mathematical-physics-does-it-belong-here&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="bea7df8c-fca0-4f8f-b941-42e7cc050c65" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hi all. I'm [Jin][1], and I'll be working on the designs for the Stack Exchange sites as they graduate from the beta phase. Each site will have its own unique theme that will reflect its topic. However, all sites will share quite a bit of common elements so they feel like they're part of the Stack Exchange family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to thank you for creating a [thread][2] on design ideas. It's helped me a great deal. After reading through all the suggestions, and researching on my own, I feel a blackboard theme would work well. It conveys a strong academic theme and has a personal touch, it also gives this community a distinctive character and identity. For those who are still in school learning and teaching, this theme creates a similar setting. For those outside of academia, it strikes a nostalgic feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, creating a dark themed design is always tricky. Bright text on flat black is harsh. But I believe when done right, a dark theme can be beautiful and sophisticated.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inspired by the above black board photo I found, as well as some photos submitted in the other [thread][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The design goal is to mimic the blackboard theme. It will have physics equations serving as visual decoration, but subtly so as to not get in the way of the main content. It needs to be simple and relatable to the site's audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the design concepts. *(click on image to see full resolution versions)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Home][5]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Question][6]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The faint grunge texture in the background is there to add to the blackboard effect. I've used some suggested equations/figures from the other thread as decorations, again, subtly. For the logo, I'm using the Mexican Hat. I think a geometric figure works well in the allotted space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equations I used are:  Feynman diagram, Maxwell's equation, Heliocentric coordinate system for Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Electronic properties of graphene. Of course, you are the physics experts, please let me know if I made any mistakes representing them. Also, if you feel there are certain equations that should be included to better serve the site(to reflect the level of questions), let me know. But do keep in mind, these equations are for decorative purpose only. I certainly don't want the entire background to be full of ghost marks. It would be hard to read the real content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the tag treatment, I'm keeping it simple. I believe a straightforward &quot;—&quot; feels more natural to how you'd write tags on a blackboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm keeping the number of colors very limited for this theme. They resemble traditional chalk colors: white, yellow and red(pink).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this design works for the goal intended. The dark theme really makes this site stand out, and the important content is easier to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping to get the site launched very soon. So an early congrats from me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T0yYR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="f4e434ba-4d01-4868-be6a-6429c4868daf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[&lt;strike&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/strike&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;(declined) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="9baf3719-1968-4606-a888-b37706215385" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have the same problem, so I can't put this as a comment on this question. Regardless of if I need the reputation, it's a bug, so I just wanted to mention I experienced it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - I've got 6 rep now, so I cross-posted a question in [meta][1] that links here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - xbones: I've got accounts at SO,SU,SF,Ubuntu,Gaming,DIY and others. For each of them, I've always gotten the +100 at the new site I'm using, not the site I'm linking to. If this has changed, then it's changed, but I hadn't heard anything about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122/not-getting-100-rep-for-associating-accounts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="1ed775e4-e287-46b5-be8b-95866f9a5a0f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dear Bruce,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the one putting up the question you mentioned I am willing to say something about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure it might be trivial and also sure that most people here (well, I might include myself here) can write down the solution instantaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why did I ask?  &#xD;&#xA;First of all since I am interested in similar systems and knowing good resources that provide **additional information** in the context of the question would have been nice (in the sense of [Marek's answer][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;Second, I thought it might be a nice idea since in on of the [threads concerning promotion][2], someone was suggesting to ask questions we know the answer of but it would be nice to have it answered on the site anyways, maybe from interesting perspectives (to create content, I suppose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually a little wondering about the reactions the post immediatly created regarding that a lot of the questions posted are actually on a High-School level. And, in turn, those seem to be the [most popular ones][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS.: I was the first to vote to close the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293/should-we-allow-questions-asking-the-mathematical-solution-to-physics-problems/296#296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2605/358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="774bc2a6-c242-41a7-82bf-c2898a60338e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hi all. I'm [Jin][1], and I'll be working on the designs for the Stack Exchange sites as they graduate from the beta phase. Each site will have its own unique theme that will reflect its topic. However, all sites will share quite a bit of common elements so they feel like they're part of the Stack Exchange family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to thank you for creating a [thread][2] on design ideas. It's helped me a great deal. After reading through all the suggestions, and researching on my own, I feel a blackboard theme would work well. It conveys a strong academic theme and has a personal touch, it also gives this community a distinctive character and identity. For those who are still in school learning and teaching, this theme creates a similar setting. For those outside of academia, it strikes a nostalgic feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, creating a dark themed design is always tricky. Bright text on flat black is harsh. But I believe when done right, a dark theme can be beautiful and sophisticated.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inspired by the above black board photo I found, as well as some photos submitted in the other [thread][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The design goal is to mimic the blackboard theme. It will have physics equations serving as visual decoration, but subtly so as to not get in the way of the main content. It needs to be simple and relatable to the site's audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the design concepts. *(click on image to see full resolution versions)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Home][5]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Question][6]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The faint grunge texture in the background is there to add to the blackboard effect. I've used some suggested equations/figures from the other thread as decorations, again, subtly. For the logo, I'm using the Mexican Hat. I think a geometric figure works well in the allotted space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equations I used are:  Feynman diagram, Maxwell's equation, Heliocentric coordinate system for Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Electronic properties of graphene. Of course, you are the physics experts, please let me know if I made any mistakes representing them. Also, if you feel there are certain equations that should be included to better serve the site(to reflect the level of questions), let me know. But do keep in mind, these equations are for decorative purpose only. I certainly don't want the entire background to be full of ghost marks. It would be hard to read the real content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the tag treatment, I'm keeping it simple. I believe a straightforward &quot;—&quot; feels more natural to how you'd write tags on a blackboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm keeping the number of colors very limited for this theme. They resemble traditional chalk colors: white, yellow and red(pink).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this design works for the goal intended. The dark theme really makes this site stand out, and the important content is easier to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping to get the site launched very soon. So an early congrats from me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T0yYR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="3284b74b-3b13-44b4-a053-a5fb237e3e1d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [I didn&amp;#39;t get my 100 starting reputation from associating this account to my other accounts.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;I fixed my problem by unlinking and relinking the accounts, like people were advising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="f4711fa3-40de-4ebc-aa0f-52dff9fc9cfa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dear Bruce,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the one putting up the question you mentioned I am willing to say something about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure it might be trivial and also sure that most people here (well, I might include myself here) can write down the solution instantaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why did I ask?  &#xD;&#xA;First of all since I am interested in similar systems and knowing good resources that provide **additional information** in the context of the question would have been nice (in the sense of [Marek's answer][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;Second, I thought it might be a nice idea since in on of the [threads concerning promotion][2], someone was suggesting to ask questions we know the answer of but it would be nice to have it answered on the site anyways, maybe from interesting perspectives (to create content, I suppose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually a little wondering about the reactions the post immediatly created regarding that a lot of the questions posted are actually on a High-School level. And, in turn, those seem to be the [most popular ones][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS.: I was the first to vote to close the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293/should-we-allow-questions-asking-the-mathematical-solution-to-physics-problems/296#296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2605/358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="f2fe2cf5-5f30-4a5e-8f27-4e7864215696" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Robert Cartaino back in the early days of the beta period. (The bold formatting I just added; the links were originally there) Although I probably wouldn't write all the same things today, I think this could be relevant in refining our FAQ excerpt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the biggest issue that the physics site faces right now is publicity. But it's not just a matter of attracting as many people as possible to participate: we need to attract people who are going to ask the right kinds of questions, neither too low-level nor too high-level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On one hand, any physics Q&amp;A site has a tendency to attract a certain number of so-called &quot;crackpot&quot; questions, which are either **not well formulated or not answerable using established physics**. It can be a subjective determination, but I think [What is an &quot;Idea&quot; in terms of time space and matter?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter-closed) and [What is the most efficient way to destroy the universe?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe) and [Why is there something rather than nothing?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-closed) are decent examples (especially the last one). We've been reasonably lucky not to get a whole lot of these so far, but undoubtedly, as the site becomes more popular and reaches out to a wider user base, they'll become more and more frequent. I'll say up front that I don't want to see these kinds of questions tolerated on the site, since I think they misrepresent the scope of physics as a science. (Of course, if the community disagrees with that, I'll go along with them, but then I probably would not remain an active participant on the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although it's hard to characterize good physics questions in general, they typically ask about **the result of an actual experiment** that has been or could be performed ([How does one measure the mass of a galaxy? And other such large quantities.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123/how-does-one-measure-the-mass-of-a-galaxy-and-other-such-large-quantities)), or about **a calculation using a well-formulated theory** ([Deriving the speed of the propagation of a change in the Electromagnetic Field from Maxwell's Equations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1574/deriving-the-speed-of-the-propagation-of-a-change-in-the-electromagnetic-field-fr)), or about a **definition of a recognized physical concept or quantity** ([What is the definition of momentum when a mass distribution ρ(r,t) is given?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1419/what-is-the-definition-of-momentum-when-a-mass-distribution-rhor-t-is-given)). As I stated in [one of my answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) on Physics meta, I think the best way to &quot;enforce&quot; the kinds of questions we want to see on the site is by asking good questions, not by closing bad ones, thereby setting an example for people who come along to ask questions in the future.  And of course, in order to have a lot of good questions, we need to expand the community with more people who will ask good questions. That means that, generally speaking, the kinds of people who we most want to attract are college students who are studying physics or a related field, or people at a higher level of study in physics, up to and including full-fledged researchers. My sense is that most people who have not studied physics at the college level would not have a sense of what distinguishes a good physics question from a bad one, and although this certainly doesn't and shouldn't disqualify them from being able to ask questions, it does mean they're not the kinds of people that the site really needs in order to succeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="3f3c8fe4-2588-4645-9303-448b1785f6eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We all can agree that our FAQ is far from being satisfactory. However, I think it's our responsibility as a community to improve the FAQ or create a similar resource to address some issues which will begin to have an noticeable impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; posted by Marek, one of those issues is that possibly new users don't know what kind of answers or questions deserve upvotes or downvotes and under which conditions is appropriate to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that important? Well, we have seen an increase of questions and answers, however, some people have noticed that bad answers are being upvoted in a way that defeats the whole purpose of having a rating system. Presumably, experienced users don't exacerbate this problem. Therefore, we need to let new users know when is acceptable to upvote or downvote in such a way that the quality of the site doesn't suffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules should we follow regarding this issue?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I expect that a notice for this post or an updated FAQ will appear on the main site from time to time in the same way that chat sessions are announced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="7f6babe7-ba0f-4474-9287-5f3bf7f3a235" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have the same problem, so I can't put this as a comment on this question. Regardless of if I need the reputation, it's a bug, so I just wanted to mention I experienced it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - I've got 6 rep now, so I cross-posted a question in [meta][1] that links here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** - xbones: I've got accounts at SO,SU,SF,Ubuntu,Gaming,DIY and others. For each of them, I've always gotten the +100 at the new site I'm using, not the site I'm linking to. If this has changed, then it's changed, but I hadn't heard anything about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122/not-getting-100-rep-for-associating-accounts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="b781e899-79b8-41d4-947d-fe883baaec2c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We all can agree that our FAQ is far from being satisfactory. However, I think it's our responsibility as a community to improve the FAQ or create a similar resource to address some issues which will begin to have an noticeable impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; posted by Marek, one of those issues is that possibly new users don't know what kind of answers or questions deserve upvotes or downvotes and under which conditions is appropriate to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that important? Well, we have seen an increase of questions and answers, however, some people have noticed that bad answers are being upvoted in a way that defeats the whole purpose of having a rating system. Presumably, experienced users don't exacerbate this problem. Therefore, we need to let new users know when is acceptable to upvote or downvote in such a way that the quality of the site doesn't suffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules should we follow regarding this issue?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I expect that a notice for this post or an updated FAQ will appear on the main site from time to time in the same way that chat sessions are announced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="e84dfb5e-888d-4016-8dc6-6c59ea07cb6e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current system is to add an answer to  [What questions should be considered to close by 500+ users?][1] for question to be closed, but it is not obvious what to do when the question are closed. The closed questions are then mixed with questions to be closed, which is impractical. Should we delete the closed questions ? Add another &quot;community wiki&quot; answer recording all closed questions ?  Use another system ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="56c39273-f9ec-49b4-9453-dcf1c55e7f14" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="694d7fef-8cdb-423b-9d5f-1c414e2e153f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="8551fc68-cbc9-4bf0-9ed2-23d4170bdde0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; This post refers to the white-on-black, blackboard design initially proposed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se. This design was withdrawn and (after a spell back in site-beta design) replaced with the current one, which first appeared in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do I still see the &quot;beta&quot; [CSS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not seeing the styling that would indicate that this site is out of beta, I've tried hard refreshes, and using browsers that I've never used before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the design actually launched, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="f33290b1-342d-49ff-bc87-1f00385827ee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Compare [this answer][1] on another physics-math related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People visiting the site are really looking for physical insight/understanding.  &#xD;&#xA;When the language is math, it may well be that mathematical rigorousness and exactness hides the fact that on a physical level one cannot really explain what is going on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, please note that I am not opposed to math or rigourness, on the contrary.  &#xD;&#xA;But I am even more interested in trying to understand what is &quot;really&quot; going on under the hood of math. And also in this physical field I am looking for &quot;exactness&quot; - please don't say its just math and one shouldn't try to understand physics. Its my personal opinion that that is the main challenge in theoretical physics today.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly this is a minority opinion, but I hope the site will also be a place for some of the minorities - would it be interesting enough otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164/mathematical-physics-does-it-belong-here&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="a4c03e26-9155-44ea-97f6-7737acfc8372" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Why not “home-experiment” questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236/why-not-home-experiment-questions)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;A point brought to my mind by [Evan's questions about shopping][1], is the place of demonstrations in our efforts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demos are effective teaching tools and can be powerful attractors for getting people (potential students, potential funders, general enthusiasts...) interested in what we do, and they can be surprisingly tricky to build and operate without letting small corrections &#xD;&#xA;detract from the rhetorical impact we'd like them to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are questions about the design, construction, care and operation of demonstration tools OK. I'll leave the question of acquisition of parts and/or whole apparatus to be discussed under Evan's topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/268/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="7b0d18cf-a978-4d05-8365-8abd8deeead8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hi all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the new design is live, which means Physics-SE has been officially launched, and is no longer a Beta site! Congratulations! Also, thank you for the [feedback][1] on the design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided not to use the handwritten font as much I did in the mockups. I agree with you that they're a bit harder to read at a smaller size. I'm only using it for the top nav and header text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still seeing the old favicons, load the follow two urls in your browser and hard refresh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physics/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physicsmeta/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, please start a new post, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="0ed75851-7084-4ee5-81cd-0365899f3789" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hi all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the new design is live, which means Physics-SE has been officially launched, and is no longer a Beta site! Congratulations! Also, thank you for the [feedback][1] on the design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided not to use the handwritten font as much I did in the mockups. I agree with you that they're a bit harder to read at a smaller size. I'm only using it for the top nav and header text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still seeing the old favicons, load the follow two urls in your browser and hard refresh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physics/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physicsmeta/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, please start a new post, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="f796e6a4-c759-4c59-a8fb-789530f584ac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dear Bruce,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the one putting up the question you mentioned I am willing to say something about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure it might be trivial and also sure that most people here (well, I might include myself here) can write down the solution instantaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why did I ask?  &#xD;&#xA;First of all since I am interested in similar systems and knowing good resources that provide **additional information** in the context of the question would have been nice (in the sense of [Marek's answer][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;Second, I thought it might be a nice idea since in on of the [threads concerning promotion][2], someone was suggesting to ask questions we know the answer of but it would be nice to have it answered on the site anyways, maybe from interesting perspectives (to create content, I suppose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually a little wondering about the reactions the post immediatly created regarding that a lot of the questions posted are actually on a High-School level. And, in turn, those seem to be the [most popular ones][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS.: I was the first to vote to close the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293/should-we-allow-questions-asking-the-mathematical-solution-to-physics-problems/296#296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2605/358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="57cc0835-a9d9-49a5-bed9-c71e48b11389" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hi all. I'm [Jin][1], and I'll be working on the designs for the Stack Exchange sites as they graduate from the beta phase. Each site will have its own unique theme that will reflect its topic. However, all sites will share quite a bit of common elements so they feel like they're part of the Stack Exchange family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to thank you for creating a [thread][2] on design ideas. It's helped me a great deal. After reading through all the suggestions, and researching on my own, I feel a blackboard theme would work well. It conveys a strong academic theme and has a personal touch, it also gives this community a distinctive character and identity. For those who are still in school learning and teaching, this theme creates a similar setting. For those outside of academia, it strikes a nostalgic feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, creating a dark themed design is always tricky. Bright text on flat black is harsh. But I believe when done right, a dark theme can be beautiful and sophisticated.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inspired by the above black board photo I found, as well as some photos submitted in the other [thread][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The design goal is to mimic the blackboard theme. It will have physics equations serving as visual decoration, but subtly so as to not get in the way of the main content. It needs to be simple and relatable to the site's audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the design concepts. *(click on image to see full resolution versions)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Home][5]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg&quot;&gt;![Physics Question][6]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The faint grunge texture in the background is there to add to the blackboard effect. I've used some suggested equations/figures from the other thread as decorations, again, subtly. For the logo, I'm using the Mexican Hat. I think a geometric figure works well in the allotted space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equations I used are:  Feynman diagram, Maxwell's equation, Heliocentric coordinate system for Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Electronic properties of graphene. Of course, you are the physics experts, please let me know if I made any mistakes representing them. Also, if you feel there are certain equations that should be included to better serve the site(to reflect the level of questions), let me know. But do keep in mind, these equations are for decorative purpose only. I certainly don't want the entire background to be full of ghost marks. It would be hard to read the real content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the tag treatment, I'm keeping it simple. I believe a straightforward &quot;—&quot; feels more natural to how you'd write tags on a blackboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm keeping the number of colors very limited for this theme. They resemble traditional chalk colors: white, yellow and red(pink).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this design works for the goal intended. The dark theme really makes this site stand out, and the important content is easier to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping to get the site launched very soon. So an early congrats from me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T0yYR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPV0e.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tfqn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="22cc7bce-a890-4b3e-b657-24d8ef3d555a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Not yet another question on &quot;level&quot; but on &quot;relevance&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we allow **specific** homework questions like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/homework-about-spinning-top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8045/i-lost-a-factor-of-two-in-the-electromagnetic-field-tensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or close them as &quot;Too Localized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are clearly other homework questions with a larger general value, like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should be kept as [discussed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16/are-puzzle-questions-appropriate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="fe3375ff-8de8-4827-8568-304084d3a568" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We all can agree that our FAQ is far from being satisfactory. However, I think it's our responsibility as a community to improve the FAQ or create a similar resource to address some issues which will begin to have an noticeable impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; posted by Marek, one of those issues is that possibly new users don't know what kind of answers or questions deserve upvotes or downvotes and under which conditions is appropriate to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that important? Well, we have seen an increase of questions and answers, however, some people have noticed that bad answers are being upvoted in a way that defeats the whole purpose of having a rating system. Presumably, experienced users don't exacerbate this problem. Therefore, we need to let new users know when is acceptable to upvote or downvote in such a way that the quality of the site doesn't suffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules should we follow regarding this issue?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I expect that a notice for this post or an updated FAQ will appear on the main site from time to time in the same way that chat sessions are announced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="c8cb1d93-53cf-4a5e-885c-9f4ecaefd8a3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An election getting 5 or 6 nominees is much better than struggling to get 3.  I'm surprised by the community not having people put themselves forward for nomination.  Having only 3 nominees means that the community is unable to voice its collective opinion and vote for the candidates they want to see elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been assisting communities put on Town Hall Chats so that the community can pose questions to the candidates to get a feel for different moderating styles.  Again, this really only makes sense if there is truly an election, but if there is, I am absolutely happy to try and put one together as quickly as I can.  Aside from that, the community is absolutely welcome to pose questions to the candidates here on meta with the [meta-tag:election] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this election, if people think it would help, we can extend the nomination phase by a couple days to see if anyone else steps forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I added 2 days to the nomination phase.  Maybe this will draw out a couple other nominations.  At the very least, since there are now more than 3 nominations, it gives a bit of a buffer for the [town hall chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/610/1097) to be scheduled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="ba0c16da-8703-4992-82f1-403f3d5cca3f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An election getting 5 or 6 nominees is much better than struggling to get 3.  I'm surprised by the community not having people put themselves forward for nomination.  Having only 3 nominees means that the community is unable to voice its collective opinion and vote for the candidates they want to see elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been assisting communities put on Town Hall Chats so that the community can pose questions to the candidates to get a feel for different moderating styles.  Again, this really only makes sense if there is truly an election, but if there is, I am absolutely happy to try and put one together as quickly as I can.  Aside from that, the community is absolutely welcome to pose questions to the candidates here on meta with the [meta-tag:election] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this election, if people think it would help, we can extend the nomination phase by a couple days to see if anyone else steps forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I added 2 days to the nomination phase.  Maybe this will draw out a couple other nominations.  At the very least, since there are now more than 3 nominations, it gives a bit of a buffer for the [town hall chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/610/1097) to be scheduled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="5470e187-ed07-4977-bcaf-c47659d21165" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was some positive feedback on [the previous question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat), so let's give it a try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief introduction:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Journal Club is intended to be a whole day meeting (with 3 meet-up sessions to seed the discussion) on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.  &#xD;&#xA;- The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting. It should be both interesting and understandable (at least in idea) for a broader audience.   &#xD;&#xA;- We (mods) will try to invite the author(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please suggest papers (each in one answer) and/or upvote propositions you like. The deadline for voting is 1.28.2011 23:59UTC and the first approximation of the JC itself is 2.4.2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="c2aaeb72-5164-406b-82bc-9d9d957e97e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="ac07dada-20ac-49fd-a54a-a5c2edf9076c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few almost random thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Why were the SI base quantities chosen as such?][1] is [a history question][2]. I'm wishy-washy on it. The choice at any given time was wrapped up in the state of the science and especially the art of measurement; but it would require considerable writing to explain the tradeoff at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the SI Derived Unit of Brix?][3] is a one-google general reference question and turns out to be more relevant to chemistry or bio-chemistry than physics (though I suppose sugar solution are optically active).&#xD;&#xA;* This new one--[What is “International Service of Weights and Measures”?][4]--is bothering me because I think *&quot;What was [formerly very important organization]?&quot;* could possibly be relevant, but that this one is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="3059cc04-05df-4529-bc69-05f69a6104ff" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few almost random thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Why were the SI base quantities chosen as such?][1] is [a history question][2]. I'm wishy-washy on it. The choice at any given time was wrapped up in the state of the science and especially the art of measurement; but it would require considerable writing to explain the tradeoff at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the SI Derived Unit of Brix?][3] is a one-google general reference question and turns out to be more relevant to chemistry or bio-chemistry than physics (though I suppose sugar solution are optically active).&#xD;&#xA;* This new one--[What is “International Service of Weights and Measures”?][4]--is bothering me because I think *&quot;What was [formerly very important organization]?&quot;* could possibly be relevant, but that this one is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="187a00de-db05-4e10-89b9-bab278725960" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="d024cff3-e880-4679-83de-32a1f0184af4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; This post refers to the white-on-black, blackboard design initially proposed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se. This design was withdrawn and (after a spell back in site-beta design) replaced with the current one, which first appeared in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do I still see the &quot;beta&quot; [CSS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not seeing the styling that would indicate that this site is out of beta, I've tried hard refreshes, and using browsers that I've never used before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the design actually launched, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="a1f873e0-135b-46fa-9684-5a5d0769d31b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is of course a question to the team, but I doubt that this is a punishment -- rather Jin is just busy. You may also try contributing constructively to the [design suggestion thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/604/site-design-take-2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="3da68528-6777-45da-b22f-7d6728a772b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hi all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the new design is live, which means Physics-SE has been officially launched, and is no longer a Beta site! Congratulations! Also, thank you for the [feedback][1] on the design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided not to use the handwritten font as much I did in the mockups. I agree with you that they're a bit harder to read at a smaller size. I'm only using it for the top nav and header text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still seeing the old favicons, load the follow two urls in your browser and hard refresh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physics/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sstatic.net/physicsmeta/img/favicon.ico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, please start a new post, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="8e5b17d4-aabf-4562-85e1-59fb93fe16b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Robert Cartaino back in the early days of the beta period. (The bold formatting I just added; the links were originally there) Although I probably wouldn't write all the same things today, I think this could be relevant in refining our FAQ excerpt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the biggest issue that the physics site faces right now is publicity. But it's not just a matter of attracting as many people as possible to participate: we need to attract people who are going to ask the right kinds of questions, neither too low-level nor too high-level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On one hand, any physics Q&amp;A site has a tendency to attract a certain number of so-called &quot;crackpot&quot; questions, which are either **not well formulated or not answerable using established physics**. It can be a subjective determination, but I think [What is an &quot;Idea&quot; in terms of time space and matter?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter-closed) and [What is the most efficient way to destroy the universe?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe) and [Why is there something rather than nothing?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-closed) are decent examples (especially the last one). We've been reasonably lucky not to get a whole lot of these so far, but undoubtedly, as the site becomes more popular and reaches out to a wider user base, they'll become more and more frequent. I'll say up front that I don't want to see these kinds of questions tolerated on the site, since I think they misrepresent the scope of physics as a science. (Of course, if the community disagrees with that, I'll go along with them, but then I probably would not remain an active participant on the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although it's hard to characterize good physics questions in general, they typically ask about **the result of an actual experiment** that has been or could be performed ([How does one measure the mass of a galaxy? And other such large quantities.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123/how-does-one-measure-the-mass-of-a-galaxy-and-other-such-large-quantities)), or about **a calculation using a well-formulated theory** ([Deriving the speed of the propagation of a change in the Electromagnetic Field from Maxwell's Equations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1574/deriving-the-speed-of-the-propagation-of-a-change-in-the-electromagnetic-field-fr)), or about a **definition of a recognized physical concept or quantity** ([What is the definition of momentum when a mass distribution ρ(r,t) is given?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1419/what-is-the-definition-of-momentum-when-a-mass-distribution-rhor-t-is-given)). As I stated in [one of my answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) on Physics meta, I think the best way to &quot;enforce&quot; the kinds of questions we want to see on the site is by asking good questions, not by closing bad ones, thereby setting an example for people who come along to ask questions in the future.  And of course, in order to have a lot of good questions, we need to expand the community with more people who will ask good questions. That means that, generally speaking, the kinds of people who we most want to attract are college students who are studying physics or a related field, or people at a higher level of study in physics, up to and including full-fledged researchers. My sense is that most people who have not studied physics at the college level would not have a sense of what distinguishes a good physics question from a bad one, and although this certainly doesn't and shouldn't disqualify them from being able to ask questions, it does mean they're not the kinds of people that the site really needs in order to succeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="10e4b783-a636-4a32-99d6-d2864ef69caf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="###Update: The Theoretical Physics proposal will *not* be closed&#xD;&#xA;*See: [**The Theoretical Physic Proposal Back Underway!**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/theoretic-physic-proposal-back-underway)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the last 8 months, I have watched an Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split the [**Physics**](http://physics.stackexchange.com) community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can appreciate and understand both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). That's why I've been watching carefully the [Area 51 discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE. The proposal has inched along slowly over 8 months while the Physics Stack Exchange continues to evolve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time, I feel strongly that splitting the field of physics between two separate sites would be materially harmful to both the proposed Theoretical site and the Physics SE. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to their credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I feel that **the scope of questions outlined in this proposal have a home on Physics SE.** That doesn't mean that we can never open another physics-based site. There may be a time where that makes sense. But I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposal and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="883559ae-f11d-451b-9d7e-9ebff084ee86" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Not yet another question on &quot;level&quot; but on &quot;relevance&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we allow **specific** homework questions like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/homework-about-spinning-top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8045/i-lost-a-factor-of-two-in-the-electromagnetic-field-tensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or close them as &quot;Too Localized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are clearly other homework questions with a larger general value, like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should be kept as [discussed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16/are-puzzle-questions-appropriate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="8ce03ead-5844-4f4d-83f7-73020cb3e507" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Due probably to the policy rule &quot;if you downvote, please explain&quot;, I find that downvoted or trivial questions in the site are actually answered in the comments to the question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is the contrary to &quot; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy &quot;. Real answers should be answers, no comments. But on other hand, it is arguable that a person actually wanting to downvote a question and suggest the OP to delete it, does not want to give an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in some cases I find that people just answer in comments just because they think their answer is too short or too humble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: So my questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find that answers in comments are a problem? If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="fac3538e-cd41-4e17-8391-186098d301b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*In reference to: [Disposition of Area 51 Proposal: Theoretical Physics](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The proposal for creating a &quot;[Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)&quot; site will *not* be closed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to the Physics SE community &amp;mdash; You made a persuasive argument for *keeping* the Theoretical Physics proposal alive and on course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found your arguments both convincing *and* refreshingly civil. It is my sincere hope that the dual Physics/Theoretical Physics community will become greater than the sum of its parts. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="0317388f-5bd9-4fd4-8112-eead56187555" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*In reference to: [Disposition of Area 51 Proposal: Theoretical Physics](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The proposal for creating a &quot;[Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)&quot; site will *not* be closed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to the Physics SE community &amp;mdash; You made a persuasive argument for *keeping* the Theoretical Physics proposal alive and on course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found your arguments both convincing *and* refreshingly civil. It is my sincere hope that the dual Physics/Theoretical Physics community will become greater than the sum of its parts. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="4f0df3bb-9814-4d03-baa3-12cd77698385" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; This post refers to the white-on-black, blackboard design initially proposed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se. This design was withdrawn and (after a spell back in site-beta design) replaced with the current one, which first appeared in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do I still see the &quot;beta&quot; [CSS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not seeing the styling that would indicate that this site is out of beta, I've tried hard refreshes, and using browsers that I've never used before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the design actually launched, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="f67048e6-b763-42b5-ad26-574275891dff" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Robert Cartaino back in the early days of the beta period. (The bold formatting I just added; the links were originally there) Although I probably wouldn't write all the same things today, I think this could be relevant in refining our FAQ excerpt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the biggest issue that the physics site faces right now is publicity. But it's not just a matter of attracting as many people as possible to participate: we need to attract people who are going to ask the right kinds of questions, neither too low-level nor too high-level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On one hand, any physics Q&amp;A site has a tendency to attract a certain number of so-called &quot;crackpot&quot; questions, which are either **not well formulated or not answerable using established physics**. It can be a subjective determination, but I think [What is an &quot;Idea&quot; in terms of time space and matter?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter-closed) and [What is the most efficient way to destroy the universe?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe) and [Why is there something rather than nothing?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-closed) are decent examples (especially the last one). We've been reasonably lucky not to get a whole lot of these so far, but undoubtedly, as the site becomes more popular and reaches out to a wider user base, they'll become more and more frequent. I'll say up front that I don't want to see these kinds of questions tolerated on the site, since I think they misrepresent the scope of physics as a science. (Of course, if the community disagrees with that, I'll go along with them, but then I probably would not remain an active participant on the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although it's hard to characterize good physics questions in general, they typically ask about **the result of an actual experiment** that has been or could be performed ([How does one measure the mass of a galaxy? And other such large quantities.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123/how-does-one-measure-the-mass-of-a-galaxy-and-other-such-large-quantities)), or about **a calculation using a well-formulated theory** ([Deriving the speed of the propagation of a change in the Electromagnetic Field from Maxwell's Equations](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1574/deriving-the-speed-of-the-propagation-of-a-change-in-the-electromagnetic-field-fr)), or about a **definition of a recognized physical concept or quantity** ([What is the definition of momentum when a mass distribution ρ(r,t) is given?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1419/what-is-the-definition-of-momentum-when-a-mass-distribution-rhor-t-is-given)). As I stated in [one of my answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) on Physics meta, I think the best way to &quot;enforce&quot; the kinds of questions we want to see on the site is by asking good questions, not by closing bad ones, thereby setting an example for people who come along to ask questions in the future.  And of course, in order to have a lot of good questions, we need to expand the community with more people who will ask good questions. That means that, generally speaking, the kinds of people who we most want to attract are college students who are studying physics or a related field, or people at a higher level of study in physics, up to and including full-fledged researchers. My sense is that most people who have not studied physics at the college level would not have a sense of what distinguishes a good physics question from a bad one, and although this certainly doesn't and shouldn't disqualify them from being able to ask questions, it does mean they're not the kinds of people that the site really needs in order to succeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="fc33a6a9-4cb1-411a-aec7-0015c31d00c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often _tend_ to be [better](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) than the ones that are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by **encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions**. I think it's good for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that **in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question**, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm **not** saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm also **not** saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does _nothing_ to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is _really_ asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="507bcd1b-5cd5-4ae8-af4c-a688889482fe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="* I can assure you that there will be no content omitted by default as this goes against our basic design (making it easy for people to find content). There is a working ignored-tags function for users who do not wish to see certain content.&#xD;&#xA;* You proposal for the use of [tag:homework] is consistent with the practice on Stack Overflow, and is fine by me, noting that w[e have already decided against allowing *&quot;solve this problem for me&quot;* type problems in favor of *&quot;explain this physics 101 concept&quot;*][1]. The [use of [homework] is already policy][2].&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:pop-sci] is also fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;* We've been trying to chase the worst of the philosophical stuff away. Could you provide some examples of still open question to which you believe this policy should be applied? Indeed, examples would be helpful in all categories. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there has always been some trouble with [tag:homework], in that some users object when it is applied to their question---either because [they came by this particular pedagogical question in some other context][3] or because they feel it is pejorative. I imagine we can expect the same from [tag:pop-sci] though I'd suggest that people asking them just get over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/612/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/234/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="33ea0eb2-c443-4449-b6c7-ef184b1277ff" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="* I can assure you that there will be no content omitted by default as this goes against our basic design (making it easy for people to find content). There is a working ignored-tags function for users who do not wish to see certain content.&#xD;&#xA;* You proposal for the use of [tag:homework] is consistent with the practice on Stack Overflow, and is fine by me, noting that w[e have already decided against allowing *&quot;solve this problem for me&quot;* type problems in favor of *&quot;explain this physics 101 concept&quot;*][1]. The [use of [homework] is already policy][2].&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:pop-sci] is also fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;* We've been trying to chase the worst of the philosophical stuff away. Could you provide some examples of still open question to which you believe this policy should be applied? Indeed, examples would be helpful in all categories. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there has always been some trouble with [tag:homework], in that some users object when it is applied to their question---either because [they came by this particular pedagogical question in some other context][3] or because they feel it is pejorative. I imagine we can expect the same from [tag:pop-sci] though I'd suggest that people asking them just get over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/612/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/234/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="2faf1948-d39c-4488-a38e-ae445f6b3e45" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An election getting 5 or 6 nominees is much better than struggling to get 3.  I'm surprised by the community not having people put themselves forward for nomination.  Having only 3 nominees means that the community is unable to voice its collective opinion and vote for the candidates they want to see elected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been assisting communities put on Town Hall Chats so that the community can pose questions to the candidates to get a feel for different moderating styles.  Again, this really only makes sense if there is truly an election, but if there is, I am absolutely happy to try and put one together as quickly as I can.  Aside from that, the community is absolutely welcome to pose questions to the candidates here on meta with the [meta-tag:election] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this election, if people think it would help, we can extend the nomination phase by a couple days to see if anyone else steps forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I added 2 days to the nomination phase.  Maybe this will draw out a couple other nominations.  At the very least, since there are now more than 3 nominations, it gives a bit of a buffer for the [town hall chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/610/1097) to be scheduled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="f08c8d83-0c24-4be8-9af7-691cbe5e0758" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I largely second [David's comments][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if there are a few leftover topics then they must be the sort that would also fit on the still pending [Experimental or Applied Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that the HEP proposal is further along, but I think that dividing into  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High level theoretical &#xD;&#xA;* Nitty gritty experimental reality&#xD;&#xA;* Everything else physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is more defensible that suggesting that every significant sub-field should have it's own site. Not only does that break the Stack Overflow model (where c, perl, haskel, postscript, c#, etc get along just fine on one site) but it reduces the possibility for useful cross-fertilization of skills between the disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I'm not entirely happy with three sites, but I certainly think that it is better than HEP and solid state and optics and AMO and...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/956/does-the-area-51-proposal-high-energy-physics-overlap-with-this-site/957#957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="29a57db0-616e-4854-8057-22ec8bb6791e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="9afe65d6-0b06-4101-a279-792725ef9993" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I largely second [David's comments][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if there are a few leftover topics then they must be the sort that would also fit on the still pending [Experimental or Applied Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that the HEP proposal is further along, but I think that dividing into  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High level theoretical &#xD;&#xA;* Nitty gritty experimental reality&#xD;&#xA;* Everything else physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is more defensible that suggesting that every significant sub-field should have it's own site. Not only does that break the Stack Overflow model (where c, perl, haskel, postscript, c#, etc get along just fine on one site) but it reduces the possibility for useful cross-fertilization of skills between the disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I'm not entirely happy with three sites, but I certainly think that it is better than HEP and solid state and optics and AMO and...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/956/does-the-area-51-proposal-high-energy-physics-overlap-with-this-site/957#957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="66deb687-5882-436f-846a-e7b8eaa24e0c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been thinking over this today, and yep, I still like it ;-) It reminds me that [the first time through](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like), there were a lot of suggestions about cute ways to work physics concepts and notation into the design, but I think we'll be better off with a design like this that just gets out of the way, so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I'd be quite happy with the exact design you've posted screenshots of, but I do have a few speculative thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The page footer seems insufficiently distinguished from the rest of the page. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be nice to have some visual indication that the main content of the page has ended and that you're now looking at a generic footer. What about putting the same grid and gradient you use in the header, or perhaps a faded version of it, as a background for the footer?&#xD;&#xA;- Same goes for the right sidebar; it seems insufficiently distinguished from the main content of the page, though more so on the question list than the individual question page. Of course I'm not suggesting using the grid/gradient background for the sidebar, but perhaps there's something subtle that could be done there, like giving it a faint left border, or a slightly off-white background color, or fading the text, or whatever tricks you have up your sleeve for this sort of thing ;-)&#xD;&#xA;- Regarding the vertical alignment of the text of the site name and the page tabs on the right (questions, tags, etc.): when I look at it closely I do see that the baselines are aligned, but if I'm not focusing on that alignment specifically, it qualitatively seems just a little off. I'm wondering what it would look like if the names of those tabs were raised up by just a couple of pixels.&#xD;&#xA;- The tags also seem to blend into the background a bit. What would you think about putting a thin border of a marginally darker shade on the left side of each tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do we get a custom image on the 404 page? That's one place I think we could get away with having some cute physics joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="53640750-b8cc-43cc-9b77-58d6196f7685" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Back in the early days of the site, there was [a question about letting the community close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions) through the normal 5-votes-to-close mechanism. That was a little impractical at the time because we had very few high-rep users, and three of those were moderators (whose close votes are automatically binding), so if we (moderators) left questions to be closed by the normal mechanism, it would take forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, though, things are different; we have 24 users with over 3000 reputation, the threshold required to vote to close questions, and several other users are close to reaching 3000 rep. So I would like to encourage high-rep members of the community to step up and vote to close questions that need to be closed. I know I close a lot of questions myself but I have been and will be trying to back off on that, to allow the normal community closure mechanism to work more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at it, I'm curious about why it is that I don't see a whole lot of nonbinding close votes. Is it just that the moderators have been too quick to close questions, so other high-rep users don't get to vote on them? Or do high-rep users just not inclined to bother with that sort of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;We do have a [meta question for candidate closures](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users) that we could use to list questions for 3000+ users to vote to close. I'll start posting some links there in lieu of actually voting to close myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="e26623a4-74ef-455f-a5d7-a8c2ccc9ce9f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I had some questions and was going to post them here. While trying to find the best formulation for them I've found the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting questions with immediate answers is welcome e.g. on [Stack Overflow](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/), but this site is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure my questions are interesting and the answers can be useful for other people. Should I post them here? If yes, how to do that in the best way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is similar to [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49/is-it-okay-with-you-to-write-seed-questions) but I think the linked question is more about site promotion while mine is about knowledge sharing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to flood the site with question&amp;answers invented specially to &quot;farm&quot; reputation. There are some problems that were puzzling me. If I was able to find the answers myself, so what? Should I just wait for other people to ask the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers given to the question linked above are essentially &quot;Pretend to not know the answer. People like answering questions&quot;. Well, I like answering questions too. Why not answer my own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, should I...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ... post such questions?&#xD;&#xA; 2. ... indicate that I already know the answer?&#xD;&#xA; 3. ... post my own answer?&#xD;&#xA; 4. ... give other people some time to answer the questions before posting my own answer?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="9c0dab23-806e-4eaa-acc8-04c3afb4dcf0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Not yet another question on &quot;level&quot; but on &quot;relevance&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we allow **specific** homework questions like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/homework-about-spinning-top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8045/i-lost-a-factor-of-two-in-the-electromagnetic-field-tensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or close them as &quot;Too Localized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are clearly other homework questions with a larger general value, like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should be kept as [discussed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16/are-puzzle-questions-appropriate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="2e288ae8-f7a8-4158-9577-fb5385e07dd1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that the how-things-work site has been closed and in spite of some people wishing to raise the standard, there are a number of questions about the physics of how things such as common machines and appliances work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any consensus on a &quot;how things work&quot; tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps Not really a dupe of https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work - I'm intending this for a &quot;how does an air conditioner work&quot; not a &quot;how does gravity work&quot; type question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="5ad8622a-d802-4ea8-b477-5188b55d1b09" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In conjunction with the [new site design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design) Jin has proposed, we may get to choose images to put on the 404 error and captcha pages. (I'm not sure if there are any other pages there are that we can customize, but if so, I hope someone else will edit them in.) The main theme is pretty clean and not very physics-specific, but these error pages are a good chance to work some inside jokes and physics references into the site design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few possibilities for the 404 page were proposed on the [original design thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like) (though [one of them](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) may not be 404 material much longer :-P). We can reconsider those, and also collect new ones if anyone has them. So, what ideas do we have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="9ee2d28a-7c47-465e-8ba0-df36007c69e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="7cf1a4b2-d0d1-44f2-a67d-f7c071723bcd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Back in the early days of the site, there was [a question about letting the community close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions) through the normal 5-votes-to-close mechanism. That was a little impractical at the time because we had very few high-rep users, and three of those were moderators (whose close votes are automatically binding), so if we (moderators) left questions to be closed by the normal mechanism, it would take forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, though, things are different; we have 24 users with over 3000 reputation, the threshold required to vote to close questions, and several other users are close to reaching 3000 rep. So I would like to encourage high-rep members of the community to step up and vote to close questions that need to be closed. I know I close a lot of questions myself but I have been and will be trying to back off on that, to allow the normal community closure mechanism to work more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at it, I'm curious about why it is that I don't see a whole lot of nonbinding close votes. Is it just that the moderators have been too quick to close questions, so other high-rep users don't get to vote on them? Or do high-rep users just not inclined to bother with that sort of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;We do have a [meta question for candidate closures](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users) that we could use to list questions for 3000+ users to vote to close. I'll start posting some links there in lieu of actually voting to close myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="489c64dd-a4d0-403f-8dc5-c83b8e5f1458" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few almost random thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Why were the SI base quantities chosen as such?][1] is [a history question][2]. I'm wishy-washy on it. The choice at any given time was wrapped up in the state of the science and especially the art of measurement; but it would require considerable writing to explain the tradeoff at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the SI Derived Unit of Brix?][3] is a one-google general reference question and turns out to be more relevant to chemistry or bio-chemistry than physics (though I suppose sugar solution are optically active).&#xD;&#xA;* This new one--[What is “International Service of Weights and Measures”?][4]--is bothering me because I think *&quot;What was [formerly very important organization]?&quot;* could possibly be relevant, but that this one is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="47d5bd03-0bc5-4eef-87a6-92c2c1cfdc5a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="With our site's [&quot;birthday&quot; coming up](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary) in 3 days, I thought it would be kind of neat to put a candle on the site logo for the day, because the Mexican hat potential kind of looks like a cake if you don't think about it too hard. Can the SE design overlord (hi Jin) make this happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="662ab601-9908-4c75-9817-a531c00a5774" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is of course a question to the team, but I doubt that this is a punishment -- rather Jin is just busy. You may also try contributing constructively to the [design suggestion thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/604/site-design-take-2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="a4dae23e-a94c-4242-96ff-a88e67c7004d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="0d50a900-824e-42c6-9ffe-b865d0150f13" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We do not do small design tweaks for things like this.  Google might be able to do daily fun doodles, but it would get out of hand we did that here given the number of sites we have (and we keep growing!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the birthday celebrations, we're looking for the communities to come together with the initiative to put something together.  It isn't really for the purpose of just sending swag just to send swag.  [**We do that for other things already**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1072/67)... (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="28998560-9dab-4a6c-85e1-38dbf016f508" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that the how-things-work site has been closed and in spite of some people wishing to raise the standard, there are a number of questions about the physics of how things such as common machines and appliances work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any consensus on a &quot;how things work&quot; tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps Not really a dupe of https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work - I'm intending this for a &quot;how does an air conditioner work&quot; not a &quot;how does gravity work&quot; type question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="68800112-1c43-4d99-9f54-b2c603277c60" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We do not do small design tweaks for things like this.  Google might be able to do daily fun doodles, but it would get out of hand we did that here given the number of sites we have (and we keep growing!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the birthday celebrations, we're looking for the communities to come together with the initiative to put something together.  It isn't really for the purpose of just sending swag just to send swag.  [**We do that for other things already**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1072/67)... (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="c0a33e99-4a53-4817-9b28-e7eb6f9969e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="###Update: The Theoretical Physics proposal will *not* be closed&#xD;&#xA;*See: [**The Theoretical Physic Proposal Back Underway!**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/theoretic-physic-proposal-back-underway)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the last 8 months, I have watched an Area 51 proposal to create a [**Theoretical Physics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site which would, effectively, split the [**Physics**](http://physics.stackexchange.com) community into two separate branches of study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can appreciate and understand both sides of the debate (focused vs. broader appeal). That's why I've been watching carefully the [Area 51 discussions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and the development of Physics SE. The proposal has inched along slowly over 8 months while the Physics Stack Exchange continues to evolve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time, I feel strongly that splitting the field of physics between two separate sites would be materially harmful to both the proposed Theoretical site and the Physics SE. Having *two* related sites like that will only draw much-needed attention to the detriment of *both.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has been doing fine in the [Area 51 analytics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), but there have been concerns of **steadily declining traffic and visitors**. If Physics SE had the &quot;big city&quot; problems of a Stack Overflow, there *might* have been merit to splitting up the community but, as it stands, I don't think this site can take the additional hit on its declining traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But traffic isn't the main reason *not* to split up this site.** The Theoretical Physics proposal was created when this Physics site was very young. At the time, it wasn't clear if the two branches of study would benefit from being on the same site. But the Physics SE has made tremendous progress and, to their credit, this site seems to have successfully and harmoniously integrated these areas of study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I feel that **the scope of questions outlined in this proposal have a home on Physics SE.** That doesn't mean that we can never open another physics-based site. There may be a time where that makes sense. But I am planning on closing the Theoretical Physics proposal and wanted to let you know how I came to that decision and to see if there were any further issue I should consider before finally closing the proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="eebf06aa-9251-4b79-ae0b-b38824472308" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Within some limits of being well-specified we've been allowing these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [examples in our tag][1] [tag:books] and the meta-question [What are the meanings of “books” and “reference-request”?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/786/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="88b70d91-e3c0-432f-b5d8-6d3bd9af170d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16005/what-is-the-potential-difference-between-point-x-and-point-y/16010#16010) are potentially on-topic on Electrical Engineering. However, that question is a little too basic for most of our users, and we don't get a lot of homework questions as it seems you do per [this meta post on homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [&quot;no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework/211#211).  We do occasionally get questions which seem to be from people learning about electricity in physics classes, though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an example of a good, on-topic question on Physics?  Where do you draw the line between questions like this (which is just a voltage divider attached to some voltage sources) and off-topic problems better suited for another site like Electrical Engineering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want us to refer questions like this to your site, or do you want to refer questions like this to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a heads up: that question just got [tweeted](http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/127370402174472192), so make sure it's nice and pretty according to your standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="88f16b16-c639-4cc0-a311-f74fda8f6b46" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="6ff759aa-ad68-4944-8fec-3929f4d714a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we've had some efforts to clean up the tags on the site ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light)), so I've created a chat event to collect any input that the community - that's you - may want to offer. It's scheduled for this Friday at &lt;s&gt;20:00&lt;/s&gt; 15:00 UTC (though that could be changed if more people speak up soon), and you can see the details and &quot;register&quot; by going to the chat room's [schedule page](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-coupling?tab=schedule). Hope to see you there!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is not a question in any way, just an announcement, but seeing as how there's no other way to get the word out, I thought it would be important.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="9ace811d-76b7-444d-aac2-e6f086824e6b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*In reference to: [Disposition of Area 51 Proposal: Theoretical Physics](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The proposal for creating a &quot;[Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)&quot; site will *not* be closed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to the Physics SE community &amp;mdash; You made a persuasive argument for *keeping* the Theoretical Physics proposal alive and on course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found your arguments both convincing *and* refreshingly civil. It is my sincere hope that the dual Physics/Theoretical Physics community will become greater than the sum of its parts. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="60eaca6d-8ff8-444e-aef7-a9a43a45d1e2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen _at least_ these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; four examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/41059/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a reason not to add &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, please mention it either in a comment or answer!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="55df3fae-00c9-484e-9c17-05c1167f3ce1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Due probably to the policy rule &quot;if you downvote, please explain&quot;, I find that downvoted or trivial questions in the site are actually answered in the comments to the question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is the contrary to &quot; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy &quot;. Real answers should be answers, no comments. But on other hand, it is arguable that a person actually wanting to downvote a question and suggest the OP to delete it, does not want to give an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in some cases I find that people just answer in comments just because they think their answer is too short or too humble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: So my questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find that answers in comments are a problem? If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="0878a7a9-2404-47b3-9585-189e3c9925f2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16005/what-is-the-potential-difference-between-point-x-and-point-y/16010#16010) are potentially on-topic on Electrical Engineering. However, that question is a little too basic for most of our users, and we don't get a lot of homework questions as it seems you do per [this meta post on homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [&quot;no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework/211#211).  We do occasionally get questions which seem to be from people learning about electricity in physics classes, though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an example of a good, on-topic question on Physics?  Where do you draw the line between questions like this (which is just a voltage divider attached to some voltage sources) and off-topic problems better suited for another site like Electrical Engineering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want us to refer questions like this to your site, or do you want to refer questions like this to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a heads up: that question just got [tweeted](http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/127370402174472192), so make sure it's nice and pretty according to your standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="f6972913-196b-4fc0-b299-ca0f16f7fd18" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [If it&amp;#39;s possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Astronomy.SE is [closing][1]l and this SE seems like it could be a natural home for a significant fraction of the questions asked there.  Before taking the time to flag anything for migration the question of what would/not be accepted here needs to be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/170/astronomy-is-closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="9bb02b61-edb1-4dff-980d-d34cca51d2d5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="* I can assure you that there will be no content omitted by default as this goes against our basic design (making it easy for people to find content). There is a working ignored-tags function for users who do not wish to see certain content.&#xD;&#xA;* You proposal for the use of [tag:homework] is consistent with the practice on Stack Overflow, and is fine by me, noting that w[e have already decided against allowing *&quot;solve this problem for me&quot;* type problems in favor of *&quot;explain this physics 101 concept&quot;*][1]. The [use of [homework] is already policy][2].&#xD;&#xA;* [tag:pop-sci] is also fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;* We've been trying to chase the worst of the philosophical stuff away. Could you provide some examples of still open question to which you believe this policy should be applied? Indeed, examples would be helpful in all categories. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there has always been some trouble with [tag:homework], in that some users object when it is applied to their question---either because [they came by this particular pedagogical question in some other context][3] or because they feel it is pejorative. I imagine we can expect the same from [tag:pop-sci] though I'd suggest that people asking them just get over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/612/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/234/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="c4891c37-2351-4f34-8e30-3640e5731c39" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="9213bdd4-35fc-499a-8002-18fe5204a099" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Community Promotion Ads - 2013](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2810/community-promotion-ads-2013)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA;- useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA;- interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA;- cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA;- anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently 6) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="f4b098df-4b0c-477f-94bd-15bad8f27f9e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Due probably to the policy rule &quot;if you downvote, please explain&quot;, I find that downvoted or trivial questions in the site are actually answered in the comments to the question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is the contrary to &quot; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy &quot;. Real answers should be answers, no comments. But on other hand, it is arguable that a person actually wanting to downvote a question and suggest the OP to delete it, does not want to give an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in some cases I find that people just answer in comments just because they think their answer is too short or too humble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: So my questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find that answers in comments are a problem? If so, what measures should be taken to discourage that kind of answers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="36dfc6dd-20d4-44d3-abc5-ee1bff1f8040" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that the how-things-work site has been closed and in spite of some people wishing to raise the standard, there are a number of questions about the physics of how things such as common machines and appliances work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any consensus on a &quot;how things work&quot; tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps Not really a dupe of https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work - I'm intending this for a &quot;how does an air conditioner work&quot; not a &quot;how does gravity work&quot; type question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="e2b82ab5-3fd0-429c-81ff-be475767615e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As recent events showed, there is a need for a mechanism that allows a ban of a very active community member to be reversed if it is deemed important by enough community members &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2716/7924, bmike asked me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;I&gt;I'm asking for where you'd draw the line when someone repeatedly and vocally attacks another person (clearly making it about them and not their actions). Also - I'm not saying you are wrong until I hear what you propose. I'd like to know where you would draw the line. Do you vote on who gets to ignore the rules? Do you set it at a certain reputation? Do you give someone a free shot at a different person for each 1k reputation? Make a proposal we can debate if you'd like to change the rules.&lt;/I&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here my request (slightly modified compared to my reply there):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be possible to undo a ban upon the intervention of 5 users with enough reputation to merit the privilege of reversing a ban. This could for example taken to be at the level of 250 reps where one earns the privilege of voting to close, or at 2000 reps where one also earns the privilege to vote on edits; any other threshold would be ok, too. 	 &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the ban should be undone if 5 people pay a ransom of perhaps 500 reps (or any other reasonable amount, perhaps an amount proportional to the banning time) to show that they are serious about the need to have someone back. This would mean that the sin has been paid for, so justice has been done, as in ordinary life. If less ransom comes in, the ban time should be shortened according to the fraction received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="541edd8f-f762-499c-a7de-14e0628abeeb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="fb4f366b-e3b4-4d1d-95b3-32bdb12ccd26" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related chat : http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have decided to take all Astro questions, _including_ observational astro (though we are shunting astrophotography to photo.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the rest of the astro questions (all of them astrophysics questions) fall well within our scope and title, observational astro questions do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of this, let's discuss whether or not we should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Change the site name to Physics &amp; Astronomy. Maybe keep physics.SE,astro.SE, and physicsandastronomy.SE as URL aliases (I'd say physics.SE should stay as the main one)&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;s&gt; Explicitly add astrophysics and observational astro to our faq &lt;/s&gt;(this has already been addressed in the related question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the final decision will be made _after_ the merger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="a26a619a-bce8-4385-b03c-b2e9a70418f3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Community Promotion Ads - 2013](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2810/community-promotion-ads-2013)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA;- useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA;- interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA;- cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA;- anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently 6) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="910562f2-f960-40bb-87c9-07f22e29d4b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often _tend_ to be [better](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) than the ones that are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by **encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions**. I think it's good for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that **in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question**, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm **not** saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm also **not** saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does _nothing_ to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is _really_ asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="06f5f62a-c493-4eab-9f0b-052990171e52" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="3fed5a80-cae2-4607-a272-81f5abb8483e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related chat : http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have decided to take all Astro questions, _including_ observational astro (though we are shunting astrophotography to photo.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the rest of the astro questions (all of them astrophysics questions) fall well within our scope and title, observational astro questions do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of this, let's discuss whether or not we should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Change the site name to Physics &amp; Astronomy. Maybe keep physics.SE,astro.SE, and physicsandastronomy.SE as URL aliases (I'd say physics.SE should stay as the main one)&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;s&gt; Explicitly add astrophysics and observational astro to our faq &lt;/s&gt;(this has already been addressed in the related question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the final decision will be made _after_ the merger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="96dc5a3d-46f6-4481-b943-4dbb82b56026" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me put up the counterpoint to Manishearth's answer: while we're certainly not _required_ by Stack Exchange to do anything about questions which violate a course policy, it's in the interest of our site to do so, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the community has been quite clear that we do not want this site to be known as a place where people can take the easy way out of learning. We try to encourage insightful conceptual questions and discourage do-my-homework questions, and accordingly we have what I think is one of the [strictest nontrivial policies on homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) in the SE network. Similarly, we don't want this to become known as a place where people can easily cheat on their exams or other projects. So when we find out that someone is violating an academic policy, it's consistent with our overall vision to make it difficult for them to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I propose. If you see a question which seems to come from a current take-home exam or some equivalent project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you find the policy on outside help for the exam and it _does allow_ help from Q&amp;A sites like this one,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that allows outside help from Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you find the policy for the exam and it _does **not** allow_ help from sources like SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that forbids use of Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, close it and let the rest of us know in mod chat.)&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;s&gt;Downvote&lt;/s&gt; (actually I don't care about this, your votes are your business)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you cannot find the policy on outside help for the exam, or if you do find it but you can't tell whether it allows or forbids help from Q&amp;A sites,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to the exam paper and saying that you couldn't find a relevant policy on outside help&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, let the rest of us know in mod chat, but don't necessarily close it right away.)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter two cases, I would definitely encourage people to be proactive about emailing the professor of the course. I say &quot;optional&quot; only because we can't and won't _make_ anyone do it, but the professor is really the best person to deal with these incidents. And it doesn't have to be a moderator who lets them know. None of our special mod powers are particularly relevant when it comes to informing a professor about academic dishonesty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="cd706a81-1914-483a-8fcc-625ae3e56ec6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**UPDATE**  from D.Z.: I'm hijacking Manishearth's question to organize the tag cleanup effort, because most of the links are already posted here. Here's how this is going to work: whenever you have time and feel so inclined, go through the lists below and pick out a few questions (maybe no more than 5 at a time) that you want to review. Make sure the tags are appropriate, edit them if not, and try to make any other improvements that are warranted. When retagging, keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a tag that was originally on the question doesn't exist here at Physics, but you think it would be appropriate (which it usually should be) check and see if we have a different tag with the same meaning. If not, feel free to recreate the same tag. If you don't have enough rep to create tags, just leave that post, or flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;- We have a list of [subfield tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules) of which each post should probably have at least one. The list may be a little out of date, so consider it a guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each time you review a question and finish any edits necessary, delete it from the list below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged] ([list of questions that are &quot;untagged&quot;][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="9efa53a9-6614-4cde-8381-da2cb510472c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16005/what-is-the-potential-difference-between-point-x-and-point-y/16010#16010) are potentially on-topic on Electrical Engineering. However, that question is a little too basic for most of our users, and we don't get a lot of homework questions as it seems you do per [this meta post on homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [&quot;no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework/211#211).  We do occasionally get questions which seem to be from people learning about electricity in physics classes, though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an example of a good, on-topic question on Physics?  Where do you draw the line between questions like this (which is just a voltage divider attached to some voltage sources) and off-topic problems better suited for another site like Electrical Engineering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want us to refer questions like this to your site, or do you want to refer questions like this to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a heads up: that question just got [tweeted](http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/127370402174472192), so make sure it's nice and pretty according to your standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="f39fc1fd-7f55-40d0-810a-be40a55d751b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often _tend_ to be [better](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) than the ones that are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by **encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions**. I think it's good for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that **in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question**, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm **not** saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm also **not** saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does _nothing_ to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is _really_ asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="833e3800-33ae-405b-b37c-01496eb11158" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a rank amateur, I can safely state from experience that even a question that could have been answered by one's own self with some effort (I lied when I said that I could not find the answer myself) is not laughed out of court on sight. Helpful people -- experts -- are on hand to patiently give explanations and clarify upon request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do find troubling is vicious commentary such as [here][1] with no action taken by moderators. I am also troubled by the personal attack on this page directed at a currently suspended contributor who has no means of responding to set the record straight (again, no action taken by moderators).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, I could feel comfortable with a general hands-off approach from moderators and staff... if it were applied fairly and evenhandedly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty/2837#comment6158_2837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="9cdebb60-ae53-48e8-bfcd-418cc42cb29b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**UPDATE**  from D.Z.: I'm hijacking Manishearth's question to organize the tag cleanup effort, because most of the links are already posted here. Here's how this is going to work: whenever you have time and feel so inclined, go through the lists below and pick out a few questions (maybe no more than 5 at a time) that you want to review. Make sure the tags are appropriate, edit them if not, and try to make any other improvements that are warranted. When retagging, keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a tag that was originally on the question doesn't exist here at Physics, but you think it would be appropriate (which it usually should be) check and see if we have a different tag with the same meaning. If not, feel free to recreate the same tag. If you don't have enough rep to create tags, just leave that post, or flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;- We have a list of [subfield tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules) of which each post should probably have at least one. The list may be a little out of date, so consider it a guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each time you review a question and finish any edits necessary, delete it from the list below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged] ([list of questions that are &quot;untagged&quot;][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="d0d269ee-bef8-4cd0-81b7-40d21d7466e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I largely second [David's comments][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if there are a few leftover topics then they must be the sort that would also fit on the still pending [Experimental or Applied Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that the HEP proposal is further along, but I think that dividing into  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High level theoretical &#xD;&#xA;* Nitty gritty experimental reality&#xD;&#xA;* Everything else physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is more defensible that suggesting that every significant sub-field should have it's own site. Not only does that break the Stack Overflow model (where c, perl, haskel, postscript, c#, etc get along just fine on one site) but it reduces the possibility for useful cross-fertilization of skills between the disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I'm not entirely happy with three sites, but I certainly think that it is better than HEP and solid state and optics and AMO and...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/956/does-the-area-51-proposal-high-energy-physics-overlap-with-this-site/957#957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="492dff2c-a846-45ff-b484-ae390df6f82f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been thinking over this today, and yep, I still like it ;-) It reminds me that [the first time through](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like), there were a lot of suggestions about cute ways to work physics concepts and notation into the design, but I think we'll be better off with a design like this that just gets out of the way, so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I'd be quite happy with the exact design you've posted screenshots of, but I do have a few speculative thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The page footer seems insufficiently distinguished from the rest of the page. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be nice to have some visual indication that the main content of the page has ended and that you're now looking at a generic footer. What about putting the same grid and gradient you use in the header, or perhaps a faded version of it, as a background for the footer?&#xD;&#xA;- Same goes for the right sidebar; it seems insufficiently distinguished from the main content of the page, though more so on the question list than the individual question page. Of course I'm not suggesting using the grid/gradient background for the sidebar, but perhaps there's something subtle that could be done there, like giving it a faint left border, or a slightly off-white background color, or fading the text, or whatever tricks you have up your sleeve for this sort of thing ;-)&#xD;&#xA;- Regarding the vertical alignment of the text of the site name and the page tabs on the right (questions, tags, etc.): when I look at it closely I do see that the baselines are aligned, but if I'm not focusing on that alignment specifically, it qualitatively seems just a little off. I'm wondering what it would look like if the names of those tabs were raised up by just a couple of pixels.&#xD;&#xA;- The tags also seem to blend into the background a bit. What would you think about putting a thin border of a marginally darker shade on the left side of each tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do we get a custom image on the 404 page? That's one place I think we could get away with having some cute physics joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="ee8e0fe1-2b56-47c4-bbf2-53c5e44ca948" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Along the lines of [this question][1] and the links to others within, there is some acceptance amongst the community when it comes to paper reference requests on a specific topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would questions related to good/representative *journals* in a given field also be on topic? In some instances, for broad fields, the answer of &quot;What journals are good and why?&quot; are easily determined by things like the impact factor and number of citations. But for sub-fields, there is often a different set of journals that are better representative but are harder to find in the noise of the superset field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would a question like &quot;What are the highest quality journals in numerical weather/atmospheric simulation?&quot; be on-topic? It would need to be more than just a list-of-journals question of course. Some analysis would need to be done and say &quot;Well X is good at numerical methods, while Y is good for understanding physics and Z has papers on forecasting. In the area of hurricanes, journal A is cutting-edge...&quot; and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2918/do-we-allow-paper-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="b618730a-a779-4e64-8a28-78f81d4c28ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What you're seeing is apparently noise from the mass imports from astronomy and theoretical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/what-do-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-mass-migration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what you described apparently the mass import process was adding questions and then pulling them off the front page, instead of adding them in a way they never appeared there in the first place.  That's less than ideal; but for a very rarely used feature putting effort into fine tuning it probably doesn't make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="560b8091-8692-40f7-9354-de68c2582c52" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In conjunction with the [new site design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design) Jin has proposed, we may get to choose images to put on the 404 error and captcha pages. (I'm not sure if there are any other pages there are that we can customize, but if so, I hope someone else will edit them in.) The main theme is pretty clean and not very physics-specific, but these error pages are a good chance to work some inside jokes and physics references into the site design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few possibilities for the 404 page were proposed on the [original design thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like) (though [one of them](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) may not be 404 material much longer :-P). We can reconsider those, and also collect new ones if anyone has them. So, what ideas do we have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="7fddf5d2-b64b-4f62-9bf8-6e3998a7d82f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Community Promotion Ads - 2013](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2810/community-promotion-ads-2013)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA;- useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA;- interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA;- cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA;- anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently 6) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="ebddb997-906c-4c6c-a1cb-5735179e08bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been thinking over this today, and yep, I still like it ;-) It reminds me that [the first time through](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like), there were a lot of suggestions about cute ways to work physics concepts and notation into the design, but I think we'll be better off with a design like this that just gets out of the way, so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I'd be quite happy with the exact design you've posted screenshots of, but I do have a few speculative thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The page footer seems insufficiently distinguished from the rest of the page. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be nice to have some visual indication that the main content of the page has ended and that you're now looking at a generic footer. What about putting the same grid and gradient you use in the header, or perhaps a faded version of it, as a background for the footer?&#xD;&#xA;- Same goes for the right sidebar; it seems insufficiently distinguished from the main content of the page, though more so on the question list than the individual question page. Of course I'm not suggesting using the grid/gradient background for the sidebar, but perhaps there's something subtle that could be done there, like giving it a faint left border, or a slightly off-white background color, or fading the text, or whatever tricks you have up your sleeve for this sort of thing ;-)&#xD;&#xA;- Regarding the vertical alignment of the text of the site name and the page tabs on the right (questions, tags, etc.): when I look at it closely I do see that the baselines are aligned, but if I'm not focusing on that alignment specifically, it qualitatively seems just a little off. I'm wondering what it would look like if the names of those tabs were raised up by just a couple of pixels.&#xD;&#xA;- The tags also seem to blend into the background a bit. What would you think about putting a thin border of a marginally darker shade on the left side of each tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do we get a custom image on the 404 page? That's one place I think we could get away with having some cute physics joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="8247e918-801f-4660-a35e-8e9fe00c29c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What you're seeing is apparently noise from the mass imports from astronomy and theoretical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/what-do-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-mass-migration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what you described apparently the mass import process was adding questions and then pulling them off the front page, instead of adding them in a way they never appeared there in the first place.  That's less than ideal; but for a very rarely used feature putting effort into fine tuning it probably doesn't make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="e6414ee6-bfd6-4b41-b79b-5d473e9d9420" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing. The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1250)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="26b5eaf5-f054-4d78-970e-95ea97186abf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In conjunction with the [new site design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design) Jin has proposed, we may get to choose images to put on the 404 error and captcha pages. (I'm not sure if there are any other pages there are that we can customize, but if so, I hope someone else will edit them in.) The main theme is pretty clean and not very physics-specific, but these error pages are a good chance to work some inside jokes and physics references into the site design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few possibilities for the 404 page were proposed on the [original design thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304/what-should-our-site-look-like) (though [one of them](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) may not be 404 material much longer :-P). We can reconsider those, and also collect new ones if anyone has them. So, what ideas do we have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="7a8ed286-1bae-4ce0-88db-46e97a6312e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So one thing that came out of &lt;s&gt;our recent chat meeting&lt;/s&gt; the [call to close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions) was that some of our high rep members have been reluctant to cast close votes because it has been more or less unnecessary. Now that we're trying to get the community more involved in closing, I'm going to take this opportunity to &lt;s&gt;write up a guide here on meta&lt;/s&gt; blatantly rip off a guide to closing from [Ninefingers' post on Cryptography meta](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/129/a-guide-to-moderating-crypto-stackexchange-yourself-close-voting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="03b0dbb4-87b1-441b-b97c-fb51d7c960eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing. The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1250)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="c22425f3-d205-4378-8b99-ed6df1f5d913" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I had some questions and was going to post them here. While trying to find the best formulation for them I've found the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting questions with immediate answers is welcome e.g. on [Stack Overflow](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/), but this site is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure my questions are interesting and the answers can be useful for other people. Should I post them here? If yes, how to do that in the best way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is similar to [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49/is-it-okay-with-you-to-write-seed-questions) but I think the linked question is more about site promotion while mine is about knowledge sharing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to flood the site with question&amp;answers invented specially to &quot;farm&quot; reputation. There are some problems that were puzzling me. If I was able to find the answers myself, so what? Should I just wait for other people to ask the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers given to the question linked above are essentially &quot;Pretend to not know the answer. People like answering questions&quot;. Well, I like answering questions too. Why not answer my own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, should I...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ... post such questions?&#xD;&#xA; 2. ... indicate that I already know the answer?&#xD;&#xA; 3. ... post my own answer?&#xD;&#xA; 4. ... give other people some time to answer the questions before posting my own answer?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="3de78eb4-015c-4e87-b184-2827f2296638" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/507/can-we-get-a-migration-path-opened-to-math-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we close **or** flag a question as *off-topic*, we have an option called `belongs to meta.physics.SE`. We're also receiving questions that belong to Math.SE or Electronics.SE most of the time. So, it'd be easy for migration if there is a choice for `belongs to Math.SE` and `belongs to Electronics.SE`. Well, other sites do have that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, we can take Android.SE. It's having a choice for `belongs to SO`. I think superuser is also having such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0mmnG.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="193f31ee-370a-495c-8274-e2846f22be9d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So one thing that came out of &lt;s&gt;our recent chat meeting&lt;/s&gt; the [call to close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions) was that some of our high rep members have been reluctant to cast close votes because it has been more or less unnecessary. Now that we're trying to get the community more involved in closing, I'm going to take this opportunity to &lt;s&gt;write up a guide here on meta&lt;/s&gt; blatantly rip off a guide to closing from [Ninefingers' post on Cryptography meta](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/129/a-guide-to-moderating-crypto-stackexchange-yourself-close-voting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="1e06e01e-6379-4d4d-9da8-8b4c6c9e139f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Back in the early days of the site, there was [a question about letting the community close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions) through the normal 5-votes-to-close mechanism. That was a little impractical at the time because we had very few high-rep users, and three of those were moderators (whose close votes are automatically binding), so if we (moderators) left questions to be closed by the normal mechanism, it would take forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, though, things are different; we have 24 users with over 3000 reputation, the threshold required to vote to close questions, and several other users are close to reaching 3000 rep. So I would like to encourage high-rep members of the community to step up and vote to close questions that need to be closed. I know I close a lot of questions myself but I have been and will be trying to back off on that, to allow the normal community closure mechanism to work more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at it, I'm curious about why it is that I don't see a whole lot of nonbinding close votes. Is it just that the moderators have been too quick to close questions, so other high-rep users don't get to vote on them? Or do high-rep users just not inclined to bother with that sort of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;We do have a [meta question for candidate closures](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117/what-questions-should-be-considered-to-close-by-500-users) that we could use to list questions for 3000+ users to vote to close. I'll start posting some links there in lieu of actually voting to close myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="e0c6a32a-97b2-4691-a0b3-d6d1dc9e221b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Last batch of astro imports completed! The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1252#1252)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="79f3053c-ad7d-4c85-96cd-4f8b78c770b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/how-can-i-cite-a-question-in-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE][1] has a citation tool. Basically, if you click &quot;share&quot; on a post, there's a little &quot;cite&quot; link:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking that, you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets one properly cite a Physics.SE post in a document by the attribution rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want this? While it may not be so useful for formal journal articles, I see how it could be useful for miscellaneous documents (remember, visitors can use it too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0OrDR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yEnCA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="6d3f9878-3b07-46e6-bdaf-0cd32bcc9c9b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Last batch of astro imports completed! The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1252#1252)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="ea9e0710-7cf2-41a6-bc90-0ed4e3fd37c6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So one thing that came out of &lt;s&gt;our recent chat meeting&lt;/s&gt; the [call to close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions) was that some of our high rep members have been reluctant to cast close votes because it has been more or less unnecessary. Now that we're trying to get the community more involved in closing, I'm going to take this opportunity to &lt;s&gt;write up a guide here on meta&lt;/s&gt; blatantly rip off a guide to closing from [Ninefingers' post on Cryptography meta](http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/129/a-guide-to-moderating-crypto-stackexchange-yourself-close-voting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="8b9119df-5238-4825-a358-872a0df09128" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So far the scope of Physics Stack Exchange has been defined to exclude experimental technology questions, which are those questions about the devices that one uses to do physics, rather than about the physical principles they use. Some of these questions fit on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), and there was a proposal on [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) that would have been a great home for these questions. However, that proposal is no more, and given that this site is well established with a steady flow of physical principles questions, **is it time that we start to allow the questions about experimental technology?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example that prompted this question: &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/good-electronic-filters-against-50hz-mains-hum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="1a5d60c4-2c5e-4757-8833-ef6b00242005" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So far the scope of Physics Stack Exchange has been defined to exclude experimental technology questions, which are those questions about the devices that one uses to do physics, rather than about the physical principles they use. Some of these questions fit on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), and there was a proposal on [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) that would have been a great home for these questions. However, that proposal is no more, and given that this site is well established with a steady flow of physical principles questions, **is it time that we start to allow the questions about experimental technology?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example that prompted this question: &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/good-electronic-filters-against-50hz-mains-hum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="c80d9a45-7355-42a5-8c50-6dcb519a6a81" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I use `\:\mathrm{&lt;units go here&gt;}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$E=120\:\mathrm{kgm^2s^{-2}}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also use [this userscript][2]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want mathjax on meta, upvote https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/mathjax-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WqfPo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="cf9670aa-8e3e-4d01-8d80-00309f87a891" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="With our site's [&quot;birthday&quot; coming up](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary) in 3 days, I thought it would be kind of neat to put a candle on the site logo for the day, because the Mexican hat potential kind of looks like a cake if you don't think about it too hard. Can the SE design overlord (hi Jin) make this happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="eb016de1-1933-4735-864b-cee159eab0d2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="c9c686bd-a737-4d06-9470-706be4dfec2d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We do not do small design tweaks for things like this.  Google might be able to do daily fun doodles, but it would get out of hand we did that here given the number of sites we have (and we keep growing!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the birthday celebrations, we're looking for the communities to come together with the initiative to put something together.  It isn't really for the purpose of just sending swag just to send swag.  [**We do that for other things already**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1072/67)... (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1257" RevisionGUID="08ebdf59-b7f2-405c-bccf-fbbbb1856a98" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do this - the migration process *intentionally* strips tags that don't exist on the destination, to avoid polluting that site with tags that do not belong. In fact, questions currently marked [tag:untagged] would normally *fail migration* without moderator intervention due to the lack of any tag overlap on the destination site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've previously noted, all of these questions will need to be reviewed eventually - that's a huge job, but there's no way around it: for as much overlap as they might have had, Astronomy and Theoretical Physics were separate sites with separate cultures and styles; integrating those questions is key to avoiding confusion for future readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to make this a *little* easier though, by providing lists of all migrated questions *along with their original tags*. I highly suggest splitting these up into &quot;bite-sized&quot; tasks and tackling them one by one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="b0ba0386-ff83-4cc0-a643-63378f5abfb5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Within some limits of being well-specified we've been allowing these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [examples in our tag][1] [tag:books] and the meta-question [What are the meanings of “books” and “reference-request”?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/786/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="56ca740e-2280-41fd-8342-ff1b612b00b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm all for the general idea, but the current proposed text is a bit ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 put it, someone looking at this may think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not all homework questions are allowed&quot; ... ok; does that apply to my homework question? Naw, probably just other peoples'. Those guys homework questions are awful; they don't help me at all. Good job, site, disallowing those homework questions so folks can focus on mine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you wish to ask a homework question, be sure to [include your work and highlight your conceptual confusion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly better one (credit Shog9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Include your work and highlight the concept confusing you][2] when asking homework-related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="37d394e6-897d-4b9e-b8cb-97348fc10009" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Possible duplicates:&#xD;&#xA; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1281/can-we-make-a-theoretical-physics-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cane we capture the I was reading or I was watching a video and question crowd with a &quot;new idea&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1257" RevisionGUID="c671b46f-0b42-444d-91c3-d4b3c850ff3a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do this - the migration process *intentionally* strips tags that don't exist on the destination, to avoid polluting that site with tags that do not belong. In fact, questions currently marked [tag:untagged] would normally *fail migration* without moderator intervention due to the lack of any tag overlap on the destination site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've previously noted, all of these questions will need to be reviewed eventually - that's a huge job, but there's no way around it: for as much overlap as they might have had, Astronomy and Theoretical Physics were separate sites with separate cultures and styles; integrating those questions is key to avoiding confusion for future readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to make this a *little* easier though, by providing lists of all migrated questions *along with their original tags*. I highly suggest splitting these up into &quot;bite-sized&quot; tasks and tackling them one by one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="dd1a16c5-4473-4d8c-a8e3-f5775556c2d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the borderline crackpot question, we agreed on that, but after that was finished, David went back to an old answer where I wanted to preserve a discussion (see this for a previous case: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/912/deleting-comments-without-consensus ), and deleted the discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24729/worlds-branching-or-diverging-in-many-worlds-interpretation/24738#comment62303_24738 , and locked the post. This was extremely annoying, and a bit of show of power, and I don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his favor, the erasure was probably in line with general policy on stackexchange, but I really think enforcing policy takes maturity and judgement, and should not be based on personal issues. Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties. This came up before, regarding deleting comments, and I just preserved those comments up by copying into the body of the answer up to this point. But it seems that David changed his mind on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like it. I think it shows immature judgement, and I don't have confidence that this is a neutral application of policy, nor that it is a good idea for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the deleted material, so you can judge for yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Short discussion on positivism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positivism is extremely counterintuitive, and this makes a lot of people reject it. This was a discussion in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrodinger's Ghost: Not sure if I agree, have you read the papers? Divergent MWI explicitly states that whether I will see a X spin or Y spin has been determined since the big bang. I will not see both, only either X or Y and if it happens to be Y then thats because I was on the Y branch. In this view advocated by Saunders and Wilson we are in a separate parallel universe, there is no branching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon: I have not read the papers. The &quot;determined&quot; aspect is creating a fictious observer selection a postiori from the results of the measurements, and is only different in ontology from standard MWI. What &quot;you&quot; are is a computational entity, and computations don't embed in QM straightforwardly, since they require irreversible measurements, so you need a large-system limit, and decoherence. Whether you embed yourself in a branch that you back-propagate to the big-bang or that you back-propagate to the measurement is up to you, it doesn't change your perception or anyone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: But there is obviously a objective difference. In one view, the overlap branching view, you are numerically identical, you are part of the other worlds pre-branching. In the divergent view, you are only qualitatively identical, but the atoms that make up you exist on their own, seperate from the identical ones in another branch.... So for instance quantum suicide works in branching, but not in divergence. When you die in divergence, you really die, just as in a single universe interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The difference is imagined. How do you know your perception is only stuck to one branch? Why can't it jump to another? Why do you think you don't really die if you die in a branching interpretation? Why do you attach your consciousness to you only, maybe your consciousness is located in North Dakota in the basement of some guy's house. These questions need to be formulated in a positivistic way to see which ones are meaningless, and in this case, all these questions, and the question of &quot;existence&quot; itself, are meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, the difference is not imagined, why would it be? If you clone yourself, do you magically become the clone? No. You are the consciousness that arise from the neurons in your brain, it doesn't matter if there exist identical ones, you don't magically jump from body to body, that would require a soul, which is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: What if you clone by splitting your brain down the middle, and making a copy of the other half. Which way do you go? What if you clone by replacing half your neurons higgeldy-piggledy with electronic parts, and put these neurons in a new body, with different electronic parts replacing the other half? When you are cloned, you have a chance of jumping to the other body, the evidence is that if you ask the other body what happened, it would say &quot;I jumped!&quot; What the probability is is only determinable from the outside. This is only a &quot;soul&quot; to the extent that software is soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: These are all well known &quot;conundrums&quot; in philosophy surrounding personal identity, but even in your thought experiments there is no &quot;jumping&quot;, you simply create 2 consciousnesses from 1 brain. We know this from split-brain experiments... I fail to see how your argument supports the idea that you could jump between branches? Imagine in our single universe there is another identical solar system with a identical planet Earth. Do we &quot;jump&quot; between them because there exist 2 identical people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: How can you tell if there is jumping on not? In any circumstance where &quot;jumping&quot; is allowed, the two minds are exactly the same (if even there are two of them). This is the point--- when the two consciousnesses are the same, it is a meaningless question to ask if there are two or one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, there is no physics that allows magical &quot;jumping&quot;... There are 2 worlds separate, how is this so hard to understand for you? Just because something is identical does not merge them into 1 thing wtf??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The reason it is &quot;hard to understand&quot; is because the notion of whether there are two &quot;consciousnesses&quot; or only one is not physics, it's pure philosophy. What experiment could tell me if jumping were occuring or not occuring? The only cases where jumping could be occuring, the two brains are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Why would jumping occur? Does 2 identical photons become 1? It's not pure philosophy, if the fact is that the branches all exist premeasurement, that is a objective fact about reality. You are making the claim of magic soul jumping, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. First prove the soul, then prove jumping mechanism, collect a ton of nobel prizes and I'll concede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: It is not the same as photons, because there is a test which will tell you when you have two photons. What test can tell you if two branches &quot;exist&quot; before they diverge? There is no answer, even in principle, because there is no existence-meter which flashes when it sees existing stuff. So &quot;exist&quot; is not a useful word. I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of the soul in the same way I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of firefox (the program), even though what the &quot;firefox&quot; on my computer is exactly is not clear, nor if there is 1 or 2 copies, especially when the OS puts a copy in cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Yes, you are right that there is no experiment that can answer it, so we have to resort to metaphysics. If divergence is better than branching as a theory, then it's rational to assume that divergence is most likely the true representation of reality. ...But you do then accept that although we can't determine the fact, there is a fact about which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No I don't accept that. There is no fact about the matter, there is no fact, there is no matter. The question is meaningless, you are asking nonsense. This is what &quot;positivism&quot; means. Two options are observationally identical means there is no difference between them, and it is a matter of convention which one you say when you speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: So you don't comprehend the difference between NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL worlds and QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL ? You are the first person I've discussed this with who has not grasped this concept...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: I &quot;grasp&quot; the concept, I am telling you it is incoherent. There is no meaning to a question of pure metaphysics, you can make up whatever you like, there are no differences in observation, so by definition the two positions are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No. That's like saying solipsism and realism is identical because we can't do a experiment to verify which is correct... How the hell can you do science with such a mindset?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Solipsism and realism are identical! Indeed this is a puzzling but true consequence of positivism. It remains to see how you can translate ethical arguments, like &quot;I should buy life insurance&quot; into the solipsist perspective. That this can be done is surprising and weird. This is how you do science, positivism is essential. I should admit that philosophers don't like positivism, because it moots their favorite questions, and ethicists find it hard to swallow that any ethical argument must be persuasive to a solipsist too (although this is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG:I reject positivism, I thought most people abandoned that way of thinking in the 80s, wtf ? Anyways, there is no way you can claim that solipsism and realism are identical. ONE has to be true. Do you believe I am conscious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Nearly all people abandoned positivism in the 70s-80s, and this was a terrible step backwards. The positivism was still working its magic in physics, to produce holography. I believe they are identical--- I don't even know if I am conscious, or if you take my internal sense of myself to be primitive, I don't know a sure meaning to the statement that I was conscious three minutes ago. I know there was an internal computation going on in myself, I can see the effects of it, and I can see that there is an internal computation going on in you. That's enough for all purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: I think it was a correct step and I would hate to see us step back to positivism. You are talking about computations taking place inside you and me, but then you are assuming realism. None of those concepts make sense in a solipsistic existence. You seem to have a rather radical way of interpreting the world. According to you the theory of gravity should not be preferred on any grounds (not even occam razor) to for instance a LSD induced idea of invisible gnomes pulling objects down to earth with invisible strings &quot;because they produce the same outcome they are identical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;... I think we are done actually. In conclusion: Ron Maimon consider anything that can't be proven or disproven identical, including solipsism and realism. So the question I have posed is obviously, to him, incoherent. Hopefully someone else will respond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everyone else in physics thinks the same way. Mach was the father of positivism, and Einstein and Bohr (and everyone after with a brief interlude from 1974-1995) embraced Mach's philosophy. This idea was central to relativity, quantum mechanics, S-matrix theory/string-theory, and everything else. It is not reasonable to ask whether there are little gnomes, you can introuce the little gnomes, or not introduce them, and there is no difference observationally. If the gnomes are useful as a figure of speech, go ahead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...: I think your position has merit, by the way, it is very difficult to fix up philosophy to be correct for positivism. You need an ethics that doesn't care whether God exists or not, that doesn't care whether other people exist or not, that gives the same answers regardless of metaphysics, and this makes strong constraints. The solution to this is the theory of superrationality, proposed by physicist turned cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, which gives a positivistically meaningful metaphysics neutral definition of ethical behavior compatible with religious ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You claim everyone in physics thinks the same way. How is it then that this question I am asking here has been asked by several physicists? Not to mention the entire debate on Quantum Interpretations, since they all yield the same result, according to you: THEY ARE IDENTICAL. So why do you adhere to Everett instead of say...transactional interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: &quot;Transactional&quot; is mathematically incoherent to date, so perhaps the right question is &quot;Everett&quot; vs. &quot;Copehagen&quot;. There is very little positive difference between Everett and Copenhagen, the way I see it, exactly zero, so the two are identical, and this is the major reason interpretation of quantum mechanics is not discussed in physics anymore--- people accept that the formulations are generally identical. Bohm is different, because the mathematical structure has &quot;little gnomes&quot; which are the particle positions which might become physically identifiable in a new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Well, Bohm gives same outcome, so if you are really as dedicated to your philosophy as you claim, it too is identical. As for interpretation not discussed in physics anymore? Wrong It's discussed now more than ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everett's intepretation is important, however, for establishing that there is no paradox possible for large systems in using quantum mechanics as is. This is not clear in Bohr, where the outcomes of experiments are by classical variables which are not present in the microscopic theory. In Everett interpretation, these variables become the branch selectors, so they get different &quot;little gnomes&quot;. At the end of the day, the two ideas are completely identical, although Everett is clearer psychologically for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Bohm is identical as formulated, so I do consider it not new, as formulated. But Bohm is useless and obviously wrong as formulated, since it picks out a frame and a basis for Hilbert space. But a future theory could start with Bohm and modify it to make a new theory, and since the mathematical structure has gnomes, the particle positions, the modified gnomes would be different than the modified no-gnome theory. The wavefunction might become an average of particle position properties, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Everettians also has to pick a preferred basis, decoherence doesn't solve this. My main point is that you clearly recognize the differences in 2 ideas, but due to the inability to verify which is correct, you assume it's worthless to even ask. But you DO agree that divergence and branching can obviously not BOTH be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Decoherence doesn't solve it, but it says that it is consistent to do it. A theory consists of a mathematical formalism, and a map from the formalism to experience. You can modify the formalism, and modify the map, but if the result is the same experience, it's the same theory. The divergence and branching are equivalent so they are both true, in that you can believe one or the other, but you generally don't want to use the language of one when thinking about the other, because they have incompatible language, so you shouldn't speak in the two frames simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;... It's exactly like coordinate rotation: do you agree that if the x-axis is along the north-south direction, this is different than the x-axis along the current Earth sun direction? I mean, in one case, the planets change x and in the others not. So you can use any axes, just as long as you are consistent, and two axes are equivalent. The same way: use any metaphysics, your metaphysics is your coordinate system, and the results are the same if the sense-perceptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="e941446e-a849-44b2-bc70-25f6b6a4dbea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I`m just noting that since about yesterday, a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics, abuse the meta part of physics.SE to persecute Ron Maimon, see for example this [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1283/2751) and the comments below. &#xD;&#xA;They abuse the possibility to register here and having 101 points of reputation from the start try to potronize OUR community and screw up the picture of how WE would like to deal with certain issues.&#xD;&#xA;Answers, votes, comments, etc represent no longer the opinion and preferences of our physics community since these intruders started to meddle with things which are not their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="f7d28c5c-8015-4898-9782-1d568c3f65ea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So far the scope of Physics Stack Exchange has been defined to exclude experimental technology questions, which are those questions about the devices that one uses to do physics, rather than about the physical principles they use. Some of these questions fit on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), and there was a proposal on [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) that would have been a great home for these questions. However, that proposal is no more, and given that this site is well established with a steady flow of physical principles questions, **is it time that we start to allow the questions about experimental technology?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example that prompted this question: &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/good-electronic-filters-against-50hz-mains-hum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="b659f4f3-aeab-489a-ac5c-a086f8ab6ee3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Something with a bit more &quot;teeth&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non-conceptual homework questions are likely to be closed. Please [read the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="f3e043ba-bf3a-4ba9-9b66-79063f33914a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some other sites in the SE network have recently been moving toward eliminating the [tag:homework] tag. I think this would be useful for us to consider as well, particularly in light of questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35748/how-to-add-two-perpendicular-2d-vectors) - if you look at the comments, the OP says &quot;Also there is a homework tag so I assumed it does allow homework questions.&quot; That's one of the main arguments for removing the tag, both here and on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the homework tag would not change our policy on what sorts of questions can be asked here. Specifically, it is now and will continue to be OK to ask a conceptual question that arises in the context of a homework assignment. Also our [existing homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be more or less unchanged, except that we would no longer ask posters to use the tag [tag:homework] for homework or self-study questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we go ahead with removing the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what exactly is the purpose of keeping it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="1ee73acf-8ea4-44b5-9419-eb800430d914" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some other sites in the SE network have recently been moving toward eliminating the [tag:homework] tag. I think this would be useful for us to consider as well, particularly in light of questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35748/how-to-add-two-perpendicular-2d-vectors) - if you look at the comments, the OP says &quot;Also there is a homework tag so I assumed it does allow homework questions.&quot; That's one of the main arguments for removing the tag, both here and on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the homework tag would not change our policy on what sorts of questions can be asked here. Specifically, it is now and will continue to be OK to ask a conceptual question that arises in the context of a homework assignment. Also our [existing homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be more or less unchanged, except that we would no longer ask posters to use the tag [tag:homework] for homework or self-study questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we go ahead with removing the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what exactly is the purpose of keeping it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="a293e210-86c4-488f-80de-a4d7c0c438ee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we've had some efforts to clean up the tags on the site ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light)), so I've created a chat event to collect any input that the community - that's you - may want to offer. It's scheduled for this Friday at &lt;s&gt;20:00&lt;/s&gt; 15:00 UTC (though that could be changed if more people speak up soon), and you can see the details and &quot;register&quot; by going to the chat room's [schedule page](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-coupling?tab=schedule). Hope to see you there!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is not a question in any way, just an announcement, but seeing as how there's no other way to get the word out, I thought it would be important.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="2cfcfb56-d44c-4c50-9c48-f15c2203ff7c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the borderline crackpot question, we agreed on that, but after that was finished, David went back to an old answer where I wanted to preserve a discussion (see this for a previous case: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/912/deleting-comments-without-consensus ), and deleted the discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24729/worlds-branching-or-diverging-in-many-worlds-interpretation/24738#comment62303_24738 , and locked the post. This was extremely annoying, and a bit of show of power, and I don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his favor, the erasure was probably in line with general policy on stackexchange, but I really think enforcing policy takes maturity and judgement, and should not be based on personal issues. Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties. This came up before, regarding deleting comments, and I just preserved those comments up by copying into the body of the answer up to this point. But it seems that David changed his mind on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like it. I think it shows immature judgement, and I don't have confidence that this is a neutral application of policy, nor that it is a good idea for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the deleted material, so you can judge for yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Short discussion on positivism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positivism is extremely counterintuitive, and this makes a lot of people reject it. This was a discussion in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrodinger's Ghost: Not sure if I agree, have you read the papers? Divergent MWI explicitly states that whether I will see a X spin or Y spin has been determined since the big bang. I will not see both, only either X or Y and if it happens to be Y then thats because I was on the Y branch. In this view advocated by Saunders and Wilson we are in a separate parallel universe, there is no branching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon: I have not read the papers. The &quot;determined&quot; aspect is creating a fictious observer selection a postiori from the results of the measurements, and is only different in ontology from standard MWI. What &quot;you&quot; are is a computational entity, and computations don't embed in QM straightforwardly, since they require irreversible measurements, so you need a large-system limit, and decoherence. Whether you embed yourself in a branch that you back-propagate to the big-bang or that you back-propagate to the measurement is up to you, it doesn't change your perception or anyone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: But there is obviously a objective difference. In one view, the overlap branching view, you are numerically identical, you are part of the other worlds pre-branching. In the divergent view, you are only qualitatively identical, but the atoms that make up you exist on their own, seperate from the identical ones in another branch.... So for instance quantum suicide works in branching, but not in divergence. When you die in divergence, you really die, just as in a single universe interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The difference is imagined. How do you know your perception is only stuck to one branch? Why can't it jump to another? Why do you think you don't really die if you die in a branching interpretation? Why do you attach your consciousness to you only, maybe your consciousness is located in North Dakota in the basement of some guy's house. These questions need to be formulated in a positivistic way to see which ones are meaningless, and in this case, all these questions, and the question of &quot;existence&quot; itself, are meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, the difference is not imagined, why would it be? If you clone yourself, do you magically become the clone? No. You are the consciousness that arise from the neurons in your brain, it doesn't matter if there exist identical ones, you don't magically jump from body to body, that would require a soul, which is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: What if you clone by splitting your brain down the middle, and making a copy of the other half. Which way do you go? What if you clone by replacing half your neurons higgeldy-piggledy with electronic parts, and put these neurons in a new body, with different electronic parts replacing the other half? When you are cloned, you have a chance of jumping to the other body, the evidence is that if you ask the other body what happened, it would say &quot;I jumped!&quot; What the probability is is only determinable from the outside. This is only a &quot;soul&quot; to the extent that software is soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: These are all well known &quot;conundrums&quot; in philosophy surrounding personal identity, but even in your thought experiments there is no &quot;jumping&quot;, you simply create 2 consciousnesses from 1 brain. We know this from split-brain experiments... I fail to see how your argument supports the idea that you could jump between branches? Imagine in our single universe there is another identical solar system with a identical planet Earth. Do we &quot;jump&quot; between them because there exist 2 identical people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: How can you tell if there is jumping on not? In any circumstance where &quot;jumping&quot; is allowed, the two minds are exactly the same (if even there are two of them). This is the point--- when the two consciousnesses are the same, it is a meaningless question to ask if there are two or one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, there is no physics that allows magical &quot;jumping&quot;... There are 2 worlds separate, how is this so hard to understand for you? Just because something is identical does not merge them into 1 thing wtf??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The reason it is &quot;hard to understand&quot; is because the notion of whether there are two &quot;consciousnesses&quot; or only one is not physics, it's pure philosophy. What experiment could tell me if jumping were occuring or not occuring? The only cases where jumping could be occuring, the two brains are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Why would jumping occur? Does 2 identical photons become 1? It's not pure philosophy, if the fact is that the branches all exist premeasurement, that is a objective fact about reality. You are making the claim of magic soul jumping, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. First prove the soul, then prove jumping mechanism, collect a ton of nobel prizes and I'll concede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: It is not the same as photons, because there is a test which will tell you when you have two photons. What test can tell you if two branches &quot;exist&quot; before they diverge? There is no answer, even in principle, because there is no existence-meter which flashes when it sees existing stuff. So &quot;exist&quot; is not a useful word. I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of the soul in the same way I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of firefox (the program), even though what the &quot;firefox&quot; on my computer is exactly is not clear, nor if there is 1 or 2 copies, especially when the OS puts a copy in cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Yes, you are right that there is no experiment that can answer it, so we have to resort to metaphysics. If divergence is better than branching as a theory, then it's rational to assume that divergence is most likely the true representation of reality. ...But you do then accept that although we can't determine the fact, there is a fact about which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No I don't accept that. There is no fact about the matter, there is no fact, there is no matter. The question is meaningless, you are asking nonsense. This is what &quot;positivism&quot; means. Two options are observationally identical means there is no difference between them, and it is a matter of convention which one you say when you speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: So you don't comprehend the difference between NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL worlds and QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL ? You are the first person I've discussed this with who has not grasped this concept...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: I &quot;grasp&quot; the concept, I am telling you it is incoherent. There is no meaning to a question of pure metaphysics, you can make up whatever you like, there are no differences in observation, so by definition the two positions are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No. That's like saying solipsism and realism is identical because we can't do a experiment to verify which is correct... How the hell can you do science with such a mindset?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Solipsism and realism are identical! Indeed this is a puzzling but true consequence of positivism. It remains to see how you can translate ethical arguments, like &quot;I should buy life insurance&quot; into the solipsist perspective. That this can be done is surprising and weird. This is how you do science, positivism is essential. I should admit that philosophers don't like positivism, because it moots their favorite questions, and ethicists find it hard to swallow that any ethical argument must be persuasive to a solipsist too (although this is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG:I reject positivism, I thought most people abandoned that way of thinking in the 80s, wtf ? Anyways, there is no way you can claim that solipsism and realism are identical. ONE has to be true. Do you believe I am conscious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Nearly all people abandoned positivism in the 70s-80s, and this was a terrible step backwards. The positivism was still working its magic in physics, to produce holography. I believe they are identical--- I don't even know if I am conscious, or if you take my internal sense of myself to be primitive, I don't know a sure meaning to the statement that I was conscious three minutes ago. I know there was an internal computation going on in myself, I can see the effects of it, and I can see that there is an internal computation going on in you. That's enough for all purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: I think it was a correct step and I would hate to see us step back to positivism. You are talking about computations taking place inside you and me, but then you are assuming realism. None of those concepts make sense in a solipsistic existence. You seem to have a rather radical way of interpreting the world. According to you the theory of gravity should not be preferred on any grounds (not even occam razor) to for instance a LSD induced idea of invisible gnomes pulling objects down to earth with invisible strings &quot;because they produce the same outcome they are identical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;... I think we are done actually. In conclusion: Ron Maimon consider anything that can't be proven or disproven identical, including solipsism and realism. So the question I have posed is obviously, to him, incoherent. Hopefully someone else will respond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everyone else in physics thinks the same way. Mach was the father of positivism, and Einstein and Bohr (and everyone after with a brief interlude from 1974-1995) embraced Mach's philosophy. This idea was central to relativity, quantum mechanics, S-matrix theory/string-theory, and everything else. It is not reasonable to ask whether there are little gnomes, you can introuce the little gnomes, or not introduce them, and there is no difference observationally. If the gnomes are useful as a figure of speech, go ahead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...: I think your position has merit, by the way, it is very difficult to fix up philosophy to be correct for positivism. You need an ethics that doesn't care whether God exists or not, that doesn't care whether other people exist or not, that gives the same answers regardless of metaphysics, and this makes strong constraints. The solution to this is the theory of superrationality, proposed by physicist turned cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, which gives a positivistically meaningful metaphysics neutral definition of ethical behavior compatible with religious ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You claim everyone in physics thinks the same way. How is it then that this question I am asking here has been asked by several physicists? Not to mention the entire debate on Quantum Interpretations, since they all yield the same result, according to you: THEY ARE IDENTICAL. So why do you adhere to Everett instead of say...transactional interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: &quot;Transactional&quot; is mathematically incoherent to date, so perhaps the right question is &quot;Everett&quot; vs. &quot;Copehagen&quot;. There is very little positive difference between Everett and Copenhagen, the way I see it, exactly zero, so the two are identical, and this is the major reason interpretation of quantum mechanics is not discussed in physics anymore--- people accept that the formulations are generally identical. Bohm is different, because the mathematical structure has &quot;little gnomes&quot; which are the particle positions which might become physically identifiable in a new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Well, Bohm gives same outcome, so if you are really as dedicated to your philosophy as you claim, it too is identical. As for interpretation not discussed in physics anymore? Wrong It's discussed now more than ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everett's intepretation is important, however, for establishing that there is no paradox possible for large systems in using quantum mechanics as is. This is not clear in Bohr, where the outcomes of experiments are by classical variables which are not present in the microscopic theory. In Everett interpretation, these variables become the branch selectors, so they get different &quot;little gnomes&quot;. At the end of the day, the two ideas are completely identical, although Everett is clearer psychologically for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Bohm is identical as formulated, so I do consider it not new, as formulated. But Bohm is useless and obviously wrong as formulated, since it picks out a frame and a basis for Hilbert space. But a future theory could start with Bohm and modify it to make a new theory, and since the mathematical structure has gnomes, the particle positions, the modified gnomes would be different than the modified no-gnome theory. The wavefunction might become an average of particle position properties, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Everettians also has to pick a preferred basis, decoherence doesn't solve this. My main point is that you clearly recognize the differences in 2 ideas, but due to the inability to verify which is correct, you assume it's worthless to even ask. But you DO agree that divergence and branching can obviously not BOTH be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Decoherence doesn't solve it, but it says that it is consistent to do it. A theory consists of a mathematical formalism, and a map from the formalism to experience. You can modify the formalism, and modify the map, but if the result is the same experience, it's the same theory. The divergence and branching are equivalent so they are both true, in that you can believe one or the other, but you generally don't want to use the language of one when thinking about the other, because they have incompatible language, so you shouldn't speak in the two frames simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;... It's exactly like coordinate rotation: do you agree that if the x-axis is along the north-south direction, this is different than the x-axis along the current Earth sun direction? I mean, in one case, the planets change x and in the others not. So you can use any axes, just as long as you are consistent, and two axes are equivalent. The same way: use any metaphysics, your metaphysics is your coordinate system, and the results are the same if the sense-perceptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="dba46546-1f53-4305-a4aa-74ac620c7f1d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen _at least_ these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; four examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/41059/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a reason not to add &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, please mention it either in a comment or answer!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="01e47849-3df7-45f7-9dff-471938fa6b76" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="StackOverflow has a tab for questions entitled &quot;Interesting&quot; that is based on favorited tags and history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interesting tab][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get said tab on physics.SE based on recent discussions such as https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4382/is-physics-stack-exchange-getting-cluttered in order to help users organize the questions better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uhYv2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="b350871a-7b6d-46fb-96f6-b4904432e121" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes or sparked a huge number of complaining flags and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep users have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to consider is that refering to fundamental physics questions, that are investigated by serious theoretical physicists today, as &quot;metaphysics&quot; or even worse condemning them as off topic here on physics SE would lend support to people who attack fundamental physics not only in the internet but actively try to prohibit research into it even in the &quot;real world&quot; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="546d1f32-53d7-438d-a936-adf819fcc7f8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [If it&amp;#39;s possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Astronomy.SE is [closing][1]l and this SE seems like it could be a natural home for a significant fraction of the questions asked there.  Before taking the time to flag anything for migration the question of what would/not be accepted here needs to be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/170/astronomy-is-closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="c8a9fc74-7352-4b5a-a326-9f93b4c09ba9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes or sparked a huge number of complaining flags and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep users have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to consider is that refering to fundamental physics questions, that are investigated by serious theoretical physicists today, as &quot;metaphysics&quot; or even worse condemning them as off topic here on physics SE would lend support to people who attack fundamental physics not only in the internet but actively try to prohibit research into it even in the &quot;real world&quot; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="67026db3-22e4-4270-ba0c-525a753d04e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We occasionally get &quot;find me a PDF&quot; requests, where a user knows exactly the paper she needs and (presumably because of a paywall) asks how to obtain an electronic copy of it. This has typically been considered off-topic, and I agree that a site built around how to get behind paywalls is not a good thing to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this question of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27503/8563), which asked the former Theoretical Physics site about how one might obtain _any_ copies of a particularly hard-to-obtain paper, has been [put on hold as off-topic](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/27503/revisions) for this reason. I [argued in the comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5232), and I repeat it here, that this is a question that requires an good knowledge of the physics literature and that future questions like this should definitely be allowed. If I am desperate to find a given paper, have the exact reference, and have looked everywhere, then I would be glad to be able to voice it in a gathering of physicists. I feel banning questions like this would devalue this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we decide to allow this, then we also need to define where to draw the line. If you (dis)agree on the general principle, (down)up-vote the main answer to this question, and voice your ideas for appropriate criteria!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="ac0aa6e8-0c38-4c3b-b4e8-73a23442ca26" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As recent events showed, there is a need for a mechanism that allows a ban of a very active community member to be reversed if it is deemed important by enough community members &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2716/7924, bmike asked me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;I&gt;I'm asking for where you'd draw the line when someone repeatedly and vocally attacks another person (clearly making it about them and not their actions). Also - I'm not saying you are wrong until I hear what you propose. I'd like to know where you would draw the line. Do you vote on who gets to ignore the rules? Do you set it at a certain reputation? Do you give someone a free shot at a different person for each 1k reputation? Make a proposal we can debate if you'd like to change the rules.&lt;/I&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here my request (slightly modified compared to my reply there):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be possible to undo a ban upon the intervention of 5 users with enough reputation to merit the privilege of reversing a ban. This could for example taken to be at the level of 250 reps where one earns the privilege of voting to close, or at 2000 reps where one also earns the privilege to vote on edits; any other threshold would be ok, too. 	 &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the ban should be undone if 5 people pay a ransom of perhaps 500 reps (or any other reasonable amount, perhaps an amount proportional to the banning time) to show that they are serious about the need to have someone back. This would mean that the sin has been paid for, so justice has been done, as in ordinary life. If less ransom comes in, the ban time should be shortened according to the fraction received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="8a419d40-3cab-4f38-bd20-5e4a18f4416a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions which instruct people to solve a problem without showing any work are not appropriate as per our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). That's why your question was closed. I used the &quot;too localized&quot; close reason out of habit, but &quot;off topic&quot; would apply equally well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably turn your question into something appropriate by going on to say something like &quot;I tried to solve this by doing XXX then YYY, but after that I got stuck because I don't see any way to calculate ZZZ from YYY. Is it possible to do this, and how?&quot; That makes it a conceptual question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="43338803-da09-4c7b-a270-ef28e4db5ea4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen _at least_ these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; four examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/41059/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a reason not to add &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, please mention it either in a comment or answer!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="d5c258d2-8747-4bf9-b21f-083f1ace15be" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="fdad4305-7fe9-4f6a-a534-e3c65865c1c2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions which instruct people to solve a problem without showing any work are not appropriate as per our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). That's why your question was closed. I used the &quot;too localized&quot; close reason out of habit, but &quot;off topic&quot; would apply equally well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably turn your question into something appropriate by going on to say something like &quot;I tried to solve this by doing XXX then YYY, but after that I got stuck because I don't see any way to calculate ZZZ from YYY. Is it possible to do this, and how?&quot; That makes it a conceptual question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="3095385d-297c-4be5-aaaa-1a057377129e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2012 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please @GraceNote or @TimStone [in the chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat) and let us know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="537e6062-56ef-4cce-80af-7a52fa840b93" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep ask here, we like theoretical physics too ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that have been on the former theoretical physics SE site or new ones, that would have been appropriate for it, are labeled with the &quot;research-level&quot;  [tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2751) you can see (beside the Astronomy questions which we have saved too) a list of all the TP.SE questions that were imported. We have successfully saved all of them I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What went wrong with TP.SE was discussed for example at our meta by questions marked with the [tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) &quot;site-salvage&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the basic proplem was that the SE network does not allow for smaller, high quality content sites, which are of interest to a smaller community and therefore have lower, traffic, a slower growth rate, etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="084dc0eb-3f40-4382-84d2-50bf217e7553" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related chat : http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have decided to take all Astro questions, _including_ observational astro (though we are shunting astrophotography to photo.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the rest of the astro questions (all of them astrophysics questions) fall well within our scope and title, observational astro questions do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of this, let's discuss whether or not we should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Change the site name to Physics &amp; Astronomy. Maybe keep physics.SE,astro.SE, and physicsandastronomy.SE as URL aliases (I'd say physics.SE should stay as the main one)&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;s&gt; Explicitly add astrophysics and observational astro to our faq &lt;/s&gt;(this has already been addressed in the related question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the final decision will be made _after_ the merger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="db9c145c-7f4b-4a6b-a539-6d322493e4cd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Really, two related questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, there is great interest, and substantial disagreement about fundamental, foundational issues.  These questions are at least sometimes deep and subtle.  A tag such as foundations-of-physics or fundamental-question or just &quot;foundations&quot; might be appropriate for questions related to these issues. What is the best tag for this type of question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But I am more concerned about a second, somewhat different sort of basic question.  In particular, I am concerned about very basic questions concerning basic concepts and definitions, or elementary procedures.  You would think that these questions would be easily answered by googling or consulting an elementary text book.   But I find it is amazing how many very elementary questions I cannot answer by those means, and so I turn to Physics SE.  These questions are not homework, and should not be treated as homework (i.e. hints instead of clear answers).  Often the purpose of the question is to clear up a misconception.  So the homework tag is very inapropriate for this type of question.  Perhaps basic-question would be an appropriate tag or even simpler-than-homework or some other such tag. I don't know how many others do, but I certainly feel the need for a tag of this type.  Comments and suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I just read the following, based on the automated suggestion, and have not changed my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/566/is-the-precautionary-closing-of-immature-questions-so-very-necessary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="eb8801fa-95f0-4d18-b445-e3ce3bec45f5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As recent events showed, there is a need for a mechanism that allows a ban of a very active community member to be reversed if it is deemed important by enough community members &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2716/7924, bmike asked me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;I&gt;I'm asking for where you'd draw the line when someone repeatedly and vocally attacks another person (clearly making it about them and not their actions). Also - I'm not saying you are wrong until I hear what you propose. I'd like to know where you would draw the line. Do you vote on who gets to ignore the rules? Do you set it at a certain reputation? Do you give someone a free shot at a different person for each 1k reputation? Make a proposal we can debate if you'd like to change the rules.&lt;/I&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here my request (slightly modified compared to my reply there):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be possible to undo a ban upon the intervention of 5 users with enough reputation to merit the privilege of reversing a ban. This could for example taken to be at the level of 250 reps where one earns the privilege of voting to close, or at 2000 reps where one also earns the privilege to vote on edits; any other threshold would be ok, too. 	 &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the ban should be undone if 5 people pay a ransom of perhaps 500 reps (or any other reasonable amount, perhaps an amount proportional to the banning time) to show that they are serious about the need to have someone back. This would mean that the sin has been paid for, so justice has been done, as in ordinary life. If less ransom comes in, the ban time should be shortened according to the fraction received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="b595bb34-553a-4048-a5d5-865d7f75bc3a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is an election oriented chat tonight (Tuesday) at 8pm EST.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summary of the questions and answers will be posted to Meta following the conclusion of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the summary is limited to the questions directed at the candidates and direct answers by the candidates, since collecting those is the entire purpose of the event. For more info, see: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="e5a4083f-cc3c-422e-9cf8-c647717a9056" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Really, two related questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, there is great interest, and substantial disagreement about fundamental, foundational issues.  These questions are at least sometimes deep and subtle.  A tag such as foundations-of-physics or fundamental-question or just &quot;foundations&quot; might be appropriate for questions related to these issues. What is the best tag for this type of question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But I am more concerned about a second, somewhat different sort of basic question.  In particular, I am concerned about very basic questions concerning basic concepts and definitions, or elementary procedures.  You would think that these questions would be easily answered by googling or consulting an elementary text book.   But I find it is amazing how many very elementary questions I cannot answer by those means, and so I turn to Physics SE.  These questions are not homework, and should not be treated as homework (i.e. hints instead of clear answers).  Often the purpose of the question is to clear up a misconception.  So the homework tag is very inapropriate for this type of question.  Perhaps basic-question would be an appropriate tag or even simpler-than-homework or some other such tag. I don't know how many others do, but I certainly feel the need for a tag of this type.  Comments and suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I just read the following, based on the automated suggestion, and have not changed my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/566/is-the-precautionary-closing-of-immature-questions-so-very-necessary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="67d03a28-50c3-490b-acfd-906b1ed60d36" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me put up the counterpoint to Manishearth's answer: while we're certainly not _required_ by Stack Exchange to do anything about questions which violate a course policy, it's in the interest of our site to do so, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the community has been quite clear that we do not want this site to be known as a place where people can take the easy way out of learning. We try to encourage insightful conceptual questions and discourage do-my-homework questions, and accordingly we have what I think is one of the [strictest nontrivial policies on homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) in the SE network. Similarly, we don't want this to become known as a place where people can easily cheat on their exams or other projects. So when we find out that someone is violating an academic policy, it's consistent with our overall vision to make it difficult for them to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I propose. If you see a question which seems to come from a current take-home exam or some equivalent project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you find the policy on outside help for the exam and it _does allow_ help from Q&amp;A sites like this one,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that allows outside help from Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you find the policy for the exam and it _does **not** allow_ help from sources like SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that forbids use of Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, close it and let the rest of us know in mod chat.)&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;s&gt;Downvote&lt;/s&gt; (actually I don't care about this, your votes are your business)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you cannot find the policy on outside help for the exam, or if you do find it but you can't tell whether it allows or forbids help from Q&amp;A sites,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to the exam paper and saying that you couldn't find a relevant policy on outside help&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, let the rest of us know in mod chat, but don't necessarily close it right away.)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter two cases, I would definitely encourage people to be proactive about emailing the professor of the course. I say &quot;optional&quot; only because we can't and won't _make_ anyone do it, but the professor is really the best person to deal with these incidents. And it doesn't have to be a moderator who lets them know. None of our special mod powers are particularly relevant when it comes to informing a professor about academic dishonesty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="2cb7d2f7-390e-4f5c-b6ff-e89953a83469" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2012 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please @GraceNote or @TimStone [in the chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat) and let us know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="c4e98be5-76b4-4840-88c1-9894c2bcc6e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a rank amateur, I can safely state from experience that even a question that could have been answered by one's own self with some effort (I lied when I said that I could not find the answer myself) is not laughed out of court on sight. Helpful people -- experts -- are on hand to patiently give explanations and clarify upon request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do find troubling is vicious commentary such as [here][1] with no action taken by moderators. I am also troubled by the personal attack on this page directed at a currently suspended contributor who has no means of responding to set the record straight (again, no action taken by moderators).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, I could feel comfortable with a general hands-off approach from moderators and staff... if it were applied fairly and evenhandedly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty/2837#comment6158_2837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="892c2cb3-ea51-4a35-be04-17aa02bfb108" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**UPDATE**  from D.Z.: I'm hijacking Manishearth's question to organize the tag cleanup effort, because most of the links are already posted here. Here's how this is going to work: whenever you have time and feel so inclined, go through the lists below and pick out a few questions (maybe no more than 5 at a time) that you want to review. Make sure the tags are appropriate, edit them if not, and try to make any other improvements that are warranted. When retagging, keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a tag that was originally on the question doesn't exist here at Physics, but you think it would be appropriate (which it usually should be) check and see if we have a different tag with the same meaning. If not, feel free to recreate the same tag. If you don't have enough rep to create tags, just leave that post, or flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;- We have a list of [subfield tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules) of which each post should probably have at least one. The list may be a little out of date, so consider it a guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each time you review a question and finish any edits necessary, delete it from the list below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged] ([list of questions that are &quot;untagged&quot;][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="c6b55207-29e6-4891-ab8c-70cc15689676" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep ask here, we like theoretical physics too ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that have been on the former theoretical physics SE site or new ones, that would have been appropriate for it, are labeled with the &quot;research-level&quot;  [tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2751) you can see (beside the Astronomy questions which we have saved too) a list of all the TP.SE questions that were imported. We have successfully saved all of them I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What went wrong with TP.SE was discussed for example at our meta by questions marked with the [tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) &quot;site-salvage&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the basic proplem was that the SE network does not allow for smaller, high quality content sites, which are of interest to a smaller community and therefore have lower, traffic, a slower growth rate, etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="14ccc7ea-c272-4d4c-a008-9d74696bdc0e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Along the lines of [this question][1] and the links to others within, there is some acceptance amongst the community when it comes to paper reference requests on a specific topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would questions related to good/representative *journals* in a given field also be on topic? In some instances, for broad fields, the answer of &quot;What journals are good and why?&quot; are easily determined by things like the impact factor and number of citations. But for sub-fields, there is often a different set of journals that are better representative but are harder to find in the noise of the superset field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would a question like &quot;What are the highest quality journals in numerical weather/atmospheric simulation?&quot; be on-topic? It would need to be more than just a list-of-journals question of course. Some analysis would need to be done and say &quot;Well X is good at numerical methods, while Y is good for understanding physics and Z has papers on forecasting. In the area of hurricanes, journal A is cutting-edge...&quot; and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2918/do-we-allow-paper-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="b716bfac-f5e4-4084-bad9-df3ea17ddc7c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Tag synonyms for voting](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We currently have three tags (and many others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:electromagnetism]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:classical-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:quantum-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, [tag:classical-electrodynamics] should be a synonym to [tag:electromagnetism], covering everything that is governed by the classical Maxwell equations, such as the Lorentz force, magnets and most other things you can think of. It would include the Lorentz invariant treatment of electromagnetism and the first introduction of electromagnetism to quantum mechanics as classical fields. This fits what one gets when searching [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) for ‘Electromagnetism’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would leave [tag:quantum-electrodynamics] as the clear counterpart for the QED approach arising from QFT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags [tag:electric-engineering] and [tag:electric-circuits] (there is currently a synonym suggestion for them) would be unchanged, of course, and still make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="b0717c03-d576-4610-b290-3d578bd989ce" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're probably looking at an edit suggested to a *tag wiki*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you have [the ability to *vote to approve*][1] these edits, you haven't yet earned [the right to edit them *directly*][2] - so the &quot;improve&quot; button is unavailable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dmckee, as a moderator][3], has all the rights and so sees the &quot;improve&quot; button regardless of his reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and yes, just removing/disabling the button is a bit weird, but the alternative would allow you to create a sort of chain of suggestions that would all have to be approved or rejected)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/trusted-user&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/on-reviewing-edits/2752#2752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="26a777cf-cd52-4314-aaf5-10f1dbae6834" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is an election oriented chat tonight (Tuesday) at 8pm EST.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summary of the questions and answers will be posted to Meta following the conclusion of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the summary is limited to the questions directed at the candidates and direct answers by the candidates, since collecting those is the entire purpose of the event. For more info, see: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="aa69386f-9fc5-44ce-89bf-5434b895bdbf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There isn't a Physics SE blog, and you can't really submit articles to something that doesn't exist ;-) So there is no way (for now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possibility of starting a site blog has been [previously discussed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog) but there was not enough support for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="0aa615ac-b653-4442-9cf9-67a7c2f63217" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/507/can-we-get-a-migration-path-opened-to-math-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we close **or** flag a question as *off-topic*, we have an option called `belongs to meta.physics.SE`. We're also receiving questions that belong to Math.SE or Electronics.SE most of the time. So, it'd be easy for migration if there is a choice for `belongs to Math.SE` and `belongs to Electronics.SE`. Well, other sites do have that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, we can take Android.SE. It's having a choice for `belongs to SO`. I think superuser is also having such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0mmnG.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="e3bd7949-2611-46ec-86b3-bf6f49c1e2fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What you're seeing is apparently noise from the mass imports from astronomy and theoretical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/what-do-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-mass-migration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what you described apparently the mass import process was adding questions and then pulling them off the front page, instead of adding them in a way they never appeared there in the first place.  That's less than ideal; but for a very rarely used feature putting effort into fine tuning it probably doesn't make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="0f2272cb-8409-49cd-8c79-982d8251c2aa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My take on this, and I'll expand it some more when I think about it more, is that there is a very clear good list/bad list distinction. But most of the questions people argue are good lists, I don't agree are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what makes a bad list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A single answer is unlikely to be complete on its own. The question you cited that prompted this post also falls on the bad subjective side -- what one considers an &quot;important problem&quot; in the field may not be what others consider.&#xD;&#xA; 1. An answer must be continually updated. Again, the cited question falls in this category. Even if somehow we determined a complete list of &quot;important problems,&quot; that could change tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of things that fall outside of those two primary issues I think would be good lists. But I'm a bit hard-pressed to come up with what those would be, and I don't recall any questions that I think would fall in that category, but that's not to say they aren't out there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as we discussed with [finding journals][1] with the [tag:reference-request] tag, I think questions like the one you cited are best posed in chat or on meta to **indicate the tag-wiki needs to be updated to reflect the answer**. For instance, the tag-wiki on [tag:plasma-physics] could be updated to reflect current research areas, including key papers, journals, and reviews. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for a question/answer, that's what the tag wiki's should be used to communicate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="1bfe65b0-b3d2-4fe9-9f90-6fa053c53787" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing. The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1250)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="e9ee2be8-a4a6-47d9-9b76-1939bcc193c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me put up the counterpoint to Manishearth's answer: while we're certainly not _required_ by Stack Exchange to do anything about questions which violate a course policy, it's in the interest of our site to do so, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the community has been quite clear that we do not want this site to be known as a place where people can take the easy way out of learning. We try to encourage insightful conceptual questions and discourage do-my-homework questions, and accordingly we have what I think is one of the [strictest nontrivial policies on homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) in the SE network. Similarly, we don't want this to become known as a place where people can easily cheat on their exams or other projects. So when we find out that someone is violating an academic policy, it's consistent with our overall vision to make it difficult for them to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I propose. If you see a question which seems to come from a current take-home exam or some equivalent project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you find the policy on outside help for the exam and it _does allow_ help from Q&amp;A sites like this one,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that allows outside help from Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you find the policy for the exam and it _does **not** allow_ help from sources like SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to **both** the exam paper _and_ the policy that forbids use of Q&amp;A sites&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, close it and let the rest of us know in mod chat.)&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;s&gt;Downvote&lt;/s&gt; (actually I don't care about this, your votes are your business)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you cannot find the policy on outside help for the exam, or if you do find it but you can't tell whether it allows or forbids help from Q&amp;A sites,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leave a comment linking to the exam paper and saying that you couldn't find a relevant policy on outside help&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question for moderator attention. (If you are a moderator, let the rest of us know in mod chat, but don't necessarily close it right away.)&#xD;&#xA;- Optional: email the relevant professor to give them a link to the question. Make sure to comment on the question if you do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter two cases, I would definitely encourage people to be proactive about emailing the professor of the course. I say &quot;optional&quot; only because we can't and won't _make_ anyone do it, but the professor is really the best person to deal with these incidents. And it doesn't have to be a moderator who lets them know. None of our special mod powers are particularly relevant when it comes to informing a professor about academic dishonesty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="63f07b2a-f57a-415a-b67e-22aadbfc6ece" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As it is December 2012, we are now going to reset our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/2810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="61a0316d-e1e9-4d72-aae8-8ced45712447" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/how-can-i-cite-a-question-in-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE][1] has a citation tool. Basically, if you click &quot;share&quot; on a post, there's a little &quot;cite&quot; link:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking that, you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets one properly cite a Physics.SE post in a document by the attribution rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want this? While it may not be so useful for formal journal articles, I see how it could be useful for miscellaneous documents (remember, visitors can use it too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0OrDR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yEnCA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="3b3c19f0-3abb-4238-ad36-d1c703bc7527" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're probably looking at an edit suggested to a *tag wiki*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you have [the ability to *vote to approve*][1] these edits, you haven't yet earned [the right to edit them *directly*][2] - so the &quot;improve&quot; button is unavailable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dmckee, as a moderator][3], has all the rights and so sees the &quot;improve&quot; button regardless of his reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and yes, just removing/disabling the button is a bit weird, but the alternative would allow you to create a sort of chain of suggestions that would all have to be approved or rejected)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/trusted-user&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/on-reviewing-edits/2752#2752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="32098ecf-f053-4252-98da-d3f7f88d4365" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was non-zero so this Loperator aninhilated his stated post.*  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sorry! D' Alembert has killed the page, perhaps because it was in a massless state.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or... we could put text saying &quot;LQG&quot;,  since LQG is ill-defined ? : )    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="665fe442-489e-4d52-b42e-9ed0a43b6966" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There isn't a Physics SE blog, and you can't really submit articles to something that doesn't exist ;-) So there is no way (for now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possibility of starting a site blog has been [previously discussed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog) but there was not enough support for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="eee04d5c-dc20-4ede-ab78-9a8c4830356c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I use `\:\mathrm{&lt;units go here&gt;}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$E=120\:\mathrm{kgm^2s^{-2}}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also use [this userscript][2]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want mathjax on meta, upvote https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/mathjax-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WqfPo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="07344def-f27b-4172-926c-d40764ad516b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Last batch of astro imports completed! The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1252#1252)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="590d7e28-a9a0-4665-a763-7f770d66c720" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Tag synonyms for voting](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We currently have three tags (and many others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:electromagnetism]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:classical-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:quantum-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, [tag:classical-electrodynamics] should be a synonym to [tag:electromagnetism], covering everything that is governed by the classical Maxwell equations, such as the Lorentz force, magnets and most other things you can think of. It would include the Lorentz invariant treatment of electromagnetism and the first introduction of electromagnetism to quantum mechanics as classical fields. This fits what one gets when searching [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) for ‘Electromagnetism’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would leave [tag:quantum-electrodynamics] as the clear counterpart for the QED approach arising from QFT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags [tag:electric-engineering] and [tag:electric-circuits] (there is currently a synonym suggestion for them) would be unchanged, of course, and still make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="344c8322-ea6d-4fd6-a296-35d10349d5ee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Disclaimer: this is **not** a complaint, just a thought and an observation ... ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe experts prefer helping others by answering questions and do not ask much here, because Physics SE is not an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. The number of people who could answer their questions at the same level might be too small. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better explain what I mean, when Lubos Motl reads in interesting paper concerning his own subject, thinks about it and comes up with some interesting thoughts and questions he rather posts an article on his blog as he did for example [here](http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/06/finding-and-abandoning-incorrect.html?m=1) to obtain a better response than he would get when posting a corresponding question here. And think about it, who should answer, if people like Qmechanic have a question about something they do not understand concerning their own research subject? There are simply not enough physicists of this calliber here who could appreciate or even answer such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, if one wants to have questions from experts (about their own subject at least), the size of the community of fellow researchers who can appreciate and answer such questions must not fall below a certain critical value.&#xD;&#xA;For example on sites with a higher number of researchers like TP.SE experts did, and on MathOverflow they still do ask more questions themself. With tpg2114's objections concerning the TP.SE example I disagree. This was a nice small extremely high quality site and it only died because the SE network is not appropriate to support such small communities and maybe they could have lowered the bar to ask questions a little bit as I said [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2610/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary I would say, if we want to have more questions from experts about physics issues they are working on (?), we should first of all try to attract more experts and researchers to the site and make them feel at home here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="beed43d3-2587-472e-b6d8-0054f6d504a1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="357def8f-2f6f-485d-b4ff-da0a930df367" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a rank amateur, I can safely state from experience that even a question that could have been answered by one's own self with some effort (I lied when I said that I could not find the answer myself) is not laughed out of court on sight. Helpful people -- experts -- are on hand to patiently give explanations and clarify upon request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do find troubling is vicious commentary such as [here][1] with no action taken by moderators. I am also troubled by the personal attack on this page directed at a currently suspended contributor who has no means of responding to set the record straight (again, no action taken by moderators).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, I could feel comfortable with a general hands-off approach from moderators and staff... if it were applied fairly and evenhandedly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty/2837#comment6158_2837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="67c5f22b-36f7-465f-b1e2-b967bc4bd5a9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions) like this one. ([see also this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions)) But as dmckee pointed out, there are some software questions about tools very specific to physics which would not get any useful reception on another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we adjust our policy to keep this question (and others like it) about specialized software questions, or just close it in accordance with the existing policy? Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Here is an example of the kind of question I would like us to decide about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47670/visualization-of-dynamics-of-a-scale-free-network-of-ising-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update to the update: actually it's not such a great example, because this is really a software _recommendation_ question, and recommendation questions of all sorts are generally off topic (except for a particular set of book recommendations). But it's still worth discussing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1257" RevisionGUID="19191848-69cf-41f7-9dcf-8293337ad3f9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do this - the migration process *intentionally* strips tags that don't exist on the destination, to avoid polluting that site with tags that do not belong. In fact, questions currently marked [tag:untagged] would normally *fail migration* without moderator intervention due to the lack of any tag overlap on the destination site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've previously noted, all of these questions will need to be reviewed eventually - that's a huge job, but there's no way around it: for as much overlap as they might have had, Astronomy and Theoretical Physics were separate sites with separate cultures and styles; integrating those questions is key to avoiding confusion for future readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to make this a *little* easier though, by providing lists of all migrated questions *along with their original tags*. I highly suggest splitting these up into &quot;bite-sized&quot; tasks and tackling them one by one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="35128554-59b1-4fd8-85fc-20f567727bd8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first discovered community moderation on this site, I was pretty excited, but I noticed that very few users ever participated in it. Now, as a moderator, I'm on the other side of the fence. From here, I can see that this is still a big issue for our site, and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to encourage users to participate in community moderation, as well as introduce them to the basics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do not be intimidated by the length of this post**, you may know about most of the stuff here already. Read the first section (and then maybe the section on flagging), and skim through the rest, looking for what you don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="f622b0f0-c839-44d9-8715-47b686526fb3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As it is December 2012, we are now going to reset our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/2810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="44434af9-e941-40c6-a6e1-af5b96c6d26e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm all for the general idea, but the current proposed text is a bit ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 put it, someone looking at this may think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not all homework questions are allowed&quot; ... ok; does that apply to my homework question? Naw, probably just other peoples'. Those guys homework questions are awful; they don't help me at all. Good job, site, disallowing those homework questions so folks can focus on mine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you wish to ask a homework question, be sure to [include your work and highlight your conceptual confusion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly better one (credit Shog9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Include your work and highlight the concept confusing you][2] when asking homework-related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3996" RevisionGUID="3dd87738-a9d1-43ef-92a6-e00f884552a4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You may edit in the [tag:homework] tag (suggested edit if you don't have the rep) if you see a post like this. The important thing is that if the post looks homeworky to you, then check if it obeys [the homework policy][1] (it should show some effort on the OP's side, highlight the concept, and mention the OP;s level of understanding). If it doesn't, flag as &quot;too localized&quot;, and leave a comment telling the OP how to make it fit the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the comment I generally leave (with an optional &quot;Welcome to Physics.SE!&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's a more moderator-y message, so I suggest you try something akin to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Could you please edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="534571bd-5458-4cb5-99fe-67566d711895" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Brought up by the flag and comments on [*How to determine whether a large container is air-tight?&quot;*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to address question in which the OP has run into a roadbump in build/calibrating/operating a piece of experimental apparatus, and the question is well defined in terms of fixing the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that this particular question is not a great example because the OP is not building an experiment,** but I would ask that the case for experimentaly realted question be examined separately from the fate of this particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A user has flagged suggesting that this particular case is an engineering problem and asks for a open ended list of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* David Z comments that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do think it's not constructive, as it's just asking for a list, not asking a specifically defined question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to argue below that this is exactly the kind of question which the Stack Excahnge engine is good at answering and should be explictly allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also note that [attmepts to open a experimentally specific Stack have not been successful][2] (you'll see that I argued that most such question *are* on-topic for Physics.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vaguely related: [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44784/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="902a60c9-46ff-44a2-a760-06a485a67976" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Something with a bit more &quot;teeth&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non-conceptual homework questions are likely to be closed. Please [read the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="a515f506-8eaa-47d5-aaef-f74f0c659aeb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from. It should have the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:specific-reference] question, which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dealing with old recommendation posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note&#xD;&#xA;    that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly&#xD;&#xA;    discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation&#xD;&#xA;    questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**.&#xD;&#xA;    This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have&#xD;&#xA;    commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="8a5853ad-0187-46f8-bec3-81099579e15b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Along the lines of [this question][1] and the links to others within, there is some acceptance amongst the community when it comes to paper reference requests on a specific topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would questions related to good/representative *journals* in a given field also be on topic? In some instances, for broad fields, the answer of &quot;What journals are good and why?&quot; are easily determined by things like the impact factor and number of citations. But for sub-fields, there is often a different set of journals that are better representative but are harder to find in the noise of the superset field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would a question like &quot;What are the highest quality journals in numerical weather/atmospheric simulation?&quot; be on-topic? It would need to be more than just a list-of-journals question of course. Some analysis would need to be done and say &quot;Well X is good at numerical methods, while Y is good for understanding physics and Z has papers on forecasting. In the area of hurricanes, journal A is cutting-edge...&quot; and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2918/do-we-allow-paper-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="767534b9-0e41-4137-bcbf-c559c8cbc3fa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="StackOverflow has a tab for questions entitled &quot;Interesting&quot; that is based on favorited tags and history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interesting tab][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get said tab on physics.SE based on recent discussions such as https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4382/is-physics-stack-exchange-getting-cluttered in order to help users organize the questions better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uhYv2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="098a67a9-86ed-477d-9bf5-cf60e3cad1a4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the borderline crackpot question, we agreed on that, but after that was finished, David went back to an old answer where I wanted to preserve a discussion (see this for a previous case: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/912/deleting-comments-without-consensus ), and deleted the discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24729/worlds-branching-or-diverging-in-many-worlds-interpretation/24738#comment62303_24738 , and locked the post. This was extremely annoying, and a bit of show of power, and I don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his favor, the erasure was probably in line with general policy on stackexchange, but I really think enforcing policy takes maturity and judgement, and should not be based on personal issues. Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties. This came up before, regarding deleting comments, and I just preserved those comments up by copying into the body of the answer up to this point. But it seems that David changed his mind on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like it. I think it shows immature judgement, and I don't have confidence that this is a neutral application of policy, nor that it is a good idea for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the deleted material, so you can judge for yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Short discussion on positivism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positivism is extremely counterintuitive, and this makes a lot of people reject it. This was a discussion in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrodinger's Ghost: Not sure if I agree, have you read the papers? Divergent MWI explicitly states that whether I will see a X spin or Y spin has been determined since the big bang. I will not see both, only either X or Y and if it happens to be Y then thats because I was on the Y branch. In this view advocated by Saunders and Wilson we are in a separate parallel universe, there is no branching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon: I have not read the papers. The &quot;determined&quot; aspect is creating a fictious observer selection a postiori from the results of the measurements, and is only different in ontology from standard MWI. What &quot;you&quot; are is a computational entity, and computations don't embed in QM straightforwardly, since they require irreversible measurements, so you need a large-system limit, and decoherence. Whether you embed yourself in a branch that you back-propagate to the big-bang or that you back-propagate to the measurement is up to you, it doesn't change your perception or anyone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: But there is obviously a objective difference. In one view, the overlap branching view, you are numerically identical, you are part of the other worlds pre-branching. In the divergent view, you are only qualitatively identical, but the atoms that make up you exist on their own, seperate from the identical ones in another branch.... So for instance quantum suicide works in branching, but not in divergence. When you die in divergence, you really die, just as in a single universe interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The difference is imagined. How do you know your perception is only stuck to one branch? Why can't it jump to another? Why do you think you don't really die if you die in a branching interpretation? Why do you attach your consciousness to you only, maybe your consciousness is located in North Dakota in the basement of some guy's house. These questions need to be formulated in a positivistic way to see which ones are meaningless, and in this case, all these questions, and the question of &quot;existence&quot; itself, are meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, the difference is not imagined, why would it be? If you clone yourself, do you magically become the clone? No. You are the consciousness that arise from the neurons in your brain, it doesn't matter if there exist identical ones, you don't magically jump from body to body, that would require a soul, which is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: What if you clone by splitting your brain down the middle, and making a copy of the other half. Which way do you go? What if you clone by replacing half your neurons higgeldy-piggledy with electronic parts, and put these neurons in a new body, with different electronic parts replacing the other half? When you are cloned, you have a chance of jumping to the other body, the evidence is that if you ask the other body what happened, it would say &quot;I jumped!&quot; What the probability is is only determinable from the outside. This is only a &quot;soul&quot; to the extent that software is soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: These are all well known &quot;conundrums&quot; in philosophy surrounding personal identity, but even in your thought experiments there is no &quot;jumping&quot;, you simply create 2 consciousnesses from 1 brain. We know this from split-brain experiments... I fail to see how your argument supports the idea that you could jump between branches? Imagine in our single universe there is another identical solar system with a identical planet Earth. Do we &quot;jump&quot; between them because there exist 2 identical people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: How can you tell if there is jumping on not? In any circumstance where &quot;jumping&quot; is allowed, the two minds are exactly the same (if even there are two of them). This is the point--- when the two consciousnesses are the same, it is a meaningless question to ask if there are two or one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, there is no physics that allows magical &quot;jumping&quot;... There are 2 worlds separate, how is this so hard to understand for you? Just because something is identical does not merge them into 1 thing wtf??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The reason it is &quot;hard to understand&quot; is because the notion of whether there are two &quot;consciousnesses&quot; or only one is not physics, it's pure philosophy. What experiment could tell me if jumping were occuring or not occuring? The only cases where jumping could be occuring, the two brains are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Why would jumping occur? Does 2 identical photons become 1? It's not pure philosophy, if the fact is that the branches all exist premeasurement, that is a objective fact about reality. You are making the claim of magic soul jumping, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. First prove the soul, then prove jumping mechanism, collect a ton of nobel prizes and I'll concede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: It is not the same as photons, because there is a test which will tell you when you have two photons. What test can tell you if two branches &quot;exist&quot; before they diverge? There is no answer, even in principle, because there is no existence-meter which flashes when it sees existing stuff. So &quot;exist&quot; is not a useful word. I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of the soul in the same way I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of firefox (the program), even though what the &quot;firefox&quot; on my computer is exactly is not clear, nor if there is 1 or 2 copies, especially when the OS puts a copy in cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Yes, you are right that there is no experiment that can answer it, so we have to resort to metaphysics. If divergence is better than branching as a theory, then it's rational to assume that divergence is most likely the true representation of reality. ...But you do then accept that although we can't determine the fact, there is a fact about which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No I don't accept that. There is no fact about the matter, there is no fact, there is no matter. The question is meaningless, you are asking nonsense. This is what &quot;positivism&quot; means. Two options are observationally identical means there is no difference between them, and it is a matter of convention which one you say when you speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: So you don't comprehend the difference between NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL worlds and QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL ? You are the first person I've discussed this with who has not grasped this concept...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: I &quot;grasp&quot; the concept, I am telling you it is incoherent. There is no meaning to a question of pure metaphysics, you can make up whatever you like, there are no differences in observation, so by definition the two positions are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No. That's like saying solipsism and realism is identical because we can't do a experiment to verify which is correct... How the hell can you do science with such a mindset?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Solipsism and realism are identical! Indeed this is a puzzling but true consequence of positivism. It remains to see how you can translate ethical arguments, like &quot;I should buy life insurance&quot; into the solipsist perspective. That this can be done is surprising and weird. This is how you do science, positivism is essential. I should admit that philosophers don't like positivism, because it moots their favorite questions, and ethicists find it hard to swallow that any ethical argument must be persuasive to a solipsist too (although this is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG:I reject positivism, I thought most people abandoned that way of thinking in the 80s, wtf ? Anyways, there is no way you can claim that solipsism and realism are identical. ONE has to be true. Do you believe I am conscious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Nearly all people abandoned positivism in the 70s-80s, and this was a terrible step backwards. The positivism was still working its magic in physics, to produce holography. I believe they are identical--- I don't even know if I am conscious, or if you take my internal sense of myself to be primitive, I don't know a sure meaning to the statement that I was conscious three minutes ago. I know there was an internal computation going on in myself, I can see the effects of it, and I can see that there is an internal computation going on in you. That's enough for all purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: I think it was a correct step and I would hate to see us step back to positivism. You are talking about computations taking place inside you and me, but then you are assuming realism. None of those concepts make sense in a solipsistic existence. You seem to have a rather radical way of interpreting the world. According to you the theory of gravity should not be preferred on any grounds (not even occam razor) to for instance a LSD induced idea of invisible gnomes pulling objects down to earth with invisible strings &quot;because they produce the same outcome they are identical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;... I think we are done actually. In conclusion: Ron Maimon consider anything that can't be proven or disproven identical, including solipsism and realism. So the question I have posed is obviously, to him, incoherent. Hopefully someone else will respond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everyone else in physics thinks the same way. Mach was the father of positivism, and Einstein and Bohr (and everyone after with a brief interlude from 1974-1995) embraced Mach's philosophy. This idea was central to relativity, quantum mechanics, S-matrix theory/string-theory, and everything else. It is not reasonable to ask whether there are little gnomes, you can introuce the little gnomes, or not introduce them, and there is no difference observationally. If the gnomes are useful as a figure of speech, go ahead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...: I think your position has merit, by the way, it is very difficult to fix up philosophy to be correct for positivism. You need an ethics that doesn't care whether God exists or not, that doesn't care whether other people exist or not, that gives the same answers regardless of metaphysics, and this makes strong constraints. The solution to this is the theory of superrationality, proposed by physicist turned cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, which gives a positivistically meaningful metaphysics neutral definition of ethical behavior compatible with religious ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You claim everyone in physics thinks the same way. How is it then that this question I am asking here has been asked by several physicists? Not to mention the entire debate on Quantum Interpretations, since they all yield the same result, according to you: THEY ARE IDENTICAL. So why do you adhere to Everett instead of say...transactional interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: &quot;Transactional&quot; is mathematically incoherent to date, so perhaps the right question is &quot;Everett&quot; vs. &quot;Copehagen&quot;. There is very little positive difference between Everett and Copenhagen, the way I see it, exactly zero, so the two are identical, and this is the major reason interpretation of quantum mechanics is not discussed in physics anymore--- people accept that the formulations are generally identical. Bohm is different, because the mathematical structure has &quot;little gnomes&quot; which are the particle positions which might become physically identifiable in a new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Well, Bohm gives same outcome, so if you are really as dedicated to your philosophy as you claim, it too is identical. As for interpretation not discussed in physics anymore? Wrong It's discussed now more than ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everett's intepretation is important, however, for establishing that there is no paradox possible for large systems in using quantum mechanics as is. This is not clear in Bohr, where the outcomes of experiments are by classical variables which are not present in the microscopic theory. In Everett interpretation, these variables become the branch selectors, so they get different &quot;little gnomes&quot;. At the end of the day, the two ideas are completely identical, although Everett is clearer psychologically for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Bohm is identical as formulated, so I do consider it not new, as formulated. But Bohm is useless and obviously wrong as formulated, since it picks out a frame and a basis for Hilbert space. But a future theory could start with Bohm and modify it to make a new theory, and since the mathematical structure has gnomes, the particle positions, the modified gnomes would be different than the modified no-gnome theory. The wavefunction might become an average of particle position properties, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Everettians also has to pick a preferred basis, decoherence doesn't solve this. My main point is that you clearly recognize the differences in 2 ideas, but due to the inability to verify which is correct, you assume it's worthless to even ask. But you DO agree that divergence and branching can obviously not BOTH be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Decoherence doesn't solve it, but it says that it is consistent to do it. A theory consists of a mathematical formalism, and a map from the formalism to experience. You can modify the formalism, and modify the map, but if the result is the same experience, it's the same theory. The divergence and branching are equivalent so they are both true, in that you can believe one or the other, but you generally don't want to use the language of one when thinking about the other, because they have incompatible language, so you shouldn't speak in the two frames simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;... It's exactly like coordinate rotation: do you agree that if the x-axis is along the north-south direction, this is different than the x-axis along the current Earth sun direction? I mean, in one case, the planets change x and in the others not. So you can use any axes, just as long as you are consistent, and two axes are equivalent. The same way: use any metaphysics, your metaphysics is your coordinate system, and the results are the same if the sense-perceptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4025" RevisionGUID="2561c914-c8a3-4ce5-aa33-afc8444f2cda" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Current** Physics.SE policy is to allow it (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag). The reason for using it is simple -- it basically is a sign for the answerers, saying &quot;don't post full answers, otherwise your answer will be deleted&quot;, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recently [posted on meta.chem][1], I *personally* am ambivalent to removing the tag (on both sites). On one hand, it is an easy way to teach new users about the HW policy (&quot;see that tag there? If you see that on a question, don't post&quot;) -- remember, what constitutes an HW problem isn't that evident to most, especially since homeworky problems which aren't HW are also considered [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [it is a meta tag][2], explicitly disallowed across all sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We might get rid of it on chem soon, not sure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Also, is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged for their... impurity... or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly. The community is probably still in support of the tag. We might be able to discuss this with the community team later. I plan to do so, just to find out _why_ the HW tag is &quot;bad&quot; -- unlike the other meta tags, it has a _purpose_. Depending on the response I get, we can work forward from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/203/22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="232a240b-66d0-4222-be9c-39068a02ed74" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions) like this one. ([see also this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions)) But as dmckee pointed out, there are some software questions about tools very specific to physics which would not get any useful reception on another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we adjust our policy to keep this question (and others like it) about specialized software questions, or just close it in accordance with the existing policy? Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Here is an example of the kind of question I would like us to decide about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47670/visualization-of-dynamics-of-a-scale-free-network-of-ising-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update to the update: actually it's not such a great example, because this is really a software _recommendation_ question, and recommendation questions of all sorts are generally off topic (except for a particular set of book recommendations). But it's still worth discussing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="e2d9d335-a11c-46e1-af9c-c9003e963848" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/507/can-we-get-a-migration-path-opened-to-math-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we close **or** flag a question as *off-topic*, we have an option called `belongs to meta.physics.SE`. We're also receiving questions that belong to Math.SE or Electronics.SE most of the time. So, it'd be easy for migration if there is a choice for `belongs to Math.SE` and `belongs to Electronics.SE`. Well, other sites do have that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, we can take Android.SE. It's having a choice for `belongs to SO`. I think superuser is also having such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0mmnG.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="3b49d152-e8e7-4245-bdef-0a43cb6cac60" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We occasionally get &quot;find me a PDF&quot; requests, where a user knows exactly the paper she needs and (presumably because of a paywall) asks how to obtain an electronic copy of it. This has typically been considered off-topic, and I agree that a site built around how to get behind paywalls is not a good thing to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this question of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27503/8563), which asked the former Theoretical Physics site about how one might obtain _any_ copies of a particularly hard-to-obtain paper, has been [put on hold as off-topic](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/27503/revisions) for this reason. I [argued in the comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5232), and I repeat it here, that this is a question that requires an good knowledge of the physics literature and that future questions like this should definitely be allowed. If I am desperate to find a given paper, have the exact reference, and have looked everywhere, then I would be glad to be able to voice it in a gathering of physicists. I feel banning questions like this would devalue this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we decide to allow this, then we also need to define where to draw the line. If you (dis)agree on the general principle, (down)up-vote the main answer to this question, and voice your ideas for appropriate criteria!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="e046391b-721c-4d30-925e-ff1160886d62" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first discovered community moderation on this site, I was pretty excited, but I noticed that very few users ever participated in it. Now, as a moderator, I'm on the other side of the fence. From here, I can see that this is still a big issue for our site, and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to encourage users to participate in community moderation, as well as introduce them to the basics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do not be intimidated by the length of this post**, you may know about most of the stuff here already. Read the first section (and then maybe the section on flagging), and skim through the rest, looking for what you don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="a9caace1-786f-4844-9b3b-ff7f9134dc67" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751). Looking at the high number of upvotes the level-filtering proposal has obtained, it seems the community has reached consensus that this concept is helpful and a good thing to improve the site for everybody. So it should not be negatively affected or even prevented by burnicating one of the level tags needed to implement and maintain this idea.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dont think that the majority of people sees popular-science as a bad question tag. On the contraty, there are [people](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4477/2751) who see it completely positive and very different from what Manishearth fears. I think some of these questions are really fun too. The agreement about what kind of questions should naturally have a certain tag, is natural and the intended way how appropriate tagging works, it is nothing specific or characteristic for level tags, so in my opinion it is therefore neutral and there is nothing bad going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="bf7eec16-19ad-4138-8a1d-4217bcfe9112" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Expanding on Dilaton's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site (and most other stackexchange sites where such is appropriate) use the exact same implementation of [MathJax][1] for Latex markup. Basically, just enclose tex within `$` (inline) or `$$` (set apart equations). Most basic commands work, like `\frac` and `\sin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also begin some Latex environments without dollar signs. For example `\begin{align}...\end{align}` is a valid construct that will have its contents parsed by the tex parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to use Latex itself, independent of this site, well that is a large enough topic to have [its own stackexchange site][2]. For basic stuff to get started, try [this other FAQ topic][3]. For site-specific abilities, I can think of no better guide than what they have over at math.SE, found [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can always click the `Edit` button on any post to see how it was written. You are not committed to making any edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mathjax.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/804/is-there-a-standard-place-to-point-people-to-learn-how-to-typeset-their-equation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="ebf47c0f-d252-4fce-a3ea-0cb63572c71e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Possible duplicates:&#xD;&#xA; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1281/can-we-make-a-theoretical-physics-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cane we capture the I was reading or I was watching a video and question crowd with a &quot;new idea&quot; tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="21c032ac-e188-4860-94f3-c9f006c7a5de" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/how-can-i-cite-a-question-in-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE][1] has a citation tool. Basically, if you click &quot;share&quot; on a post, there's a little &quot;cite&quot; link:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking that, you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets one properly cite a Physics.SE post in a document by the attribution rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want this? While it may not be so useful for formal journal articles, I see how it could be useful for miscellaneous documents (remember, visitors can use it too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0OrDR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yEnCA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="cfa47c4e-bf25-454a-82b8-e5f8c6d8d621" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's why this wasn't an example of arbitrary moderation: there were four people who expressed opinions that the question was off topic, another who was ambivalent about it, and one who strongly stated a belief that the question was on topic. If your definition of &quot;arbitrary moderation&quot; includes a consensus decision by four well-established users, it's a pretty useless definition. And what happened here is pretty nearly the _opposite_ of moderators ignoring the established framework and closing questions because of a personal disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say that the opinions - not actions, but merely opinions - of some of those well-established users should be discarded simply because they happen to be moderators, well, that just doesn't make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If I could formally register a complaint, I would,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can. Email team@stackexchange.com to provide feedback to Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I've seen here that people are usually punished for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, I can't recall a single instance where that has happened. Sometimes people are punished based on _how_ they say what they say (i.e. rudeness), but never simply for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This forum consistently shows a disdain for anything related to educational aspects of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, yeah. (It's not a forum, but) This is a site for conceptual physics questions; education questions are sort of a fringe topic. [Some of them are okay and some aren't](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/official-policy-on-astronomy-and-physics-education-cited-in-answers). And in some cases, the question is unacceptable for reasons unrelated to whether it's on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="03d82cfe-4582-48d5-b37b-d6659e231edf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Brought up by the flag and comments on [*How to determine whether a large container is air-tight?&quot;*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to address question in which the OP has run into a roadbump in build/calibrating/operating a piece of experimental apparatus, and the question is well defined in terms of fixing the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that this particular question is not a great example because the OP is not building an experiment,** but I would ask that the case for experimentaly realted question be examined separately from the fate of this particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A user has flagged suggesting that this particular case is an engineering problem and asks for a open ended list of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* David Z comments that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do think it's not constructive, as it's just asking for a list, not asking a specifically defined question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to argue below that this is exactly the kind of question which the Stack Excahnge engine is good at answering and should be explictly allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also note that [attmepts to open a experimentally specific Stack have not been successful][2] (you'll see that I argued that most such question *are* on-topic for Physics.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vaguely related: [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44784/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="dbd1f154-ad26-43bd-bc69-072dbd3fc770" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I`m just noting that since about yesterday, a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics, abuse the meta part of physics.SE to persecute Ron Maimon, see for example this [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1283/2751) and the comments below. &#xD;&#xA;They abuse the possibility to register here and having 101 points of reputation from the start try to potronize OUR community and screw up the picture of how WE would like to deal with certain issues.&#xD;&#xA;Answers, votes, comments, etc represent no longer the opinion and preferences of our physics community since these intruders started to meddle with things which are not their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="ad5f55e2-2d1b-4219-8948-f7bde996a1d8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I note that popular-science, research-level, and homework are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should bother you. Here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first page of tags][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what the [first tags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) looks like right now. It indicates a healthy site, catering to a broad range of interests. Note that with a few exceptions it mostly *describes what this site is about*. If your interest or expertise falls into one of the areas described by those tags, you'll likely find a reason to keep you here on the site. You can follow topics that interest you, ignore those that don't, and even get customized lists of questions that match your specific interests. A host of tools in the software itself make use of this information, and it's clear which topics are popular here, and which ones are less well-served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now picture a site where the top three tags are [tag:homework], [tag:popular-science] and [tag:research-level], with the tags that describe specific topics trailing off behind them. (Let's imagine y'all ignore [my advice][2] and start slapping [popular-science] on any question you don't think falls into either [homework] or [research-level]). You might imagine this would result in the same list pictured above, with a couple of extra tags at the start - you would be wrong. **Every time we've seen this done,** it has resulted in topic-specific tags being neglected in favor of the broad, easy categories. The bigger the category gets, the more poorly-tagged questions result...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse yet, it carves the site up into separate districts based on fairly subjective criteria that have little or nothing to do with the actual subjects being asked and answered. They may *start out* &quot;separate but equal&quot;, but... That never lasts. Pretty soon, one or more tags develop a reputation for being... Let's say &quot;dirty&quot;. You don't want this tag on *your* question. You do want it on questions you don't like, since then you can ignore it. No need to put effort into editing or closing bad questions - just shove them in the ghetto and pretend they don't exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tagging is *not* a tool for moderation; they are a tool for *organization*. The categories that a question falls into should be obvious based on the question itself - if a 3rd-party is required to arbitrate, then tagging has failed. Leave tags for *topics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you know better than to suggest there are only three topics here on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIpVA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag/4743#4743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="9f706f3d-fb39-4eae-bc5e-39b500afff51" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I use `\:\mathrm{&lt;units go here&gt;}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$E=120\:\mathrm{kgm^2s^{-2}}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also use [this userscript][2]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want mathjax on meta, upvote https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/mathjax-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WqfPo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="26b0253d-9ad2-4a42-b5d7-467683ece94f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, I do not agree with the reference request/books/study material policy here either, but unfortunately nothing can be done about it. [Reference requests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/2751) should in principle be [allowed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2918/2751) whereas asking for books is absolutely not, but the [definitions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/786/2751) of what is a book or valid reference request are applied in a random and unpredictable manner. Valid reference request questions can get retagged and closed as book requests etc. It is a big shame that serious people are (no longer) allowed to ask for any material to (self) study/research physics of more or less advanced and well localized topics at different levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3996" RevisionGUID="9a004593-3f07-468e-b542-bc65fa04c8d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You may edit in the [tag:homework] tag (suggested edit if you don't have the rep) if you see a post like this. The important thing is that if the post looks homeworky to you, then check if it obeys [the homework policy][1] (it should show some effort on the OP's side, highlight the concept, and mention the OP;s level of understanding). If it doesn't, flag as &quot;too localized&quot;, and leave a comment telling the OP how to make it fit the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the comment I generally leave (with an optional &quot;Welcome to Physics.SE!&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's a more moderator-y message, so I suggest you try something akin to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Could you please edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="c40495d3-a5db-4fd4-8a5b-f48484eea3c4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="07ff6e07-03ce-4573-a4ae-f4547a5fde81" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some other sites in the SE network have recently been moving toward eliminating the [tag:homework] tag. I think this would be useful for us to consider as well, particularly in light of questions like [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35748/how-to-add-two-perpendicular-2d-vectors) - if you look at the comments, the OP says &quot;Also there is a homework tag so I assumed it does allow homework questions.&quot; That's one of the main arguments for removing the tag, both here and on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the homework tag would not change our policy on what sorts of questions can be asked here. Specifically, it is now and will continue to be OK to ask a conceptual question that arises in the context of a homework assignment. Also our [existing homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be more or less unchanged, except that we would no longer ask posters to use the tag [tag:homework] for homework or self-study questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we go ahead with removing the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what exactly is the purpose of keeping it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4025" RevisionGUID="373b9dbc-ba5c-498f-813b-1c778676cc1d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Current** Physics.SE policy is to allow it (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag). The reason for using it is simple -- it basically is a sign for the answerers, saying &quot;don't post full answers, otherwise your answer will be deleted&quot;, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recently [posted on meta.chem][1], I *personally* am ambivalent to removing the tag (on both sites). On one hand, it is an easy way to teach new users about the HW policy (&quot;see that tag there? If you see that on a question, don't post&quot;) -- remember, what constitutes an HW problem isn't that evident to most, especially since homeworky problems which aren't HW are also considered [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [it is a meta tag][2], explicitly disallowed across all sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We might get rid of it on chem soon, not sure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Also, is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged for their... impurity... or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly. The community is probably still in support of the tag. We might be able to discuss this with the community team later. I plan to do so, just to find out _why_ the HW tag is &quot;bad&quot; -- unlike the other meta tags, it has a _purpose_. Depending on the response I get, we can work forward from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/203/22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="47cb83a3-b2a3-421f-beca-672d2c4a8657" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm all for the general idea, but the current proposed text is a bit ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 put it, someone looking at this may think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not all homework questions are allowed&quot; ... ok; does that apply to my homework question? Naw, probably just other peoples'. Those guys homework questions are awful; they don't help me at all. Good job, site, disallowing those homework questions so folks can focus on mine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you wish to ask a homework question, be sure to [include your work and highlight your conceptual confusion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly better one (credit Shog9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Include your work and highlight the concept confusing you][2] when asking homework-related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="2ef68113-c75f-46ef-99aa-53bd976b452d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My take on this, and I'll expand it some more when I think about it more, is that there is a very clear good list/bad list distinction. But most of the questions people argue are good lists, I don't agree are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what makes a bad list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A single answer is unlikely to be complete on its own. The question you cited that prompted this post also falls on the bad subjective side -- what one considers an &quot;important problem&quot; in the field may not be what others consider.&#xD;&#xA; 1. An answer must be continually updated. Again, the cited question falls in this category. Even if somehow we determined a complete list of &quot;important problems,&quot; that could change tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of things that fall outside of those two primary issues I think would be good lists. But I'm a bit hard-pressed to come up with what those would be, and I don't recall any questions that I think would fall in that category, but that's not to say they aren't out there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as we discussed with [finding journals][1] with the [tag:reference-request] tag, I think questions like the one you cited are best posed in chat or on meta to **indicate the tag-wiki needs to be updated to reflect the answer**. For instance, the tag-wiki on [tag:plasma-physics] could be updated to reflect current research areas, including key papers, journals, and reviews. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for a question/answer, that's what the tag wiki's should be used to communicate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="7f8ff402-912b-4754-91a4-413b32b54cee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.), see also more answers listed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/865/23119)            etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta-tag:status-declined]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I decline to give the  forecast? Or that it is predicted that this will be declined?  .                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="a3823ef6-25e1-474a-aae1-7b382646998d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Generally, there is no and there never was an issue with metaphysics questios. Anixx just tried to mix things up, discredit fundamental physics, and get attention as it [started](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1458/2751). The negative votes on [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1462/2751) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting) question, as well as the positive votes on his answers to the polling question, say that the communitiy disagrees with Anixx that there even is any general issue with philosphical questions on physics SE. Generally, most of the topics he meantioned are not (only) metaphysics or philosophy. Such issues are now investigated by serious theoretical physicists today. So questions asking about such things can well be incorporated into physics SE, if they are appropriately stated by alluding to the corresponding physics theories that deal with the issue, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, the only thing to do now is to close/delete (was there not the option of migrating too?) **specific** questions about the topics Anixx mentioned **if and only if** they have attracted enough close/delete votes or sparked a huge number of complaining flags and otherwise leave them alone. I thought the system deletes/closes questions automatically if enough votes from mods and high rep users have accumulated (?), so probably nothing has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;There is certainly no reason to generally delete/close larger groups of questions or disallow certain topics in the future as Annix tried to achieve. Neither is a metaphysics tag, saying that certain questions are not physics, needed here. Off base questions should be dealt with case by case as they come in (and as it was done before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once and for all, things were just fine before Anixx started to create an artificial issue, so it would be best to leave things allone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to consider is that refering to fundamental physics questions, that are investigated by serious theoretical physicists today, as &quot;metaphysics&quot; or even worse condemning them as off topic here on physics SE would lend support to people who attack fundamental physics not only in the internet but actively try to prohibit research into it even in the &quot;real world&quot; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="81fb77c5-067a-4e6f-a80a-bc82294e7313" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Expanding on Dilaton's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site (and most other stackexchange sites where such is appropriate) use the exact same implementation of [MathJax][1] for Latex markup. Basically, just enclose tex within `$` (inline) or `$$` (set apart equations). Most basic commands work, like `\frac` and `\sin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also begin some Latex environments without dollar signs. For example `\begin{align}...\end{align}` is a valid construct that will have its contents parsed by the tex parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to use Latex itself, independent of this site, well that is a large enough topic to have [its own stackexchange site][2]. For basic stuff to get started, try [this other FAQ topic][3]. For site-specific abilities, I can think of no better guide than what they have over at math.SE, found [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can always click the `Edit` button on any post to see how it was written. You are not committed to making any edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mathjax.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/804/is-there-a-standard-place-to-point-people-to-learn-how-to-typeset-their-equation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="93b832a7-4709-447f-807e-de8b459b1bbc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Something with a bit more &quot;teeth&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non-conceptual homework questions are likely to be closed. Please [read the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="a60777b2-806b-4592-8dea-871d5d6d081d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions which instruct people to solve a problem without showing any work are not appropriate as per our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). That's why your question was closed. I used the &quot;too localized&quot; close reason out of habit, but &quot;off topic&quot; would apply equally well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably turn your question into something appropriate by going on to say something like &quot;I tried to solve this by doing XXX then YYY, but after that I got stuck because I don't see any way to calculate ZZZ from YYY. Is it possible to do this, and how?&quot; That makes it a conceptual question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="eb9b1e44-d4a7-41ed-95cb-88213297a85c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Update: @ChrisWhite's edits make it much better, I reopened it. After all, closing is a temporary state that can usually be escaped by editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion after skimming through it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like a homework-type problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. You may want to see our [homework policy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to show what you have tried and your level of understanding before asking a homework problem. The &quot;too localised&quot; reason is just used as a proxy for &quot;does not follow homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinion after reading it in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking closer, it seems like the question didn't make much sense. It was clear that you were confused about Lagrangian mechanics; but the _question_ was not exactly answerable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a question of a similar type where the problem is very, _very_ accentuated: &quot;How do I add numbers in General Relativity?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a localized question; nobody else will ask that. It doesn't matter if the answer _may_ contain a lot of conceptual details -- this counts as &quot;accidental&quot; learning. The bare minimum answer to the numbers question is &quot;just like in normal arithmetic&quot;. Which isn't really useful to anyone. Similarly, the bare minimum answer to yours is &quot;just like in Newtonian mechanics&quot; -- not too helpful an answer. This is basically why it was too localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that since there's already a good answer, closing doesn't change much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since your main goal is to understand how to replace NM with LM, asking _that_ question (which @ChrisWhite did in his edit) may make it reopenable :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods don't _have_ to listen to flags. However, in this case, the flag was a sensible one that made the problem with the post clear. (Unfortunately I can't tell you the details of the flag itself, that's private information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Note that it doesn't have to be homework, it's just the type that matters&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="80ec962c-9fd6-4964-bd1c-a3ca9c90099e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's why this wasn't an example of arbitrary moderation: there were four people who expressed opinions that the question was off topic, another who was ambivalent about it, and one who strongly stated a belief that the question was on topic. If your definition of &quot;arbitrary moderation&quot; includes a consensus decision by four well-established users, it's a pretty useless definition. And what happened here is pretty nearly the _opposite_ of moderators ignoring the established framework and closing questions because of a personal disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say that the opinions - not actions, but merely opinions - of some of those well-established users should be discarded simply because they happen to be moderators, well, that just doesn't make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If I could formally register a complaint, I would,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can. Email team@stackexchange.com to provide feedback to Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I've seen here that people are usually punished for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, I can't recall a single instance where that has happened. Sometimes people are punished based on _how_ they say what they say (i.e. rudeness), but never simply for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This forum consistently shows a disdain for anything related to educational aspects of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, yeah. (It's not a forum, but) This is a site for conceptual physics questions; education questions are sort of a fringe topic. [Some of them are okay and some aren't](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/official-policy-on-astronomy-and-physics-education-cited-in-answers). And in some cases, the question is unacceptable for reasons unrelated to whether it's on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="188ff379-937b-4672-a3ed-31089d54baa1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was non-zero so this Loperator aninhilated his stated post.*  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sorry! D' Alembert has killed the page, perhaps because it was in a massless state.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or... we could put text saying &quot;LQG&quot;,  since LQG is ill-defined ? : )    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="190eac85-d1f8-4b0f-9ef7-93b622030b4f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="StackOverflow has a tab for questions entitled &quot;Interesting&quot; that is based on favorited tags and history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interesting tab][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get said tab on physics.SE based on recent discussions such as https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4382/is-physics-stack-exchange-getting-cluttered in order to help users organize the questions better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uhYv2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="cbfdef02-53b2-4fb9-b496-9a643cf6a672" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Really, two related questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, there is great interest, and substantial disagreement about fundamental, foundational issues.  These questions are at least sometimes deep and subtle.  A tag such as foundations-of-physics or fundamental-question or just &quot;foundations&quot; might be appropriate for questions related to these issues. What is the best tag for this type of question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But I am more concerned about a second, somewhat different sort of basic question.  In particular, I am concerned about very basic questions concerning basic concepts and definitions, or elementary procedures.  You would think that these questions would be easily answered by googling or consulting an elementary text book.   But I find it is amazing how many very elementary questions I cannot answer by those means, and so I turn to Physics SE.  These questions are not homework, and should not be treated as homework (i.e. hints instead of clear answers).  Often the purpose of the question is to clear up a misconception.  So the homework tag is very inapropriate for this type of question.  Perhaps basic-question would be an appropriate tag or even simpler-than-homework or some other such tag. I don't know how many others do, but I certainly feel the need for a tag of this type.  Comments and suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I just read the following, based on the automated suggestion, and have not changed my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/566/is-the-precautionary-closing-of-immature-questions-so-very-necessary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="8f4156a8-4b73-41e6-b11e-c8447279ab4b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="7e44832b-d5e3-488c-b1b5-f500899a38a2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about [30 users](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all): admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and a few others a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available. This is an issue because few people can review tag wiki edits and fewer of them actually do. Further, each reviewer can only do 20 posts per day, and I've already maxed out on that a couple of times. If you propose a tag wiki edit that takes ages to go through, that may be one possible reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore ask two things. On the site design front, **is there a way to have multiple edits to the same tag wiki in the review queue?** This would ideally be available as an &quot;Improve&quot; button directly on the tag edit (though possibly with text warning to make sparse use of it because of the reviewing limitations). Future reviewers might be presented all the reviews to the same tag wiki, either simultaneously or one after the other, to make reviewing simpler. A cap on the maximum number of pending edits would also be reasonable, as would making this feature site-specific so it gets turned off after the tag wiki review queue speeds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the community side, on the other hand, **if you have more than 5k rep, please review all the Suggested Edits you can.** This keeps that specific queue faster and allows a faster community dialog about what we want our tag wikis to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy to take the [tag:feature-request] to the Mother Meta, but as this is mostly a local issue I thought I'd ask here and get some local support before I go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="57600b5f-5222-4dd4-9a23-517c44929ae1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, I do not agree with the reference request/books/study material policy here either, but unfortunately nothing can be done about it. [Reference requests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/2751) should in principle be [allowed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2918/2751) whereas asking for books is absolutely not, but the [definitions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/786/2751) of what is a book or valid reference request are applied in a random and unpredictable manner. Valid reference request questions can get retagged and closed as book requests etc. It is a big shame that serious people are (no longer) allowed to ask for any material to (self) study/research physics of more or less advanced and well localized topics at different levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="235a96b4-a1e9-418d-b531-feee04fa1c9f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Disclaimer: this is **not** a complaint, just a thought and an observation ... ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe experts prefer helping others by answering questions and do not ask much here, because Physics SE is not an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. The number of people who could answer their questions at the same level might be too small. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better explain what I mean, when Lubos Motl reads in interesting paper concerning his own subject, thinks about it and comes up with some interesting thoughts and questions he rather posts an article on his blog as he did for example [here](http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/06/finding-and-abandoning-incorrect.html?m=1) to obtain a better response than he would get when posting a corresponding question here. And think about it, who should answer, if people like Qmechanic have a question about something they do not understand concerning their own research subject? There are simply not enough physicists of this calliber here who could appreciate or even answer such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, if one wants to have questions from experts (about their own subject at least), the size of the community of fellow researchers who can appreciate and answer such questions must not fall below a certain critical value.&#xD;&#xA;For example on sites with a higher number of researchers like TP.SE experts did, and on MathOverflow they still do ask more questions themself. With tpg2114's objections concerning the TP.SE example I disagree. This was a nice small extremely high quality site and it only died because the SE network is not appropriate to support such small communities and maybe they could have lowered the bar to ask questions a little bit as I said [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2610/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary I would say, if we want to have more questions from experts about physics issues they are working on (?), we should first of all try to attract more experts and researchers to the site and make them feel at home here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="c616554a-8df1-4c49-8365-85e61ff7a9a7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed a sudden increment in the close vote queue (minimum 10 per day, upto 15 or so) for the past few days. Maybe people (except a few) haven't noticed that mods are having a vacation. I can feel their absence in the active page. They haven't informed anything about this to the community...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manish told [me](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9811294#9811294) and [Chris](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9825883#9825883) that they're off to see if the community is interested in reviewing close votes. As far as I've seen, only a few users are interested in reviewing close votes and even less members in reviewing reopen votes (as it requires somewhat deeper look into the post). They are right about the evaluation of community. As it looks like a good decision, I honor it. But, for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they doing now? (*Actually, where are they?* :D) Is this some kind of *secret spying?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;And, a humble message to my fellow users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##C'mon guys, Please spend a few minutes reviewing...  &#xD;&#xA;[We don't just ask &amp; answer. We can help it grow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2921/11062) ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="da5df01c-7b5b-411f-a023-aee4af59096e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep ask here, we like theoretical physics too ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that have been on the former theoretical physics SE site or new ones, that would have been appropriate for it, are labeled with the &quot;research-level&quot;  [tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2751) you can see (beside the Astronomy questions which we have saved too) a list of all the TP.SE questions that were imported. We have successfully saved all of them I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What went wrong with TP.SE was discussed for example at our meta by questions marked with the [tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) &quot;site-salvage&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the basic proplem was that the SE network does not allow for smaller, high quality content sites, which are of interest to a smaller community and therefore have lower, traffic, a slower growth rate, etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="20d15b12-f4ae-47a0-ae9a-4cf3b95acf1e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am asking because I have seen a couple misconceptions floating around on Physics.SE, but in a way so that it would be semi off-topic to address in answers to the post, and it is a bit too complex to get into in the comments (and also frustrating to do repeatedly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the best way to treat this would be to post a well-designed question, provide a  thorough and cited answer and then be able to link to that when the question pops up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would of course hold out on accepting my own answer as a spur to others to provide better answers, but it would at least give the option to link to a more thorough discussion on SE. Would this be frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is similar to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1013/should-i-post-a-question-if-i-know-the-answer-should-i-answer-my-own-questions) but different enough that I think it can still bear a little talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="afff6870-4720-4d8f-81d5-6fd2090409cc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Update: @ChrisWhite's edits make it much better, I reopened it. After all, closing is a temporary state that can usually be escaped by editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion after skimming through it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like a homework-type problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. You may want to see our [homework policy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to show what you have tried and your level of understanding before asking a homework problem. The &quot;too localised&quot; reason is just used as a proxy for &quot;does not follow homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinion after reading it in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking closer, it seems like the question didn't make much sense. It was clear that you were confused about Lagrangian mechanics; but the _question_ was not exactly answerable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a question of a similar type where the problem is very, _very_ accentuated: &quot;How do I add numbers in General Relativity?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a localized question; nobody else will ask that. It doesn't matter if the answer _may_ contain a lot of conceptual details -- this counts as &quot;accidental&quot; learning. The bare minimum answer to the numbers question is &quot;just like in normal arithmetic&quot;. Which isn't really useful to anyone. Similarly, the bare minimum answer to yours is &quot;just like in Newtonian mechanics&quot; -- not too helpful an answer. This is basically why it was too localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that since there's already a good answer, closing doesn't change much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since your main goal is to understand how to replace NM with LM, asking _that_ question (which @ChrisWhite did in his edit) may make it reopenable :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods don't _have_ to listen to flags. However, in this case, the flag was a sensible one that made the problem with the post clear. (Unfortunately I can't tell you the details of the flag itself, that's private information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Note that it doesn't have to be homework, it's just the type that matters&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="5e5332af-86bc-4150-9453-053bf98d5918" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are no rules that set the limits of what cannot be deleted, so any comment is fair target for deletion. That's because comments are, **by design**, second-class material, ephemeral and disposable. They are there to seek clarification on questions and answers. Once they've served that purpose, they can be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments that are used to try to subvert a Stack Exchange site into being a medium for discussion, rather than Q&amp;A, are **always** fair target for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules that set out what must be deleted: material that is illegal, offensive, or that breaks the sites rules. The comment-flagging box gives you a good guide to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in short, never put in comments something that you should put in a question or an answer: if it's got merit, put it in a first-class container (Q&amp;A), not an ephemeral, disposable second-class container (comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thanks to [tgp2114][2] for their comment that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; long comment chains are sometimes allowed on Meta when they are constructive, but Meta is the exception not the &quot;rule&quot; ... So one may see long comment threads here, but **they may be deleted at any time for any reason**. Particularly when they are not on topic any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my emphasis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihnfz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="4248546a-93d8-42c7-9aa1-fec88f29b36b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from. It should have the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:specific-reference] question, which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dealing with old recommendation posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note&#xD;&#xA;    that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly&#xD;&#xA;    discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation&#xD;&#xA;    questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**.&#xD;&#xA;    This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have&#xD;&#xA;    commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="71a09e5d-a9e0-44ff-862a-638d990b8848" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is an election oriented chat tonight (Tuesday) at 8pm EST.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summary of the questions and answers will be posted to Meta following the conclusion of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the summary is limited to the questions directed at the candidates and direct answers by the candidates, since collecting those is the entire purpose of the event. For more info, see: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="ec975a2d-4ff2-408f-920f-c44442ced8ef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We occasionally get &quot;find me a PDF&quot; requests, where a user knows exactly the paper she needs and (presumably because of a paywall) asks how to obtain an electronic copy of it. This has typically been considered off-topic, and I agree that a site built around how to get behind paywalls is not a good thing to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this question of mine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27503/8563), which asked the former Theoretical Physics site about how one might obtain _any_ copies of a particularly hard-to-obtain paper, has been [put on hold as off-topic](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/27503/revisions) for this reason. I [argued in the comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5232), and I repeat it here, that this is a question that requires an good knowledge of the physics literature and that future questions like this should definitely be allowed. If I am desperate to find a given paper, have the exact reference, and have looked everywhere, then I would be glad to be able to voice it in a gathering of physicists. I feel banning questions like this would devalue this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we decide to allow this, then we also need to define where to draw the line. If you (dis)agree on the general principle, (down)up-vote the main answer to this question, and voice your ideas for appropriate criteria!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="77f136f8-ceaf-4278-963f-034420355d52" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="c74ba9c0-fa45-471a-83c2-87c3a59932f5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**I agree with a strong caveat.** The tag wiki excerpt must function as an exceptionally well-tuned tool to catch the great homework/problem-solving questions, turn the borderline cases into good questions, and prevent bad questions as far as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way tag synonyms work at Ask a Question time is the following. You type in the tag you think you should use (say, &quot;sound&quot;) and presto! A very visible prompt appears with the strong suggestion that the tag to use is, in fact, acoustics - _and it flashes a blurb at them_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, say we have a [myopic user](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html) who did not read the guidance in the sidebar. They see they're asked for tags and, saying &quot;hey&quot;, they type in `homework`. They are then presented with the suggestion that in fact they meant &quot;problem solving,&quot; as well as a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem-solving refers to questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes conceptual questions about homework assignments, although not all homework questions are allowed. PLEASE CLICK LEARN MORE BEFORE POSTING HOMEWORK QUESTIONS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `learn more` link would then take them to a tag wiki with a succinct summary of the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/8563) and numerous links to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of this, as I see it, is that it encourages the right sort of homework-like questions we want, whilst taking (a probably small, but nonzero) action to prevent the bad ones from getting asked in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't think we're at the fighting-ourselves-to-oblivion-over-homework-tags kind of stage that SO reached some time ago, and I have not seen anyone railing against a [tag:homework] tag that did not yield to the first comment of &quot;The tag applies to all homework-like questions&quot; and subsequent referral to meta. I think our biggest problem is still fighting the constant tide of low-quality homework questions, and if we do this right it can help in that respect. If it helps in making the homework-like askers a bit happier about it then all to the better, but then that's only because yes, &quot;problem-solving&quot; _does_ encapsulate so much better what we want in good homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YWXIw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="30b0bf36-9973-4f2c-858b-3102828fe075" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751). Looking at the high number of upvotes the level-filtering proposal has obtained, it seems the community has reached consensus that this concept is helpful and a good thing to improve the site for everybody. So it should not be negatively affected or even prevented by burnicating one of the level tags needed to implement and maintain this idea.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dont think that the majority of people sees popular-science as a bad question tag. On the contraty, there are [people](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4477/2751) who see it completely positive and very different from what Manishearth fears. I think some of these questions are really fun too. The agreement about what kind of questions should naturally have a certain tag, is natural and the intended way how appropriate tagging works, it is nothing specific or characteristic for level tags, so in my opinion it is therefore neutral and there is nothing bad going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="f10fdadd-1ed6-420c-9c0d-d238e0115102" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Here an other post][1] with a huge amount of comments below each post. I'm feeling annoyed by this: or I have to clic to let them appear if I want to read them all, or I have to scroll a lot for nothing if I do not care about the comments. Is there a way to overcome this issue ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose some ways to resolve the problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - allow some posts (especially in the meta part) to be more forum-like (no comment allowed for instance). That could be something like the *Wiki community* option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a small floating on the bottom of the page link going to the next answer (for those who knows Gmail, a link like *go to the next discussion message* on Gmail)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a link to expand / discard *all* the comment of a given page (close to  the *comment, edit, share* buttons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or eventually all of these options ! Please tell me what you think about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="27642681-9e2f-46a5-8462-be62570b7425" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am asking because I have seen a couple misconceptions floating around on Physics.SE, but in a way so that it would be semi off-topic to address in answers to the post, and it is a bit too complex to get into in the comments (and also frustrating to do repeatedly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the best way to treat this would be to post a well-designed question, provide a  thorough and cited answer and then be able to link to that when the question pops up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would of course hold out on accepting my own answer as a spur to others to provide better answers, but it would at least give the option to link to a more thorough discussion on SE. Would this be frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is similar to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1013/should-i-post-a-question-if-i-know-the-answer-should-i-answer-my-own-questions) but different enough that I think it can still bear a little talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="7dc37644-422f-4c83-a2ba-e1d2ad75171c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're probably looking at an edit suggested to a *tag wiki*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you have [the ability to *vote to approve*][1] these edits, you haven't yet earned [the right to edit them *directly*][2] - so the &quot;improve&quot; button is unavailable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dmckee, as a moderator][3], has all the rights and so sees the &quot;improve&quot; button regardless of his reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and yes, just removing/disabling the button is a bit weird, but the alternative would allow you to create a sort of chain of suggestions that would all have to be approved or rejected)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/trusted-user&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/on-reviewing-edits/2752#2752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="a555b1bb-ac77-41c5-b191-d0a7a594a126" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As things stand at present, questions of people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, who are looking for help in solving a particular problem (homeworky), are mixed up with questions of physics students (university level) up to research level questions on Physics SE, so things have become too messy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably due to the fact, that two differenc kinds of audiences have developed on this site in the course of time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the one hand we have nicely curious people who are not physicists, but who are interested to learn at a rather popular equation free level what physics is about, people who like to find answers to some applied everyday problems from a physics point of view, younger (not yet university level) students who have just started to build up a basic physics knowledge, and people who are looking for help in solving concrete problems they face (homeworky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, there is an audience consisting of university level physics students, academics, and researchers, who like to do physics at a more advanced technical, mathematical, up to research level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these two &quot;subaudiences&quot; seems to be very happy with the present situation since&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. People more interested in popular, basic Q&amp;A of physics and problem solving, see their questions often closed and not that well recieved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To people more interested in higher level, technical, up to research level questions, the site looks cluttered with too basic posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That this is a real issue by now can be seen from relatively recent meta questions such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4308/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/931/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and most recently this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So can there, just for Physics SE, something like an internal tag filtered minisite* be implemented, to better structure and improve the perception and experience of the site for both of the two audiences?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That &quot;subaudience&quot;, which makes up the larger part of the present overall community, could take the role of the main Physics SE, whereas the smaller &quot;subaudience&quot; could be sent to the internal minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such an internal minisite implemented into Physics SE, people interested in more technical, higher level Q&amp;A could focus on exactly this without having to dig through a large amount of posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the criteria on allowed problem (or homework) questions, and the previous knowledge expacted to come here could be relaxed for the other group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the present overall community is probably not large enough to be splitted into two full SE sites, the minisite approach would in my opinion be **the perfect solution** to better serve both of the two audiences we now have on Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS: I am not too sure how such a minisite works technically. Manishearth gave this short explanation of an example:  Basically: It's one minisite. Facebook had an agreement with SE that their developers would also help on questions regarding the FB API. With this agreement, SE made a tag-filtered [facebook*](facebook.stackoverflow.com) website, so that FB devs could get their own place. If it works by putting everything with a certain tag on the minisite, it is hopfully not so complicated to implement this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="501be21f-d7f8-41a2-b17f-cb98be2514a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Well, the community really doesn't like editing, even good ones](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5002/why-does-the-community-allow-or-even-encourage-seemingly-meaningless-edits-to-qu), and now supports  crackpottery, there;'s no point of the editing feature. Please disable it to avoid such nonsense in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, until (or if not) this feature is incorporated, I'll continue editing though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm only suggesting this for Phys.SE, not the entire SE network.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="d0efd089-c973-4484-9f00-7f57de1e2c5a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I note that popular-science, research-level, and homework are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should bother you. Here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first page of tags][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what the [first tags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) looks like right now. It indicates a healthy site, catering to a broad range of interests. Note that with a few exceptions it mostly *describes what this site is about*. If your interest or expertise falls into one of the areas described by those tags, you'll likely find a reason to keep you here on the site. You can follow topics that interest you, ignore those that don't, and even get customized lists of questions that match your specific interests. A host of tools in the software itself make use of this information, and it's clear which topics are popular here, and which ones are less well-served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now picture a site where the top three tags are [tag:homework], [tag:popular-science] and [tag:research-level], with the tags that describe specific topics trailing off behind them. (Let's imagine y'all ignore [my advice][2] and start slapping [popular-science] on any question you don't think falls into either [homework] or [research-level]). You might imagine this would result in the same list pictured above, with a couple of extra tags at the start - you would be wrong. **Every time we've seen this done,** it has resulted in topic-specific tags being neglected in favor of the broad, easy categories. The bigger the category gets, the more poorly-tagged questions result...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse yet, it carves the site up into separate districts based on fairly subjective criteria that have little or nothing to do with the actual subjects being asked and answered. They may *start out* &quot;separate but equal&quot;, but... That never lasts. Pretty soon, one or more tags develop a reputation for being... Let's say &quot;dirty&quot;. You don't want this tag on *your* question. You do want it on questions you don't like, since then you can ignore it. No need to put effort into editing or closing bad questions - just shove them in the ghetto and pretend they don't exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tagging is *not* a tool for moderation; they are a tool for *organization*. The categories that a question falls into should be obvious based on the question itself - if a 3rd-party is required to arbitrate, then tagging has failed. Leave tags for *topics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you know better than to suggest there are only three topics here on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIpVA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag/4743#4743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="832105cc-3b79-427e-a02b-ad181af7eac8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There isn't a Physics SE blog, and you can't really submit articles to something that doesn't exist ;-) So there is no way (for now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possibility of starting a site blog has been [previously discussed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog) but there was not enough support for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="6992d9d2-f8a2-45a8-a33f-862aa16d9f6e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As things stand at present, questions of people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, who are looking for help in solving a particular problem (homeworky), are mixed up with questions of physics students (university level) up to research level questions on Physics SE, so things have become too messy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably due to the fact, that two differenc kinds of audiences have developed on this site in the course of time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the one hand we have nicely curious people who are not physicists, but who are interested to learn at a rather popular equation free level what physics is about, people who like to find answers to some applied everyday problems from a physics point of view, younger (not yet university level) students who have just started to build up a basic physics knowledge, and people who are looking for help in solving concrete problems they face (homeworky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, there is an audience consisting of university level physics students, academics, and researchers, who like to do physics at a more advanced technical, mathematical, up to research level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these two &quot;subaudiences&quot; seems to be very happy with the present situation since&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. People more interested in popular, basic Q&amp;A of physics and problem solving, see their questions often closed and not that well recieved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To people more interested in higher level, technical, up to research level questions, the site looks cluttered with too basic posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That this is a real issue by now can be seen from relatively recent meta questions such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4308/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/931/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and most recently this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So can there, just for Physics SE, something like an internal tag filtered minisite* be implemented, to better structure and improve the perception and experience of the site for both of the two audiences?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That &quot;subaudience&quot;, which makes up the larger part of the present overall community, could take the role of the main Physics SE, whereas the smaller &quot;subaudience&quot; could be sent to the internal minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such an internal minisite implemented into Physics SE, people interested in more technical, higher level Q&amp;A could focus on exactly this without having to dig through a large amount of posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the criteria on allowed problem (or homework) questions, and the previous knowledge expacted to come here could be relaxed for the other group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the present overall community is probably not large enough to be splitted into two full SE sites, the minisite approach would in my opinion be **the perfect solution** to better serve both of the two audiences we now have on Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS: I am not too sure how such a minisite works technically. Manishearth gave this short explanation of an example:  Basically: It's one minisite. Facebook had an agreement with SE that their developers would also help on questions regarding the FB API. With this agreement, SE made a tag-filtered [facebook*](facebook.stackoverflow.com) website, so that FB devs could get their own place. If it works by putting everything with a certain tag on the minisite, it is hopfully not so complicated to implement this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="031bec68-8e49-4b09-8747-0bc73f43b4f0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Tag synonyms for voting](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We currently have three tags (and many others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:electromagnetism]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:classical-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:quantum-electrodynamics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, [tag:classical-electrodynamics] should be a synonym to [tag:electromagnetism], covering everything that is governed by the classical Maxwell equations, such as the Lorentz force, magnets and most other things you can think of. It would include the Lorentz invariant treatment of electromagnetism and the first introduction of electromagnetism to quantum mechanics as classical fields. This fits what one gets when searching [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) for ‘Electromagnetism’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would leave [tag:quantum-electrodynamics] as the clear counterpart for the QED approach arising from QFT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tags [tag:electric-engineering] and [tag:electric-circuits] (there is currently a synonym suggestion for them) would be unchanged, of course, and still make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="c8df251d-f06f-4ea7-a202-f0107c7195ae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) &#xD;&#xA;like &#xD;&#xA;[1][1] [2][2] [3][3] [4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4308/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4367/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4379/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2)&#xD;&#xA;And they do not get the attention they deserve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is, The site is getting cluttered. On an average day it sees, ~40 questions and tends get very cluttered, and many interesting questions do not stay long enough for people to take notice.(Link 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some suggestions including my own( Link 3,4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think physics stack exchange will scale as time passes? Do you think it will be able to handle say twice or thrice the amount of traffic, Which is only a matter of time.(There has been a 3 fold increase in questions since 2011) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find the site to be getting cluttered? If so, Can Something be done about it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="5e66c858-4bd3-4c1e-9167-4fd01a2f9fda" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dearest Physics&lt;sub&gt;meta&lt;/sub&gt; Stack Exchange readers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just got done reading through [this discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag), its many supporting discussions, its answers, their comments, the answers to the supporting questions and *their* comments. And I *gotta* tell ya, **you talk too much...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...without actually *saying* very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of people requested that I research this issue (and a few related issues) and give my opinion, since apparently there've been some hurt feelings here and there over some of this. That's a shame. The whole point of meta is to give folks a voice in how the community is run - if you're writing this much and still feeling unheard, something is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I have a few suggestions for the more... enthusiastic... participants in these discussions, a few things I've picked up over the years that'll make these go a lot smoother for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Have fun.** I don't know why you're here, but I'm guessing it *probably* isn't your job to argue about minutia on The Internet all day&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Even if the questions you ask/answer *on Physics.SE* are crucial to your work, meta debates probably aren't. Hopefully, we're all here because we love the site and want it to be even better - so if this is starting to feel like a drag, go for a walk or something instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Try to read more than you write.** If you find yourself dominating a conversation (or *multiple* conversations simultaneously), chances are it is becoming increasingly hard for other folks to keep up with what you're trying to say; they might very well just start ignoring you. Ironically, you can end up being unheard because you talk to much! You also risk giving the impression that you don't really care about what anyone else has to say, being too busy writing your rebuttal to really understand what you're responding to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Know when a comment discussion isn't working.** Comments are a great way to ask for or provide clarifications, raise concerns, or provide simple criticisms. But they can be exceedingly tedious for others to read, and not everyone has time to involve themselves in a prolonged discussion. If you find yourself going back and forth at for any significant length of time, chances are you're not getting your point across - maybe you'd be better off writing or updating an answer where you have room to expand your argument... or even taking the conversation to chat. **Hint:** if you find yourself posting two comments back-to-back because your response won't fit into one, you're probably doing it wrong. **Stop and write an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Recognize that the people you disagree with probably are not Pure Evil.** Sure, dividing up a happy community into tag-ghettos sounds like something that Hitler or Stalin would do, and I'm sure Pol Pot would've *loved* the idea of throwing tags he didn't like into a mass grave and setting them on fire. But consider: if those guys had limited themselves to bullying bits around on The Internet&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, we probably wouldn't hate them so much. Try to limit the hyperbole and focus on the topic at hand; if you're having trouble doing that, maybe take a break and have a nice cup of tea instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Evidence trumps speculation.** Afraid that *X* will be the death of the site? You might be right. But... Prove it. Or at least, provide *something* to back up your assertion. Has *X*  been tried elsewhere and failed? Say that. Is there evidence on the site itself that *X* is causing problems? Link to it. If the sky is falling, then stop running around screaming and *show us a piece of it!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Remember that there are an awful lot of people on the site who just want to ask and answer physics questions.** A discussion here on Meta is just that: a way for interested parties to lay out their arguments; it's not guaranteed to reflect the opinion of the greater community. Most of the time, discussions are never really *concluded* here - it's always possible for someone to come in with a new answer, and ultimately what actually matters is what happens *on the main site itself*. Meta gives you a podium&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Don't spend too much of *your* time here either.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;** If you spend all of your time here on Meta, it becomes very easy to forget the reasons why you came here in the first place, place undue importance on trivial arguments, and stop having fun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. **Be patient.** Change takes time, and remember: a lot of folks aren't as enthusiastic about following every meta conversation as you are (See #6). If things aren't happening fast enough for your taste, starting *more* discussions on the subject may be counter-productive (See #2). And if you're too busy hand-wringing on meta to actually follow your own advice when participating on the main site, then you're missing the chance to set an example for others to follow (#7). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, remember that you elected moderators to *help out* on the site, *settle* intractable arguments, and *enact* the policies hashed out here and elsewhere. They're strongly encouraged to be active here on meta, but... They don't actually *have* to respond to every discussion or involve themselves in every debate. If you want their input and assistance, try to make it a bit easier for them to provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Because that's *my* job, and you can't have it! Just kidding, we're [hiring](http://stackexchange.com/about/hiring).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I'll bet a lot fewer people have starved to death because of Collectivist Farmville.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Or maybe a soapbox. A podium sounds like something Hitler would want.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Again, my job not yers.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="d27b2c8d-cb2f-4017-a724-8aee262fe6d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) &#xD;&#xA;like &#xD;&#xA;[1][1] [2][2] [3][3] [4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4308/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4367/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4379/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2)&#xD;&#xA;And they do not get the attention they deserve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is, The site is getting cluttered. On an average day it sees, ~40 questions and tends get very cluttered, and many interesting questions do not stay long enough for people to take notice.(Link 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some suggestions including my own( Link 3,4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think physics stack exchange will scale as time passes? Do you think it will be able to handle say twice or thrice the amount of traffic, Which is only a matter of time.(There has been a 3 fold increase in questions since 2011) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find the site to be getting cluttered? If so, Can Something be done about it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="b2bc5a85-2741-4bed-9cbe-715150ffc7e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, this has already been proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4400/124), and it'll be implemented as soon as we have custom close reasons enabled. That might be happening later this week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the spam flag should only be used for actual spam, by which I mean purely promotional posts with no relevance to the site. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CIALIS VIAGRA PRON xxx.example.com!!!!1!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, I'm not very good at writing spam, but you get the idea. Posts about non-mainstream theories are not spam (in the sense of the flag) unless they link to some crackpot website promoting the theory and the purpose of the post is clearly nothing more than promotion of the site. Without that link, if non-mainstream posts are questions, flag them as off topic; if they are answers, downvote them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="6e066284-84db-4699-b0ad-2af26525b08e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As it is December 2012, we are now going to reset our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/2810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="61fd5feb-67f4-4bf2-a933-4574fdac25ba" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed a sudden increment in the close vote queue (minimum 10 per day, upto 15 or so) for the past few days. Maybe people (except a few) haven't noticed that mods are having a vacation. I can feel their absence in the active page. They haven't informed anything about this to the community...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manish told [me](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9811294#9811294) and [Chris](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9825883#9825883) that they're off to see if the community is interested in reviewing close votes. As far as I've seen, only a few users are interested in reviewing close votes and even less members in reviewing reopen votes (as it requires somewhat deeper look into the post). They are right about the evaluation of community. As it looks like a good decision, I honor it. But, for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they doing now? (*Actually, where are they?* :D) Is this some kind of *secret spying?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;And, a humble message to my fellow users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##C'mon guys, Please spend a few minutes reviewing...  &#xD;&#xA;[We don't just ask &amp; answer. We can help it grow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2921/11062) ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="5c661733-b0dc-4ab3-bfb8-380208326343" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.), see also more answers listed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/865/23119)            etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta-tag:status-declined]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I decline to give the  forecast? Or that it is predicted that this will be declined?  .                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="1e49fc5d-6a6d-4b71-96db-33179a1b549a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My take on this, and I'll expand it some more when I think about it more, is that there is a very clear good list/bad list distinction. But most of the questions people argue are good lists, I don't agree are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what makes a bad list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A single answer is unlikely to be complete on its own. The question you cited that prompted this post also falls on the bad subjective side -- what one considers an &quot;important problem&quot; in the field may not be what others consider.&#xD;&#xA; 1. An answer must be continually updated. Again, the cited question falls in this category. Even if somehow we determined a complete list of &quot;important problems,&quot; that could change tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of things that fall outside of those two primary issues I think would be good lists. But I'm a bit hard-pressed to come up with what those would be, and I don't recall any questions that I think would fall in that category, but that's not to say they aren't out there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as we discussed with [finding journals][1] with the [tag:reference-request] tag, I think questions like the one you cited are best posed in chat or on meta to **indicate the tag-wiki needs to be updated to reflect the answer**. For instance, the tag-wiki on [tag:plasma-physics] could be updated to reflect current research areas, including key papers, journals, and reviews. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for a question/answer, that's what the tag wiki's should be used to communicate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="fee7508e-3866-4d0d-ba3a-339015adc968" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, this has already been proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4400/124), and it'll be implemented as soon as we have custom close reasons enabled. That might be happening later this week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the spam flag should only be used for actual spam, by which I mean purely promotional posts with no relevance to the site. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CIALIS VIAGRA PRON xxx.example.com!!!!1!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, I'm not very good at writing spam, but you get the idea. Posts about non-mainstream theories are not spam (in the sense of the flag) unless they link to some crackpot website promoting the theory and the purpose of the post is clearly nothing more than promotion of the site. Without that link, if non-mainstream posts are questions, flag them as off topic; if they are answers, downvote them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="05ac4e3d-1dfe-440f-9a1b-765d6b275fab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="08744225-fac5-4ce0-9706-00618bdb4bf0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about [30 users](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all): admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and a few others a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available. This is an issue because few people can review tag wiki edits and fewer of them actually do. Further, each reviewer can only do 20 posts per day, and I've already maxed out on that a couple of times. If you propose a tag wiki edit that takes ages to go through, that may be one possible reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore ask two things. On the site design front, **is there a way to have multiple edits to the same tag wiki in the review queue?** This would ideally be available as an &quot;Improve&quot; button directly on the tag edit (though possibly with text warning to make sparse use of it because of the reviewing limitations). Future reviewers might be presented all the reviews to the same tag wiki, either simultaneously or one after the other, to make reviewing simpler. A cap on the maximum number of pending edits would also be reasonable, as would making this feature site-specific so it gets turned off after the tag wiki review queue speeds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the community side, on the other hand, **if you have more than 5k rep, please review all the Suggested Edits you can.** This keeps that specific queue faster and allows a faster community dialog about what we want our tag wikis to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy to take the [tag:feature-request] to the Mother Meta, but as this is mostly a local issue I thought I'd ask here and get some local support before I go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="5c0c6518-0227-4d70-8577-d3a04b1a3074" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current 404 page is very plain. I know there was a question for a better 404 page: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2. However, it was not  implemented in the end. Maybe, it was forgotten, or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we try to have a better 404 page? Some suggestions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was removed by the author**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author was non-zero so this Loperator aninhilated his stated post.*  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The author became a covariant derivative has killed his metric post.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was deleted by moderators.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The page was killed to ensure that the site is free of torsion.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sorry! D' Alembert has killed the page, perhaps because it was in a massless state.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Do you think this is a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I know &quot;State&quot; isn't accurate in (4), but it is kind of boring to say &quot;The page was in a massless field&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or... we could put text saying &quot;LQG&quot;,  since LQG is ill-defined ? : )    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMutr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMOs9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/clSPm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5emvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="0752e95e-0073-4e66-9140-e9ee7a576ecd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton has pointed out that we already have a [tag:popular-science] tag.  Currently, it only has 14 questions tagged.  I claim we should emphasize this tag just like we should emphasize [tag:research-level].  Furthermore, it is important that we develop a reasonably objective definition.  (@Manishearth worries that this tag might determined more by subjective *tone* rather than content.)  I propose this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular-science questions are accessible to a layman with minimal physics training.  They would be appropriate in a newspaper article or non-academic magazine.  Such question are distinct from research-level questions, which are of professional interest to physicists.  They are also distinct from homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suggested this as the tag wiki excerpt, which is the short-definition of this tag and which appears as a tooltip when someone hovers over the tag. (Someone with 20k is needed to approve it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should ideally capture about 15 % of the questions posted on the site, as the bulk of the questions are expected to be standard good conceptual physics questions that need no additional level tag*.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clarifying edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I change the percentage of questions that are rougly expected to need such a level tag at all from 95% to 15% as the bulk of the questions most probably falls into neither of these three categories. This point was for example discussed in the comments directly below this question, as well as in the comments [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4465/2751) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4744/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This number means, that ideally  about 85% of the questions should have no level tag at all, maybe 5% should be shown to researchers (37 users follow currently research-level) who have a very specialized interest and knowledge, 5% to students who are looking for good additional example problems to prepare for an exam for example (there are 36 people following homework too) and 5% to people who want to learn about physics in a simplified weay without beeing bogged down by math an physic jargon they are not interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="98164487-1c26-4295-978a-2ff66972ca7b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions) like this one. ([see also this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions)) But as dmckee pointed out, there are some software questions about tools very specific to physics which would not get any useful reception on another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we adjust our policy to keep this question (and others like it) about specialized software questions, or just close it in accordance with the existing policy? Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Here is an example of the kind of question I would like us to decide about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47670/visualization-of-dynamics-of-a-scale-free-network-of-ising-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update to the update: actually it's not such a great example, because this is really a software _recommendation_ question, and recommendation questions of all sorts are generally off topic (except for a particular set of book recommendations). But it's still worth discussing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="e1407848-a2f6-4c58-9f89-756710c2d0e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Disclaimer: this is **not** a complaint, just a thought and an observation ... ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe experts prefer helping others by answering questions and do not ask much here, because Physics SE is not an &quot;expert-level&quot; site. The number of people who could answer their questions at the same level might be too small. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better explain what I mean, when Lubos Motl reads in interesting paper concerning his own subject, thinks about it and comes up with some interesting thoughts and questions he rather posts an article on his blog as he did for example [here](http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/06/finding-and-abandoning-incorrect.html?m=1) to obtain a better response than he would get when posting a corresponding question here. And think about it, who should answer, if people like Qmechanic have a question about something they do not understand concerning their own research subject? There are simply not enough physicists of this calliber here who could appreciate or even answer such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, if one wants to have questions from experts (about their own subject at least), the size of the community of fellow researchers who can appreciate and answer such questions must not fall below a certain critical value.&#xD;&#xA;For example on sites with a higher number of researchers like TP.SE experts did, and on MathOverflow they still do ask more questions themself. With tpg2114's objections concerning the TP.SE example I disagree. This was a nice small extremely high quality site and it only died because the SE network is not appropriate to support such small communities and maybe they could have lowered the bar to ask questions a little bit as I said [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2610/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary I would say, if we want to have more questions from experts about physics issues they are working on (?), we should first of all try to attract more experts and researchers to the site and make them feel at home here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="604a20ce-e552-4a67-a9bb-e8a2bf6614a6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to this answer &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections/4924#4924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The next moderator election will be whenever **the community** and the SE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; team decide that the site needs more moderators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the community can decide when next moderator election will take place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think that we need moderator elections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think so. I don't trust some of the current moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="14efa982-fcdb-4252-8077-21142c66a22e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, I have two ways of interpreting a [tag:beginner] tag. I may switch between both interpretations in this post to cover all bases, one interpretation is &quot;questions in beginner physics&quot;, and another is similar to the one you ask &quot;questions where the OP is in over his head&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Blast from the past&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me a _lot_ about all the discussions we had about [tag:popular-science]. The major issue with such meta tags is that they're vague. So, allowing them means that each user applies the tag with their own definition of the tag. And it rapidly devolves into a &quot;I-don't like this post&quot; tag which each person uses differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one user may consider the entire body of classical mechanics to be beginner level, one may not. The same goes for, say, newtonian mechanics. There are plenty of nontrivial problems that get asked in NM, too, and some may hide them with the tag while other tag users may not want that. [Quoting Shog][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(see that post for the conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the homework tag works well is that the tag is well-defined. I personally am uneasy about having a meta tag like that on the site, but after thinking about it, it seems to not be causing problems and would cause far bigger problems if removed anyway :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do not despair, there are better solutions to this specific problem. I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ill-formed and badly-phrased? Flag/vote for closure as Unclear What You Are Asking&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. And comment to try to get the OP to do the Googling, if you're in the mood for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Apply [tag:popular-science]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If (and only if) the user asks explicitly for a layman answer (and I bet there is a significant amount of overlap between such questions and the type you dub &quot;beginner&quot;), then we have [tag:popular-science], which has the following excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Individual tag ignores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is concerned about the level of questions, it's pretty easy to ignore tags like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] and company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Come to think of it, we have many such tags. It may be good to have a meta community wiki post listing such tags in approximate increasing order of average expertise. Then, people can easily copy paste the tags they wish to ignore. (feel free to start this post if you wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that (veering a bit off topic here into related ground), ignoring [tag:homework] seems to get rid of a lot of the crap. Note that if you see a homework question that needs closing, vote to close _and_ downvote. Closed posts that aren't downvoted still appear on the main page, and contribute to making our site look like a place to get homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. If you think that the closing system takes to long and have lost faith in it, let us know. Currently, the mods are holding back from the queue, but we increase our participation there as a temporary measure if there are problems. 3k+ users can help be part of the long term solutions by actively checking out the review queues and handling at least a couple questions from the close queue every day, if even 10 users do that we'd have a very fast system.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="d6f02f98-d68e-42e9-9285-396d41966eb7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think there is ambiguity stemming from that [linked post][1]. It could be interpreted as asserting that **all** questions here should fall into exactly one of three categories: [tag:research-level], [tag:popular-science], and [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation however is that this is not the case. There are non-homework questions that seek technical answers (rather than &quot;please explain the universe without math&quot;) but could be answered by just about any practicing physicist who puts some thought into it, and thus are not restricted to those with advanced knowledge in one specific subfield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the two questions I have asked on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; fall into this category. They *should not* be tagged with any of those three tags (and I will rollback any edits that attempt to do so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the benefit of allowing different coarseness of filtering. You can choose to *only* look at [tag:research-level], or you could choose to simply block [tag:popular-science] and [tag:homework] so that you see both domain-specific and generic, not-too-simple physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion:** Feel free to use [tag:research-level] if you want to restrict answers to the level you would get if you asked the question of a specialist in the field. You yourself don't need to be publishing papers on the topic. After all, this sort of tag is more for the level of answers you want than the level of the question. (If the question were at the very cutting edge of research, why then by definition *no one* would have an answer, and moreover anyone with the answer would publish a paper before posting to this site.) If you don't use the tag, no one is forcing your question to be relegated to popular science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [Neutrinos vs. Photons: Who wins the race across the galaxy?][2] and [Mars just collided with Earth! A question of eccentricity][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68306/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="02a31148-3c90-482b-83cf-5886eed6e27d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton has pointed out that we already have a [tag:popular-science] tag.  Currently, it only has 14 questions tagged.  I claim we should emphasize this tag just like we should emphasize [tag:research-level].  Furthermore, it is important that we develop a reasonably objective definition.  (@Manishearth worries that this tag might determined more by subjective *tone* rather than content.)  I propose this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular-science questions are accessible to a layman with minimal physics training.  They would be appropriate in a newspaper article or non-academic magazine.  Such question are distinct from research-level questions, which are of professional interest to physicists.  They are also distinct from homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suggested this as the tag wiki excerpt, which is the short-definition of this tag and which appears as a tooltip when someone hovers over the tag. (Someone with 20k is needed to approve it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should ideally capture about 15 % of the questions posted on the site, as the bulk of the questions are expected to be standard good conceptual physics questions that need no additional level tag*.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clarifying edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I change the percentage of questions that are rougly expected to need such a level tag at all from 95% to 15% as the bulk of the questions most probably falls into neither of these three categories. This point was for example discussed in the comments directly below this question, as well as in the comments [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4465/2751) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4744/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This number means, that ideally  about 85% of the questions should have no level tag at all, maybe 5% should be shown to researchers (37 users follow currently research-level) who have a very specialized interest and knowledge, 5% to students who are looking for good additional example problems to prepare for an exam for example (there are 36 people following homework too) and 5% to people who want to learn about physics in a simplified weay without beeing bogged down by math an physic jargon they are not interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="5c5388cf-82fe-4fc3-b8de-5ff0beec9fef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are no rules that set the limits of what cannot be deleted, so any comment is fair target for deletion. That's because comments are, **by design**, second-class material, ephemeral and disposable. They are there to seek clarification on questions and answers. Once they've served that purpose, they can be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments that are used to try to subvert a Stack Exchange site into being a medium for discussion, rather than Q&amp;A, are **always** fair target for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules that set out what must be deleted: material that is illegal, offensive, or that breaks the sites rules. The comment-flagging box gives you a good guide to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in short, never put in comments something that you should put in a question or an answer: if it's got merit, put it in a first-class container (Q&amp;A), not an ephemeral, disposable second-class container (comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thanks to [tgp2114][2] for their comment that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; long comment chains are sometimes allowed on Meta when they are constructive, but Meta is the exception not the &quot;rule&quot; ... So one may see long comment threads here, but **they may be deleted at any time for any reason**. Particularly when they are not on topic any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my emphasis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihnfz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="f408dd74-3421-4be5-b6c9-c63230944238" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first discovered community moderation on this site, I was pretty excited, but I noticed that very few users ever participated in it. Now, as a moderator, I'm on the other side of the fence. From here, I can see that this is still a big issue for our site, and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to encourage users to participate in community moderation, as well as introduce them to the basics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do not be intimidated by the length of this post**, you may know about most of the stuff here already. Read the first section (and then maybe the section on flagging), and skim through the rest, looking for what you don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="6805d0f2-df9e-456a-933e-1b3b3bcd3ec6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from. It should have the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:specific-reference] question, which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dealing with old recommendation posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note&#xD;&#xA;    that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly&#xD;&#xA;    discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation&#xD;&#xA;    questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**.&#xD;&#xA;    This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have&#xD;&#xA;    commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="e1fbc0a1-6b90-4178-834e-14549353ef21" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have a bunch of proposed close reasons [here][1], and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's &quot;engineering&quot; close reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16:00UTC (same timing as our regular biweekly chat session, though we don't have that next week). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agenda of the event is to discuss close reasons, and settle on a final set of three close reasons and their wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the timings are inconvenient, lease let me know. I'm open to changing it if enough people ask for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK if you have some points to make but won't be able to make it into the room. You can post those points on the [close reasons thread][2], and we'll try to include that in our assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can register for the discussion [here][3] (it also lists what time it will at in your timezone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat session over: [Part 1][4], [Part 2][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have elected to remove the Math close reason, as we nw have a migration path to Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three proposed close reasons are below. If you would like to improve them or feel that they are counterproductive, please comment below them. (I suggest you check the bookmarked sub-discussion before commenting, the point may have been brought up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the majority of the community feels that they are OK, these will probably be locked in tomorrow-ish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="eecf2cd2-03ca-4c3a-93df-0a57ac4c4b99" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As much as I sympathize with the move to ban homework-like (HWL) questions because of front page clutter, we should realize that people will _never_ stop posting HWL question. They are sometimes desperate, say, with an upcoming exam tomorrow. Realistically, the only thing we can do is to minimize the time that such HWL posts appear open on the front page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast closing requires help from the community to flag around the clock, and especially +3k users to review and cast votes-to-close. It is possible that HW policy formulations should be strengthen to provide people with the necessary mandate/tools for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But closure is not all. The posts still appear on the front page for a while unless it is downvoted to -4. Note however that traditionally, the unwritten rule is to not massively downvote new posters, but rather leaving constructive comments. If you decide to downvote a HWL question, please first check OP's userpage, to see if he has a repeated pattern of posing bad HWL questions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in the search of methods to stop HWL questions, the status of the [tag:homework] tag will unavoidably be questioned. The pros and cons of the [tag:homework] tag have been discussed many times before in other meta posts, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1477/2451) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4022/2451). Here I will only address what potential benefit the retirement of the homework tag would have on the incoming stream of HWL questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be against removing the [tag:homework] tag for various reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is instrumental in identifying HWL questions in the first place that such posts are tagged with [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. People will _never_ stop posting HWL questions, no matter how many policies that we write, no matter how many tags that we ban, and no matter how many duplicates of the question that there already exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely doubt any broken-window theory that the homework tag causes more HWL questions to be asked than without the tag, cf. point 2 above. On the other hand, the [tag:homework] tag helps the community to quickly identify and close HWL questions, cf. point 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="c4f19f0c-16a6-4aff-ae4d-049d01a30ff0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that many users find the  homework tag &quot;demeaning&quot;, e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving] or [tag:homework-like] as suggested by David Z), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning,&quot; despite the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me emphasize that I'm _not_ here suggesting to change the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) for homework-like questions, nor whether or not we should have a tag for homework-like questions. The scope and policy have been discussed in several other meta questions. Here I'm only asking whether we should change the _name_ of the tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="d3575e66-821f-43e2-b1d2-4542be89d557" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Brought up by the flag and comments on [*How to determine whether a large container is air-tight?&quot;*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to address question in which the OP has run into a roadbump in build/calibrating/operating a piece of experimental apparatus, and the question is well defined in terms of fixing the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that this particular question is not a great example because the OP is not building an experiment,** but I would ask that the case for experimentaly realted question be examined separately from the fate of this particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A user has flagged suggesting that this particular case is an engineering problem and asks for a open ended list of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* David Z comments that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do think it's not constructive, as it's just asking for a list, not asking a specifically defined question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to argue below that this is exactly the kind of question which the Stack Excahnge engine is good at answering and should be explictly allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also note that [attmepts to open a experimentally specific Stack have not been successful][2] (you'll see that I argued that most such question *are* on-topic for Physics.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vaguely related: [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44784/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="15ab1a80-af26-49e0-82b9-58e53a4492d9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think there is ambiguity stemming from that [linked post][1]. It could be interpreted as asserting that **all** questions here should fall into exactly one of three categories: [tag:research-level], [tag:popular-science], and [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation however is that this is not the case. There are non-homework questions that seek technical answers (rather than &quot;please explain the universe without math&quot;) but could be answered by just about any practicing physicist who puts some thought into it, and thus are not restricted to those with advanced knowledge in one specific subfield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the two questions I have asked on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; fall into this category. They *should not* be tagged with any of those three tags (and I will rollback any edits that attempt to do so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the benefit of allowing different coarseness of filtering. You can choose to *only* look at [tag:research-level], or you could choose to simply block [tag:popular-science] and [tag:homework] so that you see both domain-specific and generic, not-too-simple physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion:** Feel free to use [tag:research-level] if you want to restrict answers to the level you would get if you asked the question of a specialist in the field. You yourself don't need to be publishing papers on the topic. After all, this sort of tag is more for the level of answers you want than the level of the question. (If the question were at the very cutting edge of research, why then by definition *no one* would have an answer, and moreover anyone with the answer would publish a paper before posting to this site.) If you don't use the tag, no one is forcing your question to be relegated to popular science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [Neutrinos vs. Photons: Who wins the race across the galaxy?][2] and [Mars just collided with Earth! A question of eccentricity][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68306/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="bae00e1e-8671-4aee-b25e-381c1a4d5fb7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [Manishearth notes][1], the [Terms of Service][2] are quite clear on how material on the site is licensed. If you don't want the material licensed that way then don't post it to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the copyright holder, you are obviously free to offer the material under another license if you want (the Creative Commons licenses being non-exclusive), but you don't get to do that on Stack Exchange's dime (by posting that offer on their websites); instead you should make that second offer in another venue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4514/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="2b2be3ce-6c80-4ff8-b114-0743a3e51f21" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**I agree with a strong caveat.** The tag wiki excerpt must function as an exceptionally well-tuned tool to catch the great homework/problem-solving questions, turn the borderline cases into good questions, and prevent bad questions as far as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way tag synonyms work at Ask a Question time is the following. You type in the tag you think you should use (say, &quot;sound&quot;) and presto! A very visible prompt appears with the strong suggestion that the tag to use is, in fact, acoustics - _and it flashes a blurb at them_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, say we have a [myopic user](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html) who did not read the guidance in the sidebar. They see they're asked for tags and, saying &quot;hey&quot;, they type in `homework`. They are then presented with the suggestion that in fact they meant &quot;problem solving,&quot; as well as a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem-solving refers to questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes conceptual questions about homework assignments, although not all homework questions are allowed. PLEASE CLICK LEARN MORE BEFORE POSTING HOMEWORK QUESTIONS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `learn more` link would then take them to a tag wiki with a succinct summary of the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/8563) and numerous links to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of this, as I see it, is that it encourages the right sort of homework-like questions we want, whilst taking (a probably small, but nonzero) action to prevent the bad ones from getting asked in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't think we're at the fighting-ourselves-to-oblivion-over-homework-tags kind of stage that SO reached some time ago, and I have not seen anyone railing against a [tag:homework] tag that did not yield to the first comment of &quot;The tag applies to all homework-like questions&quot; and subsequent referral to meta. I think our biggest problem is still fighting the constant tide of low-quality homework questions, and if we do this right it can help in that respect. If it helps in making the homework-like askers a bit happier about it then all to the better, but then that's only because yes, &quot;problem-solving&quot; _does_ encapsulate so much better what we want in good homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YWXIw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="eed47c64-cf78-496b-a161-f06b8ef817b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As Manishearth said, [tag:popular-science] is together with [tag:research-level] and [tag:homework] one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751) to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range of physics knowledge, ranging from almost none, to research-level, that this proposal is a good and needed help for people to order things in accordance with their needs and retrieve what they are interested in from the otherwise too chaotic mix of questions. Why I (and obviously others who expressed their opinion by corresponding upvotes of the level-filtering proposal, its answers and by comments) think this is a very good and helpful idea, I expressed already in my answer [there](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4450/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I disagree with the suggested burnication of [tag:popular-science], because it effectively shoots down the level-filtering [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4449/2751). Looking at the high number of upvotes the level-filtering proposal has obtained, it seems the community has reached consensus that this concept is helpful and a good thing to improve the site for everybody. So it should not be negatively affected or even prevented by burnicating one of the level tags needed to implement and maintain this idea.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seriously doubt that people who belong to the SE stuff or team care for or would even bother to actively deny people here on physics SE the very helpful possibility to filter questions along an additional second &quot;level dimension&quot;, just because for this a very small number of exactly 3 level tags (also called meta tags) is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as already explained elsewhere, I disagree with the point of view that ignore-filtering one of these level tags is equivalent to deleting questions tagged with it. Ignore-filtering any tag affects only the view of the main page of people who have explicitely set the corresponding preferences in their profile. For the large majority of the people this does not impact the view of the page. In addition, I think that any concerns that, due to level-filtering questions tagged with [tag:popular-science] will not get enough views, votes, answers, or more generally love and appreciation by the community, are not substantiated by facts. Since quite some time now it is rather the case that nontechnical questions and their answers get higher votes and generally more positive attention than technical questions. I doubt that the level-filtering changes anything about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dont think that the majority of people sees popular-science as a bad question tag. On the contraty, there are [people](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4477/2751) who see it completely positive and very different from what Manishearth fears. I think some of these questions are really fun too. The agreement about what kind of questions should naturally have a certain tag, is natural and the intended way how appropriate tagging works, it is nothing specific or characteristic for level tags, so in my opinion it is therefore neutral and there is nothing bad going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally, the definition of popular-science in Jess Riedel's proposal or the description in the tag-wiki are good enough for its purpose. But if anything should be done, I would rather suggest to adjust the definition of [tag:popular-science] such that the most people in the community is happy or can at least live with it, than completely burnicate this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="c04878c1-9fad-467a-b480-c046f9b86ed3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have a bunch of proposed close reasons [here][1], and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's &quot;engineering&quot; close reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16:00UTC (same timing as our regular biweekly chat session, though we don't have that next week). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agenda of the event is to discuss close reasons, and settle on a final set of three close reasons and their wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the timings are inconvenient, lease let me know. I'm open to changing it if enough people ask for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK if you have some points to make but won't be able to make it into the room. You can post those points on the [close reasons thread][2], and we'll try to include that in our assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can register for the discussion [here][3] (it also lists what time it will at in your timezone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat session over: [Part 1][4], [Part 2][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have elected to remove the Math close reason, as we nw have a migration path to Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three proposed close reasons are below. If you would like to improve them or feel that they are counterproductive, please comment below them. (I suggest you check the bookmarked sub-discussion before commenting, the point may have been brought up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the majority of the community feels that they are OK, these will probably be locked in tomorrow-ish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="0a998cf2-35be-495c-8e9e-269d24581928" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #1: Homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat converation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3996" RevisionGUID="bbaf7c74-8cf0-40bb-bfb0-cb0fe605ca32" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You may edit in the [tag:homework] tag (suggested edit if you don't have the rep) if you see a post like this. The important thing is that if the post looks homeworky to you, then check if it obeys [the homework policy][1] (it should show some effort on the OP's side, highlight the concept, and mention the OP;s level of understanding). If it doesn't, flag as &quot;too localized&quot;, and leave a comment telling the OP how to make it fit the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the comment I generally leave (with an optional &quot;Welcome to Physics.SE!&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's a more moderator-y message, so I suggest you try something akin to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Could you please edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="22fbc5ea-c1bc-4561-81b5-b788d6309552" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Well, the community really doesn't like editing, even good ones](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5002/why-does-the-community-allow-or-even-encourage-seemingly-meaningless-edits-to-qu), and now supports  crackpottery, there;'s no point of the editing feature. Please disable it to avoid such nonsense in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, until (or if not) this feature is incorporated, I'll continue editing though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm only suggesting this for Phys.SE, not the entire SE network.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="286802cc-6905-4ccd-86fa-25d42b39183d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say that our ultimate goal should be the burnination of [tag:homework]. But I agree with several others who have said that that is unworkable in the short term. My experience with questions tagged [tag:homework] is that they fall into a few categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Please do my homework for me. I have put no effort into it at all.&quot; [example][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;I have completed this homework problem. Please check my work and/or where did I go wrong?&quot; [example][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Possibly not a good question as written, but the OP is trying. There might be a conceptual question somewhere. [example][3], [example][4]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Hard problems that come either directly from the research literature, or from upper-level courses. These usually have an easy to identify conceptual question. [example][5] [example][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 and 2 are easy; we just want to close them and get on with real questions. 3 is probably the most difficult category, both to identify, and to actually address. I think we want most of the questions in 4, but it is sometimes difficult to separate out the physics and the math in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just favorited [tag:homework], sort of in the spirit of [Manish's suggestion] and have been going through those questions (if anyone has seen a lot of homework questions in the review queue recently, that's me). I haven't seen a single question yet where the [tag:homeowrk] tag actually *helps* the question: they're all either on-topic or off-topic. It really is a meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best argument I can come up with to keep [tag:homework] is that people can use it to filter out questions they don't want to see. I have two replies to that. First, it's not a very good filter. I suspect people who want to ignore [tag:homework] are trying to filter out categories 1 and 2, and possibly 3. But they're also ignoring questions that fit into 4, and I'm not sure they want to do that. My other reply is that we really do need everyone's help to close the really bad homework questions when they come up. I feel a little conflicted about saying that; it is essentially telling other users how they should use the site, and the low-level BS homework questions are exactly the sort of things that drives away the higher-end users we're trying to keep/attract. On the other hand, I worry that part of the problem we're having with closing the bad homework questions is that not enough of our 3000+ users are seeing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83399/finding-the-final-velocity&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83627/elastic-potential-energy-of-a-spring-when-compressed&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83618/rotational-inertia-of-a-sphere-and-a-cube&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55584/canonical-partition-of-a-boson-gas&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82506/conservation-of-energy-in-a-quantum-harmonic-oscillator-after-a-sudden-change-in&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76994/polchinskys-evaluation-of-the-one-loop-string-path-integral&#xD;&#xA;[Manish's suggestion]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5143/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="7b23f525-954a-4dcd-aa6e-a63caa02265f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I note that popular-science, research-level, and homework are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should bother you. Here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first page of tags][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what the [first tags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) looks like right now. It indicates a healthy site, catering to a broad range of interests. Note that with a few exceptions it mostly *describes what this site is about*. If your interest or expertise falls into one of the areas described by those tags, you'll likely find a reason to keep you here on the site. You can follow topics that interest you, ignore those that don't, and even get customized lists of questions that match your specific interests. A host of tools in the software itself make use of this information, and it's clear which topics are popular here, and which ones are less well-served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now picture a site where the top three tags are [tag:homework], [tag:popular-science] and [tag:research-level], with the tags that describe specific topics trailing off behind them. (Let's imagine y'all ignore [my advice][2] and start slapping [popular-science] on any question you don't think falls into either [homework] or [research-level]). You might imagine this would result in the same list pictured above, with a couple of extra tags at the start - you would be wrong. **Every time we've seen this done,** it has resulted in topic-specific tags being neglected in favor of the broad, easy categories. The bigger the category gets, the more poorly-tagged questions result...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse yet, it carves the site up into separate districts based on fairly subjective criteria that have little or nothing to do with the actual subjects being asked and answered. They may *start out* &quot;separate but equal&quot;, but... That never lasts. Pretty soon, one or more tags develop a reputation for being... Let's say &quot;dirty&quot;. You don't want this tag on *your* question. You do want it on questions you don't like, since then you can ignore it. No need to put effort into editing or closing bad questions - just shove them in the ghetto and pretend they don't exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tagging is *not* a tool for moderation; they are a tool for *organization*. The categories that a question falls into should be obvious based on the question itself - if a 3rd-party is required to arbitrate, then tagging has failed. Leave tags for *topics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you know better than to suggest there are only three topics here on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIpVA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag/4743#4743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="a18f4ffd-1064-4740-92da-2a7108dc6ece" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [Manishearth notes][1], the [Terms of Service][2] are quite clear on how material on the site is licensed. If you don't want the material licensed that way then don't post it to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the copyright holder, you are obviously free to offer the material under another license if you want (the Creative Commons licenses being non-exclusive), but you don't get to do that on Stack Exchange's dime (by posting that offer on their websites); instead you should make that second offer in another venue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4514/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="4427f308-6522-48e2-9f6f-065ce150073f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #1: Homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat converation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4025" RevisionGUID="37207238-104b-4d55-90e9-05e9e906d172" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Current** Physics.SE policy is to allow it (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag). The reason for using it is simple -- it basically is a sign for the answerers, saying &quot;don't post full answers, otherwise your answer will be deleted&quot;, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recently [posted on meta.chem][1], I *personally* am ambivalent to removing the tag (on both sites). On one hand, it is an easy way to teach new users about the HW policy (&quot;see that tag there? If you see that on a question, don't post&quot;) -- remember, what constitutes an HW problem isn't that evident to most, especially since homeworky problems which aren't HW are also considered [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [it is a meta tag][2], explicitly disallowed across all sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We might get rid of it on chem soon, not sure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Also, is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged for their... impurity... or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly. The community is probably still in support of the tag. We might be able to discuss this with the community team later. I plan to do so, just to find out _why_ the HW tag is &quot;bad&quot; -- unlike the other meta tags, it has a _purpose_. Depending on the response I get, we can work forward from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/203/22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="ebfb81c5-a9fe-4798-bcd6-ea7eeff78859" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The _primary_ purpose is to &quot;Make The Internet a Better Place™&quot;. What this means is that the Q&amp;As should be of the form that are useful to others. People searching for a conceptual explanation or the resolution of an apparent paradox should find this site and be helped here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a long history. If you've ever googled for help with something and come across a forum, you might have been frustrated by the signal-to-noise ratio on that forum. I recall coming across tons of tangential discussion, and sometimes pages and pages of discourse which reaches no resolution. Besides that, many of these are cluttered with duplicates and one-time problems that are really too specific for anyone else to benefit. Forums are useful to the people asking questions and the handful of community members participating in the discussion. But the wider audience from the Internet has a hard time with forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to do away with that, by keeping posts focused and only allowing posts that will help many people. This was the essence behind the &quot;Too Localized&quot; close reason that many of you may remember, &amp;mdash; the point was that while the answers may help the OP, there's a very little chance of it helping anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also one of the main reasons why we close homework. Besides the no-effort-please-do-my-work-for-me, homework questions don't help any other visitors. While the answers may be conceptual, it is pretty hard for someone with the conceptual question to find the homework problem via Google or otherwise, as the question focuses on the problem, not the concept &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As for people who want help with the _same_ homework problem, well, that's pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main purpose is to also help people _other_ than the OP, people who will come to the Q&amp;A after searching related terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just the primary purpose. As you mentioned, fun is another factor&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, as is encouraging interest and _conceptual_ education. The &quot;fun&quot; bit extends itself; I personally don't participate just because it's &quot;fun&quot;. I write answers because my own understanding is strengthened by doing so&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, not just to help the OP and the other readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not intending to say that we aren't here to help each other. We are. The community feeling is a great thing, and helping each other learn physics is a good goal. But one should try to have a look a the larger picture, helping a couple of people on site is dwarfed by the countless other non-members we help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Research_ is a different beast. Our [non mainstream policy][1], in its attempts to be as objective as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments, stops us from _developing_ new physics&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. I guess this is OK, because frankly speaking, the people here have better channels to develop new physics; by discussing with colleagues and collaborators. The ones who choose to try to develop the theory here are usually the type that are proposing some non mainstream ideas. Besides all this, the limitation of discussion on the main site is a damper here, though that is easily remedied with chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is in no way saying that research _level_ questions are discouraged, just that using the site as a platform to develop new theories collaboratively is discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Which is why we encourage making HW question conceptual; people will actually _find_ the question then&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Don't let [this blog post][2] tell you otherwise ;-)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. The act of codifying nebulous thoughts on a topic into clear English is something that seems to immediately highlight one's own conceptual misunderstandings and inadequacies.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;s&gt;Neither does MathOverflow, they have a policy against open questions and the like, and they still maintain a good level of research-level questions.&lt;/s&gt; MathOverflow disallows well known open problems, but they don't seem to have any research being done on site, even if the posts may inspire research.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="bba4601c-8640-47a4-98df-6f4775670d76" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/7433).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="178e3d40-e99c-4168-bdce-83996da05421" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.), see also more answers listed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/865/23119)            etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta-tag:status-declined]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I decline to give the  forecast? Or that it is predicted that this will be declined?  .                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="1dc88ecf-56a9-4ca9-b564-b42efa4d2a23" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/7433).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="a947aa75-9db3-4f02-bc3c-ac7af121d83b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Expanding on Dilaton's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site (and most other stackexchange sites where such is appropriate) use the exact same implementation of [MathJax][1] for Latex markup. Basically, just enclose tex within `$` (inline) or `$$` (set apart equations). Most basic commands work, like `\frac` and `\sin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also begin some Latex environments without dollar signs. For example `\begin{align}...\end{align}` is a valid construct that will have its contents parsed by the tex parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to use Latex itself, independent of this site, well that is a large enough topic to have [its own stackexchange site][2]. For basic stuff to get started, try [this other FAQ topic][3]. For site-specific abilities, I can think of no better guide than what they have over at math.SE, found [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can always click the `Edit` button on any post to see how it was written. You are not committed to making any edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mathjax.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/804/is-there-a-standard-place-to-point-people-to-learn-how-to-typeset-their-equation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="f0c92d18-a358-4f98-bded-a4d4d2365d15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Given the discussion related to whether [Engineering questions are on topic][1], we also need to consider whether the [tag:engineering] tag has any reason to exist. We discussed it in the chat room using the most recent questions, the transcript of which can be found at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/discussion-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the [tag:engineering] tag exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="723a0970-6066-4b2b-94c7-4305606ff18c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It isn't possible for there to be a single ultimate purpose, since the existence of Physics Stack Exchange depends upon a diverse range of purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - those within the community contributing to the site, &#xD;&#xA; - the unpaid moderators&#xD;&#xA; - the company financing the project&#xD;&#xA; - [the motive of the founders][1]&#xD;&#xA; - other people and group motives I'm not aware of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a better question would be to ask: **What's the purpose behind you being here?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the fundamental reason is given in [Alfred Centauri's answer.][2] I liked the idea of contributing to the site, putting it down on my CV as one of my interests, and the interviewer could take a look at [some of my answers][3] and hire me. Now that I'm more aware of my [incompetence][4], I use the site more passively to learn from others, in the hope I might actually get round to asking [good questions][5] more regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5173/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange-revisited/5176#5176&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub/7752#7752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6934/what-is-the-source-of-high-frequency-squeal-in-faulty-crt-monitors-and-tv-and-w/6968#6968&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="61c8d972-b0af-445b-84d5-c6cc1f559557" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Given the discussion related to whether [Engineering questions are on topic][1], we also need to consider whether the [tag:engineering] tag has any reason to exist. We discussed it in the chat room using the most recent questions, the transcript of which can be found at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/discussion-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the [tag:engineering] tag exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="d7cf8be1-9c4e-486f-9054-8ab04c6e5bb3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="1961325f-af3d-4f05-8488-c7d7eac2348a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's why this wasn't an example of arbitrary moderation: there were four people who expressed opinions that the question was off topic, another who was ambivalent about it, and one who strongly stated a belief that the question was on topic. If your definition of &quot;arbitrary moderation&quot; includes a consensus decision by four well-established users, it's a pretty useless definition. And what happened here is pretty nearly the _opposite_ of moderators ignoring the established framework and closing questions because of a personal disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say that the opinions - not actions, but merely opinions - of some of those well-established users should be discarded simply because they happen to be moderators, well, that just doesn't make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If I could formally register a complaint, I would,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can. Email team@stackexchange.com to provide feedback to Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I've seen here that people are usually punished for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, I can't recall a single instance where that has happened. Sometimes people are punished based on _how_ they say what they say (i.e. rudeness), but never simply for speaking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This forum consistently shows a disdain for anything related to educational aspects of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, yeah. (It's not a forum, but) This is a site for conceptual physics questions; education questions are sort of a fringe topic. [Some of them are okay and some aren't](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/official-policy-on-astronomy-and-physics-education-cited-in-answers). And in some cases, the question is unacceptable for reasons unrelated to whether it's on topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="0fa6d067-0346-4c3d-87d0-0717cffed439" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Ask about a specific physics concept** is in bold for exactly this reason. Close reasons need to be fairly short if they're going to be useful, and accordingly the wording of the existing close reasons has been carefully tuned to say what needs to be said without using more words than necessary. In that respect, I don't think this change helps. We already have the big homework policy meta post to explain all the details of what an acceptable homework question looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not saying the existing reasons are perfect, but we did put quite a bit of thought into them - they were extensively discussed in a chat session, and then posted [for community feedback on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/chat-session-to-discuss-and-possibly-finalize-close-reasons) (and earlier, [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like)). When a few days passed without any additional comments, we decided the close reasons were good enough and implemented them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the close reasons is not something we should be doing often or on a whim; in particular, a small change like this isn't enough to justify it. If there is a _major_ omission from one of the close reasons, then we can discuss it and change it to fix that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="320defcf-2a08-4303-bddb-e1df86602995" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about [30 users](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all): admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and a few others a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available. This is an issue because few people can review tag wiki edits and fewer of them actually do. Further, each reviewer can only do 20 posts per day, and I've already maxed out on that a couple of times. If you propose a tag wiki edit that takes ages to go through, that may be one possible reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore ask two things. On the site design front, **is there a way to have multiple edits to the same tag wiki in the review queue?** This would ideally be available as an &quot;Improve&quot; button directly on the tag edit (though possibly with text warning to make sparse use of it because of the reviewing limitations). Future reviewers might be presented all the reviews to the same tag wiki, either simultaneously or one after the other, to make reviewing simpler. A cap on the maximum number of pending edits would also be reasonable, as would making this feature site-specific so it gets turned off after the tag wiki review queue speeds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the community side, on the other hand, **if you have more than 5k rep, please review all the Suggested Edits you can.** This keeps that specific queue faster and allows a faster community dialog about what we want our tag wikis to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy to take the [tag:feature-request] to the Mother Meta, but as this is mostly a local issue I thought I'd ask here and get some local support before I go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="13a6c192-0529-4ade-a21b-f33aee4b59fe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The [How to Ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed** on this site. You should ask about **specific concepts**. See our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="f0d1f171-7803-4116-a6a3-27d0b18630c7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Here an other post][1] with a huge amount of comments below each post. I'm feeling annoyed by this: or I have to clic to let them appear if I want to read them all, or I have to scroll a lot for nothing if I do not care about the comments. Is there a way to overcome this issue ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose some ways to resolve the problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - allow some posts (especially in the meta part) to be more forum-like (no comment allowed for instance). That could be something like the *Wiki community* option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a small floating on the bottom of the page link going to the next answer (for those who knows Gmail, a link like *go to the next discussion message* on Gmail)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a link to expand / discard *all* the comment of a given page (close to  the *comment, edit, share* buttons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or eventually all of these options ! Please tell me what you think about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="5211fb3a-5841-4179-af5f-3b345dd07653" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, I do not agree with the reference request/books/study material policy here either, but unfortunately nothing can be done about it. [Reference requests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/2751) should in principle be [allowed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2918/2751) whereas asking for books is absolutely not, but the [definitions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/786/2751) of what is a book or valid reference request are applied in a random and unpredictable manner. Valid reference request questions can get retagged and closed as book requests etc. It is a big shame that serious people are (no longer) allowed to ask for any material to (self) study/research physics of more or less advanced and well localized topics at different levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="f510a69c-b7ea-4681-a0f6-fd3532064372" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This isn't so much a full answer as an extended comment...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the things we realized in our (incredibly long, there-goes-my-productivity-for-the-day) [chat][1] is that just about any wording we choose can be misinterpreted or at the very least mis-emphasized in the OP's mind. This is *especially* likely when the wording mentions some corner case that just doesn't apply.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't worry too much about covering *all* the corner cases anymore as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one used to have the exact same qualm about &quot;here's my work, where did I go wrong?&quot; questions - that the OP would miss the key sentence in the linked faq - and I even suggested a wording for that specific case [here][2]. While I don't advocate that being a default close reason, I copy/paste it as a custom close reason in these situations, where the OP actually does some work but in the end is using us as a computer algebra system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to find a close reason that covers everything, I've personally settled for having a couple specific alternate wordings on hand for certain cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For a contrived example: OP has a practice exam with solution set, but the solution set just has equations but no concepts. OP posts a question and the given answer and says &quot;huh?&quot; We put on hold with our standard &quot;homework must show effort&quot; clause. If the OP reads a sentence saying &quot;don't post equations and ask us to check them,&quot; it may be taken as &quot;this question would be fine but for the fact that you posted too many equations,&quot; which is not at all the message we wanted to send.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="6dd8dcb9-a6c2-4750-8e4a-722a63295745" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, I have two ways of interpreting a [tag:beginner] tag. I may switch between both interpretations in this post to cover all bases, one interpretation is &quot;questions in beginner physics&quot;, and another is similar to the one you ask &quot;questions where the OP is in over his head&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Blast from the past&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me a _lot_ about all the discussions we had about [tag:popular-science]. The major issue with such meta tags is that they're vague. So, allowing them means that each user applies the tag with their own definition of the tag. And it rapidly devolves into a &quot;I-don't like this post&quot; tag which each person uses differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one user may consider the entire body of classical mechanics to be beginner level, one may not. The same goes for, say, newtonian mechanics. There are plenty of nontrivial problems that get asked in NM, too, and some may hide them with the tag while other tag users may not want that. [Quoting Shog][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(see that post for the conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the homework tag works well is that the tag is well-defined. I personally am uneasy about having a meta tag like that on the site, but after thinking about it, it seems to not be causing problems and would cause far bigger problems if removed anyway :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do not despair, there are better solutions to this specific problem. I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ill-formed and badly-phrased? Flag/vote for closure as Unclear What You Are Asking&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. And comment to try to get the OP to do the Googling, if you're in the mood for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Apply [tag:popular-science]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If (and only if) the user asks explicitly for a layman answer (and I bet there is a significant amount of overlap between such questions and the type you dub &quot;beginner&quot;), then we have [tag:popular-science], which has the following excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Individual tag ignores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is concerned about the level of questions, it's pretty easy to ignore tags like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] and company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Come to think of it, we have many such tags. It may be good to have a meta community wiki post listing such tags in approximate increasing order of average expertise. Then, people can easily copy paste the tags they wish to ignore. (feel free to start this post if you wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that (veering a bit off topic here into related ground), ignoring [tag:homework] seems to get rid of a lot of the crap. Note that if you see a homework question that needs closing, vote to close _and_ downvote. Closed posts that aren't downvoted still appear on the main page, and contribute to making our site look like a place to get homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. If you think that the closing system takes to long and have lost faith in it, let us know. Currently, the mods are holding back from the queue, but we increase our participation there as a temporary measure if there are problems. 3k+ users can help be part of the long term solutions by actively checking out the review queues and handling at least a couple questions from the close queue every day, if even 10 users do that we'd have a very fast system.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="84dd2905-6fcd-4d15-8090-bbdb43f0b8b1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to this answer &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections/4924#4924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The next moderator election will be whenever **the community** and the SE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; team decide that the site needs more moderators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the community can decide when next moderator election will take place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think that we need moderator elections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think so. I don't trust some of the current moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="af2a8be3-9f0a-4190-ad86-aa4b9284eb2f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I had 1693 rep, but when I logged on today I had only 1689 left. I went in to see if I'd gotten any downvotes. There weren't any, but I did have a *&quot;post was removed&quot;* notice - I ticked the *&quot;show removed posts&quot;* box at the bottom of the page because I've come across this before ([this][1] and [this][2] meta question helped me figure things out then, I've already done the rep recalculation trigger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that only accounts for a loss of 2 rep points and I seem to have lost 4. Is there anything else that can explain this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the amount of rep we're talking about is ludicrously small. So it's not the rep itself that bothers me, but the fact that I have no idea where it went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2845/incorrect-reputation-being-displayed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1352/user-removed-rep-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="3c26cb87-554a-44c6-a369-8a5cb0856335" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Update: @ChrisWhite's edits make it much better, I reopened it. After all, closing is a temporary state that can usually be escaped by editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion after skimming through it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like a homework-type problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. You may want to see our [homework policy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to show what you have tried and your level of understanding before asking a homework problem. The &quot;too localised&quot; reason is just used as a proxy for &quot;does not follow homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinion after reading it in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking closer, it seems like the question didn't make much sense. It was clear that you were confused about Lagrangian mechanics; but the _question_ was not exactly answerable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a question of a similar type where the problem is very, _very_ accentuated: &quot;How do I add numbers in General Relativity?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a localized question; nobody else will ask that. It doesn't matter if the answer _may_ contain a lot of conceptual details -- this counts as &quot;accidental&quot; learning. The bare minimum answer to the numbers question is &quot;just like in normal arithmetic&quot;. Which isn't really useful to anyone. Similarly, the bare minimum answer to yours is &quot;just like in Newtonian mechanics&quot; -- not too helpful an answer. This is basically why it was too localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that since there's already a good answer, closing doesn't change much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since your main goal is to understand how to replace NM with LM, asking _that_ question (which @ChrisWhite did in his edit) may make it reopenable :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods don't _have_ to listen to flags. However, in this case, the flag was a sensible one that made the problem with the post clear. (Unfortunately I can't tell you the details of the flag itself, that's private information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Note that it doesn't have to be homework, it's just the type that matters&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="d0e9a1f2-07c8-4134-b877-9cdb91200a3d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Ask about a specific physics concept** is in bold for exactly this reason. Close reasons need to be fairly short if they're going to be useful, and accordingly the wording of the existing close reasons has been carefully tuned to say what needs to be said without using more words than necessary. In that respect, I don't think this change helps. We already have the big homework policy meta post to explain all the details of what an acceptable homework question looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not saying the existing reasons are perfect, but we did put quite a bit of thought into them - they were extensively discussed in a chat session, and then posted [for community feedback on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/chat-session-to-discuss-and-possibly-finalize-close-reasons) (and earlier, [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like)). When a few days passed without any additional comments, we decided the close reasons were good enough and implemented them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the close reasons is not something we should be doing often or on a whim; in particular, a small change like this isn't enough to justify it. If there is a _major_ omission from one of the close reasons, then we can discuss it and change it to fix that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="999daed0-dad4-4c3c-90f5-0d815086c940" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are no rules that set the limits of what cannot be deleted, so any comment is fair target for deletion. That's because comments are, **by design**, second-class material, ephemeral and disposable. They are there to seek clarification on questions and answers. Once they've served that purpose, they can be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments that are used to try to subvert a Stack Exchange site into being a medium for discussion, rather than Q&amp;A, are **always** fair target for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules that set out what must be deleted: material that is illegal, offensive, or that breaks the sites rules. The comment-flagging box gives you a good guide to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in short, never put in comments something that you should put in a question or an answer: if it's got merit, put it in a first-class container (Q&amp;A), not an ephemeral, disposable second-class container (comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thanks to [tgp2114][2] for their comment that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; long comment chains are sometimes allowed on Meta when they are constructive, but Meta is the exception not the &quot;rule&quot; ... So one may see long comment threads here, but **they may be deleted at any time for any reason**. Particularly when they are not on topic any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my emphasis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihnfz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="fca1aa02-fc99-42d0-9801-cbab46df1b1e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This site gets a lot of low-quality homework questions. Since I ignored the homework tag a few months ago, my experience of the site has been much more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current [homework policy][1] is nice, but the questions that actually obey it are few. I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, and since we're [looking for ways to improve the site's quality][2], I wanted to put the following idea forward to see how people respond to it: why don't we just ban homework altogether? The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. Potentially we might lose a few good questions, but we'd also lose a *lot* of bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not 100% I agree with this proposal myself, but I'm curious to see how people feel about it, and it seems like it might be worth having the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="257f2d53-5fa7-4433-8981-5e718bc8412b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and http://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="fc127f4e-31c7-4636-9997-55076dbfd6e4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="9188ab26-bd76-48cf-9417-14905d036cf1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**I agree with a strong caveat.** The tag wiki excerpt must function as an exceptionally well-tuned tool to catch the great homework/problem-solving questions, turn the borderline cases into good questions, and prevent bad questions as far as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way tag synonyms work at Ask a Question time is the following. You type in the tag you think you should use (say, &quot;sound&quot;) and presto! A very visible prompt appears with the strong suggestion that the tag to use is, in fact, acoustics - _and it flashes a blurb at them_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, say we have a [myopic user](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html) who did not read the guidance in the sidebar. They see they're asked for tags and, saying &quot;hey&quot;, they type in `homework`. They are then presented with the suggestion that in fact they meant &quot;problem solving,&quot; as well as a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem-solving refers to questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes conceptual questions about homework assignments, although not all homework questions are allowed. PLEASE CLICK LEARN MORE BEFORE POSTING HOMEWORK QUESTIONS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `learn more` link would then take them to a tag wiki with a succinct summary of the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/8563) and numerous links to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of this, as I see it, is that it encourages the right sort of homework-like questions we want, whilst taking (a probably small, but nonzero) action to prevent the bad ones from getting asked in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't think we're at the fighting-ourselves-to-oblivion-over-homework-tags kind of stage that SO reached some time ago, and I have not seen anyone railing against a [tag:homework] tag that did not yield to the first comment of &quot;The tag applies to all homework-like questions&quot; and subsequent referral to meta. I think our biggest problem is still fighting the constant tide of low-quality homework questions, and if we do this right it can help in that respect. If it helps in making the homework-like askers a bit happier about it then all to the better, but then that's only because yes, &quot;problem-solving&quot; _does_ encapsulate so much better what we want in good homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YWXIw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5156" RevisionGUID="e179bdbd-d028-48a0-b23b-3c50c1029cdf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Actually, as I understand it, that _is_ already the case. Almost. But we can improve it somewhat to make it more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thoughts on the current policy&#xD;&#xA;See, the way I see it is that a post that follows the homework policy really doesn't need the tag in the first place. My thoughts resonate with what you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of making the primary focus of the question the homework problem, it's easier to just ask for the concept and maybe include the problem to exhibit your thought process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I once said in chat,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [IMO an _on topic_ HW question is indistinguishable from a normal question when the &quot;this is HW&quot; part is excised.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that the &quot;show some effort&quot; bit of the homework policy is much less important than the &quot;ask about a specific concept&quot;, though it is more objectively determined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The current state of questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on this site, the majority of closed HW questions don't get improved. Some people add effort, but most of these still aren't conceptual, and arguably never will be as many are essentially asking for help with algebra or some such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 in 30 HW questions get reopened, and that too usually because they become borderline (not because they get improved significantly). Some stats on this would be good, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you ignored that tag and it felt nicer. I'm pretty sure that the questions you missed seeing were eventually closed, at least most of them. It's just a matter of speed, and that's a [different issue][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So, what can we improve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said at the top, this is almost already the case. Almost. We can still improve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, there still are some HW posts that get reopened because they added effort. We can try to be more strict when it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, from the policy POV, the semantics of the current policy is that &quot;Homework is OK, just read this long post to learn all the caveats&quot;. Changing it to &quot;Homework is not OK, but here is how you may be able to convert your HW question to a good one&quot; may lead to some good results. Ditto with the close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we consistently change the semantics of our hw policy across the site, and instead of telling users to improve their hw question (the wording means that it will most probably still stay an hw question), we tell them to _convert_ it into a conceptual question (which brings home the point that the question needs a major change of POV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a way to conclude this post at the moment, I may do so later after thinking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10552277#10552277&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5110/how-much-are-3k-users-moderating-through-the-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="f31de59f-c5b4-497e-bdc5-a7bfd7df2f3b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This isn't so much a full answer as an extended comment...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the things we realized in our (incredibly long, there-goes-my-productivity-for-the-day) [chat][1] is that just about any wording we choose can be misinterpreted or at the very least mis-emphasized in the OP's mind. This is *especially* likely when the wording mentions some corner case that just doesn't apply.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't worry too much about covering *all* the corner cases anymore as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one used to have the exact same qualm about &quot;here's my work, where did I go wrong?&quot; questions - that the OP would miss the key sentence in the linked faq - and I even suggested a wording for that specific case [here][2]. While I don't advocate that being a default close reason, I copy/paste it as a custom close reason in these situations, where the OP actually does some work but in the end is using us as a computer algebra system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to find a close reason that covers everything, I've personally settled for having a couple specific alternate wordings on hand for certain cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For a contrived example: OP has a practice exam with solution set, but the solution set just has equations but no concepts. OP posts a question and the given answer and says &quot;huh?&quot; We put on hold with our standard &quot;homework must show effort&quot; clause. If the OP reads a sentence saying &quot;don't post equations and ask us to check them,&quot; it may be taken as &quot;this question would be fine but for the fact that you posted too many equations,&quot; which is not at all the message we wanted to send.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="a5e74e4d-4f2f-4284-a221-85708ceb5c97" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Well, the community really doesn't like editing, even good ones](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5002/why-does-the-community-allow-or-even-encourage-seemingly-meaningless-edits-to-qu), and now supports  crackpottery, there;'s no point of the editing feature. Please disable it to avoid such nonsense in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, until (or if not) this feature is incorporated, I'll continue editing though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm only suggesting this for Phys.SE, not the entire SE network.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="b99a816e-4fa9-4dff-b31a-34e5edfe60bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am asking because I have seen a couple misconceptions floating around on Physics.SE, but in a way so that it would be semi off-topic to address in answers to the post, and it is a bit too complex to get into in the comments (and also frustrating to do repeatedly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the best way to treat this would be to post a well-designed question, provide a  thorough and cited answer and then be able to link to that when the question pops up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would of course hold out on accepting my own answer as a spur to others to provide better answers, but it would at least give the option to link to a more thorough discussion on SE. Would this be frowned upon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is similar to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1013/should-i-post-a-question-if-i-know-the-answer-should-i-answer-my-own-questions) but different enough that I think it can still bear a little talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="6d365c99-9be2-49ae-bdda-55df1452f4fc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Can we please keep it to one-resource-per-answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of the answers referenced in [our recent policy for resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) have long answers that include multiple resources, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363/getting-started-general-relativity/376#376). While this keeps things compact in a way, it makes it difficult for people to upvote specific resources. This substantially under-uses the capabilities of our platform, which is great for good answers to float up and OK ones to stay further down in the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we make it policy that answers to resource recommendations include only one resource per answer? This involves, of course, the possibility of as many answers per user as necessary on each thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two thoughts on dealing with the consequences. First, doing this opens the door to huge reputation farming. This would make a bit of an argument for making all answers community wiki - though if you come up with multiple good books and provide good reviews of them, why should you not have some rep? Secondly, it would add some initial and long-term curatorial stress in separating multi-resource answers, but I don't think this is unreasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="78991456-2689-44d9-9f6e-a40b62a7f331" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I check [this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review), it says that there' is a suggested edit queue. But aren't suggested edits disallowed on meta? Where did this come from? Is it outdated?. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="f7488782-b614-4e13-bb7a-34103db908bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As much as I sympathize with the move to ban homework-like (HWL) questions because of front page clutter, we should realize that people will _never_ stop posting HWL question. They are sometimes desperate, say, with an upcoming exam tomorrow. Realistically, the only thing we can do is to minimize the time that such HWL posts appear open on the front page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast closing requires help from the community to flag around the clock, and especially +3k users to review and cast votes-to-close. It is possible that HW policy formulations should be strengthen to provide people with the necessary mandate/tools for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But closure is not all. The posts still appear on the front page for a while unless it is downvoted to -4. Note however that traditionally, the unwritten rule is to not massively downvote new posters, but rather leaving constructive comments. If you decide to downvote a HWL question, please first check OP's userpage, to see if he has a repeated pattern of posing bad HWL questions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in the search of methods to stop HWL questions, the status of the [tag:homework] tag will unavoidably be questioned. The pros and cons of the [tag:homework] tag have been discussed many times before in other meta posts, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1477/2451) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4022/2451). Here I will only address what potential benefit the retirement of the homework tag would have on the incoming stream of HWL questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be against removing the [tag:homework] tag for various reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is instrumental in identifying HWL questions in the first place that such posts are tagged with [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. People will _never_ stop posting HWL questions, no matter how many policies that we write, no matter how many tags that we ban, and no matter how many duplicates of the question that there already exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely doubt any broken-window theory that the homework tag causes more HWL questions to be asked than without the tag, cf. point 2 above. On the other hand, the [tag:homework] tag helps the community to quickly identify and close HWL questions, cf. point 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="ccf1bdb4-4e1e-46ce-acc3-5e5fe2bf4184" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just stumbled on [this fantastic list of magic shortcuts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/94000/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Supported magic links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[meta]` &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[main]` &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[edit]` &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ... ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[ask]`, `[answer]` &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[something.se]` &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use `[ubuntu.se]` for Ask Ubuntu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Except for `[chat]` and `[edit]`, and with the addition of `[chat-faq]`, these also work in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# **Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to [Homework Policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/)?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="c2fe6575-9ac0-4361-bd6c-ae05fdf5badd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I had 1693 rep, but when I logged on today I had only 1689 left. I went in to see if I'd gotten any downvotes. There weren't any, but I did have a *&quot;post was removed&quot;* notice - I ticked the *&quot;show removed posts&quot;* box at the bottom of the page because I've come across this before ([this][1] and [this][2] meta question helped me figure things out then, I've already done the rep recalculation trigger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that only accounts for a loss of 2 rep points and I seem to have lost 4. Is there anything else that can explain this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the amount of rep we're talking about is ludicrously small. So it's not the rep itself that bothers me, but the fact that I have no idea where it went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2845/incorrect-reputation-being-displayed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1352/user-removed-rep-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="7e1f1b98-42e3-41c7-bcfa-bff95c67852b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Up/Down]vote this question if you [/Dis]agree, or voice any concerns in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="cbbd5d24-ba1a-4c16-b501-91fa677927c0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Doing this would open up a huge can of worms: suddenly, there's an arbitrary threshold for &quot;activity&quot; that divides posts being worked on. Yes, it's easy to come up with individual changes that most folks probably agree don't warrant much oversight, but applying such simple rules broadly can have disastrous results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's examine retagging, since that seems to be the primary focus here: it's true, most tag edits are fairly uninteresting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Unless you happen to be following the tag that was added...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or the tag that was removed...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or someone decides that [tag:quantum-mechanics] is used too carelessly, and replaces it with [tag:fake-quantum-mechanics] on all the questions they don't care for...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or decides that their profile page is too hard for their fans to find, and adds [tag:shog-answered-this] to all the questions they've answered...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren't hypothetical examples; folks make bad tag edits all the time. Heck, y'all have been arguing over [certain tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag) fairly regularly here - kinda hard to read that and then come back and claim tag-edits are *guaranteed* to be minor or unworthy of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once you start trying to decide whether or not a *body edit* is major or minor, it just gets worse - *particularly* if you hope to base your decision on something as simple as the *number of characters changed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;active&quot; lists have one purpose: to show questions that have had recent activity (or more precisely, to order questions according to their last activity date). There are other filters and sort orders available, and we've been working on better ones for some time now - [try this one out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=interesting). We even have plans to replace the rather unhelpful &quot;modified&quot; indicator with something slightly more descriptive. So let's not make things more confusing than they need to be by changing the self-descriptive &quot;active&quot; to &quot;active enough for *someone's* taste&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="bc2d4929-8f6f-4f25-bf99-875443032662" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say that our ultimate goal should be the burnination of [tag:homework]. But I agree with several others who have said that that is unworkable in the short term. My experience with questions tagged [tag:homework] is that they fall into a few categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Please do my homework for me. I have put no effort into it at all.&quot; [example][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;I have completed this homework problem. Please check my work and/or where did I go wrong?&quot; [example][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Possibly not a good question as written, but the OP is trying. There might be a conceptual question somewhere. [example][3], [example][4]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Hard problems that come either directly from the research literature, or from upper-level courses. These usually have an easy to identify conceptual question. [example][5] [example][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 and 2 are easy; we just want to close them and get on with real questions. 3 is probably the most difficult category, both to identify, and to actually address. I think we want most of the questions in 4, but it is sometimes difficult to separate out the physics and the math in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just favorited [tag:homework], sort of in the spirit of [Manish's suggestion] and have been going through those questions (if anyone has seen a lot of homework questions in the review queue recently, that's me). I haven't seen a single question yet where the [tag:homeowrk] tag actually *helps* the question: they're all either on-topic or off-topic. It really is a meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best argument I can come up with to keep [tag:homework] is that people can use it to filter out questions they don't want to see. I have two replies to that. First, it's not a very good filter. I suspect people who want to ignore [tag:homework] are trying to filter out categories 1 and 2, and possibly 3. But they're also ignoring questions that fit into 4, and I'm not sure they want to do that. My other reply is that we really do need everyone's help to close the really bad homework questions when they come up. I feel a little conflicted about saying that; it is essentially telling other users how they should use the site, and the low-level BS homework questions are exactly the sort of things that drives away the higher-end users we're trying to keep/attract. On the other hand, I worry that part of the problem we're having with closing the bad homework questions is that not enough of our 3000+ users are seeing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83399/finding-the-final-velocity&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83627/elastic-potential-energy-of-a-spring-when-compressed&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83618/rotational-inertia-of-a-sphere-and-a-cube&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55584/canonical-partition-of-a-boson-gas&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82506/conservation-of-energy-in-a-quantum-harmonic-oscillator-after-a-sudden-change-in&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76994/polchinskys-evaluation-of-the-one-loop-string-path-integral&#xD;&#xA;[Manish's suggestion]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5143/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="f4c5a921-ba3b-4987-8991-7708c7fe7302" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As things stand at present, questions of people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, who are looking for help in solving a particular problem (homeworky), are mixed up with questions of physics students (university level) up to research level questions on Physics SE, so things have become too messy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably due to the fact, that two differenc kinds of audiences have developed on this site in the course of time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the one hand we have nicely curious people who are not physicists, but who are interested to learn at a rather popular equation free level what physics is about, people who like to find answers to some applied everyday problems from a physics point of view, younger (not yet university level) students who have just started to build up a basic physics knowledge, and people who are looking for help in solving concrete problems they face (homeworky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, there is an audience consisting of university level physics students, academics, and researchers, who like to do physics at a more advanced technical, mathematical, up to research level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these two &quot;subaudiences&quot; seems to be very happy with the present situation since&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. People more interested in popular, basic Q&amp;A of physics and problem solving, see their questions often closed and not that well recieved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To people more interested in higher level, technical, up to research level questions, the site looks cluttered with too basic posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That this is a real issue by now can be seen from relatively recent meta questions such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4308/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/931/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and most recently this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So can there, just for Physics SE, something like an internal tag filtered minisite* be implemented, to better structure and improve the perception and experience of the site for both of the two audiences?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That &quot;subaudience&quot;, which makes up the larger part of the present overall community, could take the role of the main Physics SE, whereas the smaller &quot;subaudience&quot; could be sent to the internal minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such an internal minisite implemented into Physics SE, people interested in more technical, higher level Q&amp;A could focus on exactly this without having to dig through a large amount of posts they are not interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the criteria on allowed problem (or homework) questions, and the previous knowledge expacted to come here could be relaxed for the other group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the present overall community is probably not large enough to be splitted into two full SE sites, the minisite approach would in my opinion be **the perfect solution** to better serve both of the two audiences we now have on Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS: I am not too sure how such a minisite works technically. Manishearth gave this short explanation of an example:  Basically: It's one minisite. Facebook had an agreement with SE that their developers would also help on questions regarding the FB API. With this agreement, SE made a tag-filtered [facebook*](facebook.stackoverflow.com) website, so that FB devs could get their own place. If it works by putting everything with a certain tag on the minisite, it is hopfully not so complicated to implement this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="605e14b0-5fea-4ea8-a786-8d18b660e6b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I check [this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review), it says that there' is a suggested edit queue. But aren't suggested edits disallowed on meta? Where did this come from? Is it outdated?. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="7962cbc5-82c0-474a-869a-1439e1c1ce20" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags?rq=1 and https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4732/redundant-tags-ii, Redundant tags III is about tags about specific objects, meaningless to tag a question with .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene]  [tag:air] [tag:water]  [tag:earthquake]      [tag:nebulae]      [tag:asteroids]   [tag:aircraft]   [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have. This is the closest redundant tags                                                                I could post     put this on .    )                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="a9da3a93-7c3d-4de7-8ef9-1dd18f92fb53" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been a large number of threads recently(And not so recently) &#xD;&#xA;like &#xD;&#xA;[1][1] [2][2] [3][3] [4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4308/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4367/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4379/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 Issues, As I see it, The homework Level questions are being closed by the moderators often, even if they are precisely posed and well defined.(Link 2)&#xD;&#xA;And they do not get the attention they deserve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second is, The site is getting cluttered. On an average day it sees, ~40 questions and tends get very cluttered, and many interesting questions do not stay long enough for people to take notice.(Link 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been some suggestions including my own( Link 3,4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think physics stack exchange will scale as time passes? Do you think it will be able to handle say twice or thrice the amount of traffic, Which is only a matter of time.(There has been a 3 fold increase in questions since 2011) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find the site to be getting cluttered? If so, Can Something be done about it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="06f14def-b8ca-46c3-8961-453eec57d1d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The _primary_ purpose is to &quot;Make The Internet a Better Place™&quot;. What this means is that the Q&amp;As should be of the form that are useful to others. People searching for a conceptual explanation or the resolution of an apparent paradox should find this site and be helped here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a long history. If you've ever googled for help with something and come across a forum, you might have been frustrated by the signal-to-noise ratio on that forum. I recall coming across tons of tangential discussion, and sometimes pages and pages of discourse which reaches no resolution. Besides that, many of these are cluttered with duplicates and one-time problems that are really too specific for anyone else to benefit. Forums are useful to the people asking questions and the handful of community members participating in the discussion. But the wider audience from the Internet has a hard time with forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to do away with that, by keeping posts focused and only allowing posts that will help many people. This was the essence behind the &quot;Too Localized&quot; close reason that many of you may remember, &amp;mdash; the point was that while the answers may help the OP, there's a very little chance of it helping anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also one of the main reasons why we close homework. Besides the no-effort-please-do-my-work-for-me, homework questions don't help any other visitors. While the answers may be conceptual, it is pretty hard for someone with the conceptual question to find the homework problem via Google or otherwise, as the question focuses on the problem, not the concept &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As for people who want help with the _same_ homework problem, well, that's pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main purpose is to also help people _other_ than the OP, people who will come to the Q&amp;A after searching related terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just the primary purpose. As you mentioned, fun is another factor&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, as is encouraging interest and _conceptual_ education. The &quot;fun&quot; bit extends itself; I personally don't participate just because it's &quot;fun&quot;. I write answers because my own understanding is strengthened by doing so&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, not just to help the OP and the other readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not intending to say that we aren't here to help each other. We are. The community feeling is a great thing, and helping each other learn physics is a good goal. But one should try to have a look a the larger picture, helping a couple of people on site is dwarfed by the countless other non-members we help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Research_ is a different beast. Our [non mainstream policy][1], in its attempts to be as objective as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments, stops us from _developing_ new physics&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. I guess this is OK, because frankly speaking, the people here have better channels to develop new physics; by discussing with colleagues and collaborators. The ones who choose to try to develop the theory here are usually the type that are proposing some non mainstream ideas. Besides all this, the limitation of discussion on the main site is a damper here, though that is easily remedied with chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is in no way saying that research _level_ questions are discouraged, just that using the site as a platform to develop new theories collaboratively is discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Which is why we encourage making HW question conceptual; people will actually _find_ the question then&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Don't let [this blog post][2] tell you otherwise ;-)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. The act of codifying nebulous thoughts on a topic into clear English is something that seems to immediately highlight one's own conceptual misunderstandings and inadequacies.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;s&gt;Neither does MathOverflow, they have a policy against open questions and the like, and they still maintain a good level of research-level questions.&lt;/s&gt; MathOverflow disallows well known open problems, but they don't seem to have any research being done on site, even if the posts may inspire research.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="598b8d64-72b5-4827-83cb-fcf92d075d14" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized this, one of the other reasons the HW policy was put up in the start was that users did not want this site to be seen as a place where you can get your homework done for you&quot; (which accounts for the tag confusion as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are people still concerned about this?&#xD;&#xA; - Will allowing low effort grad level hw affect this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="6fd1eea9-9ae7-4219-9b41-d6d9a049fab3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Doing this would open up a huge can of worms: suddenly, there's an arbitrary threshold for &quot;activity&quot; that divides posts being worked on. Yes, it's easy to come up with individual changes that most folks probably agree don't warrant much oversight, but applying such simple rules broadly can have disastrous results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's examine retagging, since that seems to be the primary focus here: it's true, most tag edits are fairly uninteresting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Unless you happen to be following the tag that was added...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or the tag that was removed...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or someone decides that [tag:quantum-mechanics] is used too carelessly, and replaces it with [tag:fake-quantum-mechanics] on all the questions they don't care for...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or decides that their profile page is too hard for their fans to find, and adds [tag:shog-answered-this] to all the questions they've answered...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren't hypothetical examples; folks make bad tag edits all the time. Heck, y'all have been arguing over [certain tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag) fairly regularly here - kinda hard to read that and then come back and claim tag-edits are *guaranteed* to be minor or unworthy of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once you start trying to decide whether or not a *body edit* is major or minor, it just gets worse - *particularly* if you hope to base your decision on something as simple as the *number of characters changed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;active&quot; lists have one purpose: to show questions that have had recent activity (or more precisely, to order questions according to their last activity date). There are other filters and sort orders available, and we've been working on better ones for some time now - [try this one out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=interesting). We even have plans to replace the rather unhelpful &quot;modified&quot; indicator with something slightly more descriptive. So let's not make things more confusing than they need to be by changing the self-descriptive &quot;active&quot; to &quot;active enough for *someone's* taste&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4742" RevisionGUID="f50c0b2b-2be4-461f-84d4-671548d232df" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I generally agree with [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/45/2751) answer and the idea, that the tags we have should denote subfields of physics or meaningful keywords as applied by physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But tags just denoting thermodynamic or kinematic variables, basic quantities used in certain subfields, etc look to me not meaningful enough to categorize qustions. In addition, creating such tags for every thermodynamic and kinematic variable or for every basic quantity applied in any subfield would largely inflate the number of tags we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the particular tags listed here, it seems to me that the thermodynamic variables are already covered by [tag:thermodynmaics], the kinematic variables by [tag:kinematics], capacitance by [tag:electrostatics], etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="c9ebeef8-4728-4cc2-82e0-d0bb5ce1f09e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="fc53bde5-5ca7-4bfb-bcda-66e342ac2be4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It isn't possible for there to be a single ultimate purpose, since the existence of Physics Stack Exchange depends upon a diverse range of purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - those within the community contributing to the site, &#xD;&#xA; - the unpaid moderators&#xD;&#xA; - the company financing the project&#xD;&#xA; - [the motive of the founders][1]&#xD;&#xA; - other people and group motives I'm not aware of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a better question would be to ask: **What's the purpose behind you being here?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the fundamental reason is given in [Alfred Centauri's answer.][2] I liked the idea of contributing to the site, putting it down on my CV as one of my interests, and the interviewer could take a look at [some of my answers][3] and hire me. Now that I'm more aware of my [incompetence][4], I use the site more passively to learn from others, in the hope I might actually get round to asking [good questions][5] more regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5173/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange-revisited/5176#5176&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub/7752#7752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6934/what-is-the-source-of-high-frequency-squeal-in-faulty-crt-monitors-and-tv-and-w/6968#6968&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="503ed84b-3905-450a-b2f0-b73479134166" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Regarding your closed / downvoted questions, have a look at the banner below them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It links to [this meta post][2], which explains why the question is off topic in great detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the banner was put there is that closevoters need not explain themselves every time they see a homework question. If the post is closed with a banner, you are expected to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is for the post, not the user. Don't take downvotes personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the title edit, you're addressing a rather different issue than the one in the post, so the title was edited. There's nothing political here, the question was closed according to established policy. Talking about politicalness would spark unnecessary side discussions and derail the main point, so it was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D8i4e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="b0f43226-0a31-4d8d-a031-2ec8eba4fad2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags?rq=1 and https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4732/redundant-tags-ii, Redundant tags III is about tags about specific objects, meaningless to tag a question with .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene]  [tag:air] [tag:water]  [tag:earthquake]      [tag:nebulae]      [tag:asteroids]   [tag:aircraft]   [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have. This is the closest redundant tags                                                                I could post     put this on .    )                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="8e978636-f454-40f6-86b2-1f38e0ed2d1a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The [How to Ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed** on this site. You should ask about **specific concepts**. See our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4742" RevisionGUID="b7d71eea-f437-4381-ac30-72b8db693168" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I generally agree with [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/45/2751) answer and the idea, that the tags we have should denote subfields of physics or meaningful keywords as applied by physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But tags just denoting thermodynamic or kinematic variables, basic quantities used in certain subfields, etc look to me not meaningful enough to categorize qustions. In addition, creating such tags for every thermodynamic and kinematic variable or for every basic quantity applied in any subfield would largely inflate the number of tags we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the particular tags listed here, it seems to me that the thermodynamic variables are already covered by [tag:thermodynmaics], the kinematic variables by [tag:kinematics], capacitance by [tag:electrostatics], etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="75bfe41c-a76a-409d-8e0a-6d267a4185b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the comments:*      &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;These are just suggestions - the intent is for people to suggest a good definition in the answers, the community votes on these answers, and the most upvoted one after a reasonable amount of time has past will be the one we apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever definition you come up with **needs to be objective**. Otherwise we're back where we've started on the tag. &quot;Question was phrased in a pop sci way&quot; is ambiguous.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="b723132a-f721-4abb-92a2-630622aa8799" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. A direct link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/) of the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. From _any_ page on the [physics main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) or the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/), single-click on the word 'StackExchange' in the upper left corner of the page. A menu should open. A click on the word 'chat' near the top of the menu brings you to [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/). Continue with item 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oG882.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="467fba79-0acf-4924-ab81-674a1c80e638" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, I have two ways of interpreting a [tag:beginner] tag. I may switch between both interpretations in this post to cover all bases, one interpretation is &quot;questions in beginner physics&quot;, and another is similar to the one you ask &quot;questions where the OP is in over his head&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Blast from the past&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me a _lot_ about all the discussions we had about [tag:popular-science]. The major issue with such meta tags is that they're vague. So, allowing them means that each user applies the tag with their own definition of the tag. And it rapidly devolves into a &quot;I-don't like this post&quot; tag which each person uses differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one user may consider the entire body of classical mechanics to be beginner level, one may not. The same goes for, say, newtonian mechanics. There are plenty of nontrivial problems that get asked in NM, too, and some may hide them with the tag while other tag users may not want that. [Quoting Shog][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(see that post for the conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the homework tag works well is that the tag is well-defined. I personally am uneasy about having a meta tag like that on the site, but after thinking about it, it seems to not be causing problems and would cause far bigger problems if removed anyway :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do not despair, there are better solutions to this specific problem. I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ill-formed and badly-phrased? Flag/vote for closure as Unclear What You Are Asking&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. And comment to try to get the OP to do the Googling, if you're in the mood for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Apply [tag:popular-science]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If (and only if) the user asks explicitly for a layman answer (and I bet there is a significant amount of overlap between such questions and the type you dub &quot;beginner&quot;), then we have [tag:popular-science], which has the following excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Individual tag ignores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is concerned about the level of questions, it's pretty easy to ignore tags like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] and company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Come to think of it, we have many such tags. It may be good to have a meta community wiki post listing such tags in approximate increasing order of average expertise. Then, people can easily copy paste the tags they wish to ignore. (feel free to start this post if you wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that (veering a bit off topic here into related ground), ignoring [tag:homework] seems to get rid of a lot of the crap. Note that if you see a homework question that needs closing, vote to close _and_ downvote. Closed posts that aren't downvoted still appear on the main page, and contribute to making our site look like a place to get homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. If you think that the closing system takes to long and have lost faith in it, let us know. Currently, the mods are holding back from the queue, but we increase our participation there as a temporary measure if there are problems. 3k+ users can help be part of the long term solutions by actively checking out the review queues and handling at least a couple questions from the close queue every day, if even 10 users do that we'd have a very fast system.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="79d489fb-ff5f-4c89-a5be-68f82ef758c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested by Natheniel in   https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i,    I'll make a single question and let people vote on the answers (containing redundant tags to burninate.).               " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="424b7016-1500-4e02-aef6-307a478913aa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I like your idea very much. We are well aware, [for whom Phys.SE is for](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange#comment16570_715).   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've proposed a new website named [_Physics Problems_](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2) on Area51. The targeted audience is not required to be a _student_ of Physics.    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I, in no way favour to help verbatim homework questions. My sole purpose is to make a platform, where people, who do not have access of teacher or peers etc, could get help for learning Physics.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/69198.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Physics problems&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="ea5927bb-2231-4d2d-a525-ab803ef4a56d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed a sudden increment in the close vote queue (minimum 10 per day, upto 15 or so) for the past few days. Maybe people (except a few) haven't noticed that mods are having a vacation. I can feel their absence in the active page. They haven't informed anything about this to the community...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manish told [me](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9811294#9811294) and [Chris](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9825883#9825883) that they're off to see if the community is interested in reviewing close votes. As far as I've seen, only a few users are interested in reviewing close votes and even less members in reviewing reopen votes (as it requires somewhat deeper look into the post). They are right about the evaluation of community. As it looks like a good decision, I honor it. But, for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they doing now? (*Actually, where are they?* :D) Is this some kind of *secret spying?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;And, a humble message to my fellow users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##C'mon guys, Please spend a few minutes reviewing...  &#xD;&#xA;[We don't just ask &amp; answer. We can help it grow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2921/11062) ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="64aeb575-d5af-41c3-b5f0-1d6b2d2fb8a1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This site gets a lot of low-quality homework questions. Since I ignored the homework tag a few months ago, my experience of the site has been much more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current [homework policy][1] is nice, but the questions that actually obey it are few. I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, and since we're [looking for ways to improve the site's quality][2], I wanted to put the following idea forward to see how people respond to it: why don't we just ban homework altogether? The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. Potentially we might lose a few good questions, but we'd also lose a *lot* of bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not 100% I agree with this proposal myself, but I'm curious to see how people feel about it, and it seems like it might be worth having the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="779b38d1-91ea-40bc-8669-cb7d7bac7c27" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dearest Physics&lt;sub&gt;meta&lt;/sub&gt; Stack Exchange readers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just got done reading through [this discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag), its many supporting discussions, its answers, their comments, the answers to the supporting questions and *their* comments. And I *gotta* tell ya, **you talk too much...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...without actually *saying* very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of people requested that I research this issue (and a few related issues) and give my opinion, since apparently there've been some hurt feelings here and there over some of this. That's a shame. The whole point of meta is to give folks a voice in how the community is run - if you're writing this much and still feeling unheard, something is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I have a few suggestions for the more... enthusiastic... participants in these discussions, a few things I've picked up over the years that'll make these go a lot smoother for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Have fun.** I don't know why you're here, but I'm guessing it *probably* isn't your job to argue about minutia on The Internet all day&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Even if the questions you ask/answer *on Physics.SE* are crucial to your work, meta debates probably aren't. Hopefully, we're all here because we love the site and want it to be even better - so if this is starting to feel like a drag, go for a walk or something instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Try to read more than you write.** If you find yourself dominating a conversation (or *multiple* conversations simultaneously), chances are it is becoming increasingly hard for other folks to keep up with what you're trying to say; they might very well just start ignoring you. Ironically, you can end up being unheard because you talk to much! You also risk giving the impression that you don't really care about what anyone else has to say, being too busy writing your rebuttal to really understand what you're responding to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Know when a comment discussion isn't working.** Comments are a great way to ask for or provide clarifications, raise concerns, or provide simple criticisms. But they can be exceedingly tedious for others to read, and not everyone has time to involve themselves in a prolonged discussion. If you find yourself going back and forth at for any significant length of time, chances are you're not getting your point across - maybe you'd be better off writing or updating an answer where you have room to expand your argument... or even taking the conversation to chat. **Hint:** if you find yourself posting two comments back-to-back because your response won't fit into one, you're probably doing it wrong. **Stop and write an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Recognize that the people you disagree with probably are not Pure Evil.** Sure, dividing up a happy community into tag-ghettos sounds like something that Hitler or Stalin would do, and I'm sure Pol Pot would've *loved* the idea of throwing tags he didn't like into a mass grave and setting them on fire. But consider: if those guys had limited themselves to bullying bits around on The Internet&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, we probably wouldn't hate them so much. Try to limit the hyperbole and focus on the topic at hand; if you're having trouble doing that, maybe take a break and have a nice cup of tea instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Evidence trumps speculation.** Afraid that *X* will be the death of the site? You might be right. But... Prove it. Or at least, provide *something* to back up your assertion. Has *X*  been tried elsewhere and failed? Say that. Is there evidence on the site itself that *X* is causing problems? Link to it. If the sky is falling, then stop running around screaming and *show us a piece of it!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Remember that there are an awful lot of people on the site who just want to ask and answer physics questions.** A discussion here on Meta is just that: a way for interested parties to lay out their arguments; it's not guaranteed to reflect the opinion of the greater community. Most of the time, discussions are never really *concluded* here - it's always possible for someone to come in with a new answer, and ultimately what actually matters is what happens *on the main site itself*. Meta gives you a podium&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Don't spend too much of *your* time here either.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;** If you spend all of your time here on Meta, it becomes very easy to forget the reasons why you came here in the first place, place undue importance on trivial arguments, and stop having fun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. **Be patient.** Change takes time, and remember: a lot of folks aren't as enthusiastic about following every meta conversation as you are (See #6). If things aren't happening fast enough for your taste, starting *more* discussions on the subject may be counter-productive (See #2). And if you're too busy hand-wringing on meta to actually follow your own advice when participating on the main site, then you're missing the chance to set an example for others to follow (#7). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, remember that you elected moderators to *help out* on the site, *settle* intractable arguments, and *enact* the policies hashed out here and elsewhere. They're strongly encouraged to be active here on meta, but... They don't actually *have* to respond to every discussion or involve themselves in every debate. If you want their input and assistance, try to make it a bit easier for them to provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Because that's *my* job, and you can't have it! Just kidding, we're [hiring](http://stackexchange.com/about/hiring).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I'll bet a lot fewer people have starved to death because of Collectivist Farmville.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Or maybe a soapbox. A podium sounds like something Hitler would want.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Again, my job not yers.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="032fbcd3-f2dd-4e96-ba45-ea4826ed9b72" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, this has already been proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4400/124), and it'll be implemented as soon as we have custom close reasons enabled. That might be happening later this week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the spam flag should only be used for actual spam, by which I mean purely promotional posts with no relevance to the site. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CIALIS VIAGRA PRON xxx.example.com!!!!1!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, I'm not very good at writing spam, but you get the idea. Posts about non-mainstream theories are not spam (in the sense of the flag) unless they link to some crackpot website promoting the theory and the purpose of the post is clearly nothing more than promotion of the site. Without that link, if non-mainstream posts are questions, flag them as off topic; if they are answers, downvote them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="cb0c646e-7adb-4d45-a93a-d0c36744c07e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to echo one of John Rennie's points, but more forcefully. Really **it is not a great *question***. It hit upon a great topic, and allowed for some really great answers, but the question itself does no [prior research][1], nor does it give any indication about what direction the answers should take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's phrased like the questions at the top of [xkcd: What If][2] posts, but keep in mind the author there plenty of options and only deals with the questions that lead to the most amusing discussion. There is already filtering going on. Because *all* questions posted here first before downvotes and closevotes, our filtering process is more transparent, but that doesn't mean we're doing any more filtering than any other quality site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also note my own response *to the question*. I saw it only after it was edited for grammar, so grammar wasn't even an issue. Even after seeing the answers, I still posted a comment (which has since been nuked), saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; It's not clear what you're asking. Do you want an answer based only on theory (which the current answers are telling you is difficult and complicated), or do you want to set up an experiment? If the latter, the answer is trivial if you only have a finite number of coin types and you pre-record the sound each makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still stand by this comment. The OP has never specified if they are seeking a first-principles calculation, or if they're willing to just accept empirical data points. Perhaps the thought is &quot;if I measure just a dime and a quarter, can I infer the acoustic properties of the intermediate coins?&quot; *But this was never explicitly stated* so we can only guess at the OP's intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be tempting to jump in and expound on a familiar topic vaguely related to what the OP asked, and maybe that even leads to a great post that reveals lots of nuanced physics. But I for one won't upvote a *question* that leaves so much guesswork to the answerers. And in my experience, the vast majority of similarly vague questions do *not* get good answers. We should encourage questions to be good in and of themselves, rather than reward lucky shots in the dark ex post facto. After all, what kind of incentive structure do you want upvotes to induce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://what-if.xkcd.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5156" RevisionGUID="2d0983cc-66b7-4d67-a099-f19a6e45318d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Actually, as I understand it, that _is_ already the case. Almost. But we can improve it somewhat to make it more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thoughts on the current policy&#xD;&#xA;See, the way I see it is that a post that follows the homework policy really doesn't need the tag in the first place. My thoughts resonate with what you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this is because if you've put the effort in to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of making the primary focus of the question the homework problem, it's easier to just ask for the concept and maybe include the problem to exhibit your thought process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I once said in chat,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [IMO an _on topic_ HW question is indistinguishable from a normal question when the &quot;this is HW&quot; part is excised.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that the &quot;show some effort&quot; bit of the homework policy is much less important than the &quot;ask about a specific concept&quot;, though it is more objectively determined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The current state of questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on this site, the majority of closed HW questions don't get improved. Some people add effort, but most of these still aren't conceptual, and arguably never will be as many are essentially asking for help with algebra or some such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 in 30 HW questions get reopened, and that too usually because they become borderline (not because they get improved significantly). Some stats on this would be good, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you ignored that tag and it felt nicer. I'm pretty sure that the questions you missed seeing were eventually closed, at least most of them. It's just a matter of speed, and that's a [different issue][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So, what can we improve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said at the top, this is almost already the case. Almost. We can still improve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, there still are some HW posts that get reopened because they added effort. We can try to be more strict when it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, from the policy POV, the semantics of the current policy is that &quot;Homework is OK, just read this long post to learn all the caveats&quot;. Changing it to &quot;Homework is not OK, but here is how you may be able to convert your HW question to a good one&quot; may lead to some good results. Ditto with the close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we consistently change the semantics of our hw policy across the site, and instead of telling users to improve their hw question (the wording means that it will most probably still stay an hw question), we tell them to _convert_ it into a conceptual question (which brings home the point that the question needs a major change of POV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a way to conclude this post at the moment, I may do so later after thinking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10552277#10552277&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5110/how-much-are-3k-users-moderating-through-the-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="6a2b635e-2891-4480-aa5d-6f2eb728b26c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="6b5c1a96-64ba-4cca-82ef-eb4247b233ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the comments:*      &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;These are just suggestions - the intent is for people to suggest a good definition in the answers, the community votes on these answers, and the most upvoted one after a reasonable amount of time has past will be the one we apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever definition you come up with **needs to be objective**. Otherwise we're back where we've started on the tag. &quot;Question was phrased in a pop sci way&quot; is ambiguous.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="64ef83a2-771c-462f-8d5f-d3c8f12d9be7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been declined many times, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is by definition here a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [This is not really a solution to the underlying problem, but you might find it useful anyway:] Alternatively, if you are mainly interested in recent questions, you might consider to instead browse the [newest question tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) rather than the [front page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/). This way of browsing avoids all the edits, but the downside is that you will miss all the new answers to older questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="8c276ed6-342e-4d40-ad21-a86cd9bcc1be" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As much as I sympathize with the move to ban homework-like (HWL) questions because of front page clutter, we should realize that people will _never_ stop posting HWL question. They are sometimes desperate, say, with an upcoming exam tomorrow. Realistically, the only thing we can do is to minimize the time that such HWL posts appear open on the front page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast closing requires help from the community to flag around the clock, and especially +3k users to review and cast votes-to-close. It is possible that HW policy formulations should be strengthen to provide people with the necessary mandate/tools for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But closure is not all. The posts still appear on the front page for a while unless it is downvoted to -4. Note however that traditionally, the unwritten rule is to not massively downvote new posters, but rather leaving constructive comments. If you decide to downvote a HWL question, please first check OP's userpage, to see if he has a repeated pattern of posing bad HWL questions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in the search of methods to stop HWL questions, the status of the [tag:homework] tag will unavoidably be questioned. The pros and cons of the [tag:homework] tag have been discussed many times before in other meta posts, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1477/2451) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4022/2451). Here I will only address what potential benefit the retirement of the homework tag would have on the incoming stream of HWL questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be against removing the [tag:homework] tag for various reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is instrumental in identifying HWL questions in the first place that such posts are tagged with [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. People will _never_ stop posting HWL questions, no matter how many policies that we write, no matter how many tags that we ban, and no matter how many duplicates of the question that there already exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely doubt any broken-window theory that the homework tag causes more HWL questions to be asked than without the tag, cf. point 2 above. On the other hand, the [tag:homework] tag helps the community to quickly identify and close HWL questions, cf. point 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="80c4d4e9-625e-4aca-bd62-610c5b8d3a73" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Can we please keep it to one-resource-per-answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of the answers referenced in [our recent policy for resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) have long answers that include multiple resources, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363/getting-started-general-relativity/376#376). While this keeps things compact in a way, it makes it difficult for people to upvote specific resources. This substantially under-uses the capabilities of our platform, which is great for good answers to float up and OK ones to stay further down in the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we make it policy that answers to resource recommendations include only one resource per answer? This involves, of course, the possibility of as many answers per user as necessary on each thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two thoughts on dealing with the consequences. First, doing this opens the door to huge reputation farming. This would make a bit of an argument for making all answers community wiki - though if you come up with multiple good books and provide good reviews of them, why should you not have some rep? Secondly, it would add some initial and long-term curatorial stress in separating multi-resource answers, but I don't think this is unreasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="46437a2c-a330-4f7c-8c23-3a435078e97e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="367292b7-20d5-4736-891e-c0abdfb843eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Up/Down]vote this question if you [/Dis]agree, or voice any concerns in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="866b8c02-3274-430f-93cf-eec8123c432d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton has pointed out that we already have a [tag:popular-science] tag.  Currently, it only has 14 questions tagged.  I claim we should emphasize this tag just like we should emphasize [tag:research-level].  Furthermore, it is important that we develop a reasonably objective definition.  (@Manishearth worries that this tag might determined more by subjective *tone* rather than content.)  I propose this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular-science questions are accessible to a layman with minimal physics training.  They would be appropriate in a newspaper article or non-academic magazine.  Such question are distinct from research-level questions, which are of professional interest to physicists.  They are also distinct from homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suggested this as the tag wiki excerpt, which is the short-definition of this tag and which appears as a tooltip when someone hovers over the tag. (Someone with 20k is needed to approve it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should ideally capture about 15 % of the questions posted on the site, as the bulk of the questions are expected to be standard good conceptual physics questions that need no additional level tag*.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clarifying edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I change the percentage of questions that are rougly expected to need such a level tag at all from 95% to 15% as the bulk of the questions most probably falls into neither of these three categories. This point was for example discussed in the comments directly below this question, as well as in the comments [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4465/2751) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4744/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This number means, that ideally  about 85% of the questions should have no level tag at all, maybe 5% should be shown to researchers (37 users follow currently research-level) who have a very specialized interest and knowledge, 5% to students who are looking for good additional example problems to prepare for an exam for example (there are 36 people following homework too) and 5% to people who want to learn about physics in a simplified weay without beeing bogged down by math an physic jargon they are not interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="f8952e17-96dd-47f5-a68f-121b06552b41" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say that our ultimate goal should be the burnination of [tag:homework]. But I agree with several others who have said that that is unworkable in the short term. My experience with questions tagged [tag:homework] is that they fall into a few categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Please do my homework for me. I have put no effort into it at all.&quot; [example][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;I have completed this homework problem. Please check my work and/or where did I go wrong?&quot; [example][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Possibly not a good question as written, but the OP is trying. There might be a conceptual question somewhere. [example][3], [example][4]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Hard problems that come either directly from the research literature, or from upper-level courses. These usually have an easy to identify conceptual question. [example][5] [example][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 and 2 are easy; we just want to close them and get on with real questions. 3 is probably the most difficult category, both to identify, and to actually address. I think we want most of the questions in 4, but it is sometimes difficult to separate out the physics and the math in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just favorited [tag:homework], sort of in the spirit of [Manish's suggestion] and have been going through those questions (if anyone has seen a lot of homework questions in the review queue recently, that's me). I haven't seen a single question yet where the [tag:homeowrk] tag actually *helps* the question: they're all either on-topic or off-topic. It really is a meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best argument I can come up with to keep [tag:homework] is that people can use it to filter out questions they don't want to see. I have two replies to that. First, it's not a very good filter. I suspect people who want to ignore [tag:homework] are trying to filter out categories 1 and 2, and possibly 3. But they're also ignoring questions that fit into 4, and I'm not sure they want to do that. My other reply is that we really do need everyone's help to close the really bad homework questions when they come up. I feel a little conflicted about saying that; it is essentially telling other users how they should use the site, and the low-level BS homework questions are exactly the sort of things that drives away the higher-end users we're trying to keep/attract. On the other hand, I worry that part of the problem we're having with closing the bad homework questions is that not enough of our 3000+ users are seeing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83399/finding-the-final-velocity&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83627/elastic-potential-energy-of-a-spring-when-compressed&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83618/rotational-inertia-of-a-sphere-and-a-cube&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55584/canonical-partition-of-a-boson-gas&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82506/conservation-of-energy-in-a-quantum-harmonic-oscillator-after-a-sudden-change-in&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76994/polchinskys-evaluation-of-the-one-loop-string-path-integral&#xD;&#xA;[Manish's suggestion]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5143/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="8e78297a-9f2b-450d-86d0-8b3b03a844b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Check my work&quot; type questions should **remain off topic** for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They do not ask for clarification of *physics concepts*, they ask for clarification on the *mathematical solution* to a *particular* problem&#xD;&#xA; - In the [&quot;How do I as homework question&quot; post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/25301), it states that Physics.StackExchange&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The question will likely only help the original poster and not future visitors to the site&#xD;&#xA; - This is likely *more* true for the more advanced topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is likely that some of these &quot;Check my work&quot; questions can be reformulated to be an on-topic question, e.g. reworded so as to fit the [&quot;*I was working on X and didn't understand why Y isn't the case*&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5963/25301) criterion. However, note that changing the question ourselves would constitute a [drastic change](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6012/25301) in the intent/meaning of the question, which should be left for the OP to do. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="cb5aa490-bf92-4ee3-9b5a-5c1a5fdd02b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current tag wiki for the [tag:books] - now [tag:resource-recommendation] - tag includes, in its final paragraph, the request that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you question is about [tag:resource-recommendations], please add your question to [the book list][1] as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just gave that tag wiki a make-over to bring it in line with the [new books policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/), and I erased that paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think the [books list question][1] is not a good [tag:resource-recommendation] question as per the new policy.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't see that much value in having the question as opposed to simply [looking for questions with that tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - It adds to the curatorial load in dealing with new questions and adds a big backlog to go over.&#xD;&#xA; - It is unreasonable to expect of every asker of resource recommendation questions to edit their question into the big list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two things that come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the [books list question][1] on topic now?&#xD;&#xA; - If so, should we link to it from the tag wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="ec5179fe-1e51-451b-8544-8535475c9685" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, the book policy has been reevaluated, and Manishearth's [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751) how to change it seems to be well enough accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is still missing for the new book policy to become reality, is some people, who are willing to help with editing the new incoming questions and controlling the answers, such that they conform with the needes of the new policy as expl]ained [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So please come forward and write a short answer, if you are willing to help with this :-)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a big job, as the expected average rate of new incoming such questions when allowed again by the new policy, is about one question per two weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just 2 more people are needed for the policy to succeed.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="17fad99a-29d3-4d49-8f12-b36cad9c8932" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think there is ambiguity stemming from that [linked post][1]. It could be interpreted as asserting that **all** questions here should fall into exactly one of three categories: [tag:research-level], [tag:popular-science], and [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation however is that this is not the case. There are non-homework questions that seek technical answers (rather than &quot;please explain the universe without math&quot;) but could be answered by just about any practicing physicist who puts some thought into it, and thus are not restricted to those with advanced knowledge in one specific subfield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the two questions I have asked on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; fall into this category. They *should not* be tagged with any of those three tags (and I will rollback any edits that attempt to do so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the benefit of allowing different coarseness of filtering. You can choose to *only* look at [tag:research-level], or you could choose to simply block [tag:popular-science] and [tag:homework] so that you see both domain-specific and generic, not-too-simple physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion:** Feel free to use [tag:research-level] if you want to restrict answers to the level you would get if you asked the question of a specialist in the field. You yourself don't need to be publishing papers on the topic. After all, this sort of tag is more for the level of answers you want than the level of the question. (If the question were at the very cutting edge of research, why then by definition *no one* would have an answer, and moreover anyone with the answer would publish a paper before posting to this site.) If you don't use the tag, no one is forcing your question to be relegated to popular science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [Neutrinos vs. Photons: Who wins the race across the galaxy?][2] and [Mars just collided with Earth! A question of eccentricity][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68306/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="07be9343-a29f-481e-b4df-2529e7c34651" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The _primary_ purpose is to &quot;Make The Internet a Better Place™&quot;. What this means is that the Q&amp;As should be of the form that are useful to others. People searching for a conceptual explanation or the resolution of an apparent paradox should find this site and be helped here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a long history. If you've ever googled for help with something and come across a forum, you might have been frustrated by the signal-to-noise ratio on that forum. I recall coming across tons of tangential discussion, and sometimes pages and pages of discourse which reaches no resolution. Besides that, many of these are cluttered with duplicates and one-time problems that are really too specific for anyone else to benefit. Forums are useful to the people asking questions and the handful of community members participating in the discussion. But the wider audience from the Internet has a hard time with forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange tries to do away with that, by keeping posts focused and only allowing posts that will help many people. This was the essence behind the &quot;Too Localized&quot; close reason that many of you may remember, &amp;mdash; the point was that while the answers may help the OP, there's a very little chance of it helping anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also one of the main reasons why we close homework. Besides the no-effort-please-do-my-work-for-me, homework questions don't help any other visitors. While the answers may be conceptual, it is pretty hard for someone with the conceptual question to find the homework problem via Google or otherwise, as the question focuses on the problem, not the concept &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As for people who want help with the _same_ homework problem, well, that's pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main purpose is to also help people _other_ than the OP, people who will come to the Q&amp;A after searching related terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's just the primary purpose. As you mentioned, fun is another factor&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, as is encouraging interest and _conceptual_ education. The &quot;fun&quot; bit extends itself; I personally don't participate just because it's &quot;fun&quot;. I write answers because my own understanding is strengthened by doing so&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, not just to help the OP and the other readers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not intending to say that we aren't here to help each other. We are. The community feeling is a great thing, and helping each other learn physics is a good goal. But one should try to have a look a the larger picture, helping a couple of people on site is dwarfed by the countless other non-members we help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Research_ is a different beast. Our [non mainstream policy][1], in its attempts to be as objective as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments, stops us from _developing_ new physics&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. I guess this is OK, because frankly speaking, the people here have better channels to develop new physics; by discussing with colleagues and collaborators. The ones who choose to try to develop the theory here are usually the type that are proposing some non mainstream ideas. Besides all this, the limitation of discussion on the main site is a damper here, though that is easily remedied with chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is in no way saying that research _level_ questions are discouraged, just that using the site as a platform to develop new theories collaboratively is discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Which is why we encourage making HW question conceptual; people will actually _find_ the question then&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Don't let [this blog post][2] tell you otherwise ;-)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. The act of codifying nebulous thoughts on a topic into clear English is something that seems to immediately highlight one's own conceptual misunderstandings and inadequacies.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;s&gt;Neither does MathOverflow, they have a policy against open questions and the like, and they still maintain a good level of research-level questions.&lt;/s&gt; MathOverflow disallows well known open problems, but they don't seem to have any research being done on site, even if the posts may inspire research.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="3f8d9d74-7829-4625-ab0a-6179b167252a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested by Natheniel in   https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i,    I'll make a single question and let people vote on the answers (containing redundant tags to burninate.).               " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="d6cdb098-c083-4996-a374-9a162fd02690" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have a bunch of proposed close reasons [here][1], and there recently have been a few more good ones brought up there (Like Chris' alternative homework close reason or tpg's &quot;engineering&quot; close reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to have some consensus for these, so we'll hold an extra chat session next Tuesday at 16:00UTC (same timing as our regular biweekly chat session, though we don't have that next week). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agenda of the event is to discuss close reasons, and settle on a final set of three close reasons and their wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the timings are inconvenient, lease let me know. I'm open to changing it if enough people ask for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK if you have some points to make but won't be able to make it into the room. You can post those points on the [close reasons thread][2], and we'll try to include that in our assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can register for the discussion [here][3] (it also lists what time it will at in your timezone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat session over: [Part 1][4], [Part 2][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have elected to remove the Math close reason, as we nw have a migration path to Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three proposed close reasons are below. If you would like to improve them or feel that they are counterproductive, please comment below them. (I suggest you check the bookmarked sub-discussion before commenting, the point may have been brought up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the majority of the community feels that they are OK, these will probably be locked in tomorrow-ish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="6fa11830-dc68-4f97-99b8-cda892530325" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It isn't possible for there to be a single ultimate purpose, since the existence of Physics Stack Exchange depends upon a diverse range of purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - those within the community contributing to the site, &#xD;&#xA; - the unpaid moderators&#xD;&#xA; - the company financing the project&#xD;&#xA; - [the motive of the founders][1]&#xD;&#xA; - other people and group motives I'm not aware of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a better question would be to ask: **What's the purpose behind you being here?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the fundamental reason is given in [Alfred Centauri's answer.][2] I liked the idea of contributing to the site, putting it down on my CV as one of my interests, and the interviewer could take a look at [some of my answers][3] and hire me. Now that I'm more aware of my [incompetence][4], I use the site more passively to learn from others, in the hope I might actually get round to asking [good questions][5] more regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5173/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange-revisited/5176#5176&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub/7752#7752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6934/what-is-the-source-of-high-frequency-squeal-in-faulty-crt-monitors-and-tv-and-w/6968#6968&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="d1114122-ff53-44e0-998e-9bb5c1e10f8d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wasn't even aware of this situation when it happened, and I'm not sure how I personally would have voted/dealt with close votes, but consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our close reasons often overlap, and the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; consensus could probably have been phrased in terms of our engineering close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems where the solution depends on too many variables, or where the variables are not particularly constrained or even fully defined, are considered off-topic by association with engineering. The reason is, the correctness of any answer given depends sensitively on all sorts of extra information, much of it not necessarily related to any particular physics concept. For example, the scaling for how a beam deflects under a load *may* be a valid physics question, but a question that relies on the exact dimensions and material properties of some particular beam is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the problem goes beyond universally-accepted underlying physical concepts, the only way to generate any solution at all is to make a number of assumptions. Thus engineering questions are generally also off-topic as opinion-based, simply by virtue of the fact that they ask a bunch of physicists/physics enthusiasts for their opinions to fill in the blanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned elsewhere, there were plenty of downvotes and surrounding controversy. I suspect the wording of the question was such as to amplify whatever response it was going to get anyway, and as I've explained above, the response was likely to be &quot;this doesn't belong here&quot; for one reason or another. This isn't to say that a little whimsy or an attempt to connect to current events/the Zeitgeist isn't allowed (I'm certainly guilty of titling questions so as to make them more attention grabbing), but understand that this method will amplify negative reactions as much as positive and so is inherently risky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="1480e0fc-4d62-4189-8166-99784c42555d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized this, one of the other reasons the HW policy was put up in the start was that users did not want this site to be seen as a place where you can get your homework done for you&quot; (which accounts for the tag confusion as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are people still concerned about this?&#xD;&#xA; - Will allowing low effort grad level hw affect this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="3b7e157a-d67d-427b-bc4e-a73a8627f6a6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [Manishearth notes][1], the [Terms of Service][2] are quite clear on how material on the site is licensed. If you don't want the material licensed that way then don't post it to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the copyright holder, you are obviously free to offer the material under another license if you want (the Creative Commons licenses being non-exclusive), but you don't get to do that on Stack Exchange's dime (by posting that offer on their websites); instead you should make that second offer in another venue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4514/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="6bf73846-f53c-4ac7-b7b5-16734395efd1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The [How to Ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed** on this site. You should ask about **specific concepts**. See our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="05598439-15bb-4e78-80e4-59e4b044ea99" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me expand upon the argument that I first put forth in the comments on that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the homework policy applies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) specifies what sorts of questions it applies to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentionally somewhat vague; it speaks to the intent behind the policy (see below for more on this intent) rather than giving an objective procedure for determining whether a question is homework-like, because frankly, we haven't been able to come up with such a procedure. In practice we rely on our high-reputation members' intuition for how homework questions are written to determine which questions it should apply to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the relevant part of the question we're discussing reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W needed 10 minutes to boil water when it is half filled with water in Singapore where the output voltage is 220V. Estimate the amount of time needed to do the same task if the kettle was brought to the USA where the output voltage is 110V. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope we all agree that this question _does_ satisfy the criterion presented in the first sentence of the policy, and thus that the homework policy is applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the question was closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part of the homework policy for this point is this (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and **ask about that specifically**. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let me quote again the core question from the post being discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's quite clear that this core question, considered in isolation, is not about a conceptual issue that was encountered while trying to solve the problem, it's asking for a complete explanation of the solution. But of course there was more in the post than just that core question and the quotation of the homework problem. Between them is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My answer to this question is Option 3 (20 minutes) because I thought that since output voltage is the USA is 2 times less than that of Singapore, it would take twice as long to do the same task of boiling water half filled. However, the answer key was Option 4 (40 minutes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this part does not actually _ask_ anything, nor does it modify what the core question is about. Accordingly it doesn't change the fact that the question is asking for a complete solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; P.S. I don't quite understand what it is meant by &quot; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W&quot; ??? I get that 2000W means the kettle uses 2000J/s and V means work done by kettle/charge. But what is the difference between the 2 (power and charge of the kettle)? And how does the V of kettle differ from output voltage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I don't believe is relevant for two reasons: first of all, it shouldn't be possible to sneak a request for a complete solution through by also asking something else in the same question. To implement that, posts which primarily ask for a complete solution but include some other supplementary questions should still be closed. Besides, &quot;P.S.&quot; explicitly indicates that the following material is not the main focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding these two points,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) the OP attempted the question and got it wrong (2) the OP has the answer key and posted the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say again that the homework policy requires an asker to narrow down their question to the specific conceptual issue that is giving them trouble. Both points (1) and (2) are true but they do not change the fact that the OP in this case is not asking about a specific conceptual issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the answer was deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply, this excerpt from the homework policy covers it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I maintain that the answer which I deleted gives away a near-complete solution, in that it explains how one would derive the given answer of 40 seconds. Yes, it does identify that the question is a poor one, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer gives away a near-complete solution. (For now I'm refraining from posting that near-complete solution here, but if it becomes important I'll edit it in.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is the intent of the homework policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above discussion has addressed why (I think) the question should be closed and the answer deleted under the _letter_ of the homework policy, but not under its _spirit_. In particular, let's consider the argument that, regardless of what the HW policy actually says, its intent is to prevent cheating and a complete answer isn't conducive to cheating in this case. I don't agree, for two reasons. First, because the value of the problem lies in the OP working through it step by step, doing as much of it as possible, so as to learn the method. By giving away a complete explanation of how the answer is achieved, we rob the OP of that value. And second, because any time we provide a complete or near-complete answer to a homework-like question, it pushes our site's reputation a tiny bit toward that of a place where people can come and get their homework problems explained to them. We don't want that. This is supposed to be a site primarily geared toward physics research and applications, not a homework help site. And we already get too many homework-like questions despite _not_ having the reputation of a site that welcomes them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is expressed in other words in the following quote from a Math Meta post, which is also quoted in our homework policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest, and if a solution complete enough to be copied verbatim and handed in is given immediately, it will encourage more people to use the site as a free homework service. In the spirit of creating a lasting resource of mathematical knowledge, you may come back after a suitable amount of time and edit your response to include a more complete answer. Or even better, the student can post his own correct answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="7f01292a-5af1-4a33-845a-85365e157eb6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been declined many times, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is by definition here a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [This is not really a solution to the underlying problem, but you might find it useful anyway:] Alternatively, if you are mainly interested in recent questions, you might consider to instead browse the [newest question tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) rather than the [front page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/). This way of browsing avoids all the edits, but the downside is that you will miss all the new answers to older questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="a5d6886e-cf6e-40b5-8ff2-836f9cd22b77" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I don't point this specifically on anyone, But, err...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we had this scheme of *automated close reason* insertion, I've seen Physics.SE people suggest new users (who ask questions *vaguely* or badly or whatever) on how to ask questions here. At least, they've pointed out what's wrong with a particular question. Nowadays, I barely see such constructive comments. For example, [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74926/11062). Recently, we had a discussion on this. [And, I said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4815/#comment13410_4815)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The automated close reason is for the purpose that users don't necessarily have to add comments :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite happy that I added *&quot;necessarily&quot;* in that phrase. So, have we *really* stopped constructive commenting? I know there's no necessity that you should insert comments. But, inserting comments would help a lot. And, stopping *comments* isn't such a good idea. It'd make things worse..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="97338d18-8626-4ce7-8bd1-334c77872830" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #1: Homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat converation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="de3702bc-cf28-4f1f-bd75-b3082b245f16" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two things that upset me quite a bit about this business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The role of moderators is to enact community consensus. When there isn't one, their role is to bring the question formally for community consideration on this meta site, so that a communal decision can be taken. A good example of what I consider successful moderator handling of such a situation is [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this particular instance, five people voted to close and five people voted to reopen. Neither of these is an indication that the question is on- or off-topic here; rather, they must be taken together as an indication that there is no consensus. Unilateral moderator action in these conditions is, I feel, out of line. This is regardless of whether the question was, or turns out to be, off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I simply do not see the point of closing old questions, and particularly ones which already have answers. If the motivation for that is to keep them from cluttering the front page, or out of a broken-windows approach, I believe closing them is in fact detrimental, and just brings more attention to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular question is on two gray areas but I would strongly dispute that either of them merits closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an astrobiology question and as such it is best answered by biologists, or possibly chemists. Indeed, if it were asked today, I would recommend direct migration to biology.se. However, this question was asked on the old astronomy beta and, having been on topic there, it should be taken as on topic here. It is now too old to be migrated, and there are very good reasons for that age limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Further than that, the reason we close questions as off-topic is because they clutter and take up the attention of people who do not have the expertise to answer them. This question has two perfectly good answers that quite patently satisfied the OP and are good resources for anyone who lands on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The other reason we close questions as off-topic is so that they don't invite new questions like them which, again, clutter the front page. I do not think this question does that. Anyone looking to ask such things would more naturally ask it in the new astronomy beta. If someone does ask it here, we can simply migrate to biology or astronomy as appropriate. If we ever get inundated with those then we can rethink closing old questions which create the impression that biology is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is indeed slightly too broad for the SE model. However, it has answers that address essentially every point raised. The reason we close questions as too broad is that they are simply unlikely to attract good answers and their broadness undermines their future usefulness. This question has attracted good answers which are short, concise and to the point. I do not think it is even a broken window, and its broadness harms no one. To put it clearly, I do not think it should be closed as too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that closing astronomy-related questions sends the message that any astronomy questions are off-topic here. This goes against (1) the discussions at the time of the merger, (2) the [loud objections on this meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2665/8563) to the opening of the new astronomy beta, and (3) the [loud objections by many phycisists](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/6222/why-wouldnt-this-just-be-part-of-the-existing-physics-stack-exchange-site) on the new astronomy beta's discussion page to the reopening of a parallel site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having addressed this particular question, I do think that astrobiology questions have much better venues than this site. Unless the question really does involve physics, at least on the side of the astrobiology, we should point the posters to the biology, astronomy or chemistry betas, and migrate the questions there after consultation with the poster and the target site moderators. We do not get anywhere near enough of these to make the process unfeasibly long or complicated, and this should really be done on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fate of this particular question, I think it is a perfectly valid question and should not be closed, though it is arguably on the wrong site and is too old to be migrated. To keep consistency, and to satiate the moderator thirst &quot;to *show* new users that there are limits to what kinds of question we accept here&quot;, I propose that the question be reopened but that the following banner be added, as a quote, to the end of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that astrobiology questions are typically not on topic on this site unless they address specific physics issues. If you have a similar question, please consider posting it on our [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com), [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com) or [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sister sites. For more information, please refer to [the discussion on Physics Meta about this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="39266dba-6f85-4d25-8ce0-b0db78bb126d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #3: Engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/7433).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta post, under construction][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/engineering-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="40ff88e1-c04b-40b9-b97f-4892762136a6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Regarding your closed / downvoted questions, have a look at the banner below them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It links to [this meta post][2], which explains why the question is off topic in great detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the banner was put there is that closevoters need not explain themselves every time they see a homework question. If the post is closed with a banner, you are expected to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is for the post, not the user. Don't take downvotes personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the title edit, you're addressing a rather different issue than the one in the post, so the title was edited. There's nothing political here, the question was closed according to established policy. Talking about politicalness would spark unnecessary side discussions and derail the main point, so it was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D8i4e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="03979101-044c-4010-a309-5c13cd453446" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Given the discussion related to whether [Engineering questions are on topic][1], we also need to consider whether the [tag:engineering] tag has any reason to exist. We discussed it in the chat room using the most recent questions, the transcript of which can be found at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/discussion-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the [tag:engineering] tag exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="c91193d4-e3bc-4bbe-9a2f-e7d78ff722f2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, the book policy has been reevaluated, and Manishearth's [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751) how to change it seems to be well enough accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is still missing for the new book policy to become reality, is some people, who are willing to help with editing the new incoming questions and controlling the answers, such that they conform with the needes of the new policy as expl]ained [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So please come forward and write a short answer, if you are willing to help with this :-)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a big job, as the expected average rate of new incoming such questions when allowed again by the new policy, is about one question per two weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just 2 more people are needed for the policy to succeed.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="f3776ab8-5825-49f2-8fb0-d1144ca5e0b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just noticed the question on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics which you have probably seen if you're reading this. It's attracted a lot of positive attention, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any reason it should be an appropriate question for the site. Consider these excerpts from the [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is not based on an actual problem, but it is open-ended pretty much by definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question hits all three of these points on the nose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one doesn't, it's just assembling a list without any specific prompt for information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naming a breakthrough is not a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As detailed [elsewhere on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi), questions with these attributes fail to increase the quality of the site at best, and actively pollute it at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have an [active discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list) (in a long-term sense) on list questions, but even looking at the suggestions made in that question and answers, nothing seems to allow an all-encompassing list of breakthroughs. A common opinion is that list questions of limited scope are likely to be okay, but this is absolutely not one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question, primarily to people who upvoted or reopen-voted the &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question: in doing so, it seems that you're suggesting we ignore fully half a page of the help center _and_ an emerging consensus on list questions from this site itself. **Why?** What are your arguments that these policies don't apply to this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="84c1d974-4708-42c1-afdf-0f7cee16a728" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. A direct link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/) of the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. From _any_ page on the [physics main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) or the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/), single-click on the word 'StackExchange' in the upper left corner of the page. A menu should open. A click on the word 'chat' near the top of the menu brings you to [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/). Continue with item 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oG882.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="bf614249-2eca-4df5-a31d-462ba1ae2310" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Here an other post][1] with a huge amount of comments below each post. I'm feeling annoyed by this: or I have to clic to let them appear if I want to read them all, or I have to scroll a lot for nothing if I do not care about the comments. Is there a way to overcome this issue ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose some ways to resolve the problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - allow some posts (especially in the meta part) to be more forum-like (no comment allowed for instance). That could be something like the *Wiki community* option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a small floating on the bottom of the page link going to the next answer (for those who knows Gmail, a link like *go to the next discussion message* on Gmail)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - add a link to expand / discard *all* the comment of a given page (close to  the *comment, edit, share* buttons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or eventually all of these options ! Please tell me what you think about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4490/how-should-we-handle-how-to-find-a-reference-requests?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="680512d5-77bd-4ed7-abb5-895443ad5693" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know that most of us are &quot;paper theorists,&quot; but I think we need to remember that experimental physics is physics too!  We have several tags for experimental physics (with tag excerpts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technology](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technology)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;Use this tag for questions pertaining to the limits, management, and operation of equipment necessary to experimental physics. This tag is not intended for &quot;does this thing I heard about actually work&quot; type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;for questions about design, process, data, or analysis of experiments and observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technique](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; filling in the unspecified details of elegant-sounding descriptions of experimental methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some of us are a little quick to close questions that seem to be engineering (e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135259/how-can-i-make-a-dry-dilution-refrigerator-quiet that was closed and even downvoted--and also the cause for this Meta post). This merely begs the question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *objectively* separates **engineering** questions from **experimental physics** ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;see also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1132/experimental-technology-questions-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2948/should-how-do-i-solve-this-experimental-problem-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design (of which this might be a possible duplicate?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="9032749d-b0ec-493f-94a4-f370ca602bc9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="313a9f07-49d8-4d2f-aaa7-0c6d5f5c08f1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wasn't even aware of this situation when it happened, and I'm not sure how I personally would have voted/dealt with close votes, but consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our close reasons often overlap, and the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; consensus could probably have been phrased in terms of our engineering close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems where the solution depends on too many variables, or where the variables are not particularly constrained or even fully defined, are considered off-topic by association with engineering. The reason is, the correctness of any answer given depends sensitively on all sorts of extra information, much of it not necessarily related to any particular physics concept. For example, the scaling for how a beam deflects under a load *may* be a valid physics question, but a question that relies on the exact dimensions and material properties of some particular beam is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the problem goes beyond universally-accepted underlying physical concepts, the only way to generate any solution at all is to make a number of assumptions. Thus engineering questions are generally also off-topic as opinion-based, simply by virtue of the fact that they ask a bunch of physicists/physics enthusiasts for their opinions to fill in the blanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned elsewhere, there were plenty of downvotes and surrounding controversy. I suspect the wording of the question was such as to amplify whatever response it was going to get anyway, and as I've explained above, the response was likely to be &quot;this doesn't belong here&quot; for one reason or another. This isn't to say that a little whimsy or an attempt to connect to current events/the Zeitgeist isn't allowed (I'm certainly guilty of titling questions so as to make them more attention grabbing), but understand that this method will amplify negative reactions as much as positive and so is inherently risky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="34bc4255-1f54-4596-9667-6050fcf7a3ed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I like your idea very much. We are well aware, [for whom Phys.SE is for](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange#comment16570_715).   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've proposed a new website named [_Physics Problems_](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2) on Area51. The targeted audience is not required to be a _student_ of Physics.    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I, in no way favour to help verbatim homework questions. My sole purpose is to make a platform, where people, who do not have access of teacher or peers etc, could get help for learning Physics.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/69198.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Physics problems&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="028805c2-3206-4f40-b2fb-e58da7e3a5cd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Ask about a specific physics concept** is in bold for exactly this reason. Close reasons need to be fairly short if they're going to be useful, and accordingly the wording of the existing close reasons has been carefully tuned to say what needs to be said without using more words than necessary. In that respect, I don't think this change helps. We already have the big homework policy meta post to explain all the details of what an acceptable homework question looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not saying the existing reasons are perfect, but we did put quite a bit of thought into them - they were extensively discussed in a chat session, and then posted [for community feedback on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/chat-session-to-discuss-and-possibly-finalize-close-reasons) (and earlier, [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like)). When a few days passed without any additional comments, we decided the close reasons were good enough and implemented them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the close reasons is not something we should be doing often or on a whim; in particular, a small change like this isn't enough to justify it. If there is a _major_ omission from one of the close reasons, then we can discuss it and change it to fix that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="41e77182-a747-45a3-bdab-ce51f23046bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this is related to [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6114/the-site-toolbar-looks-broken-in-chrome-how-can-i-fix-it), but there's yet another formatting problem in Chrome. I'm seldom one to argue for doing it so it works vs. doing it right, but there needs to be some pragmatism: the number of Windows Chrome users strike me as a not-so-insignificant chunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n4XY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="5defacf5-6b7c-4b71-b13f-44094b928935" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since list questions aren't  allowed here, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics), and recieve imediate closing, even locking, and [a meta post against it](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed),  maybe such questions could be migrated to [Math Overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net), where such questions are taken well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up or down if you support this or do not.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="4c003fba-41d5-4419-9ca9-663b8f047cc4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Can we please keep it to one-resource-per-answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of the answers referenced in [our recent policy for resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) have long answers that include multiple resources, such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363/getting-started-general-relativity/376#376). While this keeps things compact in a way, it makes it difficult for people to upvote specific resources. This substantially under-uses the capabilities of our platform, which is great for good answers to float up and OK ones to stay further down in the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we make it policy that answers to resource recommendations include only one resource per answer? This involves, of course, the possibility of as many answers per user as necessary on each thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two thoughts on dealing with the consequences. First, doing this opens the door to huge reputation farming. This would make a bit of an argument for making all answers community wiki - though if you come up with multiple good books and provide good reviews of them, why should you not have some rep? Secondly, it would add some initial and long-term curatorial stress in separating multi-resource answers, but I don't think this is unreasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="2fa4f378-d56f-4890-9e23-ba577f6c6c70" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I don't point this specifically on anyone, But, err...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we had this scheme of *automated close reason* insertion, I've seen Physics.SE people suggest new users (who ask questions *vaguely* or badly or whatever) on how to ask questions here. At least, they've pointed out what's wrong with a particular question. Nowadays, I barely see such constructive comments. For example, [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74926/11062). Recently, we had a discussion on this. [And, I said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4815/#comment13410_4815)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The automated close reason is for the purpose that users don't necessarily have to add comments :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite happy that I added *&quot;necessarily&quot;* in that phrase. So, have we *really* stopped constructive commenting? I know there's no necessity that you should insert comments. But, inserting comments would help a lot. And, stopping *comments* isn't such a good idea. It'd make things worse..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="48f87339-059b-4473-8d37-4c24572489b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to echo one of John Rennie's points, but more forcefully. Really **it is not a great *question***. It hit upon a great topic, and allowed for some really great answers, but the question itself does no [prior research][1], nor does it give any indication about what direction the answers should take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's phrased like the questions at the top of [xkcd: What If][2] posts, but keep in mind the author there plenty of options and only deals with the questions that lead to the most amusing discussion. There is already filtering going on. Because *all* questions posted here first before downvotes and closevotes, our filtering process is more transparent, but that doesn't mean we're doing any more filtering than any other quality site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also note my own response *to the question*. I saw it only after it was edited for grammar, so grammar wasn't even an issue. Even after seeing the answers, I still posted a comment (which has since been nuked), saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; It's not clear what you're asking. Do you want an answer based only on theory (which the current answers are telling you is difficult and complicated), or do you want to set up an experiment? If the latter, the answer is trivial if you only have a finite number of coin types and you pre-record the sound each makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still stand by this comment. The OP has never specified if they are seeking a first-principles calculation, or if they're willing to just accept empirical data points. Perhaps the thought is &quot;if I measure just a dime and a quarter, can I infer the acoustic properties of the intermediate coins?&quot; *But this was never explicitly stated* so we can only guess at the OP's intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be tempting to jump in and expound on a familiar topic vaguely related to what the OP asked, and maybe that even leads to a great post that reveals lots of nuanced physics. But I for one won't upvote a *question* that leaves so much guesswork to the answerers. And in my experience, the vast majority of similarly vague questions do *not* get good answers. We should encourage questions to be good in and of themselves, rather than reward lucky shots in the dark ex post facto. After all, what kind of incentive structure do you want upvotes to induce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://what-if.xkcd.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="1c5f1e61-0161-407c-bf9d-951c2bb61b22" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This isn't so much a full answer as an extended comment...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the things we realized in our (incredibly long, there-goes-my-productivity-for-the-day) [chat][1] is that just about any wording we choose can be misinterpreted or at the very least mis-emphasized in the OP's mind. This is *especially* likely when the wording mentions some corner case that just doesn't apply.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't worry too much about covering *all* the corner cases anymore as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one used to have the exact same qualm about &quot;here's my work, where did I go wrong?&quot; questions - that the OP would miss the key sentence in the linked faq - and I even suggested a wording for that specific case [here][2]. While I don't advocate that being a default close reason, I copy/paste it as a custom close reason in these situations, where the OP actually does some work but in the end is using us as a computer algebra system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to find a close reason that covers everything, I've personally settled for having a couple specific alternate wordings on hand for certain cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For a contrived example: OP has a practice exam with solution set, but the solution set just has equations but no concepts. OP posts a question and the given answer and says &quot;huh?&quot; We put on hold with our standard &quot;homework must show effort&quot; clause. If the OP reads a sentence saying &quot;don't post equations and ask us to check them,&quot; it may be taken as &quot;this question would be fine but for the fact that you posted too many equations,&quot; which is not at all the message we wanted to send.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="29221021-424b-4d9c-a0c3-57298b4ed9d5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned [here][1], it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there were [some unnecessary edits][2] made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/197072/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="e7af7732-26b1-4245-8061-a0abeb6b450a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed several (&gt;~3) times over the past few months that the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework has been bumped up the front page of Meta, on separate occasions. I don't think it happens that often at all, and I'm not sure whether it's a good thing on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way to see which questions have been bumped up by this process? Is this going on at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On a related note, the [user page for Community on Meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="40843bff-c277-44e2-acb7-09f8fa1bb525" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Up/Down]vote this question if you [/Dis]agree, or voice any concerns in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="c2b7fce9-89fc-42d6-8f64-2a37813c53ef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I had 1693 rep, but when I logged on today I had only 1689 left. I went in to see if I'd gotten any downvotes. There weren't any, but I did have a *&quot;post was removed&quot;* notice - I ticked the *&quot;show removed posts&quot;* box at the bottom of the page because I've come across this before ([this][1] and [this][2] meta question helped me figure things out then, I've already done the rep recalculation trigger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that only accounts for a loss of 2 rep points and I seem to have lost 4. Is there anything else that can explain this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the amount of rep we're talking about is ludicrously small. So it's not the rep itself that bothers me, but the fact that I have no idea where it went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2845/incorrect-reputation-being-displayed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1352/user-removed-rep-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="594dba2d-e6c3-4e49-ac30-3959fa30bfc6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Everything is very conveniently hidden behind the Moderator Agreement. I Understand that there are Privacy Issues, especially In cases where there is use of abusive language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While precise details of the Suspension need not be disclosed, I think even a line offering the basic reason is necessary so that the community can know exactly why, Such as &quot;Use of abusive language&quot; or &quot;Intentional and repeated spamming&quot; or &quot;Unfounded Allegations against Moderators&quot; or whatever the reason is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [post][1] Which asks for a lot more to be disclosed. But I only ask for a one line reason available to the Public, Especially if you are Imposing 6 Month - 1 Year suspensions to users who are otherwise friendly atleast to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4241/change-of-policy-make-reasons-for-suspensions-public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="98f196ce-174e-4c0e-b1b3-1c6a82b612dc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="f24ef658-7f80-45d7-a969-9981538a7f58" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just noticed the question on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics which you have probably seen if you're reading this. It's attracted a lot of positive attention, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any reason it should be an appropriate question for the site. Consider these excerpts from the [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is not based on an actual problem, but it is open-ended pretty much by definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question hits all three of these points on the nose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one doesn't, it's just assembling a list without any specific prompt for information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naming a breakthrough is not a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As detailed [elsewhere on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi), questions with these attributes fail to increase the quality of the site at best, and actively pollute it at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have an [active discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list) (in a long-term sense) on list questions, but even looking at the suggestions made in that question and answers, nothing seems to allow an all-encompassing list of breakthroughs. A common opinion is that list questions of limited scope are likely to be okay, but this is absolutely not one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question, primarily to people who upvoted or reopen-voted the &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question: in doing so, it seems that you're suggesting we ignore fully half a page of the help center _and_ an emerging consensus on list questions from this site itself. **Why?** What are your arguments that these policies don't apply to this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="85705775-0b53-4714-9fd9-c42817d4fc00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; (On a related note, the user page for Community on Meta states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true - with the caveat that it doesn't bump if there's nothing to bump. If there's only 1 question on the site that meets the criteria for bumping, then Community will bump it and *touch nothing else* for the next 30 days until it becomes eligible again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [as Qmechanic notes][1], it rather appears that this is the only question that's been eligible for some time... And now even it isn't eligible anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community/6277#6277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="e7e9ece3-8973-495d-9991-2534973669d5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current tag wiki for the [tag:books] - now [tag:resource-recommendation] - tag includes, in its final paragraph, the request that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you question is about [tag:resource-recommendations], please add your question to [the book list][1] as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just gave that tag wiki a make-over to bring it in line with the [new books policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/), and I erased that paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think the [books list question][1] is not a good [tag:resource-recommendation] question as per the new policy.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't see that much value in having the question as opposed to simply [looking for questions with that tag](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - It adds to the curatorial load in dealing with new questions and adds a big backlog to go over.&#xD;&#xA; - It is unreasonable to expect of every asker of resource recommendation questions to edit their question into the big list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two things that come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the [books list question][1] on topic now?&#xD;&#xA; - If so, should we link to it from the tag wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="ec953be2-035f-4906-9e8c-8b4b9d61fd89" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A quick glance at the question page or the front page shows more upvoted than downvoted posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has high standards for questions (and answers) but my observation is that most users are hesitant to use downvotes, with one expception. The exception is posts that violate the [homework policy][1]. Especially second and subsequent posts by the same user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that this site is of and by physicists&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and while we welcome beginners to our group, we expect them to be willing to take part *as* physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem, to have gotten a mistaken impression of what we do here and what the site is for. Perhaps just observing for a few days might make things a little more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Some professionals, some future professionals and some plain old amateurs, but all physicsist or putting on a convincing impression thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="3f442c52-5803-42e7-b452-90f9938b6297" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since list questions aren't  allowed here, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics), and recieve imediate closing, even locking, and [a meta post against it](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed),  maybe such questions could be migrated to [Math Overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net), where such questions are taken well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up or down if you support this or do not.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="d1359524-d723-488b-8baf-ab6200a23c62" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There has been a trend lately of old meta posts brought up to the front page because of retagging or other minor edits. While this happens all the time on the main site and is OK and encouraged in mild doses, the situation in meta is somewhat different. Meta is _very_ slow compared to the main site, by a factor of about 50. (It takes ~7 hours for an inactive post to slide down the main but ~2 weeks in meta.) I would therefore like to bring this up here. If we're OK with this, then we're OK, but if we're not then we need a policy to stick to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that bringing an old post to the front page gives the impression that the discussion is still active, and this can be very confusing. Old support posts like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/579/why-do-i-still-see-the-beta-css) become meaningless when a tide of changes completely washes over the issue. Old policy discussions (which I won't link to) do not gain anything from the extra attention, and we have seen this have tragic consequences for certain questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, though, I think there's no real reason to be fiddling with the tags on old discussions. They are in the archive and can be found easily enough. They often discuss quite topical issues for the specific time they were asked in and now have only historical value. (A lot of it in some cases.) They do not belong on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me take a stance, then, so people can up/down-vote. **Please keep edits of old meta posts to a minimum.** Use retag edits on them only when they would be impossible to find otherwise. If you feel a certain discussion should be revived, then **give an alternative answer**, or better yet **ask a new question** that's appropriate for the site's current conditions. If you don't have anything to add to such a thread, then maybe it's in the cold archives for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tags deserve special attention. The meta tags [meta-tag:status-declined], [meta-tag:status-completed] and [meta-tag:status-bydesign] can only be applied by moderators. If you feel a question needs one of these tags and doesn't have it, **flag a moderator** and tell them that, instead of inventing new tags for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="9c8d1f01-bdc9-4ced-97c4-cac937f0885e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's not possible to change the flag/VTC reasons, other than the few custom reasons that appear under &quot;off topic&quot; (and that's only for questions). I mean, it would be _technically_ possible, but the feature doesn't exist in the SE system. So I think we can safely conclude that adding a custom flag reason to catch non-mainstream answers won't happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an [FAQ post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) specifying that non-mainstream answers should be deleted, so if you see one, you can just flag it. According to our [guidance on flag use](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6374/124), a custom flag for moderator attention is the one to use for a non-mainstream answer that legitimately attempts to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can happen that a person posts an answer which promotes a non-mainstream theory but is utterly and _obviously_ unrelated to the question, and in those cases flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I don't like the idea of deleting non-mainstream answers; I don't think there's a clear line between &quot;non-mainstream&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot;, and the latter is definitely supposed to just be downvoted. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the reason you can't carry over the reasoning from questions (&quot;we have a non-mainstream close reason, why not delete non-mainstream answers?&quot;) is that, first of all, answers are not questions. They fill different roles in the site and there's no reason to expect the same sets of rules to apply to both. Beyond that, our non-mainstream close reason is mostly meant to curtail a specific kind of request: that where someone posts their pet theory that is going to overthrow relativity (or whatever) and challenges us to find something wrong with it. Requests like this are a drain on the attention of professional physicists and grad students (check your spam folder :-p), and we don't want to entertain them on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="438651dd-ee47-4a3c-9827-217b149ec0f6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I check [this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review), it says that there' is a suggested edit queue. But aren't suggested edits disallowed on meta? Where did this come from? Is it outdated?. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="37c4c62a-2024-42cb-83c0-a80511b66114" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized this, one of the other reasons the HW policy was put up in the start was that users did not want this site to be seen as a place where you can get your homework done for you&quot; (which accounts for the tag confusion as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are people still concerned about this?&#xD;&#xA; - Will allowing low effort grad level hw affect this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="fc944a64-c6d3-4322-975c-6d74a2537a53" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; &quot;...Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **that answer has so far scored just a single upvote**.... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the **most upvotes are going to be the simple ones** that everyone can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... **Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't attract as much attention** as the more obvious ones (people just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics SE... &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very fond of John Rennie, and I have expressed my great esteem for him in many occasions. He his the first figure one comes to know and appreciate, as soon as one joins this site. He is not so active now, but, when I joined in Summer, I could see at 8 o'clock sharp a whole string of excellent, clear and interesting answers in impeccable British English, signed by a photo of a distinguished figure that reminded me of a XIX century Squire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot avoid to poind out how this post of his is a contradiction of the position he held when I first exposed [**this problem**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear) and when I offered [**a solution**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6180/answers-should-be-rated-a-suggestion-to-the-team/6184#6184). My posts where heavily downvoted, and probably he too downvoted them, now his post has 10 upvotes, so far. Congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be simple and effective to _put a rep cap to questions (and answers) bearing the tag 'everyday-life'_, why don't you propose or just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion was more far-reaching than this. It would give a solution to all the other problems, including the one *dmckee* was hinting to here, of [**cliques**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6279/precise-directives-re-flagging/6281#6281), fans, followers and supporters (sometime: worshippers). There are some members that get **anyway** dozens of votes, **no matter they write**, even if they _do not answer the OP question_ , or just write simple answers for which another member would get (at most) a couple of votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to give you one of the hundreds of examples [**this simple answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148656/why-dont-stars-have-keplerian-orbits/148670#148670) has got only 30 words (made to look longer repeating the question and adding the tag: the answer is simple), is not the first and is not better that the others, yet, it fetches 22 votes *(almost one-word-one-vote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, I must ask John: why don't you do something in concrete, instead of _moaning_ :) , to back up my proposal that **answers should be rated**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The key word being thrill**... the end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to writing some truly fantastic answers. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I think the current reputation system is very, very good.**.. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; start making changes .. I fear you will start demotivating exactly the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sort of people who make this site such as a success.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments, let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **comprehensively disagree** with the views expressed in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes **I'm a bit frustrated** that what I consider my better answers don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _thrill of easy rep_ is compensated by the _frustration_ of seeing one's merit not appreciated. That's life, John, you can't have it both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: This time **it'll be amusing** to see how the *farcical carousel* of downvoting/upvoting will develop, since I have only quoted *verbatim* John's statements. I couldn't possible attribute a downvote to me, as I just recorded a contradiction, or I hope, a change of opinion, which I welcome! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="1b6a290e-e2b3-46a1-8eda-8179ca2116d7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned [here][1], it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there were [some unnecessary edits][2] made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/197072/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="84558cb8-a7b6-45c7-a3fa-1cbde5aef73f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Check my work&quot; type questions should **remain off topic** for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They do not ask for clarification of *physics concepts*, they ask for clarification on the *mathematical solution* to a *particular* problem&#xD;&#xA; - In the [&quot;How do I as homework question&quot; post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/25301), it states that Physics.StackExchange&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The question will likely only help the original poster and not future visitors to the site&#xD;&#xA; - This is likely *more* true for the more advanced topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is likely that some of these &quot;Check my work&quot; questions can be reformulated to be an on-topic question, e.g. reworded so as to fit the [&quot;*I was working on X and didn't understand why Y isn't the case*&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5963/25301) criterion. However, note that changing the question ourselves would constitute a [drastic change](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6012/25301) in the intent/meaning of the question, which should be left for the OP to do. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="793a245e-459c-4acc-986b-a7fdc56a8765" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] if I stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4951/). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. During this discussion Manishearth told me that my question broke no rules and so (on this basis) i refused to change the title of my question. However then one of the moderators (Shog9; who, as I just knew, is also a stack exchange employee) came and deleted all the comments also changed the title and main body of my question. I further added a comment that the changed title was not what i asked, to which he only replied after two days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators/stack employees follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth in his answer below says that there are no rules which, if true, is ridiculous because you can never question the action of a moderator even if s/he deletes some comment which is very useful to the discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="a5a16e00-3dd3-467a-809c-14968d1d1fd3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Everything is very conveniently hidden behind the Moderator Agreement. I Understand that there are Privacy Issues, especially In cases where there is use of abusive language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While precise details of the Suspension need not be disclosed, I think even a line offering the basic reason is necessary so that the community can know exactly why, Such as &quot;Use of abusive language&quot; or &quot;Intentional and repeated spamming&quot; or &quot;Unfounded Allegations against Moderators&quot; or whatever the reason is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [post][1] Which asks for a lot more to be disclosed. But I only ask for a one line reason available to the Public, Especially if you are Imposing 6 Month - 1 Year suspensions to users who are otherwise friendly atleast to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4241/change-of-policy-make-reasons-for-suspensions-public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="aab247d6-822d-437a-9225-b9820bb2f1a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Regarding your closed / downvoted questions, have a look at the banner below them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It links to [this meta post][2], which explains why the question is off topic in great detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the banner was put there is that closevoters need not explain themselves every time they see a homework question. If the post is closed with a banner, you are expected to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting is for the post, not the user. Don't take downvotes personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the title edit, you're addressing a rather different issue than the one in the post, so the title was edited. There's nothing political here, the question was closed according to established policy. Talking about politicalness would spark unnecessary side discussions and derail the main point, so it was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D8i4e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="442ae97b-8156-485e-a761-ef5862c73a6b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Doing this would open up a huge can of worms: suddenly, there's an arbitrary threshold for &quot;activity&quot; that divides posts being worked on. Yes, it's easy to come up with individual changes that most folks probably agree don't warrant much oversight, but applying such simple rules broadly can have disastrous results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's examine retagging, since that seems to be the primary focus here: it's true, most tag edits are fairly uninteresting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Unless you happen to be following the tag that was added...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or the tag that was removed...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or someone decides that [tag:quantum-mechanics] is used too carelessly, and replaces it with [tag:fake-quantum-mechanics] on all the questions they don't care for...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or decides that their profile page is too hard for their fans to find, and adds [tag:shog-answered-this] to all the questions they've answered...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren't hypothetical examples; folks make bad tag edits all the time. Heck, y'all have been arguing over [certain tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag) fairly regularly here - kinda hard to read that and then come back and claim tag-edits are *guaranteed* to be minor or unworthy of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once you start trying to decide whether or not a *body edit* is major or minor, it just gets worse - *particularly* if you hope to base your decision on something as simple as the *number of characters changed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;active&quot; lists have one purpose: to show questions that have had recent activity (or more precisely, to order questions according to their last activity date). There are other filters and sort orders available, and we've been working on better ones for some time now - [try this one out](http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=interesting). We even have plans to replace the rather unhelpful &quot;modified&quot; indicator with something slightly more descriptive. So let's not make things more confusing than they need to be by changing the self-descriptive &quot;active&quot; to &quot;active enough for *someone's* taste&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="3902acaf-547e-4e9b-8737-703fa31f7c61" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no private message facility and the team has regularly and robustly turned down all such suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get another user's attention by [tagging them in the comments][1] (though they need to have participated in the discussion or editing of a post for that to work), and you can (with [sufficient rep][2]) open a chat room for holding a conversation. That last suggestion isn't private in the sense that others are excluded but you probably won't have a lot of people poking their noses in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra is &quot;This is not a social network!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some Physics SE user find this to be insufficiently friendly and have responded with the meta.physics most [&quot;Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions&quot;][3] where you are explicitly invited to ping them in order to direct their attention to other posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat-rooms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1159/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="421181f0-6098-4aaa-b374-f7e156dc16c3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There has been a trend lately of old meta posts brought up to the front page because of retagging or other minor edits. While this happens all the time on the main site and is OK and encouraged in mild doses, the situation in meta is somewhat different. Meta is _very_ slow compared to the main site, by a factor of about 50. (It takes ~7 hours for an inactive post to slide down the main but ~2 weeks in meta.) I would therefore like to bring this up here. If we're OK with this, then we're OK, but if we're not then we need a policy to stick to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that bringing an old post to the front page gives the impression that the discussion is still active, and this can be very confusing. Old support posts like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/579/why-do-i-still-see-the-beta-css) become meaningless when a tide of changes completely washes over the issue. Old policy discussions (which I won't link to) do not gain anything from the extra attention, and we have seen this have tragic consequences for certain questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, though, I think there's no real reason to be fiddling with the tags on old discussions. They are in the archive and can be found easily enough. They often discuss quite topical issues for the specific time they were asked in and now have only historical value. (A lot of it in some cases.) They do not belong on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me take a stance, then, so people can up/down-vote. **Please keep edits of old meta posts to a minimum.** Use retag edits on them only when they would be impossible to find otherwise. If you feel a certain discussion should be revived, then **give an alternative answer**, or better yet **ask a new question** that's appropriate for the site's current conditions. If you don't have anything to add to such a thread, then maybe it's in the cold archives for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tags deserve special attention. The meta tags [meta-tag:status-declined], [meta-tag:status-completed] and [meta-tag:status-bydesign] can only be applied by moderators. If you feel a question needs one of these tags and doesn't have it, **flag a moderator** and tell them that, instead of inventing new tags for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="fc027bf0-34ea-4951-a23b-42fd12c57041" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. A direct link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/) of the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. From _any_ page on the [physics main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) or the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/), single-click on the word 'StackExchange' in the upper left corner of the page. A menu should open. A click on the word 'chat' near the top of the menu brings you to [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/). Continue with item 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oG882.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="11126b34-3b2c-4814-80f5-88f13a8c5795" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are multiple criteria for a homework-like question to be acceptable here, as detailed in [our policy][1]. In no particular order three of the most important criteria (the ones I feel are most often not met) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Show some **effort**. Don't just dump your work in our laps for us to do.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Ask about something **specific**. There are many issues that can arise in trying to solve a problem, and we can't read your mind to see what you do and don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Ask about a physical **concept**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point is where your question fails. Lately we've seen a lot of this, where users focus on my point (1), showing a whole lot of effort, and forget about point (3). It's unfortunate, because when you put that much work into something it naturally feels like you deserve an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But alas, **we are not a homework help service**. In particular, as the policy notes right in the summary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking about sign errors (like your question) or missing factors of 2 are the paradigmatic examples of things we don't allow, since ultimately they are just about a symbol manipulation mistake rather than something *physical*. It's not just about effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can try to turn the question into something that is acceptable. There are conceptual physical questions related to what you asked, for example, &quot;Can the moment of inertia be negative?&quot; My general suggestion for questions of this type is to go through the steps, try to figure out the boundary where &quot;everything before this is definitely right, and everything after this has something wrong&quot; and see if you can ask something along the lines of &quot;I thought this quantity was calculated this way, but that conflicts with my feeling that the quantity should be positive, so is my intuition right?&quot; for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community feels a revised version of the question no longer conflicts with our policies, they will reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="5272aacb-ed62-470f-8ebf-336e9ac9c2bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags?rq=1 and https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4732/redundant-tags-ii, Redundant tags III is about tags about specific objects, meaningless to tag a question with .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:graphene]  [tag:air] [tag:water]  [tag:earthquake]      [tag:nebulae]      [tag:asteroids]   [tag:aircraft]   [tag:gauss-law] (this is the *only* maxwell equation tag we have. This is the closest redundant tags                                                                I could post     put this on .    )                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="a3969dbf-c08c-40e3-a277-c5e0725103a1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question is definitely close-able under the rubric of &quot;Unclear what you are asking,&quot; in addition to &quot;too open-ended.&quot; In the comments to that question, Ben Crowell points to a [meta question] he posed about this exact sort of thing: a link to a video, followed by the question, &quot;What's wrong with this?&quot; That's not really an answerable question, because there simply isn't enough information provided to determine what is bothering the OP about Crothers's ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Manishearth says, it's asking for a mainstream analysis of Crothers's ideas, so it could be salvaged by focusing on a specific aspect of Crothers's argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, there is the problem of some possible dishonesty of the OP of that question. In one comment, they imply that they are &quot;just a layman,&quot; but later claims to have read Schwarschild's original paper and seems to know a lot about the history of GR. To me, that discrepency is a big red flag that suggest that the OP isn't really askingthe question in good faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta question]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/how-to-deal-with-low-quality-questions-based-on-videos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="6b9c4164-d3e8-488d-b1d5-2761ac16891e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] if I stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4951/). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. During this discussion Manishearth told me that my question broke no rules and so (on this basis) i refused to change the title of my question. However then one of the moderators (Shog9; who, as I just knew, is also a stack exchange employee) came and deleted all the comments also changed the title and main body of my question. I further added a comment that the changed title was not what i asked, to which he only replied after two days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators/stack employees follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth in his answer below says that there are no rules which, if true, is ridiculous because you can never question the action of a moderator even if s/he deletes some comment which is very useful to the discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="713b7e9a-b87f-4927-a965-96ee9c357cdd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I like your idea very much. We are well aware, [for whom Phys.SE is for](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange#comment16570_715).   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've proposed a new website named [_Physics Problems_](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2) on Area51. The targeted audience is not required to be a _student_ of Physics.    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I, in no way favour to help verbatim homework questions. My sole purpose is to make a platform, where people, who do not have access of teacher or peers etc, could get help for learning Physics.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/69198/physics-problems?referrer=jpFTJqd3z6Dqi4sXlAyGiw2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/69198.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Physics problems&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="1e528149-415b-4808-82e4-aae2751f8df3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me expand upon the argument that I first put forth in the comments on that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the homework policy applies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) specifies what sorts of questions it applies to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentionally somewhat vague; it speaks to the intent behind the policy (see below for more on this intent) rather than giving an objective procedure for determining whether a question is homework-like, because frankly, we haven't been able to come up with such a procedure. In practice we rely on our high-reputation members' intuition for how homework questions are written to determine which questions it should apply to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the relevant part of the question we're discussing reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W needed 10 minutes to boil water when it is half filled with water in Singapore where the output voltage is 220V. Estimate the amount of time needed to do the same task if the kettle was brought to the USA where the output voltage is 110V. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope we all agree that this question _does_ satisfy the criterion presented in the first sentence of the policy, and thus that the homework policy is applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the question was closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part of the homework policy for this point is this (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and **ask about that specifically**. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let me quote again the core question from the post being discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's quite clear that this core question, considered in isolation, is not about a conceptual issue that was encountered while trying to solve the problem, it's asking for a complete explanation of the solution. But of course there was more in the post than just that core question and the quotation of the homework problem. Between them is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My answer to this question is Option 3 (20 minutes) because I thought that since output voltage is the USA is 2 times less than that of Singapore, it would take twice as long to do the same task of boiling water half filled. However, the answer key was Option 4 (40 minutes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this part does not actually _ask_ anything, nor does it modify what the core question is about. Accordingly it doesn't change the fact that the question is asking for a complete solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; P.S. I don't quite understand what it is meant by &quot; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W&quot; ??? I get that 2000W means the kettle uses 2000J/s and V means work done by kettle/charge. But what is the difference between the 2 (power and charge of the kettle)? And how does the V of kettle differ from output voltage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I don't believe is relevant for two reasons: first of all, it shouldn't be possible to sneak a request for a complete solution through by also asking something else in the same question. To implement that, posts which primarily ask for a complete solution but include some other supplementary questions should still be closed. Besides, &quot;P.S.&quot; explicitly indicates that the following material is not the main focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding these two points,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) the OP attempted the question and got it wrong (2) the OP has the answer key and posted the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say again that the homework policy requires an asker to narrow down their question to the specific conceptual issue that is giving them trouble. Both points (1) and (2) are true but they do not change the fact that the OP in this case is not asking about a specific conceptual issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the answer was deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply, this excerpt from the homework policy covers it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I maintain that the answer which I deleted gives away a near-complete solution, in that it explains how one would derive the given answer of 40 seconds. Yes, it does identify that the question is a poor one, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer gives away a near-complete solution. (For now I'm refraining from posting that near-complete solution here, but if it becomes important I'll edit it in.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is the intent of the homework policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above discussion has addressed why (I think) the question should be closed and the answer deleted under the _letter_ of the homework policy, but not under its _spirit_. In particular, let's consider the argument that, regardless of what the HW policy actually says, its intent is to prevent cheating and a complete answer isn't conducive to cheating in this case. I don't agree, for two reasons. First, because the value of the problem lies in the OP working through it step by step, doing as much of it as possible, so as to learn the method. By giving away a complete explanation of how the answer is achieved, we rob the OP of that value. And second, because any time we provide a complete or near-complete answer to a homework-like question, it pushes our site's reputation a tiny bit toward that of a place where people can come and get their homework problems explained to them. We don't want that. This is supposed to be a site primarily geared toward physics research and applications, not a homework help site. And we already get too many homework-like questions despite _not_ having the reputation of a site that welcomes them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is expressed in other words in the following quote from a Math Meta post, which is also quoted in our homework policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest, and if a solution complete enough to be copied verbatim and handed in is given immediately, it will encourage more people to use the site as a free homework service. In the spirit of creating a lasting resource of mathematical knowledge, you may come back after a suitable amount of time and edit your response to include a more complete answer. Or even better, the student can post his own correct answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="2a3b44b9-1a12-4d09-a3a8-f06b9ec37ecd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that many users find the  homework tag &quot;demeaning&quot;, e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving] or [tag:homework-like] as suggested by David Z), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning,&quot; despite the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me emphasize that I'm _not_ here suggesting to change the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) for homework-like questions, nor whether or not we should have a tag for homework-like questions. The scope and policy have been discussed in several other meta questions. Here I'm only asking whether we should change the _name_ of the tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4742" RevisionGUID="de8ae40e-248b-419a-9120-84fd97479c5e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I generally agree with [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/45/2751) answer and the idea, that the tags we have should denote subfields of physics or meaningful keywords as applied by physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But tags just denoting thermodynamic or kinematic variables, basic quantities used in certain subfields, etc look to me not meaningful enough to categorize qustions. In addition, creating such tags for every thermodynamic and kinematic variable or for every basic quantity applied in any subfield would largely inflate the number of tags we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the particular tags listed here, it seems to me that the thermodynamic variables are already covered by [tag:thermodynmaics], the kinematic variables by [tag:kinematics], capacitance by [tag:electrostatics], etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="311daec6-7109-49f3-b819-8dd3c4462d2b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is an offshoot of Ben Crowell's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists, and I'm asking it separately to help avoid multi-threaded comment discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in [a comment of dmckee](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14673_5102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't think that we (that is the mods) *should* be in the business of closing a lot of questions with our super-powers anymore. There are enough 3k users (81) that they *should* be able to carry the bulk of the load. My impression, however, is that a relatively small fraction of the eligible users apply their power with any regularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in that thread, I think this is a specific enough question that we can find the relevant statistics to give an answer to it. I must add that I agree with dmckee's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific question: Is it possible to confirm this statement from publicly available data, hopefully through the data explorer? If so, what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To kick off the discussion, and to answer [Manishearth's comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14703_5102), I think the relevant tables to look at are not the per-question close-votes, but the publicly available per-user [log of the review activity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so it looks we may need to ask the dev team for these statistics. In this case, **what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?** I'll make a proposal shortly but please try and think of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="b14f09ba-5b3b-4e2b-85fe-8e9b166f56fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up post on John Rennie's topic https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6303/, and [my answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6352/24142) therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been wondering if it is possible to implement an additional reputation score that rewards high-quality answers more than basic answers. I have such a proposal, and I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is as follows: the standard reputation system treats every vote the same: each vote counts as 10 points. That's all very nice and democratic, but it doesn't reflect the quality of an answer; the score depends heavily on the popularity of the question. But perhaps we can also give answers a *weighted* vote, such that the score you get not only depends on how many votes you received, but also on *who* has given the upvotes. In particular, a vote from a high-rep user will give you a higher score than a vote from a low-rep user. Now, I'm not in favour of having this 'quality score' displayed on every individual answer, because that might influence other voters. Instead, I'd prefer for each user to have an 'overall quality score', calculated from all their received votes combined, updated once a day, and displayed next to their total reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics. So they will likely also read and vote on these more advanced subjects. Therefore, while these topics attract less votes, those votes are more likely to come from high-rep users (though not always; there are also specialists who have not built up a high reputation. No system is perfect). On the other hand, more basic questions will attract more casual users with lower reputations. Also, high-rep users have more experience with the site, and will more often recognize and appreciate a high-quality answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next problem is then to decide how the votes should be weighted. There are of course a lot of possible ways, so I'll just give a simple example. Consider the following distribution: The horizontal axis has all the users who have voted at least once, sorted according to their reputation, from highest to lowest. The vertical axis has the total amount of upvotes given by each user. Then divide this distribution into 9 areas, representing 9 user groups, such that the total amount of votes that each group has given is roughly the same (some rounding off is needed so that each user falls into one group). The upvotes of the group of highest-rep users are worth a score of 18; the votes of users of group 2 are worth a score of 16; the votes of users in groups 3 to 9 are worth 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2, respectively. In this manner, the average score of all the votes of the entire site will be 10 (rounded off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you get an upvote from someone in group 1 (the top users), you get 18 points. If you get an upvote from someone in group 9 (the lowest-rep users), you get 2 points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can refine this system further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign an additional quality score to a received bounty;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign a higher quality score to votes from people who have posted an answer to the same question. After all, a vote from a 'competitor' is an acknowledgement that your answer is of high quality;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvotes can also be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any interest in this feature? Is it worth doing? Is it actually doable? Do you have alternative ideas? I look forward to your feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="e830e275-17b9-40b9-b120-a251b30d2ce3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to echo one of John Rennie's points, but more forcefully. Really **it is not a great *question***. It hit upon a great topic, and allowed for some really great answers, but the question itself does no [prior research][1], nor does it give any indication about what direction the answers should take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's phrased like the questions at the top of [xkcd: What If][2] posts, but keep in mind the author there plenty of options and only deals with the questions that lead to the most amusing discussion. There is already filtering going on. Because *all* questions posted here first before downvotes and closevotes, our filtering process is more transparent, but that doesn't mean we're doing any more filtering than any other quality site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also note my own response *to the question*. I saw it only after it was edited for grammar, so grammar wasn't even an issue. Even after seeing the answers, I still posted a comment (which has since been nuked), saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; It's not clear what you're asking. Do you want an answer based only on theory (which the current answers are telling you is difficult and complicated), or do you want to set up an experiment? If the latter, the answer is trivial if you only have a finite number of coin types and you pre-record the sound each makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still stand by this comment. The OP has never specified if they are seeking a first-principles calculation, or if they're willing to just accept empirical data points. Perhaps the thought is &quot;if I measure just a dime and a quarter, can I infer the acoustic properties of the intermediate coins?&quot; *But this was never explicitly stated* so we can only guess at the OP's intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be tempting to jump in and expound on a familiar topic vaguely related to what the OP asked, and maybe that even leads to a great post that reveals lots of nuanced physics. But I for one won't upvote a *question* that leaves so much guesswork to the answerers. And in my experience, the vast majority of similarly vague questions do *not* get good answers. We should encourage questions to be good in and of themselves, rather than reward lucky shots in the dark ex post facto. After all, what kind of incentive structure do you want upvotes to induce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://what-if.xkcd.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="e740da1c-7181-4a53-a197-dad110a50fff" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag, Shog9's (rather reasonable, in my opinion) was accepted.    So here, I think we should  standardise the definition of [tag:popular-science]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the answers are technical, but the question was phrased in a pop-sci way,  should it be tagged as popular science?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the questioner asks for something evidently beyond their level (assuming they're a layman),    should it be tagged  a pop-sci? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the question arose from a pop-sci text, e.g. one of Kaku's pop-sci books, but asks for a technical   answer (e.g. Kaku says that it's possible to find the probability of X happening but as it was in the context of a pop-sci book, so he didn't elaborate any further. How is that done?&quot; , should it be tagged as pop-sci?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are      questions about, say, &quot;Which is the fastest  way to cool a beaker of water?&quot; to be tagged as pop-sci?     Or is it just stuff like &quot;How  can a graviton escape a black hole?&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the comments:*      &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;These are just suggestions - the intent is for people to suggest a good definition in the answers, the community votes on these answers, and the most upvoted one after a reasonable amount of time has past will be the one we apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever definition you come up with **needs to be objective**. Otherwise we're back where we've started on the tag. &quot;Question was phrased in a pop sci way&quot; is ambiguous.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="fd428384-29d0-4ee5-a293-1ef48de8ae20" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The dawn of a new year, 2015, now approaches, or has already approached, either way it means that it is now time to reset our Community Promotion Ads!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/6388" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="c571df09-ae29-4baf-a13d-a0c5418ec9ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know that most of us are &quot;paper theorists,&quot; but I think we need to remember that experimental physics is physics too!  We have several tags for experimental physics (with tag excerpts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technology](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technology)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;Use this tag for questions pertaining to the limits, management, and operation of equipment necessary to experimental physics. This tag is not intended for &quot;does this thing I heard about actually work&quot; type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;for questions about design, process, data, or analysis of experiments and observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technique](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; filling in the unspecified details of elegant-sounding descriptions of experimental methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some of us are a little quick to close questions that seem to be engineering (e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135259/how-can-i-make-a-dry-dilution-refrigerator-quiet that was closed and even downvoted--and also the cause for this Meta post). This merely begs the question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *objectively* separates **engineering** questions from **experimental physics** ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;see also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1132/experimental-technology-questions-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2948/should-how-do-i-solve-this-experimental-problem-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design (of which this might be a possible duplicate?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="e899ebb7-4436-40e4-8124-86570696fd7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested by Natheniel in   https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i,    I'll make a single question and let people vote on the answers (containing redundant tags to burninate.).               " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="bdbc1472-b886-4f56-8e22-dc8022bfc111" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just stumbled on [this fantastic list of magic shortcuts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/94000/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Supported magic links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[meta]` &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[main]` &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[edit]` &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ... ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[ask]`, `[answer]` &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[something.se]` &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use `[ubuntu.se]` for Ask Ubuntu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Except for `[chat]` and `[edit]`, and with the addition of `[chat-faq]`, these also work in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# **Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to [Homework Policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/)?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="655334f6-5bce-4c2b-9dd6-b60019f4f1a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="11ce8b17-6397-47e8-b21e-909eda69bd15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We talked about it briefly in chat about starting a Topic of the Week event, akin to what is done at [Astronomy][1] and [Space][2] SE. I had proposed something similar [here][3] previously based on what was done at other SE sites discussed therein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how about we look at a just-for-fun Topic (or Tag) of the Week? Here's some of the things that would need to be decided/fleshed out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How long does each topic run?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the precedent is a week. But sometimes it takes longer to come up with really good questions or answers about highly technical aspects. Maybe two weeks would be better, but then we run the risk of getting tired of the topic in the middle. So I propose a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What's the point?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are three goals this serves. First, it promotes the asking and answering of questions the community deems interesting. Tired of [tag:newtonian-mechanics]? Suggest something else you are interested in and get some questions and answers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it could be used to attract higher-level participants. If there are things experienced members would like to focus on, decide and participate accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, it's something fun to do and will get many people outside of their comfort zones. I don't know anything about most of the tags here, but I would be encouraged to do some digging and ask a question about them if I knew it would get answered by people who know about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How are topics/tags chosen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the preceding month, a question will be posted here on meta to take nominations for the 4 topics of the next month. Each nomination should be it's own answer and ideally should contain at least one sample question already on the site pertaining to it. The 4 answers with the highest votes at the close of the voting period will be chosen -- let's say the voting period is 3 weeks. If topics should fit in a particular week of the next month, that should be noted; for instance, if a big announcement from CERN will be made in the first week of December, it might be good to put the [tag:particle-physics] topic during that week or the week after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the timeline look like? Assuming we get started soon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 1 - Nov 23**: Topic proposal and voting period for December's topics.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 23**: December's topic proposal question locked.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 27**: Topic schedule for December released&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1**: First topic week begins&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1 - Dec 20**: Topic proposal and voting period for January's topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What constitutes a community decision?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Highest voted topics get chosen. Well, let's say the highest of the 0-or-greater votes. If all the topics are positive and there's a tie, the mods will split the tie up and feel free to nominate again for the next month. If all the topics are at 0 then there is no interest in continuing and we give up. If we can't get 4 positively voted topics, we give up. If all topics are negative, we give up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we can only do what the cross-section of community here tells us to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, tags that you find interesting. The second goal may be to propose tags in which there is relatively low participation as a means to promote questions and answers in that topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should not be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Under no circumstances should a meta-type tag be nominated! So no [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], or [tag:popular-science]. Whatever tag is nominated could have questions from all three of those categories asked during that time, so let's not limit the level of the question, just the scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would avoid overly broad and overly specific tags as well. Something like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] is very broad and there's already a lot of questions on it so it probably doesn't need to be made a topic (although this is a guideline, not a rule so it could be -- the community will decide whether to use it or not). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why should I participate?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No seriously, why not? Do you know everything conceivable in your field? Do you know everything about every other field? Why not take the chance to read about something new or dig a little deeper into something old? Why not use the site as it's intended -- to pose questions you would like answered, or to answer questions you have the knowledge to answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/123/topic-of-the-week-cmb-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/questions/373/topic-of-the-week-colonization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/topic-of-the-week-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="a3e47bf6-671e-446f-8e4b-e9004c06ff33" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a [comment directly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015#comment22500_6399) under your post from Qmechanic that states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the [related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) and [its chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17799/discussion-on-question-by-deer-hunter-what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-lin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, you were asked to use the two linked resources to discuss anything, rather than the Community Ads thread, and you ignored that message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that comments are considered &quot;second class&quot; citizens and can be deleted without approval/consent of the posted user. You can read more [about it here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/914/25301).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, questions involving Physics Overflow quickly degrade into [&quot;not so nice&quot;](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) comment threads. Qmechanic's comment was a warning to *prevent* such a new thread from occurring by diverting people to a channel where it is more appropriate (i.e., chat). As an aside, the Meta post gives some information about Physics Overflow written by one of their founders, who also wrote the MathOverflow post you wanted to link.  &#xD;&#xA;None of the other posted Ads recommend such a controversial topic, so no similar warnings are necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="314dde9d-6053-4d34-bf1f-cd5836f386c8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question is definitely close-able under the rubric of &quot;Unclear what you are asking,&quot; in addition to &quot;too open-ended.&quot; In the comments to that question, Ben Crowell points to a [meta question] he posed about this exact sort of thing: a link to a video, followed by the question, &quot;What's wrong with this?&quot; That's not really an answerable question, because there simply isn't enough information provided to determine what is bothering the OP about Crothers's ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Manishearth says, it's asking for a mainstream analysis of Crothers's ideas, so it could be salvaged by focusing on a specific aspect of Crothers's argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, there is the problem of some possible dishonesty of the OP of that question. In one comment, they imply that they are &quot;just a layman,&quot; but later claims to have read Schwarschild's original paper and seems to know a lot about the history of GR. To me, that discrepency is a big red flag that suggest that the OP isn't really askingthe question in good faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta question]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/how-to-deal-with-low-quality-questions-based-on-videos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="576c5e1c-18b4-4f97-985e-67ffebcd880f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Check my work&quot; type questions should **remain off topic** for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They do not ask for clarification of *physics concepts*, they ask for clarification on the *mathematical solution* to a *particular* problem&#xD;&#xA; - In the [&quot;How do I as homework question&quot; post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/25301), it states that Physics.StackExchange&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The question will likely only help the original poster and not future visitors to the site&#xD;&#xA; - This is likely *more* true for the more advanced topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is likely that some of these &quot;Check my work&quot; questions can be reformulated to be an on-topic question, e.g. reworded so as to fit the [&quot;*I was working on X and didn't understand why Y isn't the case*&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5963/25301) criterion. However, note that changing the question ourselves would constitute a [drastic change](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6012/25301) in the intent/meaning of the question, which should be left for the OP to do. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="775585e6-1e21-4004-9a9b-f4063feb606d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been declined many times, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is by definition here a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [This is not really a solution to the underlying problem, but you might find it useful anyway:] Alternatively, if you are mainly interested in recent questions, you might consider to instead browse the [newest question tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) rather than the [front page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/). This way of browsing avoids all the edits, but the downside is that you will miss all the new answers to older questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="6c89b0b7-02a6-4bc1-95b9-1668a5a3b135" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#A journal club!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(While I assumed this was going to be as an answer to this post, Colin posted it as a separate question. Linking to it here just for completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the paper in some detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**More details, and main post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="c9c4457d-aa57-4c7c-b9f6-031b2b3e491c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no private message facility and the team has regularly and robustly turned down all such suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get another user's attention by [tagging them in the comments][1] (though they need to have participated in the discussion or editing of a post for that to work), and you can (with [sufficient rep][2]) open a chat room for holding a conversation. That last suggestion isn't private in the sense that others are excluded but you probably won't have a lot of people poking their noses in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra is &quot;This is not a social network!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some Physics SE user find this to be insufficiently friendly and have responded with the meta.physics most [&quot;Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions&quot;][3] where you are explicitly invited to ping them in order to direct their attention to other posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat-rooms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1159/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="31c21836-db7d-48d1-a647-860576cdbeb2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you get hit with the automatic answer block, you get linked to a [page that describes how your situation and how to get out of it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, improve your existing answers. You have some deleted link-only answers; elaborate on them and undelete. Don't ask questions or leave comments in  the answer box, such stuff gets flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ delete your posts, it will exacerbate the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ create a new account, it will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, please do not ask homework-like questions on this site. See https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/answer-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="50920e01-b8e5-4d55-86ff-3cb9711d2d4e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're not the first to notice this trend; actually, we had some discussion about it in the moderator chat room a few months ago. So I collected some data. Sampling which community ad is displayed on the home page at 10-minute intervals for a couple weeks shows that the distribution among different ads is roughly Gaussian, with no significant outliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 12 [Worldbuilding SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/6211?url=http%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 22 [SciRate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5982?url=https%3a%2f%2fscirate.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 46 [community ad thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5571?url=http%3a%2f%2fmeta.physics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5263%2fcommunity-promotion-ads-2014)&#xD;&#xA;- 59 [MathJax buttons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5570?url=http%3a%2f%2fstackapps.com%2fquestions%2f3373%2fmathjax-buttons)&#xD;&#xA;- 68 [Space SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5279?url=http%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 72 [MIT OCW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5276?url=http%3a%2f%2focw.mit.edu%2fcourses%2f%23physics)&#xD;&#xA;- 73 [Mathematica SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5275?url=http%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 77 [arXiv (1)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5266?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 81 [Unanswered questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5607?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2funanswered)&#xD;&#xA;- 82 [Astronomy SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5295?url=http%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 84 [Zotero](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5420?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.zotero.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 85 [NIST DLMF](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5278?url=http%3a%2f%2fdlmf.nist.gov%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Khan Academy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5277?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.khanacademy.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Physics Overflow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5780?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.physicsoverflow.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 88 [featured questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5296?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2f%3ftab%3dfeatured)&#xD;&#xA;- 90 [LaTeX Search](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5558?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.latexsearch.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 95 [Desmos](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5415?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.desmos.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [ShareLaTeX](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5272?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sharelatex.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [arXiv (2)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5299?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![histogram of ad frequency][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(this omits the ad for the site's newsletter) The Physics Overflow ad was displayed more than average, but was certainly far from being the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at the actual samples shows that the same community ad is displayed for a run of several hours. The exact length of the run changes according to some pattern I couldn't figure out (perhaps randomly), but the ad is not randomly chosen on each page view. I presume this is done to allow better caching. Anyway, I think this contributes to the _impression_ that the PO ad was being displayed more than it should be. If you tend to notice one ad more than the others, then when you see it the first time, you're more likely to register it when you visit the page in the future. While that ad is the current one, then it _is_ being displayed more often than it would be if the ads were randomly chosen at each page load, and your brain registers something fishy about that. On the other hand, during a run of any other ad, you don't notice it at all and your brain doesn't register the fact that you're going a long time without seeing the ad you focus on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E3WJq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="720a3c15-41e2-4011-bbcb-270ba4ae7f6c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a *fair compensation* for posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [*silly answer*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [*basic notion*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes), instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc., &#xD;&#xA;with only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn mod priviledges: *is this rational?*. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last time *ubermod* said that changing current policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an *adequate program* all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having less than 100k, and I wouldn't mind my 200 or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *checks and balances* must be calculated, thresholds and priviledges updated and collaboration from top users needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not just take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* would be rated 1 or 2 at most, even by myself: if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it, if I knew that my valid posts were fairly rated. Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote, and **rarely upvote newcomers' good answers**&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify which views you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your pshychological motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make *better than* John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to 1M and (mine) to 25k you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20K* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all. It's the same with money and inflation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality. I'm sure you read this amazing book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize** that 5-10 organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I collected evidence on other sites, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more *competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) (*strawman* is the meanest of fallacies, as the *manipulation is extended from the proposition to the person*) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or (probably best) from **-5 to 20**. Rating can be tuned in a way to insure 100k (or 1M, 1G..) to top users. If *answers were kept anonymous* for a while 'new users' could get a better deal.&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for your answers and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not accept any answer because mine, as clearly stated, was *not* a question. It is being downvoted *(while, oddly enough, the old one is being upvoted)*, and this is comprehensible as the *suggestion is not popular with the notables*. I posted it again because in between I made a lot of experience on other sites, and **most of all** because I myself benefitted by the current system: last time a mean reader might think I was envious, jealous of other members' luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time a mean (*or hasty*) reader may think I am not happy with this site, whereas *I clearly stated the opposite from the very beginning: &#xD;&#xA;this is probably the best SE site, there are really kind people, and even our '*kids*' are fantastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time, I thought, my best intentions are clear as I am condemning also an overrated banal answer of mine. Last time the proposal was considered interesting but with disruptive consequences: I posted again to show that *a more rational and fair system is possible without impairing top reps*. Thanks again!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="2626de57-5aed-40b1-af8d-0c313d374cce" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is an offshoot of Ben Crowell's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists, and I'm asking it separately to help avoid multi-threaded comment discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in [a comment of dmckee](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14673_5102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't think that we (that is the mods) *should* be in the business of closing a lot of questions with our super-powers anymore. There are enough 3k users (81) that they *should* be able to carry the bulk of the load. My impression, however, is that a relatively small fraction of the eligible users apply their power with any regularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in that thread, I think this is a specific enough question that we can find the relevant statistics to give an answer to it. I must add that I agree with dmckee's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific question: Is it possible to confirm this statement from publicly available data, hopefully through the data explorer? If so, what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To kick off the discussion, and to answer [Manishearth's comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14703_5102), I think the relevant tables to look at are not the per-question close-votes, but the publicly available per-user [log of the review activity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so it looks we may need to ask the dev team for these statistics. In this case, **what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?** I'll make a proposal shortly but please try and think of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="ce5878a5-1f38-42ec-8944-9b6a1043ed9d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, the book policy has been reevaluated, and Manishearth's [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751) how to change it seems to be well enough accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is still missing for the new book policy to become reality, is some people, who are willing to help with editing the new incoming questions and controlling the answers, such that they conform with the needes of the new policy as expl]ained [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So please come forward and write a short answer, if you are willing to help with this :-)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a big job, as the expected average rate of new incoming such questions when allowed again by the new policy, is about one question per two weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just 2 more people are needed for the policy to succeed.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="c80406ca-b87d-4549-8b44-b4c49a122c69" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me expand upon the argument that I first put forth in the comments on that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the homework policy applies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) specifies what sorts of questions it applies to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentionally somewhat vague; it speaks to the intent behind the policy (see below for more on this intent) rather than giving an objective procedure for determining whether a question is homework-like, because frankly, we haven't been able to come up with such a procedure. In practice we rely on our high-reputation members' intuition for how homework questions are written to determine which questions it should apply to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the relevant part of the question we're discussing reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W needed 10 minutes to boil water when it is half filled with water in Singapore where the output voltage is 220V. Estimate the amount of time needed to do the same task if the kettle was brought to the USA where the output voltage is 110V. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope we all agree that this question _does_ satisfy the criterion presented in the first sentence of the policy, and thus that the homework policy is applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the question was closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part of the homework policy for this point is this (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and **ask about that specifically**. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let me quote again the core question from the post being discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone explain how 40 minutes was derived in the question above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's quite clear that this core question, considered in isolation, is not about a conceptual issue that was encountered while trying to solve the problem, it's asking for a complete explanation of the solution. But of course there was more in the post than just that core question and the quotation of the homework problem. Between them is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My answer to this question is Option 3 (20 minutes) because I thought that since output voltage is the USA is 2 times less than that of Singapore, it would take twice as long to do the same task of boiling water half filled. However, the answer key was Option 4 (40 minutes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this part does not actually _ask_ anything, nor does it modify what the core question is about. Accordingly it doesn't change the fact that the question is asking for a complete solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; P.S. I don't quite understand what it is meant by &quot; An electric kettle rated 220V, 2000W&quot; ??? I get that 2000W means the kettle uses 2000J/s and V means work done by kettle/charge. But what is the difference between the 2 (power and charge of the kettle)? And how does the V of kettle differ from output voltage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I don't believe is relevant for two reasons: first of all, it shouldn't be possible to sneak a request for a complete solution through by also asking something else in the same question. To implement that, posts which primarily ask for a complete solution but include some other supplementary questions should still be closed. Besides, &quot;P.S.&quot; explicitly indicates that the following material is not the main focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding these two points,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) the OP attempted the question and got it wrong (2) the OP has the answer key and posted the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say again that the homework policy requires an asker to narrow down their question to the specific conceptual issue that is giving them trouble. Both points (1) and (2) are true but they do not change the fact that the OP in this case is not asking about a specific conceptual issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why the answer was deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply, this excerpt from the homework policy covers it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I maintain that the answer which I deleted gives away a near-complete solution, in that it explains how one would derive the given answer of 40 seconds. Yes, it does identify that the question is a poor one, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer gives away a near-complete solution. (For now I'm refraining from posting that near-complete solution here, but if it becomes important I'll edit it in.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is the intent of the homework policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above discussion has addressed why (I think) the question should be closed and the answer deleted under the _letter_ of the homework policy, but not under its _spirit_. In particular, let's consider the argument that, regardless of what the HW policy actually says, its intent is to prevent cheating and a complete answer isn't conducive to cheating in this case. I don't agree, for two reasons. First, because the value of the problem lies in the OP working through it step by step, doing as much of it as possible, so as to learn the method. By giving away a complete explanation of how the answer is achieved, we rob the OP of that value. And second, because any time we provide a complete or near-complete answer to a homework-like question, it pushes our site's reputation a tiny bit toward that of a place where people can come and get their homework problems explained to them. We don't want that. This is supposed to be a site primarily geared toward physics research and applications, not a homework help site. And we already get too many homework-like questions despite _not_ having the reputation of a site that welcomes them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is expressed in other words in the following quote from a Math Meta post, which is also quoted in our homework policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest, and if a solution complete enough to be copied verbatim and handed in is given immediately, it will encourage more people to use the site as a free homework service. In the spirit of creating a lasting resource of mathematical knowledge, you may come back after a suitable amount of time and edit your response to include a more complete answer. Or even better, the student can post his own correct answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="8404cf60-9797-4832-ae74-5467bb35b388" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this is related to [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6114/the-site-toolbar-looks-broken-in-chrome-how-can-i-fix-it), but there's yet another formatting problem in Chrome. I'm seldom one to argue for doing it so it works vs. doing it right, but there needs to be some pragmatism: the number of Windows Chrome users strike me as a not-so-insignificant chunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n4XY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="aa8c75ca-ed98-4246-90fc-61a5f4dc3fd2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="2a88c9e4-db50-4843-ac4d-9c491dd0b5c0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I propose that we edit the resource recommendation banner into these questions, making the _questions_ follow the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the answers, those which do _not_ follow the policy can be collected into a single Community Wiki answer. Maybe with a disclaimer about how it is no longer considered a good answer to a recommendation question. We could alternatively historical lock it, though the historical lock post notice seems to talk about questions even when applied to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, there aren't any broken windows, but the content is preserved. This requires some effort, though. I don't mind doing it myself, but I'll have to start a week from now. This isn't something urgent, so we can handle it at our leisure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rather like @Emilio's banner for the community wiki questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="d56c8d0e-0f5e-47d6-b806-c432f0785fea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed several (&gt;~3) times over the past few months that the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework has been bumped up the front page of Meta, on separate occasions. I don't think it happens that often at all, and I'm not sure whether it's a good thing on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way to see which questions have been bumped up by this process? Is this going on at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On a related note, the [user page for Community on Meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="7e695e73-ceb9-4749-b084-fad114009139" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have some sympathy with Brandon's point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit concerned we'll end up seeming an unfriendly and elitist site. The moderators are admirably tactful in dealing with homework questions, but I see comments to homework questions that while justified strike me as a bit bitchy. I worry these will put new users off - it's easy for us old timers to forget how intimidating asking your first question can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other point that strikes me is that I see various questions about esoteric subjects like supersymmetry that look awfully like homework set by a PhD supervisor, but of course the level is far higher than the usual homework question. These tend not to be tagged as homework (possibly because few of understand them :-) so presumable there is some ill defined cut-off point where homework ceases to be homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picking up on a point made in David's answer, it seems to me the most important thing is the amount of effort that's been put into writing the question. This is what I was getting at in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5203/updating-the-how-to-ask-faq. At the moment we have a *Homework* tag and we have a close reason that says *Homework like questions ... should show some effort*. The homework tag works fine, but I think the close reason should be unrelated to whether the the question is homework. The close reason should be that the OP hasn't made sufficient effort. This would be applied to homework, but would also be applied to questions like *Tell me about the Standard Model* that we get from time to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="d90aeced-9e4d-4366-9462-350038854242" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wasn't even aware of this situation when it happened, and I'm not sure how I personally would have voted/dealt with close votes, but consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our close reasons often overlap, and the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; consensus could probably have been phrased in terms of our engineering close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; This question appears to be about **engineering**, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the **science**, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems where the solution depends on too many variables, or where the variables are not particularly constrained or even fully defined, are considered off-topic by association with engineering. The reason is, the correctness of any answer given depends sensitively on all sorts of extra information, much of it not necessarily related to any particular physics concept. For example, the scaling for how a beam deflects under a load *may* be a valid physics question, but a question that relies on the exact dimensions and material properties of some particular beam is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the problem goes beyond universally-accepted underlying physical concepts, the only way to generate any solution at all is to make a number of assumptions. Thus engineering questions are generally also off-topic as opinion-based, simply by virtue of the fact that they ask a bunch of physicists/physics enthusiasts for their opinions to fill in the blanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned elsewhere, there were plenty of downvotes and surrounding controversy. I suspect the wording of the question was such as to amplify whatever response it was going to get anyway, and as I've explained above, the response was likely to be &quot;this doesn't belong here&quot; for one reason or another. This isn't to say that a little whimsy or an attempt to connect to current events/the Zeitgeist isn't allowed (I'm certainly guilty of titling questions so as to make them more attention grabbing), but understand that this method will amplify negative reactions as much as positive and so is inherently risky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="4a3673ac-1d99-4eb6-b4e9-416ba46f91c7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; (On a related note, the user page for Community on Meta states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true - with the caveat that it doesn't bump if there's nothing to bump. If there's only 1 question on the site that meets the criteria for bumping, then Community will bump it and *touch nothing else* for the next 30 days until it becomes eligible again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [as Qmechanic notes][1], it rather appears that this is the only question that's been eligible for some time... And now even it isn't eligible anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community/6277#6277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="54052cd8-7327-445c-99a2-f9d8a70250a7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I deliberately asked only questions in my post: from now on I want to separate the issues, the problems from *my* suggestions, which (legitimately) may not be popular or may be downright wrong, and should be mercilessly downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must specify also that **my posts at Meta are addressed to the SE Team who monitor the various sites, or, eventually, to its real owners**, who care about the welfare of the network, and are not meant to gain popularity. You probably all know that **I had the cheek to refute Newton** himself (and Wikipedia) in a few answers of mine, which are extremely unpopular with the top users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close or locked: it is _shameful and shameless_ to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure or censorship. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions in my question, I was only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have documented that some members cast up to 7-8 VTC in a minute. This truth has not been questioned, nay,  to my surprise the right to VTC a question in 10 seconds has been proudly claimed. Probably I am too old and my reflexes are dimmed as my eyesight and moreover my modest abilities and competence do not allow me to conscientiously review a question in 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) unclear: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) duplicate: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked possible duplicate[s]. Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) no effort-HW. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. **If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient** and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the community.. - Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called community is identified with just a select group (roughly a dozen members from the 3k+ club), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, that is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the status quo) and, even if some do, it is practically impossible to reopen a question, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare off-topic the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt the community has for newcomers and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. All members who pretended not to understand it or insulted the poster refused to give a justification or even an explanation , and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of newcomers: two identical [questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23893_6467) were closed and deleted (marked as HW-off-topic) when the OP was a newbie, and became perfectly on-topic (when posted *ad hoc*) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting for a reply to the second question [**here**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) to see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is therefore my answer to the questions**? I think we are not being enough fair to students, and our *comprehension* or *humanity* should be greater. My suggestion is articulate and you can choose any bit you approve, or mix them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions by newcomers (or users who already posted bad questions) might not be published immediately, they might be put in a separate queue, just as we are doing with **First post**/ answer. There the posts by non-natives might be corrected and made more clear for non-native reviewers, who sometime have problems with comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;- in the same queue the really bad questions might get a first screening and be put on hold, preventing people from answering, giving time to the reviewers to take a conscientious decision&#xD;&#xA;- nobody should ever be allowed to cast more than a VTC in one minute.&#xD;&#xA;- members who voted *to close* should not be allowed to vote same question to *leave it closed*&#xD;&#xA;- obviously enough, reviewers criticized for wrongly closing a question should not be allowed to close the Meta-question&#xD;&#xA;- question at Meta should never be closed when they criticize policies or actions. If the post contains rude words only those words should be eliminated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="f6ce52ee-5f86-4dcb-892e-144a9119da35" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I don't point this specifically on anyone, But, err...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we had this scheme of *automated close reason* insertion, I've seen Physics.SE people suggest new users (who ask questions *vaguely* or badly or whatever) on how to ask questions here. At least, they've pointed out what's wrong with a particular question. Nowadays, I barely see such constructive comments. For example, [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74926/11062). Recently, we had a discussion on this. [And, I said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4815/#comment13410_4815)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The automated close reason is for the purpose that users don't necessarily have to add comments :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite happy that I added *&quot;necessarily&quot;* in that phrase. So, have we *really* stopped constructive commenting? I know there's no necessity that you should insert comments. But, inserting comments would help a lot. And, stopping *comments* isn't such a good idea. It'd make things worse..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="44a3912a-bf28-42fd-ba4a-85747d0c7028" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We talked about it briefly in chat about starting a Topic of the Week event, akin to what is done at [Astronomy][1] and [Space][2] SE. I had proposed something similar [here][3] previously based on what was done at other SE sites discussed therein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how about we look at a just-for-fun Topic (or Tag) of the Week? Here's some of the things that would need to be decided/fleshed out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How long does each topic run?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the precedent is a week. But sometimes it takes longer to come up with really good questions or answers about highly technical aspects. Maybe two weeks would be better, but then we run the risk of getting tired of the topic in the middle. So I propose a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What's the point?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are three goals this serves. First, it promotes the asking and answering of questions the community deems interesting. Tired of [tag:newtonian-mechanics]? Suggest something else you are interested in and get some questions and answers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it could be used to attract higher-level participants. If there are things experienced members would like to focus on, decide and participate accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, it's something fun to do and will get many people outside of their comfort zones. I don't know anything about most of the tags here, but I would be encouraged to do some digging and ask a question about them if I knew it would get answered by people who know about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How are topics/tags chosen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the preceding month, a question will be posted here on meta to take nominations for the 4 topics of the next month. Each nomination should be it's own answer and ideally should contain at least one sample question already on the site pertaining to it. The 4 answers with the highest votes at the close of the voting period will be chosen -- let's say the voting period is 3 weeks. If topics should fit in a particular week of the next month, that should be noted; for instance, if a big announcement from CERN will be made in the first week of December, it might be good to put the [tag:particle-physics] topic during that week or the week after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the timeline look like? Assuming we get started soon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 1 - Nov 23**: Topic proposal and voting period for December's topics.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 23**: December's topic proposal question locked.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 27**: Topic schedule for December released&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1**: First topic week begins&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1 - Dec 20**: Topic proposal and voting period for January's topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What constitutes a community decision?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Highest voted topics get chosen. Well, let's say the highest of the 0-or-greater votes. If all the topics are positive and there's a tie, the mods will split the tie up and feel free to nominate again for the next month. If all the topics are at 0 then there is no interest in continuing and we give up. If we can't get 4 positively voted topics, we give up. If all topics are negative, we give up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we can only do what the cross-section of community here tells us to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, tags that you find interesting. The second goal may be to propose tags in which there is relatively low participation as a means to promote questions and answers in that topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should not be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Under no circumstances should a meta-type tag be nominated! So no [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], or [tag:popular-science]. Whatever tag is nominated could have questions from all three of those categories asked during that time, so let's not limit the level of the question, just the scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would avoid overly broad and overly specific tags as well. Something like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] is very broad and there's already a lot of questions on it so it probably doesn't need to be made a topic (although this is a guideline, not a rule so it could be -- the community will decide whether to use it or not). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why should I participate?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No seriously, why not? Do you know everything conceivable in your field? Do you know everything about every other field? Why not take the chance to read about something new or dig a little deeper into something old? Why not use the site as it's intended -- to pose questions you would like answered, or to answer questions you have the knowledge to answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/123/topic-of-the-week-cmb-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/questions/373/topic-of-the-week-colonization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/topic-of-the-week-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="8f603b87-cfeb-402f-a390-97276f66afdf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading [2-year old meta post here][1], and it seems most of the answers saying that it should be on-topic (as theoretical physics) as science should answer non-mainstream questions to avoid censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's still not clear for me and I know that there was some long debate on this and many people left.&#xD;&#xA;So to simplify this, what's the current status of this topic on this site? If not, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2597/10968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="113da1f8-8644-43ba-862a-4e8abd9a4886" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I know Astronomy.SE [merged][1] into Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I asked this astronomy related question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89350/when-venus-is-the-brightest-when-viewed-from-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I got a moderator comment that it would better fit in astronomy.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's up? Will the site split again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="922e4256-d1ca-41e5-9299-a6031ffc6b32" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; &quot;...Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **that answer has so far scored just a single upvote**.... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the **most upvotes are going to be the simple ones** that everyone can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... **Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't attract as much attention** as the more obvious ones (people just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics SE... &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very fond of John Rennie, and I have expressed my great esteem for him in many occasions. He his the first figure one comes to know and appreciate, as soon as one joins this site. He is not so active now, but, when I joined in Summer, I could see at 8 o'clock sharp a whole string of excellent, clear and interesting answers in impeccable British English, signed by a photo of a distinguished figure that reminded me of a XIX century Squire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot avoid to poind out how this post of his is a contradiction of the position he held when I first exposed [**this problem**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear) and when I offered [**a solution**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6180/answers-should-be-rated-a-suggestion-to-the-team/6184#6184). My posts where heavily downvoted, and probably he too downvoted them, now his post has 10 upvotes, so far. Congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be simple and effective to _put a rep cap to questions (and answers) bearing the tag 'everyday-life'_, why don't you propose or just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion was more far-reaching than this. It would give a solution to all the other problems, including the one *dmckee* was hinting to here, of [**cliques**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6279/precise-directives-re-flagging/6281#6281), fans, followers and supporters (sometime: worshippers). There are some members that get **anyway** dozens of votes, **no matter they write**, even if they _do not answer the OP question_ , or just write simple answers for which another member would get (at most) a couple of votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to give you one of the hundreds of examples [**this simple answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148656/why-dont-stars-have-keplerian-orbits/148670#148670) has got only 30 words (made to look longer repeating the question and adding the tag: the answer is simple), is not the first and is not better that the others, yet, it fetches 22 votes *(almost one-word-one-vote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, I must ask John: why don't you do something in concrete, instead of _moaning_ :) , to back up my proposal that **answers should be rated**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The key word being thrill**... the end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to writing some truly fantastic answers. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I think the current reputation system is very, very good.**.. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; start making changes .. I fear you will start demotivating exactly the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sort of people who make this site such as a success.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments, let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **comprehensively disagree** with the views expressed in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes **I'm a bit frustrated** that what I consider my better answers don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _thrill of easy rep_ is compensated by the _frustration_ of seeing one's merit not appreciated. That's life, John, you can't have it both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: This time **it'll be amusing** to see how the *farcical carousel* of downvoting/upvoting will develop, since I have only quoted *verbatim* John's statements. I couldn't possible attribute a downvote to me, as I just recorded a contradiction, or I hope, a change of opinion, which I welcome! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="0cff5c78-2c39-4d36-9cb3-80db74d98744" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#A journal club!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(While I assumed this was going to be as an answer to this post, Colin posted it as a separate question. Linking to it here just for completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the paper in some detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**More details, and main post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="a0ef5dd4-4bc7-4429-86b1-cb6d8b0beed1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="HT to [Danu](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24653/danu) on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there was this recent post inquiring about [answering 0-answer questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6641/) in which a comment read,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not evident that votes on answers to old questions are fewer than on new ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, elsewhere on the site, it was mentioned that late answers are typically either really amazing or really bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are either of these statements true? Do older questions get fewer votes? Is there a bi-modality of score in late answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="6072686c-ff60-4bcb-ad3d-60ddb2ebbb45" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are multiple criteria for a homework-like question to be acceptable here, as detailed in [our policy][1]. In no particular order three of the most important criteria (the ones I feel are most often not met) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Show some **effort**. Don't just dump your work in our laps for us to do.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Ask about something **specific**. There are many issues that can arise in trying to solve a problem, and we can't read your mind to see what you do and don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Ask about a physical **concept**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point is where your question fails. Lately we've seen a lot of this, where users focus on my point (1), showing a whole lot of effort, and forget about point (3). It's unfortunate, because when you put that much work into something it naturally feels like you deserve an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But alas, **we are not a homework help service**. In particular, as the policy notes right in the summary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking about sign errors (like your question) or missing factors of 2 are the paradigmatic examples of things we don't allow, since ultimately they are just about a symbol manipulation mistake rather than something *physical*. It's not just about effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can try to turn the question into something that is acceptable. There are conceptual physical questions related to what you asked, for example, &quot;Can the moment of inertia be negative?&quot; My general suggestion for questions of this type is to go through the steps, try to figure out the boundary where &quot;everything before this is definitely right, and everything after this has something wrong&quot; and see if you can ask something along the lines of &quot;I thought this quantity was calculated this way, but that conflicts with my feeling that the quantity should be positive, so is my intuition right?&quot; for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community feels a revised version of the question no longer conflicts with our policies, they will reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="aaf86398-5c76-44a7-b273-02f934554483" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you get hit with the automatic answer block, you get linked to a [page that describes how your situation and how to get out of it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, improve your existing answers. You have some deleted link-only answers; elaborate on them and undelete. Don't ask questions or leave comments in  the answer box, such stuff gets flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ delete your posts, it will exacerbate the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ create a new account, it will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, please do not ask homework-like questions on this site. See https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/answer-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="1f7afd9a-a413-4686-8ee4-6ea09e1714cb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just noticed the question on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics which you have probably seen if you're reading this. It's attracted a lot of positive attention, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any reason it should be an appropriate question for the site. Consider these excerpts from the [Help Center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is not based on an actual problem, but it is open-ended pretty much by definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question hits all three of these points on the nose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one doesn't, it's just assembling a list without any specific prompt for information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naming a breakthrough is not a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As detailed [elsewhere on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi), questions with these attributes fail to increase the quality of the site at best, and actively pollute it at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have an [active discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list) (in a long-term sense) on list questions, but even looking at the suggestions made in that question and answers, nothing seems to allow an all-encompassing list of breakthroughs. A common opinion is that list questions of limited scope are likely to be okay, but this is absolutely not one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question, primarily to people who upvoted or reopen-voted the &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question: in doing so, it seems that you're suggesting we ignore fully half a page of the help center _and_ an emerging consensus on list questions from this site itself. **Why?** What are your arguments that these policies don't apply to this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="f2d88ec0-8425-4c5c-8268-d9f064e690bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the users' opinions on the site. Both positive and negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Of course you don't have to answer all the questions posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well-balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of network-wide policy? Is there any particular network-wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researcher's interest, such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have a sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="bc681ead-628a-48c0-b23d-0f9c8081005f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is inspired by Colin McFauls very reasonable [classification](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5172/2751) of questions tagged as [tag:homework] due to the very broad notion of the term  &quot;homework-like&quot; currently applied at  Physics SE, and  can be considered as a follow up of John Rennie's meta [post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751) asking for graduate-level upward questions not getting closed as homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically agree  with John Rennie that gruaduate-level upward (technical) questions should not be closed as homework and want to go even farther by proposing that, refering to Colin McFauls classification, category 3 (not yet a good question but salvagable) and even more so category 4 (high-level problems) should not even be tagged [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the very broad notion of &quot;homework-like&quot; as currently applied, be narrowed down to not include technical advanced topic questions that come up from reading higher-level textbooks, following advanced courses, or even from reading research papers (graduate-level upward for short)?&#xD;&#xA;And can then these advanced technical questions (not all of them at once of course) be detagged from [tag:homework] (after appropriate edits if needed for category 3 questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of advanced technical questions that should not be considered homework and therefore either directly or after an improving edit, detagged. I am not trying to sharply distinguish between category 3 and category 4 of Colin McFaul's classification at the moment, and this list is by no means comprehensive but contains just a few examples to show what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82336/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57973/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73297/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76207/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69163/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75896/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89489/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/80556/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46703/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57253/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="937290f5-f096-4bff-9ca2-70c534fde28e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up post on John Rennie's topic https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6303/, and [my answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6352/24142) therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been wondering if it is possible to implement an additional reputation score that rewards high-quality answers more than basic answers. I have such a proposal, and I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is as follows: the standard reputation system treats every vote the same: each vote counts as 10 points. That's all very nice and democratic, but it doesn't reflect the quality of an answer; the score depends heavily on the popularity of the question. But perhaps we can also give answers a *weighted* vote, such that the score you get not only depends on how many votes you received, but also on *who* has given the upvotes. In particular, a vote from a high-rep user will give you a higher score than a vote from a low-rep user. Now, I'm not in favour of having this 'quality score' displayed on every individual answer, because that might influence other voters. Instead, I'd prefer for each user to have an 'overall quality score', calculated from all their received votes combined, updated once a day, and displayed next to their total reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics. So they will likely also read and vote on these more advanced subjects. Therefore, while these topics attract less votes, those votes are more likely to come from high-rep users (though not always; there are also specialists who have not built up a high reputation. No system is perfect). On the other hand, more basic questions will attract more casual users with lower reputations. Also, high-rep users have more experience with the site, and will more often recognize and appreciate a high-quality answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next problem is then to decide how the votes should be weighted. There are of course a lot of possible ways, so I'll just give a simple example. Consider the following distribution: The horizontal axis has all the users who have voted at least once, sorted according to their reputation, from highest to lowest. The vertical axis has the total amount of upvotes given by each user. Then divide this distribution into 9 areas, representing 9 user groups, such that the total amount of votes that each group has given is roughly the same (some rounding off is needed so that each user falls into one group). The upvotes of the group of highest-rep users are worth a score of 18; the votes of users of group 2 are worth a score of 16; the votes of users in groups 3 to 9 are worth 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2, respectively. In this manner, the average score of all the votes of the entire site will be 10 (rounded off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you get an upvote from someone in group 1 (the top users), you get 18 points. If you get an upvote from someone in group 9 (the lowest-rep users), you get 2 points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can refine this system further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign an additional quality score to a received bounty;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign a higher quality score to votes from people who have posted an answer to the same question. After all, a vote from a 'competitor' is an acknowledgement that your answer is of high quality;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvotes can also be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any interest in this feature? Is it worth doing? Is it actually doable? Do you have alternative ideas? I look forward to your feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="160bd077-4671-40d5-a40d-f33f22a879dd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since list questions aren't  allowed here, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics), and recieve imediate closing, even locking, and [a meta post against it](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed),  maybe such questions could be migrated to [Math Overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net), where such questions are taken well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up or down if you support this or do not.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="5ef4a971-89c3-4b46-b634-b895461e95b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Officially nothing has changed about the policy yet, i.e. the old one is still in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficially, my impression is that we are converging on a change in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Homework questions&quot; per se would no longer be allowed on the site, as suggested in the questions you linked&#xD;&#xA;- Our existing [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be changed to describe how people can modify their homework questions to conceptual questions to make them acceptable here&#xD;&#xA;- The [tag:homework] tag _may_ be entirely removed as part of this. We haven't yet fully discussed that, I believe. (I would like to see this happen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should definitely push forward with this; there is no particular rush, but we are getting close enough that it would be a shame not to see this through to the end. We need to decide what to do about the tag, and I don't know if there are any other unresolved issues to handle before we put these changes in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="1091b5e5-e006-4c81-8172-fc6fd9148e4d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned [here][1], it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there were [some unnecessary edits][2] made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/197072/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="e49b26a3-0754-4202-8e2d-fbae022961bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I propose that we edit the resource recommendation banner into these questions, making the _questions_ follow the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the answers, those which do _not_ follow the policy can be collected into a single Community Wiki answer. Maybe with a disclaimer about how it is no longer considered a good answer to a recommendation question. We could alternatively historical lock it, though the historical lock post notice seems to talk about questions even when applied to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, there aren't any broken windows, but the content is preserved. This requires some effort, though. I don't mind doing it myself, but I'll have to start a week from now. This isn't something urgent, so we can handle it at our leisure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rather like @Emilio's banner for the community wiki questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="b661c3ed-915b-4f02-a56a-b470414c33b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I received a notification for a comment made by Emilio Pisanty on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2687/modern-references-for-continuum-mechanics/2762?noredirect=1&quot;&gt;question &lt;/a&gt; asking for an update of my answer in order to comply with the current policy on &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&quot;&gt;resource recommendations&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can verify, I wasn't the only one who received the same comment. I was wondering if it is wise to try to enforce a current policy on very old contributions. I feel it is too much to ask for a huge amount of users. Maybe this is our online version of retroactivity in law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="460f2cbf-aee9-4fe7-b1c1-9dd978f611e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The dawn of a new year, 2015, now approaches, or has already approached, either way it means that it is now time to reset our Community Promotion Ads!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/6388" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="82a760eb-67ff-40cc-90e4-8c3229cd4506" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I should also mention that I do *not* equation research-level with published papers; the one does not imply the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="be8b12ab-d68f-4d3c-96d4-2897d7e05a2c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Everything is very conveniently hidden behind the Moderator Agreement. I Understand that there are Privacy Issues, especially In cases where there is use of abusive language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While precise details of the Suspension need not be disclosed, I think even a line offering the basic reason is necessary so that the community can know exactly why, Such as &quot;Use of abusive language&quot; or &quot;Intentional and repeated spamming&quot; or &quot;Unfounded Allegations against Moderators&quot; or whatever the reason is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [post][1] Which asks for a lot more to be disclosed. But I only ask for a one line reason available to the Public, Especially if you are Imposing 6 Month - 1 Year suspensions to users who are otherwise friendly atleast to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4241/change-of-policy-make-reasons-for-suspensions-public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="866c37f1-5451-495e-a681-c02b8761f41c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have some sympathy with Brandon's point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit concerned we'll end up seeming an unfriendly and elitist site. The moderators are admirably tactful in dealing with homework questions, but I see comments to homework questions that while justified strike me as a bit bitchy. I worry these will put new users off - it's easy for us old timers to forget how intimidating asking your first question can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other point that strikes me is that I see various questions about esoteric subjects like supersymmetry that look awfully like homework set by a PhD supervisor, but of course the level is far higher than the usual homework question. These tend not to be tagged as homework (possibly because few of understand them :-) so presumable there is some ill defined cut-off point where homework ceases to be homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picking up on a point made in David's answer, it seems to me the most important thing is the amount of effort that's been put into writing the question. This is what I was getting at in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5203/updating-the-how-to-ask-faq. At the moment we have a *Homework* tag and we have a close reason that says *Homework like questions ... should show some effort*. The homework tag works fine, but I think the close reason should be unrelated to whether the the question is homework. The close reason should be that the OP hasn't made sufficient effort. This would be applied to homework, but would also be applied to questions like *Tell me about the Standard Model* that we get from time to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="96003899-d384-4de6-b7cb-4c8063b6787b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I vote the historical lock. I don't think the question has any real value, but some future non-physicist people might find it useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (sorry for delay, had things to do)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAICR, the new resource recommendation policy [clearly states](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X-- a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post being discussed **does not request any of these topics**, it simply asks for **a list of books**. The vast majority of the answers to the question also appear to fail the recommended answering policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anupam and Satwick's answers at least mention topics covered, but don't really  hit the other points (where the book isn't thorough or the prerequisites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it does not really fit the model of the Stack Exchange network (which has a general ban on list questions anyway) and that it does not even fit our book policy, the only two options I see are (a) complete deletion and (b) historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe that (a) should be considered just because there is the possibility that *someone* could find some of the books are useful. Thus, the only good option is the historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="3e9bd864-df13-4fe1-b93b-b5def2356f73" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This started as a comment but it got too long. I will not attempt to answer the original questionnaire, but you can take the following as a partial answer to question 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to bring back some of the nuance which [some users](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange?noredirect=1#comment26466_6810) seem determined to strip away. I consider MO to be a very successful site as a forum for mathematicians to discuss research-level mathematics. There are several independent measures of this success. A non-exhaustive list of success measures includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians can take high-level questions which come up in their work to MO and resolve them quickly;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians seem to find the content on MO to be stimulating and thought-provoking at a level commensurate with e.g. attending a research seminar;&#xD;&#xA; - a nontrivial fraction of the online discussion of research-level mathematics takes place on MO;&#xD;&#xA; - discussions on MO have sparked a significant number of off-MO collaborations which their participants have found to be rewarding research projects;&#xD;&#xA; - some of these collaborations have published their findings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These measures are related but ultimately independent. I would like PSE to be all of this and more. Some of this does happen, but I feel that we are not at the level of MO or anywhere near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing, though, is that this is obviously field-dependent. As regards the parts of physics where I do most of my research, the activity on this site is very low, and I do not feel I can successfully bring here a high-level question related to my work and resolve it quickly. (One example should do: take [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=high+harmonic+generation) and exclude my contributions.) I find this site to be useful and often very thought-provoking, but I do not consider it a useful tool for my research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, others may find that PSE does cater much more to their research interests. There are a number of different ways in which PSE can be helpful for a researcher, and I'd be interested to know, for the people that do find it useful for their research, how exactly they find it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="828da506-b367-4013-8900-d4c21cbedc34" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a [comment directly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015#comment22500_6399) under your post from Qmechanic that states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the [related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) and [its chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17799/discussion-on-question-by-deer-hunter-what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-lin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, you were asked to use the two linked resources to discuss anything, rather than the Community Ads thread, and you ignored that message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that comments are considered &quot;second class&quot; citizens and can be deleted without approval/consent of the posted user. You can read more [about it here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/914/25301).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, questions involving Physics Overflow quickly degrade into [&quot;not so nice&quot;](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) comment threads. Qmechanic's comment was a warning to *prevent* such a new thread from occurring by diverting people to a channel where it is more appropriate (i.e., chat). As an aside, the Meta post gives some information about Physics Overflow written by one of their founders, who also wrote the MathOverflow post you wanted to link.  &#xD;&#xA;None of the other posted Ads recommend such a controversial topic, so no similar warnings are necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="5d9a14e5-0af3-412b-999d-a3fa37328e41" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There has been a trend lately of old meta posts brought up to the front page because of retagging or other minor edits. While this happens all the time on the main site and is OK and encouraged in mild doses, the situation in meta is somewhat different. Meta is _very_ slow compared to the main site, by a factor of about 50. (It takes ~7 hours for an inactive post to slide down the main but ~2 weeks in meta.) I would therefore like to bring this up here. If we're OK with this, then we're OK, but if we're not then we need a policy to stick to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that bringing an old post to the front page gives the impression that the discussion is still active, and this can be very confusing. Old support posts like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/579/why-do-i-still-see-the-beta-css) become meaningless when a tide of changes completely washes over the issue. Old policy discussions (which I won't link to) do not gain anything from the extra attention, and we have seen this have tragic consequences for certain questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, though, I think there's no real reason to be fiddling with the tags on old discussions. They are in the archive and can be found easily enough. They often discuss quite topical issues for the specific time they were asked in and now have only historical value. (A lot of it in some cases.) They do not belong on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me take a stance, then, so people can up/down-vote. **Please keep edits of old meta posts to a minimum.** Use retag edits on them only when they would be impossible to find otherwise. If you feel a certain discussion should be revived, then **give an alternative answer**, or better yet **ask a new question** that's appropriate for the site's current conditions. If you don't have anything to add to such a thread, then maybe it's in the cold archives for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tags deserve special attention. The meta tags [meta-tag:status-declined], [meta-tag:status-completed] and [meta-tag:status-bydesign] can only be applied by moderators. If you feel a question needs one of these tags and doesn't have it, **flag a moderator** and tell them that, instead of inventing new tags for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="21448e41-9843-4d42-b95f-2eef4191f7fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the version provided by John Rennie, and considering [Manishearth's three points](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6843/concern-about-question-deletion-science-can-look-after-itself-and-repudiate-of/6846#6846), I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is *not* okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So point number one isn't a killer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we boil it down to &quot;Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?&quot;, then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I don't think it's *too* open-ended, but I am concerned by&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was&#xD;&#xA;Einstein a fraud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Please also comment if you haven't read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is *not* good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a *terrible* source to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which [tag:history] is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the &quot;Don't Migrate Crap&quot; policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and *then* possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more thinking, I'm seriously reconsidering my original position. I've done some reading, and Schlafly is not someone I would want to cite in, say, anything. The guy's biased, to say the least. In order to have a good question, one would have to assume that the information it is based off is accurate and neutral. I wouldn't feel safe making that assumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="de0c5f3c-e645-423d-ae64-69a369d772bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Previously the question concerning edits of 6 characters was asked &lt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4478/editing-tags-not-allowed-because-not-6-characters&gt;, however the answers provided were not satisfactory for the question. It is often the case that a single sign needs to be changed or a trivial typo disrupts the flow. In addition some edits are made in series as the question/answer are read over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I am writing to make a change to the page &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work/17964#17964&gt;. My concern is an edit of lambda squared to lambda in the Lagrangian under the header putting it all together. This matches the quartic interaction as typically written and correspondingly as the potential as defined above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="f5e360a1-5645-4413-bfd3-52c4cb9fecfa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a question on meta [&quot;Will my account be closed like that of [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] if I stop participating on Physics SE?&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4951/). It was being downvoted so I added a comment below it &quot;why downvotes?&quot;. This was followed by a (peaceful) discussion between me and Manishearth. During this discussion Manishearth told me that my question broke no rules and so (on this basis) i refused to change the title of my question. However then one of the moderators (Shog9; who, as I just knew, is also a stack exchange employee) came and deleted all the comments also changed the title and main body of my question. I further added a comment that the changed title was not what i asked, to which he only replied after two days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know the rules moderators/stack employees follow in deleting comments in an ongoing discussion. Manishearth in his answer below says that there are no rules which, if true, is ridiculous because you can never question the action of a moderator even if s/he deletes some comment which is very useful to the discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="547a4e63-c419-4ed3-81ab-33490ccbdd02" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I know Astronomy.SE [merged][1] into Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I asked this astronomy related question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89350/when-venus-is-the-brightest-when-viewed-from-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I got a moderator comment that it would better fit in astronomy.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's up? Will the site split again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="289c1aed-7bbf-4f0c-b5ef-a513d30f64ec" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you think a moderator is out of line use the [&quot;contact us&quot; link][1] at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.][2] This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beta site get *pro tem* moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time that is it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151633/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="4c9ad44d-0b71-4436-ae84-dddd63ef3bec" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In SE sites other than SO, there is a less strict &quot;policy&quot;. Less down-votes, easier to up-vote, more &quot;caring&quot; people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **big** upside for an SE site to being less strict: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it promotes growth. Not displeasing users will make them come more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terrible:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a **huge** downside to it: **Quality goes down.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users that have no understanding of physics get easily voting rights,&#xD;&#xA;   because  most of their questions will get up-voted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then they ll proceed to up-vote any answer they see in a post since&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;it looked like the writer knows what he is talking about&quot;. As a consequence, *actual scientists will be disheartened by the low quality and many of them will never come back*, lowering quality even further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damage will be long lasting, or even worse, permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen moderators that protect questions because of a 1 rep user posting a useless answer, without commenting on it and (seeing the answer had 0 score and the user had 1 rep) I assume he didn't down-vote either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**    &#xD;&#xA;What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1:   &#xD;&#xA;There is great content here, I am not implying the opposite. But there is also bad content, more than there should be and this is what bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:   &#xD;&#xA;Down-vote statistics are of no use since there are many factors that can't be quantified. E.g. we might be having a higher down-vote ratio than other SO, but then again we could be getting much more low quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 1][1]: Pretty much the opposite of this &quot;question&quot;, and perhaps my &quot;question&quot; could have been an answer there. However, I decided to post it as a question to encourage others to down-vote more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 2][2]: A good post on what should be done (more frequently) with bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="ee93bf07-5f13-47e5-83ea-8e7c104ec09d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A [quick search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated [tag:history] questions shows a handful of results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should old (i.e., more than 2 month old) questions be migrated too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion is: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/58382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="962b7007-f26f-40b2-9b91-abcfc1609822" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Last but not the least if editing policy is mentioned somewhere please give me a link of that. If not then please mention it as an answer to my question.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="85fb87a1-7b4a-4568-9496-e17b8bf0f284" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is inspired by Colin McFauls very reasonable [classification](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5172/2751) of questions tagged as [tag:homework] due to the very broad notion of the term  &quot;homework-like&quot; currently applied at  Physics SE, and  can be considered as a follow up of John Rennie's meta [post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751) asking for graduate-level upward questions not getting closed as homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically agree  with John Rennie that gruaduate-level upward (technical) questions should not be closed as homework and want to go even farther by proposing that, refering to Colin McFauls classification, category 3 (not yet a good question but salvagable) and even more so category 4 (high-level problems) should not even be tagged [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the very broad notion of &quot;homework-like&quot; as currently applied, be narrowed down to not include technical advanced topic questions that come up from reading higher-level textbooks, following advanced courses, or even from reading research papers (graduate-level upward for short)?&#xD;&#xA;And can then these advanced technical questions (not all of them at once of course) be detagged from [tag:homework] (after appropriate edits if needed for category 3 questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of advanced technical questions that should not be considered homework and therefore either directly or after an improving edit, detagged. I am not trying to sharply distinguish between category 3 and category 4 of Colin McFaul's classification at the moment, and this list is by no means comprehensive but contains just a few examples to show what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82336/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57973/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73297/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76207/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69163/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75896/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89489/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/80556/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46703/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57253/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="1be54531-7b5c-4082-a695-f79a61d10839" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's easy to become to focussed on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="f6023243-6466-4ec7-990c-661bd7cbf5a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just stumbled on [this fantastic list of magic shortcuts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/94000/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Supported magic links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[meta]` &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[main]` &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[edit]` &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ... ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[ask]`, `[answer]` &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[something.se]` &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use `[ubuntu.se]` for Ask Ubuntu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Except for `[chat]` and `[edit]`, and with the addition of `[chat-faq]`, these also work in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# **Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to [Homework Policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/)?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="2102d968-44ad-41be-934d-7b4ae6ba4283" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In addition to [what Kyle said][1], feel free to flag one instance for moderator attention with a custom flag reason. Giving us some links to the others in the flag is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll look at them for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* appropriateness to individual questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the degree to which they might constitute spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the possibility that if they really are warranted on those several question we should be merging the questions as duplicates (and then killing the duplicated answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to add that the policy of voting the content and not the user is usually interpreted as implying that you should not single out a single user for down-votes. If you find yourself using the &quot;all actions&quot; tab in another user's profile to hunt down post to dislike you are straying into the dark side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote the posts that you see as you judge them and trust in the crowd to do the right thing in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6886/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="63b812c8-b226-4312-b5d9-73c77ab49ccd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Officially nothing has changed about the policy yet, i.e. the old one is still in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficially, my impression is that we are converging on a change in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Homework questions&quot; per se would no longer be allowed on the site, as suggested in the questions you linked&#xD;&#xA;- Our existing [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be changed to describe how people can modify their homework questions to conceptual questions to make them acceptable here&#xD;&#xA;- The [tag:homework] tag _may_ be entirely removed as part of this. We haven't yet fully discussed that, I believe. (I would like to see this happen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should definitely push forward with this; there is no particular rush, but we are getting close enough that it would be a shame not to see this through to the end. We need to decide what to do about the tag, and I don't know if there are any other unresolved issues to handle before we put these changes in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="9d6ad64b-87c4-4242-b71f-99936c980483" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know that most of us are &quot;paper theorists,&quot; but I think we need to remember that experimental physics is physics too!  We have several tags for experimental physics (with tag excerpts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technology](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technology)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;Use this tag for questions pertaining to the limits, management, and operation of equipment necessary to experimental physics. This tag is not intended for &quot;does this thing I heard about actually work&quot; type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;for questions about design, process, data, or analysis of experiments and observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technique](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; filling in the unspecified details of elegant-sounding descriptions of experimental methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some of us are a little quick to close questions that seem to be engineering (e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135259/how-can-i-make-a-dry-dilution-refrigerator-quiet that was closed and even downvoted--and also the cause for this Meta post). This merely begs the question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *objectively* separates **engineering** questions from **experimental physics** ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;see also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1132/experimental-technology-questions-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2948/should-how-do-i-solve-this-experimental-problem-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design (of which this might be a possible duplicate?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="c5436e90-5b48-4712-8ec4-272399ac966f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5380/124) it was suggested that it might be good for moderators to refrain from unilaterally closing homework (or homework-like) questions for a while, so that we can get a better sense of what people consider to be on topic and off topic regarding homework here. So we're going to do that for a trial period next week. (We may extend it longer than a week if it seems like that will be useful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Sunday 2/16 to Saturday 2/22 (**EDIT** and maybe for a couple more days), moderators will not cast any close votes using the homework close reason, except as the 5th vote on a question that we think should be closed. Effectively, we'll do our best to act like regular 3k users when it comes to closing homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective of this is to get a better sense of what kinds of questions should and shouldn't be prohibited under our new and improved homework policy (which will come into existence at some time in the future). Accordingly, while this experiment is going on, here is what close voters (i.e. those with 3k+ rep) should do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Consider the existing homework policy more of a guideline than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;- Instead of voting to close questions because they break the policy (as you normally would), only vote to close those questions which you would like to see prohibited by our new, to-be-written homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;- While you're doing it, think about why you are voting to close certain questions and not others, and try to come up with some description of what makes a homework-like question closeworthy for you. Post your feedback on this meta post (as comments or answers, as appropriate) and/or in the [chat room](chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this trial period ends, we'll take the feedback into account when working toward drafting a new homework policy. As always, reasoned arguments will be given more weight than something pithy that gets a lot of votes. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="8570d4e6-a3aa-484b-b578-3a84248aa77f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question is definitely close-able under the rubric of &quot;Unclear what you are asking,&quot; in addition to &quot;too open-ended.&quot; In the comments to that question, Ben Crowell points to a [meta question] he posed about this exact sort of thing: a link to a video, followed by the question, &quot;What's wrong with this?&quot; That's not really an answerable question, because there simply isn't enough information provided to determine what is bothering the OP about Crothers's ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Manishearth says, it's asking for a mainstream analysis of Crothers's ideas, so it could be salvaged by focusing on a specific aspect of Crothers's argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, there is the problem of some possible dishonesty of the OP of that question. In one comment, they imply that they are &quot;just a layman,&quot; but later claims to have read Schwarschild's original paper and seems to know a lot about the history of GR. To me, that discrepency is a big red flag that suggest that the OP isn't really askingthe question in good faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta question]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/how-to-deal-with-low-quality-questions-based-on-videos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="8fff72d5-9be0-4b5b-90aa-ea0a73c97956" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I received a notification for a comment made by Emilio Pisanty on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2687/modern-references-for-continuum-mechanics/2762?noredirect=1&quot;&gt;question &lt;/a&gt; asking for an update of my answer in order to comply with the current policy on &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&quot;&gt;resource recommendations&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can verify, I wasn't the only one who received the same comment. I was wondering if it is wise to try to enforce a current policy on very old contributions. I feel it is too much to ask for a huge amount of users. Maybe this is our online version of retroactivity in law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="2d913b92-8fd0-4a94-b058-5eb8f323d528" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A while ago a meta post clarified what we expect from members in the way of [prior research][1]. Armed with this very detailed and precise discussion I now vote to close questions if I think they show insufficient prior research. This has in the past raised some controversy, though more recently the site members have either come to agree with me or have got bored with telling me not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all contribute our time and the sweat of our brows for free because we think it makes the world of physics a better place. In return all we ask is that questioners don't take the piss. When they do, their questions simply don't deserve to be on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't apply this rule dogmatically because, well, we were all enthusiastic youngsters at one time and enthusiasm can lead you to post first and think second. I'm generally happy to answer a simple question if I think it's been asked out of a genuine interest in the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="6c564c4d-79b6-435b-aa1f-1db1afe5fae2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this is related to [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6114/the-site-toolbar-looks-broken-in-chrome-how-can-i-fix-it), but there's yet another formatting problem in Chrome. I'm seldom one to argue for doing it so it works vs. doing it right, but there needs to be some pragmatism: the number of Windows Chrome users strike me as a not-so-insignificant chunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n4XY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="7c48ccab-31c5-4a3c-a60a-3a208ac6546c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're not the first to notice this trend; actually, we had some discussion about it in the moderator chat room a few months ago. So I collected some data. Sampling which community ad is displayed on the home page at 10-minute intervals for a couple weeks shows that the distribution among different ads is roughly Gaussian, with no significant outliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 12 [Worldbuilding SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/6211?url=http%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 22 [SciRate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5982?url=https%3a%2f%2fscirate.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 46 [community ad thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5571?url=http%3a%2f%2fmeta.physics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5263%2fcommunity-promotion-ads-2014)&#xD;&#xA;- 59 [MathJax buttons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5570?url=http%3a%2f%2fstackapps.com%2fquestions%2f3373%2fmathjax-buttons)&#xD;&#xA;- 68 [Space SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5279?url=http%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 72 [MIT OCW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5276?url=http%3a%2f%2focw.mit.edu%2fcourses%2f%23physics)&#xD;&#xA;- 73 [Mathematica SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5275?url=http%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 77 [arXiv (1)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5266?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 81 [Unanswered questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5607?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2funanswered)&#xD;&#xA;- 82 [Astronomy SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5295?url=http%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 84 [Zotero](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5420?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.zotero.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 85 [NIST DLMF](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5278?url=http%3a%2f%2fdlmf.nist.gov%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Khan Academy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5277?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.khanacademy.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Physics Overflow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5780?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.physicsoverflow.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 88 [featured questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5296?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2f%3ftab%3dfeatured)&#xD;&#xA;- 90 [LaTeX Search](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5558?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.latexsearch.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 95 [Desmos](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5415?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.desmos.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [ShareLaTeX](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5272?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sharelatex.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [arXiv (2)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5299?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![histogram of ad frequency][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(this omits the ad for the site's newsletter) The Physics Overflow ad was displayed more than average, but was certainly far from being the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at the actual samples shows that the same community ad is displayed for a run of several hours. The exact length of the run changes according to some pattern I couldn't figure out (perhaps randomly), but the ad is not randomly chosen on each page view. I presume this is done to allow better caching. Anyway, I think this contributes to the _impression_ that the PO ad was being displayed more than it should be. If you tend to notice one ad more than the others, then when you see it the first time, you're more likely to register it when you visit the page in the future. While that ad is the current one, then it _is_ being displayed more often than it would be if the ads were randomly chosen at each page load, and your brain registers something fishy about that. On the other hand, during a run of any other ad, you don't notice it at all and your brain doesn't register the fact that you're going a long time without seeing the ad you focus on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E3WJq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="88a2713f-1d1a-4d72-9c05-da6cfddecea9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Have the mods done much closing since my [original suggestion][1]? The impression I have is that over the last month most of the closing has been done by the users. At the moment I'm reasonably happy with the status quo. It seems to me that most of the questions that have been closed were fairly obviously homework, and we have let through more advanced *homework* of the sort that Dilaton mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a sort of protocol emerging that we still close the more blatant of homework questions but provide hints in the comments. This keeps the homework questions off the home page but (hopefully) still provides a bit of help and encouragement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I recently did a quick count and 20% of all questions on the site were being closed. 20%! Mind you, amongst the more forum like sites having 80% of all questions worth while would be a huge step up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/5380#5380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="b0a88e6c-d8de-40db-bc5a-c132080d151a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Such a question would probably fall afoul of our [engineering policy][1]. There are many, many factors to consider, a number of which are simply not physics. In fact you've already covered the physics -- the aerodynamics. Factors such as difficulty of construction and human safety (do *you* want to be going at supersonic speeds with just a leather jacket protecting you?) would be needed to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="bfd4f439-08b7-4f43-b3b6-18eaa9383887" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I vote the historical lock. I don't think the question has any real value, but some future non-physicist people might find it useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (sorry for delay, had things to do)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAICR, the new resource recommendation policy [clearly states](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X-- a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post being discussed **does not request any of these topics**, it simply asks for **a list of books**. The vast majority of the answers to the question also appear to fail the recommended answering policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anupam and Satwick's answers at least mention topics covered, but don't really  hit the other points (where the book isn't thorough or the prerequisites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it does not really fit the model of the Stack Exchange network (which has a general ban on list questions anyway) and that it does not even fit our book policy, the only two options I see are (a) complete deletion and (b) historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe that (a) should be considered just because there is the possibility that *someone* could find some of the books are useful. Thus, the only good option is the historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="e158fa54-ad50-4d97-a834-8349219e4df7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is an offshoot of Ben Crowell's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists, and I'm asking it separately to help avoid multi-threaded comment discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in [a comment of dmckee](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14673_5102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't think that we (that is the mods) *should* be in the business of closing a lot of questions with our super-powers anymore. There are enough 3k users (81) that they *should* be able to carry the bulk of the load. My impression, however, is that a relatively small fraction of the eligible users apply their power with any regularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in that thread, I think this is a specific enough question that we can find the relevant statistics to give an answer to it. I must add that I agree with dmckee's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific question: Is it possible to confirm this statement from publicly available data, hopefully through the data explorer? If so, what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To kick off the discussion, and to answer [Manishearth's comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14703_5102), I think the relevant tables to look at are not the per-question close-votes, but the publicly available per-user [log of the review activity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so it looks we may need to ask the dev team for these statistics. In this case, **what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?** I'll make a proposal shortly but please try and think of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="f47671d1-6d94-4827-9811-aabd7fd04a96" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed several (&gt;~3) times over the past few months that the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework has been bumped up the front page of Meta, on separate occasions. I don't think it happens that often at all, and I'm not sure whether it's a good thing on Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way to see which questions have been bumped up by this process? Is this going on at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On a related note, the [user page for Community on Meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="6c34188d-4851-471d-9c89-97282077f875" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question asking about some properties of a twisted Hamiltonian system **is**  conceptual, even though it asks about the issue at a technical level. It not less conceptual than the more basic question brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5526/2751) and who's attracting closevotes is questioned too, but the twisted Hamiltonian question is about a more advanced topic and at a higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already said [several times](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5489/2751) (and please dont ignore the fact that my answer there is the one with the highest net scoere so there *are* people who agree with this even on meta) elsewhere, technical questions, as they come up from reading books about advanced topics, following higher level courses, or even from studying research papers should not be prohibited. Forbidding such technical questions about advanced topics is detrimental for people who want to learn physics at a beyond popular equation free technial level, and it would be bad for the originally targetted audience of the site (researchers, academics, and students of physics and astronomy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twisted Hamiltonian question is a legitimate technical question too, it is even conceptual, so IMHO the closevoters have been wrong. In summary, this particular question should not be closed, but allowed to attract nice and interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="90c6fba0-df55-4784-9584-e0909204e3a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work in the context of review tasks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has *any value or meaning*. In both cases, will the question be closed *anyway* when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2) Can you also explain why [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/135)&#xD;&#xA;at *meta* only one vote to **leave closed** is enough to declare that *item no longer reviewable*? and if/how that question can ever be reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: if 4 members think a question should *not* be closed, 5 members can *anyway* close that question, and the four contrary votes are absolutely irrelevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone answer also the second question? There were a couple of **reopen** votes at that post, which have disappered now: on what conditions can it be reopened? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why one member that has closed that question can vote again to prevent people from reopening it, and why only one vote (his) is enough to make that *item no longer reviewable*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that only some [20 members](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats) (out of 100/150) are actively engaging in **reopen** votes and that 5+5 were involved in the closures, it seems that it is practically impossible to reopen that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="bf038a81-3fb1-4d76-9be2-ed013aa3ca74" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Points 1 and 2 are precisely why I downvoted the post in question (which will likely be auto-deleted soon, so I've saved the screenshot and linked [it here][1]); I suspect that the same reasons are why it was closed as well (though more for 1 than 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting the *same* question would mean that you are running afoul of the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) *and* duplicating the question; both would get your question closed (I'd lean more towards the HW reason if I saw it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as much as people say it in comments, adding your effort doesn't actually prevent your homework question from being closed as homework. Note that the **tl;dr** on the HW policy says,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is quite in line with the community's opinion on [**check my work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic) questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, you *can* repost the question yourself **if** you make it about the *particular physical concept*, and not &quot;How is this question solved?&quot; that it currently is posed as. This will probably take some thinking on your part on how to phrase it such that it doesn't violate the site policies, but I imagine it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8onD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="a7f14223-0b4a-46cc-a298-b9258d6c9270" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; (On a related note, the user page for Community on Meta states that it pokes up questions every hour. This is definitely false on Meta, so maybe it can be fixed?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true - with the caveat that it doesn't bump if there's nothing to bump. If there's only 1 question on the site that meets the criteria for bumping, then Community will bump it and *touch nothing else* for the next 30 days until it becomes eligible again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [as Qmechanic notes][1], it rather appears that this is the only question that's been eligible for some time... And now even it isn't eligible anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community/6277#6277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="4f5fa920-8b75-4a5b-bc9e-2103a725341d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Previously the question concerning edits of 6 characters was asked &lt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4478/editing-tags-not-allowed-because-not-6-characters&gt;, however the answers provided were not satisfactory for the question. It is often the case that a single sign needs to be changed or a trivial typo disrupts the flow. In addition some edits are made in series as the question/answer are read over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I am writing to make a change to the page &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work/17964#17964&gt;. My concern is an edit of lambda squared to lambda in the Lagrangian under the header putting it all together. This matches the quartic interaction as typically written and correspondingly as the potential as defined above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="a449c4d5-95a7-45e4-9319-2a8be5f8f860" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, this downvoting peak was caused by the infamous (and very persistent) love spammer, who offered solutions to everybody's love lives, cf. [records](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9308818#9308818) from May 7th, 2013. (Link only accessible to moderators and SE team). The spammer used multiple Phys.SE accounts, such as, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24107) and [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24076).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incident spurred [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4270/2451) and possibly [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4297/2451) meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="16d519f6-6f77-4b7a-98e9-c5f2aa4f2ec9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Has there been any feedback on https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it was all a bit underwhelming and the close ratio was largely unaffected. Has there been any discussions amongst the mods, and if so what conclusions did you reach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="db2be73c-6da1-4286-a2d4-5183fee909a5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="d9e109e2-21ed-4b0e-a041-e79a06da1922" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you think a moderator is out of line use the [&quot;contact us&quot; link][1] at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.][2] This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beta site get *pro tem* moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time that is it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151633/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="956aaa8f-8ace-403d-a9f5-00745ee2c25a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We talked about it briefly in chat about starting a Topic of the Week event, akin to what is done at [Astronomy][1] and [Space][2] SE. I had proposed something similar [here][3] previously based on what was done at other SE sites discussed therein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how about we look at a just-for-fun Topic (or Tag) of the Week? Here's some of the things that would need to be decided/fleshed out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How long does each topic run?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the precedent is a week. But sometimes it takes longer to come up with really good questions or answers about highly technical aspects. Maybe two weeks would be better, but then we run the risk of getting tired of the topic in the middle. So I propose a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What's the point?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are three goals this serves. First, it promotes the asking and answering of questions the community deems interesting. Tired of [tag:newtonian-mechanics]? Suggest something else you are interested in and get some questions and answers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it could be used to attract higher-level participants. If there are things experienced members would like to focus on, decide and participate accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, it's something fun to do and will get many people outside of their comfort zones. I don't know anything about most of the tags here, but I would be encouraged to do some digging and ask a question about them if I knew it would get answered by people who know about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How are topics/tags chosen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the preceding month, a question will be posted here on meta to take nominations for the 4 topics of the next month. Each nomination should be it's own answer and ideally should contain at least one sample question already on the site pertaining to it. The 4 answers with the highest votes at the close of the voting period will be chosen -- let's say the voting period is 3 weeks. If topics should fit in a particular week of the next month, that should be noted; for instance, if a big announcement from CERN will be made in the first week of December, it might be good to put the [tag:particle-physics] topic during that week or the week after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the timeline look like? Assuming we get started soon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 1 - Nov 23**: Topic proposal and voting period for December's topics.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 23**: December's topic proposal question locked.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 27**: Topic schedule for December released&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1**: First topic week begins&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1 - Dec 20**: Topic proposal and voting period for January's topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What constitutes a community decision?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Highest voted topics get chosen. Well, let's say the highest of the 0-or-greater votes. If all the topics are positive and there's a tie, the mods will split the tie up and feel free to nominate again for the next month. If all the topics are at 0 then there is no interest in continuing and we give up. If we can't get 4 positively voted topics, we give up. If all topics are negative, we give up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we can only do what the cross-section of community here tells us to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, tags that you find interesting. The second goal may be to propose tags in which there is relatively low participation as a means to promote questions and answers in that topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should not be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Under no circumstances should a meta-type tag be nominated! So no [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], or [tag:popular-science]. Whatever tag is nominated could have questions from all three of those categories asked during that time, so let's not limit the level of the question, just the scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would avoid overly broad and overly specific tags as well. Something like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] is very broad and there's already a lot of questions on it so it probably doesn't need to be made a topic (although this is a guideline, not a rule so it could be -- the community will decide whether to use it or not). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why should I participate?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No seriously, why not? Do you know everything conceivable in your field? Do you know everything about every other field? Why not take the chance to read about something new or dig a little deeper into something old? Why not use the site as it's intended -- to pose questions you would like answered, or to answer questions you have the knowledge to answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/123/topic-of-the-week-cmb-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/questions/373/topic-of-the-week-colonization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/topic-of-the-week-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="eb1cd797-acb7-4399-ba52-6a579fa15af4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing after the recent [astrobiology discussion][1] was clear: our policy that &quot;anything on topic on the old astrophysics site is on topic here&quot; seems to be a bit vague and under question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the wording does not make it clear, this was the _initial_ meaning behind this policy: &quot;The _topics_ which are allowed on the old astronomy site are on topic here too&quot;, with no statement about the other factors (broadness, etc) which can get a question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it need to be tweaked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we might want to review this rather vague-in-retrospect policy and come up with a definitive replacement. Something like &quot;astrophotography, observational astronomy, and astrobiology&quot; are on topic, with a definition for what we count as &quot;astrophotography / etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this comment][2] raises a valid point: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1 for pointing out that this is biology, not physics. Astrobiology deals with things like &quot;What signatures does photosynthesis imprint in planetary spectra?&quot; or &quot;Do we know of any organisms that could withstand the UV radiation in the habitable zone of an M dwarf?&quot; And yes, I'm speaking as an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that discussion revolved around the question being astrobiology and thus on topic, however the above point seems to throw a wrench in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that such confusions exist, I suggest we come with definitive criteria as to what is considered &quot;on topic astronomy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or possibly have a second look at this policy in general, since the &quot;we are an astronomy and physics&quot; site never really took off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened#comment16344_5566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="b0c3f8b6-a7bd-48ac-b845-9eaa297f0ebf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we've had this debate before. Unfortunately, there's no definite consensus to be found about their community wiki status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/50583) (from July 2013) has the top voted answer (with a meager +11/-2) saying that book recommendation questions need to be *actively moderated by the community* and should be made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583) (from August 2013) implements the *&quot;Good list, bad list&quot;* top scored answer by setting rules for what a good res. rec. answer must contain, and that all answers *prior to that policy* should be moved to one single community wiki answer that gets an additional notice. No mention of making the question or its policy-conforming answers community wiki is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307/50583) (from December 2013, about the [great book list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/50583)) has no answers of positive score. The great book list itself is closed and has a single large community wiki answer that does not conform to the answer policy, but also lacks the additional notice mentioned in the faq post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, already the three main questions I can find on the book recommendation questions disagree on how to exactly handle these questions, or have just largely been ignored. It gets even more confusing when looking into practice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation]. Many of them are closed as duplicate of the big book list, others as primarily opinion-based, but only **174** of them have been made community wiki. No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No pattern as to which ones are closed as *duplicates of the book list*, which ones are closed as *primarily opinion-based* and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are **1.063** answers to [tag:resource-recommendation] questions, of which **544** are community wiki. This indicates that it's mostly the *closed questions* which are not made community wiki, because the percentage of answers that are wiki is much higher than that of the questions. But again, no clear policy is apparent. Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears no clear policy exists, or at least, none is enforced in practice. The topic of this meta discussion is therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should resource recommendation questions be on-topic, on-topic but community wiki, or off-topic?**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;To search for wiki/non-wiki questions, add `wiki:yes` or `wiki:no` to your query. Combine with `is:q` or `is:a` to get only questions or only answers.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;I have purposefully tried to refrain from making an argument for either case in the question, so that people can vote on the respective answers with their argumentation as they come in.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="ec085eb5-3df7-4398-bb54-ca1f240f1243" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#A journal club!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(While I assumed this was going to be as an answer to this post, Colin posted it as a separate question. Linking to it here just for completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the paper in some detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**More details, and main post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="5d0075df-0589-4195-8a59-e54f505977c2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is to announce that the History of Math and Science StackExchange proposal on Area 51 has entered the &quot;commit&quot; stage. You can read more about the proposal [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5494/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?rq=1) and see the proposal itself [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the commitment stage, a certain number of users must &quot;commit&quot; to using the site, which is simply a pledge to use it when the beta launches. Once enough people have done this, the beta version of the site will launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the top physics example questions on the proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exactly what kind of data did Kepler work out his laws from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What type of instrumentation was used to produce monofrequency light sources at the period of JC Maxwell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When was it recognized by scientists that the surface temperature of Venus must be extremely high compared to the earth? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="b77bf499-c29c-47ff-a302-4bdb09fec747" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you get hit with the automatic answer block, you get linked to a [page that describes how your situation and how to get out of it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, improve your existing answers. You have some deleted link-only answers; elaborate on them and undelete. Don't ask questions or leave comments in  the answer box, such stuff gets flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ delete your posts, it will exacerbate the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ create a new account, it will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, please do not ask homework-like questions on this site. See https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/answer-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="3aaa349e-07c0-4776-ae9a-86a74885ce1f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Last but not the least if editing policy is mentioned somewhere please give me a link of that. If not then please mention it as an answer to my question.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="fc751b68-d7f9-4283-8c81-db0f1c24703a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; &quot;...Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **that answer has so far scored just a single upvote**.... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the **most upvotes are going to be the simple ones** that everyone can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... **Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't attract as much attention** as the more obvious ones (people just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics SE... &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very fond of John Rennie, and I have expressed my great esteem for him in many occasions. He his the first figure one comes to know and appreciate, as soon as one joins this site. He is not so active now, but, when I joined in Summer, I could see at 8 o'clock sharp a whole string of excellent, clear and interesting answers in impeccable British English, signed by a photo of a distinguished figure that reminded me of a XIX century Squire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot avoid to poind out how this post of his is a contradiction of the position he held when I first exposed [**this problem**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear) and when I offered [**a solution**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6180/answers-should-be-rated-a-suggestion-to-the-team/6184#6184). My posts where heavily downvoted, and probably he too downvoted them, now his post has 10 upvotes, so far. Congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be simple and effective to _put a rep cap to questions (and answers) bearing the tag 'everyday-life'_, why don't you propose or just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion was more far-reaching than this. It would give a solution to all the other problems, including the one *dmckee* was hinting to here, of [**cliques**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6279/precise-directives-re-flagging/6281#6281), fans, followers and supporters (sometime: worshippers). There are some members that get **anyway** dozens of votes, **no matter they write**, even if they _do not answer the OP question_ , or just write simple answers for which another member would get (at most) a couple of votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to give you one of the hundreds of examples [**this simple answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148656/why-dont-stars-have-keplerian-orbits/148670#148670) has got only 30 words (made to look longer repeating the question and adding the tag: the answer is simple), is not the first and is not better that the others, yet, it fetches 22 votes *(almost one-word-one-vote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, I must ask John: why don't you do something in concrete, instead of _moaning_ :) , to back up my proposal that **answers should be rated**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The key word being thrill**... the end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result is that people are willing to devote large chunks of their time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to writing some truly fantastic answers. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I think the current reputation system is very, very good.**.. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; start making changes .. I fear you will start demotivating exactly the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sort of people who make this site such as a success.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments, let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **comprehensively disagree** with the views expressed in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes **I'm a bit frustrated** that what I consider my better answers don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _thrill of easy rep_ is compensated by the _frustration_ of seeing one's merit not appreciated. That's life, John, you can't have it both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: This time **it'll be amusing** to see how the *farcical carousel* of downvoting/upvoting will develop, since I have only quoted *verbatim* John's statements. I couldn't possible attribute a downvote to me, as I just recorded a contradiction, or I hope, a change of opinion, which I welcome! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="d4489488-0a2a-409d-9151-a676253b6431" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, I think there is a clear precedence order among these posts. I may as well give the full ordering as I see it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The help center&#xD;&#xA;2. The canonical (generally, top) answer in an [meta-tag:faq] post on this meta&#xD;&#xA;3. The canonical answer in an [faq](//meta.stackexchange.com/tags/faq) post on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;4. If there is not an FAQ post on the topic, answers in non-FAQ posts on this meta, with answers to later questions overriding those to earlier questions&#xD;&#xA;5. As in #4, but for answers on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendations and discussions on the [Stack Exchange blog](https://blog.stackexchange.com), and any other sources that come directly from the SE team, don't really _set_ policy, but they should be taken into account when interpreting policies or deciding how to handle situations that aren't explicitly covered by an FAQ post. If I had to place them in the list I'd put them roughly between steps 3 and 4, but in a fuzzy way that indicates their influence on all five levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the questions you linked, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583 is the only one with the [meta-tag:faq] tag, and thus (as far as I'm concerned) it sets the site policy on the matter, since there's nothing relevant in the help center. It says nothing about making resource recommendation questions community wiki, therefore I don't make them community wiki. If we want to change that, we should build a consensus as a community (as we might do with this question) and then edit (or, in more extreme cases, replace) the relevant [meta-tag:faq] post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think we should change that. The reason I hold that view is fairly well summarized by [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) (also see [this more recent one](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) which continues the same argument). In short, there should be no such thing as a question which is good enough to be on the site, but not good enough to earn reputation for its asker. We want to host good questions _and only good questions_, and it makes sense to reward people for asking good questions. That is what reputation is for. Take away reputation, and you take away the incentive to keep question quality high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR book recommendations should be on topic (subject to guidelines) and not community wiki**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we do have some inconsistencies in how this is handled in practice, as you pointed out. (The following is to be considered descriptive and not part of the recommendation that constitutes the first part of my post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably has more to do with which moderator took action on the post than anything else. We haven't gotten together to hash out an agreement about whether those posts should be wikified or not. Actually until recently I didn't know that anyone was still making questions CW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No pattern as to which ones are closed as duplicates of the book list, which ones are closed as primarily opinion-based and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally close questions as duplicates of the book list when they're asking for books that would also be listed under _more than one_ of the &quot;standard&quot; book recommendation questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are 1.063 answers to resource-recommendation questions, of which 544 are community wiki.... Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers are an entirely different issue. Posters still have the option to wikify their own answers if they want, to indicate that those answers should reflect contributions from multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the recommendation post notice is for questions, not answers. If you meant questions, a lot of old questions don't have it because we don't go back and systematically add the post notice to all of them. If you see one, flag it as needing the recommendation notice and we'll add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, probably. I'd say flag them, probably as NAA but a custom flag works too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="3b41fb0d-822c-4ed1-8dc1-082d0c4eaccd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We're only allowed three custom close reasons\*, which will all necessarily be sub-reasons of &quot;off topic.&quot; So if we were to add another custom close reason for a lack of sufficient preparation (or whatever we would call it), it would have to replace one of the existing reasons. I don't dispute that this would probably be a good close reason to have, but the question is, is it more important than the ones we have there right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current close reasons - homework-like, non-mainstream, and engineering - were chosen because, roughly speaking, we (mods and others who offered input) thought they were the three most common types of questions we wanted to most actively discourage. Or more precisely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- they are used reasonably often&#xD;&#xA;- it's useful to have specific, standardized wording for them&#xD;&#xA;- we want to actively remind people that questions of that nature are not on topic&#xD;&#xA;- they tend not to overlap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Perhaps_ lack of preparation meets these criteria better than one of the current reasons, but I'm not entirely convinced that it does. In particular, I think a lot of these questions also fall under homework-like (including the example you linked to) or too broad, and can be closed as such. For those that don't, you can always type in a custom close reason which will be posted as a comment. And I think that ability is sufficient to handle these sorts of questions. I could be wrong, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could definitely see myself changing my mind if someone can come up with a wording for the new close reason that would be reasonably objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;\*actually it is technically possible to have up to 5, but all sites other than Stack Overflow are limited to 3 and we would have to petition the SE team with a _very_ strong case to get them to increase our allotment.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a separate note, I always **downvote** questions that show a lack of appropriate preparation. This relates to the issue in [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5736): I consider this site to be for expert-level questions in the sense that an asker must have adequate preparation in physics to coherently formulate their question and understand the answer they are seeking. Questions that don't satisfy that criterion demonstrate a lack of research effort (in a sense) and are sometimes also unclear, which is the criterion to cast a downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="346b3764-b248-47e0-aac3-842bbc6ef4ee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I propose that we edit the resource recommendation banner into these questions, making the _questions_ follow the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the answers, those which do _not_ follow the policy can be collected into a single Community Wiki answer. Maybe with a disclaimer about how it is no longer considered a good answer to a recommendation question. We could alternatively historical lock it, though the historical lock post notice seems to talk about questions even when applied to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, there aren't any broken windows, but the content is preserved. This requires some effort, though. I don't mind doing it myself, but I'll have to start a week from now. This isn't something urgent, so we can handle it at our leisure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rather like @Emilio's banner for the community wiki questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="aa751bf8-f8a3-4962-9e62-899f571a8b3f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5380/124) it was suggested that it might be good for moderators to refrain from unilaterally closing homework (or homework-like) questions for a while, so that we can get a better sense of what people consider to be on topic and off topic regarding homework here. So we're going to do that for a trial period next week. (We may extend it longer than a week if it seems like that will be useful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Sunday 2/16 to Saturday 2/22 (**EDIT** and maybe for a couple more days), moderators will not cast any close votes using the homework close reason, except as the 5th vote on a question that we think should be closed. Effectively, we'll do our best to act like regular 3k users when it comes to closing homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective of this is to get a better sense of what kinds of questions should and shouldn't be prohibited under our new and improved homework policy (which will come into existence at some time in the future). Accordingly, while this experiment is going on, here is what close voters (i.e. those with 3k+ rep) should do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Consider the existing homework policy more of a guideline than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;- Instead of voting to close questions because they break the policy (as you normally would), only vote to close those questions which you would like to see prohibited by our new, to-be-written homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;- While you're doing it, think about why you are voting to close certain questions and not others, and try to come up with some description of what makes a homework-like question closeworthy for you. Post your feedback on this meta post (as comments or answers, as appropriate) and/or in the [chat room](chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this trial period ends, we'll take the feedback into account when working toward drafting a new homework policy. As always, reasoned arguments will be given more weight than something pithy that gets a lot of votes. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="437218c2-d5a8-4652-b8a8-1b5529614763" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are multiple criteria for a homework-like question to be acceptable here, as detailed in [our policy][1]. In no particular order three of the most important criteria (the ones I feel are most often not met) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Show some **effort**. Don't just dump your work in our laps for us to do.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Ask about something **specific**. There are many issues that can arise in trying to solve a problem, and we can't read your mind to see what you do and don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Ask about a physical **concept**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point is where your question fails. Lately we've seen a lot of this, where users focus on my point (1), showing a whole lot of effort, and forget about point (3). It's unfortunate, because when you put that much work into something it naturally feels like you deserve an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But alas, **we are not a homework help service**. In particular, as the policy notes right in the summary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking about sign errors (like your question) or missing factors of 2 are the paradigmatic examples of things we don't allow, since ultimately they are just about a symbol manipulation mistake rather than something *physical*. It's not just about effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can try to turn the question into something that is acceptable. There are conceptual physical questions related to what you asked, for example, &quot;Can the moment of inertia be negative?&quot; My general suggestion for questions of this type is to go through the steps, try to figure out the boundary where &quot;everything before this is definitely right, and everything after this has something wrong&quot; and see if you can ask something along the lines of &quot;I thought this quantity was calculated this way, but that conflicts with my feeling that the quantity should be positive, so is my intuition right?&quot; for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community feels a revised version of the question no longer conflicts with our policies, they will reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="216a15ac-e880-4a96-948c-8e0331731307" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't see the 'disagreement' you talk about. The [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561) is general and its conclusions are supported and made specific by the faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697). On the other hand, [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307) asks about [one specific question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175) and has no bearing on general [tag:resource-recommendations] posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation] [...] but only **174** of them have been made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because re-processing old threads is a labour-intensive manual process that cannot be done in intense bursts, and we simply haven't done all of them. As you correctly point out, the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697) does not indicate whether old questions should be made community wiki. **In general, they should**, to conform with current practice, and because of the reasons [you outlined](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7041). (Some cases, though, are not so clear. Should [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/108649) be forbidden from earning rep?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old questions, the procedure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Check that the existing answers conform to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consolidate the ones that don't into a single CW answer with the banner from the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Overall spelling / formatting checks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flag for the banner on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the moderator will also turn the question into CW unless there's some specific reason not to. If it's already been processed but it's not CW, flag it for a moderator to CWify it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bumps the old post to the front page, so it should be done sparingly (i.e. no more than five at a time or so) to avoid flooding the front page. There's currently [some three hundred](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+is%3Aq+wiki%3Ano+closed%3Ano+duplicate%3Ano) open non-CW resource recommendations questions, so there's still plenty of room for keen-eyed eager volunteers to reprocess old posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="2f902d2b-c49a-4db5-8ec1-b202bf83f9c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I deliberately asked only questions in my post: from now on I want to separate the issues, the problems from *my* suggestions, which (legitimately) may not be popular or may be downright wrong, and should be mercilessly downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must specify also that **my posts at Meta are addressed to the SE Team who monitor the various sites, or, eventually, to its real owners**, who care about the welfare of the network, and are not meant to gain popularity. You probably all know that **I had the cheek to refute Newton** himself (and Wikipedia) in a few answers of mine, which are extremely unpopular with the top users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close or locked: it is _shameful and shameless_ to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure or censorship. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions in my question, I was only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have documented that some members cast up to 7-8 VTC in a minute. This truth has not been questioned, nay,  to my surprise the right to VTC a question in 10 seconds has been proudly claimed. Probably I am too old and my reflexes are dimmed as my eyesight and moreover my modest abilities and competence do not allow me to conscientiously review a question in 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) unclear: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) duplicate: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked possible duplicate[s]. Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) no effort-HW. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. **If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient** and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the community.. - Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called community is identified with just a select group (roughly a dozen members from the 3k+ club), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, that is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the status quo) and, even if some do, it is practically impossible to reopen a question, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare off-topic the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt the community has for newcomers and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. All members who pretended not to understand it or insulted the poster refused to give a justification or even an explanation , and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of newcomers: two identical [questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23893_6467) were closed and deleted (marked as HW-off-topic) when the OP was a newbie, and became perfectly on-topic (when posted *ad hoc*) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting for a reply to the second question [**here**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) to see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is therefore my answer to the questions**? I think we are not being enough fair to students, and our *comprehension* or *humanity* should be greater. My suggestion is articulate and you can choose any bit you approve, or mix them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions by newcomers (or users who already posted bad questions) might not be published immediately, they might be put in a separate queue, just as we are doing with **First post**/ answer. There the posts by non-natives might be corrected and made more clear for non-native reviewers, who sometime have problems with comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;- in the same queue the really bad questions might get a first screening and be put on hold, preventing people from answering, giving time to the reviewers to take a conscientious decision&#xD;&#xA;- nobody should ever be allowed to cast more than a VTC in one minute.&#xD;&#xA;- members who voted *to close* should not be allowed to vote same question to *leave it closed*&#xD;&#xA;- obviously enough, reviewers criticized for wrongly closing a question should not be allowed to close the Meta-question&#xD;&#xA;- question at Meta should never be closed when they criticize policies or actions. If the post contains rude words only those words should be eliminated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="2120da3e-d002-4635-86ea-d97742cf9740" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely. *Flagging* is no less useful now than it was before; only the process by which flags are *handled* has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19104/how-do-metallic-objects-interfere-with-x-rays/111106#111106) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could I ask then what is the comparable &quot;blocking&quot; ability of lead, zinc and regular carbon steel (ie steel used in general construction), In simple terms, for example 1mm of lead is the same as ?mm zinc and ??mm steel????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, that is *not* an answer. Flagging it as such puts it in front of the moderators *and* other users via /review/low-quality-posts. If multiple people flag the same answer, it gets pushed toward the top of the moderator queue. It *also* gets a bit of additional weight on the side of &quot;delete&quot; in /review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, either moderators or reviewers can delete the answer - this means the flag will be handled regardless of whether or not there are moderators or reviewers active on the site - the post will be dealt with by whoever gets to it first. In this case, *both* queues contributed to handling the flag, with a reviewer leaving a comment explaining why this was not an appropriate answer and a moderator following up by deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases, the flag may not be able to be handled by reviewers. These flags enter the moderator queue *only*, and remain there until a moderator is able to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a 10K user][1], you're now kept abreast of the state of /review via [the number at the top of the page][2]; if that number isn't budging for days at a time, neither moderators nor reviewers are keeping up and flagging isn't working - maybe ask around and try to find out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A pocket guide to flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the following flags are available in various situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Very Low Quality:** used to call out a question or answer that is *abysmally* bad - not necessarily even incorrect, but impossible to understand or utterly irrelevant. The sort of post that would embarrass you if it showed up when you were showing off the site to a peer. Each &quot;helpful&quot; VLQ flag comes with an automatic downvote, compliments of the system. Only available for posts scoring &lt;=0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Not an answer:** used to call attention to posts that do not even attempt to answer the question they're posted in response to. Follow-up questions, commentary on other answers, rants, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Offensive:** posts that shock the proverbial conscience. Generally, such posts will have other problems as well, which might otherwise result in them being closed or deleted - but in this case the author has gone out of his way to make his work odious. Each flag generates an immediate downvote from the system, which will be retracted if the flag is declined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Spam:** overt self-promotion. Can be anything from mechanically-generated offers of discount handbags, to someone obnoxiously pushing their tangentially-relevant blog in lieu of actually answering questions. Like Offensive, you'll know it when you see it. Also generates an automatic downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *A sufficient number of either Spam or Offensive flags on a post will cause it to be instantly removed, locked, and the author's reputation docked 100 points. If you find spam inherently offensive, just pick whichever option seems more appropriate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Other:** You're not quite sure how to categorize it, but *something is rotten in the state of Denmark*. Hopefully, an experienced moderator will be able to sort it out. Requires entering a description of the problem - *be specific!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying/5763#5763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="7406a6f0-0461-4667-909d-67c4995e8a6b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have some sympathy with Brandon's point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit concerned we'll end up seeming an unfriendly and elitist site. The moderators are admirably tactful in dealing with homework questions, but I see comments to homework questions that while justified strike me as a bit bitchy. I worry these will put new users off - it's easy for us old timers to forget how intimidating asking your first question can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other point that strikes me is that I see various questions about esoteric subjects like supersymmetry that look awfully like homework set by a PhD supervisor, but of course the level is far higher than the usual homework question. These tend not to be tagged as homework (possibly because few of understand them :-) so presumable there is some ill defined cut-off point where homework ceases to be homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picking up on a point made in David's answer, it seems to me the most important thing is the amount of effort that's been put into writing the question. This is what I was getting at in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5203/updating-the-how-to-ask-faq. At the moment we have a *Homework* tag and we have a close reason that says *Homework like questions ... should show some effort*. The homework tag works fine, but I think the close reason should be unrelated to whether the the question is homework. The close reason should be that the OP hasn't made sufficient effort. This would be applied to homework, but would also be applied to questions like *Tell me about the Standard Model* that we get from time to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="639e0345-54ad-41e2-9847-33ec9b0b60fc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Have the mods done much closing since my [original suggestion][1]? The impression I have is that over the last month most of the closing has been done by the users. At the moment I'm reasonably happy with the status quo. It seems to me that most of the questions that have been closed were fairly obviously homework, and we have let through more advanced *homework* of the sort that Dilaton mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a sort of protocol emerging that we still close the more blatant of homework questions but provide hints in the comments. This keeps the homework questions off the home page but (hopefully) still provides a bit of help and encouragement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I recently did a quick count and 20% of all questions on the site were being closed. 20%! Mind you, amongst the more forum like sites having 80% of all questions worth while would be a huge step up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/5380#5380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="f4260764-c0df-4dde-883b-2a0ca11cb64f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up post on John Rennie's topic https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6303/, and [my answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6352/24142) therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many of us have at some point been dispirited, when an answer on an advanced topic that took a lot of effort to write received very few upvotes; and answers on basic subjects that took much less effort are upvoted far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been wondering if it is possible to implement an additional reputation score that rewards high-quality answers more than basic answers. I have such a proposal, and I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is as follows: the standard reputation system treats every vote the same: each vote counts as 10 points. That's all very nice and democratic, but it doesn't reflect the quality of an answer; the score depends heavily on the popularity of the question. But perhaps we can also give answers a *weighted* vote, such that the score you get not only depends on how many votes you received, but also on *who* has given the upvotes. In particular, a vote from a high-rep user will give you a higher score than a vote from a low-rep user. Now, I'm not in favour of having this 'quality score' displayed on every individual answer, because that might influence other voters. Instead, I'd prefer for each user to have an 'overall quality score', calculated from all their received votes combined, updated once a day, and displayed next to their total reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this is that the high-rep users are knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, including specialized topics. So they will likely also read and vote on these more advanced subjects. Therefore, while these topics attract less votes, those votes are more likely to come from high-rep users (though not always; there are also specialists who have not built up a high reputation. No system is perfect). On the other hand, more basic questions will attract more casual users with lower reputations. Also, high-rep users have more experience with the site, and will more often recognize and appreciate a high-quality answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next problem is then to decide how the votes should be weighted. There are of course a lot of possible ways, so I'll just give a simple example. Consider the following distribution: The horizontal axis has all the users who have voted at least once, sorted according to their reputation, from highest to lowest. The vertical axis has the total amount of upvotes given by each user. Then divide this distribution into 9 areas, representing 9 user groups, such that the total amount of votes that each group has given is roughly the same (some rounding off is needed so that each user falls into one group). The upvotes of the group of highest-rep users are worth a score of 18; the votes of users of group 2 are worth a score of 16; the votes of users in groups 3 to 9 are worth 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2, respectively. In this manner, the average score of all the votes of the entire site will be 10 (rounded off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you get an upvote from someone in group 1 (the top users), you get 18 points. If you get an upvote from someone in group 9 (the lowest-rep users), you get 2 points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can refine this system further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign an additional quality score to a received bounty;&#xD;&#xA; - Assign a higher quality score to votes from people who have posted an answer to the same question. After all, a vote from a 'competitor' is an acknowledgement that your answer is of high quality;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvotes can also be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any interest in this feature? Is it worth doing? Is it actually doable? Do you have alternative ideas? I look forward to your feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="05d58a4f-9f55-4c3e-be6a-acf3c5044cc7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The system doesn't allow for full-fledged migration paths to beta sites. This is done to prevent young beta sites from being overwhelmed by the potentially large number of posts migrated away from a mature site. You normally wouldn't want the new site to be defined just by what the older site throws out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this rule was probably developed with Stack Overflow in mind -- its sheer volume *would* overwhelm related sites. I don't have stats on how many engineering-closed questions we've had lately, but given that we've only migrated 4 questions this past month to Electrical Engineering, it probably isn't an overwhelming volume. Still, the system is what it is, so normal users cannot *directly* do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Formally request that our moderators migrate most such questions to Engineering. This would be a burden on the mods, and it would be circumventing the spirit of the &quot;don't migrate to betas&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Continue as usual, with Physics users made aware that there is an Engineering site up and running. We could comment on posts we vote to close, directing the posters to the other site. If the question is *particularly* good and *particularly* on-topic for Engineering, we could ourselves flag for moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to go with option 2. I would add that since engineering is so new (you don't even have temporary mods yet!), it itself hasn't fully defined what constitutes a good question. Eagerness is all well and good, but perhaps Engineering should get a better sense of itself first before we start throwing questions at it, especially since the typical Physics user with enough rep to vote to close will have even *less* of an idea of what Engineering wants than most Engineering users themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add that engineering sites should be edited into [our FAQ][1], which is linked in the close notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="dbaa7fb7-bc3f-4459-a62d-c47b7e69e13d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question asking about some properties of a twisted Hamiltonian system **is**  conceptual, even though it asks about the issue at a technical level. It not less conceptual than the more basic question brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5526/2751) and who's attracting closevotes is questioned too, but the twisted Hamiltonian question is about a more advanced topic and at a higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already said [several times](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5489/2751) (and please dont ignore the fact that my answer there is the one with the highest net scoere so there *are* people who agree with this even on meta) elsewhere, technical questions, as they come up from reading books about advanced topics, following higher level courses, or even from studying research papers should not be prohibited. Forbidding such technical questions about advanced topics is detrimental for people who want to learn physics at a beyond popular equation free technial level, and it would be bad for the originally targetted audience of the site (researchers, academics, and students of physics and astronomy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twisted Hamiltonian question is a legitimate technical question too, it is even conceptual, so IMHO the closevoters have been wrong. In summary, this particular question should not be closed, but allowed to attract nice and interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5824" RevisionGUID="ad5ec092-ba11-40c0-a19c-4b8296ddddd7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It doesn't actually matter whether or not the asker was assigned the problem as homework. The homework tag is for homework-like questions. These are questions whose purpose are not about resolving a conceptual difficulty, but instead about getting the right answer to a specific problem. Thus you can assign the homework tag without knowing if the problem actually is homework; homework-likeness is a property of the problem, not the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think people on this site care about whether or not you attend a university and I don't think they care about whether your question stems from a homework assignment or random curiosity. What they do care about is that your question addresses a conceptual issue that can be applied to many situations, so that the answer is useful to a wide audience and writing an answer is a good investment of time. The homework tag is supposed to indicate whether or not this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think we need a self-learner tag, because we don't care whether you go to a university or not, and we wouldn't need an &quot;actual-homework&quot; tag, because we don't care whether the problem is actually homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some links to recent discussion about the homework tag for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="5dca98da-a9eb-492f-bf18-d7da9b2f7e70" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;**(I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked, e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a calculation service or a work checking service. If you need help with a particular calculation, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. Make sure your question cannot be answered with a small amount of research and show that you've made effort to resolve the issue yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions about particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself or a request to have your work checked, must ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="d1c704b9-cad6-4ab7-bf7a-bcc1aa707a3d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I know Astronomy.SE [merged][1] into Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I asked this astronomy related question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89350/when-venus-is-the-brightest-when-viewed-from-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I got a moderator comment that it would better fit in astronomy.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's up? Will the site split again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="e89e7b13-be24-42e5-be1e-c22a22b82240" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The dawn of a new year, 2015, now approaches, or has already approached, either way it means that it is now time to reset our Community Promotion Ads!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/6388" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="466d6188-facf-4340-ab98-d27846062d15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have [discussed this before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions) although that question is only tangentially related to this one. Based on that question though, you should find that the most active people who answer questions have some of the fewest questions asked. For the most part, the community is split into two broad groups -- those who ask questions and rarely answer (which seems to be where you would place yourself) and those who answer questions and rarely ask (which is where many of the people who will likely respond to this meta post would place themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for everybody so I'm sure I will miss individual motivations. But I know for some, they answer questions because they like to teach others. These folks tend to be current or retired academics. Which makes sense, they are making/have made a career out of educating others. And of course, there are those who plan on going into academics and would like to make a career out of teaching others so they could be in that group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are those who see answering others' questions as a way to learn more themselves. I know I have learned quite a bit by answering questions I am not an expert *per se* in but my knowledge of my field has allowed me to bring a particular perspective. And in those cases, I answer something but I also learn from the resulting votes/comments (was I right? did I miss something?) and in some cases has actually led me to ask questions of my own. I also get to see how others reach a conclusion/answer and I almost always learn something from the other answers even if I &quot;knew&quot; it. Turns out, there's usually more than one way to think about something and I wouldn't know how my thought process is different than somebody elses' without having first outlined mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could also say that I fit into a category where I want to encourage others to ask questions and understand how the universe works. It's just a nice thing to do, and maybe that's the goodwill/altruism you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the game aspect of it. You ask good questions, you get rep; you post good answers, you get rep. You get badges. You &quot;level up&quot; and get new permissions. It's sometimes fun to play the game for some people. Answers get more rep than questions so that's a good way to advance faster if you're good at it. Plus there's always that &quot;Yay, somebody liked my post!&quot; when you get an upvote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side of the coin, like you said about yourself, I spend a lot of time answering my own questions. But that's because I'm in grad school and I need to develop the skills to both develop my own questions and then answer them. Things that I have questions about, I can't openly ask questions about -- they are things I am being paid to research and I could get scooped if I start revealing what I'm doing to the world before it's done. My field is specific enough that what seems to be relatively general/generic questions would turn up in a search engine and it would be easy to piece together things. Of course, by the time I finish working on it enough that it could be public, that's because *I've already answered a bunch of my own questions and have new ones that are my next paper*! So it's not easy, nor appropriate, for me to be asking questions that directly benefit my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions tend to be curiosity about things. And I ask them here and not somewhere else because I have gotten to know the users here through my interactions (either in the chat room, here on meta, or through the Q&amp;A themselves) and I like them. I know that I can ask something and I usually have a pretty good idea who will attempt to answer it based on what the question is about. And I know I can trust the resulting answers or trust the comments that point out my misconceptions or point me to the right answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="f0c6d7df-c928-4e67-86d9-315e60f4c510" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two things that upset me quite a bit about this business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The role of moderators is to enact community consensus. When there isn't one, their role is to bring the question formally for community consideration on this meta site, so that a communal decision can be taken. A good example of what I consider successful moderator handling of such a situation is [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this particular instance, five people voted to close and five people voted to reopen. Neither of these is an indication that the question is on- or off-topic here; rather, they must be taken together as an indication that there is no consensus. Unilateral moderator action in these conditions is, I feel, out of line. This is regardless of whether the question was, or turns out to be, off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I simply do not see the point of closing old questions, and particularly ones which already have answers. If the motivation for that is to keep them from cluttering the front page, or out of a broken-windows approach, I believe closing them is in fact detrimental, and just brings more attention to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular question is on two gray areas but I would strongly dispute that either of them merits closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an astrobiology question and as such it is best answered by biologists, or possibly chemists. Indeed, if it were asked today, I would recommend direct migration to biology.se. However, this question was asked on the old astronomy beta and, having been on topic there, it should be taken as on topic here. It is now too old to be migrated, and there are very good reasons for that age limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Further than that, the reason we close questions as off-topic is because they clutter and take up the attention of people who do not have the expertise to answer them. This question has two perfectly good answers that quite patently satisfied the OP and are good resources for anyone who lands on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The other reason we close questions as off-topic is so that they don't invite new questions like them which, again, clutter the front page. I do not think this question does that. Anyone looking to ask such things would more naturally ask it in the new astronomy beta. If someone does ask it here, we can simply migrate to biology or astronomy as appropriate. If we ever get inundated with those then we can rethink closing old questions which create the impression that biology is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is indeed slightly too broad for the SE model. However, it has answers that address essentially every point raised. The reason we close questions as too broad is that they are simply unlikely to attract good answers and their broadness undermines their future usefulness. This question has attracted good answers which are short, concise and to the point. I do not think it is even a broken window, and its broadness harms no one. To put it clearly, I do not think it should be closed as too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that closing astronomy-related questions sends the message that any astronomy questions are off-topic here. This goes against (1) the discussions at the time of the merger, (2) the [loud objections on this meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2665/8563) to the opening of the new astronomy beta, and (3) the [loud objections by many phycisists](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/6222/why-wouldnt-this-just-be-part-of-the-existing-physics-stack-exchange-site) on the new astronomy beta's discussion page to the reopening of a parallel site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having addressed this particular question, I do think that astrobiology questions have much better venues than this site. Unless the question really does involve physics, at least on the side of the astrobiology, we should point the posters to the biology, astronomy or chemistry betas, and migrate the questions there after consultation with the poster and the target site moderators. We do not get anywhere near enough of these to make the process unfeasibly long or complicated, and this should really be done on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fate of this particular question, I think it is a perfectly valid question and should not be closed, though it is arguably on the wrong site and is too old to be migrated. To keep consistency, and to satiate the moderator thirst &quot;to *show* new users that there are limits to what kinds of question we accept here&quot;, I propose that the question be reopened but that the following banner be added, as a quote, to the end of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that astrobiology questions are typically not on topic on this site unless they address specific physics issues. If you have a similar question, please consider posting it on our [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com), [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com) or [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sister sites. For more information, please refer to [the discussion on Physics Meta about this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="3402ac09-6e28-447b-8079-64707521cbc0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another clever fellow within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should have mentioned, I am only talking about three or four votes here and there, when I'm taking a break from my own work, by the way. It is not as if I am suggesting systematically going through every single one of another persons questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I still think it is helpful to try to find out the bounds for this, in order to avoid doing anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="87d2e00f-8a75-464b-922d-0d7d301acbd4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="OP's meta question is a much-needed initiative to improve/change/update the homework policy wordings of the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help), the [meta question 714](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), the [wiki discription](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework-and-exercises/info), and close reason; to make them useful and consistent, and stress that the issue is not whether the question is _actual_ homework, but rather whether it asks a conceptional question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested policy makers and editors in these matters are encouraged to come forward and meet in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, about a year ago (October 22nd, 2014), the [tag:homework] tag was already changed after several and long discussions on meta and various chat sessions to the self-explanatory [tag:homework-and-exercise] tag, which has for the past year mostly run smoothly and as intended. Any further change in the tag name seems to warrant a separate meta post, which could possibly be conducted after an overhaul of the above mentioned policy texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder to not forget that that the main objective is to first-and-foremost serve the Phys.SE community of _active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,_ as it says in the [intro pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). In plain English: The interests of people asking off-topic questions might not coincide with the best interests of the Phys.SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="b84adfb0-0755-4bba-9707-a2ced1510b6f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading [2-year old meta post here][1], and it seems most of the answers saying that it should be on-topic (as theoretical physics) as science should answer non-mainstream questions to avoid censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's still not clear for me and I know that there was some long debate on this and many people left.&#xD;&#xA;So to simplify this, what's the current status of this topic on this site? If not, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2597/10968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="360438a0-a6d5-44de-846a-e5cee2633ea2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Has there been any feedback on https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it was all a bit underwhelming and the close ratio was largely unaffected. Has there been any discussions amongst the mods, and if so what conclusions did you reach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="040f8e19-e727-4e7d-bb35-5f7072016eec" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="HT to [Danu](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24653/danu) on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there was this recent post inquiring about [answering 0-answer questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6641/) in which a comment read,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not evident that votes on answers to old questions are fewer than on new ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, elsewhere on the site, it was mentioned that late answers are typically either really amazing or really bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are either of these statements true? Do older questions get fewer votes? Is there a bi-modality of score in late answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="99f8e60c-4f6c-4771-9ef5-aacff16325f0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Once edited, questions that are `on-hold` are put into the [Review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) for reopening. It takes 5 people with reputation greater than 3,000 to accept a re-open. You can find more information [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your question *still* asks us to check your work for you, which is [not something we do here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). It could be that *because* of this styled question, no one seems to want to re-open your question (as you have zero re-open nominations on your question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="5f306af9-a910-49f2-9ef3-b53dcb729f19" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago I proposed [banning homework questions altogether][1], which was a reasonably popular proposal. While I don't quite have the energy to keep pushing for this, I still support it. In the context of your question, I think it would be a good and workable solution. To be clear, the solution would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;homework policy&quot; would be replaced with a new document, which states that homework questions (in a strict sense) are completely banned. No ifs, no buts: your question will be closed if it looks like you're trying to get help with your homework, even if you actually aren't. The only way you can get help with your homework is by asking a conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We *also* have a new policy along the lines of what you suggest, which can be adjusted to taste independently of the related but distinct goal of making sure we don't supply answers to school/undergrad homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I feel that this would be less confusing for the users. The current policy of &quot;you can ask homework questions if you ask about a concept&quot; is pretty confusing to the uninitiated and means that a judgement call has to be made every time a homework question appears in the review queue. &quot;No homework, or anything that looks like it&quot; is much clearer for both askers and reviewers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;it has to be about a concept&quot; policy would then require a judgement call only in the minority of cases where it doesn't look like a homework problem, but is nevertheless judged not to be conceptual enough for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **homework *is* an issue** on this site. It is an issue not because homework questions tend to be non-conceptual but because they are homework questions. Answering them here is bad for the students' education and bad for the quality of this site, so let's just have a clear and straightforward policy of not doing so. Non-conceptual problems are *also* an issue, but they are a separate one, and better addressed using a separate policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5168/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="1c267149-de6a-4565-818d-7af5420973c9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a [comment directly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015#comment22500_6399) under your post from Qmechanic that states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the [related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) and [its chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17799/discussion-on-question-by-deer-hunter-what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-lin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, you were asked to use the two linked resources to discuss anything, rather than the Community Ads thread, and you ignored that message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that comments are considered &quot;second class&quot; citizens and can be deleted without approval/consent of the posted user. You can read more [about it here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/914/25301).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, questions involving Physics Overflow quickly degrade into [&quot;not so nice&quot;](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) comment threads. Qmechanic's comment was a warning to *prevent* such a new thread from occurring by diverting people to a channel where it is more appropriate (i.e., chat). As an aside, the Meta post gives some information about Physics Overflow written by one of their founders, who also wrote the MathOverflow post you wanted to link.  &#xD;&#xA;None of the other posted Ads recommend such a controversial topic, so no similar warnings are necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="697c0c1e-cccf-42f5-83bc-949cdcb729e4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is inspired by Colin McFauls very reasonable [classification](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5172/2751) of questions tagged as [tag:homework] due to the very broad notion of the term  &quot;homework-like&quot; currently applied at  Physics SE, and  can be considered as a follow up of John Rennie's meta [post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751) asking for graduate-level upward questions not getting closed as homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically agree  with John Rennie that gruaduate-level upward (technical) questions should not be closed as homework and want to go even farther by proposing that, refering to Colin McFauls classification, category 3 (not yet a good question but salvagable) and even more so category 4 (high-level problems) should not even be tagged [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the very broad notion of &quot;homework-like&quot; as currently applied, be narrowed down to not include technical advanced topic questions that come up from reading higher-level textbooks, following advanced courses, or even from reading research papers (graduate-level upward for short)?&#xD;&#xA;And can then these advanced technical questions (not all of them at once of course) be detagged from [tag:homework] (after appropriate edits if needed for category 3 questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of advanced technical questions that should not be considered homework and therefore either directly or after an improving edit, detagged. I am not trying to sharply distinguish between category 3 and category 4 of Colin McFaul's classification at the moment, and this list is by no means comprehensive but contains just a few examples to show what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82336/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57973/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73297/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76207/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69163/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75896/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89489/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/80556/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46703/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57253/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="ac1df005-d762-4bb2-a2dc-41ae688e168f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing after the recent [astrobiology discussion][1] was clear: our policy that &quot;anything on topic on the old astrophysics site is on topic here&quot; seems to be a bit vague and under question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the wording does not make it clear, this was the _initial_ meaning behind this policy: &quot;The _topics_ which are allowed on the old astronomy site are on topic here too&quot;, with no statement about the other factors (broadness, etc) which can get a question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it need to be tweaked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we might want to review this rather vague-in-retrospect policy and come up with a definitive replacement. Something like &quot;astrophotography, observational astronomy, and astrobiology&quot; are on topic, with a definition for what we count as &quot;astrophotography / etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this comment][2] raises a valid point: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1 for pointing out that this is biology, not physics. Astrobiology deals with things like &quot;What signatures does photosynthesis imprint in planetary spectra?&quot; or &quot;Do we know of any organisms that could withstand the UV radiation in the habitable zone of an M dwarf?&quot; And yes, I'm speaking as an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that discussion revolved around the question being astrobiology and thus on topic, however the above point seems to throw a wrench in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that such confusions exist, I suggest we come with definitive criteria as to what is considered &quot;on topic astronomy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or possibly have a second look at this policy in general, since the &quot;we are an astronomy and physics&quot; site never really took off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened#comment16344_5566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="f06f2ac7-59af-4eaa-a5c4-266b6bce86ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the users' opinions on the site. Both positive and negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Of course you don't have to answer all the questions posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well-balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of network-wide policy? Is there any particular network-wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researcher's interest, such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have a sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="b7988c61-b0fd-4f73-8adb-b833454a399e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We don't have a rule against problem explanations _specifically_, but I think there's a decent chance these sorts of questions would run afoul of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). You don't get any special consideration because you're the one posting both the question and the answer; in other words, your question and answer will be examined for compliance with the homework policy the same as if they had been posted by different people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on how you ask the question, though. If your question asks about a concept, and presents the problem only as an example of how the concept might be applied (rather than asking for the answer to the problem), it might well be fine. And if your answer only shows how to apply the concept in the context of the problem, rather than giving a full solution, again, it could be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="44ae67ce-27a5-491a-b646-a419d7fec2db" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is to announce that the History of Math and Science StackExchange proposal on Area 51 has entered the &quot;commit&quot; stage. You can read more about the proposal [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5494/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?rq=1) and see the proposal itself [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the commitment stage, a certain number of users must &quot;commit&quot; to using the site, which is simply a pledge to use it when the beta launches. Once enough people have done this, the beta version of the site will launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the top physics example questions on the proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exactly what kind of data did Kepler work out his laws from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What type of instrumentation was used to produce monofrequency light sources at the period of JC Maxwell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When was it recognized by scientists that the surface temperature of Venus must be extremely high compared to the earth? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="c5673308-e4c1-4f15-b999-38ea36141b51" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Officially nothing has changed about the policy yet, i.e. the old one is still in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficially, my impression is that we are converging on a change in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Homework questions&quot; per se would no longer be allowed on the site, as suggested in the questions you linked&#xD;&#xA;- Our existing [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be changed to describe how people can modify their homework questions to conceptual questions to make them acceptable here&#xD;&#xA;- The [tag:homework] tag _may_ be entirely removed as part of this. We haven't yet fully discussed that, I believe. (I would like to see this happen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should definitely push forward with this; there is no particular rush, but we are getting close enough that it would be a shame not to see this through to the end. We need to decide what to do about the tag, and I don't know if there are any other unresolved issues to handle before we put these changes in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="518de74a-179f-4c1f-9115-abe676a7fa92" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no grey bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complains of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latest Update 1: Miracle!! I don't know how but the hot-questions list has come back to its original place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fonts are still irregularly big &amp; that grey side-bar is still there:(&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: ****! Really no words to say :X It is in coma again;(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrJDl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LCLtp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="e8549a07-0391-4beb-a322-78763cb999f8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I received a notification for a comment made by Emilio Pisanty on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2687/modern-references-for-continuum-mechanics/2762?noredirect=1&quot;&gt;question &lt;/a&gt; asking for an update of my answer in order to comply with the current policy on &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&quot;&gt;resource recommendations&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can verify, I wasn't the only one who received the same comment. I was wondering if it is wise to try to enforce a current policy on very old contributions. I feel it is too much to ask for a huge amount of users. Maybe this is our online version of retroactivity in law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="1901ef67-0a7a-42b0-839f-6541323ea848" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The disputed flag means one or more of the other site members disagreed with your review][1]. In this case I would guess someone disagreed with you because the post is an answer - just not a very good one. The appropriate action would be to downvote the answer rather than flagging it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4737/what-does-the-disputed-status-of-a-flag-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="ac5217b3-80b4-4c03-ad93-f2fd90eba046" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#**What's wrong with your post**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to homework questions, there is a lot of discussion here on the Meta site. A more recent attempt to tackle the homework issue is a discussion titled [*Bite-sizing homework*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework). Among the dozen answers in that post are the following two answers with votes in parenthesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please check my work&quot; are **OFF topic**. (+19/-7) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;here a problem and my solution with my reasoning for each step, where has my reasoning gone wrong?&quot; are **ON topic**. (+9/-7) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5961/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that your question follows the first of the two which seems to be decidedly off-topic (net score of +12). You could argue that it is the latter of the two, in which case it is split among voters (net score of +2), but if enough people with 3,000+ rep see it the latter way and think it is off-topic, it can be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not actually see any specific physics concept in your question, you want to know if your answer is correct: does the ball hit the 5th step. This is, in my opinion, clearly following the first of the two above quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#More on Homework&#xD;&#xA;Further, the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) states in point #2 under the heading *How should I ask a homework question on this website?* (emphasis mine),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. **If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.** As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**What you can do to fix it**&#xD;&#xA;In order to make the question *on-topic*, you *might* be able to tune it to the following spec (also taken from the afore-mentioned Bite-sizing homework post):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense&quot; are **ON topic**. (+23/-1) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5969/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***This will take some serious effort from you to make it decidedly on-topic.*** It may also be the case that you figure out your answer while trying to re-write the question. If that is the case, I still recommend completing the re-write so that your question can be re-opened &amp; answered to be useful for future visitors with a similar struggle in the problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="e1497059-e9df-4bc0-bede-05b1cf77eca4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We're only allowed three custom close reasons\*, which will all necessarily be sub-reasons of &quot;off topic.&quot; So if we were to add another custom close reason for a lack of sufficient preparation (or whatever we would call it), it would have to replace one of the existing reasons. I don't dispute that this would probably be a good close reason to have, but the question is, is it more important than the ones we have there right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current close reasons - homework-like, non-mainstream, and engineering - were chosen because, roughly speaking, we (mods and others who offered input) thought they were the three most common types of questions we wanted to most actively discourage. Or more precisely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- they are used reasonably often&#xD;&#xA;- it's useful to have specific, standardized wording for them&#xD;&#xA;- we want to actively remind people that questions of that nature are not on topic&#xD;&#xA;- they tend not to overlap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Perhaps_ lack of preparation meets these criteria better than one of the current reasons, but I'm not entirely convinced that it does. In particular, I think a lot of these questions also fall under homework-like (including the example you linked to) or too broad, and can be closed as such. For those that don't, you can always type in a custom close reason which will be posted as a comment. And I think that ability is sufficient to handle these sorts of questions. I could be wrong, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could definitely see myself changing my mind if someone can come up with a wording for the new close reason that would be reasonably objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;\*actually it is technically possible to have up to 5, but all sites other than Stack Overflow are limited to 3 and we would have to petition the SE team with a _very_ strong case to get them to increase our allotment.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a separate note, I always **downvote** questions that show a lack of appropriate preparation. This relates to the issue in [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5736): I consider this site to be for expert-level questions in the sense that an asker must have adequate preparation in physics to coherently formulate their question and understand the answer they are seeking. Questions that don't satisfy that criterion demonstrate a lack of research effort (in a sense) and are sometimes also unclear, which is the criterion to cast a downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="696eb533-6ef4-499a-8569-706d8ed1304e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I should also mention that I do *not* equation research-level with published papers; the one does not imply the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="03fb1bad-5ca7-440a-b052-2ef490715c00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're not the first to notice this trend; actually, we had some discussion about it in the moderator chat room a few months ago. So I collected some data. Sampling which community ad is displayed on the home page at 10-minute intervals for a couple weeks shows that the distribution among different ads is roughly Gaussian, with no significant outliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 12 [Worldbuilding SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/6211?url=http%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 22 [SciRate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5982?url=https%3a%2f%2fscirate.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 46 [community ad thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5571?url=http%3a%2f%2fmeta.physics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5263%2fcommunity-promotion-ads-2014)&#xD;&#xA;- 59 [MathJax buttons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5570?url=http%3a%2f%2fstackapps.com%2fquestions%2f3373%2fmathjax-buttons)&#xD;&#xA;- 68 [Space SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5279?url=http%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 72 [MIT OCW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5276?url=http%3a%2f%2focw.mit.edu%2fcourses%2f%23physics)&#xD;&#xA;- 73 [Mathematica SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5275?url=http%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 77 [arXiv (1)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5266?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 81 [Unanswered questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5607?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2funanswered)&#xD;&#xA;- 82 [Astronomy SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5295?url=http%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 84 [Zotero](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5420?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.zotero.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 85 [NIST DLMF](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5278?url=http%3a%2f%2fdlmf.nist.gov%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Khan Academy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5277?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.khanacademy.org%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 87 [Physics Overflow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5780?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.physicsoverflow.org)&#xD;&#xA;- 88 [featured questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5296?url=http%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2f%3ftab%3dfeatured)&#xD;&#xA;- 90 [LaTeX Search](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5558?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.latexsearch.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 95 [Desmos](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5415?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.desmos.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [ShareLaTeX](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5272?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sharelatex.com%2f)&#xD;&#xA;- 97 [arXiv (2)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/ct/5299?url=http%3a%2f%2farxiv.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![histogram of ad frequency][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(this omits the ad for the site's newsletter) The Physics Overflow ad was displayed more than average, but was certainly far from being the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at the actual samples shows that the same community ad is displayed for a run of several hours. The exact length of the run changes according to some pattern I couldn't figure out (perhaps randomly), but the ad is not randomly chosen on each page view. I presume this is done to allow better caching. Anyway, I think this contributes to the _impression_ that the PO ad was being displayed more than it should be. If you tend to notice one ad more than the others, then when you see it the first time, you're more likely to register it when you visit the page in the future. While that ad is the current one, then it _is_ being displayed more often than it would be if the ads were randomly chosen at each page load, and your brain registers something fishy about that. On the other hand, during a run of any other ad, you don't notice it at all and your brain doesn't register the fact that you're going a long time without seeing the ad you focus on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E3WJq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="ad16c632-ec54-4f0a-ac39-2fec07f159aa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I vote the historical lock. I don't think the question has any real value, but some future non-physicist people might find it useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (sorry for delay, had things to do)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAICR, the new resource recommendation policy [clearly states](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X-- a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post being discussed **does not request any of these topics**, it simply asks for **a list of books**. The vast majority of the answers to the question also appear to fail the recommended answering policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anupam and Satwick's answers at least mention topics covered, but don't really  hit the other points (where the book isn't thorough or the prerequisites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it does not really fit the model of the Stack Exchange network (which has a general ban on list questions anyway) and that it does not even fit our book policy, the only two options I see are (a) complete deletion and (b) historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe that (a) should be considered just because there is the possibility that *someone* could find some of the books are useful. Thus, the only good option is the historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="2a15d998-9dbf-4dc6-a756-f55ffd9245d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago, [John Rennie asked](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...in many cases it looks as if the OP simply can't be bothered to put any effort in. Do we have a policy for closing (or not closing) such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Meta question has received not a downvote (12/0 at time of writing). The answer by Ben Crowell says (emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The help section &quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot; does not say anything about insufficient research effort. **This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer also received no downvotes (7/0 currently), suggesting the community agrees that this correct: insufficient effort questions should be *downvoted* and not *closed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, several 3k+ users have voted to close questions due to &quot;insufficient effort.&quot; This leads to the question at hand: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we change current policy on insufficient effort questions**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="6d4baeee-2d87-41ad-8a80-871b1b211c6d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This started as a comment but it got too long. I will not attempt to answer the original questionnaire, but you can take the following as a partial answer to question 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to bring back some of the nuance which [some users](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange?noredirect=1#comment26466_6810) seem determined to strip away. I consider MO to be a very successful site as a forum for mathematicians to discuss research-level mathematics. There are several independent measures of this success. A non-exhaustive list of success measures includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians can take high-level questions which come up in their work to MO and resolve them quickly;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians seem to find the content on MO to be stimulating and thought-provoking at a level commensurate with e.g. attending a research seminar;&#xD;&#xA; - a nontrivial fraction of the online discussion of research-level mathematics takes place on MO;&#xD;&#xA; - discussions on MO have sparked a significant number of off-MO collaborations which their participants have found to be rewarding research projects;&#xD;&#xA; - some of these collaborations have published their findings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These measures are related but ultimately independent. I would like PSE to be all of this and more. Some of this does happen, but I feel that we are not at the level of MO or anywhere near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing, though, is that this is obviously field-dependent. As regards the parts of physics where I do most of my research, the activity on this site is very low, and I do not feel I can successfully bring here a high-level question related to my work and resolve it quickly. (One example should do: take [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=high+harmonic+generation) and exclude my contributions.) I find this site to be useful and often very thought-provoking, but I do not consider it a useful tool for my research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, others may find that PSE does cater much more to their research interests. There are a number of different ways in which PSE can be helpful for a researcher, and I'd be interested to know, for the people that do find it useful for their research, how exactly they find it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="c0846dbf-b2bf-44c4-8eba-299340384249" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the overwhelming policing:  This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was &quot;protected&quot; to avoid spam, &quot;me too&quot; or &quot;thanks&quot;kind of answers. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/ You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="58e866d8-276b-47fd-a379-444097badfb7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely. *Flagging* is no less useful now than it was before; only the process by which flags are *handled* has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19104/how-do-metallic-objects-interfere-with-x-rays/111106#111106) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could I ask then what is the comparable &quot;blocking&quot; ability of lead, zinc and regular carbon steel (ie steel used in general construction), In simple terms, for example 1mm of lead is the same as ?mm zinc and ??mm steel????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, that is *not* an answer. Flagging it as such puts it in front of the moderators *and* other users via /review/low-quality-posts. If multiple people flag the same answer, it gets pushed toward the top of the moderator queue. It *also* gets a bit of additional weight on the side of &quot;delete&quot; in /review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, either moderators or reviewers can delete the answer - this means the flag will be handled regardless of whether or not there are moderators or reviewers active on the site - the post will be dealt with by whoever gets to it first. In this case, *both* queues contributed to handling the flag, with a reviewer leaving a comment explaining why this was not an appropriate answer and a moderator following up by deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases, the flag may not be able to be handled by reviewers. These flags enter the moderator queue *only*, and remain there until a moderator is able to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a 10K user][1], you're now kept abreast of the state of /review via [the number at the top of the page][2]; if that number isn't budging for days at a time, neither moderators nor reviewers are keeping up and flagging isn't working - maybe ask around and try to find out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A pocket guide to flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the following flags are available in various situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Very Low Quality:** used to call out a question or answer that is *abysmally* bad - not necessarily even incorrect, but impossible to understand or utterly irrelevant. The sort of post that would embarrass you if it showed up when you were showing off the site to a peer. Each &quot;helpful&quot; VLQ flag comes with an automatic downvote, compliments of the system. Only available for posts scoring &lt;=0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Not an answer:** used to call attention to posts that do not even attempt to answer the question they're posted in response to. Follow-up questions, commentary on other answers, rants, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Offensive:** posts that shock the proverbial conscience. Generally, such posts will have other problems as well, which might otherwise result in them being closed or deleted - but in this case the author has gone out of his way to make his work odious. Each flag generates an immediate downvote from the system, which will be retracted if the flag is declined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Spam:** overt self-promotion. Can be anything from mechanically-generated offers of discount handbags, to someone obnoxiously pushing their tangentially-relevant blog in lieu of actually answering questions. Like Offensive, you'll know it when you see it. Also generates an automatic downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *A sufficient number of either Spam or Offensive flags on a post will cause it to be instantly removed, locked, and the author's reputation docked 100 points. If you find spam inherently offensive, just pick whichever option seems more appropriate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Other:** You're not quite sure how to categorize it, but *something is rotten in the state of Denmark*. Hopefully, an experienced moderator will be able to sort it out. Requires entering a description of the problem - *be specific!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying/5763#5763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="27081fe4-ce8a-42b2-bb8b-4507b980d27c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="0f011790-5c11-4679-8857-9e656d1cc002" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Previously the question concerning edits of 6 characters was asked &lt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4478/editing-tags-not-allowed-because-not-6-characters&gt;, however the answers provided were not satisfactory for the question. It is often the case that a single sign needs to be changed or a trivial typo disrupts the flow. In addition some edits are made in series as the question/answer are read over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I am writing to make a change to the page &lt;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work/17964#17964&gt;. My concern is an edit of lambda squared to lambda in the Lagrangian under the header putting it all together. This matches the quartic interaction as typically written and correspondingly as the potential as defined above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5824" RevisionGUID="0db5126d-eb77-42d3-8d3a-bcd959c82b75" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It doesn't actually matter whether or not the asker was assigned the problem as homework. The homework tag is for homework-like questions. These are questions whose purpose are not about resolving a conceptual difficulty, but instead about getting the right answer to a specific problem. Thus you can assign the homework tag without knowing if the problem actually is homework; homework-likeness is a property of the problem, not the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think people on this site care about whether or not you attend a university and I don't think they care about whether your question stems from a homework assignment or random curiosity. What they do care about is that your question addresses a conceptual issue that can be applied to many situations, so that the answer is useful to a wide audience and writing an answer is a good investment of time. The homework tag is supposed to indicate whether or not this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think we need a self-learner tag, because we don't care whether you go to a university or not, and we wouldn't need an &quot;actual-homework&quot; tag, because we don't care whether the problem is actually homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some links to recent discussion about the homework tag for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="d5ad2532-ef8e-4bb0-b1d1-598ead10b3c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the version provided by John Rennie, and considering [Manishearth's three points](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6843/concern-about-question-deletion-science-can-look-after-itself-and-repudiate-of/6846#6846), I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is *not* okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So point number one isn't a killer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we boil it down to &quot;Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?&quot;, then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I don't think it's *too* open-ended, but I am concerned by&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was&#xD;&#xA;Einstein a fraud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Please also comment if you haven't read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is *not* good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a *terrible* source to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which [tag:history] is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the &quot;Don't Migrate Crap&quot; policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and *then* possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more thinking, I'm seriously reconsidering my original position. I've done some reading, and Schlafly is not someone I would want to cite in, say, anything. The guy's biased, to say the least. In order to have a good question, one would have to assume that the information it is based off is accurate and neutral. I wouldn't feel safe making that assumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="ce843fdd-a83b-4bd5-af42-0449da73c2da" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This thread is (as of August 2014) pretty outdated. This site's official homework policy is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent discussions about possible changes to this policy, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751, and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, also, that as of July 30 2014, math.SE has [banned the (homework) tag](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16425/fate-of-the-homework-tag-the-community-voted-now-what), though homework questions are [apparently still on-topic](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="9340ef59-f991-4536-94fc-f6147cd18190" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you think a moderator is out of line use the [&quot;contact us&quot; link][1] at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.][2] This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beta site get *pro tem* moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time that is it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151633/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="8bcefdd9-536e-47a8-83d5-708b2c128872" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In SE sites other than SO, there is a less strict &quot;policy&quot;. Less down-votes, easier to up-vote, more &quot;caring&quot; people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **big** upside for an SE site to being less strict: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it promotes growth. Not displeasing users will make them come more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terrible:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a **huge** downside to it: **Quality goes down.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users that have no understanding of physics get easily voting rights,&#xD;&#xA;   because  most of their questions will get up-voted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then they ll proceed to up-vote any answer they see in a post since&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;it looked like the writer knows what he is talking about&quot;. As a consequence, *actual scientists will be disheartened by the low quality and many of them will never come back*, lowering quality even further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damage will be long lasting, or even worse, permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen moderators that protect questions because of a 1 rep user posting a useless answer, without commenting on it and (seeing the answer had 0 score and the user had 1 rep) I assume he didn't down-vote either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**    &#xD;&#xA;What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1:   &#xD;&#xA;There is great content here, I am not implying the opposite. But there is also bad content, more than there should be and this is what bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:   &#xD;&#xA;Down-vote statistics are of no use since there are many factors that can't be quantified. E.g. we might be having a higher down-vote ratio than other SO, but then again we could be getting much more low quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 1][1]: Pretty much the opposite of this &quot;question&quot;, and perhaps my &quot;question&quot; could have been an answer there. However, I decided to post it as a question to encourage others to down-vote more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 2][2]: A good post on what should be done (more frequently) with bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="53dd23bc-9faa-48ab-8083-b297072fa162" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another clever fellow within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should have mentioned, I am only talking about three or four votes here and there, when I'm taking a break from my own work, by the way. It is not as if I am suggesting systematically going through every single one of another persons questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I still think it is helpful to try to find out the bounds for this, in order to avoid doing anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="b01a118c-1888-459e-a800-5e94917f88b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For those who are unaware, particularly unloved questions are [automatically deleted](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question with a -1 score or lower and no answers gets deleted in 30 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question that is closed (not as duplicate), has no answers with score &gt;0 (or accepted) and has not been edited in 9 days is deleted after 9 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in terms of keeping the site clean, for a majority of the types of questions  we are talking about, the difference is getting it deleted only 21 days sooner if we vote to close rather than downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that is enough of a benefit to argue against the intrinsic subjectivity that [Jim mentions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6003/51994)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="4c23363e-a943-4884-9588-2478590477b1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I deliberately asked only questions in my post: from now on I want to separate the issues, the problems from *my* suggestions, which (legitimately) may not be popular or may be downright wrong, and should be mercilessly downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must specify also that **my posts at Meta are addressed to the SE Team who monitor the various sites, or, eventually, to its real owners**, who care about the welfare of the network, and are not meant to gain popularity. You probably all know that **I had the cheek to refute Newton** himself (and Wikipedia) in a few answers of mine, which are extremely unpopular with the top users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rather sad to see that a post asking four questions about the correct functioning of the site can be flagged to close or locked: it is _shameful and shameless_ to respond to questions not with sound arguments/ intelligent answers but with censure or censorship. It is also sad to see how self-referential and circular is the logic of the response. I have not offered solutions in my question, I was only drawing your attention to some hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have documented that some members cast up to 7-8 VTC in a minute. This truth has not been questioned, nay,  to my surprise the right to VTC a question in 10 seconds has been proudly claimed. Probably I am too old and my reflexes are dimmed as my eyesight and moreover my modest abilities and competence do not allow me to conscientiously review a question in 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) unclear: it is impossible to honestly reject a question (by a non-native speaker) in less than a few minutes. Even if the grammar is correct, anyway, it is not easy for a student to clearly frame his question. Nobody can ever be bothered even to correct typos or basic mistakes, to help non-native reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;- 2) duplicate: it takes a few minutes to read a question and the linked possible duplicate[s]. Than you have to be very careful to understand if it is really a duplicate or is different in a subtle way.&#xD;&#xA;- 2a) sometimes the question to be closed has already received more, and more-useful/detailed/interesting answers. Closed questions are eventually deleted, is it right to eliminate the better question?&#xD;&#xA;- 3) no effort-HW. There is nothing wrong in banning HW-questions. I wrote my first post on that issue here. But there is nothing more despicable than incoherent, contradictory, schizophrenic behaviour. **If you state that HW are good if one shows some effort, you have to be consequently patient** and carefully analyze the post and check if OP has done some/enough effort. And that takes much longer than 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the Reopen Queue.... your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is explicitly off-topic as decided by the community.. - Kyle Kanos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worse aspect of the issue is that the so-called community is identified with just a select group (roughly a dozen members from the 3k+ club), who have the effrontery to claim the right (or superpowers) to assess 7-8 posts in one minute, do not acknowledge they make lots of mistakes (casually, that is the usual number of downvotes a question gets here when it is felt as a threat to the status quo) and, even if some do, it is practically impossible to reopen a question, because same members who voted the closure are allowed to decide its reopening and are even allowed to declare off-topic the questions that criticize their careless behaviour. What happened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134831/newtons-first-law-is-his-concept-of-force-of-inertia-still-useful-and-used) (marked as unclear) is really indicative of the contempt the community has for newcomers and the reluctance to redress a blatant wrong. All members who pretended not to understand it or insulted the poster refused to give a justification or even an explanation , and&#xD;&#xA;- [**this question**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159880/is-it-possible-to-determine-the-outcome-of-any-impact-knowing-only-the-ratio-of) is indicative of the discrimination of newcomers: two identical [questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6467/careless-serial-voting#comment23893_6467) were closed and deleted (marked as HW-off-topic) when the OP was a newbie, and became perfectly on-topic (when posted *ad hoc*) last week. Isn't that eloquent enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still waiting for a reply to the second question [**here**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6465/voting-to-close-in-review-tasks) to see how the *awareness of our humanity* works in reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is therefore my answer to the questions**? I think we are not being enough fair to students, and our *comprehension* or *humanity* should be greater. My suggestion is articulate and you can choose any bit you approve, or mix them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions by newcomers (or users who already posted bad questions) might not be published immediately, they might be put in a separate queue, just as we are doing with **First post**/ answer. There the posts by non-natives might be corrected and made more clear for non-native reviewers, who sometime have problems with comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;- in the same queue the really bad questions might get a first screening and be put on hold, preventing people from answering, giving time to the reviewers to take a conscientious decision&#xD;&#xA;- nobody should ever be allowed to cast more than a VTC in one minute.&#xD;&#xA;- members who voted *to close* should not be allowed to vote same question to *leave it closed*&#xD;&#xA;- obviously enough, reviewers criticized for wrongly closing a question should not be allowed to close the Meta-question&#xD;&#xA;- question at Meta should never be closed when they criticize policies or actions. If the post contains rude words only those words should be eliminated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="f484ea46-ee33-4718-b0eb-ae4674f37af9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid you _are_ being rather naïve here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest recurring issue is homework questions and naïve questions drowning out &quot;the good stuff&quot;. Another issue is downvoting, see [the various threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote) including [we seem to be over-eager to downvote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of poor answers out there. But if you think an answer is poor, you could provide a better one yourself. It isn't enough just to downvote, particularly if you don't comment either. You've been here for 18 months and [you've only answered 9 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46774/thenamescross?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so. While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really need some examples of such poor opportunistic answers, and then we need to pick them apart. Otherwise there's no meat to your argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at some of those answers. They might be wonderful, with references to rock-solid physics, and yet they might have a lot of unexplained downvotes. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, without supporting evidence your argument has no weight. For all you know those _downvotes_ are undermining the system.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement. I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, your argument is weightless without evidence. This is a science website, and the science is settled by evidence, not opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post). In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, what's your evidence? Do you know what this user was suspended for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look carefully and you'll perhaps notice that there are expert users who are ex users. The current mechanisms have filtered _them_ over time. Luboš Motl is hardly ever here, nor is Ben Crowell or Carl Brannen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy! However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer! When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no undermining if the answer includes references to peer-reviewed papers and hard scientific evidence. The OP is free to follow up those references to objectively decide if the answer is correct. However there is undermining if the answer receives a slew of downvotes. That will discourage the OP from even looking at the answer. See [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220208/76162) for example. You can follow up on the references to Einstein/Shapiro/etc to check that I'm not talking out of my hat. And yet there's 10 downvotes, with comments from only one downvoter, who has obviously not even read the answer, let alone followed up on the references.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they do. But here the scientific enquiry is in following up those references and others. Not on simply accepting what somebody else tells you.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;What changes are possible within Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see. But if you want to call for changes, you really need to support your case with evidence and references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="f8745828-ea1e-4adc-9de0-c7f8cea7269e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have read in the help that an edit should be _to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it._   &#xD;&#xA;But my question is :  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Is this the ultimate policy for the time being.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are some policies which are decided on meta and aren't mentioned abstractly on help page e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).  If there are more details on the editing policy mentioned somewhere on meta please provide that link.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- More specifically can we change any question which is merely a resource recommendation to a conceptual question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Last but not the least if editing policy is mentioned somewhere please give me a link of that. If not then please mention it as an answer to my question.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="26e4d0ca-c6e2-457d-84a9-bf8f16f4403a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Once edited, questions that are `on-hold` are put into the [Review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) for reopening. It takes 5 people with reputation greater than 3,000 to accept a re-open. You can find more information [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your question *still* asks us to check your work for you, which is [not something we do here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). It could be that *because* of this styled question, no one seems to want to re-open your question (as you have zero re-open nominations on your question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="33f68afb-a41b-4d8f-bee4-de575acf7b03" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[With 15 rep you can flag posts][1] with a custom flag reason, and there is always the [**contact us**][2] link at the bottom of every page to contact the operators of the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your current rep range you can post to meta but not issue flags, so your choices are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that you have only one post on the main site, and it has been deleted---by me, none-the-less---some I'm going to guess that this is the cause of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are a bit different from a lot of other sites on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;We use a &quot;question &amp; answer&quot; model instead of a &quot;threaded conversation&quot; model, and you should not post a followup question &quot;under&quot; an existing question. Those &quot;under&quot; posts are called &quot;answers&quot; and should only be used to *answer the question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a different question you should use the &quot;[ASK QUESTION][3]&quot; button at the top of the page. You can certainly link to the previous question to explain your motivation if you think that is helpful (keeping in mind that [until you have 10 rep you can only put two links in a single post][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/new-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="0fb48364-c220-47a4-aa42-602cb8cb1e9f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's easy to become to focussed on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="4cbb9479-4c8b-4fa9-bfe3-decb9367e7f2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The system doesn't allow for full-fledged migration paths to beta sites. This is done to prevent young beta sites from being overwhelmed by the potentially large number of posts migrated away from a mature site. You normally wouldn't want the new site to be defined just by what the older site throws out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this rule was probably developed with Stack Overflow in mind -- its sheer volume *would* overwhelm related sites. I don't have stats on how many engineering-closed questions we've had lately, but given that we've only migrated 4 questions this past month to Electrical Engineering, it probably isn't an overwhelming volume. Still, the system is what it is, so normal users cannot *directly* do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Formally request that our moderators migrate most such questions to Engineering. This would be a burden on the mods, and it would be circumventing the spirit of the &quot;don't migrate to betas&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Continue as usual, with Physics users made aware that there is an Engineering site up and running. We could comment on posts we vote to close, directing the posters to the other site. If the question is *particularly* good and *particularly* on-topic for Engineering, we could ourselves flag for moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to go with option 2. I would add that since engineering is so new (you don't even have temporary mods yet!), it itself hasn't fully defined what constitutes a good question. Eagerness is all well and good, but perhaps Engineering should get a better sense of itself first before we start throwing questions at it, especially since the typical Physics user with enough rep to vote to close will have even *less* of an idea of what Engineering wants than most Engineering users themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add that engineering sites should be edited into [our FAQ][1], which is linked in the close notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="13e141d6-d7d3-4fa6-8461-a4e6b5c0ce2a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We don't have a rule against problem explanations _specifically_, but I think there's a decent chance these sorts of questions would run afoul of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). You don't get any special consideration because you're the one posting both the question and the answer; in other words, your question and answer will be examined for compliance with the homework policy the same as if they had been posted by different people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on how you ask the question, though. If your question asks about a concept, and presents the problem only as an example of how the concept might be applied (rather than asking for the answer to the problem), it might well be fine. And if your answer only shows how to apply the concept in the context of the problem, rather than giving a full solution, again, it could be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="9be83adc-20c8-42f1-8319-0e7533caeb74" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In addition to [what Kyle said][1], feel free to flag one instance for moderator attention with a custom flag reason. Giving us some links to the others in the flag is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll look at them for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* appropriateness to individual questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the degree to which they might constitute spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the possibility that if they really are warranted on those several question we should be merging the questions as duplicates (and then killing the duplicated answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to add that the policy of voting the content and not the user is usually interpreted as implying that you should not single out a single user for down-votes. If you find yourself using the &quot;all actions&quot; tab in another user's profile to hunt down post to dislike you are straying into the dark side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote the posts that you see as you judge them and trust in the crowd to do the right thing in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6886/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="e6d1dfec-ec13-49c2-b041-71be738de1e2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, no, as well all know. However this misapprehension comes up time and time again, and surprisingly there doesn't seem to be a single question addressing precisely this issue (though it's covered by lots of related questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we need a Danuesque [canonical question and answer(s)][1] with the title above so we can point people to it? If the consensus is yes then I hereby volunteer to create a community wiki question and a trial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've missed an obvious Q/A that already covers this then shout and I'll delete this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="5444b035-9b6a-40bd-94b7-f21da72c3d69" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following three points combine to contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are positing that PSE has *always* been over-moderated, over-moderation would necessarily lead to a *larger* ratio of questions being closed over time, there is no way around that aspect. Since #3 above shows a fairly static close question count and #1 above shows an increasing question count, then the above three metric strongly suggest that there is no evidence of over-moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, note that there are currently [~5600 questions closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano) (and not duplicates), which represents about 8% of the total questions asked&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. For reference, the other sciences (and SO) closed-non-dupe fractions are approximately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com): 6%&#xD;&#xA; - [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Computer Science](http://cs.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we are on the higher end of the spectrum, we are not egregiously overboard as compared to similar sites. I believe that some of the difference is the fact that Math.SE allows homework questions whereas [we do not](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), preferring conceptual questions instead. Not sure Cross Validated's position on HW questions. I think we're in good company on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Of course, there are many more deleted questions, so this number isn't necessarily real, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's a useful metric when comparing among other sites.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="8b6cc2e5-bcb2-497c-adcc-85bef9a06b5e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have [discussed this before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions) although that question is only tangentially related to this one. Based on that question though, you should find that the most active people who answer questions have some of the fewest questions asked. For the most part, the community is split into two broad groups -- those who ask questions and rarely answer (which seems to be where you would place yourself) and those who answer questions and rarely ask (which is where many of the people who will likely respond to this meta post would place themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for everybody so I'm sure I will miss individual motivations. But I know for some, they answer questions because they like to teach others. These folks tend to be current or retired academics. Which makes sense, they are making/have made a career out of educating others. And of course, there are those who plan on going into academics and would like to make a career out of teaching others so they could be in that group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are those who see answering others' questions as a way to learn more themselves. I know I have learned quite a bit by answering questions I am not an expert *per se* in but my knowledge of my field has allowed me to bring a particular perspective. And in those cases, I answer something but I also learn from the resulting votes/comments (was I right? did I miss something?) and in some cases has actually led me to ask questions of my own. I also get to see how others reach a conclusion/answer and I almost always learn something from the other answers even if I &quot;knew&quot; it. Turns out, there's usually more than one way to think about something and I wouldn't know how my thought process is different than somebody elses' without having first outlined mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could also say that I fit into a category where I want to encourage others to ask questions and understand how the universe works. It's just a nice thing to do, and maybe that's the goodwill/altruism you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the game aspect of it. You ask good questions, you get rep; you post good answers, you get rep. You get badges. You &quot;level up&quot; and get new permissions. It's sometimes fun to play the game for some people. Answers get more rep than questions so that's a good way to advance faster if you're good at it. Plus there's always that &quot;Yay, somebody liked my post!&quot; when you get an upvote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side of the coin, like you said about yourself, I spend a lot of time answering my own questions. But that's because I'm in grad school and I need to develop the skills to both develop my own questions and then answer them. Things that I have questions about, I can't openly ask questions about -- they are things I am being paid to research and I could get scooped if I start revealing what I'm doing to the world before it's done. My field is specific enough that what seems to be relatively general/generic questions would turn up in a search engine and it would be easy to piece together things. Of course, by the time I finish working on it enough that it could be public, that's because *I've already answered a bunch of my own questions and have new ones that are my next paper*! So it's not easy, nor appropriate, for me to be asking questions that directly benefit my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions tend to be curiosity about things. And I ask them here and not somewhere else because I have gotten to know the users here through my interactions (either in the chat room, here on meta, or through the Q&amp;A themselves) and I like them. I know that I can ask something and I usually have a pretty good idea who will attempt to answer it based on what the question is about. And I know I can trust the resulting answers or trust the comments that point out my misconceptions or point me to the right answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5488" RevisionGUID="3372bdee-9ac1-4f3c-ba66-496fd2382dd7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5380/124) it was suggested that it might be good for moderators to refrain from unilaterally closing homework (or homework-like) questions for a while, so that we can get a better sense of what people consider to be on topic and off topic regarding homework here. So we're going to do that for a trial period next week. (We may extend it longer than a week if it seems like that will be useful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Sunday 2/16 to Saturday 2/22 (**EDIT** and maybe for a couple more days), moderators will not cast any close votes using the homework close reason, except as the 5th vote on a question that we think should be closed. Effectively, we'll do our best to act like regular 3k users when it comes to closing homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective of this is to get a better sense of what kinds of questions should and shouldn't be prohibited under our new and improved homework policy (which will come into existence at some time in the future). Accordingly, while this experiment is going on, here is what close voters (i.e. those with 3k+ rep) should do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Consider the existing homework policy more of a guideline than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;- Instead of voting to close questions because they break the policy (as you normally would), only vote to close those questions which you would like to see prohibited by our new, to-be-written homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;- While you're doing it, think about why you are voting to close certain questions and not others, and try to come up with some description of what makes a homework-like question closeworthy for you. Post your feedback on this meta post (as comments or answers, as appropriate) and/or in the [chat room](chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this trial period ends, we'll take the feedback into account when working toward drafting a new homework policy. As always, reasoned arguments will be given more weight than something pithy that gets a lot of votes. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="d7c99a5a-45f7-423d-a213-0851e24e67fc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A while ago a meta post clarified what we expect from members in the way of [prior research][1]. Armed with this very detailed and precise discussion I now vote to close questions if I think they show insufficient prior research. This has in the past raised some controversy, though more recently the site members have either come to agree with me or have got bored with telling me not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all contribute our time and the sweat of our brows for free because we think it makes the world of physics a better place. In return all we ask is that questioners don't take the piss. When they do, their questions simply don't deserve to be on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't apply this rule dogmatically because, well, we were all enthusiastic youngsters at one time and enthusiasm can lead you to post first and think second. I'm generally happy to answer a simple question if I think it's been asked out of a genuine interest in the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="7d86f29b-7005-4617-9049-df04bdce4196" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#**What's wrong with your post**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to homework questions, there is a lot of discussion here on the Meta site. A more recent attempt to tackle the homework issue is a discussion titled [*Bite-sizing homework*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework). Among the dozen answers in that post are the following two answers with votes in parenthesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please check my work&quot; are **OFF topic**. (+19/-7) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;here a problem and my solution with my reasoning for each step, where has my reasoning gone wrong?&quot; are **ON topic**. (+9/-7) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5961/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that your question follows the first of the two which seems to be decidedly off-topic (net score of +12). You could argue that it is the latter of the two, in which case it is split among voters (net score of +2), but if enough people with 3,000+ rep see it the latter way and think it is off-topic, it can be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not actually see any specific physics concept in your question, you want to know if your answer is correct: does the ball hit the 5th step. This is, in my opinion, clearly following the first of the two above quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#More on Homework&#xD;&#xA;Further, the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) states in point #2 under the heading *How should I ask a homework question on this website?* (emphasis mine),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. **If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.** As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**What you can do to fix it**&#xD;&#xA;In order to make the question *on-topic*, you *might* be able to tune it to the following spec (also taken from the afore-mentioned Bite-sizing homework post):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense&quot; are **ON topic**. (+23/-1) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5969/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***This will take some serious effort from you to make it decidedly on-topic.*** It may also be the case that you figure out your answer while trying to re-write the question. If that is the case, I still recommend completing the re-write so that your question can be re-opened &amp; answered to be useful for future visitors with a similar struggle in the problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="6d2f9b91-3880-4294-9456-a1490b851a26" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:homework] really just signifies that the question is useful for studying the basics of physics either through solving problems and exercises, examining derivations, or understanding the concepts behind a solution. It does not mean something that necessarily is homework, just examples or problems that are useful for supplementing what one learns in a classroom, which includes questions from someone learning physics in their spare time; homework-like questions. We realize how misleading the name of the tag is; the featured post on meta right now is actually discussing changing the name of the tag to avoid the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for deciding if a question is acceptable, the homework policy lays it out very clearly. Now, that doesn't mean we don't ever change our minds if we think it doesn't work as well as it could. The homework policy is probably the most re-examined, re-evaluated, and even re-written policy on this site. One of our [recently featured meta threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) was specifically about defining the homework policy in small chunks and allowing everyone to vote on what it should be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="7db6337c-fa70-4a17-93eb-f0b803659c7f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading [2-year old meta post here][1], and it seems most of the answers saying that it should be on-topic (as theoretical physics) as science should answer non-mainstream questions to avoid censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's still not clear for me and I know that there was some long debate on this and many people left.&#xD;&#xA;So to simplify this, what's the current status of this topic on this site? If not, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2597/10968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="a6d05f1a-d716-4f17-9e8b-54b6d0e0b68d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Such a question would probably fall afoul of our [engineering policy][1]. There are many, many factors to consider, a number of which are simply not physics. In fact you've already covered the physics -- the aerodynamics. Factors such as difficulty of construction and human safety (do *you* want to be going at supersonic speeds with just a leather jacket protecting you?) would be needed to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="8f6dbcc0-974d-4c9d-8a43-845636a64402" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just recently asked a question which got &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related meta-posts, i.e.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialogue to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;_Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache_&quot;. Translated: &quot;_It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem_&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="325e8165-0e7c-45c5-aa40-ed2a77a9b726" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago, [John Rennie asked](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...in many cases it looks as if the OP simply can't be bothered to put any effort in. Do we have a policy for closing (or not closing) such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Meta question has received not a downvote (12/0 at time of writing). The answer by Ben Crowell says (emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The help section &quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot; does not say anything about insufficient research effort. **This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer also received no downvotes (7/0 currently), suggesting the community agrees that this correct: insufficient effort questions should be *downvoted* and not *closed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, several 3k+ users have voted to close questions due to &quot;insufficient effort.&quot; This leads to the question at hand: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we change current policy on insufficient effort questions**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="1f790d22-267c-4200-86f8-6ae5d53f2242" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Have the mods done much closing since my [original suggestion][1]? The impression I have is that over the last month most of the closing has been done by the users. At the moment I'm reasonably happy with the status quo. It seems to me that most of the questions that have been closed were fairly obviously homework, and we have let through more advanced *homework* of the sort that Dilaton mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a sort of protocol emerging that we still close the more blatant of homework questions but provide hints in the comments. This keeps the homework questions off the home page but (hopefully) still provides a bit of help and encouragement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I recently did a quick count and 20% of all questions on the site were being closed. 20%! Mind you, amongst the more forum like sites having 80% of all questions worth while would be a huge step up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/5380#5380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="2230b888-ae6d-46d3-8458-fe1df5ac99f1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We already have this rule in place, or something very much like it. It's encapsulated in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and the close reason used on unacceptable homework-like questions. So as far as I can tell, it's a good idea but it's not anything new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="ade9bca0-eda1-42cf-89a6-376fb1f7df0c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="HT to [Danu](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24653/danu) on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there was this recent post inquiring about [answering 0-answer questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6641/) in which a comment read,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not evident that votes on answers to old questions are fewer than on new ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, elsewhere on the site, it was mentioned that late answers are typically either really amazing or really bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are either of these statements true? Do older questions get fewer votes? Is there a bi-modality of score in late answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="6fadb7d0-8b04-4cf8-b7f5-3d7b19966a23" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Points 1 and 2 are precisely why I downvoted the post in question (which will likely be auto-deleted soon, so I've saved the screenshot and linked [it here][1]); I suspect that the same reasons are why it was closed as well (though more for 1 than 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting the *same* question would mean that you are running afoul of the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) *and* duplicating the question; both would get your question closed (I'd lean more towards the HW reason if I saw it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as much as people say it in comments, adding your effort doesn't actually prevent your homework question from being closed as homework. Note that the **tl;dr** on the HW policy says,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is quite in line with the community's opinion on [**check my work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic) questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, you *can* repost the question yourself **if** you make it about the *particular physical concept*, and not &quot;How is this question solved?&quot; that it currently is posed as. This will probably take some thinking on your part on how to phrase it such that it doesn't violate the site policies, but I imagine it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8onD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="3687f212-eaf2-4989-8cf9-6b274525971a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A quick glance at the question page or the front page shows more upvoted than downvoted posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics SE has high standards for questions (and answers) but my observation is that most users are hesitant to use downvotes, with one expception. The exception is posts that violate the [homework policy][1]. Especially second and subsequent posts by the same user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that this site is of and by physicists&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and while we welcome beginners to our group, we expect them to be willing to take part *as* physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem, to have gotten a mistaken impression of what we do here and what the site is for. Perhaps just observing for a few days might make things a little more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Some professionals, some future professionals and some plain old amateurs, but all physicsist or putting on a convincing impression thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="c4651963-bc5c-47a9-bd89-7b2655af2238" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question asking about some properties of a twisted Hamiltonian system **is**  conceptual, even though it asks about the issue at a technical level. It not less conceptual than the more basic question brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5526/2751) and who's attracting closevotes is questioned too, but the twisted Hamiltonian question is about a more advanced topic and at a higher level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already said [several times](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5489/2751) (and please dont ignore the fact that my answer there is the one with the highest net scoere so there *are* people who agree with this even on meta) elsewhere, technical questions, as they come up from reading books about advanced topics, following higher level courses, or even from studying research papers should not be prohibited. Forbidding such technical questions about advanced topics is detrimental for people who want to learn physics at a beyond popular equation free technial level, and it would be bad for the originally targetted audience of the site (researchers, academics, and students of physics and astronomy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twisted Hamiltonian question is a legitimate technical question too, it is even conceptual, so IMHO the closevoters have been wrong. In summary, this particular question should not be closed, but allowed to attract nice and interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="c8c04ff2-37d1-4d2f-abe4-93704ef7053e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is an outgrowth of the discussion in chat, following [this earlier question by Daniel Sank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o?noredirect=1#comment19559_6150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we, as a community, agree (for the most part) that [&quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are *off-topic* here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic). I (among others) have observed the trend that these questions tend to get closed under the *homework* close reason. However, when this does lead to the closure of a question, there is no part in the appearing block of text (which is supposed to explain the reason of closure) which refers to the &quot;please check my work&quot; clause we have established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do we need to incorporate a clause like this in the homework close reason, should we make a *new* close reason, or is everything fine as is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we actually implement the decision of part 1 of this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the current &quot;homework&quot; close reason is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="856af425-f556-416f-95a5-67ce77cd49e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, this downvoting peak was caused by the infamous (and very persistent) love spammer, who offered solutions to everybody's love lives, cf. [records](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9308818#9308818) from May 7th, 2013. (Link only accessible to moderators and SE team). The spammer used multiple Phys.SE accounts, such as, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24107) and [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24076).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incident spurred [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4270/2451) and possibly [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4297/2451) meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="20290a03-d430-437d-8924-fd3cd4612522" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, Biophysics should not fork.&#xD;&#xA;There may be few biophysics questions on this site, but we should fix that by assimilating biophysicists into the fold, not by fracturing the already small community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (...) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, is there any *evidence* that biophysics questions are closed here?&#xD;&#xA;If not, this speculation that they *would* be closed is probably not useful.&#xD;&#xA;Just post the questions, and if they get closed we will discuss why in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) or on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question focuses on the physics it's on topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that such questions would be closed, but that would be a mistake and I (and others) would object, discuss in the chat room or on the meta, and set things right.&#xD;&#xA;We are aware of over-zealous close voting and also of users picking the &quot;off topic&quot; reason when they really should be choosing one of the various versions of &quot;poor quality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the considerations relevant to this meta post are similar to those which have come up in the past regarding questions with mathematical or engineering flavors.&#xD;&#xA;When engineering questions are closed because the question really isn't about physics, then everything's fine and the user is directed to the engineering site.&#xD;&#xA;In cases where the question is of an engineering flavor but particularly relevant to e.g. physics lab work, is of a nature such that only physicists can answer, or aims to get a uniquely physics perspective, then I think the question is appropriate for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;I feel exactly the same way about biophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detailed and justified the opinion outlined above in a [meta post on engineering questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering).&#xD;&#xA;As that answer was upvoted and accepted I think it likely reflects the general consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overzealous closing does happen.&#xD;&#xA;It's happened before with engineering; this results in *discussion* and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;If biophysics questions are overzealously closed, please come to the chat room or the meta and point it out.&#xD;&#xA;The community here is pretty good about self-observation and improvement so I have faith we can work through any initial bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So far few example questions can be found in the Area51 link, and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that instead you please tell everyone there to not be afraid to pose on Physics.SE!&#xD;&#xA;Asking us to support the Area51 proposal pushes us *away* from where we want to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="3ce76879-291d-4af4-a6ea-951f93164467" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's not possible to change the flag/VTC reasons, other than the few custom reasons that appear under &quot;off topic&quot; (and that's only for questions). I mean, it would be _technically_ possible, but the feature doesn't exist in the SE system. So I think we can safely conclude that adding a custom flag reason to catch non-mainstream answers won't happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an [FAQ post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) specifying that non-mainstream answers should be deleted, so if you see one, you can just flag it. According to our [guidance on flag use](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6374/124), a custom flag for moderator attention is the one to use for a non-mainstream answer that legitimately attempts to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can happen that a person posts an answer which promotes a non-mainstream theory but is utterly and _obviously_ unrelated to the question, and in those cases flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I don't like the idea of deleting non-mainstream answers; I don't think there's a clear line between &quot;non-mainstream&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot;, and the latter is definitely supposed to just be downvoted. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the reason you can't carry over the reasoning from questions (&quot;we have a non-mainstream close reason, why not delete non-mainstream answers?&quot;) is that, first of all, answers are not questions. They fill different roles in the site and there's no reason to expect the same sets of rules to apply to both. Beyond that, our non-mainstream close reason is mostly meant to curtail a specific kind of request: that where someone posts their pet theory that is going to overthrow relativity (or whatever) and challenges us to find something wrong with it. Requests like this are a drain on the attention of professional physicists and grad students (check your spam folder :-p), and we don't want to entertain them on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="32e55520-4da0-4ddc-8384-fd030a30b52e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Has there been any feedback on https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it was all a bit underwhelming and the close ratio was largely unaffected. Has there been any discussions amongst the mods, and if so what conclusions did you reach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="f8d6904e-33d9-4b9c-9843-4fe69ae0939f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to get a holistic picture of the users' opinions on the site. Both positive and negative reviews are welcome. Being a reasonably broad topic, I will pose some specific questions. Feel free to include in your answers other things that I may fail to mention. Of course you don't have to answer all the questions posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are you happy with the kind of question being posed on the site? Do you find that the site gives satisfactory answers to the questions asked, and has the requisite people to engage you in an interesting discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a well-balanced demographic? Do you find it to be the case that the site targets(perhaps unintentionally) a specific audience, if so which one? If you have been an old user has the demographic of the site shifted in some particular direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are you satisfied with moderation on the site? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Have you noticed instances of other users being unfairly treated? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Are you comfortable with the implementation of network-wide policy? Is there any particular network-wide policy that you wished was different and not applied to Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Do you find it to be the case that some people whose answers you enjoyed reading have abruptly left the site due to issues that originated within the site? Do you it was due to an issue that can be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Has anyone's account been suspended unfairly? Or for a much longer duration then you would find reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Does the site satisfy a researcher's interest, such as finding new topics and problems to learn about? Does it have a sufficient mass of [professional physicists][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be honest and direct in your reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="58a9b41a-2a9a-4892-b325-cf5fc096819b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I didn't close it as duplicate, I closed it as being *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our book recommendations policy is rather strict (see [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/50583) and [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/50583)), and your question doesn't ask for a single book for QFT (which would already be quite broad), but also for a series of books *preparing* you for it. This is more study advice than a recommendation of a book for a specific topic, because you are not searching for a resource containing a defined topic, but you are asking *the answerers* to come up with the specific topic you must learn to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the question is very broad - the recommended resources in one answer could even be about different topic that those in another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="48dbf4a5-39a3-43a1-a477-dd1f2863435f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An option that seems particularly attractive to me is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 1: We modify the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, adding a clause that specifically refers to &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 2: There should be a slight modification to both the text that shows up in the review queue under the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, and the grey block of text that appears after a question has been closed. As far as I'm concerned, this can be as basic as adding the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On this site, questions that essentially boil down to &quot;can you please check my work&quot; are also grouped under &quot;homework-like&quot; and considered off-topic cf. [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="876d9bd7-b08b-4323-9609-9efa63271eae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we've had this debate before. Unfortunately, there's no definite consensus to be found about their community wiki status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/50583) (from July 2013) has the top voted answer (with a meager +11/-2) saying that book recommendation questions need to be *actively moderated by the community* and should be made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583) (from August 2013) implements the *&quot;Good list, bad list&quot;* top scored answer by setting rules for what a good res. rec. answer must contain, and that all answers *prior to that policy* should be moved to one single community wiki answer that gets an additional notice. No mention of making the question or its policy-conforming answers community wiki is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307/50583) (from December 2013, about the [great book list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/50583)) has no answers of positive score. The great book list itself is closed and has a single large community wiki answer that does not conform to the answer policy, but also lacks the additional notice mentioned in the faq post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, already the three main questions I can find on the book recommendation questions disagree on how to exactly handle these questions, or have just largely been ignored. It gets even more confusing when looking into practice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation]. Many of them are closed as duplicate of the big book list, others as primarily opinion-based, but only **174** of them have been made community wiki. No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No pattern as to which ones are closed as *duplicates of the book list*, which ones are closed as *primarily opinion-based* and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are **1.063** answers to [tag:resource-recommendation] questions, of which **544** are community wiki. This indicates that it's mostly the *closed questions* which are not made community wiki, because the percentage of answers that are wiki is much higher than that of the questions. But again, no clear policy is apparent. Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears no clear policy exists, or at least, none is enforced in practice. The topic of this meta discussion is therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should resource recommendation questions be on-topic, on-topic but community wiki, or off-topic?**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;To search for wiki/non-wiki questions, add `wiki:yes` or `wiki:no` to your query. Combine with `is:q` or `is:a` to get only questions or only answers.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;I have purposefully tried to refrain from making an argument for either case in the question, so that people can vote on the respective answers with their argumentation as they come in.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="f372f2a1-0a71-4934-b88a-c75542cf0757" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This thread is (as of August 2014) pretty outdated. This site's official homework policy is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent discussions about possible changes to this policy, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751, and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, also, that as of July 30 2014, math.SE has [banned the (homework) tag](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16425/fate-of-the-homework-tag-the-community-voted-now-what), though homework questions are [apparently still on-topic](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="f5c71a5b-6d31-4886-8de5-5c174d6c7088" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing after the recent [astrobiology discussion][1] was clear: our policy that &quot;anything on topic on the old astrophysics site is on topic here&quot; seems to be a bit vague and under question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the wording does not make it clear, this was the _initial_ meaning behind this policy: &quot;The _topics_ which are allowed on the old astronomy site are on topic here too&quot;, with no statement about the other factors (broadness, etc) which can get a question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it need to be tweaked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we might want to review this rather vague-in-retrospect policy and come up with a definitive replacement. Something like &quot;astrophotography, observational astronomy, and astrobiology&quot; are on topic, with a definition for what we count as &quot;astrophotography / etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this comment][2] raises a valid point: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1 for pointing out that this is biology, not physics. Astrobiology deals with things like &quot;What signatures does photosynthesis imprint in planetary spectra?&quot; or &quot;Do we know of any organisms that could withstand the UV radiation in the habitable zone of an M dwarf?&quot; And yes, I'm speaking as an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that discussion revolved around the question being astrobiology and thus on topic, however the above point seems to throw a wrench in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that such confusions exist, I suggest we come with definitive criteria as to what is considered &quot;on topic astronomy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or possibly have a second look at this policy in general, since the &quot;we are an astronomy and physics&quot; site never really took off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened#comment16344_5566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="dfbeb40a-2c62-4e7e-a60c-e5292f690ffb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For those who are unaware, particularly unloved questions are [automatically deleted](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question with a -1 score or lower and no answers gets deleted in 30 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question that is closed (not as duplicate), has no answers with score &gt;0 (or accepted) and has not been edited in 9 days is deleted after 9 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in terms of keeping the site clean, for a majority of the types of questions  we are talking about, the difference is getting it deleted only 21 days sooner if we vote to close rather than downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that is enough of a benefit to argue against the intrinsic subjectivity that [Jim mentions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6003/51994)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="f40075eb-01a8-43dc-87e7-21c94a72fa0f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Last year, we asked https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax and the [answer was yes](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6792/6634), it would be included in the CSS rollout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the [CSS and profile rollout is complete](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7417/6634), it was [pointed out in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26763306#26763306) that we do not yet have the serif fonts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this removed from the CSS redesign? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="59c9b3d0-d6a8-434d-8af9-d30a750470d2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some history and background, too long for a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once upon a time the close reasons were universal across all SE sites. But different sites saw different types of problem questions, and so we were granted a set of universal reasons plus custom off-topic reasons. The question was [what should our off-topic reasons be?][1]. Especially of note is that we would get three reasons, no more (except maybe by asking higher powers *very* nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People looking for us to solve their homework for them have always been a problem around here, so we were pretty much in agreement one of the reasons should be about homework. This ultimately left two reasons to use on non-mainstream stuff and engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had a [lengthy discussion][2] covering [multiple bookmarked chats][3] about wording the homework reason. I think we largely felt that what we came up with was the best compromise. We couldn't cover every detail in 400 characters, nor would we necessarily want to. People not showing any effort and not asking about concepts were the two biggest problem then, and that influenced the wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it seems people are noticing an increase in &quot;this is physics; here is my extensive work; please check it and tell me if I'm off by a factor of 2&quot; questions. Even back when we came up with the close reason, we noticed these things and moved the obscured&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;up to the top of our [homework policy][4], but those words didn't make it to the close reason. *Perhaps* we need them there; I'm not sure. There will have to be compromises, and we don't want to burden the bulk of people receiving this message with corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, if you can cast close votes then you can fill out a custom off-topic reason. Even back before we had this ability, I would sometimes leave comments making it clear how the question violated our policy. In particular I used the wording now found at the top of our policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can copy and paste this if you want into a custom close reason or even just a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="37798d10-9119-4c25-9931-46d2ef99d7d4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is to announce that the History of Math and Science StackExchange proposal on Area 51 has entered the &quot;commit&quot; stage. You can read more about the proposal [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5494/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?rq=1) and see the proposal itself [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the commitment stage, a certain number of users must &quot;commit&quot; to using the site, which is simply a pledge to use it when the beta launches. Once enough people have done this, the beta version of the site will launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the top physics example questions on the proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exactly what kind of data did Kepler work out his laws from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What type of instrumentation was used to produce monofrequency light sources at the period of JC Maxwell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When was it recognized by scientists that the surface temperature of Venus must be extremely high compared to the earth? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="ec0617fb-2267-4e0e-b40d-e7cb36d31af7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[With 15 rep you can flag posts][1] with a custom flag reason, and there is always the [**contact us**][2] link at the bottom of every page to contact the operators of the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your current rep range you can post to meta but not issue flags, so your choices are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that you have only one post on the main site, and it has been deleted---by me, none-the-less---some I'm going to guess that this is the cause of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are a bit different from a lot of other sites on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;We use a &quot;question &amp; answer&quot; model instead of a &quot;threaded conversation&quot; model, and you should not post a followup question &quot;under&quot; an existing question. Those &quot;under&quot; posts are called &quot;answers&quot; and should only be used to *answer the question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a different question you should use the &quot;[ASK QUESTION][3]&quot; button at the top of the page. You can certainly link to the previous question to explain your motivation if you think that is helpful (keeping in mind that [until you have 10 rep you can only put two links in a single post][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/new-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="8dab2eb9-7c49-4c2b-bb3f-2b5a7880933d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, I think there is a clear precedence order among these posts. I may as well give the full ordering as I see it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The help center&#xD;&#xA;2. The canonical (generally, top) answer in an [meta-tag:faq] post on this meta&#xD;&#xA;3. The canonical answer in an [faq](//meta.stackexchange.com/tags/faq) post on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;4. If there is not an FAQ post on the topic, answers in non-FAQ posts on this meta, with answers to later questions overriding those to earlier questions&#xD;&#xA;5. As in #4, but for answers on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendations and discussions on the [Stack Exchange blog](https://blog.stackexchange.com), and any other sources that come directly from the SE team, don't really _set_ policy, but they should be taken into account when interpreting policies or deciding how to handle situations that aren't explicitly covered by an FAQ post. If I had to place them in the list I'd put them roughly between steps 3 and 4, but in a fuzzy way that indicates their influence on all five levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the questions you linked, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583 is the only one with the [meta-tag:faq] tag, and thus (as far as I'm concerned) it sets the site policy on the matter, since there's nothing relevant in the help center. It says nothing about making resource recommendation questions community wiki, therefore I don't make them community wiki. If we want to change that, we should build a consensus as a community (as we might do with this question) and then edit (or, in more extreme cases, replace) the relevant [meta-tag:faq] post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think we should change that. The reason I hold that view is fairly well summarized by [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) (also see [this more recent one](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) which continues the same argument). In short, there should be no such thing as a question which is good enough to be on the site, but not good enough to earn reputation for its asker. We want to host good questions _and only good questions_, and it makes sense to reward people for asking good questions. That is what reputation is for. Take away reputation, and you take away the incentive to keep question quality high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR book recommendations should be on topic (subject to guidelines) and not community wiki**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we do have some inconsistencies in how this is handled in practice, as you pointed out. (The following is to be considered descriptive and not part of the recommendation that constitutes the first part of my post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably has more to do with which moderator took action on the post than anything else. We haven't gotten together to hash out an agreement about whether those posts should be wikified or not. Actually until recently I didn't know that anyone was still making questions CW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No pattern as to which ones are closed as duplicates of the book list, which ones are closed as primarily opinion-based and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally close questions as duplicates of the book list when they're asking for books that would also be listed under _more than one_ of the &quot;standard&quot; book recommendation questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are 1.063 answers to resource-recommendation questions, of which 544 are community wiki.... Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers are an entirely different issue. Posters still have the option to wikify their own answers if they want, to indicate that those answers should reflect contributions from multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the recommendation post notice is for questions, not answers. If you meant questions, a lot of old questions don't have it because we don't go back and systematically add the post notice to all of them. If you see one, flag it as needing the recommendation notice and we'll add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, probably. I'd say flag them, probably as NAA but a custom flag works too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="3976a311-36f8-4b92-bd0b-de964b789d44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I should also mention that I do *not* equation research-level with published papers; the one does not imply the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="6d7a4bad-0977-458b-a30e-db9cdd655422" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, things are not quite there yet, particularly with comments: consider for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uN04D.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seen [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/234007/8563), and obviously suffering from Sore Thumb syndrome. (Running chrome v48 over ubuntu, MathJax 2.6 with local STIX fonts, in case it's needed. It would be good to hear from others whether it displays this badly in other systems.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for that same comment, it appears that Firefox (v41 over Windows 7, MathJax 2.6 using web TEX fonts) produces this horrifying sight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZILfC.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="1ece7fca-49d4-45b0-b2f6-92b4fe24ecee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, no, as well all know. However this misapprehension comes up time and time again, and surprisingly there doesn't seem to be a single question addressing precisely this issue (though it's covered by lots of related questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we need a Danuesque [canonical question and answer(s)][1] with the title above so we can point people to it? If the consensus is yes then I hereby volunteer to create a community wiki question and a trial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've missed an obvious Q/A that already covers this then shout and I'll delete this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="fce45c86-600d-4e27-ba13-7a91615d3554" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We're only allowed three custom close reasons\*, which will all necessarily be sub-reasons of &quot;off topic.&quot; So if we were to add another custom close reason for a lack of sufficient preparation (or whatever we would call it), it would have to replace one of the existing reasons. I don't dispute that this would probably be a good close reason to have, but the question is, is it more important than the ones we have there right now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current close reasons - homework-like, non-mainstream, and engineering - were chosen because, roughly speaking, we (mods and others who offered input) thought they were the three most common types of questions we wanted to most actively discourage. Or more precisely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- they are used reasonably often&#xD;&#xA;- it's useful to have specific, standardized wording for them&#xD;&#xA;- we want to actively remind people that questions of that nature are not on topic&#xD;&#xA;- they tend not to overlap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Perhaps_ lack of preparation meets these criteria better than one of the current reasons, but I'm not entirely convinced that it does. In particular, I think a lot of these questions also fall under homework-like (including the example you linked to) or too broad, and can be closed as such. For those that don't, you can always type in a custom close reason which will be posted as a comment. And I think that ability is sufficient to handle these sorts of questions. I could be wrong, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could definitely see myself changing my mind if someone can come up with a wording for the new close reason that would be reasonably objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;\*actually it is technically possible to have up to 5, but all sites other than Stack Overflow are limited to 3 and we would have to petition the SE team with a _very_ strong case to get them to increase our allotment.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a separate note, I always **downvote** questions that show a lack of appropriate preparation. This relates to the issue in [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5736): I consider this site to be for expert-level questions in the sense that an asker must have adequate preparation in physics to coherently formulate their question and understand the answer they are seeking. Questions that don't satisfy that criterion demonstrate a lack of research effort (in a sense) and are sometimes also unclear, which is the criterion to cast a downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="7d063246-35e0-4759-8a22-ce83708ee01c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A little while ago [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) was posted to Meta, highlighting an apparent inconsistency between the handling of these two main site questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (A) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi was closed under our homework policy, specifically for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;- (B) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle remains open, even though it has been asserted that it is also a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we got distracted from the real issue there by arguments over whether the questions were too purely mathematical, so I wanted to raise the issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a chat discussion it came out that some people interpret question (B) as a check-my-work question, and others don't. Some people interpret it as a purely mathematical question, and others consider it to have sufficient physical context. To me, that's a sign of an unclear question. There seem to be three - well, four - positions on what should be done with that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Put it on hold for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;2. Put it on hold for being unclear&#xD;&#xA;3. Put it on hold for being purely mathematical (I think the previous Meta question ruled this out)&#xD;&#xA;4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who looked at question (B) prior to this meta post and declined to vote to close it (or flag it): **can you elaborate on why you thought option 1 or 2 (or 3) would _not_ be an appropriate course of action?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the aforementioned chat discussion between DanielSank and myself, if I understood correctly, is that he thinks we should recognize that there is ambiguity in questions like (B), and (A), and refrain from voting to close them, since there is (or may be?) an interpretation that allows the question to be appropriate for this site. On the other hand, I think we should actively put questions on hold unless and until it is _clear_ that they are appropriate. That disagreement may be material for a followup meta question, depending on the outcome of this one. (If you have thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment on this question to say so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="a025eba6-0458-46ec-bfc0-e33ff3f5922a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This started as a comment but it got too long. I will not attempt to answer the original questionnaire, but you can take the following as a partial answer to question 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to bring back some of the nuance which [some users](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange?noredirect=1#comment26466_6810) seem determined to strip away. I consider MO to be a very successful site as a forum for mathematicians to discuss research-level mathematics. There are several independent measures of this success. A non-exhaustive list of success measures includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians can take high-level questions which come up in their work to MO and resolve them quickly;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians seem to find the content on MO to be stimulating and thought-provoking at a level commensurate with e.g. attending a research seminar;&#xD;&#xA; - a nontrivial fraction of the online discussion of research-level mathematics takes place on MO;&#xD;&#xA; - discussions on MO have sparked a significant number of off-MO collaborations which their participants have found to be rewarding research projects;&#xD;&#xA; - some of these collaborations have published their findings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These measures are related but ultimately independent. I would like PSE to be all of this and more. Some of this does happen, but I feel that we are not at the level of MO or anywhere near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing, though, is that this is obviously field-dependent. As regards the parts of physics where I do most of my research, the activity on this site is very low, and I do not feel I can successfully bring here a high-level question related to my work and resolve it quickly. (One example should do: take [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=high+harmonic+generation) and exclude my contributions.) I find this site to be useful and often very thought-provoking, but I do not consider it a useful tool for my research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, others may find that PSE does cater much more to their research interests. There are a number of different ways in which PSE can be helpful for a researcher, and I'd be interested to know, for the people that do find it useful for their research, how exactly they find it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="1c93012b-8261-4f83-9c10-23e8b5ef9784" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't see the 'disagreement' you talk about. The [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561) is general and its conclusions are supported and made specific by the faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697). On the other hand, [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307) asks about [one specific question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175) and has no bearing on general [tag:resource-recommendations] posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation] [...] but only **174** of them have been made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because re-processing old threads is a labour-intensive manual process that cannot be done in intense bursts, and we simply haven't done all of them. As you correctly point out, the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697) does not indicate whether old questions should be made community wiki. **In general, they should**, to conform with current practice, and because of the reasons [you outlined](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7041). (Some cases, though, are not so clear. Should [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/108649) be forbidden from earning rep?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old questions, the procedure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Check that the existing answers conform to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consolidate the ones that don't into a single CW answer with the banner from the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Overall spelling / formatting checks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flag for the banner on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the moderator will also turn the question into CW unless there's some specific reason not to. If it's already been processed but it's not CW, flag it for a moderator to CWify it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bumps the old post to the front page, so it should be done sparingly (i.e. no more than five at a time or so) to avoid flooding the front page. There's currently [some three hundred](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+is%3Aq+wiki%3Ano+closed%3Ano+duplicate%3Ano) open non-CW resource recommendations questions, so there's still plenty of room for keen-eyed eager volunteers to reprocess old posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="5e6092aa-5644-40f9-8d2a-323b25d21007" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:homework] really just signifies that the question is useful for studying the basics of physics either through solving problems and exercises, examining derivations, or understanding the concepts behind a solution. It does not mean something that necessarily is homework, just examples or problems that are useful for supplementing what one learns in a classroom, which includes questions from someone learning physics in their spare time; homework-like questions. We realize how misleading the name of the tag is; the featured post on meta right now is actually discussing changing the name of the tag to avoid the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for deciding if a question is acceptable, the homework policy lays it out very clearly. Now, that doesn't mean we don't ever change our minds if we think it doesn't work as well as it could. The homework policy is probably the most re-examined, re-evaluated, and even re-written policy on this site. One of our [recently featured meta threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) was specifically about defining the homework policy in small chunks and allowing everyone to vote on what it should be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="cf88ec20-7985-4dad-a8cf-65daf204c89f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; # N.B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The size requirements for adverts have changed. It is **NOT** appropriate to simply copy over the images from previous years - they won't work. Images need to be **300×250px** or 600×500px for retina displays, up from 220×250px in previous years. If an image is taller than it is wide, it's the wrong size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **150 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="0413fab5-bfae-4ac5-90c3-a0de82722f8c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To answer the titular question, **no**, they are not always off topic. But just because a question is about math used in physics does not make it on-topic either. All of calculus is used in physics and I would be hard pressed to say that somebody asking a question about the formal definition of a derivative or a limit would be on-topic here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is easy to imagine questions that are basically only math but where physicists can provide more applicable information. One example I can think of from fluid dynamics is our somewhat... relaxed... use of Einstein summation notation and things like the Levi-Civita symbol or Kronecker delta. Mathematicians could provide an answer to questions about that, sure, and they would be absolutely correct to boot, but I think many people (myself included) might not understand the answers because the level at which we need to know them and apply them is much more limited in scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the gist of [the selected answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5717/6634) the last time we talked about this. Without some tie to physics (aside from the fact the topic in question is named for a physicist or invented by one -- Newton being a physicist doesn't make basic calculus questions on topic) or without some way that somebody experienced in physics can provide more insight (aside from just giving examples where the thing is used), it just isn't on topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you linked to about the Dirac delta function just doesn't provide anything that I am aware of that makes it uniquely physics. It has formal definitions, which OP listed in the question, that are based solely on math. It has alternate definitions/approximations, which are based solely on mathematical constructions (Fourier transform, infinitely narrow Gaussian). Just because it is used in physics (system dynamics, quantum mechanics, etc) does not make it on-topic. We use basic algebra operations too and we wouldn't want questions on how to FOIL a polynomial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why I voted to close it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="0f5f8675-bc7e-4de8-b370-ff205bcb2906" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but a physics one was given and was deemed helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Apparently the original reason for that question to be on Math SE was that the OP cross posted it on physics and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="7a2dd777-85c5-4ae1-9f1f-2a185c09901e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the version provided by John Rennie, and considering [Manishearth's three points](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6843/concern-about-question-deletion-science-can-look-after-itself-and-repudiate-of/6846#6846), I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is *not* okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So point number one isn't a killer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we boil it down to &quot;Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?&quot;, then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I don't think it's *too* open-ended, but I am concerned by&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was&#xD;&#xA;Einstein a fraud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Please also comment if you haven't read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is *not* good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a *terrible* source to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which [tag:history] is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the &quot;Don't Migrate Crap&quot; policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and *then* possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more thinking, I'm seriously reconsidering my original position. I've done some reading, and Schlafly is not someone I would want to cite in, say, anything. The guy's biased, to say the least. In order to have a good question, one would have to assume that the information it is based off is accurate and neutral. I wouldn't feel safe making that assumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="5a9be561-fa0b-49a4-8f02-4101a3f831da" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We already have this rule in place, or something very much like it. It's encapsulated in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and the close reason used on unacceptable homework-like questions. So as far as I can tell, it's a good idea but it's not anything new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="d032634c-4a5e-45c9-932e-ef3cefbdb86b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely. *Flagging* is no less useful now than it was before; only the process by which flags are *handled* has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19104/how-do-metallic-objects-interfere-with-x-rays/111106#111106) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could I ask then what is the comparable &quot;blocking&quot; ability of lead, zinc and regular carbon steel (ie steel used in general construction), In simple terms, for example 1mm of lead is the same as ?mm zinc and ??mm steel????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, that is *not* an answer. Flagging it as such puts it in front of the moderators *and* other users via /review/low-quality-posts. If multiple people flag the same answer, it gets pushed toward the top of the moderator queue. It *also* gets a bit of additional weight on the side of &quot;delete&quot; in /review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, either moderators or reviewers can delete the answer - this means the flag will be handled regardless of whether or not there are moderators or reviewers active on the site - the post will be dealt with by whoever gets to it first. In this case, *both* queues contributed to handling the flag, with a reviewer leaving a comment explaining why this was not an appropriate answer and a moderator following up by deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases, the flag may not be able to be handled by reviewers. These flags enter the moderator queue *only*, and remain there until a moderator is able to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a 10K user][1], you're now kept abreast of the state of /review via [the number at the top of the page][2]; if that number isn't budging for days at a time, neither moderators nor reviewers are keeping up and flagging isn't working - maybe ask around and try to find out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A pocket guide to flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the following flags are available in various situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Very Low Quality:** used to call out a question or answer that is *abysmally* bad - not necessarily even incorrect, but impossible to understand or utterly irrelevant. The sort of post that would embarrass you if it showed up when you were showing off the site to a peer. Each &quot;helpful&quot; VLQ flag comes with an automatic downvote, compliments of the system. Only available for posts scoring &lt;=0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Not an answer:** used to call attention to posts that do not even attempt to answer the question they're posted in response to. Follow-up questions, commentary on other answers, rants, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Offensive:** posts that shock the proverbial conscience. Generally, such posts will have other problems as well, which might otherwise result in them being closed or deleted - but in this case the author has gone out of his way to make his work odious. Each flag generates an immediate downvote from the system, which will be retracted if the flag is declined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Spam:** overt self-promotion. Can be anything from mechanically-generated offers of discount handbags, to someone obnoxiously pushing their tangentially-relevant blog in lieu of actually answering questions. Like Offensive, you'll know it when you see it. Also generates an automatic downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *A sufficient number of either Spam or Offensive flags on a post will cause it to be instantly removed, locked, and the author's reputation docked 100 points. If you find spam inherently offensive, just pick whichever option seems more appropriate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Other:** You're not quite sure how to categorize it, but *something is rotten in the state of Denmark*. Hopefully, an experienced moderator will be able to sort it out. Requires entering a description of the problem - *be specific!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying/5763#5763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="a0d35a5f-79a4-4ba5-8b25-76b0ec78772c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So the sidebar got [stretched by about 30%](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). No problem. This entails a change to the network-provided ads (not visible above certain rep thresholds) and to the community ads. No problem. Some old ads [ran with some extra whitespace](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884976_272563) while they were updated. No problem. We need to [update all our community ads](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884977_272563) [to the new size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment885010_272563). Grumble, but no problem, it's a good opportunity to spiff up the graphics on some of them. The community ads thread got delayed a bit this year. Absolutely fine. We [don't really know when the 2016 ads kick in](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016#comment29266_7426). Not awesome on the lack of clarity, but not a problem as long as nothing terrible comes of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/urgvy.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ad is currently running and it comes from [the 2015 thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388#6399). For comparison, here is that advert as posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If you're going to run 2015 community ads in the expanded sidebar, pad them out with whitespace instead of stretching them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite simple, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question [first posted on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273255/please-dont-stretch-the-old-community-ads). Re-posted here as a signpost as it affects this site; give the MSE question some love if you agree with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="606e194f-c75e-4c03-b4e8-bbed841aa256" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is an outgrowth of the discussion in chat, following [this earlier question by Daniel Sank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o?noredirect=1#comment19559_6150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we, as a community, agree (for the most part) that [&quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are *off-topic* here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic). I (among others) have observed the trend that these questions tend to get closed under the *homework* close reason. However, when this does lead to the closure of a question, there is no part in the appearing block of text (which is supposed to explain the reason of closure) which refers to the &quot;please check my work&quot; clause we have established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do we need to incorporate a clause like this in the homework close reason, should we make a *new* close reason, or is everything fine as is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we actually implement the decision of part 1 of this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the current &quot;homework&quot; close reason is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="a30c81b3-6749-4d37-93dc-7a52835f57a7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have to confess that I don't understand the distinction between the two types of masses made by the OP. I certainly agree that mass and energy are not the same, though they are interchangeable. However a more detailed discussion of the issue is probably inappropriate for the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point is that the tone of the post strikes me as inappropriate. No-one is paid for contributing to this site. We do so entirely out of good will. I don't like the idea of punishing members for answers. Unless an answer is obviously lazy or careless the correct response to a misleading answer is to (tactfully) point out the error and/or post a better answer yourself. Answering questions is just as much a learning process as posting them, and few of us can claim all our answers are beyond improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note Incnis' profile states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This site is supposedly useful for “active researchers, academics and students of physics”. If you want science, then never rely on such self-governed Internet sites (Stack Exchange, Wikipedia, or whatever), that are not supervised by an academic organization. They are all flawed. You can find some valuable insights here, but you may not trust assessments made by this community. Use reputable sources, available experts, and your own intellect to verify all this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well yes, but that applies to everything in life and academic organizations are far from beyond reproach. I think the Physics SE stands head and shoulders above any comparable site I have ever seen. It is everything that peer review should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re the [edit to the question][1]:** I wouldn't use phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not that mass and energy &quot;can change back and forth&quot;. They are literally equivalent ways of talking about the same thing &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a minor edit to *they are different forms of the same thing* would be fine by me, and I'd guess that's what the author really meant. However I think far worse crimes against physics are committed. Is this really such a big issue as to warrant its own meta post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/6248/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="e48630f7-e422-4919-ae03-bd42b16c2938" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In SE sites other than SO, there is a less strict &quot;policy&quot;. Less down-votes, easier to up-vote, more &quot;caring&quot; people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **big** upside for an SE site to being less strict: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it promotes growth. Not displeasing users will make them come more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terrible:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a **huge** downside to it: **Quality goes down.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users that have no understanding of physics get easily voting rights,&#xD;&#xA;   because  most of their questions will get up-voted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Then they ll proceed to up-vote any answer they see in a post since&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;it looked like the writer knows what he is talking about&quot;. As a consequence, *actual scientists will be disheartened by the low quality and many of them will never come back*, lowering quality even further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damage will be long lasting, or even worse, permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen moderators that protect questions because of a 1 rep user posting a useless answer, without commenting on it and (seeing the answer had 0 score and the user had 1 rep) I assume he didn't down-vote either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**    &#xD;&#xA;What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1:   &#xD;&#xA;There is great content here, I am not implying the opposite. But there is also bad content, more than there should be and this is what bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:   &#xD;&#xA;Down-vote statistics are of no use since there are many factors that can't be quantified. E.g. we might be having a higher down-vote ratio than other SO, but then again we could be getting much more low quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 1][1]: Pretty much the opposite of this &quot;question&quot;, and perhaps my &quot;question&quot; could have been an answer there. However, I decided to post it as a question to encourage others to down-vote more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related 2][2]: A good post on what should be done (more frequently) with bad answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="86aecd52-ca12-4e49-a637-e51bec3feda7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If someone loses access to their account, the posts remain, but the user will be unable to edit them (as the OP) until they regain access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accounts are usually deleted (1) because of administrative reasons such as sockpuppetting or voting fraud, in which case there are likely no salvageable posts, or (2) because the user has requested it. In this case the posts also remain, stripped of a link to the poster's profile and with the poster username sometimes changed to the form userXXXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as before, seriously: all this information is available with minimal digging at the [Help Center](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help) and in [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/). If you're asking for a specific reason we can help, but if you're just randomly wondering about stuff, please have a thorough look in those places first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5824" RevisionGUID="4e264e39-be72-441d-ba04-e8f320787854" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It doesn't actually matter whether or not the asker was assigned the problem as homework. The homework tag is for homework-like questions. These are questions whose purpose are not about resolving a conceptual difficulty, but instead about getting the right answer to a specific problem. Thus you can assign the homework tag without knowing if the problem actually is homework; homework-likeness is a property of the problem, not the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think people on this site care about whether or not you attend a university and I don't think they care about whether your question stems from a homework assignment or random curiosity. What they do care about is that your question addresses a conceptual issue that can be applied to many situations, so that the answer is useful to a wide audience and writing an answer is a good investment of time. The homework tag is supposed to indicate whether or not this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think we need a self-learner tag, because we don't care whether you go to a university or not, and we wouldn't need an &quot;actual-homework&quot; tag, because we don't care whether the problem is actually homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some links to recent discussion about the homework tag for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="9be3502e-1f5a-460d-bf3e-f918d82c2f53" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;**(I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked, e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a calculation service or a work checking service. If you need help with a particular calculation, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. Make sure your question cannot be answered with a small amount of research and show that you've made effort to resolve the issue yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions about particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself or a request to have your work checked, must ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="cb6d4baf-5973-4ff7-b54d-13d8607646c0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The closing notice tells you *exactly* why your question is on hold, and links to [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) - what more do you want to know? Please also have a look at [our stance on check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That you cannot find the solution to your problem elsewhere is unfortunate, but that does not mean that we have to solve it for you (or check your solution)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="a67c71b8-535a-40a7-b847-117d1c5b1998" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We know that [plagiarism is bad](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/542/50583), and unacknowledged citations *will* be dealt with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what about answers that properly acknowledge their sources, but consist of nothing but quotes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe such answers do not consititute sufficient effort to be actually counted as answers, and should be deleted. If a user cannot be bothered to phrase the answer to a question in their own words, or to explain and give context to their quotes, they do not deserve to derive reputation from such a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="889f1d6c-b7a9-4721-8e3d-06ad682dcca0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An option that seems particularly attractive to me is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 1: We modify the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, adding a clause that specifically refers to &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 2: There should be a slight modification to both the text that shows up in the review queue under the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, and the grey block of text that appears after a question has been closed. As far as I'm concerned, this can be as basic as adding the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On this site, questions that essentially boil down to &quot;can you please check my work&quot; are also grouped under &quot;homework-like&quot; and considered off-topic cf. [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="abc2a008-97ed-4867-8351-52d64cae42d5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by the answer to [these](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-do-i-report-stalking) [two](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/why-arent-serial-upvoting-of-questions-reversed) questions, I am a little unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other grad students on the website that are taking similar specialisations to me, and so naturally there is a large overlap between their questions and ones that I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice even I have even given the exact same answer to a question as another clever fellow within a matter of seconds after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these other grad students I have looked up, and they have questions that I have not actively thought about before, but when I see them I thikn they're great, and upvote accordingly, read the answers, and (hopefully!) learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I was supprised to see in the answer to the first question, that while the action in that question was deemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;not exactly stalking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it did say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;serial downvoting will be reversed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as for the case of the second question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Serial Upvotes] are reversed, just after a period of maximum 24 hours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are we indeed allowed to look through similar people's history and read their questions, and vote accordingly? Or is this not to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the definition of &quot;serial&quot; here? If I'm upvoting their questions, because they deserve upvotes, it would be a shame if the machine came along and took all my votes back. How can I avoid this happening? If a question deserves votes I don't want them to be undone due to a mistake on my part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, In principle I don't see the diference between doing this, and for someone to critic another persons questions, though I understand that there is the scope for this to be done in mallace, which would of course be wrong, but doing it where 'justified' should be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, this doesn't bother me too much here, but it is a quite related question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this may also apply to a persons history of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am neither so interested in this case here, since the answers to a persons questions are ususally given by other different people, and so even if I vote on lots of answers, the votes will be more 'spread out' accross lots of different people. I expect that this would not get the unwanted notice of the vote-reversing script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should have mentioned, I am only talking about three or four votes here and there, when I'm taking a break from my own work, by the way. It is not as if I am suggesting systematically going through every single one of another persons questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I still think it is helpful to try to find out the bounds for this, in order to avoid doing anything wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="d4c01b07-9925-41f3-9c70-dae056b596aa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's easy to become to focussed on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="f758328a-e072-4e24-b1e1-a9bcb1c5c3d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="OP's meta question is a much-needed initiative to improve/change/update the homework policy wordings of the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help), the [meta question 714](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), the [wiki discription](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework-and-exercises/info), and close reason; to make them useful and consistent, and stress that the issue is not whether the question is _actual_ homework, but rather whether it asks a conceptional question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested policy makers and editors in these matters are encouraged to come forward and meet in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, about a year ago (October 22nd, 2014), the [tag:homework] tag was already changed after several and long discussions on meta and various chat sessions to the self-explanatory [tag:homework-and-exercise] tag, which has for the past year mostly run smoothly and as intended. Any further change in the tag name seems to warrant a separate meta post, which could possibly be conducted after an overhaul of the above mentioned policy texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder to not forget that that the main objective is to first-and-foremost serve the Phys.SE community of _active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,_ as it says in the [intro pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). In plain English: The interests of people asking off-topic questions might not coincide with the best interests of the Phys.SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="9859f93e-fe20-4cba-9aa3-bb1c5780b989" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the relevant term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires intervention from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="e019d88d-45a7-408a-a088-b56554bf0dba" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some history and background, too long for a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once upon a time the close reasons were universal across all SE sites. But different sites saw different types of problem questions, and so we were granted a set of universal reasons plus custom off-topic reasons. The question was [what should our off-topic reasons be?][1]. Especially of note is that we would get three reasons, no more (except maybe by asking higher powers *very* nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People looking for us to solve their homework for them have always been a problem around here, so we were pretty much in agreement one of the reasons should be about homework. This ultimately left two reasons to use on non-mainstream stuff and engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had a [lengthy discussion][2] covering [multiple bookmarked chats][3] about wording the homework reason. I think we largely felt that what we came up with was the best compromise. We couldn't cover every detail in 400 characters, nor would we necessarily want to. People not showing any effort and not asking about concepts were the two biggest problem then, and that influenced the wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it seems people are noticing an increase in &quot;this is physics; here is my extensive work; please check it and tell me if I'm off by a factor of 2&quot; questions. Even back when we came up with the close reason, we noticed these things and moved the obscured&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;up to the top of our [homework policy][4], but those words didn't make it to the close reason. *Perhaps* we need them there; I'm not sure. There will have to be compromises, and we don't want to burden the bulk of people receiving this message with corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, if you can cast close votes then you can fill out a custom off-topic reason. Even back before we had this ability, I would sometimes leave comments making it clear how the question violated our policy. In particular I used the wording now found at the top of our policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can copy and paste this if you want into a custom close reason or even just a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="c22ca6dd-e61d-4497-9746-78f240715d13" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Once edited, questions that are `on-hold` are put into the [Review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) for reopening. It takes 5 people with reputation greater than 3,000 to accept a re-open. You can find more information [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your question *still* asks us to check your work for you, which is [not something we do here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). It could be that *because* of this styled question, no one seems to want to re-open your question (as you have zero re-open nominations on your question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="14368cb9-43b5-447e-8fee-b7c7de4216b0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In addition to [what Kyle said][1], feel free to flag one instance for moderator attention with a custom flag reason. Giving us some links to the others in the flag is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll look at them for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* appropriateness to individual questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the degree to which they might constitute spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the possibility that if they really are warranted on those several question we should be merging the questions as duplicates (and then killing the duplicated answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to add that the policy of voting the content and not the user is usually interpreted as implying that you should not single out a single user for down-votes. If you find yourself using the &quot;all actions&quot; tab in another user's profile to hunt down post to dislike you are straying into the dark side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote the posts that you see as you judge them and trust in the crowd to do the right thing in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6886/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="80dbe62e-fe7b-415c-b13c-b29f6fc21ee5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago I proposed [banning homework questions altogether][1], which was a reasonably popular proposal. While I don't quite have the energy to keep pushing for this, I still support it. In the context of your question, I think it would be a good and workable solution. To be clear, the solution would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;homework policy&quot; would be replaced with a new document, which states that homework questions (in a strict sense) are completely banned. No ifs, no buts: your question will be closed if it looks like you're trying to get help with your homework, even if you actually aren't. The only way you can get help with your homework is by asking a conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We *also* have a new policy along the lines of what you suggest, which can be adjusted to taste independently of the related but distinct goal of making sure we don't supply answers to school/undergrad homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I feel that this would be less confusing for the users. The current policy of &quot;you can ask homework questions if you ask about a concept&quot; is pretty confusing to the uninitiated and means that a judgement call has to be made every time a homework question appears in the review queue. &quot;No homework, or anything that looks like it&quot; is much clearer for both askers and reviewers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;it has to be about a concept&quot; policy would then require a judgement call only in the minority of cases where it doesn't look like a homework problem, but is nevertheless judged not to be conceptual enough for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **homework *is* an issue** on this site. It is an issue not because homework questions tend to be non-conceptual but because they are homework questions. Answering them here is bad for the students' education and bad for the quality of this site, so let's just have a clear and straightforward policy of not doing so. Non-conceptual problems are *also* an issue, but they are a separate one, and better addressed using a separate policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5168/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="bb865601-1428-484b-b51b-9eefa897501c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A while ago a meta post clarified what we expect from members in the way of [prior research][1]. Armed with this very detailed and precise discussion I now vote to close questions if I think they show insufficient prior research. This has in the past raised some controversy, though more recently the site members have either come to agree with me or have got bored with telling me not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all contribute our time and the sweat of our brows for free because we think it makes the world of physics a better place. In return all we ask is that questioners don't take the piss. When they do, their questions simply don't deserve to be on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't apply this rule dogmatically because, well, we were all enthusiastic youngsters at one time and enthusiasm can lead you to post first and think second. I'm generally happy to answer a simple question if I think it's been asked out of a genuine interest in the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="f9527c04-f109-45f4-b630-905c926f344a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question, along with the twin paradox one and the first in the series, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction are intended as canonical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where we get lots of questions on the same topic it's nice to have a definitive answer that we can point people to. But that definitive answer is necessarily rather lengthy because it has to cover lots of details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether canonical questions are a good idea was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers and the general conclusion seemed to be that they were. In the absence of other guidance I decided to write some canonical Q/As on subjects I was particularly interested in and hope that others found them interesting as well. So far the number of upvotes suggests that the questions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="3e4fcadb-6f4f-4743-ab85-6ab134b5bd3e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We don't have a rule against problem explanations _specifically_, but I think there's a decent chance these sorts of questions would run afoul of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). You don't get any special consideration because you're the one posting both the question and the answer; in other words, your question and answer will be examined for compliance with the homework policy the same as if they had been posted by different people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on how you ask the question, though. If your question asks about a concept, and presents the problem only as an example of how the concept might be applied (rather than asking for the answer to the problem), it might well be fine. And if your answer only shows how to apply the concept in the context of the problem, rather than giving a full solution, again, it could be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="2c0b0a1d-e35e-4617-b48b-8e4e5f218fb1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no grey bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complains of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latest Update 1: Miracle!! I don't know how but the hot-questions list has come back to its original place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fonts are still irregularly big &amp; that grey side-bar is still there:(&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: ****! Really no words to say :X It is in coma again;(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrJDl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LCLtp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="7196cb66-c49b-413b-9304-25d608f686f8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A little while ago [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) was posted to Meta, highlighting an apparent inconsistency between the handling of these two main site questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (A) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi was closed under our homework policy, specifically for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;- (B) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle remains open, even though it has been asserted that it is also a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we got distracted from the real issue there by arguments over whether the questions were too purely mathematical, so I wanted to raise the issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a chat discussion it came out that some people interpret question (B) as a check-my-work question, and others don't. Some people interpret it as a purely mathematical question, and others consider it to have sufficient physical context. To me, that's a sign of an unclear question. There seem to be three - well, four - positions on what should be done with that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Put it on hold for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;2. Put it on hold for being unclear&#xD;&#xA;3. Put it on hold for being purely mathematical (I think the previous Meta question ruled this out)&#xD;&#xA;4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who looked at question (B) prior to this meta post and declined to vote to close it (or flag it): **can you elaborate on why you thought option 1 or 2 (or 3) would _not_ be an appropriate course of action?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the aforementioned chat discussion between DanielSank and myself, if I understood correctly, is that he thinks we should recognize that there is ambiguity in questions like (B), and (A), and refrain from voting to close them, since there is (or may be?) an interpretation that allows the question to be appropriate for this site. On the other hand, I think we should actively put questions on hold unless and until it is _clear_ that they are appropriate. That disagreement may be material for a followup meta question, depending on the outcome of this one. (If you have thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment on this question to say so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="55c05340-791b-4657-8ef7-ac41fb30e5d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Such a question would probably fall afoul of our [engineering policy][1]. There are many, many factors to consider, a number of which are simply not physics. In fact you've already covered the physics -- the aerodynamics. Factors such as difficulty of construction and human safety (do *you* want to be going at supersonic speeds with just a leather jacket protecting you?) would be needed to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="4fa55f33-a6a9-477b-9702-00a3744b9eb8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The disputed flag means one or more of the other site members disagreed with your review][1]. In this case I would guess someone disagreed with you because the post is an answer - just not a very good one. The appropriate action would be to downvote the answer rather than flagging it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4737/what-does-the-disputed-status-of-a-flag-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="62e9dc8b-b928-4805-a345-e8ae9682b0fa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Asking for close-reasons in comments is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE users try to leave comments whenever the standard close-reason banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE users are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (requires 20+ reputation points).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above didn't work, you can also post a new meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="2ad61179-08e9-4c0e-ad19-04e564d3755f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#**What's wrong with your post**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to homework questions, there is a lot of discussion here on the Meta site. A more recent attempt to tackle the homework issue is a discussion titled [*Bite-sizing homework*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework). Among the dozen answers in that post are the following two answers with votes in parenthesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please check my work&quot; are **OFF topic**. (+19/-7) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;here a problem and my solution with my reasoning for each step, where has my reasoning gone wrong?&quot; are **ON topic**. (+9/-7) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5961/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that your question follows the first of the two which seems to be decidedly off-topic (net score of +12). You could argue that it is the latter of the two, in which case it is split among voters (net score of +2), but if enough people with 3,000+ rep see it the latter way and think it is off-topic, it can be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not actually see any specific physics concept in your question, you want to know if your answer is correct: does the ball hit the 5th step. This is, in my opinion, clearly following the first of the two above quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#More on Homework&#xD;&#xA;Further, the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) states in point #2 under the heading *How should I ask a homework question on this website?* (emphasis mine),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. **If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.** As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**What you can do to fix it**&#xD;&#xA;In order to make the question *on-topic*, you *might* be able to tune it to the following spec (also taken from the afore-mentioned Bite-sizing homework post):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that can be summarized as &quot;Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense&quot; are **ON topic**. (+23/-1) [link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5969/25301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***This will take some serious effort from you to make it decidedly on-topic.*** It may also be the case that you figure out your answer while trying to re-write the question. If that is the case, I still recommend completing the re-write so that your question can be re-opened &amp; answered to be useful for future visitors with a similar struggle in the problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="66f4e730-0cc4-42bd-98ea-792107527980" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but a physics one was given and was deemed helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Apparently the original reason for that question to be on Math SE was that the OP cross posted it on physics and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="3aeb439f-21d3-4efe-bcac-f75fca048c88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Points 1 and 2 are precisely why I downvoted the post in question (which will likely be auto-deleted soon, so I've saved the screenshot and linked [it here][1]); I suspect that the same reasons are why it was closed as well (though more for 1 than 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting the *same* question would mean that you are running afoul of the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) *and* duplicating the question; both would get your question closed (I'd lean more towards the HW reason if I saw it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as much as people say it in comments, adding your effort doesn't actually prevent your homework question from being closed as homework. Note that the **tl;dr** on the HW policy says,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is quite in line with the community's opinion on [**check my work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic) questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, you *can* repost the question yourself **if** you make it about the *particular physical concept*, and not &quot;How is this question solved?&quot; that it currently is posed as. This will probably take some thinking on your part on how to phrase it such that it doesn't violate the site policies, but I imagine it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8onD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="c69fad25-ece7-4068-bb5e-3a2aeb8d5e2c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the question is now perfectly acceptable, and I personally would vote to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it's not very good for the community moderation model if I go around closing and opening things willy-nilly. Your question was reviewed twice since you edited it ([first review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124093), [second review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124324), and all four reviewers thought it was still inappropriate for the site. We should find out why. Hopefully at least one of them stops by to provide an answer (and I'll see if I can bug them about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, don't do _that_. Deleting and reposting questions is against our rules (of course as a new member, you probably wouldn't have known). If further edits are required, you can just keep editing the same question. Just try to batch up your edits so that you make all the changes required at once, and that you don't wind up editing the post too many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few edits you could make to your question that would vastly improve it, and even though these shouldn't be the _cause_ for it to stay on hold, given human nature, these might help the question's chances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don't post a screenshot of text from a book. Instead, retype the relevant parts of the text, making sure to use a quote block to indicate what you have copied from the book. (Make sure to acknowledge the source, too.)&#xD;&#xA;- Improve the math formatting by using the operator macros `\sin` and `\cos`, and writing kets as `\lvert jm\rangle` instead of `|jm&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps most important, give your question [a better title](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles). Even though the decision to put a question on hold should be based on the body, not the title, whatever title you do choose is your question's first impression to readers and it can influence their judgement of the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In your case, &quot;SU(2) Rotation Matrices Problem from Halzen and Martin&quot; says nothing about what you're actually asking. Besides, the key word in the title is &quot;Problem&quot;, which suggests that you want the solution to the problem from the book, even though that's not what you're actually asking in the body. A better title would highlight the conceptual issue you're actually asking about. Based on your wording in the body, you could go with something like &quot;How can one obtain the eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system?&quot;, or if you want it shorter, &quot;Eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system&quot;. (Titles don't _have_ to be questions, though in my experience it's often easier to write a good title if you make it a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="29139682-0f4d-47fc-9fb1-09ffb8c1abf0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm a little surprised you've been around for months without having noticed that StackExchange doesn't use LaTeX ;-) Posts here are composed in a variant of [Markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax), and as dmckee pointed out in a comment there is an [editing help page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) that explains most features of Markdown syntax, or the particular variant SE uses. Right at the [top of the page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/editing-help#linebreaks) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; End a line with two spaces to add a `&lt;br/&gt;` linebreak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="5f9cbeaf-70bf-4910-9c1a-d2cb46da284e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago, [John Rennie asked](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...in many cases it looks as if the OP simply can't be bothered to put any effort in. Do we have a policy for closing (or not closing) such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Meta question has received not a downvote (12/0 at time of writing). The answer by Ben Crowell says (emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The help section &quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot; does not say anything about insufficient research effort. **This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer also received no downvotes (7/0 currently), suggesting the community agrees that this correct: insufficient effort questions should be *downvoted* and not *closed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, several 3k+ users have voted to close questions due to &quot;insufficient effort.&quot; This leads to the question at hand: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we change current policy on insufficient effort questions**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="253ff5ce-f0b2-47a6-a2b2-d3e9c423b5ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, this downvoting peak was caused by the infamous (and very persistent) love spammer, who offered solutions to everybody's love lives, cf. [records](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9308818#9308818) from May 7th, 2013. (Link only accessible to moderators and SE team). The spammer used multiple Phys.SE accounts, such as, e.g. [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24107) and [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24076).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incident spurred [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4270/2451) and possibly [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4297/2451) meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="0c45465a-1cc5-4f58-8697-4b926f583c26" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the overwhelming policing:  This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was &quot;protected&quot; to avoid spam, &quot;me too&quot; or &quot;thanks&quot;kind of answers. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/ You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="4438e3e4-c463-4d65-8159-a496757c3757" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I quote the comment I left on your answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Please don't post complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why. I'm not sure what to add to that. (Maybe if you can elaborate on why you were confused by that message, I can provide something more useful.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7637" RevisionGUID="37928706-3228-4c89-adc7-c068e9ded7ed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739). Is there a better statement somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, what you found is the official, authoritative policy on homework-like questions. You might find a post that explains a particular point of the homework policy more clearly, but in general, that is the best available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That was hard enough to find. Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mean like this entry in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![picture of help center][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between this and the fact that this post is linked from _every_ question closed as homework-like, I think we've made it relatively easy to find. If there is a specific situation in which it would make sense to add another link to the post, we can do that, but we'd need more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise. Do we have a consensus? If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you don't see is the many weeks of discussion in chat and previous posts on meta that went into crafting that policy. Keep in mind that people who agree with the policy (and in particular, those who were involved in the discussions that created it) have no need to comment on the post. There is a selection bias which makes the comments under the post more likely to oppose it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should probably delete those comments as they are very old, and any changes to the policy inspired by the comments will already have been made. (This doesn't stop people from proposing such changes via new meta posts, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kalgd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="5d5f399b-0500-413e-8da5-5ef6155b385a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we've had this debate before. Unfortunately, there's no definite consensus to be found about their community wiki status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/50583) (from July 2013) has the top voted answer (with a meager +11/-2) saying that book recommendation questions need to be *actively moderated by the community* and should be made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583) (from August 2013) implements the *&quot;Good list, bad list&quot;* top scored answer by setting rules for what a good res. rec. answer must contain, and that all answers *prior to that policy* should be moved to one single community wiki answer that gets an additional notice. No mention of making the question or its policy-conforming answers community wiki is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307/50583) (from December 2013, about the [great book list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/50583)) has no answers of positive score. The great book list itself is closed and has a single large community wiki answer that does not conform to the answer policy, but also lacks the additional notice mentioned in the faq post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, already the three main questions I can find on the book recommendation questions disagree on how to exactly handle these questions, or have just largely been ignored. It gets even more confusing when looking into practice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation]. Many of them are closed as duplicate of the big book list, others as primarily opinion-based, but only **174** of them have been made community wiki. No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No pattern as to which ones are closed as *duplicates of the book list*, which ones are closed as *primarily opinion-based* and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are **1.063** answers to [tag:resource-recommendation] questions, of which **544** are community wiki. This indicates that it's mostly the *closed questions* which are not made community wiki, because the percentage of answers that are wiki is much higher than that of the questions. But again, no clear policy is apparent. Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears no clear policy exists, or at least, none is enforced in practice. The topic of this meta discussion is therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should resource recommendation questions be on-topic, on-topic but community wiki, or off-topic?**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;To search for wiki/non-wiki questions, add `wiki:yes` or `wiki:no` to your query. Combine with `is:q` or `is:a` to get only questions or only answers.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;I have purposefully tried to refrain from making an argument for either case in the question, so that people can vote on the respective answers with their argumentation as they come in.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="5d4fea54-6dfc-48ab-b21c-ff348e44e962" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This thread is (as of August 2014) pretty outdated. This site's official homework policy is found at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent discussions about possible changes to this policy, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751, and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, also, that as of July 30 2014, math.SE has [banned the (homework) tag](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16425/fate-of-the-homework-tag-the-community-voted-now-what), though homework questions are [apparently still on-topic](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="bca869af-bc25-475a-998f-1f8ece2b8956" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perhaps we do nothing. After all, this site is not trying to be a one-stop comprehensive resource for information about physics. There are some things people should be looking elsewhere for - &quot;elsewhere&quot; may include textbooks, class notes, Wikipedia, Hyperphysics, and all those other [resources we tell people to check before asking](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For homework questions in particular, the people who are asking these questions are not really our intended audience. (Leaving aside the occasional high-level homework question from a grad student in a QFT class or something like that.) This site is meant primarily for academics, researchers, and serious students, not for intro-level physics students who just want homework help. One of the ways we keep the intro-level students from overwhelming the site is by not providing the information they're looking for. We _want_ them to go to other sites for that information, sites which do want to help people with their homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="e32b1c39-9d9f-472a-9849-c68956937950" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a *fair compensation* for posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [*silly answer*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [*basic notion*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes), instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc., &#xD;&#xA;with only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn mod priviledges: *is this rational?*. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last time *ubermod* said that changing current policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an *adequate program* all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having less than 100k, and I wouldn't mind my 200 or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *checks and balances* must be calculated, thresholds and priviledges updated and collaboration from top users needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not just take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* would be rated 1 or 2 at most, even by myself: if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it, if I knew that my valid posts were fairly rated. Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote, and **rarely upvote newcomers' good answers**&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify which views you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your pshychological motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make *better than* John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to 1M and (mine) to 25k you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20K* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all. It's the same with money and inflation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality. I'm sure you read this amazing book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize** that 5-10 organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I collected evidence on other sites, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more *competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) (*strawman* is the meanest of fallacies, as the *manipulation is extended from the proposition to the person*) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or (probably best) from **-5 to 20**. Rating can be tuned in a way to insure 100k (or 1M, 1G..) to top users. If *answers were kept anonymous* for a while 'new users' could get a better deal.&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for your answers and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not accept any answer because mine, as clearly stated, was *not* a question. It is being downvoted *(while, oddly enough, the old one is being upvoted)*, and this is comprehensible as the *suggestion is not popular with the notables*. I posted it again because in between I made a lot of experience on other sites, and **most of all** because I myself benefitted by the current system: last time a mean reader might think I was envious, jealous of other members' luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time a mean (*or hasty*) reader may think I am not happy with this site, whereas *I clearly stated the opposite from the very beginning: &#xD;&#xA;this is probably the best SE site, there are really kind people, and even our '*kids*' are fantastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time, I thought, my best intentions are clear as I am condemning also an overrated banal answer of mine. Last time the proposal was considered interesting but with disruptive consequences: I posted again to show that *a more rational and fair system is possible without impairing top reps*. Thanks again!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="499ad688-4964-43ab-bf08-0ea9f722551a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For those who are unaware, particularly unloved questions are [automatically deleted](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question with a -1 score or lower and no answers gets deleted in 30 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question that is closed (not as duplicate), has no answers with score &gt;0 (or accepted) and has not been edited in 9 days is deleted after 9 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in terms of keeping the site clean, for a majority of the types of questions  we are talking about, the difference is getting it deleted only 21 days sooner if we vote to close rather than downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that is enough of a benefit to argue against the intrinsic subjectivity that [Jim mentions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6003/51994)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="91a3091f-8e79-4e4e-b29f-82ea8ef6a01c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid you _are_ being rather naïve here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest recurring issue is homework questions and naïve questions drowning out &quot;the good stuff&quot;. Another issue is downvoting, see [the various threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote) including [we seem to be over-eager to downvote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of poor answers out there. But if you think an answer is poor, you could provide a better one yourself. It isn't enough just to downvote, particularly if you don't comment either. You've been here for 18 months and [you've only answered 9 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46774/thenamescross?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so. While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really need some examples of such poor opportunistic answers, and then we need to pick them apart. Otherwise there's no meat to your argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at some of those answers. They might be wonderful, with references to rock-solid physics, and yet they might have a lot of unexplained downvotes. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, without supporting evidence your argument has no weight. For all you know those _downvotes_ are undermining the system.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement. I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, your argument is weightless without evidence. This is a science website, and the science is settled by evidence, not opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post). In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, what's your evidence? Do you know what this user was suspended for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look carefully and you'll perhaps notice that there are expert users who are ex users. The current mechanisms have filtered _them_ over time. Luboš Motl is hardly ever here, nor is Ben Crowell or Carl Brannen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy! However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer! When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no undermining if the answer includes references to peer-reviewed papers and hard scientific evidence. The OP is free to follow up those references to objectively decide if the answer is correct. However there is undermining if the answer receives a slew of downvotes. That will discourage the OP from even looking at the answer. See [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220208/76162) for example. You can follow up on the references to Einstein/Shapiro/etc to check that I'm not talking out of my hat. And yet there's 10 downvotes, with comments from only one downvoter, who has obviously not even read the answer, let alone followed up on the references.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they do. But here the scientific enquiry is in following up those references and others. Not on simply accepting what somebody else tells you.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;What changes are possible within Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see. But if you want to call for changes, you really need to support your case with evidence and references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="72a1da29-05df-450a-b9aa-a8dfae3850ef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, note that asking us to do the math for you is actually considered *off-topic* here. The [top-rated answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5960/25301) (52 upvotes, 0 downvotes at the time of writing) on the meta post [Bite-sizing homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958) states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please solve this exercise&quot; or &quot;please plug these numbers into an equation for me&quot; are **OFF topic**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had an equation (cf. your 2nd comment) and some numbers, yet you asked us to do it for you. So according to site policy, your question is actually off-topic (possibly the reason Qmechanic left the comment about reading the HW policy) and should be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, asking why you hadn't done the math is certainly a reasonable request because it will give clues as to the direction an answer should take. The difference between a simple math problem (off-topic) and the reason behind the phenomena (on-topic) is vast. Diagnosing the issue of the mathematical aspect can help keep your question open or help further its closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="1e2a3850-65b9-4d66-a05a-4a5088225231" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have to confess that I don't understand the distinction between the two types of masses made by the OP. I certainly agree that mass and energy are not the same, though they are interchangeable. However a more detailed discussion of the issue is probably inappropriate for the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point is that the tone of the post strikes me as inappropriate. No-one is paid for contributing to this site. We do so entirely out of good will. I don't like the idea of punishing members for answers. Unless an answer is obviously lazy or careless the correct response to a misleading answer is to (tactfully) point out the error and/or post a better answer yourself. Answering questions is just as much a learning process as posting them, and few of us can claim all our answers are beyond improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note Incnis' profile states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This site is supposedly useful for “active researchers, academics and students of physics”. If you want science, then never rely on such self-governed Internet sites (Stack Exchange, Wikipedia, or whatever), that are not supervised by an academic organization. They are all flawed. You can find some valuable insights here, but you may not trust assessments made by this community. Use reputable sources, available experts, and your own intellect to verify all this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well yes, but that applies to everything in life and academic organizations are far from beyond reproach. I think the Physics SE stands head and shoulders above any comparable site I have ever seen. It is everything that peer review should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re the [edit to the question][1]:** I wouldn't use phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not that mass and energy &quot;can change back and forth&quot;. They are literally equivalent ways of talking about the same thing &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a minor edit to *they are different forms of the same thing* would be fine by me, and I'd guess that's what the author really meant. However I think far worse crimes against physics are committed. Is this really such a big issue as to warrant its own meta post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/6248/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="29e3c84e-fda0-4044-a358-68ed30af1807" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[With 15 rep you can flag posts][1] with a custom flag reason, and there is always the [**contact us**][2] link at the bottom of every page to contact the operators of the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your current rep range you can post to meta but not issue flags, so your choices are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that you have only one post on the main site, and it has been deleted---by me, none-the-less---some I'm going to guess that this is the cause of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are a bit different from a lot of other sites on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;We use a &quot;question &amp; answer&quot; model instead of a &quot;threaded conversation&quot; model, and you should not post a followup question &quot;under&quot; an existing question. Those &quot;under&quot; posts are called &quot;answers&quot; and should only be used to *answer the question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a different question you should use the &quot;[ASK QUESTION][3]&quot; button at the top of the page. You can certainly link to the previous question to explain your motivation if you think that is helpful (keeping in mind that [until you have 10 rep you can only put two links in a single post][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/new-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="dd6ae398-39d1-483a-b884-7e21802051bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, I think there is a clear precedence order among these posts. I may as well give the full ordering as I see it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The help center&#xD;&#xA;2. The canonical (generally, top) answer in an [meta-tag:faq] post on this meta&#xD;&#xA;3. The canonical answer in an [faq](//meta.stackexchange.com/tags/faq) post on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;4. If there is not an FAQ post on the topic, answers in non-FAQ posts on this meta, with answers to later questions overriding those to earlier questions&#xD;&#xA;5. As in #4, but for answers on Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendations and discussions on the [Stack Exchange blog](https://blog.stackexchange.com), and any other sources that come directly from the SE team, don't really _set_ policy, but they should be taken into account when interpreting policies or deciding how to handle situations that aren't explicitly covered by an FAQ post. If I had to place them in the list I'd put them roughly between steps 3 and 4, but in a fuzzy way that indicates their influence on all five levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the questions you linked, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583 is the only one with the [meta-tag:faq] tag, and thus (as far as I'm concerned) it sets the site policy on the matter, since there's nothing relevant in the help center. It says nothing about making resource recommendation questions community wiki, therefore I don't make them community wiki. If we want to change that, we should build a consensus as a community (as we might do with this question) and then edit (or, in more extreme cases, replace) the relevant [meta-tag:faq] post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think we should change that. The reason I hold that view is fairly well summarized by [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) (also see [this more recent one](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) which continues the same argument). In short, there should be no such thing as a question which is good enough to be on the site, but not good enough to earn reputation for its asker. We want to host good questions _and only good questions_, and it makes sense to reward people for asking good questions. That is what reputation is for. Take away reputation, and you take away the incentive to keep question quality high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR book recommendations should be on topic (subject to guidelines) and not community wiki**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we do have some inconsistencies in how this is handled in practice, as you pointed out. (The following is to be considered descriptive and not part of the recommendation that constitutes the first part of my post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably has more to do with which moderator took action on the post than anything else. We haven't gotten together to hash out an agreement about whether those posts should be wikified or not. Actually until recently I didn't know that anyone was still making questions CW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No pattern as to which ones are closed as duplicates of the book list, which ones are closed as primarily opinion-based and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally close questions as duplicates of the book list when they're asking for books that would also be listed under _more than one_ of the &quot;standard&quot; book recommendation questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are 1.063 answers to resource-recommendation questions, of which 544 are community wiki.... Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers are an entirely different issue. Posters still have the option to wikify their own answers if they want, to indicate that those answers should reflect contributions from multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the recommendation post notice is for questions, not answers. If you meant questions, a lot of old questions don't have it because we don't go back and systematically add the post notice to all of them. If you see one, flag it as needing the recommendation notice and we'll add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, probably. I'd say flag them, probably as NAA but a custom flag works too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="c1ffa215-28ee-41c0-a255-14cc0ce21fd4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The closing notice tells you *exactly* why your question is on hold, and links to [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) - what more do you want to know? Please also have a look at [our stance on check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That you cannot find the solution to your problem elsewhere is unfortunate, but that does not mean that we have to solve it for you (or check your solution)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="09802c7b-39e0-4420-b2f4-3cae8e67da89" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, no, as well all know. However this misapprehension comes up time and time again, and surprisingly there doesn't seem to be a single question addressing precisely this issue (though it's covered by lots of related questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we need a Danuesque [canonical question and answer(s)][1] with the title above so we can point people to it? If the consensus is yes then I hereby volunteer to create a community wiki question and a trial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've missed an obvious Q/A that already covers this then shout and I'll delete this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="5164c544-c825-4351-bb27-f5f8fc86878a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following three points combine to contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are positing that PSE has *always* been over-moderated, over-moderation would necessarily lead to a *larger* ratio of questions being closed over time, there is no way around that aspect. Since #3 above shows a fairly static close question count and #1 above shows an increasing question count, then the above three metric strongly suggest that there is no evidence of over-moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, note that there are currently [~5600 questions closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano) (and not duplicates), which represents about 8% of the total questions asked&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. For reference, the other sciences (and SO) closed-non-dupe fractions are approximately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com): 6%&#xD;&#xA; - [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Computer Science](http://cs.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we are on the higher end of the spectrum, we are not egregiously overboard as compared to similar sites. I believe that some of the difference is the fact that Math.SE allows homework questions whereas [we do not](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), preferring conceptual questions instead. Not sure Cross Validated's position on HW questions. I think we're in good company on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Of course, there are many more deleted questions, so this number isn't necessarily real, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's a useful metric when comparing among other sites.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="d5dbb725-2272-4050-a02c-e4e9465a1d71" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't see the 'disagreement' you talk about. The [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561) is general and its conclusions are supported and made specific by the faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697). On the other hand, [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307) asks about [one specific question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175) and has no bearing on general [tag:resource-recommendations] posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation] [...] but only **174** of them have been made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because re-processing old threads is a labour-intensive manual process that cannot be done in intense bursts, and we simply haven't done all of them. As you correctly point out, the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697) does not indicate whether old questions should be made community wiki. **In general, they should**, to conform with current practice, and because of the reasons [you outlined](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7041). (Some cases, though, are not so clear. Should [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/108649) be forbidden from earning rep?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old questions, the procedure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Check that the existing answers conform to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consolidate the ones that don't into a single CW answer with the banner from the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Overall spelling / formatting checks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flag for the banner on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the moderator will also turn the question into CW unless there's some specific reason not to. If it's already been processed but it's not CW, flag it for a moderator to CWify it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bumps the old post to the front page, so it should be done sparingly (i.e. no more than five at a time or so) to avoid flooding the front page. There's currently [some three hundred](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+is%3Aq+wiki%3Ano+closed%3Ano+duplicate%3Ano) open non-CW resource recommendations questions, so there's still plenty of room for keen-eyed eager volunteers to reprocess old posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="d691c6c2-fb76-4965-967d-933a53d4e794" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the relevant term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires intervention from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="4021a5c6-be9d-4548-bea5-aecc0b0fc605" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think **A2** is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of *This answer could be better if ...&quot;* would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think **A3** is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Comments:  &#xD;&#xA;A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an &quot;attempt&quot; to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks:  &#xD;&#xA;Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP&#xD;&#xA; - New Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Does not apply&#xD;&#xA; - URL only:  &#xD;&#xA;Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied&#xD;&#xA; - No comment necessary:  &#xD;&#xA;This, to me, is supposed to be used when *someone else* has already left a delete-comment as above&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be &quot;Looks Okay&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995, asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to &quot;get around&quot; the other comments and delete **A3** answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="a25d2148-903e-47e8-bf50-cf3b46201407" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:homework] really just signifies that the question is useful for studying the basics of physics either through solving problems and exercises, examining derivations, or understanding the concepts behind a solution. It does not mean something that necessarily is homework, just examples or problems that are useful for supplementing what one learns in a classroom, which includes questions from someone learning physics in their spare time; homework-like questions. We realize how misleading the name of the tag is; the featured post on meta right now is actually discussing changing the name of the tag to avoid the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for deciding if a question is acceptable, the homework policy lays it out very clearly. Now, that doesn't mean we don't ever change our minds if we think it doesn't work as well as it could. The homework policy is probably the most re-examined, re-evaluated, and even re-written policy on this site. One of our [recently featured meta threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) was specifically about defining the homework policy in small chunks and allowing everyone to vote on what it should be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="c2e7187f-d288-4adc-8214-a14c210dc0f0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm a little surprised you've been around for months without having noticed that StackExchange doesn't use LaTeX ;-) Posts here are composed in a variant of [Markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax), and as dmckee pointed out in a comment there is an [editing help page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) that explains most features of Markdown syntax, or the particular variant SE uses. Right at the [top of the page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/editing-help#linebreaks) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; End a line with two spaces to add a `&lt;br/&gt;` linebreak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="8ae6fb4a-30d8-432e-be39-d2280e5b2825" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just recently asked a question which got &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related meta-posts, i.e.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialogue to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;_Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache_&quot;. Translated: &quot;_It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem_&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="7be0d2cc-94f9-40aa-a714-300c15ec1b16" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We already have this rule in place, or something very much like it. It's encapsulated in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and the close reason used on unacceptable homework-like questions. So as far as I can tell, it's a good idea but it's not anything new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="6eaca447-026b-4dae-9ce9-b9d5685c4de0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I quote the comment I left on your answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Please don't post complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why. I'm not sure what to add to that. (Maybe if you can elaborate on why you were confused by that message, I can provide something more useful.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="1403e343-816e-4b4a-a122-fc0ab089ec70" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework&quot; isn't the issue&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we all agree that whether or not a post comes from a homework assignment is irrelevant, as illustrated by this example question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a [transmon qubit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmon) with capacitance C and Josephson junction critical current I_c. What is the matrix element &lt;1|Q|0&gt; for this system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be motivated to ask this question in my research job.&#xD;&#xA;It's not homework, but it is also not a question we would like to support.&#xD;&#xA;We prefer if I would try the calculation myself, and then ask a specific conceptual question about whatever part has me stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The help center's entry on homework-like questions gets that part right when it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a [homework-like question], narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while the help center correctly tells the user *what* to do, it does not correctly tell the user *when* to do it.&#xD;&#xA;In the help center, what I transcribed as [homework-like question] in the previous quote is actually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, incorrectly, tells the user that only questions which come from homework assignments or other educational origins are subject to the requirement that they ask something specific and conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously not what we intend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted and much up-voted answer to [the canonical meta post on this subject](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) also defines homework-like in a (different!) confusing way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification fails to reject the example question posed earlier in this post.&#xD;&#xA;It also omits the idea that posts should have a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;The notion that questions should be conceptual is mentioned later in the answer, but readers only get to that after they've already been mislead once by the help center and then again by the first few paragraphs of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the emphasis on the question's &quot;value&quot; as a pedagogical tool is subjective, thus offering further confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the resources related to the homework policy, the close reason is the only one which unambiguously gets at the part that matters.&#xD;&#xA;It is nice that it refers to &quot;homework-*like*&quot; questions to emphasize the fact that pedagogical settings have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the word &quot;homework&quot; (mostly)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should just clear state that we only support questions with a *conceptual core*.&#xD;&#xA;If a post just asks how to solve any specific problem, it's off topic.&#xD;&#xA;Problem solving questions should, as the close reason says, ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;Surely, questions derived from homework will tend to fail this criterion more than other questions [*a*], and that should be noted in the help center and associated close reason, but it should not be the fundamental criterion itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;**(I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a better name)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the help center to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked, e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a calculation service or a work checking service. If you need help with a particular calculation, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. Make sure your question cannot be answered with a small amount of research and show that you've made effort to resolve the issue yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modify the close reason to say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions about particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself or a request to have your work checked, must ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We can probably leave the tag as it is, since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to change a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some objections and rebuttals&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We have to call it the homework policy, otherwise new users won't understand.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that problem-solving questions must center on a specific concept is no less clear than referring to homework.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as argued above, I think &quot;problem-solving&quot; is considerably less vague and subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We'll be flooded with homework questions from users who don't know the rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If folks are really afraid we can do a few week trial period.&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange gives us awesome SQL tools so that we can measure the effects objectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;This isn't worth the change.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by discussions in comments and the chat room, it seems the homework policy is confusing to lots of users largely because people don't understand what qualifies as &quot;homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that &quot;homework&quot; has an obvious and established meaning which conflicts with how we use it is a clear problem.&#xD;&#xA;As I've shown, a result of this is that the official documentation disagrees with *itself* on the definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*a*] This is probably more because people who have finished school have learned how to ask good questions and use online communities, rather than anything having to do with whether or not the physics problem at hand came from homework.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="2b4c9a66-6c71-48e7-b672-92f0a64ca258" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perhaps we do nothing. After all, this site is not trying to be a one-stop comprehensive resource for information about physics. There are some things people should be looking elsewhere for - &quot;elsewhere&quot; may include textbooks, class notes, Wikipedia, Hyperphysics, and all those other [resources we tell people to check before asking](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For homework questions in particular, the people who are asking these questions are not really our intended audience. (Leaving aside the occasional high-level homework question from a grad student in a QFT class or something like that.) This site is meant primarily for academics, researchers, and serious students, not for intro-level physics students who just want homework help. One of the ways we keep the intro-level students from overwhelming the site is by not providing the information they're looking for. We _want_ them to go to other sites for that information, sites which do want to help people with their homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="f292316b-41e3-49a2-b98a-a6a7e81765ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is an outgrowth of the discussion in chat, following [this earlier question by Daniel Sank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o?noredirect=1#comment19559_6150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we, as a community, agree (for the most part) that [&quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions are *off-topic* here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic). I (among others) have observed the trend that these questions tend to get closed under the *homework* close reason. However, when this does lead to the closure of a question, there is no part in the appearing block of text (which is supposed to explain the reason of closure) which refers to the &quot;please check my work&quot; clause we have established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do we need to incorporate a clause like this in the homework close reason, should we make a *new* close reason, or is everything fine as is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we actually implement the decision of part 1 of this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the current &quot;homework&quot; close reason is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="8ea332a9-970e-4813-a4a7-7041575778db" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, Biophysics should not fork.&#xD;&#xA;There may be few biophysics questions on this site, but we should fix that by assimilating biophysicists into the fold, not by fracturing the already small community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (...) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, is there any *evidence* that biophysics questions are closed here?&#xD;&#xA;If not, this speculation that they *would* be closed is probably not useful.&#xD;&#xA;Just post the questions, and if they get closed we will discuss why in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) or on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question focuses on the physics it's on topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that such questions would be closed, but that would be a mistake and I (and others) would object, discuss in the chat room or on the meta, and set things right.&#xD;&#xA;We are aware of over-zealous close voting and also of users picking the &quot;off topic&quot; reason when they really should be choosing one of the various versions of &quot;poor quality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the considerations relevant to this meta post are similar to those which have come up in the past regarding questions with mathematical or engineering flavors.&#xD;&#xA;When engineering questions are closed because the question really isn't about physics, then everything's fine and the user is directed to the engineering site.&#xD;&#xA;In cases where the question is of an engineering flavor but particularly relevant to e.g. physics lab work, is of a nature such that only physicists can answer, or aims to get a uniquely physics perspective, then I think the question is appropriate for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;I feel exactly the same way about biophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detailed and justified the opinion outlined above in a [meta post on engineering questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering).&#xD;&#xA;As that answer was upvoted and accepted I think it likely reflects the general consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overzealous closing does happen.&#xD;&#xA;It's happened before with engineering; this results in *discussion* and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;If biophysics questions are overzealously closed, please come to the chat room or the meta and point it out.&#xD;&#xA;The community here is pretty good about self-observation and improvement so I have faith we can work through any initial bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So far few example questions can be found in the Area51 link, and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that instead you please tell everyone there to not be afraid to pose on Physics.SE!&#xD;&#xA;Asking us to support the Area51 proposal pushes us *away* from where we want to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="c076f4d9-1f40-4ee1-ab91-13a7d4b3399b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="OP's meta question is a much-needed initiative to improve/change/update the homework policy wordings of the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help), the [meta question 714](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), the [wiki discription](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework-and-exercises/info), and close reason; to make them useful and consistent, and stress that the issue is not whether the question is _actual_ homework, but rather whether it asks a conceptional question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested policy makers and editors in these matters are encouraged to come forward and meet in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, about a year ago (October 22nd, 2014), the [tag:homework] tag was already changed after several and long discussions on meta and various chat sessions to the self-explanatory [tag:homework-and-exercise] tag, which has for the past year mostly run smoothly and as intended. Any further change in the tag name seems to warrant a separate meta post, which could possibly be conducted after an overhaul of the above mentioned policy texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder to not forget that that the main objective is to first-and-foremost serve the Phys.SE community of _active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,_ as it says in the [intro pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). In plain English: The interests of people asking off-topic questions might not coincide with the best interests of the Phys.SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="5f39a74a-1cbd-4eb9-942f-39dbb04a6f1e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, note that asking us to do the math for you is actually considered *off-topic* here. The [top-rated answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5960/25301) (52 upvotes, 0 downvotes at the time of writing) on the meta post [Bite-sizing homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958) states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please solve this exercise&quot; or &quot;please plug these numbers into an equation for me&quot; are **OFF topic**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had an equation (cf. your 2nd comment) and some numbers, yet you asked us to do it for you. So according to site policy, your question is actually off-topic (possibly the reason Qmechanic left the comment about reading the HW policy) and should be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, asking why you hadn't done the math is certainly a reasonable request because it will give clues as to the direction an answer should take. The difference between a simple math problem (off-topic) and the reason behind the phenomena (on-topic) is vast. Diagnosing the issue of the mathematical aspect can help keep your question open or help further its closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="2af64005-504f-4e09-821e-3bff09e045f6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An option that seems particularly attractive to me is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 1: We modify the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, adding a clause that specifically refers to &quot;please check my work&quot;-type questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to part 2: There should be a slight modification to both the text that shows up in the review queue under the &quot;homework&quot; close reason, and the grey block of text that appears after a question has been closed. As far as I'm concerned, this can be as basic as adding the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On this site, questions that essentially boil down to &quot;can you please check my work&quot; are also grouped under &quot;homework-like&quot; and considered off-topic cf. [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="7370dff9-f188-4c9a-900d-1a80e44b000f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I didn't close it as duplicate, I closed it as being *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our book recommendations policy is rather strict (see [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/50583) and [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/50583)), and your question doesn't ask for a single book for QFT (which would already be quite broad), but also for a series of books *preparing* you for it. This is more study advice than a recommendation of a book for a specific topic, because you are not searching for a resource containing a defined topic, but you are asking *the answerers* to come up with the specific topic you must learn to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the question is very broad - the recommended resources in one answer could even be about different topic that those in another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="45762b50-7abc-4327-ac83-d5d8af9c1080" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago I proposed [banning homework questions altogether][1], which was a reasonably popular proposal. While I don't quite have the energy to keep pushing for this, I still support it. In the context of your question, I think it would be a good and workable solution. To be clear, the solution would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;homework policy&quot; would be replaced with a new document, which states that homework questions (in a strict sense) are completely banned. No ifs, no buts: your question will be closed if it looks like you're trying to get help with your homework, even if you actually aren't. The only way you can get help with your homework is by asking a conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We *also* have a new policy along the lines of what you suggest, which can be adjusted to taste independently of the related but distinct goal of making sure we don't supply answers to school/undergrad homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I feel that this would be less confusing for the users. The current policy of &quot;you can ask homework questions if you ask about a concept&quot; is pretty confusing to the uninitiated and means that a judgement call has to be made every time a homework question appears in the review queue. &quot;No homework, or anything that looks like it&quot; is much clearer for both askers and reviewers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;it has to be about a concept&quot; policy would then require a judgement call only in the minority of cases where it doesn't look like a homework problem, but is nevertheless judged not to be conceptual enough for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **homework *is* an issue** on this site. It is an issue not because homework questions tend to be non-conceptual but because they are homework questions. Answering them here is bad for the students' education and bad for the quality of this site, so let's just have a clear and straightforward policy of not doing so. Non-conceptual problems are *also* an issue, but they are a separate one, and better addressed using a separate policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5168/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6557" RevisionGUID="aa522d00-f2f7-4d21-9bbb-118b779dd089" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing a question doesn't mean you are in trouble. It means that your question, in its current state, does not meet the standards of the site. This label can be removed if you edit your question. I also don't think anyone was influenced by your &quot;lets get inquisitive&quot; comment, though I do not believe that's really an appropriate response to glance's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I voted to close your question as Too Broad because you've got 7 questions, some of which can actually be found with a simple Google search (which suggests you just rushed out and asked without trying to find the information in the normal means). We prefer [**one question per post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread), though we sometimes loosen this rule and allow one or two *closely related* questions in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reduced the list of questions to the aforementioned one or two *closely related* ones, I'd be willing to nominate it for reopening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="57ee15b5-bfd6-4c60-b8c6-5206e94fbc10" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A [quick search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated [tag:history] questions shows a handful of results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should old (i.e., more than 2 month old) questions be migrated too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion is: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/58382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="d3cdd99f-03bc-4822-b032-4632edcc1f93" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some history and background, too long for a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once upon a time the close reasons were universal across all SE sites. But different sites saw different types of problem questions, and so we were granted a set of universal reasons plus custom off-topic reasons. The question was [what should our off-topic reasons be?][1]. Especially of note is that we would get three reasons, no more (except maybe by asking higher powers *very* nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People looking for us to solve their homework for them have always been a problem around here, so we were pretty much in agreement one of the reasons should be about homework. This ultimately left two reasons to use on non-mainstream stuff and engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had a [lengthy discussion][2] covering [multiple bookmarked chats][3] about wording the homework reason. I think we largely felt that what we came up with was the best compromise. We couldn't cover every detail in 400 characters, nor would we necessarily want to. People not showing any effort and not asking about concepts were the two biggest problem then, and that influenced the wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it seems people are noticing an increase in &quot;this is physics; here is my extensive work; please check it and tell me if I'm off by a factor of 2&quot; questions. Even back when we came up with the close reason, we noticed these things and moved the obscured&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;up to the top of our [homework policy][4], but those words didn't make it to the close reason. *Perhaps* we need them there; I'm not sure. There will have to be compromises, and we don't want to burden the bulk of people receiving this message with corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, if you can cast close votes then you can fill out a custom off-topic reason. Even back before we had this ability, I would sometimes leave comments making it clear how the question violated our policy. In particular I used the wording now found at the top of our policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can copy and paste this if you want into a custom close reason or even just a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/close-reason-discussion-part-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/homework-close-reason-discussion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7392" RevisionGUID="e10c6dd5-dfc2-4d3f-87f0-6f8a3de58edd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It says nowhere that this site is restricted to only theoretical or conceptual Physics questions only, and everything related to physics problem solving is banned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tell me if I'm wrong about this and point me to the reference, or make a new thread to discuss it to change the scope officially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me quote [Mew][1]'s comment below [this answer][2] from another related question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't believe that providing complete solutions is detrimental to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students, and in fact I believe the best way for students to learn the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basics of physics is to look at as many complete solutions as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. I believe this method is far superior than asking the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student to attempt to solve the problem by themselves. When a student&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has seen many problems, I believe they will have no trouble in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developing an intuition to solve far more physics problems, and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have much more refined thought process than the students who went off&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on tangents trying to solve problems using unconventional methods – Mew&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was a student I always got A+ for all may physics exams in high school, because they always included problems of types the teacher already showed us how to solve (not the same problems, but with different numbers and conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to my performance I always went to Physics competitions but I weren't too successful in them initially. The reasons: the problems they gave me to solve was of types I never seen before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me show you an example. Electric circuits. Most students learn how to calculate the resistance, inductance and capacitance when these elements connected in series or parallel. But what do you do when you are faced with an arbitrary graph of capacitors, resistances or coils which you cannot rearrange into the usual series parallel structure? I was flinched by these tasks, I didn't even know how to start at all! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually after sending and receiving lots of letters (I didn't even had internet that time), discussing with peers other competitors and teachers, I managed to learn helluva lots of tricks and tips and approaches you can't find in any text book, which eventually got me to the final rounds and took the 4th prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have 10k+ reputation so I can't open the linked question in the example. But I think catch-all questions self answered or not, that ask&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What approach should I use when solving problems of this class&quot; (without actual numbers plugged in) would be very useful for students who are preparing for competitions or exams, engineers writing simulation software looking for the methods, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again if this site isn't for helping students learn the methods and know/how of problem solving than we should point that out in the tour and the help/ontopic as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/12350/mew&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="8bf141a4-aa83-4537-ab29-fa4ec6adceb7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Pictures would say better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Then this; notice a large bar in the right part of the page; the conspicuous part is the appearance of hot questions at the bottom:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on? I'm using Opera 30.0.1835.88; I then checked the Chem.SE page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easily seen the ads are at their proper place; no grey bar present at the right part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the meta PSE page is looking good:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the main page looking so? I'm having no problem with the other SE sites. Can anyone please tell me what the issue is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7159/site-sidebar-appears-below-content-in-google-chrome) also complains of the same problem but his browser is Chrome; I've also Chrome but there the main page looks good:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latest Update 1: Miracle!! I don't know how but the hot-questions list has come back to its original place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fonts are still irregularly big &amp; that grey side-bar is still there:(&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: ****! Really no words to say :X It is in coma again;(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FZZxB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6iNz2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8twlH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3H096.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrJDl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LCLtp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="2743d276-0598-43e4-9ca5-566eaf9ca357" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to go off the script David proposed and emphasize one point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **This programme needs to consider very seriously the role of the [tag:homework] tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, as I wrote [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework), one of the main lessons that came out of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) previous attempt to reformulate the policy. More specifically, it is an inconsistent position to say &quot;homework is banned&quot; and still keep a [tag:homework] tag, or at least it is something that is very hard to write around. It will be easier now that the tag actually reads [tag:homework-and-exercises] but the problem has by no means gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to express (here and now) an opinion on whether we should change the policy or the usage of the tag. But a discussion of the role of the tag is integral in any attempt to reformulate the policy. One big reason for this is that the first encounter of most new users with the fact that not all homework questions are on-topic will be with the tag wiki excerpt that's shown when you try to tag something as homework. Another big reason is simply that the tag is an integral structural part of how we handle these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this discussion needs to include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to change which questions are tagged as [tag:homework-and-exercises]?&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to keep the tag at all? Do we want to [burninate](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120640/what-does-it-mean-to-burninate-a-tag) and black-list it?&#xD;&#xA; - What does the tag documentation - tag wiki and tag wiki excerpt - need to look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not putting forth any position on these issues at this time, but they do need to be on the agenda; if not, it will simply prove impossible (or at least very, very difficult) to write a consistent set of documentation for the new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="9e95aada-d685-4ebe-8eb0-3ebb9274229d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the problem with the &quot;inconsistency&quot; as viewed by some is the fact that **close states are not permanent**, yet they are being viewed as a permanent state. This is simply not true; any post can be re-opened at any time. In light of this point of view, it should be clear that there isn't any inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that close states also do **not** at all suggest that the question itself is &quot;not physics.&quot; What it *does* suggest is that the question does not *fit the site* in its **current form** under **current policies**. A closed question may be a perfectly valid physics question; case in point: homework questions. We view these as off-topic, even though they certainly are valid physics questions. And since policies can change, there is no reason to suspect that an off-topic question will remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do note though that, on occasion, there are questions asked here that aren't actually physics (e.g., some people asking engineering, philosophy or chemistry questions). This does not mean that the close state *itself* indicates that the question is not physics.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also has been discussed on Mother Meta before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173431/what-should-i-do-with-a-question-that-has-an-exact-duplicate-closed-as-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186706/can-we-prevent-questions-from-being-closed-as-duplicates-of-closed-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115125/should-duplicates-of-closed-questions-be-closed-as-duplicates-or-closed-for-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is mixed between the answers (so obviously no consensus, not even highly upvoted answers), but two points were brought up there that we ought to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What happens if we later decide that the closed-original is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What happens if we later decide that an unclosed-original is off-topic? What should we do to the questions closed as duplicate of *that* one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, your issue disappears because the close-state isn't permanent. This should suggest that closing as a duplicate of a closed question should not present any problems/inconsistencies because of the fact that the original can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, we have the opposite case you present. Should we then go through all the duplicates and re-label them as off-topic? That would be quite a lot of *unnecessary* work (because it brings us right back to (1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with [tgp2114's evaluation process](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6565/25301); the reasoning should be in this order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Has the question been asked before?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as duplicate&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the question off-topic (HW, engineering, etc)? Too broad? Opinion based?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close appropriately&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can't tell *or* disagree&#xD;&#xA;  - Skip *or* Leave Open&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It should not matter if the proposed duplicate is also closed as off-topic because, again, it can get out of that state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="abeffd1e-5c15-4f57-8e7b-117911497678" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Could someone explain how does the vote: ***close/leave-open*** work in the context of review tasks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, please, [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70801): there are 6 votes there (4-close and 2-leave-open), and the question has been put on hold as *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70809) there are 6 votes (3-3) and the question has not been declared off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew that it takes 5 votes to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) What I'd like to know is if my vote to **leave-open** has *any value or meaning*. In both cases, will the question be closed *anyway* when there are 5 votes to close, as if 2 or 3 votes to *leave-open*  had not been cast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you think it would be more rational and advisable to close a question when the **net balance** is 5 votes to one or to the other effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2) Can you also explain why [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/135)&#xD;&#xA;at *meta* only one vote to **leave closed** is enough to declare that *item no longer reviewable*? and if/how that question can ever be reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** after the answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: if 4 members think a question should *not* be closed, 5 members can *anyway* close that question, and the four contrary votes are absolutely irrelevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone answer also the second question? There were a couple of **reopen** votes at that post, which have disappered now: on what conditions can it be reopened? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why one member that has closed that question can vote again to prevent people from reopening it, and why only one vote (his) is enough to make that *item no longer reviewable*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that only some [20 members](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats) (out of 100/150) are actively engaging in **reopen** votes and that 5+5 were involved in the closures, it seems that it is practically impossible to reopen that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="0bd3f263-7642-48d9-b105-69c3941e2e5b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The disputed flag means one or more of the other site members disagreed with your review][1]. In this case I would guess someone disagreed with you because the post is an answer - just not a very good one. The appropriate action would be to downvote the answer rather than flagging it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4737/what-does-the-disputed-status-of-a-flag-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="75b53180-5064-462d-a52e-33b217943681" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Last year, we asked https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax and the [answer was yes](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6792/6634), it would be included in the CSS rollout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the [CSS and profile rollout is complete](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7417/6634), it was [pointed out in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26763306#26763306) that we do not yet have the serif fonts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this removed from the CSS redesign? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="dc2aa4f3-dd4d-409e-8017-23579d220d6c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A little while ago [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) was posted to Meta, highlighting an apparent inconsistency between the handling of these two main site questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (A) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi was closed under our homework policy, specifically for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;- (B) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle remains open, even though it has been asserted that it is also a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we got distracted from the real issue there by arguments over whether the questions were too purely mathematical, so I wanted to raise the issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a chat discussion it came out that some people interpret question (B) as a check-my-work question, and others don't. Some people interpret it as a purely mathematical question, and others consider it to have sufficient physical context. To me, that's a sign of an unclear question. There seem to be three - well, four - positions on what should be done with that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Put it on hold for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;2. Put it on hold for being unclear&#xD;&#xA;3. Put it on hold for being purely mathematical (I think the previous Meta question ruled this out)&#xD;&#xA;4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who looked at question (B) prior to this meta post and declined to vote to close it (or flag it): **can you elaborate on why you thought option 1 or 2 (or 3) would _not_ be an appropriate course of action?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the aforementioned chat discussion between DanielSank and myself, if I understood correctly, is that he thinks we should recognize that there is ambiguity in questions like (B), and (A), and refrain from voting to close them, since there is (or may be?) an interpretation that allows the question to be appropriate for this site. On the other hand, I think we should actively put questions on hold unless and until it is _clear_ that they are appropriate. That disagreement may be material for a followup meta question, depending on the outcome of this one. (If you have thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment on this question to say so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="2305b832-a47a-473e-a55e-cd1b71be329b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To summarize the myriad of homework meta questions that dmckee linked to, as well as to editorialize a little, I think the issue that most of us have is with _no-effort_ homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a help page on the main Physics.SE site that includes an [explanation of what's considered on topic][1].  That page briefly states that homework questions are off-topic, and then links to [this more detailed meta post][2] about what constitutes an acceptable homework question. Also, when you create a Physics.SE account, you have the option to take a very brief tour of the site, and IIRC it at least covers that list of what is on topic.  As a result, if users aren't following the guidelines of what's on-topic, it's because they are ignoring information that was easily put in their reach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, some of the best questions I've seen on this site have been tagged &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot;, but they need to be asked the right way.  In general, the two-prong test is that the question has to boil down to a specific conceptual question that would also be helpful to other uses, and the question has to include any attempted work.  However, there are a lot of questions on here where the question text is _just_ the homework question with **no** additional information or input from the user.  On the other hand, other askers will ask their question, and then punctuate it with a &quot;Due tomorrow&quot; or &quot;Show all work&quot;.  This isn't just oblivious to the rules of the site, it's selfish and imposing.  In the real world, all of these students will either continue in higher education or enter the world of work, and a life lesson that they should learn as soon as possible is that oftentimes, people want to help you (otherwise we wouldn't answer questions on here in the first place) but you have to be willing to put in the work yourself.  The reality, it's academically dishonest for us to just do a kid's homework for him, who will no doubt claim it as his/her own.  Additionally, students will likely get more out of the process of asking a question if they first spend some time analyzing what exactly they aren't understanding about a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  We welcome good homework questions here, but they have to follow certain guidelines, both for the good of the community and the OP.  We hope you stick around to contribute to the site, but hopefully the more truly atrocious homework questions you see, the more you'll understand why there have to be guidelines in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="7c5b31c8-289e-4edc-83f6-6c93526a8326" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, things are not quite there yet, particularly with comments: consider for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uN04D.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seen [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/234007/8563), and obviously suffering from Sore Thumb syndrome. (Running chrome v48 over ubuntu, MathJax 2.6 with local STIX fonts, in case it's needed. It would be good to hear from others whether it displays this badly in other systems.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for that same comment, it appears that Firefox (v41 over Windows 7, MathJax 2.6 using web TEX fonts) produces this horrifying sight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZILfC.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="19333bed-9424-4b21-a4ef-726543d755d8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think **A2** is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of *This answer could be better if ...&quot;* would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think **A3** is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Comments:  &#xD;&#xA;A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an &quot;attempt&quot; to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks:  &#xD;&#xA;Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP&#xD;&#xA; - New Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Does not apply&#xD;&#xA; - URL only:  &#xD;&#xA;Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied&#xD;&#xA; - No comment necessary:  &#xD;&#xA;This, to me, is supposed to be used when *someone else* has already left a delete-comment as above&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be &quot;Looks Okay&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995, asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to &quot;get around&quot; the other comments and delete **A3** answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="15686f9d-3246-4069-8268-dd5104e7f6ef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="9094b2d8-4f55-47e6-8356-e6ac0701d17d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but a physics one was given and was deemed helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Apparently the original reason for that question to be on Math SE was that the OP cross posted it on physics and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="2d5b1551-7845-464d-a1a5-a3a5fdedc331" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question appears to [fit within the definition of homework-like][1] used on the site, the tag should be applied and the question (in its current state) should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the question I've just linked you to and at [the one linked in the close message][2], you may find some guidance for render your question into a form suitable for the site.&#xA;&#xA;Given the sophistication of the work you exhibit I would be unsurprised if you were able to retool to a question we'd accept.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="6995ef31-50c4-4daf-8ed7-501e777e6812" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the overwhelming policing:  This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was &quot;protected&quot; to avoid spam, &quot;me too&quot; or &quot;thanks&quot;kind of answers. http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/ You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="7cbf740f-34ca-4d3d-9b13-2852e4397b36" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; # N.B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The size requirements for adverts have changed. It is **NOT** appropriate to simply copy over the images from previous years - they won't work. Images need to be **300×250px** or 600×500px for retina displays, up from 220×250px in previous years. If an image is taller than it is wide, it's the wrong size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **150 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="c90b13e8-75c0-441f-a4a5-3ff93484f5ae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have to confess that I don't understand the distinction between the two types of masses made by the OP. I certainly agree that mass and energy are not the same, though they are interchangeable. However a more detailed discussion of the issue is probably inappropriate for the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point is that the tone of the post strikes me as inappropriate. No-one is paid for contributing to this site. We do so entirely out of good will. I don't like the idea of punishing members for answers. Unless an answer is obviously lazy or careless the correct response to a misleading answer is to (tactfully) point out the error and/or post a better answer yourself. Answering questions is just as much a learning process as posting them, and few of us can claim all our answers are beyond improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note Incnis' profile states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This site is supposedly useful for “active researchers, academics and students of physics”. If you want science, then never rely on such self-governed Internet sites (Stack Exchange, Wikipedia, or whatever), that are not supervised by an academic organization. They are all flawed. You can find some valuable insights here, but you may not trust assessments made by this community. Use reputable sources, available experts, and your own intellect to verify all this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well yes, but that applies to everything in life and academic organizations are far from beyond reproach. I think the Physics SE stands head and shoulders above any comparable site I have ever seen. It is everything that peer review should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re the [edit to the question][1]:** I wouldn't use phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not that mass and energy &quot;can change back and forth&quot;. They are literally equivalent ways of talking about the same thing &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a minor edit to *they are different forms of the same thing* would be fine by me, and I'd guess that's what the author really meant. However I think far worse crimes against physics are committed. Is this really such a big issue as to warrant its own meta post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/6248/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8797" RevisionGUID="ccfd8b4a-4b51-46b7-b65a-e60052cf7a8e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is similar to DanielSank's [idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/23785).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a meta question is made, asking what questions should be asked to the subject of the AMA. People post their questions as answers to this meta post. Then, there is a period of time where people upvote the questions they want to see answered. Maybe these get community wiki'd to not mess up rep too much. After this voting period ends, the subject of the AMA edits his initial answer into each of the questions (where each question, remember, is an &quot;answer&quot; to a meta post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the subject of the ama makes his initial answer to a given question, discussion can continue in the form of comments, which will get moved to chat. Thus each quetion has its own chat room where a free form discussion can take place. After discussion of one question dies down, the subject of the AMA moves on to the next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A downside is that a moderator will need to continually edit the original meta post to indicate which question's chat room the subject of the AMA is currently in. The advantage is that the questions are more easily browsable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="646e636a-0e17-4954-994b-ebe8d076ac37" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The closing notice tells you *exactly* why your question is on hold, and links to [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) - what more do you want to know? Please also have a look at [our stance on check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That you cannot find the solution to your problem elsewhere is unfortunate, but that does not mean that we have to solve it for you (or check your solution)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="65b4d361-0a99-406d-a3c1-a7966f125adf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So the sidebar got [stretched by about 30%](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). No problem. This entails a change to the network-provided ads (not visible above certain rep thresholds) and to the community ads. No problem. Some old ads [ran with some extra whitespace](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884976_272563) while they were updated. No problem. We need to [update all our community ads](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884977_272563) [to the new size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment885010_272563). Grumble, but no problem, it's a good opportunity to spiff up the graphics on some of them. The community ads thread got delayed a bit this year. Absolutely fine. We [don't really know when the 2016 ads kick in](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016#comment29266_7426). Not awesome on the lack of clarity, but not a problem as long as nothing terrible comes of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/urgvy.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ad is currently running and it comes from [the 2015 thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388#6399). For comparison, here is that advert as posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If you're going to run 2015 community ads in the expanded sidebar, pad them out with whitespace instead of stretching them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite simple, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question [first posted on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273255/please-dont-stretch-the-old-community-ads). Re-posted here as a signpost as it affects this site; give the MSE question some love if you agree with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="3f333c94-a51d-4e46-80f7-b89df7d61c97" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will be the next [AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) guest. So here it is a brief introduction of myself, and you can suggest some topic/questions that can be discussed during the session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Academic Background.** I obtained a master degree in theoretical physics almost ten years ago, working on the regularization of path integrals for supersymmetric QM models of particles in curved (Euclidean) background space. In particular, I focused on the mode regularization, both for the phase space and usual path integral, in N=1,2 SUSY sigma models. It has been a while, however, since I abandoned those topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, following the same *cursus honorum* as many others in [my community](http://www.iamp.org/page.php?page=page_start), I shifted towards mathematics. My motivation was - and still is - that I don't like the sloppiness with which many subtle and interesting mathematical problems are dealt with in theoretical physics. I therefore did a Ph.D. in mathematics, with analysis and mathematical physics as main topics. During my Ph.D. I started working on the so-called mean field and classical limits of quantum (field) theories; i.e. on rigorously proving the emergence of classical/mean-field effective dynamics starting from the full quantum description of a given system. This is still my main area of research, but I also work in scattering theory (e.g. for Lindblad superoperators) and nonlinear partial differential equations of physical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggested topics.** Below you can find a list of the topics on which it is more probable that I would have something meaningful to say, but feel free to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Classical and mean field approximation of quantum systems (e.g. Bohr's correspondence principle; the emergence of Hartree, Gross-Pitaevskii, Vlasov, Hartree-Fock dynamics from many-body quantum systems; ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - The interplay between rigorous mathematical results and physics (e.g. Haag's theorem, the von Neumann measurement scheme, representation theory for the algebra of canonical commutation relations, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Partial Differential Equations &quot;of evolution&quot; (e.g. Schrödinger, Wave, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory;&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantization (from a mathematician's point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think I could at least point to some references if you ask me questions about mathematical physics, apart from some topics on which I am quite ignorant (like e.g. all things related to homology/cohomology applied to physics, string theory, general relativity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even if I am not at all an expert, I like to read about logic, set theory, and in general the problems that arise in foundational mathematics. So this could also be a topic for a (very informal but interesting) discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When and where.** The AMA session will take place in the hbar chat room, the 12th of July at 16:00 UTC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="6f40836e-8053-4cf7-8913-6e4897492412" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sure. Done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I changed OP's original wording _burninate request_ into _merge request,_ because that is technically the relevant term for the [tag:planet] tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/993/2451) meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires intervention from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6557" RevisionGUID="b3eb97c3-03f8-49b1-bebd-90dae44023e3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing a question doesn't mean you are in trouble. It means that your question, in its current state, does not meet the standards of the site. This label can be removed if you edit your question. I also don't think anyone was influenced by your &quot;lets get inquisitive&quot; comment, though I do not believe that's really an appropriate response to glance's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I voted to close your question as Too Broad because you've got 7 questions, some of which can actually be found with a simple Google search (which suggests you just rushed out and asked without trying to find the information in the normal means). We prefer [**one question per post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread), though we sometimes loosen this rule and allow one or two *closely related* questions in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reduced the list of questions to the aforementioned one or two *closely related* ones, I'd be willing to nominate it for reopening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="9be8f42e-e526-493f-b891-48d8da4a881c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If someone loses access to their account, the posts remain, but the user will be unable to edit them (as the OP) until they regain access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accounts are usually deleted (1) because of administrative reasons such as sockpuppetting or voting fraud, in which case there are likely no salvageable posts, or (2) because the user has requested it. In this case the posts also remain, stripped of a link to the poster's profile and with the poster username sometimes changed to the form userXXXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as before, seriously: all this information is available with minimal digging at the [Help Center](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help) and in [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/). If you're asking for a specific reason we can help, but if you're just randomly wondering about stuff, please have a thorough look in those places first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="38e5cd7a-2612-4715-9be3-856d1b02b861" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm a little surprised you've been around for months without having noticed that StackExchange doesn't use LaTeX ;-) Posts here are composed in a variant of [Markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax), and as dmckee pointed out in a comment there is an [editing help page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) that explains most features of Markdown syntax, or the particular variant SE uses. Right at the [top of the page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/editing-help#linebreaks) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; End a line with two spaces to add a `&lt;br/&gt;` linebreak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="bd2d4513-8411-4772-b8e9-eb90bf71a4c8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The help message that comes up when asking a question says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a lot of homework questions that show a _huge_ amount of effort. Sometimes, they even have disclaimers attached, like, &quot;look! I showed absolutely everything I did, please don't close&quot;. We even get questions on meta where people are confused about why their homework question was closed (see [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8854/homework-and-exercise-tag)) when they read the policy and showed effort just as it said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a problem with wording. The 'show some effort' clause comes second, is shorter, and sounds more final, making it stick in people's heads better. But our actual homework policy (i.e. the de facto community standards, not the blurb) emphasizes the first clause a lot more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a rewording of the blurb to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Don't just tell us you're confused; tell us why you're confused, and what you've tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't change anything about our policies, but I bet it would decrease the amount of questions we have to close. Does this sound effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="5e4efa4a-1d08-4117-9256-3b42d8563da4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my clothes and tear my hair when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good [history of science SE][2] why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][3], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="0293c347-da0a-4f9e-8c04-a1d88ac8447d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the problem with the &quot;inconsistency&quot; as viewed by some is the fact that **close states are not permanent**, yet they are being viewed as a permanent state. This is simply not true; any post can be re-opened at any time. In light of this point of view, it should be clear that there isn't any inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that close states also do **not** at all suggest that the question itself is &quot;not physics.&quot; What it *does* suggest is that the question does not *fit the site* in its **current form** under **current policies**. A closed question may be a perfectly valid physics question; case in point: homework questions. We view these as off-topic, even though they certainly are valid physics questions. And since policies can change, there is no reason to suspect that an off-topic question will remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do note though that, on occasion, there are questions asked here that aren't actually physics (e.g., some people asking engineering, philosophy or chemistry questions). This does not mean that the close state *itself* indicates that the question is not physics.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also has been discussed on Mother Meta before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173431/what-should-i-do-with-a-question-that-has-an-exact-duplicate-closed-as-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186706/can-we-prevent-questions-from-being-closed-as-duplicates-of-closed-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115125/should-duplicates-of-closed-questions-be-closed-as-duplicates-or-closed-for-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is mixed between the answers (so obviously no consensus, not even highly upvoted answers), but two points were brought up there that we ought to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What happens if we later decide that the closed-original is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What happens if we later decide that an unclosed-original is off-topic? What should we do to the questions closed as duplicate of *that* one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, your issue disappears because the close-state isn't permanent. This should suggest that closing as a duplicate of a closed question should not present any problems/inconsistencies because of the fact that the original can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, we have the opposite case you present. Should we then go through all the duplicates and re-label them as off-topic? That would be quite a lot of *unnecessary* work (because it brings us right back to (1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with [tgp2114's evaluation process](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6565/25301); the reasoning should be in this order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Has the question been asked before?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as duplicate&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the question off-topic (HW, engineering, etc)? Too broad? Opinion based?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close appropriately&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can't tell *or* disagree&#xD;&#xA;  - Skip *or* Leave Open&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It should not matter if the proposed duplicate is also closed as off-topic because, again, it can get out of that state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="8adf6168-1a4b-4edb-91e8-90ffa747ab9a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We know that [plagiarism is bad](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/542/50583), and unacknowledged citations *will* be dealt with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what about answers that properly acknowledge their sources, but consist of nothing but quotes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe such answers do not consititute sufficient effort to be actually counted as answers, and should be deleted. If a user cannot be bothered to phrase the answer to a question in their own words, or to explain and give context to their quotes, they do not deserve to derive reputation from such a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="8e8fd1b1-7fa3-4716-b957-755b622528ab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I quote the comment I left on your answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Please don't post complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why. I'm not sure what to add to that. (Maybe if you can elaborate on why you were confused by that message, I can provide something more useful.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="fa627e62-e85d-4ec2-a546-72dbb3805881" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To summarize the myriad of homework meta questions that dmckee linked to, as well as to editorialize a little, I think the issue that most of us have is with _no-effort_ homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a help page on the main Physics.SE site that includes an [explanation of what's considered on topic][1].  That page briefly states that homework questions are off-topic, and then links to [this more detailed meta post][2] about what constitutes an acceptable homework question. Also, when you create a Physics.SE account, you have the option to take a very brief tour of the site, and IIRC it at least covers that list of what is on topic.  As a result, if users aren't following the guidelines of what's on-topic, it's because they are ignoring information that was easily put in their reach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, some of the best questions I've seen on this site have been tagged &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot;, but they need to be asked the right way.  In general, the two-prong test is that the question has to boil down to a specific conceptual question that would also be helpful to other uses, and the question has to include any attempted work.  However, there are a lot of questions on here where the question text is _just_ the homework question with **no** additional information or input from the user.  On the other hand, other askers will ask their question, and then punctuate it with a &quot;Due tomorrow&quot; or &quot;Show all work&quot;.  This isn't just oblivious to the rules of the site, it's selfish and imposing.  In the real world, all of these students will either continue in higher education or enter the world of work, and a life lesson that they should learn as soon as possible is that oftentimes, people want to help you (otherwise we wouldn't answer questions on here in the first place) but you have to be willing to put in the work yourself.  The reality, it's academically dishonest for us to just do a kid's homework for him, who will no doubt claim it as his/her own.  Additionally, students will likely get more out of the process of asking a question if they first spend some time analyzing what exactly they aren't understanding about a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  We welcome good homework questions here, but they have to follow certain guidelines, both for the good of the community and the OP.  We hope you stick around to contribute to the site, but hopefully the more truly atrocious homework questions you see, the more you'll understand why there have to be guidelines in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="c3c63b85-f00f-49a8-afb7-c9679d6bba7f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perhaps we do nothing. After all, this site is not trying to be a one-stop comprehensive resource for information about physics. There are some things people should be looking elsewhere for - &quot;elsewhere&quot; may include textbooks, class notes, Wikipedia, Hyperphysics, and all those other [resources we tell people to check before asking](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For homework questions in particular, the people who are asking these questions are not really our intended audience. (Leaving aside the occasional high-level homework question from a grad student in a QFT class or something like that.) This site is meant primarily for academics, researchers, and serious students, not for intro-level physics students who just want homework help. One of the ways we keep the intro-level students from overwhelming the site is by not providing the information they're looking for. We _want_ them to go to other sites for that information, sites which do want to help people with their homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6670" RevisionGUID="615af35f-4632-42fa-b51a-950c36a2c154" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**It is my vote, and I will vote as I please.**  &#xD;&#xA;If I want to downvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to upvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to do nothing to your question/answer, I will. Same thing for everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copying from [my answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6652/25301) to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6651/25301),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. No matter how much you disagree with it, you cannot change our ways about how we will vote (there shouldn't be any  reason for you to *expect* that we change to your whim anyways). We are **free** to vote entirely as we please, up or down and for whatever dumb reason we want (whether the post is [obvious troll being obvious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or because we simply don't like the person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you honestly feel that an answer without citations&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; is not useful&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, feel free to vote as you please. Just don't tell me that I should vote your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I would say that for *many* of the questions posted here, it would be entirely unnecessary to need one in an answer&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The [alt-text](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images) over the up and down buttons for answers say *This answer is useful.* and *This answer is not useful*, respectively, so my language there matches&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="8b89cc6f-5898-4b68-b9aa-4175bafaff24" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, you have done the right thing. With some many questions on the site it's very easy to miss the fact that a duplicate exists, and to be fair the site search isn't as great as it could be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't attach too much significance to the downvotes. It's easy to feel that downvotes are a personal criticism, but really they are just a statement that the question isn't appropriate for the site. Personally I don't downvote duplicates just because they are duplicates, though I know some site members feel differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting does remove the question from the site home page, so there is an argument that a question should be downvoted when we don't want it to appear there. Maybe that's why you have the two downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it's generally bad form to delete a question. I can't remember the reasons for this, but I'm sure I have seen comments from the moderators that in general questions shouldn't deleted. Just leave the question - there is an automated cleanup process for downvoted questions that springs into life after a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth you should be congratulated for responding to the duplicate link, reviewing the duplicate and deciding that your question is indeed answered by the existing one. Too many people just abandon their duplicate questions and leave it to the moderators to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A quick footnote to summarise David's comments below**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit hasty to suggest you shouldn't delete your question. The Stack Exchange has various checks to detect users who it thinks aren't being serious, and it will eventually block those users from asking any more questions. One of the criteria it uses is the number of times the user asks a question then deletes it - hence my vague memory that deleting your own questions is a bad thing. However deleting one question, or even a few questions, isn't likely to cause a problem. So you should feel free to delete your question if you want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A footnote to the footnote**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens the issue of how deleted questions affect your status has just arisen in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8851/what-is-the-positive-question-record. This explains why having lots of deleted question is bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="1901165f-456e-416e-a324-88ffdce070a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question appears to [fit within the definition of homework-like][1] used on the site, the tag should be applied and the question (in its current state) should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the question I've just linked you to and at [the one linked in the close message][2], you may find some guidance for render your question into a form suitable for the site.&#xA;&#xA;Given the sophistication of the work you exhibit I would be unsurprised if you were able to retool to a question we'd accept.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="389628f8-4815-4ccf-9f39-92f903218f88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, note that asking us to do the math for you is actually considered *off-topic* here. The [top-rated answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5960/25301) (52 upvotes, 0 downvotes at the time of writing) on the meta post [Bite-sizing homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958) states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions that can be summarized as &quot;please solve this exercise&quot; or &quot;please plug these numbers into an equation for me&quot; are **OFF topic**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had an equation (cf. your 2nd comment) and some numbers, yet you asked us to do it for you. So according to site policy, your question is actually off-topic (possibly the reason Qmechanic left the comment about reading the HW policy) and should be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, asking why you hadn't done the math is certainly a reasonable request because it will give clues as to the direction an answer should take. The difference between a simple math problem (off-topic) and the reason behind the phenomena (on-topic) is vast. Diagnosing the issue of the mathematical aspect can help keep your question open or help further its closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="a8162265-697c-4b00-9e9c-bccf90ce3f2d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the question is literally asking for a yes/no answer, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I'd downvote because it's a terrible question. Beyond the fact that answers have a minimum character count (meaning the answer *ought* to be more than &quot;Yes&quot; or &quot;No&quot;), there is no added benefit to the collection of questions &amp; answers to this site for that type of question and answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I'd vote to close because [check my work problems](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) are considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this type of question is *easily* molded into an appropriate question for this site. For example, rather than saying, *Am I right?*, you could say, *Why is this the case?* or *Under what conditions does this not work?* I think that doing something like this will both *confirm* and *extend* your understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="6a369b01-786d-4fa5-84a1-edc8d5b13393" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid you _are_ being rather naïve here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest recurring issue is homework questions and naïve questions drowning out &quot;the good stuff&quot;. Another issue is downvoting, see [the various threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote) including [we seem to be over-eager to downvote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of poor answers out there. But if you think an answer is poor, you could provide a better one yourself. It isn't enough just to downvote, particularly if you don't comment either. You've been here for 18 months and [you've only answered 9 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46774/thenamescross?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so. While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really need some examples of such poor opportunistic answers, and then we need to pick them apart. Otherwise there's no meat to your argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at some of those answers. They might be wonderful, with references to rock-solid physics, and yet they might have a lot of unexplained downvotes. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, without supporting evidence your argument has no weight. For all you know those _downvotes_ are undermining the system.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement. I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, your argument is weightless without evidence. This is a science website, and the science is settled by evidence, not opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post). In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, what's your evidence? Do you know what this user was suspended for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look carefully and you'll perhaps notice that there are expert users who are ex users. The current mechanisms have filtered _them_ over time. Luboš Motl is hardly ever here, nor is Ben Crowell or Carl Brannen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy! However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer! When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no undermining if the answer includes references to peer-reviewed papers and hard scientific evidence. The OP is free to follow up those references to objectively decide if the answer is correct. However there is undermining if the answer receives a slew of downvotes. That will discourage the OP from even looking at the answer. See [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220208/76162) for example. You can follow up on the references to Einstein/Shapiro/etc to check that I'm not talking out of my hat. And yet there's 10 downvotes, with comments from only one downvoter, who has obviously not even read the answer, let alone followed up on the references.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they do. But here the scientific enquiry is in following up those references and others. Not on simply accepting what somebody else tells you.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;What changes are possible within Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see. But if you want to call for changes, you really need to support your case with evidence and references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="a00f2b5d-2d89-4636-a395-1a3019fddabe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question, along with the twin paradox one and the first in the series, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction are intended as canonical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where we get lots of questions on the same topic it's nice to have a definitive answer that we can point people to. But that definitive answer is necessarily rather lengthy because it has to cover lots of details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether canonical questions are a good idea was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers and the general conclusion seemed to be that they were. In the absence of other guidance I decided to write some canonical Q/As on subjects I was particularly interested in and hope that others found them interesting as well. So far the number of upvotes suggests that the questions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="b61a7f12-ea41-4b0f-be54-c813911f1694" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="EDITED after the question was marked as a possible duplicate: I don't think that all items noted in the comments were part of answers before, not fully developed and explained, and which could be argued. I don't disagree with many of the comments, but find some to be not helpful. Still, this site is a meta site and opinions can be valid answers. I'd like to see some reasoned answers posted, if possible, but, it's been about 8 months since I posted it, it does not matter much at this point. I was just questioning, not creating a controversy, I thought. BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED, added from here on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is not why it happens. there were previous questions eg,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that asked that, and the answers were truthful, in my opinion, and elucidated the reasons. My question is whether there might be a way to get those to increase. Some were mentioned in the answers in that url, but if we'd like to increase quality perhaps there are also other ways also. Those mentioned a couple years back didn't seem to take hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Increase the number of points for positive votes for questions&#xD;&#xA;2 increase more the number of points for positive votes on questions and say more than 3K reputation (I know, sounds like favoritism, propose an alternate)&#xD;&#xA;3 create a few more tags for eg, for news exploration, paper reviews or comments -- where the question/answer explains the relevance of some new findings, or describes a paper and asks a question on it&#xD;&#xA;4  others I can't think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is are there other good ideas for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="8f948880-6fef-4be3-be50-f145b00658c9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think **A2** is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of *This answer could be better if ...&quot;* would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think **A3** is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Comments:  &#xD;&#xA;A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an &quot;attempt&quot; to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks:  &#xD;&#xA;Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP&#xD;&#xA; - New Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Does not apply&#xD;&#xA; - URL only:  &#xD;&#xA;Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied&#xD;&#xA; - No comment necessary:  &#xD;&#xA;This, to me, is supposed to be used when *someone else* has already left a delete-comment as above&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be &quot;Looks Okay&quot;](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995, asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to &quot;get around&quot; the other comments and delete **A3** answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="b35826f6-d8a9-4f95-9d8f-054372a4abcf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Naming no names, but please can we have a ban on using lmgtfy.com in comments. I appreciate how frustrating it can be that users post questions without having done the most basic Google search. But pointing them at lmgtfy.com is just snide and unbecoming of an august company such as ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just downvote, vote to close and then imagine yourself interviewing the offender for a job at your university in years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later**: doh, I showed [insufficient effort][1] in checking for duplicates. This was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links. Oh well, it probably doesn't hurt to jog memories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="2ccc9b74-f802-48c3-8920-8b24109563bb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Asking for close-reasons in comments is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE users try to leave comments whenever the standard close-reason banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE users are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (requires 20+ reputation points).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above didn't work, you can also post a new meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="6ba66e9a-8b27-4ed7-9d9b-26dd9c72d735" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following three points combine to contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are positing that PSE has *always* been over-moderated, over-moderation would necessarily lead to a *larger* ratio of questions being closed over time, there is no way around that aspect. Since #3 above shows a fairly static close question count and #1 above shows an increasing question count, then the above three metric strongly suggest that there is no evidence of over-moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, note that there are currently [~5600 questions closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano) (and not duplicates), which represents about 8% of the total questions asked&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. For reference, the other sciences (and SO) closed-non-dupe fractions are approximately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com): 6%&#xD;&#xA; - [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Computer Science](http://cs.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we are on the higher end of the spectrum, we are not egregiously overboard as compared to similar sites. I believe that some of the difference is the fact that Math.SE allows homework questions whereas [we do not](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), preferring conceptual questions instead. Not sure Cross Validated's position on HW questions. I think we're in good company on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Of course, there are many more deleted questions, so this number isn't necessarily real, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's a useful metric when comparing among other sites.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="13bf1009-c063-430f-a0f9-d6077d10cde7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum education in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 5 votes (net) seems reasonable to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.  However, I don't think many of us ask or answer questions just for the rep.  The incentive will have little effect except encouraging those who are chasing rep to post good questions which they have found on other sites, or even on this site but with sufficient change of wording and tags to avoid obvious detection as a duplicate.  The penalty will be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions, and unable to understand the level of physics which high-rep users ask about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not a new one.  See :https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that Meta Question, posted 3 years ago, which currently has 28 up-votes, Dilaton writes :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The About of Physics SE still says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So : What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople questions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... If the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="1e7237a6-38c6-4c47-8522-b1ddb3bf235c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I was trying to update [this question][1] with a link to another well asked question [here][2] - I tried twice, but each time my answer did not appear- I am wondering if it is being checked because I asked the original question and already posted one answer...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...the idea was to post [good examples of homework questions][3] as separate answers, which is why I want to add a second answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what is going on? I typed out an answer twice and both hit post both times, but nothing seemed to appear....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam#comment379180_178722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="1f8831ff-5b0d-412b-a544-8d768ba9a6f6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the question is now perfectly acceptable, and I personally would vote to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it's not very good for the community moderation model if I go around closing and opening things willy-nilly. Your question was reviewed twice since you edited it ([first review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124093), [second review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124324), and all four reviewers thought it was still inappropriate for the site. We should find out why. Hopefully at least one of them stops by to provide an answer (and I'll see if I can bug them about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, don't do _that_. Deleting and reposting questions is against our rules (of course as a new member, you probably wouldn't have known). If further edits are required, you can just keep editing the same question. Just try to batch up your edits so that you make all the changes required at once, and that you don't wind up editing the post too many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few edits you could make to your question that would vastly improve it, and even though these shouldn't be the _cause_ for it to stay on hold, given human nature, these might help the question's chances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don't post a screenshot of text from a book. Instead, retype the relevant parts of the text, making sure to use a quote block to indicate what you have copied from the book. (Make sure to acknowledge the source, too.)&#xD;&#xA;- Improve the math formatting by using the operator macros `\sin` and `\cos`, and writing kets as `\lvert jm\rangle` instead of `|jm&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps most important, give your question [a better title](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles). Even though the decision to put a question on hold should be based on the body, not the title, whatever title you do choose is your question's first impression to readers and it can influence their judgement of the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In your case, &quot;SU(2) Rotation Matrices Problem from Halzen and Martin&quot; says nothing about what you're actually asking. Besides, the key word in the title is &quot;Problem&quot;, which suggests that you want the solution to the problem from the book, even though that's not what you're actually asking in the body. A better title would highlight the conceptual issue you're actually asking about. Based on your wording in the body, you could go with something like &quot;How can one obtain the eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system?&quot;, or if you want it shorter, &quot;Eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system&quot;. (Titles don't _have_ to be questions, though in my experience it's often easier to write a good title if you make it a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="5452e944-8c81-450c-856e-d9da31cc17b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today I had some issues regarding an answer (now deleted) that I encountered in the Low Quality queue. [The question][1] asked for clarification about a solution by Michael A. Gottlieb, and included a screenshot of that solution without its copyright notice. The reviewed answer recommended to ask Michael A. Gottlieb. I marked the answer to recommend deletion, before noticing that the answer was written by Michael A. Gottlieb himself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards, I got a notification of a comment to my review (I didn't know those existed) from Gottlieb, who asked me to remove the copyrighted material. I edited out the screenshot and flagged the question with a custom flag. I also commented Gottlieb that he should have edited the question and/or contacted the mods, instead of posting a non-answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the answer has been converted to a comment by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question about this incident are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;* In a [previous meta answer][2], DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;* The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265664/virtual-work-problem-from-feynmans-tips-on-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4613/78942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="bb84e7a3-b274-4b7e-82ea-c68cdca4f1b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just recently asked a question which got &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related meta-posts, i.e.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialogue to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;_Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache_&quot;. Translated: &quot;_It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem_&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7637" RevisionGUID="9538535d-fe1b-4e57-bba1-69338c77dfae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739). Is there a better statement somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, what you found is the official, authoritative policy on homework-like questions. You might find a post that explains a particular point of the homework policy more clearly, but in general, that is the best available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That was hard enough to find. Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mean like this entry in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![picture of help center][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between this and the fact that this post is linked from _every_ question closed as homework-like, I think we've made it relatively easy to find. If there is a specific situation in which it would make sense to add another link to the post, we can do that, but we'd need more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise. Do we have a consensus? If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you don't see is the many weeks of discussion in chat and previous posts on meta that went into crafting that policy. Keep in mind that people who agree with the policy (and in particular, those who were involved in the discussions that created it) have no need to comment on the post. There is a selection bias which makes the comments under the post more likely to oppose it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should probably delete those comments as they are very old, and any changes to the policy inspired by the comments will already have been made. (This doesn't stop people from proposing such changes via new meta posts, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kalgd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="cc177f39-42e0-491b-862b-59b4168b9df9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The problem with this type of question is that it is *very* unlikely to be helpful to anyone who has not been staring for half an hour at the precise same problem that you have. The problem itself is pretty artificial and the only reason to care about that height is because you saw it in a book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In addition, your working is extremely hard to read and is unlikely to be helpful even to someone with the same problem, as it takes a good bit of decoding. It is never enough to just provide a long list of equations that sort of go somewhere; you need to provide some connecting tissue to tell the reader what you're doing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't be offended at the 'show some effort' bit. This is an automatic message that needs to cover a wide range of cases. Its purpose is to give users a sense of what's wrong with their question and redirect them to more detailed information - which you did find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this is that it is *not* a conceptual question. Saying that it is about &quot;a height&quot; is not enough - all questions *include* concepts, but this does not equate to be asking *about* them. The problem in your question is a routine calculation with no conceptual content. For more information, please read [our guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) carefully. To get a more detailed breakdown of this community's attitudes towards homework(-like) questions, see the [Bite-sizing homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) thread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="3bac8227-3520-4a59-a576-f7152551b211" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You understood the underlined clause, *they may not change the accepted answer*, perfectly. That clause is in the present tense and uses *may* as a modal verb to denote permission (or in this case, the denial of permission). Since questioners are allowed to change the selected answer, the clause is grammatically incorrect. The clause should have been phrased in the present perfect tense rather than the present tense, and because it reflects a possibility that might or might not have happened, it should use *might* rather than *may*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A correct rewording is *they might not have changed the accepted answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-on to this question, I asked [how to suggest edits for help center pages](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8871/how-to-suggest-edits-for-help-center-pages). It was suggested that I use the &quot;contact us&quot; link. I did just that and suggested a rewording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wording at the cited Help Center page has just been changed. It now reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question has now been answered perfectly. It simply means that the author received an answer that worked for him or her personally. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="4734bf14-a50b-41f9-bee4-3b7044eedbc2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my clothes and tear my hair when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good [history of science SE][2] why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][3], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="c8e3265c-e480-46ef-9e03-8387f54fe72b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, Biophysics should not fork.&#xD;&#xA;There may be few biophysics questions on this site, but we should fix that by assimilating biophysicists into the fold, not by fracturing the already small community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that in Phys.SE questions heavily based on the knowledge of the related biology (...) would be likely closed as off-topic, even if the question focused on the physics or thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, is there any *evidence* that biophysics questions are closed here?&#xD;&#xA;If not, this speculation that they *would* be closed is probably not useful.&#xD;&#xA;Just post the questions, and if they get closed we will discuss why in the [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) or on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question focuses on the physics it's on topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that such questions would be closed, but that would be a mistake and I (and others) would object, discuss in the chat room or on the meta, and set things right.&#xD;&#xA;We are aware of over-zealous close voting and also of users picking the &quot;off topic&quot; reason when they really should be choosing one of the various versions of &quot;poor quality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the considerations relevant to this meta post are similar to those which have come up in the past regarding questions with mathematical or engineering flavors.&#xD;&#xA;When engineering questions are closed because the question really isn't about physics, then everything's fine and the user is directed to the engineering site.&#xD;&#xA;In cases where the question is of an engineering flavor but particularly relevant to e.g. physics lab work, is of a nature such that only physicists can answer, or aims to get a uniquely physics perspective, then I think the question is appropriate for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;I feel exactly the same way about biophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I detailed and justified the opinion outlined above in a [meta post on engineering questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering).&#xD;&#xA;As that answer was upvoted and accepted I think it likely reflects the general consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tag today is not really populated by questions deeply rooted on the biology, but that could change if the Phys.SE community are prepared to think twice before using the &quot;off topic&quot; stamp. Take it as a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overzealous closing does happen.&#xD;&#xA;It's happened before with engineering; this results in *discussion* and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;If biophysics questions are overzealously closed, please come to the chat room or the meta and point it out.&#xD;&#xA;The community here is pretty good about self-observation and improvement so I have faith we can work through any initial bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So far few example questions can be found in the Area51 link, and I invite everybody interested to post there their example questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that instead you please tell everyone there to not be afraid to pose on Physics.SE!&#xD;&#xA;Asking us to support the Area51 proposal pushes us *away* from where we want to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6557" RevisionGUID="8736353e-93dd-4b41-9dca-400e1ba1e14d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing a question doesn't mean you are in trouble. It means that your question, in its current state, does not meet the standards of the site. This label can be removed if you edit your question. I also don't think anyone was influenced by your &quot;lets get inquisitive&quot; comment, though I do not believe that's really an appropriate response to glance's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I voted to close your question as Too Broad because you've got 7 questions, some of which can actually be found with a simple Google search (which suggests you just rushed out and asked without trying to find the information in the normal means). We prefer [**one question per post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread), though we sometimes loosen this rule and allow one or two *closely related* questions in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reduced the list of questions to the aforementioned one or two *closely related* ones, I'd be willing to nominate it for reopening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="f68192b0-c7d6-4f62-b14d-6a219af129fa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to go off the script David proposed and emphasize one point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **This programme needs to consider very seriously the role of the [tag:homework] tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, as I wrote [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework), one of the main lessons that came out of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) previous attempt to reformulate the policy. More specifically, it is an inconsistent position to say &quot;homework is banned&quot; and still keep a [tag:homework] tag, or at least it is something that is very hard to write around. It will be easier now that the tag actually reads [tag:homework-and-exercises] but the problem has by no means gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to express (here and now) an opinion on whether we should change the policy or the usage of the tag. But a discussion of the role of the tag is integral in any attempt to reformulate the policy. One big reason for this is that the first encounter of most new users with the fact that not all homework questions are on-topic will be with the tag wiki excerpt that's shown when you try to tag something as homework. Another big reason is simply that the tag is an integral structural part of how we handle these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this discussion needs to include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to change which questions are tagged as [tag:homework-and-exercises]?&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to keep the tag at all? Do we want to [burninate](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120640/what-does-it-mean-to-burninate-a-tag) and black-list it?&#xD;&#xA; - What does the tag documentation - tag wiki and tag wiki excerpt - need to look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not putting forth any position on these issues at this time, but they do need to be on the agenda; if not, it will simply prove impossible (or at least very, very difficult) to write a consistent set of documentation for the new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6670" RevisionGUID="91dc2c19-f659-4ca1-af42-864d21d864eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**It is my vote, and I will vote as I please.**  &#xD;&#xA;If I want to downvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to upvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to do nothing to your question/answer, I will. Same thing for everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copying from [my answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6652/25301) to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6651/25301),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. No matter how much you disagree with it, you cannot change our ways about how we will vote (there shouldn't be any  reason for you to *expect* that we change to your whim anyways). We are **free** to vote entirely as we please, up or down and for whatever dumb reason we want (whether the post is [obvious troll being obvious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or because we simply don't like the person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you honestly feel that an answer without citations&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; is not useful&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, feel free to vote as you please. Just don't tell me that I should vote your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I would say that for *many* of the questions posted here, it would be entirely unnecessary to need one in an answer&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The [alt-text](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images) over the up and down buttons for answers say *This answer is useful.* and *This answer is not useful*, respectively, so my language there matches&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="e2cea738-7da3-4fe0-abd4-f91d7743e7f2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I didn't close it as duplicate, I closed it as being *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our book recommendations policy is rather strict (see [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/50583) and [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/50583)), and your question doesn't ask for a single book for QFT (which would already be quite broad), but also for a series of books *preparing* you for it. This is more study advice than a recommendation of a book for a specific topic, because you are not searching for a resource containing a defined topic, but you are asking *the answerers* to come up with the specific topic you must learn to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the question is very broad - the recommended resources in one answer could even be about different topic that those in another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="dff46190-4363-4533-a658-969dca2f7e80" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would reinforce what Emilio says. In this particular case the answer is unlikely to be a valuable long term resource for the site. However, to provide a more general answer to the question: exactly the same thing happened to me, and my response was basically the same as yours i.e. I posted a fresh question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then posted the answer I'd spent all that time writing. The Physics SE supports, and indeed encourages, the posting of [canonical questions and answers][1] where these will be helpful to the Physics community. You'll note that when you're posting a new question there is a tick box labelled *Answer your own question* with [a link to explain the principles involved][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="4c2556ee-3713-43ff-80b0-d04acbad6ec9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the problem with the &quot;inconsistency&quot; as viewed by some is the fact that **close states are not permanent**, yet they are being viewed as a permanent state. This is simply not true; any post can be re-opened at any time. In light of this point of view, it should be clear that there isn't any inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that close states also do **not** at all suggest that the question itself is &quot;not physics.&quot; What it *does* suggest is that the question does not *fit the site* in its **current form** under **current policies**. A closed question may be a perfectly valid physics question; case in point: homework questions. We view these as off-topic, even though they certainly are valid physics questions. And since policies can change, there is no reason to suspect that an off-topic question will remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do note though that, on occasion, there are questions asked here that aren't actually physics (e.g., some people asking engineering, philosophy or chemistry questions). This does not mean that the close state *itself* indicates that the question is not physics.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also has been discussed on Mother Meta before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173431/what-should-i-do-with-a-question-that-has-an-exact-duplicate-closed-as-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186706/can-we-prevent-questions-from-being-closed-as-duplicates-of-closed-questions&#xD;&#xA; - http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115125/should-duplicates-of-closed-questions-be-closed-as-duplicates-or-closed-for-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is mixed between the answers (so obviously no consensus, not even highly upvoted answers), but two points were brought up there that we ought to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What happens if we later decide that the closed-original is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What happens if we later decide that an unclosed-original is off-topic? What should we do to the questions closed as duplicate of *that* one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, your issue disappears because the close-state isn't permanent. This should suggest that closing as a duplicate of a closed question should not present any problems/inconsistencies because of the fact that the original can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, we have the opposite case you present. Should we then go through all the duplicates and re-label them as off-topic? That would be quite a lot of *unnecessary* work (because it brings us right back to (1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with [tgp2114's evaluation process](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6565/25301); the reasoning should be in this order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Has the question been asked before?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as duplicate&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the question off-topic (HW, engineering, etc)? Too broad? Opinion based?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close appropriately&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can't tell *or* disagree&#xD;&#xA;  - Skip *or* Leave Open&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It should not matter if the proposed duplicate is also closed as off-topic because, again, it can get out of that state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="bee36b06-395a-4d82-b040-3a19d3b445b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the question is literally asking for a yes/no answer, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I'd downvote because it's a terrible question. Beyond the fact that answers have a minimum character count (meaning the answer *ought* to be more than &quot;Yes&quot; or &quot;No&quot;), there is no added benefit to the collection of questions &amp; answers to this site for that type of question and answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I'd vote to close because [check my work problems](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) are considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this type of question is *easily* molded into an appropriate question for this site. For example, rather than saying, *Am I right?*, you could say, *Why is this the case?* or *Under what conditions does this not work?* I think that doing something like this will both *confirm* and *extend* your understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="daf851c9-9614-4c90-a930-9e38e456d389" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me address the root of the problem first: the criteria for using a Very Low Quality flag, at least as far as the moderators are concerned (currently), are laid out in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a VLQ flag appears in the moderator flag queue, my thought process is basically &quot;Can I read this? Yes: decline/No: accept&quot;. The answer in question is certainly readable, and I think we would agree that it does not meet the criteria quoted above. Its main problem is that it's wrong. That calls for it to be downvoted, but not flagged. If it were to be deleted by three delete votes from non-moderators, that wouldn't be the worst thing, but a VLQ flag is meant to indicate that something is so obviously worthless that it deserves swift and ruthless deletion, even from a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now let me address your individual points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, I checked and I'm the one who declined both those flags. (It shouldn't matter _who_ exactly did it, but I'm just saying you're getting the closest thing to an authoritative answer here.) This was done from the _moderator_ flag queue, not from the low-quality review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As described in [this MSE question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), if VLQ flags sit in their own queue for 15 minutes without being handled by the community, they are then added into the moderator flag queue. When the flags appear in the mod queue, we don't get any information about whether they are under review by the community or what the status of that review is; we only know that they have been sitting around for a certain amount of time and the community hasn't handled them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One _could_ take this as a sign that the VLQ queue is not doing its job, but it could also be the case that 15 minutes is too short to reflect the activity level for this site. This was discussed in the comments on that post, so I'd point you there for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, the biggest problem with these answers is that they are wrong. We already have a mechanism to distinguish right from wrong, namely voting. This takes into account that reasonable people often disagree on what is correct and what is not. If we additionally use flags to enforce consequences on wrong answers, that puts each individual moderator in the position of deciding right from wrong, and that's really not what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I've said I disagree with the premise. I think the system is designed the way it is for a reason: there is no other review mechanism for posts like these precisely because the site doesn't need to be kept clean from such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I think you have a point. While I would always like to see more high-rep users active in moderation, I do think the community is capable of handling most of its own moderation, and it might be useful to tweak the thresholds of the review system so that flags aren't bumped up to the moderator queue so quickly. This would require a bit of data analysis on flag handling times, but if people are agreed on that conclusion, we could make a request to the SE team to change the thresholds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nothing compels us to host this kind of content. But again, the tricky part is deciding which content is worthy of hosting and which content is not, and in particular, _who_ makes that decision. Like I said, individual moderators shouldn't be expected to distinguish right from wrong. A consensus of high-rep users is better equipped to do it, but still, the main mechanism to indicate wrongness is by voting, not deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means stuff like &quot;jasfoijaw3fjpawejfp0awjefp0asj0pfoajks09ojk3meosoifmasd&quot;. (Yes, we do get posts like that.) Things that you can't even read. &quot;Severe content problems&quot; doesn't refer to the content being _wrong_, it refers to the content being _unintelligible_. The sort of thing that _any_ competent English speaker, whether or not they have any knowledge of physics, would be unable to make sense of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="554cc485-79a2-49ff-a2d5-c99c1d0c55aa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is only possible with the [**Established User**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user) privilege at 1,000 rep. Click on the post's score and you'll see the upvote/downvote breakdown. On occasion, this can be quite useful - particularly on meta for things like polls. (As an extreme example, [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6399/), currently at +24-21.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &lt;1k rep users, you can find out the vote counts on your own posts via [the reputation tab of your profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post), which will show the net upvotes and downvotes for each post, per day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="bced8113-f0ab-4b9b-b0cc-6ccf1608aaf3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7392" RevisionGUID="beab8492-a3f0-4c9d-a474-b9514d5239c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It says nowhere that this site is restricted to only theoretical or conceptual Physics questions only, and everything related to physics problem solving is banned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tell me if I'm wrong about this and point me to the reference, or make a new thread to discuss it to change the scope officially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me quote [Mew][1]'s comment below [this answer][2] from another related question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't believe that providing complete solutions is detrimental to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students, and in fact I believe the best way for students to learn the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basics of physics is to look at as many complete solutions as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. I believe this method is far superior than asking the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student to attempt to solve the problem by themselves. When a student&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has seen many problems, I believe they will have no trouble in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developing an intuition to solve far more physics problems, and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have much more refined thought process than the students who went off&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on tangents trying to solve problems using unconventional methods – Mew&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was a student I always got A+ for all may physics exams in high school, because they always included problems of types the teacher already showed us how to solve (not the same problems, but with different numbers and conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to my performance I always went to Physics competitions but I weren't too successful in them initially. The reasons: the problems they gave me to solve was of types I never seen before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me show you an example. Electric circuits. Most students learn how to calculate the resistance, inductance and capacitance when these elements connected in series or parallel. But what do you do when you are faced with an arbitrary graph of capacitors, resistances or coils which you cannot rearrange into the usual series parallel structure? I was flinched by these tasks, I didn't even know how to start at all! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually after sending and receiving lots of letters (I didn't even had internet that time), discussing with peers other competitors and teachers, I managed to learn helluva lots of tricks and tips and approaches you can't find in any text book, which eventually got me to the final rounds and took the 4th prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have 10k+ reputation so I can't open the linked question in the example. But I think catch-all questions self answered or not, that ask&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What approach should I use when solving problems of this class&quot; (without actual numbers plugged in) would be very useful for students who are preparing for competitions or exams, engineers writing simulation software looking for the methods, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again if this site isn't for helping students learn the methods and know/how of problem solving than we should point that out in the tour and the help/ontopic as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/12350/mew&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="b2c7d3b5-3825-4d0a-83fc-6e1625a2177d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][5], the same question of mine has been reviewed once before this time. I wonder how dose the closure process start by a &quot;Leave open&quot; vote? (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:30 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][7], this question of mine has been closed by five votes. But there is just one close vote in the [review][8] page. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:45 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/137518&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mwplu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8896/about-questions-that-seem-stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review/close/214&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YLVgO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="1555243a-7245-4138-ba52-658409e7e284" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To summarize the myriad of homework meta questions that dmckee linked to, as well as to editorialize a little, I think the issue that most of us have is with _no-effort_ homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a help page on the main Physics.SE site that includes an [explanation of what's considered on topic][1].  That page briefly states that homework questions are off-topic, and then links to [this more detailed meta post][2] about what constitutes an acceptable homework question. Also, when you create a Physics.SE account, you have the option to take a very brief tour of the site, and IIRC it at least covers that list of what is on topic.  As a result, if users aren't following the guidelines of what's on-topic, it's because they are ignoring information that was easily put in their reach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, some of the best questions I've seen on this site have been tagged &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot;, but they need to be asked the right way.  In general, the two-prong test is that the question has to boil down to a specific conceptual question that would also be helpful to other uses, and the question has to include any attempted work.  However, there are a lot of questions on here where the question text is _just_ the homework question with **no** additional information or input from the user.  On the other hand, other askers will ask their question, and then punctuate it with a &quot;Due tomorrow&quot; or &quot;Show all work&quot;.  This isn't just oblivious to the rules of the site, it's selfish and imposing.  In the real world, all of these students will either continue in higher education or enter the world of work, and a life lesson that they should learn as soon as possible is that oftentimes, people want to help you (otherwise we wouldn't answer questions on here in the first place) but you have to be willing to put in the work yourself.  The reality, it's academically dishonest for us to just do a kid's homework for him, who will no doubt claim it as his/her own.  Additionally, students will likely get more out of the process of asking a question if they first spend some time analyzing what exactly they aren't understanding about a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  We welcome good homework questions here, but they have to follow certain guidelines, both for the good of the community and the OP.  We hope you stick around to contribute to the site, but hopefully the more truly atrocious homework questions you see, the more you'll understand why there have to be guidelines in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="6c969d32-a9e1-438a-b4e5-19a66c4d06b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Naming no names, but please can we have a ban on using lmgtfy.com in comments. I appreciate how frustrating it can be that users post questions without having done the most basic Google search. But pointing them at lmgtfy.com is just snide and unbecoming of an august company such as ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just downvote, vote to close and then imagine yourself interviewing the offender for a job at your university in years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later**: doh, I showed [insufficient effort][1] in checking for duplicates. This was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links. Oh well, it probably doesn't hurt to jog memories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8797" RevisionGUID="a6bb76e5-f637-49ba-a924-2f388d6a3fbe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is similar to DanielSank's [idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/23785).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a meta question is made, asking what questions should be asked to the subject of the AMA. People post their questions as answers to this meta post. Then, there is a period of time where people upvote the questions they want to see answered. Maybe these get community wiki'd to not mess up rep too much. After this voting period ends, the subject of the AMA edits his initial answer into each of the questions (where each question, remember, is an &quot;answer&quot; to a meta post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the subject of the ama makes his initial answer to a given question, discussion can continue in the form of comments, which will get moved to chat. Thus each quetion has its own chat room where a free form discussion can take place. After discussion of one question dies down, the subject of the AMA moves on to the next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A downside is that a moderator will need to continually edit the original meta post to indicate which question's chat room the subject of the AMA is currently in. The advantage is that the questions are more easily browsable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="29a0c87f-2577-4c5e-a139-112f6b667371" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 51 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty plus 1 initial p, which do not count as points earned on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So effectively you have earned 60 p - 51 p = 9 p on Phys.SE. So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="99312597-dea5-4505-9fb1-aa792df4e7cf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Last year, we asked https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax and the [answer was yes](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6792/6634), it would be included in the CSS rollout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the [CSS and profile rollout is complete](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7417/6634), it was [pointed out in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26763306#26763306) that we do not yet have the serif fonts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this removed from the CSS redesign? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="7bf2227c-2fbb-4276-92aa-8484629919e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question appears to [fit within the definition of homework-like][1] used on the site, the tag should be applied and the question (in its current state) should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the question I've just linked you to and at [the one linked in the close message][2], you may find some guidance for render your question into a form suitable for the site.&#xA;&#xA;Given the sophistication of the work you exhibit I would be unsurprised if you were able to retool to a question we'd accept.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="303981a5-3bbe-4af0-8d89-47ff62227825" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I was trying to update [this question][1] with a link to another well asked question [here][2] - I tried twice, but each time my answer did not appear- I am wondering if it is being checked because I asked the original question and already posted one answer...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...the idea was to post [good examples of homework questions][3] as separate answers, which is why I want to add a second answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what is going on? I typed out an answer twice and both hit post both times, but nothing seemed to appear....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam#comment379180_178722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="1748e294-6853-4d7a-a1fe-c6e6cc2ead78" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[An apparent inconsistency in the form of Spin-z operator for spin 1/2 system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework type question in that it is an exercise from Sakurai's QM book basically about forms of the zero and projection operators for hermitian operators. I think the close tag doesn't suit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows a lot of effort (most of the question is done and they even latex'd it in the link). As I've commented in the post that the close reason is essentially &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*punishing a user for doing more work than less work. One could've easily said 'I don't know what the operator in part b) is' and done nowhere near as much work as op. If op didn't have a mistake he/she wouldn't have asked the question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in fairness Sakurai is a fairly well used book so in principle could be useful to future users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However* it is essentially a **where's my mistake** type problem which isn't on topic, so I understand that, but I also don't agree with the reasoning  &quot;*If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher*&quot; - [here on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) which might for example punish a student that is self motivated to work over a summer break, where the teacher/lecturer is busy, and maybe other classmates/friends don't want to be doing physics over a break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271287/an-apparent-inconsistency-in-the-form-of-spin-z-operator-for-spin-1-2-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="0204cd94-11f9-4087-9b51-efba6e360fd7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will be the next [AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) guest. So here it is a brief introduction of myself, and you can suggest some topic/questions that can be discussed during the session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Academic Background.** I obtained a master degree in theoretical physics almost ten years ago, working on the regularization of path integrals for supersymmetric QM models of particles in curved (Euclidean) background space. In particular, I focused on the mode regularization, both for the phase space and usual path integral, in N=1,2 SUSY sigma models. It has been a while, however, since I abandoned those topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, following the same *cursus honorum* as many others in [my community](http://www.iamp.org/page.php?page=page_start), I shifted towards mathematics. My motivation was - and still is - that I don't like the sloppiness with which many subtle and interesting mathematical problems are dealt with in theoretical physics. I therefore did a Ph.D. in mathematics, with analysis and mathematical physics as main topics. During my Ph.D. I started working on the so-called mean field and classical limits of quantum (field) theories; i.e. on rigorously proving the emergence of classical/mean-field effective dynamics starting from the full quantum description of a given system. This is still my main area of research, but I also work in scattering theory (e.g. for Lindblad superoperators) and nonlinear partial differential equations of physical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggested topics.** Below you can find a list of the topics on which it is more probable that I would have something meaningful to say, but feel free to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Classical and mean field approximation of quantum systems (e.g. Bohr's correspondence principle; the emergence of Hartree, Gross-Pitaevskii, Vlasov, Hartree-Fock dynamics from many-body quantum systems; ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - The interplay between rigorous mathematical results and physics (e.g. Haag's theorem, the von Neumann measurement scheme, representation theory for the algebra of canonical commutation relations, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Partial Differential Equations &quot;of evolution&quot; (e.g. Schrödinger, Wave, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory;&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantization (from a mathematician's point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think I could at least point to some references if you ask me questions about mathematical physics, apart from some topics on which I am quite ignorant (like e.g. all things related to homology/cohomology applied to physics, string theory, general relativity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even if I am not at all an expert, I like to read about logic, set theory, and in general the problems that arise in foundational mathematics. So this could also be a topic for a (very informal but interesting) discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When and where.** The AMA session will take place in the hbar chat room, the 12th of July at 16:00 UTC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="d593fea9-feff-48a3-b83a-a010df87fab1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The problem with this type of question is that it is *very* unlikely to be helpful to anyone who has not been staring for half an hour at the precise same problem that you have. The problem itself is pretty artificial and the only reason to care about that height is because you saw it in a book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In addition, your working is extremely hard to read and is unlikely to be helpful even to someone with the same problem, as it takes a good bit of decoding. It is never enough to just provide a long list of equations that sort of go somewhere; you need to provide some connecting tissue to tell the reader what you're doing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't be offended at the 'show some effort' bit. This is an automatic message that needs to cover a wide range of cases. Its purpose is to give users a sense of what's wrong with their question and redirect them to more detailed information - which you did find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this is that it is *not* a conceptual question. Saying that it is about &quot;a height&quot; is not enough - all questions *include* concepts, but this does not equate to be asking *about* them. The problem in your question is a routine calculation with no conceptual content. For more information, please read [our guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) carefully. To get a more detailed breakdown of this community's attitudes towards homework(-like) questions, see the [Bite-sizing homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) thread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="ee87abe2-93c6-426d-832e-ff2a7f92752a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it correct to close (*) a meta question simply because [the OP is not interested in the answer?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26953_6906) Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) example here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="ecaa729e-19d0-4272-b739-51e18102cf49" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; 3. ...the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;That.&#xD;&#xA;As I've argued [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy/7163#7163), there is absolutely no reason at all that the criteria for judging a post should depend on whether or not that post comes from a homework assignment or from an educational institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, that distinction is absurd; should questions arising from original research done in graduate *school* be subjected to different criteria than questions arising from my *job* in an industrial lab?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;That's not only hard to enforce, it's pants-on-our-head stupid.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a physics question comes from homework is entirely irrelevant to whether or not that question adds value to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large fraction of posts coming from homework *are* bad, but it's not because they're from homework, it's because the posts don't ask anything conceptual or show any effort.&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate by a converse example, suppose I were to post this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is the transition rate of a two level quantum system coupled by strength g to a thermal environment at temperature T?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a question straight out of my real research job; it's not homework, but it's also not a good post.&#xD;&#xA;I should show some work and identify the conceptual (or even technical) step where I'm stuck, and then focus my question on that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="e3c2b153-3aed-476b-8121-67289afd7c05" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, things are not quite there yet, particularly with comments: consider for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uN04D.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seen [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/234007/8563), and obviously suffering from Sore Thumb syndrome. (Running chrome v48 over ubuntu, MathJax 2.6 with local STIX fonts, in case it's needed. It would be good to hear from others whether it displays this badly in other systems.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for that same comment, it appears that Firefox (v41 over Windows 7, MathJax 2.6 using web TEX fonts) produces this horrifying sight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZILfC.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="c5128ff7-bb76-463f-ab83-ea7814ed75d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The help message that comes up when asking a question says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a lot of homework questions that show a _huge_ amount of effort. Sometimes, they even have disclaimers attached, like, &quot;look! I showed absolutely everything I did, please don't close&quot;. We even get questions on meta where people are confused about why their homework question was closed (see [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8854/homework-and-exercise-tag)) when they read the policy and showed effort just as it said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a problem with wording. The 'show some effort' clause comes second, is shorter, and sounds more final, making it stick in people's heads better. But our actual homework policy (i.e. the de facto community standards, not the blurb) emphasizes the first clause a lot more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a rewording of the blurb to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Don't just tell us you're confused; tell us why you're confused, and what you've tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't change anything about our policies, but I bet it would decrease the amount of questions we have to close. Does this sound effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="cfb87e04-9869-4533-a3f2-2cfcff819e0d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would reinforce what Emilio says. In this particular case the answer is unlikely to be a valuable long term resource for the site. However, to provide a more general answer to the question: exactly the same thing happened to me, and my response was basically the same as yours i.e. I posted a fresh question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then posted the answer I'd spent all that time writing. The Physics SE supports, and indeed encourages, the posting of [canonical questions and answers][1] where these will be helpful to the Physics community. You'll note that when you're posting a new question there is a tick box labelled *Answer your own question* with [a link to explain the principles involved][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="f17c5c8b-8eca-46a6-9887-ca7f7a269b4e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; # N.B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The size requirements for adverts have changed. It is **NOT** appropriate to simply copy over the images from previous years - they won't work. Images need to be **300×250px** or 600×500px for retina displays, up from 220×250px in previous years. If an image is taller than it is wide, it's the wrong size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **150 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="c3423594-3ad9-4720-a57f-97bebc5c2a37" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[tpg2114 makes a good point][1] that there is pretty much always extra improvement to be done. However I would suggest that in the rare case no other improvement can be found, then the right thing to do is leave the post alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background about how the site works: Edits bump a post to the front page. *Any* edits, no matter how small. This is intentional. The idea is that changes shouldn't go on behind the scene; they should be visible to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is a cost associated with edits (if nothing else the opportunity cost of users' attention that could be given to other posts), there is a lower limit to how small an edit is deemed acceptable. This is why the system doesn't allow small changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not a system that should be circumvented. The fact is, this is the internet, not an immutable, copy-edited production. Typos happen. In fact, I *know* of typos in some of my own posts, and I don't bother to correct them because the posts are on the whole as good as they are going to get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is if the typo critically alters the post (e.g. omission of &quot;not,&quot; or some important factor of 2 misplaced). Then feel free to leave a comment to the post owner if there are not enough worthwhile changes to be suggested. It's okay to leave such comments (and you can even delete them yourself once the change has been made), and this is preferable to forcing changes for the sake of bypassing the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when you see `[image description goes here]`, a good change would be to replace it with an actual description. This can be used for, e.g., visually impaired people, or for text-based browser types (ok, so only one of these groups should really be accommodated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6990/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="cb693f61-0320-4134-979c-7189b2c7aace" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, you have done the right thing. With some many questions on the site it's very easy to miss the fact that a duplicate exists, and to be fair the site search isn't as great as it could be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't attach too much significance to the downvotes. It's easy to feel that downvotes are a personal criticism, but really they are just a statement that the question isn't appropriate for the site. Personally I don't downvote duplicates just because they are duplicates, though I know some site members feel differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting does remove the question from the site home page, so there is an argument that a question should be downvoted when we don't want it to appear there. Maybe that's why you have the two downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it's generally bad form to delete a question. I can't remember the reasons for this, but I'm sure I have seen comments from the moderators that in general questions shouldn't deleted. Just leave the question - there is an automated cleanup process for downvoted questions that springs into life after a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth you should be congratulated for responding to the duplicate link, reviewing the duplicate and deciding that your question is indeed answered by the existing one. Too many people just abandon their duplicate questions and leave it to the moderators to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A quick footnote to summarise David's comments below**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit hasty to suggest you shouldn't delete your question. The Stack Exchange has various checks to detect users who it thinks aren't being serious, and it will eventually block those users from asking any more questions. One of the criteria it uses is the number of times the user asks a question then deletes it - hence my vague memory that deleting your own questions is a bad thing. However deleting one question, or even a few questions, isn't likely to cause a problem. So you should feel free to delete your question if you want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A footnote to the footnote**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens the issue of how deleted questions affect your status has just arisen in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8851/what-is-the-positive-question-record. This explains why having lots of deleted question is bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="e0fb866b-bcb8-4c83-917d-989bb668cd30" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is only possible with the [**Established User**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user) privilege at 1,000 rep. Click on the post's score and you'll see the upvote/downvote breakdown. On occasion, this can be quite useful - particularly on meta for things like polls. (As an extreme example, [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6399/), currently at +24-21.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &lt;1k rep users, you can find out the vote counts on your own posts via [the reputation tab of your profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post), which will show the net upvotes and downvotes for each post, per day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="4889c300-30d3-4bd0-a841-ca1928670b8a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Abstract**: Analyzing the data from [the last replace-the-homework-policy question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic) was inconclusive. So back to the drawing board, or really back to [our starting point](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy): what kinds of questions do we _really_ want to see closed? In particular, what are better ways to characterize our actual reasons for closing questions where we currently use the &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Important note**, because I guess this hasn't been clear in the past: the purpose of this series of posts is to come up with a _brand new_ set of guidelines for question closure. We are not reformulating or tweaking or improving our current homework policy. We are _replacing_ it entirely - that means we are getting rid of it and developing a new set of policies and close reasons, which will presumably make no mention of &quot;homework&quot; or &quot;homework-like&quot;. Once this process is done, there will be no homework policy and no &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some/many/most people are aware, we are in the midst of a [long-term project](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) to replace our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714) with a new set of guidelines that better reflect what people actually consider on topic and off topic. In the [first phase of this project](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic), we collected some example questions and voted on whether they should be on or off topic, to help clarify the new guidelines we want to come up with. I also collected some opinions on various qualities of these questions in [a separate survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform). The goal was to try to find some correlation between the topicality of the questions, as represented by the score, and one or a few of the attributes, and that would tell us what are the main factors people consider while voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out... that doesn't work very well. I spent a long time [tinkering with the data](https://gist.github.com/diazona/dc434e5121c441e5a31fa0c934ab725d) and basically what I found is that people's opinions vary widely, making it hard to draw meaningful conclusions. The first thing I checked was whether any individual factor from the survey correlated well to people's impression of whether a question was on topic. There were some correlations with physical context and interest, and to a lesser extent level and effort, and an anticorrelation with tediousness (this means that within our data set, people are more likely to consider questions which concern tedious calculations _on topic_), but none of these are very strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![correlation heatmap between factors and scores][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also looked at whether a combination of factors could provide a good discriminator between on-topic and off-topic questions, in a couple different ways. First, a partial least squares regression to test whether some linear combination of ratings would be able to accurately predict the scores of the questions, but that didn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plot of predicted vs measured scores][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other approach, which I think best mirrors how the actual close-voting logic works, is to find a set of factors such that the on-topic questions rate highly on all factors but each off-topic question rates low on one or more of them. This plot shows the mean minus one standard deviation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the distribution of ratings for each of the highest-score (most clearly on-topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean minus standard deviation of on-topic question ratings][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is the equivalent, showing mean plus one standard deviation, for the lowest-score (most clearly off topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean plus standard deviation of off-topic question ratings][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a group of one or a few rating factors such that the corresponding columns in the top plot are all red or white, and the columns in the bottom plot between them contain one blue cell for each question. Unfortunately, there is no clear candidate. I even had the computer go through all possible combinations of rating factors to test them out, and all the combinations in which the on-topic questions rank high have large uncertainties in the off-topic questions, and vice-versa. The one factor that does keep popping up is &quot;check-my-work-ness&quot;, which _may_ be an indicator that people agree that questions just asking us to check work are off topic and that we do okay at identifying which questions those are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the point seems to be that none of the factors in the survey are a particularly good proxy for how we decide whether questions are on or off topic. (And remember, we're mostly talking about questions which we currently close or might consider closing using the homework-like reason.) So before we proceed, I want to throw the question back to the community in a revisit of [the question where I first tried to collect possible close reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7407/124). In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we _actually_ have in mind? Or, how could we do more research to work this out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The idea is to identify clearly on-topic questions as those for which something approximating the 68% confidence interval of the score is entirely positive, indicating a high score and clear agreement on that score. It's basically the same idea underlying e.g. the [reddit scoring algorithm](https://medium.com/hacking-and-gonzo/how-reddit-ranking-algorithms-work-ef111e33d0d9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLtzX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kGI3m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cprj9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AjzVK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="cc862675-a894-4252-b31d-c477f713bf24" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So the sidebar got [stretched by about 30%](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). No problem. This entails a change to the network-provided ads (not visible above certain rep thresholds) and to the community ads. No problem. Some old ads [ran with some extra whitespace](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884976_272563) while they were updated. No problem. We need to [update all our community ads](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884977_272563) [to the new size](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment885010_272563). Grumble, but no problem, it's a good opportunity to spiff up the graphics on some of them. The community ads thread got delayed a bit this year. Absolutely fine. We [don't really know when the 2016 ads kick in](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016#comment29266_7426). Not awesome on the lack of clarity, but not a problem as long as nothing terrible comes of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/urgvy.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ad is currently running and it comes from [the 2015 thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388#6399). For comparison, here is that advert as posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If you're going to run 2015 community ads in the expanded sidebar, pad them out with whitespace instead of stretching them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite simple, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question [first posted on Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273255/please-dont-stretch-the-old-community-ads). Re-posted here as a signpost as it affects this site; give the MSE question some love if you agree with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="8ba46708-a5d7-4494-a71f-70d498314bf9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my clothes and tear my hair when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good [history of science SE][2] why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][3], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="0314558a-1b85-4836-bbb2-51fe0f159349" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7024) (and following comments) the problem is identified that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;_some in the community are bugged [or] annoyed by_&quot; the particular appearance or choice of display names of some users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, for any particular alphanumeric string there may some reason be found for it being imperfect or inappropriate as display name of a particular PSE user. (Even the real name of any user, which cannot itself be deemed objectionable by anyone as a matter of principle, may nevertheless fail to satisfy demands of anonymity.) Therefore the possibility can and must be entertained that there may be members of the community for whom **any** particular selection of display name is annoying to some in the community (possibly themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if any one particular selection cannot satisfy everyone, then why not let everyone set their own individual preference?:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let each specific user select a preferred display name (as it is presently possible already) as default;     &#xD;&#xA;but, moreover, **give everyone else in the community the individual option to substitute** this default display name (of any specific user under consideration) by a name string of their own preference (separately for each specific user under consideration) for display **in their individual view**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concretely, given `userABC`'s default setting     &#xD;&#xA;`ABC_display_name := &quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,    &#xD;&#xA;any other `userXYZ`'s optional setting     &#xD;&#xA;`XYZ_replacement_display_name_for_ABC := &quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then any text which `userABC` (wrote and) views as containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;`userXYZ` would view as text with the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and any other `userHJK` who didn't customize the individual `HJK_replacement_display_name_for_ABC` preference option, or anyone who isn't logged in, would view the text with the occurences of string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`, just as `userABC` does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, any text which `userXYZ` (wrote and) views as text containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;would be viewed by `userABC` as well as by any default user as text with the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It might be advantageous, however, if these substutions are suppressed for occurances of these strings under consideration which are enclosed in suitable escape characters, such as in pairs of backticks: &amp;#96;`&quot;&lt;...&gt;&quot;`&amp;#96;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be implemented, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="d96d274c-9a38-4e07-bce5-e293863f7eab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 51 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty plus 1 initial p, which do not count as points earned on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So effectively you have earned 60 p - 51 p = 9 p on Phys.SE. So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="a2c5be25-5ee2-4dfb-bc28-76b612b0592a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="EDITED after the question was marked as a possible duplicate: I don't think that all items noted in the comments were part of answers before, not fully developed and explained, and which could be argued. I don't disagree with many of the comments, but find some to be not helpful. Still, this site is a meta site and opinions can be valid answers. I'd like to see some reasoned answers posted, if possible, but, it's been about 8 months since I posted it, it does not matter much at this point. I was just questioning, not creating a controversy, I thought. BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED, added from here on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is not why it happens. there were previous questions eg,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that asked that, and the answers were truthful, in my opinion, and elucidated the reasons. My question is whether there might be a way to get those to increase. Some were mentioned in the answers in that url, but if we'd like to increase quality perhaps there are also other ways also. Those mentioned a couple years back didn't seem to take hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Increase the number of points for positive votes for questions&#xD;&#xA;2 increase more the number of points for positive votes on questions and say more than 3K reputation (I know, sounds like favoritism, propose an alternate)&#xD;&#xA;3 create a few more tags for eg, for news exploration, paper reviews or comments -- where the question/answer explains the relevance of some new findings, or describes a paper and asks a question on it&#xD;&#xA;4  others I can't think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is are there other good ideas for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="bc2501e8-5236-497c-b982-68727d8b09b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If someone loses access to their account, the posts remain, but the user will be unable to edit them (as the OP) until they regain access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accounts are usually deleted (1) because of administrative reasons such as sockpuppetting or voting fraud, in which case there are likely no salvageable posts, or (2) because the user has requested it. In this case the posts also remain, stripped of a link to the poster's profile and with the poster username sometimes changed to the form userXXXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as before, seriously: all this information is available with minimal digging at the [Help Center](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help) and in [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/). If you're asking for a specific reason we can help, but if you're just randomly wondering about stuff, please have a thorough look in those places first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6670" RevisionGUID="e637f06d-6b03-4f63-82e4-c249d018192a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**It is my vote, and I will vote as I please.**  &#xD;&#xA;If I want to downvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to upvote your question/answer, I will. If I want to do nothing to your question/answer, I will. Same thing for everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copying from [my answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6652/25301) to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6651/25301),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. No matter how much you disagree with it, you cannot change our ways about how we will vote (there shouldn't be any  reason for you to *expect* that we change to your whim anyways). We are **free** to vote entirely as we please, up or down and for whatever dumb reason we want (whether the post is [obvious troll being obvious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or because we simply don't like the person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you honestly feel that an answer without citations&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; is not useful&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, feel free to vote as you please. Just don't tell me that I should vote your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I would say that for *many* of the questions posted here, it would be entirely unnecessary to need one in an answer&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The [alt-text](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images) over the up and down buttons for answers say *This answer is useful.* and *This answer is not useful*, respectively, so my language there matches&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="28b1ca93-3a42-493e-934f-0d9b7b01c56b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it correct to close (*) a meta question simply because [the OP is not interested in the answer?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26953_6906) Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) example here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9095" RevisionGUID="f70fb4ca-e9a2-4d74-824b-088fa462bdac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is my take on the matter. First, let's think about what Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites are good for and what they are not good for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Q&amp;A site needs Questions, which can be answered in a concise fashion. There may be several good answers, but if a question needs books to be answered or many answers covering different topics (and thus many pages of answers), it's not a good fit.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that are an especially good fit are questions where there can be different angles from which to approach it so that many good answers can emerge. This also gives meaning to question ranking.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that spark discussions are a bad fit. &#xD;&#xA;- The specific idea of Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites is that the answers to questions and the questions themselves should be interesting to a broader audience. &#xD;&#xA;- If the questions are not interesting for very many people, they need to be of research quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as I see it, we have some tradeoff: If Q is the quality of the question in terms of how many people could answer it (&quot;research quality&quot;) and A is the audience that can get some new understanding from the question, then the product QA should be large for good questions. This leaves room for conceptual questions about basic theories as well as high level and extremely specific questions about research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we agree on the above, here is my take on what should be closed and what shouldn't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check-my-work:** Questions like &quot;Where is my mistake?&quot; or &quot;Did I do it right?&quot; come in two flavours: The first questions make one of a few very common mistakes. Those mistakes are common, because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. They should be closed but could be reworded to ask a conceptual question about the theory, which is interesting for many people. The other type of questions are just algebraic/mathematical mistakes. There are a myriad ways to make mistakes and thus the answer to the question is mostly only interesting to the asker and it usually also is of bad &quot;research quality&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; Close as check-my-work. If you think there is actually an interesting conceptual misunderstanding in the question, rewrite it and/or leave a comment. Then the question can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really low research effort:** Since most of the audience arrives by search engines, those people will actually do a Google search. If this will directly lead them to a Wikipedia article, what do they gain by coming here? So aside from the fact that low effort questions might disparage researchers from staying on the site, they should be closed because they don't actually have an audience: Why should you come here to get a link to the Wikipedia page you could already see in your Google search results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;  Close as &quot;low effort&quot;, if the question could be commented on by &quot;What about this [Wikipedia/other well-known source that pops up if you type the question into a search engine] is unclear&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are in my opinion the &quot;easy&quot; ones. Now come the &quot;hard&quot; ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Low effort) problems:** These are questions that essentially ask for the solution to a homework problem while providing or not providing own ideas. The problem with these questions is two-fold: a) if the asking party actually wants to understand the problem, you'd need to discuss with them --&gt; that's not a good fit for Q&amp;A, b) the audience for these questions is often only the asker him/herself (see &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a close reason such as &quot;no sufficient audience&quot; won't work and will only spark more discussion, as will &quot;homework&quot; ('oh, but that's not homework, I thought about this exercise myself'). One of the biggest problems is also that these questions are best answered by working with the person and asking questions and giving rough sketches and approaches - so they are just a bad fit anyway. This is particularly true for many questions where the author posts a lengthy and detailed list of her own failed effort. While those questions do signal that the author of the question doesn't just try to dump his problem on us, they are just generally a bad fit for Q&amp;A sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One idea could be the following: Introduce a close reason &quot;not conceptual&quot; and apply it to any questions, asking for one solution to a problem where most variables come with numbers attached. This would allow questions asking about how to generally approach inclined plane problems where a set of parameters is given, but it would disallow questions asking about inclined plane problems with a specific set of parameters (for instance and angle of 45°). Having a rule like &quot;A questions where a lot of variables are fixed is closed&quot; would eliminate some of the ambiguity of the word &quot;conceptual&quot;. It would also allow questions asking for different ways to approach some problem, which in my opinion is a valid conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pure calculations:** Calculations are also difficult, because they can come at any level - and any difficulty. Most calculation questions are only interesting for the person asking them, so they should be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often when somebody reads a paper, he/she may stumble over some step in a calculation or some line of an argument that they don't understand. What about such questions? Now, often, we can refer those questions to math.stackexchange and be done with it, but often the questions may involve physical approximations and are better left here. Not understanding some equation in a paper is something extremely common - sometimes the equation is also just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a platform to ask these questions would be a valuable aid to research, because it could save a lot of time (the idea of course being that I invest some time to explain details in a paper that I understood easily, saving the asker hours or days of searching, while some other times, I am the one asking). In principle, they are also a good fit for Q&amp;A and they should have a decent QA product. If we had arXiv-feedback, this could actually help other readers of the paper and enhance overall research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't want to explain simple equivalence transformations in middle school textbooks, where the person was just too lazy to think about it for five minutes. And we don't want to do calculations in research papers that were left out, because they are tedious but foundational to the field and can be looked up in text books asking person is just too lazy to do them him/herself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to distinguish these two? If we want to have more people here who are doing research, it might be a good idea to allow paper questions and disallow all others (this would at least get rid of ambiguities). This is somewhat in line with the idea (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/7409#7409)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but tries to be a bit more inclusive for research-level questions and a bit more exclusive to avoid ambiguities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One suggestion (needs work): Close non-paper related questions, which want to do outsource calculations with a specific &quot;tedious calculation&quot; close-reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="b3b98a6e-80cc-4016-8388-46cb9f4e91c3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We know that [plagiarism is bad](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/542/50583), and unacknowledged citations *will* be dealt with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what about answers that properly acknowledge their sources, but consist of nothing but quotes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe such answers do not consititute sufficient effort to be actually counted as answers, and should be deleted. If a user cannot be bothered to phrase the answer to a question in their own words, or to explain and give context to their quotes, they do not deserve to derive reputation from such a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="3704e5e6-299c-4d5a-92ea-f1aa53fa012e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the question is literally asking for a yes/no answer, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I'd downvote because it's a terrible question. Beyond the fact that answers have a minimum character count (meaning the answer *ought* to be more than &quot;Yes&quot; or &quot;No&quot;), there is no added benefit to the collection of questions &amp; answers to this site for that type of question and answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I'd vote to close because [check my work problems](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) are considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this type of question is *easily* molded into an appropriate question for this site. For example, rather than saying, *Am I right?*, you could say, *Why is this the case?* or *Under what conditions does this not work?* I think that doing something like this will both *confirm* and *extend* your understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="0e418d24-8fdd-4a28-a027-425e5d82732e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum education in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 5 votes (net) seems reasonable to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.  However, I don't think many of us ask or answer questions just for the rep.  The incentive will have little effect except encouraging those who are chasing rep to post good questions which they have found on other sites, or even on this site but with sufficient change of wording and tags to avoid obvious detection as a duplicate.  The penalty will be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions, and unable to understand the level of physics which high-rep users ask about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not a new one.  See :https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that Meta Question, posted 3 years ago, which currently has 28 up-votes, Dilaton writes :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The About of Physics SE still says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So : What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople questions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... If the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="bab73a5e-0121-41f7-85e1-3862b5e0fdc2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The main mechanism for the reversal of serial voting is automated, because the moderators have access only to summaries of inter-user voting, (not to detailed records) *even when our tools alert us to the existence of unusual patterns in voting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alleging that the moderators aren't doing their job on this is simply silly: it's mostly not our job because the scripts take care of it. None-the-less I've looked into the findings of the automated system related to your account. I can assure you that the system has found no unusual pattern of downvoting directed at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to you to think up some alternative explanation for the large number of downvotes that you receive. Or you could ask for opinions in the chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to take this further, use the &quot;[contact us][1]&quot; link to be found at the bottom of every page: it will let you message the system wide moderation team directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="dd749ca8-aecb-4eaf-b296-1ca0e60a28c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[tpg2114 makes a good point][1] that there is pretty much always extra improvement to be done. However I would suggest that in the rare case no other improvement can be found, then the right thing to do is leave the post alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background about how the site works: Edits bump a post to the front page. *Any* edits, no matter how small. This is intentional. The idea is that changes shouldn't go on behind the scene; they should be visible to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is a cost associated with edits (if nothing else the opportunity cost of users' attention that could be given to other posts), there is a lower limit to how small an edit is deemed acceptable. This is why the system doesn't allow small changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not a system that should be circumvented. The fact is, this is the internet, not an immutable, copy-edited production. Typos happen. In fact, I *know* of typos in some of my own posts, and I don't bother to correct them because the posts are on the whole as good as they are going to get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is if the typo critically alters the post (e.g. omission of &quot;not,&quot; or some important factor of 2 misplaced). Then feel free to leave a comment to the post owner if there are not enough worthwhile changes to be suggested. It's okay to leave such comments (and you can even delete them yourself once the change has been made), and this is preferable to forcing changes for the sake of bypassing the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when you see `[image description goes here]`, a good change would be to replace it with an actual description. This can be used for, e.g., visually impaired people, or for text-based browser types (ok, so only one of these groups should really be accommodated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6990/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="c457b5a5-631f-4b0d-b153-bdb2e997d4ed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;strike&gt;Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The question has now been reopened.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="53a320d2-7671-4a10-933d-b45ea2aaf355" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today I had some issues regarding an answer (now deleted) that I encountered in the Low Quality queue. [The question][1] asked for clarification about a solution by Michael A. Gottlieb, and included a screenshot of that solution without its copyright notice. The reviewed answer recommended to ask Michael A. Gottlieb. I marked the answer to recommend deletion, before noticing that the answer was written by Michael A. Gottlieb himself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards, I got a notification of a comment to my review (I didn't know those existed) from Gottlieb, who asked me to remove the copyrighted material. I edited out the screenshot and flagged the question with a custom flag. I also commented Gottlieb that he should have edited the question and/or contacted the mods, instead of posting a non-answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the answer has been converted to a comment by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question about this incident are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;* In a [previous meta answer][2], DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;* The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265664/virtual-work-problem-from-feynmans-tips-on-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4613/78942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="627404a6-7caf-48db-a285-c258763a56bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Naming no names, but please can we have a ban on using lmgtfy.com in comments. I appreciate how frustrating it can be that users post questions without having done the most basic Google search. But pointing them at lmgtfy.com is just snide and unbecoming of an august company such as ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just downvote, vote to close and then imagine yourself interviewing the offender for a job at your university in years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Later**: doh, I showed [insufficient effort][1] in checking for duplicates. This was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links. Oh well, it probably doesn't hurt to jog memories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="0a33c041-9858-405f-a32f-46cc59268f7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just today, the Community bot bumped a [three-year old question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table). It's also recently bumped a [half-year old question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now about 1/10 of the posts on the 'active questions' meta tab are bumps from Community. I don't think this helps at all, and it worsens the signal-to-noise ratio. Can this be disabled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="23ec0c7d-11cc-4e99-b7c8-cd73029bca15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question, along with the twin paradox one and the first in the series, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction are intended as canonical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where we get lots of questions on the same topic it's nice to have a definitive answer that we can point people to. But that definitive answer is necessarily rather lengthy because it has to cover lots of details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether canonical questions are a good idea was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers and the general conclusion seemed to be that they were. In the absence of other guidance I decided to write some canonical Q/As on subjects I was particularly interested in and hope that others found them interesting as well. So far the number of upvotes suggests that the questions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="e3cf0af2-09a0-48dc-97ba-5818876c5ec7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7024) (and following comments) the problem is identified that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;_some in the community are bugged [or] annoyed by_&quot; the particular appearance or choice of display names of some users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, for any particular alphanumeric string there may some reason be found for it being imperfect or inappropriate as display name of a particular PSE user. (Even the real name of any user, which cannot itself be deemed objectionable by anyone as a matter of principle, may nevertheless fail to satisfy demands of anonymity.) Therefore the possibility can and must be entertained that there may be members of the community for whom **any** particular selection of display name is annoying to some in the community (possibly themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if any one particular selection cannot satisfy everyone, then why not let everyone set their own individual preference?:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let each specific user select a preferred display name (as it is presently possible already) as default;     &#xD;&#xA;but, moreover, **give everyone else in the community the individual option to substitute** this default display name (of any specific user under consideration) by a name string of their own preference (separately for each specific user under consideration) for display **in their individual view**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concretely, given `userABC`'s default setting     &#xD;&#xA;`ABC_display_name := &quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,    &#xD;&#xA;any other `userXYZ`'s optional setting     &#xD;&#xA;`XYZ_replacement_display_name_for_ABC := &quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then any text which `userABC` (wrote and) views as containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;`userXYZ` would view as text with the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and any other `userHJK` who didn't customize the individual `HJK_replacement_display_name_for_ABC` preference option, or anyone who isn't logged in, would view the text with the occurences of string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`, just as `userABC` does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, any text which `userXYZ` (wrote and) views as text containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;would be viewed by `userABC` as well as by any default user as text with the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It might be advantageous, however, if these substutions are suppressed for occurances of these strings under consideration which are enclosed in suitable escape characters, such as in pairs of backticks: &amp;#96;`&quot;&lt;...&gt;&quot;`&amp;#96;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be implemented, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="f006af2d-08bc-4f3b-9668-3d2da4dc6fe5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I was trying to update [this question][1] with a link to another well asked question [here][2] - I tried twice, but each time my answer did not appear- I am wondering if it is being checked because I asked the original question and already posted one answer...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...the idea was to post [good examples of homework questions][3] as separate answers, which is why I want to add a second answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what is going on? I typed out an answer twice and both hit post both times, but nothing seemed to appear....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam#comment379180_178722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="c91f3cc5-4189-4f10-bbe1-2ffaa1a2e9bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about other closed questions, which don't meet the criteria for automatic deletion? For example, those that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- have upvoted answers (like the one that prompted this post)&#xD;&#xA;- have upvotes themselves&#xD;&#xA;- are recently posted&#xD;&#xA;- are recently closed&#xD;&#xA;- have reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, should we (moderators) be deleting these questions, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? Or some subset of them? (e.g. delete all closed questions more than 9 days old regardless of other factors) If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to think about: deleting a question that has upvotes and/or upvoted answers, simply because it's closed, is especially tricky because several people expressed a belief that the post is useful - either on its own merits, or because it inspired a useful answer. Now, it is a common occurrence that &quot;upvotes lie&quot; - in other words, we know that people _will_ upvote some things that are bad fits for the site. But I don't think it should be part of the moderators' regular job to make the distinction between &quot;popular and useful&quot; and &quot;popular but bad for the site&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="182ab0d3-c749-4647-8954-b0af806d90a7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Asking for close-reasons in comments is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE users try to leave comments whenever the standard close-reason banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE users are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (requires 20+ reputation points).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above didn't work, you can also post a new meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="8a776b4a-17ff-47b0-bb8d-ba3f436af0fb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="3db71004-9d2e-4e26-b101-9bdbeb8b6618" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are editing a lot of posts which are closed and have a negative score. Such questions are regularly deleted by an [automatic deletion routine](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) (often termed the &quot;roomba&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question is deleted, all associated reputation gains and losses are reversed. In particular, the 2 reputation you gained from suggesting an edit that was subsequently approved are lost. I don't believe that there is an indication in the reputation history that this happens - the +2 from a week ago or so simply vanish from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want this to happen, don't make edits to posts that do not fix the reasons for closure/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for losing reputation is [users that are removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1289/50583) and have upvoted you, but this is usually indicated by a `user was removed` in your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="323c122b-17dd-4d17-90ca-65b697f0cb1f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The problem with this type of question is that it is *very* unlikely to be helpful to anyone who has not been staring for half an hour at the precise same problem that you have. The problem itself is pretty artificial and the only reason to care about that height is because you saw it in a book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In addition, your working is extremely hard to read and is unlikely to be helpful even to someone with the same problem, as it takes a good bit of decoding. It is never enough to just provide a long list of equations that sort of go somewhere; you need to provide some connecting tissue to tell the reader what you're doing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't be offended at the 'show some effort' bit. This is an automatic message that needs to cover a wide range of cases. Its purpose is to give users a sense of what's wrong with their question and redirect them to more detailed information - which you did find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this is that it is *not* a conceptual question. Saying that it is about &quot;a height&quot; is not enough - all questions *include* concepts, but this does not equate to be asking *about* them. The problem in your question is a routine calculation with no conceptual content. For more information, please read [our guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) carefully. To get a more detailed breakdown of this community's attitudes towards homework(-like) questions, see the [Bite-sizing homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) thread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="281d100c-1c93-4e1a-a0b7-6a61bab09ddd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the question is now perfectly acceptable, and I personally would vote to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it's not very good for the community moderation model if I go around closing and opening things willy-nilly. Your question was reviewed twice since you edited it ([first review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124093), [second review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/124324), and all four reviewers thought it was still inappropriate for the site. We should find out why. Hopefully at least one of them stops by to provide an answer (and I'll see if I can bug them about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, don't do _that_. Deleting and reposting questions is against our rules (of course as a new member, you probably wouldn't have known). If further edits are required, you can just keep editing the same question. Just try to batch up your edits so that you make all the changes required at once, and that you don't wind up editing the post too many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few edits you could make to your question that would vastly improve it, and even though these shouldn't be the _cause_ for it to stay on hold, given human nature, these might help the question's chances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don't post a screenshot of text from a book. Instead, retype the relevant parts of the text, making sure to use a quote block to indicate what you have copied from the book. (Make sure to acknowledge the source, too.)&#xD;&#xA;- Improve the math formatting by using the operator macros `\sin` and `\cos`, and writing kets as `\lvert jm\rangle` instead of `|jm&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps most important, give your question [a better title](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles). Even though the decision to put a question on hold should be based on the body, not the title, whatever title you do choose is your question's first impression to readers and it can influence their judgement of the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In your case, &quot;SU(2) Rotation Matrices Problem from Halzen and Martin&quot; says nothing about what you're actually asking. Besides, the key word in the title is &quot;Problem&quot;, which suggests that you want the solution to the problem from the book, even though that's not what you're actually asking in the body. A better title would highlight the conceptual issue you're actually asking about. Based on your wording in the body, you could go with something like &quot;How can one obtain the eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system?&quot;, or if you want it shorter, &quot;Eigenvalues of a rotated higher spin system&quot;. (Titles don't _have_ to be questions, though in my experience it's often easier to write a good title if you make it a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="8c6428f4-3029-4602-9880-2e0cc66107cb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;strike&gt;Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The question has now been reopened.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="922ae9df-13b9-468c-8e2b-b5a0e6463d1a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Town Hall chat transcript from the previous elections: [2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/631/2011-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest) and [2012](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest). Useful for background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="606c4310-7a41-4dba-861c-7df5cb64b29d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You understood the underlined clause, *they may not change the accepted answer*, perfectly. That clause is in the present tense and uses *may* as a modal verb to denote permission (or in this case, the denial of permission). Since questioners are allowed to change the selected answer, the clause is grammatically incorrect. The clause should have been phrased in the present perfect tense rather than the present tense, and because it reflects a possibility that might or might not have happened, it should use *might* rather than *may*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A correct rewording is *they might not have changed the accepted answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-on to this question, I asked [how to suggest edits for help center pages](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8871/how-to-suggest-edits-for-help-center-pages). It was suggested that I use the &quot;contact us&quot; link. I did just that and suggested a rewording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wording at the cited Help Center page has just been changed. It now reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question has now been answered perfectly. It simply means that the author received an answer that worked for him or her personally. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="e720e849-6cb7-49a6-958c-17f360857b69" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would reinforce what Emilio says. In this particular case the answer is unlikely to be a valuable long term resource for the site. However, to provide a more general answer to the question: exactly the same thing happened to me, and my response was basically the same as yours i.e. I posted a fresh question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then posted the answer I'd spent all that time writing. The Physics SE supports, and indeed encourages, the posting of [canonical questions and answers][1] where these will be helpful to the Physics community. You'll note that when you're posting a new question there is a tick box labelled *Answer your own question* with [a link to explain the principles involved][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7637" RevisionGUID="fa1b9d37-3a69-4e20-bc13-c7211c5d691c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739). Is there a better statement somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, what you found is the official, authoritative policy on homework-like questions. You might find a post that explains a particular point of the homework policy more clearly, but in general, that is the best available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That was hard enough to find. Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mean like this entry in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![picture of help center][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between this and the fact that this post is linked from _every_ question closed as homework-like, I think we've made it relatively easy to find. If there is a specific situation in which it would make sense to add another link to the post, we can do that, but we'd need more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise. Do we have a consensus? If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you don't see is the many weeks of discussion in chat and previous posts on meta that went into crafting that policy. Keep in mind that people who agree with the policy (and in particular, those who were involved in the discussions that created it) have no need to comment on the post. There is a selection bias which makes the comments under the post more likely to oppose it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should probably delete those comments as they are very old, and any changes to the policy inspired by the comments will already have been made. (This doesn't stop people from proposing such changes via new meta posts, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kalgd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="1366a162-de51-40f1-9b82-281c83eff6bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about other closed questions, which don't meet the criteria for automatic deletion? For example, those that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- have upvoted answers (like the one that prompted this post)&#xD;&#xA;- have upvotes themselves&#xD;&#xA;- are recently posted&#xD;&#xA;- are recently closed&#xD;&#xA;- have reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, should we (moderators) be deleting these questions, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? Or some subset of them? (e.g. delete all closed questions more than 9 days old regardless of other factors) If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to think about: deleting a question that has upvotes and/or upvoted answers, simply because it's closed, is especially tricky because several people expressed a belief that the post is useful - either on its own merits, or because it inspired a useful answer. Now, it is a common occurrence that &quot;upvotes lie&quot; - in other words, we know that people _will_ upvote some things that are bad fits for the site. But I don't think it should be part of the moderators' regular job to make the distinction between &quot;popular and useful&quot; and &quot;popular but bad for the site&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="6d8b8d73-02a9-4833-ab4e-013b8d517c8b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a completely self studying student, with no friendly post grads around when you need one, I wonder is a question of the format outlined below acceptable here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of what I mean is: I currently understand say, the basic role of the Lagrangian in QFT and the math behind it. From there I would like to ultimately understand how to get to the math description of the weak force gauge bosons, going through group theory or  whatever areas of mathematical knowledge, are needed along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note I would not expect the answer to contain even one line of mathjax, as learning the math involved is obviously entirely up to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would define my starting point, and state what exactly my destination is, and ask for a schematic of the intermediate steps involved. In 99 percent of the text books I own, there no &quot;block diagram&quot; of how concept A is used, through concept B, C.., to the end point.  If you are lucky, the summary at the end might describe the process but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't misunderstood my motivation, I am not trying to avoid the sheer necessity of the application needed by all students  to fully understand a concept, as I would not be studying physics if I did not enjoy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder, as this site is intended mainly for full time students in regular education courses, is a question using this schematic approach (with well defined start and end points, involving a small area of physics) suitable for this site, especially when studying alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;EDIT I may have inadvertently rewritten this question, which I just spotted: [Knowing X, how do I get to Y][1] and if so, my apologies,  if the above is a duplicate END EDIT&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1355/how-do-i-learn-x-knowing-y-and-other-user-specific-type-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="79044f40-5272-4947-89d6-cd7b6cb4c432" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is only possible with the [**Established User**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user) privilege at 1,000 rep. Click on the post's score and you'll see the upvote/downvote breakdown. On occasion, this can be quite useful - particularly on meta for things like polls. (As an extreme example, [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6399/), currently at +24-21.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &lt;1k rep users, you can find out the vote counts on your own posts via [the reputation tab of your profile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post), which will show the net upvotes and downvotes for each post, per day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="d1b04254-d7f0-464c-a316-114ec9adffee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to go off the script David proposed and emphasize one point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **This programme needs to consider very seriously the role of the [tag:homework] tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, as I wrote [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework), one of the main lessons that came out of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) previous attempt to reformulate the policy. More specifically, it is an inconsistent position to say &quot;homework is banned&quot; and still keep a [tag:homework] tag, or at least it is something that is very hard to write around. It will be easier now that the tag actually reads [tag:homework-and-exercises] but the problem has by no means gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to express (here and now) an opinion on whether we should change the policy or the usage of the tag. But a discussion of the role of the tag is integral in any attempt to reformulate the policy. One big reason for this is that the first encounter of most new users with the fact that not all homework questions are on-topic will be with the tag wiki excerpt that's shown when you try to tag something as homework. Another big reason is simply that the tag is an integral structural part of how we handle these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this discussion needs to include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to change which questions are tagged as [tag:homework-and-exercises]?&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to keep the tag at all? Do we want to [burninate](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120640/what-does-it-mean-to-burninate-a-tag) and black-list it?&#xD;&#xA; - What does the tag documentation - tag wiki and tag wiki excerpt - need to look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not putting forth any position on these issues at this time, but they do need to be on the agenda; if not, it will simply prove impossible (or at least very, very difficult) to write a consistent set of documentation for the new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="fdbabdfb-9006-4bbc-a4e5-f5cf0e34f816" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are editing a lot of posts which are closed and have a negative score. Such questions are regularly deleted by an [automatic deletion routine](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) (often termed the &quot;roomba&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question is deleted, all associated reputation gains and losses are reversed. In particular, the 2 reputation you gained from suggesting an edit that was subsequently approved are lost. I don't believe that there is an indication in the reputation history that this happens - the +2 from a week ago or so simply vanish from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want this to happen, don't make edits to posts that do not fix the reasons for closure/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for losing reputation is [users that are removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1289/50583) and have upvoted you, but this is usually indicated by a `user was removed` in your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="99f3adef-6222-4f0e-931e-d831417b7ce2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The point of this site can be found on the [**Tour page**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And like every Stack Exchange site, we have [**certain policies**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) in place to ensure that we can deliver the stated goal of the site. It may take some time for you to read through them, but those linked Q&amp;A's are important to understand the purpose of this site &amp; what is &quot;on topic&quot; (though a shorter summary can be [**found here**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among those, is the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) that you have come across. I urge you to read through it (it's actually well-reasoned, despite your assertions it's not). Simply put, we  do **not** want the reputation of being a homework help site. We want to be a site that contains high-quality *conceptual* questions about physics (and no, answering homework questions *isn't* a concept).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want your homework questions answered by someone else, [there are plenty of other places online](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391/) with that expressed purpose; it just isn't what we do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="10d6b754-9ce4-4cfd-8dc2-695027ef3c0d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9230/44126)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="a9512200-e7db-4090-97ec-15db10746ad1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="c0e725b1-9ca8-4cc9-90b5-7009f5bb124a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;[We discussed titles at length in the meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;One of the things the FAQ says is [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the FAQ tag there, which I believe indicates that the post there and its accepted answer is considered site standard.&#xD;&#xA;We should follow that standard whether or not we agree with the stylistic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter; we have a site standard and we should adhere to it.&#xD;&#xA;Consistency is much more important than choosing the right convention.&#xD;&#xA;For example, programmers have a variety of opinions on issues such as `camelCase` versus `lower_case_with_underscores` conventions for variable names.&#xD;&#xA;Most people agree that the choice doesn't matter nearly as much as consistency within a language or project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made that edit.&#xD;&#xA;I did it because we have a site standard for titles and I think it makes the front page much easier to read if all the titles conform to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DavidZ already pointed out, that edit was not about clarity, it was about conforming to site standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note that although I wrote both the question and answer, it was edited in accordance with the input from other users. I'm not just promoting my own opinion here. In fact, **the part about not capitalizing all words in titles was not written by me**. Also, I do not have the ability to put the FAQ tag on meta posts, so someone else with way more power than I decided to make that Q&amp;A the standard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="11185cdb-2852-404f-b0fc-435e4d50c0ec" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To answer the titular question, **no**, they are not always off topic. But just because a question is about math used in physics does not make it on-topic either. All of calculus is used in physics and I would be hard pressed to say that somebody asking a question about the formal definition of a derivative or a limit would be on-topic here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is easy to imagine questions that are basically only math but where physicists can provide more applicable information. One example I can think of from fluid dynamics is our somewhat... relaxed... use of Einstein summation notation and things like the Levi-Civita symbol or Kronecker delta. Mathematicians could provide an answer to questions about that, sure, and they would be absolutely correct to boot, but I think many people (myself included) might not understand the answers because the level at which we need to know them and apply them is much more limited in scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the gist of [the selected answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5717/6634) the last time we talked about this. Without some tie to physics (aside from the fact the topic in question is named for a physicist or invented by one -- Newton being a physicist doesn't make basic calculus questions on topic) or without some way that somebody experienced in physics can provide more insight (aside from just giving examples where the thing is used), it just isn't on topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you linked to about the Dirac delta function just doesn't provide anything that I am aware of that makes it uniquely physics. It has formal definitions, which OP listed in the question, that are based solely on math. It has alternate definitions/approximations, which are based solely on mathematical constructions (Fourier transform, infinitely narrow Gaussian). Just because it is used in physics (system dynamics, quantum mechanics, etc) does not make it on-topic. We use basic algebra operations too and we wouldn't want questions on how to FOIL a polynomial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why I voted to close it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="b7582e69-79ad-4f3d-bb40-271d2ed890e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 51 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty plus 1 initial p, which do not count as points earned on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So effectively you have earned 60 p - 51 p = 9 p on Phys.SE. So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8797" RevisionGUID="5b2ba0c8-0561-44e8-96ec-0aa4875449af" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is similar to DanielSank's [idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7779/23785).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a meta question is made, asking what questions should be asked to the subject of the AMA. People post their questions as answers to this meta post. Then, there is a period of time where people upvote the questions they want to see answered. Maybe these get community wiki'd to not mess up rep too much. After this voting period ends, the subject of the AMA edits his initial answer into each of the questions (where each question, remember, is an &quot;answer&quot; to a meta post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the subject of the ama makes his initial answer to a given question, discussion can continue in the form of comments, which will get moved to chat. Thus each quetion has its own chat room where a free form discussion can take place. After discussion of one question dies down, the subject of the AMA moves on to the next question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A downside is that a moderator will need to continually edit the original meta post to indicate which question's chat room the subject of the AMA is currently in. The advantage is that the questions are more easily browsable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="99a9302f-f04b-40f9-8018-89c0df16ac0b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first question (currently) has 2 reopen votes, but [3 people said to leave it closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/110249), so it has been removed from the [reopen queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It takes 5 people to reopen it (or one mod), so you need 3 more people with the appropriate level of privileges to get it reopened (oftentimes, bringing the post to Meta will result in the &quot;Meta effect&quot; where questions are reopened (deserved or not)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't think the second question is unclear](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/110410), but 5 other people thought so. Though in retrospect, your first part might be considered a duplicate of [**As the universe ages, will we see more stars or less?**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/90024/). It might be the second part that is considered unclear, though I'm not sure I'd agree with that and would hope one of the 5 close voters can comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there ***isn't*** a requirement that anyone comment on a question about *why* they're voting such a way that they have. It has been my experience that the first close-voter on a question would leave a comment about why they're voting such a way (e.g., &quot;It's not clear to me what you mean by ...&quot; or &quot;We are not a homework help site ...&quot;). I'm not sure why it wasn't done in this case, but, again, it's not a requirement so I *personally* am not concerned about the lack of the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I wouldn't put much stock in using votes as a rationale for your post being okay because (a) there is a small contingent of users on this site that give sympathy votes to (somehow) balance out downvotes and (b) even wildly off-topic questions get upvotes &amp; views simply because (interested) users like the question (I discussed this [previously as well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question/7276#7276))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="6622e0ae-3f08-43ba-8e5f-bf8851265648" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a completely self studying student, with no friendly post grads around when you need one, I wonder is a question of the format outlined below acceptable here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of what I mean is: I currently understand say, the basic role of the Lagrangian in QFT and the math behind it. From there I would like to ultimately understand how to get to the math description of the weak force gauge bosons, going through group theory or  whatever areas of mathematical knowledge, are needed along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note I would not expect the answer to contain even one line of mathjax, as learning the math involved is obviously entirely up to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would define my starting point, and state what exactly my destination is, and ask for a schematic of the intermediate steps involved. In 99 percent of the text books I own, there no &quot;block diagram&quot; of how concept A is used, through concept B, C.., to the end point.  If you are lucky, the summary at the end might describe the process but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't misunderstood my motivation, I am not trying to avoid the sheer necessity of the application needed by all students  to fully understand a concept, as I would not be studying physics if I did not enjoy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder, as this site is intended mainly for full time students in regular education courses, is a question using this schematic approach (with well defined start and end points, involving a small area of physics) suitable for this site, especially when studying alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;EDIT I may have inadvertently rewritten this question, which I just spotted: [Knowing X, how do I get to Y][1] and if so, my apologies,  if the above is a duplicate END EDIT&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1355/how-do-i-learn-x-knowing-y-and-other-user-specific-type-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="83ae92b6-5a53-47f7-be01-0ac8ede2fde4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it correct to close (*) a meta question simply because [the OP is not interested in the answer?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26953_6906) Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) example here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="bd79f040-4824-454b-ba77-ddb831c6e3b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Focusing on the question, of how much research you are expected to have done before asking here, and answering only for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote [an answer][1] for [a similar questions about Stack Overflow][2] some time ago. The gist of it is that asking the site things that you could have easily (or perhaps trivially) googled comes down to wasting the time of people looking at your question, and those questions shouldn't be asked. The final expression of that idea there was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is the same as not asking when the answer is in the furnished manual or the first half-dozen links that Google brings up. The answer being in some obscure usenet archive or 400 comments down in a slashdot thread on some other topic is no impediment to asking Stack Exchange, but there being dozens of answer instances all across the internet is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure the situation on Physics is similar, but not necessarily exactly the same, because it is (in my opinion) easier to to see but not understand a treatment in physics even when you have the minimum preparation for the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking before you have looked at those resources that Google brings up right at the top is a waste of other people's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you *have* looked and still don't get it, tell us what you found unsatisfactory about those treatments. And *&quot;I didn't understand&quot;* doesn't count; say where your understanding broke down. I you stuck on a step in the math or on how it could be written in terms of that math in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be clear about your level of preparation. I've seen so many questions where the OP claims to understand field theory and relativity, but has actually just read some pop-sci book that I can usually guess what the case it, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by muddying the water that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking for a detailed description of a topic at your level when you simply aren't prepared to deal with the math is a waste of other people's time. We have been open to &quot;layman's terms&quot; questions, but you have to accept that those answer will *be in layman's terms*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, part of the goal here is to build a comprehensive database of good questions with good answer. So, shouldn't we allow ever good question, even if they have been answered well elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we should, but it is fair to insist that we work on *really good* versions of those questions, and that really calls for [someone who knows the topic to craft the canonical version of the question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, those are my thoughts I've wanted for some time to sit and hammer on them to find where they might not be internally consistent, but I never seem to find the time. So perhaps some of the rest of you can show me those spots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/192136/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/192123/should-stack-overflow-be-a-last-resort-resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="b17cde84-bc24-4a5d-a4e2-c30345fe72cc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will be the next [AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) guest. So here it is a brief introduction of myself, and you can suggest some topic/questions that can be discussed during the session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Academic Background.** I obtained a master degree in theoretical physics almost ten years ago, working on the regularization of path integrals for supersymmetric QM models of particles in curved (Euclidean) background space. In particular, I focused on the mode regularization, both for the phase space and usual path integral, in N=1,2 SUSY sigma models. It has been a while, however, since I abandoned those topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, following the same *cursus honorum* as many others in [my community](http://www.iamp.org/page.php?page=page_start), I shifted towards mathematics. My motivation was - and still is - that I don't like the sloppiness with which many subtle and interesting mathematical problems are dealt with in theoretical physics. I therefore did a Ph.D. in mathematics, with analysis and mathematical physics as main topics. During my Ph.D. I started working on the so-called mean field and classical limits of quantum (field) theories; i.e. on rigorously proving the emergence of classical/mean-field effective dynamics starting from the full quantum description of a given system. This is still my main area of research, but I also work in scattering theory (e.g. for Lindblad superoperators) and nonlinear partial differential equations of physical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggested topics.** Below you can find a list of the topics on which it is more probable that I would have something meaningful to say, but feel free to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Classical and mean field approximation of quantum systems (e.g. Bohr's correspondence principle; the emergence of Hartree, Gross-Pitaevskii, Vlasov, Hartree-Fock dynamics from many-body quantum systems; ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - The interplay between rigorous mathematical results and physics (e.g. Haag's theorem, the von Neumann measurement scheme, representation theory for the algebra of canonical commutation relations, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Partial Differential Equations &quot;of evolution&quot; (e.g. Schrödinger, Wave, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, ...);&#xD;&#xA;  - Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory;&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantization (from a mathematician's point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think I could at least point to some references if you ask me questions about mathematical physics, apart from some topics on which I am quite ignorant (like e.g. all things related to homology/cohomology applied to physics, string theory, general relativity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even if I am not at all an expert, I like to read about logic, set theory, and in general the problems that arise in foundational mathematics. So this could also be a topic for a (very informal but interesting) discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When and where.** The AMA session will take place in the hbar chat room, the 12th of July at 16:00 UTC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="ff49a10a-47f6-42fd-a18f-54a39e2efad1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The point of this site can be found on the [**Tour page**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And like every Stack Exchange site, we have [**certain policies**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) in place to ensure that we can deliver the stated goal of the site. It may take some time for you to read through them, but those linked Q&amp;A's are important to understand the purpose of this site &amp; what is &quot;on topic&quot; (though a shorter summary can be [**found here**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among those, is the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) that you have come across. I urge you to read through it (it's actually well-reasoned, despite your assertions it's not). Simply put, we  do **not** want the reputation of being a homework help site. We want to be a site that contains high-quality *conceptual* questions about physics (and no, answering homework questions *isn't* a concept).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want your homework questions answered by someone else, [there are plenty of other places online](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391/) with that expressed purpose; it just isn't what we do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="86ca567e-5413-4476-8393-6ba967594f39" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [ACuriousMind's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am rather dismayed that it is possible that this happens, I don't think this is a problem that can or should be solved by moderator intervention - at least, not by using any of the additional privileges a moderator has. That this is possible is an inherent property of the SE engine and the weights it attaches to up- and downvotes. Of course, if significant support for the idea of raising the weight of downvotes was present in the community, it would perhaps fall to the moderators to present this position to the SE team - but then again, everyone can make such a feature request at the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question intends to imply that maybe moderators should delete the answers of such users or suspend them, then I don't think that either can be justified. Also, deleting their wrong answers potentially leads to the users *gaining more reputation*, depending on what exactly the vote count on the wrong answer was, which doesn't solve the problem at all. Selectively deleting only the answers which contribute to their positive reputation would appear capricious and targeting a specific user instead of specific posts, which is generally inappropriate. Suspensions are only appropriate when an explicit rule was broken - and &quot;posting wrong stuff&quot; is annoying, but not in violation of any policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality. I do think the general voting behavior on this SE currently encourages questions that are much too lazy and ill-thought out. I wrote about this [some time ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) and although the numbers are of course off by now, I still stand by everything I've written there. However, I don't see how this priority of mine would be any more relevant as a moderator than it was as a high reputation user - the primary means of quality control is *upvoting high-quality questions and downvoting low-quality questions*, which is completely unaffected by moderatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly wait for consensus regarding suspensions, except in cases where one is immediately needed for the user to &quot;cool off&quot;. I would also, at least at the beginning, wait for input before dismissing custom moderator flags, but perhaps not before validating them, if the case appears clear cut. I would not wait for consensus when reopening or closing a question, but I expect to be casting both reopen and close votes much less than I currently do since I don't want to overuse the unilateral character of these votes. I would also not wait for consensus before deleting obsolete, rude or irrelevant comments, since those are supposed to be ephemeral by design anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guarantee a minimum of an hour per day for at least the next year. My time &quot;spent&quot; on the site is usually more, but I'm often doing other things while occasionally checking the site, so the actual time *invested* into the site is difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that 99% of what I have posted will not reflect badly, and that most of it reflects rather well. I can remember some stray comments and chat messages where I might have been less charitable than I should have been, but there is nothing that I would be ashamed of. The most significant change to my routine in the site would probably be that I don't do the &quot;ordinary&quot; review queues anymore, which I currently visit almost every day, and that I might be a bit more careful to distinguish site policy from my personal opinion when commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think our scope is generally quite alright as it is. The very nature of these interdisciplinary questions is that it is difficult to make general policies that cover them - this is where community moderation has to shine, hashing out whether a given question is &quot;just enough physics&quot; or &quot;not enough physics&quot; by several close/reopen cycles if need be, or just by a bit of comment/chat/meta discussion about the specific question. As a moderator, I would refrain from casting my unilateral votes in any binding manner on those questions, i.e. I would only cast them as fifth votes. We don't elect moderators to *make* policy, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't make me more effective. Moderators aren't supposed to be &quot;more effective&quot; versions of ordinary users, they're supposed to be trusted janitors who clean up the messes and do the behind-the-scenes work that's unsuitable for community moderation but nevertheless needs to be done to keep the site running smoothly. I love this site and I want to be part of the reason it's working. In the past, I've done so by participating in the review queues every day, which is something I *strongly* encourage every user with sufficient reputation to do. Now, I get the opportunity to do so in another role - if you want me to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there should be boundaries in terms of &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think there currently are. There are good and bad questions at a layman's or high schooler's level, and there are good and bad questions at research level. I've seen plenty of all of those. What I expect from a question is a reasonable amount of research effort, and an attempt to communicate clearly the *conceptual question* the asker is having. I strongly dislike all stances that think questions have merit simply because of their level. Questions have merit because they are *good, well-posed questions* that can be answered with physical insight. Note, however, that just because you can write an amazing answer to a question that doesn't necessarily make the question itself any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case where I see a question closed merely because of its *level*, I would strongly consider unilaterally reopening it. We don't have a policy about &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think we should have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what kinds of flag exactly this user generates. Generating a lot of &quot;obsolete&quot; flags is a *good* thing, since it indicates the user leaves a lot of comments leading to posts being improved, making the comment obsolete in the process. Generating a lot of &quot;not constructive&quot; or &quot;too chatty&quot; flags is worse, although it might just indicate a chatty user. I'd advise the user to use comments only for relevant communication and take longer reply chains to chat instead, but probably take no further action. On repeated offense, I'd be more quick to move the discussions to chat, but if everything's civil, I don't see a need for other actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generating a lot of &quot;rude/offensive&quot; flags is a lot worse, and would probably warrant a suspension if warnings to be nicer do not succeed. As I said above, I would not impose a suspension without waiting for consensus from the rest of the moderators, unless the user is currently generating those flags and no end is in sight. In that case I would impose a short &quot;cool off&quot; suspension to de-escalate the immediate situation, and then consult the other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd first make sure I understand the reasons for which the other moderator took that action. If I still disagree with the result, I'd take the issue to meta. Moderators should not make policy on their own, so if two of us are in strong disagreement what to do with a certain question, this indicates that the community's larger position on that type of question is unclear or needs to be re-evaluated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="bb75852c-1aaf-4f3d-b1e4-d1e3bb2b962c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[tpg2114 makes a good point][1] that there is pretty much always extra improvement to be done. However I would suggest that in the rare case no other improvement can be found, then the right thing to do is leave the post alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background about how the site works: Edits bump a post to the front page. *Any* edits, no matter how small. This is intentional. The idea is that changes shouldn't go on behind the scene; they should be visible to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is a cost associated with edits (if nothing else the opportunity cost of users' attention that could be given to other posts), there is a lower limit to how small an edit is deemed acceptable. This is why the system doesn't allow small changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not a system that should be circumvented. The fact is, this is the internet, not an immutable, copy-edited production. Typos happen. In fact, I *know* of typos in some of my own posts, and I don't bother to correct them because the posts are on the whole as good as they are going to get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is if the typo critically alters the post (e.g. omission of &quot;not,&quot; or some important factor of 2 misplaced). Then feel free to leave a comment to the post owner if there are not enough worthwhile changes to be suggested. It's okay to leave such comments (and you can even delete them yourself once the change has been made), and this is preferable to forcing changes for the sake of bypassing the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when you see `[image description goes here]`, a good change would be to replace it with an actual description. This can be used for, e.g., visually impaired people, or for text-based browser types (ok, so only one of these groups should really be accommodated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6990/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="829f9e23-496f-45a7-bb15-c6e972f3485e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The help message that comes up when asking a question says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a lot of homework questions that show a _huge_ amount of effort. Sometimes, they even have disclaimers attached, like, &quot;look! I showed absolutely everything I did, please don't close&quot;. We even get questions on meta where people are confused about why their homework question was closed (see [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8854/homework-and-exercise-tag)) when they read the policy and showed effort just as it said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a problem with wording. The 'show some effort' clause comes second, is shorter, and sounds more final, making it stick in people's heads better. But our actual homework policy (i.e. the de facto community standards, not the blurb) emphasizes the first clause a lot more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a rewording of the blurb to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Don't just tell us you're confused; tell us why you're confused, and what you've tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't change anything about our policies, but I bet it would decrease the amount of questions we have to close. Does this sound effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="5611f89c-84f7-47a8-84ac-987181f0f7ea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;[We discussed titles at length in the meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;One of the things the FAQ says is [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the FAQ tag there, which I believe indicates that the post there and its accepted answer is considered site standard.&#xD;&#xA;We should follow that standard whether or not we agree with the stylistic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter; we have a site standard and we should adhere to it.&#xD;&#xA;Consistency is much more important than choosing the right convention.&#xD;&#xA;For example, programmers have a variety of opinions on issues such as `camelCase` versus `lower_case_with_underscores` conventions for variable names.&#xD;&#xA;Most people agree that the choice doesn't matter nearly as much as consistency within a language or project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made that edit.&#xD;&#xA;I did it because we have a site standard for titles and I think it makes the front page much easier to read if all the titles conform to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DavidZ already pointed out, that edit was not about clarity, it was about conforming to site standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note that although I wrote both the question and answer, it was edited in accordance with the input from other users. I'm not just promoting my own opinion here. In fact, **the part about not capitalizing all words in titles was not written by me**. Also, I do not have the ability to put the FAQ tag on meta posts, so someone else with way more power than I decided to make that Q&amp;A the standard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="5f129654-6d22-45a1-9cb2-52ca7307a374" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a *certain* subset -not necessarily all of the domain where the function is defined-, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] question, linked by Qmechanic, whom I thank, is quite related to what I am asking here, but I am focussing on a rather different issue: the &quot;on-topicness&quot; of questions about mathematical proofs involving mathematical objects subjected to assumptions defined by the methods of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][2] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][3] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="c3063ac5-0e52-43b7-aff4-5069b73cb699" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The gory details of coding physics simulations are off-topic, even though the details of the physics to be simulated are on-topic.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you left [Computational Science (sometimes called &quot;scicomp&quot; after their URL)][2] off your list of possible sites. If you know enough about the foundation of numeric modeling that might be the site on which to seek truly expert help to refine a implementation. However, I'm not clear on how interested they are in hearing from someone with no experience in numerical work trying to get a first project off the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5623/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="254b3fa5-ce24-4a27-9caa-a326c21f0587" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7024) (and following comments) the problem is identified that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;_some in the community are bugged [or] annoyed by_&quot; the particular appearance or choice of display names of some users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, for any particular alphanumeric string there may some reason be found for it being imperfect or inappropriate as display name of a particular PSE user. (Even the real name of any user, which cannot itself be deemed objectionable by anyone as a matter of principle, may nevertheless fail to satisfy demands of anonymity.) Therefore the possibility can and must be entertained that there may be members of the community for whom **any** particular selection of display name is annoying to some in the community (possibly themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if any one particular selection cannot satisfy everyone, then why not let everyone set their own individual preference?:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let each specific user select a preferred display name (as it is presently possible already) as default;     &#xD;&#xA;but, moreover, **give everyone else in the community the individual option to substitute** this default display name (of any specific user under consideration) by a name string of their own preference (separately for each specific user under consideration) for display **in their individual view**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concretely, given `userABC`'s default setting     &#xD;&#xA;`ABC_display_name := &quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,    &#xD;&#xA;any other `userXYZ`'s optional setting     &#xD;&#xA;`XYZ_replacement_display_name_for_ABC := &quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then any text which `userABC` (wrote and) views as containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;`userXYZ` would view as text with the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`,     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and any other `userHJK` who didn't customize the individual `HJK_replacement_display_name_for_ABC` preference option, or anyone who isn't logged in, would view the text with the occurences of string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;`, just as `userABC` does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, any text which `userXYZ` (wrote and) views as text containing occurences of the string `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`      &#xD;&#xA;would be viewed by `userABC` as well as by any default user as text with the string `&quot;&lt;call_me_ABC&gt;&quot;` substituted in place of `&quot;&lt;XYZ_rather_calls_you_ABC_substitute&gt;&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It might be advantageous, however, if these substutions are suppressed for occurances of these strings under consideration which are enclosed in suitable escape characters, such as in pairs of backticks: &amp;#96;`&quot;&lt;...&gt;&quot;`&amp;#96;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be implemented, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="65d7df4b-1b0f-496d-8434-52f5a31f0a59" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="76e003a3-1ee6-47e2-9681-fc5e648bf570" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first question (currently) has 2 reopen votes, but [3 people said to leave it closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/110249), so it has been removed from the [reopen queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It takes 5 people to reopen it (or one mod), so you need 3 more people with the appropriate level of privileges to get it reopened (oftentimes, bringing the post to Meta will result in the &quot;Meta effect&quot; where questions are reopened (deserved or not)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't think the second question is unclear](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/110410), but 5 other people thought so. Though in retrospect, your first part might be considered a duplicate of [**As the universe ages, will we see more stars or less?**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/90024/). It might be the second part that is considered unclear, though I'm not sure I'd agree with that and would hope one of the 5 close voters can comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there ***isn't*** a requirement that anyone comment on a question about *why* they're voting such a way that they have. It has been my experience that the first close-voter on a question would leave a comment about why they're voting such a way (e.g., &quot;It's not clear to me what you mean by ...&quot; or &quot;We are not a homework help site ...&quot;). I'm not sure why it wasn't done in this case, but, again, it's not a requirement so I *personally* am not concerned about the lack of the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I wouldn't put much stock in using votes as a rationale for your post being okay because (a) there is a small contingent of users on this site that give sympathy votes to (somehow) balance out downvotes and (b) even wildly off-topic questions get upvotes &amp; views simply because (interested) users like the question (I discussed this [previously as well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question/7276#7276))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="b82f90ea-6e30-4322-be3d-1b7ee3f865e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3) is the most recent word on the matter, and that says software recommendation questions are off topic. I would group the question you're thinking about asking in the same category, and consider it off topic. It could also easily qualify as opinion-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could bring your question up in our [chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), or it might be on topic at the [Scientific Computation](//scicomp.stackexchange.com) site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="3e5d90da-869f-4238-95c0-f446ba50bf46" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, you have done the right thing. With some many questions on the site it's very easy to miss the fact that a duplicate exists, and to be fair the site search isn't as great as it could be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't attach too much significance to the downvotes. It's easy to feel that downvotes are a personal criticism, but really they are just a statement that the question isn't appropriate for the site. Personally I don't downvote duplicates just because they are duplicates, though I know some site members feel differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting does remove the question from the site home page, so there is an argument that a question should be downvoted when we don't want it to appear there. Maybe that's why you have the two downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it's generally bad form to delete a question. I can't remember the reasons for this, but I'm sure I have seen comments from the moderators that in general questions shouldn't deleted. Just leave the question - there is an automated cleanup process for downvoted questions that springs into life after a couple of weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth you should be congratulated for responding to the duplicate link, reviewing the duplicate and deciding that your question is indeed answered by the existing one. Too many people just abandon their duplicate questions and leave it to the moderators to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A quick footnote to summarise David's comments below**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit hasty to suggest you shouldn't delete your question. The Stack Exchange has various checks to detect users who it thinks aren't being serious, and it will eventually block those users from asking any more questions. One of the criteria it uses is the number of times the user asks a question then deletes it - hence my vague memory that deleting your own questions is a bad thing. However deleting one question, or even a few questions, isn't likely to cause a problem. So you should feel free to delete your question if you want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A footnote to the footnote**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens the issue of how deleted questions affect your status has just arisen in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8851/what-is-the-positive-question-record. This explains why having lots of deleted question is bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="2f3ef7e4-6d1e-4fda-a3c3-1a85b70b3ae5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**The election chat has concluded; see [the transcript](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/conversation/2016-election-chat-session).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our next [regularly scheduled chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule), October 4 at 16:00 UTC/12:00 EDT, will be devoted to the current election. We'll be holding the session in [our dedicated election chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election), _not_ in [the main site chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) as we usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _tentative_ plan is to split the session into two parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A few minutes at the beginning to address any procedural questions about the election process. (Of course, such questions can also be posted here on meta at any time.)&#xD;&#xA;2. The remainder of the session will be open for anyone to ask the candidates questions on the topic of moderation. I hope to run this in town-hall style, as done in [our last election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). This will complement the [existing questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire) by allowing for more back-and-forth discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll update this post with further details as we work them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, this is an announcement, not a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="011643b2-ae50-41da-b45e-27b9d35f802a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I asked a question on physics stack exchange. It was closed with a reference to [faq guidelines][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the question that was closed: [Maximum period of a vertically spinning ball][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that while this was not a &quot;homework&quot; question, I can understand that it is classified as a homework question according to the faq referenced above. The wisdom of applying &quot;homework&quot; tag to my question is still mysterious to me since the definition of that tag is so general that it can be applied to almost any question that asks for application of general concepts to a particular problem. But that's not the issue that I want addressed. Let's assume that it is indeed a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that I want to address is **(1) how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines][1]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do not find any inconsistencies with the guidelines myself, I have to assume that such inconsistency does exist since it was closed. If that inconsistency can be pointed, I'd also appreciate a pointer or two on **(2) how to ask an &quot;acceptable&quot; question that qualifies as &quot;homework&quot; under the guidelines.** By &quot;acceptable&quot; I mean a question that won't be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239661/maximum-period-of-a-vertically-spinning-ball" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="828ba81b-b89d-41d6-acd5-9b6959709852" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="EDITED after the question was marked as a possible duplicate: I don't think that all items noted in the comments were part of answers before, not fully developed and explained, and which could be argued. I don't disagree with many of the comments, but find some to be not helpful. Still, this site is a meta site and opinions can be valid answers. I'd like to see some reasoned answers posted, if possible, but, it's been about 8 months since I posted it, it does not matter much at this point. I was just questioning, not creating a controversy, I thought. BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little bewildered by what seems to me the few questions posted by participants with medium and higher reputations. I have not compiled statistics, and if I am wrong then so be it. But it seems to me most of the questions are by participants who are relatively new to the site, or otherwise have not posted as much as others. The opposite is true on answers. Now, this is of course relative and one has to be careful, since the population of participants probably has an average or mean in the lower reputation and participation persons. Still, it seems to be a little that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind, and in fact would encourage even more questions by anyone, including lower reputation and participation questions. It is important to have the new blood and ideas. But I'd also like to see more complex or well thought out questions by people who may have more; we may see an increase of quality in the question (well, you never know, but more from a population that could contribute interesting questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED, added from here on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is not why it happens. there were previous questions eg,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that asked that, and the answers were truthful, in my opinion, and elucidated the reasons. My question is whether there might be a way to get those to increase. Some were mentioned in the answers in that url, but if we'd like to increase quality perhaps there are also other ways also. Those mentioned a couple years back didn't seem to take hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Increase the number of points for positive votes for questions&#xD;&#xA;2 increase more the number of points for positive votes on questions and say more than 3K reputation (I know, sounds like favoritism, propose an alternate)&#xD;&#xA;3 create a few more tags for eg, for news exploration, paper reviews or comments -- where the question/answer explains the relevance of some new findings, or describes a paper and asks a question on it&#xD;&#xA;4  others I can't think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is are there other good ideas for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="837f45e2-668d-4957-a078-76f5dceeae27" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;strike&gt;Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The question has now been reopened.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="674015f5-d639-4a09-90ca-176e10394bb4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me address the root of the problem first: the criteria for using a Very Low Quality flag, at least as far as the moderators are concerned (currently), are laid out in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a VLQ flag appears in the moderator flag queue, my thought process is basically &quot;Can I read this? Yes: decline/No: accept&quot;. The answer in question is certainly readable, and I think we would agree that it does not meet the criteria quoted above. Its main problem is that it's wrong. That calls for it to be downvoted, but not flagged. If it were to be deleted by three delete votes from non-moderators, that wouldn't be the worst thing, but a VLQ flag is meant to indicate that something is so obviously worthless that it deserves swift and ruthless deletion, even from a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now let me address your individual points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, I checked and I'm the one who declined both those flags. (It shouldn't matter _who_ exactly did it, but I'm just saying you're getting the closest thing to an authoritative answer here.) This was done from the _moderator_ flag queue, not from the low-quality review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As described in [this MSE question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), if VLQ flags sit in their own queue for 15 minutes without being handled by the community, they are then added into the moderator flag queue. When the flags appear in the mod queue, we don't get any information about whether they are under review by the community or what the status of that review is; we only know that they have been sitting around for a certain amount of time and the community hasn't handled them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One _could_ take this as a sign that the VLQ queue is not doing its job, but it could also be the case that 15 minutes is too short to reflect the activity level for this site. This was discussed in the comments on that post, so I'd point you there for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, the biggest problem with these answers is that they are wrong. We already have a mechanism to distinguish right from wrong, namely voting. This takes into account that reasonable people often disagree on what is correct and what is not. If we additionally use flags to enforce consequences on wrong answers, that puts each individual moderator in the position of deciding right from wrong, and that's really not what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I've said I disagree with the premise. I think the system is designed the way it is for a reason: there is no other review mechanism for posts like these precisely because the site doesn't need to be kept clean from such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I think you have a point. While I would always like to see more high-rep users active in moderation, I do think the community is capable of handling most of its own moderation, and it might be useful to tweak the thresholds of the review system so that flags aren't bumped up to the moderator queue so quickly. This would require a bit of data analysis on flag handling times, but if people are agreed on that conclusion, we could make a request to the SE team to change the thresholds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nothing compels us to host this kind of content. But again, the tricky part is deciding which content is worthy of hosting and which content is not, and in particular, _who_ makes that decision. Like I said, individual moderators shouldn't be expected to distinguish right from wrong. A consensus of high-rep users is better equipped to do it, but still, the main mechanism to indicate wrongness is by voting, not deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means stuff like &quot;jasfoijaw3fjpawejfp0awjefp0asj0pfoajks09ojk3meosoifmasd&quot;. (Yes, we do get posts like that.) Things that you can't even read. &quot;Severe content problems&quot; doesn't refer to the content being _wrong_, it refers to the content being _unintelligible_. The sort of thing that _any_ competent English speaker, whether or not they have any knowledge of physics, would be unable to make sense of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="14763bb7-6b9f-4701-a5ee-36ed53a3ab8a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a *certain* subset -not necessarily all of the domain where the function is defined-, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] question, linked by Qmechanic, whom I thank, is quite related to what I am asking here, but I am focussing on a rather different issue: the &quot;on-topicness&quot; of questions about mathematical proofs involving mathematical objects subjected to assumptions defined by the methods of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][2] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][3] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="5faf3ab3-f710-4d5d-9a5c-f3e29d83172a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That a question gets no answer does not necessarily mean it is &quot;too hard&quot;. It could mean that, but it could also mean that no one knowing the answer found the question interesting enough to spend the time writing up the answer or that no one knowing the answer *saw* the question (your question has 78 view, which is not that many). Or the people knowing the answer didn't have time to write an answer and then later forgot to come back. You often can't know the reason a question stays unanswered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to migitate some of the possibilities I said, then the &quot;standard&quot; way to increase the visibility of a question is to [place a bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). This additionally offers additional incentive in the form of reputation points to the people knowing the answer to actually spend the time writing it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, you could edit your question to make it more easily answerable and more easily readable. The longer a question, the better your writing must be so that people actually read through it instead of finding something faster to read (it's debatable whether this behaviour is a *good* thing, but that's how it is). Ask yourself: Do you explain why this question is *interesting* at the beginning to get reader interested and read on? Are all those pictures really necessary? If &quot;the question is short&quot;, then why is the question so long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do edit your question, then that will put it on the top of the &quot;active&quot; questions list again. Please do not use this feature by making trivial edits (e.g. adding whitespace, correcting one typo every ten minutes, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [posts shouldn't look like revision histories](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5886/50583). A new reader doesn't care *why* you added the second part historically. They care what it has to do with the question, and how it's supposed to make answering it easier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="c905aa08-8e6f-4687-b05f-1fd4c656a660" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][5], the same question of mine has been reviewed once before this time. I wonder how dose the closure process start by a &quot;Leave open&quot; vote? (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:30 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][7], this question of mine has been closed by five votes. But there is just one close vote in the [review][8] page. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:45 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/137518&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mwplu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8896/about-questions-that-seem-stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review/close/214&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YLVgO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="6cf607cc-2c5e-436f-97bc-94e895bb46ab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [at the time of closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7) contains a lot of fluff which makes it an easy target for the gray area around the homework policy. The question in its [current form](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/9) is far from excellent but it passes the test as it explicitly asks a conceptual question; I have voted to reopen it and hopefully others will agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that your edit invalidates much of the existing answer, which is a big sign that the question was ill-posed to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your general point - the guidelines are not inconsistent, but they do include a significant amount of value judgement which, when applied incorrectly, is resolved exactly as you have - by posting here on meta. There is a long-standing effort to reduce this ambiguity but that is a hard problem; the latest bout is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy). If you have any constructive suggestions we'll be glad to hear them out - just be aware that this is a long and [storied](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) problem, and you do need to understand both what the problem is, what the previous solutions have been, and what their pitfalls were, to have a real chance at proposing something that will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="0a37dc69-e773-4ea7-8ee6-167a9878dfd0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about other closed questions, which don't meet the criteria for automatic deletion? For example, those that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- have upvoted answers (like the one that prompted this post)&#xD;&#xA;- have upvotes themselves&#xD;&#xA;- are recently posted&#xD;&#xA;- are recently closed&#xD;&#xA;- have reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, should we (moderators) be deleting these questions, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? Or some subset of them? (e.g. delete all closed questions more than 9 days old regardless of other factors) If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to think about: deleting a question that has upvotes and/or upvoted answers, simply because it's closed, is especially tricky because several people expressed a belief that the post is useful - either on its own merits, or because it inspired a useful answer. Now, it is a common occurrence that &quot;upvotes lie&quot; - in other words, we know that people _will_ upvote some things that are bad fits for the site. But I don't think it should be part of the moderators' regular job to make the distinction between &quot;popular and useful&quot; and &quot;popular but bad for the site&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="783f2565-7e46-4527-92ae-7529dbca456d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unless this were a puzzle site, where questions are intended to challenge or entertain, I don't think there is any purpose in posting questions just for the sake of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most interesting questions have open-ended answers which would be a matter of opinion or conjecture - in other words, off-topic.  This applies also to your suggestion of discussing recent research papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average question quality is low because anyone can post a question.  The majority who do are relatively new to physics, and don't know what makes a good physics question, nor what is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most obvious way of increasing the proportion (but not number) of good questions is to restrict the privilege of asking questions to (i) those with a minimum rep of say 3K, or (ii) those with a minimum education in physics, eg undergraduate.  The 1st is self-checking, the 2nd would probably require an active check of credentials.  This would also solve the problem of getting far too many off-topic questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of increasing the number of points for questions which get more than say 5 votes (net) seems reasonable to me.  Perhaps also increasing the penalty for down-votes for a question.  However, I don't think many of us ask or answer questions just for the rep.  The incentive will have little effect except encouraging those who are chasing rep to post good questions which they have found on other sites, or even on this site but with sufficient change of wording and tags to avoid obvious detection as a duplicate.  The penalty will be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Unless the number of low-rep questions is drastically reduced, I think even a several-fold increase in high-rep questions will not make a noticeable difference to the site.  Moreover, the increase in high-rep questions will not encourage an increase in the quality of low-rep questions.  Low-rep users are unlikely to read and learn from high-rep questions, because they are mostly only concerned to get answers to their own questions, and unable to understand the level of physics which high-rep users ask about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not a new one.  See :https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that Meta Question, posted 3 years ago, which currently has 28 up-votes, Dilaton writes :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The About of Physics SE still says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So : What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople questions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... If the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8975" RevisionGUID="0d54900b-34ed-47d0-8885-b3047f99adcb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you can find a good edit to make to the question (or one of its answers), editing will bump the question to the top of the front page. This is an easy way to draw some attention to the question. However, make sure your edit actually _improves_ the question (or answer). An edit that just changes something but doesn't make the post better is not appropriate. You may want to read [our guidelines on editing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit) to get a sense of what constitutes an appropriate edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you have less than 2000 reputation, any edits you make will have to be reviewed by high-rep users before they get applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to bring attention to a question is to join [the chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and ask about it. Maybe someone else there can answer it, or at least will be willing to help you promote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the most effective way to bring attention to a question is to put a bounty on it, but you need to have at least 75 reputation for that. When you place a bounty, you give up your own reputation equal to the bounty amount, but in exchange the question gets [featured](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=featured) on the front page for a week. At the end of that time, you can award the bounty to an answer which was posted during that time period, and the poster of that answer gets an amount of reputation equal to what you gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should **not** ask the same question again. It'll get closed as a duplicate, and possibly downvoted for [insufficient research effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) (because we expect people to do some searching before posting a question, and your search should have turned up the earlier version of the question if you didn't already know about it). Even if you don't like the answers on the preexisting question, that doesn't stop it from being a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you're asking something _more_ than what the previous question asked, in the sense that a complete answer to the previous question would not answer what you're asking, then you can go ahead and post a new question. In this case you should link to the previous question and explain _very clearly_ what you are adding to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="2afd195a-131b-4ba8-ab77-402c3a5eccaa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I asked a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/243740) which was based on a conceptual confusion, as was revealed by the excellent answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It made me think that it would be nice if that fact was visible straight away for anyone coming to the page. There would be a second line of tags, relating to the nature of the question, and in my case one could see in that line the tag &quot;misconception&quot; (that I would have added after having read the answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tags that come to mind would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;technical&quot; for the discussion of a technical point&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;perspective&quot; for open questions such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242814&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;common-misconception&quot; for questions such as the ones listed &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6063/109928&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;reference&quot; for well-posed questions with good answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;canonical&quot; for even better-posed questions with even better answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;speculative&quot; for questions found to be not quite in line with mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;basic&quot;, &quot;conceptual&quot;, &quot;experimental&quot;, &quot;thought-experiment&quot;, &quot;factual&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a set of tags would make the site even more useful. For example I would love to browse the &quot;experimental&quot; collection in &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;, or the &quot;reference&quot; one in &quot;electromagnetism&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respectively, coming to a page and be able to see right away that the question is a &quot;misconception&quot; puts you in the right mindset for better understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now who would be allowed to set those tags? Probably the OP (although I can easily see how the OP would find very tempting to remove a not too glorious tag), the author of an accepted or upvoted answer, and also anyone with a large enough reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell this proposal would give a qualitative dimension to the question metric currently based on votes that would also take the answers into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="dcc48ba0-5ff6-4d8a-96f7-8e778fffaeb9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today I had some issues regarding an answer (now deleted) that I encountered in the Low Quality queue. [The question][1] asked for clarification about a solution by Michael A. Gottlieb, and included a screenshot of that solution without its copyright notice. The reviewed answer recommended to ask Michael A. Gottlieb. I marked the answer to recommend deletion, before noticing that the answer was written by Michael A. Gottlieb himself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards, I got a notification of a comment to my review (I didn't know those existed) from Gottlieb, who asked me to remove the copyrighted material. I edited out the screenshot and flagged the question with a custom flag. I also commented Gottlieb that he should have edited the question and/or contacted the mods, instead of posting a non-answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the answer has been converted to a comment by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question about this incident are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;* In a [previous meta answer][2], DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;* The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265664/virtual-work-problem-from-feynmans-tips-on-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4613/78942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="6270a577-a020-488e-98b9-20fd10af99f1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are editing a lot of posts which are closed and have a negative score. Such questions are regularly deleted by an [automatic deletion routine](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) (often termed the &quot;roomba&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question is deleted, all associated reputation gains and losses are reversed. In particular, the 2 reputation you gained from suggesting an edit that was subsequently approved are lost. I don't believe that there is an indication in the reputation history that this happens - the +2 from a week ago or so simply vanish from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want this to happen, don't make edits to posts that do not fix the reasons for closure/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for losing reputation is [users that are removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1289/50583) and have upvoted you, but this is usually indicated by a `user was removed` in your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="51de92d9-caf8-497b-9b08-e8c0a4c19284" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since astronomy is [within our scope](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono), most things that would fit on Astronomy SE also fit here. If they are asked here, they should not be migrated. There are probably a few corner cases that are off topic for us and on topic for them, but those are rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other topics, in principle it's straightforward: a question which is about physics (or astronomy) is on topic here, one which is not about physics (or astronomy) is off topic here. Of course, there can be some debate about whether something is about physics/astronomy or not, but again, those ambiguous cases are relatively rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="bca0dcd6-af39-4d10-ad89-03aa3a6cfddb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (&lt;s&gt;10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)&lt;/s&gt; answer now undeleted, see the [answer timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/288694/timeline) for more details) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page the OP consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are the OP's own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison, as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with the answer, and it does fall to the OP to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="7dc713a5-b290-47af-b595-ab47372fc702" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You understood the underlined clause, *they may not change the accepted answer*, perfectly. That clause is in the present tense and uses *may* as a modal verb to denote permission (or in this case, the denial of permission). Since questioners are allowed to change the selected answer, the clause is grammatically incorrect. The clause should have been phrased in the present perfect tense rather than the present tense, and because it reflects a possibility that might or might not have happened, it should use *might* rather than *may*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A correct rewording is *they might not have changed the accepted answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-on to this question, I asked [how to suggest edits for help center pages](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8871/how-to-suggest-edits-for-help-center-pages). It was suggested that I use the &quot;contact us&quot; link. I did just that and suggested a rewording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wording at the cited Help Center page has just been changed. It now reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question has now been answered perfectly. It simply means that the author received an answer that worked for him or her personally. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="2ffcfbee-da08-4be2-9fc0-aa875d29a4e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**No, we should not introduce such meta-tags.** If you are not convinced of the general uselessness of meta-tags, let me address your proposals specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;technical&quot; is hopelessly subjective. What's technical to one user is pretty straightforward and easy to see to another. This is already apparent in the non-meta tag [mathematical-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics), which is often misused for questions that just include math, and would only get worse with such a pure meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;perspective&quot;...what makes a question &quot;open&quot;? Is a question &quot;open&quot; simply because it is vague and imprecise? Should questions not be *edited and clarified* instead of staying vague? This tag sounds like another variant of the already existing [soft-question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question), which is already a [pretty bad tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7551/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have already rejected the misconception tag [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7542/50583). As for &quot;common&quot;, who decides what is &quot;common&quot;? Does it suffice if the misconception is common among non-physicists (we are supposedly a site primarily for physicists, after all)? Do &quot;misconceptions&quot; count that are really more [lies-to-children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children)? What would a question *gain* from being tagged as being about a misconception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The idea of tagging &quot;well-posed questions and answers&quot; with special tags serves no purpose because there already is a mechanism in place to promote well-posed questions and well-written answers: Voting. Good content is highly upvoted, bad content is downvoted. If you see a need to tag questions with regard to their quality because the votes are not a good indicator of quality, then I would rather say [we need to change our voting behaviour](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) (I wrote that almost a year ago, but I would not say the situation has changed), not introduce tags for quality, as that would just lead to needless drama over who has the power to add or remove those tags and which questions should receive them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream questions get [closed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/50583), not tagged as &quot;speculative&quot;. Speculative question without firm grounding in physics also get closed as *too broad* or *primarily opinion-based*, I don't see many questions that can be on-topic that would deserve this tag, or of what use it would be to tag them such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;basic&quot; is again as subjective as &quot;technical&quot;, [every question should be &quot;conceptual&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583), we already have an [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics) tag (which is fine as it actually tells you something about the topic opf the question), there is already a [thought-experiment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thought-experiment) tag and its content looks rather random to me and not deserving of a common tag, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="0380207d-91e7-42a3-991a-1edd5ad5b39a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3) is the most recent word on the matter, and that says software recommendation questions are off topic. I would group the question you're thinking about asking in the same category, and consider it off topic. It could also easily qualify as opinion-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could bring your question up in our [chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), or it might be on topic at the [Scientific Computation](//scicomp.stackexchange.com) site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="ccaa963a-2765-4639-984c-05762f439500" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the abstract questions you pose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No**, if you close something as being out of scope, you have to explain *why* it is out of scope. The pre-existing reasons cover the most common reasons, for the others, you'll have to write a comment explaining yourself. The close reason is there to give the asker feedback *what exactly they did wrong*, and just telling them it's &quot;out of scope&quot; doesn't really tell them what went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from providing valuable feedback to the asker (that is sadly all too often ignored, or taken as a personal insult, but that's another issue), a specific close reason is also valuable for other voters - especially reviewers - to agree or disagree with. But if you just choose &quot;out of scope&quot;, then that doesn't give your peers something to argue with: Either they already agree it's out of scope or they don't, but &quot;out of scope&quot; is so vague as to make it impossible to constructively disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I don't have a better suggestion because we don't *need* a better suggestion. If you think a post is non-mainstream then you should close it as non-mainstream. Votes are judgements of questions and answers, not of users. The feedback they provide is valuable only if given honestly - I see no value in *not* voting as you want to vote because of the psychological consequences you fear it may have on the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [*specific question*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270930/50583) you're talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the least controversial way to close this is as *too broad*. It's a question that basically asks &quot;Explain special relativity to me&quot;, without any research effort shown and without any *specific question*. It's not clear to me how one could determine a &quot;correct&quot; answer specifically to this question, i.e. how one would decide when it is actually *answered*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also had two close votes as *homework-like*, now hidden by the majority close reason *too broad*. I don't really understand those, it's not a question that falls under our homework policy by any stretch of the imagination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand the suggestion to close it as &quot;non-mainstream&quot;, either - it's not non-mainstream, it's a question about basic special relativity, no personal theory in sight, just confusion (and little effort on part of the asker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there are so many introductory resources to special relativity both on and off this site, I think closing because of *insufficient effort* (as a custom close reason) would also have been defensible if you think we should be closing questions for that. See meta discussions [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8789/50583), [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and at further links in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *duplicate* close reason is different. You vote to close as duplicate because you have *already found* the question it's a duplicate of. Duplicate questions are neither off-topic nor unclear nor too broad nor any other of these reasons. Closing a question as duplicate just says that we already have a sufficiently similar question here. If you're thinking the question should be closed anyway, go ahead and close it for another reason, but *never* forcefully try to make another reason fit *just* because you can't be bothered to search for the duplicate. (I'm not accusing you specifically of this, but I think it's worth explicitly stating in general.) I personally think that there's no value in closing a question that should be closed for another reason as duplicate, *unless* one then proceeds to close the duplicate for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="c17bed47-2ef4-4e82-8c91-58ba3abe38bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a completely self studying student, with no friendly post grads around when you need one, I wonder is a question of the format outlined below acceptable here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of what I mean is: I currently understand say, the basic role of the Lagrangian in QFT and the math behind it. From there I would like to ultimately understand how to get to the math description of the weak force gauge bosons, going through group theory or  whatever areas of mathematical knowledge, are needed along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note I would not expect the answer to contain even one line of mathjax, as learning the math involved is obviously entirely up to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would define my starting point, and state what exactly my destination is, and ask for a schematic of the intermediate steps involved. In 99 percent of the text books I own, there no &quot;block diagram&quot; of how concept A is used, through concept B, C.., to the end point.  If you are lucky, the summary at the end might describe the process but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't misunderstood my motivation, I am not trying to avoid the sheer necessity of the application needed by all students  to fully understand a concept, as I would not be studying physics if I did not enjoy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder, as this site is intended mainly for full time students in regular education courses, is a question using this schematic approach (with well defined start and end points, involving a small area of physics) suitable for this site, especially when studying alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;EDIT I may have inadvertently rewritten this question, which I just spotted: [Knowing X, how do I get to Y][1] and if so, my apologies,  if the above is a duplicate END EDIT&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1355/how-do-i-learn-x-knowing-y-and-other-user-specific-type-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="6fb5fbf3-49bb-4d05-9920-bd0f4601c120" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I asked a question on physics stack exchange. It was closed with a reference to [faq guidelines][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the question that was closed: [Maximum period of a vertically spinning ball][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that while this was not a &quot;homework&quot; question, I can understand that it is classified as a homework question according to the faq referenced above. The wisdom of applying &quot;homework&quot; tag to my question is still mysterious to me since the definition of that tag is so general that it can be applied to almost any question that asks for application of general concepts to a particular problem. But that's not the issue that I want addressed. Let's assume that it is indeed a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that I want to address is **(1) how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines][1]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do not find any inconsistencies with the guidelines myself, I have to assume that such inconsistency does exist since it was closed. If that inconsistency can be pointed, I'd also appreciate a pointer or two on **(2) how to ask an &quot;acceptable&quot; question that qualifies as &quot;homework&quot; under the guidelines.** By &quot;acceptable&quot; I mean a question that won't be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239661/maximum-period-of-a-vertically-spinning-ball" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="364ebe9f-cb5d-49bf-a756-59d688359faa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At this point I have written and erased several strongly worded paragraphs expressing my intense frustration with the *entitlement* expressed in your question. You seem to assume that our purpose here is to be a resource for you in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if that is not why we are gathered here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things you could have done to find out if we were going to want to solve elementary problems for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could have taken [the tour][1].&#xD;&#xA;* You could have read some of the pages in [the help center][2]. Particularly those about [what kinds of questions are welcome][3] and [what kinds are not][4].&#xD;&#xA;* After [your first questions][5] was put on-hold as being too homework-like, you could have read [the link included in the system generated on-hold message][6] that contains guidance on how to ask questions about elementary topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I note that some of your questions have been left open and answered. That's because we're not responding negatively to you as a person but to a particular request that you keep making of us: we don't want to be a homework help-site, and we don't care if the questions were assigned as part of a class or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point *you* have to take responsibility for understanding what this site is and is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246899/the-efficiency-of-a-rough-inclined-plane-is-given-90-the-energy-spent-in-raisi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="3fba60be-898b-4ebb-8738-737e73817f18" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="4ccc7362-d181-4d0c-aae8-4f519e6dfcfc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[An apparent inconsistency in the form of Spin-z operator for spin 1/2 system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework type question in that it is an exercise from Sakurai's QM book basically about forms of the zero and projection operators for hermitian operators. I think the close tag doesn't suit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows a lot of effort (most of the question is done and they even latex'd it in the link). As I've commented in the post that the close reason is essentially &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*punishing a user for doing more work than less work. One could've easily said 'I don't know what the operator in part b) is' and done nowhere near as much work as op. If op didn't have a mistake he/she wouldn't have asked the question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in fairness Sakurai is a fairly well used book so in principle could be useful to future users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However* it is essentially a **where's my mistake** type problem which isn't on topic, so I understand that, but I also don't agree with the reasoning  &quot;*If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher*&quot; - [here on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) which might for example punish a student that is self motivated to work over a summer break, where the teacher/lecturer is busy, and maybe other classmates/friends don't want to be doing physics over a break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271287/an-apparent-inconsistency-in-the-form-of-spin-z-operator-for-spin-1-2-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="c5eee9ce-afc8-4adf-bba7-01268292047f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [at the time of closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7) contains a lot of fluff which makes it an easy target for the gray area around the homework policy. The question in its [current form](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/9) is far from excellent but it passes the test as it explicitly asks a conceptual question; I have voted to reopen it and hopefully others will agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that your edit invalidates much of the existing answer, which is a big sign that the question was ill-posed to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your general point - the guidelines are not inconsistent, but they do include a significant amount of value judgement which, when applied incorrectly, is resolved exactly as you have - by posting here on meta. There is a long-standing effort to reduce this ambiguity but that is a hard problem; the latest bout is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy). If you have any constructive suggestions we'll be glad to hear them out - just be aware that this is a long and [storied](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) problem, and you do need to understand both what the problem is, what the previous solutions have been, and what their pitfalls were, to have a real chance at proposing something that will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="0ec1e4be-69cf-4aba-b334-8588e68e2173" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The point of this site can be found on the [**Tour page**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And like every Stack Exchange site, we have [**certain policies**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) in place to ensure that we can deliver the stated goal of the site. It may take some time for you to read through them, but those linked Q&amp;A's are important to understand the purpose of this site &amp; what is &quot;on topic&quot; (though a shorter summary can be [**found here**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among those, is the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) that you have come across. I urge you to read through it (it's actually well-reasoned, despite your assertions it's not). Simply put, we  do **not** want the reputation of being a homework help site. We want to be a site that contains high-quality *conceptual* questions about physics (and no, answering homework questions *isn't* a concept).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want your homework questions answered by someone else, [there are plenty of other places online](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391/) with that expressed purpose; it just isn't what we do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="19aa25f6-844b-49ca-a31c-99902edb25a2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; 3. ...the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;That.&#xD;&#xA;As I've argued [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy/7163#7163), there is absolutely no reason at all that the criteria for judging a post should depend on whether or not that post comes from a homework assignment or from an educational institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, that distinction is absurd; should questions arising from original research done in graduate *school* be subjected to different criteria than questions arising from my *job* in an industrial lab?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;That's not only hard to enforce, it's pants-on-our-head stupid.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a physics question comes from homework is entirely irrelevant to whether or not that question adds value to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large fraction of posts coming from homework *are* bad, but it's not because they're from homework, it's because the posts don't ask anything conceptual or show any effort.&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate by a converse example, suppose I were to post this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is the transition rate of a two level quantum system coupled by strength g to a thermal environment at temperature T?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a question straight out of my real research job; it's not homework, but it's also not a good post.&#xD;&#xA;I should show some work and identify the conceptual (or even technical) step where I'm stuck, and then focus my question on that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="f13efcbc-d0d7-44ac-ac48-d979f02d3ea7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I asked a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/243740) which was based on a conceptual confusion, as was revealed by the excellent answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It made me think that it would be nice if that fact was visible straight away for anyone coming to the page. There would be a second line of tags, relating to the nature of the question, and in my case one could see in that line the tag &quot;misconception&quot; (that I would have added after having read the answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tags that come to mind would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;technical&quot; for the discussion of a technical point&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;perspective&quot; for open questions such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242814&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;common-misconception&quot; for questions such as the ones listed &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6063/109928&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;reference&quot; for well-posed questions with good answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;canonical&quot; for even better-posed questions with even better answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;speculative&quot; for questions found to be not quite in line with mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;basic&quot;, &quot;conceptual&quot;, &quot;experimental&quot;, &quot;thought-experiment&quot;, &quot;factual&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a set of tags would make the site even more useful. For example I would love to browse the &quot;experimental&quot; collection in &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;, or the &quot;reference&quot; one in &quot;electromagnetism&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respectively, coming to a page and be able to see right away that the question is a &quot;misconception&quot; puts you in the right mindset for better understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now who would be allowed to set those tags? Probably the OP (although I can easily see how the OP would find very tempting to remove a not too glorious tag), the author of an accepted or upvoted answer, and also anyone with a large enough reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell this proposal would give a qualitative dimension to the question metric currently based on votes that would also take the answers into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="66da331d-8f08-46f6-99a4-157a817d9ed2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me address the root of the problem first: the criteria for using a Very Low Quality flag, at least as far as the moderators are concerned (currently), are laid out in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a VLQ flag appears in the moderator flag queue, my thought process is basically &quot;Can I read this? Yes: decline/No: accept&quot;. The answer in question is certainly readable, and I think we would agree that it does not meet the criteria quoted above. Its main problem is that it's wrong. That calls for it to be downvoted, but not flagged. If it were to be deleted by three delete votes from non-moderators, that wouldn't be the worst thing, but a VLQ flag is meant to indicate that something is so obviously worthless that it deserves swift and ruthless deletion, even from a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now let me address your individual points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, I checked and I'm the one who declined both those flags. (It shouldn't matter _who_ exactly did it, but I'm just saying you're getting the closest thing to an authoritative answer here.) This was done from the _moderator_ flag queue, not from the low-quality review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As described in [this MSE question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), if VLQ flags sit in their own queue for 15 minutes without being handled by the community, they are then added into the moderator flag queue. When the flags appear in the mod queue, we don't get any information about whether they are under review by the community or what the status of that review is; we only know that they have been sitting around for a certain amount of time and the community hasn't handled them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One _could_ take this as a sign that the VLQ queue is not doing its job, but it could also be the case that 15 minutes is too short to reflect the activity level for this site. This was discussed in the comments on that post, so I'd point you there for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, the biggest problem with these answers is that they are wrong. We already have a mechanism to distinguish right from wrong, namely voting. This takes into account that reasonable people often disagree on what is correct and what is not. If we additionally use flags to enforce consequences on wrong answers, that puts each individual moderator in the position of deciding right from wrong, and that's really not what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I've said I disagree with the premise. I think the system is designed the way it is for a reason: there is no other review mechanism for posts like these precisely because the site doesn't need to be kept clean from such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I think you have a point. While I would always like to see more high-rep users active in moderation, I do think the community is capable of handling most of its own moderation, and it might be useful to tweak the thresholds of the review system so that flags aren't bumped up to the moderator queue so quickly. This would require a bit of data analysis on flag handling times, but if people are agreed on that conclusion, we could make a request to the SE team to change the thresholds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, nothing compels us to host this kind of content. But again, the tricky part is deciding which content is worthy of hosting and which content is not, and in particular, _who_ makes that decision. Like I said, individual moderators shouldn't be expected to distinguish right from wrong. A consensus of high-rep users is better equipped to do it, but still, the main mechanism to indicate wrongness is by voting, not deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means stuff like &quot;jasfoijaw3fjpawejfp0awjefp0asj0pfoajks09ojk3meosoifmasd&quot;. (Yes, we do get posts like that.) Things that you can't even read. &quot;Severe content problems&quot; doesn't refer to the content being _wrong_, it refers to the content being _unintelligible_. The sort of thing that _any_ competent English speaker, whether or not they have any knowledge of physics, would be unable to make sense of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="4da32b00-c400-4a19-b928-520e3d948b7d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;[We discussed titles at length in the meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;One of the things the FAQ says is [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the FAQ tag there, which I believe indicates that the post there and its accepted answer is considered site standard.&#xD;&#xA;We should follow that standard whether or not we agree with the stylistic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter; we have a site standard and we should adhere to it.&#xD;&#xA;Consistency is much more important than choosing the right convention.&#xD;&#xA;For example, programmers have a variety of opinions on issues such as `camelCase` versus `lower_case_with_underscores` conventions for variable names.&#xD;&#xA;Most people agree that the choice doesn't matter nearly as much as consistency within a language or project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made that edit.&#xD;&#xA;I did it because we have a site standard for titles and I think it makes the front page much easier to read if all the titles conform to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DavidZ already pointed out, that edit was not about clarity, it was about conforming to site standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note that although I wrote both the question and answer, it was edited in accordance with the input from other users. I'm not just promoting my own opinion here. In fact, **the part about not capitalizing all words in titles was not written by me**. Also, I do not have the ability to put the FAQ tag on meta posts, so someone else with way more power than I decided to make that Q&amp;A the standard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="68b980ab-f57a-47d3-ae0f-84bacc4ecb78" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's something strange going on with [this answer][1] (visible to 10k+ users only). I seem to recall reading exactly the same answer written by the same users some days ago. It received some comments about the aether theory, and got negative rep. Nevertheless, the current answer is dated some minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is some kind of déjà-vu. I highly suspect that the original answer was deleted, and then it war repost word-by-word by the same user. I can't check my suspicions since I don't have 10k rep and I can't see deleted posts. Note that this is different from [this question][2], since the deleted and new answers are the same (iirc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone have a look at this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/274161/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7209/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="6ba9a530-a817-47d5-8622-4f4f3cc99498" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am a relatively new member of the site and haven't spent enough time to read through rules and meta posts yet to really understand how it all works. So when I see the occasional discussion in the comment section between highly ranked members of the site, I tend to make up my mind intuitively, keeping in mind that it should help the site remain an *open* forum, where *reasonable questions* about *physics* can be asked. Like I said, most people here have probably spent a lot more time thinking carefully about how to run the site and I appreciate that, but this is just how I generally think a forum should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I really enjoy this site and how it is run for the most part, but there are some questions where I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site. In particular the &quot;off-topic&quot; tag seems a bit off sometimes (sorry for the pun), since modern science is hardly ever part of a single subject (The most common overlap is gonna be [maths][1], but increasingly [biology][2] etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course one needs it to prevent questions that are nothing to do with physics. My main question here is: **when there is a physics component in the question and when in doubt wether it can be answered here, shouldn't the decision go in favor of the question?** I am happy to get to know about how the actual rules are intended, but I'd also like to know from an intuitive perspective for a new member of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other supporting factors, e.g. when the question has a good vote reception. The reason I am writing this post is such an example: [evolution/gluon question][3]. I can not see at all how this is off-topic and @Nathaniel comments seem quite reasonable in this context. There was a similar discussion on [this][4] one, but it luckily stayed open. Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have elaborated why I don't understand this type of off-topic closing of question, now I'd like to return to the title question and ask more generally than &quot;is Math always off-topic&quot; or &quot;is Biophysics always off-topic&quot;: **What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for? And why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7386/what-are-the-boundaries-of-biophysics-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249606/why-have-our-eyes-not-evolved-to-see-gluons&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248333/symbolic-dynamics-of-a-multidimensional-system/248842#248842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="241e9da4-8bf7-4f54-82e7-80ab42506482" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][5], the same question of mine has been reviewed once before this time. I wonder how dose the closure process start by a &quot;Leave open&quot; vote? (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:30 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][7], this question of mine has been closed by five votes. But there is just one close vote in the [review][8] page. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:45 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/137518&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mwplu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8896/about-questions-that-seem-stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review/close/214&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YLVgO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="de728549-5fba-4b0b-8597-1b1db582d021" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first question (currently) has 2 reopen votes, but [3 people said to leave it closed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/110249), so it has been removed from the [reopen queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It takes 5 people to reopen it (or one mod), so you need 3 more people with the appropriate level of privileges to get it reopened (oftentimes, bringing the post to Meta will result in the &quot;Meta effect&quot; where questions are reopened (deserved or not)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't think the second question is unclear](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/110410), but 5 other people thought so. Though in retrospect, your first part might be considered a duplicate of [**As the universe ages, will we see more stars or less?**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/90024/). It might be the second part that is considered unclear, though I'm not sure I'd agree with that and would hope one of the 5 close voters can comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there ***isn't*** a requirement that anyone comment on a question about *why* they're voting such a way that they have. It has been my experience that the first close-voter on a question would leave a comment about why they're voting such a way (e.g., &quot;It's not clear to me what you mean by ...&quot; or &quot;We are not a homework help site ...&quot;). I'm not sure why it wasn't done in this case, but, again, it's not a requirement so I *personally* am not concerned about the lack of the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I wouldn't put much stock in using votes as a rationale for your post being okay because (a) there is a small contingent of users on this site that give sympathy votes to (somehow) balance out downvotes and (b) even wildly off-topic questions get upvotes &amp; views simply because (interested) users like the question (I discussed this [previously as well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question/7276#7276))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="eee50918-fc5f-4215-a729-0985c8185a33" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**No, we should not introduce such meta-tags.** If you are not convinced of the general uselessness of meta-tags, let me address your proposals specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;technical&quot; is hopelessly subjective. What's technical to one user is pretty straightforward and easy to see to another. This is already apparent in the non-meta tag [mathematical-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics), which is often misused for questions that just include math, and would only get worse with such a pure meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;perspective&quot;...what makes a question &quot;open&quot;? Is a question &quot;open&quot; simply because it is vague and imprecise? Should questions not be *edited and clarified* instead of staying vague? This tag sounds like another variant of the already existing [soft-question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question), which is already a [pretty bad tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7551/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have already rejected the misconception tag [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7542/50583). As for &quot;common&quot;, who decides what is &quot;common&quot;? Does it suffice if the misconception is common among non-physicists (we are supposedly a site primarily for physicists, after all)? Do &quot;misconceptions&quot; count that are really more [lies-to-children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children)? What would a question *gain* from being tagged as being about a misconception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The idea of tagging &quot;well-posed questions and answers&quot; with special tags serves no purpose because there already is a mechanism in place to promote well-posed questions and well-written answers: Voting. Good content is highly upvoted, bad content is downvoted. If you see a need to tag questions with regard to their quality because the votes are not a good indicator of quality, then I would rather say [we need to change our voting behaviour](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) (I wrote that almost a year ago, but I would not say the situation has changed), not introduce tags for quality, as that would just lead to needless drama over who has the power to add or remove those tags and which questions should receive them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream questions get [closed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/50583), not tagged as &quot;speculative&quot;. Speculative question without firm grounding in physics also get closed as *too broad* or *primarily opinion-based*, I don't see many questions that can be on-topic that would deserve this tag, or of what use it would be to tag them such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;basic&quot; is again as subjective as &quot;technical&quot;, [every question should be &quot;conceptual&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583), we already have an [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics) tag (which is fine as it actually tells you something about the topic opf the question), there is already a [thought-experiment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thought-experiment) tag and its content looks rather random to me and not deserving of a common tag, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="a8f1453d-cb05-443c-aded-eaa90168e634" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) Speaking in general, the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag also covers journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from a practical point of view, why have different standards for books, software, etc? E.g. it seems they should all be [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;II) It seems relevant to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="1e16f16b-6617-471a-8b37-9fb3e8c97456" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is how I read the question, which is admittedly a bit more concrete than the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are huge experiments which are going to run in the future and are currently under development (which means that at least part of the funding is already secured and people start building something). By &quot;huge experiments&quot; I mean experiments of the LHC,LIGO type, which means that a) thousands of people of all continents are involved and spend or will spend a majority of their time on the project and b) the experiment really is one big experiment (such as one telescope, one detector, etc.) and not a very tightly connected net of smaller experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is a big-list question and, as you state, in principle off-topic. I don't think this is a reason to &quot;close as off-topic&quot;, because it's just a general &quot;big lists are off-topic&quot;. We should have a look at why big lists are off-topic. The best (?) reasons I could find are summarised by DavidZ: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi &#xD;&#xA;&gt;List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that these reasons are invalid for this particular question and that this particular question fits into the framework. Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question (as stated above) is precise, i.e. there is an objective way of judging the correctness of the answer: Is the experiment truly huge? Is it a physics experiment trying to explore physical concepts (on this ground, ITER might not really be a physics experiment) Is it past the initial exploration phase and under development? Is the experiment anticipated by parts of the physics community? This means that it is not overly opinion-based either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is sufficiently focused. Indeed, I would argue that it is not too broad per se: the number of experiments that fits the bill won't be too huge. I bet there are less than twenty experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Stack Exchange framework does allow for a number of good answers and can, in principle, support small lists (I'm not so sure about lists like on mathoverflow with dozens of pages) and it is particularly good for questions where maybe not one person has the complete answer, but a complete picture emerges from several good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While the question might not really &quot;end&quot;, activity is very restricted. Only every few years will there be new experiments that fit the bill. Also, by the nature of the question, even without additions it will stay up-to-date for several years, if not a decade. For me, this is stable enough (who knows what happens with Stack Exchange in ten years?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is interesting to researchers and enthusiasts alike. Hardly anyone knows all of these experiments, but many like to know whats going on outside their fields at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two points that might be problematic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a sense, this gives a lot of reputation for easy answers, because of the popularity of the question. To counteract this, one might impose a similar rule as on mathoverflow, where all answers are immediately community-wiki. Then again, almost everybody gets their reputation from easy answers, so maybe this is not a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clearly, the question garners a lot of attention. Maybe it draws away attention from better questions. I do not have a good counterargument other than that I feel this is true for almost all hot network questions, whether they are on-topic or not. Often, the physical content is even less than one can learn from the answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: I think that this is one of the very rare instances where such a list-based question should actually be on-topic for this site and I argued that the reasoning behind the close-policies allow for such a question to be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8975" RevisionGUID="fff401a5-40eb-40f7-8094-9bb2d2631173" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you can find a good edit to make to the question (or one of its answers), editing will bump the question to the top of the front page. This is an easy way to draw some attention to the question. However, make sure your edit actually _improves_ the question (or answer). An edit that just changes something but doesn't make the post better is not appropriate. You may want to read [our guidelines on editing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit) to get a sense of what constitutes an appropriate edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you have less than 2000 reputation, any edits you make will have to be reviewed by high-rep users before they get applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to bring attention to a question is to join [the chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and ask about it. Maybe someone else there can answer it, or at least will be willing to help you promote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the most effective way to bring attention to a question is to put a bounty on it, but you need to have at least 75 reputation for that. When you place a bounty, you give up your own reputation equal to the bounty amount, but in exchange the question gets [featured](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=featured) on the front page for a week. At the end of that time, you can award the bounty to an answer which was posted during that time period, and the poster of that answer gets an amount of reputation equal to what you gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should **not** ask the same question again. It'll get closed as a duplicate, and possibly downvoted for [insufficient research effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) (because we expect people to do some searching before posting a question, and your search should have turned up the earlier version of the question if you didn't already know about it). Even if you don't like the answers on the preexisting question, that doesn't stop it from being a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you're asking something _more_ than what the previous question asked, in the sense that a complete answer to the previous question would not answer what you're asking, then you can go ahead and post a new question. In this case you should link to the previous question and explain _very clearly_ what you are adding to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="93c4a307-3fc5-4c60-9bc1-3ea17caf0317" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Abstract**: Analyzing the data from [the last replace-the-homework-policy question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic) was inconclusive. So back to the drawing board, or really back to [our starting point](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy): what kinds of questions do we _really_ want to see closed? In particular, what are better ways to characterize our actual reasons for closing questions where we currently use the &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Important note**, because I guess this hasn't been clear in the past: the purpose of this series of posts is to come up with a _brand new_ set of guidelines for question closure. We are not reformulating or tweaking or improving our current homework policy. We are _replacing_ it entirely - that means we are getting rid of it and developing a new set of policies and close reasons, which will presumably make no mention of &quot;homework&quot; or &quot;homework-like&quot;. Once this process is done, there will be no homework policy and no &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some/many/most people are aware, we are in the midst of a [long-term project](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) to replace our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714) with a new set of guidelines that better reflect what people actually consider on topic and off topic. In the [first phase of this project](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic), we collected some example questions and voted on whether they should be on or off topic, to help clarify the new guidelines we want to come up with. I also collected some opinions on various qualities of these questions in [a separate survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform). The goal was to try to find some correlation between the topicality of the questions, as represented by the score, and one or a few of the attributes, and that would tell us what are the main factors people consider while voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out... that doesn't work very well. I spent a long time [tinkering with the data](https://gist.github.com/diazona/dc434e5121c441e5a31fa0c934ab725d) and basically what I found is that people's opinions vary widely, making it hard to draw meaningful conclusions. The first thing I checked was whether any individual factor from the survey correlated well to people's impression of whether a question was on topic. There were some correlations with physical context and interest, and to a lesser extent level and effort, and an anticorrelation with tediousness (this means that within our data set, people are more likely to consider questions which concern tedious calculations _on topic_), but none of these are very strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![correlation heatmap between factors and scores][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also looked at whether a combination of factors could provide a good discriminator between on-topic and off-topic questions, in a couple different ways. First, a partial least squares regression to test whether some linear combination of ratings would be able to accurately predict the scores of the questions, but that didn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plot of predicted vs measured scores][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other approach, which I think best mirrors how the actual close-voting logic works, is to find a set of factors such that the on-topic questions rate highly on all factors but each off-topic question rates low on one or more of them. This plot shows the mean minus one standard deviation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the distribution of ratings for each of the highest-score (most clearly on-topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean minus standard deviation of on-topic question ratings][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is the equivalent, showing mean plus one standard deviation, for the lowest-score (most clearly off topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean plus standard deviation of off-topic question ratings][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a group of one or a few rating factors such that the corresponding columns in the top plot are all red or white, and the columns in the bottom plot between them contain one blue cell for each question. Unfortunately, there is no clear candidate. I even had the computer go through all possible combinations of rating factors to test them out, and all the combinations in which the on-topic questions rank high have large uncertainties in the off-topic questions, and vice-versa. The one factor that does keep popping up is &quot;check-my-work-ness&quot;, which _may_ be an indicator that people agree that questions just asking us to check work are off topic and that we do okay at identifying which questions those are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the point seems to be that none of the factors in the survey are a particularly good proxy for how we decide whether questions are on or off topic. (And remember, we're mostly talking about questions which we currently close or might consider closing using the homework-like reason.) So before we proceed, I want to throw the question back to the community in a revisit of [the question where I first tried to collect possible close reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7407/124). In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we _actually_ have in mind? Or, how could we do more research to work this out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The idea is to identify clearly on-topic questions as those for which something approximating the 68% confidence interval of the score is entirely positive, indicating a high score and clear agreement on that score. It's basically the same idea underlying e.g. the [reddit scoring algorithm](https://medium.com/hacking-and-gonzo/how-reddit-ranking-algorithms-work-ef111e33d0d9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLtzX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kGI3m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cprj9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AjzVK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="ca72f9e3-d80e-4a2c-a0c5-c2df9e5b3685" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="While reviewing I often have to make this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hi and welcome to the Physics SE! Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automated way to write this comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to keep its copy somewhere else and copy-paste it every time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or there is some shortcut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="144c97a2-a407-419f-989f-8bb6ffd0b23f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a *certain* subset -not necessarily all of the domain where the function is defined-, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] question, linked by Qmechanic, whom I thank, is quite related to what I am asking here, but I am focussing on a rather different issue: the &quot;on-topicness&quot; of questions about mathematical proofs involving mathematical objects subjected to assumptions defined by the methods of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][2] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][3] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="6b9adc3f-1386-425e-ae4e-36afa855504a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[An apparent inconsistency in the form of Spin-z operator for spin 1/2 system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework type question in that it is an exercise from Sakurai's QM book basically about forms of the zero and projection operators for hermitian operators. I think the close tag doesn't suit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows a lot of effort (most of the question is done and they even latex'd it in the link). As I've commented in the post that the close reason is essentially &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*punishing a user for doing more work than less work. One could've easily said 'I don't know what the operator in part b) is' and done nowhere near as much work as op. If op didn't have a mistake he/she wouldn't have asked the question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in fairness Sakurai is a fairly well used book so in principle could be useful to future users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However* it is essentially a **where's my mistake** type problem which isn't on topic, so I understand that, but I also don't agree with the reasoning  &quot;*If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher*&quot; - [here on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) which might for example punish a student that is self motivated to work over a summer break, where the teacher/lecturer is busy, and maybe other classmates/friends don't want to be doing physics over a break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271287/an-apparent-inconsistency-in-the-form-of-spin-z-operator-for-spin-1-2-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="24f6aa08-86b0-4418-91e8-3e025ddf4de5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At this point I have written and erased several strongly worded paragraphs expressing my intense frustration with the *entitlement* expressed in your question. You seem to assume that our purpose here is to be a resource for you in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if that is not why we are gathered here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things you could have done to find out if we were going to want to solve elementary problems for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could have taken [the tour][1].&#xD;&#xA;* You could have read some of the pages in [the help center][2]. Particularly those about [what kinds of questions are welcome][3] and [what kinds are not][4].&#xD;&#xA;* After [your first questions][5] was put on-hold as being too homework-like, you could have read [the link included in the system generated on-hold message][6] that contains guidance on how to ask questions about elementary topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I note that some of your questions have been left open and answered. That's because we're not responding negatively to you as a person but to a particular request that you keep making of us: we don't want to be a homework help-site, and we don't care if the questions were assigned as part of a class or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point *you* have to take responsibility for understanding what this site is and is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246899/the-efficiency-of-a-rough-inclined-plane-is-given-90-the-energy-spent-in-raisi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="aa73a16c-c283-42c6-8167-ee8efd414f08" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to [this question][1] the marking a question as &quot;favorite&quot; is so that you can come back to it, i.e. it is sort of a bookmark. This is also how I have been using it, but for mainly two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I see a question that does not have a satisfactory answer and I think I know enough about the topic to **write an answer in the future**, but need to do some research first to make it sound.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A good answer/question that is useful to me and that I would like to **read and understand in more detail later**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it turns out that the favorite tag is not actually very good for that. I marked a lot of questions that I could answer with favorite, but never got around to doing that. Now I can't find the questions that I wanted to read in detail anymore, cause they are buried in all the others. Of course that is really just my fault for using the feature in a stupid way. I was wondering though **how other people organize their favorite question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore would it be possible to **implement a feature that makes this organization easier?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/what-is-the-mark-favorite-question-for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="6a90cd00-79c9-4ebf-a88b-f60f52493940" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; 3. ...the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;That.&#xD;&#xA;As I've argued [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy/7163#7163), there is absolutely no reason at all that the criteria for judging a post should depend on whether or not that post comes from a homework assignment or from an educational institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, that distinction is absurd; should questions arising from original research done in graduate *school* be subjected to different criteria than questions arising from my *job* in an industrial lab?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;That's not only hard to enforce, it's pants-on-our-head stupid.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a physics question comes from homework is entirely irrelevant to whether or not that question adds value to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large fraction of posts coming from homework *are* bad, but it's not because they're from homework, it's because the posts don't ask anything conceptual or show any effort.&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate by a converse example, suppose I were to post this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is the transition rate of a two level quantum system coupled by strength g to a thermal environment at temperature T?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a question straight out of my real research job; it's not homework, but it's also not a good post.&#xD;&#xA;I should show some work and identify the conceptual (or even technical) step where I'm stuck, and then focus my question on that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="33a80ff6-ee58-4697-80c3-c8e2ee35b783" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3) is the most recent word on the matter, and that says software recommendation questions are off topic. I would group the question you're thinking about asking in the same category, and consider it off topic. It could also easily qualify as opinion-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could bring your question up in our [chat room](//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), or it might be on topic at the [Scientific Computation](//scicomp.stackexchange.com) site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9095" RevisionGUID="c30ff8a5-2769-4eb8-9efc-3960949034c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is my take on the matter. First, let's think about what Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites are good for and what they are not good for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Q&amp;A site needs Questions, which can be answered in a concise fashion. There may be several good answers, but if a question needs books to be answered or many answers covering different topics (and thus many pages of answers), it's not a good fit.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that are an especially good fit are questions where there can be different angles from which to approach it so that many good answers can emerge. This also gives meaning to question ranking.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that spark discussions are a bad fit. &#xD;&#xA;- The specific idea of Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites is that the answers to questions and the questions themselves should be interesting to a broader audience. &#xD;&#xA;- If the questions are not interesting for very many people, they need to be of research quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as I see it, we have some tradeoff: If Q is the quality of the question in terms of how many people could answer it (&quot;research quality&quot;) and A is the audience that can get some new understanding from the question, then the product QA should be large for good questions. This leaves room for conceptual questions about basic theories as well as high level and extremely specific questions about research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we agree on the above, here is my take on what should be closed and what shouldn't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check-my-work:** Questions like &quot;Where is my mistake?&quot; or &quot;Did I do it right?&quot; come in two flavours: The first questions make one of a few very common mistakes. Those mistakes are common, because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. They should be closed but could be reworded to ask a conceptual question about the theory, which is interesting for many people. The other type of questions are just algebraic/mathematical mistakes. There are a myriad ways to make mistakes and thus the answer to the question is mostly only interesting to the asker and it usually also is of bad &quot;research quality&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; Close as check-my-work. If you think there is actually an interesting conceptual misunderstanding in the question, rewrite it and/or leave a comment. Then the question can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really low research effort:** Since most of the audience arrives by search engines, those people will actually do a Google search. If this will directly lead them to a Wikipedia article, what do they gain by coming here? So aside from the fact that low effort questions might disparage researchers from staying on the site, they should be closed because they don't actually have an audience: Why should you come here to get a link to the Wikipedia page you could already see in your Google search results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;  Close as &quot;low effort&quot;, if the question could be commented on by &quot;What about this [Wikipedia/other well-known source that pops up if you type the question into a search engine] is unclear&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are in my opinion the &quot;easy&quot; ones. Now come the &quot;hard&quot; ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Low effort) problems:** These are questions that essentially ask for the solution to a homework problem while providing or not providing own ideas. The problem with these questions is two-fold: a) if the asking party actually wants to understand the problem, you'd need to discuss with them --&gt; that's not a good fit for Q&amp;A, b) the audience for these questions is often only the asker him/herself (see &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a close reason such as &quot;no sufficient audience&quot; won't work and will only spark more discussion, as will &quot;homework&quot; ('oh, but that's not homework, I thought about this exercise myself'). One of the biggest problems is also that these questions are best answered by working with the person and asking questions and giving rough sketches and approaches - so they are just a bad fit anyway. This is particularly true for many questions where the author posts a lengthy and detailed list of her own failed effort. While those questions do signal that the author of the question doesn't just try to dump his problem on us, they are just generally a bad fit for Q&amp;A sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One idea could be the following: Introduce a close reason &quot;not conceptual&quot; and apply it to any questions, asking for one solution to a problem where most variables come with numbers attached. This would allow questions asking about how to generally approach inclined plane problems where a set of parameters is given, but it would disallow questions asking about inclined plane problems with a specific set of parameters (for instance and angle of 45°). Having a rule like &quot;A questions where a lot of variables are fixed is closed&quot; would eliminate some of the ambiguity of the word &quot;conceptual&quot;. It would also allow questions asking for different ways to approach some problem, which in my opinion is a valid conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pure calculations:** Calculations are also difficult, because they can come at any level - and any difficulty. Most calculation questions are only interesting for the person asking them, so they should be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often when somebody reads a paper, he/she may stumble over some step in a calculation or some line of an argument that they don't understand. What about such questions? Now, often, we can refer those questions to math.stackexchange and be done with it, but often the questions may involve physical approximations and are better left here. Not understanding some equation in a paper is something extremely common - sometimes the equation is also just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a platform to ask these questions would be a valuable aid to research, because it could save a lot of time (the idea of course being that I invest some time to explain details in a paper that I understood easily, saving the asker hours or days of searching, while some other times, I am the one asking). In principle, they are also a good fit for Q&amp;A and they should have a decent QA product. If we had arXiv-feedback, this could actually help other readers of the paper and enhance overall research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't want to explain simple equivalence transformations in middle school textbooks, where the person was just too lazy to think about it for five minutes. And we don't want to do calculations in research papers that were left out, because they are tedious but foundational to the field and can be looked up in text books asking person is just too lazy to do them him/herself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to distinguish these two? If we want to have more people here who are doing research, it might be a good idea to allow paper questions and disallow all others (this would at least get rid of ambiguities). This is somewhat in line with the idea (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/7409#7409)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but tries to be a bit more inclusive for research-level questions and a bit more exclusive to avoid ambiguities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One suggestion (needs work): Close non-paper related questions, which want to do outsource calculations with a specific &quot;tedious calculation&quot; close-reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="76b95df7-3720-4421-9d8d-a910cb235f39" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I asked a question on physics stack exchange. It was closed with a reference to [faq guidelines][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the question that was closed: [Maximum period of a vertically spinning ball][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that while this was not a &quot;homework&quot; question, I can understand that it is classified as a homework question according to the faq referenced above. The wisdom of applying &quot;homework&quot; tag to my question is still mysterious to me since the definition of that tag is so general that it can be applied to almost any question that asks for application of general concepts to a particular problem. But that's not the issue that I want addressed. Let's assume that it is indeed a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that I want to address is **(1) how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines][1]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do not find any inconsistencies with the guidelines myself, I have to assume that such inconsistency does exist since it was closed. If that inconsistency can be pointed, I'd also appreciate a pointer or two on **(2) how to ask an &quot;acceptable&quot; question that qualifies as &quot;homework&quot; under the guidelines.** By &quot;acceptable&quot; I mean a question that won't be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239661/maximum-period-of-a-vertically-spinning-ball" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="b1e70f4f-9e96-4e88-bcb2-b24ebceb52e2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am a relatively new member of the site and haven't spent enough time to read through rules and meta posts yet to really understand how it all works. So when I see the occasional discussion in the comment section between highly ranked members of the site, I tend to make up my mind intuitively, keeping in mind that it should help the site remain an *open* forum, where *reasonable questions* about *physics* can be asked. Like I said, most people here have probably spent a lot more time thinking carefully about how to run the site and I appreciate that, but this is just how I generally think a forum should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I really enjoy this site and how it is run for the most part, but there are some questions where I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site. In particular the &quot;off-topic&quot; tag seems a bit off sometimes (sorry for the pun), since modern science is hardly ever part of a single subject (The most common overlap is gonna be [maths][1], but increasingly [biology][2] etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course one needs it to prevent questions that are nothing to do with physics. My main question here is: **when there is a physics component in the question and when in doubt wether it can be answered here, shouldn't the decision go in favor of the question?** I am happy to get to know about how the actual rules are intended, but I'd also like to know from an intuitive perspective for a new member of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other supporting factors, e.g. when the question has a good vote reception. The reason I am writing this post is such an example: [evolution/gluon question][3]. I can not see at all how this is off-topic and @Nathaniel comments seem quite reasonable in this context. There was a similar discussion on [this][4] one, but it luckily stayed open. Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have elaborated why I don't understand this type of off-topic closing of question, now I'd like to return to the title question and ask more generally than &quot;is Math always off-topic&quot; or &quot;is Biophysics always off-topic&quot;: **What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for? And why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7386/what-are-the-boundaries-of-biophysics-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249606/why-have-our-eyes-not-evolved-to-see-gluons&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248333/symbolic-dynamics-of-a-multidimensional-system/248842#248842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="93a9234e-94e4-4262-b922-1ccad6906d62" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The main mechanism for the reversal of serial voting is automated, because the moderators have access only to summaries of inter-user voting, (not to detailed records) *even when our tools alert us to the existence of unusual patterns in voting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alleging that the moderators aren't doing their job on this is simply silly: it's mostly not our job because the scripts take care of it. None-the-less I've looked into the findings of the automated system related to your account. I can assure you that the system has found no unusual pattern of downvoting directed at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to you to think up some alternative explanation for the large number of downvotes that you receive. Or you could ask for opinions in the chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to take this further, use the &quot;[contact us][1]&quot; link to be found at the bottom of every page: it will let you message the system wide moderation team directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="e348c9c3-d267-4d3b-bb60-8d777d75105b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been looking at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations which is a catalogue of links to resource recommendation questions. For me it has been (in combination with the individual resource recommendations that are linked in the wiki) one of the most useful things on physics.SE. So thank you to the creators! I absolutely love it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wanted to ask if it is still getting updated?** I've found a few questions that would maybe fit in quite well (although I'm not sure what the criteria are exactly are other than &quot;not too specialised&quot;). Just to give a few of the questions that don't seem to be listed and seem to fit the criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maths: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127376&#xD;&#xA; - QFT: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-question seems related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was there a conclusion/decision about the topic? It doesn't seem to say in the meta-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="7bbf3e28-0638-4cb2-a375-438182700fb8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [at the time of closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7) contains a lot of fluff which makes it an easy target for the gray area around the homework policy. The question in its [current form](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/9) is far from excellent but it passes the test as it explicitly asks a conceptual question; I have voted to reopen it and hopefully others will agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that your edit invalidates much of the existing answer, which is a big sign that the question was ill-posed to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your general point - the guidelines are not inconsistent, but they do include a significant amount of value judgement which, when applied incorrectly, is resolved exactly as you have - by posting here on meta. There is a long-standing effort to reduce this ambiguity but that is a hard problem; the latest bout is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy). If you have any constructive suggestions we'll be glad to hear them out - just be aware that this is a long and [storied](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) problem, and you do need to understand both what the problem is, what the previous solutions have been, and what their pitfalls were, to have a real chance at proposing something that will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="bbd03598-25ba-45ca-afc5-1f50fdaf0a76" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Abstract**: Analyzing the data from [the last replace-the-homework-policy question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic) was inconclusive. So back to the drawing board, or really back to [our starting point](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy): what kinds of questions do we _really_ want to see closed? In particular, what are better ways to characterize our actual reasons for closing questions where we currently use the &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Important note**, because I guess this hasn't been clear in the past: the purpose of this series of posts is to come up with a _brand new_ set of guidelines for question closure. We are not reformulating or tweaking or improving our current homework policy. We are _replacing_ it entirely - that means we are getting rid of it and developing a new set of policies and close reasons, which will presumably make no mention of &quot;homework&quot; or &quot;homework-like&quot;. Once this process is done, there will be no homework policy and no &quot;homework-like&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some/many/most people are aware, we are in the midst of a [long-term project](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) to replace our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714) with a new set of guidelines that better reflect what people actually consider on topic and off topic. In the [first phase of this project](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic), we collected some example questions and voted on whether they should be on or off topic, to help clarify the new guidelines we want to come up with. I also collected some opinions on various qualities of these questions in [a separate survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform). The goal was to try to find some correlation between the topicality of the questions, as represented by the score, and one or a few of the attributes, and that would tell us what are the main factors people consider while voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out... that doesn't work very well. I spent a long time [tinkering with the data](https://gist.github.com/diazona/dc434e5121c441e5a31fa0c934ab725d) and basically what I found is that people's opinions vary widely, making it hard to draw meaningful conclusions. The first thing I checked was whether any individual factor from the survey correlated well to people's impression of whether a question was on topic. There were some correlations with physical context and interest, and to a lesser extent level and effort, and an anticorrelation with tediousness (this means that within our data set, people are more likely to consider questions which concern tedious calculations _on topic_), but none of these are very strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![correlation heatmap between factors and scores][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also looked at whether a combination of factors could provide a good discriminator between on-topic and off-topic questions, in a couple different ways. First, a partial least squares regression to test whether some linear combination of ratings would be able to accurately predict the scores of the questions, but that didn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plot of predicted vs measured scores][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other approach, which I think best mirrors how the actual close-voting logic works, is to find a set of factors such that the on-topic questions rate highly on all factors but each off-topic question rates low on one or more of them. This plot shows the mean minus one standard deviation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the distribution of ratings for each of the highest-score (most clearly on-topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean minus standard deviation of on-topic question ratings][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is the equivalent, showing mean plus one standard deviation, for the lowest-score (most clearly off topic) sample questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![mean plus standard deviation of off-topic question ratings][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a group of one or a few rating factors such that the corresponding columns in the top plot are all red or white, and the columns in the bottom plot between them contain one blue cell for each question. Unfortunately, there is no clear candidate. I even had the computer go through all possible combinations of rating factors to test them out, and all the combinations in which the on-topic questions rank high have large uncertainties in the off-topic questions, and vice-versa. The one factor that does keep popping up is &quot;check-my-work-ness&quot;, which _may_ be an indicator that people agree that questions just asking us to check work are off topic and that we do okay at identifying which questions those are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the point seems to be that none of the factors in the survey are a particularly good proxy for how we decide whether questions are on or off topic. (And remember, we're mostly talking about questions which we currently close or might consider closing using the homework-like reason.) So before we proceed, I want to throw the question back to the community in a revisit of [the question where I first tried to collect possible close reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7407/124). In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we _actually_ have in mind? Or, how could we do more research to work this out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The idea is to identify clearly on-topic questions as those for which something approximating the 68% confidence interval of the score is entirely positive, indicating a high score and clear agreement on that score. It's basically the same idea underlying e.g. the [reddit scoring algorithm](https://medium.com/hacking-and-gonzo/how-reddit-ranking-algorithms-work-ef111e33d0d9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLtzX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kGI3m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cprj9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AjzVK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="ef3ec55a-e638-4faf-bf5e-dbd99ea715dd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just today, the Community bot bumped a [three-year old question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table). It's also recently bumped a [half-year old question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now about 1/10 of the posts on the 'active questions' meta tab are bumps from Community. I don't think this helps at all, and it worsens the signal-to-noise ratio. Can this be disabled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="cbcc35a1-5e89-4a99-9beb-5106445304d4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your profile does not show that you are currently affected by any unusual restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the [contact us][1] link at the bottom of each page allows you to contact the Stack Exchange community-wide moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="238233a7-b3c7-4718-8a1c-e85c8a8ada35" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I asked a [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/243740) which was based on a conceptual confusion, as was revealed by the excellent answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It made me think that it would be nice if that fact was visible straight away for anyone coming to the page. There would be a second line of tags, relating to the nature of the question, and in my case one could see in that line the tag &quot;misconception&quot; (that I would have added after having read the answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tags that come to mind would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;technical&quot; for the discussion of a technical point&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;perspective&quot; for open questions such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242814&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;common-misconception&quot; for questions such as the ones listed &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6063/109928&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;reference&quot; for well-posed questions with good answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;canonical&quot; for even better-posed questions with even better answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;speculative&quot; for questions found to be not quite in line with mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;basic&quot;, &quot;conceptual&quot;, &quot;experimental&quot;, &quot;thought-experiment&quot;, &quot;factual&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a set of tags would make the site even more useful. For example I would love to browse the &quot;experimental&quot; collection in &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;, or the &quot;reference&quot; one in &quot;electromagnetism&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respectively, coming to a page and be able to see right away that the question is a &quot;misconception&quot; puts you in the right mindset for better understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now who would be allowed to set those tags? Probably the OP (although I can easily see how the OP would find very tempting to remove a not too glorious tag), the author of an accepted or upvoted answer, and also anyone with a large enough reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell this proposal would give a qualitative dimension to the question metric currently based on votes that would also take the answers into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="fde5ea28-0bb4-4714-8a09-db1339928265" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is how I read the question, which is admittedly a bit more concrete than the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are huge experiments which are going to run in the future and are currently under development (which means that at least part of the funding is already secured and people start building something). By &quot;huge experiments&quot; I mean experiments of the LHC,LIGO type, which means that a) thousands of people of all continents are involved and spend or will spend a majority of their time on the project and b) the experiment really is one big experiment (such as one telescope, one detector, etc.) and not a very tightly connected net of smaller experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is a big-list question and, as you state, in principle off-topic. I don't think this is a reason to &quot;close as off-topic&quot;, because it's just a general &quot;big lists are off-topic&quot;. We should have a look at why big lists are off-topic. The best (?) reasons I could find are summarised by DavidZ: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi &#xD;&#xA;&gt;List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that these reasons are invalid for this particular question and that this particular question fits into the framework. Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question (as stated above) is precise, i.e. there is an objective way of judging the correctness of the answer: Is the experiment truly huge? Is it a physics experiment trying to explore physical concepts (on this ground, ITER might not really be a physics experiment) Is it past the initial exploration phase and under development? Is the experiment anticipated by parts of the physics community? This means that it is not overly opinion-based either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is sufficiently focused. Indeed, I would argue that it is not too broad per se: the number of experiments that fits the bill won't be too huge. I bet there are less than twenty experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Stack Exchange framework does allow for a number of good answers and can, in principle, support small lists (I'm not so sure about lists like on mathoverflow with dozens of pages) and it is particularly good for questions where maybe not one person has the complete answer, but a complete picture emerges from several good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While the question might not really &quot;end&quot;, activity is very restricted. Only every few years will there be new experiments that fit the bill. Also, by the nature of the question, even without additions it will stay up-to-date for several years, if not a decade. For me, this is stable enough (who knows what happens with Stack Exchange in ten years?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is interesting to researchers and enthusiasts alike. Hardly anyone knows all of these experiments, but many like to know whats going on outside their fields at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two points that might be problematic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a sense, this gives a lot of reputation for easy answers, because of the popularity of the question. To counteract this, one might impose a similar rule as on mathoverflow, where all answers are immediately community-wiki. Then again, almost everybody gets their reputation from easy answers, so maybe this is not a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clearly, the question garners a lot of attention. Maybe it draws away attention from better questions. I do not have a good counterargument other than that I feel this is true for almost all hot network questions, whether they are on-topic or not. Often, the physical content is even less than one can learn from the answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: I think that this is one of the very rare instances where such a list-based question should actually be on-topic for this site and I argued that the reasoning behind the close-policies allow for such a question to be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="b7e9014b-0bf6-4d17-ac3c-be3a1a98e68b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Summary ##&#xD;&#xA;I made a week-long list of all the questions closed due to the homework flag and tried to gauge whether they were showing any effort at all. This idea came up during a chat session when we were talking about the new physics Q&amp;A site proposal and our homework policy. The hope is to give a few examples of questions that are discussion-worthy (and of questions that are definitely not) and to obtain a feeling for the relative amount of each of those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Introduction ##&#xD;&#xA;During the chat session of November the first, the question of the homework policy (reformulation) came up again, especially with reference to the [turned down new site proposal on SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) and [the newly opened help website](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site). This led us to consider what kind of questions we would like to be answered there (but not here) and in what way this could affect this site here. (All quotes are from the [chat protocol](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-11-1-16).)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;David Z: I think it would be useful to have some examples of questions that would be considered good and on topic at the hypothetical new site, from those who are involved in setting it up.&#xD;&#xA;Better yet, to have examples of questions which would be on topic there and off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of searching I was not able to find many well written questions closed due to the homework reason and it was not only me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Rennie :Having gone through a few pages of the search I posted above it's striking how few questions do show significant effort by the OP. The vast majority just post the question and ask how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further down the conversation I asked whether the amount of questions which really showed effort but still get closed under the current site policy is that substantial at all. Questions of this form would e.g. be of the &quot;did I do something wrong?&quot;-kind or &quot;I am stuck at this point in my solution attempt&quot;-kind. David wanted to take that to the meta to discuss, but I wanted to collect a bit of data first.&#xD;&#xA;## Method ##&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st of November after the chat session until the 8th of November I regularly visited [this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=1&amp;tab=newest&amp;q=is%3aq%20closed%3ayes) of newly closed questions on Physics SE, went through the last 24h and singled out all questions closed for homework reasons. I recorded them and for each of them I gave an estimate whether they could - maybe with a small bit of editing - be made into nice questions that do not fit in with our policy but *do* show effort at solution by the OP. I realise that a) questions get deleted sometimes rather quickly, so I might have easily missed some, b) this is all a bit subjective and c) a week is not that much time. But still, to me it seems like it will be nice to have a bit of a data-based feeling for what we are actually talking about when we are talking about redoing the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;## Results ##&#xD;&#xA;From 87 questions that I recorded as closed due to homework-reasons, I would grade 64 as showing no effort at all. This is 74% of the questions closed for that reason, but still - 23 questions remain. This surprised me, to be honest, and in my mind it is a good reason to actually build up an alternative site for good, well-written &quot;homework&quot;-questions.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be happy about other people doing the same to obtain a bit more data :D I also hope this helps us to decide better when considering how and whether to modify the homework policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Appendix - List and Links of Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;showing effort&quot; or &quot;being salvagable through small edits&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove that internal energy for a system whose temperature is negative is bounded between 1/2 and 1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290321/how-to-prove-that-internal-energy-for-a-system-whose-temperature-is-negative-is) ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BuuH0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Molecular simulation of ideal gas- descriptive statistical analysis](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290173/molecular-simulation-of-ideal-gas-descriptive-statistical-analysis)  ([png 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jz2e1.png), [png 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixTss.png))  &#xD;&#xA;[Question about Galilean relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290362/question-about-galilean-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the charges on each Capacitor after a long time](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290636/find-the-charges-on-each-capacitor-after-a-long-time)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Si8bJ.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Work and kinetic energy on an incline?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290728/work-and-kinetic-energy-on-an-incline)  &#xD;&#xA;[A neutron (rest mass 940MeV/c 2 ) is measured in the lab to have energy 2GeV](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290729/a-neutron-rest-mass-940mev-c-2-is-measured-in-the-lab-to-have-energy-2gev)  &#xD;&#xA;[work and change of kenetic energy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290987/work-and-change-of-kenetic-energy)  &#xD;&#xA;[A block is pushed onto a conveyor belt](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290984/a-block-is-pushed-onto-a-conveyor-belt)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSDFI.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Lagrangian for double Atwood machine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290922/lagrangian-for-double-atwood-machine)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGfwu.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the acceleration for a given mass and velocity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291081/find-the-acceleration-for-a-given-mass-and-velocity)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8JkA9.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Pully and Inclined Ramp](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291059/pully-and-inclined-ramp)  &#xD;&#xA;[Uncertainty in the angle by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291053/uncertainty-in-the-angle-by-using-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric Field at Centre of Hemispherical Cup](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291022/electric-field-at-centre-of-hemispherical-cup)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GaVyY.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Oscillation of charge problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291147/oscillation-of-charge-problem)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L6dS0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the time of movement if the maximal height is equal to the distance of fall](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291133/find-the-time-of-movement-if-the-maximal-height-is-equal-to-the-distance-of-fall)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wjIYQ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Two flashes of light for two observers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291265/two-flashes-of-light-for-two-observers)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qSXZZ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Finding the period of a system in simple harmonic motion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291253/finding-the-period-of-a-system-in-simple-harmonic-motion)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to find the amount of work done against gravity from an object moving diagonally?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291248/how-to-find-the-amount-of-work-done-against-gravity-from-an-object-moving-diagon)  &#xD;&#xA;[Propeller torque on the shaft when rotational speed and Thrust is given](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291171/propeller-torque-on-the-shaft-when-rotational-speed-and-thrust-is-given)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hkt61.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia, lab exercise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291377/moment-of-inertia-lab-exercise)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vticH.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Time needed for photon to reach the surface of a white dwarf ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291294/time-needed-for-photon-to-reach-the-surface-of-a-white-dwarf)  &#xD;&#xA;[Energy conservation … Basic qustion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291266/energy-conservation-basic-qustion)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BZ3RW.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Quantitative Study of Mirage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291535/quantitative-study-of-mirage)  &#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;no effort shown&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Linear motion problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290130/linear-motion-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron moving with 0.99c?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290129/magnitude-of-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electron-moving-with-0-99c)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is expected from switch S?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290098/what-is-expected-from-switch-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Minimum velocity for a charged particle to go through all the magnetic field's zone](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290075/minimum-velocity-for-a-charged-particle-to-go-through-all-the-magnetic-fields-z)  &#xD;&#xA;[conservation of momentum and energy to find speed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290051/conservation-of-momentum-and-energy-to-find-speed)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the flux of a charge through a finite plane](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290032/find-the-flux-of-a-charge-through-a-finite-plane)  &#xD;&#xA;[Statistical physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290031/statistical-physics)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the velocity of the particle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle)  &#xD;&#xA;[a question of pulley and monkey](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey)  &#xD;&#xA;[A projectile question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290236/classical-action)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oliver has a mass of 70.5kg and can throw a 542.0g rock with a speed of 10.4m/s. What would Oliver's recoil speed be if he were on an icy surface?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290285/oliver-has-a-mass-of-70-5kg-and-can-throw-a-542-0g-rock-with-a-speed-of-10-4m-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Parachutist jumps out of plane - Find work (parachute)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290286/parachutist-jumps-out-of-plane-find-work-parachute)  &#xD;&#xA;[Damped harmonic oscillator differential equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290292/damped-harmonic-oscillator-differential-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[A question of projectile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I find distance if I have acceleration and time?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290232/how-do-i-find-distance-if-i-have-acceleration-and-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the equivalent resistance seen from the E6 generator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290228/calculate-the-equivalent-resistance-seen-from-the-e6-generator)  &#xD;&#xA;[Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290218/eigenvalues-of-hamiltonian)  &#xD;&#xA;[Deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier-Stokes equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290175/deriving-bernoullis-equation-from-navier-stokes-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[state the different levels of stress and strain in a rigid body](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290361/state-the-different-levels-of-stress-and-strain-in-a-rigid-body)  &#xD;&#xA;[Bosonic and Fermionic harmonic oscillators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290365/bosonic-and-fermionic-harmonic-oscillators)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics of system of particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290372/mechanics-of-system-of-particles)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric field between three parallel plates](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290480/electric-field-between-three-parallel-plates)  &#xD;&#xA;[From special relativity to general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290461/from-special-relativity-to-general-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove the following Dirac matrices identity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290434/how-to-prove-the-following-dirac-matrices-identity)  &#xD;&#xA;[angular spread in the angle of refraction of the beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290418/angular-spread-in-the-angle-of-refraction-of-the-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[minimum area of the disc to collect all light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290415/minimum-area-of-the-disc-to-collect-all-light)  &#xD;&#xA;[Nutcracker problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290394/nutcracker-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantum Physics Easy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290667/quantum-physics-easy)  &#xD;&#xA;[By how much does the image move when the object is moved by 10cm in the given lens configuration?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290645/by-how-much-does-the-image-move-when-the-object-is-moved-by-10cm-in-the-given-le)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the acceleration of point D and E when F = 125N?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290644/what-is-the-acceleration-of-point-d-and-e-when-f-125n)  &#xD;&#xA;[Examination Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290641/examination-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I prove that a disk charge resembles a point charge if its radius shrinks to 0? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290573/how-do-i-prove-that-a-disk-charge-resembles-a-point-charge-if-its-radius-shrinks)  &#xD;&#xA;[How does the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor vary as the length of the dielectric inside it changes?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290546/how-does-the-capacitance-of-a-parallel-plate-capacitor-vary-as-the-length-of-the)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I express this. If I use Lorenz transform, It depends on mc2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290538/how-do-i-express-this-if-i-use-lorenz-transform-it-depends-on-mc2)  &#xD;&#xA;[moving object - vectors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290687/moving-object-vectors)  &#xD;&#xA;[The classical theory of fields - Landau book problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290710/the-classical-theory-of-fields-landau-book-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculating Magnitude of Force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290837/calculating-magnitude-of-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the relationships between radius, velocity and centripetal force on an object?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290739/what-are-the-relationships-between-radius-velocity-and-centripetal-force-on-an)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electrons during radioactive decay](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291006/electrons-during-radioactive-decay)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics problem and confusion regarding reference frame calculation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290965/mechanics-problem-and-confusion-regarding-reference-frame-calculation)  &#xD;&#xA;[An object that is not accelerating or decelerating has zero net force acting on it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290955/an-object-that-is-not-accelerating-or-decelerating-has-zero-net-force-acting-on)  &#xD;&#xA;[Confusion on conservation of angular momentum](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290938/confusion-on-conservation-of-angular-momentum)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational Imbalance](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290930/rotational-imbalance)&#xD;&#xA;[Does a current-carrying solenoid exert force on itself ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291079/does-a-current-carrying-solenoid-exert-force-on-itself)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291050/classical-mechanics)  &#xD;&#xA;[do you know why Q2 has negative sign?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291044/do-you-know-why-q2-has-negative-sign)  &#xD;&#xA;[Frame of reference and work done by pseudo force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291032/frame-of-reference-and-work-done-by-pseudo-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[Induced current in a circular loop](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291029/induced-current-in-a-circular-loop)  &#xD;&#xA;[X and Y collide, find angle of Y](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291023/x-and-y-collide-find-angle-of-y)  &#xD;&#xA;[Related to torque generated, to find input and output torque](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291117/related-to-torque-generated-to-find-input-and-output-torque)  &#xD;&#xA;[moment of inertia in beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291116/moment-of-inertia-in-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[Converting from rectangular to polar and vice-versa ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291108/converting-from-rectangular-to-polar-and-vice-versa)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are **Energy levels, Sublevels, and Orbitals**?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291096/what-are-energy-levels-sublevels-and-orbitals)  &#xD;&#xA;[Boundary layer flow directed radially towards a sink](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291230/boundary-layer-flow-directed-radially-towards-a-sink)  &#xD;&#xA;[Writing Fokker Planck equation for levy walker in a given potential](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291209/writing-fokker-planck-equation-for-levy-walker-in-a-given-potential)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the kinetic energy possessed by a battle tank belt whose mass is m if the tank is moving with a constant velocity v?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291174/what-is-the-kinetic-energy-possessed-by-a-battle-tank-belt-whose-mass-is-m-if-th)  &#xD;&#xA;[Simple Harmonic Motion Question With Explanation Please! ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291459/simple-harmonic-motion-question-with-explanation-please)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the height and the instant velocity of a geostationary satellite](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291444/find-the-height-and-the-instant-velocity-of-a-geostationary-satellite)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the image formations at different positions for plano convex and plano concave lenses? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291412/what-are-the-image-formations-at-different-positions-for-plano-convex-and-plano)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia of semicircular disc](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291367/moment-of-inertia-of-semicircular-disc)  &#xD;&#xA;[Poincare algebra](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291354/poincare-algebra)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding gravitational force on a body of unit mass by other three bodies](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291582/finding-gravitational-force-on-a-body-of-unit-mass-by-other-three-bodies)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational mech](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291548/rotational-mech)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="53020a08-451f-4fd9-b150-009aae38c36f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="While reviewing I often have to make this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hi and welcome to the Physics SE! Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automated way to write this comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to keep its copy somewhere else and copy-paste it every time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or there is some shortcut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9095" RevisionGUID="b8bda0d4-433e-4043-9921-5e16cd6ad701" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is my take on the matter. First, let's think about what Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites are good for and what they are not good for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Q&amp;A site needs Questions, which can be answered in a concise fashion. There may be several good answers, but if a question needs books to be answered or many answers covering different topics (and thus many pages of answers), it's not a good fit.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that are an especially good fit are questions where there can be different angles from which to approach it so that many good answers can emerge. This also gives meaning to question ranking.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions that spark discussions are a bad fit. &#xD;&#xA;- The specific idea of Stack Exchange Q&amp;A sites is that the answers to questions and the questions themselves should be interesting to a broader audience. &#xD;&#xA;- If the questions are not interesting for very many people, they need to be of research quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as I see it, we have some tradeoff: If Q is the quality of the question in terms of how many people could answer it (&quot;research quality&quot;) and A is the audience that can get some new understanding from the question, then the product QA should be large for good questions. This leaves room for conceptual questions about basic theories as well as high level and extremely specific questions about research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we agree on the above, here is my take on what should be closed and what shouldn't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check-my-work:** Questions like &quot;Where is my mistake?&quot; or &quot;Did I do it right?&quot; come in two flavours: The first questions make one of a few very common mistakes. Those mistakes are common, because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. They should be closed but could be reworded to ask a conceptual question about the theory, which is interesting for many people. The other type of questions are just algebraic/mathematical mistakes. There are a myriad ways to make mistakes and thus the answer to the question is mostly only interesting to the asker and it usually also is of bad &quot;research quality&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; Close as check-my-work. If you think there is actually an interesting conceptual misunderstanding in the question, rewrite it and/or leave a comment. Then the question can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really low research effort:** Since most of the audience arrives by search engines, those people will actually do a Google search. If this will directly lead them to a Wikipedia article, what do they gain by coming here? So aside from the fact that low effort questions might disparage researchers from staying on the site, they should be closed because they don't actually have an audience: Why should you come here to get a link to the Wikipedia page you could already see in your Google search results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;  Close as &quot;low effort&quot;, if the question could be commented on by &quot;What about this [Wikipedia/other well-known source that pops up if you type the question into a search engine] is unclear&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are in my opinion the &quot;easy&quot; ones. Now come the &quot;hard&quot; ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Low effort) problems:** These are questions that essentially ask for the solution to a homework problem while providing or not providing own ideas. The problem with these questions is two-fold: a) if the asking party actually wants to understand the problem, you'd need to discuss with them --&gt; that's not a good fit for Q&amp;A, b) the audience for these questions is often only the asker him/herself (see &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a close reason such as &quot;no sufficient audience&quot; won't work and will only spark more discussion, as will &quot;homework&quot; ('oh, but that's not homework, I thought about this exercise myself'). One of the biggest problems is also that these questions are best answered by working with the person and asking questions and giving rough sketches and approaches - so they are just a bad fit anyway. This is particularly true for many questions where the author posts a lengthy and detailed list of her own failed effort. While those questions do signal that the author of the question doesn't just try to dump his problem on us, they are just generally a bad fit for Q&amp;A sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One idea could be the following: Introduce a close reason &quot;not conceptual&quot; and apply it to any questions, asking for one solution to a problem where most variables come with numbers attached. This would allow questions asking about how to generally approach inclined plane problems where a set of parameters is given, but it would disallow questions asking about inclined plane problems with a specific set of parameters (for instance and angle of 45°). Having a rule like &quot;A questions where a lot of variables are fixed is closed&quot; would eliminate some of the ambiguity of the word &quot;conceptual&quot;. It would also allow questions asking for different ways to approach some problem, which in my opinion is a valid conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pure calculations:** Calculations are also difficult, because they can come at any level - and any difficulty. Most calculation questions are only interesting for the person asking them, so they should be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often when somebody reads a paper, he/she may stumble over some step in a calculation or some line of an argument that they don't understand. What about such questions? Now, often, we can refer those questions to math.stackexchange and be done with it, but often the questions may involve physical approximations and are better left here. Not understanding some equation in a paper is something extremely common - sometimes the equation is also just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a platform to ask these questions would be a valuable aid to research, because it could save a lot of time (the idea of course being that I invest some time to explain details in a paper that I understood easily, saving the asker hours or days of searching, while some other times, I am the one asking). In principle, they are also a good fit for Q&amp;A and they should have a decent QA product. If we had arXiv-feedback, this could actually help other readers of the paper and enhance overall research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't want to explain simple equivalence transformations in middle school textbooks, where the person was just too lazy to think about it for five minutes. And we don't want to do calculations in research papers that were left out, because they are tedious but foundational to the field and can be looked up in text books asking person is just too lazy to do them him/herself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to distinguish these two? If we want to have more people here who are doing research, it might be a good idea to allow paper questions and disallow all others (this would at least get rid of ambiguities). This is somewhat in line with the idea (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/7409#7409)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but tries to be a bit more inclusive for research-level questions and a bit more exclusive to avoid ambiguities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; One suggestion (needs work): Close non-paper related questions, which want to do outsource calculations with a specific &quot;tedious calculation&quot; close-reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="f40e05f6-a5be-4446-9754-4f56ba486432" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, I know there have been several questions asked about this, but I wanted to see what the current viewpoint was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions in question are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going through the re-open review queue and the first one was the first question linked. I looked at it, understood that it wasn't exactly with the site policy (too broad, etc) but I thought that since there seemed to be a bunch of support for it in both the number of votes (59 on the question, and 32 on the most upvoted answer) and it also seemed like an interesting exception to have, I voted to re-open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the next question that came up was the second question linked. I read through the comment discussion, and was about to vote to re-open because I thought it was another interesting exception (coincidence that they came up at the same time?) and there was a lot of support in the comments. However, I saw [this Meta discussion][1] in the comments and stopped to read it. Since there were conflicting answers with a fairly close number of upvotes, I wanted to know what site policy was before continuing to vote to close (I could've skipped, but I wanted to know in case others came up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I have a official answer on this (or, if there's conflict, or a maybe, an explanation of the boundaries)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="65f019da-e350-4c69-8abc-d21fc8a9b7b1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="37ea11fe-7ce1-4cf5-a898-ba8197cc0e8e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**No, we should not introduce such meta-tags.** If you are not convinced of the general uselessness of meta-tags, let me address your proposals specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;technical&quot; is hopelessly subjective. What's technical to one user is pretty straightforward and easy to see to another. This is already apparent in the non-meta tag [mathematical-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics), which is often misused for questions that just include math, and would only get worse with such a pure meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;perspective&quot;...what makes a question &quot;open&quot;? Is a question &quot;open&quot; simply because it is vague and imprecise? Should questions not be *edited and clarified* instead of staying vague? This tag sounds like another variant of the already existing [soft-question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question), which is already a [pretty bad tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7551/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have already rejected the misconception tag [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7542/50583). As for &quot;common&quot;, who decides what is &quot;common&quot;? Does it suffice if the misconception is common among non-physicists (we are supposedly a site primarily for physicists, after all)? Do &quot;misconceptions&quot; count that are really more [lies-to-children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children)? What would a question *gain* from being tagged as being about a misconception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The idea of tagging &quot;well-posed questions and answers&quot; with special tags serves no purpose because there already is a mechanism in place to promote well-posed questions and well-written answers: Voting. Good content is highly upvoted, bad content is downvoted. If you see a need to tag questions with regard to their quality because the votes are not a good indicator of quality, then I would rather say [we need to change our voting behaviour](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) (I wrote that almost a year ago, but I would not say the situation has changed), not introduce tags for quality, as that would just lead to needless drama over who has the power to add or remove those tags and which questions should receive them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream questions get [closed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/50583), not tagged as &quot;speculative&quot;. Speculative question without firm grounding in physics also get closed as *too broad* or *primarily opinion-based*, I don't see many questions that can be on-topic that would deserve this tag, or of what use it would be to tag them such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;basic&quot; is again as subjective as &quot;technical&quot;, [every question should be &quot;conceptual&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583), we already have an [experimental-physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics) tag (which is fine as it actually tells you something about the topic opf the question), there is already a [thought-experiment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thought-experiment) tag and its content looks rather random to me and not deserving of a common tag, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="7638a974-e057-4ca6-ad22-d375a2e7c0d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to [this question][1] the marking a question as &quot;favorite&quot; is so that you can come back to it, i.e. it is sort of a bookmark. This is also how I have been using it, but for mainly two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I see a question that does not have a satisfactory answer and I think I know enough about the topic to **write an answer in the future**, but need to do some research first to make it sound.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A good answer/question that is useful to me and that I would like to **read and understand in more detail later**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it turns out that the favorite tag is not actually very good for that. I marked a lot of questions that I could answer with favorite, but never got around to doing that. Now I can't find the questions that I wanted to read in detail anymore, cause they are buried in all the others. Of course that is really just my fault for using the feature in a stupid way. I was wondering though **how other people organize their favorite question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore would it be possible to **implement a feature that makes this organization easier?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/what-is-the-mark-favorite-question-for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="244c3031-f7d3-4912-93b1-b6f9273261e0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The main mechanism for the reversal of serial voting is automated, because the moderators have access only to summaries of inter-user voting, (not to detailed records) *even when our tools alert us to the existence of unusual patterns in voting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alleging that the moderators aren't doing their job on this is simply silly: it's mostly not our job because the scripts take care of it. None-the-less I've looked into the findings of the automated system related to your account. I can assure you that the system has found no unusual pattern of downvoting directed at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to you to think up some alternative explanation for the large number of downvotes that you receive. Or you could ask for opinions in the chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to take this further, use the &quot;[contact us][1]&quot; link to be found at the bottom of every page: it will let you message the system wide moderation team directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="56f49035-cbfb-46fc-b75e-ffa37a0ef2b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.810" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a thread on meta dedicated to something like this: [Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions][1]. If a person has opted in there, feel free to place a comment under their post to let them know about a question they might be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is definitely opt-in -- there is not, [nor will there ever be][2], a feature to allow arbitrary pinging of users who haven't even participated in a thread. Remember, this is a question and answer site, not a social network, and the experts are already giving precious time to answer questions as it is. If the site allowed anyone to initiate conversations with anyone else requesting assistance, all of the experts would quickly abandon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note there is a tendency for inexperienced members to single out certain high-rep individuals as being the only people capable of answering questions. You should avoid this tendency. For the vast majority of questions asked on this site, *many* people can give equally satisfactory answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/431/any-way-to-send-a-personal-message-to-another-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="c885073f-2197-4c47-90ac-1f8477a64e87" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At this point I have written and erased several strongly worded paragraphs expressing my intense frustration with the *entitlement* expressed in your question. You seem to assume that our purpose here is to be a resource for you in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if that is not why we are gathered here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things you could have done to find out if we were going to want to solve elementary problems for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could have taken [the tour][1].&#xD;&#xA;* You could have read some of the pages in [the help center][2]. Particularly those about [what kinds of questions are welcome][3] and [what kinds are not][4].&#xD;&#xA;* After [your first questions][5] was put on-hold as being too homework-like, you could have read [the link included in the system generated on-hold message][6] that contains guidance on how to ask questions about elementary topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I note that some of your questions have been left open and answered. That's because we're not responding negatively to you as a person but to a particular request that you keep making of us: we don't want to be a homework help-site, and we don't care if the questions were assigned as part of a class or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point *you* have to take responsibility for understanding what this site is and is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246899/the-efficiency-of-a-rough-inclined-plane-is-given-90-the-energy-spent-in-raisi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="df0f61c2-77d4-44cb-a47f-ae8a501f0d5f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Proposal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When homework-and-exercises questions are voted *off topic* and put on hold then the OP should be directed to the Meta Question which offers a choice of alternative sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this proposal into effect, the notification box could be amended to read :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**put on hold** as off-topic by ...   &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. **If you cannot do so, recommendations for alternative sites are given in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note:* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally I had thought of re-directing the OP to the offshoot site [Physics Problems Q&amp;A](http://physics.qandaexchange.com/?qa=questions) set up by heather and Mew, but this might give the impression of official approval of that site by the Stack Exchange community. See :  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site/9321#9321  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7299/ethics-redirecting-homework-solution-seeking-questions-to-a-website-built-for/7300#7300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most questions in this category are asking specifically for help in solving problems. Typically they include &quot;Is this correct?&quot;, &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot;, &quot;How do I start?&quot; or &quot;What should I do next?&quot; It is far from easy to turn such difficulties into a question of a conceptual nature which would be *on topic* here, whereas the question as it stands would probably be *on topic* at sites specifically set up for help with homework or problem-solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a homework question is closed, the OP often either (i) asks for a recommendation of a website where the question might be suitable, or (ii) asks how the question can be edited to make it *on topic*, or (iii) argues that the question is **not** actually *off topic*. In the latter case the OP leaves the site having had a bad experience. Recommending where to get an answer will save effort in dealing with these 3 issues and increase the chances of the OP having a satisfactory experience of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please up-vote my question if you approve of my suggestion and would like to see it implemented, or down-vote if you disapprove.** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="6ddbc03c-b0c1-43cc-8cc4-75361379ca1b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just today, the Community bot bumped a [three-year old question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table). It's also recently bumped a [half-year old question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now about 1/10 of the posts on the 'active questions' meta tab are bumps from Community. I don't think this helps at all, and it worsens the signal-to-noise ratio. Can this be disabled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="4097e07b-319e-495b-965f-381ac1ec07bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been looking at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations which is a catalogue of links to resource recommendation questions. For me it has been (in combination with the individual resource recommendations that are linked in the wiki) one of the most useful things on physics.SE. So thank you to the creators! I absolutely love it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wanted to ask if it is still getting updated?** I've found a few questions that would maybe fit in quite well (although I'm not sure what the criteria are exactly are other than &quot;not too specialised&quot;). Just to give a few of the questions that don't seem to be listed and seem to fit the criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maths: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127376&#xD;&#xA; - QFT: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-question seems related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was there a conclusion/decision about the topic? It doesn't seem to say in the meta-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="62723256-52fa-4bd5-a597-2023da91369c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Town Hall chat transcript from the previous elections: [2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/631/2011-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest) and [2012](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest). Useful for background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="e8339df1-8925-4c3c-80ae-9642d0052884" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your profile does not show that you are currently affected by any unusual restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the [contact us][1] link at the bottom of each page allows you to contact the Stack Exchange community-wide moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="d8266772-00a5-45dd-b8d8-0d9da7c92565" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Focusing on the question, of how much research you are expected to have done before asking here, and answering only for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote [an answer][1] for [a similar questions about Stack Overflow][2] some time ago. The gist of it is that asking the site things that you could have easily (or perhaps trivially) googled comes down to wasting the time of people looking at your question, and those questions shouldn't be asked. The final expression of that idea there was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is the same as not asking when the answer is in the furnished manual or the first half-dozen links that Google brings up. The answer being in some obscure usenet archive or 400 comments down in a slashdot thread on some other topic is no impediment to asking Stack Exchange, but there being dozens of answer instances all across the internet is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure the situation on Physics is similar, but not necessarily exactly the same, because it is (in my opinion) easier to to see but not understand a treatment in physics even when you have the minimum preparation for the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking before you have looked at those resources that Google brings up right at the top is a waste of other people's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you *have* looked and still don't get it, tell us what you found unsatisfactory about those treatments. And *&quot;I didn't understand&quot;* doesn't count; say where your understanding broke down. I you stuck on a step in the math or on how it could be written in terms of that math in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be clear about your level of preparation. I've seen so many questions where the OP claims to understand field theory and relativity, but has actually just read some pop-sci book that I can usually guess what the case it, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by muddying the water that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking for a detailed description of a topic at your level when you simply aren't prepared to deal with the math is a waste of other people's time. We have been open to &quot;layman's terms&quot; questions, but you have to accept that those answer will *be in layman's terms*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, part of the goal here is to build a comprehensive database of good questions with good answer. So, shouldn't we allow ever good question, even if they have been answered well elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we should, but it is fair to insist that we work on *really good* versions of those questions, and that really calls for [someone who knows the topic to craft the canonical version of the question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, those are my thoughts I've wanted for some time to sit and hammer on them to find where they might not be internally consistent, but I never seem to find the time. So perhaps some of the rest of you can show me those spots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/192136/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/192123/should-stack-overflow-be-a-last-resort-resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="82750e24-726e-490e-97ba-6436388afdc2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="ffe4db8a-0d47-4ae5-9987-e3c4a27eb316" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have very little control over this. Physics Stack Exchange is part of a network of [160+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). All the sites share a common engine, so it *is* possible to request and obtain site-specific changes to the common behaviour, but they need to be very well justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to request changes to the engine is at the overarching meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), where it is easier to get the attention of the community team and the developers. Our meta site is better for issues specific to this site and its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I don't think it's particularly problematic. The entry-level badges are awarded easily as an incentive for new users to explore the site's features, by adding some fake internet sugar on top. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the MathJax side, though, you're right, but that's not quite the right approach - I advocated [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial) earlier &lt;s&gt;but it's not yet implemented&lt;/s&gt; and it just went live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="5477f049-45aa-4850-8c86-5ebaeb353dea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am a relatively new member of the site and haven't spent enough time to read through rules and meta posts yet to really understand how it all works. So when I see the occasional discussion in the comment section between highly ranked members of the site, I tend to make up my mind intuitively, keeping in mind that it should help the site remain an *open* forum, where *reasonable questions* about *physics* can be asked. Like I said, most people here have probably spent a lot more time thinking carefully about how to run the site and I appreciate that, but this is just how I generally think a forum should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I really enjoy this site and how it is run for the most part, but there are some questions where I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site. In particular the &quot;off-topic&quot; tag seems a bit off sometimes (sorry for the pun), since modern science is hardly ever part of a single subject (The most common overlap is gonna be [maths][1], but increasingly [biology][2] etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course one needs it to prevent questions that are nothing to do with physics. My main question here is: **when there is a physics component in the question and when in doubt wether it can be answered here, shouldn't the decision go in favor of the question?** I am happy to get to know about how the actual rules are intended, but I'd also like to know from an intuitive perspective for a new member of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other supporting factors, e.g. when the question has a good vote reception. The reason I am writing this post is such an example: [evolution/gluon question][3]. I can not see at all how this is off-topic and @Nathaniel comments seem quite reasonable in this context. There was a similar discussion on [this][4] one, but it luckily stayed open. Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have elaborated why I don't understand this type of off-topic closing of question, now I'd like to return to the title question and ask more generally than &quot;is Math always off-topic&quot; or &quot;is Biophysics always off-topic&quot;: **What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for? And why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7386/what-are-the-boundaries-of-biophysics-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249606/why-have-our-eyes-not-evolved-to-see-gluons&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248333/symbolic-dynamics-of-a-multidimensional-system/248842#248842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="42d95c2f-5829-4338-82ad-f56915d712a2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since astronomy is [within our scope](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono), most things that would fit on Astronomy SE also fit here. If they are asked here, they should not be migrated. There are probably a few corner cases that are off topic for us and on topic for them, but those are rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other topics, in principle it's straightforward: a question which is about physics (or astronomy) is on topic here, one which is not about physics (or astronomy) is off topic here. Of course, there can be some debate about whether something is about physics/astronomy or not, but again, those ambiguous cases are relatively rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="878765cb-8bab-4e0f-831b-62865fe07881" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Town Hall chat transcript from the previous elections: [2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/631/2011-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest) and [2012](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest). Useful for background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="830b11ac-0cf9-4cb2-961d-6b5382a16e40" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As an alternative to the other two answers: the bra-ket angles both have unicode incarnations, `⟨` and `⟩`, and they are both rendered correctly by MathJax. Thus, if you type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $⟨a|b⟩$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it will render correctly. (On the other hand, this only works for the single-size version, i.e. `\right⟩` won't work.) My solution is to have those characters hardwired into my software keyboard, and it really speeds up typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, this usage is directly in the spirit of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown): having a lightweight source which renders into a nice formatting, but which is also human-readable directly from the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is important to remark that this usage is exclusive to MathJax and it does not work under standard TeX renderers. (In fact, MathJax will correctly render a bunch of off-track unicode symbols, like ≠, ±, ≃, ° and [so on](http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_math_operators.html), that will send (La)TeX into a belly-up spin.) As such, I consider it impolite to use these characters when editing other people's posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a word of caution: **all the posts on a page share the same MathJax environment**, and in particular this means that **any commands that you define or `renew` can and will affect other posts on the same page**. This has been [discussed before on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6951/should-we-indicate-the-use-of-renewcommand-in-the-help-center), with the specific point that `renewcommand` should not be used on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a new command for `\ket`s and `\bra`s is not terrible, partly because even if other people on the same thread define it differently, you wouldn't expect real conflicts in the output. However, it's important to keep in mind that *any* use of `\newcommand`, particularly beyond the simplest, mildest, most standard definitions, can produce unexpected behaviour like e.g. [on this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7297/mathjax-rendering-bk-differently-in-question-display-and-edit-modes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="31d89090-c079-4ce1-a4f6-1e216247b616" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is how I read the question, which is admittedly a bit more concrete than the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are huge experiments which are going to run in the future and are currently under development (which means that at least part of the funding is already secured and people start building something). By &quot;huge experiments&quot; I mean experiments of the LHC,LIGO type, which means that a) thousands of people of all continents are involved and spend or will spend a majority of their time on the project and b) the experiment really is one big experiment (such as one telescope, one detector, etc.) and not a very tightly connected net of smaller experiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is a big-list question and, as you state, in principle off-topic. I don't think this is a reason to &quot;close as off-topic&quot;, because it's just a general &quot;big lists are off-topic&quot;. We should have a look at why big lists are off-topic. The best (?) reasons I could find are summarised by DavidZ: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi &#xD;&#xA;&gt;List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that these reasons are invalid for this particular question and that this particular question fits into the framework. Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question (as stated above) is precise, i.e. there is an objective way of judging the correctness of the answer: Is the experiment truly huge? Is it a physics experiment trying to explore physical concepts (on this ground, ITER might not really be a physics experiment) Is it past the initial exploration phase and under development? Is the experiment anticipated by parts of the physics community? This means that it is not overly opinion-based either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is sufficiently focused. Indeed, I would argue that it is not too broad per se: the number of experiments that fits the bill won't be too huge. I bet there are less than twenty experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Stack Exchange framework does allow for a number of good answers and can, in principle, support small lists (I'm not so sure about lists like on mathoverflow with dozens of pages) and it is particularly good for questions where maybe not one person has the complete answer, but a complete picture emerges from several good answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While the question might not really &quot;end&quot;, activity is very restricted. Only every few years will there be new experiments that fit the bill. Also, by the nature of the question, even without additions it will stay up-to-date for several years, if not a decade. For me, this is stable enough (who knows what happens with Stack Exchange in ten years?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question is interesting to researchers and enthusiasts alike. Hardly anyone knows all of these experiments, but many like to know whats going on outside their fields at least a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two points that might be problematic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a sense, this gives a lot of reputation for easy answers, because of the popularity of the question. To counteract this, one might impose a similar rule as on mathoverflow, where all answers are immediately community-wiki. Then again, almost everybody gets their reputation from easy answers, so maybe this is not a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clearly, the question garners a lot of attention. Maybe it draws away attention from better questions. I do not have a good counterargument other than that I feel this is true for almost all hot network questions, whether they are on-topic or not. Often, the physical content is even less than one can learn from the answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: I think that this is one of the very rare instances where such a list-based question should actually be on-topic for this site and I argued that the reasoning behind the close-policies allow for such a question to be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="b7c64f62-dd4a-45de-b7a5-7566f8dbd4cf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the abstract questions you pose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No**, if you close something as being out of scope, you have to explain *why* it is out of scope. The pre-existing reasons cover the most common reasons, for the others, you'll have to write a comment explaining yourself. The close reason is there to give the asker feedback *what exactly they did wrong*, and just telling them it's &quot;out of scope&quot; doesn't really tell them what went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from providing valuable feedback to the asker (that is sadly all too often ignored, or taken as a personal insult, but that's another issue), a specific close reason is also valuable for other voters - especially reviewers - to agree or disagree with. But if you just choose &quot;out of scope&quot;, then that doesn't give your peers something to argue with: Either they already agree it's out of scope or they don't, but &quot;out of scope&quot; is so vague as to make it impossible to constructively disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I don't have a better suggestion because we don't *need* a better suggestion. If you think a post is non-mainstream then you should close it as non-mainstream. Votes are judgements of questions and answers, not of users. The feedback they provide is valuable only if given honestly - I see no value in *not* voting as you want to vote because of the psychological consequences you fear it may have on the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [*specific question*](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270930/50583) you're talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the least controversial way to close this is as *too broad*. It's a question that basically asks &quot;Explain special relativity to me&quot;, without any research effort shown and without any *specific question*. It's not clear to me how one could determine a &quot;correct&quot; answer specifically to this question, i.e. how one would decide when it is actually *answered*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also had two close votes as *homework-like*, now hidden by the majority close reason *too broad*. I don't really understand those, it's not a question that falls under our homework policy by any stretch of the imagination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand the suggestion to close it as &quot;non-mainstream&quot;, either - it's not non-mainstream, it's a question about basic special relativity, no personal theory in sight, just confusion (and little effort on part of the asker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there are so many introductory resources to special relativity both on and off this site, I think closing because of *insufficient effort* (as a custom close reason) would also have been defensible if you think we should be closing questions for that. See meta discussions [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8789/50583), [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and at further links in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *duplicate* close reason is different. You vote to close as duplicate because you have *already found* the question it's a duplicate of. Duplicate questions are neither off-topic nor unclear nor too broad nor any other of these reasons. Closing a question as duplicate just says that we already have a sufficiently similar question here. If you're thinking the question should be closed anyway, go ahead and close it for another reason, but *never* forcefully try to make another reason fit *just* because you can't be bothered to search for the duplicate. (I'm not accusing you specifically of this, but I think it's worth explicitly stating in general.) I personally think that there's no value in closing a question that should be closed for another reason as duplicate, *unless* one then proceeds to close the duplicate for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9424" RevisionGUID="f988b885-a48d-4494-a7c0-325b0d1bf410" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Rookie of the year&#xD;&#xA;User, who created their account in 2016, who has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and/or answers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this category is used, note that the nominations for winners will be in the form of links to user accounts, with a brief explanation of why that user should win, i.e. some links to their best questions/answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="0f58f5fc-004a-490d-8f61-bbfa6af96916" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="While reviewing I often have to make this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hi and welcome to the Physics SE! Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automated way to write this comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to keep its copy somewhere else and copy-paste it every time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or there is some shortcut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="76542fbc-ad80-45d4-9685-1e801dff5545" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9230/44126)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="16821edb-725b-4033-b250-440493392a3b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best self-answer&#xD;&#xA;Best question/answer pair written by the same user, either because they figured out their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="51d8079f-2e7d-4a83-bd0f-b4bfe583dce6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to [this question][1] the marking a question as &quot;favorite&quot; is so that you can come back to it, i.e. it is sort of a bookmark. This is also how I have been using it, but for mainly two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I see a question that does not have a satisfactory answer and I think I know enough about the topic to **write an answer in the future**, but need to do some research first to make it sound.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A good answer/question that is useful to me and that I would like to **read and understand in more detail later**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it turns out that the favorite tag is not actually very good for that. I marked a lot of questions that I could answer with favorite, but never got around to doing that. Now I can't find the questions that I wanted to read in detail anymore, cause they are buried in all the others. Of course that is really just my fault for using the feature in a stupid way. I was wondering though **how other people organize their favorite question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore would it be possible to **implement a feature that makes this organization easier?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/what-is-the-mark-favorite-question-for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="5a76cd99-649b-4b56-a881-5ed8de2ac6ab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, I know there have been several questions asked about this, but I wanted to see what the current viewpoint was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions in question are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going through the re-open review queue and the first one was the first question linked. I looked at it, understood that it wasn't exactly with the site policy (too broad, etc) but I thought that since there seemed to be a bunch of support for it in both the number of votes (59 on the question, and 32 on the most upvoted answer) and it also seemed like an interesting exception to have, I voted to re-open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the next question that came up was the second question linked. I read through the comment discussion, and was about to vote to re-open because I thought it was another interesting exception (coincidence that they came up at the same time?) and there was a lot of support in the comments. However, I saw [this Meta discussion][1] in the comments and stopped to read it. Since there were conflicting answers with a fairly close number of upvotes, I wanted to know what site policy was before continuing to vote to close (I could've skipped, but I wanted to know in case others came up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I have a official answer on this (or, if there's conflict, or a maybe, an explanation of the boundaries)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9196" RevisionGUID="57125e28-a087-41be-99ce-979a8fab15dd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&amp;A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of an ongoing test, we're doing the questionnaire at the same time as nominations are being run. Please do not respond to this question unless you already have submitted your nomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/baa9b298-7af5-479e-a95e-d45b847c83b4/view-source). Oh, and please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck to all of the candidates!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9200/50583)&#xD;&#xA; - [tpg2114](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire/9203#9203)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9206/4993)&#xD;&#xA; - [Alfred Centauri](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9215/9887)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9230/44126)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="2ea50e6d-0801-4f94-a9cc-cb7e75d941b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Never too old to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best question asked in 2016 by a user who's account is at least two(?) years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="6203eeae-9431-4f1b-bb59-16c50f744d15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's something strange going on with [this answer][1] (visible to 10k+ users only). I seem to recall reading exactly the same answer written by the same users some days ago. It received some comments about the aether theory, and got negative rep. Nevertheless, the current answer is dated some minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is some kind of déjà-vu. I highly suspect that the original answer was deleted, and then it war repost word-by-word by the same user. I can't check my suspicions since I don't have 10k rep and I can't see deleted posts. Note that this is different from [this question][2], since the deleted and new answers are the same (iirc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone have a look at this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/274161/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7209/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="57c0c954-da48-4961-a42b-31d972db5056" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7vEF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a black design inspired by: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designed by CustomInk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="62703266-87ad-4362-a2a7-99326706052b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been looking at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations which is a catalogue of links to resource recommendation questions. For me it has been (in combination with the individual resource recommendations that are linked in the wiki) one of the most useful things on physics.SE. So thank you to the creators! I absolutely love it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wanted to ask if it is still getting updated?** I've found a few questions that would maybe fit in quite well (although I'm not sure what the criteria are exactly are other than &quot;not too specialised&quot;). Just to give a few of the questions that don't seem to be listed and seem to fit the criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maths: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127376&#xD;&#xA; - QFT: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-question seems related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was there a conclusion/decision about the topic? It doesn't seem to say in the meta-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="b5a1b750-91a2-4a6f-a791-e4ddb3b8c815" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [ACuriousMind's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am rather dismayed that it is possible that this happens, I don't think this is a problem that can or should be solved by moderator intervention - at least, not by using any of the additional privileges a moderator has. That this is possible is an inherent property of the SE engine and the weights it attaches to up- and downvotes. Of course, if significant support for the idea of raising the weight of downvotes was present in the community, it would perhaps fall to the moderators to present this position to the SE team - but then again, everyone can make such a feature request at the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question intends to imply that maybe moderators should delete the answers of such users or suspend them, then I don't think that either can be justified. Also, deleting their wrong answers potentially leads to the users *gaining more reputation*, depending on what exactly the vote count on the wrong answer was, which doesn't solve the problem at all. Selectively deleting only the answers which contribute to their positive reputation would appear capricious and targeting a specific user instead of specific posts, which is generally inappropriate. Suspensions are only appropriate when an explicit rule was broken - and &quot;posting wrong stuff&quot; is annoying, but not in violation of any policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality. I do think the general voting behavior on this SE currently encourages questions that are much too lazy and ill-thought out. I wrote about this [some time ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) and although the numbers are of course off by now, I still stand by everything I've written there. However, I don't see how this priority of mine would be any more relevant as a moderator than it was as a high reputation user - the primary means of quality control is *upvoting high-quality questions and downvoting low-quality questions*, which is completely unaffected by moderatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly wait for consensus regarding suspensions, except in cases where one is immediately needed for the user to &quot;cool off&quot;. I would also, at least at the beginning, wait for input before dismissing custom moderator flags, but perhaps not before validating them, if the case appears clear cut. I would not wait for consensus when reopening or closing a question, but I expect to be casting both reopen and close votes much less than I currently do since I don't want to overuse the unilateral character of these votes. I would also not wait for consensus before deleting obsolete, rude or irrelevant comments, since those are supposed to be ephemeral by design anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guarantee a minimum of an hour per day for at least the next year. My time &quot;spent&quot; on the site is usually more, but I'm often doing other things while occasionally checking the site, so the actual time *invested* into the site is difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that 99% of what I have posted will not reflect badly, and that most of it reflects rather well. I can remember some stray comments and chat messages where I might have been less charitable than I should have been, but there is nothing that I would be ashamed of. The most significant change to my routine in the site would probably be that I don't do the &quot;ordinary&quot; review queues anymore, which I currently visit almost every day, and that I might be a bit more careful to distinguish site policy from my personal opinion when commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think our scope is generally quite alright as it is. The very nature of these interdisciplinary questions is that it is difficult to make general policies that cover them - this is where community moderation has to shine, hashing out whether a given question is &quot;just enough physics&quot; or &quot;not enough physics&quot; by several close/reopen cycles if need be, or just by a bit of comment/chat/meta discussion about the specific question. As a moderator, I would refrain from casting my unilateral votes in any binding manner on those questions, i.e. I would only cast them as fifth votes. We don't elect moderators to *make* policy, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't make me more effective. Moderators aren't supposed to be &quot;more effective&quot; versions of ordinary users, they're supposed to be trusted janitors who clean up the messes and do the behind-the-scenes work that's unsuitable for community moderation but nevertheless needs to be done to keep the site running smoothly. I love this site and I want to be part of the reason it's working. In the past, I've done so by participating in the review queues every day, which is something I *strongly* encourage every user with sufficient reputation to do. Now, I get the opportunity to do so in another role - if you want me to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there should be boundaries in terms of &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think there currently are. There are good and bad questions at a layman's or high schooler's level, and there are good and bad questions at research level. I've seen plenty of all of those. What I expect from a question is a reasonable amount of research effort, and an attempt to communicate clearly the *conceptual question* the asker is having. I strongly dislike all stances that think questions have merit simply because of their level. Questions have merit because they are *good, well-posed questions* that can be answered with physical insight. Note, however, that just because you can write an amazing answer to a question that doesn't necessarily make the question itself any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case where I see a question closed merely because of its *level*, I would strongly consider unilaterally reopening it. We don't have a policy about &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think we should have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what kinds of flag exactly this user generates. Generating a lot of &quot;obsolete&quot; flags is a *good* thing, since it indicates the user leaves a lot of comments leading to posts being improved, making the comment obsolete in the process. Generating a lot of &quot;not constructive&quot; or &quot;too chatty&quot; flags is worse, although it might just indicate a chatty user. I'd advise the user to use comments only for relevant communication and take longer reply chains to chat instead, but probably take no further action. On repeated offense, I'd be more quick to move the discussions to chat, but if everything's civil, I don't see a need for other actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generating a lot of &quot;rude/offensive&quot; flags is a lot worse, and would probably warrant a suspension if warnings to be nicer do not succeed. As I said above, I would not impose a suspension without waiting for consensus from the rest of the moderators, unless the user is currently generating those flags and no end is in sight. In that case I would impose a short &quot;cool off&quot; suspension to de-escalate the immediate situation, and then consult the other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd first make sure I understand the reasons for which the other moderator took that action. If I still disagree with the result, I'd take the issue to meta. Moderators should not make policy on their own, so if two of us are in strong disagreement what to do with a certain question, this indicates that the community's larger position on that type of question is unclear or needs to be re-evaluated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="4c968392-5b97-4020-9c43-211b30e28c9e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.663" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a thread on meta dedicated to something like this: [Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions][1]. If a person has opted in there, feel free to place a comment under their post to let them know about a question they might be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is definitely opt-in -- there is not, [nor will there ever be][2], a feature to allow arbitrary pinging of users who haven't even participated in a thread. Remember, this is a question and answer site, not a social network, and the experts are already giving precious time to answer questions as it is. If the site allowed anyone to initiate conversations with anyone else requesting assistance, all of the experts would quickly abandon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note there is a tendency for inexperienced members to single out certain high-rep individuals as being the only people capable of answering questions. You should avoid this tendency. For the vast majority of questions asked on this site, *many* people can give equally satisfactory answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/431/any-way-to-send-a-personal-message-to-another-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="cce0252d-b152-4dd5-9f1c-a49d6f0dc6b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to address some points that [rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44126/rob) didn't touch upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, I want to say something about your comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I just want to understand how to improve a post is good, maybe I made confusion because of my English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me tell you that I sympathise with you because English is not my first language either, and I too sometimes find it difficult to express my thoughts clearly. Like it or not, poor grammar will reduce the overall quality of the post. The reception of a post with poor grammar is automatically worse than than of a post with good grammar, even if the physical content is the same. And this happens even though most users try to focus on the physical content of the question; it is a subconscious process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason you (and I) have to make an extra effort when posting Q&amp;A here. You'll have to live with that. In any case, don't fret too much about it, as most users here have good intentions and they'll try to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your post(s). Your first question was edited several times. The first version **is indeed unclear**, and unfortunately it mentions *diffeomorphisms invariance*. Later on you edited it and deleted the part about diff. inv., but the question was still rather unclear&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;. You got an answer but it did not address your concerns (it didn't address your *true question*, because it was not clear what your *true question* was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you had two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **edit your question** and introduce some changes in order to make it clear what your *true question* is. The problem is that major edits that change the meaning of the question are discouraged if the question does already contain an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **post a new question**, which clearly highlights your concerns. You should only do this if the new question is significantly different than the first one; otherwise, it will be closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, your case is very complicated because a major edit to your first question is discouraged, but posting a new one was not well received either, as the second one was similar to the first one (the culprit seems to be that you mentioned *diffeomorphism invariance* in the first question, even though you deleted that part later on). If you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, the second one would have been significantly different and not closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first read your first question I didn't understand it, and when I read the second one I felt that you were asking the same thing twice. Now I realise that you didn't really have an alternative but to repost the question, because the first question didn't ask what you really wanted to ask. If only you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first one! In its current state, the first question does not mention diff. inv. anymore. Therefore, I would say that the second one is not a duplicate of the first one. Maybe we could ask to the rest of users to consider voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this moment, your first question is&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we construct the interaction terms of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian as a function of $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and your second question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we be sure that the diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is not lost upon the field redefinition $g=\eta+h$? Moreover, how can we prove that such an invariance is kept order by order in $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is about the *construction* of the Lagrangian, and JamalS's answer addresses that. The second one is about the *symmetries* of the Lagrangian once expanded, and as such, I'd say that it *is* significantly different than the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you also mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, but that part is already deleted and JamalS's answer does not address that. To me, the second question should be reopened (and I have already voted to reopen it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Consider replacing &quot;define&quot; with &quot;construct&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood your questions again. If that's the case please correct me in the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="5e143866-033c-4608-b729-f4f300844958" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The gory details of coding physics simulations are off-topic, even though the details of the physics to be simulated are on-topic.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you left [Computational Science (sometimes called &quot;scicomp&quot; after their URL)][2] off your list of possible sites. If you know enough about the foundation of numeric modeling that might be the site on which to seek truly expert help to refine a implementation. However, I'm not clear on how interested they are in hearing from someone with no experience in numerical work trying to get a first project off the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5623/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="fc264a91-a488-4a9e-a477-515b7689f91b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was deleted by [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community). For more information, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6787/2451) meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="18e34895-87ae-4308-a425-d452c711f045" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, I know there have been several questions asked about this, but I wanted to see what the current viewpoint was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions in question are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going through the re-open review queue and the first one was the first question linked. I looked at it, understood that it wasn't exactly with the site policy (too broad, etc) but I thought that since there seemed to be a bunch of support for it in both the number of votes (59 on the question, and 32 on the most upvoted answer) and it also seemed like an interesting exception to have, I voted to re-open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the next question that came up was the second question linked. I read through the comment discussion, and was about to vote to re-open because I thought it was another interesting exception (coincidence that they came up at the same time?) and there was a lot of support in the comments. However, I saw [this Meta discussion][1] in the comments and stopped to read it. Since there were conflicting answers with a fairly close number of upvotes, I wanted to know what site policy was before continuing to vote to close (I could've skipped, but I wanted to know in case others came up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I have a official answer on this (or, if there's conflict, or a maybe, an explanation of the boundaries)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="fa42117f-00eb-47ef-9d3a-bd8ff9e9065b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [ACuriousMind's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am rather dismayed that it is possible that this happens, I don't think this is a problem that can or should be solved by moderator intervention - at least, not by using any of the additional privileges a moderator has. That this is possible is an inherent property of the SE engine and the weights it attaches to up- and downvotes. Of course, if significant support for the idea of raising the weight of downvotes was present in the community, it would perhaps fall to the moderators to present this position to the SE team - but then again, everyone can make such a feature request at the [mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question intends to imply that maybe moderators should delete the answers of such users or suspend them, then I don't think that either can be justified. Also, deleting their wrong answers potentially leads to the users *gaining more reputation*, depending on what exactly the vote count on the wrong answer was, which doesn't solve the problem at all. Selectively deleting only the answers which contribute to their positive reputation would appear capricious and targeting a specific user instead of specific posts, which is generally inappropriate. Suspensions are only appropriate when an explicit rule was broken - and &quot;posting wrong stuff&quot; is annoying, but not in violation of any policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality. I do think the general voting behavior on this SE currently encourages questions that are much too lazy and ill-thought out. I wrote about this [some time ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) and although the numbers are of course off by now, I still stand by everything I've written there. However, I don't see how this priority of mine would be any more relevant as a moderator than it was as a high reputation user - the primary means of quality control is *upvoting high-quality questions and downvoting low-quality questions*, which is completely unaffected by moderatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly wait for consensus regarding suspensions, except in cases where one is immediately needed for the user to &quot;cool off&quot;. I would also, at least at the beginning, wait for input before dismissing custom moderator flags, but perhaps not before validating them, if the case appears clear cut. I would not wait for consensus when reopening or closing a question, but I expect to be casting both reopen and close votes much less than I currently do since I don't want to overuse the unilateral character of these votes. I would also not wait for consensus before deleting obsolete, rude or irrelevant comments, since those are supposed to be ephemeral by design anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guarantee a minimum of an hour per day for at least the next year. My time &quot;spent&quot; on the site is usually more, but I'm often doing other things while occasionally checking the site, so the actual time *invested* into the site is difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that 99% of what I have posted will not reflect badly, and that most of it reflects rather well. I can remember some stray comments and chat messages where I might have been less charitable than I should have been, but there is nothing that I would be ashamed of. The most significant change to my routine in the site would probably be that I don't do the &quot;ordinary&quot; review queues anymore, which I currently visit almost every day, and that I might be a bit more careful to distinguish site policy from my personal opinion when commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think our scope is generally quite alright as it is. The very nature of these interdisciplinary questions is that it is difficult to make general policies that cover them - this is where community moderation has to shine, hashing out whether a given question is &quot;just enough physics&quot; or &quot;not enough physics&quot; by several close/reopen cycles if need be, or just by a bit of comment/chat/meta discussion about the specific question. As a moderator, I would refrain from casting my unilateral votes in any binding manner on those questions, i.e. I would only cast them as fifth votes. We don't elect moderators to *make* policy, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't make me more effective. Moderators aren't supposed to be &quot;more effective&quot; versions of ordinary users, they're supposed to be trusted janitors who clean up the messes and do the behind-the-scenes work that's unsuitable for community moderation but nevertheless needs to be done to keep the site running smoothly. I love this site and I want to be part of the reason it's working. In the past, I've done so by participating in the review queues every day, which is something I *strongly* encourage every user with sufficient reputation to do. Now, I get the opportunity to do so in another role - if you want me to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there should be boundaries in terms of &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think there currently are. There are good and bad questions at a layman's or high schooler's level, and there are good and bad questions at research level. I've seen plenty of all of those. What I expect from a question is a reasonable amount of research effort, and an attempt to communicate clearly the *conceptual question* the asker is having. I strongly dislike all stances that think questions have merit simply because of their level. Questions have merit because they are *good, well-posed questions* that can be answered with physical insight. Note, however, that just because you can write an amazing answer to a question that doesn't necessarily make the question itself any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case where I see a question closed merely because of its *level*, I would strongly consider unilaterally reopening it. We don't have a policy about &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think we should have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what kinds of flag exactly this user generates. Generating a lot of &quot;obsolete&quot; flags is a *good* thing, since it indicates the user leaves a lot of comments leading to posts being improved, making the comment obsolete in the process. Generating a lot of &quot;not constructive&quot; or &quot;too chatty&quot; flags is worse, although it might just indicate a chatty user. I'd advise the user to use comments only for relevant communication and take longer reply chains to chat instead, but probably take no further action. On repeated offense, I'd be more quick to move the discussions to chat, but if everything's civil, I don't see a need for other actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generating a lot of &quot;rude/offensive&quot; flags is a lot worse, and would probably warrant a suspension if warnings to be nicer do not succeed. As I said above, I would not impose a suspension without waiting for consensus from the rest of the moderators, unless the user is currently generating those flags and no end is in sight. In that case I would impose a short &quot;cool off&quot; suspension to de-escalate the immediate situation, and then consult the other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd first make sure I understand the reasons for which the other moderator took that action. If I still disagree with the result, I'd take the issue to meta. Moderators should not make policy on their own, so if two of us are in strong disagreement what to do with a certain question, this indicates that the community's larger position on that type of question is unclear or needs to be re-evaluated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="ceec597a-1853-4372-be94-502b6373bc1d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**The election chat has concluded; see [the transcript](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/conversation/2016-election-chat-session).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our next [regularly scheduled chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule), October 4 at 16:00 UTC/12:00 EDT, will be devoted to the current election. We'll be holding the session in [our dedicated election chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election), _not_ in [the main site chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) as we usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _tentative_ plan is to split the session into two parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A few minutes at the beginning to address any procedural questions about the election process. (Of course, such questions can also be posted here on meta at any time.)&#xD;&#xA;2. The remainder of the session will be open for anyone to ask the candidates questions on the topic of moderation. I hope to run this in town-hall style, as done in [our last election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). This will complement the [existing questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire) by allowing for more back-and-forth discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll update this post with further details as we work them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, this is an announcement, not a question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="f659bbdf-609f-46ab-a3f7-6a688ed01f97" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  In my experience, understanding derivations (at least of college-level physics material) can be extremely useful and insightful---often far better than memorizing a result.  A 'derivations' tag might be good to give these types of questions/answers more attention, and let people especially fond-of/expert-at them find them more easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).  Being a derivation, however, does directly address the content of the question itself and the relevant skills/material required to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional modifier might be good to distinguish &quot;derivation&quot; as in, 're-deriving an equation'; as apposed to derivative 'derivation', as in an anti-integral.  Especially for non-native english speakers, this could be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304413/rigorous-treatment-of-blackbody-radiation), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="cc798986-73ad-4e58-becc-e5c176364369" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a thread on meta dedicated to something like this: [Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions][1]. If a person has opted in there, feel free to place a comment under their post to let them know about a question they might be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is definitely opt-in -- there is not, [nor will there ever be][2], a feature to allow arbitrary pinging of users who haven't even participated in a thread. Remember, this is a question and answer site, not a social network, and the experts are already giving precious time to answer questions as it is. If the site allowed anyone to initiate conversations with anyone else requesting assistance, all of the experts would quickly abandon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note there is a tendency for inexperienced members to single out certain high-rep individuals as being the only people capable of answering questions. You should avoid this tendency. For the vast majority of questions asked on this site, *many* people can give equally satisfactory answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/431/any-way-to-send-a-personal-message-to-another-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="495a48dd-24de-409f-a169-682f579982de" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That a question gets no answer does not necessarily mean it is &quot;too hard&quot;. It could mean that, but it could also mean that no one knowing the answer found the question interesting enough to spend the time writing up the answer or that no one knowing the answer *saw* the question (your question has 78 view, which is not that many). Or the people knowing the answer didn't have time to write an answer and then later forgot to come back. You often can't know the reason a question stays unanswered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to migitate some of the possibilities I said, then the &quot;standard&quot; way to increase the visibility of a question is to [place a bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). This additionally offers additional incentive in the form of reputation points to the people knowing the answer to actually spend the time writing it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, you could edit your question to make it more easily answerable and more easily readable. The longer a question, the better your writing must be so that people actually read through it instead of finding something faster to read (it's debatable whether this behaviour is a *good* thing, but that's how it is). Ask yourself: Do you explain why this question is *interesting* at the beginning to get reader interested and read on? Are all those pictures really necessary? If &quot;the question is short&quot;, then why is the question so long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do edit your question, then that will put it on the top of the &quot;active&quot; questions list again. Please do not use this feature by making trivial edits (e.g. adding whitespace, correcting one typo every ten minutes, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [posts shouldn't look like revision histories](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5886/50583). A new reader doesn't care *why* you added the second part historically. They care what it has to do with the question, and how it's supposed to make answering it easier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="586c284b-7841-4c53-9d11-cfe7371e4044" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That a question gets no answer does not necessarily mean it is &quot;too hard&quot;. It could mean that, but it could also mean that no one knowing the answer found the question interesting enough to spend the time writing up the answer or that no one knowing the answer *saw* the question (your question has 78 view, which is not that many). Or the people knowing the answer didn't have time to write an answer and then later forgot to come back. You often can't know the reason a question stays unanswered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to migitate some of the possibilities I said, then the &quot;standard&quot; way to increase the visibility of a question is to [place a bounty](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). This additionally offers additional incentive in the form of reputation points to the people knowing the answer to actually spend the time writing it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, you could edit your question to make it more easily answerable and more easily readable. The longer a question, the better your writing must be so that people actually read through it instead of finding something faster to read (it's debatable whether this behaviour is a *good* thing, but that's how it is). Ask yourself: Do you explain why this question is *interesting* at the beginning to get reader interested and read on? Are all those pictures really necessary? If &quot;the question is short&quot;, then why is the question so long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do edit your question, then that will put it on the top of the &quot;active&quot; questions list again. Please do not use this feature by making trivial edits (e.g. adding whitespace, correcting one typo every ten minutes, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [posts shouldn't look like revision histories](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5886/50583). A new reader doesn't care *why* you added the second part historically. They care what it has to do with the question, and how it's supposed to make answering it easier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="8e8488a7-b38d-4d33-9068-0ce6474c326e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a previous incarnation on this site, I wrote this meta question [**How do I improve the chances of my question being answered**][1], and in looking for it now to add to this answer, I see quite a few others very similiar to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the question box should contain a link to whatever the community eventually decides on what constitutes a good question, (perhaps it already does), anyway the big problem is that it will probably be ignored by new users, as the homework link is currently ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9327/how-can-i-improve-the-chances-of-my-question-being-answered/9328#9328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="13c38bcd-c87e-4337-b8bf-f67a1a235b27" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (&lt;s&gt;10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)&lt;/s&gt; answer now undeleted, see the [answer timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/288694/timeline) for more details) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page the OP consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are the OP's own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison, as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with the answer, and it does fall to the OP to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="585be419-6168-4a8a-af8a-0f8e8047fdee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (&lt;s&gt;10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)&lt;/s&gt; answer now undeleted, see the [answer timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/288694/timeline) for more details) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page the OP consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are the OP's own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison, as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with the answer, and it does fall to the OP to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="f49539c2-cb71-4b70-8ca3-2d197217988c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Which user, who made their account in 2016, has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and answers*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to to a new user's profile and giving a *brief* description of why that user should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="20ed5b72-e1c3-47a4-8127-a4e36fa62d41" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the most underrated answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underrated could mean that an answer recieved little attention/upvotes despite being of excellent quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to an underrated answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="6a1529c6-d520-44c2-b7c5-64216172244e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) Speaking in general, the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag also covers journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from a practical point of view, why have different standards for books, software, etc? E.g. it seems they should all be [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;II) It seems relevant to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="38f0ee37-c542-4e35-bc10-b77dfe5aaf5a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) Speaking in general, the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag also covers journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from a practical point of view, why have different standards for books, software, etc? E.g. it seems they should all be [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;II) It seems relevant to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="1c6ee915-91f7-4bd3-b32d-c19115e3a9d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best answer in 2016 which where two or more authors contributed a significant fraction of the content?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite community work, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="8b0b51c7-09e1-4afc-9872-c4d72cf7431f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best baby-steps answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A baby-steps answer starts from simple principles and finishes with a complex and rich result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite baby-steps answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="0df8db04-12e0-4be7-aaef-f9d40aae71e1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely, it's a good idea to refer to previous questions (yours or other people's) when doing so is useful. But don't just use the question _title_; you should include a link to it. If you include just the URL of the question, the SE software will automatically convert the link to display the question title, e.g. if I write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then I get https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can give your own link text by using the appropriate Markdown:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [the question about referring to previous questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives [the question about referring to previous questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="7ad25445-d1b6-45ab-896b-c893164556c7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Summary ##&#xD;&#xA;I made a week-long list of all the questions closed due to the homework flag and tried to gauge whether they were showing any effort at all. This idea came up during a chat session when we were talking about the new physics Q&amp;A site proposal and our homework policy. The hope is to give a few examples of questions that are discussion-worthy (and of questions that are definitely not) and to obtain a feeling for the relative amount of each of those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Introduction ##&#xD;&#xA;During the chat session of November the first, the question of the homework policy (reformulation) came up again, especially with reference to the [turned down new site proposal on SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) and [the newly opened help website](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site). This led us to consider what kind of questions we would like to be answered there (but not here) and in what way this could affect this site here. (All quotes are from the [chat protocol](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-11-1-16).)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;David Z: I think it would be useful to have some examples of questions that would be considered good and on topic at the hypothetical new site, from those who are involved in setting it up.&#xD;&#xA;Better yet, to have examples of questions which would be on topic there and off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of searching I was not able to find many well written questions closed due to the homework reason and it was not only me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Rennie :Having gone through a few pages of the search I posted above it's striking how few questions do show significant effort by the OP. The vast majority just post the question and ask how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further down the conversation I asked whether the amount of questions which really showed effort but still get closed under the current site policy is that substantial at all. Questions of this form would e.g. be of the &quot;did I do something wrong?&quot;-kind or &quot;I am stuck at this point in my solution attempt&quot;-kind. David wanted to take that to the meta to discuss, but I wanted to collect a bit of data first.&#xD;&#xA;## Method ##&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st of November after the chat session until the 8th of November I regularly visited [this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=1&amp;tab=newest&amp;q=is%3aq%20closed%3ayes) of newly closed questions on Physics SE, went through the last 24h and singled out all questions closed for homework reasons. I recorded them and for each of them I gave an estimate whether they could - maybe with a small bit of editing - be made into nice questions that do not fit in with our policy but *do* show effort at solution by the OP. I realise that a) questions get deleted sometimes rather quickly, so I might have easily missed some, b) this is all a bit subjective and c) a week is not that much time. But still, to me it seems like it will be nice to have a bit of a data-based feeling for what we are actually talking about when we are talking about redoing the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;## Results ##&#xD;&#xA;From 87 questions that I recorded as closed due to homework-reasons, I would grade 64 as showing no effort at all. This is 74% of the questions closed for that reason, but still - 23 questions remain. This surprised me, to be honest, and in my mind it is a good reason to actually build up an alternative site for good, well-written &quot;homework&quot;-questions.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be happy about other people doing the same to obtain a bit more data :D I also hope this helps us to decide better when considering how and whether to modify the homework policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Appendix - List and Links of Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;showing effort&quot; or &quot;being salvagable through small edits&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove that internal energy for a system whose temperature is negative is bounded between 1/2 and 1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290321/how-to-prove-that-internal-energy-for-a-system-whose-temperature-is-negative-is) ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BuuH0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Molecular simulation of ideal gas- descriptive statistical analysis](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290173/molecular-simulation-of-ideal-gas-descriptive-statistical-analysis)  ([png 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jz2e1.png), [png 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixTss.png))  &#xD;&#xA;[Question about Galilean relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290362/question-about-galilean-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the charges on each Capacitor after a long time](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290636/find-the-charges-on-each-capacitor-after-a-long-time)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Si8bJ.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Work and kinetic energy on an incline?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290728/work-and-kinetic-energy-on-an-incline)  &#xD;&#xA;[A neutron (rest mass 940MeV/c 2 ) is measured in the lab to have energy 2GeV](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290729/a-neutron-rest-mass-940mev-c-2-is-measured-in-the-lab-to-have-energy-2gev)  &#xD;&#xA;[work and change of kenetic energy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290987/work-and-change-of-kenetic-energy)  &#xD;&#xA;[A block is pushed onto a conveyor belt](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290984/a-block-is-pushed-onto-a-conveyor-belt)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSDFI.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Lagrangian for double Atwood machine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290922/lagrangian-for-double-atwood-machine)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGfwu.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the acceleration for a given mass and velocity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291081/find-the-acceleration-for-a-given-mass-and-velocity)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8JkA9.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Pully and Inclined Ramp](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291059/pully-and-inclined-ramp)  &#xD;&#xA;[Uncertainty in the angle by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291053/uncertainty-in-the-angle-by-using-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric Field at Centre of Hemispherical Cup](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291022/electric-field-at-centre-of-hemispherical-cup)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GaVyY.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Oscillation of charge problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291147/oscillation-of-charge-problem)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L6dS0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the time of movement if the maximal height is equal to the distance of fall](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291133/find-the-time-of-movement-if-the-maximal-height-is-equal-to-the-distance-of-fall)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wjIYQ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Two flashes of light for two observers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291265/two-flashes-of-light-for-two-observers)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qSXZZ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Finding the period of a system in simple harmonic motion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291253/finding-the-period-of-a-system-in-simple-harmonic-motion)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to find the amount of work done against gravity from an object moving diagonally?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291248/how-to-find-the-amount-of-work-done-against-gravity-from-an-object-moving-diagon)  &#xD;&#xA;[Propeller torque on the shaft when rotational speed and Thrust is given](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291171/propeller-torque-on-the-shaft-when-rotational-speed-and-thrust-is-given)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hkt61.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia, lab exercise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291377/moment-of-inertia-lab-exercise)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vticH.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Time needed for photon to reach the surface of a white dwarf ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291294/time-needed-for-photon-to-reach-the-surface-of-a-white-dwarf)  &#xD;&#xA;[Energy conservation … Basic qustion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291266/energy-conservation-basic-qustion)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BZ3RW.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Quantitative Study of Mirage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291535/quantitative-study-of-mirage)  &#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;no effort shown&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Linear motion problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290130/linear-motion-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron moving with 0.99c?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290129/magnitude-of-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electron-moving-with-0-99c)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is expected from switch S?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290098/what-is-expected-from-switch-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Minimum velocity for a charged particle to go through all the magnetic field's zone](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290075/minimum-velocity-for-a-charged-particle-to-go-through-all-the-magnetic-fields-z)  &#xD;&#xA;[conservation of momentum and energy to find speed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290051/conservation-of-momentum-and-energy-to-find-speed)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the flux of a charge through a finite plane](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290032/find-the-flux-of-a-charge-through-a-finite-plane)  &#xD;&#xA;[Statistical physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290031/statistical-physics)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the velocity of the particle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle)  &#xD;&#xA;[a question of pulley and monkey](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey)  &#xD;&#xA;[A projectile question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290236/classical-action)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oliver has a mass of 70.5kg and can throw a 542.0g rock with a speed of 10.4m/s. What would Oliver's recoil speed be if he were on an icy surface?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290285/oliver-has-a-mass-of-70-5kg-and-can-throw-a-542-0g-rock-with-a-speed-of-10-4m-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Parachutist jumps out of plane - Find work (parachute)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290286/parachutist-jumps-out-of-plane-find-work-parachute)  &#xD;&#xA;[Damped harmonic oscillator differential equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290292/damped-harmonic-oscillator-differential-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[A question of projectile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I find distance if I have acceleration and time?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290232/how-do-i-find-distance-if-i-have-acceleration-and-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the equivalent resistance seen from the E6 generator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290228/calculate-the-equivalent-resistance-seen-from-the-e6-generator)  &#xD;&#xA;[Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290218/eigenvalues-of-hamiltonian)  &#xD;&#xA;[Deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier-Stokes equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290175/deriving-bernoullis-equation-from-navier-stokes-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[state the different levels of stress and strain in a rigid body](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290361/state-the-different-levels-of-stress-and-strain-in-a-rigid-body)  &#xD;&#xA;[Bosonic and Fermionic harmonic oscillators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290365/bosonic-and-fermionic-harmonic-oscillators)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics of system of particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290372/mechanics-of-system-of-particles)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric field between three parallel plates](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290480/electric-field-between-three-parallel-plates)  &#xD;&#xA;[From special relativity to general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290461/from-special-relativity-to-general-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove the following Dirac matrices identity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290434/how-to-prove-the-following-dirac-matrices-identity)  &#xD;&#xA;[angular spread in the angle of refraction of the beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290418/angular-spread-in-the-angle-of-refraction-of-the-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[minimum area of the disc to collect all light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290415/minimum-area-of-the-disc-to-collect-all-light)  &#xD;&#xA;[Nutcracker problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290394/nutcracker-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantum Physics Easy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290667/quantum-physics-easy)  &#xD;&#xA;[By how much does the image move when the object is moved by 10cm in the given lens configuration?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290645/by-how-much-does-the-image-move-when-the-object-is-moved-by-10cm-in-the-given-le)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the acceleration of point D and E when F = 125N?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290644/what-is-the-acceleration-of-point-d-and-e-when-f-125n)  &#xD;&#xA;[Examination Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290641/examination-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I prove that a disk charge resembles a point charge if its radius shrinks to 0? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290573/how-do-i-prove-that-a-disk-charge-resembles-a-point-charge-if-its-radius-shrinks)  &#xD;&#xA;[How does the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor vary as the length of the dielectric inside it changes?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290546/how-does-the-capacitance-of-a-parallel-plate-capacitor-vary-as-the-length-of-the)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I express this. If I use Lorenz transform, It depends on mc2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290538/how-do-i-express-this-if-i-use-lorenz-transform-it-depends-on-mc2)  &#xD;&#xA;[moving object - vectors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290687/moving-object-vectors)  &#xD;&#xA;[The classical theory of fields - Landau book problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290710/the-classical-theory-of-fields-landau-book-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculating Magnitude of Force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290837/calculating-magnitude-of-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the relationships between radius, velocity and centripetal force on an object?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290739/what-are-the-relationships-between-radius-velocity-and-centripetal-force-on-an)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electrons during radioactive decay](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291006/electrons-during-radioactive-decay)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics problem and confusion regarding reference frame calculation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290965/mechanics-problem-and-confusion-regarding-reference-frame-calculation)  &#xD;&#xA;[An object that is not accelerating or decelerating has zero net force acting on it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290955/an-object-that-is-not-accelerating-or-decelerating-has-zero-net-force-acting-on)  &#xD;&#xA;[Confusion on conservation of angular momentum](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290938/confusion-on-conservation-of-angular-momentum)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational Imbalance](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290930/rotational-imbalance)&#xD;&#xA;[Does a current-carrying solenoid exert force on itself ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291079/does-a-current-carrying-solenoid-exert-force-on-itself)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291050/classical-mechanics)  &#xD;&#xA;[do you know why Q2 has negative sign?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291044/do-you-know-why-q2-has-negative-sign)  &#xD;&#xA;[Frame of reference and work done by pseudo force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291032/frame-of-reference-and-work-done-by-pseudo-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[Induced current in a circular loop](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291029/induced-current-in-a-circular-loop)  &#xD;&#xA;[X and Y collide, find angle of Y](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291023/x-and-y-collide-find-angle-of-y)  &#xD;&#xA;[Related to torque generated, to find input and output torque](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291117/related-to-torque-generated-to-find-input-and-output-torque)  &#xD;&#xA;[moment of inertia in beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291116/moment-of-inertia-in-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[Converting from rectangular to polar and vice-versa ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291108/converting-from-rectangular-to-polar-and-vice-versa)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are **Energy levels, Sublevels, and Orbitals**?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291096/what-are-energy-levels-sublevels-and-orbitals)  &#xD;&#xA;[Boundary layer flow directed radially towards a sink](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291230/boundary-layer-flow-directed-radially-towards-a-sink)  &#xD;&#xA;[Writing Fokker Planck equation for levy walker in a given potential](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291209/writing-fokker-planck-equation-for-levy-walker-in-a-given-potential)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the kinetic energy possessed by a battle tank belt whose mass is m if the tank is moving with a constant velocity v?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291174/what-is-the-kinetic-energy-possessed-by-a-battle-tank-belt-whose-mass-is-m-if-th)  &#xD;&#xA;[Simple Harmonic Motion Question With Explanation Please! ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291459/simple-harmonic-motion-question-with-explanation-please)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the height and the instant velocity of a geostationary satellite](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291444/find-the-height-and-the-instant-velocity-of-a-geostationary-satellite)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the image formations at different positions for plano convex and plano concave lenses? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291412/what-are-the-image-formations-at-different-positions-for-plano-convex-and-plano)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia of semicircular disc](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291367/moment-of-inertia-of-semicircular-disc)  &#xD;&#xA;[Poincare algebra](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291354/poincare-algebra)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding gravitational force on a body of unit mass by other three bodies](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291582/finding-gravitational-force-on-a-body-of-unit-mass-by-other-three-bodies)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational mech](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291548/rotational-mech)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="6b6faaf4-192a-4d33-82cc-724c13702b16" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Summary ##&#xD;&#xA;I made a week-long list of all the questions closed due to the homework flag and tried to gauge whether they were showing any effort at all. This idea came up during a chat session when we were talking about the new physics Q&amp;A site proposal and our homework policy. The hope is to give a few examples of questions that are discussion-worthy (and of questions that are definitely not) and to obtain a feeling for the relative amount of each of those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Introduction ##&#xD;&#xA;During the chat session of November the first, the question of the homework policy (reformulation) came up again, especially with reference to the [turned down new site proposal on SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) and [the newly opened help website](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site). This led us to consider what kind of questions we would like to be answered there (but not here) and in what way this could affect this site here. (All quotes are from the [chat protocol](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-11-1-16).)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;David Z: I think it would be useful to have some examples of questions that would be considered good and on topic at the hypothetical new site, from those who are involved in setting it up.&#xD;&#xA;Better yet, to have examples of questions which would be on topic there and off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of searching I was not able to find many well written questions closed due to the homework reason and it was not only me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Rennie :Having gone through a few pages of the search I posted above it's striking how few questions do show significant effort by the OP. The vast majority just post the question and ask how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further down the conversation I asked whether the amount of questions which really showed effort but still get closed under the current site policy is that substantial at all. Questions of this form would e.g. be of the &quot;did I do something wrong?&quot;-kind or &quot;I am stuck at this point in my solution attempt&quot;-kind. David wanted to take that to the meta to discuss, but I wanted to collect a bit of data first.&#xD;&#xA;## Method ##&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st of November after the chat session until the 8th of November I regularly visited [this site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=1&amp;tab=newest&amp;q=is%3aq%20closed%3ayes) of newly closed questions on Physics SE, went through the last 24h and singled out all questions closed for homework reasons. I recorded them and for each of them I gave an estimate whether they could - maybe with a small bit of editing - be made into nice questions that do not fit in with our policy but *do* show effort at solution by the OP. I realise that a) questions get deleted sometimes rather quickly, so I might have easily missed some, b) this is all a bit subjective and c) a week is not that much time. But still, to me it seems like it will be nice to have a bit of a data-based feeling for what we are actually talking about when we are talking about redoing the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;## Results ##&#xD;&#xA;From 87 questions that I recorded as closed due to homework-reasons, I would grade 64 as showing no effort at all. This is 74% of the questions closed for that reason, but still - 23 questions remain. This surprised me, to be honest, and in my mind it is a good reason to actually build up an alternative site for good, well-written &quot;homework&quot;-questions.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be happy about other people doing the same to obtain a bit more data :D I also hope this helps us to decide better when considering how and whether to modify the homework policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Appendix - List and Links of Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;showing effort&quot; or &quot;being salvagable through small edits&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove that internal energy for a system whose temperature is negative is bounded between 1/2 and 1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290321/how-to-prove-that-internal-energy-for-a-system-whose-temperature-is-negative-is) ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BuuH0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Molecular simulation of ideal gas- descriptive statistical analysis](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290173/molecular-simulation-of-ideal-gas-descriptive-statistical-analysis)  ([png 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jz2e1.png), [png 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixTss.png))  &#xD;&#xA;[Question about Galilean relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290362/question-about-galilean-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the charges on each Capacitor after a long time](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290636/find-the-charges-on-each-capacitor-after-a-long-time)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Si8bJ.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Work and kinetic energy on an incline?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290728/work-and-kinetic-energy-on-an-incline)  &#xD;&#xA;[A neutron (rest mass 940MeV/c 2 ) is measured in the lab to have energy 2GeV](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290729/a-neutron-rest-mass-940mev-c-2-is-measured-in-the-lab-to-have-energy-2gev)  &#xD;&#xA;[work and change of kenetic energy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290987/work-and-change-of-kenetic-energy)  &#xD;&#xA;[A block is pushed onto a conveyor belt](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290984/a-block-is-pushed-onto-a-conveyor-belt)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSDFI.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Lagrangian for double Atwood machine](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290922/lagrangian-for-double-atwood-machine)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGfwu.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the acceleration for a given mass and velocity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291081/find-the-acceleration-for-a-given-mass-and-velocity)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8JkA9.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Pully and Inclined Ramp](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291059/pully-and-inclined-ramp)  &#xD;&#xA;[Uncertainty in the angle by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291053/uncertainty-in-the-angle-by-using-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric Field at Centre of Hemispherical Cup](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291022/electric-field-at-centre-of-hemispherical-cup)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GaVyY.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Oscillation of charge problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291147/oscillation-of-charge-problem)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L6dS0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the time of movement if the maximal height is equal to the distance of fall](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291133/find-the-time-of-movement-if-the-maximal-height-is-equal-to-the-distance-of-fall)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wjIYQ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Two flashes of light for two observers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291265/two-flashes-of-light-for-two-observers)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qSXZZ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Finding the period of a system in simple harmonic motion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291253/finding-the-period-of-a-system-in-simple-harmonic-motion)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to find the amount of work done against gravity from an object moving diagonally?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291248/how-to-find-the-amount-of-work-done-against-gravity-from-an-object-moving-diagon)  &#xD;&#xA;[Propeller torque on the shaft when rotational speed and Thrust is given](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291171/propeller-torque-on-the-shaft-when-rotational-speed-and-thrust-is-given)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hkt61.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia, lab exercise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291377/moment-of-inertia-lab-exercise)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vticH.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Time needed for photon to reach the surface of a white dwarf ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291294/time-needed-for-photon-to-reach-the-surface-of-a-white-dwarf)  &#xD;&#xA;[Energy conservation … Basic qustion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291266/energy-conservation-basic-qustion)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BZ3RW.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Quantitative Study of Mirage](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291535/quantitative-study-of-mirage)  &#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;no effort shown&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Linear motion problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290130/linear-motion-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron moving with 0.99c?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290129/magnitude-of-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electron-moving-with-0-99c)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is expected from switch S?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290098/what-is-expected-from-switch-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Minimum velocity for a charged particle to go through all the magnetic field's zone](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290075/minimum-velocity-for-a-charged-particle-to-go-through-all-the-magnetic-fields-z)  &#xD;&#xA;[conservation of momentum and energy to find speed](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290051/conservation-of-momentum-and-energy-to-find-speed)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the flux of a charge through a finite plane](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290032/find-the-flux-of-a-charge-through-a-finite-plane)  &#xD;&#xA;[Statistical physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290031/statistical-physics)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the velocity of the particle](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle)  &#xD;&#xA;[a question of pulley and monkey](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey)  &#xD;&#xA;[A projectile question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Action](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290236/classical-action)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oliver has a mass of 70.5kg and can throw a 542.0g rock with a speed of 10.4m/s. What would Oliver's recoil speed be if he were on an icy surface?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290285/oliver-has-a-mass-of-70-5kg-and-can-throw-a-542-0g-rock-with-a-speed-of-10-4m-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Parachutist jumps out of plane - Find work (parachute)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290286/parachutist-jumps-out-of-plane-find-work-parachute)  &#xD;&#xA;[Damped harmonic oscillator differential equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290292/damped-harmonic-oscillator-differential-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[A question of projectile](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I find distance if I have acceleration and time?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290232/how-do-i-find-distance-if-i-have-acceleration-and-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the equivalent resistance seen from the E6 generator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290228/calculate-the-equivalent-resistance-seen-from-the-e6-generator)  &#xD;&#xA;[Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290218/eigenvalues-of-hamiltonian)  &#xD;&#xA;[Deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier-Stokes equation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290175/deriving-bernoullis-equation-from-navier-stokes-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[state the different levels of stress and strain in a rigid body](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290361/state-the-different-levels-of-stress-and-strain-in-a-rigid-body)  &#xD;&#xA;[Bosonic and Fermionic harmonic oscillators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290365/bosonic-and-fermionic-harmonic-oscillators)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics of system of particles](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290372/mechanics-of-system-of-particles)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric field between three parallel plates](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290480/electric-field-between-three-parallel-plates)  &#xD;&#xA;[From special relativity to general relativity](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290461/from-special-relativity-to-general-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove the following Dirac matrices identity?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290434/how-to-prove-the-following-dirac-matrices-identity)  &#xD;&#xA;[angular spread in the angle of refraction of the beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290418/angular-spread-in-the-angle-of-refraction-of-the-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[minimum area of the disc to collect all light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290415/minimum-area-of-the-disc-to-collect-all-light)  &#xD;&#xA;[Nutcracker problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290394/nutcracker-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantum Physics Easy](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290667/quantum-physics-easy)  &#xD;&#xA;[By how much does the image move when the object is moved by 10cm in the given lens configuration?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290645/by-how-much-does-the-image-move-when-the-object-is-moved-by-10cm-in-the-given-le)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the acceleration of point D and E when F = 125N?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290644/what-is-the-acceleration-of-point-d-and-e-when-f-125n)  &#xD;&#xA;[Examination Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290641/examination-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I prove that a disk charge resembles a point charge if its radius shrinks to 0? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290573/how-do-i-prove-that-a-disk-charge-resembles-a-point-charge-if-its-radius-shrinks)  &#xD;&#xA;[How does the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor vary as the length of the dielectric inside it changes?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290546/how-does-the-capacitance-of-a-parallel-plate-capacitor-vary-as-the-length-of-the)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I express this. If I use Lorenz transform, It depends on mc2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290538/how-do-i-express-this-if-i-use-lorenz-transform-it-depends-on-mc2)  &#xD;&#xA;[moving object - vectors](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290687/moving-object-vectors)  &#xD;&#xA;[The classical theory of fields - Landau book problem](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290710/the-classical-theory-of-fields-landau-book-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculating Magnitude of Force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290837/calculating-magnitude-of-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the relationships between radius, velocity and centripetal force on an object?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290739/what-are-the-relationships-between-radius-velocity-and-centripetal-force-on-an)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electrons during radioactive decay](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291006/electrons-during-radioactive-decay)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics problem and confusion regarding reference frame calculation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290965/mechanics-problem-and-confusion-regarding-reference-frame-calculation)  &#xD;&#xA;[An object that is not accelerating or decelerating has zero net force acting on it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290955/an-object-that-is-not-accelerating-or-decelerating-has-zero-net-force-acting-on)  &#xD;&#xA;[Confusion on conservation of angular momentum](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290938/confusion-on-conservation-of-angular-momentum)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational Imbalance](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290930/rotational-imbalance)&#xD;&#xA;[Does a current-carrying solenoid exert force on itself ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291079/does-a-current-carrying-solenoid-exert-force-on-itself)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Mechanics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291050/classical-mechanics)  &#xD;&#xA;[do you know why Q2 has negative sign?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291044/do-you-know-why-q2-has-negative-sign)  &#xD;&#xA;[Frame of reference and work done by pseudo force](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291032/frame-of-reference-and-work-done-by-pseudo-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[Induced current in a circular loop](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291029/induced-current-in-a-circular-loop)  &#xD;&#xA;[X and Y collide, find angle of Y](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291023/x-and-y-collide-find-angle-of-y)  &#xD;&#xA;[Related to torque generated, to find input and output torque](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291117/related-to-torque-generated-to-find-input-and-output-torque)  &#xD;&#xA;[moment of inertia in beam](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291116/moment-of-inertia-in-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[Converting from rectangular to polar and vice-versa ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291108/converting-from-rectangular-to-polar-and-vice-versa)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are **Energy levels, Sublevels, and Orbitals**?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291096/what-are-energy-levels-sublevels-and-orbitals)  &#xD;&#xA;[Boundary layer flow directed radially towards a sink](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291230/boundary-layer-flow-directed-radially-towards-a-sink)  &#xD;&#xA;[Writing Fokker Planck equation for levy walker in a given potential](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291209/writing-fokker-planck-equation-for-levy-walker-in-a-given-potential)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the kinetic energy possessed by a battle tank belt whose mass is m if the tank is moving with a constant velocity v?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291174/what-is-the-kinetic-energy-possessed-by-a-battle-tank-belt-whose-mass-is-m-if-th)  &#xD;&#xA;[Simple Harmonic Motion Question With Explanation Please! ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291459/simple-harmonic-motion-question-with-explanation-please)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the height and the instant velocity of a geostationary satellite](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291444/find-the-height-and-the-instant-velocity-of-a-geostationary-satellite)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the image formations at different positions for plano convex and plano concave lenses? ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291412/what-are-the-image-formations-at-different-positions-for-plano-convex-and-plano)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia of semicircular disc](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291367/moment-of-inertia-of-semicircular-disc)  &#xD;&#xA;[Poincare algebra](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291354/poincare-algebra)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding gravitational force on a body of unit mass by other three bodies](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291582/finding-gravitational-force-on-a-body-of-unit-mass-by-other-three-bodies)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational mech](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291548/rotational-mech)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="7243cfe1-c16a-46e9-afd9-7ac14c3c79b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Proposal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When homework-and-exercises questions are voted *off topic* and put on hold then the OP should be directed to the Meta Question which offers a choice of alternative sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this proposal into effect, the notification box could be amended to read :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**put on hold** as off-topic by ...   &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. **If you cannot do so, recommendations for alternative sites are given in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note:* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally I had thought of re-directing the OP to the offshoot site [Physics Problems Q&amp;A](http://physics.qandaexchange.com/?qa=questions) set up by heather and Mew, but this might give the impression of official approval of that site by the Stack Exchange community. See :  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site/9321#9321  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7299/ethics-redirecting-homework-solution-seeking-questions-to-a-website-built-for/7300#7300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most questions in this category are asking specifically for help in solving problems. Typically they include &quot;Is this correct?&quot;, &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot;, &quot;How do I start?&quot; or &quot;What should I do next?&quot; It is far from easy to turn such difficulties into a question of a conceptual nature which would be *on topic* here, whereas the question as it stands would probably be *on topic* at sites specifically set up for help with homework or problem-solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a homework question is closed, the OP often either (i) asks for a recommendation of a website where the question might be suitable, or (ii) asks how the question can be edited to make it *on topic*, or (iii) argues that the question is **not** actually *off topic*. In the latter case the OP leaves the site having had a bad experience. Recommending where to get an answer will save effort in dealing with these 3 issues and increase the chances of the OP having a satisfactory experience of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please up-vote my question if you approve of my suggestion and would like to see it implemented, or down-vote if you disapprove.** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="f94e17dc-011b-4305-9bcf-328987891745" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Proposal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When homework-and-exercises questions are voted *off topic* and put on hold then the OP should be directed to the Meta Question which offers a choice of alternative sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this proposal into effect, the notification box could be amended to read :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**put on hold** as off-topic by ...   &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. **If you cannot do so, recommendations for alternative sites are given in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note:* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally I had thought of re-directing the OP to the offshoot site [Physics Problems Q&amp;A](http://physics.qandaexchange.com/?qa=questions) set up by heather and Mew, but this might give the impression of official approval of that site by the Stack Exchange community. See :  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site/9321#9321  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7299/ethics-redirecting-homework-solution-seeking-questions-to-a-website-built-for/7300#7300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most questions in this category are asking specifically for help in solving problems. Typically they include &quot;Is this correct?&quot;, &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot;, &quot;How do I start?&quot; or &quot;What should I do next?&quot; It is far from easy to turn such difficulties into a question of a conceptual nature which would be *on topic* here, whereas the question as it stands would probably be *on topic* at sites specifically set up for help with homework or problem-solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a homework question is closed, the OP often either (i) asks for a recommendation of a website where the question might be suitable, or (ii) asks how the question can be edited to make it *on topic*, or (iii) argues that the question is **not** actually *off topic*. In the latter case the OP leaves the site having had a bad experience. Recommending where to get an answer will save effort in dealing with these 3 issues and increase the chances of the OP having a satisfactory experience of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please up-vote my question if you approve of my suggestion and would like to see it implemented, or down-vote if you disapprove.** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="a03129f8-9ae9-4667-8574-623d4da07725" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have very little control over this. Physics Stack Exchange is part of a network of [160+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). All the sites share a common engine, so it *is* possible to request and obtain site-specific changes to the common behaviour, but they need to be very well justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to request changes to the engine is at the overarching meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), where it is easier to get the attention of the community team and the developers. Our meta site is better for issues specific to this site and its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I don't think it's particularly problematic. The entry-level badges are awarded easily as an incentive for new users to explore the site's features, by adding some fake internet sugar on top. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the MathJax side, though, you're right, but that's not quite the right approach - I advocated [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial) earlier &lt;s&gt;but it's not yet implemented&lt;/s&gt; and it just went live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="8162bea4-a1fb-4c32-b29b-d432a1db9baa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Currently it requires a reputation of 50 points or more to post comments to other users' posts. This creates some problems for new users :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. For example : http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is not about the **fairness** of this policy, as is the case in &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337 My concern is about the **practicality** of it. Are the difficulties which it creates greater than the benefits of the policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are temporary, subject to deletion by moderators, and of less importance than answers. It seems to me inconsistent that it requires more rep to post comments than answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should this policy be changed? Should the restriction on posting comments be removed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="e136fe03-91e2-4e74-ba1d-8c6257154326" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have very little control over this. Physics Stack Exchange is part of a network of [160+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). All the sites share a common engine, so it *is* possible to request and obtain site-specific changes to the common behaviour, but they need to be very well justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to request changes to the engine is at the overarching meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), where it is easier to get the attention of the community team and the developers. Our meta site is better for issues specific to this site and its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I don't think it's particularly problematic. The entry-level badges are awarded easily as an incentive for new users to explore the site's features, by adding some fake internet sugar on top. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the MathJax side, though, you're right, but that's not quite the right approach - I advocated [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial) earlier &lt;s&gt;but it's not yet implemented&lt;/s&gt; and it just went live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="04b65e8c-c28e-49c2-9091-5dec4a978cbe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As an alternative to the other two answers: the bra-ket angles both have unicode incarnations, `⟨` and `⟩`, and they are both rendered correctly by MathJax. Thus, if you type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $⟨a|b⟩$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it will render correctly. (On the other hand, this only works for the single-size version, i.e. `\right⟩` won't work.) My solution is to have those characters hardwired into my software keyboard, and it really speeds up typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, this usage is directly in the spirit of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown): having a lightweight source which renders into a nice formatting, but which is also human-readable directly from the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is important to remark that this usage is exclusive to MathJax and it does not work under standard TeX renderers. (In fact, MathJax will correctly render a bunch of off-track unicode symbols, like ≠, ±, ≃, ° and [so on](http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_math_operators.html), that will send (La)TeX into a belly-up spin.) As such, I consider it impolite to use these characters when editing other people's posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a word of caution: **all the posts on a page share the same MathJax environment**, and in particular this means that **any commands that you define or `renew` can and will affect other posts on the same page**. This has been [discussed before on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6951/should-we-indicate-the-use-of-renewcommand-in-the-help-center), with the specific point that `renewcommand` should not be used on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a new command for `\ket`s and `\bra`s is not terrible, partly because even if other people on the same thread define it differently, you wouldn't expect real conflicts in the output. However, it's important to keep in mind that *any* use of `\newcommand`, particularly beyond the simplest, mildest, most standard definitions, can produce unexpected behaviour like e.g. [on this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7297/mathjax-rendering-bk-differently-in-question-display-and-edit-modes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9424" RevisionGUID="a3364b2c-9ba1-437e-b7c7-986924082f0b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Rookie of the year&#xD;&#xA;User, who created their account in 2016, who has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and/or answers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this category is used, note that the nominations for winners will be in the form of links to user accounts, with a brief explanation of why that user should win, i.e. some links to their best questions/answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="d9495998-f4f2-4ce6-9dfb-53072b82e4d7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Such a question is not in scope for this particular Meta site, but can be proposed over at [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/), which is where Stack Exchange sites are proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there have been similar proposals (a short list among others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5697/25301&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these have been successful in garnering much interest (i.e., critical mass interest to actually support a site). I sincerely doubt your latest attempt would be any more successful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also [Heather &amp; Mew's Physics Problem site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site), but note that (a) it is *not* an SE site and (b) I have no idea what is going on there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="319ec576-59ed-46a0-980b-337d3575ac53" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As an alternative to the other two answers: the bra-ket angles both have unicode incarnations, `⟨` and `⟩`, and they are both rendered correctly by MathJax. Thus, if you type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $⟨a|b⟩$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it will render correctly. (On the other hand, this only works for the single-size version, i.e. `\right⟩` won't work.) My solution is to have those characters hardwired into my software keyboard, and it really speeds up typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, this usage is directly in the spirit of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown): having a lightweight source which renders into a nice formatting, but which is also human-readable directly from the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is important to remark that this usage is exclusive to MathJax and it does not work under standard TeX renderers. (In fact, MathJax will correctly render a bunch of off-track unicode symbols, like ≠, ±, ≃, ° and [so on](http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_math_operators.html), that will send (La)TeX into a belly-up spin.) As such, I consider it impolite to use these characters when editing other people's posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a word of caution: **all the posts on a page share the same MathJax environment**, and in particular this means that **any commands that you define or `renew` can and will affect other posts on the same page**. This has been [discussed before on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6951/should-we-indicate-the-use-of-renewcommand-in-the-help-center), with the specific point that `renewcommand` should not be used on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defining a new command for `\ket`s and `\bra`s is not terrible, partly because even if other people on the same thread define it differently, you wouldn't expect real conflicts in the output. However, it's important to keep in mind that *any* use of `\newcommand`, particularly beyond the simplest, mildest, most standard definitions, can produce unexpected behaviour like e.g. [on this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7297/mathjax-rendering-bk-differently-in-question-display-and-edit-modes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="9e4f136b-42e8-4890-8bdf-ee6d06f0108c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best self-answer&#xD;&#xA;Best question/answer pair written by the same user, either because they figured out their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9424" RevisionGUID="66c715dd-790e-4aa0-b11f-17a98d2101ac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Rookie of the year&#xD;&#xA;User, who created their account in 2016, who has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and/or answers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this category is used, note that the nominations for winners will be in the form of links to user accounts, with a brief explanation of why that user should win, i.e. some links to their best questions/answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="a0e2d29e-bf83-42fa-be74-4d6467b81b46" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Never too old to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best question asked in 2016 by a user who's account is at least two(?) years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="cd3b8525-8b4d-44f5-9e38-e6c2fcb065ac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best self-answer&#xD;&#xA;Best question/answer pair written by the same user, either because they figured out their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="89671360-c28e-4bd5-a2d6-cf23fde14662" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with Emilio Pisanty that the question should not have been closed as an engineering question, for the reason he gives, namely that the OP is asking for the physics behind a phenomenon rather than, for example, an explanation of a technical feature of his mobile phone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the question has some similarities to http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308331, it is readily recognizable in this case what the cause is, even though the &quot;strange sound&quot; is not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to criticise @DavidZ but I think this is a good example of why moderators should not close questions unilaterally for routine reasons - ie for the same reasons as reviewers. When judgement is called for, the requirement for 5 votes avoids the outcome being skewed by individual differences of opinion. I have complained about this already in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9449/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="00223747-9352-4122-8aa1-1f3617e2cf91" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Never too old to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best question asked in 2016 by a user who's account is at least two(?) years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="033f3640-b1f8-45c3-8aa4-a90cde543bd9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7vEF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a black design inspired by: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designed by CustomInk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="399bc016-4ebf-412b-9643-68dce32cb5d9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is a bit late into this new year, being that we're already in the second month, but we are now cycling the Community Promotion Ads for 2017!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA; - If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/9554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="3446332a-a7f0-4bc0-b1af-bbb568a17c45" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7vEF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a black design inspired by: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designed by CustomInk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="3c4a936b-a8c0-4e9e-80f2-8e5ca77aa0b0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to address some points that [rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44126/rob) didn't touch upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, I want to say something about your comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I just want to understand how to improve a post is good, maybe I made confusion because of my English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me tell you that I sympathise with you because English is not my first language either, and I too sometimes find it difficult to express my thoughts clearly. Like it or not, poor grammar will reduce the overall quality of the post. The reception of a post with poor grammar is automatically worse than than of a post with good grammar, even if the physical content is the same. And this happens even though most users try to focus on the physical content of the question; it is a subconscious process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason you (and I) have to make an extra effort when posting Q&amp;A here. You'll have to live with that. In any case, don't fret too much about it, as most users here have good intentions and they'll try to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your post(s). Your first question was edited several times. The first version **is indeed unclear**, and unfortunately it mentions *diffeomorphisms invariance*. Later on you edited it and deleted the part about diff. inv., but the question was still rather unclear&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;. You got an answer but it did not address your concerns (it didn't address your *true question*, because it was not clear what your *true question* was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you had two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **edit your question** and introduce some changes in order to make it clear what your *true question* is. The problem is that major edits that change the meaning of the question are discouraged if the question does already contain an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **post a new question**, which clearly highlights your concerns. You should only do this if the new question is significantly different than the first one; otherwise, it will be closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, your case is very complicated because a major edit to your first question is discouraged, but posting a new one was not well received either, as the second one was similar to the first one (the culprit seems to be that you mentioned *diffeomorphism invariance* in the first question, even though you deleted that part later on). If you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, the second one would have been significantly different and not closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first read your first question I didn't understand it, and when I read the second one I felt that you were asking the same thing twice. Now I realise that you didn't really have an alternative but to repost the question, because the first question didn't ask what you really wanted to ask. If only you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first one! In its current state, the first question does not mention diff. inv. anymore. Therefore, I would say that the second one is not a duplicate of the first one. Maybe we could ask to the rest of users to consider voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this moment, your first question is&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we construct the interaction terms of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian as a function of $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and your second question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we be sure that the diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is not lost upon the field redefinition $g=\eta+h$? Moreover, how can we prove that such an invariance is kept order by order in $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is about the *construction* of the Lagrangian, and JamalS's answer addresses that. The second one is about the *symmetries* of the Lagrangian once expanded, and as such, I'd say that it *is* significantly different than the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you also mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, but that part is already deleted and JamalS's answer does not address that. To me, the second question should be reopened (and I have already voted to reopen it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Consider replacing &quot;define&quot; with &quot;construct&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood your questions again. If that's the case please correct me in the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="dcdce041-7756-4140-9f1d-480d84224acd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the first person who voted to close [Dancing Twins](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307573) as a duplicate, I think you make a valid point which is relevant generally. There is always going to be some difference between questions, or some aspect of the new question (or of both) which is not addressed in the original answers. I think the decision has to be made on the broad similarity of the central part of the question. See for example the discussions about [Do black holes exist?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5864/not-a-duplicate) and [Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9348/a-dubious-duplicate?rq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case I think you are making a distinction which does not actually exist in the questions. Neither specifies what the relative motion of the observers is. The rocket-bound twin could be circling the Earth-bound twin; this possibility is not addressed in either case. And Electrodynamist's answer to the original makes the same points as you that what is observed depends on the relative speed and is affected by both time dilation and the Doppler effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the question was closed you were able to post an answer which addressed the issue you raised. Even if the question had been closed before you answered, you could (and can still) post a thorough answer to the original question, contrasting the two questions and covering all scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might indeed be a better original of which this is the duplicate, but finding it takes time and effort, which mortals like us have in limited supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="f0088771-7268-431a-bae6-a72c294ba264" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was deleted by [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community). For more information, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6787/2451) meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="0baae3ce-9353-4c95-a1b5-8a056d090134" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to address some points that [rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44126/rob) didn't touch upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, I want to say something about your comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I just want to understand how to improve a post is good, maybe I made confusion because of my English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me tell you that I sympathise with you because English is not my first language either, and I too sometimes find it difficult to express my thoughts clearly. Like it or not, poor grammar will reduce the overall quality of the post. The reception of a post with poor grammar is automatically worse than than of a post with good grammar, even if the physical content is the same. And this happens even though most users try to focus on the physical content of the question; it is a subconscious process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason you (and I) have to make an extra effort when posting Q&amp;A here. You'll have to live with that. In any case, don't fret too much about it, as most users here have good intentions and they'll try to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your post(s). Your first question was edited several times. The first version **is indeed unclear**, and unfortunately it mentions *diffeomorphisms invariance*. Later on you edited it and deleted the part about diff. inv., but the question was still rather unclear&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;. You got an answer but it did not address your concerns (it didn't address your *true question*, because it was not clear what your *true question* was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you had two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **edit your question** and introduce some changes in order to make it clear what your *true question* is. The problem is that major edits that change the meaning of the question are discouraged if the question does already contain an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To **post a new question**, which clearly highlights your concerns. You should only do this if the new question is significantly different than the first one; otherwise, it will be closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, your case is very complicated because a major edit to your first question is discouraged, but posting a new one was not well received either, as the second one was similar to the first one (the culprit seems to be that you mentioned *diffeomorphism invariance* in the first question, even though you deleted that part later on). If you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, the second one would have been significantly different and not closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first read your first question I didn't understand it, and when I read the second one I felt that you were asking the same thing twice. Now I realise that you didn't really have an alternative but to repost the question, because the first question didn't ask what you really wanted to ask. If only you hadn't mentioned diff. inv. in the first one! In its current state, the first question does not mention diff. inv. anymore. Therefore, I would say that the second one is not a duplicate of the first one. Maybe we could ask to the rest of users to consider voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this moment, your first question is&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we construct the interaction terms of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian as a function of $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and your second question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can we be sure that the diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is not lost upon the field redefinition $g=\eta+h$? Moreover, how can we prove that such an invariance is kept order by order in $h$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is about the *construction* of the Lagrangian, and JamalS's answer addresses that. The second one is about the *symmetries* of the Lagrangian once expanded, and as such, I'd say that it *is* significantly different than the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you also mentioned diff. inv. in the first question, but that part is already deleted and JamalS's answer does not address that. To me, the second question should be reopened (and I have already voted to reopen it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Consider replacing &quot;define&quot; with &quot;construct&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood your questions again. If that's the case please correct me in the comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="66861bdb-2a72-4f43-b9b9-05af2462f1a5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  In my experience, understanding derivations (at least of college-level physics material) can be extremely useful and insightful---often far better than memorizing a result.  A 'derivations' tag might be good to give these types of questions/answers more attention, and let people especially fond-of/expert-at them find them more easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).  Being a derivation, however, does directly address the content of the question itself and the relevant skills/material required to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional modifier might be good to distinguish &quot;derivation&quot; as in, 're-deriving an equation'; as apposed to derivative 'derivation', as in an anti-integral.  Especially for non-native english speakers, this could be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304413/rigorous-treatment-of-blackbody-radiation), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="e64b8b2c-6a73-42ca-bf3c-e98cf825353c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was deleted by [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community). For more information, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6787/2451) meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="abae6397-72a1-44ed-ac46-24c2d5fa61dc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a previous incarnation on this site, I wrote this meta question [**How do I improve the chances of my question being answered**][1], and in looking for it now to add to this answer, I see quite a few others very similiar to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the question box should contain a link to whatever the community eventually decides on what constitutes a good question, (perhaps it already does), anyway the big problem is that it will probably be ignored by new users, as the homework link is currently ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9327/how-can-i-improve-the-chances-of-my-question-being-answered/9328#9328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="b984f53a-fa9b-44dc-ba17-9f81201fe03a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  In my experience, understanding derivations (at least of college-level physics material) can be extremely useful and insightful---often far better than memorizing a result.  A 'derivations' tag might be good to give these types of questions/answers more attention, and let people especially fond-of/expert-at them find them more easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).  Being a derivation, however, does directly address the content of the question itself and the relevant skills/material required to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional modifier might be good to distinguish &quot;derivation&quot; as in, 're-deriving an equation'; as apposed to derivative 'derivation', as in an anti-integral.  Especially for non-native english speakers, this could be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304413/rigorous-treatment-of-blackbody-radiation), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="6ef6b504-f4ef-4f81-b0a5-171d0bdfe778" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After discussion at the biweekly chat session starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35277884#35277884) and looking at the answers and comments to this post, the feedback appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As anticipated at the end of the session [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35278976#35278976), it therefore seems that the second part of this meta post should be considered obsolete. Even though there was *some* positive feedback, we're not going to have a chat policy that is not backed by a clear majority of users. Going forward, the only policy governing the h bar is the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) itself, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms of the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="6b463be7-1d5e-4aea-baa1-a282f24d61e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Which user, who made their account in 2016, has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and answers*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to to a new user's profile and giving a *brief* description of why that user should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="054cc3fe-b131-4c3f-8bed-cc5bb3c919bb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a previous incarnation on this site, I wrote this meta question [**How do I improve the chances of my question being answered**][1], and in looking for it now to add to this answer, I see quite a few others very similiar to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the question box should contain a link to whatever the community eventually decides on what constitutes a good question, (perhaps it already does), anyway the big problem is that it will probably be ignored by new users, as the homework link is currently ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9327/how-can-i-improve-the-chances-of-my-question-being-answered/9328#9328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9602" RevisionGUID="a4fce3b1-ca95-4304-ad0d-c8f1fbbd3434" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In order to also have it here: We will likely discuss [Chat and the moderation thereof](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9596/50583) unless no one present is interested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="3e0f8970-4125-4f3c-b9c3-8de51dc472b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the most underrated answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underrated could mean that an answer recieved little attention/upvotes despite being of excellent quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to an underrated answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="708b269a-f4cc-4932-a917-026ea7eb2020" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Which user, who made their account in 2016, has added exceptional quality to the site *in the form of questions and answers*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to to a new user's profile and giving a *brief* description of why that user should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="273d4fc5-5bfe-49a4-a685-14a35a5198a4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best answer in 2016 which where two or more authors contributed a significant fraction of the content?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite community work, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="40f8105a-7ad2-4b6a-ad41-d825a81ac5a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the [Google Martinis Lab](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/) (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade. I also love Physics.SE (and stack exchange in general) - I've earned 4.5k rep in approximately 7 months (though I've slowed down in the amount of rep I've earned...school's been busy recently) and also gotten on the close vote review queue leaderboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA; - How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA; - The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA; - I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA; - Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA; - How to survive middle school - joking (sort of, anyway). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="8dba7dc9-8ae1-4698-8515-7ae86f32ae44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the most underrated answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underrated could mean that an answer recieved little attention/upvotes despite being of excellent quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to an underrated answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="00c49bc9-60e3-4f46-8105-01cff546fe6d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best baby-steps answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A baby-steps answer starts from simple principles and finishes with a complex and rich result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite baby-steps answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="528a3a54-23ad-4cf4-b5f4-d2aa9a049d4f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best answer in 2016 which where two or more authors contributed a significant fraction of the content?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite community work, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="2f4fe323-39c2-416f-abfe-8a26aa027976" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [My original question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/9631/2) was based on the assumption that there is a universal scientific agreement on the typography of subscripts. However, I have been wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9635/144840) if there was a universal typographic standard was closed as **off-topic**. So this question (about enforcing this standard) is probably **off-topic** too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there was a universal typographic standard (but in physics, there isn't) that descriptive subscript should be typeset in upright font:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="dc011f21-2aca-4fbf-9883-322b595ca425" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely, it's a good idea to refer to previous questions (yours or other people's) when doing so is useful. But don't just use the question _title_; you should include a link to it. If you include just the URL of the question, the SE software will automatically convert the link to display the question title, e.g. if I write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then I get https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can give your own link text by using the appropriate Markdown:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [the question about referring to previous questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives [the question about referring to previous questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="7710e17e-9185-4810-ac07-6e8bda96b436" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best baby-steps answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A baby-steps answer starts from simple principles and finishes with a complex and rich result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite baby-steps answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9662" RevisionGUID="24292fcc-090d-4266-900f-e733eb6f2bca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To your first list, I'd like to add another point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Chat is a [third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)**: When it comes to effort, the primary focus should be on keeping the main site looking its best. The secondary focus is meta, where site policies and norms are crafted. Chat, as the place for social and informal gathering, should not require much, if any, moderation work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last few years we've noticed that as the number of chat participants grow, so do the odds that there will be conflict. At the same time, chat starts to seem more and more important for the community. And indeed, events such as the [AMA series](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) are excellent opportunities to bring people together and strengthen the community of this site. In turn, this lends extra urgency to chat moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, chat is supposed to be a relaxed social environment. It's less about important ideas (those are best for the main site) or site policies (meta) and more about whatever a bunch of people who are interested in physics might want to talk about. That might mean politics or sexy talk or the latest theories concerning baryon asymmetry or whether non-black turtlenecks are legitimate fashion statements. As long as those conversations are respectful and don't outstay their welcome, it's typically fine to talk about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another trouble that comes with bigger crowds is that topics often _do_ outstay their welcome. If I explain my views on non-black turtlenecks (grey is acceptable, but not white) odds are someone else will want to share their opinion too. And if two or three other people chime in with their amusing anecdote or ill-considered opinion, it quickly becomes overwhelming to people who just don't care. And if you actively dislike the topic, it can be infuriating to see it roll along ponderously for hours or even days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any upsides to using sexual innuendo in a large chat room and plenty of downsides. Putting the brakes on that seems like a good idea. Similarly, the next time someone is convinced to change their political views by conversations in public chat will be the first time. So there's great wisdom in avoiding these sorts of conversations that trip up so many growing chat rooms. That said, there can be just as much conflict over turtlenecks or baryons given the mix of people in the room. Simply banning topics of conversation just isn't sufficient to keep the peace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, [most people in a conversation](http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=19709) will adapt to the existing tone. If someone indicates they are uncomfortable with the current conversation, reasonable responses are to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Apologize,&#xD;&#xA;* Change the topic,&#xD;&#xA;* Find another place to continue the conversation, and/or&#xD;&#xA;* Go do something else altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a small segment of the population that take offense, claim censorship or just generally don't care what other people think. If those people refuse to be reasonable, we have a number of [moderation tools](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat) for chat mods, room owners and even other users. In extreme cases, troublesome users can be banned from chat. Far more than topic bans, removing unreasonable users is surprisingly effective at fixing a room's culture. (And even better, sometimes formally unreasonable people find their way to be reasonable. That's rarely possible when you try to moderate topics rather than behavior.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="346696cb-269e-4fb1-9315-447261b2681e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely, it's a good idea to refer to previous questions (yours or other people's) when doing so is useful. But don't just use the question _title_; you should include a link to it. If you include just the URL of the question, the SE software will automatically convert the link to display the question title, e.g. if I write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then I get https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can give your own link text by using the appropriate Markdown:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [the question about referring to previous questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives [the question about referring to previous questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9508)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="33a0fe94-664b-4a81-b0fa-4199946e6d21" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Currently it requires a reputation of 50 points or more to post comments to other users' posts. This creates some problems for new users :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. For example : http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is not about the **fairness** of this policy, as is the case in &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337 My concern is about the **practicality** of it. Are the difficulties which it creates greater than the benefits of the policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are temporary, subject to deletion by moderators, and of less importance than answers. It seems to me inconsistent that it requires more rep to post comments than answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should this policy be changed? Should the restriction on posting comments be removed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9699" RevisionGUID="ef22d75e-3400-4dd2-a41d-1a905d8cd228" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are different restrictions that may be imposed upon you, partly based on the performance of your previous posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **General rate limiting:** Users below 125 reputation can often only ask one question every 40 minutes network-wide, cf. [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164900/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Low-quality rate limiting:** If your questions or answers are poorly received, a [rolling rate limit](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243460/263383) ranging anywhere from 1 to 7 days may be imposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Anti-recidivism rate limiting:** If you deleted your account and created a new one, you may find yourself only being able to post a single question per week, cf. [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234610/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Comprehensive question ban**: This is the most severe automatic restriction, [recently enabled on all sites](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/263383). If you have posted a significant amount of poorly received posts, the system will ban you *permanently* from posting until these are improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can neither tell you whether you will be restricted from posting if your next contribution will be poorly received nor for how long because the algorithms that determine this are *intentionally* not public to avoid malicious users gaming them. However, the system will usually *warn* you that your last posts were poorly received before imposing a rate limit, and the permanent ban will only kick in after several such warnings and increasingly severe rate limits. If you follow the guidelines you are shown when a rate limit is imposed (shown by Shog9 in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9647/50583)), you should not be in danger of getting to that point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="b6d2fe0d-35a8-4de1-b1eb-db8d05bd0f43" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Such a question is not in scope for this particular Meta site, but can be proposed over at [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/), which is where Stack Exchange sites are proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there have been similar proposals (a short list among others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5697/25301&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these have been successful in garnering much interest (i.e., critical mass interest to actually support a site). I sincerely doubt your latest attempt would be any more successful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also [Heather &amp; Mew's Physics Problem site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site), but note that (a) it is *not* an SE site and (b) I have no idea what is going on there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="6847271c-83a4-465c-a0c6-308c16bb9891" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question linked has been closed as a duplicate and was presumably downvoted because it was a duplicate. This has been discussed before in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7665/if-a-question-is-duplicate-should-it-be-downvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the broader question of downvoting new members, the voting on a question should be based on the question and only on the question. A bad question posted by a newcomer is still a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I do think we are a bit eager to downvote questions. Downvoting bad answers is very important because a wrong or misleading answer has no place on this site, but I consider downvoting questions to be less critical. Beginners to physics sometimes have problems writing a question clearly because they don't understand the terminology we use, and in this case I think we should be sympathetic. Where questions are lazy or a thinly disguised excuse for a polemic I feel less charitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="d5f5ddd3-8698-453c-882f-23c5ea2a24c2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Currently it requires a reputation of 50 points or more to post comments to other users' posts. This creates some problems for new users :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. For example : http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is not about the **fairness** of this policy, as is the case in &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337 My concern is about the **practicality** of it. Are the difficulties which it creates greater than the benefits of the policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are temporary, subject to deletion by moderators, and of less importance than answers. It seems to me inconsistent that it requires more rep to post comments than answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should this policy be changed? Should the restriction on posting comments be removed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="b5b25744-00fd-4c23-83ae-dc0c26a176a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with Emilio Pisanty that the question should not have been closed as an engineering question, for the reason he gives, namely that the OP is asking for the physics behind a phenomenon rather than, for example, an explanation of a technical feature of his mobile phone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the question has some similarities to http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308331, it is readily recognizable in this case what the cause is, even though the &quot;strange sound&quot; is not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to criticise @DavidZ but I think this is a good example of why moderators should not close questions unilaterally for routine reasons - ie for the same reasons as reviewers. When judgement is called for, the requirement for 5 votes avoids the outcome being skewed by individual differences of opinion. I have complained about this already in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9449/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="ec471266-e91d-4ba3-99fc-40cc45695ee0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.793" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="All possible sites given by this [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-anather-internet-site-wh) are very disappointing in dealing with question &amp; answer and the Physics.SE is by far the best (with respect to design and with respect to active users ) so I should ask two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why there is such a rigorous policy about homework questions and way this type of questions cannot live among other conceptual and more advanced questions? &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Usually, reading the discussions here we get that more advanced researches don't want people to ask 'bad' questions, but the edit possibility shouldn't be used to teach how to ask a good question?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why exactly homework-like questions should be deleted? This types of questions are very instructive to high-level research and they are the basis of our teaching standard methods in the world. Even graduate students have tests and questions-type approach's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I'm thinking if it is not possible to have a less-rigorous policy on the homework-questions, even destroying the tag and leaving this type of questions on site for (i) future students (ii) future doubts on the same questions. Creating a tag for 'do this is correct' it is also important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to see that we should delete duplicate questions and questions that do not show effort on it and for homework question keep presenting just hints and not the full answer but, the way this site is, I think users deleting questions on physics of new users with such a rigorous approach is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think changing the policy would bring more people to study physics by their own and more advanced research level professionals in order to answer questions on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="bce5300b-5c84-420f-a152-2ab9ea252123" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Such a question is not in scope for this particular Meta site, but can be proposed over at [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/), which is where Stack Exchange sites are proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there have been similar proposals (a short list among others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5697/25301&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these have been successful in garnering much interest (i.e., critical mass interest to actually support a site). I sincerely doubt your latest attempt would be any more successful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also [Heather &amp; Mew's Physics Problem site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site), but note that (a) it is *not* an SE site and (b) I have no idea what is going on there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="5262d739-2490-4fe0-948d-5c876b651042" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with Emilio Pisanty that the question should not have been closed as an engineering question, for the reason he gives, namely that the OP is asking for the physics behind a phenomenon rather than, for example, an explanation of a technical feature of his mobile phone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the question has some similarities to http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308331, it is readily recognizable in this case what the cause is, even though the &quot;strange sound&quot; is not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to criticise @DavidZ but I think this is a good example of why moderators should not close questions unilaterally for routine reasons - ie for the same reasons as reviewers. When judgement is called for, the requirement for 5 votes avoids the outcome being skewed by individual differences of opinion. I have complained about this already in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9449/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="a4e55e50-dbb6-4185-8f77-a276f8748e1d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is a bit late into this new year, being that we're already in the second month, but we are now cycling the Community Promotion Ads for 2017!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA; - If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/9554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="79466c53-e4ef-49ae-8c4a-00410efa2a6f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the first person who voted to close [Dancing Twins](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307573) as a duplicate, I think you make a valid point which is relevant generally. There is always going to be some difference between questions, or some aspect of the new question (or of both) which is not addressed in the original answers. I think the decision has to be made on the broad similarity of the central part of the question. See for example the discussions about [Do black holes exist?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5864/not-a-duplicate) and [Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9348/a-dubious-duplicate?rq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case I think you are making a distinction which does not actually exist in the questions. Neither specifies what the relative motion of the observers is. The rocket-bound twin could be circling the Earth-bound twin; this possibility is not addressed in either case. And Electrodynamist's answer to the original makes the same points as you that what is observed depends on the relative speed and is affected by both time dilation and the Doppler effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the question was closed you were able to post an answer which addressed the issue you raised. Even if the question had been closed before you answered, you could (and can still) post a thorough answer to the original question, contrasting the two questions and covering all scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might indeed be a better original of which this is the duplicate, but finding it takes time and effort, which mortals like us have in limited supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="8ce4a32b-4266-4859-ae8d-40b452115f52" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is a bit late into this new year, being that we're already in the second month, but we are now cycling the Community Promotion Ads for 2017!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA; - If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/9554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="601442a3-74a2-4ac0-bc90-07f9a8dc40d7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the first person who voted to close [Dancing Twins](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307573) as a duplicate, I think you make a valid point which is relevant generally. There is always going to be some difference between questions, or some aspect of the new question (or of both) which is not addressed in the original answers. I think the decision has to be made on the broad similarity of the central part of the question. See for example the discussions about [Do black holes exist?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5864/not-a-duplicate) and [Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9348/a-dubious-duplicate?rq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case I think you are making a distinction which does not actually exist in the questions. Neither specifies what the relative motion of the observers is. The rocket-bound twin could be circling the Earth-bound twin; this possibility is not addressed in either case. And Electrodynamist's answer to the original makes the same points as you that what is observed depends on the relative speed and is affected by both time dilation and the Doppler effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the question was closed you were able to post an answer which addressed the issue you raised. Even if the question had been closed before you answered, you could (and can still) post a thorough answer to the original question, contrasting the two questions and covering all scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might indeed be a better original of which this is the duplicate, but finding it takes time and effort, which mortals like us have in limited supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="219eb095-0510-4ace-927b-cc7aac9a4fc2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After discussion at the biweekly chat session starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35277884#35277884) and looking at the answers and comments to this post, the feedback appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As anticipated at the end of the session [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35278976#35278976), it therefore seems that the second part of this meta post should be considered obsolete. Even though there was *some* positive feedback, we're not going to have a chat policy that is not backed by a clear majority of users. Going forward, the only policy governing the h bar is the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) itself, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms of the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9602" RevisionGUID="bffa01e7-1be4-434d-9ad8-a3c117661309" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In order to also have it here: We will likely discuss [Chat and the moderation thereof](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9596/50583) unless no one present is interested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="618227b3-704c-477c-8dc2-6f704b42bd83" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After discussion at the biweekly chat session starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35277884#35277884) and looking at the answers and comments to this post, the feedback appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As anticipated at the end of the session [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35278976#35278976), it therefore seems that the second part of this meta post should be considered obsolete. Even though there was *some* positive feedback, we're not going to have a chat policy that is not backed by a clear majority of users. Going forward, the only policy governing the h bar is the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) itself, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms of the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="94f6ba7d-7cd2-4873-9fdc-d10c20136caf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the [Google Martinis Lab](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/) (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade. I also love Physics.SE (and stack exchange in general) - I've earned 4.5k rep in approximately 7 months (though I've slowed down in the amount of rep I've earned...school's been busy recently) and also gotten on the close vote review queue leaderboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA; - How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA; - The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA; - I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA; - Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA; - How to survive middle school - joking (sort of, anyway). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="220dbcf4-bcc9-4936-889b-457fd18f4b7f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [My original question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/9631/2) was based on the assumption that there is a universal scientific agreement on the typography of subscripts. However, I have been wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9635/144840) if there was a universal typographic standard was closed as **off-topic**. So this question (about enforcing this standard) is probably **off-topic** too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there was a universal typographic standard (but in physics, there isn't) that descriptive subscript should be typeset in upright font:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="2c5769e6-2631-4f29-b00b-80ccf36d0edb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [My original question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/9631/2) was based on the assumption that there is a universal scientific agreement on the typography of subscripts. However, I have been wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9635/144840) if there was a universal typographic standard was closed as **off-topic**. So this question (about enforcing this standard) is probably **off-topic** too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there was a universal typographic standard (but in physics, there isn't) that descriptive subscript should be typeset in upright font:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Physics.SE's Q&amp;A's contain $G_m$ instead of $G_\mathrm{m}$, do you care? (It seems, you don't.) Would you edit a posting to correct that? (It seems you won't.) Would this change if it was a little bit easier to input?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9662" RevisionGUID="c1915201-7b27-4086-bced-d7de3610de9f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To your first list, I'd like to add another point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Chat is a [third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)**: When it comes to effort, the primary focus should be on keeping the main site looking its best. The secondary focus is meta, where site policies and norms are crafted. Chat, as the place for social and informal gathering, should not require much, if any, moderation work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last few years we've noticed that as the number of chat participants grow, so do the odds that there will be conflict. At the same time, chat starts to seem more and more important for the community. And indeed, events such as the [AMA series](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) are excellent opportunities to bring people together and strengthen the community of this site. In turn, this lends extra urgency to chat moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, chat is supposed to be a relaxed social environment. It's less about important ideas (those are best for the main site) or site policies (meta) and more about whatever a bunch of people who are interested in physics might want to talk about. That might mean politics or sexy talk or the latest theories concerning baryon asymmetry or whether non-black turtlenecks are legitimate fashion statements. As long as those conversations are respectful and don't outstay their welcome, it's typically fine to talk about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another trouble that comes with bigger crowds is that topics often _do_ outstay their welcome. If I explain my views on non-black turtlenecks (grey is acceptable, but not white) odds are someone else will want to share their opinion too. And if two or three other people chime in with their amusing anecdote or ill-considered opinion, it quickly becomes overwhelming to people who just don't care. And if you actively dislike the topic, it can be infuriating to see it roll along ponderously for hours or even days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any upsides to using sexual innuendo in a large chat room and plenty of downsides. Putting the brakes on that seems like a good idea. Similarly, the next time someone is convinced to change their political views by conversations in public chat will be the first time. So there's great wisdom in avoiding these sorts of conversations that trip up so many growing chat rooms. That said, there can be just as much conflict over turtlenecks or baryons given the mix of people in the room. Simply banning topics of conversation just isn't sufficient to keep the peace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, [most people in a conversation](http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=19709) will adapt to the existing tone. If someone indicates they are uncomfortable with the current conversation, reasonable responses are to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Apologize,&#xD;&#xA;* Change the topic,&#xD;&#xA;* Find another place to continue the conversation, and/or&#xD;&#xA;* Go do something else altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a small segment of the population that take offense, claim censorship or just generally don't care what other people think. If those people refuse to be reasonable, we have a number of [moderation tools](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat) for chat mods, room owners and even other users. In extreme cases, troublesome users can be banned from chat. Far more than topic bans, removing unreasonable users is surprisingly effective at fixing a room's culture. (And even better, sometimes formally unreasonable people find their way to be reasonable. That's rarely possible when you try to moderate topics rather than behavior.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9662" RevisionGUID="bd0e3f85-4b47-4e36-8fbb-19e9a7e2bb17" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To your first list, I'd like to add another point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Chat is a [third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)**: When it comes to effort, the primary focus should be on keeping the main site looking its best. The secondary focus is meta, where site policies and norms are crafted. Chat, as the place for social and informal gathering, should not require much, if any, moderation work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last few years we've noticed that as the number of chat participants grow, so do the odds that there will be conflict. At the same time, chat starts to seem more and more important for the community. And indeed, events such as the [AMA series](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) are excellent opportunities to bring people together and strengthen the community of this site. In turn, this lends extra urgency to chat moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, chat is supposed to be a relaxed social environment. It's less about important ideas (those are best for the main site) or site policies (meta) and more about whatever a bunch of people who are interested in physics might want to talk about. That might mean politics or sexy talk or the latest theories concerning baryon asymmetry or whether non-black turtlenecks are legitimate fashion statements. As long as those conversations are respectful and don't outstay their welcome, it's typically fine to talk about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another trouble that comes with bigger crowds is that topics often _do_ outstay their welcome. If I explain my views on non-black turtlenecks (grey is acceptable, but not white) odds are someone else will want to share their opinion too. And if two or three other people chime in with their amusing anecdote or ill-considered opinion, it quickly becomes overwhelming to people who just don't care. And if you actively dislike the topic, it can be infuriating to see it roll along ponderously for hours or even days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any upsides to using sexual innuendo in a large chat room and plenty of downsides. Putting the brakes on that seems like a good idea. Similarly, the next time someone is convinced to change their political views by conversations in public chat will be the first time. So there's great wisdom in avoiding these sorts of conversations that trip up so many growing chat rooms. That said, there can be just as much conflict over turtlenecks or baryons given the mix of people in the room. Simply banning topics of conversation just isn't sufficient to keep the peace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, [most people in a conversation](http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=19709) will adapt to the existing tone. If someone indicates they are uncomfortable with the current conversation, reasonable responses are to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Apologize,&#xD;&#xA;* Change the topic,&#xD;&#xA;* Find another place to continue the conversation, and/or&#xD;&#xA;* Go do something else altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a small segment of the population that take offense, claim censorship or just generally don't care what other people think. If those people refuse to be reasonable, we have a number of [moderation tools](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat) for chat mods, room owners and even other users. In extreme cases, troublesome users can be banned from chat. Far more than topic bans, removing unreasonable users is surprisingly effective at fixing a room's culture. (And even better, sometimes formally unreasonable people find their way to be reasonable. That's rarely possible when you try to moderate topics rather than behavior.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9699" RevisionGUID="f39a95c4-4129-4c69-9cbe-346d7f766539" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are different restrictions that may be imposed upon you, partly based on the performance of your previous posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **General rate limiting:** Users below 125 reputation can often only ask one question every 40 minutes network-wide, cf. [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164900/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Low-quality rate limiting:** If your questions or answers are poorly received, a [rolling rate limit](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243460/263383) ranging anywhere from 1 to 7 days may be imposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Anti-recidivism rate limiting:** If you deleted your account and created a new one, you may find yourself only being able to post a single question per week, cf. [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234610/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Comprehensive question ban**: This is the most severe automatic restriction, [recently enabled on all sites](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/263383). If you have posted a significant amount of poorly received posts, the system will ban you *permanently* from posting until these are improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can neither tell you whether you will be restricted from posting if your next contribution will be poorly received nor for how long because the algorithms that determine this are *intentionally* not public to avoid malicious users gaming them. However, the system will usually *warn* you that your last posts were poorly received before imposing a rate limit, and the permanent ban will only kick in after several such warnings and increasingly severe rate limits. If you follow the guidelines you are shown when a rate limit is imposed (shown by Shog9 in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9647/50583)), you should not be in danger of getting to that point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9699" RevisionGUID="d78229b8-2fa0-4161-9072-7b33e6fa37a4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are different restrictions that may be imposed upon you, partly based on the performance of your previous posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **General rate limiting:** Users below 125 reputation can often only ask one question every 40 minutes network-wide, cf. [this meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164900/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Low-quality rate limiting:** If your questions or answers are poorly received, a [rolling rate limit](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243460/263383) ranging anywhere from 1 to 7 days may be imposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Anti-recidivism rate limiting:** If you deleted your account and created a new one, you may find yourself only being able to post a single question per week, cf. [this meta post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234610/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Comprehensive question ban**: This is the most severe automatic restriction, [recently enabled on all sites](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/263383). If you have posted a significant amount of poorly received posts, the system will ban you *permanently* from posting until these are improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can neither tell you whether you will be restricted from posting if your next contribution will be poorly received nor for how long because the algorithms that determine this are *intentionally* not public to avoid malicious users gaming them. However, the system will usually *warn* you that your last posts were poorly received before imposing a rate limit, and the permanent ban will only kick in after several such warnings and increasingly severe rate limits. If you follow the guidelines you are shown when a rate limit is imposed (shown by Shog9 in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9647/50583)), you should not be in danger of getting to that point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="e284dba7-8eb1-4bf4-8f09-c9b5e1d49cd1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question linked has been closed as a duplicate and was presumably downvoted because it was a duplicate. This has been discussed before in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7665/if-a-question-is-duplicate-should-it-be-downvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the broader question of downvoting new members, the voting on a question should be based on the question and only on the question. A bad question posted by a newcomer is still a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I do think we are a bit eager to downvote questions. Downvoting bad answers is very important because a wrong or misleading answer has no place on this site, but I consider downvoting questions to be less critical. Beginners to physics sometimes have problems writing a question clearly because they don't understand the terminology we use, and in this case I think we should be sympathetic. Where questions are lazy or a thinly disguised excuse for a polemic I feel less charitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="de0fb84d-6508-4cd2-9289-8d7114f1ac70" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question linked has been closed as a duplicate and was presumably downvoted because it was a duplicate. This has been discussed before in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7665/if-a-question-is-duplicate-should-it-be-downvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the broader question of downvoting new members, the voting on a question should be based on the question and only on the question. A bad question posted by a newcomer is still a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I do think we are a bit eager to downvote questions. Downvoting bad answers is very important because a wrong or misleading answer has no place on this site, but I consider downvoting questions to be less critical. Beginners to physics sometimes have problems writing a question clearly because they don't understand the terminology we use, and in this case I think we should be sympathetic. Where questions are lazy or a thinly disguised excuse for a polemic I feel less charitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="af189386-63a8-4dd3-bc6f-4504ec2b9005" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="All possible sites given by this [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-anather-internet-site-wh) are very disappointing in dealing with question &amp; answer and the Physics.SE is by far the best (with respect to design and with respect to active users ) so I should ask two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why there is such a rigorous policy about homework questions and way this type of questions cannot live among other conceptual and more advanced questions? &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Usually, reading the discussions here we get that more advanced researches don't want people to ask 'bad' questions, but the edit possibility shouldn't be used to teach how to ask a good question?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why exactly homework-like questions should be deleted? This types of questions are very instructive to high-level research and they are the basis of our teaching standard methods in the world. Even graduate students have tests and questions-type approach's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I'm thinking if it is not possible to have a less-rigorous policy on the homework-questions, even destroying the tag and leaving this type of questions on site for (i) future students (ii) future doubts on the same questions. Creating a tag for 'do this is correct' it is also important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to see that we should delete duplicate questions and questions that do not show effort on it and for homework question keep presenting just hints and not the full answer but, the way this site is, I think users deleting questions on physics of new users with such a rigorous approach is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think changing the policy would bring more people to study physics by their own and more advanced research level professionals in order to answer questions on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="82ee01b0-f5ac-44a9-a24f-d35dc9bff4bc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:54.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="All possible sites given by this [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-anather-internet-site-wh) are very disappointing in dealing with question &amp; answer and the Physics.SE is by far the best (with respect to design and with respect to active users ) so I should ask two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why there is such a rigorous policy about homework questions and way this type of questions cannot live among other conceptual and more advanced questions? &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Usually, reading the discussions here we get that more advanced researches don't want people to ask 'bad' questions, but the edit possibility shouldn't be used to teach how to ask a good question?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why exactly homework-like questions should be deleted? This types of questions are very instructive to high-level research and they are the basis of our teaching standard methods in the world. Even graduate students have tests and questions-type approach's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I'm thinking if it is not possible to have a less-rigorous policy on the homework-questions, even destroying the tag and leaving this type of questions on site for (i) future students (ii) future doubts on the same questions. Creating a tag for 'do this is correct' it is also important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to see that we should delete duplicate questions and questions that do not show effort on it and for homework question keep presenting just hints and not the full answer but, the way this site is, I think users deleting questions on physics of new users with such a rigorous approach is just killing the site and making more and more a site just for very high level questions that remains unanswered most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think changing the policy would bring more people to study physics by their own and more advanced research level professionals in order to answer questions on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="a7ce3252-19fb-4b62-b866-9ac76c4a5c23" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:59.520" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ack! I see I completely missed the chat session! This would have been an interesting topic to bring up. [It looks like I only missed actual physics, though](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/what-about-questions-asked-by-13-year-old-kids/6719#6719) (darn!), so I still have a chance to discuss it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it's just me getting touchy about the age issue again, but I still am - and have always been - against the idea of judging users by their age. I'll admit that I've seen many posts (I'm ignoring the post that was brought up, actually) written by kids that are pretty bad. At the same time, I've seen grownups write a lot of really poor stuff, too. It's often tough to tell just who's behind the really crappy stuff, because in many cases they don't care enough to take any of this seriously - I'm talking about *you*, generic poster of crackpot theories of spam! - but I would assume that not all of them are kids; perhaps kids only constitute a small minority. We have no way of knowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that despite Anna's use of &quot;13-year-old&quot; a lot in this post, and the example at hand, the meat of the question isn't about age: it's about expertise. Is there a correlation between the two? I would bet all my rep - and some of other people's, too! - that an increase in age means an increase in expertise, unless you subscribe to the view that science is a game of the young. I think we can all agree that that isn't the case, however; without calling anyone old, there are a lot of folks who are older than the rest but are incredibly knowledgeable. So there's a correlation. But in science, a correlation isn't enough. A *causal relationship* is what's needed to truly supply good evidence to a theory. And I think that there is one, at least at the level of kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting back on-topic, the reason I'm concerned is a little bit self-centered. Where do *I* fit in? The most I know about quantum mechanics isn't too far beyond E=hv (I know, it's nu, not v, but there's no MathJax on meta), and the most I know about general relativity is what a metric is. Same goes for a bunch of other branches of physics. I would absolutely have a _b for them. But I *do* know a lot more about astronomy than the average kid my age, and much of the stuff I read is college level. I'm not arrogant enough to give myself a full _c, but I'm probably not a _b, either. Chances are, I won't be asking _b-level questions. Where do I fit in? And for my overall physics average, what am I? A _b-and-a-quarter? And there are certain areas of astronomy I know more about than others. How do I describe *that*? Moreover, I won't be asking questions about quantum mechanics and general relativity, because of how much of a novice I am. In a couple of years, that could change, but for know, I'll stay away from those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This - the difficulties arising from categorization - seems to be a large problem, especially at the beginner level - sort of. There are a variety of different levels of physics knowledge. There are those who don't have a good working knowledge of *anything* they're asking about, those who are studying stuff at school and sort of understand it - how do we differentiate among them? The same phenomenon is active in college (and, I'd warrant, graduate school) - a lot can change over four years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the whole point of this is that there's no set way to lump a group of people together without getting extremely specific. Is that better than just blindly shoving them on Stack Exchange? Perhaps. But the *quality* and level of the questions themselves are probably a better indicator of what level a person is at - and they can show changes over time. I know considerably more than what I did 8 months ago (and mostly from outside Stack Exchange!). Would that be enough to take me a level up (in the _b, _c, etc. system)? Oh, dear, absolutely not. But it would certainly matter in terms of my participation on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="c8f2fbaa-9d39-4dcc-b81d-7c818cdfe8f7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:59.520" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In our last chat session two weeks ago (sorry for the delay), we had a [discussion about updating the homework policy and homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason). I'm making this post to summarize that discussion and solicit feedback on how to proceed afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The current status&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), questions are considered &quot;homework-like&quot; (or &quot;educational&quot;) and fall under the policy whenever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[the question's] value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely _not_ of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it. We do have [a policy on showing effort](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), separate from the homework policy, but it doesn't justify _closing_ those questions. (Also, it was meant to catch questions that the homework policy doesn't.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most people believe that questions where the poster asks us to do some simple calculation for them should be off topic. However, it's not clear _exactly_ where we should draw the boundary of what sorts of questions are off topic, and what reason is best to give for considering them off topic. There have been a number of discussions on this in the past, among them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation (November 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy (December 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session (March 2015)&#xD;&#xA;- http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy (October 2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will probably want to create a new policy that replaces the current homework policy, and gives a different criterion for a question that is off topic. This new policy would become the new justification for closing low-effort homework questions (those where it _is_ clear that it's a homework/educational question), so whatever we wind up going with, it should be some criterion that does catch those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few options that I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic&#xD;&#xA;2. Questions which don't show sufficient effort are off topic (I suppose this is the nice wording for the poster being lazy)&#xD;&#xA;3. A combination of the previous two - kind of like our current homework policy, except that the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the most likely contenders, but for completeness, some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Questions which ask for a conceptual understanding of something are on topic, and everything else is not (this is _kind of_ like #1, but excludes more questions)&#xD;&#xA;5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. etc. And for comparison, our current policy would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Questions which are educational in nature are off topic unless they ask a conceptual question _and_ show effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The issues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have some ideas for what kind of criterion should replace our current homework policy. For each of these ideas, we should consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there a significant number of questions which are off topic under our current homework policy which would be on topic under the new policy? If so, should they be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;- Exactly what sorts of questions would become off topic under the new policy which are not covered by current close reasons? Do we want them to be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully the answers we come up with will help us focus the new close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point in the future, we will also have to discuss the role of the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag in this new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="4f722437-2a99-4e99-9457-cf12277ddb52" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:45:59.520" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced https://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When trying to go to the highlighted discussion&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;my chromium browser gives an error message,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your connection is not private&#xD;&#xA;Attackers might be trying to steal your information from meta.physics.stackexchange.com (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This server could not prove that it is meta.physics.stackexchange.com; its security certificate is from *.stackexchange.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar on firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's wrong?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="90d38f46-1876-4971-967a-5dbb7297a600" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:46:23.347" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Parts of the user account pages on physics.SE are &quot;out of alignment&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect appears to me on accounts other than my own, too, but only here on physics.SE (account pages on math.SE, for example, look fine). I'm using Chrome 19.0.1084.52 on Windows 7 64-bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem is [now being reported on SciFi.SE, IT Security.SE, and Bicycles.SE](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1905/2285). I also see it on Electronics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2qzA6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="2742c19f-98fb-4678-b13f-d72000b5f455" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:46:23.347" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll start by saying that I really despise encouraging participation in things by awarding prizes, especially money. That to me is over the top, especially for things that are supposed to be community driven like this site. I was poking around several different meta's on the sites where I typically lurk and some of the smaller ones ran Topic of the Week contests to drive up participation and/or expand the scope of the site by encouraging questions on less-frequently used tags ([UX][1], [SciFi][2], [Cooking][3]). The one on [Judiasm][4] works without any prizes at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly am not advocating prize money, I think that's a terrible idea. And this site doesn't need it really. But would it be something worth doing/entertaining to have a Topic of the [time period] type of recurring event? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I would say to a prize would be recognizing the questions and answers under the topic that got the highest votes during the time period -- the high voting gives rep points which is essentially the only reward system in place on the site. Or if individual sites can award unique badges, then a badge could be given for best answer/question under a specific topic contest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ux.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/topic-of-the-week-contest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1138/topic-of-the-week-contest-updated-august-29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/the-end-of-a-contest-and-beginning-of-something-else&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1215/weekly-topic-challenge-5772-41-week-of-pinchas-5772-rashi?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="8fdfc521-fa3c-4359-9913-8ad5dad31bf5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:46:44.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, I think we should do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought that &quot;best of&quot; would be too vague to be successful, but looking at the [example from Puzzles and Code Golf](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1) I see that by establishing specific categories it is possible to come up with sensible best-of's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should move on to a meta post establishing the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="9403dc8a-cc06-4d1b-9707-e62f6336e16c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:46:58.113" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Pseudo-answers** are partial answers, which are mere speculation or irony or an addition to someone else's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers do, sometimes, make great contribution to the thread. However, Physics is not a forum. We are a question and answer site. Answers are meant to be answers, not replies. **If you have something to add and it's not actually an answer, then write it in the comment section.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why this matters ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's success depends on our ability to continually produce great answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High quality answers are the life and blood of our site. If we continually produce high quality content, we'll attract more experts who will want to help fellow physicists. On the other hand, if low quality dominates the site, an expert who visits the site will conclude this site is a waste of time and never come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pseudo-answers go against at goal in at least three ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a question does not have any answers with a score of at least 1, and has no accepted answer, it will show up in the Unanswered Questions tab. That's right, it's not enough for a question to have answers, it has to have positively voted answers to be considered answered. An upvoted pseudo-answers might be the reason why a question has not yet received a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;2. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers gives the impression that this is the kind of content we want. &#xD;&#xA;3. Heavily upvoted pseudo-answers may reduce the visibility of good answers. If by the time a good answer is posted there are already a few upvoted bad answers, then it's less likely the great answer will be upvoted to the top. It may stay buried under a pile of bad answers, where few will ever see it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our goal is high quality answers, and it is, then **pseudo-answers are the enemy**.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The tell-tale signs of a possible pseudo-answer are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. The whole answer is less than three lines long. &#xD;&#xA;4. The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How can I help? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to help us get rid of the pseudo-answers threat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Write good, complete answers.** The best way to avoid the creation of pseudo-answers on a question is to write great answers. If an user learns by reading your answer, it is much less likely that he will feel the need to post an answer of his own. If this is done constantly on each answer, a new user will learn that this is the kind of answer his answer will compete with.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Downvote them, at least down to zero.** Downvoting pseudo-answers is paving the way for better, more informative answers: it makes sure that unanswered questions show up in the Unanswered Questions tab and gives more visibility to new questions.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Leave comments on infringing answers.** Downvoting sends a signal, for sure, but the lesson might not be clear. When downvoting, try to leave a comment explaining why. With luck, the author will persevere and learn from his mistake. &#xD;&#xA;4. **Flag them.** If you see a pseudo-answer, please flag it as &quot;low quality.&quot; If moderators agree, they might convert the question into a comment, delete it, or downvote it. &#xD;&#xA;5. **Write good questions.** A well-written question helps reduce the probability of pseudo-answers being written. It's not a miracle remedy, and sometimes a well-written question will receive several poorly written questions, but putting effort into your questions never hurts!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we work hard together, we can purge the site of pseudo-answers and the site will be much better for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Post freely adapted from [here](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/383/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy), where it lead to much rejoicing and puppy unicorns.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="8b145a8b-5631-4f61-b218-2e2bf6320d73" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:46:58.113" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not being a theorist I don't want to comment on the value *to the theory community* of a separate site, but I strongly agree that Physics.SE has barely enough participation to hang on. A big hit might kill us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the level of discussion thing is what has been driving the push for a separate site (just a conjecture on my part, BTW) then I am open to suggestions about how to encourage a higher level of discussion here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A conscience push to ask a lot of &quot;research level&quot; question in the course of a couple of week. Something like the [First Periodic Premier Programming Puzzle Push][1] I set up on CodeGolf.SE to considerable approval but mixed success.&#xD;&#xA;* Start pushing a culture of [backing up answer with literature citations][2] somewhat like the rule on Skeptics.SE. I imagine this would increase he average level of the discussion without ruling out fairly basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Would some meat-space get togethers help? Are they even practical given that we have circa 100 users with 500+ rep? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/298/78&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/868/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-answer/881#881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="676a3a07-53c8-467a-abf9-93bae2932586" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:47:25.657" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.parenting.stackexchange.com/ with https://parenting.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good question. The initial idea for the badges was simply to give them based on [number of questions asked](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/228844/should-we-add-more-badges-for-asking-questions). For most sites, that would probably have been a fine choice. But a [few sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (notably our flagship, Stack Overflow) get more questions than they can reasonably handle each day. The &quot;on separate days&quot; requirement exists to encourage pacing oneself and make questions count. (Most of the other requirements are intended to encourage more interesting, not just more, questions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On smaller sites, it can actually be useful to spread questions out a bit. I conducted a [contest on Parenting](https://parenting.meta.stackexchange.com/q/665/4521) and found that it's harder to care about answers if you are trying generate questions for reasons other than curiousity. My experience on other sites is the same: if I try too hard to ask questions, the answers don't tend to matter as much to me. Also, it can be annoying to see the front page cluttered with the questions of just one person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should feel lucky I didn't get my first idea to solve the problem: &quot;on separate _weeks_&quot;. The trouble with that pace is that people would need to wait up to 7 days to ask their next question if they didn't want to &quot;waste&quot; it. I called that behavior &quot;just-too-late asking&quot;. A day didn't seem like too much time to wait in contrast. ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, there's no reason to not ask a second question on a second day, if you don't care about the badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="d3328fd7-d7a5-43b7-aab6-f7b2753807c0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:48:15.790" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/ with https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll start by saying that I really despise encouraging participation in things by awarding prizes, especially money. That to me is over the top, especially for things that are supposed to be community driven like this site. I was poking around several different meta's on the sites where I typically lurk and some of the smaller ones ran Topic of the Week contests to drive up participation and/or expand the scope of the site by encouraging questions on less-frequently used tags ([UX][1], [SciFi][2], [Cooking][3]). The one on [Judiasm][4] works without any prizes at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly am not advocating prize money, I think that's a terrible idea. And this site doesn't need it really. But would it be something worth doing/entertaining to have a Topic of the [time period] type of recurring event? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I would say to a prize would be recognizing the questions and answers under the topic that got the highest votes during the time period -- the high voting gives rep points which is essentially the only reward system in place on the site. Or if individual sites can award unique badges, then a badge could be given for best answer/question under a specific topic contest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ux.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/topic-of-the-week-contest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1138/topic-of-the-week-contest-updated-august-29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/the-end-of-a-contest-and-beginning-of-something-else&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1215/weekly-topic-challenge-5772-41-week-of-pinchas-5772-rashi?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="20ddc291-ffec-4545-ba7d-321ff7798284" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:48:33.550" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What applies to [Gödel](https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1555/changing-the-godel-tag),&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; may also apply to two Schrödinger tags: [tag:schrodinger-equation] and [tag:non-linear-schrodinger]. The third one, [tag:schroedingers-cat], being &quot;right&quot; already. So, whatever you may think of the umlaut, as it is now, it is being &quot;translated&quot; inconsistently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a good use case for a tag synonym. Should we standardize on `oe` or `o`? It probably should be the former, of course, but we could run into an issue with tag length. (I think not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, after a while, a mod may make a tag synonym and merge the tags into the properly spelled ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Ignore the comments over there.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="a64c0447-a6f3-4c09-bd2e-492568865be2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:48:50.757" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/ with https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So one thing that came out of &lt;s&gt;our recent chat meeting&lt;/s&gt; the [call to close questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046/community-help-us-close-questions) was that some of our high rep members have been reluctant to cast close votes because it has been more or less unnecessary. Now that we're trying to get the community more involved in closing, I'm going to take this opportunity to &lt;s&gt;write up a guide here on meta&lt;/s&gt; blatantly rip off a guide to closing from [Ninefingers' post on Cryptography meta](https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/129/a-guide-to-moderating-crypto-stackexchange-yourself-close-voting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="98adec45-f775-428a-be4a-b908d15f8074" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:48:50.757" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.crypto.stackexchange.com/ with https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Adapted from [Cryptography meta](https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/a/130), originally posted by [Ninefingers](https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/users/46/ninefingers)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale: why do we close questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are really two ways to do moderation. If you've been on any of the `.moderated` newsgroups you'll be well aware that to get a post on there, it needs to undergo a review process first and be accepted. The aim is to keep problem discussions from arising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE is slightly different - it works the other  way. *Anyone* can ask a question on SE and closing a question is the equivalent of putting that question *back into review/improve mode*. It's a feedback mechanism designed to react to problem cases only, so the usual business of asking and answering good questions can just... *happen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do we close a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The philosophy of SE is that each site handles questions on *problems you face* or things you are trying to understand. The [don't ask](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask) section of the FAQ gives you a good overview of things that don't work - to summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions invite arguments or extended debate that suck up time when members could be helping other people.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions are too broad, too narrow or have other content problems.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions belong elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been worked out over time and with a lot of experience from Stack Overflow and are, *broadly speaking* true. Sometimes, exceptions are made - it is always a case-by-case thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is closing like deletion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Actually, deletion is a different concept on SE. Closed questions are put &quot;into improve mode&quot; if you like, and are still visible for *anyone* to improve. That's the idea. Deleted questions are different - they have a red background and are invisible to all but high reputation users. So deletion is different and solves a slightly different problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the requirements for closing a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 3000 reputation on the site you can vote to close any question for the reasons above. More on that in a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not have this level of reputation, you will find that under the flag menu, you have an option &quot;this question does not belong here&quot;. That will raise a flag for users who can vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why can anyone vote to close/reopen**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, anyone can vote to close or reopen (or flag as such) because it is *your site*. This is really important - it's about expressing what you feel works and doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are moderators different?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderator close votes complete the required vote count immediately, no matter how many people have voted. This applies for both close/reopen votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, as the reputation requirement rules out many users, you will see moderators doing most of the closing to guide the site and look after the content. As you gain in reputation, you get to join in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ok, so how does it work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example close button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, the important piece. Voting to close works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Underneath the question, there will be a close link. When you click on this, you will be presented with a list of options from which you can pick a close reason most appropriate to the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close vote reasons dialog][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * If other people have voted, you will see blue numbers against the reason they chose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Other votes][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The exact duplicate page takes you to a page that allows you to specify a question to close as an exact duplicate against.&#xD;&#xA; * The &quot;off topic&quot; page will present you with two options - one to migrate here, to meta, and one just off topic. On SE betas, only moderators can send questions elsewhere, so feel free to cast a vote here and flag if you have a target in mind.&#xD;&#xA; * The other options are straight out closes.&#xD;&#xA; * Once you pick your option and click &quot;close&quot;, your vote is registered. You cannot retract it at this stage, but nobody else, including moderators, will know it was you who voted.&#xD;&#xA; * If five people agree, the question will be closed. You've seen the effect of these before.&#xD;&#xA; * Your name, and the name of other closers, will appear on the bottom of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close banner][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does vote to re-open work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A closed question has a &quot;reopen&quot; link underneath it. If you click this, a dialog box will ask you if you are sure - click yes and your vote will be registered to re-open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below, you can see an example of the re-open link with two votes registered for re-opening (out of five).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Re-open link][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happens if I make a mistake?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't worry! Unless five people agree, or a moderator agrees, the question won't be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I've seen a closed question and I disagree. What can I do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, one option is to use your re-open vote! You can also always raise a discussion here on meta to seek clarification on why a question is closed and hopefully either a resolution will be reached, or you will get an explanation for the closure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My name appears on the bottom - isn't this going to cause problems with other users?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, surprisingly few closed questions generate any response at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you experience difficulties as a result of closing a question, you can and should contact a moderator via the flag mechanism (which is anonymous). We can then take any necessary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I find questions I might need to close? What about re-opens?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually there are two tools for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Review][6]. Here, there are a number of options for seeing things that might need say editing. One of these is a tab for all questions with close votes. You are then free to look at the question and decide if you agree.&#xD;&#xA; * [Tools][7]. Commonly referred to as the &quot;10k tools&quot;, this page let's you see even more information - certain anonymous flags, re-open votes, delete votes etc. The important one for this is the re-open page. Here, you can see questions that might have been closed incorrectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qogGL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THms0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/69Kak.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3F4V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/syw4O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="8eff7864-da46-4432-aba9-d59d7d1ccc93" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:03.140" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll link to the same thing I pointed out in chat and in one of the comment threads in question: as far as I know, this [post from Robert Cartaino](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/614/how-can-we-improve-our-guidance-about-the-comment-practices/617#617) on Christianity Meta details the Stack Exchange policy on comments. In particular, this paragraph is relevant here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But on Stack Exchange, routine cleanup of comments helps enforce the purpose of comments. Comments are there to discuss improvements to the post. When their purpose has been served, they are deleted. When comments drift into conversations, they should be deleted. **It's all part of discouraging comments from becoming mini chat systems...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, unless the people in charge come here and post otherwise, comments are fair game for being deleted after a short time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that the comment threads in question are prone to deletion simply because they developed into extended discussions, not because of any problem with their content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="30db4c3b-f467-425f-8643-ffadee0823b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:12.233" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The mission of Stack Exchange is to make the internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. The Stack Exchange Fellowship Program aims to support students conducting research in subjects related to our academic Q&amp;A sites in order to (a) increase the quality of information in a particular subject and (b) facilitate the exchange of information between experts in the field. Individual awards range from 250 to 1000 dollars (USD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants should be advanced undergraduate, graduate students or professionals pursuing research related to one the following Stack Exchange sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [English][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Linguistics][2]&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Statistics][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Physics][4]  &#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis starting immediately. For more details and to apply, check out the [application][6]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are also accepting volunteers from the community to help review applications. Volunteers should have some level of expertise in the subject area (professors and those who have or are pursuing advanced degrees are ideal candidates). Following the first wave of submissions, those selected to be Stack Exchange Fellows will be asked to review 3 to 4 new applications. To facilitate the review process, reviewers will rate applications on several scales instead of making judgments on funding. You can find the Reviewer Form [here][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers and successful candidates are encouraged to customize the &quot;about me&quot; section of the user profile by including information on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Area of expertise and current occupation &#xD;&#xA; 2. Key academic goals/milestones&#xD;&#xA; 3. Role in the Fellowship program (applicant, reviewer, fellow, both)&#xD;&#xA; 4. SE grant project, if applicable &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions regarding the Fellowship Program, or would like more information about applying or becoming a reviewer, please email *academics@stackexchange.com*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited: Applications accepted on a rolling basis until December 31, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2077/13231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/202/344&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/q/988/6064&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/170/533&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/SE%20Fellowship%20Application.docx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37818223/Reviewer%20Sheet.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="c8111675-7e6c-4496-9323-33477c3baaea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:15.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know this may seem like an odd suggestion, but over at [Biblical Hermeneutic.SE][1] we are running a [challenge][2] to ask new questions about astronomy in the Bible.  Like many [Ancient Near East][3] cultures, the Hebrews were fascinated with the movement of planets and watched the stars for signs of great import such as supernova and comets.  This interest in the sky carried over to the early Christians who used astronomical phenomena as symbols and signs of what they believed would soon happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of the sort of questions we are looking for (and to see if you can provide answers to help us understand the Bible) take a look at the questions tagged with [astronomy][4].  We are generally open to all sorts of interpretations, but we do take the idea of understanding what the Bible means seriously.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do you have any questions about the Bible and/or have any answers for the questions we've already raised?  If so, come on over!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/331/68&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astronomy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4022" RevisionGUID="b658cb3e-3699-474d-bbbb-9a383206a78e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:32.117" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.scicomp.stackexchange.com/ with https://scicomp.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I stumbled across [this recent meta question](https://scicomp.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/323/policy-on-homework?) on the computational science site. What struck me was one of the community associates pretty much declaring that the [tag:homework] tag should be abolished, since it is a &quot;meta&quot; tag that deals with the style of the question itself, not its objective content. He links [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) about getting rid of such tags, but that post was very specifically about [tag:subjective], [tag:best-practices], and [tag:beginner] on the original SO sites, with no mention of [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **do we like having the homework tag to set apart questions** for pedagogical reasons? (Note this is independent of whether we like the quality of such questions; this is framed in the immutable context of such questions being allowed.) Also, **is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged** for their... impurity... or something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="b8e56339-6caa-4611-9028-f305da4bddfc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:46.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is the same discussion on biology BETA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO if you know you have solved a problem **of general interest** correctly it's ok, but wait with accepting the answer. If you know there is no single answer to that question, wait before answering yourself, otherwise it will often look like rep-gaiming and more important kill competition and therefore number and quality of answers. Someone may find a even better answer than yours, if the question is still open. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="3bbeb116-91d7-4ab0-ad3e-6cabb9eb8a05" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:46.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="there are many factual and insightful things you write, but then from time to time cringe-worthy statements I wouldn't expect from a student (&quot;you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power&quot;). I had a similar start like you on SE, some sites here like skeptics.se or philosophy.se don't fit at all my level of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. I left such sites instead of trying to improve them, it's pointless trying to yield my desired level on it by contributing q&amp;a. [I explained here ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130542) why some proposal work and some not. The quality/level of a single site is strongly linked to the amount of experts attracted during area51 process. You can only make minor improvments to such sites by clever moderation and attracting more experts afterwards (**e.g. theophys user don't want to participate here for the same reasons you try to improve this site**). The level of necessary background knowledge is just to different among user to waste here their time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have a usenet-background, I too. That is unfiltered anarchy, thats also the system most uni's run in my experience innofficially. But SE is democracy, hierarchy, filtering, ranking, sorting (**why do you think there are no downvotes/rep for comments? To stop endless discussion and force competition and several answers. This is the most important non-feature of SE**), elections of poor and good mods,..... you know all this stuff that happens in democracy too. It's a imperfect system for imperfect people. But have you seen a better one for big communities? Why did you stop posting on usenet, wikipedia and joined this system. Ask and answer this yourself and I'm sure we all can save a lot meta time and useless discussion with/about you here. I already told you that your bio's (while entertaining on christianity and philosophy :D ) are not really productive for you. Also yelling for new mods on physics.se and phil.se is really naive, what do you expect. &quot;Hey our german 38 year old  vice-chancellor is  in my opinion not qualified for his job. Can we please try somebody else (I really think this)&quot;. But he was elected by the majority. Just stop this, how can a smart guy like you think this can/will work??? You're biting on granite and wasting your and our time here. Invent a better system. Contribute answers here, discuss in forums like usenet of physicsforums.com. There are physicists who don't like for mentioned reasons usenet (too much spam and crackpot-theorists), q&amp;a boards (moderation, no discussion), forums (too lengthy discussions)... **There is no perfect system that fits everybody's needs and philosophy of communication.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look to me like on a crusade. Trying to correct all bad answers on SE sites whichs seems at a first glance admirable and worth supporting ) but also pretty naive if one knows a little bit about human and group psychology and has participated in internet discussions since a decade. [The problems of wikipedia authoring are well-known](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed), lenghty discussions with arrogant mods, SE resolves this problem by competing answers. **And with all your comments &amp; corrections you are trying to re-introduce this wikipedia editing style here again**. Maybe unconsciously as you are still in your trained usenet and wikipedia modus operandi. Well, quit this, or you end like Georg. I'm sure a physics.se site with 10-20 Ron Maimons and Georg's wouldn't work (most agreed that tolerating the escapades of one Ron Maimon is ok) and would end in even worse overall level of tolerance and respect than on usenet and wikipedia due to the rep thing and real names, thats why I asked user here to think about if such bios are really helpful. You see how fast people can change their mind and ask you to calm down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made quite some meta posts on science SE sites recently. Because I would like to see open science really working and I'm interested if and how super-moderation of  autarchic communities can work, when become things uncommunicable, how can meta user and mods find common set of values, level and scope of a site (we make a similar experiment in germany currently, direct democracy with liquid feedback community software in the pirates party). SE and Quora are a important steps here. Maybe there will come even better hybrid systems. If you want to create high quality communities, you need a clever system like here (area51, voting, meta, filtering), ranting about content, bad and wrong answers here a lot is a drop in the bucket and even more in forums, usenet and wikipedia, where users like you already failed with their demands. **I come to SE to read different views by different users, not wikipedias common denominator stuff, commenting or editing an answer towards subjective &quot;correct&quot; content here is the huge misconception you seemingly have and brought over here from your wikipedia days.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you aren't blogging. Well I'm aware without publications, university position, PHD a physics blog doesn't attract a lot of comments/views nowadays anymore. You probably too. Without credentials only few would read Motl's blog imho. So this is probably the best place to invest your time. Nonetheless I'm still wondering why you didn't participate more in theophys.se if the quality of some answers here is so terrible? I begin to think you are trying to find out how much power your rep here gives you and the responses you get are not really surprising. May be start a Ron Maimon proposal? The SE system allows this ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="1b4d35ca-3b7b-4937-ae57-ae0a66c38f43" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:46.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I made [here](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/293) a short analysis on why chemistry stats look bad (3rd bullet point). I believed with bio and phy.se existing, chemistry as connecting branch and huge overlap in research would be able to reach the **critical mass** of user and questions for a self-sustaining growth by user on bio/phy.se joining the site. But it looks very bad compared to a other science sites I observed since its start, I don't see many bio/phy user registered at all on chem.se. I also [asked on MO](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/141518/163173), what can be done to help those science sites. The main reason is probably that many commiters left the site (lasted nearly 2 years, which is of course too long). But if it gets closed, because it doesnt grow, and I start to believe sites that never reach the critical mass ever yield a substantial growth to establish a community, thats a huge downer. No chemistry on SE?! I mean, really. &quot;Waiting for further growth&quot; when older sites like cognitivesciences.se or linguistics.se didn't grow for months looks like desperation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be done? A lot of the chemistry questions are very specialized and localized, as most of the underlying theory belongs to physics, but this makes me even more wondering why many of the probably existing chem students reading physics.se dont take notice of chem.se or ask/answer questions there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="a639abf7-1685-4972-bb42-131ae736a6e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:54.610" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The best option is to use the `{}` button, or `Ctrl + k`, to create four indenting spaces which will format code like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as dmckee pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would generally recommend **not** altering the Mathematica code. When posting any code on the site, it should be in a form that it will run directly after being copied and pasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as it happens, Mathematica will automatically turn Greek ASCII characters, like `θ`, directly to their InputForm representation (i.e. `\[Theta]`) immediately upon pasting. It is therefore OK to change those characters to their ASCII representation. This is, in fact, what the [mathematica.se prettify userscript](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/additional-useful-buttons-for-our-m-se-editor) does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, though, you can't expect _all_ your Mathematica code to be made completely clear. Take, for example, this piece of code,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sound[{Play[Re[E^(-((10000 I)/(4 10^-6 I + 60 t)))/Sqrt[10^-6 - 15 I t]], {t, 0, 15}]}]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I posted recently in [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63798/slinky-reverb-the-origin-of-the-iconic-star-wars-blaster-sound). It lost quite a bit of formatting (fraction, square root, exponential) in the transcription process, but I can't put that in and **I definitely shouldn't do something that compromises the code upon copy-paste.** Thus I left it like that; if a clearer exposition of what the code is saying is necessary then I'd recommend adding a LaTeX'd version of what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="27fef479-950d-43ff-ac8f-e29b40826239" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:54.610" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll say this here in case it's useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is unlike TeX in that it recognizes as valid characters a bunch of unicode junk that TeX will rightfully call out as jibberish. This includes greek letters, used to great effect [on Mathematica.SE](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/additional-useful-buttons-for-our-m-se-editor), clever sundries like ≠ and ±, and the ever useful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ⟨ and ⟩.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My solution for easy bra-ket input is to have ⟨ and ⟩ hard keylinks on my keyboard (AltGr+[ and AltGr+], if you're wondering). Typing something like `⟨\phi|\psi⟩` takes more keystrokes on the meat than on the bread, which is as it should be, and it gets rendered correctly. You can argue that this is terrible form, but it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example in action see the [source](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/8c98cc5f-9e0d-4f0a-bf78-3691797605d0/view-source) for [this post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/197509/8563)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="bd42f1ac-d01f-432c-a7e6-faa13f74c766" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:49:54.610" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just saw [this post](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/should-we-ask-for-tag-warnings) on the Mathematica SE meta, referencing [this one](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/14237) on Ask Ubuntu, with a new feature SE is trialling in SO. These are &quot;tag warnings&quot;, which are meant to alert users about things they should be doing in the course of adding tags to their question. Here is a relevant screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tag warning example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AZhJW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes with a warning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, **note that this feature is still experimental**, so we don't know how well it performs, if at all (and **we might eventually remove it**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they could still be useful, and we could volunteer to field-test it in a non-code SE site. Off the top of my head, this could be a good place for the ugly caps in the [tag:mathematics] and [tag:mathematical-physics] tags, which have a steady stream of people that ignore them. It could also be a good place for a gentle nudge towards our homework-and-exercises meta page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think Physics.SE should experiment with this feature, please provide a tag and corresponding warning as an answer (consider including an explanation, too!). Upvote suggestions you agree with, downvote suggestions you disagree with.  If, on the other hand, you think Physics should stay out of this, leave an answer to that effect instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="ee0ac019-eb6d-4cd2-8822-5a1d98e352fe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:17.333" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [March for Science][1] is an event/protest/rally being held on April 22, 2017. The main march will occur in Washington D.C., but there will be marches all over the world and across the United States. There is an SE chat room dedicated to the march. As many of our community members are scientists and/or support science, I was wondering if we wanted a community event countdown to be shown on the main page. As the event is somewhat political in nature, I wanted to check with the community before creating an event. The countdown timer is not overbearing and is just a small item on the side bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A response to potential objections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This march is something relevant only to the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. While the main march is occurring in D.C., there will be marches all around the world (see [here](https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is an overally political thing to promote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is political, many scientific organizations are endorsing it, such as the AAAS (which publishes Science magazine), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Statistical Association (ASA) - you can read more about which organizations are endorsing it [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/will-they-or-won-t-they-what-science-groups-are-saying-about-joining-march-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A community ad will be a much better way to promote this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, for starters, I did create a community ad (as did someone else; my version was downvoted to oblivion, theirs is at -2). However, I think this event is important enough that it's worth advertising beyond just a community ad. Also, I might point out again that the countdown timer is just a small item on the side bar, so it won't interfere with normal use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: some of this (the introduction) was pulled from [an equivalent post over on Academia.SE](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3690/community-countdown-event-for-march-for-science).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.marchforscience.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="9e67c010-a31e-421f-a467-db6b023d6304" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="While we're at it, we can copy [this mathjax tutorial][1] to meta.Phy, request a mathjax enable, and add a link to it in the notation faq..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also change the [link in the editor help][2]  to it, the [current one][3] [is too intimidating][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-we-use-math-chemistry-formatting-out-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82/tex-tutorial-too-intimidating-extensive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="233d04ce-8a6d-4f35-b0d4-42a15d82e7b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm planning of putting up some A4 chem.SE posters in my institute, and I though that it would be useful if I had some for Physics as well (more useful, in fact, since I'm in the Physics  department)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster I'm using is this one (click to enlarge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taken from https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131/how-do-we-promote-our-shiny-new-site.Use it for inspiration if you need any :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone feel up to making a similar poster for Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stuff to keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't forget a QR code! There are some easy QR generators online, just Google it.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't know if we are allowed to put the Phy.SE logo onto posters, etc--it's copyright, though this may count as fair use. You may have to ask on the mother meta, or just use a different image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tn0Za.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tn0Zam.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4025" RevisionGUID="241cf28d-47c6-4fab-bf4f-9a26108c409d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Current** Physics.SE policy is to allow it (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag). The reason for using it is simple -- it basically is a sign for the answerers, saying &quot;don't post full answers, otherwise your answer will be deleted&quot;, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recently [posted on meta.chem][1], I *personally* am ambivalent to removing the tag (on both sites). On one hand, it is an easy way to teach new users about the HW policy (&quot;see that tag there? If you see that on a question, don't post&quot;) -- remember, what constitutes an HW problem isn't that evident to most, especially since homeworky problems which aren't HW are also considered [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [it is a meta tag][2], explicitly disallowed across all sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We might get rid of it on chem soon, not sure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Also, is there a chance all our homework tags will one day be purged for their... impurity... or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly. The community is probably still in support of the tag. We might be able to discuss this with the community team later. I plan to do so, just to find out _why_ the HW tag is &quot;bad&quot; -- unlike the other meta tags, it has a _purpose_. Depending on the response I get, we can work forward from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/a/203/22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="98bb662d-b4af-4512-a83c-1615e01f4bc2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Fixed][1]. In retrospect, I should have remembered that the Chem FAQ was copied from the Physics FAQ (by me!) when I fixed [this][2] and fixed it here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/11361/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/220/typo-in-the-faq-list#comment344_221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="7e191768-adc5-4fcd-b9de-3096f3443a6c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We use LaTeX here (powered by MathJax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a small tutorial [here][1] on using LaTeX in posts. There are more links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This tutorial][2] is also pretty nice. We have a short FAQ entry [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-i-format-math-chemistry-expressions-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/117/24293&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="b125d86e-6aff-499d-a782-7ad5749aaab0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My apologies if  this answer seems patronising in any way. It's based on mistakes I have made myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **This type of 2 line question will be closed**. _The following data pertains to the performance test of single acting reciprocating air compressor with bore 15 cm and stroke 12 cm. Suction pressure and temperature = 1 bar and 20ºC. Make calculations for the volumetric efficiency._ It shows no effort, no research and basically comes across as a **demand** for an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write **&quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images on phones and tablets will put users off. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users probably know the details of better than you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="a3d3a078-e4d7-45ab-9146-aa9485f3d29e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:39.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you convince your administrator to enable mhchem here – chemistry.SE does have it – then you could make use of MathJax/mhchem's `\pu` command.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $1.38 \times 10^{-23} \, \mathrm{J\,K^{-1}}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could then be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \pu{1.38E-23 J K^-1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See how it renders [at chemistry.SE](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3287/24052).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Background information: &#xD;&#xA;MathJax is a LaTeX implementation, written in JavaScript. It is not a complete TeX engine, it just does a very similar job when looked at fromt he outside. Because it is completely different at the inside, one cannot simply load LaTeX packages. Instead, one has to create a completely new package in JavaScript. That's the reason, one cannot simply load siunitx with MathJax. You would need somebody to rewrite the whole behavior for a completely different framework. With mhchem, I did such an reimplementation. Because TeX and JavaScript are so different, the two packages look very different inside. They even behave slightly differently (with MathJax/mhchem having more features than the original LaTeX/mhchem)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="6d5cddc4-36c2-4503-8b19-eed6d8c2d1ec" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:52:04.440" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We talked about it briefly in chat about starting a Topic of the Week event, akin to what is done at [Astronomy][1] and [Space][2] SE. I had proposed something similar [here][3] previously based on what was done at other SE sites discussed therein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how about we look at a just-for-fun Topic (or Tag) of the Week? Here's some of the things that would need to be decided/fleshed out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How long does each topic run?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the precedent is a week. But sometimes it takes longer to come up with really good questions or answers about highly technical aspects. Maybe two weeks would be better, but then we run the risk of getting tired of the topic in the middle. So I propose a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What's the point?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are three goals this serves. First, it promotes the asking and answering of questions the community deems interesting. Tired of [tag:newtonian-mechanics]? Suggest something else you are interested in and get some questions and answers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it could be used to attract higher-level participants. If there are things experienced members would like to focus on, decide and participate accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, it's something fun to do and will get many people outside of their comfort zones. I don't know anything about most of the tags here, but I would be encouraged to do some digging and ask a question about them if I knew it would get answered by people who know about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How are topics/tags chosen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the preceding month, a question will be posted here on meta to take nominations for the 4 topics of the next month. Each nomination should be it's own answer and ideally should contain at least one sample question already on the site pertaining to it. The 4 answers with the highest votes at the close of the voting period will be chosen -- let's say the voting period is 3 weeks. If topics should fit in a particular week of the next month, that should be noted; for instance, if a big announcement from CERN will be made in the first week of December, it might be good to put the [tag:particle-physics] topic during that week or the week after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the timeline look like? Assuming we get started soon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 1 - Nov 23**: Topic proposal and voting period for December's topics.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 23**: December's topic proposal question locked.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 27**: Topic schedule for December released&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1**: First topic week begins&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1 - Dec 20**: Topic proposal and voting period for January's topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What constitutes a community decision?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Highest voted topics get chosen. Well, let's say the highest of the 0-or-greater votes. If all the topics are positive and there's a tie, the mods will split the tie up and feel free to nominate again for the next month. If all the topics are at 0 then there is no interest in continuing and we give up. If we can't get 4 positively voted topics, we give up. If all topics are negative, we give up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we can only do what the cross-section of community here tells us to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, tags that you find interesting. The second goal may be to propose tags in which there is relatively low participation as a means to promote questions and answers in that topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should not be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Under no circumstances should a meta-type tag be nominated! So no [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], or [tag:popular-science]. Whatever tag is nominated could have questions from all three of those categories asked during that time, so let's not limit the level of the question, just the scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would avoid overly broad and overly specific tags as well. Something like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] is very broad and there's already a lot of questions on it so it probably doesn't need to be made a topic (although this is a guideline, not a rule so it could be -- the community will decide whether to use it or not). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why should I participate?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No seriously, why not? Do you know everything conceivable in your field? Do you know everything about every other field? Why not take the chance to read about something new or dig a little deeper into something old? Why not use the site as it's intended -- to pose questions you would like answered, or to answer questions you have the knowledge to answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/123/topic-of-the-week-cmb-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://space.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/373/topic-of-the-week-colonization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/topic-of-the-week-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="2833868d-7f56-4432-8c2d-2d716ae6add7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:52:10.693" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My usual position is that questions that are well suited to either site stay where the OP puts them. This *does* have the side effect of creating duplicate question on the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will suggest some principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about *particular* astronomical objects (i.e. the X ray source in Cygnus as opposed to a general question about black hole emissions which could go to either site) belong on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;* Questions about astronomical observations, instruments (again *&quot;How telescopes work?&quot;* is good on either, *&quot;What are the current limits on angular resolution of ground based optical telescopes&quot;* is astronomy specific) , and data sets belong on Astronomy. Likewise for questions about getting telescope time or other cultural issues (if you are accepting those).&#xD;&#xA;* Questions where the answer is in some sense wrapped up in the politics of the discipline (i.e. *&quot;What qualifies a body as a planet and why are these conditions important enough to justify demoting Pluto?&quot;*) got to Astronomy. {*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;I see that there is a [*&quot;What should we do with questions which are really physics questions&quot;*][1] entry on meta.astronomy, and it already hosts some suggests for the kinds of questions that should be moved here.&lt;/s&gt; That link pointed at a question on the meta of the first [astronomy.se] which dies in beta. The same numbered meta question on the current [astronomy.se] seems to be about naming the chatroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{*} Aside: I was lucky enough to talk to Clive Tombaugh a couple of times during the last years of his life. Seemed like a nice guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/q/16/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="222970d7-79b7-4b36-b5b0-53a0be907f44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:52:10.693" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [If it&amp;#39;s possible, do we want to expand the scope of this site to include astronomy?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Astronomy.SE is [closing][1]l and this SE seems like it could be a natural home for a significant fraction of the questions asked there.  Before taking the time to flag anything for migration the question of what would/not be accepted here needs to be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/astronomy-is-closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="31721bea-68ef-44dd-8da6-24fbc0a4b438" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:52:10.693" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We talked about it briefly in chat about starting a Topic of the Week event, akin to what is done at [Astronomy][1] and [Space][2] SE. I had proposed something similar [here][3] previously based on what was done at other SE sites discussed therein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how about we look at a just-for-fun Topic (or Tag) of the Week? Here's some of the things that would need to be decided/fleshed out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How long does each topic run?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the precedent is a week. But sometimes it takes longer to come up with really good questions or answers about highly technical aspects. Maybe two weeks would be better, but then we run the risk of getting tired of the topic in the middle. So I propose a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What's the point?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are three goals this serves. First, it promotes the asking and answering of questions the community deems interesting. Tired of [tag:newtonian-mechanics]? Suggest something else you are interested in and get some questions and answers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it could be used to attract higher-level participants. If there are things experienced members would like to focus on, decide and participate accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, it's something fun to do and will get many people outside of their comfort zones. I don't know anything about most of the tags here, but I would be encouraged to do some digging and ask a question about them if I knew it would get answered by people who know about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How are topics/tags chosen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the preceding month, a question will be posted here on meta to take nominations for the 4 topics of the next month. Each nomination should be it's own answer and ideally should contain at least one sample question already on the site pertaining to it. The 4 answers with the highest votes at the close of the voting period will be chosen -- let's say the voting period is 3 weeks. If topics should fit in a particular week of the next month, that should be noted; for instance, if a big announcement from CERN will be made in the first week of December, it might be good to put the [tag:particle-physics] topic during that week or the week after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the timeline look like? Assuming we get started soon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 1 - Nov 23**: Topic proposal and voting period for December's topics.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 23**: December's topic proposal question locked.&#xD;&#xA; - **Nov 27**: Topic schedule for December released&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1**: First topic week begins&#xD;&#xA; - **Dec 1 - Dec 20**: Topic proposal and voting period for January's topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What constitutes a community decision?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Highest voted topics get chosen. Well, let's say the highest of the 0-or-greater votes. If all the topics are positive and there's a tie, the mods will split the tie up and feel free to nominate again for the next month. If all the topics are at 0 then there is no interest in continuing and we give up. If we can't get 4 positively voted topics, we give up. If all topics are negative, we give up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we can only do what the cross-section of community here tells us to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, tags that you find interesting. The second goal may be to propose tags in which there is relatively low participation as a means to promote questions and answers in that topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What tags should not be nominated?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Under no circumstances should a meta-type tag be nominated! So no [tag:homework], [tag:research-level], or [tag:popular-science]. Whatever tag is nominated could have questions from all three of those categories asked during that time, so let's not limit the level of the question, just the scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would avoid overly broad and overly specific tags as well. Something like [tag:newtonian-mechanics] is very broad and there's already a lot of questions on it so it probably doesn't need to be made a topic (although this is a guideline, not a rule so it could be -- the community will decide whether to use it or not). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why should I participate?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No seriously, why not? Do you know everything conceivable in your field? Do you know everything about every other field? Why not take the chance to read about something new or dig a little deeper into something old? Why not use the site as it's intended -- to pose questions you would like answered, or to answer questions you have the knowledge to answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/123/topic-of-the-week-cmb-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://space.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/373/topic-of-the-week-colonization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/topic-of-the-week-contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="613f71fe-2fe9-4c8c-8d3b-bdc7285165df" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:52:28.260" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.aviation.stackexchange.com/ with https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My experience on other Stack Exchange sites is that the problem of getting a lot of questions that break guidelines is essentially insoluble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Most people don't read the tour or the help centre before posting so editing the text there can only have a minor effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On [Theoretical Computer Science SE](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/), only research-level questions are on topic. To try to reduce the number of undergrads asking for homework help on CS questions that weren't even necessarily theoretical, we changed the [title text prompt for new questions](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) to &quot;What's your research-level theoretical computer science question? Be specific&quot;, I guess about a year ago. I didn't notice that having any effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's possible to add [warning messages when specific tags are used](https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1588/add-tag-specific-popup-to-accidents). That would probably be useful for specific subjects that attract a lot of bad questions but doesn't help in this case, since the issue is with the form of the question, not its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, prevention isn't feasible. The focus needs to be on improving or closing inappropriate questions. Improvements, ideally, need to be done quickly. On a recent question on [Computer Science SE](http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/), I edited out a paragraph that added a vaguely related but independent question and left a comment saying it was a great question and encouraging them to ask it separately, explaining how they could retrieve the text from the edit history. Unfortunately, somebody had already provided a sketchy answer to that part of the question on the back of an excellent answer to the main question, so the asker never bothered to repost it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="9c87d590-7606-48a1-944f-a34ceeb6cb65" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:02:33.583" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just want to bring your attention to [the review site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) where you can see questions/answers posted by new users so we can assist them in getting to know the SE system and maybe improving their posts. (courtesy of [this](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1001/430) thread at meta.TeX)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="a32a72c9-0922-4cb8-9378-4e64f667ed0c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:02:33.583" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="4fce811a-27dd-4934-8580-29773e5a3e19" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at our [Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) I notice that it says about 10% of the users who committed to the site proposal have actually signed up. This is a little worrying given that the private beta is &lt;strike&gt;almost&lt;/strike&gt; now over. The equivalent number for all the other beta sites I checked was between 30% and 90%+. Anyone have an idea why our participation is so low? (I guess if you're reading this, you probably don't know the answer ;-p I just felt the need to rant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ideas about how to pull in more people, who didn't commit, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="5e1a9658-2ac6-4a81-9f67-85c4bca63307" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think it is time for an [election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/100/97)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="ae8e2e9b-3882-40c2-856c-9b2be518142d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](http://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](http://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="a2ecb10c-fdaf-40bc-a270-217f74547373" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at our [Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) I notice that it says about 10% of the users who committed to the site proposal have actually signed up. This is a little worrying given that the private beta is &lt;strike&gt;almost&lt;/strike&gt; now over. The equivalent number for all the other beta sites I checked was between 30% and 90%+. Anyone have an idea why our participation is so low? (I guess if you're reading this, you probably don't know the answer ;-p I just felt the need to rant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ideas about how to pull in more people, who didn't commit, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="9872cb70-829e-4635-bfc3-e48acc14f824" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Among users of Physics SE there is a group of people who wants to have their 'Physicsoverflow', that is, a group oriented for research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost impossible to turn this SE into research level, for three main reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Physics SE was founded with purpose for general audience (see [definition phase of Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908?phase=definition)).&#xD;&#xA;- Simple (but not stupid) questions in physics are important (I never tried to discourage asking or answering them).&#xD;&#xA;- Now there is only a tiny fraction of research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is proposal of [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) with ambition to become 'physical Mathoverflow'. I like the idea very much, but with one (albeit strong) reservation: should it be restricted only to theoretical physics? I would much more like to participate in Physics Research SE, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most conferences I attended (in wave and quantum optics) had both theoretical and experimental lectures&amp;posters and it was stimulating.&#xD;&#xA;2. When asking research-level questions both theoretical and experimental answer would be appreciated (at least, for me).&#xD;&#xA;3. Good experimentalist need to know theory. Physics is immanently connected to experiment.&#xD;&#xA;4. Physics - pure maths - experiment = applied maths without an application. &#xD;&#xA;5. I am not afraid of abundance of experimentalists as it is somehow easier to ask theoretical question (&quot;what is wrong with my assumptions&quot; vs &quot;what is wrong with my experimental setup&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;6. Anyway, most of the users will be interested only in some questions. Even a factor of two won't break anything (and you can filter experimental questions if you really want).&#xD;&#xA;7. We need people to join - I doubt if there are by now too many physicist for the one research-level SE group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I do not know what percent of potential users of Theoretical Physics SE share similar attitude. Also, I think it is not the best to propose another SE without a proper consultation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [What to put in the FAQ (the “on-/off-topic” section)?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-to-put-in-the-faq-the-on-off-topic-section)&#xD;&#xA;- Discussion on [Theoretical Physics - Area 51 - Stack Exchange](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) (group proposal)&#xD;&#xA;- Post on [Joe Fitzsimons' Blog](http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Who of you are interested in having general Physics Research SE rather than Theoretical Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;* Are on Physics SE any experimentalists wanting to ask&amp;answer research-level questions? &#xD;&#xA;* In your opinion, should I propose Physics Research SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="f620ff3f-06fe-4182-8d9c-10ec9b2f7f06" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What's bothering me about this design is the usability aspect of it. White text on a black background isn't exactly eminently readable for me. Is there any way to use a whiteboard instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the [white notebook look][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry, but I just find this design to straining for me eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se/459#459" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="7faeacec-e69b-4875-a5ec-9cdd271f19bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with what dmckee said, in particular that you should try the ignored tags feature. But to add to that:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that the site has had an unfortunate number of questions which are of a pop-sci philsophical flavor (Why is there something rather than nothing? What came before the big bang?)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions get closed pretty quickly, and people seem to be getting the idea that they are not appropriate here. We did have more of a problem of this in the early days of the site, but not so much any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and many homework style problems (What happens to this pully/weight system?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty much addressed by the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/520) dmckee linked to. Basically we don't exclude homework questions entirely, because this site is effectively a PR machine for physics (well, that's the goal anyway), but we have stricter requirements than something like Physics Forums in that homework questions asked here should be of some use to other people who aren't doing that particular problem. Right now homework questions do constitute a minority of the questions we get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question can be answered in one line and involves nothing beyond Wikipedia facts: like &quot;How to visualize the difference in scale between the nucleus and the atom&quot;, perhaps one can answer with one line, &quot;The same difference as between a football field and a small kernel of corn&quot;, and close the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is to be closed, it shouldn't be getting answers. The entire point of closing a question is to keep it from being answered (and more generally, from getting attention), so answering and then closing would be pretty useless. With some of these questions there can be useful things to say beyond just what one could look up in an encyclopedia, so I generally favor leaving them open and just not voting them up too much; of course, there aren't that many truly trivial questions on the site. If we had a lot more of them, I'd probably think differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question cannot be given a logical positivist formulation, so that the answer is not clearly meaningful, perhaps it can be redirected to a different stackexchange, like philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, we generally do that already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question is pop-sci-ish (involving rubber sheets for General Relativity, or balloons for big bang), then tag it with &quot;pop-sci&quot; and omit it by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look at these as an opportunity to explain things more accurately, to rid non-experts of some misconceptions they may have picked up due to these analogies. It fits into the role I see for the site as a PR thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="4b916b41-5b0b-4224-a264-88c44af1d927" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first chat session is complete and we had some good ideas come up. We are now [trying to schedule another one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/288/time-for-another-chat-session). Stay tuned to the [chat room schedule](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=schedule) and/or the first linked question for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few people have raised concerns about how well this site is doing, in terms of the number of new questions, new users, page views, etc. that we're getting each day. And indeed, if you look at our [proposal page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) on Area 51, some of the numbers are kind of low. That's okay, but I think **we can do better**. I feel like we haven't really made our best possible _actual_ effort to promote the site yet. If we want those numbers to improve, it's really up to us, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I was thinking we could use our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to hold a more active discussion about how we can get more people, more questions, more good answers, and generally more (and better) activity on the site. Of course, the room is always open, and you can leave messages there any time, but I'd like to try setting a time when as many active users as possible will be able to log on and contribute in near-real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try it like this: I'll put a time suggestion in an answer. If you would join in a chat session at that time, upvote the answer. If you'd like to participate but have a conflict, downvote the answer, and feel free to provide your own time suggestion as a different answer. If you think the whole chat thing is just a terrible idea, downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcripts&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;- [Site promotion chat #1](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=conversations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="e8480f71-f50b-4caa-95c7-d27e1f7f044b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](http://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](http://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="2459d3ae-e627-48b0-bf0c-19b65e086d40" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think it is time for an [election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/100/97)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="d4fad956-4df8-491c-b239-230d13af980a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Similar to my question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site &lt;sub&gt;(which could still use a consensus—hint, hint …)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an Area 51 proposal named [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I've looked at your FAQ, I don't know the field well enough to be comfortable making the call on my own—which brings me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can y'all review that proposal, and give your opinion as to whether it overlaps with or duplicates this site or [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="fa36594b-18d5-4cf6-ab83-d375386594e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What's bothering me about this design is the usability aspect of it. White text on a black background isn't exactly eminently readable for me. Is there any way to use a whiteboard instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the [white notebook look][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry, but I just find this design to straining for me eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se/459#459" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="a8545e71-3fb4-44ec-8f39-055314e32a64" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that the holidays are over, I think it's an opportune time to hold another chat session to discuss site promotion, and perhaps other issues that we think are important. Let's schedule and run it along similar lines to [the first one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237/how-about-a-chat-session-to-discuss-site-promotion). I'll post an answer to suggest a time. If you would attend at that time, upvote it; if you have a conflict, downvote it and suggest a different time in a new answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="6b83c789-2ffe-4677-a7f4-cc70b718fe04" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Among users of Physics SE there is a group of people who wants to have their 'Physicsoverflow', that is, a group oriented for research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost impossible to turn this SE into research level, for three main reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Physics SE was founded with purpose for general audience (see [definition phase of Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908?phase=definition)).&#xD;&#xA;- Simple (but not stupid) questions in physics are important (I never tried to discourage asking or answering them).&#xD;&#xA;- Now there is only a tiny fraction of research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is proposal of [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) with ambition to become 'physical Mathoverflow'. I like the idea very much, but with one (albeit strong) reservation: should it be restricted only to theoretical physics? I would much more like to participate in Physics Research SE, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most conferences I attended (in wave and quantum optics) had both theoretical and experimental lectures&amp;posters and it was stimulating.&#xD;&#xA;2. When asking research-level questions both theoretical and experimental answer would be appreciated (at least, for me).&#xD;&#xA;3. Good experimentalist need to know theory. Physics is immanently connected to experiment.&#xD;&#xA;4. Physics - pure maths - experiment = applied maths without an application. &#xD;&#xA;5. I am not afraid of abundance of experimentalists as it is somehow easier to ask theoretical question (&quot;what is wrong with my assumptions&quot; vs &quot;what is wrong with my experimental setup&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;6. Anyway, most of the users will be interested only in some questions. Even a factor of two won't break anything (and you can filter experimental questions if you really want).&#xD;&#xA;7. We need people to join - I doubt if there are by now too many physicist for the one research-level SE group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I do not know what percent of potential users of Theoretical Physics SE share similar attitude. Also, I think it is not the best to propose another SE without a proper consultation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant discussions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [What to put in the FAQ (the “on-/off-topic” section)?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-to-put-in-the-faq-the-on-off-topic-section)&#xD;&#xA;- Discussion on [Theoretical Physics - Area 51 - Stack Exchange](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) (group proposal)&#xD;&#xA;- Post on [Joe Fitzsimons' Blog](http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Who of you are interested in having general Physics Research SE rather than Theoretical Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;* Are on Physics SE any experimentalists wanting to ask&amp;answer research-level questions? &#xD;&#xA;* In your opinion, should I propose Physics Research SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="d1f2866d-e5f5-4329-948a-4d24b05d1519" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [SE Research Support and Fellowship Program][1] launched recently with our very own experienced and highly respected users reviewing fellowship applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the program a success, we need your help. Announce the program and request for proposals on your blog, website or listserv. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let us know (academics@stackexchange.com) if you intend to call for applications so we can follow your announcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/942/5450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="41f52009-210c-4260-b999-4acb240edddf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with what dmckee said, in particular that you should try the ignored tags feature. But to add to that:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that the site has had an unfortunate number of questions which are of a pop-sci philsophical flavor (Why is there something rather than nothing? What came before the big bang?)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions get closed pretty quickly, and people seem to be getting the idea that they are not appropriate here. We did have more of a problem of this in the early days of the site, but not so much any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and many homework style problems (What happens to this pully/weight system?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty much addressed by the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/520) dmckee linked to. Basically we don't exclude homework questions entirely, because this site is effectively a PR machine for physics (well, that's the goal anyway), but we have stricter requirements than something like Physics Forums in that homework questions asked here should be of some use to other people who aren't doing that particular problem. Right now homework questions do constitute a minority of the questions we get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question can be answered in one line and involves nothing beyond Wikipedia facts: like &quot;How to visualize the difference in scale between the nucleus and the atom&quot;, perhaps one can answer with one line, &quot;The same difference as between a football field and a small kernel of corn&quot;, and close the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is to be closed, it shouldn't be getting answers. The entire point of closing a question is to keep it from being answered (and more generally, from getting attention), so answering and then closing would be pretty useless. With some of these questions there can be useful things to say beyond just what one could look up in an encyclopedia, so I generally favor leaving them open and just not voting them up too much; of course, there aren't that many truly trivial questions on the site. If we had a lot more of them, I'd probably think differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question cannot be given a logical positivist formulation, so that the answer is not clearly meaningful, perhaps it can be redirected to a different stackexchange, like philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, we generally do that already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question is pop-sci-ish (involving rubber sheets for General Relativity, or balloons for big bang), then tag it with &quot;pop-sci&quot; and omit it by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look at these as an opportunity to explain things more accurately, to rid non-experts of some misconceptions they may have picked up due to these analogies. It fits into the role I see for the site as a PR thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="5699c3bf-bfc5-421e-8988-bb041a549bd1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would agree with your proposal to remove `[mechanics]` and replace it with subtopic tags. When tagging I like to work off the [list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules/51#51) I came up with in the early days of the site - of course that's not an official policy or anything but it might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's possible that there might be some questions (either that have been asked or that could be asked) for which none of the mechanics subtopic tags would be appropriate. In a case like that, it'd be fine to leave `[mechanics]` on that question. But I'm sure those should be a very small minority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="d258f1e2-0dde-4ccc-9be2-062e8e6e2647" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first chat session is complete and we had some good ideas come up. We are now [trying to schedule another one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/288/time-for-another-chat-session). Stay tuned to the [chat room schedule](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=schedule) and/or the first linked question for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few people have raised concerns about how well this site is doing, in terms of the number of new questions, new users, page views, etc. that we're getting each day. And indeed, if you look at our [proposal page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics) on Area 51, some of the numbers are kind of low. That's okay, but I think **we can do better**. I feel like we haven't really made our best possible _actual_ effort to promote the site yet. If we want those numbers to improve, it's really up to us, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I was thinking we could use our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/physics) to hold a more active discussion about how we can get more people, more questions, more good answers, and generally more (and better) activity on the site. Of course, the room is always open, and you can leave messages there any time, but I'd like to try setting a time when as many active users as possible will be able to log on and contribute in near-real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try it like this: I'll put a time suggestion in an answer. If you would join in a chat session at that time, upvote the answer. If you'd like to participate but have a conflict, downvote the answer, and feel free to provide your own time suggestion as a different answer. If you think the whole chat thing is just a terrible idea, downvote the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcripts&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;- [Site promotion chat #1](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/physics?tab=conversations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="5d6e4dcd-3b48-4928-810d-2f07648e3cb1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to present the community with a new final site design I've been working on. The goal is to keep the site clean and minimalistic, but at the same time give our physics site a unique branding. I gave the layout some extra spacing and line height for readability, also the colors have been tested for color blindness. I apologize for the first design, I learned my lesson the [hard way][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Below are the mockups, please click on the images to see full resolution versions.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Home Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png&quot;&gt;![Physics Homepage][2]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/19fbD.png&quot;&gt;![Physics Question page][3]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community approves this design, I'll be converting it to CSS and hopefully launch the design next week. Also, I'll be creating top user swag (T-Shirt and stickers) and moderator cards soon. Below is a mockup of the shirt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Physics T-Shirt][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/19fbD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Iqkbf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="7f31421a-7fc8-4dfd-baa6-ada393b81e0e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Similar to my question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site &lt;sub&gt;(which could still use a consensus—hint, hint …)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an Area 51 proposal named [High Energy Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/high-energy-physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I've looked at your FAQ, I don't know the field well enough to be comfortable making the call on my own—which brings me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can y'all review that proposal, and give your opinion as to whether it overlaps with or duplicates this site or [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="1fde0d6a-ff01-40fe-b5f6-5601e5f7ce47" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Can we please let the community close questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quit using Physics Forums because of a single case of moderation. I started a thread on the site to do a general relativity calculation in public. Along the way I was told by several respected posters that what I was doing was hopelessly wrong. Eventually a moderator closed it:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126996&amp;page=4&quot;&gt;Schwarzschild Orbits in Cartesian coordinates&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of my calculation was a paper that was the first amateur paper to win an honorable mention in the annual gravitation essay contest:&#xD;&#xA;http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem with allowing single people to close posts is that single individuals (heck, even groups of them) do not know enough about physics to distinguish between crank efforts and real physics. Sorry, physics is big and each of you, individually, is quite small. If you allow individuals to close threads you will eventually have this sort of problem drive people away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of a statement by Harry Collins (a sociologist specializing in physicists):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of my failings ... is that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot generate the levels of disdain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for physicists that one physicist can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate for another; I know what I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; missing because ... in my own field I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can readily generate such levels of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disdain for some of my fellow social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/harrycollins/sociology-of-science.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with disdain is that it is an emotion that can blind the reader. And the people most attracted to giving effort on Stack Exchange; do you think they're going to have LESS than the average level of disdain? I suggest that they're likely to be those who have more difficulty &quot;getting along with others&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the reason you should not have single moderators closing topics is the same reason physics journals use more than just a single person (the editor) when deciding whether a paper is worth publishing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="bbc2472f-e297-4a25-bced-f8744a9bca60" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that the holidays are over, I think it's an opportune time to hold another chat session to discuss site promotion, and perhaps other issues that we think are important. Let's schedule and run it along similar lines to [the first one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237/how-about-a-chat-session-to-discuss-site-promotion). I'll post an answer to suggest a time. If you would attend at that time, upvote it; if you have a conflict, downvote it and suggest a different time in a new answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="aa9ce603-321e-437b-aa1e-524ee4362790" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to present the community with a new final site design I've been working on. The goal is to keep the site clean and minimalistic, but at the same time give our physics site a unique branding. I gave the layout some extra spacing and line height for readability, also the colors have been tested for color blindness. I apologize for the first design, I learned my lesson the [hard way][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Below are the mockups, please click on the images to see full resolution versions.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Home Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png&quot;&gt;![Physics Homepage][2]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/19fbD.png&quot;&gt;![Physics Question page][3]&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community approves this design, I'll be converting it to CSS and hopefully launch the design next week. Also, I'll be creating top user swag (T-Shirt and stickers) and moderator cards soon. Below is a mockup of the shirt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Physics T-Shirt][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIXbs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/19fbD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Iqkbf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="c302ea31-ee0e-43f8-a256-d83128e6f28c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would agree with your proposal to remove `[mechanics]` and replace it with subtopic tags. When tagging I like to work off the [list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules/51#51) I came up with in the early days of the site - of course that's not an official policy or anything but it might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's possible that there might be some questions (either that have been asked or that could be asked) for which none of the mechanics subtopic tags would be appropriate. In a case like that, it'd be fine to leave `[mechanics]` on that question. But I'm sure those should be a very small minority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="de67b2bc-6603-49cb-a2b2-2fcae53be911" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Interesting idea. Our ability to set up an official collaboration is limited because (like Wikipedia) everyone who contributes here does so on a volunteer basis. However, we could certainly add RDS to the list of places that we can send people whose questions are too discussion-y here, and we could also encourage contributors here to also check out RDS from time to time and see if they can offer input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good first step while we figure out what else to do might be to create a [community promotion ad](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012) for RDS to raise awareness among contributors to this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="9c6aaa92-1219-4f77-b7f8-9dbd54f4a3ea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Can I ask several related questions in a single thread?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What do you do if you want to ask a second, related but different question?  &#xD;&#xA;(The original question can be your own question, or someone else’s question.)  &#xD;&#xA;Also, considerable time may have elapsed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start a new question?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in an answer box?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in a comment?  &#xD;&#xA;I see no good answer, but my intuition would be to ask a new question.  &#xD;&#xA;Advice, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="45004281-5b07-4646-9b0d-d3f671b5f803" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Interesting idea. Our ability to set up an official collaboration is limited because (like Wikipedia) everyone who contributes here does so on a volunteer basis. However, we could certainly add RDS to the list of places that we can send people whose questions are too discussion-y here, and we could also encourage contributors here to also check out RDS from time to time and see if they can offer input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good first step while we figure out what else to do might be to create a [community promotion ad](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012) for RDS to raise awareness among contributors to this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="db542638-3dbd-4059-b929-6f3fda3c0042" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Can we please let the community close questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339/can-we-please-let-the-community-close-questions)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quit using Physics Forums because of a single case of moderation. I started a thread on the site to do a general relativity calculation in public. Along the way I was told by several respected posters that what I was doing was hopelessly wrong. Eventually a moderator closed it:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126996&amp;page=4&quot;&gt;Schwarzschild Orbits in Cartesian coordinates&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of my calculation was a paper that was the first amateur paper to win an honorable mention in the annual gravitation essay contest:&#xD;&#xA;http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem with allowing single people to close posts is that single individuals (heck, even groups of them) do not know enough about physics to distinguish between crank efforts and real physics. Sorry, physics is big and each of you, individually, is quite small. If you allow individuals to close threads you will eventually have this sort of problem drive people away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of a statement by Harry Collins (a sociologist specializing in physicists):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of my failings ... is that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot generate the levels of disdain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for physicists that one physicist can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate for another; I know what I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; missing because ... in my own field I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can readily generate such levels of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disdain for some of my fellow social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/harrycollins/sociology-of-science.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with disdain is that it is an emotion that can blind the reader. And the people most attracted to giving effort on Stack Exchange; do you think they're going to have LESS than the average level of disdain? I suggest that they're likely to be those who have more difficulty &quot;getting along with others&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the reason you should not have single moderators closing topics is the same reason physics journals use more than just a single person (the editor) when deciding whether a paper is worth publishing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="afd28e7c-6af2-4812-ba0a-442fc15e2b21" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Color scheme and the colorblind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2955/color-scheme-and-the-colorblind)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;(On a laptop, to someone who is red/green color-blind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;answered&quot; checkmark should take on a distinctly different color from the up/down arrows, to avoid confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="d4c9fbbf-ae0d-42a9-b25d-bd80cdb2de88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Should/Can we have MathJax on meta? It would be useful to implement stuff like [this proposal][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *do* know the argument that it makes pageloading slow, so I propose that it only be enabled if a post has `$turn_mathjax_on$` or something on it. I wrote a simple script that accomplishes this. There are two versions: http://jsfiddle.net/2tccA/1/ (only gives the turn-mathjax-on ability for posts), and http://jsfiddle.net/2tccA/2/ (has an uncommentable option to enable it for comments as well). For some reason, the mathjax main server is down atm, so neither of these are currently working. They should work when http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js no longer shown an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, neither of these scripts work for the editing auto-update preview. I don't think it should be too hard to code it, though..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, any comments or arguments for/against?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1116/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="3e34331b-4e4d-4483-ad11-9e16c1b03cf7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dear community,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think [Jin][1] has done a great Job for the community so far and comes up with very nice ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, as pointed out by a lot of people by now in [Design for Physics-SE][2] and [New Design Launched][3], it has severe drawbacks in **readability** and **usability**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tobias][4] [proposed][5] a very nice modification of the design which would still be in Jin's sense (I suppose) by just inverting colours which is to my mind much more feasible for our site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tobias design modification][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we please change the design to black-on-white in a manner as Tobias suggested?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/447/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/463/358&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se/459#459&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u3hk5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="754bfbef-b44a-4b18-bc85-c41e7002904e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Can I ask several related questions in a single thread?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13/can-i-ask-several-related-questions-in-a-single-thread)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What do you do if you want to ask a second, related but different question?  &#xD;&#xA;(The original question can be your own question, or someone else’s question.)  &#xD;&#xA;Also, considerable time may have elapsed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start a new question?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in an answer box?  &#xD;&#xA;Put it in a comment?  &#xD;&#xA;I see no good answer, but my intuition would be to ask a new question.  &#xD;&#xA;Advice, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1238" RevisionGUID="7b75c11c-08d2-4a95-9062-63f058508c32" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Over a thousand questions were imported from the now-closed Astronomy and Theoretical Physics sites. We did this as quickly and unobtrusively as possible, but for a short while there simply were a huge number of new posts entering the site and the activity monitor reacted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is now completed, you should see no unusual activity... At least until folks start [retagging](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/how-should-we-go-about-retagging-the-salvaged-posts)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="1cf64ab1-df88-45c7-a9bb-d92aa08ef2e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a followup to the  [previous discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/460/polymath-project-equivalent-for-physics) on starting a collaborative research project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've decided to start with a simpler (in the sense of being solvable) problems first, so here's a bunch of them and I'd like people to post an answer (and then up-vote it) for whichever one would they like to work on most (you can of course add a problem of your own). These problems are mostly taken from references Approximist has given last time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. In a container filled with a liquid, heat transport will occur when the bottom of the container is heated&#xD;&#xA;and the top surface is cooled. How does the phenomenon change when the container rotates about its&#xD;&#xA;vertical axis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you ride too slow, you fall over – as it is well known, if one rides the bicycle too slow, it is easy to capsize.&#xD;&#xA;Let us model this (in reality rather complicated) phenomenon by a single hoop of mass $m$ and radius $R$ (the&#xD;&#xA;mass of the hoop is concentrated on the very rim), which rolls vertically on a horizontal ground at velocity $v_0$&#xD;&#xA;without slipping. What is the minimal value of $v_0$ , if this motion is stable against small perturbations? What&#xD;&#xA;is the frequency of the vibrations (waggling) of the hoop, if it is slightly pushed out of its original motion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determine all the possible paths which a light beam can trace in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric&#xD;&#xA;body. Does any closed path exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Consider a one dimensional harmonic potential complemented with a power series beginning at a cubic term.&#xD;&#xA;How should one choose the all nonzero Taylor coefficients so that the exact period becomes independent of the&#xD;&#xA;amplitude? Try to guess the full potential function either from a few lower order coefficients, or, from other&#xD;&#xA;simple physical reasoning, and then show the constancy of the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. How far can an astronaut reach from Earth during his lifetime? Let us assume that such rocket technology is&#xD;&#xA;available which can provide constant acceleration for an arbitrarily long time! (The problems of rocket fuel and&#xD;&#xA;other disturbing details can be disregarded!) Let us choose reasonable parameters, such as 30 years of travel,&#xD;&#xA;acceleration equals to the terrestrial gravity! Also consider the recently mostly accepted Universe model with&#xD;&#xA;accelerating expansion (Lambda-CDM) with its presently known parameters!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Determine the energy levels of an electron confined in a box with the sides of the box given as a and b, height&#xD;&#xA;h, and a homogeneous vertical gravitational force acting on the electron! The sides of the box can be regarded&#xD;&#xA;as infinitely high potential walls. Study the high energy (semi-classical) limiting case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A model for phase diffusion of a simple harmonic oscillator is provided by the master equation ${{\rm d} \rho \over {\rm d} t}= −\Gamma [a^{\dagger} a, [a^{\dagger} a, \rho]]$&#xD;&#xA;Calculate the Fokker-Planck equation of the density matrix $\rho$ in $P$-representation. Determine the Langevin equations from the Fokker-Planck equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.S.: As this is not really about the site itself, could it be posted on the main site?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.P.S: also, it seems TeX isn't enabled here.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="08d3889d-34eb-4804-9115-5a308107097e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dear community,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think [Jin][1] has done a great Job for the community so far and comes up with very nice ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, as pointed out by a lot of people by now in [Design for Physics-SE][2] and [New Design Launched][3], it has severe drawbacks in **readability** and **usability**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tobias][4] [proposed][5] a very nice modification of the design which would still be in Jin's sense (I suppose) by just inverting colours which is to my mind much more feasible for our site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tobias design modification][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we please change the design to black-on-white in a manner as Tobias suggested?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/447/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/463/358&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se/459#459&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u3hk5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="b35e4eb2-f3f6-4e01-a215-d4ab0a228a3c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed reviewing..! The original version can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1249#1249)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="11142cd0-47af-4658-beba-93d2de673938" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed reviewing..! The original version can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1249#1249)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="870b4b16-5989-4b27-99fb-c493fdbe0eb1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is worth checking out [the &quot;Community&quot; user page][1], BTW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you will learn that this is a automated process that takes care a various little jobs and &quot;owns&quot; all the needs an owner but should be be attributed to a real user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community exist on all the sites in the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="bccd2b53-ee5f-4a0d-8e35-b81ecd71bfff" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a followup to the  [previous discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/460/polymath-project-equivalent-for-physics) on starting a collaborative research project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've decided to start with a simpler (in the sense of being solvable) problems first, so here's a bunch of them and I'd like people to post an answer (and then up-vote it) for whichever one would they like to work on most (you can of course add a problem of your own). These problems are mostly taken from references Approximist has given last time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. In a container filled with a liquid, heat transport will occur when the bottom of the container is heated&#xD;&#xA;and the top surface is cooled. How does the phenomenon change when the container rotates about its&#xD;&#xA;vertical axis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you ride too slow, you fall over – as it is well known, if one rides the bicycle too slow, it is easy to capsize.&#xD;&#xA;Let us model this (in reality rather complicated) phenomenon by a single hoop of mass $m$ and radius $R$ (the&#xD;&#xA;mass of the hoop is concentrated on the very rim), which rolls vertically on a horizontal ground at velocity $v_0$&#xD;&#xA;without slipping. What is the minimal value of $v_0$ , if this motion is stable against small perturbations? What&#xD;&#xA;is the frequency of the vibrations (waggling) of the hoop, if it is slightly pushed out of its original motion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determine all the possible paths which a light beam can trace in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric&#xD;&#xA;body. Does any closed path exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Consider a one dimensional harmonic potential complemented with a power series beginning at a cubic term.&#xD;&#xA;How should one choose the all nonzero Taylor coefficients so that the exact period becomes independent of the&#xD;&#xA;amplitude? Try to guess the full potential function either from a few lower order coefficients, or, from other&#xD;&#xA;simple physical reasoning, and then show the constancy of the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. How far can an astronaut reach from Earth during his lifetime? Let us assume that such rocket technology is&#xD;&#xA;available which can provide constant acceleration for an arbitrarily long time! (The problems of rocket fuel and&#xD;&#xA;other disturbing details can be disregarded!) Let us choose reasonable parameters, such as 30 years of travel,&#xD;&#xA;acceleration equals to the terrestrial gravity! Also consider the recently mostly accepted Universe model with&#xD;&#xA;accelerating expansion (Lambda-CDM) with its presently known parameters!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Determine the energy levels of an electron confined in a box with the sides of the box given as a and b, height&#xD;&#xA;h, and a homogeneous vertical gravitational force acting on the electron! The sides of the box can be regarded&#xD;&#xA;as infinitely high potential walls. Study the high energy (semi-classical) limiting case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A model for phase diffusion of a simple harmonic oscillator is provided by the master equation ${{\rm d} \rho \over {\rm d} t}= −\Gamma [a^{\dagger} a, [a^{\dagger} a, \rho]]$&#xD;&#xA;Calculate the Fokker-Planck equation of the density matrix $\rho$ in $P$-representation. Determine the Langevin equations from the Fokker-Planck equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.S.: As this is not really about the site itself, could it be posted on the main site?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.P.S: also, it seems TeX isn't enabled here.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="8bcb2a3a-a8c4-40aa-8f1a-8a8433909382" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is worth checking out [the &quot;Community&quot; user page][1], BTW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you will learn that this is a automated process that takes care a various little jobs and &quot;owns&quot; all the needs an owner but should be be attributed to a real user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community exist on all the sites in the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="97ed9caa-d778-4ada-957f-9f938d4cf4bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Completed reviewing. The original set could be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1251)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="90d1a0c9-7d7f-42b4-bc86-bef2f4573dab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Completed reviewing. The original set could be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1251)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="b148b94b-44d2-4fd2-bff7-d75e14bb93df" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8276/optimal-technique-to-tear-perforated-paper-along-the-perforation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a question which is considered to be off topic by some members of the community, but on topic by others (as evidenced by the fact that they answered it). I'm not entirely sure which camp I'm in. At first, I thought it was off topic, but I've been closing a lot of questions recently and since at the time, nobody else objected to the question, I thought I would give it a chance. (Besides, there is physics involved in paper tearing at _some_ level.) However, now it's clear that there are people who consider this sort of question unambiguously off topic, and in many cases I'm inclined to agree with them. So we should make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions about practical phenomena that don't address the underlying reasons: on topic or off topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272/are-how-to-questions-for-demos-and-try-this-at-home-experiments-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of these practical questions (all the ones I could find happen to be closed, but I think there are others out there that weren't; please comment or edit in links if you find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7681/extracting-water-out-of-silica-gel&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/what-materials-can-be-used-to-release-odours-when-wet-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="05eb0016-317d-469f-bcea-9b923609a0b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8276/optimal-technique-to-tear-perforated-paper-along-the-perforation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a question which is considered to be off topic by some members of the community, but on topic by others (as evidenced by the fact that they answered it). I'm not entirely sure which camp I'm in. At first, I thought it was off topic, but I've been closing a lot of questions recently and since at the time, nobody else objected to the question, I thought I would give it a chance. (Besides, there is physics involved in paper tearing at _some_ level.) However, now it's clear that there are people who consider this sort of question unambiguously off topic, and in many cases I'm inclined to agree with them. So we should make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions about practical phenomena that don't address the underlying reasons: on topic or off topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272/are-how-to-questions-for-demos-and-try-this-at-home-experiments-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of these practical questions (all the ones I could find happen to be closed, but I think there are others out there that weren't; please comment or edit in links if you find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7681/extracting-water-out-of-silica-gel&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/what-materials-can-be-used-to-release-odours-when-wet-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="e5006463-696f-4058-b837-b51029e21d8a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2011 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/610). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please add your replies to the chat room and comment here so they can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="d3a6b20d-9d55-42d8-b9ed-4d423f8274b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing! The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1253)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="80e7bca9-be33-406a-b1e0-4a4339871597" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Finished reviewing! The original list can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1248/questions-imported-from-astronomy-and-theoretical-physics/1253#1253)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="b962b526-22b4-4f19-a7a5-b41edae0df7b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2011 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/610). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please add your replies to the chat room and comment here so they can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="5c025281-6318-4266-99aa-c4ed48d5d311" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing. If you don't want the visibility and exposure, don't post on Meta. This is a public Q&amp;A site, not an exclusive country club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in [a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1282/david-zaslavsky-moved-comments-no-good/1283#comment3075_1283) to the post you're citing specifically, this is not a physics-specific issue. It requires absolutely no knowledge of the subject domain. Rather, this is something that concerns the Stack Exchange engine that runs all of these sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These aren't physics-specific issues we're talking about. They're first and foremost ***social*** issues, and secondly, issues regarding the operation and ideology of the Stack Exchange network, on which this site operates. The fact its topic is physics is quite irrelevant to any discussion of its policies and procedures. As someone who is a diamond moderator on 2 sites, and holds upwards of 10k reputation on 2 sites, not the least of which being Meta Stack Overflow, the Q&amp;A site for the Stack Exchange engine itself, I'd say that yoda is perfectly qualified to be answering this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your position appears to be that only the &quot;expert&quot; users who participate on the main site should be eligible for commenting on the meta site. In fact, I'd argue that you have that backwards. **The &quot;experts&quot; on a meta site are those people who are experts on the Stack Exchange engine and the policies, procedures, and norms that apply across the entire network.** I'm not sure where else you'd look for those people except for SE staff members and community moderators on other sites in the network. Objectively speaking, we're *precisely* the people whom you should want to weigh in on these types of discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth pointing out that the fact that experienced Stack Exchange moderators and members of the community team weighed in on this discussion does not in any way *prevent* regular members of the physics site from expressing their own opinions. The engine allows you to post multiple answers to a question for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the concern that someone is going to &quot;take wrong actions against users&quot; on the physics site is misplaced. The only people who have power to take these actions across the entire network are community team members, and they'll have a diamond after their user names even here. These, of course, *are* &quot;powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network&quot;, although they try not to interfere with individual communities by taking direct action except in cases where it is overtly warranted or where the elected community moderators ask them to step in. However, it is worth noting that moderators on various sites talk to one another. If a user is creating problems on *one* site in the network, then they are very likely to show up on our radar. There's nothing sinister about that; it's quite clear from all aspects of this site down to the URL itself that it is a member of the Stack Exchange network, and therefore subject to its policies, practices, and community norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you specifically call out philosophy in your question, and I'm a moderator there, I can only assume that I'm one of the protagonists in your tale of abuse. Therefore, I'm not sure where and how you get the idea that I'm &quot;not in the slightest interested in physics&quot;, or even the impression that I don't know anything about physics. I haven't shared my qualifications or background with you because I don't think that's relevant. Stack Exchange doesn't have a qualification process for *users*, it has one for *answers*—voting. If I were answering physics questions and my answers were wrong, you should downvote them. Likewise, If I'm answering meta questions and my answers are wrong, you should also downvote them. But let's not make assumptions about people you don't know, okay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="203be10a-309a-423a-b434-2886b7db13b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Should we have tags indicating the level of mathematical sophistication wanted in answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (almost) &quot;no maths&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA; 2. high-school level maths. (Simple algebra, geometry and a little calculus).&#xD;&#xA; 3. Normal level questions / physics undergraduate level stuff.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Physics postgrad level maths.&#xD;&#xA; 5. I need to have a coffee plantation and a couple of life times to unpack that maths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is loosely related to the &quot;[“No math, please” questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/429/429)&quot; question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="62459548-b0be-484a-9655-642a05f34ec0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; What can we do about this? How can we prevent the physics community ressponse to certain questions being screwed up like this? How can we avoid that powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network get a wrong picture about the needs of OUR community and in the worst case take wrong actions against users who do great contributions to physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing. If you don't want the visibility and exposure, don't post on Meta. This is a public Q&amp;A site, not an exclusive country club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in [a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1282/david-zaslavsky-moved-comments-no-good/1283#comment3075_1283) to the post you're citing specifically, this is not a physics-specific issue. It requires absolutely no knowledge of the subject domain. Rather, this is something that concerns the Stack Exchange engine that runs all of these sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These aren't physics-specific issues we're talking about. They're first and foremost ***social*** issues, and secondly, issues regarding the operation and ideology of the Stack Exchange network, on which this site operates. The fact its topic is physics is quite irrelevant to any discussion of its policies and procedures. As someone who is a diamond moderator on 2 sites, and holds upwards of 10k reputation on 2 sites, not the least of which being Meta Stack Overflow, the Q&amp;A site for the Stack Exchange engine itself, I'd say that yoda is perfectly qualified to be answering this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your position appears to be that only the &quot;expert&quot; users who participate on the main site should be eligible for commenting on the meta site. In fact, I'd argue that you have that backwards. **The &quot;experts&quot; on a meta site are those people who are experts on the Stack Exchange engine and the policies, procedures, and norms that apply across the entire network.** I'm not sure where else you'd look for those people except for SE staff members and community moderators on other sites in the network. Objectively speaking, we're *precisely* the people whom you should want to weigh in on these types of discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth pointing out that the fact that experienced Stack Exchange moderators and members of the community team weighed in on this discussion does not in any way *prevent* regular members of the physics site from expressing their own opinions. The engine allows you to post multiple answers to a question for a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the concern that someone is going to &quot;take wrong actions against users&quot; on the physics site is misplaced. The only people who have power to take these actions across the entire network are community team members, and they'll have a diamond after their user names even here. These, of course, *are* &quot;powerful people at superior positions in the overall SE network&quot;, although they try not to interfere with individual communities by taking direct action except in cases where it is overtly warranted or where the elected community moderators ask them to step in. However, it is worth noting that moderators on various sites talk to one another. If a user is creating problems on *one* site in the network, then they are very likely to show up on our radar. There's nothing sinister about that; it's quite clear from all aspects of this site down to the URL itself that it is a member of the Stack Exchange network, and therefore subject to its policies, practices, and community norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;a number of people from other SE sites (philosophy, ect) who are not in the slightest interested in physics&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you specifically call out philosophy in your question, and I'm a moderator there, I can only assume that I'm one of the protagonists in your tale of abuse. Therefore, I'm not sure where and how you get the idea that I'm &quot;not in the slightest interested in physics&quot;, or even the impression that I don't know anything about physics. I haven't shared my qualifications or background with you because I don't think that's relevant. Stack Exchange doesn't have a qualification process for *users*, it has one for *answers*—voting. If I were answering physics questions and my answers were wrong, you should downvote them. Likewise, If I'm answering meta questions and my answers are wrong, you should also downvote them. But let's not make assumptions about people you don't know, okay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="a7e3be5b-8987-42ea-8352-b58d292b8770" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in [Dilaton's MSO thread][1], so please allow me to set the record straight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site *temporarily* to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, [moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension/1377#1377).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that moderators don't have a &quot;ban&quot; button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and [read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When users exhibit a pattern of either …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###No effort to learn and improve over time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...*OR*...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Disruptive behavior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and *walk away*. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: *&quot;Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139349/why-are-there-drastic-moderator-actions-that-take-effect-immediately-when-execut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="05bb4520-8a0d-47c9-b42e-4f8ac0aede2c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Should we have tags indicating the level of mathematical sophistication wanted in answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (almost) &quot;no maths&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA; 2. high-school level maths. (Simple algebra, geometry and a little calculus).&#xD;&#xA; 3. Normal level questions / physics undergraduate level stuff.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Physics postgrad level maths.&#xD;&#xA; 5. I need to have a coffee plantation and a couple of life times to unpack that maths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is loosely related to the &quot;[“No math, please” questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/429/429)&quot; question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="a175cc15-a42b-49f9-bcd2-94491cf38c95" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in [Dilaton's MSO thread][1], so please allow me to set the record straight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site *temporarily* to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, [moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension/1377#1377).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that moderators don't have a &quot;ban&quot; button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and [read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When users exhibit a pattern of either …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###No effort to learn and improve over time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...*OR*...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Disruptive behavior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and *walk away*. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: *&quot;Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139349/why-are-there-drastic-moderator-actions-that-take-effect-immediately-when-execut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="ccc7a03b-cea0-4d4f-9b73-236a712e513e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; People here are mean!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were you around for the early days of Stack Overflow? Back is those time misted days SO had a couple of strongly opinionated down-voting specialists. The current situation on physics does not seem so different to me. The moderation team is trying to hold our current crop of these guy to civil bounds, but we are *not* trying to dictate their evaluation of posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's possible to have an answer that has a singular fact that is objectively physically incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is. Perhaps more so than on Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we also have a couple of phenomena that are much less prevalent than in programming, system administration, and the other topics that were the original Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of enthusiastic amateurs whose whole education on the topic comes from popular books. Frankly this is a crowd that we love to have around (because we always happy to see people take an interest), but are a little wary of interacting with (because they are often *very* misguided; there is a limit to how much education one can pack into a comment when the intended recipient clearly has none of the mathematical preparation and is misusing the specialized vocabulary of the field).&#xD;&#xA;* A small but more persistent group of [people who are strongly committed to non-standard theories][1]. And very wordy on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I'll list *my* upvote to downvote ratio on some of the sites I'm active on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stack Overflow   10:1&#xD;&#xA;    Super User       50:1&#xD;&#xA;    Physics           6:1&#xD;&#xA;    Unix             25:1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I'm more critical here than elsewhere. I'll note that my Stack Overflow ratio is up (from 8:1) after a multiple month effort to cast *more* upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the situation for me on physics is that without the option of casting a non-binding vote to close I have been substituting down votes on things that I was wishy-washy on closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/340/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="45422fb0-34f0-46d3-8b83-a77c39623671" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't mean to pollute the site with more discussion of [tag:metaphysics] questions, but I'm genuinely confused by the community's response to this and I want to figure out what is going on. There were a couple of questions ([this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1458/metaphysics-tag) and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1462/so-whats-on-with-the-metaphysics-questions)) asking about whether metaphysics questions were appropriate on this site, and in each case, the votes are clearly in favor of &quot;**no**, metaphysics questions are not appropriate.&quot; But when the specific questions that prompted that discussion were named, the [community has voted that they are on topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting). So what's going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like for us to resolve this one way or another - either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the [tag:metaphysics] tag for good. (I _strongly_ support the first option.) Which shall it be, and why were the votes inconsistent in the earlier questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="8e32db37-c6c6-497f-81c5-385f4a6f9a03" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't mean to pollute the site with more discussion of [tag:metaphysics] questions, but I'm genuinely confused by the community's response to this and I want to figure out what is going on. There were a couple of questions ([this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1458/metaphysics-tag) and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1462/so-whats-on-with-the-metaphysics-questions)) asking about whether metaphysics questions were appropriate on this site, and in each case, the votes are clearly in favor of &quot;**no**, metaphysics questions are not appropriate.&quot; But when the specific questions that prompted that discussion were named, the [community has voted that they are on topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1468/philosophical-questions-voting). So what's going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like for us to resolve this one way or another - either we close all the offending questions, or we bring back the [tag:metaphysics] tag for good. (I _strongly_ support the first option.) Which shall it be, and why were the votes inconsistent in the earlier questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="b9dbeabf-ad05-479b-ab25-7d17fa54482f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; People here are mean!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were you around for the early days of Stack Overflow? Back is those time misted days SO had a couple of strongly opinionated down-voting specialists. The current situation on physics does not seem so different to me. The moderation team is trying to hold our current crop of these guy to civil bounds, but we are *not* trying to dictate their evaluation of posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's possible to have an answer that has a singular fact that is objectively physically incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is. Perhaps more so than on Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we also have a couple of phenomena that are much less prevalent than in programming, system administration, and the other topics that were the original Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of enthusiastic amateurs whose whole education on the topic comes from popular books. Frankly this is a crowd that we love to have around (because we always happy to see people take an interest), but are a little wary of interacting with (because they are often *very* misguided; there is a limit to how much education one can pack into a comment when the intended recipient clearly has none of the mathematical preparation and is misusing the specialized vocabulary of the field).&#xD;&#xA;* A small but more persistent group of [people who are strongly committed to non-standard theories][1]. And very wordy on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I'll list *my* upvote to downvote ratio on some of the sites I'm active on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stack Overflow   10:1&#xD;&#xA;    Super User       50:1&#xD;&#xA;    Physics           6:1&#xD;&#xA;    Unix             25:1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I'm more critical here than elsewhere. I'll note that my Stack Overflow ratio is up (from 8:1) after a multiple month effort to cast *more* upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the situation for me on physics is that without the option of casting a non-binding vote to close I have been substituting down votes on things that I was wishy-washy on closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/340/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="5931cd54-27fc-46e9-8f1c-2708d8968363" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) In 99 percent of the cases, the [tag:homework] tag runs smoothly and as intended. In a few cases, OP does not agree with labeling his question with the [tag:homework] tag; often it's a new user that hasn't read the [wiki description](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) or the [site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/2451), but sometimes OP is right and the [tag:homework] tag is removed again from the question with no further discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) In the early days of Phys.SE, whenever there was posted a homework question without the [tag:homework] tag, then the moderators would politely ask OP if this was homework or not? Typically, a couple of full answers to the homework were posted and accepted before the issue of whether or not to add the [tag:homework] tag was settled. Thus OP would succeed in getting a homework solution from our site, which in other respect is mainly dedicated to just _conceptional_ physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In the last year or so, the tagging practice was changed, and users with tagging privileges would now often add the [tag:homework] tag whenever they felt it was appropriate _without_ first asking OP. The answers were now typically just hints, advices, outlines, etc., instead of full solutions. So the [tag:homework] tag clearly had the desired effect. Moreover, this new practice didn't seem to spur repeated back-and-forth edit war over the [tag:homework] tag. Typically it became clear to everybody whether or not the [tag:homework] tag would apply in a given case or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV) _If it ain't broke, don't fix it._ I fear that by banning the [tag:homework] tag, we in practice loose a useful user-based moderation option, and effectively turn this site into a homework help service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V) Another aspect is that many of our readers use the [tag:homework] tag to decide whether or not to read a post. This goes both ways. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="d4360747-0633-4ec8-9005-4fec7e0fdea8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the best way to handle a case where a question was asked a long time ago and received several incorrect answers but no correct ones? To be more concrete, this was the situation with this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum I've done the obvious things: (1) submitted a correct answer; (2) downvoted the incorrect answers; and (3) explained my downvotes in comments. However, the question is 9 months old, and one of the incorrect answers has been accepted and heavily upvoted. I would interpret this as a situation arising from the fact that physics.SE is relatively new, and is still in the process of attracting a critical mass of users. With a small number of users, someone can make an honest mistake in an answer and not have it corrected. The problem is that there are certain questions that are FAQs, and those FAQs got asked and answered early on. Now we're stuck with them. Students or other people without solid expertise of their own will come along and believe the incorrect answer, which has been upvoted and accepted and effectively frozen in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not about crackpottery, as discussed in this question: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin I'm talking about answers that are wrong, but not wrong in a crackpottish way. I'm sure the folks who gave these answers are competent at physics, but everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even people who are highly competent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How have the older, more mature SE sites dealt with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that once a question has sat around for 6 or 12 months, nobody is likely to participate in it anymore. It's off everyone's radar, and if its answers are broken, they aren't going to get fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, Wikipedia has mechanisms where you can try to attract people's interest in improving an article that needs work. For instance, you can nominate it as a good article, which initiates a review process; you can tag it as needing attention from an expert; you can nominate it for deletion; etc. SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="7199fe32-6a15-4089-82d9-559bceb4097a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) In 99 percent of the cases, the [tag:homework] tag runs smoothly and as intended. In a few cases, OP does not agree with labeling his question with the [tag:homework] tag; often it's a new user that hasn't read the [wiki description](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) or the [site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/2451), but sometimes OP is right and the [tag:homework] tag is removed again from the question with no further discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) In the early days of Phys.SE, whenever there was posted a homework question without the [tag:homework] tag, then the moderators would politely ask OP if this was homework or not? Typically, a couple of full answers to the homework were posted and accepted before the issue of whether or not to add the [tag:homework] tag was settled. Thus OP would succeed in getting a homework solution from our site, which in other respect is mainly dedicated to just _conceptional_ physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In the last year or so, the tagging practice was changed, and users with tagging privileges would now often add the [tag:homework] tag whenever they felt it was appropriate _without_ first asking OP. The answers were now typically just hints, advices, outlines, etc., instead of full solutions. So the [tag:homework] tag clearly had the desired effect. Moreover, this new practice didn't seem to spur repeated back-and-forth edit war over the [tag:homework] tag. Typically it became clear to everybody whether or not the [tag:homework] tag would apply in a given case or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV) _If it ain't broke, don't fix it._ I fear that by banning the [tag:homework] tag, we in practice loose a useful user-based moderation option, and effectively turn this site into a homework help service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V) Another aspect is that many of our readers use the [tag:homework] tag to decide whether or not to read a post. This goes both ways. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="05f30849-bf64-4b82-b13a-a6db574e86a4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I feel that moderators should _not_ be obliged to help uphold the rules of other institutions, and we should not use any on-site powers to deal with such issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I feel we should do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be stricter and more vigilant in enforcing the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a comment linking to the paper that it is from.&#xD;&#xA; - Downvote (?)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Fire off an email to the relevant professor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The identification issue _can_ be circumvented, to a degree. There is a way to _verify_ if a user has a given email address (the URL of the avatar contains the md5 hash of the email), though this is not exactly reliable, as the email used to enter the gravatar can be changed without having to re-verify it. Also, it's complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="176a0e9a-254a-4081-8576-e817cd880b90" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are you more interested in how to handle tag edit wars in general, or just this specific one? If you want in general, what you did was best - do *not* reciprocate or rollback, and start a Meta discussion to get things settled with proper discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want specific feedback, well, [dmckee has that for you](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/836/whats-the-best-way-to-handle-tag-edit-warring/837#837). ♪" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="2a744fb7-81ff-4f29-bf84-400acfd94896" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I feel that moderators should _not_ be obliged to help uphold the rules of other institutions, and we should not use any on-site powers to deal with such issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I feel we should do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be stricter and more vigilant in enforcing the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Add a comment linking to the paper that it is from.&#xD;&#xA; - Downvote (?)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Fire off an email to the relevant professor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The identification issue _can_ be circumvented, to a degree. There is a way to _verify_ if a user has a given email address (the URL of the avatar contains the md5 hash of the email), though this is not exactly reliable, as the email used to enter the gravatar can be changed without having to re-verify it. Also, it's complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="6fc0ab9a-91b3-4cf7-91f2-45cfd4de92b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we have entertained a new use on Physics.SE (and notably on Astronomy.SE) who has four times posted identical (or nearly so) question to both Physics and Astronomy in short order. (Not that this question is meant to pick on the user in question, just that seeing these posts has brought the situation to the forefront of my attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [I've been known to defend the cross-site duplication of content][1] in the past, but this feels distinctly different to me and offends sensibilities developed many years ago on the Usenet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole I feel we should discourage such intentional duplication, but I am interested to hear what other have to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Remnant of a supernova][2] and [remnant of a supernova][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Rainbow around Sun][4] and [Rainbow around Sun][5]&#xD;&#xA;* [the collision of Phobos][6] and [The collision of Phobos][7]&#xD;&#xA;* [two distant galaxies seen from earth][8] and [Galaxies seen from earth][9] (despite the difference in titles the text is the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/725/what-should-be-sent-to-astronomy-stackexchange/726#726&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14524/remnant-of-a-supernova&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1194/211&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14254/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1138/211&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14212/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1134/211&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1127/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="dfc3efb2-ac6b-47a3-b27b-6e2cc16f9217" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do the moderators have any idea why the user [Marek][1] has suddenly stopped contributing to physics stack exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really miss his brilliant answers and I'm just wondering if Lubos posting about him and Ron in a disrespecful way some time ago on his [blog][2] might have had something to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/329/marek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/unity-and-uniqueness-of-string-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="3bf47c6d-845e-40c6-99bb-67a4d733cdcd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the best way to handle a case where a question was asked a long time ago and received several incorrect answers but no correct ones? To be more concrete, this was the situation with this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum I've done the obvious things: (1) submitted a correct answer; (2) downvoted the incorrect answers; and (3) explained my downvotes in comments. However, the question is 9 months old, and one of the incorrect answers has been accepted and heavily upvoted. I would interpret this as a situation arising from the fact that physics.SE is relatively new, and is still in the process of attracting a critical mass of users. With a small number of users, someone can make an honest mistake in an answer and not have it corrected. The problem is that there are certain questions that are FAQs, and those FAQs got asked and answered early on. Now we're stuck with them. Students or other people without solid expertise of their own will come along and believe the incorrect answer, which has been upvoted and accepted and effectively frozen in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not about crackpottery, as discussed in this question: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin I'm talking about answers that are wrong, but not wrong in a crackpottish way. I'm sure the folks who gave these answers are competent at physics, but everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even people who are highly competent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How have the older, more mature SE sites dealt with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that once a question has sat around for 6 or 12 months, nobody is likely to participate in it anymore. It's off everyone's radar, and if its answers are broken, they aren't going to get fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, Wikipedia has mechanisms where you can try to attract people's interest in improving an article that needs work. For instance, you can nominate it as a good article, which initiates a review process; you can tag it as needing attention from an expert; you can nominate it for deletion; etc. SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="e240aafa-268c-4c19-965b-e6697ffdacfe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Of course, we shouldn't allow such questions. While, I was revising [Astronomy imports](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/1245#1245), I arrived at that one. I thought it was off-topic (and *indeed*, the flag was mine). So, I voted to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need such questions. Because they're dealing with some kinda measuring *data-collection*-like stuffs that we don't like. I think most of the users also won't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could close it... I don't think a prepoll would be of so much importance :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I really agree with dmckee's answer. Questions which are more likely *supporting* Physics could be allowed. But, not the question which you've pointed out. It seems like It'd be understood and responded only by some 10s or 20s out of 16k users. I think we don't need such questions (like the above)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="fe2e2162-4965-49a3-a4c4-377e8bf6c9e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've had some [sporadic discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18/astronomy-astrophyiscs-related-question-here) about how to determine the topic boundary between Astronomy.SE and Physics.SE and what kinds of questions should be transferred over to the astro site. They've also had some discussions on the same topic. So we thought it would be a good idea to get everyone together and work out how to draw the boundary between the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be a chat event in the Astronomy chat room this Friday at 1600 UTC (noon EDT). If you're free at that time, please consider dropping in!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/815/colloquium?tab=schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="63017394-139e-4246-8fd5-488978e1b73c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are you more interested in how to handle tag edit wars in general, or just this specific one? If you want in general, what you did was best - do *not* reciprocate or rollback, and start a Meta discussion to get things settled with proper discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want specific feedback, well, [dmckee has that for you](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/836/whats-the-best-way-to-handle-tag-edit-warring/837#837). ♪" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="3551d758-4077-45e2-a357-a8a23ff9d40d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me that the spirit of the original [meta question][1] you linked to wasn't so much &quot;should we allow software questions?&quot; as &quot;should we allow questions that are *only about computation*, without any specific physics content?&quot; The answer to that question was &quot;no&quot;, but that doesn't mean we need a blanket &quot;no computation questions&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the FAQ says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If your question is about writing a simulation or other program, and it concerns the algorithms, execution, or presentation of the results (rather than the underlying physics), it is probably more appropriate at Computational Science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a reasonable policy, but it should be interpreted such that questions are on topic if they're about software but *aren't* just concerned with algorithms, execution, or presentation of results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view the [JSkyCat][2] question should be allowed because although it isn't strictly about the physics as such, it's asking for knowledge that's quite specific to physicists (or rather astronomers) and for me that's enough to make it not just about algorithms, execution or presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="75db514c-0d76-41de-9b0b-13bdb2d2533e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Of course, we shouldn't allow such questions. While, I was revising [Astronomy imports](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/1245#1245), I arrived at that one. I thought it was off-topic (and *indeed*, the flag was mine). So, I voted to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need such questions. Because they're dealing with some kinda measuring *data-collection*-like stuffs that we don't like. I think most of the users also won't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could close it... I don't think a prepoll would be of so much importance :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I really agree with dmckee's answer. Questions which are more likely *supporting* Physics could be allowed. But, not the question which you've pointed out. It seems like It'd be understood and responded only by some 10s or 20s out of 16k users. I think we don't need such questions (like the above)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="1bd0557d-e098-43e8-bf20-6f2d2906f65e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One area that I've noticed that is missing from our FAQ is an item about computational physics, and use of computers in doing physics research. So far we've been taking the view that general questions about computing are off topic here and should be sent to SO or SU, but that there are certain computing-related questions that [would be on topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions). I'd like to add something to the FAQ to reflect that. Can anyone suggest a good wording that, as clearly as possible, delineates what kinds of computation-related questions we will accept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="76d3559f-7833-42d1-a3c6-404bbcc7449e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we have entertained a new use on Physics.SE (and notably on Astronomy.SE) who has four times posted identical (or nearly so) question to both Physics and Astronomy in short order. (Not that this question is meant to pick on the user in question, just that seeing these posts has brought the situation to the forefront of my attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [I've been known to defend the cross-site duplication of content][1] in the past, but this feels distinctly different to me and offends sensibilities developed many years ago on the Usenet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole I feel we should discourage such intentional duplication, but I am interested to hear what other have to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Remnant of a supernova][2] and [remnant of a supernova][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Rainbow around Sun][4] and [Rainbow around Sun][5]&#xD;&#xA;* [the collision of Phobos][6] and [The collision of Phobos][7]&#xD;&#xA;* [two distant galaxies seen from earth][8] and [Galaxies seen from earth][9] (despite the difference in titles the text is the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/725/what-should-be-sent-to-astronomy-stackexchange/726#726&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14524/remnant-of-a-supernova&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1194/211&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14254/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1138/211&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14212/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1134/211&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1127/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="40a4b128-3ac8-4054-a666-8fab9ac5662d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me that the spirit of the original [meta question][1] you linked to wasn't so much &quot;should we allow software questions?&quot; as &quot;should we allow questions that are *only about computation*, without any specific physics content?&quot; The answer to that question was &quot;no&quot;, but that doesn't mean we need a blanket &quot;no computation questions&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the FAQ says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If your question is about writing a simulation or other program, and it concerns the algorithms, execution, or presentation of the results (rather than the underlying physics), it is probably more appropriate at Computational Science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a reasonable policy, but it should be interpreted such that questions are on topic if they're about software but *aren't* just concerned with algorithms, execution, or presentation of results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view the [JSkyCat][2] question should be allowed because although it isn't strictly about the physics as such, it's asking for knowledge that's quite specific to physicists (or rather astronomers) and for me that's enough to make it not just about algorithms, execution or presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="0b957536-0829-46eb-8739-2231442eee3b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do the moderators have any idea why the user [Marek][1] has suddenly stopped contributing to physics stack exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really miss his brilliant answers and I'm just wondering if Lubos posting about him and Ron in a disrespecful way some time ago on his [blog][2] might have had something to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/329/marek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/unity-and-uniqueness-of-string-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="e36e8b85-1ec3-4a11-8f78-65f9f7303c8c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We actually [considered](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site/61#61) reaching out to PF early in the site's development, but we got shut down by their moderators. Their opinion appears to be that any mention of a competing site constitutes an advertisement, which is against the rules there. If we could think of some way to create a partnership that they would actually be interested in, I'd certainly love to see that happen, but we haven't had any ideas that seem promising. Even so, I do occasionally send people over to PF when they have particularly discussion-y questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Forums does have a chat room of some sort (I've never participated), but they only open it up for a few hours at a time every few weeks because of the stress it puts on their server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I've been thinking of a couple of things we could possibly offer Physics Forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As in my comment, every once in a while I'll see someone asking a question on PF which is addressed quite well by a question on Physics.SE. In those cases it would be great to be able to post a link to the relevant PSE question in the PF thread.&#xD;&#xA;- PF occasionally gets people who, though not trained physics researchers, have ideas they are interested in publishing and are looking for feedback on the work. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541503)) Ever since their Independent Research subforum was shut down, there is no appropriate place on their site for those kinds of discussions, but some of them can be accommodated here. In particular, either this site or theoreticalphysics.SE could accept questions about what prior research has been done in a particular field, and our chat room could be a good place for people who are legitimately interested in getting feedback about their ideas.&#xD;&#xA;- The General Discussion forum gets a number of non-physics-related questions that are (or could be) addressed by other Stack Exchange sites. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541776), would be great for money.SE) Once people at PF are aware of the Stack Exchange network through this site, they might also be interested in making use of other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making this community wiki so that other people can add items to the list as they think of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="bbc052a0-9bc9-4706-969a-ab2a8a829d9b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've had some [sporadic discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18/astronomy-astrophyiscs-related-question-here) about how to determine the topic boundary between Astronomy.SE and Physics.SE and what kinds of questions should be transferred over to the astro site. They've also had some discussions on the same topic. So we thought it would be a good idea to get everyone together and work out how to draw the boundary between the two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be a chat event in the Astronomy chat room this Friday at 1600 UTC (noon EDT). If you're free at that time, please consider dropping in!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/815/colloquium?tab=schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="0ecaf37d-728b-41c9-a3c3-9b4af68159ae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Question appears &amp;ldquo;blue&amp;rdquo;?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/712/question-appears-blue)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What does it mean that certain questions are highlighted by a transparent green background when I scroll on the main page through the &quot;active&quot; or &quot;newest&quot; list? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="5bb7d49a-4ba5-4aac-8d7e-c640860b8d53" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One area that I've noticed that is missing from our FAQ is an item about computational physics, and use of computers in doing physics research. So far we've been taking the view that general questions about computing are off topic here and should be sent to SO or SU, but that there are certain computing-related questions that [would be on topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions). I'd like to add something to the FAQ to reflect that. Can anyone suggest a good wording that, as clearly as possible, delineates what kinds of computation-related questions we will accept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="b1dc7452-9ba8-44ec-a448-04ae8b1dca21" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [SE Research Support and Fellowship Program][1] launched recently with our very own experienced and highly respected users reviewing fellowship applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the program a success, we need your help. Announce the program and request for proposals on your blog, website or listserv. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let us know (academics@stackexchange.com) if you intend to call for applications so we can follow your announcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/942/5450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="b13a8929-7f1e-49c6-ab11-d4b53dd77067" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We actually [considered](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52/how-should-we-promote-the-site/61#61) reaching out to PF early in the site's development, but we got shut down by their moderators. Their opinion appears to be that any mention of a competing site constitutes an advertisement, which is against the rules there. If we could think of some way to create a partnership that they would actually be interested in, I'd certainly love to see that happen, but we haven't had any ideas that seem promising. Even so, I do occasionally send people over to PF when they have particularly discussion-y questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Forums does have a chat room of some sort (I've never participated), but they only open it up for a few hours at a time every few weeks because of the stress it puts on their server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I've been thinking of a couple of things we could possibly offer Physics Forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As in my comment, every once in a while I'll see someone asking a question on PF which is addressed quite well by a question on Physics.SE. In those cases it would be great to be able to post a link to the relevant PSE question in the PF thread.&#xD;&#xA;- PF occasionally gets people who, though not trained physics researchers, have ideas they are interested in publishing and are looking for feedback on the work. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541503)) Ever since their Independent Research subforum was shut down, there is no appropriate place on their site for those kinds of discussions, but some of them can be accommodated here. In particular, either this site or theoreticalphysics.SE could accept questions about what prior research has been done in a particular field, and our chat room could be a good place for people who are legitimately interested in getting feedback about their ideas.&#xD;&#xA;- The General Discussion forum gets a number of non-physics-related questions that are (or could be) addressed by other Stack Exchange sites. ([example](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541776), would be great for money.SE) Once people at PF are aware of the Stack Exchange network through this site, they might also be interested in making use of other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making this community wiki so that other people can add items to the list as they think of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="fc5c9772-38c7-42b8-a881-08589d8e0a77" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;new new design&quot; just went live, thanks for the [feedback][1]!. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, **please start a new post**, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now I'm using generic 404 and error images. I plan to make final ones based off [your ideas][2]. So please feel free to submit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="b00b247b-fcc3-4fb8-a636-92ca258370fc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Question appears &amp;ldquo;blue&amp;rdquo;?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/712/question-appears-blue)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What does it mean that certain questions are highlighted by a transparent green background when I scroll on the main page through the &quot;active&quot; or &quot;newest&quot; list? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="6526bfd8-fd58-42f6-bbe0-d5a190aa0700" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Sort of crossposted to http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/3845/mathjax-custom-commands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax allows the use of `\newcommand` in TeX. For example, this command:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\newcommand{\lorentz}[1]{\frac{#1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be pretty useful in lots of situations. If this was placed somewhere in the body (AFAIK before it is called), then `\lorentz{m_0}` would give the expression for relativistic mass. `\lorentz{1}` would give the normal lorentz factor. `lorentz{m_0c^2}` gives us the expression for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this, I can think up quite a lot of TeXcodes that are tedious to type, but crop up often. `\frac{1}{2}` and `\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}` are some (smaller and less tedious) examples. A few more commands that quickly give expressions for the nabla operator, div, grad, curl would be nice as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, is there any way that we can have a user-dictated commandset? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, it's easy to code it, just keep &quot;$$ *insert commands here* $$&quot; at the top of the `&lt;body&gt;` tag. Less easy to code would be the way to make it user-dictated, but I'm thinking something akin to the way https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012 works would be easy to implement, as the code is already there. Just modify it so that it takes all the mathjax in the body of an answer with enough upvotes and appends it to some div in the beginning of the body tag (set display:none just to be safe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Suggestions? Rants? Cookies?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="edab0816-8186-48c0-a87d-64495f5bc89f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;new new design&quot; just went live, thanks for the [feedback][1]!. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any CSS glitches, **please start a new post**, and tag it with &quot;Design&quot; and &quot;Bug&quot; so I can track them easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now I'm using generic 404 and error images. I plan to make final ones based off [your ideas][2]. So please feel free to submit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, congrats!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/new-site-design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/ideas-for-404-error-captcha-pages-take-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="b20e84f8-1444-4564-b7db-19fc41d68abc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing/Reopening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may **vote to reopen** (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="ddb2e237-03ae-485b-9fbb-1e3596bb50e0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Color scheme and the colorblind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2955/color-scheme-and-the-colorblind)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;(On a laptop, to someone who is red/green color-blind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;answered&quot; checkmark should take on a distinctly different color from the up/down arrows, to avoid confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="3edece3f-b906-41b7-aa01-45edb0f6d7d4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [David says][1], we are in some sense stuck with this concept in a context where it doesn't make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Stack Exchange system started with [Stack Overflow][2] which is for *programming questions*, and the interpretation put on acceptance there was the asker stating *'I used this solution to my problem'*. As such it is clear that acceptance is *entirely* in the gift of the asker because it simply means the accepted solution is the one the asker used, and the fact that they might choose a second best solution isn't a really big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on physics are questions are not often of the *'I've hit a snag in my work, what are my options'* kind that Stack Overflow specializes in (though experimental technique questions could be of that kind) so that *this is what I did* contotation doesn't often make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less, acceptance should not be interpreted as indicating correctness: it only indicates the asker's selection and one can take some comfort in the fact that these people are not always in the best position to select a correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do however, have [a (gold!) badge for giving answers that the community prefers very much in comparison to a decent accepted answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="4975984a-1bbb-414a-9e71-52e572adc273" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Sort of crossposted to http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/3845/mathjax-custom-commands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax allows the use of `\newcommand` in TeX. For example, this command:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\newcommand{\lorentz}[1]{\frac{#1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be pretty useful in lots of situations. If this was placed somewhere in the body (AFAIK before it is called), then `\lorentz{m_0}` would give the expression for relativistic mass. `\lorentz{1}` would give the normal lorentz factor. `lorentz{m_0c^2}` gives us the expression for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this, I can think up quite a lot of TeXcodes that are tedious to type, but crop up often. `\frac{1}{2}` and `\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}` are some (smaller and less tedious) examples. A few more commands that quickly give expressions for the nabla operator, div, grad, curl would be nice as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, is there any way that we can have a user-dictated commandset? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, it's easy to code it, just keep &quot;$$ *insert commands here* $$&quot; at the top of the `&lt;body&gt;` tag. Less easy to code would be the way to make it user-dictated, but I'm thinking something akin to the way https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012 works would be easy to implement, as the code is already there. Just modify it so that it takes all the mathjax in the body of an answer with enough upvotes and appends it to some div in the beginning of the body tag (set display:none just to be safe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Suggestions? Rants? Cookies?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="c82a362e-3774-4851-b6c8-59d8210cfdf2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing/Reopening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may **vote to reopen** (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="f827814c-78f5-4b62-9c6f-9921c7e1faf2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- -  More? --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;First, check if that user is on [chat][2]. Start typing their username in chat, and if it pops up, then notify them there. It's always preferable to use chat for such notifications. If the user is not on chat, _just comment on their post below with your message_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to delete the comment once you have recieved indication that the user has seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-coupling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="3937fa41-1f60-4490-b0ce-96ad5acfa97c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[You need 2500 reputation][1] to create and vote on tag synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's generally much easier to ping a mod in chat or propose it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting?rq=1), since nobody really monitors the synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/suggest-tag-synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="8da6c575-3f16-4003-9652-c6040e2a1e49" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;The proposal below has been posted as a separate feature request [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4357/8563), and has was implemented shortly afterwards. The current sidebar looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjMz.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="ee709220-7daf-4e37-9f1f-c7870a8ae0ab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- -  More? --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;First, check if that user is on [chat][2]. Start typing their username in chat, and if it pops up, then notify them there. It's always preferable to use chat for such notifications. If the user is not on chat, _just comment on their post below with your message_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to delete the comment once you have recieved indication that the user has seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-coupling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="680ddde2-8396-46ca-bf28-6030925b4081" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Manishearth][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities: None.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: Stuff requiring analogies, electromagnetism, basic QM and relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually on chat anyways, but its better to keep this here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1212053.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="9e14727d-4536-4f86-a70b-48d8c4c08fdf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I made some points about a separate problem section, at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not wanting to repeat I will summerize, I think that a separated problem(Homework) section will, keep the site better organized. From Mannisheath graphs point to, percentage of Homework Question has reached roughly 20 pc and likely to Increase Further. I would like it to be separated from the Main site, to avoid clutter and the people who arnt interested Text Book like questions can safely skip them. Ofcourse, It does not make sense to start a new site for homework questions, as it does not address a very different audience. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="09de408f-02c4-47f3-92d9-fb5571c73cd5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I made some points about a separate problem section, at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-about-a-physics-problems-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not wanting to repeat I will summerize, I think that a separated problem(Homework) section will, keep the site better organized. From Mannisheath graphs point to, percentage of Homework Question has reached roughly 20 pc and likely to Increase Further. I would like it to be separated from the Main site, to avoid clutter and the people who arnt interested Text Book like questions can safely skip them. Ofcourse, It does not make sense to start a new site for homework questions, as it does not address a very different audience. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="275c1c9f-d87e-4c02-8b66-d9a9351209f2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Manishearth][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities: None.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: Stuff requiring analogies, electromagnetism, basic QM and relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually on chat anyways, but its better to keep this here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1212053.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="910e4a5a-988b-4ba8-90a0-dfc5c0db0585" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="More of a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest we &lt;s&gt;steal&lt;/s&gt; salvage stuff from Astro.SE as well.  A quick look-see turns up some good questions that could survive on P.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have a way to solve @dmckee's issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag all migrated questions as such (astro or TP), and we can later work through them at our leisure, looking for dupes/etc. Maybe keep a meta-post full of 'em, similar in principle to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone notified TP and astro meta yet? If so, please do. We'll need full cooperation for this (I would post, but typing on a phone is annoying :/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="d1320c62-aecc-4f14-84be-3ccfcb71151a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:research-level] is supposed to be applied to questions which are not popular-science, which want technical answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think the name is very deterring to those who want to ask such questions. I (and I'm sure many others) haven't used the tag at all simply because it seems like a tag that means something on the lines of orignal-research. I have often been tempted to (but I didn't) remove the tag from other questions because it seemed like a misuse of the word &quot;research&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only yesterday did I see that it really refers to technical (i.e. non-popular-science) questions after reading https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this tag should be renamed first, so that users are encouraged to use it. Here are some proposals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:technical-question]&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:actual-physics-question]&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:advanced-physics-question]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="8ed68120-6fff-47df-95bc-89584401f3dc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:research-level] is supposed to be applied to questions which are not popular-science, which want technical answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think the name is very deterring to those who want to ask such questions. I (and I'm sure many others) haven't used the tag at all simply because it seems like a tag that means something on the lines of orignal-research. I have often been tempted to (but I didn't) remove the tag from other questions because it seemed like a misuse of the word &quot;research&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only yesterday did I see that it really refers to technical (i.e. non-popular-science) questions after reading https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this tag should be renamed first, so that users are encouraged to use it. Here are some proposals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:technical-question]&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:actual-physics-question]&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:advanced-physics-question]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="7718e742-dd0c-48f8-84c6-b5db1ab91d96" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="More of a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest we &lt;s&gt;steal&lt;/s&gt; salvage stuff from Astro.SE as well.  A quick look-see turns up some good questions that could survive on P.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have a way to solve @dmckee's issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag all migrated questions as such (astro or TP), and we can later work through them at our leisure, looking for dupes/etc. Maybe keep a meta-post full of 'em, similar in principle to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone notified TP and astro meta yet? If so, please do. We'll need full cooperation for this (I would post, but typing on a phone is annoying :/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="fd4a99b3-f819-4ff4-8f29-5ebcae111709" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was recently announced that [several SE sites are closing](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/), including Theoretical Physics and Astronomy. Given that our scope here is basically a superset of the scope of Theoretical Physics and that there is a lot of overlap between the sites, there is considerable support for [migrating the entire content of that site to Physics Stack Exchange](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also been mentioned in several places that there is a fair amount of overlap between Astronomy Stack Exchange and this site as well. Indeed, we get quite a few astronomy and cosmology questions posted here, and looking at the astronomy site I see a decent number of astrophysics-related questions. Certainly those questions can find a good home here. But since physics and astronomy are such closely related subjects, I think even the other, less physical questions from the astronomy site might be of interest to our audience. This raises the possibility of incorporating Astronomy.SE into this site as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, what I am proposing is that this site expands its scope to include anything that is currently on topic for Astronomy SE (including the non-physics-related questions) _as well as_ anything that is currently on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this change were to happen, it might be appropriate to alter the name and/or design of the site accordingly. This is being addressed by a [separate question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-faq-to-physicsastronomy). Obviously, for this reason, the change in scope would be contingent on the approval of the Stack Exchange team. But I would also like to see whether there is community support for the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="bc52e8b5-6687-4a13-bbf0-6e06bef4396b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reason #2: Non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bookmarked chat conversation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with **mainstream physics** here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/non-mainstream-physics-close-reason-discussion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="a5f3d8a4-61e3-45c0-bd51-b1d75452bad7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was recently announced that [several SE sites are closing](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/), including Theoretical Physics and Astronomy. Given that our scope here is basically a superset of the scope of Theoretical Physics and that there is a lot of overlap between the sites, there is considerable support for [migrating the entire content of that site to Physics Stack Exchange](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also been mentioned in several places that there is a fair amount of overlap between Astronomy Stack Exchange and this site as well. Indeed, we get quite a few astronomy and cosmology questions posted here, and looking at the astronomy site I see a decent number of astrophysics-related questions. Certainly those questions can find a good home here. But since physics and astronomy are such closely related subjects, I think even the other, less physical questions from the astronomy site might be of interest to our audience. This raises the possibility of incorporating Astronomy.SE into this site as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we expand the scope of this site to include both physics and astronomy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, what I am proposing is that this site expands its scope to include anything that is currently on topic for Astronomy SE (including the non-physics-related questions) _as well as_ anything that is currently on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this change were to happen, it might be appropriate to alter the name and/or design of the site accordingly. This is being addressed by a [separate question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-faq-to-physicsastronomy). Obviously, for this reason, the change in scope would be contingent on the approval of the Stack Exchange team. But I would also like to see whether there is community support for the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="1aec0888-5e24-4e30-8ab7-2764ec4b042b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a script that attempts to identify vote fraud (both for and against you) and will reverse any that it detects. If your fan has over-done it or has acted too quickly (i.e. without reading the answers) these votes may be removed when the script runs later today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details of what constitutes &quot;fraud&quot; from the scripts point of view are not public information, but the hints I've gotten from the team suggest that they are not as simple as &quot;counting&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [Attack on my account][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1139/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="95474f4e-cf50-4c49-bb3e-7038cd247af7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's currently a lot of [talk][1] [about][2] Physics.SE absorbing [ThPhys.SE][3] and [Astro.SE][4].  How is this carried out? Who decides, and where, on what policy is to be executed?  Once it's decided, where, how and when is it carried out? Is there a top-down decision or is there a &quot;suggestions box&quot; of some sort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't seem to find any similar mass-migrations that have happened before, so apologies if this information is sitting in an obvious place I missed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="c95d92a7-5b15-4da3-b829-be6b9e371423" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We place a boilerplate banner on each question linking to a book policy and mentioning (in short) what is to be expected of answers.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - These should be made CW. Reasons? See [Chris' comment][2]&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="4142fcf7-45fa-424f-9580-1f7dcf1af909" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See also: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We place a boilerplate banner on each question linking to a book policy and mentioning (in short) what is to be expected of answers.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - These should be made CW. Reasons? See [Chris' comment][2]&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="f72ec469-2e2c-421c-9d8b-f1b380ad4016" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a script that attempts to identify vote fraud (both for and against you) and will reverse any that it detects. If your fan has over-done it or has acted too quickly (i.e. without reading the answers) these votes may be removed when the script runs later today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details of what constitutes &quot;fraud&quot; from the scripts point of view are not public information, but the hints I've gotten from the team suggest that they are not as simple as &quot;counting&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [Attack on my account][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1139/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="c9eb82e2-0f2c-4586-bc28-b3341b3d529c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's currently a lot of [talk][1] [about][2] Physics.SE absorbing [ThPhys.SE][3] and [Astro.SE][4].  How is this carried out? Who decides, and where, on what policy is to be executed?  Once it's decided, where, how and when is it carried out? Is there a top-down decision or is there a &quot;suggestions box&quot; of some sort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't seem to find any similar mass-migrations that have happened before, so apologies if this information is sitting in an obvious place I missed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="3cf3c2f2-6265-40a7-93fc-15813726f169" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I really like this kind of question. I will not really try to answer it, since I consider Mark Rovetta already answered it perfectly [somewhere else on this page][2]. Instead I will give my feeling and experience, as a user of this website from a research-like perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like first to say that I already elaborated [somewhere else][3] that the quality of the questions and answers sounds to me to depend on the topic. I pretty much like the condensed matter questions and answers on this website, as well as the quantum information ones for instance. And that's great because that's my research topics ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a background in superconductivity and quantum optics. So, as far as I can, I've tried to answer -- since less than one year I'm using SE -- the questions on superconductivity which were unanswered, and more generally on condensed matter when I know the answer. It appeared to me that the quantum optics questions are most of the time correctly answered, so I've nothing to add about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one year, I'm trying to learn -- as a post-doc -- more about topological issues in both condensed matter and quantum information topics. Clearly, I will not ask question here like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hey guys, I want to write an article about this or that, please do that for me !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would be ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pretty hard to understand the problems at the edge of two topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I'm using this site is as follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I just want to test some ideas with other communities people (especially high-energy physicists for instance) to compare their point of view with my poor-condensed-matter vision (like [this one][4], or [this one][5]). &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want easy access to a stream of articles, for which I would spend a lot of time finding relevant ones (like [this one][6]), and which are related to my current problems. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I would like to understand in more details a point I've no time to stop on at the moment (like [this one][7]), since it's just an aside of what I'm thinking at the moment. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want to point out something I consider not well discussed in literature (like [this question][8], or [this one][9]).&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the questions are just something I consider funny when I think about them, and which could be interesting for someone else (like [this one][10]), but I've neither time nor interest to keep on thinking of.&#xD;&#xA; - And yes, sometimes I'm asking purely fantasy, bulls... questions which are completely stupid (like [this one][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time, I try to make *useful* questions, not *clever* ones. I mean, I'm trying to ask questions which could be useful for others, not specifically dedicated to my problems of the moment. I'm usually writing on a piece of paper some questions I would like to answer, just inspired by the time I'm thinking about, most of the time after reading some papers. I feel some of them could be interesting for the SE community, so I try to publish them on this website. I do not think more than that ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny part is that two colleagues at my lab are using SE, too. We sometimes discuss the questions/answers together, to try to improve our understanding about specific staff for instance. What I want to point out here is that a researcher needs to discuss a lot in order to (un)validate her/his ideas, especially at the early stage of the elaboration of a new concept. To try to collect as much as possible opinions is the key I believe. This website is really useful for me in that respect. But still it's highly time consuming. As anything you have to type, you need to think about, read, write, clarify, read, write, think about ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to promote SE as much as I can around me (in the real life I mean). The most important reason why researchers do not use this website more often or as a working tool is simple I believe: **they don't have time** ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4138/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46324/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65767/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69358/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71151/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69141/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62282/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71587/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68456/16689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="c345b53e-8cb0-4267-b0eb-396fea87033a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **NOTE: the migration is complete** so this is now old news.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're reading this, you've probably heard that the [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sites, among others, will be [shutting down this week](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/). Since these two sites have a large overlap in scope with Physics, we are going to be &quot;adopting&quot; the entire content of both [TP](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se) and [Astro](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono). Over the past week, the details of the migration have been discussed [on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) and [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event). I'm creating this post to address the important questions that the people involved should know about in the last few days before the migration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How will the migration happen?&#xD;&#xA;- What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;- As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;- How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;- What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;- What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="e3fcc243-9dfd-460e-943f-3771389fd6e1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I really like this kind of question. I will not really try to answer it, since I consider Mark Rovetta already answered it perfectly [somewhere else on this page][2]. Instead I will give my feeling and experience, as a user of this website from a research-like perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like first to say that I already elaborated [somewhere else][3] that the quality of the questions and answers sounds to me to depend on the topic. I pretty much like the condensed matter questions and answers on this website, as well as the quantum information ones for instance. And that's great because that's my research topics ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a background in superconductivity and quantum optics. So, as far as I can, I've tried to answer -- since less than one year I'm using SE -- the questions on superconductivity which were unanswered, and more generally on condensed matter when I know the answer. It appeared to me that the quantum optics questions are most of the time correctly answered, so I've nothing to add about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one year, I'm trying to learn -- as a post-doc -- more about topological issues in both condensed matter and quantum information topics. Clearly, I will not ask question here like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hey guys, I want to write an article about this or that, please do that for me !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would be ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pretty hard to understand the problems at the edge of two topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I'm using this site is as follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I just want to test some ideas with other communities people (especially high-energy physicists for instance) to compare their point of view with my poor-condensed-matter vision (like [this one][4], or [this one][5]). &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want easy access to a stream of articles, for which I would spend a lot of time finding relevant ones (like [this one][6]), and which are related to my current problems. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I would like to understand in more details a point I've no time to stop on at the moment (like [this one][7]), since it's just an aside of what I'm thinking at the moment. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want to point out something I consider not well discussed in literature (like [this question][8], or [this one][9]).&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the questions are just something I consider funny when I think about them, and which could be interesting for someone else (like [this one][10]), but I've neither time nor interest to keep on thinking of.&#xD;&#xA; - And yes, sometimes I'm asking purely fantasy, bulls... questions which are completely stupid (like [this one][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time, I try to make *useful* questions, not *clever* ones. I mean, I'm trying to ask questions which could be useful for others, not specifically dedicated to my problems of the moment. I'm usually writing on a piece of paper some questions I would like to answer, just inspired by the time I'm thinking about, most of the time after reading some papers. I feel some of them could be interesting for the SE community, so I try to publish them on this website. I do not think more than that ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny part is that two colleagues at my lab are using SE, too. We sometimes discuss the questions/answers together, to try to improve our understanding about specific staff for instance. What I want to point out here is that a researcher needs to discuss a lot in order to (un)validate her/his ideas, especially at the early stage of the elaboration of a new concept. To try to collect as much as possible opinions is the key I believe. This website is really useful for me in that respect. But still it's highly time consuming. As anything you have to type, you need to think about, read, write, clarify, read, write, think about ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to promote SE as much as I can around me (in the real life I mean). The most important reason why researchers do not use this website more often or as a working tool is simple I believe: **they don't have time** ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4138/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46324/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65767/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69358/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71151/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69141/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62282/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71587/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68456/16689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="0f81f8c7-870b-4bd7-8d4e-55059049b5c4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **NOTE: the migration is complete** so this is now old news.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're reading this, you've probably heard that the [Theoretical Physics](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com) and [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sites, among others, will be [shutting down this week](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/). Since these two sites have a large overlap in scope with Physics, we are going to be &quot;adopting&quot; the entire content of both [TP](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/full-migration-of-theoretical-physics-se-questions-to-physics-se) and [Astro](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono). Over the past week, the details of the migration have been discussed [on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) and [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/site-merging-chat-event). I'm creating this post to address the important questions that the people involved should know about in the last few days before the migration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How will the migration happen?&#xD;&#xA;- What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;- As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;- How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;- How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;- What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;- What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="07effab2-e571-4fcc-bb34-c8b6f58fee08" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Currently the &quot;homework&quot; close reason looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we get quite a lot of posts where someone posts a homework question, and then writes their attempt at a solution (without any real explanation, just the equations and numbers they used) and asks whether it's correct. Such &quot;check my work&quot; questions are also off topic according to the linked meta post, but the phrase &quot;show some effort to work through the problem&quot; could be taken as encouraging them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we change the wording to make this policy clearer? Perhaps something like this (suggestions for improvements are welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me feel better about voting to close such questions, because the user gets a clearer explanation of what they did wrong and how they can improve their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="cd55f3e8-4d13-4c7e-a5a8-651ee40ea2a4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Currently the &quot;homework&quot; close reason looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we get quite a lot of posts where someone posts a homework question, and then writes their attempt at a solution (without any real explanation, just the equations and numbers they used) and asks whether it's correct. Such &quot;check my work&quot; questions are also off topic according to the linked meta post, but the phrase &quot;show some effort to work through the problem&quot; could be taken as encouraging them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we change the wording to make this policy clearer? Perhaps something like this (suggestions for improvements are welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me feel better about voting to close such questions, because the user gets a clearer explanation of what they did wrong and how they can improve their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="dfeb96d4-0894-410d-8fb6-0d58f05848aa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="25a9245a-a72e-461a-a78a-36cbe3372bf5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here are some other suggestions for how the wording could be changed. The most minimal change would be this: (replacing &quot;work through the problem&quot; with &quot;understand the problem&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would prefer to be a bit more explicit about it: (This is the version in my original post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manishearth suggested just getting rid of the &quot;work through the question part&quot; entirely, which I'd be happy with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or again being more explicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Questions that simply quote a homework problem or just ask us to check your working are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or shorter and not losing much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Questions that simply quote a homework problem or just ask us to check your working are off topic. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="f6c0caf8-552e-4cc4-9c6b-b8d41f2c9669" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here are some other suggestions for how the wording could be changed. The most minimal change would be this: (replacing &quot;work through the problem&quot; with &quot;understand the problem&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would prefer to be a bit more explicit about it: (This is the version in my original post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to understand the problem. The question must be about understanding the concept; questions that just ask us to check your work are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manishearth suggested just getting rid of the &quot;work through the question part&quot; entirely, which I'd be happy with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or again being more explicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Questions that simply quote a homework problem or just ask us to check your working are off topic. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or shorter and not losing much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept**. Questions that simply quote a homework problem or just ask us to check your working are off topic. See [our meta site][1] for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="5376782b-6c1c-4d41-932e-64a9f3160cd2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="2a962a6e-f10f-4e72-8bdf-7a612338fb04" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since you now have [a specific off-topic close reason][1] for these, I re-used that to update the sidebar guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ask question sidebar][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Homework-like questions should &lt;b&gt;ask about a specific physics concept&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;show some effort&lt;/b&gt; to work through the problem. See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/&quot;&gt;homework guidance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjMz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="595f0c6a-c2a3-46a4-9474-471717c3faf2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since you now have [a specific off-topic close reason][1] for these, I re-used that to update the sidebar guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ask question sidebar][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Homework-like questions should &lt;b&gt;ask about a specific physics concept&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;show some effort&lt;/b&gt; to work through the problem. See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/&quot;&gt;homework guidance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4398/what-will-our-list-of-close-reasons-look-like&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjMz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="5d638df7-dd49-4794-946a-b602078a4b7a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="From what I can see, both of these questions seem on topic for astro. This question:[if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono][1] seems to indicate that essentially all of astro is now within scope (with the exception of astrophotography). Is this correct? I haven't looked at chat sessions or anything, and it's quite possible that I missed another meta question related to this. If so, a pointer would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a final policy or at least rough consensus on what the new scope is? Is it (Physics U Astro) or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="65d31ab7-065d-48b8-9999-52eae7cd8226" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the policy on asking for recommendations of books or resources on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;- What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;- How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;- As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e0511c45-7d49-43ef-bfd0-fa35dbb3ccb2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the policy on asking for recommendations of books or resources on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;- What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;- How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;- As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="42eb9ec1-a862-43fa-ada4-4f9d38a9f954" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Since the site closed, perhaps we can revive its usefulness by adding a &quot;theoretical physics&quot; tag and adding it to all questions which would be suitable for that site. This is already so for astronomy. This will make a defacto subset of the problems screenable for professionals, who will be put off by the elementary questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a &quot;layman&quot; tag, but the opposite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="b5c1887b-9133-4b61-971e-469ee5746b48" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="From what I can see, both of these questions seem on topic for astro. This question:[if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono][1] seems to indicate that essentially all of astro is now within scope (with the exception of astrophotography). Is this correct? I haven't looked at chat sessions or anything, and it's quite possible that I missed another meta question related to this. If so, a pointer would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a final policy or at least rough consensus on what the new scope is? Is it (Physics U Astro) or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="0407efe7-a4e7-4134-97d1-2f632a93ab98" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [The color difference between the &amp;ldquo;answered&amp;rdquo; checkmark and the &amp;ldquo;unanswered&amp;rdquo; one is barely discernable](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1117/the-color-difference-between-the-answered-checkmark-and-the-unanswered-one-i)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;It's virtually impossible (at least on my LCD laptop screen) to tell the difference between an &quot;accepted&quot; checkmark and an &quot;unaccepted&quot; one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="64aeaad5-0c99-4eaf-92c3-d3bd83cc76ea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[I tend to agree with @Qmechanic here][1]: if there is *any* need for discussion, lumping all these tags into one post becomes unwieldy. I'm sure not gonna burn a big pile of tags like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also agree with [David Z here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4007/are-there-too-many-and-or-specific-tags/4009#4009) - if a tag describes part of the topic of a question, then it's a good tag. There aren't *too many*; you're not gonna *run out*. This notion that everything on the site should be lumped into a tiny handful of tags is somewhere between misguided and harmfully stupid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good reason to believe that a *specific* tag is unnecessary or harmful, post about it here - folks will discuss it if necessary and then it can be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i#comment12934_4728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="ef45f990-2738-4f09-b6b4-0884816e365f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Since the site closed, perhaps we can revive its usefulness by adding a &quot;theoretical physics&quot; tag and adding it to all questions which would be suitable for that site. This is already so for astronomy. This will make a defacto subset of the problems screenable for professionals, who will be put off by the elementary questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a &quot;layman&quot; tag, but the opposite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="e37d959e-079e-41c7-8e33-97edc8cefa00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[I tend to agree with @Qmechanic here][1]: if there is *any* need for discussion, lumping all these tags into one post becomes unwieldy. I'm sure not gonna burn a big pile of tags like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also agree with [David Z here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4007/are-there-too-many-and-or-specific-tags/4009#4009) - if a tag describes part of the topic of a question, then it's a good tag. There aren't *too many*; you're not gonna *run out*. This notion that everything on the site should be lumped into a tiny handful of tags is somewhere between misguided and harmfully stupid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good reason to believe that a *specific* tag is unnecessary or harmful, post about it here - folks will discuss it if necessary and then it can be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-tags-i#comment12934_4728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="3fad3367-b79a-4ed5-b543-4e603e8ae941" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [What is the \[soft-question\] tag for?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273/what-is-the-soft-question-tag-for)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I have seen &quot;soft-question&quot; tag on main site. I want to know its purpose. And, why is it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="3861e242-bd1d-4f86-b044-2ee485cb0c78" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [The color difference between the &amp;ldquo;answered&amp;rdquo; checkmark and the &amp;ldquo;unanswered&amp;rdquo; one is barely discernable](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1117/the-color-difference-between-the-answered-checkmark-and-the-unanswered-one-i)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;It's virtually impossible (at least on my LCD laptop screen) to tell the difference between an &quot;accepted&quot; checkmark and an &quot;unaccepted&quot; one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="cc0a5cb2-a04b-4631-aa29-4e7b3edcc576" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do you mean the *tag wikis* (which are different)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Community wiki&quot; means a state of a post (question or answer) that makes it easier for other users to edit. To search for wiki posts [use the `wiki:1` search modifier][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tag wikis&quot; are  special posts that are attached to particular tags. To access them, click on a tag (either under a question, in the sidebar, or in the &quot;TAGS&quot; tab) and then select the link in the little box at the top.![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oBPSK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="c013ebdb-8534-4164-b918-bb180c7bc9a2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [What is the \[soft-question\] tag for?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273/what-is-the-soft-question-tag-for)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I have seen &quot;soft-question&quot; tag on main site. I want to know its purpose. And, why is it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="379aa6b2-13d7-4c77-9685-396f460e90d9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [breakthroughs in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics) question would _not_ be on topic in Math Overflow. This is mostly because they _don't_ welcome physics questions (happy as they are to take high-level mathematics questions with roots in physics), but you are also [mistaken](http://mathoverflow.net/search?page=1&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) [that](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/133203/explanations-for-mathematicians-about-the-falsifiability-or-not-of-string-the) [they](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/13682/which-mathematical-ideas-have-done-most-to-change-history) [generically](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/18100/theorems-with-unexpected-conclusions) [welcome](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/examples-of-common-false-beliefs-in-mathematics) [list](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends) [questions](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of railing against the closure, why not [listen to Wouter](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4839/8563) and propose a list question policy that will allow the questions you find interesting and at the same time protects the site from [&quot;ooooh, I have one!&quot;](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/1083/do-good-math-jokes-exist) questions polluting the front page (and, specifically, addresses the concerns in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4045/8563), [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4565/8563) and others to that same question, and [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/)). You might actually find it hard!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="434fd9ae-6c41-4b6b-bc04-c1e74df74555" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [breakthroughs in physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics) question would _not_ be on topic in Math Overflow. This is mostly because they _don't_ welcome physics questions (happy as they are to take high-level mathematics questions with roots in physics), but you are also [mistaken](http://mathoverflow.net/search?page=1&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) [that](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/133203/explanations-for-mathematicians-about-the-falsifiability-or-not-of-string-the) [they](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/13682/which-mathematical-ideas-have-done-most-to-change-history) [generically](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/18100/theorems-with-unexpected-conclusions) [welcome](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/examples-of-common-false-beliefs-in-mathematics) [list](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends) [questions](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of railing against the closure, why not [listen to Wouter](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4839/8563) and propose a list question policy that will allow the questions you find interesting and at the same time protects the site from [&quot;ooooh, I have one!&quot;](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/1083/do-good-math-jokes-exist) questions polluting the front page (and, specifically, addresses the concerns in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4045/8563), [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4565/8563) and others to that same question, and [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/)). You might actually find it hard!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="98b1f326-0920-4222-9781-a9a7f5a2c1bb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [What&amp;#39;s the possibility of a Physics.SE blog?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;i recommend to open a site for free blogging in physics&#xD;&#xA;for example:&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogs.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogger.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogging.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched the whole internet but can not find a suitable site to blogging in physics.&#xD;&#xA;i try to test wordpress and blogspot they are Too Complicated!. Furthermore, there are no reader! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="15e3fbc4-9fbe-4f65-9130-8090bf378e7d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do you mean the *tag wikis* (which are different)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Community wiki&quot; means a state of a post (question or answer) that makes it easier for other users to edit. To search for wiki posts [use the `wiki:1` search modifier][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tag wikis&quot; are  special posts that are attached to particular tags. To access them, click on a tag (either under a question, in the sidebar, or in the &quot;TAGS&quot; tab) and then select the link in the little box at the top.![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oBPSK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="b80ba080-a872-4be1-9722-53bb371f7cc4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Very minor edits, e.g. punctuation](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47/very-minor-edits-e-g-punctuation)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed a sign error in an old answer of mine. I wanted to fix it, but I don't really want to bring this old question to the top of the stack when there's fundamentally nothing new to read there. Is there a workaround for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="c760a2d9-0932-4714-9486-b2c9709e488b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [What&amp;#39;s the possibility of a Physics.SE blog?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1426/whats-the-possibility-of-a-physics-se-blog)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;i recommend to open a site for free blogging in physics&#xD;&#xA;for example:&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogs.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogger.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;physics-blogging.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched the whole internet but can not find a suitable site to blogging in physics.&#xD;&#xA;i try to test wordpress and blogspot they are Too Complicated!. Furthermore, there are no reader! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="8084a43a-03fe-4634-9ae4-bd7e8a5789b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I have expressed mainly by my edits on such posts, video-based questions can indeed be rescued to give, I think, fairly high-quality content. This is definitely time-consuming and should only be done if you think the end product will be worth it, but I think the end results can be quite good, such as these two, in their before-and-after shots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rotor panorama](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75709/revisions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is coherent light required for interference in Young's double slit experiment?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/76692/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, it is extremely unhelpful to come to a post that says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs) is confusing, please explain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and nothing more. If you have the time, see the video and decide whether it's worth keeping into a full Q&amp;A. If it is, and you have the time and capacity, take the appropriate stills from the video, describe what's happening, and fill out the question. If you don't, then leave a comment to the OP explaining that they need to flesh out their post and set out a question that is not dependent on the video.* Refer them to this meta thread, too, to drive home the message that if they don't change their post soon then its likely future is lots of downvotes and no answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have time to look at the video, then also leave a comment and also refer them to this meta thread, it's [easy to find](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=videos). **Please avoid drive-by downvoting**, though, unless there already is an appropriate comment: it does little to help the site and very little to help the OP improve their post and get an answer to their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I note, though, that for users without image-upload privileges the whole thing is an uphill climb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="fb48e76e-c7cf-4745-8cb6-2acdc323a1fa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I have expressed mainly by my edits on such posts, video-based questions can indeed be rescued to give, I think, fairly high-quality content. This is definitely time-consuming and should only be done if you think the end product will be worth it, but I think the end results can be quite good, such as these two, in their before-and-after shots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rotor panorama](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75709/revisions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is coherent light required for interference in Young's double slit experiment?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/76692/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, it is extremely unhelpful to come to a post that says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs) is confusing, please explain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and nothing more. If you have the time, see the video and decide whether it's worth keeping into a full Q&amp;A. If it is, and you have the time and capacity, take the appropriate stills from the video, describe what's happening, and fill out the question. If you don't, then leave a comment to the OP explaining that they need to flesh out their post and set out a question that is not dependent on the video.* Refer them to this meta thread, too, to drive home the message that if they don't change their post soon then its likely future is lots of downvotes and no answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have time to look at the video, then also leave a comment and also refer them to this meta thread, it's [easy to find](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=videos). **Please avoid drive-by downvoting**, though, unless there already is an appropriate comment: it does little to help the site and very little to help the OP improve their post and get an answer to their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I note, though, that for users without image-upload privileges the whole thing is an uphill climb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="6f90ab3d-df50-48c2-adf3-504c4fedb070" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Very minor edits, e.g. punctuation](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47/very-minor-edits-e-g-punctuation)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed a sign error in an old answer of mine. I wanted to fix it, but I don't really want to bring this old question to the top of the stack when there's fundamentally nothing new to read there. Is there a workaround for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="c1c83415-62a6-4142-b75e-26a9fb4f73c0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You have some good answers here already, but since I was the one who deleted the comments I'll take a few minutes to explain why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all started [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members) - someone mentioned Physics, and upon visiting the meta here I saw 4 different threads calling out a specific user. As mentioned in the thread I linked to, this is something we generally try to avoid: there's nothing to be gained from publicly humiliating someone, *particularly* someone who isn't here to defend themselves. While a certain amount of curiosity is understandable, leaving these threads up long-term to be indexed by Google is kinda cruel; we frequently get emails from folks who are concerned about their online reputation and looking to distance themselves from mistakes in their past - no need to add to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I deleted or edited these threads. While doing so, I observed numerous bitter, unproductive, tangential conversations - as EnergyNumbers notes, such comments are [subject to removal without notice][1], so I removed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this is the guidance I gave the moderators at the time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know I've said this before, but... Try not to let threads discussing someone's suspension hang around forever. They rarely lead to anything good. Either edit to generalize them, or remove them once they've quieted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate goal here should always be to provide something of value to future readers. I doubt you're the only one who'll ever be concerned about suspensions - therefore, it's worth providing a clear, easy-to-follow discussion for those that follow. Lengthy comment threads hinder this goal - they are distracting and push actual *answers* further down the page. Comments that speculate on offenses committed by another user are particularly unhelpful - common decency dictates that one should address others directly with complaints rather than talking about them behind their backs. Expect the current comments on that question to be removed at some point as well, once the current discussion is concluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4971/what-rules-do-moderators-follow-in-deleting-comments-in-an-ongoing-discussion/4975#4975" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="e48decde-d24e-4c3b-b7cc-8b0858f1eaaf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up to my [previous question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2654)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the second election for moderators in Physics.SE. As Larian and Manish (and several others including *me*) are also nominating, I believe that we'd definitely have a lot of competition. Why is the community assigning only two positions for new moderators? (Not more than that?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it because, Physics.SE has low users, less attentions, few questions (but a lot answers), etc. like that? Or, Are there some other reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="0052f9e9-8877-4c69-badf-927e27d06cd5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up to my [previous question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2654)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the second election for moderators in Physics.SE. As Larian and Manish (and several others including *me*) are also nominating, I believe that we'd definitely have a lot of competition. Why is the community assigning only two positions for new moderators? (Not more than that?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it because, Physics.SE has low users, less attentions, few questions (but a lot answers), etc. like that? Or, Are there some other reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="795d7be3-1a6e-4ce3-bb4e-1178b1afadd6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You have some good answers here already, but since I was the one who deleted the comments I'll take a few minutes to explain why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all started [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members) - someone mentioned Physics, and upon visiting the meta here I saw 4 different threads calling out a specific user. As mentioned in the thread I linked to, this is something we generally try to avoid: there's nothing to be gained from publicly humiliating someone, *particularly* someone who isn't here to defend themselves. While a certain amount of curiosity is understandable, leaving these threads up long-term to be indexed by Google is kinda cruel; we frequently get emails from folks who are concerned about their online reputation and looking to distance themselves from mistakes in their past - no need to add to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I deleted or edited these threads. While doing so, I observed numerous bitter, unproductive, tangential conversations - as EnergyNumbers notes, such comments are [subject to removal without notice][1], so I removed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this is the guidance I gave the moderators at the time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know I've said this before, but... Try not to let threads discussing someone's suspension hang around forever. They rarely lead to anything good. Either edit to generalize them, or remove them once they've quieted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate goal here should always be to provide something of value to future readers. I doubt you're the only one who'll ever be concerned about suspensions - therefore, it's worth providing a clear, easy-to-follow discussion for those that follow. Lengthy comment threads hinder this goal - they are distracting and push actual *answers* further down the page. Comments that speculate on offenses committed by another user are particularly unhelpful - common decency dictates that one should address others directly with complaints rather than talking about them behind their backs. Expect the current comments on that question to be removed at some point as well, once the current discussion is concluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4971/what-rules-do-moderators-follow-in-deleting-comments-in-an-ongoing-discussion/4975#4975" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="046e9b81-3a0f-4919-aa48-3655c9952254" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I will be working with candidates to determine a time for the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The Town Hall Chat took place Wednesday the 5th at 01:00:00Z UTC / This is on Tuesday the 4th at 8:00 PM EST. A digest is available [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the primary phase.  This means that I am looking at the 3rd-5th of December. As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates to find a best fit based on availability, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  I will update this post with a direct link to the chat room once the event is scheduled.&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidates regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority for scheduling is generally towards the greatest number of candidate openings as well as the earliest. Candidates who cannot show up during the live event will still be able to answer all questions posted, they will just do so at their earliest convenience.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, a digest of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="223e2eba-bf44-49df-afa5-e20cf9afab57" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A while back, we had [this][1] discussion in which we tried to measure quantitatively whether the site was gaining or losing non-novice users. Since then, I've had the distinct subjective impression that the quality of discussion on the site has gone down markedly. I went through some of my own questions to which I'd accepted an answer, figuring that the people who wrote those answers would be the kind of competent and knowledgeable users who would make my own experience here better. We do seem to have lost some, including Cristi Stoica (inactive) and Luboš Motl (very low activity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried using some database queries to test this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This][2] is Manishearth's query that he formed as part of the previous discussion. It attempts to measure the number of users who are not novices, based on whether they post multiple times in a month in certain tagged areas. Re-running the query now shows that the level of such users seems to have been stagnant for about the last year or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [This][3] is the number of users posting in homework. It shows strong growth over the last year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [This][4] is the total number of active users. It also shows a strong, steady trend of growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm using the term &quot;critical mass&quot; in the title of this question is that the critical mass of, say, uranium-235 depends on concentration. If you take a given number of 235U atoms and dilute them, you can make a critical mass into something that's not a critical mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjectively, I'm finding that I've been spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law. I've decided to become inactive on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4880/are-we-gaining-or-losing-non-novice-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144725/number-of-users-posting-in-homework?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144711/number-of-active-users?Threshhold=2#graph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="4d151d23-7dc8-4a0b-b345-551c28236f1e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Town Hall Chat session with the candidates.  This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.  I will be working with candidates to determine a time for the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The Town Hall Chat took place Wednesday the 5th at 01:00:00Z UTC / This is on Tuesday the 4th at 8:00 PM EST. A digest is available [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would like to schedule this towards the beginning of the primary phase.  This means that I am looking at the 3rd-5th of December. As soon as I coordinate with the existing moderators and candidates to find a best fit based on availability, I will edit this post with details on the &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* The Town Hall Chat will be a one-hour event using our [chat platform](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com).  I will update this post with a direct link to the chat room once the event is scheduled.&#xD;&#xA;* The format will be an open discussion.  Users are encouraged to pose questions to the candidates regarding their thoughts on moderation.&#xD;&#xA;* Priority for scheduling is generally towards the greatest number of candidate openings as well as the earliest. Candidates who cannot show up during the live event will still be able to answer all questions posted, they will just do so at their earliest convenience.&#xD;&#xA;* After the chat session, a digest of the event will be permanently linked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="7be340f7-ec1d-4c01-9289-1bd0d52dd75d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago I [asked if we needed a tag to distinguish questions asked by beginners][1]. The answer was *no* on the grounds that a *layman* or *beginner* tag would be a meta tag and these were [frowned on][2]. However we now have a *homework* tag, and it seems to me that a *layman* tag is no more meta than the *homework* tag (both of them being meta tags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem remains the same as it was when I posted back in April 2012, or if anything it has got worse as the site has become more popular. People are understandably enthused by some mind blowing fact from a popular science TV programme and ask a question about it here. The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased. This is not intended as a criticism since I have been guilty of just the same when asking questions on SE sites outside my expertise - the guys at the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange were polite but quite firm in telling me so :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the low quality of the questions inevitably irritates and frustrates even the most good natured of us. The temptation to be less than polite is great, and the result can be ill feeling and the departure of site members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question. To call the tag *beginner* seems a bit derogatory, but *layman* seems reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1176/beginners-non-physicists-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="0b139673-0642-4587-ad3c-6eee5aa1b36b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's say I have an answer to a question ([like this one for example][1]) where the explanation can have effectively two speeds: plain english, and very math heavy. I would like a way to do both at once, similar to the way [Wikipedia hides these derivations][2] or even something as simple as the &quot;show more&quot;/&quot;show less&quot; links on the [FAQ][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do either of those styles to help keep the answer short, concise, and as plain-english as possible but still provide the technical details for those interested? If not, can there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46134/6634&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law#Derivation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="445c16ff-e59d-435b-a4d5-1ba73aa3975e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A while back, we had [this][1] discussion in which we tried to measure quantitatively whether the site was gaining or losing non-novice users. Since then, I've had the distinct subjective impression that the quality of discussion on the site has gone down markedly. I went through some of my own questions to which I'd accepted an answer, figuring that the people who wrote those answers would be the kind of competent and knowledgeable users who would make my own experience here better. We do seem to have lost some, including Cristi Stoica (inactive) and Luboš Motl (very low activity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried using some database queries to test this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This][2] is Manishearth's query that he formed as part of the previous discussion. It attempts to measure the number of users who are not novices, based on whether they post multiple times in a month in certain tagged areas. Re-running the query now shows that the level of such users seems to have been stagnant for about the last year or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [This][3] is the number of users posting in homework. It shows strong growth over the last year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [This][4] is the total number of active users. It also shows a strong, steady trend of growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm using the term &quot;critical mass&quot; in the title of this question is that the critical mass of, say, uranium-235 depends on concentration. If you take a given number of 235U atoms and dilute them, you can make a critical mass into something that's not a critical mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjectively, I'm finding that I've been spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law. I've decided to become inactive on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4880/are-we-gaining-or-losing-non-novice-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/133973/number-of-active-users-in-a-set-of-tags-month-wise?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144725/number-of-users-posting-in-homework?Threshhold=2#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/144711/number-of-active-users?Threshhold=2#graph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="42a45875-3fd7-40a7-8db3-32b3d1f67666" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's say I have an answer to a question ([like this one for example][1]) where the explanation can have effectively two speeds: plain english, and very math heavy. I would like a way to do both at once, similar to the way [Wikipedia hides these derivations][2] or even something as simple as the &quot;show more&quot;/&quot;show less&quot; links on the [FAQ][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do either of those styles to help keep the answer short, concise, and as plain-english as possible but still provide the technical details for those interested? If not, can there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46134/6634&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law#Derivation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="74fe16ef-ace5-4ccf-bf47-7a88b86d45ea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This idea is not totally original: there was at least an attempt at a journal club in chat [in 2011][1]. That, in turn, was inspired by mbq's (and [Cross Validated][2]) idea, which seems to have happened at least twice. We already have users do this, so I'm really just suggesting that we more actively encourage this. So here's some ideas I have. Feel free to add ideas for the process, suggest ideas for papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly) graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses the paper in some detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why would we want to do this?&#xD;&#xA;As several people have noted, and Manishearth has [summarized][3], we've been having some difficulty recently with long-term, highly-respected users leaving or cutting back their involvement. We are also seeing a lot of homework questions that are either too basic for the regular users' tastes, or simply don't show any work at all. I hope that this idea will help fix both of those. First, by providing more interesting questions of a higher technical level, I hope that we can both retain our current users' interest and make the site more inviting for professional physicists who aren't already here. Second, this will help populate the front page with questions that aren't homework, which should help discourage students from asking for help on their homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##So how would that work here?&#xD;&#xA;Someone finds a research paper they think is interesting. They develop a question about that paper, and post it to the main site. For a theory paper, this might be about a missing step in a derivation. For an experimental paper, this might be about the experimental setup. For a computational paper, this might be about the approximations underlying the computational model. **Regardless of the kind of paper, the question should otherwise be a valid, on-topic question for Physics.SE.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, we will also invite suggestions for papers. People can add papers to this question as Answers, and others can vote those papers up or down. Other users can then use those votes as a gauge of how interested people will be to see a question about a particular paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, there will be no restriction on the number of questions that can be asked about a particular paper. After all, any good physics paper *should* invite several questions. Some questions will be distinct enough that they can be asked in parallel, while other questions will be generated from the answer to a previous question. We may even want to suggest a time-period (say a week) where people try to focus on one particular paper, and dissect it with many questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of papers should I be looking for?&#xD;&#xA;Any paper, past or present, that is within the scope of the site. They can be historical, current, in your sub-discipline, something you need for your research, something only of passing interest to you, whatever. The only real limitation is that it should be published in a real journal or posted on a real pre-print server. This journal club will not be a place to ask for feedback on a manuscript you are working on, and it really won't be appropriate for discussing some crank's magnum opus about the earth sitting on top of [an infinite tower of turtles][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I worry about Open Access?&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. Not everyone here has access to many journals, so if you ask about a non-OA paper, you are excluding those who can't get a copy of that paper. That will presumably lower the quality of the response you get. On the other hand, some of the more prestigious journals *hate* Open Access, and many sub-disciplines of physics just haven't picked up on OA yet. So there are many papers that will produces good questions that just aren't OA papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, feel free to base your voting and preference on the accessibility of a paper, but don't feel obligated to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I tag such questions as journal-club, or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;**NO**. Tag these questions as you normally would. We will compile a list of these questions here so people can find them easily. But creating a new tag for this project isn't useful; it would be a meta-tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Ok. This sounds great. What can I do to help?&#xD;&#xA;Suggest papers here as answers. Vote on papers that you like. If you want to skip the whole suggestion-vote-ask process, just go ahead and ask a question about your paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##This sound okay, but it would be even better if you did...&#xD;&#xA;If you have suggestions for improvements, please feel free to add them, either as an answer/comment to this question, or by editing this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/674/first-cross-validated-journal-club&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="8a841ddc-f1ea-49ce-8a04-67967818d2ed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is also not a BIG issue (same as that of my previous question along with *disclaimer*...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2845 - where Manish explained me about *recalc'ing* rep. But, there is some *mysterious* problem regarding **[my flairs](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy/flair)** now..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dark theme shows 49 badges while my other themes show 50. I know that my flair updates every now &amp; then. But, what calc made it go mad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Flair](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5kZe.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="5f232728-1fe0-4d8c-994b-54b90579feab" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago I [asked if we needed a tag to distinguish questions asked by beginners][1]. The answer was *no* on the grounds that a *layman* or *beginner* tag would be a meta tag and these were [frowned on][2]. However we now have a *homework* tag, and it seems to me that a *layman* tag is no more meta than the *homework* tag (both of them being meta tags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem remains the same as it was when I posted back in April 2012, or if anything it has got worse as the site has become more popular. People are understandably enthused by some mind blowing fact from a popular science TV programme and ask a question about it here. The questions are inevitably ill-informed and badly phrased. This is not intended as a criticism since I have been guilty of just the same when asking questions on SE sites outside my expertise - the guys at the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange were polite but quite firm in telling me so :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the low quality of the questions inevitably irritates and frustrates even the most good natured of us. The temptation to be less than polite is great, and the result can be ill feeling and the departure of site members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we need a tag that means the OP should go off and do some Googling around the area then come back and ask a more focussed question. To call the tag *beginner* seems a bit derogatory, but *layman* seems reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1176/beginners-non-physicists-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="99ddea5a-cfee-44dc-891e-5e3e8f4fa9e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is also not a BIG issue (same as that of my previous question along with *disclaimer*...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2845 - where Manish explained me about *recalc'ing* rep. But, there is some *mysterious* problem regarding **[my flairs](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy/flair)** now..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dark theme shows 49 badges while my other themes show 50. I know that my flair updates every now &amp; then. But, what calc made it go mad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Flair](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5kZe.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="84f45d47-76ae-42b5-ad06-c182c002539f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Boot up the new book policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendation questions are great sources of traffic from students of varying levels, and we may want to start accepting them again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the SE model usually doesn't work well with recommendation questions, [I believe that we may be able to handle them in a way that doesn't exhibit most of the shortcomings of recommendation questions on SE, while not impinging on their quality][1] (indeed, this may improve their quality a lot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we need people to volunteer to curate book questions! The proposed policy involves editing the questions into a certain format, and keeping an eye on the answers to ensure that they stick to the policy. If answers are not doing this, they should be flagged and commented on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Volunteer to help with the policy here**][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4812/please-volunteer-for-help-editing-recommendation-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="824195f4-bebf-4388-b0de-80c5bcd3e6eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This idea is not totally original: there was at least an attempt at a journal club in chat [in 2011][1]. That, in turn, was inspired by mbq's (and [Cross Validated][2]) idea, which seems to have happened at least twice. We already have users do this, so I'm really just suggesting that we more actively encourage this. So here's some ideas I have. Feel free to add ideas for the process, suggest ideas for papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What do you mean by a journal club?&#xD;&#xA;Many physics departments have informal meetings where (mostly) graduate students meet for one or two hours with coffee, beer, and/or pizza, and discuss a recent research paper. Some departments even require their students to do this. Typically, someone will choose the paper for that week's meeting, everyone will read it before they meet and come up with questions for discussion. Then the group discusses the paper in some detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why would we want to do this?&#xD;&#xA;As several people have noted, and Manishearth has [summarized][3], we've been having some difficulty recently with long-term, highly-respected users leaving or cutting back their involvement. We are also seeing a lot of homework questions that are either too basic for the regular users' tastes, or simply don't show any work at all. I hope that this idea will help fix both of those. First, by providing more interesting questions of a higher technical level, I hope that we can both retain our current users' interest and make the site more inviting for professional physicists who aren't already here. Second, this will help populate the front page with questions that aren't homework, which should help discourage students from asking for help on their homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##So how would that work here?&#xD;&#xA;Someone finds a research paper they think is interesting. They develop a question about that paper, and post it to the main site. For a theory paper, this might be about a missing step in a derivation. For an experimental paper, this might be about the experimental setup. For a computational paper, this might be about the approximations underlying the computational model. **Regardless of the kind of paper, the question should otherwise be a valid, on-topic question for Physics.SE.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, we will also invite suggestions for papers. People can add papers to this question as Answers, and others can vote those papers up or down. Other users can then use those votes as a gauge of how interested people will be to see a question about a particular paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, there will be no restriction on the number of questions that can be asked about a particular paper. After all, any good physics paper *should* invite several questions. Some questions will be distinct enough that they can be asked in parallel, while other questions will be generated from the answer to a previous question. We may even want to suggest a time-period (say a week) where people try to focus on one particular paper, and dissect it with many questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of papers should I be looking for?&#xD;&#xA;Any paper, past or present, that is within the scope of the site. They can be historical, current, in your sub-discipline, something you need for your research, something only of passing interest to you, whatever. The only real limitation is that it should be published in a real journal or posted on a real pre-print server. This journal club will not be a place to ask for feedback on a manuscript you are working on, and it really won't be appropriate for discussing some crank's magnum opus about the earth sitting on top of [an infinite tower of turtles][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I worry about Open Access?&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. Not everyone here has access to many journals, so if you ask about a non-OA paper, you are excluding those who can't get a copy of that paper. That will presumably lower the quality of the response you get. On the other hand, some of the more prestigious journals *hate* Open Access, and many sub-disciplines of physics just haven't picked up on OA yet. So there are many papers that will produces good questions that just aren't OA papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, feel free to base your voting and preference on the accessibility of a paper, but don't feel obligated to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Should I tag such questions as journal-club, or something like that?&#xD;&#xA;**NO**. Tag these questions as you normally would. We will compile a list of these questions here so people can find them easily. But creating a new tag for this project isn't useful; it would be a meta-tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Ok. This sounds great. What can I do to help?&#xD;&#xA;Suggest papers here as answers. Vote on papers that you like. If you want to skip the whole suggestion-vote-ask process, just go ahead and ask a question about your paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##This sound okay, but it would be even better if you did...&#xD;&#xA;If you have suggestions for improvements, please feel free to add them, either as an answer/comment to this question, or by editing this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305/physics-journal-club-on-chat &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/674/first-cross-validated-journal-club&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="1b660183-405f-4431-a759-a7ec1c7150be" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Ban homework altogether&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**See Nathaniel's post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The current homework policy is nice, but the questions that actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obey it are few. I think this is because if you've put the effort in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because of this, and since we're looking for ways to improve the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site's quality, I wanted to put the following idea forward to see how&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people respond to it: why don't we just ban homework altogether? The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Potentially we might lose a few good questions, but we'd also lose a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lot of bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="142d2eae-6520-44c8-a769-70d6ac4f21d8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Boot up the new book policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendation questions are great sources of traffic from students of varying levels, and we may want to start accepting them again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the SE model usually doesn't work well with recommendation questions, [I believe that we may be able to handle them in a way that doesn't exhibit most of the shortcomings of recommendation questions on SE, while not impinging on their quality][1] (indeed, this may improve their quality a lot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we need people to volunteer to curate book questions! The proposed policy involves editing the questions into a certain format, and keeping an eye on the answers to ensure that they stick to the policy. If answers are not doing this, they should be flagged and commented on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Volunteer to help with the policy here**][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4812/please-volunteer-for-help-editing-recommendation-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="3fe9d17e-5ca3-43b7-a76b-092376380530" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that's exactly what the current homework policy _does_ say!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons you might have thought otherwise: first, the homework policy is probably not as clear as it could be on this. But the quoted bit is definitely the intent, and I'd certainly approve of a rewording to make that more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually _stop_ people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting. We need more community involvement, specifically close voting and flagging (and _not answering_) low-quality homework questions. (There has been a significant increase in flags over the past few days, which is great, but more is still better.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, something we could consider is removing the [tag:homework] _tag_, thus making it considerably more explicit to new posters that homework questions are not welcome here unless they can be reformulated in such a way as to make them conceptual. You wouldn't be the first to [suggest this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag), but each time it's been brought up, the community has come out in support of keeping the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some historical context may help explain why that happens. In the early days of the site, we didn't have a homework policy, and thus people posted homework questions and got them answered. The [tag:homework] tag became one of our most popular tags rather quickly. There were several [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/38/the-canonical-homework-question) about whether this was okay, and largely people thought that it was, for a few reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One of the founding principles of the site was that we did not want to reject questions for being too low-level. In other words, we didn't want to be the physics version of Math Overflow. Now, there's a difference between being low-level and low-effort, and in particular excluding homework questions is not the same as excluding low-level questions, but in those early days our standards for homework-related questions were perhaps not as strict as they are now precisely because we wanted to show that we were inclusive of all levels of questions.&#xD;&#xA;- We were taking cues from [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com), which already had a homework policy that seemed to be working well. You'll notice that the wording of our homework policy is closely based on [theirs](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question/1804#1804). Since they accept homework questions on Math, our default position was to do the same here. Of course, it emerged over time that their policy is loosely enforced (at least, that seems to be the case as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;- Honestly, we were worried that the site would never reach critical mass if we put a blanket ban on homework questions. Currently, I'm fairly sure this is not something we have to worry about, because we have a steady stream of non-homework, conceptual questions, but in the early days it wasn't so clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time went on, the [tag:homework] tag became more and more well established as a feature of the site and of the homework policy, and people who wanted to see higher-level questions grew accustomed to using it to filter those questions out. At this point, it has a tremendous amount of inertia, in the sense that we've grown accustomed to a certain way of operating which does involve use of the [tag:homework] tag, and as much as there are some of us who would like to see it (and its associated questions) go, there are probably more people who want to keep it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="16f6d359-db79-4617-9bf6-ddf6ffba7330" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think you should absolutely report it, but keep in mind that, as David says, mods can only take action for whatever happens on the site and not for what happens outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is obvious that people having arguments off-site is likely to have consequences on-site, and any warning is useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: if one person accuses another off site of having sock puppets here, it's still relevant to *us*! If someone is a known troll outside of this community, it's still relevant to *us*! Etcetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is, warn mods *in private*, via a flag or in a private chat room, or [contact support](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help/other) if you think that something bad is happening out the site but about the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post on meta though, to avoid unnecessary drama." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="ceec7167-6fdb-4733-9a7b-3a58b7eb4bac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Ban homework altogether&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**See Nathaniel's post here**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The current homework policy is nice, but the questions that actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obey it are few. I think this is because if you've put the effort in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to identify the concept you're having difficulty with, it's then easy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enough to take the &quot;homework&quot; part out of the question and just ask&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about the concept itself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because of this, and since we're looking for ways to improve the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site's quality, I wanted to put the following idea forward to see how&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people respond to it: why don't we just ban homework altogether? The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Potentially we might lose a few good questions, but we'd also lose a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lot of bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?noredirect=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="cee0f2b2-f4f1-4cad-9a04-ef2680593760" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen [this][1] meta question already, but that deals with a slightly different case I think.&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if questions like [this][2] should be allowed. Specifically, I'm wondering if requests for papers and/or reviews on something should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this strikes me as &quot;easily googleable&quot; more so because someone looking for a review is (most probably) affiliated to some institution or the other, and hence will presumably have *some* journal access. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1052/should-general-reference-questions-be-closed-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="1595c635-6f00-4693-92e8-57fd5c6fc302" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I note https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange, but it seems to me that the accepted answer doesn't answer the question. I have no special wish to get excessively philosophical, but I think being clear what we're trying to achieve will help clarify vexed issues like homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside what SE are trying to achieve (profit presumably), it seems to me that good reasons for the effort we put into this site include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Fun&#xD;&#xA; 2. Encouraging interest in physics&#xD;&#xA; 3. Education&#xD;&#xA; 4. Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experience suggests that research will only ever be a tiny part of site activity because there are too few research physicists interested in participating. Let's also leave aside *Fun* because it's a given - few people will do things that aren't fun unless they're paid or forced to. If you're with me so far that means we basically have two aims, to encourage interest and to educate. Arguably *encouraging interest* is also educating, but at a popular science level, in which case our sole purpose in life is education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is supposed to be a question rather than just a diatribe, I guess my question is whether you agree with my analysis and if not, why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="6909edb9-02a1-402f-924f-0c1762662add" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen [this][1] meta question already, but that deals with a slightly different case I think.&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if questions like [this][2] should be allowed. Specifically, I'm wondering if requests for papers and/or reviews on something should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this strikes me as &quot;easily googleable&quot; more so because someone looking for a review is (most probably) affiliated to some institution or the other, and hence will presumably have *some* journal access. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1052/should-general-reference-questions-be-closed-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="ab371204-8ebb-430c-a530-1fc1537caa69" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that's exactly what the current homework policy _does_ say!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons you might have thought otherwise: first, the homework policy is probably not as clear as it could be on this. But the quoted bit is definitely the intent, and I'd certainly approve of a rewording to make that more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually _stop_ people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting. We need more community involvement, specifically close voting and flagging (and _not answering_) low-quality homework questions. (There has been a significant increase in flags over the past few days, which is great, but more is still better.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, something we could consider is removing the [tag:homework] _tag_, thus making it considerably more explicit to new posters that homework questions are not welcome here unless they can be reformulated in such a way as to make them conceptual. You wouldn't be the first to [suggest this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag), but each time it's been brought up, the community has come out in support of keeping the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some historical context may help explain why that happens. In the early days of the site, we didn't have a homework policy, and thus people posted homework questions and got them answered. The [tag:homework] tag became one of our most popular tags rather quickly. There were several [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/38/the-canonical-homework-question) about whether this was okay, and largely people thought that it was, for a few reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One of the founding principles of the site was that we did not want to reject questions for being too low-level. In other words, we didn't want to be the physics version of Math Overflow. Now, there's a difference between being low-level and low-effort, and in particular excluding homework questions is not the same as excluding low-level questions, but in those early days our standards for homework-related questions were perhaps not as strict as they are now precisely because we wanted to show that we were inclusive of all levels of questions.&#xD;&#xA;- We were taking cues from [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com), which already had a homework policy that seemed to be working well. You'll notice that the wording of our homework policy is closely based on [theirs](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question/1804#1804). Since they accept homework questions on Math, our default position was to do the same here. Of course, it emerged over time that their policy is loosely enforced (at least, that seems to be the case as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;- Honestly, we were worried that the site would never reach critical mass if we put a blanket ban on homework questions. Currently, I'm fairly sure this is not something we have to worry about, because we have a steady stream of non-homework, conceptual questions, but in the early days it wasn't so clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time went on, the [tag:homework] tag became more and more well established as a feature of the site and of the homework policy, and people who wanted to see higher-level questions grew accustomed to using it to filter those questions out. At this point, it has a tremendous amount of inertia, in the sense that we've grown accustomed to a certain way of operating which does involve use of the [tag:homework] tag, and as much as there are some of us who would like to see it (and its associated questions) go, there are probably more people who want to keep it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="f40cfa5d-7b6d-4d25-8ac0-8dca8f701dfc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was [proposed recently on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) that, as part of a broader programme of increasing the site quality, we ban homework questions altogether. This proposal seems to have really quite strong support. On the other hand, it was pointed out quite persuasively, mostly by David Z and Manishearth, and mostly well upvoted, that the current policy is already much like this in that the [tag:homework] questions that stay open tend to be conceptual questions that don't really need the tag. This means that the final change will mostly be one of documentation and presentation. Finally, it's pretty clear that we need to keep the tag itself, as an aid for users who ignore that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the really-quite-settled state of that discussion, it seems to me that it's time to move forward on it. This involves generating a consensus that we do want this, and developing the corresponding documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, then, I think the consensus on what the core of the policy should be is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Homework questions are not allowed on this site, but it is acceptable to ask conceptual questions which are based on a set assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please **vote this question up if you agree with the change, and vote it down if you disagree**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned above, it seems the main change that needs to happen is one of documentation. There are a fair few pieces of documentation relating to this issue around the site, and they would all need to be changed. Specifically, I can identify the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The homework policy on this meta site: the question and its answer&#xD;&#xA; - The How to Ask sidebar on the [Ask a Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) page&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA; - The homework close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am posting answers to this question with proposals for each of these, so they can be discussed independently. Please vote each answer up or down according to whether you agree to the change to that specific wording. I am making all of them community wiki: if you have suggestions for improvement, post them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must note that I came up against quite a few rough edges in writing this documentation when it came to describing the tag itself. I believe this is because it is pretty inconsistent to keep and actively use a 'homework' tag if the front-line message we're sending is that homework is off-topic. I'll post a separate thread about it shortly. For now, I propose we use the tag much as we're using it now: it should describe questions based on set problems (homework, textbook, etc.) as well as the old &quot;questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself&quot;, though that seems weird now (are those not just... questions?). I propose, to begin with, at least, that we *keep the tag and the close reason separate*, as described in the documentation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm also adding an answer with some thoughts on enforcement of this policy, which is the _truly crucial_ ingredient of driving down the amount of low-level homework questions on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="82726f10-c3ef-4e22-acf5-5e3b8f8d67a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I note https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange, but it seems to me that the accepted answer doesn't answer the question. I have no special wish to get excessively philosophical, but I think being clear what we're trying to achieve will help clarify vexed issues like homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside what SE are trying to achieve (profit presumably), it seems to me that good reasons for the effort we put into this site include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Fun&#xD;&#xA; 2. Encouraging interest in physics&#xD;&#xA; 3. Education&#xD;&#xA; 4. Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experience suggests that research will only ever be a tiny part of site activity because there are too few research physicists interested in participating. Let's also leave aside *Fun* because it's a given - few people will do things that aren't fun unless they're paid or forced to. If you're with me so far that means we basically have two aims, to encourage interest and to educate. Arguably *encouraging interest* is also educating, but at a popular science level, in which case our sole purpose in life is education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is supposed to be a question rather than just a diatribe, I guess my question is whether you agree with my analysis and if not, why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="75c5ea92-67c3-41f0-b953-6b32e04735b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [David says][1], we are in some sense stuck with this concept in a context where it doesn't make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Stack Exchange system started with [Stack Overflow][2] which is for *programming questions*, and the interpretation put on acceptance there was the asker stating *'I used this solution to my problem'*. As such it is clear that acceptance is *entirely* in the gift of the asker because it simply means the accepted solution is the one the asker used, and the fact that they might choose a second best solution isn't a really big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on physics are questions are not often of the *'I've hit a snag in my work, what are my options'* kind that Stack Overflow specializes in (though experimental technique questions could be of that kind) so that *this is what I did* contotation doesn't often make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less, acceptance should not be interpreted as indicating correctness: it only indicates the asker's selection and one can take some comfort in the fact that these people are not always in the best position to select a correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do however, have [a (gold!) badge for giving answers that the community prefers very much in comparison to a decent accepted answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="228172f2-4feb-4727-aacb-a54e83caa325" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed on this site.** See our [meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="d2509801-2f8c-4770-af5c-070a47700ef0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So it was alluded to in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2 that software recommendation questions are *generally* off-topic but as pointed out by @dmckee on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling there is no clear policy regarding whether recommendations for physics-based software for a specific problem is considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General topics (ie. fluid dynamics) would become a list answer and should be off-topic. Book, and from the direction of the answers [on my other question][1], journal recommendations about general problems are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is [this question][2] off-topic? Can we develop a clear policy on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more research shows that David closed as off-topic the following recommendation questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5086/software-for-simulating-supersonic-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39541/how-does-this-problems-are-solved-modeling-simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this one remains open:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11246/what-software-can-i-use-to-simulate-supersonic-gas-particle-flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="37cde14b-a920-40e3-af5b-c281dd5ff422" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was [proposed recently on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) that, as part of a broader programme of increasing the site quality, we ban homework questions altogether. This proposal seems to have really quite strong support. On the other hand, it was pointed out quite persuasively, mostly by David Z and Manishearth, and mostly well upvoted, that the current policy is already much like this in that the [tag:homework] questions that stay open tend to be conceptual questions that don't really need the tag. This means that the final change will mostly be one of documentation and presentation. Finally, it's pretty clear that we need to keep the tag itself, as an aid for users who ignore that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the really-quite-settled state of that discussion, it seems to me that it's time to move forward on it. This involves generating a consensus that we do want this, and developing the corresponding documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, then, I think the consensus on what the core of the policy should be is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Homework questions are not allowed on this site, but it is acceptable to ask conceptual questions which are based on a set assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please **vote this question up if you agree with the change, and vote it down if you disagree**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned above, it seems the main change that needs to happen is one of documentation. There are a fair few pieces of documentation relating to this issue around the site, and they would all need to be changed. Specifically, I can identify the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The homework policy on this meta site: the question and its answer&#xD;&#xA; - The How to Ask sidebar on the [Ask a Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) page&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA; - The homework close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am posting answers to this question with proposals for each of these, so they can be discussed independently. Please vote each answer up or down according to whether you agree to the change to that specific wording. I am making all of them community wiki: if you have suggestions for improvement, post them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must note that I came up against quite a few rough edges in writing this documentation when it came to describing the tag itself. I believe this is because it is pretty inconsistent to keep and actively use a 'homework' tag if the front-line message we're sending is that homework is off-topic. I'll post a separate thread about it shortly. For now, I propose we use the tag much as we're using it now: it should describe questions based on set problems (homework, textbook, etc.) as well as the old &quot;questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself&quot;, though that seems weird now (are those not just... questions?). I propose, to begin with, at least, that we *keep the tag and the close reason separate*, as described in the documentation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm also adding an answer with some thoughts on enforcement of this policy, which is the _truly crucial_ ingredient of driving down the amount of low-level homework questions on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="122aba3d-fc34-4852-9488-2a20dbcb7bd3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1) If one has enough reputation points, it is possible to directly propose tag synonyms. (Note in particular, that reputation points in the corresponding master tag are needed.) In OP's concrete example, one should go e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, if one doesn't have enough reputation points, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In OP's concrete example, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many users upvote a proposal a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="144a9890-9f36-46a6-99e7-afa214ac2e98" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;## Homework questions are **not** allowed on Physics Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**, and not a homework help site. Questions about a specific concept that originate in homework problems are OK, but questions asking us to check your work or asking for pointers or hints about a problem are likely to be closed. Please [see the details on our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is considered a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments as well as homework-like problems from textbooks, self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble.** If your question originates in a homework assignment, you should provide the problem in full as well as all your working so far, to provide context. Please [see the details on our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is this tag used for?&#xD;&#xA;This tag describes homework-like questions based on a set problem, such as textbook and self-study problems, puzzles, and actual homework assignments. It also covers problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes on-topic conceptual questions that are based on such problems, as well as off-topic questions which are purely for homework help. *Having the homework tag is independent of being on-topic*. If you see off-topic homework questions, the appropriate action is to [flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) or [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="947355b4-f892-48a4-90ec-debcad76f7b8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So it was alluded to in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2 that software recommendation questions are *generally* off-topic but as pointed out by @dmckee on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling there is no clear policy regarding whether recommendations for physics-based software for a specific problem is considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General topics (ie. fluid dynamics) would become a list answer and should be off-topic. Book, and from the direction of the answers [on my other question][1], journal recommendations about general problems are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is [this question][2] off-topic? Can we develop a clear policy on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more research shows that David closed as off-topic the following recommendation questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5086/software-for-simulating-supersonic-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39541/how-does-this-problems-are-solved-modeling-simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this one remains open:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11246/what-software-can-i-use-to-simulate-supersonic-gas-particle-flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="a307e489-b4f7-44a7-ba0b-5560fc4f83af" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed on this site.** See our [meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4015" RevisionGUID="5d6140a8-b34a-4dd4-a400-4d31881cf81f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What about putting the math requirements in the tag wiki? &quot;Study of string theory requires a strong background in X, Y, Z&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same solution that has been presented for what books/journals/papers are good in a field, why not pre-requisites for understanding the subject too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People are asking questions about the math required for string theory. This is off-topic and shouldn't be allowed but it highlights that the tag is missing information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No tags should be missing information. All of them should have this background material covered so there is no need to ask questions about it. So the people who do know information need to go through and edit the tag wikis, **regardless of whether somebody has asked a question about it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of things to include in the tag wiki [has already been discussed][1] and this is merely expanding it slightly to include pre-requisite background information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If somebody who knows a lot about something comes on the site, they should take some time each day to edit a wiki. Just like we ask them to review questions and edits, check the tagging on migrated questions, etc.. So it falls on everybody in the community to take the action needed to populate the tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need to wait for somebody to ask about it. We should preemptively fill in the information **so nobody has to ask the question to begin with.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-to-do-with-tag-wikis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="110589b8-67d6-42b9-87ee-a7281f2a47f4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1) If one has enough reputation points, it is possible to directly propose tag synonyms. (Note in particular, that reputation points in the corresponding master tag are needed.) In OP's concrete example, one should go e.g. [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, if one doesn't have enough reputation points, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In OP's concrete example, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many users upvote a proposal a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="44a15aec-1dff-48f7-b011-3e7abdc8ea4b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;## Homework questions are **not** allowed on Physics Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**, and not a homework help site. Questions about a specific concept that originate in homework problems are OK, but questions asking us to check your work or asking for pointers or hints about a problem are likely to be closed. Please [see the details on our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is considered a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments as well as homework-like problems from textbooks, self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble.** If your question originates in a homework assignment, you should provide the problem in full as well as all your working so far, to provide context. Please [see the details on our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is this tag used for?&#xD;&#xA;This tag describes homework-like questions based on a set problem, such as textbook and self-study problems, puzzles, and actual homework assignments. It also covers problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes on-topic conceptual questions that are based on such problems, as well as off-topic questions which are purely for homework help. *Having the homework tag is independent of being on-topic*. If you see off-topic homework questions, the appropriate action is to [flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) or [vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4015" RevisionGUID="1e5f77b8-fc76-471c-982c-bbaf646c1edc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What about putting the math requirements in the tag wiki? &quot;Study of string theory requires a strong background in X, Y, Z&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same solution that has been presented for what books/journals/papers are good in a field, why not pre-requisites for understanding the subject too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People are asking questions about the math required for string theory. This is off-topic and shouldn't be allowed but it highlights that the tag is missing information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No tags should be missing information. All of them should have this background material covered so there is no need to ask questions about it. So the people who do know information need to go through and edit the tag wikis, **regardless of whether somebody has asked a question about it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of things to include in the tag wiki [has already been discussed][1] and this is merely expanding it slightly to include pre-requisite background information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If somebody who knows a lot about something comes on the site, they should take some time each day to edit a wiki. Just like we ask them to review questions and edits, check the tagging on migrated questions, etc.. So it falls on everybody in the community to take the action needed to populate the tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need to wait for somebody to ask about it. We should preemptively fill in the information **so nobody has to ask the question to begin with.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-to-do-with-tag-wikis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="a677e728-2603-419b-9950-57c444f906b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="2dc98c91-76e4-4fdd-adae-de93ef3a6ccd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I disagree with the motivation behind that question it does seem to me that there are a lot of frivolous and lazy questions at the moment. By this I mean questions that are either copied and pasted from homework texts, that would be answered by a quick Google or that would score high on John Baez's index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site members can already vote to close a question, but we can't vote to delete (though we can flag for moderator attention). I wonder if we should have a facility to vote to delete in the way we can vote to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="1869a199-3184-4675-939c-cb5505a18845" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me this site can fulfil two roles. Firstly it can encourage collaboration between active researchers (postgrads, postdocs and academic staff) and secondly it can educate we lowly ones (undergrads, interested amateurs and the general public).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think both roles are laudable, but the first role on its own is not going to sustain the site, as the closure of the Theoretical Physics SE shows. The majority of the activity is going to be educational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you accept this, I don't see why the educational role should be restricted to undergraduates. If the Physics SE had been available when I was a schoolchild I would have used it enthusiastically. I'd probably have asked some silly questions but that would have stemmed from over-enthusiasm not indolence, and surely this is forgivable as long as it doesn't become excessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also find great curiosity about physics from non-physicist friends of mine. At dinner parties I'm frequently asked about some aspect of physics that has been on the news, a Horizon programme or Brian Cox's latest broadcast. Since I get invited back I assume the interest is real :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do get excessive numbers of frivolous and lazy questions (as defined [here][1]) but I think the best way to deal with these is more active participation by site members. I very rarely see a question that is closed due to five votes to close by site members. Typically two to three of us can be bothered to VTC and we leave it to the poor old moderators to close the question. I would like site members to be able to vote to delete more easily, but that's out of our hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarise, I agree with the OP that it would be nice to make the forum better for researchers and students, but the way to do this is not to discourage Physics 101 questions from people who don't fall into these categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="3a2f8576-e637-47ea-a193-ca21284749ea" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="77537ab1-75c4-4072-bc5a-a615a358a506" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow-up to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I disagree with the motivation behind that question it does seem to me that there are a lot of frivolous and lazy questions at the moment. By this I mean questions that are either copied and pasted from homework texts, that would be answered by a quick Google or that would score high on John Baez's index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site members can already vote to close a question, but we can't vote to delete (though we can flag for moderator attention). I wonder if we should have a facility to vote to delete in the way we can vote to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="13e4b3fa-3510-4794-99ca-e977b025fdfa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="3d5ae50d-3926-49d7-916c-0da2e122724f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I first saw https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether my initial reaction was &quot;hell yeah!&quot;.  As I've thought about the issue more though, I wonder if banning homework will do Physics.SE more harm in the long-run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of [David's answer][1] is particularly apt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually *stop* people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David is absolutely right that no matter what our Homework Policy ends up being, we can't stop homework questions from being posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is another, possibly more important issue though.  This is a small community and if we don't bring in new members at a healthy rate the membership will decay over time.  It can already be hard for inexperienced members to find questions to answer or ways to gain reputation and feel like they're a part of the community.  I suspect banning homework and aggressively closing homework questions will alienate some new users that we actually want to have stick around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions are already &quot;essentially banned&quot; and it's a lot of work to close them.  I don't really see how changing our policy to more explicitly state that they are banded will do anything meaningful to help the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead, we actually relaxed our homework policy we could aggressively tag homework questions and tell all members that don't like them to put the tag in their ignore filter.  I don't see any harm in letting homework questions go ignored and unanswered and doing so would allow inexperienced users a chance to try their hand answering them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With banned homework we're essentially telling potential users to go get experience somewhere else and come back when they're ready.  Could we adjust our homework policy to give these users a chance to get experience here while also not frustrating our veteran users that hate homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, does banning homework do long-term harm for only short-term gain?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/22494" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="9e33da00-bf0e-40eb-b7ae-4912486f0d1a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me this site can fulfil two roles. Firstly it can encourage collaboration between active researchers (postgrads, postdocs and academic staff) and secondly it can educate we lowly ones (undergrads, interested amateurs and the general public).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think both roles are laudable, but the first role on its own is not going to sustain the site, as the closure of the Theoretical Physics SE shows. The majority of the activity is going to be educational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you accept this, I don't see why the educational role should be restricted to undergraduates. If the Physics SE had been available when I was a schoolchild I would have used it enthusiastically. I'd probably have asked some silly questions but that would have stemmed from over-enthusiasm not indolence, and surely this is forgivable as long as it doesn't become excessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also find great curiosity about physics from non-physicist friends of mine. At dinner parties I'm frequently asked about some aspect of physics that has been on the news, a Horizon programme or Brian Cox's latest broadcast. Since I get invited back I assume the interest is real :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do get excessive numbers of frivolous and lazy questions (as defined [here][1]) but I think the best way to deal with these is more active participation by site members. I very rarely see a question that is closed due to five votes to close by site members. Typically two to three of us can be bothered to VTC and we leave it to the poor old moderators to close the question. I would like site members to be able to vote to delete more easily, but that's out of our hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarise, I agree with the OP that it would be nice to make the forum better for researchers and students, but the way to do this is not to discourage Physics 101 questions from people who don't fall into these categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="7e4845c9-9c97-46ec-82e8-f2b2be0c573b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I first saw https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether my initial reaction was &quot;hell yeah!&quot;.  As I've thought about the issue more though, I wonder if banning homework will do Physics.SE more harm in the long-run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of [David's answer][1] is particularly apt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually *stop* people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David is absolutely right that no matter what our Homework Policy ends up being, we can't stop homework questions from being posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is another, possibly more important issue though.  This is a small community and if we don't bring in new members at a healthy rate the membership will decay over time.  It can already be hard for inexperienced members to find questions to answer or ways to gain reputation and feel like they're a part of the community.  I suspect banning homework and aggressively closing homework questions will alienate some new users that we actually want to have stick around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions are already &quot;essentially banned&quot; and it's a lot of work to close them.  I don't really see how changing our policy to more explicitly state that they are banded will do anything meaningful to help the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead, we actually relaxed our homework policy we could aggressively tag homework questions and tell all members that don't like them to put the tag in their ignore filter.  I don't see any harm in letting homework questions go ignored and unanswered and doing so would allow inexperienced users a chance to try their hand answering them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With banned homework we're essentially telling potential users to go get experience somewhere else and come back when they're ready.  Could we adjust our homework policy to give these users a chance to get experience here while also not frustrating our veteran users that hate homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, does banning homework do long-term harm for only short-term gain?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/22494" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="22861af8-1830-45ef-bb14-2d0e0c4e94e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer contains the discussion in the comments to [the question that sparked this discussion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper), which was originally posted at the (now defunct) [Theoretical Physics](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- 	&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;I have asked the [relevant question on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563). – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="4667aa92-5224-400d-867e-7face9490248" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Question 6157 is a [broken][1] [window][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it asked today, it should get closed as Not a Real Question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's being used to justify the asking of other bad open-ended questions : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4171/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we fix this broken window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/08/pragmatic-programming.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/06/the-broken-window-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="60b1d972-7382-4498-b8e6-7e161293c247" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="479b45b1-247b-4d1a-92cb-d58ada6ac952" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer contains the discussion in the comments to [the question that sparked this discussion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper), which was originally posted at the (now defunct) [Theoretical Physics](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- 	&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;I have asked the [relevant question on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563). – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="f92b535d-2486-45b6-8585-fe0e0d33ccd6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're having some more recent discussions on the [tag:homework] tag. A month ago, there was a flurry of activity involving a tightening up of the policy. Unfortunately, I was really busy after that and later on was out of town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that there are some [residual issues about high-level homework][1] (something that I'd been planning to address but didn't have the time). I'm pretty sure we can sort these out in parallel or even after installing the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the current status of the policy? Should we be pushing forward with it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/graduate-and-above-level-questions-arent-homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="f25b84e5-a405-48f8-b7fd-57e722e6e93f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're having some more recent discussions on the [tag:homework] tag. A month ago, there was a flurry of activity involving a tightening up of the policy. Unfortunately, I was really busy after that and later on was out of town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that there are some [residual issues about high-level homework][1] (something that I'd been planning to address but didn't have the time). I'm pretty sure we can sort these out in parallel or even after installing the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the current status of the policy? Should we be pushing forward with it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/graduate-and-above-level-questions-arent-homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="e565c5c0-8c92-4a08-aa1b-3645ae0c0fd5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there a way to cite a StackExchange question, in a way similar to arXiv.org for instance ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For arXiv, I can just write **arXiv:1303.6666** for the article at link http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6666 and this is easier. I'm wondering if I can use something like **physics.SE:60738** for the question at link http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60738/ ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Of course, I do not want to cite a SE question inside SE, but outside, on a paper, in a presentation or during a lecture for instance. Sorry for the possible confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RELATED QUESTION: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4191/ Here we wonder if it exist a way to format citation without writing the full link, for instance to cite a question during a lecture or a presentation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="6ff7e293-dff4-4abf-bf4c-bd758335c487" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Question 6157 is a [broken][1] [window][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it asked today, it should get closed as Not a Real Question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's being used to justify the asking of other bad open-ended questions : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4171/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we fix this broken window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/08/pragmatic-programming.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/06/the-broken-window-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="86d42140-562d-41e9-8934-32b0572d2f0d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So [many of us agree][1] that the new not-black topbar looks awful on Physics.SE. One solution to this would be to change the top-bar to reduce the discord, as has been done on [scifi.SE][2] and [askubuntu.com][3] (and possibly other sites). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, another possibility would be to rethink the design of Physics.SE itself. Personally, I find the current design a little uninspiring anyway, and since many of the other Stack Exchange sites have really excellent designs I was wondering if it might be time to give ours another look. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a design expert, but I've never been a fan of the colour scheme, which somehow seems to say &quot;company that makes elastic bands or something&quot; rather than &quot;community of academic experts and enthusiasts&quot;. Since one of the main problems with the top bar is the clash between the Stack Exchange logo and the main colours of our site, perhaps this would be a good time to think about changing our colour scheme. If we could also have a more modern-looking design with some (off-)black elements rather than just light blues and greens then the top bar might not look out of place at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how likely this is to happen, but I thought it might be worth putting the idea out there to see if it gets any reaction from Stack Exchange and/or the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really wouldn't require a big change. The following is not a serious suggestion (as I said I'm no designer) but here is the result of spending a couple of minutes applying colour curves in GIMP, to reduce the amount of green and red in the colour scheme, while leaving the top bar untouched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![modified screenshot][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the colour clash against the Stack Exchange logo is greatly reduced, and the overall darker colour scheme lessens the impact of the bar itself. A proper designer could do a much better job, but the point is that a few gentle tweaks could make it look a lot less bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5261/help-theres-a-giant-ugly-thing-on-top-of-the-page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://askubuntu.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S3L4X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="9e490e9e-19f5-4daa-a079-868afed9d8d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So [many of us agree][1] that the new not-black topbar looks awful on Physics.SE. One solution to this would be to change the top-bar to reduce the discord, as has been done on [scifi.SE][2] and [askubuntu.com][3] (and possibly other sites). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, another possibility would be to rethink the design of Physics.SE itself. Personally, I find the current design a little uninspiring anyway, and since many of the other Stack Exchange sites have really excellent designs I was wondering if it might be time to give ours another look. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a design expert, but I've never been a fan of the colour scheme, which somehow seems to say &quot;company that makes elastic bands or something&quot; rather than &quot;community of academic experts and enthusiasts&quot;. Since one of the main problems with the top bar is the clash between the Stack Exchange logo and the main colours of our site, perhaps this would be a good time to think about changing our colour scheme. If we could also have a more modern-looking design with some (off-)black elements rather than just light blues and greens then the top bar might not look out of place at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how likely this is to happen, but I thought it might be worth putting the idea out there to see if it gets any reaction from Stack Exchange and/or the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really wouldn't require a big change. The following is not a serious suggestion (as I said I'm no designer) but here is the result of spending a couple of minutes applying colour curves in GIMP, to reduce the amount of green and red in the colour scheme, while leaving the top bar untouched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![modified screenshot][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the colour clash against the Stack Exchange logo is greatly reduced, and the overall darker colour scheme lessens the impact of the bar itself. A proper designer could do a much better job, but the point is that a few gentle tweaks could make it look a lot less bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5261/help-theres-a-giant-ugly-thing-on-top-of-the-page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://askubuntu.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S3L4X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="8c4a5e0f-146e-4045-98cc-daa4656324c9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think we should reconsider if the old standard, where some reasonable (not too broad and open ended) educational questions and well defined (by topic, level, targetted audience) and localized questions about study material / references were accepted, is not still reasonable and appropriate for our site. **Why do this policies have to change after all, who is/are the drive(r) behind this?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From observeations during the past few months I got the impression that the driver behind these changes towards new policies is in particular David Zaslavsky (who for some reason has always been against any study material / educational questions, which is his personal right but is this attitude a good one as a moderator), Manishearth who strongly represents the overal SE point of view, and a few other people (some are not even physicists), such as EnergyNumbers who are more interested in policies and installing new rules then learning physics themself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly doubt that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which are orthogonal to the original much more reasonable and helpful policies and rules physics SE followed up to some months ago and which worked well for almost two years, are what the large majority of the community wants. The much more restrictive and intolerant &quot;new standards&quot;, which look almost hostil towards people interested in learning new physics topics, are absolutely not needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May claim thatwhat David Zaslavsky and just a few very vocal people are doing is does not have to be what the whole community (including the many people who are exclusively active on the main page because they are interested only in learning physics, instead of policies and therefore hardly ever look on meta or chat) is suported by the changing results when looking at [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4174/2751) question and the fact that people ofte disagree on the main page with the current null tolerance policies. Other people seem now to be are no chiming in at EnergeNumbers post by voting and posting, that are more active on the main page and have therefore seen it only recently. One can see that there is no community consensus towards the by a few people advocated &quot;new standards&quot; at all. The whole thing has become some kind of a &quot;ruling meta community&quot; against the &quot;main page physics community&quot; issue, since many people active on the main page consider things powerful meta people want to dissalow still useful and essential to studying and researching physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst thing one can do now is (what unfortunately seems to have been started by the advocates of new policies) going back and closing all these good and helpful questions, that were very valuable once and are appreciated as very helpful by most people learning physics still today. Instead, people in power should refrain or stop hardcore enforcing these &quot;new standards&quot;, which may not be supported by the large majority of the community (including people active only on the main page!),  by hardcore null tolerance policies until the consensus is really settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which make the site much less helpful and partly even hostil towards people interested in seriously learning physics, are not needed at all. Everything has been well with the original much more reasonable and helpful point of view and policies until recently and I dont see a reason why these things absolutely have to change. In my opinion there is none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="1914685c-d3c4-47c0-9554-3f3f3f388666" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I still agree with the point of view, that [graduate level (upward) questions are not homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751). Technical questions, as they come up from studying advanced textbooks, following advanced courses, or even more so from reading research papers, should neither be tagged nor closed as homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hope is, that the future homework policy will finally narrow down the currently [way too broad notion of **&quot;homework-like&quot;**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751) down to a more reasonable definition of **&quot;homework&quot;**, that excludes the above mentioned kind of technical questions from being considered homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The often brought up objection against (advanced) questions involving a (mathematical) derivations / explanations, calculations, or a proof of something, claiming that they are exclusively useful to the OP, is IMHO not valid. Such technical questions are useful and helpful to everybody who wants to learn and understand the (advanced) topic or concepts at hand at a more serious (deeper than equation free popular) level.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="a8bddc49-876b-43b1-ad9d-ea79315fef7d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I still agree with the point of view, that [graduate level (upward) questions are not homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751). Technical questions, as they come up from studying advanced textbooks, following advanced courses, or even more so from reading research papers, should neither be tagged nor closed as homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hope is, that the future homework policy will finally narrow down the currently [way too broad notion of **&quot;homework-like&quot;**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5372/2751) down to a more reasonable definition of **&quot;homework&quot;**, that excludes the above mentioned kind of technical questions from being considered homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The often brought up objection against (advanced) questions involving a (mathematical) derivations / explanations, calculations, or a proof of something, claiming that they are exclusively useful to the OP, is IMHO not valid. Such technical questions are useful and helpful to everybody who wants to learn and understand the (advanced) topic or concepts at hand at a more serious (deeper than equation free popular) level.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="f7e9a8e6-a525-4968-b456-07d8b2f4c837" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[It has been said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/564/citations-are-the-source-code-of-physics-stackexchange) that &quot;citations are the source code of Physics.SE&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References are how citations are added to a posting.  Should we recognize good citation/reference practices via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a badge after a fixed number of answers, voted to N-score, each with at least X references&#xD;&#xA;- a badge when total citations in all answers exceed Y&#xD;&#xA;- when a moderator awards Q or A with subjectively-good ('policy') references.&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'counting citations', I mean &quot;counting the number of links that are included in the body of the question or answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="d52cf154-a037-4fa4-926c-d71a755ff785" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there a way to cite a StackExchange question, in a way similar to arXiv.org for instance ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For arXiv, I can just write **arXiv:1303.6666** for the article at link http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6666 and this is easier. I'm wondering if I can use something like **physics.SE:60738** for the question at link http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60738/ ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Of course, I do not want to cite a SE question inside SE, but outside, on a paper, in a presentation or during a lecture for instance. Sorry for the possible confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RELATED QUESTION: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4191/ Here we wonder if it exist a way to format citation without writing the full link, for instance to cite a question during a lecture or a presentation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="746e844d-9079-4056-b70f-dcd078a5f83a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with the question and disagree with the notion that spurious, capricious, not (by physics reasons) explained downvotes are just a &quot;nonissue&quot; here because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many people have noticed them recently and asked about them on meta, see for example [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4211/2751) question. The number of capricious potentially not by physics reasons explainable downvotes HAS increased this year and can not be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Capricious not explained downvotes on perfectly good sometimes even technical posts discourage new users or people who have not a large impenetrable self confidence from posting on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvotes of from a physics point of view correct posts bias the general picture of the site concerning what is a correct and legitimate question or answer. Admittedly, the same is true for upvotes of wrong posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving votes of any sign without comments is a somehow intended feature of the system, even though explaining the downvote by pointing out the error or what is otherwise wrong with the post such that it can be corrected is encouraged I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice for people who get such unexplained downvotes, is to ask on chat or meta a broader audience about what is wrong with the question or answer from a physics point of view. If anything is wrong with the post after all ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="74812e68-ec2c-4665-a18f-280e4e7bb142" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One situation when people vote to close without leaving comments is for homework questions. This site is not a homework help forum; it is a place to ask conceptual questions that are useful for future visitors, and homework questions are rarely that. You should really read our homework guidance on this meta site before asking new ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason few people comment on those is that (1) they are often trawling through ten or so similar questions I  a review queue, and mostly that (2) the homework closure reason,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was painstakingly worked out over a long time, essentially says it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also note that there was recently a strong movement towards a much stricter (at least formally) policy. This is a long term, ongoing discussion, and you can find most of it easily by searching for the homework and discussion tags on this meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This dislike of homework questions, and particularly of of those that look copy-pasted from a book or assignment, may explain the downvotes. Those are secret by design and schemes to force downvoters to comment have been brought up and rejected multiple times. If you ask politely for input on how to improve your question,  in the comments, it will probably be enough for someone to stop by and help. Drive-by downvotes can be annoying to us all but they are a net positive feature of this site, as they are everyone's way of expressing that they found a question 'unclear or not useful'. Make sure that yours are not, and you'll be safer from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your comments about this meta thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question was indeed edited by a moderator, though 2k+ users also have the ability to validate edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure what you mean by &quot;political&quot; but the term has come to have very specific meanings on this meta, through many very ugly discussions which you probably don't want to get dragged into. Honestly, I don't see why you used the term at all. The moderator intervention was probably meant to defuse confrontations, though I agree that a message explaining why would have been helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, there is never any permanent harm done, as you can always re-edit. (On the other hand, avoid direct rollbacks without good reason and appropriate discussion.) I like your new title best of all three, in fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="ce83e3e7-ae65-4596-b0c5-cc43f63092d9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[You need 2500 reputation][1] to create and vote on tag synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's generally much easier to ping a mod in chat or propose it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting?rq=1), since nobody really monitors the synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/suggest-tag-synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="c6e69384-7891-4e61-8e10-49296374a119" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One situation when people vote to close without leaving comments is for homework questions. This site is not a homework help forum; it is a place to ask conceptual questions that are useful for future visitors, and homework questions are rarely that. You should really read our homework guidance on this meta site before asking new ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason few people comment on those is that (1) they are often trawling through ten or so similar questions I  a review queue, and mostly that (2) the homework closure reason,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was painstakingly worked out over a long time, essentially says it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also note that there was recently a strong movement towards a much stricter (at least formally) policy. This is a long term, ongoing discussion, and you can find most of it easily by searching for the homework and discussion tags on this meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This dislike of homework questions, and particularly of of those that look copy-pasted from a book or assignment, may explain the downvotes. Those are secret by design and schemes to force downvoters to comment have been brought up and rejected multiple times. If you ask politely for input on how to improve your question,  in the comments, it will probably be enough for someone to stop by and help. Drive-by downvotes can be annoying to us all but they are a net positive feature of this site, as they are everyone's way of expressing that they found a question 'unclear or not useful'. Make sure that yours are not, and you'll be safer from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your comments about this meta thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question was indeed edited by a moderator, though 2k+ users also have the ability to validate edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure what you mean by &quot;political&quot; but the term has come to have very specific meanings on this meta, through many very ugly discussions which you probably don't want to get dragged into. Honestly, I don't see why you used the term at all. The moderator intervention was probably meant to defuse confrontations, though I agree that a message explaining why would have been helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, there is never any permanent harm done, as you can always re-edit. (On the other hand, avoid direct rollbacks without good reason and appropriate discussion.) I like your new title best of all three, in fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="6f01bacb-30a1-42e7-ba29-e73f63c9872e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we've been discussing [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102109/numerical-ising-model-wolff-algorithm-and-correlations) whether questions on numerical algorithms should be allowed when the context is a physics problem.  The last time this was discussed on Meta seems to be [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2) (a follow-up to [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions)), which implies that such questions should be allowed. However, computational questions have historically beenoff topic according to the definition of our scope in the help center, and the [last time I proposed changing that](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/921/computational-science-in-the-faq), the only response was to wait until the [Computational Science site](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) had taken off and reevaluate the decision then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, now Computational Science is well established, and nevertheless it seems we are of the opinion that numerical algorithms in a physical context should be on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this assessment accurate? Does the community want questions on numerical algorithms in a physical context to be on topic for us? (this is just a last opportunity for anyone who disagrees to speak out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How should we word the item that would need to be added to the [Help Center's on-topic page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) under the &quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot; heading to reflect this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="b8ad2f63-4c3c-4beb-99db-a4850d4603c7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think we should reconsider if the old standard, where some reasonable (not too broad and open ended) educational questions and well defined (by topic, level, targetted audience) and localized questions about study material / references were accepted, is not still reasonable and appropriate for our site. **Why do this policies have to change after all, who is/are the drive(r) behind this?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From observeations during the past few months I got the impression that the driver behind these changes towards new policies is in particular David Zaslavsky (who for some reason has always been against any study material / educational questions, which is his personal right but is this attitude a good one as a moderator), Manishearth who strongly represents the overal SE point of view, and a few other people (some are not even physicists), such as EnergyNumbers who are more interested in policies and installing new rules then learning physics themself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly doubt that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which are orthogonal to the original much more reasonable and helpful policies and rules physics SE followed up to some months ago and which worked well for almost two years, are what the large majority of the community wants. The much more restrictive and intolerant &quot;new standards&quot;, which look almost hostil towards people interested in learning new physics topics, are absolutely not needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May claim thatwhat David Zaslavsky and just a few very vocal people are doing is does not have to be what the whole community (including the many people who are exclusively active on the main page because they are interested only in learning physics, instead of policies and therefore hardly ever look on meta or chat) is suported by the changing results when looking at [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4174/2751) question and the fact that people ofte disagree on the main page with the current null tolerance policies. Other people seem now to be are no chiming in at EnergeNumbers post by voting and posting, that are more active on the main page and have therefore seen it only recently. One can see that there is no community consensus towards the by a few people advocated &quot;new standards&quot; at all. The whole thing has become some kind of a &quot;ruling meta community&quot; against the &quot;main page physics community&quot; issue, since many people active on the main page consider things powerful meta people want to dissalow still useful and essential to studying and researching physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst thing one can do now is (what unfortunately seems to have been started by the advocates of new policies) going back and closing all these good and helpful questions, that were very valuable once and are appreciated as very helpful by most people learning physics still today. Instead, people in power should refrain or stop hardcore enforcing these &quot;new standards&quot;, which may not be supported by the large majority of the community (including people active only on the main page!),  by hardcore null tolerance policies until the consensus is really settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that these &quot;new standards&quot;, which make the site much less helpful and partly even hostil towards people interested in seriously learning physics, are not needed at all. Everything has been well with the original much more reasonable and helpful point of view and policies until recently and I dont see a reason why these things absolutely have to change. In my opinion there is none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="eb670ef7-4b9b-4bf6-a841-e9fe1c9b2afc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we've been discussing [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102109/numerical-ising-model-wolff-algorithm-and-correlations) whether questions on numerical algorithms should be allowed when the context is a physics problem.  The last time this was discussed on Meta seems to be [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2) (a follow-up to [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions)), which implies that such questions should be allowed. However, computational questions have historically beenoff topic according to the definition of our scope in the help center, and the [last time I proposed changing that](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/921/computational-science-in-the-faq), the only response was to wait until the [Computational Science site](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) had taken off and reevaluate the decision then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, now Computational Science is well established, and nevertheless it seems we are of the opinion that numerical algorithms in a physical context should be on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this assessment accurate? Does the community want questions on numerical algorithms in a physical context to be on topic for us? (this is just a last opportunity for anyone who disagrees to speak out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How should we word the item that would need to be added to the [Help Center's on-topic page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) under the &quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot; heading to reflect this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="8a121b53-0151-4850-9958-f829efd8a638" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[It has been said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/564/citations-are-the-source-code-of-physics-stackexchange) that &quot;citations are the source code of Physics.SE&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References are how citations are added to a posting.  Should we recognize good citation/reference practices via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a badge after a fixed number of answers, voted to N-score, each with at least X references&#xD;&#xA;- a badge when total citations in all answers exceed Y&#xD;&#xA;- when a moderator awards Q or A with subjectively-good ('policy') references.&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'counting citations', I mean &quot;counting the number of links that are included in the body of the question or answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="7732675c-7114-4ac4-946c-f7129d848908" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Phys.SE is currently 3.5 years old and has the [second-most traffic of all the science sites at SE](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-traffic) (with Math.SE being number one), so at least in that sense it is quite successful[1]. Also Phys.SE receives a lot of Google hits and is quite visible on the Internet. So Phys.SE has in many ways found a robust formula, which is spelled out on the [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics [...]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not let events outside Phys.SE (which might be just a flash in the pan, like the previous [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)) dictate what is and what is not the purpose of Phys.SE. We welcomed all levels before, and we should continue to welcome all levels. By splitting up Phys.SE in many parts, we may very well destroy the formula, which has worked in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the theoretical reasons to keep all levels at Phys.SE, there might also be practical reasons: It may be practically impossible to establish an unanimous definition of what constitutes high, medium, and low level, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning high-level questions: You can still ask high-level questions on Phys.SE! We are open 24/7 and it is business as usual. One thing that we learned from the TP.SE failure (with its unfortunate slow traffic) is that if you ask a high-level question, there might only be a few experts in the world that can answer on the spot. Many more experts would be able to answer after &quot;doing the calculation themselves&quot;, however they often haven't the time. But if they are curious enough they might do it anyway! So long story short: One should expect that high-level quality answers take time. Phys.SE offers a visible platform on the Internet and has many active (and also some more dormant) experts in all corners of physics. If you have a high-level question in physics, then Phys.SE is definitely one of the best places to ask it, in terms of receiving a useful answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning low-level questions: We should continue to enforce that questions should preferably be conceptional. E.g. low-level homework questions should follow certain [rules](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). Moreover, some basic/minimal research of the topic (like googling before asking) is generally expected, cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5033/2451) meta post. As for a discussion of a [Popular Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science), that seems to belong to [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) rather than on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] In fact one interpretation of the large traffic volume is that we are drowning in success: The front page currently changes every 6 hours (or so), which means that it is easier to overlook a post nowadays, relatively speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="b361abcd-e67b-4509-8e1c-547bb87e6f0d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Precisely, they've stopped closing homeworks and our HWs are quite less compared to Math.SE and we've got enough active users (especially me) and actively rushing mods to close those things...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Over there in Math.SE...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I observed math SE is more active than physics SE. They don't close problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you haven't observed it right. In fact, they have [their policy](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/70397) which is more or less very [similar to ours](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/11062). They also do expect work from users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Show your work:* You should definitely include any partial work you have done. This will help bolster your claim that you are not just coming here asking other people to do your homework for you, and it will help the answerers to give more clinical responses. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, we will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Math.SE is huge (populated to around 50k users) and over 140k questions (where 14k are homeworks) How good can 8 mods and 400 users (who ***can*** VTC) manage those questions. I mean, how many users are there who wait for someone to post a *discouragable* homework so that they can close it? We also don't know how many users are always interested like mods (for example, in Physics.SE - users who have VTC privileges don't participate in closing questions except some 10 guys). [They have another discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9201/70397) which says that they &lt;s&gt;don't&lt;/s&gt; won't encourage questions which directly restates the problem statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that they support homework questions which ask politely without just *ordering* users to solve the problem. How do they support? They provide a simple **Hint** (which can be seen in bold for HWs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither do they close (I think this is the important point). Mostly all are possibly asking direct questions and the important thing - all are giving *hints*, because they've &quot;They don't provide direct answers&quot;..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How we differ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think Physics SE should encourage problem solving. Moderator should not close homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've told us that *we should encourage*. But, you didn't say ***How?*** Like, if someone asks *&quot;Tell me this formula, Explain step-by-step&quot;*, etc... then, we shouldn't close it and just do it for him..? Then, this isn't the site for the homework author. The reason for us to close direct HW questions and expect work from users is because we think we should be a barrier to the asker's creative thinking. If we're doing his work, they there's no necessity for institutions to give HWs. We can forget that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you've expressed in your question makes me feel that we're guilty and merciless that we don't reopen it again and downvote it rudely. **NO, WE DO FEEL FOR IT**. If you don't know before, I'll quote the words of Manish: *&quot;The actions of moderators are reversible&quot;* (unless they're user deletions and suspensions). I have seen many question authors (after closing their HW) editing and pinging us and we **have** reopened those. For instance, have a look at [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/47071/11062) and [its revisions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/47071/revisions).  &#xD;&#xA;You can see my VTC &amp; my VTR...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2 more to go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We don't have so many users interested in answering HW questions (for example, we aren't interested to check the answers to HW too i.e. we neither encourage nor discourage the answers) All that we are interested is in conceptual Physics. We often **do** encourage basic questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/58136/11062 Because, In math (no offense), but that is what they all do - **calculation**. Mostly, we keep ourselves out of calculations (as far as I've seen) unless it's an interesting topic (something like this) - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62222/11062&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To the **comparison:** Physics.SE is small, totaling to users around 14k and questions around 20k (where only 2k or so are HWs - 1:7). Because of the diffuse number of uninterested HWs and active VTC users, we're closing HW questions.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="266419b7-b96a-47f8-9351-92a804303626" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Phys.SE is currently 3.5 years old and has the [second-most traffic of all the science sites at SE](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-traffic) (with Math.SE being number one), so at least in that sense it is quite successful[1]. Also Phys.SE receives a lot of Google hits and is quite visible on the Internet. So Phys.SE has in many ways found a robust formula, which is spelled out on the [help pages](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics [...]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not let events outside Phys.SE (which might be just a flash in the pan, like the previous [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)) dictate what is and what is not the purpose of Phys.SE. We welcomed all levels before, and we should continue to welcome all levels. By splitting up Phys.SE in many parts, we may very well destroy the formula, which has worked in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the theoretical reasons to keep all levels at Phys.SE, there might also be practical reasons: It may be practically impossible to establish an unanimous definition of what constitutes high, medium, and low level, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning high-level questions: You can still ask high-level questions on Phys.SE! We are open 24/7 and it is business as usual. One thing that we learned from the TP.SE failure (with its unfortunate slow traffic) is that if you ask a high-level question, there might only be a few experts in the world that can answer on the spot. Many more experts would be able to answer after &quot;doing the calculation themselves&quot;, however they often haven't the time. But if they are curious enough they might do it anyway! So long story short: One should expect that high-level quality answers take time. Phys.SE offers a visible platform on the Internet and has many active (and also some more dormant) experts in all corners of physics. If you have a high-level question in physics, then Phys.SE is definitely one of the best places to ask it, in terms of receiving a useful answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning low-level questions: We should continue to enforce that questions should preferably be conceptional. E.g. low-level homework questions should follow certain [rules](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). Moreover, some basic/minimal research of the topic (like googling before asking) is generally expected, cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5033/2451) meta post. As for a discussion of a [Popular Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science), that seems to belong to [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) rather than on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] In fact one interpretation of the large traffic volume is that we are drowning in success: The front page currently changes every 6 hours (or so), which means that it is easier to overlook a post nowadays, relatively speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="cc8ea515-2d0b-4562-95a1-4569d9db9455" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with the question and disagree with the notion that spurious, capricious, not (by physics reasons) explained downvotes are just a &quot;nonissue&quot; here because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many people have noticed them recently and asked about them on meta, see for example [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4211/2751) question. The number of capricious potentially not by physics reasons explainable downvotes HAS increased this year and can not be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Capricious not explained downvotes on perfectly good sometimes even technical posts discourage new users or people who have not a large impenetrable self confidence from posting on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Downvotes of from a physics point of view correct posts bias the general picture of the site concerning what is a correct and legitimate question or answer. Admittedly, the same is true for upvotes of wrong posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving votes of any sign without comments is a somehow intended feature of the system, even though explaining the downvote by pointing out the error or what is otherwise wrong with the post such that it can be corrected is encouraged I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice for people who get such unexplained downvotes, is to ask on chat or meta a broader audience about what is wrong with the question or answer from a physics point of view. If anything is wrong with the post after all ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="ac5067c9-f039-46f1-89b3-140c3120144c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The close reasons have been finalized and implemented [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/), please direct requests for new close reasons to a separate meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="86f25aef-dcf1-4f5b-9cb6-10e00a7f809e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/774831/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/765211/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/764631/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/761917/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/754449/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/747413/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/746432/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/744131/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/735556/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/726177/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/722339/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/718567/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/285642/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="6a3b47a6-106f-4280-a8f8-47574b13d94c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/774831/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/765211/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/764631/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/761917/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/754449/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/747413/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/746432/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/744131/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/735556/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/726177/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/722339/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/718567/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://math.stackexchange.com/q/285642/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="5778cbaa-b268-4b4a-b4fd-38a92ed3a7cf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The top two close reasons ( _real_ reasons, not the system reasons) that don't fit in unclear/broad/primarily-opinion-based (Great, now I have to remember new acronyms :S ) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Homeworky (frequency: a bajillion times a day): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433) expects homework and homework-like problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Please edit your question to explain what you have tried and highlight the concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I prefer &quot;We expect&quot;, but I can't think of a place to stick the policy link without making it too long)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream physics(frequency: a batch every ~week. Usually a single user asks many such questions):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other common OT thing which seems to be around twice a week is pure math questions (or physics questions that seem to be clear on the physics) being asked. But these get migrated, so there's no need for a separate OT reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, I can't think of any reason that's frequently needed. For edge cases we have the custom OT close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="19471bae-a89e-49d0-889a-395fdd4fc899" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Actually I think the linked question is not a bad one. I would have closed it, but I would have closed it because it's homework not because it's a silly question. I'd guess most of us did the experiment of seeing what materials would stop gamma rays at school, and that's what the OP is asking about. There's some interesting physics behind this that's readily explainable to school children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, this takes us back to the point I raised in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5697/should-we-have-a-popular-physics-se and the response of the community was clearly &quot;No!&quot; (which, in hindsight, I agree with). If a question is so badly stated as to be unanswerable then just close and who cares exactly what reason you choose. If the question is answerable then it's up to you to choose whether to answer it. If you don't bother answering then you can't criticise someone who does make the effort. If an answer is wrong then explain why in a comment, or if you're feeling vindictive downvote it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="f770defc-f291-4b21-ba38-2f8aa0dc8b99" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Precisely, they've stopped closing homeworks and our HWs are quite less compared to Math.SE and we've got enough active users (especially me) and actively rushing mods to close those things...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Over there in Math.SE...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I observed math SE is more active than physics SE. They don't close problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you haven't observed it right. In fact, they have [their policy](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/70397) which is more or less very [similar to ours](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/11062). They also do expect work from users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Show your work:* You should definitely include any partial work you have done. This will help bolster your claim that you are not just coming here asking other people to do your homework for you, and it will help the answerers to give more clinical responses. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, we will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Math.SE is huge (populated to around 50k users) and over 140k questions (where 14k are homeworks) How good can 8 mods and 400 users (who ***can*** VTC) manage those questions. I mean, how many users are there who wait for someone to post a *discouragable* homework so that they can close it? We also don't know how many users are always interested like mods (for example, in Physics.SE - users who have VTC privileges don't participate in closing questions except some 10 guys). [They have another discussion](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/9201/70397) which says that they &lt;s&gt;don't&lt;/s&gt; won't encourage questions which directly restates the problem statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that they support homework questions which ask politely without just *ordering* users to solve the problem. How do they support? They provide a simple **Hint** (which can be seen in bold for HWs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither do they close (I think this is the important point). Mostly all are possibly asking direct questions and the important thing - all are giving *hints*, because they've &quot;They don't provide direct answers&quot;..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How we differ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think Physics SE should encourage problem solving. Moderator should not close homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've told us that *we should encourage*. But, you didn't say ***How?*** Like, if someone asks *&quot;Tell me this formula, Explain step-by-step&quot;*, etc... then, we shouldn't close it and just do it for him..? Then, this isn't the site for the homework author. The reason for us to close direct HW questions and expect work from users is because we think we should be a barrier to the asker's creative thinking. If we're doing his work, they there's no necessity for institutions to give HWs. We can forget that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you've expressed in your question makes me feel that we're guilty and merciless that we don't reopen it again and downvote it rudely. **NO, WE DO FEEL FOR IT**. If you don't know before, I'll quote the words of Manish: *&quot;The actions of moderators are reversible&quot;* (unless they're user deletions and suspensions). I have seen many question authors (after closing their HW) editing and pinging us and we **have** reopened those. For instance, have a look at [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/47071/11062) and [its revisions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/47071/revisions).  &#xD;&#xA;You can see my VTC &amp; my VTR...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2 more to go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We don't have so many users interested in answering HW questions (for example, we aren't interested to check the answers to HW too i.e. we neither encourage nor discourage the answers) All that we are interested is in conceptual Physics. We often **do** encourage basic questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/58136/11062 Because, In math (no offense), but that is what they all do - **calculation**. Mostly, we keep ourselves out of calculations (as far as I've seen) unless it's an interesting topic (something like this) - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62222/11062&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To the **comparison:** Physics.SE is small, totaling to users around 14k and questions around 20k (where only 2k or so are HWs - 1:7). Because of the diffuse number of uninterested HWs and active VTC users, we're closing HW questions.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="446ee448-11ee-4197-b900-9b911d3f0de8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you have time to waste, you may want to read [this guide I wrote to helping moderate the site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you already are commenting/flagging things and going to /review, then you probably have that covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to try editing posts to improve grammar/formatting as well (I think you already do this too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the best thing to do is look for more questions to answer (or ask some good ones yourself!). Sometimes, scouring through [the back end unanswered section sorted by votes][2] helps; there are many good questions that got neglected by accident there in the later pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're also welcome to participate in [chat][3]. This doesn't help the site, but it's fun :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2920/community-help-us-moderate-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?page=47&amp;tab=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="4bf22ca9-6608-480f-88fd-f9c4a2848aed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Actually I think the linked question is not a bad one. I would have closed it, but I would have closed it because it's homework not because it's a silly question. I'd guess most of us did the experiment of seeing what materials would stop gamma rays at school, and that's what the OP is asking about. There's some interesting physics behind this that's readily explainable to school children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, this takes us back to the point I raised in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5697/should-we-have-a-popular-physics-se and the response of the community was clearly &quot;No!&quot; (which, in hindsight, I agree with). If a question is so badly stated as to be unanswerable then just close and who cares exactly what reason you choose. If the question is answerable then it's up to you to choose whether to answer it. If you don't bother answering then you can't criticise someone who does make the effort. If an answer is wrong then explain why in a comment, or if you're feeling vindictive downvote it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="696c395e-0b89-4e8d-a10a-8a9690530fbd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As discussed https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5673/what-exactly-should-10k-users-be-doing-to-help-the-site the flag review queue has disappeared, but it isn't clear to me whether flagging answers is still useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With questions, the implication of the the above question is that it's better to put effort into voting to close and downvoting as appropriate. With answers there is no vote to close, so for answers that are really comments, or spam, or whatever flagging and downvoting are the only options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is whether it's helpful to the moderators if we flag answers, or should we just downvote them? If the answer is that flagging is helpful, are all the flags helpful or just the more extreme ones like *offensive, abusive or hate speech*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="c66f6625-0d12-4d60-9155-e2b93133ce31" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The close reasons have been finalized and implemented [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/), please direct requests for new close reasons to a separate meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="4bec0e23-9a31-4bfd-ac4c-c49d0d0172e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As discussed https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5673/what-exactly-should-10k-users-be-doing-to-help-the-site the flag review queue has disappeared, but it isn't clear to me whether flagging answers is still useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With questions, the implication of the the above question is that it's better to put effort into voting to close and downvoting as appropriate. With answers there is no vote to close, so for answers that are really comments, or spam, or whatever flagging and downvoting are the only options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is whether it's helpful to the moderators if we flag answers, or should we just downvote them? If the answer is that flagging is helpful, are all the flags helpful or just the more extreme ones like *offensive, abusive or hate speech*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="dd561b21-90c9-474b-8b70-2ffeda35cce4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You know the one I mean, T&lt;sub&gt;μν&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Is it the stress-energy tensor, or the energy-momentum tensor? This is for the purposes of tags, where having both is redundant. This was brought up in [chat][1], and there is a [proposal][2] on our little-visited tag synonyms page. However, it was pointed out there that the idea of just combining everything into [tag:stress-energy-momentum-tensor] won't work due to character limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I dare anyone to claim with a straight face that they would *actually* say &quot;stress-energy-momentum tensor&quot; in conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose that **one** of [tag:stress-energy-tensor] or [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] be taken to be &quot;standard,&quot; with the other made a synonym. My understanding is that either tag can then be applied, with the synonym silently being replaced, no harm done, no retagging effort necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than proposing a synonym on my own, only to have no one look at that page anyway,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I figure this proposal should get some community consensus as to which way the replacement should go. I personally grew up learning that &quot;stress-energy&quot; was a tensor and &quot;energy-momentum&quot; was a 4-vector, but perhaps I'm in the minority, or perhaps there's good reason to differentiate as much as possible the stress-energy tensor of relativity from the stress tensor of mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote below as you see appropriate, or add your own original thoughts in another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yes, I am fully aware that string of symbols refers to an unspecified *component* of a tensor, and not an actual tensor. Mathematically precise people, please don't hurt me. Everyone else, I still reserve the right to admonish you for conflating these two things :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; There are [plenty of other suggestions there][3] - interested users should vote on them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9961168#9961168&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4446&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="4770eea2-8b26-4267-a776-55e638f402ef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Think_ about the question. What do you already know that relates to it? Narrow it down to the specific physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). You may find it useful to use a dedicated scientific search engine, such as [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net), or [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- If you have friends, colleagues, teachers, or so on who would know something about your question, ask them for input.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can, if you want, post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, it's going to look like you didn't do your research, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that show a particular lack of research effort [may be put on hold (or &quot;closed&quot;)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions). In many of these cases, the advice in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714) may be useful in improving the question enough to have it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="bda01432-7c34-4ddd-bec7-758434121772" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The top two close reasons ( _real_ reasons, not the system reasons) that don't fit in unclear/broad/primarily-opinion-based (Great, now I have to remember new acronyms :S ) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Homeworky (frequency: a bajillion times a day): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433) expects homework and homework-like problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. Please edit your question to explain what you have tried and highlight the concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I prefer &quot;We expect&quot;, but I can't think of a place to stick the policy link without making it too long)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream physics(frequency: a batch every ~week. Usually a single user asks many such questions):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other common OT thing which seems to be around twice a week is pure math questions (or physics questions that seem to be clear on the physics) being asked. But these get migrated, so there's no need for a separate OT reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides that, I can't think of any reason that's frequently needed. For edge cases we have the custom OT close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4464" RevisionGUID="da796ec6-ba3a-4795-9599-b660d5920acf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the new question you would ask is similar enough to the old question that the same answer (verbatim) would apply to it, it would probably be a duplicate. So I would say no, don't make a new question for the express purpose of reposting your answer. The information in your answer already exists on the site, there's no reason to invent an excuse to put up another copy of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone else happens to post a new question to which your old answer would apply, you're technically within your rights to copy it and post it again. But I would suggest not actually doing that. Instead, post a new answer that refers to it - you could start out saying &quot;This is covered by [this other answer that I wrote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4464/124),&quot; and then go on to describe the relevant parts of your earlier answer. (As always, make sure a person doesn't _have_ to click the link just to get the point of your answer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="00bcd29f-41cf-4618-882a-59cba6be7d91" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you have time to waste, you may want to read [this guide I wrote to helping moderate the site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you already are commenting/flagging things and going to /review, then you probably have that covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to try editing posts to improve grammar/formatting as well (I think you already do this too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the best thing to do is look for more questions to answer (or ask some good ones yourself!). Sometimes, scouring through [the back end unanswered section sorted by votes][2] helps; there are many good questions that got neglected by accident there in the later pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're also welcome to participate in [chat][3]. This doesn't help the site, but it's fun :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2920/community-help-us-moderate-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?page=47&amp;tab=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="f353c422-3116-479f-8765-3e3d809e2413" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:self-learning] would be a [meta-tag][1], and those are discouraged. In fact, [tag:homework] is *also* a meta-tag, but [the site has voted to keep it][2], and given it a [somewhat unusual meaning][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that a couple of those links are the same ones that [NowIGetTo... used][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5824/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="4bf7a88a-1d37-469d-beca-adac105c28ed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# What research do I need to do before asking a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before asking a question, do _anything_ else you can think of that might get you the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you should probably do **all** of the following before asking here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Think_ about the question. What do you already know that relates to it? Narrow it down to the specific physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.&#xD;&#xA;- Type the question title into [Google](http://www.google.com) (and/or another good-quality search engine) and look at the top few (at least 5-10) results.&#xD;&#xA;- Also search a few combinations of key words, and again look at the top few results.&#xD;&#xA;- Identify what physics concepts are involved and look at the relevant [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org) pages.&#xD;&#xA;- Look in a textbook or equivalent resource on the appropriate subject. If you don't have actual textbooks, there are plenty of online resources, like [Hyperphysics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), that you can use.&#xD;&#xA;- If you're asking a more advanced question which concerns current research, look for relevant papers, including checking on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). You may find it useful to use a dedicated scientific search engine, such as [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [INSPIRE](http://inspirehep.net), or [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;- Use the search box in the top right to check this site for similar questions. Also, when you're typing your question in the form, look at the suggested similar questions the system shows you.&#xD;&#xA;- If you have friends, colleagues, teachers, or so on who would know something about your question, ask them for input.&#xD;&#xA;- And anything else you can think of that you think has a reasonable chance of getting you the information you're looking for. (For example, if your question is about a calculation, try working through the math yourself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find the answer to your question while doing all this research, great! You can, if you want, post your question here (if it's not already on the site) along with your own answer describing what you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# OK, I didn't find the answer. Now what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your prior research didn't give the answer you were looking for, **tell us what you checked**. Don't explicitly list each one of the steps above to say that you followed it, but do mention anything you found that is close to the topic of your question, and point out why it didn't give you the answer you wanted. If someone reads your question and immediately finds a standard resource (Google search, Wikipedia, HyperPhysics, another SE question) that seems to answer it, it's going to look like you didn't do your research, unless you explain why that resource doesn't actually contain the information you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I think I know what the answer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a guess or hypothesis about the answer to your question (one that is grounded in solid physics), that's fine, but you should go out and check that hypothesis yourself. Maybe it'll be correct, in which case you can post the question here with your hypothesis (and the evidence that shows it's correct) as an answer. If you think it's incorrect, on the other hand, mention it in the question and say why you think it's wrong. A question that just ends on &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX&quot; comes across as lazy, but if you instead write &quot;My hypothesis is XXXX, but that doesn't seem correct because Wikipedia says YYYYY,&quot; and so on, that shows research effort and makes a better question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What happens if I don't follow these guidelines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People trying to answer your question will follow the steps in the first section: they'll search Google, check on Wikipedia, on Hyperphysics, in textbooks, and do some simple calculations if it's that type of question. If, by doing so, they find the answer to your question, they're likely to downvote your question for not showing research effort. You may also get comments pointing you to the answer on Wikipedia or a top search result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that show a particular lack of research effort [may be put on hold (or &quot;closed&quot;)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions). In many of these cases, the advice in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714) may be useful in improving the question enough to have it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="de882e4c-b22d-4cbc-9e57-c5d0d4f1a46e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An alternative wording I've found useful for certain HW's so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm noting this in case people think it should be one of our three. Its benefit is that this particular catch in the HW policy is somewhat buried, and may be missed by a cursory glance through the meta page. Note though that it is only for a *strict subset* of closeable homework - those questions that *do* have work put in, but ultimately are just asking for verification of the symbol manipulation. As such, it is not general enough to work in all HW cases, and so may be too specific to warrant taking up one of three slots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, any and all are invited to copy/paste this and use/modify it as they see fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="58d72462-40e3-49c3-9611-7d9986c36e2b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="_Why have moderators removed my comments?_ The basic rule of StackExchange is that comments can be removed once you give the message to the poster. If you don't want your ideas to be removed post an answer or say it in chat. I'm not a moderator, but I guess that was the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the answer is awful nonsense, every answer is allowed (in this case I think is a good answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in any General Relativity book, so no need to give references. If you think otherwise, you should back it up with solid references: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site (and I think the question should have been closed under this policy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your comment, come on, don't compare goverment censorship to comment removal. And note that the comments weren't removed by the Goverment (they have better things to do). StackExchange is a private company, so this would be more like when someone is saying something you don't like in your house, you have the right to tell him to stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final remark, mods don't apply the removing policy too strictly when they should be supposed to remove +1 comments and that stuff. But since it doesn't cause mayor troubles, I think it's ok.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="9e651b2c-5995-43c9-8b49-01defff0669b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:self-learning] would be a [meta-tag][1], and those are discouraged. In fact, [tag:homework] is *also* a meta-tag, but [the site has voted to keep it][2], and given it a [somewhat unusual meaning][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that a couple of those links are the same ones that [NowIGetTo... used][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5490/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5375/23785&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5824/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="7fe42fa9-6e28-44fe-875a-8f4b80129a8c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="On Wiki Pedia, for example, when you make an edit (to the source) , there is a box called &quot;Common edit summaries.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Edit Summaries][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also minor edit summaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Minor Edit Summaries][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that many common edits can be given quick summaries, to save time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that important at Wiki (since edit summaries aren't compulsoury), but I guess it would be ***very useful here at Physics.SE***.  Not just for edits, but for comments, also. For example, I find that I'm often repeating the same comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Homework Policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Please show more effort while asking homework questions. Don't expect anyone to do your work for you.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Non-mainstream questions are not allowed here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Does your &quot;theory&quot; have any mathematics? What does it predict? What can I calculate with it? Please don't promote your own non-mainstream ideas here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice question!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice answer!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Huh? This is very unclear?! What are you even talking about?&quot; . &#xD;&#xA;  / . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means coming to meta ($ \geq $ 1 min waiting time), searching for [faq] ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time), then clicking ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time),  Linking to it and parsing the link and adding the text ($ \geq 1 $ minute typing time), which amounts to 4 minutes. Well, that's not that long, but this same process is repeated for multiple, multiple posts. So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 1.*** Could there be a feature &quot;Common coments&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the edits. Till recently,  I would just write something like, because its quick: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SNJDSJDWIEE21!!!!S';DSDJSJDJUQJIDUFDNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111........    &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something like that. Recently, for some reason, I got bored of typing nonsense, so I just type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added homework tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added popular-science tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Corrected LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Don't use big-list tag.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It seems as if the homework tag applies even if it isn't real homework.&quot; (Yup, that's copied from Qmechanic.)     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tags.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant reference-request tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string-theory tag. This is a kinematics question.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string theory tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant research-level tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant Mathematical Physics tag.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed unnecessary Controversial statements.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fixed grammar.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And such things. It is quite monotonous to repeatedly write this, so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 2:*** Could the same feature as requested in Q1 be applied to Edit Summaries too? (It would be even better if the system would detect the tags which have been changed, like if I add a pop-sci tag, for e.g., then it has in the common edit summaries, &quot;Added Popular-Science tag.&quot;, but perhaps that's just too much.)    .&#xD;&#xA; . &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Edit:* This is useful only to &lt; 2k reputation users.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o35Es.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ox2Ti.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="42715ab9-a1c6-4749-898a-750d5abdea32" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've read the other answers here, and the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two authors ([Floris] &amp; [Alemi]) of the (excellent) highly voted answers to the original Coin Question have replied here, and I think that they have useful insights. It's interesting that their answers on this meta question are the lowest rated at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Horses for courses&#xD;&#xA;My suspicion is that one person's good question is not another's good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some, a nicely clear unambiguous question is a good one. Ideally one showing the asker's research and a statement of why they couldn't proceed, or their uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a professional software engineer, primarily using Stack Overflow rather than Phy.S.E., these are certainly the kinds of questions that I like to answer and hope to ask. Stack Overflow's [How do I ask a good question?](http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask) covers this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular users are likely to prefer this kind of question. Those working in the field, and the enthusiasts with an interest in Physics that hang about here and get in the way, like me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for others, a simple interesting question with excellent answers that teaches them something, is a good question. Answers that encourage them to feel science is something that they can do, participate in, use, and understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Floris's answer][Floris] mentions a link on Reddit, and I would think this is the kind of question that would appeal to someone happening on the site from a link and having a kind of &quot;popular science&quot; interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that a well written question, in a case like this, might not be as successful as the quick carelessly written one. As a populist pedagogic tool, it might be less likely to pull the masses in, because an outsider, reading a well written question, won't feel that is something that they, personally, would ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Is it a problem?&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think that the first kind of question is the better kind, but I think the second kind has its place and use, as it helps provide a fascination with science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may feel differently if they would rather keep Phy.S.E. as a fairly highbrow tool for learning and answering professional queries – I'm not judging that as a bad thing: having relatively uninformed people about can be annoying, particularly if they reduce the signal to noise ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something to worry about? There I'm not sure. Voting is useful because it provide a mechanism to resolve disputes like this where people have different needs and desires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the experienced physicist and teachers here might have a good sense of when a &quot;dumb&quot; question can be a good tool, and so, in a way, becomes a good question. You probably also need a sense of whether it will have popular appeal, which is hard to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;In summary, I would say that if you want Phy.S.E to be a place that reaches out to the popular science crowd and gives them an insight to what it is to experiment  and use science, then support what [Alemi] and [Floris] say. Edit questions to improve grammar, spelling and general readability. Go easy on questions that haven't put in the ground work but sound interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Alemi]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5942/45649&#xD;&#xA; [Floris]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5950/45649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="7d582a32-64f8-4744-abf4-d6b5e64f7f11" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a matter of copyright/plagiarism, then yes, whenever material is quoted verbatim from a textbook, or from anywhere really, the source should be identified. I think that is mentioned in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), but if not, it should be added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not expect this to be a &quot;prosecutable&quot; violation of copyright law, since quoting part or all of a homework problem for the purpose of getting help solving it probably falls under the fair use exception. (But I'm not a lawyer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="5d7bd7e2-18c9-4b7d-8ea2-a43dc90e0a5c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You know the one I mean, T&lt;sub&gt;μν&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Is it the stress-energy tensor, or the energy-momentum tensor? This is for the purposes of tags, where having both is redundant. This was brought up in [chat][1], and there is a [proposal][2] on our little-visited tag synonyms page. However, it was pointed out there that the idea of just combining everything into [tag:stress-energy-momentum-tensor] won't work due to character limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I dare anyone to claim with a straight face that they would *actually* say &quot;stress-energy-momentum tensor&quot; in conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose that **one** of [tag:stress-energy-tensor] or [tag:energy-momentum-tensor] be taken to be &quot;standard,&quot; with the other made a synonym. My understanding is that either tag can then be applied, with the synonym silently being replaced, no harm done, no retagging effort necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than proposing a synonym on my own, only to have no one look at that page anyway,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I figure this proposal should get some community consensus as to which way the replacement should go. I personally grew up learning that &quot;stress-energy&quot; was a tensor and &quot;energy-momentum&quot; was a 4-vector, but perhaps I'm in the minority, or perhaps there's good reason to differentiate as much as possible the stress-energy tensor of relativity from the stress tensor of mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote below as you see appropriate, or add your own original thoughts in another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yes, I am fully aware that string of symbols refers to an unspecified *component* of a tensor, and not an actual tensor. Mathematically precise people, please don't hurt me. Everyone else, I still reserve the right to admonish you for conflating these two things :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; There are [plenty of other suggestions there][3] - interested users should vote on them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9961168#9961168&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4446&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="a972aca5-45c6-4012-a57d-fcee393f0520" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="_Why have moderators removed my comments?_ The basic rule of StackExchange is that comments can be removed once you give the message to the poster. If you don't want your ideas to be removed post an answer or say it in chat. I'm not a moderator, but I guess that was the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the answer is awful nonsense, every answer is allowed (in this case I think is a good answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in any General Relativity book, so no need to give references. If you think otherwise, you should back it up with solid references: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site (and I think the question should have been closed under this policy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your comment, come on, don't compare goverment censorship to comment removal. And note that the comments weren't removed by the Goverment (they have better things to do). StackExchange is a private company, so this would be more like when someone is saying something you don't like in your house, you have the right to tell him to stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final remark, mods don't apply the removing policy too strictly when they should be supposed to remove +1 comments and that stuff. But since it doesn't cause mayor troubles, I think it's ok.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="ec68c1a2-4b5f-4298-99ca-dfdd2a5e3dbe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll pour the comment I made below [my answer to your other question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5991/16660) into an answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think despite the effort you've shown in the question at hand, the two main reasons for closing it were probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. that you don't seem to have studied any classical mechanics and should probably do that first instead of asking here (for your own benefit). In a way, that's also what we mean by &quot;effort&quot;. You should realize that to solve classical mechanics problems, one obviously needs to study a bit of classical mechanics first. It doesn't appear to me that you have done so. That's fine, but then you should understand that you might not (yet!!) have all the skills and insights needed. I don't know what books to recommend because I disliked the one book that I ever bought on classical physics but perhaps others can suggest a few.&#xD;&#xA; 2. that the question doesn't really ask about a physical concept. You state you want the concept you're missing, but then I'm afraid the answer is simply &quot;classical mechanics&quot;. Not that you would need the entire subject to solve those questions, but if you had studied *some* classical mechanics you would immediately know what type of question you were dealing with and how to go about solving it. I mean, I'm not saying this to discourage you, because we all started out not knowing it, but I really suggest getting a good book or other resource on classical mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do feel this question is better than your other one that got closed recently in that it shows your effort. It's just that your effort displays a lack of knowledge about classical mechanics or even just particle trajectories, which would mean that an answer would be either a full course on this subject (which no-one will and should do, there are plenty of books and other resources) or very specific, only getting you to the solution of this particular question (which would mean you're likely to return soon with a similar question because you haven't understood the actual physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4464" RevisionGUID="b12042d9-6381-48a7-b846-4acd73a09f23" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the new question you would ask is similar enough to the old question that the same answer (verbatim) would apply to it, it would probably be a duplicate. So I would say no, don't make a new question for the express purpose of reposting your answer. The information in your answer already exists on the site, there's no reason to invent an excuse to put up another copy of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone else happens to post a new question to which your old answer would apply, you're technically within your rights to copy it and post it again. But I would suggest not actually doing that. Instead, post a new answer that refers to it - you could start out saying &quot;This is covered by [this other answer that I wrote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4464/124),&quot; and then go on to describe the relevant parts of your earlier answer. (As always, make sure a person doesn't _have_ to click the link just to get the point of your answer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="26715011-cbce-4d8d-bda8-3999f601365b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are many questions here that ask about how GR comes out of string theory. For example, [this][1], [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7].  And almost all of the comments on those posts are &quot;Related: ...&quot;, &quot;Possible Duplicate: ...&quot;, &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; (of course if you pick any Question A and Question B out of the 7 questions, then Post A would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: B&quot; and B would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: A&quot;, or &quot;Related: ...&quot; or &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; or &quot;You cheater! Didn't you check this question: ...&quot; or whatever.)  . Maybe this question should be tagged as [tag:faq]? . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***UPDATE:***      Full list here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4653/faq-questions-on-the-main-site/4654#4654" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="52c8005b-e778-4069-af4c-756c04c4996d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've read the other answers here, and the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two authors ([Floris] &amp; [Alemi]) of the (excellent) highly voted answers to the original Coin Question have replied here, and I think that they have useful insights. It's interesting that their answers on this meta question are the lowest rated at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Horses for courses&#xD;&#xA;My suspicion is that one person's good question is not another's good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some, a nicely clear unambiguous question is a good one. Ideally one showing the asker's research and a statement of why they couldn't proceed, or their uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a professional software engineer, primarily using Stack Overflow rather than Phy.S.E., these are certainly the kinds of questions that I like to answer and hope to ask. Stack Overflow's [How do I ask a good question?](http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask) covers this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular users are likely to prefer this kind of question. Those working in the field, and the enthusiasts with an interest in Physics that hang about here and get in the way, like me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for others, a simple interesting question with excellent answers that teaches them something, is a good question. Answers that encourage them to feel science is something that they can do, participate in, use, and understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Floris's answer][Floris] mentions a link on Reddit, and I would think this is the kind of question that would appeal to someone happening on the site from a link and having a kind of &quot;popular science&quot; interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that a well written question, in a case like this, might not be as successful as the quick carelessly written one. As a populist pedagogic tool, it might be less likely to pull the masses in, because an outsider, reading a well written question, won't feel that is something that they, personally, would ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Is it a problem?&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think that the first kind of question is the better kind, but I think the second kind has its place and use, as it helps provide a fascination with science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may feel differently if they would rather keep Phy.S.E. as a fairly highbrow tool for learning and answering professional queries – I'm not judging that as a bad thing: having relatively uninformed people about can be annoying, particularly if they reduce the signal to noise ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something to worry about? There I'm not sure. Voting is useful because it provide a mechanism to resolve disputes like this where people have different needs and desires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the experienced physicist and teachers here might have a good sense of when a &quot;dumb&quot; question can be a good tool, and so, in a way, becomes a good question. You probably also need a sense of whether it will have popular appeal, which is hard to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;In summary, I would say that if you want Phy.S.E to be a place that reaches out to the popular science crowd and gives them an insight to what it is to experiment  and use science, then support what [Alemi] and [Floris] say. Edit questions to improve grammar, spelling and general readability. Go easy on questions that haven't put in the ground work but sound interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Alemi]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5942/45649&#xD;&#xA; [Floris]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5950/45649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="bf7233f6-3bca-4880-9325-91355171b8fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An alternative wording I've found useful for certain HW's so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As per our [recommendation on asking homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715), &quot;It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm noting this in case people think it should be one of our three. Its benefit is that this particular catch in the HW policy is somewhat buried, and may be missed by a cursory glance through the meta page. Note though that it is only for a *strict subset* of closeable homework - those questions that *do* have work put in, but ultimately are just asking for verification of the symbol manipulation. As such, it is not general enough to work in all HW cases, and so may be too specific to warrant taking up one of three slots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, any and all are invited to copy/paste this and use/modify it as they see fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="014a17b2-fa7d-4826-9d8c-34a48d5443eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll pour the comment I made below [my answer to your other question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5991/16660) into an answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think despite the effort you've shown in the question at hand, the two main reasons for closing it were probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. that you don't seem to have studied any classical mechanics and should probably do that first instead of asking here (for your own benefit). In a way, that's also what we mean by &quot;effort&quot;. You should realize that to solve classical mechanics problems, one obviously needs to study a bit of classical mechanics first. It doesn't appear to me that you have done so. That's fine, but then you should understand that you might not (yet!!) have all the skills and insights needed. I don't know what books to recommend because I disliked the one book that I ever bought on classical physics but perhaps others can suggest a few.&#xD;&#xA; 2. that the question doesn't really ask about a physical concept. You state you want the concept you're missing, but then I'm afraid the answer is simply &quot;classical mechanics&quot;. Not that you would need the entire subject to solve those questions, but if you had studied *some* classical mechanics you would immediately know what type of question you were dealing with and how to go about solving it. I mean, I'm not saying this to discourage you, because we all started out not knowing it, but I really suggest getting a good book or other resource on classical mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do feel this question is better than your other one that got closed recently in that it shows your effort. It's just that your effort displays a lack of knowledge about classical mechanics or even just particle trajectories, which would mean that an answer would be either a full course on this subject (which no-one will and should do, there are plenty of books and other resources) or very specific, only getting you to the solution of this particular question (which would mean you're likely to return soon with a similar question because you haven't understood the actual physics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="02daa7dc-a7d4-4156-a319-20dd754e77f0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;On Hold&quot; is not automatic. Users such as myself with over 3000 reputation review new questions and determine if they fall within the spirit of the site, if they are understandable, if they have been asked before, and if we think they are answerable. If a question fails any one of those tests, a user will vote to put a question on hold. If at least 4 other users agree, then the question is put on hold. You can call this system superficial and unsatisfactory, but it is the system we choose to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about homework like the ones you linked to are not within the spirit of the site. We recognize that the number of members and visitors to the site would dramatically increase if we were to answer all homework questions, but that is not what we are here for. There are many posts in the physics meta that discuss our policy and the reasoning behind it concerning homework-like questions. So I will not go into it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, thank you for your effort to improve the site. Your intent is noted and appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having also read your updated post, I want to respond in order of how you said it; so please forgive me if I repeat myself or if it seems disorderly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact we can and do have it both ways. We encourage homework-like questions that ask about the physics concepts pertinent to the question. We discourage questions that ask us to solve someone's problem for them. What we like and don't like is, of course, entirely up to us (meaning a majority of our trusted users) to decide. You can see our decisions at [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) meta post. The appearance of non-consistence may (and I stress the &quot;may&quot; since I cannot be sure about anyone's understanding but my own) be due to a difference between how you understand what we accept and what/why our standards for question are and how we understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I do recognize that this is a sincere attempt to fix a problem that you feel we may be overlooking. It is a criticism, but a constructive criticism. As I stated before, we do appreciate the effort you put into this. The downvotes are not a dislike of your post as in the main site, they represent the opinions of our users; by downvoting, they are disagreeing with your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework-like questions is continually an issue we discuss. We recognize that there are some homework-like questions that are very well posed and have answers that would be valuable to a wide range of readers. What you must recognize is that we are trying to allow homework questions that teach the physics of it, we do not want this site to be one where little Jimmy can come to have a professional physicist solve question 2.18 from his grade 10 physics textbook for him. Similarly, we want our answers to be useful to more than just the asker. I won't deny that occasionally a question is closed that shouldn't be, but no community is perfect and we strive to reopen questions that we feel shouldn't be closed. However, we had to make guidelines that could cover most of the potential types of homework-like questions. These guidelines **may** occasionally make a useful question be put on-hold, but overall they do more good than harm and we are still always re-evaluating them to ensure that we allow the maximum number of HW questions while still maintaining as best we can the ideal of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving along, you seem to misunderstand the concept of &quot;On-Hold&quot;. A question is not put on hold indefinitely. After a few days, the [On Hold] status turns to [Closed]. After more time, closed question are often deleted. The reason we put questions [On Hold] initially is because the word &quot;Closed&quot; seem kind of onerous and permanent. The fact is, the [On Hold] status is meant to encourage the asker to improve the question. Any time a closed question is edited, it becomes visible to all 3k+ rep users and we vote whether or not to reopen the question. On-Hold is a temporary status that means a question should be edited to fit the site's requirements. Once we feel it is better, we often do vote to reopen a question. Alternatively, if you feel a closed question should not be closed, you can flag it for reopening. Five high-rep users must agree on reopening just as five must agree on closing. So you see, we do not leave questions on-hold forever. Just until we think they are sufficiently improved. If they aren't, the question is closed and/or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close with this:&#xD;&#xA;This site is not intended for just elite scholars. It is also not intended to widen the audience and raise a new generation of scholars. It is also not a forum as the word is commonly used nowadays. This is a Q&amp;A site. We strive to answer questions about physics; mainstream physics. The idea is that someone can come to the site wondering about anything from the physics behind an everyday phenomenon or about the principles needed to work through a high-level research problem and we *volunteer* to strive to answer their questions and answer in a way that everyone else reading it might learn something new or interesting from it. There are a myriad of HW questions that fall under this description; but Jimmy asking how to solve problem 2.18 does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not looked at Tesla's question because it isn't relevant here. If you want to start a new meta post discussing how you think Tesla's question falls within the scope of the site, that's one thing; it's possible it was unfairly closed, I don't know. But you are finding so much opposition here because we have worked hard on our homework policy and we feel there is no simple way of making it better while still maintaining the ideal of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think you are a nuisance. However, I will admit that at least I personally feel you have perhaps been too quick to form an opinion on our overall policy when it seems you don't have a full understanding of it. But thank you regardless for the effort to improve the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="017b06fc-11f3-4b47-9af5-f312ab12129e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues. **The basic issue with level filtering is that people look at the tag as &quot;Hey, that's the tag with all the bad questions&quot;.** (Not &quot;that's the topic I don't like&quot;, the focus remains on the _tag_). And then it gets applied more broadly because everyone has their opinion of what sort of questions they don't like. This is already currently happening, as mentioned before.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag(popular-science) can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Note that having a tag for it is usually taken as  a sign that we welcome all such questions. While we don't disallow such posts, we don't want to actively encourage them either. &#xD;&#xA; - Does [tag:popular-science] really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. There are approx [3 questions per month][3] in the tag (ignore the last data point, recently there has been tons of retagging in that tag, not all of it fitting the description). I don't see a pressing need to filter these out. There just aren't that many. Applying the tag more broadly to catch more popsci questions-- well, then you get a very broad tag, which is probably more ambiguous. And in this case favourite tags would serve you better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/127366/popular-science-questions-per-month-in-layman-tags#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlLvl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="5f26a50a-62ba-4915-a9ad-c354c9bb862f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="On Wiki Pedia, for example, when you make an edit (to the source) , there is a box called &quot;Common edit summaries.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Edit Summaries][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also minor edit summaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Minor Edit Summaries][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that many common edits can be given quick summaries, to save time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that important at Wiki (since edit summaries aren't compulsoury), but I guess it would be ***very useful here at Physics.SE***.  Not just for edits, but for comments, also. For example, I find that I'm often repeating the same comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Homework Policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Please show more effort while asking homework questions. Don't expect anyone to do your work for you.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Non-mainstream questions are not allowed here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Does your &quot;theory&quot; have any mathematics? What does it predict? What can I calculate with it? Please don't promote your own non-mainstream ideas here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice question!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;+1 Nice answer!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Huh? This is very unclear?! What are you even talking about?&quot; . &#xD;&#xA;  / . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means coming to meta ($ \geq $ 1 min waiting time), searching for [faq] ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time), then clicking ($ \geq 30 $ seconds waiting time),  Linking to it and parsing the link and adding the text ($ \geq 1 $ minute typing time), which amounts to 4 minutes. Well, that's not that long, but this same process is repeated for multiple, multiple posts. So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 1.*** Could there be a feature &quot;Common coments&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the edits. Till recently,  I would just write something like, because its quick: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SNJDSJDWIEE21!!!!S';DSDJSJDJUQJIDUFDNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111........    &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something like that. Recently, for some reason, I got bored of typing nonsense, so I just type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added homework tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added popular-science tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Corrected LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Don't use big-list tag.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It seems as if the homework tag applies even if it isn't real homework.&quot; (Yup, that's copied from Qmechanic.)     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tags.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant reference-request tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string-theory tag. This is a kinematics question.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant string theory tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant research-level tag.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed irrelevant Mathematical Physics tag.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Added LaTeX.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Removed unnecessary Controversial statements.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fixed grammar.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And such things. It is quite monotonous to repeatedly write this, so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Question 2:*** Could the same feature as requested in Q1 be applied to Edit Summaries too? (It would be even better if the system would detect the tags which have been changed, like if I add a pop-sci tag, for e.g., then it has in the common edit summaries, &quot;Added Popular-Science tag.&quot;, but perhaps that's just too much.)    .&#xD;&#xA; . &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Edit:* This is useful only to &lt; 2k reputation users.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o35Es.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ox2Ti.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="39c3ac27-4a0f-4cc9-9fef-90521b579889" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;On Hold&quot; is not automatic. Users such as myself with over 3000 reputation review new questions and determine if they fall within the spirit of the site, if they are understandable, if they have been asked before, and if we think they are answerable. If a question fails any one of those tests, a user will vote to put a question on hold. If at least 4 other users agree, then the question is put on hold. You can call this system superficial and unsatisfactory, but it is the system we choose to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about homework like the ones you linked to are not within the spirit of the site. We recognize that the number of members and visitors to the site would dramatically increase if we were to answer all homework questions, but that is not what we are here for. There are many posts in the physics meta that discuss our policy and the reasoning behind it concerning homework-like questions. So I will not go into it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all this, thank you for your effort to improve the site. Your intent is noted and appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having also read your updated post, I want to respond in order of how you said it; so please forgive me if I repeat myself or if it seems disorderly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact we can and do have it both ways. We encourage homework-like questions that ask about the physics concepts pertinent to the question. We discourage questions that ask us to solve someone's problem for them. What we like and don't like is, of course, entirely up to us (meaning a majority of our trusted users) to decide. You can see our decisions at [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5958/23473) meta post. The appearance of non-consistence may (and I stress the &quot;may&quot; since I cannot be sure about anyone's understanding but my own) be due to a difference between how you understand what we accept and what/why our standards for question are and how we understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I do recognize that this is a sincere attempt to fix a problem that you feel we may be overlooking. It is a criticism, but a constructive criticism. As I stated before, we do appreciate the effort you put into this. The downvotes are not a dislike of your post as in the main site, they represent the opinions of our users; by downvoting, they are disagreeing with your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework-like questions is continually an issue we discuss. We recognize that there are some homework-like questions that are very well posed and have answers that would be valuable to a wide range of readers. What you must recognize is that we are trying to allow homework questions that teach the physics of it, we do not want this site to be one where little Jimmy can come to have a professional physicist solve question 2.18 from his grade 10 physics textbook for him. Similarly, we want our answers to be useful to more than just the asker. I won't deny that occasionally a question is closed that shouldn't be, but no community is perfect and we strive to reopen questions that we feel shouldn't be closed. However, we had to make guidelines that could cover most of the potential types of homework-like questions. These guidelines **may** occasionally make a useful question be put on-hold, but overall they do more good than harm and we are still always re-evaluating them to ensure that we allow the maximum number of HW questions while still maintaining as best we can the ideal of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving along, you seem to misunderstand the concept of &quot;On-Hold&quot;. A question is not put on hold indefinitely. After a few days, the [On Hold] status turns to [Closed]. After more time, closed question are often deleted. The reason we put questions [On Hold] initially is because the word &quot;Closed&quot; seem kind of onerous and permanent. The fact is, the [On Hold] status is meant to encourage the asker to improve the question. Any time a closed question is edited, it becomes visible to all 3k+ rep users and we vote whether or not to reopen the question. On-Hold is a temporary status that means a question should be edited to fit the site's requirements. Once we feel it is better, we often do vote to reopen a question. Alternatively, if you feel a closed question should not be closed, you can flag it for reopening. Five high-rep users must agree on reopening just as five must agree on closing. So you see, we do not leave questions on-hold forever. Just until we think they are sufficiently improved. If they aren't, the question is closed and/or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close with this:&#xD;&#xA;This site is not intended for just elite scholars. It is also not intended to widen the audience and raise a new generation of scholars. It is also not a forum as the word is commonly used nowadays. This is a Q&amp;A site. We strive to answer questions about physics; mainstream physics. The idea is that someone can come to the site wondering about anything from the physics behind an everyday phenomenon or about the principles needed to work through a high-level research problem and we *volunteer* to strive to answer their questions and answer in a way that everyone else reading it might learn something new or interesting from it. There are a myriad of HW questions that fall under this description; but Jimmy asking how to solve problem 2.18 does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not looked at Tesla's question because it isn't relevant here. If you want to start a new meta post discussing how you think Tesla's question falls within the scope of the site, that's one thing; it's possible it was unfairly closed, I don't know. But you are finding so much opposition here because we have worked hard on our homework policy and we feel there is no simple way of making it better while still maintaining the ideal of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think you are a nuisance. However, I will admit that at least I personally feel you have perhaps been too quick to form an opinion on our overall policy when it seems you don't have a full understanding of it. But thank you regardless for the effort to improve the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="eae341ae-15b5-4954-bf18-61ffdd0029c9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a matter of copyright/plagiarism, then yes, whenever material is quoted verbatim from a textbook, or from anywhere really, the source should be identified. I think that is mentioned in our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), but if not, it should be added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not expect this to be a &quot;prosecutable&quot; violation of copyright law, since quoting part or all of a homework problem for the purpose of getting help solving it probably falls under the fair use exception. (But I'm not a lawyer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="1c84a71b-b5cf-4c2a-8c8f-d9b88e4539b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What mechanism determines which meta posts or blog articles are featured in the Community Bulltin on the main page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning blog articles, I would guess that the newest ones are featured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the mechanisms to determine which meta question is featured, is completely unclear to me. Is it automatically decided by criteria that describe the activity and popularity of the meta question for example, such as votes, views, date of posting, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it the moderators of our site who determine &quot;by hand&quot; which meta question is featured in the community bulltin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering about this because currently, the meta post dedicated to [reevaluate the book policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2751) is featured in the Community Bulltin, whereas the meta post requesting to [burnicate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4699/2751) the popular-science tag does not appear in the Community Bulltin on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date of posting of both of these two quite recent meta questions differes only by a few hours, and both of them are very important for the community and concern important political issues of Physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think all meta question looking for community input to find consensus about important site political issues should be featured in the Community Bulltin, such that the people who are mostly active on the main page and dont click meta too often, have a better chance to take note of them too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the featuring of meta questions in the Community Bulltin can be done &quot;by hand&quot; by an appropriate site moderator action, can the burnicate request of the popular science tag be featured there too? I request featuring this meta question too there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The burnicate request is very important for everybody too and has a huge impact on how people will be able to use the site in the future, and it has the potential to annihilate the by the community appreciated level proposel. It is much more important and has a higher impact on the community than for example the currently featured regulating user names or the miner edit post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="a6d30e51-1579-4185-bd9a-a29fde445174" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowledge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modeling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current [tag:homework] tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to collectively create interesting content introducing a wide array of physics topics.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE, but much more pedagogical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="7f9a5770-e9be-43cb-a35d-de27fb0db1e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags-about-specific-variables-etc has  been made more specific to   tags that talk about essentially every variable of [field name].  Here are the burninateable tags about veeeery specific areas, probably not even physics .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   [tag:laws-of-physics]   [tag:approximations] [tag:complex-number]     [tag:affine-lie-algebra]   [tag:laboratory-safety]                                                                       &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="97c7235d-e5b8-4fb6-9ad8-d84e51a8ecf7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are many questions here that ask about how GR comes out of string theory. For example, [this][1], [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7].  And almost all of the comments on those posts are &quot;Related: ...&quot;, &quot;Possible Duplicate: ...&quot;, &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; (of course if you pick any Question A and Question B out of the 7 questions, then Post A would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: B&quot; and B would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: A&quot;, or &quot;Related: ...&quot; or &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; or &quot;You cheater! Didn't you check this question: ...&quot; or whatever.)  . Maybe this question should be tagged as [tag:faq]? . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***UPDATE:***      Full list here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4653/faq-questions-on-the-main-site/4654#4654" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="a7e00712-c16b-43fe-87bd-3d2ec40d2bda" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowledge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modeling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current [tag:homework] tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to collectively create interesting content introducing a wide array of physics topics.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE, but much more pedagogical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="d1e036d3-1337-401c-aaf8-95e72882d6c8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing, etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my last update, as there seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, I really don't see why **you dislike that question** so much.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  if it is the case that you believe that the members here that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively answer questions do it primarily for reputation points,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perhaps it is time **to check your premises**.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Well, the silly question **attracted a lot more people** to the website,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is also worth something. Also, for&lt;2k rep you also get awarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for editting questions. **I do not really see** the problem you are trying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These ,and many others, are unwarranted conclusions you are jumping to. I think I expressed my view in a clear way: if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that downvotes in the Meta just indicate disagreement with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views, not that it's a stupid question. I think your question is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly reasonable one, and my downvote indicates only **that I don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree** with your view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a post has a tag &quot;discussion&quot; you should argument your dissent, the up/down vote is&#xD;&#xA;a lazy solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="33f92201-dab8-40ad-accf-8315716d0118" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4295/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-popular-science-tag, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449/can-we-encourage-the-research-level-meta-tag-what-about-a-popular-tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently have a tag called [tag:popular-science]. It's basically for questions which demand a layman explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [as mentioned here][1] it has problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's fundamentally [a meta tag][2]&#xD;&#xA; - It's ambiguous. I've been seeing many edits in the queue that retag to the popsci tag, and I've seen many other older questions tagged with it &amp;mdash; it seems that everyone has a different interpretation of it. This is quite harmful because it degenerates into being applied much more broadly than intended and there's confusion all around. The tag wiki is already pretty unambiguous, however it still seems like the tag is being interpeted differently. A tag called [tag:laymans-terms] could work but it would probably have similar issues. **The basic issue with level filtering is that people look at the tag as &quot;Hey, that's the tag with all the bad questions&quot;.** (Not &quot;that's the topic I don't like&quot;, the focus remains on the _tag_). And then it gets applied more broadly because everyone has their opinion of what sort of questions they don't like. This is already currently happening, as mentioned before.&#xD;&#xA; - Level filtering has a rather harmful effect in that it opens the tag to abuse. We already have [tag:homework] which has this problem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and I'm not keen on having another. Basically, this tag(popular-science) can be used to get a question &quot;ignored&quot; by many users here; it's a softer form of deletion in a sense. Sure, people will still notice it, but there's a reasonable chance that the people who would have otherwise answered it won't. Couple this with the ambiguity issue and it's much worse -- it's hard to even detect such abuse because of the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA; - Note that having a tag for it is usually taken as  a sign that we welcome all such questions. While we don't disallow such posts, we don't want to actively encourage them either. &#xD;&#xA; - Does [tag:popular-science] really help in the first place? Questions asking for a layman explanation usually mention it in the title. They're easy to ignore, there aren't many of them. There _are_ a lot of [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life] questions coming in though, and ignoring these may clean up your main page much more significantly than ignoring popsci if you don't enjoy layman questions. There are approx [3 questions per month][3] in the tag (ignore the last data point, recently there has been tons of retagging in that tag, not all of it fitting the description). I don't see a pressing need to filter these out. There just aren't that many. Applying the tag more broadly to catch more popsci questions-- well, then you get a very broad tag, which is probably more ambiguous. And in this case favourite tags would serve you better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we get it burninated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Not entirely, though. Usually, on-topic [tag:homework] questions don't need the tag in the first place.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4451/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/127366/popular-science-questions-per-month-in-layman-tags#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlLvl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="58fef7cf-4aad-4477-aa12-8ece9636b37f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I flag a duplicate it's usually because I've found an older question with substantial topical overlap and an answer that covers the new question completely. Sometimes I hesitate because the new question is actually asking the same thing as the old question, but much more clearly. So I'm confronted with a &quot;bad&quot; (poorly worded/formatted/developed) question with &quot;good&quot; answers and a &quot;good&quot; question with potentially &quot;bad&quot; answers, no answers or also some &quot;good&quot; answers. What's the best practice here? Is it the responsibility of the moderators handling the flag to attempt to merge (I could then suggest it when I flag)? If the questions are similar enough, should I suggest an edit completely replacing the &quot;bad&quot; question with the &quot;good&quot; one? This robs the author of the &quot;good&quot; question of any rep from votes and could wreak havoc on any comment discussion. Anyone have some insight on saving these &quot;good&quot; duplicates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is some related discussion: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/648/liberal-definition-of-duplicate-questions-and-the-health-of-physics-stack-exchan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="258a44a1-3405-48db-90c3-cc4a21a70389" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's long overdue that I make this post revisiting our policy on &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions. These are questions, often (but not necessarily) homework-like, that present a _complete_ mathematical or logical derivation and ask whether it's correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) has rendered check-my-work questions off topic. However, we're currently in the (very long) process of revisiting that policy. According to the [poll on homework close reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) ([answer 1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/124), [answer 2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5961/124)), the community seems to be generally in favor of keeping such questions off topic, although not _obviously_ so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was brought up in a [chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/check-my-work-chat) a while ago that perhaps people would support making only certain kinds of check-my-work questions on topic. When deciding whether a given check-my-work question is on topic, we might take into account factors such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the level of the question (basic or advanced)&#xD;&#xA;- how much prior research the asker has demonstrated (have they tried asking colleagues?)&#xD;&#xA;- whether they have a reason to believe they have made a mistake at all&#xD;&#xA;- whether they have an idea of what the mistake might be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and others to be suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point of this question is to resolve the issue for whenever our homework policy gets revamped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should any kinds of check-my-work questions be on topic?  &#xD;&#xA;If so, how do we distinguish the on-topic ones from the off-topic ones?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="64a71f43-08f0-4ab5-84d1-3c99eb8ef1a2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why has [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/) been deleted? What is the reason for this censorship? Is it merely so that future visitors don't find out what has happened? Or was it accidental? Please undelete it.      &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="3741f4b4-a3ee-4c75-9fc0-103b28bba519" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What mechanism determines which meta posts or blog articles are featured in the Community Bulltin on the main page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning blog articles, I would guess that the newest ones are featured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the mechanisms to determine which meta question is featured, is completely unclear to me. Is it automatically decided by criteria that describe the activity and popularity of the meta question for example, such as votes, views, date of posting, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it the moderators of our site who determine &quot;by hand&quot; which meta question is featured in the community bulltin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering about this because currently, the meta post dedicated to [reevaluate the book policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2751) is featured in the Community Bulltin, whereas the meta post requesting to [burnicate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4699/2751) the popular-science tag does not appear in the Community Bulltin on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date of posting of both of these two quite recent meta questions differes only by a few hours, and both of them are very important for the community and concern important political issues of Physics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think all meta question looking for community input to find consensus about important site political issues should be featured in the Community Bulltin, such that the people who are mostly active on the main page and dont click meta too often, have a better chance to take note of them too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the featuring of meta questions in the Community Bulltin can be done &quot;by hand&quot; by an appropriate site moderator action, can the burnicate request of the popular science tag be featured there too? I request featuring this meta question too there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The burnicate request is very important for everybody too and has a huge impact on how people will be able to use the site in the future, and it has the potential to annihilate the by the community appreciated level proposel. It is much more important and has a higher impact on the community than for example the currently featured regulating user names or the miner edit post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="3603a6ea-12ce-43d2-a90e-e44fdd6ebf57" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I happened to read this question and its interesting answers:&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen?answertab=oldest#tab-top)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many names to explain that phenomenon : &quot;bandwagon effect&quot;, &quot;nothing succeds like success&quot; etc , but I think for this :&#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we might have to resort to **mass hysteria**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious that when one item stays at the top of a list for some time it will stay there forever and grow up beyond control. It is obvious that out of 129 000 viewers 344 will feel compelled to take an active role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you considered a way to prevent that this uncontrollable human behaviour affects the reputation of a member, changing the computing formula from linear to logarithmic or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose everyone will agree that it is utterly unfair that a member who works hard for months asking, anwering, editing, etc. hundreds of posts reaches say, 500 pts. of rep, while another one, just asking a rather silly but viral question, gets 3 times as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update wrt Pisanty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note. When questions and answers go viral, **they get a lot of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap is an illusion (200 is a **huge figure**), what you say is simply not true, at least wrt to the question I mentioned. You can easily check [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cap has **never** been applied, was ineffective, even during the 'peak', in the first 2 days all votes were counted, the question has afterwards been gaining rep **ever since Feb 2011** and (3 and half years later!!!) on Jul 17 last, has reaped a fat score of 25 pts.&#xD;&#xA;I was shocked to see that in so many years the user has posted no answer and only that single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you may support the current policy or the policy you like. But please acknowledge that if the cap has been useless in this limit case, it is completely useless and the relation is linear, a hard fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you think it is rational or fair, I respect your ideas. It is mainly a problem of **semantics**: if you had called (like other sites) LIKES it would be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they called it REPUTATION, when a reader sees an answer signed by a 2000-Rep member, he has the right to know that the member is a great scholar that has given loads of intelligent/competent answers etc., and not to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limiting the rep cap further would hurt the prolific users who post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many small things every day that get upvoted perhaps twice or thrice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let get this straight: I have never criticized the cap, I am not concerned. To make my proposal clear and banal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each Question/ Answer-to-the-question (x 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-10 votes  =&gt; 5 pt. every vote, &#xD;&#xA;11-100 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 5 votes, &#xD;&#xA;101-1000 votes =&gt; 1 pt. every 100 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By these criteria the quoted question  would get a respectable score of **70 pts.**, and its most voted answer **140**. But this is just a silly example.&#xD;&#xA;I hope you do not mind this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my last update, as there seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, I really don't see why **you dislike that question** so much.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  if it is the case that you believe that the members here that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively answer questions do it primarily for reputation points,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perhaps it is time **to check your premises**.&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Well, the silly question **attracted a lot more people** to the website,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is also worth something. Also, for&lt;2k rep you also get awarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for editting questions. **I do not really see** the problem you are trying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These ,and many others, are unwarranted conclusions you are jumping to. I think I expressed my view in a clear way: if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that downvotes in the Meta just indicate disagreement with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views, not that it's a stupid question. I think your question is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly reasonable one, and my downvote indicates only **that I don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree** with your view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a post has a tag &quot;discussion&quot; you should argument your dissent, the up/down vote is&#xD;&#xA;a lazy solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="9fb740fc-55b3-41f2-95d8-49101fa4093d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags-about-specific-variables-etc has  been made more specific to   tags that talk about essentially every variable of [field name].  Here are the burninateable tags about veeeery specific areas, probably not even physics .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   [tag:laws-of-physics]   [tag:approximations] [tag:complex-number]     [tag:affine-lie-algebra]   [tag:laboratory-safety]                                                                       &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="0ff37448-ce83-4382-81b5-2e4e96581da4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's long overdue that I make this post revisiting our policy on &quot;check-my-work&quot; questions. These are questions, often (but not necessarily) homework-like, that present a _complete_ mathematical or logical derivation and ask whether it's correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) has rendered check-my-work questions off topic. However, we're currently in the (very long) process of revisiting that policy. According to the [poll on homework close reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework) ([answer 1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/124), [answer 2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5961/124)), the community seems to be generally in favor of keeping such questions off topic, although not _obviously_ so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was brought up in a [chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/check-my-work-chat) a while ago that perhaps people would support making only certain kinds of check-my-work questions on topic. When deciding whether a given check-my-work question is on topic, we might take into account factors such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the level of the question (basic or advanced)&#xD;&#xA;- how much prior research the asker has demonstrated (have they tried asking colleagues?)&#xD;&#xA;- whether they have a reason to believe they have made a mistake at all&#xD;&#xA;- whether they have an idea of what the mistake might be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and others to be suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point of this question is to resolve the issue for whenever our homework policy gets revamped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should any kinds of check-my-work questions be on topic?  &#xD;&#xA;If so, how do we distinguish the on-topic ones from the off-topic ones?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="7a064406-b9de-40c8-8801-2a31def66f11" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I stand by position `4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine` for [question (B)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it's a check-my-work question, though admittedly this is a subtle point. The OP has found a textbook problem and has presumably worked out the solution, but the question is not about solving the textbook problem. More specifically, the textbook problem is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Prove property P(A) for arbitrary objects A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (where A is, in that case the function F). The OP's question has little to do with the proof; instead, the OP asks whether the property even makes sense. The post is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; I found an object A1 such that the property P(A1) doesn't make sense. Is this known/expected? How do I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As it turns out, the handling of that singularity is not trivial, and needs the proper framework to work well. This means a level of mathematical sophistication that is not very usual in intro-to-QM books ([Galindo &amp; Pascual](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Quantum_mechanics_I.html?id=BKfvAAAAMAAJ) being the only exception I know of), or a set of heuristics which involve not caring about specific infinities and singularities. These heuristics are particular to physics and form the core of any good answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a similar vein, I don't think this question is a maths question. The heuristics are particular to physics and a mathematician would either (a) throw a fit at the nonchalant use of divergent integrals, or (b) have a particularly hard time phrasing their explanation in terms that a physicist would find useful. The process in (b) is in fact that of turning mathematics into physics. Hence the question is physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As I stated before, calling a question &quot;that's just pure maths&quot; just because it has mathematical formulae in it is not productive, not least because that encompasses all of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find it particularly unclear, but it's not a model of clarity either. It was clear enough that it found an answer within 24 hours, so I think it definitely deserved the benefit of the doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Furthermore, I claim that *as regards questions that are unclear*, we as a community do tend to give the benefit of the doubt to users, and particularly newcomers. I think the review queues do a good job of putting unclear questions on the plate of the people best suited to work with the OPs to clarify them and make them answerable, when that is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I would of course be willing to consider data beyond my personal experience. This, however, is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put things in contrast, [question (A)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi) is very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It too starts with a textbook(-style) problem, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Given objects B, and C, what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and the OPs question is exclusively &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This is why question (A) is a check-my-work problem. I don't find it that terrible, because of the level of sophistication of the problem and the given solution, but I still agree that (i) it is closable under [the current policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and (ii) it should be closed for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the question of whether question (A) is too close to pure math for this site, I think it is close to the fence that it's on-topic both here and at maths.SE, but its content is still relevant enough to undergraduate-level analytical mechanics that it's on topic here (as far as the physics/maths divide goes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The main confusion in [DanielSank's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) is that this is even an issue. I don't think anyone, on the whole discussion, ever claimed that this question was off-topic for being too mathsy. (Of course, I'll be glad to set straight on this if someone has done so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, I don't think the questions under consideration show any inconsistency in our current closure practices. This doesn't mean that we *are* perfectly consistent, but I think perfect consistency is a little too much to ask of a system run by many individuals with varying opinions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there is probably more room in the system for more detailed comments on questions by people voting to close. This has also [come up recently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off) on a related topic. More detailed comments on why a question is getting closed helps the OP in improving their post (or understanding the scope of the site), and it improves the site in making it clear to future users why some content is on-topic and other content is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our review queue is [quiet enough](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review), and we don't have the sort of problem that [SO has](http://stackoverflow.com/review). We have a big enough pool of reviewers that we can spare the extra time for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sorting through the queue on busy times can be a bit of a dull job, and I would ask that some consideration be shown to reviewers, as it's hard to really grok the process until you see it in action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="dee87da9-8182-4d4a-80d6-ce6c19b34824" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing duplicate is certainly a problem, as a variation in the way&#xD;&#xA;the question is asked can suggest very different answers, and&#xD;&#xA;sometimes much better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are closed, the only alternative is to answer the old&#xD;&#xA;question, which I know from experience is mostly a waste of time&#xD;&#xA;because you start at the bottom of a list that is supposed to&#xD;&#xA;order for quality and not for date. I hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that duplicate policies are inconsistent, bordering&#xD;&#xA;arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here, I will just copy a part of [my answer to another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;about the quality of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding specifically the quality of questions**, what matters most&#xD;&#xA;is the sexyness-entertaining quality of the question, not actual&#xD;&#xA;content or preparatory work. I will take the example of two questions&#xD;&#xA;that are exactly on the same topic, but were not flagged as such:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66746/ and&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73654/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was mine, actually my fist post on physics.SE after doing no physics for more decades than I care to tell. It took me a long time to write that question as I was trying to understand first what issues could matter, what kind of data and question might be sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very lucky to be upvoted once, and to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was asked 2 month later. It is exactly the same issue, presented as a disaster movie. It was not detected as duplicate and attracted much attention and 20 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I try to ask questions as a scientist, or as a showman ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue, directly related, is the questions removed as duplicate. First, it is inconsistant (see above) and sometimes inaccurate. Answering old questions is a waste of time. I know as I did it more than my share. Thoses answers do not get votes or comments, and I personnally hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the practice of stopping duplicate question is just the best way to ensure that further input will not come, of that a different perspective will be avoided. **What would have happened if the second question above had been detected as duplicate, as it should have ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4858#4876" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="cb836cc8-2646-4978-8af4-a546043c9bf5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's the question that addresses this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To _summarize_ from the answer there, we need to verify that the questions are actually from a contest (which is done) and also that the rules of the contest forbid seeking outside help (I'm looking into this). Once that's done, one of us moderators will close the question, or non-moderators can also vote to close it if they're sufficiently convinced that the question violates the contest rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But really, read the answer at that other question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="59791747-f88d-48ee-9be0-786ca6d1c371" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned comments that are now [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18110760#18110760), is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will let slide a good bit more unpoliteness than you'll see here. It is certainly the case that their stance towards abuse is relatively hazy. The main thing that worries me about PO is well encapsulated by the question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, that answer is hardly conclusive, and it seems that the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do have a section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) on their FAQ, which I feel is hazy regarding abuse on the site, directing readers to a contact link. Mostly, they really shy away from providing any guidelines on what sort of behaviour is and is not acceptable on the site. Personally, I would be worried that certain types of very cutting *ad hominem* attacks - of the kind that has been observed and frowned upon on this site before - will be given a lot of free rein on PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, PO moderators have [stated informally](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se/6213?noredirect=1#comment20823_6213) that abuse will not be tolerated there, but I'm not sure how that squares with the comment above. At the very least, this is unclear and confusing as a PO user; personally, I would expect that some pretty bad stuff will inevitably slip through the cracks of that lack of clarity. I do not, however, advise people curious about PO to stay away from the site - instead, be aware of these points and make up your own mind whether you want to be part of that community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [previous one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites) (active until October 2014). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like PO to adopt an approach like [arXiv Analytics](http://arxitics.com/), which states on its front page, in crisp and clear language, that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We encourage frank, open, and constructive conversation, but frankness doesn't mean lack of civility or lack of respect for others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, though, that they're still reluctant to put any qualifiers behind 'frankness is allowed'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="b2f20e49-db47-4f48-829c-e23f743ad855" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I flag a duplicate it's usually because I've found an older question with substantial topical overlap and an answer that covers the new question completely. Sometimes I hesitate because the new question is actually asking the same thing as the old question, but much more clearly. So I'm confronted with a &quot;bad&quot; (poorly worded/formatted/developed) question with &quot;good&quot; answers and a &quot;good&quot; question with potentially &quot;bad&quot; answers, no answers or also some &quot;good&quot; answers. What's the best practice here? Is it the responsibility of the moderators handling the flag to attempt to merge (I could then suggest it when I flag)? If the questions are similar enough, should I suggest an edit completely replacing the &quot;bad&quot; question with the &quot;good&quot; one? This robs the author of the &quot;good&quot; question of any rep from votes and could wreak havoc on any comment discussion. Anyone have some insight on saving these &quot;good&quot; duplicates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is some related discussion: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/648/liberal-definition-of-duplicate-questions-and-the-health-of-physics-stack-exchan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="dff773a0-e097-4d3a-a6d3-e84ddb5a2701" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I stand by position `4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine` for [question (B)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it's a check-my-work question, though admittedly this is a subtle point. The OP has found a textbook problem and has presumably worked out the solution, but the question is not about solving the textbook problem. More specifically, the textbook problem is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Prove property P(A) for arbitrary objects A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (where A is, in that case the function F). The OP's question has little to do with the proof; instead, the OP asks whether the property even makes sense. The post is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; I found an object A1 such that the property P(A1) doesn't make sense. Is this known/expected? How do I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As it turns out, the handling of that singularity is not trivial, and needs the proper framework to work well. This means a level of mathematical sophistication that is not very usual in intro-to-QM books ([Galindo &amp; Pascual](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Quantum_mechanics_I.html?id=BKfvAAAAMAAJ) being the only exception I know of), or a set of heuristics which involve not caring about specific infinities and singularities. These heuristics are particular to physics and form the core of any good answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a similar vein, I don't think this question is a maths question. The heuristics are particular to physics and a mathematician would either (a) throw a fit at the nonchalant use of divergent integrals, or (b) have a particularly hard time phrasing their explanation in terms that a physicist would find useful. The process in (b) is in fact that of turning mathematics into physics. Hence the question is physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As I stated before, calling a question &quot;that's just pure maths&quot; just because it has mathematical formulae in it is not productive, not least because that encompasses all of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find it particularly unclear, but it's not a model of clarity either. It was clear enough that it found an answer within 24 hours, so I think it definitely deserved the benefit of the doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Furthermore, I claim that *as regards questions that are unclear*, we as a community do tend to give the benefit of the doubt to users, and particularly newcomers. I think the review queues do a good job of putting unclear questions on the plate of the people best suited to work with the OPs to clarify them and make them answerable, when that is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I would of course be willing to consider data beyond my personal experience. This, however, is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put things in contrast, [question (A)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi) is very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It too starts with a textbook(-style) problem, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Given objects B, and C, what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and the OPs question is exclusively &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This is why question (A) is a check-my-work problem. I don't find it that terrible, because of the level of sophistication of the problem and the given solution, but I still agree that (i) it is closable under [the current policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and (ii) it should be closed for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the question of whether question (A) is too close to pure math for this site, I think it is close to the fence that it's on-topic both here and at maths.SE, but its content is still relevant enough to undergraduate-level analytical mechanics that it's on topic here (as far as the physics/maths divide goes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The main confusion in [DanielSank's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) is that this is even an issue. I don't think anyone, on the whole discussion, ever claimed that this question was off-topic for being too mathsy. (Of course, I'll be glad to set straight on this if someone has done so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, I don't think the questions under consideration show any inconsistency in our current closure practices. This doesn't mean that we *are* perfectly consistent, but I think perfect consistency is a little too much to ask of a system run by many individuals with varying opinions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there is probably more room in the system for more detailed comments on questions by people voting to close. This has also [come up recently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off) on a related topic. More detailed comments on why a question is getting closed helps the OP in improving their post (or understanding the scope of the site), and it improves the site in making it clear to future users why some content is on-topic and other content is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our review queue is [quiet enough](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review), and we don't have the sort of problem that [SO has](http://stackoverflow.com/review). We have a big enough pool of reviewers that we can spare the extra time for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sorting through the queue on busy times can be a bit of a dull job, and I would ask that some consideration be shown to reviewers, as it's hard to really grok the process until you see it in action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ebeb9d53-d1a0-40c6-9d06-f0da0e18f949" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why has [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/) been deleted? What is the reason for this censorship? Is it merely so that future visitors don't find out what has happened? Or was it accidental? Please undelete it.      &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="c358eff7-81a6-42d3-8aea-8281fbda4c51" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dimension10 has given the [link][1] to where the policy is laid out clearly in David's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which points out that the dividing line is rather vague, and therefore could make most of the questions here homework if we relied on this definition, rather than our own personal view based upon common experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the whole point of the homework tag is to enable people to filter out the tedious **unoriginal** questions found in most text books. Therefore, I don't think any problem thought up by someone for themselves should be tagged homework, unless it's universally recognized as a standard text book problem designed for students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;update:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that the main purpose behind the homework tag is to prevent students cheating on their homework assignments, which should make things considerably clearer on when to tag a question as homework: **Does this question look as if it could be given to a student by a teacher as a graded exercise?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="e640a6f6-c581-42ff-b7a0-e6a6701345d6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll give you two answers, one to the question you actually asked and one to the question that I think you actually wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you asked: what counts as effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working through a homework problem is like exploring the branches of a tree, or walking through a maze. You start at the problem statement - the ground, or the entrance - and you try taking some step that you think will get you closer to the answer. Maybe it turns out not to work, in which case you back up and try another tactic. Or if it does work, then you look for another step that will get you even closer to the answer. As you proceed through the problem, you'll accumulate a bunch of &quot;dead ends&quot; corresponding to problem-solving strategies that didn't work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Showing effort basically amounts to telling us about those dead ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons for this. First, we only like to help people who help themselves. If you don't put any effort into answering your own question, why should anyone else put effort into answering it for you? (Sometimes there _are_ such reasons; maybe the question is really interesting and people answer it for their own amusement, but homework-like questions are generally not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more importantly, showing us the dead ends you've hit lets us give answers that will actually _help_ you, rather than duplicating work you've already done. Maybe you missed some strategy you could have tried. Maybe one of the dead ends actually works, but you made a mistake and concluded that it didn't. Or if nothing else, showing what you tried is one of the best ways to convey your level of knowledge, so people can write level-appropriate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) gives some general guidelines on what sort of preparation one should do before asking a question here. It applies to _all_ questions, not just homework questions, but most of the things listed there are problem-solving strategies that should be in your list of &quot;dead ends&quot; before you post your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do _not_ have to list out _everything_ you tried, but you do have to give potential answerers enough information to understand how you got from the problem statement up to the point at which you were unable to proceed further, _and_ how you tried to work past it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that generally do _not_ count as sufficient effort, and will get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to think [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schr%C3%B6dinger-equation) is a very good example of how to show effort. So is [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem) (and it's actually quite a short question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you actually want to know: why is my question on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the _main_ reason your question is on hold has nothing to do with how much effort you showed (or didn't show).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the close reason for homework says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and show some effort to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions should ask about the _concept_ that confuses you. Isolate the reason you got stuck, and ask how to work past it (after showing some attempts to do so yourself, as I discussed earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that do _not_ count as asking about a specific physics concept, and will generally get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot; (yes, this qualifies under both parts of the homework close reason)&#xD;&#xA;- Most variations of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot; (_this is your case_)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="737909f6-3c5b-4179-a02e-98b18472fc46" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned comments that are now [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18110760#18110760), is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will let slide a good bit more unpoliteness than you'll see here. It is certainly the case that their stance towards abuse is relatively hazy. The main thing that worries me about PO is well encapsulated by the question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, that answer is hardly conclusive, and it seems that the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do have a section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) on their FAQ, which I feel is hazy regarding abuse on the site, directing readers to a contact link. Mostly, they really shy away from providing any guidelines on what sort of behaviour is and is not acceptable on the site. Personally, I would be worried that certain types of very cutting *ad hominem* attacks - of the kind that has been observed and frowned upon on this site before - will be given a lot of free rein on PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, PO moderators have [stated informally](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se/6213?noredirect=1#comment20823_6213) that abuse will not be tolerated there, but I'm not sure how that squares with the comment above. At the very least, this is unclear and confusing as a PO user; personally, I would expect that some pretty bad stuff will inevitably slip through the cracks of that lack of clarity. I do not, however, advise people curious about PO to stay away from the site - instead, be aware of these points and make up your own mind whether you want to be part of that community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [previous one](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites) (active until October 2014). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like PO to adopt an approach like [arXiv Analytics](http://arxitics.com/), which states on its front page, in crisp and clear language, that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We encourage frank, open, and constructive conversation, but frankness doesn't mean lack of civility or lack of respect for others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, though, that they're still reluctant to put any qualifiers behind 'frankness is allowed'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="9d30d966-b982-40c6-9b5a-0f3817e3e7ac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing duplicate is certainly a problem, as a variation in the way&#xD;&#xA;the question is asked can suggest very different answers, and&#xD;&#xA;sometimes much better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are closed, the only alternative is to answer the old&#xD;&#xA;question, which I know from experience is mostly a waste of time&#xD;&#xA;because you start at the bottom of a list that is supposed to&#xD;&#xA;order for quality and not for date. I hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that duplicate policies are inconsistent, bordering&#xD;&#xA;arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here, I will just copy a part of [my answer to another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;about the quality of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding specifically the quality of questions**, what matters most&#xD;&#xA;is the sexyness-entertaining quality of the question, not actual&#xD;&#xA;content or preparatory work. I will take the example of two questions&#xD;&#xA;that are exactly on the same topic, but were not flagged as such:&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66746/ and&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73654/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was mine, actually my fist post on physics.SE after doing no physics for more decades than I care to tell. It took me a long time to write that question as I was trying to understand first what issues could matter, what kind of data and question might be sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very lucky to be upvoted once, and to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was asked 2 month later. It is exactly the same issue, presented as a disaster movie. It was not detected as duplicate and attracted much attention and 20 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I try to ask questions as a scientist, or as a showman ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue, directly related, is the questions removed as duplicate. First, it is inconsistant (see above) and sometimes inaccurate. Answering old questions is a waste of time. I know as I did it more than my share. Thoses answers do not get votes or comments, and I personnally hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the practice of stopping duplicate question is just the best way to ensure that further input will not come, of that a different perspective will be avoided. **What would have happened if the second question above had been detected as duplicate, as it should have ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4858#4876" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="95b28952-1054-4e47-87e9-d1f0e334e42f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have usually been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is **why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addition:** After the conversation with Kyle Kanos, it becomes clear that moderators are not violating any rule set by Stackexchange; what is also made clear is that moderators have unlimited power at comment zone with 0 restriction, in accordance to the rule. This is a very unjust rule, and it would be humane for moderators to refrain from wielding this power. However, the current situation suggests the unreasonable(but again, not illegitimate) power is being very actively exercised. I rest my case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="9624283e-f752-4ae8-a7c8-c89bfb42688d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll give you two answers, one to the question you actually asked and one to the question that I think you actually wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you asked: what counts as effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working through a homework problem is like exploring the branches of a tree, or walking through a maze. You start at the problem statement - the ground, or the entrance - and you try taking some step that you think will get you closer to the answer. Maybe it turns out not to work, in which case you back up and try another tactic. Or if it does work, then you look for another step that will get you even closer to the answer. As you proceed through the problem, you'll accumulate a bunch of &quot;dead ends&quot; corresponding to problem-solving strategies that didn't work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Showing effort basically amounts to telling us about those dead ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons for this. First, we only like to help people who help themselves. If you don't put any effort into answering your own question, why should anyone else put effort into answering it for you? (Sometimes there _are_ such reasons; maybe the question is really interesting and people answer it for their own amusement, but homework-like questions are generally not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more importantly, showing us the dead ends you've hit lets us give answers that will actually _help_ you, rather than duplicating work you've already done. Maybe you missed some strategy you could have tried. Maybe one of the dead ends actually works, but you made a mistake and concluded that it didn't. Or if nothing else, showing what you tried is one of the best ways to convey your level of knowledge, so people can write level-appropriate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) gives some general guidelines on what sort of preparation one should do before asking a question here. It applies to _all_ questions, not just homework questions, but most of the things listed there are problem-solving strategies that should be in your list of &quot;dead ends&quot; before you post your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do _not_ have to list out _everything_ you tried, but you do have to give potential answerers enough information to understand how you got from the problem statement up to the point at which you were unable to proceed further, _and_ how you tried to work past it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that generally do _not_ count as sufficient effort, and will get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to think [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schr%C3%B6dinger-equation) is a very good example of how to show effort. So is [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem) (and it's actually quite a short question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you actually want to know: why is my question on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the _main_ reason your question is on hold has nothing to do with how much effort you showed (or didn't show).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the close reason for homework says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and show some effort to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions should ask about the _concept_ that confuses you. Isolate the reason you got stuck, and ask how to work past it (after showing some attempts to do so yourself, as I discussed earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that do _not_ count as asking about a specific physics concept, and will generally get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot; (yes, this qualifies under both parts of the homework close reason)&#xD;&#xA;- Most variations of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot; (_this is your case_)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="bb11b813-65f7-4baf-8353-aff3db2cde78" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The meta question (v1) addresses really two separate and independent issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When to close a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When to tag a question with the homework tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are in principle two separate and independent decisions and actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasons for closure are discussed in many places on meta. [If I find a good link I will include it here later. E.g. [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1048/2451) is currently not quite up to date.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning whether a question should be tagged with the homework tag, let me first of all say, that I think the issue is too minor to e.g. start a back-and-forth edit war over. The usual practice is that if the question looks like homework, it will be tagged with the homework tag, if not directly by OP himself, then by someone from the community. Sometimes OP disagrees with this. Then he will usually be made aware of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). However, the final decision about tags is usually left for OP to decide for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="a9c70672-9e6c-4c05-95f6-f4c944962ea3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's the question that addresses this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2832/how-should-we-deal-with-academic-dishonesty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To _summarize_ from the answer there, we need to verify that the questions are actually from a contest (which is done) and also that the rules of the contest forbid seeking outside help (I'm looking into this). Once that's done, one of us moderators will close the question, or non-moderators can also vote to close it if they're sufficiently convinced that the question violates the contest rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But really, read the answer at that other question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="6a6494ee-7178-4680-9a8f-95e7b63d22be" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If we allowed every little variation on a book recommendation, those questions could easily overwhelm the site. We don't want that to happen, because this is a site for technical content, not for reading lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though every book recommendation question carries its own context and you might think that'd be enough to differentiate them, there are large classes of these questions that wind up with the same set of answers. For example, a question that asks about black holes will collect the same answers (or a subset of the answers) as a question that asks about general relativity, and that's why the former is typically closed as a duplicate of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, we are approaching a consensus on a [new policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy) which will allow a vastly expanded set of book recommendation questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="2467ec06-108c-4bf8-8468-fca14204a867" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have usually been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is **why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addition:** After the conversation with Kyle Kanos, it becomes clear that moderators are not violating any rule set by Stackexchange; what is also made clear is that moderators have unlimited power at comment zone with 0 restriction, in accordance to the rule. This is a very unjust rule, and it would be humane for moderators to refrain from wielding this power. However, the current situation suggests the unreasonable(but again, not illegitimate) power is being very actively exercised. I rest my case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="f57a8386-6690-477a-be06-71d362ee4986" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go to the Physics.SE main page and look at the community promotion ad. Do it now, I'll wait.......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back yet? Okay, was it advertising Physics Overflow? Because every time I visit the main page, it's advertising PO. Last I checked, it [wasn't rated high enough](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015/6399#6399) to be featured on our community ads. And [according to meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246453/old-community-promotion-ads-still-showing-up) they should be using the 2015 ads now. Furthermore, every time I refresh I believe (and others are in this belief too) that it should randomly select a new ad to show, but I always get PO being advertised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems wrong. Conveniently and suspiciously wrong to boot. Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="52fd17a7-62d1-44b0-a2b0-796d60d8e4b1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sticking with the core idea in [my answer][1] to [*&quot;Are questions related to science fiction acceptable?&quot;*][2]: the fact that your motivation concerns writing is immaterial to the topicality of a question. As long as it is on-topic, it is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't like the atmosphere question very much. Far too much going on about your plans and not enough focus on the *physics question*. The question about getting between co-plantets(?) is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up my answer is: **stick to the physics**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/287/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/286/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="ba932b41-382a-495e-959c-c8f5a47b6bc6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go to the Physics.SE main page and look at the community promotion ad. Do it now, I'll wait.......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back yet? Okay, was it advertising Physics Overflow? Because every time I visit the main page, it's advertising PO. Last I checked, it [wasn't rated high enough](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015/6399#6399) to be featured on our community ads. And [according to meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246453/old-community-promotion-ads-still-showing-up) they should be using the 2015 ads now. Furthermore, every time I refresh I believe (and others are in this belief too) that it should randomly select a new ad to show, but I always get PO being advertised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems wrong. Conveniently and suspiciously wrong to boot. Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="58dcd820-235a-4574-835b-e819657fa6f9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dimension10 has given the [link][1] to where the policy is laid out clearly in David's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which points out that the dividing line is rather vague, and therefore could make most of the questions here homework if we relied on this definition, rather than our own personal view based upon common experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the whole point of the homework tag is to enable people to filter out the tedious **unoriginal** questions found in most text books. Therefore, I don't think any problem thought up by someone for themselves should be tagged homework, unless it's universally recognized as a standard text book problem designed for students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;update:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that the main purpose behind the homework tag is to prevent students cheating on their homework assignments, which should make things considerably clearer on when to tag a question as homework: **Does this question look as if it could be given to a student by a teacher as a graded exercise?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="b9461627-81e1-45d4-ba2c-9e3a81d64460" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;  as physics has been developed from philosophy &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, physics may have been _called_ philosophy in the early past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The methods of physics are radically different from philosophy, and most physicists attempt to stay well within the realm of &quot;physics&quot; without straying into philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metaphysical questions usually lead to opinionated debate and are thus not constructive for the site. Besides, such speculation many a time falls in the realm of [non mainstream physics][1] as people start theorizing outside the established framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="12543a8a-f6ea-4ae0-b8ba-f2ca4c29ce11" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers *may* be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the &quot;I am not certain but...&quot; from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that **require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy**. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a &quot;here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about&quot; level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, **must** downvote if it is inaccurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response][1] -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="c11d951f-e133-49a2-bdc7-8d0d75b80a29" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sure I'm not the only one who regrets Ben Crowell's decision to become unactive on PSE. He stated the reason for his departure in [this post][1] addressing the ratio of professional physicist users to beginners, pop-sci philosophers and other 'lower level users'. A big part of that reason seems to have been that he finds himself *&quot;spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can sympathize, I feel like this is something everyone determines for themselves. You don't *have* to argue about these topics with these users. Then again, it is alarming that these discussions seem to have become more frequent, also in my experience (which, granted, is not as long-term as Ben Crowell's).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an idea popped up in my head which might help restore the balance somewhat or at least halt the dilution of the uranium-235 in Ben's analogy. It might also be unrealistic, but I wanted to bounce this idea off the community and see what everyone thinks. Who knows, perhaps it sparks a new, better idea in someone else's head. So here it comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still pretty much a vague idea, but perhaps an entry exam of some sort can help. Not to increase the number of experts per se, but to decrease the number of pop-sci philosophers and no-effort homework posters. Nothing too fancy or long, just a single question requiring a certain level of insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps **a couple** of questions requiring **varying** levels of insight/knowledge. Still not taking too much time or long calculations though, that will decrease the number of new users on all levels of expertise. But their answers to these few questions can then be used to roughly assert the level of the new user and perhaps award a badge corresponding to this level. This way the inquiry ('exam') sort of seems worth the trouble (little more than without the badge anyway) and other users can also more easily determine on roughly what level to answer this new user's question and to what degree to trust their answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5102/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="a327d6c9-e525-4dbe-8480-d85812b4a880" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The meta question (v1) addresses really two separate and independent issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When to close a question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When to tag a question with the homework tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are in principle two separate and independent decisions and actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reasons for closure are discussed in many places on meta. [If I find a good link I will include it here later. E.g. [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1048/2451) is currently not quite up to date.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Concerning whether a question should be tagged with the homework tag, let me first of all say, that I think the issue is too minor to e.g. start a back-and-forth edit war over. The usual practice is that if the question looks like homework, it will be tagged with the homework tag, if not directly by OP himself, then by someone from the community. Sometimes OP disagrees with this. Then he will usually be made aware of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). However, the final decision about tags is usually left for OP to decide for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="8e6d868a-05dd-40da-a625-3b1eb9dfe959" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The vanishing of the whole [thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2713/2451) &quot;Do we agree with [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]'s Suspension?&quot; has been for me the straw that broke the camel's back. I had shared my thoughts there, together with other physicists, and we deserve some respect. I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="6091e291-6775-4897-8561-afe30c3e1f42" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers *may* be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the &quot;I am not certain but...&quot; from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that **require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy**. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a &quot;here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about&quot; level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, **must** downvote if it is inaccurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response][1] -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="8a5cd930-996e-4083-acc4-f8f79864d490" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If we allowed every little variation on a book recommendation, those questions could easily overwhelm the site. We don't want that to happen, because this is a site for technical content, not for reading lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though every book recommendation question carries its own context and you might think that'd be enough to differentiate them, there are large classes of these questions that wind up with the same set of answers. For example, a question that asks about black holes will collect the same answers (or a subset of the answers) as a question that asks about general relativity, and that's why the former is typically closed as a duplicate of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, we are approaching a consensus on a [new policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy) which will allow a vastly expanded set of book recommendation questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="c15a45b4-238e-4574-b026-e8eb8977672e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se (Not a dupe, this is about what a user can do to improve his/her _own_ experience, and that is about more global changes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to help users smoothen their own Physics.SE experience. Later on it will be turned into a community wiki meta-[meta-tag:faq] post, but for now please post any constructive suggestions you have on this thread.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="67ae884f-f5e6-4f57-924f-34fcb79bbe15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sticking with the core idea in [my answer][1] to [*&quot;Are questions related to science fiction acceptable?&quot;*][2]: the fact that your motivation concerns writing is immaterial to the topicality of a question. As long as it is on-topic, it is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't like the atmosphere question very much. Far too much going on about your plans and not enough focus on the *physics question*. The question about getting between co-plantets(?) is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up my answer is: **stick to the physics**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/287/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/286/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="6d900eed-cc90-4101-9bc6-d642c9707b15" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There has been a general sense among a number of users, myself included, that simplistic, almost throwaway answers can get very high scores, while thoroughly researched, high-level answers can languish with few to no votes. See the discussion [here][1] for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To what extent is this backed by data?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I set out to answer this question, if not once and for all then at least to begin to shed some light on it. To that extend I wrote a very minimal Python script, [uploaded to GitHub][2], for crunching some numbers and making some plots.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The script needs two pieces of input to run. First, it expects a local copy of the CSV file associated with [this Data Explorer query][3]. Simply run it with your user ID and click the &quot;Download CSV&quot; link. The other requirement is much more labor intensive: A file with the post IDs of all your answers and a &quot;quality score&quot; for each. For my purposes, I used a 6-point scale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0. It might actually be beneficial for this answer to be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;    1. Just a quick answer to an easy question, one that required essentially no work.&#xD;&#xA;    2. A not-so-great answer that was nonetheless not entirely trivial.&#xD;&#xA;    3. A run-of-the-mill good answer.&#xD;&#xA;    4. A solid, well-researched answer that provides thorough insight into the problem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;    5. An outstanding answer, the kind about which songs will be sung many generations hence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really unavoidable for my scheme. In order to measure the correlation between &quot;quality&quot; and score, we need to actually have &quot;quality&quot; numbers on hand. I did my best to rate all my 400 or so answers to date, trying not to let the answer's votes sway my feelings about its &quot;quality&quot; one way or the other. It took the better part of a lazy afternoon to go through them all, in case anyone wants a time estimate for doing this themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some plots and conclusions are given an an answer below. However, this is just the analysis of *my own opinion* of *my own answers*. **More data would be great**, so I encourage others to use the tools mentioned above (or their own tools) for analyzing this sort of data.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to post your own data or your alternate analysis of my data as answers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Bug reports, feature requests, and support inquiries welcome. I'll try my best, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;My personal data dump and self-rankings are included in the repository, in case you want to jump right in and play with data without ranking answers. In particular, the query returns more information than the script currently uses, such as dates and question scores, so a better analysis can certainly be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/c-white/stackexchange_analysis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/273688/scores-for-my-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="08d714ae-2de8-4b96-87df-710539a3c7a2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;  as physics has been developed from philosophy &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, physics may have been _called_ philosophy in the early past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The methods of physics are radically different from philosophy, and most physicists attempt to stay well within the realm of &quot;physics&quot; without straying into philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metaphysical questions usually lead to opinionated debate and are thus not constructive for the site. Besides, such speculation many a time falls in the realm of [non mainstream physics][1] as people start theorizing outside the established framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="1be19792-a5ce-4512-b589-f898b7baf3e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A recent [suggestion about changing the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** we decide to change the homework policy, we have to decide what the new version will say about the [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="305b13db-8155-468c-afe2-628de8344f2d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately you've run into the &quot;problems&quot; that arise by letting each community set its own standards. Your question on cogsci.SE was allowed and well received despite having multiple questions because that's how that community responds. This community, however, does not generally keep open posts with several questions in them (unless the questions are so inter-related that asking them independently would mean none of them make sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the questions you asked could be asked as independent questions. That is not to say anything about the quality of them as individual questions nor is it to say whether they would be considered good or not (just copy-pasting each one into its own question would not be good, it's basically just trivia and not asking about the *how* or *why* the numbers are what they are). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for being in trouble, having the question on hold, etc. there is no need to repeat what [Kyle said in his answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6557/6634).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="5fdba256-4a8b-4a5c-8599-67556728a1cf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sure I'm not the only one who regrets Ben Crowell's decision to become unactive on PSE. He stated the reason for his departure in [this post][1] addressing the ratio of professional physicist users to beginners, pop-sci philosophers and other 'lower level users'. A big part of that reason seems to have been that he finds himself *&quot;spending my time on the site in unenjoyable activities like arguing with angry and belligerent beginners about friction and Newton's third law&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can sympathize, I feel like this is something everyone determines for themselves. You don't *have* to argue about these topics with these users. Then again, it is alarming that these discussions seem to have become more frequent, also in my experience (which, granted, is not as long-term as Ben Crowell's).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an idea popped up in my head which might help restore the balance somewhat or at least halt the dilution of the uranium-235 in Ben's analogy. It might also be unrealistic, but I wanted to bounce this idea off the community and see what everyone thinks. Who knows, perhaps it sparks a new, better idea in someone else's head. So here it comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still pretty much a vague idea, but perhaps an entry exam of some sort can help. Not to increase the number of experts per se, but to decrease the number of pop-sci philosophers and no-effort homework posters. Nothing too fancy or long, just a single question requiring a certain level of insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps **a couple** of questions requiring **varying** levels of insight/knowledge. Still not taking too much time or long calculations though, that will decrease the number of new users on all levels of expertise. But their answers to these few questions can then be used to roughly assert the level of the new user and perhaps award a badge corresponding to this level. This way the inquiry ('exam') sort of seems worth the trouble (little more than without the badge anyway) and other users can also more easily determine on roughly what level to answer this new user's question and to what degree to trust their answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5102/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="e055d486-b44d-43a6-a4aa-48bfe8500f09" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have [a new book/resource recommendation policy][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is of a form that it can only be applied to _new_ questions. We have many old questions with answers that do not satisfy the policy, what should we do about them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="f4381e6e-bb7d-4040-8601-7193ff711299" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There has been a general sense among a number of users, myself included, that simplistic, almost throwaway answers can get very high scores, while thoroughly researched, high-level answers can languish with few to no votes. See the discussion [here][1] for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To what extent is this backed by data?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I set out to answer this question, if not once and for all then at least to begin to shed some light on it. To that extend I wrote a very minimal Python script, [uploaded to GitHub][2], for crunching some numbers and making some plots.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The script needs two pieces of input to run. First, it expects a local copy of the CSV file associated with [this Data Explorer query][3]. Simply run it with your user ID and click the &quot;Download CSV&quot; link. The other requirement is much more labor intensive: A file with the post IDs of all your answers and a &quot;quality score&quot; for each. For my purposes, I used a 6-point scale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0. It might actually be beneficial for this answer to be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;    1. Just a quick answer to an easy question, one that required essentially no work.&#xD;&#xA;    2. A not-so-great answer that was nonetheless not entirely trivial.&#xD;&#xA;    3. A run-of-the-mill good answer.&#xD;&#xA;    4. A solid, well-researched answer that provides thorough insight into the problem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;    5. An outstanding answer, the kind about which songs will be sung many generations hence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really unavoidable for my scheme. In order to measure the correlation between &quot;quality&quot; and score, we need to actually have &quot;quality&quot; numbers on hand. I did my best to rate all my 400 or so answers to date, trying not to let the answer's votes sway my feelings about its &quot;quality&quot; one way or the other. It took the better part of a lazy afternoon to go through them all, in case anyone wants a time estimate for doing this themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some plots and conclusions are given an an answer below. However, this is just the analysis of *my own opinion* of *my own answers*. **More data would be great**, so I encourage others to use the tools mentioned above (or their own tools) for analyzing this sort of data.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to post your own data or your alternate analysis of my data as answers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Bug reports, feature requests, and support inquiries welcome. I'll try my best, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;My personal data dump and self-rankings are included in the repository, in case you want to jump right in and play with data without ranking answers. In particular, the query returns more information than the script currently uses, such as dates and question scores, so a better analysis can certainly be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/c-white/stackexchange_analysis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/273688/scores-for-my-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="3c3aca1f-f69a-4332-acd4-617e969e5ce0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Jim Rennie, the first disciple of [the one and only](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="a04ff99f-4560-4c6e-aec9-0aec9e1d80ae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The vanishing of the whole [thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2713/2451) &quot;Do we agree with [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]'s Suspension?&quot; has been for me the straw that broke the camel's back. I had shared my thoughts there, together with other physicists, and we deserve some respect. I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="82920180-353a-4bf6-9324-2f778790b14b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately you've run into the &quot;problems&quot; that arise by letting each community set its own standards. Your question on cogsci.SE was allowed and well received despite having multiple questions because that's how that community responds. This community, however, does not generally keep open posts with several questions in them (unless the questions are so inter-related that asking them independently would mean none of them make sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the questions you asked could be asked as independent questions. That is not to say anything about the quality of them as individual questions nor is it to say whether they would be considered good or not (just copy-pasting each one into its own question would not be good, it's basically just trivia and not asking about the *how* or *why* the numbers are what they are). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for being in trouble, having the question on hold, etc. there is no need to repeat what [Kyle said in his answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6557/6634).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="7543a578-2146-4711-8c7f-935d47ad17d8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cold fusion, to my knowledge, is and should not be treated differently than any other topic on the &quot;fringe&quot; of mainstream science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, [questions about non-mainstream science are off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/50583). It should be stressed that this does not imply that non-mainstream theories are entirely without merit (though they very often are), it merely says that *we as a community* do not want to have such debates on this site, as they are contrary to the Q&amp;A formula of SE sites where it is expected that question have at least one correct answer based in currently accepeted expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, asking whether X is possible within currently accepted physical theories, or what things forbid X from happening is on-topic. Presenting your own personal theory about X and asking for comments is off-topic, as well as questions asked in bad faith where it is evident that the asker will just keep moving the goalposts so that no answer is ever satisfactory, as well as questions of the kind *&quot;Isn't physics wrong about X?&quot;* or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter what kind of &quot;non-mainstream&quot; science X is here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="07e5f826-d0e0-4331-826c-6ff0f3998c14" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One of the things that bother me the most about book* recommendation requests is the endless stream of similar requests that can spout around any specific topic, for all the different possible reader levels and prerequisites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;I'm an undergrad and I want to learn QM&quot; says someone. &quot;Me too, but can you keep it to minimal functional analysis?&quot; says someone else. &quot;Actually, can you cut down on the linear algebra?&quot; and &quot;I haven't taken analytical mechanics, so could you go easy on the hamiltonians and lagrangians?&quot; say two more people... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and on and on it goes. It is completely impractical to have a new thread for each such request: we should have a single, canonical book-recommendation thread for, say, ~undergraduate quantum mechanics, and close all the requests in the paragraph above as duplicates of the main thread. I see this as absolutely necessary to avoid the quality dilution and the clutter that would come otherwise, and which led us to ban the tag to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is unfair on people coming to this site for book recommendations to give them no voice regarding what level of books are present in the answers to the canonical thread. If I do find the main thread and find it to be full of books that need no functional analysis, but I can't handle the linear algebra in them, I should still be able to invite answers at that level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand I'm a little late to the game, but I was busy working on other policy for the site. (And, you know, my PhD.) I nevertheless would like to propose a change in how the [recently adopted policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) works on the *question* side of the affair. (The answer side is, on the other hand, well dealt with, I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## I propose we keep a single thread per topic, and that the specific requests of level be included as edits and comments to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in this scheme all the requests above would be merged into a single thread which would be formatted along the following lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Good undergraduate quantum mechanics books&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are good books or online resources to learn quantum mechanics at an undergraduate level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Level of resources&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are looking for resources in this topic but you find the answers in this page too advanced or too basic, add a request in this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there good books that use minimal functional analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I'd like resources with very little linear algebra.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are books with little resource to lagrangians and hamiltonians? My analytical mechanics is a little shaky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proposal does require additional curatorial attention, in deleting parts of the resource-level list as they get addressed and newer requests are added. However, I feel that this is quite small in comparison with the bulk of work of curating the answers. It provides input to the people who have very specific requests, while keeping the answers condensed into one big resource that's useful for future visitors, instead of scattered into lots of small, specific lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as I have argued elsewhere, policy changes are only half policy changes if they don't come with a documentation proposal. Thus, this change could come with the following paragraph added to the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## How do I ask a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First of all, [search the site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?) to see if the topic has been asked before. Adding the tag `[books]` to your search may be useful. If the topic has not been covered, start a new question. Keep it general! We want questions and answers to be useful for future visitors. Ask for a specific topic. If you have a specific level or set of prerequisites that you'd like answers to address, add it, separately, at the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the topic *has* been covered, don't ask a new question! If the resources in that thread are too advanced or too basic for you, or you have some specific set of prerequisites that the current answers don't address, edit the current question to request it. Add your request to the list provided, or start one like the one in [this question]().&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*To appease the purists, throughout this post &quot;book recommendation&quot; should be understood to mean &quot;resource recommendation&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="750836fe-17b9-4e9c-b1d8-87a55fd5c3e3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Jim Rennie, the first disciple of [the one and only](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie)&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="a7b054cf-2a80-4222-865c-0abc890151f0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/how-can-we-improve-participation-on-physics-se (Not a dupe, this is about what a user can do to improve his/her _own_ experience, and that is about more global changes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is meant to help users smoothen their own Physics.SE experience. Later on it will be turned into a community wiki meta-[meta-tag:faq] post, but for now please post any constructive suggestions you have on this thread.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="97bcb91f-d6a8-45e4-8998-be221ceb0a02" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cold fusion, to my knowledge, is and should not be treated differently than any other topic on the &quot;fringe&quot; of mainstream science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, [questions about non-mainstream science are off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/50583). It should be stressed that this does not imply that non-mainstream theories are entirely without merit (though they very often are), it merely says that *we as a community* do not want to have such debates on this site, as they are contrary to the Q&amp;A formula of SE sites where it is expected that question have at least one correct answer based in currently accepeted expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, asking whether X is possible within currently accepted physical theories, or what things forbid X from happening is on-topic. Presenting your own personal theory about X and asking for comments is off-topic, as well as questions asked in bad faith where it is evident that the asker will just keep moving the goalposts so that no answer is ever satisfactory, as well as questions of the kind *&quot;Isn't physics wrong about X?&quot;* or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter what kind of &quot;non-mainstream&quot; science X is here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="0da72885-2a3a-40d3-913c-f82351dcc297" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I thought I remembered having seen some discussion of this. It's in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/780/vote-to-answer, though that's not a very search friendly title so no surprise it took me some time to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a read through dmckee's answer to this question, and in particular follow the links to the mother meta. Although there has never been a definitive statement by the Stack Exchange team they have not implemented a *community accept* feature despite numerous highly upvoted pleas for one. This suggests it's not a feature they regard as a priority. Maybe it will be implemented one day, though I wouldn't hold your breath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time note that answering an old question will bump the question up the rankings, though I don't know how big an effect this is. Answers to old questions also show in the review queue for users with enough rep, and I do upvote any such answers I consider good (though sadly many answers to old questions are, well, rubbish). The upvotes boost the question rankings and further enhance the visibility of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a Necromancer badge for answering a question more than 60 days old, and [475 of these badges have been awarded][1]. So not only is there considerable activity in the answering of old questions, but since award of the badge requires at least 5 upvotes there is clearly considerable rewards to be had by doing so. On a side note I note that both David and myself, arch villains though we may be, both have the Necromancer badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More broadly, I think we need to distinguish between questions that have no answer and questions that have answers but no accepted answer. The latter normally means the OP is AWOL or just doesn't care, and in these cases there is little we can do. While the OCD side of me deplores perfectly good answers being left unaccepted this doesn't lessen the value of the site to the physics community. Accepting an answer doesn't mean it's right - it just means the OP thought that was the most helpful answer. A more reliable guide is the number of upvotes the answer has attracted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question has no answers that probably means either the question is really hard or that it's really uninteresting. Anyone giving a good answer to an old hard question is likely to find themselves amply rewarded (as the number of Necromancer badges shows). Conversely, if the question is uninteresting it's likely your answer will be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/44/necromancer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="23e60fe4-43a2-4283-8f64-15caecbc9e41" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's the time of the year again, namely it is December 2013, and so we shall now refresh our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/5263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="a57e0558-bfea-402b-9658-d469e9829cfd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A recent [suggestion about changing the homework policy][1] gathered quite a bit of support, and a specific proposal for a new policy is [currently being thrashed out][2]. The new policy is basically just a rephrasing of the old one, effectively changing &quot;you can ask homework questions, but only if they're about concepts&quot; to &quot;you can't ask homework questions, but you can ask questions about concepts.&quot; This will involve changes to the homework close reason, as well as the homework policy documentation on meta, the tag wiki, and a few other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***If*** we decide to change the homework policy, we have to decide what the new version will say about the [tag:homework] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This entails two distinct choices: first we have to decide whether any  [tag:homework]  questions should be on topic; if not, then we have to decide whether to keep the tag. This makes a total of three options, and I will post answers corresponding to each of them so that we can vote on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **none of these changes will happen unless the proposed policy change goes ahead**. If you're for or against the policy change itself, **please express this by voting on the [proposal][2]**, rather than here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy opition 1: some homework is on topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This entails keeping the [tag:homework] tag, and keeping its meaning separate from the homework close reason. This means some questions will be classed as homework, but also still be on topic, as is the case with the current policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The proposed policy (in its present form) takes this approach, but (in comparison to the current policy) raises the bar in terms of what's required for an on-topic [tag:homework] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Policy option 2: all homework is off-topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is a policy that defines *all* homework as off-topic. This has the advantage of making the policy simpler to apply, hopefully encouraging more people to join in with closing homework questions. However, it will take some work to convert &quot;good&quot; homework questions into non-homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If we take this approach there are two options for what to do with the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the [tag:homework] tag, but let it be synonymous with the close reason, i.e. if a question is legitimately tagged as [tag:homework] then it should be closed. Keeping the tag means that people can still ignore it. If the new policy is successful in increasing the rate at which homework questions are closed, we would later have a discussion about getting rid of the tag altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Delete (&quot;burninate&quot;) the [tag:homework] tag shortly after the new policy is introduced. This can be justified on the grounds that option 2 would be tag abuse, which is generally frowned upon. From a more pragmatic standpoint, if people can't ignore homework questions they're more likely to participate in closing them. However, this is quite a radical step to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="789a9040-a048-451c-b706-f75a5bf71e1a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I thought I remembered having seen some discussion of this. It's in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/780/vote-to-answer, though that's not a very search friendly title so no surprise it took me some time to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a read through dmckee's answer to this question, and in particular follow the links to the mother meta. Although there has never been a definitive statement by the Stack Exchange team they have not implemented a *community accept* feature despite numerous highly upvoted pleas for one. This suggests it's not a feature they regard as a priority. Maybe it will be implemented one day, though I wouldn't hold your breath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time note that answering an old question will bump the question up the rankings, though I don't know how big an effect this is. Answers to old questions also show in the review queue for users with enough rep, and I do upvote any such answers I consider good (though sadly many answers to old questions are, well, rubbish). The upvotes boost the question rankings and further enhance the visibility of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a Necromancer badge for answering a question more than 60 days old, and [475 of these badges have been awarded][1]. So not only is there considerable activity in the answering of old questions, but since award of the badge requires at least 5 upvotes there is clearly considerable rewards to be had by doing so. On a side note I note that both David and myself, arch villains though we may be, both have the Necromancer badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More broadly, I think we need to distinguish between questions that have no answer and questions that have answers but no accepted answer. The latter normally means the OP is AWOL or just doesn't care, and in these cases there is little we can do. While the OCD side of me deplores perfectly good answers being left unaccepted this doesn't lessen the value of the site to the physics community. Accepting an answer doesn't mean it's right - it just means the OP thought that was the most helpful answer. A more reliable guide is the number of upvotes the answer has attracted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question has no answers that probably means either the question is really hard or that it's really uninteresting. Anyone giving a good answer to an old hard question is likely to find themselves amply rewarded (as the number of Necromancer badges shows). Conversely, if the question is uninteresting it's likely your answer will be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/44/necromancer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="2e1905dd-a317-45dd-b1fe-f972ad39db9a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been following the [tag:history] tag for some time now, and it led me to [this Phys.SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/174047/), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/) (also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6421/)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though. I'm neutral on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="7e49b6a4-c394-4e31-9cc6-4c2f2b38fba9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that our [new recommendation policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) is in effect, I would like to propose a change that I think will alleviate some misuse of the associated tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:books] → [tag:resource-recommendation]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:reference-request] → [tag:specific-reference]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this better captures the [intended meaning of the tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/786/what-are-the-meanings-of-books-and-reference-request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Better suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="835d08ac-5074-41fc-a6f4-0dccaa106738" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have [a new book/resource recommendation policy][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is of a form that it can only be applied to _new_ questions. We have many old questions with answers that do not satisfy the policy, what should we do about them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="982e0858-4cb3-40c1-b6ae-74b37b17cb0d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been following the [tag:history] tag for some time now, and it led me to [this Phys.SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/174047/), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/) (also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6421/)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though. I'm neutral on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="51f33b04-3092-4b01-915b-e36353a973c2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Come on John, [haven't you done a google search](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ameta.stackexchange.com+lmgtfy)? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, as Qmechanic linked to in the comments on your question, [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links) basically tells people to not to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [post on mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links) says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in *other* ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="4f471bbf-1731-459d-afc9-cae8d480f716" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One of the things that bother me the most about book* recommendation requests is the endless stream of similar requests that can spout around any specific topic, for all the different possible reader levels and prerequisites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;I'm an undergrad and I want to learn QM&quot; says someone. &quot;Me too, but can you keep it to minimal functional analysis?&quot; says someone else. &quot;Actually, can you cut down on the linear algebra?&quot; and &quot;I haven't taken analytical mechanics, so could you go easy on the hamiltonians and lagrangians?&quot; say two more people... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and on and on it goes. It is completely impractical to have a new thread for each such request: we should have a single, canonical book-recommendation thread for, say, ~undergraduate quantum mechanics, and close all the requests in the paragraph above as duplicates of the main thread. I see this as absolutely necessary to avoid the quality dilution and the clutter that would come otherwise, and which led us to ban the tag to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is unfair on people coming to this site for book recommendations to give them no voice regarding what level of books are present in the answers to the canonical thread. If I do find the main thread and find it to be full of books that need no functional analysis, but I can't handle the linear algebra in them, I should still be able to invite answers at that level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand I'm a little late to the game, but I was busy working on other policy for the site. (And, you know, my PhD.) I nevertheless would like to propose a change in how the [recently adopted policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) works on the *question* side of the affair. (The answer side is, on the other hand, well dealt with, I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## I propose we keep a single thread per topic, and that the specific requests of level be included as edits and comments to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in this scheme all the requests above would be merged into a single thread which would be formatted along the following lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Good undergraduate quantum mechanics books&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are good books or online resources to learn quantum mechanics at an undergraduate level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Level of resources&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are looking for resources in this topic but you find the answers in this page too advanced or too basic, add a request in this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there good books that use minimal functional analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I'd like resources with very little linear algebra.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are books with little resource to lagrangians and hamiltonians? My analytical mechanics is a little shaky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proposal does require additional curatorial attention, in deleting parts of the resource-level list as they get addressed and newer requests are added. However, I feel that this is quite small in comparison with the bulk of work of curating the answers. It provides input to the people who have very specific requests, while keeping the answers condensed into one big resource that's useful for future visitors, instead of scattered into lots of small, specific lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as I have argued elsewhere, policy changes are only half policy changes if they don't come with a documentation proposal. Thus, this change could come with the following paragraph added to the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## How do I ask a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First of all, [search the site](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?) to see if the topic has been asked before. Adding the tag `[books]` to your search may be useful. If the topic has not been covered, start a new question. Keep it general! We want questions and answers to be useful for future visitors. Ask for a specific topic. If you have a specific level or set of prerequisites that you'd like answers to address, add it, separately, at the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the topic *has* been covered, don't ask a new question! If the resources in that thread are too advanced or too basic for you, or you have some specific set of prerequisites that the current answers don't address, edit the current question to request it. Add your request to the list provided, or start one like the one in [this question]().&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*To appease the purists, throughout this post &quot;book recommendation&quot; should be understood to mean &quot;resource recommendation&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="ebdc83bb-afc8-49f5-ae1e-d4a8f308db7b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Come on John, [haven't you done a google search](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ameta.stackexchange.com+lmgtfy)? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, as Qmechanic linked to in the comments on your question, [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links) basically tells people to not to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [post on mother meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links) says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in *other* ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="10ff67b6-34ba-4565-b6e1-4c763fe7afed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="(**note:** this is different from [*Is it inappropriate behaviour to post links?*][1]; I am now asking for a debate on the existing policy, rather than asking whether the policy exists. I would be fine if this is closed, but only after a moderator confirms what tpg2114 says below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Kanos's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links/6729#6729) to the forementioned thread claims that it is not allowed to post links to other Q&amp;A sites outside the Stackexchange network, and that it's up to a moderator to suspend a user for doing so. While he has not been able to cite the link to this policy, no moderator has corrected him, and his answer is gaining upvotes, so I'll assume that this is indeed policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this is a bizarre policy to have. What's the reason to maintain such a policy? Is it a network-wide policy, and is it irrevocable like &quot;Be Nice&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="3071f692-2905-4edb-b8e5-4ad883299f73" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Earlier today I was eyeballing other people's badges because, you know, badges, and I came upon something of a curious observation. If you look at the answer badges - specifically [Nice](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer), [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/39/good-answer) and [Great](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) Answer, there is a clear sense that, even for the bronze badge, established users of the site - and particularly users with, say, 1k+ rep - get a lot of the badges. However, if you look at the users who have earned the gold question badges, the picture is completely different: [Famous Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question), [Great Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/42/great-question) and [Stellar Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/51/stellar-question) have been earned overwhelmingly by &lt;1k rep users; ditto for the silvers and bronzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course not news. This was discussed in depth in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions. It is also not a surprise in any sense that more questions come from lower-rep users and more answers come from higher-rep users - that's to be expected in some form in any Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm quite struck at how we *do* have a pretty big set of really nice questions, and that they were mostly asked by quite low-rep users. While it is natural that questions will tend to be asked by lower-rep users, it is not a given that the good questions will come from that end of the scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore decided to explore this theme a bit and, in the meantime, dredge up what's left of my SQL skills after ten years (!) of rust. I came up with this query for the Stack Exchange Data Explorer: [What reputation do people with Popular/Notable/Famous Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152438/what-reputation-do-people-with-popular-notable-famous-question-badges-typically-h?viewsThreshold=10000&amp;repThreshold=100000#graph). It produces a cumulative-distribution-function-like plot of the number of users below reputation `rep` that have asked a question with `&gt;viewsThreshold` views. For the gold badge, the plot is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 90% of such questions were asked by users who (even now) have less than 1k. There are a few between 1k and 2k, and really not much other than [this great (cw) question of Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401/what-software-programs-are-used-to-draw-physics-diagrams-and-what-are-their-rel) and [this one of nibot's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/what-is-the-difference-between-kinematics-and-dynamics). I genuinely think this is surprising and really puts the nail on what we knew all along: 'expert' users need to start asking more questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also raises an interesting question as regards why this happens: can it really simply be explained by low-rep users &quot;stumbling&quot; on the good nuggets of question space, as part of the huge body of questions asked by the overwhelming majority of users that have &lt;1k rep? Looking at, say, the questions that earned the [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) sobriquet, I think there is something else at stake. Those questions have a simplicity, and therefore a generality, that I think tends to be lacking in the questions asked by more established users. What do people think about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have also cooked up the corresponding query for the Nice/Good/Great Answer badge series, [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Answer badges typically have?&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152446/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-answer-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). There aren't enough Great Answers to give a smooth enough plot, but the silver earners, at 25+ votes, are distributed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (1) the horizontal scale is very different, (2) the slope is much shallower, and (3) only 20% of silver-earning answers come from &lt;1k users. (And, also, multiple good answers from Luboš M, John R, Anna V, David Z, and Mark E.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for completeness, here are the corresponding queries for the other two question badge series: [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152450/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-question-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=10&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph) and [What reputation do people with Favorite/Stellar Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152452/what-reputation-do-people-with-favorite-stellar-question-badges-typically-have?FavoriteCountThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). Both have, as far as I can tell, the same behaviour as the views-based series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware, of course, that so far I've been talking a lot but there aren't many actual questions. The main motivation of this post is to share this observation and the (moderately hard and solid) statistics that back it up. I guess the real question is something like: what do people make of this? Does this correspond to the image this community has of the site? Or is there something missing from this analysis. What are the core reasons for this to happen? Is it simply a volume thing - i.e. the bulk of questions tends to come from lower-rep users than higher-rep ones - or is there indeed some core simplicity and accessibility to those great questions that eludes many of our great answerers? (I think there's quite a bit to that. And, in that case, we should really go and learn how to ask from those great questions.) If this is happening, is it a good thing? Is it a neutral, that's-how-things-are, thing? Or is it something we should try to counter-act? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to the comments and the Pulsar's and Manishearth's answers I'd like to say two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is that *of course* question score is only an approximate, stand-in metric to the completely undefinable &quot;question quality&quot;. However, I feel it is not entirely a bad metric, particularly at the high end of the scale: most of the badge-earning questions are indeed good questions. (That's not to say, on the other hand, that all our good questions get high score, and particularly so for high-end questions.) But there's nothing wrong with a highly-voted, low-level question: if it gets good physics across to a lot of people, at a level where they can understand it, what else could you ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on this site, mostly, to refine my [outreach](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_outreach)[-fu](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-fu#Suffix), and I suspect most high-end users are here at least partly for that. As I see it, these questions are a very valuable resource. Seriously: go read our [Good Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) and tell me you didn't have fun. And, at least, it's something we can and should learn from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pPol.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iViBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="2b559d52-527b-4541-be21-e8c8c3695495" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="(**note:** this is different from [*Is it inappropriate behaviour to post links?*][1]; I am now asking for a debate on the existing policy, rather than asking whether the policy exists. I would be fine if this is closed, but only after a moderator confirms what tpg2114 says below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Kanos's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links/6729#6729) to the forementioned thread claims that it is not allowed to post links to other Q&amp;A sites outside the Stackexchange network, and that it's up to a moderator to suspend a user for doing so. While he has not been able to cite the link to this policy, no moderator has corrected him, and his answer is gaining upvotes, so I'll assume that this is indeed policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this is a bizarre policy to have. What's the reason to maintain such a policy? Is it a network-wide policy, and is it irrevocable like &quot;Be Nice&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6727/is-it-inappropriate-behaviour-to-post-links" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="ee25fca3-5901-4cf3-9e6e-d445287e47da" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's probably caused by a [SE script](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/202805) that automatically converts short answers into [comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions#comment25159_6442)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="3c3e62b2-3682-4cc2-bd94-44d9f0b35e2e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's the time of the year again, namely it is December 2013, and so we shall now refresh our Community Promotion Ads for the new year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **220 x 250 pixels**&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/5263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="fb26ace0-6996-4795-b1ad-4299edd84173" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I suspect you'll all get used to this *eventually* - it's a pretty big change, but realistically I find the top bar isn't usually visible while I'm reading or answering questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If y'all had [kept the *original* design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se) this bar would've matched up *perfectly*... ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="aadf589d-48f9-4a57-9707-2ddaaeb95cae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's probably caused by a [SE script](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/202805) that automatically converts short answers into [comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions#comment25159_6442)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="bbd50958-d10a-4204-af79-9ce60123dc3a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm in the situation of having a long answer but no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[regarding this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can discard the answer so nobody has any benefit from it and the time I spent writing it is deemed wasted.&#xD;&#xA;**Or** I could post that answer somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the later, asking for verification of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;It got put on hold, because it should: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **should ask about a specific physics concept**, which it does: a height&#xD;&#xA; - **show some effort**, which is plain wrong and a bit of an insult&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an attempt to explain these unfitting probably predefined statements, I receive this comment from [Emilio Pisanty][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; check-my-work questions are not really on topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank for the clarification Emilio, it is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I get it. If the source of a question is stigmatised with the possibility of being homework, [treat it differently as discussed here.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me wondering what I should have been doing differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point of posting the answer was that I thought that there could be some value for the community in it. Being told to be unspecific, lacking effort and off topic as a response is **not exactly encouraging to create exhaustive answers in the future and provide such to this community**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do in a situation like that?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178833/how-to-find-the-height-where-the-collision-of-two-balls-occurs?noredirect=1#comment379181_178833&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="0fce150b-daac-448a-b9f1-f3e4898d62c5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked [this question][1] on meta.physics.stackexchange.com, and one hour later, the question was [edited][2], but I wasn't notified of the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites, I'm notified when an edit is made to any of my questions / answers. But on meta.physics.SE, I'm not. Why is this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5430/is-this-question-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/5430/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="a9a1321f-0990-4443-b183-f5be10902861" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm in the situation of having a long answer but no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[regarding this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can discard the answer so nobody has any benefit from it and the time I spent writing it is deemed wasted.&#xD;&#xA;**Or** I could post that answer somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the later, asking for verification of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;It got put on hold, because it should: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **should ask about a specific physics concept**, which it does: a height&#xD;&#xA; - **show some effort**, which is plain wrong and a bit of an insult&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an attempt to explain these unfitting probably predefined statements, I receive this comment from [Emilio Pisanty][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; check-my-work questions are not really on topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank for the clarification Emilio, it is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I get it. If the source of a question is stigmatised with the possibility of being homework, [treat it differently as discussed here.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me wondering what I should have been doing differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point of posting the answer was that I thought that there could be some value for the community in it. Being told to be unspecific, lacking effort and off topic as a response is **not exactly encouraging to create exhaustive answers in the future and provide such to this community**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do in a situation like that?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178833/how-to-find-the-height-where-the-collision-of-two-balls-occurs?noredirect=1#comment379181_178833&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="830bca96-8d88-48bc-90ba-5806c60c37c6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Now that our [new recommendation policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) is in effect, I would like to propose a change that I think will alleviate some misuse of the associated tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:books] → [tag:resource-recommendation]&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:reference-request] → [tag:specific-reference]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this better captures the [intended meaning of the tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/786/what-are-the-meanings-of-books-and-reference-request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Better suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="16cb3a45-f0d7-4bba-9541-6317b5decc3a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Upon forceful deletion of my [previous answer][1], by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long) suspensions of accounts. The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Physics Overflow Implements Rotating of moderator positions(currently 1 yr cycle), to facilitate the process of understanding the position of both the moderators and users from a practical point of view.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange implements Life time moderatorship. Some reasons being listed [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/problem-of-unnecessary-censorship-in-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="ddd40ca9-00a0-4671-975f-1018e46ff424" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Moderators are appointed for life as discussed in [this][1] post.  Not having a term limit seems reasonable, but is there no way for a moderator to be recalled by the community?  No reelection and no recall authority seems rather like a dictatorship.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="6a8f3ac8-bc0f-481a-a78e-d9621e338180" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Upon forceful deletion of my [previous answer][1], by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long) suspensions of accounts. The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Physics Overflow Implements Rotating of moderator positions(currently 1 yr cycle), to facilitate the process of understanding the position of both the moderators and users from a practical point of view.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange implements Life time moderatorship. Some reasons being listed [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/problem-of-unnecessary-censorship-in-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="50a8e5b2-7224-42e7-929c-2cfe99ad3c5c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR:** Voting is one of the things that makes the SE sites work (the [**review queues**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) being another big one); if you aren't downvoting, you are **not** helping this place work; so downvote on the bad answers as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting &quot;you&quot; here as plural (rather than me specifically), I can think of three reasons why one would avoid downvoting: (1) time (2) knowledge (3) low score. For commenting, only (1) and (2) apply and for similar reasons to what I'll write below, so I'll be skipping out commenting (unless someone cannot infer correctly, then I guess I'll edit it in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (1) Time&#xD;&#xA;There are almost 56,000 questions asked on this site. At [almost 3 answers per question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), that's around 150,000 answers to scroll through. Since we're only allowed to vote on [30 posts per day](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) (combined up &amp; down, there are 10 extra votes for questions-only, however) and assuming that 20% of the answers are &quot;bad,&quot; that's still 30,000 answers and at a maximum of 30 answers per day, it'd take almost 3 years to downvote each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we're never actually going to get to downvoting *all* the bad answers on this site, however **we should still downvote the bad answers as we see them**; it is, after all, the means by which we let future visitors know what is a good/correct answer and what is a bad/incorrect answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (2) Knowledge&#xD;&#xA;I think that bandwagon&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; voting is bad way to vote, but it is something we have to live with on this Q&amp;A site (e.g., the [hot-network-question effect](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5826/unusual-upvote-trends-discussion/5827#5827)). So the best (only?) way to vote on a post is to have some knowledge on the subject being asked; if you don't have the knowledge you probably shouldn't vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem to contradict the previous assertion to downvote bad answers, but I'd say it does not contradict it because in order to discern what makes a bad answer, you need to have knowledge in the subject matter. So, again, **downvote the answers you know are wrong** as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (3) Low Score&#xD;&#xA;Answers with less than `-2` net score are faded to suggest that the answer is bad and could/should be ignored. Some people may think that downvoting it beyond that mark isn't necessary because it's already in an &quot;ignorable&quot; state. However, there are a small subset of users on this site who make it their goal to upvote all posts *especially heavily downvoted ones*.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We should not let a &lt;-3 score stop us from downvoting** an answer we know to be bad; it's a bad answer and the (minimal) appropriate response is downvoting. Similarly, we should not let a *positive* score affect our voting; if it's wrong, it's wrong and should be downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: I'm not suggesting that we downvote to -infinity here, only that the *current score* on a question should not be a deterrent from our voting (this goes for up as well as down); the basis of our vote should be on the quality &amp; content of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 A bandwagon vote is one in which a person votes (either direction) simply because that is the &quot;popular&quot; consensus&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The thought is that the arbitrary scoring system of a website can, somehow, be psychologically damaging to the user; upvotes are some sort of positive reinforcement. There is no evidence for this position, despite continued requests for some (other sites that use voting systems, like [imgur](http://www.imgur.com) and [reddit](http://www.reddit.com), do not seem to have this &quot;problem;&quot; users often make fun of themselves for getting downvoted).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="1393bc88-686d-422c-b53f-4791ee9712d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR:** Voting is one of the things that makes the SE sites work (the [**review queues**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) being another big one); if you aren't downvoting, you are **not** helping this place work; so downvote on the bad answers as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting &quot;you&quot; here as plural (rather than me specifically), I can think of three reasons why one would avoid downvoting: (1) time (2) knowledge (3) low score. For commenting, only (1) and (2) apply and for similar reasons to what I'll write below, so I'll be skipping out commenting (unless someone cannot infer correctly, then I guess I'll edit it in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (1) Time&#xD;&#xA;There are almost 56,000 questions asked on this site. At [almost 3 answers per question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), that's around 150,000 answers to scroll through. Since we're only allowed to vote on [30 posts per day](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) (combined up &amp; down, there are 10 extra votes for questions-only, however) and assuming that 20% of the answers are &quot;bad,&quot; that's still 30,000 answers and at a maximum of 30 answers per day, it'd take almost 3 years to downvote each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we're never actually going to get to downvoting *all* the bad answers on this site, however **we should still downvote the bad answers as we see them**; it is, after all, the means by which we let future visitors know what is a good/correct answer and what is a bad/incorrect answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (2) Knowledge&#xD;&#xA;I think that bandwagon&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; voting is bad way to vote, but it is something we have to live with on this Q&amp;A site (e.g., the [hot-network-question effect](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5826/unusual-upvote-trends-discussion/5827#5827)). So the best (only?) way to vote on a post is to have some knowledge on the subject being asked; if you don't have the knowledge you probably shouldn't vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem to contradict the previous assertion to downvote bad answers, but I'd say it does not contradict it because in order to discern what makes a bad answer, you need to have knowledge in the subject matter. So, again, **downvote the answers you know are wrong** as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (3) Low Score&#xD;&#xA;Answers with less than `-2` net score are faded to suggest that the answer is bad and could/should be ignored. Some people may think that downvoting it beyond that mark isn't necessary because it's already in an &quot;ignorable&quot; state. However, there are a small subset of users on this site who make it their goal to upvote all posts *especially heavily downvoted ones*.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We should not let a &lt;-3 score stop us from downvoting** an answer we know to be bad; it's a bad answer and the (minimal) appropriate response is downvoting. Similarly, we should not let a *positive* score affect our voting; if it's wrong, it's wrong and should be downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: I'm not suggesting that we downvote to -infinity here, only that the *current score* on a question should not be a deterrent from our voting (this goes for up as well as down); the basis of our vote should be on the quality &amp; content of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 A bandwagon vote is one in which a person votes (either direction) simply because that is the &quot;popular&quot; consensus&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The thought is that the arbitrary scoring system of a website can, somehow, be psychologically damaging to the user; upvotes are some sort of positive reinforcement. There is no evidence for this position, despite continued requests for some (other sites that use voting systems, like [imgur](http://www.imgur.com) and [reddit](http://www.reddit.com), do not seem to have this &quot;problem;&quot; users often make fun of themselves for getting downvoted).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="749ab7e0-880d-4faa-9e32-471550b3a381" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Earlier today I was eyeballing other people's badges because, you know, badges, and I came upon something of a curious observation. If you look at the answer badges - specifically [Nice](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer), [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/39/good-answer) and [Great](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) Answer, there is a clear sense that, even for the bronze badge, established users of the site - and particularly users with, say, 1k+ rep - get a lot of the badges. However, if you look at the users who have earned the gold question badges, the picture is completely different: [Famous Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question), [Great Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/42/great-question) and [Stellar Question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/51/stellar-question) have been earned overwhelmingly by &lt;1k rep users; ditto for the silvers and bronzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course not news. This was discussed in depth in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions. It is also not a surprise in any sense that more questions come from lower-rep users and more answers come from higher-rep users - that's to be expected in some form in any Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm quite struck at how we *do* have a pretty big set of really nice questions, and that they were mostly asked by quite low-rep users. While it is natural that questions will tend to be asked by lower-rep users, it is not a given that the good questions will come from that end of the scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore decided to explore this theme a bit and, in the meantime, dredge up what's left of my SQL skills after ten years (!) of rust. I came up with this query for the Stack Exchange Data Explorer: [What reputation do people with Popular/Notable/Famous Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152438/what-reputation-do-people-with-popular-notable-famous-question-badges-typically-h?viewsThreshold=10000&amp;repThreshold=100000#graph). It produces a cumulative-distribution-function-like plot of the number of users below reputation `rep` that have asked a question with `&gt;viewsThreshold` views. For the gold badge, the plot is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 90% of such questions were asked by users who (even now) have less than 1k. There are a few between 1k and 2k, and really not much other than [this great (cw) question of Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401/what-software-programs-are-used-to-draw-physics-diagrams-and-what-are-their-rel) and [this one of nibot's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/what-is-the-difference-between-kinematics-and-dynamics). I genuinely think this is surprising and really puts the nail on what we knew all along: 'expert' users need to start asking more questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also raises an interesting question as regards why this happens: can it really simply be explained by low-rep users &quot;stumbling&quot; on the good nuggets of question space, as part of the huge body of questions asked by the overwhelming majority of users that have &lt;1k rep? Looking at, say, the questions that earned the [Good](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) sobriquet, I think there is something else at stake. Those questions have a simplicity, and therefore a generality, that I think tends to be lacking in the questions asked by more established users. What do people think about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have also cooked up the corresponding query for the Nice/Good/Great Answer badge series, [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Answer badges typically have?&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152446/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-answer-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). There aren't enough Great Answers to give a smooth enough plot, but the silver earners, at 25+ votes, are distributed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (1) the horizontal scale is very different, (2) the slope is much shallower, and (3) only 20% of silver-earning answers come from &lt;1k users. (And, also, multiple good answers from Luboš M, John R, Anna V, David Z, and Mark E.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for completeness, here are the corresponding queries for the other two question badge series: [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152450/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-question-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=10&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph) and [What reputation do people with Favorite/Stellar Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152452/what-reputation-do-people-with-favorite-stellar-question-badges-typically-have?FavoriteCountThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). Both have, as far as I can tell, the same behaviour as the views-based series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware, of course, that so far I've been talking a lot but there aren't many actual questions. The main motivation of this post is to share this observation and the (moderately hard and solid) statistics that back it up. I guess the real question is something like: what do people make of this? Does this correspond to the image this community has of the site? Or is there something missing from this analysis. What are the core reasons for this to happen? Is it simply a volume thing - i.e. the bulk of questions tends to come from lower-rep users than higher-rep ones - or is there indeed some core simplicity and accessibility to those great questions that eludes many of our great answerers? (I think there's quite a bit to that. And, in that case, we should really go and learn how to ask from those great questions.) If this is happening, is it a good thing? Is it a neutral, that's-how-things-are, thing? Or is it something we should try to counter-act? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to the comments and the Pulsar's and Manishearth's answers I'd like to say two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is that *of course* question score is only an approximate, stand-in metric to the completely undefinable &quot;question quality&quot;. However, I feel it is not entirely a bad metric, particularly at the high end of the scale: most of the badge-earning questions are indeed good questions. (That's not to say, on the other hand, that all our good questions get high score, and particularly so for high-end questions.) But there's nothing wrong with a highly-voted, low-level question: if it gets good physics across to a lot of people, at a level where they can understand it, what else could you ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on this site, mostly, to refine my [outreach](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_outreach)[-fu](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-fu#Suffix), and I suspect most high-end users are here at least partly for that. As I see it, these questions are a very valuable resource. Seriously: go read our [Good Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) and tell me you didn't have fun. And, at least, it's something we can and should learn from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pPol.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iViBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="e39afa42-5a4c-40a2-bc95-4ddd8cf351cf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6895" RevisionGUID="e8728d96-189d-41ac-bee7-da6272f0ca03" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Suggest Jim then. If it's most popular, who am I to argue –  Jim Feb 11 at 17:52 [[source](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6510/a-jim-for-all-seasons?page=1&amp;tab=votes#comment24160_6514)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6895" RevisionGUID="8d4fae37-bfc9-4f5e-9890-0b09b3186f68" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Suggest Jim then. If it's most popular, who am I to argue –  Jim Feb 11 at 17:52 [[source](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6510/a-jim-for-all-seasons?page=1&amp;tab=votes#comment24160_6514)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="7edcb33f-a88f-4bb4-9b3f-c40dd39b6bb0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I suspect you'll all get used to this *eventually* - it's a pretty big change, but realistically I find the top bar isn't usually visible while I'm reading or answering questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If y'all had [kept the *original* design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se) this bar would've matched up *perfectly*... ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="d0c4b60d-e3f1-4873-ac98-143e9f55fde8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I hope Manishearth won't mind if I steal his comment, but they're not. The reason it seems like they might be is that we usually don't get around to cleaning them up unless someone flags them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more precise: Stack Exchange gives us (moderators) some slightly contradictory guidance on comments. On one hand, the intent of comments on main sites is that they are supposed to be transient, and used for suggestions, corrections and clarifications, not for discussion. However, we're also advised not to indiscriminately delete comments unless they've degenerated into an argument. As you can tell, these two guidelines aren't quite compatible with each other. Different moderators and different sites have chosen different approaches to dealing with comments, within this spectrum, and our compromise here is to remove comments [when their usefulness has passed and they are brought to our attention](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5453/under-what-conditions-are-all-comments-on-an-answer-deleted), but otherwise not to look too hard for comment discussions to delete. We rely on the community and the system to find the cases where comments really need to be cleaned up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="8787b89c-bd5e-4aef-a101-b9f671de1d67" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there isn't any long-term utility to care about. The question part of your post &#xD;&#xA;was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the difference between an unclear question and a question you are unable to answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody in here closes questions because an answer is not immediately obvious. You can click on the unanswered tab of questions, and find enough examples to the same effect. [This comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26960_6906) best clarifies the stance people have regarding the question which got closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the rest of that meta post, and the comments below that post, are just an extended rant. We get it, everybody feels upset when their question gets closed, and having been on this site for more than an year, I have seen many of them resort to angry ranting in chat or meta. When you are in chat, you can still get away with it, but content-less rants in meta, and especially those accompanied by statements like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm not really interested in your answer. I simply think that it would be [in principle, theoretically] useful for you to write down an answer [of course you will sort of &quot;copy and paste&quot; another wrong answer, so it won't be useful at all].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;really provide no lasting retention value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relax. It is an internet community of anonymous strangers, and you are an anonymous user too. A question got closed, ego felt bruised probably, but its no big deal. You will get over it in a day or too. But if you keep spamming meta with more and more content-less rants, you potentially risk being deemed an angry spammer, and would perhaps eventually face a _cool-down suspension_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I advise you to relax, and take some time off. A question by an anonymous user, getting closed, is really no big deal. But making a mess out of it, is!    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="8a56fe46-49e2-499b-8b2a-e23b8fb337a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Why don't you consider the utility of the post for other people (yourself)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there isn't any long-term utility to care about. The question part of your post &#xD;&#xA;was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the difference between an unclear question and a question you are unable to answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody in here closes questions because an answer is not immediately obvious. You can click on the unanswered tab of questions, and find enough examples to the same effect. [This comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6906/define-what-an-unclear-question-is#comment26960_6906) best clarifies the stance people have regarding the question which got closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the rest of that meta post, and the comments below that post, are just an extended rant. We get it, everybody feels upset when their question gets closed, and having been on this site for more than an year, I have seen many of them resort to angry ranting in chat or meta. When you are in chat, you can still get away with it, but content-less rants in meta, and especially those accompanied by statements like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm not really interested in your answer. I simply think that it would be [in principle, theoretically] useful for you to write down an answer [of course you will sort of &quot;copy and paste&quot; another wrong answer, so it won't be useful at all].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;really provide no lasting retention value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relax. It is an internet community of anonymous strangers, and you are an anonymous user too. A question got closed, ego felt bruised probably, but its no big deal. You will get over it in a day or too. But if you keep spamming meta with more and more content-less rants, you potentially risk being deemed an angry spammer, and would perhaps eventually face a _cool-down suspension_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I advise you to relax, and take some time off. A question by an anonymous user, getting closed, is really no big deal. But making a mess out of it, is!    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="e607ef1f-3484-4796-b8a4-d86bc38262ee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked [this question][1] on meta.physics.stackexchange.com, and one hour later, the question was [edited][2], but I wasn't notified of the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other sites, I'm notified when an edit is made to any of my questions / answers. But on meta.physics.SE, I'm not. Why is this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5430/is-this-question-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/5430/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6970" RevisionGUID="72d698b5-1ebb-468a-815f-13aea3a84e72" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Short version:** No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question would fall firmly under [our policy on engineering question][1]. You're not concerned with anything fundamental about how parts work or with [building an experimental apparatus][2], so while many physicist would find the question fascinating, it is not a *physics question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="e37ec8b0-08b4-487b-acaf-acceb8d2061e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, the question is exceedingly broad. We usually deal with specific, conceptual questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, we just don't do &quot;getting started&quot; questions. A subset of book recommendation questions are allowed, but they need to be reasonably specific too. (See the [meta thread on resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) to see how to ask one of those.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm not really sure if it can be fixed while still being useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try asking around in [chat][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6970" RevisionGUID="5d2d1d46-9e1e-4195-8599-2d39f675743d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Short version:** No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question would fall firmly under [our policy on engineering question][1]. You're not concerned with anything fundamental about how parts work or with [building an experimental apparatus][2], so while many physicist would find the question fascinating, it is not a *physics question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="b0020f83-c6f3-4103-85df-971124192b17" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Moderators are appointed for life as discussed in [this][1] post.  Not having a term limit seems reasonable, but is there no way for a moderator to be recalled by the community?  No reelection and no recall authority seems rather like a dictatorship.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/when-are-next-moderator-elections" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="eef0b3ef-389d-43f6-a447-e4a2b1c75b14" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I tried to make a suggested edit for a post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that was otherwise great, but the OP had made a single-character typo. When I tried to correct the typo, I was told that the edit needed to be 6 characters. As it was, the OP had an image there with the default  `[image description goes here]` text, so I just deleted that as unnecessary, but what is the correct way to do this? The comments in [this post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5402/edits-must-be-6-characters-long) seem to suggest that you should just add some random unprinted nonsense to the question or something, but that can't possibly be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is to be done? Seems like the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;* Suggest the edit and do something to circumvent the 6-character restriction (e.g. `&lt;!--add a comment--&gt;`).&#xD;&#xA;* Leave a comment so the OP or someone with higher rep might make the fix themselves.&#xD;&#xA;* Try and find something else more significant to &quot;improve&quot; about the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like the first bullet is not a desirable outcome for the community, the second one can't possibly be the right recommendation, the third is apt to leave pointless detritus in the comments section, and the fourth is probably not always possible or desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't want to call it out specifically because I don't want there to be a big public-facing record talking about a 1-character typo in an interesting and informative answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="29938fd8-9f42-42e4-bc4d-49449934eb67" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I tried to make a suggested edit for a post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that was otherwise great, but the OP had made a single-character typo. When I tried to correct the typo, I was told that the edit needed to be 6 characters. As it was, the OP had an image there with the default  `[image description goes here]` text, so I just deleted that as unnecessary, but what is the correct way to do this? The comments in [this post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5402/edits-must-be-6-characters-long) seem to suggest that you should just add some random unprinted nonsense to the question or something, but that can't possibly be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is to be done? Seems like the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;* Suggest the edit and do something to circumvent the 6-character restriction (e.g. `&lt;!--add a comment--&gt;`).&#xD;&#xA;* Leave a comment so the OP or someone with higher rep might make the fix themselves.&#xD;&#xA;* Try and find something else more significant to &quot;improve&quot; about the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like the first bullet is not a desirable outcome for the community, the second one can't possibly be the right recommendation, the third is apt to leave pointless detritus in the comments section, and the fourth is probably not always possible or desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't want to call it out specifically because I don't want there to be a big public-facing record talking about a 1-character typo in an interesting and informative answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="0673bc48-104f-4536-8270-ffb1e4994bed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) arose out of a time with a lot of discussion on meta about how this site could be improved; it was proposed that we ban homework and this question explored how that would look like and whether people agreed to a concrete form or not. This question gathered a lot of votes (currently +25/-7 on the question, and 13/1, 11/1, 9/0, 7/0, 7/0 and 6/0 on the answers), but my impression is that there wasn't really enough consensus to implement this policy, or at least in this form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, the debate has slowed somewhat (as in e.g. [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/)) and it has drifted off into other directions (such as [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain)). In particular, next week [**moderators will leave all homework closures to the community**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework) as a way to try and find out what we, as a community, think should and should not be on this site. I regard this as a much healthier approach to the problem, and I think it should lead to this document becoming obsolete: we should reformulate the policy in terms of what we actually want and do, instead of some idealized construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add a bit more food for thought to the meta table, I'd like to set down some retrospective thoughts on this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, I must say I regard this as an experiment in writing and large parts of it as not very successful. It was proposed elsewhere that we ban homework questions but still keep the homework tag, at least temporarily. This policy proposal was an attempt to see whether such a policy could be realized in a concrete example, and I tried very hard to reconcile the two conflicting directions. I do not think I was very successful, and the policy below has several sticky points that must be resolved using judgement calls; I think this is a sign of fundamental contradictions at the heart of such a policy, and I'm doubtful that more successful implementations of the same core policy can be written while still retaining the homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The key point that sparked this was the claim/observation by [David Z](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) and [Manishearth](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563) that homework is already essentially banned. I'm less convinced now that that's the case (see e.g. [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=[homework]+closed:no+score:3)), but this was an exercise at seeing whether such an 'effective policy' could be set down into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Certain parts of this thread definitely still read nicely. I particularly like the emphasis on driving people away from homework-like questions and onto more conceptual ones, the shift to &quot;what should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&quot;, and the introduction of sections on what to do if your question has been closed or put on hold or has close-votes on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another contradiction is to tell people to drop the dependence of their question on the problem (&quot;it should be useful to someone who's not staring at the same problem&quot;) but still telling them it is crucial that they 'reference the source' and provide the full context of their question. I'm not saying that we should drop either requirement, but I do think this merits a lot of thought as to how to reconcile the two once they're on (e)paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One useful practicality is that there are in fact a lot of small places where users with homework questions come into contact with the policy, which is reflected in the six different answers here. These should all be considered with a view on an eventual reformulation of formal policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, as this page is already long enough. I just wanted to set these thoughts down, particularly since we're coming up on community closing. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="208f86f8-63d1-4fe6-8c00-0e911b211d6e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that at the moment, the user stands temporarily suspended for a day, &quot;to cool down&quot;&#xD;&#xA;it most likely appears that he/she is pissed for some reason (most likely the site's [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/), which appears controversial to many users), and has taken to self-vandalism of his/her posts, perhaps as a mark of protest/retaliation. He/she could personally divulge the reasons behind this action (i.e. if he/she _wants_ to divulge them), after the suspension period is over, when he/she can again use the site as before. Please note that moderators can not reveal the same information (generically, details of individual suspensions), as they have repeatedly stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding the issue of self-vandalism of his/her posts, the community had recently observed, in response to my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6971/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that by posting, one is ceding some measure of control over one's posts to the site, and that being the post owner does NOT entitle one to self-vandalize one's posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of the above, and as was suggested by [Emilio Pisanty, in his answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6974/46399) to the above question, the correct course of action for the &gt; 2k rep members of the community, is to edit-back those posts to the last working version. This shall restore all content.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vt2bJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="96ebd5e7-7213-462d-8570-d22dc8f6a475" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that at the moment, the user stands temporarily suspended for a day, &quot;to cool down&quot;&#xD;&#xA;it most likely appears that he/she is pissed for some reason (most likely the site's [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/), which appears controversial to many users), and has taken to self-vandalism of his/her posts, perhaps as a mark of protest/retaliation. He/she could personally divulge the reasons behind this action (i.e. if he/she _wants_ to divulge them), after the suspension period is over, when he/she can again use the site as before. Please note that moderators can not reveal the same information (generically, details of individual suspensions), as they have repeatedly stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding the issue of self-vandalism of his/her posts, the community had recently observed, in response to my question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6971/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that by posting, one is ceding some measure of control over one's posts to the site, and that being the post owner does NOT entitle one to self-vandalize one's posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of the above, and as was suggested by [Emilio Pisanty, in his answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6974/46399) to the above question, the correct course of action for the &gt; 2k rep members of the community, is to edit-back those posts to the last working version. This shall restore all content.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vt2bJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="e8329518-c07a-47fd-925f-784b7594760d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="21246ffa-482f-4f00-959e-b58019f5c5a3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It has become clear to me that the CPR idea redacted below is *waaay* too complex to succeed. The less ambitious **[&quot;Journal Club&quot;][1]** idea of 2 years ago was enthusiastically received, then fizzled. I feel that was too ambitious also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More realistically, I would propose that there can be questions based on particular papers, preprints or articles that can only be sensibly answered if that paper has been read. Perhaps with a *research-paper* tag? The question can be as basic as &quot;what do you think of this paper?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could achieve some of the goals of a &quot;Journal Club&quot;, such as providing higher level content, without the off-putting procedural overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="10c9ed68-168c-412d-9f8c-88e390775d17" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I hope Manishearth won't mind if I steal his comment, but they're not. The reason it seems like they might be is that we usually don't get around to cleaning them up unless someone flags them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more precise: Stack Exchange gives us (moderators) some slightly contradictory guidance on comments. On one hand, the intent of comments on main sites is that they are supposed to be transient, and used for suggestions, corrections and clarifications, not for discussion. However, we're also advised not to indiscriminately delete comments unless they've degenerated into an argument. As you can tell, these two guidelines aren't quite compatible with each other. Different moderators and different sites have chosen different approaches to dealing with comments, within this spectrum, and our compromise here is to remove comments [when their usefulness has passed and they are brought to our attention](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5453/under-what-conditions-are-all-comments-on-an-answer-deleted), but otherwise not to look too hard for comment discussions to delete. We rely on the community and the system to find the cases where comments really need to be cleaned up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="381ca141-79db-4b26-8deb-992aeef229da" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good suggestion. It's been obvious for a number of years that the culture on physics stack exchange is not representative or welcoming of ideas in condensed matter, computational or experimental physics, at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theoretical questions and answers are not a problem in themselves, but for the apparent sense of entitlement I see among the established order of the 'community' who seem to want to impose their culture on everyone who seeks to ask and answer physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the current community are not willing to share this space with others, then all we can do is set up a new one which is more inclusive of those interested in solving real world physics problems, beginners and those &quot;[layman][1]&quot; who should be able to have somewhere to ask conceptual questions on physics. I'd support an [area 51][2] proposal like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7114/why-do-many-users-on-this-forum-approach-laypeople-with-arrogance/7124?noredirect=1#comment27890_7124&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="8fa2f3ba-1064-4065-9536-2efdad22f619" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It has become clear to me that the CPR idea redacted below is *waaay* too complex to succeed. The less ambitious **[&quot;Journal Club&quot;][1]** idea of 2 years ago was enthusiastically received, then fizzled. I feel that was too ambitious also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More realistically, I would propose that there can be questions based on particular papers, preprints or articles that can only be sensibly answered if that paper has been read. Perhaps with a *research-paper* tag? The question can be as basic as &quot;what do you think of this paper?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could achieve some of the goals of a &quot;Journal Club&quot;, such as providing higher level content, without the off-putting procedural overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/lets-have-a-journal-club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="0fcf0adb-1d97-4d89-8ded-17edc9a5054f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) As for the general principles, when the old Astro.SE was closed, it was decided on Phys.SE that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. astronomy questions are [on-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1197/2451), and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. to [import](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2451) all posts from the old Astro.SE to Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally there is also a SE rule which states that migration of a post (from one SE sister site to another) should only be considered if it is deemed off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) As for the particular [post](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1845), I was the moderator that migrated it. I guess I in a weak moment thought that it should be migrated to Astro.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="074a1f1a-fdeb-47cd-9378-fbccb44253f5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, the question is exceedingly broad. We usually deal with specific, conceptual questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, we just don't do &quot;getting started&quot; questions. A subset of book recommendation questions are allowed, but they need to be reasonably specific too. (See the [meta thread on resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) to see how to ask one of those.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm not really sure if it can be fixed while still being useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try asking around in [chat][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="7bb5384b-2d48-4c50-b2ff-5a9ab95aea30" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Ah, the difficultly of searching meta. I've found [a previous discussion on this topic.][2] The accepted answer, with +16 votes, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a question which focuses entirely on mathematical details, whilst perhaps appropriate for the mathematics SE, should be kept on the physics SE if it is motivated by physics, even though it may not necessarily be regarding how it is precisely applied to a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would suggest that the linked question is just on topic, period. Still, it seems worth bringing up again to see if that's still the consensus, and perhaps to remind active close-voters that the agreed policy isn't quite as exclusive as they might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/210552/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="9e878948-9320-4727-b851-8749d13f5b6d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) arose out of a time with a lot of discussion on meta about how this site could be improved; it was proposed that we ban homework and this question explored how that would look like and whether people agreed to a concrete form or not. This question gathered a lot of votes (currently +25/-7 on the question, and 13/1, 11/1, 9/0, 7/0, 7/0 and 6/0 on the answers), but my impression is that there wasn't really enough consensus to implement this policy, or at least in this form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, the debate has slowed somewhat (as in e.g. [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/)) and it has drifted off into other directions (such as [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain)). In particular, next week [**moderators will leave all homework closures to the community**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework) as a way to try and find out what we, as a community, think should and should not be on this site. I regard this as a much healthier approach to the problem, and I think it should lead to this document becoming obsolete: we should reformulate the policy in terms of what we actually want and do, instead of some idealized construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add a bit more food for thought to the meta table, I'd like to set down some retrospective thoughts on this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, I must say I regard this as an experiment in writing and large parts of it as not very successful. It was proposed elsewhere that we ban homework questions but still keep the homework tag, at least temporarily. This policy proposal was an attempt to see whether such a policy could be realized in a concrete example, and I tried very hard to reconcile the two conflicting directions. I do not think I was very successful, and the policy below has several sticky points that must be resolved using judgement calls; I think this is a sign of fundamental contradictions at the heart of such a policy, and I'm doubtful that more successful implementations of the same core policy can be written while still retaining the homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The key point that sparked this was the claim/observation by [David Z](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) and [Manishearth](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563) that homework is already essentially banned. I'm less convinced now that that's the case (see e.g. [this search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=[homework]+closed:no+score:3)), but this was an exercise at seeing whether such an 'effective policy' could be set down into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Certain parts of this thread definitely still read nicely. I particularly like the emphasis on driving people away from homework-like questions and onto more conceptual ones, the shift to &quot;what should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&quot;, and the introduction of sections on what to do if your question has been closed or put on hold or has close-votes on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another contradiction is to tell people to drop the dependence of their question on the problem (&quot;it should be useful to someone who's not staring at the same problem&quot;) but still telling them it is crucial that they 'reference the source' and provide the full context of their question. I'm not saying that we should drop either requirement, but I do think this merits a lot of thought as to how to reconcile the two once they're on (e)paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One useful practicality is that there are in fact a lot of small places where users with homework questions come into contact with the policy, which is reflected in the six different answers here. These should all be considered with a view on an eventual reformulation of formal policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, as this page is already long enough. I just wanted to set these thoughts down, particularly since we're coming up on community closing. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="72a21b28-cb05-4de9-9398-a8bff1150df4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is really just posted to get the conversation rolling and please don't infer my view on the topic from the question -- I'll post an answer when I have some time that will reflect my opinion on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there was a recent [tag:big-list] question seeking to create a massive compilation of reading materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101187/best-sets-of-physics-lecture-notes-and-articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed because it definitely does not conform with our current policies concerning [big-list questions][1] nor those concerning [reference-request questions][2] and the [related discussion][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite clearly not conforming to any of the established policies, the question has attracted 3 reopen votes. I have been [admonished in the past][4] for voting to close against the prevalent opinion described on Meta, so I would like to find out why reopen votes are being cast on a question that so clearly violates all of the established policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the discussion here is really about whether we still feel the [tag:big-list] questions are off-topic or not and more specifically whether the question linked above should be opened despite it being against existing policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5205/dealing-with-level-of-resources-in-requests&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/software-for-calculating-feynman-diagrams#comment197589_96510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="0bd6d4aa-75dd-4aa6-9c95-9b479831422b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Maybe not a list of memes, but somewhat on related lines was this (now closed) question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, there also a deleted question - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70740/do-good-physics-jokes-exist, which was also removed for the reasons of moderation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you scroll through the existing comments on the linked page, you can appreciate the reasons why it got closed. Still for reasons of completeness, apart from [DavidZ's answer above](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7145/46399), it makes sense to reiterate [dmckee's point](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline#comment145498_71067) in the original thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no format in which you can ask this question. First, the Stack Exchange engine has been carefully built and tuned to deal well with question that have right and wrong answers; and it does not mange lists well. Second, while these kinds of questions are enormously popular that very popularity makes them destructive to the question &amp; answer environment that is what we seek here: &quot;best this&quot; and &quot;favorite that&quot; question push out the substantial content. It took more than two years for a majority of the active users on Stack Overflow to understand this, so we learned the hard way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, long story cut short - even though most people would really like that question and the answers, SE sites are not the appropriate place for such big list questions. Sorry :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="96f2f7a9-e970-438b-ad2f-d31c15d2ad39" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Community Promotion Ads are proposed and voted on by the Physics SE community][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8yg4s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5263/community-promotion-ads-2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="42d1db13-0fc1-42d8-a45d-6c23f9497f0a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) As for the general principles, when the old Astro.SE was closed, it was decided on Phys.SE that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. astronomy questions are [on-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1197/2451), and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. to [import](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2451) all posts from the old Astro.SE to Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally there is also a SE rule which states that migration of a post (from one SE sister site to another) should only be considered if it is deemed off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) As for the particular [post](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1845), I was the moderator that migrated it. I guess I in a weak moment thought that it should be migrated to Astro.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="f952aaae-4b31-4791-9ec2-3f70a661d781" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The homework policy is a constant source of confusion for new (and sometimes established) users.&#xD;&#xA;We see this confusion, for example, when users respond to closures based on the homework policy by defending their post with &quot;This is not a homework problem&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;Some users have even been conditioned to claim a non-homework basis for their posts preemptively. &#xD;&#xA;It seems the word &quot;homework&quot; throws people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we modify the help center, associated close reason, and our own language to make clear that whether or not a question comes from homework isn't the real issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is very similar to [a previous one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4977/).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not only asking about the tag.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking about the help center, close reason, and language used by users as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="2806cf55-6dee-4be9-88c1-b852b82b6bc0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a = b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\label{my equation}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equation \ref{my equation} is my equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan on editing my question [Alternative representation of the covariant derivative?][1] to make it more compact and concise, but it would be nice to save time and not have to renumber all of the equations [manually](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/2451) a third time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101464/alternative-representation-of-the-covariant-derivative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="0eb0ac86-94dd-412d-83c1-c24447fdbe73" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have the same objection to this that [dmckee had last time we talked about this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4982/6634). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, everybody who posts a question on this site wants a problem solved. The problem may be lack of understanding, or it may be homework, or it may be just about anything else. But the very existence of a question implies there is a problem to be solved, and such a tag would then apply to everything under the sun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would rather see the meta tag go away entirely and we downvote bad &quot;homework-like&quot; questions into oblivion and close them just as fast as we are now. There's no need for a tag to point out garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;good&quot; questions (ie. the ones that already conform to the policy) don't need a separate tag to tell us that they conform to the policy. They will be well-posed questions looking for conceptual explanations and thus no different from any other good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the close reason needs to say &quot;Homework like ...&quot; nor &quot;Problem solving ...&quot;, it could simply say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then means that close reason can apply to all of the really bad questions that come in and make no sense nor effort to justify them. It's kind of a &quot;non-mainstream&quot; close reason for mainstream topics. We want all of our questions to be about specific physics concepts -- that's part of what makes us unique from [World Building.SE](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com). We close questions that start &quot;Imagine if the sun instantly disappeared...&quot; as non-physical, so this kind of close reason would work for that as well as &quot;A ball is rolling down a 45 degree ramp...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the help center, I would say it doesn't need changed because we do want to forbid homework questions as they are defined there. And we want to forbid bad questions as defined elsewhere in the help center. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="30e2b542-bdb8-4eea-ab0b-5e0a49e7a239" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is really just posted to get the conversation rolling and please don't infer my view on the topic from the question -- I'll post an answer when I have some time that will reflect my opinion on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there was a recent [tag:big-list] question seeking to create a massive compilation of reading materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101187/best-sets-of-physics-lecture-notes-and-articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed because it definitely does not conform with our current policies concerning [big-list questions][1] nor those concerning [reference-request questions][2] and the [related discussion][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite clearly not conforming to any of the established policies, the question has attracted 3 reopen votes. I have been [admonished in the past][4] for voting to close against the prevalent opinion described on Meta, so I would like to find out why reopen votes are being cast on a question that so clearly violates all of the established policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the discussion here is really about whether we still feel the [tag:big-list] questions are off-topic or not and more specifically whether the question linked above should be opened despite it being against existing policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5205/dealing-with-level-of-resources-in-requests&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/software-for-calculating-feynman-diagrams#comment197589_96510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="c476853d-de9d-48e8-82e2-d85e76c71ca0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After finding precedence https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5527/should-this-question-be-on-hold I'd like to bring a question that I wrote to attention. Namely, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102447/quantum-computing-records is currently marked as closed, but was modified after being placed on hold to limit the scope of answers. The last time a similar question was asked occured 3 years ago, and the field of quantum computing has undergone vast changes since then!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question has three short sub questions that can be answered with 2-4 sentences each with a paper or link backing up claims. Originally, I had asked if the answers could include more records that might be of interest, and that is where I believe the question became too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short I am asking that the question be looked at again for opening (preferably brought back) as it has been modified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="54a0342e-679d-440b-930d-34e006fd4b86" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Community Promotion Ads are proposed and voted on by the Physics SE community][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8yg4s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5263/community-promotion-ads-2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="24fa6e26-bc2a-43d7-9a67-d6c33f690795" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) [completed the review cycle with the following votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/104087) listed chronologically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="470c3329-36fb-4435-ab94-04a4a391fb61" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good suggestion. It's been obvious for a number of years that the culture on physics stack exchange is not representative or welcoming of ideas in condensed matter, computational or experimental physics, at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theoretical questions and answers are not a problem in themselves, but for the apparent sense of entitlement I see among the established order of the 'community' who seem to want to impose their culture on everyone who seeks to ask and answer physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the current community are not willing to share this space with others, then all we can do is set up a new one which is more inclusive of those interested in solving real world physics problems, beginners and those &quot;[layman][1]&quot; who should be able to have somewhere to ask conceptual questions on physics. I'd support an [area 51][2] proposal like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7114/why-do-many-users-on-this-forum-approach-laypeople-with-arrogance/7124?noredirect=1#comment27890_7124&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="37c5410b-6de8-47c9-b37a-e362217dd78a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; It is pretty apparent that in both of these questions, the user was legitimately asking for help after he/she tried the problem him/herself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current status of the HW policy is that even if work is shown, it still needs to be conceptual. Quoting the [summary at the top of the policy,][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please don't say that they don't contribute anything to the community. Does that mean reading solved problems can't teach you anything? I guess all the Physics textbooks should stop printing solved examples then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not a physics textbook. People don't read it like one, they come to it by searches and homework problems are rarely found in the same form (the generic titles don't help), so these are pretty useless for this site. What may be useful for a textbook need not be useful for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the questions can be rewritten to be explicitly conceptual (instead of just showing a problem and a partial solution), then they can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh, and both of them were closed after I answered, did that have anything to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but you shouldn't answer such questions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="886100ad-3eee-4100-a71c-e06fc9b385b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a = b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\label{my equation}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equation \ref{my equation} is my equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan on editing my question [Alternative representation of the covariant derivative?][1] to make it more compact and concise, but it would be nice to save time and not have to renumber all of the equations [manually](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/2451) a third time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101464/alternative-representation-of-the-covariant-derivative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="d79853e6-91ae-4dcb-9ab0-27e82393f54c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was about to report a bug when I noticed [why my recent upvotes haven't changed my reputation](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2765/why-my-recent-upvotes-havent-changed-my-reputation). I heavily edit my answers as I am trying to develop technical writing skills, upvotes with low reputation would be a better figure of merit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would wikifying most of my answers cause problems? &#xD;&#xA;If so at what number of edits does a post wikify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="bb7ea9d8-56a2-4541-9b5c-98f270f9d997" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the same reason we weren't a homework help site before Physics Overflow was a thing: *because we don't want to be that kind of site*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of this site have debated the places that introductory exercises have in this site repeatedly since anna v's question that you link and the current policy is the outcome of those debates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the more prominent instances of that debate (in most-recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="f53962bc-51e0-4d84-8f74-fa998f5b37ee" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After finding precedence https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5527/should-this-question-be-on-hold I'd like to bring a question that I wrote to attention. Namely, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102447/quantum-computing-records is currently marked as closed, but was modified after being placed on hold to limit the scope of answers. The last time a similar question was asked occured 3 years ago, and the field of quantum computing has undergone vast changes since then!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question has three short sub questions that can be answered with 2-4 sentences each with a paper or link backing up claims. Originally, I had asked if the answers could include more records that might be of interest, and that is where I believe the question became too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short I am asking that the question be looked at again for opening (preferably brought back) as it has been modified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="b46b2bc6-9950-456f-a274-66cca2de86a3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="QMechanic's [comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107091/soft-question-the-best-way-to-learn-physics-road-map#comment218659_107091) really says it all. You are correct that your question is not an exact duplicate (and the moderator made this explicit, so accusing them of not reading the question is hardly the type of constructive discussion we expect in meta). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your question is a *very* poor fit for this site, for a number of reasons. This format works best when questions have something like a unique answer, when there is some sort of objective criterion to determine whether a given answer is correct, and hopefully one to determine which of two answers is better, and when expected answers contain facts and experiences instead of opinions. Your question fails miserably on all counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, no one, at all, ever learns physics 'in order'; everyone learns a few things at a time. Secondly, there isn't really any way to tell one way is better than another. Voting becomes meaningless in such a question. Thirdly, one never learns all of physics, and you will be hard-pressed to find someone who can tell you both in what order to take quantum optics and quantum information, and what plasma courses to take befor learning astrophysics. Relatedly, you yourself won't learn all of physics, so that large parts of any answer would likely be irrelevant. Moreover, since you presumably have already started learning, what would you do with the answers? What if I told you that the best way is to learn math all the way up to functional analysis and then derive all of each field from its basic principles? Would you implement that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more general guidance, you should refer to the Meta question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list, and to the blog post [Good subjective, bad subjective](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/). In this site, list questions are unlikely to prosper unless you make very specific requirements of the answers, and take care to avoid all the pitfalls I mentioned and in those two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me clearly thank QMechanic for closing that question in a timely fashion before more people became invested in it. It was an open-and-shut primarily-opinion-based, too-broad question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="b42d029e-c636-46ac-8feb-230cc572c808" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As with any other equipment-related questions they could be on- or off-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably on-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the underlying physics of how they work&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to their direct application as experimental equipment.&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the construction, characterization, calibration and tuning of one-of-a-kind experimental versions.&#xD;&#xA;* Other cases where a solution is unlikely to come from anyone other than a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably off-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question pertains to engineering of these system in general.&#xD;&#xA;* The question is related to COTS units applied outside of an experimental setting.&#xD;&#xA;* The question concerns hypothetical impacts on society.&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of other cases where there is no obvious reason that a physicist should be involved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References (most recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental Physics &amp; Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [What is engineering and what is experimental design?][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?][3] Note: [tag:faq].&#xD;&#xA;* [Should “How do I solve this experimental problem?” questions be on-topic][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6135/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5553/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="1d60eff9-9aa2-43a8-8e39-53fd2a0be3ae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; It is pretty apparent that in both of these questions, the user was legitimately asking for help after he/she tried the problem him/herself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current status of the HW policy is that even if work is shown, it still needs to be conceptual. Quoting the [summary at the top of the policy,][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please don't say that they don't contribute anything to the community. Does that mean reading solved problems can't teach you anything? I guess all the Physics textbooks should stop printing solved examples then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not a physics textbook. People don't read it like one, they come to it by searches and homework problems are rarely found in the same form (the generic titles don't help), so these are pretty useless for this site. What may be useful for a textbook need not be useful for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the questions can be rewritten to be explicitly conceptual (instead of just showing a problem and a partial solution), then they can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh, and both of them were closed after I answered, did that have anything to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but you shouldn't answer such questions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="0573082e-2d12-44c3-8190-183031b2b63a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was about to report a bug when I noticed [why my recent upvotes haven't changed my reputation](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2765/why-my-recent-upvotes-havent-changed-my-reputation). I heavily edit my answers as I am trying to develop technical writing skills, upvotes with low reputation would be a better figure of merit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would wikifying most of my answers cause problems? &#xD;&#xA;If so at what number of edits does a post wikify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="dff155fb-fb69-400a-b643-3c17d14532c9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So for those of us who can vote to close, we all know what the close vote system looks like. Particularly, under &quot;off topic&quot; you have homework, personal theories, engineering, other StackExchange, and other. The other StackExchange site options are Physics Meta and Math. Quite frankly, I think this covers everything and I have no issues with the occasional typing a reason into &quot;other&quot;. However, I see numerous questions that belong on other StackExchange sites with close-votes as homework or personal theories when they clearly aren't. Most often it is questions asking for help with a circuit being closed as homework. Students aren't the only ones who build circuits; this sort of question really should belong on the electrical engineering SE. I realize we have the &quot;this is engineering&quot; option, but I feel that should be reserved for cases that are about using physics to solve a problem, not for stuff like making circuits. When I see these questions, I always take the extra 14 seconds to type &quot;This question belongs on electrical engineering SE&quot; in the other box. But I feel if there were an option for EE-SE under the other SE site option, it would be used more often and the homework option would be abused less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on electrical engineering because it's the one I see more often. If you think there are other SE sites we should add to the close-vote system, feel free to mention them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you might say a close vote is a close vote. That's simply not true. When we vote to close something, we owe it to the asker to provide an adequate reason. If there is some keen young student or an electrical engineer out there that needs help for something that is not homework, then it is not a valid reason to close the question as homework. We can't force all our 3k+ users to take 14 seconds to write the proper reason, but we can make it easier for them by including other SE sites in the option list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, clearly we cannot include all the other SE sites. We have Math.SE because of how often it comes up. IMO electrical engineering makes an appearance fairly frequently. What do you think? Would expanding the list be worthwhile? If so, what sites would you like to see added? If not, I'd love to hear your pint of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;So I took a closer look at all of the related posts about this. (Thanks for the duplicate votes, by the way. But there were several other questions this was closer to a duplicate of; why that one?) Anyway, it seems that the question has been raised before about various other SE sites. For the majority, the answer seemed to be that those other sites were all betas. EE.SE is not a beta site, so I still think this is a valid discussion. Additionally, and it should be noted that this is an inference I am making, it seems from answer like [this][1] that I am not the only one who would be in favour of adding an EE.SE migration link. Especially since even last year it was the #2 site that questions were migrated to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4145/23473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="c7e8727a-c492-4c4f-a62f-eed68ae2af1b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy) (answers that dont contain references, list equations without explanation, a single picture, etc.).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers. I actively downvote incorrect answers when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter incomplete, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer.  Incomplete answers (correct or incorrect), undermine the OP's (and the community's) ability to learn and objectively evaluate the answer.  In effect, incomplete answers place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus).  In that sense, they 'misinform' simply because they are not adequately explained.  &#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if the OP does not feel qualified to evaluate an answer (often the reason the question was asked), they will likely defer to reputation.  Reputation carries weight, especially for trivial questions with accepted physics: Whose answer would you bet on, @JohnRennie or @OneRepPoint?&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="5fc2feb1-7b17-446f-af01-68f2423feb18" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Downvotes are an unavoidable effect of having an answer that is not accurate, and they should remain that way. Downvotes are not a criticism on the poster, they are the way to keep good answers on the top and inaccurate answers (duly indicated as such in the comments, ideally) further down; it's what makes this site good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy to answer questions is what you describe: post what you know and let the community tell you when it's wrong. In that case, you should be prepared for exactly that: the community will tell you it's wrong by downvoting it. If that happens, the onus is on you to figure out why and to fix it. You can politely request explanations for the votes, and if your tone is right then people will stop by and help, but they are not obliged to. Drive-by downvoting hurts but it is necessary and has been gone over a million times in this and the [mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid those downvotes, the answer is simple: don't post inaccurate answers. If you're not 100% sure of the material you're posting, do your homework, investigate, check, and revise whatever needs revising, before you post. This is, I feel, how many of us approach answers, and it has the huge advantage that it lets you learn while you answer. Indeed, it is probably the reason many of us are here: we learn by answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as jinawee pointed out [in a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/how-exactly-do-you-answer-questions#comment16743_5702), lifting text straight out of different sources without proper attribution is straight-up plagiarism and should be removed from the site if present. If you find text that looks 'taken out of a textbook', google it and find out. If you do find such an instance, the correct procedure is to edit the post yourself: include links to the original sources, and indicate whatever text has been copied by the use of inline quotation marks and quote blocks for longer stretches. Do this regardless of the poster's reputation, and particularly so for high-rep users, who should know better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I do not think anyone does this and have *never* seen an instance on the site. Most people *do* type all of that. They either know it already - which is exactly what we want, a site where experts can take fifteen minutes to explain what they know and save you many hours of research - or they find it out, in which case they learned as much as you did in the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="8718a58b-536c-4fcf-a601-f89de10013b4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Ah, the difficultly of searching meta. I've found [a previous discussion on this topic.][2] The accepted answer, with +16 votes, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a question which focuses entirely on mathematical details, whilst perhaps appropriate for the mathematics SE, should be kept on the physics SE if it is motivated by physics, even though it may not necessarily be regarding how it is precisely applied to a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would suggest that the linked question is just on topic, period. Still, it seems worth bringing up again to see if that's still the consensus, and perhaps to remind active close-voters that the agreed policy isn't quite as exclusive as they might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/210552/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="936d3f0e-91a3-4d08-9de8-5f779fc80a7b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For example, I want to write an answer to the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/be-nice-with-the-comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that has the address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/be-nice-with-the-comments&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I press &quot;log in&quot; the effect is zero. Why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am redirected to the same link:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;without any warning like &quot;you are not allowed to log in&quot; or other explanation. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pcp9R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="a88a6022-9d68-4cbd-8052-2fa2d4406566" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="QMechanic's [comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107091/soft-question-the-best-way-to-learn-physics-road-map#comment218659_107091) really says it all. You are correct that your question is not an exact duplicate (and the moderator made this explicit, so accusing them of not reading the question is hardly the type of constructive discussion we expect in meta). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your question is a *very* poor fit for this site, for a number of reasons. This format works best when questions have something like a unique answer, when there is some sort of objective criterion to determine whether a given answer is correct, and hopefully one to determine which of two answers is better, and when expected answers contain facts and experiences instead of opinions. Your question fails miserably on all counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, no one, at all, ever learns physics 'in order'; everyone learns a few things at a time. Secondly, there isn't really any way to tell one way is better than another. Voting becomes meaningless in such a question. Thirdly, one never learns all of physics, and you will be hard-pressed to find someone who can tell you both in what order to take quantum optics and quantum information, and what plasma courses to take befor learning astrophysics. Relatedly, you yourself won't learn all of physics, so that large parts of any answer would likely be irrelevant. Moreover, since you presumably have already started learning, what would you do with the answers? What if I told you that the best way is to learn math all the way up to functional analysis and then derive all of each field from its basic principles? Would you implement that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more general guidance, you should refer to the Meta question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list, and to the blog post [Good subjective, bad subjective](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/). In this site, list questions are unlikely to prosper unless you make very specific requirements of the answers, and take care to avoid all the pitfalls I mentioned and in those two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me clearly thank QMechanic for closing that question in a timely fashion before more people became invested in it. It was an open-and-shut primarily-opinion-based, too-broad question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="2980a58e-ff32-4329-b772-7c0ae8cc7495" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have had some recent discussions on whether pure maths questions be on topic (see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic)). It seems that the majority want to make the policies less strict, and so my question is: will the moderators change the policies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this question is not meant to spark the discussion on whether pure maths questions should be on topic or not. If someone want to share their opinion about this, then please post them in the aforementioned discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="66a501eb-485a-48c8-9b81-f2989a7f1c74" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No you don't, but there is a certain &quot;honour&quot; at work here. I've offered a bounty before, and awarded it even though I wasn't happy with the answers. See for example [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191617/can-you-depict-the-electrons-electromagnetic-field). As a result people know that they can trust me. If you offer a bounty and then don't award it, next time you won't get one answer, you'll get none.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is in relation to this question of mine where there is only one and that too downvoted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should ask the posters here if they downvoted that answer. And if so, why they didn't offer an answer of their own. Do note that there are some downvoting issues here on physics Stack Exchange, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote) meta question. Always remember that physics is not a democracy. Votes don't make a right answer wrong, or vice versa. You should look to the evidence and explanation and references, and ask for elaboration in the comments. Or ask a new question to tease out the issue and get to the underlying problem.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="72b08e0f-12fb-4af1-a41b-869a2e298a07" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So for those of us who can vote to close, we all know what the close vote system looks like. Particularly, under &quot;off topic&quot; you have homework, personal theories, engineering, other StackExchange, and other. The other StackExchange site options are Physics Meta and Math. Quite frankly, I think this covers everything and I have no issues with the occasional typing a reason into &quot;other&quot;. However, I see numerous questions that belong on other StackExchange sites with close-votes as homework or personal theories when they clearly aren't. Most often it is questions asking for help with a circuit being closed as homework. Students aren't the only ones who build circuits; this sort of question really should belong on the electrical engineering SE. I realize we have the &quot;this is engineering&quot; option, but I feel that should be reserved for cases that are about using physics to solve a problem, not for stuff like making circuits. When I see these questions, I always take the extra 14 seconds to type &quot;This question belongs on electrical engineering SE&quot; in the other box. But I feel if there were an option for EE-SE under the other SE site option, it would be used more often and the homework option would be abused less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on electrical engineering because it's the one I see more often. If you think there are other SE sites we should add to the close-vote system, feel free to mention them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you might say a close vote is a close vote. That's simply not true. When we vote to close something, we owe it to the asker to provide an adequate reason. If there is some keen young student or an electrical engineer out there that needs help for something that is not homework, then it is not a valid reason to close the question as homework. We can't force all our 3k+ users to take 14 seconds to write the proper reason, but we can make it easier for them by including other SE sites in the option list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, clearly we cannot include all the other SE sites. We have Math.SE because of how often it comes up. IMO electrical engineering makes an appearance fairly frequently. What do you think? Would expanding the list be worthwhile? If so, what sites would you like to see added? If not, I'd love to hear your pint of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;So I took a closer look at all of the related posts about this. (Thanks for the duplicate votes, by the way. But there were several other questions this was closer to a duplicate of; why that one?) Anyway, it seems that the question has been raised before about various other SE sites. For the majority, the answer seemed to be that those other sites were all betas. EE.SE is not a beta site, so I still think this is a valid discussion. Additionally, and it should be noted that this is an inference I am making, it seems from answer like [this][1] that I am not the only one who would be in favour of adding an EE.SE migration link. Especially since even last year it was the #2 site that questions were migrated to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4145/23473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="db523a4d-6425-4c20-8725-fb9d68a6a933" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Maybe not a list of memes, but somewhat on related lines was this (now closed) question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, there also a deleted question - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70740/do-good-physics-jokes-exist, which was also removed for the reasons of moderation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you scroll through the existing comments on the linked page, you can appreciate the reasons why it got closed. Still for reasons of completeness, apart from [DavidZ's answer above](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7145/46399), it makes sense to reiterate [dmckee's point](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline#comment145498_71067) in the original thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no format in which you can ask this question. First, the Stack Exchange engine has been carefully built and tuned to deal well with question that have right and wrong answers; and it does not mange lists well. Second, while these kinds of questions are enormously popular that very popularity makes them destructive to the question &amp; answer environment that is what we seek here: &quot;best this&quot; and &quot;favorite that&quot; question push out the substantial content. It took more than two years for a majority of the active users on Stack Overflow to understand this, so we learned the hard way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, long story cut short - even though most people would really like that question and the answers, SE sites are not the appropriate place for such big list questions. Sorry :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5740" RevisionGUID="886c2d80-38a0-4a0b-854a-fbbb57a349c1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure where you got the idea that *the majority want to make the policies less strict* from DavidZ's meta post, given that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The  most [highly voted answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5717/25301) opens with the statement,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions devoid of any physics content (or reference to physics), which focus entirely on mathematical details should be migrated to the mathematics SE. If the question is regarding a mathematical method applied to a physics problem, then it is appropriate for the physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The remaining answers echoed the sentiments above (and were oddly given roughly equal mixtures of +1 and -1 votes), with a [single answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5722/25301) saying that we should absorb Math.SE's scope into our own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I'm not sure that anything really needs to be done to what the majority actually voted. As far as I can tell, this is already done here on physics.SE (as evidenced by the list of migrated questions that DavidZ presented)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="f2926bb5-a326-4c4a-9b7a-383d7324e0de" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The homework policy is a constant source of confusion for new (and sometimes established) users.&#xD;&#xA;We see this confusion, for example, when users respond to closures based on the homework policy by defending their post with &quot;This is not a homework problem&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;Some users have even been conditioned to claim a non-homework basis for their posts preemptively. &#xD;&#xA;It seems the word &quot;homework&quot; throws people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we modify the help center, associated close reason, and our own language to make clear that whether or not a question comes from homework isn't the real issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is very similar to [a previous one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4977/).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not only asking about the tag.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking about the help center, close reason, and language used by users as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="5d9e3ef5-e02f-4536-a63b-4554309206e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Downvotes are an unavoidable effect of having an answer that is not accurate, and they should remain that way. Downvotes are not a criticism on the poster, they are the way to keep good answers on the top and inaccurate answers (duly indicated as such in the comments, ideally) further down; it's what makes this site good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy to answer questions is what you describe: post what you know and let the community tell you when it's wrong. In that case, you should be prepared for exactly that: the community will tell you it's wrong by downvoting it. If that happens, the onus is on you to figure out why and to fix it. You can politely request explanations for the votes, and if your tone is right then people will stop by and help, but they are not obliged to. Drive-by downvoting hurts but it is necessary and has been gone over a million times in this and the [mother meta](http://meta.stackoverflow.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid those downvotes, the answer is simple: don't post inaccurate answers. If you're not 100% sure of the material you're posting, do your homework, investigate, check, and revise whatever needs revising, before you post. This is, I feel, how many of us approach answers, and it has the huge advantage that it lets you learn while you answer. Indeed, it is probably the reason many of us are here: we learn by answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as jinawee pointed out [in a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/how-exactly-do-you-answer-questions#comment16743_5702), lifting text straight out of different sources without proper attribution is straight-up plagiarism and should be removed from the site if present. If you find text that looks 'taken out of a textbook', google it and find out. If you do find such an instance, the correct procedure is to edit the post yourself: include links to the original sources, and indicate whatever text has been copied by the use of inline quotation marks and quote blocks for longer stretches. Do this regardless of the poster's reputation, and particularly so for high-rep users, who should know better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I do not think anyone does this and have *never* seen an instance on the site. Most people *do* type all of that. They either know it already - which is exactly what we want, a site where experts can take fifteen minutes to explain what they know and save you many hours of research - or they find it out, in which case they learned as much as you did in the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="0611af09-8b4d-44df-831a-aad2321c7f38" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think it is a little broad, but mostly because the OP wants examples of solving the same problem done in the three methods which can take up quite some space (especially if you chose a problem that is rather complicated in one method to show the power of the others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we neglected that aspect, the question would then be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the key differences between Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian dynamics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which *probably* could be answered easily and quickly enough, but it might be an [&quot;insufficient effort&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5747/add-another-reason-for-closing) type question and remain closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7274" RevisionGUID="2f5ee0fc-fee4-41a3-ae43-ffe6754d9374" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Against better judgement, I will engage but with the warning now that I don't really plan on participating in a discussion; I will simply post my answer and move on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is our [sandbox](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions/6108#6108). We (as in the people who have been around for awhile, and who have discussed and voted on policies, and who participate regularly and enjoy the site) have talked about homework and answering those types of questions. And although there is some dissent, we *just don't like doing it and don't consider them to be on-topic*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, that's just not the sandbox we want to play in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your closed question specifically -- and I think somebody left a comment there to this effect -- you didn't even put in the effort to properly type and format the question. You took a picture of your homework and stuck it in there and didn't show any effort/respect for the way the site likes to operate. I can't say that typing it up properly and adding your own diagram and explaining your thought process clearly in a way that isn't just a wall of text would salvage the question. But it would certainly earn a bit more respect, at least for the effort made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lastly, even if it were open, I don't think many people would be interested in answering it. You ask for the name of something and the formula. That's not interesting. It may be helpful to you, may be helpful to somebody later who searches for something similar (another reason to type your question as text -- nobody will be able to search for and find your question as related when it's all in a picture) but it just isn't *interesting* to name something and move on. We're all volunteers here and we participate for [our own varied reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions) and [when it works for us](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4551/is-it-true-that-physics-se-gets-bored-often). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if somebody doesn't see the challenge or fun in answering, it won't get answered. And the challenge/fun may be to educate somebody, or because it is thought provoking, or whatever. But naming a formula to use in a photo of a homework question doesn't strike me as either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="64605d18-6887-4bff-9dda-0d97807cbb5f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have the same objection to this that [dmckee had last time we talked about this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4982/6634). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, everybody who posts a question on this site wants a problem solved. The problem may be lack of understanding, or it may be homework, or it may be just about anything else. But the very existence of a question implies there is a problem to be solved, and such a tag would then apply to everything under the sun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would rather see the meta tag go away entirely and we downvote bad &quot;homework-like&quot; questions into oblivion and close them just as fast as we are now. There's no need for a tag to point out garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;good&quot; questions (ie. the ones that already conform to the policy) don't need a separate tag to tell us that they conform to the policy. They will be well-posed questions looking for conceptual explanations and thus no different from any other good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the close reason needs to say &quot;Homework like ...&quot; nor &quot;Problem solving ...&quot;, it could simply say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then means that close reason can apply to all of the really bad questions that come in and make no sense nor effort to justify them. It's kind of a &quot;non-mainstream&quot; close reason for mainstream topics. We want all of our questions to be about specific physics concepts -- that's part of what makes us unique from [World Building.SE](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com). We close questions that start &quot;Imagine if the sun instantly disappeared...&quot; as non-physical, so this kind of close reason would work for that as well as &quot;A ball is rolling down a 45 degree ramp...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the help center, I would say it doesn't need changed because we do want to forbid homework questions as they are defined there. And we want to forbid bad questions as defined elsewhere in the help center. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="8192e032-ead3-4c15-b528-fb13c5bf16dd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have had some recent discussions on whether pure maths questions be on topic (see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic)). It seems that the majority want to make the policies less strict, and so my question is: will the moderators change the policies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this question is not meant to spark the discussion on whether pure maths questions should be on topic or not. If someone want to share their opinion about this, then please post them in the aforementioned discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="79da33ec-cf41-4b01-8ed2-6d0bedadfd2b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The homework tag is primarily there so that uninterested people can choose to not see a certain class of questions. Unfortunately, the tag name does not accurately reflect its meaning, the meaning includes homework-like questions which are not homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a [policy][1] about such questions, and while there are questions which can be tagged [tag:homework] and are still on topic, _most_ of them are not. This is why the tag exists, but most such questions are not well received by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This community is more interested in conceptual questions (where the concept is highlighted, not when the concept ma or may not be deeply hidden inside) over problem solving. There are other forums out there if you want to discuss problem solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="00d300d4-4c7e-4471-bc80-d92b5d76a9e2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) [completed the review cycle with the following votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/104087) listed chronologically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7289" RevisionGUID="a038fb7d-60cf-477c-bbef-f6c5a66470e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The First Law of Editing: if an edit makes your question less clear (to readers, not necessarily just to _you_), revert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, your assumption that post titles follow the capitalization conventions of titles in other works is not correct, because the titles of SE questions are more like summaries, not actual _titles_ per se. A question post's title should be a single sentence that represents the actual question which is being asked, or at least a phrase that conveys the core of that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept that the proper capitalization is not &quot;Title Case&quot; but &quot;Sentence case&quot;, then the question remains of whether it's worth making an edit to fix title capitalization and nothing else. I tend to agree with the view posted in [this answer to another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7086/124), which is that these edits span a range from slightly-too-minor to just-significant-enough, depending on how much of the capitalization needs to be fixed. Specifically, if a title has just one capital letter where there shouldn't be one, that's probably too minor to fix, but if _all_ the words (with, say, a 5-word title) are capitalized according to the wrong convention, it's probably worth an edit. Our view on minor edits here tends to be that any edit which makes the post better is acceptable, and we only consider edits &quot;too minor&quot; when they don't make any improvement to the post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This edit was never about clarity, it was about standardization. In any case, I think the position that the edit makes the question _less_ clear to a majority of readers is difficult to justify. If this truly is the case - that is, if people will understand the _meaning_ of the title differently because it is missing some capital letters - then by all means the edit should be rolled back, but I don't think that's what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5740" RevisionGUID="85eead1f-3ee6-4979-b735-3f9014e0825f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure where you got the idea that *the majority want to make the policies less strict* from DavidZ's meta post, given that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The  most [highly voted answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5717/25301) opens with the statement,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions devoid of any physics content (or reference to physics), which focus entirely on mathematical details should be migrated to the mathematics SE. If the question is regarding a mathematical method applied to a physics problem, then it is appropriate for the physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The remaining answers echoed the sentiments above (and were oddly given roughly equal mixtures of +1 and -1 votes), with a [single answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5722/25301) saying that we should absorb Math.SE's scope into our own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I'm not sure that anything really needs to be done to what the majority actually voted. As far as I can tell, this is already done here on physics.SE (as evidenced by the list of migrated questions that DavidZ presented)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="f81b305a-416e-4a79-8629-0db69f8e5896" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the question [why popcorns become soft after popping][1] the tag `popcorn` was suggested. I think it would be nice to have a more general `everyday physics`, or a better name that you could come up with, to collect the explanations of everyday phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is not `popular-science`, that [was][2] not [liked][3] by the community. It is not &quot;explain in simple words what QFT is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be interesting? In the interest of archives, if approved, should we go through old questions and re-tag them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112015/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4699/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4295/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="3e31b12a-87fa-4e1e-a539-98e40c1313e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think it is a little broad, but mostly because the OP wants examples of solving the same problem done in the three methods which can take up quite some space (especially if you chose a problem that is rather complicated in one method to show the power of the others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we neglected that aspect, the question would then be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the key differences between Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian dynamics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which *probably* could be answered easily and quickly enough, but it might be an [&quot;insufficient effort&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5747/add-another-reason-for-closing) type question and remain closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7300" RevisionGUID="3cf45987-3527-4369-810d-2e1d58319555" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My observations are that it is actually rare for someone to post more than the copy &amp; paste question &amp; rebuttal that &quot;It's not homework!&quot; or &quot;I just need the answer!&quot; before they leave for good&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that someone does post more than that, I think leaving a comment containing a link to the Meta post [**My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391), where you've already posted a link to your site, would suffice for those users who are really begging for help. A message I've saved on my [**Auto-comment**](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (but almost never used) is something along the lines of,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site, but if you do want that kind of help, you can [take a look at this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391) for a list of free online homework help resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I would say that if you constantly promoted *just* your site on HW questions, it probably would end up being flagged as *promotional content* which can get the comment deleted and, if you're persistent enough, give you [a suspension](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). I'm sure you would love traffic to your site, but whether risking a suspension here for that is worth it is up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different story and I'd rather not derail this question on that.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="3027132f-80e1-4926-bfa3-e0fc72842dfa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, [David Z. covered the question about formal precedent pretty well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5800/520), but I'd like to explore another aspect of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do use precedent as the basis for arguing about what the policy *should* be. This has been done several times. That is someone asks meta *&quot;Do we have a policy about Foo?&quot;*, and people with some memory [drag out earlier questions that are more or less like the one under discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2905/520) and use those to [suggest what the *de facto* policy has been](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/733/520) and as a spring board for discussion what they think the policy *should* be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you want to re-open a policy discussion that has been established for a while it *really* helps to have some concrete examples to hang your arguments on. Looking at the existing precedents is a fine way to show what you think the costs of the current policy are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="34322fd5-71a0-44fb-bd9e-cf8036e67099" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the same reason we weren't a homework help site before Physics Overflow was a thing: *because we don't want to be that kind of site*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of this site have debated the places that introductory exercises have in this site repeatedly since anna v's question that you link and the current policy is the outcome of those debates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the more prominent instances of that debate (in most-recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="c7665fc5-5468-4064-9a81-7430d3395a07" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The homework tag is primarily there so that uninterested people can choose to not see a certain class of questions. Unfortunately, the tag name does not accurately reflect its meaning, the meaning includes homework-like questions which are not homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a [policy][1] about such questions, and while there are questions which can be tagged [tag:homework] and are still on topic, _most_ of them are not. This is why the tag exists, but most such questions are not well received by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This community is more interested in conceptual questions (where the concept is highlighted, not when the concept ma or may not be deeply hidden inside) over problem solving. There are other forums out there if you want to discuss problem solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="80b4c7de-acb7-4f2a-aa75-9fcfc132cff1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you posted you licensed your content under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. See the [legal link][1] at the bottom of each page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of content so-licensed without proper attribution is a network wide issue, and is addressed in [Updated procedure for reporting SCRAPERs][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Short version:** Report violations directly to the Stack Exchange team using the [contact us link][3] at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one time the team was also interested in hearing about copiers who meet both of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They **do** provide proper attributions&#xD;&#xA;* Have their content rank higher than the original Stack Exchange content on Google&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for SEO purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't prove to myself that they still want to hear about such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/200177/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="d1ca2f86-e680-4de1-8492-386e54c5da31" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As with any other equipment-related questions they could be on- or off-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably on-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the underlying physics of how they work&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to their direct application as experimental equipment.&#xD;&#xA;* The question related to the construction, characterization, calibration and tuning of one-of-a-kind experimental versions.&#xD;&#xA;* Other cases where a solution is unlikely to come from anyone other than a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Probably off-topic if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question pertains to engineering of these system in general.&#xD;&#xA;* The question is related to COTS units applied outside of an experimental setting.&#xD;&#xA;* The question concerns hypothetical impacts on society.&#xD;&#xA;* Lots of other cases where there is no obvious reason that a physicist should be involved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References (most recent first order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental Physics &amp; Engineering][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [What is engineering and what is experimental design?][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?][3] Note: [tag:faq].&#xD;&#xA;* [Should “How do I solve this experimental problem?” questions be on-topic][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6135/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5553/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4535/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2948/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="c874e3bc-5a5d-4f0d-be09-f5de4d3ac1fb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the question [why popcorns become soft after popping][1] the tag `popcorn` was suggested. I think it would be nice to have a more general `everyday physics`, or a better name that you could come up with, to collect the explanations of everyday phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is not `popular-science`, that [was][2] not [liked][3] by the community. It is not &quot;explain in simple words what QFT is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be interesting? In the interest of archives, if approved, should we go through old questions and re-tag them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112015/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4699/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4295/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="da93bb0f-d5f1-4665-ae87-8155645470ac" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A question mostly needs only a single answer, and must be thus clear only for a single answerer. After it's answered it will be also clear for a wider audience. It will never be clear for &quot;readers as a Whole&quot;. If it would, what's the point to even ask?   &#xD;&#xA;I recall my first answer to the site; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159970/is-it-possible-to-generate-one-half-of-a-karman-vortex-street/190285#190285 the answer was voted to be deleted, but it actually answered the question! What else would you have? The question was also only Yes/No-type of question, and it obviously had also some unclearness-problems before it was answered. &#xD;&#xA;To me the &quot;V1&quot; of this question was as good as the &quot;v4&quot;. I barely note any difference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I now look my answer, I easily notice how I could improve this answer. For this you first need to be familiar with the consept. - and have the motivation to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another answer from my &quot;first day&quot; was this; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/can-a-divider-laminarize-turbulent-flow-and-thus-reduce-friction/190295#190295 It's another Yes/no type of question which obviously wasn't clear if you look the comments. There is also a discussion what is meant with &quot;a divider&quot;. The asker has &gt;10 k reply. At the comments he writes; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So maybe that terminology should be trashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points out how established users makes questions where the &quot;unclearness&quot; comes from the terminology problems. But to me it was clear what was asked, and after the answer -I think- it's clear also to others. (and yes, now I could improve also this answer.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am constructive trying to improve the motivation to use this PSE-tool further. This site is about asking and getting answers. If the future looks like I need all the time ask &quot;how to ask&quot;, the motivation to stay around will finally disappear. As according to my life experience my &quot;terminology problems&quot; aren't going to disappear. I would really wish more ignorance rather than a debate from the used terminology. Providing a promise that you will get rid of this &quot;problem&quot; after you are an established user, would motivate to continue. In the real life it might even happen that when the limit is reached the problem has got smaller. But the multiple Meta-posts, ie this;   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7324/is-over-vigilant-monitoring-of-questions-driving-people-away-from-the-site?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;Points out there is a problem, and **this might be a solution for it.**  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="8d6a6f1a-d3e5-4690-877c-b23d353a40da" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete.  I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy) (answers that dont contain references, list equations without explanation, a single picture, etc.).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly.  In many cases, their answers are not overtly incorrect (deserving downvotes) but seem to target lower quality (homework type) questions, hoping to receive a statistical percentage of upvotes  from incomplete, pseudo answers. I actively downvote incorrect answers when I feel qualified to do so- **While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter incomplete, opportunistic answers.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users.  In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement.  I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this problematic? How is this currently addressed?**&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### **Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post).  In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy!  However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer.  Incomplete answers (correct or incorrect), undermine the OP's (and the community's) ability to learn and objectively evaluate the answer.  In effect, incomplete answers place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus).  In that sense, they 'misinform' simply because they are not adequately explained.  &#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if the OP does not feel qualified to evaluate an answer (often the reason the question was asked), they will likely defer to reputation.  Reputation carries weight, especially for trivial questions with accepted physics: Whose answer would you bet on, @JohnRennie or @OneRepPoint?&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as @dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What changes are possible within Physics.SE?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="06fb0441-99be-48a5-83fc-30feed9bd7a3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As per the [notation/terminology policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1083/are-physics-related-notation-and-terminology-questions-on-topic), it would best asked in [the h-bar (i.e., physics chat room)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), rather than a question on the main page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="37b17e95-fb7a-4207-81d1-6ed7917afdf4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, [David Z. covered the question about formal precedent pretty well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5800/520), but I'd like to explore another aspect of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do use precedent as the basis for arguing about what the policy *should* be. This has been done several times. That is someone asks meta *&quot;Do we have a policy about Foo?&quot;*, and people with some memory [drag out earlier questions that are more or less like the one under discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2905/520) and use those to [suggest what the *de facto* policy has been](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/733/520) and as a spring board for discussion what they think the policy *should* be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you want to re-open a policy discussion that has been established for a while it *really* helps to have some concrete examples to hang your arguments on. Looking at the existing precedents is a fine way to show what you think the costs of the current policy are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="164f2d50-6cfb-4f05-9429-e66d4e72fb66" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question stands in general, as stated in the title:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;How are &quot;disputes about content of a question&quot; resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of comments or answers there?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specificly, my question arises regarding the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light    &#xD;&#xA;Since commenting there is presently disabled I submit my corresponding comment draft (and related question) hereby:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee dmckee: &quot;_locked by dmckee [ http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee ] yesterday [Jun 14, 2014] This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta [ https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ ]._&quot; -- &lt;b&gt;Would you please point out the specific page or forum where &quot;_disputes about its [this question's] content_&quot; would be resolved in public?&lt;/b&gt; (Having visited https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ I've been unable to recognize any **recent** relevant discussion there; and I'm curious which &quot;_disputes about content_&quot; couldn't take place here [ http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light ], as usual, by means of answers and/or comments.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="cf44da55-c4e7-4e98-af8f-445bd11c2642" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For example, I want to write an answer to the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/be-nice-with-the-comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that has the address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7243/be-nice-with-the-comments&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I press &quot;log in&quot; the effect is zero. Why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am redirected to the same link:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;without any warning like &quot;you are not allowed to log in&quot; or other explanation. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pcp9R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="9ebe9f0e-266c-4d86-8703-35ad1504885e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some [six to eight weeks ago](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=days+since+april+14+2015), Stack Exchange announced a programme to re-design the CSS and tweak the site styles throughout the network, including the [completely redesigned profile pages](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2015/04/two-new-user-pages-one-new-stat-this-on/). Since then, we've [made some big requests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax) to come with the re-design, so we've remained &quot;on deck&quot; for some time. It seems, however, that the deck currently contains... just us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a problem - I'm sure we would all rather they get it right than they get it out fast. However, I'm curious as to know how this matches with the [recently announced change in the width of the sidebar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1), which is admittedly a smaller change in the site design, but still. Moreover, I expect that the change in the sidebar is the reason for the [slight delay in the 2016 community ads thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/community-ads), since [the new ads will need to conform to the new width](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1#comment885010_272563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In which order will the CSS redesign, the new sidebar, and the community ads thread launch?&#xD;&#xA; - Are there known timelines for them? Or will the sidebar launch on par with everyone else on the 12th, with no fixed timeline for the CSS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to pressure the team, but since we're last on the line I thought it wouldn't be too much to ask politely :). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="0e4ddf4c-8a8b-4757-9e78-ad32e8fa25d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you posted you licensed your content under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. See the [legal link][1] at the bottom of each page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of content so-licensed without proper attribution is a network wide issue, and is addressed in [Updated procedure for reporting SCRAPERs][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Short version:** Report violations directly to the Stack Exchange team using the [contact us link][3] at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one time the team was also interested in hearing about copiers who meet both of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They **do** provide proper attributions&#xD;&#xA;* Have their content rank higher than the original Stack Exchange content on Google&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for SEO purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't prove to myself that they still want to hear about such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/200177/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="b1679e80-6a45-41fd-9dea-82c29dcc44e2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No you don't, but there is a certain &quot;honour&quot; at work here. I've offered a bounty before, and awarded it even though I wasn't happy with the answers. See for example [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191617/can-you-depict-the-electrons-electromagnetic-field). As a result people know that they can trust me. If you offer a bounty and then don't award it, next time you won't get one answer, you'll get none.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is in relation to this question of mine where there is only one and that too downvoted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should ask the posters here if they downvoted that answer. And if so, why they didn't offer an answer of their own. Do note that there are some downvoting issues here on physics Stack Exchange, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote) meta question. Always remember that physics is not a democracy. Votes don't make a right answer wrong, or vice versa. You should look to the evidence and explanation and references, and ask for elaboration in the comments. Or ask a new question to tease out the issue and get to the underlying problem.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="cf452a24-1cfc-4ad1-bfe3-d664b3044f69" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Regarding https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree that its non mainstream, but I find it too unclear and closeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, even if the Kerr Metric is mainstream (which it is, afaict), Flint's comment does classify the question as not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&gt; While I agree that to answer this question would be pure speculation, I absolutely disagree that the Kerr Metric is non-mainstream.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speculative questions fall afoul of our [mainstream physics policy][2] since the answers won't be accepted physics. (Which is what Brandon meant when he said &quot;partially non maisntream&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Regarding https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119562/light-in-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is unclear, but not to the extent that it is closeable. It has a speculative tone about it, but it seems mainstream to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The general issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen many questions mis-closed as non mainstream. The community usually manages to pick these up well, however if the question is unclear it's really the OP's fault. The best way to get these opened is to get the OP to edit them. I left a comment on the Penrose Diagram one to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe/113041#comment232569_113034&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="c09ba76f-d6ee-4732-8b96-36e1615b4f40" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know much about it, but isn't Quora less strict on opinion-based answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I personally have strongly mixed feelings towards opinion-based answers. Opinion-based discussions can be very enlightening as well, but they tend to only be that if all the people involved know what they're talking about. When **asking** for opinions, you most likely don't really know what you're talking about, which is fine because it's the reason you're asking. And what's more: on the internet, you can't be sure the people answering **do** in fact know what they're talking about. Not to mention the representational value of these people. (see the word of caution in [Chris White's answer][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whenever you're asking for people's opinions, you should be aware of your own (perhaps partially developed) opinion and prejudices and the expectation bias they bring. You have to be very cautious to avoid doing what makes me personally so suspicious of social sciences: connecting conclusions to experiments with bad statistical properties. Physics SE is the only physics website that I'm aware of which has reasonable statistics, where you can have a fair amount of confidence in the bulk of the answers. The system is far from perfect, but it's as close as I've seen. And a big part of the reason, *in my opinion*, is the 'no-opinions' policy. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5885/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="5084f4be-d5ad-4ea3-98f0-a147856df223" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We allow theoretical physics here. But only the mainstream kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposing new theories or talking about physics which hasn't been peer-validated is not allowed, to avoid making this site a hotbed for kook theorists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check [this link][1] from the close reason for more information. Others have already mentioned how the post can be improved in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="45c1160d-131f-494a-b407-54d6ed53f345" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In our last chat session two weeks ago (sorry for the delay), we had a [discussion about updating the homework policy and homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason). I'm making this post to summarize that discussion and solicit feedback on how to proceed afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The current status&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), questions are considered &quot;homework-like&quot; (or &quot;educational&quot;) and fall under the policy whenever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[the question's] value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely _not_ of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it. We do have [a policy on showing effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), separate from the homework policy, but it doesn't justify _closing_ those questions. (Also, it was meant to catch questions that the homework policy doesn't.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most people believe that questions where the poster asks us to do some simple calculation for them should be off topic. However, it's not clear _exactly_ where we should draw the boundary of what sorts of questions are off topic, and what reason is best to give for considering them off topic. There have been a number of discussions on this in the past, among them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation (November 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy (December 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session (March 2015)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy (October 2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will probably want to create a new policy that replaces the current homework policy, and gives a different criterion for a question that is off topic. This new policy would become the new justification for closing low-effort homework questions (those where it _is_ clear that it's a homework/educational question), so whatever we wind up going with, it should be some criterion that does catch those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few options that I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic&#xD;&#xA;2. Questions which don't show sufficient effort are off topic (I suppose this is the nice wording for the poster being lazy)&#xD;&#xA;3. A combination of the previous two - kind of like our current homework policy, except that the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the most likely contenders, but for completeness, some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Questions which ask for a conceptual understanding of something are on topic, and everything else is not (this is _kind of_ like #1, but excludes more questions)&#xD;&#xA;5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. etc. And for comparison, our current policy would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Questions which are educational in nature are off topic unless they ask a conceptual question _and_ show effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The issues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have some ideas for what kind of criterion should replace our current homework policy. For each of these ideas, we should consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there a significant number of questions which are off topic under our current homework policy which would be on topic under the new policy? If so, should they be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;- Exactly what sorts of questions would become off topic under the new policy which are not covered by current close reasons? Do we want them to be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully the answers we come up with will help us focus the new close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point in the future, we will also have to discuss the role of the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag in this new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="f62692db-6baa-4f60-90a1-fb9c4e8deded" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question stands in general, as stated in the title:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;How are &quot;disputes about content of a question&quot; resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of comments or answers there?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specificly, my question arises regarding the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light    &#xD;&#xA;Since commenting there is presently disabled I submit my corresponding comment draft (and related question) hereby:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee dmckee: &quot;_locked by dmckee [ http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee ] yesterday [Jun 14, 2014] This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta [ https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ ]._&quot; -- &lt;b&gt;Would you please point out the specific page or forum where &quot;_disputes about its [this question's] content_&quot; would be resolved in public?&lt;/b&gt; (Having visited https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ I've been unable to recognize any **recent** relevant discussion there; and I'm curious which &quot;_disputes about content_&quot; couldn't take place here [ http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light ], as usual, by means of answers and/or comments.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7274" RevisionGUID="6919faaa-41e5-45a6-9745-bda82446cb81" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Against better judgement, I will engage but with the warning now that I don't really plan on participating in a discussion; I will simply post my answer and move on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is our [sandbox](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions/6108#6108). We (as in the people who have been around for awhile, and who have discussed and voted on policies, and who participate regularly and enjoy the site) have talked about homework and answering those types of questions. And although there is some dissent, we *just don't like doing it and don't consider them to be on-topic*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, that's just not the sandbox we want to play in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your closed question specifically -- and I think somebody left a comment there to this effect -- you didn't even put in the effort to properly type and format the question. You took a picture of your homework and stuck it in there and didn't show any effort/respect for the way the site likes to operate. I can't say that typing it up properly and adding your own diagram and explaining your thought process clearly in a way that isn't just a wall of text would salvage the question. But it would certainly earn a bit more respect, at least for the effort made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lastly, even if it were open, I don't think many people would be interested in answering it. You ask for the name of something and the formula. That's not interesting. It may be helpful to you, may be helpful to somebody later who searches for something similar (another reason to type your question as text -- nobody will be able to search for and find your question as related when it's all in a picture) but it just isn't *interesting* to name something and move on. We're all volunteers here and we participate for [our own varied reasons](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions) and [when it works for us](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4551/is-it-true-that-physics-se-gets-bored-often). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if somebody doesn't see the challenge or fun in answering, it won't get answered. And the challenge/fun may be to educate somebody, or because it is thought provoking, or whatever. But naming a formula to use in a photo of a homework question doesn't strike me as either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="8cfeefb2-09a9-4abc-b0c1-0fe83edc2b8a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Adapted from my comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/16660) of the links in the homework close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely your question asks exactly that: how do I solve/prove this? So we've established that it falls under the homework-category, right? Now how do you get the question reopened? By showing what you have done to try and get the answer: links to websites you've visited (with some explanation of what's on there) and of course your own work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="98faf9ad-a48d-4292-b623-3c74b435a3bf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the most confusing bit of the homework policy is the &quot;and show effort&quot; aspect found in the close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept *and show some effort* to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when the [**link in that message**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) opens with,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even aside from the fact that the community appears to be [**against &quot;check my work&quot; problems**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301), I feel that including the &quot;show work&quot; bit is both contradictory and confusing. It suggests that if someone simply adds their attempt to their &quot;do my homework for me question,&quot; then it'd get reopened and answered; even some [**high rep users are of the opinion**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7311/25301) that &quot;showing work&quot; would/should prevent closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the point of the &quot;show work&quot; is meant to encourage askers to not pose questions without having thought about the answer. I don't think that the current phrase encourages this position. It would be better if we did one of the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. eliminate the phrase so that questions asking us to &quot;do some math for them&quot; are *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA; 2. leave the phrase so that questions asking us to &quot;do some math for them&quot; are *on topic*&#xD;&#xA; 3. replace the phrase with one that more accurately represents what is meant by it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that #3 is the better option of these, though I cannot think of a good phrase outside of something along the lines of requiring OP showing their rationale--I'm completely open to suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7289" RevisionGUID="3a80041e-faf8-4cd3-be79-0b8947065cd5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The First Law of Editing: if an edit makes your question less clear (to readers, not necessarily just to _you_), revert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, your assumption that post titles follow the capitalization conventions of titles in other works is not correct, because the titles of SE questions are more like summaries, not actual _titles_ per se. A question post's title should be a single sentence that represents the actual question which is being asked, or at least a phrase that conveys the core of that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept that the proper capitalization is not &quot;Title Case&quot; but &quot;Sentence case&quot;, then the question remains of whether it's worth making an edit to fix title capitalization and nothing else. I tend to agree with the view posted in [this answer to another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7086/124), which is that these edits span a range from slightly-too-minor to just-significant-enough, depending on how much of the capitalization needs to be fixed. Specifically, if a title has just one capital letter where there shouldn't be one, that's probably too minor to fix, but if _all_ the words (with, say, a 5-word title) are capitalized according to the wrong convention, it's probably worth an edit. Our view on minor edits here tends to be that any edit which makes the post better is acceptable, and we only consider edits &quot;too minor&quot; when they don't make any improvement to the post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This edit was never about clarity, it was about standardization. In any case, I think the position that the edit makes the question _less_ clear to a majority of readers is difficult to justify. If this truly is the case - that is, if people will understand the _meaning_ of the title differently because it is missing some capital letters - then by all means the edit should be rolled back, but I don't think that's what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="f2468ff2-3014-4408-9216-b187a3dfbac8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every so often, an answer like [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/36263/23473) shows up in the low-quality review queue (that one showed up today for me). When it does, we are presented with the familiar choices: &quot;Looks OK&quot;, &quot;Edit&quot;, &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;, and &quot;Skip&quot;. Now as per a [previous meta discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5675/23473), questions like this shouldn't be deleted since they don't meet that criteria. The post itself is an attempt at an answer, but in general, it can be unclear, wrong, too short, or horribly written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I can downvote it and maybe leave a comment if I'm able, but that doesn't remove it from my review queue. I refuse to hit &quot;Looks OK&quot; because let's face it, there are posts like this that simply do not look OK. If I knew what the poster was trying to say, I'd consider editing it, but sometimes you know they are &quot;answering&quot; the question but you're just not sure what they're trying to say or you know it's completely wrong. So no hitting &quot;Edit&quot;. We already vetoed &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;. So all I have left is &quot;Skip&quot;. I can always hit the &quot;Skip&quot; button, let someone else worry about it. But there are times when a post is really bad and you want to do something about it, not just pass it off to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to open up the floor to discussion. What does everyone else do when faced with a truly low-quality post that can't be edited or deleted? And feel free to suggest new features for the low-quality review stack too; those are always fun to consider. Just remember that if you do and people start to think it's a good idea, Shog9 will quickly come here to tell us all exactly why the current low-quality review setup is the smartest and most effective design we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an addendum after having read a couple of answers to this, everyone go to an answer you know of with zero or less up-votes and hit the flag button. Notice it has the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag option that says &quot;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now supposedly, one could flag an answer with that and (if I'm not mistaken) that sends it to the LQ review queue. That's one of the reasons why if I see a post that is technically an answer but I can't see a way of saving it through edits, I hesitate to hit the &quot;Looks OK&quot; option. An answer might fulfill the requirements of using that flag option but then also be marked as &quot;OK&quot; by the queue reviewers. 20 goto 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="3eb3ec85-42c9-4bb3-be4f-4c74efc04a5c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Community ads are decided by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="529a6f63-a0b9-4f78-9c24-a1193bf18276" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Regarding https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree that its non mainstream, but I find it too unclear and closeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, even if the Kerr Metric is mainstream (which it is, afaict), Flint's comment does classify the question as not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&gt; While I agree that to answer this question would be pure speculation, I absolutely disagree that the Kerr Metric is non-mainstream.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speculative questions fall afoul of our [mainstream physics policy][2] since the answers won't be accepted physics. (Which is what Brandon meant when he said &quot;partially non maisntream&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Regarding https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119562/light-in-another-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is unclear, but not to the extent that it is closeable. It has a speculative tone about it, but it seems mainstream to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The general issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen many questions mis-closed as non mainstream. The community usually manages to pick these up well, however if the question is unclear it's really the OP's fault. The best way to get these opened is to get the OP to edit them. I left a comment on the Penrose Diagram one to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113034/where-is-the-way-on-a-rotating-black-hole-to-another-universe/113041#comment232569_113034&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7300" RevisionGUID="a2f47474-735a-4d6d-91b8-d652c63f151b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My observations are that it is actually rare for someone to post more than the copy &amp; paste question &amp; rebuttal that &quot;It's not homework!&quot; or &quot;I just need the answer!&quot; before they leave for good&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that someone does post more than that, I think leaving a comment containing a link to the Meta post [**My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391), where you've already posted a link to your site, would suffice for those users who are really begging for help. A message I've saved on my [**Auto-comment**](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (but almost never used) is something along the lines of,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site, but if you do want that kind of help, you can [take a look at this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391) for a list of free online homework help resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I would say that if you constantly promoted *just* your site on HW questions, it probably would end up being flagged as *promotional content* which can get the comment deleted and, if you're persistent enough, give you [a suspension](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). I'm sure you would love traffic to your site, but whether risking a suspension here for that is worth it is up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different story and I'd rather not derail this question on that.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="00b2d086-3772-4e05-a086-575c376f3dbe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes! Solid state physics is physics, and is therefore on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are more conditions on whether or not an individual question fits the site besides just the general field of study. In particular, note that what we call [engineering questions][1] are off topic, so something like &quot;What's the most cost efficient material to use in this application?&quot; is probably off topic. &quot;How do I fabricate this device?&quot; is a gray area - it might be on topic, it might not, and it probably warrants more discussion if it comes up. I mention this not to be intimidating, but just because solid state electronics are studied both from a pure science standpoint and an engineering one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for such a large field, solid state/condensed matter/materials science is IMO quite underrepresented on the site at the moment. Don't be discouraged if at first it seems like the community consists entirely of particle physicists and general relativists. Hopefully we can attract a larger user base with some good questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="434066a9-d3fc-4621-ba13-6c147d634075" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every 2-3 days a question pops up on the site related to basic definition/misunderstanding of entropy/black holes. In the process of searching for related questions, I find that there are many answers covering many interesting and valid points. The number of such posts having quality content is so much that going through all of them takes a huge amount of time. I want some  suggestions for a suitable good answers to be redirected to for clearing these basic issues right away. Or does a master question for entropy as given in John Rennie's https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7431/ needs to be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="b00a426f-1817-485a-8fcc-55be81e4cd30" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know much about it, but isn't Quora less strict on opinion-based answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I personally have strongly mixed feelings towards opinion-based answers. Opinion-based discussions can be very enlightening as well, but they tend to only be that if all the people involved know what they're talking about. When **asking** for opinions, you most likely don't really know what you're talking about, which is fine because it's the reason you're asking. And what's more: on the internet, you can't be sure the people answering **do** in fact know what they're talking about. Not to mention the representational value of these people. (see the word of caution in [Chris White's answer][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whenever you're asking for people's opinions, you should be aware of your own (perhaps partially developed) opinion and prejudices and the expectation bias they bring. You have to be very cautious to avoid doing what makes me personally so suspicious of social sciences: connecting conclusions to experiments with bad statistical properties. Physics SE is the only physics website that I'm aware of which has reasonable statistics, where you can have a fair amount of confidence in the bulk of the answers. The system is far from perfect, but it's as close as I've seen. And a big part of the reason, *in my opinion*, is the 'no-opinions' policy. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5885/16660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="b1373424-e4ce-49d6-888f-1a18d6ce00a5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; You should realize that receiving a lot of down votes does not mean that there is a &quot;serial down voter&quot; (in the sense that the down votes are there because the post is by you). It could also be that your posts are just of low quality, like this one: Spelling errors, no capitalization at the start of sentences, the word &quot;perpetuate&quot; dangling at the end with unclear meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– [ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind), in [a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else#comment29402_7491)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="f3faeed1-46b4-4f7e-8bde-1143f1138231" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I feel bad for asking such a question, because I know there is probably a simple answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel baited after reading a conversation of the meta thread about what questions were and weren't appropriate. I felt offended when I read that questions which didn't have answers, e.g. speculative questions, could not be asked. &#xD;&#xA;How can we not ask questions about challenging, interesting, and speculative aspects of life and reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton and all the greats created theories solely on circumspection, analyzing of phenomena, asking questions no one had before. Einstein was stubborn, and always asked questions, questions that brought the body of science forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to be overly controversial, but I mean that life is wonderful, reality is complex, and limiting questions only to what has been asked and answered before is limiting to natural human creativity and analyzing ability that would better the body of scientific work. It is exactly opposite to the heart of physics, which is all about understanding the nature of phenomena, enjoying it, exploring it, and getting interested in it. Without asking questions, one is looking at everything in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am deeply hurt by the implications and perhaps my emotionalism is bringing me to a place where I do not see the rule clearly. I worry about this limitation of these types of interesting questions. Peer review sounds good. Perhaps it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link I am referring to is here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: as I read this my mind thinks &quot;Abuse, abuse, abuse.&quot; The reason we probably do not allow such an exchange is abuse by poor practitioners. Nonetheless, the nature of the post seems to stand. We must worry about taking steps to bring physics forward over time, not leaving it as it is. That wouldn't be fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="316aab4a-c06f-4388-a9af-cfb548b1539f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We allow theoretical physics here. But only the mainstream kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposing new theories or talking about physics which hasn't been peer-validated is not allowed, to avoid making this site a hotbed for kook theorists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check [this link][1] from the close reason for more information. Others have already mentioned how the post can be improved in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="5787a3fb-39d9-43c1-99a1-d0c2114afea9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A question mostly needs only a single answer, and must be thus clear only for a single answerer. After it's answered it will be also clear for a wider audience. It will never be clear for &quot;readers as a Whole&quot;. If it would, what's the point to even ask?   &#xD;&#xA;I recall my first answer to the site; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159970/is-it-possible-to-generate-one-half-of-a-karman-vortex-street/190285#190285 the answer was voted to be deleted, but it actually answered the question! What else would you have? The question was also only Yes/No-type of question, and it obviously had also some unclearness-problems before it was answered. &#xD;&#xA;To me the &quot;V1&quot; of this question was as good as the &quot;v4&quot;. I barely note any difference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I now look my answer, I easily notice how I could improve this answer. For this you first need to be familiar with the consept. - and have the motivation to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another answer from my &quot;first day&quot; was this; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/can-a-divider-laminarize-turbulent-flow-and-thus-reduce-friction/190295#190295 It's another Yes/no type of question which obviously wasn't clear if you look the comments. There is also a discussion what is meant with &quot;a divider&quot;. The asker has &gt;10 k reply. At the comments he writes; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So maybe that terminology should be trashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points out how established users makes questions where the &quot;unclearness&quot; comes from the terminology problems. But to me it was clear what was asked, and after the answer -I think- it's clear also to others. (and yes, now I could improve also this answer.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am constructive trying to improve the motivation to use this PSE-tool further. This site is about asking and getting answers. If the future looks like I need all the time ask &quot;how to ask&quot;, the motivation to stay around will finally disappear. As according to my life experience my &quot;terminology problems&quot; aren't going to disappear. I would really wish more ignorance rather than a debate from the used terminology. Providing a promise that you will get rid of this &quot;problem&quot; after you are an established user, would motivate to continue. In the real life it might even happen that when the limit is reached the problem has got smaller. But the multiple Meta-posts, ie this;   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7324/is-over-vigilant-monitoring-of-questions-driving-people-away-from-the-site?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;Points out there is a problem, and **this might be a solution for it.**  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="3e245def-0f6e-4f0d-9202-bc251960c59a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An answer is placed in the comment box on your question and it would make an answer. As long as you quote it is it OK to use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Comments at [this question][1] for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="834fa71b-36e6-458a-b01b-6c8e52fa8932" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Re (1): [Danu suggested a while back][1] that we should have a set of canonical questions that could be used as targets for duplicates. I'd guess Chris' bounty is an attempt to get such a canonical answer. Maybe the effort would be better spent on writing a new and clearer question/answer. If so Chris could ask the mods to refund the bounty and then write a new question - I guess that's up to Chris. Whatever the case, if a really good answer to the current question emerges that has to be a useful step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re (2): when questions are a little ill posed I often try to provide a broader answer than the one actually requested. Of course I'll answer the question, but I'll usually also try to put it in context and expand around it. So although you're correct that the two questions are different I think they basically have the same answer(s) and can usefully be regarded as duplicates. We seem to differ about what the key features of that answer is, but that's physics I guess :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="f21b0f64-8459-44d0-85f4-da84c1413dc3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Adapted from my comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/16660) of the links in the homework close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely your question asks exactly that: how do I solve/prove this? So we've established that it falls under the homework-category, right? Now how do you get the question reopened? By showing what you have done to try and get the answer: links to websites you've visited (with some explanation of what's on there) and of course your own work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="64c8938d-9492-474e-83b9-76a922611196" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As per the [notation/terminology policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1083/are-physics-related-notation-and-terminology-questions-on-topic), it would best asked in [the h-bar (i.e., physics chat room)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), rather than a question on the main page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="e5b0ccc1-2e08-4ebf-8a61-76e2c4177bd9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Take a look at the _reason_ the closed question was closed: it was because of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), specifically the part that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this closure has nothing to do with whether it should be considered a physics question or a math question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="390a991a-ba96-4347-9f28-0775c13d51db" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every so often, an answer like [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/36263/23473) shows up in the low-quality review queue (that one showed up today for me). When it does, we are presented with the familiar choices: &quot;Looks OK&quot;, &quot;Edit&quot;, &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;, and &quot;Skip&quot;. Now as per a [previous meta discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5675/23473), questions like this shouldn't be deleted since they don't meet that criteria. The post itself is an attempt at an answer, but in general, it can be unclear, wrong, too short, or horribly written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I can downvote it and maybe leave a comment if I'm able, but that doesn't remove it from my review queue. I refuse to hit &quot;Looks OK&quot; because let's face it, there are posts like this that simply do not look OK. If I knew what the poster was trying to say, I'd consider editing it, but sometimes you know they are &quot;answering&quot; the question but you're just not sure what they're trying to say or you know it's completely wrong. So no hitting &quot;Edit&quot;. We already vetoed &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;. So all I have left is &quot;Skip&quot;. I can always hit the &quot;Skip&quot; button, let someone else worry about it. But there are times when a post is really bad and you want to do something about it, not just pass it off to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to open up the floor to discussion. What does everyone else do when faced with a truly low-quality post that can't be edited or deleted? And feel free to suggest new features for the low-quality review stack too; those are always fun to consider. Just remember that if you do and people start to think it's a good idea, Shog9 will quickly come here to tell us all exactly why the current low-quality review setup is the smartest and most effective design we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an addendum after having read a couple of answers to this, everyone go to an answer you know of with zero or less up-votes and hit the flag button. Notice it has the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag option that says &quot;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now supposedly, one could flag an answer with that and (if I'm not mistaken) that sends it to the LQ review queue. That's one of the reasons why if I see a post that is technically an answer but I can't see a way of saving it through edits, I hesitate to hit the &quot;Looks OK&quot; option. An answer might fulfill the requirements of using that flag option but then also be marked as &quot;OK&quot; by the queue reviewers. 20 goto 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="36f0bce7-6cee-403f-a3a5-cd483838d319" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some [six to eight weeks ago](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=days+since+april+14+2015), Stack Exchange announced a programme to re-design the CSS and tweak the site styles throughout the network, including the [completely redesigned profile pages](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2015/04/two-new-user-pages-one-new-stat-this-on/). Since then, we've [made some big requests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax) to come with the re-design, so we've remained &quot;on deck&quot; for some time. It seems, however, that the deck currently contains... just us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a problem - I'm sure we would all rather they get it right than they get it out fast. However, I'm curious as to know how this matches with the [recently announced change in the width of the sidebar](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1), which is admittedly a smaller change in the site design, but still. Moreover, I expect that the change in the sidebar is the reason for the [slight delay in the 2016 community ads thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/community-ads), since [the new ads will need to conform to the new width](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1#comment885010_272563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In which order will the CSS redesign, the new sidebar, and the community ads thread launch?&#xD;&#xA; - Are there known timelines for them? Or will the sidebar launch on par with everyone else on the 12th, with no fixed timeline for the CSS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to pressure the team, but since we're last on the line I thought it wouldn't be too much to ask politely :). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="065e9b7b-fa96-42cb-9d05-2cdd0716b238" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was a &quot;check my work&quot; [question asked yesterday](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139278/26969) with an unusual characteristic: the OP had really gone through the problem carefully, checking units and magnitudes along the way. She had made a rather silly mistake in the mathematics along the way resulting in an answer that was a factor 10x off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my dilemma. On the one hand, it was a &quot;check my work&quot; homework question. On the other hand, it was an unusually good one. I had left a comment about not closing it, and it attracted no downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when, after leaving the comment, I went through the work and discovered it all came down to a single typo, I wondered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;should this question be closed as being &quot;too local and not interesting to future visitors&quot;, or should we leave it open as an example of a &quot;OK&quot; form of a check-my-work homework question? I couldn't decide, even after reading [the answers to this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5914/26969).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of you know that on the homework spectrum I lean towards the &quot;helpful&quot; over the &quot;discouraging&quot; end of the distribution, so I would like to hear the community's thought on this one. But I'd gladly give up my 15 rep points if it's decided this post has no further value on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="2a49c506-1bce-4d68-aa9a-6d9a85c08794" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Generally speaking: **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is very definitely not a *replacement* of traditional peer review. We simply do not have a community that is broad and varied enough to connect a given paper with an expert that is sufficiently qualified, interested enough, and with enough available time, to review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is also not a very good *venue* for peer review, generally because it leads to a much broader discussion than the format can really accommodate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For one, there's a mechanics issue: peer review requieres back-and-forth discussion over a long list of specific issues, which the Q&amp;A format does not handle well at all, and the discussion will be left as a sorry mess of interlinking questions, answers, comments, edits to the question, edits to the answers, comments pointing to revision histories, more edits to the answers, and so on. This is completely opposite to the purpose of this site, which is (roughly) providing a useful resource for future visitors which can be parsed immediately without going through ten pages of forum discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are also a bunch of actual problems, which depend on the specific way the request is phrased. So let's go over your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much too broad. It can depend on the specifics of the question (particularly if it's halfway between here and type 2) but in general these should be flagged/close-voted as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a reason why we close things as Too Broad, and it is that they are particularly unrewarding to answer. A question that is Too Broad as posed tends to require enormous amounts of work to answer (more commensurate with a full paper or even textbook than a simple ~blog post) and it is beyond what you really should be asking of strangers on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, if someone does try to answer, there is a definite danger that the OP will not be satisfied: &quot;you did all of that work over on that side, but I was actually interested on that bit over there&quot;, so that huge amount of work comes with little reward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why we require that questions be posed in a way that an answer can be recognized as such, and not as soliciting essays on a given topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, depending on the tone, this is a very tricky question to ask, because we're not here to engage in long-winded discussions. In particular, if it appears that the OP already has made up their mind about the topic and they are only here to stir up controversy (as was definitely the case in the posts you link to, but with several milder variants also possible) then the thread is a non-starter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are here to respond to specific, answerable questions, not to engage in long-winded back-and-forth discussions which can be incredibly draining of time, energy, and passion for engaging with random strangers' curiosity on the internet. Questions which are a bait-and-switch, pretending to be the former but obviously hiding a huge chunk of the latter, are very identifiable as a drain of experts' time and energy which should be spent elsewhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases, the close/flag reason Primarily Opinion Based applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much more workable. Depending on how specific the post is it could still be too broad, but in general that just describes a bona fide question about a paper in the literature. Prospective answerers know what are the concepts that need clarifying, and if there are obvious issues with the work they can be brought out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As posed, this can be a legitimate request for an evaluation of contradicting literature. However, there is very little we can do here: depending on exactly how this is phrased, it amounts to a request of full peer review of not one but two papers, and this is really beyond our scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there's very little chance that we'll be able to produce anything near definitive - our community is simply not big enough - and providing inconclusive answers for the consumption of the internet does very little to set the record straight and much to cloud it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless it is very obvious that there is an objective answer (e.g. the second paper makes a very compelling case, with only a very weak response from the authors of the first one), this is probably over the Primarily Objection Based line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reads as a bona fide, self-contained question: is the argument the OP laid down correct, or not? (Unless, that is, the OP outsources the [outline] to some other journal paper, possibly of their authorship, in which case 'self-contained' obviously does not apply.) Prospective answerers are given a specific thing to address, with sufficient context, so this is probably a good use of the site and its resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a question. The post solicits essays and opinions, and there is no criterion at all for when an 'answer' is 'correct' or not. This is textbook flag/closevote as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, with questions of this type, it is generally unclear what it is the OP actually wants from the post. Do they want community acceptance to rain down on them? Are they soliciting expert opinions about the correctness or significance of the paper? If so, exactly which experts, and which sections of the community, are they hoping to engage with, and what guarantees do they have that they frequent the site and will see the paper? (Again, we're not big enough to undertake this sort of thing.) Are they expecting problems with their paper to actually surface? (And, if so, will they react in a civil way once they do? Is that something prospective answerers can count on just from reading the question?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post does actually detail the claim, then this passes the self-containment bar, but it's still not really a question. What is it the OP wants? cf. the above, and again Too Broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few extra comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The business of bringing together manuscripts that need review with referees with enough time and expertise to review them is a Hard Thing. Academic publishing has sort of kind of got it down to a reasonable standard (but even they still fail often enough at it). At least, they've got it to a standard that has a kind-of acceptable rate of letting bad stuff through, and they've reached some form of equilibrium between the spectrum of (always take the literature with a grain of salt) / (if it's published it at least had a qualified set of eyeballs on it) versus how much energy the community can spend refereeing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are all sorts of problems with the current peer review model in academic publishing (though physics seems luckily to be less troubled than medicinal chemistry and psychology) and there are all sorts of problems with academic publishing in general. Non-commercial (or small enterprise) academic publishing has done a good bit over the past decade pushing this process to a place where the peer review does only require a talented and well-connected volunteer editor (without the overhead of an editorial office), but even then it's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Hoping that just putting a random collection of internet strangers from all over physics next to a random collection of manuscripts about all sorts of topics will somehow manage to work, and work better than academic publishing, has always seemed very strange to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On another track, we're not alone on the attitudes I detailed above. MathOverflow, in particular, is much better posed as a site for professional mathematicians, and they make it pretty clear that they too are no substitute for peer review, cf. [Using Math Overflow to check whether or not a proof is correct](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265/using-math-overflow-to-check-whether-or-not-a-proof-is-correct), [On discussion of published papers at MO](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2328/on-discussion-of-published-papers-at-mo), and [Appropriate or not: “To what extent are the results in Paper X correct?”](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2762/appropriate-or-not-to-what-extent-are-the-results-in-paper-x-correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, [PhysicsOverflow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) does have an [open paper refereeing section](http://physicsoverflow.org/activity/refereeing), which you can check out and see how it's working. If you're looking to solicit feedback on a manuscript, that's one place to turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="2bcb92b2-a70a-4de9-9437-8d798dbde7ba" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes! Solid state physics is physics, and is therefore on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are more conditions on whether or not an individual question fits the site besides just the general field of study. In particular, note that what we call [engineering questions][1] are off topic, so something like &quot;What's the most cost efficient material to use in this application?&quot; is probably off topic. &quot;How do I fabricate this device?&quot; is a gray area - it might be on topic, it might not, and it probably warrants more discussion if it comes up. I mention this not to be intimidating, but just because solid state electronics are studied both from a pure science standpoint and an engineering one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for such a large field, solid state/condensed matter/materials science is IMO quite underrepresented on the site at the moment. Don't be discouraged if at first it seems like the community consists entirely of particle physicists and general relativists. Hopefully we can attract a larger user base with some good questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="338f1c63-3d61-45d0-b521-fffcc28b957c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I said in the comments, [this topic in meta][1] seems to indicate that questions asking what mainstream theories would predict about a science-fictional scenario are on-topic (assuming the premises of the scenario don't themselves violate any physical laws, of course). And certainly mainstream physicists write papers analyzing physical solutions in general relativity that are unlikely to occur naturally and have science-fictional associations, like [traversable wormholes][2] and the [Alcubierre warp bubble][3], discussions about these ideas are not typically closed. Likewise the theoretical possibility of an advanced civilization extracting rotational energy from a rotating black hole is sometimes discussed in textbooks, see the page [here][4] discussing two theoretical processes that have been discussed in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5053/may-i-ask-questions-i-come-across-while-attempting-to-write-science-fiction?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Lorentzian-Wormholes-Einstein-Computational-Mathematical/dp/1563966530&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/nagasawa2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="bb93dbe1-efdc-4589-846f-c519c7651ce1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the record, we ourselves consider those guidelines a bit of a mess. But I'll bypass that issue and just answer based on the existing homework policy as it stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidance in that FAQ can be summarized in two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ask a specific conceptual question&#xD;&#xA;2. Show some work toward answering that conceptual question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your post certainly meets condition #1; there is a specific conceptual question, namely whether the stated assumption is correct. But in its current form, it fails condition #2: it doesn't show any attempt to understand whether the assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [the revision at which it was closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7), I think the same is true. In that revision you show work toward solving the underlying problem - in fact you have a complete solution - but none of that work addresses the issue you're asking about, namely whether the assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask me, to make this _clearly_ not close-worthy/hold-worthy, it would need to expand on the issue of whether the assumption you've made is correct. A good place to start would be identifying some reason you think it might not be correct. For example, is there some alternative assumption you could make that also seems reasonable? Or do you get nonsensical results by making the assumption? Are you unable to find a justification for the assumption in any references you have access to, despite expecting that it should be justified somewhere? Do you find it necessary to make the assumption even though you think it shouldn't be necessary? Or so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="a1b175fc-621e-4c23-b704-d739043f230a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I feel bad for asking such a question, because I know there is probably a simple answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel baited after reading a conversation of the meta thread about what questions were and weren't appropriate. I felt offended when I read that questions which didn't have answers, e.g. speculative questions, could not be asked. &#xD;&#xA;How can we not ask questions about challenging, interesting, and speculative aspects of life and reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton and all the greats created theories solely on circumspection, analyzing of phenomena, asking questions no one had before. Einstein was stubborn, and always asked questions, questions that brought the body of science forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to be overly controversial, but I mean that life is wonderful, reality is complex, and limiting questions only to what has been asked and answered before is limiting to natural human creativity and analyzing ability that would better the body of scientific work. It is exactly opposite to the heart of physics, which is all about understanding the nature of phenomena, enjoying it, exploring it, and getting interested in it. Without asking questions, one is looking at everything in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am deeply hurt by the implications and perhaps my emotionalism is bringing me to a place where I do not see the rule clearly. I worry about this limitation of these types of interesting questions. Peer review sounds good. Perhaps it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link I am referring to is here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: as I read this my mind thinks &quot;Abuse, abuse, abuse.&quot; The reason we probably do not allow such an exchange is abuse by poor practitioners. Nonetheless, the nature of the post seems to stand. We must worry about taking steps to bring physics forward over time, not leaving it as it is. That wouldn't be fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="adc0aea6-fc11-4346-8e64-0a5e2087f012" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm clearly not the first to voice concerns regarding homework questions. Most people here know this is not a check-my-work or give-me-the-answer site, and so don't ask  poorly-phrased homework questions that aren't about a physics concept. But we still have a lot, especially from new users. There's been a lot of effort put into making sure people know about the homework policy, from the [tour](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) to the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) to [meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). But there are still issues, such as [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142489/how-to-find-the-moments-of-a-and-b), on which I spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what the OP's core issue was - only to have him/her suddenly announce that s/he knew the answer. Why, given all the effort that's been put in to the contrary, are we still seeing poor homework questions? Is there any way we can fix this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="245243d0-de16-4100-90d7-577795bc1282" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In our last chat session two weeks ago (sorry for the delay), we had a [discussion about updating the homework policy and homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason). I'm making this post to summarize that discussion and solicit feedback on how to proceed afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The current status&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), questions are considered &quot;homework-like&quot; (or &quot;educational&quot;) and fall under the policy whenever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[the question's] value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely _not_ of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it. We do have [a policy on showing effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), separate from the homework policy, but it doesn't justify _closing_ those questions. (Also, it was meant to catch questions that the homework policy doesn't.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most people believe that questions where the poster asks us to do some simple calculation for them should be off topic. However, it's not clear _exactly_ where we should draw the boundary of what sorts of questions are off topic, and what reason is best to give for considering them off topic. There have been a number of discussions on this in the past, among them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation (November 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy (December 2013)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session (March 2015)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy (October 2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will probably want to create a new policy that replaces the current homework policy, and gives a different criterion for a question that is off topic. This new policy would become the new justification for closing low-effort homework questions (those where it _is_ clear that it's a homework/educational question), so whatever we wind up going with, it should be some criterion that does catch those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few options that I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Questions which ask us to perform calculations are off topic&#xD;&#xA;2. Questions which don't show sufficient effort are off topic (I suppose this is the nice wording for the poster being lazy)&#xD;&#xA;3. A combination of the previous two - kind of like our current homework policy, except that the criteria of &quot;ask a conceptual question&quot; (more or less) and &quot;show effort&quot; would apply to **all** questions, not just those we consider to be of an educational nature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the most likely contenders, but for completeness, some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Questions which ask for a conceptual understanding of something are on topic, and everything else is not (this is _kind of_ like #1, but excludes more questions)&#xD;&#xA;5. All questions which come from homework assignments are off topic (difficult to enforce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. etc. And for comparison, our current policy would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Questions which are educational in nature are off topic unless they ask a conceptual question _and_ show effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The issues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have some ideas for what kind of criterion should replace our current homework policy. For each of these ideas, we should consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there a significant number of questions which are off topic under our current homework policy which would be on topic under the new policy? If so, should they be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;- Exactly what sorts of questions would become off topic under the new policy which are not covered by current close reasons? Do we want them to be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully the answers we come up with will help us focus the new close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point in the future, we will also have to discuss the role of the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag in this new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="158903f6-bb28-4d89-a86d-806e1cdce68e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If a good and complete answer can simply be copied from elsewhere, I suggest that the question deserves the downvotes / closure for lack of effort... But apart from that - if it answers the question, it's an answer. If it answers the question well, it's a good answer that deserves upvotes. If someone write a comment that should be an answer, and after prompting they don't convert it to an answer, [you can and should copy it and promote it to answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7494/26969) - with attribution, and possibly without embellishment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="3c4681bb-b9bc-43d1-818a-fcc315a83788" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Re (1): [Danu suggested a while back][1] that we should have a set of canonical questions that could be used as targets for duplicates. I'd guess Chris' bounty is an attempt to get such a canonical answer. Maybe the effort would be better spent on writing a new and clearer question/answer. If so Chris could ask the mods to refund the bounty and then write a new question - I guess that's up to Chris. Whatever the case, if a really good answer to the current question emerges that has to be a useful step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re (2): when questions are a little ill posed I often try to provide a broader answer than the one actually requested. Of course I'll answer the question, but I'll usually also try to put it in context and expand around it. So although you're correct that the two questions are different I think they basically have the same answer(s) and can usefully be regarded as duplicates. We seem to differ about what the key features of that answer is, but that's physics I guess :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6268" RevisionGUID="052a3cbc-8de1-4285-8188-b428ca61e35b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say this is more an engineering question, which in general is off-topic; see this topic: [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently no general engineering SE site, but there is one in commitment phase: [Area 51 - Engineering](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/60453/engineering?referrer=KcfjUC9wdeJUZvrx04eTvg2). So I'd suggest you wait until it matures or even commit to the proposed site yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="a9eed2e2-d44e-4031-b4ba-af0e79a019d6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the most confusing bit of the homework policy is the &quot;and show effort&quot; aspect found in the close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept *and show some effort* to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when the [**link in that message**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) opens with,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even aside from the fact that the community appears to be [**against &quot;check my work&quot; problems**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301), I feel that including the &quot;show work&quot; bit is both contradictory and confusing. It suggests that if someone simply adds their attempt to their &quot;do my homework for me question,&quot; then it'd get reopened and answered; even some [**high rep users are of the opinion**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7311/25301) that &quot;showing work&quot; would/should prevent closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, the point of the &quot;show work&quot; is meant to encourage askers to not pose questions without having thought about the answer. I don't think that the current phrase encourages this position. It would be better if we did one of the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. eliminate the phrase so that questions asking us to &quot;do some math for them&quot; are *off-topic*&#xD;&#xA; 2. leave the phrase so that questions asking us to &quot;do some math for them&quot; are *on topic*&#xD;&#xA; 3. replace the phrase with one that more accurately represents what is meant by it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that #3 is the better option of these, though I cannot think of a good phrase outside of something along the lines of requiring OP showing their rationale--I'm completely open to suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="2888c8ad-c30b-4ba2-a5f0-3f041ec7705c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Take a look at the _reason_ the closed question was closed: it was because of our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), specifically the part that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this closure has nothing to do with whether it should be considered a physics question or a math question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="b65589dc-0952-467e-9dc1-4cb5f4c0f072" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Does some *concrete* evidence exist that the physics.SE site offers any help with research? (Note that research in physics [may not be confused with theoretical physics, that is a specific thing][1].) Were new works published there that later obtained recognition from the professional scientific community? Did anybody obtain key insights that prompted his/her research to succeed? Or, possibly, some in-deep reviews of pre-existing papers and textbooks did arise from discussions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6081/56960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="887cd8ec-f3bc-4a31-a00a-dd2dd9735990" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Community ads are decided by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="1fea634c-ed1c-4474-8877-9d9c224b03b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was a &quot;check my work&quot; [question asked yesterday](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139278/26969) with an unusual characteristic: the OP had really gone through the problem carefully, checking units and magnitudes along the way. She had made a rather silly mistake in the mathematics along the way resulting in an answer that was a factor 10x off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my dilemma. On the one hand, it was a &quot;check my work&quot; homework question. On the other hand, it was an unusually good one. I had left a comment about not closing it, and it attracted no downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when, after leaving the comment, I went through the work and discovered it all came down to a single typo, I wondered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;should this question be closed as being &quot;too local and not interesting to future visitors&quot;, or should we leave it open as an example of a &quot;OK&quot; form of a check-my-work homework question? I couldn't decide, even after reading [the answers to this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5914/26969).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of you know that on the homework spectrum I lean towards the &quot;helpful&quot; over the &quot;discouraging&quot; end of the distribution, so I would like to hear the community's thought on this one. But I'd gladly give up my 15 rep points if it's decided this post has no further value on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="43b5bf4e-f133-4d4c-95e3-7b622c1a4967" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that high amount of Low Quality posts are preventing to use much time for each review tasks, and thus produces a deleting habit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what is the point of closing/deleting posts, which has even received a bounty?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ie. this answer of me received even a Bounty; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75222/where-does-gravity-get-its-energy-from/238804#238804 &#xD;&#xA;...but it was still deleted! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Answer received also the Bounty; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234697/how-can-a-bowling-ball-curve-in-both-directions/241137#241137 &#xD;&#xA;... it's also down voted and is proposed to be deleted, at the Comments is said; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This does not provide an answer to the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the person who asked, even provided me a Bounty for my answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think the main problem is that some actively moderating persons are just down voting and closing questions in &quot;Facebook-style&quot;; 5 sec preview and Thumb up/down.** I noticed this behaviour clearly in this deleted question; [Mysterious temperatures of Mimas?][1] where every one can see through it's comments how difficult it might sometime's be. The Question might got closed just because it used the word &quot;mysterious&quot; in it's title, though this was a direct phrasing used in the original source of the explaining picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Text from question; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 3 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 5 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;What is the physical explanation for dramatical conductivity variations across the surface of Mimas?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then suddenly, when the word &quot;Mystery&quot; is away; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why didn't you make THAT your question in the first place... – CuriousOne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that this [&quot;CuriousOne&quot;][2] haven't ever asked a single question by himself. With this I don't want to attack against the persons of moderation, but it seems that there should be some mechanism to prevent this &quot;Facebook-like&quot; dalmatian-species-specific-moderation-style to reproduce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the problematic I have talked before; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7336/can-we-stop-closing-questions-as-unclear-what-you-are-asking-for-ops-above-cer  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own deleted-examples about this &quot;Unclear what you are asking&quot; problem;  &#xD;&#xA;[Capillarity, QED explanation?][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[Physics of craters in moons?][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Also [this question][5] is rather &quot;unclear&quot; than &quot;not Mainstream.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;Unclears&quot; are also about to be Deleted;  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240979/why-in-thermosphere-is-he-and-o-divided-as-measured/241007#241007  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227542/how-is-it-possible-that-thermosphere-can-maintain-so-much-heat  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225721/numerical-model-for-a-air-core-vortex-why-its-still-so-limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question;**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240766/mysterious-temperatures-of-mimas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56997/curiousone&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240602/capillarity-qed-explanation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240840/physics-of-craters-in-moons-planets-only-impact-or-is-there-other-explanations&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241012/neutron-electron-and-proton-mass-dark-matter-and-dark-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="14dda784-83eb-4728-ab12-ff963dfed0fe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the same problem but in Opera. I've read in one comment that this isn't a problem in Opera but it's for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is really disturbing because in this form, the clickable area of the buttons is on the upper half of them and each time I want to click on them I've to go through the same confusion and bewilderment again and again until I remember what's going on in here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XwzAF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="3520c104-a93f-49e1-9da5-5621ec9e14c3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every 2-3 days a question pops up on the site related to basic definition/misunderstanding of entropy/black holes. In the process of searching for related questions, I find that there are many answers covering many interesting and valid points. The number of such posts having quality content is so much that going through all of them takes a huge amount of time. I want some  suggestions for a suitable good answers to be redirected to for clearing these basic issues right away. Or does a master question for entropy as given in John Rennie's https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7431/ needs to be created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="e9acd906-5882-4e61-8d62-023096613217" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I said in the comments, [this topic in meta][1] seems to indicate that questions asking what mainstream theories would predict about a science-fictional scenario are on-topic (assuming the premises of the scenario don't themselves violate any physical laws, of course). And certainly mainstream physicists write papers analyzing physical solutions in general relativity that are unlikely to occur naturally and have science-fictional associations, like [traversable wormholes][2] and the [Alcubierre warp bubble][3], discussions about these ideas are not typically closed. Likewise the theoretical possibility of an advanced civilization extracting rotational energy from a rotating black hole is sometimes discussed in textbooks, see the page [here][4] discussing two theoretical processes that have been discussed in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5053/may-i-ask-questions-i-come-across-while-attempting-to-write-science-fiction?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Lorentzian-Wormholes-Einstein-Computational-Mathematical/dp/1563966530&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/nagasawa2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="48ecc59c-2b83-4c1a-a517-7f91448cfcb7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reviewing really comes from experience, and that's partly why it is limited to users who have reached enough reputation. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules written down anywhere on what to look for because the expectation is that users performing the reviews have established themselves in the community and know what is expected, or not acceptable, on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we do tend to have some tricky rules if you haven't been really active on meta. [Resource/book recommendations][1], [homework][2], [computational][3], [engineering][4], and [experimental][5] questions all have very specific policies that have many subtleties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from those, the usual correction of grammar, formatting, MathJax, removing greetings/thanks/superfluous information, and proper tagging are always safe and a good way for new reviewers to help new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="a1a17f1c-b286-4270-a311-ec32740fb9b4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions that ask *How do I prove...* or *How do I calculate...*, as is the case for both of yours, will almost always get flagged for closure because it's a [homework-like question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), defined *on this site* as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of us spent several years in college and doctoral programs and we're really not interested in doing your work for you (as you can [see as you peruse this Meta.Physics.SE list of questions tagged *homework*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework)), but we *are* interested in answering questions about tough concepts &amp; clearing up your misunderstandings. So to prevent closure, consider what *specific physics concept* you are having troubles with and ask about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="a5b7d4b4-3e89-48e4-bee1-9b4339e7d0db" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; You should realize that receiving a lot of down votes does not mean that there is a &quot;serial down voter&quot; (in the sense that the down votes are there because the post is by you). It could also be that your posts are just of low quality, like this one: Spelling errors, no capitalization at the start of sentences, the word &quot;perpetuate&quot; dangling at the end with unclear meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– [ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind), in [a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else#comment29402_7491)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="695ee2a2-cd0a-43ed-8313-a9a7e1dfcedf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm clearly not the first to voice concerns regarding homework questions. Most people here know this is not a check-my-work or give-me-the-answer site, and so don't ask  poorly-phrased homework questions that aren't about a physics concept. But we still have a lot, especially from new users. There's been a lot of effort put into making sure people know about the homework policy, from the [tour](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) to the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) to [meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). But there are still issues, such as [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142489/how-to-find-the-moments-of-a-and-b), on which I spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what the OP's core issue was - only to have him/her suddenly announce that s/he knew the answer. Why, given all the effort that's been put in to the contrary, are we still seeing poor homework questions? Is there any way we can fix this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="9181438f-7a4c-4055-b080-ca82f1c3135b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Writing a good title can require some thought.&#xD;&#xA;A title, while short, must help other users get an idea of what your question will ask so they can decide whether or not to click and read the entire thing.&#xD;&#xA;How should users of [physics.stackexchange][1] construct good titles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/shouldnt-we-make-more-of-our-question-titles-actual-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="6f30695e-be71-4807-a1a2-5ed5430ca927" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An answer is placed in the comment box on your question and it would make an answer. As long as you quote it is it OK to use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Comments at [this question][1] for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/i-am-being-serial-down-voted-or-something-else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6268" RevisionGUID="883c3249-f1ae-49de-8e84-7c9894e01cb0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say this is more an engineering question, which in general is off-topic; see this topic: [Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently no general engineering SE site, but there is one in commitment phase: [Area 51 - Engineering](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/60453/engineering?referrer=KcfjUC9wdeJUZvrx04eTvg2). So I'd suggest you wait until it matures or even commit to the proposed site yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="2ef8696d-66c0-4cdd-939b-72b71e4da110" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've recently had John Rennie asking &quot;canonical&quot; questions which he's answered himself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time, does it flow, and if so what defines its direction?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time dilation really?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He says his answers are intended to be definitive and authoritative, and that he [welcomes comments]( https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time/7514#7514). But he doesn’t. He said [&quot;why not post your view as an answer?&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/235512/76162) but he deleted my point-by-point view without discussion. There were also polite but challenging comments from another poster, followed by John Rennie saying &quot;let's continue this in chat&quot;, but now those comments have vanished without trace. And more importantly, those &quot;definitive&quot;, &quot;authoritative&quot; answers are not correct. Time really isn't &quot;just a coordinate&quot;. A clock really isn't something that &quot;measures distances&quot;. The resolution to the twins paradox really isn't &quot;the metric you use to do the calculation is not the same as the metric I use to do the calculation&quot;. Whilst those answers have received an awful lot of upvotes, I must point out that science is not a democracy. All the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all , I think this canonical sort of thing is fraught with problems. It's the sort of thing that will harm physics stack exchange by saddling it with bad-science lies-to-children answers that can’t be corrected. It is in essence saying “mine is the right answer and all other answers aren’t worth looking at”. It’s imposing an orthodoxy, and it’s the sort of hubristic mindset that gets in the way of scientific progress. It’s more suited to a medieval theocracy than 21st Century physics. IMHO there's already problems with closevotes wherein the alleged duplicate isn't really a duplicate, and/or all the answers are wrong, and/or the closevoter is the author of one of them. This is only going to make it worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think we should discourage &quot;canonical&quot; questions with &quot;canonical&quot; answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="d227ec79-a742-41a2-af1f-9872c1589929" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Why the minimum rep is fine enough to prevent trolling&#xD;&#xA;This is effectively answered [on the Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74086/so-chat-why-is-it-that-only-members-of-stack-overflow-with-at-least-20-reputat). The answers there are probably not sufficient for you, so I'm going to continue with a few extra points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chat is a place where people who spend their time answer questions here can hang out and respond to each other *in real time* (that's important). Allowing any &quot;troll&quot; in would probably ruin our fun there. I think that's a perfectly valid reason to have the 20-rep minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A new user can certainly post questions, but until they hit 50 rep, they cannot  comment on *other* threads so their trolling is contained to their own posts. If they are indeed trolling, they'll soon enough find their question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any user who writes multiple poorly-received (i.e., heavily downvoted) questions can get a temporary ban from asking questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Anyone who takes the time to earn 50 rep in order to troll has a lot of free time. They'll quickly find their posts getting downvoted, dropping their rep by 2 each vote. Once they get under 50, they'll no longer be able to comment and under 20, they cannot enter chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls are people who just want to bother other people for no good reason. As long as people like this exist, we will set up whatever road blocks are necessary to keep them at bay, simply because they are annoying. If you want to put up with trolls, feel free to take it to a place where trolls are readily accepted (there are places like that on the internets); here, we prefer to prevent them as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What happens if a troll *does* get the minimum rep &amp; trolls chat&#xD;&#xA;The Stack Exchange dev team have two ways of managing trolls:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Users in chat can [mute the abusing member](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#mute). This allows users to *not see* the trolling posts in *any* chat room.&#xD;&#xA;2. Users in the chat can [flag the post](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#nice) as inappropriate. With enough flags (or a present moderator), the user will get a ban from participating in chat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even *if* a troll does manage to get the required reputation, there are ways to block them from persisting in being a troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;People here are afraid to make things work my way because my way is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your way would require us to have [little-to-no blockage against trolls](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337/why-do-you-need-50-reputation-to-comment-on-other-posts) by lowering/eliminating reputation limits. It is *not* out of fear that these limits are imposed, it is out of *rationalized* thinking and *experimental* evidence. We *don't* want to be annoyed or bothered by a subset of internet-capable people who *want* to *be* annoying and bothersome.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="b4cc8415-12aa-4af5-b5fb-9f57331bdec6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Does some *concrete* evidence exist that the physics.SE site offers any help with research? (Note that research in physics [may not be confused with theoretical physics, that is a specific thing][1].) Were new works published there that later obtained recognition from the professional scientific community? Did anybody obtain key insights that prompted his/her research to succeed? Or, possibly, some in-deep reviews of pre-existing papers and textbooks did arise from discussions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6081/56960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="c5a5d02f-a745-4af9-bd17-c0a169f7480e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the same problem but in Opera. I've read in one comment that this isn't a problem in Opera but it's for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is really disturbing because in this form, the clickable area of the buttons is on the upper half of them and each time I want to click on them I've to go through the same confusion and bewilderment again and again until I remember what's going on in here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XwzAF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="055d4d24-160f-41cc-8ab7-6be83c250116" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Generally speaking: **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is very definitely not a *replacement* of traditional peer review. We simply do not have a community that is broad and varied enough to connect a given paper with an expert that is sufficiently qualified, interested enough, and with enough available time, to review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is also not a very good *venue* for peer review, generally because it leads to a much broader discussion than the format can really accommodate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For one, there's a mechanics issue: peer review requieres back-and-forth discussion over a long list of specific issues, which the Q&amp;A format does not handle well at all, and the discussion will be left as a sorry mess of interlinking questions, answers, comments, edits to the question, edits to the answers, comments pointing to revision histories, more edits to the answers, and so on. This is completely opposite to the purpose of this site, which is (roughly) providing a useful resource for future visitors which can be parsed immediately without going through ten pages of forum discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are also a bunch of actual problems, which depend on the specific way the request is phrased. So let's go over your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much too broad. It can depend on the specifics of the question (particularly if it's halfway between here and type 2) but in general these should be flagged/close-voted as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a reason why we close things as Too Broad, and it is that they are particularly unrewarding to answer. A question that is Too Broad as posed tends to require enormous amounts of work to answer (more commensurate with a full paper or even textbook than a simple ~blog post) and it is beyond what you really should be asking of strangers on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, if someone does try to answer, there is a definite danger that the OP will not be satisfied: &quot;you did all of that work over on that side, but I was actually interested on that bit over there&quot;, so that huge amount of work comes with little reward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why we require that questions be posed in a way that an answer can be recognized as such, and not as soliciting essays on a given topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, depending on the tone, this is a very tricky question to ask, because we're not here to engage in long-winded discussions. In particular, if it appears that the OP already has made up their mind about the topic and they are only here to stir up controversy (as was definitely the case in the posts you link to, but with several milder variants also possible) then the thread is a non-starter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are here to respond to specific, answerable questions, not to engage in long-winded back-and-forth discussions which can be incredibly draining of time, energy, and passion for engaging with random strangers' curiosity on the internet. Questions which are a bait-and-switch, pretending to be the former but obviously hiding a huge chunk of the latter, are very identifiable as a drain of experts' time and energy which should be spent elsewhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases, the close/flag reason Primarily Opinion Based applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much more workable. Depending on how specific the post is it could still be too broad, but in general that just describes a bona fide question about a paper in the literature. Prospective answerers know what are the concepts that need clarifying, and if there are obvious issues with the work they can be brought out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As posed, this can be a legitimate request for an evaluation of contradicting literature. However, there is very little we can do here: depending on exactly how this is phrased, it amounts to a request of full peer review of not one but two papers, and this is really beyond our scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there's very little chance that we'll be able to produce anything near definitive - our community is simply not big enough - and providing inconclusive answers for the consumption of the internet does very little to set the record straight and much to cloud it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless it is very obvious that there is an objective answer (e.g. the second paper makes a very compelling case, with only a very weak response from the authors of the first one), this is probably over the Primarily Objection Based line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reads as a bona fide, self-contained question: is the argument the OP laid down correct, or not? (Unless, that is, the OP outsources the [outline] to some other journal paper, possibly of their authorship, in which case 'self-contained' obviously does not apply.) Prospective answerers are given a specific thing to address, with sufficient context, so this is probably a good use of the site and its resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a question. The post solicits essays and opinions, and there is no criterion at all for when an 'answer' is 'correct' or not. This is textbook flag/closevote as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, with questions of this type, it is generally unclear what it is the OP actually wants from the post. Do they want community acceptance to rain down on them? Are they soliciting expert opinions about the correctness or significance of the paper? If so, exactly which experts, and which sections of the community, are they hoping to engage with, and what guarantees do they have that they frequent the site and will see the paper? (Again, we're not big enough to undertake this sort of thing.) Are they expecting problems with their paper to actually surface? (And, if so, will they react in a civil way once they do? Is that something prospective answerers can count on just from reading the question?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post does actually detail the claim, then this passes the self-containment bar, but it's still not really a question. What is it the OP wants? cf. the above, and again Too Broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few extra comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The business of bringing together manuscripts that need review with referees with enough time and expertise to review them is a Hard Thing. Academic publishing has sort of kind of got it down to a reasonable standard (but even they still fail often enough at it). At least, they've got it to a standard that has a kind-of acceptable rate of letting bad stuff through, and they've reached some form of equilibrium between the spectrum of (always take the literature with a grain of salt) / (if it's published it at least had a qualified set of eyeballs on it) versus how much energy the community can spend refereeing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are all sorts of problems with the current peer review model in academic publishing (though physics seems luckily to be less troubled than medicinal chemistry and psychology) and there are all sorts of problems with academic publishing in general. Non-commercial (or small enterprise) academic publishing has done a good bit over the past decade pushing this process to a place where the peer review does only require a talented and well-connected volunteer editor (without the overhead of an editorial office), but even then it's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Hoping that just putting a random collection of internet strangers from all over physics next to a random collection of manuscripts about all sorts of topics will somehow manage to work, and work better than academic publishing, has always seemed very strange to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On another track, we're not alone on the attitudes I detailed above. MathOverflow, in particular, is much better posed as a site for professional mathematicians, and they make it pretty clear that they too are no substitute for peer review, cf. [Using Math Overflow to check whether or not a proof is correct](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265/using-math-overflow-to-check-whether-or-not-a-proof-is-correct), [On discussion of published papers at MO](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2328/on-discussion-of-published-papers-at-mo), and [Appropriate or not: “To what extent are the results in Paper X correct?”](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2762/appropriate-or-not-to-what-extent-are-the-results-in-paper-x-correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, [PhysicsOverflow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) does have an [open paper refereeing section](http://physicsoverflow.org/activity/refereeing), which you can check out and see how it's working. If you're looking to solicit feedback on a manuscript, that's one place to turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="b3958cf2-d0d7-43a1-9e9f-430154f3963d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have always had canonical questions/answers, it’s just that until [Danu’s post][1] here in the Meta we didn’t call them canonical. A canonical question/answer is one where the question is so apposite and the answer so clearly explained it ends up being cited many times. Sorting the questions by votes will quickly reveal many such questions. My own favourites include (to list just a few):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53802/what-is-delta-t-in-the-time-energy-uncertainty-principle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95366/why-does-stephen-hawking-say-black-holes-dont-exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though of course everyone will have their own favourites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the Physics SE isn’t a blog and shouldn’t be treated like one. If we all started writing what amounted to blog posts just because there was some subject that we found fascinating that would quickly alienate the site members. Setting out to deliberately write a canonical Q/A (as opposed to achieving it as a side effect, like the three examples above) is something that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I want to keep things general and avoid specific issues let’s take the three Q/As of mine that John mentions as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the most prolific poster of answers on this site (note that I’m claiming no special merit here, unless you regard fecundity as a virtue :-) I have seen lots and lots of questions and answers - I’ve probably at least glanced at every question on the site for the last five years. As a result I get a feel for when the same topic is being questioned again and again, and the question *What is time* in its various forms has been asked countless times. When this finally annoyed me once too often I posted on the Meta asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and got the general impression that a deliberate attempt at a canonical Q/A would be well received. Even then it took me a month to decide how best to write one. So this was not a spur of the moment impulse because I was bored. It was a considered decision based on consultation. In the end I wrote three questions, but they’re all one Q/A really - I just split them into three to make them more digestible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not my three recent Q/As are a long term benefit to this community remains to be seen. I’ve already used them several times as duplicates, or I’ve posted them in comments as a related question, but I haven’t attempted to analyse how many times others have linked them. They have ended up with a middling number of upvotes, but as John says the number of upvotes is a poor guide to quality, especially when a question makes the Hot Questions list as at least one of mine did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the question of canonical Q/As is broader than just the three questions mentioned in John’s question. I have linked my three favourite Q/As mentioned above many, many times, and the site would be a considerably poorer place without them. But of course those questions weren’t deliberately posted to be canonical, they just happened to hit the target, and I think the crux of John’s question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should site members deliberately post questions and answers intended to be canonical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps surprisingly my answer to this is that no they should not. Just because a subject seems interesting to you is no guarantee that it will be interesting to anyone else, and no guarantee that an attempted canonical Q/A on the subject will be useful. You should at the very least discuss it in the Meta before posting, and perhaps bring it up at the fortnightly physics chats before setting pen to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, and again this is a general point although I’ll address the specific issue of the Q/As mentioned by John. Posting a canonical question and answer does not mean no-one else can answer the question. Indeed, there are frequently many different perspectives on a complicated issue and ideally a canonical question will attract answers from several site members who want to post different perspectives. Indeed this is what has happened with all three of the questions that John mentions. Naturally I think my own answers are the best :-), and they have attracted the most upvotes, but anyone add their own answer if they think they can do a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="69aa4bcf-7bcb-4892-85c9-bb57f49f9f59" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Back when we sorted out the book recommendation and resource recommendation requests, we made it so there was a [permanent banner](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5237/books-banner-top-or-bottom) instructing those answering to abide by our policies regarding the questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we get so many homework questions, can (or should) we have a similar banner for those? The arguments for why it is good here are the same as for why it was good on the book/reference request ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also potentially serve as a reminder to the OP to check the policies. Right now, Kyle Kanos is pretty good about posting a standard comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please note that Physics.StackExchange is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems –  Kyle Kanos 1 hour ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with appropriate links. This comment is directed only at OP, but our banner could include similar wording plus directions to those who answer about not actually providing the full answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it might seem unclear *who* exactly such a banner would be targeted towards, [here is a link](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/19931754#19931754) to an explanation that occurred in the chat room. I will try to summarize it here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For good, properly posed homework questions, the OP doesn't need to be reminded about the policies. However, those who **answer** the question should be reminded. For instance, somebody can show an example problem, explain what *concept* they are stuck on, and ask for help understanding the concept. That's a great homework question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody can then come along and say &quot;Here's how this concept works. And when you do that, you get the answer X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the person who **answered** the question violated the HW policy by going too far in the explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The banner would be targeted to the answerer more than the questioner, although the questioner (and future people who come to the site) will also see the banner and get links/information on the policy. Everybody wins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the book recommendation policy and banner. Somebody comes along an asks for a recommendation, perfectly on-topic and valid. We put the banner up reminding those who **answer** the question that recommendations must explain why it is appropriate and not just give a link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Books banner tells people who answer that they need to provide more information to abide by the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework banner tells people they should provide less information to abide by the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see them as equivalent and helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, since adding a banner requires a moderator, it can sometimes be annoying. Although QMechanic does a pretty good job reviewing almost every question on the site for appropriate tags so it probably wouldn't be that hard to add the banner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if we can ask the SE team to make it so questions tagged with [tag:homework-and-exercises] get the banner automatically. And if the tag is removed, the banner is removed. Although that's something that probably isn't trivial and shouldn't affect whether we have the banner now or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="6a98885c-ab2e-4f62-a8fa-c146c3934659" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the record, we ourselves consider those guidelines a bit of a mess. But I'll bypass that issue and just answer based on the existing homework policy as it stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidance in that FAQ can be summarized in two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ask a specific conceptual question&#xD;&#xA;2. Show some work toward answering that conceptual question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your post certainly meets condition #1; there is a specific conceptual question, namely whether the stated assumption is correct. But in its current form, it fails condition #2: it doesn't show any attempt to understand whether the assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [the revision at which it was closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7), I think the same is true. In that revision you show work toward solving the underlying problem - in fact you have a complete solution - but none of that work addresses the issue you're asking about, namely whether the assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask me, to make this _clearly_ not close-worthy/hold-worthy, it would need to expand on the issue of whether the assumption you've made is correct. A good place to start would be identifying some reason you think it might not be correct. For example, is there some alternative assumption you could make that also seems reasonable? Or do you get nonsensical results by making the assumption? Are you unable to find a justification for the assumption in any references you have access to, despite expecting that it should be justified somewhere? Do you find it necessary to make the assumption even though you think it shouldn't be necessary? Or so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="239e5f78-7256-486a-a4a2-903a6d38ab13" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reviewing really comes from experience, and that's partly why it is limited to users who have reached enough reputation. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules written down anywhere on what to look for because the expectation is that users performing the reviews have established themselves in the community and know what is expected, or not acceptable, on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we do tend to have some tricky rules if you haven't been really active on meta. [Resource/book recommendations][1], [homework][2], [computational][3], [engineering][4], and [experimental][5] questions all have very specific policies that have many subtleties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from those, the usual correction of grammar, formatting, MathJax, removing greetings/thanks/superfluous information, and proper tagging are always safe and a good way for new reviewers to help new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="1cb03d8d-0338-417e-a8ce-900178882daf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739).  Is there a better statement somewhere?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was hard enough to find.  Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise.  Do we have a consensus?  If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I think a clear statement in help would give us something to point to as a reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="1b561be2-90ac-429a-a82e-42d87a797616" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If a good and complete answer can simply be copied from elsewhere, I suggest that the question deserves the downvotes / closure for lack of effort... But apart from that - if it answers the question, it's an answer. If it answers the question well, it's a good answer that deserves upvotes. If someone write a comment that should be an answer, and after prompting they don't convert it to an answer, [you can and should copy it and promote it to answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7494/26969) - with attribution, and possibly without embellishment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="1f6d9f17-dbee-472f-8da0-e73aa9f9d4e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Writing a good title can require some thought.&#xD;&#xA;A title, while short, must help other users get an idea of what your question will ask so they can decide whether or not to click and read the entire thing.&#xD;&#xA;How should users of [physics.stackexchange][1] construct good titles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/shouldnt-we-make-more-of-our-question-titles-actual-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="4cbd199e-65f3-4235-a64b-8b9bcf40a72c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I personally don't have that much patience for this sort of hullaballoo, which seems to come and go periodically. Nevertheless we do play a role in it, and I think it's important that we respond to these sorts of questions appropriately. The flow goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Scientist comes up with crazy idea, and (a bit surprisingly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - actually comes up with some plausible-looking maths that merit a closer look, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - they send it off to a journal, and it passes peer-review with referee comments along the lines of &quot;don't think it will take off, but this much is technically sound and worth publishing so people can find why exactly it won't work, maybe we'll learn something in the process&quot;. However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the journal's publicity department doesn't see the referee report and, caught by the trendy title and snazzy possibilities in the abstract, ships it off to a trendy news outlet mentioning the snazzy possibilities and dropping all the qualifiers behind the result, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - it gets reported on some credible news site, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a bunch of readers get confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our role is to stop it right there. Point out that it depends on frictionless cows and spherical surfaces. Give precise pointers to why the Established Theory does work and to the Mountain of Evidence that supports it. Explain why the new theory needs to explain a substantial fraction of that Mountain of Evidence before we'll start taking it as a real candidate for What Actually Happens in the World.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, we sort of need to interrupt the science news cycle pointed out by PhD Comics' Jorge Cham,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The Science News Cycle - from PhD Comics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zM20b.png)](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about halfway through. We want it to look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zj2qJ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the paper in question is indeed a peer-reviewed journal publication, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the paper in question does initially contradict a well established theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we should be a bit more lax in terms of keeping these questions open. A few comments on the usual close reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;It's non-mainstream&quot;** doesn't hold if it's actually in a peer-reviewed publication, because of [how we structure that in the first place](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's unclear what you're asking** is a pretty high bar for something like this. It's often the case that *we* as professional physicists are confused by one of these, and it takes us time to get to grips with what the paper is saying. For a student or someone in the general public, we should set a slightly lower bar if they see something in mainstream media which is backed up by a peer-reviewed publication, and are simply confused about how credible it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's primarily opinion-based** and it most likely will remain so, with anything that's speculative like this. We do need to make an effort to keep it concise and to the point, but I think this is effort we need to make on keeping the answers trim and as low on discussion as possible, rather than something that makes us close the question immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for the long, rambly post. Feel free to shoot me down with reasoned arguments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="72c3e1e6-c006-44b9-adea-3001057b996c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Why the minimum rep is fine enough to prevent trolling&#xD;&#xA;This is effectively answered [on the Mother Meta](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74086/so-chat-why-is-it-that-only-members-of-stack-overflow-with-at-least-20-reputat). The answers there are probably not sufficient for you, so I'm going to continue with a few extra points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chat is a place where people who spend their time answer questions here can hang out and respond to each other *in real time* (that's important). Allowing any &quot;troll&quot; in would probably ruin our fun there. I think that's a perfectly valid reason to have the 20-rep minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A new user can certainly post questions, but until they hit 50 rep, they cannot  comment on *other* threads so their trolling is contained to their own posts. If they are indeed trolling, they'll soon enough find their question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any user who writes multiple poorly-received (i.e., heavily downvoted) questions can get a temporary ban from asking questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Anyone who takes the time to earn 50 rep in order to troll has a lot of free time. They'll quickly find their posts getting downvoted, dropping their rep by 2 each vote. Once they get under 50, they'll no longer be able to comment and under 20, they cannot enter chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls are people who just want to bother other people for no good reason. As long as people like this exist, we will set up whatever road blocks are necessary to keep them at bay, simply because they are annoying. If you want to put up with trolls, feel free to take it to a place where trolls are readily accepted (there are places like that on the internets); here, we prefer to prevent them as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What happens if a troll *does* get the minimum rep &amp; trolls chat&#xD;&#xA;The Stack Exchange dev team have two ways of managing trolls:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Users in chat can [mute the abusing member](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#mute). This allows users to *not see* the trolling posts in *any* chat room.&#xD;&#xA;2. Users in the chat can [flag the post](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#nice) as inappropriate. With enough flags (or a present moderator), the user will get a ban from participating in chat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even *if* a troll does manage to get the required reputation, there are ways to block them from persisting in being a troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;People here are afraid to make things work my way because my way is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your way would require us to have [little-to-no blockage against trolls](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337/why-do-you-need-50-reputation-to-comment-on-other-posts) by lowering/eliminating reputation limits. It is *not* out of fear that these limits are imposed, it is out of *rationalized* thinking and *experimental* evidence. We *don't* want to be annoyed or bothered by a subset of internet-capable people who *want* to *be* annoying and bothersome.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="059242c5-850e-4291-aa1b-1aba5b5d646e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I created a graph of tags from Stack Exchange sites (including Physics.SE), [**TagOverflow**](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made an interactive version of https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1581/map-of-64-tags-from-physics-se, with always up-to-date data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nodes represent the most popular tags, with their area being proportional to the number of questions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edges represent relation between tags. Their width is related to the number of questions with both tags, while their shade - how much more often they occur than one should expect by random chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Default coloring is due to community detection - automated splitting of a graph into densely connected subgraphs. Positions of the nodes are due to [D3.js force layout](https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Force-Layout). That is, nodes connected via an edge attract each other. The strength of such attraction depends on the strength of an edge. Plus, all nodes repeal each other at a short distance to prevent overlaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Physics.SE is a (relatively) big place, it may be interesting to do conditional graphs (i.e. graphs restricted to question with a given tag), e.g. to get [tag:quantum-mechanics] ([TagOveflow: Physics: quantum-mechanics](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32&amp;tag=quantum-mechanics)) or [tag:homework-and-exercises] ([TagOveflow: Physics: homework-and-exercises](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32&amp;tag=homework-and-exercises)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Code and a more detailed description is on GitHub](https://github.com/stared/tagoverflow#tagoverflow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* check tag grouping - i.e. for the sake of eliminating synonyms or poorly-defined tags,&#xD;&#xA;* try to infer the structure of physics from Physics.SE :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides looking at the graph, you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* get interesting information per tag (e.g. top questions and users),&#xD;&#xA;* get some statistics (like average score for these tags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you enjoy it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* are there any findings on Physics.SE tags you find insightful and would like to share?&#xD;&#xA;* do you have ideas how to improve its usefulness or niceness to our community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wcYsL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="45078271-144c-44c4-928c-0afd1c05be53" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; TL;DR: post examples of current questions which are edge cases for the new policy, look through the list, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers UP if you think they should be ON TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers DOWN if you think they should be OFF TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, if you feel motivated, fill out [this questionnaire about the answers](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we last left [the ongoing examination](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) of [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), the community had come to something of a consensus that [certain low-effort questions asking for calculations should be off topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124). In addition, I've been watching actual question closures over the past couple months since we had that discussion, and I see more and more questions getting closed for displaying unacceptably low effort, whether using the existing homework-like close reason, or a custom reason written in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think it's time we start formulating a new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new policy, along with one or two associated close reasons, will prescribe how we should decide whether questions are off topic for being low-effort and/or being calculation requests. It will _replace_ the current homework policy, and in the future, we will use the associated close reason(s) for homework questions, _instead_ of using the existing homework-like close reason (which will no longer be active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have in mind is a process in 4 steps, of which this is the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Collect examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Prepare and edit a draft of the new policy that implements the consensus on the examples as well as possible. This may take a while.&#xD;&#xA;3. Decide on the wording of one or two new close reasons that will be associated with the new policy. Two reasons would be an option in case we want both low-effort questions and calculation requests to be off topic and we can't come up with one reason to cover them both.&#xD;&#xA;4. Make an official [meta-tag:faq] post with the content of the new policy, deprecate the current homework policy, and swap the new close reasons in for the existing homework-like close reason. This is the easy part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Collecting examples of on/off-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to guide the development of a new policy, I think it will help to have many examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic. So I'm making this post to solicit these examples from the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it will work: each answer should contain a link to _one_ question that is currently on the site. Vote up each answer if you would like to see that question be on topic under the _new_ policy (that we are going to write), and vote down if you think the question should be off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please vote based on **how the question is currently written**, not based on how you think it could be written if it were improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter so much whether the question is _currently_ open or closed. If you have feedback arguing one way or another for a particular link, leave it in the comments on that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot of questions, the decision is obvious. We don't really need to post those. What I'm _most_ interested in are &quot;interesting&quot; cases, such as questions which are currently on topic but which you'd like to see be off topic under the new policy, or vice versa. Borderline questions, which are not _clearly_ on-topic or off-topic, are also good candidates for posting here. For inspiration, you can look at our previous discussions on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;- [Chat session on homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6165/does-insufficient-effort-cover-previous-se-questions&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on, e.g. linked and related questions in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus that emerged from the last meta question is represented by [rob's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124), which suggested the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria. That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this as a starting point to help judge which questions are likely to be edge cases and how you would vote on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="3331dc33-84ee-4a2f-ac58-d8438bcd3257" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that high amount of Low Quality posts are preventing to use much time for each review tasks, and thus produces a deleting habit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what is the point of closing/deleting posts, which has even received a bounty?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ie. this answer of me received even a Bounty; &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75222/where-does-gravity-get-its-energy-from/238804#238804 &#xD;&#xA;...but it was still deleted! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Answer received also the Bounty; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234697/how-can-a-bowling-ball-curve-in-both-directions/241137#241137 &#xD;&#xA;... it's also down voted and is proposed to be deleted, at the Comments is said; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This does not provide an answer to the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the person who asked, even provided me a Bounty for my answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think the main problem is that some actively moderating persons are just down voting and closing questions in &quot;Facebook-style&quot;; 5 sec preview and Thumb up/down.** I noticed this behaviour clearly in this deleted question; [Mysterious temperatures of Mimas?][1] where every one can see through it's comments how difficult it might sometime's be. The Question might got closed just because it used the word &quot;mysterious&quot; in it's title, though this was a direct phrasing used in the original source of the explaining picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Text from question; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 3 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 5 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;What is the physical explanation for dramatical conductivity variations across the surface of Mimas?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then suddenly, when the word &quot;Mystery&quot; is away; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why didn't you make THAT your question in the first place... – CuriousOne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that this [&quot;CuriousOne&quot;][2] haven't ever asked a single question by himself. With this I don't want to attack against the persons of moderation, but it seems that there should be some mechanism to prevent this &quot;Facebook-like&quot; dalmatian-species-specific-moderation-style to reproduce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the problematic I have talked before; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7336/can-we-stop-closing-questions-as-unclear-what-you-are-asking-for-ops-above-cer  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own deleted-examples about this &quot;Unclear what you are asking&quot; problem;  &#xD;&#xA;[Capillarity, QED explanation?][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[Physics of craters in moons?][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Also [this question][5] is rather &quot;unclear&quot; than &quot;not Mainstream.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;Unclears&quot; are also about to be Deleted;  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240979/why-in-thermosphere-is-he-and-o-divided-as-measured/241007#241007  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227542/how-is-it-possible-that-thermosphere-can-maintain-so-much-heat  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225721/numerical-model-for-a-air-core-vortex-why-its-still-so-limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question;**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240766/mysterious-temperatures-of-mimas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56997/curiousone&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240602/capillarity-qed-explanation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240840/physics-of-craters-in-moons-planets-only-impact-or-is-there-other-explanations&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241012/neutron-electron-and-proton-mass-dark-matter-and-dark-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="6d59e5c1-9e0e-40d3-8ee4-d6a0996fcc03" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A couple of questions here on meta.physics (namely [this one][1] and [this one][2] that I could find) already asked for how to use tags on Phys.SE. The answers to these questions seemed to imply that it is not possible to *automatically* number the equations, like what happens in standard Latex for example with the ```equation``` envinronment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked if this feature is possible on [meta][meta], and it turns out that [it already exists in MathJax][mathjax], as you can see from [the answer to my question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an extract from the answer linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This functionality already exists in MathJax. To enable it on an SE site, one would need to include either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;AMS&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*or*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;all&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*in the TeX part of MathJax configuration options. I think the second option would be too aggressive: it would automatically number all displayed formulas in all posts on the site, which would often go against the intent of authors who created some equation numbers manually.&#xD;&#xA;The first option is reasonable: it would apply only to the displayed equations entered as AMS-LaTeX environments, e.g.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;    y=x^2 &#xD;&#xA;    \end{equation} &#xD;&#xA;*There aren't that many of those.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question now belongs here: should/could this feature be enabled on Phys.SE, to avoid painstakingly renumbering all equations in a post when adding/removing one in the middle of a text and similar things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also think that an automatic numbering of equations by default would be useful as it would allow to easily reference not manually tagged equations posted by the OP, but this is probably not possible now as it would, if I understood correcly, mess up all the already manually numbered equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/58382&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5396/58382&#xD;&#xA;[3]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/248597/276202&#xD;&#xA;[meta]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[mathjax]:http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html?highlight=equationnumbers#automatic-equation-numbering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="2d0cd5d3-4906-443c-ab7a-a55415d8ce83" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions that ask *How do I prove...* or *How do I calculate...*, as is the case for both of yours, will almost always get flagged for closure because it's a [homework-like question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), defined *on this site* as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of us spent several years in college and doctoral programs and we're really not interested in doing your work for you (as you can [see as you peruse this Meta.Physics.SE list of questions tagged *homework*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework)), but we *are* interested in answering questions about tough concepts &amp; clearing up your misunderstandings. So to prevent closure, consider what *specific physics concept* you are having troubles with and ask about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="4f1a0b88-cbac-478e-b860-383fffe5e3a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Back when we sorted out the book recommendation and resource recommendation requests, we made it so there was a [permanent banner](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5237/books-banner-top-or-bottom) instructing those answering to abide by our policies regarding the questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we get so many homework questions, can (or should) we have a similar banner for those? The arguments for why it is good here are the same as for why it was good on the book/reference request ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also potentially serve as a reminder to the OP to check the policies. Right now, Kyle Kanos is pretty good about posting a standard comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please note that Physics.StackExchange is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems –  Kyle Kanos 1 hour ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with appropriate links. This comment is directed only at OP, but our banner could include similar wording plus directions to those who answer about not actually providing the full answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it might seem unclear *who* exactly such a banner would be targeted towards, [here is a link](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/19931754#19931754) to an explanation that occurred in the chat room. I will try to summarize it here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For good, properly posed homework questions, the OP doesn't need to be reminded about the policies. However, those who **answer** the question should be reminded. For instance, somebody can show an example problem, explain what *concept* they are stuck on, and ask for help understanding the concept. That's a great homework question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody can then come along and say &quot;Here's how this concept works. And when you do that, you get the answer X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the person who **answered** the question violated the HW policy by going too far in the explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The banner would be targeted to the answerer more than the questioner, although the questioner (and future people who come to the site) will also see the banner and get links/information on the policy. Everybody wins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the book recommendation policy and banner. Somebody comes along an asks for a recommendation, perfectly on-topic and valid. We put the banner up reminding those who **answer** the question that recommendations must explain why it is appropriate and not just give a link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Books banner tells people who answer that they need to provide more information to abide by the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework banner tells people they should provide less information to abide by the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see them as equivalent and helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, since adding a banner requires a moderator, it can sometimes be annoying. Although QMechanic does a pretty good job reviewing almost every question on the site for appropriate tags so it probably wouldn't be that hard to add the banner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if we can ask the SE team to make it so questions tagged with [tag:homework-and-exercises] get the banner automatically. And if the tag is removed, the banner is removed. Although that's something that probably isn't trivial and shouldn't affect whether we have the banner now or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="6e71a3a9-8e4b-4a01-949c-9fc1df0df067" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="OK, there are a couple different things going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Potentially_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that chat bystanders can often tell when a conversation is _about_ to turn nasty. And you're definitely right that it's better to prevent nasty exchanges from breaking out in the first place than to allow them to happen and deal with them afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, _you don't need moderators to do this_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any community, when someone starts behaving inappropriately, the first and best way to stop that behavior is for other people in the community to **come right out and call them on it**. A simple &quot;dude, don't say that&quot; or &quot;I'd rather you not talk about [whatever]&quot; or &quot;let's drop this for now&quot; or something like that is often all it takes. If different people disagree on what's appropriate, the whole group can get together and discuss it, and come to some consensus. There's no need for moderators or any higher authority to get involved, and that's _good_ - a community like our chat room should be able to maintain itself without having a moderator constantly watching over everyone's shoulder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Actually_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually talking to people works when everyone is being reasonable and civil. But that's not always the case in practice. People's tempers flare up sometimes and their control can slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask someone to drop an issue or tell them something they said is inappropriate, sometimes they respond by insulting you or spouting profanity and completely ignoring what you're trying to tell them. When calling someone out on their inappropriate posts doesn't work, and they escalate to &quot;conversational violence&quot; (insults, rudeness, etc.), _that's_ what flagging is for. Flagging brings a post to the attention of the chat moderators, and possibly also 10k-rep users, from across the SE network.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Sometimes a forceful word from a moderator is all it takes to get the discussion back on track, but if not, moderators (or a consensus of enough 10k-rep users) have the power to remove chatters who don't have the sense to remove themselves from an argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the thing, though: flags show up to a _lot_ of people. Unlike on the site, where we only have 4 moderators and a few dozen 10k-rep users, there are over 300 chat moderators and probably thousands of people with 10k reputation. Obviously not everyone is online at any given time, but still, that's a _lot_ of people seeing a flag. So flags should be used with care. You shouldn't be casting flags unless things have really escalated so badly that the people in the room can't deal with it anymore. (Or for spam, but that rarely happens.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical outcome of a flag is that the flagged message will be deleted and the posting user suspended for 30 minutes (or longer if circumstances warrant). For anything that _doesn't_ deserve that kind of a response... well, is it really so bad you (people in the room) can't handle it yourself? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that nowhere in here did I address the main point of the question, which was how to contact _only_ the site mods privately. Honestly, that's probably not that useful. If we (mods) are logged in at the time, we're probably watching the chat room anyway, and we'll step in when things start to get out of hand. Otherwise, we're not going to see any message you might send us until we do log in, by which time it will be too late to defuse the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, chat moves fast, and blowups in chat should likewise be handled fast. So once things get to the point where you need to call in outside help (and remember, they should not get to that point easily), it makes sense for that call to reach someone who can respond quickly. If one of us Physics mods isn't already in the room, it's better to bring in a chat mod from another site rather than waiting around for one of us to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;As [Shog9](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) pointed out, there are two kinds of flags. The inappropriate/offensive flag goes to mods and 10k-rep users, but there is also a custom flag that is only seen by mods. The situations described in this answer will _typically_ only need a generic inappropriate/offensive flag, if any. See [more information about chat flags on Meta Stack Exchange](//meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat/271268#271268)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="165c9ec5-3000-4cd3-bdf0-642075c0538e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is in regards to events occurring with the question [Do tachyons move faster than light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166095/do-tachyons-move-faster-than-light) (see also chat starting [around here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20169987#20169987)), but the question is to be applied to a site-wide policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aforementioned post contained a bad question that was quickly closed as *primarily opinion based*. A set of high-rep users then edited the question to be something entirely different, which was then reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/218183/reviewing-suggested-edits-what-is-an-invalid-incorrect-or-radical-edit) about editing posts, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are all adding/changing the content of the post, the intended meaning of the author. That is not appropriate for an edit. (Unless the post is Community Wiki.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The intent of edits is to allow readers to more effectively understand the authors original intent. They are not there to change the author's intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edits made to the post in question appear to change the intended meaning of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [discussed radical edits before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/correcting-incorrect-answers) in regards to incorrect answers, in which my answer (highly voted + accepted, though the 2nd answer says the same thing &amp; is also highly-voted) says that such edits that change the intended meaning should not be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Should we change our policy on editing (which, AFAIK, is aligned with the SE network policy cited above), to allow for such radical changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up, if we should keep the existing policy, what should occur to the post in question? Should it be reverted and closed, or should it be left as is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="79ac29f0-ebf0-4851-b3e1-a8ecf0ce2b63" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've recently had John Rennie asking &quot;canonical&quot; questions which he's answered himself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time, does it flow, and if so what defines its direction?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time dilation really?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He says his answers are intended to be definitive and authoritative, and that he [welcomes comments]( https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time/7514#7514). But he doesn’t. He said [&quot;why not post your view as an answer?&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/235512/76162) but he deleted my point-by-point view without discussion. There were also polite but challenging comments from another poster, followed by John Rennie saying &quot;let's continue this in chat&quot;, but now those comments have vanished without trace. And more importantly, those &quot;definitive&quot;, &quot;authoritative&quot; answers are not correct. Time really isn't &quot;just a coordinate&quot;. A clock really isn't something that &quot;measures distances&quot;. The resolution to the twins paradox really isn't &quot;the metric you use to do the calculation is not the same as the metric I use to do the calculation&quot;. Whilst those answers have received an awful lot of upvotes, I must point out that science is not a democracy. All the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all , I think this canonical sort of thing is fraught with problems. It's the sort of thing that will harm physics stack exchange by saddling it with bad-science lies-to-children answers that can’t be corrected. It is in essence saying “mine is the right answer and all other answers aren’t worth looking at”. It’s imposing an orthodoxy, and it’s the sort of hubristic mindset that gets in the way of scientific progress. It’s more suited to a medieval theocracy than 21st Century physics. IMHO there's already problems with closevotes wherein the alleged duplicate isn't really a duplicate, and/or all the answers are wrong, and/or the closevoter is the author of one of them. This is only going to make it worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think we should discourage &quot;canonical&quot; questions with &quot;canonical&quot; answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="6ab3eea3-34aa-4497-94df-3c5da659a230" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reputation is a rough measure of a user's experience with the site. It can also be used as a (not very accurate) proxy for their overall expertise in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user population consists of people who ask lots of questions and answer few of them, experts who answer lots of questions and [typically ask few of them](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions), and people in between. A good measure of a given user's position in this spectrum is the number of questions they've asked over the number of answers they've posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a correlation between these two metrics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="31e9ba40-e337-4cd8-ba11-752ae424c07e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this will be a coherent answer, but let me comment on some points here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] it should help the site remain an open forum, where reasonable questions about physics can be asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are [not a forum](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92110/263383). The intent is *not* to facilitate discussion. The intent is to provide a place where *specific questions with clear answers* can be asked, and where every response should be an attempt at answering the question posed (answers) or an attempt to clarify  or add to the question (comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that things posted as question which cannot conceivably have an objectively correct answer are not a good fit for the site. no matter whether they actually are about physics or not. This might incur closing as *too broad* or *unclear what you're asking*, but it might also draw a custom close reason where the close voter more specifically addresses the question (usually detectable by the stock phase *&quot;I am voting to close this question as off-topic because&quot;* at the beginning), which, if chosen as the main close reason, will mark the question as &quot;off-topic&quot;, even if the custom close reason gives a reason that is not, strictly speaking, saying it is *off-topic* in the sense that it is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main (and arguably sole) purpose of closing a question is to declare that it is not welcome here. Closing a question prohibits adding further answers, and is meant to *discourage the asking of similar questions* by communicating to everyone that such questions do not, in the view of the &quot;community&quot;, belong here. It is crucial to realize that this is *not* necessarily saying the question is not about physics, or that it is a stupid question. It's saying that *we* do not want this question *here*. Physics.SE is intended to cover a broad range of physics, but the intent is expressly not to answer everything that has some connection to physics and ends with a question mark. Being somehow about physics is a *necessary*, but not *sufficient* condition for being on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;community&quot; there is a rather nebulous term, and might arguably *not* necessarily reflect a majority position: A question is closed when five close votes are cast on it. To not let five users decide the status of a question forever, five reopen votes will reopen a question. Both types of votes are available to all users with more than 3000 reputation, and the first instance of such a vote will send a question into the corresponding [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Three &quot;Leave Open&quot; votes in the close queue will remove a question from the queue, and three &quot;Leave Closed&quot; votes will remove it from the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, also addressing your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a]nd why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the &quot;when in doubt&quot; case seems rather well-handled to me: Closing and reopening is a perfectly symmetric process, no bias is made either way, and in the case of a 50:50 split of votes, the process defaults to the status quo. The reason for not generically being in favour of questions staying open is simply the signal-to-noise ratio. The primary purpose of the site is to provide a knowledge base of precise questions with precise answers. Leaving open all borderline questions just tends to drown out all the *really good ones*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the entire reason we have repeated and lengthy debates on meta about e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) is that users simply have differing opinions on what constitutes a &quot;bad&quot; question that &quot;pollutes&quot; the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search for closed questions, simply add a `closed:yes` to your search query. To access a more comprehensive list of such search modifiers, click on `Advanced Search Tips` to the right of the [search interface](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The review queues are the most direct and most powerful way in which *we, the users* can shape this site. Use them! Don't only go there when you see a question you really like and want to stay open, go there *whenever you find the time*! The more users participate in reviews, the better the average results of the review queue will reflect the actual average opinion of the users here. I keep hitting my maximum daily amount of close reviews - which indicates to me that there is a less-than-ideal number of users doing those reviews. The closing and editing and reopening of questions does not happen by some miracle algorithm, it happens through us individual users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="f3ec68ea-11cd-4d0c-8394-becf5f146bb5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I personally don't have that much patience for this sort of hullaballoo, which seems to come and go periodically. Nevertheless we do play a role in it, and I think it's important that we respond to these sorts of questions appropriately. The flow goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Scientist comes up with crazy idea, and (a bit surprisingly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - actually comes up with some plausible-looking maths that merit a closer look, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - they send it off to a journal, and it passes peer-review with referee comments along the lines of &quot;don't think it will take off, but this much is technically sound and worth publishing so people can find why exactly it won't work, maybe we'll learn something in the process&quot;. However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the journal's publicity department doesn't see the referee report and, caught by the trendy title and snazzy possibilities in the abstract, ships it off to a trendy news outlet mentioning the snazzy possibilities and dropping all the qualifiers behind the result, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - it gets reported on some credible news site, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a bunch of readers get confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our role is to stop it right there. Point out that it depends on frictionless cows and spherical surfaces. Give precise pointers to why the Established Theory does work and to the Mountain of Evidence that supports it. Explain why the new theory needs to explain a substantial fraction of that Mountain of Evidence before we'll start taking it as a real candidate for What Actually Happens in the World.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, we sort of need to interrupt the science news cycle pointed out by PhD Comics' Jorge Cham,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The Science News Cycle - from PhD Comics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zM20b.png)](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about halfway through. We want it to look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zj2qJ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the paper in question is indeed a peer-reviewed journal publication, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the paper in question does initially contradict a well established theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we should be a bit more lax in terms of keeping these questions open. A few comments on the usual close reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;It's non-mainstream&quot;** doesn't hold if it's actually in a peer-reviewed publication, because of [how we structure that in the first place](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's unclear what you're asking** is a pretty high bar for something like this. It's often the case that *we* as professional physicists are confused by one of these, and it takes us time to get to grips with what the paper is saying. For a student or someone in the general public, we should set a slightly lower bar if they see something in mainstream media which is backed up by a peer-reviewed publication, and are simply confused about how credible it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **It's primarily opinion-based** and it most likely will remain so, with anything that's speculative like this. We do need to make an effort to keep it concise and to the point, but I think this is effort we need to make on keeping the answers trim and as low on discussion as possible, rather than something that makes us close the question immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for the long, rambly post. Feel free to shoot me down with reasoned arguments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="26ab51b3-0df7-46c9-b424-85eb4ec7e13a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="During yesterday's Physics Chat we had an, erm, lively [discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=20716748#20716748) about the evergreen subject of homework questions, and I think we reached as near a consensus as a motley crew of physics nerds is ever likely to achieve. I thought it would be worth posting (what I think is) the consensus view here in case anyone who missed that chat wants to comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who just wants to get on with their lives the tl;dr version is &quot;no change&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key concern everyone has is that once students get the idea they can post homework here and get answers we'll be swamped by homework questions. All the interesting questions will be lost in the flood and all the most active answerers will get bored and leave. And that will be the end of the site as a useful and authoritative source for physics. We all agree this is a **bad thing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, many (not all) of us feel that where a student is showing some effort it would be nice to post an answer giving hints and discussing the concepts involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that if a homework question is not closed immediately someone will give the sort of explicit answer we want to discourage. Once this happens it doesn't matter if the question is subsequently closed, because the student will have the answer they want and we'll have exactly the problem we started with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there really isn't any alternative to closing homework questions ASAP. This doesn't mean we're being nasty and unhelpful, it's just the only way to avoid us turning into yet another homework help site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of us have an unofficial strategy of voting to close homework questions then providing hints as comments. This doesn't seem an ideal solution to me, but it's probably the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone has views on the above I'd like to hear them, but please bear in mind the subject [has been discussed to death][1], so please only post if you have a point that hasn't been raised in any of the previous discussions of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="0d5f8a8a-3230-4436-b2da-4bb2564a0c57" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No. A non-peer reviewed reference is better than no reference. The reader can judge the legitimacy of a reference him/herself. In general, Phys.SE encourages answerers to back up claims with references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Concerning self-citations, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/582/2451) meta post. For link-only answers, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/2451) meta post.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="2e4ad754-98b7-4c8e-adf3-535f5d623dd3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are looking for [the Notation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation). It provides a mini-tutorial on the use of inline equations and centered equations. For pi, you want \pi and for integrals, you want \int (I'd wrap those with $ to start MathJax, but it is not enabled on Meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, there is no method to draw figures via [tikz](http://www.texample.net/tikz/) or [\includegraphics](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Importing_Graphics) in the normal Latex methods. However, there is a [button to include the graphics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/formatting) (circled below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be used to pull an image from a website or from your computer. Also sadly, [there is *not* an easy way to center the image](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/centering-a-picture/6447#6447).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8zcSs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7766" RevisionGUID="00021354-3732-413b-b22d-73a65ffb0eb1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems natural to mention that meta actually has a [sandbox](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/389/2451) (although MathJax/TeX does not work here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="fcc56b84-e146-45e5-9318-1f2d99dae7cc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have always had canonical questions/answers, it’s just that until [Danu’s post][1] here in the Meta we didn’t call them canonical. A canonical question/answer is one where the question is so apposite and the answer so clearly explained it ends up being cited many times. Sorting the questions by votes will quickly reveal many such questions. My own favourites include (to list just a few):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53802/what-is-delta-t-in-the-time-energy-uncertainty-principle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95366/why-does-stephen-hawking-say-black-holes-dont-exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though of course everyone will have their own favourites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the Physics SE isn’t a blog and shouldn’t be treated like one. If we all started writing what amounted to blog posts just because there was some subject that we found fascinating that would quickly alienate the site members. Setting out to deliberately write a canonical Q/A (as opposed to achieving it as a side effect, like the three examples above) is something that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I want to keep things general and avoid specific issues let’s take the three Q/As of mine that John mentions as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the most prolific poster of answers on this site (note that I’m claiming no special merit here, unless you regard fecundity as a virtue :-) I have seen lots and lots of questions and answers - I’ve probably at least glanced at every question on the site for the last five years. As a result I get a feel for when the same topic is being questioned again and again, and the question *What is time* in its various forms has been asked countless times. When this finally annoyed me once too often I posted on the Meta asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and got the general impression that a deliberate attempt at a canonical Q/A would be well received. Even then it took me a month to decide how best to write one. So this was not a spur of the moment impulse because I was bored. It was a considered decision based on consultation. In the end I wrote three questions, but they’re all one Q/A really - I just split them into three to make them more digestible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not my three recent Q/As are a long term benefit to this community remains to be seen. I’ve already used them several times as duplicates, or I’ve posted them in comments as a related question, but I haven’t attempted to analyse how many times others have linked them. They have ended up with a middling number of upvotes, but as John says the number of upvotes is a poor guide to quality, especially when a question makes the Hot Questions list as at least one of mine did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the question of canonical Q/As is broader than just the three questions mentioned in John’s question. I have linked my three favourite Q/As mentioned above many, many times, and the site would be a considerably poorer place without them. But of course those questions weren’t deliberately posted to be canonical, they just happened to hit the target, and I think the crux of John’s question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should site members deliberately post questions and answers intended to be canonical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps surprisingly my answer to this is that no they should not. Just because a subject seems interesting to you is no guarantee that it will be interesting to anyone else, and no guarantee that an attempted canonical Q/A on the subject will be useful. You should at the very least discuss it in the Meta before posting, and perhaps bring it up at the fortnightly physics chats before setting pen to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, and again this is a general point although I’ll address the specific issue of the Q/As mentioned by John. Posting a canonical question and answer does not mean no-one else can answer the question. Indeed, there are frequently many different perspectives on a complicated issue and ideally a canonical question will attract answers from several site members who want to post different perspectives. Indeed this is what has happened with all three of the questions that John mentions. Naturally I think my own answers are the best :-), and they have attracted the most upvotes, but anyone add their own answer if they think they can do a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="6b230743-4036-46d9-b020-5013e021e783" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I created a graph of tags from Stack Exchange sites (including Physics.SE), [**TagOverflow**](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made an interactive version of https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1581/map-of-64-tags-from-physics-se, with always up-to-date data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nodes represent the most popular tags, with their area being proportional to the number of questions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edges represent relation between tags. Their width is related to the number of questions with both tags, while their shade - how much more often they occur than one should expect by random chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Default coloring is due to community detection - automated splitting of a graph into densely connected subgraphs. Positions of the nodes are due to [D3.js force layout](https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Force-Layout). That is, nodes connected via an edge attract each other. The strength of such attraction depends on the strength of an edge. Plus, all nodes repeal each other at a short distance to prevent overlaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Physics.SE is a (relatively) big place, it may be interesting to do conditional graphs (i.e. graphs restricted to question with a given tag), e.g. to get [tag:quantum-mechanics] ([TagOveflow: Physics: quantum-mechanics](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32&amp;tag=quantum-mechanics)) or [tag:homework-and-exercises] ([TagOveflow: Physics: homework-and-exercises](http://stared.github.io/tagoverflow/?site=physics&amp;size=32&amp;tag=homework-and-exercises)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Code and a more detailed description is on GitHub](https://github.com/stared/tagoverflow#tagoverflow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* check tag grouping - i.e. for the sake of eliminating synonyms or poorly-defined tags,&#xD;&#xA;* try to infer the structure of physics from Physics.SE :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides looking at the graph, you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* get interesting information per tag (e.g. top questions and users),&#xD;&#xA;* get some statistics (like average score for these tags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you enjoy it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* are there any findings on Physics.SE tags you find insightful and would like to share?&#xD;&#xA;* do you have ideas how to improve its usefulness or niceness to our community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wcYsL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7768" RevisionGUID="24945025-e4a8-49ff-b88b-9eef84ef48a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![physics chat][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHgvq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-amas&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="2c22ed62-c9f5-4651-85f7-4769ef586b9c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was looking for guidelines, but the best I could find is [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/5739).  Is there a better statement somewhere?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was hard enough to find.  Perhaps an entry could be put in the help to make it easier to find.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this was a settled issue, but the comments to the answer I linked suggest otherwise.  Do we have a consensus?  If we are not a homework help site, I would think that we would want to discourage complete answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, I think a clear statement in help would give us something to point to as a reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="31742209-099a-48aa-b1a1-9a7294bd038c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Whoa, 1,741 votes removed! (How on Earth did they manage to upvote me the 1 rep point?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that over the last few weeks I've been getting lots of upvotes on old questions, and in her answer to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6621/serial-up-or-down-voting-reversed Gwen said she had been reading old questions and upvoting the ones she liked. I also note she's no longer a member, so that's an obvious contribution to the debit. If so I can't really complain as they were upvotes I hadn't really earned anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From various comments I wonder if there has been a group of friends recently join the site and vote in similar ways. If so that might explain the mass defection (I should make it clear this is just mischievous speculation not inside knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="411cac33-4a76-4010-bcb7-fff78c61d346" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A couple of questions here on meta.physics (namely [this one][1] and [this one][2] that I could find) already asked for how to use tags on Phys.SE. The answers to these questions seemed to imply that it is not possible to *automatically* number the equations, like what happens in standard Latex for example with the ```equation``` envinronment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked if this feature is possible on [meta][meta], and it turns out that [it already exists in MathJax][mathjax], as you can see from [the answer to my question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an extract from the answer linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This functionality already exists in MathJax. To enable it on an SE site, one would need to include either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;AMS&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*or*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;all&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*in the TeX part of MathJax configuration options. I think the second option would be too aggressive: it would automatically number all displayed formulas in all posts on the site, which would often go against the intent of authors who created some equation numbers manually.&#xD;&#xA;The first option is reasonable: it would apply only to the displayed equations entered as AMS-LaTeX environments, e.g.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;    y=x^2 &#xD;&#xA;    \end{equation} &#xD;&#xA;*There aren't that many of those.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question now belongs here: should/could this feature be enabled on Phys.SE, to avoid painstakingly renumbering all equations in a post when adding/removing one in the middle of a text and similar things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also think that an automatic numbering of equations by default would be useful as it would allow to easily reference not manually tagged equations posted by the OP, but this is probably not possible now as it would, if I understood correcly, mess up all the already manually numbered equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/58382&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5396/58382&#xD;&#xA;[3]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/248597/276202&#xD;&#xA;[meta]:http://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[mathjax]:http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html?highlight=equationnumbers#automatic-equation-numbering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="4858e746-db7e-49c0-be64-2bd6259e4e09" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hey I'm the scheduled guest for the june 14th [Physics AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) and I was told to maybe make a little presentation and asks for any questions for the AMA people might have, so here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### About me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am Samuel Lereah, got a Master degree in particle physics from the university of Nantes. My [master thesis][2] was on the topic of non-relativistic path integrals in Riemannian spaces, focused on the problem of operator ordering (with stochastic integrals, phase space quantization and those kind of things). Currently not working in the field of physics (due to job market troubles), but in softwares, but I am still very much so into doing physics as a hobby (I am also still looking to do a PhD, if anyone has some to offer!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interests are mainly in general relativity and quantum field theory. I quite like odd topics in those fields and the AMA will be about causality in physics, mostly on the topic of spacetimes with closed timelike curves (ie time machines, for a more casual term). Probably something along the lines of a general outline of the history of the topic, some important theorems, the behaviour of matter in such spacetimes and the many limitations preventing them from occuring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have any questions on that topic you'd like me to answer during this AMA feel free to ask in this thread and I'll do my best to try to answer it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Time and date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be on tuesday june 14 at 16:00 UTC, in the Physics Stack Exchange chatroom, the [h-bar][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19940612/Science/M%C3%A9moire%20Samuel%20Lereah.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="71273164-2298-42b0-967d-fb97a050fd09" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="By &quot;questions about numericals&quot;, I imagine you mean questions like this one from [Irodov](https://archive.org/details/IrodovProblemsInGeneralPhysics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Irodov problem 3.147](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z42g2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite a general pattern in homework set questions: a (fairly artificial) setup is proposed, with numerical values for properties *p*&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;, ... , *p&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;*, and you're asked to give a numerical value for property *p*&lt;sub&gt;*n*+1&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For such sorts of questions, and regardless of whether your motivation for solving them is self-study or formal homework set by an instructor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you post a question that only has the problem and asks &quot;what do I do?&quot;, it will get shot down pretty much immediately.&#xD;&#xA; - If you post a question that quotes the problem, provides your working for the problem, notes that your final value is not what it's supposed to be, and asks for help, then you are asking a check-my-work question, which are [usually considered off topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, if your post crucially depends on the specific numerical values set by some textbook author, then it is unlikely to find a good reception here. We want conceptual questions which are useful to people that are *not* staring at the same specific set problem in the same specific edition of the same specific textbook that you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me provide an example to try and clarify what we mean by that. For the problem quoted above, there are two main steps you need to do: you need the charge density of the cylinder, and you need to transform that into the current. There are thus two main conceptual questions which would be on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How can I get the charge density of a cylinder from the electric field on its surface?&#xD;&#xA; - What is the &quot;convection current&quot; for a moving charge distribution of density *ρ*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that both of these questions demonstrate that you've thought about the problem and you have identified the concepts that are important for solving it - we can then help you grapple with those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="a415635f-908b-4605-95a3-b024fa3c0b9b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is in regards to events occurring with the question [Do tachyons move faster than light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166095/do-tachyons-move-faster-than-light) (see also chat starting [around here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20169987#20169987)), but the question is to be applied to a site-wide policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aforementioned post contained a bad question that was quickly closed as *primarily opinion based*. A set of high-rep users then edited the question to be something entirely different, which was then reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Meta.SE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/218183/reviewing-suggested-edits-what-is-an-invalid-incorrect-or-radical-edit) about editing posts, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are all adding/changing the content of the post, the intended meaning of the author. That is not appropriate for an edit. (Unless the post is Community Wiki.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The intent of edits is to allow readers to more effectively understand the authors original intent. They are not there to change the author's intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edits made to the post in question appear to change the intended meaning of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [discussed radical edits before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/correcting-incorrect-answers) in regards to incorrect answers, in which my answer (highly voted + accepted, though the 2nd answer says the same thing &amp; is also highly-voted) says that such edits that change the intended meaning should not be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Should we change our policy on editing (which, AFAIK, is aligned with the SE network policy cited above), to allow for such radical changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up, if we should keep the existing policy, what should occur to the post in question? Should it be reverted and closed, or should it be left as is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="15eb1413-5e7d-405b-a2b9-b156270d2e4e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; TL;DR: post examples of current questions which are edge cases for the new policy, look through the list, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers UP if you think they should be ON TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **vote answers DOWN if you think they should be OFF TOPIC**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, if you feel motivated, fill out [this questionnaire about the answers](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfm5QLFJVPUiWEQb45fLGtjhZHhxeC560PoE5ia3LrXr6FMiA/viewform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we last left [the ongoing examination](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy) of [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), the community had come to something of a consensus that [certain low-effort questions asking for calculations should be off topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124). In addition, I've been watching actual question closures over the past couple months since we had that discussion, and I see more and more questions getting closed for displaying unacceptably low effort, whether using the existing homework-like close reason, or a custom reason written in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think it's time we start formulating a new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new policy, along with one or two associated close reasons, will prescribe how we should decide whether questions are off topic for being low-effort and/or being calculation requests. It will _replace_ the current homework policy, and in the future, we will use the associated close reason(s) for homework questions, _instead_ of using the existing homework-like close reason (which will no longer be active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have in mind is a process in 4 steps, of which this is the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Collect examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Prepare and edit a draft of the new policy that implements the consensus on the examples as well as possible. This may take a while.&#xD;&#xA;3. Decide on the wording of one or two new close reasons that will be associated with the new policy. Two reasons would be an option in case we want both low-effort questions and calculation requests to be off topic and we can't come up with one reason to cover them both.&#xD;&#xA;4. Make an official [meta-tag:faq] post with the content of the new policy, deprecate the current homework policy, and swap the new close reasons in for the existing homework-like close reason. This is the easy part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Collecting examples of on/off-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to guide the development of a new policy, I think it will help to have many examples of questions that should be on topic or off topic. So I'm making this post to solicit these examples from the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it will work: each answer should contain a link to _one_ question that is currently on the site. Vote up each answer if you would like to see that question be on topic under the _new_ policy (that we are going to write), and vote down if you think the question should be off topic under the new policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please vote based on **how the question is currently written**, not based on how you think it could be written if it were improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter so much whether the question is _currently_ open or closed. If you have feedback arguing one way or another for a particular link, leave it in the comments on that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot of questions, the decision is obvious. We don't really need to post those. What I'm _most_ interested in are &quot;interesting&quot; cases, such as questions which are currently on topic but which you'd like to see be off topic under the new policy, or vice versa. Borderline questions, which are not _clearly_ on-topic or off-topic, are also good candidates for posting here. For inspiration, you can look at our previous discussions on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6631/homework-the-view-from-the-chat-session&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA;- [Chat session on homework close reason](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-on-homework-close-reason)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6165/does-insufficient-effort-cover-previous-se-questions&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/questions-that-show-insufficient-effort-by-the-op&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6307/what-is-the-meaning-of-effort-that-phys-se-wants-in-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on, e.g. linked and related questions in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus that emerged from the last meta question is represented by [rob's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7409/124), which suggested the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions which attempt to outsource tedious calculations to the community, without any broader context, are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that a key word here (&quot;tedious&quot;) implies a value judgement, and there's a bias in writing these guidelines towards &quot;objective&quot;, judgement-free criteria. That bias is flawed, which is why we have human moderators and the opportunity to discuss some decisions with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this as a starting point to help judge which questions are likely to be edge cases and how you would vote on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="5b17804f-3ca5-4c1a-84bb-63528509e3b9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will just recap what has happened so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. It appeared to be a request for online video lectures, cf. e.g. the answer by Jake Lebovic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators do often leave comments about reasons for closure, but please note that they do not always have the time, as initially in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It now became clear that you were _not_ looking for online lecture videos. It is then in principle up to the reviewers (3k+ users) to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="264f9be5-6c5d-4d28-bac6-bdf1b6d5e9a1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reputation is a rough measure of a user's experience with the site. It can also be used as a (not very accurate) proxy for their overall expertise in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user population consists of people who ask lots of questions and answer few of them, experts who answer lots of questions and [typically ask few of them](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions), and people in between. A good measure of a given user's position in this spectrum is the number of questions they've asked over the number of answers they've posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a correlation between these two metrics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="9951230d-576e-4263-9090-69b13e898718" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Lately I've noticed **a lot** of close votes, down votes, and comments to the effect of &quot;this question is too low level&quot; or &quot;the answer is on the internet if you search for it&quot; or &quot;you should already know this.&quot; And those are just my attempt at rephrasing things in a more friendly way. This isn't from one user either, but rather from many (sometimes it seems like most) of the active reviewers on the site. Some recent examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Is there a weak magnetic field, coming forth from particles with a weak charge?][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [How are thermometers calibrated?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Problem understanding energy of a electric field][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are we trying to accomplish? I don't think this was ever satisfactorily addressed [the last time this issue was raised][4]. Indeed there's hardly any consensus this should even be a valid close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is just about trying to keep things at a high enough level&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; But the more I see these comments the more it seems each high-rep user's threshold is nothing more or less than the boundary between what they can trivially answer and what they can't. Should I really vote to close questions on the basis that I know how to answer them off the top of my head?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular form this takes is closing because the question is &quot;based on a misconception.&quot; What questions aren't, though? Either the person has a misconception (and a valid answer is &quot;this is your misconception&quot;!), or else they just haven't worked everything out yet (so we would close as homework).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next thought is that we're trying to not duplicate Wikipedia or other standard references. I agree we shouldn't try to match Wikipedia in *general-purpose, expository* articles, given they've been refining those articles with an order of magnitude more contributors for many years. But I question how much physics is left for us to do that can't be *derived* and *applied* from the information in Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure just about every one of the 502 answers I've written could be replicated with nothing more than access to Wikipedia. In fact, 207 of those answers explicitly link to the relevant Wikipedia articles.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Should I go back and vote to close all those questions? After all, I doubt more than 10 answers of mine display anything more than a bachelor's level of physics knowledge (if anyone disagrees, I challenge you to give me a list of 11 such answers). And where does it end? If the world's leading expert in X is on the site, is that person obligated to close all questions about X since they would all appear trivial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all comes down to these key questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What does &quot;insufficient effort&quot; mean to the community?&#xD;&#xA;  - Is there some level of insufficient effort that warrants *closure* (as opposed to, say, downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;  - If yes, what *objective* guidelines should we have on the issue? Given the many orders of magnitude difference in expertise here between different users in different topics, any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful, without at the very least some reduction criterion (&quot;this is trivial for everyone&quot; and &quot;this is trivial for at least one person&quot; are objective; &quot;this is trivial for *me*&quot; is not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a philosophical bonus, given how every meta discussion about scope always seems to be about *bad* questions, I'll add two more discussion points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the ideal question here, one that everyone agrees is great?&#xD;&#xA;  - If the above exists, are we obligated to close anything falling short of the ideal? Must we be at the extremal tip of the generality-quality curve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Separate but related issue: We have neither a policy nor a notification to users about how advanced a topic must be to be allowed on the site, either in absolute terms or relative to our perceptions of where questioners should be in their education. I **strongly** suggest those who keep voting to close for such reasons should formalize this notion and **get consensus from the community**. I for one won't vote to close based on an entirely undocumented reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Get a list of all answers with Wikipedia links made by a given user with [this script][5]. It probably misses some, for example links to other language pages or to explicit mobile pages.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Explicit mobile links (e.g. `en.m.wikipedia.org`) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259404/is-there-a-weak-magnetic-field-coming-forth-from-particles-with-a-weak-charge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259430/how-are-thermometers-calibrated&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/260886/problem-understanding-energy-of-a-electric-field&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/495383/answers-with-references-to-wikipedia-by-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="3b5643bb-5f3e-43ec-8f5f-ba43e4d961eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="OK, there are a couple different things going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Potentially_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that chat bystanders can often tell when a conversation is _about_ to turn nasty. And you're definitely right that it's better to prevent nasty exchanges from breaking out in the first place than to allow them to happen and deal with them afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, _you don't need moderators to do this_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any community, when someone starts behaving inappropriately, the first and best way to stop that behavior is for other people in the community to **come right out and call them on it**. A simple &quot;dude, don't say that&quot; or &quot;I'd rather you not talk about [whatever]&quot; or &quot;let's drop this for now&quot; or something like that is often all it takes. If different people disagree on what's appropriate, the whole group can get together and discuss it, and come to some consensus. There's no need for moderators or any higher authority to get involved, and that's _good_ - a community like our chat room should be able to maintain itself without having a moderator constantly watching over everyone's shoulder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# _Actually_ inflammatory posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually talking to people works when everyone is being reasonable and civil. But that's not always the case in practice. People's tempers flare up sometimes and their control can slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask someone to drop an issue or tell them something they said is inappropriate, sometimes they respond by insulting you or spouting profanity and completely ignoring what you're trying to tell them. When calling someone out on their inappropriate posts doesn't work, and they escalate to &quot;conversational violence&quot; (insults, rudeness, etc.), _that's_ what flagging is for. Flagging brings a post to the attention of the chat moderators, and possibly also 10k-rep users, from across the SE network.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Sometimes a forceful word from a moderator is all it takes to get the discussion back on track, but if not, moderators (or a consensus of enough 10k-rep users) have the power to remove chatters who don't have the sense to remove themselves from an argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the thing, though: flags show up to a _lot_ of people. Unlike on the site, where we only have 4 moderators and a few dozen 10k-rep users, there are over 300 chat moderators and probably thousands of people with 10k reputation. Obviously not everyone is online at any given time, but still, that's a _lot_ of people seeing a flag. So flags should be used with care. You shouldn't be casting flags unless things have really escalated so badly that the people in the room can't deal with it anymore. (Or for spam, but that rarely happens.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical outcome of a flag is that the flagged message will be deleted and the posting user suspended for 30 minutes (or longer if circumstances warrant). For anything that _doesn't_ deserve that kind of a response... well, is it really so bad you (people in the room) can't handle it yourself? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that nowhere in here did I address the main point of the question, which was how to contact _only_ the site mods privately. Honestly, that's probably not that useful. If we (mods) are logged in at the time, we're probably watching the chat room anyway, and we'll step in when things start to get out of hand. Otherwise, we're not going to see any message you might send us until we do log in, by which time it will be too late to defuse the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, chat moves fast, and blowups in chat should likewise be handled fast. So once things get to the point where you need to call in outside help (and remember, they should not get to that point easily), it makes sense for that call to reach someone who can respond quickly. If one of us Physics mods isn't already in the room, it's better to bring in a chat mod from another site rather than waiting around for one of us to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;As [Shog9](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) pointed out, there are two kinds of flags. The inappropriate/offensive flag goes to mods and 10k-rep users, but there is also a custom flag that is only seen by mods. The situations described in this answer will _typically_ only need a generic inappropriate/offensive flag, if any. See [more information about chat flags on Meta Stack Exchange](//meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat/271268#271268)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="c030d8bf-b57d-4b3d-8c8e-96637f65782f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever *be* banned. What *should* be banned is the *repeated* posting of a link  to an alternative physics Q&amp;A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. It is the  *repetitive* nature of the act that is considered  as [spam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The leaving of the comments acts as a source of free advertising&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; for the alternative site while (possibly) detracting users from our site. This is a lose-lose situation for SE and should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Q&amp;A site, I have no idea why it is being categorized alongside Quora &amp; PO as some sort of viable alternative to a Q&amp;A site. Links to Wiki are uncontroversial simply because it is *not* a competitor in any sense of the word&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Q&amp;A sites, such as Quora, Physics Overflow &amp; Physics Forums, *are*, by their very nature, competitors to the SE network. So if your only actions were posting comments that led users to *competitor* sites, then yes it should be banned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is up to the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I feel it necessary to point out that it was I who noticed the fact that Dilaton's *sole action for **many** days* was leaving promotional comments for PO (i.e., spamming) and [asked a mod in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18462499#18462499) about it; the situation died rather quickly in chat with an inconclusive resolution. The suspension that arose from that comment was not my goal at any point in time, despite that [claim to the contrary](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18504893#18504893); it even took me about an hour [to catch on what he was getting at](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18506109#18506109).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 AFAIK, our advertising is free anyways, we [simply prefer to have a vote on it](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 A similar argument can be made for arXiv that you &amp; Dilaton somehow view as equivalent to Quora, PO &amp; PF, even though it is simply a hosting platform for scientific publications and not in any way a Q&amp;A site.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="174eafc6-ef08-43bd-a56e-511017dd59be" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="During yesterday's Physics Chat we had an, erm, lively [discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=20716748#20716748) about the evergreen subject of homework questions, and I think we reached as near a consensus as a motley crew of physics nerds is ever likely to achieve. I thought it would be worth posting (what I think is) the consensus view here in case anyone who missed that chat wants to comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who just wants to get on with their lives the tl;dr version is &quot;no change&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key concern everyone has is that once students get the idea they can post homework here and get answers we'll be swamped by homework questions. All the interesting questions will be lost in the flood and all the most active answerers will get bored and leave. And that will be the end of the site as a useful and authoritative source for physics. We all agree this is a **bad thing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, many (not all) of us feel that where a student is showing some effort it would be nice to post an answer giving hints and discussing the concepts involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that if a homework question is not closed immediately someone will give the sort of explicit answer we want to discourage. Once this happens it doesn't matter if the question is subsequently closed, because the student will have the answer they want and we'll have exactly the problem we started with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there really isn't any alternative to closing homework questions ASAP. This doesn't mean we're being nasty and unhelpful, it's just the only way to avoid us turning into yet another homework help site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of us have an unofficial strategy of voting to close homework questions then providing hints as comments. This doesn't seem an ideal solution to me, but it's probably the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone has views on the above I'd like to hear them, but please bear in mind the subject [has been discussed to death][1], so please only post if you have a point that hasn't been raised in any of the previous discussions of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="17eba127-6a89-4e8e-a44a-a5d9973df433" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Given that I'm probably [the leading exponent of closing questions on the basis of insufficient prior research][1] I'm relieved to see I'm not implicated in the examples Chris cites (I did VTC one of them, but because I thought it was unclear rather than lazy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what I can add here that isn't already covered by my [previous statement on the subject][2]. My view is that the Physics SE is a quite extraordinary resource for aspiring young physicists. I suspect many of the regulars don't realise just how amazing it is that a teenage physics nerd can ask a question and get answers from real live working (mostly friendly) physicists. Speaking as one who was a teenage physics nerd back in the 70s I would have given my right arm for an opportunity like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the opportunity is abused it will disappear. What I find really rewarding is when an OP comments to thank me and say that they now understand something that had previously been frustrating them. This makes me feel I have left the world a better place than I found it, which surely only the most cynical of us wouldn't be pleased about. What I dislike is when I feel I'm being used as a lazy alternative to the OP putting in any effort for themselves, and if the latter type of question were to dominate then that would seriously put me off contributing to the site. Although I've stated a purely personal opinion here I'm guessing I'm not untypical and many others will feel the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the judgement I make is whether the question shows a real interest, and the only way I can judge this is to look at the question. How well is it written? Does it show any evidence of independant though? Most importantly how much effort has been put into writing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris' first question asks what *insufficient effort* means to the community, and the above hopefully makes it clear what I think it means. It has nothing to do with how simple/complex the question is or whether the OP is a physicist, schoolchild, OAP or whatever. It is purely a matter of whether the issue matters enough to the OP that they have done their best to research it before coming here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the second question: lazy and ill motivated questions are actively harmful to this community and they need to be deterred. Downvoting is not enough. The point of closing is that it prevents the question being answered and therefore prevents the offender from being rewarded for their idleness. If lazy and ill motivated questions receive answers that just encourages the asking of such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the third question: there is no objective measure of this - it's a hopelessly subjective judgement. I have to try and guess whether the OP is genuinely interested and will benefit from the effort I put in to answer it. Maybe this is an arrogant approach - who am I to judge my fellow man? That's a fair criticism and I respond by trying to be generous and error on the side of caution. Chris says *any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful* but I disagree with this. At the end of the day the questions are answered by individuals willing to put considerable effort into answering questions for no reward other than the inner glow of having made the world a better place. Deter those individuals and you leave the PSE no better than the myriad of other physics sites that litter the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rant is running out of momentum now, and I should really come up up with some pithy closing statement, but I find myself lost for one. I suppose my basic principle is that we are all here because we want to help, specifically help anyone interested in physics to understand more about it. All I would ask of OPs is to respect that and not to take the piss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%20I%27m%20voting%20to%20close%20this%20question%20as%20off-topic%20because%20it%20shows%20insufficient%20prior%20research%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6005/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="30dec94e-40f6-4b46-b5a2-ef1f68f6f3b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no mechanism for contacting users about a post if they have not already participated in that post, and for good reason. This is not meant to be a social network, and there is a real concern that relatively famous users would get so many unsolicited requests for help they would simply leave the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the two questions are really very closely linked, it would be okay to leave a comment like &quot;you might want to have a look at this related question of mine.&quot; But don't make a habit of it, and try not to focus on a select few users. The key is to not pester anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, most questions that can be answered can be answered by many users here, and if you always seek out one person in particular, while flattering for that person, can come off as a bit dismissive of everyone else's ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception to the &quot;don't go around asking particular people to solve your problems&quot; rule, and that is our [list of pingable users][1]. If anyone has listed themselves there, they are okay with being notified of questions in their topics of interest. That said, I'm fairly certain very few people utilize that resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="c14e1bb4-7314-4df9-babf-b017f29c79fc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do you have any suggestions or improvements for the next one on the [12th of July](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="9d3527be-bf6a-40a5-b860-bcd9d34dfb2e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are looking for [the Notation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation). It provides a mini-tutorial on the use of inline equations and centered equations. For pi, you want \pi and for integrals, you want \int (I'd wrap those with $ to start MathJax, but it is not enabled on Meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, there is no method to draw figures via [tikz](http://www.texample.net/tikz/) or [\includegraphics](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Importing_Graphics) in the normal Latex methods. However, there is a [button to include the graphics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/formatting) (circled below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be used to pull an image from a website or from your computer. Also sadly, [there is *not* an easy way to center the image](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/centering-a-picture/6447#6447).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8zcSs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="03914f76-5483-48cf-bbce-72b717679e77" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this will be a coherent answer, but let me comment on some points here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] it should help the site remain an open forum, where reasonable questions about physics can be asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are [not a forum](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92110/263383). The intent is *not* to facilitate discussion. The intent is to provide a place where *specific questions with clear answers* can be asked, and where every response should be an attempt at answering the question posed (answers) or an attempt to clarify  or add to the question (comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that things posted as question which cannot conceivably have an objectively correct answer are not a good fit for the site. no matter whether they actually are about physics or not. This might incur closing as *too broad* or *unclear what you're asking*, but it might also draw a custom close reason where the close voter more specifically addresses the question (usually detectable by the stock phase *&quot;I am voting to close this question as off-topic because&quot;* at the beginning), which, if chosen as the main close reason, will mark the question as &quot;off-topic&quot;, even if the custom close reason gives a reason that is not, strictly speaking, saying it is *off-topic* in the sense that it is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main (and arguably sole) purpose of closing a question is to declare that it is not welcome here. Closing a question prohibits adding further answers, and is meant to *discourage the asking of similar questions* by communicating to everyone that such questions do not, in the view of the &quot;community&quot;, belong here. It is crucial to realize that this is *not* necessarily saying the question is not about physics, or that it is a stupid question. It's saying that *we* do not want this question *here*. Physics.SE is intended to cover a broad range of physics, but the intent is expressly not to answer everything that has some connection to physics and ends with a question mark. Being somehow about physics is a *necessary*, but not *sufficient* condition for being on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;community&quot; there is a rather nebulous term, and might arguably *not* necessarily reflect a majority position: A question is closed when five close votes are cast on it. To not let five users decide the status of a question forever, five reopen votes will reopen a question. Both types of votes are available to all users with more than 3000 reputation, and the first instance of such a vote will send a question into the corresponding [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Three &quot;Leave Open&quot; votes in the close queue will remove a question from the queue, and three &quot;Leave Closed&quot; votes will remove it from the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, also addressing your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a]nd why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the &quot;when in doubt&quot; case seems rather well-handled to me: Closing and reopening is a perfectly symmetric process, no bias is made either way, and in the case of a 50:50 split of votes, the process defaults to the status quo. The reason for not generically being in favour of questions staying open is simply the signal-to-noise ratio. The primary purpose of the site is to provide a knowledge base of precise questions with precise answers. Leaving open all borderline questions just tends to drown out all the *really good ones*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the entire reason we have repeated and lengthy debates on meta about e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) is that users simply have differing opinions on what constitutes a &quot;bad&quot; question that &quot;pollutes&quot; the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search for closed questions, simply add a `closed:yes` to your search query. To access a more comprehensive list of such search modifiers, click on `Advanced Search Tips` to the right of the [search interface](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The review queues are the most direct and most powerful way in which *we, the users* can shape this site. Use them! Don't only go there when you see a question you really like and want to stay open, go there *whenever you find the time*! The more users participate in reviews, the better the average results of the review queue will reflect the actual average opinion of the users here. I keep hitting my maximum daily amount of close reviews - which indicates to me that there is a less-than-ideal number of users doing those reviews. The closing and editing and reopening of questions does not happen by some miracle algorithm, it happens through us individual users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="10940260-76d0-4e0c-8b12-c5d59e913041" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No. A non-peer reviewed reference is better than no reference. The reader can judge the legitimacy of a reference him/herself. In general, Phys.SE encourages answerers to back up claims with references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Concerning self-citations, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/582/2451) meta post. For link-only answers, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/2451) meta post.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="403feb11-1ea9-4f1c-88c3-b8507049a542" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Whoa, 1,741 votes removed! (How on Earth did they manage to upvote me the 1 rep point?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that over the last few weeks I've been getting lots of upvotes on old questions, and in her answer to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6621/serial-up-or-down-voting-reversed Gwen said she had been reading old questions and upvoting the ones she liked. I also note she's no longer a member, so that's an obvious contribution to the debit. If so I can't really complain as they were upvotes I hadn't really earned anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From various comments I wonder if there has been a group of friends recently join the site and vote in similar ways. If so that might explain the mass defection (I should make it clear this is just mischievous speculation not inside knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="024f9ecc-e076-4ef5-b4ec-f884905abaf3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we are not a homework help site; there are other venues for that (see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh for more details), if that is what you really need/want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the SE level, each SE site has their own self-given rules about what is on-topic and what is off-topic. While [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [StackOverflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com) might approve of doing someone else's homework, we don't. And we're not really interested in opening the flood gates for that, as [you can read in the many posts here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework+is%3Aquestion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you *do* want some physics homework help on SE &quot;turf,&quot; there is an area51 proposal already active to this end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a long way to go (40 Q's with &gt;9 score and 42 more people following it), but it *could* happen *if it gathers momentum*. This could only happen if people who *want it* will go out and *promote it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So that really means we need or I need a different place as a student to help me get my doubts cleared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your doubts are numerically based (e.g., *I entered &quot;this&quot; into my equation and got the wrong answer! Help me!*) then yes. If your doubts are conceptually based (e.g., *How can quasars emit anything if they are black holes?*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), then you are at the correct spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many (but likely not all) of the numerically based questions *could* be turned into a decent conceptual question, *if* (big stress there) the OP takes the time to think about *what* is troubling them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Asked and answered [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137837/)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8833" RevisionGUID="632fca0b-c704-4ed2-a8ec-6c1ee0677b6d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples.  As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers.  Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists.  I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **make the crucial question prominent and clear**, preferably summarised in the title, and&#xD;&#xA;2. **include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined**, but not so much that it obscures the crucial question or that reading it becomes a chore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.   &#xD;&#xA;(See : https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7766" RevisionGUID="da22c893-5ba5-4a3e-adc3-efa24b3b87e1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems natural to mention that meta actually has a [sandbox](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/389/2451) (although MathJax/TeX does not work here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="b453f6ad-6d19-4737-bcb8-7d105f6c6c2d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="By &quot;questions about numericals&quot;, I imagine you mean questions like this one from [Irodov](https://archive.org/details/IrodovProblemsInGeneralPhysics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Irodov problem 3.147](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z42g2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite a general pattern in homework set questions: a (fairly artificial) setup is proposed, with numerical values for properties *p*&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;, ... , *p&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;*, and you're asked to give a numerical value for property *p*&lt;sub&gt;*n*+1&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For such sorts of questions, and regardless of whether your motivation for solving them is self-study or formal homework set by an instructor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you post a question that only has the problem and asks &quot;what do I do?&quot;, it will get shot down pretty much immediately.&#xD;&#xA; - If you post a question that quotes the problem, provides your working for the problem, notes that your final value is not what it's supposed to be, and asks for help, then you are asking a check-my-work question, which are [usually considered off topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, if your post crucially depends on the specific numerical values set by some textbook author, then it is unlikely to find a good reception here. We want conceptual questions which are useful to people that are *not* staring at the same specific set problem in the same specific edition of the same specific textbook that you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me provide an example to try and clarify what we mean by that. For the problem quoted above, there are two main steps you need to do: you need the charge density of the cylinder, and you need to transform that into the current. There are thus two main conceptual questions which would be on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How can I get the charge density of a cylinder from the electric field on its surface?&#xD;&#xA; - What is the &quot;convection current&quot; for a moving charge distribution of density *ρ*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that both of these questions demonstrate that you've thought about the problem and you have identified the concepts that are important for solving it - we can then help you grapple with those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7768" RevisionGUID="4159ea3e-d8e4-451d-9f26-979f75a4bb72" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![physics chat][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHgvq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-amas&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="1ab1bb11-27ac-4d72-9f14-cb68743f121b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to know if it's still being updated, the [edit history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/12176/revisions) will tell you what's been going on there lately. There's some activity there, but really not that much compared to the activity of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've advocated before, the overall books question is of rather limited utility when compared to the site's advanced search features. If you're looking for highly-upvoted questions about topic X in the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag, then [you can simply search for topic X in conjunction with the [resource-recommendations] syntax, and order by votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=topic+X+%5Bresource-recommendations%5D). It's not immediately as useful as the overarching books question - you do need to adjust your search to what you're looking or browsing for - but with some search-fu you can get a lot of good stuff that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the searches don't get you a curated list of recommendation questions. The reason for this is that there hasn't been enough interest from the community in *curating* such a list. The tag itself takes a fair amount of work to curate (as per the [site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/)) and it took ages to bring the old posts in line with the new policy (which I think is mostly done now?). However, there haven't been any volunteers to commit time to the upkeep of that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that were to change, though, I don't think anyone would mind much, at least at the start (particularly provided that the edits to the overarching question are relatively infrequent, so it's not on the front page *all* the time). So if you, or someone else, wants to dig in and make that list answer better - go for it, it's a community project. Just don't complain that the answer is being neglected if you're not personally willing to take charge of its maintenance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="f10b7b8f-a75c-4ef5-9924-3dd5d1b1230f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We just got *another* EmDrive question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185380/emdrive-in-relation-to-newest-nasa-article-does-it-extract-energy-out-of-the-q, and much as you would expect it swiftly got closed and an OP probably went away feeling fairly upset. I feel we get enough EmDrive questions that this is something we ought to handle with more care and specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts on the subject seem to be along several different lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;could it possibly work?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;how do its proponents claim it works?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;do those claims have merit?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;if not, how do they fail?&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;assuming that it works, how does it do so?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at them like that, they are not really all that bad. The problem is that posters tend to pretty much always ask that final question, and that tips the question definitely into the territory [discouraged by our non-mainstream physics guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539). The third question is on the boundary (we are not here to evaluate pet theories) but if the question is appropriately phrased, for something this recurrent, I feel we're better off showing a bit more flexibility and allowing a few canonical questions about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I propose is separating these different components, which will help us better address the ones that we can, and cleanly close the ones that we can't. I have therefore asked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185437/what-are-the-proposed-theoretical-explanations-for-the-emdrive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and provided a basic answer. (I do not think, though, that there are any more worthwhile references. The ones I did find are singularly thin on the theory even by my low prior expectations. However, if you can find more references, by all means add them in.) This addresses question (2) above. With this in place, questions asking what the claims are can be referred there. If they don't find the resources there sufficient - i.e. if they don't find this community's response to be thorough enough in helping them scour the web for references - well, tough luck. They can look for their own and add them there, or they can offer a bounty on it to try and draw attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23725/is-the-emdrive-or-relativity-drive-possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does a very good job at addressing (1). In the absence of multiple peer-reviewed tests performed in vacuum and published in reputable journals, question (5) is very clearly off-topic. Questions (3) and (4) can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but are almost certainly off-topic as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="7d2b9700-79a1-4386-aebd-cfada3822dcd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will just recap what has happened so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. It appeared to be a request for online video lectures, cf. e.g. the answer by Jake Lebovic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators do often leave comments about reasons for closure, but please note that they do not always have the time, as initially in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It now became clear that you were _not_ looking for online lecture videos. It is then in principle up to the reviewers (3k+ users) to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="2fa5da37-1bd8-4d1a-9c3a-b1632605963d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8861/acceptance-of-an-answer) identified a grammatically incorrect phrase in the [What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer) help center page. (Note: This particular page appears to be used across the stackexchange network. The problem is endemic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, there's no edit button that lets one propose a change to a Help Center page. In fact, from what I can see, there's no feedback mechanism, period. My question isn't about that particular page. It's more generic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is there a mechanism by which mere mortals can suggest improvements to Help Center pages*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="83e7e3a4-0ac0-401e-b1d7-00168bc8b87a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hey I'm the scheduled guest for the june 14th [Physics AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) and I was told to maybe make a little presentation and asks for any questions for the AMA people might have, so here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### About me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am Samuel Lereah, got a Master degree in particle physics from the university of Nantes. My [master thesis][2] was on the topic of non-relativistic path integrals in Riemannian spaces, focused on the problem of operator ordering (with stochastic integrals, phase space quantization and those kind of things). Currently not working in the field of physics (due to job market troubles), but in softwares, but I am still very much so into doing physics as a hobby (I am also still looking to do a PhD, if anyone has some to offer!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interests are mainly in general relativity and quantum field theory. I quite like odd topics in those fields and the AMA will be about causality in physics, mostly on the topic of spacetimes with closed timelike curves (ie time machines, for a more casual term). Probably something along the lines of a general outline of the history of the topic, some important theorems, the behaviour of matter in such spacetimes and the many limitations preventing them from occuring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have any questions on that topic you'd like me to answer during this AMA feel free to ask in this thread and I'll do my best to try to answer it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Time and date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be on tuesday june 14 at 16:00 UTC, in the Physics Stack Exchange chatroom, the [h-bar][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19940612/Science/M%C3%A9moire%20Samuel%20Lereah.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="194909ab-7500-4e8c-b122-ca9a16a47c4d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever *be* banned. What *should* be banned is the *repeated* posting of a link  to an alternative physics Q&amp;A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. It is the  *repetitive* nature of the act that is considered  as [spam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The leaving of the comments acts as a source of free advertising&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; for the alternative site while (possibly) detracting users from our site. This is a lose-lose situation for SE and should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Q&amp;A site, I have no idea why it is being categorized alongside Quora &amp; PO as some sort of viable alternative to a Q&amp;A site. Links to Wiki are uncontroversial simply because it is *not* a competitor in any sense of the word&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Q&amp;A sites, such as Quora, Physics Overflow &amp; Physics Forums, *are*, by their very nature, competitors to the SE network. So if your only actions were posting comments that led users to *competitor* sites, then yes it should be banned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is up to the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I feel it necessary to point out that it was I who noticed the fact that Dilaton's *sole action for **many** days* was leaving promotional comments for PO (i.e., spamming) and [asked a mod in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18462499#18462499) about it; the situation died rather quickly in chat with an inconclusive resolution. The suspension that arose from that comment was not my goal at any point in time, despite that [claim to the contrary](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18504893#18504893); it even took me about an hour [to catch on what he was getting at](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18506109#18506109).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 AFAIK, our advertising is free anyways, we [simply prefer to have a vote on it](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 A similar argument can be made for arXiv that you &amp; Dilaton somehow view as equivalent to Quora, PO &amp; PF, even though it is simply a hosting platform for scientific publications and not in any way a Q&amp;A site.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="721a6801-d0b8-4c58-899f-a192b8a7376b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted a [review][1] comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is written purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored may further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was deleted by a moderator on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT1:** Please note the following, On this thread I don't want to discuss if my answer is biased and so on. It was On topic to the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;, that is all that matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I am interested in talking about why a viewpoint must be deleted if a select members of the community disagree with it. If you want to talk about that then please participate in this discussion. Moderators are requested to delete any off topic comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="980e10a0-5701-4861-8647-78c03b9e503a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was migrated to Math.SE for various reason, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the first subquestion was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Are ALL infinite sums not divergent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The most natural interpretation of this question (and the one used in the answer) is that OP is asking if an [infinite series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_%28mathematics%29) a_1+a_2+... can be divergent. This appears to be a pure math question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The second subquestion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If not then how can one determine whether a sum is divergent or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This also appears to be pure math question. Moreover, it is preferred to only ask one subquestion per post cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6833/2451) meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general one criteria for a math question to belong to Phys.SE is that it is put in a physics context, and one could argue this was not done to a sufficient degree for OP's question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the on-topicness of the subject of  [tag:regularization], see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8914/2451) meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="de44bb00-1359-4710-82b1-597645626053" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no mechanism for contacting users about a post if they have not already participated in that post, and for good reason. This is not meant to be a social network, and there is a real concern that relatively famous users would get so many unsolicited requests for help they would simply leave the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the two questions are really very closely linked, it would be okay to leave a comment like &quot;you might want to have a look at this related question of mine.&quot; But don't make a habit of it, and try not to focus on a select few users. The key is to not pester anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, most questions that can be answered can be answered by many users here, and if you always seek out one person in particular, while flattering for that person, can come off as a bit dismissive of everyone else's ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception to the &quot;don't go around asking particular people to solve your problems&quot; rule, and that is our [list of pingable users][1]. If anyone has listed themselves there, they are okay with being notified of questions in their topics of interest. That said, I'm fairly certain very few people utilize that resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="9f1c80e0-87c2-4363-84ee-d27020d6ff6e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When we [last visited the issue of history questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6662/revisiting-history), the dedicated [History of Science and Mathematics Stack Exchange](//hsm.stackexchange.com) was in its early stages. At that time, we decided against closing questions for being historical, but with the implication that it may make sense to revisit that decision someday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that HSM SE is well established, the time seems right to do that revisit. So, going forward from here, do we want history-of-physics questions to be on topic? Where exactly should we draw the line between on-topic and off-topic historical questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind this is primarily asking about history-of-physics questions to be asked in the future, not old ones that have already been asked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="c51f8799-54ad-42c2-89db-dc40252c1424" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the deletion of [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6802/8563) was indeed one-sided and was completely mishandled. Deleting content on meta without any indication to the poster of what is wrong with it is as aggressive as it sounds and does nothing to further reasonable discussion on this (meta) forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, indeed, not great. However, it has a very honest account of a user's (negative) experience on this site, which this site and its community should take very seriously, not least because these points have been raised several times before. If people felt that that post was in an inappropriate location, then that should have been the feedback (i.e. &quot;Please post this as a separate discussion&quot;). If people felt that the content was uncomfortable - well, shucks. If people felt that this was not an answer, then the correct course of action was to comment on the post to give the poster a chance to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally on the main site flagging as Not An Answer will put the post on the Low Quality Posts review queue. (This will not leave any visible mark for the OP; this is necessary for flags to be anonymous, which is a crucial feature for the flagging system to work.) Beyond this, though, if reviewers further flag the post as Not AN Answer this will post a canned comment which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives the OP time to respond while the review process is carried out. (Further, since reviews are public this does not jeopardize anonymity.) On main, there is a process in place to let posters know that there are issues with their posts and allow them to respond or edit their posts before they are deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta things are different. For good reasons, flags do not go to a community-manned review queue and are instead handled exclusively by moderators. However, because moderator actions are binding, they are under the obligation to allow users to respond before they take these binding actions - to do otherwise is what ends up being rightly noticed as &quot;unilateral action&quot;. **It was wrong for a moderator to delete this post without giving the OP a chance to respond.** Regardless of the existence of previous flags, this is a unilateral action. Moderators are meant to *mediate* disputes and bring flag wars down to reasonable discourse. Direct closure without a chance to respond is none of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond all of this, I feel the post under discussion does answer the question. It lists a number of things which Physics Overflow is *not*, which I find to be descriptive enough. If the description of PSE offered fits you, then PO may be for you; if not then maybe not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="8ae879ea-ebea-42b2-92a7-72806569f356" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we are not a homework help site; there are other venues for that (see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh for more details), if that is what you really need/want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the SE level, each SE site has their own self-given rules about what is on-topic and what is off-topic. While [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [StackOverflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com) might approve of doing someone else's homework, we don't. And we're not really interested in opening the flood gates for that, as [you can read in the many posts here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework+is%3Aquestion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you *do* want some physics homework help on SE &quot;turf,&quot; there is an area51 proposal already active to this end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a long way to go (40 Q's with &gt;9 score and 42 more people following it), but it *could* happen *if it gathers momentum*. This could only happen if people who *want it* will go out and *promote it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So that really means we need or I need a different place as a student to help me get my doubts cleared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your doubts are numerically based (e.g., *I entered &quot;this&quot; into my equation and got the wrong answer! Help me!*) then yes. If your doubts are conceptually based (e.g., *How can quasars emit anything if they are black holes?*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), then you are at the correct spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many (but likely not all) of the numerically based questions *could* be turned into a decent conceptual question, *if* (big stress there) the OP takes the time to think about *what* is troubling them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Asked and answered [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137837/)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="63a0fc45-1ac2-4783-93b2-067b234b0ce2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](http://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="cc9175b6-ff22-42c9-941b-838b804296b3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention Zero questions on Supersymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was time when questions here would really interest me, and challenge me. Now there are hardly any questions like this. And the few are lost in a swarm of essentially trivial question. This site need a revival if it wants to hold a reseach community. The only idea I could think of was heavily [downvoted][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Don't ponce on the specific choice of subjects, it was meant as a mere representative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6822/revisiting-the-creation-of-a-new-site-physics-learners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="d060c187-061d-4fee-98f8-e514f42b18cd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Lately I've noticed **a lot** of close votes, down votes, and comments to the effect of &quot;this question is too low level&quot; or &quot;the answer is on the internet if you search for it&quot; or &quot;you should already know this.&quot; And those are just my attempt at rephrasing things in a more friendly way. This isn't from one user either, but rather from many (sometimes it seems like most) of the active reviewers on the site. Some recent examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Is there a weak magnetic field, coming forth from particles with a weak charge?][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [How are thermometers calibrated?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Problem understanding energy of a electric field][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are we trying to accomplish? I don't think this was ever satisfactorily addressed [the last time this issue was raised][4]. Indeed there's hardly any consensus this should even be a valid close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is just about trying to keep things at a high enough level&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; But the more I see these comments the more it seems each high-rep user's threshold is nothing more or less than the boundary between what they can trivially answer and what they can't. Should I really vote to close questions on the basis that I know how to answer them off the top of my head?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular form this takes is closing because the question is &quot;based on a misconception.&quot; What questions aren't, though? Either the person has a misconception (and a valid answer is &quot;this is your misconception&quot;!), or else they just haven't worked everything out yet (so we would close as homework).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next thought is that we're trying to not duplicate Wikipedia or other standard references. I agree we shouldn't try to match Wikipedia in *general-purpose, expository* articles, given they've been refining those articles with an order of magnitude more contributors for many years. But I question how much physics is left for us to do that can't be *derived* and *applied* from the information in Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure just about every one of the 502 answers I've written could be replicated with nothing more than access to Wikipedia. In fact, 207 of those answers explicitly link to the relevant Wikipedia articles.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Should I go back and vote to close all those questions? After all, I doubt more than 10 answers of mine display anything more than a bachelor's level of physics knowledge (if anyone disagrees, I challenge you to give me a list of 11 such answers). And where does it end? If the world's leading expert in X is on the site, is that person obligated to close all questions about X since they would all appear trivial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all comes down to these key questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What does &quot;insufficient effort&quot; mean to the community?&#xD;&#xA;  - Is there some level of insufficient effort that warrants *closure* (as opposed to, say, downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;  - If yes, what *objective* guidelines should we have on the issue? Given the many orders of magnitude difference in expertise here between different users in different topics, any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful, without at the very least some reduction criterion (&quot;this is trivial for everyone&quot; and &quot;this is trivial for at least one person&quot; are objective; &quot;this is trivial for *me*&quot; is not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a philosophical bonus, given how every meta discussion about scope always seems to be about *bad* questions, I'll add two more discussion points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the ideal question here, one that everyone agrees is great?&#xD;&#xA;  - If the above exists, are we obligated to close anything falling short of the ideal? Must we be at the extremal tip of the generality-quality curve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Separate but related issue: We have neither a policy nor a notification to users about how advanced a topic must be to be allowed on the site, either in absolute terms or relative to our perceptions of where questioners should be in their education. I **strongly** suggest those who keep voting to close for such reasons should formalize this notion and **get consensus from the community**. I for one won't vote to close based on an entirely undocumented reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Get a list of all answers with Wikipedia links made by a given user with [this script][5]. It probably misses some, for example links to other language pages or to explicit mobile pages.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Explicit mobile links (e.g. `en.m.wikipedia.org`) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259404/is-there-a-weak-magnetic-field-coming-forth-from-particles-with-a-weak-charge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259430/how-are-thermometers-calibrated&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/260886/problem-understanding-energy-of-a-electric-field&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/495383/answers-with-references-to-wikipedia-by-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="f20dac54-89de-41e8-88c3-17ad12665e44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Okay, so I'll preface this like I always do -- my answer here is my personal opinion and does not reflect what may actually happen. It takes 5 votes to close something and I would just be one. Likewise, it takes 5 to reopen something and I would just be one there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I will wager that this question as worded would be off-topic under the engineering close reason, which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your question kind of hits the very definition of using physics to construct a solution to a very specific problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is something that you could certainly ask about in the chat room and people might be willing to help there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On further thought, you might actually be able to ask some engineering-like questions from this because it is used for a scientific experiment. I know it gets tricky to [figure out what is engineering and what is experimental design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design). I still think that asking how to build the magnetic would be off-topic. But once you have a design in mind, asking things related to the construction *as it pertains to the experiment* might be okay. For instance, maybe questions about how to isolate the magnet from the sensors to prevent/eliminate interference would be okay. Or maybe... I dunno, I guess we would have to know what your actual experiment was like to know what kinds of questions come up. But if you can frame your question about building something where your experiment imposes unique constraints or challenges, it may be on topic again. So it's a fine line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll close by saying that the best way to do this is to build an electromagnet. I did this back in high school physics -- I found a 2&quot; iron bar about 2 feet long, hooked it up to a lathe so I could quickly wrap a ridiculous quantity of wire around it and then I went to every Radio Shack in a 50 mile radius of my house to buy up every single 12V lantern battery I could find. I didn't think ahead about how much heat it would generate and melted my first iron bar, but then I did it again and got my teacher to let me pump liquid nitrogen around the rod and we were able to lift about 500lbs. The magnet could have done more, but we weren't strong enough to hold up much more on the end of it and we didn't build a giant rig to deal with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So -- electromagnets. Go read up on those and I bet if you have specific questions about construction, the folks over at the Electrical Engineering SE may be interested in helping. And if you have questions about **why** or **how** they work, there's probably a dozen questions you could ask on here to help you with that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="a6e1e968-f6d4-4204-b1bf-9516056f7a7d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We just got *another* EmDrive question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185380/emdrive-in-relation-to-newest-nasa-article-does-it-extract-energy-out-of-the-q, and much as you would expect it swiftly got closed and an OP probably went away feeling fairly upset. I feel we get enough EmDrive questions that this is something we ought to handle with more care and specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts on the subject seem to be along several different lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;could it possibly work?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;how do its proponents claim it works?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;do those claims have merit?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;if not, how do they fail?&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;assuming that it works, how does it do so?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at them like that, they are not really all that bad. The problem is that posters tend to pretty much always ask that final question, and that tips the question definitely into the territory [discouraged by our non-mainstream physics guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539). The third question is on the boundary (we are not here to evaluate pet theories) but if the question is appropriately phrased, for something this recurrent, I feel we're better off showing a bit more flexibility and allowing a few canonical questions about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I propose is separating these different components, which will help us better address the ones that we can, and cleanly close the ones that we can't. I have therefore asked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185437/what-are-the-proposed-theoretical-explanations-for-the-emdrive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and provided a basic answer. (I do not think, though, that there are any more worthwhile references. The ones I did find are singularly thin on the theory even by my low prior expectations. However, if you can find more references, by all means add them in.) This addresses question (2) above. With this in place, questions asking what the claims are can be referred there. If they don't find the resources there sufficient - i.e. if they don't find this community's response to be thorough enough in helping them scour the web for references - well, tough luck. They can look for their own and add them there, or they can offer a bounty on it to try and draw attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23725/is-the-emdrive-or-relativity-drive-possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does a very good job at addressing (1). In the absence of multiple peer-reviewed tests performed in vacuum and published in reputable journals, question (5) is very clearly off-topic. Questions (3) and (4) can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but are almost certainly off-topic as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="8e719323-0118-4b4c-97ef-6e5fa33aa648" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 12 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="91ab9b57-2aca-4304-83ec-1474d78952e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To explain the difference between between patching the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Please explain why the method of image charges makes sense in this scenario?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;onto the end of a check-my-work problem and Jim's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider that the answer to *every* Why is the Method-of-Images-appropriate question is *&quot;Because of [the uniqueness theorem for solutions to Poisson's equation][2].&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said there is a conceptual question that you could usefully ask here. To find it, you have have to think about what you do and don't understand about what you are trying to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just guessing, but you seem to understand that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you are going to install some virtual charges on the other side of the conductor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you *might* understand &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* that this is to get the electric field at the conductor to have the right properties (everywhere perpendicular) while still maintaining Gauss's Law on &quot;real&quot; side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you don't seem to understand &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* how to deduce the amount of the resulting surface charge without going through a lot of tedious and error-prone math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ask about the thing that is actually giving you trouble, already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheesh!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5969/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniqueness_theorem_for_Poisson%27s_equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="0208008b-6ed7-4287-bca1-0c13421a7d09" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Given that I'm probably [the leading exponent of closing questions on the basis of insufficient prior research][1] I'm relieved to see I'm not implicated in the examples Chris cites (I did VTC one of them, but because I thought it was unclear rather than lazy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what I can add here that isn't already covered by my [previous statement on the subject][2]. My view is that the Physics SE is a quite extraordinary resource for aspiring young physicists. I suspect many of the regulars don't realise just how amazing it is that a teenage physics nerd can ask a question and get answers from real live working (mostly friendly) physicists. Speaking as one who was a teenage physics nerd back in the 70s I would have given my right arm for an opportunity like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the opportunity is abused it will disappear. What I find really rewarding is when an OP comments to thank me and say that they now understand something that had previously been frustrating them. This makes me feel I have left the world a better place than I found it, which surely only the most cynical of us wouldn't be pleased about. What I dislike is when I feel I'm being used as a lazy alternative to the OP putting in any effort for themselves, and if the latter type of question were to dominate then that would seriously put me off contributing to the site. Although I've stated a purely personal opinion here I'm guessing I'm not untypical and many others will feel the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the judgement I make is whether the question shows a real interest, and the only way I can judge this is to look at the question. How well is it written? Does it show any evidence of independant though? Most importantly how much effort has been put into writing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris' first question asks what *insufficient effort* means to the community, and the above hopefully makes it clear what I think it means. It has nothing to do with how simple/complex the question is or whether the OP is a physicist, schoolchild, OAP or whatever. It is purely a matter of whether the issue matters enough to the OP that they have done their best to research it before coming here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the second question: lazy and ill motivated questions are actively harmful to this community and they need to be deterred. Downvoting is not enough. The point of closing is that it prevents the question being answered and therefore prevents the offender from being rewarded for their idleness. If lazy and ill motivated questions receive answers that just encourages the asking of such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the third question: there is no objective measure of this - it's a hopelessly subjective judgement. I have to try and guess whether the OP is genuinely interested and will benefit from the effort I put in to answer it. Maybe this is an arrogant approach - who am I to judge my fellow man? That's a fair criticism and I respond by trying to be generous and error on the side of caution. Chris says *any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful* but I disagree with this. At the end of the day the questions are answered by individuals willing to put considerable effort into answering questions for no reward other than the inner glow of having made the world a better place. Deter those individuals and you leave the PSE no better than the myriad of other physics sites that litter the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rant is running out of momentum now, and I should really come up up with some pithy closing statement, but I find myself lost for one. I suppose my basic principle is that we are all here because we want to help, specifically help anyone interested in physics to understand more about it. All I would ask of OPs is to respect that and not to take the piss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%20I%27m%20voting%20to%20close%20this%20question%20as%20off-topic%20because%20it%20shows%20insufficient%20prior%20research%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6005/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="bbb0e300-dce4-4a69-a220-31d03f677a21" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted a [review][1] comparing my experiences in physics stack exchange and at physics overflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clearly an answer the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is written purely from my point of view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were suggestions for improvement to Physics stack exchange. Which if ignored may further deteriorate the site. I will post my answer separately on this page. And I want the community to review its appropriateness. **Moderators please do not interfere**. Seemingly there is insecurity about handling criticism. I find this kind of behaviour completely out of line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was deleted by a moderator on the grounds that it does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users please review my answer and tell me if it was inappropriate for the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I sort of eventually drifted into physics overflow. While I enjoyed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading and posting on Stack exchange, there were a few instances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which clearly disappointed me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One is moderation(Especially in the context of banning) being done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind closed doors and details being kept completely confidential,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and suggestions of political motives lingering everywhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of people who I had otherwise normal conversations with were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; banned on the site, for absolutely unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one thing this site bans people for really long periods of time,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and for seemingly silly reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second reason I did not like the site but I put up with it was, I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain to the moderators what the intent behind my questions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had to word them in the manner in which they wanted me to express.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were instances I had to fight to keep my question open even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though other users were interested in answering them and had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moderators used very vague and prelisted reasons. It did not help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all. Eventually I just gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While this was not generally true, There were instances of this kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of abuse in the site, wherein Moderators moods and temperaments played&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a role in whether a question would be allowed or not. It happened both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personally and with other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was frustrating to deal with (some)moderators at (some)times and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their requests for modification on some questions seemed completely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have not been in the site for a while, so perhaps things have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changed around here, atleast that was my experience with the site at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do enjoy the freedom of posting freely on Physics Overflow. And bad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content is weeded out simply by review and discussion, with little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interference from the moderators. It has been established clearly by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now that there will be no compromise when it comes to integrity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific content.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT1:** Please note the following, On this thread I don't want to discuss if my answer is biased and so on. It was On topic to the question &quot;how are they different from each other?&quot;, that is all that matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I am interested in talking about why a viewpoint must be deleted if a select members of the community disagree with it. If you want to talk about that then please participate in this discussion. Moderators are requested to delete any off topic comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="846a06be-7fa3-4f6a-a27a-7856fe9c2195" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do you have any suggestions or improvements for the next one on the [12th of July](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="b09cb988-3c80-4d08-b9d1-9e5b241a4a70" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Yet (if I understood it correctly), the original author would potentially be credited for a nice question, which was actually later created by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a non-issue &amp; not sure why it was raised in the first place. If someone wants reputation and/or badges for a question, they should ask it themselves, rather than hedging it'd be poorly received &amp; editing someone else's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your points on the topic of the post itself,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it would be a valid edit to the original question (which was really asking for a source to the derivation) because it's asking for more information about the cancellation of a term, which would be best served as a comment to Robert's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If he takes my suggestion from the comments, he could link to the question if he felt it necessary. This would be the better option, as far as I can tell, compared to merging two questions or editing in. Two caveats on the new post:&#xD;&#xA;  - It seems to me that it'd be pretty close to the [*derive this equation/law for me*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5968/25301)-type question that we've deemed off-topic and could be closed (if 5 people agree to this view). &#xD;&#xA;  - Closing it as a duplicate because both questions are about the HGY boundary term might be a little bit of a stretch; I would think it'd be closed for the previous bullet than duplicate, but I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your job as the reviewer is to decide whether the post answers the question or is meant to be something else (comment, new question, spam, etc). If you think the post itself answers the question, then you can hit &quot;No Review Needed&quot;. I personally thought it was not an answer and commented &amp; flagged it as such when I reviewed it in the *Late Answers* queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* a way to [*merge* posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158066/what-are-merged-questions) (can be done by moderators only), but, from my understanding, it is somewhat complicated/involved and is rarely done on this site. I do not think it would be necessary in the case that MatterFr posts a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8833" RevisionGUID="2fc21697-cc7b-4978-bee3-07f306c42c17" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples.  As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers.  Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists.  I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **make the crucial question prominent and clear**, preferably summarised in the title, and&#xD;&#xA;2. **include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined**, but not so much that it obscures the crucial question or that reading it becomes a chore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.   &#xD;&#xA;(See : https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="324ea27c-81ba-4760-849d-9b247a36e9fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the deletion of [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6802/8563) was indeed one-sided and was completely mishandled. Deleting content on meta without any indication to the poster of what is wrong with it is as aggressive as it sounds and does nothing to further reasonable discussion on this (meta) forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, indeed, not great. However, it has a very honest account of a user's (negative) experience on this site, which this site and its community should take very seriously, not least because these points have been raised several times before. If people felt that that post was in an inappropriate location, then that should have been the feedback (i.e. &quot;Please post this as a separate discussion&quot;). If people felt that the content was uncomfortable - well, shucks. If people felt that this was not an answer, then the correct course of action was to comment on the post to give the poster a chance to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally on the main site flagging as Not An Answer will put the post on the Low Quality Posts review queue. (This will not leave any visible mark for the OP; this is necessary for flags to be anonymous, which is a crucial feature for the flagging system to work.) Beyond this, though, if reviewers further flag the post as Not AN Answer this will post a canned comment which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives the OP time to respond while the review process is carried out. (Further, since reviews are public this does not jeopardize anonymity.) On main, there is a process in place to let posters know that there are issues with their posts and allow them to respond or edit their posts before they are deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta things are different. For good reasons, flags do not go to a community-manned review queue and are instead handled exclusively by moderators. However, because moderator actions are binding, they are under the obligation to allow users to respond before they take these binding actions - to do otherwise is what ends up being rightly noticed as &quot;unilateral action&quot;. **It was wrong for a moderator to delete this post without giving the OP a chance to respond.** Regardless of the existence of previous flags, this is a unilateral action. Moderators are meant to *mediate* disputes and bring flag wars down to reasonable discourse. Direct closure without a chance to respond is none of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond all of this, I feel the post under discussion does answer the question. It lists a number of things which Physics Overflow is *not*, which I find to be descriptive enough. If the description of PSE offered fits you, then PO may be for you; if not then maybe not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="0c05c2e8-de6b-40b5-80a4-86d9db6badb4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="_[dmckee gave a very succinct answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6905/46399), but perhaps he was short on time or likewise, so that answer is not self contained. I am including the part that he left out._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this guide-post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post) regarding flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the valid comment flags is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obsolete*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;obsolete&quot; flag is for comments that have served their purpose or outlived their usefulness, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - suggestions for changes which have been incorporated into the post, or which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - requests for clarification which have been answered, and their answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - responses to comments which have been deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - pretty much any comment older than a week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading dmckee's answer in this light, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I deleted three comments because they seemed to represent a completed exchange starting with suggestions to improve the post, an indication that the improvements had been made and an acknowledgement from the person making the suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which means the reason above the bullets directly applies here, and coupled with the ephemeral nature of the comments, they could be deleted as normal cleanup on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mission accomplished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="41c2bcf4-c873-4c00-b079-bcf55fddece1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to know if it's still being updated, the [edit history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/12176/revisions) will tell you what's been going on there lately. There's some activity there, but really not that much compared to the activity of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've advocated before, the overall books question is of rather limited utility when compared to the site's advanced search features. If you're looking for highly-upvoted questions about topic X in the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag, then [you can simply search for topic X in conjunction with the [resource-recommendations] syntax, and order by votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=topic+X+%5Bresource-recommendations%5D). It's not immediately as useful as the overarching books question - you do need to adjust your search to what you're looking or browsing for - but with some search-fu you can get a lot of good stuff that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the searches don't get you a curated list of recommendation questions. The reason for this is that there hasn't been enough interest from the community in *curating* such a list. The tag itself takes a fair amount of work to curate (as per the [site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/)) and it took ages to bring the old posts in line with the new policy (which I think is mostly done now?). However, there haven't been any volunteers to commit time to the upkeep of that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that were to change, though, I don't think anyone would mind much, at least at the start (particularly provided that the edits to the overarching question are relatively infrequent, so it's not on the front page *all* the time). So if you, or someone else, wants to dig in and make that list answer better - go for it, it's a community project. Just don't complain that the answer is being neglected if you're not personally willing to take charge of its maintenance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="e081a5ae-fac8-4065-ba1c-ecf8214cc0cc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention Zero questions on Supersymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was time when questions here would really interest me, and challenge me. Now there are hardly any questions like this. And the few are lost in a swarm of essentially trivial question. This site need a revival if it wants to hold a reseach community. The only idea I could think of was heavily [downvoted][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Don't ponce on the specific choice of subjects, it was meant as a mere representative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6822/revisiting-the-creation-of-a-new-site-physics-learners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="cb2c1b7b-f714-4abb-bea8-d65bf3b873c4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A similar case was addressed in this [**Mother Meta post**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155049/) (does not mention &quot;high vote,&quot; but I expect that the answer is the same regardless). The accepted answer there says that you should **edit it** if there is no existing correct answer and **delete it** if there is an existing correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even further, Shawn Chin states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Better yet, to keep the post clean, replace the wrong answer with an footnote which mentions your previous answer and include a link to the relevant revision of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because revision histories are public, anyone (even unregistered users) can see them, so why not give them a direct link to the old wrong answer&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This will let future visitors see the history of what was the original answer, if they so desire, but keep the *correct* answer present for all to see first (which is more important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer has been accepted by the OP, you cannot delete it without moderator intervention. What you can do here is try asking the OP to unaccept your answer (comments under their question would probably be best) so that you could then attack it as above (edit if no correct answer is there, delete if a correct answer exists). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they *don't* respond then you're in a bit of a pickle: do you (a) edit it for future viewers, OP's non-acceptance be damned or (b) post a new, correct answer, and never get the *right* answer accepted&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;? This, of course, is the dilemma we face here, as the OP in the question in question has not visited the site since September of 2011 (and has only asked *that one* question). I'd probably lean towards (a) myself, but it really is a judgement call best left to the answerer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/e18511b1-8c14-44d6-874f-f4a75b5dfdcf/view-source) for this particular post. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Technically speaking, the accepted answer only indicates that that answer helped OP the most. Contrary to the opinion held by many people on this site, it does **not** signify correctness of the answer. So really this point is kinda a non-issue.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="014f28af-5010-497e-a156-572705892cc0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8861/acceptance-of-an-answer) identified a grammatically incorrect phrase in the [What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer) help center page. (Note: This particular page appears to be used across the stackexchange network. The problem is endemic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, there's no edit button that lets one propose a change to a Help Center page. In fact, from what I can see, there's no feedback mechanism, period. My question isn't about that particular page. It's more generic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is there a mechanism by which mere mortals can suggest improvements to Help Center pages*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="7b2bc5c3-0cfc-4401-91d8-852eca0af21c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Okay, so I'll preface this like I always do -- my answer here is my personal opinion and does not reflect what may actually happen. It takes 5 votes to close something and I would just be one. Likewise, it takes 5 to reopen something and I would just be one there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I will wager that this question as worded would be off-topic under the engineering close reason, which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your question kind of hits the very definition of using physics to construct a solution to a very specific problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is something that you could certainly ask about in the chat room and people might be willing to help there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On further thought, you might actually be able to ask some engineering-like questions from this because it is used for a scientific experiment. I know it gets tricky to [figure out what is engineering and what is experimental design](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design). I still think that asking how to build the magnetic would be off-topic. But once you have a design in mind, asking things related to the construction *as it pertains to the experiment* might be okay. For instance, maybe questions about how to isolate the magnet from the sensors to prevent/eliminate interference would be okay. Or maybe... I dunno, I guess we would have to know what your actual experiment was like to know what kinds of questions come up. But if you can frame your question about building something where your experiment imposes unique constraints or challenges, it may be on topic again. So it's a fine line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll close by saying that the best way to do this is to build an electromagnet. I did this back in high school physics -- I found a 2&quot; iron bar about 2 feet long, hooked it up to a lathe so I could quickly wrap a ridiculous quantity of wire around it and then I went to every Radio Shack in a 50 mile radius of my house to buy up every single 12V lantern battery I could find. I didn't think ahead about how much heat it would generate and melted my first iron bar, but then I did it again and got my teacher to let me pump liquid nitrogen around the rod and we were able to lift about 500lbs. The magnet could have done more, but we weren't strong enough to hold up much more on the end of it and we didn't build a giant rig to deal with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So -- electromagnets. Go read up on those and I bet if you have specific questions about construction, the folks over at the Electrical Engineering SE may be interested in helping. And if you have questions about **why** or **how** they work, there's probably a dozen questions you could ask on here to help you with that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="40588b95-ffc3-4dbb-8d12-5a36782eb66f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Typically cross-posting is the copy-paste of your question on multiple sites (where it may or may not border on-topicness) within a short period of time (e.g., within one day). The question you have on SO is a programming question, so a direct copy-paste is obviously not going to work here and it would be quickly closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question appears to be about describing the motion of stars in a field of view as functions of x,y, so you should ask about that can be described mathematically. You *may* want to provide the SO link as a reference, but it isn't required (and probably not needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that we do have a [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) that applies also to not-in-class-assigned-problems (and saying &quot;This isn't homework!&quot; doesn't help prevent closure). So you need to carefully construct your question to as to comply with the policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="9d23626e-8b1d-496b-aede-96a5768a3de6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was migrated to Math.SE for various reason, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the first subquestion was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Are ALL infinite sums not divergent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The most natural interpretation of this question (and the one used in the answer) is that OP is asking if an [infinite series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_%28mathematics%29) a_1+a_2+... can be divergent. This appears to be a pure math question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The second subquestion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; If not then how can one determine whether a sum is divergent or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This also appears to be pure math question. Moreover, it is preferred to only ask one subquestion per post cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6833/2451) meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general one criteria for a math question to belong to Phys.SE is that it is put in a physics context, and one could argue this was not done to a sufficient degree for OP's question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the on-topicness of the subject of  [tag:regularization], see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8914/2451) meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="5d2a79b2-f864-4bef-bd5c-46c7ad7a442a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="ba5db25b-005f-4aa9-b893-f30db63fd598" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. If you are actually answering the question as it is posed, it is completely fine to write an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the question is actually so unclear that you don't know what it is asking and would be just guessing what it is that confuses the asker, you should flag (or vote, if you have more than 3k reputation) for closure as *unclear what you're asking*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Strictly speaking, you should never answer in a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5966/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="e3495ce7-2531-426e-bd12-41dfce72b35d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When we [last visited the issue of history questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6662/revisiting-history), the dedicated [History of Science and Mathematics Stack Exchange](//hsm.stackexchange.com) was in its early stages. At that time, we decided against closing questions for being historical, but with the implication that it may make sense to revisit that decision someday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that HSM SE is well established, the time seems right to do that revisit. So, going forward from here, do we want history-of-physics questions to be on topic? Where exactly should we draw the line between on-topic and off-topic historical questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind this is primarily asking about history-of-physics questions to be asked in the future, not old ones that have already been asked here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="fe4edcd9-ab1d-4e69-a056-40eb7441313d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To explain the difference between between patching the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Please explain why the method of image charges makes sense in this scenario?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;onto the end of a check-my-work problem and Jim's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*Please explain what this aspect of a solution/derivation means or why it makes sense*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider that the answer to *every* Why is the Method-of-Images-appropriate question is *&quot;Because of [the uniqueness theorem for solutions to Poisson's equation][2].&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said there is a conceptual question that you could usefully ask here. To find it, you have have to think about what you do and don't understand about what you are trying to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just guessing, but you seem to understand that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you are going to install some virtual charges on the other side of the conductor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you *might* understand &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* that this is to get the electric field at the conductor to have the right properties (everywhere perpendicular) while still maintaining Gauss's Law on &quot;real&quot; side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you don't seem to understand &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* how to deduce the amount of the resulting surface charge without going through a lot of tedious and error-prone math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ask about the thing that is actually giving you trouble, already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheesh!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5969/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniqueness_theorem_for_Poisson%27s_equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7003" RevisionGUID="04d03104-0e3b-4bec-b0a2-1ea53116b04a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer was deleted by a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) in accordance with the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), under which full/explicit answers to homework-like questions get deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="8f2e13b5-fec9-43db-ae57-e25f0de38fb8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](http://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="410a022a-690f-4de5-ad0a-1770bf7c58d8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a process: click the flag that shows up when you **hover over the left side of a comment**, and flag the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of a comment with the flag visible][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there's nothing wrong with this particular comment except that it's old)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6375/124) lists the different kinds of comment flags and what they should be used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that if a question is bad, those high-reputation users may be _intentionally_ trying to discourage people from answering it. Of course, the proper way to do that is by voting to close, but sometimes a comment gives a little extra boost to that effort before the question does get closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zZYI1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="80babc5e-d07d-428b-9a45-3550c1664074" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Yet (if I understood it correctly), the original author would potentially be credited for a nice question, which was actually later created by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a non-issue &amp; not sure why it was raised in the first place. If someone wants reputation and/or badges for a question, they should ask it themselves, rather than hedging it'd be poorly received &amp; editing someone else's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your points on the topic of the post itself,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it would be a valid edit to the original question (which was really asking for a source to the derivation) because it's asking for more information about the cancellation of a term, which would be best served as a comment to Robert's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If he takes my suggestion from the comments, he could link to the question if he felt it necessary. This would be the better option, as far as I can tell, compared to merging two questions or editing in. Two caveats on the new post:&#xD;&#xA;  - It seems to me that it'd be pretty close to the [*derive this equation/law for me*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5968/25301)-type question that we've deemed off-topic and could be closed (if 5 people agree to this view). &#xD;&#xA;  - Closing it as a duplicate because both questions are about the HGY boundary term might be a little bit of a stretch; I would think it'd be closed for the previous bullet than duplicate, but I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your job as the reviewer is to decide whether the post answers the question or is meant to be something else (comment, new question, spam, etc). If you think the post itself answers the question, then you can hit &quot;No Review Needed&quot;. I personally thought it was not an answer and commented &amp; flagged it as such when I reviewed it in the *Late Answers* queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* a way to [*merge* posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158066/what-are-merged-questions) (can be done by moderators only), but, from my understanding, it is somewhat complicated/involved and is rarely done on this site. I do not think it would be necessary in the case that MatterFr posts a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="4f6821df-cfab-4f04-b9df-59bde88eaf05" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I ask this having already read [a question about minor edits.][1] I've seen several edits in which the only change was replacing capital letters in a title with lower-case letters.  This seems, to me, to not improve the post enough to accept as a worthy edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there enough consensus about not having capital letters in a title that this type of edit should be accepted? (appearance is important?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the edit so minor that it should not be accepted (user scrounging for rep points)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or do we really care one way or another?  (I lie in the &quot;too minor to accept&quot; camp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6282/how-do-you-guys-feel-about-minor-edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="707ea932-7ea2-4090-a2ad-36f82fe54a13" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="_[dmckee gave a very succinct answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6905/46399), but perhaps he was short on time or likewise, so that answer is not self contained. I am including the part that he left out._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this guide-post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post) regarding flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the valid comment flags is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obsolete*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;obsolete&quot; flag is for comments that have served their purpose or outlived their usefulness, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - suggestions for changes which have been incorporated into the post, or which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - requests for clarification which have been answered, and their answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - responses to comments which have been deleted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - pretty much any comment older than a week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading dmckee's answer in this light, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I deleted three comments because they seemed to represent a completed exchange starting with suggestions to improve the post, an indication that the improvements had been made and an acknowledgement from the person making the suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which means the reason above the bullets directly applies here, and coupled with the ephemeral nature of the comments, they could be deleted as normal cleanup on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mission accomplished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="2d7ed8c1-3330-4ad3-ac35-202e7e8ffa2b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 12 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="e7ef9745-4d02-462e-bed9-d7f1350625d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="See item #6 in our [FAQ on writing question titles](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improper punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and formatting make questions harder to read.&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, clear, and most importantly *consistent* formatting in a medium like this is critical as it helps would-be answerers spend as little brain power as possible parsing the written word and therefore as much as possible digesting the content and composing a useful response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fix capitalization errors in titles a lot.&#xD;&#xA;When lower rep users put in proposed edits to fix title capitalization I will accept it every time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="1e0ea597-6f21-4815-b3df-4430e84e422a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A similar case was addressed in this [**Mother Meta post**](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155049/) (does not mention &quot;high vote,&quot; but I expect that the answer is the same regardless). The accepted answer there says that you should **edit it** if there is no existing correct answer and **delete it** if there is an existing correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even further, Shawn Chin states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Better yet, to keep the post clean, replace the wrong answer with an footnote which mentions your previous answer and include a link to the relevant revision of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because revision histories are public, anyone (even unregistered users) can see them, so why not give them a direct link to the old wrong answer&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This will let future visitors see the history of what was the original answer, if they so desire, but keep the *correct* answer present for all to see first (which is more important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer has been accepted by the OP, you cannot delete it without moderator intervention. What you can do here is try asking the OP to unaccept your answer (comments under their question would probably be best) so that you could then attack it as above (edit if no correct answer is there, delete if a correct answer exists). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they *don't* respond then you're in a bit of a pickle: do you (a) edit it for future viewers, OP's non-acceptance be damned or (b) post a new, correct answer, and never get the *right* answer accepted&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;? This, of course, is the dilemma we face here, as the OP in the question in question has not visited the site since September of 2011 (and has only asked *that one* question). I'd probably lean towards (a) myself, but it really is a judgement call best left to the answerer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/e18511b1-8c14-44d6-874f-f4a75b5dfdcf/view-source) for this particular post. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Technically speaking, the accepted answer only indicates that that answer helped OP the most. Contrary to the opinion held by many people on this site, it does **not** signify correctness of the answer. So really this point is kinda a non-issue.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="4b8a5f9e-4ae7-497c-8ff3-fb49db695d89" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Degrees of freedom in discrete data sets, distributions and systems (Suppose we turn every derived quantity of an n dimensional data into points, how many paramters do these points have in order to reproduce the original data set?)&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general. So, in a sense, people who don't understand me actually understood me better than myself and those who understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="4a39d7e9-5b45-4997-bf05-e26df8133bfc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Note: my answer is about the site and how it works/should work; it is NOT about any user or group of users.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, wrong answers and non-mainstream answers are completely different, and should be dealt with differently. The definition of non-mainstream physics given in [the FAQ](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/78942)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What defines mainstream physics?**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is rather objective: the papers backing your answer either do exist or do not exist. It's not subjective, and has nothing to do with squaring with personal views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that bad answers should be _downvoted_ and non-mainstream answers should be _flagged_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The scope of this site (as discused in the tour, the help center and several meta posts) is only _mainstream physics_, not physics in general. Therefore, any non-mainstream answer is off-topic, and should be removed. On the other hand, a wrong answer is perfectly on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Non-mainstream answers harm this site. Imagine that someone answers that &quot;the Earth is flat&quot;, and that answer is not deleted. It will attract some downvotes and will be grayed out, I know, but it will be still hosted by our site, and with our logo as a kind of _seal of approval_. This site is a reference of good content, and has a potential audience of thousands of people. We are saying to that audience that the whole community (except the few downvoters, who disagree) regard the &quot;flat Earth theory&quot; as acceptable for our site. If non-mainstream physics proliferate, the reputation of the site will suffer, and we won't be a useful resource anymore. **Non-mainstream physics is an attack against Physics.SE, and the community should defend itself**, and that's the purpose of flags. On the other hand, a wrong answer, marked as such, can have an educational value (showing common pitfalls, teaching something to both OP and answerers...), and be benefical for the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvoting has a cost (yeah, I know, only one little shiny internet point, but that's the point of gamification...) which discourages downvoting. In the case of wrong answers it makes sense: you have to ponder if the answer is bad enough for a downvote, or if it needs only a comment. But pointing non-mainstream answers _always_ helps the community, and shouldn't be punished. Using flags seems to be the best option (better that meta or chat, that are too public for sensible matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - People who get downvotes tend to regard them as personal attacks. Non-mainstream answers usually attract lots of downvotes, and they might think that that is the result of some sort of non-existent collusion. If their posts are dealt with by the site instead of some of the users, that (hopefully) would ease their mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="a7bd863f-05a2-4ebc-aba5-0c339b873ab8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Typically cross-posting is the copy-paste of your question on multiple sites (where it may or may not border on-topicness) within a short period of time (e.g., within one day). The question you have on SO is a programming question, so a direct copy-paste is obviously not going to work here and it would be quickly closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question appears to be about describing the motion of stars in a field of view as functions of x,y, so you should ask about that can be described mathematically. You *may* want to provide the SO link as a reference, but it isn't required (and probably not needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that we do have a [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) that applies also to not-in-class-assigned-problems (and saying &quot;This isn't homework!&quot; doesn't help prevent closure). So you need to carefully construct your question to as to comply with the policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="f0a594a2-7690-4203-b609-a9105b10d6b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just musing -- there are a measurable number of questions which, while more or less physics-related, are a much better fit for what-if.xkcd.   Is it worth creating a &quot;what-if&quot; tag for these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1557 seems to suggest at least some interest in this type of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="029b6875-21c1-49e0-abe5-2774f3f54d74" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. If you are actually answering the question as it is posed, it is completely fine to write an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the question is actually so unclear that you don't know what it is asking and would be just guessing what it is that confuses the asker, you should flag (or vote, if you have more than 3k reputation) for closure as *unclear what you're asking*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Strictly speaking, you should never answer in a comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5966/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7186" RevisionGUID="d19af4c4-902a-4a44-be86-9a562f0008bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can flag the comments. For comments like these, the &quot;not constructive&quot; flag [is typically appropriate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post), or if it's particularly vicious, use &quot;rude or offensive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth keeping in mind that we want most people who ask questions on this site to be those who care about their questions and the broader physics context. In other words, &quot;I was just curious&quot;-type questions are not really what we're here for. So if someone asks a question without bothering to do simple things [like checking Wikipedia, searching the web, etc.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), we will _intentionally_ fail to be particularly accommodating. Same goes for when a poster is asking a question where they are clearly out of their depth (like, hypothetically: &quot;I don't know any calculus but prove to me that the pentaquark should exist&quot;-type questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="d8a84f50-99bf-48ee-8a7e-de5457f8ccad" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, biophysics questions run a wide range from those that are primarily biology questions with a little physics input to those that are primarily physics questions applied to a situation that appears in a biological processes or system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And presumably some fraction of them are on-topic for the Physics.SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is soliciting reasoned and explained opinions about what kinds of questions are definitely on-topic, off-topic and living in a fuzzy gray area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed texts for the [tag:biophysics] summary would be one (good) way to condense your thoughts, but are not required. For reference, the current tag summary reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of methods from the physical sciences to aid in the study of biological systems. Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a recent [conversation concerning the need for or utility of possible Biophysics beta site][1] we received [a question on the main site concerning the mechanisms of protein action (and a few other issues)][2]. A subsequent [informal poll of the chat room][3] revealed surprising diversity of opinion on the matter including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On-topic (at least in part): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635714#26635714 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635720#26635720 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635920#26635920 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Send it to [chemstry.se]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635657#26635657&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Off-topic (no alternate suggestion): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640394#26640394 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640561#26640561 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26641857#26641857 (or should that go on the chemistry bullet?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suggested refinements that would make it definitely on-topic (suggesting to me that the speaker thinks it is borderline as it is): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26642643#26642643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should be closed for reasons not relating to topicality. (Not providing separate links for these because they evade the point of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta-question is *not* mainly about the place of post 227647 on Physics SE, but about the broader criteria for deciding such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/should-biophysics-fork&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635361#26635361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="cbadb8ea-ba96-425f-bb02-463009eece11" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="dc93ff56-fd57-458f-9ef7-260e0981871a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cross-posting is [strongly discouraged][1]. That said, we are sometimes [lenient][2]. Ultimately, what we really don't want is someone posting in multiple places but not disclosing this, an a scattershot attempt to get any sort of answer from anyone. This can potentially lead to wasted, duplicate effort in answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore say there are two cases where you can post the same question somewhere else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You want a different take on the answer from a different community's perspective. Tailor the question appropriately, and note on both the old and new posts that there is a closely related question on another site. This doesn't really apply just if one community seems &quot;better;&quot; you really need to be looking for something &quot;different.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. You posted a question but either realized it belongs elsewhere or got no satisfactory response, and there is another site where it is on topic. This seems to be your case. In that case it's probably best to *migrate* the question rather than duplicate it. Use a custom moderator flag on the question and request it be migrated to the other site. The moderators can then do this (or not, if they so choose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4133/should-i-cross-post-this-question-in-chemistry-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="a2307c39-9096-4cac-a720-d2a8783cc002" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## The current situation and its problems (yes, again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we actually have in mind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking your data, and indeed the continual disagreement in most past meta posts about this topic, at face value it appears that there is no single reason people close something as homework-like, showing that the current close reason is also probably more used as a proxy for a host of different reasons than what's actually written in the policy, or whatever *would* be actually written in the policy once we'd chosen one or more &quot;main&quot; reason to close something as homework-like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an uncomfortable situations, and it also *explains* why this policy continues to be discussed (other than, say, the non-mainstream policy, about which there seems to be general agreement, and only dissatisfaction about its application in isolated specific cases). However, it also means that &quot;replacing&quot; the homework policy by the things it's used as proxy for is infeasible, because there's no agreement *what* it is used as proxy for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the policy was *initially* conceived to ban *actual homework* to stave off using the site as a cheating resource. This has two issues: How to tell whether something is &quot;actual&quot; homework, and what about *good questions* that someone could conceivably encounter otherwise, but that are assigned as homework in the case of the asker? So the homework policy mutated into the &quot;homework-like&quot; policy, looking at the *content* rather than the *origin* of the question. However, what exactly is &quot;homework-like content&quot; was, at least from some points of view, insufficiently (and somewhat contradictorily) codified in the policy post as such, which is argued e.g. in [this meta answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7163/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That therefore the *policy as written* is actually not what motivates many closures is what triggered this whole debate, cf. the opening statement of *[Generalizing the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7407/50583)*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely not of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A radical solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the homework close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I mean that. I *don't* mean to imply that we should leave any of the question *open* that we currently close as homework-like, but this whole debate shows that &quot;homework-like&quot; is really just a proxy for a bunch of more specific close reasons, which would be more helpful to the people asking the question and more helpful to avoid arguments between reviewers over whether something is &quot;homework-like&quot;, when the arguing parties really mean two different things by that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we don't have enough slots for pre-generated reasons left to cover all of the partial reasons for closing as &quot;homework-like&quot;. Fortunately, the &quot;other&quot; close reason allows for an infinite variety of close reasons, so we only have to decide which reason deserves to be in the pre-generated spot and which ones the reviewers have to type out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have discussions on [insufficient effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and [&quot;check my work&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) as close reasons. We have broad support for [closing &quot;tedious&quot; calculations without context](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7409/50583). There are upvoted [arguments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7164/50583) that being a conceptual question and showing effort, as in the current &quot;homework-like&quot; close banner, should apply to all questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of these discussions about policy, each of which covers a certain subset of why people want to close homework-like questions, is worth having. These are specific topics on which people can take a stand for or against, and we can sort out where the general community trend lies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This discussion about the &quot;homework policy&quot;, however, and about a catch-all proxy reason for all the *actual* reasons it encodes is *not* worth having anymore. It's too confusing, people are talking past each other, and we have both historical and analytical data showing a consensus is nowhere in sight. So let's just axe this reason and start having constructive discussions about more specific close reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7003" RevisionGUID="b90e3f3b-b529-43f8-9a3c-ae498ca9f9de" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer was deleted by a [moderator](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) in accordance with the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), under which full/explicit answers to homework-like questions get deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="3a46aca1-48c8-47cb-9ab0-9bd9a890322f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider the following chain of questions, presented in chronological order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshifting of Light and the expansion of the universe][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Have red shifted photons lost energy and where did it go?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Do photons lose energy due to gravitational redshift? If so, where does the lost energy go?][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshift due to a static gravitational field and the conservation of energy][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second was marked a duplicate of the first, and the third a duplicate of the second. Now the fourth is being voted closed as a duplicate of the third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree the fourth is a duplicate of the third, as both ask about *gravitational* redshift. The first, however, asks about *cosmological* redshift. These are quite different, and indeed the asker for the latest questions points out that the cries of &quot;Noether doesn't apply&quot; in response to the earliest question are just wrong in this newest context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link is the second question, and to be honest I don't know whether it is about gravitational or cosmological redshift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a general flaw in the system, but I'm not sure what the fix is. Two options come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Just ignore this condition. If we close *A* as a duplicate of *B* and *B* as a duplicate of *C*, then even if *A* is not really a duplicate of *C*, they'll be related enough that the person can piece together an answer on their own. Besides, *B* usually accumulated *B*-specific answers before being closed, and these probably answer *A*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Restrict ourselves to only marking *exact* duplicates (in concept if not in words). (I feel the word &quot;exact&quot; used to be here in this context, but I can  no longer find it.) I have anecdotally noticed over the years that as we experienced users see more and more questions, we are more likely to see *similarities* to other questions, and are perhaps a bit quick with declaring questions to be duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do people think? Is there something wrong here? What can we do to fix it? See also [Liberal definition of duplicate questions and the health of physics stack exchange.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21603&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/172854&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="c74805aa-4a57-414e-a9c1-ee471e096b7a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a process: click the flag that shows up when you **hover over the left side of a comment**, and flag the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of a comment with the flag visible][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there's nothing wrong with this particular comment except that it's old)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6375/124) lists the different kinds of comment flags and what they should be used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that if a question is bad, those high-reputation users may be _intentionally_ trying to discourage people from answering it. Of course, the proper way to do that is by voting to close, but sometimes a comment gives a little extra boost to that effort before the question does get closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zZYI1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="6dbd84d7-878f-4ece-9e34-ab00b1d5da38" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I ask this having already read [a question about minor edits.][1] I've seen several edits in which the only change was replacing capital letters in a title with lower-case letters.  This seems, to me, to not improve the post enough to accept as a worthy edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there enough consensus about not having capital letters in a title that this type of edit should be accepted? (appearance is important?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the edit so minor that it should not be accepted (user scrounging for rep points)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or do we really care one way or another?  (I lie in the &quot;too minor to accept&quot; camp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6282/how-do-you-guys-feel-about-minor-edits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="a9216145-c7ee-47c4-99b1-267752b01cb7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As you all might have noticed, our posts appear in a brand new font since today ([as requested long ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7419/serif-fonts-like-chemistry-and-math). However, there are some places where the font has not been implemented, and this leads to some silly &quot;design bugs&quot;. I took a screenshot of one of them (note the two different zeros), but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones too. I think it is important to note that this &quot;bug&quot; (for lack of a better term) does not occur on e.g. [math.se], where the old font is kept for both the answer count and the vote count. Is this temporary? Accidental? Intentional? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I guess I'm requesting that the font be consistently implemented. If anyone objects, I'd like to hear so in the comments, or an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bea1L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="af706153-1e0e-4b41-bd77-5c2a0d44b3e9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**The Problem as I see it**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that the site is being flooded by a rising tide of poor quality questions which show little or no effort and often lack even a basic understanding of physics. I am not being elitist, I simply deplore lazy questions from those who are obviously not even students of anything, especially not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since reaching 3k rep, I spend more than half of my time on the site reviewing questions. Currently I vote to close around 7/10 in the &quot;new unanswered questions&quot; queue and a higher proportion in the &quot;Close Votes&quot; queue. This counts questions which I do not feel competent to judge, which I do not touch. Recently I am regularly running out of close votes within 2 hours of getting them, and have to make do with down-voting and commenting instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expectation is that if this trend continues then in the near future the pool of active reviewers will not have enough votes or time to keep up, with the result that the average standard of questions will fall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing questions is frequently pointless. By the time the crucial 5th vote has been cast, answers have often been posted so the question does not get deleted. A few new users respond by posting the same question again. Closure prevents good answers from being posted to bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting-to-close questions provokes resentment and animosity, not only from those posting questions but also other users. Explaining to the OP and others why I have VTC also takes up time - although this is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current policy is inconsistent. We routinely demand that &quot;homework-like&quot; questions must &quot;show effort to work through the problem,&quot; yet we tolerate conceptual questions which show little or no effort and are ill-motivated (&quot;I read somewhere... Is this true?&quot; &quot;While I was in the bath I had a thought...&quot; &quot;I was just wondering...&quot;). The site is advertised as being &quot;for students, researchers and academics of physics and astronomy&quot; but we allow anyone, even those with no physics background whatsoever, to post any question. We cannot expect high standards if we adopt inconsistent policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever policy is formulated, the most difficult part is implementing it -  getting users (especially new ones) to read it, agree to it and follow it. Unless there is a requirement for users to do so, many will not bother. They come here to ask and answer questions, not to study and enforce site policies. It was only after I reached reviewer status that I accepted the closure criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An Even More Radical Solution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I repeat my suggestions given in my answer to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/9058#9058.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see only two consistent options : either (1) abandon any attempt to control the posting or answering of questions, or (2) place questions 'on hold' as soon as they are posted, and do not open them until they have been approved by reviewers who understand and agree with site policy, rather than those who have their own interpretations of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that both options are highly unpopular, but at least they are workable, efficient and **self-consistent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Abandoning Control**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason for closing questions should be that they are *off topic*, which should mean that they cannot be answered using mainstream physics. It should be open to any user to decide for him/herself whether or not a question meets his personal standards regarding quality or usefulness or research effort or clarity or broadness etc, and to answer or up/down-vote or comment accordingly. Lack of effort and usefulness are already addressed in the up/down-voting feature, so these should not be reasons for closing a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my preferred option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most users simply want to ask or answer questions. Those who ask usually want a quick response. Few use the site for research. Pre-occupation with question quality is inconsistent with allowing unrestricted posting of questions. Minimising reasons for closure will reduce the growing burden on reviewers, and avoid many bad experiences on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is patronising of us to decide that some questions should not be answered, and to prevent users who have no objections to the question from doing so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abandoning control will allow more poor-quality questions onto the site, but there are plenty of those already which have been closed but not deleted. Voting already identifies good (and/or interesting) questions. If necessary, a periodic purge could remove questions with many down-votes, perhaps via a review queue.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**2. Voting To Open (VTO) New Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turns the VTC decision on its head by proposing that all new questions (or perhaps only those from new users with less than say 300 rep, or those with a poor history of closed questions) should be put *on hold* until approved by reviewers. Criteria for what is *on topic* would still have to be re-formulated (see below) : the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that policy is implemented effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is far more effective to get rid of poor questions, and deter poor question-setters, before they have gotten an answer rather than after. Those who need quick answers to trivial questions (&quot;Is this right?&quot; &quot;Where have I gone wrong?&quot; &quot;What am I missing?&quot;) will turn away in frustration if it takes 24-48 hours before the question is approved. We would also need to be stricter about &quot;answering in comments&quot; - perhaps by increasing the rep required to comment and flagging such comments for immediate deletion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently impossible to prevent users from answering questions which are under review, making subsequent closure pointless. For the same reason VTO retains the option of migrating the question instead of closing it. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;VTO is consistent with the avowed purpose of the site. Students, researchers and academics will have spent considerable time and effort already working on the problem, and are unlikely to expect immediate answers. Good quality answers to good quality questions often require further research or mathematical analysis, which cannot often be delivered within 24 hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also consistent with the policy of avoiding duplicates, because there is more time to identify duplicates before answers are posted to the new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reformulation of Closure Policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with ACM and heather that the &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot; tag should be removed and the related policy scrapped. All questions should be subject to the same criteria, whatever those may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated above, my view is that **the only reason** for closing a question  should be that it is *off topic*, meaning that it cannot be *addressed* by applying mainstream physics concepts and principles. The question itself need not be mainstream physics, since good science tolerates the unorthodox. I say *addressable* because for some questions it may not be possible to give an authoritative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of subjectivity in the other criteria, which I think are not worthwhile :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates** : It is very difficult to avoid them, and checking is tedious. Even where they are identified before new answers are posted, existing answers may be unsatisfactory, or there may be a subtle difference. Reviving an old question is not easy for a new user (see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8974/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Unclear what you're asking** : Easily dealt with by asking questions to identify exactly what the problem is. This is what comments are for. Very subjective anyway. It is rather contradictory for a question to be closed for this reason when an answer has been posted - and possibly accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Too broad** : Easily narrowed down through comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primarily opinion-based** : Many such questions (eg resource recommendations, career advice) would be *off topic* under the above definition (not addressable by applying mainstream physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homework-like** : No justification for discriminating based on style of question rather than its content. Questions asking how to *apply* physics are as much a part of physics as those asking for explanation of a concept or phenomenon - especially for students. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mainstream physics** : Questions about unorthodox physics (eg cold fusion, time travel, perpetual motion machines, warp drive, etc) are *addressable* using mainstream physics, so they are *on topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engineering** : &quot;The application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem&quot; is what we do all the time as students and experimenters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insufficient Research Effort** : Too subjective, difficult to judge, and already addressed by down-voting. The reason quickly becomes pointless when somebody provides an answer or even just points out a duplicate or makes a suggestion. If the OP's laziness disgusts you, ignore the question!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="6ebea2f7-ec54-4e2f-96a6-ac5a8146a09f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="See item #6 in our [FAQ on writing question titles](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improper punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and formatting make questions harder to read.&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, clear, and most importantly *consistent* formatting in a medium like this is critical as it helps would-be answerers spend as little brain power as possible parsing the written word and therefore as much as possible digesting the content and composing a useful response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fix capitalization errors in titles a lot.&#xD;&#xA;When lower rep users put in proposed edits to fix title capitalization I will accept it every time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="b74106db-d042-4cf9-a348-a1cf694c8f38" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [PhillS](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/96973/phills) pointed out in a comment, the matter of what it takes to kill a person is a matter of biology/physiology, not physics. So in general, we consider questions asking how to kill a person (or kill an animal, cause brain damage, break a bone, shrink a tumor, etc.) off topic because there is a significant component of them that is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to handle these sorts of questions is to break them up into a biology part and a physics part. In your case: respectively, (1) how much current does it take to kill a person, and (2) how can I tell how much current can be generated from a 1.5V battery? The biology part you can take to [the corresponding SE site](//biology.stackexchange.com), though there's no guarantee they will accept it there. As for the current question, you could try to ask here how to determine whether it's possible to produce a certain amount of current from a battery, but even that is kind of on the engineering side, and may still be considered off topic. If you did some research to try to figure out yourself how much current can be produced from a battery, you could ask about some of the physics concepts you encounter in that research, and _those_ sorts of questions would be much more likely to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good of you to come to meta to ask why your question was voted off topic, by the way. We always like to see people considering the community's feedback on their questions, and staying involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Now that I look at it again, the style in which you wrote the question is also not the best, but that's not such a big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="fabe7027-64ef-4bab-94d2-08381ec2944b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Degrees of freedom in discrete data sets, distributions and systems (Suppose we turn every derived quantity of an n dimensional data into points, how many paramters do these points have in order to reproduce the original data set?)&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general. So, in a sense, people who don't understand me actually understood me better than myself and those who understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="99154994-3ccf-42bc-83eb-b0af438f6ffb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway). The main question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to think about when answering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - What do we want the site to be seen as? (i.e., how do we want it to look to outsiders?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next question: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/leeway-in-deviating-from-goals-of-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7605" RevisionGUID="7fc7bedf-73ea-4006-ae6e-37150e7adfad" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Simply asking &quot;*How does line X.Z come from line X.Y?*&quot; is likely to get your question closed as [homework-like](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) (or maybe *unclear* if you don't quote the relevant section of the text/paper you're referring to). So for it to remain open and answered, it needs to be framed to be about the *physics* of what the math is saying, rather than *how* to do the math.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one could ask about the assumptions underlying the derivation, but I think it important to include your expectation of *why* you think something is screwy with the derivation (e.g., *Why do we take the small x limit here, can't x be big because Reason Y?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Such a question would likely be on topic over at [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="6ffb8508-18bc-4e7d-a2a9-820b74d4a8d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Note: my answer is about the site and how it works/should work; it is NOT about any user or group of users.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, wrong answers and non-mainstream answers are completely different, and should be dealt with differently. The definition of non-mainstream physics given in [the FAQ](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4539/78942)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What defines mainstream physics?**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is rather objective: the papers backing your answer either do exist or do not exist. It's not subjective, and has nothing to do with squaring with personal views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that bad answers should be _downvoted_ and non-mainstream answers should be _flagged_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The scope of this site (as discused in the tour, the help center and several meta posts) is only _mainstream physics_, not physics in general. Therefore, any non-mainstream answer is off-topic, and should be removed. On the other hand, a wrong answer is perfectly on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Non-mainstream answers harm this site. Imagine that someone answers that &quot;the Earth is flat&quot;, and that answer is not deleted. It will attract some downvotes and will be grayed out, I know, but it will be still hosted by our site, and with our logo as a kind of _seal of approval_. This site is a reference of good content, and has a potential audience of thousands of people. We are saying to that audience that the whole community (except the few downvoters, who disagree) regard the &quot;flat Earth theory&quot; as acceptable for our site. If non-mainstream physics proliferate, the reputation of the site will suffer, and we won't be a useful resource anymore. **Non-mainstream physics is an attack against Physics.SE, and the community should defend itself**, and that's the purpose of flags. On the other hand, a wrong answer, marked as such, can have an educational value (showing common pitfalls, teaching something to both OP and answerers...), and be benefical for the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Downvoting has a cost (yeah, I know, only one little shiny internet point, but that's the point of gamification...) which discourages downvoting. In the case of wrong answers it makes sense: you have to ponder if the answer is bad enough for a downvote, or if it needs only a comment. But pointing non-mainstream answers _always_ helps the community, and shouldn't be punished. Using flags seems to be the best option (better that meta or chat, that are too public for sensible matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - People who get downvotes tend to regard them as personal attacks. Non-mainstream answers usually attract lots of downvotes, and they might think that that is the result of some sort of non-existent collusion. If their posts are dealt with by the site instead of some of the users, that (hopefully) would ease their mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="d5ee0955-33c8-4d87-9af0-a78bf07a027c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## The current situation and its problems (yes, again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In light of all the discussion and analysis we've done since then, when we choose to vote to close questions as homework-like, what reasons do we actually have in mind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking your data, and indeed the continual disagreement in most past meta posts about this topic, at face value it appears that there is no single reason people close something as homework-like, showing that the current close reason is also probably more used as a proxy for a host of different reasons than what's actually written in the policy, or whatever *would* be actually written in the policy once we'd chosen one or more &quot;main&quot; reason to close something as homework-like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an uncomfortable situations, and it also *explains* why this policy continues to be discussed (other than, say, the non-mainstream policy, about which there seems to be general agreement, and only dissatisfaction about its application in isolated specific cases). However, it also means that &quot;replacing&quot; the homework policy by the things it's used as proxy for is infeasible, because there's no agreement *what* it is used as proxy for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the policy was *initially* conceived to ban *actual homework* to stave off using the site as a cheating resource. This has two issues: How to tell whether something is &quot;actual&quot; homework, and what about *good questions* that someone could conceivably encounter otherwise, but that are assigned as homework in the case of the asker? So the homework policy mutated into the &quot;homework-like&quot; policy, looking at the *content* rather than the *origin* of the question. However, what exactly is &quot;homework-like content&quot; was, at least from some points of view, insufficiently (and somewhat contradictorily) codified in the policy post as such, which is argued e.g. in [this meta answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7163/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That therefore the *policy as written* is actually not what motivates many closures is what triggered this whole debate, cf. the opening statement of *[Generalizing the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7407/50583)*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, it's not always clear whether a question fits this description just from its content. And if you track the questions that we actually close these days using the homework-like close reason, quite a few of them are likely not of an educational nature. Instead, we've taken to using the homework-like close reason on questions that simply ask us to calculate something without the original poster making an attempt at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A radical solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get rid of the homework close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I mean that. I *don't* mean to imply that we should leave any of the question *open* that we currently close as homework-like, but this whole debate shows that &quot;homework-like&quot; is really just a proxy for a bunch of more specific close reasons, which would be more helpful to the people asking the question and more helpful to avoid arguments between reviewers over whether something is &quot;homework-like&quot;, when the arguing parties really mean two different things by that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we don't have enough slots for pre-generated reasons left to cover all of the partial reasons for closing as &quot;homework-like&quot;. Fortunately, the &quot;other&quot; close reason allows for an infinite variety of close reasons, so we only have to decide which reason deserves to be in the pre-generated spot and which ones the reviewers have to type out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have discussions on [insufficient effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and [&quot;check my work&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) as close reasons. We have broad support for [closing &quot;tedious&quot; calculations without context](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7409/50583). There are upvoted [arguments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7164/50583) that being a conceptual question and showing effort, as in the current &quot;homework-like&quot; close banner, should apply to all questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of these discussions about policy, each of which covers a certain subset of why people want to close homework-like questions, is worth having. These are specific topics on which people can take a stand for or against, and we can sort out where the general community trend lies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This discussion about the &quot;homework policy&quot;, however, and about a catch-all proxy reason for all the *actual* reasons it encodes is *not* worth having anymore. It's too confusing, people are talking past each other, and we have both historical and analytical data showing a consensus is nowhere in sight. So let's just axe this reason and start having constructive discussions about more specific close reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="bf76ce0f-bb99-4ae5-9c59-309159f4e553" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that users of physics.SE (new and/or old) can't curb their need to ask for resources based on [this question][1] (based on the tag), as explained [herein][2]. However, many users still ask questions which are duplicate. For example, [this thread][3]. So, would it be possible to create a new tag so as to open the Book recommendation FAQ (after necessary edits), so that it could be linked/suggested to users who might ask duplicate questions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/Or, can we have a library feature/tab added somewhere at physics.SE which comes to the immediate notice of most users, if not all (i.e., as soon as they open physics.SE w/o login in/signing up, and which should not come off as an ad or notification, but can be viewed all the time)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above), and it may be able to stop the &quot;abuse&quot; of the tag &quot;resource-recommendation&quot; as well as build a library of sorts for physics.SE which would, in turn, benefit many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I also noticed that the Book recommendation FAQ of physics.SE is missing references to discussions on book requests for special relativity. Although I couldn't find many questions asking for books on SR, I found [this thread][4] which should be linked in the Book recommendation FAQ (in future after necessary edits, if at all), IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245821/what-is-a-good-primer-on-the-subject-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95609/textbook-on-the-geometry-of-special-relativity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="c6333040-7acf-4889-b68d-96bcc882db00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just musing -- there are a measurable number of questions which, while more or less physics-related, are a much better fit for what-if.xkcd.   Is it worth creating a &quot;what-if&quot; tag for these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1557 seems to suggest at least some interest in this type of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="982d1258-de03-44bf-a6d8-d75055d881a8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Ask a Question page shown to new users contains a lot of guidance, including a link to MathJax help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are [strong UI reasons why this link is nowhere near as useful as we'd hope](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/), but we can at least make it point to something that's actually useful. It currently points to [this tutorial](http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/), which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GPta1.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which is nowhere near a useful resource. Despite the claims in a [recent attempt](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9133/) to duplicate a bunch of work and create a local tutorial of limited usefulness, we do in fact have a long-standing go-to tutorial for MathJax, over on the Mathematics meta site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HDjiu.png)](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent link over on Maths.SE links to their tutorial. Since we're already linking off-site for this, why don't we also link to theirs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a fair amount of support. Is it something the mods can change? Do we need to contact the community team? Have already done so? If so, have said whether it's feasible or not?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="d1a4da61-70b3-4a30-b3ce-d356d2184ad6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I somewhat regularly mod-flag answers that are complete solutions to (no-effort) homework problems &amp; request deletion. This is in line with what is stated in the [Homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if an *answerer* questions whether they should delete their answer for breaking the policy, then I would say that *Yes, they should be recommended to self-delete* and link them to the relevant policy (q/714 on meta.physics.se) as a reminder as to *why* the policy is as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7186" RevisionGUID="dec55fc2-4877-4c58-b9c9-fb66236a285f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can flag the comments. For comments like these, the &quot;not constructive&quot; flag [is typically appropriate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post), or if it's particularly vicious, use &quot;rude or offensive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth keeping in mind that we want most people who ask questions on this site to be those who care about their questions and the broader physics context. In other words, &quot;I was just curious&quot;-type questions are not really what we're here for. So if someone asks a question without bothering to do simple things [like checking Wikipedia, searching the web, etc.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question), we will _intentionally_ fail to be particularly accommodating. Same goes for when a poster is asking a question where they are clearly out of their depth (like, hypothetically: &quot;I don't know any calculus but prove to me that the pentaquark should exist&quot;-type questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="5489d0cc-2b02-410e-85a8-7d83fd58c3b5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:efficient-energy-use] seems to be rather ill-defined. The tag wiki excerpt states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use the tag *Efficient Energy Use* in questions having to do with processes or engines or constructions where energy is spent or transfered and the efficiency thereof. Efficiency means both the measurement and the techniques and principles for its optimization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not seem to be a useful tag. What &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; *doesn't* transfer energy in some way? Optimizing a given &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; is not physics, it is engineering, and hence [off-topic here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4535/50583). Measuring the efficiency of some &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; seems *very* specific and doesn't deserve its own tag, in my opinion - tagging questions about the measurement of energy efficiency with [tag:energy] seems perfectly sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose the tag be removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="9cf91cd9-9ad1-445a-9cdf-de780666b904" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="## The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, biophysics questions run a wide range from those that are primarily biology questions with a little physics input to those that are primarily physics questions applied to a situation that appears in a biological processes or system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And presumably some fraction of them are on-topic for the Physics.SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is soliciting reasoned and explained opinions about what kinds of questions are definitely on-topic, off-topic and living in a fuzzy gray area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed texts for the [tag:biophysics] summary would be one (good) way to condense your thoughts, but are not required. For reference, the current tag summary reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of methods from the physical sciences to aid in the study of biological systems. Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a recent [conversation concerning the need for or utility of possible Biophysics beta site][1] we received [a question on the main site concerning the mechanisms of protein action (and a few other issues)][2]. A subsequent [informal poll of the chat room][3] revealed surprising diversity of opinion on the matter including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On-topic (at least in part): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635714#26635714 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635720#26635720 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635920#26635920 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Send it to [chemstry.se]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635657#26635657&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Off-topic (no alternate suggestion): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640394#26640394 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640561#26640561 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26641857#26641857 (or should that go on the chemistry bullet?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suggested refinements that would make it definitely on-topic (suggesting to me that the speaker thinks it is borderline as it is): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26642643#26642643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should be closed for reasons not relating to topicality. (Not providing separate links for these because they evade the point of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta-question is *not* mainly about the place of post 227647 on Physics SE, but about the broader criteria for deciding such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/should-biophysics-fork&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635361#26635361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="81ce2bee-5f64-4ae1-b6c7-44aeffdeccdd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My _personal_ viewpoint: there are no valid uses for [tag:soft-question] and we should burninate it (i.e. purge it from the system and forbid future use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, basically all questions which are given the [tag:soft-question] tag are either off topic, or don't really need the tag. I'm not entirely sure [what it means for a question to be soft](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273/what-is-the-soft-question-tag-for), anyway, but the questions we do allow that would fit most people's definition of &quot;soft&quot; are already identified by more focused tags like [tag:resource-recommendation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer emerges as the community consensus, we (mods) will arrange to have the tag removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="31d68e60-f806-40ce-b254-c7a4546a6516" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**The Problem as I see it**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that the site is being flooded by a rising tide of poor quality questions which show little or no effort and often lack even a basic understanding of physics. I am not being elitist, I simply deplore lazy questions from those who are obviously not even students of anything, especially not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since reaching 3k rep, I spend more than half of my time on the site reviewing questions. Currently I vote to close around 7/10 in the &quot;new unanswered questions&quot; queue and a higher proportion in the &quot;Close Votes&quot; queue. This counts questions which I do not feel competent to judge, which I do not touch. Recently I am regularly running out of close votes within 2 hours of getting them, and have to make do with down-voting and commenting instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expectation is that if this trend continues then in the near future the pool of active reviewers will not have enough votes or time to keep up, with the result that the average standard of questions will fall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing questions is frequently pointless. By the time the crucial 5th vote has been cast, answers have often been posted so the question does not get deleted. A few new users respond by posting the same question again. Closure prevents good answers from being posted to bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voting-to-close questions provokes resentment and animosity, not only from those posting questions but also other users. Explaining to the OP and others why I have VTC also takes up time - although this is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current policy is inconsistent. We routinely demand that &quot;homework-like&quot; questions must &quot;show effort to work through the problem,&quot; yet we tolerate conceptual questions which show little or no effort and are ill-motivated (&quot;I read somewhere... Is this true?&quot; &quot;While I was in the bath I had a thought...&quot; &quot;I was just wondering...&quot;). The site is advertised as being &quot;for students, researchers and academics of physics and astronomy&quot; but we allow anyone, even those with no physics background whatsoever, to post any question. We cannot expect high standards if we adopt inconsistent policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever policy is formulated, the most difficult part is implementing it -  getting users (especially new ones) to read it, agree to it and follow it. Unless there is a requirement for users to do so, many will not bother. They come here to ask and answer questions, not to study and enforce site policies. It was only after I reached reviewer status that I accepted the closure criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An Even More Radical Solution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I repeat my suggestions given in my answer to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy/9058#9058.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see only two consistent options : either (1) abandon any attempt to control the posting or answering of questions, or (2) place questions 'on hold' as soon as they are posted, and do not open them until they have been approved by reviewers who understand and agree with site policy, rather than those who have their own interpretations of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that both options are highly unpopular, but at least they are workable, efficient and **self-consistent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Abandoning Control**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason for closing questions should be that they are *off topic*, which should mean that they cannot be answered using mainstream physics. It should be open to any user to decide for him/herself whether or not a question meets his personal standards regarding quality or usefulness or research effort or clarity or broadness etc, and to answer or up/down-vote or comment accordingly. Lack of effort and usefulness are already addressed in the up/down-voting feature, so these should not be reasons for closing a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my preferred option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most users simply want to ask or answer questions. Those who ask usually want a quick response. Few use the site for research. Pre-occupation with question quality is inconsistent with allowing unrestricted posting of questions. Minimising reasons for closure will reduce the growing burden on reviewers, and avoid many bad experiences on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is patronising of us to decide that some questions should not be answered, and to prevent users who have no objections to the question from doing so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abandoning control will allow more poor-quality questions onto the site, but there are plenty of those already which have been closed but not deleted. Voting already identifies good (and/or interesting) questions. If necessary, a periodic purge could remove questions with many down-votes, perhaps via a review queue.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**2. Voting To Open (VTO) New Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turns the VTC decision on its head by proposing that all new questions (or perhaps only those from new users with less than say 300 rep, or those with a poor history of closed questions) should be put *on hold* until approved by reviewers. Criteria for what is *on topic* would still have to be re-formulated (see below) : the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that policy is implemented effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is far more effective to get rid of poor questions, and deter poor question-setters, before they have gotten an answer rather than after. Those who need quick answers to trivial questions (&quot;Is this right?&quot; &quot;Where have I gone wrong?&quot; &quot;What am I missing?&quot;) will turn away in frustration if it takes 24-48 hours before the question is approved. We would also need to be stricter about &quot;answering in comments&quot; - perhaps by increasing the rep required to comment and flagging such comments for immediate deletion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently impossible to prevent users from answering questions which are under review, making subsequent closure pointless. For the same reason VTO retains the option of migrating the question instead of closing it. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;VTO is consistent with the avowed purpose of the site. Students, researchers and academics will have spent considerable time and effort already working on the problem, and are unlikely to expect immediate answers. Good quality answers to good quality questions often require further research or mathematical analysis, which cannot often be delivered within 24 hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also consistent with the policy of avoiding duplicates, because there is more time to identify duplicates before answers are posted to the new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reformulation of Closure Policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with ACM and heather that the &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot; tag should be removed and the related policy scrapped. All questions should be subject to the same criteria, whatever those may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated above, my view is that **the only reason** for closing a question  should be that it is *off topic*, meaning that it cannot be *addressed* by applying mainstream physics concepts and principles. The question itself need not be mainstream physics, since good science tolerates the unorthodox. I say *addressable* because for some questions it may not be possible to give an authoritative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of subjectivity in the other criteria, which I think are not worthwhile :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates** : It is very difficult to avoid them, and checking is tedious. Even where they are identified before new answers are posted, existing answers may be unsatisfactory, or there may be a subtle difference. Reviving an old question is not easy for a new user (see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8974/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Unclear what you're asking** : Easily dealt with by asking questions to identify exactly what the problem is. This is what comments are for. Very subjective anyway. It is rather contradictory for a question to be closed for this reason when an answer has been posted - and possibly accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Too broad** : Easily narrowed down through comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primarily opinion-based** : Many such questions (eg resource recommendations, career advice) would be *off topic* under the above definition (not addressable by applying mainstream physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homework-like** : No justification for discriminating based on style of question rather than its content. Questions asking how to *apply* physics are as much a part of physics as those asking for explanation of a concept or phenomenon - especially for students. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mainstream physics** : Questions about unorthodox physics (eg cold fusion, time travel, perpetual motion machines, warp drive, etc) are *addressable* using mainstream physics, so they are *on topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engineering** : &quot;The application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem&quot; is what we do all the time as students and experimenters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insufficient Research Effort** : Too subjective, difficult to judge, and already addressed by down-voting. The reason quickly becomes pointless when somebody provides an answer or even just points out a duplicate or makes a suggestion. If the OP's laziness disgusts you, ignore the question!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="ed198762-b38d-4dd9-bad2-5919ab47faef" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has come up before on meta, at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Edit: recently, and even more ridiculously, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9393/winter-bash-2016-hats-are-live got bumped to the top of the front page. Because that very much required additional attention once the winter bash was over, you know.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors)'s answer was upvoted after the bump (it's also an old bug report which is useless to bring back up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta: the idea sounds nice, sure, but it is a very blunt tool that does not work at all for the intended objective. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="dc13e811-3d21-4d23-89b9-6c132562473a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cross-posting is [strongly discouraged][1]. That said, we are sometimes [lenient][2]. Ultimately, what we really don't want is someone posting in multiple places but not disclosing this, an a scattershot attempt to get any sort of answer from anyone. This can potentially lead to wasted, duplicate effort in answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore say there are two cases where you can post the same question somewhere else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You want a different take on the answer from a different community's perspective. Tailor the question appropriately, and note on both the old and new posts that there is a closely related question on another site. This doesn't really apply just if one community seems &quot;better;&quot; you really need to be looking for something &quot;different.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. You posted a question but either realized it belongs elsewhere or got no satisfactory response, and there is another site where it is on topic. This seems to be your case. In that case it's probably best to *migrate* the question rather than duplicate it. Use a custom moderator flag on the question and request it be migrated to the other site. The moderators can then do this (or not, if they so choose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4133/should-i-cross-post-this-question-in-chemistry-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="44491714-74be-4205-bbde-9e9a69b4adde" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This ties directly into a larger issue with flag that [recently came up](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8947/50583). The moderators are currently not deleting answer for being wrong because it is not they who should pass that judgement unilaterally, so it seems inconsistent if they deleted comments for being wrong. So there are two options here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The nuclear option: Delete *any* comment that gives an answer if it is flagged as *not constructive*, no matter its correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Do nothing: Leave answers in comments alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I belong to the users who leave answers in comments if I'm too lazy or too busy to expand them into a full answer, or because I plainly don't think the question deserves that much effort on my part, or also because some of my comment-like answers have incurred a number of upvotes that are frankly ridiculuous and I don't want my rep to be inflated by giving such effortless answers, I say: **Nuke answers in comments if they are flagged.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are for clarifying questions, pointing out inconsistencies, giving reasons for close/delete/down votes or otherwise improving the post being commented on. They are, obviously, often used for other things - making jokes, giving pseudo-answers, debating related topics, and more. Which is fine as long as no one is bothered by those comments. But as soon as such comment bother someone - indicated by a flag - all comments *not* evidently serving the primary purpose of comments should be deleted, mercilessly and without considering the abstract &quot;value&quot; or &quot;correctness&quot; of their content. The unique quality of the SE model is precisely that it does *not* allow the free form of forums, and we should not compromise on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="7f66fa7d-8a9c-4344-b179-260648c8d372" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="With a [moderator election](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3) looming it would be useful to hear from our current moderators how much the role affects their use of the site. Some obvious questions would be how many hours a day does it require, and what are are the day to day tasks you need to do in that time. However it would also be good to hear what it stops you doing. For example being a moderator means you cannot cast a non-binding close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is to find out *how much would my life change if I became a moderator?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is already a meta post for [questions to ask candidates in the election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;This post is intended as a place to current moderators to record what they think is relevant information about how being a mod affects their use of the site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="9e051b69-a075-4840-94f6-bc34945636fa" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This discussion question is inspired by [this post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9096/121464) on the [current homework policy question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway). The main question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to think about when answering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it we want this site to represent? &#xD;&#xA; - What are the ideals to which we should hold all of the content on this site? &#xD;&#xA; - What do we want the site to be seen as? (i.e., how do we want it to look to outsiders?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might say this is unnecessary, but I think it is really important. To quote Jim (the user who posted the idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before we get ahead of ourselves [and define close reasons], we should step back and officially answer some questions that I'm sure many of you will consider already answered. But until we know everyone agrees on them and knows our stance, we can't properly move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to focus on one question at a time in answers; hopefully once the community has reached a consensus, the answers can be combined into the main answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: after this question, there will be two more questions, plus the close vote question already in existence. I will link to them as each is resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next question: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/leeway-in-deviating-from-goals-of-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="df141f32-b1fc-4013-9e18-a1393585ed88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider the following chain of questions, presented in chronological order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshifting of Light and the expansion of the universe][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Have red shifted photons lost energy and where did it go?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Do photons lose energy due to gravitational redshift? If so, where does the lost energy go?][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshift due to a static gravitational field and the conservation of energy][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second was marked a duplicate of the first, and the third a duplicate of the second. Now the fourth is being voted closed as a duplicate of the third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree the fourth is a duplicate of the third, as both ask about *gravitational* redshift. The first, however, asks about *cosmological* redshift. These are quite different, and indeed the asker for the latest questions points out that the cries of &quot;Noether doesn't apply&quot; in response to the earliest question are just wrong in this newest context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link is the second question, and to be honest I don't know whether it is about gravitational or cosmological redshift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a general flaw in the system, but I'm not sure what the fix is. Two options come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Just ignore this condition. If we close *A* as a duplicate of *B* and *B* as a duplicate of *C*, then even if *A* is not really a duplicate of *C*, they'll be related enough that the person can piece together an answer on their own. Besides, *B* usually accumulated *B*-specific answers before being closed, and these probably answer *A*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Restrict ourselves to only marking *exact* duplicates (in concept if not in words). (I feel the word &quot;exact&quot; used to be here in this context, but I can  no longer find it.) I have anecdotally noticed over the years that as we experienced users see more and more questions, we are more likely to see *similarities* to other questions, and are perhaps a bit quick with declaring questions to be duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do people think? Is there something wrong here? What can we do to fix it? See also [Liberal definition of duplicate questions and the health of physics stack exchange.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21603&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/172854&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="28674d1e-bfda-4ca2-b871-515fb1c22af8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="On the meta question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8789/what-does-everyone-mean-by-insufficient-research-effort, in the third note below the question, user Chris White says &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in the comments, user Emilio Pisanty says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good point on explicit mobile links. [7.6k of them][1]! In the tens of percent of all Wikipedia links, too. Is that something we should fix? That's a pretty sizable project there, something like fifteen Copy Editor badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, should I go through the linked list and edit them so the links aren't explicit? It seems like it would be a good thing to do, but I want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume if it was to be done it would be done only a couple question/answers at a time, so as to not mess with the &quot;active&quot; question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=en.m.wikipedia.org%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com&amp;gws_rd=ssl&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="adf2fbdd-07a5-480e-82cc-f3e3fcd932a6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9191/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: '.. opening downvote  caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an independent decision, without preconceptions, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the whether or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="17e61022-3276-44a8-b7fe-ce8bcd011f0b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As you all might have noticed, our posts appear in a brand new font since today ([as requested long ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7419/serif-fonts-like-chemistry-and-math). However, there are some places where the font has not been implemented, and this leads to some silly &quot;design bugs&quot;. I took a screenshot of one of them (note the two different zeros), but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones too. I think it is important to note that this &quot;bug&quot; (for lack of a better term) does not occur on e.g. [math.se], where the old font is kept for both the answer count and the vote count. Is this temporary? Accidental? Intentional? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I guess I'm requesting that the font be consistently implemented. If anyone objects, I'd like to hear so in the comments, or an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bea1L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="a1b9558f-326e-47a3-9894-debc39401f63" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I honestly doubt that notorious and institutional characters would contribute to the contents of this site *more than anybody else already does*. Let me rephrase the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have personally learnt and enjoyed the most physics here in answers (and comments) provided by users who, according to their profiles, are currently students, PhD students or PostDocs in any non-Harvard-or-Princeton University. People, I mean, who, still being professional physicists and reputed mathematicians, have the actual time and desire to write a complete and sensible answer to the posed question, contributing to the details and the comments, without the claim to advertise their last work soon to revolutionise modern quantum physics or tenure positions at the top rank University. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us not work around the fact that, due to many reasons, this site is not a researchers resource or the last frontier for brand new physics to emerge. It is a collection of (still interesting) average questions about standard physics that most (under)-graduate students could correctly answer with no headaches. Although strong emeriti physicists and Nobel Price awardees might be unbelievably gifted scientists, they would hardly contribute to detailed answer for the average questions we have - which is what we aim for, if I have correctly understood the purpose of the site. This with the due exceptions - luckily there are already strong experts who answer *some* questions (usually in their very own research field).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different would be the case if the site were indeed a resource for research in physics; in that case we should indeed promote the best player to stay on the field unless specified otherwise. But it is not (is it?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him as usual - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be, as already pointed out by [the answer above][1], in contrast with the purpose of the site. We judge the content, not the person, and if they provide sensible value according to the rules we are going by (whether good or bad they are) be they welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8973/84488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="9b1b936f-54cc-4dcd-b73b-fa53d2f5a7f8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has come up before on meta, at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Edit: recently, and even more ridiculously, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9393/winter-bash-2016-hats-are-live got bumped to the top of the front page. Because that very much required additional attention once the winter bash was over, you know.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors)'s answer was upvoted after the bump (it's also an old bug report which is useless to bring back up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta: the idea sounds nice, sure, but it is a very blunt tool that does not work at all for the intended objective. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="c5ec4011-6bb3-4bd7-8eaa-4bd2b3cb35f5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [PhillS](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/96973/phills) pointed out in a comment, the matter of what it takes to kill a person is a matter of biology/physiology, not physics. So in general, we consider questions asking how to kill a person (or kill an animal, cause brain damage, break a bone, shrink a tumor, etc.) off topic because there is a significant component of them that is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to handle these sorts of questions is to break them up into a biology part and a physics part. In your case: respectively, (1) how much current does it take to kill a person, and (2) how can I tell how much current can be generated from a 1.5V battery? The biology part you can take to [the corresponding SE site](//biology.stackexchange.com), though there's no guarantee they will accept it there. As for the current question, you could try to ask here how to determine whether it's possible to produce a certain amount of current from a battery, but even that is kind of on the engineering side, and may still be considered off topic. If you did some research to try to figure out yourself how much current can be produced from a battery, you could ask about some of the physics concepts you encounter in that research, and _those_ sorts of questions would be much more likely to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good of you to come to meta to ask why your question was voted off topic, by the way. We always like to see people considering the community's feedback on their questions, and staying involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Now that I look at it again, the style in which you wrote the question is also not the best, but that's not such a big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="8b83e3d9-6356-4a8e-b4d3-b8d66898ae49" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After posting an [answer][1] I received good comments highlighting an error in my understanding. To correct it would be a major edit, drastically and conceptually changing around half the text of my answer. But when I go to edit it, I am presented with a text box telling me to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;► fix grammatical or spelling errors&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► clarify meaning without changing it&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► correct minor mistakes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► add related resources or links&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► always respect the original author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to allow the major revision that I want to make. [This accepted answer][2] says that &quot;Edits that turn an incorrect answer into a correct one is a **drastic** change and should not be done by anyone&quot;. Does &quot;anyone&quot; include the original author? Should I post a completely new answer instead? In that case, what should I do with the old, partially incorrect answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me  it feels the most natural to just edit the old answer and mention the edit in the corrected version. But I want to know for sure whether that is the best practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273124/expectation-value-of-hamiltonian/273154#273154&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6012/126646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="b6d172c3-1a37-4a08-8458-2069eb9cbf51" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="With a [moderator election](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3) looming it would be useful to hear from our current moderators how much the role affects their use of the site. Some obvious questions would be how many hours a day does it require, and what are are the day to day tasks you need to do in that time. However it would also be good to hear what it stops you doing. For example being a moderator means you cannot cast a non-binding close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is to find out *how much would my life change if I became a moderator?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is already a meta post for [questions to ask candidates in the election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;This post is intended as a place to current moderators to record what they think is relevant information about how being a mod affects their use of the site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7605" RevisionGUID="edd01887-7cd1-4a61-90a4-0ae963c0de6a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Simply asking &quot;*How does line X.Z come from line X.Y?*&quot; is likely to get your question closed as [homework-like](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) (or maybe *unclear* if you don't quote the relevant section of the text/paper you're referring to). So for it to remain open and answered, it needs to be framed to be about the *physics* of what the math is saying, rather than *how* to do the math.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one could ask about the assumptions underlying the derivation, but I think it important to include your expectation of *why* you think something is screwy with the derivation (e.g., *Why do we take the small x limit here, can't x be big because Reason Y?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. Such a question would likely be on topic over at [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="9c4ca3c0-2e0b-4432-9922-bec08222408e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="On some SE sites, it is normal that the closing reasons contain also a link to another SE site, where the question could have a better chance to survive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other SE sites, it is unthinkable and even suggesting this results around -20 on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. this question is _not_ a duplicate of [this][2]: that post is asking a *migration path* to the Engineering SE, while I am questioning about the advantages/disadvantages of a *link to the Engineering SE in the close reason*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JsefT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6501/should-the-engineering-close-vote-be-changed-in-light-of-the-new-engineering-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="cd5fe66c-4ed0-4025-93fb-42d6d1dd53dd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that users of physics.SE (new and/or old) can't curb their need to ask for resources based on [this question][1] (based on the tag), as explained [herein][2]. However, many users still ask questions which are duplicate. For example, [this thread][3]. So, would it be possible to create a new tag so as to open the Book recommendation FAQ (after necessary edits), so that it could be linked/suggested to users who might ask duplicate questions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/Or, can we have a library feature/tab added somewhere at physics.SE which comes to the immediate notice of most users, if not all (i.e., as soon as they open physics.SE w/o login in/signing up, and which should not come off as an ad or notification, but can be viewed all the time)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above), and it may be able to stop the &quot;abuse&quot; of the tag &quot;resource-recommendation&quot; as well as build a library of sorts for physics.SE which would, in turn, benefit many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I also noticed that the Book recommendation FAQ of physics.SE is missing references to discussions on book requests for special relativity. Although I couldn't find many questions asking for books on SR, I found [this thread][4] which should be linked in the Book recommendation FAQ (in future after necessary edits, if at all), IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245821/what-is-a-good-primer-on-the-subject-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95609/textbook-on-the-geometry-of-special-relativity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="ee43acae-da7c-4837-887f-49c0b4ac8649" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Would it be useful to link the engineering SE on closed engineering questions or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, obviously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I want to remind everyone that applied physics has a lot of overlap with what you (particularly theorists) think of as &quot;engineering&quot;. If someone posts here asking about lab equipment etc. please do not jump for the &quot;off topic&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [talked about this before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering) and I gave a [well received opinion on how to think about engineering-ish posts on our site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering/6136#6136).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="581b23ef-2f9c-4a7b-9888-220721f40322" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9191/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: '.. opening downvote  caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an independent decision, without preconceptions, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the whether or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="8290d123-ef2c-456d-8821-2d7a20d14a5e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I somewhat regularly mod-flag answers that are complete solutions to (no-effort) homework problems &amp; request deletion. This is in line with what is stated in the [Homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if an *answerer* questions whether they should delete their answer for breaking the policy, then I would say that *Yes, they should be recommended to self-delete* and link them to the relevant policy (q/714 on meta.physics.se) as a reminder as to *why* the policy is as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="3c130169-62b0-450f-bc9d-60beefabf526" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;The homework tag should not exist in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;We shouldn't categorize questions that need partial &quot;hint&quot; answers because such questions are antithetical to the Stack Exchange format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question elicits the thought &quot;*I shouldn't give a straight answer because I'd be giving too much away*&quot;, then the question is off-topic to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;Any homework-like (or exercises-like or whatever the hell we should be calling this [a]) questions should show effort and focus on a particular conceptual or technical issue that has the OP stumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beg all reading this to comment on homework-like questions helping the OP pose more focused and well-posed questions whenever you can spare the few seconds it takes to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a]: Please read [this meta post regarding re-naming the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="3915ae88-b3d8-40f0-86c7-587008623e0b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [tpg2114's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) questionnaire answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Side note -- thanks to [ACuriousMind's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9200/6634) post for being the first and setting a format)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand such users can, in mild cases, generate resentment about the way the system works, and in more serious cases, gain access to the tools awarded high-reputation users that may be inappropriately used and/or abused. The disparity between reputation for upvotes and downvotes is [a question I have raised previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4858/what-would-it-look-like-if-rep-for-questions-counted-the-same-more-than-answers) for discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at the time resulted in something that I still believe is true: a majority of high reputation users are not doing it for the reputation. [They are doing it to educate others and to share their passion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions/6568). So while some users may be able to game the system by producing mixed content, it will be relatively few. And I feel it would take a long time before they earned a high enough reputation to really do frustrating, site-harming levels of damage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long before that point, I would expect such users to either get bored or to mature to the point that it is no longer a problem. I don't think moderator intervention is required until actual damage is done, at which point the StackExchange platform and policies allow easy reversal of the damage and tools to remedy the situation with the user in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On some level, I challenge the premise of the question. I don't see that the two are diametrically opposed -- I believe the two go hand-in-hand. Quality questions and answers come from returning users, and the site grows by providing quality questions and answers so that users do return. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in that frame of reference, my focus would be on the **quality** of the site. By providing a wealth of information on a wide-variety of topics in physics, people will be driven to the site. And those who return will bring questions (and hopefully answers) that challenge and engage the users already here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, the role of a moderator in this process is relatively limited. Ultimately, moderators are an insignificant percentage of the content generators/handlers for the site -- the users must be engaged in quality and growth. To that end, as a moderator, my priority is ensuring that quality is maintained in a form that is welcoming and encouraging to users who want to be active participants in the goals of the site. Contrary to many of the debates the site has had previously, quality and friendliness are not opposites; rudeness is not required to communicate one's point effectively. This is, of course, balanced by the limited content length in comments (this is not a forum, after all) and the impersonal nature of the internet that may lead one to feel things are more personal and rude than they actually are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consensus is essential when there is uncertainty. Or at the very least, advice and guidance from those with more experience is essential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some actions create obvious situations where action must be taken. I can't enumerate a list here, but I will paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ([read about the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio)) and Lord-Justice Stuart-Smith ([the so-called Elephant Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test#Elephant_test)) -- I'll know it when I see it. Spam, derogatory and offensive language, threats, etc. are all obvious and require immediate action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle topics, particularly those involving returning users, require some discussion and consensus building. Particularly because it may be a one-off instance or it may be a repeat problem, something that a new moderator (or even an existing one) may not be aware of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put, as much as is needed. It would be hard to estimate how much time I actively spend on the site currently, I generally pop in and hang out for 10-15 minutes at a time, every few hours. As a result, it would be easy to catch things as they occur and deal with it accordingly. Naturally, more important or time consuming tasks can be completed as needed with very few scheduling constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the next several months, I will graduate. Given my current position in my research lab, virtually any job I take will be less time-consuming than what I am doing now. I may not be able to spare 10-15 minutes every few hours during the workday, but I will be able to dedicate longer stretches of time as needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I am biased in my perception, but I feel that all of my material on the site has been constructive, and most importantly, something I stand behind. My activity on [Meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) has been focused on formulating policies and helping to define the role of the site. I haven't won every argument, but I feel that I have always been civil, level-headed and supported the results, even when I don't agree with them. I have also engaged in discussions with users who, at various times, have rubbed others the wrong way or been rubbed the wrong way themselves. In the cases I can recall participating, I have tried to remain objective and impersonal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than champion myself, I would encourage everybody to review my participation on the site (and for that matter, on the entire StackExchange network). I will happily discuss any content, past or present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest change in day-to-day activity is refraining from pulling the trigger on the close vote since it is now binding. As a regular user, I have no problem expressing my opinion about whether a question is off-topic -- a question takes 4 others to agree and if I'm wrong as a regular user, no harm. As a moderator, that luxury no longer exists. On the other hand, I don't see putting a question &quot;on hold&quot; as a death sentence or a condemnation of the user or the topic. It is a chance to improve the question in a way that is fair to those who will spend time answering (nobody likes writing an elaborate answer only to have the question change drastically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this area, more than any others, is the best use of my skills as part of the moderation team. I have started several conversations directly regarding this area: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design &#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4540/what-is-the-fate-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/big-list-resource-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as extensive participation in related areas (as well as the dreaded &quot;homework&quot; topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7565/it-is-on-topic-to-ask-about-computer-software-useful-to-do-some-particular-task/7568#7568&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/network-science-can-be-a-branch-of-physics/7261#7261&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center/5604#5604&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5519/realistically-are-atmospheric-physics-questions-on-topic-and-acceptable/5520#5520&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic/7141#7141&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I firmly believe that we should not look at Physics.SE as isolated from the other sites in the StackExchange network. The entire network is like a library -- there is no reason to go to the physics shelf if I have a question about chemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gray areas are okay, provided the content is asking for an underlying explanation of the physics. My favorite punchline whenever this comes up is this: This is a site of **physics**, not **physicists** -- asking for a good apple pie recipe is not on-topic just because you are a physicist. Likewise, how to take derivatives are not on topic just because it came up in a mechanics class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a moderator, I would continue to bring up topics for discussion that may reside in these gray areas. I want to make sure the community can provide clarity for what it expects, and I enjoy leading those discussions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two simple answers: first, I will become more effective because I will get access to the moderation tools immediately; second, many flags and interactions with users require moderators and are not available to high-rep users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reputation-earning participation on the site has always been in a small subset of the community, the [tag:fluid-dynamics] questions. Because it is a small subset, it would be difficult to get from 10k to 20k and so I would be able to contribute more, immediately, as a moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a site for researchers of physics and students of physics. This is subtly different from physics students and physics researchers. I feel this site is best served by catering to those whom require and can share knowledge of the many areas of physics and not by catering to those who happen to be students in a physics class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A business major desperately trying to pass a kinematics class is a physics student and not the target audience. But an engineering student who needs to understand why a bridge may collapse is welcome (provided the questions and answers are about the underlying physics) because such a person is a student of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, we are not limited to physics researchers (those who research topics one would classically consider physics). A chemist who would like to understand the statistical mechanics underpinning of chemical reactions is welcome here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a moderator, I don't see how my views directly influence my actions. The community decides the scope of the site and it may grow, shrink, or otherwise adapt over time. My position as moderator is to lead the discussions, help formulate the resulting policies, and help educate users in the enforcement of the policies. The community is self-policing and will enforce the standards set forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a broad view of a users activity to understand whether there is a problem or not. We've all had bad days and so maybe the comments are out of character. It is also possible that, given the limited length of comments, that some things come across as rude/abrupt because they are succinct. This generally is the case when relatively new users feel slighted because they expect the site to behave like a traditional forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nature of the flags must also be considered. No user, no matter how knowledgeable, no matter how much reputation, may be threatening, post spam, nor make extremely offensive statements. To a lesser extent, *ad hominem* attacks are not welcome either. Content should be criticized, not people. And even in the criticism of content, it doesn't need to be rude to communicate effectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, the approach would be to build up a good understanding regarding the track record of the user in question and try to determine the motivations. It may be temporary, it may be targeted (the users in question may have a history together), it may be an overly-sensitive person flagging, or it may be a legitimate problem. And in some cases, it could be a combination of all of the above. Once the problem is understood, it can be approached accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to open a dialogue. Just because I feel something shouldn't have happened, doesn't mean that I am correct. It also doesn't mean that I am impartial -- perhaps I feel something shouldn't have been closed, but the policies are quite clear that it should have been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that moderators should create policy, but they do act as arbiters of policy and as a result, their actions may lead to policies expanding or contracting without it ever being formally written down. As this happens, it is important for other moderators (and especially for the users) to start a dialogue when they feel the actions have extended beyond the scope of the written policy. Maybe the result of the discussion is the actions should be formally written down because it is better for the site; perhaps the result is that the policy is clarified in an opposite direction of the actions taken. In either case, the role of the other moderators is to lead a discussion with the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is strong enough now that I would be hard pressed to imagine a truly egregious action would not be called to attention by regular users. And I hope that is the case -- the users are the ultimate resource of the site and the wishes of the community need to be respected. I would encourage users to discuss the rules and moderation of the site openly -- and most importantly -- in a civil and constructive fashion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="c4b873fd-8746-4414-a498-94797e61596c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is [this][1] meta question in scope for meta?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tthe general question of &quot;Is reposting a deleted answer acceptable?&quot; is clearly in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it isn't clear to me that the linked question is.  It seems plausible that &quot;Can someone look have a look at this?&quot; type questions aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9064/9887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="3d5c2d60-3e99-45a0-bb93-59b656614ae4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The tag [tag:efficient-energy-use] seems to be rather ill-defined. The tag wiki excerpt states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use the tag *Efficient Energy Use* in questions having to do with processes or engines or constructions where energy is spent or transfered and the efficiency thereof. Efficiency means both the measurement and the techniques and principles for its optimization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not seem to be a useful tag. What &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; *doesn't* transfer energy in some way? Optimizing a given &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; is not physics, it is engineering, and hence [off-topic here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4535/50583). Measuring the efficiency of some &quot;process or engine or construction&quot; seems *very* specific and doesn't deserve its own tag, in my opinion - tagging questions about the measurement of energy efficiency with [tag:energy] seems perfectly sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore propose the tag be removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="339ee26f-06f5-4f5c-9e5e-873d65b583e1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At the risk of you going off on a rail and misinterpreting it, here is the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent close reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546155/recent-close-reviews-and-their-outcomes)&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent reopen reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546195/recent-reopen-reviews-and-their-outcomes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the data you might want, going beyond this, is also public, in the SEDE. Given that you already know it exist, I don't think it's appropriate to raise this sort of allegation without at least some evidence of having tried to dig into the data.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data shows that a strong majority of close-vote reviews end up with question closure. Most reopen reviews end up with a leave-closed outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is important to note that this sort of dumb counting, without actually looking at the posts and whether they warranted closure/reopening or not. Since you do not have access to the queues it is understandable that you do not have a gauge on the typical content there, but the links above give plenty of information of what actually makes it to the queue. In particular, the second conclusion - few questions are reopened in the queue - bears a close match to the experience of reviewing that queue: for example, a significant fraction of questions on the queue are minor edits that barely begin addressing the problems with the post. The fraction that even approaches reopen-ability is rather low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, moreover, one crucial thing missing from the public data: **you cannot know the frame of mind of the people who reviewed posts** because **you cannot know the frame of mind of people, period**, and it is not appropriate to raise accusations that could only be proven if you had psychic powers. You stop short of making the explicit accusation that reviewers are not &quot;making an independent decision, without preconceptions&quot;, but the implication is pretty clear. This accusation is of this latter kind: you could only prove it by reading minds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, and to double down on [a previous comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9195/is-one-close-vote-all-it-needs#comment34420_9195), I don't think that any amount of public data will support your hypothesis. In particular, consider the following possible explanations for the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reviewers are by and large a fickle bunch and they tend to just close-vote anything in the review queue because it's there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Close-vote reviewers and 3k+ users at large have a generally robust consensus of the type of question that is on- and off-topic for the site, which naturally results in consistent reviews, and tends to put only close-worthy questions in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(These are, of course, *not* the only possible explanations.) Both scenarios explain the data, and neither can really be disproved without public data. The lesson I infer from that is that the question was flawed to begin with, but then I suspect I have about a snowball's chance in the [door to hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell) at convincing you of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do want to stress that raising this sort of accusation without data, where you *know* the data is there, is pretty inflammatory and unconstructive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="5f0c0b62-fd32-4bfb-8d47-7944fbd7f90b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My _personal_ viewpoint: there are no valid uses for [tag:soft-question] and we should burninate it (i.e. purge it from the system and forbid future use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, basically all questions which are given the [tag:soft-question] tag are either off topic, or don't really need the tag. I'm not entirely sure [what it means for a question to be soft](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273/what-is-the-soft-question-tag-for), anyway, but the questions we do allow that would fit most people's definition of &quot;soft&quot; are already identified by more focused tags like [tag:resource-recommendation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer emerges as the community consensus, we (mods) will arrange to have the tag removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9083" RevisionGUID="6df9d25b-bcb3-411f-9a2f-4cfedb4b3150" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are you sure the Answers (rather than the Questions) were from years ago? I have noticed some new users posting brief, comment-like answers to old Questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is the same as that of Kyle Kanos expressed in these 2 posts :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995/what-to-do-with-low-quality-posts-that-you-just-cant-delete?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/is-it-appropriate-to-use-the-low-quality-review-system-to-get-rid-of-bad-answe?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to deal with &quot;bad&quot; or &quot;incorrect&quot; answers is to comment and/or down-vote, not to delete.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="9d6b1825-c948-48bf-8eb4-40aa21bd8ddc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A short while ago I've received a request from another user to connect via facebook. Well, apart from the fact that I'm not very active on facebook, I'd definitely not like to provide any contact details on this site. That said, I was wondering whether there is some mechanism on this site whereby one can make this possible without the danger of unwanted contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice from previous meta [questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/886/2451) that one cannot send private messages because &quot;this is not a social network.&quot; I can understand that (tongue in cheek), and I respect that. So this is not a suggestion for such a messaging system, but perhaps some other mechanism to take discussions to a different medium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="cbe1233f-6e69-4d77-ae81-783912dfccaf" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This ties directly into a larger issue with flag that [recently came up](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8947/50583). The moderators are currently not deleting answer for being wrong because it is not they who should pass that judgement unilaterally, so it seems inconsistent if they deleted comments for being wrong. So there are two options here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The nuclear option: Delete *any* comment that gives an answer if it is flagged as *not constructive*, no matter its correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Do nothing: Leave answers in comments alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I belong to the users who leave answers in comments if I'm too lazy or too busy to expand them into a full answer, or because I plainly don't think the question deserves that much effort on my part, or also because some of my comment-like answers have incurred a number of upvotes that are frankly ridiculuous and I don't want my rep to be inflated by giving such effortless answers, I say: **Nuke answers in comments if they are flagged.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are for clarifying questions, pointing out inconsistencies, giving reasons for close/delete/down votes or otherwise improving the post being commented on. They are, obviously, often used for other things - making jokes, giving pseudo-answers, debating related topics, and more. Which is fine as long as no one is bothered by those comments. But as soon as such comment bother someone - indicated by a flag - all comments *not* evidently serving the primary purpose of comments should be deleted, mercilessly and without considering the abstract &quot;value&quot; or &quot;correctness&quot; of their content. The unique quality of the SE model is precisely that it does *not* allow the free form of forums, and we should not compromise on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="6eb6f336-15b6-41c2-863c-83b97d9d6923" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you see an answer with a net score of zero, it means one of three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not enough people saw the answer to read it, let alone vote.&#xD;&#xA; - People read it, but thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *bad*, but it isn't good enough to warrant an upvote.&quot; Alternatively, they might have thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *good*, but it isn't bad enough for me to downvote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - There were an equal number of upvotes and downvotes on the answer (you can see the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes [at 1,000 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first possibility, I'd guess, happens quite a lot. The answerer may have been &quot;late to the party&quot;, so to speak, and answered long after the question was asked, or the answer was simply overshadowed by other answers that accumulated a lot of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second possibility simply means that the answer wasn't good or bad. (Yes, people are generally more willing to upvote than dowvote, which is why I included a caveat: some people won't want to give up one rep point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third possibility means that the answer was controversial; this does happen, and means that people have quite strong views on it. If you check the vote count (once you reach 1,000 rep) and see that the voting's split, be wary, and read the comments under the answer to try to understand the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using that as a segue, you really should judge for yourself the answer, if possible; always read the comments below it, and the answer itself in its entirety.  You shouldn't decide to &quot;trust&quot; or &quot;distrust&quot; an answer based solely on how other people have voted. Votes don't always correlate with quality; some of my best answers (in my opinion) have gotten very few or no votes, while some of my less good answers have gotten inordinate amounts of upvotes. This is often due to a question getting onto the [Hot Network Questions list](http://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot), as [knzhou pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/what-do-answers-with-zero-votes-mean#comment34213_9142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The takeaway? Judge for yourself. See if you can follow the logic of the answer, and ask questions of the answerer in a comment if you don't fully understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treat/trust them no differently from one-vote, minus-one-vote, or X-vote answers: Judge them based on how well you can follow them. Don't choose to blindly trust them if you don't understand them; always investigate for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="ee796d6b-1ae6-4793-ae1c-37fe8379da4c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [tpg2114's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) questionnaire answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Side note -- thanks to [ACuriousMind's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9200/6634) post for being the first and setting a format)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand such users can, in mild cases, generate resentment about the way the system works, and in more serious cases, gain access to the tools awarded high-reputation users that may be inappropriately used and/or abused. The disparity between reputation for upvotes and downvotes is [a question I have raised previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4858/what-would-it-look-like-if-rep-for-questions-counted-the-same-more-than-answers) for discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at the time resulted in something that I still believe is true: a majority of high reputation users are not doing it for the reputation. [They are doing it to educate others and to share their passion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions/6568). So while some users may be able to game the system by producing mixed content, it will be relatively few. And I feel it would take a long time before they earned a high enough reputation to really do frustrating, site-harming levels of damage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long before that point, I would expect such users to either get bored or to mature to the point that it is no longer a problem. I don't think moderator intervention is required until actual damage is done, at which point the StackExchange platform and policies allow easy reversal of the damage and tools to remedy the situation with the user in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On some level, I challenge the premise of the question. I don't see that the two are diametrically opposed -- I believe the two go hand-in-hand. Quality questions and answers come from returning users, and the site grows by providing quality questions and answers so that users do return. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in that frame of reference, my focus would be on the **quality** of the site. By providing a wealth of information on a wide-variety of topics in physics, people will be driven to the site. And those who return will bring questions (and hopefully answers) that challenge and engage the users already here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, the role of a moderator in this process is relatively limited. Ultimately, moderators are an insignificant percentage of the content generators/handlers for the site -- the users must be engaged in quality and growth. To that end, as a moderator, my priority is ensuring that quality is maintained in a form that is welcoming and encouraging to users who want to be active participants in the goals of the site. Contrary to many of the debates the site has had previously, quality and friendliness are not opposites; rudeness is not required to communicate one's point effectively. This is, of course, balanced by the limited content length in comments (this is not a forum, after all) and the impersonal nature of the internet that may lead one to feel things are more personal and rude than they actually are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consensus is essential when there is uncertainty. Or at the very least, advice and guidance from those with more experience is essential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some actions create obvious situations where action must be taken. I can't enumerate a list here, but I will paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ([read about the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio)) and Lord-Justice Stuart-Smith ([the so-called Elephant Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test#Elephant_test)) -- I'll know it when I see it. Spam, derogatory and offensive language, threats, etc. are all obvious and require immediate action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle topics, particularly those involving returning users, require some discussion and consensus building. Particularly because it may be a one-off instance or it may be a repeat problem, something that a new moderator (or even an existing one) may not be aware of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put, as much as is needed. It would be hard to estimate how much time I actively spend on the site currently, I generally pop in and hang out for 10-15 minutes at a time, every few hours. As a result, it would be easy to catch things as they occur and deal with it accordingly. Naturally, more important or time consuming tasks can be completed as needed with very few scheduling constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the next several months, I will graduate. Given my current position in my research lab, virtually any job I take will be less time-consuming than what I am doing now. I may not be able to spare 10-15 minutes every few hours during the workday, but I will be able to dedicate longer stretches of time as needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I am biased in my perception, but I feel that all of my material on the site has been constructive, and most importantly, something I stand behind. My activity on [Meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) has been focused on formulating policies and helping to define the role of the site. I haven't won every argument, but I feel that I have always been civil, level-headed and supported the results, even when I don't agree with them. I have also engaged in discussions with users who, at various times, have rubbed others the wrong way or been rubbed the wrong way themselves. In the cases I can recall participating, I have tried to remain objective and impersonal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than champion myself, I would encourage everybody to review my participation on the site (and for that matter, on the entire StackExchange network). I will happily discuss any content, past or present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest change in day-to-day activity is refraining from pulling the trigger on the close vote since it is now binding. As a regular user, I have no problem expressing my opinion about whether a question is off-topic -- a question takes 4 others to agree and if I'm wrong as a regular user, no harm. As a moderator, that luxury no longer exists. On the other hand, I don't see putting a question &quot;on hold&quot; as a death sentence or a condemnation of the user or the topic. It is a chance to improve the question in a way that is fair to those who will spend time answering (nobody likes writing an elaborate answer only to have the question change drastically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this area, more than any others, is the best use of my skills as part of the moderation team. I have started several conversations directly regarding this area: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design &#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4540/what-is-the-fate-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/big-list-resource-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as extensive participation in related areas (as well as the dreaded &quot;homework&quot; topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7565/it-is-on-topic-to-ask-about-computer-software-useful-to-do-some-particular-task/7568#7568&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/network-science-can-be-a-branch-of-physics/7261#7261&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center/5604#5604&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5519/realistically-are-atmospheric-physics-questions-on-topic-and-acceptable/5520#5520&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic/7141#7141&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I firmly believe that we should not look at Physics.SE as isolated from the other sites in the StackExchange network. The entire network is like a library -- there is no reason to go to the physics shelf if I have a question about chemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gray areas are okay, provided the content is asking for an underlying explanation of the physics. My favorite punchline whenever this comes up is this: This is a site of **physics**, not **physicists** -- asking for a good apple pie recipe is not on-topic just because you are a physicist. Likewise, how to take derivatives are not on topic just because it came up in a mechanics class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a moderator, I would continue to bring up topics for discussion that may reside in these gray areas. I want to make sure the community can provide clarity for what it expects, and I enjoy leading those discussions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two simple answers: first, I will become more effective because I will get access to the moderation tools immediately; second, many flags and interactions with users require moderators and are not available to high-rep users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reputation-earning participation on the site has always been in a small subset of the community, the [tag:fluid-dynamics] questions. Because it is a small subset, it would be difficult to get from 10k to 20k and so I would be able to contribute more, immediately, as a moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a site for researchers of physics and students of physics. This is subtly different from physics students and physics researchers. I feel this site is best served by catering to those whom require and can share knowledge of the many areas of physics and not by catering to those who happen to be students in a physics class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A business major desperately trying to pass a kinematics class is a physics student and not the target audience. But an engineering student who needs to understand why a bridge may collapse is welcome (provided the questions and answers are about the underlying physics) because such a person is a student of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, we are not limited to physics researchers (those who research topics one would classically consider physics). A chemist who would like to understand the statistical mechanics underpinning of chemical reactions is welcome here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a moderator, I don't see how my views directly influence my actions. The community decides the scope of the site and it may grow, shrink, or otherwise adapt over time. My position as moderator is to lead the discussions, help formulate the resulting policies, and help educate users in the enforcement of the policies. The community is self-policing and will enforce the standards set forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a broad view of a users activity to understand whether there is a problem or not. We've all had bad days and so maybe the comments are out of character. It is also possible that, given the limited length of comments, that some things come across as rude/abrupt because they are succinct. This generally is the case when relatively new users feel slighted because they expect the site to behave like a traditional forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nature of the flags must also be considered. No user, no matter how knowledgeable, no matter how much reputation, may be threatening, post spam, nor make extremely offensive statements. To a lesser extent, *ad hominem* attacks are not welcome either. Content should be criticized, not people. And even in the criticism of content, it doesn't need to be rude to communicate effectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, the approach would be to build up a good understanding regarding the track record of the user in question and try to determine the motivations. It may be temporary, it may be targeted (the users in question may have a history together), it may be an overly-sensitive person flagging, or it may be a legitimate problem. And in some cases, it could be a combination of all of the above. Once the problem is understood, it can be approached accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to open a dialogue. Just because I feel something shouldn't have happened, doesn't mean that I am correct. It also doesn't mean that I am impartial -- perhaps I feel something shouldn't have been closed, but the policies are quite clear that it should have been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that moderators should create policy, but they do act as arbiters of policy and as a result, their actions may lead to policies expanding or contracting without it ever being formally written down. As this happens, it is important for other moderators (and especially for the users) to start a dialogue when they feel the actions have extended beyond the scope of the written policy. Maybe the result of the discussion is the actions should be formally written down because it is better for the site; perhaps the result is that the policy is clarified in an opposite direction of the actions taken. In either case, the role of the other moderators is to lead a discussion with the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is strong enough now that I would be hard pressed to imagine a truly egregious action would not be called to attention by regular users. And I hope that is the case -- the users are the ultimate resource of the site and the wishes of the community need to be respected. I would encourage users to discuss the rules and moderation of the site openly -- and most importantly -- in a civil and constructive fashion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="a58f4a72-ba4f-4972-8e23-92c13056c0ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I didn't vote to close your question, and I wouldn't have picked the reason &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot;  (And not all of the reviewers picked that reason, either, though [that information is not obvious](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/280545).)  However, I agree that your question as it currently stands (v7) is [a poor fit for Physics.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/44126).  You've started with a system at rest that can be described using electrodynamics and relativity, both of which exactly conserve linear momentum, and you're asking whether that system can spontaneously develop nonzero linear momentum.  From symmetry, the answer is: no, you've missed something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="34ac2d97-ab1c-4cbc-9381-b7c4ee968781" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, [apparently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection), we're 'scheduled' to have a moderator election later this month. What changes, exactly, will this election entail? Are any of the [existing moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) stepping down? How many new moderators will be elected? Is the number of moderators changing? If so, does this mean that the current load is more than what's reasonable for the current crew to handle as effectively as they'd like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="a260ba68-1439-46ca-959e-b41e5f394d84" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="On the meta question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8789/what-does-everyone-mean-by-insufficient-research-effort, in the third note below the question, user Chris White says &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in the comments, user Emilio Pisanty says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good point on explicit mobile links. [7.6k of them][1]! In the tens of percent of all Wikipedia links, too. Is that something we should fix? That's a pretty sizable project there, something like fifteen Copy Editor badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, should I go through the linked list and edit them so the links aren't explicit? It seems like it would be a good thing to do, but I want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume if it was to be done it would be done only a couple question/answers at a time, so as to not mess with the &quot;active&quot; question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=en.m.wikipedia.org%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com&amp;gws_rd=ssl&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="878baddf-09a0-4f09-baae-39d308ffb019" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this is a typical case where an initial close vote encouraged others, in a snowball effect. We've seen a very similar occurrence recently [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9277/how-are-these-two-questions-duplicates). This is worrying and should be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think much of this stems from a misguided urge to help the community, the thinking being that if a question already has close votes, it must be bad; hence anybody that can add close votes should do so, to 'get rid of the trash' faster. But the number of close votes required is set at 5 for a good reason, and this kind of thinking lowers the number to 1 or 2, making results much less reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close questions as duplicates unless they fully understand both questions, and their answers.&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close questions that contain equations as 'homework' unless they know how to answer the question themselves.&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close QM questions as 'unclear' unless they can confidently answer clear QM questions. (The same going for GR, QFT, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="65ccc552-0df0-4fb2-bb32-ddd24cb6a996" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="At the risk of you going off on a rail and misinterpreting it, here is the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent close reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546155/recent-close-reviews-and-their-outcomes)&#xD;&#xA; - [Recent reopen reviews and their outcomes](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/546195/recent-reopen-reviews-and-their-outcomes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the data you might want, going beyond this, is also public, in the SEDE. Given that you already know it exist, I don't think it's appropriate to raise this sort of allegation without at least some evidence of having tried to dig into the data.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data shows that a strong majority of close-vote reviews end up with question closure. Most reopen reviews end up with a leave-closed outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is important to note that this sort of dumb counting, without actually looking at the posts and whether they warranted closure/reopening or not. Since you do not have access to the queues it is understandable that you do not have a gauge on the typical content there, but the links above give plenty of information of what actually makes it to the queue. In particular, the second conclusion - few questions are reopened in the queue - bears a close match to the experience of reviewing that queue: for example, a significant fraction of questions on the queue are minor edits that barely begin addressing the problems with the post. The fraction that even approaches reopen-ability is rather low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, moreover, one crucial thing missing from the public data: **you cannot know the frame of mind of the people who reviewed posts** because **you cannot know the frame of mind of people, period**, and it is not appropriate to raise accusations that could only be proven if you had psychic powers. You stop short of making the explicit accusation that reviewers are not &quot;making an independent decision, without preconceptions&quot;, but the implication is pretty clear. This accusation is of this latter kind: you could only prove it by reading minds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, and to double down on [a previous comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9195/is-one-close-vote-all-it-needs#comment34420_9195), I don't think that any amount of public data will support your hypothesis. In particular, consider the following possible explanations for the data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reviewers are by and large a fickle bunch and they tend to just close-vote anything in the review queue because it's there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Close-vote reviewers and 3k+ users at large have a generally robust consensus of the type of question that is on- and off-topic for the site, which naturally results in consistent reviews, and tends to put only close-worthy questions in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(These are, of course, *not* the only possible explanations.) Both scenarios explain the data, and neither can really be disproved without public data. The lesson I infer from that is that the question was flawed to begin with, but then I suspect I have about a snowball's chance in the [door to hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell) at convincing you of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do want to stress that raising this sort of accusation without data, where you *know* the data is there, is pretty inflammatory and unconstructive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="d2629967-364f-48e5-9569-5ff78825efb6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A short while ago I've received a request from another user to connect via facebook. Well, apart from the fact that I'm not very active on facebook, I'd definitely not like to provide any contact details on this site. That said, I was wondering whether there is some mechanism on this site whereby one can make this possible without the danger of unwanted contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice from previous meta [questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/886/2451) that one cannot send private messages because &quot;this is not a social network.&quot; I can understand that (tongue in cheek), and I respect that. So this is not a suggestion for such a messaging system, but perhaps some other mechanism to take discussions to a different medium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="9d206852-78a0-48fe-8215-f4349fef8559" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading through some old meta discussions recently, and I was interested in some of the points made, but they never quite seemed to be implemented or discussed further. They also seemed to be buried among the various conversations about physics overflow and the various controversies surrounding that. So, I am asking the current community what they think of the following points; I will post my own personal opinion as an answer soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Too many questions that have math in them are closed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current stance on engineering questions is too harsh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions on these two appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;**Previous Meta Posts:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65/are-engineering-questions-ok&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="d6df3843-4610-48f5-94e1-53c282a5566c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I honestly doubt that notorious and institutional characters would contribute to the contents of this site *more than anybody else already does*. Let me rephrase the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have personally learnt and enjoyed the most physics here in answers (and comments) provided by users who, according to their profiles, are currently students, PhD students or PostDocs in any non-Harvard-or-Princeton University. People, I mean, who, still being professional physicists and reputed mathematicians, have the actual time and desire to write a complete and sensible answer to the posed question, contributing to the details and the comments, without the claim to advertise their last work soon to revolutionise modern quantum physics or tenure positions at the top rank University. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us not work around the fact that, due to many reasons, this site is not a researchers resource or the last frontier for brand new physics to emerge. It is a collection of (still interesting) average questions about standard physics that most (under)-graduate students could correctly answer with no headaches. Although strong emeriti physicists and Nobel Price awardees might be unbelievably gifted scientists, they would hardly contribute to detailed answer for the average questions we have - which is what we aim for, if I have correctly understood the purpose of the site. This with the due exceptions - luckily there are already strong experts who answer *some* questions (usually in their very own research field).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different would be the case if the site were indeed a resource for research in physics; in that case we should indeed promote the best player to stay on the field unless specified otherwise. But it is not (is it?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him as usual - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be, as already pointed out by [the answer above][1], in contrast with the purpose of the site. We judge the content, not the person, and if they provide sensible value according to the rules we are going by (whether good or bad they are) be they welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8973/84488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="afbdfd41-5838-4016-8c5e-3bb4e06a95a1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I didn't vote to close your question, and I wouldn't have picked the reason &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot;  (And not all of the reviewers picked that reason, either, though [that information is not obvious](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/280545).)  However, I agree that your question as it currently stands (v7) is [a poor fit for Physics.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/44126).  You've started with a system at rest that can be described using electrodynamics and relativity, both of which exactly conserve linear momentum, and you're asking whether that system can spontaneously develop nonzero linear momentum.  From symmetry, the answer is: no, you've missed something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="61d3753f-245d-4783-bd34-4096fbe07b18" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, some of you may have heard of how a couple of us tried to propose a new physics site for less conceptual questions and more problem solving, the proposal was closed, and we ended up creating a new site outside of the stack exchange network (see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) for more details). In this post, I'm going to explain the scope of the new site, the current site construction progress, and at the end, ask about what the community thinks about migrating questions and such matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Scope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is currently called [Physics Problems Q&amp;A][1], and is a site that is for students of physics, physics enthusiasts, and all those who love explaining physics. The purpose of the site is to help answer questions users have about solving specific problems about physics. We do require that work be shown, both the thought process and the actual math - to quote [our first meta post][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Defining &quot;efforts&quot; is most certainly not easy and merits some thought.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] We ask that you try to show two main things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Your train of thought, or why you were thinking what you were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking. So don't just put the math, necessarily, put why you thought&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that math was appropriate for the situation. Then, the answerer can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clarify whether or not that approach was appropriate, and why. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What you were thinking. This goes more along the lines of your actual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempt, i.e., the math you used to solve the problem. Sometimes this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not applicable like in situations where you have absolutely no idea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what to do. In that case we'd ask that you include #1 and why you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having trouble including #2. However, I would always include your math&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if you have it, even down to the more basic steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel welcome to join our site and read through this meta post to have an understanding of what our site is all about, and even contribute to the discussion!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Construction Progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is incredibly new. Currently, we have a meta, the main site, commenting, answering, flagging, closing, upvoting, downvoting, MathJax accommodation, a basic rep system (I'll be updating this with more information on that for the curious) - in general, the main features of a stack exchange site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main things we're missing is a full chat room - currently, it is moderators only and doesn't accommodate pictures and such, so currently we are using a [stack exchange chat room][3] (ping us there if you have any questions). We're also designing the background of the site, and the rep system might be updated as we find things we should fix. We're also editing the flagging and closing features such that you pick a reason instead of just typing in whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, please, please: ping us if you notice something terribly wrong or just something that bothers you - we'll work on that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Relations between Physics.SE and Physics Problems Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the open questions I have for the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some thoughts to get the ball rolling. Please, tell me what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=qa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=116/scope-%26-guidelines&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/47874/physics-problem-solving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="355c3cba-93b9-451c-9a5a-db7600a61752" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After posting an [answer][1] I received good comments highlighting an error in my understanding. To correct it would be a major edit, drastically and conceptually changing around half the text of my answer. But when I go to edit it, I am presented with a text box telling me to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;► fix grammatical or spelling errors&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► clarify meaning without changing it&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► correct minor mistakes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► add related resources or links&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;► always respect the original author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to allow the major revision that I want to make. [This accepted answer][2] says that &quot;Edits that turn an incorrect answer into a correct one is a **drastic** change and should not be done by anyone&quot;. Does &quot;anyone&quot; include the original author? Should I post a completely new answer instead? In that case, what should I do with the old, partially incorrect answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me  it feels the most natural to just edit the old answer and mention the edit in the corrected version. But I want to know for sure whether that is the best practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273124/expectation-value-of-hamiltonian/273154#273154&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6012/126646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="1455e5d3-75eb-48b3-abb3-24e84a6b7eeb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this is a typical case where an initial close vote encouraged others, in a snowball effect. We've seen a very similar occurrence recently [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9277/how-are-these-two-questions-duplicates). This is worrying and should be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think much of this stems from a misguided urge to help the community, the thinking being that if a question already has close votes, it must be bad; hence anybody that can add close votes should do so, to 'get rid of the trash' faster. But the number of close votes required is set at 5 for a good reason, and this kind of thinking lowers the number to 1 or 2, making results much less reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close questions as duplicates unless they fully understand both questions, and their answers.&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close questions that contain equations as 'homework' unless they know how to answer the question themselves.&#xD;&#xA;- People shouldn't close QM questions as 'unclear' unless they can confidently answer clear QM questions. (The same going for GR, QFT, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="005af966-0503-4fcb-bfd9-6b1792db493b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was closed on the grounds that it is not &quot;mainstream physics&quot;, and I was referred to [this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/).  That page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that criterion, my question would be allowed.  It did not propose a new concept or paradigm as far as I know, but it asked for evaluation of an idea within the context of mainstream physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="9ee7b99b-1cf0-4342-b4cf-b3ef3b15002a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My apologies if  this answer seems patronising in any way. It's based on mistakes I have made myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **This type of 2 line question will be closed**. _The following data pertains to the performance test of single acting reciprocating air compressor with bore 15 cm and stroke 12 cm. Suction pressure and temperature = 1 bar and 20ºC. Make calculations for the volumetric efficiency._ It shows no effort, no research and basically comes across as a **demand** for an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write **&quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images on phones and tablets will put users off. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users probably know the details of better than you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="f8e22f79-df41-40f6-b724-dd388421213f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, some of you may have heard of how a couple of us tried to propose a new physics site for less conceptual questions and more problem solving, the proposal was closed, and we ended up creating a new site outside of the stack exchange network (see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) for more details). In this post, I'm going to explain the scope of the new site, the current site construction progress, and at the end, ask about what the community thinks about migrating questions and such matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Scope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is currently called [Physics Problems Q&amp;A][1], and is a site that is for students of physics, physics enthusiasts, and all those who love explaining physics. The purpose of the site is to help answer questions users have about solving specific problems about physics. We do require that work be shown, both the thought process and the actual math - to quote [our first meta post][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Defining &quot;efforts&quot; is most certainly not easy and merits some thought.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] We ask that you try to show two main things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Your train of thought, or why you were thinking what you were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking. So don't just put the math, necessarily, put why you thought&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that math was appropriate for the situation. Then, the answerer can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clarify whether or not that approach was appropriate, and why. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What you were thinking. This goes more along the lines of your actual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempt, i.e., the math you used to solve the problem. Sometimes this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not applicable like in situations where you have absolutely no idea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what to do. In that case we'd ask that you include #1 and why you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having trouble including #2. However, I would always include your math&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if you have it, even down to the more basic steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel welcome to join our site and read through this meta post to have an understanding of what our site is all about, and even contribute to the discussion!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Construction Progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is incredibly new. Currently, we have a meta, the main site, commenting, answering, flagging, closing, upvoting, downvoting, MathJax accommodation, a basic rep system (I'll be updating this with more information on that for the curious) - in general, the main features of a stack exchange site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main things we're missing is a full chat room - currently, it is moderators only and doesn't accommodate pictures and such, so currently we are using a [stack exchange chat room][3] (ping us there if you have any questions). We're also designing the background of the site, and the rep system might be updated as we find things we should fix. We're also editing the flagging and closing features such that you pick a reason instead of just typing in whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, please, please: ping us if you notice something terribly wrong or just something that bothers you - we'll work on that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Relations between Physics.SE and Physics Problems Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the open questions I have for the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Would you be okay with us copying over (and attributing) some of your closed questions that would be on-topic at our site?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Would you want to have some of our closed questions that would be on-topic at your site? (One of our close reasons is &quot;too conceptual&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some thoughts to get the ball rolling. Please, tell me what you think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=qa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com//?qa=116/scope-%26-guidelines&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/47874/physics-problem-solving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="4ae05c8d-93c8-4372-87dc-d3880d8f85c2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="On some SE sites, it is normal that the closing reasons contain also a link to another SE site, where the question could have a better chance to survive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other SE sites, it is unthinkable and even suggesting this results around -20 on the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. this question is _not_ a duplicate of [this][2]: that post is asking a *migration path* to the Engineering SE, while I am questioning about the advantages/disadvantages of a *link to the Engineering SE in the close reason*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JsefT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6501/should-the-engineering-close-vote-be-changed-in-light-of-the-new-engineering-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="1f096b5f-6ab5-4548-9f25-aee972583a6c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.097" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is the second post of a series; the first can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/what-are-the-goals-of-this-site?cb=1) and the post that inspired this series of questions can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway/9096#9096).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the last post, the goals of this site are (by popular vote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[this] site should be &quot;for active researchers, academics and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students of physics and astronomy&quot;, and that we should encourage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posters to think of the site as a tool for jump starting their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking and not one for getting their work done for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind, some points to think about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing users to ask more basic questions?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing users to ask about more practical applications of physics, such as experiment design?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing questions that could be on chemistry.SE, on biology.SE, on astronomy.SE?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing questions that are less conceptual?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community has reached consensus, as before, an answer will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: There will be one more foundational question after this one, and then we will return to the discussion of close votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="5782587b-015d-409e-b00f-584604b11474" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One handy place for this information is [the user page of the Community ♦ user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), which gives the bot's inception date as 1 November 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, you can go to [the original Area 51 proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which gives a detailed breakdown of the milestones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The original proposal was posted on 2 June 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Private beta started on 2 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Public beta started on 9 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - The site graduated from beta status on 24 February 2011 ([source](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="0f4af04d-a7d3-4942-ae7b-cc177d81cf65" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="My apologies if  this answer seems patronising in any way. It's based on mistakes I have made myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have this post [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1], so I will only concentrate on the content part of the question, other than the click bait reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is aimed at users with rep points between 100 and 3000. If you have stuck around that long, you will know the basic etiquette, (for example, don't use all capitals, don't try to be too clever/funny and remember to accept answers, not just upvote them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome suggestions  that serve to improve this answer, within the contraint that brevity is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some possible ways to improve the chances of getting an answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Think of how your post looks to the users**. Pick a person that you respect on the site and write as if it's for them. Whether you like this particular phrase or not, you are in effect **selling** both yourself and your question, every time you post.  People, especially online, like things made easy for them, so make your question as easy as possible to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **This type of 2 line question will be closed**. _The following data pertains to the performance test of single acting reciprocating air compressor with bore 15 cm and stroke 12 cm. Suction pressure and temperature = 1 bar and 20ºC. Make calculations for the volumetric efficiency._ It shows no effort, no research and basically comes across as a **demand** for an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Don't write **&quot;There are similar questions&quot;**...write the link to those questions in your post since &quot;similar&quot; could mean a host of related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Whenever possible, **link to abstracts** in the first instance and let the user decide from there. If your link to a source necessitates a PDF, include  &quot;PDF Download&quot; in your link, otherwise on tablets and phone, the link won't seem to work, although the PDF is downloading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Avoid click bait titles**, you won't get respect for them and they don't improve the standard of the site. See [How To Write Good Titles For Questions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Do not use any more images than absolutely necessary**, and keep them small, as scrolling down unnecessarily large images on phones and tablets will put users off. Big images scream, &quot;look at me&quot;, which does not improve an otherwise valuable post. [Reducing Image Sizes ][2] is the place to visit regarding the correct image size to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Use paragraphs**,  because white space is free. Don't lose the users attention  by hiding a good question  in the middle of 3000 solidly packed words.  A paragraph is easily added by pressing the enter/return key **twice**, (not once) then preview your post before clicking to add it to the live question list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A screenshot or photo of a **short**  extract from a book (within copyright restrictions/ fair usage policies) can be converted to text using one of the many convert to text websites, which may improve your post, compared to posting a picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. **Put your question at the end of your post**, even if you have already got it written in the top and in the title. People misread posts all the time, so make sure you are clear in what you are asking. The readers are actually very often impatient and want to get the question as fast as possible, preferably in the title. If this is not convenient, at least use boldface in the text: My question is such and such, so the reader can skip text. For long posts: a summary that experienced users probably know the details of better than you do, may well suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/how-do-we-write-good-question-titles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3044/hidden-points-of-editing-you-probably-didnt-know/3048#3048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="83d83a64-4699-473b-8a11-31b367525d6d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Would it be useful to link the engineering SE on closed engineering questions or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, obviously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I want to remind everyone that applied physics has a lot of overlap with what you (particularly theorists) think of as &quot;engineering&quot;. If someone posts here asking about lab equipment etc. please do not jump for the &quot;off topic&quot; close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [talked about this before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering) and I gave a [well received opinion on how to think about engineering-ish posts on our site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering/6136#6136).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="7c4ea382-c341-49e4-b8c5-7db3a349d499" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One handy place for this information is [the user page of the Community ♦ user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), which gives the bot's inception date as 1 November 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, you can go to [the original Area 51 proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which gives a detailed breakdown of the milestones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The original proposal was posted on 2 June 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Private beta started on 2 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Public beta started on 9 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - The site graduated from beta status on 24 February 2011 ([source](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="d469dc16-6ab6-4fe4-9db6-a5b50de9d108" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;The homework tag should not exist in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;We shouldn't categorize questions that need partial &quot;hint&quot; answers because such questions are antithetical to the Stack Exchange format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question elicits the thought &quot;*I shouldn't give a straight answer because I'd be giving too much away*&quot;, then the question is off-topic to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;Any homework-like (or exercises-like or whatever the hell we should be calling this [a]) questions should show effort and focus on a particular conceptual or technical issue that has the OP stumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beg all reading this to comment on homework-like questions helping the OP pose more focused and well-posed questions whenever you can spare the few seconds it takes to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a]: Please read [this meta post regarding re-naming the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="dfaf4eb8-cd92-4406-9aa4-acdc77fb4ad6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have added the following paragraph to the [existing homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; internet site where my question might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to refine the language further if you want to. It's currently at the end but, to be honest, I don't see a clearer place further up where it could go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of changing the close reason, I don't think that that's really feasible. That middle paragraph is the only thing we can access, and it has some pretty strict length restrictions. It is currently highly optimized and you cannot add stuff without taking stuff that's already there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't say any more about this eternal bone of contention, but let me assure you that I do understand where you're coming from - it's just for some reason a much more difficult problem to get movement on than we thought.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="ef4a30db-54a3-4ac2-9512-a0d87f1a5581" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is [this][1] meta question in scope for meta?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tthe general question of &quot;Is reposting a deleted answer acceptable?&quot; is clearly in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it isn't clear to me that the linked question is.  It seems plausible that &quot;Can someone look have a look at this?&quot; type questions aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9064/9887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="53a640b2-0130-4cd7-af0a-d5efd8f933d8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm concerned at Meta posts such as [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9374/chosen-answers-with-many-negative-votes?cb=1). That's where a poster claims that an answer to a physics question is _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_ when it isn't. Indeed [the answer concerned (mine)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/297857/76162) refers to the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/401?highlightText=frequency#/vol6-trans/401?ajax) to support its case: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated&quot;._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer now has 10 downvotes, but there are no comments explaining why it's _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_. Nor are there any other answers which would inform the reader as to why it's evidently wrong. That's because it isn't, because Einstein was correct. Since one of the aims of physics stack exchange is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, a large number of negative votes for a correct answer makes an absolute mockery of the site. A random searcher will assume the negative votes mean the answer is most definitely incorrect, and will assume other answers with a large number of upvotes are correct, even when they're definitely wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've felt this has been a problem for physics stack exchange for some time. I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes. It's as if we have some posters who firmly believe that _what they think_ is correct, regardless of any lack of references or references to the contrary. They then come out with statements to the effect that _this is the mainstream view_ when actually it's a popscience view based on a rather peculiar mixture of arrogance and ignorance. It surely cannot be good to give free rein to people who don't understand say relativity and allow them to conspire to downvote and demerit or even censor correct answers, then bully posters into removing acceptance flags whilst refusing to address the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some moderation would be reasonable to address this? I see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, and I think that this issue is the reason why, not the many questions from non-experts. Another solution might be to make a list of discrepancies or contested answers and actively discuss them to flush out the issue of what's right and wrong. Without any action, I fear physics stack exchange is in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation. What to do? Your answers please. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done. Science is not a democracy, all the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right and vice versa. Perhaps the stack exchange model is simply not suitable for science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It's been 4 days now, and _still_ nobody has addressed the physics. I rest my case.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="a8940642-8291-4400-8162-05bc95d76f66" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have added the following paragraph to the [existing homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; internet site where my question might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to refine the language further if you want to. It's currently at the end but, to be honest, I don't see a clearer place further up where it could go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of changing the close reason, I don't think that that's really feasible. That middle paragraph is the only thing we can access, and it has some pretty strict length restrictions. It is currently highly optimized and you cannot add stuff without taking stuff that's already there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't say any more about this eternal bone of contention, but let me assure you that I do understand where you're coming from - it's just for some reason a much more difficult problem to get movement on than we thought.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9083" RevisionGUID="53e9b2f5-463f-4b17-89d4-e2fa44f14c08" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are you sure the Answers (rather than the Questions) were from years ago? I have noticed some new users posting brief, comment-like answers to old Questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is the same as that of Kyle Kanos expressed in these 2 posts :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995/what-to-do-with-low-quality-posts-that-you-just-cant-delete?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/is-it-appropriate-to-use-the-low-quality-review-system-to-get-rid-of-bad-answe?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to deal with &quot;bad&quot; or &quot;incorrect&quot; answers is to comment and/or down-vote, not to delete.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="bdb0329f-3d3f-4ecc-aeaa-53877336ce84" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm concerned at Meta posts such as [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9374/chosen-answers-with-many-negative-votes?cb=1). That's where a poster claims that an answer to a physics question is _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_ when it isn't. Indeed [the answer concerned (mine)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/297857/76162) refers to the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/401?highlightText=frequency#/vol6-trans/401?ajax) to support its case: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated&quot;._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer now has 10 downvotes, but there are no comments explaining why it's _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_. Nor are there any other answers which would inform the reader as to why it's evidently wrong. That's because it isn't, because Einstein was correct. Since one of the aims of physics stack exchange is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, a large number of negative votes for a correct answer makes an absolute mockery of the site. A random searcher will assume the negative votes mean the answer is most definitely incorrect, and will assume other answers with a large number of upvotes are correct, even when they're definitely wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've felt this has been a problem for physics stack exchange for some time. I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes. It's as if we have some posters who firmly believe that _what they think_ is correct, regardless of any lack of references or references to the contrary. They then come out with statements to the effect that _this is the mainstream view_ when actually it's a popscience view based on a rather peculiar mixture of arrogance and ignorance. It surely cannot be good to give free rein to people who don't understand say relativity and allow them to conspire to downvote and demerit or even censor correct answers, then bully posters into removing acceptance flags whilst refusing to address the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some moderation would be reasonable to address this? I see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, and I think that this issue is the reason why, not the many questions from non-experts. Another solution might be to make a list of discrepancies or contested answers and actively discuss them to flush out the issue of what's right and wrong. Without any action, I fear physics stack exchange is in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation. What to do? Your answers please. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done. Science is not a democracy, all the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right and vice versa. Perhaps the stack exchange model is simply not suitable for science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It's been 4 days now, and _still_ nobody has addressed the physics. I rest my case.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="40bdb848-87d9-4b2c-88f2-eacbb45822e5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Ask a Question page shown to new users contains a lot of guidance, including a link to MathJax help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are [strong UI reasons why this link is nowhere near as useful as we'd hope](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/), but we can at least make it point to something that's actually useful. It currently points to [this tutorial](http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/), which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GPta1.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which is nowhere near a useful resource. Despite the claims in a [recent attempt](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9133/) to duplicate a bunch of work and create a local tutorial of limited usefulness, we do in fact have a long-standing go-to tutorial for MathJax, over on the Mathematics meta site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HDjiu.png)](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent link over on Maths.SE links to their tutorial. Since we're already linking off-site for this, why don't we also link to theirs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a fair amount of support. Is it something the mods can change? Do we need to contact the community team? Have already done so? If so, have said whether it's feasible or not?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="2b2d17de-1d2c-4e76-8b52-7b601aed80e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer which is &quot;accepted&quot; by the OP is merely that - the answer which the OP most approves of at the time. It is not intended to be the &quot;best answer&quot; and there is no guarantee that it is even &quot;correct&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that a random searcher might wrongly assume the &quot;accepted&quot; answer is &quot;correct.&quot; But that is a fault in the *presentation* of the feature rather than its *operation* - how it appears rather than what it is intended to do. *(Perhaps the green tick needs to be replaced by something less evocative of official approval - a smiley face?)* And no sane visitor would think an answer &quot;correct&quot; if it has overwhelming down-votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Help Centre explains :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accepting an answer ... simply means that the author received **an answer that worked for him or her personally**. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of the site allow the OP complete freedom in choosing which answer to &quot;accept&quot; - even an answer which is &quot;obviously&quot; incorrect. Probably the choice in this case was intended to be a deliberate &quot;poke in the eye&quot; to those who criticised the question. However, any interference with this choice by a Moderator could only be done if there was an abuse of the system, and even then could only remove the green tick and not award it to another answer. I agree with John Duffield that such a practice would stray into censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing an &quot;accepted answer&quot; to ensure that it is the &quot;best answer&quot; would be altering the central purpose of the feature, and it would be fraught with difficulties. If the &quot;best answer&quot; is the one with the most upvotes the feature would be redundant. If it is the choice of some other user or group of users, then who exactly will have this privilege?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large number of upvotes is no guarantee that the answer is &quot;best&quot; or even correct. As with questions, it is only an indication of popularity. Votes for answers only indicate whether or not they are &quot;useful&quot;. This is explained in the Help Centre :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Why is voting important?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting is central to our model of providing quality questions and answers; it is how ...good content rises to the top...incorrect content falls to the bottom...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting up a question or answer signals to the rest of the community that a post is **interesting, well-researched, and useful**, while voting down a post signals the opposite: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information. The more that people vote on a post, the more certain future visitors can be of the quality of information contained within that post...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the two Johns that poor or incorrect content should be highlighted by :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. down-voting&#xD;&#xA;2. commenting&#xD;&#xA;3. posting a correct answer which others can up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*******************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Meta questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6867/  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9386" RevisionGUID="f955e13f-eb69-4eb1-b741-5e71fad332d9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You mean kinda like [FAQ questions (on the main site)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4653/8563)? That's an old effort, though, and I would argue that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There are already plenty of automated solutions, including the ability to sort by `votes` and by `frequent` on the main page and on specific searches. These automated solutions go a long way for e.g. finding that duplicate that probably exists. My impression is that search-then-filter-then-sort-then browse is an underused way to find content on this site, and it's a lot more powerful than we give it credit for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To go beyond that, you'd need a curated list, and we don't really have the volunteering capacity to keep such a curated list up to date. (However, if we suddenly get five people jumping at the chance, then go for it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. More than that, curated lists have the problem that they're pretty subjective, and if you're relying on the list to be an indicator of things like &quot;good&quot; or &quot;interesting&quot; questions, then making it depend on someone's subjective judgement is not, I think, a direction this site should be taking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if people want to jump on the old thread I linked to above and keep it up to date, there's nothing really stopping them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="5bb916c2-cda0-4a3d-8eb5-75998f234c41" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer which is &quot;accepted&quot; by the OP is merely that - the answer which the OP most approves of at the time. It is not intended to be the &quot;best answer&quot; and there is no guarantee that it is even &quot;correct&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that a random searcher might wrongly assume the &quot;accepted&quot; answer is &quot;correct.&quot; But that is a fault in the *presentation* of the feature rather than its *operation* - how it appears rather than what it is intended to do. *(Perhaps the green tick needs to be replaced by something less evocative of official approval - a smiley face?)* And no sane visitor would think an answer &quot;correct&quot; if it has overwhelming down-votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Help Centre explains :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accepting an answer ... simply means that the author received **an answer that worked for him or her personally**. Not every user comes back to accept an answer, and of those who do, they might not change the accepted answer even if a newer, better answer comes along later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of the site allow the OP complete freedom in choosing which answer to &quot;accept&quot; - even an answer which is &quot;obviously&quot; incorrect. Probably the choice in this case was intended to be a deliberate &quot;poke in the eye&quot; to those who criticised the question. However, any interference with this choice by a Moderator could only be done if there was an abuse of the system, and even then could only remove the green tick and not award it to another answer. I agree with John Duffield that such a practice would stray into censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing an &quot;accepted answer&quot; to ensure that it is the &quot;best answer&quot; would be altering the central purpose of the feature, and it would be fraught with difficulties. If the &quot;best answer&quot; is the one with the most upvotes the feature would be redundant. If it is the choice of some other user or group of users, then who exactly will have this privilege?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large number of upvotes is no guarantee that the answer is &quot;best&quot; or even correct. As with questions, it is only an indication of popularity. Votes for answers only indicate whether or not they are &quot;useful&quot;. This is explained in the Help Centre :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Why is voting important?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting is central to our model of providing quality questions and answers; it is how ...good content rises to the top...incorrect content falls to the bottom...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Voting up a question or answer signals to the rest of the community that a post is **interesting, well-researched, and useful**, while voting down a post signals the opposite: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information. The more that people vote on a post, the more certain future visitors can be of the quality of information contained within that post...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the two Johns that poor or incorrect content should be highlighted by :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. down-voting&#xD;&#xA;2. commenting&#xD;&#xA;3. posting a correct answer which others can up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*******************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Meta questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6867/  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="3426d3b9-4d82-47df-b116-1351e346b87e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you see an answer with a net score of zero, it means one of three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not enough people saw the answer to read it, let alone vote.&#xD;&#xA; - People read it, but thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *bad*, but it isn't good enough to warrant an upvote.&quot; Alternatively, they might have thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *good*, but it isn't bad enough for me to downvote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - There were an equal number of upvotes and downvotes on the answer (you can see the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes [at 1,000 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first possibility, I'd guess, happens quite a lot. The answerer may have been &quot;late to the party&quot;, so to speak, and answered long after the question was asked, or the answer was simply overshadowed by other answers that accumulated a lot of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second possibility simply means that the answer wasn't good or bad. (Yes, people are generally more willing to upvote than dowvote, which is why I included a caveat: some people won't want to give up one rep point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third possibility means that the answer was controversial; this does happen, and means that people have quite strong views on it. If you check the vote count (once you reach 1,000 rep) and see that the voting's split, be wary, and read the comments under the answer to try to understand the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using that as a segue, you really should judge for yourself the answer, if possible; always read the comments below it, and the answer itself in its entirety.  You shouldn't decide to &quot;trust&quot; or &quot;distrust&quot; an answer based solely on how other people have voted. Votes don't always correlate with quality; some of my best answers (in my opinion) have gotten very few or no votes, while some of my less good answers have gotten inordinate amounts of upvotes. This is often due to a question getting onto the [Hot Network Questions list](http://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot), as [knzhou pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/what-do-answers-with-zero-votes-mean#comment34213_9142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The takeaway? Judge for yourself. See if you can follow the logic of the answer, and ask questions of the answerer in a comment if you don't fully understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treat/trust them no differently from one-vote, minus-one-vote, or X-vote answers: Judge them based on how well you can follow them. Don't choose to blindly trust them if you don't understand them; always investigate for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="d9a01361-392b-41cb-8923-a43a803840a3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:  https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZUBV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="27891a17-03b7-47b8-90c0-db527c1f5216" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, [apparently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection), we're 'scheduled' to have a moderator election later this month. What changes, exactly, will this election entail? Are any of the [existing moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) stepping down? How many new moderators will be elected? Is the number of moderators changing? If so, does this mean that the current load is more than what's reasonable for the current crew to handle as effectively as they'd like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9386" RevisionGUID="32917b1c-9d20-4d0c-bff5-3f3ec489dd54" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You mean kinda like [FAQ questions (on the main site)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4653/8563)? That's an old effort, though, and I would argue that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There are already plenty of automated solutions, including the ability to sort by `votes` and by `frequent` on the main page and on specific searches. These automated solutions go a long way for e.g. finding that duplicate that probably exists. My impression is that search-then-filter-then-sort-then browse is an underused way to find content on this site, and it's a lot more powerful than we give it credit for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To go beyond that, you'd need a curated list, and we don't really have the volunteering capacity to keep such a curated list up to date. (However, if we suddenly get five people jumping at the chance, then go for it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. More than that, curated lists have the problem that they're pretty subjective, and if you're relying on the list to be an indicator of things like &quot;good&quot; or &quot;interesting&quot; questions, then making it depend on someone's subjective judgement is not, I think, a direction this site should be taking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if people want to jump on the old thread I linked to above and keep it up to date, there's nothing really stopping them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="ea4a30ec-52fe-4300-9ec7-4e889c598833" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:  https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/physics-swag-for-top-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZUBV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="bc291990-4303-4c35-879f-717f90b3ab57" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="08f9d73d-c445-49b2-afd7-f01791e7be16" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading through some old meta discussions recently, and I was interested in some of the points made, but they never quite seemed to be implemented or discussed further. They also seemed to be buried among the various conversations about physics overflow and the various controversies surrounding that. So, I am asking the current community what they think of the following points; I will post my own personal opinion as an answer soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Too many questions that have math in them are closed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current stance on engineering questions is too harsh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions on these two appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;**Previous Meta Posts:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65/are-engineering-questions-ok&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="3ea1d148-6ac2-41e2-b403-c14601ff9dae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best answer by a rookie&#xD;&#xA;Best answer by a user who created their account in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="5bee6545-ca22-455e-ad53-6b006bf93673" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Best layman's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer directed at the layman, which is very intuitive and well-explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="b896063d-9c77-4232-9ea2-acdc92cd781f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was closed on the grounds that it is not &quot;mainstream physics&quot;, and I was referred to [this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/).  That page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that criterion, my question would be allowed.  It did not propose a new concept or paradigm as far as I know, but it asked for evaluation of an idea within the context of mainstream physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="9966a2de-a479-4612-aa45-f31c921e4bd8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well researched, well formatted, and absolutely fabulous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="d5dd3bae-4969-40ee-9c63-b06018300216" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="bd2e9274-fb0e-4d9c-a68e-c0624eee6bdc" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best answer by a rookie&#xD;&#xA;Best answer by a user who created their account in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="fd00ce47-cb0a-462c-be09-739157f2d49a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Less is More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer to a question in the most concise and clear way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First suggested by [Martin Ender on PPCG][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/7911/53094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="d7e2030e-4412-4ec8-b1c2-b2c27ab1a2d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Best layman's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer directed at the layman, which is very intuitive and well-explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="5919634a-3d75-4cff-a724-7e9574a1b825" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is the second post of a series; the first can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/what-are-the-goals-of-this-site?cb=1) and the post that inspired this series of questions can be found [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway/9096#9096).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals of this site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the last post, the goals of this site are (by popular vote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...[this] site should be &quot;for active researchers, academics and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students of physics and astronomy&quot;, and that we should encourage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posters to think of the site as a tool for jump starting their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking and not one for getting their work done for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind, some points to think about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing users to ask more basic questions?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing users to ask about more practical applications of physics, such as experiment design?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing questions that could be on chemistry.SE, on biology.SE, on astronomy.SE?&#xD;&#xA; - How much leeway should we give in allowing questions that are less conceptual?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community has reached consensus, as before, an answer will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: There will be one more foundational question after this one, and then we will return to the discussion of close votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="0e4995b1-fd75-4338-984a-73df72a462df" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Most underrated answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awarded to an excellent answer, posted in 2016, which doesn't seem to have acquired as high a score at it probably should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="cb1f48a5-72a6-44f1-bdec-8c0b204b986e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Best question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well researched, well formatted, and absolutely fabulous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="a3fd8b64-178a-4b1b-8c95-e2e55164b878" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Community Work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best community wiki answer or question where two (or more) authors contributed a significant amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="11cc551c-970e-4b1d-9be0-91da37501949" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Less is More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer to a question in the most concise and clear way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First suggested by [Martin Ender on PPCG][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/7911/53094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="2e93d405-b99d-4f21-9f89-b7de53c172f0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Most underrated answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awarded to an excellent answer, posted in 2016, which doesn't seem to have acquired as high a score at it probably should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="ae48623e-662c-4a39-b2d2-097c0419a44a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Community Work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best community wiki answer or question where two (or more) authors contributed a significant amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="ec80ba2a-74f5-409f-8a15-e638a7f0e902" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have recently found instances of moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the community in the review queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are not blatantly off-topic - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to disrupt the community, as required by the [guidance for moderators in the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any necessity for moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog post [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which states that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added) David Z has pointed out to me that the help center *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for the exceptional rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by moderators developed when there was a shortage of reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the review queue for close votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If moderators think the review queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="dbcdc9b2-6aa0-47e7-888a-598cb1cc0a6f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The most obvious thing that's wrong with it is that you have posted an image of typeable text. Don't do that. You can use images for diagrams, but when it comes to things you can type, you should instead transcribe them into a post and put them in a quote block. You can use [MathJax](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) for math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next thing, and the reason it was put on hold, is that you're not asking a conceptual question. Actually, you don't really _ask_ anything, but the closest you come to stating a problem is when you say that you're not getting the right answer. That's not the sort of thing we handle. What we're looking for here are questions about procedures, like whether a particular formula is applicable to a particular situation, or how to choose the value of a certain variable, or whether you need to account for a certain force, or so on. So think about your question and identify what exactly it is that's holding you back from finding the solution. If you can't come up with anything other than that you're not getting the right answer, [this is not the place](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh) to ask your question. But if you are having a conceptual difficulty, like the examples I mentioned earlier, you can probably ask that here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="21bc6637-fadd-4999-adf8-c80f5724b47b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have recently found instances of moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the community in the review queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875  &#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are not blatantly off-topic - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to disrupt the community, as required by the [guidance for moderators in the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any necessity for moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog post [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which states that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added) David Z has pointed out to me that the help center *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for the exceptional rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by moderators developed when there was a shortage of reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the review queue for close votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If moderators think the review queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="802e6d1c-94b8-45f8-a952-42e92101d929" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best question asked in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite question, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="21c40c1a-c464-49c4-b96b-1469656e6eb0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The most obvious thing that's wrong with it is that you have posted an image of typeable text. Don't do that. You can use images for diagrams, but when it comes to things you can type, you should instead transcribe them into a post and put them in a quote block. You can use [MathJax](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) for math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next thing, and the reason it was put on hold, is that you're not asking a conceptual question. Actually, you don't really _ask_ anything, but the closest you come to stating a problem is when you say that you're not getting the right answer. That's not the sort of thing we handle. What we're looking for here are questions about procedures, like whether a particular formula is applicable to a particular situation, or how to choose the value of a certain variable, or whether you need to account for a certain force, or so on. So think about your question and identify what exactly it is that's holding you back from finding the solution. If you can't come up with anything other than that you're not getting the right answer, [this is not the place](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh) to ask your question. But if you are having a conceptual difficulty, like the examples I mentioned earlier, you can probably ask that here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="3c872751-ba38-49ac-9d21-f8c0b45f5073" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the most impressively clear and concise answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a clear and concise to a very simple question is not necessarily particularly impressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to a clear and concise answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="b9e36a53-a907-4d10-b9d3-b90116bea02d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best question asked in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite question, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="d89ce05e-0293-48f1-aeb2-776f0385524c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the best self-answered post in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-answered posts exist because the OP solved their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by making a post linking to a self-answered question and giving a *brief* description of why that self-answered question should win, or by upvoting an existing submission,&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, self-answered questions are not that easy to search for on the direct site search, so [here is a query for all of the 2016 ones](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/616423/self-answered-posts-from-2016), in case people find it useful (and which can then be refined by score / by tags / etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="b037f80a-a5e9-4e0a-bc93-0b439fe743d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the most impressively clear and concise answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a clear and concise to a very simple question is not necessarily particularly impressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to a clear and concise answer and giving a *brief* description of why that answer should win, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="3596d814-3dea-40ad-9694-e68f0e87557b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best layman answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A layman answer is an answer directed at those without expert training in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite layman answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="c0b76c56-d187-496e-b100-37d49619aa36" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the best self-answered post in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-answered posts exist because the OP solved their own problem, or because they took the time to write up something useful/interesting for the benefit of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by making a post linking to a self-answered question and giving a *brief* description of why that self-answered question should win, or by upvoting an existing submission,&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, self-answered questions are not that easy to search for on the direct site search, so [here is a query for all of the 2016 ones](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/616423/self-answered-posts-from-2016), in case people find it useful (and which can then be refined by score / by tags / etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="074807c9-3db5-4114-9061-163ae53689b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the best question asked in 2016 by a user whose account was made in or before 2014?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite qualifying question, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="0bd3813c-8498-4c48-8bfa-06c9ab32955c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was, in your opinion, the best layman answer in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A layman answer is an answer directed at those without expert training in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting an answer linking to your favorite layman answer, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="6c66bca0-540b-4a5a-bb7c-a16fadd4894f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the best answer posted in 2016 by a user whose account was made in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite answer given by a rookie, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="c4b73ba9-8aeb-4dac-b420-0bfe8376d2c8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the best question asked in 2016 by a user whose account was made in or before 2014?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite qualifying question, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="8b28b811-33f3-4eb8-afa5-1bcaf06a05c0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked [a question][1] ysterday. I explained there that I was unable to understand how can my speakers make sound when I receive a phone call. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is **put on hold** with a reason **This question appears to be about engineering**. There was the [link][2] to get more details. But I think the question is not about engineering. I read &quot;more details&quot; link. Still I think the question is valid for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308754/66322&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="5fadcca8-1120-4d17-8af9-2db0f4359511" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What was the best answer posted in 2016 by a user whose account was made in 2016?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote either by posting a link to your favorite answer given by a rookie, with a *brief* description of why it's your favorite, or by upvoting an existing post.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts two weeks, i.e. until Jan 29 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the [Best-of PSE 2016](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/best-of-pse-2016-description-and-categories).&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in providing a prize bounty for the winner (mostly highly upvoted answer of this meta post), please comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="59a706aa-a1a7-452f-9aeb-b8b24df5f42b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether a physical system in question is naturally occurring or artificial; it's still just physics.  The distinction's in the primary intellectual content of an issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Physics__:  Primary intellectual content is about why a physical system behaves the way it does, including understanding observations and predicting future observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Engineering__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to design, construct, or improve a technology.  Engineering often involves physics, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on design rather than observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Business__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to gain economic advantage from technology, or how others are doing so.  Business questions may involve physics or engineering, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on marketability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed question isn't about how to design a speaker or a specific commercial product.  It's a general physics question about a common physical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="b14b8d4f-06f1-40ba-8e77-2a25d039b74b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked [a question][1] ysterday. I explained there that I was unable to understand how can my speakers make sound when I receive a phone call. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is **put on hold** with a reason **This question appears to be about engineering**. There was the [link][2] to get more details. But I think the question is not about engineering. I read &quot;more details&quot; link. Still I think the question is valid for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308754/66322&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9568" RevisionGUID="6d18ba96-338e-4c65-b21f-5d84fa728151" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="3c9eee96-8203-4d7b-bf01-3ab464c18803" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The decision to close is inconsistent with the criteria expressed in the linked question, &quot;[Are engineering questions appropriate for this site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site/)&quot;.  The top-voted/accepted answer clearly communicates that it's the design process behind Engineering that's off-topic here, not the physics of engineered devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether a physical system in question is naturally occurring or artificial; it's still just physics.  The distinction's in the primary intellectual content of an issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Physics__:  Primary intellectual content is about why a physical system behaves the way it does, including understanding observations and predicting future observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Engineering__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to design, construct, or improve a technology.  Engineering often involves physics, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on design rather than observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * __Business__:  Primary intellectual content is about how to gain economic advantage from technology, or how others are doing so.  Business questions may involve physics or engineering, but the distinguishing quality is a focus on marketability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed question isn't about how to design a speaker or a specific commercial product.  It's a general physics question about a common physical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="1b05f5a4-2662-4a12-b3b8-26eb98959718" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[User] was suspended for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did they do? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they had a lot of interesting questions, too. They are a young titan. I would like to cite @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished their fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they need at least a significant reduction of their term. In their age, time is going much slower, a year for them is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: just for 2 days ago, they asked: [Can I get a warning before I am suspended?][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9590/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9568" RevisionGUID="8a245588-cb18-4ba8-b902-04c527d69d75" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="ffc08c2f-eace-4b07-b93d-8b752f3cec68" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[User] was suspended for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did they do? Only low-level contributions isn't a reason to suspend anyone. Particularly not for such a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they had a lot of interesting questions, too. They are a young titan. I would like to cite @Plutarch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site now extinguished their fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they need at least a significant reduction of their term. In their age, time is going much slower, a year for them is like 5 years for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: just for 2 days ago, they asked: [Can I get a warning before I am suspended?][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9590/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="6a2f3466-f64b-4298-a23f-8fcc05ebbdd4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumber regulations by the EU came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and a decision made amongst themselves - with the best of intents, to be sure, but perhaps not as well backed up as they claim. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mention of user support also doesn't make much sense; as another meta post here that I agree with says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as casus belli to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. - [Bernard Meurer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9604/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starred messages in chat lead to the changing of the room name, and look what happened there. People got upset (though not as upset here, because it wasn't a super-serious issue, and everyone agreed on a policy to just change it back whenever it was changed). Why should this be any different? Starred messages in chat are not an indication of user agreement with a policy when made out of context, and even in context are not as reliable as a meta post - this is a more formal setting *meant* for the creation and implementation of policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Edit (to this section only):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to ACuriousMind's comment below that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;tiny, not really there 'precedent'&quot; was neither tiny nor &quot;not really there&quot; but it is in the nature of SE moderation that I can't point you to it because the offending conversations have been removed from the rooms where they happened. I can only point to the fallout in form of the meta.SE posts which I have repeatedly done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote my response in the comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand you discussed it, and that there may have been inflammatory conversations in other chat rooms, and that these may have lead to the meta posts you linked, but I am merely addressing what the linked meta posts say, and these truly have little to no precedent for the decision you made, which was to ban political discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate on my meaning there: inflammatory discussions don't equal precedent for banning that topic of discussion. All they should mean is to keep an extra eye on discussions of that sort. The meta posts caused by these inflammatory discussions would be the place where any precedent would be created, something along the lines of &quot;politics discussions should be banned&quot; - but that didn't happen in the meta posts, as I describe above. So I still must stand by my point that there is little to no precedent for the ban of political discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments on this page (and in chat) like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact **I thank them** for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="9860bd0a-5994-437e-9050-be3324c63441" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**A brief summary** of the arguments in this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That there was given a complete lack of explanation of thought process in the days leading up to and even after this meta post by mods - especially a poor announcement of the situation (meta post made after the mods started deleting posts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. That the ban of politics itself is overly broad, unclear, strange, and without precedent.&#xD;&#xA; 3. That there was a lack of user input in this ban in a *user-input based site*, and the mods have been strictly against user input (at least, until a lot of people reacted very negatively).&#xD;&#xA; 4. The overly strict enforcement of the ban, with too many deletions, too little explanation of what was okay and what wasn't, and general mayhem in the chatroom even if cucumber regulations by the EU came up.&#xD;&#xA; 5. And finally, the fact that the mods haven't done the best of jobs of communicating with users exactly what was going on, what the rules were, and why they were doing what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of this post is supported by a conversation had in the Physics Meta chat, some of which has been posted as an answer by ACuriousMind (though I feel that he cut out significant important portions, but that's as may be). In-chat comments mentioned will be linked wherever possible. This post will probably be updated in the near future as I think of new points or respond to whatever may happen in the comments. Finally, this post was made after ACuriousMind announced in chat the probable removal of this policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as &quot;try to stay clear of politics&quot;, regardless of what &quot;politics&quot; exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such - [ACuriousMind, February 7, 4:58 PM UTC](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278976#35278976)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I decided to still post my argument for the record and to formalize the argument I made in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In-depth arguments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta post is here (thank goodness) but mods enforced the rule (without much explanation, without the clear &quot;common sense&quot; mentioned, and with deleting) the day before the meta post went up, at minimum. When the post was finally made, after much criticism, we have not much explanation as to why this ban is even necessary. There's a quote from Shog9's post on mother meta, some hand-waving is done with precedent and uncivility in the chat and then that's it. But the paragraph before the current quote from Shog9's post is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If y'all wanna talk about politics, good on ya - this is important stuff, and deserves to be discussed. We have an entire site dedicated to the topic, and **even sites that aren't dedicated to politics can still have civil political discussions.** (bolding my own)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you read the whole post, the paragraph that quoted alone makes it seem like that the community mods want us to take political discussions over to politics.SE or a different room actually falls into context and one takes it as more of a suggestion. There's no real precedent for this decision, either - in Physics Meta chat, user vzn said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Shog9 can you think of any precedent on other sites? eg recorded in meta? it would be interesting to know of other cases around SE for comparison - [vzn, 11:54 PM UTC, February 6](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265310#35265310)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Shog9 replies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @vzn Gaming has had various policies like that on and off. Currently mostly off, but at the cost of several unpleasant experiences. - [Shog9, 11:54 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35265327#35265327)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the precedent is a paragraph suggesting it as a possible alternative in a meta post that's more focused on toning down political discussion, *not* removing it, and occasional on and off banning of politics on Gaming.SE. That doesn't seem to be nearly as strong a precedent as the mods seem to be saying - for example, mod ACuriousMind said at today's (February 7) chat session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, let me also say that this wasn't borne of nothing. [...] - [ACuriousMind, 4:29 PM](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35278100#35278100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't borne of nothing, no, but it doesn't seem to be borne of much at all except a tiny, not really there &quot;precedent&quot; and a decision made amongst themselves - with the best of intents, to be sure, but perhaps not as well backed up as they claim. The mods didn't, and haven't, provided much explanation beyond this supposed precedent. There has been no explanation of the mod thought process towards this decision (which I'd especially like to know now that the mods themselves seem to be ready to mark this as a &quot;failed experiment&quot;) which was both upsetting for chat users and also a bit disconcerting on a user-input based site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must also speak here against the analogies made between the ban on politics and the Be Nice policy. These are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. The Be Nice policy is, as I put it in a chat comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sort of universal rule - most everyone agrees we should live by it. &quot;no politics&quot; is not a universal rule. - [heather](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No politics is most decidedly not a universal rule like the Be Nice policy. The mods using this as an analogy to justify enforcing it doesn't make any sense to me. A policy like this is distinctly different and requires user input (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mention of user support also doesn't make much sense; as another meta post here that I agree with says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You looked at a message in chat that had 8 stars, one of which is from me, took it as some form of common will and used it as casus belli to ban Politics as a whole. Not only that's not fair to the people who starred that message in context, but had no intention to be part of something like this, it's lack of basic decency. - [Bernard Meurer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9604/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starred messages in chat lead to the changing of the room name, and look what happened there. People got upset (though not as upset here, because it wasn't a super-serious issue, and everyone agreed on a policy to just change it back whenever it was changed). Why should this be any different? Starred messages in chat are not an indication of user agreement with a policy when made out of context, and even in context are not as reliable as a meta post - this is a more formal setting *meant* for the creation and implementation of policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Edit (to this section only):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to ACuriousMind's comment below that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;tiny, not really there 'precedent'&quot; was neither tiny nor &quot;not really there&quot; but it is in the nature of SE moderation that I can't point you to it because the offending conversations have been removed from the rooms where they happened. I can only point to the fallout in form of the meta.SE posts which I have repeatedly done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote my response in the comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand you discussed it, and that there may have been inflammatory conversations in other chat rooms, and that these may have lead to the meta posts you linked, but I am merely addressing what the linked meta posts say, and these truly have little to no precedent for the decision you made, which was to ban political discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate on my meaning there: inflammatory discussions don't equal precedent for banning that topic of discussion. All they should mean is to keep an extra eye on discussions of that sort. The meta posts caused by these inflammatory discussions would be the place where any precedent would be created, something along the lines of &quot;politics discussions should be banned&quot; - but that didn't happen in the meta posts, as I describe above. So I still must stand by my point that there is little to no precedent for the ban of political discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The ban itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The politics ban is overly broad, first of all. If the thing you're banning is large enough there's a whole stack exchange site about it, that's generally a bad sign. All semi-jokes aside though, why are we banning such a large area of discussion, especially one that's been going through without problems until Donald Trump's inauguration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leads me to my next point about this ban: it's really unclear. The mods have swung back and forth between &quot;no politics&quot; and &quot;no non-inflammatory politics&quot;. There's a difference, and it's important! What constitutes politics? What doesn't? ACuriousMind says that &quot;common sense&quot; should be brought into play, but I saw deletion going on in chat on minor items that barely mentioned politics (discussed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conversation with DavidZ only emphasized further this point. Another member of the conversation mentioned the usefulness of previous discussions about politics, referencing a discussion about a past law. DavidZ responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @DanielSank (that's barely even political, anyway) - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264152#35264152)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some messages later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's barely political, to my knowledge. I don't know what else to tell you. It's just a law. - [DavidZ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264308#35264308)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user responded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's... political by definition. - [Daniel Sank](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264312#35264312)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself found the conversation clearly political in nature. In a nutshell, we had significantly differing definitions of politics, and DavidZ's differed from ACuriousMind's, which in turn differed from Daniel Sank's and mine. If we have such widely differing definitions of politics, how can we use &quot;common sense&quot;? The answer is, we can't, and we must have a more clearly defined issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, we shouldn't be banning politics. The real problem is something along the lines of Donald Trump, or the immigration ban, or Donald Trump as relating to his recent election to president. The problem isn't the whole field of politics. It's something more specific, that's happened recently. Political discussions have been going on for a while without any problems. The mods should have undertook discussion *with users* to ascertain the truly problematic *specific* line of discussion (remember, users have been talking politics for a while before this ban got suggested) and then maybe if there was a general consensus, that could've gotten implemented as an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lack of user input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack exchange is by nature a site that is based on user input, both in content and in moderation. What is on or off topic is decided on meta and in reviews, by *users*, not mods. In the classic blog post [A Theory of Moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), Jeff says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the very first version of Stack Overflow faq way back in mid-2008, our goal has always been to give power back to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Stack Overflow is run by you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is strongly, completely in favor of discussing these sorts of things with users, especially those users affected. But the mods in this case *didn't* do that. Why? I have no idea. I've seen the idea that this is analogous to the Be Nice policy, but I've shown already that this is not the case - this is about what we can talk about, kind of like rules about what we can post about on the main site. That's decided by users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the mods have stated multiple times that they weren't looking for user input! Why? This seems to be a huge mis-step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We're] not asking for user-sourced policy because of what we started this discussion with: Both the Be Nice policy and the confinement of politics to separate chat rooms are general SE philosophy; that's not something we physics mods just made up on the spot. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35264069#35264069)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User sourced policy, especially in a case like this, is exactly what should be happening. This isn't the Be Nice policy, there isn't really a precedent - this is, effectively, something the mods have made up after a few days of private debate. Another thing the mods said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it. - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35263654#35263654)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not political discussion should be allowed is not the same as whether or not participants should Be Nice! The same arguments apply here. What is on and off topic for discussion has been and should be a user-input centered thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Overly strict enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods have seemed a little over-eager to delete recently, as evidenced by comments on this page (and in chat) like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] you guys are going crazy with the deleting [...] - Bernardo Meurer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honestly, the moderators are often deleting things that are hardly offensive, like &quot;you're trolling me&quot;. It's very aggravating and does not help anyone feel more comfortable in the chat. - Sir Cumference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some of these were comments related to the politics ban, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work. - [Kyle Kanos](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35237626#35237626)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this comment political at all, especially in what was a joking context? When asked, ACuriousMind said that the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] triggered the rest (Emilio asking to stop, snide comments about countries with oil, etc.) - [ACuriousMind](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775?m=35264285#35264285)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rest being some inflammatory comments that I haven't seen but were apparently there.) But is this really the appropriate course of action? Why was this comment removed? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable comment that falls well within the bounds of common sense. If the inflammatory comments came up, then remove them and if it has been a pattern, ban the users. Why delete a perfectly on-topic comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been multiple other examples of this issue, and while it extends beyond the question of whether or not political discussion should be allowed, it did happen multiple times where not-so political comments were deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unclear communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this, the mods have unfortunately had trouble explaining what they meant and not communicating at all until rather late in the game. Case in point: the mods started enforcing this rule and deleting messages *at least* the day before the meta post, if not earlier. The mods have also had conflicting messages about what exactly was meant by the ban (see point three), and didn't engage in conversation with users until the day of the meta post. This is unfortunate and made an already poor situation even worse. In the future, I'd request that the mods err on the side of more communication rather than less, and more user feedback rather than less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions/points about what I've written, feel free to comment, and I'll try my best to respond. Anyway, I'd like to point here that I'm most certainly *not* insulting the moderators, in fact **I thank them** for being willing to step back on their mistake and work to fix it. While I think there's more they could've done and can be doing, they are trying, and I still stand by the votes I cast in the recent moderator election. So I must thank them for their service, and their repeated work to make this site a great place to learn physics, as well as argue over policy on meta. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9625" RevisionGUID="ca7332de-11d2-4c78-b083-40345866db72" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;When does down-voting actually harm the site's culture, despite the voting guidelines, and how could such be assessed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that downvoting would actually harm the culture if all questions and answers were downvoted into oblivion. As long as there are a few competent voters, I have no concerns this would ever happen. Perhaps a looser constraint&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; would be if the number of downvotes over times increases to beyond the upvotes over time (i.e., more downvotes given than upvotes). But [that isn't happening](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/627313).&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple way to address such an active harm would be to post it on Meta as you've done (and [John Rennie as well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6754/)). As JohnDuffield mentioned as well, [physics chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) is another place to bring this up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How are/ and are voting guidelines occasionally reviewed/ modified to keep things &quot;pleasant&quot; so to speak? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there *are* any voting guidelines on any SE site and I don't think there *should be* any guidelines. Ever. Your vote is yours to do with it as you please, even if it's to downvote an answer that is actually correct or give an upvote to an answer that is strongly downvoted.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I am not sure I'd believe such a statistic, but I think an argument could be made for this one.  &#xD;&#xA;2. The number of downvotes is increasing, but at a lower rate than posts made and upvotes granted.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Both actions are generally looked down upon here, but there is not actually anything that can be done about it, so we all just live with it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9625" RevisionGUID="f4081bc3-020c-4a6b-b1a0-0440dc836a92" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;When does down-voting actually harm the site's culture, despite the voting guidelines, and how could such be assessed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that downvoting would actually harm the culture if all questions and answers were downvoted into oblivion. As long as there are a few competent voters, I have no concerns this would ever happen. Perhaps a looser constraint&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; would be if the number of downvotes over times increases to beyond the upvotes over time (i.e., more downvotes given than upvotes). But [that isn't happening](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/627313).&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple way to address such an active harm would be to post it on Meta as you've done (and [John Rennie as well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6754/)). As JohnDuffield mentioned as well, [physics chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) is another place to bring this up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How are/ and are voting guidelines occasionally reviewed/ modified to keep things &quot;pleasant&quot; so to speak? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there *are* any voting guidelines on any SE site and I don't think there *should be* any guidelines. Ever. Your vote is yours to do with it as you please, even if it's to downvote an answer that is actually correct or give an upvote to an answer that is strongly downvoted.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I am not sure I'd believe such a statistic, but I think an argument could be made for this one.  &#xD;&#xA;2. The number of downvotes is increasing, but at a lower rate than posts made and upvotes granted.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Both actions are generally looked down upon here, but there is not actually anything that can be done about it, so we all just live with it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="ffcd1fbb-5c24-4d01-bc05-61262f29b97c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Resource-recommendation questions are very hard to handle, and they were in fact deemed completely off-topic for several years until we managed to work out a consistent policy that lets the good stuff in without wreaking havoc. The result of the policy is at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and you should read it carefully (and ideally its previous revisions and their links to other questions here and elsewhere on the network and the Stack Exchange blog) to get a sense of where the rules come from. In particular, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list gives a good sense of what the problems are with unrestricted resource-recommendations questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems, specifically, is that if those questions are allowed to have arbitrary 'level' specifications, it spawns an unchecked granularization that renders them useless. Thus, if you allow &quot;books about rotational kinematics for undergraduates&quot; in addition to &quot;books about rotational kinematics&quot; in general, why not &quot;books about rotational kinematics if I'm halfway through my analytical mechanics&quot; or &quot;books about rotational kinematics for undergraduates but don't use fancy math&quot;, or.... . This makes all of the questions less useful, and it takes a definite toll on the signal-to-noise ratio of the site in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we tend to err on the side of making questions as coarse-grained as possible. If you don't like it, sorry: this site is not meant to be (and cannot be) all things to all people, and when some class of questions directly harms the site's ability to fulfill its core aspects, then those questions get restricted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your specific question, my feeling is that the proposed duplicate contains plenty of resources that address what you're looking for (and thus your new question would be harmful fragmentation of the existing lists). If you feel this isn't the case, you can offer a bounty on the old question asking specifically for answers that emphasize a certain subtopic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to propose a change in policy, you're welcome to do it, and this meta is the place to do it. However, as always, if you do it without understanding the problems that the existing structures were meant to solve, and providing alternative mechanisms to cope with those problems (or arguing conclusively that they're not actually problems), then your policy proposals will be of very little use indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="4a92351f-ac42-4615-a6b9-a6f41bc4cbe5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Resource-recommendation questions are very hard to handle, and they were in fact deemed completely off-topic for several years until we managed to work out a consistent policy that lets the good stuff in without wreaking havoc. The result of the policy is at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and you should read it carefully (and ideally its previous revisions and their links to other questions here and elsewhere on the network and the Stack Exchange blog) to get a sense of where the rules come from. In particular, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list gives a good sense of what the problems are with unrestricted resource-recommendations questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems, specifically, is that if those questions are allowed to have arbitrary 'level' specifications, it spawns an unchecked granularization that renders them useless. Thus, if you allow &quot;books about rotational kinematics for undergraduates&quot; in addition to &quot;books about rotational kinematics&quot; in general, why not &quot;books about rotational kinematics if I'm halfway through my analytical mechanics&quot; or &quot;books about rotational kinematics for undergraduates but don't use fancy math&quot;, or.... . This makes all of the questions less useful, and it takes a definite toll on the signal-to-noise ratio of the site in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we tend to err on the side of making questions as coarse-grained as possible. If you don't like it, sorry: this site is not meant to be (and cannot be) all things to all people, and when some class of questions directly harms the site's ability to fulfill its core aspects, then those questions get restricted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your specific question, my feeling is that the proposed duplicate contains plenty of resources that address what you're looking for (and thus your new question would be harmful fragmentation of the existing lists). If you feel this isn't the case, you can offer a bounty on the old question asking specifically for answers that emphasize a certain subtopic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to propose a change in policy, you're welcome to do it, and this meta is the place to do it. However, as always, if you do it without understanding the problems that the existing structures were meant to solve, and providing alternative mechanisms to cope with those problems (or arguing conclusively that they're not actually problems), then your policy proposals will be of very little use indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="5bf5762f-6e6f-4a59-bd1f-25f08dde5503" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to raise a point for discussion. It concerns moderation, and I think the best way I can summarise it succinctly is _open justice v secret police_. It came up on [this post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9606/76162), where DavidZ said _&quot;the moderators do not discuss individual suspensions in public&quot;_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a degree of secrecy to the moderation at Stack Exchange, and that such is the wrong approach. If in the real world somebody is convicted of a crime, the public are aware of the facts. It's what underlies open justice. Without open justice there tends to be _in_ justice. Check out [family courts secret justice](https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=EUM_VY2-Juiq8wfv_oCgDA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=family+courts+secret+justice). Here in the UK we've had some grim stories of people jailed in secret for virtually nothing. See for example [this report](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/the-terrifying-tale-of-how-britains-most-secret-court-imprisoned/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;The latest case has elements of all these others. It again centres on a septuagenarian grandmother, who was last month sentenced to six months in jail for reasons which beggar belief. Her only offence was to have refused to sign a letter she regarded as 'quite improper', authorising British social workers to remove an 81-year-old man from Portugal, his native country, to bring him back to England against his wishes&quot;._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you might say that this can't be relevant to a mere website like stack exchange, but I think it is. Because I'm sorry to say, _power corrupts_. No offence to the moderators who give up their time here, but people are very good at confirmation bias and conviction. They have an amazing ability to persuade  themselves that some groupthink or &quot;official&quot; action they're taking is right and proper, even when it isn't. Particularly when self-interest is whispering in their ear. I'd say it's only public scrutiny that keeps them in check. _Open justice_. Without that, it's a slippery slope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators do not discuss suspensions at all, and there's no evidence of why a person has been suspended, you don't know if they've been suspended fairly or unfairly. So you don't know if you're getting into a _first they came for the socialists_ situation. You don't know whether your moderators are turning into thought police. And the crucial point is this: _nor do they_. I think that needs to change, because it could be bad for Stack Exchange. I don't think it needs to change totally. But I do think all warnings and suspensions should be listed with a reason and an example. On rare occasions I'd say it's OK not to give the example because it absolutely had to be deleted, but IMHO this should be the exception rather than the rule.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Discuss!_   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="9bc8e7cc-f0ed-414f-a05e-a707b638e1d0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to raise a point for discussion. It concerns moderation, and I think the best way I can summarise it succinctly is _open justice v secret police_. It came up on [this post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9606/76162), where DavidZ said _&quot;the moderators do not discuss individual suspensions in public&quot;_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a degree of secrecy to the moderation at Stack Exchange, and that such is the wrong approach. If in the real world somebody is convicted of a crime, the public are aware of the facts. It's what underlies open justice. Without open justice there tends to be _in_ justice. Check out [family courts secret justice](https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=EUM_VY2-Juiq8wfv_oCgDA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=family+courts+secret+justice). Here in the UK we've had some grim stories of people jailed in secret for virtually nothing. See for example [this report](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/the-terrifying-tale-of-how-britains-most-secret-court-imprisoned/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;The latest case has elements of all these others. It again centres on a septuagenarian grandmother, who was last month sentenced to six months in jail for reasons which beggar belief. Her only offence was to have refused to sign a letter she regarded as 'quite improper', authorising British social workers to remove an 81-year-old man from Portugal, his native country, to bring him back to England against his wishes&quot;._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you might say that this can't be relevant to a mere website like stack exchange, but I think it is. Because I'm sorry to say, _power corrupts_. No offence to the moderators who give up their time here, but people are very good at confirmation bias and conviction. They have an amazing ability to persuade  themselves that some groupthink or &quot;official&quot; action they're taking is right and proper, even when it isn't. Particularly when self-interest is whispering in their ear. I'd say it's only public scrutiny that keeps them in check. _Open justice_. Without that, it's a slippery slope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators do not discuss suspensions at all, and there's no evidence of why a person has been suspended, you don't know if they've been suspended fairly or unfairly. So you don't know if you're getting into a _first they came for the socialists_ situation. You don't know whether your moderators are turning into thought police. And the crucial point is this: _nor do they_. I think that needs to change, because it could be bad for Stack Exchange. I don't think it needs to change totally. But I do think all warnings and suspensions should be listed with a reason and an example. On rare occasions I'd say it's OK not to give the example because it absolutely had to be deleted, but IMHO this should be the exception rather than the rule.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Discuss!_   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="ac76bb44-bf59-4409-91c3-8230b0dc34f7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9636/broken-internal-link) pointed out that there are still a number of links to posts on the old Astronomy SE site kicking around, and that they mostly redirect to new, unrelated questions and answers in the new Astronomy site. I feel those links *should* have been automatically edited at the time of the migration, but it doesn't really matter, since a [quick query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/628571/links-to-the-old-astronomy-se-site) turns up ~30 or so sites, which can easily be edited manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do find one thing pretty weird, though: when those links are posted as a raw URL, they still format correctly, for some reason. As an example, see [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt), which [until recently](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/25789/revisions) contained the explicit URL &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a [broken link](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did) (i.e. should point [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did)) but nevertheless still formats correctly into a full title with the old link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zsed9.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feels weirdly buggy to me, though of course the real bug is that the URLs were not auto-updated to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="abf06bdc-c0b4-4699-8f92-bfee41b7e6d5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9636/broken-internal-link) pointed out that there are still a number of links to posts on the old Astronomy SE site kicking around, and that they mostly redirect to new, unrelated questions and answers in the new Astronomy site. I feel those links *should* have been automatically edited at the time of the migration, but it doesn't really matter, since a [quick query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/628571/links-to-the-old-astronomy-se-site) turns up ~30 or so sites, which can easily be edited manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do find one thing pretty weird, though: when those links are posted as a raw URL, they still format correctly, for some reason. As an example, see [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt), which [until recently](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/25789/revisions) contained the explicit URL &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a [broken link](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did) (i.e. should point [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did)) but nevertheless still formats correctly into a full title with the old link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zsed9.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feels weirdly buggy to me, though of course the real bug is that the URLs were not auto-updated to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9665" RevisionGUID="66a3a1fd-dab3-448a-8b48-95758f79443a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not the first time someone has asked why simple physics questions are given less focus and/or ignored compared to more advanced material nor will this be the last. I will answer in the same way past and future incarnations of this question were and will be answered. This is not the case. Simply look at our most popular or highest voted posts or our most used tags and you'll find a great number of them are simple physics as opposed to complex topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, our simple physics questions usually get more and quicker answers than the more complicated questions. Easy topics are well understood by more people and are easier to write an answer for; whereas complex topics require more specific knowledge that is known to fewer people and take more time to write an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6272/23473) is the most recent incarnation of this question I can recall. Perhaps this and others like it will supplement my or others' answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9665" RevisionGUID="26ccdf83-840e-4baf-af9f-d168eb04875c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not the first time someone has asked why simple physics questions are given less focus and/or ignored compared to more advanced material nor will this be the last. I will answer in the same way past and future incarnations of this question were and will be answered. This is not the case. Simply look at our most popular or highest voted posts or our most used tags and you'll find a great number of them are simple physics as opposed to complex topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, our simple physics questions usually get more and quicker answers than the more complicated questions. Easy topics are well understood by more people and are easier to write an answer for; whereas complex topics require more specific knowledge that is known to fewer people and take more time to write an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6272/23473) is the most recent incarnation of this question I can recall. Perhaps this and others like it will supplement my or others' answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9687" RevisionGUID="b8a448c3-dbf0-4644-adb2-a114d7c0b4d0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.157" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As our [current policy says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/124), the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag should be applied to questions which arise in the context of doing &quot;educational exercises&quot;. The defining property of an educational exercise is that the purpose of solving the exercise is learning to use (or gaining further practice with) the method by which it is solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe that is the case in this question. It's been claimed that this is the exercise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a circuit consisting of a capacitor $C$, an impedance $\tilde{Z}(\omega)$, and a constant voltage source $V$ connected in a loop.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose in equilibrium the charge across the capacitor is $Q_e$.&#xD;&#xA;Now at time $t=0$ we drop some charge on the capacitor, making the total capacitor charge $Q_0$.&#xD;&#xA;We'd like to solve for the time dependent charge $Q(t)$ on the capacitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of solving this problem is not for you to learn the method by which it can be solved, I presume. If I understand correctly, the entire purpose of this problem is to provide context for the underlying conceptual question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The paper I'm reading writes an equation which leads me to believe that&#xD;&#xA;$$\hat{V}(p) = \frac{Q_e}{pC} - \frac{\hat{Q}(p)}{C} \, , \tag{$\star$}$$&#xD;&#xA;but I don't understand why that's the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is equation $(\star)$ correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's completely irrelevant (again if I understand correctly) whether you actually make any further progress in solving the exercise. That would not be the case if your purpose were to learn the method of solution. Therefore, I conclude the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is inappropriate for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As further justification, another property of _almost_ all educational exercises is that you get them from some other source: a textbook, a homework assignment, an old contest, a problem book, or so on. As I understand it, this is not the case here. Now, it is _possible_ to have a question which does not include an exercise from an external source but is nevertheless a [tag:homework-and-exercises] question, e.g. if the poster has made up an exercise for themselves to get practice with a certain technique. But this is quite rare. Rare enough that, when a question is _not_ based on an exercise from some external source, we should probably avoid applying the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag unless we know that the poster's intent is to practice the method. I certainly don't believe that is the case here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9687" RevisionGUID="e1ea750c-ec82-44b3-a626-7786793acf7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:22.110" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As our [current policy says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/124), the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag should be applied to questions which arise in the context of doing &quot;educational exercises&quot;. The defining property of an educational exercise is that the purpose of solving the exercise is learning to use (or gaining further practice with) the method by which it is solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe that is the case in this question. It's been claimed that this is the exercise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a circuit consisting of a capacitor $C$, an impedance $\tilde{Z}(\omega)$, and a constant voltage source $V$ connected in a loop.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose in equilibrium the charge across the capacitor is $Q_e$.&#xD;&#xA;Now at time $t=0$ we drop some charge on the capacitor, making the total capacitor charge $Q_0$.&#xD;&#xA;We'd like to solve for the time dependent charge $Q(t)$ on the capacitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of solving this problem is not for you to learn the method by which it can be solved, I presume. If I understand correctly, the entire purpose of this problem is to provide context for the underlying conceptual question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The paper I'm reading writes an equation which leads me to believe that&#xD;&#xA;$$\hat{V}(p) = \frac{Q_e}{pC} - \frac{\hat{Q}(p)}{C} \, , \tag{$\star$}$$&#xD;&#xA;but I don't understand why that's the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is equation $(\star)$ correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's completely irrelevant (again if I understand correctly) whether you actually make any further progress in solving the exercise. That would not be the case if your purpose were to learn the method of solution. Therefore, I conclude the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag is inappropriate for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As further justification, another property of _almost_ all educational exercises is that you get them from some other source: a textbook, a homework assignment, an old contest, a problem book, or so on. As I understand it, this is not the case here. Now, it is _possible_ to have a question which does not include an exercise from an external source but is nevertheless a [tag:homework-and-exercises] question, e.g. if the poster has made up an exercise for themselves to get practice with a certain technique. But this is quite rare. Rare enough that, when a question is _not_ based on an exercise from some external source, we should probably avoid applying the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag unless we know that the poster's intent is to practice the method. I certainly don't believe that is the case here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="484f8e2d-2acd-45a0-a24b-cccf5533520f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:59.790" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not being a theorist I don't want to comment on the value *to the theory community* of a separate site, but I strongly agree that Physics.SE has barely enough participation to hang on. A big hit might kill us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the level of discussion thing is what has been driving the push for a separate site (just a conjecture on my part, BTW) then I am open to suggestions about how to encourage a higher level of discussion here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A conscience push to ask a lot of &quot;research level&quot; question in the course of a couple of week. Something like the [First Periodic Premier Programming Puzzle Push][1] I set up on CodeGolf.SE to considerable approval but mixed success.&#xD;&#xA;* Start pushing a culture of [backing up answer with literature citations][2] somewhat like the rule on Skeptics.SE. I imagine this would increase he average level of the discussion without ruling out fairly basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Would some meat-space get togethers help? Are they even practical given that we have circa 100 users with 500+ rep? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/298/78&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/868/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-answer/881#881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="ab140104-08d5-47c7-b1b9-0d29b373b2d0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:59.790" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed that '&#xD;&#xA;Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf' have a best of 2016 meta competition kind of thing (see [here][1] for the post). Should we do the same? If not why not? And if so how should we go about doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="ad036ef4-96a9-49db-afe5-7eaf0629a200" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:59.790" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="ca353093-dd97-42a4-8e84-717aaf75d7fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:03:59.790" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Less is More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answer to a question in the most concise and clear way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vote here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First suggested by [Martin Ender on PPCG][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7911/53094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="2b6b297b-e5b8-40b1-b0ac-7ab7b62e6a2a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This problem was [first reported][1] on Math.SE. I'm bring this to your attention since Physics.SE also uses Mathjax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the latest build of Firefox version 3.6.13 has a known issue of messing up Mathjax font(to the point where the font doesn't load). The devs of Mathjax are [aware of this][2], and are working on a fix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1323/slow-processing-different-look-to-math-processing-problem-with-fonts-is-it-me&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues#issue/22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="ba5779ca-50ed-4d65-860b-66b8fd441cf1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Sort of crossposted to https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3845/mathjax-custom-commands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax allows the use of `\newcommand` in TeX. For example, this command:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\newcommand{\lorentz}[1]{\frac{#1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be pretty useful in lots of situations. If this was placed somewhere in the body (AFAIK before it is called), then `\lorentz{m_0}` would give the expression for relativistic mass. `\lorentz{1}` would give the normal lorentz factor. `lorentz{m_0c^2}` gives us the expression for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this, I can think up quite a lot of TeXcodes that are tedious to type, but crop up often. `\frac{1}{2}` and `\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}` are some (smaller and less tedious) examples. A few more commands that quickly give expressions for the nabla operator, div, grad, curl would be nice as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, is there any way that we can have a user-dictated commandset? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, it's easy to code it, just keep &quot;$$ *insert commands here* $$&quot; at the top of the `&lt;body&gt;` tag. Less easy to code would be the way to make it user-dictated, but I'm thinking something akin to the way https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/980/community-promotion-ads-2012 works would be easy to implement, as the code is already there. Just modify it so that it takes all the mathjax in the body of an answer with enough upvotes and appends it to some div in the beginning of the body tag (set display:none just to be safe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? Suggestions? Rants? Cookies?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="f09891f6-290a-4cd3-98cf-af6fcd5ae5b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An oddly large number of articles are titles with, or include in their opening line, a phrase like '*I have a doubt regarding gravity*'; see the articles at the bottom, for examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, it doesn't seem that the OP actually '*doubts*' that the physics in question are true.  Instead, they seem to mean that they are generally *confused*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a particular language which this usage transliterates from?  Possibly a particular thesaurus entry leading people astray?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58148/intuition-behind-work  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57907/electric-field-lines-for-continuous-distribution  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57436/doubt-in-kinematics  &#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59628/why-propagation-of-uncertainty-is-linear  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  See also (thanks to @Yrogirg)  &#xD;&#xA;https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3200/what-exactly-might-non-native-speakers-mean-by-doubt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="7b5be2ac-3a2a-40c3-abfe-19e6cfe11d49" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Precisely, they've stopped closing homeworks and our HWs are quite less compared to Math.SE and we've got enough active users (especially me) and actively rushing mods to close those things...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Over there in Math.SE...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I observed math SE is more active than physics SE. They don't close problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you haven't observed it right. In fact, they have [their policy](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1803/70397) which is more or less very [similar to ours](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/11062). They also do expect work from users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Show your work:* You should definitely include any partial work you have done. This will help bolster your claim that you are not just coming here asking other people to do your homework for you, and it will help the answerers to give more clinical responses. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, we will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Math.SE is huge (populated to around 50k users) and over 140k questions (where 14k are homeworks) How good can 8 mods and 400 users (who ***can*** VTC) manage those questions. I mean, how many users are there who wait for someone to post a *discouragable* homework so that they can close it? We also don't know how many users are always interested like mods (for example, in Physics.SE - users who have VTC privileges don't participate in closing questions except some 10 guys). [They have another discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9201/70397) which says that they &lt;s&gt;don't&lt;/s&gt; won't encourage questions which directly restates the problem statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that they support homework questions which ask politely without just *ordering* users to solve the problem. How do they support? They provide a simple **Hint** (which can be seen in bold for HWs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither do they close (I think this is the important point). Mostly all are possibly asking direct questions and the important thing - all are giving *hints*, because they've &quot;They don't provide direct answers&quot;..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How we differ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think Physics SE should encourage problem solving. Moderator should not close homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've told us that *we should encourage*. But, you didn't say ***How?*** Like, if someone asks *&quot;Tell me this formula, Explain step-by-step&quot;*, etc... then, we shouldn't close it and just do it for him..? Then, this isn't the site for the homework author. The reason for us to close direct HW questions and expect work from users is because we think we should be a barrier to the asker's creative thinking. If we're doing his work, they there's no necessity for institutions to give HWs. We can forget that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you've expressed in your question makes me feel that we're guilty and merciless that we don't reopen it again and downvote it rudely. **NO, WE DO FEEL FOR IT**. If you don't know before, I'll quote the words of Manish: *&quot;The actions of moderators are reversible&quot;* (unless they're user deletions and suspensions). I have seen many question authors (after closing their HW) editing and pinging us and we **have** reopened those. For instance, have a look at [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/47071/11062) and [its revisions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/47071/revisions).  &#xD;&#xA;You can see my VTC &amp; my VTR...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2 more to go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We don't have so many users interested in answering HW questions (for example, we aren't interested to check the answers to HW too i.e. we neither encourage nor discourage the answers) All that we are interested is in conceptual Physics. We often **do** encourage basic questions like http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/58136/11062 Because, In math (no offense), but that is what they all do - **calculation**. Mostly, we keep ourselves out of calculations (as far as I've seen) unless it's an interesting topic (something like this) - http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62222/11062&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To the **comparison:** Physics.SE is small, totaling to users around 14k and questions around 20k (where only 2k or so are HWs - 1:7). Because of the diffuse number of uninterested HWs and active VTC users, we're closing HW questions.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="76fa2f28-7e6e-4e61-922e-02c88b12368e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is like `$\delta$` or `$\Delta$` for capital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation for details .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And  **http://web.ift.uib.no/Teori/KURS/WRK/TeX/symALL.html**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="0777f2ca-2ac7-4fe8-8443-8e103d91adb9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We use LaTeX here (powered by MathJax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a small tutorial [here][1] on using LaTeX in posts. There are more links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This tutorial][2] is also pretty nice. We have a short FAQ entry [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-i-format-math-chemistry-expressions-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/117/24293&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="2a129065-54c3-4d1b-9534-33e7d9f086dd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The homework policy would be changed to say that we can only help with homework-like questions if you can phrase them in a way that they're only about the concepts and not about the actual assignment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that's exactly what the current homework policy _does_ say!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons you might have thought otherwise: first, the homework policy is probably not as clear as it could be on this. But the quoted bit is definitely the intent, and I'd certainly approve of a rewording to make that more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps more importantly, no matter what policies we put in place, **we can't actually _stop_ people from posting homework questions**. It's the nature of a physics Q&amp;A site that lots of people will show up asking for help on their homework without bothering to check whether doing so is appropriate. The best we can do is use the policy as justification to close such questions as quickly as they come in. The moderators (well, some of us) try to do this, but we're only a few people, and it gets exhausting. We need more community involvement, specifically close voting and flagging (and _not answering_) low-quality homework questions. (There has been a significant increase in flags over the past few days, which is great, but more is still better.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, something we could consider is removing the [tag:homework] _tag_, thus making it considerably more explicit to new posters that homework questions are not welcome here unless they can be reformulated in such a way as to make them conceptual. You wouldn't be the first to [suggest this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1477/should-we-get-rid-of-the-homework-tag), but each time it's been brought up, the community has come out in support of keeping the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some historical context may help explain why that happens. In the early days of the site, we didn't have a homework policy, and thus people posted homework questions and got them answered. The [tag:homework] tag became one of our most popular tags rather quickly. There were several [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/38/the-canonical-homework-question) about whether this was okay, and largely people thought that it was, for a few reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One of the founding principles of the site was that we did not want to reject questions for being too low-level. In other words, we didn't want to be the physics version of Math Overflow. Now, there's a difference between being low-level and low-effort, and in particular excluding homework questions is not the same as excluding low-level questions, but in those early days our standards for homework-related questions were perhaps not as strict as they are now precisely because we wanted to show that we were inclusive of all levels of questions.&#xD;&#xA;- We were taking cues from [Math.SE](http://math.stackexchange.com), which already had a homework policy that seemed to be working well. You'll notice that the wording of our homework policy is closely based on [theirs](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question/1804#1804). Since they accept homework questions on Math, our default position was to do the same here. Of course, it emerged over time that their policy is loosely enforced (at least, that seems to be the case as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;- Honestly, we were worried that the site would never reach critical mass if we put a blanket ban on homework questions. Currently, I'm fairly sure this is not something we have to worry about, because we have a steady stream of non-homework, conceptual questions, but in the early days it wasn't so clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time went on, the [tag:homework] tag became more and more well established as a feature of the site and of the homework policy, and people who wanted to see higher-level questions grew accustomed to using it to filter those questions out. At this point, it has a tremendous amount of inertia, in the sense that we've grown accustomed to a certain way of operating which does involve use of the [tag:homework] tag, and as much as there are some of us who would like to see it (and its associated questions) go, there are probably more people who want to keep it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="fe97dad5-125e-48f5-97c4-fd40986fe245" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've created [a new proposal][1] on Area 51 for a Stack Exchange focusing on the history of mathematics and science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a math student, I am *constantly* studying the history of the subject. I feel that ultimately, it's the only way to really get a sense of that all important holy grail of mathematics learning: *motivation*. As for science, studying the history of the subject overlaps very strongly with appreciating the evidence for modern science, since all of the experiments and mathematical arguments were done a long time ago and are seldom mentioned nowadays outside of histories of the subject. And all of this is aside from the fact that the history of science is inherently interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, mining the literature alone can be very difficult at times, and an SE would be really beneficial. I also hope that this SE might promote the study of the history of science and math among both students and teachers, since I (and hopefully you, too!) really think it's almost crucial if you want to really understanding either subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to history.SE** firstly because it's more specialized, but more importantly because answering or asking questions about the history of science will usually require knowledge of *science* (or math) as well as just history. Asking about the early development of quantum field theory is unlikely to get you anywhere on a site full of people who are primarily interested in history and not science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to math.SE or physics.SE** because an interest in history (let alone an in depth knowledge of it) isn't necessarily standard among math or physics experts, so a question about any even slightly obscure topic in history is unlikely to get a very good answer unless the right person happens by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I invite anyone interested in the history of math and science to follow the proposal on Area 51, vote up example questions that you find interesting, and post your own example questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Area 51 link: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta discussion on math.SE](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12773/area-51-proposal-history-of-mathematics-and-science); [Meta discussion on MO](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1496/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="863d238c-c78f-4b65-aae8-c7246dcdecfe" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just run the [chatjax][1] bookmarklet on the diff. It usually works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess showing a rendered diff of math is a rather non-trivial problem, so they just show the latex diff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="f9d0b48a-4676-498c-a48a-2ba9f0254116" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You mean like the third paragraph in [this edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/35315)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's kind of a tricky case.  The problem is that the change is *in the middle of* an equation, so the diff engine sticks some extra markup in there to highlight it, causing MathJax not to recognize it as a valid equation at all.  To fix it, either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a) the SE diff generator would need be changed to treat MathJax sections as atomic blocks (which would have the unfortunate side effect of always showing the entire equation as changed, even if the actual change was to a tiny part of it), or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* b) MathJax itself would have to be somehow tweaked to recognize the diff markup and replicate it in the rendered equation.  [I've done a bit of MathJax hacking myself](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4130/the-scope-of-newcommand-is-the-entire-page/12502#12502), but that sounds way beyond my skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the first option above would be the more practical one, but I can't really tell &amp;mdash; AFAIK, the diff generation is done on the server side, so only SE developers actually know how the code works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kgjie.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="1102023c-983c-49f4-95ac-a2c2ff3e052e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, we can use MathJax in comments. You use the regular dollar signs and notation. Be wary, though, of how many dollar signs you use, as choosing the wrong number in a given scenario tends to make the posts harder to read. However, it doesn't seem to work anywhere on meta (note even on questions and answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For chat, see [this page](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support/3297#3297)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="2d4affa2-8570-40b1-8654-15e6a47942d1" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed this as well. As stated in the [answer to the Math Meta post dmckee linked](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9975/1190), MathJax simply does not support this symbol. You could consider it a bug in MathJax if you want - or more accurately, a feature request - but it's not something for Stack Exchange to handle. So the place to report this would be on [the MathJax website](https://www.mathjax.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless and until this is implemented in MathJax, I would recommend just using `\oint`, which gets the point across. It's quite common anyway for physicists to use a single integral symbol regardless of how many dimensions the integration region has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="b4770511-9122-4885-a1f3-482bab13ddb3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is generally dependent on the user's system, so the only surefire way to consistently improve it is to upgrade your system. That said, there will always be a point where the page is too big for the MathJax update to work smoothly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been answered in the Mathematics Meta site, [Feature request: user script or option to turn off instant MathJax rendering](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/feature-request-user-script-or-option-to-turn-off-instant-mathjax-rendering). Quoting Jack Schmitt's answer there directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know how you want to do user scripts.  I use bookmarklets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mostly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To pause it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     javascript:(function(){MathJax.Hub.queue.pending=1;})();&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To turn it back on:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     javascript:(function(){MathJax.Hub.queue.pending=0;})();&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Presumably something similar can be done with automatic solutions like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; greasemonkey.  The turn-it-back-on does not request an immediate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; render, but you can add the:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     MathJax.Hub.Queue([&quot;Typeset&quot;, MathJax.Hub, &quot;wmd-preview&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the bookmarklet yourself if you'd like.  Turning it back on may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause a delay; if so I can adjust the script to more drastically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disable mathjax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bookmarklet is simply a bookmark where the URL has been switched to the given javascript code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep the updating but just make the wait longer for each refresh of the preview, [this userscript](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/690/30935) should be able to do the job with a suitable delay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are writing a very long answer, I find [StackEdit](http://stackedit.io) to be a good tool, and it enables you to draft and save long posts in Markdown + MathJax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a more extreme solution, you can get Privacy Badger (which is a good thing to have anyway) and temporarily disable all content from cdn.mathjax.org to disable all math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the lags persist even with MathJax disabled then that is definitely something to report." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="69ad2dfd-b4bf-471e-af31-921da0c9879c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Ask a Question page shown to new users contains a lot of guidance, including a link to MathJax help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are [strong UI reasons why this link is nowhere near as useful as we'd hope](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/), but we can at least make it point to something that's actually useful. It currently points to [this tutorial](http://www.math.harvard.edu/texman/), which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GPta1.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which is nowhere near a useful resource. Despite the claims in a [recent attempt](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9133/) to duplicate a bunch of work and create a local tutorial of limited usefulness, we do in fact have a long-standing go-to tutorial for MathJax, over on the Mathematics meta site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HDjiu.png)](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent link over on Maths.SE links to their tutorial. Since we're already linking off-site for this, why don't we also link to theirs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a fair amount of support. Is it something the mods can change? Do we need to contact the community team? Have already done so? If so, have said whether it's feasible or not?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="376a159d-2419-44f6-b3d2-d80fdaa93f83" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:37:16.527" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The most obvious thing that's wrong with it is that you have posted an image of typeable text. Don't do that. You can use images for diagrams, but when it comes to things you can type, you should instead transcribe them into a post and put them in a quote block. You can use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) for math rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next thing, and the reason it was put on hold, is that you're not asking a conceptual question. Actually, you don't really _ask_ anything, but the closest you come to stating a problem is when you say that you're not getting the right answer. That's not the sort of thing we handle. What we're looking for here are questions about procedures, like whether a particular formula is applicable to a particular situation, or how to choose the value of a certain variable, or whether you need to account for a certain force, or so on. So think about your question and identify what exactly it is that's holding you back from finding the solution. If you can't come up with anything other than that you're not getting the right answer, [this is not the place](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh) to ask your question. But if you are having a conceptual difficulty, like the examples I mentioned earlier, you can probably ask that here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="d71ee43a-0a98-4d19-9cac-6b93662cdb49" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:42:44.263" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perhaps it's unwise of me to re-open an issue that's essentially settled here, but maybe it's relevant again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, you've heard of the new site, [History of Science and Mathematics](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/). Danu, and LoganM and I are the pro-tem mods, and perhaps we'll admit to a little shameless promoting here and there on questions on various SEs that might be good on HSM. This, however, is not one of those instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ wrote, perhaps eloquently:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a rule, physicists tend not to care about it in the sense that a historian would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may be true. On the flip side, historians tend not to care about it in the sense that a scientist would. In other words, we're in between everybody, although perhaps we've been leaning a little towards the historian side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics has long said that history questions are usually on-topic. The same seems to be the case here. I'm not quite sure about how Biology, Chemistry, and Earth Science, etc. are leaning, but it's probably not a huge issue. History has decided that science questions there are absolutely on topic, and we at HSM informally rejected two migrated questions that someone shunted from History to HSM (to the consternation of just about everybody who cared).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be questions that are on-topic on HSM that are not on-topic at any of the other science or math sites. For example, take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why was Evariste Galois killed?](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/9/why-was-evariste-galois-killed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was [a meta discussion](https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-questions-about-mathematicians-and-scientists-lives-on-topic) on the topic, with the resounding consensus that all questions about historical figures *must relate to the work of those figures.* A question about whether or not Albert Einstein liked Wiener Schnitzel would clearly be off-topic (and no, I have no idea). This sort of implies that many questions on HSM would be on-topic on the other science sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the same, though, questions that are less geared towards scientific/mathematical concepts and more towards the historical influence are possibly better for HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note: There seems to be a growing trend on Mathematics of people saying that a given question would be good for HSM. This is actually a problem, as there have been a couple cross-posting incidents. I have also noted once or twice that a question here would be good on HSM. Please, *do not* cross-post on HSM. It gets a bit messy, and is a pain for everyone. If you feel that your question is better on HSM, talk with the moderators here, as well as the pro-tem mods from HSM. I'm sure we can figure out if the question is suitable for migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="3cea53df-19cc-4895-9ffd-0c748f4cc6d9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:42:44.263" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The big problem here is what DavidZ mentioned - questions eventually become too old to be migrated, though I believe the limit is [60 days](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151890/disable-migration-for-questions-older-than-60-days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this discussed before on Mathematics Meta, and the consensus was what I think should be the policy on Physics - and what I think is the unofficial policy here - which is that history questions are *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would *love* to see this on HSM, and I think that we'd accept a migration of it to HSM. It clearly deals with history, and is, from what I can tell, 95% history and 5% physics. That 5%, by the way, is gratuitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, history of physics is still on-topic on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity#comment331015_158079) left below the question, by alarge, seems to be rather typical in this post-HSM-launch era:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Might hsm.stackexchange.com be a better home for this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Better&quot; is the key word here. The comments below a history question may be laid out the same, but the word &quot;better&quot; is always used. History questions are okay here. Also,  there have been quality answers to many of the [tag:history] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, while we're trying to increase traffic and question rate on HSM, we don't want to artificially increase it. This was discussed [a while ago](https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/116/should-math-se-seed-hsm-with-some-history-of-mathematics-questions), and we reached the conclusion that there's no reason to do it because these history questions have done so well on other sites. We want to &quot;homegrow&quot; questions and traffic - in other words, we would like to attract users and questions on our own, without this kind of artificial stimulus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, we can't handle the migration of all these unanswered questions at once - we simply don't yet have the user base* - and slowly &quot;weaning&quot; the other SEs off of unused history questions would be unproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I also - as a pro-tem mod on HSM - don't want to have to manually re-tag and edit hundreds of questions - taking into account history questions from all the science and math sites, as well as science questions from History. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="80319cef-f392-46c0-8352-a01a62f06cf4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:33:38.010" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Programmers.SE recently [adopted the following policy](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1457/how-do-our-moderators-and-community-members-feel-about-cleaning-up-comment-nois) on comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We moderators will now be actively cleaning up questions and answers that have extended discussion in comments: any additional information teased out in the comments should be re-incorporated back into the question or answer, not left as a comment. Any extended discussion should go to our awesome chat system, built from the ground up explicitly for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you see the original asker or answerer leave a comment instead of editing their post, you should edit it back in yourself: anyone can edit a post or suggest an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because comment deletions aren't very transparent, we will be leaving the following comment when comments are cleaned up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **Commenters:** comments are meant for seeking clarification, not for extended discussion. If you have a solution, leave an answer. If your solution is already posted, please upvote it. If you'd like to discuss this question with others, please use chat. See the FAQ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the following has been added to our FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  **Can I use comments to discuss the topic of a post?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  Comments are useful for getting clarifications, but extended discussions detract from the question and its answers. If you'd like to discuss anything related to programming with other expert programmers, please use our chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more or less reflects the way I've been handling comments on this site, namely that any information important enough to be preserved should be in the posts, not in the comments, but I don't think we've ever really had an official policy on it - that is, comments just got deleted sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring to the quoted post, should we make this, or something similar, an &quot;official&quot; policy on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="79d427f9-b4df-41a0-8acf-bb425ac8390b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:33:38.010" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll prefix this with &quot;I'm not an active physics.SE participant&quot;, I'm over on another P.SE - programmers. And we too have a problem with homework questions in that the vast majority of the time, they aren't good questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this, end, I wrote a post titled [Open letter to students with homework problems](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6166/40980) trying to explain what the problem with just copying and pasting homework problems into the text area is, and that even if we *do* answer the question, it may lead to problems for the student's future learning endeavors (they learn a short cut that works 90% of the time, but completely fail to learn the long way of doing it needed to understand why it fails in the 10%, or other topics).  This post has since become the highest voted post on Programmers.SE's meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key thing to all this is not so much &quot;its homework, its bad&quot; but rather that the student needs to learn how to ask good questions. This, unfortunately, isn't often a skill taught by many institutions and learned the hard way.  In the context of StackExchange, this is often learned through down votes and closed questions - which, while a necessary and *critical* tool for StackExchange is a less than ideal one for pedagogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the focus of a homework policy (named that or anything else) should be on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reinforcing good question quality on Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;* Setting the expectation of what can (and can't) be answered and timeframes (how often does one see the &quot;urgent - need answer by 5pm&quot; in questions?)&#xD;&#xA;* Note the possible problems that a student who asks a question here may encounter (inadvertently skipping around in the syllabus without proper comprehension of previous material - its in that order for a reason).&#xD;&#xA;* Encourage that someone needs to *discuss* a topic, that chat may be a better resource than a main site question and its comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a quote that I'm fond of from Programmers.SE, slightly tweaked to Physics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Picture Physics like a room with a whiteboard. No computer, no books, no papers. You write your question on the whiteboard and experts walk by. Someone sees one that they can answer, they stop in and help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9714" RevisionGUID="727e808f-e2a1-4bae-8b2d-79541302836f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:44:07.233" UserId="32426" Text="In my opinion, the best solution would be if we would bind it to reputation. For example, 1 homework question can be asked after every 100 reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be easily tested by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the stackexchange api&#xD;&#xA;* using the data.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;* or by direct queries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't be an essential change - most of the homework questions are asked from rep1 users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9714" RevisionGUID="298f2fee-65ab-497f-a41d-fb193ff4b6fd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:11:47.297" UserId="32426" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="In my opinion, the best solution would be if we would bind it to reputation. For example, 1 homework question can be asked after every 100 reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be easily tested by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the stackexchange api&#xD;&#xA;* using the data.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;* or by direct queries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't be an essential change - most of the homework questions are asked from rep1 users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it probably wouldn't be implemented by the SE team, we could use it as a house rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be very easily implemented as a voting script." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9715" RevisionGUID="e98d4dc9-955e-40d1-8678-d161706dd41b" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:04:54.103" UserId="99654" Text="The title pretty much sums it up. Should I change the accepted answer if someone answers the question &quot;better&quot; or more extensively ? Even though the accepted answer is right ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9715" RevisionGUID="e98d4dc9-955e-40d1-8678-d161706dd41b" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:04:54.103" UserId="99654" Text="Change accepted answer if a better one appears" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9715" RevisionGUID="e98d4dc9-955e-40d1-8678-d161706dd41b" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:04:54.103" UserId="99654" Text="|support|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9716" RevisionGUID="a59add83-0916-4b17-83cc-e61bc7a49e5a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T05:37:51.483" UserId="124" Text="Well, technically you're _allowed_ to accept any answer to your question that you want, and to change which answer is accepted as often as the system allows you to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be a &quot;good Stack Exchange citizen&quot;, you should be reasonably sure that the answer you accept is _correct_. Sometimes there are multiple correct answers. Which one you choose to accept is up to you; you might choose the clearest one, or the most complete one, or the most technically correct one, or the one that most closely matches what you asked, or whatever. So, yes you can unaccept an existing answer and accept a new one if you think the new answer deserves it more. But you don't have to. It's your call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, as a corollary to this, if you want to be a good SE citizen you should not accept an answer without being reasonably confident that it's correct. Sometimes that means you don't accept an answer at all, which is fine, e.g. if none of the answers seem to be correct or even if they might be correct but you are not reasonably confident in that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="20260e20-5fa5-42f0-a8b1-334ab95c9a20" CreationDate="2017-03-17T08:26:45.000" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would expect to see a lot less of that here than on programmers, which is very discussiony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I don't mind relevant information being placed in comments, it's a form of annotation of the post. If there are 4 or 5 mildly discussiony comments, **all with some nugget of information that enhances the post, even in some extremely small way,** that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do mind is *extended discussion* in comments where there are 10-15 comments going back and forth between 2 or 3 people. We actually have a reminder now to avoid this and offer to one-click kick things to chat, like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1764/can-we-get-a-simple-way-to-initiate-a-chat/1766#1766&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="6b3914ec-5b40-4ca9-b6d1-11d1e6648d1d" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:12:26.213" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/" Text="This [question about exercises relating to nuclear bomb design](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18568/any-undergrad-exercises-about-nuclear-bomb-design) prompted a couple of complaints about the kind of attention it might bring to the site. I wanted to open a question for community input on this issue. What should our policy be toward questions that involve or relate to potentially illegal or unethical activities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a parallel on the programming-related sites of the SE network, in that people will occasionally ask about software exploits. We can draw on their experience in deciding on our own policy. I'll add to this list as I find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ask Ubuntu](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/2246/questions-seeking-how-to-bypass-security-off-topic)&#xD;&#xA;- [Super User](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/2290/legal-basis-for-restriction-of-discussions) ([#2](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/533/handling-questions-clearly-trying-to-break-some-kind-of-policy-tos-etc))&#xD;&#xA;- [Server Fault](http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/1659/handling-illegal-immoral-questions-and-answers)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="303756f4-d922-478f-8b2c-057be3ae9af1" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:00.867" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/" Text="This [question about exercises relating to nuclear bomb design](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18568/any-undergrad-exercises-about-nuclear-bomb-design) prompted a couple of complaints about the kind of attention it might bring to the site. I wanted to open a question for community input on this issue. What should our policy be toward questions that involve or relate to potentially illegal or unethical activities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a parallel on the programming-related sites of the SE network, in that people will occasionally ask about software exploits. We can draw on their experience in deciding on our own policy. I'll add to this list as I find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ask Ubuntu](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/2246/questions-seeking-how-to-bypass-security-off-topic)&#xD;&#xA;- [Super User](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/2290/legal-basis-for-restriction-of-discussions) ([#2](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/533/handling-questions-clearly-trying-to-break-some-kind-of-policy-tos-etc))&#xD;&#xA;- [Server Fault](https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/1659/handling-illegal-immoral-questions-and-answers)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="741a1bc6-1089-4d8a-9f0c-17680d899af7" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:04.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/" Text="I've created [a new proposal][1] on Area 51 for a Stack Exchange focusing on the history of mathematics and science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a math student, I am *constantly* studying the history of the subject. I feel that ultimately, it's the only way to really get a sense of that all important holy grail of mathematics learning: *motivation*. As for science, studying the history of the subject overlaps very strongly with appreciating the evidence for modern science, since all of the experiments and mathematical arguments were done a long time ago and are seldom mentioned nowadays outside of histories of the subject. And all of this is aside from the fact that the history of science is inherently interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, mining the literature alone can be very difficult at times, and an SE would be really beneficial. I also hope that this SE might promote the study of the history of science and math among both students and teachers, since I (and hopefully you, too!) really think it's almost crucial if you want to really understanding either subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to history.SE** firstly because it's more specialized, but more importantly because answering or asking questions about the history of science will usually require knowledge of *science* (or math) as well as just history. Asking about the early development of quantum field theory is unlikely to get you anywhere on a site full of people who are primarily interested in history and not science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This SE is different to math.SE or physics.SE** because an interest in history (let alone an in depth knowledge of it) isn't necessarily standard among math or physics experts, so a question about any even slightly obscure topic in history is unlikely to get a very good answer unless the right person happens by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I invite anyone interested in the history of math and science to follow the proposal on Area 51, vote up example questions that you find interesting, and post your own example questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Area 51 link: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meta discussion on math.SE](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12773/area-51-proposal-history-of-mathematics-and-science); [Meta discussion on MO](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1496/area-51-proposal-history-of-science-and-mathematics?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65204/history-of-science-and-mathematics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="8088e39f-6e5b-430f-a948-1994477ccbab" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:04.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/" Text="Just for everyone's attention, a nice question has popped up in the MathOverflow meta: [Formatting citations to the literature on MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow?cb=1), shooting towards a button that will insert a formatted citation given a DOI or arxiv link, or even pop up a search window to connect with some back end. It looks pretty preliminary but it's something to keep an eye on if it goes through, and maybe it's a nice project for some of our better coders (though I don't want to [point fingers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433/manishearth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your convenience, here's the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We'd like to make it easier to cite articles from the literature, on MathOverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; I propose adding a single button to the edit toolbar while writing posts, which will pop up a search dialog, allow the user to select a result, and then insert a nicely formatted link to the paper back into the edit box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The button would appear next to the current four icons for inserting hyperlinks, blockquotes, preformatted text, and images. (We could insert this button ourselves, via our allowed javascript footer, but eventually we'd want SE to insert it natively.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To get a sense of how the search dialog might work, please look at [this prototype](http://semorrison.github.io/citation-search/).&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously this would need some polishing; suggestions for improvements welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Once a search result has been selected, I propose inserting into the edit box something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &lt;span class=&quot;citation&quot; authors=&quot;Sendak, Maureen and Geisel, Theresa&quot; mrnumber=&quot;MR1234567&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;          cite=&quot;J. Unexpected Results 17 (2015), no. 1, 17-29&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2222&quot;&gt;A mathematics paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &lt;/span&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will render simply as the hyperlink &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2222&quot;&gt;A mathematics paper&lt;/a&gt;. The hyperlink should be the 'best available URL', e.g. the DOI resolution address, a direct link to the published version, or the link to the corresponding record on MathSciNet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I would like to include the extra `&lt;span&gt;` tag around the actual hyperlink for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. it makes the extra citation data available, in case the user wants to also show the authors or journal reference in the text,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. it allows us to render citation links differently via the CSS selector `.citation` if desired,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. it allows us to programmatically detect and reformat citation links after the fact, if desired (e.g. to provide links to your local library's resolver).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are a number of things we'll need to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* verify we really can add a button to the edit interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* pick a 'backend' for the search dialog (the prototype above is a hack; it would be nice to run off MathSciNet or Zentralblatt, etc, but this may require a lot of coordination)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* design and build the search dialog&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* beta test with some users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="22e89c87-4ad3-4d03-9ae3-7602e221d2d1" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:04.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/" Text="PhysicsOverflow is meant to be some kind of a rebirth of the untimely passed away [Theoretical Physics SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) and a little physics brother of [MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to the former theoretical physics site, we have slightly lowered the bar to ask questions to graduate-level upward and broadened the scope to include experimental physics and phenomenology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the high-level Q&amp;A, PhysicsOverflow offers also a [Reviews section](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/4657#a4807), dedicated to discuss and peer review (mostly ArXiv but other sources can be considered too) papers publicly and &quot;in real time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PhysicsOverflow was built outside the SE network to not have to fullfill any externally prescribed activity criteria for graduation (Area51 statistics). As Danu hinted at, this also allows us to avoid having to obey the &quot;SE model&quot; or SE rules, policies, and guidelines where they would clash with the goals of a high-level academic community (MathOverflow negociated a [special agreement](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow/970#970) with SE before joining the network).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find a full description of the site in our [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq) and a short summary of its purpose in our [official announcement](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live) on MathOverflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="fa7e7f9c-af3d-4e1c-bc9d-c15de60dfbb3" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:04.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/" Text="In the [2015 community ad proposal thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015), I posted an ad for physicsoverflow. Then I posted a comment under it to provide some extra information. Here I'll try to reconstruct the deletions in chronological order from memory, if there is anything not factual, I welcome corrections:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First time I commented &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm surprised by the number of downvotes, in case of misinformation and with no intention to start a debate, here's a mathoverflow link containing a brief  introduction:https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above comment disappeared when I checked the page a few hours later, and I assumed it was an error, so I posted a comment again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related: https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got deleted again. So I made the inquiry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd like to know in accordance to which rule my comments got deleted twice with no notification, whereas for other ads some comments adding information are perfectly ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I monitored my post, and this inquiry got deleted in a few minutes after I posted it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence here I'd like to use this meta post to make a formal inquiry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) In accordance to which rule my comments got deleted thrice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Is it common practice for moderators to delete comments without notifications to the author? Is it justified by any policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followup: According the answer by David Z and Kyle Kanos, the reason is Qmechanic posted a link and asked people not to discuss under the ad. To defend myself I must say I did not ignore Qmechanic's comment, the reasons I posted my comment despite it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Qmechanic's link is not the mathoverflow link I gave, and I do think mathoverflow information has more merit since people there are more experienced with a research-level site. And if my memories serve, originally Qmechanic did not post the link of the PSE meta post and only the chat room was given, only after the deletion of my first comment did he post the link of PSE meta post. Please correct me if this is not factual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)I did not consider my link to be a &quot;discussion&quot;, but only an announcement. But I won't tangle with you on this, I am willing to follow your definition of &quot;discussion&quot; and let it go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)To me notifications have usually been given before deletion on PSE, but now I know that's out of courtesy, and I guess there's a difference between the PSE main site and meta. I'm fine as long as it is written in the rules, thanks for the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the  clarifications, now what makes me curious is **why my ad deserves the special treatment? That there is no such mandate like Qmechanic's imposed on other ads?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addition:** After the conversation with Kyle Kanos, it becomes clear that moderators are not violating any rule set by Stackexchange; what is also made clear is that moderators have unlimited power at comment zone with 0 restriction, in accordance to the rule. This is a very unjust rule, and it would be humane for moderators to refrain from wielding this power. However, the current situation suggests the unreasonable(but again, not illegitimate) power is being very actively exercised. I rest my case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="20aac852-c556-4cb6-9ccd-75afa2c63d1e" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:04.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/" Text="I'm surprised SE didn't post something about it themselves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you check [this answer to a post on meta.Mathoverflow,][1] it looks like having a &quot;cite&quot; link originated on Mathoverflow, back in the SE 1.0 days.  SE recently changed the way the cite link is laid out (based on comments/complaints about it 2 years ago) and applied the change to MO, Phys.SE and a couple other SE sites.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.mathoverflow.net/a/2436/35355" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="effd0834-7034-4768-af4b-088497180177" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:13:04.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/" Text="Generally speaking: **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is very definitely not a *replacement* of traditional peer review. We simply do not have a community that is broad and varied enough to connect a given paper with an expert that is sufficiently qualified, interested enough, and with enough available time, to review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This site is also not a very good *venue* for peer review, generally because it leads to a much broader discussion than the format can really accommodate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For one, there's a mechanics issue: peer review requieres back-and-forth discussion over a long list of specific issues, which the Q&amp;A format does not handle well at all, and the discussion will be left as a sorry mess of interlinking questions, answers, comments, edits to the question, edits to the answers, comments pointing to revision histories, more edits to the answers, and so on. This is completely opposite to the purpose of this site, which is (roughly) providing a useful resource for future visitors which can be parsed immediately without going through ten pages of forum discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are also a bunch of actual problems, which depend on the specific way the request is phrased. So let's go over your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much too broad. It can depend on the specifics of the question (particularly if it's halfway between here and type 2) but in general these should be flagged/close-voted as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a reason why we close things as Too Broad, and it is that they are particularly unrewarding to answer. A question that is Too Broad as posed tends to require enormous amounts of work to answer (more commensurate with a full paper or even textbook than a simple ~blog post) and it is beyond what you really should be asking of strangers on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, if someone does try to answer, there is a definite danger that the OP will not be satisfied: &quot;you did all of that work over on that side, but I was actually interested on that bit over there&quot;, so that huge amount of work comes with little reward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why we require that questions be posed in a way that an answer can be recognized as such, and not as soliciting essays on a given topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, depending on the tone, this is a very tricky question to ask, because we're not here to engage in long-winded discussions. In particular, if it appears that the OP already has made up their mind about the topic and they are only here to stir up controversy (as was definitely the case in the posts you link to, but with several milder variants also possible) then the thread is a non-starter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are here to respond to specific, answerable questions, not to engage in long-winded back-and-forth discussions which can be incredibly draining of time, energy, and passion for engaging with random strangers' curiosity on the internet. Questions which are a bait-and-switch, pretending to be the former but obviously hiding a huge chunk of the latter, are very identifiable as a drain of experts' time and energy which should be spent elsewhere on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases, the close/flag reason Primarily Opinion Based applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much more workable. Depending on how specific the post is it could still be too broad, but in general that just describes a bona fide question about a paper in the literature. Prospective answerers know what are the concepts that need clarifying, and if there are obvious issues with the work they can be brought out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As posed, this can be a legitimate request for an evaluation of contradicting literature. However, there is very little we can do here: depending on exactly how this is phrased, it amounts to a request of full peer review of not one but two papers, and this is really beyond our scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there's very little chance that we'll be able to produce anything near definitive - our community is simply not big enough - and providing inconclusive answers for the consumption of the internet does very little to set the record straight and much to cloud it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless it is very obvious that there is an objective answer (e.g. the second paper makes a very compelling case, with only a very weak response from the authors of the first one), this is probably over the Primarily Objection Based line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reads as a bona fide, self-contained question: is the argument the OP laid down correct, or not? (Unless, that is, the OP outsources the [outline] to some other journal paper, possibly of their authorship, in which case 'self-contained' obviously does not apply.) Prospective answerers are given a specific thing to address, with sufficient context, so this is probably a good use of the site and its resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a question. The post solicits essays and opinions, and there is no criterion at all for when an 'answer' is 'correct' or not. This is textbook flag/closevote as Too Broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, with questions of this type, it is generally unclear what it is the OP actually wants from the post. Do they want community acceptance to rain down on them? Are they soliciting expert opinions about the correctness or significance of the paper? If so, exactly which experts, and which sections of the community, are they hoping to engage with, and what guarantees do they have that they frequent the site and will see the paper? (Again, we're not big enough to undertake this sort of thing.) Are they expecting problems with their paper to actually surface? (And, if so, will they react in a civil way once they do? Is that something prospective answerers can count on just from reading the question?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post does actually detail the claim, then this passes the self-containment bar, but it's still not really a question. What is it the OP wants? cf. the above, and again Too Broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few extra comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The business of bringing together manuscripts that need review with referees with enough time and expertise to review them is a Hard Thing. Academic publishing has sort of kind of got it down to a reasonable standard (but even they still fail often enough at it). At least, they've got it to a standard that has a kind-of acceptable rate of letting bad stuff through, and they've reached some form of equilibrium between the spectrum of (always take the literature with a grain of salt) / (if it's published it at least had a qualified set of eyeballs on it) versus how much energy the community can spend refereeing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are all sorts of problems with the current peer review model in academic publishing (though physics seems luckily to be less troubled than medicinal chemistry and psychology) and there are all sorts of problems with academic publishing in general. Non-commercial (or small enterprise) academic publishing has done a good bit over the past decade pushing this process to a place where the peer review does only require a talented and well-connected volunteer editor (without the overhead of an editorial office), but even then it's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Hoping that just putting a random collection of internet strangers from all over physics next to a random collection of manuscripts about all sorts of topics will somehow manage to work, and work better than academic publishing, has always seemed very strange to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On another track, we're not alone on the attitudes I detailed above. MathOverflow, in particular, is much better posed as a site for professional mathematicians, and they make it pretty clear that they too are no substitute for peer review, cf. [Using Math Overflow to check whether or not a proof is correct](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265/using-math-overflow-to-check-whether-or-not-a-proof-is-correct), [On discussion of published papers at MO](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2328/on-discussion-of-published-papers-at-mo), and [Appropriate or not: “To what extent are the results in Paper X correct?”](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2762/appropriate-or-not-to-what-extent-are-the-results-in-paper-x-correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, [PhysicsOverflow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) does have an [open paper refereeing section](http://physicsoverflow.org/activity/refereeing), which you can check out and see how it's working. If you're looking to solicit feedback on a manuscript, that's one place to turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="624979da-784a-4f40-aa04-5dc276b4cfa9" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[&lt;strike&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/strike&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;(declined) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="fbe8037a-303e-47db-9edc-55f64f50b773" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="&gt; First, is there a way to insert line-breaks into a comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No there isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be also nice if [Enter] didn't submit the comment; this still surprises me sometimes and makes me add unfinished comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More generally, is there some nice FAQ or other resource where one can learn everything about the site's user interface?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask a [meta-tag:support] question in https://meta.stackoverflow.com/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="301a1ae8-d0b4-4eef-a1d5-012983870080" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="dd1d85ed-b169-46ff-8862-cd3029562cbe" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="Two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accepting an answer does ***not*** indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular questions are not in any sense *&quot;open&quot;* or *&quot;unanswered&quot;* until there is a green checkmark and *&quot;closed&quot;* or *&quot;answered&quot;* afterwards. Note that [there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [formal definition of *&quot;unanswered&quot;* for the purposes of the unanswered tab][2] is *&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense it is unfortunate that the site puts so much visual emphasis on accepted answers, because I prefer the current system but new users don't see a clear explanation of the meaning of acceptance and simply draw their own conclusions from the emphasis the site gives to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance][3] have [appeared][4] on the mother meta [many][5] [many][6] [times][7] without the team taking any action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="5f6413bc-47c3-41fb-95ad-41c99332527e" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="Trying to login at&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/login&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;via StackExchange (leftmost item) gives the error message: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Third Party Cookies Appear To Be Disabled&#xD;&#xA;This site depends on third-party cookies, please add an exception for https://openid.stackexchange.com/.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to add such an exception? (I am working with Mozilla Firefox 11.0 for Ubuntu canonical - 1.0.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="9eb224c1-a779-4a21-bb7c-09e96dcf54f9" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="Variations of this request [have been made on the mother meta many times][1] (or I'd migrate this there because this request is not specific to physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hunt around on [the Data Explorer][2], you will find queries to report your progress on many badges, though I don't know if Deputy and Marshal are something that can be found that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Deputy and Marshal in particular, your [user profile][3] shows how many helpful flags you have made:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=badge%20progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4887/vineet-menon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DU5fW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="45906a2a-b456-4505-8f9a-6addd2d3bdb8" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="Comment on it, and downvote. Post it in chat/meta if you feel it needs more scrutiny/discussion. DO NOT flag, flags aren't for wrong posts. Also, put a comment on the main question, asking the OP not to accept it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's already accepted, ask the OP to unaccept. But you can't do much more than that. This has come up [multiple times][1] on the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=accepted%20answer%20wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="e803cc08-934e-4c68-bea3-8e78344dfefc" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="## *![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132723#7132723):* **What is one contribution you feel demonstrates that you can be a good moderator?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [asked for clarification](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132728#7132728):**  Could you clarify: What do you mean by contribution?  As in an answer to the site, or a trait that I would bring?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    **![Grace Note](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e1b643b1cabd740a5f4580f365b21407?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Grace Note](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/757/grace-note) [clarified](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132731#7132731):**  Either way works. Whatever you think you bring to the table that best represents your capability as a great moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Manishearth](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a3069491bfded90cdf623341cadc1d1?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Manishearth](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/31768/manishearth) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132736#7132736):**  (1) My activity on the [mother meta](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/178438/manishearth) and multiple child metas (Phy, Chem)--I like discussing policy and community building. (2) My moderatorship on Chem.SE -- no hitches till now :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Crazy Buddy](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6deb0a86e09f3d79d83d0187b78bbc?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Crazy Buddy](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/46626/crazy-buddy) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132744#7132744):**  I'll always be around. Rather than cleaning up messes, helping other users, I have just now entered into *community-building*. Like I say everytime, I'll follow the Etiquette and help with new users. I generally prefer not to vote down new guys&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Chris Gerig](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d2012b8a2aaf9b54319d87e14eeed1a8?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Chris Gerig](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/29429/chris-gerig) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132749#7132749):**  My knowledge of physics and use of rigor in math, coupled to my nit-picking of tags and not having people demand homework solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **![Dylan Sabulsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/32a5d4290a26fd53017a8d958797b7ce?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Dylan Sabulsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/38950/dylan-sabulsky) [remarked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132762#7132762):**  I like that policy on homework! We get a lot of intro/freshman physics questions, with no thought added too them! No work, no conceptual questions! I've been guilty of answering a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Larian LeQuella](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/08f2eeded9d67d89d14a1939b11a9557?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [Larian LeQuella](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/10038/larian-lequella) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132750#7132750):**  My experience modding Skeptics and Astronomy as far as having familiarity with the tools.  Also, I have a laize faire attitude to many types of mod activities as long as actual community standards are not violated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![user1504](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/174dd1e429d3eebcaa2e27341b9e342f?s=16&amp;d=identicon&amp;r=PG) [user1504](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/25180/user1504) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7132755#7132755):**  I think you'll see if you look at my comments and contributions to meta that I try to calm down angry discussion while still helping to ensure that unpopular points of view are heard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4098" RevisionGUID="6cbc26c9-2f6e-4c9c-bae7-6fafb063f344" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="As long as users reward simple questions, simple questions will continue to be asked. It's as simple as that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now the user base is rewarding physics 101 questions and ill-informed speculations from a pop-sci foundation. Give me a consensus that those question don't belong and I'd be happy to close many of them.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Personally I am bored to tears by people by the pure number of people who believe that they have discovered a erstwhile unnoticed inconsistency in special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A particularly pernicious (and [unsolved)][1] problem on Stack Exchange sites is established users answering duplicate questions because this is simply easier than finding the duplicates and the rep system rewards them for it; my unscientific observation is that this occurs most on very basic questions. Getting these questions closed without answers would go some way to convincing users that it was worth their while to search first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Math Overflow has had a strong ethic for research level question from the beginning. Math.StackExchange did not (and in fact exists explicitly to be a place for lower-level math questions). They are both healthy, active sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no fundamental reason why a site (or this one in particular) needs to function at a highly esoteric level to be successful as a site.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things any particular user can do include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Open a discussion on meta to try and reach a new consensus on what types of questions are off topic. &#xD;&#xA;* Vote uniformed speculation down, and cote to close if there is a plausible reason under the current rules.&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ask some good questions.*** That is harder then it sounds, but the only way to make people believe that there are good questions here is to get some good questions on the site.&#xD;&#xA;* Put some time and effort into providing ***good answer to good questions***. To make it worth other peoples time to post good questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the mean time, I'm a little confused that I seem to be accused simultaneously of over-moderating and of letting all the crap in. (I agree that we field a lot of very basic questions and that quite of few of them are crap---but when I vote those down people write comments about how unfair that is and, it seems, up vote just to counter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And in fact our analytics continue to look good. We are getting steadily stronger on page views, questions per day, answers per day, new users and so on and retaining our answers to questions ratio. In particular I note that there is no detectible change about December 2012 or Jan 2013. In terms of quantity that brewhaha was a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a site with a future we are doing fine. It just may not be the site you want it to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=reward%20finding%20duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="3ec19038-92f1-4773-8fa0-e5d4d988701a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="2d4c1a88-d080-4e2e-8d6b-47320defc0e7" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I'm sorry to see you go, though I don't quite sympathize with the reasons you have listed in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was wrong was that it was [a public discussion about another user][1], one who wasn't even around. It was deleted due to that. Not to remove any discussion -- there are plenty of posts mentioning the suspension that are still around (some of them yours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user wasn't even suspended by the same mod each time. As mentioned before, it's about the site rules, not any personal vendetta. And I think there has been enough discussion about the rules, though if you want them changed then you'd have to bring them up on [the main meta][2] (where I think it's been brought up before, not sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this was done to cover the traces of anything. Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. We had a good member who is no longer here. Is there any point leaving a post around that discusses his suspension? One that contains various dissections of his character? And things that border on personal attacks to him? Is that _really_ something we should preserve? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think that the suspension was wrongly carried out&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the mods will never claim that the user in question was never suspended (and we know that the community will remember). With this in mind, there isn't any reason for us to do this to cover our tracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, sorry to see you go. Thank you for your contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This is not the place to discuss this, please don't.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members/197072#197072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="3784a9a7-0edb-4f2b-98e9-2043f52ceb40" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I think **A2** is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of *This answer could be better if ...&quot;* would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think **A3** is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Comments:  &#xD;&#xA;A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an &quot;attempt&quot; to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks:  &#xD;&#xA;Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP&#xD;&#xA; - New Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Does not apply&#xD;&#xA; - URL only:  &#xD;&#xA;Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied&#xD;&#xA; - No comment necessary:  &#xD;&#xA;This, to me, is supposed to be used when *someone else* has already left a delete-comment as above&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be &quot;Looks Okay&quot;](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995, asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to &quot;get around&quot; the other comments and delete **A3** answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="e08ea783-763f-45b1-b47b-bcbaeaf3c200" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="This question is not about the usefulness of this tag, but about the usefulness of its topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathSE finds it useful.][1] They are the [best going][2] StackExchange site after the SO.&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathOverflow, too,][3] despite they are a grad-level community with quite harsh moderation customs, having many Big Names between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now think, which direction find you better to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Additional info][4] about the main sociological structure of the SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/sites&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/252077/1783163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="733357f9-d89d-48ec-af29-59e508e90483" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="As a user that frequents SE sites intermittently (and with less reputation than most, including yourself), please interpret my upcoming critique as independent from the high-rep user/users you believe are targeting you.  You seem to be intentionally ignoring the community's critique, falsely assuming that you are the victim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your curiosity - it will serve you well if you put in the work required to graduate from curiosity to knowledge.  But understand that knowledge comes via research, frustration, research, work, work, work, then questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current asking criteria deserves downvotes, and I have personally downvoted at least two of your posts (purely on their content).  Avoiding debates on a per question basis, Ill simply say that your questions contained spelling errors, incorrect and/or out of context information with no references, and no visible effort on your part.  &#xD;&#xA;To me (and I presume to other users), that is a clear sign of disrespect to the community.  You should expect to spend as much time and effort to [research, research](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users), contemplate, then write your question as the answer you hope to receive.  To be clear, a link and/or picture helps, but only to clarify concepts - dont mistake them for research or effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please appreciate the amount of time and effort it takes to research, develop a (correct) answer, and then write that answer in order to help you. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The last is especially true for the monumental questions you have asked recently:  Do you think succinct answers are possible?  Do you think its reasonable to spend ~2 minutes asking a whimsical question, and expect an answer that essentially invents/validates a non-existent technology (in a page or two, no less)!?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are great.  Thats why we all choose to participate here.  But realize that when you ask a question, the community expects you to care enough about your question to try, really try to answer it yourself.  Do every calculation you know you should.  Read every article you can find.  Struggle to find the answer on your own, then ask.  Questions should articulate what you dont understand in order to continue answering your larger question - remember, its your question, not ours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given multiple closed and downvoted questions, I urge you to reconsider your asking criteria - to reiterate @dmckee, realize that a single user cannot be responsible for closure and multiple downvotes.  I think you should accept that users really do vote on content, not on personal grudges.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sincerely hope this is not recieved as an attack against you personally - its intended to be a candid rebuttal of your question - and I look forward to your future contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="74a26bfb-1a7d-43a8-94ec-dc1e44dd5c9d" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="To address your title: [downvoters don't owe you an explanation](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135/280545), which is [an intentional decision](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/250177/1650379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your concern that people are downvoting both of your questions: I think that's appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Please [don't re-post a question that wasn't well-received](https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4068).  Instead follow [this advice](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7054/280545) to improve and promote the *original* question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You can &quot;bump&quot; your question by editing the question to **provide status and progress updates resulting from your own continued efforts to answer the question yourself**. I usually do that unless I really hit a dead end with no further clues to follow. Some times I eventually bring about enough understanding to realise the answer, and thus post a resolution to my own problem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you have at least **75** rep points, you can [offer a **bounty**][1], promising to give some of your points to the person who correctly answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Upvote** the original question - every upvote helps increase its profile on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Use the **share** button beneath the original question to advertise it to your networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/privileges/set-bounties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these bits of advice I might add:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Ask for guidance about the questions on Meta (hello!) or in the [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), and take any advice you get there to heart for present and future questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth I have closed your second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak to the physics content of your question, which is outside of my specialty, but I personally think it looks interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="6b2d1ce3-0b17-4ab2-bf9c-3e7a106008c7" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:37:55.943" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I dont think its been a (major) problem.  But, in my opinion, **the main chat room (&quot;the h Bar&quot;), should avoid politics and equally contentious topics**.  Given their (subjective) nature and scope, sparse discussion is natural, but excessive debate should be avoided or moved to other chat rooms within Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, joking, and doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - when discussed, they dominate conversation - after all, people can discuss them in other chat rooms within Physics.SE or on more relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere**, and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them.  Too often, they are disrespectful.  We have the 'Be Nice' policy... thats great, but its also been largely ineffective.  We dont need that in the main chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we avoid such topics on &quot;the h Bar&quot;, I think it would have a better atmosphere and allow  more open-ended topics, with limited oversight required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342903/3623090).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect in central venues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="d9953874-5b5c-44af-9852-b1ef8da7ceb8" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:46:12.077" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://security.stackexchange.com/ with https://security.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, note that very few sites offer _both_ HTTP and HTTPS. There's only one that I can think of -- Wikipedia. GMail used to; but we don't link to GMail on Phys.SE and it's pure HTTPS now anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is HTTPS, and how does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this post][1] if you're interested to know more. Or, y'know, Google it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is simply a protocol that prevents snooping and manipulation by intermediate entities on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens is that when you ask for an https website, the first thing it does is hand you a certificate. The certificate basically says &quot;I am who I am&quot;, and is generally digitally &quot;signed&quot; by some trusted entity that your browser knows(many times there are intermediate signing entities). Note that due to the signing path, this cannot be spoofed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certificate forms the basis of all the coming cryptography -- it acts as an initial transfer of public keys. Any further transfer of data will be hidden (except for the URLs you access) using this certificate and a prime number you generated as keys. Each party has a public and private key: Using _my_ private key and (say) _Wikipedia's_ public key, I can encrypt a message that can only be decrypted using my public key and Wikipedia's private key. The reverse works as well. Since the intermediate parties only have the public keys, they cannot send fake messages, nor can they read the messages being sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##When is it necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information you're receiving to be modified: For example if I'm downloading Chrome, I wouldn't want an attacker to sit in the middle of my connection with Google, pretend to be Google, and hand me their version of Chrome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information being sent to be snooped/modified: The easiest example of this is credit card/bank details. If I submit a form containing these details, I probably should only do so on a trusted HTTPS connection where I trust the site, and they have a security certificate verifying their identity (Most browsers display a green lock and the title of the company in the address bar). If it's not on a trusted connection, my ISP, proxy servers, and other entities in between can read these and steal my money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Is it necessary for https Wikipedia links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really, no. Unless you are blindly going to use the information given on Wikipedia to do something (run some code or mess around with chemicals: you don't want Wikipedia urging you to add [FOOF][2] to your baking soda and vinegar experiment), there isn't much point in using https when you are just reading stuff. URLs are visible to men in the middle anyway, so if your government hates Wikipedia, they'll still come to know. (You can bypass this using SSH tunneling or web proxies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia HTTPS is really meant for those who edit/contribute to Wikipedia: They are submitting passwords and other stuff and would like it to stay secure. Plus, there are those with access to privately identifying information like IPs nad emails for whom it is a matter of trying to keep private info private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some [other uses][3] as well. Generally, those who use HTTPS for these reasons know how to tack an s onto the URL themselves :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Does https have any problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep. Firstly, as you noted, it's slightly slower. Not enough to make a difference while browsing Wikipedia, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, not all proxy servers like it. Using HTTPS over an HTTP proxy (which is what most institutes and workplaces use -- SOCKS proxies are rare) requires  a protocol-switching thing known as HTTP CONNECT, and not all proxies allow that on port 443 (where HTTPS runs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those behind such proxies *usually* know how to deal with this -- just chop the s right out of the URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should our policy be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I mentioned, those who need https know how to enable it for Wikipedia.  The reverse doesn't always work, since when https wikipedia fails to work behind a proxy, to many it just looks like Wikipedia is down (&quot;Oh no! how will I ever complete my project now!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while we shouldn't go actively editing https out, it's great if you try to use http in your Wikipedia links. And if you are editing a post, it's fine if you replace the https as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies only for Wikipedia -- most sites do not have both HTTP and HTTPS at the same time, so editing a link to HTTP may break it (always check)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/20833/7497&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4624/please-explain-why-dioxygen-difluoride-is-so-dangerous&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HTTPS#But_still_very_useful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="56849a37-b2a1-4cef-9083-cb76f9f35262" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:04:45.617" UserId="137083" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Shankar Quantum Mechanics: Proof Inverse Of Operators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/318328/shankar-quantum-mechanics-proof-inverse-of-operators)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Hi!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get why my question was flagged as homework plus a down-vote. It is not meant as homework. Also, that line beneath the imgur link was my (poorly?) proof, In the footnote: they said: see for the concepts at the end of Theorem A.1.1. There, the proof was also one line. So what I did was simply switched the symbols and asking if its a valid proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="56849a37-b2a1-4cef-9083-cb76f9f35262" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:04:45.617" UserId="137083" Text="Why is my question on hold, flagged as homework and why the downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="56849a37-b2a1-4cef-9083-cb76f9f35262" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:04:45.617" UserId="137083" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27308" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="4fe21df8-5967-45dd-b3e3-699dcea42c6a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:31:40.330" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9715" RevisionGUID="9b16fdee-9ec4-4e94-953c-c9ed251feb93" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:56:35.817" UserId="2451" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="The title pretty much sums it up. Should I change the accepted answer of my question if someone answers the question &quot;better&quot; or more extensively? Even though the accepted answer is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27310" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9715" RevisionGUID="9b16fdee-9ec4-4e94-953c-c9ed251feb93" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:56:35.817" UserId="2451" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Change accepted answer of my question if a better one appears" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9718" RevisionGUID="a2f80818-519e-40ba-bbfa-796d6a167972" CreationDate="2017-03-17T16:25:48.190" UserId="6634" Text="Just a hunch (I can't do any better than that, I don't know the topic nor did I vote to close), but I think the reason may be that your question looks like a &quot;Check my work&quot; kind of question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say that because the only part of the question that tries to explain/justify your work or where you are stuck just says &quot;Would this be correct ...&quot; and gives an equation. That sounds a lot like &quot;check my work&quot; or &quot;derive this for me&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot offer any real explanation for how to improve it because it's not my subject area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvote may/may not be related. I would downvote it because you link to a png of fairly long explanation that is both external to the site and a long read. It would be much better to summarize what you are using from that text in the question directly so it is concise and self-contained. Feel free to link to the full text still, but the person who wants to answer shouldn't need to go somewhere else to read and extract what you are using." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="58f03eec-bed4-4d51-bf4e-7969063b60fa" CreationDate="2017-03-17T18:53:50.623" UserId="93522" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/922e04996c681c52aab286e71c2fd72811e05cde/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="58f03eec-bed4-4d51-bf4e-7969063b60fa" CreationDate="2017-03-17T18:53:50.623" UserId="93522" Text="Shouldn't we get a vector logo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="58f03eec-bed4-4d51-bf4e-7969063b60fa" CreationDate="2017-03-17T18:53:50.623" UserId="93522" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="9dec745e-5eed-4514-bfab-5a30f8bc4671" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:01:09.247" UserId="93522" Comment="edited body" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/395d9e624f8e3fae2dc533a8f7001526f01f2049/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="9dec745e-5eed-4514-bfab-5a30f8bc4671" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:01:09.247" UserId="93522" Comment="edited body" Text="Should we get a vector logo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="9dec745e-5eed-4514-bfab-5a30f8bc4671" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:01:09.247" UserId="93522" Comment="edited body" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9720" RevisionGUID="ffb673ab-dd23-4778-a5d9-1c6b0b843627" CreationDate="2017-03-17T21:25:30.730" UserId="36194" Text="Beyond your protest would you please care to explain how this is NOT a homework question?  It certainly seems like a legitimate homework question...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see your question and I immediately suspect it is taken from an assignment: you took your question out of a textbook, included a page of the textbook as an image to which you refer, you ask the community to check your work, and you provide minimal context to your question (you did not defined $\mathbb{V}^n$ or even $n$).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of the discussion in Shankar makes you doubt your solution?  Can you find similar examples in other texts, or counterexamples elsewhere for which this simple proof of yours would not work.  This would show prior research and also show that you are interested in something beyond just &quot;check my work please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9720" RevisionGUID="29f51956-f8cc-446a-adcf-59b67bb0326e" CreationDate="2017-03-17T21:31:42.833" UserId="36194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Beyond your protest would you please care to explain how this is NOT a homework question?  It certainly seems like a legitimate homework question...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see your question and I immediately suspect it is taken from an assignment: you took your question out of a textbook, included a page of the textbook as an image to which you refer, you ask the community to check your work, and you provide minimal context to your question (you did not define $\mathbb{V}^n$ or even $n$).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of the discussion in Shankar makes you doubt your solution?  Can you find similar examples in other texts, or counterexamples elsewhere for which this simple proof of yours would not work.  This would show prior research and also show that you are interested in something beyond just &quot;check my work please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9720" RevisionGUID="4d8107ca-ff0f-439a-91d3-2fddee990b85" CreationDate="2017-03-17T21:54:30.570" UserId="36194" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Beyond your protest would you please care to explain how this is NOT a homework question?  It certainly seems like a legitimate homework question that an instructor would ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see your question and I immediately suspect it is taken from an assignment: you took your question out of a textbook, included a page of the textbook as an image to which you refer, you ask the community to check your work, and you provide minimal context to your question (you did not define $\mathbb{V}^n$ or even $n$).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of the discussion in Shankar makes you doubt your solution?  Can you find similar examples in other texts, or counterexamples elsewhere for which this simple proof of yours would not work.  This would show prior research and also show that you are interested in something beyond just &quot;check my work please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27321" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="64e83dff-fba5-4e39-af18-a866b81ab7b2" CreationDate="2017-03-17T23:17:33.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/842877596857712641" />
  <row Id="27322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="c43b46b9-816a-4734-9bd9-7aed36569eb1" CreationDate="2017-03-19T14:43:12.337" UserId="93522" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/395d9e624f8e3fae2dc533a8f7001526f01f2049/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: If you decide to use the logo I made, please give attribution to the creator of the Feynmann diagram, as per the Creative Commons license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="9faaff6e-828d-4968-a525-fa6314d4a73c" CreationDate="2017-03-19T15:11:03.690" UserId="93522" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/395d9e624f8e3fae2dc533a8f7001526f01f2049/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral. Logo based on Physics SE's logo, licensed by Stack Exchange Inc under [cc by-sa 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: If you decide to use the logo I made, please give attribution to the creator of the Feynmann diagram, as per the Creative Commons license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="b0f63b92-dfc5-404f-b08a-9e9137a7d502" CreationDate="2017-03-19T15:37:36.227" UserId="93522" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/395d9e624f8e3fae2dc533a8f7001526f01f2049/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral. Logo based on Physics SE's logo, copyright of Stack Exchange Inc.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: If you decide to use the logo I made, please give attribution to the creator of the Feynmann diagram, as per the Creative Commons license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="55fdd70d-d84e-43f0-ae3c-1e1b22590ca3" CreationDate="2017-03-19T20:15:31.410" UserId="23785" Text="Would it be convenient to include an automatically generated comment when voting to close a question as homework-like? The way things are set up now, if I see a question that runs afoul the homework-like policy, I just cast a downvote. Some people less lazy than me put a comment that looks like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange! Please note that Physics.StackExchange is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for “check my work” problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is helpful because it indicates to the asker what is wrong with his question, where an indication that he has one close vote for an unknown reason does not communicate such information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think automating the comment process would make comment easier for people who already do it, and would get more people like me who aren't doing to do it more, which would be a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now as far as the implementation, the comment could be completely automatic, or the closer could be prompted with a text box so they can confirm or modify the comment. If the comment is completely automatic, maybe its author should be the wiki user instead of the closer, but this is a detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, do we think any feature like this would be useful? Note that I am not asking if the physics.se mods can implement this feature. There may need to be upstream changes, but I figure the first step would be to would be to see if anyone even wants this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note this seems not totally out of the question because similar functionality already exists for voting to close as duplicate and voting to close for an &quot;other&quot; reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="55fdd70d-d84e-43f0-ae3c-1e1b22590ca3" CreationDate="2017-03-19T20:15:31.410" UserId="23785" Text="Automatic comment when voting to close as homework-like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="55fdd70d-d84e-43f0-ae3c-1e1b22590ca3" CreationDate="2017-03-19T20:15:31.410" UserId="23785" Text="|feature-request|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="d20deef9-6958-4754-83d6-8edadc1d0125" CreationDate="2017-03-19T20:18:36.143" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9722" RevisionGUID="4fd92a35-00fa-4425-b425-e34769c6064c" CreationDate="2017-03-19T22:46:13.697" UserId="25301" Text="I don't think the SE team needs to be involved since pretty much all of us use the extremely useful [StackApps](http://stackapps.com/) project [*AutoReviewComments*](http://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (and if you don't, you should). The message can be added to your local copy by adding the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`###[Q]Homework&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6093/)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I've mentioned [another related message](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7299/ethics-redirecting-homework-solution-seeking-questions-to-a-website-built-for/7300#7300) previously, I think others have posted other AutoReviewComments in other Physics.Meta posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="dbf9632f-8bf4-489f-adc2-70a85dd16d62" CreationDate="2017-03-19T23:55:34.880" UserId="93522" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them, and they'll always remain crisp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/395d9e624f8e3fae2dc533a8f7001526f01f2049/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral. Logo based on Physics SE's logo, copyright of Stack Exchange Inc.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Not to mention, the current logo shows up blurry for a lot of larger displays. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: If you decide to use the logo I made, please give attribution to the creator of the Feynmann diagram, as per the Creative Commons license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="f0df0d4d-e7c7-41eb-90ca-b382f1517a6d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](http://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](http://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="36570f41-df4a-442c-89c8-cea863e25070" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="There are limited email notification available already, and the topic has been [discussed heavily on the mother meta][1]. You will find that the official policy is to use email as a backup form of communication, not as a [substitute for visiting the site][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider using [the RSS feeds][3] (available at the bottom of most pages on the site) to follow sites/questions/tags/users that interest you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?tab=relevance&amp;q=email%20notification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14555/notify-more-frequently-than-once-a-day/14600#14600&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/email-notifications-for-new-questions-matching-specific-tags/25225#25225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="56690cd9-b511-4b76-bb4d-a5e26c8ac7b6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="IE8 generates [a fair number of complaints on the mother meta][1], but I don't see one exactly like this. The closest I've got is [Autologin working sporadically?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this started recently after it was working for a while? The team does tinker with the code and this could be a regression if it is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=IE8&amp;submit=search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/109618/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="eb5c8377-2f65-45cc-9649-bfae6c5ef653" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I was going through some old questions, where the accepted answers aren't usually the most thorough/best ones (in my opinion), which leads me to my suggestion - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible for other users to vote to change the &quot;correct&quot; answer? I can't seem to find the couple of questions I was looking at that spawned this idea, but I'll link to them once I find it. If more than some number of users think the right answer should be changed to something else, then we could award rep to the new accepted answer without taking it away from the original accepted answer (or something like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically because then the actual &quot;best&quot; answer will come up first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** After going through the Meta-SO questions, I eventually found (after stumbling on hundreds of [Jon Skeet][1] questions) several threads relating to re-ordering of the questions based on votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This one][2] (about changing the accepted answer)&#xD;&#xA; - [This other one][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Also this][4] (Reordering the answers)&#xD;&#xA; - [And finally this][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one seems to have really reached any form of a consensus on this issue (about re-ordering the questions). I doubt it's going to get resolved, but I thought I'd add these links here for anyone else who's interested in going through the debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=jon%20skeet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24403/should-the-system-automatically-modify-the-accepted-answer-when-another-answer-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7572/why-do-incorrect-answers-keep-getting-accepted&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95635/should-there-be-a-tab-to-see-anwers-with-much-higher-votes-than-the-accepted-ans&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36195/accepted-answer-most-upvoted-answer-discrepancy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="ca715ecb-9323-40fd-9fc5-abeab7cc52a3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="My checklist that I try following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do I understand the original question?&#xD;&#xA;  1. No? Select *Skip*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Yes? Downvote.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Comments exist already?&#xD;&#xA;  1. No? &#xD;&#xA;    - Can I guide the poster to a more-correct answer?&#xD;&#xA;      1. Yes? Do so, then select *Looks OK*&#xD;&#xA;      2. No? Select *Skip*&#xD;&#xA;  2. Yes? &#xD;&#xA;   - Does the comment explain the error?&#xD;&#xA;     1. Yes? Select *Looks OK*.&#xD;&#xA;     2. No? Explain why it's wrong, select *Looks OK*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Looks OK* button ***is*** [the appropriate response](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) for incorrect answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="c44af5aa-28c5-46c9-93af-7c40333bf429" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I intend to ask the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I install [Geant4][1] ([wiki][2]) alongside GEANT-3 ([wiki][3]) on my Ubuntu 15.04? I have already installed GEANT3. How can I install Geant4 without making any problems?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I ask the question on Physics StackExchange?&#xD;&#xA;May be we should introduce a tag or site for computing packages and resources for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already asked similar question on StackOverflow Meta [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geant4.org/geant4/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geant4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEANT-3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/298562/3623705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9025" RevisionGUID="2e7a0c7c-b4ea-498c-9eea-7fee6ab9c069" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="In my opinion, there are no large differences between PSE and SO in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both on the SO, and also here, there is a requirement from the OP to show his attempts to solve his problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the SO, most of the VLQ questions are coming from beginner programmers in a strong need to provide the software what they are incapable to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the PSE, most of the VLQ questions are coming from physics students in a strong need to provide the homework what they are incapable to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases is it possible to show, what you tried. A similar requirement would be also a useful defense on the PSE against its degradation to an online, free homework solving service. But there is a such requirement already, and I've seen a _lot_ of homework questions closed on this reason (what I agree in most cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A remark: people _likes_ to solve problems, despite that they know, it makes them like a w*. People motivated by such urges, can become later productive users of the site. This is the probable reason, what makes the MathSE a well-going site. And, although the OPs of the VLQ questions don't seem really useful content producers of the future, their answerers do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this behavior of the MathSE clearly worsens its mean quality, but if there is a finetuned, predictable way to deal with the [help vampires and the repwhores][1] (*), to use their significant content-producing power to serve the site, it can help more as it harms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) I link here a MSO _answer_, describing the main sociological structure on the SE on a quite funny way :-) I didn't link the question (what is irrelevant in our current context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/251758/why-is-stack-overflow-so-negative-of-late/252077#252077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9458" RevisionGUID="3d577e30-7886-46fd-8dd9-454f3d54f4bc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="It's exciting that you all care about your site so much you want to wear your allegiance. The only concern I had when I heard about this was &quot;what would our pesky lawyers say?&quot;. As a rule, [&quot;It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission&quot;](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/317531/1438). That said, our VP of Community Growth [says](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/244564/1438):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We do not object to your individual use of the logo in a personal and private manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like, say for using the logo on a tee shirt you plan to wear yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a bit tricky when it comes to selling shirts. But as long as the charge is just to defray costs and it doesn't turn it into a business of some sort, I don't see any problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we can't coordinate this event; y'all'll have to take care of that yourselves. You might have heard of our [#SOreadytohelp contest](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/303721/who-are-the-winners-in-the-soreadytohelp-t-shirt-drawing). It took [months](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/313937/10-million-questions-giveaway-what-happened) to distribute the prizes and we've concluded its just not one our strengths. Sorry about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9647" RevisionGUID="70c54bd0-c009-4528-ad8c-2dc39d0cabf8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="This is the message you're shown when you try to ask a question. I'm quoting it in its entirety in the hope that you read it this time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;b&gt;It looks like you might need a break - take a breather and come back soon!&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've asked 4 questions recently, some of which have not been received very well by the community. Everyone learns at their own pace, and it’s okay to make some mistakes. However, the reception your questions have received thus far might ultimately block your account from asking questions entirely. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been 1 day since you asked your last question. We ask that you wait 2 days before asking again. Use this time to revisit &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=questions&quot;&gt;your previous questions&lt;/a&gt;, editing to address any issues that folks have pointed out in comments. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Recommended reading:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&quot;&gt;tips on asking great questions&lt;/a&gt; as well as our guidance on &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&quot;&gt;which questions are allowed here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Additional advice&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Examining highly-scored questions in the tags that interest you is a great way to study how to ask better questions, that also get better answers much sooner! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- We don’t demand perfection, but &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;please&lt;/i&gt; make sure you use proper grammar, spelling and capitalization&lt;/b&gt;, it really helps! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Improve downvoted questions rather than deleting them. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Do not delete your account, create new accounts, or otherwise attempt to circumvent these restrictions. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Do not contact us regarding these restrictions, they cannot be lifted. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failure to heed this advice may increase the severity of these restrictions. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;For more information&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/271542/why-wont-the-system-allow-me-to-ask-questions-for-several-days/271543#271543&quot;&gt;Why won’t the system allow me to ask questions for several days?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sometimes takes a few attempts at a good question in order to fully learn how our system works, and what the community expects from folks seeking answers. Just &lt;b&gt;do your best&lt;/b&gt; to make sure you've improved the quality of your existing questions, and we'll see you in 2 days!&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="7d86f171-f560-4dda-a019-e22df8f6c242" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:16:31.813" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving their time. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, it's hard to get a job with one on your record. Some jobs, [particularly those that require a license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_against_persons_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States#Background), are prohibited from hiring ex-felons. &quot;Open justice&quot; on its own is no protection against discriminatory practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does that apply to Stack Exchange? Well, one of the primary goals of the [penalty box system](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/) is rehabilitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and **your account will resume as normal**. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In California, ~65% of former prisoners [return to prison](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/). That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Physics at this moment, just under a quarter of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the site. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bigger question you are trying to get at is whether a secret system of justice can be fair. So let me explain our process a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The system encourages moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended, so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Every message and every suspension is sent to the [community team](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-managers-and-what-do-they-do) for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or [poor guidance from the system](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288242/1438). The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system encourages moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness as compared to other, similar networks on the internet. A good deal of the credit belongs to [the cadre of volunteer moderators](http://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) who have the power to suspend users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there's been some concern that moderators on Physics have suspended more users than on other sites. I looked at the statistics on all Stack Exchange sites and found that 150 currently have at least one user serving a suspension. By total suspensions, Physics is tied for 7&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; most. The top site, as you might imagine, is Stack Overflow. But it has an order of magnitude more users than Physics. So it makes more sense to compare the rate of suspensions per users active on the site in the last year. By that metric, Stack Overflow among the least frequent suspension site. Physics is ranked 81&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; or about average. Note, however, this includes network-wide suspensions, which are enforced by employees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="8e1b60ca-7c8e-4be3-b68b-172c1f4b27e3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:04:28.313" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/" Text="Half a section of the FAQ can be edited (just copied the image from math.SE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WW8oK.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was recommended we just include the on- and off-topic stuff, e.g. copied from [Super User](https://superuser.com/faq):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Super User is for computer enthusiasts and power users. If you have a question about …&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * computer hardware&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * computer software&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and it is **not about** …&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * videogames or consoles&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * websites or web services like Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * electronic devices, media players, cell phones or smart phones, except insofar as they interface with your computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * a shopping or buying recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … then you're in the right place to ask your question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions what to put there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW, just to be clear, we can also add extra sections in that area, like [cooking.SE](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq), but the last section must be followed by that &quot;Please look around...&quot; paragraph, making it hard to deviate from the on-/off-topic theme.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="4d126159-fc7d-4207-ba03-5bd5346d193e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:04:28.313" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](http://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](https://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="30927f19-88c8-40a8-aafd-5ae9a822aec5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:04:28.313" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/" Text="Questions 1 and 2 are biology, not physics. We can put upper bounds on the physical effects of something, but it is up to biologists to determine if that is harmful to the organism. These questions are also marginally on-topic for [at least one technical site][1] and definitely on-topic for [the local site for general skeptical inquiries][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions 3 and 4 can be made on-topic here, but they should be **separate** questions. 3 should be phrased in a way to ask about conceptually how microwaves heat living (i.e. water-rich, organic) material. 4 should ask about whether such frequencies are focused by the eye (note that the vitreous humor is at least as important as the lens proper in humans, the former being essentially water as far as physics is concerned, the latter a crystal in some sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is not for physics to say what the harm is, *unless* you provide the biology necessary for that judgment. For example, if you give a correspondence between electrons ejected from DNA and cancer rate, a physicist can tell you something like &quot;sitting next to a cell tower will cause XXX excess displaced electrons per DNA strand per day due to thermal motions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I make no guarantees though that these questions have not been asked already. You should check those linked questions in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://superuser.com/questions/718650/paranoid-parent-wifi-safe-for-baby&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1178/are-wifi-waves-harmful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="f2163680-43c4-4ae7-b02a-d4723ebba5de" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:04:28.313" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/" Text="Not much of an answer to the real question because (a) it's a single-user solution rather than the whole user-base of Physics and (b) it applies to *all* websites and not just this one&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but you *can* change the font yourself. For Firefox, for example, you can select&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Edit &gt; Preferences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then under the `Content` tab, select `Advanced`:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom is the option *Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above*:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you unselect that, then you can choose whatever font you want &amp; have the same fonts as Chemistry. Thus, your example becomes  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't use Chrome, but I suspect that there is a similar option hidden somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. I've not tested it, but this [SuperUser post](https://superuser.com/questions/527774/replace-fonts-in-firefox-on-only-certain-websites-and-only-certain-fonts) says that there is a work-around for particular sites that involves writing a CSS and enabling Firefox to see it.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jrFfT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8g1d.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q8kcC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="544bc45d-a420-4688-a3eb-744eb8a4949d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are already members of the SE team who are registered on the site and have moderator powers, but I don't think they participate heavily in the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator-choosing process is described in e.g. this [post on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site/58056#58056) but here's the gist: about a week after the public beta starts, temporary moderators will be chosen by the Stack Exchange team, based on community input. Then later on, after the end of the beta period, there will be an election of permanent moderators - or rather, an election of moderator _candidates_ to indicate who the community prefers, but I'm sure the results will be reviewed by the SE team and the final choice is up to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="85ba4f48-6795-439c-8fb7-15bc38e1fa21" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Most people have enough of a sense of the concept of &quot;fair play&quot; that I'd like to think this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly going to come up, and we don't want to deter people from legitimately using this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cribbing from [StackOverflow][1] - on which the Mathematics.StackExchange site builds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two principles involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;It is okay to ask about homework&lt;/b&gt;. For one, it would be impossible to stop it all even if we wanted to. Stack Overflow exists to help programmers learn and provide a standard repository for programming problems, both simple and complex, and this includes helping students.&lt;/li&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest&lt;/b&gt;. Therefore you might choose to treat homework questions differently than other questions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it'll be nigh-impossible to determine in advance which are homework questions 100% of the time. On the other hand, there will be those questions are going to stick out like a sore thumb as obvious homework. I don't think we want to get in the habit of providing homework answers directly, as that directly violates principle 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's wrong to inquire if a question is a homework or class-related question in the comments. If it is, the questioner ought to be willing to accept help in a form similar to what they might get from a reasonably accommodating professor or TA, and it should be our job to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, if we could get people with homework questions to **voluntarily** tag their questions appropriately, then everyone would benefit. Maybe this ought to be in our FAQs or guidelines somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10811/homework-on-stackoverflow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="bc39a503-4ffb-43e7-825b-65dd60cfd6e7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[No](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26483/could-we-have-the-ability-to-mark-a-change-as-minor-in-questions-or-answers/26496#26496)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="a63ddb69-74ad-4e8a-98aa-e7619ff2a434" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is with respect to SO ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com), the site that started the whole SE business), which we are not but since it works good there we should at least think about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeff Atwood [stated](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3774/add-meta-tag-to-support-internationalization/7320#7320) (regarding non-english posts on http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe programmers who speak only Mandarin, or French, or Spanish, are better off forming their own communities and centers of gravity. Shared language is one of the fundamental aspects of community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just visit Chinatown in nearby San Francisco to see what I mean.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some digging I found [this blog post from '07](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/) as a follow-up on the discussion [We need to help non-English-speakers somehow…](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/07/non-english-question-policy/), and the faq-entry [Is English required on Stack Overflow?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13676/146482)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, on SO the policy is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I say keep it in English. I'm not against diversity or other languages, I'm for us all being able to communicate under one. This isn't political, this isn't about smothering peoples cultures with Western ideologies. It is about being pragmatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that multiple languages on one site cause confusion. But we should not &quot;ban&quot; non-english speakers, so I suggest we do not vote on non-english posts (both questions and answers) and try to translate things to english as good as possible. As soon as the correctness of the translation is verified, the original text should be removed - it will still be available by clicking on the _edited by_ link. Maybe one can edit in a  &#xD;&#xA;    `[original version in russian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/519/revisions#rev3252802a-affc-499f-9316-3e44d8a4f81c)`  &#xD;&#xA;link or post that as comment, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="d6beec3b-4a12-43b0-8fdb-364797a3f942" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the theory is that if a 'comment' is long enough and has enough structure to require paragraphs (i.e. line breaks), then it should really be answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I quite like that it just takes [Enter] to submit comments. This is a recent change in the user interface of this site, and makes comment writing a bit quicker, in the case where one leaves many short comments (as I often do). [Shift-Enter] still gives you a normal line-break (only visible in the editor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [the set of `faq`-tagged questions on Meta StackOverflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) you may find quite helpful. These are generally large community-wiki style questions detailing various aspects of StackExchange sites, dating back to the early days of StackOverflow (but updated a lot since)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="7977f466-17dd-4a69-b26c-938de1fdade5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="ca8ccc6e-259f-40a4-839e-c0a28422b9ee" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I use the [Greasemonkey script for displaying threaded comments](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43055/146482) to get a better overview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://unicorn.&amp;#252;-wie-geek.de/threaded2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still have to click on `show more comments...` if necessary, and the heuristic is of course not always perfect, but I like it. Other useful greasemonkey scripts can be found in [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/3687/146482) and [that one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5188/146482) at meta.SO, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Show unread questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3687/greasemonkey-script-ideas-best-of-stackoverflow-greasemonkey-implementations/25927#25927)&#xD;&#xA;- [Highlight which tag is the interesting one, plus different shading if more than one tag is interesting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49704/double-intensity-shading-for-questions-with-1-interesting-tags/49724#49724)&#xD;&#xA;- [Script to add “reply” links to comments](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/38600/146482)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="0963256f-005d-4c11-83bd-5d41a00d68b0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We already show a reminder to those who downvote and are below 2k rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(don't worry, no posts were harmed in the creation of this screenshot)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rational way to *force* people to leave a comment explaining their downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have some free time and wish to read the weeks and weeks of discussion on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2263/require-comments-on-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;- https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes&#xD;&#xA;- https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6521/allow-users-to-leave-an-anonymous-comment-when-voting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Linked&quot; and &quot;Related&quot; columns of those questions are voluminous and probably cover every possible permutation of this conversation we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzdqj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="4d8563c2-fb1e-4f03-ab0a-0c931739ce5c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is SE-wide bug; if you need this +100 now, create account on any other SE site, this should make the transfer here. Yet this will be fixed, hopefully soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta question: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/70147/account-association-not-giving-100/70149#70149&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="12387601-2f99-42ba-8426-dfba10a88f52" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I like it. But since taste is subjective, I still hope that [Allow individual SE theming settings](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64697/allow-individual-se-theming-settings) will get accepted. Until then, those who don't like the current design can have a look [here](http://stackapps.com/questions/2113/beta-gaming-se-black-edition) for some inspiration how to manipulate this to one's individual pleasing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="0903fe68-9911-4fd6-a18c-74f2f8efc1ce" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2011 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/610). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please add your replies to the chat room and comment here so they can be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="f321873b-7a8d-4d73-99c1-3b12122da63f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is already posted on Meta.SO by KennyTM, so all we can do is wait (or upvote the post on meta): https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68388/there-should-be-universal-latex-mathjax-guide-for-sites-supporting-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="ce9f6edf-4502-48db-ac98-ea9fc0fc1cc9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Assuming you're asking about the rules governing when a user can be suspended: there is only one, &quot;don't be a jerk.&quot; This is intentionally vague. Suspensions are imposed at the discretion of the moderators. Generally they only occur after an official warning has been given but has not had the desired effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is discussed on [this MSO question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23366/suspension-reasons), and [this MSO answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23661/what-is-the-point-of-a-30-day-account-suspension/23681#23681) (though I'm not saying we're obligated to use that exact sequence on this site)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="01a7a9ff-083c-4bc1-a45e-03aa1709bb2e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are limited email notification available already, and the topic has been [discussed heavily on the mother meta][1]. You will find that the official policy is to use email as a backup form of communication, not as a [substitute for visiting the site][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider using [the RSS feeds][3] (available at the bottom of most pages on the site) to follow sites/questions/tags/users that interest you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?tab=relevance&amp;q=email%20notification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14555/notify-more-frequently-than-once-a-day/14600#14600&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/email-notifications-for-new-questions-matching-specific-tags/25225#25225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="2c10498c-9e12-4fa0-9777-34e7c5b866f7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; First, is there a way to insert line-breaks into a comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No there isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be also nice if [Enter] didn't submit the comment; this still surprises me sometimes and makes me add unfinished comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More generally, is there some nice FAQ or other resource where one can learn everything about the site's user interface?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask a [meta-tag:support] question in https://meta.stackoverflow.com/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="20c1ec2d-eb45-4601-b5ef-d35cef350871" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As David said, it is proprietary. However, here is a list of [OpenSource clones](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-clones) of the engine. IMO the most advanced are [Shapado](http://shapado.com/) and [OSQA](http://www.osqa.net/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="432cf32a-84d1-43c6-adbe-59293cd396f5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently physics.SE has seen more users regularly including salutations and sign-off in their posts. That [behavior has been strongly discouraged on Stack Overflow][1] for a very long time, and I would prefer the same here. But I'm not ready to start a major editing campaign without polling the locals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Editing for Brevity?][2] (Closed as a duplicate of the above, but much more recent and containing some additional discussion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/37439/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="1123586a-6e89-4328-8f2f-f1da82bd5b00" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I saw an ad in the top banner when I visited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could just as easily be an ad for this site.  If Physicsforums.com is an important site, sponsoring an ad there would be a good way to drive traffic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps [CHAOS](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100137/what-is-the-meaning-of-chaos-is-it-related-to-the-psi-character) should get involved in this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gsdMM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="f00ad3da-bd8a-4f44-9a77-1753154bd238" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the originial [thread][1] [dmckee][2] is mentioning the argumentation is all about **effectiveness** and getting the content of something straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is important to come to a point fast.  &#xD;&#xA;But: This is a question of which **culture** one wants to have in such a community. The _extraneous clutter_ mentioned by [TheTXI][3] might indeed be something meaningful in **human communication**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I strongly plead to leave the **freedom** to the members of our community in which way to personalize questions and answers - I think I am not just a machine creating content for some website...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/22164/thetxi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="5116fa65-1952-4895-a3d3-88a5c732d777" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are a few recent questions ( http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20622/how-to-compute-resting-position-given-initial-position-initial-velocity-and-dec) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The network overlords have considered implementing [a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/) to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was [too easily abused](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason) to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just leave these kinds of questions alone&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave the ones about physics _concepts_ alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&#xD;&#xA;3. Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&#xD;&#xA;4. Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that **no physics topic is too elementary to ask about**. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="d1bae992-2c74-47fd-870a-8877fddc98e3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes -- this is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67054/can-we-grandfather-in-rep-abilities-as-sites-leave-beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more detail at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="9832cb22-d0a8-4d21-8129-4e595259d127" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="IE8 generates [a fair number of complaints on the mother meta][1], but I don't see one exactly like this. The closest I've got is [Autologin working sporadically?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this started recently after it was working for a while? The team does tinker with the code and this could be a regression if it is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=IE8&amp;submit=search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/109618/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="b93ad075-7336-4713-890d-a273049c9b4a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Thanks for the design. However I am not exactly pleased with what it does to the [highlight SOFU tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/49704/146482) greasemonkey script which made it easy to spot which and how many tags of a question actually are favourites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tagged][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QKYNb.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="0ce53383-d466-445c-919a-2b613de66c3f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The system automatically bumps old questions which don't have any (upvoted?) answers, under the guise of the &quot;Community&quot; user, in order to expose them to fresh eyes. See [this MSO question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6981/why-does-a-question-appear-as-modified-by-the-community-user) for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="0a748caa-1bfd-4f68-847c-7b79b3b0732a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [Related chat snippet][1]([s][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple times, I see a question and feel &quot;oh, `&lt;xyz&gt;` would be able to post a brilliant answer to this one&quot;. Quite a few nice questions get pushed down; out of the notice of the specialists. Sometimes I may want `&lt;xyz&gt;`s advice on a particular answer that I've seen. Aside from that, there are numerous other reasons where you may want to contact a specific user. For this, I [proposed a feature at MSO][3], but it probably won't go through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what I propose is this:&#xD;&#xA;A meta question, on which a user can post their username and specialties as a separate answer. A user need not be a specialist in anything(eg, me) to post. Maybe the question can be tagged [meta-tag:featured] so that everyone gets a look-see at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of such a post will be to allow anyone to ping that user with P.SE related comments. It should be entirely opt-in, nobody's forcing anyone :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are spam issues and other stuff, so I want to see some of your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3751540#3751540&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/3754680#3754680&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127333/allow-users-to-opt-in-to-being-superpinged-in-chat-by-anyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="3e09d244-a0ed-4a0a-83e9-9e7efbf8dcd9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Bounties are assigned separately from accepted answers. You can add bounties to your questions or other people's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#bounty&#xD;&#xA;- https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="c0d87570-252f-47d0-a0a0-e2c6db7a871b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In case you want to now about these, [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange) is a the thread at meta.SO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="ec9ef622-613a-48e5-8364-a2e92e34064a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="6cf5a346-1553-4548-827c-22cd015ba37d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You have [encountered][1] the [&quot;frequented tags&quot;][2] feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't set any &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot; tags by hand the system will eventually attempt to guess what you are interested in from your history; these are your &quot;frequented tags&quot; and they are highlighted for you in the various question list views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make it go away by setting some tags as &quot;interesting&quot; or &quot;ignored&quot;, though that will give you a different type of highlighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74943/how-do-i-remove-a-frequented-tag&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="c511d002-ecf8-47e3-abae-95eb698e2d84" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's explained in [What does &quot;user was removed&quot; mean and why did my reputation change because of it?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it). Basically, when another user's account is deleted, any votes they may have cast for you are reverted and your reputation can change accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="7283fa50-8d24-4470-9a5f-302b7d88cd41" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing does not necessarily block the question from getting answered, in that the server will accept answers but the UI generally tries to discourage this. See here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/79434/why-was-an-answer-allowed-on-a-question-that-was-merged-into-another-one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Migration does, however, when the question is locked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="ed313acb-e40b-458c-a073-b29a89ab4070" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in [Dilaton's MSO thread][1], so please allow me to set the record straight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site *temporarily* to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, [moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1376/what-violation-caused-this-suspension/1377#1377).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that moderators don't have a &quot;ban&quot; button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and [read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When users exhibit a pattern of either …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###No effort to learn and improve over time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...*OR*...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Disruptive behavior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and *walk away*. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: *&quot;Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139349/why-are-there-drastic-moderator-actions-that-take-effect-immediately-when-execut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="1a1215c2-ac23-4527-a553-b95682d71216" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no internal concept of &quot;following&quot; a user because (all together now) this [is not a social network][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, all is not lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are RSS feeds for users (and tag and question feeds). Click on the username to get to their profile page and look at the bottom right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/110958/can-we-finally-have-some-social-networking-features-on-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="bf3191d1-cedc-4d10-be6b-74f9ebf8c8e6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accepting an answer does ***not*** indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular questions are not in any sense *&quot;open&quot;* or *&quot;unanswered&quot;* until there is a green checkmark and *&quot;closed&quot;* or *&quot;answered&quot;* afterwards. Note that [there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [formal definition of *&quot;unanswered&quot;* for the purposes of the unanswered tab][2] is *&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense it is unfortunate that the site puts so much visual emphasis on accepted answers, because I prefer the current system but new users don't see a clear explanation of the meaning of acceptance and simply draw their own conclusions from the emphasis the site gives to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance][3] have [appeared][4] on the mother meta [many][5] [many][6] [times][7] without the team taking any action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="57679a0e-f33a-48a9-b6c1-2558d766627b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This [(admittedly old) question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/are-answers-that-just-contain-links-elsewhere-really-good-answers) on meta.SO concerns the handling of answers which contain a link and essentially nothing else. There are some varied opinions on how to handle such answers, ranging from upvoting (the view that as long as the answer to the question can be found at the link, it's fine) to flagging as &quot;not an answer&quot; (the view that &quot;outsourcing&quot; the burden of answering to another site is effectively useless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since physics is somewhat different from programming, it occurs to me that the discussion on meta.SO might not be _completely_ applicable to this site. **What does the physics.SE community think of link-only answers?** Do we upvote them, edit them, downvote them, flag them, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="fd784169-becf-49a3-a067-ef9fc3a970a9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ah! I think I figured it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queues have recently been changed to include some known bad posts as honeypots for detecting users who were mechanically reviewing in an effort to get the badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that [these are currently detectable due to differences in the UI][1]. Presumable the team is working on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmmm ... what I see is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the improve button right in the middle of the cluster on the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you getting something different? On just one suggested edit or consistently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157808/reviewing-low-quality-posts-that-are-baits-do-not-let-you-improve-edit-them&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xIgl5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="87a4970b-6f24-4e5d-a648-ab75a3f9427c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This message will automatically go away after 60 days.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57707/a-suggestion-of-yes-no-button-in-front-of-this-have-you-considered-accepting-an)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if nothing worth accepting shows up in that time, you'll at least be rid of it that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="acdd7fc4-71b6-42a3-af3b-d3bc4bdf0d30" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The location field is neither necessarily the user's actual location, nor is it force-validated. For example, my own personal location is listed as &quot;6&quot;, which is an in-joke from my first days on Meta Stack Overflow. This is probably less of an issue overall on Physics, as there's probably a greater portion of users who have valid locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We once did an attempt last year to standardize location strings across profiles. [That didn't go over too well](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88217/location-in-profile-was-changed-without-edit-or-knowing/88220#88220), although it gave us the means to suggest [a standardized format](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88306/where-is-the-documentation-for-the-correct-format-of-the-user-profiles-location) (as opposed to forcing it on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chat timezone is not derived from your location field. Rather, it is derived from your machine itself, through JavaScript, and reflects what time your machine thinks it is. This lets it give you &quot;local&quot; time for you where-ever you are, no matter how much you may travel. We don't actually store this information, which prevents us from a proper means to relay these times to other users who would be, say, stopping at your profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think for now, the simplest implementation is that a user who opts to want their time zone known to others can add it into the &quot;About Me&quot; section of their profile. Or, even, right into the location field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="040c09ed-0097-405e-be19-9a5516400247" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is [no][1] private [messaging][2] system, [nor will there ever be][3]. The team has been [quite firm][4] on this. The mantra is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is not a social network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Options that are available to you][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in a comment (which you should probably delete afterwards)&#xD;&#xA;* @-tagging the user in chat&#xD;&#xA;* Looking in the user's profile: people who want to be contacted out-of-band can provide the means there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/4830/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/57203/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/85255/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/431/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57537/how-do-i-contact-other-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="df322b3f-fc90-4fd9-bc75-75d69c8ea1f9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cross-posting questions across Stack Exchange sites is strongly discouraged. See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-it-possible-to-post-questions-across-a-couple-of-the-sites-because-its-debata/64073#64073&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Allowing cross-posting [across the Stack Exchange network] is a slippery slope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you might have slightly better odds of getting an answer by posting it on two sites, well, by gum, why not maximize your odds by posting it on *twenty sites!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some questions which fall into grey areas between sites, and I think it's OK to **ask and delete, then re-ask** if you feel you have asked on the wrong site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But as a general rule, do not cross-post questions, please. Pick a site and go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also ok to ask *two different versions* of a question but you MUST tailor it to the audience on that site. Copying and pasting would put you on the road to account suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there's also the issue of cross-posting on multiple websites that aren't Stack Exchange sites.. so long as you're willing to be *responsible* for the question everywhere you asked it, this can be ok-ish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="9ac6db0f-f1fd-4cf2-9535-afdb6f62707f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To copy from the comment I left you: the Stack Exchange system automatically reverses runs of apparent &quot;revenge downvoting&quot;. If the downvotes don't disappear within 36 hours, send an email to team@stackexchange.com identifying the questions that are still downvoted. There isn't anything that we (moderators) can do about it, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in more detail on the main meta site, for example [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23005/preventing-users-from-downvoting-good-answers-to-bad-questions/23010#23010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you can't lose the privilege of asking questions due to reputation. All users, even those with 1 reputation, can ask questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="4734adbb-6ea6-4714-a1c3-5dffaa2cce7f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with [the Logo turtle question][1] and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xD;&#xA;But recently [Jeff disagreed][2], and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained [some][3] questions [about][4] physics for which there is [sparse][5] experimental evidence or [theoretical support][6]. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputable (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="25779329-6adc-421a-ac6e-ecdf4da19628" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We get a lot of questions on this site whose titles are not written as questions. Recent examples include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't know how to start with this exercise&#xD;&#xA;- Finding tension in strings&#xD;&#xA;- List of international, English language physics grad programs&#xD;&#xA;- Schrodinger Equation - History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. In and of itself, this is fine; after all, some of these are perfectly good titles. But some of them are not. And I've been getting the sense that on this site, the titles written as questions often _tend_ to be [better](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) than the ones that are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving the quality of question titles is a good initiative that can boost the overall quality of our site. And if title quality really is correlated to asking a question, one way we can do that is by **encouraging posters, especially new posters, to pose their titles as questions**. I think it's good for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Titles in question form tend to be more focused on what the person actually wants to know. You get a specific sense of what the question is about by looking at a question title, rather than just a vague sense of what topic is involved.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps more importantly, we get a fair number of homework questions here, and in several of those cases the poster hasn't put in even the bare minimum of effort to make the question conceptual, as required by our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Almost invariably, the titles of these questions are simple statements, like the first couple examples in the list above.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I believe that **in the process of figuring out how to phrase their title as a question**, the people who post these sorts of questions will put in some thought that will **help them write a better question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see us get into the habit of phrasing the titles to our own posts as questions, when we can do so without sacrificing quality. Similarly, let's edit the titles of questions by new posters to also be questions, again when we can do so without sacrificing quality. If we establish a _consistent_ pattern of titling posts with questions, it will encourage new posters to follow that trend when posting their own questions, which hopefully leads to better title quality overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm **not** saying &quot;all titles should be questions.&quot; As I mentioned above, there are perfectly valid question titles which are not questions.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm also **not** saying that we should edit titles to be questions just for the sake of making them questions. After all, editing &quot;I don't know how to do this problem&quot; into &quot;How do I do this problem?&quot; does _nothing_ to improve the quality of the title, and remember, title quality is what it's all about. But starting with &quot;I don't know how to do this problem,&quot; given the choice between &quot;Period of a pendulum&quot; and &quot;What's the formula for period of a pendulum?&quot;, I'd choose the latter. It shows exactly what the poster is _really_ asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do you agree?** I'm not only posting this to encourage people to adopt this guideline but also looking for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do realize the irony of titling a question about titling questions with questions with a statement :-P Just go with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is a separate issue as to whether those questions demonstrate the bare minimum of effort required to meet our policy. The issue of whether those questions should  be closed is a separate one that I would be happy to discuss if anyone has input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="085c9a1a-a70a-45a4-a75d-1553b6035ef4" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are really two types of question titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Good titles that describe the content of the question in an accurate way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want #1, and definitely not #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to get there, but you *don't* want to start arbitrarily forcing everyone to prefix their questions with &quot;How do I..&quot; because that would actually harm the titles. See the excellent guidelines here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/10648/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR -- you want *good, descriptive* titles, a question title in the formal tone of a question can be every bit as bad as one that isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="1af794b4-2518-4a77-a77b-2a7bad5e76b9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing/Reopening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may **vote to reopen** (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="bb5af772-1e0d-4a6e-be4d-89d5980ff677" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately there is no way to do this. It has been proposed as a feature request [on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1170/should-i-be-able-to-cancel-my-up-vote-on-a-comment) and declined. Comments don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things anyway, so try not to worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="ac436873-e027-4588-b503-fc88d65b309e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has already been proposed [on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/63644/pressing-enter-in-comment-box-unexpectedly-submits-form). The way things are going, it seems unlikely to be implemented any time soon, but you should definitely add your vote to that proposal on MSO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="f0399b28-f96c-40b0-a716-99b2c56b038c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was going through some old questions, where the accepted answers aren't usually the most thorough/best ones (in my opinion), which leads me to my suggestion - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible for other users to vote to change the &quot;correct&quot; answer? I can't seem to find the couple of questions I was looking at that spawned this idea, but I'll link to them once I find it. If more than some number of users think the right answer should be changed to something else, then we could award rep to the new accepted answer without taking it away from the original accepted answer (or something like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically because then the actual &quot;best&quot; answer will come up first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** After going through the Meta-SO questions, I eventually found (after stumbling on hundreds of [Jon Skeet][1] questions) several threads relating to re-ordering of the questions based on votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This one][2] (about changing the accepted answer)&#xD;&#xA; - [This other one][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Also this][4] (Reordering the answers)&#xD;&#xA; - [And finally this][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one seems to have really reached any form of a consensus on this issue (about re-ordering the questions). I doubt it's going to get resolved, but I thought I'd add these links here for anyone else who's interested in going through the debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=jon%20skeet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24403/should-the-system-automatically-modify-the-accepted-answer-when-another-answer-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7572/why-do-incorrect-answers-keep-getting-accepted&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95635/should-there-be-a-tab-to-see-anwers-with-much-higher-votes-than-the-accepted-ans&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36195/accepted-answer-most-upvoted-answer-discrepancy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="fa19b22c-e83b-49e5-b58b-a8fbf1b5bd9b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No real point; there isn't any rep or anything. It's just something to strive for. You see all those badges and think &quot;I should get some more&quot;. Getting a badge on asking/answering a question (which is the first thing you do when you join) is a way to introduce the concept of badges. A new user sees that he got a badge, and investigates. He feels like getting more badges, so he works towards some of them. It benefits the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges are used by many online communities. It's a way of setting goals for the users; and helps retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17853/how-do-badges-work as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="938cced9-4df6-416f-a74a-b44bb2c0fa12" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Nope. This or something like it has been brought up many times on MSO ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature)) and repeatedly declined, so you can be pretty confident it's not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see it being useful in some cases, but (perhaps unfortunately), we're stuck with the way the system works here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the accepted answer is actually outright _wrong_ or completely useless, then you can downvote it, and even post a link in chat to ask other people to review it. You can state your objections to it and ask people to vote as they see fit, but don't go as far as _telling_ people how to vote on a post - while it might not _technically_ be against the rules, it is bad etiquette." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="842a35ea-cba2-468e-96e7-945c09cd50df" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The intent of this feature is that you accept the answer which actually solves your problem. This originated on Stack Overflow, and it makes sense there because for programming questions, it's easy for the original poster to try out various solutions and unambiguously determine which one actually works. For physics questions, on the other hand, the OP may not be in a position to judge which answer (if any) is correct, so accepting doesn't always make quite as much sense for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, it does offer a way to show that you've gotten a satisfactory answer, and so accepting an answer can be thought of as a way to mark a question as &quot;resolved.&quot; It's not resolved in the sense you might see the term elsewhere, though - if a question has an accepted answer, that shouldn't discourage you from posting your own answer if you think it adds value. Questions with accepted answers should certainly **not** be considered &quot;closed&quot; in any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you accept an answer to your question, the person who posted the answer gets 15 reputation, and you get 2 reputation. This is meant to encourage people to accept answers to their questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work) on Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="b8567bbd-7610-46d6-a75d-998ba33c19f0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just a heads up for those of you who have access to the so-called moderator tools (10k+), you can see [various statistics][1] related to the [anonymous feedback mechanism][2] (i.e. that from persons of no account), and also see list of those post which recive better or worse anonymous feedback then votes and those that simple recieve very positive or negative anonymous feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit surprised today when I noticed that we have recieved more than 12k such votes which averages more than one per question and is almost 10% of the more usual sort of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that can't see it right now, it is running about 2:1 positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition [sam.saffron][3] has provided a [data explorer][4] [query that can extract this data on a per user basis][5] (which I believe gets around the 10k limit for the on-site pages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/post-feedback/summary?filter=all&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130095/anonymous-user-feedback-about-my-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/users/1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/60668/feedback-on-my-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4053" RevisionGUID="de9267b6-e85a-49a9-89dc-190e881d867d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, this has been brought up many times [on MSO](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/886/a-friends-list-on-stack-overflow-would-be-nice) and you can read there all about why it won't be implemented. Basically, Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;A site, not a social network. (For the details you may have to read through the comments in the linked question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="bf48378d-38fb-4564-af0a-2be4bfa9e0ac" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Related [suggestions][1] have [been made][2] on [the mother][3] meta [many][4] times, the official position is that user who wish to be contactable put contact information in the *About Me* field of their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintaining a list of such users would, of course, be fine--a question here on meat.physics would be perfect for that purpose--but the system isn't going to support your getting their attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41474/request-a-specific-expert-on-a-subject-to-answer-your-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30564/how-to-ask-a-question-to-a-particular-user-of-stackoverflow-com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/113561/asking-specific-people-to-answer-my-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16757/how-do-you-contact-a-stackoverflow-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4060" RevisionGUID="2dea752e-0091-4b7f-903a-6b344b6c8407" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you [star a post][1], then all edits to the post and its answers will be visible in your &quot;favorites&quot; tab (the tab gets an indicator on it whenever there are any changes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding inbox notifications, that has been proposed many times ([example][2], [another one][3]) on the main meta, for various similar features. It's been declined most of the time, since it can get too noisy for active users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53585/how-do-favorite-questions-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68106/notify-me-of-edits-to-posts-ive-voted-on&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16662/add-notification-when-someone-comments-in-the-same-post-than-me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="c94b3929-d2b7-4b9c-9dfe-d314c220e4c7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="835c134a-818f-48eb-b69c-d1598a3b1573" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wish I'd stuck my nose in earlier, though I would not have argued strongly against the migration. Still there are a few points that need to be made one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many physics departments now have programs in the field known as &quot;Physics Education Research&quot; (PER), and professors hired for their skill in that discipline are called &quot;physics professors&quot; (and indeed they generally have Ph.Ds in physics).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That said, no one argues that the discipline is *physics*, it is clearly a field in the study of education. You can go to their talk or chat them up in the hallway and come to understand that very well.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   The reason PER is not in the College of Education is that those people have spectacularly failed us for generations. They have been unable to address the specific needs of technical disciplines in general and physics in particular. Not to mention a widespread feeling that their approach is not very scientific and a lot of their doctrine is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The PER people *are* trying to understand the value and costs of particular turns of phase as well as pedagogical approaches (things like *&quot;Is following the historical lines of development of physics useful or and unnecessary distraction?&quot;* and *&quot;math separately or as you go along?&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  However, they actually have very sparse concrete answers in those parts of their field. The place where they've made the most reliable and helpful advances is in the structure of instruction. Clickers and demos to break up the presentation and re-focus the students; investigative rather than follow the steps lab; more lab and less lecture; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have to say that the original questions *isn't* about what it says in the title, because physics *isn't* taught using the phrases that the OP singles out for interest. Physics is conveyed in a general and non-technical way to the interest lay public using those words and metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  That may seem like arguing of semantics, but I think it is important because popular science and science education have different audiences and different goals. You always tune your message to the audience and what you expect them to take away, and pop-sci is aimed at giving the intelligent non-specialist an overview of the results and the flavor of the theory; it is not intended to enable them to do physics at that level. Notwithstanding that a lot of us got *engaged* and started down the road to being scientist from exactly such entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, personally, I'd have left it where it was. The answer to the question are not going to be *physics* answers, but to the extent that there *are* actual authoritative answer they will come from physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have a fixed policy on PER questions that I'm aware of, and I don't have a sense of what would be a good one. It is a murky business where many of the topics of investigation are of generally applicability (sometimes to all technical subjects and sometimes to learning in general). We don't want to open the door to *any* question about educational technique as long as it has &quot;in teaching physics&quot; appending (those of you who were around in the early days of Stack Overflow may remember the &quot;[boat programming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19487/2509)&quot; question). But these means that allowing PER questions becomes a nightmare of trying to articulate well drawn lines. What fun that will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Acedamia.SE does a good job of answer that kind of question then it might be best to ship all there just for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="e390c006-bc6b-43ff-920d-78e2063e24dd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="See [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serial upvoting is handled automatically and you don't need to get a moderator/Meta involved. In this case it's just two votes though, so I doubt it would be detected as fraud (it's usually many votes when fraud occurs, but there cut off isn't publicly known). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, don't worry about it. In this case it's doubtful they had any ill or improper intent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="88777ff7-6074-480f-a821-ddf47cc4670e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="3aee8196-1f34-4f0d-a20f-6887fcb46f3e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think my answer [here][1] says it all (and some of the other answers as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's a rule that makes sense for the SOFU trilogy, and not for science sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="953e3d37-2cc3-4b59-8437-0c2cb936cec9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="there are many factual and insightful things you write, but then from time to time cringe-worthy statements I wouldn't expect from a student (&quot;you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power&quot;). I had a similar start like you on SE, some sites here like skeptics.se or philosophy.se don't fit at all my level of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. I left such sites instead of trying to improve them, it's pointless trying to yield my desired level on it by contributing q&amp;a. [I explained here ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130542) why some proposal work and some not. The quality/level of a single site is strongly linked to the amount of experts attracted during area51 process. You can only make minor improvments to such sites by clever moderation and attracting more experts afterwards (**e.g. theophys user don't want to participate here for the same reasons you try to improve this site**). The level of necessary background knowledge is just to different among user to waste here their time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have a usenet-background, I too. That is unfiltered anarchy, thats also the system most uni's run in my experience innofficially. But SE is democracy, hierarchy, filtering, ranking, sorting (**why do you think there are no downvotes/rep for comments? To stop endless discussion and force competition and several answers. This is the most important non-feature of SE**), elections of poor and good mods,..... you know all this stuff that happens in democracy too. It's a imperfect system for imperfect people. But have you seen a better one for big communities? Why did you stop posting on usenet, wikipedia and joined this system. Ask and answer this yourself and I'm sure we all can save a lot meta time and useless discussion with/about you here. I already told you that your bio's (while entertaining on christianity and philosophy :D ) are not really productive for you. Also yelling for new mods on physics.se and phil.se is really naive, what do you expect. &quot;Hey our german 38 year old  vice-chancellor is  in my opinion not qualified for his job. Can we please try somebody else (I really think this)&quot;. But he was elected by the majority. Just stop this, how can a smart guy like you think this can/will work??? You're biting on granite and wasting your and our time here. Invent a better system. Contribute answers here, discuss in forums like usenet of physicsforums.com. There are physicists who don't like for mentioned reasons usenet (too much spam and crackpot-theorists), q&amp;a boards (moderation, no discussion), forums (too lengthy discussions)... **There is no perfect system that fits everybody's needs and philosophy of communication.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look to me like on a crusade. Trying to correct all bad answers on SE sites whichs seems at a first glance admirable and worth supporting ) but also pretty naive if one knows a little bit about human and group psychology and has participated in internet discussions since a decade. [The problems of wikipedia authoring are well-known](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92/is-wikipedia-authoring-here-necessary-and-allowed), lenghty discussions with arrogant mods, SE resolves this problem by competing answers. **And with all your comments &amp; corrections you are trying to re-introduce this wikipedia editing style here again**. Maybe unconsciously as you are still in your trained usenet and wikipedia modus operandi. Well, quit this, or you end like Georg. I'm sure a physics.se site with 10-20 Ron Maimons and Georg's wouldn't work (most agreed that tolerating the escapades of one Ron Maimon is ok) and would end in even worse overall level of tolerance and respect than on usenet and wikipedia due to the rep thing and real names, thats why I asked user here to think about if such bios are really helpful. You see how fast people can change their mind and ask you to calm down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made quite some meta posts on science SE sites recently. Because I would like to see open science really working and I'm interested if and how super-moderation of  autarchic communities can work, when become things uncommunicable, how can meta user and mods find common set of values, level and scope of a site (we make a similar experiment in germany currently, direct democracy with liquid feedback community software in the pirates party). SE and Quora are a important steps here. Maybe there will come even better hybrid systems. If you want to create high quality communities, you need a clever system like here (area51, voting, meta, filtering), ranting about content, bad and wrong answers here a lot is a drop in the bucket and even more in forums, usenet and wikipedia, where users like you already failed with their demands. **I come to SE to read different views by different users, not wikipedias common denominator stuff, commenting or editing an answer towards subjective &quot;correct&quot; content here is the huge misconception you seemingly have and brought over here from your wikipedia days.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you aren't blogging. Well I'm aware without publications, university position, PHD a physics blog doesn't attract a lot of comments/views nowadays anymore. You probably too. Without credentials only few would read Motl's blog imho. So this is probably the best place to invest your time. Nonetheless I'm still wondering why you didn't participate more in theophys.se if the quality of some answers here is so terrible? I begin to think you are trying to find out how much power your rep here gives you and the responses you get are not really surprising. May be start a Ron Maimon proposal? The SE system allows this ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="1920fe80-6ee5-4eaf-9c88-6a778c3b787a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Because the question currently has a net score below -3 it will not appear on the  front page (http://physics.stackexchage.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an authoritative source just now, but this is alluded to in https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/2509." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="4efcaa6f-70f2-490d-bbfe-3798c682c61e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a bot based on [ELIZA][1], as an April Fools' Day joke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174407/what-is-chat-with-an-expert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="9070e67b-e8d1-4807-88f5-daec22370b41" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not gonna happen. &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* difficult to categorize questions &#xD;&#xA;* questions that span disciplines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use the [Favorite and Ignored tags][1] mechanism, and view the [front page][2] rather than the [questions page][3] because the front page is weighted by your favorite tags (or by your [frequented tags][4] if you haven't specified your favorites)&#xD;&#xA;* Use [tag subscriptions][5] or the  [RSS feeds][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [Search by tag][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108224/documentation-for-frequented-tags-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="128316ca-6013-4be1-aee0-5ce83e28c480" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The close reasons have been finalized and implemented [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/), please direct requests for new close reasons to a separate meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this meta.SO post][1], it appears an overhaul of the close system is underway. Of the numerous changes slated to take place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **not a real question**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **not constructive**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **too localized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will no longer be reasons for closing, replaced instead by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **unclear what you’re asking**,&#xD;&#xA;  - **too broad**, and&#xD;&#xA;  - **primarily opinion-based**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it appears **off-topic** will now include sub-reasons for closing. As I understand it, this will include a site-specific standard list of reasons, though any close-voter can write in their own wording for that particular question (which will be subsequently turned into a comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What will our list of default *off-topic* reasons be?** Is there a network-wide starting list of reasons, or do we need to come up with something from scratch? In either case, it can't hurt to discuss amongst ourselves what would be best for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is not covered by the three new reasons (plus **duplicate**, which is still in place)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think we use the now-obsolete **too localized** reason for closing copied-and-pasted homework questions. Certainly none of the new options seem to address that, so perhaps we need a we-don't-do-your-homework-for-you off-topic category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/184154/206562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="1b54d406-83d5-44e5-9380-e7e58ef342af" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Related: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;How do I determine what user was removed.   &#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to have the related up/down-votes listed to see what questions comments were effected?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="28a990d1-40c5-49a9-baee-eebf10dd0994" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;favorite&quot; feature is one that you can (ab)use as much as you want without any problems. When you favorite a question, you get updates delivered to the [favorites tab on your profile.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quora has a nice &quot;save draft&quot; feature, which adds the question to an &quot;unanswered questions&quot; tab. I'd be happy if that were implemented, though I don't see that happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [this has been proposed before][2]. It's not [meta-tag:status-declined], so not officially declined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/16660/wouter?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4719/add-answer-later-tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="d79803ba-b3c1-45db-a88c-9f356abddcf8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I made [here](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/293) a short analysis on why chemistry stats look bad (3rd bullet point). I believed with bio and phy.se existing, chemistry as connecting branch and huge overlap in research would be able to reach the **critical mass** of user and questions for a self-sustaining growth by user on bio/phy.se joining the site. But it looks very bad compared to a other science sites I observed since its start, I don't see many bio/phy user registered at all on chem.se. I also [asked on MO](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/141518/163173), what can be done to help those science sites. The main reason is probably that many commiters left the site (lasted nearly 2 years, which is of course too long). But if it gets closed, because it doesnt grow, and I start to believe sites that never reach the critical mass ever yield a substantial growth to establish a community, thats a huge downer. No chemistry on SE?! I mean, really. &quot;Waiting for further growth&quot; when older sites like cognitivesciences.se or linguistics.se didn't grow for months looks like desperation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be done? A lot of the chemistry questions are very specialized and localized, as most of the underlying theory belongs to physics, but this makes me even more wondering why many of the probably existing chem students reading physics.se dont take notice of chem.se or ask/answer questions there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="567451c5-e488-48ff-9644-040d18357f1d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The reasons you're not required to leave a comment when downvoting, and why that is not going to change, are explained in detail in many questions on Meta Stack Overflow ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you downvote a post, you're _encouraged_ (but never required) to explain what can be improved about it. Of course, this is also encouraged even if you don't downvote the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming at it from the other direction, when your post is downvoted and/or someone suggests an improvement, you have no obligation to do anything about it. Correcting the answer or deleting it are not your only choices. You can just leave it alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="f01984a6-f8b1-423b-ba60-78eff8597406" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I got in the habit on SO of removing thanks and signature lines (and greetings) during edits because they don't add to the question and are relatively unneeded. I think we should adopt the same policy here and remove them from questions where they appear (and ideally not include them when writing new questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind going through and editing questions to remove them, but I would like it to be something everybody does so when they re-tag or edit questions for other reasons, they can remove these lines too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find questions of this sort by searching:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    thanks closed:no is:question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where you can replace thanks with whatever other words that could bring up things like greetings and signatures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, here is the MSO discussion on the same topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="ca8afd57-b687-42ed-b270-313019ad6bdd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no way to do this directly on the site, but you can do it using a user style sheet, which requires a browser extension like Stylish (for Firefox at least). You would need to set the `background-color` property for the `tagged-interesting` CSS class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been discussed a bit on MSO, e.g. [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78849/allow-custom-colorization-of-tags) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68853/choose-background-and-text-color-on-so)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="c2729036-bc6b-40da-ab82-d647873d6e2d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is described [on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92074/what-can-i-do-when-getting-it-does-not-meet-our-quality-standards). Here's the gist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Make sure your question has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a clear title&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a reasonable explanation of what your question is, sharing your research on the matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - correct use of English and actual sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's not an exhaustive list of what makes a good (or rather, non-bad) question, just some general guidelines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="da121115-f6e0-46f8-b171-02e893535858" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="All the relevant information on suggested edits can be found at [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work) and [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled) at Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="52a6dda0-36b3-4b07-b3a6-d007f83ac348" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Based on clicking links from the links everyone else provided, I found &lt;a href=&quot;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66592/define-your-own-color-of-tagged-interesting&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; accepted answer to be the only thing that actually helped me change it. I'm essentially CSS illiterate, so I needed it spelled out a little more thoroughly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="c0a34476-635c-44bc-8ab1-682f0322a519" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is detailed in several questions on Meta Stack Overflow, for example [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144553/account-privacy-and-search-engines).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the way to hide personal information is simply by not entering that information in the first place. Most fields of the profile are optional, so you enter only what you want people to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The email address is one of several exceptions. Your email address will never be visible to anyone except moderators. (And the SE moderator code of conduct prohibits us from revealing that information to anyone else.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="67727fd9-ba15-41af-a3b0-340fd2e3882a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See also: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158809/why-are-shopping-list-questions-bad, http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that our book/list policy can be revised. Not removed, but loosened up considerably. For book questions, this can be done by making sure that answers include a sketch of the book -- what prerequisites are assumed, the style of the book, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll first start out by listing the problems that can occur with such questions. If we can fix most of these, we may have a chance. Note that by &quot;fix&quot;, I'm talking about formulating a policy that effectively mitigates these issues. I'm quite certain that SE wont implement any features specifically to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problems&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of things that irk me about list questions in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a Q&amp;A site, and as such a list item is not an &quot;answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be less conceptual. One of the reasons why I like Physics.SE over Quora and PhysicsForums is that questions here are invariably about _concepts_.&#xD;&#xA; - They may attract a lower-level crowd (like &quot;list of Physics jokes&quot;, etc). Quora has this problem -- it's got a lot of list questions and very few high level ones.&#xD;&#xA; - A single answer is almost never complete. This gets to me a lot, because it's so different in nature from other Q&amp;As here. I can very well read the top or top 2 answers of a Q&amp;A and learn enough. That doesn't work on list questions.&#xD;&#xA; - Thy end up as a popularity contest. It's not &quot;best answer gets voted to the top&quot;, it's &quot;most popular answer gets voted to the top&quot;. Voting doesn't indicate the best answer, it indicates:&#xD;&#xA;  - The oldest answer&#xD;&#xA;  - The most popular answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point #3 and partially point #4 don't really apply to book recommendations, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, book recommendation questions are unmoderatable. Unlike conceptual answers, which can be easily checked for non mainstreamness and pitching, book recommendations are hotbeds for people pitching their own publications. And also pitching irrelevant or non-mainstream books. It's not easy to moderate this, because, as moderators, we would have to read the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that the following problems do _not_ occur with book recommendations on Physics (which do occur with shopping recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Price issues: From what I've seen, nobody cares about price with book recommendations on Physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Outdatedness: Griffiths has been used ever since Man discovered fire. Same goes for Resnick-Halliday-* and Kreyzig and the rest. While new physics books come up all the time, existing ones don't get outdated, not really. There are [exceptions][1], though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More about book questions, and a proposed policy to allow them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that happens with book questions is that the _real_ question being asked is &quot;Please teach me about X&quot;. Whenever a question is narrow enough such that the topic X can be reasonably explained in a single post with links to additional reading, I feel that we should convert the post with an edit (with or without the OPs consent -- currently we have done this but only if the OP consents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of broader topics, here's what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Only_ allow descriptive answers. There are lots of Physics books on a topic that can be found by an Amazon search. The question is, which one is appropriate to read? When trying to learn GTR on my own, I went ahead and borrowed Misner-Thorne-Wheeler. Big mistake. It is one of the best books in the field, but it's more of a reference -- there are better books to study from if you want to teach yourself. Thing is, you need to know what a book covers, and, more importantly, _how_ it covers it. Does it explain tensor calculus or does it simply expect you to know it? These sorts of things are important. I've heard people talk for more than 15 minutes on the merits/demerits, style, et cetera of a physics book, so I'm sure that it's not unreasonable to ask for this. This actually makes the post really, _really_ useful -- the reader knows his/her needs better than we do, and giving information on the style of books is a better way for the reader to determine which book to finally use. Information is always better than advice.&#xD;&#xA; - The question should mention the level of understanding of the student. The topic should not be too broad, either. Also, we ought to edit in a mention of the previous point.&#xD;&#xA; - We place a boilerplate banner on each question linking to a book policy and mentioning (in short) what is to be expected of answers.&#xD;&#xA; - We will need the community to actively help curate book questions and enforce these policies. This is important.&#xD;&#xA; - These should be made CW. Reasons? See [Chris' comment][2]&#xD;&#xA; - This is an optional point: We maintain a single Community Wiki answer per question, and all other answers are incorporated and deleted as they come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;-y. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory. I guess we could find a way to work in the non mainstream policy without forcing mods to read each book. Or just use downvotes for bad books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##List questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how to make these work. As such many of these can be improved by tweaking the language -- the language is important because changing it attracts different types of answers. A question asking for a &quot;List of ways to measure the weight of one's head _sans_ decapitation&quot; will attract one-line or list-like answers with little to no explanation. When asked for a list, one's mind is focused on generating as many points as possible, without expanding on the individual points (horizontal thinking). When asked &quot;how can I measure the weight of my head&quot;, one's mind will focus on getting a single complete solution, and post that (vertical thinking). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can't be &quot;fixed&quot;. &quot;List of unsolved problems in plasma Physics&quot; -- somehow I feel that this is more suitable for a Wikipedia page. You don't learn anything from this and as such it's not conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do see scope for improvement in the list question policy, but I'm not yet sure how to codify this. I'll mull over it and update this post when I figure something out (I'll probably have a look at past list questions etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10287880#10287880&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list#comment12208_4565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="94f5ba52-0866-4ad8-8a18-afdc73be2b47" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, it cannot be done manually, not even by moderators, despite being a popular request on MSO ([1](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100967/should-move-to-chat-be-provided-on-demand-as-a-button-perhaps), [2](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93444/provide-a-tool-for-moderators-to-migrate-comments-to-chat), etc.). Unless and until we get this feature implemented, you have a couple of options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Just post a comment asking to continue the discussion in the chat room (you can either use the site's main chat room or create a new chat room)&#xD;&#xA;- Or keep the discussion going in the comments until the system gives you the automatic &quot;move to chat&quot; option. After you do that you can flag the first comment for a moderator to delete them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="58649eb2-35ce-4bf3-b434-b05e3317e234" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the moderator election 2012 is in progress, users (above 300 rep.) are invited to nominate themselves in the election. So, some users will ask themselves, &quot;Could I become a moderator?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly believe that these four lines don't necessarily answer their questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A moderator&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- is patient and fair&#xD;&#xA;- leads by example&#xD;&#xA;- shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&#xD;&#xA;- is open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are the basic needs for physics users to become moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should they be experts in at least one of the fields of Physics (could be determined easily by reputation &amp; badges)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Could a 300 rep. user (who helps the community through meta) participate &amp; be elected as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Why does &quot;moderator attention flags&quot;, &quot;participation in meta&quot; (along with its Q&amp;A votes), etc. **count** during an election? (Do they sort you by ranking ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read all the answers. All are *amazing*. I got some new *facts*. Thanks to all, guys. I believe that the [moderator cheat sheet](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet) would be very useful for a new moderator..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="f354074e-7e51-49c6-bcc0-304c9c49724a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Being a moderator of another SE site I might be able to tell from my experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moderator has to make some difficult decisions that cannot be handled by the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- find users who are trying to cheat the system (multiple accounts, voting rings)&#xD;&#xA;- handle flags&#xD;&#xA;- contact users privately if there are any problems that cannot be solved otherwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important part is understanding the informal rules of the system and put them into practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing physics (or whatever the topic of the site is) is not that important. Sure, it helps, but the decision if a question is on topic should be made by the community anyway via close votes, not primarily by moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta participation and the flag count are indeed good indicators for that. They show how much the users cares already about the site and how familiar s/he is with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recommended reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Cheat Sheet][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Who are the diamond moderators, and what is their role?][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Blog][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75189/who-are-the-diamond-moderators-and-what-is-their-role&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://moderator.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="489fffd6-cbd0-44ab-b96a-675b526dca08" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It appears that [the question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/42011/520) may have been the victim of an automated &quot;bad question&quot; reaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall the [qualification for automatic removal][1] are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* one month old&#xD;&#xA;* negative vote total on the question and&#xD;&#xA;* no answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not that I'm stumped as it does not appear to have been done by anyone (including Community who get the &quot;credit&quot; for closure due to spam flags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4710" RevisionGUID="7c337ae1-f532-40fc-b98d-9c678076b669" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [content of all Stack Exchange sites](http://stackexchange.com/legal) is licensed [Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike][1]. If the terms are met, then they are allowed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the terms are *not* met, the centralized place for reporting violations of the license is on [the mother meta thread for such things][2]. And I see that [the first answer there is this very site](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/163974/2509).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/131846/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="908193fd-4268-4f4d-a26f-6c982c94c47a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Presumably you are discussing [your answer][1] to [*How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has happened is that [you edited it so many times that it was automatically converted to a &quot;community wiki&quot; post][3]. Note the different format of the user-card at the bottom right of the post:![user card example][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the automatic conversion feature is to (1) prevent the original poster for benefiting from a post that has been extensively edited by others and to discourage frivolous edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to de-wiki this one for you, but this is not something that you should count on happening again in the future. It is generally recommended that you work on your posts offline so that you will only make a few edits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46210/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46189/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msEif.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="b9f5e874-661b-4f8b-aba2-8dc93002e051" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: **[tag:popular-science] is clearly a meta tag,** in the same way that [tag:homework] is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't *necessarily* mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of *answers* that can be found on a question... or should be provided to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF FOLKS ARE CONSISTENT IN HOW THEY USE IT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After years of support and many thousands of questions, [we had to burn \[homework\] on Stack Overflow][1] *because folks were using it as a club to beat others over the head with.* When folks are regularly getting into fights over a *tag*, that tag has become a liability and must be removed - *regardless* of how nice it might be in theory. And before you say &quot;it can't happen here&quot;, open your eyes - it already *is* happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I sympathize with Jim and others who wish to classify these questions, Manishearth is dead right with regard to the ambiguities and potential for abuse: these are the reasons why meta tags are discouraged. If this tag is going to remain in use, three conditions *must* be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This should go without saying, but... Y'all have to *want* pop-sci questions on this site. I don't mean *easy* questions - I mean questions that demand answers written for a general audience: no post-highschool physics knowledge required (if even that). Answers you could give to your 8 year old when she asks an annoying string of &quot;why&quot; questions. You *could* just disallow these questions entirely and side-step the whole issue; not saying that's a good idea, but if folks really hate them then that's an option. If you *do* want them, and want them tagged as such, then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ...You need to be *ruthlessly* consistent in how the tag is used. If a given question doesn't explicitly ask for *and receive* a &quot;general audience&quot; answer, then it's not a pop-sci question. You may think it's too simple, that the author doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the answer he's asking for, or just detest the topic, but... Tough cookies; down-vote or vote to close it as appropriate. **Unless the asker states**, &quot;I don't know any physics, please give me an answer that doesn't require it&quot; or the equivalent of it... You must not use this tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It *cannot* be the only tag on any question. If there's no clearly identifiable topic beyond &quot;I want a layman's explanation for something&quot;, then the question is either poorly-written, off-topic, or badly-tagged - so if it's not closed or deleted, you need to tag it. [tag:homework] is already failing this condition - there are 24 posts with no other tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly, **you cannot fight about this.** Tags should be obvious to anyone reading the question, not a point of controversy. If you find folks engaging in [edit wars](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-great-edit-wars/) over whether or not this tag is appropriate, point them to this post; if they continue to misuse it, they will be blocked; if the problem becomes widespread, **the tag will be removed with no further discussion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/147100/the-homework-tag-is-now-officially-deprecated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="293c9fc9-82bd-47fd-bfc5-4101338adde7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the [Data Explorer][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I created a simple scatter plot to see what data we would be dealing with, the X axis is questions asked and Y is answers given. I'm looking for techniques on how to show all the different scales of data: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades but it will give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, should anybody want to play around with the data and see what they can come up with, the query is http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user It pulls out comments too, maybe there's a cool way to incorporate that information. Cooler than just doing a 3D scatter anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="d7d09dd3-fc81-461c-bf24-2933fd312e51" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This would've been covered by our overall site FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/7931/205334) under the topic **Moderation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags don't work like that. Flagging should be done only when moderators require some intervention with the post. For instance, someone is spamming around, uses offensive words, posting bad questions that need to be closed, etc. can be handled by a mod. Other cases...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If some asker accepts some answer, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. It means that he's satisfied with it. You shouldn't flag it and say it's wrong. Because, a mod shouldn't switch accepted answers, that are only provided for askers. If that's the case, he can go around accepting answers by himself. And, something in your point of view may be different from others' point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) An answer gets large number of upvotes (*that too*...) doesn't mean that it's correct. It's accepted and agreed as a worthy answer by the overall community. Mod can't interrupt the community's evaluation of answers. That's the reason why downvoted answers are still under questions. If the wrong answer is related to Physics (just some misunderstanding), we can keep it to indicate others that it's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your question goes to the author. Just comment below it, indicating what's wrong there. Mods can't do everything. They're just our people. Feel free to interact with them. Why do you need mods as some connecting bridges? Again, your thought that *answers should be deleted by mods once they're flagged* is really a misconception..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="6cd2bce6-16d8-46be-97b1-c9448dbb4cc0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following is a &quot;digest&quot; version of the [2012 Moderator Election Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat). The format, [as described on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests), is one *answer* to this question *for every question* asked in the Town Hall, containing all the candidate's answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To view the digest chronologically, please sort the answers by &quot;oldest&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions or comments about this, **please do not answer this question** as the answers are designed to be used for the questions from the Town hall itself. Instead, please ask on [the parent question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77831/how-can-we-improve-the-town-hall-digests) or in [the Town Hall Discussion Room](http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/352/town-hall-discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any corrections which need to be made to this digest, or if you were a candidate who was unable to attend the town hall and would like your answers included, please @GraceNote or @TimStone [in the chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/406/physics-town-hall-chat) and let us know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="9638f990-1739-472f-b0ee-14e29c5344df" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a moderator on both the sites involved, I sort of support this -- this was the reason I proposed [soft migration](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration) in the first place. Note that soft migration is less complicated than your proposal -- we don't need editing and all, just that the posts should turn up on the main page and in searches. Allowing editing would probably be complicated in the implementation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; as the privileges would need to get carried over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had already added a ticker chatroom feed for [tag:physical-chemistry] (and I just added one for [tag:quantum-mechanics]) in the Phy.SE chatroom. If nobody has any objections I can convert it to a chat message feed (every new post is posted in the chatroom). It shouldn't cause too much clutter as Chem.SE doesn't have that much activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. These things always _seem_ easy to implement, but a large app like SE usually has complications in implementing such things. One great example is HTTPS -- to most, turning on HTTPS can be done with the flip of a switch. But for something like SE, [it's not so easy][1]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/04/23/stackoverflow-com-the-road-to-ssl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="c76147c3-7481-4e2e-a2c1-a0ef46aeb8d2" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As dmckee wrote in a comment, the full details are at [this question on MSO](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work), but I'll reproduce a rule of thumb here: all you have to do is put `@` before the name, and omit the spaces. You don't need to put it at the beginning of the comment. So to reply to John Rennie you could write `Yes @JohnRennie` and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also omit characters after the first three. So `@Joh`, `@John`, `@JohnR`, etc. all work equivalently to `@JohnRennie`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="82882006-7f2a-4cfd-a264-56a44134aab0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There _is_ a freeform off topic reason*, but that's only for 3k users. These users get to type an &quot;other&quot; close reason. This becomes a comment on the question. Subsequent closevoters get the additional option to choose the same close reason (which results in a comment upvote). When the question is closed, it gets the default off topic wording (&quot;this is off topic for Physics because it doesn't fit the scope defined in the help center&quot; or something like that), and the comment stays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't available to flaggers, though. However, the off topic subreason you choose is not visible to anyone (even mods) -- the flag is always counted as &quot;off topic&quot; from the POV of reviewers and mods. So my advice would be to just pick a random offtopic subreason when none fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the question &quot;if it isn't visible, why make flaggers choose?&quot;. Well, these subreasons subtly teach new flaggers _what_ is flaggable. This happened to me on SO, I didn't know that certain types of questions could be closed until the flag changes came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do feel that this system is slightly unweildy though, and have [proposed a change to it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/188106/178438)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Known hereabouts as the [trolley car close reason](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n8CSK.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="5ad2cc84-da5f-4ba6-b0ad-2b5abc99e03a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What happened is that a user got deleted (normally this happens by their own request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All their recent votes, given within a set number of days are undone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if overall they gave you reputation, it is taken away&#xD;&#xA;* if they overall took reputation from you, it is restored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my case, for example, I had (I assume) one up vote and two down votes from the user, giving me a +6 of reputation. Today I have a `-6 user was removed` message in my rep log.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the other 3 down votes, it looks like they are serial, however it's just three votes, I wouldn't get too upset about it :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126470/what-does-user-was-removed-mean-and-why-did-my-reputation-change-because-of-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the obligatory &quot;don't do that&quot; post is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/125740/dont-throw-away-all-votes-when-a-user-is-deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="ed4b00c9-d8e6-467d-9a23-e9eebea1cee7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It has already been addressed in the [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/126471/205334). Some guy has voted your answer and you gained a +10 for that. Now, the buddy has removed his account and his votes have been revoked. Whatever he had voted (as a member of this site), will be reversed (once he removes his account), which means *not only you*, but anyone who were voted by him will be affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty interesting scheme. Even for an user who has cast more than 5000 votes, once he removes his account, all those votes are *gone*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="871923f0-2137-41e0-9bff-141d9bb6071e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looks like it's a deficiency in the comment voting/flagging system, but it's not really worth improving. See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have three courses of action: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unupvote the comment (note that you can't reupvote if you do this). You can only unupvote if you've recently upvoted the comment&#xD;&#xA; - Flag the post with a custom flag asking for comment deletion.&#xD;&#xA; - Complain on meta about the comment being unflaggable ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_comment removed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="92c95a89-5f23-4e7f-8a47-b65c9719efdf" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This][1] really cool graph was posted onto meta.SO early December. Dunno how many over here have seen it... I thought it was super-fancy, so I'm sharing it here as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaTIA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="183ad3d4-9b29-491d-9676-e105dcf8b9d9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When Stack Overflow launched the scoring was the same for questions and answers. This eventually became a bit of a cause for concern when a number of users who had &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* never offered an answer&#xD;&#xA;* mostly had zero or negative net scores on their very many poor questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but were still accumulating enough rep to access some important site privileges. There rose [a movement to increase the power of down votes on questions][1], which was [tag:status-planned] for some time after which [the team suddenly decided to reduce the upvote value on questions instead][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this slightly *increased* the quality of questions on Stack Overflow (mostly by discouraging hoards of bad questions, rather than by generating a lot of really good ones), but it was a small thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my expectation based on that ancient history on a different site is that while this proposal might bring in a few more good questions it would also bring in many more bad ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we have more tools for dealing with problem users now, so maybe would could handle it, but I don't know for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42763/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4002" RevisionGUID="55c0c01d-afa4-4f8a-8f55-a3015b9af71f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't think that photography.se will take them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As documented [here][1], when Astro.SE was getting closed they did a migration of astrophotography questions over to Photo.SE, and any posts that photo.se would accept were migrated off. Astro.SE didn't have that many posts, so I believe the posts were individually reviewed and migrated. These weren't migrated, so I don't think we can do it now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, (1) and (2) are Not Constructive anyway, so they shouldn't be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from _that_, we _can't_ migrate posts older than 60d.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though if any new questions come up on astrophotography, I personally have no issue with allowing them as long as they don't have other issues (NC/NARQ/etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you &quot;flag&quot; something, you click the &quot;flag&quot; button and choose an option (the flag gets forwarded to mods). Bringing stuff up on meta is fine, but if your flag can achieve it, then that's easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130342/178438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="f20cb2d6-f548-4eaf-92d5-c3a3302ac30e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related: [Lots of questions in the reopen queue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196074/184688) at meta.stackoverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queue are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago (such as [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 17). Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="e179c9a0-fea3-40ca-85bd-0171df39f941" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Our good friend [Community ♦][1] bumps old posts that are &quot;unanswered&quot;. An &quot;answered&quot; post is one that has at lease one answer with at least one upvote (or accept)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739/178438 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="6dcfb148-a7a5-40bf-a2bb-bfb3d2a6e1e9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have seen some posts show up on more than one category of the review panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, say a new user posts a one-line answer to an old question. This will flag the post for the Late Answers and Low Quality Posts review queues (and maybe also First Posts). I might then deal with it as part of sorting the Late Answers queue, and _also_ as part of the Low Quality Posts one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand and support that these posts get put on all relevant queues, I find it a bit weird and slightly annoying to be asked to deal with the same post more than once. (It doesn't help that such posts are usually annoying and/or hard to deal with.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this by design or can it be avoided? i.e. could posts I've already taken action on be removed from my review queues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm aware that this may be more suited to the mother meta, and [it has come up already](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/153406/posts-come-up-in-multiple-review-queues) with no answers, hence my asking here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="f12cb7f6-2a0a-4561-9d11-de6319ac4cdf" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Related:** [tag:feature-request] at Meta.StackOverflow, https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196775/184688. Show it some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently gained access to the 10k tools and the flag page looks buggy to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the flag count on the top right often shows a count for flags that are not present. The page can also be completely empty, with a nonzero counter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has [come up on the mother meta already](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/187231/184688), but since it has been marked ![enter image description here][2] there I thought I'd bring it up here as there may be relevant site differences. The bug in the main question there, which Jarred Dixon's answer addresses, also seems to be a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also puzzled by the nature of these flags. Jarrod Dixon implies that these are flags meant for moderators ♦, but the breakdown on the right-hand sidebar sits rather ill with this interpretation. An auto-generated low-quality flag that's only for moderator eyes? (would &quot;only for ♦.♦&quot; be the right abbreviation of that, by the way?) It sounds unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone from the dev team comment on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ic2aU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c48J5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="16a9befe-f7d9-4af6-932b-31e8fada34b9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can find the full badge description [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to use the &quot;share&quot; link and share the question with others (Sharing it on an SE site will _not_ work). This is usually done via Twitter/Facebook/etc. If enough people click on it, you get a badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="dfc023d9-aff5-4fbb-8efa-0be97b4ad474" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep, it will turn into CW at your next edit. Don't worry, if you want to un-CW-ify it just flag it (or reply to this post). CW is only when you want collaboration, just let us know whenever you get hit on the head with the 10-edit thing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, try to batch up your edits, constant bumping to the main page isn't something we really want -- leads to clutter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="9ff8e7e1-c2de-4bf2-b94b-74667023f3e3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Click on the &quot;share&quot; button below a question or an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will bring up the standard share buttons for Google Plus, Facebook and Twitter, which will place a link to the post on your Plus page / timeline / feed. You will also be able to copy a link to the question that identifies you as the person who shared it; these [look like this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/114621/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://stackoverflow.com/q/&lt;question-id&gt;/&lt;user-id&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    http://stackoverflow.com/a/&lt;answer-id&gt;/&lt;user-id&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `&lt;user-id&gt;` is your user ID. (You can get this by going to your profile and looking at the search bar on the top right.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will get the Announcer badge, for example, if 25 unique IP addresses click on any of such links. Be aware, though, that there are mechanisms in place to detect [sock puppeting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)) so if you try to access it yourself from 25 different computers the system may detect that and discount those visits. Also, as EnergyNumbers points out, [links shared within the SE network do not count towards referral badges](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/114608/184688).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Ls0W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4070" RevisionGUID="8433ce59-a183-479b-9546-18d011931c66" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can look at [the edit history][1] (get there by clicking the time stamp on the &quot;edited&quot; block beside your usercard) and compare to [the rules for automatic how community wiki works][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance it appears that a further edit *will* tip your answer into wiki status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/52980/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="3816893b-51c8-4f14-b3e7-3d202b2b9446" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You have some good answers here already, but since I was the one who deleted the comments I'll take a few minutes to explain why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all started [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members) - someone mentioned Physics, and upon visiting the meta here I saw 4 different threads calling out a specific user. As mentioned in the thread I linked to, this is something we generally try to avoid: there's nothing to be gained from publicly humiliating someone, *particularly* someone who isn't here to defend themselves. While a certain amount of curiosity is understandable, leaving these threads up long-term to be indexed by Google is kinda cruel; we frequently get emails from folks who are concerned about their online reputation and looking to distance themselves from mistakes in their past - no need to add to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I deleted or edited these threads. While doing so, I observed numerous bitter, unproductive, tangential conversations - as EnergyNumbers notes, such comments are [subject to removal without notice][1], so I removed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this is the guidance I gave the moderators at the time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know I've said this before, but... Try not to let threads discussing someone's suspension hang around forever. They rarely lead to anything good. Either edit to generalize them, or remove them once they've quieted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate goal here should always be to provide something of value to future readers. I doubt you're the only one who'll ever be concerned about suspensions - therefore, it's worth providing a clear, easy-to-follow discussion for those that follow. Lengthy comment threads hinder this goal - they are distracting and push actual *answers* further down the page. Comments that speculate on offenses committed by another user are particularly unhelpful - common decency dictates that one should address others directly with complaints rather than talking about them behind their backs. Expect the current comments on that question to be removed at some point as well, once the current discussion is concluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4971/what-rules-do-moderators-follow-in-deleting-comments-in-an-ongoing-discussion/4975#4975" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="4e5ae344-cb5f-4df9-baa1-37f3149a4687" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This was changed last October][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange/117903#117903 (see the October entry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current suggested edit algorithm for Physics.SE is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is the post author, their action is binding&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is a mod, his action is binding (yay)&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewers are neither mods nor original authors, then the _first_ decision (approve/reject) to reach two supporters is taken into account.&#xD;&#xA; - However, using the &quot;improve&quot;/&quot;edit&quot; button lets one bypass the double approval ([example][2] -- Community♦ steps in as a reviewer here) -- though you have to make an extra change to the post to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at your history, you seem to have come across the &quot;requires another approval&quot; block in the past [here][3] and [here][4]. You probably didn't notice the &quot;needs another approval&quot; banner , that's all:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151536/it-takes-two-to-tango/151586#151586&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9584&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9578&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/12651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="12cece25-289f-4f86-9c91-8b2dee0e2b1d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Apparently it was automatically deleted (cf [this meta post][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have undeleted it, and [also requested that this particular autodelete functionality be turned off for smaller sites.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/78048/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/198710/should-we-really-have-removedeadquestions-on-smaller-sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="e69d306c-b5e2-4cbd-abfc-eabcdb125da1" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To address the more general issue of including email addresses in posts: this has come up several times on MSO, for example [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132117/what-should-i-do-if-a-user-posts-sensitive-information-as-part-of-a-question-or), and also see the &quot;Linked&quot; section in the sidebar. The gist of those answers is that, although there's technically no rule against having an email address in a post, there is no good reason for it to be there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you see an email address in a post, but the content of the post is otherwise worth keeping, I'd say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Edit it out&#xD;&#xA;2. Flag the post for moderator attention so we can have the revision with the email address deleted from the revision history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's some debate on MSO as to whether you should leave a comment suggesting to the OP that they shouldn't put sensitive information like email addresses in their posts. It could be argued that it draws attention to the email, but I don't think that's such a big issue on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if the content of the post is not worth keeping, just treat it accordingly. Flag it for moderator attention, or as spam, if it looks like spam; and/or vote to close or delete it if you have enough reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="2738d971-8167-4f1e-a2bc-a1d469d5f020" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As David says, there are only 4 things to keep in mind: your answer isn't *offensive*, isn't a spam, it's answering the question, it is of very good quality. (Well, *flagging an answer* states only 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as QMech says, you can always revert your post to a CW if you want so that your reputation (*score*) may not be affected in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rule that says, you **should** delete your answer. It's your wish, unless you're raged by a bunch of guys always against you (happens around SO everyday). You're saying that the comments are useful. So, you've got your point. *Don't delete it* if you don't want to. After all, it's worth a rep. score equivalent to a single answer. You can get it in the future, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, There are a lot of users who've got [more downvotes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=439&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ano%20score%3a-10) than you, and some users were lucky that their answer was [accepted](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=172&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ayes%20score%3a-10). While on the other hand, **there are** users who've deleted their 10+ voted answers when they got **shot** by an investigation on [their cat art](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83955/plagiarism-should-be-addressed-specifically-in-the-faq/134715#134715). Some mods should've seen a lot of voted answers deleted by this...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** I've deleted many of my answers, due to these downvotes. In fact, I got raged by a guy *once* and when he's gone, I got all my score back. But now, I can't search where my deleted answers are. The reason I deleted my answers, I didn't want a guy to search my profile and downvote my *downvoted* post. But now, I don't delete my answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="bf0c5d88-03a5-42a6-92ce-734aa1e324c9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="dbadd04f-63d8-4634-b229-336e03f01b9f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Been there, done that][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Late Answers and First Posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[....]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In these queues, you can edit the post, flag it, upvote or downvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing comment.  When you take one of these actions, the **I'm Done** button becomes enabled, allowing you to complete review. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always click the **No Action Needed** button. If you're unsure about the post, *please* use the **Skip** button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues/161391#161391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="7158bcb3-d0ed-4f80-b895-f9212904ddfc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The book question has been grandfathered in, that's all. Otherwise such questions are more or less off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommendation questions are off topic network wide (some reasons are given [here][1] -- basically they have caused problems in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics.SE does not try to be a resource for everything useful for physics students. We try to focus on closed-ended, conceptual questions here. You may want to try Quora or a similar website for that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/174286/178438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="63fffe74-4a85-4198-85c8-4988b1f9f3e1" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="2 has been proposed in many different forms, many times. (See the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-down-votes), https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/is-there-anyway-we-can-require-a-person-to-write-something-to-explain-a-downvote, and https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=require+downvote+comment&amp;submit=search)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoters are _urged_ to leave a comment. We cannot force them to. Votes are supposed to be private, so forcing a comment uncloaks this. And downvoting is integral to how the system works, so putting barriers will significantly reduce it's use (not what we want). Besides, sometimes others have left a comment that says what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the penalty makes some sense, but in the end it's just 2 rep. Not a big deal -- you can earn a week's worth of downvotes back with a couple of answer votes. And reducing it from it's already-low value will mean that folks won't have any motivation to fix their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About making it anonymous: This [has been proposed before][1], and the answer does make a lot of sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, I don't think I should be required to justify my decisions to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the world. Second, you can't force someone to type a meaninful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment, even if you force them to type a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I'm required to enter an anonymous comment I'll just type &quot;this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an anonymous comment&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, drive by downvotes aren't a large problem. You get them once or twice, and that's it. Making the system complicated to fix them creates issues. The 0.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, regarding point 1: Interesting idea, but I doubt it would happen (it would be better if you asked on [the mother meta][2], but again, I don't think it will gain any traction). As a platform, SE is ill suited for such questions, places like [Quora][3] are much better for such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions can be salvaged: For example, the one you linked to could be modified to one with a community wiki answer containing a list. The fact that it's closed just prevents further answers, it doesn't prevent edits. Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but it's an idea. Other recommendation questions can be similarly fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31302/proposal-require-anonymous-comment-with-downvotes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://quora.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="64599653-74d3-4a93-933b-3ad4720e5c8b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Please don't make any lmgtfy comments. They will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links and https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109713/is-lmgtfy-frowned-upon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="b4bf8de8-9a9f-48e4-9f8c-4618e4bca336" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The CW scheme is just when you want other users to help in revision of your post. *Not for formatting,etc.* which is already done by the fellow users - but, for improving (additional information) of your post which shouldn't be normally done by fellow users. They can edit the post for clarification. But, they can't change the post by adding additional info. There's also this historical lock (which a mod can put on a post) for the prevention of edit wars...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The influences: When a post goes beyond 10 edits, it's automatically reverted to a CW. When the post is marked by CW, additional (+) or (-) votes doesn't influence *your* precious reputation. Be sure to check out the [**-1**'d user](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)..! Well, he's **the** -1 in every site. He owns the CWs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;If you've got some time, consider reading https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11740/205334 and https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/55888/205334 which are themselves CWs..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="a33732a7-996e-4440-a5a6-bc2881f80ec6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer contains the discussion in the comments to [the question that sparked this discussion](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper), which was originally posted at the (now defunct) [Theoretical Physics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- 	&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;I have asked the [relevant question on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563). – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="f15b91d8-c5f0-4f6a-823a-80fc872ae783" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;##Post linked with [this MSO](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179167/can-we-have-a-graphing-tool-for-math-se-and-physics-se ) post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphing tool is very important for answering and asking some questions in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;Graphing tool must include the function plotting and **drawing some free shapes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This post is for further discussion on this and getting the comments and suggestions on this of Physics.SE users especially. As CrisF ♦  asked to post that on Site Meta. .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="7e20e73d-9982-4c6f-b7e0-08f40ec6c4d2" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yeah, this looks terrible. Not only does it waste the preview, it gets in the way of the question, and can easily end up being longer than the question itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Top-edited banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, we have [a system for attaching permanent banners][2] to posts that *doesn't* get in the way of viewing the question. I've added one for book recommendations based on your template; if you see a question with the top-banner on it, flag it for moderator attention and ask that the post notice be added instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find an example of this notice [here][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Post notice at the bottom][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYQwc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/102363/support-for-banners&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87917/reference-request-for-exactly-solved-models&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KbbdZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="e588fbcb-8d6e-4674-a7f3-6f134a9cd07d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Exact requirements are listed [on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67397/list-of-all-badges-with-full-descriptions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Beta&#xD;&#xA;- silver; awarded once&#xD;&#xA;- Participate actively in a site's private beta phase&#xD;&#xA;  - Not just 3 bronze badges anymore, but the exact requirements not disclosed to prevent users from just doing the bare minimum.&#xD;&#xA;- Not awarded on Meta sites, including Meta Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;- Source: [Jeff's comment to his own answer to &quot;Why are beta badges awarded at all?&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/why-are-beta-badges-awarded-at-all/#comment-44251)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, for this site it's a moot point as we are no longer in private beta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="4f18da65-a3ff-40d1-bd57-2affe6528e2a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&quot;Accept&quot; - that little checkmark - does *not* mean &quot;this answer is correct.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just means the author of the question accepted it. Hence the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Folks *accept* all kinds of things. Things they find helpful, or reassuring, or funny, or insightful, or don't like but are convinced are unavoidable...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, folks accept the truth. But there's no guarantee that something is true just because someone accepts it. In particular, if there's no [actual problem being solved][1], the asker's opinion on answers means very little. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, the asker isn't the only arbiter. Anyone with a bit of useful participation on the site can vote on answers. If your answer is getting up-voted, that probably means a lot more than the checkmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="5ca7580d-ade1-4a9b-8613-323cae033467" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As you probably noticed, there is a new top bar implemented on this site. This is part of a network-wide experiment in... UI design I guess? Details on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The new top bar is out on meta. Consider it a beta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/207420)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not complaining about or complimenting the way the features are implemented (not here, anyway - you can always check out [Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/top-bar?sort=newest)), but I **request that the color scheme be changed**. The current off-black clashes quite harshly with our light-blues-on-white scheme. It looks like some sinister cloud, ever reminding us of our network overlords' presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current color may work well on certain sites, but certainly not all. This is not surprising, because **no one color scheme could possibly work** on dozens of individual sites with their own customized appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, we're not the only site that seems to have a clash. Just check out [Christianity](http://christianity.stackexchange.com), [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com), [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com), [Mi Yodeya](http://judaism.stackexchange.com), [Programmers](http://programmers.stackexchange.com), and [TeX](http://tex.stackexchange.com), for example. (As I'm not a particularly active member of any other site, I'm not formally requesting those sites be changed, which is why I'm not asking on Mother Meta. Also, there is at least one such global request: [Would it be possible to lighten the color of the new top bar?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/210012))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can we get something that fits our color scheme, please? And no, saying I should userscript it is **not** a valid answer - I'm considering how the site looks to everyone else too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="3065156e-a64f-4618-873b-ee5b68be402a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Close votes can [age away](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away), at which point the voter won't be able to VTC on the same question again...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators can remove questions from the queue by closing them or selecting &quot;Leave Open&quot;. In the latter case, the outstanding close votes remain on the question until the question is closed or the votes age away (see #1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If a certain number (currently three) of &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses are garnered in review, the question is removed from the queue without being closed, and the outstanding close votes become eligible for aging as described in #1. A given question will be dequeued as soon as it receives *either* 3 &quot;Leave Open&quot; responses or 5 &quot;Close&quot; votes. Since close votes are not immediately deleted, it is possible for a question to be dequeued via Leave Open responses and then closed anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions will be removed from the queue if a reviewer opts to edit them. Questions can also be removed from the queue if a bounty is added, if they are locked, or if they are deleted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5344" RevisionGUID="842b8c50-6f24-475b-90a7-3bc65def1416" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think [this MSO question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93595/is-the-very-low-quality-flag-too-ambiguous) addresses that. To quote from the top answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Essentially this is synonymous with **flag for removal**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, it's quite rare that I see a post which I would consider an appropriate use of the VLQ flag. It pretty much has to be actual gibberish. (Needless to say, as a moderator I delete such posts; if I weren't a moderator, I would VLQ-flag them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The not-an-answer flag, on the other hand, is intended for content which is legible, perhaps understandable, and may even constitute a useful contribution of some sort, but simply does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it makes little difference to us (moderators) which kind of flag you use, so don't spend much time agonizing over whether you should flag something as very low quality or as not an answer. If you're not sure, pick either one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="b4b4caf1-23fb-46a3-98b9-1d174f350327" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is just something I have recently noted. Maybe the presentation of Physics SE to people who have no account or are not logged in, is not optimally choosen to represent what the site should be (How is this view determined anyway ...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10 featured tags indicating what topics we have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:quantum-mechanics], [tag:homework], [tag:quantum-field-theory], [tag:electromagnetism], [tag:newton-mechanics], [tag:general-relativity], [tag:thermodynamics], [tag:gravity], [tag:special-relativity], [tag:particle-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 10 most poular tags, they are nice good physics topics, but featuring [tag:homework] at the prominent second position could leave the wrong impression that it is a very good idea to come here for homework help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of sample questions presented to not logged in readers of Physics SE, looks very unnatural to me; it is neither the hot, nor the newest, nor the active list. All questions presented are relatively highly upvoted, but it is clearly biased towards equestion free, non technical, rather everyday-life applied questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these two features of the view presented to not logged in visitors could be costumized a bit if needed ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I have just learned from [this](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9820/36639) maths meta post that SE has changed the front page for not logged in visitors at around midmonth of April to optimize it to attract people who are randomly visiting the site. The list of questions presented is seemingly something like the months view, that features questions with the most views, are hot and closed questions are left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally agree with the mathematicians, that this is not a good change for the knowledgable about the site topic people who are already on the site since it does not represent the community and the content of the site very well, available options are reduced (chat and meta are not accessible for example), etc. In addition, since it is optimized to attract people who randomly visit the site, it is rather not well suited to attract people who have a good physics knowledge of their own (leaving alone experts), so that I suspect that this change could have contributed to the current flood of very low level questions we actually have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content (question list, featured tags, HW should be taken out) can not be changed by the physics community, a feature request to make it customable might be appropriate indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have asked a corresponding [question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/183321/184300) on MSO if the frontpage presented to anonymous or not logged in users could be made configurable, in order to be able to exchange tags and questions in the corresponding lists. Any support for this feature request on MSO would be highly welcome and urgently needed I think :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="40ad767d-5000-476b-bb69-0937a70267fe" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="5edca7f0-b2c3-4dec-aef3-665e81bcac23" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You need [50 reputation][1] to comment everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="ed8849dc-e8ae-4620-99c7-6069539586e1" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Once again, there are two requests here. One is for a minisite separating basic questions from high level ones, and one is just a nohomework.physics.SE minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of &quot;basic&quot; questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within SE rules, this isn't possible. tags like [tag:basic] and [tag:advanced] are not allowed, as they are [meta tags][1]. Even if it were allowed, it would involve massive retagging efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it within the current tag system is not possible as topics can't easily be separated into &quot;basic&quot; &quot;non basic&quot;. Besides, the border is very fuzzy, and it varies from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think this can be realistically implemented. A hidden [tag:minisite] tag could work, but it would require non-trivial changes from the devs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you mean that there will be a no-homework sub-site. I personally hope that a combination of minor changes (proactively deleting old closed HW, being a bit stricter on the policy, etc) may mitigate the issue enough without a subsite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A few more thoughts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me of some of the discussions [here][2] and [here][3]. Separating the communities can seem elitist to many, and I myself don't think that it's an ideal way to solve the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the flaws with this is that it gives off the impression that we are leaving the basic portion of the community to die as we go off to greener pastures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am really wary of splitting the communities in any manner, even if its by minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="92fc8151-2e78-4e54-b97b-b45647fd44a3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since this has been brought up a few times, here's the available info on requesting a temporary suspension of one's account to help with site overuse issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest I can remember is a comment of Shog9's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have seen more than one person request a suspension voluntarily due to realizing they were unable to balance their time on the site with other responsibilities... – Shog9♦ Dec 6 '12 at 17:36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though he quickly would &quot;generally suggest other ways of temporarily revoking your own access&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has come up a few times, from what I can tell, in MSO, and particularly [Can an account be self-suspended](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106604/can-an-account-be-self-suspended) and [&quot;Ban myself&quot; button in user profiles](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32299/ban-myself-button-in-user-profiles). The useful-looking [How do you escape an addiction to Stack Overflow?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21774/how-do-you-escape-an-addiction-to-stackoverflow-or-other-it-sites) has been closed for some reason. It has definitely happened occasionally but it is my impression that the SE team is in general not particularly in favour of this. In this site, it would come down to whether our mod team think it's the most appropriate course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that like most other artificial devices to stop your participation - chrome nanny, userscripts, host file modifications - it is easy to circumvent by setting up a new account. It does have the advantage that your reputation is and privileges are locked away from you, but if you've managed to sidestep the ban then all you've accomplished as a whole is to make your experience of the site more miserable and more guilt-ridden than before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I don't think this is really the way to go. I don't agree with Nikolaj's tone, but if you find you can't stop coming here, you should see it, at least for the sake of self-analysis, as an addiction, and learn to come to grips with it that way. Find out what triggers you, personally, to come here instead of working on your research, and change those triggers. Or simply drive them down to an acceptable level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be a shame to watch you go, though!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="48fb87b1-0832-401c-a2eb-4a48c503adf3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, you're allowed to create multiple accounts, but there are [some restrictions on how you can use them](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57682/how-should-sockpuppets-be-handled-on-stack-exchange). Let me quote the key part of that answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **if the second account allows you to do something on the site that your normal account would be prevented from doing, it is abuse.**  Examples of this include (but are not limited to):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Voting on your own posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Casting multiple votes on others' posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Supporting your own arguments (_&quot;+1: shog is right, don't know why the rest of you don't realize this&quot;_)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using bounties to circumvent the rep cap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Circumventing suspensions, quality bans, or the rate limits on posting questions / answers / comments / etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the evidence available to moderators is suggestive of any of these activities, we'll take whatever corrective action is necessary. Usually that means merging and suspending the accounts, but of course it could vary on a case by case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to create multiple accounts and use them regularly, I'd suggest thinking carefully about why you want to do so, and whether you really need to. Although, as I said, it is _allowed_ to create and regularly use multiple accounts, it's not very common to have a good reason for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, Physics Forums is a completely different kind of site. In general, anything you may know about their policies won't necessarily apply here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="96720c51-894f-43de-a442-614334898da0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to force a recalculation of your reputation, the reputation page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will give you an exhaustive breakdown and force a recalc. I currently see your reputation  at 2,010, so you're above that threshold, but as dmckee notes it is perfectly plausible for someone to have upvoted one of your answers, triggering the announcement, and then retracted the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes can be retracted [within the first five minutes after they're cast](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34323/im-getting-your-vote-is-too-old-to-be-changed-for-a-vote-i-made-less-than), in which case they do not show up in your reputation history. They can also [be retracted if the post is edited](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19235/is-this-a-bug-in-voting-or-is-it-supposed-to-work-like-this), in which case you will get a corresponding `-10` on your reputation history, with the explanation `unupvote`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [What are the limits on how I can cast, change, and retract votes?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5212/what-are-the-limits-on-how-i-can-cast-change-and-retract-votes) at the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tNPNP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="eabc269a-ea68-4edc-9b5f-20842169ee11" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has been asked [multiple][1] [times][2] on the main meta. In this case I'll just copy [my answer][3] over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If its just a bit of more info (read:a paragraph), add it and leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If it's a completely new bundle of stuff, but is based on stuff gleaned from the answer, write an addendum answer as described above.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hat it with &quot;This is in addition to @JonSkeet's answer&quot;. You may also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment on the original answer and ask the poster to incorporate your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer if s/he wishes--and then delete your answer once the deal is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; done ([Something smilar could have happened here][1], though it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; didn't).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22303/factors-affecting-torque-and-rpm-of-a-motor/22317#22317&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23197/how-can-one-imagine-curled-up-dimensions/23205#23205&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22125/penetration-versus-frequency/22134#22134&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23824/will-an-emf-be-induced-across-the-ends-of-a-stationary-metal-rod-placed-in-a-tim/23895#23895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of wrong answers (or parts of answers), leave a comment. Try not to make radical changes in edits -- you can tell the OP in a comment to make them himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28817/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/129513/edit-an-existing-answer-or-incorporate-existing-answer-into-a-new-one&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/129515/178438&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="81e77fc6-834f-40ae-9162-bc6ecf1ccdeb" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unicoins are at present functional in certain features of the site. You can obtain them by mining them on the same applet window where you can spend them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it appears most monetary means to obtain Unicoins are taking some time to go online. That means that at present there is no way to obtain them other than mining. If you feel strongly about it, there are ways to automate the mining so that your browser will do the work for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about Unicoins in general, as well as said automation methods, see the Meta StackOverflow question  https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/227363/what-are-stack-overflow-unicoins. I should also mention that if you like Unicoins you should hurry to make the best of them, as certain commentators have hinted that this feature [may be available for a limited time only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xj9yK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="b9ec99b6-b112-4dfc-8bcb-ffbf97e51635" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="See also: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105391/why-does-flag-marking-as-helpful-declined-not-always-correlate-with-moderator-ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when the moderator sees a flag and has to think for a while over the flag, reading the post carefully (i.e., the action that should be taken is not immediately obvious), the flag gets marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, even if the post doesn't get closed/deleted. &quot;Helpful&quot; means &quot;While it may not have applied for this post, don't stop flagging posts for similar reasons&quot;. After all, each post is different, and we don't want to discourage you from flagging a similr post (where the flag may be valid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, IIRC a close flag gets marked as helpful on the first close vote a post receives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your specific flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe: While popular science-y, this is neither unclear nor off topic IMO. However, similar questions may tend to be of the same type.&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear This isn't off topic, questions about standards are OK here _as long as they aren't too localized_&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe#question In my opinion, this probably can be closed as non-mainstream since it effectively proposes a theory and asks for evaluation. However, I'll let the handling moderator deal with this.&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision Your flag here was marked as &quot;helpful&quot; by [Community ♦](http://physics.stackexchang.com/users/-1), so it got [voted to close][1] by a few users (the votes have now expired). I personally would have declined the flag: While the question does talk of a possibly crackpot theory, it is asking for evaluation of one point within the theory, and it's to a sufficient degree physical. (Of course, it would have helped if he replaced &quot;all life&quot; with &quot;most life&quot;, but that is clear from the context)&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is You seemed to want it deleted, not just closed. There's no reason to do that; downvoted closed posts get auto-deleted anyway, and there' no particular need to wipe such posts off Physics.SE (they don't show up on the main page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/17508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="9edd227f-f77c-4b0f-9af2-9d27a810f89a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The standard reference for this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me) at Meta Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note in particular that it does *not* give specifics on what will and will not trigger a serial-voting detection by the system. **This is intentional.** The more information that is available, the easier it is to game the system. In particular, if the information you are asking for were available, it would be easier to stagger serial downvoting attacks over multiple days in ways that the algorithm wouldn't pick up but could still cause some serious damage to posts that do not deserve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ethos behind this policy is that it is good questions and good answers that should be rewarded, and not good users *per se*. This may sound strange at first but I think it is, in the end, quite reasonable. This shouldn't discourage you from looking for interesting threads in the profile of a user whose posts you like, but if you do this be sure to pay due attention to all the *other* posts on those threads and vote accordingly. This is only fair on all the other people who made an effort to contribute to those threads!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if your votes *are* reversed, don't take it too hard. If you come across a post that you had upvoted in the past and your vote is no longer there, all you need to do is upvote it again. If the threads are really that good, it's likely you'll revisit them at some point and this will show up if it's happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="1de21409-c3dd-4782-b1c2-b873ba13d0c0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I do not know how I am supposed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the help system,https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that , I am supposed to ask here to have my answer undeleted by vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an answer to question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69726/does-trade-affect-earths-rotation&#xD;&#xA;At the time I wrote the answer the page contained several humorous comment.&#xD;&#xA;Some have been deleted since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This induced me to write my answer in kind, though it was actually a serious answer as it was suggesting the most efficient way (not yet given by others) to actually do what the question asked. It is possible that my humor was too cryptic, as it was not understood, as the answer was deleted as irrelevant. Not knowing the system I did not try to edit it (as the help mentions that only for self-deletion), and I tried to explain in comments the problem and the meaning of the answer to have it undeleted.  Without any success, when a final remark made me understand, after several hours, that I was supposed to edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did, and I do believe it is a sensible and useful answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69746/revisions. It was edited 15 hours ago, but nothing is happening. I understand that some users can vote on this. Can you help.   Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion: it should be said more clearly on the help page that a question is supposed to be edited before it can be undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="3341ea93-c45c-47b2-94c5-c1d3007a6df1" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Certain posts are marked as *community wiki*, for a variety of reasons. Essentially, if you mark one of your answers as community wiki, it is very easy for other users to edit your post and contribute content to it, and it is taken as an encouragement on others to do so. Because of this, certain 'benefits', including reputation, are suspended in community wiki posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [the help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) or https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts at Meta Stack Exchange. It is my understanding that most people feel this information is visible enough and does not need further highlighting - it is only one search query away at the help center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4643" RevisionGUID="02493ca0-4bd4-4130-8b96-296abab4f02d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general, we don't care what happens in chat rooms associated with the site, so if some users want to set up a chat room for discussion in a foreign language, that [should be okay](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92996). However, if chat moderators have reason to suspect that the foreign language is being used to disguise communication that would otherwise be unacceptable (e.g. insults), they'll have to deal with that, and shutting down the chat room is one of the possible consequences (in extreme cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, meta site, and in the [main site chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), all content should be in English. (Or more precisely, all content should be understandable to English speakers.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="fa1150c0-0b9f-4cfd-86d2-fc843d5844bf" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you posted you licensed your content under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. See the [legal link][1] at the bottom of each page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of content so-licensed without proper attribution is a network wide issue, and is addressed in [Updated procedure for reporting SCRAPERs][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Short version:** Report violations directly to the Stack Exchange team using the [contact us link][3] at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one time the team was also interested in hearing about copiers who meet both of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They **do** provide proper attributions&#xD;&#xA;* Have their content rank higher than the original Stack Exchange content on Google&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for SEO purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't prove to myself that they still want to hear about such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/200177/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="259247d2-1899-4ea7-bdc2-08233d8d42d8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The license under which Stack Exchange distributes user-contributed content, CC-BY-SA 2.5, does allow other sites to reuse that content as long as they follow the attribution guidelines in the [terms of service](http://stackexchange.com/legal). If you're uncomfortable with your content being displayed elsewhere even when the guidelines are followed, then honestly you should probably stop contributing here because it is a prerequisite of posting that you agree to let SE and other sites redistribute your contributions in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the site you're pointing out does not follow the attribution guidelines, then that's illegal, and you should check that it is reported in [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131846/report-sites-that-use-stack-exchange-content-without-following-attribution-rules) on Meta Stack Overflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="a02445a6-15df-46b3-8d2e-409da505a916" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This would be done at the Stack Exchange level, and in fact [they *are* working on an Android tool][1]. Don't know if or when a iOS version might be in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190200/help-us-test-the-alpha-version-of-our-android-app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="6213912d-e4be-4a67-a47d-88b54f1ff656" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, you got the badge retroactively today because we just implemented it today.  See: [Asking days badges](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/234259/asking-days-badges) for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, the badges will be awarded shortly after the criteria is met. Since the criteria involves votes and closed question and such, it might still be a while after asking your last question, however. Suppose you had 4 days of asking well-received questions and one day asking a question with no votes. If I come along 9 months later and upvote that question, the criteria will be met and the badge awarded. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="43941efd-68fe-429a-a4a7-af7f58564d93" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Already been reported, not yet been fixed](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104184/allow-flagging-a-comment-after-upvoting-it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the best thing to do is to flag the corresponding post with a custom flag, mentioning that you're unable to flag the comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="a9f1873f-6443-41fb-a16f-5ea7995e9b61" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good question. The initial idea for the badges was simply to give them based on [number of questions asked](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/228844/should-we-add-more-badges-for-asking-questions). For most sites, that would probably have been a fine choice. But a [few sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (notably our flagship, Stack Overflow) get more questions than they can reasonably handle each day. The &quot;on separate days&quot; requirement exists to encourage pacing oneself and make questions count. (Most of the other requirements are intended to encourage more interesting, not just more, questions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On smaller sites, it can actually be useful to spread questions out a bit. I conducted a [contest on Parenting](https://parenting.meta.stackexchange.com/q/665/4521) and found that it's harder to care about answers if you are trying generate questions for reasons other than curiousity. My experience on other sites is the same: if I try too hard to ask questions, the answers don't tend to matter as much to me. Also, it can be annoying to see the front page cluttered with the questions of just one person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should feel lucky I didn't get my first idea to solve the problem: &quot;on separate _weeks_&quot;. The trouble with that pace is that people would need to wait up to 7 days to ask their next question if they didn't want to &quot;waste&quot; it. I called that behavior &quot;just-too-late asking&quot;. A day didn't seem like too much time to wait in contrast. ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, there's no reason to not ask a second question on a second day, if you don't care about the badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="4f59b07b-7c14-46bd-abe6-427f0be807fb" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a significant overlap between physics and chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest that questions tagged &quot;chemistry&quot; on physics.se be displayed and editable on both chemistry.se and physics.se. The reverse would also be beneficial: questions on chemistry.se tagged physics could appear here as well as there and be editable by both communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question immediately arises, should we collaborate on other tags? I would suggest that only tags involving the word chemistry  or physics respectively should be cross-communal projects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a question on SO meta: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration which points out how it is mostly the sciences that would benefit from this feature. I guess that means it is &quot;too specific,&quot; since we are relatively small. Democracy baby!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="c1377b56-199e-4f9e-af23-31fe731a0d55" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think what happened here is that the post was deemed &quot;Not Constructive&quot;, and was closed with the &quot;modern&quot; analogue of that close reason, &quot;primarily opinion based&quot;. POB doesn't apply as well as NC does here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask, &quot;what's wrong with the post then&quot;? Well, it's basically what's called an &quot;idle curiosity&quot; question -- you're not really aiming to learn something specific out of it, rather you're hoping to get some &quot;accidental learning&quot; from the post. It's not really focused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That in itself isn't that much of a problem on this SE site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, however there's another issue: It's not specific enough. There's not enough information about the system to get a meaningful answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (alternatively, a good answer would require tons of analysis to get anywhere), which is sort of supported by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've asked many Physics teachers and each has their own theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it doesn't have a definitive answer and it's not really focused towards a concept, it _basically_ becomes a discussion. Such questions are great to discuss in person. You do indeed learn a lot by seeing the approaches of others. But the question itself doesn't really focus on any concept -- the learning value derives from the _possibility_ of one of the answers  teaching you a good concept. Coupled with it being discussiony, that makes it rather unsuitable for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. While most SE sites deal with &quot;problems you actually face&quot;, the science sites don't (Well, not exactly), as explained [here][2].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I suspect that supplying enough information to fix this would then just convert this to a homework/engineering problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164692/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164436/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-for-objective-questions-asked-out-of-curiosity/164452#164452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5935" RevisionGUID="57e54612-817b-4f38-bd6f-e244d9850a40" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's a mechanism in place that you're probably not aware of, but which you should research well and think about. Any time that a closed question is edited, it is put into a [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review) called Reopen Votes, for which the options are Leave Closed, Edit and Reopen, and Reopen. If a question gets three 'Leave closed' votes, then it gets taken out of the queue - which means that three independent people think that the edits are not enough to warrant reopening. It also means that they get to see and comment on the post, if there is evidence that the OP is on the track to clarify their ideas but still needs some help - and this does happen very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see this Mother Meta post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/140893/add-a-review-posts-with-reopen-votes-review-task&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your assertion that 'a closing vote can never be removed' is incorrect - it takes equal amounts of people to reopen as it does to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I cannot account for the actions of other reviewers on that queue, but I can assure you that each question I see there receives a good look at both the changes and how they address the closure reason, as well as whether the new version by itself is a closable question or not. Unfortunately, I agree completely with Kyle in that the content of this queue is very often minor edits which do not address the closure reason at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To browse through the last few questions on the queue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122940/dipole-charge-attractions-while-one-of-them-is-turning-around-other is an improvement but it is still on the border line as regards the homework policy, and the 2/2 votes reflect this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122956/spherical-shell-with-mass-of-the-earth only has style improvements since the closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122890/string-theory-and-how-it-works is actually a fair improvement on the previous version but it is still miles away from on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122727/explosive-energy-in-a-container is an improvement but it is still unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122506/michelson-morley-interferometer-in-space-without-rods is a better description of a confused thought process which it is still very hard to make sense of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122070/chanddrasekhar-limit  is, I think, still on the borderline of the homework policy, and it has attracted attention from thoughtful users who work in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this background, a substantial edit which has clearer language or a longer posts immediately demands attention, and it is easy to detect when the OP has put in a good bit of work to clarify their post. If they have clarified it to the point that the core of the question is now clear, I will usually edit it into shape and vote to reopen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is very seldom the case. Most often, the lack of clarity in the language leads to ambiguities in what the question actually is (if not a complete puzzle as to what was going on inside the OP's head). In the (relatively frequent) cases where one can identify two or three candidate questions that the OP may be thinking of, it is *still* a disservice to the OP to directly edit that in, because we do not know what they wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, beware of making generalizations based on your own personal experience of the site, as I can tell you - from experience - that it is very easy to *not* see stuff that does go on. Unless you have followed up on *every* post that was closed as unclear, and seen that all of them get worked on by their OPs and still get 'robo-voted' down, how can you be sure that you've not simply been seeing the closure part of the process, without being around for the reopening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="671b55df-0022-478a-bd6c-3356a5bbbdc6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I did not read user agreement - maybe you did? BUT!, does the content of the answers belongs to a given user as intellectual property? Such, that when user is suspended he can demand to remove he's answers from the site in order to be fair? Interesting topic for a website with private ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up long and interesting discussion below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SE is licensed under CC-wiki license with Attribution required,&#xD;&#xA;you can read it here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a post on S[OFU] about same topic with more details:&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Stack exchange CAN USE your work(user generated content) to _earn_ money.&#xD;&#xA;This is written in the short summary of the license hyperlinked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Effectively you retain only CREDITS on your work. But not the rights to remove it from circulation or issue a new license which will _contradict_ / _constrain_ CC-wiki (this part is declared in termination section of CC-wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - License is effectively INFINITE (up to the limits of international law, about 60 years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no WAY to terminate this license by the will of the creators (users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good news. If we look at UK CC license  (lest assume our user lives in UK), we read following (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;2.3. This License does not affect any rights that the User may have under any applicable law, including fair use, fair dealing or any other legally recognized limitation or exception to copyright infringement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I understand correctly - when user gets BANNED from this website he can remove all he's work from here. At least in UK. Am I correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="f1fb3485-2d14-496a-a2e7-cfae280708d0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is covered by [the link dmckee gave in the comments](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96205/more-options-when-flagging-for-migration), in which the exact same feature was proposed on MSO and declined. Migrations to sites other than Math are sufficiently rare that there's no particular need to let ordinary users vote for them. (Moderators have always been able to do this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the first thing to decide when considering whether to migrate a question is, do you think it's off topic here? If you see a question that is off topic, flag it as such, or vote to close if you have that privilege. If you think the question would be appropriate at another site, other than the options given (Meta and Math), leave a comment on the question to indicate that. Alternatively, you can custom-flag the question as &quot;Off topic and possibly suitable for migration to X&quot; or some such thing. **Don't suggest a question for migration unless you believe it's off topic on this site.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6042" RevisionGUID="5ae32724-6b5e-4fe3-95d1-42753456890a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me specifically address the case of [Cooling a cup of coffee with help of a spoon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon). This is an atypical example and should *not* be taken as a prototype for policies affecting the whole site. The fact that something funny is going on there is immediately evident from [the OP's reputation graph](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1942/fortran?tab=reputation) (which gives directly the rep he got from it as he has no other posts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CodW3.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there are two distinct events where the OP reached the rep cap, separated by over two years. This is highly unsusual. A good tool to dig a bit deeper is to see [the post's timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/5265/timeline)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. On that day, as [pointed out by Manishearth](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon#comment176355_5510), [**the thread was linked to on what-if.xkcd**](http://what-if.xkcd.com/71/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a link is usually the cue for an avalanche of votes and that is indeed what happened. However, I'm actually quite surprised that even a link that big poured so little rep into the site. I actually think this is good evidence that we should keep things as they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, I really don't see why you dislike that question so much. It is a well-phrased, properly-posed question about an interesting everyday phenomenon, and it is without a doubt one of our better entry-points into the site for the physics-interested public. Plus, its answer is a model of responding to idle queries with the appropriate experimentation instead of further idle speculation. The OP did get a fair bit of rep from a flashy question, but he has not made any misuse of his moderation privileges since - and indeed has not been seen on the site since accepting Rhodes' answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I really don't think you can use this post as a model for the rest of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Post timelines are a useful but undocumented tool. To see them, go to physics.stackexchange.com/ posts/####/timeline, where `####` is the post ID. For more info see [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36303/feedback-request-new-timeline-question-view) and for why it's only accessible this way see [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/180594/184688)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="a373f322-aab9-4527-aa65-a992bdabb8cf" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, there's no real point to discussing suspensions on meta in the way outlined by the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such posts basically serve as a public shaming. It's a record that a user had done something bad; which we really don't need to have around. As mentioned [here][1], it's best to discuss actions, not users; behaviors, not people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it was deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there were [some unnecessary edits][2] made to one of the answers. Twice in the past week. They gave the impression that it still was an open issue. It isn't. There was no point whatsoever to bump the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/197072/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/2715/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="41821195-7c34-4f9e-baa5-d4286f93b98d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems we must have violated causality (only logical explanation) because almost a year ago someone posted a [suspiciously similar](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/203902/262980) feature request on the mother meta that includes the stuff we talked about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't look like any mods really looked it over thoroughly and I didn't see many persuasive arguments against it. So with that in mind, I'd be for allowing people to feed-the-meter as long as protective measures like an increasing minimum rep payment is implemented. Perhaps also, the any rep from the bounty that is 7 days old should be treated like 7 day old bounties in the current system to prevent users from building up questions with 5000 rep bounties, which could effectively bypass the rep cap to let them do all sorts of things (get their friends to trusted status in a week, for example). Or there should be a maximum rep cap on bounties that's, say, 3X the current max rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these are just ideas, I'm for it until I hear a good argument against it. The details can be worked out by people more motivated than I." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="0a10a21b-f5ed-4071-ad27-8ded3f5d70b0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="See [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Currently, this means that a closed question will automatically be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; added to the reopen queue when it is...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by the author. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delete it. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...Sufficiently popular, where popularity is calculated based on question score, top answer score, or views per month. We're still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tweaking the exact thresholds for these, but right now they're fairly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generous - however, the most popular closed questions are being added&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the queue *first*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably an initial flood of questions, once we clear it out the queue ought to stay empty (like how all the queues were above 100 when they were introduced). There are edits from July there, so they probably allowed the algorithm to retroactively apply itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not if I can do anything about it :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196074/lots-of-questions-in-the-reopen-queue/196078#196078" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="b05f13b9-8513-4e86-9fcf-f22a16261209" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has been a (highly upvoted/bountied) [feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/263383) on mother meta for four years, and [even](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/926/263383) there [more than once](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2519/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one of these is marked [tag:status-declined], so it seems there's not really consensus about whether or not SE may one day implement distiguishing close reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="8b22b236-5a16-4787-af9a-2a24069f8da5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As explained [on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms), moderators are not limited to terms. The next moderator election will be whenever the community and the SE team decide that the moderation workload on the site exceeds what the current moderators can do, and the number of positions available will be determined by the need. It's usually 1 or 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6194" RevisionGUID="26d67b52-3df0-4097-a730-05491c27163e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [Stackwise App][1] appears to be third-party -- you should file a bug report with its developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the Stack Exchange team is [alpha-testing its official iPad app][2], and you can sign up to participate. My very limited understanding is that this is just a superficial change to the already-existing iOS app for optimal display on an iPad. Since the iOS app already displays latex properly ([I requested it myself][3]), I suspect it won't be an issue there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For future reference, bug reports and feature requests for official apps at least should probably go to the [main meta][4] and tagged appropriately. Even for latex it's not like Physics is the only Stack Exchange site that uses it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/stackwise/id556308691?ls=1&amp;mt=8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239250/help-us-test-the-new-stack-exchange-ipad-app&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/222868/please-add-tex-rendering-on-the-ios-app&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="529948db-a1c0-4fea-be56-e926cdfd43ff" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just approved two edits removing the tag [tag:fun-stuff] from the two only posts that currently have it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64524/what-are-the-limitations-of-performing-music-in-space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10701/how-much-force-is-in-a-keystroke-estimated-of-course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, it seems pointless to have such a small tag. On top of that, it definitely pushes the limits of on-topic (though a bit of fun never hurt anyone, really). On the other hand, it wasn't really hurting anyone as the question count was minimal.* All in all I'm pretty neutral about this, so I approved the edit. I just thought this should come up in meta before we lose the tag. (Tags with no questions get deleted shortly, as per [this MSO question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19753/what-happens-to-zombie-tags).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's it gonna be? Tag burnination? Tag rescue with tens of volunteers turning up all these fun questions that really needed that tag? Or my personal favourite, a long, slow slide of this question down the meta front page, faced with stone-cold utter indifference? (hey, I could even get a tumbleweed outta that...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* Yes, I know &quot;minimal&quot; is only one question per tag. Go take this up in math if you feel that strongly about it.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="0aabbe6c-ca1f-40aa-bcf1-c51c54747c81" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing to keep in mind, which was mentioned comments that are now [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18110760#18110760), is that the moderation policies and atmosphere at Physics Overflow do not necessarily match the ones here at Physics Stack Exchange. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending of your opinion of the atmosphere thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference, in my understanding, is that (as PO sees it), they will not moderate 'frankness' in speech when used to convey physics content. This is something the Physics Overflow organizers and community seem to feel happens here; to quote from their [FAQ](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a4811):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stack Exchange discourages and censors scientific criticism, and has admitted to have been systematically blocking frankness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less charitable view is that PO will let slide a good bit more unpoliteness than you'll see here. It is certainly the case that their stance towards abuse is relatively hazy. The main thing that worries me about PO is well encapsulated by the question [Will there be politeness policies on physics overflow?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?). As Dilaton pointed out, Arnold Neumaier's [answer](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22410#a22410) there is quite moderate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; It is not necessary to be rude, and paying a little attention to one's tone is certainly better than just writing from one's gut feelings. A moderate language is one of the many facets of perfection, to be aspired even if not always attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is the highest-voted answer. However, that answer is hardly conclusive, and it seems that the hard stance is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; There are no rudeness rules, and there will never be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as [commented](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/22389/will-there-be-politeness-policies-on-physics-overflow?show=22396#c22396) by a PO moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do have a section [What can I do if I observe bad things?](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/faq#a8304) on their FAQ, which I feel is hazy regarding abuse on the site, directing readers to a contact link. Mostly, they really shy away from providing any guidelines on what sort of behaviour is and is not acceptable on the site. Personally, I would be worried that certain types of very cutting *ad hominem* attacks - of the kind that has been observed and frowned upon on this site before - will be given a lot of free rein on PO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, PO moderators have [stated informally](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se/6213?noredirect=1#comment20823_6213) that abuse will not be tolerated there, but I'm not sure how that squares with the comment above. At the very least, this is unclear and confusing as a PO user; personally, I would expect that some pretty bad stuff will inevitably slip through the cracks of that lack of clarity. I do not, however, advise people curious about PO to stay away from the site - instead, be aware of these points and make up your own mind whether you want to be part of that community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For contrast, you can see [the &quot;Be Nice&quot; policy at Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback), and the [previous one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240594/proposed-new-code-of-conduct-for-all-stack-exchange-sites) (active until October 2014). I, for one, do not see anything there that even hints at scientific censorship. It sure feels good to use belittling language when critiquing work that I feel is technically incorrect, but in the end (I think) it only diminishes the quality of my writing, its value to its readers, and the chances that it will be taken seriously. But then, that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like PO to adopt an approach like [arXiv Analytics](http://arxitics.com/), which states on its front page, in crisp and clear language, that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We encourage frank, open, and constructive conversation, but frankness doesn't mean lack of civility or lack of respect for others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, though, that they're still reluctant to put any qualifiers behind 'frankness is allowed'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="c4f76090-bf11-45d8-8138-c17431df55e9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a user called [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) that undertakes a number of useful background tasks, like take possession of up- and down-votes from deleted users (for more detail see e.g. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). In particular, the system bumps old unanswered questions to the top of the front page every so often to help them get answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens, the link to the question will show Community as the last active user on that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is some other name, then the question has had some activity recently. To be taken to the last active post in that thread, click on the timestamp:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o7iws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3Cq7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="fea00b12-7f1e-4c8d-96a3-2a7b4420c0ac" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Thanks for bringing this up. Per [our official supported browsers wiki](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/71208/262550), we do not support IE8. Therefore, I recommend that you upgrade your browser (it's likely that you have by now, 2+ years later) to ensure an optimal experience on our sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="2a0fa9fc-5526-4d30-9b2a-10a9e1306f63" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just stumbled on [this fantastic list of magic shortcuts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/94000/184688):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Supported magic links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[meta]` &amp;ndash; link to the current site's Meta; link text is the site name (e.g. &quot;Super User Meta&quot;). Does nothing if the site doesn't have (or already is) a Meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[main]` &amp;ndash; like [meta], just the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[edit]` &amp;ndash; link to the edit page for the post the comment is on, i.e. /posts/{id}/edit. Link text is &quot;edit&quot; (capitalization is respected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ... ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[ask]`, `[answer]` &amp;ndash; link to the &quot;How to Ask&quot; / &quot;How to Answer&quot; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* `[something.se]` &amp;ndash; link to something.stackexchange.com, if that site exists. Link text is the site name. Use `[ubuntu.se]` for Ask Ubuntu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Except for `[chat]` and `[edit]`, and with the addition of `[chat-faq]`, these also work in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they do, in fact, render correctly (see comments below). This makes me think of one particular link I keep giving to people: the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# **Can we have [homework-policy] magicize to [Homework Policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/)?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="bf8cb83e-88b3-4f72-b8d1-cafc8dc48e5d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question hit me when I saw [this question][1] which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found [this post][2]; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like [music][3] and [scifi][4]. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xD;&#xA;about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://music.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="acc67a78-8c55-4d6b-aabf-15d229bc9afe" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="- *+1/-1 comments and noise*: [This mother meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/15290/263383) is a bit undecided on the matter, but generally advises *against* leaving such comments, and *encourages* flagging them. The thing it boils down to is that comments should be *signal*, not *noise*. &quot;+1, great post!&quot; is noise. &quot;-1, this is false&quot; is also noise. Comments containing &quot;+1&quot; but citing a *specific reason* for the upvote, pointing out what was particularly worthy about the post contain at least a minimum of signal. Comments containing &quot;-1&quot; but citing a *specific reason* for the downvote are definitely signal, since they tell others what is wrong about the post. So, there's no 100% clear cut policy, and no one will tar and feather you for leving generic &quot;+1 comments&quot;. Yet, sooner or later, such a comment will probably be removed as noise, and you are similarily encouraged to flag noise when you see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Flags and deletion*: A comment is removed when either &quot;enough&quot; flags have been cast on it *or* when a mod removes it, cf. [this mother meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/17365/263383). Note that authors can also delete their comments at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *10k users and flags*: **Never** refrain from doing anything to a post just because the person owning the post/comment is a high reputation user. There [is no 10k flag queue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/226092/263383) anymore, only moderators can see flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Subjective negative comments*: Saying &quot;I think this is not true&quot; carries no information other than that someone, somewhere disagrees. This is noise, and should be treated as such (i.e. be flagged if you feel strongly about it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="e5eb4fed-0ff7-4316-b88d-c17813767148" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Take [this code sample from meta.SE][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        var a = 3;&#xD;&#xA;        while( !(a &lt; 0)){&#xD;&#xA;            alert(&quot;JavaScript code &lt;b&gt;goes&lt;/b&gt; here.&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;            a--;&#xD;&#xA;        }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've written it below (the first line is recognized, processed and eaten by the SE syntax parser):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    var a = 3;&#xD;&#xA;    while( !(a &lt; 0)){&#xD;&#xA;        alert(&quot;JavaScript code &lt;b&gt;goes&lt;/b&gt; here.&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;        a--;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no syntax highlighting (i.e. colours) where I should. Having written one or two posts on physics.SE where I did use code, highlighting would've been much appreciated. Is this a bug and could it perhaps be amended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184108/what-is-syntax-highlighting-and-how-does-it-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="90e4dcf8-bd06-49af-a7fc-eac212084075" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As discussed on [Meta.StackExchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22877/printing-out-stack-overflow-questions), you can try&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.stackprinter.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you need is the site name (Physics, in this case) and the question ID. The latter is found by clicking the link of the question and finding the number after `questions`, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/152937/what-am-i-doing-wrong-heredynamicsthey-should-give-the-same-answer &#xD;&#xA;                                               ^ here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you can print it off. It does keep all the latex and images (the link I chose above I know has some images and latex and it looks fine in my print-view)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="6db67a22-c330-4d6c-86d4-75a653ece047" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="47931cae-b1eb-4bc0-820c-2855ccd0bbea" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Had I done my homework, I'd have easily found [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/245123/262980) meta.SE post. But let's put it here for all the others that might be tempted to ask the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time-based hats are given a leeway of about 12 hours before and after the UTC day. That's to allow people in different parts of the world to fulfill the requirements during that day where they are on Earth. Since it's extra work to check where someone is and calculate the limits for them, everyone gets an extra 24 hour window. Yay! Thanks SE team!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="e3efa811-50e3-4d0c-a7de-1bad31a45b8b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. The rule under which your comments got deleted is the following, which was posted right there on the post which you were commenting on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the related meta post and its chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but when a moderator leaves direct instructions not to do something and you go ahead and do it anyway, you're probably not going to like the outcome. (Same goes for when a site policy says not to do something and you do it anyway, although in that case you might at least have the excuse that you didn't know about the policy.) The proper way to ask why your comments were being deleted was to bring it up on meta, as you did, or to ask in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The Stack Exchange model is that any information worth keeping belongs in a question or answer; comments are meant to be ephemeral. Consequently, we (moderators) often delete comments for a variety of reasons. You're also encouraged to delete your own comments once they have served their purpose. You will find the following in [the relevant Meta SE FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Comments are disposable: unlike posts, there's no revision history, and they can be deleted without warning by their authors, by moderators, and in response to flags. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="75711570-dd59-4c70-9970-4698a754fc01" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sorry to see you go, though I don't quite sympathize with the reasons you have listed in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I can't remember the slightest thing that could be wrong there, no rude language, nothing wrong at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was wrong was that it was [a public discussion about another user][1], one who wasn't even around. It was deleted due to that. Not to remove any discussion -- there are plenty of posts mentioning the suspension that are still around (some of them yours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This seems to me more and more everyday, a personal crusade of a specific moderator against a specific user. And now the traces are being covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user wasn't even suspended by the same mod each time. As mentioned before, it's about the site rules, not any personal vendetta. And I think there has been enough discussion about the rules, though if you want them changed then you'd have to bring them up on [the main meta][2] (where I think it's been brought up before, not sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this was done to cover the traces of anything. Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. We had a good member who is no longer here. Is there any point leaving a post around that discusses his suspension? One that contains various dissections of his character? And things that border on personal attacks to him? Is that _really_ something we should preserve? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't think that the suspension was wrongly carried out&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the mods will never claim that the user in question was never suspended (and we know that the community will remember). With this in mind, there isn't any reason for us to do this to cover our tracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not one of the great users here. I don't pretend to be one of them, and of course I don't expect my decision to have any impact. It is only that I cannot accept this any more. I leave the site. Thanks to those who answered my questions and discussed some ideas with me. I hope that my few humble answers were useful to somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, sorry to see you go. Thank you for your contributions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This is not the place to discuss this, please don't.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197060/members-discussing-other-members/197072#197072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5192" RevisionGUID="81da0343-0a62-409f-824c-7b24036b8318" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's actually pretty hard to lose all of your reputation.  There is a major imbalance between reputation gains and losses.  For example, if a question gets upvoted you get 5 reputation but if it gets downvoted you only lose 2.  See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7237/how-does-reputation-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd have to put in a lot more effort to lose reputation than you have to put in to gain it.  You'd get suspended way before that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="e944335e-48bc-48dc-97f2-94082945e2de" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The big problem here is what DavidZ mentioned - questions eventually become too old to be migrated, though I believe the limit is [60 days](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151890/disable-migration-for-questions-older-than-60-days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this discussed before on Mathematics Meta, and the consensus was what I think should be the policy on Physics - and what I think is the unofficial policy here - which is that history questions are *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would *love* to see this on HSM, and I think that we'd accept a migration of it to HSM. It clearly deals with history, and is, from what I can tell, 95% history and 5% physics. That 5%, by the way, is gratuitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, history of physics is still on-topic on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The comment](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity#comment331015_158079) left below the question, by alarge, seems to be rather typical in this post-HSM-launch era:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Might hsm.stackexchange.com be a better home for this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Better&quot; is the key word here. The comments below a history question may be laid out the same, but the word &quot;better&quot; is always used. History questions are okay here. Also,  there have been quality answers to many of the [tag:history] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, while we're trying to increase traffic and question rate on HSM, we don't want to artificially increase it. This was discussed [a while ago](https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/116/should-math-se-seed-hsm-with-some-history-of-mathematics-questions), and we reached the conclusion that there's no reason to do it because these history questions have done so well on other sites. We want to &quot;homegrow&quot; questions and traffic - in other words, we would like to attract users and questions on our own, without this kind of artificial stimulus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, we can't handle the migration of all these unanswered questions at once - we simply don't yet have the user base* - and slowly &quot;weaning&quot; the other SEs off of unused history questions would be unproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I also - as a pro-tem mod on HSM - don't want to have to manually re-tag and edit hundreds of questions - taking into account history questions from all the science and math sites, as well as science questions from History. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="a94040ac-aa51-476c-858a-3050f66f24b7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll restate here Jeff's answer in [the analogous question in the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81681/why-is-the-edit-button-disabled) for the benefit of any future users searching this meta with the same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a handful of conditions where we will stop accepting edits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A large number of suggested edits by you were rejected in the last day (absolute value) - if banned you will be banned for a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. We are out of empty slots in the queue (currently 20 120 200)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. There is an edit to a particular post that was not approved yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. You are not logged in and the post is less than 10 minutes old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the past no &quot;edit&quot; link would be shown at all; since July 2012 the edit link is disabled and the mouse hover tooltip will explain why an edit cannot be suggested, like &quot;Account is not allowed to suggest edits&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="3f9ba111-d8d7-4f9c-9e5c-8ec536e7971a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Why the minimum rep is fine enough to prevent trolling&#xD;&#xA;This is effectively answered [on the Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74086/so-chat-why-is-it-that-only-members-of-stack-overflow-with-at-least-20-reputat). The answers there are probably not sufficient for you, so I'm going to continue with a few extra points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chat is a place where people who spend their time answer questions here can hang out and respond to each other *in real time* (that's important). Allowing any &quot;troll&quot; in would probably ruin our fun there. I think that's a perfectly valid reason to have the 20-rep minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A new user can certainly post questions, but until they hit 50 rep, they cannot  comment on *other* threads so their trolling is contained to their own posts. If they are indeed trolling, they'll soon enough find their question closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any user who writes multiple poorly-received (i.e., heavily downvoted) questions can get a temporary ban from asking questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Anyone who takes the time to earn 50 rep in order to troll has a lot of free time. They'll quickly find their posts getting downvoted, dropping their rep by 2 each vote. Once they get under 50, they'll no longer be able to comment and under 20, they cannot enter chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a simpler sense for some, if you can't completely stop trolls, why waste time setting up blocks in the road that makes it harder for them? You can't stop them in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolls are people who just want to bother other people for no good reason. As long as people like this exist, we will set up whatever road blocks are necessary to keep them at bay, simply because they are annoying. If you want to put up with trolls, feel free to take it to a place where trolls are readily accepted (there are places like that on the internets); here, we prefer to prevent them as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What happens if a troll *does* get the minimum rep &amp; trolls chat&#xD;&#xA;The Stack Exchange dev team have two ways of managing trolls:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Users in chat can [mute the abusing member](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#mute). This allows users to *not see* the trolling posts in *any* chat room.&#xD;&#xA;2. Users in the chat can [flag the post](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#nice) as inappropriate. With enough flags (or a present moderator), the user will get a ban from participating in chat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even *if* a troll does manage to get the required reputation, there are ways to block them from persisting in being a troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;People here are afraid to make things work my way because my way is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your way would require us to have [little-to-no blockage against trolls](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337/why-do-you-need-50-reputation-to-comment-on-other-posts) by lowering/eliminating reputation limits. It is *not* out of fear that these limits are imposed, it is out of *rationalized* thinking and *experimental* evidence. We *don't* want to be annoyed or bothered by a subset of internet-capable people who *want* to *be* annoying and bothersome.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="2d095495-d31e-400d-94d8-18678772050f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You shouldn't set too much store by declined flags. If you look on MSO, it happens relatively often that flags are declined and yet the action gets taken. There's two outcomes that can come out of this sort of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, did the action get taken? If it did, then no worries. If it didn't, what was it? If you were asking for removal of comments, then don't worry too much about it - comments are temporary anyway. If you don't like a comment but it's not offensive or anything, well, shucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The only thing a declined flag really does is it slightly affects your [flag weight](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/84859/we-dont-need-to-see-flag-weight) - that is, your total helpful vs. declined flags. This is *not* something to worry about unless a really large percentage of your flags get declined. This is used by mods as a *very* rough measure to help gauge the importance of flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, there's not all that much to decry about a declined flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="8ff584b2-4d2e-4ee7-a4a0-53f9c805f2d3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been [a][1] [couple][2] [of][3] impromptu contests on Meta where one has to write a relevant poem or something. Some have been just for fun, some have been for swag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not have an informal (no prizes, unfortunately) competition on this Meta for some Christmas fun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inspiration is [this chat message][4] on the Physics GRE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the physics one basically just tests whether you've sat through a &quot;modern physics for freshman poets&quot; course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accuracy of the above statement aside, one can have quite a bit of fun writing physics poems that could find a place in a quiz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The poem must either be a question, or a question+answer&#xD;&#xA; - No restrictions on the specific form of poetry. Preferably rhyming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have fun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212433/should-employees-with-head-injuries-be-allowed-to-post-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212781/christmas-hat-haiku&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208393/i-would-like-a-mug-please&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=12793773#12793773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="7347974b-7535-4b4d-83aa-1589c96a0c8c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The deletion of your post happened *automatically*, since it is *closed*, has no answers, a negative score, and was closed more than 9 days ago. This is the [automatic deletion routine](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) running across all SE sites, and represents no particular ill-will towards your question in particular, and hence, even if undeleted, it will be deleted again when this routine runs the next time (it runs once every day, I think)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="6f2a341c-4568-46e9-920e-1d6e181985f0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go to the Physics.SE main page and look at the community promotion ad. Do it now, I'll wait.......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back yet? Okay, was it advertising Physics Overflow? Because every time I visit the main page, it's advertising PO. Last I checked, it [wasn't rated high enough](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015/6399#6399) to be featured on our community ads. And [according to meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246453/old-community-promotion-ads-still-showing-up) they should be using the 2015 ads now. Furthermore, every time I refresh I believe (and others are in this belief too) that it should randomly select a new ad to show, but I always get PO being advertised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems wrong. Conveniently and suspiciously wrong to boot. Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="253746fc-b328-47fd-b68b-be35c85f5b8a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was recently bumped to the top of the front page by a new answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read/. I originally wanted to just recommend the new answer be deleted, but the question is so bad that I think it should be closed as primarily opinion-based, and then put under a historical lock. Or something to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an everyone-add-your-favourite-book question.&#xD;&#xA; - It is [everything a bad list question is](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/98366/184688).&#xD;&#xA; - Its answers provide no commentary or detail about the books.&#xD;&#xA; - Its sister question, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/books-that-every-physicist-should-read, already has a well-earned historical lock on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="161c0e03-11b7-4013-a064-0c1fbac77e69" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A question will be closed whenever there are five Close votes on it, unless one of those is a moderator (in which case the question is closed immediately). It's important to note that [close votes age away](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136989/how-do-close-votes-age-away) if no new votes are being added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect of Leave Open votes is to take the question out of the review queue: if (# of Leave Open reviews) is three or more, the question will not be shown to new reviewers on the queue. This does not affect the number of Close votes on the question (except by triggering the start of close vote aging - see link above), so it can still be closed if people find it independently and vote to close it, or if a moderator sees it and closes it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel strongly about a question staying open, you should comment below it stating the reasons why you think so. Close-voters may simply express their disagreement via their votes, but at the very least this helps the OP in knowing where the strengths of their posts are, which will hopefully help them reopen it later on. Alternatively, you can post here on meta if it exceeds the dimensions of a comment thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways for a question to enter the review queue. One is for a user with close-vote privileges to vote to close, and the other is for someone *without* the privilege to flag it as off-topic. The former is the more common of the two, and in that case there will be that additional vote in the count, so the review count will show four Close votes from the review; this is the case for the first question you linked. The total count of close votes on a question is shown in parenthesis next to the close link below the question body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An identical system is in place for the Reopen review queue: enough Leave Closed votes will knock a question out of the queue, but will not cancel the existing Reopen votes. A question will be removed from the queue when it is reopened, when it attracts 3 or more Leave Closed reviews, or when all outstanding reopen votes age away (see link in first paragraph - this is what happened in the example you linked to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10582/what-is-a-closed-or-on-hold-question) in the mother meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="5a80276b-11e9-430b-a90c-b508aa1b72ab" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, the number of views is determined by the IP addresses of individual users, who had viewed the question in the past. It's just a [timed counter to measure roughly &quot;how popular the question is&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/188348/205334).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by &quot;timed intervals&quot; is that, say you view a question today. And, (let's say) after a week or so, you view it again. Refresh the page, and you'll find out that the views have increased by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mods don't have any privy information regarding the views, it's really obvious that the site-developers can view almost anything. [Sklivvz](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz), and [Shog](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) are examples, as they visit us often (:P)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="71772175-fa08-47a3-a343-28b9f1041015" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I do not believe this is a bug, but rather it is [meta-tag:status-bydesign].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the edit notification system is currently designed, users are not notified when a minor edit is made to one of their own posts.  [The exact criteria are][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a non-trivial edit is one which changes at least 10 characters (this is using a diff algorithm, so it's not a simple add/delete; and is naturally a little fuzzy). For the &quot;technical&quot; sites (where code highlighting is enabled) changes to code of at least 2 characters are considered non-trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this, changes to tags are considered trivial and will not generate a notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/134906/what-type-of-notifications-do-we-have/135411#comment378020_135411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="78d8e115-3992-4717-9e6d-c877da293c04" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A couple of questions here on meta.physics (namely [this one][1] and [this one][2] that I could find) already asked for how to use tags on Phys.SE. The answers to these questions seemed to imply that it is not possible to *automatically* number the equations, like what happens in standard Latex for example with the ```equation``` envinronment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked if this feature is possible on [meta][meta], and it turns out that [it already exists in MathJax][mathjax], as you can see from [the answer to my question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an extract from the answer linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This functionality already exists in MathJax. To enable it on an SE site, one would need to include either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;AMS&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*or*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    equationNumbers: { autoNumber: &quot;all&quot; }&#xD;&#xA;*in the TeX part of MathJax configuration options. I think the second option would be too aggressive: it would automatically number all displayed formulas in all posts on the site, which would often go against the intent of authors who created some equation numbers manually.&#xD;&#xA;The first option is reasonable: it would apply only to the displayed equations entered as AMS-LaTeX environments, e.g.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;    y=x^2 &#xD;&#xA;    \end{equation} &#xD;&#xA;*There aren't that many of those.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question now belongs here: should/could this feature be enabled on Phys.SE, to avoid painstakingly renumbering all equations in a post when adding/removing one in the middle of a text and similar things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also think that an automatic numbering of equations by default would be useful as it would allow to easily reference not manually tagged equations posted by the OP, but this is probably not possible now as it would, if I understood correcly, mess up all the already manually numbered equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/58382&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5396/58382&#xD;&#xA;[3]:https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/248597/276202&#xD;&#xA;[meta]:https://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[mathjax]:http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html?highlight=equationnumbers#automatic-equation-numbering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="80d609a6-c076-4b0f-86ab-d1d681d7bddc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you think a moderator is out of line use the [&quot;contact us&quot; link][1] at the bottom of the page to explain your position to the team. Moderators have been removed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other moderators can ask to have a colleague removed.][2] This is the officially sanctioned process for &quot;normal&quot; removal of a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beta site get *pro tem* moderators appointed by the team rather than elected and they have to run for election to retain their position after the site launches. And permanent moderators have been known to resign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time that is it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151633/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="4e7ba2b8-5a1d-4250-ab00-d7c7cdffd03e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is in regards to events occurring with the question [Do tachyons move faster than light](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166095/do-tachyons-move-faster-than-light) (see also chat starting [around here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20169987#20169987)), but the question is to be applied to a site-wide policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aforementioned post contained a bad question that was quickly closed as *primarily opinion based*. A set of high-rep users then edited the question to be something entirely different, which was then reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/218183/reviewing-suggested-edits-what-is-an-invalid-incorrect-or-radical-edit) about editing posts, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are all adding/changing the content of the post, the intended meaning of the author. That is not appropriate for an edit. (Unless the post is Community Wiki.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The intent of edits is to allow readers to more effectively understand the authors original intent. They are not there to change the author's intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edits made to the post in question appear to change the intended meaning of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [discussed radical edits before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/correcting-incorrect-answers) in regards to incorrect answers, in which my answer (highly voted + accepted, though the 2nd answer says the same thing &amp; is also highly-voted) says that such edits that change the intended meaning should not be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Should we change our policy on editing (which, AFAIK, is aligned with the SE network policy cited above), to allow for such radical changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up, if we should keep the existing policy, what should occur to the post in question? Should it be reverted and closed, or should it be left as is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="881dc71f-6d8d-4dea-8b30-3a8a4b06aa24" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[tag:physics] is now an [intrinsic](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/181772/enable-the-intrinsic-sitename-tag-blacklist-on-older-sites) tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="70c355ab-22a9-4b61-83cb-b656c41c5bf5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This Mother Meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138788/can-i-give-my-email-id-in-reply-to-user-comment) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You *can* give it if you are so inclined, but by no means you *have* to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's highly unorthodox to ask for someone's E-Mail address, and often it's to bug you for free one-on-one support. Which you are absolutely not obliged to give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's basically your choice to do that, there isn't a rule forbidding or forcing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not want to give out your email, then I would err on the side of caution and politely respond with something like, *I would rather not give out my personal email address, but if you do have further questions, go ahead and post it here, where I, and others, will be able to see it and answer you.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that some of us do include our email addresses in the `About Me` section of the profile page. I have included mine there since I signed up almost 2 years ago and I think it's been used by a grand total of 4 users (on 8-10 emails, none of which were actually homework related, just side discussions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="da26634d-1b0c-43c6-8671-da81fd50f727" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a good place to document a nice SE Data Explorer query I cooked up recently. (This is not a direct answer to the question, but it does provide some useful data to inform decisions.) The query [**Timeline of posts closed as homework**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/161237/205482/timeline-of-posts-closed-as-homework) plots the accumulation plot of questions created in the past 3 months (or some other period you specify) which were closed as Off-Topic and were tagged as [tag:homework] (or some other tag you specify). Currently the data shows a sharp increase in the rate of homework closures at about the start of term (I complained about it in chat [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13290286#13290286), which also has a graph as of January 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old data, though, must be taken with a grain of salt, because many of the relevant questions (and particularly the more annoying ones) are automatically deleted by the system. For more details, see [the post deletion documentation on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that/5222#5222), but in short, questions closed as Off-Topic can get deleted as soon as 9 days after their last edit if they have score ≤0 and no upvoted or accepted answers. This thinning down of the data is evident upon comparing the graph in this post with the one in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cz8Qc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="ffb3f71b-1815-4815-870f-57c5d0d495c9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The rather lengthy conditions are given on Meta.SO: [How do comment @replies work?][1] In particular, these two points explain that `@`-pinging is both unnecessary and auto-deleted in your case - both you and the author of that post will ping each other automatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a user comments on their own post and there is only one person who has previously commented, then that person is also notified if @name is forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first author of the question or answer will always be notified of any new comment. There is no need to use @name to notify them. (You may still use it for clarity, if needed; however if only you and the author have been commenting on the post so far, the @name will be automatically removed from the beginning of the comment, as it adds no value.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6622" RevisionGUID="0668d88d-254f-414f-b368-8d896bae5ded" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Having two accounts from the same household is fine. In fact, you *can* vote on each other's posts if you come across them, but you should be sure to vote only based on content, not based on who made the post. And you shouldn't intentionally look for each other's posts. This is covered in [What is the procedure for having my spouse/significant other as a member of the same SE site?][1] If you're worried about being impartial, then just don't vote on each other's posts at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, even one person *can* have multiple accounts. In this case the connection should probably be disclosed, and the accounts most certainly should not vote for each other. I've seen this done where, for instance, a high-rep user or moderator wants a less-privileged account to *suggest* edits or closures, rather than *force* them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for logging out, look to the top bar, on the left:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first click][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a logout option in the menu:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![second click][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175374/what-is-the-procedure-for-having-my-spouse-significant-other-as-a-member-of-the&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dmDMi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLcvg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="bcc4b7d0-cf46-445a-978f-169f0fc35940" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The one-stop shop for tracking your badge progress (not that you should really be doing that) is [this answer to Badge Progress Reports on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3230/badge-progress-reports/143653#143653). There are  usually a few relevant queries in the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com/) to choose from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, I can't find one that looks reliable; the mother meta thread points to [the reputation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) that Brandon pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're feeling competitive, though, [Legendary Badge advancement TopCount](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/160805/legendary-badge-advancement-topcount) will show the leaderboard: the number of days users have reached the daily cap, from über-legendary to mortarboard. [Top users by the number of times they earned 200/day&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/129639/top-users-by-the-number-of-times-they-earned-200-day) does the same, though there's a slight discrepancy with the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're wondering exactly what the criterion is, [this answer by Nick Craver](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/88526), and his comments below it, confirms that you only need 200 reputation total in [one day](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42184/) to add a count towards these badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="6702fc91-73f2-4373-8a52-87de8e37e308" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Asked and answered on Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120707/clarify-the-no-registration-required-message). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it is that the original meaning of *no registration* was that other, similar Q&amp;A sites required you to register *just to **see** the answers*; this is not the case here. You should be able to answer questions without registering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is more explicitly stated in the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/) (specifically the [Why should I create an account?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-register) under the [My Account](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/account) header)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Registration is not required to participate on Stack Exchange; you can read, answer, and suggest edits as an anonymous user, much like on Wikipedia. There are some things you won’t be able to do on the site without registering, however, such as vote. Registering is easy, and once logged in, you can gain other key privileges by earning reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original policy *was* no registration required, but the original site ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/)) was receiving [several *thousand* questions per day](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (QPD), many of which were *low quality*. So the creator of the site, [Jeff Atwood](https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/1/jeff-atwood), changed it to require registration for *asking* questions (in attempts to stave off the sheer number of bad questions). The comment thread under Jeff's answer is worth the read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="0219dbde-5005-418e-8ad1-c7f30ed86668" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think that your point, that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users with more rep points can throw around bad answers without much repercussions, while newer users get smashed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is wrong on both counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As an 'established user', posting an egregiously wrong answer and getting called out on it is a lot more visible, and a lot more embarrassing, than for new users. Further, people will be more focused on helping new users understand why their answer is wrong, and they will be less forgiving with more established users, tending to simply point out where the mistake is and why it is fatal if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Even as a new user, it is actually very hard to get &quot;smashed&quot; by a wrong answer. I definitely empathize with the feeling, as a new user, that every bit of rep is precious as you try to climb the privileges ladder; all of us felt the same at some point. However, downvotes are very light! It takes five downvotes to undo the rep from a single upvote. It would take thirteen downvotes to make you drop down the shortest privilege gap after 15 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are a feedback mechanism. They are a way for the community to tell you that your content is incorrect, and they are an opportunity for you to use the community to help you fix it. You should of course be open-minded and reasonable, but if you are then you will either end up with a correct answer or an understanding of why your previous thoughts were wrong. Either way, in real-world terms you come out ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you manage to fix your answer, then you will start getting upvotes. If the answer is fundamentally flawed, there is nothing wrong with deleting it! There is no shame in it and very few people will even know it's there. It will also [restore your reputation](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/2638/184688): you can force a recalculation of your rep on the [reputation page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) (or it will happen automatically with some regularity) and this will not count downvotes on deleted questions. Reputation-wise, you're back to where you started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we're speaking about downvotes: don't be afraid to post things like these in meta, either. Downvotes here do not affect your reputation, and tend to be an indication of whether people agree with your proposals or the premises of your question. As long as you're polite and open-minded, and follow the usual civility rules, nothing much can happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="bd70c8ef-500c-42f4-9b16-ee6abaa24f6d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Come on John, [haven't you done a google search](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ameta.stackexchange.com+lmgtfy)? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, as Qmechanic linked to in the comments on your question, [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5226/policy-on-lmgtfy-links) basically tells people to not to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [post on mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/ban-lmgtfy-let-me-google-that-for-you-links) says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in *other* ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="9249d63c-8d63-4c6d-84f5-cecb235b5be9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[A fix for this is rolling out now.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/253555/130213)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="f80f31aa-aa20-4094-b1f2-fd65dc8830ac" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go forth and answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are some sites where this can lead to issues. For example, on [StackOverflow][1] a number of users [race to be the first to post minimally helpful links][2], since that gets the most reputation per unit effort, resulting in a bunch of decidedly unhelpful tidbits that look like they were drawn from a live help session. As long as you are posting good, thorough answers, this isn't a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern on [TeX][3] is that there is a very small core of very good answerers (mostly the people who developed TeX and its brethren), and if they answer all the easy questions, [new users will be discouraged from participating in the community][4]. I doubt we will ever have that problem here. Between the number of questions we get and the breadth of topics they cover, no small group of people could answer them all (at least not well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other catch I'll mention is that you should not just blindly answer things. Take a look around at what established users take to be good questions. For example, if someone posts their homework assignment expecting us to just do it for them, we (high-rep users) *will* close it, and probably throw a few downvotes at it too. Our efforts at keeping up the quality and integrity of this site are made more difficult when new users quickly post solutions to these questions before we react.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should keep up your enthusiasm. My own experience is that after reaching 10k rep I grew far more picky in terms of which questions I would spend time answering. There are certainly posts where I know I could write a good answer, but I'm tired of explaining the same topic (e.g. the expansion of the universe) for the umpteenth time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tex.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1867/should-high-rep-users-hang-back-a-little" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="a9b6912a-29b5-4da7-b393-41b8cd3c0693" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's probably caused by a [SE script](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/202805) that automatically converts short answers into [comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions#comment25159_6442)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="09606536-7e80-4c3b-875f-bc22746b26bb" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just a quick note on a relevant development at MSO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Let's get rid of the 10K flag queue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, if it goes through, much of this discussion would be obsolete. I quite like it, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="6f189304-dd8e-4e46-bfa2-41f0b16af414" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed that other stack exchange sites have a [new style of user profile][1]. The new style has a different layout, as well as more statistics, such as [&quot;people reached&quot;][2], which is interesting. Is the new style coming to physics? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My profile pages on other stack exchange sites have the new template, but my physics one doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/244238/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/244534/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="b8b47085-eafd-4f93-b16f-8eb0972d07bc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, the votes should be reversed within 24 hours. If they're not, then it's time to let a moderator know, on meta or chat or by a custom flag on one of the affected posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information see [this post on meta.SO](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="6fd608c4-dd3e-48d4-8a8c-5866e08313e7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Edited to reflect the current situation) We now have the new CSS and profile page layout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to this, nobody knew when it was coming (except _maybe_ the design team, but I'm not sure if their scheduling algorithm is any more sophisticated than &quot;what site do we feel like working on today?&quot;). There is/was [a list of sites which have had the update and those which have not](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed), but it was kept in random order without any indication of when the remaining sites would get their design update." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="e472210f-00c2-41b9-b239-01620ec71487" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I continue to be befuddled by what exactly one is supposed to do with flags in the 10k tools, and I'm quite relieved to know [they're going away soon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue). In the meantime, though, here's a stumper I just came across in my flagging history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post in question is [this answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104304/without-seeing-the-lightning-can-you-tell-how-far-away-it-struck-by-how-the-thu/104308#104308), which came up flagged as Not an Answer if I remember correctly. I understand why someone would flag this - it was only a sort-of good fit to the question to begin with - but I disagree that it failed to address the original intent of the OP. Particularly, I felt it did answer the question in its state at the time, with a less specific title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, given the current state of the question, I can understand that it might best be classed as Not an Answer. Given that, I can understand that my `invalid flags` is disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely stumped, however, at the message. `Flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer`? That has absolutely nothing to do with why I flagged this way. The technical content of the post was never an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone elucidate what on Earth this message means and how it came into being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mzWH9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="6ed1a85d-14ee-4ef4-b6e6-8c1971ee59b9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that we're somewhere in the queue for a site CSS adjustment, accompanied by [the new profile pages](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns). Since the CSS is getting a makeover, I would like to float this idea: can we change the font to something that gets along better with the MathJax font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, posts with MathJax look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this example](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099)). Note how the math tends to stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that I often do things like `10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; s` to keep the text streamlined, unless I really need the maths. Ideally, within the LaTeX paradigm - i.e. in the style used by all serious physics journals - the math will blend in perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cp7e6.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know that this is quite a lot to ask, since the site font is currently very sans-serif, but over in [Chemistry SE's gorgeous new design](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) it does work much better (with a serif font):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl3i2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we move over in that direction somewhat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="0635d8ba-ec0f-4eb7-9383-01fdbd130791" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So it seems the [10k flag queue is being removed][1] with essentially no replacement. The general consensus over at SO (or at least my own reading of it) seems to be that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Moderators ignored 10k feedback in dealing with flags, and in fact this feedback was an encumbrance to them; and&#xD;&#xA;  2. 10k users have better things to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises a few Physics-specific questions. Regarding (1), **do the moderators here not use (or minimally use) the feedback 10k users provide via flags?** If that information was never useful, then there is no loss here, though in the future it would be nice to be told &quot;ignore that feature; we don't want you to add flags.&quot; If it was useful, are we losing functionality with the imminent change, and is there any way to recover it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding (2), **what else can I be doing as a 10k user?** I understand there are several information overviews tabulating migrations, voting trends, comment activity, etc. But these seem to be more for my own personal consumption; it's not clear how to use this information to *do* anything. A perfectly valid answer might be &quot;nothing - 10k users are just like any other user who can vote to close (3k) but can't vote to delete (20k),&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; but if that's the case this should really be spelled out clearly somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Well okay, tag wiki approval (5k) and protecting questions (15k) are in that range too, but these are pretty lightly used features here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="1c7bfcfe-930f-4837-b865-a451623e333a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been looking through the new [Physics Overflow beta](http://physicsoverflow.org)¹ and looking back at some of the discussion about the closure of the [Theoretical Physics SE][2]. From a purely personal perspective I would prefer research level questions to be asked here because though it's very unlikely I could answer any it's interesting to see other peoples answers. However I appreciate that active physicists don't want to wade through acres of basic questions from non-physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time there are lots of non-physicists interested in physics as shown by the proliferation of science programmes on TV, and I believe strongly that there should be a site for anyone interested in physics to get clear and authoritative answers to questions at this level. I think Stack Exchange is the best place for such a site because it's designed to reduce the junk and advocacy that swamps other less regulated fora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach taken by the Theoretical Physics SE, and now the Physics Overflow, is to split off the most advanced questions, but history shows you end up with a site with very low traffic. I wonder if it would be better to split off the low level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my perfect world that would leave the Physics SE at a higher level and hopefully manage to both attract back the higher level users and keep the traffic high enough to keep the site vibrant. The Popular Physics SE would provide interested bystanders with their answers, and maybe it could take a more lenient attitude to homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My perfect world doesn't exist, of course, and there are obvious problems such as how to decide which site to post questions on. My suggestion would be to use Physics SE for undergraduate and above level questions and Popular Physics for everything below this. I note the blurb for the Physics SE still says *Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students** (my emphasis)*. Assuming we treat the sites as siblings, migration between them (mostly from Physics to Popular Physics I'd guess) would be less of a big deal than attempting migration to unrelated sites like the Math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's about it - I will be very interested to hear other views on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Note that the Physics Overflow is not part of the Stack Exchange network  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="5aff15e6-d5b4-4df1-9eda-6851765c831a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I accidentally clicked the flag button while on mobile. I have done this twice now and it would be nice to be able to undo the flag within a 5 minute window or something if I accidentally clicked it. Just like I can edit comments within 5 minutes before it's locked in. &#xA;&#xA;There has been discussion of this here: &#xA;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87500/cancel-misclicked-flags&#xA;&#xA;And here &#xA;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96950/can-we-have-a-way-to-undo-a-flag&#xA;&#xA;What is the status on this issue? Some of these feature requests are quite old. Why hasn't it been added? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5835" RevisionGUID="9db3a314-e56b-44bf-9d35-770ed261b793" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been requests for this on the mother meta ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93444/provide-a-tool-for-moderators-to-migrate-comments-to-chat)) but so far nothing has been implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, of course, go to chat, create a room, and invite the other user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="5279ade7-b858-44d0-aec2-2dde7a4e8fa2" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Upon forceful deletion of my [previous answer][1], by some users I will be reviewing once again some differences between Physics overflow and stack exchange. I will be brief in my answer, factual and less passionate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Physics Stack Exchange imposes,(Sometimes even year long) suspensions of accounts. The details of the which are kept hidden from the users. It is only the moderators, and members of the stack exchange family who make the decisions, and it has happened despite protest from the larger userbase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics overflow does not allow for this kind of closed door policies, and as yet there have been no instances of banning users in the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physics overflow, operates with the policy that a User's content will be be protected in the form that the user wishes to preserve. It makes exceptions for spam and other severe or legal abuses. Users or moderators cannot remove any disagreeable content, and Bad content is subject to review through discussion and not through unilateral deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics stack exchange allows for moderators to close questions directly, If they find the content to be disagreeable. Its relies on the trust its places on the moderators to be fair with their judgements. Any disagreeable content(an example being my previous answer) is removed, without allowing for the natural process of peer review, down-voting etc, if the moderators(or other high reputation users) feel it to be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Physics Overflow Implements Rotating of moderator positions(currently 1 yr cycle), to facilitate the process of understanding the position of both the moderators and users from a practical point of view.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange implements Life time moderatorship. Some reasons being listed [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are some of the differences between the sites, apart from obvious ones such as their intended audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/problem-of-unnecessary-censorship-in-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/should-community-moderators-be-elected-for-life-or-have-terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="1bd83b51-4724-425c-a209-bc0855370e83" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I reported them. ([details][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While your content is licensed under CC-BY-SA and can be used on any website provided they follow certain attribution rules ([see section 2 here][2]), this site doesn't do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/200177/updated-procedure-for-reporting-scrapers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="5a6af690-4588-4971-ae2b-d7b660b17385" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll bite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. For the most part, I am happy with the questions asked here, zero-effort homework questions being the obvious candidate for 'wish we didn't have those...' The answers are usually more than satisfactory &amp; provide for good resources for my own learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The demographics seem to be split as 'under-grad', 'grad-student', and 'post-grad' (meaning graduated from grad school with the MS or PhD and working). Seems to be well-balanced to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Yes, the moderators do a fantastic job here. I've never been unfairly treated, nor have I ever seen anyone being treated unfairly. The mods do a fantastic job at what they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Yes, I am comfortable with the implementation of Network Wide policies (which ultimately boils down to 'Be nice.').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. I am not disturbed by anyone's life choices surrounding any internet site, be it here, Google+, Twitch, or whatever. If *[insert known user]* left because of (what appears to be) their own problems that they had with authority &amp; civil conduct with society, so be it. The only person who can 'fix the issue' is *[&#xD;&#xA;insert known user]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. AFAIK, no one has been suspended unfairly. SE policies on bans are progressive ([1 day, 1 week, 1 month, &amp; possibly 1 year](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174118/), with each longer date requiring a previous suspension as well as continued inappropriate behavior in a 30 day window). The policies of suspensions are very reasonable (because it expects people to actually learn from mistakes, rather than keep making the same stupid ones over &amp; over again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Yes, this site satisfies my research interests. There are many questions on my field of expertise, as well as some outside my expertise that I'm interested in learning (specifically, GR). I think there are plenty of professional physicists, just need more active reviewers to help keep up the closing of unfit questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="b4abc5e3-6b3c-42ca-b193-d46bd1a60380" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's a post on the mother meta which already addresses this: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems with questions with bad English is that they _are_ unclear, even when you get past the grammar issues. Because bad grammar usually leads to loss of clarity, and you're left wondering what the person is asking about. We usually don't make edits that decide what the question means, we let the OP fix it. Crystal balling the question is not or job, and more often than not we get the wrong interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, closing/on-holding is a temporary state. It means that the question needs improvement, and will be opened when it gets improved. People who close questions also patrol the reopen queues and often reopen such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think a +2 rep for editing for everyone would really help here. If the user is still motivated by rep, then they probably will go for the easier edits. If not (which is pretty likely), then stuff will continue as usual. Fixing an unclear post is one of the harder things to do, especially because you have to try and figure out the poster's intentions. People here have better things to do with their time, usually.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="eeebfda7-7447-48b0-adc1-ca46f081c3a7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see that it has been three days since the [math version][1] and two since the [mathoverflow version][2], both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those attitudes say that cross-posting is a form of prioritizing your desire for a large audience ahead of the desire of other users to see only a selected fraction of the available traffic as indicated by their choice of which [usenet groups|stack exchange sites] to read. That was historically interpreted as a kind of rudeness---putting ones own desired first it ones of the core attributes of rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Stack Exchange isn't usenet, but [the users have been polled on their opinions on this issue][3], and it is clear that the usenetesque view is dominant on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We understand that you don't agree. Well, there is no harm in disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I disagree. You've made a fairly minimal set of textual changes, but you are still asking the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't get an answer elsewhere I'll reopen it sometime tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1329146/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/209604/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="e2f36e3a-713a-4154-8bce-9c5bcb9f27b4" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the comments pointed out, the [help center](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and the [meta-tag:faq] tag on meta are the canonical sources. There's also a lot of site-agnostic information in the [faq tag on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq), which is mostly just clarifications of the stuff in the help center, but I would still consider that to be part of our policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything that you don't find in one of those sources, you can ask here on meta or in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), although it's worth doing a quick search of meta to see if you can find any prior discussion about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="1286c202-ed5e-45a3-961e-4036bde12452" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Yet (if I understood it correctly), the original author would potentially be credited for a nice question, which was actually later created by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a non-issue &amp; not sure why it was raised in the first place. If someone wants reputation and/or badges for a question, they should ask it themselves, rather than hedging it'd be poorly received &amp; editing someone else's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your points on the topic of the post itself,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it would be a valid edit to the original question (which was really asking for a source to the derivation) because it's asking for more information about the cancellation of a term, which would be best served as a comment to Robert's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If he takes my suggestion from the comments, he could link to the question if he felt it necessary. This would be the better option, as far as I can tell, compared to merging two questions or editing in. Two caveats on the new post:&#xD;&#xA;  - It seems to me that it'd be pretty close to the [*derive this equation/law for me*](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5968/25301)-type question that we've deemed off-topic and could be closed (if 5 people agree to this view). &#xD;&#xA;  - Closing it as a duplicate because both questions are about the HGY boundary term might be a little bit of a stretch; I would think it'd be closed for the previous bullet than duplicate, but I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your job as the reviewer is to decide whether the post answers the question or is meant to be something else (comment, new question, spam, etc). If you think the post itself answers the question, then you can hit &quot;No Review Needed&quot;. I personally thought it was not an answer and commented &amp; flagged it as such when I reviewed it in the *Late Answers* queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* a way to [*merge* posts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158066/what-are-merged-questions) (can be done by moderators only), but, from my understanding, it is somewhat complicated/involved and is rarely done on this site. I do not think it would be necessary in the case that MatterFr posts a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="7dbad90c-dda5-4e45-8fb3-f73edd01eb6d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="An alternative way to accomplish this is to simply [mark your questions as Favorites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53585/how-do-favorite-questions-work). In that way, they will come up on the Favorites &gt; activity tab on your profile when they are edited. The people who want this information can then access it, and everyone else is left *without* a bunch of annoying notifications, and particularly so the [people with many tens of questions](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/44871/top-question-askers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="8fd13126-c596-4d2a-bf4b-03e49376f26d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Adding 4 spaces to the beginning of a line makes it a [**code block**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22186/how-do-i-format-my-code-blocks). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Click 'edit' to see the four spaces before this line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is useful on the programming sites (e.g., StackOverflow) where there is [syntax highlighting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184108/what-is-syntax-highlighting-and-how-does-it-work) enabled on those (something we don't have/need here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've deleted those 4 spaces &amp; the picture now appears." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="f6a1d97b-bad9-45b3-897b-db381db8ecf8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for, but this is indeed available on a site-wide scale. This is done via the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Stack Exchange Data Dump.](https://archive.org/details/stackexchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a collection of all the questions and answers in each Stack Exchange site, which is updated on every ~3 months if I remember correctly. This is publicly available to download, and its use is governed by the same [CC-BY-SA](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) license that governs Stack Exchange user contributions. For more information see [this SE blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/), [this one](http://blog.stackexchange.com/category/cc-wiki-dump/) on the migration to the Internet Archive, and of course [the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at this, I should note that this database can be accessed directly by anyone with SQL skills at the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com/) ([description in the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49424/stack-exchange-data-explorer)), which is a goldmine for site usage statistics among other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I'm not sure exactly what the OP is asking for, but this is mostly a reply to the question title, meant for people that are looking for exactly that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="37ac9802-3a5b-4ce6-8917-dd5cb2b8e080" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Answer can be found here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also relevant: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124842/how-to-act-when-youre-being-serial-upvoted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;# What else should I know about this subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Reversals trigger a reputation recalculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whenever serial voting gets reversed, all days involved in the serial voting will be recalculated as if the serial votes had never happened, and any reputation you might have lost due to those serial votes hitting the reputation cap will be given to you at that time. **Serial voters will not prevent you from gaining reputation that you deserve**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="2ba21eef-4099-4767-9f3a-1d0ca54a3266" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently wanted to post an answer to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191425/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at the bottom of the page, I saw the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, I have 60 reputation, unless I'm misunderstanding what _reputation_ means in this context (I clicked on the link to [reputation][1] and as far as I can tell I'm not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;duplicate&quot; post shows a different message. In that message, the intent is clear (you must have _earned_ reputation). I got a different, erroneous message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE: posted on Meta SE: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/259878/incorrect-wording-in-protected-question-status**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="637190c9-6f6c-422a-a3f1-19e6765fde50" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="For those who are unaware, particularly unloved questions are [automatically deleted](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question with a -1 score or lower and no answers gets deleted in 30 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question that is closed (not as duplicate), has no answers with score &gt;0 (or accepted) and has not been edited in 9 days is deleted after 9 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in terms of keeping the site clean, for a majority of the types of questions  we are talking about, the difference is getting it deleted only 21 days sooner if we vote to close rather than downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that is enough of a benefit to argue against the intrinsic subjectivity that [Jim mentions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6003/51994)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="4200d110-565d-4a96-a027-bd8345bb0bcb" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A similar case was addressed in this [**Mother Meta post**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155049/) (does not mention &quot;high vote,&quot; but I expect that the answer is the same regardless). The accepted answer there says that you should **edit it** if there is no existing correct answer and **delete it** if there is an existing correct answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even further, Shawn Chin states,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Better yet, to keep the post clean, replace the wrong answer with an footnote which mentions your previous answer and include a link to the relevant revision of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because revision histories are public, anyone (even unregistered users) can see them, so why not give them a direct link to the old wrong answer&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This will let future visitors see the history of what was the original answer, if they so desire, but keep the *correct* answer present for all to see first (which is more important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer has been accepted by the OP, you cannot delete it without moderator intervention. What you can do here is try asking the OP to unaccept your answer (comments under their question would probably be best) so that you could then attack it as above (edit if no correct answer is there, delete if a correct answer exists). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they *don't* respond then you're in a bit of a pickle: do you (a) edit it for future viewers, OP's non-acceptance be damned or (b) post a new, correct answer, and never get the *right* answer accepted&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;? This, of course, is the dilemma we face here, as the OP in the question in question has not visited the site since September of 2011 (and has only asked *that one* question). I'd probably lean towards (a) myself, but it really is a judgement call best left to the answerer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/e18511b1-8c14-44d6-874f-f4a75b5dfdcf/view-source) for this particular post. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Technically speaking, the accepted answer only indicates that that answer helped OP the most. Contrary to the opinion held by many people on this site, it does **not** signify correctness of the answer. So really this point is kinda a non-issue.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="e7fbc0c3-c8b2-439a-b5a6-368b6ee0cc40" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Much as I'd like to make it a capital offence, we can't stop people posting inappropriate questions (or answers). We just have to put in place the mechanisms for dealing with them. And it seems to me these worked well in this case. The question was closed in about eight hours, and subsequently [automatically deleted][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a shame it took eight hours to close what was obviously an inappropriate question, but we only have a limited number of members who are active reviewers, and some of them have real lives. The way to improve the site is to encourage wider participation in reviewing. You only need 3,000 rep to take part in reviewing, though the 10,000 rep needed to vote to delete is a bit more ambitious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78048/enable-automatic-deletion-of-old-unanswered-zero-score-questions-after-a-year/92006#92006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="19cc296a-1307-4590-b7ed-d97cc437b8bc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Checked on meta.SE, see https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/121448/262980 and related posts therein. It makes sense. Essentially, it says that a bounty is a contract that offers additional exposure for additional reputation. Refunding a bounty should only be done in extraordinary circumstances and that exactly falls under the purview of moderator actions. It further says that having a VTC system set-up that auto-generates a moderator flag is a lot of work for something that is seldom seen. Bounties can be used to keep bad questions open, but it isn't frequent enough to necessitate new features. It is infrequent enough that it again is something aptly suited for the custom mod-flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But about the question in question, I agree it's not really about physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="4a27bc98-d246-4edd-b135-03b0b1520d62" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no private message facility and the team has regularly and robustly turned down all such suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get another user's attention by [tagging them in the comments][1] (though they need to have participated in the discussion or editing of a post for that to work), and you can (with [sufficient rep][2]) open a chat room for holding a conversation. That last suggestion isn't private in the sense that others are excluded but you probably won't have a lot of people poking their noses in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra is &quot;This is not a social network!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some Physics SE user find this to be insufficiently friendly and have responded with the meta.physics most [&quot;Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions&quot;][3] where you are explicitly invited to ping them in order to direct their attention to other posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat-rooms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1159/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="3de258db-0aaa-40b2-9534-56e63ff775a8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Note that you can't delete a question that has an accepted or upvoted answer, as per [this Mother Meta FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221/). In this particular case, then, the post owner seems to have tried to delete the question and, when that failed, they vandalized the post. This is supported by a detailed breakdown in the [question timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/timeline): The question is already upvoted when the OP comments &quot;Don't worry, I solved it :)&quot; and vandalizes the post four minutes later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, being the post owner does **not** entitle you to vandalize your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a legal perspective, you have granted a CC-CY-SA license to the site to display any and all the versions you post. While the site generally respects the OP's wishes as to which version will be displayed, by posting you do cede a measure of control over your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a moral perspective, if you post you are soliciting work from others in the community, and if you receive an answer then you are receiving work from community members. This is freely given, with the payback being shiny internet points and having their content up. By deleting a question, you deprive the people who worked to give you an answer of the chance to have their content displayed, and to gain more shiny internet points in the future. This is why you can't delete questions that have upvoted answers, and it works exactly the same for vandalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you encounter a self-vandalized post, you should roll it back to the last working version. If you see edit suggestions that cure self-vandalism, you should approve them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="e0abe566-3198-43da-8ea8-444d679700fa" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The algorithm for the front-page display (http://physics.stackexchange.com/) uses your [favorite and ignored tags](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do) to sort out new or recently active questions that might be interesting to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[If you do not set your favorite and ignored tags it will use your frequented tags instead.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/138187/2509)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="e5d206aa-a54f-44ca-8832-2dce311474b4" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Meta is for discussion and support for the main site, and questions and answers here are not based on physical expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, you don't get any reputation here (but you also don't lose reputation for getting downvoted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the case for all per-site-metas, cf. [this meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/136091/263383). Meta.SE is the only meta-like site on the network which has reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="c177fdd5-3c2d-4075-9493-c5501775ad7b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I rejected your edit to my post because I thought the only thing worth changing was deleting the additional `is` in the first sentence; the other changes you suggested were not what I wanted to say. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this happens again, the easiest thing to do is use the comments to question the author about the particular choice of language or blatant errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a slightly related note, the StackExchange team have decided to change the canned responses for rejecting edits. Sadly, the **too minor** category (which I would have used) has been replaced with **no improvement whatsoever**. You can [read more about it here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/238333/what-guidance-should-be-given-when-edits-are-rejected/239950#239950). I personally do not like the language used (it seems rather confrontational), but it's what reviewers have to deal with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7047" RevisionGUID="d27447ba-b964-45b8-be31-901035f0d42d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the comments from OP add clarity, and if they are new users, I would personally edit the comments into the question myself. I would then leave a comment to the effect of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @OP I took the liberty of editing the clarifications from your comments into the question. Please let me know if I did not represent your intentions correctly. On future questions, please use the comments as a guide and include the recommendations and clarifications from them in the post yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit is that if OP disappears, the information is preserved. If it's a totally new user, they may not know that they can edit questions or how to do so. Or even why they should (the whole comments are temporary thing). It's also a nice way to show new users that this is a collaborative community and that we may ask questions and challenge assumptions, but it is only to suss out the real intent and to avoid [XY problems](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a more experienced user, it's okay to be a bit more... terse?... and ask them to edit it in themselves. But after having done so, it might be a good idea to wait a bit and if it isn't done, do it yourself. After all, if the information really did make it better, then it needs to be moved lest it be lost. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="f23b686a-3b0c-4734-bebe-4dc9ca2b0100" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's a pretty standard rule on SE sites (and on this site, in particular) that you shouldn't delete a question and then repost essentially the same question as a new post; instead, you should just edit the original post. (cf. MSE questions [1](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/168017), [2](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/176612), [3](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/175110), [4](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/7046))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But events of today got me thinking. Suppose you ask a question, then decide the question wasn't ready to be posted, but you think you might be able to get it ready for posting with a few days or weeks of additional time. (Like if you're busy and can't get to it right away.) The course of action I would think to suggest to you in that case (if you didn't already know what to do) would be to delete the question, come back in a week or whenever, and edit it into shape. But non-moderators can only see _recent_ deleted questions, if they even know where to look, and it seems kind of silly to expect a poster to always go hunting through their history of deleted questions to find one they've already asked on the topic. In a case like this, it doesn't seem so bad to just post a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I'm asking here is twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this situation is deleting and reposting okay? (i.e. you post a question, delete it, then come back after a significant amount of time and want to ask the question again in better form)&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming it is, what makes the boundary between an acceptable and unacceptable delete-and-repost? I suppose it depends on just why this sort of thing is not allowed in most cases in the first place. (I think I know why, but I won't say it yet so as to avoid influencing the responses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course one should always make an effort not to post a question unless you really do think it's ready, but everyone makes mistakes on this from time to time. I'm also assuming the first posting of the question got no answers and no upvotes so that there is little to no apparent harm in deleting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="0d472d40-dfee-4307-bc8b-75587e73fa79" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As with most queries about the StackExchange engine, [you go to Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132688/how-are-profile-views-counted),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it is always caching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the person views it *after* the cache has been cleared ([say 15-20 minutes](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2869800/how-long-are-files-usually-kept-in-a-browsers-cache), depending on your usage), then it seems to count as a second view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="a37350ac-f214-4d99-ac0c-7a6a726b2252" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The next badge info is indeed buggy. My display tells me my next badge is the [black-holes] badge but I earned that four days ago. I would guess that tpg2114 is correct and the data is only updated intermittently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note there are similar questions on the main Meta, for example: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/261008/user-profile-badge-progress-bar-shows-a-completed-bar-not-the-next-one-to-get. The question hasn't been answered, but the comments suggest that it's because cached data is being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are quite a few questions on the main meta related to the badge progress display. This is a new feature and it appears to be still a work in progress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="043ce55b-c7ba-436b-aacc-bccc693c218d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="First: the StackExchange network is *not* a forum, it is a *Question &amp; Answer* site. A forum allows discussion between many people and answers tend to get buried deep in threads (if it's ever answered). Here, we allow only questions and answers (the comments are really meant for cleaning up misunderstandings or pointing out incorrect statements or similar such things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second: There is a great Meta.StackExchange post titled [Writing a Good Title](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/writing-a-good-title) that's worth the read. A title that's simply a *label* is not descriptive, likely to be ignored, though usually someone would come along and edit it to something meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third: Since each question has a timestamp attached, we'd be able to see the temporal order which would make labeling them fruitless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two alternative suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Start with something along the lines with&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    `This is question 1 of a series (see [Q2 here](link1) and [Q3 here](link2))  `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Ask your *only* first question and get some answers. It might be that those answers guide you to (maybe even give you outright) the answer to the subsequent questions (which asking &amp; answering those anyway are totally okay)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7128" RevisionGUID="f174f142-a80b-4338-94c9-c4c02e0f73cf" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [Late Answers Review Queue][1] contains answers which were posted by new users much later than when the question was asked. Late answers tend to be seen by fewer people than answers posted soon after the question was asked, so the review queue helps ensure that these answers meet the same quality standards as all other answers.&lt;sup&gt;[\[source\]][2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following this [meta discussion][3], **the decision threshold for late answers to enter the Late Answers Review Queue has been raised from 10 to 50 reputation.** This applies to all sites, not just physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to this change, many old answers retroactively entered the Late Answers Review Queue. This caused a spike in the number of answers in the queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/266696/271002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ecd9a3b7-1724-47c0-a050-a59fe5b9b18d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a [comment directly](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/community-promotion-ads-2015#comment22500_6399) under your post from Qmechanic that states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please avoid discussion and comments here. Use instead the [related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) and [its chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17799/discussion-on-question-by-deer-hunter-what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-lin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, you were asked to use the two linked resources to discuss anything, rather than the Community Ads thread, and you ignored that message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that comments are considered &quot;second class&quot; citizens and can be deleted without approval/consent of the posted user. You can read more [about it here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/914/25301).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, questions involving Physics Overflow quickly degrade into [&quot;not so nice&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) comment threads. Qmechanic's comment was a warning to *prevent* such a new thread from occurring by diverting people to a channel where it is more appropriate (i.e., chat). As an aside, the Meta post gives some information about Physics Overflow written by one of their founders, who also wrote the MathOverflow post you wanted to link.  &#xD;&#xA;None of the other posted Ads recommend such a controversial topic, so no similar warnings are necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="76851c0a-ed94-4d77-b775-45bb63dd4d2d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) [completed the review cycle with the following votes](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/104087) listed chronologically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="d4d2a455-1603-4488-8476-8561e27d670c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This was answered on Meta.StackExchange a number of years ago](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25835/is-it-possible-to-horizontally-center-an-image-on-stack-exchange-sites). There are two answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**Method 1**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;` tags to manually position the HTML image call (in this case, `&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png alt=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png&quot; title=&quot;CENTERED!&quot;&gt;`). As an example, look here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                      &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png&quot; alt=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png&quot; title=&quot;CENTERED!&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I had to *manually* add the 22 spaces to center that (it looks centered on my monitor at least!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#**Method 2:**&#xD;&#xA;Using many `&amp;nbsp;`'s in front of the image (in this case `![alt text][1]` where `[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;![this is my profile image][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 35 of those `&amp;nbsp;` in that line to center it.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ETl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7225" RevisionGUID="f09142a4-dfed-483a-8316-3636423145ec" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, exactly, this is an automatized bump of old unanswered questions. The relevant conditions for this to happen are [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/48578/263383) on meta.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7258" RevisionGUID="773dfa9c-a4a7-44f5-a545-ca5e2367fcbe" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The mobile *site* currently lacks an image upload button, see [this meta.SE question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/153551/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the mobile *app* has the button, cf. [this meta.SE question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/191537/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you need to either use the app, or switch to the desktop version of the site to submit an image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="0f85e9b8-79c2-4607-97d6-f1d58fe98d21" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7357" RevisionGUID="f4ec4b3f-61b3-429c-8177-700236f94139" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Flagging bans are described in [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173878/allow-recovery-from-flag-hellban/175405#175405) on Meta Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **If at least 25% of your flags from the past 7 days were declined**, you're blocked from flagging anything. Depending on when and how those declined flags were cast, this block could last for as little as a day, and won't ever be longer than a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So sometime between now and 7 days from now, you'll be able to flag posts again. This reflects the fact that a flag ban isn't really a big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, I suggest reviewing your flag history and the guidelines for flagging to learn how to target your flags better. If you have any questions on how to use flags, you can ask here on meta or in the chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7384" RevisionGUID="3194faf3-e886-4790-ba2e-a4092c33577f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="From [this post on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/91392/too-many-of-your-edits-were-rejected-try-again-in-7-days),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When deciding on whether we should ban or not, we now look at your last **7 days** of activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If `(rejects - (approvals / 3)) &gt;= 5`, you will be auto-banned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78129/is-there-a-penalty-for-ones-edit-suggestion-being-rejected) puts the penalty at seven days of edit banning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both posts are fairly old, though [this newer thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173604/losing-the-ability-to-suggest-edits) confirms them. The exact details might have changed slightly. This is **not** to say that you should go and experimentally figure out where the boundaries currently sit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more, see the [edit-ban tag on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/edit-ban?page=2&amp;sort=votes&amp;pagesize=15)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="f0754890-ca8d-47b0-82e8-944829213110" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*≥23=2(10+1)+1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation and/or to complain about it.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="6f1068ca-8df3-4e91-9353-971ff0a283fc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="From PersonArtPhoto's [answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/169222/184688) on the Meta Stack Exchange question linked to in the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The benefits of being a moderator:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A huge say in the direction of a site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Access to the site views.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The ability to choose an organization of a list of a few to receive $100 once a year from Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. More direct access to the Stack Exchange employees.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That warm fuzzy feeling of making a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Access to the Teacher's Lounge, a chat room for moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Once in a blue moon, SE will hire one of the community moderators as &quot;Community Managers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As has been noted, SE staff also has access, who do get paid. But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are some 200+ (Maybe even more?) moderators, including myself,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who don't receive a dime for their services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it needs to be said explicitly, [moderators](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) do not receive any financial compensation for their activities on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="3376cbdf-39cd-44cf-b1d2-3fc9926ebb95" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the problem with the &quot;inconsistency&quot; as viewed by some is the fact that **close states are not permanent**, yet they are being viewed as a permanent state. This is simply not true; any post can be re-opened at any time. In light of this point of view, it should be clear that there isn't any inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that close states also do **not** at all suggest that the question itself is &quot;not physics.&quot; What it *does* suggest is that the question does not *fit the site* in its **current form** under **current policies**. A closed question may be a perfectly valid physics question; case in point: homework questions. We view these as off-topic, even though they certainly are valid physics questions. And since policies can change, there is no reason to suspect that an off-topic question will remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I do note though that, on occasion, there are questions asked here that aren't actually physics (e.g., some people asking engineering, philosophy or chemistry questions). This does not mean that the close state *itself* indicates that the question is not physics.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also has been discussed on Mother Meta before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173431/what-should-i-do-with-a-question-that-has-an-exact-duplicate-closed-as-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186706/can-we-prevent-questions-from-being-closed-as-duplicates-of-closed-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115125/should-duplicates-of-closed-questions-be-closed-as-duplicates-or-closed-for-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is mixed between the answers (so obviously no consensus, not even highly upvoted answers), but two points were brought up there that we ought to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What happens if we later decide that the closed-original is on-topic?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What happens if we later decide that an unclosed-original is off-topic? What should we do to the questions closed as duplicate of *that* one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, your issue disappears because the close-state isn't permanent. This should suggest that closing as a duplicate of a closed question should not present any problems/inconsistencies because of the fact that the original can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, we have the opposite case you present. Should we then go through all the duplicates and re-label them as off-topic? That would be quite a lot of *unnecessary* work (because it brings us right back to (1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with [tgp2114's evaluation process](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6565/25301); the reasoning should be in this order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Has the question been asked before?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close as duplicate&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the question off-topic (HW, engineering, etc)? Too broad? Opinion based?&#xD;&#xA;  - Close appropriately&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can't tell *or* disagree&#xD;&#xA;  - Skip *or* Leave Open&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;It should not matter if the proposed duplicate is also closed as off-topic because, again, it can get out of that state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="8872f1bb-e58d-48ca-9495-1397b0486590" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some [six to eight weeks ago](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=days+since+april+14+2015), Stack Exchange announced a programme to re-design the CSS and tweak the site styles throughout the network, including the [completely redesigned profile pages](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2015/04/two-new-user-pages-one-new-stat-this-on/). Since then, we've [made some big requests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax) to come with the re-design, so we've remained &quot;on deck&quot; for some time. It seems, however, that the deck currently contains... just us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/253359/list-of-communities-with-base-css-updates-completed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a problem - I'm sure we would all rather they get it right than they get it out fast. However, I'm curious as to know how this matches with the [recently announced change in the width of the sidebar](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1), which is admittedly a smaller change in the site design, but still. Moreover, I expect that the change in the sidebar is the reason for the [slight delay in the 2016 community ads thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/community-ads), since [the new ads will need to conform to the new width](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites?cb=1#comment885010_272563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In which order will the CSS redesign, the new sidebar, and the community ads thread launch?&#xD;&#xA; - Are there known timelines for them? Or will the sidebar launch on par with everyone else on the 12th, with no fixed timeline for the CSS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean to pressure the team, but since we're last on the line I thought it wouldn't be too much to ask politely :). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="d04c3d47-8ebf-4bdb-a5ac-878c8b4ba59d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This was asked &amp; answered Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/156160/in-chat-what-is-the-difference-between-hide-posts-and-ignore-this-user). Direct copy-pasta of (the relevant portion of) their answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hide posts&quot; just hides them for that 'session' (i.e. you refresh and they are back!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ignore this user everywhere&quot; is persistent across rooms / sessions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both actions will hide the user; clicking &quot;show posts&quot; will undo both actions. So the difference is the persistence. The latter, of course, requiring you to select them back whereas the former will do it for your next browser refresh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="5b8367aa-f6e1-40f5-bb71-e1e11b2c4d75" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Stack Exchange network [is **not** a social network][1]. And the idea of pushing your question onto others has been [strongly rejected][2]. No expert would choose to participate in a site in which any user could nag them effortlessly to personally solve every problem that arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your question to have more visibility to everyone (on the site, not the whole network), you can do so, but there is a price. You must [offer a nonrefundable bounty][3] of your own reputation on the question. Open bounties are summarized in the [featured tab][4], and some (but not all) users check there to see if there are questions they can answer given the extra incentive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65261/is-stack-overflow-a-social-networking-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/103086/how-could-i-notify-stack-overflows-expert-users-about-my-new-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="3cf8b79b-fe6e-42b2-980d-a7d5fae4a5be" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Bounties are well explained in the help center, both [in their own page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) and on [the set bounties privilege page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/set-bounties). It's not quite clear exactly what it is you're asking but here are some points to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can have up to three bounties active at any given time on each SE site.&#xD;&#xA; - You must wait at least 24 hours before you award a bounty.&#xD;&#xA; - If you have three bounties active, you can offer a new one as soon as you award one of the active ones.&#xD;&#xA; - You can have each bounty active for up to seven days.&#xD;&#xA; - You cannot edit the bounty message after you have posted it.&#xD;&#xA; - Of course, you can add any number of comments on the question, unless the bounty brings you under [50 reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) and the question isn't yours.&#xD;&#xA; - Any reputation you offer on a bounty is lost forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, this and many of your recent questions can be answered much more quickly by having a good look in the [**Help Center**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and in [**Meta Stack Exchange**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) (i.e. the site-wide meta, where pretty much any question you may have about the workings of the site has already been asked). I don't want to discourage you from asking questions here on Meta - believe me, we do notice and appreciate it when newcomers make an effort to figure out the rules of the game, and we're here to help you figure them out. However, more often than not you'll get your answer faster by learning to use the resources that are already there than by waiting for us to see your posts and respond ;-). For small questions like this, it is also worth checking if there's anyone in [the chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) who can help - it's also faster than Meta, and it's easier for us to figure out exactly what it is you're asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="cc23fcda-2b19-4831-8801-142ea8ad7f17" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="With regards to the mobile site (via the browser), [the &quot;official&quot; answer is](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240733/why-arent-related-questions-shown-on-the-mobile-interface),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't really see us adding lists of questions to the mobile web views at this point since they'd come off largely too cluttered, and the views aren't designed to fully mimic the desktop version in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, in the comments, it is suggested that there *could* be a link for it, but no such designs have come through (otherwise you'd not be asking ;) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the app interface, [this one was asked and the answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246153/related-questions-when-asking) (via comments) is &#xD;&#xA;&gt;It doesn't exist today but it's a good idea. I don't think the API has an endpoint for it yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically it seems you are out of luck at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="dbc67ca2-bcd9-4423-a456-956660824b2f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Okay, it took me way too long to find this considering how simple it was. If you are logged in, visit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it will update your reputation plus give you the actual info on how it is calculated. Waaaay down at the bottom is a summary of reputation changes. This should, hopefully, fix the caching issue and trigger the correct calculation of your reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related question [on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236420/when-will-my-reputation-update) which seems to indicate a bug existed ~8 months ago in the update script when users hit the rep cap and then lost some votes somewhere. The answer there says the bug is/was acknowledged but I haven't found whether it has been fixed or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If manually updating the reputation doesn't fix it, maybe there is still a problem somewhere and this needs to be escalated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's above my pay grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading into that mother meta question, particularly the comments under it, it seems that the manual refresh button was removed from that reputation page I gave and the only way to trigger a recalc (at that time) was to delete/undelete one of your own answers. Again, no idea if this bug is still around or not, but you could always give that a shot and see if things update." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7414" RevisionGUID="18140dca-63d6-47b9-982d-32c1197c33c5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cross posting is not allowed on Stack-exchange. See this - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could delete the Astronomy one and post on this site if you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="eeef5a79-7ee0-4847-91e5-272548bb1cf0" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am afraid that, as usual, we can't comment on moderation actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will echo tpg2114's comment that users are only ever removed because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They explicitly request it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As a consequence of breaking the terms of service&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Meta StackExchange [tag:faq] on the matter is [What does “user was removed” mean and why did my reputation change because of it?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HDE 226868 asks *&quot;Isn't there something in place to keep the votes of such high-voting users?&quot;*. I believe that the deletion of high-rep, longtime members is handled very carefully on a case-by-case basis to avoid---well situations very much like we have here. As far as I can tell there is no [tag:faq] about that on Meta StackExchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On a personal note, I'd hate to see you go because you bring a considerable expertise on a subject I don't know nearly enough about. I can appreciate that sudden changes of that magnitude are a heck of a shock and break the immersive nature of the gamification, and I couldn't blame you if you decided to give the site a rest for a while. But I still hope that you'll be back some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126470/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="b543736d-9753-4242-8aef-97e850c95999" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've definitely agreed before that (at least some) historical questions are **on topic**, and I would urge close voters to refrain from closing such questions simply for being historical **unless and until policy changes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know from my own experience monitoring astro questions that a nonnegligible number of people seem to think a question can only belong in one place, and that if there is a more specific site that caters to the topic, the question should be migrated away from here. However this is simply not the case. Combined with the intrinsic bias of looking at comment votes (they can't be voted down!) and the fact that most people prowling the review queues are doing so *intent on closing questions*, and I think it's fair to say some upvoted &quot;history is off topic&quot; comments do not in themselves constitute policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I have no problem with us deciding to make history off-topic, and I have no problem with this decision being made solely because we now have an HSM site. The questions would hopefully flourish there, and everyone on this site who thinks history is irrelevant can continue happily living in their bubble in which all the right answers are known from on high right from the beginning.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, though, we would have to consider several points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. What should we do with old history questions? They're too old to migrate, and we wouldn't want to flood HSM with a bunch of them all at once anyway. Systematically close them all? Leave them around? [Lock them as historical?][1]&#xD;&#xA;  2. Users would have to be informed about the policy. This means a definitive FAQ meta post, a deprecation warning in the [tag:history] tag, and/or a special close reason.&#xD;&#xA;  3. What if HSM fails? Do we go back to accepting historical questions? Do we import their physics questions? This isn't just about contingency planning per se; I think an answer to this question will help define *why* we do not want history here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Strong words, I know. But I maintain that anyone who thinks physics is nothing more than learning presently-accepted facts out of a book is deluding themselves. In order to *be a physicist*, one must learn how to build *new* theories and experiments. Historical context can, ideally, provide some insight into how to think when you don't already know the answer. Of course, I don't insist that this site cater to every facet of training physicists, otherwise we'd be morally obliged to become a homework help service too.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126587/what-is-a-historical-lock-and-what-is-it-used-for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7498" RevisionGUID="e31f9726-8887-4b5b-a32e-c6d5d703e001" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Serial voting is well addressed in the Meta Stack Exchange post [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126829/what-is-serial-voting-and-how-does-it-affect-me), and the short of it is that in essentially all the cases that matter, serial voting (which usually means someone going through your profile and either upvoting everything or downvoting a bunch of posts) gets automatically detected and reversed within 24 hours. The precise details of the algorithm are not made widely available to avoid people gaming the system, but the thresholds are generally enough that when serial downvotes really begin to bite the script will kick in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One common point of confusion for new users is when a single post accumulates a lot of downvotes in a short expanse of time. Here it's important to note that users can only vote on a post once, so by definition this behaviour is not serial downvoting - it is just a bunch of different users who disagree with the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serial downvoting usually looks like a series of votes on different posts (with few posts receiving more than one vote), often with those posts having been inactive for some time. If you do see behaviour like that, the thing to do is to wait 24 hours for the script to kick in. If it doesn't, then see [What should you do if you're serial downvoted &amp; it isn't automatically reversed within 24 hours?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212332/what-should-you-do-if-youre-serial-downvoted-it-isnt-automatically-reversed) - in essence, that probably means that the downvotes originated from different users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still think that there's a suspicious pattern you can flag one of the posts with a custom moderator flag explaining the situation. There is probably not much that a site moderator can do to help, since by design they cannot see voting histories, but if it does look suspicious they will pass this along to a Stack Exchange team member who can look and see if there is behaviour that requires corrective action. If you do raise such a flag, be very attentive to any feedback you get, and please be receptive to such information and apply it in the future; do not abuse the moderator flag privilege as it does put an undue strain on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you said deserves mention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do you reverse it and stop them from voting on your stuff in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of voting is to deliver a clear signal about the quality of each post to prospective visitors and to provide a way for quality content to be more easily visible and accessible; this is obviously an integral part of the model. As such, there will *never* be a facility for you to block any specific user, named or not, from voting on your posts. (This is distinct from voting *irregularities*, like serial voting and [sockpuppetting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)), which are abuses of the voting system and for which the system already has comprehensive defences in place.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you're getting significant amount of downvotes, what it probably means is that people's opinion of the post aligns with the tooltip on the downvote button: `This answer is not useful` or `This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful`. Downvotes on a post (particularly multiple downvotes) should be a flag for you to look carefully and critically at their quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that your grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax is top-notch. The goal here is to build a repository of quality content that will last a long time; poor language shws &amp; if posts r bdly spellled or the bad grammar then th pst becoms much h4rder t read &amp; mch &lt; useful 4 de futur visitors. On the spectrum between [txtspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language) and textbook language we are shooting for maybe just below textbook level, and the care and polish you put into your posts will directly impact their perceived quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Double-check that your content is very much correct, and be open and receptive to any comments that claim otherwise. Scour your references to make sure that you've represented them correctly, and make sure that you've represented them fully, provide those references in full, and then go scour the web some more to find better ones. Think critically about your post and look for ways you could be wrong, or alternative angles that cast doubt on your approach; if you find those then it can help to mention them as pitfalls to be aware of (without necessarily needing to delete your post). Recognize when you're out of your depth and be open to the possibility that you might actually not know the answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you are actually addressing the question as posed, and that you're not going off on a tangent or providing an unrelated rant. This means you need to carefully and critically read the question and identify what is and is not being asked; address the former and delete any content that addresses the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you're asking a properly self-contained, cohesive, well-researched, well-posed question, that the prospective answers will be of a suitable length and require a reasonable level of effort, and that you've provided all the information necessary for answerers to address your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, to reiterate, this and similar questions can be answered by an appropriate search on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). I would also **strongly** encourage you to do a systematic readthrough of the [**FAQ for Stack Exchange Sites**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7931/faq-for-stack-exchange-sites), which contains clear explanation of all of the essentials of the dynamics on the network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="c55f3007-71d6-49ec-aac2-4de2db55bd50" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's because the [community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) deleted [one of your questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/175196/2451) with 1 upvote (+5 rep. pts.) and 1 downvote (-2 rep. pts.), leading to a net change of -3 rep. pts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, the question was deleted automatically because it was closed, had no net upvotes, and had not been edited for 9 days prior to the deletion. For more details see [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006). (Hat tip: Emilio Pisanty.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="19c0a00b-b22d-401f-89ba-76917aa24b85" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I certainly don't see anything wrong with links per se or repeatedly posting links to helpful webpages (e.g. wiki). I doubt that there's a blacklist of forbidden links, but you should not post links to offensive/inappropriate material or even irrelevant material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspect of your question regarding links to sites in which you hold a vested interest is partially covered by Jeff Atwood's answer to the mother-meta question, [Limits for self-promotion in answers][1]. He answered that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *May I promote products I am affiliated with here?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The community generally frowns on overt self-promotion and tends to vote it down and flag it as spam, so be careful. Post good, relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers, and if they happen to be about your product, so be it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, you must disclose your affiliation with the product in your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answers. Also, if a huge percentage of your posts include a mention of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your product, you're clearly here for the wrong reasons. Our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; details. We also offer free vote-based advertising for open source&#xD;&#xA;&gt; projects.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there appeared to be consensus behind this sentiment, it is stated that it became a site policy (though I can't find any more details). This, admittedly, is slightly ambiguous; it leaves open the question of whether a user who predominantly promotes a site in which they hold a vested interest and is here &quot;for the wrong reasons&quot; ought to be stopped. Although this policy is limited to answers, I think a similar policy ought to apply to comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know anything about dilaton or much about Physics Overflow - my answer has no subtextual meaning or references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that if a particular comment is an example of self-promotion and of limited help, flag it and it should be deleted. If it's helpful - and even if that user posts other links that aren't helpful - then it's a small but welcome contribution. Of course, full answers on this site are much preferred over links to external websites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose in rare cases in which a user repeatedly flouts the community guidelines and sentiments re self-promotion, their comments would have to be judged en masse and we would have to apply the ordinary warnings and penalties for dealing with users who persist in breaking rules - I don't think self-promotion needs to be a special case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57497/limits-for-self-promotion-in-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7546" RevisionGUID="e2c8e54e-a652-4c4b-8943-6382dbab2d50" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This was proposed about 5 years ago on Meta Stack Exchange&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83343/adding-favorites-to-the-stack-exchange-global-inbox  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think if you follow [this list of related/duplicate questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/83343?sort=newest), the story is that this *was* implemented at one point, but people actually hated the idea and they *removed* the feature. I somewhat doubt it'll come back, despite the continued requests for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;It was probably actually asked on Meta Stack Overflow before MSE was created, but that's neither here nor there&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="964f5aca-715f-420e-8bd0-0f0423116a99" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. FYI, [OP's question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165545/2451) was deleted by the [Community](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) user following [these](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006) SE rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, [this question of OP](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165924/2451) is not deleted by the same SE rules, since e.g. it has an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="ca9796b9-b02a-4cef-9bb4-0636bae23f27" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two main concerns here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Migrating questions to beta sites is strongly discouraged. This is mostly because beta sites are still in testing and there is no guarantee that they will succeed. Many of them do, but some (like [Theoretical Physics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail)) don't really generate enough traffic, questions, experts, and overall liveliness to make a sustainable critical mass. Migrating questions to a site that then gets closed is a poor service to the OP. For some sites, like Chemistry, this was not really an issue (and indeed Chemistry just graduated to a full site), but Engineering is *very* new (about four months), so migrating content over there should be done on a case-by-case, as-needed basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   An additional reason for this is that if the migration channel gets too big, even a small fraction of the questions from a big site can be overwhelming for a small beta site. We want the community behind Engineering to come up with a site flavour of their own, not to build a site around Physics exports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More generally, though, default migration channels are generally quite tightly controlled, because flaggers will know what's off-topic *here*, but they don't necessarily know what is or is not on-topic on the target site. Within the SE network this is a bigger issue with large sites like Stack Overflow and Super User, but as a result the SE team is very reluctant to add default migration pathways to any site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this does not mean it's impossible to migrate content. Moderators can migrate to any site and will do so if you flag the question and the migration is appropriate. There is at present a low load of migration candidates and it can be managed well by the moderators. Within the past 90 days there have been 39 migrations to math, 19 to electronics (with 15% rejected), 9 to History of Science and Maths (with one rejected), 8 to Chemistry (with 2 rejected), and 5 to Engineering. It's really not worth it to set up a default channel - even for Chemistry, which is already graduated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="3723c929-cf4d-4234-acce-7d692ab073c6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this will be a coherent answer, but let me comment on some points here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] it should help the site remain an open forum, where reasonable questions about physics can be asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are [not a forum](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92110/263383). The intent is *not* to facilitate discussion. The intent is to provide a place where *specific questions with clear answers* can be asked, and where every response should be an attempt at answering the question posed (answers) or an attempt to clarify  or add to the question (comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that things posted as question which cannot conceivably have an objectively correct answer are not a good fit for the site. no matter whether they actually are about physics or not. This might incur closing as *too broad* or *unclear what you're asking*, but it might also draw a custom close reason where the close voter more specifically addresses the question (usually detectable by the stock phase *&quot;I am voting to close this question as off-topic because&quot;* at the beginning), which, if chosen as the main close reason, will mark the question as &quot;off-topic&quot;, even if the custom close reason gives a reason that is not, strictly speaking, saying it is *off-topic* in the sense that it is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main (and arguably sole) purpose of closing a question is to declare that it is not welcome here. Closing a question prohibits adding further answers, and is meant to *discourage the asking of similar questions* by communicating to everyone that such questions do not, in the view of the &quot;community&quot;, belong here. It is crucial to realize that this is *not* necessarily saying the question is not about physics, or that it is a stupid question. It's saying that *we* do not want this question *here*. Physics.SE is intended to cover a broad range of physics, but the intent is expressly not to answer everything that has some connection to physics and ends with a question mark. Being somehow about physics is a *necessary*, but not *sufficient* condition for being on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;community&quot; there is a rather nebulous term, and might arguably *not* necessarily reflect a majority position: A question is closed when five close votes are cast on it. To not let five users decide the status of a question forever, five reopen votes will reopen a question. Both types of votes are available to all users with more than 3000 reputation, and the first instance of such a vote will send a question into the corresponding [review queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Three &quot;Leave Open&quot; votes in the close queue will remove a question from the queue, and three &quot;Leave Closed&quot; votes will remove it from the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, also addressing your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a]nd why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the &quot;when in doubt&quot; case seems rather well-handled to me: Closing and reopening is a perfectly symmetric process, no bias is made either way, and in the case of a 50:50 split of votes, the process defaults to the status quo. The reason for not generically being in favour of questions staying open is simply the signal-to-noise ratio. The primary purpose of the site is to provide a knowledge base of precise questions with precise answers. Leaving open all borderline questions just tends to drown out all the *really good ones*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the entire reason we have repeated and lengthy debates on meta about e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) is that users simply have differing opinions on what constitutes a &quot;bad&quot; question that &quot;pollutes&quot; the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search for closed questions, simply add a `closed:yes` to your search query. To access a more comprehensive list of such search modifiers, click on `Advanced Search Tips` to the right of the [search interface](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The review queues are the most direct and most powerful way in which *we, the users* can shape this site. Use them! Don't only go there when you see a question you really like and want to stay open, go there *whenever you find the time*! The more users participate in reviews, the better the average results of the review queue will reflect the actual average opinion of the users here. I keep hitting my maximum daily amount of close reviews - which indicates to me that there is a less-than-ideal number of users doing those reviews. The closing and editing and reopening of questions does not happen by some miracle algorithm, it happens through us individual users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="bc8b3273-c702-4884-b117-9b33ba6d569b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The longer sentence was imposed after a day's consultation between the physics moderators; the delay occurred because we're always reluctant to impose suspensions on regular users and try not to act hastily in such cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usually, we will not discuss the reasons in public, but [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] was sent a mod message and might divulge it's contents either after his return to chat or in some other place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A couple of asides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I think it took effect some time after the one day suspension imposed by a passing moderator from another site had expired, rather than extending it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*Toward a philosophy of Chat*][1] is worth reading if you're thinking along the lines of &quot;But *our* room culture...&quot;. There is only so much allowance for room culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/270587/toward-a-philosophy-of-chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="4fe24435-1528-4b31-bd9d-672852e1f3b7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I should also mention that I do *not* equation research-level with published papers; the one does not imply the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="5519fa22-bf71-4df3-b888-3899cf34a8cd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is explained in the [What is a bounty?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) page in the help center:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. It is funded by the personal reputation of the user who offers it, and is **non-refundable**. If you see a question that has not gotten a satisfactory answer, a bounty may help attract more attention and more answers. Slice off anywhere from +50 to +500 of your own hard-earned reputation, and [attach it to any question as a bounty](https://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties). You do not need to be the asker of the question to offer a bounty on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **All bounties are paid for up front and non-refundable under any circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If your new reputation brings you below the requirement for any [privileges](https://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges), you will lose access to those privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users may only have three active bounties at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Questions may only have one active question bounty at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Additionally, if you offer multiple bounties on the same question, the minimum spend doubles with each subsequent bounty (50 reputation on the first bounty, 100 reputation on the second, 200 on the third, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You may not cancel a bounty once it has been started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis in the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is [precedent](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14591/how-can-we-close-questions-with-bounties/27103#27103) for moderator-enacted (or possibly by SE team members?) bounty refunds in exceptional cases, but this applies only if you can convince them that you set the bounty in error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? The question [How does the bounty system work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work) on the mother meta has more on the rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What happens if there's no answer after the bounty period?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If after the end of the bounty period a question has no answers, no bounty will be awarded and the question will no longer be featured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bounties are best understood as exchanging reputation for higher question visibility and increased answerer motivation. A bounty does **not** guarantee a response and is **not refunded** if none are received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="8d0ccc21-9668-415e-9d6f-56f5c0579763" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This Mother Meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/140063/user-was-removed-need-to-show-which-answer-question-loses-its-reputation) (*User was removed need to show which answer/question loses its reputation*) seems to be relevant with the answer including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As Flexo pointed out in comments, this would also undermine the anonymity of voting. I don't see that sufficient advantage is gained by showing this information to offset this problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the posts you lost the rep on, the Android App (as of the latest version) shows, on the rep notification, the posts that were upvoted by the removed user (so `-10 &lt;post name&gt;` appears). There was a Mother Meta post on this, but I can't find it at the moment; I'm also unsure if this is possible on the Apple App." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7742" RevisionGUID="4b26f860-f239-4fa6-9b1a-a177029057d9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If a &quot;delete&quot; link appears below the question, at the left just under the tags, then click that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't see that link, it means that something about the question or one of its answers makes it worth keeping. There are [various reasons this can happen](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222/56541)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="890823f7-8c17-4494-9c3c-925c05f29118" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a minor quibble but since the site's CSS is in review I thought I'd bring it up. I just found out, via [this MSE answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/79754/184688), that if you ask a question and then comment on the answers below it, your username gets a slight background shading. I was surprised to hear this since in three years of using the site I'd never seen anything like it but if you look closely it is indeed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, for example, at an example from [this post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197491/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7EqUY.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shading is so slight it's essentially useless. Maybe trim the CSS to give it a bit more contrast? Otherwise just turn it off, there's not much point in having invisible features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while we're at this, I thought I'd open up the floor: are there other much-too-subtle changes in colouring which you think should get a fortifier on the CSS overhaul?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7753" RevisionGUID="aabb876f-6faf-4f3d-b739-79fbd5065753" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is currently no way to &quot;organize&quot; your favorite, although that is an [open feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/75944/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you *can* search your (or other users') favorites by adding `infavorites:&lt;userid&gt;` to a search term , where `&lt;userid&gt;` is, well, the user's ID (the number in the link to their profile). For your own favorites, you can substitute `mine` for `&lt;userid&gt;`. You can combine this with searching for tags (e.g. by adding `[quantum-field-theory]` to the search term) to quickly narrow down the list of stuff you have to scroll through. If you rememeber a specific keywords of the favorite you're looking for, even better - unless you favorite unusually many things, you'll get a modest amount of results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="9d0f47bd-a149-4a69-8c76-79ada3ee9809" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two possibilities here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They are using [**MathJax**](//physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation), which enables the Latex-like markdown, is enabled in comments. Specifically, using `$^{2}$` in the comment box would get the appropriate superscript (NB: MathJax is *not* enabled on this Meta site, so you cannot test it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Using [**Unicode**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts) to get the appropriate superscript, e.g. getting x² straight from the linked Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you know all of the Unicode commands or have a link accessible for copy+paste, it's probably easier to use Option #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the comments to [this Meta.StackExchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/261080/) as well as [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2115/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="6fd67872-f787-4719-ba70-1335308cb88b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a bug.  &#xD;&#xA;The gold badge privilege is described [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/230865/increase-close-vote-weight-for-gold-tag-badge-holders/231212#231212) as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can instantly close *as a duplicate* any question that was **originally** asked with a tag you have a gold badge for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can instantly reopen any question *closed as a duplicate* that was **originally** asked with a tag you have a gold badge for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a question has a tag where you have a gold badge, and it was part of the **original set of tags** applied to the question, you can mark it as a duplicate with a single vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, if you have a gold tag badge in one of the **original tags** of something marked as a duplicate and feel a mistake was made, you can re-open it with a single vote and (optionally) mark it as a duplicate of another (theoretically better) question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7771" RevisionGUID="da77d928-e95c-4d60-87c4-41e58c1d5288" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a direct answer, but it's important to note that *not* every browser is officially supported by Stack Exchange. For a full list see &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56161/which-browsers-are-officially-supported-and-what-else-do-i-need&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on Meta Stack Exchange. As noted there, Opera on mobile is not really officially supported. That means that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not one of those, it still may work, but you probably shouldn't expect support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so most of the site should still work, but those little bits of javascriptsy interactingness may or may not work. In particular, [regarding Opera mini](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177509/184688),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Unfortunately at the moment we don't support Opera mini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Reason: a combination of amount of work required and amount of visitors using the browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it works, then excellent. If it doesn't, then there isn't really much that anyone can do, short of convincing the Stack Exchange developer team that Opera Mini really is big enough of a platform to be worth supporting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="e74377e0-a041-4ab8-b17e-122fb8cae166" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="From [How do suggested edits work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work) (specifically, [the answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/76284/274942)):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Two (or three on SO) accept or reject votes are required to remove the suggested edit from the queue and either apply the edit to the post or discard it. [It used to be a single vote (two on SO)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151586/59303)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An edit will get approved if two out of three reviewers approve it, and rejected if two out of three reviewers reject it. The exception is if one of the reviewers is the original poster, in which case they can singlehandedly approve or reject the edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="f40324f4-78e4-42f9-b2e2-18a133563ec7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't think this is a problem of there being unspecified pieces of data. After all, we all know how to leave quantities as variables rather than plugging in numbers. However, the thing that is missing is the *definition* of &quot;optimal.&quot; This is a subjective term, and I don't think you grasp how much it will vary from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, person A might seek &quot;the maximum distance such that the perceived resolution is no worse than a particular number.&quot; Person B might enjoy &quot;whatever distance fills 85% of my field of view.&quot; And person C might be in favor of &quot;close enough so that my screen's resolution matches that of my eyes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself am some combination of A and B, but the number of people who keep buying larger and/or higher resolution screens without changing their distance indicates they're using some completely different criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unclear which of these you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note too that the close banner is **broken**. The system selects *one* reason to present, no matter how many different reasons were chosen by the up to five close voters. That is, quite often it simply lies about what users said. This has been [brought to the developers' attention][1] before, and [again][2], and [again][3], and [again][4]. For reasons that can only be attributed to some combination of stupidity, malice, or monumental laziness, this request has been ignored every time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926/show-all-voted-close-types-when-a-question-is-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54917/distinguish-close-votes-by-reason&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/172654/could-the-close-vote-banner-please-be-made-less-well-wrong&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/268887/how-can-se-more-properly-represent-close-voters-reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="b00917e5-3b4c-4f77-b994-ee72fe96d556" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed some answers that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* have nothing or little to do with the question;&#xD;&#xA;* include an undisclosed link to a paper that is either by the answer’s author or particularly liked by the answer’s author – as evidenced by their profile and number of links (22) to that paper in other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take the current wording of the spam flag (“Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.”) literally, these answers are not spam as they do not promote a product or service.&#xD;&#xA;However, they clearly abuse this site for publicity, which is more or less what the spam flag is about. [(In the old wording of the spam flag, these answers were spam.)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/256602/255554)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I flagged some of these answers as spam either with the spam flag or a custom flag for explanation. In one case the flag was declined, while in the other case the flags were marked helpful, but the respective post was not deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should posts that meet the criteria for spam (exist only for promotion; no disclosure) with the exception that they advertise a paper (instead of a product or service) be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If yes, how should those posts be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note that I intentionally did not include links to the respective post to avoid publicly shaming anybody. Moderators can obtain them from [my recent flag history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/36360).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="d6ca27ed-74a0-4ae6-a2bb-144d0152c9d1" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;strike&gt;Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](http://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The question has now been reopened.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="836f0c0b-2356-42c9-9726-ed3a7f14e6ad" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If I understand correctly, you're asking why you can't delete [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/268192/) (which you identified in the comments). The reason is that you have accepted an answer. A question with an accepted answer cannot be deleted (except by moderators). However, you can unaccept the answer, which then may allow you to delete the question. (If there is an answer which has received an upvote - note, this is not the same as having a positive score - you still can't delete the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full description of when an answer can be deleted or not is [in the FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="21049228-52b9-4c1d-84d0-1975c22f4c25" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206448/do-we-know-if-the-human-brain-follows-moores-law) was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing special about it, as far as I can tell. It's not particularly different from many other off topic questions we have that _aren't_ deleted.&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly, I don't like unilaterally deleting things unless they're actively damaging to the site (spam, severe trolling, sensitive personal information, and so on). By way of justification, we want to have limits on acceptable moderator actions that don't lead reasonable people to worry about censorship, and that's where I think the line falls for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with questions being deleted by the community (3 votes from 20k+ members), and I'm fine with deletions done by the automatic scripts that SE runs. My hesitation only applies to unilateral deletion by moderators. (See also [this meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4116/should-we-delete-questions-more-frequently). This paragraph echoes my answer there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have been closed for 9 days, have zero score, no upvoted answers, and [meeting several other criteria](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/177675/56541) are already deleted automatically. But what about other closed questions, which don't meet the criteria for automatic deletion? For example, those that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- have upvoted answers (like the one that prompted this post)&#xD;&#xA;- have upvotes themselves&#xD;&#xA;- are recently posted&#xD;&#xA;- are recently closed&#xD;&#xA;- have reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, should we (moderators) be deleting these questions, even when they wouldn't automatically be deleted? Or some subset of them? (e.g. delete all closed questions more than 9 days old regardless of other factors) If so, how can we proactively keep the community's trust that we're not deleting stuff prematurely or inappropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to think about: deleting a question that has upvotes and/or upvoted answers, simply because it's closed, is especially tricky because several people expressed a belief that the post is useful - either on its own merits, or because it inspired a useful answer. Now, it is a common occurrence that &quot;upvotes lie&quot; - in other words, we know that people _will_ upvote some things that are bad fits for the site. But I don't think it should be part of the moderators' regular job to make the distinction between &quot;popular and useful&quot; and &quot;popular but bad for the site&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="c44e4012-dbe5-4fd6-a6b8-bc1ffe8400aa" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends on what the question is about. I sometimes have to make this choice, because I'm reasonably active on both sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a substantial amount of temptation to go where the user base is. There are, without question, more astronomers and astrophysicists studying at an advanced/professional level and actively answering questions on Physics Stack Exchange than there are on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Most of these spend their time exclusively on Physics, although the one notable exception is Rob Jeffries, who joined Astronomy this past year and has been avidly answering questions ever since. So it's possible that you're more likely to get a question answered by a professional if you ask it on Physics than if you ask it on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Well, the relative sizes of the sites is certainly the major factor. It's evident in other ways, too: Physics has [783 questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics?page=3&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=15) tagged [tag:astrophysics], while Astronomy has [48 questions](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics) tagged [tag:astrophysics]. Even taking into account the fact that Physics is older, it still has a higher rate of astrophysics questions coming in (although it has a higher percentage of unanswered questions, though not by much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do I decide where to post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your call. However, I would recommend going to Physics from a purely chance-of-getting-the-question-answered standpoint.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For astronomy questions, though, I would absolutely recommend Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how would you characterize the astrophysics sub-community on each SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The astrophysics community is stronger on Physics than on Astronomy. Same with chat, by the way. I often take minor astronomy/astrophysics questions to the Physics chat room instead of the Astronomy chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Does double posting of Q's make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said in the comments that this is a bad thing, so I'll just reiterate: In most situations, [**cross-posting is a bad idea**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be posting this meta-Q on the other meta-SE also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if agree with this. Having two discussions will help get the input of both communities, but it also splits up the advice you'll get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 That said, more astrophysics questions would certainly help Astronomy. . .&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8952" RevisionGUID="beb22daf-51ac-4b75-b44a-9b0a9e34c523" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree, the very low quality flag is currently somewhere between useless and horribly confusing. Not only I agree, several posts on meta.SE also agree: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Remove VLQ as a flag option](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/278794/263383), top answer says should be removed for questions, and renamed just &quot;delete&quot; on answers - which I think would be even more useless, considering we do not delete answers that are not either &quot;not an answer&quot; or flaggable as offensive/spam. Shog9's answer has an interesting bit on the purpose of the low quality flag: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; See, back in 2011, folks were posting a lot of really terrible stuff. Not exactly nonsense mind you; just... Embarrassingly-bad questions and answers. Stuff that wasn't even wrong so much as just... Annoying. Txt-speak explanations that don't explain anything. Code-only answers where the code isn't formatted and also is copied directly from the question. Questions that are copied from an assignment somewhere, with a few round-trips through a machine translation service en route. Stuff that, given infinite time and patience and clairvoyance could maybe be fixed, but in practice just saps the energy of everyone reading and makes us long for the quality and clarity we used to have over on Yahoo! Answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Rename “Very low quality” in “unintelligible”](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/276982/263383), only answer says &quot;rename to delete&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Is the “very low quality” flag necessary?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/104782/263383), top voted answer says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A bad/incorrect answer or an answer that's difficult to understand can still answer the question, albeit badly. I don't think &quot;not an answer&quot; the same as &quot;very low quality&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in summary, most people seem to agree that either &quot;very low quality&quot; *should* mean posts like the ones you are flagging - posts that technically try to answer the question, but horribly fail at providing anything useful to the reader - or should be abolished. I'll now address a point DavidZ makes in his answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very low quality is *not* needed for gibberish posts. [Shog9 explicitly recommends](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234035/263383) flagging gibberish as &quot;rude or abusive&quot;, and &quot;not an answer&quot; would apply equally well to gibberish. If &quot;Can I read this: Yes/No&quot; is the criterion for acception/declining low quality flags, there is truly no point to this flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And reading Shog9's description of what the low quality flag was created for, it's explicitly for posts that are **not** gibberish, but nevertheless so worthless they do not deserve to be hosted on this site. Now, you may say that &quot;downvotes&quot; are there to fix that. But downvotes **do not fix that**, in particular when the post is written in correct English but contains no information of value - it *still* gets upvoted by someone, and it takes five downvotes against one upvote to even make that a zero sum game. It is perfectly possible (and it happens!) to get net positive reputation just by posting garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there's still a case to be made that we *shouldn't*, on the grounds of some imagined fairness, vote to delete answers that try to answer the question just because of our judgement of their content. But when I read crackpots pushing their personal theories, answers that have no grounding in physics whatsoever, I cannot help but thinking that the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it is not a moderator's place to pass such judgement on the content of answer (although I would not have a problem with that). But it should be the community's place to pass judgement on bad answers, and yes, even decide that they do not deserve a space in this community and should be deleted. So my idea would be that low quality flags *should not be declined* by moderators if they are not obviously cast in bad faith for some reason, but if the moderator in question doesn't feel they have the right to unanimously validate the flag, they should just refrain from acting on it. Let the review queue do its job. Because, in many cases, I have found that the community rather unanimously decides to get rid of obvious crackpottery and stuff that is so wrong as to be unsalvagable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not at all the intended way the VLQ flag and its review queue should be used, then the flag option needs to be removed, since currently it *is* effectively used that way unless a moderator manually declines the flag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="649f7590-916f-446b-ad39-22ba47a40a01" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are editing a lot of posts which are closed and have a negative score. Such questions are regularly deleted by an [automatic deletion routine](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) (often termed the &quot;roomba&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question is deleted, all associated reputation gains and losses are reversed. In particular, the 2 reputation you gained from suggesting an edit that was subsequently approved are lost. I don't believe that there is an indication in the reputation history that this happens - the +2 from a week ago or so simply vanish from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want this to happen, don't make edits to posts that do not fix the reasons for closure/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for losing reputation is [users that are removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1289/50583) and have upvoted you, but this is usually indicated by a `user was removed` in your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="3b2649f1-c449-4a6c-bdd3-6c422803d6c1" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](http://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](http://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="f6b3d000-6d90-493d-b9c5-aa92875830c6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to this [meta answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/175405/271002), flaggers with at least 10 handled flags in the past 7 days where at least 10 % of flags were declined will see the warning when they flag again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Attention: some of your recent flags have been declined - please review them before flagging this post!](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rWqKJ.png) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, you just met these criteria when 10 of your flags were handled in the past 7 days and 1 flag (i.e. 10 %) was declined.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="010e8c00-1ac8-4013-a4f6-b48cfb0b0ed9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed many &quot;answers&quot; in the comments that weren't posted because they wanted someone else to expand it, etc. However, I haven't noticed incorrect answer-comments. I was going to say adding down votes to comments seems best, but it almost seems like encouraging it, because they now have the same options as answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what would be best is to post another comment asking them to post it as an answer. If they don't, you could post the answer under &quot;community&quot; and down vote it (and then flag the comment for deletion, delete your original comment, etc), because really, the policy is to not use comments for answers. When a comment-answer comes up that is correct, encourage them to post it as an answer, or do so yourself (expansion might be necessary). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along this line of thought, maybe comments should be restructured so people don't post comment-answers. What that would entail, I don't know...probably a Meta question for another time. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just my two cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per a discussion in chat with DavidZ and EmilioPisanty, what if there was a flag queue for non-moderators (maybe users with 15k+ rep) that covered all comment flags. Another flag for comments would be added for pseudo-answers, and these flags would also go into this same queue, therefore allowing either the original finder of the pseudo-answer to fix it, or 15k+ users to fix it. Then the system could down vote or up vote as the answer's content entails. I posted this (at Emilio Pisanty's suggestion) as a feature request on the mother meta [here][1]. Please up vote this feature request if you think this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this addresses some of the concerns brought up in the comments below this answer and concerns brought up in the discussion with DavidZ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The new feature request is [here][2]**; I started a bounty on it as it is 3 years old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/281783/comment-queue-for-non-moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/213691/create-flagged-comments-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="f96403ad-0e5d-4c30-a483-10c9fc4ea561" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In an overwhelming majority of cases, this is the bump on old unanswered questions that ACuriousMind describes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, though, this can represent actual alterations. This includes edits suggested by anonymous visitors, which are then [owned by the Community user](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). As a quick way to tell the difference, look on the upper right-hand corner of the page, for the metrics bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Asked   9 Months Ago&#xD;&#xA;    Viewed  116 Times&#xD;&#xA;    Active  Today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Today` (or some date) is a hyperlink that will take you to the most recent activity on the thread. If it's a community-user bump, it will send you to the top of the page. If it's an actual edit it will take you there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="a3a92197-3d8b-4faf-bf5c-2ba19a63b385" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This request has a long history [going back to the early days of Stack Overflow][1]. You'll notice that question is marked as declined. It was actually [tag:status-pending] for months before being declined and [instead the question up-vote value was reduced to 5][2] (from the original value of 10 just like answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the team will be willing to revisit this decision unless we can show that it represents a real problem (i.e. that a significant number of problem users are gaining access to powerful tools). But I sympathize with your desire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7322/should-the-weight-of-downvotes-be-increased&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/42769/should-the-weight-of-question-upvotes-be-reduced?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="f81d9b0a-3da7-4771-add4-e77c423813fe" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just recently asked a question which got &quot;on hold&quot; because it was unclear. So I read the related meta-posts, i.e.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5929/please-dont-close-questions-as-unclear-because-of-bad-english-repair-them-ins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6982/how-to-fix-unfixable-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226338/too-quick-with-the-close-button-for-unclear-what-youre-asking/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that my mixed language might give me a bad impression. But I feel my main problem is that the questions I ask, are outside the main interest, and thus mainly not understood correctly by the common readers. (Source of this idea is the many Revival-badges I've had.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an asker, it's pretty annoying to try to balance between short question and complete background question. Especially when these sources are not in English. At &quot;too quick with the close&quot; meta-post there is a comment from Bratschley; *&quot;An asker is by definition very likely to be unable to intelligently discuss the specific topic they're asking about&quot;* And I also agree with the choices given there by George Stocker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Ignore the question, hoping the user magically figures out there's a&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; problem with their question (or that for the 9K questions we get, we&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; have enough people on hand to actually close the questions that are&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Take the most time I can spare to that question to let the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; user know why I'm closing it, and putting the impetus on them to fix&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Take more time, edit it for the user, hope they learn&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; something from the experience, and maybe they'll formulate the&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; question better next time with that magical experience of me editing&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; their question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which of those actions has the greatest liklihood of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spreading change throughout the userbase and effecting positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change? It's not #1, and #3 will always lose to the masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my point to this Meta-question is to say that actually a lot of the questions in PSE are *&quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;*- to me. But this is obviously my own problem, and I still like to read these. And I think this character won't change even if I had 200k reputation.&#xD;&#xA;This site's name is &quot;exchange&quot;, and the thing we are changing, &quot;my unclear&quot; to your &quot;clear&quot; and vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;It's just pretty frustrating to have a lot of dialogue to just the get the question open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my proposal for the solution in a form of a question is;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Should there be reputation limit, ie. &quot;Established user&quot; which closes out the possibility to close a question by the reason; &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I mean established users might be *magically* able to *figure out there's a problem with their question* against the option that they discouraged away by the continuous struggle with some minor issues in the language and/or contest. As I get such an reply's also in &quot;real life&quot;; &quot;_Es ist wirklich schwierig, Ihrem Gedankengang zu folgen, und das liegt nicht allein an der Sprache_&quot;. Translated: &quot;_It's really difficult to follow your thoughts, and it's not only a language problem_&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="2c974d10-e13e-4499-b78f-6a126b17ba6c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; # N.B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The size requirements for adverts have changed. It is **NOT** appropriate to simply copy over the images from previous years - they won't work. Images need to be **300×250px** or 600×500px for retina displays, up from 220×250px in previous years. If an image is taller than it is wide, it's the wrong size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 2016 now, and we've [made some changes to the sidebar size](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). As such, we can now restart the Community Promotion Ads for 2016!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, we have updated some of the guidelines compared to previously - the changes are marked in bold in the Image Requirements section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be **300 x 250 pixels**, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of **150 KB**&#xD;&#xA; - **If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/7426&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="da055bdd-5468-4f29-b291-a7aef6848a8c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](http://maths.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="351220f3-cbcc-4636-aed4-a0b6c66287b9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="So the sidebar got [stretched by about 30%](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites). No problem. This entails a change to the network-provided ads (not visible above certain rep thresholds) and to the community ads. No problem. Some old ads [ran with some extra whitespace](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884976_272563) while they were updated. No problem. We need to [update all our community ads](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment884977_272563) [to the new size](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272563/were-standardizing-the-sidebar-width-at-300px-on-all-sites#comment885010_272563). Grumble, but no problem, it's a good opportunity to spiff up the graphics on some of them. The community ads thread got delayed a bit this year. Absolutely fine. We [don't really know when the 2016 ads kick in](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7426/community-promotion-ads-2016#comment29266_7426). Not awesome on the lack of clarity, but not a problem as long as nothing terrible comes of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/urgvy.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ad is currently running and it comes from [the 2015 thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6388#6399). For comparison, here is that advert as posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TG2kD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If you're going to run 2015 community ads in the expanded sidebar, pad them out with whitespace instead of stretching them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite simple, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question [first posted on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/273255/please-dont-stretch-the-old-community-ads). Re-posted here as a signpost as it affects this site; give the MSE question some love if you agree with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="bd679144-dcda-437c-9846-a568abfdd5ab" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="If someone loses access to their account, the posts remain, but the user will be unable to edit them (as the OP) until they regain access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accounts are usually deleted (1) because of administrative reasons such as sockpuppetting or voting fraud, in which case there are likely no salvageable posts, or (2) because the user has requested it. In this case the posts also remain, stripped of a link to the poster's profile and with the poster username sometimes changed to the form userXXXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as before, seriously: all this information is available with minimal digging at the [Help Center](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help) and in [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). If you're asking for a specific reason we can help, but if you're just randomly wondering about stuff, please have a thorough look in those places first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="2d113bb8-8162-441b-b06a-a9d4f1ccaa36" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Have you got an email address associated with your account? [Usually](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139071/) the stock profile picture (a.k.a. 'gravatar') is based on the [hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function) of your email address, but if you haven't linked one to this account then it reverts to the hash of your IP address. In that case, if you want the old picture you need to re-log in from your old IP, save the picture, and put it in specifically as a custom pic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you do have an email address associated with your account, it looks like something has indeed changed behind the scenes, and the solution probably involves setting a custom profile pic if you can recover the old one. Googling your username reveals this pretty interesting result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/35Djz.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old picture is still in the Google cache, but it's obviously pulling the new one now, so here it is for you before it disappears,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LMiM.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LMiM.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that may be your best shot at it. (If it is, in fact, your old pic - I don't really know what it looked like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here is @Qmechanic's in case s/he wants the old picture back:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ELOe1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new one weirds me out, to be honest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="7b7605df-3bcb-475f-b0bb-70e4961300d8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a [limited amount of site analytics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics) available to high-rep users but this does not include any geographical information. Geographical data on visitors (not users) is presumably available to the SE team but it is not made available through that channel; you'd have to ask the SE team directly to get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-declared user location data is available through the Data Explorer, but as e.g. [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432881/user-locations) shows, being user-provided it is a huge mixed bag and you'd need some processing to make statistical sense of it. [This query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432882/user-count-by-location) makes things a bit easier to handle, and the corresponding code described [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/where-in-the-world-do-stack-overflow-users-say-they-are-from) can help draw some inferences if that's where you're headed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a similar track, [StackMaps](http://stackapps.com/questions/3367/stackmaps-interactive-maps-of-stack-exchange-communities) can help provide a geographical view (but not quite a statistical one) on this information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, though, this information is hard to come by and to handle. Visitor geographic data is not available, and user geographic data is self-reported, so for one you should take its accuracy with a grain of salt, and there is an enormous selection bias  you need to take into account: 48k of 105k users have not provided any location, and some fraction have provided fictional location. Moreover, it is at least likely that whether a user reports their location is correlated with the location itself (so users from e.g. Africa might feel that declaring their location is not advantageous, so that location gets (severely?) under-represented in the self-reported data)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7507" RevisionGUID="29a33c50-d430-45a1-8591-601c154fc03d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="No one except you can see that banner, so it will not &quot;deter potential answerers&quot;. It is a message designed to streamline the duplicate close vote procedure, and give askers the opportunity to shorten the process if they agree with the vote, and force them to make their question more precise if they don't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your edit is *not* supposed to become an explicit argument for why your question should not be closed as duplicate, rather, the edit should focus on *stressing* the aspects of the question that are different, and *contrasting* it with the duplicate to make clear why the duplicate does not solve your problem. In particular, do not explicitly reference &quot;duplicate votes&quot; in the edit or use &quot;Edit:&quot; to mark it - a post is supposed to stand on its own, without knowledge of its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on this comparatively recent feature see [this meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/250981/263383)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="3e624e2b-104a-450a-9519-6f0440b3d205" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; *I suggest/request adding experiment groups where people can collaborate [...]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a dead end on Stack Exchange. These site were designed from the ground up to be good at one thing: getting good answers to good questions quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you propose requires a different interaction model, so it's not going to happen. But you don't need to take my word for it: go over to [the mother meta][1] and poke around for [questions suggesting way to use Stack Overflow or Stack Exchange as a collaboration platform][2] (that search isn't as good as I'd like, but it is not an easy thing to search for) and see how they were met.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=collaboration%20[feature-request]%20is%3Aq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="de173328-237f-4bf2-b6e6-a19e71bf43ce" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has come up before on meta, at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/why-does-this-particular-question-keep-getting-bumped-up-by-community. At the time, there was very little for the Community user to bump, so it just kept bumping the same question every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, more questions have become eligible for bumping, either through having their answers downvoted or through zero-score questions receiving a stray upvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of this writing, there are four Community-bumped questions on the front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7745/is-this-question-too-broad&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9000/add-is-your-question-on-topic-page-for-new-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, none of them particularly warrant the extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Edit: recently, and even more ridiculously, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9393/winter-bash-2016-hats-are-live got bumped to the top of the front page. Because that very much required additional attention once the winter bash was over, you know.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these are essentially the **only** bumpable questions at this time. [This SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/539186/questions-eligible-for-community-user-bumping) implements the criteria in [this MSE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184485/community-seems-to-be-bumping-new-questions-more-frequently-than-usual/184511#184511) and turns up two of the above posts ([this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9069) and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9000)) plus [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9104) (which was active 9 days ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the other two posts above, [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4513/what-happens-with-the-explanation-of-the-mendeleev-table) is [reported by SEDE](data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/edit/539213) as having an answer with score 1, for reasons that are not really substantiated in either the [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/4513/timeline) or [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/4515/timeline) timelines, and [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7512/math-rendering-errors)'s answer was upvoted after the bump (it's also an old bug report which is useless to bring back up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case: the set of bumpable questions is *small*. It can grow slightly over time, as people go into the archives and upvote score-zero questions, or downvote existing positive-score answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, though: there really is no reason to dredge old stuff back up, particularly if it is only going to add a 10% serving of noise to the meta front page. Currently, the posts eligible for bumping are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those scoring &gt;= 0 that have gone at least 30 days with no activity, have at least one non-deleted answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that, and no accepted answer (also, they can't be locked or closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that, although it may at times be beneficial to have old feature requests or standing bug reports brought back to light for a while, the current bumping criteria are completely uncorrelated with the kind of stuff that might be worthwhile bringing up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are plenty of reasons why a discussion in meta can be left with zero score: it could genuinely need more attention, but it could also be a five-year-old debate that ended in a +5/-5 vote that says a fair bit about the community's feeling at the time. The narrow criteria above are posed to bring up a bunch of boring posts, and quite well-tuned to miss the discussions (such as those with e.g. a single answer at score -1) that could potentially use someone dropping in and adding an answer with the consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More damningly, however, is the fact that the current crop of bumps wouldn't have happened without people digging through the archives and voting on things. To me this is pretty strong evidence that the rationale for keeping this mechanism (&quot;bringing attention to old unresolved discussions, open feature requests, and unsolved bugs&quot;) is not actually that necessary - people *are* digging through the archive and finding these things, and the bumping algorithm relies on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really no call to have this on meta: the idea sounds nice, sure, but it is a very blunt tool that does not work at all for the intended objective. Please turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="1ce97b96-6a9e-469d-b381-722810c66b7b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any posted answer that does not answer the question should be deleted, regardless of upvotes &amp; bounties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think either of your posts answered the questions asked. The one that was deleted made the preposterous claim that gravity doesn't exist and all mass is photons with frequencies less than 1 Hz when the question asked was *Where does gravity get its energy?* The post doesn't answer the question. &#xD;&#xA;In the second case, you're basically explaining *what* is occurring in the video OP linked and not giving an answer as to *why* it is curving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, anyone [with sufficient reputation](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) can and should vote as they think about the question. There is already a maximum of 24 votes allowed per day (24 hour GMT time), with a maximum of [20 reviews](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) per day, any more limitation would, in my opinion, be a detriment to the system and the site. I would much prefer an *increase* in votes and reviews allowed per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any single person with sufficient reputation [can flag a post](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts). After that, it [goes to review](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/) for those with [sufficient reputation to vote to delete the post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/); it takes 3 votes from those with &gt;20k rep to delete or 6 votes from those with &lt;20k rep. Again, the 20 reviews per day holds here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;For flagging purposes, a user initially gets 10 flags per day. This increases by 1 for every 2000 rep gained plus a bonus 1 for every 10 accepted flags. The maximum flag count one can accrue is 100 per day. I don't think I've ever come close to using the 100 flags I have available to me, so *maybe* I could see decreasing this, but on larger sites (e.g., Stack Overflow) it is probably very useful &amp; not with implementing on a per-site basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="d6235381-1610-4d5a-9709-71116aafa8d2" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The user you refer to has cast quite a few votes, but only about 81.7% of them are downvotes, not 90%. Call this pedantry, but I think it's important to distinguish between claims and facts.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **[Vote on the posts, not on the person.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58804/274942)** Targeted serial voting like this is unacceptable and may result in disciplinary action.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Stack Exchange does not reveal the details of the voting algorithms to any users, even to moderators. If people *did* know, they could do what you're proposing, and try to beat the system.&#xD;&#xA; 4. You've posted a number of questions that have been downvoted. I wouldn't be surprised if the user you mention has indeed voted on some of those questions, and indeed downvoted some of them. This shouldn't be a surprise, because some of your questions haven't been that great; you've gotten some feedback in this regard and I hope it will lead to better questions in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; All that said, you should *not* - I repeat, *not* - make assumptions about the actions of others. There's no way to see who voted which way on what post, and even if there was, you shouldn't assume that the voting was unjustified. The user in question does downvote a lot of posts; he or she simply has different standards than the next person. Who are any of us to say that this user is incorrect in the way they vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="431b1e23-ccc4-4f29-8c67-380c9c65349d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perusing [Meta.StackExchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) leads me to [this question &amp; answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257836/) from June 2015. The answers to the question both say the app isn't meant to be a replacement for the the main site, that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the app is therefore optimised for this, allowing you to view, comment on, answer, vote and flag posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the (current) answer is that you cannot see the badges you've earned on the site (unless it was a recent one that'd be in your Achievements list, but clicking on that would lead you to the mobile site)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9265" RevisionGUID="98b76c80-8404-4465-b8cd-8144bc5107a8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to a non-mod [answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/256939/262980) on the mother meta site, it is very much frowned on to copy a Yahoo Answer without attributing it, but it seems perfectly okay from a legal standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend going through that post and any related posts to be sure, but so long as you cite your answer, you should be fine for the most part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="10e03b7c-ce5a-41f9-a126-17c1a3fae278" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to go off the script David proposed and emphasize one point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **This programme needs to consider very seriously the role of the [tag:homework] tag.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, as I wrote [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework), one of the main lessons that came out of [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) previous attempt to reformulate the policy. More specifically, it is an inconsistent position to say &quot;homework is banned&quot; and still keep a [tag:homework] tag, or at least it is something that is very hard to write around. It will be easier now that the tag actually reads [tag:homework-and-exercises] but the problem has by no means gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to express (here and now) an opinion on whether we should change the policy or the usage of the tag. But a discussion of the role of the tag is integral in any attempt to reformulate the policy. One big reason for this is that the first encounter of most new users with the fact that not all homework questions are on-topic will be with the tag wiki excerpt that's shown when you try to tag something as homework. Another big reason is simply that the tag is an integral structural part of how we handle these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this discussion needs to include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to change which questions are tagged as [tag:homework-and-exercises]?&#xD;&#xA; - Do we want to keep the tag at all? Do we want to [burninate](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120640/what-does-it-mean-to-burninate-a-tag) and black-list it?&#xD;&#xA; - What does the tag documentation - tag wiki and tag wiki excerpt - need to look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not putting forth any position on these issues at this time, but they do need to be on the agenda; if not, it will simply prove impossible (or at least very, very difficult) to write a consistent set of documentation for the new policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="1a65eb2f-e739-4f2e-90ec-c24a07d48c6b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I didn't vote to close your question, and I wouldn't have picked the reason &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot;  (And not all of the reviewers picked that reason, either, though [that information is not obvious](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/54917/280545).)  However, I agree that your question as it currently stands (v7) is [a poor fit for Physics.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/44126).  You've started with a system at rest that can be described using electrodynamics and relativity, both of which exactly conserve linear momentum, and you're asking whether that system can spontaneously develop nonzero linear momentum.  From symmetry, the answer is: no, you've missed something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="ba34845b-1435-47b8-8c24-d8bb759ee194" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This was answered in the comments, but to make it more formal: the documentation for this and all badges is in the help centre and in the cross-network [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com); in this case in [Asking days badges](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/234259/asking-days-badges). Quoting from there,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **positive question record**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         (total questions - negative questions - closed - deleted)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                                         /total questions &gt;= 0.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   It _triple counts_ a question that is downvoted, closed, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deleted. If you ask one that hits that trifecta, you'll need to ask&#xD;&#xA;&gt; three better questions to dig yourself out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And just to emphasise again, the [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) is the first place to check for these things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="66ebb7b0-2d8f-49cc-84aa-134294af15c9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's been suggested via a flag that [this question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/286601/44126), which was [deleted by Community](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/280545) after being closed for ten days, has value to other users asking similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't understand the closure of this question: in its current form, it's a thoughtful, conceptual question that happens to be phrased in a mathematical way.&#xD;&#xA;If you're a person who thinks the closure/deletion was a good decision, I'd like to understand your reasoning.  If, on the other hand, you're a person who agrees with me, I'd like a million upvotes. And also a pony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Screen capture][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LsHEV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="a7606550-204e-47c3-a545-0d69f4be1fdd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="As dmckee points out, the answer is in the [Message Retention section of the chat FAQ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#retention):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Will these rooms exist forever?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rooms will exist indefinitely, so long as there is at least one person actively talking in the room. A room is considered worth retaining if it has more than 15 messages by at least 2 users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![deleted and frozen rooms](http://cdn-chat.sstatic.net/chat/Img/faq-deleted-frozen-rooms.png?v=e77e86064bd6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rooms not worth retaining which are inactive for 7 days will be deleted. Rooms worth retaining which are inactive for 14 days will be frozen. Frozen rooms do not allow any new messages to be sent, and are not shown in the default room list to prevent cluttering the rooms interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thread you refer to has exactly 15 messages, so [apparently](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/191566/clarify-standards-for-rooms-worth-retaining-in-the-chat-faq) it was one message short of qualifying. (It needs a full 16 messages (i.e. (strictly) more than 15) to survive. At undeletion it had 15 - note that [this](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31545734#31545734) and [this](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31545735#31545735) are separate messages.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="c2b13a54-b15a-4f3f-83ef-c09bf63a190a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Focusing on the question, of how much research you are expected to have done before asking here, and answering only for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote [an answer][1] for [a similar questions about Stack Overflow][2] some time ago. The gist of it is that asking the site things that you could have easily (or perhaps trivially) googled comes down to wasting the time of people looking at your question, and those questions shouldn't be asked. The final expression of that idea there was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is the same as not asking when the answer is in the furnished manual or the first half-dozen links that Google brings up. The answer being in some obscure usenet archive or 400 comments down in a slashdot thread on some other topic is no impediment to asking Stack Exchange, but there being dozens of answer instances all across the internet is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure the situation on Physics is similar, but not necessarily exactly the same, because it is (in my opinion) easier to to see but not understand a treatment in physics even when you have the minimum preparation for the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking before you have looked at those resources that Google brings up right at the top is a waste of other people's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you *have* looked and still don't get it, tell us what you found unsatisfactory about those treatments. And *&quot;I didn't understand&quot;* doesn't count; say where your understanding broke down. I you stuck on a step in the math or on how it could be written in terms of that math in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be clear about your level of preparation. I've seen so many questions where the OP claims to understand field theory and relativity, but has actually just read some pop-sci book that I can usually guess what the case it, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by muddying the water that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asking for a detailed description of a topic at your level when you simply aren't prepared to deal with the math is a waste of other people's time. We have been open to &quot;layman's terms&quot; questions, but you have to accept that those answer will *be in layman's terms*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, part of the goal here is to build a comprehensive database of good questions with good answer. So, shouldn't we allow ever good question, even if they have been answered well elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we should, but it is fair to insist that we work on *really good* versions of those questions, and that really calls for [someone who knows the topic to craft the canonical version of the question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way, those are my thoughts I've wanted for some time to sit and hammer on them to find where they might not be internally consistent, but I never seem to find the time. So perhaps some of the rest of you can show me those spots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/192136/2509&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/192123/should-stack-overflow-be-a-last-resort-resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9458" RevisionGUID="ef64ec11-8284-4eda-96c0-817fdf591cf6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's exciting that you all care about your site so much you want to wear your allegiance. The only concern I had when I heard about this was &quot;what would our pesky lawyers say?&quot;. As a rule, [&quot;It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission&quot;](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/317531/1438). That said, our VP of Community Growth [says](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/244564/1438):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We do not object to your individual use of the logo in a personal and private manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like, say for using the logo on a tee shirt you plan to wear yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a bit tricky when it comes to selling shirts. But as long as the charge is just to defray costs and it doesn't turn it into a business of some sort, I don't see any problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we can't coordinate this event; y'all'll have to take care of that yourselves. You might have heard of our [#SOreadytohelp contest](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/303721/who-are-the-winners-in-the-soreadytohelp-t-shirt-drawing). It took [months](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/313937/10-million-questions-giveaway-what-happened) to distribute the prizes and we've concluded its just not one our strengths. Sorry about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8902" RevisionGUID="fc982362-d6f7-41b2-8c81-2b5e28010edd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It doesn't seem to be possible to edit user profiles from within the Android app. The [Meta Stack Exchange page that introduced it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/191301/profile-page-for-android-app) does not mention it, and the feature request https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/201594/ability-to-update-profile-from-the-stackexchange-android-app has been open since October 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unclear what you mean by 'settings'. On the desktop site, going to your profile &gt; Edit Profile &amp; Settings &gt; Preferences, there are what would normally be considered 'settings' for the site - there's really no chance of those being editable from the Android app. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you click the menu button (upper left hand on the app) and scroll to the bottom, there is a Settings button that allows you to control the notification settings (on/off, vibrate on/off, notification sound, quiet hours), but that's about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to emphasize a bit - if you have questions about the network-wide functioning of the engine, and particularly with specialized topics like the Android and iOS apps, the mother meta at [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) is a *much* better place to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="8aebd1a6-d514-4a11-b28c-8af74a5dc15d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was recently [talking on chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35050094#35050094) about the [analytics information available to 25k+ users](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/260849/proposed-micro-privilege-site-analytics). This is normally pretty boring, but I went to have a look and I was somewhat surprised. These are the top ten sites that have sent us traffic over the past month:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WoL4q.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(full statistics [here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bCREE.png).) A lot of this comes internally from the Stack Exchange network - I suspect, primarily, through the Hot Network Questions Sidebar - but we do have a fair amount of other external sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I was surprised to find that **the topmost non-SE referrer is [news360.com](https://news360.com/)**, a web recommendations app, which is responsible for about 1% of visits. (This is because that chart only accounts for the 3.1% of visits that come referred from external sites. 7.2% are marked as direct visits, and 89% come from search engines, with 97% of those coming from Google.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remarkably, the news360 traffic is even bigger than what we get from Facebook: that's also around 1%, but a distinct 5% less than the news360 counts. This is for a site that's incomparably small (4M users according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News360) compared to Facebook's billion+ users, so there's probably something specific at play here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do I want to say about this? Well, first, this is a curious enough observation as is. Secondly, though, I would like to know if there are any ways we can explore what kind of questions that news360 traffic is landing on. With Stack Overflow, we mostly know where it's going on (HNQs, with all the good stuff and [all](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/286020/) [the](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/285889) [bad](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/238420) [stuff](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/272230/) [that](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/284929) [entails](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/222721)), but I'm in the dark as to what kind of content is getting extra attention from that external source, and I'm not sure the same kind of intuitions about facebook-driven traffic also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... is there something useful we can say about that traffic? And, if so, does it tell us something useful about the site and how we can improve it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9652" RevisionGUID="39382ea6-3e83-444c-9cfe-1b63ee1ec06f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Note that the current 6 Phys.SE moderators are democratically elected. All moderators have (electronically) signed a moderator agreement, which de facto implies that moderators cannot discuss specific users &amp; suspensions publicly, and which in turn means that this meta discussion belongs on the [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) (rather than on Phys.SE meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence that one or more Phys.SE moderators misuse their positions or the community's trust in any way, then you can report it to the [SE team](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="21467f2e-51da-48da-bd2f-93f38df287f7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="a77a585d-5c09-4b1c-b139-a3b9f9f2c10b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="One long-standing feature requests for the Stack Exchange engine is the implementation of *trackbacks* for mentions of the arXiv on Stack Exchange sites. In general, if you have a blog and you blog about an arXiv eprint, you can send the arXiv a specially crafted http message, and then your blog gets listed on a page of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://arXiv.org/tb/paper-id&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that lists a bunch of internet locations that discuss the eprint. Some more examples of how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [Here](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658) is a list of trackbacks to the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658) from various blogs. My feature-request is that if a future SE post mentions an arXiv number, say, [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658), then a trackback is automatically sent to the arXiv.org who then adds the SE post to the [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [This](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/30320/2451) SE answer mentions the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0707.2895](http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895). With trackbacks to the arXiv, it would be possible to see on the corresponding [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0707.2895) that this preprint is mentioned on SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _More Examples:_ ([SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9727/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1103.5222)); &#xD;&#xA;([SE question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48292/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0545), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1211.0545)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent trackbacks from across the internet to the whole of arXiv, see http://arxiv.org/tb/recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trackback mechanism was implemented and put online on [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/) in 2013, and it has been ticking along ever since. A feature request was posted at about that time on [Meta Stack Excange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) to enable this across all the science Stack Exchange sites, at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [Trackbacks from SE to the arXiv.org?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has received a lot of love over the years (currently at score 62) but apparently this has not been enough. So: do you think this mechanism should be enabled on this site? If so, either post an answer here saying Aye, or go show that feature-request some (more) love." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="be33a84a-019f-4074-8733-e34924b7d572" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.477" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving their time. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, it's hard to get a job with one on your record. Some jobs, [particularly those that require a license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_against_persons_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States#Background), are prohibited from hiring ex-felons. &quot;Open justice&quot; on its own is no protection against discriminatory practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does that apply to Stack Exchange? Well, one of the primary goals of the [penalty box system](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/) is rehabilitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and **your account will resume as normal**. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In California, ~65% of former prisoners [return to prison](https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/). That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Physics at this moment, just under a quarter of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the site. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bigger question you are trying to get at is whether a secret system of justice can be fair. So let me explain our process a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The system encourages moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended, so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Every message and every suspension is sent to the [community team](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-managers-and-what-do-they-do) for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or [poor guidance from the system](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288242/1438). The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system encourages moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness as compared to other, similar networks on the internet. A good deal of the credit belongs to [the cadre of volunteer moderators](http://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) who have the power to suspend users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there's been some concern that moderators on Physics have suspended more users than on other sites. I looked at the statistics on all Stack Exchange sites and found that 150 currently have at least one user serving a suspension. By total suspensions, Physics is tied for 7&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; most. The top site, as you might imagine, is Stack Overflow. But it has an order of magnitude more users than Physics. So it makes more sense to compare the rate of suspensions per users active on the site in the last year. By that metric, Stack Overflow among the least frequent suspension site. Physics is ranked 81&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; or about average. Note, however, this includes network-wide suspensions, which are enforced by employees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8962" RevisionGUID="f96f65af-1fd9-4ff9-8c15-f203ef2ff3dd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can check on your flagging history from your profile: on the Activity tab, at top right, there's a line with how many helpful flags you've raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TxvYm.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on that link and it will take you to your flagging history: which flags were marked helpful, and which ones were not and why they were not. If this was a declined custom moderator flag, then it will likely have a comment from the moderator that handled it explaining the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, migration is not possible because, generally speaking,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only questions which are less than 60 days old can be migrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10249/what-is-migration-and-how-does-it-work over on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) (which is generally the recommended first port of call for general questions about the SE platform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, your question looks on-topic here, so I would recommend that you cross-post it to Space Exploration (or possibly [Astronomy Stack Exchange](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com)), and explicitly mark the cross-post on both versions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="a7ab26ce-20bf-41d3-bd85-ba0af4b894fc" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has been discussed on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) several times already - see [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254399), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/185758/should-so-include-a-custom-google-search), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135753/when-searching-is-it-better-to-use-the-built-in-so-search-or-use-google), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/107211/how-does-stack-overflows-search-compare-with-googles-site-specific-search), and probably others I haven't caught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google was founded in 1998 on a business model based on a search engine. Stack Exchange was founded in 2008 on a business model based on a Q&amp;A engine. [This](http://stackoverflow.com/company/team#Engineering) is the current SE dev team - how much money and manpower Google invests/has invested on Search is anyone's guess. It's not particularly surprising that Google is good at search (considering, in addition, that SE spends a lot of time and infrastructure making sure that SE is well ranked by Google).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also perfectly possible to restrict Google searches to only Stack Exchange pages - try [adding the `site:physics.stackexchange.com` operator to your search](https://www.google.de/search?q=What+is+the+field+in+the+physics+really%3F+site:physics.stackexchange.com). That's a good way to search PSE if you're looking for something specific and having trouble using the site search. (On the other hand, you lose access to the [SE advanced search features](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) that do use the internal characteristics of the posts database, like the `score:` or `is:question` operators.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="59e51a0a-e501-40c0-afeb-c377ad1cd6c3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was looking around on the mother meta, and I saw [this][1] interesting post. The second answer mentions [this][2] page on stack overflow for new users, where they must check the box at the bottom to confirm before asking their question. I know that there have been a lot of discussions on this meta about homework questions and otherwise bad questions. Could we add this page and design it such that it would give some of these new users pause before posting a bad question? Could this possibly reduce the problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** per Emilio Pisanty's suggestion (see comments below sammy gerbil's answer), I have started to work on a query for the stack exchange data explorer. While it is not yet quite done, there is some data you can see currently, so [here][3] is the query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/277607/ways-to-give-users-some-specific-education-about-question-quality-and-topicality&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask/advice&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/519816/downvoted-posts-and-rep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9004" RevisionGUID="2df681fb-390a-47de-a072-b8276784a0a9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's examine the facts: according to the [last data available][1], only 705 users with reputation between 125 and 250 had casted any downvote (out of 4065). From them, only 33 had casted 10 or more downvotes. Yes, there is [an exceptional case][2], but the rest seems perfectly normal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you don't know what posts did these users voted (because votes are secret!!!), you don't know their motives, and you don't know whether these users are in fact knowledgeable new users. You don't really know anything about downvotes, but you're proposing to change the whole system based in your prejudices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the technical part, the privilege system isn't controlled by the Physics.SE site, it is a part of the SE engine. In order to propose a change, you have to go to [mother meta][3]. And believe me, you will need much stronger arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/519697/downvotes-by-low-rep-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/60480&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="5858a8c6-9c36-4853-8c44-5d35f5efbdc8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's a good thing that you're so motivated to go through the review queues!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What increases with successful flagging is the [number of flags you're allowed to cast per day](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/185890/263383). Unfortunately, after you hit 3k, you won't ever use all those flags because all your off-topic &quot;flags&quot; on questions are now *close votes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You get 24 close votes per day, and 20 reviews in the queue per day. This doesn't scale with rep. Every close vote you cast in the queue is deducted from the 24 votes per day you have. You cannot review when you're out of close votes even if you haven't done 20 reviews that day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="443b3a7e-c684-42b0-a470-cd54fe6118f7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a thread on meta dedicated to something like this: [Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions][1]. If a person has opted in there, feel free to place a comment under their post to let them know about a question they might be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is definitely opt-in -- there is not, [nor will there ever be][2], a feature to allow arbitrary pinging of users who haven't even participated in a thread. Remember, this is a question and answer site, not a social network, and the experts are already giving precious time to answer questions as it is. If the site allowed anyone to initiate conversations with anyone else requesting assistance, all of the experts would quickly abandon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note there is a tendency for inexperienced members to single out certain high-rep individuals as being the only people capable of answering questions. You should avoid this tendency. For the vast majority of questions asked on this site, *many* people can give equally satisfactory answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1159/opt-in-to-be-always-pingable-to-answer-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/431/any-way-to-send-a-personal-message-to-another-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="cc247215-26c0-4968-b2fd-4cf965cdd19d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've heard on the chat, that a post gets out of the review queue if a 3k+ user edits it as part of the review. More details can be found [here][1]. It may be an unintended side-effect, or a non-trivial interpretation of the spirit of the review votes from the software development side of the SE engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens if a 3k+ user makes this edit out of the review queue? (I.e. right click on the post title, opening it in a new tab and doing the edit in it?) Does this side-effect happen also in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/162058/259412" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="70dcbedf-0ef6-44f4-8ad1-2336fe2bbcec" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="00fa732d-4e51-410b-9f74-022723224113" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Town Hall chat transcript from the previous elections: [2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/631/2011-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest) and [2012](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest). Useful for background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="c78482b2-6c40-4f47-aa3f-0382be9747ba" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [ACuriousMind's](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am rather dismayed that it is possible that this happens, I don't think this is a problem that can or should be solved by moderator intervention - at least, not by using any of the additional privileges a moderator has. That this is possible is an inherent property of the SE engine and the weights it attaches to up- and downvotes. Of course, if significant support for the idea of raising the weight of downvotes was present in the community, it would perhaps fall to the moderators to present this position to the SE team - but then again, everyone can make such a feature request at the [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question intends to imply that maybe moderators should delete the answers of such users or suspend them, then I don't think that either can be justified. Also, deleting their wrong answers potentially leads to the users *gaining more reputation*, depending on what exactly the vote count on the wrong answer was, which doesn't solve the problem at all. Selectively deleting only the answers which contribute to their positive reputation would appear capricious and targeting a specific user instead of specific posts, which is generally inappropriate. Suspensions are only appropriate when an explicit rule was broken - and &quot;posting wrong stuff&quot; is annoying, but not in violation of any policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality. I do think the general voting behavior on this SE currently encourages questions that are much too lazy and ill-thought out. I wrote about this [some time ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) and although the numbers are of course off by now, I still stand by everything I've written there. However, I don't see how this priority of mine would be any more relevant as a moderator than it was as a high reputation user - the primary means of quality control is *upvoting high-quality questions and downvoting low-quality questions*, which is completely unaffected by moderatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly wait for consensus regarding suspensions, except in cases where one is immediately needed for the user to &quot;cool off&quot;. I would also, at least at the beginning, wait for input before dismissing custom moderator flags, but perhaps not before validating them, if the case appears clear cut. I would not wait for consensus when reopening or closing a question, but I expect to be casting both reopen and close votes much less than I currently do since I don't want to overuse the unilateral character of these votes. I would also not wait for consensus before deleting obsolete, rude or irrelevant comments, since those are supposed to be ephemeral by design anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guarantee a minimum of an hour per day for at least the next year. My time &quot;spent&quot; on the site is usually more, but I'm often doing other things while occasionally checking the site, so the actual time *invested* into the site is difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that 99% of what I have posted will not reflect badly, and that most of it reflects rather well. I can remember some stray comments and chat messages where I might have been less charitable than I should have been, but there is nothing that I would be ashamed of. The most significant change to my routine in the site would probably be that I don't do the &quot;ordinary&quot; review queues anymore, which I currently visit almost every day, and that I might be a bit more careful to distinguish site policy from my personal opinion when commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think our scope is generally quite alright as it is. The very nature of these interdisciplinary questions is that it is difficult to make general policies that cover them - this is where community moderation has to shine, hashing out whether a given question is &quot;just enough physics&quot; or &quot;not enough physics&quot; by several close/reopen cycles if need be, or just by a bit of comment/chat/meta discussion about the specific question. As a moderator, I would refrain from casting my unilateral votes in any binding manner on those questions, i.e. I would only cast them as fifth votes. We don't elect moderators to *make* policy, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't make me more effective. Moderators aren't supposed to be &quot;more effective&quot; versions of ordinary users, they're supposed to be trusted janitors who clean up the messes and do the behind-the-scenes work that's unsuitable for community moderation but nevertheless needs to be done to keep the site running smoothly. I love this site and I want to be part of the reason it's working. In the past, I've done so by participating in the review queues every day, which is something I *strongly* encourage every user with sufficient reputation to do. Now, I get the opportunity to do so in another role - if you want me to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there should be boundaries in terms of &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think there currently are. There are good and bad questions at a layman's or high schooler's level, and there are good and bad questions at research level. I've seen plenty of all of those. What I expect from a question is a reasonable amount of research effort, and an attempt to communicate clearly the *conceptual question* the asker is having. I strongly dislike all stances that think questions have merit simply because of their level. Questions have merit because they are *good, well-posed questions* that can be answered with physical insight. Note, however, that just because you can write an amazing answer to a question that doesn't necessarily make the question itself any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case where I see a question closed merely because of its *level*, I would strongly consider unilaterally reopening it. We don't have a policy about &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think we should have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what kinds of flag exactly this user generates. Generating a lot of &quot;obsolete&quot; flags is a *good* thing, since it indicates the user leaves a lot of comments leading to posts being improved, making the comment obsolete in the process. Generating a lot of &quot;not constructive&quot; or &quot;too chatty&quot; flags is worse, although it might just indicate a chatty user. I'd advise the user to use comments only for relevant communication and take longer reply chains to chat instead, but probably take no further action. On repeated offense, I'd be more quick to move the discussions to chat, but if everything's civil, I don't see a need for other actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generating a lot of &quot;rude/offensive&quot; flags is a lot worse, and would probably warrant a suspension if warnings to be nicer do not succeed. As I said above, I would not impose a suspension without waiting for consensus from the rest of the moderators, unless the user is currently generating those flags and no end is in sight. In that case I would impose a short &quot;cool off&quot; suspension to de-escalate the immediate situation, and then consult the other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd first make sure I understand the reasons for which the other moderator took that action. If I still disagree with the result, I'd take the issue to meta. Moderators should not make policy on their own, so if two of us are in strong disagreement what to do with a certain question, this indicates that the community's larger position on that type of question is unclear or needs to be re-evaluated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="3f540e9b-d6cd-4b47-846f-76f5ee1cfb16" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sure [it is explained in some detail on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77541/how-are-moderator-election-votes-counted-in-plain-english). It's a fairly run-of-the-mill single-transferable-vote system except that you are only allowed a short slate. If I recall correctly anyone with a majority is elected, then the person with the fewest first-place votes is dropped and any votes directed at them fail over tho those voters' next choices. Repeat until you have filled the open seats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yeah. Now that I've found the link I see that there is a partial transfer of votes not fully needed to elect people too. Now *that's* a swanky extra." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="c73be699-73de-4eab-acb1-28307f4ce358" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Use the [contact us](http://physics.stackexchange.com/contact) link at the bottom of the page and choose the reason &quot;I need to delete my user profile&quot;, then follow the instructions (if any) that you receive. It may take a few days for the request to be processed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [How can I delete my account?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7979/263383) at Meta Stack Exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9266" RevisionGUID="51489b00-7976-4346-9705-7933d97309ca" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's a checklist to run through when considering this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Is this really the best source to use?** Perhaps I'm overly harsh, but Yahoo! Answers, is generally not the best choice when it comes to even referencing an answer. If you insist on copying an external source, try to find something of higher quality. Stack Exchange is better than sites like Yahoo! Answers; why should we drop to that level?&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Could you rephrase the content in your own words?** This is highly recommended; see e.g. [the tag wiki on plagiarism](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/plagiarism/info). The odds that the phrasing you've found is the single greatest way to explain the concept are slim to none, and you might as well try to improve on the wording. See if you can rewrite the explanation, adding ideas of your own. At the very least, write better than the &quot;best answer&quot; there, which opens with&#xD;&#xA; &gt; this smthg abt zero vector and its uses... &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Did you cite the source correctly?** If you're still bent on copying the text, note that [plagiarism on Stack Exchange is not okay](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/160071/274942), and *could* be deleted, although it's more likely someone will simply add in the link. Now, I don't know if the text on Yahoo! Answers is copyrighted, but if it is, the answer may be removed outright. If you can't confirm that it's okay to copy the text (with attribution), [don't](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/141240/274942).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I see no reason whatsoever to do what you're doing, but yes, legally and by the rules of Stack Exchange, you can do it (again, if the content isn't copyrighted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it recommended? No. Is it allowable? Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="f2b52415-0c58-48b2-aeb6-6ca39f6eb790" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="In its current form (v5), the question looks distractingly like a low-effort question about a photograph of a homework problem.  It takes some effort, including squinting at the text in the photo, to determine that the asker is not having some trivial confusion about simple harmonic motion.  As Emilio Pisanty points out in a comment, that makes the question fair game for closing as &quot;unclear.&quot;  We don't make a habit here of re-opening poor questions which were closed for the wrong reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *are* several interesting questions that could be asked about the $|x|^3$ potential as presented in that question, such as how the amplitude affects the frequency (already answered) and whether the textbook's solution is justified in approximating the motion as harmonic with some frequency (for which Fourier analysis suggests yes, it's justified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question were edited to clarify which of those issues is of interest, the edits would [probably](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/196078/280545) place the question in the reopen [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review), where [any user with 3k reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) can vote to reopen or to leave closed.  In that case, re-opening the question becomes a community decision rather than a favor bestowed by the moderators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="d5bd2df6-598f-4b38-aa02-cd81b4abd9ec" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange recently started a collaboration project with the University of Melbourne, in an attempt to improve the automatic detection of duplicate questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information on the project and a call for help from the community can be found here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286329/project-reduplication-of-deduplication-has-begun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it, Tim Post mentions that Doris Hoogeveen (me) will post a message on the different meta sites to let you know that we're ready for help. This is it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a brief summary, the project is about finding ways to automatically determine if two questions are duplicates, and also to detect the opposite: falsely tagged duplicates. To validate our methods, we need manual judgements from people who really know the data. This is where we need your help. It is impossible to manually annotate all the data from Stack Exchange, and so we have applied several filters to make sure we only show you questions pairs with a high likelihood of being duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participation is completely optional, and there's no minimum time requirement. There's a reputation requirement however: only people who have duplicate question tagging rights on the site can participate. That is people with at least 3000 reputation points, or a gold badge. This is to ensure the annotations are compatible with StackExchange's quality standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in participating in the project, please head over to the annotation interface, which can be found here: http://hum.csse.unimelb.edu.au/se-annotate/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can log in with your Stack Exchange account, so no sign up is required. The site also contains some more information on the project, which might answer some questions you may have. And I'm also happy to answer them here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9347" RevisionGUID="bae566bb-0f29-4b9f-9884-bf765da55037" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The *spam* flag is indeed intended only for promotional posts that have very little to do with the topic at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, utterly meaningless gibberish may well be flagged as rude or abusive. The flag description says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and posting something completely devoid of meaning is certainly inappropriate for respectful discourse. It doesn't need to be actively insulting. Here's the corresponding guidance from [the faq post on spam and rude/abusive flags on mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035/263383):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Abuse of the system or community is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain no useful content at all – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;   asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cats are not allowed to walk across keyboards as part of Stack Exchange posts; this is abuse and should be flagged as such. ([Source](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/234032/263383))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="0c9e49b2-9e9f-4252-bd4b-829bf82f9802" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have very little control over this. Physics Stack Exchange is part of a network of [160+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday). All the sites share a common engine, so it *is* possible to request and obtain site-specific changes to the common behaviour, but they need to be very well justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to request changes to the engine is at the overarching meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/), where it is easier to get the attention of the community team and the developers. Our meta site is better for issues specific to this site and its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I don't think it's particularly problematic. The entry-level badges are awarded easily as an incentive for new users to explore the site's features, by adding some fake internet sugar on top. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the MathJax side, though, you're right, but that's not quite the right approach - I advocated [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial) earlier &lt;s&gt;but it's not yet implemented&lt;/s&gt; and it just went live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="b3af09f3-29d8-496c-a7ff-d8db3422abe7" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To address your title: [downvoters don't owe you an explanation](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135/280545), which is [an intentional decision](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/250177/1650379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your concern that people are downvoting both of your questions: I think that's appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Please [don't re-post a question that wasn't well-received](https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4068).  Instead follow [this advice](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7054/280545) to improve and promote the *original* question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You can &quot;bump&quot; your question by editing the question to **provide status and progress updates resulting from your own continued efforts to answer the question yourself**. I usually do that unless I really hit a dead end with no further clues to follow. Some times I eventually bring about enough understanding to realise the answer, and thus post a resolution to my own problem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you have at least **75** rep points, you can [offer a **bounty**][1], promising to give some of your points to the person who correctly answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Upvote** the original question - every upvote helps increase its profile on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Use the **share** button beneath the original question to advertise it to your networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/privileges/set-bounties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these bits of advice I might add:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Ask for guidance about the questions on Meta (hello!) or in the [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), and take any advice you get there to heart for present and future questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth I have closed your second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak to the physics content of your question, which is outside of my specialty, but I personally think it looks interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="0f549dce-252d-4ee5-b8c4-94717a5e1854" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="After discussion at the biweekly chat session starting [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35277884#35277884) and looking at the answers and comments to this post, the feedback appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As anticipated at the end of the session [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35278976#35278976), it therefore seems that the second part of this meta post should be considered obsolete. Even though there was *some* positive feedback, we're not going to have a chat policy that is not backed by a clear majority of users. Going forward, the only policy governing the h bar is the [Be Nice policy](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback) itself, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them. We'd like to take the opportunity to correct that by giving more detailed thoughts, based on general SE philosophy as laid out on [meta.SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/), on what the h bar ought to be like and how we're going to achieve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, that sounds like a stupid question in this day and age, but it's not, at least not in the context of SE. See, for instance, [Toward a philosophy of Chat](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/270587/263383) for a recent discussion about what chat is - and is not. Let me reiterate the indisputable facts about SE chat that are listed there (in a condensed fashion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Chat is public and non-anonymous**: Everything you say in chat is inextricably linked to your SE account, and after a grace period of 2 minutes you can neither edit nor remove it. Furthermore, all transcripts are completely open to be read by the public, even non-SE users, forever. There is no expiration date on the things you say in chat and no restriction on who can read it, or when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Chat is moderated**: All elected and appointed moderators of all sites and all SE employees possess full moderatorial power in *all* chat rooms. They are not confined to the rooms of the site their diamond originates from and they are, in a bind, *expected* to moderate all chat rooms if necessary. Furthermore, users with a total reputation of more than 10k can decide whether rude/offensive flags are valid or invalid, once again across all chatrooms. The only exception to global power are room owners, who are granted moderatorial powers only in the rooms they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last point in particular implies that it's *not the chatters themselves who decide the rules*. In particular, regardless of how many regulars you get supporting you, the [Be Nice policy](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383) always applies, and it is *the moderators' and room owners' judgement call* to act on its violation. In case they abuse their power, proper recourse is, in order of increasing severity, a) to have a friendly discussion about it, b) make a meta post about it, c) contact SE staff through the &quot;Contact Us&quot; form. Proper recourse is *not*, for instance, to further violate the Be Nice policy by attacking moderators, or to continue violating rules that have been set down, even if you disagree with their reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the structure of chat. What about its content and purpose? The [original blog post introducing chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) phrased it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&amp;A;, and meta-discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the more recent post linked earlier, Shog9 adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over the years, folks have used a lot of different metaphors to describe chat: the watercooler (informal work conversations), the tavern (socialization after work), etc. These metaphors work, to a degree... But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to everyone crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. Yet, these scenarios are common in chat. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by its very nature, chat is going to support more than one conversation at once, sometimes along each other, sometimes asynchronously stretched over several days whenever one of the participants logs in. Due to the permanence of chat transcripts, it is important to realize that chat is *not* limited to real-time conversations, and that users do not need to participate in every conversation *right there* to read, think about, and perhaps finally reply to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also by its very nature, chat is supposed to be related to the SE site it is associated to; it is expected that physics.SE's chat will be a good place to discuss physics or the site itself, gaming.SE's chat a place for video game discussion, and so on. The informal nature of the third place means however that the discussion topic itself need not always revolve around the chat's site's actual topic. When humans (or AIs) with a common interest socialize, they tend to talk about many things that are not actually related to their common interest, and that's fine. However, on SE chat, these unrelated topics are second-class citizens: There is no reasonable expectation that any given topic will be considered on-topic in a room whose main topic it is unrelated to. Both the room description and the people present are the main source of information about what goes where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Making chat a place for everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As laid out above, chat is for *all* SE users. You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to visit it occasionally, you can choose to hang out there all the time, your choice. That means that we view the evolution of exclusionary &quot;room culture&quot; - subsets of users who consider the room &quot;theirs&quot; - with suspicion and concern. Regular visitors to a chat room are going to develop a certain familiarity, and that's fine. In-jokes, references to earlier events or users, re-starting a conversation from months ago, no problems there. However, familiarity does not, in any way, invalidate what I have outlined above about the structure and goals of chat. The moderatorial power over the chat room lies with the moderators and room owners, *not* with the users making up the room culture, and SE rules *supersede* room cultural norms. Being a regular does not grant you leave to violate the Be Nice policy, not even under the guise of &quot;we know each other, it's not what it looks like&quot;. Remember, chat is public - what &quot;it looks like&quot; is *precisely* what everyone is *seeing*. Chat is not private - if you want to have conversations which will be interpreted badly if one is not familiar with the participants and their history, then chat is not the place to have that conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That chat is for everyone and needs to support more than one conversation *also* means that topics which are inherently off-putting to a sizable number of people are off-limits. This includes no-brainers like child abuse, violent images or detailed discussion of bodily function, but also includes *any other topic* deemed disruptive to civil discussion and a welcoming atmosphere. Once again, as laid out above, the ultimate judgement of what is disruptive lies with those with moderatorial power over the room, *not* with the regulars, although it is certainly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere to consider the regulars' input *as well as* newcomers' input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there are two topics that we feel for various reasons are not conducive to civil behaviour in the h bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sexual innuendo**: The [Be Nice policy](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383), as a subset of **not being a jerk** explicitly calls out *&quot;[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.&quot;* Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old *while their parents are standing right next to you* (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Politics**: Triggered by recent occurences in *other* chat rooms across the network, [this meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383) gives guidelines on how to have constructive, civil discussions about politics in chat. Of particular note is the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; But if you want to do that [discussing politics], if you've found others who also want to have that conversation, then make a room for the topic, welcome anyone interested who is willing to be civil, and then actually take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  We have seen too much hate and stupidity and harm and intolerance over the topic of politics both online and offline recently. The h bar is, first and foremost, intended to be a physics chat room, where physicists come to discuss physicsy things - or just socialize. Having a highly emotionally charged debate (and a *proper* debate with *arguments* instead of insults or jokes is what you're going to have to have in order to not be a jerk about this) is not socializing, it's a debate. It's inappropriate for an informal gathering place as such a charged topic tends to override all other conversations, whether it intends to or not. So everyone wanting to have a political discussion is kindly requested to *take it elsewhere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you can abide by the rules of chat at large - in particular, once again, the Be Nice policy - then that elsewhere can be just another chat room on this network, one *you* create for that express purpose. To create a room, go to [chat's main site](http://chat.stackexchange.com/) and click on `create a new room` on the bottom. The creator will automatically be a room owner with all privileges that entails - and will be expected to keep order in that room, like everyone else with moderatorial powers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion.** You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask. Even if I have repeatedly stressed that the ultimate power lies with the moderators and room owners, this does not mean you should live in continual fear of triggering their wrath. We don't *want* to take action, really, and compromises can be made; policies changed if their intent is not achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's be decent human beings and have a chat room where everyone is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. Leave a comment, leave an answer, or [discuss in the meta chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775/physics-meta). We're probabaly also going to discuss it at tomorrow's [chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9559/50583)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="19c1049f-8b8f-4a09-b028-94c5239b5b1c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I dont think its been a (major) problem.  But, in my opinion, **the main chat room (&quot;the h Bar&quot;), should avoid politics and equally contentious topics**.  Given their (subjective) nature and scope, sparse discussion is natural, but excessive debate should be avoided or moved to other chat rooms within Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, joking, and doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - when discussed, they dominate conversation - after all, people can discuss them in other chat rooms within Physics.SE or on more relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere**, and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them.  Too often, they are disrespectful.  We have the 'Be Nice' policy... thats great, but its also been largely ineffective.  We dont need that in the main chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we avoid such topics on &quot;the h Bar&quot;, I think it would have a better atmosphere and allow  more open-ended topics, with limited oversight required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342903/3623090).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect in central venues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="fbe5a5ba-ba10-47e8-acb7-7f84983d5e78" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here comes an odd little low-practical question out of curiosity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does the review counter show**? The little counter in the upper bar is always showing a high number (fluctuating a bit) even when review queues are empty. I might have missed an explanation somewhere when being sworn in with the review privilege.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could of course just be because there are more queues than I am [allowed to review at my place in the hierarky][1] (odd that I would see a tempting counter in that case), but there [don't seem to be any queues hidden from me][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ik5wg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9660" RevisionGUID="b7927ff1-6d07-48f6-9cf1-f173afde8548" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="It shows the total number of flags whose review is pending, cf. [this meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/230726/263383). It also includes those you have already acted on (recall that many reviews need more than one user to complete them) and moderator flags which you cannot see. Additionally, the number is cached and may reflect an older status of the queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It annoys me to no end to have a number there but nothing to act on, but you learn to live with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9662" RevisionGUID="41c26b35-9f0d-4f23-a6a2-4b97b8d0d374" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="To your first list, I'd like to add another point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Chat is a [third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)**: When it comes to effort, the primary focus should be on keeping the main site looking its best. The secondary focus is meta, where site policies and norms are crafted. Chat, as the place for social and informal gathering, should not require much, if any, moderation work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last few years we've noticed that as the number of chat participants grow, so do the odds that there will be conflict. At the same time, chat starts to seem more and more important for the community. And indeed, events such as the [AMA series](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) are excellent opportunities to bring people together and strengthen the community of this site. In turn, this lends extra urgency to chat moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, chat is supposed to be a relaxed social environment. It's less about important ideas (those are best for the main site) or site policies (meta) and more about whatever a bunch of people who are interested in physics might want to talk about. That might mean politics or sexy talk or the latest theories concerning baryon asymmetry or whether non-black turtlenecks are legitimate fashion statements. As long as those conversations are respectful and don't outstay their welcome, it's typically fine to talk about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another trouble that comes with bigger crowds is that topics often _do_ outstay their welcome. If I explain my views on non-black turtlenecks (grey is acceptable, but not white) odds are someone else will want to share their opinion too. And if two or three other people chime in with their amusing anecdote or ill-considered opinion, it quickly becomes overwhelming to people who just don't care. And if you actively dislike the topic, it can be infuriating to see it roll along ponderously for hours or even days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any upsides to using sexual innuendo in a large chat room and plenty of downsides. Putting the brakes on that seems like a good idea. Similarly, the next time someone is convinced to change their political views by conversations in public chat will be the first time. So there's great wisdom in avoiding these sorts of conversations that trip up so many growing chat rooms. That said, there can be just as much conflict over turtlenecks or baryons given the mix of people in the room. Simply banning topics of conversation just isn't sufficient to keep the peace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, [most people in a conversation](http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=19709) will adapt to the existing tone. If someone indicates they are uncomfortable with the current conversation, reasonable responses are to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Apologize,&#xD;&#xA;* Change the topic,&#xD;&#xA;* Find another place to continue the conversation, and/or&#xD;&#xA;* Go do something else altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a small segment of the population that take offense, claim censorship or just generally don't care what other people think. If those people refuse to be reasonable, we have a number of [moderation tools](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat) for chat mods, room owners and even other users. In extreme cases, troublesome users can be banned from chat. Far more than topic bans, removing unreasonable users is surprisingly effective at fixing a room's culture. (And even better, sometimes formally unreasonable people find their way to be reasonable. That's rarely possible when you try to moderate topics rather than behavior.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9695" RevisionGUID="e56f17bc-4d30-4104-a9ff-2fcdaa57d25a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="From [Why does the “Unanswered Questions” tab show questions that have answers?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18870/why-does-the-unanswered-questions-tab-show-questions-that-have-answers) at Meta Stack Exchange,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The `Unanswered Questions` tab [shows questions](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/) that have no answers with a positive score nor an accepted answer. (That includes questions with no answers at all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentional, and it reflects the fact that just because someone has added content through the `answer` field it doesn't mean that the question has actually been answered. The Unanswered Questions tab is meant to get you to questions that have not been sufficiently addressed, and the criterion as posed does as good a job as any number-crunching machine algorithm to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading, see [OK, Now Define “Answered&quot;](https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/09/30/ok-now-define-answered/) on the Stack Overflow blog, back from 2008." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9699" RevisionGUID="ed6af148-acd9-4f6d-a520-6b3feecf14f4" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:29:41.490" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are different restrictions that may be imposed upon you, partly based on the performance of your previous posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **General rate limiting:** Users below 125 reputation can often only ask one question every 40 minutes network-wide, cf. [this meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/164900/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Low-quality rate limiting:** If your questions or answers are poorly received, a [rolling rate limit](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243460/263383) ranging anywhere from 1 to 7 days may be imposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Anti-recidivism rate limiting:** If you deleted your account and created a new one, you may find yourself only being able to post a single question per week, cf. [this meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234610/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Comprehensive question ban**: This is the most severe automatic restriction, [recently enabled on all sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/263383). If you have posted a significant amount of poorly received posts, the system will ban you *permanently* from posting until these are improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can neither tell you whether you will be restricted from posting if your next contribution will be poorly received nor for how long because the algorithms that determine this are *intentionally* not public to avoid malicious users gaming them. However, the system will usually *warn* you that your last posts were poorly received before imposing a rate limit, and the permanent ban will only kick in after several such warnings and increasingly severe rate limits. If you follow the guidelines you are shown when a rate limit is imposed (shown by Shog9 in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9647/50583)), you should not be in danger of getting to that point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="69375a61-4b2b-4b8e-92b8-ac3b7e48e85f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T13:20:09.770" UserId="23785" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to automate &quot;not a homework help site&quot; comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="69375a61-4b2b-4b8e-92b8-ac3b7e48e85f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T13:20:09.770" UserId="23785" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="d3aa32ae-c61c-4b03-9c89-f2cf7e9a8d58" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:29:41.163" UserId="102705" Text="As some of you might know about the &quot;argument&quot; which took place between me and another long-time user of the [hBar][1] about discussion of &quot;JEE related stuff&quot;. As far as those discussions are concerned, they are mostly related to Physics, Math or Chemistry at the high school/ Olympiad level (you can check the transcript). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems some people were disturbed by those discussions and told us to stop (or create a new chat room). Even one of the moderators warned me that he would kick-mute me if I kept discussing  those topics with some other members of the chat. What disturbed me most were comments like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][2]: &quot;I don't hate JEE, I hate when this chat is invaded by JEE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][3]: Because it's uninteresting, annoying, and I was here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[0celo7][4]:It's natural law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ACuriousMind][5]: Let me phrase it like this: If you do not respond to friendly suggestion I will kick you from this room if you continue to discuss things when other regulars have expressed a preference for you to take it somewhere else. I would much prefer not to but this room is not yours to hijack against the express wishes of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my queries are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does the stack exchange system have any documented rule which bars discussions which might disturb one or two long-time users of the room?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What did the moderator mean by &quot;hijack&quot; the room? I really fail to understand. We were just discussing Physics/Chemistry questions! If our messages were too long, one could just use the &quot;hide posts&quot; option!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does being a long time user permit you to decide what topics should be discussed and what should not be ? And should they be allowed to say things like &quot;I was here first, so I decide !&quot;. It seems completely against the ideals of Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all in all, even though I admire this site a lot, the recent chat experience just ruined it for me. I have sent a request to the SE for my account to be deleted. And I have decided not to return unless a firm stand is taken on these issues. Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=36126857#36126857&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126875#36126875&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126906#36126906&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35635996#35635996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="d3aa32ae-c61c-4b03-9c89-f2cf7e9a8d58" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:29:41.163" UserId="102705" Text="Should discussions on topics which disturb long time users of the chat room be banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="d3aa32ae-c61c-4b03-9c89-f2cf7e9a8d58" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:29:41.163" UserId="102705" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27700" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="2018c59d-9092-4f4c-9b6e-c762507cdd8d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:37:06.513" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="56f32421-34a2-446d-b912-a115588743b5" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:42:25.570" UserId="102705" Comment="deleted 459 characters in body" Text="As some of you might know about the &quot;argument&quot; which took place between me and another long-time user of the [hBar][1] about discussion of &quot;JEE related stuff&quot;. As far as those discussions are concerned, they are mostly related to Physics, Math or Chemistry at the high school/ Olympiad level (you can check the transcript). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems some people were disturbed by those discussions and told us to stop (or create a new chat room). Even one of the moderators warned me that he would kick-mute me if I kept discussing  those topics with some other members of the chat. What disturbed me most were comments like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][2]: &quot;I don't hate JEE, I hate when this chat is invaded by JEE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][3]: Because it's uninteresting, annoying, and I was here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[0celo7][4]:It's natural law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ACuriousMind][5]: Let me phrase it like this: If you do not respond to friendly suggestion I will kick you from this room if you continue to discuss things when other regulars have expressed a preference for you to take it somewhere else. I would much prefer not to but this room is not yours to hijack against the express wishes of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So my query is:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the stack exchange system have any documented rule which bars discussions which might disturb one or two long-time users of the room?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all in all, even though I admire this site a lot, the recent chat experience just ruined it for me. I have sent a request to the SE for my account to be deleted. And I have decided not to return unless a firm stand is taken on these issues. Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=36126857#36126857&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126875#36126875&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126906#36126906&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35635996#35635996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9724" RevisionGUID="59a81aee-8577-4e07-bdb2-4db6b157d6d2" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:46:50.777" UserId="520" Text="Let me be very, *very* clear about a couple of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, every chat makes a permanent record of everything typed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second the main chat for the site is a *public* resource for all the users. No one owns it, and time on the site does *not* convey any kind of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the public nature we insist on a grown-up approach to delicate or controversial subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the the shared nature, you are not entitled to insist that some topics suitable for polite company not be discussed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="434025c6-976e-49c2-958c-a2363cb76155" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:51:50.673" UserId="31790" Comment="Remove irrelevance" Text="As some of you might know about the &quot;argument&quot; which took place between me and another long-time user of the [hBar][1] about discussion of &quot;JEE related stuff&quot;. As far as those discussions are concerned, they are mostly related to Physics, Math or Chemistry at the high school/ Olympiad level (you can check the transcript). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems some people were disturbed by those discussions and told us to stop (or create a new chat room). Even one of the moderators warned me that he would kick-mute me if I kept discussing  those topics with some other members of the chat. What disturbed me most were comments like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][2]: &quot;I don't hate JEE, I hate when this chat is invaded by JEE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][3]: Because it's uninteresting, annoying, and I was here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[0celo7][4]:It's natural law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ACuriousMind][5]: Let me phrase it like this: If you do not respond to friendly suggestion I will kick you from this room if you continue to discuss things when other regulars have expressed a preference for you to take it somewhere else. I would much prefer not to but this room is not yours to hijack against the express wishes of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So my query is:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the stack exchange system have any documented rule which bars discussions which might disturb one or two long-time users of the room?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=36126857#36126857&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126875#36126875&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126906#36126906&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35635996#35635996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="ce109696-d5b9-4229-8de1-6691a38ee62a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T17:00:51.063" UserId="102705" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="As some of you might know about the &quot;argument&quot; which took place between me and another long-time user of the [hBar][1] about discussion of &quot;[JEE related stuff][2]&quot;. As far as those discussions are concerned, they are mostly related to Physics, Math or Chemistry at the high school/ Olympiad level (you can check the transcript). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems some people were disturbed by those discussions and told us to stop (or create a new chat room). Even one of the moderators warned me that he would kick-mute me if I kept discussing  those topics with some other members of the chat. What disturbed me most were comments like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][3]: &quot;I don't hate JEE, I hate when this chat is invaded by JEE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0celo7][4]: Because it's uninteresting, annoying, and I was here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[0celo7][5]:It's natural law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ACuriousMind][6]: Let me phrase it like this: If you do not respond to friendly suggestion I will kick you from this room if you continue to discuss things when other regulars have expressed a preference for you to take it somewhere else. I would much prefer not to but this room is not yours to hijack against the express wishes of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So my query is:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the stack exchange system have any documented rule which bars discussions which might disturb one or two long-time users of the room?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Entrance_Examination&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=36126857#36126857&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126875#36126875&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36126906#36126906&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=35635996#35635996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9726" RevisionGUID="c73846aa-0f9c-4ed3-9120-73fb400cb50b" CreationDate="2017-03-20T17:10:33.300" UserId="50583" Text="As background to my message cited in the question, I said this [earlier](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35635706#35635706) in the same conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one has a monopoly on this room but when multiple people ask if you not perhaps want to take your conversations about a specific topic to another room I'd kindly ask you to consider that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This already answers the question posed here: No one has a monopoly on the main chat room, or the absolute right to restrict the topics discussed there as long as they do not inherently run afoul of the Be Nice policy. We had a rather lengthy discussion about this related to [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9596/50583), where in the end we decided that the moderators *also* will not restrict the topics discussed for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the point I wanted to make in those messages is different: Because of the shared nature of the room, not only does a single person not get to *restrict* the topic, but also the people present should try to work out a way in which they all can use the room. This, of course, requires *compromise* - if a lengthy conversation between a small subset of users disturbs the others, and they *express their wish those users take it elsewhere*, then the courteous thing to do is to take it elsewhere. Creating a new room costs you nothing (provided you have 100 reputation) and clearly resolves all the tension instantly. I'm not saying one is *obligated* to do that, but I *expect* that there will at least be a reasonable and civil conversation about the refusal to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are good reasons to keep the conversation in the room (e.g. it's of potential interest to a large set of other users or directly related to site policy or other matters of relevance to the physics.SE community as such), then one should talk about that and ideally the users disturbed by the conservation should show some insight and acquiesce. If it seems that some users are frivolously or one-sidedly requesting conversations to be moved on spurious grounds, one may also talk about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of this happened in this instance. The main response was &quot;just ignore us if you don't like the topic&quot;, which clearly ignores the shared nature of the room, and the conversation, instead of trying to find a consensus or compromise, quickly degenerated into mutual attacks and unconstructive comments. This is *not* desirable behaviour and basically spoils the room's atmosphere for everyone, which is in no one's interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a chat room, ***talk* to each other**, figure out a way to coexist. Merely insisting on others keeping their conversation out of a room without compromise or explanation is not constructive, and neither is insisting others just have to live with whatever you decide to fill the room with. This is not an issue hard-coded rules could satisfactorily resolve, so there are none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9727" RevisionGUID="472a445c-5246-4a3f-86da-530eb7a9fc79" CreationDate="2017-03-20T19:55:56.293" UserId="2911" Text="You left out a *lot* of context; I'm tempted to think you're just cherry-picking bits of that conversation to make others look bad while ignoring your own behavior and how it contributed to the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's something I would consider a *really critical* bit of context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a 7-part conversation in which the OP here flatly refused to break a tangential conversation into a different room][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(for casual readers: &quot;anonymous&quot; in this thread is the OP here, the user now calling themselves &quot;2017&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summary of this conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You were asked, by multiple people, to take a tangential conversation into a different room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. They explained - politely and at length - why this was the most efficient way to deal with the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You flatly refused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social situations fall apart very quickly when participants cannot respect each other, and this is no exception: you're going out of your way to disrespect others, at very least refusing to give any credence whatsoever to their concerns; in return, you garnered a fair bit of disrespect from 0celo7 and, eventually, ACuriousMind. Thus, the situation broke down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The least-painful way to handle situations like this is for all participants to stop and consider the needs and desires of others before insisting upon their own, then work with each other to achieve compromise. [As ACM suggests](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723/should-discussions-on-topics-which-disturb-long-time-users-of-the-chat-room-be-b/9726#9726), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's a chat room, ***talk* to each other**, figure out a way to coexist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but if someone is unwilling to do that, it is imperative that the room owners and moderators step in to remove them from the situation *before* social order breaks down. You should've been kicked out of the room the minute you flatly refused to consider anyone else's point of view; please keep this in mind for the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3i2bG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9724" RevisionGUID="ced2122b-46dd-48cf-b31a-41c6c8e1d15f" CreationDate="2017-03-21T01:56:53.140" UserId="520" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="Let me be very, *very* clear about a couple of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, every chat makes a permanent record of everything typed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second the main chat for the site is a *public* resource for all the users. No one owns it, and time on the site does *not* convey any kind of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the public nature we insist on a grown-up approach to delicate or controversial subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the the shared nature, no particular user is not entitled to insist that some topics suitable for polite company not be discussed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip size, if you are engaged in a long-running discussion that *many* other users of the chat find distracting, disturbing, or inappropriate it is only polite to take your discussion to a place where you won't 'scare the horses' (that is, cause a ruckus). That's because you don't own the room any more than anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that *the h bar* is a shared resource and you should be *sharing* it. Bring your sensible manners and your good will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9724" RevisionGUID="28cb8452-6e6d-45af-bd42-4d287e87d67a" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:11:08.547" UserId="520" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Let me be very, *very* clear about a couple of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, every chat makes a permanent record of everything typed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second the main chat for the site is a *public* resource for all the users. No one owns it, and time on the site does *not* convey any kind of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the public nature we insist on a grown-up approach to delicate or controversial subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the the shared nature, no particular user is not entitled to insist that some topics suitable for polite company not be discussed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip size, if you are engaged in a long-running discussion that *many* other users of the chat find distracting, disturbing, or inappropriate it is only polite to take your discussion to a place where you won't 'scare the horses' (that is, cause a ruckus). That's because you don't own the room any more than anyone else does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that *the h bar* is a shared resource and you should be *sharing* it. Bring your sensible manners and your good will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9729" RevisionGUID="170c9ca6-71f0-4f06-93c4-9def12a5bb4a" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:01:18.177" UserId="92254" Text="I was going to post a question and I got the &quot;bad question ban&quot; warning. I have searched my previous posts and it turns out I have never posted anything on this SE - could one of the moderators please check if there are any deleted posts that I simply forgot about? If there are no past posts - why do I get a warning then? I have OK rep on other Stack Exchanges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any suggestions on how to improve this SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9729" RevisionGUID="170c9ca6-71f0-4f06-93c4-9def12a5bb4a" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:01:18.177" UserId="92254" Text="Why do I get the &quot;Bad question warning&quot; when first posting here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9729" RevisionGUID="170c9ca6-71f0-4f06-93c4-9def12a5bb4a" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:01:18.177" UserId="92254" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="37111023-f748-4f80-8fcb-53ef14f1dba4" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:43:46.307" UserId="93522" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them, and they'll always remain crisp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.rawgit.com/Sir-Cumference/6d8130dce911769a1113d83ca3bd9a27/raw/395d9e624f8e3fae2dc533a8f7001526f01f2049/physics.svg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Feynmann diagram is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg), courtesy of user [Joel Holdsworth](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelholdsworth~commonswiki) under [the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en). Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral. Logo based on Physics SE's logo, copyright of Stack Exchange Inc.; no infringement intended.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Not to mention, the current logo shows up blurry for a lot of larger displays. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: If you decide to use the logo I made, please give attribution to the creator of the Feynmann diagram, as per the Creative Commons license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27719" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9729" RevisionGUID="15a18b9f-3b9a-4b13-a484-6598035a6af6" CreationDate="2017-03-22T01:06:59.570" UserId="44126" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5951],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9730" RevisionGUID="ac6da22b-f6de-4be4-8d29-06afadff8350" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:20:36.207" UserId="147585" Text="I currently have 103 reputation in Physics Stack Exchange but why there is no any edit option under the posts. In other stack exchange websites it appears very well and I can edit any post and the edits are applied when it is peer reviewed. But this problem is happening with me in this Physics Stack Exchange. Why?? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Any answer regarding this problem will be appreciated by me. Thanks!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9730" RevisionGUID="ac6da22b-f6de-4be4-8d29-06afadff8350" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:20:36.207" UserId="147585" Text="Why can't I edit any post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9730" RevisionGUID="ac6da22b-f6de-4be4-8d29-06afadff8350" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:20:36.207" UserId="147585" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27723" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9730" RevisionGUID="47de3dd4-53a6-47c2-9844-7c988f1d8136" CreationDate="2017-03-23T13:02:53.697" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9731" RevisionGUID="01fdd9e6-a32f-47c5-b548-6856ec978e2a" CreationDate="2017-03-23T13:55:45.313" UserId="44126" Text="It [appears](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/147585/sgrmshrsm7?tab=activity&amp;sort=suggestions), as of now, that seven of your eight suggested edits have been rejected by reviewers.  And looking through the list, I agree: they're all reasonable changes, but too trivial to warrant bumping a post to the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your inability to suggest new edits is temporary and will return in a few days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="1b15dd09-af64-40df-acf7-5e8b85e7e186" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:10:16.093" UserId="1483" Text="Please consider [this edit to &quot;Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/3534/revisions). (Compare versions 21 and 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motivation for these (last two) edits: I realized that my explanation in the question was incomplete, and that when I talked about the acceleration being dependent on both objects, I was actually using an equation of the force to prove it. Since in acceleration, force is divided by mass, it seemed necessary to explain why the closing acceleration of the two objects still depended on both masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I'm not a super experienced user on physics.SE and would appreciate any help to improve my formulas or reasoning. So I'm asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="1b15dd09-af64-40df-acf7-5e8b85e7e186" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:10:16.093" UserId="1483" Text="Is this a good edit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="1b15dd09-af64-40df-acf7-5e8b85e7e186" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:10:16.093" UserId="1483" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9734" RevisionGUID="53ce47ae-1ec2-4b4a-a659-460041f0673c" CreationDate="2017-03-23T23:53:55.030" UserId="124" Text="Personally I don't think that edit was necessary. It doesn't make the question any clearer for me, and more importantly I don't see how it would make it more clear to the readership of the site as a whole. But if it does significantly improve the question for a significant number of people, in some way that I'm not seeing, then that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will also say (to echo my earlier comment) that to edit a post which already has many edits - &quot;many&quot; being more than 5 or so - you should be making a _major_ improvement. I don't think this qualifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9735" RevisionGUID="993371a6-4ac3-41ad-aa70-bf030dbf3a91" CreationDate="2017-03-24T21:57:35.637" UserId="19979" Text="Whenever I link a related/relevant question in a comment, I use the &quot;share&quot; static link of the question or answer I want to refer to. I've seen some comments where the link is replaced by the question title, but I'm not able to reproduce that behavior (without doing the `[URL](link description)` inline hyperlink).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just not a feature on SE (because I distinctly remember reading somewhere that linked questions are automatically replaced by their titles) or is there some special magic need?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9735" RevisionGUID="993371a6-4ac3-41ad-aa70-bf030dbf3a91" CreationDate="2017-03-24T21:57:35.637" UserId="19979" Text="Under which conditions are static links displayed by their title?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9735" RevisionGUID="993371a6-4ac3-41ad-aa70-bf030dbf3a91" CreationDate="2017-03-24T21:57:35.637" UserId="19979" Text="|support|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9736" RevisionGUID="24df1981-7906-4400-bc2f-2de202476351" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:06:14.307" UserId="2451" Text="A question link is converted to its question title in questions &amp; answers but not in comments.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9736" RevisionGUID="bbe4117f-47df-4fb7-83e0-3433a63792fc" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:10:34.420" UserId="2451" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="A question link is converted to its question title in questions &amp; answers but not in comments. (In chat it is possible to one-box a question link.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6af2c88a-b44a-47f8-964c-71140cf86955" CreationDate="2017-03-25T03:34:05.997" UserId="129433" Text="I did a search and came up empty on how to use mathjax on this site. Do I need to use a third party or is a math symbols program built into the physics site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6af2c88a-b44a-47f8-964c-71140cf86955" CreationDate="2017-03-25T03:34:05.997" UserId="129433" Text="Posting questions with math symbols" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6af2c88a-b44a-47f8-964c-71140cf86955" CreationDate="2017-03-25T03:34:05.997" UserId="129433" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9739" RevisionGUID="0fc6032e-8737-4292-aac8-5ad22f07f3c4" CreationDate="2017-03-25T21:54:12.887" UserId="8563" Text="This site has [MathJax](https://www.mathjax.org/) enabled, which means that you can essentially use any (reasonable) LaTeX command inside dollar and double-dollar signs (or indeed inside equation or align environments, among others), and it will display as mathematics; thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$f(x)=x^2$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will display as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$f(x)=x^2.$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For help in getting started with LaTeX as a way to typeset mathematics, the best place is probably the tutorial [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) on the Mathematics Stack Exchange meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not need any external tools to either view or write MathJax-powered mathematics on this site. If for some reason you don't see the mathematics displaying, you can ask here on meta but be sure to provide as many details about your browser configuration as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9735" RevisionGUID="287d0c25-837c-469a-9927-28d07d95deaf" CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:09:07.993" UserId="19979" Comment="edited body" Text="Whenever I link a related/relevant question in a comment, I use the &quot;share&quot; static link of the question or answer I want to refer to. I've seen some comments where the link is replaced by the question title, but I'm not able to reproduce that behavior (without doing the `[link description](URL)` inline hyperlink).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just not a feature on SE (because I distinctly remember reading somewhere that linked questions are automatically replaced by their titles) or is there some special magic need?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27742" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9735" RevisionGUID="287d0c25-837c-469a-9927-28d07d95deaf" CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:09:07.993" UserId="19979" Comment="edited body" Text="corrected inline link syntax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="ce170962-d85b-489d-ae4e-df2f7eec452f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:25:33.327" UserId="46399" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Please consider [this edit to &quot;Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?&quot;](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/3534/revisions). (Compare versions 21 and 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motivation for these (last two) edits: I realized that my explanation in the question was incomplete, and that when I talked about the acceleration being dependent on both objects, I was actually using an equation of the force to prove it. Since in acceleration, force is divided by mass, it seemed necessary to explain why the closing acceleration of the two objects still depended on both masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking this question since I'm not a super experienced user on Physics.SE and would appreciate any help to improve my formulas or reasoning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="ce170962-d85b-489d-ae4e-df2f7eec452f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:25:33.327" UserId="46399" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="911b150c-f0d0-4d50-9e70-1054a48c1e53" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:07:50.540" UserId="47033" Text="How do we interpret a question correctly when there exits multiple intepretations? for example in this question [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321428/why-does-the-metric-remain-unchanged-in-special-relativity/321433#321433, &#xD;&#xA;i interpreted it one way and answered, but apparently some others(not the OP) downvoted it saying it dosen't have enough information. Can someone suggest ways to deal with such misunderstandings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="911b150c-f0d0-4d50-9e70-1054a48c1e53" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:07:50.540" UserId="47033" Text="Interpretations of questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="911b150c-f0d0-4d50-9e70-1054a48c1e53" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:07:50.540" UserId="47033" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9741" RevisionGUID="81ff81ae-8d1d-495c-9105-4ac8e6274b05" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:39:55.587" UserId="124" Text="If a question is really open to multiple different interpretations and you can't tell which one is meant, the best thing to do is flag it (or vote to put it on hold, if you have enough reputation) as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;. That way we avoid having multiple conflicting and confusing answers until the asker is able to clarify the question. To go along with this, it helps to leave a comment pointing out how the question is unclear, or upvote a comment which gives that information if one already exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also downvote the question if you like. A lack of clarity that impedes people's ability to answer the question is one good use of a downvote. You may want to check back later to see if the question has been improved, and if so, remove your downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9741" RevisionGUID="4b92b36b-0320-458b-b460-636eb344ff6d" CreationDate="2017-03-27T03:27:30.393" UserId="124" Comment="clarify the answer" Text="All questions are a little bit ambiguous, and somewhat open to interpretation. But if a question admits significantly different interpretations, to the extent that a typical answerer might be confused about what they're really supposed to be answering, the best thing to do is flag it (or vote to put it on hold, if you have enough reputation) as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;. That way we avoid having multiple conflicting and confusing answers until the asker is able to clarify the question. To go along with this, it helps to leave a comment pointing out how the question is unclear, or upvote a comment which gives that information if one already exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also downvote the question if you like. A lack of clarity that impedes people's ability to answer the question is one good use of a downvote. You may want to check back later to see if the question has been improved, and if so, remove your downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies whether you yourself see multiple confusing interpretations of the question, or some people only see one interpretation and others see a drastically different one. The remedy is the same either way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9742" RevisionGUID="2883276a-5f91-4850-8470-a70a0c24d8a3" CreationDate="2017-03-27T07:12:08.890" UserId="1325" Text="The question you link is largely incomprehensible. I asked the OP for clarification, and since they haven't responded I have voted to close as unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes on your answer are a little unkind, but they just indicate that a few people thought your answer was unhelpful so I wouldn't assign too much significance to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have answered questions based on my guess about what the OP actually wants to know, but in those cases I normally start my answer by saying something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm assuming you are asking about &amp;lt;insert guess here&amp;gt;. Ignore this answer if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is clear exactly what question my answer is addressing. I think your answer would benefit from some statement making it clear exactly what your answer is aimed at. At the moment it isn't clear to me what point you are making." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27756" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9744" RevisionGUID="7516be2c-4a18-41d0-90b5-b7462b66759e" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:17:48.967" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321964/can-we-type-young-tableaux-on-this-site" />
  <row Id="27757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9744" RevisionGUID="d1cac591-f280-4bf3-8d44-99f654c0e8d6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:14:55.173" UserId="143457" Text="Can we type Young Tableaux on this site? If yes, how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9744" RevisionGUID="d1cac591-f280-4bf3-8d44-99f654c0e8d6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:14:55.173" UserId="143457" Text="Can we type Young Tableaux on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9744" RevisionGUID="d1cac591-f280-4bf3-8d44-99f654c0e8d6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:14:55.173" UserId="143457" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9744" RevisionGUID="a6e48398-7812-4811-8bf9-64215c275642" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:18:42.337" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="77bb0a65-02f9-471d-a134-4005ffb88471" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:42:02.473" UserId="111951" Text="In [this][1] case and [this][2], review has been completed by a single &quot;Looks OK&quot; vote. While in [this][3] case it has been completed by two &quot;Looks OK&quot; votes. Is there a reason for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/168307&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/168293&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/168272" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="77bb0a65-02f9-471d-a134-4005ffb88471" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:42:02.473" UserId="111951" Text="How is a low quality post review completed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="77bb0a65-02f9-471d-a134-4005ffb88471" CreationDate="2017-03-28T15:42:02.473" UserId="111951" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9746" RevisionGUID="94975b3d-1e05-4e8c-87dd-28ea552d0b1a" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:29:31.270" UserId="21441" Text="I'd guess only something like the following (see [the question about making tables in MarkDown](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/73566/)), since MathJax doesn't support ytableau or any other non-math-mode packages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;1&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;10&lt;/kbd&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course looks ugly, the code for it is even uglier, but the only alternative is ASCII/Unicode-tables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ╭──┬──┬──┬──┬──┐&#xD;&#xA;    │ 1│ 2│ 4│ 7│ 8│&#xD;&#xA;    ├──┼──┼──┼──┼──┘&#xD;&#xA;    │ 3│ 5│ 6│ 9│&#xD;&#xA;    ├──┼──┴──┴──┘&#xD;&#xA;    │10│&#xD;&#xA;    └──┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or images&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample Young tableaux][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xwckI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9746" RevisionGUID="a827fda0-6442-40dd-8b53-36280a5894ae" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:35:33.077" UserId="21441" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="I'd guess only something like the following (see [the question about making tables in MarkDown](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/73566/)), since MathJax doesn't support ytableau or any other non-math-mode packages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;1&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&amp;nbsp;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;10&lt;/kbd&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course looks ugly, the code for it is even uglier, but the only alternative is ASCII/Unicode-tables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ╭──┬──┬──┬──┬──┐&#xD;&#xA;    │ 1│ 2│ 4│ 7│ 8│&#xD;&#xA;    ├──┼──┼──┼──┼──┘&#xD;&#xA;    │ 3│ 5│ 6│ 9│&#xD;&#xA;    ├──┼──┴──┴──┘&#xD;&#xA;    │10│&#xD;&#xA;    └──┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or images&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample Young tableaux][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can make some tables with MathJax, but I'm not sure how to remove edges, so you're left with something like this:&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;\begin{array} {|r|r|}&#xD;&#xA;\hline&#xD;&#xA;1&amp;2&amp;4&amp;7&amp;8\\&#xD;&#xA;\hline&#xD;&#xA;3&amp;5&amp;6&amp;9 \\&#xD;&#xA;\hline&#xD;&#xA;10&amp;\\&#xD;&#xA;\hline&#xD;&#xA;\end{array}&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xwckI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9747" RevisionGUID="f980a291-ac77-4c7b-974d-6a1e2c1d4a05" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:52:00.340" UserId="50583" Text="The number of &quot;Looks OK&quot; votes depends on the number of flags on the post, cf. [this meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/190639/263383):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each review task requires a minimum number of &quot;Looks OK&quot; reviews (2 on SO, 1 everywhere else) to be dequeued; this number increases by one for each pending flag on the post (edits, closing and deletion dequeue the task in the normal fashion). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27767" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="b10a59a7-b9d8-4860-abc5-1456a2a2eb43" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:05:30.073" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|review|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9568" RevisionGUID="4a4ae42d-c7b2-4df0-b647-07ef21d1af66" CreationDate="2017-03-29T12:07:55.303" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9554/community-promotion-ads-2017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="3815b03a-a02c-45af-a8c2-b973550bdc91" CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:07:02.953" UserId="149370" Text="I was trying to get the Bronze Editor badge, so I edited one post by fixing a few grammar errors and making the question clearer.  However, I thought editing was a privilege only earned at 2000 rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I submitted my edit, I got a message saying it would only be displayed once peer reviewed.  Will I still get the editor badge no matter what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="3815b03a-a02c-45af-a8c2-b973550bdc91" CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:07:02.953" UserId="149370" Text="How to get the Bronze Editor Badge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="3815b03a-a02c-45af-a8c2-b973550bdc91" CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:07:02.953" UserId="149370" Text="|support|editing|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="0cc7c765-f2be-4793-9657-6b2cbf2b17ed" CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:12:02.940" UserId="2451" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I was trying to get the [Bronze Editor badge](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/3/editor), so I edited one post by fixing a few grammar errors and making the question clearer. However, I thought editing was a privilege only earned at 2000 rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I submitted my edit, I got a message saying it would only be displayed once peer reviewed.  Will I still get the editor badge no matter what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9750" RevisionGUID="6a6b44e4-9edf-4b61-9e51-8b39e253f5a5" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:03:31.593" UserId="84967" Text="You'll get the badge if and only if the edit gets approved by the reviewers in the [Suggested Edits queue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits). In your particular case, [the edit](http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/168503) is approved, and you have accordingly received the badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [What kind of edits contribute to the editor badges?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/442/what-kind-of-edits-contribute-to-the-editor-badges)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9751" RevisionGUID="0b0a6336-e915-4535-9547-0107ea948599" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:03:47.737" UserId="124" Text="Editing without having the edit reviewed is a privilege earned with 2000 reputation. But you can always _suggest_ an edit, regardless of how much reputation you have. (Even without being logged in!) When you suggest an edit, if you don't have 2000 rep, your edit suggestion is placed in a queue to be reviewed by high-reputation users, and if they approve it, then it goes through as a normal edit. Whereas if you have 2000 rep or more when you submit the edit suggestion, it just goes through as an edit without any separate approval needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9752" RevisionGUID="615a5347-9b10-40df-a008-36c73e5abffb" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:34:58.360" UserId="149370" Text="I recently put a bounty on a question, but still no one is answering it.  When the bounty period ends, will the bounty just go to waste?  If no one is answering I would prefer to just answer the question myself and get my 50 rep back, but I don't know if this is possible or allowed.  Any advice would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266216/are-there-exact-analytical-solutions-to-the-electronic-states-of-the-hydrogen-mo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9752" RevisionGUID="615a5347-9b10-40df-a008-36c73e5abffb" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:34:58.360" UserId="149370" Text="Bounty going to waste - what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9752" RevisionGUID="615a5347-9b10-40df-a008-36c73e5abffb" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:34:58.360" UserId="149370" Text="|support|questions|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="ec9304de-7d12-4c3a-b851-3e1fa6ef1b91" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:06:57.993" UserId="84967" Text="Yes, if the bounty expires with no answers with positive score, it goes to waste. And yes, it is possible and allowed to answer the question yourself, but bear in mind that you are supposed to actually answer the question. An empty post just to collect the bounty is disallowed. Please don't do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, don't worry too much about it: it's only been two days since you offered the bounty, and there are five more days left. It is not unlikely that the question will get an answer in the next few days. But even if it does not, there is nothing you can really do: the reputation will just go away. This is one of the factors you have to take into account when you choose to offer a bounty: you must be willing to let those rep. points go away if there are no good answers after the seven-day period. That's just how things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my advice is: if the question gets a good answer, award the bounty to it (but please don't award it to a bad answer just so that the points don't go away). If it does not get a good answer, forget about it and move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="4d288187-06ed-4fd8-b68e-f9516fd3a918" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:56:45.780" UserId="121464" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, we got on a [bit of a tangent](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/what-are-the-goals-of-this-site) which was partly my fault. And now here we are, still stuck in the same spot. I don't know about you, but this homework policy needs to be fixed, and before [anyone else wants to bang nails into their knees](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713), because that kind of hurts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's rename the homework policy.** Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this wasn't my idea. Nope, it was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - yes, we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015. Notice anything? Nothing's happened. Let's get something done that we all agree on pretty clearly with the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's stop calling this the homework policy. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment. Over on Chemistry.SE, they're getting rid of the [tag:homework] tag. Let's stop calling it homework, because it *isn't* just homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignore the tag bit for now though - we don't need to worry about the future. So again, let's just focus on one thing: **let's rename the homework policy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Here's what we should call it (according to Daniel Sank):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better name):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Modify the help center to say &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a calculation service or a work checking service. If you need help with a particular calculation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ask about that. Make sure your question cannot be answered with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; small amount of research and show that you've made effort to resolve&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; the issue yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Modify the close reason to say &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions about a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; or a request to have your work checked, must ask about a specific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * We can probably leave the tag as it is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change a tag. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. (Hopefully not *too* painful.) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And finally...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, this isn't *changing* the homework policy, this is just renaming it. Hopefully this is something that the community can agree should be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="4d288187-06ed-4fd8-b68e-f9516fd3a918" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:56:45.780" UserId="121464" Text="Let's get things rolling again with the homework policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="4d288187-06ed-4fd8-b68e-f9516fd3a918" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:56:45.780" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="35625094-919e-4928-aca3-65c3354b3b49" CreationDate="2017-03-29T23:10:25.730" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 235 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, we got on a [bit of a tangent](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/what-are-the-goals-of-this-site) which was partly my fault. And now here we are, still stuck in the same spot. I don't know about you, but this homework policy needs to be fixed, and before [anyone else wants to bang nails into their knees](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713), because that kind of hurts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's rename the homework policy.** Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Here's what we should call it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a list of the specific (small!) changes I think we should make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I write &quot;calculation request&quot; as a stand-in label for what we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; currently call the &quot;homework&quot; policy, but I'm sure we can think of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better name):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Modify the help center to say &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **Calculation requests, e.g. &quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; direction, how do I find...&quot;, or requests to have your work checked,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; e.g. &quot;Here's my calculation, but the answer is wrong, where did I mess&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; up?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a calculation service or a work checking service. If you need help with a particular calculation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ask about that. Make sure your question cannot be answered with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; small amount of research and show that you've made effort to resolve&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; the issue yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Modify the close reason to say &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Questions about a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; particular calculation, whether a request for the calculation itself&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; or a request to have your work checked, must ask about a specific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * We can probably leave the tag as it is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since it says &quot;homework-like&quot;. Changing it to &quot;problem solving&quot; would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be better but may not be necessary. I do not know how hard it is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change a tag. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (Harder) Stop referring to this whole thing as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;homework policy&quot; and call it the &quot;problem solving policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this wasn't my idea. Nope, it was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - yes, we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015. Notice anything? Nothing's happened. Let's get something done that we all agree on pretty clearly with the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's stop calling this the homework policy. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment. So again, let's just focus on one thing: **let's rename the homework policy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. (Hopefully not *too* painful.) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And finally...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, this isn't *changing* the homework policy, this is just renaming it. Hopefully this is something that the community can agree should be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="3c61ea7a-c520-4c8a-8b3a-f418ae431508" CreationDate="2017-03-29T23:17:07.267" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 235 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, we got on a [bit of a tangent](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/what-are-the-goals-of-this-site) which was partly my fault. And now here we are, still stuck in the same spot. I don't know about you, but this homework policy needs to be fixed, and before [anyone else wants to bang nails into their knees](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713), because that kind of hurts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this wasn't my idea. Nope, it was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - yes, we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015. Notice anything? Nothing's happened. Let's get something done that we all agree on pretty clearly with the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's stop calling this the homework policy. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment. So again, let's just focus on one thing: **let's rename the homework policy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. (Hopefully not *too* painful.) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And finally...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, this isn't *changing* the homework policy, this is just renaming it. Hopefully this is something that the community can agree should be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="8483bb6a-fd24-4974-916f-17b5bcc9f458" CreationDate="2017-03-29T23:22:21.213" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 235 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this wasn't my idea. Nope, it was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - yes, we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015. Notice anything? Nothing's happened. Let's get something done that we all agree on pretty clearly with the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's stop calling this the homework policy. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment. So again, let's just focus on one thing: **let's rename the homework policy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And finally...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, this isn't *changing* the homework policy, this is just renaming it. Hopefully this is something that the community can agree should be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="44fa2e0e-d861-4811-8a84-85e28f7e2eac" CreationDate="2017-03-30T01:16:01.153" UserId="121464" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this wasn't my idea. Nope, it was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - yes, we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015. Notice anything? Nothing's happened. Let's get something done that we all agree on pretty clearly with the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's stop calling this the homework policy. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment. So again, let's just focus on one thing: **let's rename the homework policy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;* How to ask sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And finally...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, this isn't *changing* the homework policy, this is just renaming it. Hopefully this is something that the community can agree should be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="18918367-26e2-4199-91e9-8a21525cdcb9" CreationDate="2017-03-30T01:27:06.627" UserId="121464" Text="* How-to-ask sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions that are only asking how to do a **specific calculation** are not allowed on this site. Please focus on asking about a **concept or method**. See [our policy on meta]().*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;*Link to appropriate policy to be added once said post is completed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27792" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="eb9f00c0-9ed1-4309-9cec-59df39678d2b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T03:38:44.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/847291976474968065" />
  <row Id="27793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="5efaebce-4257-4f16-9245-535bed656f11" CreationDate="2017-03-30T13:10:01.673" UserId="84967" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Yes, if the bounty expires with no answers with positive score, it goes to waste. And yes, it is possible and allowed to answer the question yourself, but you cannot award a bounty to yourself, even if the answer is posted in someone else's post. You can get a bounty for an answer to your own question, but only if the bounty was offered by someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, don't worry too much about it: it's only been two days since you offered the bounty, and there are five more days left. It is not unlikely that the question will get an answer in the next few days. But even if it does not, there is nothing you can really do: the reputation will just go away. This is one of the factors you have to take into account when you choose to offer a bounty: you must be willing to let those rep. points go away if there are no good answers after the seven-day period. That's just how things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my advice is: if the question gets a good answer, award the bounty to it (but please don't award it to a bad answer just so that the points don't go away). If it does not get a good answer, forget about it and move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="459ea1c4-3823-4536-a167-a45789322159" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:01:38.440" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 175 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - that we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015, and nothing's happened. Let's get something done on the homework policy that pretty much all of us agree on. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;* How to ask sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27795" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="f0d096e0-eb82-49b1-a6de-d2d79ed48dc7" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:06:24.217" UserId="121464" />
  <row Id="27796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9756" RevisionGUID="bd5e982e-d181-4a82-86cb-87c63ea56d6b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:12:01.033" UserId="118847" Text="New close reason:&#xD;&#xA;## Unfit for Physics.SE ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On Physics SE, questions are supposed to both show **a certain level of own research and thinking** and potential answers are supposed to be of **interest to a broader audience**. This question has therefore been closed as unfit for this website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is a bit general and the text may be a tad straightforward, but this is more or less what I do often think when voting to close as homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="7f729370-8940-4dcd-b253-df7e23578ad8" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:22:27.583" UserId="149663" Text="When I try to flag a post, and try to mark it that it does not belong to this site, I only have two options to choose the other site to which the post should be migrated: Physics Meta SE and Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HVeLR.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do if the post belongs to none of these,  but to other sites like  Cognitive Sciences SE? Should I then ask for Moderator Intervention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I access the site from my smartphone, with user agent mobile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="7f729370-8940-4dcd-b253-df7e23578ad8" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:22:27.583" UserId="149663" Text="Query regarding flagging posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="7f729370-8940-4dcd-b253-df7e23578ad8" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:22:27.583" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9758" RevisionGUID="3af77b4e-b2ad-44c2-8815-7c30d107de2f" CreationDate="2017-03-31T06:15:02.710" UserId="104964" Text="Before I continue I'd suggest that the underlying (and probably unsolvable) problem is that **users don't read rules**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not a unique problem to this website or even in the wider world.  It's just how some people are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, adding rules or making them more complex doesn't, in my view, deal with people who will, regardless, post questions we're not going to deal with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rename it ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a rather bureaucratic sounding &quot;solution&quot; and hardly in the spirit of a site that deals with physical science.  I see no purpose in this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions will *always* be homework-like and it makes no sense to rename it (and not have a homework-like policy or tag).  We need the policy and the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Make it more specific or add sub-categories ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strikes me as, again, seeking a bureaucratic approach to the issue (categorizing things as a substitute for dealing with them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely we need simple rules that allow flexibility in response for this type of question ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it removes the freedom of users (and moderators) to allow new users, in particular, the chance to either modify questions to be acceptable under broad homework-like policy (and many do) or gain some insight in comments (as many do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think those are reasonable, flexible and effective ways to address homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More or different categories doesn't really help anyone.  It's not constructive and inevitably expanding rules makes them more complex and difficult to enforce fairly than allowing some application common sense would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to trust our members and moderators to make sensible judgment calls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not be surprised, particularly in the era of the instant &quot;internet-will-fix-it&quot; generation, that we're going to get questions from people who don't care what the rules are.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9759" RevisionGUID="4b5772fe-705e-467d-9a61-5fd44d901eb8" CreationDate="2017-03-31T06:24:19.200" UserId="124" Text="Marking a question off topic and migrating it to another site are really two separate actions, although the system is not very good at making that clear. (Some people have been complaining about it for years.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To mark a question as off topic, from the **off topic because...** menu, choose **Blatantly off topic** (or another reason, if it applies).&#xD;&#xA;- To notify the moderators that a question is a good candidate for migration to a site that isn't in the given list - which you should not be doing unless the question is also off topic, by the way - choose **in need of moderator intervention** and write a message like &quot;Off topic; may be suitable for migration to cogsci.SE&quot;. You can also leave a comment on the post suggesting that it might be on topic at another site, though that's mostly for the asker's benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Don't just do this for any old question that seems to be about cognitive science (or whatever), though. Candidates for migration should be _good_, on-topic questions on their target sites. If it's just a bad or mediocre question outright, we will not migrate it. If it's not within the other site's scope, they will reject the migration, which we'd like to avoid. You should have some idea of the other site's scope, enough to think the question in its current form would plausibly be a good contribution there, before suggesting a migration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm actually not sure whether the system will let you cast both of these flags on the same post. If someone with ~100 rep can try it out on a deserving question and report back, I'll edit this answer accordingly. But if it turns out you can only cast one, unless the question is a _really_ good fit on the other site, I'd advise just marking it as off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="0088b76e-7aed-47ef-aa38-7cbc583fbddc" CreationDate="2017-03-31T10:02:56.367" UserId="8563" Comment="Re-sized image for better legibility." Text="When I try to flag a post, and try to mark it that it does not belong to this site, I only have two options to choose the other site to which the post should be migrated: Physics Meta SE and Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/HVeLR.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do if the post belongs to none of these,  but to other sites like  Cognitive Sciences SE? Should I then ask for Moderator Intervention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I access the site from my smartphone, with user agent mobile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9760" RevisionGUID="6e50b4ea-5d41-45a4-915b-a49bd5ff7183" CreationDate="2017-03-31T11:46:46.167" UserId="83380" Text="I've asked [Under what circumstances might gravitational waves impart linear momentum to an object? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)][3] which cites the recoil as one example, but continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**My question is not only about this event**, but about the effect of gravitational waves incident on objects in general as well. If I have two test objects, a black hole and a star, and a gravitational wave produced from a separate event passes through them, would either of these test objects receive an impulse from the passing wave and begin to move away from their initial position due to the wave?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background material in my question covers the case of BH merger recoil, so I've asked about a situation where a wave produced from a separate even is incident on a star and a black hole. I've asked earlier about a passing gravitational wave *transferring energy* to an object and received an [excellent answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having difficulty understanding [the answer][4] to my current question. It starts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The momentum bestowed by a passing gravitational wave (GW) on an object is always going to be negligible (there may may be situations when the energy deposition is non-negligible... but rarely and frankly unlikely). The key is in the momentum carried away by anisotropic GW emission from the object itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an unqualified yes? As far as I know, &quot;negligible&quot; does not necessarily mean finite or nonzero. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put a bounty on the question, and I'd like to award it. I've asked the poster to simply add a sentence with a clear yes. I did get a yes in a comment, but comments should be considered temporary and not integral parts of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the dust settles I was hoping for an answer to *Under what circumstances might gravitational waves impart linear momentum to an object?* that would be easy enough for future readers to get an answer from without having to go in and start reading the citations of the 7 peer-reviewed references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster is responsive in comments, but resistant to alter or add in any way to the originally posted wording of the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there something wrong with me asking in this case for the answer to be clearer? Is there any other ways I can ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/262962/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DNUWT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/321166/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/321714/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9760" RevisionGUID="6e50b4ea-5d41-45a4-915b-a49bd5ff7183" CreationDate="2017-03-31T11:46:46.167" UserId="83380" Text="Anything wrong with me asking in this case for the answer to be clearer? Any other ways to ask?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9760" RevisionGUID="6e50b4ea-5d41-45a4-915b-a49bd5ff7183" CreationDate="2017-03-31T11:46:46.167" UserId="83380" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="52bc4043-93d6-41c9-8cc9-d0e634f966e8" CreationDate="2017-03-31T12:23:10.910" UserId="23473" Comment="Updated temporal relevance" Text="So for those of us who can vote to close, we all know what the close vote system looks like. Particularly, under &quot;off topic&quot; you have homework, personal theories, engineering, other StackExchange, and other. The other StackExchange site options are Physics Meta and Math. Quite frankly, I think this covers everything and I have no issues with the occasional typing a reason into &quot;other&quot;. However, I see numerous questions that belong on other StackExchange sites with close-votes as homework or personal theories when they clearly aren't. Most often it is questions asking for help with a circuit being closed as homework. Students aren't the only ones who build circuits; this sort of question really should belong on the electrical engineering SE. I realize we have the &quot;this is engineering&quot; option, but I feel that should be reserved for cases that are about using physics to solve a problem, not for stuff like making circuits. When I see these questions, I always take the extra 14 seconds to type &quot;This question belongs on electrical engineering SE&quot; in the other box. But I feel if there were an option for EE-SE under the other SE site option, it would be used more often and the homework option would be abused less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on electrical engineering because it's the one I see more often. If you think there are other SE sites we should add to the close-vote system, feel free to mention them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you might say a close vote is a close vote. That's simply not true. When we vote to close something, we owe it to the asker to provide an adequate reason. If there is some keen young student or an electrical engineer out there that needs help for something that is not homework, then it is not a valid reason to close the question as homework. We can't force all our 3k+ users to take 14 seconds to write the proper reason, but we can make it easier for them by including other SE sites in the option list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, clearly we cannot include all the other SE sites. We have Math.SE because of how often it comes up. IMO electrical engineering makes an appearance fairly frequently. What do you think? Would expanding the list be worthwhile? If so, what sites would you like to see added? If not, I'd love to hear your point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;So I took a closer look at all of the related posts about this. (Thanks for the duplicate votes, by the way. But there were several other questions this was closer to a duplicate of; why that one?) Anyway, it seems that the question has been raised before about various other SE sites. For the majority, the answer seemed to be that those other sites were all betas. EE.SE is not a beta site, so I still think this is a valid discussion. Additionally, and it should be noted that this is an inference I am making, it seems from answer like [this][1] that I am not the only one who would be in favour of adding an EE.SE migration link. Especially since even last year it was the #2 site that questions were migrated to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;**2 years later:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, I'm no longer sure whether or not it would be beneficial to have EE.SE as another migration option. I now know that, when I originally posted this, it was not worthwhile to make it an additional option; the rate of migrations that weren't rejected by EE.SE was too low. However, as it stands, in the last 90 days from the time I'm writing this, 39 posts were migrated to Math.SE with 2 rejections and 19 posts were migrated to EE.SE with 5 rejections. That's a total of 37 accepted migrations to Math and 14 to EE; a bit under half as many as Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I wasn't around when our site went up and the option to migrate to Math.SE was already available when I started. But at what point will we admit there is sufficient volume to make a new option? What was the rate of migration to Math when we first decided to add that as a migration option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been a couple years since I first, naively, proposed this. But in that time, the rate of successful migration to EE.SE has grown noticeably. This leaves me unclear. Should we reconsider making EE.SE its own option under the migration close reasons? Is it worthwhile now? If not, at the current rate of increase, there's no question that one day it will merit becoming a new option in the list. The only question you have to ask yourselves (and answer here) is whether or not we have reached that point yet. This I just don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4145/23473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9761" RevisionGUID="e204e743-33e9-4e99-b5e7-8fd8f3d74694" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:53:19.627" UserId="8563" Text="Frankly, I think that your formulation for the core of the question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under what circumstances might gravitational waves impart linear momentum to an object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is still ambiguous: it could equally well apply to gravitational waves emitted by the object itself as opposed to waves emitted by some external source. If you want to restrict your question to the latter case then that needs to be made much more clear in the body of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that, if your question really is about the momentum deposited on a system by a passing GW, then the mentions of quasar 3C 186 are entirely off topic and only serve to derail the discussion, since nobody is suggesting that this source got its momentum from GWs derived from a separate source. By making the majority of your post about this source, including a gratuitous image and whatnot, you implicitly make the title question apply to GWs emitted by the object under consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I would interpret the first line of the answer,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The momentum bestowed by a passing gravitational wave (GW) on an object is always going to be negligible &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a pretty unambiguous response to the explicit question you posed,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would either of these test objects receive an impulse from the passing wave and begin to move away from their initial position due to the wave?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I don't think you can really ask for more with the current formulation of the question. It's true that &quot;negligible&quot; does not equate to &quot;zero&quot;, but it does mean &quot;so small that it will be swamped by a bunch of things that you're not even considering at the moment&quot;, or in other words &quot;so small that you can and *should* ignore it&quot;. This means that, at present, the answer does a pretty good job at addressing the question you have posed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you really want is an answer to the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under what circumstances might gravitational waves **from an external source** impart linear momentum to an object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you really need to alter your question to reflect that - and, frankly, if that is what you really want to know, there's no call at all to have any discussion about the recent quasar discovery, because there's no external source in play there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9762" RevisionGUID="48f21552-a230-4e51-8830-b722ecbb88c0" CreationDate="2017-03-31T22:52:01.113" UserId="121464" Text="* tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;* tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;* tag itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we really need these? No, seriously. Do we need the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag? I propose that we in fact *don't* need it. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's a meta tag. And that is bad, for many reasons, which we won't get into here, because there's plenty of stuff on meta explaining this and hashing out this reason.&#xD;&#xA;2. Under the homework policy, it was a bit of a &quot;trash&quot; tag - either the questions in it were closed, or they didn't really need it, because they were formulated so that they were conceptual, and not really exercises. &#xD;&#xA;3. If we're removing the whole homework policy, it doesn't even serve a purpose as a &quot;trash&quot; tag. Which IMO wasn't a great purpose anyway, but whatever (and for those doubting the whole &quot;trash tag&quot; thing, see [this comment by Manishearth](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation#comment14967_5184)). &#xD;&#xA;4. Chemistry.SE, for example, is starting a spring cleanup that includes burninating the homework tag, for some of the reasons I mentioned above and others that are more site-specific. By which I mean, it isn't just us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Editorial Note - if this post gets voted up decently well, I'll post a more formal burnination request/proposal.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="a8b72735-10a8-486b-bd41-1f839a154af0" CreationDate="2017-04-01T08:11:48.527" UserId="6974" Text="My answer to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322598/what-is-special-about-maxwells-equations/322603#322603 was deleted by a moderator. The OP asked what is special about the Maxwell equations, which, according to the OP, are basically a combination of  &quot;4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists&quot;. It looked like the OP was surprised that the equations that did not contain anything new are held in such respect. I noted in my answer that Maxwell was the first to introduce the displacement current (which is a critical part of the Maxwell equations). I  believed that was at least a partial answer to the OP's question: the displacement current (maybe among other things) does make the Maxwell equations special. The moderator considered the answer &quot;critique of the question, not an answer&quot;. Was the deletion really warranted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="a8b72735-10a8-486b-bd41-1f839a154af0" CreationDate="2017-04-01T08:11:48.527" UserId="6974" Text="Trying to understand why the answer was deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="a8b72735-10a8-486b-bd41-1f839a154af0" CreationDate="2017-04-01T08:11:48.527" UserId="6974" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="28b107fc-db76-41ad-94e5-31e90d577b2a" CreationDate="2017-04-01T08:22:08.423" UserId="50583" Text="For the record, here are the things we're talking about since only users with more than 10k reputation can see deleted posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/322598/50583) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is special about Maxwell's equations? If I have read correctly, what Maxwell basically did is combine 4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists as a set of equations. Why are these 4 equations (out of large numbers of mathematical equations in electromagnetism) important? Or What is special about these 4 equations? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your [answer](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/322603/50583) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have doubts about your assessment of the Maxwell equations. For example, as far as I know, Maxwell was the first to introduce the displacement current, so he did not just &quot;combine 4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists as a set of equations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which does not answer the question of why Maxwell's equations are important or special. That Maxwell introduced the displacement current does *not* answer why the equations are important unless you explain why the displacement current is important. Remarking that Maxwell introduced the current is a valid critique of the assertion in the question that he just combined some already-known equations, but on its own it does not answer anything about the importance of Maxwell's equation. That's what I meant when I wrote my comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This appears to be a critique of the question, not an answer to &quot;why Maxwell's equations are special&quot;, so I'm deleting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9762" RevisionGUID="443675f7-2f14-4b2c-8072-c7344783fe4a" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:18:05.020" UserId="121464" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="* tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;* tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;* tag itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we really need these? No, seriously. Do we need the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag? I propose that we in fact *don't* need it. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's a meta tag. And that is bad, for many reasons, which we won't get into here, because there's plenty of stuff on meta explaining this and hashing out this reason.&#xD;&#xA;2. Under the homework policy, it was a bit of a &quot;trash&quot; tag - either the questions in it were closed, or they didn't really need it, because they were formulated so that they were conceptual, and not really exercises. &#xD;&#xA;3. If we're rephrasing the whole homework policy to remove the word homework, it doesn't even serve a purpose as a &quot;trash&quot; tag. Which IMO wasn't a great purpose anyway, but whatever (and for those doubting the whole &quot;trash tag&quot; thing, see [this comment by Manishearth](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation#comment14967_5184)). &#xD;&#xA;4. Chemistry.SE, for example, is starting a spring cleanup that includes burninating/nuking the homework tag, for some of the reasons I mentioned above and others that are more site-specific. By which I mean, it isn't just us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Editorial Note - if this post gets voted up decently well, I'll post a more formal burnination request/proposal.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9758" RevisionGUID="79d8a676-0c6f-4a53-810a-0e3537ce47ce" CreationDate="2017-04-01T19:16:03.423" UserId="104964" Comment="Update my position based on arguments presented by other posters." Text="Before I continue I'd suggest that the underlying (and probably unsolvable) problem is that **users don't read rules**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not a unique problem to this website or even in the wider world.  It's just how some people are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, adding rules or making them more complex doesn't, in my view, deal with people who will, regardless, post questions we're not going to deal with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rename it ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a rather bureaucratic sounding &quot;solution&quot; and hardly in the spirit of a site that deals with physical science.  I see no purpose in this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions will *always* be homework-like and it makes no sense to rename it (and not have a homework-like policy or tag).  We need the policy and the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 1 - START**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've become more convinced that the homework tag is less than useful and maybe could be retired.  It may even have a slight &quot;stigma&quot; to it and maybe it turns members off questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently still of the opinion we need a homework policy, and am leaning towards Heather's argument that clarification may be needed, in particular to explain to non-voters why questions are closed (something I'd neglected considering in my original post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 1 - ENDS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Make it more specific or add sub-categories ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strikes me as, again, seeking a bureaucratic approach to the issue (categorizing things as a substitute for dealing with them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely we need simple rules that allow flexibility in response for this type of question ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it removes the freedom of users (and moderators) to allow new users, in particular, the chance to either modify questions to be acceptable under broad homework-like policy (and many do) or gain some insight in comments (as many do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think those are reasonable, flexible and effective ways to address homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More or different categories doesn't really help anyone.  It's not constructive and inevitably expanding rules makes them more complex and difficult to enforce fairly than allowing some application common sense would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to trust our members and moderators to make sensible judgment calls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not be surprised, particularly in the era of the instant &quot;internet-will-fix-it&quot; generation, that we're going to get questions from people who don't care what the rules are.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9766" RevisionGUID="7eeefad3-32e0-4d0e-9435-02b97443a018" CreationDate="2017-04-01T21:16:06.830" UserId="149663" Text="I want to upload a pdf file while answering a question, but could find no such option on both the desktop and mobile version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this present and I'm missing it, or absent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9766" RevisionGUID="7eeefad3-32e0-4d0e-9435-02b97443a018" CreationDate="2017-04-01T21:16:06.830" UserId="149663" Text="How do I upload a pdf file?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9766" RevisionGUID="7eeefad3-32e0-4d0e-9435-02b97443a018" CreationDate="2017-04-01T21:16:06.830" UserId="149663" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9767" RevisionGUID="123033fa-7802-4973-b507-1548be14dee4" CreationDate="2017-04-01T21:34:44.247" UserId="84967" Text="Stack Exchange does not support vector-type images (SVG, pdf, etc.). This means that you can't upload pdf files here. What you can do is to take a screenshot of the file - or to use any vector-to-raster converter - and upload the picture. But please bear in mind that if the content of the pdf is text and equations, you are supposed to actually type those, not to include a picture of the text. Only use pictures to include actual graphs, such as diagrams, photos, drawings, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you don't know how to type math equations here, see [MathJax basic tutorial and quick reference](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-qu%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8Bick-reference). For more information about vector-type images, see [Allow SVG image uploads](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92568/allow-svg-image-uploads)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9768" RevisionGUID="95f24290-1340-4724-a5bf-ca0414d741c2" CreationDate="2017-04-01T23:56:46.533" UserId="520" Text="That answer is in a kind of hazy place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It addresses a misconception help by the asker (and one that I agree needed to be addressed—see the subsequent comment I left), rather than quite answering the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, normally I consider that kind of answer to belong without question, but that is because usually the misconception is about physics. Instead, the misconception is about the historical assignment of credit, so it isn't quite physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I also considered suggesting that the whole question be moved to [History of Science and Mathematics](https://hsm.stackexchange.com), but by the time I looked in there were already four or five answers and the question had been touched by a couple of other moderators who appeared to find it perfectly at home on Physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="232e82a7-1f43-4ca1-8268-134a0d90730a" CreationDate="2017-04-02T00:50:04.713" UserId="47511" Text="[He stopped posting here quite suddenly][1]. I remember CuriousOne to be very critical of the MWI, so I'm going to poke in his eye here by saying that the Universe is in a superposition of all possibilities consistent with the record about his postings, so anything that could have happened to explain why the postings stopped has actually happened. If someone knows what happened and communicates this to me then from my point of view, the universe will effectively split into the different possible answers that I'll get (I'll cease to be identical in the different sectors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56997/curiousone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="232e82a7-1f43-4ca1-8268-134a0d90730a" CreationDate="2017-04-02T00:50:04.713" UserId="47511" Text="What happened to CuriousOne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="232e82a7-1f43-4ca1-8268-134a0d90730a" CreationDate="2017-04-02T00:50:04.713" UserId="47511" Text="|discussion|curiousone|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9770" RevisionGUID="1119b8fc-7905-4a3a-bbb3-cea5c7cb0e4c" CreationDate="2017-04-02T01:18:20.373" UserId="44126" Text="That user appears to have decided to stop visiting the site.  There's some non-public information which confirms that their decision was voluntary.  They had expressed an intention to return, but you know how life is.  Perhaps they'll come back eventually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27829" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="f77ab650-0b48-4325-a1cf-7ce602d17127" CreationDate="2017-04-02T01:34:49.820" UserId="44126" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9768" RevisionGUID="0144ffc1-2178-40db-88b1-4d75a8c72711" CreationDate="2017-04-02T02:16:40.117" UserId="520" Comment="edited body" Text="That answer is in a kind of hazy place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It addresses a misconception held by the asker (and one that I agree needed to be addressed—see the subsequent comment I left), rather than quite answering the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, normally I consider that kind of answer to belong without question, but that is because usually the misconception is about physics. Instead, the misconception is about the historical assignment of credit, so it isn't quite physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I also considered suggesting that the whole question be moved to [History of Science and Mathematics](https://hsm.stackexchange.com), but by the time I looked in there were already four or five answers and the question had been touched by a couple of other moderators who appeared to find it perfectly at home on Physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="0bb492ab-29ca-4b30-b8e8-a7fc87beb372" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:18:04.810" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="[username removed] stopped posting here quite suddenly. I remember him to be very critical of the MWI, so I'm going to poke in his eye here by saying that the Universe is in a superposition of all possibilities consistent with the record about his postings, so anything that could have happened to explain why the postings stopped has actually happened. If someone knows what happened and communicates this to me then from my point of view, the universe will effectively split into the different possible answers that I'll get (I'll cease to be identical in the different sectors). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56997/curiousone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27832" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="0bb492ab-29ca-4b30-b8e8-a7fc87beb372" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:18:04.810" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="What happened to [username removed]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="0bb492ab-29ca-4b30-b8e8-a7fc87beb372" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:18:04.810" UserId="2451" Comment="edited cf. http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4978/2451" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27834" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="a7b8af72-2c2a-42ee-acc1-68926f4fd422" CreationDate="2017-04-03T09:58:36.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/848837128117256193" />
  <row Id="27835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9771" RevisionGUID="902b0809-691e-4ea7-a227-00418e4e459d" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:28:19.777" UserId="149663" Text="I had a reputation of 126. However, it got reduced to 124 due to a negative vote on an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I see it has become 116, though I could find no negative vote in my activity page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the moderators, or the ones with greater reputation take a look and explain how this happened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help is greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9771" RevisionGUID="902b0809-691e-4ea7-a227-00418e4e459d" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:28:19.777" UserId="149663" Text="Reputation suddenly reduced: got no reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9771" RevisionGUID="902b0809-691e-4ea7-a227-00418e4e459d" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:28:19.777" UserId="149663" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9772" RevisionGUID="d2a4173a-5859-425f-83da-fa92ee262482" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:40:07.837" UserId="2451" Text="You deleted one of your [questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/321644/2451), which has $2$ upvotes and $1$ downvote, thereby removing $2\times 5+1\times(-2)=8$ reputation pts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9772" RevisionGUID="a279754f-197f-400e-af1c-5144b3b31316" CreationDate="2017-04-03T14:00:15.870" UserId="2451" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="You deleted one of your [questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/321644/2451), which has $2$ upvotes and $1$ downvote, thereby removing $2\times 5+1\times(-2)=8$ [reputation pts](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/149663/wrichik-basu?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="2f8e8aa2-9a08-4101-9ca2-578e617e4cd8" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:46:34.517" UserId="70392" Text="I was just about to ask a question on math.se when I saw they had a new tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can tell it allows a quick way to search and include references in questions and answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be very useful on physics.se - are there any plans for is to get it? if so when and if not why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note this is different from that discussed here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4191/do-we-want-the-citation-tool-from-math-se which allows for easy citation of questions and answers - which we already have.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ja202.png&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="2f8e8aa2-9a08-4101-9ca2-578e617e4cd8" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:46:34.517" UserId="70392" Text="Citation tool on Math.SE, can we get it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="2f8e8aa2-9a08-4101-9ca2-578e617e4cd8" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:46:34.517" UserId="70392" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27843" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="43fcecd1-3cfc-43f6-9646-2fe2691a3f9f" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:48:31.277" UserId="70392" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:70392,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quantum spaghettification&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27844" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="5988eac5-32b1-44ac-bc39-a80918770f87" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:49:20.820" UserId="70392" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:70392,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quantum spaghettification&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="4eab9fec-4909-43ab-bc68-b3790343d4c2" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:51:43.073" UserId="70392" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I was just about to ask a question on math.se when I saw they had a new (I think) tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can tell it allows a quick way to search and include references in questions and answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be very useful on physics.se - are there any plans for is to get it? if so when and if not why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note this is different from that discussed here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4191/do-we-want-the-citation-tool-from-math-se which allows for easy citation of questions and answers - which we already have.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ynlRZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ja202.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="f6ce1478-5103-40f1-9b57-bce224ac37c1" CreationDate="2017-04-04T14:59:05.657" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9774" RevisionGUID="27cd5532-5ecb-47c5-b6e0-df95cfa01a1e" CreationDate="2017-04-05T09:58:38.880" UserId="8563" Text="Some history on this feature: it started as a [userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/) written by Scott Morrison with contributions from Physics moderator Manishearth, proposed and developed on [this meta.MO thread](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow), which was then [officially integrated by the SE devs into MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2583/new-feature-citation-helper), and [subsequently also enabled on math.se](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22008/lets-get-mathoverflows-citation-helper-here-too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, if we want this to be implemented on this site, it should just mean flipping a few switches dev-side. **However**, it's not clear to me what back-end the script is using for the search function, but if it's using things like [math ZentralBlatt](https://zbmath.org/) or [MathSciNet](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/index.html) then it is entirely plausible that the search will not have fantastic coverage over physics - and indeed it seems that it doesn't; a quick search for [this paper](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.203) on the math.se tool didn't find it by title, which is worrisome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, though, if individual users want to have this, it should be plenty easy to just [install the userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper) (i.e. just copy [this javascript file](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/raw/master/citationhelper.user.js) into Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/your userscript extension of choice). As such, I propose that we gather some reasonably-sized population of users on this site, spanning as wide a range of physics subfields as possible, to take the search back-end for a test drive and see whether it actually works for physics papers in real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, while we're here, I would like to propose a change to the citation formatting to make it mesh better with the standards in physics, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt;_Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon_, [**On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox**](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4), J. Math. Chem. 41, No. 3, 209-215 (2007). [ZBL1119.81009](https://zbmath.org/?q=an:1119.81009).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt; R. Carbó-Dorca. On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, [*J. Math. Chem.* **41** no. 3, 209-215 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where in particular we should ditch the ZentralBlatt references, and add arXiv references whenever possible (which e.g. the second result in your search does not include in the citation output, even though it exists). And, if we can get the accented characters like \'o and \v{c} and the like working, it'd be nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9774" RevisionGUID="d074ad86-f8ae-4656-93e7-b5814762681b" CreationDate="2017-04-05T10:04:08.063" UserId="8563" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Some history on this feature: it started as a [userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/) written by Scott Morrison with contributions from Physics moderator Manishearth, proposed and developed on [this meta.MO thread](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow), which was then [officially integrated by the SE devs into MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2583/new-feature-citation-helper), and [subsequently also enabled on math.se](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22008/lets-get-mathoverflows-citation-helper-here-too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, if we want this to be implemented on this site, it should just mean flipping a few switches dev-side. **However**, it's not clear to me what back-end the script is using for the search function, but if it's using things like [math ZentralBlatt](https://zbmath.org/) or [MathSciNet](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/index.html) then it is entirely plausible that the search will not have fantastic coverage over physics - and indeed it seems that it doesn't; a quick search for [this paper](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.203) on the math.se tool didn't find it by title, which is worrisome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, though, if individual users want to have this, it should be plenty easy to just [install the userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper) (i.e. just copy [this javascript file](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/raw/master/citationhelper.user.js) into Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/your userscript extension of choice). As such, I propose that we gather some reasonably-sized population of users on this site, spanning as wide a range of physics subfields as possible, to take the search back-end for a test drive and see whether it actually works for physics papers in real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, while we're here, I would like to propose a change to the citation formatting to make it mesh better with the standards in physics, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt;_Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon_, [**On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox**](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4), J. Math. Chem. 41, No. 3, 209-215 (2007). [ZBL1119.81009](https://zbmath.org/?q=an:1119.81009).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt; R. Carbó-Dorca. On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, [*J. Math. Chem.* **41** no. 3, 209-215 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where in particular we should ditch the ZentralBlatt references, which are only useful to mathematicians, and add arXiv references whenever possible (which e.g. the second result in your search does not include in the citation output, even though it exists). And, if we can get the accented characters like \'o and \v{c} and the like working, it'd be nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9774" RevisionGUID="0fea3e7d-1890-4069-8113-df7996c3d916" CreationDate="2017-04-05T10:28:39.033" UserId="8563" Comment="added 655 characters in body" Text="Some history on this feature: it started as a [userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/) written by Scott Morrison with contributions from Physics moderator Manishearth, proposed and developed on [this meta.MO thread](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow), which was then [officially integrated by the SE devs into MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2583/new-feature-citation-helper), and [subsequently also enabled on math.se](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22008/lets-get-mathoverflows-citation-helper-here-too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, if we want this to be implemented on this site, it should just mean flipping a few switches dev-side. **However**, it's not clear to me what back-end the script is using for the search function, but if it's using things like [math ZentralBlatt](https://zbmath.org/) or [MathSciNet](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/index.html) then it is entirely plausible that the search will not have fantastic coverage over physics - and indeed it seems that it doesn't; a quick search for [this paper](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.203) on the math.se tool didn't find it by title, which is worrisome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, though, if individual users want to have this, it should be plenty easy to just [install the userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper) (i.e. just copy [this javascript file](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/raw/master/citationhelper.user.js) into Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/your userscript extension of choice). As such, I propose that we gather some reasonably-sized population of users on this site, spanning as wide a range of physics subfields as possible, to take the search back-end for a test drive and see whether it actually works for physics papers in real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** as pointed out in the comments, and [documented in this meta.MO thread](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/3053/request-for-help-with-javascript-for-the-citation-search-feature), it appears that the math.se+MO citation search button does use a ZentralBlatt search back end, which will severely hinder its effectiveness for physics papers. The back-end should in principle be relatively independent of the front-end, so in principle it should be possible to rewrite it to use e.g. the [Bielefeld Academic Search Engine](https://www.base-search.net/about/en/) or some other suitable API, but it will require nontrivial adaptations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, while we're here, I would like to propose a change to the citation formatting to make it mesh better with the standards in physics, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt;_Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon_, [**On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox**](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4), J. Math. Chem. 41, No. 3, 209-215 (2007). [ZBL1119.81009](https://zbmath.org/?q=an:1119.81009).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt; R. Carbó-Dorca. On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, [*J. Math. Chem.* **41** no. 3, 209-215 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where in particular we should ditch the ZentralBlatt references, which are only useful to mathematicians, and add arXiv references whenever possible (which e.g. the second result in your search does not include in the citation output, even though it exists). And, if we can get the accented characters like \'o and \v{c} and the like working, it'd be nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9774" RevisionGUID="47d9b8d2-fbc0-4af1-8bad-494d8d8916b0" CreationDate="2017-04-05T10:34:25.740" UserId="8563" Comment="added 655 characters in body" Text="Some history on this feature: it started as a [userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/) written by Scott Morrison with contributions from Physics moderator Manishearth, proposed and developed on [this meta.MO thread](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow), which was then [officially integrated by the SE devs into MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2583/new-feature-citation-helper), and [subsequently also enabled on math.se](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22008/lets-get-mathoverflows-citation-helper-here-too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, if we want this to be implemented on this site, it should just mean flipping a few switches dev-side. **However**, it's not clear to me what back-end the script is using for the search function, but if it's using things like [math ZentralBlatt](https://zbmath.org/) or [MathSciNet](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/index.html) then it is entirely plausible that the search will not have fantastic coverage over physics - and indeed it seems that it doesn't; a quick search for [this paper](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.203) on the math.se tool didn't find it by title, which is worrisome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, though, if individual users want to have this, it should be plenty easy to just [install the userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper) (i.e. just copy [this javascript file](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/raw/master/citationhelper.user.js) into Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/your userscript extension of choice). As such, I propose that we gather some reasonably-sized population of users on this site, spanning as wide a range of physics subfields as possible, to take the search back-end for a test drive and see whether it actually works for physics papers in real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** as pointed out in the comments, and [documented in this meta.MO thread](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/3053/request-for-help-with-javascript-for-the-citation-search-feature), it appears that the math.se+MO citation search button does use a ZentralBlatt search back end, which will severely hinder its effectiveness for physics papers. The back-end should in principle be relatively independent of the front-end, so in principle it should be possible to rewrite it to use e.g. the [Bielefeld Academic Search Engine](https://www.base-search.net/about/en/) or some other suitable API (which should be possible since [oaDOI](http://oadoi.org) use BASE as their back end, and it's [open sourced](https://github.com/Impactstory/oadoi) so we can probably learn from their calls), but it will require nontrivial adaptations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, while we're here, I would like to propose a change to the citation formatting to make it mesh better with the standards in physics, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt;_Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon_, [**On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox**](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4), J. Math. Chem. 41, No. 3, 209-215 (2007). [ZBL1119.81009](https://zbmath.org/?q=an:1119.81009).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt; R. Carbó-Dorca. On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, [*J. Math. Chem.* **41** no. 3, 209-215 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where in particular we should ditch the ZentralBlatt references, which are only useful to mathematicians, and add arXiv references whenever possible (which e.g. the second result in your search does not include in the citation output, even though it exists). And, if we can get the accented characters like \'o and \v{c} and the like working, it'd be nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27851" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="6d36fa00-5980-4170-8d43-500483d96192" CreationDate="2017-04-06T04:31:03.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9775" RevisionGUID="04565a83-d2dd-4090-900f-9656bba298f9" CreationDate="2017-04-06T09:32:33.557" UserId="8563" Text="The question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9773/citation-tool-on-math-se-can-we-get-it showcases a really nice feature that started as a userscript some three years ago and which has now been officially enabled on MathOverflow and Math SE, which enables direct and easy referencing to papers in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, however, it seems that the search function depends on an API provided by [Zentralblatt Math](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentralblatt_MATH), which means that it is heavily skewed towards mathematics and indeed some early testing indicates that it doesn't have enough of a physics coverage to really be useful. On the flipside, though, the front-end and the back-end are nicely decoupled, which means that we can adapt this to physics if we manage to find a suitable back end. In particular, this needs to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Accept search strings as input, including things like titles, authors, journal references, urls, dois, arXiv ids, the more the better.&#xD;&#xA; - Return as output a reasonably-formatted JSON object containing the bibliographic information about the potential matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, as a first step in the road towards porting the feature, I propose that we as a community look around and see what tools are available that fit this description, which can then be fit into the front-end to adapt the userscript to this site, on the road to official adoption. So, please have a look around, provide as much detail as you can about the API, and let's get this rolling!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9775" RevisionGUID="04565a83-d2dd-4090-900f-9656bba298f9" CreationDate="2017-04-06T09:32:33.557" UserId="8563" Text="Looking for a back end for a Physics SE literature citation button" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9775" RevisionGUID="04565a83-d2dd-4090-900f-9656bba298f9" CreationDate="2017-04-06T09:32:33.557" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|citation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="91a58a0d-56e3-4bfc-a3b5-052f717f70d8" CreationDate="2017-04-06T12:01:55.030" UserId="8563" Text="This is a CW post with possible leads to follow up on if people want to chase them up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The MIT Libraries' [list of APIs for Scholarly Resources](http://libguides.mit.edu/apis)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bielefeld Academic Search Engine](https://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_develop.php?menu=2)&#xD;&#xA; - the [oaDOI FAQ](https://oadoi.org/faq) which details their sources&#xD;&#xA; - the [oaDOI API](https://oadoi.org/api), but it only takes DOIs as input&#xD;&#xA; - the [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/) - do they have an API?&#xD;&#xA; - does [DataCite](https://www.datacite.org/search.html) have a suitable API?&#xD;&#xA; - [ImpactStory on GitHub](https://github.com/Impactstory) - they are behind oaDOI and Unpaywall, maybe they've got something with a wider input range in there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27856" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="862c419d-77ca-4e7c-85ca-ff4d28feb371" CreationDate="2017-04-06T12:01:55.030" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="27857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="57cc7c01-78cf-4148-89ef-a9ae7d513b61" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:32:39.053" UserId="8563" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="This is a CW post with possible leads to follow up on if people want to chase them up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The MIT Libraries' [list of APIs for Scholarly Resources](http://libguides.mit.edu/apis)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bielefeld Academic Search Engine](https://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_develop.php?menu=2) - I think there's an API documented [here](https://www.base-search.net/about/download/base_interface.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - the [oaDOI FAQ](https://oadoi.org/faq) which details their sources&#xD;&#xA; - the [oaDOI API](https://oadoi.org/api), but it only takes DOIs as input&#xD;&#xA; - the [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/) - do they have an API?&#xD;&#xA; - does [DataCite](https://www.datacite.org/search.html) have a suitable API?&#xD;&#xA; - [ImpactStory on GitHub](https://github.com/Impactstory) - they are behind oaDOI and Unpaywall, maybe they've got something with a wider input range in there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27858" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="041affe5-95a1-4832-889c-6336719eee80" CreationDate="2017-04-06T16:04:54.807" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/323914/i-am-just-a-kid-can-i-be-on-this-site" />
  <row Id="27859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="d00f1771-a17b-4961-9438-57c122379ea8" CreationDate="2017-04-06T15:58:17.770" UserId="151148" Text="Can I a kid be on this site and ask Questions? I want to but I think they would be silly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="d00f1771-a17b-4961-9438-57c122379ea8" CreationDate="2017-04-06T15:58:17.770" UserId="151148" Text="I am just a kid can I be on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="d00f1771-a17b-4961-9438-57c122379ea8" CreationDate="2017-04-06T15:58:17.770" UserId="151148" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="cf7ef743-2f4a-4cec-bc15-1a2f1796de60" CreationDate="2017-04-06T16:20:49.280" UserId="44126" Text="[Only people older than thirteen years may maintain accounts](https://stackexchange.com/legal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, you're welcome to ask whatever you like.  Keep in mind that we'll hold your questions to the same standards as everyone else's --- that is, we won't treat you specially because you're young --- which may mean that your questions get downvoted or closed for reasons that aren't obvious to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="ca3754e6-f007-4578-856d-23db61af2b82" CreationDate="2017-04-06T23:09:07.950" UserId="44126" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[Only people aged thirteen years and older may maintain accounts](https://stackexchange.com/legal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, you're welcome to ask whatever you like.  Keep in mind that we'll hold your questions to the same standards as everyone else's --- that is, we won't treat you specially because you're young --- which may mean that your questions get downvoted or closed for reasons that aren't obvious to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9779" RevisionGUID="6d6cad54-fb33-418c-8f2e-78f26577990b" CreationDate="2017-04-07T22:04:25.383" UserId="121464" Text="Yeah, you can. (As long as you're 13 or up, as rob said.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a kid too (ahem, *teenager*, but whatever), and I love this site. I've asked some pretty darn &quot;silly&quot; questions (or at least, ones I thought were silly) but no one has treated me poorly (or differently, for that matter) because of my age. Once you get enough rep, check out the hbar - lots of people there are willing to help and have helped me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, give it a go! Learn physics and math and whatever else you may be interested in, and use this site to help you out! You never know what you might learn along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27865" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="389a7aff-1642-4e6d-ad5a-b12d0f6cf0e2" CreationDate="2017-04-08T10:21:55.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/850654934265671681" />
  <row Id="27866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="a7105224-39d1-40ad-9824-d6bf9e20fbac" CreationDate="2017-04-08T11:53:04.767" UserId="6974" Comment="Addition" Text="My answer to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322598/what-is-special-about-maxwells-equations/322603#322603 was deleted by a moderator. The OP asked what is special about the Maxwell equations, which, according to the OP, are basically a combination of  &quot;4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists&quot;. It looked like the OP was surprised that the equations that did not contain anything new are held in such respect. I noted in my answer that Maxwell was the first to introduce the displacement current (which is a critical part of the Maxwell equations). I  believed that was at least a partial answer to the OP's question: the displacement current (maybe among other things) does make the Maxwell equations special. The moderator considered the answer &quot;critique of the question, not an answer&quot;. Was the deletion really warranted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT(4/8/2017): Another moderator has just made an indirect contribution to this discussion, converting to a comment my answer to this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/298943/can-reactions-be-controlled-electromagnetically/298955#298955 . The moderator's explanation: &quot;I'm converting this answer to a comment because it currently is a set of suggested search terms and a reference to a paper, which makes it more like a &quot;link-only&quot; answer than an answer that stands on its own.&quot; What may be somewhat amusing is that the answer was accepted:-) So the OP decided the answer was what (s)he needed (by the way, the deleted answer that I discussed above got quite a few upvotes). Let me note that comments on this site are meant to be volatile and can disappear without any reason. But what is important for this discussion: what standards should be applied to answers? Let me include the rules of the site that I already quoted in my comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful&quot; and &quot;Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.&quot;(http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer). I also quoted the Community Manager: (https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer): &quot;See, this is an answer: &quot;You probably want a FileOutputStream&quot; And so is this: &quot;Look at manual for preg_split, third argument&quot; Yes, they're both very short, and yes, they contain links. But strip the markup, and you still get at least a little bit of useful information.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the rules, mine is definitely an answer, not a comment. So maybe some moderators, who have very high reputation and (unlike me) write excellent answers, apply higher standards than warranted by the rules? It may well be that they are right to do that, but in that case should not they have the rules changed first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9780" RevisionGUID="2d1d9d00-5b6d-4558-81ec-cc2ff0133af7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:33:01.157" UserId="119200" Text="Mathjax frames(hats and arrows) are shifted in Safari 10.1 in MacOS Sierra. However, it was working fine yesterday. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Screenshot][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WdjLd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9780" RevisionGUID="2d1d9d00-5b6d-4558-81ec-cc2ff0133af7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:33:01.157" UserId="119200" Text="Mathjax shifted frames" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9780" RevisionGUID="2d1d9d00-5b6d-4558-81ec-cc2ff0133af7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:33:01.157" UserId="119200" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27870" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9780" RevisionGUID="57091185-a67b-4639-a835-d44d6c4c6c86" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:45:59.747" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9781" RevisionGUID="73a5b6de-05c6-48c5-8682-49f174800682" CreationDate="2017-04-09T14:55:30.340" UserId="150294" Text="I get that points should be irreversible and the person who has set bounty should not be able to claim bounty award but I don't get it that if no answer is provided or if answer is so horrible that it has nothing to do with asked question ..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should the points be returned as already he has not been able to receive a good answer on top of that he has to bear the fact of points getting wasted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it might not seem a big problem for those with thousands of points it certainly shakes the confidence of new user like me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think moderators should be given privilege to decide if the answer given is satisfactory or not and if not points should be returned (provided asker has not chosen any answer as correct)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9781" RevisionGUID="73a5b6de-05c6-48c5-8682-49f174800682" CreationDate="2017-04-09T14:55:30.340" UserId="150294" Text="Reputation points in bounty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9781" RevisionGUID="73a5b6de-05c6-48c5-8682-49f174800682" CreationDate="2017-04-09T14:55:30.340" UserId="150294" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9781" RevisionGUID="62c1097c-f100-4ebc-bf9e-4baa750c4c82" CreationDate="2017-04-09T14:56:59.137" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="d9418876-3c20-4f97-a822-db66c91b4df3" CreationDate="2017-04-09T20:55:42.507" UserId="114696" Comment="edited body" Text="I think the issue can be summed up into a single sentence (a paraphrase of DavidZ's comment):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Votes do **not** reflect the on-topicness of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The attention the post received was because discerning the source of magic tricks is a popular topic among the populace. This question is not actually about physics, it is about determining how a magic trick is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9782" RevisionGUID="e5fbb8b0-ca71-425e-85cc-5101e951fae4" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:21:22.930" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; it might not seem a big problem for those with thousands of points it certainly shakes the confidence of new user like me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of it this way: by setting a bounty, you're not 'buying' an answer; instead, **you are buying exposure for the question**. You've gotten the exposure, and it is important to capitalize on it to do everything you can to optimize the chances that the exposure will translate into an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's simply the case that some questions just won't get answered because they are too hard or the site does not have users with the expertise to address them; getting a bounty optimizes the chances of reaching those users, and typically leaves the question in a much better position to be answered when they do show up - but you do need to do your best in all fronts to ensure the question is as answerable as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a bounty go to waste can indeed be demoralizing if you look at it from a transactional perspective; to avoid that, you should focus on what the bounty does (provide exposure) and capitalize on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it makes you feel better, as mentioned in [the previous thread on the topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9752/bounty-going-to-waste-what-should-i-do), there's been something like [740 non-awarded bounties](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/651466/non-awarded-bounties) on the site so far, so this is part and parcel of the mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the proposal to change the mechanics of the bounty award process: this site shares its core Q&amp;A engine with [over 160 sites](http://stackexchange.com), and it is very uncommon for site-specific changes to that engine to be implemented. The bounty system is a core part of the Q&amp;A engine and it has been finely tuned over 8+ years to respond to many different pressures - including in particular the temptation for users to game the system, which increases dramatically if bounties can be refunded, and the drive to [put as much of the day-to-day moderation as possible on the community](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation/) and not on the elected moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do want to propose changes of this magnitude, the place to propose them is the network-wide meta, [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/), where there are a lot more people with a deeper understanding of the ramifications of any such changes. This particular issue has [come up many times before](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=return+bounty+no+answer) there, particularly [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21609/should-bounty-be-returned-if-there-is-no-answer-at-all), and you should search that site extensively before posting as most variations on that theme have already been asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9783" RevisionGUID="d4980ef4-142d-4bab-8d26-4424fd98d236" CreationDate="2017-04-10T07:53:05.507" UserId="37286" Text="I recently asked a [question][1]. I got some valuable comments, but the commenters and I disagreed on a few things. After like 5 comments we reached agreement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then @ACuriousMind stepped in and moved almost all comments to the chat. I didn't knew it at the time, but it seems that comments that are moved to the chat get deleted after some time. This makes sense for a chat. But certainly not for comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently read something new about the topic and thought I could add something to the discussion. However, before that I wanted to reread my question, the answer and the comments. But the now the comments are gone. A valuable piece of the puzzle is now simply missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, the first commenter, whose comment is now upvoted three times and appears undisputed, even agreed that his line of though was wrong - in a comment that is now gone. The content of the discussion has been seriously altered.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What sense does it make to move valuable comments to the chat?** I get it, when just two people exchange like 20 four-word sentences. If the conversation is &quot;chat-like&quot; and certainly not valuable in the future, it surely can be moderated. However, when there are long comments that add new perspectives to the question or an answer this is simply ridiculous. Especially, given the fact that the comments that are moved to the chat get deleted after some time. It is not as if these comments would take up space and thus *need* to get removed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of overeager moderation does not help anybody, except maybe the moderator, who can feel some sense of accomplishment, because he &quot;cleaned something up&quot;. It discourages scientific discussions, creates a hostile atmosphere and smells like censorship. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321857/why-do-we-assume-the-spatial-volume-is-infinite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9783" RevisionGUID="d4980ef4-142d-4bab-8d26-4424fd98d236" CreationDate="2017-04-10T07:53:05.507" UserId="37286" Text="Can the Mods please stop overeagerly move comments to the chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9783" RevisionGUID="d4980ef4-142d-4bab-8d26-4424fd98d236" CreationDate="2017-04-10T07:53:05.507" UserId="37286" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9784" RevisionGUID="c4996c3f-6f3f-4b4c-9435-de389b1eada6" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:40:15.913" UserId="44126" Text="I've un-deleted your two chat room and made you an &quot;owner&quot; of each, so you should be able to mine whatever information you'd like from the old comments.  Check the help center pages about the chat server to understand when a room will be automatically frozen or deleted again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are *intended* to be temporary. If you have a discussion in the comments that clarifies a post, please edit the new information into the post, or use the new information to write an answer to your own question. Don't rely on comments hanging around for ever, even if you like them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9784" RevisionGUID="f9ed4c8d-66f8-4d91-b66b-9affc80b9f54" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:46:21.047" UserId="44126" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I've un-deleted your two chat rooms and made you an &quot;owner&quot; of each, so you should be able to mine whatever information you'd like from the old comments.  Check the help center pages about the chat server to understand when a room will be automatically frozen or deleted again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are *intended* to be temporary. If you have a discussion in the comments that clarifies a post, please edit the new information into the post, or use the new information to write an answer to your own question. Don't rely on comments hanging around for ever, even if you like them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9784" RevisionGUID="beb36741-6778-4f10-9fc9-8b6f6acb61c2" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:52:30.057" UserId="44126" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="I've un-deleted your two chat rooms and made you an &quot;owner&quot; of each, so you should be able to mine whatever information you'd like from the old comments.  Check the help center pages about the chat server to understand when a room will be automatically frozen or deleted again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are [*intended* to be temporary](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comments are temporary &quot;Post-It&quot; notes left on a question or answer. They can be up-voted (but not down-voted) and flagged, but do not generate reputation. There's no revision history, and when they are deleted they're gone for good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you have a discussion in the comments that clarifies a post, please edit the new information into the post, or use the new information to write an answer to your own question. Don't rely on comments hanging around for ever, even if you like them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9784" RevisionGUID="1e0517f7-8458-490f-9748-c34fbd6c07e4" CreationDate="2017-04-10T12:11:41.613" UserId="44126" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I've un-deleted your two chat rooms and made you an &quot;owner&quot; of each, so you should be able to mine whatever information you'd like from the old comments.  Check the [chat FAQ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq) to understand when a room will be automatically frozen or deleted again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are [*intended* to be temporary](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comments are temporary &quot;Post-It&quot; notes left on a question or answer. They can be up-voted (but not down-voted) and flagged, but do not generate reputation. There's no revision history, and when they are deleted they're gone for good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you have a discussion in the comments that clarifies a post, please edit the new information into the post, or use the new information to write an answer to your own question. Don't rely on comments hanging around for ever, even if you like them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="ab55df83-4f14-4bc5-b33f-477c8d095073" CreationDate="2017-04-10T13:00:24.010" UserId="44126" Text="[Davide Cervone](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7901/davide-cervone) writes in a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is [issue 1709](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/1709) on the MathJax tracker.  Apparently there is a change in WebKit in recent Safari that causes this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27885" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7739" RevisionGUID="fd14c960-7a3a-491a-b130-e70b1145cddd" CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:01:25.277" UserId="101770" Comment="edited title" Text="What happens to bounty reputation when no answer meets the criteria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9786" RevisionGUID="eb2c0f39-0b88-4bf3-8f38-a9fa6e14e1a4" CreationDate="2017-04-10T18:54:02.060" UserId="124" Text="As a complement to rob's answer...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What sense does it make to move valuable comments to the chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense to add them to the chat because this allows people to continue the discussion therein without distracting from the question and answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense to delete them from the original post because the purpose of Stack Exchange sites is to allow people to ask good questions and get good (e.g. correct) answers. Our purpose is _not_ to host interesting discussions for people to read. Discussions are distracting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other functionality has proven to be necessary to support the core goal of Q&amp;A, and that includes commenting, but it still takes a back seat to questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This type of overeager moderation does not help anybody, except maybe the moderator, who can feel some sense of accomplishment, because he &quot;cleaned something up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, it helps all the readers who find a question here and can directly get the answer without having to delve into caveats, discussions, and arguments that go beyond the scope of the answer. We have seen it happen in the past that people get confused by comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It discourages scientific discussions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that is the point. We want to discourage discussions, except to the extent that they improve the questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creates a hostile atmosphere and smells like censorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that seems like a stretch to me, but if you really think so, that's an opinion you're entitled to hold. If you really do believe comment deletion is so bad, this may not be the site for you. That's okay. Stack Exchange is not trying to please everybody; some people are looking for something that they just won't get from our Q&amp;A-focused model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="38d63a09-50ec-4faf-8dc8-4b4f005764d7" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:20:23.660" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://maths.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](http://photography.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="428d63ef-c403-4e27-99fb-53645f27fce9" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:30:58.200" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://photography.stackexchange.com/ with https://photo.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="416be2d1-8798-4450-9ac5-77cdae54e8a0" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:31:51.443" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="When is this going to happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I like the layouts at some of the other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stats.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is pretty plain, and has the graph paper background that lots of people like, though I don't like it in particular, but otherwise I like the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is also nice. It is a little cluttered, but not distracting, and doesn't have anything that would get in the way of math or diagrams. And I like the color scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks more readable to me, and has larger fonts, and less cluttered. I like the color scheme here better, but the gray background won't work with math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would be happy with anything that looks like any of these.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to see the most is: readable text, compatible with math and diagrams, not cluttered, and plain color scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="65227799-2002-447f-bf52-636b7e0c0f12" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:31:51.443" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was my close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am willing to be convinced that I have been overly hasty (or to be overruled by either of the other moderators if they disagree: feel free guys), but allow me to explain where I am coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you will forgive me if I argue in part by analogy with Stack Overflow (and I will accept that arguments about how Physics.SE could differ from SO are in play). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the early days of Stack Overflow we had a small user base, few of the tools available today and few rules. Consequently we saw a very wide variety of question many of which were not about &quot;programming&quot; as such, but about programmers and the lifestyle and behaviors of this strange creature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at times they threatened to drown the actual programming discussion, and there was a lively debate about their appropriateness. When the community close option was first introduces (with a quorum of one!) these programming-related questions were the subject of many a close-and-reopen battle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then followed an interval when not-quote-about-programming-as-such question were tolerated if they were community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They dominated the active board, the &quot;sort by votes&quot; tab showed almost nothing else for pages, and *every new user who dropped by tried to ask one*. Not withstanding that they had arrived from google following a link to a actual answer to a actual technical question, it *looked like Stack Overflow was about socializing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually Jeff and Joel were convinced that this represented a problem, and thus was [Programmers][1] (originally called &quot;Not Programming Related&quot; after the close reason) conceived and Stack Exchange 2.0  (the earlier, commercial version have had very limited success) started and the Network as we know and love it came to be. Somewhere in there came the blog post [Good Subjective, Bad Subjective][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was one of the [fun hating][3] spoil-sports all along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **long story short**: when I saw the post in question this morning my reaction went something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh noes! Here comes a flood of *&quot;What [plural noun] would be helpful for physicist to [verb]?&quot;* questions! Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I over-reacted. But I will ask you to convince me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps to convince David or mbq instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concerning the Stack Overflow links I left in the comments:** Those certainly were not intended to replace the question, but were offered up as potentially interesting tidbits because I am not hostile to the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aside:** Just because you have a question, even if it is a good question in some philosophical sense does not guarantee that it has a place on any particular site on the Stack Exchange Network or even on *any* site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="203b192f-3f4c-45c0-97b1-00cf4a0218fd" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:31:51.443" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="4677e195-8e3d-4549-8267-fa13661635d2" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:32:56.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://moderator.stackexchange.com/ with https://communitybuilding.stackexchange.com/" Text="Being a moderator of another SE site I might be able to tell from my experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moderator has to make some difficult decisions that cannot be handled by the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- find users who are trying to cheat the system (multiple accounts, voting rings)&#xD;&#xA;- handle flags&#xD;&#xA;- contact users privately if there are any problems that cannot be solved otherwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important part is understanding the informal rules of the system and put them into practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing physics (or whatever the topic of the site is) is not that important. Sure, it helps, but the decision if a question is on topic should be made by the community anyway via close votes, not primarily by moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta participation and the flag count are indeed good indicators for that. They show how much the users cares already about the site and how familiar s/he is with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recommended reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Cheat Sheet][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Who are the diamond moderators, and what is their role?][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Moderator Blog][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/119111/moderator-cheat-sheet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75189/who-are-the-diamond-moderators-and-what-is-their-role&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://communitybuilding.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9788" RevisionGUID="e8c43329-db4f-4fe0-9497-2e88c2370702" CreationDate="2017-04-12T13:41:40.090" UserId="34382" Text="I started using this site when I was around 16, because I had already studied topics up to quantum field theory, and did not have people that could help me except those online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the physics SE was a great resource, both the existing questions and the body of experienced users that were able to address mine. I also got a lot of satisfaction from helping other people. I was never treated any differently because of my age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have said, it may take you some time to learn how to formulate a question that will be well-received and fit all the guidelines, but I and I am sure other users will be happy to provide any support. When we downvote or close, we give suggestions for improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9789" RevisionGUID="4611bf35-1451-4828-98d1-ac507aa00562" CreationDate="2017-04-12T13:43:20.097" UserId="12519" Text="I've been in the chat &quot;h-bar&quot; physics stackexchange chat,  and somebody wrote  `$\frac{1}{2}$ ` and it comes up for me like those literal characters and not as $\frac{1}{2}$   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea why / how I can enable mathjax in chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guy that posted it said he can see it and thought it might be an issue on my end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it's a bug of some sort, or perhaps i'm just missing an option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9789" RevisionGUID="4611bf35-1451-4828-98d1-ac507aa00562" CreationDate="2017-04-12T13:43:20.097" UserId="12519" Text="mathjax not working for me in chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9789" RevisionGUID="4611bf35-1451-4828-98d1-ac507aa00562" CreationDate="2017-04-12T13:43:20.097" UserId="12519" Text="|discussion|mathjax|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27901" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9789" RevisionGUID="d30ff6e8-75d5-42ca-976d-b63c2809db00" CreationDate="2017-04-12T14:37:53.493" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Mathjax not working for me in chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27902" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9783" RevisionGUID="28cea3f8-4388-4cc3-a757-efdd3930d433" CreationDate="2017-04-12T16:33:11.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/852197918199226368" />
  <row Id="27903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9790" RevisionGUID="b3a81cd0-6c8f-4846-bffd-cae0213a2d89" CreationDate="2017-04-12T18:00:06.453" UserId="8563" Text="MathJax does not work out-of-the-box on chat; the behaviour you observe is precisely as expected. To turn it on, you need to turn a client-side extension which is described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the short of it is that to turn on [ChatJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support/3297#3297), you can just drag-and-drop the link marked `start ChatJax` in [this page](http://www.math.ucla.edu/~robjohn/math/mathjax.html) up to your bookmarks bar, and then click the resulting bookmarklet to turn on mathjax in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is handily linked in the chatroom description, if you ever need it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iTxz3.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though indeed it's not the most discoverable text ever written." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="1afd7c8b-795e-4887-a27f-391b73025b20" CreationDate="2017-04-12T19:37:19.827" UserId="11053" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="This is a CW post with possible leads to follow up on if people want to chase them up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The MIT Libraries' [list of APIs for Scholarly Resources](http://libguides.mit.edu/apis)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bielefeld Academic Search Engine](https://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_develop.php?menu=2) - I think there's an API documented [here](https://www.base-search.net/about/download/base_interface.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - the [oaDOI FAQ](https://oadoi.org/faq) which details their sources&#xD;&#xA; - the [oaDOI API](https://oadoi.org/api), but it only takes DOIs as input&#xD;&#xA; - the [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/) - do they have an API?&#xD;&#xA; - does [DataCite](https://www.datacite.org/search.html) have a suitable API?&#xD;&#xA; - [ImpactStory on GitHub](https://github.com/Impactstory) - they are behind oaDOI and Unpaywall, maybe they've got something with a wider input range in there?&#xD;&#xA; - [NASA ADS][1] has an [API][2] that is probably suitable. It was originally astronomy oriented, but seems to index at a minimum the entirety of what is on arXiv, including metadata for the published version of papers when they exist. The search tools are powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/adsabs/adsabs-dev-api" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="04ec4310-1a2f-43b0-b1e1-4d55d025a72c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:14:54.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](https://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](https://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="845294ef-349e-48c7-b6e8-2c3cdeb1a5b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:14:54.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/" Text="I also observe this behaviour. Visiting the site on incognito chrome and trying to ask a question prompts me directly for a log in. From a random smattering of sites from the bottom of this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - TeX, Web Applications, Webmasters, Game Development (and presumably most sites) show visitors straight to the Ask a Question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Overflow, Programmers, and possibly others, directly prompt you for a log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ServerFault (and others?) sends users to [a pretty nice How to Ask page](https://serverfault.com/questions/ask/advice), including a prominent search bar, that won't let you proceed to the question page until you promise to &quot;keep these tips in mind when asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure why the log-in prompt is enabled for this site. **It should be disabled** as we do not really have much of a spam problem. At most, we should have the ServerFault version, but I should think even that is unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9224" RevisionGUID="1eb8db13-1bc3-45fe-86ae-bfe7d231b8d5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:18:43.933" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ with https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/" Text="None of the above. Physics simulations in videogames belong on the [Game Development SE](https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/). They even have a tag, [physics-engine](https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physics-engine), for this exact purpose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="d6e323df-a072-4e47-b865-8e5d4e7e344b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's take a look at some successful templates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.physicsforums.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physicsforums does have a theme to it, with the background a light grey, and hints of green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://math.stackexchange.com/  &#xD;&#xA;http://terrytao.wordpress.com/  &#xD;&#xA;http://gowers.wordpress.com/  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three maths sites are black on white, with a soothing blueish theme and look the best, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://motls.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this has a theme similar to the one currently here, yet is pleasant on the eyes. It seems to be related to the overall brightness, which is nice and light, and an intelligent use of colour tones - blue on green looks good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the white on darkboard theme is OK in small doses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="d600211d-a1a8-4139-ba52-94886a8e2117" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I liked the [math stack exchange][1] design:  &#xD;&#xA;![Math StackExchange Image][2]  &#xD;&#xA;and think we can do something similar but different. I like how they keep the background clutter off of the questions and answers to improve readability. Thinking about something similar to graph paper (in terms of colors and easy on the eyes) but that is present in a lot of areas of physics, both experimental and theoretical, I came upon the idea of wave interference. So here's my contribution for a physics only design background (just a quick mock-up, not intended to be final in any way):  &#xD;&#xA;![WaveInterference][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I joined the math stack exchange a few minutes ago and now I'm experiencing envy. They get a lot more traffic. Things get voted up much more quickly. I wonder if that will last; surely people are more interested in the physical world than in a bunch of dusty dry theorems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hx761.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0DcBP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="62b11b26-73c5-42e5-884e-7ccd381e327c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="Any APS meeting will allow essentially anyone to give a 10 minute talk. You can sign up yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I had a conjecture on a new decomposition of unitary matrices proven on math stack exchange here: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/28413/8536 which I'm putting into a paper for Journal Math Physics. A version of the paper before adding the new proof is here: http://brannenworks.com/Gravity/qioumm_view.pdf I'm planning on presenting it at the NWAPS meeting in October at Oregon State: http://www.aps.org/units/nws/meetings/meeting.cfm?name=NWS11 To make a presentation you have to prepare a set of slides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These meetings come with a fee of about $50. If you slide me the fee, and maybe $100 for gasoline driving over there, I'd be happy to acknowledge you as a sponsor and to give the math and physics stack exchange a good word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="a70a395b-438f-4ebe-98c8-7a5047a749a7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="6b674e80-10b2-4a9e-b1d1-551c2a78c009" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="A recent question of mine got quickly [migrated to maths.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/297807/), partly for being mathsy and partly for being a big-list question. I'm not contesting the fact, but I must say that - having been warned by the [tag:big-list] tag description that these questions are discouraged - I looked in both the FAQ and this meta for specific guidelines and reasons for the policy, to no avail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the FAQ have a specific section on this? The policy on it should surely be immediately available by searching &quot;big list&quot; on both the FAQ and this meta, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="e1b2e5ed-8422-4a59-99a1-d421353b59e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/how-can-i-cite-a-question-in-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math.SE][1] has a citation tool. Basically, if you click &quot;share&quot; on a post, there's a little &quot;cite&quot; link:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking that, you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets one properly cite a Physics.SE post in a document by the attribution rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want this? While it may not be so useful for formal journal articles, I see how it could be useful for miscellaneous documents (remember, visitors can use it too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0OrDR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yEnCA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="f87bc7bb-c8c9-4bb3-b125-aeb1ae850aae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have asked a question regarding a solution to a differential equation I came to when trying to solve the motion equation of a single body in a gravitational potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/415467/how-to-solve-the-differential-equation-for-the-motion-equation-of-a-body-in-a-gr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I wanted to ask that question here, but since the tag [tag:mathematical-physics] arges to use Math.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DO	NOT USE THIS TAG just because your question involves math! If your question is on simplification of a mathematical expression, please ask it at math.stackexchange.com Mathematical physics is the application of mathematics to problems in physics and mathematical methods suitable for such applications [...]. It also includes the study of problems inspired by physics within a mathematically rigorous framework [...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked the question in Math.SE, but the quaestion over-there isn't answered and doesn't get a lot of attention, I believe that it'll get better (any) answers here. Should I migrate the question from Math.SE to Physics.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="78a1a5b7-d91a-42a6-a3e2-a23f0a16cdca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my recent perusal of the tags, I came across a couple that seemed unnecessary. Can we get rid of the following tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:proof-that-1-plus-1-is-2] Seriously, why? Even [Mathematics][1] doesn't have this as a tag. Also, there are no questions attached to it.&#xD;&#xA;  - [tag:fun-stuff] This seems to be a meta-tag that invites silliness. I'm all for a little lightheartedness in asking questions, but having this tag seems like it invites off-topic posts. Alternatively, we could make the synonym [tag:fun-stuff] → [tag:soft-question].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="c0ffefeb-2992-48fd-bebd-9a3d266b5c38" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I understand that asking pure math questions on the physics site is discouraged and I've seen many questions moved over to math. However, often times such questions are more suited for physicists to answer since they encounter those types of questions more often. Furthermore, they are more likely to answer the question using tools that a physicist would be familiar with. This is certainly the case for example is in this [post][1] and there are many other similar examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it really be disallowed to ask a math questions on the physics stackexchange if you would like a physicist's perspective on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: I just wanted to give an example for what my issue was. I recently needed some help with a math question from my QFT book, so I posted it [here][2]. However, the response I got was (as I expected) very formal, and not the approach a physics student would normally take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98877/evaluate-1-loop-contribution-to-the-4-point-greens-function?noredirect=1#comment201657_98877&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/672619/vector-delta-function-identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="26e5f0c6-3c65-4696-a317-5ae30a485951" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree, the language of physics is mathematics, and the more advanced the topic considered, the more math is needed to understand and talk about it at a technical level. So IMHO Physics SE is currently way too aggressively voting to close for and migrating technical questions involving mathematical concepts and ideas which are of paramount importance to understand advanced physics, away ([sometimes](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/648665/36639) even against the judgment of established experts on the topic at hand)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular in theoretical physics, no clear separation can often reasonably be drawn, mathematical and physical ideas strongly interact and overlap. I would appreciate reviewers to refrain from too strictly separating things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, questions involving mathematical topics/concepts the &quot;smell&quot; too physicsy are often ignored on Math SE, as said for example [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13722481#13722481) such that they find no answers if they have not already obtained some before being migrated, as the mathematicians there are not too interested in maths that is mostly useful for physicists. It also has to be considered that mathematicians often use different language/terminology, strategies to approach a problem (mathematicians consider physicists often to be sloppy, whereas the very rigorous point of view of mathematicians is often not directly useful for a physicist to solve his issue if interest), etc. ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="b3e5597c-1515-4e77-9c85-324c872e4321" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have observed .3k users creating a lot of new tags that often in the end have to be manually remove again, which are time consuming for editors, and which, in turn, create unnecessary extra traffic on the front page. Phys.SE is now 3.3 years old. It seems reasonable to assume that we already have most of the tags that we need now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Should we raise the privilege limit for tag creation from .3k to 1k?_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our sister site [Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) has recently done this. For users without enough reputation, it will still be possible to suggest/propose new tags, e.g., via meta posts or in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta post is only about the privilege limit to _create_ new tags. The post is not about merging/synonymizing/deleting tags. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="fd5ebcad-f691-4a48-acbd-61c98d768626" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/774831/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/765211/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/764631/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/761917/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/754449/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/747413/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/746432/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/744131/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/735556/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/726177/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/722339/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/718567/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/285642/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="aecf0a1c-757e-41d9-958c-342685da6a4b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](http://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](http://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](http://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](http://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](http://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="fb48e73d-3009-4d43-9a27-548a39340a4a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, math questions should be on topic, when they are questions about mathematical concepts that are more used and known by physicists than mathematicians. In my view, the rationale should always be &quot;on which site would a particular question have the best chance to get an answer?&quot; Surely our primarily goal is to help an OP as much as we can?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, certain math questions would get more attention on this site than on math SE; the average physicist will know more about vector analysis, tensor analysis, certain aspects of group theory, certain differential equations, special functions, Legendre polynomials, Fourier analysis, integral transforms and calculus of variations than the average mathematician. The well-known textbook *Mathematical Methods For Physicists* can serve as a rough guide. Moreover, a physicist will often solve these questions in a different way than a mathematician would, which sometimes might be more helpful to the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example is [this question](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/673318/laplaces-equation-in-spherical-coordinates/) on Laplace's Equation in Spherical Coordinates, which the OP encountered in Griffith's EM. Despite the fact that the question was answered here and my answer was accepted, a mod still decided to migrate it to math SE, where, not surprisingly, it didn't get any attention whatsoever. So what was the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I don't like self-imposed arbitrary rules to decide which topics are supposedly on-topic or not. I favour a much more pragmatic approach when dealing with 'borderline' cases: just wait and see if a question gets enough attention, and when it doesn't, *then* consider a migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="07ec05d7-e1e9-4f79-a3ef-11ebf8d9121d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82449/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the community mod I asked [the same question on Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/595538/) and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="b500b532-a49d-41b5-a37f-3557c1df53dd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had to compute a Laurent series, and happened to obtain a correct result by certain manipulations that mathematicians (and even many physicists) would completely disapprove. I suspected that there must be a deeper reason for this, and asked it in Math. SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An outrageous way to derive a Laurent series: why does this work?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in one of the comments, it has been brought up that physicists may have better insights to this kind of issue. I agreed with this suggestion, and considered posting the same question in Phys. SE; however, I thought it may be off-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what are other members' opinions on whether I should copy-paste this question to Phys. SE or leave it in Math. SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/894704/an-outrageous-way-to-derive-a-laurent-series-why-does-this-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="a9a7c4fa-de02-4aaa-81e7-aaf97bb15eca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my answer to [this meta question][1] I argued that the decision of whether or not a question should live on Physics SE is best approached by judging whether *answers* to that question would be likely to come from and be useful to other physicists.&#xD;&#xA;At the time, we were discussion questions with engineering or experimental flavour.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that this approach should be used for all types of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, [a question about moving poles around in the complex plane][2] was migrated to Math SE, presumably because it was judged too mathematical for Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, not only did my answer to that question use physics concepts to answer the question, but another Physics SE user commented that the question should be here rather than on Math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make in the meta post linked above.&#xD;&#xA;Because the question was *answered* with physics, the nature of the information contained therein is relevant and interesting to other users of this site.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly one could have been given a purely mathematical answer, but a physics one was given and was deemed helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q:** Should that question be migrated back to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the further question: should we allow posts to accrue some answers before migrating/holding/closing them in order to see if physics will emerge where we may have expected pure math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Apparently the original reason for that question to be on Math SE was that the OP cross posted it on physics and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/934057/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="b2d7acdd-cb9d-4134-9a79-fa5d0bdc496d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see that it has been three days since the [math version][1] and two since the [mathoverflow version][2], both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those attitudes say that cross-posting is a form of prioritizing your desire for a large audience ahead of the desire of other users to see only a selected fraction of the available traffic as indicated by their choice of which [usenet groups|stack exchange sites] to read. That was historically interpreted as a kind of rudeness---putting ones own desired first it ones of the core attributes of rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Stack Exchange isn't usenet, but [the users have been polled on their opinions on this issue][3], and it is clear that the usenetesque view is dominant on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We understand that you don't agree. Well, there is no harm in disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I disagree. You've made a fairly minimal set of textual changes, but you are still asking the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't get an answer elsewhere I'll reopen it sometime tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1329146/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/209604/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="2b3b4355-3902-4b93-8cc6-f988bc0fcad5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's always been a bit of fuzz around the issue of on-topic-ness of math (and engineering, but that's a discussion for another day) type questions on our site.&#xD;&#xA;Many questions which are in content strictly mathematical would best be answered by a physicist because either the math topic is known mostly to physicists, because the asker is interested in the mathematics mostly as it relates to a physical system, or because the asker wants a physicist's perspective on the math itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From one point of view, the fact that a physicist's answer is wanted doesn't matter; math questions belong on [Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;This is unsatisfying though, as those who frequent Physics.SE do not necessarily frequent Math.SE, so good answers for the type of question described above may be difficult to obtain if we just post such questions to Math.SE (or migrate them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What combination of the following strategies should we use to draw attention to their physics-oriented, yet strictly mathematical in content, questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Post to Math.SE and advertise the question in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Campaign to get users of Physics.SE to subscribe to the Physics and Mathematical-Physics tags on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Provide a link on Physics.SE to Physics tagged questions on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. or any other ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, what can we do to keep strictly math questions off Physics.SE while encouraging our users to answer those questions on Math.SE?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="3fd2f988-2dd5-4e8f-831b-c4b5b4fd9728" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted an answer to [Why is any number divided by 0 is infinite?](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1399099/); it was rather too short, I confess [but correct], &amp; this might prompted someone to downvote me; my rep got decreased by 2. Then I thought, why to waste my rep?? I deleted my answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I saw, it was migrated to MSE. I thought to extend my answer &amp; explain OP elaborately. The answer was accepted &amp; I got +25. But then I noticed my PSE rep still showed a decrease of 2! I checked my profile &amp; saw it was the same downvote to the answer of the same question I deleted. I don't know why it is so:( What is the logic for continuing the downvote to a __deleted__ answer? Can anyone explain why it happened? Is there any to avert it?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="131afff5-6194-4f5d-ab1f-91c727d82b07" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I disagree with Dirk Bruere. Although I hardly post here, on any site you will have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* homework with some solution attempts, so probably worth giving a particularized answer. Sending the asker to a different problem/example is not that different from telling him to RTFM. And there's an inexhaustible number of homework problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* tumbleweed questions that usually are too hard to [actually] answer. My SO questions are mostly like that. Well, I get some answers, but it's usually not what I asked... more like extended comments. A small percentage of these will probably get an actual answer over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two issues are [actually connected](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/885618/g%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="913a6cd0-b8bf-4f8f-bde6-a4d7b927ad98" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have already two questions *[on-hold][1]* and *[closed][2]* because they were considered as homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these people are exaggerating. Who told these people that my questions were about homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, resolving homework questions leave doubts and often misunderstandings. Therefore if a person does a general question it should be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, why can't this Questions and Answers site be like [Mathematics][3]? There is ton of homework questions and they are not taken unacceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there misunderstandings? I would want to know what were my mistakes in my questions so I can do better questions that will be more *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243050/is-there-conservation-of-momentum-if-theres-conservation-of-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238663/does-the-kinetic-energy-change-depending-on-the-direction-of-the-velocity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="4f43775e-a2ae-4e46-a44f-4cb361d71153" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="what the hell?!  I had a Phys.SE [question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/267230/2451) about regularization that had a beautiful answer by a kind user named tparker and a moderator migrated it to [Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1854967/11127)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was a question about quantum field theory and the answer totally and unequivocally helped me and received several upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cant help but think moderators are intentionally targetting me trying to prevent me from asking questions about regularization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is getting ridiculous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  how does one ask a question related to regularization without it getting deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am i seriously being screwed with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="4f5e1704-94b2-4f9f-b705-16bf2cd0cfad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](http://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="4076a2d9-af64-49e8-8f9f-925de4fd6b2b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Degrees of freedom in discrete data sets, distributions and systems (Suppose we turn every derived quantity of an n dimensional data into points, how many paramters do these points have in order to reproduce the original data set?)&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general. So, in a sense, people who don't understand me actually understood me better than myself and those who understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="4c54fedf-3d26-4db9-ad60-1f027afcbbf5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is not about the usefulness of this tag, but about the usefulness of its topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathSE finds it useful.][1] They are the [best going][2] StackExchange site after the SO.&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathOverflow, too,][3] despite they are a grad-level community with quite harsh moderation customs, having many Big Names between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now think, which direction find you better to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Additional info][4] about the main sociological structure of the SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/sites&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/252077/1783163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="2efd3dca-e4ce-4ae1-8bdd-d5d955c21494" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy, or (hasn't been asked) &quot;Why do rocks fall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of subjectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that the check my work close reason should only be used for trivial calculation errors; questions about a conceptual mistake (for example, whether a certain formula is appropriate in a given situation) are on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Purely Calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, and a trivial calculation mistake, not a physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Purely Calculation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be **outsourcing a calculation** to the community without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept, show work and explain where you got stuck, or provide more context. For more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I originally worded the title to the third possible close reason rather poorly, and changed it. The third close reason is meant for purely calculation questions, as the title says, and I'll be adding more examples of questions that would be closed under this reason soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="0da1c22b-4816-43a7-a0bd-1d04f2c1612f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:19:19.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="We don't want to migrate bad questions, but we're not as familiar with other sites' quality standards as we are with our own, so we're not as good at judging what &quot;bad&quot; means for other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a question is pure math with no physics at all, and it's also terrible, like this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is a polynomial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't want to migrate that because then we're making our trash someone else's problem.&#xD;&#xA;I *think* this is a case where we and the math site users are all better off just closing (insufficient research?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, we could have a question which is pure math, violates *our* homework policy, but would be perfectly acceptable on the math site.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [real example](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1946690/inverse-trig-function-equation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you suggest I go about solving this question? I've been thinking about it for ages and nothing comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$\arcsin(x) + \arccos(x) = \pi/2 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example clearly violates our homework policy as it has zero research effort shown, but it's perfectly fine on the math site.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, we should migrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *we need to be aware of the rules of the sites to which we can migrate questions*.&#xD;&#xA;Vote to migrate if the question doesn't fit on our site, but does fit on another site in terms of both topic and quality.&#xD;&#xA;Vote to close if the question falls short of quality standards on our site and on any of the migration targets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that OP of a closed question can always re-post elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say we should overzealously close questions, but if you do vote to close something that you think *might* fit on another site, do OP a favor and leave a brief, polite comment directing them to the other site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="59190652-8187-4c6c-970d-e125aca94147" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:22:54.523" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://askubuntu.com/ with https://askubuntu.com/" Text="At least one other site now has a customised top bar: the one at [Science Fiction and Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/) has been made slightly translucent in order to make it fit better with their site. Obviously translucency wouldn't be appropriate in our case, but a similarly subtle change in colour scheme would make it a lot less visually jarring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: [Ask Ubuntu][1] also has a customised bar. It's the same colour scheme as our one, but has been moved to fit into the layout in a different way. (It still looks like a compromise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is now precedent on two other sites for customising the top bar, I hope the request to do so on ours will be genuinely considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://askubuntu.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="a069bd31-d3ab-4060-a912-78182f09fe4a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I've put together [a userscript][1] which is destyles an SE site to the basics. It's hosted on GitHub and has a [page on StackApps][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/MosheBerman/MinimalOverflow&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="878b3b7f-e3c0-441a-b6f8-e1cd2ddd94b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="There is a user script to switch to any Stack Exchange design here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://stackapps.com/questions/2143/minimaloverflow-a-themescript-for-stackexchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some improvements, that will be the officially supported method of changing for those that prefer not to use websites with dark background designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on mobile, we now serve a minimalistic, low bandwidth, white background theme to all mobile clients. Try it in your iPhone / Android, etc. You can also [change your browser user agent][1] to &quot;iPhone&quot; if you want that theme immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're still working on this, so give us some time to get it worked out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: Based on extensive meta feedback, site design is withdrawn indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/search?q=change+browser+user+agent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="190a48a3-2261-4182-9194-f76497efa1d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I like it. But since taste is subjective, I still hope that [Allow individual SE theming settings](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64697/allow-individual-se-theming-settings) will get accepted. Until then, those who don't like the current design can have a look [here](https://stackapps.com/questions/2113/beta-gaming-se-black-edition) for some inspiration how to manipulate this to one's individual pleasing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="10a86bb3-6ac7-4098-a7b4-ea4562a77fe5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="After having to add dollar signs and format SI  units countless times in the review section, I finally got fed up and wrote a script.{*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It basically adds buttons to enclose the selected text in dollar symbols and `\mathrm` SI unit formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's the userscript](https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons). Installation instructions are there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*With some urging from chem.SE.people, otherwise it was going to be indefinitely in my todo list :P&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="8de34b48-7a2b-42c1-af66-5f3ccf90c16b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="Direct copy-paste works if it's an HTML document in Word. Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, here's a trick: open `about:blank` (URL bar), type `javascript:document.body.contentEditable=true` in the URL bar and hit &lt;kbd&gt;Enter&lt;/kbd&gt;. Now, copy-paste the LaTeX-formatted stuff. It ought to work. You can type and modify stuff as well. Then, save the HTML document and/or print to pdf. [This userscript may help in cleaning up posts for better copy-pasting][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you should attribute the owner of each post (see [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want un-mathified LaTeX source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For individual equations: right click, `show math as`&gt;TeX commands&#xD;&#xA; - For the whole post: Click &quot;edit&quot;, copy-paste the source code to [here][3], see the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3307/print-this-post&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2679" RevisionGUID="8d32afb0-edca-4c1b-ab47-ba02c2e42daa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="If you want, you can use [this script](https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) and load it with comments relevant to downvoting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE has made it pretty clear that they aren't going to add any more obstacles to the process of downvoting. It's for the better--one should feel as free to downvote as possible, otherwise less people will downvote. And downvotes are integral to SE's sorting mechanism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="a268d914-1a95-497d-a39f-4951cf786d03" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I agree with this as well, it seems like a rather useful feature to have. And I've fallen afoul of this a few times before -- I don't notice some inbox messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My workaround is to just open all the inbox messages in new tabs, give them a precursory glance and deal with them one by one, closing tabs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you can just use [this Chrome Extension][1] that does the checking for you:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3778/stackinbox-a-chrome-firefox-extension-that-preserves-new-stack-exchange-inbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4004" RevisionGUID="5504bfa7-db40-472a-9593-f27ab25bcc0d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I personally use [this userscript](https://stackapps.com/q/3307/10098) when I want to make a PDF. I first click the &quot;print&quot; button, then I print to pdf (In chrome, do &lt;kbd&gt;Ctrl&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;P&lt;/kbd&gt; and the &quot;PDF&quot; or &quot;print to file&quot; option should be there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, you can Google &quot;MarkDown to LaTeX converter&quot; and use one of those. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="90b5d709-3879-47d2-aa72-40db46997cdb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="You can write your own user stylesheet (using Stylish or another such browser plugin). While such a feature may be useful to some, I don't see a pressing need for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion: Use [this script of mine][1] (which takes a post and trips out everything surrounding it so that it can be printed). Then, use Ctrl-+ or Ctrl-Scroll to zoom in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/q/3307/10098" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="46248fdb-0d34-48c3-a5fd-e30d855d4676" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="Mathjax doesn't seem to allow the `siunitx` extension (there are a couple of pachages like `mhchem` which can be enabled)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for SI units, I use [this userscript][1]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also put a feature-request [here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/447" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="77038ed6-c7e4-44d5-a6f8-59a199a1db71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I use `\:\mathrm{&lt;units go here&gt;}`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$E=120\:\mathrm{kgm^2s^{-2}}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;gives ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also use [this userscript][2]. It lets me enclose stuff with the dollar signs via &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;M&lt;/kbd&gt;, and &lt;kbd&gt;Alt&lt;/kbd&gt;-&lt;kbd&gt;S&lt;/kbd&gt; does `\:\mathrm{&lt;selected text here&gt;}` for SI units. (there also are options for vector fields and double-dollarifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want mathjax on meta, upvote https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/mathjax-on-meta&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WqfPo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="28efe102-2912-4a51-af70-3f0107c41559" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="For &quot;common comments&quot;, you can use [this userscript][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never really felt the need for edit summaries when I was a &lt;2k user. Wikipedia has a _much_ larger need as you have a few thousand edits in a question history and finding a particular edit can be annoying. (FWIW the &quot;common edit summaries&quot; feature wasn't there a year ago). Over here, the purpose of the summary is to explain to the reviewer what you are doing. In this case, it is better to be verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have, but, again, I don't see much of a need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the proposal for automatically adding a tag edit summary for the case of tag-only edits. Till recently, users with 5k rep could edit tags without approval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5025" RevisionGUID="dfbe54cc-1593-442e-aad2-736f691cf9a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="Aside from David's answer, I  use [this script][1] for linking to the policy. I've saved a comment with the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Please see [our homework policy](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework and homework-like problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the close reason covers much of this now (indeed, one of the reasons for the close reason was to  incorporate the boilerplate comments into the system, enabling users to focus on the _exact_ problem in the question), I still use this for getting the link to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="90f30568-977d-45f0-b73f-fe8340bb21ec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ovzu6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5783" RevisionGUID="87d388f3-be8f-4a5e-9019-a404df42005b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="Actually, the following set of CSS styles (applied on top of the existing styles on each SE site) seems to work even better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- language: lang-css --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .vote .bounty-award-container {&#xD;&#xA;         margin: 13px 0;&#xD;&#xA;         text-align: center;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    .vote .bounty-award, span.bounty-award {&#xD;&#xA;         margin: 0;&#xD;&#xA;         display: inline-block;&#xD;&#xA;         padding: 0.2em 0.5em;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules allow the width of the bounty marker to adapt to the bounty amount, while keeping it centered and leaving a reasonable margin between it and any other post icons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Bounty marker icon with extra styles as above][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny selector for the second rule above is to let it apply both to the left bar icons for awarded bounties and to the notice box for active bounties (where the current 5px right margin also looks pretty ugly) while still keeping it more specific than existing site style sheets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have included the CSS styles above in the [Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/stack-overflow-unofficial-patch) v1.14 user script.  After some testing, I decided to enable them on *all* SE sites.  On the original trilogy sites (SO, SU, SF) they have very little effect, as they strongly resemble the existing styles, and the few differences are overridden by `!important` rules in the site style sheet.  On most other SE sites (as far as I've tested) they seem to improve the bounty icon appearance anywhere from slightly to significantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H9dR1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="6f915583-4cdc-4ff1-af93-3ee384ec3af1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ovzu6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="c091ae71-e25b-406c-811d-6a45f4b08a12" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I see that there are many links in comments that don't have link text, therefore hard for me to know if the link is worth to click. For example, this link: [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are hesitate to click on that, right? You are feeling to wasting time if you click on that, aren't you? So, if possible, please consider to add the title of the link in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this userscript to shorten the time and effort to do that: [Convert share links to markdown \[title\](url)](https://stackapps.com/q/4905/29559) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7300" RevisionGUID="81e0df2e-b785-44ad-82e9-c8e776cb9256" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="My observations are that it is actually rare for someone to post more than the copy &amp; paste question &amp; rebuttal that &quot;It's not homework!&quot; or &quot;I just need the answer!&quot; before they leave for good&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that someone does post more than that, I think leaving a comment containing a link to the Meta post [**My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391), where you've already posted a link to your site, would suffice for those users who are really begging for help. A message I've saved on my [**Auto-comment**](https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (but almost never used) is something along the lines of,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site, but if you do want that kind of help, you can [take a look at this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391) for a list of free online homework help resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I would say that if you constantly promoted *just* your site on HW questions, it probably would end up being flagged as *promotional content* which can get the comment deleted and, if you're persistent enough, give you [a suspension](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/). I'm sure you would love traffic to your site, but whether risking a suspension here for that is worth it is up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different story and I'd rather not derail this question on that.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="9b6ef368-c934-4e3b-9e4c-b9bef85ced4b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="There is a [limited amount of site analytics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics) available to high-rep users but this does not include any geographical information. Geographical data on visitors (not users) is presumably available to the SE team but it is not made available through that channel; you'd have to ask the SE team directly to get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-declared user location data is available through the Data Explorer, but as e.g. [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432881/user-locations) shows, being user-provided it is a huge mixed bag and you'd need some processing to make statistical sense of it. [This query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432882/user-count-by-location) makes things a bit easier to handle, and the corresponding code described [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/where-in-the-world-do-stack-overflow-users-say-they-are-from) can help draw some inferences if that's where you're headed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a similar track, [StackMaps](https://stackapps.com/questions/3367/stackmaps-interactive-maps-of-stack-exchange-communities) can help provide a geographical view (but not quite a statistical one) on this information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, though, this information is hard to come by and to handle. Visitor geographic data is not available, and user geographic data is self-reported, so for one you should take its accuracy with a grain of salt, and there is an enormous selection bias  you need to take into account: 48k of 105k users have not provided any location, and some fraction have provided fictional location. Moreover, it is at least likely that whether a user reports their location is correlated with the location itself (so users from e.g. Africa might feel that declaring their location is not advantageous, so that location gets (severely?) under-represented in the self-reported data)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="3289fa2a-894b-48e9-bac5-dd59f06c980d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="If all voting activity so far happened within the same day (as here), it's easiest &#xD;&#xA;to go to your [reputation tab](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation), group the events by post, and expand the post of interest. The upvotes and downvotes are listed there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, one needs a userscript or a bookmarklet. There is a popular userscript [“View Vote totals” without 1000 rep](https://stackapps.com/q/3082) for this purpose. I tend to use my own bookmarklet [vote split](http://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/#split) instead; this is how I see +8 -5 split without having 1000 rep here. (To use, drag the bold link from that page to your browser bar; then navigate to the post and click the bookmarklet.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7618" RevisionGUID="8f8968f5-f3c3-4ee0-97ea-1367a1b0b72a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="According to [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/266034/link-the-title-of-the-linked-questions-sidebar-to-the-list-of-linked-questions) and other questions on Meta Stack Exchange, you can get to the list of linked questions for a given question by going to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://[site].stackexchange.com/questions/linked/[question-ID]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This page displays a count at the top right. [Example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/136860):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![example of count of links][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [SOUP](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) app transforms the &quot;Linked&quot; header into a link to the page of links, if you want a convenient access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GkJkX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="04164799-5852-4482-97a3-6f3d211c5856" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="There is no in-built mechanism for automated comment insertion. Many people who leave similar messages often either re-type them by hand every time, or have a text file or other location from which they copy-paste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are several third-party scripts at [stack**apps**](https://stackapps.com/) which modify the SE sites' functionality to add this sort of feature, such as e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [AutoReviewComments - Pro-forma comments for SE](https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which enables you to write your own pre-written comments using a quick button:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L3Cqp.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I've never used this script, but it looks straightforward enough.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="be29218f-b6a5-4f68-b9e8-2bee49ad9a90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](https://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](https://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](https://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="6c16057f-35ce-4f4a-964c-a55e7afb731f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](https://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="2c8e9aa0-aca9-4190-af25-24cc44fa7a49" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="![](http://i64.tinypic.com/21l7uw2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the comments from the question [What is “relatively uniform resonant frequency”?](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/315403/41634). I'm pretty sure that the colors are different, maybe their brightness. Is this normal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Windows 7, with updated Firefox. I do install the [Stack Overflow Extras (SOX)](https://stackapps.com/q/6091/29559) script, but there is no option in it allow changing the comments' color. I notice that this is universal, every section of comments in every question or answer in every Stack Exchange site has this behavior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9708" RevisionGUID="0f6036c1-b25b-447e-aef0-5d7cb04b8a80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="You can always ask it here, but for many feature requests the best place is [**Meta Stack Exchange**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). Physics Stack Exchange is part of a [large family of sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) which share the same core engine; as a pretty strong rule of thumb, if your question would be as applicable here as in, say, [Gardening &amp; Landscaping Stack Exchange](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/), then the place to ask is the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For smallish feature requests, like yours,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd like to suggest that for example a little icon be added next to the caption of some of the most frequently used tags (such as: homeworks, Quantum, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this can sometimes be implemented directly as a [userscript](https://github.com/OpenUserJs/OpenUserJS.org/wiki/Userscript-beginners-HOWTO), and they can eventually make it into SOUP (the [Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup)) if enough people use them. If you're enough of a coder, you can write such a userscript yourself; if not, you can e.g. ask for the feature on the mother meta and mention that you're open to using a userscript for it, in essence soliciting folks to write one for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, it requires a bit more finesse, because you want to modify the site in response to the details of the user's history. In this regard, if it is doable via the [Stack Exchange API](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs), i.e. if the API can provide the information you need, then yes, a userscript can do it; this does seem to be the case with [the tags you've been active in](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/me-tags#order=desc&amp;sort=popular&amp;filter=default&amp;site=physics&amp;run=true), as well as the [top answer tags](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/top-answer-tags-on-users) and [top question tags](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/top-question-tags-on-users) for a user. So happy coding ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9722" RevisionGUID="1abe9870-6234-4c95-b965-745c3f6768d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:25:40.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/" Text="I don't think the SE team needs to be involved since pretty much all of us use the extremely useful [StackApps](https://stackapps.com/) project [*AutoReviewComments*](https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-comments-for-se) (and if you don't, you should). The message can be added to your local copy by adding the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`###[Q]Homework&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see [this Meta post on asking homework questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/714/) and [this Meta post for &quot;check my work&quot; problems](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6093/)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I've mentioned [another related message](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7299/ethics-redirecting-homework-solution-seeking-questions-to-a-website-built-for/7300#7300) previously, I think others have posted other AutoReviewComments in other Physics.Meta posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="c9cfcc69-c624-417c-b1a3-9cfe8f00da94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:32:31.777" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/" Text="When is this going to happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I like the layouts at some of the other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://stats.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is pretty plain, and has the graph paper background that lots of people like, though I don't like it in particular, but otherwise I like the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is also nice. It is a little cluttered, but not distracting, and doesn't have anything that would get in the way of math or diagrams. And I like the color scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks more readable to me, and has larger fonts, and less cluttered. I like the color scheme here better, but the gray background won't work with math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would be happy with anything that looks like any of these.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to see the most is: readable text, compatible with math and diagrams, not cluttered, and plain color scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="b27e9a3f-738d-4884-b876-16902b59d49f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:32:31.777" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="5882a865-3355-44e3-9442-a4f0c6ab327b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:32:31.777" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](http://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](http://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="904c8223-3ba7-4f71-8706-c3c6360aeb8c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:32:31.777" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/" Text="My experience on other Stack Exchange sites is that the problem of getting a lot of questions that break guidelines is essentially insoluble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Most people don't read the tour or the help centre before posting so editing the text there can only have a minor effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On [Theoretical Computer Science SE](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/), only research-level questions are on topic. To try to reduce the number of undergrads asking for homework help on CS questions that weren't even necessarily theoretical, we changed the [title text prompt for new questions](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) to &quot;What's your research-level theoretical computer science question? Be specific&quot;, I guess about a year ago. I didn't notice that having any effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's possible to add [warning messages when specific tags are used](https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1588/add-tag-specific-popup-to-accidents). That would probably be useful for specific subjects that attract a lot of bad questions but doesn't help in this case, since the issue is with the form of the question, not its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, prevention isn't feasible. The focus needs to be on improving or closing inappropriate questions. Improvements, ideally, need to be done quickly. On a recent question on [Computer Science SE](http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/), I edited out a paragraph that added a vaguely related but independent question and left a comment saying it was a great question and encouraging them to ask it separately, explaining how they could retrieve the text from the edit history. Unfortunately, somebody had already provided a sketchy answer to that part of the question on the back of an excellent answer to the main question, so the asker never bothered to repost it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="10f73264-3049-4080-85c2-b592da92f5a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:32:31.777" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is nothing wrong with the [tag:soft-question] tag. The issue is that we rarely get *good* soft questions, and the reason for that is that most experienced users of the site know they will be closed as off topic. We should keep the tag, and adapt our policies to be more accommodating to high-quality questions that are of interest to physicists but which are not necessarily &quot;hard&quot; questions about physics. We will be a more useful site that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see what I mean, take a look at the [soft questions over at Theoretical Computer Science][1]. This is every bit as &quot;hard&quot; a discipline as physics, but I think their site shows that soft questions, when done well, can nevertheless be useful for the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="d82db2cc-db71-4533-b876-595779c649ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:32:41.083" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/ with https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](http://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](http://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="993cfaa5-9b1a-4b3f-a1d1-6d55d4be79d6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="At electronics.SE we received this question: [Representing charges in computer programming][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the question comes from this paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can electric charges be represented in terms of programming? Do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you have to simulate each and every ion or are there overall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; principles so you can calculate with &quot;whole&quot; charges? I could imagine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Circuit simulations already implement some calculations with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this community think it might fit in here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/23761/representing-charges-in-computer-programming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="4d276423-ce2b-44c4-9ea7-42a6fa45559e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't have rep on that site so could someone consider moving https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/79447/can-a-circuit-be-powered-from-earth-with-a-return-ground-on-mars to physics SE? It seems like a really good question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="0c1857b3-70c3-4fc8-af4e-d98f79b74ff3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As for your answer, It does not *majorly* contribute to answering the question in any way. I appreciate that you were trying to encourage the OP into researching some more, but your answer looks more like it is asking for clarification. We have comments for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why the question was closed, the close reason specifically says that the question is about engineering, something which is off-topic on this site. There is another SE site :[Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/) for such questions. According to me, the question would be answered better there, as the users there must be having hands-on experience about making such things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS someone should have left a comment telling the OP about such a site, and instead of closing, the question could have been migrated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="d2367f6a-69e5-4dde-adf2-e879d8a8347c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](http://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](http://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="6e10a5b1-6df5-468e-b988-1c3f4ee82b94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I answered a certain question correctly on ***p-n-p transistors and doping*** in [**Phys.SE**](http://physics.stackexchange.com/) and the answer was accepted and voted up. I got +25 reputation for that. Today I came to know that the question has been migrated to [**Electrical Engineering.SE**](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/) community. Side by side, I have lost 25 reputation for no valid reason. Are the events interlinked? Can the reputation be somehow gained back or is it lost forever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="50808aa9-8e8b-42d8-8423-9a6519ff0d3c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Today for the first time in a long while I asked a detailed question about an electrical wiring error I'd like to understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not how much effort or details you've put into; the question is whether it _really_ belongs to __Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people fail to differentiate between __engineering__ and __natural science__; same thing is applied here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you really think you've enquired about a physics concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You detailed the problem; but did the problem really _seek_ any __Physics__?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first answers I received are unhelpful and to tell the truth somewhat angry sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know what answers you are talking about, for I'm not seeing any (I can't see any deleted answer). If you are asking about the comments, then I'm not seeing any kind of _angry_ talks; the user there who voted to close the question put a legitimate reason for doing so- this doesn't sound rude. Others have also advised you to go at [_Electrical Engineering_](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/)- a very reasonable, __helpful__, _non-rude_ and expected behaviour from the users here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I noticed that there's a warning in my home page (or whatever it should be called) that says I'm going to be locked out if I ask any more inappropriate questions. I am surprised at how aggressive the forces seem to be that would discourage me to be a user here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Aggressive_? _Forces_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; We are not against a particular user; there is no, I mean _no_, kind of vengeance acting here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Stack Exchange is a __no-nonsense__ Q&amp;A site; we are here to create noise-free, useful archive of __quality__ Q&amp;As based on __concepts of Physics__. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We definitely discourage _low-quality questions_ like _Do-the-Work_, _Check-my-Work_; __Engineering__; _Opinion-based_; __Broad__ questions. Physics SE is not at all meant for all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't discourage any new user but in order to acquaint with what questions are compatible, these sort of warnings are given. They are, _in no way_ harsh or in the sense you are describing the scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Am I just being unlucky or are others having similar unfriendly reception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You misinterpret the _scope_ of the site and misconstrue the warnings and moderations that explicitly and implicitly tried to uplift the quality of your questions that are suitable for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I am coming to the conclusion that I may as well give up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or is there a solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the problem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked three questions; two of which are voted to close on valid grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question was asking about _Concepts of Physics_ and you got a good response at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the solution to the apparent problem is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Ask questions based on _Physics_, that are not too broad to answer and not opinion-based__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions like _wire-problem_ is definitely frowned at as it is not related to physics anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't misapprehend the warnings, moderations, comments; don't try to judge things from one side. We don't have any intention to discourage any newbie to ask here. But questions must be _within_ the scope of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="6386c1b0-e34c-4e8a-9792-60ee3fee410f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This may seem like a silly question but there is some merit to it. From what I have seen, most of the questions with the electric-circuits tag get voted off or get multiple comments that it should be in the [Electrical Engineering SE][1]. Even though engineering (especially electrical) has large overlapping areas with physics, I can understand most physics members not wanting to answer EE questions because it feels like you're outside of your zone. So my question is, with this current state, why not just get rid of the tag to discourage hardware questions on our feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="c7f84ba6-b90f-4e89-98df-5d5746e36734" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:06.300" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](http://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](https://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="9bcd287b-96ad-4e03-b278-36183d757e44" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:29.533" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.stackexchange.com/" Text="Half a section of the FAQ can be edited (just copied the image from math.SE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![alt text](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WW8oK.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was recommended we just include the on- and off-topic stuff, e.g. copied from [Super User](https://superuser.com/faq):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Super User is for computer enthusiasts and power users. If you have a question about …&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * computer hardware&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * computer software&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and it is **not about** …&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * videogames or consoles&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * websites or web services like Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * electronic devices, media players, cell phones or smart phones, except insofar as they interface with your computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * a shopping or buying recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … then you're in the right place to ask your question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions what to put there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW, just to be clear, we can also add extra sections in that area, like [cooking.SE](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq), but the last section must be followed by that &quot;Please look around...&quot; paragraph, making it hard to deviate from the on-/off-topic theme.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="189735cc-9659-4a06-83cb-eca3fff5e9db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:29.533" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="824da64a-ebd7-4cad-8006-1e9fe4003e0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:34:29.613" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.stackexchange.com/" Text="If we're to have any graphical motifs there should be a Feynman diagram included. And something that references classical physics (Maxwell's equations? The classic Keplerian areal sweeps on an elliptical orbit? Ray optics?), and something that talks to experiment (a graph with real data including error bars/bands or an event display from a Fermi top quark event or ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets have a diverse set of representations. Physics is a *big* field, let's show it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tex.SE][1] header provides one template for how this might be done, but I confess to not liking the overall layout very much. I *do* like the ghostly figures in the header, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://tex.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="990d4f34-c30f-43e4-a9a0-6213313a17b0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:34:29.613" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.stackexchange.com/" Text="Expanding on Dilaton's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site (and most other stackexchange sites where such is appropriate) use the exact same implementation of [MathJax][1] for Latex markup. Basically, just enclose tex within `$` (inline) or `$$` (set apart equations). Most basic commands work, like `\frac` and `\sin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also begin some Latex environments without dollar signs. For example `\begin{align}...\end{align}` is a valid construct that will have its contents parsed by the tex parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to use Latex itself, independent of this site, well that is a large enough topic to have [its own stackexchange site][2]. For basic stuff to get started, try [this other FAQ topic][3]. For site-specific abilities, I can think of no better guide than what they have over at math.SE, found [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can always click the `Edit` button on any post to see how it was written. You are not committed to making any edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mathjax.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://tex.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/804/is-there-a-standard-place-to-point-people-to-learn-how-to-typeset-their-equation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="4850db02-30e4-457a-81a9-71e1660554f9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:34:29.613" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Absolutely not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, `\renewcommand` really shouldn't be used at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Because the title, question, answers, and comments on a page are not in separate MathJax environments. If you use `\renewcommand` (or even `\newcommand`, though that's not quite as bad) you risk clobbering others' contributions. All of a sudden their text will be rendered differently from what they were shown in the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you check that no one else has used the command, you've silently altered the MathJax environment for any future posters. Imagine the frustration from a user unfamiliar with this feature when faced with their answer giving rendering errors in one place that are not reproduceable elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\renewcommand` in a multi-user, evolving environment is the equivalent of re`#define`ing key parts of a language in a public header file. Anyone who loads the file will be unknowingly using your personal variant of the language rather than the standard one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want `\ket` to have some particular meaning, the first step is to have this as a MathJax package (I don't know whether or not this exists), and the second step is to convince the SE team to automatically load this package on physics pages. The other option is to have the team somehow implement MathJax in isolated environments, one per post. (I don't even know if this is feasible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, a little verbosity never hurt anyone. Besides, I'm not sure adding another layer of obfuscation via macros is the best way to help newcomers learn a language. It seems more like giving them a fish (&quot;here, just use this header; don't ask what's in it&quot;) than teaching them to fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the side, I don't think the proposed definition of `\ket` is itself bad (aside from the [erroneous use](https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/498/mid-vertical-bar-vert-lvert-rvert-divides) of `|` rather than `\lvert`...). It's just that this sets a precedent for others to develop more and more complicated macros, probably just copying and pasting from an ever-growing file of personal preferences with more and more ways to potentially break things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="e3593596-79d5-40dc-8080-ccc10836f806" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:37:07.557" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://unix.stackexchange.com/ with https://unix.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](http://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="70ddc385-062a-4f4a-beca-2bcc5f52ab7d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:09.447" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was going to ask about definition (explanation) of the word &quot;*bias*&quot;. But I am wondering if it is a right question for Physic forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the part of [FAQ][1] describing what type of questions should be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  **Experimental designs and results**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Accepted and/or actively researched theories**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Mathematics and physics**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Number theory in physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, my question does not belong to any of these categories. So maybe I should rather ask at [English Language &amp; Usage][2] section since I am going to ask about a definition of a word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However what I seek is more like ***practical example in physic for better understanding of the word.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which section is more suitable for such questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://english.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="47937a17-2c78-42bf-b3ef-a44dfd22167e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:09.447" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a question just an *opinion and a suggestion*. As soon as I joined I posted [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-it-wise-to-keep-the-relation-between-votes-and-rep-linear). I was shocked as it was taken in a very negative way: a dozen of downvotes, later mitigated, and many unfavourable comments. I did not really care about the votes, but I was disappointed, and you can read, by the superficiality and condescendence with wich such a delicate and vital issue was treated: just a click to say 'humbug!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the *legendary John Rennie* seemed to appreciate the validity of my arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The one point of bobie's that I think warrants close inspection is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if one reads an answer signed by a rep-4000 member one doesn't know if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he is a great scholar who gave lots of competent answer or he just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave one single answer to tell that if you want to cool off your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee you have to stir it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post made me acquainted with a nice ubermod, who showed some interest. I am writing here and not emailing him as here it is easier to quote, and as I'd like to extend my reflections to the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a month or so, **I can understand now** why the suggestion was unpopular. I have personally experienced the thrill of earning 680 pts. of rep at ELU  in a couple of minutes, just for mentioning '*thingummyjig*'. But I have not changed my opinion, I feel rather ashamed of that, even it may be considered a *fair compensation* for posts that required the knowledge of synchronic, diachronic, comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics and the command of four languages, which earned a meagre upvote, if they were not downvoted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing because also here I feel embarassed that such a [*silly answer*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133201/why-do-stickers-curl/133203#133203) could make me earn 280 pts. in 1 minute, whereas it took me dozens of hours to earn as much, editing 140 posts written in an impossible English. But that is an everyday event, all right, it excites laymen's curiosity; **what I really cannot understand**, being myself a layman in a community of scientists and physicists, why such a silly and [*basic notion*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880/is-it-possible-to-have-a-rate-of-change-of-acceleration/136882#136882) that even an ignorant *'student' (whose profound questions are considered as homework*), such as I, possesses can get 11 (uptade 12!) upvotes and fetch 110 pts. I'll be grateful if anyone of you has a rational explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that an answer (and a question) should be assessed, evaluated and rated on a scale, say from -2 to 10, (or any value you choose) and that only these votes should be authomatically turned into rep. Then you can have a '*like*' vote that can be any figure, which can measure along with the '*views*' the popularity of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why this?** Last time the '*rep-cap*' was mentioned as a remedy. It doesn't work: [look here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2121/drhodes), instead of 4000 this user earned 3500. In almost 4 years he has posted just one single answer (I dare say rather banal) and no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the problem?** That answer is so simple that the user might be a foreign high-school/junior student, and nevertheless by that he earned so many priviledges that he can close questions, make uncontrolled edits etc., &#xD;&#xA;with only 2 and a half such popular questions he can earn mod priviledges: *is this rational?*. I happened to notice at Maths SE that the whole site is ruled by a clique of semi-adolescents who act under the influence of adrenalin and ...other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last time *ubermod* said that changing current policy might be disruptive, I disagree: compiling an *adequate program* all reps would be topologically scaled down. I am sure that John wouldn't mind having less than 100k, and I wouldn't mind my 200 or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for putting up with a nuisance such as I for 2 months, there are some awsome/terrific people amongst you, and I have a few dear friends. If you want to downvote also this post, I do not mind, if you articulate and argument your dissent I will appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish? **1)** *It will just take longer.*.. to get to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; privileges, .. if  highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upvoted posters are **2)** *underserving* .. This will not hinder popular but **3)** *trivial posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accruing much more rep* than obscure but elaborate ones.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...**4)** scaling down rep will lead to *a loss of reviewing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abilities*  –  ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I summed up all possible objections in two words '**adequate program**' as I am presenting just a *basic principle* and am not elaborating a *whole strategy*, if the principle is to be implemented, *checks and balances* must be calculated, thresholds and priviledges updated and collaboration from top users needed. But some of your conclusions are not true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) it will not just take longer, time will be **different** for me and Rennie(/Motl/Floris/Kale etc) because most of their answers would be rated from 7 to **10** and my '*jerk'* would be rated 1 or 2 at most, even by myself: if I saw that I collected 3 votes, I would downvote it, if I knew that my valid posts were fairly rated. Collaboration is needed from senior members, most of whom seldom exercise their right to vote, and **rarely upvote newcomers' good answers**&#xD;&#xA;- 2) that is not my worry, I am stating principles. He should have *at most* 10 pts. , just because that is what he deserves. Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;- 3) this will not happen as shown above&#xD;&#xA;- 4) of course all thresholds ought to be revisited. But editing priviledges should **not in any way** be related to rep, that is not rational. I myself ( I suppose it is patent) am not a native speaker, and might be a 15-year-old student from China, Zambia or Chile, the fact that I asked a '*popular question*' or that I gave several '*elaborate answers*' should **never** give me the right to forcefully edit John's posts (which goal sometime I will achieve :).)&#xD;&#xA;Editing priviledges ought to be acquired *only through edits,* just as a rough example:&#xD;&#xA;after 200 edits with 99% edits approved&#xD;&#xA;- while we're on the subject, I proposed to @QMechanic (and got no reply): it is advisable to modify the program so that *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) *do not make the question bump* to the front page&#xD;&#xA;- another intelligent measure that would help voters to make a fair and unbiassed assessment is : *to keep the answer anonymous* for the first week or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So even though you cite me in your question as **appreciating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validity of your arguments,** let me make it very clear that I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprehensively **disagree with the views expressed in your question**. - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this proposition had been written by anyone else I would not comment it, as it is /gives the impression of being *self-contradictory*. I expressed a lot of views, but if your disagreements regards them all, then *that* would apply. I hope it is not so and thatyou specify which views you do not share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your pshychological motivation, that of course is true, but you make a basic mistake: *the 'drive' is competition*, sure, but you are wrong assigning importance to the *absolute* value of rep. **In competitions what matters is relative value**: &quot;I want to be/make *better than* John... and I'll post 200 answer a day&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that happens with any scale: if you increase the points (yours) to 1M and (mine) to 25k you will not 'attract' more people, nor motivate them further; likewise, if you scale them down respectively to *20K* and *200*, the psychological motivation does not change at all. It's the same with money and inflation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the *thrill*, you should quote the whole sentence: I added that *I feel ashamed of that* and that I consider that rep honestly earned (as a compensation for) [*by another answer*](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189095/why-is-herself-required-in-this-particular-sentence/191771#191771), (in an upside-down world/site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody could rather easily get moderator tools and then run amok...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even granting the point that it might be,  -- **that's a very easy fix** . - tpg2114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is a hasty conclusion &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risk of people gaining undeserved moderatorial rights.... **this simply isn't a problem.** Rather the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really -  - John Rennie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John, you are a great guy and are good-natured. You are, as you said, a pre-web kid, and I am a pre-war one. Probably it is impossible for you, (who lived in the '60s when an idylliac vision of the [*Noble savage*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage) and&#xD;&#xA;[*Coral Island*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island) was possible), to imagine how vicious kids can be on the Internet, how many teen-aged girls have been pushed to suicide on the web, making the dystopian [*Lord of the flies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) a reality. I'm sure you read this amazing book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is alright when there is an isolated case. **You do not realize** that 5-10 organized class-/school-mates can easily gain partial or full control of a site. I collected evidence on other sites, but I do not want to make this post too long. When ignorant and mean people get a massive access to priviledges, more *competent members are progressively discouraged from joining it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **if you think that** the users of this site are *neither civil* nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable, then why stay here at all?. -**ACuriousMind**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No comment**. But if your mind is *Curious* indeed, read [**this**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure) (*strawman* is the meanest of fallacies, as the *manipulation is extended from the proposition to the person*) and draw your conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vote** button: answers/questions should be rated according to its quality. If you think 100k rep is necessary to feel motivated, than rating may vary from -10 to 100. I think that is unwieldy, a scale from -2 to 10 is more manageable, or (probably best) from **-5 to 20**. Rating can be tuned in a way to insure 100k (or 1M, 1G..) to top users. If *answers were kept anonymous* for a while 'new users' could get a better deal.&#xD;&#xA;- **like** button: along with the vote a star might express that you liked it even if it is not a great answer.&#xD;&#xA;- **views**: that would tell how many guests have visioned it, but doesn't say if they liked it or not It ought to be possible to order/ classify questions according to each of these criteria&#xD;&#xA;- **accept**: if no answer is accepted, after a month the community should be allowed to choose the best answer. That would considerably reduce the number of '*unanswered questions'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;- **editors** should qualify only through successful edits. In the Italian site, for example, non native speakers with priviledges *wrongly* edited a qualified teacher's post, making her furious and abandon the site&#xD;&#xA;- **edits**: *trivial edits* of 1-3 characters (tags typos, punctuation, etc) should not make the question bump to the front page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I thank you all for your answers and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not accept any answer because mine, as clearly stated, was *not* a question. It is being downvoted *(while, oddly enough, the old one is being upvoted)*, and this is comprehensible as the *suggestion is not popular with the notables*. I posted it again because in between I made a lot of experience on other sites, and **most of all** because I myself benefitted by the current system: last time a mean reader might think I was envious, jealous of other members' luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time a mean (*or hasty*) reader may think I am not happy with this site, whereas *I clearly stated the opposite from the very beginning: &#xD;&#xA;this is probably the best SE site, there are really kind people, and even our '*kids*' are fantastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time, I thought, my best intentions are clear as I am condemning also an overrated banal answer of mine. Last time the proposal was considered interesting but with disruptive consequences: I posted again to show that *a more rational and fair system is possible without impairing top reps*. Thanks again!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="4bf51446-f48b-4b06-9af7-2bbe381d87b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:39:29.313" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowledge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modeling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current [tag:homework] tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to collectively create interesting content introducing a wide array of physics topics.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE, but much more pedagogical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="5f8964bf-4c85-4560-8d6c-1314430b6568" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[What would be the real-world implications of the Kessler Syndrome?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/439/what-would-be-the-real-world-implications-of-the-kessler-syndrome) is essentially an engineering (applied physics) question. If we ignore the specifics of that question, should we accept applied physics questions here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To suggest another example in the same category: &quot;Can you use any semiconductor material to create a LED?&quot; - undoubtedly solid state physics, but not really academical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="212ab1eb-dec4-455e-b7c5-9a2e85c22106" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [*Sonic boom equivalent for speed of light barrier*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1307/sonic-boom-equivalent-for-speed-of-light-barrier) seems to have provoked much debate in terms of whether this question is appropriate, in level and content, for this StackExchange site. Views seem to range from &quot;definitely yes&quot; to &quot;definitely no&quot;, with some advocating that it belongs on the pop. sci. SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I thought I'd gauge the community (in particular the more active members) on whether this question really belongs here. Depending on feedback, it could potentially remain open as is, locked, closed, or deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts? Please cast your desired vote on the answer (and leave a comment with your brief explanation ideally)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="db00c279-0162-4c6f-b2df-c03b7e0b4212" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was looking over the various badges the site has to offer, and noticed that a poster can earn a few of them for hitting a built-in upper limit for rep earned in a given day. That's fine, but I'm curious as to what that number is? I used the search here on the meta site and found nothing to indicate an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their names are: Epic, Legendary, and Mortarboard. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="8de38d13-142a-4110-8f22-33cfc630e7b2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have asked a questions about the definition of [average speed and its application][1] on this site, but it get closed. It should be acceptable, because physical quantities are the basic of mathematical analysis. Without it you can do nothing meaningful. So it is natural to seek their application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about if someone come up some special definition and want to know the application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How about if someone someday come up with the idea of spin-correlation and ask whether it may can show the phase transition of some models?&#xD;&#xA;* How about if they ask where can they apply the vortex-correlation?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the size of spin cluster has applications?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the average of loop length has any correlation to the magnetization, superconductivity, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why we cannot ask such kind of questions in this forum? This fit well here as physics questions, so we may seek the others opinions on the subject and someone might help each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is clear and the definition is unambiguously, don't you think that it should be allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/meaning-and-application-of-average-speed-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="a09108c2-ad92-48ee-9763-b245776c3233" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Based on some of the information in the other answers, I have an idea. (It might even be a good idea but I don't want to jinx it :-P) Suppose we allow home experiment questions, but only if they meet particular guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Format:** A good home experiment question should invite answers that include a specific **procedure** and a specific method of **data analysis**. For instance, I like [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1845/1857#1857) to the question that prompted this discussion, because it reads like a (very short) lab manual, describing the steps to take to perform the experiment, the data that will be collected, and the method by which you can interpret the results to demonstrate the relevant phenomenon. I don't like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1845/1854#1854) or [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845/1881#1881).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Specificity:** Questions should ask about a specific **quantity** that can be measured, or a specific **physical principle** that can be demonstrated (although the latter type may be at slightly higher risk of being closed as too vague). For instance, &quot;How can I measure the resistance of the human body at home?&quot; would be okay (assuming it meets the other guidelines of course). Similarly, &quot;How can I demonstrate interference of light waves?&quot; should be fine. But something like &quot;What interesting demos can I do with a hair dryer?&quot; would be too unfocused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Materials:** Questions cannot be restricted to &quot;common household materials&quot; because if you limit yourself to the things that most people happen to have lying around the house, there's not that much you can do. It would be better to allow (and even encourage) answers describing experiments which use materials that can be purchased at a reasonable cost from, say, a hardware store or electronic supply store. Someone who is really interested in physics wouldn't mind spending a little bit of money to further their knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Level:** Questions should invite answers describing experiments that would be _interesting_ to a college undergrad majoring in physics, or someone at a higher level (grad student, professor). This doesn't always mean that the experiments should require a college-level physics education to pull off; in fact, a good description of an experiment will often (but not always) be clear enough for someone without any specialized training to follow it. But the experiment should be based on physics that is more substantial than introductory level, and ideally should allow someone with a physics education to figure out new and interesting ways to analyze the data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="7a677e75-88fa-4f4d-9df8-4b2b72d2410a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has to do with this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2079/is-superstring-theory-dead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I raised my main concerns in the comments there. To summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the question as stated is too argumentative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. it is easily seen to have no real content and the answer need not be much longer than &quot;your question doesn't make sense because it's based on wrong assumptions&quot;. Namely, assumptions that science journalist know what they are writing about. In general you'll be on the safe side if you assume they don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not to say that there is no relevant physics going on. Just that the question completely misses the point. So what to do with them? Just close them or else encourage OP to rewrite them so that they ask for some real physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="4fcd7306-0fde-43bb-8d81-ba2bfae916c1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say that questions related to the purported physics in speculative fiction are fine as long as they stick to *physics*. That is, it is OK to find your motivation in SF and even to reference a well known book, but not every plot element from a book that you find in the Sci. Fi. aisle is fair game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, anything that is based on a presumed breakthough (i.e. not found in current science) is going to be a bit shaky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I feel that you *must* describe the physics situation in enough detail that a reader need not go to the book to figure out what is being asked. That last bit is the biggest failing of [&quot;Orbital mechanics of Dragon's Egg&quot;][1] as I see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see from your examples that the consensus is not really tight just now. I am not a big fan of high speculative questions: there is no way to judge the correctness of answers (well, there may be ways to judge some really *incorrect*, but...) aside from simple popularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**side note**: The [theoretical physics][2] proposal is different from [this site][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1816/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="d2d5c704-2107-4aa7-b656-09493ba92826" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same-t) has been causing a fair amount of controversy lately. Some people think it should be closed, some people think it should be opened. So I think we should get the community's input on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a light source that emits all wavelengths of visible light at the same time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should this be dealt with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The purpose of this meta question is _only_ to establish the community opinion on what to do with the original question.** This is _not_ the place to discuss whether it is correct for a moderator to override a community vote, and it is _not_ the place to discuss whether any of the comments posted or other actions taken were inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever opinion emerges from this meta question will be taken under advisement by the moderators (well, by me at least), but at this time I cannot _promise_ that the original question will be opened or closed in accordance with what we decide here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="4189c084-fef4-4761-bcc8-d6edafbe6e1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it appropriate to ask for criticism of an unpublished physics paper one is writing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure how such a question should be phrased. An example is &quot;What's the worst mistake I've made in this paper I'm planning on sending to a journal?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already asked questions about other's unpublished physics papers and it seemed to go okay. See:  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4986/could-ball-lightening-be-a-form-of-plasma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="a806d054-2435-46eb-940c-1269bd136a48" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On tag pages such as https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/electromagnetism, the text &quot;tag has no wiki summary, would you like to&quot; is unreadably dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the &quot;help us create it?&quot; part looks good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="6a99fde5-3fbb-4061-b808-5eece6ec6508" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This very useful question (community wiki) [list-of-freely-available-physics-books][1] is &#xD;&#xA;collecting a list of freely available resources that we find out there.  &#xD;&#xA;How to make it more organized, without transfer the work to some specific individual ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6157/list-of-freely-available-physics-books" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="019a1cf0-a57c-435a-a7bd-662526acfeba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently posted a question about [dangers of operating a thermonuclear reactor][1] and in the opening paragraph used a little bit of narration about importance of obtaining a sustainable source of energy such as nuclear fusion because of the climate change and the human suffering caused by fossil fuel wars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoning fossil fuels and obtaining&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sustainable, practically unlimited,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source of energy should be a prime&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goal of scientific research in physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because the climate change related to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of fossil fuels threatens the very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existence of this civilization, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the endless wars over oil cause&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immeasurable human suffering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was blasted and down-voted by a single user as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dominated by meaningless, tendentious,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and absurd ideology (about &quot;climate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this paragraph was afterwards edited out by another user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is my understanding that there is a broad consensus about the reality of climate change in the scientific community and therefore the comment was inappropriate and over the top on that level too, my basic question is if narration and subjective opinions should be allowed or even encouraged here @ Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, the purpose of that first paragraph of my question was to put the question in a perspective that a lot of people can relate to and that is why it made sense to have it there in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I see no harm in this approach, after all, the scientist who did most to popularize the science, like Carl Sagan, were heavy on narration and opinions and had the great ability to explain scientific concepts in terms understandable to a much wider audience than the scientific community alone. &#xD;&#xA;While I'm sure some purists would love that all communication here was within strict language of physics and dominated by equations and I see nothing wrong in majority of the questions being asked and answered in that manner, at the same time why would it be wrong to use some narration and subjective opinions to make the communication more interesting and approachable to people who are not physicists and cannot communicate at that level?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7539/is-there-any-inherent-danger-in-operating-a-thermonuclear-reactor&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="ed5fb839-cc0b-45a3-a16a-8ecb94f62654" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm trying to post some code in [this answer][1], but only a portion of the code I've copied is showing up.  What's going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8074/why-is-the-earth-so-fat/8114#8114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="700ad589-6f13-4d11-ba5b-18ad855b638e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8179/how-can-a-point-particle-have-properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the parts that were open to criticism. It has 4 upvotes, and people who are trying to answer it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up for open, down for close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="272acc13-6fce-4936-9d4a-ad159a93fed5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm wondering whether questions such as these should be considered appropriate on this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/115/mathematica-to-help-for-an-hamiltonian-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107/conversion-from-fits-to-netcdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207/matlab-simpowersystem-simple-generator-implementation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem like questions which are relevant to physicists (or some subset of physicists) but are really about computing rather than physics. In my view, just because the specific programs or file formats in question are typically used by physicists, it doesn't mean the question is necessarily appropriate here. Sometimes Super User might be a better fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As discussed in Noldorin's answer and Tobias's comment, we seem to be taking the position that questions about the interpretation or justification of an algorithm or its results, or about physically motivated algorithm design, are okay, but questions about how to accomplish &amp;lt;task&amp;gt; in &amp;lt;program&amp;gt; (or &amp;lt;programming language&amp;gt;) should generally go to Super User (or Stack Overflow, respectively)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="39244bb6-85a8-49db-8457-27d7e9011fc0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The *are* over, and you find the results at the [election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election). There was also a [more detailed, but unofficial breakdown][1] posted to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=832787#832787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="6ade3a49-13ef-4d0c-897a-0212d7fb53aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Usually when you can formulate well a quantitative questions, then you can answer it as well. Of course there may be exceptions, but well, no one forbids to ask them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existence of a definitive answer should never be a criterium of asking a question in physics. It is not maths and the most fundamental thinks usually are such in which we do not even now if we are asking the right questions. Definite numerical answer is only guaranteed for some textbooks problems.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, sometimes quantative answers are natural, see e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/379/in-optics-how-does-the-vacuum-state-compare-to-thermal-radiation/446#446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="7081d043-7a6e-4075-b1e2-acd4a1b69c1a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just noticed that we have a new section on our [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) about notation and symbols. What should go in this section? Obviously we can't explain all the mathematical notation that physics uses, but are there any conventions peculiar to this site that we should include?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="092983f5-f9c8-48c3-ac48-eb1cf2b9a84e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been some arguments that the following two questions (and perhaps others like them) are off topic at this site, and perhaps should be migrated to electronics.SE. What does the community think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11326/what-causes-hard-working-growling-sound-in-a-heavily-loaded-electric-motor&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11335/why-do-we-need-brushed-motors&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="e5f120d3-075a-4f1d-a1a4-f1a9eb3a49b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was disappointed that my [question about eigenfunctions of the fourier transform][1] was closed so quickly.  Given the ubiquity of the Fourier transform in physics, it seems like an excessively narrow view of &quot;physics&quot; to consider the question off-topic.  Or should we direct all 'math methods' questions to math.SE?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386/how-do-i-compute-the-eigenfunctions-of-the-fourier-transform-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="c6625304-cf8c-4d2d-ba3e-1ecd773b9baf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="After the migration of [Why do we need brushed motors?][1] from an electronics.SE moderator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question did alright, but Electronics.SE is about designing electronics and actually does not include mechanical issues such as motors except at a superficial level. We will see if that changes, but unless it is a good motor question, please do not migrate. – Kortuk &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have at least one rule about things to *not* migrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/11335/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="b8daf13b-d44d-44ac-b21b-7758a4bd1135" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Having gained 1500 reputation, I didn't lose any time and created a tag wiki for [classical-mechanics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/classical-mechanics/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quickly found out that creating something useful isn't easy at all. Actually, I am not really sure what kind of information to include (there are some hints but I didn't really find them helpful).&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like this question become a place for a discussion of general format of the tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One suggestion per answer, please. *(Also I'd like to make this community wiki).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="455971b1-5e35-4e82-b3c3-1c4a374e1bec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question was unanswered, and such get poked randomly to give them another chance ([see Community user profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)). It may be prevented by accepting some answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for seeing all changes, you can click on the &quot;Edited...&quot; link (if the question was ever edited) or put its ID in such an URL `https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/&lt;ID&gt;/revisions` to see recent changes. In case of the question I think you are asking about i it looks like [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/10551/revisions). However, as you can see, Community pokes are not visible there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="10240943-79d1-46b1-8167-7c408e24b491" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="E.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that when most answers have 30+ comments, it becomes very hard to follow what is going on or have a constructive discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my answer I have at the moment 86 comments...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way of using the site in such cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="e199bd9f-8be2-4d05-a70a-75ddbd4192b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you look at the [universe](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/universe) and [space](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/space) tags you'll immediately notice that except for one or two of the questions the rest either has wrong tags, are closed or else are hugely down-voted (by the way, this is a good moment to take a look and vote to close some of them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I wonder what's the best strategy to go about these tags? Personally I'd remove the *space* tag completely (because space, in its most concrete meaning is either just a mathematical or a philosophical concept. No physics in that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *universe*, I am inclined to let it stay (in connection with cosmology and astrophysics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you think we should do with them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="eb46cdbb-07cf-4343-b110-640fc8d39db0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[My question][1] on econophysics is closed for being 'off-topic'. But at this stage-- when there is no econophysics forum and the boundary of Physics SE is less defined and rigid-- it should *not* be closed. Also one must understand that econophysics is physics, with some economics bent. Much like how engineering physics is physics with engineering application bent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention closing a question when the answerer hadn't even done with his answer is plain-- how to put it nicely-- *rude*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't you feel that my question should remain open?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="c4b4ab7b-9792-4704-847f-203a66eb203b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, Noldorin has closed three questions that I've noticed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a question about [using household devices to experiment with electromagnetism][1] , [econophysics][2], and [whether a certain definable quantity has a physical importance][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the asker of the question believed the question was appropriate for  the site.  None of these were trolling, spam, or other flagrant violations of the site's purpose.  As David Zaslavsky and mbq have pointed out to me, moderators cannot &quot;vote to close&quot;, they can only close questions or leave them, and so their decisions are important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The econophysics question was reopened, but the other two are still closed as of right now.  We should be working to decide communally what the scope of the site is, and what questions are off-topic.  Instead, we have posters whose questions are being quickly shut down, even when there are a number of people here who believe they are relevant questions, and want to either provide an answer or at least follow the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;At this early stage of the site, moderators should only close questions that are advertisements (&quot;Why haven't you purchased my self-published pamphlet?&quot;, clear trolling (&quot;Why are all physicists so full of themselves?&quot;), or egregiously off-topic, (&quot;Who is your favorite Rainbow Brite character?&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When moderators want to close questions that don't fall into these categories, I request they first post a comment explaining their desire to close, then wait twelve hours or so to hear if there are objections before closing, at least at this early stage of the site when we are not finished defining the site's scope.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;After hearing comments from Robert and David, it seems appropriate for moderators to close questions quickly due to the &quot;broken window&quot; effect.  My request becomes one that I'm sure the moderators are already doing - just to stay abreast of the discussions on meta about which sorts of questions are appropriate and back of the consensus of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1845&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/application-of-mean-of-speed-distribution-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="8f626e8a-49af-49cf-8cd6-a3080ca8f89a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I understand it, these are questions on *how to do physics in general* rather than *how to solve a particular problem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions might ask about the list of literature for a certain subject. Or ask for general ideas useful in physics (or subject thereof). Or about history of a certain topic (but this is subtle: we'd in general like to have at least some physical content in the question, rather than just a historical). I guess you get the idea. Anyway, why don't you just [go look at those questions for yourself](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question)? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="31b805a5-820e-42fa-9450-89ad192508e9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just answered this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14165/how-can-area-be-a-vector and included a couple of images. I think especially for novices a picture of what you just wrote can go a long way to explain the concept. I &quot;stole&quot; those from wikipedia. Is there a way to scale them down a bit from the original size, since they turned out a little too big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="2197d450-3356-4bc9-8745-abe28f8fa4e7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently [this question][2] was reopened by 5 reopen votes from 5 members with more than 500 reputation points (including me) which at this point of the forum's history is quite a few votes. Only 38 members have enough reputation to vote to reopen so 5 is 13% of those eligible to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subsequently, Noldorin, who closed the question the first time closed it again with this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm sorry, I'm closing this again&#xD;&#xA;&gt; until the question is improved! –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noldorin♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why give us the right to reopen if a moderator is going to arbitrarily close it without discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the guidelines for moderators overriding the reopen votes of the community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same-t/2570#2570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="ffc6145f-87ea-4e02-b4e2-95fca44b3447" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why was [we don't serve tachyons around here][1]&#xD;&#xA;closed? To me is seemed on topic because it asked about the physics in a joke that only physicists would appear to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15021/the-bar-tender-says-we-dont-serve-tachyons-around-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="7beaa437-9920-4c4f-b1f3-f0bdcbb50da9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This [answer about nanotubes][1] included a very interesting (at least to me) diagram. I thought the author really took the time to conjure up some TikZ magic. Eventually, I found this paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The electronic properties of graphene  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Castro Neto, F Guinea, N Peres, K Novoselov, A Geim (2009)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reviews of Modern Physics 81 (1) p. 109-162  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the exact same image was in Figure 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shall we have a policy regarding citing sources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, am preparing for graduate school, and I would like to learn how to find my way around the field I am applying to; so knowing which important papers to read would be very helpful for community members like me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I almost added a comment to the answer regarding citing the source, but I didn't know how to play the role of &quot;plagiarism police&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1572/how-to-determine-the-n-m-dimensions-of-a-carbon-nanotube/1573#1573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="973" RevisionGUID="5430eb8b-a375-4537-bab5-5c9f005c9a61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Two recent questions from one user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What are some interesting calculus of variation problems?][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [What are some interesting coupled harmonic oscillators problems?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my point of view these are &quot;make a list&quot;, so should certainly be Community Wiki, but moreover they don't seem to contribute very much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They don't seem to fit any of the explicitly allowed categories, nor are they *&quot;practical, answerable questions based on actual problems&quot;*. Instead the run to open-ended, collecting a book's worth of examples with no unifying theme, and they are a reasonable if inexact match for the *&quot;every answer is equally valid&quot;* category of bad questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the generic formulation suggests that there will be no end to them and even if there are a few interesting ones, most will be pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments on their on-topicness and or Community Wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17552/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17624/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="255fa5da-cd9c-4791-a772-23a1304b6ecd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am no expert, but it strikes me as more of a science fiction &quot;what if?&quot; than an actual hard Physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask and in particular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if \_\_\_\_\_\_ happened?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="bbf1f1a2-eab0-42b9-a079-2fec8ab90ea5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On one hand I can understand how these questions can be useful to people. But on the other hand, they strike me as _forum_ topics. They have value, but they are not a good fit for the Stack Exchange model. (It is important to remember that SE is not trying to become a repository for every bit of useful information on the internet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been thinking about these questions, and at this point I'm inclined to just close them as off topic. Perhaps we can refer the questioners to [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com), which would be better able to accommodate these sorts of requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these questions do wind up remaining open here, I don't particularly care whether they are CW or not. The point of making list questions CW is so that they don't contribute to reputation, because the answers typically don't require much knowledge of physics, but I'm not sure if that is necessarily the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** We just had [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18098/real-world-examples-for-projectile-trown-upwards-or-downwards) posted on the main site, which I consider to be very well written and which I am reluctant to close despite it being an example of a question looking for a list of interesting problems. Perhaps the distinction in my mind is this: a question which is looking for a list of problems about X needs to explain in detail what qualifications the problems should have (i.e. don't just say &quot;interesting,&quot; explain what you consider to be interesting) and explain why existing problems about X are insufficient for the asker's purposes. I would welcome comments about this idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="ad86e1ef-c612-4014-8fa9-7be8eac73c35" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think we already have an abundance of people who have clever things to say, whether or not those observations are related in any way to the discussion they are joining. This sort of thing will get out of control if they are encouraged to show their brilliance in the form of a puzzle. For an example where this can lead you can look at [this gem][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4827/is-the-total-energy-conserved-in-a-moving-reference-frame&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="b51cc550-e74e-4968-8e48-9b89cdba2fc5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the FAQ it is said that &quot;do my homework&quot; questions are not welcome on physics.stackexchange. So far I was sure that I know what are that questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Formulation of some non-conceptual problem: &quot;given A, find B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  2. No attempts to solve the problem or understand the conditions are shown in the post.&#xD;&#xA;  3. The question is &quot;what is B?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have flagged 4 questions using these criteria. The flags for two questions have been declined. These questions got some up-votes and answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. [What would be pressure of 1 kg of photon gas at room temperature put in a volume of 1 liter?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18942/what-would-be-pressure-of-1-kg-of-photon-gas-at-room-temperature-put-in-a-volume) - looks like it was just copied from some textbook without any editions. Criteria: 1, 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;  2. [Rolling resistance and static friction](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19245/rolling-resistance-and-static-friction) - some useless &quot;I'm confused&quot; introduction and an exercise from another textbook. Criteria: 1 and 3 for sure. An attempt to avoid criterion 2 (IMHO, not successful).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are not worth neither the up-votes nor the good answers they got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something is wrong for sure in my criteria since those questions are neither edited nor closed.  &#xD;&#xA;What is wrong? What are the correct criteria?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="29626836-8b54-4d58-bd9f-7a835bcffc7c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="![](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/98.png)&#xD;&#xA;![](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/98.png?theme=clean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The default and clean theme for [user flairs][1] have unreadable font colors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="003e564f-574a-4193-82a6-7cce1a82fad8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions that may fit this: [1][1], [2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a number of sources (e.g. [1][3], [2][4], [3][5]) that claim to teach (some part of) physics, some of which seem questionable.  If they are on-topic, should there be a tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6446/7744&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7506/7744&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://www.khanacademy.org/#physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="099f399b-ce81-4043-9c8b-0cb688d816a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You seem to have [the requisite reputation][1] (and had it at the time this question was posted, too), so it should just work. Can you try again. Possibly the chat system didn't notice right away that you had enough rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that fails I'm out of my depth and we'll look for someone who knows more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="be823acf-00bd-46e9-9bd2-65d037195242" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Idea is great, but good idea is not enough. You need to find the appropriate questions, efficient method of collaboration and get the critical mass of brains (no idea how much is enough).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, maybe it is good to ask questions on physicsSE, perhaps as community wiki for open questions. If you see that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there is some interest&#xD;&#xA;* _and_ too much discussion/reformulation is involved for the frames of SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_then_ it may be worth to start a blog/wiki/... Otherwise, the idea might be not as good as it seems.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Kinds of questions, which may be good (note that I am biased):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Short, well defined ones (e.g. quantum state engineering, wave optics). Stimuli: [one of my questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1110/which-qubit-states-are-accessible-with-linear-optics-operations) (though it did not get much attention).&#xD;&#xA;* Open questions, easily to solve or simulate, but more difficult to define _well_ (e.g. complex system - modeling human behaviour, simple models of seen phenomena). Stimuli: [Is That Seat Taken?](http://zia.hss.cmu.edu/econ/homework98.html) (or [more](http://zia.hss.cmu.edu/econ/homework10.html)), [International Young Physicists' Tournament](http://ptf.fuw.edu.pl/tmf.html) (click -&gt; problems; there are mostly experimental and for high school, but just interesting and open, so they show how to ask potentially good questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Problems of the Physics Olympiad seems to be less profound (or rather: have less potential of being converted into something profound) than that of the Mathematical Olympiad.&#xD;&#xA;* In general, in Mathematics it is simpler to define exactly a problem.&#xD;&#xA;* In physics, there are less conjectures and more open-defined questions (i.e. when asking the right question is crucial, using realistic approximations, including/excluding phenomena in meaningful way, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would like to have the tool decentralizes - anyone can post problem, anyone up/down vote questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="c21b4c2d-176f-4fea-89a2-616f1f204cc3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Actually that comes in at #13. You're looking for [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18605/variation-of-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/18612#18612).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/64341/the-longest-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="3f414ba6-670c-4520-abc3-43a7c179639a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="First: You question appears in my browser:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you running a UserScript of some kind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, [your question][2] is a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not stupid, nor necessarily wrong, but it conflates at least two problems and is riddled with imprecise statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I find troubling about the question (i.e. things you could try fixing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You seem to have framed a question about the [&quot;measurement problem&quot;][3] in terms of the double slit experiment. That's unnecessary complication and can only distract from the issue at hand (and to tell the truth, I'm not sure which issue you really want addressed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Making a analogy to alpha--atom scattering in an attempt to understand photon--bulk-material interaction is deeply silly: they simply don't share enough physics for this to make sense. (The target in the Rutherford experiment was carefully prepared to have a thickness on order of a small integer number of atoms because alphas have very short ranges in matter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AMTGs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5241/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="6da19b25-7089-4ade-802e-418be8b1913a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This][1] is the second time today that a naive question was closed, and this time even before arguments started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*closed as subjective and argumentative by mbq♦ 1 hour ago*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think that the simple answer that mathematics is necessary for learning physics is either subjective,  or argumentative. If physicists do not have a consensus on the need of mathematics we should all hand in our degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is good that an eye is kept on comments and answers that are bickering instead of offering information, one has to respect/check whether the questioner is young, as he must be in this case just by the way the question was formulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one incendiary comment  was not taken up in a response :*well, he could become a &quot;climate scientist&quot; and get honorary doctorates just like Al Gore... – jwenting 2 hours ago* .  The comment could have been deleted, as I have seen other comments deleted instead of closing the question. What if trolling becomes a problem, would the moderators close all trolled questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This high handedness on the part of moderators is not nurturing the young who want to become physicists, and should either be encouraged or *gently* discouraged. It is a question that students would be looking at after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unless students are to be discouraged in stating questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7294/do-you-really-need-to-be-a-math-whiz-to-succeed-in-physics-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="7f14c0da-4b69-4301-a5af-05cf6c6f3e10" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Mainly in reference to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22398/direction-of-rotation-of-proton-in-magnetic-field-opposite-to-a-dipole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently asked a paradox question, and I got multiple answers that conflicted each other. The issue is that each one has good arguments that make sense, and the community seems undecided. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(barring my CW answer), the vote counts are thus: (+3-2),(+2-1),(+1-1). Note that I had upvoted each answer as it came in, since while reading it it immediately made sense, though not so much later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from offering a bounty (which I shall do tomorrow or something), what else can one do in such a case? After all, there is no Grand Poohbah of physics on P.SE, or indeed anywhere. Neither is there a &quot;manual&quot;. So how can one know which answer is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, what is the admissibility of such &quot;paradox&quot; questions on this site? Paradoxes(-xi?) usually have multiple resolutions, but all the resolutions boil down to the same issue, so I personally feel that they aren't subjective. But I don't know what others' opinions are on this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="738dc329-855f-4d98-8454-b52e9b1c89db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/7687/2451) I cited some work I did a while ago.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what extent should we allow self-linking?  I have noticed in some cases there is self-linking that is only tangentially related to the question.  (I'll give the example I had in mind if need be, but if not it'd be nicer not to call the user out before we've discussed the issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What policy should we have to deal with cases of vanity-linking? I would propose that any time a user puts a link to content they have generated (or participated in generating), they explicitly state that it's their content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="e16f3908-3fe2-4eac-99d6-9b43f8fcfb57" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One of the great things about P.SE is that [in the process of writing answers, I learn a lot][1]. In this spirit, I've posted [many answers][2] which I'm not completely sure about, along with a hatnote stating the same and &quot;Comments appreciated&quot;. Many of these have been extremely helpful to me; and I've learned lots of new stuff by posting such answers. But there's no guarantee that such answers are beneficial to the community--after all, they are more of a supplementary question at times. I know the argument &quot;ask it as a question instead&quot;, but I feel that it won't cover everything--I tend to have small misconceptions in my knowledge, which would be impossible to find via a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I just wanted to get a feel of what the community thinks of such answers and/or their (in)appropriateness according to policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3778089#3778089&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=comments%20appreciated%20user:7433&amp;submit=search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="1326eaf8-5538-4949-80da-c34ff93d49fa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here are some guidelines on what type of questions are generally acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="c062aef0-eedb-4122-a0f8-0c617eb12c4e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the space of 5 mins, two of my answers from other questions have been upvoted and all because I asked a [good question][1] today. It's very flattering, I must admit, but are there safe guards in place to prevent someone upvoting too many questions for one person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24596/is-the-converse-of-noethers-first-theorem-true-every-conservation-law-has-a-sy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="8166c1a9-0779-47fc-ba2a-a659df7859bf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7702/does-quantum-mechanics-prohibit-extraterrestrial-life-closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has been closed as &quot;off-topic&quot; with a reference to the FAQ (https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq). I have read the FAQ and found nothing that could prohibit that kind of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that the question is heavily based on the &quot;quantum immortality&quot; hypothesis which is not universally accepted, and I was attacked for referencing to this hypothesis as well as the Tegmark's interpretation of Quantum mechanics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I believe that &quot;quantum immortality&quot; hypothesis even if incorrect, still is a completely valid one, and supported by a number of prominent physicists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I oppose closing questions based on personal theoretic preferences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="9f6e7bb3-4e6a-4fff-a114-110130595594" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question has been closed by a moderator. I wonder, why and can it be re-opened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9651/new-kind-of-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="b240e309-6a22-44ba-b120-12d394940234" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen some rather philosophical or interpretational questions pop up lately. These questions tend to get closed very quickly. I'm wondering if this is neccessary, since such questions can have interesting or enlightening answers. This is not about purely philosophical questions, nor about speculative or esoteric stuff, but rather about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- philosophy of physics/science&#xD;&#xA;- interpretational issues of physical theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and to a lesser extent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- epistemological and philosphical issues, as long as they are relevant for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why is the 'multiverse' critized as being non-physical?&#xD;&#xA;- Is Bayesian 'degree of belief' subjective? If so, how can it be justified?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the universe infinite? (spatially, or in time)&#xD;&#xA;- Why can't physics say something about X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some real examples (admittedly not the best):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Is the quantum measurement problem merely a word game?][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Are there any confirmed examples of epiphenomenalism?][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Are the laws of physics applied mathematics?][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [Is the wave function objective or subjective?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you find better examples, don't hesitate to append them / comment. I'm posting my opinion as an answer. If you disagree, please don't downvote this question, but the answer. Or better, post another answer. :-)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Edit: Added some fictional questions for clarity.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12137/825&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13122/are-there-any-confirmed-examples-of-epiphenomenalism&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8408/are-the-laws-of-physics-applied-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/is-the-wave-function-objective-or-subjective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="9c94ff71-de8f-44e6-9290-a2b3df11928d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It can be sometimes be notoriously hard to find correct references. For example, I was going to mention a certain theory of extra dimensions in a paper (this is experimental particle physics). A colleague pointed out to me that the paper I was quoting was pretty derivative, and that there has been done equivalent, but more comprehensive work a couple of years earlier, although the theory had a different name back then. The newer paper wasn't quoting the older one (directly), and without expertise in this sub-field, I would have had a hard time finding the other papers. Now not everyone has a helpful colleague who seemingly knows all the literature, so I think this site can be a pretty good place to find references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd even go further and say, this site is pretty good to find *ideas*. I know *such-and-such*, but who said that and why is this so? This site helped me twice:&#xD;&#xA;[here][1] where I was pointed to a standard reference which I knew superficially, but didn't know that it answered my question, and [here][2] I had a silly idea, wondered if someone smarter had already thought about it, but I didn't know what to search for, and I got a tip that got me started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We just have to make sure that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This doesn't invite lazy people to let us do there homework for them ;-) and&#xD;&#xA;2. The references stay recent as the field develops and new papers come out. This can be done by posting new answers, or using the edit function (which seems rarely used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9258/why-are-the-third-generation-superpartners-lighter-than-the-other-sfermions-in-ms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11881/why-does-the-weak-force-distinguish-left-and-right-handedness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="4b00c5c5-9424-426a-aaed-cc87e8a8805d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 3 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25739/a-fermi-question-are-there-more-stars-than-grains-of-sand&quot;&gt;A Fermi-question: Are there more stars than grains of sand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe calculations approximation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25741/what-objects-states-of-objects-with-absolute-magnitude-do-we-know-of&quot;&gt;What objects/states of objects with absolute magnitude do we know of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance luminosity object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26169/could-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-map-be-used-as-a-backup-f&quot;&gt;Could the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) map be used as a backup for GPS nav&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26519/vision-vs-limiting-magnitude&quot;&gt;Vision vs. limiting magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy optics apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25770/software-for-creating-custom-star-charts&quot;&gt;Software for Creating Custom Star Charts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26702/would-the-time-dilation-from-being-in-low-orbit-around-a-black-hole-delay-slow-t&quot;&gt;Would the time dilation from being in low orbit around a black hole delay/slow the effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25888/all-significant-objects-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;All significant objects in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object object classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26510/why-is-oxygen-the-third-most-abundant-element&quot;&gt;Why is oxygen the third most abundant element?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26521/how-did-micrometeorite-flux-change-with-the-age-of-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How did micrometeorite flux change with the age of the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25787/is-co2-really-a-potent-greenhouse-gas-for-planets-around-m-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Is CO2 really a potent greenhouse gas for planets around M dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25382/how-can-we-be-sure-that-liquid-iron-titanium-droplets-can-form-around-particulat&quot;&gt;How can we be sure that liquid iron/titanium droplets can form around particulates on hot &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26278/what-is-the-mass-of-the-lego-figurines-being-launched-with-spacecraft-juno&quot;&gt;What is the mass of the LEGO figurines being launched with spacecraft Juno?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter nasa launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26021/how-does-the-average-mars-jupiter-distance-compare-with-the-average-earth-jupite&quot;&gt;How does the average Mars-Jupiter distance compare with the average Earth-Jupiter distance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&quot;&gt;Can we model gravitation as a repulsive force?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26148/how-are-interplanetary-trajectories-found&quot;&gt;How are interplanetary trajectories found?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/meteorites-from-mars&quot;&gt;Meteorites from Mars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26157/is-there-any-way-to-judge-whether-a-bolide-might-produce-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Is there any way to judge whether a bolide might produce a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26175/what-determines-a-progenitors-fate-as-a-spiral-or-elliptical&quot;&gt;What determines a progenitor's fate as a spiral or elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies star-formation angular-momentum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26161/if-you-focus-in-on-one-image-is-combining-two-telescopes-through-optical-inter&quot;&gt;If you focus in on one image, is combining two telescopes (through optical interferometry)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25852/is-a-water-world-possible-and-for-how-long-could-it-be-stable&quot;&gt;Is a water world possible, and for how long could it be stable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system sun atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/anti-matter-black-holes&quot;&gt;Anti-Matter Black Holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/how-do-the-day-night-temperature-variations-of-moons-compare-to-those-of-their-p&quot;&gt;How do the day/night temperature variations of moons compare to those of their parent plan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25764/does-the-earth-help-stabilize-changes-in-the-moons-obliquity-as-well&quot;&gt;Does the Earth help stabilize changes in the moon's obliquity as well?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26399/are-meteorites-igneous-sedimentary-or-metamorphic-rocks&quot;&gt;Are meteorites igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&quot;&gt;What is the format for &quot;local catalog&quot; files used by JSkyCat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25847/do-red-galaxies-have-red-star-lit-skies&quot;&gt;Do red galaxies have red star-lit skies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25811/are-there-any-earth-meteorites-on-earth&quot;&gt;Are there any Earth-Meteorites on Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26358/what-is-the-irregularity-of-uranus-orbit-caused-by-neptune&quot;&gt;What is the irregularity of Uranus orbit caused by Neptune?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit uranus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26085/what-are-the-most-accurate-ways-to-find-the-average-distance-between-stars-in-th&quot;&gt;What are the most accurate ways to find the average distance between stars in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25640/is-angular-resolution-especially-important-when-we-just-want-to-take-the-spectra&quot;&gt;Is angular resolution especially important when we just want to take the spectra of an Ear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26473/for-resolving-different-objects-are-there-any-alternative-coefficients-to-the-o&quot;&gt;For resolving different objects, are there any alternative coefficients to the one used in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/are-telescopes-with-a-concave-lens-useful-for-astronomy&quot;&gt;Are telescopes with a concave lens useful for astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26165/how-are-galaxy-filaments-formed-and-do-they-have-any-analogues-in-stellar-forma&quot;&gt;How are galaxy filaments formed? And do they have any analogues in stellar formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26622/what-are-some-molecules-stable-in-outer-space-that-are-unstable-under-terrestria&quot;&gt;What are some molecules stable in outer space that are unstable under terrestrial conditio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26117/what-distinguishes-a-moon-from-orbiting-space-debris-or-in-other-words-when-is&quot;&gt;What distinguishes a moon from orbiting space debris? Or in other words, when is a satelli&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/amateur-stargazing-30-degrees-n&quot;&gt;Amateur Stargazing (30 degrees N)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25643/what-makes-us-think-we-can-actually-detect-gravitational-waves&quot;&gt;What makes us think we can actually detect gravitational waves?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25674/how-much-energy-does-a-super-nova-generate&quot;&gt;How much energy does a super nova generate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics supernova estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26259/how-does-the-view-of-night-sky-change-as-the-sun-orbits-around-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;How does the view of night sky change as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26499/how-far-would-you-need-to-displace-your-eyes-to-get-meaningful-depth-perception&quot;&gt;How far would you need to displace your eyes to get meaningful depth perception of the sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-can-y-dwarf-stars-have-such-a-low-temperature&quot;&gt;How can Y-dwarf stars have such a low temperature?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25465/what-is-the-current-evaluation-of-a-sky-map-application-for-mobile-devices&quot;&gt;What is the current evaluation of a sky map application for mobile devices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26083/why-are-our-planets-in-the-solar-system-all-on-the-same-disc-plane-layer&quot;&gt;Why are our planets in the solar system all on the same disc/plane/layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26280/are-our-telescopes-capable-of-taking-actual-images-of-brown-dwarfs&quot;&gt;Are our telescopes capable of taking actual images of brown dwarfs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25399/what-conditions-should-an-asteroid-or-comet-impact-need-to-meet-in-order-to-star&quot;&gt;What conditions should an asteroid or comet impact need to meet in order to start an impac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet impact &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26459/how-do-we-determine-what-distant-planets-stars-etc-are-made-of&quot;&gt;How do we determine what distant planets, stars etc are made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets stars spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25317/assuming-an-observer-is-50-light-years-away-in-the-plane-of-the-solar-system-an&quot;&gt;Assuming an observer is 50 light years away, in the plane of the solar system and observin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25986/what-to-show-a-beginner&quot;&gt;What to show a beginner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25554/why-is-the-measured-distance-to-the-triangulum-galaxy-much-more-uncertain-than-t&quot;&gt;Why is the measured distance to the Triangulum Galaxy much more uncertain than to the Andr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26411/curvature-of-the-universe-imaginary&quot;&gt;Curvature of the Universe imaginary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26151/galaxies-seen-from-earth&quot;&gt;Galaxies seen from Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26252/what-are-the-differences-in-using-an-eyepiece-with-a-barlow-instead-of-a-shorter&quot;&gt;What are the differences in using an eyepiece with a barlow instead of a shorter eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26307/the-collision-of-phobos&quot;&gt;The collision of Phobos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets moons mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25718/rainbow-around-sun&quot;&gt;Rainbow around Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25437/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why do we always see the same side of the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26134/what-are-the-known-relationships-between-rotation-of-planets-moons-and-their-dis&quot;&gt;What are the known relationships between rotation of planets/moons and their distance to s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat&quot;&gt;Why are some galaxies flat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics angular-momentum spin galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26578/near-earth-supernova&quot;&gt;Near-Earth supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth supernova speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25407/how-will-the-luminosity-of-the-current-very-near-supernova-ia-ptf-11kly-develo&quot;&gt;How will the luminosity of the current very near supernova Ia &quot;PTF 11kly&quot; develop in the n&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophotography supernova amateur-astronomy luminosity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26450/what-equipment-is-needed-for-equatorial-drift-scanning-tdi-with-a-dobsonian&quot;&gt;What equipment is needed for equatorial drift scanning/TDI with a Dobsonian?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25357/what-happens-to-the-neighboring-star-of-a-type-ia-supernova&quot;&gt;What happens to the neighboring star of a type Ia supernova?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26314/are-there-certain-alignments-in-planetary-orbits-that-create-interesting-effects&quot;&gt;Are there certain alignments in planetary orbits that create interesting effects in the mo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25633/how-did-the-radiative-flux-of-each-gas-giant-planet-change-with-respect-to-time&quot;&gt;How did the radiative flux of each gas giant planet change with respect to time (since the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25746/particular-targets-of-high-angular-resolution-infrared-telescopes&quot;&gt;Particular targets of high angular resolution infrared telescopes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26625/formula-for-rotation-curves-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Formula for Rotation Curves of Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26236/can-the-milky-way-galaxy-be-seen-by-the-naked-eye-in-a-clear-sky&quot;&gt;Can the &quot;Milky Way&quot; galaxy be seen by the naked eye in a clear sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25731/if-the-earth-didnt-rotate-how-would-a-foucault-pendulum-work&quot;&gt;If the Earth didn't rotate, how would a Foucault pendulum work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26572/are-there-trojan-family-or-hilda-family-satellites-locked-in-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Are there Trojan family or Hilda family satellites locked in Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics earth satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037/is-building-your-own-reflector-telescope-worth-it&quot;&gt;Is building your own reflector telescope worth it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26690/how-much-of-the-earth-would-a-spoonful-of-the-sun-scorch&quot;&gt;How much of the Earth would a spoonful of the Sun scorch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/on-what-planar-regions-are-the-earth-moon-for-that-matter-all-astronomical-b&quot;&gt;On what planar regions are the Earth, Moon.. for that matter, all astronomical bodies, pla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25483/remnant-of-a-supernova&quot;&gt;Remnant of a supernova&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25774/creating-a-star-map&quot;&gt;Creating a Star Map&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25516/balmer-lines-and-their-positions&quot;&gt;Balmer lines and their positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d&quot;&gt;How long does it take to travel 36 light years with tolerable acceleration and deceleratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25527/how-to-get-started-in-astronomy-uk-based&quot;&gt;How to get started in Astronomy (UK based)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography software beginner amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/what-is-the-name-of-this-galaxy-in-hcg7&quot;&gt;What is the name of this galaxy in HCG7?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26418/computing-period-semi-major-axis-of-binary&quot;&gt;Computing period, semi-major axis of binary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26679/is-it-easier-to-learn-more-about-the-seasonal-changes-in-an-exoplanets-atmosphe&quot;&gt;Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26143/phases-of-the-moon-video&quot;&gt;Phases of the moon video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26393/axial-tilt-and-precession-rate-of-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Axial Tilt and precession rate of exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26772/how-to-calculate-how-many-degrees-the-sun-is-from-the-horizon&quot;&gt;How to calculate how many degrees the Sun is from the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr&quot;&gt;What percent of planets are in the position that they could be viewed edge-on from Earth? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26748/are-there-planets-that-do-not-rotate-on-their-axis&quot;&gt;Are there planets that do not rotate on their axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space&quot;&gt;How vacuous is intergalactic space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe intergalactic-space &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25390/where-to-find-information-on-the-pulsar-map-written-to-voyagers-golden-record&quot;&gt;Where to find information on the pulsar map written to Voyager's golden record?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight voyager pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/could-there-be-a-body-of-water-the-size-of-a-planet&quot;&gt;Could there be a body of water the size of a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26406/is-water-necessary-for-forming-the-sedimentary-rocks-found-on-mars-surface&quot;&gt;Is water necessary for forming the sedimentary rocks found on Mars' surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25350/what-physical-interactions-actually-make-single-stars-leave-their-binary-compani&quot;&gt;What physical interactions actually make single stars leave their binary companions at for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26686/why-cant-jupiter-be-seen-over-thanksgiving-break&quot;&gt;Why can't Jupiter be seen over Thanksgiving break?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26297/why-are-most-astronomy-things-spherical-in-the-shape-like-the-sun-the-moon-t&quot;&gt;Why are most astronomy things spherical in the shape (like, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26504/are-planetary-orbits-measured-from-the-suns-surface-or-centre&quot;&gt;Are planetary orbits measured from the Sun's surface or centre?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/what-sort-of-propulsion-would-we-require-for-interstellar-travel&quot;&gt;What sort of propulsion would we require for interstellar travel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26674/photographs-of-galaxies-many-light-years-far-from-the-earth&quot;&gt;Photographs of galaxies many light years far from the Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/celestron-nexstar-6-se-vs-orion-xt8&quot;&gt;Celestron NexStar 6 SE vs. Orion XT8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26232/fall-winter-viewing&quot;&gt;Fall/Winter Viewing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25344/contents-page-of-exoplanets-book&quot;&gt;Contents page of Exoplanets book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26224/new-type-of-type-ia-supernova-implications-to-dark-energy-measurement&quot;&gt;New Type of Type Ia supernova. Implications to Dark Energy measurement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25410/reverse-engineering-of-a-horoscope&quot;&gt;&quot;Reverse engineering&quot; of a horoscope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25346/why-is-it-hard-to-write-a-computer-program-to-detect-patterns-which-planethunter&quot;&gt;Why is it hard to write a computer program to detect patterns which planethunters is askin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets variable-star computer&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25911/what-is-the-minimum-magnification-needed-for-an-instrument-to-see-all-the-messie&quot;&gt;What is the minimum magnification needed for an instrument to see all the Messier objects?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25670/if-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light-how-much-lead-time-would-we-have-over-det&quot;&gt;If neutrinos travel faster than light, how much lead time would we have over detecting sup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova light particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26126/where-to-get-hard-historical-and-trend-data-related-to-reentry-of-satellites-lik&quot;&gt;Where to get hard historical and trend data related to reentry of satellites like UARS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25685/why-dont-stars-in-globular-clusters-all-orbit-in-the-same-plane&quot;&gt;Why don't stars in globular clusters all orbit in the same plane?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25470/what-demonstrations-for-a-five-hour-optical-and-radio-astronomy-workshop&quot;&gt;What demonstrations for a five-hour optical and radio astronomy workshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25524/tropical-year-is-27s-year-off-from-gregorian-year&quot;&gt;Tropical year is 27s/year off from Gregorian year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25396/simple-javascript-formula-for-where-the-sun-or-moon-are-overhead-to-within-1-mil&quot;&gt;Simple JavaScript formula for where the Sun or Moon are overhead to within 1 mile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-the-planets&quot;&gt;How do we know the temperature on the planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25477/telescope-for-6-year-old-and-dad-new-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Telescope for 6 year old and dad new to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25706/density-of-stars-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way&quot;&gt;Density of stars near the center of the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26613/what-is-the-extent-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;What is the extent of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25903/will-neptune-change-plutos-orbit-some-day&quot;&gt;Will Neptune change Pluto's orbit some day?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25278/video-of-earth-spinning&quot;&gt;Video of Earth spinning?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25605/name-for-celestial-prime-meridian&quot;&gt;Name for celestial &quot;Prime Meridian&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26507/can-neutrino-detectors-tell-what-direction-the-neutrinos-came-from&quot;&gt;Can neutrino detectors tell what direction the neutrinos came from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26027/what-are-the-minimum-telescope-requirements-to-view-a-nice-spiral-galaxy&quot;&gt;What are the minimum telescope requirements to view a nice spiral galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25286/pleiades-through-a-15x-76-mm-telescope&quot;&gt;Pleiades through a 15x 76 mm telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26114/how-could-they-tell-things-weigh-a-sixth-of-their-earth-weight-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;How could they tell things weigh a sixth of their &quot;Earth weight&quot; on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26544/what-could-this-very-dark-planet-be-made-of&quot;&gt;What could this very dark planet be made of?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26610/how-much-of-sky-can-be-seen-on-a-typical-night-from-a-mid-latitude-location&quot;&gt;How much of sky can be seen on a typical night from a mid-latitude location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26372/did-physical-models-of-galaxies-come-before-they-were-actually-observed&quot;&gt;Did physical models of galaxies come before they were actually observed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/why-do-rockets-need-a-cosmic-ray-detector&quot;&gt;Why do rockets need a cosmic ray detector?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502/where-can-i-find-information-for-how-to-create-amateur-radio-telescope&quot;&gt;Where can I find information for how to create amateur radio telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur amateur-astronomy radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25917/parallax-cloud-displacement-angular-distance-from-geostationary-satellite&quot;&gt;Parallax Cloud Displacement - Angular Distance from Geostationary Satellite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation distance satellite cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26257/how-fast-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation-cmbr-changing&quot;&gt;How fast is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) changing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26395/which-way-do-spiral-galaxies-rotate&quot;&gt;Which way do spiral galaxies rotate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25394/get-time-from-sun-azimuth&quot;&gt;Get time from sun Azimuth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26190/telescope-blue-book&quot;&gt;Telescope &quot;blue book&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25504/is-dark-matter-around-the-milky-way-spread-in-a-spiral-shape-or-in-a-different&quot;&gt;Is dark matter around the Milky Way spread in a spiral shape (or, in a different shape)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology milky-way galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26657/what-happens-when-astronomical-bodies-made-up-of-dark-matter-collapse-or-collide&quot;&gt;What happens when astronomical bodies made up of Dark Matter collapse or collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics cosmology dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="3638ec04-0e71-48ac-b772-aed13e6c044b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="![absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it also rocks absolutely.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(But seriously, remember that community moderators [are democratically elected][2]. See http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/12/stack-exchange-moderator-elections-begin/ for details on that. So you might well ask, &quot;why does anyone run for public office?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tBemt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="5dda30a9-f04f-4067-8535-ad53cfcc8521" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13923/would-portal-style-portals-transmit-gravity was recently migrated from scifi.SE. Some people think it's off topic, some people don't, and I can kind of see both sides so I'm not quite sure what to do with it. On one hand, portals aren't real, and we can't meaningfully apply actual physics to a situation that can't arise. On the other hand, the physics of Portal is very _close_ to being real, enough so that we could perhaps offer useful insights as to how it _could_ work; plus, it's not unprecedented for answers to make a &quot;best guess&quot; explanation for things seen in science fiction (the example that comes to mind is [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10827/is-aluminium-magnetic/10832), because I posted it, though I believe there are others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do we close it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="10c38a51-1f3d-4eb9-9e50-ca61c8d9f2bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Nine questions were tagged [tag:color].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these [seven related to the perceptual values of different frequencies of visible light](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/color), and [two related to the characteristic charge of the strong nuclear force](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/color-charge). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the time being I have re-tagged the latter as [tag:color-charge], but I am interested in alternate opinions on the correct tagging. Does perceptual color have a well defined place in physics, and if not should we reserve [tag:color] for the quantum number of the quarks? Or is the casual usage so strongly fixed that we should keep the perceptual tag to avoid confusion for beginners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="71477e8f-9e3e-4eb9-8f5b-166dd3898ecf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why do you down-vote a question? [For example][1]. In my view, the so called &quot;bad&quot; questions are due to misconceptions of the OP. They may be ill-formulated, but I feel it is more productive to edit the question and elicit some clarity from the OP. Who knows, this could generate an insightful answer or two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is far off base or simply an attempt to troll, by all means lock it down. Hell, I will report it for admin review!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18250/how-do-physicists-justify-using-c2-in-equations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will never down-vote a question. Ever. What is your take on the issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="a8688a48-3c79-4753-bc5b-036a33cbba86" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just noticed that in several places, the tops of square root signs are missing. This behavior is almost, but not completely, consistent, e.g. in the screenshot below, the top of the symbol on sqrt(2) is fine, but the other two square roots are not - unfortunately that is exactly where the top of the symbol is most needed. Is anyone else seeing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Chromium 17.0.963.56 on Kubuntu 11.10 (same behavior occurs with Chromium 18.0.1025.39 on Gentoo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;About MathJax&quot; box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; MathJax v2.0&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; using local STIX fonts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Log message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        javascript:alert(MathJax.Message.Log())&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/config/TeX-AMS_HTML.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/STIX/fontdata.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/STIX/fontdata-1.0.js&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/STIX/General/Regular/BBBold.js&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![erroneous square root][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Origin of screenshot for a test case: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/14702/7433&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xhqfy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="1e3f7bcc-5141-4212-b0dd-12cddfe66d8a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 5 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25947/identifying-objects-for-dummies&quot;&gt;Identifying objects, for dummies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25784/how-big-is-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How big is the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26023/do-all-the-individual-stars-that-we-can-see-in-the-night-sky-belong-to-milky-way&quot;&gt;Do all the individual stars that we can see in the night sky belong to Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way stargazing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26221/what-will-we-see-between-the-cmb-and-the-current-oldest-object-seen&quot;&gt;What will we see between the CMB and the current oldest object seen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25490/have-sterling-engines-been-used-in-outer-space&quot;&gt;Have Sterling Engines Been Used In Outer Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26470/how-to-adjust-feather-touch-focuser-for-collimation&quot;&gt;How to adjust feather touch focuser for collimation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian collimation secondary-mirror focuser laser&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25909/missing-radio-source-coordinates-in-g-t-measurement-technique-itu-r-s-733-2&quot;&gt;Missing radio source coordinates in G/T measurement technique ITU-R S.733.2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25365/agn-accretion-disk-vs-torus&quot;&gt;AGN accretion disk vs. torus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25573/how-to-make-a-moondial&quot;&gt;How to make a moondial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26145/need-help-buying-binoculars-online-for-astronomy-10x50&quot;&gt;Need help buying binoculars online for astronomy (10x50)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25577/stability-of-moons-around-tidally-locked-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Stability of moons around tidally locked exoplanets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26662/what-is-the-orbital-path-of-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What is the orbital path of Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way local-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26650/biggest-crater-in-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;Biggest crater in the Solar System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars crater collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25977/was-aristarchos-method-to-compute-earth-sun-distance-ever-rediscovered-in-medie&quot;&gt;Was Aristarchos' method to compute Earth-Sun distance ever rediscovered in medieval or mod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26172/how-much-detail-can-telescopes-actually-provide&quot;&gt;How much detail can telescopes actually provide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25542/emission-line-width-units&quot;&gt;Emission line width units&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25728/galaxies-that-are-newer-than-our-own-one&quot;&gt;Galaxies that are newer than our own one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26066/why-is-there-a-limit-to-the-intensity-of-cosmic-rays-at-low-energies&quot;&gt;Why is there a limit to the intensity of cosmic rays at low energies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26120/from-computational-astrophysics-to-finance&quot;&gt;From Computational Astrophysics to Finance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25548/why-are-there-not-many-detectable-supernovas&quot;&gt;Why are there not many detectable supernovas?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supernova stars galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26774/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-127mm-5-f-1500-synscan-go-to-maksutov-cassegrain&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skymax-127 (AZ) 127mm (5&quot;) f/1500 SynScan GO-TO Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26343/why-does-omega-centauri-have-a-distinct-chemical-signature-from-the-rest-of-the&quot;&gt;Why does Omega Centauri have a distinct chemical signature from the rest of the Milky Way?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way globular-clusters dwarf-galaxies metallicity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/how-is-it-that-some-nebulae-are-rotating-and-others-are-not&quot;&gt;How is it that some nebulae are rotating and others are not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics physics nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/double-image-in-binoculars&quot;&gt;Double image in binoculars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binoculars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26261/is-there-such-a-thing-as-north-in-outerspace&quot;&gt;Is there such a thing as &quot;North&quot; in outerspace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26401/have-scientists-been-able-to-find-an-example-of-a-possible-white-hole&quot;&gt;Have scientists been able to find an example of a possible White Hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25319/whats-the-best-way-to-start-out-with-astrophotography-on-a-tight-budget&quot;&gt;What's the best way to start out with astrophotography on a tight budget?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25890/convert-eci-coordinates-to-latitude-longitude&quot;&gt;Convert ECI coordinates to latitude/longitude?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25362/how-can-i-determine-if-my-telescope-mirror-is-parabolic&quot;&gt;How can I determine if my telescope mirror is parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25722/computing-planetary-positions&quot;&gt;Computing Planetary Positions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26159/existing-photometry-data-of-the-open-star-cluster-cepheus-ob3&quot;&gt;Existing photometry data of the open star cluster Cepheus OB3?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26269/why-do-we-need-the-concept-of-dark-energy-to-explain-the-expansion-of-the-univer&quot;&gt;Why do we need the concept of dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26212/what-would-happen-to-earth-if-saturn-were-to-exit-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;What would happen to Earth if Saturn were to exit the Solar System?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system earth saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26153/what-makes-a-supermassive-black-hole-move-through-space&quot;&gt;What makes a supermassive black hole move through space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26017/what-is-the-weekly-average-of-coronal-mass-ejections-the-sun-sends-out&quot;&gt;What is the weekly average of coronal mass ejections the sun sends out?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25397/is-there-any-site-place-which-gives-access-to-astronomical-signals-acquired-from&quot;&gt;Is there any site/place which gives access to astronomical signals acquired from space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26533/what-is-a-hot-flow-anomaly-and-can-we-see-the-terrestrial-ones&quot;&gt;What is a Hot Flow Anomaly, and can we see the terrestrial ones?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-wind magnetosphere&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26317/is-it-possible-to-see-satellites-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see satellites with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26345/can-cmes-disturb-a-planet-orbit&quot;&gt;Can CMEs disturb a planet orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun orbit coronal-mass-ejection&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25726/where-will-new-horizons-go-after-sailing-past-pluto&quot;&gt;Where will New Horizons go after sailing past Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system spacecraft kuiper-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25689/predicting-solar-storms&quot;&gt;Predicting solar storms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;light solar-system solar-wind&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26560/accuracy-and-assumptions-in-deriving-the-tully-fisher-relation&quot;&gt;Accuracy and assumptions in deriving the Tully-Fisher relation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxies distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25293/how-to-draw-a-star-chart&quot;&gt;How to draw a star chart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25825/can-you-damage-your-eyes-viewing-venus&quot;&gt;Can you damage your eyes viewing Venus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26684/may-20th-annular-eclipse-duration-from-vancouver&quot;&gt;May 20th Annular Eclipse - Duration from Vancouver?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25585/what-is-behind-the-cosmological-horizon-barrier&quot;&gt;What is behind the cosmological horizon barrier?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25582/figuring-out-which-moons-of-jupiter-i-saw-through-my-telescope&quot;&gt;Figuring out which moons of Jupiter I saw through my telescope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moon jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26087/at-what-distance-could-you-see-andromeda-with-the-naked-eye&quot;&gt;At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25918/falling-into-saturn-or-jupiter-would-we-pass-through-it-until-we-hit-the-nucleu&quot;&gt;Falling into Saturn or Jupiter, would we pass through it until we hit the nucleus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25556/can-we-see-a-spaceship-falling-into-a-black-hole-and-entering-the-event-horizon&quot;&gt;Can we see a spaceship falling into a black hole and entering the event horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26515/what-is-exactly-the-density-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated&quot;&gt;What is exactly the density of a black hole and how can it be calculated?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25683/impact-location-that-created-the-moon&quot;&gt;Impact location that created the moon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon formation collisions&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25595/io-turned-inside-out&quot;&gt;Io - Turned inside out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit jupiter moons io&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25271/can-we-prove-that-the-universe-is-finite-or-infinite&quot;&gt;Can we prove that the universe is finite or infinite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/ring-height-stats&quot;&gt;Ring height stats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/are-we-going-to-be-able-to-travel-trough-space-deforming-the-space-time&quot;&gt;Are we going to be able to travel trough space deforming the space-time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&quot;&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates why time passes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25353/where-does-the-light-of-the-big-bang-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the light of the Big Bang come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang light pulsars deep-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26603/how-can-you-calculate-the-exact-position-of-the-earth-taking-into-account-the-gr&quot;&gt;How can you calculate the exact position of the Earth taking into account the gravitationa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25753/how-do-we-know-the-masses-of-single-stars&quot;&gt;How do we know the masses of single stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26580/what-will-happen-if-a-gamma-ray-burst-hits-the-earth&quot;&gt;What will happen if a gamma-ray burst hits the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26188/sky-projections-in-sky-view-software&quot;&gt;Sky projections in sky view software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25472/how-can-i-visualize-a-gas-giant&quot;&gt;How can I visualize a gas giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25322/why-does-the-homogeneity-of-the-universe-require-inflation&quot;&gt;Why does the homogeneity of the universe require inflation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/why-is-jupiter-so-sharply-defined&quot;&gt;Why is Jupiter so sharply defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25657/black-hole-photon-sphere&quot;&gt;Black Hole Photon Sphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25297/cant-find-anything-in-my-scope&quot;&gt;Can't find anything in my scope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25637/how-to-correct-flares-and-sharply-focus-on-my-telescope-when-viewing-planets&quot;&gt;How to correct flares and sharply focus on my telescope when viewing planets.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes planets focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26004/what-are-the-best-astronomy-blogs-and-podcasts&quot;&gt;What are the best astronomy blogs and podcasts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25708/can-a-neutron-star-compress-until-its-converted-to-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Can a neutron star compress until it's converted to a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26057/could-there-be-a-sort-of-molecular-destiny&quot;&gt;Could there be a sort of &quot;Molecular Destiny&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth big-bang dark-matter anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26591/who-has-succeeded-in-demonstrating-the-lense-thirring-effect&quot;&gt;Who has succeeded in demonstrating the Lense-Thirring effect?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity rotation earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26105/theoretically-can-a-black-hole-collapse-until-it-gets-smaller-than-its-schwarzs&quot;&gt;Theoretically, can a black hole collapse until it gets smaller than its Schwarzschild radi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes schwarzschild-radius&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25779/why-doesnt-the-earth-leave-you-as-soon-as-you-escape-it&quot;&gt;Why doesn't the Earth leave you as soon as you escape it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26464/how-will-a-super-massive-black-hole-effect-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;How will a super massive black hole effect our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes milky-way spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&quot;&gt;Does the universe have a center?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25620/what-sort-of-equipment-would-i-need-to-take-a-photo-like-this&quot;&gt;What sort of equipment would I need to take a photo like this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25341/how-to-correct-reflected-image-on-my-telescope&quot;&gt;How to â€˜correctâ€™ reflected image on my telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26128/astronomy-experiments-for-amateurs&quot;&gt;Astronomy Experiments for Amateurs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/what-does-velocity-dispersion-sigma-reveal-about-a-galaxy&quot;&gt;What does velocity dispersion (sigma) reveal about a galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26745/andromeda-milky-way-collision-how-and-how-accurately-can-a-galaxys-lateral-v&quot;&gt;Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246/is-there-a-correlation-between-the-mass-of-a-supermassive-black-hole-and-the-mas&quot;&gt;Is there a correlation between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/mass-light-ratio-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Mass/light ratio of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26553/mass-of-milky-way-supermassive-black-hole&quot;&gt;Mass of Milky Way Supermassive Black Hole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26659/sao-star-catalog&quot;&gt;SAO star catalog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25794/what-prevents-stars-in-globular-clusters-from-merging-over-time-to-form-a-black&quot;&gt;What prevents stars in globular clusters from merging over time to form a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26617/how-to-determine-day-night-based-on-latitude-longitude-and-a-date-time&quot;&gt;How to determine day/night based on latitude, longitude and a date/time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic&quot;&gt;How do we know Dark Matter is non baryonic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26124/error-analysis-of-flux-from-telescope-ccd-setup-photometric-calibration&quot;&gt;Error analysis of flux from telescope-CCD setup (photometric calibration)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25425/can-i-determine-whether-it-is-night-at-a-location-by-calculating-only-the-suns&quot;&gt;Can I determine whether it is night at a location by calculating only the sun's elevation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26044/population-i-and-ii-stars&quot;&gt;Population I and II stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25628/how-do-i-determine-ra-of-my-meridian-at-a-given-time-date-and-location&quot;&gt;How do I determine RA of my meridian at a given time, date and location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-does-orions-belt-look-like-from-the-equator&quot;&gt;What does Orion's Belt look like from the Equator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars orbit earth&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26053/what-is-the-position-and-orientation-of-the-earth-as-a-function-of-time&quot;&gt;What is the position and orientation of the Earth as a function of time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26064/why-do-the-stars-in-the-galaxy-core-move-so-fast&quot;&gt;Why do the stars in the galaxy core move so fast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/do-the-stars-photographed-by-a-telescope-even-exist-at-present&quot;&gt;Do the stars photographed by a telescope even exist at present?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25457/why-did-the-wmap-mission-last-so-much-longer-than-planck&quot;&gt;Why did the WMAP mission last so much longer than Planck?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb wmap planck&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25460/can-we-see-all-of-the-observable-universe&quot;&gt;Can we see ALL of the observable universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26094/what-are-the-chances-that-a-deadly-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-the-next-decade&quot;&gt;What are the chances that a deadly asteroid will hit Earth in the next decade?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth asteroid estimation impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26564/how-much-gas-is-in-elliptical-galaxies&quot;&gt;How much gas is in elliptical galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25443/why-are-jets-not-commonly-found-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Why are jets not commonly found in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-cant-dark-matter-be-black-holes&quot;&gt;Why can't dark matter be black holes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;Does gravity travel at the speed of light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26734/can-extraterrestials-detect-our-messages&quot;&gt;Can extraterrestials detect our messages?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;radio-astronomy astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26731/what-is-this-shadow-of-the-sun-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;What is this shadow of the Sun on the Moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/where-can-i-find-information-on-space-navigation-and-the-people-who-pioneered-i&quot;&gt;Where can I find information on space navigation, and the people who pioneered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft equipment space-flight exploration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26795/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-night-time-during-a-flight&quot;&gt;How to calculate the amount of night time during a flight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26788/why-can-i-never-see-any-stars-in-the-night-sky&quot;&gt;Why can I never see any stars in the night sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26786/ra-dec-to-alt-az-program-or-method&quot;&gt;RA/dec to Alt/Az program or method&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26794/calculating-distance-to-an-asteroid-on-a-given-day&quot;&gt;Calculating distance to an asteroid on a given day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26736/are-the-milky-way-solar-systems-depicted-in-larry-nivens-known-space-based-on&quot;&gt;Are the Milky-Way solar systems depicted in Larry Nivens &quot;Known Space&quot; based on &quot;real worl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy milky-way intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26783/rocket-needed-to-send-100-gram-of-mass-to-outer-space&quot;&gt;Rocket needed to send 100 gram of mass to outer space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26767/what-is-actually-meant-by-sun-set-and-sun-rise-times-when-taking-into-accou&quot;&gt;What is actually meant by 'sun set' and 'sun rise' times, when taking into account the mir&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time sunset&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26730/energy-and-matter&quot;&gt;Energy and Matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26739/why-are-there-more-vertical-takeoff-than-horizontal-for-spacecrafts&quot;&gt;Why are there more vertical takeoff than horizontal for spacecrafts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26785/whats-the-reason-for-the-seasons&quot;&gt;What's the reason for the seasons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/why-dont-we-see-solar-and-lunar-eclipses-often&quot;&gt;Why don't we see solar and lunar eclipses often?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26798/calculations-of-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Calculations of apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="3d0b484b-838f-4f41-950f-516b78264177" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Usually we (OK, me atleast) don't up/down vote an answer based on the person behind it; we do so based on whether or not it seems correct. Anyways, most of the users have their background in their usercard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out users ranked by [all-time reputation][1]. Extremely few of them on the first page have a usercard without any details on their background. Mine clearly states that I'm an engineering student so you shouldn't trust anything I say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that answers are seen by quite a few people, of which a large percentage are physicists (or physics students). If they see something wrong or incomplete, they'll downvote, comment, and/or make an edit. I've [had][2] [all][3] [three][4] happen to me. OK, the third one wasn't corrected by a physicist, but I hope you get the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20464/testing-conservation-laws-experimentally/20475#20475&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21407/what-barriers-exist-to-prevent-us-from-turning-a-baryon-into-a-anti-baryon/21410#comment49654_21410&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21572/whats-the-importance-of-noethers-theorem-in-physics/21574#comment50032_21574" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="5c8a0ba6-4d92-419e-a46e-4df0b5d86449" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="(merging from other meta thread I made about this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My area is not physics.  However, this was the best thing that Stack Exchange had to offer me, and I decided I really liked it, so I've been active here for a number of months (I mostly used the username zassounotsukushi).  Lately I started to think it might be worthwhile to make an Area 51 attempt for Nuclear Engineering, which is what I do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38647/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already have a tag for it!  At 25 questions it's not much, but most nuclear questions are blatantly not relevant to Physics SE anyway, so I figure, who knows what you would get if you invited questions about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet, but I recognize that in order for the proposal to succeed I would need to plaster it around nuclear related listserves, message boards, maybe use fliers, and get other people to help it go viral as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could make arguments for why this may or may not work, but I could see it working.  The Electrical Engineering SE comes to mind, which is funny because I never found that to be very useful, just because the knowledge is so incredibly specific to the application and broad as well.  Nuclear is much more narrow, but if you allow fairly practical and specific (to regulations, designs, etc) then there's certainly no end to the obscurity of questions you could encounter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I would love to see lots of people from this site share what they think at the proposal.  I'm wondering if 200 people is more than we could hope to recruit, or if we could ever have a high enough volume of questions.  But the entire point of stack exchange kind of feels like controlled anarchy anyway, so might as well start it out and see what happens, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="463c829e-b782-47d4-a3ee-03eed2647c46" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Working my way from [the back][1] (first page from the back categorised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all pages need to be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or [tag:visible-light]. Posts in the third section especially. Always read the post first--i've done the categorization based on the snippets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to improve the post wherever possible. And put other relevant tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I (and DavidZaslavsky) have finished retagging all posts on this page, will dig up more from the tag list and add another CW answer (to keep it neat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out for neatness' sake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68/what-causes-polarised-materials-to-change-colour-under-stress DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1361/scattering-of-light-by-light-experimental-status DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/light-emission-spectrum-units DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/properties-of-the-photon-electric-and-magnetic-field-components DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/refraction-question DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4299/newtons-rings-what-causes-the-other-rings DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4637/electromagnetic-fields-vs-electromagnetic-radiation DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4641/light-emitted-by-an-object-according-to-its-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4862/interference-of-polarized-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5046/can-i-use-an-antenna-as-a-light-source DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/light-bending-by-black-holes DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5702/can-we-transport-energy-over-infinite-distances-through-vacuum-using-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/how-does-a-honeycomb-grid-affect-the-travel-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5886/what-is-the-effect-of-polarization-on-diffraction-by-a-narrow-slit DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/massless-bubble-of-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/refraction-vs-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7069/double-slit-experiment-with-alternating-on-off-switch DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7212/youngs-experiment-or-why-the-light-cant-be-described-as-a-particle DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7505/how-to-determine-divergence-of-a-led-source-from-a-single-biconvex-lens DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/protect-from-light-warning DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8001/double-slit-problem-waves-and-optics DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##To be tagged [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1968/lunar-twilight-and-sixth-magnitude-stars DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/why-does-my-watch-act-like-a-mirror-under-water DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/why-is-air-invisible DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/what-happens-to-light-after-it-enters-an-eye DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2567/is-there-a-light-source-that-emits-all-wavelengths-of-visible-light-at-the-same DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/why-glass-is-transparent DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/why-can-you-see-a-light-in-the-location-that-the-light-source-just-left DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Not really [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/what-does-the-optical-zoom-in-telescopes-do DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/can-light-emitting-diodes-be-used-to-generate-uv-wavelengths DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2928/light-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7395/are-regular-light-bulbs-better-for-the-eyes-than-cfls-or-tube-lights DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/550/what-causes-hot-things-to-glow-and-at-what-temperature DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light?page=4&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="99be728b-c543-4d38-aab7-bf916d113f2d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 2 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27760/advanced-topics-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Advanced topics in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27072/derivation-of-the-basic-equation-for-witten-diagrams&quot;&gt;Derivation of the basic equation for Witten diagrams&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory adscft quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27419/wilson-loops-in-chern-simons-theory-with-non-compact-gauge-groups&quot;&gt;Wilson Loops in Chern-Simons theory with non-compact gauge groups&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th reference-request topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27361/readable-books-on-advanced-topics&quot;&gt;Readable books on advanced topics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27356/torsion-and-gauge-invariant-em-kinetic-term&quot;&gt;Torsion and gauge invariant EM kinetic term&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26887/stability-of-the-vacuum-state-of-interacting-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;Stability of the vacuum state of interacting quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory thermal-qft classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27740/how-to-prove-equivalence-of-rg-flow-of-qft-coupling-constant-and-diagrammatic-re&quot;&gt;How to prove equivalence of RG flow of QFT coupling constant and diagrammatic resummation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27549/modular-invariance-for-higher-genus&quot;&gt;Modular invariance for higher genus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27581/pohlmeyer-reduction-of-string-theory-for-flat-and-ads-spaces&quot;&gt;Pohlmeyer reduction of string theory for flat and AdS spaces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory adscft quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27168/how-can-one-build-a-multi-scale-physics-model-of-fluid-flow-phenomena&quot;&gt;How can one build a multi-scale physics model of fluid flow phenomena?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-thermodynamics simulation fluid-dynamics lattice-boltzmann&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26849/values-of-sm-parameters-at-one-certain-scale&quot;&gt;Values of SM parameters at one certain scale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry standard-model renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27291/povms-that-do-not-require-enlargement-of-the-hilbert-space&quot;&gt;POVMs that do not require enlargement of the Hilbert space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27636/functional-representations-of-free-quantum-fields&quot;&gt;functional representations of free quantum fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27032/time-reversal-symmetry-and-t2-1&quot;&gt;Time reversal symmetry and T^2 = -1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27393/significance-of-massive-states-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Significance of massive states in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27198/relativistic-center-of-mass&quot;&gt;Relativistic center of mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&quot;&gt;Many body quantum states analyzed as probabilistic sequences&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-information spin-model locc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26844/intuitive-sketch-of-the-correspondence-of-a-string-theory-to-its-limiting-quantu&quot;&gt;Intuitive sketch of the correspondence of a string theory to its limiting quantum field th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27382/reduced-density-matrices-for-free-fermions-are-thermal&quot;&gt;Reduced density matrices for free fermions are thermal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement thermal-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26914/random-matrix-ensembles-from-bmn-model&quot;&gt;random matrix ensembles from BMN model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27045/interesting-topics-to-research-in-mathematical-physics-for-undergraduates&quot;&gt;Interesting topics to research in mathematical physics for undergraduates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27229/spectrum-of-a-quantum-relativistic-distance-squared-operator&quot;&gt;Spectrum of a quantum relativistic &quot;distance squared&quot; operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27611/string-theoretic-significance-of-extended-cft&quot;&gt;String-theoretic significance of extended CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27620/different-kinds-of-s-matrices&quot;&gt;Different kinds of S-matrices?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&quot;&gt;Matlab package: graphical calculus for quantum operations (esp. linear optics)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-optics software linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&quot;&gt;Spatial and polarizing beam splitters in a graphical calculus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27695/colour-decomposition-of-n-gluon-tree-amplitude&quot;&gt;Colour decomposition of $n-$gluon tree amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory particle-physics scattering quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27516/thermodynamic-limit-vs-the-method-of-steepest-descent&quot;&gt;Thermodynamic limit &quot;vs&quot; the method of steepest descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph statistical-mechanics cond-mat cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/do-bipartite-spin-glasses-have-simple-relaxation-dynamics&quot;&gt;Do bipartite spin glasses have simple relaxation dynamics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26966/poisson-structure-on-moduli-space-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Poisson structure on moduli space of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26868/what-is-the-upper-limit-on-intrinsic-heating-due-to-dark-matter&quot;&gt;What is the upper-limit on intrinsic heating due to dark matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012&quot;&gt;Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;journal-club&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27004/fourier-methods-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Fourier Methods in General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26931/a-solvable-model-for-the-finite-rectangular-potential-well-with-a-bump-in-the-mi&quot;&gt;A solvable model for the finite rectangular potential well with a bump in the middle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27525/do-thermodynamic-quantities-in-cft-correspond-to-something-different-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Do thermodynamic quantities in CFT correspond to something different in AdS/CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27595/irrelevance-of-parastatistics-for-space-dimension-2&quot;&gt;Irrelevance of parastatistics for space dimension &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27281/quantum-mechanics-as-classical-field-theory&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as classical field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics classical-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27257/discussions-of-the-axioms-of-aqft&quot;&gt;Discussions of the axioms of AQFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27240/status-of-large-scale-structure-formation-within-cosmology-today&quot;&gt;Status of large-scale structure formation within cosmology today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27637/mathematical-rigorous-introduction-to-solid-state-physics&quot;&gt;Mathematical rigorous introduction to solid state physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27023/unitarity-of-s-matrix-in-qft&quot;&gt;Unitarity of S-matrix in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26812/some-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26873/mu-p-t-pseudo-ensemble-why-is-it-not-a-proper-thermodynamic-ensemble&quot;&gt;$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physicsÃ»ed-ph cond-mathÃ»stat-mech classical-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27402/what-are-the-justifying-foundations-of-statistical-mechanics-without-appealing-t&quot;&gt;What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27473/continuum-theory-from-lattice-theory&quot;&gt;Continuum theory from lattice theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27224/why-isnt-the-gear-predictor-corrector-algorithm-for-integration-of-the-equation&quot;&gt;Why isn't the Gear predictor-corrector algorithm for integration of the equations of motio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;integration molecular-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27439/vassiliev-higher-spin-theory-and-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;Vassiliev Higher Spin Theory and Supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity supersymmetry hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27186/is-there-a-majorana-like-representation-for-singlet-states&quot;&gt;Is there a Majorana-like representation for singlet states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26881/limitations-in-using-flex-as-a-dmft-solver&quot;&gt;Limitations in using FLEX as a DMFT solver&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27195/can-symmetry-generators-be-used-for-quantization&quot;&gt;Can symmetry generators be used for quantization?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantization group-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27176/significance-of-the-hyperfinite-iii-1-factor-for-axiomatic-quantum-field-theor&quot;&gt;Significance of the hyperfinite $III_1$ factor for axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&quot;&gt;Quantum computing and quantum control&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27119/physical-interpretation-of-different-selfadjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of different selfadjoint extensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph quantum-mechanics hilbert-space functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26885/how-fundamental-is-spin-orbit-coupling-to-topological-insulators&quot;&gt;How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27012/does-entropy-measure-extractable-work&quot;&gt;Does entropy measure extractable work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26892/does-4d-n-3-supersymmetry-exist&quot;&gt;Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27459/kerr-geometry-separability-and-twistors&quot;&gt;Kerr Geometry, Separability and Twistors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27096/atlas-higgs-interpretation&quot;&gt;ATLAS Higgs Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26916/instantons-and-non-perturbative-amplitudes-in-gravity&quot;&gt;Instantons and Non Perturbative Amplitudes in Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gravity hep-th gr-qc&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27434/why-cant-noncontextual-ontological-theories-have-stronger-correlations-than-com&quot;&gt;Why can't noncontextual ontological theories have stronger correlations than commutative t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27061/bell-polytopes-with-nontrivial-symmetries&quot;&gt;Bell polytopes with nontrivial symmetries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27520/post-doc-advice-for-a-low-publication-grad-student&quot;&gt;Post-doc advice for a low publication grad student&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career-advice soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27268/visualization-of-1d-spin-chain-wave-fuction&quot;&gt;Visualization of 1D spin chain wave fuction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27209/what-do-theoretical-physicists-need-from-computer-scientists&quot;&gt;What do theoretical physicists need from computer scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;computer-science soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27315/applications-of-the-feynman-vernon-influence-functional&quot;&gt;Applications of the Feynman-Vernon Influence Functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26912/what-is-a-good-introduction-to-integrable-models-in-physics&quot;&gt;What is a good introduction to integrable models in physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results&quot;&gt;Models of neutrinos consistent with OPERA's results&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27066/dual-pairs-in-four-dimensions&quot;&gt;Dual Pairs in Four Dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry duality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26817/6d-massive-gravity&quot;&gt;6d Massive Gravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity reference-request &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27068/information-retrieval&quot;&gt;Information Retrieval&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph gr-qc &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27681/which-symmetric-pure-qudit-states-can-be-reached-within-local-operations&quot;&gt;Which symmetric pure qudit states can be reached within local operations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph permutation-symmetric majorana-representation group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27260/are-lens-spaces-classified-via-a-weinberg-angle&quot;&gt;Are lens spaces classified via a Weinberg angle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27161/relationship-between-weak-cosmic-censorship-and-topological-censorship&quot;&gt;Relationship between Weak Cosmic Censorship and Topological Censorship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gr-qc topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&quot;&gt;Stabilizer formalism for symmetric spin-states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27048/the-derivation-of-the-belinfante-rosenfeld-tensor&quot;&gt;The derivation of the Belinfante-Rosenfeld tensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/sub-and-super-multiplicativity-of-norms-for-understanding-non-locality&quot;&gt;Sub and super multiplicativity of norms for understanding non-locality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics nonlocality norms entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27170/phase-transition-in-the-ising-model-with-non-uniform-magnetic-field&quot;&gt;Phase Transition in the Ising Model with Non-Uniform Magnetic Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27600/canonical-averages-in-a-fermi-gas-aka-generalized-fermi-dirac-distribution&quot;&gt;Canonical averages in a Fermi gas aka generalized Fermi-Dirac distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics reference-request cond-mathÃ»stat-mech &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27126/uniqueness-of-supersymmetric-heterotic-string-theory&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of supersymmetric heterotic string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27078/choice-and-identification-of-vacuums-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Choice and identification of vacuums in AdS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27477/cosmic-bubble-collision&quot;&gt;Cosmic bubble collision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gr-qc cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26895/random-walk-randomly-reflected&quot;&gt;Random Walk Randomly Reflected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;probability &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27479/calculating-correlation-functions-of-exponentials-of-fields&quot;&gt;Calculating correlation functions of exponentials of fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27255/instanton-moduli-space-with-a-surface-operator&quot;&gt;Instanton Moduli Space with a Surface Operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/any-use-for-f-4-in-hep-th&quot;&gt;Any use for $F_4$ in hep-th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27017/covariant-derivatives&quot;&gt;Covariant derivatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27654/why-isnt-there-heterotic-holographic-qcd&quot;&gt;Why isn't there heterotic holographic QCD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26968/is-string-theory-local&quot;&gt;Is string theory local?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26883/sympletic-structure-of-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Sympletic structure of General Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity hamiltonian-mechanics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27179/is-ghost-number-a-physical-reality-observable&quot;&gt;Is ghost-number a physical reality/observable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27370/geometric-langlands-as-a-partially-defined-topological-field-theory&quot;&gt;Geometric Langlands as a partially defined topological field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27542/which-letter-to-use-for-a-cft&quot;&gt;which letter to use for a CFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27350/realization-of-cft-generating-fuction-ads-partition-function&quot;&gt;realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory gauge-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26921/physical-interpretation-to-the-category-of-cfts&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation to the category of CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27166/chern-simons-theory&quot;&gt;Chern-Simons theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26808/does-the-complex-3-sphere-have-a-complex-structure-modulus&quot;&gt;Does the complex 3-sphere have a complex structure modulus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&quot;&gt;direct sum of anyons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26926/local-fermionic-symmetry&quot;&gt;Local Fermionic Symmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27579/scaling-solutions-in-context-of-denef-moore&quot;&gt;Scaling solutions in context of Denef - Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27226/are-there-rigorous-constructions-of-the-path-integral-for-lattice-qft-on-an-infi&quot;&gt;Are there rigorous constructions of the path integral for lattice QFT on an infinite latti&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft lattice-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27615/generalized-complex-geometry-and-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Generalized Complex Geometry and Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26990/why-does-charge-conservation-due-to-gauge-symmetry-only-hold-on-shell&quot;&gt;Why does charge conservation due to gauge symmetry only hold on-shell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-field-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27778/do-killing-spinors-know-global-information&quot;&gt;Do Killing spinors know global information?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27396/is-there-a-background-independent-closed-string-field-theory&quot;&gt;Is there a background independent closed string field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27138/kahler-potential-vs-full-effective-potential&quot;&gt;KÃ¤hler potential vs full effective potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27773/edge-theory-of-fqhe-unable-to-produce-greens-function-from-anticommutation-re&quot;&gt;Edge theory of FQHE - Unable to produce Green's function from anticommutation relations an&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mathÃ»stat-mech&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27041/linearizing-quantum-operators&quot;&gt;Linearizing Quantum Operators&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26830/what-makes-background-gauge-field-quantization-work&quot;&gt;What makes background gauge field quantization work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money&quot;&gt;Rigorous security proof for Wiesner's quantum money?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&quot;&gt;A resource theory of quantum discord?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;entanglement quantum-information quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27510/classic-literature-in-quantum-gravity&quot;&gt;Classic Literature in Quantum Gravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&quot;&gt;What is the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland capacity of a Pauli channel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26802/characters-of-widehat-mathfraksu2-k-and-wzw-coset-construction&quot;&gt;Characters of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(2)_k$ and WZW coset construction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27252/how-to-prove-quantum-n-4-super-yang-mills-is-superconformal&quot;&gt;How to prove quantum N=4 Super-Yang-Mills is superconformal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry gauge-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27215/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-s-duality-in-n-4-super-yang-mills&quot;&gt;What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry yang-mills-theory duality lattice-qft lattice-gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27652/are-there-stable-string-theory-vacua-with-non-minimal-cosmological-constant&quot;&gt;Are there stable string theory vacua with non-minimal cosmological constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory cosmology string-cosmology string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&quot;&gt;Literature on fractal properties of quasicrystals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph cond-mat quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&quot;&gt;Explicit construction for unitary extensions of CPTP maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27287/normalization-of-the-chern-simons-level-in-son-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Normalization of the Chern-Simons level in SO(N) gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory topology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&quot;&gt;State of Matrix Product States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27352/twistors-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;Twistors in Curved Spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th gr-qc twistors&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27582/what-is-the-significance-of-the-branch-cut-in-renormalization-group-logarithms&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the branch cut in renormalization group logarithms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26977/global-symmetry-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Global symmetry in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27662/which-cfts-have-ads-cft-duals&quot;&gt;Which CFTs have AdS/CFT duals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&quot;&gt;What Shannon channel capacity bound is associated to two coupled spins?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27505/geometric-quantization-of-identical-particles&quot;&gt;Geometric quantization of identical particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&quot;&gt;Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27457/scherk-schwarz-and-other-compactifications&quot;&gt;Scherk-Schwarz and other compactifications?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory compactification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27400/quivers-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Quivers in String Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27141/some-questions-about-the-spectral-function&quot;&gt;Some questions about the spectral function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1327" RevisionGUID="2f9fad8d-3d7b-44d8-aead-66995fb2d166" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know if this has been asked before (or possibly in other SEs), but a quick search didn't turn up anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14182/8563) or [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3309/8563) are questions that ask about, roughly, what recent developments mean in the grand scheme, or about what the state of the art is in some particular problem. Following on that line, I feel it could be productive add the tag [tag:State-of-the-art] to questions asking things like &quot;what's the best current ...&quot;, to put a marker on questions that will probably use a number of improved answers as time progresses and more physics is developed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="0935263f-b367-4fe7-9e9c-51ca82899d3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's a lot of unnecessary comments to my [answer][1] which ideally should all be deleted IMO. So how do I do this or flag it for attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33542/why-are-radians-more-natural-than-any-other-angle-unit/33567#33567" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="c7870fd5-43ba-4d3e-82a1-bbc1a8044d8a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="who is moderator of this website, because my account is under attack&#xD;&#xA;im pretty sure its just one person sending me these [too much vote down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12377/muster-mark?tab=reputation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="b1528cda-2426-4933-9daf-d7250010d0cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been a few questions asked about cold fusion on this site, especially in recent days. Invariably they lead to extended arguments, which is not healthy for the site - the whole Stack Exchange system is built around avoiding that sort of content. Plus, as our FAQ says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the conclusion that cold fusion is bogus, whether right or wrong, is firmly established in mainstream physics. So I am proposing that we disallow cold fusion as a topic of posting on this site (unless and until it becomes established mainstream physics). We already have one [good reference question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus) about cold fusion, and I think that's enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are some users who have already made their feelings on this issue well known, but I'm interested in hearing arguments either way from the rest of the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="772e5d82-9730-45de-8482-53ba11db4e5c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44300/2751) question, asking about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string, has been wrongly and brutally closed before it was even an hour old for no good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is absolutally **NOT** a duplicate of [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44130/2751) question, which deals only with the general properties of quanta in quantum mechanics. Conversely, it is a very different and quite good (as one can see by the 7 upvotes (and only 1 downvote) and 4 times marked as a favorite) specific string theory question.&#xD;&#xA;I yesterday tried to explain this to dmckee, but it was in vain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can this question please be reopened, such that finally interesting answers can start to turn in (and the very stupid undeserved automatic downvote gets hopefully removed too ...) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="fe1ffc21-d4cb-4977-8685-b64d144691ba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently migrated away [a Mathematica question][1]. Now, our faq does not explicitly allow software questions so I assumed that it was off topic, and sent it away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT--it seems like this question _may_ be better suited for Physics.SE, since it deals with higher-end physics that most Mathematica.SE community members will not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we allow such questions? If not, should we allow them? Maybe add a line to the faq to that end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46583/feynrules-vs-feyncalc-or-anything-else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1259" RevisionGUID="81fe9862-a053-48fd-b94e-26f43c3a7f0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Of the questions identified, I think these ones are likely suitable for migration to TCS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and these ones should remain with us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and these are miscellaneous cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;probably off topic for us, not sure if this should go to TCS or Computational Science or neither&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;off topic for us but appropriate for Computational Science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;off topic for us but appropriate for Computational Science&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="bf11ffad-af46-40d0-95ba-2a2108a80c74" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The rule I was taught was that equations are just part of the text and that punctuation should never stand on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a block formatted equation comes immediately before punctuation you put the punctuation at the end of the formula. That means when I end a sentence with the quadratic equation I write `$$ x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} .$$` That won't render on meta, but [you can see how it looks in the Physics.SE FAQ][1]. Notice that the full stop occurs *inside* equation markup delimiters (`$$`). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a little OCD bonus you could use `$$ x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} \text{.}$$`, but I don't generally bother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid confusion this necessitates not using periods as mathematical operators and being careful about where how you use commas in formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="6a5098f0-bb46-4bcf-81e0-9456f8aaf71a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, why, I am surprised you asked! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the very efficient *Random Post v0.1&amp;trade;* user script!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Install the user script available [as a gist here](https://gist.github.com/raw/4364586).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Go fetch any [Physics.SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Notice the die on the top right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Click on the die to go to a completely random post!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hUNdR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="d9a23f95-8e01-4729-b54b-5d4af188ffd0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems as if there is no flexability to any questions I have asked. Lameness example I say in the example I am submerged in water that is so dense that I would be dead just by being there. I want to measure how much resistance this water would create for my arm. Instead of saying something like fluid resistance uses this equation *****+***=resistance. I get you could never be there to try and move your arm.  theory is all I am useing if I say the question wrong than the answer would be what you think I am asking and possible examples or not saying it could never happen. I believe nobody can ever stand at the center of a star but I can imagine that happening for the point of referring to energy escaping the star as you watch it from inside the star.. if I am out of line I guess I will just discontinue posting my questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I retract as Anna v has given a very awesome answer in a way that takes the question at face value. Very impressed as I have jumped to conclusions not only in my theories but as to the imagination of possible responders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The path to a theory of everything closed for being too broad in scope.  All I wanted was enough chat to merit opening an actual discussion. The dimpliest form of my question would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What technologies and advances in current mathematical theory will be necessary to predict quantum probability with 100% Certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28040/how-to-communicate-properly-in-this-q-a-if-i-am-sitting-in-a-newtonian-world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since without 20 rep I can not open a proper discussion in chat I was forced to pose my &#xD;&#xA;Discussion as a question as I learned it was much harder than I thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="b0462b6b-567a-409b-90cf-67a746c3904c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closure is just a stop gap to get a question fixed, it's not a way to prevent a question from happening. In fact, it's still there, and we are debating it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the question salvageable? Yes, by all means! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* by restricting it to the parts which are TP and not mere maths or philosophy&#xD;&#xA;* by reducing the scope to a reasonable size, one or two not overly broad questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did I vote to close and flag in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question had many parts but a very, very partial, completely mathematical answer. It was clearly not working on this site.&#xD;&#xA;* When a user asks so many questions it's really hard to restrict by editing if you are not the one asking the questions, so I couldn't just fix it myself!&#xD;&#xA;* Closure prevents further random answers while we debate and fix the question. If we decide to fix we will re-open with a better question. If we decide not to fix, we will eventually delete, but *closure is not deletion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, let's debate how to improve the question and *do it*. There is no censorship or let alone some risible plan to shut down all TP questions (seriously?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question has now been edited and is valid. Whilst it's still to wishy-washy for my taste, I don't think it's a valid reason for closure so I've voted to reopen!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For future reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Original Version: https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/10361/1&#xD;&#xA;* Corrected Version: https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/10361/6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="1eb13e5b-409a-41ee-ad3b-d83c77fa3ff1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm trying to find a question involving GR that I'm positive I read on or around Dec. 22 and wanted to refer back to it but I can't find it now. It asked about an &quot;exact&quot; expression for either gravitational force or gravitational potential energy. It is NOT [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47783/what-is-the-exact-gravitational-force-between-two-masses-including-relativistic) because it was asked after I read the question I'm looking for and none of the answers is the answer to the question I'm looking for. So, have any GR questions been deleted recently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="7d291c5e-62c6-4cc0-b51a-e831fd32721a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me that the Physics.SE FAQ is slightly outdated and could do with a little revision. Many questions by new users on this site are closed, and the various mismatches between the FAQ and the site's actual policy as practiced might be part of the reason for this. It would also be nice to have an up-to-date FAQ so that users could reference it in order to learn why their question was closed and what they can do about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below I have listed a few places where the FAQ seems in need of updating. I hope that this thread can serve to turn up any others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The FAQ does not mention book recommendation questions. (These seem to be treated as in-principle off-topic by the moderators.)&#xD;&#xA;* The FAQ (question 1) holds up [a &quot;big list&quot; question][1] as an exemplar of an on-topic question. (These are also usually closed nowadays.)&#xD;&#xA;* The FAQ does not mention questions on observational astronomy. (When the astronomy.SE questions were merged into physics there was a consensus to allow such questions as on topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've held off on suggesting specific changes to the text because I'm not that active on meta and I'm not 100% sure what the most recent consensus on these issues actually is - but if the policy is clear and people can post links to the appropriate discussions, I'll be happy to contribute to writing them up in FAQ form if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="f37eb9f9-2af9-48cb-adc2-7ced2d7187c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had posted on question to TP:SE, and the question was merged, but I don't seem to have the additional reputation points added (admittedly a small number).  My only evidence of missing the reputation is that I knew I was at a certain rep value for a long time because I was relatively inactive, and that value has only changed with one upvote (very recently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, the question is: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My account was correctly associated between the two sites (as evidenced by the fact that I was properly associated with the question when it was merged)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="242c6ec0-1c4e-4b79-9a8e-d1b32ff79199" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48298/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which after some more research I realized is at best unclear and at worst unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point if I reform the question the existing answer won't make sense. Should I delete it and ask a new one? or is it preferable to edit the existing question? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="14351cd8-0d31-4a9b-8155-a44bace23656" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28633/how-do-we-recognize-hardware-used-in-accelerator-physics&#xD;&#xA;has been closed. It is true, that no answer in closed form can be given. -but I still feel that it is a interesting question, and I was really looking forward to see some answers. -so sad..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="4340efd9-82f4-4d9b-8066-55a1247bc2a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The situation is actually pretty clear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There have been exactly *zero* observations that people believe. Read the comments on https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403/520 and you'll hear about one possible observation with a machine still being commissioned, which does make for fun speculation.&#xD;&#xA;* There are several distinct ways in which their actual existence would be &quot;beautiful&quot;, and many people carry some level of belief that they do exist.&#xD;&#xA;* Only a few people in the know use strong language in stating their belief, but [such people *do* exist][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that are interested my personal position is a kind of weakly committed optimism, tempered with the knowledge that it doesn't matter unless we can get a hold of a few to play with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the linked answers are correct in that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;no&quot;s are addressing *observation* and say so&#xD;&#xA;* the &quot;yes&quot;s are most in the subjunctive mood relying on some theory or state that they represent a preference rather than outright knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;* a lot of the &quot;undecided&quot;s try to express the subtleties of the situation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do?&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Well, what I do is downvote and comment on things that are outright wrong, but more or less the only thing that would qualify is a claim that there are confirmed observations of magnetic monopoles, and just comment on things that I think are too strongly stated (mostly claims that it is a theoretical certainty or conversely claims that the zero on the RHS of $\nabla B = 0$ proves that there are no monopoles rather than expressing the non-observation of them to date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is wrong, downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;* if you think an answer is misleading a comment or alternate answer should be used to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1310" RevisionGUID="1842b796-13e3-4919-9f42-89432ec49889" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a make-a-list question and is ill-suited to the question and answer format of Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should have chosen &quot;Not constructive&quot; as the close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is not a good fit to our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [is a Stack Exchange wide policy][1] and is encoded in the FAQ [section entitled &quot;What kind of questions should I not ask here?&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  avoid asking subjective questions where [...] every answer is equally valid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/real-questions-have-answers/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="c6622f31-b03c-4f2c-8098-02d892aa679d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27973/newtons-law-of-gravitation-gauss-law-and-gr) I made a quick comment that there is an analog of &quot;Gauss's law&quot; for GR at large distances, that it is called the definition of the &quot;Hawking mass&quot;. Further, I commented that it is not reasonable to expect Gauss's law to work in general, because the group is not commutative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I went back to turn this comment into an answer. I suspect David erased it. How am I supposed to know what else is being erased without me knowing about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the explanation for the missing comment? Somebody deleted it, and I don't think it was me. I wanted to have it as notes for a future answer, and now the future is here, and it's gone (although I remember what it said)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4018" RevisionGUID="b62f5668-a7ef-4439-86f1-fa4908a051f4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The ones asking for code are off topic and ought to be migrated to gamedev.se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones which are just in the _context_ of writing a game are generally on topic (flag if unsure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT, the HW policy _does_ apply to crowdsourcing questions like [these][1]. The HW policy is about the type of question, not the context in which it crops up. Thus, if it doesn't follow the HW policy, it ought to be closed (or migrated if possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52235/calculating-impulse-propagation-through-a-rigid-body-after-a-collision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="fb1c256b-9dea-43d9-82e3-9af13478a301" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I deleted this question because I thought its irrelevant: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31434/why-did-standard-model-never-sense-a-requirement-to-include-gravitational-quantu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, [someone](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v) from community told me that its reasonable. So, I want to undelete it. Unfortunately, I am unable to see it as I don't have 10k reputation.. so no luck in getting to undelete link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please undelete it if you have its permission?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4043" RevisionGUID="9f84d3e9-1c68-455e-9029-3584930b15be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Tumbleweed is a wonderfully worded &quot;forever alone&quot; badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Asked a question with no votes, no answers, no comments, and low views for a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to celebrate my accomplishment, and I thought it would be applicable to this question.  So I went to the badge page and copied them all into Excel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the data I just teased out a list of dates.  It then follows that a single tumbleweed was awarded in the course of every interval between one time stamp and the next.  What people really like to see is graphs with time as the x-axis, so we just add one tumbleweed to the total to get the total number of tumbleweeds at each time stamp value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![tumbleweeds][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting!  What a unique metric the tumbleweeds are.  In a simple since, this represents the number of questions that fall by the wayside.  It's very much a &quot;long tail&quot; sort of occurrence, so I don't know that it really reflects anything about the user number or activity.  It's its own very unique thing.  It is interesting that the slope seemed to change sharply (like a 'hockey stick' graph) around the middle of 2012.  Sorry the years are a little bit difficult to read.  This graph's regions represent 2011, 2012, and 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at total traffic volume to compare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.quantcast.com/physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![traffic volume][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting, this also seems to show a behavior change around the middle of 2012.  You need to mentally shift your time scale to directly compare them.  How does this compare to the tumbleweeds?  It could be said to be consistent.  After all, if the number of questions went up around that time, the tumbleweeds might have followed proportionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So traffic is up.  However, these combined data sets suggest a novel explanation for the observation in the OP.  Maybe, while traffic is strong, attention to individual questions hasn't improved, and maybe some people feel like they get an echo when they throw something into the void.  I can imagine that people felt similar things when Stack Overflow was growing.  It seems like a contradiction, but it might make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x5BOu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qj4d5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="4c79dedf-bc4a-40fc-8a58-9874299dc3c2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there any way for moderators to either promote a comment which contains an answer to an &quot;answer&quot;? I ask because of questions like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23383/light-ray-entropy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only been on this site formally for two days but I've browsed it for a few weeks and I've seen this happen several times. It would be nice if there was a clean way to move these out of &quot;Unanswered&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked around in the meta, but I didn't find anything directly about this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please redirect me if there IS already a discussion on this, though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think I have flagging rights yet, is this an option for a flag or could it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="1cddbcf6-de95-45cc-a9db-207f3148cf6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think you should mainly look at the comment of Qmechanic which points to the [FAQ][1]. The FAQ states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pitches for your own personal theories or work** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not appropriate at this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key here is actually not on the latter part about mainstream physics (although many people would be inclined to look at that as well),  but on the first part about pitching your own work. You post the question as if it is `just a paper' but in fact it is YOUR paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="a192d9e3-09f8-449a-87d0-5c4788a0017a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Of][1] &#xD;&#xA;course, &#xD;&#xA;[us][2] &#xD;&#xA;experimental&#xD;&#xA;[types][3] &#xD;&#xA;can&#xD;&#xA;[have][4] &#xD;&#xA;[practical][5] &#xD;&#xA;physics &#xD;&#xA;[questions][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That's][7]&#xD;&#xA;because&#xD;&#xA;[we're][8]&#xD;&#xA;practical&#xD;&#xA;[people][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Take][10] &#xD;&#xA;that &#xD;&#xA;[you][11]&#xD;&#xA;smarty-pants&#xD;&#xA;[people][12]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28935/amount-flow-rate-of-n2-needed-to-cool-substrate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/strategies-against-50hz-mains-hum-on-detector-signals&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56074/laymans-method-to-sharpen-a-wire-stm-tip&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34193/how-are-the-masses-of-unstable-elementary-particles-measured&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47304/experimental-technique-for-measuring-temperature-of-an-ant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38859/how-to-properly-bake-a-ultra-high-vacuum-chamber&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52105/ways-to-create-controlled-small-bubbles-in-water-within-plastic-tubing&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44784/how-to-determine-whether-a-large-container-is-air-tight&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2160/physical-vapor-deposition-of-sio2&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15469/how-to-guess-the-correct-fitting-function-to-some-data&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13408/fitting-to-a-high-density-scatter-plot&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52805/improvements-on-a-makeshift-dessicator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="fec07c77-67bd-4213-9eb6-b11314b3f7ac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a [question I asked a while ago][1], somebody set a bounty of 200 and awarded it to an answer. I can now not find who it was since it was awarded, and my memory is not so good on who set the bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it would be good to keep the name of the one offering the bounty by the answer chosen by him/her, next to the price, so that it is clear that  the original questioner did not set the bounty and the choice. It looks funny to have an answer awarded a bounty and not chosen by the questioner. Now it seems that the questioner has set the bounty awarded it and not chosen the awarded question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11800/can-energy-be-taken-out-of-the-qft-vacuum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="274c0c53-b7b3-47db-a411-e3aa66612fc0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [timeline][1] for the relevant post shows only one recent downvote (2 points, natch) and no particular evidence of a misuse of the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the voting on that question is turning on the *interpretation* of words like &quot;fundamental&quot; and &quot;naturalness&quot; or somesuch. Makes me wish I'd closed it as &quot;not a real question&quot; which used to be labeled &quot;subjective and argumentative&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to be a case for moderator intervention here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW-- The &quot;timeline&quot; url is a a general construction that can be applied to any question to see what happened when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/32422/timeline" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="2a256bc2-d4cc-42a5-83de-90446972ac7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**I wanted to upvote [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/60672/17609) and so I did. However, half an hour later the upvote was registered to [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/28216/17609). I upvoted the intended answer again. Then this appeared, suggesting I upvoted yet [another answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/20391/17609).**&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This time I didn't do anything and after a while, coming back, I got this.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I've encountered this problem before. I'm using Safari 6.0.3 (on a Mac with OS X 10.8.3) and have AdBlock 2.5.61 installed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E1bWo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tSX3S.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1420" RevisionGUID="e85d42a5-eb9d-4cd6-8689-8172babb4a67" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, my [question][1] about car crash is off topic or it is so stupid that no one would answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is so important to keep only one question in a question so that we can't answer question with different scenario, should we split the question in 3?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if I split the question in 3, are question okay? Wouldn't it be pretty stupid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33462/which-position-in-bus-we-sit-that-we-receive-least-damage-upon-accident#comment73953_33462" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="c79a9d87-5eee-4896-a85f-94193bf78916" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Luboš Motl][1] has become the first ever user on Physics.Stackexchange to get a [Gold Badge for  a particular topic][2] . He has earned the Gold Badge for [tag:quantum-mechanics] , [all time top user][3] in the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers for his great achievement !!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Luboš Motl,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thanks for your incomparable contribution to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1236/lubos-motl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges?tab=tags&amp;filter=gold&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/topusers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="73bc72ed-035a-46a2-a0a2-75103e22cae8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In looking [at a new question][1] today I found it tagged [tag:accelerator-physics], which I removed as my understanding is that the phase is universally used to discuss the physics of beams in accelerators and of the accelerating devices themselves, but *not* of experiments done using beams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the tag currently has no tag wiki and I find [many questions tagged in what I would describe as the wrong way][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions from the floor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34193/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accelerator-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="1f0cffe2-9442-4312-85e6-471cc55ccf12" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Extremely niche thing here that hardly affects anyone at all, but seems worth reporting to someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was reviewing a suggested edit (number 3 in the [revision history][1]) in side-by-side mode. One of the fixes had changed the source from something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $x = 3$ and $y = 5$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$x = 3$$ and $$y = 5$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The side-by-side display seems to miss the second and third `$$` symbols, concatenating both equations and the `and` into a single equation, which makes it somewhat difficult to see what the change is doing. At first glance it looks like the edit ruined everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more dramatic effect can be seen in the second revision, where the side-by-side display thinks entire sentences are inside math mode and so makes everything look like line noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this display mode is trying to strike a tricky balance between displaying changes in source and showing things as formatted where possible, but in cases like this, it doesn't help at all in the review process. Is there any fix for the parsing so that the segregation between text and math is respected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/67765/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="0577066e-8502-4e9b-9cf2-3d3b5af6fb32" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can (and are encouraged to: there's [a badge for that][1]) suggest a text for tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click the badge, then click the &quot;help us create it?&quot; link in the box at the top of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why don't you give us a definition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/53/tag-editor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="19fc2710-5e1f-47f6-9ae0-a004effb60c9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Firstly is there a way access older questions(~1-3 days) from the main page in an easy way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Questions tab, sorted by &quot;active&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secondly, I propose adding previous and next buttons to the active section of the main page(and perhaps others ), preferably along with numbered pages(roughly covering a weeks activity) that will allow the user to access older questions with ease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pagination is already there on the Questions tab (no particular need for forward/back buttons imo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a particular need for this, besides, once you reach the end of the main page you already are presented with this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=active&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GtuIX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1471" RevisionGUID="b347def9-1a59-41cd-b734-2444c535da90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions, related to self-reference in measurement theory, existence of universally-valid theories, subjective decoherence and limits of scientific method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4841/what-is-the-wavefunction-of-the-observer-himself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31068/certainty-in-science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="6defc6a9-9003-489e-8b18-5c3ce787111d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently posted this question over [here][1] , It was currently closed as off topic, I posted this question in order to know the impacts/effects related to physics while we using the mobile phones inside airplanes, so i choosed physics.se and posted it over here, Can anyone explain why my question is off topic here, as it basically covers about the physical effects while using phones inside airplanes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks In advance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68571/why-cant-you-use-your-cellphone-on-an-airplane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="f71d63fc-946e-4072-85db-7c5b1597aacd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this question][1], the questioner by misremembering used &quot;quark&quot; instead of &quot;strange&quot;.  This was edited by a third party after my reply, and the admission in the comments by the questioner that a slip was made, and made my reply completely irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to delete my answer, because it was not wrong within the previous framework of the question. I am not familiar with &quot;strange matter&quot; and in any case it is an entirely different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the protocol on this? In my opinion the question should be deleted by the owner if there are answers that will become irrelevant, and resubmitted in the correct format. This would delete any answers of course, which would be  hard if someone had worked hard on an answer. If there are no answers of course editing is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38113/what-star-processes-throw-strange-matter-into-space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="e7d9cd13-270e-4978-bfa8-6446de522d18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My example is this [drastic edit to the question][1] I had replied to, which is a drastic rewrite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the original questioners asked to approve of the change even though their reputation is below 10?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68790/conceptual-doubts-in-em-waves-and-old-quantum-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="ef8b6fed-0584-499c-85a1-67355943039a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't have enough reputation to post a comment, but I am very disappointed that not only are [simple mechanics questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24/does-leaning-banking-help-cause-turning-on-a-bike) not getting good answers, but the good answers aren't getting many more votes than the bad answers. (For those who care, Tristan's answer to the linked question is the one which is most accurate.) If you don't do something to increase the level of discussion here, this site will be in danger of becoming useless. If good answers don't get more votes than bad answers, I think the site is in serious trouble." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="265658dc-a1e7-4ea4-8999-ecb11cbfd9cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was recently posted: [How to find poles of transfer function by looking at the step response?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38439/how-to-find-poles-of-transfer-function-by-looking-at-the-step-response&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that it needs to be migrated to signal processing stack exchange because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the community there will benefit more from the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- contains little physics content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is being asked by someone probably doing a module in signal processing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other reasons why it should/should-not be asked here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="12fcde90-6f1d-49d7-bfbf-c1a54e4ff70d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69436/2751) question, the OP asks about a statement concerning a particle physics topics, taken from a certain well known website. The answer nicely clarifies why this statement is wrong from a physics point of view, so far so good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the owner of this website is not an expert in the funtamental physics topics by training or education (particle physics, some cosmology, and reltated things), he often writes about, even though he often manages to pose as an expert in popular media such as newspagers, magazines, etc by deluding too gulible science journalists which lets him successfully negatively biase the view and percetption of fundamental physics in the public. [Prof. Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/) for example continuisly has to correct the from a physics point of view wrong, exagerated, biased, and otherwise inappropriate claims this blogger is cited for in popular mass media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real experts who actually work on the topics the website cited in the question often talks (or more appropriately rants) about, know that the aim of this site is not to deliver correct reliable physics information (it is even explicitely stated on that site in the text that describes what kind of comments are welcome, that its purpose is not to discuss physics!), but the owner has an agenda to harm research he dislikes and obviously does not properly understand not only by instigating flame wars in the internet, but to prevent that it gets properly funded in the real world too by making himself seen and heard in the media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are all comments pointing out that there is a general problem with the credibility and appropriateness of such websites for exctracting correct physics informations, repeatedly deleted by I moderator? Why is it generally not allowed to judge the credibility of sources people take the information from to ask questions on physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To physicists, it is well known that not all sources where one can find information about physics, are equally good and reliable and if certain sources mentioned are systematically problematic it should not only be allowed to point this out, Physics SE should even &quot;feel obliged&quot; to uncover these issues, if being a good place to learn about correct physics is still among its main goals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="c31ecc1e-d9a8-4b75-a6d2-d6fa05a34de3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [I didn&amp;#39;t get my 100 starting reputation from associating this account to my other accounts.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I, and atleast one other (JCL), didn't get the +100 reputation for associating other stackexchange accounts. [This thread][1] in the main forum was created about it, because we weren't able to ask this question on meta in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;I fixed my problem by unlinking and relinking the accounts, like people were advising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/i-didnt-get-my-100-starting-reputation-from-associating-this-account-to-my-other/926#926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="c7406935-df87-4c19-95b8-ee35f42e81de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ok, Guys. Recently, I poked into this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41814/ asked by @Michael which is *pretty good*. As it didn't get enough attention, I started a bounty on it. Seems like it doesn't get attention now either. I don't think, these *Physics guys* are bored of seeing such a question. At the same time, we shouldn't expect equal interests from others. But, Is there any other reason for this question - *not getting  attention*..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(I think It'd get attention at least in meta :-)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="69be1c54-104a-4061-9fe8-2ac1cf7a386d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a great problem. While poking into a question yesterday, I thought I might answer (as it didn't get a lot of attention though). Today (I mean, NOW) I see my post [under &quot;community wiki&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/44174). I saw the revision history specifically saying, &quot;Post made community wiki by Crazy Buddy&quot;. I haven't done anything as such. I must agree that I try to &quot;type in&quot; fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any keyboard letter that triggers community wiki or could anyone trigger it except me?&#xD;&#xA; - I know that community wiki votes are earned by the &quot;-1&quot; user. Would the *accepted answer* vote also goes to him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing special with that question and my answer though. Just a curiosity (maybe for later use - *like that*) But, I have a suspicion that I would've done something *crazy*. Machines don't lie. Do they? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="979a791f-5a56-4b8e-a6ce-d0d40cb6ff32" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have a (possible bad) habit of sometimes making a prime superscript in LaTeX with a 'hat' character in between, e.g.,  $x^'$ rather than  $x'$.  The LaTeX/MathJax rendering has worked fine either way for more than a year, right up to around yesterday, where I became aware that $x^'$ is not displayed correctly. See e.g. [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/33713/2451). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What causes this problem to emerge now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Was there a recent change to MathJax? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there a way to fix this problem without having to edit each and every post separately by hand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="7d90b63f-5952-4329-a03f-b343cdffbfbb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My primary interest is in the philosophy of science, with an emphasis on science. I thought it would potentially be a good idea to link relevant philosophy.SE posts to questions on your board. I was going to do this by appending these links, sparingly, to the bottom of physics.SE questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first attempt was rejected. Here are the questions I tried to link: [Is Newton's Law of Gravity consistent with General Relativity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89/is-newtons-law-of-gravity-consistent-with-general-relativity) on physics.SE and [Have there really been paradigm shifts?](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2602/have-there-really-been-paradigm-shifts) on philosophy.SE ([suggested edit][1]). The latter addresses the case of one theory being rejected for another--are the theories necessarily incompatible, and if they are not, what is their relationship to one another? Newtonian mechanics and GTR are referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that sharing a link is not a standard edit, but thought that the benefit to members of both communities would outweigh this (of course, lacking the requisite reputation points, I was not able to place it in the comments section like a normal person). Cross-pollination of ideas between forums is always interesting, and I think providing relevant &quot;exolinks&quot; would facilitate it. Would the physics.SE community reconsider allowing me to make such edits? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/6133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="7e164043-ceab-4151-82be-e0e6913798db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You need [50 reputation to comment on posts other than your own](https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment). That is the reason why you don't see the comment link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="f0e4bc5a-7af7-41d9-880f-afd2f4862468" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who can explain me the strange things that happen all the way with [my question about the Mendeleev table][1] here? At the beginning I could not edit it or make comments after it. That's why I tried to give my own answers to it, but my first answer was deleted. I wrote another one, and today somebody deleted the chain of comments after it (my talk with the users with names dimension10 and Mitchell Porter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to find out, what is the idea? If the person who does this wants to inspire me with something, I suggest him to do this openly. If I violate some rules, or do something wrong, it will be much more honest to tell me this directly, than to compel me to catch anonymous hints. If not, then I believe there is a very interesting explanation of this phenomena, that resembles discrimination so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="073721ec-6bc8-45c5-9d00-8c45ef56d691" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The post had been migrated from TheoreticalPhysics.SE, and there must have been some glitch in the user account reassociation. That's why you couldn't comment initially (which was fixed later when this was brought to my attention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your deleted post wasn't an answer, it was a remark, which is why it wa deleted. It should have been a comment or an edit to the question. Of course, at the time, you could do neither (you'll find that you can do both now), so it's understandable that this frustrated you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment thread was getting long and wasn't so constructive, which is probably why it got deleted. Your stance there was a bit aggressive as well, you seemed to be asserting that nobody but a mathematician would understand what you meant, which can be taken as offensive. This may have contributed to the reason for deletion. Please be nice on this network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are _not_ for discussion. If you see something wrong or want to suggest an improvement, you use a comment. If a comment thread is becoming a discussion, or if you wish to hold one, you go to chat. On Stack Exchange, comments are considered third-class citizens -- can be deleted without reason. In this case, the bulk of the conversation had already been [moved to chat][1], so there shouldn't have been an issue deleting them. _Usually_, comments are deleted when they can no longer serve their purpose, that is, they can no longer result in improvements to the post. This can happen if the author either incorporates the suggestions (or corrects the mistakes), or gives a refusal to do so&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the &quot;correction in tone&quot; [here][2], that was my fault: Someone had flagged the comment, and I felt that it was best to tone it down a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. There's nothing wrong with refusing changes or corrections. However, many a time it renders the comments useless, so these things get deleted.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9405/discussion-between-dimension10-and-sergei-akbarov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics#comment142792_16648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="0e18df47-eee6-4f84-a60f-8414aea7a227" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently answered a question with a bounty [Floating a ping pong ball in the air just using a pen!](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69731/floating-a-ping-pong-ball-in-the-air-just-using-a-pen/70371#70371), received 4 upvotes, and was awarded the bounty; I got +150 karma from the bounty as usual, but have not got any *reputation* from the upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a bug, or a feature limiting *reputation* from upvotes that I missed reading about in the FAQ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2652" RevisionGUID="3fdffb0b-2ad2-41fd-898b-d0c93c39be77" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say that research effort doesn't necessarily mean a tonne of equations to write out. If the answer is easily (for example) wikipedia-able, then that would show poor research effort. But if it's not one of those questions (like [this][1] one) which show that the OP has thought about it, but hasn't reached any consensus, that's fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I think physics.SE is looking to see that the person asking the question isn't using us as a tool to think. If it seems clear that he/she/them have thought about it, then that should be an acceptable question, regardless of how long/short it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, suggestions could be made to provide more/less detail, but as a rule of thumb this is valid, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="2cafc5fb-4cee-43fe-9352-96d82a0d7c25" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was putting a bounty on a [question][1] for the first time, and the text window started bugging out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![bounty error][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, some of the prompt is cut off on the left-hand side (the &quot;E&quot; in &quot;Enter&quot;, the &quot;Ar&quot; in &quot;Are&quot;). More frustratingly, *my* text was altered in the middle of typing. What I actually typed began &quot;This is a great question&quot; and ended &quot;based on&quot;, but the substitutions `T` → `(` and `b` → `w` occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change seemed to be associated with the linewrap in the text box. Also, the final version came out fine, it was just my display that was wrong at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, this occurred running Firefox 22.0 on a Windows machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62918/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IR0v4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="88de19ba-3994-4e8f-8a64-284967f97133" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="An hour or so ago I suggested an edit for [this question about heat-conductance in diamonds](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45910/diamond-excellent-heat-conductor-due-to-phonons-explain). When I now browse to said question, I don’t see the block ‘your edit is being reviewed’ anymore, nor does it appear in [the list of my suggestions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12808/claudius?tab=activity&amp;sort=suggestions) where it definitely was listed half an hour ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened to this suggestion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="e58c3702-a476-4149-bf28-372a58fa75da" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In order to improve [this post][1], I was trying to add [this picture][2](it doesn't load here either) to it ; but what I get is:&quot;For security reasons, framing is not allowed; click OK to remove the frames.&quot; And then I'm redirected to another page with a big *Oops* in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean? I thought it might be because of the descriptions below the photo, so I removed them and tried again, without any success. Can anyone help me with this regard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will upload some pictures of the sequence of what happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47141/name-of-experiment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KCN0vmahqCw/UZq0xvR6D4I/AAAAAAAAAe4/KKYHhD2jwEY/w800-h800/INKrGUS.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZO0hX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qM4DD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fH5Fp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3XfX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="3617816f-279e-4aad-bbf5-b7baafa72efa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics's [second moderator election][1] has come to a close, the votes have been tallied, and the new moderators are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Qmechanic][2]][3] &#xD;&#xA;[![Manishearth][4]][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They'll be joining [the existing crew][6] shortly — please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice as they learn the ropes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details on how the voting played out, you can download the election results [here][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/2451.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/7433.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/about#moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="5548a061-b2e3-496b-9da8-493cbfcb3b6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you hover your mouse over the downvote button, you get this tip: &quot;This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.&quot; The help section [&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;][1] does not say anything about insufficient research effort. This suggests to me that ofeeshul policy is to downvote these, not close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I normally leave a comment explaining my downvote, quoting or paraphrasing the text in the downvote button's tip. If I don't do this, the OP will probably have no idea that I downvoted and will not learn that (IMO) there was a problem with the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO there is nothing wrong with having questions and answers that cover exactly the same information that's available somewhere else like Wikipedia. WP is not perfect, and WP is a different type of collaborative environment than SE, with different strengths and weaknesses. Many seemingly obvious, trivial questions are FAQs, and one of the strengths of SE is that we have mechanisms for collecting correct answers to FAQs in a single place and then avoiding wasting our time by answering those FAQs again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="926507f4-c8cb-412d-84ae-e09edfd6e0c8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Please don't mistake me as *crazy*. I was just wondering if other users have seen about this case...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the start (for a day), I had 2980 rep. I just returned now, answered a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46927) here. The user up-voted me and chosen it as his answer. Then, I blinked at my user card showing 3005 rep. Then, something bugged the author (maybe a *formula*), he deselected mine and selected the other one. Then, I see my rep. still showing 2980 and not 2990 as my answer still has the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** That 10 rep. is not a great deal though. But, I'm curious whether users have seen such a *thing* (bug) around in SE..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="7cc495fa-6914-4882-931f-efcad7c756db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Post here tag synonym proposals for voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: what tags should by synonyms of &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;? See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4007/2451) meta post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. [pluralization](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4677/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the format [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Copy-pasteable template: `[tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master]` .)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Before creating a new answer, please go to [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) or to https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="5a3b8bf9-428f-471a-98a8-5cc4d61caa39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my opinion, the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47215/where-can-i-learn-about-transforming-uniform-random-distribution-into-other-dis?noredirect=1 is on topic here. That exact question is asked and answered in courses titled &quot;Computational Physics&quot; when they discuss Monte Carlo methods. Anyone interested in that question is vastly more likely to be a physicist than a statistician. Finally, the question received two very answers from physicists. The probabilities involved in the problem are not particularly difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, I think it is a physics question because it is about a commonly-used physics tool. As a comparison, I use a differential refractometer in my research. A question about the internal functioning of a refractometer would clearly be on-topic. I see questions about the internal functioning of Monte Carlo methods to be on the same level: a question about how a particular physics tool works. I agree, though, that it is on-topic for SciComp; if it's off-topic here, it would be better there than anywhere else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="1cd732ce-d673-4639-bc22-d909d1a31731" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The recent [question on the precise meaning of &quot;clockwise&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71455/8563) has received a ton of close-votes and downvotes (partly, I think, because of the original tone of the question). As @babou and I have argued, this is a valid, nontrivial, on-topic, valuable question, and it should really be pulled out of the administrative hole it's in. So: c'mon, upvote it and unclosevote it! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Manishearth's benefit, I quote my comment to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Clockwise&quot; is an important, ubiquitous technical term in the physical literature, and it is perfectly fine to have questions about their specific meaning and the conventions that surround such technical terms. Conventions are not physical insight but they are a crucial part of transmitting and understanding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the &quot;ubiquitous&quot;, babou did the numbers to find that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word &quot;clockwise&quot; is used more than 800 times on physics.stackexchange.com according to the very approximative figures of google (I used: clockwise site:physics.stackexchange.com). This adverb must have some relevance to physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the question is about conventions. But asking what the common conventions in physics are, and how to use them, is what we have a [tag:conventions] tag to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="58b7a9d5-9544-4ff8-92cf-64ac25fe3a8b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If they're really old, go ahead and clarify them via edits. The edit will bump it to the front page, where it will get some attention. If the post is a closed post, flag it with a custom message asking for a reopen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get more attention for them, you may want to [place a bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still afraid of editing, you _may_ re-ask, make sure to link to the original in the comments and say that it isn't that well phrased. In such a case, we may close the older one (if it has no valuable answers) as a dupe of the new one. But I discourage doing this -- it should only be in cases where the question is extremely vague (and thus unclarifiable by anyone but the OP) and the answers are worthless. In this case, remember to flag the old question as `It doesn't belong here`&gt;`Not A Real Question` if it isn't closed already. (Actually, any vague/ambiguous/incomplete question you see should be flagged as such if you're not editing it)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="711b91dc-cf07-4243-a047-ccc415e78c56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For one, IIRC a spam/offensive flag gives an auto downvote (this also happens if a q is closed as off topic, NC, NARQ I _think_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 6 spam/offensive flags, the post is locked, deleted, and the user loses 100 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On sites where I don't moderate, I still downvote posts that I flag for deletion. I get the rep back later. I really didn't think about it as &quot;the troll got attention&quot;. But you do have a point there :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree, a flag ought to be enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note: as a 10k user, you can see most flags and counterflag them [here][1]. (you'll get a little yellow bubble on your topbar when the number of flags exceeds 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="76a22972-bd5b-4922-a267-647535d6d1e5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here are  two questions that do not make sense, while reading them:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71887/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71823/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My observation is that second question doesn't get better if you read the answers. I didn't learn anything new from the answers. It just looked to me like a philosophical exercise in renaming things for the sake of renaming things.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the first question actually did got better when I read the answer. I've learnt something new. I've got better understanding of the particle physics experiment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bugs me is the moderator response to both situations. It was the first question that was blocked -- not the second one. I think that something is wrong with that. And I think that it has something to do with the standard complaint about &quot;not enough experts&quot; that you guys have here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3998" RevisionGUID="5e74c76c-4d0b-4a20-9ee7-bfb34335ba55" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today, I accidentally went through the questions under [tag:telescopes] tag and all questions confused me *totally*. Looks like, there are many questions that seem to me like *off-topic*. I've listed several questions (There are more). They're confusing me a lot... (on-topic or off-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Could someone suggest me how they are ON (or OFF) and why..?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052  &#xD;&#xA;2) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26037  &#xD;&#xA;3) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123 (I'm wondering how this is on-topic even after my VTC)  &#xD;&#xA;4) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892 (This is *too ridiculous*)  &#xD;&#xA;5) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25502  &#xD;&#xA;6) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All are not *necessarily* off-topic or not constructive. Maybe someone could explain about the on-topic..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="1abb7315-c1bf-4247-968e-5ce3125b4dbc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------      &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-einsteins-field-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="2e0ddf9a-5236-4432-8e14-9ec023601676" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider *&quot;[help with coefficient of friction][1]&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A basic physics 101 question, and a one-and-a-half step variety at that. As questions-that-students-have go there is nothing unusual about it, but there is little help that can be offered short of doing the problem for the student. I've offered a pointer in the comments, but how should the question treated on physics.se?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;// For amusement, check out the original tag...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1758/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4010" RevisionGUID="953c10f0-7d18-4ddd-b08c-d817dfeed543" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just got a nice answer to [one of my questions][1], and it occurs to me that it might be awesome if, when answering a question, someone could build simple animations.  I've never seen anything like this before and it would tend to increase the quality of experience for both askers and answerers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be willing to work on something like that, sort of like a mini Flash Editor but only in JavaScript, **if** it doesn't already exist for free that is (hard to have an original thought in this world), but the question is a) do others think its a good idea b) would something like that have a chance of going live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could work on something like this for fun obviously, but it would be more motivating if I thought the result might get deployed on a site like this....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52135/confusion-about-time-shift-in-special-relativity/52147#52147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="98c4ebd8-a931-4431-a5b9-0cfc148380ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As explained at the bottom of the [formatting help page][1] you use `[link text](url)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also [a more detailed help page just for comment formatting][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/formatting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help#comment-formatting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="abab97d7-cacd-4eb5-806b-ebbdd552d52e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dear Bruce,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the one putting up the question you mentioned I am willing to say something about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure it might be trivial and also sure that most people here (well, I might include myself here) can write down the solution instantaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why did I ask?  &#xD;&#xA;First of all since I am interested in similar systems and knowing good resources that provide **additional information** in the context of the question would have been nice (in the sense of [Marek's answer][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;Second, I thought it might be a nice idea since in on of the [threads concerning promotion][2], someone was suggesting to ask questions we know the answer of but it would be nice to have it answered on the site anyways, maybe from interesting perspectives (to create content, I suppose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually a little wondering about the reactions the post immediatly created regarding that a lot of the questions posted are actually on a High-School level. And, in turn, those seem to be the [most popular ones][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS.: I was the first to vote to close the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293/should-we-allow-questions-asking-the-mathematical-solution-to-physics-problems/296#296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/358&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2605/358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="bb5ca2dc-f874-49f2-b982-538d7baf65a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="my question on is the [classical world an illusion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/50051/2451) is depressing me. I made a mistake in asking it and the replies are getting me down. Could the moderators please for me, delete the question or close it down. I asked it, I got a number of answers and now I want them to end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you for your appreciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee Hudson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="49cae176-a4d1-41d0-b9d7-3aebd7bef7a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, just include `user:me` in your search query. You can also use something like `user:19976` to restrict the results to any particular user's posts, where `19976` should be replaced by the ID of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to restrict your search to only answers (as opposed to questions and answers), you can also include `is:answer`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other search operators that you can see by doing a search and looking at the right side of the results page for &quot;Advanced Search Tips&quot;. (Or see [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="8cb66f6a-9e90-41b3-89f9-64a15882d060" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Not yet another question on &quot;level&quot; but on &quot;relevance&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we allow **specific** homework questions like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/homework-about-spinning-top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8045/i-lost-a-factor-of-two-in-the-electromagnetic-field-tensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or close them as &quot;Too Localized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are clearly other homework questions with a larger general value, like e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should be kept as [discussed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16/are-puzzle-questions-appropriate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4023" RevisionGUID="c24d73fc-5a06-437b-b45f-19a1cd88292c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="From what i know community is a bot, no human observes and decides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this inarticulate edit https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52530/difference-betwddddddddddddddddd  and content &quot;pls help&quot; I sincerely hope that no real call for help has been denied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to add a comment to the effect &quot;go to a hospital emergency if you need help&quot; but am unable to do so now. It may be that the user had ingested some of those substances he listed in the first version of the question and really needed help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="9de0b1b9-c095-42b8-a8d7-36351cadb1a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I seem to have a split account. My user name has 2 addresses with 2 different profiles. User 20397 and 20270.&#xD;&#xA;Can someone fix this for me please or let me know how I can fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the two links. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/20397/jitter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/20270/jitter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="aaa343ed-0e9b-4f6f-8863-3cdc503f0f59" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15371/understanding-time-is-time-simply-the-rate-change&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73624/what-is-time-actually?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17056/time-what-is-it?lq=1  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32155/what-is-a-clock?lq=1    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And  many more .   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="29dd169e-d6a2-4a9a-8cee-f3a7099b10d2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general, I agree with you that there are such things as pseudo-answers which don't belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But based on my experience here, I think this is not as big of an issue on physics.SE as I imagine it is on Skeptics. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answerer refers to other answers like &quot;In addition to what Alice said...&quot;, or &quot;Referring to Bob's answer...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is collaborative. It's perfectly valid to build off someone else's answer, in the same way that you might build off a paper, blog post, or Wikipedia page (by citing it). We've produced a lot more thorough information that way than we could otherwise. In fact, based on experience I consider this a sign of a _good_ answer, as long as the original answer being referenced is also good and the new answer adds something substantive to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example from my own experience: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson/195#195&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answer is prefaced by &quot;This is not a complete answer, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could go either way. It's often difficult for one person to cover an issue completely, and I consider it a good sign when they recognize that and point out that there is more to be done, leaving an opening for someone else to come in and complete the explanation (either by editing the existing answer, or posting a new answer that builds on it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The whole answer is less than three lines long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agreed, that is probably a sign of a bad answer. (Or perhaps a sign of a bad question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The answer starts with &quot;This is just a guess but&quot;, &quot;I think that&quot;, &quot;Maybe that, &quot;I would guess that&quot;, &quot;In my opinion,&quot; &quot;Personally,&quot; or any other term that suggest speculation rather than certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;In my opinion&quot; or &quot;Personally,&quot; I agree. But for other phrases, it depends to some extent on who's guessing. A good physicist knows how to extrapolate new information from what he or she knows, without stepping over the line into _unfounded_ speculation. So even an educated guess or a tentative thought can be good information, if it comes from someone who knows what they're doing. It's common knowledge that _scientists make mistakes_ sometimes, and it will help our site when people disclose their level of certainty (or uncertainty) in the conclusions they're drawing - kind of like the verbal version of error bars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="0441d9f1-8c1e-4afd-a64d-d0f1eac4048a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I suggest, that we introduce a High-School-Level Tag, as opposed to Graduate Level Physics(Currently Called Research-Level), To Bring a Basic Level Filtering system into action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some ambiguity about what qualifies as High school(depending on where you studied), For most purposes, there will be little confusion on when It can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of sample questions that this tag can be applied to, [calculating-a-torque][1]&#xD;&#xA;, [centrifugal-force][2] and [understanding-the-basics-of-electromagnetic-induction][3] and [density-of-air-in-a-balloon][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70626/calculating-a-torque&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73672/centrifugal-force&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73622/understanding-the-basics-of-electromagnetic-induction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73473/density-of-air-in-a-balloon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4047" RevisionGUID="d8932f17-8cec-4d88-b368-e7226978d54e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="He deleted the question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53368/interaction-of-high-energy-particles-with-matter (10k+ only, should be visible to you), and then he re-posted it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="2761a439-4da2-4211-94f4-4ae410b86b82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few almost random thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Why were the SI base quantities chosen as such?][1] is [a history question][2]. I'm wishy-washy on it. The choice at any given time was wrapped up in the state of the science and especially the art of measurement; but it would require considerable writing to explain the tradeoff at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the SI Derived Unit of Brix?][3] is a one-google general reference question and turns out to be more relevant to chemistry or bio-chemistry than physics (though I suppose sugar solution are optically active).&#xD;&#xA;* This new one--[What is “International Service of Weights and Measures”?][4]--is bothering me because I think *&quot;What was [formerly very important organization]?&quot;* could possibly be relevant, but that this one is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="81b07cee-3ddd-4640-8127-a4fa27f36c15" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-gravity-escape-a-black-hole &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69651/in-which-direction-do-gravitons-travel-do-they-originate-from-mass-or-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45999/nothing-escapes-bhs-gravitons-mediate-gravity-so-why-do-bhs-gravitate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35861/why-a-black-hole-sucks-nearly-everything-but-emits-gravitons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See full list (with some non-duplicates):   [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/937?lq=1) &#xD;&#xA;     .    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="e0d0a64c-e611-471a-b660-35b81aab98f5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A question has arisen if shopping advice posts is off-topic and should be kept closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12466/3694&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/151437/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that this is not a question _on physics_, but how does one otherwise ask the fellow physicists for this kind of information? Experimental physics _is_ to a large extent about choosing the right makers. Besides, the [question 12466](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12466/3694) is not just about _where to buy_ these liquids, but mainly about why they are so rare on the market. I have never worked with them, so do not know, and was asking for help. People experience in refractometry / microscopy might have been able to answer question 12466." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="9ce5c2c3-95e8-461b-b891-86d7090fea2f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I've asked some recent questions where some of the answers have got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; very high up votes for good technical content, even though they don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer my questions at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least from July until now, the only question you have made in which there is any unaccepted answer with some votes (although I wouldn't say &quot;very high up votes&quot;) is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant/52980#52980&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers can judge by themselves if that answer responds well to your question or not. I definitely think it does, and perfectly indeed. That is why it is receiving upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find it intriguing to know who these up voters are, and whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they're respected users who know what they're up voting for, or simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users who can't read the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how are you judge who is a &quot;respected user&quot; or somebody &quot;who can't read the question&quot;? You can perfectly have one day Edward Witten amusing himself here, in front of you under a false name, recently registered with barely 40 points... Would that be a &quot;respected user&quot; by your standards? There is no social status here, the answers are good or bad for their physics contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the point in knowing the name of the upvoters. The anonimity of the votes is one of the good things here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you suspect that somebody is downvoting you sistematically, it is very easy to confirm it. Every downvote subtracts points to the downvoter. By being aware of the reputation of whoever you suspect is taking the effort of systematically downvoting you (instead of having a life) in real time, you can get to know that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="29b1ca12-ac5d-4e0c-9561-b46144ea31f2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think something is too basic if a reasonably-informed Google search will turn up a valid answer on the first page.  I often wonder myself if some of my questions are too basic, like my last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15678/is-mid-water-bouyancy-a-classic-example-of-a-balanced-but-unstable-system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I wrote that, I discovered that Wikipedia does, in fact address it.  But the thing is, it's not addressed specific to what I had in mind, it's not as expansive or detailed as what I was asking for, and it would be hard for someone looking for it to find.  Because of this, I think there's still a lot of value coming out of my question.  But the question of whether or not something is too basic does occur to me a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="63e89d82-1184-4fe6-8ec5-bb9fcff75221" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="***[meta-tag:Status-completed]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------         &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5456/the-speed-of-gravity    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too many to list; see   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/5456?lq=1 .  26 questions are listed, some aren't exactly duplicates ...        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="becaf6dc-5cf0-45a0-89c6-9621dbab0f5d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16005/what-is-the-potential-difference-between-point-x-and-point-y/16010#16010) are potentially on-topic on Electrical Engineering. However, that question is a little too basic for most of our users, and we don't get a lot of homework questions as it seems you do per [this meta post on homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and [&quot;no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework/211#211).  We do occasionally get questions which seem to be from people learning about electricity in physics classes, though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an example of a good, on-topic question on Physics?  Where do you draw the line between questions like this (which is just a voltage divider attached to some voltage sources) and off-topic problems better suited for another site like Electrical Engineering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want us to refer questions like this to your site, or do you want to refer questions like this to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a heads up: that question just got [tweeted](http://twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/127370402174472192), so make sure it's nice and pretty according to your standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="9f8b90a5-a2ed-45bd-89a3-ab0ac813cfa1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently reviewed a suggested edit to [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55817/8563), and it told me that it needs additional reviews for this to go through. I have been reviewing suggested edits for some time and this is the first time I see this. Did this change recently? Is it applicable to all posts, or what are the criteria? What's the rationale for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="d018b26b-505a-43b3-b514-cfb473e66856" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently noticed a joke post; a user intentionally asked and answered a question that was a very subtle mockery of research-level physics papers and had no application as an actual question on this site. I've got a sense of humour, it was pretty funny, so I thought &quot;we can let this slide. Close the question, but enjoy the joke while it's here&quot; But I checked out his account anyway. It seems this user (not going to name names for privacy's sake, and [redacted] other reasons) has maybe 1 or 2 out of about 40 posts that are remotely serious. All of his posts are &quot;jokes&quot; aimed at intentionally misleading, asking nonsensical questions, or generally mocking physics in some way. If reading one of his answers, it is important to keep in mind the entire time that it **is** a joke. Some answers can seem very sane an reasonable because of his ability to use jargon. The important thing is that upon closer inspection, many of them say nothing or say the wrong thing seemingly intentionally. Granted, some of them are pretty funny, but the fact remains that it's damaging to have someone running around giving false facts or generally making us look bad/disreputable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thus, I'd love to have the discussion about at what point we decide something should be done and what to do in the case that they are way out of line.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start it off, obviously we're all a big fan of something that's funny. So I assume it goes without saying that if you want to throw some jokes into a question or answer, feel free. I just think there should still be some serious content. Sometimes, an answer can be entirely silly and still be acceptable, an example being https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/70851/23473 where the top answer is entirely silly. But I think it becomes unaccpetable when, instead of a one-time thing, a user is constantly posting questions/answers that do more harm than good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what to do when one is found, to that I have no answer. What would you say would be the appropriate action for an intentionally disruptive user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="1bbee00a-6a20-4925-873f-edbfe5c4fd3a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently saw [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/56639/8563) which (apart from being not very good and even slightly spammy) has an email address for further contact. I have seen this before in other posts and it's always made me squirm a bit. Is this sort of thing OK? Should I flag the posts for moderator attention? Should I edit the email out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4133" RevisionGUID="57178c9b-3eb8-49ef-a752-f570defcaf47" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I asked [this question][1] and given the number of upvotes and comments I think that there are quite some people interested. However, it seems from the comments and the lack of answers that the question might have a more chemical answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be ok to cross-post it on chemistry.SE and report the answers (if any) on physics.SE as well? Or should I perhaps flag for migration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I am wondering about cross-posting is that, given the interest on physics.SE, it seems a bit illogical to migrate the questions, because the users at physics.SE can nog longer find the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56800/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="fdb2a2a0-3584-4817-8f69-25ad1f6bfbde" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Regarding The first version&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to state how ridiculous your statement is. The reason I have so many upvotes is because I answer questions that nobody else here is competent to answer. I don't make mistakes often, and when I do, I correct them or delete the answer. Just read my answers, they are not vague, usually they say precise things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Regarding the general question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are partly talking about me, and you do so without posting any links to any answer you think is wrong. Usually when somebody has a gripe about content they tell you what the content is. Point directly to bad content if you have a problem, don't make vague accusations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you are not qualified to judge the content, you just have a feeling that it must be wrong, because it sounds so different from what you believe. But those people who _are_ qualified to judge the content tell you that it is ok, and this is causing distress to you, because you have a PhD, and I do not, and you believe physicists are generally competent, and I am positive that they are mostly dimwits, and so my answers must be wrong, and yet they are upvoted and this is causing you distress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, get used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, somebody ignorantly downvoted this answer: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17494/who-first-realized-the-uncertainty-principle-allows-for-virtual-particle-pair-pr/17496#17496 , without stating a reason. I think that a downvote should come with an explanation. In this case, the explanation is most likely &quot;I feel that something in here must be wrong, but I can't say exactly what it is, -1.&quot; If you downvote, say why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody here upvotes because they don't understand. In fact, most of the best answers, which are the most technically challenging, have a paucity of upvotes because nobody feels qualified to vote it up, because maybe there's a subtle error. This drives away people who are technically competent. When an answer has a lot of upvotes (at least nowadays), you can be sure that the people who voted it up actually read it _and understood it_. There were times when any answer with formulas in it got upvotes automatically. No more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### pseudotensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This whole thing began when you disagreed with my description of the stress energy pseudotensor in General Relativity. You claimed that the stress energy tensor of matter is the definition of stress energy in GR (which is only true in a locally freefalling frame) and that there is no other definition. I told you Einstein's definition was the pseudotensor, and you said it was not. This only tells me that you haven't read Einstein's papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einstein in 1917 or thereabouts published the pseudotensor for stress energy in the gravitational field, including the gravitational field energy. It was one of Einstein's boldest ideas--- using a coordinate dependent pseudotensor for stress energy, and it was severely criticized by Schrodinger and others as completely wrongheaded, because it is coordinate dependent. It was never fully accepted. To this day, people are confused about stress-energy in GR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pseudotensor $t$ has the property that it is _coordinate_ conserved, meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\partial_\nu t^{\mu\nu} = 0 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is _not_ covariantly conserved. This means that the conserved quantity is the coordinate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\int d^3x t^{\mu0} $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is strange. The pseudotensor gives weird conservation laws, for flows of coordinate dependent stress energy across surfaces, but it is the right concept. The construction is partly explained in the Wikipedia page on Infraparticle, where Noether's theorem is applied to a gauge symmetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pseudotensor only works fully for asymptotically flat spacetime, where you can identify the asymptotic translations with actual physical translations. But when you have cosmological solution, this doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know anything about this, just ask a question. People will be happy to answer it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="0aa54120-1aae-468a-a9f3-633799c5fedc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3009/how-exactly-does-curved-space-time-describe-the-force-of-gravity &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7781/does-the-curvature-of-spacetime-theory-assume-gravity/69092#69092   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45307/how-do-the-einsteins-differential-equation-of-the-curvature-of-spacetime-come-o/71454#71454 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many others, can't remember .         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="eccb90c2-909b-4cc3-8fec-babfe06a2488" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Within some limits of being well-specified we've been allowing these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [examples in our tag][1] [tag:books] and the meta-question [What are the meanings of “books” and “reference-request”?][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/786/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="80bc45dc-8012-45fc-9699-44af50b7a8be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following question has been closed and has been marked as inappropriate for this forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Free online study materials and codes for Monte Carlo simulation in statistical mechanics ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59869/free-online-study-materials-and-codes-for-monte-carlo-simulation-in-statistical)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this question can be **immensely** helpful to students who work in this field of **Monte Carlo simulation in statistical physics**. For example, a similar and very useful question is this one .. [List of freely available physics books](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6157/list-of-freely-available-physics-books), which was not marked as inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another user who also opposes the moderator's decision and posted comments in support of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I request you to reconsider your decision. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="61dd4e62-0bb9-42a2-a895-5bc64865ce63" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The mere fact that you read something strange does not qualify it as a physics question. People can write anything they like, and no one and nothing stops them from writing unphysical nonsense. In fact, some of us read unphysical nonsense for entertainment, so we *pay* them to write unphysical nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not feel obligated to answer question about such writings, however, [and even say so][1] in the [help center][2] (note the bit about &quot;fictional physics&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, long answer short: your question is off-topic, and there is no version you can ask that will be answered here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; am i running against a wall of obstinacy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you are not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We, on the other hand, are. You reposted that question twice, despite being told clearly and repeated that it was off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem bound and determined to push on us a question that clearly falls outside the bounds of what we accept. You are in the wrong on this, and the only polite thing for you to do is *quit it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites, like Physics.SE are *not* open forums where anything goes. We maintain high standards by enforcing tight bounds on what kind of content we accept and then using a crowd-sourced evaluation to sort content by quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We intend to continue maintaining those standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="edefb04f-900e-4871-9d5b-c1076d0723c6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm new to Physics.SE and StackExchange in general.  I've been using the site for several days now and even answered a few questions.  By almost any measure though I'm amateur interested in physics but with no particular expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm not an expert, there are many questions where I think I can provide a nearly complete answer, especially when sophisticated math isn't needed for the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm trying to gauge is how &quot;useful&quot; I can be attempting to answer questions even when I know my answer isn't 100% complete.  I can tell some folks don't answer unless the question is in their specific area of expertise and others attempt to answer almost everything, even when their answer is often very incomplete or even slightly wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I start off answers with &quot;I'm not an expert but...&quot; or &quot;This doesn't completely address your question but...&quot; and then provide links and information for further research will I be providing any value to the community or should I simply not attempt to respond?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three example answers I've provided that demonstrate my non-expert answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60192/what-would-be-the-effect-of-an-excess-of-up-quarks-on-stellar-formation/60193#60193&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59438/how-do-you-calculate-power-at-the-focal-point-of-a-mirror/59441#59441&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57871/how-do-permanent-magnets-manage-to-focus-field-on-one-side/59258#59258&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, should non-experts avoid answering unless they can come very close to a complete and correct answer?  Or is it considered okay to provide answers similar to the three I linked above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="ab9596c5-15f2-48ee-b419-cccb4057eed9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55431/why-one-dimensional-strings-but-not-higher-dimensional-shells-membranes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73808/does-string-m-theory-address-higher-dimensional-membrane-vibration-modes?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66948/string-theory-why-not-use-n-dimensional-blocks-objects-branes?lq=1     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4180" RevisionGUID="95281891-5e05-4f03-a434-84f00c3df815" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Fundamentally, the only criterion to use when judging whether you should post an answer is this: can you answer the question asked? If so, then go ahead and post your answer. I know that's a pretty nebulous criterion, but it's kind of hard to define what makes a postable answer to any greater precision, and we don't want to have a complicated set of rules in place that stops people from answering any more than necessary. (For other things, there might be complicated rules, but asking and answering should be pretty straightforward.) Certainly, you don't have to be an expert in the field to post an answer. If your answer isn't correct, you'll probably get downvoted, but otherwise, no harm done. If your answer isn't complete, that's not ideal, but it's still probably okay to post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say this: if all you can do is post a link to a web page that contains the answer, or that would be a starting point for research that would get the OP to the answer, that link doesn't constitute an answer by itself. So if you find a relevant web page, if you can extract and quote or summarize the part that actually answers the question, then do so, but otherwise, that's material for a comment, not an answer. I think the [last of the three answers you posted](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57871/how-do-permanent-magnets-manage-to-focus-field-on-one-side/59258#59258) probably falls under this criterion, and thus probably would have been better off as a comment. (But it's accepted now, so no big deal.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two of your answers that you linked are probably fine. Although for the first one, the question seems ill-defined to me and so I personally wouldn't answer it at all until it got edited, but that's just me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="0500ee8c-95f0-45ee-a189-e8e66d5d4d45" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So far the scope of Physics Stack Exchange has been defined to exclude experimental technology questions, which are those questions about the devices that one uses to do physics, rather than about the physical principles they use. Some of these questions fit on [Electrical Engineering](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), and there was a proposal on [Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/32588/experimental-or-applied-physics) that would have been a great home for these questions. However, that proposal is no more, and given that this site is well established with a steady flow of physical principles questions, **is it time that we start to allow the questions about experimental technology?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example that prompted this question: &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22552/good-electronic-filters-against-50hz-mains-hum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="f99a89a8-1bee-46da-95dc-e78b4876abc9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For some reason, [Community](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1) has deleted my [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65942/23119).     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, Community only deletes questions upon a certain number (6?) of  &quot;Spam&quot; and &quot;Offensive&quot; flags. What's so spam-like or offensive about that post? Here's the content for those with less than 10k099 rep and non-mods:       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; #Why isn't there a Heterotic string theory which tensors the fermionic state with the Type II state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Heterotic (HO and HE) string is found by tensoring the left movers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the bosonic string theory state and the right movers of the Type II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; string theory state: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$|ψ_H⟩=|ψ_B⟩⊗|ψ_{II}⟩$$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bosonic state is of course based on the Polyakov Action. Now, what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if we had another state (I'll call it the k-heterotic state) which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formed by tensoring the fermionic string theory state and the type II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$|ψ_H⟩=|ψ_F⟩⊗|ψ_II⟩$$&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fermionic string theory state is based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Dirac Action: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $$S_F=S_{RNS}−S_B$$ &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is this theory not consistent?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether the bosonic state is chosen or the fermionic state, how does&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that matter? Is it because the Dirac Action is imaginary (since it has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an i outside the integral if one expands out the Dirac matrix&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fermionic field product)? Does it have anything to do with that?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I wonder if these flaggers were sockpuppets of each other, because I had suddenly started to get 4 downvotes on the mentioned question since  a couple of (20?) days back, which is surprising, because it was initially quite upvoted. So I wonder if the same people had maybe serial flagged this post   and gotten it deleted??? Indicating to me some sort of sockpuppetry...               &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Also, these serial downvotes have occured on some others of  my posts, so I hope they don't get deleted too?  Or have they already?     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially strange (and dangerous), because it doesn't turn up in my [recent deleted questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/recently-deleted-questions/23119) either,...      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p3BpV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="139ea017-965a-4141-8bdf-fa63c2d1302e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was looking through questions on the home page, and I noticed this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61126/does-entanglement-not-immediately-contradict-the-theory-of-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it's obvious from the way the poster posed his original question that the top answer is going to make almost no sense to him whatsoever; it's far too in depth and technical (there are ways of answering the question that are more Feynman-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet for someone who already knows a bit of physics, the answer is going to be too shallow.  There's nothing new there that a graduate student, or even most undergraduates wouldn't know (possibly the no-go theorem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... who is the target audience of this answer?  I must admit; it's well written and looks like a lot of thought went into it.  I'm just confused who is going to get value out of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="be3b78b7-4dfc-4adc-8adb-4c934f39592c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wanted to know what the parameter's on which a question asked by a user is marked as off-topic or put on hold for example look at [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As much I know this question was related to physics problem and it also contains the all required tag which specifies what the question is related to so how it is off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the below reason for question to be off-topic was as followed:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as much I think the question was not up to the mark of the site's standard for question to be asked but how it is off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79002/launch-angle-with-only-intial-velocity-and-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="6e944cbe-59a9-45e5-9473-ce12a90019c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To present the alternate viewpoint from what others have addressed: the important thing is whether people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title, or not. I believe not. (At least, I would not expect a site that is just named &quot;physics&quot; to incorporate astronomy.) That's why I'm in favor of the name change. Probably very little would be involved, just adding a word to the site logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: since the merger I have seen at least these three examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all. How many potential questions are we driving away because our site name is misleading?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="811673e9-c473-47ab-b08b-0a0cf0514484" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question, &quot;[is everything in the universe discrete][1]&quot; was quite rapidly put on hold as a duplicate of &quot;[does the Planck scale imply that spacetime is discrete][2]&quot;. I understand my question might have other issues as well, but it was closed for being a duplicate, so I would like to address that directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited the question and posted comments to explain why I don't think they are the same question, but I don't think anybody saw them. There was no discussion, no attention to the question; just closed, moved on, and forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on the situation is that my question is more general than the planck-scale question. The planck-scale is asking if spacetime specifically is discrete. And the questions and answers there are even more specific than that, they are talking about how the Planck scale is related to spacetime being discrete. My question is asking if everything in the universe is discrete, which is not equivalent, at least as much as I understand it. I did not find the answer to my question in the planck-scale question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my question a duplicate? If yes, please help me to understand why, because I don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79313/is-everything-in-the-universe-discrete&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9720/does-the-planck-scale-imply-that-spacetime-is-discrete" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5055" RevisionGUID="708d88c8-789a-44f8-9add-b9aecd2e2d30" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're not locked. Think of it this way. The SE engine can't just rely on one guy, believing solely on his arbitration. That's why it does this 50% believing on an user's decision on review queues. It *varies*. For instance, it's 20% for VTC queue, 33% on LQ queue (I've seen that one time, when I've recommended deleting the post, while two reviewers before me, also did the same - *fishy*), etc. In case of mods, the engine's policy breaks down. They being the arbiters, the system has to put its 100% belief on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, now you approve some edit, you fill the 50% belief. And someone rejects it, the 50% belief is gone and now, 2 more persons have to fill it up. If on the contrary, both persons rejected it and the belief goes to -100%, the suggested edit is declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the way it is, because *(sometimes)* a &gt;2k user might think that some edit is good, while the next guy (and the following guys) may think that it isn't (maybe *too minor* or something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, that's not the end of story. You have an **IMPROVE** button sandwiched between Reject &amp; Skip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Improve][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You click it, and you'll get into editing the suggested users' revision. If you wanna clear some stuff, or improve it *more* (being an enthusiast), you do that. There's also a check box, asking you whether that guy has helped you in editing or, he messed things up. You check it, and he gets the &quot;+2&quot; he's been waiting for. You deselect it (it's selected as default), he has to wait forever...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Helpful][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I've done some naughty things. You know this immortal guy, the [community user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/). Don't you? He has helped me a lot of times. I'm always fond of decoding users' writings. Sometimes, I get the chance to review a *too minor* suggested edit. It's less likely that I get transformed into a fool (blind). But if that happens, I click **Approve**. Then, I blame myself for doing it accidentally. One day, I sneaked into the post (which I had approved by then) and edited it (just replace the &quot;questions&quot; in the hyperlink to &quot;posts&quot; and after that ID, you put &quot;edit&quot;). Now that you've gone into the post (which was the *tricky* part), make your revision and save it. **You're done**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, get into the revisions of the post and you'll see that the immortal guy has rejected the edit. What you've done is normal. This is what you do when you're reviewing. If you deselect the &quot;helpful&quot; check box, this is what's gonna happen. The &quot;-1&quot; guy rejects it. There's a difference in both cases. In the first case, it's registered as **Improve** near your name, while in the second case, it's registered as **Approve**. And below it, the community user and near that name, it's **Reject**. This is where *some*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; users struggle to understand what's going on, where they think...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A &gt;2k user has approved the edit and the &quot;Community&quot; mod bot has rejected it? When did it start to think? How dare the thing reject it?&quot;, etc. all that kinds of of problematic thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: We do have some reviewer-spies, who shadow reviewers all time (no offense) and IMHO, it's a good habit. We can't blame people for their curiosity (in that way, our room can be active all the time). And also, the smarty guys (who've suggested the edit), who peek into the queue and check whether their edits get approved or not..!!! (so that they can have an argument with the reviewer when *time comes*, which is a good way to subject the reviewer into test)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cW0Np.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6X7I.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="c063bc9b-de49-461e-bb72-022013817fef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**UPDATE**  from D.Z.: I'm hijacking Manishearth's question to organize the tag cleanup effort, because most of the links are already posted here. Here's how this is going to work: whenever you have time and feel so inclined, go through the lists below and pick out a few questions (maybe no more than 5 at a time) that you want to review. Make sure the tags are appropriate, edit them if not, and try to make any other improvements that are warranted. When retagging, keep in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a tag that was originally on the question doesn't exist here at Physics, but you think it would be appropriate (which it usually should be) check and see if we have a different tag with the same meaning. If not, feel free to recreate the same tag. If you don't have enough rep to create tags, just leave that post, or flag it for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;- We have a list of [subfield tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/physics-subfield-tags-and-general-tag-rules) of which each post should probably have at least one. The list may be a little out of date, so consider it a guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each time you review a question and finish any edits necessary, delete it from the list below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today(-ish), Astro.SE and TP.SE shall be mass-migrated to Phy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the migration, we have retagging to consider--these questions will all be [tag:untagged] ([list of questions that are &quot;untagged&quot;][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that the questions need reviewing as well.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall be provided with a meta-post-list of the migrated questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should we retag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue with retagging is that it bumps the post, flooding our poor main page (and drowning out 'normal' edits/posts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to handle this is to just disregard the main page and have the joint communities go on a retagging spree, keeping track of it in a copy of the meta post list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is similar to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light, and is much more relaxed on  the main page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Duplicate the meta post, maybe split into chunks for cleanliness&#xD;&#xA; - Start retagging. Make sure that you do few enough to not flood the main page. We'll have to decide exactly what 'few enough' means. (I use 5 at a time for the [light] cleanup)&#xD;&#xA; -Remove retagged post links from the meta post. (or maybe mark as 'done'?)&#xD;&#xA; - If our self-imposed 'rate limit' has been reached, then just go about adding tags to the entry in the meta post. That way, someone who knows less about the topic can still retag. (I can get you a `[tag:...]` keyboard shortcut if you like the pretty tag formatting)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **Try to improve the post as well.** Review it to fit our site better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's how I _think_ it should be. We may want to work out the details--this is a big job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other issues with retagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [research-level] tag is still under debate(I think). We may want to refrain from retagging TP questions till we decide on this. Or, we can go  ahead with normal retagging and let the SE folks auto add it to the listed questions if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New tags: All these questions may need new tags, especially Astro ones. We may want to first have a look at the questions and decide which tags to create. Unchecked, this can bloat our already-bloated tag list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Site matter: we may not have that many users who know the subject well enough (eg me). These guys may not be able to _choose_ the tags, but they can do the actual retagging. We need to engage the Astro and TP communities here for choosing tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can write a script which compares the contents of the editor with  the tag list and suggests tags. Though that may take a while (few days, got other things to do atm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we need to [meta-tag:discuss] this and decide what steps, as a community, we shall take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="f0348dbd-d5d6-42a2-9901-00c77605c373" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;I enjoy having this name. It makes me feel proud if someone handles it right.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name 't Hooft is quite often misspelled on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 12 questions/answers with tHooft][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [At least 51 questions/answers with t'Hooft or T'Hooft][2]&#xD;&#xA; - At least 4 questions/answers with Hooft or hooft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feynmann occurs in at least 23 questions/answers. Feinman once. Fynman once. Einstien five times. Hawkins (not a Nobel laureate) four times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should something be done about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a query][3] that should be able to find most of these. Note that it runs on data dumps, so fixing a post on the site will not guarantee its removal from this list for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;[Here](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/ap.html) are some remarks on his name by 't Hooft. [9491 Thooft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9491_Thooft) is a notable exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=tHooft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=t%27Hooft&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/112362/misspellings-of-t-hooft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="05f13f85-426e-4b64-bf68-479674d77404" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was one of those flagging the question as a duplicate, so I guess I should justify my actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question isn't identical to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9720/does-the-planck-scale-imply-that-spacetime-is-discrete, but I felt that the physics underlying it is the same physics talked about in the other question, and if you read the answers to the other question, maybe supplemented with a bit of Googling, you'd have an answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good question (and yours is a good question) rarely just has a one line answer. Typically the answer will discuss the underlying physics needed to understand the one line answer. If I answered your question my answer would have a large overlap with Luboš Motl's answer to the previous question, so it's more a case of the answer being a duplicate rather than the question being a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If other users of the site disagree with the close flag they can flag to reopen the question, and if there are enough reflags the question will indeed be reopened. The fact it hasn't been suggests the other site users agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're still interested in the subject I'd say examine the answers to the other question and try and pin down the specific issues that you feel are unresolved. Then post a new question specifically asking about those points, and if i can answer I will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="d9658d66-8df6-419b-9229-d8ed64c08523" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It lets you track the question in [your favorites tab][1]. In this case, updates to the question (answers, etc) will increment the red counter above the tab (the counter isn't visible if there have been no changes since your last visit), and the updated question will be highlighted yellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effectively, it's a way of &quot;watching&quot; the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use it to bookmark questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is [a page where you can view your network-wide favorites][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These pages are both tabs on your site and netw0rk-wide profiles. You can get to your network profile by clicking the &quot;network profile&quot; link (it has the SE logo next to it) on  your site profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/14182/eduardo-guerras-valera?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/users/1956019/eduardo-guerras-valera?tab=favorites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="3d2cd78f-89b5-466f-9b5a-8e3ae1c6221f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I edited [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24409/2751) question to remomve the reference request issue and think it should be reopend now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="4c0a4b58-a4f2-436e-bb14-b1928d533207" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see that Astronomy beta was merged into Physics, however, [many of my questions are now untagged][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way we can get all the tags on Astronomy moved over to Physics and applied to the questions that were migrated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="b5db263c-fe6e-40e6-9857-5ec4ea626d76" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="See [the relevant section of the FAQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must [explicitly] disclose your affiliation in your answers. [E.g. it is not enough that your name is mentioned in the link.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as your post doesn't look like one big advertisement or pitch for your work, and you disclose your affiliation, it's OK :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="46904421-ec4a-49a7-874e-7e12bff38f56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87249/electro-gravito-generator?noredirect=1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the question to clarify the problem, but still it has been marked as question not clear and hold. Can it possibly be spared from the hold tag now ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="5b409384-d348-47b5-a603-e56bb4710a83" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was recently bumped to the front page: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9874/video-documentaries-about-physics. It lay dormant for many years, which explains why it wasn't closed under the previous absolutely-not [tag:books] policy. Now that we have a more permissive policy on resource recommendation requests, the question is in principle on-topic, but I feel that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###this question is too broad to be a good [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the idea of asking for documentaries is, I think, quite nice, such threads ought to be confined to much more specific topics. Otherwise,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say ye?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="dac15174-dc8c-4cfb-870c-a7734d1ba368" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just as a most recent example (I could give many more posted by other users too), [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/18679/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does not answer the question, brings up confused rhetoric intended to troll about fundamental physics generally, and the only logical interpretation of the link in this &quot;answer&quot; is that it is meant to troll about string theory, which is not even the topic of the question. [This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6032/zephir) user states in his profile, that he is a &quot;aether wave theorist&quot; which clearly says that he has his own by mainstream physicists not accepted personal nonsense theory, which he advertises indeed here on Physics SE as one can see when looking at his other &quot;not a real answers&quot; he posts to fundamental physics questions. From physics blogs, such as [Prof Strassler](http://profmattstrassler.com/), [Resonaances](http://resonaances.blogspot.de/), [Cosmic Variance](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/), [Philip Gibbs](http://blog.vixra.org/), etc as well as from his comments below popular news articles about fundamental physics, this particular user is well known for his [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) and [flaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29) to interrupt serious physics discussions and for his attack against mainstream physicists and their work as well as promoting his personal fringe theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples of questions, where people abuse the answer feature in the same way, as can for example be seen by looking at the answers with negative score of [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2751) question where the [&quot;answer&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19089/2751) of a user who calls himself Albert Z, another troll well known in the physics blogosphere, is even upvoted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I flag such posts, because they do not answer the question, are trolling about accepted mainstream physics and/or advertize personal nonsense theories, or because the particular user posts such things repeatedly at different questions too, my flags are often decline by a moderator who says &quot; *A moderator has looked at it but there is no evidence* &quot; or something along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As the corresponding flags are declined, what else can I do to indicate that there is a problem with these posts and maybe even with a particular user who posts such &quot;not a real answers&quot; to different question about particular topics on the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declining these flags and denying that there is a problem with these posts/user gives the (I really hope wrong!) impression that Physics SE tolerates and even protects (!) such a behavior. This impression is reinforced by noting that we have a not negligible number of people who even upvote such posts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought that Physics SE is for doing physics seriously, and that in contrast to some blogs, forums, discussions below popular news articles, etc where it is ok for people to rather state their personal wrong/bad informed opinions, attack mainstream physics, advertize personal fringe theories, to troll and flame, etc should be kept out from Physics SE such that people seriously interested in learning about all (!) topics of physics can do so undisturbed by such negative, nonconstructive, and disruptive behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I getting wrong here? Is Physics SE really tolerating this bad behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are trolling questions too sometimes, but they can be flagged as not constructive, not a real question, offensive if they are really bad etc, but equivalent flagging options to point out such inappropriate behaviour in answers are missing..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="4e795156-eb59-4247-88ea-74dd6f34c131" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question about the sun's circumference][1], I answered with what I *thought* was a helpful answer - it seems that a couple of others found it useful (2 upvotes), but I am getting grief about the answer being &quot;while strictly correct, but is enormously unsatisfying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not then, if an answer is &quot;enormously unsatisfying&quot;, post n alternative answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What have I done wrong this time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68120/how-is-suns-equatorial-circumference-measured/68125#68125" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="7a2bdfb8-71aa-4e14-8bc1-612565ce0241" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few days ago I answered the question:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87205/electric-heating-rod/87221#87221 .  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Soon my answer got downvoted and other community users started to explain the dangers involved with that equipment(**electric heating heating rod**). I didn't find the tag *laboratory-safety* or any of such kind attached to the question. &#xD;&#xA;But the people who posted the comments and answers are highly reputed so I think that I misunderstood the question and I too explained a bit about the safety of that equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;After I edited my answer it got another downvote. I think my answer is not appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As I understand the author of question asked about the physics concept involved  in getting electric current through his body.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am new to this site please give any suggestions how I can improve my answer. Should I explain the dangers involved or should I explain the reason why OP felt current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="1ebf5358-8af7-4ff6-9275-f34a3b312192" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been a number of posts recently that I wanted to mark for migration to the scicomp.SE site (e.g., [this recent one on RK4](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/88854/)), but the only options for migration are this meta site and the math.SE site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually just leave a comment suggesting the OP ask on the scicomp site, but should there be a migration option for scicomp?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="f087b949-53d5-419d-ba4b-21e55c0095a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[An answer by Ubuntu was deleted,][1] wrongly, in my opinion, as not being an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is offering an alternative answer which can be discussed as to how probable it is for Venus to be captured as is. He starts with a polite preamble but that is no reason to jump and delete the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7819/why-does-venus-rotate-the-opposite-direction-as-other-planets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To those with &lt; 10 k, https://i.stack.imgur.com/U3rLz.png " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="e50a28ab-862a-4894-aeb3-b83b88d3ae02" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have noticed that often, when I flag questions, they are marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, but the question never gets closed, nor does it get any &quot;vote to close&quot; from those with &gt;3k rep. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this? Are the flags accidentally marked as &quot;helpful&quot;? But it seems too much of a coincidence that there are so many flags like that! Or maybe, the reviewers changed their mind later on ? And most of these questions are really questions that are very harmful to the site..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, sometimes, the converse is true. The flag is declined at first but the question is closed. That is good however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="635bf1ee-90d1-4c38-b38b-1630b419134d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are David and dmckee the only two diamonds? When did we vote for them? Can I nominate anna v? David was being annoying today, locking and deleting stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the borderline crackpot question, we agreed on that, but after that was finished, David went back to an old answer where I wanted to preserve a discussion (see this for a previous case: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/912/deleting-comments-without-consensus ), and deleted the discussion: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24729/worlds-branching-or-diverging-in-many-worlds-interpretation/24738#comment62303_24738 , and locked the post. This was extremely annoying, and a bit of show of power, and I don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his favor, the erasure was probably in line with general policy on stackexchange, but I really think enforcing policy takes maturity and judgement, and should not be based on personal issues. Sometimes, when you have philosophical things, like positivism and quantum mechanics, a long discussion is the only way to see the points of view, and to appreciate the subtleties. This came up before, regarding deleting comments, and I just preserved those comments up by copying into the body of the answer up to this point. But it seems that David changed his mind on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like it. I think it shows immature judgement, and I don't have confidence that this is a neutral application of policy, nor that it is a good idea for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the deleted material, so you can judge for yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Short discussion on positivism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positivism is extremely counterintuitive, and this makes a lot of people reject it. This was a discussion in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrodinger's Ghost: Not sure if I agree, have you read the papers? Divergent MWI explicitly states that whether I will see a X spin or Y spin has been determined since the big bang. I will not see both, only either X or Y and if it happens to be Y then thats because I was on the Y branch. In this view advocated by Saunders and Wilson we are in a separate parallel universe, there is no branching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ron Maimon: I have not read the papers. The &quot;determined&quot; aspect is creating a fictious observer selection a postiori from the results of the measurements, and is only different in ontology from standard MWI. What &quot;you&quot; are is a computational entity, and computations don't embed in QM straightforwardly, since they require irreversible measurements, so you need a large-system limit, and decoherence. Whether you embed yourself in a branch that you back-propagate to the big-bang or that you back-propagate to the measurement is up to you, it doesn't change your perception or anyone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: But there is obviously a objective difference. In one view, the overlap branching view, you are numerically identical, you are part of the other worlds pre-branching. In the divergent view, you are only qualitatively identical, but the atoms that make up you exist on their own, seperate from the identical ones in another branch.... So for instance quantum suicide works in branching, but not in divergence. When you die in divergence, you really die, just as in a single universe interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The difference is imagined. How do you know your perception is only stuck to one branch? Why can't it jump to another? Why do you think you don't really die if you die in a branching interpretation? Why do you attach your consciousness to you only, maybe your consciousness is located in North Dakota in the basement of some guy's house. These questions need to be formulated in a positivistic way to see which ones are meaningless, and in this case, all these questions, and the question of &quot;existence&quot; itself, are meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, the difference is not imagined, why would it be? If you clone yourself, do you magically become the clone? No. You are the consciousness that arise from the neurons in your brain, it doesn't matter if there exist identical ones, you don't magically jump from body to body, that would require a soul, which is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: What if you clone by splitting your brain down the middle, and making a copy of the other half. Which way do you go? What if you clone by replacing half your neurons higgeldy-piggledy with electronic parts, and put these neurons in a new body, with different electronic parts replacing the other half? When you are cloned, you have a chance of jumping to the other body, the evidence is that if you ask the other body what happened, it would say &quot;I jumped!&quot; What the probability is is only determinable from the outside. This is only a &quot;soul&quot; to the extent that software is soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: These are all well known &quot;conundrums&quot; in philosophy surrounding personal identity, but even in your thought experiments there is no &quot;jumping&quot;, you simply create 2 consciousnesses from 1 brain. We know this from split-brain experiments... I fail to see how your argument supports the idea that you could jump between branches? Imagine in our single universe there is another identical solar system with a identical planet Earth. Do we &quot;jump&quot; between them because there exist 2 identical people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: How can you tell if there is jumping on not? In any circumstance where &quot;jumping&quot; is allowed, the two minds are exactly the same (if even there are two of them). This is the point--- when the two consciousnesses are the same, it is a meaningless question to ask if there are two or one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: No, there is no physics that allows magical &quot;jumping&quot;... There are 2 worlds separate, how is this so hard to understand for you? Just because something is identical does not merge them into 1 thing wtf??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: The reason it is &quot;hard to understand&quot; is because the notion of whether there are two &quot;consciousnesses&quot; or only one is not physics, it's pure philosophy. What experiment could tell me if jumping were occuring or not occuring? The only cases where jumping could be occuring, the two brains are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Why would jumping occur? Does 2 identical photons become 1? It's not pure philosophy, if the fact is that the branches all exist premeasurement, that is a objective fact about reality. You are making the claim of magic soul jumping, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. First prove the soul, then prove jumping mechanism, collect a ton of nobel prizes and I'll concede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: It is not the same as photons, because there is a test which will tell you when you have two photons. What test can tell you if two branches &quot;exist&quot; before they diverge? There is no answer, even in principle, because there is no existence-meter which flashes when it sees existing stuff. So &quot;exist&quot; is not a useful word. I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of the soul in the same way I believe in the &quot;existence&quot; of firefox (the program), even though what the &quot;firefox&quot; on my computer is exactly is not clear, nor if there is 1 or 2 copies, especially when the OS puts a copy in cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Yes, you are right that there is no experiment that can answer it, so we have to resort to metaphysics. If divergence is better than branching as a theory, then it's rational to assume that divergence is most likely the true representation of reality. ...But you do then accept that although we can't determine the fact, there is a fact about which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No I don't accept that. There is no fact about the matter, there is no fact, there is no matter. The question is meaningless, you are asking nonsense. This is what &quot;positivism&quot; means. Two options are observationally identical means there is no difference between them, and it is a matter of convention which one you say when you speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: So you don't comprehend the difference between NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL worlds and QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL ? You are the first person I've discussed this with who has not grasped this concept...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: I &quot;grasp&quot; the concept, I am telling you it is incoherent. There is no meaning to a question of pure metaphysics, you can make up whatever you like, there are no differences in observation, so by definition the two positions are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: No. That's like saying solipsism and realism is identical because we can't do a experiment to verify which is correct... How the hell can you do science with such a mindset?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Solipsism and realism are identical! Indeed this is a puzzling but true consequence of positivism. It remains to see how you can translate ethical arguments, like &quot;I should buy life insurance&quot; into the solipsist perspective. That this can be done is surprising and weird. This is how you do science, positivism is essential. I should admit that philosophers don't like positivism, because it moots their favorite questions, and ethicists find it hard to swallow that any ethical argument must be persuasive to a solipsist too (although this is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG:I reject positivism, I thought most people abandoned that way of thinking in the 80s, wtf ? Anyways, there is no way you can claim that solipsism and realism are identical. ONE has to be true. Do you believe I am conscious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Nearly all people abandoned positivism in the 70s-80s, and this was a terrible step backwards. The positivism was still working its magic in physics, to produce holography. I believe they are identical--- I don't even know if I am conscious, or if you take my internal sense of myself to be primitive, I don't know a sure meaning to the statement that I was conscious three minutes ago. I know there was an internal computation going on in myself, I can see the effects of it, and I can see that there is an internal computation going on in you. That's enough for all purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: I think it was a correct step and I would hate to see us step back to positivism. You are talking about computations taking place inside you and me, but then you are assuming realism. None of those concepts make sense in a solipsistic existence. You seem to have a rather radical way of interpreting the world. According to you the theory of gravity should not be preferred on any grounds (not even occam razor) to for instance a LSD induced idea of invisible gnomes pulling objects down to earth with invisible strings &quot;because they produce the same outcome they are identical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;... I think we are done actually. In conclusion: Ron Maimon consider anything that can't be proven or disproven identical, including solipsism and realism. So the question I have posed is obviously, to him, incoherent. Hopefully someone else will respond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everyone else in physics thinks the same way. Mach was the father of positivism, and Einstein and Bohr (and everyone after with a brief interlude from 1974-1995) embraced Mach's philosophy. This idea was central to relativity, quantum mechanics, S-matrix theory/string-theory, and everything else. It is not reasonable to ask whether there are little gnomes, you can introuce the little gnomes, or not introduce them, and there is no difference observationally. If the gnomes are useful as a figure of speech, go ahead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...: I think your position has merit, by the way, it is very difficult to fix up philosophy to be correct for positivism. You need an ethics that doesn't care whether God exists or not, that doesn't care whether other people exist or not, that gives the same answers regardless of metaphysics, and this makes strong constraints. The solution to this is the theory of superrationality, proposed by physicist turned cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, which gives a positivistically meaningful metaphysics neutral definition of ethical behavior compatible with religious ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You claim everyone in physics thinks the same way. How is it then that this question I am asking here has been asked by several physicists? Not to mention the entire debate on Quantum Interpretations, since they all yield the same result, according to you: THEY ARE IDENTICAL. So why do you adhere to Everett instead of say...transactional interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: &quot;Transactional&quot; is mathematically incoherent to date, so perhaps the right question is &quot;Everett&quot; vs. &quot;Copehagen&quot;. There is very little positive difference between Everett and Copenhagen, the way I see it, exactly zero, so the two are identical, and this is the major reason interpretation of quantum mechanics is not discussed in physics anymore--- people accept that the formulations are generally identical. Bohm is different, because the mathematical structure has &quot;little gnomes&quot; which are the particle positions which might become physically identifiable in a new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SG: Well, Bohm gives same outcome, so if you are really as dedicated to your philosophy as you claim, it too is identical. As for interpretation not discussed in physics anymore? Wrong It's discussed now more than ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Everett's intepretation is important, however, for establishing that there is no paradox possible for large systems in using quantum mechanics as is. This is not clear in Bohr, where the outcomes of experiments are by classical variables which are not present in the microscopic theory. In Everett interpretation, these variables become the branch selectors, so they get different &quot;little gnomes&quot;. At the end of the day, the two ideas are completely identical, although Everett is clearer psychologically for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Bohm is identical as formulated, so I do consider it not new, as formulated. But Bohm is useless and obviously wrong as formulated, since it picks out a frame and a basis for Hilbert space. But a future theory could start with Bohm and modify it to make a new theory, and since the mathematical structure has gnomes, the particle positions, the modified gnomes would be different than the modified no-gnome theory. The wavefunction might become an average of particle position properties, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Everettians also has to pick a preferred basis, decoherence doesn't solve this. My main point is that you clearly recognize the differences in 2 ideas, but due to the inability to verify which is correct, you assume it's worthless to even ask. But you DO agree that divergence and branching can obviously not BOTH be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RM: Decoherence doesn't solve it, but it says that it is consistent to do it. A theory consists of a mathematical formalism, and a map from the formalism to experience. You can modify the formalism, and modify the map, but if the result is the same experience, it's the same theory. The divergence and branching are equivalent so they are both true, in that you can believe one or the other, but you generally don't want to use the language of one when thinking about the other, because they have incompatible language, so you shouldn't speak in the two frames simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;... It's exactly like coordinate rotation: do you agree that if the x-axis is along the north-south direction, this is different than the x-axis along the current Earth sun direction? I mean, in one case, the planets change x and in the others not. So you can use any axes, just as long as you are consistent, and two axes are equivalent. The same way: use any metaphysics, your metaphysics is your coordinate system, and the results are the same if the sense-perceptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="a05f0084-7477-496b-9c11-84109e66e881" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A recent attempt on my part to re-open an estimation question has failed, so I thought it might be worthwhile to continue the discussion on meta. The original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55598/estimate-number-of-hairs-on-human-head&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was marked as off-topic since physicists should not care about the number of hairs on a human head. I will resist the urge to answer that physics = everything, since then we will start getting questions about the economy on here...but I think that estimation questions should be allowed for three main reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Every single physics textbook contains them. If chapter 1 of an introductory physics textbook is &quot;off-topic&quot;, then how can we determine that anything is on-topic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Physicists have a long tradition of estimation. The phrase &quot;Back-of-the-envelope&quot; originated in the hard sciences, and any googling on the issue will immediately tell you these kinds of problems are referred to as &quot;Fermi problems&quot; because he was so good at them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem). He used them to solve physical problems - like estimating the size of nuclear explosions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) They are a key part of the working physicists toolkit. During seminars/conferences, questions of the form &quot;it seems like that value is too large&quot; are important discussion points, and originate with such estimation techniques. They allow us to study the mechanisms behind physical phenomena and processes which we may not be able to understand from first principles ( i.e. [the Drake equation][1]). If someone is running a machine (accelerator, telescope, SEM, SQUID...) they will be required to make on-the-fly decisions based on estimations of physical parameters of the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can someone tell me why these questions are not allowed? To me they are really characteristic of problems in physics. I hate using quotes to prove arguments, but I'm going to do so in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Never make a calculation until you know the answer: make an estimate before every calculation, try a simple physical argument (symmetry! invariance! conservation!) before every derivation, guess the answer to every puzzle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                             Wheeler and Taylor, Spacetime Physics (1966).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1318" RevisionGUID="0b46dc7c-3a80-4778-8f0a-4383e33ce15d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Is there a way to spread this burden out among the community or perhaps a post-review process for specific proposals that are in question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewing edits is [a power enabled for all users with at least 2000 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). Currently that is &lt;s&gt;15&lt;/s&gt; more than 160 users on Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus any team members who drop by and decide to put in a little work on our site in particular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="d8d5efb1-ab67-4694-be65-7d2da07ca66d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was trying to edit the post &quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28984/big-bang-anybody?lq=1&quot; by adding a [tag:popular-science] tag to it.. While until now, even if I didn't edit the body of the post, I could still edit the tags. However, it seems like from today onwards, to edit the tags, I also need to add 6 characters to the text! At  first,  I thought of simply adding the followsing text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\mbox{ }$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I realised that then the edit would be rejected (since it is too trivial) and so will the tag edits . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why do we need to modify the text body just to edit the tags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="d899c464-c30b-4d39-81cb-a86fb2a8c0d8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently the question [Is there a minimum mass is required for light to be noticeably bent?][1] popped up in my review queue because it has a few close votes/flags.  One is for &quot;*Unclear what you're asking*&quot; and the other is &quot;*Primarily opinion based*&quot;.  I thought about hitting &quot;*Skip*&quot; but ultimately I decided to vote &quot;*Leave Open*&quot; because I don't think either of those votes is accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now I feel guilty and I wonder if choosing anything other than &quot;*Skip*&quot; was a conflict of interest.  I have an up-voted answer in response to the question and I think that makes me a really poor judge of where the question should be closed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a generally accepted convention about conflicts of interest like in this case?  Should I have chosen &quot;*Skip*&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90336/is-there-a-minimum-mass-is-required-for-light-to-be-noticeably-bent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="30d79432-b7c9-4ff4-a73c-ccf840e782ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Have I done enough to improve [this question][1] to get it reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coda:**  If the first comment by `WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance` had been posted as an answer, I would have accepted it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90372/is-optical-illusion-responsible-for-loch-ness-monster" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="a8ab791b-ba00-4459-bb49-0ffc5640022d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have come across several questions along the lines of &quot;How do I complete this derivation?&quot; where the answer sometimes is just mathematical, but generally they need some sort of physical insight to go from the original equation to the final one where the authors of the book/paper/etc pull the classic &quot;And so it's obvious that...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more recent example, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69953/solving-the-tov-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69309/vertical-wind-gradients-in-the-atmospheric-boundary-layer is actually an example that probably should be OT since it's purely a math question and no extra physical insight was needed... but I was feeling friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we tag these as [tag:homework]? And more importantly, do we treat them as such and not provide the solution while also expecting the OP to include their work so far and where specifically he/she is stuck? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="fbb6d108-76d8-4227-8295-cdd6405361b9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it nice to link to other Q&amp;A sites when answering questions? I know that we don't have expectations as skeptics people. But, I have a bad feeling when we come up with an answer based on someone's saying elsewhere in the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/91245/1) might be a *close* example (I've edited it now, with a better link from @dmckee). The answerer cites the phrase to some guy at some other Q&amp;A site. Saying by its looks, that's a low quality site for sure. For instance, we don't even know who the guy, or what his specialty in our field is....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is a high-quality Q&amp;A site. We usually come to the conclusion, from each others' answers, based on agreement of previously known facts. And, I'm convinced that this answer is okay with it. I mean, it says that the viscosity of vodkas vary with brands. With some common sense, we all can agree with that. So, the citing doesn't matter here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about a technical one? Wouldn't the same &quot;citing to another Q&amp;A site&quot; (well, most are pretty much low quality when compared to us) reduce the quality of our answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="5eb59a3c-f934-41d7-b159-36a03ea9d394" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is about Zephir's answer [here][1].  To quote him,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In AWT (dense aether model)** all particles have **complex mass terms due the quantum fluctuations.** A the case of **photons and neutrinos the complex mass becomes pronounced**. With respect to high density of atom nuclei the mesons are have complex mass too. These particles are doing **tachyonic &quot;jumps&quot;** in space-time and they undergo quantum decoherence and oscillations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the bolded words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The idea he is basing his claims on is &quot;AWT&quot;, Aether Wave Theory, a non-mainstream idea. . If you check his profile, he is the one who started this non-mainstream busisness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The post is clearly a promotion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The logic is fully flawed, and non-mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I flagged it (a long time back) as non-mainstream. However, the flag was declined (during my suspension, or just before, so I couldn't refute earlier.) saying that I was pointing  out &quot;technical innacuracies in the post&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this supposed to indicate? That the answer was mainstream? I would like an explanation for how advertising one's own non-mainstream ideas is mainstream, or acceptable? Does this mean that non-mainstream ideas in answers are acceptable? &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16227/what-is-the-kinematics-of-a-particle-with-complex-mass/18678#18678" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="f0cc84c2-8d99-4b87-be24-44badacac281" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The flag reasons are outdated: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts.   It still has &quot;too localised&quot; and others. Shouldn't it be updated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: just a bump to the front page, as this is still outdated. Should this be taken up to Meta Stack Overflow?    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="dff294b3-e31e-499d-b66d-a191f80d9dc5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have several questions asking for recommendations of books for beginner-level quantum mechanics. Many of them are closed as duplicates of this one: &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33215/what-is-a-good-introductory-book-on-quantum-mechanics. It is our canonical such question and it just earned its asker a [Famous Question badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question?userid=10970), so it's been seen 10k times over a year and a half and will continue to accumulate them. It is also in line with our new resource recommendation policy. However, it is still closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should it be reopened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already voted to reopen at some point, so I can't put it into the queue. How about we show this question some community love?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="34e99f91-c74f-437c-8e63-bc871ba180f2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just today, I flagged the first nonconstructive trolling comment below a legitimate [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/72589/2751) as not constructive. When going to my flagging history, I see that the flag is nether declined nor deemed helpful, but there is a yellow blob saying that it is &quot;active&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen this before, what does it mean for a flag to be &quot;active&quot;? Does it mean that the flag is still active because it has not yet been handled? However, it is no longer listed among the flags waiting for moderator attention in the right side bar ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="8cca07d5-4b8d-4137-9aff-666cdb20e448" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is indeed some room for debate on whether all questions on this site must absolutely be about physics, or whether some non-physics astronomy questions are a good fit here. But this debate is irrelevant: questions on this site do *not* have to specify that they're about physics. The tag conveys no information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, it leaves the option for new users to use *only* that tag, e.g. [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/95068/revisions). Chances are, if no other tag applies, that the question is off-topic here. The existence of the [tag:physics] tag makes that less evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please burninate and blacklist it.&#xD;&#xA;-------" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="59b18bbc-4b25-40c1-8c58-b0f9298ad1af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've already had some discussion about the possibility of changing our name and/or logo to reflect the fact that astronomy questions are on topic here, both [on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) and [in (1)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4414328#4414328) [chat (2)](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5211395#5211395). Initially, people were opposed, but we seem to have settled on the prospect of adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo which is now received more or less positively. I'm asking this meta question to get an official community consensus of the _current_ opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the reason for doing this is that people who will potentially be asking questions on the site, i.e. new users, will not necessarily understand (observational) astronomy to be within the scope when they just see &quot;Physics&quot; in the title. Since the merger I have seen _at least_ these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; four examples of people who were confused about the fact that astronomy questions are now on topic for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28452/solar-eclipse-viewing&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28264/is-the-environment-around-an-asteroid-harsher-than-in-interplanetary-space&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice  &#xD;&#xA;   (in this case the confusion was expressed in a flag message)&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/41059/1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And these are just the people who thought astronomy was off topic and decided to post anyway. It stands to reason that there are others, perhaps a significant number, who see our site logo and name and decide not to post at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the only change would be adding the word &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, perhaps something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Modified logo (rough)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously if this goes through, the actual design would be left to Jin, but this is simply a rough idea of what I'm proposing. If you have ideas about how the design should look, feel free to leave them as comments on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding one answer below to serve as an indicator of the community opinion: vote up if you agree, down if you disagree. Feel free to add another answer if you want, but don't forget to express your opinion on the one &quot;poll&quot; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a reason not to add &quot;astronomy&quot; to the logo, please mention it either in a comment or answer!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CEpx6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="a2f3b131-5cf1-42b3-8a48-b82051d2f7d2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [physics-careers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/physics-careers) tag contains almost all questions also tagged [soft-question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question). Those which don't are deemed off-topic and closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the questions ask about the details of working in some specific field. For eg.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Current scope of Chaos theory and non-linear dynamics?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30140/current-scope-of-chaos-theory-and-non-linear-dynamics)&#xD;&#xA; - [How can some-one independently do research in particle physics?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45315/how-can-some-one-independently-do-research-in-particle-physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do we really need a specific tag about physics-careers? If so, what kind of *unique* questions would this tag describe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="16ae7b1d-8b48-48b2-be40-dcc1e4afb756" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently posted an answer to the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96074/how-do-we-know-that-heat-is-a-differential-form/96095#96095&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and there were a large number of comments on my answer.  I wanted to add another comment just now to ask those who had been involved in the discussion whether they thought that the answer could be improved in a particular way (by correcting a possible mathematical error) but found that all comments are gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit sad because I thought (certain parts of) the discussion in the comments was illuminating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the likely reason that the comments were deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="6d7d80ce-80d7-455e-a7a6-fbabd05a5aee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Example [this question][1] was closed as duplicate. It is a duplicate as a question  and when one goes to the link one finds a good answer in fairly theoretical terms, the first part not really geared towards the level of the question, and certainly not of the question made duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition it offers what I call a &quot; platonic physics view&quot;, i.e. beautiful theories have been found and are the miraculous mold on which nature is poured.  One reason I keep my attention on this site is because it is dominated by theorists and graduate students of theory and the answers are geared towards the &quot;platonic&quot;. ( the other is that I seem to be the only woman physicist here with some reputation :) and do not want to let the side down ). I try to inject the experimentalist's view.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the platonic view may be the correct view and vindicated if we find a TOE finally. I.e. :&quot;Mathematics molds the world&quot;. But it is not the view we have now. The view we have now is continuously testing the mathematics against the data, and the only real, imo answer to such questions is that **this is what observations tell us** and we have modeled them mathematically successfully .  I would not mind if the site was from graduate students up, but such type of questions come from enthusiastic young aspiring physicists and answers always biased towards theory are not a good guide for them. They must realize that data and experiments are what inspire the theories and a theory in the air is just mathematics. It is the kind of thinking,  &quot;if I think deeply I will solve the equations of the world&quot; without a strong basis on the data base ,that generates the cranks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I tend to answer such questions , but I do not get to them fast enough before they become duplicate. Maybe the duplicate should be signaled for one day or two before making it impossible to answer a simple question with a simple answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100056/why-do-electrons-and-protons-attract-each-other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="e48669d3-361d-4e36-8cad-078fc2cf4d6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Moderating Physics.SE is clearly a lot of work.  We attract a lot of off-topic posts and crazy crackpot theories.  I don't see a lot of thanks or appreciation going to our moderators either.  **Thank you to all of our hard working moderators for handling all of the work our site creates!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if we had more moderators the load would be better balanced.  On of our moderators, [mbq][1] hasn't been active in quite a while.  Even if we don't need to increase the total number of moderators, it seems reasonable to discuss shifting mbq's moderator role to a more active member.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I think we should look into increasing our number of active moderators.  I don't have any data to back me up and I can't read our active moderators minds to know how burnt out they are but I think we should consider reclaiming at least on moderator role and possibly adding another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the community think?  Do we need to do anything?  Should we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="39272910-cec2-41c5-9dc7-f0550e7ec990" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do moderators have additional privileges to edit comments after the usual 5 minute cutoff?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because in the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon#comment158548_76162&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could have sworn that Qmechanic's original comment was &quot;possible duplicate,&quot; which is why I had responded that I didn't think it was a duplicate.  This makes my response comment look rather silly, but I'm mainly curious because it's bothering me that my memory is failing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="d939f9e6-210e-4591-88a7-47b9d0304fad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some other sites in the SE network have recently been moving toward eliminating the [tag:homework] tag. I think this would be useful for us to consider as well, particularly in light of questions like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35748/how-to-add-two-perpendicular-2d-vectors) - if you look at the comments, the OP says &quot;Also there is a homework tag so I assumed it does allow homework questions.&quot; That's one of the main arguments for removing the tag, both here and on other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the homework tag would not change our policy on what sorts of questions can be asked here. Specifically, it is now and will continue to be OK to ask a conceptual question that arises in the context of a homework assignment. Also our [existing homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) would be more or less unchanged, except that we would no longer ask posters to use the tag [tag:homework] for homework or self-study questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we go ahead with removing the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what exactly is the purpose of keeping it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="123d852e-6777-4dd3-8e92-adfec69a84fe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the search box at the top right, you can write `is:question score:3` and then sort the results by &quot;newest&quot;. This will give you a list of all questions with net score 3 or higher, sorted from newest to oldest. You can, of course, change the number 3 to some other value to suit your definition of a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also search operators for views and number of answers and other things, if you would like to incorporate those; full details are [in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Don't forget that you can help limit the number of boring questions (and the visibility of the ones we do get) by downvoting and/or flagging them when it's appropriate to do so. Downvotes and flags, properly used, are an essential part of keeping the site's quality up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="de7636b7-7e77-426e-a5ec-d163d67c514c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed a bunch of disputed not-an-answer flags in the queue recently. While it's great that people are actively flagging things, this trend does suggest some disagreement on or misunderstanding of what these flags should be used for. Is that really the case? **Are people clear on the purpose of the not-an-answer flag, and if not, is there anything we should be doing to make it more clear?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a first step, let's try something. All of the following were flagged as not an answer by multiple high-rep users, and the flag was disputed, often by multiple high-rep users. What I'd like to hear from you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you would flag any of these as not-an-answer, what's your justification for doing so?&#xD;&#xA;- If you would dispute an existing not-an-answer flag on any of these, what's your justification for doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'd like to get at least one opinion on each side for each answer. The point is not to correctly guess whether each of these is NAA, so even if (_especially_ if) your justification turns out to be &quot;wrong&quot; I still want to hear it. The point is for us moderators to understand whether, and how, people are misunderstanding the purpose of the NAA flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your question should more accurately have been, &quot;Why does sound travel faster in solid iron than in liquid mercury even though mercury has higher density?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Were the question phrased that way, the answer would be more obvious. At temperatures at which both metals are liquid or both metals are solid, sound travels faster in the denser metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101563):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The chemical bonds in the dye would be broken by high energy UV photons from the sun - the moon has no atmosphere or ozone layer to protect it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why so cheap? Remember NASA in the 60s was a different organisation, led by an engineering challenge to get to the moon and back, nothing else mattered. Need a flag? Just get whatever fits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A more modern Nasa would have had an entire division of flag-ness populated by PR professionals and managers. With nationwide competitions for k12 children, a careful check that the flag supplier employed a suitable number of disabled veterans and each star made by a different agency in each state. All resulting in a $5,000,000 flag with it's own twitter following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course it wouldn't have any scientists and engineers to actually get it to the moon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you say the black hole would need to be incredibly huge for this to be possible, are you thinking of it's size from the perspective of our universe? This seems wrong to me because the black hole would have to be located in another much much larger universe than our own. So even though from our perspective it would seem huge, in the universe where the black hole exists it could be average sized. Kind of like m-theory but instead of equal sized branes an infinite progression of smaller and smaller (or bigger and bigger) universes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The birds must feel something, because they usually sit on the ground wire, not the high voltage wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing special about these answers; they're simply the latest ones. But I've been seeing this pattern for quite a while." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="9d7ce806-cc5b-4a3d-860b-830703dba865" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is all [explained in the help pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). [You'll need to have at least 75 reputation to set a bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5594" RevisionGUID="275c3047-6c9b-4118-8d8c-51ad94226a25" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Disputed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sound speed in mercury][1]: I felt this correctly pointed out (albeit in a roundabout way) that apples were being compared to oranges, and so the density-sound speed relation shouldn't even be expected to hold. Sure it might be incomplete, but the OP didn't give any specific direction for ways to go, so I can't say this isn't an answer. I feel **answers that could be better are still answers**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Flagged:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Universe as a black hole][3]: Seemed like it was **asking for clarification**, and as such was a comment, not an answer. I tried to come to this decision without worrying about the correctness/non-mainstreamness of the answer.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Birds on a power line][4]: This didn't answer the question asked. *If* the OP had asked &quot;Can birds detect electricity flowing through power lines?&quot; *then* this would be an acceptable answer. Again, it may be factually wrong, but it answers the question in that case. However, the **OP asked for a quantitative result, and this only gives a qualitative answer**. In that way it is a comment, not an answer. A qualitative answer that explains *why* a quantitative result would be nigh impossible would be acceptable, but this post doesn't support itself at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Untouched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Flag on the Moon][2]: I agree it's an out-of-place rant that went a bit too long. Mitigating circumstance: The OP asked for it (&quot;Why so cheap? Didn't NASA know...?&quot;). Also, if left by itself, the first sentence would count as *some* sort of answer (at about the same level of completeness as the sound speed case above). Question: **Can a post with an answer be deemed &quot;not an answer&quot; due to other stuff in it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the overall purpose of NAA: I feel I know how I use it, in the sense that I have self-consistent criteria that I apply objectively. And I feel my flagging states suggest I'm mostly in line with the moderators and broader community on this: 159/176 (90%) NAA/invalid/moderator attention flags deemed helpful. And my own feeling is that the flags I see from others aren't far off from what I would judge myself. The first page of my flagging history has 46 NAA's I've issued and only 5 invalids. So again, ~90% agreement.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If &quot;not an answer&quot; applied to posts that were completely wrong, based on a grave misunderstanding of basic principles, well then we should flag most of the posts on this site that use the word &quot;horizon.&quot; But that's an exasperation for another time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Caveat: I will sometimes be on the border and ignore something in the flag queue until it goes away. So there is missing data in a sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895/why-does-sound-travel-faster-in-iron-than-mercury-even-though-mercury-has-a-high/101914#101914&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101563/is-it-possible-to-avoid-the-radiation-that-caused-the-american-flag-turned-into/101572#101572&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas/101622#101622&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195/how-much-of-current-flows-through-a-bird-sitting-on-a-power-line/101807#101807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="7465eae1-0ba8-4ff4-b080-ba0682c944e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a specific policy _against_ deleting questions that have good answers. Have a look at [the 10k privileges page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools): from the Deleting Posts section,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###When should I delete questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Closed questions that are of no lasting value whatsoever should be flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before voting to delete, please check that there are **no good answers**; if so, then the question should be flagged for moderator attention as a potential merge candidate. We don't like to lose great answers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the e-ground it is of course always more or less of a judgement call on the part of the community, but there need to be 3 or more 10k users that vote deletion, or a moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that a question was deleted wrongly, bring it up in meta. (This is of course a tricky matter because you usually can't see them. 10k users can, though, so anything obviously wrong will eventually get picked up on.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="938508a3-cdff-47a3-9be5-aeaceedc7538" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it appropriate to ask the OP of a question to select your answer as the selected answer when you know that s/he has entirely understood your answer and that s/he is satisifed by it in the comments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: [in this answer][1] I completely explained the mechanics of the pulley sliding on the table and one can see that this accurately answers the OP's questions from the comments. Is it okay for me to remind the OP to choose my answer as the selected answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/76572/29011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="3fa22a40-1d81-4faf-84da-33e8ea5684b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="NOTE: When I write up the first part of this, I am referring only to the context provided at the questions and answers themselves, at the time I am writing v1 of this answer. In the second part of this answer, I will address other comments provided here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Iron/Mercury sound:** I would flag as Not an Answer. That answer just says, &quot;If you asked this slightly different question, then the answer would be trivial.&quot; I would be okay with that, if the answer provided an explanation of why the original question doesn't make sense, and why that re-interpretation of the question is natural or needed. I would also be okay with that if, in addition to that, also answered the question as actually asked (in fact, I frequently do this myself). But the answer doesn't provide any of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flag on Moon:** I would not flag. I would dispute an NaA flag. The third paragraph is not helpful, and should not be there. By itself, it would be Not an Answer. But the rest of the answer actually does address the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Universe in black hole:** I would not flag. I would dispute an NaA flag. I read this answer as an attempt to interpret the question so it makes sense, and answer what the answerer regards as the question. I contrast this with the Iron/Mercury question because the answer here explains why he thinks he needs to apply his understanding to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Birds on a wire:** I would not flag. Without the comments provided there by Emilio and Brandon, I would dispute a flag. The comments point out the the premise of the answer is incorrect or needs to be justified. If the premise of the answer is incorrect, I regard it as Not an Answer (though I don't always flag such answers). I would not dispute an NaA flag if I saw either of those comments attached to the flag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;My reactions to other answers here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Question: **Can a post with an answer be deemed &quot;not an answer&quot; due to other stuff in it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say that, in theory, an answer could contain enough off-topic content for me to regard it as Not an Answer. In that case, the off-topic content would have to overwhelm the on-topic content to such an extent that it becomes difficult to find the on-topic answer. I don't see that in this case. I'm sure I've seen that happen in the past, but I can't think of any examples. UPDATE: [Ron Maimon's answer] to a GR resource request question is a perfect example of what I mean by this. The first sentence should just be a comment, and the rest of the answer doesn't even attempt to answer the question. I have just flagged it as Not An Answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If &quot;not an answer&quot; applied to posts that were completely wrong, based on a grave misunderstanding of basic principles [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it has happened to me a few times that I see a very bad answer and flag it, and it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, I have flagged things that I found so egregiously wrong or incoherent from a physics standpoint that I regarded them as not answers. And I have see that reply from whoever answered my flag. The result is that I am slower to flag things as NaA than I used to be. The answers I gave above about what I would have flagged (not necessarily about what I would have disputed) are, I believe, in line with what the team and the mods intend for that flag to mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NAA is for posts that are a separate question or a comment, or otherwise make no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two points where I disagree with what I think is the official intent of the NAA flag. One is the Birds on a wire answer.I believe the intent of the flag is not to include that answer as NaA, and leave it to voting to sort out the value of that answer. But I don't consider that an attempt to answer the question unless/until the author adds a justification for the premise of that answer. And I think we should consider deleting some answers like that if they don't add that justification after some time. The second point is that some answers are attempts to answer the question in a way, but the actual physics content is just incoherent. These answers are not just wrong, they're Not Even Wrong. Again, my understanding is that the official intent is to downvote those into oblivion, but I think we should consider deleting content that is physically incoherent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Maimon's answer]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15006/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="1a8a42ba-a1fd-4d70-b96d-5c27a049d7a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I flagged this [question][1] as a duplicate, the flag is marked as helpful. But it didn't get closed, I commented in chat and it's still open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82262/are-matter-waves-transverse-and-can-they-be-polarized" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="329d5433-b52d-40d4-89a8-4d0680d01cb8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that posts often come up for deletion in the [low quality posts review queue][1] which are clearly 'bad' answers but answers nonetheless.  The answers are often 'bad' because they are short but not blatantly incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it appropriate to recommend deletion for such answers?  Isn't the point of the voting system to sort bad and good answers?  Is deletion of such answers an inappropriate form of censorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="7307e4aa-e441-438f-923c-b0077eeb4784" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Close flags are marked as helpful the first time someone close votes. In this case, [one user close voted and three others didn't][1] , so the flag was marked helpful even if the post didn't get closed, and the review item was dequeued due to the majority of do-not-close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;helpful&quot; flag means that the flag had some worth and you should not be discouraged from raising flags in similar cases later on, even if the flag is not acted on. When it comes to close flags, if a user agrees with you, that usually means that the flag has some merit and should be marked helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance, they probably should be closed, but I'd like to see the opinions of other community members on the matter first given that at least three people feel that it is not a dupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/25718" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="6164196c-1847-4d03-849c-e1f432578607" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This idea popped into my head because of [this question][1], but it is something that I've thought about before: Don't we need a new option when flagging a question, saying &quot;Off topic because... it is simply not a question about physics, and therefore not appropriate for this forum.&quot; or something to the same effect? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel questions that would merit this flag occur quite often, and given the current options I always have a hard time deciding what to flag them for... If I'm wrong and there is an established procedure for questions like this, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107258/where-can-i-find-this-book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="e5897e5d-a7be-4e6c-8f6f-b2857f0fc3e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I &quot;skipped&quot; a proposed edit in the review on https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/107909/42975 because I was editing myself quite a lot.&#xD;&#xA;Now, I want to manually apply the useful fixes from it, but can not find the skipped edit diff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, I found the edit again - but without noticing why, and how it ended up on my screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, while my current motivating instance of the problem was solved by chance - I could read the diff, and applly changes manually by a standard edit (of my own post) - the problem still exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It even seems like both parts of the confusion are related to a common cause, making it more relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the problem be related to hiding parts of UI and feature set based on reputation?  &#xD;&#xA;(My rep. was about 650 at the time.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="84b603ba-b8e7-4c12-8a31-518206bfdbb9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question isn't duplicate anymore. Why do people criticize beginners?  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82672/what-is-the-length-of-a-photon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="0c5bc2a7-c6b7-45b8-8584-bc502539fa83" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In seeing [the way the question was first posted](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/82238/1), one can't expect anything better than [@ja72's comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82238/#comment171089_82238).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually downvote because upvotes/downvotes are basically meant for whether a post is showing some **research effort** or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XttEC.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question, (it appears, from its looks that) the OP didn't bother to do some research on his question. I might guess that that's probably the reason behind the other downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="e941d9f6-864b-4b09-86b4-7a3b10da0e82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sometimes, when I ask a question and I'm not sure how to word it, as is often the reason why I must ask the community in the first place, I miss some information or other important details.  This is the result of not really knowing what I was looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example could be &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87460/write-a-parabolic-equation-in-kinematics/87463?noredirect=1#87463&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, in which I needed a way to turn my kinematic details into a parabolic equation.  In short, I made a mistake in quoting the standard form and didn't notice it until the answerer kindly pointed it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have already edited the question once and I have a best answer.  I know about editing old questions and I get the feeling that the community doesn't much care if I elaborate upon the question, but this would be a minor edit to correct some misinformation.  It would bump the question to the main page again (for what I know) and inadvertently *take away* from other questions, if nothing else.  So, even if the user base doesn't mind seeing the same question again for a frivolous edit, it still pushes more relevant questions down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is, should I make this small edit or not?**  &#xD;&#xA;If I don't, the question will have misinformation (probably not harmful, however).  &#xD;&#xA;If I do, the question will be bumped to the main page and affect more recent questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="fe65e043-b917-40dd-95c9-2b33002fe0fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep ask here, we like theoretical physics too ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that have been on the former theoretical physics SE site or new ones, that would have been appropriate for it, are labeled with the &quot;research-level&quot;  [tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2751) you can see (beside the Astronomy questions which we have saved too) a list of all the TP.SE questions that were imported. We have successfully saved all of them I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What went wrong with TP.SE was discussed for example at our meta by questions marked with the [tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) &quot;site-salvage&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the basic proplem was that the SE network does not allow for smaller, high quality content sites, which are of interest to a smaller community and therefore have lower, traffic, a slower growth rate, etc ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="ccf838ff-d067-4d00-97e6-cf85d5f3ed6b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is our policy on [lmgtfy][1] links? Some questions show no research effort by the OP, and while most of the times, it is sufficient to suggest a google search, [some questions][2] seem to be begging for a lmgtfy comment. Is it acceptable, or is it considered rude / inappropriate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lmgtfy&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87519/what-is-hydel-electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="dc57a0a7-585c-4a9f-9807-f6dfe9fb4f2e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked a  question about the relation between mathematics and physics a few days ago: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time.  &#xD;&#xA;I did edit it and left a comment after it was closed. I do not know how much time it takes for a question to get reviewed. It seems that my question is still off-topic. So  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Should I explain more how my question is about [&quot;_Mathematical Physics_&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109506/a-relation-between-the-law-of-multiplication-with-average-velocity-and-time#comment224114_109506)  &#xD;&#xA;- Should I quote the whole article from the referred book?  &#xD;&#xA;- It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?   &#xD;&#xA;- Is my question a bad question, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="3003e368-bfda-47a1-9e3c-77bf6095890f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to left only the Physics Stackexchange site then you should go &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and enter some of the reasons or problem due to which you are quitting it. After submit check your inbox and confirm the submission and this is how your account will be deleted. But do say good bye to all who had helped you in physics difficult questions. If there is any problem then you can comment on my answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5763" RevisionGUID="28e2e491-4839-4a7f-b13a-53b1bc735df2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="They're not random: if the bar shows 20, then there are actually 20 pending review tasks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, unlike the numbers shown to you and everyone else in /review, this number counts *everything* - including tasks you aren't personally eligible to review. This includes tasks you've already done, tasks you've skipped, and tasks that the system expects you might not be sufficiently impartial to review (e.g., things you've already flagged or posted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many of [the 10K tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools), this is intended to be *informational,* something to give you a high-level overview of what's happening on your site. If the number is getting bigger, there's a problem *even if you personally are reviewing everything you can!* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="3d9020d1-f4bb-4820-8c91-e9f263bf6f64" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The overarching &quot;Be nice&quot; directive means that LMGTFY links are right out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some people are unselfconsciously out to take advantage of us, and yes this is very, *very* annoying. None-the-less we're going to be the better people here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to vote to close such question [when you have the privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). Or to [flag them](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) if you don't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2641" RevisionGUID="a7dee6d5-aaa6-4043-a25d-38baadbd055d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Nope, too specific for this site. As the answer to [the recommendation question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It should be of the form &quot;What are good books to learn/study [subject] at [level]?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is not of that form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you could do, though, is check the book recommendation questions for the subjects you're asking about and see if anyone has mentioned about anything being in a similar style to Griffiths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="413f3bd0-80f0-4ed9-b73e-99374266e9cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hm, this warning has been around for a while it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not well received&quot; means downvoted, closed, or deleted, with different weightages for the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Undelete your deleted questions if you self deleted them, and fix them. Also, fix your downvoted ones, take feedback from the people in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [link][1] in that banner lists how you can improve your questions and avoid a ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="152d2ba7-2d87-4309-a34f-e3f2c70b2583" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [help center page about site scope](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) includes the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little while ago it was [suggested](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88190/the-commutator-of-scalar-field#comment180297_88190) (and [further discussed](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/interpretation-of-should-and-must)) that the use of &quot;should&quot; implies that the following items are to be interpreted as soft guidelines, not rules, i.e. that exceptions are not uncommon. But I believe that was not the intent of the policy. My understanding is that the types of questions listed on that page are _never_ on topic on this site. Is that accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, should we change the wording of that part of the help center, perhaps to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions are inappropriate for this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions must not be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to reduce the chance of confusion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="305422e6-2aa0-4f99-85b7-288497ceaaad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So there's this careers course thing I'm going to this week as part of some graduate school requirement, and I've been asked to prepare a curriculum vitae for it. I'm probably going to include something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  - Active on Physics Stack Exchange (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because, after all, I think I've written up some pretty nice physics over time on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering, though, what people's attitude towards this is. So: if you're a professional physicist, is your participation on the site on your CV? If yes, then what did you include and how does it look like? If 'depends', then what sorts of CV use-cases do you include it in for and for which ones do you leave it out? If not, and you have a brag-about-able profile, what made you leave it out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5282" RevisionGUID="a5822015-0cb2-4965-884b-f88fc9bddedd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I completely agree that this is accurate. Any question that fits any of those four descriptions should rightfully be closed. There are grey areas around them - there always will be - but you have to be really far from those descriptions to be on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like your first suggestion, though I would actually strengthen it to the following.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions are inappropriate for this site, and will likely be [closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions) or even [deleted](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-questions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="5d3a310d-5ce9-408b-819c-c2f6636810ac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physicists are also people and can appreciate nice wording, politeness and paradoxes. I am asking specifically about [this imprecise question][1] which appears amusing because it is not strictly defined. The actual question in that case is **what am I missing in my description of the system**, not **how does it work**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we push to straighten out the question?  As-is it leaves ample room for nice dissertations on the laws of physics (already present in the answers, expect more to come). If reworked to be clear, the question will become its own answer and the correct bare-bones answer will look almost trivial, not at all noteworthy. Do we foster amusing site content generation so that visitors have more prose (and poetry) to read, or trim it down to formula for formula, measurement for measurement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112277/i-find-a-problem-in-the-law-of-angular-momentum-conservation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="f2927466-fb2f-4006-aff4-310bcc01af94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To give an opposing view, I believe there is some value in being ambiguous there. Site rules should not be fast and hard rules, but rather guidelines. I wouldn't want to close a useful and interesting question just because it might formally violate the rules. Rather, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis whether this question brings value to the site or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of which, I don't understand why [the question mentioned above][1] was closed. Well, OK, I understand the mechanics of what happened. It's a homework question, it was decided that homework questions are not wanted, and thus the question was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't understand is why the mechanics were blindly applied. Do people think the concrete question is bad, or it's harmful to answer it? Imagine the asker was trying to write a paper, and not doing homework. Would the question still be closed? Probably yes. That would mean that computational / derivational questions are no longer allowed. I'm just worried that we are narrowing the scope of the site down and down until we can only ask the most high-level vauge conceptional questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88190/the-commutator-of-scalar-field#comment180297_88190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="90661610-0730-4157-b32f-9cc0afb8866b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have found myself in a position where I posted quite an elaborated answer, but got no notice from the OP. Let's say the question remains open and no comments from the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I feel prone to at least comment on some answers whenever I post a question - even if any of those I choose as accepted answer - merely because I see the user has put a lot of effort on it and may be even clarified some aspects of the question but not completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have a way to implement that, assuming comments are not supposed to be used with this aim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of question where I received zero feedback from OP [here](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2427/when-will-all-eight-planets-in-our-solar-system-align/) (belongs to astronomy.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of an answer I felt the need to provide feedback as OP, because of the amount of work the user put into it, despite me not choosing it as the accepted answer [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/114054/45735)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="c4219645-7d22-4fb1-918f-26e8d58113aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to answer this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9551/applications-of-the-spectral-theorem-to-quantum-mechanics?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I cannot. I insert my answer in the form &quot;Your Answer&quot;, I click on &quot;Post Your Answer&quot; and then after a while (even 5 minutes) I receive an error message.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5303" RevisionGUID="f16fe62f-cb05-458b-a55d-9b1c8f464f17" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) _Yes,_ it seems the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag applies to fractional derivatives, in particular since [fractional calculus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus) is a relatively advanced mathematical discipline, which is rarely covered in a standard university curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, for the most common tags [tag:insert-tagname-here], there is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a short pop-up wiki tag excerpt available by hovering the mouse over the tag in the main Phys.SE site, or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a longer wiki tag description at https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/insert-tagname-here/info, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where one can learn more about the [tag:insert-tagname-here] tag. If not, then users are encouraged to create a wiki tag description (or improve an existing wiki tag description)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="19b9b192-8e79-4fa2-9749-3f467693dd18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is inspired by the heated debate that went down here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114511/is-there-physics-behind-the-layout-of-a-piano-keyboard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question itself is fascinating to me, and I'd love to see a long and comprehensive answer to it. However, after some contemplation it seems to me that the matter of deciding where this question would be best at home (restricting ourselves to the SE network) is quite a subtle one. By means of this question I would like to ask all of you what your opinions on this matter are. Here are some of the things that I have considered thus far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Music.SE: Not a good place because it focuses on practicing and experiencing music rather than the science behind it all.&#xD;&#xA;2. Physics.SE: A reasonable option, but the debate on the question from my link shows that there is no agreement no whether this is on-topic here. It's quite a broad question that will certainly have to incorporate some non-physics aspects.&#xD;&#xA;3. Biology.SE: Perhaps this might work, but I'm quite skeptical that there will be anyone who knows a lot about acoustics over there, as the inevitable biology component to the sought-after answer is quite far removed from the technicalities of understanding the associated waves. I have better hopes that someone from physics.SE will understand the biology part, at least at a level sufficient to properly answer the question, than vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;4. Math.SE: Not a good place. The question simply isn't all that mathematical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? Should this question be on-topic in physics.SE? Is there a better site within the SE network? What do the mods think? Let's discuss!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, let's try to refrain from petty/'smartass' remarks as much as possible. We're all here for fun &amp; physics, after all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="fd4dd48a-7c96-4934-8edf-9647016c12be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Next time, search [the help center][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are an experienced Stack Exchange network user with 200 or more reputation on at least one site, you will receive a starting +100 reputation bonus to get you past basic new user restrictions. This will happen automatically on all current Stack Exchange sites where you have an account, and on any other Stack Exchange sites at the time you log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="b31fd760-3fe4-4fca-bf1f-67998574f6d1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I find this annoying too.  I often see a question that should be cleaned up AND closed.  I recently re-read the [close-vote guidance][1] to figure this out.  This is the pertinent few sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Editing the question or gathering enough Leave Open votes will automatically kick the question out of the queue and immediately begin aging the close votes (no matter the number of views). If the question receives another close vote after being kicked out, it will re-enter the queue for further review. Questions with vote to close as a duplicate will also list each possible duplicate in a tab at the top for easy reviewing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems editing is viewed as an implicit &quot;leave open&quot; vote.  I assume the rational behind that is that if the question is worth closing it isn't worth editing and if it is worth editing, it's worth leaving open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I've been handling this is to open a new tab, edit the question, and then cast a close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do this because I want our closed questions to be searchable so that in the future we can find them for duplicate marking or even to help discourage more poor questions from being asked by new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="d5b3f2b2-b790-463a-be49-59257709a11a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I find that the tags Info page is somehow hard to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be useful to have a simple pictures to illustrate the tag like the Wikipedia pages, for example putting the figure on the right hand side of [Special relativity][1] to our corresponding [tag][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it would be easier to visualize the relation between tags rather than just list all of them out, such as [Classical mechanics][3]. Is there way to generate those graphs so that we can put them there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/special-relativity/info&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/classical-mechanics/info" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="fba28f6c-4a74-4635-a573-e312716dc5be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have recently encountered a question about Black Holes, marked as a duplicate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103670/do-black-holes-exist The question asks whether black holes have information inside and if no, how a hollow sphere can be considered a black hole. The question is marked as duplicate of the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102202/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-black-hole-to-form which is totally different and concerned with the time it takes for a black hole formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, this question is about information inside, the linked question is about formation time, they cannot be duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know why people voted to close it, possibly they only read the tite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="c38307d4-1f3a-49c4-96d3-2decfcb80732" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sure. Phys.SE is for all areas of physics, from [theoretical](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; to [experimental](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics) physics. To get a quick idea of various topics of physics, see e.g. the list in [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/12176/2451) Phys.SE answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Note that the words 'theoretical' and 'theory' have specific meanings in physics, which differ from the more common use as, say, 'wildly speculative'; see e.g. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="aedd1535-d314-4455-8b5d-1ee80f6b52a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="With all of the other vote-controlled mechanisms on SE, you have every bit of information you need to vote. For example, wrt closing and reopening, you can see the post and all the comments. You're not making a blind decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the suspension details (the warnings, the exact offence, etc) are private and only viewable by moderators (and the suspended party). Due to the [moderator agreement][1], this information cannot be released by the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without full knowledge of the situation, an un-ban would be a blind decision. Moderators are [human exception handlers][2], they're the ones meant to deal with this. And they already have. There is no point (IMO) asking them to undo this, the ban was enacted by a community team member (according to Ron), and it was regarding network policy--upheld by the moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/legal/moderator-agreement&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="37f792b8-f437-4a6e-8c44-7b8b55f91cec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Strictly speaking, one should never answer a question in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A counterexample: [My comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123685/effect-of-small-variable-transverse-force-on-satellite-orbital-precession#comment258543_123685) on [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123685/effect-of-small-variable-transverse-force-on-satellite-orbital-precession).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the answer is lurking somewhere in the Gauss planetary equations, Lagrange planetary equations, Delauney planetary equations, or Hill planetary equations. But where, and in which ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know that teasing out an answer from those planetary equations can be a nightmarish time drain. I just don't want to take the time to do it for this specific question. Maybe my comment pushed the questioner in the right direction. At the very least, my comment gave him terms to search for with his preferred search engine. On the other hand, maybe my comment didn't do a thing. It certainly was not an answer to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="db591820-3f7e-4ab6-b7bb-5cd5d19f8d42" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're probably looking at an edit suggested to a *tag wiki*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you have [the ability to *vote to approve*][1] these edits, you haven't yet earned [the right to edit them *directly*][2] - so the &quot;improve&quot; button is unavailable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dmckee, as a moderator][3], has all the rights and so sees the &quot;improve&quot; button regardless of his reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and yes, just removing/disabling the button is a bit weird, but the alternative would allow you to create a sort of chain of suggestions that would all have to be approved or rejected)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/trusted-user&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/on-reviewing-edits/2752#2752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="d22342fe-22fe-49ed-8559-46ee43394a0d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I visit this question,&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94471/&#xD;&#xA;, I see this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;protected by dmckee♦ 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question is protected to prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have currently 101 rep points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some thinking, I came to the conclusion that my 100 &quot;association bonus&quot; points doesn't count towards this requirement. Is this the reason I can't answer? If it's the case, wouldn't be relevant to let this a little more explicit in the message?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="e9ba2916-a80a-42ec-82a0-1ef5432c6902" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm just wonder if a tag for [mesoscopic physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoscopic_physics) should be welcome? I guess so :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy up/down-voting for this forgotten topic :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples found those days: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/128054/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127972/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and all the questions about Josephson junctions actually are questions about mesoscopic. I nevertheless think a tag &quot;Josephson&quot; would be too restrictive. Also, questions about superconducting qubits, nano-devices in general, transport problems in [topological insulator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/topological-insulators) and so on, ... are all eligible as &quot;mesoscopic&quot; I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="0c2737e0-77da-47be-ba36-d9b5952a3087" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently noticed this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it was migrated from Astronomy SE, and was on topic there according to the comments. But on the other hand, Physics has had a long-standing policy of [not allowing software questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions) like this one. ([see also this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions)) But as dmckee pointed out, there are some software questions about tools very specific to physics which would not get any useful reception on another site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we adjust our policy to keep this question (and others like it) about specialized software questions, or just close it in accordance with the existing policy? Or should we start allowing software-based questions more generally, as long as they are related to physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Here is an example of the kind of question I would like us to decide about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47670/visualization-of-dynamics-of-a-scale-free-network-of-ising-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update to the update: actually it's not such a great example, because this is really a software _recommendation_ question, and recommendation questions of all sorts are generally off topic (except for a particular set of book recommendations). But it's still worth discussing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="403bae38-1f39-4975-84bd-b718bee2d3ab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well I can read the reason why [my question][1] was put on hold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I wonder if that would be the good action for questions like these. I honestly did a lot already, however everything I always saw was just &quot;beating around the point&quot;. And I **knew** I missed a simple fact from the text in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment already gave the answer (as I showed), which was simply that if the thrust to weight is constant, the accelleration is also constant.  &#xD;&#xA;I did no realise this, and without this one can't beat the question. I started the question thus with &quot;I have no idea how to start this...&quot;, simply because I saw that in whatever I would do I would miss a value - and any extra information would determine which method to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this question could both be answered easily as well as helps understanding. I could point all things I did already, and then you would all look into a mistake in my calculations or something. But I knew that wasn't the problem (and thus a waste of everyone's time) and I knew the problem was misinterpreting the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is closing really good for actual questions about &quot;understanding information given&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95832/ideal-rocket-motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="27b0cdf6-51b7-4bc5-9257-d79e8925b597" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just today, I [answered an interesting question about the intensity of sunrise in Australia vs Asia](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/129494/26969). When my accepted answer hit the 10 upvotes, I received (&quot;instantly&quot;, or so it seemed) the &quot;nice answer&quot; badge. But since it was an accepted answer, I would have thought I hit the conditions for the &quot;Enlightened&quot; badge at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why would I be awarded one badge, and not the other? What algorithm / mechanism would cause the delay?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I am not coming across as whining - I'm sure it will show up eventually - but I was curious about the inner workings of the SE machine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2908" RevisionGUID="bbf224fe-33f2-467e-8cd4-08da577c34b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think it's a good idea to allow these kinds of questions, as long as they are local enough to physics. A few people have said that it is &quot;off topic&quot; and not relevant. But since this isn't an only theoretical physics site, I think questions relevant to the acquisition and storage of data are relevant. When most data analysis is performed on the computer, some questions which are 'software related' are bound to arise, and as dmckee pointed out, no one else can really answer them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing an example from experience... Astronomers tend to use a file format called FITS. Now there exists extensive documentation about FITS files, but unfortunately not about one tiny aspect of FITS files local to radio astronomy, and I had to extensively hunt through the web to figure it out. If a question like that is asked now, I don't think it should be closed. Frankly, I don't think anyone else apart from astronomers will be able to answer it accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that questions like this are very specific to one branch of physics... but as a contrary, plenty of theoretical physics questions are relevant to only that branch of physics (For example, [this][1] question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in favour of letting a (very narrow) range of software-related questions be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="759d20ea-4eb3-4a08-807d-aaa18b7eef7a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Head to [https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation][1] for your reputation stats.  Near the bottom you'll see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; days represented 197&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rep cap was reached via rep from upvotes *only* on 3 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earned at least 200 reputation on 4 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earned 250 reputation from suggested edits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear to me if the &quot;upvotes only&quot; number is used or if the potentially larger 200 rep number is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="3ab42f04-2d4a-414b-b05c-857cecce75d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What are the options I have, to revert a community edit? I don't want to simply edit my question; I was looking for something similar to a roll-back option where the approvers are notified that I wish to reject their proposed edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be missing out on some obvious existing way to do it but help would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Case in point][1] (3rd edit changed the question to something that doesn't make sense any more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75052/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="62d10bf5-d295-4c23-8a03-4711fbee896b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Brought up by the flag and comments on [*How to determine whether a large container is air-tight?&quot;*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to address question in which the OP has run into a roadbump in build/calibrating/operating a piece of experimental apparatus, and the question is well defined in terms of fixing the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note that this particular question is not a great example because the OP is not building an experiment,** but I would ask that the case for experimentaly realted question be examined separately from the fate of this particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A user has flagged suggesting that this particular case is an engineering problem and asks for a open ended list of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* David Z comments that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do think it's not constructive, as it's just asking for a list, not asking a specifically defined question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to argue below that this is exactly the kind of question which the Stack Excahnge engine is good at answering and should be explictly allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also note that [attmepts to open a experimentally specific Stack have not been successful][2] (you'll see that I argued that most such question *are* on-topic for Physics.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vaguely related: [Experimental technology questions: on topic?][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44784/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1132/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="3ef74803-520b-4402-8c1a-7db23b769cd7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've already got one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109776/how-long-would-it-take-me-to-travel-to-a-distant-star&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie posted that because there wasn't a good covers everything answer (if I recall correctly, if this is wrong, please correct me) about the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be okay with these types of questions &amp; answers, but I think that they should be made a **community wiki**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="6cfce9e7-309c-487b-b4c4-706c5ca17350" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101663/object-at-incline-and-forces-acting-on-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I showed enough effort, I am not asking someone to do my homework, I am not asking someone to check my answers, and I am not being unclear on what I am having problems with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main idea of my question is I have a book which has two formulas; I am trying to prove them to see how the author arrived at them and I need help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if my question should be closed. If so I'll gladly delete it myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="1726affb-15a9-462a-b161-10e86b8f62e7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This [question][1] has been deleted. To me, the question was quite interesting. Can I have a screenshot of the entire question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89423/lagrangian-of-phi-4-theory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="84156959-b12f-4fbc-a42f-e0c4d22e7f05" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since quite some time, the amount of new incoming higher level questions is decaying and the number of very basic ones is increasing, but the current inflood of bad homeworks (the good ones I appreciate and upvote) and very basic questions of non physicists and people who have almost no physics knowledge of their own, is unprecedented I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67008/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67012/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/55965/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67017/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66976/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66941/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67022/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66938/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66918/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66856/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66855/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66829/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66700/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66580/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66460/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66422/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66434/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66449/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66358/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66261/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66225/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66209/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66208/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65471/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65475/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65491/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65519/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65439/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65568/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65570/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65669/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23294/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56014/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65772/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65795/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65899/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65953/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65951/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62260/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65972/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66041/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66070/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62324/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66052/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66058/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66030/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66073/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66077/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66109/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66165/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66210/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, parts of them get closed or migrated, if they are just posted on the wrong site here etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the really worrying thing is that a not negligible part of these homework and very low level questions get (even highly) upvoted and answered by very basic answers which are upvoted too by the present population of Physics SE, and sometimes even flags saying that these questions should not be here for the one or the other reason, get declined!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The About of Physics SE still says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physics is a question and answer site for **active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can be done to counteract the overtaking of Physics SE by homework, very basic, and laypeople questions to make it a better and more attractive place for active researchers, academics, and students of the site topic again?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that similar questions have been asked over and over again here on Physics meta. But obviously the issue has never been seriously addressed which is, as I guess, among the possible reason for the current flood of really low level stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who ask these low level questions seem to be less knowledgeable on physics or maths than the visitors of [Prof Strassler's](http://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/) site the purpose of which is explicitly to explain (particle) physics to laypeople. And the atmosphere of the site starts to be &quot;Quora-like&quot;, as (almost only) short, basic, equation free, and in popular language formulated posts get high upvotes, activity, and attendance whereas slightly higher level, more sophisticated, advanced topic, and in particular technical posts almost [tumbleweed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/21/tumbleweed) meaning they get low views, low votes, no answers, etc ... these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad side effect of the current state is that if this keeps going, the site will be governed by people who like and prefer this increasing basic Q&amp;A, because it is them who are gaining the most rep so it will be them who have the power to closevote and access to other moderation privileges, even if they have no (deep enough) physics knowledge of their own to decide what is a good legitimate physics question and what not for example, what the (intended to be community of physicists and students) needs, etc. whereas the initially targeted by the site audience and its needs gets pushed back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, if the targeted audience should still be the one described in the About, something has to be done.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="53691474-d778-48fc-b8fb-5f0247b4c794" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know this might be unusual since people usually ask the opposite question, but I simply have to ask this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's about this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132114/can-a-superhuman-move-so-fast-as-to-be-invisible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that this question belongs on http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ (maybe http://biology.stackexchange.com/ since it also includes the neuroscience tag). Also I think it should have been put on hold in order to improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** **It's about perception.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the question wants to know whether &quot;regular audiences&quot; or a &quot;normal person&quot; can see it or not, the author isn't asking whether it's detectable by other physical means. To be fair, there are some physical considerations that we have to worry about here but I can't see how a physicist could conclude the issue, it has to come to the issue of human visual perception and that's not physics. The visual system is far from an idealized camera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) The questions is badly posed.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the title is very misleading, it's clearly not about the moving object, it's about the observer. And I don't see how it helps if the object is superhuman and if we have the exact dimensions of the space in which the superhuman is confined. The motion is practically arbitrary, only limited by special relativity and the object's only limitation is it's approximate size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can safely say that the question can be translated into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it possible for an everyday-sized easily visible object to evade human visual perception by moving sufficiently fast in a confined space?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you put it this way, I think it's even more clear that a physicist cannot give a final word here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="fd6bb3ad-f856-44b5-b37c-302f93992a93" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure how this idea will go down - but maybe with homework questions, we could provide a basic link (to HyperPhysics etc), and suggest that they bookmark those type of pages (just as I did [here][1]. Then close if necessary if they do not meet the requirements as per the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much providing them with the tools, a gentle but definite hint to use the tools to help them.  All the time, not doing their homework for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67357/from-the-top-of-a-400-m-high-rock-by-the-sea-a-ball-is-shot-out-in-the-horizont/67359#67359" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="e66eb685-78f3-4d3a-9f4f-cae24bc7e9c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A user recently asked if a certain computation she/he saw in Weinberg's QM was in error:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/133522/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found other typos/errors in the same book, and I think having a single question in which users write &quot;answers&quot; in which they point out an apparent error (and then get feedback on whether or not it is an error) might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would such a post be allowed on this site?  I imagine that it could be tagged &quot;education,&quot; but I'm not certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a thing existed, I *would* be concerned that if someone were to want to point out a new error, then her/his concern would get lost if there were a single location for a particular book's errors, but perhaps that location could simply serve as a place to compile all of the errors, and when new errors are posted as new questions, they can simply be added to the master location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="241c4642-acfa-481a-b91c-82486e5d2d3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) Specifically about covariance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The [tag:covariance] tag is supposed to cover whatever-notion-the-physical-system-in-the-question-is-covariant-under, typically relativistic covariance, but also more abstractly, e.g., contravariant and covariant tensors not necessarily in the context of relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other uses of the [tag:covariance] tag than the above are wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Covariant derivatives in differential geometry should be tagged [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:gauge-invariance] and perhaps [tag:differentiation]. (The [tag:covariance] tag could apply here if the main topic of the question is point 1.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Gauge Covariant derivatives should be tagged [tag:gauge-invariance] and perhaps [tag:gauge-theory] and [tag:differentiation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Covector, bivector, differential forms, etc, should typically be tagged with [tag:differential-geometry] or [tag:tensors].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Statistical covariance, average, etc, should be tagged with [tag:statistics] (which in turn should only be used for [statistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) in the mathematical sense. E.g. Fermi-Dirac statistics etc. go under [tag:quantum-statistics] and perhaps [tag:statistical-mechanics], while the [tag:spin-statistics] tag is ideally reserved for issues related to the spin-statistics theorem). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally, the issue of tagging is non-trivial and difficult to make perfect. Since the system doesn't know which tags are close, and which tags are far apart in tag space (the metric is the [discrete metric](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiscreteMetric.html)), it is often better to have broad tags with simple rules rather than specific tags that nobody else will use consistently or have heard about. In plain English: it might be better to compromise and either (i) tag dromedary questions with the [tag:camel] tag rather than introducing a new [tag:dromedary] tag with the consequence that the system will no longer recognize that posts with [tag:dromedary] and [tag:camel] are likely very similar; or (ii) make [tag:dromedary] a [synonym](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) of the [tag:camel] tag, with the consequence that questions tagged with [tag:dromedary] would automatically be retagged as [tag:camel] by the system, even if experts of dromedaries would strongly object to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will likely continue to be tags that cause various problems. E.g. the tags [tag:mathematical-physics] and [tag:specific-reference] are often applied wrongly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-descriptive tags, such as, e.g. [tag:general-physics], [tag:differential-equations], [tag:equations-of-motion], etc, should be avoided as they serve little purpose. (Many questions on Phys.SE involve differential equations and equations of motion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ambiguous tag, such as, e.g. [tag:space] should either be replaced by [tag:geometry], [tag:spacetime], [tag:vacuum], [tag:space-travel], etc, depending on context. Or the proper use of an ambiguous tag should be spelled out in the corresponding tag wiki. E.g. use of the [tag:distributions] tag is explained in its [tag wiki](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/distributions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="a7c95264-2caa-4dc8-b7d0-0866660e6d9b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been reading a bit of the meta discussion going on about the question quality here at the Physics StackExchange (SE).  Especially in the wake of the demise of the TheoreticalPhysics SE, there is a bit of tension between people who want Physics SE to be primarily a place of high-quality/high-level questions, and those who want Physics SE to be much broader.  I have sympathies for both camps.  Here are some relevant meta discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Capturing theoretical-physics crowd with Research Level Tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&#xD;&#xA;- [What can be done about the (current) ongoing flood of homework and very basic questions overwhelming our site?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu)&#xD;&#xA;- [Differentiate research-level questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29/differentiate-research-level-questions)&#xD;&#xA;- [Where should research-level questions go? Theoretical Physics SE or Physics Research SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese)&#xD;&#xA;- [Level of questions: what do we do now ?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research-level tag&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of the continued usefulness of the [tag:homework] tag, I believe Physics SE should consider emphasizing the [tag:research-level] tag to help professional physicists extract high-level questions from the noise.  I went to the active list and selected the first 7 question that I judged to be research-level, or nearly so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Reading list in topological QFT](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41589/reading-list-in-topological-qft)&#xD;&#xA;- [Second baryon octet](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61575/second-baryon-octet)&#xD;&#xA;- [Forward-scattering for a single impurity in an infinite system](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69062/forward-scattering-for-a-single-impurity-in-an-infinite-system)&#xD;&#xA;- [Relation of Higgs couplings to masses of fundamental particles](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69056/relation-of-higgs-couplings-to-masses-of-fundamental-particles)&#xD;&#xA;- [About the microscopic form of magnetocrystalline anisotropy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69058/about-the-microscopic-form-of-magnetocrystalline-anisotropy)&#xD;&#xA;- [What is crystal field anisotropy or effect ? It forces the magnetic moment to point in particular local direction.. ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38420/what-is-crystal-field-anisotropy-or-effect-it-forces-the-magnetic-moment-to-po)&#xD;&#xA;- [Does a complete theory of quantum gravity require anthropic post-selection?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30020/does-a-complete-theory-of-quantum-gravity-require-anthropic-post-selection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*None* of these were tagged [tag:research-level], to the detriment of the community.  Only three questions got the [tag:research-level] tag this month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to emphasize this tag, but I don't think its unreasonable to consider changing the main banner of the website (currently &quot;Here's how it works...&quot;).  Other ideas: give it a place in the FAQ, or make it &quot;pinned&quot; to the list of frequent tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular-science tag&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;The current not-logged-in front page of Physics SE has these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Proof that the Earth rotates?&#xD;&#xA;- Surviving under water in air bubble&#xD;&#xA;- Is a proton collision (collisions like in the LHC) visible to the human eye?&#xD;&#xA;- How can Magnets be used to pick up pieces of metal when the force from a magnetic field does no work?&#xD;&#xA;- Is play-dough liquid or solid?&#xD;&#xA;- Does a car consume more fuel when it's raining?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Earth truly rotating about/revolving around?&#xD;&#xA;- Why myopic people see this picture differently?&#xD;&#xA;- Why do whips hurt so much?&#xD;&#xA;- Is my boss wrong about our mechanical advantage from our pulley system?&#xD;&#xA;- Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?&#xD;&#xA;- Can one black hole suck in another black hole?&#xD;&#xA;- A Musical Pathway&#xD;&#xA;- Noether charge of local symmetries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the questions are definitely not homework, but also definitely not of professional interest to researchers.  I think most of them are captured by the idea of &quot;popular physics&quot;, e.g. &quot;Why is the sky blue?&quot;, &quot;Can anything escape a black-hole?&quot;, etc.  Some of these are great questions, and the internet would be a better place if there were definitive answers available on Physics SE for them, but they aren't of interest to researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is a [tag:soft-question] tag, but this refers to &quot;Questions that ask about some aspect of physics research or study which doesn't involve the actual physics.&quot;  For example, Q: Where can I find the lifetime of obscure particles? A: The PDG's Review of Particle Physics.  Incidentally, this tag appears to almost always be misused as a synonym for &quot;vague or crappy question&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton has pointed out that we already have a [tag:popular-science] tag.  Currently, it only has 14 questions tagged.  I claim we should emphasize this tag just like we should emphasize [tag:research-level].  Furthermore, it is important that we develop a reasonably objective definition.  (@Manishearth worries that this tag might determined more by subjective *tone* rather than content.)  I propose this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular-science questions are accessible to a layman with minimal physics training.  They would be appropriate in a newspaper article or non-academic magazine.  Such question are distinct from research-level questions, which are of professional interest to physicists.  They are also distinct from homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suggested this as the tag wiki excerpt, which is the short-definition of this tag and which appears as a tooltip when someone hovers over the tag. (Someone with 20k is needed to approve it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that [tag:popular-science], [tag:research-level], and [tag:homework] are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should ideally capture about 15 % of the questions posted on the site, as the bulk of the questions are expected to be standard good conceptual physics questions that need no additional level tag*.  It's my hope that this simple categorization would enable researchers to co-exist peacefully with laymen, which may even encourage a bit of public outreach.  In Physics SE's current form, I expect that researchers are actively being driven away because of the difficulty in finding research-level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:research-level] tag was proposed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag).  The consensus at the time is that it was a good idea.  dmckee's objected, citing [arguments against meta tags](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) as advanced by StackExchange founder Jeff Atwood, but most did not find these arguments compelling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reiterate why these arguments fail, in this context: First, a [tag:research-level]/[tag:homework]/[tag:popular-science] distinction is not particular subjective.  Second, [tag:research-level] and [tag:popular-science] tags could not be used &quot;defensively&quot; to enable violation of the normal posting standards.  I think there is a danger of the [tag:homework] tag being used in the manner, but the consensus seems to be that this danger is manageable.  Third, none of these tags are likely to be used pejoratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I emphasize that since the [tag:popular-science] tag would be mutually exclusive with [tag:homework] and [tag:research-level], it would not really contribute to any sort of &quot;tag explosion&quot; like you might worry about if we started adding other meta tags like `subjective`, `poll`, or `philosophical`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clarifying edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I change the percentage of questions that are rougly expected to need such a level tag at all from 95% to 15% as the bulk of the questions most probably falls into neither of these three categories. This point was for example discussed in the comments directly below this question, as well as in the comments [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4465/2751) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4744/2751).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This number means, that ideally  about 85% of the questions should have no level tag at all, maybe 5% should be shown to researchers (37 users follow currently research-level) who have a very specialized interest and knowledge, 5% to students who are looking for good additional example problems to prepare for an exam for example (there are 36 people following homework too) and 5% to people who want to learn about physics in a simplified weay without beeing bogged down by math an physic jargon they are not interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="6667743e-156b-4902-be30-2e144a755cf1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at this question on physics.stackexchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134705/what-are-washers-for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The highlighted heading (Questions) looks odd. I'm not logged in to that site and I'm using Chrome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Odd styling screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AJwbW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="79b74a49-c3ce-4616-b840-00615f6cdf98" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I hit the rep cap thanks to some unexpectedly well received answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I don't understand: I got three answers accepted, which I thought should give me 45 &quot;cap free&quot; points. Add to that 200 &quot;capped&quot; points should get me to 245 - but somehow I was capped at 235 (with a lot of upvotes that carried no points but got me two &quot;nice answer&quot; and one &quot;enlightened&quot; badges).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my question: I saw there was a &quot;late in the day&quot; vote reversal which removed 10 points - but this reversal did not &quot;promote&quot; a previously uncounted +10 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this expected behavior? I don't want to appear like I'm whining (OK I probably failed there) - I just want to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** screenshot of rep tab https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26969/floris?tab=reputation :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation shows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134932 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134932 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134935 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     1    134932 (15)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 (10)&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [10]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     1    135024 [15]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134791 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134932 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134953 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135078 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135078 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135078 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     2    134793 [0]&#xD;&#xA;     1    134793 [15]&#xD;&#xA;     2    135024 [0]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -- 2014-09-11 rep +245  = 10335     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the sum of rep increments on the entire file - and it looks like I did indeed get credited with 245 points although the reputation tab says I got 235.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words - I have to (re)tag this as a bug, not a discussion...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SXKeT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="dc59eade-8ce6-4b11-b93e-f5acc40c08d4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reputation's main use in the site mechanics (as opposed to getting you addicted) is as a measure of the trust the system puts in you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we have a complicated system here and it takes time to learn it no matter how good you are at writing questions and answers. The rep cap throttles privilege advancement bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also levels out the huge differences in accrued rep that can appear if a question get link on a popular website and attract more attention than might otherwise be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note that acceptances and bounties can accrue above the daily rep cap. The most successful users on Stack Overflow are able to maintain daily rep gains in the neighborhood of 300 points day in and day out on that basis. And yes, that means that you could reach 10000 (for [access to the &quot;moderator tools&quot;][1] which are not exactly the tools given to the elected ♦-enabled moderators) in about one month!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="61e15608-64a0-46e1-abef-0691fe175f2d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="See [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question sits on a +2 -18 vote status, but has +100 bounty on it, from &quot;Community&quot;. Digging further into it leads me to [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), which seems to suggest that Community is a kind of a bot. However - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a bot and, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) has 1 rep, what is the source of the bounty amount?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) how does it write that human-like comment in the bounty notice - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That guy was just confused. Why so many downvotes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Community really a bot, or some SE moderator disguised as a bot? Does it really work as per some algorithms, or is there a human touch to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Except of course that algorithm might be written by a human, but is that comment algorithm generated?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="778c0983-b37b-47e0-aeaa-5cf849d8e07a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/106605/what-is-charge-actually-how-to-define-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question, the asker explicitly specified that he wanted an intuitive explanation of charge, without using &quot;quantum mechanics or advanced particle models.&quot; The response by PhotonicBoom fit these criteria well, but the one by JamalS referenced QED.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I feel that high-level answers on &quot;low-level&quot; questions (e.g. JamalS's answer) do not respond to the question, since the user explicitly did not want a complex answer. On the other hand, the answer provides insight to other members of the community. Is it acceptable to provide answers which surpass the difficulty level requested by the user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="df6b4834-db9f-4373-a291-6c68ee1397ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We occasionally get &quot;find me a PDF&quot; requests, where a user knows exactly the paper she needs and (presumably because of a paywall) asks how to obtain an electronic copy of it. This has typically been considered off-topic, and I agree that a site built around how to get behind paywalls is not a good thing to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this question of mine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27503/8563), which asked the former Theoretical Physics site about how one might obtain _any_ copies of a particularly hard-to-obtain paper, has been [put on hold as off-topic](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/27503/revisions) for this reason. I [argued in the comments](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5232), and I repeat it here, that this is a question that requires an good knowledge of the physics literature and that future questions like this should definitely be allowed. If I am desperate to find a given paper, have the exact reference, and have looked everywhere, then I would be glad to be able to voice it in a gathering of physicists. I feel banning questions like this would devalue this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we decide to allow this, then we also need to define where to draw the line. If you (dis)agree on the general principle, (down)up-vote the main answer to this question, and voice your ideas for appropriate criteria!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="2db94cf2-46d5-4789-95f6-7d5dab6b569a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a way, it is. Users who visit the site's front page and are not logged in see a very prominent banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![front page banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that points them to the [site tour](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). As part of the tour, we give a high-level overview of what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask and what kinds are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a visitor wants to find out more details about what kinds of questions are appropriate, that information is a little more difficult to find. Perhaps we should consider linking to it from the tour page. People probably won't read the links at first, but the fact that there are links may at least suggest that there are more details to be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could make the argument that it would be useful to show this banner to logged-in users as well (who are interested enough in the site that they have actively chosen to make an account). I don't believe that is a good use of the available space on the home page though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ArF8F.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="318c47ba-e829-4e4d-9edb-706aa53ac46a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was thinking of migrating this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81842/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the migrate option doesn't appear. Is this a bug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="fb418fc5-4858-4cd0-af20-08aa20f9957b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So the title says all. What is the meaning of a student of Physics as per this community? I ask this because there are students at many levels: 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th graders, undergraduates, graduates etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REASON FOR THIS QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a 10th grader. I posted a question (&lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/140924/&gt;) and it was put on hold, despite receiving an upvote. I understand, that for 99% people here, the question would take less than 10 seconds to solve. I also understand, that there are many answered questions, similar to my question, and their answers fully apply to my question. However, the answers begin with the very part that I have a doubt in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize it's because of lack of concept clarity (about tension) that I am not able to understand. &#xD;&#xA;Realizing that the community rules wanted me to include my efforts at solving the question and a specific thing which I wanted to ask, I edited the question, and in the comments, wrote to two people who chose to vote for putting the question on hold to review and open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after a few days, the question was closed, without a comment from any one explaining what was it lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if these questions are too trivial for people here, should I leave this website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: OK, I will open a new question on the main site. Discussion over from my side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="52978247-7e60-44da-a707-9d15cb646f99" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To expand on what Manishearth said and address the last part of the question: the guidelines on what constitutes excessive self-promotion are outlined in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Avoid overt self-promotion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a large percentage of your posts include a mention of your product or website, you're probably here for the wrong reasons. Our advertising rates are quite reasonable; contact our ad sales team for details. We also offer free community promotion ads for open source projects and non-profit organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suspensions for promotional content are issued when people behave in a way that violates these guidelines, are warned about it\*, and don't stop. In particular, you need to make a _lot_ of posts (questions, answers, comments, or chat messages) with only marginally relevant (or irrelevant) links to get suspended for that reason. No matter how many links you put in your profile, they only appear in one place, and it's a place that people actually have to actively seek out in order to see what you put there. So I'm fairly certain that nobody will ever get suspended for posting promotional content solely due to something they put in their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that none of this depends on which site is being linked to, except to the extent that the target of the links determines whether they are relevant. (Linking to a porn site will probably never be relevant; linking to e.g. Quora could be, but it depends on the target and context of the link.) In particular, we don't have any rules of the form &quot;no linking to [specific website],&quot; whether in profiles or elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*I should clarify that we do _not_ have any policy saying that you must have been warned about certain behavior prior to being suspended for that behavior. But as a courtesy, we (moderators) usually try to verify that a user who behaves in a way that warrants a suspension is aware that they are doing so, and has a chance to stop, before actually issuing a suspension. There's usually not much point in suspending someone who doesn't realize they're breaking a rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="f118c999-aae1-4468-94ec-dcc892bbf5c7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question in question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/158231/48823'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not a homework question, and I do not know enough physics to be able to make it more descriptive/specific. Can you help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="1715eda9-6441-46a3-978e-f5b71b497432" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had asked a question in physics stack exchange a while back, but never got an answer. It surprisingly was never closed nor anyone had any comments. I feel like people are thinking, &quot;ugh, another superluminal scheme...&quot; and never bothered to even consider it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps its more appropriate to ask it here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105009/thought-experiment-using-quantum-entanglement-in-position-and-its-effects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="12296091-e950-4854-8d3e-9f92b0c3744a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have a very old question, [How many stablised qubits have been achieved in Quantum Computing?], from 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have a much more recent question, [Quantum computing records (entangled qubits)], from this past March.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, these are basically asking the same question. But the answer posted and accepted for the earlier question obviously isn't relevant for the second question. The most obvious thing I can think of is to have one definitive question about qubit records, and add answers periodically that update the record (using some phrasing like &quot;As of June 2014, the record is --&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an appropriate use of the FAQ feature? If we applied that idea here, would we need to make everything Community Wiki? And how would we go about updating the accepted answer? (is that even possible?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there just a much easier solution to this problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine several questions that would be subject to a similar difficulty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How many stablised qubits have been achived in Quantum Computing?]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4226/how-many-stabilised-qubits-have-been-achieved-in-quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;[Quantum computing records (entangled qubits)]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102447/quantum-computing-records-entangled-qubits" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="66cc71b7-5c76-48eb-bda7-c0175b9e65a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I exactly agree with Nathaniel that good lists reasonably defined as has started doing it in this meta question should be allowed on Physics SE, as it is done on other sites in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the good points already made, when considering if a list is too big or good and reasonably narrowed in scope it would be appropriate to judge things from a physics point of view too, instead of focusing on some language issues that could hint (if one wants to interpret the question like this) to a too big list. To give an example for what I mean, [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/56918/2751) question got first closed as a (big) list question because of such language issues, even though when looking at and thinking about it from a physics point of view, it is clear that there simply can not be an infinite or big number of ways the uncertainty principle can be modified in accordance with the the current experimental and theoretical physics knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the two points brought up in tpg2114's answer constitute no obstruction to allow good list questions as defined in Nathaniel's question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning point 1, even many conceptual and technical questions can have more than one answer for good reasons, for example there exist complementary ways to look at or understand a physics issue. Looking at things from different points of view is not a bad thing in physics, on the contrary as many well known physicists agree it furthers a deeper understanding of the problem at hand and is therefore a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning point 2, I think Physics SE should model itself on other sites in the network, which are targetted exclusively or inclusively at an audience of researchers. For example on Mathoverflow, CS Theory, and the former Theoretical Physics SE, questions about the current state or actual problems of a well defined enough topic or subject have always been allowed and never deemed problematic, they are even supported and appreciated by the communities of researchers there. So this second point should not constitute an obstruction to allow good list questions either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So in summary I am all for an adjustment of the current list question policy as suggested by Nathaniel's nice post**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="3ac4756f-0e7e-429b-bfe8-3a401df24227" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My reputation earlier today was 2007. Suddenly it became 1997. 10 reputation losses within an hour. Why? I checked &amp; found that my old questions that were greatly appreciated are simultaneously being downvoted.  My old questions are suddenly continuously getting downvoted for no reason. No comments &amp; no feedback. This seems to be frustating as they were good questions; it is a slap in my face. What step should I take now? The two of those questions are:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136880&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="34974a92-852e-4d69-9ad0-f604494bb1af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Look at the second set of bullet point in the [&quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot;][1] page of the [help center][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A partial quote reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Pitches for your own personal theories or work**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Questions about fictional physics**&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bit about *&quot;[a]nything that could not be published in a reputable journal&quot;* is the key, and I suppose that this is the standard to use in judging the extent of &quot;mainstream&quot;-ness required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember that some theories that are widely considered to be unlikely are none-the-less publishable. People did MOND for decades despite a near consensus that the work was doomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="cd075e4f-6525-47ed-93a4-be6a059fd047" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Like Qmechanic said, the precise parameters are not known, for good reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;more or less&quot; description is that if you get too many downvotes/upvotes in a short time span, then the system will recognise those and revert them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reverts abusive negative voting, such as people downvoting you because they don't like *you* (rather than your posts), but also the upvoting, which would happen for example if a friend or someone else upvoted your posts regardless of the merits in the individual answers/questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, don't worry about it, the system will revert it by itself. If it fails to do so, then flag one of your posts using the custom reason and state your concern. If needed, moderators can ask the CM, i.e. the developers, to manually invalidate the voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more at [Why do I have a reputation change on my reputation page that says &quot;serial upvoting/downvoting reversed&quot;?][1] under *Reputation &amp; Moderation* in the Help Center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/serial-voting-reversed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="5560c39e-dbe0-43fe-abbf-c7bc1e46fc39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="88841af9-420d-47d3-8345-2ea08f441e09" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked a question [&quot;How to use the born rule to find...&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170230/how-to-use-the-born-rule-to-find-the-expected-outcome-of-this-simple-stern-gerla) and it was closed for being a homework-like question. Now this was not a homework question. It's also not the case that I am lazy. I own multiple QM texts and have read through them trying to figure out how to solve these kinds of problems. I've also gone through physics grad school and I never learned how to solve these kinds of problems, which is surprising because of how simple they are. I suspect you do learn how to solve these kinds of problems if you go into certain fields like QM information. But in any case I think it is true that nowhere do typical QM texts cover how to answer these kinds particular kinds of problems. This feels like a very frustrating catch-22. Also, to make it even clearer that this was not a homework question, it was a follow-up to [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169939/looking-for-a-simple-example-of-generating-unequal-probabilities-in-qm) question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone tell me how I can re-word the question? I thought I was being helpful by drawing a diagram and making a specific example that was complex enough to capture the salient points of how to solve these kinds of problems, but I realize that kind of specificity may make it look like a homework problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="515d9c51-7854-4aa1-bda9-a951831b2547" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you will allow me the indulgence of addressing this answer to what I perceive your situation to be, I think we might make some progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging for your posts I'd guess that you are near the beginning of your studies in physics--and presumably doing well because the conceptual understanding embedded in your writing is quite good for a beginner---and that colors how you think about physics just as my situation colors mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post that you are describing as *&quot;applications&quot;* I would describe as *&quot;textbook conceptual question&quot;*. They are solved immediately by anyone who understands the relationships between the abstract representations that we use and the physical reality that goes with them. You gave a perfectly good answer to [the capacitance question][1], but it consists of connecting the verbal representation of the problem (*&quot;charge drawn from a battery&quot;*) to the mathematical representation (&quot;Q \propto C_{eq}&quot;). The accepted answer to the same question connects the verbal version with a pictorial version and is also correct and useful to the asker. It is typical that there are at least three useful representations of every physics concept and moving between them is sometimes difficult for beginners but is generally very easy for more experienced practitioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you continue in your studies you will find that fluent moves between multiple representations of a single problem are a foundation skill. In fact I know at least one Physic Education Researcher who *defines* upper-division level thinking in terms of fluency with multiple representations and differing levels of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the difference between that capacitance questions and the recent one about [the relationship between coin masses and the noise they make on hitting a hard surface][1] (that is a pretty advanced example, but it is to make the point). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more posts with which to exhibit different levels of sophistication:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Observations in the cathode ray tube experiement][2] Here the asker is having trouble applying what they know (or should) know about atoms and cathode rays to a real world problem. The explanation requires an understanding of the environment inside a CRT, and the integration of three physical concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How to choose a α, β, γ measurement detector?][3] This question is about the strategy for apply physics knowledge to a design problem and is really too broad. My &quot;answer&quot; simply explains how big the field is and give a couple of vague generalities. People build industry careers on knowing how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How can scintillation gamma-spectrometers work given that track length is different for different angles?][4] A practical application question for which the answers are well known. This would be a textbook question for a student just beginning to study the experimental aspects of nuclear or high-energy physics. Again, the answer required knowing several physics facts: how gammas interact with matter: how light propagates in scintillation counters and is converted to latchable electronic signals, something about the geometric limitations of hodoscopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How are the masses of unstable elementary particles measured?][5] Another experimental particle-physics question. There are several different answers and knowing which ones to use is a matter of experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How quark electric charge directly have been measured?][6] An application question at a moderately high level of sophistication; this requires a pretty sophisticated understanding of experimental particle physics technique and theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Solar neutrino predictions][7] Not really a &quot;application&quot; questions but a &quot;state of the discipline&quot; one. Requires lots of familiarity with what has been done, but not a lot of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I've taken these examples from my area of expertise because I knew I could find them quickly, but the site has examples at many levels of sophistication from many different areas of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/115170/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90837/observations-in-the-cathode-ray-tube-experiement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/43177/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83055/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34193/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60356/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5545/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="556b40bf-4d9f-4589-8906-1377342f0b82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Because writing a good question is _hard_. New users post questions that aren't so good -- not as much effort is put into it, etc etc. Veteran users are more careful about what they ask because they know hat it's like to be on the other side and will want to ask a question well-tailored to get answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm no expert, I certainly have my times hen I get a physics question and I'm like &quot;I'd better post this on SE&quot;. But I first sit and mull over how I'd phrase it. And then I make sure that I'v tried all I can to solve it by myself. In doing so, I usually solve the question on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be beneficial is if experts self-answer tough, relevant conceptual confusions that they encounter and solve on their own. Instead of encouraging them to ask questions, which isn't exactly feasible due to what I mentioned above, we can encourage them to make more use of the &quot;answer own question&quot; feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I almost did that with [this answer][1]. I and my friends had been discussing the apparent paradox, and later on I worked it out on my own. I was thinking of self-answering this, except my friend (to whom I had recommended the site), posted the question first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, there's always the uncertainty that a question won't _get_ an answer (See @DavidZaslavsky's answer). This doesn't apply to me as much as it applies to the experts here -- I'm reasonably certain that any questions I ask here would get a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/23895/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4579" RevisionGUID="902f28b0-c8b8-41ba-ae2c-fac8aecaf7a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A view from the other side: why *did* I ask [a question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71184/are-quantum-effects-significant-in-lens-design) here? As with others, I am/was an &quot;expert&quot; (PhD in astrophysics, although that was 10 years ago and I left academia directly after it). However, that doesn't mean I know everything about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore when an interesting (to me, anyway) debate was occurring on Photography.SE about classical vs quantum optics, the obvious thing to do was to send it over here, where people who are better at optics than I am would be able to help out. Sure, I probably *could* have done the research myself (and I had a strong suspicion as to the answer), but if there are friendly, clever folk here who will help me to confirm my thoughts, why not take advantage of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, it probably helps that I both have a more than passing knowledge of the subject matter and am also an experienced user across other bits of Stack Exchange, so writing a &quot;good&quot; question was relatively easy for me. However, I'm not going to be unique in this - there are going to be other physicists who want answers to a question from a different area of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="26d0037e-c5af-48fc-abcc-4132f34cda0f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If a question is asked that (in good faith) has to do with physics, but the actual answer ends up being that the assumptions that led up to the question being asked were wrong in a way that had nothing to do with physics (and thus the answer had nothing to do with physics), should the question be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of people felt that [this question][1] I asked had nothing to do with physics, enough so that it's currently closed.  I had been wanting an answer that would tell me more about Bell's Theory, but worded my question in such a way that many people thought I was suggesting an alternative strategy to the CHSH game.  I've edited it a couple of times (most recently just now) in an attempt to clearly state what the actual question was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the answer turned out to be that I had made a mistake in calculating the effectiveness of my strategy, and that it wasn't better than the one used in the original.  It had nothing to do with a restriction in Bell's theory like I thought it did when I posted the original question.  So ultimately the answer was &quot;User's error&quot; and had nothing to do with physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I just delete it, or should I keep it alive so anybody else that makes the same mistake as I did can see it and not bother asking the same question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119578/why-isnt-the-best-case-classical-solution-to-the-chsh-game-100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="e8d7441e-47e4-43af-a86f-5950c73322ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] was put on hold recently (and answered in the comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do *not* question the decision but would appreciate further guidance about the particular reason so I can adjust future questions accordingly. Also I am not requesting the question be re-opened.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not homework (I cannot tell whether it is &quot;homework-like&quot;). It is a simple calculation-oriented question so maybe that qualifies. It is certainly about physics and requests a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments were helpful and the point seemed to be that I must come to grips with prerequisites before dealing with a topic that depends on them. Point taken. But that doesn't really apply to the question as much as it does to me. The question was well edited by Qmechanic (who actually went to the book and added the original equation numbers) and it seemed to me that a straightforward answer might be helpful to others who jumped into Feynman's book even if they did have the background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parenthetically, I did not show my own work because I didn't think it would help anyone to do so. My hope was that by seeing the answer I could make some necessary inferences about the topic (variational calculus and Lagrangians) and proceed further. Of course Feynman gives many hints in his text to allow this to some extent anyway but an authoritative answer can lend one confidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also parenthetically, this doesn't mean I didn't do work before posting the question. I am not working in an academic setting so I don't have professors or fellow students to consult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any further guidance about the specific deficiencies of the question would be appreciated. The question was answered generously in the comments so it's more or less moot but I would like to have a clear sense of what is not acceptable so I can steer clear of it.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123255/question-about-an-integration-by-parts-in-feynmans-quantum-mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="00fc6a01-72f7-4ad2-964b-0d244b184cef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Doing this would open up a huge can of worms: suddenly, there's an arbitrary threshold for &quot;activity&quot; that divides posts being worked on. Yes, it's easy to come up with individual changes that most folks probably agree don't warrant much oversight, but applying such simple rules broadly can have disastrous results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's examine retagging, since that seems to be the primary focus here: it's true, most tag edits are fairly uninteresting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Unless you happen to be following the tag that was added...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or the tag that was removed...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or someone decides that [tag:quantum-mechanics] is used too carelessly, and replaces it with [tag:fake-quantum-mechanics] on all the questions they don't care for...&#xD;&#xA;- ...or decides that their profile page is too hard for their fans to find, and adds [tag:shog-answered-this] to all the questions they've answered...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren't hypothetical examples; folks make bad tag edits all the time. Heck, y'all have been arguing over [certain tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag) fairly regularly here - kinda hard to read that and then come back and claim tag-edits are *guaranteed* to be minor or unworthy of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once you start trying to decide whether or not a *body edit* is major or minor, it just gets worse - *particularly* if you hope to base your decision on something as simple as the *number of characters changed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;active&quot; lists have one purpose: to show questions that have had recent activity (or more precisely, to order questions according to their last activity date). There are other filters and sort orders available, and we've been working on better ones for some time now - [try this one out](https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=interesting). We even have plans to replace the rather unhelpful &quot;modified&quot; indicator with something slightly more descriptive. So let's not make things more confusing than they need to be by changing the self-descriptive &quot;active&quot; to &quot;active enough for *someone's* taste&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="065cb2ed-9797-4e92-a43b-9bfc962887b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're one of the few people to handle a homework closing the right way (more or less). Kudos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question is not homework (I cannot tell whether it is &quot;homework-like&quot;). It is a simple calculation-oriented question so maybe that qualifies. It is certainly about physics and requests a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework-like bit comes from the fact that essentially you want us to work out some steps and show them to you. (&quot;I think if I saw it done once methodically it would clarify a lot.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can convert the question into something ansking for physical concepts, that would fix it. Something that asks the question [this comment begins to answer][1] would be good. (I'd give a sample of a conceptual question like that that you can adapt, but I've got to go and it's best if it comes from you since you know your own needs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The comments were helpful and the point seemed to be that I must come to grips with prerequisites before dealing with a topic that depends on them. Point taken. But that doesn't really apply to the question as much as it does to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, to give a very extreme example, someone with no understanding of subtraction might ask a mathematical question on ... say .. special relativity. It is possible to give an answer to it (in this extreme case let's ignore the length of the answer). But that answer won't really be useful to anyone, people requiring conceptual help in special relativity. It's localized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's part of the reason why *your* knowledge is necessary to be known -- we should have to spend less time explaining prereqs, and the answer should be useful to others as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123255/question-about-an-integration-by-parts-in-feynmans-quantum-mechanics#comment250499_123255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="d01ea4d1-f3db-4455-a448-4f0a9c75d1b9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the marked duplicates cover well enough the intent of [the question you mentioned](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32498/how-is-angular-momentum-measured-in-experiments-in-practice). They are indeed slightly more focused, but there's nothing in the closed one to indicate the level of generality that's being requested. Opening it up because it sort-of also covers composite particles would mean that the question really asked 'how is angular momentum measured in *every* conceivable experimental system', and that is really much too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good answer and you want to find a good home for it, you should note that **it is perfectly OK to ask a question and answer it**. In fact, many of our best questions were written this way, because this gets past the fact that the questioner often doesn't know enough about the topic to ask the really interesting questions. For some samples see the ≲1k results in [Self answers that were self-answered from the start](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/219610/287619/self-answers-that-were-self-answered-from-the-start)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="e8b599f4-434d-4c1c-b121-e32584b09740" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I note that popular-science, research-level, and homework are pleasingly separate (that is, very little overlap) but should capture 95% of the questions posted on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should bother you. Here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![first page of tags][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what the [first tags page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) looks like right now. It indicates a healthy site, catering to a broad range of interests. Note that with a few exceptions it mostly *describes what this site is about*. If your interest or expertise falls into one of the areas described by those tags, you'll likely find a reason to keep you here on the site. You can follow topics that interest you, ignore those that don't, and even get customized lists of questions that match your specific interests. A host of tools in the software itself make use of this information, and it's clear which topics are popular here, and which ones are less well-served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now picture a site where the top three tags are [tag:homework], [tag:popular-science] and [tag:research-level], with the tags that describe specific topics trailing off behind them. (Let's imagine y'all ignore [my advice][2] and start slapping [popular-science] on any question you don't think falls into either [homework] or [research-level]). You might imagine this would result in the same list pictured above, with a couple of extra tags at the start - you would be wrong. **Every time we've seen this done,** it has resulted in topic-specific tags being neglected in favor of the broad, easy categories. The bigger the category gets, the more poorly-tagged questions result...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse yet, it carves the site up into separate districts based on fairly subjective criteria that have little or nothing to do with the actual subjects being asked and answered. They may *start out* &quot;separate but equal&quot;, but... That never lasts. Pretty soon, one or more tags develop a reputation for being... Let's say &quot;dirty&quot;. You don't want this tag on *your* question. You do want it on questions you don't like, since then you can ignore it. No need to put effort into editing or closing bad questions - just shove them in the ghetto and pretend they don't exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tagging is *not* a tool for moderation; they are a tool for *organization*. The categories that a question falls into should be obvious based on the question itself - if a 3rd-party is required to arbitrate, then tagging has failed. Leave tags for *topics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you know better than to suggest there are only three topics here on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIpVA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4699/getting-rid-of-the-popular-science-tag/4743#4743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="13437575-6d75-4552-b5e2-1b6aac310c49" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this post is just a pile of loaded questions meant to attempt to discredit our way of doing things here. Despite the glaring warning sign that I shouldn't, I'm going to attempt a response in case OP is actually genuine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only three points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The alt-text of the up/down votes say something like, &quot;This post is/isn't useful.&quot; So downvoting is a way to say the post is *not* useful. If 20+ people think that the post you mention is not useful or shows no research effort, who are we to complain about it? It is *their* vote (See #2).  &#xD;&#xA;The *appropriate* action (when finding heavily downvoted posts) would be to try cleaning up the text to make it more useful (e.g., make it less of a troll post)--but you **must** respect the author and keep the *content* intact while changing the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. No matter how much you disagree with it, you cannot change our ways about how we will vote (there shouldn't be any  reason for you to *expect* that we change to your whim anyways). We are **free** to vote entirely as we please, up or down and for whatever dumb reason we want (whether the post is [obvious troll being obvious](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or because we simply don't like the person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (This one is a counter-point) There are [many posts with greater than 100 votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=score%3A100). What is the point of that? Aren't the votes superfluous after only a few? What is the difference between +12 and +13 and +17? Why continue to upvote it up to &gt;100 after that? Why also bother upvoting other answers that are posted alongside the over-voted one, it's already got a good answer?   &#xD;&#xA;Seriously, why complain about downvotes when upvotes are equally as abused?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, the policy of downvoting is:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***vote as you please and stop caring what other people think of it***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="ab747bb8-875a-4ec7-bff2-2b63e49ad20c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" Why can't flags indicate technical innacuracies? Given the large number of *upvoted* wrong answers (e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/35677/23119 (totally fails to understand QM), &lt;br&gt;&lt;--- Calamities https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/48#48 (totally fails to understand    falsification), https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/19089#19089          (totally fails to understand ST), https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69545/23119 (it's just wrong, not how real nature works, fortunately or unfortunately, since EM only curves spacetime due to the gravitational energy of it.), see also more answers listed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/865/23119)            etc.), I propose that  flags indicating completely wrong answers should be accepted.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In QM, time is continuous. Falsification does not say that if it isn't experimentally verified by the next *N* years, i        t isn't correct.  String theory does predict scattering amplitudes, obviously.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently:**&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Forecast:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[meta-tag:status-declined]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I decline to give the  forecast? Or that it is predicted that this will be declined?  .                                &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhqS5.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fL1iG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="922ba0b5-56fe-4cee-be3f-3bd90c425973" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165627/when-does-paulis-exclusion-principle-kick-in/165651#165651) some time ago and, after reading the answers and thinking the problem on my own, I realized that my question wasn't clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now have a better way to ask the question and also know the answer (knowing the right question leads to the right answer). Should I edit my question and add an answer myself? I worry that this would leave the answers which are already there a bit out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good way to proceed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="e750530d-46eb-44e0-bd9f-beb0da89f55e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="From the [Help Center on Reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**You gain reputation when:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - question is voted up: +5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answer is voted up: +10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answer is marked “accepted”: +15 (+2 to acceptor) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - suggested edit is accepted: +2 (up to +1000 total per user) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - bounty awarded to your answer: + full bounty amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - one of your answers is awarded a bounty automatically: + half of the bounty amount  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - site association bonus: +100 on each site (awarded a maximum of one time per site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you've been getting upvotes on questions (5 pts) and answers (10 pts), that's all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="04fc4f0a-8e2b-467e-a118-196d76f0849f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently took a bit of stick for suggesting that the [Minkowski metric was an easy way to understand special relativity][1], and this morning I suspect I've managed to be more [confusing than helpful discussing this with Floris][2]. I wonder if this is the sort of issue that site members would be interested in discussing in a chat session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only reservation is that I'm not sure how well suited the SE chat is to this sort of thing; for example does it allow the posting of equations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there's any appetite for the idea, I wonder if there's a better way to do it than the SE chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134417/is-special-relativity-a-special-case-of-general-relativity-qualitatively/134422#134422&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110669/is-gravitational-time-dilation-different-from-other-forms-of-time-dilation/110675#comment275598_110675" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="c71d3e42-01d2-48f2-873a-b39ebea91a08" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sorry if I appear to whining, but it appears to me that we don't have a clear policy about reporting cross-posting. This is prompted by the following instances/examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_3][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image_4][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It probably isn't right to draw conclusions from a sample space of 1 (I don't remember there being any other instance of a cross-post reporting flag being declined). Also, it makes no statistical difference to me whether a flag is helpful or declined, [especially now](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/82/marshal?userid=46399), but after you have been around for as long as I have been, getting a policy incorrect seems alarming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the undercurrent here seems to be that I am (we are ?) not very clear about what the official policy about reporting cross-posting on another site is. The three issues that need to be clarified here are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As a user, if I find an instance of cross-posting, am I supposed to flag, or simply comment and leave it there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does the answer to Q1 change is there is an existing comment already? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If somebody else 'catches it' before me, am I supposed to do nothing about this (except probably upvote that comment)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QP2jc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lAgNS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ekucq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wP5Gq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="1a86a91d-4acf-4fbb-b973-d68bd745e381" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my opinion, the best argument for even *having* this tag is that it's [a fairly common and well-understood term][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular science, sometimes called literature of science, is interpretation of science intended for a general audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deviating from that introduces ambiguity and creates the potential for confusion if the tag is applied to questions where answers are decidedly *not* written for a general audience. Why would any answers here be written for a general audience? Usually because *that's what the asker asked for* - &quot;can someone give me a layman's explanation?&quot;, &quot;how would I explain this to a 12 year old?&quot;, etc. **Therefore, I recommend the following criteria:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [tag:popular-science] Questions in this tag must be answered in a manner that can be understood by a general audience with at most a basic understanding of physics, mathematics and related sciences. **Apply it to questions where the asker clearly requests such answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for instance, these are clearly pop-sci questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73564/explaining-to-a-five-year-old-why-dont-bubbles-run-like-water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64530/why-cant-supersonic-planes-just-fly-higher-to-go-faster-while-maintaining-cos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...while these are probably not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69651/in-which-direction-do-gravitons-travel-do-they-originate-from-mass-or-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a lot of questions have been retagged with [tag:popular-science] in the past month or so, but not *all* of them comply with the definition above - in particular, there are a few questions where the tag seems to have been added based on the perceived difficulty or &quot;softness&quot; of the question rather than any explicit desire on the part of the asker for a broadly-accessible answer (much less the existence of such an answer on the question). Some of these will need to be retagged again to avoid setting a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="f09864b5-2d22-413e-a4b5-a8a4d1530d9e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For instance take a look at this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What technology can result from such expensive experiment as undertaken in CERN?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135764/what-technology-can-result-from-such-expensive-experiment-as-undertaken-in-cern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the top most answer has just 2 upvotes while a couple of 30-odd upvoted answers and even a 50 upvote answer is simply hidden away at the bottom. I'm finding this a recurring feature in several questions and it always puzzles me! Why doesn't Physics SE sort answers the same way as other SE sites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="59dbe91d-96f7-4387-b9cb-94213853c774" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have seen several questions, already inactive, for which an answer was given which was useful to the user asking, but not marked as the answer. It was easy to see they were useful from the comments and flags from the user asking. But since they seem long time inactive, I wonder what happens with these questions ultimately? Do they get closed? And also it seems they are even abandoned by the rest of the users, no new votes or flags. It would be strange that they are not visited any more by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there be a strategy to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of what I mention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 2][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 4][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example Question 5][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3488/why-do-things-that-are-far-away-seem-smaller&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3688/why-does-pressure-act-as-a-source-for-the-gravitational-field&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3563/the-source-of-the-light-we-see-from-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3554/whats-a-good-reference-for-this-classical-picture-feynmans-talking-about&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3505/free-electrons-and-energy-states" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="fd7fbac3-1dc0-43a8-937a-17cc891f3078" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Abbreviations and acronyms should preferably be explained, especially if in the title. Avoid abbreviations in titles, such as, e.g., [TDR](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/158625/2451), [BGK](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66989/2451), [GTO](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159611/2451), [EFE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/162105/2451), etc. Spell them out instead (as editors have later done in some of the above examples). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, but the most important part of the Phys.SE community is actually not the questioners nor the answerers but the readers. The readers are what keeps this site alive. If the only persons who read a post is the asker and the answerers, this site would not survive. In fact, it is likely what killed e.g. [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics): No readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, by making the title incomprehensible, a reader browsing the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) is forced to click the question to read the main body, which defeats the purpose of having a title in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the Phys.SE community has some pretty smart users around, who might be able to answer, even if they are not from exactly the same subfield. So as an asker, why shoot yourself in the foot by unnecessarily limit your potential answerers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6863" RevisionGUID="b729d25f-9f28-462d-a3bd-50b7db6ceec9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You [have the privilege to create tags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags). If there are questions in the archive which could usefully be grouped together under the heading of &quot;calorimetry,&quot; then tag them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no such questions, then ask them! (and then tag them!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="099cbcbb-8d46-4354-9a9e-62d494971e3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The `locked` and `community wiki` status of a question are completely independent, and it is perfectly possible for a post to be locked without being community wiki. An example of this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter (currently locked and attributed to [MathsStudent](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/3044/mathsstudent)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, this doesn't mean that they're not *correlated*, and it is indeed true that many posts which are locked are also community wiki. A good way to see this is to [google the lock banner text for this site](https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?q=This%20question%20exists%20because%20it%20has%20historical%20significance%2C%20but%20it%20is%20not%20considered%20a%20good%2C%20on-topic%20question%20for%20this%20site%20site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com#q=This+question+exists+because+it+has+historical+significance%2C+but+it+is+not+considered+a+good%2C+on-topic+question+for+this+site+site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com). There are indeed a lot of such results; on example is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read (currently locked and community wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that 'big-list' questions were indeed allowed early in this site's history. However, they generate a lot of hits and therefore a lot of reputation for answers which may in themselves not be really that valuable (i.e. their main merit is being posted in the right thread at the right time), with the addition of a large snowball effect. This was deemed undesirable so most of these threads were put on community wiki. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, though, big-list posts were deemed off-topic, which is still the policy today. (Roughly, it's because those posts are the fast food of Q&amp;A sites. They're entertaining for a while but they're perennially active and they detract attention from more valuable threads.) Closing them is a bad half-measure because edits can keep them active. Deleting them is too much because they do have valuable content. Hence they were put on historical lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, your question is a bit confusing and it's hard to know what you mean without the specific examples that made you ask this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="de5b7542-21e6-4489-9e45-392e9f1de6eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have seen several dangerous suggestions on Physics and Chemistry Stack Exchange, and normally what happens when this is pointed out, is that the suggestor thanks people for their concern about safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] asks how to test a robot under a simulated depth of 40ft of water. Several answers have mentioned pressure vessels, either mentioning caution from the outset or editing it in when concern was raised. However the poster of [this answer][2] has told both myself and another commentor that we need to get a &quot;sense of perspective.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He advocates getting a reject propane tank, half filling it with water and pressurizing it with an air compressor. I have pointed out to him that there would be approximately 240kJ of stored energy in the compressed air in the tank, which would be extremely dangerous if the vessel were to fail: I have even pointed him to a video of an exploding beer bottle (admittedly at higher pressure, but much smaller volume and total energy.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He correctly points out that the design pressure of a propane tank is much higher than the pressure required, but even so, when considering a reject tank, this is playing Russian roulette.  It's not the likelihood of something going wrong that concerns me - it's the potential consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've pointed out in the comments and in [my own answer][3] that the safe way to do this is to completely fill the tank with an incompressible fluid such as water before pressurizing in order to eliminate all air and hence the possibility of stored energy (I have professional experience with testing pressure vessels and that is how we prefer to do it: test failures with water are safe events, provided air is fully eliminated from the vessel.) This is completely compatible with what the OP wanted to do but the answer poster continues to argue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy on answers suggesting something dangerous? Should they be downvoted? Flagged? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure deletion would be helpful, I think the discussion in the comments on the answer is in a way quite useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/192108/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192129/51934&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192146/51934" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="83d1b2d0-5029-4e45-b794-2ea7e71ef9b0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I edited a post and it was approved by the COMMUNITY. But some other user(I won't mention the name) felt the edit was not perfect and re-edited it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Till now, it is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I felt that this re-edit was unnecessary. So I went for a rollback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again , fine till now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now I found that this rollback of mine was REJECTED. Okay I might be wrong in my edit opinion. **BUT I WAS REJECTED BY THE SAME USER WHO HAD DONE THE RE-EDIT**.How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite obvious that a person will favour his own edit more than mine and reject mine (with or without bias). You can check it from these 2 pages:[here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that is my question. How can a reviewer also be the editor of the same post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there not be some kind of a feature prohibiting this kind of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No offence to anyone,please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/98181&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207551/escape-velocity-of-an-object-from-the-surface-of-the-moon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="2fd8e1c2-0172-4e6d-9ec6-5d2706557b65" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, what can be done about overpopulation of minor edits on the front page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Not bringing minor edits to the front page has already been declined many times, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/2451 and links therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. User Pulsar has very recently [proposed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4702/2451) in a comment to have an extra tab of _active posts sans minor edits._ This is an interesting idea if such a list is feasible to implement in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The rule of thumb advice for potential editors is to limit mass edits of _old_ posts, i.e, so that only a handful of their _old_ post edits appear on the front page at the same time. [An _old_ post is by definition here a post not appearing on the front page. There are no limit to edits of _new_ (=front page) posts.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [This is not really a solution to the underlying problem, but you might find it useful anyway:] Alternatively, if you are mainly interested in recent questions, you might consider to instead browse the [newest question tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest) rather than the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/). This way of browsing avoids all the edits, but the downside is that you will miss all the new answers to older questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="bd52e8ef-ba59-45cc-8b3b-12c96bf6f983" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [tag wiki](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info) for [tag:reference-request] contains the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contrast this with the [tag:reference-request] tag, which is for questions that ask for a specific resource, instead of any resource explaining a particular topic. The tags [tag:resource-recommendations] and [tag:reference-request] are &#xD;&#xA;mutually exclusive; they should never both be applied to the same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [tag:reference-request] is a tag synonym for [tag:resource-recommendations]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="58ac4908-925c-4c01-87a4-e7a2a9617519" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I don't point this specifically on anyone, But, err...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we had this scheme of *automated close reason* insertion, I've seen Physics.SE people suggest new users (who ask questions *vaguely* or badly or whatever) on how to ask questions here. At least, they've pointed out what's wrong with a particular question. Nowadays, I barely see such constructive comments. For example, [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74926/11062). Recently, we had a discussion on this. [And, I said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4815/#comment13410_4815)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The automated close reason is for the purpose that users don't necessarily have to add comments :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite happy that I added *&quot;necessarily&quot;* in that phrase. So, have we *really* stopped constructive commenting? I know there's no necessity that you should insert comments. But, inserting comments would help a lot. And, stopping *comments* isn't such a good idea. It'd make things worse..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="0f964622-9a89-4a96-b41c-800df497d066" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just noticed the question on https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics which you have probably seen if you're reading this. It's attracted a lot of positive attention, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any reason it should be an appropriate question for the site. Consider these excerpts from the [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is not based on an actual problem, but it is open-ended pretty much by definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question hits all three of these points on the nose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one doesn't, it's just assembling a list without any specific prompt for information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naming a breakthrough is not a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As detailed [elsewhere on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi), questions with these attributes fail to increase the quality of the site at best, and actively pollute it at worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have an [active discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list) (in a long-term sense) on list questions, but even looking at the suggestions made in that question and answers, nothing seems to allow an all-encompassing list of breakthroughs. A common opinion is that list questions of limited scope are likely to be okay, but this is absolutely not one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question, primarily to people who upvoted or reopen-voted the &quot;breakthroughs&quot; question: in doing so, it seems that you're suggesting we ignore fully half a page of the help center _and_ an emerging consensus on list questions from this site itself. **Why?** What are your arguments that these policies don't apply to this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="a4ccd558-68e0-4761-9ebf-b8423424d0ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;Related questions&quot; list does a great job in presenting the most upvoted (and whatever other parameters are used) questions related to a subject, and the subgroup of linked questions, when present, is even better. However, given the amount of high quality questions and answers that are present in physics.se I wonder if there isn't something more that can be done to *index* the best-of of the various topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm thinking of are list-questions (probably community wiki) presenting the most upvoted, frequently asked, high-quality questions/answers. Eventually with a tree structure with links to similar list-questions on more specific topics. Something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;Common questions on: Quantum mechanics:&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General scope:&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46015/why-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77030/what-is-quantization&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8062/about-the-complex-nature-of-the-wave-function&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on Schroedinger equation:&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to common questions on group theory applied to quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;and so on, I think you got the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would something like this be compatible with the policies/doable? I'm not meaning this in a somewhat abstract way: *if I create a community wiki post on the lines described above, would this be considered inappropriate/off topic?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of cons/pros that I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who decides which are the &quot;best-quality&quot; questions*** to be worth putting in such lists? For high-rated questions with lots of views this would not be too much of a problem, but in other situations the choice may be more subjective. A poll in these cases would be appropriate, but we can't create a (probably meta) post for any such choice. However, it may be feasible to have a twin-question on meta for each such list-question where to decide these things.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Who can create/modify these lists?*** Making them community wiki enhances the problem lowering the rep needed to modify them lower. Still, the fact that most of the edits by newer users must be peer-reviewed eases this problem.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would be time-demanding to mantain such lists***. Yes it probably would. However it would also, if well played, help people to quickly find what they are looking for if something similar has already been discussed, thus lowering the duplicate questions asked and allowing to not reinventing the same wheel endless times.&#xD;&#xA;- ***They would become extremely large***. This is easily prevented by appropriate &quot;directory structures&quot;, with links to sub-lists when one contains too much links to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros:&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would provide a peer reviewed list of valuable discussions***. All the indexing systems (related/linked questions, tags, advanced search capabilities) provided by the stackexchange network are very good, but they have intrinsic limitations: with more and more questions asked it can become hard to locate the treasures hidden in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;- ***Less duplicates***: for a new user it may not be so easy to navigate between questions to find what he is looking for. The proposed kind of lists would definitely help on this (of course provided they are visible enough. Maybe they could even be linked in tag wikis to do that?).&#xD;&#xA;- ***Easier to link OP to similar discussions***.&#xD;&#xA;- ***It would improve the overall quality of physics.SE***. Ok, this is maybe not really a pro but my subjective take on the whole proposal. Still, wouldn't it be great? :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="5dc8a4fc-5a77-47ca-87b0-b08868990587" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since list questions aren't  allowed here, e.g. [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics), and recieve imediate closing, even locking, and [a meta post against it](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed),  maybe such questions could be migrated to [Math Overflow](http://www.mathoverflow.net), where such questions are taken well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up or down if you support this or do not.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="efd2b7b9-27b8-4d4d-be41-44303ba12649" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149004/ was put on hold as too broad, but edited the same day. Now it's been on hold for a few days. Is it still too broad? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="9c222496-dc0c-4858-941a-ae7b02edafaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My problem with this discussion is that I wonder about the correlation between votes and quality. Admittedly I can only read fairly elementary topics. But I find that questions that give me a lot to think just get downvoted, and I also find wrong answers at the top of the votes. And the vote ordering is often not the quality ordering (when I think I can estimate it with fair reliability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that science has never been a matter of opinion, or of vote. The usefulness of vote is more sociological than scientific. Interestingly, the rep gives you a right to manage, not to decide on scientific issues, which is probably a good thing. But it is also a bit of a problem since users can confuse rep and scientific reliability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the problem that quality is not easily measured. So many users think that a formula is an explanation  ...  sometimes they do not even bother defining notation, assuming some universality of it. Ther is also the opposite: answers by someone who has an opinion though he does not really know anything on the topic and does not have half an argument to back his opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as I said, I can only read the more elementary topics, and I have been wondering whether the situation is the same for the more advanced questions.&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that one can talk nonsense at any level, but what is it actually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding specifically the quality of questions**, what matters most is&#xD;&#xA;the sexyness-entertaining quality of the question, not actual content&#xD;&#xA;or preparatory work. I will take the example of two questions that are&#xD;&#xA;exactly on the same topic, but were not flagged as such:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66746/&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73654/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was mine, actually my fist post on physics.SE after&#xD;&#xA;doing no physics for more decades than I care to tell.&#xD;&#xA;It took me a long time to write that question as I was trying to&#xD;&#xA;understand first what issues could matter, what kind of data and&#xD;&#xA;question might be sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very lucky to be upvoted once, and to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was asked 2 month later. It is exactly the same&#xD;&#xA;issue, presented as a disaster movie. It was not detected as&#xD;&#xA;duplicate and attracted much attention and 20 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I try to ask questions as a scientist, or as a showman ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue, directly related, is the questions removed as&#xD;&#xA;duplicate. First, it is inconsistant (see above) and sometimes&#xD;&#xA;inaccurate.  Answering old questions is a waste of time. I know as I&#xD;&#xA;did it more than my share. Thoses answers do not get votes or&#xD;&#xA;comments, and I personnally hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the practice of stopping duplicate question is just the best way to&#xD;&#xA;ensure that further input will not come, of that a different&#xD;&#xA;perspective will be avoided. **What would have happened if the second question above had been detected as duplicate, as it should have ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I am really wondering what is the purpose, and the dangers, of&#xD;&#xA;such a site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="47ea6f5e-aacd-463b-9583-6f5bd661f7c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The author's [*original* first post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/145449/general-gaussian-distribution-relation) was migrated to a different site some time ago, and the system just now got around to cleaning up the stub. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes the *second* post from that author the new first. Which is why you were presented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is reasonably common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="487e70d2-4138-4218-94a2-922e9e27c2cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Arnold Neumaier pointed out, in [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2751/8563) from some months ago, that there is no &quot;Improve&quot; button for tag wiki edits that show up in the Suggested Edits review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This affects users between 5k and 20k rep (as they can [approve tag wiki edits but must have their own edits peer reviewed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)), so not everyone will see this. This population is about [30 users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all): admittedly not that many, but then only ~ eight other users can currently review edits (mods or &gt;20k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Shog9 [pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2753/8563) in his reply to Arnold, the alternative would be a cascade of edits to the tag wiki that would then need to be approved by someone else, and I understand this. However, this leaves a huge gap in the review process: **what should I do if I see an edit I partly agree with but would like to improve?** In the past I've approved them and tried to submit a new edit, but the system locks the tag wikis until a second reviewer approves the pending edit: I get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and clicking on `edit pending` sends me to the history page of my review of the edit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option, then, is to sit around and wait until someone else comes along and clears the edit. This is impractical because **the tag wiki Suggested Edits queue is very slow.** It is much slower than the corresponding post queue because ~100 users can access that. While I can see this is probably not an issue in SO, I imagine most of the smaller sites are in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has not usually been much of a problem, either, but the tag wiki editing activity recently increased by quite a bit. While I commend Dimension10's efforts to get me and a few others a Reviewer badge, this level of activity is not necessarily sustainable with the current tools this site has available. This is an issue because few people can review tag wiki edits and fewer of them actually do. Further, each reviewer can only do 20 posts per day, and I've already maxed out on that a couple of times. If you propose a tag wiki edit that takes ages to go through, that may be one possible reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore ask two things. On the site design front, **is there a way to have multiple edits to the same tag wiki in the review queue?** This would ideally be available as an &quot;Improve&quot; button directly on the tag edit (though possibly with text warning to make sparse use of it because of the reviewing limitations). Future reviewers might be presented all the reviews to the same tag wiki, either simultaneously or one after the other, to make reviewing simpler. A cap on the maximum number of pending edits would also be reasonable, as would making this feature site-specific so it gets turned off after the tag wiki review queue speeds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the community side, on the other hand, **if you have more than 5k rep, please review all the Suggested Edits you can.** This keeps that specific queue faster and allows a faster community dialog about what we want our tag wikis to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am happy to take the [tag:feature-request] to the Mother Meta, but as this is mostly a local issue I thought I'd ask here and get some local support before I go there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5m85h.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/91jSg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="2ddfbfbf-6ad3-48f3-9e81-3ed0ad3f8d50" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics - Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Explanations of observed physical phenomena ([Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/629/why-does-one-experience-a-short-pull-in-the-wrong-direction-when-a-vehicle-stops))&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental designs and results ([What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185/what-is-needed-to-claim-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson))&#xD;&#xA; - Accepted and/or actively researched theories ([Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2051/why-do-we-think-there-are-only-three-generations-of-fundamental-particles))&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics and physics ([Number theory in physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/number-theory-in-Physics))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following types of questions are not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Obvious &quot;do my homework&quot;-type physics questions (&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - Pitches for your own personal theories or work (Don't link to your own site if you can avoid it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A work in progress, any suggestions are welcome.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="82b5f13c-d88d-4d01-bf4c-3436ebc8c631" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why aren't badges removed in some cases?  &#xD;&#xA;For example,when I downvote a question and remove the downvote I get the [![enter image description here][1]][2] badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WBjhi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/7/critic           &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6366" RevisionGUID="766b84a0-39e0-4d19-8dd9-d9b449321712" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The post [is imagary time a fifth dimension][1] may indeed have been asked before, but the referenced post is not it. That earlier one concerns Hawking's cup to avoid the point in the cone. This one involves the expression of the metric in Minkowsky spacetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't interact with the banner where this was marked and agreed to by someone, so I bring it up here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154145/is-imaginary-time-a-fifth-dimension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="c98503b9-7bf3-442c-a47d-b7fc8b570b5e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm looking at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/519/what-now-is-the-surface-temperature-of-the-neutron-star-which-was-formed-12-bil: part of the question was asked in Russian, which is the first time I can recall seeing a non-English question on a Stack Exchange site. Should we do something about questions in other languages? Edit a translation into the body of the question, perhaps? (Assuming someone is confident enough in their language skills to do the translation) Or do we just leave them as they are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="dc72f580-4efc-4320-807e-59887e446389" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My original question here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155931/the-scientific-method-and-model-selection-in-physics was put on hold because it was too broad. I  understand the reasons behind the decision, and have updated the question subsequently with several edits to make it hopefully narrower in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the recommended way to proceed for after making such edits? Has Physics SE established a site-specific process to ask for a review of such decisions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="93d9c80f-ca16-46af-88c5-41306ea99567" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**update** Our first four moderators have been appointed (in alphabetical order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[Cedric H.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[David Zaslavsky](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[Noldorin](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)**&#xD;&#xA;- **[mbq](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! _Please respect their judgement but also don't hesitate to post praise and reprimand at meta!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the spirit of [these guidelines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57986/how-to-organize-a-formal-moderator-election-on-a-beta-se-site), please nominate one user per post. Please take a look at [math.SE's election](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/150/163) for inspiration. You may nominate yourself or someone else, in the latter case you should make it CW so the nominee can edit in what the nomination should include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a link to the parent-site profile (`#[username](http://https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/number`)&#xD;&#xA;- a statement like &quot;I accept the nomination&quot; edited in by the nominee if not self-nominating&#xD;&#xA;- an estimate of presence times&#xD;&#xA;- the standing on the [level of questions issue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/76/97) the nominee will defend with their power (e.g. immediate closing)&#xD;&#xA;- an introduction to the nominee is appreciated as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Members who have declined moderator nomination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mark Eichenlaub](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/74/mark-eichenlaub)&#xD;&#xA;- [Tobias Kienzler](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler &quot;at least for now...&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="9c3354d3-9b20-4d02-b508-8d7f628a14c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is an offshoot of Ben Crowell's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists, and I'm asking it separately to help avoid multi-threaded comment discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in [a comment of dmckee](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14673_5102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't think that we (that is the mods) *should* be in the business of closing a lot of questions with our super-powers anymore. There are enough 3k users (81) that they *should* be able to carry the bulk of the load. My impression, however, is that a relatively small fraction of the eligible users apply their power with any regularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in that thread, I think this is a specific enough question that we can find the relevant statistics to give an answer to it. I must add that I agree with dmckee's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific question: Is it possible to confirm this statement from publicly available data, hopefully through the data explorer? If so, what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To kick off the discussion, and to answer [Manishearth's comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists?noredirect=1#comment14703_5102), I think the relevant tables to look at are not the per-question close-votes, but the publicly available per-user [log of the review activity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so it looks we may need to ask the dev team for these statistics. In this case, **what, exactly, are the relevant statistics to ask for?** I'll make a proposal shortly but please try and think of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="14614bec-f863-4d3a-a299-a240b318de34" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would gladly nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[Cedric H.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/82/cedric-h)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience Cedric has contributed a lot to Physics SE so far, with a steady good quality of answers (and questions). He has also been quite active on meta of course, which is definitely helpful. Importantly (as I hope others agree), he represents a level balance of views with all the debates/arguments going on about this site and certain questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** I am an Engineering student (specialized in Physics / Engineering Physics) from Brussels, Belgium. I am now starting a graduate program on Accelerator Physics and I am starting a PhD at CERN in the field of Accelerator Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already spent some time of Physics SE and I would appreciate to continue this experience as a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the [level of questions discussion][1] I think I am in the &quot;intermediate case&quot;: I hope the level will soon be higher than it is now, but I don't think we should restrict question to be at a pure &quot;research-level&quot; (see the discussion on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="9c8047db-85bd-401e-8e45-670ef9520a35" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to ask a question about a phenomenon from a science fiction movie I saw recently. I looked for existing questions related to science fiction and found a wide range of feedback. For example, here are three questions I found and their current status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Does Quantum Physics really suggests (sic) this universe as a computer simulation ? (sic)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/759/246): -2 votes.&#xD;&#xA; * [Could teleportation ever really happen?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1203/246): 4 votes.&#xD;&#xA; * [Time-travel and random events](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2460/246): 0 votes, closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I must ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Are questions based on science fiction off-topic? The question that got 4 votes was actually considered off-topic in the [Theoretical Physics Q&amp;A Area 51 proposal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics/23955#23955).&#xD;&#xA; * If asking about science fiction is not a problem, then what are the characteristics of an acceptable question and those of an unacceptable question?&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="cd15faba-aab3-49c9-a107-e644dfb3b997" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When you get hit with the automatic answer block, you get linked to a [page that describes how your situation and how to get out of it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, improve your existing answers. You have some deleted link-only answers; elaborate on them and undelete. Don't ask questions or leave comments in  the answer box, such stuff gets flagged and deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ delete your posts, it will exacerbate the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ create a new account, it will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, please do not ask homework-like questions on this site. See https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/ for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/answer-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6443" RevisionGUID="1daf14cb-4e6c-42d8-83ef-5d93b0d98894" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is a good example of a well asked [question about mechanics][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is good because of the work that the OP has put into the question and it is very clear exactly what is being asked and how far the OP has got working through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156943/why-do-we-need-to-know-the-shape-of-the-slide-to-find-the-time-to-slide-down-it/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="eb84658c-6f35-4d44-89f3-1852ddeca8cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="update: Due to other duties I must for now decline the nomination lacking the time for regular visits. I will still try my best at supporting the community by voting etc when I have the time, but it may be irregular from now on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose  &#xD;&#xA;#[&lt;strike&gt;Tobias Kienzler&lt;/strike&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;(declined) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has done a lot of work to push this place through Area51 and has an impressive [Meta.SO record](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146482/tobias-kienzler) (one should recall that moderatorship is mainly administrative work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About me: I started writing my PhD-thesis this year, the subject is Metamaterials based on colloidal particles. Before that I wrote my [Diplom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom) thesis on the [Renormalization flow equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group) of the three-dimensional [Wess-Zumino model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wess-Zumino_model) (-&gt; [Supersymmetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry)).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric and David I [support](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/104#104) the intermediate level, that is, we should encourage research related questions but not just close everything else as &quot;too basic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually actively here on workdays around 8-9 am GMT but also pass by every few hours (say, during European daylight) on an irregular basis, so flags would get attention then, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; in case you ever need to do a dimensional reduction of a model with [Majorana fermions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion) from 3+1 to 3+0, use the [Weyl basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_basis), it'll save you some work!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/97/tobias-kienzler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="8089be01-47e6-4a5f-820a-e15208bbf523" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't think there is a need for a ban on even basic homework questions, because the system we have in place at the moment seems to be working well IMO. A recent example is the question [cylinder on an inclined plane held in equilibrium](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83128/cylinder-on-an-inclined-plane-held-in-equilibrium). This was flagged, and put on hold with the message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;put on hold as off-topic by tpg2114, Crazy Buddy, Sklivvz♦ 49 mins ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; – tpg2114, Crazy Buddy, Sklivvz&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question or leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as users flag bad homework questions, the system in place should be adequate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="180c447b-f6e5-483f-b611-919eadb0791a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm more than 99% sure the wrong answer was accepted here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2508/rotation-angle-of-a-giant-lily-when-a-child-crawls-on-its-rim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, I'm subject to significant bias saying this, since I submitted a different answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; In the particular question I linked, the wrong answer's been changed, so I'm happy about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordinarily, if a wrong answer is accepted and a better answer exists, the better answer will still get a lot of up votes so that a user browsing the site can see the community's opinion.  In this case, I think the scenario is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect answer was originally a  correct answer to a simplified version of the problem.  That correct answer got a lot of upvotes.  Then the author generalized the answer incorrectly, resulting in an incorrect answer with a lot of upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the incorrect answer has a lot of upvotes, and is marked accepted, even though I believe strongly that the community  as a whole would not support it as the correct answer.  Is there some course of action I can take to call the community's general attention to this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit&lt;/b&gt;: I'm not completely sure whether this is an &quot;honest&quot; meta question, or whether I'm actually just fishing for people to support my answer.  If this question gets a couple of downvotes, I'll take the hint and delete it.  On the other hand, behind my emotional desire to be validated, I really do want the correct answer to be accepted in general and think there is some actual validity to this meta question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="da236648-e456-4500-a572-a740a685b385" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am not normally considered a member of the homework question supporter's club, but I did decide to answer https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159411/problem-regarding-archimedes-principle, or at least provide a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's good that the Physics SE has an educational role. This doesn't mean answering all homework questions, but every now and then I see a question that I think many aspiring young physicists would benefit from. In this case the question was about a thinly disguised simple harmonic oscillator. Every physics student is going to encounter a dozen questions about thinly disguised SHOs, and it's important they know how to recognise and approach them. In principle the same may happen during a research career, though I must admit I can't remember ever having to model one of the systems I studied as an SHO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now closed, and I'm not complaining about that since it's blatantly homework. It also doesn't have a terribly helpful title so I doubt many aspiring young physicists will ever read it, let alone take away valuable lessons about simple harmonic oscillators. Nevertheless this is the sort of question where an answer can be helpful to many people, and I don't regret the time taken to answer it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="87943087-22e9-4ec0-a668-818f8e6dcb82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say that our ultimate goal should be the burnination of [tag:homework]. But I agree with several others who have said that that is unworkable in the short term. My experience with questions tagged [tag:homework] is that they fall into a few categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Please do my homework for me. I have put no effort into it at all.&quot; [example][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;I have completed this homework problem. Please check my work and/or where did I go wrong?&quot; [example][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Possibly not a good question as written, but the OP is trying. There might be a conceptual question somewhere. [example][3], [example][4]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Hard problems that come either directly from the research literature, or from upper-level courses. These usually have an easy to identify conceptual question. [example][5] [example][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 and 2 are easy; we just want to close them and get on with real questions. 3 is probably the most difficult category, both to identify, and to actually address. I think we want most of the questions in 4, but it is sometimes difficult to separate out the physics and the math in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just favorited [tag:homework], sort of in the spirit of [Manish's suggestion] and have been going through those questions (if anyone has seen a lot of homework questions in the review queue recently, that's me). I haven't seen a single question yet where the [tag:homeowrk] tag actually *helps* the question: they're all either on-topic or off-topic. It really is a meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best argument I can come up with to keep [tag:homework] is that people can use it to filter out questions they don't want to see. I have two replies to that. First, it's not a very good filter. I suspect people who want to ignore [tag:homework] are trying to filter out categories 1 and 2, and possibly 3. But they're also ignoring questions that fit into 4, and I'm not sure they want to do that. My other reply is that we really do need everyone's help to close the really bad homework questions when they come up. I feel a little conflicted about saying that; it is essentially telling other users how they should use the site, and the low-level BS homework questions are exactly the sort of things that drives away the higher-end users we're trying to keep/attract. On the other hand, I worry that part of the problem we're having with closing the bad homework questions is that not enough of our 3000+ users are seeing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83399/finding-the-final-velocity&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83627/elastic-potential-energy-of-a-spring-when-compressed&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83618/rotational-inertia-of-a-sphere-and-a-cube&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55584/canonical-partition-of-a-boson-gas&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82506/conservation-of-energy-in-a-quantum-harmonic-oscillator-after-a-sudden-change-in&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76994/polchinskys-evaluation-of-the-one-loop-string-path-integral&#xD;&#xA;[Manish's suggestion]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5143/9719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="27e79b9f-cae4-4431-87dd-04593513bb21" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question on [wormhole time machines][1] is getting into complicated discussions. Comments are too short for responses (and don't support e.g. images, which I intend to use for clarification) and extending the original questions/answers loses continuity of discussion. [I extended my question to deal with various comments &amp; Lubos Motl's answer; Lubos has expanded his answer... I now need to address the Lubos Expansion in detail...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I proceed? TIA, Julian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2865/wormholes-time-machines-for-experts-in-gr-maths" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="513359ed-2946-422d-8d83-fdc3e02b9f71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Can we please keep it to one-resource-per-answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several of the answers referenced in [our recent policy for resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) have long answers that include multiple resources, such as [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363/getting-started-general-relativity/376#376). While this keeps things compact in a way, it makes it difficult for people to upvote specific resources. This substantially under-uses the capabilities of our platform, which is great for good answers to float up and OK ones to stay further down in the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we make it policy that answers to resource recommendations include only one resource per answer? This involves, of course, the possibility of as many answers per user as necessary on each thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two thoughts on dealing with the consequences. First, doing this opens the door to huge reputation farming. This would make a bit of an argument for making all answers community wiki - though if you come up with multiple good books and provide good reviews of them, why should you not have some rep? Secondly, it would add some initial and long-term curatorial stress in separating multi-resource answers, but I don't think this is unreasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="840b39e4-e818-46ce-9868-736119c30515" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I nominate&#xD;&#xA;#[Sklivvz](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz)&#xD;&#xA;If he's interested in accepting position. His reputation and answers,(among others of course) are what keep me coming back to the site everyday to learn, to be awe-inspired.  :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="005e621d-39a0-42d4-9e5c-4ef79ee2ae66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Could someone please clarify this for me? I flagged this question earlier today as abusive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160129/question-about-how-smoke-and-combustion-works?noredirect=1#comment336085_160129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it had a drugs reference (which seemed to be unnecessary and not particularly related to physics). However, another user (I won't name names) with a higher rep than me posts a comment telling me to &quot;take my personal views on drug use out of here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say I'm a bit confused. I was only trying to help and I would have thought that, given this site is supposedly accessible to all age groups, we would want to keep things fairly 'family friendly'. I mean, technically one could describe the recipe for crystal meth as 'science', but would posting that be appropriate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a look through the posting guidelines, but couldn't find anything related to this specific issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="35c41c13-5ef4-4867-a1da-80002846eff3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**My question was [closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we keep a list of other internet sites that might help students&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of physics. One site per answer. To keep the list at a reasonable size, please only include sites which fulfil the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site should be a physics site or have a physics section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The site's scope should be wider than Phys.SE's scope. In particular, it should welcome questions in all areas of physics and at any level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The site should be free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please avoid blatant promotion. This meta post is meant as a service for students in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The question wasn't reopened after I edited the question. Also no one helped me (sufficiently) when I asked in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). (The chat room requires [20 reputation points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges).)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The word _student_ includes self-student.  &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="256b03ea-7123-4593-ae7d-89893995efa5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a minor point about the implementation of our [new book policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/4698#4698). One of the points it describes is the addition of a banner reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on&#xD;&#xA;resource recommendation questions. Please try to give substantial answers that detail the&#xD;&#xA;style, content, and prerequisites of the book or paper (or other resource). Explain what the&#xD;&#xA;resource is like as much as you can; that way the reader can decide which one is most suited&#xD;&#xA;for them rather than relying on the suggestions of others. Answers which just suggest a book&#xD;&#xA;or paper will be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into the **top** of each on-topic [tag:books] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first few lines of each question are quite important and they make into quite a few places to help users decide whether to click through or not. Two examples are the mouseover text in the front page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more importantly the description of questions in the [tag:books] tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the banner at the top of all such questions is a nice way to get attention to the message that books questions are not like regular questions in that, under the current policy, not all answers are allowed out-of-line answers may be deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that having the banner intrude into a place reserved for content - as opposed to administrative text - is a no-no. Imagine the [Newest 'books' Questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books) page with every description changed to the start of the banner! The information content of the page drops dramatically and it gives completely the wrong impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should we change the policy to put this at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Up/Down]vote this question if you [/Dis]agree, or voice any concerns in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PACBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KEI1p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="3ba37858-bef2-4619-87d9-5024a4922bc0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question was put on hold 5 days ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206880/the-mechanics-of-accelerating-a-massive-body-in-a-vacuum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The mechanics of accelerating a massive body in a Vacuum [closed]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did edit the question as I was told that it was on hold because it was too vague.(and that I should amend it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hoped I had narrowed the question to make it more answerable .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I waited 5 days   to be told whether I would get an answer to my now edited question but the question has just passed from &quot;on hold&quot; to &quot;closed&quot; without an explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="d30fc828-7915-4613-81fa-b751dececa9f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I nominate&#xD;&#xA;#[Marek](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/329/marek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thank you. I accept the nomination.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Something about my studies:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a theoretical physics grad student (I hope it's the correct term, but I am not really sure anymore; if so, please let me know and I'll fix it) working on my diploma thesis of [gradient Gibbs states](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0512502) (paper by my advisor, prof. Kotecký). My main interest lies in statistical physics but I am very open to all areas of modern theoretical physics and even more generally to any kind of physics (although my knowledge of other areas obviously ranges from rudimentary to non-existent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also great interest in pure mathematics. For one thing I enjoy reading about all of modern stuff like algebraic geometry, Langlands program, category theory, algebraic topology and K-theory to name a few (unfortunately my knowledge often doesn't extend beyond knowing the name of the subject...). For another (and one I actually know something more about), I am interested in group theory and representation theory and also in probability theory and stochastic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Something about me and this site:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it should be pretty obvious that I love this site. I try to provide answer anytime the topic sounds like it might be within my reach. Not sure whether this is an entirely correct approach because sometimes I necessarily give just a sketchy and basic answers. But I believe the voting system should take care of that (i.e. be sure to down-vote my bad answers ;-) ). I am also trying to sort tags out from to time and most recently am trying to come up with some graphics and posters (not sure how it will turn out though; I am a physicist in the end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for my attitude, in general I am trying to be friendly and helpful, but people probably already noticed that I do get carried away sometimes. Even to the point of being suspended by Noldorin yesterday (I think it's honest to let you know about this; no point in having a moderator you don't know anything about). But fortunately we were able to sort it out in the end and I think it helped me improve as a person and I'll try not make the sort of mistakes I made in the past. If I am elected a moderator I promise to have unbiased and purely rational attitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relating to the above, if I am elected a moderator, I would actually try to moderate as little as possible, letting community sort most of the stuff. I would only take care of really extreme cases of spamming and trolling (which fortunately haven't occurred yet). I am not really sure what the job is about yet but I'd try to be as helpful to the community as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="fb6e8c5a-367b-459d-a610-1115368da6e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In answering [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160574/what-relative-masses-are-required-for-them-to-collide-n-times-in-this-scenario/160641#160641) question, I needed to multiply three matrices - which obviously involves writing them on the same line. I tried a couple of things, none of which worked, so my question is - how do you write collinear matrices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="b1f2f590-a45f-4e61-b318-b24aecbc53df" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Did you go to https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation ? I recommend starting there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like there were some invalid votes on your account that got cleaned up by the daily vote anomaly process on Feb 2 UTC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="840840a6-5b64-40b5-a3b8-1f2721bc0a51" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The current tag wiki for the [tag:books] - now [tag:resource-recommendation] - tag includes, in its final paragraph, the request that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you question is about [tag:resource-recommendations], please add your question to [the book list][1] as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just gave that tag wiki a make-over to bring it in line with the [new books policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/), and I erased that paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think the [books list question][1] is not a good [tag:resource-recommendation] question as per the new policy.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't see that much value in having the question as opposed to simply [looking for questions with that tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - It adds to the curatorial load in dealing with new questions and adds a big backlog to go over.&#xD;&#xA; - It is unreasonable to expect of every asker of resource recommendation questions to edit their question into the big list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two things that come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the [books list question][1] on topic now?&#xD;&#xA; - If so, should we link to it from the tag wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="96eeb1dc-985e-4c55-bd33-e0f249171c16" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I tagged [this question][1] as homework, and the user replied that it wasn't homework, but a practice problem for exam review.  In my view, exactly the same question could be asked as homework and exam review, and the purpose of the questions is exactly the same (i.e. teaching).  Hence, I think the homework tag should pull double-duty here.  Do you agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1942/does-the-cube-stay-on-the-loop-de-loop" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="9199c236-b3bf-40a7-909b-380c0e5a8df8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I've been eagerly waiting for an answer to my question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/207766/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, for some reason I haven't got it ... What is the general procedure to transfer a question to another stackexchange like Math-stackexchange (after my bounty expires)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="a910dba4-8896-4a6b-ae9e-890b3aab9f5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just answered [this question][1] that community brought up, because the question had a score of 5, and the two answers were not getting any hits and I considered they were not answering well the simple question which got these 5 votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I checked and the user who asked the question came only on July 8,  2014 and has not been seen since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Community should check , and if there is no interest on the part of the questioner to look for answers , it is a one off, and the answers have not gotten any up votes  the question should not be brought up again ,and maybe even deleted ?. I am suggesting deletion because such simple minded questions with wishy washy answers ( maybe mine too) do not reflect well on the site, with search engines, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123603/how-does-a-magnetic-field-cause-objects-to-move/167018#167018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="88a186ae-c5df-4613-a869-0c3c6703c08d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [Stack Overflow faq](http://stackoverflow.com/faq) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions have a bit of source code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [Physics Stack Exchange faq](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) should say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Physics Stack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange answers include external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen more than one completely incorrect answer accepted on Physics Stack Exchange, which I have not seen on Stack Overflow. I suspect this is because unlike coding, it's hard to immediately verify physics claims. For this reason, I think external citations to trusted sources are especially important for physics answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see more answers clearly indicate their logical foundation. Is your answer...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Original research?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Predicted by peer-reviewed theory, but unverified?  &#xD;&#xA;3. Indirectly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;4. Directly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't make us guess!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many answers here based on rock-solid, universally trusted theory. This is great! However, if experimental verification has not actually been cited, **this should be clear**. Experiment frequently lags behind theory, but has been known to expose flaws and loopholes in theory, and **very** occasionally, invalidates theory entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from my personal experience: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/can-i-levitate-an-object-without-using-an-electromagnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For months, the accepted answer was basically &quot;No, because of Earnshaw's theorem&quot;. This was an excellent answer; Earnshaw's theorem is rock-solid, universally accepted theory. End of story? No, because this answer was also good enough to include an [external citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem). As the external citation made clear, there are loopholes in Earnshaw's theorem that make the correct answer 'yes', not 'no'. The correct answer is supported by a [picture of a levitating object](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aDiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg) - direct experimental verification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="f964b801-c0d6-4bc2-8cbd-b1d500b71f4d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As it stands right now, I think the [mechanics] tag is useless in the best cases, and a little harmful in the worst cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that it way too broad to be considered a topic. The number of possible topics inside it (quantum, classical, statistical, ...) is very large, and they are very different from each other. So when someone uses the [mechanics] tags, one of two things happen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They also use a sub-mechanics tag (like [quantum-mechanics] or [classical-mechanics]), in which case the actual [mechanics] tag is completely useless.&#xD;&#xA; 2. They are led to believe that just the [mechanics] tag is enough, in which case it is actually harmful, because it almost the same as leaving it tagless. Just saying a question is about *mechanics* doesn't give the reader any clue at all of what he should expect to find in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [quick search][1] shows that this tag is being used both alone *and* with subtopics. So I say: *Consistency*. We should decide whether to get rid of it, or to encourage people to only use it with subtopics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My proposal**  &#xD;&#xA;Should we sart removing the [mechanics] tag, and replacing it (where necessary) with its subtopics? Or should we just add subtopics where missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="cfa56882-571e-4edd-8433-eba63474ffe9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I know Astronomy.SE [merged][1] into Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I asked this astronomy related question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89350/when-venus-is-the-brightest-when-viewed-from-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I got a moderator comment that it would better fit in astronomy.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's up? Will the site split again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="56e9fb6a-7ea2-490f-954b-cd3185041a2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have a thing that is bugging me for the time being. I just discovered that there is an option called &quot;**show removed posts**&quot;. And when I enabled it, I saw (-2) rep corresponding to several of my posts.... check out the [Link][1] here. Yes I know that when a post edited by me gets deleted or removed, I lose the 2 rep I got for the edit. But now on seeing the linked page, I am confused if this means that apart from losing the 2 rep I had got for the edit, I also lose an additional 2 rep for editing a post that got removed. I don't know but is this speculation of mine true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean that the rep written beside a particular post usually denotes the **net rep gained from it**. So (-2) rep must mean that I have lost 2 rep in total...whereas it should have been so that I lost the 2 rep I gained from the post...that is the net rep beside the removed posts must be 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So am I right? What is actually happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post&amp;StartDate=2015-09-29%2014:18:32Z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="5583441a-ff7f-4c5c-9cc7-0f3be9521222" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am a low-rep user with a faint grasp of physics. I recently asked a [question][1] (which itself was downvoted, no qualms) and in one of the answers was bombarded by references that pertain to interpretational aspects and did not appear to be mainstream. Now I had asked something which could be called a standard textbook doubt, and I have no desire to go anywhere beyond the operational utility of quantum mechanics. Should such philosophical answers be allowed?? I am not interested in reading stuff from people who push forward marginal opinions and speculative theories. Shouldn't such answers be somehow discouraged? Another issue is that these answers sometimes get upvoted, for whatever reasons (eg comment in an answer to my most recent question ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that I am wrong everywhere and that the answer is totally relevant and I am just assuming. In that case i would offer apologies. But how do I judge when I am bombarded by an answer that cites 5+ journal papers with the only explanations provided are highlighted abstracts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8062/about-the-complex-nature-of-the-wave-function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="9757ba05-6789-4930-af23-11203d204f6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I cannot answer this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169209/is-there-an-infinite-amount-of-wavelengths-of-light-is-the-em-spectrum-continuo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Answer button.  At the bottom of the question is this message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protected by Qmechanic♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have 102 reputation points at this time.  I have not participated on physics.se yet; the points are awarded to me automatically due to my reputation on ell.se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's due to a requirement to *earn* the points, wouldn't it be relevant to make *earned* explicit in the message?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="91209cda-b785-4810-a50c-cf6fab8c06f7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it ok to downvote an answer when the user refused to use `LaTeX` math formatting and instead wrote out all equations in **bold** text or worse no formatting at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example answer:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/82028/392&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. There is a little known FAQ on math formatting here:&#xD;&#xA;https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="aed5d877-3240-4437-92b3-d1e88c7a20d3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes -- this is by design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67054/can-we-grandfather-in-rep-abilities-as-sites-leave-beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more detail at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="9e3569c6-d1c9-400b-a92b-05f7e5a549c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can use search for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's more help on the search operators in the search page (click on &quot;Advanced Search&quot;) or in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="1e5d11bd-3e00-48ac-b49e-fde4b0dc94db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While editing, I have often come across re-edits by the 2k+ rep members like [this][1](*just an example*) where I have seen minor editing changes like the one in given [link][2]. I know the raw *(the one containing the TEX language*) version of the post looks quite bad with the type of editing I have done in the stated case but the actual output i.e. the post (*the one viewed by everybody*) looks the same in both the cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can give another example. I don't remember the post but I am illustrating the case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose I want to write 5 m/s using TEX. In that case, both the following write-ups have the same output: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - $5$ $m/s$ &#xD;&#xA;- $5 \,\mathrm{m/s}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*So my question is*: Why is this re-edit important? I know there must be some reason. But since the final result is the same in such cases, I don't see these edits as that much important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** Nothing to do with page linked. Please do not come up with answers like ACuriousMind is right and you are wrong and so on. I know I am wrong and ACuriousMind has been here for a longer time than I have been. I just want the logic, nothing else. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/100529&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/210254/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="3ccf1c01-b286-4879-a091-d79161dbca43" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Lets take you points one at a time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Only good content is shown.** This is simply false. Content with scores of -2 upwards are shown on http://physics.stackexchange.com, and *all* content is shown on https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Note that un-voted questions *are* featured on the front-page, and that randomly selected (subject to a net score higher than -3) older questions are occasionally bumped to the front-page by the community user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **An allegation that this is disingenuous or advertising.** Frankly that is nonsense. The vast bulk of our users find us from searches which take them directly to relevant content. The tuning of the front-page (which takes into account both score and you tag preferences) is designed as a convenience to the *users*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **A claim that we have a obligation to treat all content alike.** Again, nonsense. These site are designed to *&quot;make the internet a better place&quot;*. That does not mean highlighting crap, it means highlighting the good stuff. And &quot;good&quot; is chosen by the users at large.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It is worth noting that the high-rep users do *not* dominate the voting, there are many, *many* more low-rep user than high-rep ones and they have the same voting power as anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Noting that bad questions are going to be asked.** Well, yes they are. But we are not going to encourage that. We are, in fact, going to discourage that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: we *are* biased against crap and we are proud of that fact.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="545e96ff-999e-482e-b7f2-9bf490b83106" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Robert Cartaino back in the early days of the beta period. (The bold formatting I just added; the links were originally there) Although I probably wouldn't write all the same things today, I think this could be relevant in refining our FAQ excerpt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the biggest issue that the physics site faces right now is publicity. But it's not just a matter of attracting as many people as possible to participate: we need to attract people who are going to ask the right kinds of questions, neither too low-level nor too high-level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On one hand, any physics Q&amp;A site has a tendency to attract a certain number of so-called &quot;crackpot&quot; questions, which are either **not well formulated or not answerable using established physics**. It can be a subjective determination, but I think [What is an &quot;Idea&quot; in terms of time space and matter?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter-closed) and [What is the most efficient way to destroy the universe?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe) and [Why is there something rather than nothing?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-closed) are decent examples (especially the last one). We've been reasonably lucky not to get a whole lot of these so far, but undoubtedly, as the site becomes more popular and reaches out to a wider user base, they'll become more and more frequent. I'll say up front that I don't want to see these kinds of questions tolerated on the site, since I think they misrepresent the scope of physics as a science. (Of course, if the community disagrees with that, I'll go along with them, but then I probably would not remain an active participant on the site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although it's hard to characterize good physics questions in general, they typically ask about **the result of an actual experiment** that has been or could be performed ([How does one measure the mass of a galaxy? And other such large quantities.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123/how-does-one-measure-the-mass-of-a-galaxy-and-other-such-large-quantities)), or about **a calculation using a well-formulated theory** ([Deriving the speed of the propagation of a change in the Electromagnetic Field from Maxwell's Equations](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1574/deriving-the-speed-of-the-propagation-of-a-change-in-the-electromagnetic-field-fr)), or about a **definition of a recognized physical concept or quantity** ([What is the definition of momentum when a mass distribution ρ(r,t) is given?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1419/what-is-the-definition-of-momentum-when-a-mass-distribution-rhor-t-is-given)). As I stated in [one of my answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) on Physics meta, I think the best way to &quot;enforce&quot; the kinds of questions we want to see on the site is by asking good questions, not by closing bad ones, thereby setting an example for people who come along to ask questions in the future.  And of course, in order to have a lot of good questions, we need to expand the community with more people who will ask good questions. That means that, generally speaking, the kinds of people who we most want to attract are college students who are studying physics or a related field, or people at a higher level of study in physics, up to and including full-fledged researchers. My sense is that most people who have not studied physics at the college level would not have a sense of what distinguishes a good physics question from a bad one, and although this certainly doesn't and shouldn't disqualify them from being able to ask questions, it does mean they're not the kinds of people that the site really needs in order to succeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="26719dde-415f-4ce9-a8ac-a2ddfff4c4ec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is an [interesting pickle][1]. So, on the brink of what seemed to be covering angular motion entirely, I realized that I had ***big misconceptions***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any sane individual would do in this case, I knocked out my Physics teacher with a brick, ran to the nearest computer and logged into StackExchange Physic to ask my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were some wrong answers. I *upvoted* a wrong answer. And now I can't take back my upvote. At the time of upvoting, I had assumed that the answer would be right due to the upvotes it had received, but now realize that I should've asked for citations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This is the wrong answer][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I do now? How can I take back my vote? &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173987/how-can-i-relate-linear-and-angular-motion-using-a-single-formula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/174100/37236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="f431cbb2-e3fd-487b-ab98-02038fa54503" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that that a lot of unclear or ill-posed questions get premature answers, which may effectively &quot;freeze&quot; the question in its current bad formulation, instead of revealing a perhaps more profound question hiding underneath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6231/use-of-the-mathematical-concept-function-in-theoretical-physics NB: It is not my intention to discredit or debate this particular question or its answers; I take comfort in the fact that the question poser himself can laugh over the outcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps, in other cases, there is actually no real question at all, and the bad question should have been closed immediately instead of proliferating/cluttering the site with trivialities, misunderstandings, or duplicate entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose that questions, posed by users with less than X reputation points, cannot be answered for a Y hours curfew, in-which only comments, edits and chats are allowed. The philosophy is to make the question perfect before an answer is attempted. This is to increase quality of both question and answers. Initially, one could, e.g., let X=500 and let Y=24. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="eb7b8a9b-541e-4fc4-a1ba-60c63ad39fb9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If someone appears to be genuinely interested in physics and is willing to put the effort into understanding it then I can rarely resist the temptation to answer them even when the question is teetering on the edge of the homework precipice. But I agree completely with the point dmckee makes in the last paragraph of his answer. if I yield to the temptation to answer it's because I want to help the OP to understand the principles involved. That means posting an answer that discusses the concepts involved, and not simply giving them the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example my answer to [How do I derive the Lorentz contraction from the invariant interval?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80511/how-do-i-derive-the-lorentz-contraction-from-the-invariant-interval). This question could easily have been closed as homework (it got tagged as such) but I think my answer was worthwhile, and the OP (now an experienced member of the site with 192 answers to his credit) [thinks so too][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until I master telepathy it's impossible to know whether the OP will really benefit from your answer or whether they'll just transcribe it into their problem sheet then forget it. But if I'm going to err I prefer to err on the side of making the world of physics a slightly better place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212674/why-cannot-a-perfect-clock-exist/212885#comment456331_212885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="a5d3305e-2ee5-47d3-be5b-b3a02dbac089" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had had some talks with Dilaton on this before, never got the time to formulate a proposal. It was also brought up [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, most high level posts that have been asked to the student by a professor are not homework by the policy. The tag/policy name &quot;homework&quot; is a misnomer, the origin of the question has no part in the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It's meant to cover basically simple questions where the OP can't be bothered to go off and do some work for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't entirely correct either, mainly the &quot;basically simple&quot; part. Not-so-simple questions can be homeworky too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this one][1] or [this one][2] or [this one][3] or [this one][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, these are the minority. But I have seen a lot of questions that ask for a proof to be filled in or effectively need help with the mathematics of the question. Most haven't been closed, but they are on shaky ground at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is, how many others will be helped by these posts? If you've ever compared the votes on a good high level question with the views, you'll notice that the views far outnumber the votes. This indicates that most of the visitors were not from the site. Even if we assume that a fraction of these actually understand the post&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, the number of visitors who are helped by the post usually outnumbers the number of SE members. This is one rather important bit of the SE model; questions and answers are of the sort that should help the most people, and that means focusing on making posts useful for visitors. Most &quot;homework&quot; posts are of the form that only the OP is benefited -- the question is localized so it won't turn up in anyone's search, and only a couple other site members will get helped by the post.This can happen with grad-level questions too -- I doubt that there will be many people stuck on the same step of a proof in a textbook. Contrast this with questions like [these][5] which probably will be searched for by others, helping them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _just_ going by localized-ness might be a bit extreme and we would end up closing a lot of good questions if we had that strict a localized-ness requirement. We _do_ want to help the OP too, and there are many good questions that would be rarely searched for but are very informative nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So some compromise is needed. I did have a look at many high level homework questions before, and I came to the conclusion that most did not need closing (most were not closed in the first place). Most grad students would not willingly post a low-effort question, so that eliminates one kind of HW question. As for localized HW questions -- these were still found in my searches. Not that many, but there were some that were on the borderline of closeability ([example][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we should not be so aggressive for high level questions, but we shouldn't give them all a free pass either. The current and proposed policies both seem to be allowing most of the currently existing high level questions that are tagged homework, so I doubt this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone can find enough examples of high level posts that were closed as homework, then we might need to investigate further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm talking about the _policy_ in this post. The tag is applied haphazardly &amp;mdash; it always has been. The tag [seems to be about the type of question][7] (it was in the past policy too), but it seemingly implies something about the origin, so this haphazardness is understandable as each person tags with their own interpretation. We probably should get more objective guidelines for the tag and figure out a way to make the community use it consistently. But since this is a different issue and will probably cause a four-sided argument&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, it's best if we don't investigate this on this particular meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized this, one of the other reasons the HW policy was put up in the start was that users did not want this site to be seen as a place where you can get your homework done for you&quot; (which accounts for the tag confusion as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are people still concerned about this?&#xD;&#xA; - Will allowing low effort grad level hw affect this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It won't be a small fraction, most of the higher level questions are of the form that a novice won't accidentally turn it up via Google.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Some folks want the tag burninated, some want it phased out, some want it only for low level questions, some want it for all types of questions, etc, etc. Best not to muddy the waters here with this discussion&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/83260/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63867/calculating-the-branching-ratio-of-higgs-for-decay-to-two-photons&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69636/the-metric-tensor-inside-a-massive-shell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87974/in-the-static-spacetime-the-extrinsic-curvature-of-hypersurface-t-constant-is&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/flavour-diagonal-susy-breaking&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70577/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="08d3b8d3-b362-477b-9edc-03909fbfe308" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Referring to this question in particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8312/is-a-work-life-balance-incompatible-with-becoming-an-international-scientist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to experts, in order to become an international scientist, you have to put in 80 hour weeks for a decade. Is becoming an international scientist incompatible with a work/life balance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="98864bfe-5dd7-4630-b590-9ffc98708460" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have found this question about potential energy  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103377/what-is-potential-energy-truly. I can not make comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I ask a question supplementary to this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="29a74c18-264b-40a2-a19f-7b00b7d5f684" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This suggested edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/104598) erased the first line in [my answer][1] and replaced it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*I think that gravity has an effect on any particle in our universe. Even the photons are attracted by the back holes (despite the fact that some physicists consider photons as having no mass !)* But in quantic physics, particles may adopt one these two behaviours: being &quot;real objects&quot; i.e with a mass or being a wave! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the mass ? Does the mass really exist ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit suggested by anonymous user. It was approved by one reviewer and I just managed to catch it and reject it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are anonymous users allowed to mess up things? At least if an anonymous user does the editing the person who wrote the entry should be primarily responsible for approval or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking, a feature request,   for a veto from the original person who wrote the question/answer that was edited by an anonymous user, as in this case already there was an approval! It would have made the answer really stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit in response to comment by  @user36790.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Rolling back is an option that corrects things, **IF** the original author reads the site often. We have many good answers by very good physicists who have stopped looking in everyday or even month and some not at all. A  distortion of their answers might go unnoticed and get approval by ignoramuses  and destroy the integrity of the site. Moderators cannot be reading everything as postings go through first page very fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="caa6d96e-c28a-4eb1-ae41-a5a327b23032" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I say **burn them from orbit** -- completely off topic. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that questions should be strictly about Physics, not the &quot;general physical world&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk is that we will end up with questions potentially overlapping with half of the other StackExchange sites! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head these sites as of today would overlap with those kinds of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (&quot;How does a car engine work?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Fitness and Nutrition (&quot;How are food calories measured?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Skeptics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantitative Finance (&quot;[The Concepts of Path Integral in Quantitative Finance](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance)&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Guitars (&quot;How do I calculate string tension for a baritone guitar?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Audio Recording and Production (&quot;How does a loudspeaker work?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;  - Bicycles&#xD;&#xA;  - Photography&#xD;&#xA;  - Cooking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, some of these questions hold some interest (fun!) for this community. They just belong somewhere else, where they probably will receive far better answers.&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately we need to have a very clear and explicit &quot;scope&quot; so we can be a focused Q&amp;A site of physicists for physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Burn from orbit](http://www.digital-digest.com/blog/DVDGuy/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/low_orbit_ion_cannon.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="54c97d9d-1d70-4549-bbf6-8e658a22c9c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I received a notification for a comment made by Emilio Pisanty on this &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2687/modern-references-for-continuum-mechanics/2762?noredirect=1&quot;&gt;question &lt;/a&gt; asking for an update of my answer in order to comply with the current policy on &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&quot;&gt;resource recommendations&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can verify, I wasn't the only one who received the same comment. I was wondering if it is wise to try to enforce a current policy on very old contributions. I feel it is too much to ask for a huge amount of users. Maybe this is our online version of retroactivity in law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="8caf9dc0-0a5e-42f9-ba17-28f6c8b149fc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I read the title what came to mind was some blog post I read in the last few months. [FSP][1] and other bloggers have written about work/life balance issues for early career  professors, and about the possibly gender differentiated interpretation of choices that people face in these circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have several career related questions scattered around the site---though it is not clear that we have a consensus about when or even if those are OK:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What is an effective way to search for post-doc positions in physics?][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is there any reason to major in physics if you're certain you will never do a Ph.D?][5] [closed]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to work on physics independently outside academia?][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [What sort of jobs do physics graduates with B.Sc/M.Sc get?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also some question concerning the sociology or culture of physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Can a web community write papers?][8]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][9]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are all theoretical physicists like Sheldon Cooper?][10] [closed]&#xD;&#xA;* [What does it take to become a top physicist?][11]  &lt;== Note the relationship between this one and the one under discussion!&#xD;&#xA;* [Are collaborations needed to be productive in physics?][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on this particular question is much like Sklivvz: there is nothing physics specific there, but we want to have a set of clearly-articulated, easy-to-understand metrics for telling when career-related or sociological questions are or are not on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science-professor.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1779/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7477/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7491/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6582/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1599/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2343/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5495/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5930/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="642be58d-f437-415b-b03d-e1a7200a79ce" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12240/why-2-distributions-can-not-be-multiplied?noredirect=1) was closed and migrated to Math.SE 20 minutes ago (as of this writing). User Marek posted an answer to this question 15 minutes ago. I thought question closure/migration locks the quesion from being answerable? How did that happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="1bcfc67b-bb34-4289-a425-651c6ec3e94d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" [This question][1] and its answer are an example of what I mean .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is interesting and it will be caught by a search engine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do Physics concepts build on top of other concepts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The content is about difficulties of a student, answered adequately in the comments.  There is one answer that is not a real answer to the title and a wishy washy  for the content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition the questioner has not appeared in the site since 2013 a week after asking this question and the answerer has over a year to appear on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the final objective is to have a good reference for physics questions for future aspiring physicist coming up with such a question/answer defeats the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might answer the title question but a searcher might come up with just the question and dismiss it because it is obvious a student question, and never, look at the more general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some judicial moderation would be useful, deleting similar fluff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77473/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="55684535-de7c-4414-93d3-eda0abfffd47" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is rather strange, that question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9993/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-mathematics-in-physics that practically reproduces title of talk of (future - 4 years after the talk) Nobel Prize winner, Eugene Wigner  http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html caused such a negative reaction (immediately closed and -3 votes – so it is not only a moderator opinion). Beside that, it was printed in a serious and refereed journal. Poincare, Feynman, et. al. also wrote deep works about that. The question itself is only couple of lines long and practically only clarifies title, so some additional flaws most likely could not be inserted there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="fcb31acb-b217-462d-bfe1-1def3035ec8c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accepting an answer does ***not*** indicate that it is the best answer. It means it is the one the asker liked or used. Nothing more nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular questions are not in any sense *&quot;open&quot;* or *&quot;unanswered&quot;* until there is a green checkmark and *&quot;closed&quot;* or *&quot;answered&quot;* afterwards. Note that [there is a badge explicitly for getting many more votes than the accepted answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [formal definition of *&quot;unanswered&quot;* for the purposes of the unanswered tab][2] is *&quot;having no answers with net positive votes and no accepted answer&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense it is unfortunate that the site puts so much visual emphasis on accepted answers, because I prefer the current system but new users don't see a clear explanation of the meaning of acceptance and simply draw their own conclusions from the emphasis the site gives to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Suggestions to allow some form of community acceptance][3] have [appeared][4] on the mother meta [many][5] [many][6] [times][7] without the team taking any action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/ok-now-define-answered/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=community%20accept%20vote&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3669/would-it-be-possible-to-have-a-community-accepted-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/80319/vote-to-force-accept-an-answer-for-someone-elses-question-closed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8600/community-vote-for-accepted-answer-rep-5000-only&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82484/vote-to-accept-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="d625d392-46a1-4d8d-9cca-bfdc7218e2ba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Previously the question concerning edits of 6 characters was asked &lt;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4478/editing-tags-not-allowed-because-not-6-characters&gt;, however the answers provided were not satisfactory for the question. It is often the case that a single sign needs to be changed or a trivial typo disrupts the flow. In addition some edits are made in series as the question/answer are read over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I am writing to make a change to the page &lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work/17964#17964&gt;. My concern is an edit of lambda squared to lambda in the Lagrangian under the header putting it all together. This matches the quartic interaction as typically written and correspondingly as the potential as defined above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="73677b57-c476-4e37-94d9-ccffbe561f8e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A user has just [detagged][1] a question I tagged. I haven't retagged: I suspect that this user would be all too happy with an edit war. It seems terribly trivial, but I've bumped into this user's snarkiness on more than one occasion previously. There didn't really seem a flag that was appropriate, other than &quot;other&quot;, so I thought I'd solicit opinion here on the best way to deal with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/4460/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="adb06697-5a34-4d84-bc58-580af236e3de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Please reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44647/physics-based-derivation-of-the-formula-for-entropy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have complied with David Z request indicated in the comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="9f57ce09-39e8-4c50-8871-ada68c79ac23" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are many questions which come up again and again, virtually every day, trying to propose an alternative explanation for a well-established principle.  I think it would be very useful to keep a list of best-explanations for why the established principle is the established principle, for quick reference (and when marking things as duplicates).  **Here are some of the common issues and best responses (*in my opinion*)**.  I hope that this question will open discussions about what other common duplicate questions are, and what the best answers are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxies are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space** (and not just because they don't like each other).&#xD;&#xA;    + https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114990/is-it-possible-that-galaxies-redshift-is-caused-by-something-else-than-the-expa&#xD;&#xA;    + https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38779/why-the-red-shift-of-distant-galaxies-is-considered-to-be-the-effect-of-expandin&#xD;&#xA;    + https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108609/how-does-measuring-redshift-make-us-conclude-that-rate-universe-expansion-is-acc&#xD;&#xA;-   **Galaxy rotation curves and 'missing mass' are Dark Matter** (and not because MOND / dyson spheres / really really really dark normal matter).&#xD;&#xA;    +   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-isnt-dark-matter-just-matter&#xD;&#xA;    +   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-is-non-baryonic/26779#26779&#xD;&#xA;    +   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/does-mond-make-good-predictions&#xD;&#xA;    +   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;    +   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123661/do-alternate-theories-for-dark-matter-like-mond-explain-its-effect-on-gravitat&#xD;&#xA;-   **The speed of light is *really* a constant, from all reference frames** (even if you attach rockets to your rockets, in opposite direction of other rockets attached to the aether)&#xD;&#xA;    +   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Wikipedia: Tests of Special Relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light)&#xD;&#xA;-   **You cannot measure both position and momentum exactly** (no matter how good you are at tennis).&#xD;&#xA;    +   [Isn't the uncertainty principles just a technological limitation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24068/isnt-the-uncertainty-principle-just-non-fundamental-limitations-in-our-current)&#xD;&#xA;-   **The double slit experiment cannot be explained by classical physics** (despite whatever interesting thing happening on your fishing trip last weekend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="8e1e3e4a-f7e5-40a6-b313-effb2906cc3a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="After gaining the [necessary 5 votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/44647/revisions), the question is now reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that you can force a closed question into the automatic review queues by making edits to the question. Making a separate Meta post is not a necessity (though, in this case, it is possible that the age of the question might have prevented that?).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="e8b96886-7457-4873-90b5-fbf12dd26bdf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I tend to use the too broad close vote for one of three reasons:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the answer would need to cover a lot of ground &amp; be rather lengthy (e.g., &quot;a book chapter&quot; long) &#xD;&#xA;2. there is too little information in the post to give a meaningful answer&#xD;&#xA;3. the post is looking for a list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I thought there to be not enough information (the answer depends on car type, car size, engine size &amp; power, road conditions, and so on down the line) and voted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note here, probably simply as an aside, that answers do *not* make a question on topic. So when we vote, we're looking at the content of the question itself and judging on that alone. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, in my opinion, lack of specificity does not invalidate the intent of the physical question asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I think your statement here could be used as the basis for eliminating the *too broad* close reason altogether. Think about it: if someone can fill in values for missing parameters with &quot;whatever sounds reasonable,&quot; then why bother saying that someone needs to narrow their question down? Someone could just &quot;fill in the blanks.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so I reject this notion entirely. A requirement of a minimum level of specificity is absolutely needed to ensure a quality answer to a quality question (though I imagine that minimum level is *probably* subjective, but that's why we require 5 reviewers). I don't think that was the case for this particular question (though it could probably be improved &amp; reopened), and it seems that I was [**agreeing with 4 other people &amp; disagreeing with 1 person**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/105586)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6870" RevisionGUID="b3e1d129-5cf6-43a7-9924-9df74e326375" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer got me thinking :&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/191025/57075&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually supposed to be a comment on some other guy's answer, but the guy doesn't have enough rep to comment. Maybe it's a valuable critique to the other guy's answer. Should I flag such answers or not ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="4db6df05-4523-41d1-9625-c9c34e148596" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For example, the comments in this answer: [Entropy and the principle of least action](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/47588/41634).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original comment sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are many issues in this answer. For instance, it confounds the general concept of &quot;entropy&quot; with the approx. macroscopic entropy used in classical thermodynamics. The entropies used in nanothermodynamics, thermodynamics of small systems and in quantum thermodynamics are not defined &quot;at macroscopic scales&quot;... – juanrga Dec 30 '12 at 14:15    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not sure what exact problems you have with my answer. Reading it again, I have used the oportunity to expand it significantly. Let me know in case you believe anything in my answer is incorrect or didactically sub-optimal. – Johannes Dec 30 '12 at 16:51    &#xD;&#xA;   	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As said &quot;there are many&quot; I gave one example in my previous post, which you have ignored. Your edit adds more misunderstandings and false statements. E.g., your recent &quot;the second law of thermodynamics tells us entropy doesn't decrease&quot; is a typical misunderstanding of the second law repeated by anti-evolucionists for instance... – juanrga Dec 31 '12 at 11:59    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's stick to physics and avoid biased views and crackpottery. – Johannes Jan 1 '13 at 9:36  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are viewed as biased views and crackpottery, should we delete them? Should I flag them if I meet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="a4d43d2b-b38d-4b2f-bebd-b1b22c482678" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="41ae1df3-625a-476b-b5e3-bc5ff8a316b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sorry but I'm quite new to the inner workings of this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer from @fibonatic here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108640/what-is-an-intuitive-explanation-using-forces-for-the-equatorial-bulge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom it mentions that any value inbetween 0/90 degrees it would be positive, but this is untrue - just keep taking psi smaller until the second term in the denominator dominates. Unfortunately I can't comment to let him know since I lack reputation, can't PM since there is no function to, and I don't want to edit his answer because I don't know what the *right* answer is. I just want to make him aware so it gets changed correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="a403b657-9431-4f46-9112-6ca6741a7ed4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I like the answer https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77280/73067 but have a follow-up question. Should rather create a new question than asking the author to elaborate more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="c8045d3b-5152-478b-8fa9-342f6eeff74c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As an answer to this question, I would suggest giving a little more attention to the answer that is accepted and upvoted.  Although it may seem obviously wrong to you, other people still see merit in it that you may or may not have addressed, and I think this question in particular is a good example of this general type of conundrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of how I use physics SE, I quite often find myself referencing and talking about other answers.  This is more of a personal thing, and honestly I don't think this site is the best format to have a really major discussion and hashing out of the details of a problem from two competing perspectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of this photon mass problem, as someone with a seemingly conflicting physical perspective than you, I'll try to articulate what I find to be missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a general notion in what you write that concepts of gravity can not be applied to a *photon's relativistic mass*.  This is exactly the question I asked previously here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if this discussion was off-topic then I would understand why we should *limit* the discussion to special relativity.  However, go back to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As an explanation of why a large gravitational field, such as a black hole, can bend light, I have heard that light has momentum. This is given as a solution to the problem of only massive objects being affected by gravity. However, momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so, by this definition, massless photons can not have momentum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question obviously shows interest in the relativistic mass of photons in the context of gravitational attraction, gravitational lensing, and that sort of thing.  Someone who wants to treat photons as gravitational attractors such as the questioner in this case, or myself, will be unsatisfied by limiting the problem to special relativity.  We want to know specifically why using $m= h / \lambda c$, and applying it in all other classical senses will screw things up.  I mean, I can take the above, say $F=dp/dt$, then plug and chug into Newtonian gravity all day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I go into this detail to show why I wouldn't even downvote the main answer, meaning I don't see what is wrong about it, in addition to the fact it's useful to what I want to know.  Hopefully I'm also helping you to identify what burden of proof you have to show why some concept *shouldn't* be applied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="3ab67e81-9bf4-4caa-8d9b-3de30cd76cea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the proposal is brand new it is hard to be sure, but my first inclination is to guess that everything (or at least very nearly everything) that is on-topic for the proposal will also be on-topic for Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the original  two examples with one vote each &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will photoresist [X] work in process [Y], and if not why? *(on-topic)*&#xD;&#xA;* What is your favorite way to bake a vacuum chamber? *(not a great example)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seem to in keeping with our practice on Physics.SE. The newly added example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How should I remove rust/stains from my optics table without compromising its flatness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is well chosen to explore the possible seem between the two proposals. *I* would judge that to be on-topic on Physics&gt;SE, but I am an experimenter. How do other's feel about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I will try to provide examples of several classes of experimental technique and applied physics questions from Physics.SE (and trying to select those that would be interesting to grad students and those further on in their careers in keeping with the proposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jargon (not generally discussed with undergrads)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [What's the difference between inclusive and exclusive decays?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumentation, calibration, and technique&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How 'pure' is liquid nitrogen?][2] (unanswered, however)&#xD;&#xA;* [Fairly Broad Spectrum Light Source Options][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Do high/low pass lenses exist?][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [What properties of Germanium make it suitable for Dark Matter detectors?][5]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Measuring concentration][6]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Cleaning Already Mounted Microspheres on an AFM][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data analysis &amp; Computation&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How small of a depletion signal can the best modern mass spectrometers detect?][8] (might have gone in instrumentation as well but the answers dwell on the statistics of the measurement; only partially answered)&#xD;&#xA;* [Efficiency of Metropolis algorithm][9]&#xD;&#xA;* ***added 5-Sept-2011*** [Fitting to a high density scatter plot][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collaboration skills and Culture&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [How to communicate institutional knowledge in a big physics collaboration?][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [Are the results from models considered “data”?][12]&#xD;&#xA;* [Publication Authorship Credits][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics Education at the Graduate Level and Up&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;* [Starting a physics Ph.D. at 60?][14]&#xD;&#xA;* [Is it possible to restart formal higher education in physics at a later age?][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly there is not as much there as I (an experimenter, after all) would have hoped, but I claim that we are welcoming of these matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't guess at [akeshet][16]'s motive for opening a new proposal (I fear that he dropped by during one of our outbreaks of pop-sci-quantum-philosophers), but I think the questions he envisions would be welcome here and that we have some expertise in these matters already on-baord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit 5-Sept-2011***: Since this discussion I have been trying to take note of those questions on Physics.SE that would be candidates for ExperimentalPhysics.SE (or whatever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [[experimental-technique][17]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[sample-preparation][18]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[data-analysis][19]]&#xD;&#xA;* [[laboratory-safety][20]] which has only been applied to a question that predates this discussion and *isn't* really a graduate+ level question, but the tag would be applicable to some questions that are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know what light this sheds on the proposal. Clearly we are still getting very few greasy-handed practical experimental questions; whether that means there&#xD;&#xA;are few that people want to ask the internet of Physics.SE has chased away everyone who wants to ask them I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1217/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9313/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7898/520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2398/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10395/520&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13123/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14374/520&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3346/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5769/520&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13408/520&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8122/520&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2334/520&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6052/520&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7327/520&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2979/akeshet&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sample-preparation&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/data-analysis&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/laboratory-safety" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="e40dc4b6-2c31-41e8-80ab-2109028566cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155795/kinetic-theory-derivation-of-viscosity-of-a-gas has an accepted answer. That answer, however, does not contain the amount of detail that I want for a specific part of the question. I have (in the recent past) placed a bounty on the question asking for more detail, however no other answers where forthcoming. I am guessing that if I re-asked the part of the question I require, it would rather quickly be closed as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any situations where a duplicate is ok, and if so does my above case fall into one of these situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="9330ddb5-c4ab-412d-94d4-a056b1b14977" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Those do not mean the same of course, but AFAIK they are used interchangeably on this site (see [optics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/optics) and [light](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/light)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do you agree the merge is justified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="794cfdb7-f7c0-4920-866b-8a2b69c0d9e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I downvote a lot, so I guess I should explain myself: there are places where you have a wrong answer accepted as correct, and with a billion up votes. I down vote and comment so that the original poster will pay attention that this is wrong, and irresponsible to leave up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some flat out wrong, ridiculously up-voted, accepted answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6086/how-does-this-thought-experiment-not-rule-out-black-holes/13781#13781&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13043/does-the-energy-catalyzer-generate-energy-by-converting-nickel-to-copper/13819#13819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some highly misleading answers, also ridiculously up-voted and accepted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7232/does-gr-provide-a-maximum-electric-field-limit/13906#13906&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13744/do-all-event-horizons-emit-radiation/13748#13748 &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11039/what-does-it-mean-that-the-neutral-pion-is-a-mixture-of-quarks/13537#13537&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it is naughty to ask a question when you already know the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13217/shaping-a-wire-such-that-a-bead-sliding-on-it-has-exactly-isochronous-oscillation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that in physics there are objective answers, and wrong answers stick out sorely, much more than right answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="8d70be3e-0232-4f8c-b8b6-1d9fc7aa8e26" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this question][1]  there are eleven downvotes. I know from downvotes I have gotten that each downvote subtracts 2 points. 2x11=22 should be deleted. The user has a remainder of 8. How is this possible? Even if he/she came with the dowry of 100 from another site, still 8 is not what it should be:78 is not 8. Is there another rule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="b538782a-78c9-4fba-bde2-7c6ef863f3c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.827" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/195610/newtons-second-law is awesome. It gives the problem, what the OP did to solve it, and then it asks a conceptual question about something that didn't make sense to the OP. They got the answer correctly and the question shows a clear desire to learn more about the actual physics. This is the ideal we all look for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="b94599f0-0b62-4354-8108-17e9c6464334" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is an example--- the answer claims that a black hole which is less dense than water will not float in water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5888/how-can-super-massive-black-holes-have-a-lower-density-than-water/14309#comment-34649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="90209772-f82f-4216-a7fb-2e285d499906" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100236/which-component-shows-spin-squeezing-under-twisting-hamiltonian**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a contentious debate emerging about whether this question, currently at [revision 5](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/100236/5), should be open or not. Standard practice is to bring the discussion to meta, so here we are to discuss: is it right for revision 5 to be on hold or not, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify: I think there's agreement that the question should be on hold according to the current homework policy. Here we should address whether whatever new policy we come up with should also put such questions on hold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7341" RevisionGUID="02e58003-fb9c-4718-a49d-89f90a5fcbf3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; If you are an experienced Stack Exchange network user with 200 or more reputation on at least one site, you will receive a starting +100 reputation bonus to get you past basic new user restrictions. This will happen automatically on all current Stack Exchange sites where you have an account, and on any other Stack Exchange sites at the time you log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- from [What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation) in Help Center " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="671d1c25-be24-4720-a609-e1cefda49efd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For reference, the meanings I've been using so far are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:books] is for questions asking &quot;What is a good book about X?&quot; or more generally, &quot;What should I read to learn about X?&quot;, typically where there is not a single authoritative reference. These sorts of questions have multiple answers and will acquire new answers as more books/papers are written on the subject, so they are almost universally community wiki material. Examples include anything listed at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:reference-request] is basically for questions of the form &quot;What paper explains effect X?&quot; ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11637/water-droplet-evaporation-due-to-humidity-and-temperature)) or &quot;Where can I find the derivation of X?&quot; ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10549/how-to-derive-the-karman-howarth-monin-relation-for-anisotropic-turbulence)) or &quot;What is the original source for X?&quot; ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10184/atomic-mass-of-copper-63)), etc... basically any question which is looking for one particular paper, or a short list of papers (or books). A decent but imperfect guideline seems to be that for these questions, all or nearly all of the references that could be posted as possible answers already exist at the time of the question being asked; we don't expect a steady increase in the number of valid answers as time goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm **not** saying that this _should_ be the distinction between the two tags, but it is one possibility. I'm aware that these rules are not always completely clear, which might be a reason to reevaluate the meanings of these tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go with this, an interesting borderline example would be https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10098/1-form-formulation-of-quantized-electromagnetism; I'd be curious to know which of the two tags concerned people would apply to that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="02250804-2af5-4558-9829-20356cc39e1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will duplicate here (some of) the comments I left in the physics moderation chat room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think this goes right to the heart of &quot;Are there questions that are too simple?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;On Stack Overflow, Joel started us off with [the Logo turtle question][1] and the assertion that there are no such questions.&#xD;&#xA;But recently [Jeff disagreed][2], and there seems to be a multi-site consensus forming that &quot;no research, no effort&quot; may mark a question too simple to grace our august pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind I am leaning toward too simple as currently formulated. That said, we have entertained [some][3] questions [about][4] physics for which there is [sparse][5] experimental evidence or [theoretical support][6]. If this could be turned into a discussion of any actual claims or reports about anti-gravity experiments made in reputable (or even kinda-shady) venues, then I would not feel any need to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/19500#19500&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified-theories-of-gravity-credible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/superluminal-neutrinos&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1112/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="e9eab960-8b55-4164-b6f5-09acbd6689c6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why has my question, entitled [Automobile Air Bags][1], been closed?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This really leaves me baffled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked a conceptual question regarding the question above ,I've shown my efforts to understand it,I've shown what was the particular point in detail which gives me trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't written one only formula just to show that the question was regarding the structure it self of the question. But nothing, it has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this really disappointing as I find my self to have respected all the rules for asking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/226032/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="1b088341-7581-4806-ae2f-e7386c9c5ea6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="No -- they're not acceptable for the reasons covered in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-answer --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Provide context for links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A link to a potential solution is always welcome, but please add context around the link so your fellow users will have some idea what it is and why it’s there. Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to *follow* the link to get the core of the answer, that answer is ... really not a valid answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="76761bf0-7759-4c54-829a-33303f06e466" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="1) Very good initiative! First of all, titles should be _informative_ about the physics question. When a user reads the [frontpage](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) of Physics.SE, he (or she) should at least have a general idea what a question is about before clicking on it. Usually it is good to pose the title as a question, but ultimately it is more important that it is informative about the physics topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Moreover, avoid _abbreviations_ in the title. If an abbreviation is only explained in the question formulation, one still has to click it to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is not directly related to the opening post, but rather a couple of scattered thoughts on how to write questions (which someone in the future may write up as, say, an extended version of the [faq](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#howtoask) on _how to ask questions_ ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) In the question formulation, if you are reading a book, and there is something in that book you don't understand and you want to ask about, please give the _reference!_ In fact, in different areas of physics, notions can mean completely different things! By providing a reference, you ensure that the answers will be much more focused and useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) When linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page rather than the pdf file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) When linking preferably use perma-links if possible to prevent [link rot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="930211cb-a110-44f7-b0bb-8e5daa7e3c35" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/silicon-based-life was closed  for being off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possibly an astrobiology question, and was migrated from the old Astronomy.SE. In which case it is on topic by current rules. Probably. (we might want to have a more critical look into exactly which topics from Astro we have made on topic, as of now it's just the hard-to-verify &quot;what used to be on topic is on topic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was reopened by five people, due to the reason above. It was closed again due to it being broad, and possibly still off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do with this post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three points to be addressed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should astrobiology be on topic? To what extent?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the mentioned post count as acceptable astrobiology?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the mentioned post too broad? (this point is independent of the other two)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be clear as to what you're addressing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="75625d83-806b-4705-83f5-a3ae29618e21" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4066/energynumbers&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/339125.png&quot; width=&quot;208&quot; height=&quot;58&quot; alt=&quot;profile for EnergyNumbers on Physics.SE&quot; title=&quot;profile for EnergyNumbers on Physics.SE&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Ping me on human uses of non-food energy:   &#xD;&#xA;[tag:building-physics] [tag:climate-science] [tag:electricity] [tag:photovoltaics] [tag:power]  [tag:renewable-energy] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="14ac6063-44a7-4ede-a078-88721849db25" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is spam, it is written by a phony user, it is phrased in an obvious attempt to grab attention, using silly profane acronyms that you have to decipher, but it is asking a legitimate question, and there are interesting things to say about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10961/gdiwtfu-with-lattice-qcd-and-the-5th-dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be closed, or answered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar questions can be asked about obvious commercial spam (answered, in this case, and probably of interest, but clearly written by an advertizing department):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14502/plenoptic-camera-and-display&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="5c8cd6fb-17d8-493f-9601-5f44f451acbf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When voting for closing , the reasons one can check are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;duplicate, off topic, unclear, too broad, primarily opinion based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] though  is just too low level in physics and displays a lack of physics background and even if answered the person who asked would probably not understand the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might call the new choice &quot;OP needs  to read a basic physics course&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I answer such questions because usually some equally ignorant of basic physics  replies with irrelevant points, and it brings the level of the site down to a popular science one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109812/what-might-be-the-reason-that-more-dense-materials-are-better-at-shielding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="1d127d7c-b40c-404d-86d6-706bd8a854aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was thinking that user in Physics.SE or other SE sites should know the current status for their eligibility for a badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For eg. say the gold badge [Marshall][1], which has a silver counterpart [Deputy][2]. But as i don't know the my current status that after how many useful flags, I need more to get the badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can such a feature be enabled in SE sites? I believe such a thing will be able to push users further to achieve their target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="859d0d61-a797-4511-9aed-2d3b9353722a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good question. I have been struggling in asking recently. One reason is language. I just found a wiki article [&quot;Research question&quot;][1] about the issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There in &quot;Types and purposes&quot; is quite well defined &quot;how to ask&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is Creswell's (2009) example of a script for a **qualitative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research central question:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (How or what) **is the** _________ (&quot;story for&quot; for narrative research; &quot;meaning of&quot; the phenomenon for phenomenology; &quot;theory that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explains the process of&quot; for grounded theory; &quot;culture-sharing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pattern&quot; for ethnography; &quot;issue&quot; in the &quot;case&quot; for case study) **of**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (central phenomenon) **for** _________ (participants) **at** _________ (research site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is Creswell's (2009) **example of a script for a quantitative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; research question:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Does** _________ (name the theory) **explain the relationship between**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _________ (independent variable) **and** _________ (dependent variable)**, controlling for the effects of** _________ (control variable)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alternatively, a script for a quantitative null hypothesis might be as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **There is no significant difference between** _________ (the control and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; experimental groups on the independent variable) **on** _________&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (dependent variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I also studied the exact definitions for the terms, I present them here to help the other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Independet Variable][2]; Input, the &quot;X&quot; in Y = Xa   &#xD;&#xA;[Dependent variable][2]; Output, the &quot;Y&quot; in Y = Xa  &#xD;&#xA;Control variable; constant, the &quot;a&quot; in Y = Xa &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this site there is also forbidden questions. The Wikipedia has also a page for [Question.][3] And there was a quote from Buddha, where the questions were defined through the expected answers in four categories; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. There are questions that should be put aside. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular site seems to be only for the category 2 questions.  &#xD;&#xA;1. Being too narrow or simple ones.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Being discussion generating and opinion based.  &#xD;&#xA;4. Being &quot;please do me my (home)work?&quot; - questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this physics forum has a particular Problem in the questions, as the need for **defining or redefining the terms** builds unclear to the structure, which makes the moderation really challenging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed Change in &quot;how to ask&quot; might help to cope with this challenge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this post, is that I would found it helpful, if newcomers could immediately have such an clear example &quot;how to ask&quot; in the tour, or atleast this could be added on this help page;  https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_question#Types_and_purpose&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="d7bc4561-4626-45c2-8d59-25f1b097c9dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Variations of this request [have been made on the mother meta many times][1] (or I'd migrate this there because this request is not specific to physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hunt around on [the Data Explorer][2], you will find queries to report your progress on many badges, though I don't know if Deputy and Marshal are something that can be found that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Deputy and Marshal in particular, your [user profile][3] shows how many helpful flags you have made:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=badge%20progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4887/vineet-menon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DU5fW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="2d02e222-4261-4dd4-a857-321e094cbb90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. A direct link to the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) appears e.g. in the right margin on [the front page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/) of the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) can be [found](http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;sort=active&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) on [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. From _any_ page on the [physics main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) or the [physics meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/), single-click on the word 'StackExchange' in the upper left corner of the page. A menu should open. A click on the word 'chat' near the top of the menu brings you to [chat.stackexchange.com](http://chat.stackexchange.com/). Continue with item 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oG882.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="5a2c8fd5-0a96-4e8e-a075-dbbffacd7521" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You may have noticed some minor updates to site design this week, they are part of a SE network-wide update to a new base css framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updates allow us to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use SVG icons for retina display&#xD;&#xA;- Fix layout bugs&#xD;&#xA;- More easily add new features to all of our sites in the future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **But more importantly, it gives you access [to the new profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current)!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see any bugs please let us know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="cb02634b-abcf-486d-8bf4-600ffc077667" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday we had a question, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15017/probablistic-problems-in-physics, which I initially closed, but (as Ron pointed out) perhaps I shouldn't have. My reasoning was that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. these questions, or at least their answers, become out of date quickly as the problems are solved (as opposed to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems, student-level problems can't be all that difficult, so they don't last that long)&#xD;&#xA;2. we should at least keep these lists organized and limited in number, to make it clear that these aren't the kinds of questions we want dominating the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that if we allow questions about &quot;open problems in X&quot; for _any_ X it leads to a proliferation of questions, so there should be some limited set of topics that people can ask these questions about (kind of like how the [book recommendations](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) are organized by specific subject areas). Probability in physics seems unlikely to be one of those areas. We could have just one big list question for student-level problems in all areas, but it seems like that might be hard to search, especially for someone who has an idea of what area they want to work in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I wanted to get a few more people's input:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the fact that open problems won't be open all that long (my point #1) a reason to disallow &quot;open problems&quot; questions on the site?&#xD;&#xA;- Should we be controlling the number of them by limiting them to certain broad subfields of physics? Or is it just anything goes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="a1f4fa53-3c94-4631-86eb-9431cc18e367" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="An &quot;unupvote&quot; is the removal of an upvote, and consequently removes the rep gain associated with that vote. In my experience they are fairly rare. They are distinct from a down vote (though the effect on a question's score is essentially the same if you neglect that the voter had previously increased the questions score).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users are allow to cancel a vote during a brief window after casting it or after an intervening edit. The user may have changed their mind becuase they read some other answers or didn't like a clarification in the comments or they may not have liked an edit that you (or someone else) made to your post after they initially voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When you reach 1000 rep you'll gain the ability to click on post scores and see a up/down breakdown as well as the net.][1] Under those conditions the difference is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="03d09ad3-476d-4fa6-b4c7-bbe797129420" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the wake of the migration from Astronomy, there are a couple of questions that may or may not be appropriate on this site, which I would like to get the community's feedback on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky#question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite#question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="dba07258-f146-4a47-80b1-5c0436dcabf4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, I answered a question, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610, which received as of now, 30 upvotes, and I am glad that the community found the answer helpful, and of above average quality. However, many of my other answers, in my opinion, have been much better in both content, length, style, approach, etc. Yet, those received a few votes, whilst the aforementioned a phenomenal 30!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, I ask, does anyone have any theories or input they'd like to share regarding what they think serial upvoted answers have that make them distinct from others? Or perhaps is it less deterministic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just puzzled as to how I got 30 votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** this is in no way a rant about other answers not receiving votes; I'm simply curious. Also, it's certainly not a complaint! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="5d0c6944-b80f-43d8-b16c-705a8cbe7ed2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="b1e07d8a-2cc0-4f2b-b85a-e5a0e587d21c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Presumably you are discussing [your answer][1] to [*How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has happened is that [you edited it so many times that it was automatically converted to a &quot;community wiki&quot; post][3]. Note the different format of the user-card at the bottom right of the post:![user card example][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the automatic conversion feature is to (1) prevent the original poster for benefiting from a post that has been extensively edited by others and to discourage frivolous edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to de-wiki this one for you, but this is not something that you should count on happening again in the future. It is generally recommended that you work on your posts offline so that you will only make a few edits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46210/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46189/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msEif.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="97d4d7b6-e9e8-4257-880f-b1339bb7d992" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Once edited, questions that are `on-hold` are put into the [Review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) for reopening. It takes 5 people with reputation greater than 3,000 to accept a re-open. You can find more information [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your question *still* asks us to check your work for you, which is [not something we do here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). It could be that *because* of this styled question, no one seems to want to re-open your question (as you have zero re-open nominations on your question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="0f32e2a0-3518-4bb8-b098-56007a6c8dcc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Users will not be disciplined for activities off-site. As David said,  `Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the authorities on that site.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is nothing wrong with bringing it to our notice, as long as it is done _privately_ (custom flag a post of theirs or use [this form][1]). Bringing it up on meta will cause unnecessary drama, and may be considered as a personal attack; an attempt to shame the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issues between two users on other sites may have repercussions here, so bringing it to our notice lets us investigate the situation on this side of the fence (look for revenge voting, offensive comments, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While bringing it to our notice, you need not even mention the site where you saw the user abusing the others, it's better if you just mention which two users are being talked about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Off-site activities alone do not merit any punishment, but you should bring them to our notice privately so we can investigate it on this site.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="c7db4a23-d20d-4e70-b828-76902373d54c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every now and again we get good questions in the new theoretical physics site, which are nevertheless not part of our mandate. Those are questions that are not directly research-related, perhaps they are related to standard textbook material, or popular science articles or books, or something else which I feel (as a moderator) are outside the scope of our site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I judge a question to be interesting and well-formed, but otherwise inappropriate, I'd like to be able to direct it to this site, and hope it will be treated well. I've done that once thus far, with this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16149/what-are-some-predictions-from-string-theory-that-say-some-crystalline-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which received no answers and one strange comment, but it is only a sample of one so far. Apparently, when I direct questions here they appear immediately, without the local moderator input. Therefore, before I continue to add to this site potentially large amount of unwanted material, I'd like some feedback from this community whether directing questions here in the future is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="bea7e965-860a-4b7d-9445-bcddb823b695" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238159/are-derivations-of-physical-laws-less-important-than-the-laws-themselves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is attracting a lot of attention, but there is a significant disagreement about whether it's on topic. I want to bring it up here to give the issue more exposure. I don't think I can give any summary that would be an acceptable substitute for reading it, so go read [the question](//physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238159/are-derivations-of-physical-laws-less-important-than-the-laws-themselves), and consider this: should it be on topic? Why or why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary question: if it is on topic, what tags should it have? (other than [tag:soft-question])" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="de3f8abc-8c10-4a88-98b0-c85fc11bb82e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Our good friend [Community ♦][1] bumps old posts that are &quot;unanswered&quot;. An &quot;answered&quot; post is one that has at lease one answer with at least one upvote (or accept)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739/178438 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="2d85163a-33eb-4eac-8866-e1394515126a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I did something very like this in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109776/how-long-would-it-take-me-to-travel-to-a-distant-star&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking how to calculate the travel time to a star could be a homework problem - I bet it's been set as course work many times. However in this case the emphasis is on understanding the physics involved rather than just giving an answer. If you were thinking of something along these lines then I'd say give it a go. You can always delete your question and answer if it's not well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="2a319e7d-934e-44ed-a364-df067c151a43" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just came across this post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon and think it would make a great science fair project for elementary and middle school students.  Are there other physics stackexchange questions that would serve a similar purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(also, I think this fits under meta since it is discussing questions but not physics directly, but I admit I don't know if it is really appropriate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="5f631ac1-74da-4ba0-9056-0415f7ad13b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, [three new badges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges) have been introduced here - Curious, Inquisitive and Socratic, which are intended to appreciate asking good questions. (Good is interpreted in terms of how well received the question is, which though debatable, still should work well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the significance of the clause ''on separate days'' in the defining statement? Why are we discouraging people from asking two good questions on a single day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="8c7bcf37-3b2b-4136-bccc-13ce92a75762" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Excellent question and I think the downvotes speak volumes. I see several issues here. One is that sometimes, posters either do not or cannot discern when the question they have asked has been answered. Here is a superb example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56014/parallel-circuits-overall-resistance-decreases-with-additional-resistor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster accepted an &quot;answer&quot; that did nothing more than restate the question in mathematical terms. There is at least one other really correct answer but no other was marked as accepted. (Disclaimer: I know one of the other answerers VERY well. LOL)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly suspect that one (of many) reason for this is that users see reputation as the end all to authority. It isn't, but I've seen other examples of people saying things that while not technically wrong, are misleading and yet those answers are selected as the correct ones while other, more enlightening answers, are sometimes even downvoted. These people collect more reputation, and the cycle repeats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem here I've seen is that certain questions are closed as being off topic except when a moderator chooses to declare it on topic even if it's off topic. One supposed reason is that the closed question is &quot;likely to solicit debate.&quot; Well, if that's true then most EVERY question must be closed for the very same reason. Correct answers do exist, you know. Every answer that isn't identical to someone (everyone?) else's must be considered a matter of &quot;debate&quot; and therefore the question MUST be closed. Silly? Yep. It speaks great volumes when &quot;experts&quot; can't agree on trivially simple answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem I see here is that too many students have the say so on what gets closed. That shouldn't happen. Students are....students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying very hard to like this site but there are too many inconsistencies in how it works for me to completely trust it or to recommend it to anyone else, especially my own students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="4f7b66fd-2982-4089-83e8-7cffc071ff7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to have become de facto policy that questions about fictional physics are off topic, unless they're sufficiently precisely written. I recently realized that wasn't mentioned in our [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions) so I added the following blurb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Questions about physics of fictional worlds&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;&quot;Could warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Most questions about fictional physics are not addressed by existing theories or experiments, so we do not have the ability to answer them by applying physical laws. If your question falls under this category, it may be on topic at &lt;a href=&quot;http://scifi.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Science Fiction &amp;amp; Fantasy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Exception:&lt;/i&gt; if a question is formulated specifically enough in terms of modifications to existing theories, it may be okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we keep this, delete it, rewrite it, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="6094403f-15ec-4426-b64d-a6ef501c5ca1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="in this question I asked a specific concept and I have shown all my works and efforts behind it even though it was closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to know where am I going wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and more over i think that i am just asking a mathematical concept that which step would the particle hit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so according to this post on meta.physics.stackexchange.com &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ask about the specific concept that gives you trouble&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to show your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time going over ground that you have already covered or understand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128223/getting-two-different-answers-for-the-same-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="f32dc1d2-6ba8-4673-a575-e3cae48298ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As David says, there are only 4 things to keep in mind: your answer isn't *offensive*, isn't a spam, it's answering the question, it is of very good quality. (Well, *flagging an answer* states only 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as QMech says, you can always revert your post to a CW if you want so that your reputation (*score*) may not be affected in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rule that says, you **should** delete your answer. It's your wish, unless you're raged by a bunch of guys always against you (happens around SO everyday). You're saying that the comments are useful. So, you've got your point. *Don't delete it* if you don't want to. After all, it's worth a rep. score equivalent to a single answer. You can get it in the future, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, There are a lot of users who've got [more downvotes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=439&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ano%20score%3a-10) than you, and some users were lucky that their answer was [accepted](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=172&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20isaccepted%3ayes%20score%3a-10). While on the other hand, **there are** users who've deleted their 10+ voted answers when they got **shot** by an investigation on [their cat art](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83955/plagiarism-should-be-addressed-specifically-in-the-faq/134715#134715). Some mods should've seen a lot of voted answers deleted by this...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** I've deleted many of my answers, due to these downvotes. In fact, I got raged by a guy *once* and when he's gone, I got all my score back. But now, I can't search where my deleted answers are. The reason I deleted my answers, I didn't want a guy to search my profile and downvote my *downvoted* post. But now, I don't delete my answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="904e2f44-9cb7-4fcb-bc14-57fb4e851b29" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked this question on Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242499/is-there-an-underlying-physical-reason-why-the-coriolis-force-is-similar-to-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I didn't accept any of the answers, I can't find it in the unanswered questions list. Is there a possible reason why this is happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I should clarify I'm totally new here, so please excuse me if I'm missing something)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="86559f40-a56f-4b7b-9063-2923313e97ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="How can it happen that I suddenly lose an upvote on this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19537/2751 (I had 3) together with 5 reputation points? Upon clicking &quot;reputation&quot; on my profile I see no downvotes or any other reason for this ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="d63535ff-b085-4427-9530-b80baed43a6f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them.  Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions.  Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user.   Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong.  This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243513/a-train-on-a-track-relativity-paradox/243688#243688&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers.  (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating.  The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating.  What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line).  I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls.  I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake.  Is there anything else I should be doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="14065115-807c-4b30-b266-72ba5bdc7a3c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I propose that that question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/4066  be closed and locked; and that we move the answers' contents to a tag wiki, after which the question should be deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="8e46a594-6cb3-414c-941e-a0b5bf6d6a6a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this][1] section of the FAQ the Mathjax code is missing the `$` symbols ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="a4f05c35-6d70-4f97-9677-3b7f28f7a8d1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed that the system user 'Community' bumps up un-accepted questions quite often. Now, the issue is that most of these questions have satisfactory answers, and the OP may even have indicated as in the comments that the question has been satisfactorily answered (example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19000/how-do-i-find-the-tension-in-additional-strings-in-this-problem). The OP just hasn't clicked the accept button (maybe it wasn't obvious to them?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions clutter up the main page and push new questions downwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose that moderators(or xyz rep users) be allowed to semi-accept an answer that is most probably correct, it just hasn't been accepted by an inactive OP. The semi accept shouldn't have a rep bonus, its only functionality is to stop Community from bumping. Maybe we can have a flag option for semi accept. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="cab15e03-d7c5-44b8-8a24-a75c5ea98889" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a newcomer, I'd like to give you my contribution to improve this wonderful site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *homework help* is the gold mine of such sites, you do not shows statistics, but the sites that do that show  that guests are 30-50 times more numerous than regular members and homework subforums take 80% of the views.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the discussion on this topic and I strongly *suggest that you do not exclude* homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you accept them you probably should improve the service.&#xD;&#xA;The system of putting questions 'on hold' is probably authomatic (at least I hope) as it is rather superficial and unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been myself the victim of such a mechanism (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129521/):&#xD;&#xA;my request to know **if there exists a formula** has been blocked. Since when **a formula** is considered 'homework'? And I did not even ask for it, but just to know **if** it existed.&#xD;&#xA;I have given the result of the problem and later offered to add any further explanation in order to unblock the question, but to no avail, and I was not even considered worthy of a reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'like also to call your attention to another question on hold (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129580/):&#xD;&#xA;here *Tesla* has done his homework, as far as I Know, in a flawless manner, has showed it and is asking for help because the received result is probably wrong.&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of blocking such a neat question?&#xD;&#xA;I was not allowed to comment as I had not yet 50 points, now I reached that benchmark and will leave a comment and reassure him.&#xD;&#xA;I thank you for your attention, and hope my remarks can be of any use to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Jim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to have a site for an élite of scholars you'd better drop the *Homework question* altogether, if you want to widen your audience and raise a new generation of physicists without driving out the scholars, you can have a separate forum for homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **you can't have it both ways**, that was the gist of my contribution.&#xD;&#xA;I was pointing out what probably escapes you from your perspective: that your current policy appears non-consistent, and probably is. I hope you get the following as a sincere attempt to help you and not as criticism (or *Cicero pro domo sua*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has done some impeccable homework, his result doesn't match and he calls for help:&#xD;&#xA;what is your response? you first let someone give him  a **wrong answer**/advice and then block the questions commenting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific **physics concept**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, was intrigued by this *(rather silly)* concept: he asked about *'average velocity in circular motion'* and did an excellent job. You do not think so?, fair enough, then be consistent: close/eliminate/**delete the useless question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can agree that keeping it *on hold* forever with a wrong answer attached, is not a wise decision, is a **botched-up compromise**, confuses, **misleads** less competent readers and does not leave a good impression. Can you let me give the **correct answer**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably I'll be showered again with down-votes, but I articulated and argumented my post, you give me the short-shift with a click. I felt it my duty to tell you what impression a student gets, and I promise will abstain in future, if you think I am a nuisance. &#xD;&#xA;Keep up the good work.!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="164a58fe-b046-416a-af81-87217bbe1d1f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Fixed][1]. In retrospect, I should have remembered that the Chem FAQ was copied from the Physics FAQ (by me!) when I fixed [this][2] and fixed it here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/11361/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/220/typo-in-the-faq-list#comment344_221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7626" RevisionGUID="396529b1-4847-45b1-b1e3-e34a9d9c8df0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not all &quot;Why X?&quot; questions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appearance of the word &quot;why?&quot; alone tells you nothing about a question. Let's go through your examples first to see explicitly what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question title [Itô or Stratonovich calculus: which one is more relevant from the point of view of physics?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/245692/50583) is badly chosen. The actual question seems to be: &quot;How do I decide when to use Itô and when to use Stratonovich calculus in physics?&quot;, but the title is what people first see (and based on which, I will admit, I first thought this was a primarily opinion-based question). The &quot;lots of disparaging comments&quot; are all from one user, that is hardly representative of any community viewpoint. I don't see why you would label this a &quot;why&quot; question at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The &quot;really deep question&quot; about [QCD bound states and fractional charges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/38137/50583) is well-received (9 upvotes, no downvotes), and has no answer in the Standard Model (the Rishon model in the other answer is currently not believed to be realized in nature, as far as I know). The answer that &quot;this is what we experimentally find, there is no deeper reason&quot; is a perfectly fine answer from the currently accepted viewpoint, I don't know what irks you about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [poorly received question about SU(4) symmetry](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246036/50583) was rightfully poorly received. It shows no awareness of how predictions of a SU(4) theory would differ from what we experimentally observe, and it is not clear what sort of &quot;why&quot; it asks for: &quot;Why&quot; is the SU(4) not part of the Standard Model? (Because we don't observe it, duh!) &quot;Why&quot; is an SU(4) not possible in QFT? (Meaningless question, as it is possible) The edit asks: *&quot;Can the Standard Model be extended in a straightfoward way to include an SU(4) gauge field?&quot;* which is a much better and more precise question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [question about spin-2](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14932/50583) is indeed a good one, and I would see it well-received &quot;even&quot; today. That is because it is *not* a vague &quot;Why don't we have spin-2?&quot; type of question, but it *specifically* asks about the reason one cannot construct consistent interacting QFTs with higher spin. It's a fine question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altogether, I dispute your claim that &quot;Why X?&quot; questions are poorly received. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is poorly received are &quot;Why X?&quot; questions that additionally happen to ask about nothing specific, or that seem non-sensical. For instance, &quot;Why is X not part of the Standard Model?&quot; always has the trivial answer &quot;because we don't observe what X predicts.&quot;, and is a boring question and should be poorly received. &quot;Why is there no consistent theory with X?&quot;, &quot;Is there an extension of the Standard Model with X?&quot; or &quot;Is X possible in &lt;your favourite not-QFT theory here&gt;?&quot; are perfectly fine questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="050217b3-ddf1-4c7b-a7a0-6d8912d9ebfc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#reputation says ''You can earn a maximum of 200 reputation per day.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just curiuos: does this mean no more than 200 in any 24h time window, or in a specific one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter case, it might be useful for strategically minded people to know when this time window begins and ends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="25f2f0e5-52ff-4d0d-acf4-c2c2dff78814" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [Reliable length scales in nature][1] has been received very poorly, for reasons I don't really understand.  In the help center, it is stated that questions concerning &quot;Experimental designs and results&quot; and &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are on topic.  I can reasonably interpret a question about how to make a ruler from objects in nature as falling under both of these headings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spirit of the question I asked was about how to make a measurement.  I suspect that if I had instead asked how to determine a length scale from, say, observations of astronomical objects, it would have been much better received.  (The question of length scales in astronomy is in fact very important for physics--see [the cosmic distance ladder][2].)  The differences I can identify between a question about astronomical objects and about terrestrial objects are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. We have sophisticated ways of measuring distances on earth that render length scales of nature unnecessary. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Plants and animals which provide reliable length scales are also within the purview of biology, and thus are not exclusively of interest to physicists.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why would you need to use natural objects for measuring things anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question to the stackexchange community is: For which of these reasons (or for what other reasons) was the question dismissed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My responses to the above points are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Not everyone has access to laser range finders all the time.  It is still of interest to be able to measure things in a primitive way.  (This is also why &quot;back of the envelope physics&quot; is still an important skill.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Science is not mutually exclusive. &#xD;&#xA; 3. See response 1.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by the way, there are good answers (in my opinion) to the question in question.  E.g. atmospheric pressure and a lake can furnish a length scale: You could fill up an airtight bag and sink it into water until its volume was half what it was at the surface.  The depth of the bag is then 33 feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/248310/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="a34b17e7-41e1-4313-926d-edf2ee347090" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The CW scheme is just when you want other users to help in revision of your post. *Not for formatting,etc.* which is already done by the fellow users - but, for improving (additional information) of your post which shouldn't be normally done by fellow users. They can edit the post for clarification. But, they can't change the post by adding additional info. There's also this historical lock (which a mod can put on a post) for the prevention of edit wars...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The influences: When a post goes beyond 10 edits, it's automatically reverted to a CW. When the post is marked by CW, additional (+) or (-) votes doesn't influence *your* precious reputation. Be sure to check out the [**-1**'d user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)..! Well, he's **the** -1 in every site. He owns the CWs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;If you've got some time, consider reading https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/11740/205334 and https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/55888/205334 which are themselves CWs..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="6f22de33-f407-495b-8ff4-23ffbc66cead" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is probably answered somewhere, so apologies for my weak search-fu...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can a question have two tags that are synonyms? Shouldn't the synonym instead appear as its &quot;parent&quot; tag? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89380/calculus-used-by-gauss-to-find-ceres-position, [astronomy] and [observational-astronomy] both appear, even though [observational-astronomy] is a synonym of [astronomy]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="776ec0ad-7d9e-4470-bff6-070cb4659295" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just wondering: what is the longest answer ever given in physics.stackexchange.com ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible candidate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy/6439#6439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7721" RevisionGUID="ba027e90-887d-414e-a6f7-217ef2587a78" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Downvotes send a very clear message: this is not the kind of post we want on the site. (If downvotes outnumber upvotes that suggests the opinion is not that of one grumpy curmudgeon but is perhaps a consensus; if not then the user comes out ahead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For answers that means posts that are wrong, muddled, head off on a tangent unrelated to the questions or are just difficult to read and understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions that means things that are not physics, that presume off-the-mainstream theories, that ask us to do someone's homework, that constitute the eleventy first duplicate of something that *everybody* asks (search first, seriously) or that demonstrate that the asker would rather we spend our time typing than they spend theirs reading, say, the wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We *certainly* don't have some obligation to answer—or even welcome—every question. Sorry, but that's the truth: this site isn't answerable to every vaguely curious person on the internet. It's like [the tour][1] says: *&quot;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&quot;* It doesn't say anything about being for every internet user who has heard something about gravitational waves being observed; suddenly noticed that time dilation is weird; or read some book by a pop-sci celebrity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less the site is actually pretty welcoming to rank beginners if they take the time to understand how things are done here. If they learn to frame those basic questions in terms of concepts rather than problems and to focus on the part of the Wikipedia article they're tripping on with an awareness of what other paragraphs say. In other words, if they starting learning to ask questions like a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="96e7a6e8-ac29-4e24-b886-3733e64947a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="See also: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105391/why-does-flag-marking-as-helpful-declined-not-always-correlate-with-moderator-ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when the moderator sees a flag and has to think for a while over the flag, reading the post carefully (i.e., the action that should be taken is not immediately obvious), the flag gets marked as &quot;helpful&quot;, even if the post doesn't get closed/deleted. &quot;Helpful&quot; means &quot;While it may not have applied for this post, don't stop flagging posts for similar reasons&quot;. After all, each post is different, and we don't want to discourage you from flagging a similr post (where the flag may be valid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides this, IIRC a close flag gets marked as helpful on the first close vote a post receives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your specific flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29328/total-number-of-dimension-in-universe: While popular science-y, this is neither unclear nor off topic IMO. However, similar questions may tend to be of the same type.&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66109/in-what-order-should-unit-symbols-appear This isn't off topic, questions about standards are OK here _as long as they aren't too localized_&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55440/could-all-strings-be-one-single-string-which-weaves-the-fabric-of-the-universe#question In my opinion, this probably can be closed as non-mainstream since it effectively proposes a theory and asks for evaluation. However, I'll let the handling moderator deal with this.&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/could-life-survive-a-pole-shift-caused-by-an-asteroid-collision Your flag here was marked as &quot;helpful&quot; by [Community ♦](http://physics.stackexchang.com/users/-1), so it got [voted to close][1] by a few users (the votes have now expired). I personally would have declined the flag: While the question does talk of a possibly crackpot theory, it is asking for evaluation of one point within the theory, and it's to a sufficient degree physical. (Of course, it would have helped if he replaced &quot;all life&quot; with &quot;most life&quot;, but that is clear from the context)&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is You seemed to want it deleted, not just closed. There's no reason to do that; downvoted closed posts get auto-deleted anyway, and there' no particular need to wipe such posts off Physics.SE (they don't show up on the main page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/17508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="f594a20d-52d2-4285-89d6-178dc93c84f2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="4ae7f8e4-2d8b-48ba-9592-9441723dc5ab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[I just posed a question in causal set notation][1] (in general relativity), referencing papers 50 years old and 5 years old, seeking to know whether notation has changed or usage is a matter of personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been put on hold as being &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what I want to know is the *fact* of whether it is a matter of opinion or whether there is some authority or consensus for one form or another; I am writing a paper intended for submission and need to be correct in my notation if I am to avoid avoidable referee objections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also can't see how to discuss this with the admin who put it on hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are such questions to be managed when, as in this case, the asker acknowledges that the answer may involve discussion of matters of opinion but is not seeking opinions about opinions (if they are such) but facts about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Getting rather more meta than I would like, but I can't see how to avoid it!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253515/causal-set-notation-round-brackets-vs-square-brackets?noredirect=1#comment559239_253515)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253515/causal-set-notation-round-brackets-vs-square-brackets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="f94024ee-c36c-441b-a9ac-94a240e8cb08" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Below follows the explicit case that spurred this meta question in the first place.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot access my account because I forgot my username, can you send me the email on my profile that is not public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted stack exchange several times because I had to make a duplicate account and I want to merge them. I have not still received any response after abunch of emails acros about a week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mt problem is that when I created my google account I misspelled it. I do remember the password, but not the username, and gogle doesnt help because I do not have an alternative email phone. &#xD;&#xA;The two accounts are for users: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65081/wolphram-jonny, for which I have no longer access, and https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/65396/wolprhram-jonny, for which I do have login access. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at the history after the second account was created all activity from the first account stopped. Plus tte similarities in the answers and other caracteristics pose no doubt I am the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there any way to bring this to the attention of some moderator that can help me? I onlt need to know the mispelled username that is private in my profile. Once I have access to both account I will be able to ask for a standard merge, which require a confirmation email sent to both accounts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;The problem has been fixed now, thanks a lot!!!!! (the problem was apparently a backlog due to the holidays weekend)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="a7045e92-393f-4f77-a599-1584e3026b9c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Can you deduce absolute motion through magnetism][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I loved above question. All my doubts at one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is it too broad?&#xD;&#xA;It seems to ask a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/252869/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6319" RevisionGUID="3b25d5a1-c50b-4406-9a97-c16bf649d47b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="(I work for Stack Exchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just [contact us directly](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact) to handle this. Fixing it requires us asking you for additional information that needs to be given privately, so it's best handled via email. Give us up to 24 hours to take care of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="5cf59775-8a47-47ba-a770-0394679af601" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A little while ago I answered this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66599/what-is-the-suns-spectral-series/66604#66604.  For whatever reason (I'm not exactly sure), I went well outside what was expected in answering it; I provided a lot of un-asked-for information. Personally, I'm quite proud of myself for the level of detail I put into it. However, I now feel that this answer would be better suited for a question that more directly asks for that information. I considered modifying the current question to better suit my answer, but that would change the essence of the question too much if you ask me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I want to know is if I can ask my own question that is tailored to this answer and can I (with some minor tweaks) re-post this answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to do this, would my question just be flagged as a duplicate? I fully intend to make a different enough question, but the answer would be more or less the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a win-win scenario here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="4724dd8a-5ee2-4e86-9ae9-56cd3e51fdd7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You stumbled on the unfortunate fact that our [notation help page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation) did not include the word &quot;TeX&quot;. It did include both &quot;LaTeX&quot; and &quot;MathJax&quot; so searching for either of those would have found it. Anyway, I've fixed that by expanding the help page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="bdccb275-633e-41f9-a611-f5d2b1920736" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think there is ambiguity stemming from that [linked post][1]. It could be interpreted as asserting that **all** questions here should fall into exactly one of three categories: [tag:research-level], [tag:popular-science], and [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation however is that this is not the case. There are non-homework questions that seek technical answers (rather than &quot;please explain the universe without math&quot;) but could be answered by just about any practicing physicist who puts some thought into it, and thus are not restricted to those with advanced knowledge in one specific subfield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the two questions I have asked on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; fall into this category. They *should not* be tagged with any of those three tags (and I will rollback any edits that attempt to do so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the benefit of allowing different coarseness of filtering. You can choose to *only* look at [tag:research-level], or you could choose to simply block [tag:popular-science] and [tag:homework] so that you see both domain-specific and generic, not-too-simple physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion:** Feel free to use [tag:research-level] if you want to restrict answers to the level you would get if you asked the question of a specialist in the field. You yourself don't need to be publishing papers on the topic. After all, this sort of tag is more for the level of answers you want than the level of the question. (If the question were at the very cutting edge of research, why then by definition *no one* would have an answer, and moreover anyone with the answer would publish a paper before posting to this site.) If you don't use the tag, no one is forcing your question to be relegated to popular science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [Neutrinos vs. Photons: Who wins the race across the galaxy?][2] and [Mars just collided with Earth! A question of eccentricity][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4449&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68306/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="253c70f1-12d9-47df-88b0-1ae7bb3687ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's [my question][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, my other question is about verification of a phenomenon and a value (1 solar mass). This question is about theory of possible transfer of energy in gravitational waves back to more familiar forms of energy, or matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why do I have to explain why the answerless, different question is not the answer to my question that has a good answer?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While handing duplicate questions is important, I think doing it recklessly causes undue duress to those really trying to learn how to ask a good question here. Was this duplicate marking though out? Is it justified, or is it more of a &quot;drive-by&quot; in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my linked question - where I'm supposed to find the answer, instead of the [good answer here][2] citing Feynman thoughts on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lppwk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/262947/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lpsML.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="98f84de2-7a54-408b-a4fe-9c9511afa325" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am an experimental physicist (**not** an engineer) and a Physics teacher.  More often than not, I am denigrated for this in real life, as one theoretical physicist stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Experimental, and especially physics teachers are the lowest on the research totem pole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rubbish, utter rubbish, insulting and says more about the one said it than his target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Experimental Physics = Theoretical Physics = Physics**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of background, I have a PhD in Physics (not Experimental Physics etc), and am published internationally. Due to circumstances currently beyond my control, I teach Physics to pay the bills, and my experiments use equipment that is often self made or borrowed, and are performed at a local lookout, or in the school science lab or on my kitchen bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing as grand as CERN, my research is based on what I can get from the hardware and electronics store and put together and calibrate with the borrowed 'standard' equipment.  It is often referred to as &quot;Backyard Physics&quot; - but is no less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To put it succinctly:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively make useful homemade tools for use in experimental 'backyard' physics, physics principles must be understood and applied as the major underlying principles for the functionality (and as I have found in publishing work, the validity) of the tool.  I fear that questions that are of this nature will just be closed as 'engineering' akin to 'toolmaking' - however, a question about the application of physics principles for an aspect of the tool's use is **not** engineering, but is applied physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in my question [Microtops sunphotometer sun target optics][1], I am clearly asking about the optics principles involved (applied physics) - not asking about how to build a sun target (engineering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155666/microtops-sunphotometer-sun-target-optics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="571166d3-4fb3-427c-a510-7feb3684b285" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm confused about the rationale behind closing list-based questions. The problem is that almost any question can be rephrased into a list question, and vice versa. Consider the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- List: where is technique X applied in physics?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: is technique X useful to physics?&#xD;&#xA;- List: when is the solution to equation X unique?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: does equation X always have a unique solution?&#xD;&#xA;- List: where does approximation X break down?&#xD;&#xA;- Non-list: what is the useful range of validity of approximation X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each of these pairs, the OP asks for the same information, but we chastise them if they happen to pick the first phrasing. It ends up looking like we're very touchy about a particular taboo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we either stop doing this, or start editing list questions into non-list form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I'm reviving this because of [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268852/is-there-an-example-where-filling-in-a-removable-discontinuity-produces-a-wron). The OP interacts with two high-level users. The first thinks it's obvious that _no_ examples exist. The other thinks it's obvious that so many examples exist that the question is list-based. This is completely unhelpful and makes it look like we collectively have no idea what we're talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="5671b066-35a6-4519-8e38-d1ce30b80349" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looks like the [tag:quantum-computing] questions from TP&gt;SE made their way out here by accident (I think they were supposed to be hand-flagged and migrated which may not have worked out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't know much about this topic, so I dunno which of them ought to be migrated. Also, we may want to consider migrating the non-TP questions in [tag:quantum-computing] while we're at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Looks like there are [tag:quantum-information] questions as well. SInce there are 33-is QI questions migrated from TP, I used jQuery on the migrated questions list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    s=&quot;&quot;;$('pre')&#xD;&#xA;      .contents()&#xD;&#xA;      .filter(function() {&#xD;&#xA;        return this.nodeType == Node.TEXT_NODE;&#xD;&#xA;      }).filter(function(){return !!this.data.match(/(quantum-computing)|(quantum-info)/ig)}).prev().each(function(){s+=this.href+&quot;\n\n&quot;;});&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods, here's the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27077/many-body-quantum-states-analyzed-as-probabilistic-sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27423/matlab-package-graphical-calculus-for-quantum-operations-esp-linear-optics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27094/spatial-and-polarizing-beam-splitters-in-a-graphical-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/quantum-computing-and-quantum-control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27272/stabilizer-formalism-for-symmetric-spin-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27080/direct-sum-of-anyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27533/rigorous-security-proof-for-wiesners-quantum-money &lt;/s&gt; [MIGRATED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27770/a-resource-theory-of-quantum-discord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26975/what-is-the-holevo-schumacher-westmoreland-capacity-of-a-pauli-channel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/explicit-construction-for-unitary-extensions-of-cptp-maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27043/state-of-matrix-product-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27241/what-shannon-channel-capacity-bound-is-associated-to-two-coupled-spins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27673/allowed-states-vis-a-vis-allowed-dynamics-in-generalized-probabilistic-theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form &lt;/s&gt; [MIGRATED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons &lt;/s&gt; [MERGED]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="f247d8dd-99cd-418c-a716-91f9b38e29ab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question [Thus, what mediates the electric interaction between two particles][1] which in the question essentially asks: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QTF experts say that there are no virtual particles, they are just a calculation trick. So, ok, no particle mediates the electrostatic interaction, what mediates it then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was given as a duplicate the &quot;[deriving the coulomb force equation from the idea of photon exchange][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the reference I do not think that the OP will be wiser even though there is a clear derivation of the coulomb force from tree level, it does not address simply  the &quot;mediation&quot; question,  and is , imo, way over the level of the original  OP's background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It boils down on whether one wants layman or beginning physics questions here. It is not just the titles that should declare duplication, and I think that , as in this example, the people who jump on the &quot;duplicate&quot; choice have not really read the content of the one they propose in order  to check if it is on the physics background level of  the original questioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265593/thus-what-mediates-the-electric-interaction-between-two-electrons&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="85fe44fb-d5ba-4404-9049-f380a8057d1d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I do not know how I am supposed to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the help system,https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that , I am supposed to ask here to have my answer undeleted by vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an answer to question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69726/does-trade-affect-earths-rotation&#xD;&#xA;At the time I wrote the answer the page contained several humorous comment.&#xD;&#xA;Some have been deleted since.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This induced me to write my answer in kind, though it was actually a serious answer as it was suggesting the most efficient way (not yet given by others) to actually do what the question asked. It is possible that my humor was too cryptic, as it was not understood, as the answer was deleted as irrelevant. Not knowing the system I did not try to edit it (as the help mentions that only for self-deletion), and I tried to explain in comments the problem and the meaning of the answer to have it undeleted.  Without any success, when a final remark made me understand, after several hours, that I was supposed to edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did, and I do believe it is a sensible and useful answer: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69746/revisions. It was edited 15 hours ago, but nothing is happening. I understand that some users can vote on this. Can you help.   Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion: it should be said more clearly on the help page that a question is supposed to be edited before it can be undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="97154892-aaac-46c5-8421-fad15f60315a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you see a few comments engaged in a pointless discussion and try to flag them in a quick succession, you'll notice that the system will slow you down: you are compelled to **wait 5 seconds** before you can flag another comment. I imagine that it is not casual and suppose you agree that it is a wise precaution, to prevent anyone from carelessly flagging comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can easily verify that there is no restriction if you up/down vote questions or answers without even reading them (or if you vote to close a question). If this policy is not casual, it is contradictory and inexplicable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1) Can anyone explain why the software is structured in this manner?&#xD;&#xA;- 2) do you think this restricting policy should be extended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the purpose of this post is to draw your attention to another problem: **Careless serial voting in review tasks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been monitoring the review queues for a couple of weeks and here are some facts: when you complete a review &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the page goes blank for a [couple of] seconds (1s), when you click the *close* button ([1+]1 s) &#xD;&#xA;- you are offered a choice of 5 options ([1+1+]1 s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) If you click *duplicate* you are offered one [choice of many] similar question you must read in order to decide if it is a duplicate ([1+1+1+]3 = 6 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) If you click the *off-topic* button you are offered another choice of 5 options ([1+1+1+]1 = 4s) (and if you chose the *another site* button you are offered another choice (+1 = 5 sec)&#xD;&#xA;- then you have to click *vote to close* (+ 1 sec)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered excellent reflexes and eyesight and the shortest time possible, which is on average **7 seconds per question**, just for the mere concrete technical/manual operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have monitored the *close* review queue for a while and cast myself some 250 votes, and I have registered that quite often members vote several questions in the same minute (I imagine the recording log-system is accurate). Just to cite a recent example, 3 days ago (Jan 22) one member voted to [**close 7 questions in a row**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=2) in one minute or so, and [19h ago](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/34382/jamals?tab=activity&amp;sort=reviews&amp;page=1) cast up to **8** close-votes in a row: I couldn't check if also those were voted in one minute or so, but probably some of you can. You can also see there that over 95% of votes are close/leave closed votes, which is really a huge merciless percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, subtracting (7* 6/7 sec) 36/49 seconds to one (or even 2 minutes) we realize that it is not possible to read 7 questions with enough care to decide if it is unclear, duplicate or *off-topic*. All those reviews had one or more contrary votes and [in one case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/70764) the vote was by John Rennie. The issue becomes even more serious when a question is judged as **unclear**, because I have personally ascertained that over 50% of those questions are clear enough if you take the trouble to read them carefully for a few minutes or to correct the faulty grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161166/load-resistance-adding-with-minimized-power-and-voltage-constraint) is an eloquent example: even if you are an expert, it takes a few minutes to read it properly and control the equations. *BrandonEnright, ACuriousMind,JamaIS* were the first to [review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/71054) it and voted to *close it as it had not shown some effort*, *RobJeffries* was more careful and voted to *leave-open*, *Fibonatic* was conscientious, read the post carefully, checked the equations, found a mistake, signalled it to OP and rightfully concluded that the question should **not be closed**. An hour later *PranavHosnagadi* arrives, ignores Fibonatic's comment, hastily reads the post and determines its definitive closure. OP is comprehensibly disappointed and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The reason for this being put on hold isn't valid in my opinion. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believe I showed considerable effort, and I asked for a critique of my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approach and possible other approaches. –  Arturo Don Juan*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having one's question closed is always a humiliating/shocking experience for a newcomer, some are frustrated, some outraged, but very few know how to react or that they can post a question at Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I offered a sensible solution to a concrete problem in the past I have been showered with downvotes, this time I ask **you** a very simple question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3) Do you think we are being nice/fair to newcomers? &#xD;&#xA;- 4) do you think we should do something to be more considerate and respectful to students, and at least try to prevent careless, irresponsible *voting to close*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**over 5 700** questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=15&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) have been closed, and over 750 of them have more than 2 upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is one member that has cast [over **4200**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) votes only in the *close* queue (over 10,000 in total), if he had taken an average of 5 mins to examine and assess posts in a scrupulous manner he should have spent some 350 hours. (850 in total, which makes over 100 days working 9 to 5 without a coffee-break)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="2015935f-0a9f-43bd-bd1f-fbfe34f8fe61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I do not understand why &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264708/special-relativity-problem-whats-wrong-here&quot;&gt;this elementary question&lt;/a&gt; was closed.  The official reason calls it a &quot;homework-like question&quot; and asks the poster to &quot;show some effort&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue about whether this is homework-like (though it seems clear to me that this is not an assigned problem, but rather something the poster stumbled upon while, quite admirably, attempting to invent and work out an illustrative example).  But surely it shows an appropriate level of effort.  The OP used the relativistic momentum formula (not the Newtonian formula as alleged in a comment) to compute momentum in an unambiguously defined frame before and after an explosion, came up with different numbers, is disturbed that momentum appears not to be conserved, and wants to know what's wrong here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the OP did all the relevant calculations, what additional effort was expected of him?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="7107f89b-2c42-42a2-8779-859f19b8f10c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I couldn't help noticing that hosting homework questions from textbooks borders on copyright infringement. Especially when [pictures of diagrams are used][1]. Is/should there be a policy promoting citing the textbook of origin, Chapter/section and question number? This might make it easier for others searching the internet for other problems in the same book as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46805/rotational-dynamics-problem-rod-slipping-against-block?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="0ae07037-93cd-4fe3-b3a0-e40574f646f3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="David Zaslavsky is at it again: he has moved the (short) comment discussion here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28174/are-gravitomagnetic-monopoles-hypothesized/28199#comment62829_28199 which he called &quot;inappropriate&quot;. I thought he deleted them, but he moved them to chat here: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3410/discussion-between-mark-beadles-and-ron-maimon .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the comments say that a (completely wrong) answer is completely wrong, and are important, so that people will know why the answer is wrong, so it won't get upvoted more than it is, and so that it will get fixed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to be reverse-agist, but you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power. They are no good at this, as they lack maturity and are rule-oriented. Please make _old people_ diamonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also lack judgement and maturity, but at least I don't have any power. Also can some other diamond restore the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### EDIT: I got this message from David&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing in reference to your Physics - Stack Exchange account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've noticed that you have a pattern of engaging in lengthy discussions in comments, frequently consisting of responses involving multiple, back-to-back posts. Comments are intended as brief messages to provide feedback or ask for clarification on the content of the post. Lengthy clarifications should be edited into the post itself or posted separately as a new question or answer, and extended discussions should be taken to chat. Extensive comment threads tend to be a distraction for other readers. These lengthy discussions are often hard to follow, and can easily hide critical information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preferring to argue with other users in comments over revising your questions and answers to address their concerns is a red flag to moderators, indicating you may not fully understand the purpose of Stack Exchange: our goal is to provide readers with expert questions and answers, not host discussion or debate. If you desire conversation, stop into the site's chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope that you can work with the community on achieving our goals by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking specific, researched, relevant, on-topic questions&#xD;&#xA;Providing clear, useful, accurate and well-researched information in answers&#xD;&#xA;Treating others with respect and civility&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;David Zaslavsky&#xD;&#xA;Physics - Stack Exchange moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="87fd4bfc-6070-429c-b7d1-24fca09c411f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The edit in question][1]. Fixing 3 different spelling mistakes and added some italics to make the post a bit easier to read and tried to clean up where the author was using quotation marks to refer to &quot;see&quot; as a word and where he used them to put special emphasis on the word (might have gotten one wrong after a second close reading, but I doubt that's the reason it got rejected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The only reason I think of is both reviewers being from the USA and thus not being aware of the fact that 1) the user used UK spelling more often in his post than US spelling 2) metre being the spelling used outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/75420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="5bd1651b-fe50-4ad1-88a7-280091462b1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are over 6,500 questions with [no answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=noanswers) here, and over 8,000 practically unanswered. I tried one, but I have seen that nobody even takes a look at old questions. Do you know why? How does the date influence the usefulness of a question/answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have an interest that most questions be properly answered, here? Why should one waste time answering an old question if he knows that, if he is lucky, he will get one vote and is sure that, even if his answer is right, he has no chance of seeing it accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At other sites questions with no accept are awarded by the community, when the OP can't be bothered to accept an answer other members decide the accept. Old-question OP's here are usually long inactive, do you know why isn't that policy followed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had prepared some data, but I realized that probably you are right, I am in the wrong site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8917" RevisionGUID="7c0e6fc9-4308-4c28-a3ef-cecb2ca08d5f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The subject of [tag:regularization] is on-topic if adequately put in a physics context. For some well-received examples of this, see e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3096&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26877 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57965&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73403&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/92411&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="aa32902e-070a-4d70-9f8b-18892cb5073d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd really like to fix a typo in this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/30433/2963&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for some reason only the 'link' and 'flag' options are visible to me (no 'edit' or 'retag'). I've looked around the SO faq a bit, but nothing jumped out at me as to why this is the case, can anyone explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="bfc7e571-9a0e-431d-8bae-0c4e0fdb18ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just take a look at the stats page of each of the [review pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) (or my 4 [Steward badges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward?userid=25301)) and my [Marshal badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/82/marshal?userid=25301) and you can see *how* I spend most of my time on Physics.SE (which is also a subtle hint for those with 2k+ rep to start reviewing what you can &amp; those with 3k+ rep to start reviewing the close queue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually spend about 20-30 minutes in the morning (while cooking breakfast &amp; drinking coffee) on the [(Android) mobile app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stackexchange.marvin&amp;hl=en) looking at questions that were posted (trying to manually review, since there isn't a review page on the app) and voting up/down as I see fit. I typically spend another hour or so in the afternoon (during the kids' nap time) and at night (after the kids' bed time) reviewing and answering/commenting what I can. All tolled, that's between **2 and 3 hours per day** and less on weekends that I actually spend time doing things on the site.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like John, if I find a question that interests me I'll think about the answer for a bit (usually while reviewing and doing daily duties) and spend at least 20 minutes writing one up (usually longer if I need to find links or if the wife and/or kids need attention)--this number is subtracted from the time spent on reviews, so the net 2-3 hours is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The numbers quoted here are for my *active* time on Physics; the tab is open in the background in my browser always, so once the computer is un-suspended (re-animated?) I'm technically &quot;on.&quot; In this case, the number is probably closer to 6 hours a day (and longer when I was still a student working 10 hours days).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="6d088601-59d0-4b18-bb00-735afb947821" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a significant overlap between physics and chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest that questions tagged &quot;chemistry&quot; on physics.se be displayed and editable on both chemistry.se and physics.se. The reverse would also be beneficial: questions on chemistry.se tagged physics could appear here as well as there and be editable by both communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question immediately arises, should we collaborate on other tags? I would suggest that only tags involving the word chemistry  or physics respectively should be cross-communal projects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a question on SO meta: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration which points out how it is mostly the sciences that would benefit from this feature. I guess that means it is &quot;too specific,&quot; since we are relatively small. Democracy baby!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/explanation-of-thermite-vs-ice-explosion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="9f1dcb6f-11d2-43b0-b063-c44a4cd26855" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question is, whether one should downvote a question just because he doesn't understand it or he finds the O.P's formatting or editing as poor. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I will like to reason something with my example.The place I live is 80% natural environment. Only recently there has been a craze to use smartphones,and that only after 20s. I never worked so badly on Internet, forgot even the basics of HTML and don't have time to learn it for I have lots of other things to concentrate as I am a student. But I am having lots of questions and doubts in my mind. Formatting and [editing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268399/how-pressure-energy-term-is-equal-to-atmospheric-pressure-here/268403?) is my weak point especially when working with HTML. I am sure I will become an expert in future but currently my hands are cuffed and if I spend lots of time in these things I fear a dark future.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically came to this site to get answers to my question which are usually turned down in classrooms as being not specific to examinations which they call &quot;I am not doing smart work&quot;. But I can't help as I am not able to remember things without understanding it but I have limited time.I have great expectations from this site but I am blind over here. So being anxious and worried for posts being voted down for the above mentioned reason as I had mentioned in first paragraph has become another waste of time for me. Either you can tell me honestly to abandon this site if I am not compatible for it, or you may like to find some solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="796b3145-d6cc-49cb-9f8b-b3c0ae48ffc5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] was asked recently. @dmckee and I both noted that it might work on [chem.SE][2] as well as here. I then stared reading through the physical-chemistry tag, found a few questions, including [this one][1], which were (appropriately) closed as off topic. So I'm wondering, is there a good way to port these over there? I can't find a flag that I can use. Is there a good way to ping the user who asked the question? Is it acceptable for me to simply copy the question and ask it at Chem.SE if I understand it well enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24817/a-quick-method-for-separating-liquids&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31851/the-antibonding-orbital-with-shrinking-interatomic-distance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="335938a7-820a-42f5-8b46-8a261948e671" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's too much banging of people's heads againts brick walls that we know won't budge around here. There are network-wide policies in place about suspensions which are there for a reason and we should _not_ be asking for exceptional insider access for any particular one - any user of this site may well wind up thanking those policies, either from within a suspension or because of someone else's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that isn't to say that there is a community that cares about Ron Maimon's presence. Yes, he was very often curt, to say the least. But he did some great physics. And many of us appreciate the physics he did on this site. The deleted question is a testament to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just reached 10k rep today. I am offering a small testament to the great physics that Ron did [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41721/8563). It isn't much, but I've been bugged by the pure complaining for some time. Thanks for the great physics, Ron, and hopefully see you around here next year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="719eef8f-5353-4816-981d-134a478b5223" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For my experience with the stack exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I am seeing the warning banner that I will be blocked from asking anymore questions due to a recent downvote in response to my recent edit to a [(fortunately) now answered question][1] which I suspect my recent edit (changing the title) make my question become &quot;unreadable&quot; to the down voter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my records, since 2015, I have 3 questions (all being answered, either in the comments or as an actual answer, in the span of one month) in total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the above (Answered in a discussion which I then summarise the results)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. another pop science question that ask about dimensions due to a TEDxBoulder video (answered by a guy that pointed out my wrong premise and the correct meaning of dimensions in physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. and a question that ask about an evolutionary mechanism that applies to the universe (answered by John Rennie in the comments who referred me to a book that talked about related ideas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have either received down votes (-1 to -2) and/or closed by moderators (usually John Rennie, Kyle Kanos and David Z). Questions 2 and 3 were later deleted by the community due to how the SE system works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Put on hold as unclear what you're asking by (skipped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that suffer from these 3 questions is that, **the premise is either wrong or already found to be implicity violated some SE rules** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e.g. I am made aware that the multiverse is considered highly speculative to PSE (hence question closure attracting) only when question 3 was closed then deleted by SE, e.g. I don't know that the guy in that TEDxBoulder video that form my basis for question 2. is a crank and thus I should not have asked about the 'physics' of that video, which cause that question to be branded an &quot;off topic&quot; flag before being deleted by community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus even if they can be edited, they cannot be fixed because they are already broken from the start&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given obviously my level in physics is still not very steady, attempting to answer questions to prevent myself from getting question banned by PSE is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there anything I can do about this scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I do from now on, besides careful proofreading of my questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB There's actually a 4th question which I suspect will be of this type in the pipeline (something to do with interpreting the second law as wavefunction degeneracy using De Broglie relations as a premise), which fortunately thanks to ACuriousMind help clarified question 1 thus shooting down the premise needed to ask that question 4, it is prevented from being asked. Otherwise I think I will be in deep trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197655/why-the-nonexistence-of-a-one-sentence-layman-phrase-for-the-de-broglie-relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8948" RevisionGUID="2de07449-62b0-45a1-bf95-9e4c0612178c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You *should* care about formatting your posts to the point where they are easily legible by everyone, but for a different reason: it will make it easier for you to get answers, and it will improve the quality of the answers you do get. Why? because every second that a potential answerer spends being annoyed by poor formatting is one less second of them thinking about the physics, and one second closer to them deciding to simply leave the post aside and going to find another one. Having a question that is correctly formatted, easy to read, and which clearly conveys the heart of the question, is the number one fix to getting better answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question is formatted so badly that it takes a lot of effort to even begin to understand what it's saying, then some people can and do get annoyed enough that they'll downvote before leaving. This is allowed for the same reasons that there is no requirement for anyone to explain their posts, because it promotes uninhibited voting based on the usefulness of the question, and it helps clear, interesting, useful questions float to the top. A question with terrible formatting is less clear and less useful, so it is right that it does not get to the top.&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the post has minor formatting problems, a lot of times the response is simply for users to jump in and help with the formatting to help the 'real' question shine better; the cases where this doesn't happen are often because the post is so muddled that we can't even tell what the user means to ask in the first place. Want to see some examples? Take our [recent prolific editors](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Editors&amp;filter=quarter) and see their recent edits (profile &gt; activity &gt; all actions &gt; revisions). You'll find a lot of people jumping at posts that have issues and fixing them instead of downvoting them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, there are two very clear things you can do that will make your posts more readable by a very wide margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Adding a space after every punctuation. In English, all forms of punctuation used in text (`. , ! ? ) : ;`) are directly followed by whitespace. Skipping that whitespace (as in e.g.skipping the whitespace,like this) is visually very jarring, stops the visual flow, and takes attention away from your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Correct use of paragraph breaks. Paragraphs need to be of an appropriate length (roughly two to four sentences) and they need to be separated by a blank line in the source text to display correctly. Skipping this blank line produces paragraphs which are joined together (either as a single paragraph or as two immediately contiguous ones) which produce a 'wall of text' that's very hard to digest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an example of how this looks like when it is done incorrectly, consider the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   which renders as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Note that there are three white spaces after the end of the first paragraph, which cause the joined-but-malformed paragraphs. Instead, you need to introduce a blank line between paragraphs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;        This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong &#xD;&#xA;        and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   which renders as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;This is some sample text to display how wrong paragraphing can look wrong and detract from your answer, and how the fix is actually very simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and this is *miles* easier to read for most English speakers, particularly with longer paragraphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are easy to implement and they will visibly improve the quality of your posts; all you need is discipline in implementing them consistently. This might take some effort, but you need to accept that we *all* spend effort here to produce the best-crafted questions and answers that we can, and you need to match the effort you put into your questions to the effort you expect answerers to spend on their responses, both in terms of content and in terms of formatting and readability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="e00b564e-b50c-496e-b1eb-fe66ca43861c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is a question which is vaguely comprehending, but bordering on nonsense: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33082/is-the-chern-simons-integral-of-gauge-fields-over-black-hole-singularities-zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a total nonsense answer and mutual upvoting. Are Sprechen and les-trace independent accounts? This is a flag for mods, I don't need an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="d4e3842e-1214-4c67-858e-8ad65fbc2093" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My highest voted question on this site involves the skipping of rocks [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176108/equation-derivation-for-skipping-rocks). It sits at 11 up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second most up voted question actually has multiple candidates. However, in the spirit of fairness, I choose [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196315/how-was-this-one-probability-amplitude-derived-by-mattuck). It had a bounty, and was a question involving the derivation of a probability amplitude in QFT. It stands at 2 up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201348/is-stress-a-property-only-relevant-on-surfaces) candidate. It involves a more intuitive question about the stress tensor on a surface. It also has two up votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally prefer to get answers over up votes/comments. From my own experience on this site however, most of the attention given to answering questions goes to questions that involve little to no advanced mathematics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in my first question, a moderator informed me that it'd be best if I *hadn't* asked about the physical validity of the mathematical model I had constructed. After removing this from my question, I lost interest in having it answered on this site. This was because the question was no longer about the model *I* had guessed. It was now about why rocks skip across water, with an addendum showing my guess work. Still a good question, but not at all what I had intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my other examples, I ask inherently mathematical questions about physical processes. However, I receive little to no attention in these questions. For instance, in the QFT question, I had to place a bounty to get an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Point:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a site good for asking semi-technical questions about the mathematics involved behind physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm under the opinion that this is *not* the case. I believe that this site has a bias towards questions that can be answered *without* mathematics, and involve pictures and other diagrams in the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my premise is correct, how do we fix this? It seems odd to have a physics site where you can't directly discuss things such as the validity and improvement of physical model, i.e. the skipping rocks question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not correct, what should I change about how I ask questions, to get better answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note on meaning:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say that this site has a bias towards not using mathematics, I mean that questions and answers rarely make mathematical/logical arguments towards a solution. Instead, they will only reference mathematical properties and describe things in &quot;every-day&quot; language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="c3924661-6a9c-4152-b81b-97fbd258139c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77228/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is part of an active contest.  I don't know what the policy is for these cases but this person is trying to cheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  For those arguing allowing the questions for the intellectual reasons I should point out that after the contest is closed the solutions are made public by the exam authors.  So if this person asking the question was really sincere about learning they could just wait to see the results after the contest is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="22f9f952-313b-47ec-8b81-434c304c400a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] of mine merged with [this one][2] while the questions were pretty different with each other. And [this answer][3] of Gennaro Tedesco (before is edited by me, even after that!) is completely meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why **must** those questions be merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could explain clearly why those questions were merged if the moderator who merged the questions, wasn't deleting comments related to that answer of Gennaro Tedesco. But now, I cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to deleted comments and you can recover them, please help for clarification of this matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266771/why-does-the-clock-work-slowly-at-higher-speed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really/266773#266773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="18b75118-1ee7-407c-a924-1514651e7386" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One other thought is that, if it's essentially the same question as one already posted &amp; answered but at a higher level than what you want, then you can always [**offer a bounty**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) on the question with the specific request of a lower level answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="c7188b43-a2de-4bf8-8d13-f2209570e750" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I bet you have noticed that recent outburst of [metaphysics tagging][1] by Anixx. Unfortunately the tag lacks description. What does '[metaphysics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)' tag mean? Does it have the same meaning as '[metamathematics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics)'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I feel a bit uncomfortable about it, I want a clarification on its purposes and why do we need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/metaphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="e354a15c-5ef9-468a-8101-8287db4f7f82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Why do bosons and fermions exist?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212589/why-do-bosons-and-fermions-exist) (or, question A) is currently nominated to be closed as a duplicate of [Why must fermions be antisymmetric?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207459/why-must-fermions-be-antisymmetric) (question B). This seems fair at first glance, since the questions are quite similar and there's a reasonable answer at B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, question B is also closed.  If A is also closed, it won't be possible for normal mortals to add answers to either question.  Seems like a squicky way of avoiding answering a question at all, rather than a useful way to consolidate information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some guideline on closing one question as a duplicate of another question, which is also already closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="fc0967dc-b412-4bbb-988f-d9c937c2b809" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why doesn't this question about [Supernova remnants](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35528/particular-detail-about-supernovae-remnant) get a helpful answer even though the bounty is awarded..? Don't anyone like this? or Is it that due to &quot;The question is silly and waste of time&quot;..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="33aabc65-de77-4425-b2bc-19e899b7439d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There were two questions marked as duplicated of each other in the closed votes list today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/231495/why-doesnt-an-electrons-charge-rip-the-electron-apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268818/if-like-charges-repel-why-doesnt-a-charge-break-itself-apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is older but apparently got few attention. The second was posted today and attracted much more attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the policy to be followed in such cases? I mean, which question should be closed, the most popular or the most recent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="76ca4692-42f3-4d3a-a7ed-5348d4475d9c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) The Phys.SE question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/77228/ indeed seems to be question B2 of a [homework assignment](http://fks.sk/archiv/2013_14/29knizkaZima1.pdf) with due date 30.09.2013 from the [FKS secondary school competition](http://fks.sk/english/english.php) in Slovakia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translator from Slovak -&gt; English produced this translation of [the pdf file](http://fks.sk/archiv/2013_14/29knizkaZima1.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _B2 - Nákružnica (9 points)&#xD;&#xA;Tinka is seeking revenge, as it pulled beetroot (and gave them Katka). Therefore, pulled out of the lab resistance wire with resistance R and produced from it earring. Sealed iron ends so as to form circle of uniform cross-section. She felt while resistance and resistance earrings a measured so that the earring Conn. ohmmeter between terminals. What minimum and maximum resistance to Tinka measure? What resistance values ​​when the clamps squeezed from the middle of the circle angle α._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is moreover specifically stated next to a warning skull in the pdf document that _Úlohy rieš samostatne!,_ i.e. the _problems should be solved separately._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) The Phys.SE questions https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76016/2451,  https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76080/2451, and https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76091/2451 seem to be problem I.3, I.4, and I.Exp, respectively, of a [first round of problems](http://fykos.org/problems) with due date 14.10.2013 from the [FYKOS high school competition](http://fykos.org/about-us/about-us) in Czech Republic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="c3104436-b929-408a-90b3-031b3edde32f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I [asked][1] a question about some natural network and after about one hour the question came &quot;On Hold&quot;. A similar thing happened [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;There is many physicists that work on this area, such as ecology networks, biology networks, finance networks, and models related to them. &#xD;&#xA;What is the difference, in terms of being on topic, between questions of interest to physicists who work on a special laser and questions of interest to physicists who work on a special network? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81961/what-is-the-difference-between-scale-free-network-and-small-world-network?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="da03cabc-0dd9-4219-8c86-5f6fd6f7bcfe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I made [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/139548) rollback of an edit by Cort Ammon, where he removed an (in my eyes) good example that was a way to verify one has understood him correctly in what he was saying. At least another user stated in a comment he was thinking so too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thought it would be a loss to remove that example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the reviewers of my edit a) didn't carefully enough check the overall case as they identified my edit just as beeing a comment to the question or a seperate answer (which definitely is not the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or b) I simply missed something about this SE site, where it was not good behaviour of myself to roll back his edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what exactly went wrong in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="5e735496-3b52-4a4e-ae4f-ed54d6b5d971" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems there are the beginnings of an edit war going on with [how can counting the number of cracks in glass tell you about the speed of imact?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question has a few problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - It doesn't stand particularly well on its own, requiring reading an external link for background.&#xD;&#xA;  - It doesn't discuss the question in such a way as to guide answers to the desired level of detail.&#xD;&#xA;  - It is partially phrased in the imperative, rather than the interrogative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However**, as far as I can tell, **it has nothing to do with homework**, either in actuality or conceptually. Someone was reading a scientific news article and had a question about the physics behind a phenomenon. It certainly doesn't sound like someone wants a particular problem solved - I read it as asking for the concepts behind some claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **why was this tagged as homework?** Is the new policy to use [tag:homework] to filter out questions certain users don't particularly like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="8ee0c18e-4102-428e-98bc-8b56a00281fa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="there seems to be a problem going on with the site, list of questions are not being updated, and some of them are dissapearing, like this one: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37516/does-positronium-have-a-stable-crystalline-phase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="5fca7412-96c4-4b06-aa2a-2244dfaea864" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To address one of the confusions in this question, tagging questions as [tag:homework] and closing them as off-topic are independent concepts. [Searching the main site for non-closed homework questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhomework%5D+closed%3Ano) currently turns up a healthy ~1800 such questions. (For comparison, only [tag:quantum-mechanics] beats that.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="19bc14df-b318-49ca-aa9f-386ad3f817f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have a fundamental disagreement with the explanation of a real world phenomenon. That fundamental disagreement renders the current explanations of that phenomenon completely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest way I could think of to bring everyone's attention to it was by asking a question on PSE (Physics Stack Exchange). It is being met with not just criticism but huge opposition. When I ask the question, it is marked as duplicate. Yes, it is duplicate because other people had same curiosity and they asked it. However, *all* the answers on previous questions are based on same fundamental which I find flawed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody answers my question. Some down-vote it and some vote for it to be closed. (Down-votes and VTCs are fellow SO users' right. No issues with that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unrealistic to go to all current answers and point to the answerer how their answer is wrong. I tried to do this with one answer which was accepted and had 28 up-votes and after some time the answerer stopped responding. I cannot make that person justify his/her answer when he/she doesn't want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm left with only one choice and that is to ask a question but I have already seen what happens to my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions to Meta-PSE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How do I invite a sensible discussion on my question? What's happening now is that first people google the topic, second they find a link, third they add it in a comment and finally they proceed to argue. *Nobody* has attempted to answer the question, for whatever reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My state is something like that I'm saying &quot;Earth is spheroid&quot; when everyone is hell bent on believing &quot;Earth is flat.&quot;. How do I write a question in a manner that people give it an unbiased consideration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Most people have probably already seen them by now, but [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270957/124734) and [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270298/124734) are the questions I asked. I hope to have someone answer the meta question of mine without any bias towards the PSE question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="714d7028-cf4e-4667-887b-4f9efacc31a1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [&quot;Are “here” and “now” diffeomorphism invariant concepts?&quot;][1] is being bumped from time to time by new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect users [Multiverse Philosopher][2], [Nonsensical ranter][3], [Naughty problem child][4], [Childish boy][5] being the same person registering, leaving answers to his own question and unregistering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a policy on such a behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35851/are-here-and-now-diffeomorphism-invariant-concepts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12013/multiverse-philosopher&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12228/nonsensical-ranter&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12295/naughty-problem-child&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12077/childish-boy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7262" RevisionGUID="dd26a90b-fde4-4d97-9e4c-8da4d5b3a971" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="tpg2114 makes a good argument on why things used by physicists isn't necessarily physics, so I'm not going to dive in that, but I wanted to put in my perspective on voting to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was originally hesitant about closing the question because network theory *is* part of statistical mechanics &amp; is studied by physicists. I decided to look up some information about the use of network theory and animal social behaviors (bored while waiting for compiling at work) and posted my findings in two comments on the first link by OP (replicated here in case of deletion and to prevent needing to leave the page):&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will admit that, despite networks being studied by physicists, this doesn't really seem to be physics. Google led me to [this book by Croft et al *Exploring Animal Social Networks*](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8841.html) that may be of interest.  &#xD;&#xA;([link](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network#comment475013_220370))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is also [this arxiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6074) (which is categorized more on social side than physics).  &#xD;&#xA;([link](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220370/animal-species-network#comment475014_220370))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book description in the first comment I made says,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a practical guide for researchers, undergraduates, and graduate students in ecology, evolutionary biology, animal behavior, and zoology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the preprint I linked in the second comment was categorized as *Populations and Evolution (q-bio.PE)*, the q-bio being [*quantitative biology*](http://arxiv.org/list/q-bio/recent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So because neither of these two sources of information were categorized as physics (or some sub-category thereof), I voted to close. It is possible that [Biology SE](http://biology.stackexchange.com) *might* take this question because of the categorizations of the two resources above, but I am not sure as I'm not active on that site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="1e276cde-976b-45af-a895-4a886c012049" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it allowed to use the site to see if your ideas are plausible? The questions I have [&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;][1] [&lt;sup&gt;(2)&lt;/sup&gt;][2] don't contain any hypothetical technologies or physics, only hypothetical planets, but since I am trying to figure out if a specific scenario is possible according to physics they end up reading a bit like homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do math, but I don't know much Physics. When asking these questions I am hoping people can explain the relationship between the variables related to the phenomena and perhaps suggest the variables that have an effect that I hadn't considered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing that concerns me is that I am looking for the answer of a question that I don't quite now how to ask, other than to be very specific. However I also think that were the relationships explained adequately it wouldn't be very difficult for me to reword the question in more general terms that someone else might search for and would have also satisfied me had it been in the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I've been trying to read more about homework policy than science fiction policy because when I give all the specifics, to a layman like myself, it looks as if it came straight out of a text book, though someone more versed in the subject might immediately spot some naive assumptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way I am posting these questions knowing that they will be likely altered at least to make more sense if not also to be generalized. But the system has no way of verifying of my intent, and it might look like I am asking someone else to do my work for me. So I am curious as to how much tolerance there is for very specific problems in the context of research for science fiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far though it looks like at the level of specificity in my examples they are fine, as no one has complained or downvoted either of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79690/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/79709/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="7c236375-e0cc-4306-916e-2bba7a87a600" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just edited [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39712/2751) question as suggested by David Zaslavsky and Qmechanic to remove the topic of information since the consensus was it is better to ask it in a different post. Removing the information stuff would the presently closed question make appropriate for physics SE and it should be reopened after the edit as David Zaslavsky suggested. After the question is reopened, I wanted to put my answering comments into a propper answer and notice mods to remove the no longer needed, at the moment a bit cluttering, comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But EnergyNumbers prohibited this procedure on which I agreed with David Zaslavsky, Qmechanic, and the OP himself by **wrongly** [rejecting](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/4609) my edits, probably because he did not read the comments below the question, wherein the OP agrees with the question being edited in this way. Since he was never completely sure about the importance of the term &quot;information&quot; in this context, he even said that he wants it to leave for someone else to make these edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can my edits still be approved by a more reasonable reviewer, will I have to repeat  them, or is this case completely lost now because EnergyNumbers has prohibited the agreed on procedure ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9015" RevisionGUID="cd469722-93cd-434f-a238-ce03ff256def" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would urge you to reconsider the possibility that your calculations are, in fact, missing something, and that that makes them incorrect. Tone matters a great deal here: you come across (in [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270957) but particularly on this meta thread) as someone who has come to a conclusion and will only listen to people that will confirm it, and that's not particularly inviting. To be honest, the response to your second question looks a bit over the top to me, but that simply tells you that you need to be crystal clear with your posts.&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;So, some suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make it very clear what parts of the standard theory you do agree with or not. If you claim that the tidal bulge exists in the oceans, then you'll simply get an appropriate [link](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/121830) that explains that it doesn't and why it doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  From what I gather, though, you mostly have a problem with the forcing term (e.g. the section 'the tidal force' in David Hammen's answer to the link above). If that's the case, then I suggest that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. you make it crystal clear that this is the part you're having problems with. If you have maths that conflict with the [diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ihwq2.gif), then I would urge you to really consider the possibility that your maths is missing something. This means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. post the maths in a clear and well-formatted manner, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ask whether there is a mistake in the workings or a hypothesis you missed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, tone is very important - you come across as very entitled and certainly not as someone that's likely to have constructive discussions; you're scaring away all the reasonable people that could answer your question constructively. That's up to you but think it carefully.&#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;And, as a meta note: these are all suggestions for you to use or not as you see fit. I'm not particularly interested in further discussion, though (and particularly if you show the same attitude as in the comment threads and endless re-edits you linked to)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="9307a760-8ec4-45e6-850f-693c09342f2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Making your own main page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search feature is pretty useful to create your own main page, if you're only interested in a particular set of tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for `[research-level] or [mathematical-physics] or [string-theory] -[homework]`, for example, takes you to [this page][1], which shows the questions tagged by at least one of those three tags and does _not_ have the [tag:homework] tag. Using the [&quot;active&quot; tab][2] on the search page, we get a page which behaves very similar to the main page in that one can see question bumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bookmark the search page link you just created and use it instead of the main page!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level+or+mathematical-physics+or+string-theory+-homework&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level+or+mathematical-physics+or+string-theory+-homework?sort=active&amp;pageSize=50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="5bfe358c-634d-4344-bf00-d84ff14fe454" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Direct copy-paste works if it's an HTML document in Word. Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, here's a trick: open `about:blank` (URL bar), type `javascript:document.body.contentEditable=true` in the URL bar and hit &lt;kbd&gt;Enter&lt;/kbd&gt;. Now, copy-paste the LaTeX-formatted stuff. It ought to work. You can type and modify stuff as well. Then, save the HTML document and/or print to pdf. [This userscript may help in cleaning up posts for better copy-pasting][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you should attribute the owner of each post (see [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want un-mathified LaTeX source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For individual equations: right click, `show math as`&gt;TeX commands&#xD;&#xA; - For the whole post: Click &quot;edit&quot;, copy-paste the source code to [here][3], see the preview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/questions/3307/print-this-post&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="b447ddc7-fb15-4565-a0a1-d29938dc1982" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently put a bounty on this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155795/kinetic-theory-derivation-of-viscosity-of-a-gas which is not my own. As such, at the moment to check if someone has answered it I am having to physically go onto that question (instead of just looking at my inbox). I think this is a wider issue, lets say there is a question which has been asked and I am interested to know the answer, if this question has currently no answer, I would have to keep going onto that question to see if an answer has been posted. So is there away to get notifications for other peoples question (perhaps even ones that I have no involvement in what so ever)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="f7ae368f-1bb2-4319-937c-c7bc3ba562f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The flag reason for non-answers is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems clear, doesn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I read [this post][1], and I flagged it as a non-answer, since it didn't attempt to answer the question. Let's see, point by point, the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In this part, OP ask specifically for a mathematical analysis of his problem. But the post doesn't present a single formula. Zero. Just a collection of generalities about diffraction. Maybe fine as a comment, but doesn't attempt to answer the specific question of the OP.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Sorry, I don't know&quot;. Is this an answer?&#xD;&#xA; 3. OP asks for boundary conditions for the Schrödinger equation. But the post talks about solenoids and water waves. No relation at all. Clearly, the post isn't attempting to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;Sorry, I don't know&quot;. Again.&#xD;&#xA; 5. In this last part, we learn that a wave function is... a wavefunction! This is Physics.SE, not the [tautology club][2]. Even worst, it says &quot;So you might think the electron is pointlike&quot;, but OP didn't say a word about electrons being pointlike: the only purpose of this post is to say &quot;I'm smarter than you&quot;. Again, the post isn't attempting to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather unsurprisingly, the flag was deemed as _disputed_. Yet I don't see even a minimal attempt to answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the requirements to flag non-answers? Is it OK to answer &quot;I don't know&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/272747/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://xkcd.com/703/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="6ae8c8fb-b131-4900-aa64-a2917c0982d9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It isn't possible for there to be a single ultimate purpose, since the existence of Physics Stack Exchange depends upon a diverse range of purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - those within the community contributing to the site, &#xD;&#xA; - the unpaid moderators&#xD;&#xA; - the company financing the project&#xD;&#xA; - [the motive of the founders][1]&#xD;&#xA; - other people and group motives I'm not aware of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a better question would be to ask: **What's the purpose behind you being here?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the fundamental reason is given in [Alfred Centauri's answer.][2] I liked the idea of contributing to the site, putting it down on my CV as one of my interests, and the interviewer could take a look at [some of my answers][3] and hire me. Now that I'm more aware of my [incompetence][4], I use the site more passively to learn from others, in the hope I might actually get round to asking [good questions][5] more regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5173/what-is-the-ultimate-purpose-of-physics-stackexchange-revisited/5176#5176&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub/7752#7752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6934/what-is-the-source-of-high-frequency-squeal-in-faulty-crt-monitors-and-tv-and-w/6968#6968&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="87ebafe9-ec48-421c-8c74-58b9b22400c4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm completely stumped by this. The question [Enegy Expectation Value](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/223313/2) uses the LaTeX command `\bk`, which is definitely not a standard LaTeX command. Quite fittingly, it fails to display correctly on the question page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7eMkj.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing this, I clicked on the `edit` button to fix that LaTeX, but to my great surprise I was met by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwOAs.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, in particular, that the `\bk`s evaluate as bra-ket pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will go ahead and change this into more standard LaTeX, as there exist devices on which this fails to display correctly, but I'm more interested in why and how on Earth this happened. Evidently the display and edit pages are calling different instances of MathJax, but how come they support different command sets? This strikes me as a bug (the OP here thought it would display correctly and it didn't), for one, but more than fixing it I'm interested in any details of the back end that are responsible for this behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm running Google Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (64-bit) over Ubuntu 14.04.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aha, Sebastian Riese [points out](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223313/energy-expectation-value#comment481409_223313) that the responsible line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\newcommand{\bk}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;needs to be at the top of the post for this to work on question display mode. This is definitely the expected behaviour, and I'm confused as to why the edit mode thinks it's OK. Maybe it's running MathJax multiple times over the post, and picking up definitions for the next round? This strikes me as buggy behaviour, to be honest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="e17d19d1-bfbc-40c5-9ded-d0267a32b761" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is really a complete unknown. As you mention, elections are held whenever existing mods step down, or increased traffic calls for an expanded squad, and there's no way to tell when either will happen. There's no way to tell when any of the existing mods' situation might change, and there's no way to tell how the site will grow in the future, or how mod-intensive that future traffic might be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no standard time for moderators to step down - if mods can continue in their role, we want them there, as it's not worth the hassle of an election. If there is a problem with the mods, it can and should be brought up on this meta at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's any guidance, there have been two elections in the past, in [2011](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/1) and [2012](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/2). Only one moderator ([mbq](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)) has stepped down, without stating any reasons that I know of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5181" RevisionGUID="d8c894fa-7632-4350-bb09-b6a233c20b72" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a crucial part of the policy. This is what gets seen by users who try to tag a question as [tag:homework]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ey2CI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon mouseover, a link saying [learn more](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) appears, which leads to the homework tag wiki. This is, I think, a crucial place to catch potential low-level homework questions and stop them being asked in that form. My proposal is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HOMEWORK QUESTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED unless they're about a specific concept. If you have a homework question, please read the guidance in meta, the tag info, or click 'learn more' to help you convert it to a conceptual question. Use this tag for questions based on set problems as well as questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7305" RevisionGUID="d1d849c3-5ef8-4622-8db0-5804bef71620" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="With respect to answers to questions on this site, I think that as long as the answer addresses the concerns of the OP, it is okay to use language &amp; mathematics beyond their ken. You probably won't get terribly many upvotes or accepted answers doing that, but I don't think that's a bad thing&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the answers we post here aren't necessarily for the actual OP, they're for the [100 people who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM) (~45 min lecture by SE founder [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky); the hypertext phrase is a paraphrase of something he says in the video). So your answer, while likely advanced for the OP, could actually be beneficial to someone else at another point in time, which is a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I mean that, since reputation isn't really useful outside of [some privileges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges), not gaining more doesn't do anything bad.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="6576a77d-efe5-426a-b61b-fbd5aadd1b91" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I checked the FAQs to look for an answer without any luck. Forgive me if it is there and I overlooked it. I recently asked a question with the title: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47124/causality-in-a-gedanken-experiment-on-the-hydrogen-atom, and John Rennie commented on it. In my response I simply put his name in the *text*. I mean it was like &quot;Yes, John Rennie ...&quot; instead of &quot;@John Rennie Yes ...&quot; I have observed that the latter is pretty standard on this forum and I would like to learn how to do that. Could someone please tell me how that is done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="c5e718fe-84d6-44b2-b411-b62e78eb8c53" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently saw that [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93421/mirrors-into-infinity) has been closed as a duplicate, and I couldn't disagree more, but for some reason it has [passed review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/149686) with a Leave Closed outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The currently-closed question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93421/mirrors-into-infinity) asks, in essence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Could someone [...] explain why the reflections [between two opposite mirrors] curve away instead of meeting at a perspective point within the reflections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   i.e. entirely a geometric affair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The proposed duplicate](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92301/what-color-would-you-see-if-you-place-2-mirrors-in-opposit-when-one-is-a-one-way) asks what would happen if one of the mirrors were 'one-way' and the observation were done from behind it (in a pretty rambling way), involving a completely different set of concepts, and also an invalid premise (the existence of one-way mirrors) that requires careful unthreading in the leading answer that makes up the bulk of the required response, and which is entirely absent from the currently-closed question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How on Earth are these two duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="61571045-1aaf-471e-a2b5-9aadef127757" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The [How to Ask](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homework questions are not allowed** on this site. You should ask about **specific concepts**. See our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="ef711786-2b84-4f2e-8ca0-c273bc6b6e66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was asking for a *clarification*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [My question][1] was not *Homework type*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I had *worked out a solution* myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/225112/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="6a7ba1da-8ad8-4ccb-8531-f62390335b38" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have noticed once or twice that a question that I have read in the morning, during the progress of the day appears with a different questioner. Example this [recent one][1].&#xD;&#xA;It started with a newbie user  Neo ( there have been several starters with this handle) and now it is Dirac. I do not know whether it will still be that by the time your read this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this be done, i.e. change the identity of the questioner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="c7f892b6-d778-4c5f-bfc3-873f48eb5c55" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your profile contains a wealth of information about your activity on the site, including specific breakdowns of your questions, answers, and - under `all actions` - your edits, comments, reviews, and more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, the [search tool](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=) on the site is relatively sophisticated if you know how to use it, and it has a handy guide accessible by clicking the `Advanced Search Tips` link on the right sidebar. Some notables are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `user:me` to search for your own posts (or e.g. `user:50583` to search for, say, ACuriousMind's posts, since their user id (the number in the url of their profile) is 50583)&#xD;&#xA; - `is:question` and `is:answer` to limit the search to just questions or just answers&#xD;&#xA; - flags for `closed`, `deleted`, `migrated`&#xD;&#xA; - and a whole host of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also perform specific searches subject to those constraints, and order them using the tabs just below the search bar on the results page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="34536453-8cea-49c1-8d18-48f987665f1e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It has recently come to my attention that the double surface intregral, namely \oiint, does not work for this site. How can we fix this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/286268/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="e86c8b37-7699-4aa9-aaef-6b49fec5deda" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked a layman question regarding string theory -&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/37766 several months ago (just a month after joining SE) - when I was completely new to this field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I definitely accept that it is pretty hard for some rude ***physicists*** here to agree with my *very basic* question. But, I didn't argue, chat or ask something wrong. It just came to my mind. After getting the responses, I just ignored the [tag:string-theory] tag..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, @Skliwz - after enjoying his revision to my post, stated that it isn't understandable. (He didn't respond to me in chat either) Then, Why did he do it? The question should've existed in its old cupboard. What the problem is - I get a lot of downvotes today. I think raged guys are just poking my old questions and downvote it. An example is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38561/magnetic-field-lines/38570#38570. I have a thought that these downvotes would continue still.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do someone have rage or hatred with me? - Please respond now..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="2f30b2f2-3dc9-4ab2-8455-1245c6639ce5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The title is [Methodology used in Climate models][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is annoying and I hate to do this, but I am looking for answers from experts working in the field who have spent several years studying this subject. It is a huge topic and It is definitely not easy to get into. Is it by default that such questions are banned in this site? Is there anything I can do? Because as far as I am concerned it is a very precise question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290401/methodology-used-in-climate-models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="4ff1deb1-9f4c-4719-892c-8119493a358a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229606/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is yet another question related to the flow of time, and I was thinking that it would be nice to have a master *Flow of Time* question that we could direct people to. I don't think such a question exists. Searching the site I find the following popular questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/17056/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52048/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71823/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/104031/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well of dozens of related questions with fewer upvotes. I think these questions pretty much cover the ground between them, and I was wondering if it would be useful to write a grand unified question that grouped all the information in one place. Obviously there would be duplication of existing material, but I think it would be worth it. I'm willing to have a go at writing a question and answer, but it would be Community Wiki so anyone can contribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions please. Upvote if you want someone to write this question and downvote if you don't want to see this question posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="56d4a86b-0e7a-470d-ac64-37b788f4fe7c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:06.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="After I put some tags in a question in a certain order, the site sorts them as it finds best (sort of 'from the more to the less general', probably). At the same time, it seems that the order has importance. For example, the very first tag is prefixed to the question title in my browser bar.  &#xD;&#xA;I don't know if there are other effects: are there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see the rationale behind putting more general tags before, but personally I probably prefer exluding a 'related but not necessarily the main focus' tag than having it right before my title (because it seems like I wanted it there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, would it be possible to manually specify tags' order?  &#xD;&#xA;Should I stop caring about what is the first tag, since everybody know its being there means nothing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an example is helpful: [this][1] is, first of all, a question about cosmic rays and neutrons, and I would be okay in having any of them as the first tag. I assume the answer could be related to the way primary cosmics interact with atmosphere, thus 'atmospheric-science', but I don't see it as the perfect 'first tag'. Would deleting it the correct thing to do? At the beginning I added 'experimental-physics' for quite the same reason, but then deleted it because it struck as the first tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290768/why-are-neutrons-preferred-for-measuring-cosmic-flux-forbush" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="97e14a7b-313a-46ee-a057-8ebb23e2bb19" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What are ways to earn reputation other than &quot;Good&quot; Questions and Answers that do and do not require time and effort for a moderator on each [action][1] on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="f2dbbb63-3347-4ecc-9f9c-5e13ecfb6b52" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I come on the site today to see even more reputation docked off without reason, and then in my small activity window it says &quot;user was removed&quot;. This was nonetheless &quot;UnbanRonMaimon&quot;, who actually started going on my other posts and randomly docking points -- I am currently at 996 but was at 1006, corresponding to 5 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I just have to endure this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[[Edit]]: There has been further reputation docked by someone else on a few of my answers just now, some sort of emotional attack. **This is outright inappropriate**. These include (just now):  &#xD;&#xA;1) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19127/can-a-system-entirely-of-photons-be-a-bose-einsten-condensate/19128#19128  &#xD;&#xA;2) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45653/newtons-third-law-why-does-anything-move-at-all/45656#45656  &#xD;&#xA;3) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46506/how-can-these-fluid-dynamical-smoke-ring-phenomena-be-explained/46518#46518" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="3d69679e-8e79-4b3c-b2ef-6a661fec927f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;# The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it, then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself, may also be considered homework, though this is somewhat of a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some problems come up in the course of doing a homework or self-study problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem. There's a bit of a judgement call on whether such questions are homework or not, but as long as you stick to asking about a concept you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**. It is OK to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your working for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and are very likely to be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After adding the tags that identify the kind of physics involved, add the [tag:homework] tag to your question. This helps answerers understand where you're coming from, and it makes it easier for us to help you improve your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone else might add it for you. (Other people [can edit your posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing).) If this happens, don't take it too hard. We're not accusing you of lying about whether your question comes from a homework assignment! The tag describes questions based on set problems, as well as  problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Having the homework tag does _not_ mean that a question will be closed. Instead, it will helps us help you bring out the conceptual parts of your question to make it more useful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homework questions are not allowed on this site. See our [meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) to help you convert your post to a conceptual question that is useful to the broader community and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed, you can [leave a comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them inappropriate for this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="cd8ee670-8115-45a6-841d-5e44060bd850" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm trying to flag [a comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44820/could-dark-energy-be-heat-could-dark-matter-be-stuff-that-is-not-seen-because-o#comment92237_44825) for removal on my answer to [this][1] question. The comment (made by Anna V) is obsolete, because I successfully managed to flag the other comments on the thread (the thread was about how to upload an image in an answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I originally upvoted her comment, and now I'm unable to flag for deletion. Is this a bug or a &quot;feature&quot; (:P)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44820/could-dark-energy-be-heat-could-dark-matter-be-stuff-that-is-not-seen-because-o" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7514" RevisionGUID="f2883296-c89b-4b0b-b467-c732675565b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Right, the first draft is now at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All comments welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="97d1d69b-667f-463e-a8d8-ca7ef8b291ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do not neglect the degree to which the &quot;level&quot; of a question determines the audience that will be interested. There are more laymen than beginners that journymen than masters, and than means that there are more people to be impressed by basic questions than by esoteric, expert level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that it is the really good basic questions and the really good answers to basic questions that get the largest number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see this in the [answers that I have given][1], both here and [on Stack Overflow][2]. My highest voted posts are pretty decent answers to fairly basic questions. I've written a few answers on both sites that I consider to be good, expert level work, but they are not the one that the crowd loves. Simply because the crowd that can appreciate them is much small than the one that can appreciate the basic coolness of bootstrapping a complex tool or the idea of huge-scale, slow-motion acoustics in a near-vacuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: the thing that votes measure is a convolution of the &quot;quality&quot; of a post with the size of the audience that can appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/users/2509/dmckee?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="ac4f7a4e-0140-42ba-ad93-00654099d3bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17404/e-mc2-why-is-it-c2-and-not-just-c is this question posted. I'm really interested in the answer but why is this question not very broad answered and even bad received. Is it really just a matter of accepting.....?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7608" RevisionGUID="0f13fbdd-5f9d-42cc-845c-65cd6fae8d0f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; From time to time, I've written up substantial answers to naive questions about special relativity, sometimes illustrating them with space-time diagrams and explaining how to read them. Apparently some novices have found these answers helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the general idea!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At least one novice, though, has apparently found these answers infuriating, because they contradict his naive intuitions. Following a chat session today in which he informed me that a single event can have a velocity, that a single event can have a reference frame, and that in a given reference frame it is not true that distance equals rate times time, this poster seems to have gone on a little vendetta, downvoting several of my posts and leaving bizarre comments on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took a look at your examples, and to be honest I think you're making too big a deal out of this. He's being a bit critical, which is not good. But you've ended up dismissing him and calling him names. That's not good either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240124/time-dilation-confusion/240223#240223), for example, is a good example, where his objection to the (perfectly correct) answer is &quot;I don't think that makes sense&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry Will, but I think he's right about that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210794/question-doubt-about-time-dilation-symmetry-in-special-relativity/210831#210831) is another, where readers can inspect the diagram for themselves and judge the quality of the comment from the same user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid he does have a point when he said if you start out 8 light years away and get closer, you'll never be 13.33 light years away.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note once again that he has absolutely no objection to any of the reasoning (not even a mistaken objection); he just doesn't like relativity, so therefore relativity must be wrong. This was a follow-on to his comments on my accepted answer here, which he also downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can your provide examples please? The two examples so far are not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are another half dozen or so equally bizarre and ignorant comments, and accompanying downvotes, on my other answers. (They still seem to be coming in every few minutes, so I'm not sure of the current total.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, please can you provide examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The downvotes are of course mildly infuriating. The attitude and the wilful ignorance are of course substantially more infuriating. What I'm not sure of is whether this calls for any action (and in particular whether this meta post of mine is out of line). I do think that the wrong and misleading comments on my answers threaten to mislead novice users who might really benefit from those answers, so I wish something could be done to remove those comments, but I'm not sure whether there's any mechanism for that. Responding to the comments would of course violate the admonition against feeding trolls. I made the mistake of responding to a few, but I think I should not repeat that mistake. Is there anything else I should be doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you should respond to comments that you think are incorrect or misguided, and/or you should flag them. Not responding, and then making a fuss here and calling the guy a troll is _not_ the right approach.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="82d81d6b-635c-4374-b5e3-eacdc008975b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just for everyone's attention, a nice question has popped up in the MathOverflow meta: [Formatting citations to the literature on MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow?cb=1), shooting towards a button that will insert a formatted citation given a DOI or arxiv link, or even pop up a search window to connect with some back end. It looks pretty preliminary but it's something to keep an eye on if it goes through, and maybe it's a nice project for some of our better coders (though I don't want to [point fingers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433/manishearth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your convenience, here's the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We'd like to make it easier to cite articles from the literature, on MathOverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; I propose adding a single button to the edit toolbar while writing posts, which will pop up a search dialog, allow the user to select a result, and then insert a nicely formatted link to the paper back into the edit box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The button would appear next to the current four icons for inserting hyperlinks, blockquotes, preformatted text, and images. (We could insert this button ourselves, via our allowed javascript footer, but eventually we'd want SE to insert it natively.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To get a sense of how the search dialog might work, please look at [this prototype](http://semorrison.github.io/citation-search/).&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously this would need some polishing; suggestions for improvements welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Once a search result has been selected, I propose inserting into the edit box something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &lt;span class=&quot;citation&quot; authors=&quot;Sendak, Maureen and Geisel, Theresa&quot; mrnumber=&quot;MR1234567&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;          cite=&quot;J. Unexpected Results 17 (2015), no. 1, 17-29&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2222&quot;&gt;A mathematics paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &lt;/span&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which will render simply as the hyperlink &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2222&quot;&gt;A mathematics paper&lt;/a&gt;. The hyperlink should be the 'best available URL', e.g. the DOI resolution address, a direct link to the published version, or the link to the corresponding record on MathSciNet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I would like to include the extra `&lt;span&gt;` tag around the actual hyperlink for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. it makes the extra citation data available, in case the user wants to also show the authors or journal reference in the text,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. it allows us to render citation links differently via the CSS selector `.citation` if desired,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. it allows us to programmatically detect and reformat citation links after the fact, if desired (e.g. to provide links to your local library's resolver).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are a number of things we'll need to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* verify we really can add a button to the edit interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* pick a 'backend' for the search dialog (the prototype above is a hack; it would be nice to run off MathSciNet or Zentralblatt, etc, but this may require a lot of coordination)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* design and build the search dialog&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* beta test with some users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="bc9c5e16-44b6-42e5-913a-d946994ec61b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As to when a post automatically becomes community wiki the rules are set out here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Create Wiki Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/community-wiki)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are also several ways a question or answer can automatically enter community wiki mode. In these cases, we believe that the post is de-facto wiki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the body of the post has been edited by at least **5** different users&#xD;&#xA;* the post has been edited **10** times by the original owner&#xD;&#xA;* you answer a question marked community wiki&#xD;&#xA;* a question generates more than **30** answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your case I'd try to make each edit more significant to reduce the total number of edits. If you spot a spelling mistake or think you can express something better then take a bit more time to review the whole post so you don't have to repeat the process later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="cf0d9d4d-3569-47ab-9387-cb1456e89588" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, this _would_ be a very good fit for our [tag:resource-recommendations] tag... if this question didn't already exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44882/what-are-good-books-for-graduates-undergraduates-in-astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question is very general, so you can browse through the list of resources recommended there and pick out the ones that are at an appropriate level. Thus I don't see a need for a separate question that duplicates a subset of the existing one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="c026a77e-8087-41e7-8c1a-8319cb256598" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits _six times._ In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP &quot;is asking about _gravitational_ redshift,&quot; which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut &amp; paste reason that my edits &quot;do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question,  leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="0fe8dfa9-f798-461a-bf0e-f938929840c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wouldn't automatically consider question about perpetum mobiles as hoax questions. If the question really includes a &quot;So, I considered [some facts], but I can't find a flaw. Why doesn't it work?&quot; it might be acceptable. But real hoax questions and &quot;Hey, I solved all problems in the world&quot; (&lt;- what's the question here?) should be closed as &quot;not a real question&quot;. We should keep them as a warning to jesters unless they take overhand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**update** First (valid) question: [What is the fallacy in this infinite motion machine?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/556/97)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="4fcb8cc5-8668-47f9-8bb3-edb126395b6a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Within the past two hours, this [user][1] has been downvoted nine times, twice on the same question. It looks to me that someone has an agenda against this person, so why hasn't this anomalous voting pattern been detected and nulled by the system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="f037e5b8-940a-4d58-8604-045752d8ae0d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Hmm... well, I think there are legitimate questions about the universe that could be tagged [tag:universe] (probably along with either [tag:cosmology] or [tag:astrophysics], or both). There _could_ even be some legitimate questions about space. ([Does anything exist in the intergalactic space?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/560/does-anything-exist-in-the-intergalactic-space) might be an example, but you could argue that that's an astronomy question, not really astrophysics.) But I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of [tag:space].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the [tag:space] questions right now are either really about spacetime, or have nothing to do with space. I'll go through and retag some of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="d0a6fdf8-5cc3-406a-b54d-273e88b5188f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="At first, I was going to delete my question but then there is the small chance someone else has a little trouble finding the correct answer to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FAQ for the physics site (not the physics meta site) gives the answer: 200 points per day is the cutoff (although accepted answers and bounty awards are immune to this limit). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="e8d9f84c-dbe5-49ce-af76-7b5f0eb4d5aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think there's a difference between &quot;I tried to use PV = nRT to solve my homework and it didn't work!&quot; and &quot;How can I effectively demonstrate the ideal gas law at home?&quot;  For me, the difference is very clear - only one of these questions is interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having received an undergraduate physics education, I can answer questions on adiabatic expansion easily.  I am not sure, though, how close the air in this room is to being an ideal gas.  I'm not sure of a good way to build my own barometer or thermometer.  I have a basic idea of what these things are and how they could be constructed, but I think it's likely I could learn a great deal if knowledgable people were to answer the question about this simple experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean only that I would learn the sorts of things I'm supposed to learn in a shop class.  I mean I would learn actual physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there was one question a while back about [how one can measure Avogadro's number at home][1].  I already knew the answer about Brownian motion, but didn't know the one about creating a monolayer of oil on top of a body of water.  That answer was physically interesting to me because it led me to wonder why the oil would 1)spread out to a single layer and 2)stay contiguous once it had become a single layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of thinking  about, devising, and executing such simple home experiments is likely to be engaging and educational, even on the level of people who do have significant physics education, and is not equivalent to entry-level theoretical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for people who, unlike I, are already very skilled at experiment, I can guess it would be an interesting challenge to discover simple home experiments that demonstrate physical effects people are interested in observing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1075/home-experiment-to-estimate-avogadros-number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="cd531d98-3c4b-4745-8c43-5245f801efe0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have a lot of posts on the LHC - however, the experiments are still on-going and it's possible that some answers that were right at the time are now outdated. It's also possible that some *questions* are now too localised (because they are very specific to a situation and a *past* time) and need to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;Finally some questions are explicitly &quot;What if...&quot; questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What to do?&#xD;&#xA;* Vote according to the quality of the posts&#xD;&#xA;* Edit the answers if needed and possible, according to normal policy, to include updated information&#xD;&#xA;* Provide new answers if they need one&#xD;&#xA;* VTC questions which are completely obsolete (if you find any)&#xD;&#xA;* Flag completely obsolete answers for moderation attention or vote to delete&#xD;&#xA;* I've noticed some comments are obsolete too (delete them if yours or flag for a mod to delete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Example posts to review&#xD;&#xA;I'm including a few examples below, but the full list is [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=lhc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6379/lhc-big-bang-temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13462/could-the-lhc-blind-a-satellite&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45203/higgs-boson-in-lhc&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6438/what-if-the-lhc-doesnt-see-susy&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6482/what-if-lhc-finds-susy&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46236/impact-of-lhc-on-other-science-and-technologies-in-particular-on-mathematics&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1014/how-relevant-is-lhc-to-quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="77f9c852-8189-4af9-b1a3-c42f2fe572f9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is something I've been particularly concerned about so here are my 2 cents from the peanut gallery :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1201/linearity-of-quantum-mechanics-closed) by @andrea on the &quot;linearity of quantum mechanics&quot;. One of the comments is by @Peter Shor - who I'm sure (no pun intended) doesn't need introduction. He says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's wrong with this question? (Aside from being really difficult to answer properly.) – Peter Shor Nov 22 at 21:21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When questions such as @Andrea's are closed right away you are doing a disservice to the community, by cutting off any chance people have of expressing their views on it. Some will say that such questions belong to metaphysics or philosophy. However, physics is NOT mathematics. The word &quot;physics&quot; comes from the latin for &quot;Natural Philosophy&quot; - a point that most physicists seem to be unaware of! In physics the most intriguing and important questions often have some philosophical content and cannot be framed according to some algorithm or be answered by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site has the potential for becoming an **invaluable** tool for the physics community. Its revolutionary potential for encouraging contact among students and researchers around the world is self-evident. By adopting far too rigid a criterion for when a question should be closed we are keeping physics.se from fulfilling its potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to turn this more into an answer than a rant, here are some guidelines I'd suggest moderators use when deciding to close questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Err on the side of caution**: If you're not sure if you should close a question, don't close it. &lt;strike&gt;Instead note your objections in a comment and wait for a response from either another moderator or the questioner.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Be generous**: You are a moderator presumably because you have a good understanding of the basic notions of physics. This, by itself and barring any evidence to the contrary, puts you above most other users in terms of credibility and competence. Therefore use your position of power magnanimously. The question might sound nonsensical, but sometimes that is because the questioner is not able to frame the words correctly. And English is by no means native to the majority of physicists. Your duty is not to keep out &quot;the huddled masses yearning to break free&quot; (from the chains of official dogma), but to provide guidance to those in need of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Be Humble**: For every smart person in this world, there is someone smarter out there. Always be aware that your own understanding can *never* be complete. Always be aware of the limits of your knowledge and the depths of your ignorance. There is no such thing as a question that is &quot;too dumb&quot; to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Be Brave**: Sometimes the best of us ask the worst of questions. Do not base your decision to close on the reputation of the questioner. If having given the question the benefit of doubt according to guidelines #1,#2 and #3, if you still feel it should be closed, then do so regardless of the questioner's standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Be professional**: Nobody is immune to feeling slighted or being taken for granted. Physicists in particular are know to have large and sensitive egos. Do not base a decision to close on any personal feelings you might have about the questioner or the question. As Voltaire said: &quot;I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, in judging any question &lt;strike&gt;use&lt;/strike&gt; exercise restraint, generosity, humility, courage and professionalism. Is that too much to ask :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="f518e458-25eb-4cfb-833c-69a300e354cb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think puzzles would be great for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Code golf&quot; questions pop on stackoverflow all the time. These questions challenge users to write code that successfully accomplishes a task in as few characters as possible. For example, [Write the shortest program that implements John H. Conway's Game of Life cellular automaton][1]. (Mathematica can do this in 151 characters, amazingly!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of thing actually can be very educational and interesting. Even seasoned programmers can learn a lot from seeing other people try to work out solutions to problems in novel ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, physicists shouldn't get too haughty and start to believe that they know everything, and certainly not that they know every method. You can learn a lot from seeing how other people approach problems. [Mechanics around a rail tank wagon][2] is an excellent example of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3499538/code-golf-conways-game-of-life&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3999" RevisionGUID="76fdd2d8-3ae0-43c0-b54a-1ef4855bda2a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I notice a some questions that might be better for Photography.  These might be a justified merge, or is it?  Do we feel this fits with the Astronomy part of Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/telescopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one I know would just be closed if it did get migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my understanding correct that if you think it would be closed in another site, then it should just be closed as it stands?  I still find the review options confusing, since it seems that to &quot;flag&quot; something is to bring it up on meta, and the close options only give &quot;off topic&quot; as an option if it's too old to migrate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="46ab4bcb-4634-4883-bd74-dd8692c65eeb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Note that we had [Mechanics around a rail tank wagon][1] which is more or less a puzzle question, but was sufficiently challenging to keep several quite good physicist arguing and muddling their way through before we arrived at an answer that I believe to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1683/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4026" RevisionGUID="cd641dee-6688-4012-8f2f-edca61e62847" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some days ago I asked [this question][1] involving quantum teleportation. It have been closed by moderator for assuming new physics. However in fact it is a misunderstanding and I think I have clarified this. So could it be reopened now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52322/can-superluminal-communication-be-made-via-quantum-telepathy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="442" RevisionGUID="e9ae650e-9c6a-4152-9e98-926ac8008d2d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If it would genuinely and honestly be **of general interest and utility to others interested in Physics**, then perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what we want to avoid here is being &quot;too localized&quot;, e.g. a question that would only narrowly benefit your paper and you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="3e139f37-07fc-4663-8867-0b78c17b4829" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Update from Manishearth: Now that migration to Math.SE seems to be reasonably high, I'm bumping this to see if we can get the migration path now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One for the SE team: can we get an official migration path for moving questions from physics.SE to math.SE? A non-negligible fraction of the off-topic questions we get here are purely mathematical in nature and mbq or I wind up moving them to the math site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current stats (26 June, 2013):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 90 days, 25 questions have been migrated from Phy.SE to Math.SE, with a 4% rejection rate (that's [1 rejected migration][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could we have this now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60331/what-does-the-following-statement-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4045" RevisionGUID="ae86af24-57de-4b9d-80ce-aff89f6d9d8d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The policy on it should surely be immediately available by searching &quot;big list&quot; on both the FAQ and this meta, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. While it is convenient, there isn't any reason the policy _has to_ be available by searching for a particular keyword. And if there was, it wouldn't be &quot;big list.&quot; The thing to search for would probably be &quot;list question,&quot; and you'd probably get results by doing it on [Meta Stack Overflow](http://meta.stackoverflow.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why these questions are not allowed, here are some [clues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ultimately, the reason they're not allowed is that they break the Stack Exchange model. List questions are junk food for the site, in a way; they tend to be popular and attract a lot of attention, but they don't provide a basis for judging the correctness of answers (so the voting system is wasted on them) and they never really end, thus drawing attention away from other, better questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="147d21cb-c1ab-474c-a8ad-a83dd5eaac49" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sometimes some old questions appear and are called &quot;active today&quot; , without any visible signs how they [were activated][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I thought activation could happen by editing or community rotating it forward. What is the other method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case no edits and no community; the questioner has not been seen since the days of his question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43610/question-about-de-broglie-waves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="d42cbd0a-fc0f-48c5-8cb0-86fa0c13f3dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This soft question][1] was migrated to academia.SE. As a result, comments are impossible at physics.se, and  I find comments to my answer that are  alerting me, but I cannot reply to them . I emphatically do not want to register on another site and I see that the questioner also cannot act there unless he/she registers. This is quite annoying and unnecessary for such a simple question. And I do not agree that this is a general question for academia. It is different for lawyers, for example, and all the money gathering disciplines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody who is registered there add to the citation request  for my statement that &quot;most original ideas come before the age of thirty&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the names of Newton, Maxwell and Feynman , as a start ?. This series of biographies of physicists also supports my statement: http://www.phy.pmf.unizg.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54825/i-was-rejected-from-my-dream-graduate-school-what-should-i-do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="92695783-b805-49b7-8952-4a6f4819a9d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is an incomplete list of questions that have been migrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6034/vector-multiplication-with-scalars&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5987/derivation-of-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5694/prove-that-honeycomb-structures-are-the-most-geometrically-efficient-structure&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5391/derivation-of-fourier-series&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4714/what-is-the-current-status-of-vinay-deolalikars-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11976/fractal-dimension-after-nonlinear-transformation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question probably would have been migrated if we had the migration path open, as it was closed by 5 community votes, but as it is I had to reopen it and migrate it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66468/uniqueness-of-the-vector-in-mathbbrn-specified-by-the-curl-divergence-and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/vector-product-in-2-dimensions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could have been migrated, but as I recall it's so basic we figured it wasn't worth it, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to edit in additional examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="498dc022-e7c6-4680-9066-66eaabbd82f5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107091/soft-question-the-best-way-to-learn-physics-road-map was marked as a duplicate to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5508/how-to-learn-physics-effectively-and-efficiently when I have clearly mentioned why it is not, in the question itself. Will Qmechanic or someone else please explain why it was closed? Do the moderators even care to read the question before closing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="25d5ec01-1a34-49f3-aef6-93b5fa1e32d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have had a nice and pedagogical idea to add to [this answer of mine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52976/how-can-the-speed-of-light-be-a-dimensionless-constant/52980#52980) but I am afraid that, by doing an additional edit now, it may turn into a wiki-thing, as once happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to do one additional edit. How can I know that? Yes, I know it is the policy of this site, but I prefer (as a personal taste I am not interested in discussing) not to edit it any more if it is going to be converted into an open answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="c1d2bf98-27bf-4512-a3d8-93f4b8e62f96" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I completely agree with Robert. I would also point out that our best questions - where best is defined as highest voted - are all interesting questions which are both accessible to laypersons and interesting for specialists to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to be **the** reference site for physics we **need** to be able to communicate, we **need** to be able to be authoritative by the breadth, depth and quality of our answers, and not merely by limiting the topics, audience and users to some elite few who speak lingo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this I do think we are lacking and we could improve massively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="a959719d-a7e8-4441-b4ae-0ae8ebd42418" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] was recently closed as `Too broad`. While I see how that would be the case if the question is interpreted as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explain the entire theories of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question that's being asked is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do the differences in these three methods manifest themselves the solving of a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that seems to me like a decent question which could probably be addressed in a reasonably sized answer. In fact, I was half-way through writing an answer when the question was closed. I must say it was slightly disappointing to think my time on that answer was wasted, so perhaps I am prejudiced. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you see this? Is the question too broad? If so, can it be rephrased (I've already made a humble attempt myself) or is it unsalvageable without significantly altering the core question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110475/can-you-give-example-of-some-problems-with-solutions-in-each-of-newtonian-lagra" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="9b216802-6d05-4df5-8c0c-d696e4584c50" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="    I am not only saying Lorentz Einstein and the 100,000 dead physicists and the&#xD;&#xA;    100,000 living physicists are wrong I am adding that the collective value of&#xD;&#xA;    relativity theory special and general and all of more than three dimensions based&#xD;&#xA;    physics is 1/2 rotten onion stinking onion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this question][1]. No Latex (ok, newbie here I guess), poor grammar, and the (I think) arrogant tone of that sentence makes me think this guy doesn't want real discussion on his ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, his other answers don't seem to deal much with the questions being asked. In a discussion of Hooke's law he still irrelevantly brings up relativity and why it's wrong. Do you guys think he's just a troll/someone wanting to cause trouble here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: his answer has been deleted. Oh well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10782/length-contraction-in-rotating-frame/10856#10856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4070" RevisionGUID="1838022f-5cf2-4e9d-bc87-9206f2939754" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can look at [the edit history][1] (get there by clicking the time stamp on the &quot;edited&quot; block beside your usercard) and compare to [the rules for automatic how community wiki works][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance it appears that a further edit *will* tip your answer into wiki status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/52980/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="1bc2fbc9-2a06-4b57-a5a0-aff554f786e9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Absolutely. *Flagging* is no less useful now than it was before; only the process by which flags are *handled* has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/19104/how-do-metallic-objects-interfere-with-x-rays/111106#111106) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could I ask then what is the comparable &quot;blocking&quot; ability of lead, zinc and regular carbon steel (ie steel used in general construction), In simple terms, for example 1mm of lead is the same as ?mm zinc and ??mm steel????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, that is *not* an answer. Flagging it as such puts it in front of the moderators *and* other users via /review/low-quality-posts. If multiple people flag the same answer, it gets pushed toward the top of the moderator queue. It *also* gets a bit of additional weight on the side of &quot;delete&quot; in /review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, either moderators or reviewers can delete the answer - this means the flag will be handled regardless of whether or not there are moderators or reviewers active on the site - the post will be dealt with by whoever gets to it first. In this case, *both* queues contributed to handling the flag, with a reviewer leaving a comment explaining why this was not an appropriate answer and a moderator following up by deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases, the flag may not be able to be handled by reviewers. These flags enter the moderator queue *only*, and remain there until a moderator is able to respond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a 10K user][1], you're now kept abreast of the state of /review via [the number at the top of the page][2]; if that number isn't budging for days at a time, neither moderators nor reviewers are keeping up and flagging isn't working - maybe ask around and try to find out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A pocket guide to flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reminder, the following flags are available in various situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Very Low Quality:** used to call out a question or answer that is *abysmally* bad - not necessarily even incorrect, but impossible to understand or utterly irrelevant. The sort of post that would embarrass you if it showed up when you were showing off the site to a peer. Each &quot;helpful&quot; VLQ flag comes with an automatic downvote, compliments of the system. Only available for posts scoring &lt;=0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Not an answer:** used to call attention to posts that do not even attempt to answer the question they're posted in response to. Follow-up questions, commentary on other answers, rants, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Offensive:** posts that shock the proverbial conscience. Generally, such posts will have other problems as well, which might otherwise result in them being closed or deleted - but in this case the author has gone out of his way to make his work odious. Each flag generates an immediate downvote from the system, which will be retracted if the flag is declined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Spam:** overt self-promotion. Can be anything from mechanically-generated offers of discount handbags, to someone obnoxiously pushing their tangentially-relevant blog in lieu of actually answering questions. Like Offensive, you'll know it when you see it. Also generates an automatic downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *A sufficient number of either Spam or Offensive flags on a post will cause it to be instantly removed, locked, and the author's reputation docked 100 points. If you find spam inherently offensive, just pick whichever option seems more appropriate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Other:** You're not quite sure how to categorize it, but *something is rotten in the state of Denmark*. Hopefully, an experienced moderator will be able to sort it out. Requires entering a description of the problem - *be specific!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying/5763#5763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="e39c7ac9-6b44-4b5b-b34c-c44cc38db4fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I closed it (before I saw this post, not as a response to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core problem is that the &quot;portals&quot; are not specified in physics. We don't know how they work, because no one ever bothered to figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This causes the question to be mathematically ill-posed: what is meant by &quot;transmit gravity&quot;? (Especially as in a GR picture gravity is the shape of space and that is the only possible mechanism for building a multiply-connected spacial topology.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the questions of &quot;almost science&quot; or speculative questions, I think there is a place for these if they are sufficiently well defined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to think up a few example of things that are definitely &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dropping things (or people) through a bore-hole along a diameter of a planet (an old stand-by).&#xD;&#xA;* The consequences of discovering a magnetic monopoles and the technological implication of the same&#xD;&#xA;* Physics relating to quantum black holes massive enough to hand around for a while ([The Hole Man][1] or the Pluto solution in [The Golden Globe][2]).&#xD;&#xA;* We already have a question on [communication via modulated neutrino beams][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_Man&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Globe&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12834/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="fc693d38-3ecc-4e3b-86ab-22ec276c46b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Link to question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56027/why-do-bullets-in-a-magazine-go-up-instead-of-down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this question acceptable or not? The answers seem to suggest it is only based off of ergonomic choices, and I&quot;m not sure if this is the right site for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how should I tag it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="a1181e00-c812-49b4-b86f-914ce41b7b95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I had posted two questions (fortunately [one][1] is there to show you), but the response which I received from the community was too irritating. And what is wrong with the homework tag (why isn't the community removing it if you don't want any so-called &quot;homework&quot; questions in this community*)? Total crap.. whenever users (the ones with huge rep) see questions that beginners ask they just add the tag 'homework'.. What the. I mean even they were beginners at some point or the other. Instead of answering those simple (but damn to imp for the beginners) questions they community forces students like me to remove the questions. I would seriously recommend the community to check out mathSE's response to homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am not targeting homework tag here, but the term has entered this question only because of those users who really don't want to answer the questions and demoralize the young enthusiastic brains. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel homework tag is being used over here (in phySE) *to spread the message that the question is being asked by a beginner* (or maybe &quot;noob&quot;) *so please downvote it* and *flag it* and *teach him/her how to use the homework tag* and...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really need a response. These guys (with high rep) must learn how to help others before they continue their journey on this site. Seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112099/a-question-on-vectors#112099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="5c60d37a-a4c6-43e8-bb67-88d010369625" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure I exactly understand what you have in mind. If you mean that you'd like to compile a list of questions and then get those questions answered on Physics Stack Exchange... it's certainly okay to ask the questions here (well, actually on [the main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com), not on this meta site), and hopefully people can answer them. But this would not be an appropriate place to post the list itself. You could, of course, compile a list of questions on a separate website if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing you could do is look at the [quantum-gravity tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-gravity), which is an easy way to see all the questions that have been asked about quantum gravity. When you ask a question of your own, as long as you specify that tag when you ask the question, your question will show up in that list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="8fe583b8-71d4-41f0-9dea-e94a02c11848" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have an answer voted -5 to this [question][1], and I'm not sure if I should delete it. On the one hand, it's completely wrong and ludicrous. Yet on the other, there's useful comments and links that explain why my answer is sheer nonsense, and therefore possibly helpful. Yet, it's got one of the lowest ratings ever :|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="5b47fdfb-baba-43c1-ae6b-5ea583b8408e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know there are good tags and not-so-good tags, but this one in particular just irks me. Physics is not philosophy; philosophy is not physics, and if we have a &quot;philosophy&quot; tag on the site, it's going to motivate people to ask questions about abstract concepts that physics doesn't deal with. Like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the [list of questions tagged `[philosophy]`](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/philosophy), I don't think we really need this tag. Other than the one I linked above, I think the `[philosophy]` questions aren't actually about philosophy and could have the tag removed. Some of those questions are about interpretation of physical results, so maybe we could have an &quot;interpretation&quot; tag, but I think we really need to push the message that philosophy itself is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone else agree?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="5e10f853-5f08-4839-9b92-1be7196fb3da" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go to their profile, next to &quot;info&quot; you see the &quot;activity&quot; tab.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic?tab=activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has edits, answers, questions, and comments as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to pick on you specifically Qmechanic!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5787" RevisionGUID="7f927cba-9ade-4362-8af4-1b1c973f3a59" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sure, people shouldn't just blurt out whatever question pops into their minds without thinking about it and making at least some attempt to find the answer.  The real question is how much is enough?  What is a reasonable level of research?  How do we measure that or even decide how much research was actually done?  Should the bar be lower for a more beginner question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the sentiment here, but I think our implementation sometimes goes too far.  My answer here was brought about by &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112466/20848&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  John Rennie wanted to close the question.  His comment got 4 upvotes, and 3 close votes have accumulated so far.  On the other hand, my comment saying it was a good question got 3 upvotes and the question itself got 9 upvotes, no downvotes, and three answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is that this is a rather &quot;low level&quot; physics question, and people are really responding to that.  That's short sighted and will eventually leave only experts here with nothing to say to each other because nobody has anything to ask.  With enough research, any question could be answered without asking here.  This site is trying to be a repository of good questions with good answers.  This can't happen if we refuse to answer anything that isn't answerable by other means.  Even if the answer is out there elsewhere, for some questions we want this site to be where people go to do the reasearch and find the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site shouldn't be only about high-falutin physics.  We aren't here for stupid questions either, but there is a important distinction between stupid and ignorant.  The question I linked to above was ignorant but not stupid.  It was well asked and actually about a clever observation for someone that doesn't already know the answer.  That makes it a good question.  Just because the answer doesn't require invoking relativity or quantum mechanics, doesn't make it a bad question or not useful to include in the repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lighten up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Added in Response to Comment:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Z points out that this answer doesn't really answer the original question.  That's strictly speaking correct.  This was somewhat of a comment, but too long to be a comment.  But, another point was that this is impossible to measure in a reasonable way and therefore will always be very subjective.  To put it more directly, my points relative to the original question are:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whatever we say is the minimum level of research will be impossible to quantify by any standard metric, so will always be mostly subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if there was some quantifiable measure we could all agree on, it will be difficult to determine whether that minimum level of research was actually performed.  In cases of blatant laziness it could be easy to show, like by entering the question title into Google and finding the first hit being a direct answer.  However, most of the time there won't be a nice and easy smoking gun like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The level of dilligence must necessarily depend on the questioner's level of physics knowledge.  A professor of physics would know where to look up things and has access to such resources.  A high school student can't be expected to know about any physics journals, and probably doesn't have access to them anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can be hard to know where to look if you don't already know the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; the research.  Asking here is part of finding a answer to a physics question.  It shouldn't be the first knee-jerk reaction, but ultimately that's what we're here for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is what I suggest someone should do before asking:&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;Think&lt;/i&gt; about the question a little bit.  What do you already know that relates to it?  Try to identify what physics concept you are really asking about or are confused by.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the missing step that make too many &quot;homework&quot; questions so bad.  It's not that they are contrived or assigned questions, but that the asker hasn't bothered to identify what part exactly they are having trouble with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See rule #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See rule #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do at least a basic keyword search.  Sometimes you get lucky and you will find the answer easily.  Sometimes you don't find the answer but learn a few things anyway.  That's all good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we also realize that finding the right keywords is not obvious when you don't already know the answer and know what things are called.  Even then, it can be easy to have the search swamped with hits that match other uses of the same words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So definitely give it a try, but don't sweat it too much.  I'd say 5-10 minutes of honest effort is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask around if you have someone to ask.  Unlike the previous rules, this is not a requirement since not everyone has someone they can ask or has access to them.  If you're a high school student at school, you should ask your physics teacher.  But if it's the weekend, that's not going to help.  We don't expect you to wait until Monday morning to get a basic physics answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are more advanced in physics, then you will be held to a higher standard.  This includes various search engines, textbooks, and the like that you should be familiar with that ordinary folks aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you've gotten to the point of deciding to ask here, use the search feature &lt;i&gt;on this site&lt;/i&gt;.  You might be surprised how many people have had the same question before you and that there are already some good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there is a bare minimum amount of research anyone should do, but the appropriate level depends a lot on how advanced you are in the topic.  The most important points are 1-3.  After that it's mostly to ask a good question &lt;i&gt;for your level&lt;/i&gt; that is self-consistant with that level, and to write the question properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's OK to be ignorant, but never OK to be stupid.  There is also never any excuse for sloppiness.  Taking some care includes breaking thoughts into sentences, capitalizing the first letter of sentences, capitalizing the word &quot;I&quot;, and never ever ever using text-speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you are asking a bunch of people to volunteer their time to answer your question.  If you keep that and rule #1 in mind, and show the appropriate respect by doing the simple things that have nothing to do with level of physics knowledge, you'll most likely do fine.  Go ahead and ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="a85b5332-a501-4f0d-84f6-2615c46d77d4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have recently asked [a question][1] about the surface energy of solids when only the [tag:surface-tension] tag was still available. Now there is also a [tag:surface-energy] tag which is, in my opinion a more broad term which also includes effects in solids, but pretty much equivalent to surface-tension for liquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a good idea to merge the tags in to 1 [tag:surface-energy] tag, or make them synonyms?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55264/how-to-measure-a-solid-solid-surface-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="e58a4a2b-4ac3-46b7-9030-c1c98bd17ead" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question has lain dormant for months. It wasn't bumped, nothing happened. Suddenly, I get three downvotes (and one up vote) within a 24 hour period. How can I be sure somebody isn't meat puppeting or sock puppeting? Can an admin review the votes and assure me that it was a legitimate coincidence? Is it even possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16119/which-subjects-in-physics-should-i-choose-if-i-want-to-help-tackling-todays-ene/16138#16138&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is cold fusion related, and it was at a (suprising) +1 before the current episode. It is possible that you have community vigilante patrols looking for oddball answers, I don't know. But it is not plausible that three votes come on a long dormant answer in a few hours. That has never happened before, and is unlikely considering the reduced traffic on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="f87d73dc-c75a-4005-b5ba-93382492e789" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I speak with no moderatorial authority, but it seems to me the question has been locked because of repeated edits and rollbacks. Specifically OP of [question 100442](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/100442/2451) keep trying to add a &quot;thank you&quot; line. This is certainly polite, but we take it for granted everyone is grateful for any help received and *thank yous in advance* just clutter up questions so they are routinely removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the removal of the *thank you* isn't a show stopper I would guess it can be removed and the question unlocked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="183c3012-452b-44d8-aa56-ae3f1a81384e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262427/spawning-a-vw-beetle was closed. I dont want to speculate on reasons, as none where given. I here give close-voters a chance to explain themselves. If no reason is given, then reopening must ensue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this an abuse of the system to close good questions for abusive reasons, can the users in question get banned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that this is the same 5 users who closed my other question, which have a personal vendetta against me, can something be done about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4225" RevisionGUID="6fa0d87f-6864-4796-b004-959e65ca060e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="*[What follows is support for the OP's concerns. If it is answers you seek, I have none to give, but if you seek to know more about this issue from an astrophysicist's perspective, read on.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what is irking Eduardo, and certainly what irks me, about this proposal is how it splits off **astrophysics** from **physics**. Sure, there can be a site about amateur observing, naming constellations, etc., assuming it succeeds. But if you want answers about the **science**, then that is a subset of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure there are plenty of hobbyists who are interested in the underlying physics of all the pretty pictures. But professional **astrophysics** *and* **astronomy**&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; should be handled in a professional forum if one exists. [**And one already does.**][1] You don't need to be an amateur hobbyist to tell people what a black hole is or explain the CMB. In fact, most people who understand these concepts *don't know how to work a personal telescope*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem was there used to be a site that focused on amateur issues, with the occasional hard science question asked there that should have been asked here instead. It failed due to low popularity. Instead of accepting that the Stackexchange platform just wasn't right for that group,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; they decided to steal subject matter from this site to expand their scope. How is this anything other than direct, adversarial competition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By what logic is this proceeding anyway? Do the powers-that-be really think better answers will come from a non-general-physics site? **Perhaps we should split off string theory while we're at it** - after all, string theorists are less likely than astrophysicists to reside in their university's physics department. Wouldn't want any cross-contamination or exchange of ideas from other branches of physics, now would we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of two possible justifications. Either (1) there is a belief that astronomy and astrophysics are somehow at the fringes of physics proper, not really belonging, which *as an astrophysicist* I can tell you is absurd, or (2) there is a belief that astro questions would get better answers on their own site. Yet if anything this new site would lean toward the pop-sci level of explanations, which we here at physics are constantly having to refute. If you want a place for really popular questions that attract hoards of people who prefer entertaining answers to factually grounded ones, well [there is a site already dedicated to that][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, this isn't an answer to the question of &quot;how do I oppose this?&quot; I myself am seeking that answer. But indeed I don't think the outrage has been voiced quite enough. I hope at the very least I've shown why this new site is something that should be opposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yes, both. Astronomy is to astrophysics as particle experiment is to particle theory, as condensed matter experiment is to condensed matter theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; My guess is this is probably due to the fact that there are already a large number of very enthusiastic amateur groups on and off the internet, so there is a crowding-out effect in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.quora.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="b0fe7610-27ea-471c-90c1-3c5240898c50" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When an answer provides a link to a document , website , etc. that includes a **complete and exact** treatment of the problem, but the answer itself has nothing in it's body (just the link), should I accept it? As an example , see [this][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63692/modelling-the-movement-and-jumps-of-a-chalk-while-drawing-a-dashed-line-on-a-bla/63803#63803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="9392672f-55bd-472a-8857-be454cd77a66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You could try and post them (one item per answer) in one of our lists for online lectures, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/679/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10021/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and let people vote them up or down, or comment. That should give you a hint about their credibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="620cc249-ddfd-4f3a-8be8-d1396c5995ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="EDIT2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these answers and comments below have been a truly learning experience for me. I was told a lot of useful and important things, for instance that I can write an answer myself, that I can upvote or downvote, that any comment can always be deleted. Now I know, thank you. **Pity that the only thing I still don't know is why certain comments get deleted and some not.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should anyone try to tell me that content counts, I recommend comparing my deleted comment - which I described below (and which was removed after just a few hours) - and those two comments that are still there after almost 2 days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I skimmed the blog. Wow, just wow.* and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*+1 for including a short and long answer.* (we all know that +1-type comments are highly recommended on stackexchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess further downvoting my question will give me the lesson I deserve.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why have moderators removed my comments** (and a few others) here in this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Rennie said there (this comment is now gone) that the blog the question was based on is nonsense and to justify his opinion he linked another question about the speed of gravity. I pointed out that the 2 top scoring answers to the question he referred to give no evidence to support their claim about the speed of gravity being c, and that one answer showed some links and commented that the dispute is at best unresolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why was it removed?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to prove that moderation follows weird policy regarding answers and comments - the top scoring (18 votes now) answer to the question I am talking about is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.&#xD;&#xA;Moral of the story: Gravity and EM are two very different things that look similar to some people because they both fall off like 1r2. Be careful what you trust. When someone makes a claim like that, check their references. If there are no references, ignore it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come this is considered a valid answer while my comment is considered invalid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You know, I'm from Poland - a country where people have learned all too well what censorship leads to. I have never suspected I might be the subject of such practices in the so-called &quot;free world&quot; - be it US or the Internet. It's just so sad ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Should someone think I am a lunatic or otherwise obsessive, I will show a better example of what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometime at the beginning of my presence here at physics.stackexchange, I wrote this answer: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110703/do-photons-occupy-space/110707#110707. It's actually only a quotation that experiments show that photon seems to have real spin. After that I not only received immediate downvotes, but also a number of derogatory comments calling me naive and such. When I responded accordingly (but not overtly), my comment was removed, while the original offensive comments were left intact. Only after I asked why moderation was unfair, the other comments were removed too. Apparently, moderation didn't mind offensive comments as long as they supported the &quot;right concepts&quot;. (Notice, I didn't develop any lengthy concepts or theories considered non-mainstream. I only pointed out to a fact provided by scientists from regular university). Since then there were a number of cases where I could see that certain comments are not welcome. So this time it was just too much and I decided to react." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="d6655b0b-ba64-4389-be9c-570b407fc6f8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have answered a question [here][1]. It is the only answer to a reasonably up-voted question (+7), but it has not been selected as the correct one. Short of tracking down the original poster, is there any way to 1) get it marked correct or 2) increase the chances of it getting marked correct in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism/27030#27030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="62a72243-0ac3-48b3-9c73-339b79a13204" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I found an old question asked 5 years ago. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/how-much-power-to-keep-surface-of-aluminum-plate-at-given-temperature/262674#262674. How do I answer this in a physics kind of way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my original answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By running a current through one kilogram of metal using a adjustable D/C power supply 1 volt to 12v and slowly increasing the voltage until you read enough resistance to achieve the temperature desired. You can also get an adjustable amperage as well but may cost more. Also try using an after market defroster for back windows of cars. Just stick it on the underside. The plastic insulator should keep the metal safe to touch and will be more efficient. Like a light it is the resistance to the flow of electricity that gives off the light and heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="3b41d4aa-7832-49c6-812d-d224254db6b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure what Deep Inelastic Scattering is, but physics.SE could *definitely* do with some promotion (I dunno about the other sites, but a little promotion never hurt anyone). Compared to the other SEs, we have much less activity. And we need more specialists, as is evident from [this][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="5ae5dd11-e87f-43cc-a484-c5b91dc6edef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="i did'nt asked any homework question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;instead i asked the validity of a given formula &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128207/how-to-derive-this-formula" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="2815ab74-4c4d-45df-9e7e-fb68aa575834" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/263881/56299&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has at least 7 upvotes, and the answer has at least 6 upvotes. I want to give the answerer a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't because my question is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I revise my question to be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="abf0d25e-5eab-4b52-a46f-0ec35ba0ab97" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a follow-up to [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4337/8563) about what some of us feel is a large spike in low-level homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we include a specific link to our canonical homework meta question in the [`How to Ask`](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) sidebar that shows up when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar][1]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose we add the line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though a link to the [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) could also be useful if it doesn't make it bulkier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from David Zaslavsky that the moderators do not have direct access to the sidebar, and probably we need to appeal to the Stack Exchange team for this. If so, it would be good to have a strong consensus that we do want this. (Which, based on the score of [my answer to Dilaton's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4341/8563), seems to be the case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely possible to access this sidebar: the guys at [Seasoned Advice](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/) have a line like it.&#xD;&#xA;[![How to Ask sidebar in Seasoned Advice][2]](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On the other hand, it just looks like [they just went ahead and did it](https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/q/940/18614), without any indication of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **do you agree on this addition to the sidebar?** More generally, can you think of useful modifications or parallel measures to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="cf001592-9b65-4a4a-9f32-2ac07c4d9d3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some random points that I came up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Usually TV shows proliferate misconceptions. They may not be _saying_ wrong stuff, but lots of things are implied. Yes, it creates a nuisance but I feel that we should have a part in fixing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) We should always encourage interest in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) [Meta-tags are bad][1]. So no [tag:layman], please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to the actual question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're OK. As long as we can give good conceptual answers, they fit our site. We don't want to be shunning the lower level questions--they surprisingly turn up good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though obvious freaky questions should still be closed. I guess it's more on a per-question basis on what we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12386/relativity-in-real-life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post isn't exactly physics-related--it's a tad on the psychology side. But its gotten some great answers! And it does provide some nifty concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8883" RevisionGUID="ee8cc4f4-8380-4864-b3d2-2f1d73daf8c6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Can relativistic mass be treated as rest mass?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266221/can-relativistic-mass-be-treated-as-rest-mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear, pointed, and of broad interest. I doubt most introductory students of physics could answer it without thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="d0b41b96-5fdb-416f-9caf-5a8f6e185e2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# On changing policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a new tag is a secondary issue here; the primary issue is a suggested policy change. Should we allow these open-ended style inquiries&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; if they would otherwise fall afoul of the policies we have in place? (Of course anything that is on topic can be asked, whether it's Kapitza-esque or not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be **against changing the policy** to make exceptions for such questions, for these reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Questions whose purpose is to challenge others are fundamentally different from those who are asked out of genuine interest. Yes, [Code Golf][1] exists, but it is an entirely different style of site. Many of the experts here get no small amount of satisfaction from explaining an answer in such a way that *students actually learn something from it*. We might enjoy having to work for a good answer, but there's something about a pure challenge that's rather offputting to me. I want the person asking the question to be interested in the answer, not in how well *I personally* handle the problem.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1'. Challenges shift at least some of the focus away from pure physics and onto the people doing the physics. And how many researchers would see such questions and think, &quot;If I only wanted a challenge, I would focus on my research instead of laymen throwing questions at me like people throw bananas at monkeys in the zoo.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; There may be a use for a place on the internet where physics students can get together and have lots of back-and-forth on their approaches, but this isn't *necessarily* the place for that.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. Questions that are too broad really are too broad. Consider `#200: Satellite collisions`: Are you looking for change in orbital parameters? Breaking up of the material? Something else? Without further constraints, this becomes directionless musing. How can I objectively evaluate answers? Someone might state something physically true but also uninteresting? Does that deserve an upvote or a downvote?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. They don't on their own specify a level of an answer. Do you want a high school level zeroth-order answer? A graduate level third-order analysis? Good questions in physics are pitched at a well-defined level.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; We are constantly asking new users what level they are so that we can provide *appropriate* answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Examples of how these questions can be made to work (to their benefit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, many of these questions have potential, and *can* be asked on the site, **with refinement**. For example, `#83: Freezing pond` could have three variants, *shortened* versions of which might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I know water takes time to freeze, even once it's 0 degrees. Is there some way of predicting that time? Say I have a liquid pond at 0, and it's -10 outside. The pond will freeze, but is it at a random time or is there some fixed time it takes to get rid of its heat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Before a once-warm lake starts to freeze, must its temperature be 4°C throughout at some point?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The rate of cooling of a pond depends strongly on how efficiently convection above its surface carries heat away. Let's ignore conduction through the ground. How can I determine how convectively unstable the air over a cooling body of water is. I know in astrophysics we have the Schwarzschild criterion that tells us if the air is linearly unstable to convection. But maybe the Ledoux criterion is more appropriate, since there will be a humidity gradient? On a related note, can I take the mixing length as a lower bound on the size of the pond for which the plane-parallel assumption holds?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good question guides the answers toward some well-specified goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize that **virality is a poor indicator of quality**. I could post a question or answer that's just gratuitously pornographic while only giving physics lip service. We could dredge up all manner of voters from the dark corners of the internet who would love it, but we shouldn't think it's good just because a large number of people with no vested interest in the site as is like the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can always reduce standards and eliminate barriers to become more popular. But this site isn't about becoming the most visited place on the internet with &quot;physics&quot; in the url. It is &quot;[a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy][3],&quot; and it achieves its purpose at least in part thanks to being exclusionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than adjusting policies to match the votes of the masses, I'd like to see discussion on encouraging voters to appreciate some of the great but not-so-sexy physics that goes almost unnoticed around here. Personally, the answers I've contributed that I feel are the &quot;best&quot; in the sense of explaining something really well for others are all at &lt; 5 score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On the tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others discuss creating a meta-tag already. I just want to respond to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's an unhealthy sign to have tags whose purpose is to block questions from some users' view. Whenever that happens, it's an *indication* that *maybe* those questions shouldn't be here at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;In undergrad, we had a course, Physics 101, that dealt exclusively with techniques to solve such &quot;order-of-magnitude&quot; problems (even when we were expected to get the right answer to better than an order of magnitude). It was a great experience, and all physics students should test their mettle in such situations, so I'm not against such questions per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Anecdote from my childhood: At a pretty young age it became obvious that I was very good at mental arithmetic. As a result, it was a common pastime of my classmates to challenge me with difficult arithmetic problems to see how quickly and accurately I could solve them. No one was interested in the result; they only cared about deriving entertainment from me. I was content with it for a while, because showing off is something children like to do. But I don't participate in Physics.SE to be others' entertainment. Nor do I participate in order to publicly boast about my own problem-solving ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Not that I would be so cruel to monkeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;Going back to my Ph 101 example, I had lots of fun comparing how I did things with others, and then extending the given problems and going even further in depth. But I wouldn't involve the professor at every step. Part of the *student* experience value in these problems was *not* having experts give the &quot;correct&quot; answer right away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;I would go so far as to say one of the most important arts in physics is being able to evaluate the effective range of theories: Where do they work? Where do they fail? The inverse question is of course &quot;Given a tolerance for the final answer, what's the (minimal) amount of physics I need to employ to get the answer (for the right reasons).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://codegolf.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27939&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="eedf6667-f297-4c82-ba6c-461f70acc9cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You need [50 reputation][1] to comment everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="c3293ca7-acd4-4660-a0c4-3a79b8775b94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, you can search for &quot; [research-level] [particle-physics] [quantum-field-theory] &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/particle-physics+quantum-mechanics&quot;&gt;[particle-physics] [quantum-mechanics]&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8896" RevisionGUID="57441743-edf9-4cfd-a7a6-2ae4238ca9ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I personally don't believe that there is a stupid question. I have a question that related to judgment about questions (and also answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked [this][1] question today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (completely believe) if my reputation was 200000, then **all** (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;*Oh! What a nice question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they offence and ridicule me because my reputation is very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (completely believe) if I was writing in my profile that &quot;*I am a post doctor of physics, I am full professor of physics, I have Gauss' chair at the moment, etc.*&quot; then **all** (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;*Oh! What a nice question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they offence and ridicule me because I am just a nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (completely believe) if I had answered some questions about quantum mechanic or relativity before then **all** (99.999999 %) people were saying &quot;*Oh! What a nice question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they offence and ridicule me because I just know a little bit about laws of Newton and a little bit about thermodynamics laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above argument is valid about answers too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266913/do-we-not-need-a-zeroth-law-of-motion-similar-to-the-zeroth-law-of-thermodynamic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="9868d4bc-dff1-4cc6-aa50-a5269a752870" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[With 15 rep you can flag posts][1] with a custom flag reason, and there is always the [**contact us**][2] link at the bottom of every page to contact the operators of the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your current rep range you can post to meta but not issue flags, so your choices are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that you have only one post on the main site, and it has been deleted---by me, none-the-less---some I'm going to guess that this is the cause of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are a bit different from a lot of other sites on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;We use a &quot;question &amp; answer&quot; model instead of a &quot;threaded conversation&quot; model, and you should not post a followup question &quot;under&quot; an existing question. Those &quot;under&quot; posts are called &quot;answers&quot; and should only be used to *answer the question*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a different question you should use the &quot;[ASK QUESTION][3]&quot; button at the top of the page. You can certainly link to the previous question to explain your motivation if you think that is helpful (keeping in mind that [until you have 10 rep you can only put two links in a single post][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/new-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="d4411b3b-caba-4720-89b0-2510602b8bb8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, theoretical physics has failed (the site, not the discipline). We should make some effort to recapture whatever interest and audience it had. The easiest way to do that would be to introduce a &quot;research-grade&quot; tag. This idea has been raised many times before. It allows people who do not want to see pop-physics or physics 101 questions to subscribe only to this tag.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest we go forward with it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact idea I would suggest is  **a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum**.  I think that this is basically the right criteria, rather than trying to say something about &quot;current research&quot; or the like. Remember, the point of this tag is to filter out questions that would  be pure chaff to an active researcher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag would be policed aggressively, but erring on the side of being over-inclusive, since there is little harm in that. It would also have to be added aggressively to appropriate looking questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggested tag description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;research-grade:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any question requiring beyond an undergraduate level of physics understanding to answer. Questions involving summaries of current research for the lay audience are not appropriate. Please attempt to find an answer to your question in textbooks, wikipedia and arxiv before using this tag.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm honestly not very happy with that description, but the main idea is just to scare people away from using tags for questions like &quot;What if there is no Higgs boson?&quot;, &quot;What if dark matter is (*crazy idea*)&quot;.  These questions involve current research, so the asker might be tempted to use a &quot;research&quot; tag, but are almost exactly what people would want filtered out. I would be glad for other suggestions.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate, the only questions on the front page that would obviously  qualify for this on the front page at the moment are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauge invariance and form of the vacuum polarization tensor][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What areas of physics should a mathematician learn to understand TQFT][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note these are not very hard questions. The idea is not to collect the world's hardest physics questions, which would be useless since no one could answer them. The idea is only  filter out the obvious chaff from the perspective of an active researcher, for those who would like such a filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag could also be reasonably applied to high level &quot;engineering-type&quot; questions such as &#xD;&#xA;[Why are turbines built differently when a change of entropy or temperature is involved?][3] &#xD;&#xA;. (I actually don't understand what that question is asking, but you get the idea). They are probably not what a lot of the theoreticalphysics crowd want, but it would be good for them to remember there is a real world. So I'm fine with that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's genuinely unclear to me why theoreticalphysics failed, when mathoverflow and cstheory have succeeded so well. Therefore I can't say that this tag will definitely be productive. It may simply be that no physicists want a Q&amp;A site.  However, the effort required to put such a tagging system in place is small, so it should be tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. Hopefully we can develop a consensus quickly and put something in place soon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Added** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As dmckee points out this would be a meta-tag, which is [frowned upon by the stackexchange system][4]. But I believe this situation is exceptional as evidenced by the fact that there were two separate physics sites in the stackexchange system.  If you read the comments to that post it is clear that they are not against meta-tags if they are performing a valid function. After all, if the meta-tags are performing a valid function, why shouldn't they be used? Further we actually have the meta-tag &quot;homework&quot;, which is an extremely important and useful tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the concern is that stackexchange would actively prevent the creation of such a tag, I find that unlikely, especially if there is some consensus about the issue. But that is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added 5/01/12**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added this as a response to David's comment and just to clarify.  Although the tag is being called &quot;research-level&quot; or &quot;research-grade&quot; that is *not* is a good description of its function. The function of the tag is to specify questions that might be of interest to *researchers*.  To that end, I have suggested a very specific criterion for the use of tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a tag for any question whose answer is not blindingly obvious to someone who has completed a graduate core curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This definition is based on the one fact unifying the community of researchers - mastery of the core of known physics. The criterion is sufficiently precise, and definitely excludes the vast majority of questions on the site. It definitely includes the two questions I have linked, even though the answer to first one is contained in textbooks and is not a question under active research, and even though the second one is a purely pedagogical question. They are both not obvious to all researchers. That is the only criterion.  I agree there is some ambiguity in the criterion with the definitions of &quot;blindingly obvious&quot; and &quot;graduate core&quot;, but I would simply suggest that we be err on the side of inclusiveness since there is no cost to a small amount of overtagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also agree that the tag description and tag name do not suitably capture what I have suggested. I had a lot of trouble coming up with something. I would be glad for improved suggestions, but keep in mind the main function of the tag name and description would be to discourage low level questions from being tagged by the asker, simply because they thought it involved some aspect of current research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm here, let me take a step back and try to argue why we would want such a tag, and justify the criterion I suggested. I realize that in the initial post I simply jumped straight into the specifics of the suggestion without explanation. I should put it writing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason is simply pragmatic. There is a group of very smart people who at least say they would like to contribute to a stackexhange site, but who do not like the crosstalk from the lay audience. Their participation in the site would be very good. Therefore the creation of a tag tailored to the &quot;researcher audience&quot; might bring them into the site at very low cost, and therefore such a tag should be tried. Moreover, even for those who don't mind the jumble of questions of all levels such a tag would be very useful. So why not introduce it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underlying the pragmatic reason are a set of issues that were discussed heavily when theoretical physics was proposed. The physics site has multiple audiences crammed together (lay people interested in physics, undergraduate homework solvers, and researchers). Using tags to help separate these audiences is entirely consistent with the philosophy of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, this post has received 11 upvotes as of 5/01, which indicates at least some support. I have not seen any fatal objections raised to the idea. I'll give it another 24 hours to stew. If nothing has changed by that point I will simply change the description of the existing research-level tag and start retagging old questions as appropriate. I believe that those changes will need to be approved because of my low reputation. Hopefully the mods will respect my initiative and let the idea play out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24423/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24453/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24436/3970&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="ec4f33ef-30f9-4bfa-bf0d-c6a793b80de4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This][1] question was tagged as [tag:dimensional-analysis] by the OP although it has nothing to do with dimensional analysis. All the tags tagged with [tag:dimensional-analysis] have something to do with units, and that is how it should be. Therefore, I edited the post to remove the tag. However, it appears that the OP apparently reverted the edit even though I had stated in the edit reason that I did it because dimensional analysis is about manipulating units to obtain stuff *. However, since this edit reason is not visible publicly (since I only edited the tags), naturally, the OP did not understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not add in the tag again because I didn't want to cause an edit war, which is very common on Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is do be done in such a situation? Do I just flag the question and inform the moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;*I couldn't write  a more specific word because it could be obtaining equations, constants etc.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/69682/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8928" RevisionGUID="ebdd35d0-c120-4d31-9509-96910d38adfe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Note that [the introductory tour of the site][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't mean that we won't answer questions from non-physicists, but it does mean that we expect the same sort of effort to be put into the question as we'd expect from a physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you have cited one of the many, many *Einstein was wrong* articles floating around the Internet but you have made no attempt to look into the article yourself. So your question boils down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Here's an article claiming Einstein was wrong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which isn't even a question, though to be charitable there is the implied question of whether the article is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason we (well I) closed this is that there is no shortage of crackpots out there and if we spent our time debunking their claims we'd have no time left for doing any physics. That doesn't mean we completely rule out such questions, but you have to show some effort first. For example your question could have been along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've read a paper by Joe Bloggs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results and on page 4 he claims that *blah blah* and I don't see how his follows from equation 666.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even then I suspect you'd find little enthusiasm among the site members to spend their time looking into the more, erm, esoteric claims but at least the question wouldn't be instantly closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Your profile][2] doesn't give any clues about your background, and it may well be that you haven't sufficient experience to read the paper for yourself. If so you could try asking [in the chat room][3] or you could try on one of the many less rigorous sites where people are willing to discuss this sort of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/122884/toronto&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="caf15add-52ab-4822-8d2b-232c073d1430" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Is this the preferred page to comment or ask questions about management issues (editing, deleting, culture, etc.) with the Physics-stackexchange.com site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is exactly the place to ask general questions about why posts are edited or deleted and about the site culture, because you can get the answers from other users of the site. You don't need to contact an administrator or moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think someone's post is inappropriate, or you have reason to believe another member is engaging in behavior that is not allowed, you should generally flag the relevant post instead of posting here on meta. Flagging requires that you have 15 reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or is there a more direct path to communicate with the administrators/monitors/managers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should know that there are two levels of oversight for Stack Exchange sites. The [moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) are members of the site who have been elected to clean up obsolete or gibberish posts, handle disputes, and so on. The flags I mentioned above are processed by the moderators, so if you want to bring a post to our attention, flagging is the way to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above the moderators are the Stack Exchange team. Under most circumstances, you don't need to contact them directly. If you do need to for some reason, you can use the [contact page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="74d40714-a7af-4e59-984c-2fd35261fbdb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My comment got deleted in the topic [Aspiring scientist](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70808/2451). It got deleted - fine. But I don't see who did it? Is it normal here, is it norm? I would like to be aware of moderators who do that without leaving a comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="f7e8023e-106a-484c-b3ec-14251e0b1d1e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've read the meta questions on duplicates. This question may well be a duplicate, but there are some unlearned lessons in those answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions prompted me to raise this issue in meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7359/)  &#xD;&#xA;Apparently this question is used so often as a link target for other questions that a rather large bounty was given to provide better answers. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Special Relativity, 2nd Postulate — Why?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134356/)  &#xD;&#xA;This question was closed as a duplicate of [Special Relativity Second Postulate](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/34024/). Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is a poorly formed question. It asks four distinct questions at once, and the answers are subpar as a result. A google search on &quot;what is the universe expanding into&quot; will yield a number of well-written answers. Our site should be on that list! Each of the four questions raised in that one question should be a question of its own. In fact, some of those questions have been asked individually, and those individually asked questions have received better answers. But yet they are marked as duplicates of the cited poorly written question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the second question, the only thing the two questions have in common are that they both ask about Einstein's second postulate of special relativity. The older question asks whether that postulate truly does mean that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The newer one asks what motivated Einstein to choose that axiom. These are not duplicates. The older question did not ask the latter question, and none of the answers to that older question broach the subject raised in the newer question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before marking a question as a duplicate of another one should ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is this new question really a duplicate of the target question? Do the answers to the target question answer the question posed in the new question?  &#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, this question is not a duplicate. Don't mark it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the target question well posed? Are the answers to the target question well written?  &#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, and particularly if the new question is much better posed than the target, don't mark the new question as a duplicate. Close the old question as trash instead of giving a massive bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="f912309c-0d09-474c-8809-35f13755fa0f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have just noted that when writing a technical [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71056/2751) on the main page, a blue popup window appears telling me that the question I am writing is too subjective and will probably be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What distracting nonsense is this? Can this unneeded new feature be turned of on Physics SE? At least should the algorithm used to recognize inappropriate questions while they are written be debugged, such that it is not triggered when people are for example writing technical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People on sites like MathOverflow, CS Theory, etc will not be happy about such new features too I guess" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="f8b8f0ab-eaec-4615-9f14-840e4b7cac95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="See this [Physics SE post][1].  I maintain that it doesn't violate the homework policy for someone to provide a complete answer because (1) the OP attempted the question and got it wrong (2) the OP has the answer key and posted the correct answer.  They are missing something conceptually and trying to understand why they got the wrong answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any reason why a complete answer would be conducive to cheating.  In my opinion, the moderators applied the HW policy without consideration of these details, simply because a complete answer was provided to a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135249/whats-the-relation-between-output-voltage-and-time-to-boil-water-given-the-same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="0645a998-e095-4a56-9c08-7d7e14333e7e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am troubled by the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268345/traveling-at-speed-of-light-seeing-light&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and many others like it.  The (obviously very naive) questioner posits a physically impossible situation (often FTL travel as in this case, but there are other examples), asks what it would imply, and gets jumped on for positing something impossible in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But positing things and trying to understand their consequences is a perfectly good --- indeed admirable --- way to learn.  Professional physicists, mathematicians, and others do it all the time.  We trace the consequences of a hypothesis, sometimes discover that those consequences are absurd, and if so reject the hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posters like this one are often doing exactly that, though with hypotheses that more sophisticated readers have already realized are impossible.  Instead of telling them &quot;your hypothesis is impossible&quot; in a tone that implies their curiosity is reprehensible, maybe it would be better to encourage that curiosity with pointers to the absurd consequences of the hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I object to the closing message that says this is &quot;Not mainstream physics&quot;.  On the contrary, thought experiments like this very much &lt;b&gt;are&lt;/b&gt; mainstream physics.  An experiment (thought or otherwise) does not become non-mainstream just because somebody else has already performed that experiment and knows how it will end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't mean we should tolerate questions of the form &quot;Ha ha, you guys think that FTL travel is impossible and I'm going to prove you wrong&quot;.  It also doesn't mean that questions like this should stay open; in fact they are almost always duplicates and should be closed on those grounds.  But it does mean that  people who are (as far as we know) making a genuine effort to reason their way through things should not be shamed for their curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="a46dcd16-b1f6-40df-916c-b2cf99a16347" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The title sums it well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While `Beyond Standard Model` is an active area in physics(Check [arxiv][1], there are more than displayable results), we don't have a tag for it. I basically wanted to use it for [this post][2], but I couldn't find anything related to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+model+AND+Beyond+standard/0/1/0/all/0/1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71967/proton-radius-puzzle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="48f917e1-a68b-41f8-b761-aa2ef9c7a254" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 1 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24850/best-periods-to-observe-magellanic-clouds&quot;&gt;Best periods to observe Magellanic Clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24934/do-all-black-holes-have-a-singularity&quot;&gt;Do all black holes have a singularity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes neutron-stars singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25019/what-does-f-4-6-mean-in-a-telescope-and-how-important-is-this-value&quot;&gt;What does f/4.6 mean in a telescope and how important is this value?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24944/what-is-the-typical-career-path-to-become-a-professional-astronomer&quot;&gt;What is the typical career path to become a professional Astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25024/lenses-refractor-or-mirrors-reflector-telescope&quot;&gt;Lenses (refractor) or mirrors (reflector) telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes reflector refractor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25191/what-is-exactly-a-dobsonian-and-what-are-the-differences-when-compared-with-sch&quot;&gt;What is exactly a Dobsonian, and what are the differences when compared with Schmidt-Casse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24912/can-the-apparent-equal-size-of-sun-and-moon-be-explained-or-is-this-a-coincidenc&quot;&gt;Can the apparent equal size of sun and moon be explained or is this a coincidence?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25159/how-can-i-judge-a-globular-cluster-on-the-shapley-sawyer-scale&quot;&gt;How can I judge a globular cluster on the Shapley &amp; Sawyer scale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters visual-astronomy classification &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24859/which-is-the-strongest-meteor-shower-expected-in-the-next-years-in-the-northern&quot;&gt;Which is the strongest meteor shower expected in the next years in the Northern hemisphere&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24876/for-observing-planets-what-kind-of-telescope-offers-the-best-view&quot;&gt;For observing planets what kind of telescope offers the best view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy eyepieces reflector refractor planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25046/why-is-m42-red-in-the-pictures-but-green-when-observed-at-the-eyepiece&quot;&gt;Why is M42 red in the pictures, but green when observed at the eyepiece?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula photography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/why-dont-modern-spacecraft-use-nuclear-power&quot;&gt;Why don't modern spacecraft use nuclear power?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager spacecraft exploration satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25175/how-are-cepheids-used-to-evaluate-their-distance&quot;&gt;How are Cepheids used to evaluate their distance?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24919/what-age-to-start-kids-with-astronomy&quot;&gt;What age to start kids with astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25162/what-is-the-current-status-of-pluto&quot;&gt;What is the current status of Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets pluto &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24965/what-are-good-resources-for-someone-looking-to-become-an-amateur-astronomer&quot;&gt;What are good resources for someone looking to become an amateur astronomer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24987/what-objects-look-best-in-an-o-iii-filter&quot;&gt;What objects look best in an O-III filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy filters planetary-nebulae&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24993/where-can-i-find-public-domain-astronomical-pictures&quot;&gt;Where can I find public domain astronomical pictures?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24942/a-method-to-estimate-the-relative-magnitude-of-a-star-using-nearby-stars&quot;&gt;A method to estimate the relative magnitude of a star using nearby stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25145/observing-lunar-lander-and-footprints-on-the-moon&quot;&gt;Observing lunar lander and footprints on the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes the-moon aperture&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25228/can-we-observe-changes-in-the-fine-structure-constant&quot;&gt;Can we observe changes in the fine-structure constant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24990/what-causes-millisecond-pulsars-to-speed-up&quot;&gt;What causes millisecond pulsars to speed up?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars pulsars gamma-rays&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25248/how-do-the-hot-jupiter-planets-get-so-close-to-their-host-star&quot;&gt;How do the â€œhot Jupiterâ€ planets get so close to their host star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets extrasolar-planets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25264/why-dont-more-rocky-planets-moons-have-appreciable-atmospheres&quot;&gt;Why don't more rocky planets/moons have appreciable atmospheres?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets atmosphere moons mercury &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25087/scientific-value-of-timing-total-lunar-occultations&quot;&gt;Scientific value of timing total lunar occultations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25157/what-tools-do-i-need-to-track-an-orbit-of-a-mystery-object&quot;&gt;What tools do I need to track an orbit of a mystery object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25070/why-can-we-see-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb&quot;&gt;Why can we see the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25153/why-is-uranuss-axis-of-rotation-tilted&quot;&gt;Why is Uranus's axis of rotation tilted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets cosmology uranus orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24869/what-is-dark-energy-and-how-was-it-discovered&quot;&gt;What is Dark Energy, and how was it discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25260/what-is-a-backlit-ccd-sensor-and-why-might-i-prefer-it-to-other-kinds&quot;&gt;What is a backlit CCD sensor, and why might I prefer it to other kinds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25181/what-is-a-spectrometer-and-why-are-they-so-useful-in-science&quot;&gt;What is a spectrometer, and why are they so useful in science?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;instrument &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25044/how-important-is-a-camera-with-improved-hydrogen-alpha-sensitivity-to-astrophoto&quot;&gt;How important is a camera with improved Hydrogen Alpha sensitivity to astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography planetary-nebulae color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24857/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-german-equatorial-mount-vs-a-fork-mount&quot;&gt;What are the pros and cons of a german equatorial mount vs. a fork mount?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25241/what-open-source-n-body-codes-are-available-and-what-are-their-features&quot;&gt;What open-source n-body codes are available and what are their features?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25133/do-all-narrowband-filters-tint-the-field-of-view&quot;&gt;Do all narrowband filters tint the field of view?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;filters observation color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24951/is-there-any-evidence-for-the-claim-that-the-moon-was-once-part-of-the-earth&quot;&gt;Is there any evidence for the claim that the moon was once part of the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis&quot;&gt;Why does each celestial object spin on its own axis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity spin rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24904/resources-and-requirements-for-amateur-spectroscopy&quot;&gt;Resources and requirements for amateur spectroscopy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur resources spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24907/does-earth-have-a-code-name&quot;&gt;Does Earth have a code name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;catalog&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25185/who-should-i-contact-if-i-see-an-unknown-object-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Who should I contact if I see an unknown object in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25105/is-it-possible-to-see-fraunhofer-lines-with-amateur-equipment&quot;&gt;Is it possible to see Fraunhofer lines with amateur equipment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment spectroscopy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25244/how-does-a-spacecrafts-orientation-get-determined&quot;&gt;How does a spacecraft's orientation get determined&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25137/after-the-space-shuttle-is-retired-how-will-the-new-sections-of-iss-will-be-lau&quot;&gt;After the Space Shuttle is retired, how will the new sections of ISS will be launched?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;shuttle launch&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24958/how-can-a-black-hole-emit-x-rays&quot;&gt;How can a black hole emit X-rays?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25052/scopes-to-avoid-as-a-beginner&quot;&gt;Scopes to avoid as a beginner?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes beginner advice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25110/why-are-orbits-elliptical&quot;&gt;Why are orbits elliptical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit planetary-motion gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24973/when-taking-a-sequence-of-exposures-for-stacking-coaddition-what-dither-pattern&quot;&gt;When taking a sequence of exposures for stacking/coaddition, what dither patterns are most&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes observation software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25120/optimal-angular-field-of-view-afov&quot;&gt;Optimal Angular Field of View (AFOV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25123/how-to-determine-what-size-telescope-to-buy&quot;&gt;How to determine what size telescope to buy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25151/what-allows-the-modified-urca-process-to-work-at-lower-density-than-direct-urca&quot;&gt;What allows the modified Urca process to work at lower density than direct Urca in neutron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25198/can-any-telescope-be-used-for-solar-observing&quot;&gt;Can any telescope be used for solar observing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes sun solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable&quot;&gt;What are the prerequisites for considering any other planet to be habitable?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets planetary-habitability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/when-will-the-moon-reach-escape-velocity&quot;&gt;When will the Moon reach escape velocity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25098/how-to-nail-focus-for-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How to nail focus for DSLR astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25254/why-does-the-moon-sometimes-appear-giant-and-a-orange-red-color-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Why does the moon sometimes appear giant and a orange red color near the horizon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25188/ways-of-verifying-the-origin-of-a-meteorite&quot;&gt;Ways of verifying the origin of a meteorite?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteorite the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25205/seeing-cosmic-activity-now-really-means-it-happens-millions-billions-of-years-a&quot;&gt;Seeing cosmic activity now, really means it happens millions/billions of years ago ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance time light-years&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25050/what-criteria-were-used-to-set-the-useme-flag-in-the-nomad-astrometric-catalog&quot;&gt;What criteria were used to set the &quot;useme&quot; flag in the NOMAD astrometric catalog?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrometry catalog &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25258/what-size-aperature-would-i-need-to-find-and-see-the-supernova-in-m51&quot;&gt;What size aperature would I need to find and see the supernova in M51?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur aperture supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24949/how-dark-does-it-have-to-be-to-see-the-gegenschein&quot;&gt;How dark does it have to be to see the gegenschein?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dust &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25221/is-the-length-of-the-day-increasing&quot;&gt;Is the length of the day increasing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25128/how-can-a-spiral-galaxy-exist&quot;&gt;How can a spiral galaxy exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25008/are-there-websites-or-programmes-that-permit-a-simulation-of-the-night-sky-in-th&quot;&gt;Are there websites or programmes that permit a simulation of the night sky in the past and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24863/is-there-a-good-explanation-for-the-observation-of-martian-canals&quot;&gt;Is there a good explanation for the observation of Martian canals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24917/how-can-the-earths-day-increase-and-its-rotation-slow-down-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;How can the Earth's day increase and its rotation slow down at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth rotation &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24984/what-makes-a-good-set-of-binoculars&quot;&gt;What makes a good set of binoculars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25073/observing-jupiters-non-galilean-moons&quot;&gt;Observing Jupiter's non-Galilean moons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes moons jupiter solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25131/how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way-galaxy-and-how-can-we-determine-this&quot;&gt;How many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy, and how can we determine this?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24981/why-are-there-more-lunar-maria-on-the-near-side-than-on-the-far-side&quot;&gt;Why are there more lunar maria on the near side than on the far side?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24866/what-is-the-probability-that-a-star-of-a-given-spectral-type-will-have-planets&quot;&gt;What is the probability that a star of a given spectral type will have planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24923/collision-of-charged-black-holes&quot;&gt;Collision of charged black holes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24932/what-to-cite-for-msx6-survey&quot;&gt;What to cite for MSX6 survey?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25169/how-do-you-respond-to-questions-like-have-you-ever-observed-a-ufo&quot;&gt;How do you respond to questions like &quot;Have you ever observed a UFO?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation spacecraft unknown-object &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24881/what-is-meant-when-it-is-said-that-the-universe-is-homogeneous-and-isotropic&quot;&gt;What is meant when it is said that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25076/how-large-is-the-universe&quot;&gt;How large is the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology big-bang special-relativity light universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24953/what-kind-of-telecommunication-systems-do-astronauts-use-in-space&quot;&gt;What kind of telecommunication systems do astronauts use in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astronaut &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/whats-the-best-way-to-watch-meteor-showers&quot;&gt;What's the best way to watch meteor showers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25059/the-most-distant-point-from-the-earth-that-a-space-shuttle-could-reach-till-now&quot;&gt;The most distant point from the earth that a space shuttle could reach till now&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance shuttle space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25061/in-what-ways-can-a-lunar-eclipse-occur&quot;&gt;In what ways can a lunar eclipse occur?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25067/how-do-air-cherenkov-telescopes-work&quot;&gt;How do air cherenkov telescopes work?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays telescopes instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25219/how-does-atmospheric-seeing-evolve-over-time&quot;&gt;How does atmospheric seeing evolve over time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation seeing weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24852/what-are-the-various-kinds-of-cassegrain-telescopes-and-what-benefits-and-drawb&quot;&gt;What are the various kinds of Cassegrain telescopes, and what benefits and drawbacks does &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24979/why-is-the-ritcheychretien-telescope-preferred-in-professional-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why is the Ritcheyâ€“ChrÃ©tien telescope preferred in professional astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optics telescopes professional-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25233/smaller-free-remote-control-telescopes&quot;&gt;Smaller free remote control telescopes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25140/what-is-the-name-of-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;What is the name of our Galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-decent-beginners-camera-for-astrophotography&quot;&gt;What is a decent beginner's camera for astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25082/what-is-an-asterism-compared-to-a-constellation&quot;&gt;What is an asterism compared to a constellation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;constellations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25038/what-does-the-sky-look-like-to-human-eyes-from-orbit&quot;&gt;What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25215/binary-stars-apparent-magnitude&quot;&gt;Binary stars' apparent magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25194/whats-dark-matter-and-who-discovered-it&quot;&gt;What's dark matter and who discovered it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics galaxies dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24999/what-latitude-is-needed-before-you-can-reliably-see-omega-centauri&quot;&gt;What latitude is needed before you can reliably see Omega Centauri?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy globular-clusters &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24969/how-to-convert-a-fits-file-to-xls-excel-file&quot;&gt;How to convert a FITS file to .xls Excel file?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24873/what-is-the-most-distant-object-from-the-earth-that-a-spacecraft-has-visited-to&quot;&gt;What is the most distant object from the Earth that a spacecraft has visited to date?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25149/how-does-a-comet-form&quot;&gt;How does a comet form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24892/how-do-you-clean-a-dusty-lens&quot;&gt;How do you clean a dusty lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25033/mixing-and-matching-across-eyepiece-designs-manufacturers&quot;&gt;Mixing and matching across eyepiece designs / manufacturers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment amateur eyepieces&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25118/are-solar-physics-images-of-use-to-the-night-time-community&quot;&gt;Are solar physics images of use to the night-time community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25262/are-the-voyager-probes-still-sending-us-a-signal&quot;&gt;Are the Voyager probes still sending us a signal ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24975/how-are-newly-discovered-objects-stars-planets-galaxies-named&quot;&gt;How are newly discovered objects (stars, planets, galaxies...) named?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;professional-astronomy names &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24878/christoffel-symbols-and-affine-connection&quot;&gt;Christoffel symbols and affine connection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24955/what-happen-when-two-galaxies-collide&quot;&gt;What happen when two galaxies collide?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24927/how-do-astronomers-measure-the-distance-to-a-star-or-other-celestial-object&quot;&gt;How do astronomers measure the distance to a star or other celestial object?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies&quot;&gt;Shapes of galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25094/what-frames-of-reference-are-used-to-measure-the-rotation-of-the-sun-around-th&quot;&gt;What frame(s) of reference are used to measure the rotation of the Sun around the galaxy ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun rotation galaxy milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25135/how-many-earth-sized-planets-have-been-discovered-outside-the-solar-system&quot;&gt;How many earth-sized planets have been discovered outside the solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/mirror-lenses-and-dslr-astrophotography&quot;&gt;Mirror lenses and DSLR astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24901/how-to-create-unusual-sundial&quot;&gt;How to create unusual sundial?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment sun physics time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/why-cant-you-see-meteors-but-you-can-see-comets-from-the-moon&quot;&gt;Why can't you see meteors, but you can see comets from the moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25005/cameras-in-voyager-probes&quot;&gt;Cameras in Voyager probes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25179/why-do-astronomers-say-that-there-is-not-enough-matter-in-universe&quot;&gt;Why do astronomers say that there is not enough matter in Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24895/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent&quot;&gt;What do the colors in false color images represent?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25002/how-would-two-equally-massed-stars-orbit&quot;&gt;How would two equally massed stars orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics orbit stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25090/does-the-moons-core-still-contain-significant-heat&quot;&gt;Does the Moon's core still contain significant heat?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25057/how-would-the-night-sky-appear-at-the-edge-of-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;How would the night sky appear at the edge of the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25030/recommend-good-books-about-the-scientific-method-as-it-relates-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Recommend good book(s) about the &quot;scientific method&quot; as it relates to astronomy/astrophysi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics resources&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26073/what-possible-science-could-we-do-during-the-2012-venus-transit&quot;&gt;What possible science could we do during the 2012 Venus transit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass&quot;&gt;Why does a black hole have a finite mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-relativity-clarify-about-mercury&quot;&gt;What did relativity clarify about Mercury?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury relativity celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26108/where-to-find-lunar-eclipse-data&quot;&gt;Where to find Lunar Eclipse data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25817/could-the-earth-have-another-moon&quot;&gt;Could the earth have another moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26454/can-a-moon-have-another-large-body-as-a-satellite-and-are-there-any-examples-of&quot;&gt;Can a moon have another large body as a satellite, and are there any examples of such?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moons celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25849/is-a-rogue-exoplanet-classed-as-a-exoplanet&quot;&gt;Is a rogue 'exoplanet' classed as a exoplanet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25871/significance-of-letters-in-hertzsprung-russell-h-r-diagram&quot;&gt;Significance of letters in Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/why-is-a-new-moon-not-the-same-as-a-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Why is a new moon not the same as a solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon eclipse solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26250/how-do-i-use-this-horizon-observatory&quot;&gt;How do I use this 'Horizon Observatory'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25522/refraction-and-scattered-light-for-nlcs&quot;&gt;Refraction and scattered light for NLCs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;atmosphere &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25995/why-did-the-june-2011-lunar-eclipse-last-so-long&quot;&gt;Why did the june 2011 lunar eclipse last so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25841/how-long-would-it-take-to-scan-the-visible-universe-for-unique-signals&quot;&gt;How long would it take to scan the visible universe for unique signals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26696/how-do-we-determine-the-mass-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How do we determine the mass of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="40b86878-cb08-4786-8719-63bc56ec9f5f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know that most of us are &quot;paper theorists,&quot; but I think we need to remember that experimental physics is physics too!  We have several tags for experimental physics (with tag excerpts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technology](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technology)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;Use this tag for questions pertaining to the limits, management, and operation of equipment necessary to experimental physics. This tag is not intended for &quot;does this thing I heard about actually work&quot; type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics)&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;for questions about design, process, data, or analysis of experiments and observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [experimental-technique](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-technique)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; filling in the unspecified details of elegant-sounding descriptions of experimental methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some of us are a little quick to close questions that seem to be engineering (e.g., https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135259/how-can-i-make-a-dry-dilution-refrigerator-quiet that was closed and even downvoted--and also the cause for this Meta post). This merely begs the question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *objectively* separates **engineering** questions from **experimental physics** ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;see also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1132/experimental-technology-questions-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/720/does-the-area-51-proposal-experimental-or-applied-physics-duplicate-this-site&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2948/should-how-do-i-solve-this-experimental-problem-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design (of which this might be a possible duplicate?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9060" RevisionGUID="9d28545f-7f5a-4ac9-8493-07ba13ddaf95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Also mods can't vote more than once to a post. The only possibility to vote multiple times, if you use multiple accounts for the task. Doing this &quot;correctly&quot;, the SE has no way to know, that they are socks. But they are watching quite sophistically the cases, where they aren't done correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to check, if you are serially downvoted, you can do this by sorting the reputation changes in your profile page by time. By default, it is sorted by post. Click [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes in short time, but to your different posts, are coming probably from the same person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is visible on your reputation changes, that you aren't serial downvoted, but somebody doesn't like your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't need mod privileges to serial downvote somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are enthusiast in the Physics, and a high school beginner. You have a lot of ideas, and a lot of questions. Some of them are good, some not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your place my main problem wouldn't be the downs, but the closes of my questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/102013/jen?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="f1a1ac94-b6f0-4d1c-8297-0090d5373184" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This can help distinguish questions about specific problems and theoretical physics from &quot;practical&quot; ones that tend to generate interest in people that are less interested in science and math. I am not studying physics but I would love to follow these types of questions that answer how things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible questions that fall in this category:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; How does [insert musical instrument of choice] work?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; Why do rainbows form?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1326/why-do-earphone-pieces-repel-each-other-when-music-is-on&quot;&gt;Why do earphone pieces repel each other when music is on?&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; Why can't I put metal in the microwave?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; How do radar guns work?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's these types of questions that make Physics so interesting to me. A tag would be nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should the tag be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="cf113aa2-e173-4b0a-8085-25595001be5c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277688/space-elevator-solved&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand what is unclear about this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="18735696-798e-43dd-a5b0-9444678b12c7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; See [my answer here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4567/7433) for the rationale behind this policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that **this will require some community members to commit to curating the resource recommendations** by flagging for post notice addition, flagging+commenting on bad answers, etc. This can't go through unless we get enough people who are willing to patrol for resource recommendation questions and spruce them up to fit policy. If you wish to help, just say so in a comment below this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am using the word &quot;resource&quot; instead of &quot;book&quot; here, as this policy can apply to requests for websites as well. Note that reference requests are different, these usually have one or two answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A resource recommendation question is one that asks for a resource (which can be a book, website, or other resource) to learn a topic from. It should have the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as a [tag:specific-reference] question, which asks for a specific paper in which a derivation or concept is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of resource recommendation questions are allowed here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X &amp;mdash; a simple Amazon search can provide that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the book covers&#xD;&#xA; - How it covers it &amp;mdash; is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and similar questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on _answers_ to resource recommendation questions, which brings us to the next point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How should I answer a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to answer a resource recommendation question, the answer should be substantive, and give as much information about the book as possible. Try to explain the style of the author, as well as listing the topics it covers well and the topics which it isn't so thorough with. Try to list the prerequisites too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples that show what good answers to resource recommendation questions should look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Getting started general relativity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/376)&#xD;&#xA;- [Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/27711)&#xD;&#xA;- [Dark matter references](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71275)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##As a community member, how should I treat resource recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a rather narrow resource recommendation, see if you can convert it into a question about the concept the OP really wants to know, rather than a request for resources that explain the concept. &#xD;&#xA;Such questions are much more useful to the OP and the site in general, because the explanation is on-site and the reader need not go elsewhere to learn. So, if a resource recommendation looks directly answerable with a reasonable-length answer, then convert it to such a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, flag the post for moderator attention asking for the resource recommendation post notice to be applied. Here's the text of the post notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Before answering, please see [our policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698) on resource recommendation questions.** Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, if you see answers which _are_ just suggestions of a book or paper without explanation, flag them so they can be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dealing with old recommendation posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**. This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This answer contains some additional resources that may be useful. **Please note&#xD;&#xA;    that answers which simply list resources but provide no details are strongly&#xD;&#xA;    discouraged by [the site's policy on resource recommendation&#xD;&#xA;    questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed)**.&#xD;&#xA;    This answer is left here to contain additional links that do not yet have&#xD;&#xA;    commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="92251b2e-5b24-4788-b47d-5d88b91fc087" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just for completeness I'll post an answer. I've posted my proposed Q/A as a community Wiki at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reception seems favourable, but that shouldn't stop you if you have any ideas for improving it. For example I'm contemplating adding a second answer for *gifted amateurs* that goes into a lot more detail on the points I glossed over in the main answer. All such contributions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="36559fd7-1691-4746-8b57-b49e909a25d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My thought has been that increasing the level of the site is best done by _asking_ questions of an appropriate level. That way, newcomers will see examples of what kinds of questions we expect here and hopefully the expectation value of the question level will rise, without us having to close all that many of the more basic questions (which can still potentially generate good answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I certainly do agree that some questions we get should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I've been trying to put this into practice by asking questions which are representative of what I would like to see on the site, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/814/how-do-you-calculate-the-anomalous-precession-of-mercury&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339/how-can-i-determine-transmission-reflection-coefficients-for-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="9541f8f1-7b07-4861-be37-6728e05a4034" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sometimes there are questions in one's mind which he needs answering but those are just confusion in his own mind not any homework question or any question he read in a book. But to explain the question better that person uses diagrams and examples, and all of the community declares it a _homework question_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I suggest there should be a simple rule to decide if that question is acceptable or not. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. If the questions gives a problem to the community and asks others to solve it for him it is unacceptable and considered as homework.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If the question asks explanation of the underlying physics in a case **and** the user makes an effort by himself to understand it is considered a &quot;_physics problem_&quot; not a &quot;_homework question_&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Velocity of satellites greater than required velocity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135340/velocity-of-satellites-greater-than-required-velocity)  &#xD;&#xA;This question discusses a case in which velocity of satellites gets greater than required velocity and asks what happens and why?  &#xD;&#xA;This question is definitely not a homework question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. [A problem of thermodynamics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136874/a-problem-of-thermodynamics)  &#xD;&#xA;The text of the question goes like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;A rigid tank contains a hot fluid that is cooled while being stirred by a paddle wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Initially the internal energy of the fluid is 800KJ, during the cooling process, the &gt;fluid loses 500KJ of heat, and the paddle wheel does 100KJ of work on the fluid: &gt;determine the final internal energy of the fluid, neglect the energy stored in the paddle &gt;wheel&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can you help me solve this?    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  In this question the user asks a physics problem from book or somewhere else and expects an answer which is worked solution and calculation.  &#xD;&#xA;It is clearly a homework question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="bdf867c9-83c3-4884-823a-52d62c746308" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think I my questions have been clear enough and still they have been put on hold, or closed. There are a couple of members who are always among the close voters. Is there a way I can stop this bias?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are my questions that I think were closed in spite of my repeated attempt to clarify. These are my last four questions in a row. You can see few members being there pretty frequently voting for close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/quantum-entanglement-observation-in-experimental-data-that-may-be-unexpected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275678/quantum-entanglement-correlations-role-of-probability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273507/memory-loophole-in-quantum-entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270780/what-is-meant-by-when-we-say-more-than-two-say-4-particles-are-entangled" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="17b558dc-923e-4028-bd7a-6e4626d6ed0d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="@ David Z - This is too long for a comment, which is why it looks like a question.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really understand what you are trying to doing by asking your question at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/814/how-do-you-calculate-the-anomalous-precession-of-mercury ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you saying that you want a lot of standard textbook references for a standard advanced undergraduate/basic graduate course in relativity?    There is no really current research oriented theory question about your question, is there?   I mean there might have been 40 years ago when Dicke was asking whether the same precession could have been caused by unmeasured solar oblateness, but not now.   Are you asking for references to experimental error bars?   Probably not.   It just seems made up and sort of hokey, or a question on the history of physics.   So why would a researcher be interested, except didactically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, a current research oriented question along the same line might be asking about analytics related to gravitational recoil from black hole mergers, or recent evidence supporting GR in binary neutron star systems with very large precession, or whether precession is expected in the galactic center, or something else more modern, a question that requires a researcher to answer properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="ff263474-393b-40d2-8634-c177fc73a1ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A little while ago [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) was posted to Meta, highlighting an apparent inconsistency between the handling of these two main site questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (A) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi was closed under our homework policy, specifically for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;- (B) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle remains open, even though it has been asserted that it is also a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we got distracted from the real issue there by arguments over whether the questions were too purely mathematical, so I wanted to raise the issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a chat discussion it came out that some people interpret question (B) as a check-my-work question, and others don't. Some people interpret it as a purely mathematical question, and others consider it to have sufficient physical context. To me, that's a sign of an unclear question. There seem to be three - well, four - positions on what should be done with that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Put it on hold for being a check-my-work question&#xD;&#xA;2. Put it on hold for being unclear&#xD;&#xA;3. Put it on hold for being purely mathematical (I think the previous Meta question ruled this out)&#xD;&#xA;4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who looked at question (B) prior to this meta post and declined to vote to close it (or flag it): **can you elaborate on why you thought option 1 or 2 (or 3) would _not_ be an appropriate course of action?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of the aforementioned chat discussion between DanielSank and myself, if I understood correctly, is that he thinks we should recognize that there is ambiguity in questions like (B), and (A), and refrain from voting to close them, since there is (or may be?) an interpretation that allows the question to be appropriate for this site. On the other hand, I think we should actively put questions on hold unless and until it is _clear_ that they are appropriate. That disagreement may be material for a followup meta question, depending on the outcome of this one. (If you have thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment on this question to say so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="3835eb92-372f-453f-ac45-d1303d22a5a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't really see any reason to split the site. StackOverflow has somewhere around milion questions at all levels from basic to very advanced and only recently it split. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site has not even left beta and already it feels like splitting. Why that? Are you annoyed by stupid questions? Skip them! Are the quetions to simple and not intriguing enough? Spliting will not bring more or more interesting ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a theoretical-physics and research-level tags and filter the other questions. Otherwise it might end with one site with 20 bored PhD physicists with no questions and 200 students and enthusiasts with lots of questions but no answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I got involved in [leaking wagon] [1] discussion and even the top rated users still do not have a clear answer everyone would agree on (at least I cannot find it there)... And it would not turn better with less users. You don't raise the level of the site by deleting easy questions, bud by answering them correctly. The site needs some basement to grow on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="89e09ee4-9ed6-40e8-bd52-7d93a239d4ca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 2 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26555/what-if-our-sun-were-located-in-the-middle-of-a-globular-cluster&quot;&gt;What if our Sun were located in the middle of a globular cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26046/how-could-i-translate-a-field-of-view-value-into-a-magnification-value&quot;&gt;How could I translate a field of view value into a magnification value?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;equipment software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26443/why-dont-we-have-a-better-telescope-than-the-hubble-space-telescope&quot;&gt;Why don't we have a better telescope than the Hubble Space Telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26323/planets-capable-of-life-dead-or-still-alive&quot;&gt;Planets capable of life: dead or still alive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets exoplanets astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25978/two-planets-in-same-orbit-not-planets&quot;&gt;Two planets in same orbit - not planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets orbit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25766/what-would-happen-if-the-polar-ice-caps-of-mars-melted&quot;&gt;What would happen if the polar ice caps of Mars melted?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25997/could-two-colliding-comets-near-earth-cause-devastation&quot;&gt;Could two colliding comets near Earth cause devastation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;comet speculative impact&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life&quot;&gt;Sillicon based life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-habitability astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25749/what-was-the-apparent-magnitude-of-the-june-15th-2011-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;What was the apparent magnitude of the June 15th 2011 lunar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse apparent-magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25544/is-it-possible-to-make-a-hydrogen-alpha-solar-scope&quot;&gt;Is it possible to make a hydrogen-alpha solar scope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-telescopes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26334/why-are-binary-objects-so-critical-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;Why are binary objects so critical to astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;binary-systems&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25667/impact-of-gravity-on-bone-structure&quot;&gt;Impact of gravity on bone structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26011/has-everything-we-see-happened-in-the-past&quot;&gt;Has everything we see happened in the past?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;time light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25414/color-variation-in-rr-lyrae&quot;&gt;Color Variation in RR Lyrae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25290/what-is-a-trojan-moon&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;Trojan Moon&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26378/what-does-a-planet-look-like-in-the-infrared&quot;&gt;What does a planet look like in the infrared?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets infrared&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26110/could-dark-energy-be-the-effect-of-gravity-at-great-distances&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be the effect of gravity at great distances?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics amateur gravity dark-energy dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/study-of-exoplanets-reaching-saturation-point&quot;&gt;Study of exoplanets reaching saturation point&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25338/space-interferometry-mission-sim-cancellation&quot;&gt;Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) cancellation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26630/lack-of-exoplanet-missions-in-the-decadal-survey&quot;&gt;Lack of exoplanet missions in the decadal survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25332/how-would-you-describe-a-black-hole-to-a-complete-layman&quot;&gt;How would you describe a black hole to a complete layman?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26216/how-to-find-the-andromeda-galaxy-without-using-a-go-to-telescope&quot;&gt;How to find the Andromeda galaxy without using a go-to telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;How exactly does time slow down near a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity time theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25650/why-is-the-universe-map-shaped-like-an-oval&quot;&gt;Why is the universe map shaped like an oval?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26549/why-is-the-universe-so-big&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so big?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26588/advice-sought-on-choosing-a-camera-for-a-meade-lx10&quot;&gt;Advice sought on choosing a camera for a Meade LX10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26704/what-happens-to-light-and-mass-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light and mass in the center of a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove the Earth is round?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solar solar-system education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25834/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;What is the simplest way to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;education solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25939/why-is-the-surface-of-venus-so-hot&quot;&gt;Why is the surface of Venus so hot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26242/how-can-one-predict-the-length-of-the-synodic-month-why-is-it-irregular&quot;&gt;How can one predict the length of the Synodic month? Why is it irregular?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon the-moon time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26040/what-is-the-official-difference-between-a-planet-and-a-dwarf-planet&quot;&gt;What is the official difference between a planet and a dwarf planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25806/is-there-a-consensus-on-the-fate-of-our-universe&quot;&gt;Is there a consensus on the fate of our universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang universal-expansion &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26435/given-that-matter-cannot-escape-a-black-hole-how-did-the-big-bang-produce-the-u&quot;&gt;Given that matter cannot escape a black hole, how did the big bang produce the universe we&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26652/what-are-the-easiest-ways-to-get-data-out-of-a-fits-file-without-a-library&quot;&gt;What are the easiest ways to get data out of a FITS file without a library?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;fits-files&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25877/do-days-and-months-on-the-moon-have-names&quot;&gt;Do days and months on the Moon have names?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25737/what-examples-are-there-of-fuzzy-concepts-in-astronomy&quot;&gt;What examples are there of fuzzy concepts in astronomy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26136/mass-of-a-galaxy-via-luminosity&quot;&gt;Mass of a galaxy via luminosity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25883/why-is-there-still-radiation-left-from-the-big-bang-now&quot;&gt;Why is there still radiation left from the Big Bang now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25387/is-there-evidence-of-a-larger-universe&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of a larger universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26182/standards-for-scientific-metadata-in-common-use-image-formats&quot;&gt;Standards for scientific metadata in common-use image formats?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/curiosity-rover-msl-specification-dimensions&quot;&gt;Curiosity Rover (MSL): specification / dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mars &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26605/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-how-does-it-cause-a-black-hole-to-evaporate&quot;&gt;What is Hawking radiation and how does it cause a black hole to evaporate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26271/how-can-a-population-iii-star-be-so-massive&quot;&gt;How can a Population III star be so massive?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26413/what-is-the-strongest-evidence-that-anti-matter-exists&quot;&gt;What is the strongest evidence that anti-matter exists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25968/given-a-photo-of-the-moon-taken-from-earth-is-it-possible-to-calculate-the-pos&quot;&gt;Given a photo of the Moon, taken from Earth, is it possible to calculate the position of t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography the-moon astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25433/stellar-viscosity-in-galaxies&quot;&gt;Stellar Viscosity in Galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25613/applying-the-maxwellboltzmann-statistics-to-astrophysical-objects&quot;&gt;Applying the Maxwellâ€“Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25308/seeking-recommendation-for-celestron-firstscope-eyepiece-upgrade&quot;&gt;Seeking Recommendation for Celestron Firstscope Eyepiece Upgrade&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eyepieces telescopes beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/what-is-the-average-distance-between-objects-in-our-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the average distance between objects in our asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26209/is-the-great-attractor-an-indicator-of-the-multiverse&quot;&gt;Is the &quot;Great Attractor&quot; an indicator of the &quot;Multiverse&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology gravity string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25475/what-effects-will-the-heliosheath-have-on-the-voyager-spacecraft&quot;&gt;What effects will the heliosheath have on the Voyager spacecraft?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25905/solar-system-visible-stars-and-deep-sky-objects&quot;&gt;Solar system, visible stars and deep sky objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies stars milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/can-black-holes-actually-merge&quot;&gt;Can black holes actually merge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26291/why-did-the-ancients-fail-to-discover-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun&quot;&gt;Why did the ancients fail to discover that the Earth orbits the Sun?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planetary-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25932/can-vesta-dominate-the-orbits-of-other-asteroids&quot;&gt;Can Vesta dominate the orbits of other asteroids?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity orbit asteroid &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-are-nebulae&quot;&gt;How dense are nebulae?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25451/exoplanet-detection-via-space-based-parasol&quot;&gt;Exoplanet detection via space-based parasol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets stars satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26709/cosmic-background-radiation-vs-superfluids&quot;&gt;Cosmic background radiation vs superfluids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26595/if-i-shine-a-bright-light-on-a-neutron-star-what-would-it-look-like&quot;&gt;If I shine a bright light on a neutron star, what would it look like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25495/is-the-milky-way-significantly-easier-to-see-by-astronauts&quot;&gt;Is the Milky Way significantly easier to see by astronauts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26466/are-there-any-practical-applications-of-the-uncertainty-principle&quot;&gt;Are there any practical applications of the uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25829/can-the-hubble-telescope-bring-any-star-into-focus&quot;&gt;Can the Hubble telescope bring any star into focus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25892/temperature-of-wimps&quot;&gt;Temperature of WIMPs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology astrophysics dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25993/universe-expansion&quot;&gt;Universe Expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/spectral-energy-distribution-fitting-tools-or-routines&quot;&gt;Spectral energy distribution fitting tools or routines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25664/is-there-evidence-of-dark-matter-in-our-galaxy&quot;&gt;Is there evidence of dark matter in our galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics milky-way dark-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25569/what-is-the-cosmic-axis-of-evil-problem&quot;&gt;What is the cosmic &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; problem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology cmb large-scale-structure&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25514/equation-for-calculating-the-suns-position&quot;&gt;Equation for calculating the Sun's position &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26397/how-would-we-tell-antimatter-galaxies-apart&quot;&gt;How would we tell antimatter galaxies apart?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics big-bang anti-matter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26050/do-nearby-gamma-ray-busts-supernova-damage-more-than-just-the-ozone-layer&quot;&gt;Do nearby gamma ray busts/supernova damage more than just the ozone layer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gamma-rays supernova &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25698/what-keeps-galaxies-united-like-a-solar-system&quot;&gt;What keeps galaxies united like a solar system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies milky-way&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26196/why-is-the-universe-so-organized&quot;&gt;Why is the universe so organized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets galaxies universe stars celestial-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26451/metal-dilemma-only-very-few-civilizations-per-galaxy&quot;&gt;Metal Dilemma: Only very few civilizations per galaxy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;extrasolar-planets spectroscopy speculative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25608/does-the-current-light-pollution-set-a-fundamental-limit-for-the-range-of-earth&quot;&gt;Does the current light pollution set a fundamental limit for the range of Earth-based tele&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy physics disturbing-factor &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25796/which-current-big-earth-based-telescopes-are-equipped-with-adaptive-optics&quot;&gt;Which current big Earth-based telescopes are equipped with adaptive optics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing limits disturbing-factor&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26091/how-does-the-central-peak-in-moon-craters-form&quot;&gt;How does the central peak in moon craters form?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26059/what-is-so-special-about-iron&quot;&gt;What is so special about iron?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26513/how-are-new-nebulae-being-created&quot;&gt;How are new nebulae being created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars nebula star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25943/would-it-be-interesting-or-useful-to-map-objects-current-predicted-locations&quot;&gt;Would it be interesting or useful to map objects' current (predicted) locations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance astrometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26002/blue-bumper-stars&quot;&gt;&quot;Blue Bumper&quot; Stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;variable-star&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26055/relationship-between-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-radiation-and-the-vis&quot;&gt;Relationship between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the visible unive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26339/is-jupiter-a-failed-star&quot;&gt;Is Jupiter a failed star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars solar-system jupiter brown-dwarf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What will the universe look like for anyone falling into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26558/has-a-human-ever-perished-outside-earths-orbit&quot;&gt;Has a human ever perished outside Earth's orbit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration astronaut&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/whats-the-difference-between-a-red-giant-and-a-red-supergiant&quot;&gt;What's the difference between a red giant and a red supergiant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26485/what-is-the-largest-observed-celestial-body&quot;&gt;What is the largest observed celestial body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/why-arent-space-probes-like-new-horizons-sped-up-in-space&quot;&gt;Why aren't space probes like New Horizons sped up in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25536/could-many-widely-separated-space-telescopes-be-combined-for-vlbi-on-ir-visible&quot;&gt;Could many widely separated space telescopes be combined for VLBI on IR/visible wavelength&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25360/is-there-a-method-to-estimate-the-atomic-yield-of-a-supernova-of-a-given-size&quot;&gt;Is there a method to estimate the atomic yield of a supernova of a given size?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory supernova&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/names-maps-for-milky-way-dust-clouds&quot;&gt;Names, maps for Milky Way dust clouds?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way dust&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26423/can-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-be-used-to-measure-the-size-of-composite&quot;&gt;Can the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect be used to measure the size of composite objects li&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies light quantum-mechanics galaxy instrument&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26007/are-orbits-interior-to-jupiters-orbit-less-stable-than-orbits-exterior-to-jupit&quot;&gt;Are orbits interior to Jupiter's orbit less stable than orbits exterior to Jupiter's orbit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25661/when-the-sun-goes-red-giant-will-it-vaporize-away-a-significant-fraction-of-j&quot;&gt;When the Sun goes red giant, will it &quot;vaporize&quot; away a significant fraction of Jupiter and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26283/what-is-the-most-convenient-rocket-engine-to-use-exclusively-in-space&quot;&gt;What is the most convenient rocket engine to use exclusively in space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26636/could-jupiters-gravity-destabilize-earths-artificial-satellites-over-a-long-ti&quot;&gt;Could Jupiter's gravity destabilize Earth's artificial satellites over a long timescale?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26574/are-we-capable-of-discovering-planets-in-the-andromeda-galaxy&quot;&gt;Are we capable of discovering planets in the Andromeda galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes exoplanets &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&quot;&gt;Why did the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter form as it did?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25896/are-there-formulae-for-calculating-stellar-luminosity-and-effective-temperature&quot;&gt;Are there formulae for calculating stellar luminosity and effective temperature as a funct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25462/which-is-the-heaviest-present-day-lifter-rocket-and-is-it-comparable-to-the-s&quot;&gt;Which is the heaviest present day lifter (rocket)? And is it comparable to the Saturn V ro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/how-fast-will-the-sun-become-a-red-giant&quot;&gt;How fast will the sun become a red giant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25401/at-what-temperature-does-water-become-a-liquid-on-mars-on-the-asteroids-and-in&quot;&gt;At what temperature does water become a liquid on Mars? On the asteroids? And in a vacuum?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25447/what-does-ionization-of-neutral-hydrogen-have-to-do-with-transparency&quot;&gt;What does ionization of neutral Hydrogen have to do with &quot;transparency&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology galaxies spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25955/vesta-dwarf-planet-status&quot;&gt;Vesta dwarf planet status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25531/maximum-depth-for-bacteria-on-rogue-planets&quot;&gt;Maximum depth for bacteria on rogue planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrobiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25755/distribution-of-each-element-and-molecule-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-sun&quot;&gt;Distribution of each element and molecule as a function of distance from the Sun and as a &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25422/where-does-a-stars-angular-momentum-go-as-its-spin-slows-down&quot;&gt;Where does a star's angular momentum go as its spin slows down?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25431/are-the-inner-planets-on-planar-orbits-because-there-was-more-dust-in-the-inner&quot;&gt;Are the inner planets on planar orbits because there was more dust in the inner solar syst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25809/is-there-a-program-that-can-computationally-fit-spherical-harmonic-functions-ont&quot;&gt;Is there a program that can computationally fit spherical harmonic functions onto a datase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;untagged&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26753/could-asteroseismology-have-a-significant-potential-to-unravel-the-mechanisms-of&quot;&gt;Could asteroseismology have a significant potential to unravel the mechanisms of solar cyc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25702/did-i-see-two-milky-ways-next-to-each-other&quot;&gt;Did I see two Milky Ways next to each other?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation milky-way amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26490/funding-opportunities-for-an-independent-researcher&quot;&gt;Funding opportunities for an independent researcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;career &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25875/where-do-the-bipolar-jets-of-black-holes-come-from&quot;&gt;Where do the bipolar jets of black holes come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25268/assuming-that-the-sun-wouldnt-evolve-into-a-red-giant-how-long-would-the-earth&quot;&gt;Assuming that the Sun wouldn't evolve into a red giant, how long would the Earth's atmosph&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26593/when-we-want-to-figure-out-the-long-term-evolution-of-a-planets-atmosphere-orbi&quot;&gt;When we want to figure out the long-term evolution of a planet's atmosphere/orbit, when is&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/which-citizen-science-astrophysics-and-astronomy-projects-currently-exist&quot;&gt;Which citizen-science astrophysics and astronomy projects currently exist?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;citizen-science amateur-astronomy &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26014/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast&quot;&gt;How long do your eyes need to adapt to darkness and reach full contrast?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes eyepieces eye-physiology &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26488/what-was-the-most-distant-supernova-spotted-by-a-amateur-astronomer-until-today&quot;&gt;What was the most distant supernova spotted by a amateur astronomer until today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;amateur-astronomy limits &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25589/what-is-an-approximation-of-the-average-number-of-supernovae-every-century-in-th&quot;&gt;What is an approximation of the average number of supernovae every century in the Milky Wa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;milky-way supernova estimation approximation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas&quot;&gt;Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26089/how-to-identify-the-objects-in-an-astrophoto-and-what-portion-of-the-sky-it-cov&quot;&gt;How to identify the objects in an astrophoto, and what portion of the sky it covers?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography software&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25492/are-there-any-known-neutron-stars-just-below-the-tolmanoppenheimervolkoff-limi&quot;&gt;Are there any known neutron stars just below the Tolmanâ€“Oppenheimerâ€“Volkoff limit?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25881/do-stars-of-higher-metallicity-have-more-planets-in-highly-inclined-pluto-like-o&quot;&gt;Do stars of higher metallicity have more planets in highly-inclined Pluto-like orbits?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25865/could-dark-energy-be-linked-to-dark-flow&quot;&gt;Could dark energy be linked to dark flow?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity dark-energy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25920/the-orbit-of-2010-tk7&quot;&gt;The orbit of 2010 TK7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-free-software-is-there-for-observing-the-sky-sky-map-software&quot;&gt;What free software is there for observing the sky (sky map software)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software stellarium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25384/how-is-the-shape-of-the-universe-measured-by-scientists&quot;&gt;How is the shape of the universe measured by scientists?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26214/next-crescent-moon&quot;&gt;Next crescent moon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26287/what-would-a-rotating-black-hole-look-like-to-a-geo-stationary-observer-orbiti&quot;&gt;What would a rotating black-hole look like to a &quot;geo-stationary&quot; observer orbiting the bla&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26341/what-exactly-is-the-definition-of-motion-and-its-relation-to-machs-conjecture&quot;&gt;What exactly is the definition of motion and its relation to Mach's conjecture? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;rotation special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25957/when-will-enceladus-run-out-of-water&quot;&gt;When will Enceladus run out of water?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="8c8cbeac-a9aa-4c5b-8591-a572e68bd7dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are a lot of questions posted which ask about what mainstream physics says about something, but imply that the OP has a completely different opinion. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278393/lets-get-back-to-the-ether-what-is-it. The OP has some theory about the ether, as shown in their answers on other questions, and wants to get opinions &quot;before giving my own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/does-this-observation-in-a-probabilistic-experiment-indicate-presence-of-a-balan. This question (v1) asks if some experimental data is a &quot;coincidence&quot;. The OP has already published a paper claiming that it is _not_ a coincidence and is evidence for a non-mainstream modification of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266904/in-einsteins-relativity-of-simultaneity-thought-experiment-would-not-the-pas In this question (v1), OP asked if I &quot;admit&quot; that special relativity says something happens in a thought experiment. 10 comments later, OP triumphantly reveals that an extension to this thought experiment is supposed to disprove special relativity (it does not).&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon The OP already has extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is.&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279189/prove-that-classical-physics-gives-the-wrong-answer The OP is &quot;issuing a challenge&quot; to the community, to basically prove that quantum mechanics works. They've already written an article saying that quantum mechanics doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like answering any of these questions, because they feel fundamentally unproductive. The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion, or as an opening to argue with people posting answers. They can't learn anything from the answers because they already have their own. And half the time the OP drags answerers in long and unproductive debates in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's no close reason that directly addresses this kind of question. I believe all of these questions _should_ be closed, but all close reasons above are incorrect. For example, one might try to close as 'non mainstream' or 'opinion based', but neither of those are true. The actual questions have clear, non-opinion-based, mainstream answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people try to use the 'unclear what you're asking' close reason, because this is also incorrect, because there _is_ a well-defined question in each of these. I think people use this reason because it looks like OP really has another, completely different question (e.g. &quot;is my theory correct&quot;) in mind, but this takes some reading between the lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should these types of questions be handled?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="9d85ce1a-40b7-4686-a34a-71440518aebd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question was put on hold and closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/140955/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reason given was: &quot;We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle Kanos agrees with me that the elements I use in my question are mainstream physics but he thinks the combination of them is not. Sure, it won't be possible in the near or even quite distant future, but IMO it's a valid question and I've seen equally theoretical questions, even one about black hole power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review my question and reopen it if it's on topic here. Please also read the comments of Alan Rominger and Hypnosifl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="7adde60f-7ac6-44d9-8b25-50729b99b987" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing that I might suggest we keep in mind is that an answer is in general not intended only for the OP of a question, but anyone else who is interested. The &quot;What is a photon&quot; question is an extreme example of this- whatever you may think of the OP, there were obviously plenty of other readers who were interested in the responses and not satisfied with those given to the previous versions of the question. I think they were generally well served by the answers that it got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a lower-profile example, I answered a question [some time ago][1] before realizing that the OP was asking a question about his own paper, and certainly wasn't going to accept my answer that critiqued it. But the question itself was of sufficiently broad interest and worded reasonably enough by the OP that I don't feel like it was a waste of time to answer it even though I stood no chance of having the answer accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some of the cases you give, the questions themselves were not good in addition to promoting an agenda. That's a separate issue. But when the question would be worthwhile in a vacuum, it should be kept and answered for the broader benefit if nothing else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250970/bells-theorem-and-fluid-mechanical-experiments-using-droplets-are-local-hidden/251838" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="f150d018-ff8b-415b-813a-742bed2d6a8a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is an issue that I don't think anyone foresaw, but some old material uses images with transparency, and those images now can't be read.  For example, I just checked out an old post I wrote that copied an equation from Wikipedia as an image.  The black text of the image doesn't stand out against the background any more.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5170/what-happens-when-you-cut-a-biconvex-lens-in-half/5173#5173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="7214fd4d-27c5-4cb6-8116-6d698c875b00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74425/power-loss-from-chain-and-sprocket-combinations-of-equal-ratios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm simply asking what the difference of power would be to make an atv with a 13t sprocket accelerate the same as one with a 11t sprocket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What am I asking to be engineered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't or don't want to answer the question, that's fine.  But don't say its about engineering for a means to delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="617f4e35-cb48-4079-8cce-ae6147c9ebb5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's it! He did it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John Rennie](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie), on 23-09-2016 became the first man ever in the realms of [Phys.SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) to reach the summit of 200k!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For over five years, he travelled and saved people from the evils of confusion in almost every nook and corner of the kingdom of Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now he has crossed this landmark for the very first time in our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the community congratulates the beloved John Rennie for his magnificent  achievement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_May the light of this old (handsome) nerd never be quelled_ ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tloDr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="6057cca3-b634-414c-bb1a-6c37ab429431" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just want to bring your attention to [the review site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) where you can see questions/answers posted by new users so we can assist them in getting to know the SE system and maybe improving their posts. (courtesy of [this](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1001/430) thread at meta.TeX)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="4072e3e5-1b17-491f-b11e-b4be1306c1a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm a little surprised you've been around for months without having noticed that StackExchange doesn't use LaTeX ;-) Posts here are composed in a variant of [Markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax), and as dmckee pointed out in a comment there is an [editing help page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) that explains most features of Markdown syntax, or the particular variant SE uses. Right at the [top of the page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/editing-help#linebreaks) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; End a line with two spaces to add a `&lt;br/&gt;` linebreak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="356fd689-3f17-4071-882f-d3a65a8c8aea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading this question - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/961/why-is-the-nucleus-of-an-iron-atom-so-stable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two good answers. One explains in words, in a way that might be satisfying to those who have been wondering and come upon the question.  The other shows the math in enough detail that one can work the numbers and grind it out.  That too would be of interest to some who come upon the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter which kind of answer the OP sought; the value of a SE site like this is answering questions of visitors who come along after and find it's already been asked.    Some visitors will seek qualitative word answers, just wanting to know the essential point and are perhaps not themselves physicsts,  while other visitors will be hungry for the serious math .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just fantasizing... Could both of these good answers get the hallowed green checkmark? Or different colored checkmarks, say blue for the best mathematically detailed answer and orange for the best qualitative words only question?  Would that make sense for more than just a few questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="fdf08baa-898c-4226-9aeb-51a3ade6f08a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are quite a few questions recently which are off-topic here and belong to Chemistry.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we add that to the migrate options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. question : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75081/soap-like-chemical-causing-the-water-to-evacuate   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="6b2a725c-3fbc-4375-9062-2d90ff6dbaf2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A question was asked by someone in March 2015. It had 4 answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a (fifth) answer on 26th Sep, 2016 (18 months later) and the question was put on hold the next day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please explain if this sounds normal, or my answer had a reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is  https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/171581/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="c75091ba-08dc-4761-a9d8-1d75974a98a0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've suggested *subatomic* as a synonym for *particle-physics*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/particle-physics/synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="b283822c-ebb2-422a-893f-b70437232af6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My answer here was recently deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148332/by-what-force-does-a-man-attract-earth/148336?noredirect=1#comment309273_148336&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never encountered such forceful thing on any Stack Exchange site before. It was neither spam nor offensive post (the situations in which answers are deleted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it all about? Yes, I did write 800N, but the answer also had useful concept." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="f1f7c115-aa86-418a-abe8-701f6b0ef27e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there any guidance on reviewing the first post of a new user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have looked in meta and could not find a similar question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I can think of at the moment is to compare with guidance on the [quesiton help here][1] if it is a question and compare with [guidance on answering][2] if it is an answer and maybe it is simply that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry maybe this is very obvious to all except me. I know that I appreciated the helpful comments and edits I got from various people the first time I posted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="e9ed247c-98f2-40a9-93f4-9857e5ee2e68" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm just curious why my answer was removed.  I asked the poster some questions about his problem then provided two principles to solve his situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75809/help-making-a-solenoid-engine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A(deleted):Do you have something in series with the wire to limit the current? A 2m wire connected directly to 12V should pull a lot more current than 20 mA. What kind of 12V battery is this? Is the battery voltage staying at 12V when you connect it? Batteries tend not to survive long with wires connected directly across their terminals, perhaps it is dead or dieing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two ways to increase the magnetic field: more current and/or more wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway my second concern is that this is just one example where someone is obviously trying to experiment and learn something without help.  Yet rather than just let the question stand they see some back and forth about the site policy and the question gets closed.  I've seen this on other questions too.  It bothers me because I would rather encourage people to try rather than just close their questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="83d3b6cf-38a3-45ac-b855-951613b79d1e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Astronomy imports: 4 of 5&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Astronomy. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 5 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25869/stellar-evolution-simulation-engine-or-software&quot;&gt;Stellar evolution simulation engine or software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;software star-formation simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25336/reverse-sun-position-algorithm&quot;&gt;Reverse Sun position algorithm?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25634/illumination-calculations&quot;&gt;Illumination calculations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25435/formula-for-getting-time-of-sunrise-at-a-particular-location&quot;&gt;Formula for getting time of sunrise at a particular location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar earth-science&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26643/why-arent-saturns-rings-clumping-into-moons&quot;&gt;Why Aren't Saturn's Rings Clumping into Moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons rings&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25860/how-do-you-transform-between-theoretical-hertzsprung-russell-diagrams-and-colour&quot;&gt;How do you transform between theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell Diagrams and Colour-Magnitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars color magnitude&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25626/why-isnt-sunset-time-in-sync-with-solstice&quot;&gt;Why isn't sunset time in sync with solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sunset solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25275/why-is-this-radio-telescopes-reflector-spherical-and-not-parabolic&quot;&gt;Why is this radio telescope's reflector spherical and not parabolic?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes radio-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26670/atmospheric-interference-and-ground-based-stellar-observations&quot;&gt;Atmospheric interference and ground based stellar observations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spectroscopy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25579/why-do-clusters-of-stars-eventually-dissipate&quot;&gt;Why do clusters of stars eventually dissipate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity stars globular-clusters&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25417/why-does-jupiter-emit-more-energy-than-it-receives&quot;&gt;Why does Jupiter emit more energy than it receives?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets gravity jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25283/does-mercury-have-a-balmy-spot&quot;&gt;Does Mercury have a balmy spot?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26370/is-it-true-that-our-solar-system-belongs-to-another-galaxy-which-collides-with-t&quot;&gt;Is it true that our solar system belongs to another galaxy which collides with the milky w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies 2012&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25512/what-is-a-good-introductory-text-to-astronomy&quot;&gt;What is a good introductory text to astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;beginner&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25533/creating-downloading-a-large-galaxy-dataset&quot;&gt;Creating/Downloading a large Galaxy Dataset&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies education&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26240/whats-the-most-accepted-theory-for-blue-stragglers-these-days&quot;&gt;What's the most accepted theory for Blue Stragglers These Days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars globular-clusters blue-supergiants&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/is-there-any-way-to-anticipate-exceptional-aurora-borealis-viewing-conditions&quot;&gt;Is there any way to anticipate exceptional Aurora Borealis viewing conditions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun visual-astronomy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25930/2012-is-there-some-astronomical-event-happening&quot;&gt;2012: Is there some astronomical event happening?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-beam-radiant-intensity-distribution&quot;&gt;Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;pulsars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26080/how-bright-will-an-asteroid-be&quot;&gt;How bright will an asteroid be?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26566/where-can-i-find-a-list-of-when-i-can-see-something-in-the-sky&quot;&gt;Where can I find a list of when I can see something in the sky?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;visual-astronomy amateur-astronomy meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25937/are-there-trends-in-the-number-of-meteors-in-a-shower-year-on-year&quot;&gt;Are there trends in the number of meteors in a shower year on year?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from&quot;&gt;Is the CMB rest frame special? where does it come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26356/transit-of-mercury-how-did-he-see-it&quot;&gt;Transit of Mercury: how did he see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun mercury&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26362/difference-between-baryonic-inertial-and-gravitational-mass-and-relation-to-d&quot;&gt;Difference between baryonic, inertial and gravitational mass? (and relation to dark matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25372/where-does-the-dust-on-the-moon-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the dust on the moon come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25964/use-of-advanced-mathematics-in-astronomy-like-topology-abstract-algebra-or-ot&quot;&gt;Use of advanced mathematics in astronomy, like topology, abstract algebra, or others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universe equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26102/how-do-i-find-the-time-for-pleiades-to-be-at-zenith-today&quot;&gt;How do I find the time for Pleiades to be at Zenith today&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26530/how-to-concisely-explain-apparent-retrograde-motions-of-planets&quot;&gt;How to concisely explain apparent retrograde motions of planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets visual-astronomy orbit retrograde-motion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26061/why-did-population-iii-stars-lack-planets&quot;&gt;Why did population III stars lack planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26619/best-time-of-the-year-to-see-the-star-alpha-centauri-in-chile-santiago&quot;&gt;Best time of the year to see the star Alpha Centauri in Chile, Santiago&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars visual-astronomy observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26584/does-anybody-actually-do-astrometry-in-the-21st-century&quot;&gt;Does anybody actually do astrometry in the 21st century?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars planets time observational-techniques instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26570/shadow-of-a-jovian-moon-over-the-great-red-spot&quot;&gt;Shadow of a Jovian moon over the Great Red Spot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25571/what-is-the-physical-origin-of-scintillation&quot;&gt;What is the physical origin of scintillation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes atmosphere seeing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26648/liquid-water-in-mid-ice-on-europa-mechanism&quot;&gt;Liquid Water in &quot;mid-ice&quot; on Europa. Mechanism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;jupiter europa exo-geology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26354/what-would-the-universe-look-like-if-it-started-out-without-any-irregularities&quot;&gt;What would the universe look like if it started out without any irregularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/could-a-neutron-star-be-active-fusioning-neutrons-into-something-more-dense-and&quot;&gt;Could a neutron star be active, fusioning neutrons into something more dense and releasing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars neutron-stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25498/the-sun-as-a-gravitational-lens&quot;&gt;The Sun as a gravitational lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity gravitation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25681/is-the-apophis-asteroid-a-concern&quot;&gt;Is the Apophis asteroid a concern?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25645/comet-versus-asteroids-versus-meteors&quot;&gt;Comet versus asteroids versus meteors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid comet meteorite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26562/if-we-were-to-travel-through-space-sci-fi-style-how-close-to-the-false-color&quot;&gt;If we were to travel through space (sci-fi style), how close to the false-color images wou&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies space-flight color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25539/do-we-have-an-idea-about-the-amount-of-matter-in-the-universe&quot;&gt;Do we have an idea about the amount of matter in the universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe dark-matter mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26315/detecting-dim-objects&quot;&gt;Detecting dim objects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26328/november-25th-2011-partial-solar-eclipse-visibility-from-christchurch-new-zeala&quot;&gt;November 25th 2011 partial solar eclipse visibility from Christchurch, New Zealand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation eclipse observational-techniques&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/the-bahtinov-focusing-mask&quot;&gt;The Bahtinov focusing mask&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy reflector focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26364/why-are-spacecraft-made-to-spin-after-launch&quot;&gt;Why are spacecraft made to &quot;spin&quot; after launch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exploration launch nasa&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26656/code-to-sample-from-integrate-light-of-a-cluster&quot;&gt;Code to sample from &amp; integrate light of a cluster?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics imf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25822/why-doesnt-a-close-comet-like-elenin-look-like-other-famous-comets-hale-bopp&quot;&gt;Why doesn't a close comet like Elenin look like other, famous comets (Hale Bopp, Halley...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26132/what-are-the-facts-that-allow-accepting-the-oort-cloud-theory&quot;&gt;What are the facts that allow accepting the Oort cloud theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system observation theory oort-cloud&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26497/did-penzias-and-wilson-use-weins-law-or-data-based-on-it-to-determine-the-tem&quot;&gt;Did Penzias and Wilson use Wein's law (or data based on it) to determine the temperature o&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cmb&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26448/how-plausible-is-a-subsurface-ocean-on-pluto&quot;&gt;How plausible is a subsurface ocean on Pluto?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;water pluto&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26628/why-can-there-be-fire-in-space-while-there-is-no-oxygen&quot;&gt;Why can there be fire in space while there is no oxygen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/what-is-the-best-evidence-theory-about-the-first-generation-of-stars&quot;&gt;What is the best evidence/theory about the first generation of stars&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars big-bang star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26100/why-doesnt-our-solar-system-run-into-other-solar-systems-over-billions-of-years&quot;&gt;Why doesn't our solar system run into other solar systems over billions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25720/how-are-exoplanets-confirmed&quot;&gt;How are exoplanets confirmed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26177/what-has-theoretical-physics-gotten-first&quot;&gt;What has theoretical physics gotten first?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;theory professional-astronomy string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25867/is-there-any-chance-we-could-eventually-observe-the-supernova-of-the-first-popu&quot;&gt;Is there any chance we could eventually observe the supernova of the first (Population III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars supernova big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25305/how-is-the-hanbury-brown-and-twiss-effect-used-to-measure-the-size-of-stars&quot;&gt;How is the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect used to measure the size of stars?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;distance instrument quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25678/how-can-we-know-today-that-theres-something-from-100-light-years-from-here&quot;&gt;How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25899/how-to-explain-the-moon-halo-phenomenon&quot;&gt;How to explain the Moon halo phenomenon?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&quot;&gt;Universe is expanding at enormous speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics universal-expansion physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/calculating-the-suns-vector-and-distance-from-the-earth-at-one-time&quot;&gt;Calculating the Suns vector and distance from the Earth at one time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system orbit calculations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26723/is-there-more-mass-in-stars-or-interstellar-medium&quot;&gt;Is there more mass in stars or interstellar medium?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26332/how-does-space-affect-the-human-body-no-space-suit-no-space-craft&quot;&gt;How does space affect the human body (no space suit, no space craft)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26255/best-observing-techniques-for-a-total-lunar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Best observing techniques for a Total Lunar Eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon eclipse&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25519/lumped-circuit-model-of-earth-and-sun-as-a-thermal-system&quot;&gt;Lumped circuit model of Earth and Sun as a thermal system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets sun earth simulation weather&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25618/how-many-pluto-sized-planetoids-have-been-discovered&quot;&gt;How many Pluto sized planetoids have been discovered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26546/is-it-possible-to-look-into-the-beginning-of-the-universe&quot;&gt;Is it possible to look into the beginning of the Universe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26700/how-long-does-it-take-for-radio-or-light-waves-to-travel-from-earth-to-jupiter&quot;&gt;How long does it take for radio or light waves to travel from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn, Ur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system distance light&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26582/is-there-an-established-standard-for-naming-exoplanets&quot;&gt;Is there an established standard for naming exoplanets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets names&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26388/is-there-reddening-on-objects-other-than-the-moon-upon-entry-into-earths-umbra&quot;&gt;Is There Reddening on Objects Other than the Moon Upon Entry into Earth's Umbra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon orbit eclipse satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/why-cant-you-escape-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;Why can't you escape a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25687/polar-ice-deposits-on-the-moon-dispersed-in-permafrost-loose-rubble-or-also-m&quot;&gt;Polar ice deposits on the Moon - dispersed in permafrost loose rubble, or also massive/lay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moon water instruments&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25550/could-there-be-more-universes&quot;&gt;Could there be more universes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;universe big-bang time&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25419/how-can-voyager-1-escape-gravity-of-moons-and-planets&quot;&gt;How can Voyager 1 escape gravity of moons and planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit gravity spacecraft voyager&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25713/which-direction-before-dawn-to-look-for-comet-lovejoy-c-2011-w3&quot;&gt;Which direction before dawn to look for Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation comet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25467/when-do-natural-leap-years-occur-on-years-based-on-the-northern-winter-solstice&quot;&gt;When do natural leap years occur, on years based on the northern winter solstice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit earth calculations spin&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26646/light-years-and-redshift-from-our-point-of-view-how-can-we-see-it&quot;&gt;Light years and redshift from our point of view. How can we see it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;big-bang universal-expansion&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26304/is-the-moon-a-planet&quot;&gt;Is the moon a planet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth moon satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt&quot;&gt;What is the fate of the asteroid belt?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;solar-system asteroid asteroid-belt&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26535/novice-interested-in-buying-a-used-telescope-what-questions-should-i-ask&quot;&gt;Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes amateur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26776/does-a-reference-or-classification-standard-for-altitude-classifications-of-geoc&quot;&gt;Does a reference or classification standard for altitude classifications of geocentric orb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit classification&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25733/is-there-an-algorithm-to-find-the-time-when-the-sun-is-x-degrees-above-the-horiz&quot;&gt;Is there an Algorithm to find the time when the sun is X degrees above the horizon for a g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26068/recommended-first-accessories-for-starblast-4-5&quot;&gt;Recommended first accessories for starblast 4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes visual-astronomy equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25629/how-to-measure-the-diameter-of-a-star&quot;&gt;How to measure the diameter of a star?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25894/how-does-the-winter-solstice-relate-to-the-longest-night&quot;&gt;How does the winter solstice relate to the &quot;longest night&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth solstice&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25445/will-the-universe-reach-zero-mass&quot;&gt;Will the universe reach zero mass?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25711/where-are-the-voyagers-going&quot;&gt;Where are the Voyagers going?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;voyager intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26337/what-happens-to-light-that-falls-into-a-black-hole&quot;&gt;What happens to light that falls into a black hole?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-holes light singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26386/how-big-compared-to-our-moon-would-saturn-look-from-titans-surface&quot;&gt;How big (compared to our moon) would Saturn look from Titan's surface?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets saturn titan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25845/how-to-care-for-a-dobsonian-around-the-ocean&quot;&gt;How to care for a Dobsonian around the ocean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;dobsonian corrosion maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25815/should-i-be-concerned-about-spot-corrosion-on-a-telescopes-primary-mirror&quot;&gt;Should I be concerned about spot corrosion on a telescope's primary mirror?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes corrosion maintenance mirror&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26347/does-the-moon-affect-human-behaviour&quot;&gt;Does the moon affect human behaviour?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26542/why-does-the-debris-from-comets-and-former-comets-hang-around-so-long&quot;&gt;Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26639/whats-in-my-box&quot;&gt;What's in my box?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;intergalactic-space interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26440/how-can-i-understand-einstein-space&quot;&gt;How can I understand Einstein Space?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/quality-loss-when-adding-more-components-to-a-telescope&quot;&gt;Quality loss when adding more components to a telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography focus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26226/gravity-of-a-disc&quot;&gt;Gravity of a disc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophysics gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26667/how-to-locate-the-orion-nebula&quot;&gt;How to locate the Orion Nebula?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes nebula&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25659/how-much-sky-do-we-see-at-any-one-moment&quot;&gt;How much sky do we see at any one moment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;meteor-showers eye-physiology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26390/determining-cloud-cover-from-observer-to-near-the-horizon&quot;&gt;Determining cloud cover from observer to near the horizon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes weather observing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26274/is-there-a-way-to-create-an-artificial-solar-eclipse&quot;&gt;Is there a way to create an artificial solar eclipse?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun eclipse physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25403/will-the-james-webb-space-telescope-be-able-to-capture-something-similar-to-or&quot;&gt;Will the James Webb Space Telescope be able to capture something similar to, or better tha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes professional-astronomy deep-space space-telescope james-webb-telescope&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25935/cassini-what-information-could-be-gained-from-the-2017-impact-with-saturn&quot;&gt;Cassini: What information could be gained from the 2017 impact with Saturn?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft rings saturn&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26758/the-moon-during-the-day&quot;&gt;The Moon during the day&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26229/issues-with-celestron-130-slt-and-shaking&quot;&gt;Issues with Celestron 130 SLT and shaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography reflector&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26167/looking-for-a-resource-that-explains-all-colors-and-shapes-of-stars-and-galaxies&quot;&gt;Looking for a resource that explains all colors and shapes of stars and galaxies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies color&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25302/hartmann-mask-based-collimation&quot;&gt;Hartmann mask based collimation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography equipment&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25959/how-can-the-date-of-lunar-eclipses-be-calculated-by-hand&quot;&gt;How can the date of lunar eclipses be calculated by hand?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;eclipse moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26374/sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Skyhawk 1145P SynScan AZ GOTO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26755/does-celestia-take-the-lunar-orbit-precession-into-account&quot;&gt;Does Celestia take the lunar orbit precession into account?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26476/can-a-minimum-ultimate-tensile-strength-uts-for-an-asteroid-be-established-bas&quot;&gt;Can a minimum ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for an asteroid be established based on its &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid rotation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26538/why-doesnt-helium-start-to-fuse-while-there-is-still-hydrogen-fuel&quot;&gt;Why doesn't helium start to fuse while there is still hydrogen fuel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26312/confusing-description-of-orions-belt-could-someone-clarify&quot;&gt;Confusing description of Orions belt, could someone clarify?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;observation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26320/interstellar-bodies&quot;&gt;Interstellar bodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;asteroid interstellar-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25535/if-a-hot-jupiter-was-not-tidally-locked-then-are-there-any-specific-cases-where&quot;&gt;If a hot Jupiter was not tidally locked, then are there any specific cases where its wind &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26310/why-dont-any-of-the-gas-giants-have-moons-of-earths-mass-or-greater-that-orb&quot;&gt;Why don't any of the gas giants have moons of Earth's mass (or greater) that orbit them? I&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;exoplanets&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25295/raising-altitude-by-using-magnetic-torquer-and-reaction-wheels&quot;&gt;Raising Altitude by using Magnetic Torquer and Reaction Wheels&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;orbit satellite&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25962/what-is-lighting-up-space-shuttle-endeavours-main-engines&quot;&gt;What is lighting up Space Shuttle Endeavour's main engines?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;unknown-object ssme&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25915/what-proportion-of-a-stars-hydrogen-is-consumed-in-its-life&quot;&gt;What proportion of a star's hydrogen is consumed in its life?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;stars astrophysics sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25652/sun-moon-earth-anomaly&quot;&gt;sun-moon-earth anomaly&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the-moon&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26285/are-uranus-and-neptune-too-big-for-their-location&quot;&gt;Are Uranus and Neptune too big for their location?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;planets solar-system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25692/what-is-stopping-us-from-stick-building-a-space-station&quot;&gt;What is stopping us from stick building a space station?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spacecraft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25791/how-bright-are-auroras-aurorae&quot;&gt;How bright are auroras (aurorae)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;astrophotography aurora&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons&quot;&gt;Is it possible that I just saw Jupiter's moons?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;moons jupiter&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26632/relation-between-isophotal-radius-and-virial-radius-in-spiral-galaxies&quot;&gt;Relation between isophotal radius and virial radius in spiral galaxies?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25804/what-telescope-would-i-need-to-observe-marss-polar-caps&quot;&gt;What telescope would I need to observe Mars's polar caps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes mars&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25324/how-to-stabilize-an-unstable-telescope&quot;&gt;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-face-of-earth&quot;&gt;How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire face of earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth spacecraft space-flight&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25735/does-the-dark-matter-halo-rotate-with-the-galaxy&quot;&gt;Does the dark matter halo rotate with the galaxy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology dark-matter galaxy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25485/automated-telescope-system&quot;&gt;Automated telescope system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;telescopes astrophotography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25367/how-do-we-explain-the-phase-change-between-high-and-low-star-formation-rates&quot;&gt;How do we explain the phase change between high and low star formation rates?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;galaxies galaxy star-formation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26203/is-it-safe-to-observe-the-sun-through-binoculars-with-welding-glass-in-front&quot;&gt;Is it safe to observe the sun through binoculars with welding glass in front?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun observation solar&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25862/why-are-there-no-images-of-faceted-crystals-outside-of-earth&quot;&gt;Why are there no images of faceted crystals outside of Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;earth mars water&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26768/does-the-sun-cross-over-a-given-meridian-line-every-day-at-the-same-time&quot;&gt;Does the sun cross over a given meridian line every day at the same time?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26382/why-is-1-au-the-distance-between-the-sun-and-the-earth&quot;&gt;Why is 1 AU the distance between the Sun and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sun earth distance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="267b1164-ef34-422c-a532-167d20dcc8cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8276/optimal-technique-to-tear-perforated-paper-along-the-perforation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a question which is considered to be off topic by some members of the community, but on topic by others (as evidenced by the fact that they answered it). I'm not entirely sure which camp I'm in. At first, I thought it was off topic, but I've been closing a lot of questions recently and since at the time, nobody else objected to the question, I thought I would give it a chance. (Besides, there is physics involved in paper tearing at _some_ level.) However, now it's clear that there are people who consider this sort of question unambiguously off topic, and in many cases I'm inclined to agree with them. So we should make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions about practical phenomena that don't address the underlying reasons: on topic or off topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related meta questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272/are-how-to-questions-for-demos-and-try-this-at-home-experiments-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/170/what-tag-should-we-use-to-indicate-how-does-x-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of these practical questions (all the ones I could find happen to be closed, but I think there are others out there that weren't; please comment or edit in links if you find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7681/extracting-water-out-of-silica-gel&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/what-materials-can-be-used-to-release-odours-when-wet-closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="b2af92d2-999d-49a1-aaa1-123ded93bfca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="OK - so I rephrase the [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285415/) to highlight the physics content as suggested and... zilch. It still stays on hold.&#xD;&#xA;So the only option appears to be to re-post the revised question under a different heading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that how this is supposed to work or should the person who put it on hold actually check on it to see if it was re-edited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="33948e49-5b4b-468e-a9ab-c54117335f2d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you see [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms) page, there are many &quot;pending&quot; tag synonyms.  I' have noticed that very few people bother voting on tag synonyms.  This post is like a request for people to  vote on tag synonyms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have at least 5 reputation on a particular tag (you can see how much reputation you have on a particular tag [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23119?tab=tags), replacing &quot;23119&quot; with   your own    user id.),              please consider voting on tag synonyms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, if you also have 2500 reputation, consider proposing tag synonyms (this is a little hard, because  the synonym needs to exist first.).                   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="642" RevisionGUID="54b061e6-8d54-49ef-afc6-e59b3a052971" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm in favor of closing practical questions and asking them to be rephrased as physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key is that with the questions you cited, the asker wanted to know something along the lines of &quot;what's the best way to...&quot;  This elicits practical, non-physics answers (the answers to the paper-tearing question simply talk about things like running pencils along a crease; they don't have significant physics content).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions, slightly modified but about the same topic, could read &quot;Why does such and such act this way...&quot;. If the paper question were phrased &quot;Does the angle you tear paper have an effect, and why?&quot;, it would elicit more physics-based answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example, I think [the question about why dust sticks to fans][1] is a fine question, but if it had been asked, &quot;What's the best way to keep my fan from accumulating dust?&quot;, it would be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1343/why-does-dust-stick-to-rotating-fan-propeller" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="cfb6c30a-e6d9-4a78-8461-e781eb097a0f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This recent question on an infinite resistor grid][1] is certainly interesting, but why should we include such questions on the site?  The question has already been asked and answered many times on the internet.  In fact, the question is asked simply by copying it from somewhere else, and it is answered (as of now) by linking to a solution somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't we want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search?  Should we ask questions just to have them on this particular site?  If so, we should grab a couple of problem books out of the library and start transcribing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I can think of to encourage this sort of question is that some users might not have seen it before, and will find it fun and amusing to think about.  But that's the only reason I have thought of, and doesn't seem like it's the primary goal of this site; there are other places online dedicated to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2072/on-this-infinite-grid-of-resistors-whats-the-equivalent-resistance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="6dbfaf46-ddea-4ed8-af0f-c9a1656e2654" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that many users find the  homework tag &quot;demeaning&quot;, e.g. [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546/23119). There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that &quot;This is not homework!!!&quot;, often, too.               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving] or [tag:homework-like] as suggested by David Z), so that people don't find it &quot;demeaning,&quot; despite the fact that there are many good [tag:homework] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me emphasize that I'm _not_ here suggesting to change the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) for homework-like questions, nor whether or not we should have a tag for homework-like questions. The scope and policy have been discussed in several other meta questions. Here I'm only asking whether we should change the _name_ of the tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="6a1446ef-a032-42b0-92c9-6d72635901dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've just noticed that [my question was closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2545/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-separate-egg-whites). Why is it off limits to propose a question asking for the best way to do something that would obviously require energy to be spent. I want to know what is the most efficient way to separate eggs. How is that any worse than [this stupid question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/770/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-destroy-the-universe), which is not just on the same lines but destructive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe in the future all closed questions for physics.stackexchange.com should be brought up in meta first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9275" RevisionGUID="90e8183d-5f20-4e2a-88af-9cf3d12118e7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't understand why you are complaining. I looked at your account. You have only two questions, and both are not on hold *and* they are answered! Not only that, both *are* homework questions. Before you yell at me for being prejudiced too, please let me explain real quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of your questions are looking for answers that are sort of &quot;calculate for me, do my work for me&quot; questions. It doesn't matter whether or not they are actually homework, it is about the type of question they are: &quot;do my work&quot; type problems (which is why we are trying to reformulate the policy, because the close reasons aren't as clear as we'd like). That is why people are asking you to read the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm not sure you've quite been on this site long enough to see what sometimes comes up. We get questions saying stuff like &quot;solve this problem&quot; with nothing of their own work. Once, we got a question asking for users to come up with &quot;new and innovative ideas&quot; for a project for school. We get some pretty bad questions. When we say on meta &quot;improve quality of questions&quot; we mean trying to make it more clear that that stuff is not allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about being elitist, or forbidding basic questions. Actually, some of the most upvoted questions might be considered &quot;basic&quot; by a good number of users on this site. Further, some of my questions have been well-upvoted, not closed, and answered, but they've been kind of basic sorts of questions. So the whole elitist thing isn't true at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please, don't go off making accusations without actually considering what is going on. I hope that makes sense, and I hope your future on this site is a tad more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At DanielSank's request, here are two questions I've asked that in my mind are simple (especially in their respective areas of physics) questions which are both upvoted and answered. In fact, the first one got 27 upvotes (!) which surprised me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/282286/why-ket-and-bra-notation&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274558/boltzmann-formulation-of-entropy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="d8a1d1a4-fd36-41e5-8d3d-e0586effb98c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles (and how to fix a couple of them)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][3]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][4]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][5]&#xD;&#xA;6. [Need help solving physics problem][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a [grammatically well-formed question][7] if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Capitalize only the first word and [proper nouns][8] in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183696/need-help-solving-physics-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/20730/why-do-my-how-to-questions-often-get-renamed-to-how-do-i&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="7cba53f6-2fe2-4233-8606-7fc509cd9fe2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="An example question:  &#xD;&#xA;[Solution for the Finite 2D Potential Well - Rotational Symmetry][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is being voted to close as off-topic. Reading the comments, that seems to be because it the physics is basically done, all that's left is to solve a differential equation. That is true, but I wonder if it's really a problem.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;That question was just an example, let's focus on the general case. A lot of physics problems and exercises have very little physics and quite a lot of mathematics. Let us assume a question is asked where the physics is basically done, so that it is solvable through strictly mathematical procedures. The motivation is something like: the Lagrangian of a several body system, the velocity field of a fluid around a specific object, or the eigenstates of a QM system. Also assume the level is not too basic, so it is within our pre-established level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we consider such a question off-topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though the answer only requires mathematics, it looks like the kind of question a physics student might be interested in. Do we want to keep it here or move it to math.stackexchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2707/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="775d1e61-1e42-41aa-9cc0-c4f0a56b509f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question [Evidence indicating that CO2 is responsible for Global warming][1] was closed as being too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many research papers on the topic, however it is a very specific question. If you are willing to suggest edits to re-open this question, I would be willing to listen, but I don't understand why it must be closed. Have I violated a policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate the fact I have to talk about policy now. But if this question is closed even questions such as &quot;What evidence do we have that GR(insert any theory) is correct?&quot; must also be closed. It is outrageous to me, but it's your site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290358/evidence-indicating-that-co2-is-responsible-for-global-warming?noredirect=1#290358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="fbb58f18-1ea3-4ad0-a651-b4fddd8a09bb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some apparent redspace problems, 10 m/s ([original post][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sοurce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The period of a pendulum of length $h$ for small oscillations &#xD;&#xA;    is $2\pi \sqrt{h/g}$, with $g$ the acceleration due to gravity, &#xD;&#xA;    about $10 m/s$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2372/how-long-it-will-take-for-a-tree-to-fall-on-a-ground/2401#2401&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="80203a71-b49d-4530-a576-408ca8663801" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a user called [Community](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) that undertakes a number of useful background tasks, like take possession of up- and down-votes from deleted users (for more detail see e.g. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). In particular, the system bumps old unanswered questions to the top of the front page every so often to help them get answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens, the link to the question will show Community as the last active user on that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is some other name, then the question has had some activity recently. To be taken to the last active post in that thread, click on the timestamp:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o7iws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3Cq7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="7ab132df-d9af-4945-8313-6c1228589863" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Obviously, there's a lot of overlap between physics and astronomy. It would be good to have some guidelines for what goes where now that the [astronomy beta][1] is live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example questions for discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Why do we say that the earth moves around the sun?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Questions about the solar system][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [The final death of a black hole.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. [What is meant by positive and negative gravity/energy/spactimecurvature?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. [Would a submarine float in the atmosphere of Jupiter?][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. [What nonlinear deformations will a fast rotating planet exhibit?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm leaving out really obviously astronomy questions like [What is 656 Beagle?][8]. The big question marks are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Classical mechanics/dynamics questions that are principally about astronomical objects&#xD;&#xA; - Cosmology&#xD;&#xA; - General Relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where do those go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10933/why-do-we-say-that-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/questions-about-the-solar-system&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/the-final-death-of-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9201/what-is-meant-by-positive-and-negative-gravity-energy-spactimecurvature&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9456/would-a-submarine-float-in-the-atmosphere-of-jupiter&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10670/what-nonlinear-deformations-will-a-fast-rotating-planet-exhibit&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/what-is-656-beagle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="7ac9daf7-f495-4df4-a4b8-ed440db73ff4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A [quick search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bhistory%5D+closed%3Ano+migrated%3Ano) for not-closed not-migrated [tag:history] questions shows a handful of results. Given that newly asked questions about history are usually migrated to [hsm.se](http://hsm.stackexchange.com), should old (i.e., more than 2 month old) questions be migrated too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion is: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/58382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9316" RevisionGUID="3050480b-d152-424f-bffd-78b0d623e901" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, a whole lot of things have happened, but in a nutshell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Our proposal was closed as a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA; 2. We got an offer from physics overflow to host the site.&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Mew][1] is building the site by hand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want the relations between our new site, Physics Problems Q&amp;A, and Physics.SE to be friendly. Hopefully, once our site is firmly established, we can establish some sort of protocol for migrating questions between sites, or at the very least recommending the other site to users. We certainly do not want a relationship like that between Physics Overflow and Physics.SE. We would be glad to welcome any users to our site; please see our [first draft of our scope and guidelines](http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com/?qa=116/scope-%26-guidelines) to know what we expect. Moderators on the site are myself, S007, and Mew (username Einstein on the new site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our site is coming along quite well although there are still improvements to be made, both in the construction of the site and in the general guidelines. If you have any questions, the chatroom on the new site is still under construction, so please ping one of us at [this stack exchange chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/47874/physics-problem-solving). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12350/mew" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="5236dc87-5bfa-46db-b628-c6b1baa4dd2d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Jim Post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9789/tim-post). To get rid of the multiple-Jims confusion and replace it with confusion for those who have no idea who Tim Post is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="6ad38c8b-25d7-4d6f-8507-3a519729bd2e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this questions are off topic (they might fit in CogSci).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first asks if brightness is physichological, which of course is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66883/is-light-brightness-subjective-or-can-it-be-quantified&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second asks about time perception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68117/why-do-we-feel-the-passing-of-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="c5a28646-3cc1-4322-b2a4-0a05c03dd115" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your three questions ([here][1], [here][2] and [here][3]) do not really *show* the work you have been putting in - maybe you can be a bit more explicit and write down more clearly and in more detail what your attempts are. Also, questions like &quot;I need to know how to approach this problem&quot; are usually not received as conceptual questions and often seen unfit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that is important to me - you did not hurt anyone's feelings. No one here is going to be insulted or mad because they feel a question might not fit within the policy of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="e3404a38-16ef-4583-85fb-3929f3874927" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Minor issue&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;It seems you have a link error. If you select a tag (I chose `fluid-dynamics`, but it works for others I've tested, including other SE sites), the link at the top, e.g., `Physics:&lt;tag&gt; (&lt;question_number&gt;)`, leads to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/tagged/fluid-dynamics &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which does not exist. It should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick look in main.js on your github page shows that `/questions/` should be included (see line 315):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .attr('href', seSiteData.siteData.site_url + &quot;/questions/tagged/&quot; + tagName)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suspect the problem is elsewhere, but didn't investigate more since I'm not really well-versed (read: at all) in JavaScript.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feature request&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to make a tag-graph of a particular user?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="d833b125-7adb-4ae3-b6a4-a66eb4bba144" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In light of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/what-is-international-service-of-weights-and-measures, I did a bit of searching for our policy on questions about units and measurement ([metrology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology))... but I don't think we really have one. So how should we handle these sorts of questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, units and measurement are topics of relevance to all sorts of science and engineering, not just physics. But on the other hand, they often seem to be associated with physics, as the &quot;most basic&quot; of the physical sciences. Do we allow them or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/what-is-the-si-derived-unit-of-brix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353/why-were-the-si-base-quantities-chosen-as-such" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="e67b9aba-4cac-490d-8d31-e2b4ecacebc7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Out of 1000+ questions on physics stack exchange, only 7 have a -4 or worse count (this link is temporary):  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?page=78&amp;sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of these is a question I asked about asteroids and life on the planet:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could life survive if the earth's axis were knocked 70 degrees by an asteroid collision?&quot;  -4  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4334/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidently four people voted it down and none up and I don't have a clue why. It's a basic physics question, it can be answered with a simple calculation, and it's of interest to the general public. Comments on the question are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some people have evidently never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; played with a gyroscope or tried to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn a spinning bicycle wheel out of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plane with their hands. What mechanism&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is proposed to damp the ferocious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precession that would be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inevitable aftermath of twisting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; axis around like that? Bah! Humbug! –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dmckee 2 days ago&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What sort of asteroid could knock&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earth's axis off by 70 degrees without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ripping the planet to shreds, for that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter!? – Noldorin♦ yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Noldorin: Yeah. I started trying to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; estimate the energies involved, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floundered when I realized there was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no impulse-like way to get from there&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to here. – dmckee yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some very simple calculation would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer this question. – Georg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, I answered my own question with the calculation I outlined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the only questions with a lower rating (i.e -5) are questions which, one way or another, do not make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If energy in a flat space is zero, are we saying that a flat space is isolated?&quot; -5  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4448/if-energy-in-a-flat-space-is-zero-are-we-saying-that-a-flat-space-is-isolated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why is there something rather than nothing? [closed]&quot; -5  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/908/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm wondering. Anyone have a clue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three other asteroid / meteor questions. This one also has to do with a life endangering asteroid:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Relativistic Object Impacts the Earth&quot;  +2  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3362/relativistic-object-impacts-the-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other questions:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Orbital mechanics of Dragon's Egg&quot;  +3&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1816/orbital-mechanics-of-dragons-egg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What would be the real-world implications of the Kessler Syndrome?&quot;  +0&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/439/what-would-be-the-real-world-implications-of-the-kessler-syndrome&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="aec1458e-0378-415b-94b8-9e54ae68d764" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question hit me when I saw [this question][1] which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found [this post][2]; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like [music][3] and [scifi][4]. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xD;&#xA;about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://music.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="747761a7-a424-4414-8d5c-966f78ebe664" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 1 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27751/what-is-known-about-the-classification-of-n-4-scfts-with-central-charge-6&quot;&gt;What is known about the classification of N=4 SCFTs with central charge 6?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26875/superhiggs-mechanism-on-different-backgrounds-compactifications&quot;&gt;SuperHiggs Mechanism on different Backgrounds &amp; Compactifications&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27384/are-possible-gauge-fields-in-a-lagrangian-theory-always-determined-by-the-struct&quot;&gt;Are possible gauge fields in a Lagrangian theory always determined by the structure of the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gauge-theory symmetry quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26939/models-of-higher-chern-simons-type&quot;&gt;models of higher Chern-Simons type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27468/renormalization-group-for-non-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Renormalization Group for non-equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27780/theoretical-penetration-limit-for-evanescent-waves&quot;&gt;Theoretical penetration limit for evanescent waves&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;classical-electrodynamics uncertainty-principle optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27143/applications-of-delay-differential-equations&quot;&gt;Applications of delay differential equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27262/mermin-wagner-theorem-in-the-presence-of-hard-core-interactions&quot;&gt;Mermin-Wagner theorem in the presence of hard-core interactions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27453/technical-naturalness-of-yukawa-couplings&quot;&gt;Technical naturalness of Yukawa couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27776/do-gauge-theories-cfts-have-phase-transitions-as-the-t-hooft-coupling-is-vari&quot;&gt;Do Gauge Theories (CFTs) Have Phase Transitions as the 't Hooft Coupling is Varied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26838/connections-and-applications-of-sle-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections and applications of SLE in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics conformal-field-theory probability&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27125/hypersingular-boundary-operator-in-physics&quot;&gt;Hypersingular Boundary Operator in Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27565/status-of-local-gauge-invariance-in-axiomatic-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Status of local gauge invariance in axiomatic quantum field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26804/what-is-the-current-state-of-research-into-v-representability&quot;&gt;What is the current state of research into $v$-representability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor&quot;&gt;The Role of Rigor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph history-overview &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27398/onsagers-regression-hypothesis-explained-and-demonstrated&quot;&gt;Onsager's Regression Hypothesis, Explained and Demonstrated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26950/extensions-of-dhr-superselection-theory-to-long-range-forces&quot;&gt;Extensions of DHR superselection theory to long range forces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26864/what-is-the-use-of-a-universal-not-gate&quot;&gt;What is the use of a Universal-NOT gate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/an-entropy-of-the-wigner-function&quot;&gt;An entropy of the Wigner function&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph uncertainty-principle entropy wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/sampling-typical-clusters-between-distant-points-in-subcritical-percolation&quot;&gt;Sampling typical clusters between distant points in subcritical percolation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27593/which-is-the-coupling-between-the-photon-and-the-su2xu1-gauginos-before-sym&quot;&gt;Which is the coupling between the photon and the SU(2)xU(1) gauginos, before symmetry brea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27286/metric-interpretation-of-self-adjoint-extensions&quot;&gt;Metric interpretation of self-adjoint extensions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics non-commutative-geometry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/systematic-approach-to-deriving-equations-of-collective-field-theory-to-any-orde&quot;&gt;Systematic approach to deriving equations of collective field theory to any order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26915/can-the-cpt-theorem-be-valid-if-lorentz-invariance-is-only-spontaneously-broken&quot;&gt;Can the CPT theorem be valid if Lorentz invariance is only spontaneously broken?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26805/counting-complete-sets-of-mutually-unbiased-bases-composed-of-stabilizer-states&quot;&gt;Counting complete sets of mutually unbiased bases composed of stabilizer states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27408/where-do-theta-functions-and-canonical-green-functions-appear-in-physics&quot;&gt;Where do theta functions and canonical Green functions appear in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27156/what-is-the-importance-of-studying-degeneration-on-m-g&quot;&gt;What is the importance of studying degeneration on $M_g$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27527/other-processes-than-formal-power-series-expansions-in-quantum-field-theory-calc&quot;&gt;Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/quasiparticles-in-bohmian-mechanics&quot;&gt;Quasiparticles in Bohmian mechanics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27671/how-exactly-does-linear-regge-trajectories-imply-stability&quot;&gt;How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27775/why-are-even-and-odd-regge-trajectories-degenerate&quot;&gt;Why Are Even and Odd Regge Trajectories Degenerate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26987/fluctuations-of-an-interface-with-hammock-potential&quot;&gt;Fluctuations of an interface with hammock potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics&quot;&gt;What are some critiques of Jaynes' approach to statistical mechanics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27221/bps-states-mathematical-definition&quot;&gt;BPS states : Mathematical definition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27746/experimental-bounds-on-spacetime-torsion&quot;&gt;experimental bounds on spacetime torsion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26890/principle-behind-fidelity-balance-in-quantum-cloning&quot;&gt;Principle behind fidelity balance in quantum cloning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-mechanics quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/orbits-of-maximally-entangled-mixed-states&quot;&gt;Orbits of maximally entangled mixed states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph group-theory entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/gauge-invariance-for-electromagnetic-potential-observables-in-test-function-form&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance for electromagnetic potential observables in test function form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&quot;&gt;Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26960/is-there-a-theorem-that-says-that-qft-reduces-to-qm-in-a-suitable-limit-a-theor&quot;&gt;Is there a theorem that says that QFT reduces to QM in a suitable limit? A theorem similar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics&quot;&gt;Negative probabilities in quantum physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quant-ph probability wigner-function&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27742/list-of-known-seiberg-dual-pairs-of-n-1-gauge-theories&quot;&gt;List of known Seiberg-dual pairs of N=1 gauge theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26850/topological-twists-of-susy-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;Topological twists of SUSY gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supersymmetry gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27466/connections-of-iterative-solvers-for-large-systems-of-equation-in-physics&quot;&gt;Connections of iterative solvers for large systems of equation in Physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics quantum-mechanics classical-electrodynamics hamiltonian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27569/which-qfts-were-rigorously-constructed&quot;&gt;Which QFTs were rigorously constructed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory math-ph rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/n-2-ssm-without-a-higgs&quot;&gt;N=2 SSM without a Higgs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27251/what-methods-are-there-to-deal-with-quantum-spatiotemporal-chaos&quot;&gt;What methods are there to deal with quantum spatiotemporal chaos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27309/which-exact-solutions-of-the-classical-yang-mills-equations-are-known&quot;&gt;Which exact solutions of the classical Yang-Mills equations are known?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory classical-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/what-is-a-simple-intuitive-way-to-see-the-relation-between-imaginary-time-perio&quot;&gt;What is a simple intuitive way to see the relation between imaginary time (periodic) and t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26832/graduate-school-for-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Graduate School for Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26988/modern-avatar-of-englerts-solution&quot;&gt;Modern avatar of Englert's solution?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27208/super-lie-infinity-algebra-of-closed-superstring-field-theory&quot;&gt;Super Lie-infinity algebra of closed superstring field theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27675/how-to-write-a-paper-in-physics&quot;&gt;How to write a paper in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27659/description-of-metal-and-aromatic-interactions-in-protein-ligand-interacions&quot;&gt;Description of metal and aromatic interactions in protein ligand interacions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;chemical-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/miura-transform-for-w-algebras-of-exceptional-type&quot;&gt;Miura transform for W-algebras of exceptional type&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27559/relevance-of-sic-povms-to-quantum-information&quot;&gt;Relevance of SIC-POVMs to quantum information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27001/what-is-the-state-of-the-art-on-spacelike-singularities-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;What is the state-of-the-art on spacelike singularities in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory general-relativity gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27234/what-proof-techniques-have-failed-for-solving-the-sic-povm-problem-and-what-new&quot;&gt;What proof techniques have failed for solving the SIC-POVM problem and what new insights h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27449/majorana-like-representation-for-mixed-symmetric-states&quot;&gt;Majorana-like representation for mixed symmetric states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics permutation-symmetric majorana-representation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26928/decoherence-and-measurement-in-nmr&quot;&gt;Decoherence and measurement in NMR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-control nmr quantum-measurement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27313/holographic-renormalization-in-non-ads-non-cft&quot;&gt;Holographic Renormalization in non-AdS/non-CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization holography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26827/renormalization-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Renormalization in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27485/which-are-the-simplest-known-contextual-inequalities&quot;&gt;Which are the simplest known contextual inequalities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27431/what-does-gribovs-last-paper-tell-about-coloured-states&quot;&gt;What does Gribov's last paper tell about coloured states?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26934/why-no-double-counting-of-s-and-t-channels-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;why no double counting of s- and t-channels in string theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26903/lorentz-transformation-in-light-cone-coordinates-in-string-theory&quot;&gt;Lorentz transformation in light cone coordinates in string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27732/agt-conjecture-and-wzw-model&quot;&gt;AGT conjecture and WZW model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26814/minimal-strings-and-topological-strings&quot;&gt;Minimal strings and topological strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph string-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26948/supersymmetric-nonrenormalization-theorems&quot;&gt;Supersymmetric Nonrenormalization Theorems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26888/on-shell-symmetry-from-a-path-integral-point-of-view&quot;&gt;On-shell symmetry from a path integral point of view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26996/infinity-of-running-couplings&quot;&gt;infinity of running couplings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27386/is-the-distinction-between-the-poincare-group-and-other-internal-symmetry-groups&quot;&gt;Is the distinction between the PoincarÃ© group and other internal symmetry groups artificia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27157/quantum-mechanics-as-a-markov-process&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanics as a Markov process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/length-of-publication-cycle-for-peer-reviewed-journals&quot;&gt;Length of publication cycle for peer-reviewed journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question publishing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27033/phase-diagram-of-simplified-qcd&quot;&gt;Phase diagram of simplified QCD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26815/false-vacuum-in-axiomatic-qft&quot;&gt;False vacuum in axiomatic QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory rigorous-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/quantum-mechanical-gravitational-bound-states&quot;&gt;Quantum mechanical gravitational bound states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics gravity quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27562/status-of-4-3-scalar-as-explanation-of-t-bar-t-asymmetry&quot;&gt;status of +4/3 scalar as explanation of $t\bar t$ asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26845/lorentz-force-in-dirac-theory-and-its-classical-limit&quot;&gt;Lorentz force in Dirac theory and its classical limit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27008/from-manifold-to-manifold&quot;&gt;From Manifold to Manifold?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27074/possible-research-implications-of-proof-of-john-cardys-a-theorem-in-qft&quot;&gt;Possible research implications of proof of John Cardy's a-theorem in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory soft-question citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27586/partition-functions-in-ads-cft&quot;&gt;Partition Functions in (A)dS/CFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27190/experimental-test-of-the-non-statisticality-theorem&quot;&gt;Experimental test of the non-statisticality theorem?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-foundations experimental-tests&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27244/finite-qfts-and-short-distance-singularities-and-vanishing-beta-functions&quot;&gt;&quot;finite&quot; QFTs and short-distance singularities and vanishing beta functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27064/derivation-of-eq-7-12-in-the-review-paper-of-kraus&quot;&gt;Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27749/expectation-values-of-interacting-fields&quot;&gt;Expectation values of interacting fields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27172/examples-of-heterotic-cfts&quot;&gt;examples of heterotic CFTs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27719/hilbert-schmidt-basis-for-many-qubits-reference&quot;&gt;Hilbert-Schmidt basis for many qubits - reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27302/classic-mass-predictions-from-left-right-models-with-discrete-symmetries&quot;&gt;Classic mass predictions from Left-Right models with discrete symmetries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27236/geometric-entropy-vs-entanglement-entropy-dependent-on-curvature-coupling-param&quot;&gt;Geometric entropy vs entanglement entropy (dependent on curvature coupling parameter)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;black-hole entropy naming&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read&quot;&gt;What papers should everyone read?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question big-list&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27537/quantum-causal-structure&quot;&gt;quantum causal structure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27763/how-much-of-the-capelli-itzykson-zuber-ade-classification-of-su2-conformal-fie&quot;&gt;How much of the Capelli-Itzykson-Zuber ADE-classification of su(2)-conformal field theorie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26999/spekkens-toy-model-internal-comonoids&quot;&gt;Spekkens Toy Model, Internal Comonoids&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27428/causality-and-operationalismfrom-sets-and-functions-to-monads&quot;&gt;causality and operationalism:from sets and functions to monads&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/examples-of-number-theory-showing-up-in-physics&quot;&gt;Examples of number theory showing up in physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-computing quantum-foundations math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27029/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism&quot;&gt;Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26900/what-videos-should-everyone-watch&quot;&gt;What videos should everyone watch?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27598/massive-excitations-in-conformal-quantum-field-theory&quot;&gt;Massive excitations in Conformal Quantum Field Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26826/quantum-statistics-of-branes&quot;&gt;Quantum statistics of branes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27359/how-to-interpret-vacuum-instability-of-higgs-potential&quot;&gt;How to interpret vacuum instability of Higgs potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory higgs&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27232/defining-the-ground-state-energy-of-a-qft&quot;&gt;Defining the ground state energy of a QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27031/derivatives-of-fluctuations-about-a-condensate&quot;&gt;Derivatives of fluctuations about a condensate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26936/measurement-of-tangential-momentum-accomodation&quot;&gt;Measurement of Tangential Momentum Accomodation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26958/convergence-of-quantum-effective-action-to-finite-loop-order&quot;&gt;Convergence of quantum effective action to finite loop order&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27267/on-the-coulomb-branch-of-n-2-supersymmetric-gauge-theory&quot;&gt;On the Coulomb branch of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27089/the-schwinger-model&quot;&gt;The Schwinger model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27649/higgs-boson-and-string-theory&quot;&gt;Higgs boson and string theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory supersymmetry particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27122/group-of-symmetries-of-lagranges-equations&quot;&gt;Group of symmetries of Lagrange's equations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hamiltonian-mechanics lagrangian-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26853/tmfn-is-the-space-of-supersymmetric-conformal-field-theories-of-central-charg&quot;&gt;&quot;tmf(n) is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge -n&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27056/mathematical-physics-book-recommendation&quot;&gt;Mathematical Physics Book Recommendation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27575/renyi-fractal-dimension-d-q-for-non-trivial-q&quot;&gt;Renyi fractal dimension $D_q$ for non-trivial $q$&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics entropy fractal&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27203/dimensional-regularization-integral-formula&quot;&gt;Dimensional Regularization Integral Formula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27443/quantum-gravity-at-d-3&quot;&gt;Quantum gravity at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed&quot;&gt;Simulation of QED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27136/gauge-fixed-world-sheet-action&quot;&gt;&quot;gauge fixed world-sheet action&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27647/relativistic-corrections-to-quantum-mechanics-of-coloumb-potential&quot;&gt;Relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics of Coloumb potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26957/is-there-precision-experimental-evidence-for-furrys-theorem-that-only-even-d&quot;&gt;Is there precision experimental evidence for Furry's theorem -- that only even degree VEVs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27193/consideration-of-static-atomic-displacements-in-electronic-structure-calculation&quot;&gt;Consideration of static atomic displacements in electronic structure calculations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27464/physics-in-high-lepton-chemical-potential&quot;&gt;Physics in high lepton chemical potential&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory particle-physics thermal-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/is-renormalization-associated-with-a-volume-scale-or-with-an-energy-momentum-and&quot;&gt;Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length sc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26933/topics-in-particle-cosmology&quot;&gt;Topics in particle cosmology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27295/general-relativity-research-and-qft-in-curved-spacetime&quot;&gt;General Relativity research and QFT in curved spacetime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27347/nuclear-physics-from-perturbative-qft&quot;&gt;Nuclear physics from perturbative QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory perturbation-theory nuclear-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26877/regularization-of-the-casimir-effect&quot;&gt;Regularization of the Casimir effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory regularization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27099/some-questions-on-a-version-of-the-oraifeartaigh-model&quot;&gt;Some questions on a version of the O'Raifeartaigh model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/information-geometry-of-1d-ising-model-in-complex-magnetic-field-regime&quot;&gt;Information geometry of 1D Ising model in complex magnetic field regime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27175/analog-hawking-radiation&quot;&gt;Analog Hawking radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-gravity black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27289/uniqueness-of-the-5-string-theories&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of the 5 string theories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27266/string-landscape-in-different-dimensions&quot;&gt;String landscape in different dimensions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="81cf74fe-4630-43db-b1ab-3173ddcefd7a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just got an accept from an older question :[What is a good definition of 'time'? \[duplicate\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious I went to the duplicate,[Time, what is it? \[closed\]][2], and see that it is closed with the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a logical inconsistency here of pointing to a duplicate that is closed with such a reason. Either the original should have been closed or it should not have been marked duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit after I read the comments that led to the duplicate assignment. The second link provided in QMECHANIC's comment is fine and should be subsituted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156132/what-is-a-good-definition-of-time/156180#156180&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17056/time-what-is-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="30c04889-d7cc-4263-8e6e-2c84025caef5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We're still getting one of [these sorts of questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11779/whats-the-range-of-dimension-exponents-in-the-si-units-system) every once in a while and nobody seems to object to them too much, so it looks like we can say they're fine here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="ca803638-a5f5-4b22-bc02-612278b1fc2e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm sorta new here, so this may already have a standard procedure, but I haven't found it anywhere if it exists. Anyway, I've been seeing a lot of questions along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;What is the physical meaning of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Is there a physical interpretation of _____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can someone give me a REAL explanation of ____?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these questions generally handled? I've tried answering some, and it's very difficult to figure out exactly what people want here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302096/physical-interpretation-of-amperes-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301894/physical-significance-of-product-of-two-charges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301171/meaning-of-the-poynting-vector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301589/a-real-explanation-of-the-electromagnetic-sine-dependency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="adb1d847-8942-46d0-8145-877e731cf76a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen a number of questions in which the moderators change html equations into LaTeX, or else people writing in the comments that the site supports LaTeX.  Do we have a standard place where we can point people so they can learn how to typeset equations on the message board?  There is a [short section in the FAQ][1], but it probably isn't detailed enough for most people to learn what to do if they're not already familiar with LaTeX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="53cd92dc-f557-4d50-9f23-3e22539c47cf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To summarize the myriad of homework meta questions that dmckee linked to, as well as to editorialize a little, I think the issue that most of us have is with _no-effort_ homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a help page on the main Physics.SE site that includes an [explanation of what's considered on topic][1].  That page briefly states that homework questions are off-topic, and then links to [this more detailed meta post][2] about what constitutes an acceptable homework question. Also, when you create a Physics.SE account, you have the option to take a very brief tour of the site, and IIRC it at least covers that list of what is on topic.  As a result, if users aren't following the guidelines of what's on-topic, it's because they are ignoring information that was easily put in their reach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, some of the best questions I've seen on this site have been tagged &quot;homework-and-exercises&quot;, but they need to be asked the right way.  In general, the two-prong test is that the question has to boil down to a specific conceptual question that would also be helpful to other uses, and the question has to include any attempted work.  However, there are a lot of questions on here where the question text is _just_ the homework question with **no** additional information or input from the user.  On the other hand, other askers will ask their question, and then punctuate it with a &quot;Due tomorrow&quot; or &quot;Show all work&quot;.  This isn't just oblivious to the rules of the site, it's selfish and imposing.  In the real world, all of these students will either continue in higher education or enter the world of work, and a life lesson that they should learn as soon as possible is that oftentimes, people want to help you (otherwise we wouldn't answer questions on here in the first place) but you have to be willing to put in the work yourself.  The reality, it's academically dishonest for us to just do a kid's homework for him, who will no doubt claim it as his/her own.  Additionally, students will likely get more out of the process of asking a question if they first spend some time analyzing what exactly they aren't understanding about a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  We welcome good homework questions here, but they have to follow certain guidelines, both for the good of the community and the OP.  We hope you stick around to contribute to the site, but hopefully the more truly atrocious homework questions you see, the more you'll understand why there have to be guidelines in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="0dc348fd-f24e-4166-939d-7714bacfde44" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3710/field-in-physics-vs-field-in-math was closed by the single vote of a moderator. This is unfortunate. There is an actual question there. While I do agree that it should not be tagged as math-physics it is rather rash to close a question asking for a clarification of terms. This is a question I once asked some of my friends in physics, and I believe I know a decent answer, which I alluded to in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also am bothered that this question was confused for a linguistic issue. On other SE sites it is not uncommon to see a question of the form &quot;Are X and X' related? The terminology suggests they are.&quot; This is hardly a linguistic issue since people picked the names of X and X'. They possibly did so because they thought that they were related, or know that they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I find the closure of such a good faith question by a single moderator who does not seem to understand the question very troubling. It can be seen that the question was closed 5 minutes after it was asked at the same time that the moderator left a comment saying why he was closing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this situation troubling. I know I haven't been here for a while, maybe I have missed some change in the FAQ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="52c22b77-e9c3-449d-b2e1-89aea183b9b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the past couple of days (Jan 1 &amp; 2, 2017), there have been questions asked that have received over 20 votes and over 2000 views. Answers have received dozens of upvotes. Look [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the questions are interesting, although the bridge question is more engineering oriented and could be considered by some to be off-topic, what concerns me most is the rapid build-up of positive votes.  It's almost like someone in a large group was chosen to post the question which would then be upvoted to get attention.  The questions really aren't that outstanding, IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What think ye? Public rabble, what think ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an issue of concern, or am I simply letting a bit of jealousy cloud my perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302555/why-doesnt-hydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302461/basic-physics-of-bridges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="d2b86882-0bad-4481-bc26-ca072d1ee418" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="HT to [Danu](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24653/danu) on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there was this recent post inquiring about [answering 0-answer questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6641/) in which a comment read,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not evident that votes on answers to old questions are fewer than on new ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, elsewhere on the site, it was mentioned that late answers are typically either really amazing or really bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are either of these statements true? Do older questions get fewer votes? Is there a bi-modality of score in late answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="3ca20be4-6bb0-4112-a8ee-91c17f3e3a76" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you actually see `$` signs instead of nicely rendered equations this means either that you have javascript disabled or that the post you're looking at contains errors. In the latter case flag for moderator attention so it gets fixed. For a test, look at [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26/velocity-of-object-from-electromagnetic-field/58#58) which contains a squareroot. If instead you see `$\sqrt` etc. you need to enable JavaScript." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="e37aad7f-073d-4f7e-ae19-db90e17085be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I have posted the question [Einstein-Hilbert action as an effective field theory](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301460/44126).&#xD;&#xA;I have received a lot of downvotes and it's ok because it was unclear: in order to repair I tried to close it opening a more precise one of the same but now they are downvoting both. I would like to know what is so wrong with them. The new one is&#xD;&#xA;[Breaking of diffeomorphism invariance after fixing a background metric](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302694/44126)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="fcc81077-018c-4b90-91a5-e67f87a38b8b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have some more thoughts to share.  At the same time that I seem to get considerable down votes, I seem to get the occasional answer that I thought was absolutely nothing special, and then everybody loves it.  I suppose this is the reality of democracy, but seriously, if it had been up to me to evaluate and compare my answers irrelevant of the community feedback, more than one answer with a net negative score would be in my own top 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's very important for people to have an emotional hold on the fact that things like this will happen, which is a major reason I want to write this answer as an olive branch to other people who have felt similar things.  One reason forums are good is the very fact that people can be mildly combative as well as well-reasoned and intelligent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I've been paying attention to this, I notice that there is strong divergence from the ratios expressed by dmckee depending on the users.  One editor in particular with &gt;6k rep I calculate to have a up:down vote ratio of 1:4.  It's important for users to recognize that such voters are out there and take it in stride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Without it affecting the ambition of future answers&#xD;&#xA; - Without it affecting their own hostility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To share some funny stories, I notice that there are questions that are quite popular, and almost entirely devoid of up votes.  For instance, the following one caught my eye.  I think very significant attention was paid to giving good answers, so what happened?  Maybe someone watches it and doesn't see what they came for.  Maybe there are lots of up and down votes.  Maybe it's just not the kind of question that leads to great answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13062/simple-friction-formula-for-a-car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my own answers, I am most baffled by votes on answers like the following one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11208/the-form-of-a-kettle/11359#11359&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feedback is good, but it's so easy to over analyze." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="530a482f-05bb-4619-8c2d-a2af98723d1f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**What is the current policy about questions which are easily answered googling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is probably a duplicate but I'm trying to find a definitive answer since most of them are quite old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this doubt because I've seen so many questions that can be answered with I'm feeling lucky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78698/what-is-the-deepest-man-made-underground-tunnel&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68109/what-processes-occur-when-a-meteor-enters-the-atmosphere&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68588/how-does-the-ocean-polarize-light&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78908/difference-between-fraunhofer-and-fresnel-diffraction/78913#78913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any consensus about low effort questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are against asking them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In fact, asking a question on Stack Overflow is the absolute **last thing you ever want to do**. You want to avoid it at all costs. You want to think of it as a horrible shame1 that will forever haunt you and pass down from you to your descendants. You want very much to find your answer some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others think the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the contrary, **you should ask first before googling**, so that the information gets here :) you don't even need to search SO first, just as you're asking check the list of possible duplicates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Search SO first&#xD;&#xA;If no answer, then Google&#xD;&#xA;If answer found, post community wiki&#xD;&#xA;If no answer is found post question on SO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No question is too trivial or too &quot;newbie&quot;. (*This has been removed from the FAQ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If it's not on Stack Overflow already, then ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing wrong with posting questions that are easily Googled. I've sometimes found answers to my questions with Google and still gone to SO to ask. How will SO have the answer for future Googlers to find if nobody asks the questions? There are two FAQ entries about that, too: one and two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the case they are discouraged but can't be flagged what should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Downvote and comment&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answer quoting Google's first result and include keywords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is ridiculous to encourage them and still apply 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correct flagging**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen that this question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78706/how-was-the-speed-of-light-discovered) was closed as off-topic. I think that the selected flag was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Homework-like** questions should ask about a specific physics concept and **show some effort** to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this applies only to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a new flag like **no research effort** (which is much more clear)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sorry for asking this question :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18620/do-you-google-before-asking-on-stackoverflow?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/to-google-or-not-to-google-complexity-of-so-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/182266/how-much-research-effort-is-expected-of-stack-overflow-users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14/wikipedia-like-questions/121#121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-basic-is-too-basic/9#9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are some questions too simple?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="5c7dedaf-fe55-4c54-ae39-791a2df4904d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2011 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderator elections have three phases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nomination phase&#xD;&#xA;2. Primary phase&#xD;&#xA;3. Election phase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most elections take between two and three weeks, but this depends on how many candidates there are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please visit the official election page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/election&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more detail, and to participate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6685" RevisionGUID="9d2392be-ff93-4d1d-88ff-f3a99316bba2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Several of us have an unofficial strategy of voting to close homework questions then providing hints as comments. This doesn't seem an ideal solution to me, but it's probably the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the 2nd time of reading this post (shortly after it was posted), the above pair of lines are what I stared at and couldn't get out of my head for a couple days. At first, it was because I wanted to find the best solution. Then, as I thought about it some more, I realized that &quot;hints via comments&quot; was not actually a solution, but *a problem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, a person who is not really interested in physics and just wants an answer to their homework probably also doesn't give two $%^&amp;$ about rep on this site or what we want to do on a volunteer basis. They just want their answer. We do our best to deny that undeserved answer, but we cannot close unilaterally (a good thing) and so, sometimes, answers slip in. I'm okay with this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I've come to realize is this:  Giving a downvote is saying, *I don't like this question.* Voting to close is saying, *Your question should not have the opportunity to get an answer (because it doesn't fit our site).* And giving hints in the comments is then saying, *We want to help you.* The third action *entirely* **contradicts** the first two; in some stretch, it is probably *worse* than posting the answer because it is giving an *implicit approval* to something that is *readily rejected* from us answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once they get their answer via the comments, guess what's the next thing they'll do: tell their friends about the &quot;Great homework help site&quot; that they found. Consider this comment after a high-rep member of our site gave a hint about solving their homework question, and *then* commenting about the lack of OP's question with the site:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[A friend told me about the site told me I'd likely be able to get help with physics on here. Thanks for the help tho.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175385/rotating-rod-assembly-finding-the-force-reactions-at-the-bearings#comment371929_175385)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't the first time I've seen comments like this. And any bets on the commenter ever asking a question again? Or fixing their question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR** If we *really* don't want to become a homework help service, we really ought to *stop helping*. Which means hints via comments really should stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Sorry this is coming so late, I've was a tad busy the last few weeks but that's almost all over and done with now.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="f9a9869f-07bf-4f0e-8f7b-961bf2f6d782" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I tried to edit two questions, [this one][1] and [this one][2]. Both my edits were rejected by Community$\diamondsuit$, which I take as &quot;automatically rejected&quot;, because they conflicted with a subsequent edit. Both edits were simply formal: I edited math formulas to make it cleaner and more understandable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I see that the second question has been put on hold so maybe this is the reason behind my edit not being accepted (but, is it?); for the first one I can not think of a reason not to accept my edit; subsequent edits by moderators fixed the spelling but, in my opinion, did not make the post more readable by including LaTeX rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my edits were automatically rejected, what can be the reason of such a rejection? In particular, when there is conflict with a subsequent edit, which one is going to win? Is it reputation based, or decided by moderators, or what else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this post is by no means polemic, I think that there is something I am missing about edit &amp; review procedure so I would like to understand it in order to edit appropriately in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157565&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/157926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301933/boundary-conditions-in-poissons-equation-for-gravity &quot;1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302477/confusion-regarding-this-question &quot;2&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="d55f37ca-5b36-4224-b5a1-b4abcae16196" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ideally, OP should before asking his question X on Phys.SE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Google [X](http://www.google.com/search?q=X). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Check Wikipedia. In practice this means Goggle [X wiki](http://www.google.com/search?q=X+wiki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it! The two internet searches (1) and (2) constitute a sufficient research effort for a question on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rest of this answer is meant as helpful suggestions to potential questioners, and should not be considered mandatory.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great (but optional) if OP would also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Search Phys.SE for related posts: [is:q X](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are that [with OP's knowledge from the above queries (1-3)] he will able to pose a better and more focused question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Finally, OP could pepper his question post with relevant links (from in and outside Phys.SE), spell out abbreviations, etc., to make it accessible to the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="f420ea79-aaeb-4090-8e65-173d29e23405" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's a resource request. For questions and comments see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/177194/75644&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if it's not appropriate for this forum then the question is : &#xD;&#xA;Where on the internet can I hope to get some decent responses to my original question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="6a4e44af-20fd-4e88-9a9e-9ad26da70961" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the best way to handle a case where a question was asked a long time ago and received several incorrect answers but no correct ones? To be more concrete, this was the situation with this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum I've done the obvious things: (1) submitted a correct answer; (2) downvoted the incorrect answers; and (3) explained my downvotes in comments. However, the question is 9 months old, and one of the incorrect answers has been accepted and heavily upvoted. I would interpret this as a situation arising from the fact that physics.SE is relatively new, and is still in the process of attracting a critical mass of users. With a small number of users, someone can make an honest mistake in an answer and not have it corrected. The problem is that there are certain questions that are FAQs, and those FAQs got asked and answered early on. Now we're stuck with them. Students or other people without solid expertise of their own will come along and believe the incorrect answer, which has been upvoted and accepted and effectively frozen in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not about crackpottery, as discussed in this question: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/330/answers-they-are-a-changin I'm talking about answers that are wrong, but not wrong in a crackpottish way. I'm sure the folks who gave these answers are competent at physics, but everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even people who are highly competent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How have the older, more mature SE sites dealt with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that once a question has sat around for 6 or 12 months, nobody is likely to participate in it anymore. It's off everyone's radar, and if its answers are broken, they aren't going to get fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, Wikipedia has mechanisms where you can try to attract people's interest in improving an article that needs work. For instance, you can nominate it as a good article, which initiates a review process; you can tag it as needing attention from an expert; you can nominate it for deletion; etc. SE, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any mechanism (that I know of) for getting up on a soapbox and alerting people that a certain question is broken and needs fixing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="7ca36ae5-e347-4f6e-b0a5-c78305dd0622" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, we shouldn't close questions simply because they are images of a textbook/web page/something else.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Instead you should either (a) transcribe it (assuming it's legible &amp; you have the time) or (b) leave a comment that such a question (i.e., image of textbook/web page/something) is not usually well-received and leave a link to the [MathJax tutorial](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt; I have found that these types of questions are often lazy &quot;do my homework for me&quot; type questions that do deserve closure, but it's because of that aspect and not the sideways image.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="06ca92a9-ad63-4a6f-ac6c-668f83f59ba2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted this question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82329/inducing-thoughts-with-brain-waves) and mentioned that if this was too off-topic, I would be willing to close it, it was even closed but is still getting downvoted. Could someone delete this post entirely, as I understand that deleting too many of your own posts can create trouble for asking questions in future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="f3d970e8-3fcc-4173-b756-eabd1708268f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Theoretical Physics imports: 3 of 3&#xD;&#xA;The following posts were migrated here from Theoretical Physics. The original tags are listed below each link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Split among 3 answers due to length&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27627/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form&quot;&gt;Master Equations and Operator Sum Form&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27634/accurate-quantum-state-estimation-via-keeping-the-experimentalist-honest&quot;&gt;Accurate quantum state estimation via &quot;Keeping the experimentalist honest&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information quantum-estimation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/operator-norm-directly-from-phase-space-representation-of-photonic-quantum-opera&quot;&gt;Operator norm directly from phase space representation of photonic quantum operator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-information optics wigner-function norms&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27191/chsh-violation-and-entanglement-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;CHSH violation and entanglement of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information nonlocality entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27414/which-arguments-for-m-u-approx-0-are-still-in-the-market&quot;&gt;Which arguments for $m_u \approx 0$ are still in the market?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;particle-physics hep-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27785/what-compactifications-of-the-poincare-group-have-been-studied&quot;&gt;what compactifications of the Poincare group have been studied?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;compactification poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27492/rigorous-proof-of-bohr-sommerfeld-quantization&quot;&gt;Rigorous proof of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27783/how-does-one-geometrically-quantize-the-bloch-equations&quot;&gt;How does one geometrically quantize the Bloch equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics spin-model molecular-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27584/convexity-reference-request&quot;&gt;Convexity -- reference request&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27217/is-this-a-simple-lie-algebra&quot;&gt;Is this a simple Lie algebra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph particle-physics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27441/pauli-villars-regularisation-breaks-supersymmetry-how-to-see-that&quot;&gt;Pauli-Villars regularisation breaks supersymmetry. How to see that?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27388/tree-level-qft-and-classical-fields-particles&quot;&gt;Tree level QFT and classical fields/particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory scattering classical-limit&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27149/charged-black-holes-in-equilibrium&quot;&gt;Charged black holes in equilibrium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity black-hole einstein-maxwell&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27425/rigorous-justification-for-rotating-wave-approximation&quot;&gt;Rigorous justification for rotating wave approximation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27470/superconformal-multiplet-calculus-in-6d&quot;&gt;Superconformal Multiplet Calculus in 6D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;hep-th supergravity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27508/optimality-of-the-chsh-strategy&quot;&gt;Optimality of the CHSH strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement history-overview&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27618/conformal-qfts-for-d-2&quot;&gt;Conformal QFTs for D &gt; 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory conformal-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27556/numerical-analysis-of-elliptic-pdes&quot;&gt;Numerical Analysis of Elliptic PDEs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request differential-equations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27087/a-question-from-ticcatis-red-qft-textbook&quot;&gt;A question from Ticcati's red QFT textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27326/uniqueness-of-eigenvector-representation-in-a-complete-set-of-compatible-observa&quot;&gt;Uniqueness of eigenvector representation in a complete set of compatible observables&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27689/does-kaluza-klein-theory-successfully-unify-gr-and-em-why-cant-it-be-extended&quot;&gt;Does Kaluza-Klein theory successfully unify GR and EM? Why can't it be extended to the Sta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27237/virasoro-constraints-in-quantization-of-the-polyakov-action&quot;&gt;Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory quantization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27523/higgs-field-is-its-discovery-truly-around-the-corner&quot;&gt;Higgs Field - Is its discovery truly &quot;around the corner&quot;? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27116/physical-interpretation-of-superstrings&quot;&gt;Physical interpretation of superstrings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27335/matrix-geometry-for-f-strings&quot;&gt;Matrix geometry for F-strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory branes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27341/interplay-between-the-cosmological-constant-and-microscopic-properties-of-stri&quot;&gt;Interplay between the cosmological constant and &quot;microscopic&quot; properties of string vacua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory string-landscape&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27206/status-of-the-little-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Status of the little hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;higgs mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27687/asymptoticity-of-pertubative-expansion-of-qft&quot;&gt;Asymptoticity of Pertubative Expansion of QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26955/ads-cft-at-d-3&quot;&gt;AdS/CFT at D = 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory conformal-field-theory adscft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26983/depolarizing-threshold-for-css-codes&quot;&gt;Depolarizing threshold for CSS codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-error-correction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26942/in-what-sense-are-loop-diagrams-quantum-corrections&quot;&gt;In what sense are loop diagrams quantum corrections?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26994/what-is-a-free-non-abelian-yang-mills-theory&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;free&quot; non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory yang-mills-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27085/where-does-the-hidden-supersymmetric-sector-of-the-mssm-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the hidden supersymmetric sector of the MSSM come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;supersymmetry mssm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27006/how-does-a-geodesic-equation-on-an-n-manifold-deal-with-singularities&quot;&gt;How does a geodesic equation on an n-manifold deal with singularities?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;gauge-theory black-hole gr-singularity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27200/wilson-polyakov-loops-in-weinbergs-qft-books&quot;&gt;Wilson/Polyakov loops in Weinberg's QFT books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request gauge-theory soft-question yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27051/applications-of-geometric-topology-to-theoretical-physics&quot;&gt;Applications of Geometric Topology to Theoretical Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request soft-question topological-qft&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27500/more-general-invariance-of-the-action-functional&quot;&gt;More general invariance of the action functional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;symmetry analytical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27152/lagrangian-for-euler-equations-in-general-relativity&quot;&gt;Lagrangian for Euler Equations in general relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27518/general-parameters-of-the-stress-energy-tensor-in-local-inertial-frame&quot;&gt;General parameters of the stress energy tensor in local inertial frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27768/references-for-phase-transitions-in-supersymmetric-field-theory&quot;&gt;References for phase-transitions in supersymmetric field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry reference-request phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27604/boundary-conditions-uniqueness-of-the-propagators-greens-functions&quot;&gt;Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory classical-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27159/source-term-of-the-einstein-field-equation&quot;&gt;Source term of the Einstein field equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27563/an-odd-relation-with-the-epsilon-delta-invariant-tensors-of-so3&quot;&gt;An odd relation with the epsilon/delta invariant tensors of SO(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory group-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27725/some-questions-about-wilson-loops&quot;&gt;Some questions about Wilson loops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27489/do-any-entanglement-measures-for-mixed-states-exist-that-use-only-single-site-co&quot;&gt;Do any entanglement measures for mixed states exist that use only single site correlation &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;spin-model entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27660/solution-to-the-schrodinger-equation-for-periodically-time-dependent-hamiltonian&quot;&gt;Solution to the Schrodinger equation for periodically time dependent Hamiltonians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27462/why-is-there-no-theta-angle-topological-term-for-the-weak-interactions&quot;&gt;Why is there no theta-angle (topological term) for the weak interactions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory standard-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27345/random-bond-ising-model-and-computational-efficiency&quot;&gt;Random bond Ising model and computational efficiency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics spin-model&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27322/deviation-of-the-effective-potential-between-a-quark-and-an-anti-quark&quot;&gt;Deviation of the effective potential between a quark and an anti-quark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27277/introduction-to-neutron-star-physics&quot;&gt;Introduction to neutron star physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request astrophysics neutron-stars introduction&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26972/what-are-some-ways-to-approximately-symbolically-diagonalize-hamiltonian-opera&quot;&gt;What are some ways to (approximately) symbolically diagonalize Hamiltonian operator?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27038/what-hermitian-operators-can-be-observables&quot;&gt;What Hermitian operators can be observables?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics reference-request quantum-measurement hilbert-space&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27451/can-the-concurrence-be-calculated-in-terms-of-the-entanglement-of-formation&quot;&gt;Can the concurrence be calculated in terms of the entanglement of formation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27643/constructing-a-hamiltonian-as-a-polynomial-of-q-i-and-p-i-from-its-spectru&quot;&gt;Constructing a Hamiltonian (as a polynomial of $q_i$ and $p_i$) from its spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/constructing-a-cp-map-with-some-decaying-property&quot;&gt;Constructing a CP map with some decaying property&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27546/quantum-memories-what-are-they&quot;&gt;Quantum memories: What are they?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information quantum-computing quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27329/feynman-rules-with-helicity-states&quot;&gt;Feynman rules with helicity states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-chromodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27337/representation-on-hilbert-space-of-the-product-of-two-symmetry-transformations&quot;&gt;Representation on Hilbert space of the product of two symmetry transformations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27279/a-nice-overview-and-maybe-derivation-of-the-poincare-transformations-of-the-ve&quot;&gt;A nice overview (and maybe derivation) of the PoincarÃ© transformations of the Vector Spher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request poincare-group spherical-harmonics vector-spherical-harmonic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27723/unknown-quantum-state-with-promise-of-classical-data&quot;&gt;Unknown quantum state with promise of classical data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quant-ph quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27787/kramers-kronig-relations-for-the-electron-self-energy&quot;&gt;Kramer's-Kronig relations for the electron Self-Energy Î£&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27264/renormalization-of-the-r-charge&quot;&gt;Renormalization of the R-charge?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27027/the-difference-between-projection-operators-and-field-operators-in-qft&quot;&gt;The difference between projection operators and field operators in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory reference-request&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26941/measure-of-lee-yang-zeros&quot;&gt;Measure of Lee-Yang zeros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;statistical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27318/analyticity-and-causality-in-relativity&quot;&gt;Analyticity and Causality in Relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27060/instantons-and-borel-resummation&quot;&gt;Instantons and Borel Resummation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;renormalization instanton borel-resummation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27035/is-there-a-recognised-standard-for-typesetting-quantum-mechanical-operators&quot;&gt;Is there a recognised standard for typesetting quantum mechanical operators?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;soft-question&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27339/tip-of-a-spreading-wave-packet-asymptotics-beyond-all-orders-of-a-saddle-point&quot;&gt;Tip of a spreading wave-packet: asymptotics beyond all orders of a saddle point expansion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics math-ph&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27374/some-more-questions-about-the-bcfw-reduction&quot;&gt;Some more questions about the BCFW reduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27755/magnetic-monopole-and-electromagnetic-field-quantization-procedure&quot;&gt;Magnetic monopole and electromagnetic field quantization procedure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27625/question-from-schutzs&quot;&gt;Question from Schutz's&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27484/entanglement-and-conservation&quot;&gt;Entanglement and conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27496/is-the-universe-a-quantum-computer-is-light-speed-barrier-a-computational-cons&quot;&gt;Is the universe a quantum computer - is light speed barrier a computational constraint&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/entanglement-in-time&quot;&gt;Entanglement in time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics entanglement&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27602/krauss-operators-for-random-unitary&quot;&gt;Krauss operators for random unitary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26925/shape-of-the-state-space-under-different-tensor-products&quot;&gt;shape of the state space under different tensor products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations nonlocality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27332/equivalence-of-definitions-of-adm-mass&quot;&gt;Equivalence of definitions of ADM Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;general-relativity mass&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27766/monte-carlo-integration-over-space-of-quantum-states&quot;&gt;Monte Carlo integration over space of quantum states&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information probability integration&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27375/multiqubit-state-tomography-by-performing-measurement-in-the-same-basis&quot;&gt;Multiqubit state tomography by performing measurement in the same basis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics state-tomography&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27246/functional-relations-for-kochen-specker-proofs&quot;&gt;Functional relations for Kochen-Specker proofs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information contextuality&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27343/low-energy-gluodynamics-as-a-string&quot;&gt;Low-energy gluodynamics as a string&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory yang-mills qcd&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27482/gauge-invariance-and-the-form-of-the-rarita-schwinger-action&quot;&gt;Gauge invariance and the form of the Rarita-Schwinger action&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26970/a-certain-gluon-scattering-amplitude&quot;&gt;A certain gluon scattering amplitude&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory yang-mills-theory quantum-chromodynamics scattering&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27552/why-arent-the-spin-3-2-fields-in-the-3-2-00-3-2-representation&quot;&gt;Why aren't the spin-3/2 fields in the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27274/gauge-invariant-scalar-potentials&quot;&gt;Gauge invariant scalar potentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory gauge-theory gauge-symmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27324/what-is-the-connection-between-extra-dimensions-in-kaluza-klein-type-theories-an&quot;&gt;What is the connection between extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories and those in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory kaluza-klein&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26992/spectrum-of-free-strings&quot;&gt;Spectrum of Free Strings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;string-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27429/pm-light-cone-notation-in-supersymmetry&quot;&gt;$\pm$ (light-cone?) notation in supersymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27669/gravitating-sigma-models&quot;&gt;Gravitating sigma models&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;math-ph gravity book-recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27154/time-evolution-of-a-manifold-embedding&quot;&gt;Time Evolution of a Manifold Embedding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request gauge-theory quantum-gravity manifolds&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27735/heuristics-for-definitions-of-open-and-closed-quantum-dynamics&quot;&gt;Heuristics for definitions of open and closed quantum dynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27118/asymptotic-completeness-generalized-free-fields-and-the-relationship-of-thermo&quot;&gt;Asymptotic Completeness, generalized free fields, and the relationship of thermodynamics w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory wightman-fields&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/states-diagonal-in-the-tensor-product-of-bell-states&quot;&gt;States diagonal in the tensor product of Bell states.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/does-it-make-sense-to-speak-of-amplitudes-of-finite-closed-boundaries-in-qft&quot;&gt;Does it make sense to speak of amplitudes of finite closed boundaries in QFT?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27230/from-vertex-function-to-anomalous-dimension&quot;&gt;From vertex function to anomalous dimension&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27632/about-the-definition-motivation-properties-of-the-twisted-chiral-superfield-in&quot;&gt;About the definition/motivation/properties of the twisted chiral superfield in ${\cal N}=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27231/the-paper-by-fateev-and-zamolodchikov&quot;&gt;The Paper by Fateev and Zamolodchikov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request citation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27738/geometric-picture-behind-quantum-expanders&quot;&gt;Geometric picture behind quantum expanders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-information&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27183/could-motives-aid-in-the-study-of-the-navier-stokes-equations&quot;&gt;Could motives aid in the study of the Navier-Stokes equations?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization non-commutative-geometry fluid-dynamics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27220/why-when-can-the-gauge-superfield-and-or-chiral-superfield-kinetic-term-in-2-2&quot;&gt;Why/When can the gauge superfield and/or chiral superfield kinetic term in $(2,2)$ SUSY be&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory supersymmetry phase-transition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27728/what-is-the-physical-difference-between-states-and-unital-completely-positive-ma&quot;&gt;What is the physical difference between states and unital completely positive maps?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information intuition&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27019/is-the-lagrangian-of-a-quantum-field-really-a-functional&quot;&gt;Is the Lagrangian of a quantum field really a functional?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory hep-th functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper&quot;&gt;Reference request: Susskind-Glogower original paper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-optics&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27433/looking-for-description-of-helstroms-measurement&quot;&gt;Looking for description of Helstrom's measurement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;reference-request quantum-information quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27539/qed-as-a-wightman-theory-of-observable-fields-with-a-collision-theory&quot;&gt;QED as a Wightman theory of observable fields?  With a collision theory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27697/matrix-field-theory&quot;&gt;matrix field theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory functional-analysis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27656/comparison-of-different-ab-initio-codes&quot;&gt;Comparison of different ab-initio codes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics ab-initio-methods&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27248/advice-on-doing-physics-under-the-umbrella-of-mathematics-and-the-converse&quot;&gt;Advice on doing physics under the umbrella of mathematics and the converse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory string-theory math-ph soft-question math&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27577/analytic-continuation-of-imaginary-time-greens-function-in-the-time-domain&quot;&gt;Analytic continuation of imaginary time Greens function in the time domain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory cond-mat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27781/partial-trace-with-sparse-matrices&quot;&gt;partial trace with sparse matrices&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computing simulation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27587/higgs-mass-and-the-hierarchy-problem&quot;&gt;Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory renormalization&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27163/fitting-free-qfts-into-the-haag-kastler-algebraic-formulation&quot;&gt;fitting free QFTs into the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/what-is-a-hilbert-space-filter&quot;&gt;What is a Hilbert space filter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-key-distribution&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27753/baryon-asymmetry&quot;&gt;Baryon asymmetry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;cosmology&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26979/poincare-symmetry-in-qft&quot;&gt;Poincare Symmetry in QFT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory poincare-group&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27609/precise-definition-of-moduli-space&quot;&gt;precise definition of &quot;moduli space&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27734/information-conservation-during-quantum-measurement-in-psi-epistemic-interpre&quot;&gt;Information conservation during quantum measurement in $\psi$-epistemic interpretations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-foundations&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27002/instantons-anomalies-and-1-loop-effects&quot;&gt;instantons, anomalies, and 1-loop effects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27589/convert-state-vectors-to-bloch-sphere-angles&quot;&gt;Convert state Vectors to Bloch Sphere angles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quantum-computing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="578f0599-e798-4510-9b31-89424a9fff50" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I was trying to update [this question][1] with a link to another well asked question [here][2] - I tried twice, but each time my answer did not appear- I am wondering if it is being checked because I asked the original question and already posted one answer...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...the idea was to post [good examples of homework questions][3] as separate answers, which is why I want to add a second answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what is going on? I typed out an answer twice and both hit post both times, but nothing seemed to appear....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam#comment379180_178722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6442/examples-of-good-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="7ae90184-80df-4815-9665-54212333fee1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I find myself uncertain that the tag [tag:renewable-energy] has a lot place on a physics site, browsing the [current list of question so tagged][1] suggests that many of them are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Really technology questions with little physics content. Presumable they were asked here because their authors could find no better place.&#xD;&#xA;2. Often very basic.&#xD;&#xA;3. Only connected to renewable energy by motivation---I mean, the asker was &#xD;&#xA;thinking about a renewable energy application and that brought up a physics question but the question isn't about power generation as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we seem to be looking at conditions 2 and 3. The only part of the question that is not physics 101 work is getting an estimate of the solar magnetic field strength and variation in the neighborhood of Earth's orbit. Basically this is a blue sky speculation by someone with little formal preparation; fun but not very enlightening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question has a place here, but the tag is marginal on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/renewable-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9581" RevisionGUID="93ae01ac-f3e9-4bcc-a5a1-d28b1c283ccb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's not the sort of thing we have in mind for [tag:resource-recommendation] questions. As the answer to [the recommendation question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It should be of the form &quot;What are good books to learn/study [subject] at [level]?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The style of the book shouldn't factor into the question. It's a fairly subjective thing, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recommended way for you to get the information you're looking for is to read through the existing answers to the recommendation questions for the topics you're interested in. Those answers should describe characteristics of the books, and you can judge which ones might have the style you're looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="b7c57836-c8dd-4b11-8d37-62edf70d5c3f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been wondering why there is so little activity on physics stack exchange compared with math stack exchange. It occurred to me that a contribution to the difference is that we may be closing too many questions as &quot;duplicates&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a liberal definition of &quot;duplicate&quot; means that there will be fewer questions available to answer and this reduces the likelihood that someone searching for an answer will be able to locate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us review official Stack Exchange policy on duplicates. From the blog, my emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeff Atwood, Nov 15, 2010 *Dr. Strangedupe: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love Duplication*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One thing I want to be clear about,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though, is that duplication is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessarily bad. Quite the contrary —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some duplication is desirable. There’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often ***benefit to having multiple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subtle variants of a question around,***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as people tend to ask and search using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; completely different words, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better our coverage, the better odds&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people can find the answer they’re&#xD;&#xA;&gt; looking for. And isn’t that, really,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the whole point of this exercise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/dr-strangedupe-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-duplication/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joel Spolsky, Jan 5, 2011, *The Wikipedia of Long Tail Programming Questions*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you’re going to close a user’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question as a duplicate, it has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a real duplicate. For example, if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user asks, “What does the IP address&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 128.0.1.1/24 mean?” it’s OK to close that as a duplicate of a more general&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question like “What do IP addresses of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the form a.b.c.d/e mean?” But it’s not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OK to close it as a duplicate of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-seven page guide to netmasks.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That’s the moral equivalent of saying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “[RTFM][1].” Stack Overflow is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meant to be a library of reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manuals. It’s supposed to contain the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; same information as a library of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference manuals, in the form of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; millions of questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Combined with Google, that gives us&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magical power of a library of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference manuals you never have to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read! It’s like, you got to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; library, and there’s a wizard there at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the door, and you ask your question,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, instead of being told to read a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; book, you just got (are you sitting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down?) the actual answer!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That’s why [we actually don’t mind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having several versions of every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question][2], where there are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; variations in wording or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances. The more chance that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; someone types a question into Google&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and finds their exact question already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answered, the better a job we’ve done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/the-wikipedia-of-long-tail-programming-questions/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we've reviewed official SE policy on duplicate, let's take a look at a question I posted that, as I write, has 3 votes to close based on &quot;duplicate&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8341/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose I'm on a non rotating planet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have two identical, perfect watches.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I synchronize them. Then I throw one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of them into the air and catch it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does the one I throw into the air gain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or lose time with respect to the one I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was holding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the question proposed as its duplicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8314&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You blast off in a rocket which has a clock on board, and there's a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clock on the ground. The idea is that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you have to be back when the clock on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ground says one hour has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you want it so that when you come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back, your clock is as far ahead as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. According to Einstein, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you go very high, your clock will go&#xD;&#xA;&gt; faster, because the higher something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is in a gravitational field, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; faster its clock goes. But if you try&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to go too high, since you've only got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an hour, you have to go so fast to get&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there that the speed slows your clock&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down. So you can't go too high. ***The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question is, exactly what program of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speed and height should you make so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that you get the maximum time on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clock?***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This assistant of Einstein worked on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it for quite a bit before he realized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the answer is the real motion of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter. If you shoot something up in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; normal way, so that the time it takes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the shell to go up and come down is an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hour, that's the correct motion. It's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fundamental principle of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Einstein's gravity--that is, what's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called the &quot;proper time&quot; is at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum for the actual curve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions are similar in that they begin on a planet and involve a time piece. But in the first posted the question is &quot;exactly what program of speed and height should you make so that you get the maximum time on your clock?&quot; In the other, the question is: &quot;Does the one I throw into the air gain or lose time with respect to the one I was holding?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I submit that (under the policy of Stack Exchange) it should be clear and obvious to all that these are not the same question. The first has to do with maximizing a time difference over a path that is not a geodesic (i.e. the rocket ship) as compared to a path that is on a planet's surface (and hence is not a geodesic). The second has to do with the relationship between two paths, one stationary on the planet's surface, the other a geodesic near the planet's surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's unfair to expect that a reader not already possessing an understanding of general relativity will see any relationship between these problems. Second, it's unlikely that they will locate the original post in searching for the problem. Third, it's unlikely that they will be able to work out the answer to the problem based on the answers given in the original post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'd like to point out that voting to close a question as duplicate has a tendency to suppress answers to the question. Why bother to write up an answer to a question that is going to be closed as a duplicate? For the question at hand, neither of the two answers give directly tell which watch gains and loses time. The best answer so far provided is: &quot;The &quot;stationary&quot; watch, which is actually accelerated, is following some other path and so must experience a shorter proper time.&quot; To someone seeking to understand general relativity this will be confusing at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RTFM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/dr-strangedupe-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-duplication/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="d3a55288-4930-4f98-b852-a26ef2bbb334" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Why two beams of light are a-racing; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  In that way exactly they're facing. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  In accord with GR &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Once they've traveled quite far &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [Will gravity change their true spacing?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There once was a piece of spaghetti &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Quite dry and uncooked and not sweaty. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Too much it was bent; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Away the shards went. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [But why did it break like confetti?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The [universe][3] keeps on [expanding][4] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  And [everyone's][5] always [demanding][6]: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Much [faster than light][7]? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  I'm [sure][8] it's not [right][9]! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  But [where][10] is my [misunderstanding][11]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71661/why-does-dry-spaghetti-break-into-three-pieces-as-opposed-to-only-two&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25328/universe-is-expanding-at-enormous-speed&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20056/superluminal-expansion-of-the-early-universe-how-is-this-possible&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30037/will-acceleration-rate-of-expansion-of-space-become-faster-than-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41058/is-the-cosmic-horizon-related-to-the-big-bang-event&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44386/is-2-5x-speed-of-light-possible-between-two-objects&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50061/time-for-light-to-travel-from-most-distant-objects-in-universe&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59803/galaxies-moving-away-at-the-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60519/can-space-expand-with-unlimited-speed&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90440/how-is-it-possible-the-universe-expanded-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-during-i" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="017e49a4-2fd2-4d61-8565-4891cabf5930" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we have entertained a new use on Physics.SE (and notably on Astronomy.SE) who has four times posted identical (or nearly so) question to both Physics and Astronomy in short order. (Not that this question is meant to pick on the user in question, just that seeing these posts has brought the situation to the forefront of my attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [I've been known to defend the cross-site duplication of content][1] in the past, but this feels distinctly different to me and offends sensibilities developed many years ago on the Usenet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole I feel we should discourage such intentional duplication, but I am interested to hear what other have to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Remnant of a supernova][2] and [remnant of a supernova][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Rainbow around Sun][4] and [Rainbow around Sun][5]&#xD;&#xA;* [the collision of Phobos][6] and [The collision of Phobos][7]&#xD;&#xA;* [two distant galaxies seen from earth][8] and [Galaxies seen from earth][9] (despite the difference in titles the text is the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/725/what-should-be-sent-to-astronomy-stackexchange/726#726&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14524/remnant-of-a-supernova&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1194/211&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14254/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1138/211&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14212/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1134/211&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1127/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9637" RevisionGUID="291e60d5-b0bc-4bb7-a6cd-e79eca25e4be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Educated guess: I think the answer here is that the current [Astronomy.SE](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) is the second iteration of that site. The first iteration failed at some stage in the Area51 process and Physics absorbed many of their questions. Later, apparently, a second Astronomy site was begun. I suppose it's possible that some post IDs got re-used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the correct link, to [physics.stackexchange.com/q/26461](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26461/44126), is to a question, while the link in the text, which redirects to [astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/1211](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/1211/1498), is to an answer.  When the new astronomy site accumulated enough new content that the post ID got re-used, then the link went from &quot;just broken&quot; to being broken in the confusing way that you noticed.  However the list of &quot;related posts&quot; is stored in a different table in the database and was apparently migrated correctly when Physics absorbed the first round of Astronomy questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rise and fall and re-rise of Astronomy happened before I joined this community, but there are old posts on Physics Meta about it and probably someone else will chime in with an approximate timeline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="c71a7d89-3a51-4768-9f8b-74761c231bfe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends. Generally speaking, yes, you can ask about what you think is an error in a book (or paper), but make sure you're asking an actual answerable question, rather than just looking for people to agree with you. The way you phrased the quote in your question, it falls under a couple of the [prohibitions in our FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask). In fact, as a &lt;strike&gt;rule&lt;/strike&gt; guideline, any question that ends with &quot;do you agree?&quot; is probably not a good fit for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you phrase it more like this, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Book ABC contains this derivation of XXXXX:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This doesn't seem to be correct because XXXXX. Is there an error in the book? If so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be fine. In particular, make sure you ask something more substantial than just whether you are right in identifying the error or not. If you know that the proof is wrong but can't identify why, you could ask what the error is, as I did in this example; or if you know what the error is, you could ask for a proof that doesn't exhibit the error. Or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, if you're asking about a particular argument in a particular book (or paper), you should definitely give a specific reference somewhere in the question. Exactly which details you need to include depend on the reference, but usually it'll be something like the title, author(s), publication date, edition, and page number - basically enough information for someone else to look up the exact passage you're talking about if they need to. Those details don't necessarily need to be in the _title_ of the question, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="789138f4-2fa7-4ff8-a24f-027184b35571" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would reinforce what Emilio says. In this particular case the answer is unlikely to be a valuable long term resource for the site. However, to provide a more general answer to the question: exactly the same thing happened to me, and my response was basically the same as yours i.e. I posted a fresh question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then posted the answer I'd spent all that time writing. The Physics SE supports, and indeed encourages, the posting of [canonical questions and answers][1] where these will be helpful to the Physics community. You'll note that when you're posting a new question there is a tick box labelled *Answer your own question* with [a link to explain the principles involved][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="c1520517-610e-48c1-9901-fc9930e54cfe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27968/how-is-it-possible-that-we-see-light-from-shortly-after-the-big-bang originally presented a wrong theory bordering on nonsense, and asked &quot;what's wrong with this theory&quot;. no complaints, this is a tough call what to do with this stuff, but I thought this edit might work, and you locked the post before I had a chance to do it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Title: Is the idea of a point explosion generating everything consistent with big-bang cosmology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought of the big bang as a point of infinite energy, which I theorize about using something I call &quot;m&quot; point. As &quot;energy&quot; is lost from this point, a bang occurs, converting lower forms of energy into matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At this instant the &quot;energy&quot;at lower levels moves faster than &quot;light as light has no mass. In-turn this bang creates a &quot;slope of increasing mass&quot;(space) moving in all directions(over time). I believe this explains both why we &quot;see&quot; light from the past from the same event that created us as light moved slower (was less likely to move away from the central point of energy than lower forms of energy that create mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this consistent with what is known?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is borderline, since the theory has no merit, but explaining why the idea has no merit allows you to explain some misconceptions about the light from the big bang. The question as rewritten does not get the main misconception across, it just asks &quot;how can we see light from the explosion that created us?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could be ok with the rephrased question, but what's up with the quick locking? The edit to the short question changed the subject entirely, and made my answer a non-sequitor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="8e8ebf3d-5eac-4603-8f0b-5936b0f8f8e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to say **no, we should not allow philosophical questions** for the simple reason that philosophy is not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, we need to make it very clear that there is a distinction between philosophy and physics, and that the former is off topic here. People who are not familiar with what physics really is sometimes tend to ask questions which I believe any of us would agree are actually philosophical in nature and which physics cannot address, for example [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650/what-is-an-idea-in-terms-of-time-space-and-matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for questions which are more closely related to physics, those of a philosophical nature tend not to have definite answers. Those are not the kinds of questions we want here, not only because Stack Exchange aims to exclude them by design, but also because physics as a subject does not handle those sorts of questions well - again, by design. It's often said that something that isn't experimentally falsifiable is not science. We've (unofficially?) adopted a version of that guideline on this site because it works well at distinguishing overly abstract questions which are likely to lead to discussions rather than answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9644" RevisionGUID="a34f6b53-34df-4219-8871-cda6028c6744" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="An [old answer of mine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105347/is-it-foolish-to-distinguish-between-covariant-and-contravariant-vectors/105360#105360) was written, in March 2014, with a commutative diagram,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    \require{AMScd}&#xD;&#xA;    \begin{CD}&#xD;&#xA;    V @&gt;{T}&gt;&gt; W\\&#xD;&#xA;    @V{\sigma_V}VV @VV{\sigma_W}V \\&#xD;&#xA;    V^* @&lt;&lt;{T^*}&lt; W^*&#xD;&#xA;    \end{CD}&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYKsb.png&quot; width=&quot;125&quot; title=&quot;Commutative diagram&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which on meta renders correctly (at present) as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;\require{AMScd}&#xD;&#xA;\begin{CD}&#xD;&#xA;V @&gt;{T}&gt;&gt; W\\&#xD;&#xA;@V{\sigma_V}VV @VV{\sigma_W}V \\&#xD;&#xA;V^* @&lt;&lt;{T^*}&lt; W^*&#xD;&#xA;\end{CD}&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I noticed recently that the diagram was missing from the answer on main, and indeed if I try to add that code to a new question on main I get a `[Math Processing Error]`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KBzLY.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody explain what's going on? It looks pretty buggy to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="346a6516-3b6c-4440-aef0-55c0a173835d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure if this is what you're asking about, but there is a provision in our [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions) that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    _&quot;Could warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any question which is based on an impossible or nonsensical premise will probably not be well received here, because if the setup is forbidden by the laws of physics, then you can't use physics to answer the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="9362c606-f378-43b1-9265-4ff1bbae1388" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13367/theory-of-complex-spectra-applying-slater-condon-rules) is open and has a bounty. Nobody has attempted to answer it at the time of writing. I'm unable to answer it as it stands. Below you'll find a screenshot as I see it on mac os using the latest stable version of firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eZvvj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="ce490c3f-899c-4df2-9947-ba3720ce8f1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While answering a question, I usually do it as I would do it orally, which is using the simplest english I can and also trying to make it a bit fun, which is also just the way I speak. &#xD;&#xA;so the other day, when answering this question [electromagnetic...][1] I said &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; short answer : because Einstein said so.[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it was a way for me to emphasize that Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect.&#xD;&#xA;But it turns out people didn't like my answer ( I got a couple of downvotes in the beginning ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Fellow physicist I would like to know your opinion, is it ok to make jokes while answering questions?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312107/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="3c55973f-8e93-4f33-8107-69d4738a0028" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="David Zaslavsky has gone about wanting to delete substantive discussions in the comments surrounding certain answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14939/does-godel-preclude-a-workable-toe&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15088/reproducing-the-opera-result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has decided that these discussions are somehow not appropriate. I don't agree with this assessment, but I also feel that it is annoying to delete comments that are not spam or completely off topic. Can somebody trusted decide to get rid of anything? Is this usual policy here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="53e9acf2-2852-4c45-9653-488e3b1d1b4a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When does that happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [a 4+ in my sum][1]  and tried to see for what, and got &quot;user was removed&quot; instead of a link to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="c8e2450a-3015-4d66-a3bc-bd5b13aad13e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is inspired by Colin McFauls very reasonable [classification](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5172/2751) of questions tagged as [tag:homework] due to the very broad notion of the term  &quot;homework-like&quot; currently applied at  Physics SE, and  can be considered as a follow up of John Rennie's meta [post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5369/2751) asking for graduate-level upward questions not getting closed as homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I basically agree  with John Rennie that gruaduate-level upward (technical) questions should not be closed as homework and want to go even farther by proposing that, refering to Colin McFauls classification, category 3 (not yet a good question but salvagable) and even more so category 4 (high-level problems) should not even be tagged [tag:homework].&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the very broad notion of &quot;homework-like&quot; as currently applied, be narrowed down to not include technical advanced topic questions that come up from reading higher-level textbooks, following advanced courses, or even from reading research papers (graduate-level upward for short)?&#xD;&#xA;And can then these advanced technical questions (not all of them at once of course) be detagged from [tag:homework] (after appropriate edits if needed for category 3 questions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of advanced technical questions that should not be considered homework and therefore either directly or after an improving edit, detagged. I am not trying to sharply distinguish between category 3 and category 4 of Colin McFaul's classification at the moment, and this list is by no means comprehensive but contains just a few examples to show what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82336/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57973/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73297/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/76207/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69163/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75896/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89489/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/80556/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46703/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57253/2751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="e1fd8e11-e3f7-44d3-8910-5e61c95389cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The questioner chooses what he considers answers his/her question with a tick. In my opinion, though the option of answering ones own question is good, because it allows for clarifications and new thought, the possibility of [choosing your own answer][1] as the best, seems to me, defeats the purpose of the question and answer forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly when the chosen answer is being only down voted by the community, while there is a highly approved other answer: it turns the whole thing into a farce. I think ticking one's own answer should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14939/does-godel-preclude-a-workable-toe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9677" RevisionGUID="291c0b86-c675-4234-80d3-e1f19d5357ad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:07.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is [an example][1] , it was revived by Community . Could not Community acquire some intelligence? The user has been inactive since &quot;Last seen Jun 2 '15 at 23:00&quot; ,  All answers have a 0 vote count and two are later, I suppose from more revivals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could think that an &quot;and&quot; combination of  &quot;ifs&quot; like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long inactive user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;zero upvotes or negative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;perpetual motion&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would keep this question in limbo, to keep company with the OP, for good reasons and not waste our time in futile readings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all a search on &quot;perpetual&quot; would find it if somebody is interested in perpetual motion machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example, I am sure other logical &quot;ands&quot; would eliminate revivals other of useless posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186999/whats-wrong-with-this-idea-for-recover-energy-from-pressure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="efe19aa7-a09a-4ae2-ab19-8dfcd1f8ced8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="David I just tried to vote to close as duplicate a [recent question][1] and could not do it after submitting the duplicate link. It was not possible to click on a link to finish the suggestion. The links to duplicate questions  are in the comments of Lubos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20047/is-the-stability-of-the-nucleus-due-to-pions-or-gluons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="2b4f615f-7bb7-48e9-9872-84c18f70d0fe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is only possible with the [**Established User**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user) privilege at 1,000 rep. Click on the post's score and you'll see the upvote/downvote breakdown. On occasion, this can be quite useful - particularly on meta for things like polls. (As an extreme example, [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6399/), currently at +24-21.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &lt;1k rep users, you can find out the vote counts on your own posts via [the reputation tab of your profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post), which will show the net upvotes and downvotes for each post, per day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="1d4b5200-18d1-4592-99d2-4be456d0d7eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can see a complete history of your reputation on your profile, using the &quot;reputation&quot; tab. In particular, if you look [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2433/jen?tab=reputation&amp;StartDate=2011-12-23), you will see all eight upvotes on that question explicitly accounted for. Now, if you know your pre-merge reputation and you're certain that it's the same as your post-merge reputation, I can't account for that. You could, in principle, go through the entire list on the reputation tab and verify that every vote you've received is accounted for there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="e7acaf99-9ef6-4bf1-80fb-9e1cc5ccb75b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As long as you have [at least 300 reputation][1], you can just add the tag to any questions that should have it. There's an &quot;edit tags&quot; link that will appear (I think) if you hover your mouse just to the right of the existing tags, or you can just use the regular &quot;edit&quot; link if you have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/create-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="064cb97a-7f4d-454e-9997-05c32dd2a947" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27129/papers-and-preprints-worth-reading-jan-midfeb-2012 is a [tag:resource-recommendation] question imported from the now-defunct Theoretical Physics site. I don't think it is constructive or that it should be reopened, and it is far from being in line with the current books policy. However, I'm quite curious as to whether it's part of a series and what the motivation for it, and discussions about it, were. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question cites a meta.TP thread [&quot;Journal club-like thing&quot;](http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/234/journal-club-like-thing) but the link is dead. Is it still possible to access that page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="d67b3f24-a487-4d8e-89d8-dded0b793b46" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This started as a comment but it got too long. I will not attempt to answer the original questionnaire, but you can take the following as a partial answer to question 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to bring back some of the nuance which [some users](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange?noredirect=1#comment26466_6810) seem determined to strip away. I consider MO to be a very successful site as a forum for mathematicians to discuss research-level mathematics. There are several independent measures of this success. A non-exhaustive list of success measures includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians can take high-level questions which come up in their work to MO and resolve them quickly;&#xD;&#xA; - mathematicians seem to find the content on MO to be stimulating and thought-provoking at a level commensurate with e.g. attending a research seminar;&#xD;&#xA; - a nontrivial fraction of the online discussion of research-level mathematics takes place on MO;&#xD;&#xA; - discussions on MO have sparked a significant number of off-MO collaborations which their participants have found to be rewarding research projects;&#xD;&#xA; - some of these collaborations have published their findings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These measures are related but ultimately independent. I would like PSE to be all of this and more. Some of this does happen, but I feel that we are not at the level of MO or anywhere near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing, though, is that this is obviously field-dependent. As regards the parts of physics where I do most of my research, the activity on this site is very low, and I do not feel I can successfully bring here a high-level question related to my work and resolve it quickly. (One example should do: take [this search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=high+harmonic+generation) and exclude my contributions.) I find this site to be useful and often very thought-provoking, but I do not consider it a useful tool for my research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, others may find that PSE does cater much more to their research interests. There are a number of different ways in which PSE can be helpful for a researcher, and I'd be interested to know, for the people that do find it useful for their research, how exactly they find it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="0934108a-8fcd-4331-acd0-365c97f432ab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today I had a question closed, about some researches of Dr. Bruce de Palma, in &lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16092/depalma-free-energy-fields&gt;. The reason of closing the question was &quot;This work bears all the hallmarks of being completely bogus, and accordingly I think this needs to be closed as off topic. If people disagree, this can be discussed on Physics Meta.&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think the question should not be closed, due to what I really desired to discover is if these researches are or not false. There are uncountable unformal references to N-Machine by De Palma, but it's difficult to find formal references online in scientific databases (and sure they could be offline hidden in universities papers). Maybe I did not write the question clearly, so I could re-write it. So, is this site the right place for asking this kind of thing? Thank you for you time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="c3c4bfc5-1731-4081-a704-eb7314d6bf66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Adapted from [Cryptography meta](https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/a/130), originally posted by [Ninefingers](https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/users/46/ninefingers)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rationale: why do we close questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are really two ways to do moderation. If you've been on any of the `.moderated` newsgroups you'll be well aware that to get a post on there, it needs to undergo a review process first and be accepted. The aim is to keep problem discussions from arising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE is slightly different - it works the other  way. *Anyone* can ask a question on SE and closing a question is the equivalent of putting that question *back into review/improve mode*. It's a feedback mechanism designed to react to problem cases only, so the usual business of asking and answering good questions can just... *happen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do we close a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The philosophy of SE is that each site handles questions on *problems you face* or things you are trying to understand. The [don't ask](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask) section of the FAQ gives you a good overview of things that don't work - to summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions invite arguments or extended debate that suck up time when members could be helping other people.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions are too broad, too narrow or have other content problems.&#xD;&#xA;* Some questions belong elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been worked out over time and with a lot of experience from Stack Overflow and are, *broadly speaking* true. Sometimes, exceptions are made - it is always a case-by-case thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is closing like deletion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Actually, deletion is a different concept on SE. Closed questions are put &quot;into improve mode&quot; if you like, and are still visible for *anyone* to improve. That's the idea. Deleted questions are different - they have a red background and are invisible to all but high reputation users. So deletion is different and solves a slightly different problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the requirements for closing a question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 3000 reputation on the site you can vote to close any question for the reasons above. More on that in a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not have this level of reputation, you will find that under the flag menu, you have an option &quot;this question does not belong here&quot;. That will raise a flag for users who can vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why can anyone vote to close/reopen**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, anyone can vote to close or reopen (or flag as such) because it is *your site*. This is really important - it's about expressing what you feel works and doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are moderators different?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderator close votes complete the required vote count immediately, no matter how many people have voted. This applies for both close/reopen votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, as the reputation requirement rules out many users, you will see moderators doing most of the closing to guide the site and look after the content. As you gain in reputation, you get to join in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ok, so how does it work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Example close button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, the important piece. Voting to close works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Underneath the question, there will be a close link. When you click on this, you will be presented with a list of options from which you can pick a close reason most appropriate to the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close vote reasons dialog][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * If other people have voted, you will see blue numbers against the reason they chose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Other votes][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The exact duplicate page takes you to a page that allows you to specify a question to close as an exact duplicate against.&#xD;&#xA; * The &quot;off topic&quot; page will present you with two options - one to migrate here, to meta, and one just off topic. On SE betas, only moderators can send questions elsewhere, so feel free to cast a vote here and flag if you have a target in mind.&#xD;&#xA; * The other options are straight out closes.&#xD;&#xA; * Once you pick your option and click &quot;close&quot;, your vote is registered. You cannot retract it at this stage, but nobody else, including moderators, will know it was you who voted.&#xD;&#xA; * If five people agree, the question will be closed. You've seen the effect of these before.&#xD;&#xA; * Your name, and the name of other closers, will appear on the bottom of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Close banner][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does vote to re-open work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A closed question has a &quot;reopen&quot; link underneath it. If you click this, a dialog box will ask you if you are sure - click yes and your vote will be registered to re-open the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below, you can see an example of the re-open link with two votes registered for re-opening (out of five).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Re-open link][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happens if I make a mistake?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't worry! Unless five people agree, or a moderator agrees, the question won't be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I've seen a closed question and I disagree. What can I do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, one option is to use your re-open vote! You can also always raise a discussion here on meta to seek clarification on why a question is closed and hopefully either a resolution will be reached, or you will get an explanation for the closure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My name appears on the bottom - isn't this going to cause problems with other users?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, surprisingly few closed questions generate any response at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you experience difficulties as a result of closing a question, you can and should contact a moderator via the flag mechanism (which is anonymous). We can then take any necessary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I find questions I might need to close? What about re-opens?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually there are two tools for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Review][6]. Here, there are a number of options for seeing things that might need say editing. One of these is a tab for all questions with close votes. You are then free to look at the question and decide if you agree.&#xD;&#xA; * [Tools][7]. Commonly referred to as the &quot;10k tools&quot;, this page let's you see even more information - certain anonymous flags, re-open votes, delete votes etc. The important one for this is the re-open page. Here, you can see questions that might have been closed incorrectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qogGL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THms0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/69Kak.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3F4V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/syw4O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="cfe09a98-1980-4a12-a6e3-45f85bc0e949" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, I do miss [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] who answered most of my questions during the late 14 - early 15. Suddenly I saw he was banished due to some sort of problems for one year! I'm not complaining against the moderation, but yes if he were here, it would be different:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderation is really good here. But it does depend, or you can say, the perspective of each of the individuals. See you can't seek a utopian scheme but we do want more. Take me; On an average, I remain on the site for over 3 hrs &amp; during that hour, I come to junk questions like &quot;solve this, urgent&quot;; &quot;can you check this?&quot;....Day in &amp; day out , we advise to please show some effort &amp; even cite the meta link but of no avail. They have no eager to read even the advice on the right side of the &quot;ask question&quot; page.It becomes really bothering to me; this site isn't for dumping waste. Another that really bothers me is the indifferent attitude of the person who asks the question. Though I ask most of the times(hey I'm still a student!), I try my best to contribute something to the site &amp; answer questions that are competent.Take this [quo](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184966/can-ke-and-pe-of-a-small-element-of-a-transverse-progressive-wave-be-maximum-sim/184982#184982); I answered this &amp; got decent votes, but the asker never came again! This is irritating!! Then why ask, if you are negligent to your very own query??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, to me the horrendous one, problem is the abuse of downvoting. If you have the time to downvote, you ought have time to write the cause. Though a notification appears, but this doesn't stop him/her to downvote without presenting the cause. I have no problem with downvoting; this is essential but it is the duty to make aware of the flaw which attracted downvoting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the moderation, I would say again that it is really pretty here: just think about them: they've taken a part of the time to devote here &amp; make it a part-&amp;-parcel of their lives. Salute to them. At some point, I thought they are really rude, but then could comprehend &quot;yes, it was my fault&quot; Compromise?? Yes/No! But in the long run it is really comfortable. However there are some members , who are really not at all happy with this &quot;moderation-atmosphere&quot;, like [him](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon) or [here](http://www.quora.com/Are-Math-Overflow-and-Math-Stack-Exchange-more-successful-than-Physics-Overflow-Physics-Stack-Exchange-If-so-why) as one of the founders of Physics Overflow wrote his allegations. However, I do respect their predicament:) And so do everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As that of professional physicists, they themselves know much about that as expressed in the other answers. There is even another [counterpart](http://www.physicsoverflow.org) that deals with the interest of them. However, to me, this is the place where I get **moksha** from the evils of **confusion, uncomprehandable stuffs** . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For man may come, &amp; man may go, I'll will come here forever!** (sorry Alfred Tennyson!!) This will evidently reflect my attitude towards this wonderful community:) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="9e9501a6-7529-4021-a9eb-af68675dd84e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Relatively frequently on this site there are questions of the general form &quot;How do I learn X knowing Y&quot; (X being things like &quot;[Quantum Mechanics][1],&quot; &quot;[General Relativity][2],&quot; [etc][3] and Y being things like &quot;[lots of math][4],&quot; &quot;[no math][5],&quot; &quot;[some physics][6],&quot; &quot;no physics,&quot; [etc][7]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I generally don't like this questions since they go against the [principle][8] of &quot;only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these questions do have some value. Perhaps a community wiki tag would work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30670/study-quantum-mechanics-without-physics-background &quot;Quantum Mechanics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28573/where-do-i-start-with-non-euclidean-geometry?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16119/which-subjects-in-physics-should-i-choose-if-i-want-to-help-tackling-todays-ene?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27700/quantum-field-theory-from-a-mathematical-point-of-view&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30731/what-would-be-the-requirement-to-learn-matrix-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20641/book-for-learning-about-constructing-correct-physical-modeling&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9935/should-i-begin-to-study-quantum-mechanics-or-wait-until-i-have-a-stronger-base-o?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="83762c13-721c-4a7a-abcf-bf4ccd5cc907" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="OS - Windows 7&#xD;&#xA;Browser - Firefox v26.0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the past few days I have been unable to log into physics.stackexchange.com using OpenID. The error I get is below. Strangely, I can log in by browsing to the root site stackexchange.com and using OpenID. Then I can go to physics.stackexchange.com and get logged in automatically because I was already logged into the root site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unable to log in with your OpenID provider:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The openid.return_to parameter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/authenticate/?s=c15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128&amp;dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not match the actual URL&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/authenticate/?s=c15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128&amp;dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fuser%2F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.sig=C1VsVB5URdaZprZo0tRqzDwgmFSwk8kVDxM7mAW8lEw%3D&amp;openid.signed=claimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cassoc_handle%2Cop_endpoint%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cns.alias3%2Calias3.mode%2Calias3.type.alias1%2Calias3.value.alias1%2Calias3.type.alias2%2Calias3.value.alias2&amp;openid.assoc_handle=1Ltb%21IAAAALcYO9mOn_QMDQzJxGqxsg6Af5QghCn_8YIfu4gxKkOZQQAAAAGFmCfvbxvG3B3afcDveMh7dJMqemvMnVxTW1EOwFaj1sT3wDW7Pi3jk0LZzSM3rNRvArAyenOrXkCm8fgPNk76&amp;openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.stackexchange.com%2Fopenid%2Fprovider&amp;openid.return_to=http%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fusers%2Fauthenticate%2F%3Fs%3Dc15344d4-17e8-49a4-a903-a295ec4a5128%26dnoa.userSuppliedIdentifier%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fopenid.stackexchange.com%252Fuser%252F6605b47a-8e5f-40af-8d04-e838c8675845&amp;openid.response_nonce=2014-01-08T19%3A15%3A35ZnevwToP9&amp;openid.mode=id_res&amp;openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&amp;openid.ns.alias3=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&amp;openid.alias3.mode=fetch_response&amp;openid.alias3.type.alias1=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&amp;openid.alias3.value.alias1=gilg%40stanford.edu&amp;openid.alias3.type.alias2=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2FnamePerson&amp;openid.alias3.value.alias2=Isopycnal%20Oscillation)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the request was made with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="a60f457a-7de2-4a05-9d5b-41a418a10ae3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A recent question on the site, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16474/is-there-any-anti-gravity-material, has been generating a lot of controversy as to whether it is appropriate or not. I'm personally a little torn on how a question like this should be handled, so I would like to pose the following questions to the community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the question _as currently written_ inappropriate for the site? Should it be closed? If so, which of the existing close reasons (exact duplicate, off topic, not constructive, not a real question, too localized) applies to it, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes, how could the question be written differently so that it _would_ be acceptable? Or do you think we should not allow any questions about the possibility of a material that responds negatively to gravity? And why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5414" RevisionGUID="d07c8821-548a-4ce9-9c1d-0f2f6d9735d1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On [Community♦](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)'s page if says and I quote : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{Randomly poke old unanswered questions every hour so they get some attention}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What algorithm is used for this **random** throws of questions ? Does it bring up useful questions only ? How ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="72398589-2ed8-455b-87f9-0ad40f8c8004" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I refer to [this deleted question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/187569/26076) and my question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize the deleted question: cites this book [&quot;How Einstein Ruined Physics&quot;](http://www.amazon.com.au/How-Einstein-Ruined-Physics-Revolution-ebook/dp/B004ZSC3QM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1433566139&amp;sr=1-1) by Roger Schlafly, one of whose main premises seems to be the notion that Einstein was a fraud because Poincaré, Lorentz (not to mention, unwittingly, Maxwell himself) and others made important contributions to STR that were unacknowledged by Einstein at the time. The OP asked for an opinion as to how valid this viewpoint is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question was probably against the rules of this site owing to its opinion-dependent nature, but I was rather concerned that it was deleted as &quot;Offensive&quot; instead of being migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this question was trolling. Maybe it was genuine. Either way, the notion of Einstein's fraud can be soundly repudiated by discussion, not censorship. I wrote an answer that was upvoted thrice very swiftly: I emphasize that I really don't give the nether end of a rat about the reputation, but I do care that the arguments against a fairly fashionable idea in some circles couldn't be put, either by me or by someone else - I really don't care. The upvotes seem to say that people had valid thoughts on this question. Moreover, after I wrote my answer, several people made highly valid comments that I hadn't thought of and should also have been put to repudiate what the OP seemed to be implying (or seeking confirmation of). Like it or not, many lay people read this site and form opinions about science grounded on its practices. Some will take from this question's deletion the impression that bad ideas are censored rather than rationally repudiated and *shown*, with evidence, to be bad ideas as should, IMO, be the wont of scientists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In deleting the question, we lost the chance to describe an important aspect of the scientific method. That is, science is a culture and we all benefit from the ideas of our forerunners. Hopefully we cite these other ideas, but sometimes they become deeply enmeshed in the culture and body of knowledge that we forget that there was a time before them. Add to this Einstein's  odd, intense, somewhat isolated personality that lead to his being *e.g.* stuck in his building's elevator many cycles lost in his thoughts before realizing it was time to get off, you have someone who was perhaps a little less adept at citation than he might have been. Einstein - crucially - lived in a world where communication was very different from today and it was not as easy to keep abreast of ideas. I recall a sign in my faculty library in the 1980s advertising a course in Dialog (an ancient forerunner to the WWW) bearing the slogan &quot;Information Revolution Got You Down?&quot; In those days I certainly felt this way, much more so than now where, thanks to the WWW and decent search engines, I do not feel overwhelmed by information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So science is a culture that shares ideas that everyone benefits from. Einstein was no different from any other scientist in this way. Does that make Einstein a fraud? Absolutely not: without the protagonists, including Einstein, there is NO culture and there is NO science. The author of the book in question as a professional geometer liked Poincaré's insights into special relativity and the geometric / group theoretic description more than Einstein's. If the truth be known, probably I do too. So what. We all think differently. My understanding of the history is that Einstein was first to uniquely take time dilation as just that: a real effect on time itself rather than arising from Lorentz's &quot;local time&quot; which was not taken as being &quot;true&quot; or &quot;real&quot;: Poincaré himself described it as having no meaning by itself and resulting only from convention. Moreover, as one commenter pithily put it, Einstein's contribution was hardly only special relativity, or even only GTR and STR put together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand the viewpoint that the question was not a good fit for this site. I disagree that challenges such as the OP's to mainstream viewpoints can be offensive. He/She attacked no-one personally on this site. I disagree with the question's deletion and believe that it should have been migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've banged on enough, so could someone please give any further insight into why this question was deleted rather than migrated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="e25bbda3-7289-4cee-90cc-2aa59dc9385f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On the basis of [Are collaborations needed to be productive in physics?][1], [Can a web community write papers?][2] and [Publication Authorship Credits][3], I'd say that we *have been* entertaining such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly this is a matter of culture that is specific to the physics community (other sciences have the same problem, but they (may) have different cultures to some degree, and therefore different answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that we might want a tag for this. Perhaps [tag:authorship].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question: as this is a fairly &quot;soft&quot; topic would it be appropriate to suggest that these questions should be Community Wiki? (Compare to book and journal recommendations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1599/520&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5991/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5473" RevisionGUID="5a7ff138-51d5-4e30-b887-37af50d032e5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I understand that asking pure math questions on the physics site is discouraged and I've seen many questions moved over to math. However, often times such questions are more suited for physicists to answer since they encounter those types of questions more often. Furthermore, they are more likely to answer the question using tools that a physicist would be familiar with. This is certainly the case for example is in this [post][1] and there are many other similar examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it really be disallowed to ask a math questions on the physics stackexchange if you would like a physicist's perspective on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: I just wanted to give an example for what my issue was. I recently needed some help with a math question from my QFT book, so I posted it [here][2]. However, the response I got was (as I expected) very formal, and not the approach a physics student would normally take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98877/evaluate-1-loop-contribution-to-the-4-point-greens-function?noredirect=1#comment201657_98877&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/672619/vector-delta-function-identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="346822e5-fff1-4c31-bb3a-2c7367722bcf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[tag:half-life] into [tag:radioactivity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new tag [_half-life_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/half-life) introduced is really a subset, and radioactivity is sufficient for identification purposes and subsuming. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="a091905c-420d-45a7-9597-98eceb9ad113" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know how those other relatively innocuous posters got lumped in to this discussion, but I'd really like to address the question of Ron Maimon. Is he being persecuted because he unselfconsciously posts a biography which lables him as an outsider? Yes, I find Ron Maimon to be at times annoying but certainly not obnoxious in the manner of such classic personalities as Jim Carr and ZapperZ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing about Ron Maimon is he definitely comes here to talk about physics. I personally can't get into discussions with him for two reasons: first, he's so single-minded in his own point of view that you can't really communicate with him back and forth; secondly, the structure of this forum is simply not conducive to extended discussions. But he sometimes posts things that are so coherently argued and with such intricate detail that even if I can't understand them myself, I just can't believe he's simply pulling this stuff out of his ass. Consider his answer to the question of [Why do we not have particles of spin greater than 2?][1] A guy who can write that is either (a) a genius or  (b) a total faker. I'm no fan of Ron Maimon but I think it's got to be (a), not (b). You just can't make that stuff up if it doesn't come from somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone thinks Ron Maimon is a crank, then let him argue Ron down face-to-face on his actual physics. Don't tell me that Ron is unemployed and has no PhD. That doesn't prove anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14932/why-do-we-not-have-spin-greater-than-2/15164#15164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="20ce29f8-5892-473e-b4cb-390676b5b606" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question did get wrongly and prematurely closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32806/can-physics-get-rid-of-the-continuum#comment72857_32806&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a good, valuable, and CONSTRUCTIVE question that fits in perfectly with the (more theoretical) content and purpose of our site, and has already some nice answers. The answers already there and the interesting discussions in the comments show that the question hits active research areas at the inteface between mathematics and physics. Asking such questions is often very beneficial to make progress, in particular in theoretical physics. It is neither &quot;off topic&quot; nor &quot;not consutructive&quot; or what else one could invoke as a pretext to close it. &#xD;&#xA;But maybe the question could (and should ?) be shortened and put straight a little bit as Ron suggests in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial mistagging (soft question only) or too much discussion are NOT legitimate reasons to close the question itself! A better way would have been to retag the question appropriately, make suggestions for improvements (as Ron did for example), move the comments to chat if needed, and then leave it alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can the question be reopened please?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="a6fec613-c1c9-4924-8729-5cd314d37860" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To be honest, what you're trying to do is probably not going to work very well. The main reason is that Stack Exchange is a Q&amp;A site, not an online tutorial. We don't arrange to have questions on the site covering all the material you would need to learn in an intro physics class. The focus here is on filling the gaps in what the standard resources have to offer, not rehashing the same material that you would find in those standard resources. This is why we ask people to do some prior research (e.g. searching Google and Wikipedia) before asking a question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue is that Stack Exchange sites cater to an expert-level audience. What this means, in our case, is _not_ that you need to have a degree in physics to ask a question, but generally, you do need have to have a basic understanding of the framework of the topic you're asking about. To put it another way, it comes back to the same point about prior research. Suppose you have a question about electromagnetism, maybe something like showing that traveling waves are solutions to Maxwell's equations. Before asking about it on this site, we'd expect you to look in a textbook or an equivalent website. If you don't understand what you find there at all (e.g. if you don't know what a differential equation is), then the question you'd be asking would probably not qualify as expert-level. If you were to attempt to teach yourself physics from this site alone, you would be asking a lot of those kinds of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me summarize it like this. There are three components of a traditional physics class:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A textbook (or notes), which is your primary reference for learning the material&#xD;&#xA;- Office hours and study sessions where you can ask your teacher or your fellow students questions, which are your secondary reference for learning the material&#xD;&#xA;- Homework problems to reinforce your understanding of the material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Stack Exchange site aims to be part of the second component, _not_ the first. For that you will need something like a textbook or lecture. I'd recommend checking out some of the suggestions in our [book recommendation list](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations), or you can also look for online courses and/or videos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="ba83ea72-7283-4caa-8b30-b13bd26b78f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's easy to become to focussed on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="65231252-59be-47cd-944a-26047ddd2b10" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my comments to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98899/can-quantum-angular-momentum-l-be-zero I tried to @PPG, but it won't let me. Presumably the conditions for whether or not I can ping someone are listed somewhere ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="da235e75-6dad-401e-9790-da35d5a6d18f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="OK, apparently trivial answers are now automatically converted to comments by the software. So if you want to post a link here, instead of posting it as a separate answer, just add it to the following list. Once a question has been closed, edit it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If our chat room ever becomes more regularly active, we will move handling of close candidates there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23149/worksheets-for-khan-academy &#xD;&#xA;Off topic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22256/what-will-be-the-relative-speed-of-the-fly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possible duplicate as linked in comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21871/what-are-the-frameworks-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; possibly not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21848/new-theories-and-publications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; not constructive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a language question and it may be off topic, we'll need to decide as a community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21702/4066&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May be off topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="62fa31ac-cc75-424e-a8ac-362524e6f813" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="During reviewing, I stumbled upon the following situation as e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10606/explicit-variation-of-gibbons-hawking-york-boundary-term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question was asked, answered and accepted. Now somebody else posts an answer which actually is somewhat of a follow-up to the existing answer. Of course one could flag it as not being an answer and ask for a separate question (which is a fine option to have). On the other hand, the original question is refined through this answer. If the user, who posted the second question as answer, would edit the original question, it would be fine according to the site rules. Yet (if I understood it correctly), the original author would potentially be credited for a nice question, which was actually later created by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there be a way to combine the two questions, so that all questions and answers show up on one page, with shared credits for both asking users?&#xD;&#xA;Somehow it sounds appealing to me as everything would be in one place rather than having another question on the same or a very similar topic, which probably just looks like a duplicate and would potentially need to be answered with a copy of the original answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's best practice in such a situation as reviewer? Strictly flagging it as a non-answer? Suggesting an edit to the original question?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="95ddf71f-bbf4-4646-b9df-7e1488972860" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Todo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of better title for the duration of this posts [featured] status.&#xD;&#xA;Add more examples of correct usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explain more?&#xD;&#xA;Add a &quot;why should I opt-in&quot; post?&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Original idea: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1153/list-of-users-with-specialities-who-are-willing-to-be-pinged-should-we-do-this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a place where users can opt in to be pinged by other users regardless of their chat status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What sort of pings is this for?##&#xD;&#xA;Try to keep the ping related to P.SE . Some example uses of this would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask a specific user for help on one of your question/answers. Try to wait for the rest of the community, only use this if you have gotten no response.&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know that they might enjoy answering `&lt;question&gt;`&#xD;&#xA; - Let a specific user know about an unanswered question within their specialization&#xD;&#xA; - Notify a user for SE-related miscellaneous stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- -  More? --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Bad examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - `Not too sure of what I should put here.`&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Instructions#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to render yourself pingable##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post an answer to this question, indicating your specialties (if any). You may also list which types of questions you prefer to answer.&#xD;&#xA; - Other stuff you can do to help: Keep your specialties in your profile text (preferably so that they show up on [your expanded usercard][1]). Do the same for your chat profile. Also, try to stay  logged in to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you would like to ping a user##&#xD;&#xA;First, check if that user is on [chat][2]. Start typing their username in chat, and if it pops up, then notify them there. It's always preferable to use chat for such notifications. If the user is not on chat, _just comment on their post below with your message_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to delete the comment once you have recieved indication that the user has seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/established-user&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-coupling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="51af1d1c-9fc1-4006-81f9-4690ce4eabe1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](http://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="b94f1af1-4192-4c27-b403-07d8bdb466c7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I remember posting some comments under [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/192567/27367), but they aren't there now (in particular there was a comment about question edit and another that lead to [this reply](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192561/how-does-the-heat-death-looks-like-from-inside-the-system#comment410044_192567)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite sure I didn't delete them myself, there were a few of them and they are all gone. Hence, I suspect moderator action. As I am new to the physics.SE community I would like to ask why these comments were removed, or more importantly why there was no note left. I tried searching help center and meta for some info or policies, but to no avail. I did find that &quot;moderators reserve right to delete comments without notice&quot; and I'm aware of general SE policy that &quot;comments are ephemeral in nature&quot;, but removing several comments from a new member without any note just seems not right (I participate a bit in other SE communities being &quot;trusted user&quot; in two and I don't remember any such thing happening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody let me know what happened? Is this a standard thing here? Is there any community norm help page so that I can read it and avoid at least a part of stepping on your toes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="67431d67-1496-44e9-8b08-3deb22e4a25a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a thank you for *being awesome*, if you have at least 1340 reputation (as of Feb 24) and are on page 1 or page 2 of &amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip; we'll be sending you a little care package shortly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Physics Stack Exchange t-shirt in your size&#xD;&#xA;- Physics Stack Exchange die-cut, vinyl stickers&#xD;&#xA;- [Stack Exchange sharpie][1] &#xD;&#xA;- [Stack Exchange pen][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Stack Exchange stickers][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can expect to get an email soon with details on how to confirm and provide your mailing address and size preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The t-shirt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![physics.stackexchange.com Tshirt][t]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The sticker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![physics.stackexchange.com sticker][s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the items you can view in the [Stack Exchange store][4] &amp;mdash; direct links to [sharpie][5], [pens][6], [stickers][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Congratulations! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(for anyone else who wants this swag, but isn't on page 1 or page 2 of the all time top users -- the limited edition t-shirts and stickers will be available for purchase from the store as soon as we're able)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [t]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DKQzD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [s]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gYAZI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/collections/show/products/stack-exchange-sharpie&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-pens&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-network-stickers&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://shop.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/collections/show/products/stack-exchange-sharpie&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-pens&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://shop.stackexchange.com/products/stack-exchange-network-stickers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="5cff917a-ea11-45de-9dd2-64d7516aaf4b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Frédéric Grosshans][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specialities (research level): Quantum information (more specifically, quantum communication, quantum cryptography and quantum entanglement) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likes to answer: beyond the above, I have an interest in the links between physics and information theory, and I love to give original answer to general physics question, but I do not always have time to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/373/frederic-grosshans&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1469" RevisionGUID="c1f011af-f8d0-46cf-b403-2434a0ea5786" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions, related to Anthropic principle, Final anthropic principle, quantum immortality, Boltzman brains, nececity of an observer &#xD;&#xA;for things to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30989/is-the-only-diffeomorphism-invariant-anthropic-principle-the-final-anthropic-pri&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32979/why-arent-we-boltzmann-brains-in-an-infinite-universe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="83dc3683-5f63-464e-a4f0-895b4a15ddc6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I continue to be befuddled by what exactly one is supposed to do with flags in the 10k tools, and I'm quite relieved to know [they're going away soon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226092/lets-get-rid-of-the-10k-flag-queue). In the meantime, though, here's a stumper I just came across in my flagging history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post in question is [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104304/without-seeing-the-lightning-can-you-tell-how-far-away-it-struck-by-how-the-thu/104308#104308), which came up flagged as Not an Answer if I remember correctly. I understand why someone would flag this - it was only a sort-of good fit to the question to begin with - but I disagree that it failed to address the original intent of the OP. Particularly, I felt it did answer the question in its state at the time, with a less specific title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, given the current state of the question, I can understand that it might best be classed as Not an Answer. Given that, I can understand that my `invalid flags` is disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely stumped, however, at the message. `Flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer`? That has absolutely nothing to do with why I flagged this way. The technical content of the post was never an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone elucidate what on Earth this message means and how it came into being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mzWH9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6924" RevisionGUID="1ade3817-8260-4145-b453-0ef7f1ddc396" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just deleting a wrong answer is not good, especially if it is far from obvious that the answer is wrong. Silently correcting the answer is not much better either. You could instead leave the original answer basically untouched, add a warning at the begin that the answer is wrong, and possibly add an appendix explaining why the answer is wrong, and how this might be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is also what dmckee did initially (https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/7673/5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###**Addendum:** It has been brought to my attention that the argument herein is specious. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See [DOI: 10.1021/ed1000476](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed1000476) *&quot;Can One Take the Logarithm or the Sine of a Dimensioned Quantity or a Unit? Dimensional Analysis Involving Transcendental Functions&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When later comments asked for more details about why the argument is specious, he made the answer a community wiki, such that somebody else could add these details, if he cares enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruslan cared enough to provide those details. Funnily enough, he initially also provided an argument why the cited paper is wrong and the original answer is correct. He later weakened this to saying that the cited paper is only physically wrong, but mathematically correct. My guess is that the paper is just wrong, but Ruslan is unsure how to nail down the mathematical mistake, so he tries to stay on the safe side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="8721403b-e1a6-4361-8fdd-d93a3d1717ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [Chat link][1], [Another one][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently retagging all questions tagged [tag:light] to [tag:visible-light] and/or [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since editing them all at once will flood the main page, I'll keep track of them here, and slowly work my way through them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to help! (try to do maximum 5 at a time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final destination is this synonym: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/visible-light/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to vote for it, a mod will synonymify it once the retagging is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There now is a userscript for this https://gist.github.com/2994654 (full details [here](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/121541) ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** the synonym has been created, so the link [tag:light] doesn't work anymore. Use [this Data.SE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/75871/posts-tagged-light) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=3826410#3826410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=4136095#4136095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="decc2892-50df-4756-8f52-40d15a060594" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to clarify a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You *can* still help handle flags, via /review. Yes, lots of other people can do this too - but that doesn't mean they'll do as good a job as you would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Flag handling has never been the &quot;big&quot; 10K privilege, IMHO. It got a lot of focus, because for a long time it was the *only* way ordinary users could directly help shoulder the support burden... But it often wasn't really the best use of your abilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you poke around in [/tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools), you'll quickly notice that most of what's found there isn't directly actionable - it's *informational!* What you *do* with that information is up to you: hopefully, you've been around long enough now that you have some idea of how you want the site to be run, and are able to make good use of the information presented. Here are a few ideas, based on how *I've* used the 10K tools:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Find problems that've been overlooked and fix them if you can, or bring them to the attention of the moderators if you can't. The stats page is a gold mine for outliers that might benefit from a bit of attention from a wise, aged site veteran such as yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Find awesome stuff that reminds you of why you like coming here. The stats page is a good one for this too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Sanity-check the stuff that other people are doing, and offer guidance and correction where necessary: new tags, new answers, suggested edits, questions being migrated or closed, posts being deleted... Outside of /tools, you also get a full history of actions taken by others in /review, which can be helpful in identifying problems there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as a 10K+ member of the site your opinions likely carry quite a bit of weight with your peers: if you see a trend that you think is worth calling attention to, don't hesitate to do it - having access to more data makes it easier to back up your arguments. And that's the most valuable &quot;10K privilege&quot; in my book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6926" RevisionGUID="b972f82c-9590-43f1-9c40-c9b6b0a79f7e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We are allowed to edit [without changing the meaning][1] of our posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because if I espouse Theory A and you upvote my post and then I realize Theory A is wrong and change my post to say Theory B is right, then it appears that the community supports Theory B. Regardless of whether Theory B is actually right or not, the community *never got to vote on Theory B*, and that is bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I believe we should recommend that if an OP realizes their answer is wrong that they delete it and post the correct answer separately (if they know it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="c34cf5fe-5f84-4dc7-8c54-68eb6bf9da72" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I myself live in IST, so 1:30 Saturday morning is a _tad_ too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I don't think I have much input on this anyway--not found any strange tags recently. I'll look through the taglist and find vague stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: We could use this to create tagwikiexcerpts. There are lots of vague tags that I've come across (I'll look for them), that lack excerpts. Since the excerpt tells you waht sort of questions belong there, you can't write the excerpts without, well, _knowing_ the excerpt :/. So it would be nice if the tag scopes are discussed as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Dumping ground#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll use this place to dump any tag-related stuff I find in the meantime--we can discuss these if necessary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Merges##&#xD;&#xA;[tag:astronomy]--&gt;[tag:astrophysics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:atmosphere]--&gt;[tag:atmospheric-sciences]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:aircraft]&lt;--[tag:airplanes]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:rotational-dynamics]/[tag:rotational-kinematics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:lagrangian-mechanics]/[tag:lagrangian-formulism]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:electric-circuits]--&gt;[tag:electrical-engineering] ([synonym as well][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Burninate##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:air] (dunno about this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:beam]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:sign-convention] -- Sort of a meta tag; sign conventions can be anywhere. Dunno about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:matrix-elements]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also lots of tiny tags like [tag:escape-velocity]. If you look backwards from [here][2], you get quite a few of them.  Only one question, and probably won't be needed again. We may want to discuss what do do with these. I say we destroy them all :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In need of tagwikiexcerpt##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Split [tag:radiation] into [tag:electromagnetic-radiation],[tag:thermal-radiation], and [tag:radioactivity] (with an option for [tag:alpha-decay]/[tag:beta-decay])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/electrical-engineering/synonyms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags?page=18&amp;tab=popular" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="a8dfd4d0-d10d-4d55-8f6f-4d43aae01c4b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When writing quantum mechanics answers I typically start with something like this at the top:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\renewcommand{ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right\rangle}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a custom macro like this means that I can type \ket{\Psi} instead of \left| \Psi \right\rangle when I want to indicate a quantum state.&#xD;&#xA;This has several benefits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Less typing for me, and I'm less likely to make a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;* Easier for other people to edit my post because it's easier for them to read the TeX.&#xD;&#xA;* Other folks editing the TeX may learn something new about TeX!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it appropriate to add a note explaining the use of \renewcommand (or \newcommand) to the [help center page on MathJax](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="6de0a79e-a65a-4e88-b9d9-fcc971f50f5c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions, related to the ultimate nature of time, presentism, eternalism, endurantism, perdurantism, &#xD;&#xA;causation, infinity of time in past and future directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24018/how-can-something-happen-when-time-does-not-exist&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-demonstrates-why-time-passes&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23148/how-was-time-created&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16688/is-now-smeared-over-time&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="5ec2f0ae-2985-4590-82f8-827f0de34516" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The bottom of the [notation][1] section contains this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please look around to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be [here][2] or [here][3] or [here][4]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I came across this since I wanted to reuse the section for Chem.SE, of course expanding it for the `\ce{...}` thingy, which lots of people are confused about.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#howtoask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="9eb21294-82f7-4fad-8749-dd39bbccf19c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](http://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](http://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](http://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](http://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="87234ee7-3d4d-45d0-abc4-79a51ca275a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is for the next bunch of cleanup items(too much clutter on one post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this classification is rough, just so that I can get an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the full post before retagging, and improve if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:electromagnetic-radiation]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8163/can-you-see-yourself-in-a-mirror-when-you-are-riding-on-top-of-a-light-stream also [tag:mirror] DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8454/what-reflective-mediums-do-laser-shows-use DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8506/where-does-the-energy-go-when-light-is-blocked-by-polarisation DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8715/isnt-wave-particle-duality-of-light-actually-cheating DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/light-waves-and-schrodinger-probability-waves DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/the-interactions-of-light-and-matter DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/uv-reflective-surfaces DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9364/does-opening-or-closing-the-window-in-a-non-ac-car-in-the-summer-affect-how-much DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9586/merge-different-wavelength-rays DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9954/how-to-get-intensity-over-a-range-of-wavelengths-from-a-total-intensity DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10018/a-new-idea-on-unifying-sound-and-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10266/optically-performed-fourier-transform DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10301/how-does-reflection-work DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10356/future-light-cones-and-light-paths DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10376/light-travels-a-straight-line-write-down-the-principle-in-which-this-is-manitest DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10612/explain-how-or-if-a-box-full-of-photons-would-weigh-more-due-to-massless-photo DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10695/how-do-laser-rangefinders-work-when-the-object-surface-is-not-perpendicular-to-t DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/michelson-rotating-mirror-experiment DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/polarization-and-mirrors DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11103/time-slowing-further-into-the-earths-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11137/effect-of-gravitation-on-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11211/distant-bodies-emitting-photons DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/where-does-light-energy-go-when-the-electric-and-magnetic-components-equal-zero DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11306/how-do-you-calculate-the-intensity-of-light-around-the-focal-point-from-a-focuse DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11794/linear-polarizer-and-the-angle-of-incidence DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/batman-spotlight-in-the-sky DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11940/if-you-view-the-earth-from-far-enough-away-can-you-observe-its-past DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12048/could-we-enable-ourselves-to-send-messages-to-and-receive-messages-from-the-futu DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12096/solar-chamber-trapped-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12604/light-energy-absorption-in-mirror DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12682/range-of-infrared-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12723/is-there-a-limit-to-the-visual-information-a-photon-can-carry DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12741/does-a-slide-in-a-projector-act-as-a-diffuser DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12954/is-there-a-reason-for-photodynamic-therapy-to-not-cause-cancer-if-mobile-phones DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12965/why-are-lasers-inefficient DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13169/how-can-a-laser-pointer-have-range-of-several-kilometers-in-atmosphere DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13283/modeling-a-spray-painted-polyurathane-surface-reflection DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13374/newtonian-bending-of-light DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tag [tag:visible-light]##&#xD;&#xA;Commented out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8620/newtons-color-disk DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/are-human-eyes-the-best-possible-camera DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9616/what-do-ants-see DONE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10469/what-makes-the-roads-looks-like-it-is-having-an-liquid-on-it-on-summer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/when-we-see-two-lights-behind-one-another-it-will-look-like-there-are-two-lights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/a-light-flickers-at-a-fast-rate-why-do-humans-only-see-light-on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11138/transparency-of-materials &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/colors-from-a-computer-vs-colors-from-visible-spectrum-of-sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12116/how-does-stuff-glow-in-the-dark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Both##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9799/do-and-can-phone-signals-come-inside-ac-car-which-is-glass-packed DONE&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="fcde14ab-d2f0-4a90-8dac-1a78973e8925" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just interested in what happened, why would someone delete their accepted answer to my question [question][1] that actually helped me?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And isn't ACuriousMind's comment just wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/201952/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="633b3ca5-d708-495c-b71f-f23ef401dcc3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="All those answers are at https://physics.stackexchange.com/election&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mbq is the third moderator and we were all elected in April 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="91b4ae91-4ca3-4faf-b40c-af03b7623d9c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the comments pointed out, the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and the [meta-tag:faq] tag on meta are the canonical sources. There's also a lot of site-agnostic information in the [faq tag on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq), which is mostly just clarifications of the stuff in the help center, but I would still consider that to be part of our policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything that you don't find in one of those sources, you can ask here on meta or in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), although it's worth doing a quick search of meta to see if you can find any prior discussion about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="586256cf-388d-4cdd-af19-cb2c3278ad1d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While ACuriousMind's answer covers most cases, there is one other that I occasionally come across - where you seem to be the only one to be able to understand the OP's post (at least of people who have read it and/or commented). Perhaps this is because you're intimately familiar with the topic, giving you some extra insight, or because the OP's first language is the same as yours helping you see what may have been lost in translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're confident that you understand the question, but that it may be unclear to others, it's acceptable to edit the question (often substantially) yourself, at which point you can reasonably post an answer. When I do this I usually leave a note to the OP asking that they check that I haven't misinterpreted them, and instructions on how to roll back the edit if they don't like it. Presumably this is encouraged behaviour since you can get [a few dozen yellow pixels][1] if you do it enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/1219/illuminator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="9ca68f0f-068a-4d1c-a28c-891369e9864e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions about choice between mathematically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10240/is-the-wave-function-objective-or-subjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="1272ea3d-ba1b-4089-bc9b-49406c8ac7f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, this downvoting peak was caused by the infamous (and very persistent) love spammer, who offered solutions to everybody's love lives, cf. [records](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9308818#9308818) from May 7th, 2013. (Link only accessible to moderators and SE team). The spammer used multiple Phys.SE accounts, such as, e.g. [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24107) and [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/24076).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incident spurred [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4270/2451) and possibly [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4297/2451) meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="dbd78f10-8dbf-4b5d-a5bc-980de6102838" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to help Cyberike to define the problem given in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24028/how-do-i-calculate-dc-motor-speed-for-a-given-load#comment56280_24028 so that there is a definite answer. As the discussion might take another few posts I wanted to move it to chat but the site says that this is not possible due to Cyberike's low reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other way? Should I just stick to the comments or what would you suggest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="4c942c31-df6d-426c-9c48-e362fa814229" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) In 99 percent of the cases, the [tag:homework] tag runs smoothly and as intended. In a few cases, OP does not agree with labeling his question with the [tag:homework] tag; often it's a new user that hasn't read the [wiki description](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) or the [site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/2451), but sometimes OP is right and the [tag:homework] tag is removed again from the question with no further discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) In the early days of Phys.SE, whenever there was posted a homework question without the [tag:homework] tag, then the moderators would politely ask OP if this was homework or not? Typically, a couple of full answers to the homework were posted and accepted before the issue of whether or not to add the [tag:homework] tag was settled. Thus OP would succeed in getting a homework solution from our site, which in other respect is mainly dedicated to just _conceptional_ physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) In the last year or so, the tagging practice was changed, and users with tagging privileges would now often add the [tag:homework] tag whenever they felt it was appropriate _without_ first asking OP. The answers were now typically just hints, advices, outlines, etc., instead of full solutions. So the [tag:homework] tag clearly had the desired effect. Moreover, this new practice didn't seem to spur repeated back-and-forth edit war over the [tag:homework] tag. Typically it became clear to everybody whether or not the [tag:homework] tag would apply in a given case or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV) _If it ain't broke, don't fix it._ I fear that by banning the [tag:homework] tag, we in practice loose a useful user-based moderation option, and effectively turn this site into a homework help service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V) Another aspect is that many of our readers use the [tag:homework] tag to decide whether or not to read a post. This goes both ways. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="e09e629e-6355-498d-b74b-9f8f7166bc77" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In these sites, down-voting has become a passion to prove *intelligence*. Yesterday, I got two upvoted answers **downvoted simultaneously** (Someone has down-voted both within 1 min). I think they're too busy in leaving comments and reading [Etiquette](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#etiquette)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why isn't there a rule: &quot;For Downvoting upvoted posts, comments are must&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The posted users don't know &quot;For which silly reason, they've been downvoted...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Then, how would we correct the answers? Only one choice left out: &quot;Answers must be deleted&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="bc637e12-508f-44dd-aa61-83b8d0c44709" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would be very pleased to vote for  &#xD;&#xA;#[Noldorin](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/13/noldorin)  &#xD;&#xA;as a beta moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I saw since the private beta, Noldorin does have a useful knowledge of physics for this community. I think as a moderator he would be helpful as he can help make this SE site a very good high level physics site, with a good balance between the proverbial &quot;research-level&quot; and more basic aspects of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in the comments, I am grateful to receive this nomination, and will accept for the reason that I want to see this website and community develop and mature into something praiseworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit about myself: I'm currently an undergraduate (3rd year) student of (theoretical) physics in London, England. My knowledge is certainly no higher than intermediate in terms of the scope of users here (ranging from pre-college to research), though I am quite interested in a few fields in particular. I would like to think I represent well an questioning undergraduate type, and could thus be of general help here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal is to help get this site up to a solid undergraduate to graduate level at its core, and build a strong user base of skilled and active physicists/students. Both answering questions and communicating a &quot;vision&quot; for the site are important over the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="3d5c4a28-e90e-43dd-a43d-f8213deac57b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we've had this debate before. Unfortunately, there's no definite consensus to be found about their community wiki status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/50583) (from July 2013) has the top voted answer (with a meager +11/-2) saying that book recommendation questions need to be *actively moderated by the community* and should be made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/50583) (from August 2013) implements the *&quot;Good list, bad list&quot;* top scored answer by setting rules for what a good res. rec. answer must contain, and that all answers *prior to that policy* should be moved to one single community wiki answer that gets an additional notice. No mention of making the question or its policy-conforming answers community wiki is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The question [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307/50583) (from December 2013, about the [great book list](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/50583)) has no answers of positive score. The great book list itself is closed and has a single large community wiki answer that does not conform to the answer policy, but also lacks the additional notice mentioned in the faq post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, already the three main questions I can find on the book recommendation questions disagree on how to exactly handle these questions, or have just largely been ignored. It gets even more confusing when looking into practice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation]. Many of them are closed as duplicate of the big book list, others as primarily opinion-based, but only **174** of them have been made community wiki. No pattern as to which ones are made wiki and which ones are not is evident to me.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No pattern as to which ones are closed as *duplicates of the book list*, which ones are closed as *primarily opinion-based* and which ones are left open is readily apparent, although the ones to be closed as duplicates of the book list tend to be rather unspecific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are **1.063** answers to [tag:resource-recommendation] questions, of which **544** are community wiki. This indicates that it's mostly the *closed questions* which are not made community wiki, because the percentage of answers that are wiki is much higher than that of the questions. But again, no clear policy is apparent. Also, I have been unable to find the &quot;additional notice&quot; from the faq post on any old answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The amount of answers conforming to the policy set in the faq post is surely debatable, but I'd say at least some of these answers are too short to be considered descriptive evaluations of the books in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears no clear policy exists, or at least, none is enforced in practice. The topic of this meta discussion is therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should resource recommendation questions be on-topic, on-topic but community wiki, or off-topic?**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;To search for wiki/non-wiki questions, add `wiki:yes` or `wiki:no` to your query. Combine with `is:q` or `is:a` to get only questions or only answers.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;I have purposefully tried to refrain from making an argument for either case in the question, so that people can vote on the respective answers with their argumentation as they come in.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="c38f8938-3694-4ba6-835f-44ba4f856677" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This was a ridiculous suspension--- it was to do with the back and forth between me and Sachin Shekhar over the last two days, where the other fellow said some insulting things (like &quot;you don't know anything!&quot; &quot;Who the heck are you&quot; blah blah) and I responded to try to get him to answer questions properly and not troll. I never insulted him, but I did say he was factually wrong here and there a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then both me and this trolling user were suspended for 24hrs. I imagine it was an issue of symmetry, why suspend one party be suspended and not the other? But I don't think a single comment of mine was inappropriate, although perhaps a few of the other guy's were (but they didn't bother me, and I would prefer if there was no administrative action against him). I renounce any privacy to anything--- what could possibly be private here? All the comments are up for all to see (none have been deleted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the email I got from dmckee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing in reference to your Physics - Stack Exchange account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This account has been involved in several extended and acrimonious discussions in the comments recently. It seem that the style of interaction you employ in the comments invites conflict; often through sly implications that the other party is too stupid of ignorant to bother with. I am treating this as a violation of the &quot;Be nice&quot; injunction in the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am issuing a one day suspension so that all parties to the most recent instance can cool down, and will be removing many comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;dmckee&#xD;&#xA;Physics - Stack Exchange moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a comment to the above, I never make any implication, neither sly nor direct, that the party is too ignorant to bother with--- that would only be the case if I didn't say anything at all. I just wanted to make sure that Shekhar knew that people here don't just put up random gibberish, but they read and _understand_ what they write, and they are careful, and I asked him to do the same. I don't think I made any comment at all that disparaged him, beyond saying &quot;what you wrote in these answer is wrong, please fix it or delete the answer&quot;. I told him that he is capable to contributing honestly, and urged him to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="a6a98d69-e120-4340-86bf-ab851855d24f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently posted an interesting and specific question:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39129/velocity-of-glass-bottle-in-space-after-contents-are-released, which had generated 2 upvotes (therefore interesting to some members of the community)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which was inspired by a users comment on another post, who thought the above question was interesting:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23588/if-i-take-a-bottle-of-air-into-space-and-open-it-where-does-it-go?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the question was closed as being too specific.  So are questions that are specific in nature, but illustrate interesting concepts off-topic on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="bf573c20-2c1d-4f75-8f91-f09598258f4e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think questions like this https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down (which is pure geometry) should be moved to Mathematics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="6a5afc1e-4d5f-4fc4-8a4d-137830a95afb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I try to get &quot;All Questions&quot; at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions I get only the ones with a bonus flag. I use firefox and am logged in. With Chrome and IE  not logged in the same link gives all questions.  I logged in at IE and got again only the bounty questions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whats up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="2d4e5fe6-ae1f-44ea-a993-a962876feac4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll nominate [**KennyTM**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56), if he's interested in the position. He's been fairly active, more so than his current site reputation would suggest, in comments and making minor edits to posts on the main site. Also he is a well-established SO user so he's certainly familiar with the system and the use of the 10k tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="59228d84-181d-42fc-a81c-46a39c15df6e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't see the 'disagreement' you talk about. The [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561) is general and its conclusions are supported and made specific by the faq post [Are resource recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697). On the other hand, [Do we need/want an overarching books question?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5307) asks about [one specific question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175) and has no bearing on general [tag:resource-recommendations] posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We currently have **762** questions tagged with [tag:resource-recommendation] [...] but only **174** of them have been made community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because re-processing old threads is a labour-intensive manual process that cannot be done in intense bursts, and we simply haven't done all of them. As you correctly point out, the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697) does not indicate whether old questions should be made community wiki. **In general, they should**, to conform with current practice, and because of the reasons [you outlined](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7041). (Some cases, though, are not so clear. Should [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/108649) be forbidden from earning rep?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old questions, the procedure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Check that the existing answers conform to the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consolidate the ones that don't into a single CW answer with the banner from the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Overall spelling / formatting checks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flag for the banner on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the moderator will also turn the question into CW unless there's some specific reason not to. If it's already been processed but it's not CW, flag it for a moderator to CWify it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bumps the old post to the front page, so it should be done sparingly (i.e. no more than five at a time or so) to avoid flooding the front page. There's currently [some three hundred](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+is%3Aq+wiki%3Ano+closed%3Ano+duplicate%3Ano) open non-CW resource recommendations questions, so there's still plenty of room for keen-eyed eager volunteers to reprocess old posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="cba29961-88de-4f43-9fb9-4f1a30bd40f8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This concerns the [create new tags privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags) that comes with 1K reputation. In particular, an excerpt from the link reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on some sites, new tags will be automatically culled and removed from the system if they are not used by at least 1 other question in a 6 month period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is not clear here is, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) If I create a new tag, and use it for the question that I want to use it for, and be done with it. Neither I, nor anyone else uses it for 6 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) I use it twice in my (original) questions, but no one else uses it for 6 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C) I use it once in a original question, then start to look for the other places where it can be used, and re-tag existing questions (which existed with some tags even before I created this new tag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, the tag would be culled in case A). But what about cases B and C? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In particular, is case C) a legitimate way of bending around the rules?** I mean, will I invite anyone's wrath if I do it, or is it considered inappropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="fa5dcc7e-4998-4172-b50c-36ddb574bab2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="All I can do for you is direct you to the [FAQ][1]. In particular, I recommend to you the parts where [it says that you should not post questions][2] that are *&quot;[p]itches for your own personal theories or work&quot;*, where it [says that you should stick to][3] *&quot;practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face&quot;*, and of course the part where it talks about [why some questions are closed][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site *is* open to all---and indeed to anonymous use for writing questions and answers--but we reserve the right to police it to maintain a focused and useful environment for other users. We have a community here that has done a lot of work to create a useful resource for getting physics questions answered. We'd like to keep it that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#close" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="14090233-2ac9-49e2-8610-281c6a644e41" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is it possible to get an answer as to why Jed Rothwell's answer to this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion was deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure that this is somewhat borderline, since the web page is his own, and there might be some conflict of interest, but in cases where you have hundreds of papers ignored by the mainstream community, with obvious political pressure you can _feel_, and no sound arguments beyond nonsense estimates from idiots, I think one must bend over backwards to avoid censorship and let people get heard (and perhaps downvoted, but that doesn't matter) without politics getting in the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One must be mindful that censorship is the enemy of science. The question is: is it appropriate to delete Rothwell's answer? Perhaps it may be undeleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="f308b0c8-3213-4295-bd89-fa25bb788e34" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to nominate myself,&#xD;&#xA;#[mbq](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a creative mixture of a physicist, computer scientist and molecular biologist. In the field of physics I'm mainly messing with CFD, currently quantum turbulence, but also with geophysics and molecular dynamics. I work for [ICM](http://icm.edu.pl), a hybrid of HPC centre and all-computational-sciences institute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably my biggest advantage and disadvantage is that I'm a veteran moderator of [CV](http://crossvalidated.com); I know how things work but I don't want to steal anyone's chance for a moderating adventure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a compulsory editor (beware, redundant spaces) and retagger, yet I think closing should be done by community and it is better to let things evolve and converge organically rather then make flame discussions about forcing some overcomplex policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the CET zone, yet as most academics I work/sleep in random hours. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1579" RevisionGUID="60a48456-943e-460f-9399-7361f88bbb38" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already tag [tag:foundations] (and it's not meta by any means). Just it is not used that much (yet?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem you are addressing is very real, as _most_ of simple questions can be asked on totally different grounds, from a newbie to the most knowledgable person on that topic. See e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27303/negative-probabilities-in-quantum-physics where I got some newbie answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:basic-question] is a meta tag plus I guess that most of questions would need it, so it is a bad idea to introduce it (even though my approach to meta tags is very liberal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1557" RevisionGUID="3c6d0096-6a76-4db5-b9fb-721ce8119ce7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm talking about http://what-if.xkcd.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One one hand, the FAQ stands against them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where … we are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there is precedent, such as my own &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9456/would-a-submarine-float-in-the-atmosphere-of-jupiter&quot;&gt;Would a submarine float in the atmosphere of Jupiter?&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: Why wasn't my submarine question closed and/or deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="2a501887-e7f2-43ff-8c65-3cdff1a70b0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If it has no connection to physics, it can stay where it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because some physicists are good at getting the right answers by the wrong means, this does not mean that we are the ones to ask for such means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [list of on-topics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) (not an actual term) lists *pure mathematics* only in the presence of physics. If there's no physical motivation for what you want to compute and how you compute it, I would vote to migrate such a question to math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the matter of drawing attention to your question on physics.SE, I believe you just achieved that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="8fa684b5-f691-4eec-ba79-e75abd7159c1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While I was waiting for answer to my newly posted question, I noticed one question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/194141/; there [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] posted an excellent answer; I cherished his answer especially for the amazing pics he used. But there it was written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Answer deleted by [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] in order to comply to the site policy._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was amazed &amp; asked why he did that but got no response; I wandered what he was actually talking of 'to comply to the site policy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I noticed that he has actually done this to many of his answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/201462/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191296/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/190303/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/189924/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;citing the same reason &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] in order to comply to the site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know why he did this, what was his reason or so; it is simply his decision to delete his answer. But actually he didn't delete it rather cited the reason 'in order to comply to the site policy'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone please explain which _site policy_ did compel him to partially delete many of his answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His last words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Can I know what is going on? –  user36790&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@user36790 Many thanks for all comments, approvals and support. In 2-3 hours we can't contact each other any more. Good Luck to your personal and scientific life. –  [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2633" RevisionGUID="2a1fb4c2-8a9c-4317-a1f7-9f41e8cb83b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Go to https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly why do you want to delete the account, though? Don't get discouraged due to a few downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="2dcb6ba4-f456-4c0b-8015-7d4d7861686d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="see https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#signatures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Can I use a signature or tagline?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please don’t use signatures or taglines in your posts. Every post you make is already &quot;signed&quot; with your standard user card, which links directly back to your user page. Your user page belongs to you — fill it with information about your interests, links to stuff you’ve worked on, or whatever else you like!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is forbidden by the faq, and continuing to do it when politely being asked to refrain is grounds for timed suspension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="e063a3d0-cbf6-4f7b-b8a4-160b032f23f9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Moderators @Qmechanic and @dmckee marked it as a duplicate, but it is not so (see https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32498/how-is-angular-momentum-measured-in-experiments-in-practice#comment268412_32498 ). Linked questions are restricted to **fundamental** particles, whereas angular momentum is a concept applicable to any system. I now can’t post an answer about composite particles (currently at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11197/how-does-one-experimentally-determine-chirality-helicity-spin-and-angular-mome/131711 ) into *correct* thread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="9acead67-9319-4639-8f05-bf0fa4de3949" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To quit, all you need to do is to stop visiting the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to quit and also have your account deleted (which is **irreversible**), then you can find [instructions in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion), as other answers have mentioned. You can also look at the [corresponding FAQ post on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/how-can-i-delete-my-account), but it doesn't really tell you anything useful beyond what you will find in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that the _content_ (questions, answers, and comments) you have contributed to Stack Exchange site does not get automatically deleted along with your account. It will be anonymized, so that it's no longer associated with your display name, but it will continue to appear on the site. (You agreed to this when you submitted it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="fc0d8ef9-e6a6-43f6-b2dd-4370ac9c7350" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's say I have an answer to a question ([like this one for example][1]) where the explanation can have effectively two speeds: plain english, and very math heavy. I would like a way to do both at once, similar to the way [Wikipedia hides these derivations][2] or even something as simple as the &quot;show more&quot;/&quot;show less&quot; links on the [FAQ][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do either of those styles to help keep the answer short, concise, and as plain-english as possible but still provide the technical details for those interested? If not, can there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46134/6634&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law#Derivation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="fd335c69-c1ec-421d-aa4d-96f0f8aad507" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Bounties are assigned separately from accepted answers. You can add bounties to your questions or other people's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#bounty&#xD;&#xA;- https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="ac878012-50b8-4ab8-a11c-83a57e697331" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2012 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderator elections have three phases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nomination phase&#xD;&#xA;2. Primary phase&#xD;&#xA;3. Election phase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most elections take between two and three weeks, but this depends on how many candidates there are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please visit the official election page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/election&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more detail, and to participate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="7cfbf693-4170-406d-bf62-13ffa1f9a620" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [privilege of voting to close and/or reopen][1] is gained at 3000 reputuation. At the time of this writing, there are 132 such users, most active on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for restricting the privilege is that wisdom in guiding the site comes from experience. In particular, as users spend more time here, they realize that **not all interesting questions belong here**. This is not Quora, where anything and everything can be asked. New or very casual users do tend to vote based on the sole criterion &quot;Did this pique my interest?&quot; Those of us who've been around for a while know that just allowing any and all questions that pique someone's interest would dilute the quality away from our [stated purpose][2] of being &quot;a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the site guidelines even differentiate between up/downvotes and close/reopen votes. We vote to close because of **off-topicness**, we downvote because &quot;**This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to keep in mind: after 5 close votes come in, the question is closed and no more may be cast. Thus it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that more would have voted to close than just those first 5. Furthermore, while the question is in the close vote queue, those of us who can cast such votes are given the option of voting to leave open. In this case, not enough 3k users thought the question should be left open, but that possibility does indeed exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="6602553d-859b-42ae-9a42-9a40f9ae54e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This [question about exercises relating to nuclear bomb design](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18568/any-undergrad-exercises-about-nuclear-bomb-design) prompted a couple of complaints about the kind of attention it might bring to the site. I wanted to open a question for community input on this issue. What should our policy be toward questions that involve or relate to potentially illegal or unethical activities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a parallel on the programming-related sites of the SE network, in that people will occasionally ask about software exploits. We can draw on their experience in deciding on our own policy. I'll add to this list as I find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ask Ubuntu](http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/2246/questions-seeking-how-to-bypass-security-off-topic)&#xD;&#xA;- [Super User](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/2290/legal-basis-for-restriction-of-discussions) ([#2](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/533/handling-questions-clearly-trying-to-break-some-kind-of-policy-tos-etc))&#xD;&#xA;- [Server Fault](https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/1659/handling-illegal-immoral-questions-and-answers)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2615" RevisionGUID="7a7c56a0-b881-4a1f-a278-f0d4877880e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[As of Oct. 23rd](http://www.mathjax.org/2012/10/22/news/mathjax-v2-1-now-available/), MathJax 2.1 should be in use. I suspect (but haven't verified) that [bug fixes](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/278) to how primes and superscripts are handled may have caused the change in behavior you're seeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turns up only 7 posts illustrating this problem - I've listed them below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38983/galilean-relativity-in-projectile-motion&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28912/galilean-transformation-of-wave-equation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33713/condition-for-circular-orbit&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35003/scattering-problem-finding-the-speed-of-the-scatterer-after-collision&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37833/relativistic-doppler-effect/37848#37848&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35573/calculating-two-particle-position-and-velocity-with-each-other/35602#35602&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38709/what-does-psi-jr-i-mean/38717#38717&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="82293088-ccaf-4b6a-8abd-9c382f202aaa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This would not only be useful for answers, but also for questions. For example, [this question on an ‘inverted HO’](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46289/12808) would IMHO look a _lot friendlier_ if it only showed the Hamiltonian and the three questions at the bottom per default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested users could then expand the boxes and see that the OP actually did quite some work (rather than asking for a homework problem without any effort), while not having to meddle through what feels like twenty pages of algebra." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="245e0987-d2ab-4a7c-a468-6eb1e2c255b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When experienced users make the first comment on a &quot;bad&quot; question, they are often condescending. This is fair enough, if the question is bad. However, this discourages other, less experienced users with less reputation, from attempting to answer the question. Particularly if the question is an interesting one and the &quot;experienced user&quot; who initially commented, has perhaps misunderstood it. The example I use is here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206440/does-a-gun-exert-enough-gravity-on-the-bullet-it-fired-to-stop-it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of anyone's opinion on the example mentioned, my question is whether there should be some process for flagging unnecessarily condescending and useless comments, particularly from experienced contributors, which may discourage other users from answering, or encourage less experienced users to &quot;jump on the bandwagon&quot; simply because of the reputation of the comment writer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="c4b42bb4-8b7e-4dac-a167-71629c4dbe00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no private message facility and the team has regularly and robustly turned down all such suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get another user's attention by [tagging them in the comments][1] (though they need to have participated in the discussion or editing of a post for that to work), and you can (with [sufficient rep][2]) open a chat room for holding a conversation. That last suggestion isn't private in the sense that others are excluded but you probably won't have a lot of people poking their noses in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra is &quot;This is not a social network!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some Physics SE user find this to be insufficiently friendly and have responded with the meta.physics most [&quot;Opt-in to be always pingable to answer questions&quot;][3] where you are explicitly invited to ping them in order to direct their attention to other posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat-rooms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1159/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="cd67888b-c45b-46dc-b36d-1905c15231ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is also not a BIG issue (same as that of my previous question along with *disclaimer*...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2845 - where Manish explained me about *recalc'ing* rep. But, there is some *mysterious* problem regarding **[my flairs](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy/flair)** now..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dark theme shows 49 badges while my other themes show 50. I know that my flair updates every now &amp; then. But, what calc made it go mad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Flair](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5kZe.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="265f9da2-8b20-454b-b665-88e831dbd850" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by the fact I got downvoted for [this][1] answer and cannot tell exactly why given the question was pretty vague and I don't think the OP was the one doing it either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am starting to think that it should be mandatory to comment on your downvotes. Now I am not saying I have never downvoted without a comment but that said, I do wonder whether sneaky downvoting is really in the spirit of improvement when it is not always obvious why it has been done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it ever constructive to just downvote people and not even tell them why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44426/what-is-the-best-tool-for-simulating-vacuum-and-fluids-together/45159#45159" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="bef3ab40-99bb-481e-ac2e-dde9b4814584" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](http://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](https://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](https://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="e5db5f79-21f7-42fd-928d-b3c8f805bc4b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So here is what the locked and closed question banner say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locked questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **locked** by `&lt;username&gt;`♦ `&lt;date&gt;` at `&lt;time&gt;`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question exists because it has historical significance, but it **is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not considered a good, on-topic question for this site**, so please do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [help center][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closed questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **closed** as `&lt;blah blah&gt;` by `&lt;username&gt;`♦ `&lt;date&gt;` at `&lt;date&gt;`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improved and possibly reopened, [visit the help center][2] for guidance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the [help center][3],&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please edit the question or leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably some of the most loathing notification for the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So moderator lock a particular question because the question is not considered a good, on-topic question for the given SE site then why locking the question transfers the question in community wiki? I mean I used to thought that community wiki have a collection of good questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="5d27645e-be4b-4c9e-b42a-4d66fbc0fb0b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are a few recent questions ( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20593/magnetic-susceptibility-permeability and https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16081/what-is-a-free-body-diagram and https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20622/how-to-compute-resting-position-given-initial-position-initial-velocity-and-dec) that are basically asking for information that could be easily looked up in any reference book (or website) on the appropriate subject. The distinguishing feature of these questions is that all you have to do to answer them is find such a reference book, look up the value or concept being requested, and copy it into the answer. One could make the argument that these questions don't belong on this site because what we copy out of the reference book may become out of date, so it's better to send people to the authoritative source directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The network overlords have considered implementing [a &quot;general reference&quot; close reason](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/) to deal with these sorts of questions, but they decided it was [too easily abused](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason) to make permanent. So it's unlikely that we will be able to get that close reason added to our list here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, should we do anything about this, and if so, what? As I see it, the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just leave these kinds of questions alone&#xD;&#xA;2. Leave the ones about physics _concepts_ alone (such as asking what a free body diagram is), but close the ones that simply ask one to look up a value&#xD;&#xA;3. Close all questions that are asking for reference material (I don't like this option, because the answers to most physics questions can be found in a book or some reference, and so where would we draw the line?)&#xD;&#xA;4. Close only those questions where the asker has not shown that they have made some effort to look up the answer before asking here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps some combination of the above. What do you think? In each case, we should probably add something to our FAQ to clarify what sort of questions are not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind when answering that one of the fundamental principles of Physics SE is that **no physics topic is too elementary to ask about**. The idea of &quot;general reference&quot; has nothing to do with the topical content of a question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="6450e260-c93d-4653-a84f-aba94b73c268" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="No because it would necessarily be a [meta tag](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/), which is generally discouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask) specifically states that,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;• you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so these &quot;what-if&quot; style questions are actually off-topic, according to current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="610fe4ec-ebca-42cf-8725-49a6c2df2acd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Try this: Go [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation), scroll down, hit the &quot;trigger rep recalc&quot; button. That might fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, check that you have the &quot;show removed posts&quot; box ticked at the bottom of https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11062/crazy-buddy?tab=reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will show posts which have been deleted as well (deleted posts you had downvoted on/your deleted posts that others had voted on). This may account for the discrepancy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both of these don't work, it's probably a bug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFa7g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="65e24b2e-7754-4d2d-81ed-2e6d09848df9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I personally don't think this community is as friendly as it could be. I have been a high rep user in the initial period of the site, but became disenfranchised with the site after about a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasons are various:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lengthy, pointless, sometimes rude, but always annoying discussions in comments. Moderators do not care at all about cleaning them, and actually sometimes become a major part of the problem with them. I did not come to SE to have a chat in the comments. Comments are solely to discuss how to improve answers.  &#xD;&#xA;[Random example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3631/66), [another random example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34217/why-do-people-categorically-dismiss-some-simple-quantum-models), [big list here](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/89664/posts-with-many-comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* At times, I've spent considerable time answering a question, with some research behind it, and presented a comprehensive answer based on objective facts, just to be dissed and down voted by people who favour academic qualifications over factual correctness and would down vote anything they don't like or sounds wrong to them. Such episodes of fanboi-ism are quite jarring.  &#xD;&#xA;  [Random example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/21345/66)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* General ineffectiveness of the community and its moderators to, well, moderate. Questions which are obviously off topic do not get closed, flags are handled in days and happily refused, even the Ron fiasco was... telling.  &#xD;&#xA;[Random example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6157/list-of-freely-available-physics-books), [another random example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216/why-are-we-talking-about-space-curvature-as-if-we-know-what-space-is)....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This said, I'd love to come back and help this community rebuild, but not unless there is some understanding of the problems and commitment to improve :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="0d5ac213-686d-4ee3-a971-327016394e36" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While going through some of the old astro.SE questions, I've noticed some astrobiology questions among them. They were certainly on-topic there, and I've seen threads that indicate most of what was on-topic there is to be taken as on-topic here, but there might be objections that it is more in the realm of biology than physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see three cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Astrobiology is decidedly *on*-topic.&#xD;&#xA; - Astrobiology is decidedly *off*-topic.&#xD;&#xA; - This is best handled case-by-case. For instance, questions about [non-carbon-based life](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life) are better handled by biologists, while [other questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25064/what-are-the-prerequisites-for-considering-any-other-planet-to-be-habitable) might deal more with the temperatures and solar winds we'd expect exoplanets to experience in certain environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinions? Was this already discussed elsewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="fbd9001c-ca92-45e5-88d4-29321cb7285e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Concerning OP's specific question: The question was originally cross-posted within 4 minutes on both Phys.SE and Math.SE. A request from a Math.SE moderator to merge the two posts lead to the migration to Math.SE in the first place. Today I asked the Math.SE moderators if we exceptionally could get the post back, to which they agreed. It is now again on [Phys.SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/138217/2451)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="8baba9b7-4020-4f4b-95c2-75038a6f6462" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can't -- one of the most fundamental rules of SE is that voting is confidential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can only see when and from what posts you gain/lose reputation, [in your profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9082/argus?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="8f4e6837-f32d-450d-bb2f-f36870d50548" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The post I speak of is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215259/what-does-the-discovery-of-a-pentaquark-signify/215293#215293&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst OP has hardly been perfect in their articulation of the question, it does to me seem to be clear what they're asking. They want to know about what the discovery of the Pentaquark means for physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular media has been reporting about the discovery of the Pentaquark in CERN this July. For those of us who watched much of the Higgs Boson media campaign, it's reasonably obvious that the reporting of big physics news in popular media isn't exactly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, that for those people who want to know about more exact implications of such discoveries on the Physics world, they might come here and ask questions. I'm guessing that that's what OP was trying to do above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a bit of a problem with comments on the question like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I was first tempted to answer this in more detail, I decided to merely point out that it isn't exactly a physics question. &quot;Significance&quot; is primarily a matter of opinion. Was it necessary to search for these states that are being predicted by the standard model? Yes, it was absolutely necessary and it will be necessary to check the prediction against the measurements to see if there are significant discrepancies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The QCD still works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Is there a theory that it supports or something like that?&quot;... Yes, the theory has been around for decades. It is called Quantum Chromodynamics and it is part of the Standard Model. Pentaquarks are not a surprise and we do not need any new theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone's genuinely curious about the wider applications in Physics that a discovery might have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly the way in which this question has been answered, to me, seems condescending and disparaging. Perhaps if the more knowledgable users in the community are not willing to read into these questions to try and work out what OP is actually trying to ask (albeit without much finesse), they should keep the unhelpful comments to themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure what solution I'm proposing here. I understand the frustration when someone asks a vague question, but answering it with pointless comments which can be interpretted as condescending seems to compound the problem, not help. I hope this doesn't appear to be a rant about a specific case, either. This is just a recent example which I'm using." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="d8752103-b897-4554-a480-db526953f750" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Technically, we can't _delete_ things which _answer the question_ (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). At least, not by current rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can _always_ downvote those posts. Also, you may flag as &quot;very low quality&quot;, and we moderators will deal with it (note: do _not_ use flags to indicate wrong answers). _Never_ be afraid to flag. It's not too bad if you have a few declined flags, as long as the majority is &quot;helpful&quot; flags.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there any way to segregate posts a reviewer has commented on from those no one has seen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/history . This lists the posts that people have seen. Not exactly what you wanted, though. It's still productive at times to sift through the list, re-checking things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, my _personal_ opinion is that posts like [this][1] and [this][2] ought to be deleted if not improved. (Yes, I keep tabs on the posts I've commented on that may need attention later ^.^). But we'd probably need a separate meta post for that&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The queues are separate for everyone-- what looks like a &quot;backlog&quot; to you is a cleared queue to me :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain actions in a queue --&quot;leave open&quot; in the close queue, &quot;no action needed&quot; (I think), &quot;Looks good&quot;, etc have the power to remove posts from a queue for everyone, but that only happens if 2-3 users select it for the same post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. You can check you flag history [here][4]. On your profile, there is a link underneath your email/etc to the number of helpful flags--if you have any declined flags, there will be a red number next to it. Whenever a flag is declined, go to the list of your flags, see the decline reason, and learn from it--but never be afraid to flag in the first place :)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. I was planning on one to outline what can and can't be deleted, but I haven't had the time to draft it out. Feel free to do so yourself.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/46951/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/47050/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMwiD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/10851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2905" RevisionGUID="ae316193-9ac4-4e4b-8c62-13402d8d3c92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have accepted questions relating to the meaning of software objects in the [particle physics Monte Carlo generator Pythia](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=pythia), and my feeling at the time was that this was a tool by- for- and of-physicists and of no interest to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question here becomes &quot;Is this JSkyCat thing of interest or use to anyone other than astronomers?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;No.&quot; then it is certainly a question for us. If the answer is yes, then we have to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is it, any way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="e428adf2-6feb-40cc-8857-4bbb09f01fac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There should be a section on the reasons for &quot;closed&quot; and maybe some links to show examples of closure: migrated to other boards, or the reasons. New users might be really discouraged from asking again if they get a close, and most of them read the FAQ, so they should be prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a close look at closed questions should come up with a list of no no's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Leading to arguments&quot;, for example has been used for closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link for such a closure: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/why-do-people-still-talk-about-bohmian-mechanics-hidden-variables-closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;*closed as subjective and argumentative* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;even though there were many answers, some reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another has *closed as too localized* because the problem was answered and no need for more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="1d31c14f-93e0-49f6-a612-4e7d2022a727" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It appears that [the question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/42011/520) may have been the victim of an automated &quot;bad question&quot; reaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall the [qualification for automatic removal][1] are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* one month old&#xD;&#xA;* negative vote total on the question and&#xD;&#xA;* no answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not that I'm stumped as it does not appear to have been done by anyone (including Community who get the &quot;credit&quot; for closure due to spam flags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/2509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="858e9d11-fecf-41d8-b5dc-67b08df19263" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since we had the Astro merge, anything on topic there is on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT, we may not have that good a bio/astrobiology community here, and these may get neglected. I propose we look at the questions case-by-case. We can't close as off topic, BUT, if they do not have too many votes, we may migrate&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. New questions on astrobiology, if any, probably should be migrated off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first choice for migration would be Bio. Chem...eh...not that much&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. [This question][1], for example, is &quot;borderline&quot;. I would personally be reluctant to accept it, but I would discuss it with the other two mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. It isn't that good an idea to migrate posts with too many votes to beta sites. But it is up to the receiving site's mods whether or not to accept a question in the end.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Posts older than 6 months can't be migrated anyway. Generally it is better to only migrate new posts.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. This is my official stance as a Chem mod.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26034/sillicon-based-life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="bda728e9-97ba-4aa4-aefe-182e01ce024a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you look at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138309/an-operator-identity-relating-to-trace the close banner states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;marked as duplicate by John Rennie, Brandon Enright, Danu, Qmechanic♦ 38 mins ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I didn't vote to close as a duplicate, I voted to close as *Off-topic/Homework-like*. The SE obviously just takes the majority decision and then attributes it to everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, it doesn't really matter and there are far more important things in life to be worrying about. However it would be nice if the SE didn't misrepresent my opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="e3d526c4-1b2f-4d17-bb75-d142024aa331" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me that the spirit of the original [meta question][1] you linked to wasn't so much &quot;should we allow software questions?&quot; as &quot;should we allow questions that are *only about computation*, without any specific physics content?&quot; The answer to that question was &quot;no&quot;, but that doesn't mean we need a blanket &quot;no computation questions&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the FAQ says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If your question is about writing a simulation or other program, and it concerns the algorithms, execution, or presentation of the results (rather than the underlying physics), it is probably more appropriate at Computational Science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a reasonable policy, but it should be interpreted such that questions are on topic if they're about software but *aren't* just concerned with algorithms, execution, or presentation of results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view the [JSkyCat][2] question should be allowed because although it isn't strictly about the physics as such, it's asking for knowledge that's quite specific to physicists (or rather astronomers) and for me that's enough to make it not just about algorithms, execution or presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26264/what-is-the-format-for-local-catalog-files-used-by-jskycat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="d25d9b35-8836-4573-ab74-6558ee6b9bc5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We seem very undecided on main on whether magnetic monopole do, in fact, exist or not, or whether this question is settled at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem correct to me that to such a basic EM question we would give different answers all the time. The answers on main should be consisten and clear &amp;mdash; especially when the answers come from our top users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I missing something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I have no reason to doubt the good faith and competence of all our esteemed answerers, however they can't all be correct at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we please review the answers to make sure they are correctly worded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles exist&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4792&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4785&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4814&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5575&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34162&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/15417&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/22754&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Monopoles do not exist&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48659&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4813&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1406&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;del&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/5585&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34133&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/44867&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/41681&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Undecided&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/48658&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/4786&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1403&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should be done in this case? What is the correct approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="07243800-b3aa-44dc-8451-cfc4c48945a3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, there is a \tag{} command. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ \tag{1} 1+1=2 $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Well, MathJax doesn't work on meta so copy-paste the above equation into [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) to see how it renders.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="978dd834-132b-4e91-ac94-8be9d44a58f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a [question][1] which was closed for being off topic. I have been directed to two links by the moderator: ([1][2]) ([2][3]) . After going through both the links, I am posting a request here to reopen as they do not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][4] answer is from someone who has worked in a company involved with SciPy. He argued that  python is a lot less intimidating for physicists than C++. I stated that I already know C++ (all High Energy Physicists do, I guess) and asked if there are any additional benefits to learning Python. To give an example, Mark commented that if I use Sage then I am already using Python. Sage runs on the python platform but if I run into some functionality that is not in the library or need to customize, I should know python. What else might be the benefit, for physicists (i.e some important software is written in it, suited to some specific application, or simply no need to learn etc.) as opposed to compiled\interpreted, hardware specific\platform independent etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues most of the answers discuss are version control and  bug tracking, etc. I think these are programmer oriented (I might be wrong) and and are not my concern presently. The second link discussed reproducibility, which after reading it I realize is important. However, that lies outside the scope of my question and present level. (I am just assimilating a rudimentary toolkit right now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question I asked was if there was any advantage of learning functional as opposed to an iterative programming language in physics. This is not answered by either of the links. This external [link][5] makes a case for haskell to mathematicians. Does it have some similar utility in physics? Moreover my interest was peaked when I overheard at a conference that it was best for implementation of quantum algorithms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone commented, if these are too many questions feel free to edit it in order to make it approporiate. Then I can ask a narrower question later if it is not answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10379/what-programming-languages-would-be-helpful-for-a-physicist-to-know&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2734157/reproducibility-in-scientific-programming&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment/100103#100103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/01/eleven-reasons-to-use-haskell-as.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="f576d6d3-002a-4500-bf88-f2b712117c3a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is already a Physics Overflow. Why then not being more lenient in the Q&amp;A to be accepted in Phys.SE? Mathematics SE has 10 times as many questions. SO leads with +10M questions. Those other sites are thriving yet feel way more welcoming. In contrast, here there are way too many questions put on hold and closed or receiving way too many negative votes, and less activity is seen in discussing a question and its answers. &#xD;&#xA;When it comes to off-topic/rules questions, I'd say the goal in those other sites is more on *limiting* their number than *eliminating* them all together, which is what here seems to be the case. Up-voting is enough a system for rising the content level; &quot;censoring&quot; not so much, as there is no record left of the &quot;wrong type&quot; of Q&amp;A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, SO gives one that kind of reassurance that almost any question either has already been answered or one gets an answered pretty soon. Yes, you may get bad answers, but the good ones rise through the number of answers, not so much through the filtering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relates to the question by Anna V. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/566/&#xD;&#xA;I just saw it's from four years ago. What has been the change in the number of Q&amp;A in PSE since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the overwhelming policing:  This question had 3 answers and there was a couple of meaningful comments exchanged. No trolling I could see at least. Yet, 5 hours later it was &quot;protected&quot; to avoid spam, &quot;me too&quot; or &quot;thanks&quot;kind of answers. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/217126/ You really get those answers that often that deserves this level of patrolling?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="5610b42e-d6ee-4b44-99ac-904114940957" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Under the circumstances stated, no. When we're considering disciplinary action, we don't care about anything that has happened outside this site ([Physics Stack Exchange](https://physics.stackexchange.com/), [Physics Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com), the [main site chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) and [its alternate](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775), and possibly but not necessarily any other associated chat rooms). Even if someone is linking to this site, that doesn't make it any business of ours. We can't and don't control what people link to from elsewhere on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any disciplinary action that may be necessary for something posted on another site is the responsibility of the people in charge on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, we do care about things that have happened _on this site_. If information posted elsewhere on the web helps the moderators understand something that is happening _here_, then you certainly can bring that to our attention. Use a private channel: a custom flag, or if flagging isn't sufficient, you can ask to open a private chat room with the mods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In public - a meta post - it's a little more touchy. Technically it's not against the rules to mention things that go on elsewhere on the web, but if you're doing so in an attempt to shame the person whose behavior on another site is being discussed, that may qualify as a personal attack, which is definitely not appropriate here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="6f8907d9-8279-4b62-9e53-e05a1628c4bf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The algorithm for the front-page display (https://physics.stackexchange.com/) uses your [favorite and ignored tags](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do) to sort out new or recently active questions that might be interesting to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[If you do not set your favorite and ignored tags it will use your frequented tags instead.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/138187/2509)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="ecf3e652-d72b-4e7a-abb0-98cd485512ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the [Data Explorer][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I created a simple scatter plot to see what data we would be dealing with, the X axis is questions asked and Y is answers given. I'm looking for techniques on how to show all the different scales of data: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades but it will give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, should anybody want to play around with the data and see what they can come up with, the query is http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user It pulls out comments too, maybe there's a cool way to incorporate that information. Cooler than just doing a 3D scatter anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="0e51092e-958d-4bd9-96d6-d0af67297c7c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's really frustrating to have -1 and -3 voted answers sit on top of a +99 voted answer. ([this question][1]).&#xD;&#xA;Please provide individual users the option to automatically arrange answers according to number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="c11df168-8352-4ba9-a50b-ce931ba90d45" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my opinion (and others said so in the corresponding comments too) [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10361/2751) question, asking about some difficulties that occur in investigating the string theory landscape (such as the measurement problem for example) has wrongly been closed. It asks about a valid topic in mainstream theoretical physics, which is actively investigated by esteemed physicists. The question adresses several points that highlight difficulties in investigating the string theory landscape. However, these points are so closely related that the whole set can easily be addressed by a single answer. These subquestions just give the details the OP is interested in and they can easily be adressed by a single coherent answer. The mere existance of such closely related subquestions in a post should not be a reason to close. I have seen tons of questions which eplained the topic they are interested in by closely related subquestions, and there was (rightly so) no need to close them; they got nice upvoted answers, etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as David Zaslavsky suggested in the comments to clarify the issue on meta, my question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this question (after improvements if needed?) be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="d58968d4-180a-403f-84c8-1966b856c796" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen [this][1] meta question already, but that deals with a slightly different case I think.&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if questions like [this][2] should be allowed. Specifically, I'm wondering if requests for papers and/or reviews on something should be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this strikes me as &quot;easily googleable&quot; more so because someone looking for a review is (most probably) affiliated to some institution or the other, and hence will presumably have *some* journal access. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1052/should-general-reference-questions-be-closed-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26953/simulation-of-qed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="ef137622-6f29-49f8-be39-a107bcffce50" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As you noted, the answerers are just trying to be helpful, and we don't want to discourage them from doing so (in general, of course!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we don't want to punish people because of a closure that happens after they answered! That seems unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, closures are temporary. Questions can be reopened. Communities often disagree on borderline cases. Involving rep loss in this is ...not wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - there's not much we can feasibly do to stop users from answering *before* a question is closed, and we already prevent answers on closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we *can* do, and we *do* do, is prevent repeat offenders who *ask* bad questions from asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In case of repeated multiple consecutive closed questions, mods are informed that there's something happening via a flag. This is usually enough on smaller sites where mods can contact every user they need to, and help them correct their style&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In other cases, users are [autobanned](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans) from asking after they display a pattern of bad questions asked (multiple closed, heavily downvoted, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we *do not* do, is affect first-time offenders, that would not be welcoming to people that err in good faith." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="cef8f228-bc20-41af-b0d8-9a82f72ffe2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You never have to award a bounty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you choose not to manually award a bounty, it may be automatically awarded to an answer, but not if that answer is downvoted. From the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you do not award your bounty within 7 days (plus the grace period), the highest voted answer created after the bounty started with a minimum score of 2 will be awarded half the bounty amount. If two or more eligible answers have the same score (i.e., their scores are tied), the oldest answer is awarded the bounty. If there's no answer meeting those criteria, the bounty is not awarded to anyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, the bounty will not be automatically awarded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="c7deb2d9-6dc6-495a-88ab-a7b91ff88600" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a couple of (probable) improvements I would like to suggest for this fantastic site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Moving closed questions *with a high number of up votes* (for example $&gt;10$) to a dedicated StackExchange site, where they would receive a single tag indicating the site where they come from (in this case, the tag would be Physics). There, the question would be alive and could receive new answers, points, etc, together with (highly voted) closed questions from the other StackExchange sites. That would be a solution for certain questions that very clearly interest us (this nobody can deny, and that's what upvotes are saying) like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27101/what-papers-should-everyone-read) (incidentally, I have read one of the recommended papers in the first answer, and it has nearly changed my life for good, both as researcher and as physics student -which you never stop being- as well).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Downvoters should be forced to leave an *anonymous* comment, otherwise the vote should only have a value of 0.2 points or similar. Only downvotes with an anonymous comment should have full consideration. That would improve the quality of bad answers, sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question/answer is really crap, it receives anyway a rainfall of downvotes (well, not always) whereas sometimes somebody drops a -1 with no explanations like a passing bird leaving an excrement, and the OP has no clue of what he/she could improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received for example a downvote [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61547/what-is-the-mathematical-justification-for-the-quadratic-approximation-to-the-en). I don't give a damn as long as my reputation stays above a dozen of points so that I am able to post images, and also I am using an anonymous profile. But what I find annoying is not having the less clue of what could be wrong with the question... &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="ed1ac95e-309b-4397-a233-be05c645d65e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is prompted by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21376/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which asks why _s_ is used as the letter for position. Here are some more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/27542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67928/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/91933/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98542/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/101920/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/134412/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139800/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/144079/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/156879/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159722/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/203720/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208870/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/211829/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/213214/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/244010/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Feel free to edit in more examples. Posts not prone to the auto-deletion script are preferred.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these questions on topic? They're not really about physical concepts, but they are about matters that are fairly specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="9a2aa1ad-7079-4d93-a96c-188d28ad02a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I presume that you are aware that you can get [a tag specific list of questions][1] to sort through by clicking on the tag anywhere you find it or by specifing `[general-relativity]` in the search box? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Combining tag search with searching for &quot;exact&quot;][2] might get you closer (and three undeleted and none pending ... we have such a placid site most of the time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Checking [the 10k-tools page for deletions in the last 30 days][3] reveals only three such posts (questions and answers), none of which appear to involve general relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20exact&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=delete&amp;daterange=last30days" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="938b7f40-9c0e-4a84-8f07-caf1cd46c66b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why are questions like &quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146255/why-does-objects-with-zero-acceleraton-move/&quot; downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems like a person genuinely wanting to understand a physical concept and coming here for help. It just bothers me that apparently people have decided not to help those people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen remarks on meta like 'This site is for professionals', suggesting that the question is too 'stupid' or low-level, but if that is truly the case, homework questions should also not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid misconceptions: I am perfectly ok with downvoting low-level or homework questions if the person has not put any effort in, or wants us to solve their problems. I am only talking about the cases where people are, in my perception, genuinely looking for help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="a550491b-d921-4c75-bd48-bd4762589ea6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to follow two threads in arguing that such questions are **very well suited to Physics.SE**: firstly that stack exchange is well suited to these kinds of questions and secondly that these *are* physics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Prototypical questions that are well suited to our engine here have a small or medium number of distinct answer that are not wrong and can be well evaluated by users who are familiar with the question domain. Such questions can be either outright objective or [&quot;good subjective&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Yes, there is going to be a list of answers. There are lists of answers to questions on Stack Overflow and to most of those on the main site (in fact many of o[ur most highly voted questions][2] have 10 or more answers that take several approaches to answering the problem), but these list are characterized by a domain expert being able to say to each answer *&quot;this is correct&quot;* or *&quot;this is incorrect&quot;*, and any subjectivity that may enter is in terms of which answer is clearer or easier or more scalable or more pedogoically useful.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Managing, maintaining and running experimental apparatus constitutes a specific domain of knowledge in which experts *will know which answer are good, which might work and which are nonsense*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Experiment is, obviously, a pillar of the scientific inquiry co-equal with theory and phenomenolgy, and a substantial fraction of working scientists would describe themselves as an &quot;experimenter&quot; rather than a &quot;theorist&quot; or a &quot;phenomenlogist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  And the actual work of an experimenter includes a lot of things from the design, construction, calibration, operation of experiments though data acquisition and analysis as well as writing up the results. In my personal experience a scientist in his or her early career will spend a substantial fraction of his or her time tinkering with and swearing over some piece of apparatus that *almost* works or simple isn't working at all.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  **These are problems encountered and solved by physicists**, and because they revolve around experimental apparatus they are specific to the profession or to a small set of related professions. (Yes, I recognize that the leak test question is rather broader than that.)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Finally, to exclude the kinds of questions that experimental grad-students spend a lot of time on from consideration here send a message that experiment is not valuable to the physics community. Do we really want that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="5e7cf0e1-b184-40ba-9ee2-48bac1105471" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="See https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/community-wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##When should I make my answers Community Wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. When you want to enhance the &quot;wiki&quot; aspect of your post, so that it can be a continually evolving source of good information through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; repeated editing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. When you feel your post would benefit from less concern about voting affecting the reputation of those participating in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, when you want the post to be a collaborative one. Creating a CW post basically invites radical changes and additions -- unlike normal posts, where the wiki aspect is more in grammar/formatting/small tweaks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="2731f36e-5e8f-45bd-bf1a-b12e3fef629e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I am newer to the SE community so forgive any naivete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid you _are_ being rather naïve here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suspect this is a recurring issue, but I regularly come across users whose reputation continually increases despite many incorrect, or incomplete, [pseudo answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/627/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest recurring issue is homework questions and naïve questions drowning out &quot;the good stuff&quot;. Another issue is downvoting, see [the various threads](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote) including [we seem to be over-eager to downvote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By observation, this type of poster gains reputation by answering a lot of questions poorly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of poor answers out there. But if you think an answer is poor, you could provide a better one yourself. It isn't enough just to downvote, particularly if you don't comment either. You've been here for 18 months and [you've only answered 9 questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46774/thenamescross?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actively downvote when I feel qualified to do so. While downvotes do discredit these answers, they hardly discredit the poster or deter poor, opportunistic answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really need some examples of such poor opportunistic answers, and then we need to pick them apart. Otherwise there's no meat to your argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, an [unnamed-user] answered 67 questions in 14 days, earning +27 votes and -25 votes (net +2 votes)- this results in a net +550 reputation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at some of those answers. They might be wonderful, with references to rock-solid physics, and yet they might have a lot of unexplained downvotes. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This practice exploits the fact that a single upvote offsets 5 downvotes!  In my opinion, it undermines the system and deflates the reputation of legitimate users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, without supporting evidence your argument has no weight. For all you know those _downvotes_ are undermining the system.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, (from the perspective of a new user) their answers carry more weight, as reputation should reflect the communities endorsement. I argue that:&#xD;&#xA;1. Their reputation carries authority that misinforms&#xD;&#xA;2. Opportunistic answers perpetuate low quality questions&#xD;&#xA;3. They might gain authority to 'vote to close', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, your argument is weightless without evidence. This is a science website, and the science is settled by evidence, not opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I should note that the [unnamed-user] was placed on temporary suspension (presumably independently of this Meta post). In this light, and combined with dissenting opinions of long term users with valued perspective, I am convinced that the current system naturally responds to abuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, what's your evidence? Do you know what this user was suspended for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I think incomplete answers are a detriment to the interests of Physics.SE (the mutual trade of inquiry, dissent, and value, required to build a comprehensive physics knowledge base), I recognize that current mechanisms do filter good questions, answers, and users over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look carefully and you'll perhaps notice that there are expert users who are ex users. The current mechanisms have filtered _them_ over time. Luboš Motl is hardly ever here, nor is Ben Crowell or Carl Brannen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I'd like to clarify my position regarding the spread of misinformation with respect to reputation and voting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_The problem with that is that science is not a democracy. You shouldn't judge an answer by the number of upvotes or downvotes. That's letting other people do your thinking for you, and for all you know they're colluding and gaming the system. You should judge the answer for yourself, and follow up on the evidence and references and explanation_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my opinion, this (and similar) sentiments misstate the larger problem.  Certainly, science is not a democracy! However, when an OP asks a question (good or bad), they don't know the answer! When an [unnamed-user] provides an incomplete answer (correct or incorrect), they undermine the OP's (future OP's, and the community's) ability to learn and objectively decide if the answer is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no undermining if the answer includes references to peer-reviewed papers and hard scientific evidence. The OP is free to follow up those references to objectively decide if the answer is correct. However there is undermining if the answer receives a slew of downvotes. That will discourage the OP from even looking at the answer. See [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220208/76162) for example. You can follow up on the references to Einstein/Shapiro/etc to check that I'm not talking out of my hat. And yet there's 10 downvotes, with comments from only one downvoter, who has obviously not even read the answer, let alone followed up on the references.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In effect, incomplete answers (incapable of objective scrutiny) place additional weight on the democratic process (via reputation and consensus), unopposed by scientific inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they do. But here the scientific enquiry is in following up those references and others. Not on simply accepting what somebody else tells you.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discourage this practice or expose it by:&#xD;&#xA;* Increase downvote reputation losses by some agreed amount?&#xD;&#xA;* Introduce a visible statistic (such as Upvotes/Downvotes, Votes/Answer, etc)?&#xD;&#xA;* Negate reputation awarded when a question is closed, etc.(to prevent opportunistic answers and reduce incentives to answer homework like questions)?&#xD;&#xA;These are large system changes and as dmckee notes, NOT likely to happen.  &#xD;&#xA;What changes are possible within Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see. But if you want to call for changes, you really need to support your case with evidence and references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="497563eb-4286-4542-8f61-6a63f8bb5bce" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just a note: Not all off-topic on-topic policy rules need to be in the faq. They may also be on meta (or on the main meta)..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention book recommendation questions. (These seem to be treated as in-principle off-topic by the moderators.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be covered by https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask , specifically the &quot;every answer is equally valid&quot; part. I recall seeing a request on the mother meta to update this to explicitly include &quot;make a list&quot; questions, but I can't find it right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current book recommendation policy allows such qs as long as they talk of a specific subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about we add (under &quot;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&quot;), the following point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Recommendation questions*: Questions asking for recommendations are off topic, unless there are enough criteria defining what a &quot;good&quot; recommendation is. Book recommendations are only on-topic if they are about a specific subtopic, and ask for a specific level (high school/undergrad/grad/etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ (question 1) holds up a &quot;big list&quot; question as an exemplar of an on-topic question. (These are also usually closed nowadays.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you're talking about. Look closely ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FAQ does not mention questions on observational astronomy. (When the astronomy.SE questions were merged into physics there was a consensus to allow such questions as on topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is already covered by `Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena` and `Experimental designs and results`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've held off on suggesting specific changes to the text because I'm not that active on meta and I'm not 100% sure what the most recent consensus on these issues actually is - but if the policy is clear and people can post links to the appropriate discussions, I'll be happy to contribute to writing them up in FAQ form if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, just suggest it. We can edit the top two sections of the faq, editing the ones below that takes some work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="9b89d0e3-8ec5-4a8d-8335-b89f6731c2f3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was going to ask about definition (explanation) of the word &quot;*bias*&quot;. But I am wondering if it is a right question for Physic forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the part of [FAQ][1] describing what type of questions should be asked here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  **Experimental designs and results**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    What is needed to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Accepted and/or actively researched theories**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Why do we think there are only three generations of fundamental particles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -   **Mathematics and physics**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Number theory in physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, my question does not belong to any of these categories. So maybe I should rather ask at [English Language &amp; Usage][2] section since I am going to ask about a definition of a word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However what I seek is more like ***practical example in physic for better understanding of the word.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which section is more suitable for such questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://english.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6274" RevisionGUID="1a33975a-82f5-40ae-a531-d05ffa5bf390" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I've seen, simple questions are not downvoted. One of our most upvoted questions is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3534/dont-heavier-objects-actually-fall-faster-because-they-exert-their-own-gravity A simple question if ever there was one. And the all-time most up-voted question on our site is about the best way to cool a cup of coffee with a spoon. If posed right, the simplest questions get the most upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the question you cite, it didn't make much sense to begin with and the answer is fairly obvious and presented in any text that teaches about Newton's laws. It's also a question easily answered by parents, teachers, whatever. The downvote was most likely because the question showed little to no prior effort. We do enjoy teaching physics to interested people, but we expect to be met halfway. We are supplements to learning, not primary sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now as stated, one downvote does not establish a trend. It happens on some &quot;simple&quot; questions, but that's not so much due to their simplicity as it is due to their unclear/imprecise wording, lack of effort, or other such reasons. I assure you that there are high-level questions that get downvoted as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3979" RevisionGUID="8f2869f0-82e2-46f9-a9d2-d2a69f0cb798" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a side note to David's answer: Trying to figure out when most people are online isn't really the best way to get answers to your questions. If you ask really nice questions, more people will vote/answer. You may want to read [how to ask][1] to help improve your questions :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="998b88f7-8652-4c6f-b8f1-7ec601a4b850" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The point of this site can be found on the [**Tour page**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And like every Stack Exchange site, we have [**certain policies**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq) in place to ensure that we can deliver the stated goal of the site. It may take some time for you to read through them, but those linked Q&amp;A's are important to understand the purpose of this site &amp; what is &quot;on topic&quot; (though a shorter summary can be [**found here**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among those, is the [**homework policy**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) that you have come across. I urge you to read through it (it's actually well-reasoned, despite your assertions it's not). Simply put, we  do **not** want the reputation of being a homework help site. We want to be a site that contains high-quality *conceptual* questions about physics (and no, answering homework questions *isn't* a concept).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want your homework questions answered by someone else, [there are plenty of other places online](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391/) with that expressed purpose; it just isn't what we do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="4e1a7925-d53e-404d-a1f7-818a12cb4dde" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So it was alluded to in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2 that software recommendation questions are *generally* off-topic but as pointed out by @dmckee on https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling there is no clear policy regarding whether recommendations for physics-based software for a specific problem is considered off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General topics (ie. fluid dynamics) would become a list answer and should be off-topic. Book, and from the direction of the answers [on my other question][1], journal recommendations about general problems are off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is [this question][2] off-topic? Can we develop a clear policy on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more research shows that David closed as off-topic the following recommendation questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5086/software-for-simulating-supersonic-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39541/how-does-this-problems-are-solved-modeling-simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this one remains open:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11246/what-software-can-i-use-to-simulate-supersonic-gas-particle-flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/are-journal-requests-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50040/hydrodynamics-codes-for-nuclear-rocket-modelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="21b7426e-791e-49eb-b25f-8d0e85969522" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68176/which-beam-splitting-ratio-has-uncoated-glass-for-420-nanometers-coherent-laserl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question was closed as not a real question by a particular moderator yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be reasonably answered in its current form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want said moderator's closing rights to be removed. Now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="6a304796-40a1-4aba-b581-721acffa9ab0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My post [Gravitational shifts of frequency in general relativity and classical physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/155372/2451) was first closed by five users, and finally deleted as “off-topic”. This post has consisted in a comparison between relativistic and classical solutions for three kinds of frequency shifts noticed in gravitational field, all of them well-known for a long time, therefore indisputably inside PSE *mainstream* physics. Downright fanny, my previous post [A proof for Newtonian origin of residual perihelion advances in solar system](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/153194/2451) has also consisted in a comparison between relativistic and classical solutions for another phenomenon claimed to be an experimental test of general relativity, but nobody considered it as “off-topic”, although in this case the classical solution has been indeed somewhat a novelty.&#xD;&#xA;As in my opinion the ill-will of my censors is evident, I ask for undeleting my post abusively removed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="ba61b3d9-f24f-484e-a456-d418e3642b26" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What makes this [closed question][1] less worthy than [this very similar question][2] that did not get closed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both questions are broad and open ended yet one gets a load of upvotes and the other gets shut down.  I personally can't see a point in closing either of these questions, but the lack of consistency here, is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60391/how-to-teach-myself-physics-needed-at-undergraduate-electrical-engineer-level/60401#60401&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234/how-should-a-physics-student-study-mathematics?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="ab023ee6-8b33-4b52-af26-73dc0d86da78" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the standard for the formatting of the titles of posts? What is the standard for editing the titles of posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been away for a while, and when I logged in today I noticed that the title of one of my posts had been edited: &quot;Spin Glass Prince Rupert's Drop&quot; has been changed to &quot;[Spin glass Prince Rupert's drop](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90463/spin-glass-prince-ruperts-drop).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with this edit and am curious about what the standard for such edits are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, I was under the impression that the standard for formatting edits was to clarify and universalize (i.e. break up blocks of text, add wiki links for important concepts, fix spelling or syntactical errors, remove superfluous fluff like &quot;Thanks!&quot; and &quot;I hope this gets answered. :D&quot;, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I assumed that the standard formatting for post titles would follow that of most other written works - capitalize nouns, verbs, and other major words but don't capitalize prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word in the title. ([Here's](http://www.santarosa.edu/~kthornle/30/CapitalizationMLAStyle.pdf) a little PDF I found from a quick Google search that sums up what I understand to be the standard for title formatting.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just a bit confused about why the title of that post was edited. I do not think that the edit improves clarity - in fact, I think that it makes the title marginally less clear - therefore, the edit should not have been made at all. And, in addition, I think that the edit is incorrect from a stylistic standpoint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the standards for formatting edits and post titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="8c3ea26a-02ce-48c7-8b69-8405424b82f3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ideally the posters should be applying the [homework tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework/info) themselves, but if I see a question that looks like a homework question what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="d5c13b33-7795-4441-8f2b-af3a6228e335" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Thanks to [an answer of mine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69449/8007) that I'm a little surprised to find that anyone even noticed, I just discovered ([as it says on the FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation)) that there is a daily cap of 200 rep (excepting bounties and accepts).  Which meant that ~16 upvotes on that answer did not accrue to my reputation.  This doesn't really bother me much, because I don't care about rep that much, and I'm mostly super happy to find that people liked my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am left wondering what possible rationale there might be for that cap.  Why is it useful in any way?  It seems - if anything - to diminish the motivation for writing really good answers, or participating on a given day after you've reached the cap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="ad70245b-508b-490a-b3e4-d6fd2c15c09a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Very minor thing here. These two questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48574/how-can-a-black-hole-produce-sound&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21075/why-does-a-window-at-night-become-a-mirror&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference each other under the &quot;linked&quot; sidebar. I thought that was curious, since they have nothing to do with one another. I searched both questions, and yet I could not find a link in the posts or comments of either one to the other. Am I just blind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (probably wrong) understanding is that a question is listed under &quot;linked&quot; if and only if either there is a link inserted somewhere to that one, or somewhere on that page there is a link back to the question you are looking at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **is this a bug**, or **is there some other mechanism for linking**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="91514da4-6f88-4c93-a005-f6973d73c95c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first question (currently) has 2 reopen votes, but [3 people said to leave it closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/110249), so it has been removed from the [reopen queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It takes 5 people to reopen it (or one mod), so you need 3 more people with the appropriate level of privileges to get it reopened (oftentimes, bringing the post to Meta will result in the &quot;Meta effect&quot; where questions are reopened (deserved or not)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't think the second question is unclear](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/110410), but 5 other people thought so. Though in retrospect, your first part might be considered a duplicate of [**As the universe ages, will we see more stars or less?**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/90024/). It might be the second part that is considered unclear, though I'm not sure I'd agree with that and would hope one of the 5 close voters can comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that there ***isn't*** a requirement that anyone comment on a question about *why* they're voting such a way that they have. It has been my experience that the first close-voter on a question would leave a comment about why they're voting such a way (e.g., &quot;It's not clear to me what you mean by ...&quot; or &quot;We are not a homework help site ...&quot;). I'm not sure why it wasn't done in this case, but, again, it's not a requirement so I *personally* am not concerned about the lack of the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I wouldn't put much stock in using votes as a rationale for your post being okay because (a) there is a small contingent of users on this site that give sympathy votes to (somehow) balance out downvotes and (b) even wildly off-topic questions get upvotes &amp; views simply because (interested) users like the question (I discussed this [previously as well](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question/7276#7276))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="a2fc9659-0572-4076-9a88-e4f433ba5814" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [**Pdf for offline reading**](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28613587/Physics/community-help-us-moderate-the-site.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is community moderation, and why should I care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community moderation is the &quot;cleaning up&quot; of the site by users like you! It involves flagging, closing, commenting, editing, and sometimes deleting posts. It also involves &quot;implicit&quot; moderation &amp;mdash; not doing anything considered inappropriate for this site (e.g. getting involved in long comment discussions which would be better off on chat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why should you care? Well, in the end, this is _your_ site. You are the community, and by and large you get to decide the path it will take. Helping out by participating in community moderation keeps this site on topic and clean, all in all a fun place to learn from. Neglect community moderation, and it slowly goes on to becoming more and more like most places on the Internet &amp;mdash; an untamed wilderness that's no fun to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as moderators, it _is_ our job to keep the site clean. But we cannot do it without participation from the community. We have too many posts coming in to be able to read through all of them, and we can't be in all places at once to keep an eye on things. This is where you come in &amp;mdash; you keep a lookout for stuff that needs cleaning, etc., and do your best to address it. This may involve commenting, flagging, and/or closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so how do I start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The basics of the community moderation tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Commenting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_More information on when it is appropriate to use comments can be found in our &quot;[Comment Everywhere](https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment)&quot; privilege page._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are pretty simple to use, not much to see here. Later on in this post, I've explained what _not_ to use comments for, and also cases in which commenting on a post is good. I'd just like to leave this note here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When commenting on posts, _be nice_. If it's a new user that you are commenting to, be _welcoming and helpful_. Many times, without knowing it, our comments scare off new users, simply because the comments are _basically_ saying &quot;You broke a rule!&quot; &amp;mdash; which may sound authoritarian. If you instead try helping them by explaining what went wrong and how to fix it (if it can't be fixed, explain how to avoid it) in a helpful manner, you will not only help keep the site clean, you will also help new users get on their feet. A win-win situation for everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flagging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_There's some extra information on this [here][1]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me explain what flagging is. _Any_ user with at least 15 rep, can flag a post. How do you flag? Simple: you click the &quot;flag&quot; link at the bottom of the page.You ought to get a menu like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![flagging menu for down voted answers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact options shown may vary, the above menu is what you get when you try to flag an answer with down votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are quite a few options, and I'll explain when to use them in the sections following this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag basically brings a post to the notice of other users. Custom flags(&quot;it needs ♦ moderator attention&quot; -&gt; &quot;other&quot;) header are visible only to moderators, and are treated with the strictest confidence. The other flags are shown to 10k+ users (in [this queue][3]), as well as ♦ moderators (10k users cannot see _who_ flagged the post, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you know if a flag has been acted on? Simple. The flag counts on your profile will update. If you have flagged some posts, you should see something like this on your profile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![my flag counts on meta][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The yellow number (blue on the main site) is the number of &quot;helpful&quot; flags you have. (The red number is the number of declined flags, but I think it's only visible to mods) If a flag has been &quot;disputed&quot; or not handled yet, it is not counted here. A flag is marked helpful when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (For non-custom flags) The post is closed/deleted, depending upon the type of flag&#xD;&#xA; - A moderator marks it as helpful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A flag is declined whenever a moderator feels that it is invalid. (If a 10k user feels that it is invalid, it is marked as &quot;disputed&quot;) Do not be discouraged if your flags are declined; instead use the opportunity to learn when to flag and when not to flag. You can see some stats on your flags and with a list of your flags if you click on the number shown on your profile. You ought to see something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![list of flagged posts][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: the list of flagged posts only lists post flags, not comment flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags have a reddish &quot;declined&quot; message next to them, as seen above. Be sure to check on these whenever your declined count goes up, and learn from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declined flags aren't necessarily a bad thing &amp;mdash; if you get too many (as compared to your helpful flags), the number of posts you can flag per day decreases, and your flags have a lower priority. If you get an insane amount of declined flags, the system starts ignoring that, but this is only in extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do _not_ be afraid of your flag getting declined. **Flag often, and learn when _not_ to flag from your declined flags**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see if you can improve the post yourself, or leave a comment. Don't leave all the work to the moderators ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There][6] [are][7] [shiny][8] badges for flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Closing/Reopening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_You may also want to see [this page][9]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the question, there is a good tutorial on question closing [here][10]. So I'll just write a bit about closing in general here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike on most forums, on Stack Exchange closing is meant to be a _temporary_ state. It is a &quot;time out box&quot; for questions which cannot/should not be answered in their current form. Questions that are not salvageable get closed as well, though there is the option of deleting them after a while if they add nothing to the site. Closing a question prevents community members from wasting time in answering something that's not really useful to others &amp;mdash; one of Stack Exchange's goals is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade; with relevant, informative posts that will be useful to many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be sure to leave a comment when you vote to close a question**. If the question is salvageable, explain how the user can improve it. If the question isn't, then help the user learn to ask better questions. ([How to Ask][11] and the [FAQ][12] are useful to link to in such cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure about closing a post, flag it. For that matter,  it's perfectly OK to flag _and_ vote to close a question, at least for now. That way, 10k users/moderators can help finish it off, though we can find these questions via the close vote review queue as well. Currently, we have a dearth of community moderation and flags, so we can handle extra close-flags. If we are successful in encouraging community moderation, _then_ it's better if you don't flag-to-close along with a vote-to-close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: **if you can improve the post yourself, don't hesitate to do so!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After improving, if you feel that it is now up to the mark for the site, you may **vote to reopen** (or ask for reopening in a custom flag). As mentioned before, closing is a temporary state in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 10k moderator tools&#xD;&#xA;_See also: [the moderator tools privilege page][13]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for users with over 10k rep only. One can find the tools by going [here][14]. (alternatively, click the &quot;review&quot; link next to your rep on the top of the page), and then click &quot;tools&quot; &amp;mdash; the link is above the list of queues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What can you do here?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For one, you can help the moderators handle flags in the &quot;flags&quot; tab. Here, you see all flags except custom flags. For the vote-to-close flags, you can vote to close if you feel it appropriate. If you think the flag is wrong, disagree by counter-flagging as invalid. For &quot;not an answer&quot; and &quot;very low quality&quot; flags, you can either disagree (in the same way as above), or elevate the flag (flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot;/&quot;very low quality&quot; again). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10k users can vote to delete questions that have been closed for two days if necessary. 20k users can vote to delete any closed question, as well as delete down voted answers. You may find these powers useful when handling certain flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, this is a nice place to find stuff that needs attention. The &quot;stats&quot; tab has a list of down voted posts, which could benefit from edits/comments/close votes/flags/etc. The &quot;close&quot; and &quot;delete&quot; tabs list posts that have close/delete votes on them. You may be able to add your own close votes here if you think it necessary. Generally, you want to select the &quot;30d&quot;, &quot;14d&quot;, or &quot;7d&quot; option in these lists (the duration option is under the tabs), the other lists generally are empty-ish. Though a quick glance at the &quot;2d&quot; list may show you posts with fresh close/delete votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What's considered as &quot;bad&quot; here, and how should I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things that need to be dealt with. First, lets look at the close reasons. If you find posts that satisfy these criteria, vote to close/flag them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, be sure to leave a comment when you vote/flag to post a q. You may want to add a &quot;Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange!&quot; for new users as well. If you cast the last close vote on a salvageable post, then leave a comment &quot;If you do so-and-so, then you may flag this post for mod attention to ask for it to be reopened&quot; or something like that. In many forums, what is known as &quot;closing &quot;is The End for a post, and many users feel it is the same here (and end up complaining instead of simply fixing the post)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Exact duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is pretty self explanatory. If two questions are essentially asking the same thing, and the answers apply in both cases, one can be closed as a duplicate of the other. You need not close according to which was posted second. If one of them has better answers, and/or is better phrased, close the other one as a dupe of it. If they both have good answers and are pretty much _exactly_ the same question, flag the post with a custom message asking for a merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on Physics - Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question seems to go against:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the [FAQ][15] (specifically the [first][16] and [third][17]) sections&#xD;&#xA; - policy discussions on meta&#xD;&#xA; - or your general idea of being on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then flag/vote to close as off topic. Comment on the reason it is off topic, and maybe tell them to read the FAQ and/or [how-to-ask][18]. Note that a quick way to add a link to the FAQ in comment is by typing `[faq]` in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&amp;A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally for questions that will end up having many equally valid answers, or those provoking too much discussion. A question should, in the end, have a few answers that are pretty much saying the same thing. Two or three opposing/radically different answers are OK as well, but not more. Examples of NC posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Make a list&quot;-type questions - these end up with a _lot_ of equally valid answers and become a poll. Note that we _do_ allow book recommendation questions at the moment, as long as they specify the subtopic and level of understanding required.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What do you think about...?&quot; - these promote too much discussion&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;What is the best...?&quot; - not all of these are NC, but some can be. See [this blog post][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, if an NC question (of the &quot;make a list&quot; type) is made rather specific about the criteria, it becomes on topic. If you feel that it is this way, then leave a comment asking for the user to make the criteria more specific. You may still vote-to-close, though &amp;mdash; remember, closing is a _temporary_ state for such posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it's a good idea to leave a comment explaining _why_ the post was closed, with some links. You may want to redirect the user to chat (`[chat]` in comments is another magic link), which is the best place for such discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not A Real Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is mainly about questions that, as mentioned, cannot be reasonably answered in their current form. If (channeling the FAQ, [second section][20]), an _entire book_ can be imagined that answers the  question, then  it ought to be closed as NARQ. Another case is when the OP has stuffed &gt;3 questions in the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NARQ also works for questions which are too vague/unclear/incomplete, as mentioned in the close message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; NARQ can almost _always_ be reopened after some edits. See if you can make the edits yourself (generally it's nearly impossible &amp;mdash; it involves some mind-reading). Vote/flag to close, and comment, telling the user that &quot;The question is (too broad/vague/incomplete) at the moment, please (narrow it down/clarify it/complete it).&quot; Or something like that. In the case of 20-million-questions-in-one, tell the OP to prune the list of questions down to a couple of main questions, and/or group the questions into related subgroups and ask as separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too Localized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most confusing of them all (in my experience, people understand this one the least), but it's actually rather easy to determine if a post is Too Localized once you get the basic spirit behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of StackExchange is to Make The Internet Better&amp;trade;. This involves having great, informative posts, which will be found useful by many others in the future. If the possible answers to a question will be useful pretty much only to the OP, be useful to others for a short period of time, then the post is Too Localized. This includes many homework questions &amp;mdash; if they don't follow the [homework policy][21], then they ought to be closed. I generally comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Welcome to Physics! Please see [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433). We expect homework problems to have some effort put into them, and deal with conceptual issues. If you edit your question to explain (1) What you have tried, (2) the concept you have trouble with, and (3) your level of understanding, I'll be happy to reopen this. (Flag this message for ♦ attention with a custom message, or reply to me in the comments with `@Manishearth` to notify me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on homework questions. Feel free to use that comment, minus the moderator parts, of course :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, such questions have good conceptual cores. In such cases, they are still not as useful to others, simply because they are hard to find (via Google/etc) &amp;mdash; the question title/etc give no hint of the core concept. In such a case, see if you can bring out the conceptual part of the question by editing it. Or comment on it asking the OP to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other problem posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to the other types of &quot;problem&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Things that don't answer the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer that seems to be meant as a comment or edit, flag it as &quot;not an answer&quot; (leave a comment explaining how to comment/edit as well. Note that users with &lt;50 rep cannot comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the post is answering an _entirely different_ question (happens at times), this can also be flagged as NAA. Note that NAA is _not_ for wrong answers. If you feel an answer is wrong, down vote and comment. Don't flag unless it has other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Very Low Quality posts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question/answer has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the post is extremely short/is just gibberish/or is otherwise of very bad quality, then flag it as VLQ. Note that we generally don't delete short answers, though it's something that's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so flag away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link-only answers should be commented on and down voted. Nothing wring with flagging them, but we generally don't act on those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post pretty much covers how you deal with plagiarism][22]. A custom mod flag doesn't hurt here if you want us to look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spam/Promotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a post is a blatant promotion of a site (and isn't really useful), flag it as spam. If the post is a valid answer but links to a blog post which seems to belong to the posting user, then comment, asking the user to reveal their affiliation, if any. You may want to link to [this section of the FAQ][23]. If too many of their posts are used to promote their blog, custom flag their posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flag the post as &quot;not welcome in our community&quot; if you feel that it satisfies the criteria above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, comments are third-class citizens on this site. Their purpose is to aid the user in improving a post. If improvements from a comment have been made, or if the comment will not lead to more improvements, then they may be deleted. Long discussions ought to be sent to chat. The comment flag button is visible on the left of the comment when you hover over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chatty comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a comment is &quot;chatty&quot;, i.e., provoking irrelevant discussion and/or a &quot;thank you&quot; comment, flag it as such. Stuff that praises the post/etc can be removed after the OP has had a chance to see it. Most of the comments [here][24] can be considered &quot;chatty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Obsolete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the result of a comment/comment thread has been edited into the post, you may flag the comment(s) as obsolete. You may alternatively custom flag a comment (or the post itself) requesting cleanup of obsolete comments when there are many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rude/offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self explanatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Not Constructive/Off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that the comment is off topic here (i.e., it's not related to the post/comments), then flag it as such. This option is also for comments which you feel would be better off deleted &amp;mdash; they may provoke unnecessary drama/discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if there's something else wrong with a comment, you may always use this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Finding posts that need attention and Review queues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can find many such posts just by exploring the site (or by using the tools [here][25]), and you _should_ do this, there is a &quot;fast track&quot; of finding such posts, the [review queues][26].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these? Well, they are filled with posts that possibly need community attention, as determined by the system or other community users. You are shown these posts, one at a time, and you &quot;review&quot; them. Like flagging, [there][27] [are][28] [badges][29] for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what consists a &quot;review&quot;? It depends on the queue. The queues have one consistent option, though &amp;mdash; the &quot;skip&quot; option. This permanently skips the post (you won't see it in the same review queue again), and is useful if you're not sure what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each user has their own copy of the queue &amp;mdash; if you review a post in a queue, it is not necessarily removed from that queue for other users. It gets removed for all users after a few more reviews by other users (the exact amount depends upon the queue and review action done). For example, all my review queues are empty, because I have reviewed/skipped everything that was in them. This doesn't mean that the posts are removed from your queues as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Late Answers and First posts queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available to you once you get 125 rep on the site. The Late answers queue contains answers which were posted much later than the question (and thus don't get as much attention, the purpose of this queue is to give them attention). The First posts contains the first few posts asked by new users (who will probably need help learning to use the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, all you have to do is edit the post, flag it, up vote it, add a comment, or up vote a previously existing comment, and the &quot;I'm done&quot; option is unlocked. If you feel that the post is fine as it is, but you don't want to vote on it (you're not _that_ impressed with it, etc), then you can always choose the &quot;no action needed&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to do as much as possible to improve the post &amp;mdash; fix grammar/links/images/LaTeX, comment asking for more details, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a few users have reviewed a post (IIRC, it is 3). it is removed from the queue for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Low Quality queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, low quality posts are listed. If you feel that a post is OK for the site and cannot be improved further, click &quot;Looks good&quot;. Else, edit/comment, and _then_ click &quot;looks good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that it ought to be deleted, click the &quot;delete&quot; button. This pops up a menu that lets you choose a boilerplate comment to place. Use this option even if the post isn't really deletable, but is worthy of one of the boilerplate comments listed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For users with &lt;10k rep, this doesn't really delete the post. It just prioritizes it in the queue for those who can (so don't be afraid of using it!). Those with 10k+ rep, when clicking this button, automatically cast a delete vote on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close/Reopen vote queues&#xD;&#xA;You get access to these at 3k rep, along with the privilege to vote to close/reopen posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that may need closing/reopening appear in these queues. Questions with open close votes/close flags show up in the close queue, and questions with open reopen votes, as well as questions which have been edited after closing appear in the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this queue, you have four options. You can try to fix a close-able post via the &quot;edit&quot; button. You also can vote to close it. (In the case of the reopen queue, obviously the corresponding option is voting to reopen) You can, as usual, skip it. And finally, you can select &quot;leave open&quot;. What does this last option do? If two people vote to &quot;leave open&quot;/&quot;leave closed&quot;, the post is removed from the close/reopen queue(respectively) for everyone. This does _not_ clear close/reopen votes on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with the 10k moderator tools (see above), this is one of the best ways to find posts that need closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Suggested edit queue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5k reputation, you can approve suggested edits. Users without enough rep to edit have their edits placed in this queue. If two users approve an edit (if one rejects and one approves then it waits for more users to review it), then it is published. If you feel that the edit is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - too minor: not much added, the post was fine without the edit&#xD;&#xA; - vandalism: it made the post worse&#xD;&#xA; - radical change: it modified the post so that it may no longer be what the author meant it to be &#xD;&#xA; - invalid: it was probably supposed to be a comment or an answer&#xD;&#xA; - copied: the edit is just a copy-paste from an external source without block-quoting and attribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, reject it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &quot;improve&quot; a suggested edit. This is when you notice that the post has other things which can be improved as well, and you get to edit the post. Here, you may also choose whether or not to mark the suggested edit as &quot;helpful&quot; (if not marked as such, the edit is rejected, though your &quot;improve&quot; edit still goes through). Too many rejected suggested edits block a user from suggesting more for a while; keep this in mind while rejecting edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more queue, but it's not always visible and it isn't a community moderation thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Meta participation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, an aspect of community moderation(sort of) is _deciding_ site policies. This is done on this site, [Physics Meta][30]. Here, we have discussions about the site policies/etc (as well as help users who need it), and you are welcome to join in! Participating in meta familiarizes you with site policies, and you get to play an active part in formulating them You may want to read the [Meta FAQ][31] first, though, especially [the section on voting][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KHllY.png &quot;flag dialog for down voted answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCzLV.png &quot;my flag count on meta&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZBr6.png &quot;list of flagged posts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/8/citizen-patrol&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/67/deputy&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/82/marshal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/close-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/a-guide-to-moderating-physics-stack-exchange-yourself-close-voting&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/question/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/gorilla-vs-shark/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160071/what-to-do-when-plagiarism-is-discovered&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14968/7433&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2889/a-random-page-user-script-useful-to-improve-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/106/custodian&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/85/reviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/107/steward&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/faq#vote-differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="3c144ae1-ad25-4596-a551-02d565756c92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](http://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="5630ad37-96ed-41dc-9253-dabe3942b9ba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently posted an answer to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75082/why-are-magnetic-fields-only-produced-by-moving-charges/75085#75085 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was marked as a duplicate of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51346/no-magnetic-field-from-a-static-charge-is-there-a-simple-physical-argument-to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that (2) has a really satisfactory answer.  In any case, I think that my answer to (1) would contribute non-trivially to (2).  What are the physics.SE norms/policies about re-posting my answer from (1) as a response to (2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4008" RevisionGUID="fc765477-19be-40ad-a468-dd6333d9143b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="1) If one has enough reputation points, it is possible to directly propose tag synonyms. (Note in particular, that reputation points in the corresponding master tag are needed.) In OP's concrete example, one should go e.g. [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/schrodinger-equation/synonyms) or [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/quantum-mechanics/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, if one doesn't have enough reputation points, there is a meta post called [_Tag synonyms for voting_](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451). There one can propose tag synonyms. In OP's concrete example, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:schrodinger-equation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:wavefunctions] -&gt; [tag:quantum-mechanics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then users can vote the proposal up or down. If sufficiently many users upvote a proposal a moderator will create the new synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="3b65ae19-8534-4a23-854e-c6d4abd43b55" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This tag is gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BURNINATED](https://i.stack.imgur.com/M2qer.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Please care for the widows and orphans](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/untagged)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3984" RevisionGUID="030c623a-ed3d-43e0-bb9a-f6312a0ac4f4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was a comment on [the first question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48574/how-can-a-black-hole-produce-sound), now deleted, which linked to [the second question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21075/why-does-a-window-at-night-become-a-mirror). That's why those questions were added to each others' Linked sidebars in the first place. As for why the links are still there, I can only imagine that the list of linked questions is cached, and the cache has not been updated in the past few days since the comment was deleted. I'm not sure whether that is the expected behavior or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, your understanding of the linking mechanism is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="11f0645d-8bf4-4341-890e-9eef697ceec7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Can someone explain exactly when this badge is awarded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Highest scoring answer (**a**) that outscored an accepted answer (**A**) with score of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more than 10 by more than 2x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that (being a the most upvoted answer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a &gt; [2 * A] + 1&#xD;&#xA;- a &gt; 10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if that is correct, if  A &lt; 5, an answer a with 11 votes  should get the badge if there is no higher score?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [*here*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) a = 38 &gt; 10, A = 20, a &lt; (2*20+1) 41&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does that imply that when the badge was awarded A was &lt; 17?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="d1f29b6e-20b0-4f96-9510-5af20681973a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [David says][1], we are in some sense stuck with this concept in a context where it doesn't make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Stack Exchange system started with [Stack Overflow][2] which is for *programming questions*, and the interpretation put on acceptance there was the asker stating *'I used this solution to my problem'*. As such it is clear that acceptance is *entirely* in the gift of the asker because it simply means the accepted solution is the one the asker used, and the fact that they might choose a second best solution isn't a really big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on physics are questions are not often of the *'I've hit a snag in my work, what are my options'* kind that Stack Overflow specializes in (though experimental technique questions could be of that kind) so that *this is what I did* contotation doesn't often make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less, acceptance should not be interpreted as indicating correctness: it only indicates the asker's selection and one can take some comfort in the fact that these people are not always in the best position to select a correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do however, have [a (gold!) badge for giving answers that the community prefers very much in comparison to a decent accepted answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="18926887-e315-4daf-854b-19d706a767a2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Many people have tried in one way or another to ask about the mathematical prerequisites to study or understand string theory, but all their (up voted!) question have been and are being closed before they have a chance to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;String theory (and generally large parts of modern fundamental and theoretical physics) is quite a mathematical topic and to understand the physics of it, one obviously has to understand some mathematics too, so the expectation that one should be allowed to ask about the mathematical prerequisites and where one can find good introductory material to get started on a physics site, seems not too unreasonable to me. On the contrary, it would be helpful for many people to hear from physicists already working on the subject about what is needed concerning mathematical prerequisites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, people come here to ask about this [again](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/reference-for-mathematics-of-string-theory), and [again](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/52170/2751)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing all these questions before they have a fair chance to get a nice answer is discouraging for people interested in the physics topic itself too and looks not very welcoming to them. (Qmechanic at least left a nice comment that the topic is in principle ok here). Closing all questions asking this is too bad since there is no such question with a nice canonical standard answer here on physics SE, where people interested in the issue could be pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suggestion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could an answer to the question, what are important mathematical prerequisites to understand string theory (which includes some pointers to good introductions) be worked out as an answer to this meta post (since it is obviously not allowed to give an answer directly on the main page), and then be attached to one of the closed questions about this issue by a moderator or another powerful enough user to &quot;migrate&quot; it? Future questions about this issue could then rightly so be closed as duplicates and people interested in the issue pointed to this canonical standard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="a06632ee-b72e-428a-a7e8-ea3807e05c0b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends on the question. Many a time, the physics of the question is already done, and the mathematics is jut regular math, which can be handled equally well (or better) by those on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are those questions which are really physics-math and not math-math (eg some kinds of theoretical physics), and afaict they aren't migrated unless they have other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a snapshot of the recent migrated questions, to paint a better picture of the migrating practices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(10ks can have a look at the page directly [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/posts/migrated/away&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v0MSp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="311e3400-60d5-4669-aab0-8136a1dd83ad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following three points combine to contradict your thesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The number of questions asked per week has been [steadily increasing](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/396632/questions-per-week#graph) for the entire duration of PSE's existence. &#xD;&#xA; 2. The number of users joining this site has [grown rapidly the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/268232/new-users-by-week#graph), but increasing always as well&#xD;&#xA; 3. The number of questions closed per week has remained [fairly steady over the last year](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/277070/number-of-closes-per-week-the-last-year#graph)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is zero evidence that current practice of closing &amp; voting questions is somehow bad or damaging this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are positing that PSE has *always* been over-moderated, over-moderation would necessarily lead to a *larger* ratio of questions being closed over time, there is no way around that aspect. Since #3 above shows a fairly static close question count and #1 above shows an increasing question count, then the above three metric strongly suggest that there is no evidence of over-moderation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, note that there are currently [~5600 questions closed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano) (and not duplicates), which represents about 8% of the total questions asked&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. For reference, the other sciences (and SO) closed-non-dupe fractions are approximately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com): 6%&#xD;&#xA; - [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA; - [Computer Science](http://cs.stackexchange.com): 7%&#xD;&#xA; - [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com): 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we are on the higher end of the spectrum, we are not egregiously overboard as compared to similar sites. I believe that some of the difference is the fact that Math.SE allows homework questions whereas [we do not](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714), preferring conceptual questions instead. Not sure Cross Validated's position on HW questions. I think we're in good company on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that most close-voters do leave comments about why they're voting in such a way (e.g., *This question doesn't make sense because ...* or *Please note that Physics Stack Exchange isn't a homework help site...*). If you pay attention to these as you write your answer (and are under the [250 rep limit to see close votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/view-close-votes)), then you will probably find yourself wasting less time writing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if you think you understand a question that is closed &amp; think it is worth having around, feel free to [**edit the post to make it better**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) so that we can [**reopen it**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions). We don't really want to be a collection of closed questions (though some think [that is the convergence](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7181/ultimately-what-will-the-physics-stack-exchange-become-are-there-long-term-goa/7183#7183) we're headed towards), it would be far better for this site if questions are answered&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, surely there should be a way for answers to be allowed for questions that get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering a question that was closed would be totally contrary to the point of placing a question [on hold](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). However, as stated above, questions that are improved *can and do* become reopened and answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The high number in recent weeks is due to the fact that downvoted &amp; closed questions tend to be deleted after around a week or two &amp; deleted questions are not detected/counted by the script. The data is uploaded weekly, on Mondays (if I'm not mistaken).&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 Of course, there are many more deleted questions, so this number isn't necessarily real, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's a useful metric when comparing among other sites.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Assuming, of course, that the question in question isn't a (zero-effort) [homework question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) because we don't actually want those types of questions.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="b2c91bc6-ed9d-424f-8c82-cc522b6ffeb7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;  - How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;  - How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like [What really allows airplanes to fly?][1] that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad. Questions about the physical reasoning and analysis that lead to design decisions are on topic; questions seeking help designing or building something is off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about experimental physics and laboratory equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is not just theoretical, and experimental physics is on topic here. This includes questions about the usage of laboratory equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network. Your question may be suitable at one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Electrical Engineering][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Engineering][4]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Robotics][5]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, that list does not cover all forms of engineering. You can always propose a new Stackexchange site or support a proposal over at [Area 51][7]. For a quicker response, users with at least 20 reputation can always bring up a question in [our chat room][8]. Note that there is no guarantee that anyone there has any input, and The h Bar is not a Q&amp;A unto itself, but still we physics enthusiasts tend to like problem solving in general, as well as interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="b9db0bb4-1d59-4ea4-afe7-cdddce5037de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have noticed a substantial uptick in questions relating to practical implementation of physics in video game development. ([Here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aquestion+game) is a search link for such questions.) Some of these appear to be homework related, some of them border on [crowdsourcing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing).  Just wondering what the thoughts of the community are on these sorts of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="2e10f456-82bd-40fb-b9dc-ce584d01ce9f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just a heads up for those of you who have access to the so-called moderator tools (10k+), you can see [various statistics][1] related to the [anonymous feedback mechanism][2] (i.e. that from persons of no account), and also see list of those post which recive better or worse anonymous feedback then votes and those that simple recieve very positive or negative anonymous feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit surprised today when I noticed that we have recieved more than 12k such votes which averages more than one per question and is almost 10% of the more usual sort of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that can't see it right now, it is running about 2:1 positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition [sam.saffron][3] has provided a [data explorer][4] [query that can extract this data on a per user basis][5] (which I believe gets around the 10k limit for the on-site pages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/post-feedback/summary?filter=all&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130095/anonymous-user-feedback-about-my-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/users/1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://data.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/60668/feedback-on-my-posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="5ea91722-1741-4835-81c0-7dbd0698c72b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've previously had [some discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions) about the suitability of pure math questions for this site. Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic. We migrate those to [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com). Here are some recent examples, mostly taken from the list of recently migrated questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/774831/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/765211/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/764631/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/761917/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/754449/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/747413/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/746432/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/744131/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/735556/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/726177/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/722339/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/718567/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/702646/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/688794/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/672816/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/668792/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/660457/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/659664/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://math.stackexchange.com/q/285642/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most of the above examples were typically migrated after 5 off-topic votes from +3k users and moderators via the [Math.SE migration path](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/507/2451).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Last time the topic was brought up on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions), the community seemed in favor of changing our scope to make pure math questions on topic. If we decide to go ahead with it, it would be an easy change. So I thought I'd put forth this formal proposal: **shall we make pure math questions on topic?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, answers should offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a set of criteria (the more precise, the better) for determining which pure math questions should be on topic for us. The extremes of the spectrum are &quot;all math questions are on topic&quot; (essentially absorbing math.SE's scope into our own - they wouldn't like that though) and &quot;only questions which are about physics are on topic&quot; which is what we have now; answers can suggest anything in between. This _could_ form the basis of an [meta-tag:faq] meta question in the future, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;- an improved wording for the [help center scope page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) that briefly summarizes what sorts of mathematical questions are on topic and which ones aren't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote up the answers you think are good, vote down those which you think are bad, and in either case **comment to explain why**. As always, reasoned arguments will carry more weight than vote counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When (or if) a consensus emerges, we will take it into account and act accordingly. (I'm being vague because I can't _guarantee_ that our site scope will change to reflect the consensus here; we'll also have to come to an agreement with the math.SE community and the SE team.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7374" RevisionGUID="bf0c2f51-ba09-4c09-b8f2-6d1f68ca896a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR** - I believe that the expertise in biophysical techniques and biology is low over here and many times biophysics questions are closed due to being too biological. Therefore, another SE website might be needed to fix these issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What is Biophysics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biophysics is defined as the &quot;the science of the application of the laws of physics to biological phenomena.&quot; As you can see, biophysics is mainly a subtopic of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why fork?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biophysics have many of its own techniques and methods for analyzing biological systems. Some of these methods may be applied to a broader class of physical systems but still, the expertise on these topics is very low. Being in the field of biophysics (doing a research project in quantum biology), I myself have experienced this. My interest is in the environment assisred quantum transport of excitons. Recently I was researching on Forster Resonance Energy Transfer, a theory describing how the excitons are transferred in certain conditions. I have asked a few questions on that over here. For example [This question was orginally asked on Physics.SE](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/32966/forster-rate-dependence-on-temperature) but got no responses. Similarly, [this one also got no responses on Physics.SE](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/32946/multichromophoric-generalization-of-forster-theory). If there were a biophysics.SE I believe that it would be more specific to biophysical techniques and that it would bd much easier to find people with the expertise in the field. Therefore, questions like mine, although are purely physics questions, have a better chance of being answered if there is a successful Biophysics.SE website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let me simply analyze some of the questions under the biophysics tag. The first question is about the [eye](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226404/why-do-our-eyes-only-pick-up-electromagnetic-radiation-which-has-been-classified). This question is mainly physics, but some biology knowledge is needed to understand and answer the question. It seems that not many (active) people in the community have that kind of knowledge or otherwise it would have been answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a question I do realize is a little bit on the bad question side but even with research, let's say the question is adapted to more like &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why can't rod receptors only allow us to visualize grey and black at night? What necessary physical factors about the rod receptors would be needed so we could see color at night?&#xD;&#xA;Based on the reasoning seen in the comments, it seems that it still would be closed as off topic since &quot;it is about eyes, not physics&quot;. On the other hand, if there is a Biophysics.SE site, this question would be definitely on-topic and would make a great question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question is about [why do ears pop?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/187905/why-do-our-ears-pop). In the comments, there are five people agreeing that this is off-topic because it is about human physiology. Them there are another five people agreeing that this is on-topic (the 6th upvote is by me). This seems to be very debatable. However, with a Biophysics.SE site, we can have such great questions being perfectly on-topic!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let me analyze some of the questions on the Biophysics.SE website. Let me start with [this one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics/93206#93206). Certainly, this is a physics question, but you need to know the operation of the dorsal closure of fruit flies. Does anybody here know about that? I don't think so (I do admit I do not know either, but that is irrelevant). Plus. I think many would agree that this requires too much knowledge about a biological process for it to be on-topic on Physics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93205/biophysics/93966#93966) also would have a problem with needing too much biology knowledge about ATP and concentration gradients and molecular motor. I believe that this would also be closed on Physics.SE as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After doing an analysis by sampling questions and including my own experience, here are the main points that support the forking of the biophysics community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is not much expertise in the biophysical techniques in the Physics.SE community&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There can be too much biological knowledge needed to answer a question, even though it may be mainly physics-based&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many times the questions will be closed because it is too biological and does not ask much about physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4035" RevisionGUID="b4b8d9e3-1d86-4ae2-ba00-9dc2f6d7e572" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Information about mathematical prerequisits to study physics topics and subfields should be gathered in a new big list, in the same way as it has been done for useful [books](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/12175/2751) at different levels. The two lists should be adequately curated and updated, as new questions are coming in and get answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Simultanously**, as the (new) information about books and mathematical prerequisits accumulates, it can be smoothly transfered from the two big lists into the corresponding tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solution would avoid the **catch-22 problem** of the current practice, namely demanding that the tag wikis get **DIRECTLY** edited whereas all question on the main page asking about books and mathematical prerequisits get closed immediately, no new information about these issues will ever be available to people who need it on this site, because obviously **nobody** starts to write this information into the tag wikis without being asked to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That information about books and mathematical prerequisits is urgently needed by and very useful to (emerging) physicists can be seen from observing that people come here again and again to ask about it on the main page.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="cb45d881-1e60-4bac-9101-2f681751c7b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The way to parse the condition is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Highest scoring answer that outscored (an accepted answer with score of more than 10) by more than 2x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the conditions for an answer of score *a* to be awarded the populist badge is for there to be an accepted answer of score *A*, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 *A*,&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10, and&#xD;&#xA; - there are no other answers with score &gt; *a*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, this requires that *a*≥23=2(10+1)+1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to dissect the history of a given post or badge, a useful tool is to use the post [timeline](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108337/timeline-of-question-post-question-edits-answer-and-answer-edits)*, which is of the form `https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1234/timeline`. For the particular [post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610) you mentioned, the conditions were fulfilled at the end of June 3, with [Ooker's answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116616/8563) accepted at score *A*=+11 and [JamalS's answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/116610/8563) at score *a*=+25. It is often the case that badge-awarding scripts run daily in the wee hours of the UTC morning, which seems to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another nice tool for exploring this sort of things is the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/database-schema-documentation-for-the-public-data-dump-and-sede), where you can pose all sorts of SQL questions to the site database. To explore the populist badge, for example, you could use [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/269815/populist-badge-candidate-users-and-posts), freshly baked by yours truly, which turns up the posts which currently fulfil the badge criteria. It comes up, at the moment, with 16 rows, with two extraneous results ([1](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92050/do-gravitational-lenses-have-a-focus-point/92056#92056), [2](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3180#3180)) that can be easily detected as outscored duplicates on the list. This is six posts short of the [20 badges currently awarded](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist), and these no longer satisfy the conditions ([1](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116608/how-exactly-does-gravity-work/116610#116610), [2](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109897/does-electricity-flow-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior/109908#109908), [3](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95974/why-is-acceleration-expressed-as-m-s-s/95975#95975), [4](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon/76167#76167), [5](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed/14752#14752), [6](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5315#5315)), for various reasons that can be investigated via the post timelines. Just as an example of ways to test how the site works (and get some SQL practice along the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Not particularly accessible or well documented. See [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post) for an explanation and/or to complain about it.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="019f3ff4-3673-4954-a544-985dcb8ba04b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Stack Exchange model does not work well for &quot;big list&quot; questions, and these are banned network-wide for good reason. However, many of the other stack exchange sites allow or even encourage list questions that do not fall under the &quot;big list&quot; category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Physics.SE currently has a *de facto* policy against list questions of any kind, even if they are quite limited in scope and technical in nature. I know I'm not the only user who finds this frustrating, and so I would like to open this policy up for discussion. In particular, I would like to propose that we make a distinction between unhelpful &quot;big list&quot; questions and more productive &quot;good list&quot; questions that should be allowed on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good starting point for this is the &quot;[good subjective, bad subjective][1]&quot; post on the Stack Exchange blog. Although it doesn't mention lists specifically, it makes the helpful point that subjectivity in itself does not make a question unsuitable for the Stack Exchange model, and if a subjective question follows an appropriate set of guidelines then it can be productive. I believe the same to be true of list questions. In fact many of the guidelines for subjective questions in general could be carried over to list questions in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;good subjective, bad subjective&quot; blog post gives the following set of guidelines for subjective posts. I think this will need some modification beyond just replacing &quot;subjective&quot; with &quot;list&quot;, but it gives us a start in coming up with a suitable set of guidelines for list questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Great subjective questions inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”&#xD;&#xA;2. Great subjective questions tend to have long, not short, answers&#xD;&#xA;3. Great subjective questions have a constructive, fair, and impartial tone&#xD;&#xA;4. Great subjective questions invite sharing experiences over opinions&#xD;&#xA;5. Great subjective questions insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references&#xD;&#xA;6. Great subjective questions are more than just mindless social fun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For list questions on physics I think the most important requirements should be that they are based on **facts and not opinions**, and that they be sufficiently **limited in scope**, i.e. not likely to produce and endless string of answers, none of which is any better than the others. Of course, the latter is a judgement call, and we need to discuss the criteria used to make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good list questions could include (for example) lists of applications of a particular theory; references to support a particular claim; or ways to determine a particular empirical quantity. In each case we have to be careful about scope (&quot;What are some applications of Newton's second law?&quot; would be a bad list question), but appropriately restrictive list questions of these kinds could be a useful and productive thing to have on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very grateful if anyone would like to update this question with some links to examples. [Here][2] is a recent one that sparked some [discussion][3], but I know there have been many other good examples over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71019/apart-from-turbulence-what-is-the-most-important-unsolved-problems-in-plasma-ph&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9648/discussion-between-david-zaslavsky-and-dilaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4040" RevisionGUID="20d00c21-044c-4f32-bec1-e147ff5c90a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to make a question about state-of-the-art mirror technology and beam divergence for space and astronomy applications. Since engineering questions seem to be, if not considered off-topic, at least frowned upon by the moderation (beats me why). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i'm wondering what would be the best way to ask that question that would be deemed acceptable. Since the question has relationship with astronomy and space applications, i'm wondering if i can rely on that for making the question on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;link to the question in main: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/53048/955" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="ea46d77f-f4f3-4c52-a4d5-5aa0f338102c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was called [&quot;Need A Collection Textbooks To Use As Stepping Stones to QFT&quot;][1] In my mind, asking about a &quot;no-nonsense intro to QFT&quot; and asking for a set of textbooks together which would prepare one to even read a QFT intro, from the position of only having completed Griffith's Introduction to QM, are two completely different things. QMechanic even admitted to it not being a true duplicate, but closed it anyway, and I really don't buy his explanation of it being &quot;opinion based&quot;, since the thread that I was supposedly duplicating should also have been &quot;opinion based&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226186/need-a-collection-textbooks-to-use-as-stepping-stones-to-qft&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="8e589155-a4bb-4873-afff-b7dfa4d364ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This was changed last October][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/recent-feature-changes-to-stack-exchange/117903#117903 (see the October entry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current suggested edit algorithm for Physics.SE is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is the post author, their action is binding&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewer is a mod, his action is binding (yay)&#xD;&#xA; - If the reviewers are neither mods nor original authors, then the _first_ decision (approve/reject) to reach two supporters is taken into account.&#xD;&#xA; - However, using the &quot;improve&quot;/&quot;edit&quot; button lets one bypass the double approval ([example][2] -- Community♦ steps in as a reviewer here) -- though you have to make an extra change to the post to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at your history, you seem to have come across the &quot;requires another approval&quot; block in the past [here][3] and [here][4]. You probably didn't notice the &quot;needs another approval&quot; banner , that's all:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151536/it-takes-two-to-tango/151586#151586&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9584&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9578&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/12651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="f86c5dcd-4ee3-4a72-8c17-c4891e1c8c92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="IIRC we need to display a major need for such a closing path. Currently, we don't even have enough active close voters, so mods have to intervene in migrations anyway. Also, we get ~one migration every day on average. That's not much. I don't think that's enough to convince SE to give us the migration paths. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we _were_  to get migration paths, I'd suggest Math, SciComp, EE, and Academia. Maybe not Academia. Nobody on Physics has managed to decipher their FAQ, so it's better to leave it out of the fray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a snapshot of the migration stats ([link for 10k users][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/posts/migrated/stats&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M0mI6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="5ff0fda2-c48a-4198-8f79-002404e464f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was digging into my old posts to see if I could improve them. There was a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82449/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it is deleted but the high rep users might be able to read it.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I do not understand is that what was wrong with this post?    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;After it was deleted by the community mod I asked [the same question on Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/595538/) and got an excellent answer that I was looking for. It could be that it is more a mathematical question but if this was the case why wasn't it closed or migrated? Neither the question was closed as _unclear_. Was it downvoted because it is a beginner question? Why was this question not well received by the physics community? I do not see some severe grammatical mistakes beside capitalization.   &#xD;&#xA;I am asking this question only because I want to understand how should I present my posts to the physics community so that they be well received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="aef3ca94-9360-4db6-8985-e2e4ff4eee8f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider a situation where someone asks for clarification about equation (4) in a comment, and then the post author adds a definition to clarify it just above it. Since the comment cannot be edited, the record will be confusing for newcomers and would be a not-really-worth-it pain to disentangle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic numbering works when you also have `\label`-ing and automatic `\ref`-erencing which can consistently point to the correct objects even when the equation numbers change. I think this is a bad idea on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, note that there are [close to 1k posts that already use the `\begin{equation}` notation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=begin%7Bequation%7D), and [1.6k that use `\begin{align}`](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22begin%7Balign%7D%22). We do not know whether their authors would like the tags, which could be quite intrusive. I have a few of those myself,  and I'd not be that keen on this: when I use the `align` notation I'm half the time tagging things myself, and having automatic tags detracts from the emphasis given to the important equations by the manual tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, though, I just don't think there's a need. A long post might have 10-20 equations but only a couple of them are really worth numbering, and that's at the extremes and can be dealt with using manual `\tag`s. I think we're getting along just fine and there isn't a use case for this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="f5de2fc2-09bf-42c4-afb5-623b19668950" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see regular questions that could be answered by some basic Googling. Examples would be https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71406/in-a-large-city-how-much-hotter-on-average-is-it-outside-due-to-the-air-conditio and https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71475/quantum-annealing-computing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be charitable, newcomers to physics may not know where to start and what terms to search for, and a suitable answer might be to point them at a few introductory articles. However in many cases it looks as if the OP simply can't be bothered to put any effort in. Do we have a policy for closing (or not closing) such questions. For homework we have the &quot;off topic/need to show some effort&quot; reason, but most of the questions of this sort aren't obviously homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I just being excessively grumpy? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4046" RevisionGUID="58a56dc0-471c-4c86-ba05-44dcf2c3051a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="and a new one appeared of similar content https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53380/inteaction-of-high-energy-particles .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No edits evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was there two hours ago and had a -2 when I added a comment. Usually because of my high reputation I can see the deleted posts off colored. This has completely disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Whats up?puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="4be3b16a-c4eb-401d-80e8-71d3ab61ffd9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Question 6157 is a [broken][1] [window][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6157/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it asked today, it should get closed as Not a Real Question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's being used to justify the asking of other bad open-ended questions : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4171/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should we fix this broken window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/08/pragmatic-programming.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/06/the-broken-window-theory.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="aca6b32e-2b8c-4721-a379-81ba0014d3d8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Stack Exchange network [is **not** a social network][1]. And the idea of pushing your question onto others has been [strongly rejected][2]. No expert would choose to participate in a site in which any user could nag them effortlessly to personally solve every problem that arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your question to have more visibility to everyone (on the site, not the whole network), you can do so, but there is a price. You must [offer a nonrefundable bounty][3] of your own reputation on the question. Open bounties are summarized in the [featured tab][4], and some (but not all) users check there to see if there are questions they can answer given the extra incentive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65261/is-stack-overflow-a-social-networking-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/103086/how-could-i-notify-stack-overflows-expert-users-about-my-new-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5773" RevisionGUID="3f813fe5-65e2-4b5c-b826-64216e3ff07e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just had a bounty awarded for [my answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111006/how-does-light-bend-around-my-finger-tip/111238#111238).  (Thanks, Ruslan!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I went to look at it, though, I noticed that the bounty marker icon looked kind of awkward, like it didn't really *want* to be there, shuffling off to one side and huddling uncomfortably close to the accepted answer checkmark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Screenshot 1: awkwardly placed bounty marker icon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should give our bounty icon a little more grace and confidence, make it be proud of itself!  And I think I know just the CSS rule to do it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- language: lang-css --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    .vote .bounty-award {&#xD;&#xA;         margin: 5px auto;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The `.vote` is there just to make this rule more specific than the existing bounty margin rule, which, for some strange reason, specifies a 5 pixel *right* margin and nothing else.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this new CSS rule added, the bounty icon looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Screenshot 2: improved bounty marker icon placement][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Yes, I got an upvote while testing this.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks a lot better, don't you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the awkward bounty marker placement doesn't seem to be limited just to physics.SE, although it's more obvious here than one many other SE sites.  As far as I can tell, the CSS rule I suggested above seems to improve (or have no visible effect on) the bounty marker appearance on *all* Stack Exchange sites I've so far tested it on, so I'd suggest it as a general CSS change to all the sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I'm posting this bug report / suggestion here, rather than on [meta.SE](http://meta.stackexchange.com), because the problem is most noticeable here on physics.SE.  (And because per-site metas just don't get enough love in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iugkU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bLAqH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="ab61d9cc-8ba7-45f9-864f-69bdd47a1d39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is **no hard limit**. The only policy is that **sufficiently unrelated questions should be asked in separate posts**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;sufficiently unrelated&quot; mean here? Basically, questions should only be grouped together if you can reasonably imagine someone else who has one of those questions in mind would likely be *simultaneously* wondering about the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone asks a question about neutrino absorption cross sections in lead, it is reasonable that they ask about the cross sections for each of the three generations of neutrinos. However, if some student just lists five thoughts that occurred to them while taking intro EM this past semester, that would probably warrant splitting into separate posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that a good discriminant is whether or not the questions are (or could easily have been) formatted into a bullet-point list. A list of questions is unlikely to have a strong conceptual underpinning uniting them, and is probably a sign that the questions are not sufficiently alike to be kept together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, multiple questions that flow with the problem statement are often good - they tend to ask about the same underlying physics from different angles. For instance, [one of my questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62974/10851) has 5 question marks spread throughout the body, but they are all driving at the same underlying issue. Answering just one would be insufficient for settling the matter, and it would be difficult to answer one without simultaneously answering the others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="2c6268c7-074e-4e21-a56e-57ebe13d7b2b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="An oddly large number of articles are titles with, or include in their opening line, a phrase like '*I have a doubt regarding gravity*'; see the articles at the bottom, for examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, it doesn't seem that the OP actually '*doubts*' that the physics in question are true.  Instead, they seem to mean that they are generally *confused*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a particular language which this usage transliterates from?  Possibly a particular thesaurus entry leading people astray?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58148/intuition-behind-work  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57907/electric-field-lines-for-continuous-distribution  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57436/doubt-in-kinematics  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59628/why-propagation-of-uncertainty-is-linear  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  See also (thanks to @Yrogirg)  &#xD;&#xA;https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3200/what-exactly-might-non-native-speakers-mean-by-doubt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="c2dad21d-b34d-40c0-b36f-c54cc3484f91" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just took at look at the question linked in this post, version 4.&#xD;&#xA;I think the question was closed because it's vague and too broad, not really because it's about biology.&#xD;&#xA;I think this happens a lot on our site and warrants discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems with the [example post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the first three paragraphs of the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's, for example, take a ribosome. It is an enzyme that is in turn just a molecule that must follow the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I'm wrong, but it can be looked upon as a molecular machine made up of several pieces. What exactly makes those pieces work together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA? Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more? Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four question marks by the end of the third paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;What exactly makes those pieces work together?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Why  does the ribosome bind to a strand of RNA?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having multiple questions is alone a problem.&#xD;&#xA;When faced with multiple questions, a would-be answer writer has to read, understand, think about, formulate answers for, and then write answers for multiple questions.&#xD;&#xA;If the probability that a given reader can do those things for one question is p &lt;&lt; 1, then the probability that a given reader can do them for four questions is p^4, which is absolutely tiny.&#xD;&#xA;This puts a reader at a disposition to regard the question as unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, a deeper problem is that the questions bounce back and forth from specific and physics-oriented to broad and biology oriented.&#xD;&#xA;Questions #1 and #2 are very broad and sound biology-ish.&#xD;&#xA;A typical physicist probably feels that only a phenomenological bio or so-broad-as-to-be-useless physics answer can possibly suffice.&#xD;&#xA;This, puts the physicist at a mind to vote for closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in question #3 we get physics: &quot;Is it just the shape and electric charge or is it something more?&quot;. *That* is a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;Or at least it suggests one.&#xD;&#xA;We could rewrite the entire post around that one question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ribosomes perform complex tasks in the organism, but in the end they are just molecules and therefore governed by the laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;What physical principles are the most crucial for understanding how a ribosome is able to function as it does?&#xD;&#xA;To choose a specific example, is electrostatics enough to explain why a ribosome sticks to a strand of RNA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we then get question #4: &quot;Once the ribosome is bound to a piece of RNA, how does it move?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is again vague and broad.&#xD;&#xA;Does the asker want an explanation from the bio point of view or a purely electrodynamical description?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why (I think) the post was closed&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vague, broad posts like this invite closure because they're hard to answer.&#xD;&#xA;As they translate to &quot;how does X work?&quot;, they invite too many possible levels of scope.&#xD;&#xA;Posts like this could reasonable be closed as &quot;too broad&quot; or &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, I think its psychologically easier for readers to perceive a question as possibly ok *for another audience* rather than stick their chin out and tell the OP that their question is *bad*.&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we see a lot of questions closed as &quot;off topic&quot; where &quot;too broad&quot; and &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would make more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's my guess.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a great situation because &quot;off topic&quot; tells OP to go somewhere else, rather than learn how to ask questions better.&#xD;&#xA;We definitely want better questions more than we want to turn people away, so...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do to&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use &quot;off topic&quot; only as a last resort.&#xD;&#xA;Prioritize close reasons which help OP learn to ask better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you can, edit the post to zero in on the relevant question.&#xD;&#xA;The example I pose above is probably too big of an edit, but a comment can help OP get there.&#xD;&#xA;It may also be ok to make a substantial organizational edit and post a comment reminding OP that they can roll it back if it misses the mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about the place of biophysics?&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think interdisciplinary questions get closed a lot because, as illustrated above, it's easy to lose focus and put readers in a state of mind where they feel like the question gets so large that a good physics answer can't address it.&#xD;&#xA;I think biophysics questions in the vein of my example rewrite given above are solidly on topic.&#xD;&#xA;So, with all this said, I really think the only legit answer here is that **we need to see more *good* biophysics questions before we can even consider writing down explicit descriptions of which ones are and are not on topic**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="103b25dd-e8c4-4819-a8b3-22c6b8454328" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why is [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/10943/14182) in grey colour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if I erase any of my answers, nobody will see it anymore, is that right? I hope it is not shown in grey...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Third question: is there any way to completely erase, smash, destroy, pulverize, thermalize, dissociate, cause information loss forever in, one of my answers?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="519a60cb-891b-4403-8d93-687ea687bd7d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Okay, it took me way too long to find this considering how simple it was. If you are logged in, visit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it will update your reputation plus give you the actual info on how it is calculated. Waaaay down at the bottom is a summary of reputation changes. This should, hopefully, fix the caching issue and trigger the correct calculation of your reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a related question [on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/236420/when-will-my-reputation-update) which seems to indicate a bug existed ~8 months ago in the update script when users hit the rep cap and then lost some votes somewhere. The answer there says the bug is/was acknowledged but I haven't found whether it has been fixed or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If manually updating the reputation doesn't fix it, maybe there is still a problem somewhere and this needs to be escalated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's above my pay grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading into that mother meta question, particularly the comments under it, it seems that the manual refresh button was removed from that reputation page I gave and the only way to trigger a recalc (at that time) was to delete/undelete one of your own answers. Again, no idea if this bug is still around or not, but you could always give that a shot and see if things update." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="f40bffcb-100f-45fb-a305-426efa260e5d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have [103 questions][1]  tagged with _only_ [tag:relativity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [9 questions][2] tagged with [tag:general-relativity] and [tag:relativity] but not [tag:special-relativity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [16 questions][3] tagged with [tag:special-relativity] and [tag:relativity] but not [tag:general-relativity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [10 questions][4] tagged with all three. I've noticed that most of our relativity questions are about general relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best solution here is to go through the [118 questions][5] tagged [tag:relativity] but not [tag:general-relativity], and look for ones without GR on them. Then merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind keeping the tag, either. FWIW it may be worth merging the SR and GR tags into [tag:relativity], but that may lead to a broad tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D%20-%5Bspecial-relativity%5D%20-%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20is:question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D+%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D+-%5Bspecial-relativity%5D++is%3Aquestion&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D+%5Bspecial-relativity%5D+-%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D++is%3Aquestion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D%20%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20%5Bspecial-relativity%5D%20is:question&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brelativity%5D%20-%5Bgeneral-relativity%5D%20is:question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="72595f6e-1901-4c2f-b6be-c59440d74b1a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Based on the case of a question [Explanation for this type of (magic-trick) suspension? (on hold)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/131738/44176) (of course not the only one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people (a moderator among them) voted to close the question, which had an (accepted) answer and plus was highly up-voted (let me note in bold **by members of this site**) which were an order of magnitufe more than the five people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some brief comments with the moderator (@DavidZ) after the issue was raised (by me @NikosM, who btw did not post an answer). It was mentioned that posts may be off-topic regardless of how many up-votes they have. i replied, shortly, that certainly the people who up-voted do not consider this to be off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems a **very serious issue here**, especially when (as you can see in the screenshot below) there is **no way provided for (other) members to request or vote for re-opening**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dINky.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="c92a2b77-9312-459a-97fa-68964c57927b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, I absolutely disagree with both, EnergyNumbers question and his answer and the from MSO imported term &quot;broken window&quot; he uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited number of such big list questions about important study material for students and researchers should just be well curated, since the site is intended to be useful for students and researchers (according to what is written in the [About](https://physics.stackexchange.com/about)) who need to learn things and often have to familiarize themself with new topics in the course of their live as active and flexible researchers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on spezialized and/or well defined by the targetted level or otherwise localized study material (including books if needed), such as about [twistors](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36359/gentle-introduction-to-twistors) or other minor subjects such as [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/15803/2751) for example, for which not a large pedagogical literature and tons of books exist (as it is the case about broad topics such as statistical physics, quantum mechanics, qlassical mechanics, etc) exists, should be allowed and tolerated as it has always been the case until the end of 2012. Such well defined requests for study material are neither bad (their answer is helpful for many peopl) nor open-ended as EnergyNumbers claimes, since there simply to not exist that many books / turorials / lecture notes / introductions on Arxiv etc, that fit as answer to a well localized question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only issue (in fact a non-issue!) is, that somebody should take care of adding the new specialized questions about such study material to the corresponding lists, such that things are systematically ordered and well organized. Apart from this, there is absolutely nothig to &quot;fix&quot;. I could curate and regularly update the lists of study material and I would do it if it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="7bd2aac1-4673-4da9-9fe5-6af5ced95dd9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I haven't had time to go through enough questions to make up my mind on whether I'm OK with this aspect of the new design or whether I think we should go full blast and change to a serif font, but I do want to note that the problem is at least much better than it used to be - and give credit to the design team for addressing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the same [example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099) I used in [the original request](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax), with the new fonts vs the old ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###New CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![New CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hEDaZ.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Old CSS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![Old CSS](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old fonts, the LaTeX tends to stick out like a sore thumb, but it definitely blends in a lot better with the new ones. I'm holding judgement on whether it's enough or not for the moment, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, things are not quite there yet, particularly with comments: consider for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uN04D.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seen [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/234007/8563), and obviously suffering from Sore Thumb syndrome. (Running chrome v48 over ubuntu, MathJax 2.6 with local STIX fonts, in case it's needed. It would be good to hear from others whether it displays this badly in other systems.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for that same comment, it appears that Firefox (v41 over Windows 7, MathJax 2.6 using web TEX fonts) produces this horrifying sight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZILfC.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4075" RevisionGUID="e79d76f8-367d-46e6-a6f6-d27af1814f34" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Pure dreck, chosen because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the author didn't know the term for the subject they want to talk about  or&#xD;&#xA;2. [an abominable big-list question][1] that is a poster boy for why those things should be killed with fire on sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no one argues, I will remove the tag and close the list. Now that it has Terry's extensive answer I suppose I shouldn't delete it, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Done. In a couple of days the tag will disappear from the list of tags used by the auto-completion system, and hopefully that will be that. If we want a actual ban we'd have to convince the team that it was needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54392/are-there-still-everyday-phenomena-unexplained-by-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="b88882b0-b214-433b-9889-5848ef95f749" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Oh, FSM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sense the question turns on the same (mis)understanding that leads to ask [why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down): one party views the clock from their own POV, the other promotes the clock to effective personhood and looks from *its* POV. In either case if they would *say what they mean* they could agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, this is why physicist and engineer use &quot;into the wall&quot; and &quot;out of the wall&quot;. The usual clock rotates into the the wall, and the deal in most card games rotates into the table. Alas when you say that in other company people think you are even weirder than is actually the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On reviewing the question I think there are some good answers there, and would not oppose re-opening, but I am among the crowd that feels *&quot;Physicists don't use that term other than casually because we have a more precise vocabulary; it's an English question&quot;*, so I am not going to use my moderator super powers to re-open it either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="7a17e1c5-5066-4c6c-a097-a6a635436619" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's because the [community](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) deleted [one of your questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/175196/2451) with 1 upvote (+5 rep. pts.) and 1 downvote (-2 rep. pts.), leading to a net change of -3 rep. pts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, the question was deleted automatically because it was closed, had no net upvotes, and had not been edited for 9 days prior to the deletion. For more details see [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006). (Hat tip: Emilio Pisanty.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="ce681f37-a596-4e7e-a30e-8efdd055b9c9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] probably has one of the best answers I have received on physics.stackexchange and I think the question itself was clear enough too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator who closed it for being &quot;too localised&quot;, simply says it is because he received a flag. Is that reason enough? Surely flags are just there to get a moderator to look at it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not consider it to be &quot;localised&quot; as it's quite a bog standard Lagrangian free particle problem. Perhaps I am wrong. What about this question is localised?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: question is now open again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39226/lagrangian-dynamics-with-initial-conditions-motion-of-free-particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="1e1c3afa-7ac1-4798-b3d6-60630b520489" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Precisely, they've stopped closing homeworks and our HWs are quite less compared to Math.SE and we've got enough active users (especially me) and actively rushing mods to close those things...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Over there in Math.SE...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I observed math SE is more active than physics SE. They don't close problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you haven't observed it right. In fact, they have [their policy](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1803/70397) which is more or less very [similar to ours](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/11062). They also do expect work from users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Show your work:* You should definitely include any partial work you have done. This will help bolster your claim that you are not just coming here asking other people to do your homework for you, and it will help the answerers to give more clinical responses. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, we will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Math.SE is huge (populated to around 50k users) and over 140k questions (where 14k are homeworks) How good can 8 mods and 400 users (who ***can*** VTC) manage those questions. I mean, how many users are there who wait for someone to post a *discouragable* homework so that they can close it? We also don't know how many users are always interested like mods (for example, in Physics.SE - users who have VTC privileges don't participate in closing questions except some 10 guys). [They have another discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9201/70397) which says that they &lt;s&gt;don't&lt;/s&gt; won't encourage questions which directly restates the problem statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that they support homework questions which ask politely without just *ordering* users to solve the problem. How do they support? They provide a simple **Hint** (which can be seen in bold for HWs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither do they close (I think this is the important point). Mostly all are possibly asking direct questions and the important thing - all are giving *hints*, because they've &quot;They don't provide direct answers&quot;..!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How we differ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think Physics SE should encourage problem solving. Moderator should not close homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've told us that *we should encourage*. But, you didn't say ***How?*** Like, if someone asks *&quot;Tell me this formula, Explain step-by-step&quot;*, etc... then, we shouldn't close it and just do it for him..? Then, this isn't the site for the homework author. The reason for us to close direct HW questions and expect work from users is because we think we should be a barrier to the asker's creative thinking. If we're doing his work, they there's no necessity for institutions to give HWs. We can forget that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you've expressed in your question makes me feel that we're guilty and merciless that we don't reopen it again and downvote it rudely. **NO, WE DO FEEL FOR IT**. If you don't know before, I'll quote the words of Manish: *&quot;The actions of moderators are reversible&quot;* (unless they're user deletions and suspensions). I have seen many question authors (after closing their HW) editing and pinging us and we **have** reopened those. For instance, have a look at [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/47071/11062) and [its revisions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/47071/revisions).  &#xD;&#xA;You can see my VTC &amp; my VTR...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2 more to go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We don't have so many users interested in answering HW questions (for example, we aren't interested to check the answers to HW too i.e. we neither encourage nor discourage the answers) All that we are interested is in conceptual Physics. We often **do** encourage basic questions like https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/58136/11062 Because, In math (no offense), but that is what they all do - **calculation**. Mostly, we keep ourselves out of calculations (as far as I've seen) unless it's an interesting topic (something like this) - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62222/11062&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To the **comparison:** Physics.SE is small, totaling to users around 14k and questions around 20k (where only 2k or so are HWs - 1:7). Because of the diffuse number of uninterested HWs and active VTC users, we're closing HW questions.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="bb7e3198-a237-4fd5-afc6-cf8910284488" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; What peer review style questions are acceptable to ask on Physics SE and what actions, if any, should be taken against unacceptable questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I originally encountered [this question][1] and its accompanying comments (note the question has since been edited), the asker appeared to be making clear the only acceptable answers for the question were ones that would require a full peer review of an older article, a second paper linked in the post, or both. The linked question may have other issues that I do not intend to address with this meta question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally of the belief that there was likely a rule against such a request, I searched the Help Center in vain for something that mentions it. I asked an active user in Physics SE chat for an opinion, and the response suggested ambiguity in the actions that would be appropriate in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question was eventually put on hold as &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot; A [comment][2] by one of the closers states it is because the question should be self-contained, a problem any peer review style question would almost certainly share. A [later comment][3] on the same question states that Physics SE is not a substitute for peer review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will produce some example fictional questions with commentary here to illustrate what I'm asking about and the variety of questions that could elicit varying responses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it seems likely questions of this type will overlap with non-mainstream physics questions, which are deemed inappropriate according to the [Help Center][4]. In these example questions I will assume they are asking about mainstream physics, but it is possibly worth describing how they would be dealt with differently if this is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `I recently encountered [this article] online, is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could be everything from a misunderstanding of the situation to a literal request that we review the article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `I recently encountered [this article] online but I do not fully understand [specific part of article], is it correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question improves upon the previous one by asking about a specific part of the paper, but it's unclear whether or not it is appropriate to expect site members to go through the entire paper to address the concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `I believe [this article] is incorrect because I found [another article] which appears to contradict it. Who is correct?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. `I believe [this article] is incorrect because [outline of reasoning addressing a specific section of the paper]. Am I right?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question could simply be an underlying misunderstanding of the asker, but the asker insists answerers address the specific paper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claims.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. `I recently submitted [a paper] to arXiv and was wondering if the community could comment on my claim about [topic]. Here is a brief overview of it: [long post detailing claim]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what types of questions could be asked, but is merely intended to be a small list of examples illustrating variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the opinion of the community for how peer review questions should be dealt with and why? How should I report the ones deemed inappropriate? Should there be any uniform approach here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513059_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234449/is-planck-s-proof-of-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission-false-and-if-it-is-not#comment513934_234449&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="3592586e-d433-466e-a71c-c22aee4f16a7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. FYI, [OP's question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165545/2451) was deleted by the [Community](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) user following [these](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006) SE rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, [this question of OP](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165924/2451) is not deleted by the same SE rules, since e.g. it has an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="1741df45-e893-4c4a-b32d-744531bc47c2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On March 19 2013 I asked a legitimate question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57378) about the scientific theoretical validity of Quantum Mechanics. This question was backed up with a scientific article, on which the moderator, nor Nobel laureate Prof. ‘t Hooft nor any other physicist was ever able to point out a falseness/error/mistake or whatever incorrectness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that scientists do not appreciate that their knowledge is questioned, but this cannot be used, and is certainly not a scientific argument, to suppress questions that point out possible mistakes in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can omissions in science be eliminate, when scientists do not allow substantiated articles or questions to be published?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="4c6eca99-ee84-47a5-b575-bd9c34db3416" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is like `$\delta$` or `$\Delta$` for capital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation for details .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And  **http://web.ift.uib.no/Teori/KURS/WRK/TeX/symALL.html**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="49ab070f-be52-4485-b2d3-803c84084dd5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69982/variational-derivation-of-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15242/lagrangian-of-schrodinger-field?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55622/how-would-a-lagrangian-be-used-to-recover-the-schrodinger-equation?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="75d7056e-a873-44c8-a60a-82b08f4bf524" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there a way to cite a StackExchange question, in a way similar to arXiv.org for instance ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For arXiv, I can just write **arXiv:1303.6666** for the article at link http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6666 and this is easier. I'm wondering if I can use something like **physics.SE:60738** for the question at link https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60738/ ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Of course, I do not want to cite a SE question inside SE, but outside, on a paper, in a presentation or during a lecture for instance. Sorry for the possible confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RELATED QUESTION: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4191/ Here we wonder if it exist a way to format citation without writing the full link, for instance to cite a question during a lecture or a presentation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="edf468e4-fed9-496b-9ffc-79325044f4a3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This post is in regards to events occurring with the question [Do tachyons move faster than light](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166095/do-tachyons-move-faster-than-light) (see also chat starting [around here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20169987#20169987)), but the question is to be applied to a site-wide policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aforementioned post contained a bad question that was quickly closed as *primarily opinion based*. A set of high-rep users then edited the question to be something entirely different, which was then reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/218183/reviewing-suggested-edits-what-is-an-invalid-incorrect-or-radical-edit) about editing posts, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are all adding/changing the content of the post, the intended meaning of the author. That is not appropriate for an edit. (Unless the post is Community Wiki.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The intent of edits is to allow readers to more effectively understand the authors original intent. They are not there to change the author's intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edits made to the post in question appear to change the intended meaning of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've [discussed radical edits before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/correcting-incorrect-answers) in regards to incorrect answers, in which my answer (highly voted + accepted, though the 2nd answer says the same thing &amp; is also highly-voted) says that such edits that change the intended meaning should not be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Should we change our policy on editing (which, AFAIK, is aligned with the SE network policy cited above), to allow for such radical changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up, if we should keep the existing policy, what should occur to the post in question? Should it be reverted and closed, or should it be left as is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="f41de03c-1997-4b88-af61-84345f69a5a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When a question is asked on the wrong site, it can be migrated to another site via the flagging function. Why is this migration limited to only a few sites? It should rather be a list of all sites to choose between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, from my point of view a specific [question][1] is better off on the Engineering SE site. But I only have the math SE site and the meta site as possibilities for migration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185468/how-can-i-measure-a-length-of-over-4-feet-to-an-accuracy-of-1-100th-of-an-inch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mpH0q.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="973c8fc6-84c6-445d-a896-089f8714fb34" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[You need 2500 reputation][1] to create and vote on tag synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's generally much easier to ping a mod in chat or propose it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175/tag-synonyms-for-voting?rq=1), since nobody really monitors the synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/suggest-tag-synonyms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="690f98a8-2cc6-4009-81f9-87f42eb6bdd9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Has there been a proposed explaination to the observation of wave-particle duality?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/59448)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has been closed as not a real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the posting isn't particularly well formulated, the question itself can be meaningfully answered as various interpretations of quantum mechanics *do* give explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the existing answers and comments lead to the impression that the question is either a philosophical one and thus off-topic, or that existing theories do not provide explanations, both of which I disagree with under the assumption that interpretations of QM are on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I've also written an answer I wanted to post but no longer can ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is my proposal for a re-write that's hopefully less confusing but still captures Outlier's intent and main points:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are there theories that _explain_ wave-particle duality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused by the famous wave-particle duality mystery:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a particle is left unobserved, it acts like a wave and can explore all classically available particle trajectories simultaneously. By looking at it, you force it to decide on a single trajectory, like going through the left or right slit, or like Schrödinger's cat that ends up being either dead or alive; the wave-like characteristics are lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there theories that actually _explain_ this behaviour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Should I go ahead and rewrite the question?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="d3841ba3-d1b7-4135-9f64-4f4b19b220e6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since there are mathematics and mathematical-physics tags, I was convinced that it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a mathematically *rigourous* proof, i.e. a methematically correct, once given the assumptions made in physics on the mathematical objects used in the derivation, such as functions, domains etc. (reaching formulae supported and confirmed by experimental evidence by uncorrect mathematical procedures does not obviously fit the usual definition of *rigourous* that anybody having studied any mathematics is accustomed to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of those two tags, I was also convinced that it is perfectly licit to ask for a mathematical explanation of steps found in mathematical derivations of a certain physical law from given premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions could well be also considered on topic on Mathematics Stackexchange, but I am not sure how much the users of that site may be acquainted with all of the physicist's assumptions made on a certain mathematical object, for ex. any assumption on a current density **J** (apart from the differentiability on a *certain* subset -not necessarily all of the domain where the function is defined-, which I think to be almost universal for any function in physics). On the contrary, I think that the users of this site, if they have already studied the derivation of a certain physical law, are likely to have asked themselves, or to the their Professors, or searched in booktexts for what justifies the equalities they have found when studying the derivation of that law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such questions on topic here? If they are not, what other kind of question should the mathematics tag be used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] question, linked by Qmechanic, whom I thank, is quite related to what I am asking here, but I am focussing on a rather different issue: the &quot;on-topicness&quot; of questions about mathematical proofs involving mathematical objects subjected to assumptions defined by the methods of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would still be inclined to believe so, unless it had happened to me to become the target of insistent comments, accompanied by down/close votes, telling me that it is not clear what I am asking when, for ex., I [ask][2] for a proof whose steps can be mathematically justified (and where the answerer is hopefully willing to explain -as any standard mathematics or mathematical physics book does- to the asker and readers what mathematical results (= theorems, known properties,...) allows such steps when they are not trivial), or when I [ask][3] what mathematical result allows to commute an integral and a derivative sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank any answerer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law-for-tridimensional-current-distri&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235898/a-commutation-between-curl-and-integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="0a5097aa-a81f-4b93-a014-3aaa771cf8f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's a subtlety to the guidelines for editing here that many people (even some aged, veteran users) don't quite pick up on... So I'll try a different approach here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's [a famous interview with Richard Feynman][1], where he was asked the question, &quot;how do two magnets attract or repel each other?&quot; To which he responded,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and then went on to list how he might answer the question *if someone else were asking it.* This is a brilliant response, precisely because it illustrates a consideration that so many educators skip: **understanding the intentions of your student.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic guidelines for editing are listed on [the full edit page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/1/edit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![always respect the original author][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they say *nothing* about the &quot;intended&quot; meaning of the post; you're expected to clarify the meaning, which you can hopefully learn by reading the post... but the only way to know if you've preserved the asker's *intent* is to make the edit and see if he's satisfied with the results. When in doubt, **talk to the author:** a comment paired with the edit expressing *your* intent and requesting feedback on your edit can go a long way toward ensuring that your edits are helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The critical guideline here is ***always* respect the original author:** edit with his best interest in mind, strive to make him look good, **write a question that'll get him the help he needs!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watching some editors debate this reminds me of [an old story][3]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He also who had received the one talent came and said, &quot;Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But his master answered him, &quot;You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Matthew 25:24–30, [World English Bible][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's always *safe* to edit a question in a way that does not change the literal meaning; after all, who can criticize you when you haven't *done anything?* But when you *do* understand the intent, and yet, out of an overabundance of caution, do nothing to alter the meaning even if by doing so you could better reflect the author's intention *and potentially provide a way for him to obtain assistance here*, then you're hardly respecting the author; like the cynical servant or a weary teacher who no longer cares if his students can absorb the information he regurgitates, you've wasted an opportunity and squandered the attention of your audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you edit a question, or when you review the edits of others, ask yourself this question: **does this edit make it more likely that the asker will obtain the information he needs?** The answer you give yourself to this question should provide you with a foundation for any discussion that might follow from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iRPet.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="9dc2ee4d-59ae-4d6a-84da-77041653f7b0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" I am of the impression that we want the questions and answers to be searchable and provide a good reference for physics students and above when using search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exist questions asked by ~15 year old kids and answered by the same age group, and checked as correct within a very short time. [Here][1] is a recent  example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have great sympathy for all these young kids enthusiastic about physics, who should not be discouraged. But the level is sliding downwards, because often checked answers might not be looked at by somebody with more experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the moderators checking the content of checked answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order not to discourage the young I would be willing to add a more sophisticated answer to bring up the level, and have often done it, but these are one off cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think maybe there could be a list of questions, regardless if they are checked or not, for the attention for more senior physicists, as with  &quot;unanswered questions&quot;, example: &quot;new  answers useful&quot;. Then one  could have a look if one could contribute something better, raising the physics sophistication level of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186885/stopping-a-body-travelling-at-the-speed-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="2d42e9b7-11ed-4583-b023-b14400a27f48" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="#NO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About page already states that it is for [Physics and Astronomy Questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/about) and also have a tag `Astronomy`. So, no need to change the logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics must remain Physics, Just **Physics**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4343" RevisionGUID="eb33a7ba-28bf-4779-b432-f64b4e874cc9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As regards free-body diagrams and the like, I think users will be better off with a client-based simulator as the range of possible requirements is probably too broad for a web-based tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23676/8563) has good links to physics simulators. I have used Algodoo and it seems to work well (plus, it's free).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="077f1400-4716-480b-8b4b-3cf29e824714" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48016/how-exactly-do-superstrings-reduce-the-number-of-dimensions-in-bosonic-string-th  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10075/compactification-of-dimensions?rq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38722/limit-on-space-time-dimension-from-susy?rq=1     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="67cd0096-c3e8-4406-be25-add1d66a4efe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I asked a question on physics stack exchange. It was closed with a reference to [faq guidelines][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the question that was closed: [Maximum period of a vertically spinning ball][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that while this was not a &quot;homework&quot; question, I can understand that it is classified as a homework question according to the faq referenced above. The wisdom of applying &quot;homework&quot; tag to my question is still mysterious to me since the definition of that tag is so general that it can be applied to almost any question that asks for application of general concepts to a particular problem. But that's not the issue that I want addressed. Let's assume that it is indeed a &quot;homework&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue that I want to address is **(1) how this question is inconsistent with the [faq guidelines][1]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do not find any inconsistencies with the guidelines myself, I have to assume that such inconsistency does exist since it was closed. If that inconsistency can be pointed, I'd also appreciate a pointer or two on **(2) how to ask an &quot;acceptable&quot; question that qualifies as &quot;homework&quot; under the guidelines.** By &quot;acceptable&quot; I mean a question that won't be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239661/maximum-period-of-a-vertically-spinning-ball" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="464f6f53-af93-40e7-9189-28679cc8638e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="How can I constructively dispute a declined flag, if I think that my flag was really legitimate and should not have been declined? I am interested to know what can be done generally in this case, but I would like to resolve the issues that concretely instigated some of my recent flags which were declined and therefore lead to my meta question, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/6600/2751) &quot;answer&quot; does&#xD;&#xA;   not even try to answer the question asked, but tries in a very&#xD;&#xA;   confrontational manner to start a nonconstructive discussion. The OP&#xD;&#xA;   of this answer states in a very subjective manner his general&#xD;&#xA;   negative opinion about the physics subject of the question instead of&#xD;&#xA;   answering the question. It is not an answer and should at most have&#xD;&#xA;   been a comment, but I think such nonconstuctive off topic comments&#xD;&#xA;   should not be allowed here either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6086/2751) the same user&#xD;&#xA;   tries to advertise his own personal non mainstream theory which says&#xD;&#xA;   general relativity is wrong etc, without being really interested in&#xD;&#xA;   an answer the knowledgable people here could give him. So this&#xD;&#xA;   question is first of all off topic, since physics SE deals only with&#xD;&#xA;   mainstream physics and NOT with personal fringe theories of users,&#xD;&#xA;   and it is not a real question,&#xD;&#xA; - ... ,as can be see from the fact that the OP only accepted his own&#xD;&#xA;   wrong [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/6383/2751) which&#xD;&#xA;   advertises his personal theory further and denies and dismisses all&#xD;&#xA;   of the physics arguments people have given him in the other answers&#xD;&#xA;   taking advantage of mainstream physics. Having such a bad and wrong&#xD;&#xA;   accepted (!) answer on a question that is off topic and not a real&#xD;&#xA;   question does make Physics SE looking not good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="e12812bc-3d99-4177-bdfa-52adfb559b7d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not gonna happen. &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* difficult to categorize questions &#xD;&#xA;* questions that span disciplines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use the [Favorite and Ignored tags][1] mechanism, and view the [front page][2] rather than the [questions page][3] because the front page is weighted by your favorite tags (or by your [frequented tags][4] if you haven't specified your favorites)&#xD;&#xA;* Use [tag subscriptions][5] or the  [RSS feeds][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [Search by tag][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19173/what-do-favorite-tags-and-ignored-tags-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/108224/documentation-for-frequented-tags-feature&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/tag-favorites-and-tag-subscriptions/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="eb6fe41f-0084-46e7-b6b0-cf20fc4e32e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [at the time of closure](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/7) contains a lot of fluff which makes it an easy target for the gray area around the homework policy. The question in its [current form](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/239661/9) is far from excellent but it passes the test as it explicitly asks a conceptual question; I have voted to reopen it and hopefully others will agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that your edit invalidates much of the existing answer, which is a big sign that the question was ill-posed to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your general point - the guidelines are not inconsistent, but they do include a significant amount of value judgement which, when applied incorrectly, is resolved exactly as you have - by posting here on meta. There is a long-standing effort to reduce this ambiguity but that is a hard problem; the latest bout is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy). If you have any constructive suggestions we'll be glad to hear them out - just be aware that this is a long and [storied](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) problem, and you do need to understand both what the problem is, what the previous solutions have been, and what their pitfalls were, to have a real chance at proposing something that will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="f78f3221-45b9-4505-bf54-c822c5443d84" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Please reopen the following question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190222/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, @DavidBarMoshe has something to say, and I would be interested in listening to that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do consider that rules are only meant as guidelines to benefit the community, hence the interest of the community must be taken into due weight, rather than a literal interpretation of the rules in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="c9761211-2918-4386-b74e-80140729764f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/179002/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question and [the answer is not at all obvious][1]. I assume it was downvoted just because it's a duplicate, but is this really appropriate? Downvoting can be used to make questions disappear from the home page, and also to deter people from answering, but neither of those reasons apply in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re Danu's answer: I mention this question because it's the one that caught my eye most recently, but it seems to me I see an increasing trend of downvoting questions that I don't think deserve it. It also seems to me that once a question has attracted the first downvote a slew of bandwagon downvotes rapidly follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a question, more a rant, so it doesn't really have an answer. But while I'm here ranting let me urge site members to consider whether their downvote will actually achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/174983/1325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="250df068-0c68-4371-9d97-f94d244a766c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wrote an answer to a question about temperature and dimensional analysis. I am skeptical about the motivations. I cannot see at the moment if it was not just a random downvote by someone having fun. However, if I have overlooked something an broken some vital law it would get appreciated if someone with a good eye for thermo could point that out to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is just because someone does not like the style of answer I can live with that. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to answer below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45785/dimensional-analysis/63324#63324&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: and another one... Unexplained. Must be a gift!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28212/how-is-the-dynamic-equilibrium-nature-of-fermi-dirac-distribution-of-particles-f/63724#63724&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="b641ab39-c7d6-4a7d-a9a4-0911ad1da81d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You start with [the section in the FAQ on symbols and notation][1], and then search the web for [help with LaTeX's mathmode symbols][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can find a post that *has* the symbol you're looking for and use the &quot;edit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;button to get a look at the source ans see what they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#notation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=LaTeX%20math%20symbols" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="5a61be2a-f5eb-42db-b6ac-b92986b15c39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65238/black-hole-and-photons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28297/why-is-a-black-hole-black &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41930/if-nothing-in-the-universe-can-travel-faster-than-light-how-come-light-cant-es?lq=1   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't find more but I'm fairly certain they're there.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="1ead77c0-0306-4722-ac53-7233fa00cbdb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The new imgur-based image dropper is not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image URL works (https://i.stack.imgur.com/6tI9Q.jpg), but the embedded link does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See my post: [Advantages of a deadblow hammer?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191324/advantages-of-a-deadblow-hammer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="ba333f62-8cec-41e9-80e9-570cced58d52" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has been asked [multiple][1] [times][2] on the main meta. In this case I'll just copy [my answer][3] over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If its just a bit of more info (read:a paragraph), add it and leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - If it's a completely new bundle of stuff, but is based on stuff gleaned from the answer, write an addendum answer as described above.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hat it with &quot;This is in addition to @JonSkeet's answer&quot;. You may also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment on the original answer and ask the poster to incorporate your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer if s/he wishes--and then delete your answer once the deal is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; done ([Something smilar could have happened here][1], though it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; didn't).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22303/factors-affecting-torque-and-rpm-of-a-motor/22317#22317&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23197/how-can-one-imagine-curled-up-dimensions/23205#23205&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22125/penetration-versus-frequency/22134#22134&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23824/will-an-emf-be-induced-across-the-ends-of-a-stationary-metal-rod-placed-in-a-tim/23895#23895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of wrong answers (or parts of answers), leave a comment. Try not to make radical changes in edits -- you can tell the OP in a comment to make them himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28817/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/129513/edit-an-existing-answer-or-incorporate-existing-answer-into-a-new-one&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/129515/178438&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="64bfed01-b089-4be4-a9ce-3f64a2cc9930" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me draw your attention to the first sentence of [the &quot;About&quot; page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of the site is defined as being interesting to serious students of the discipline,and has been that way since its inception on Area51. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This level of professionalism is similar to that maintained at Stack Overflow for programming, and they don't have any problems with scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, many people feel that the current state is *too* permissive of basic questions. I can promise you that most of these people are not interested in thrashing over the basics again and again. Indeed, many of us do some (or a lot) of that in our &quot;real&quot; life. I, personally, would not be interested in participating in the site you envision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, Physics is the third or fourth largest and most active Stack Exchange site in the &quot;Science&quot; group (including Math.SE) and growing steadily. We regularly feature in the network wide &quot;hot questions&quot; tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="3b62cc3a-144d-422f-8e4b-ab16c8d4a00c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question, along with the twin paradox one and the first in the series, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction are intended as canonical questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where we get lots of questions on the same topic it's nice to have a definitive answer that we can point people to. But that definitive answer is necessarily rather lengthy because it has to cover lots of details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether canonical questions are a good idea was discussed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers and the general conclusion seemed to be that they were. In the absence of other guidance I decided to write some canonical Q/As on subjects I was particularly interested in and hope that others found them interesting as well. So far the number of upvotes suggests that the questions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="8a594693-f883-4732-b387-b74d187cebe3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at your [reputation history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30877/quant?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) then 51 p comes from 100 p association bonus minus 50 p bounty plus 1 initial p, which do not count as points earned on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So effectively you have earned 60 p - 51 p = 9 p on Phys.SE. So it seems that you indeed were blocked by the 10 p protection. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5424/2451) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6591/2451) related meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="c15d8efd-c597-46c2-9a9f-b73233841b53" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you have time to waste, you may want to read [this guide I wrote to helping moderate the site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you already are commenting/flagging things and going to /review, then you probably have that covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to try editing posts to improve grammar/formatting as well (I think you already do this too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the best thing to do is look for more questions to answer (or ask some good ones yourself!). Sometimes, scouring through [the back end unanswered section sorted by votes][2] helps; there are many good questions that got neglected by accident there in the later pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're also welcome to participate in [chat][3]. This doesn't help the site, but it's fun :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2920/community-help-us-moderate-the-site&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?page=47&amp;tab=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4178" RevisionGUID="22dc4b67-f020-47c5-a0c1-bacae823e78e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't really see what you mean here. (Assuming you're talking about https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60150/is-the-spectral-pattern-for-hydrogen-related-to-how-the-sun-bends-or-gravitation#question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting the [FAQ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is probably not appropriate at this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this site, we ask and answer questions about established physics. &quot;According to X theory, how does Y work?&quot; is OK. &quot;I have theory X, is it correct?&quot; is not OK. We don't _do_ research here; we only give information on established physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is more or less of that form (this is made clearer by seeing the comments) where you have a theory and you want the site to expand/validate it. That's not what Physics.SE is for :s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="2c709d56-4ece-4957-b925-3a3c0db91e08" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a minor quibble but since the site's CSS is in review I thought I'd bring it up. I just found out, via [this MSE answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/79754/184688), that if you ask a question and then comment on the answers below it, your username gets a slight background shading. I was surprised to hear this since in three years of using the site I'd never seen anything like it but if you look closely it is indeed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, for example, at an example from [this post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197491/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7EqUY.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shading is so slight it's essentially useless. Maybe trim the CSS to give it a bit more contrast? Otherwise just turn it off, there's not much point in having invisible features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while we're at this, I thought I'd open up the floor: are there other much-too-subtle changes in colouring which you think should get a fortifier on the CSS overhaul?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="0dee34cb-a057-479e-838f-da961b241d81" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yesterday I asked a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/243740) which was based on a conceptual confusion, as was revealed by the excellent answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It made me think that it would be nice if that fact was visible straight away for anyone coming to the page. There would be a second line of tags, relating to the nature of the question, and in my case one could see in that line the tag &quot;misconception&quot; (that I would have added after having read the answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tags that come to mind would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;technical&quot; for the discussion of a technical point&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;perspective&quot; for open questions such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242814&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;common-misconception&quot; for questions such as the ones listed &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6063/109928&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;reference&quot; for well-posed questions with good answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;canonical&quot; for even better-posed questions with even better answers&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;speculative&quot; for questions found to be not quite in line with mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;basic&quot;, &quot;conceptual&quot;, &quot;experimental&quot;, &quot;thought-experiment&quot;, &quot;factual&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having such a set of tags would make the site even more useful. For example I would love to browse the &quot;experimental&quot; collection in &quot;quantum-mechanics&quot;, or the &quot;reference&quot; one in &quot;electromagnetism&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respectively, coming to a page and be able to see right away that the question is a &quot;misconception&quot; puts you in the right mindset for better understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now who would be allowed to set those tags? Probably the OP (although I can easily see how the OP would find very tempting to remove a not too glorious tag), the author of an accepted or upvoted answer, and also anyone with a large enough reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell this proposal would give a qualitative dimension to the question metric currently based on votes that would also take the answers into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="a189d44e-560e-4d17-bd9d-5a3be44d6073" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The &quot;favorite&quot; feature is one that you can (ab)use as much as you want without any problems. When you favorite a question, you get updates delivered to the [favorites tab on your profile.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quora has a nice &quot;save draft&quot; feature, which adds the question to an &quot;unanswered questions&quot; tab. I'd be happy if that were implemented, though I don't see that happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [this has been proposed before][2]. It's not [meta-tag:status-declined], so not officially declined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/16660/wouter?tab=favorites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4719/add-answer-later-tab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="82f54ed9-ac80-4dde-958f-1399814171a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I haven't enough experience on Stack to have formed a view about down-voting in general, but as personal testimony I was really put off Stack for quite a while - I've only just returned today - by a down-voting event I was at the receiving end of. I will obviously link to the question I had asked at the bottom, and for that reason I won't give details that are available there, and will assume anyone taking an interest in my answer will obviously want to check my account by looking at the question itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was I asked a question that was commented on by a user with significant reputation effectively dismissing the question. The user had already been given a significant ++points for his comment, and my question and been down-voted and stood at -1. When I returned, I pointed out that I was literally quoting (well, paraphrasing) a very senior cosmologist and provided the YouTube link. I also pointed out that my question actually supposed what the cosmologist said had to be false and gave my reasons. So even without clarifying, just in the question itself, there were no grounds at all for being dismissed. This matter got sorted out in the question/answer process, in that the answers all confirmed the cosmologist's position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that was fine. But my negative down-vote was not corrected - even back to 0. Nor were the generous number of points awarded the initial commenter who got it totally wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I felt like this totally invaded and violated my integrity. OK I'm just making that up tee hee.....if an isolated event it's doesn't really matter I can see that. But the reason I suspect it isn't, is because that kind of patter, I would imagine, corresponds to one aspect of the negative dimension to any kind of social reputation system. Which o the whole is obviously a great idea and even if it wasn't, it's just a reality for humans anyway. But there are down-sides that should be well understood and taken serious so as to minimize their effects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is over-trusting people with higher reputation. Not a problem for beginners and casuals...but becomes a potential problem for more senior people, such as those with moderating rights in context of StackExchange, if they have the power to down-vote beginner questions based on high-value users if they comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is - and this is relevant to the question above - a kind of statistical tendency for people to play it too safe. Reason being there's a lot of cranks and agendas out there, that aren't really very scientific at basis. So there's a need to keep StackExchange scientific in line with its goals, and that tends to make it necessary to quote consensus positions only. And this then tends to intersect with the reputation system with the result the basis of reputation, the higher up you go, becomes all the more squeezed into very conservative non-risk taking positions. Which leaves a lot of questions unanswered or answered in a way that implicitly rewrites the question to exclude components that speculate beyond what is safe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to really emphasise here, that in hindsight I think leaving stack for weeks over this was an over-reaction. I think the system is really fabulous and I haven't observed a single incident involving a moderator or anyone else that can reasonably be called 'badly motivated' Everyone wants to teach and learn and share and that's terrific. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for that reason I want to conclude by suggestion a solution based on the above personal experience - which may be biased and probably is so please go look - and personal thoughts about 'reputation' which may be wrong and probably is. Furthermore my solutions, for all I know are already in place, in which case....whatever! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is for three new workflow components. Both of these changes assume the good-will and best intentions of moderators and others, which I've observed. It's still down to their personal judgement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Alter the Stack-exchange application, such that a 'down-vote' action is changed from a simple control event, into a process that begins with the down-voting event, and completes a few days later when the task shows up on the same person's 'to-do' list, to simply review the decision based on subsequent events if any. At that point they can either confirm the down-vote, mark it for second-opinion, reverse the decision, change it, whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Have a new status for questions that defaults to something like &quot;answerable within consensus&quot;, but other statuses like &quot;speculative/risky&quot; and then &quot;tagged for deletion&quot;. Include an explanation about the reality of the world being full of non-scientific explanations and agendas and the need for stack-exchange to maintain scientific integrity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. add a new status to individual comments/answers that corresponds to the status of the question at the time. So in other words, it becomes possible to give a risky answer to a risky question. It's still going to be more risky than answering within consensus, and there are good reasons why it should be. But it will allow people to take measured risks...in the knowledge that anyone judging will have sight of the context that the question itself was risky. It's still down to personal judgement, how risky is reasonable, and how much is too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concluding remarks&#xD;&#xA;I think changes like this will have a small but compounding effect. Over time and over many many events and people, the impact will continue to grow and eventually it will become dramatic/striking. This is because it directly mitigates the down-side of reputation without diluting reputation. And reputation is fundamental to human society, so the impacts are larger over larger intervals. Thank you for reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The promised link: &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170937/why-are-orbits-around-black-holes-stable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="cdcf2230-0f33-4ccd-b94d-a210843fcbc8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary/10654#10654   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Many others I can't find. &#xD;&#xA;   &lt;!---I remember there was a question like &quot;Is this explanation fo 9 spatial dimensions in string theory correct?&quot; or something like that (*Found*).  ---&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="a7905c1b-e088-4f9b-b04d-2c4ba94b50d5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While I disagree with the specific implementation, I think userØØ7's idea does have something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can we have the page respond to users entering the [tag:homework] tag by showing a short homework FAQ and links to the canonical meta question?** I would like to have new users confronted to [the homework section of the FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) and the [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563) meta question as soon as there is any indication that this is a low-level homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###Update&#xD;&#xA;The proposal below has been posted as a separate feature request [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4357/8563), and has was implemented shortly afterwards. The current sidebar looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjMz.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be good to have links to this on the `How to Ask` sidebar that appears when the cursor is on the question title box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a line like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not all homework questions are allowed. Please [see the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/8563).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the `How to Ask` sidebar, at least for new users, may help stem the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I'm quite certain we have some access to the sidebar. Cooking.se, for example, has a line like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x0NBB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ea2rf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="0f10da0a-e742-4724-97f6-2fe1282b8ba3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The context is the following post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hooke's Law and Bungee Jumping](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200111/hookes-law-and-bungee-jumping)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the revision history can be viewed [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/revisions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see from the revision history, the post owner himself/herself vandalized the post, removing the entire content, and replacing it with a stream of &quot;aaaaaa...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, [this edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/93456) was suggested by another user, which merely reverted to an earlier version of the question. I was one of the two people who reviewed this, and instinctively, went for the approve button (as did the other reviewer), since the edit was setting right, what was messed up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, thinking about it afterwards, this edit was _clearly in conflict with the OP's intentions_, which were, ummm... _deliberately destructive_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises two questions - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Does being the post owner entitle you to self-destruct your posts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the event of suggested edits like these, as a reviewer, am I supposed to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Approve it, because it cures self-vandalism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Reject it, because it conflicts with the OP's intentions?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="b5a5cac1-b876-4c31-bd1b-9ee742130f18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's [perfectly fine to do so](https://physics.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/self-answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you have a question that you already know the answer to, and you would like to document that knowledge in public so that others (including yourself) can find it later, it's perfectly okay to ask and answer your own question on a Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact you can post a question and its answer all at once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/05/encyclopedia-stack-exchange/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/henRC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="a1b5ac6f-635c-49a5-891f-4967c3b58442" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It basically means that non mods disagreed on the flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it [was marked as &quot;looks good&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/21044) in the review queue. Which seems correct to me because it's not deletable and can be improved (VLQ is for non salvageable stuff)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="85b3bd09-c34b-40cc-9f39-6d8cffd3c9e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**No, we should not introduce such meta-tags.** If you are not convinced of the general uselessness of meta-tags, let me address your proposals specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;technical&quot; is hopelessly subjective. What's technical to one user is pretty straightforward and easy to see to another. This is already apparent in the non-meta tag [mathematical-physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics), which is often misused for questions that just include math, and would only get worse with such a pure meta tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;perspective&quot;...what makes a question &quot;open&quot;? Is a question &quot;open&quot; simply because it is vague and imprecise? Should questions not be *edited and clarified* instead of staying vague? This tag sounds like another variant of the already existing [soft-question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question), which is already a [pretty bad tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7551/50583).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have already rejected the misconception tag [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7542/50583). As for &quot;common&quot;, who decides what is &quot;common&quot;? Does it suffice if the misconception is common among non-physicists (we are supposedly a site primarily for physicists, after all)? Do &quot;misconceptions&quot; count that are really more [lies-to-children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children)? What would a question *gain* from being tagged as being about a misconception?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The idea of tagging &quot;well-posed questions and answers&quot; with special tags serves no purpose because there already is a mechanism in place to promote well-posed questions and well-written answers: Voting. Good content is highly upvoted, bad content is downvoted. If you see a need to tag questions with regard to their quality because the votes are not a good indicator of quality, then I would rather say [we need to change our voting behaviour](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) (I wrote that almost a year ago, but I would not say the situation has changed), not introduce tags for quality, as that would just lead to needless drama over who has the power to add or remove those tags and which questions should receive them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Non-mainstream questions get [closed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/50583), not tagged as &quot;speculative&quot;. Speculative question without firm grounding in physics also get closed as *too broad* or *primarily opinion-based*, I don't see many questions that can be on-topic that would deserve this tag, or of what use it would be to tag them such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;basic&quot; is again as subjective as &quot;technical&quot;, [every question should be &quot;conceptual&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583), we already have an [experimental-physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/experimental-physics) tag (which is fine as it actually tells you something about the topic opf the question), there is already a [thought-experiment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/thought-experiment) tag and its content looks rather random to me and not deserving of a common tag, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="431c85c1-1cda-4027-af26-0314a753eefe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen questions about how to study physics or how physics should be taught being dealt with in a variety of ways. Some get downvoted, some get closed by moderators while others are even answered by moderators. Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19852/16660&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5508/16660&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/20619/16660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, and no doubt to new users, this is confusing and I think it might hold people back from asking a particular question. As a matter of fact, this meta question was inspired by exactly such an experience: I was thinking about the course on non-linear dynamics I took this semester and how insightful it was. It got me wondering why we spend so much time in our physics curriculum linearizing everything and then hoping to capture the interesting non-linear physics through methods like perturbation theory. Non-linear dynamics should - in my opinion - at least be touched on at the Bachelor level (no idea what that level is called in countries like the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was on the verge of asking a question on this subject, probing for reasons why linearity is made so important in physics education, while there is no objective reason for nature to behave that way and indeed it rarely does (well I know one reason: we can solve linear problems analytically, non-linear problems are usually too difficult mathematically). But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that it can be hard to distinguish between an acceptable question that cannot have a truly objective answer and a question that is just effectively pointless. It's a fine line to tread. One way to solve the problem is not to tread the line at all and steer away from all such questions. Another way is to define more clearly what *is* allowed and what *isn't*. The [FAQ][1] section does a good job of this already, but it's arguable that these guidelines are not follow strictly (see the examples above). So perhaps more clarity is needed and that's why I've created this question. I'm sorry for the long intro, but here's the summary of it all: precisely what is the difference between a good [tag:education] question and a bad one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently some questions have also been migrated to the academia beta, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8586&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly do we draw the line between their territory and ours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After considering the answer by Larry Harson and the comments by David Zaslavsky and Manishearth, I have slightly adjusted my thoughts on the subject. (I apologize for making this question even longer, but I think it's necessary to include my own thoughts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think questions asking for **book recommendations** or methods for **studying** physics should probably be discouraged *here*. In general, questions specific to one person/situation are already discouraged as &quot;not constructive&quot; so that's consistent. There are other places to ask those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a platform *should* exist for questions on how physics should (not) be **taught**. Whether or not that platform is Physics.SE remains a tough question to answer in general, but I think most of those questions *are* on topic. They are definitely questions that need to be asked, because the way physics is taught greatly affects both the amount of people that get interested in physics *and* the level of understanding that the physicists of tomorrow have. In a very significant way, it defines the direction we take in our investigation of the physical world. So for that reason, I certainly don't think we can disallow those questions in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, (the most important) questions about how physics should be taught would probably spark debates, which is a good thing by itself but unfitting of this site's format. Therefore, the acceptable questions are probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **not purely hypothetical**: &quot;should&quot;-questions like &quot;Should we do B?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - but instead **argumentably comparative**: &quot;why&quot;-questions like &quot;Why is A preferred over B?&quot;. (not &quot;Why *don't* we do B?&quot; since that's just a hypothetical question in disguise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are still intermediary cases with questions like &quot;Is it realistic/useful to teach some elementary quantum mechanics at the high-school level?&quot;. This *can* be answered with some level of objectivity by teachers, but it doesn't really have a 'right' answer. Then again, the &quot;why&quot;-questions I mentioned earlier don't *necessarily* have one either, they're just (slightly?) less subjective than the &quot;should&quot;-questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is a clear and consistent distinction between good and bad [tag:education] questions even possible? And if my above assessment constitutes a reasonable distinction, what to do with the intermediary cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="d2f9537c-279b-40e1-860f-b2760fab4d93" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see that there are many links in comments that don't have link text, therefore hard for me to know if the link is worth to click. For example, this link: [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are hesitate to click on that, right? You are feeling to wasting time if you click on that, aren't you? So, if possible, please consider to add the title of the link in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this userscript to shorten the time and effort to do that: [Convert share links to markdown \[title\](url)](https://stackapps.com/q/4905/29559) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47581/entropy-and-the-principle-of-least-action#comment470700_47581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="9fc620f1-ed2b-45ec-a607-4b562f18d07f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Asking for close-reasons in comments is of course totally fine. And moderators and other Phys.SE users try to leave comments whenever the standard close-reason banner is insufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do keep in mind that moderators and other Phys.SE users are not paid, and it might be difficult to serve everyone in a timely fashion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that scope and close-reasons are further explained on [help pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and various [Phys.SE meta posts](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can try to ask for clarification in the [h-bar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (requires 20+ reputation points).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the above didn't work, you can also post a new meta question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="aed5f283-115c-43a2-84b4-2db76f09b72f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you have a gold badge in a tag then you can immediately close as a duplicate any question that has that tag. So for example I have a gold badge in [general-relativity] and [newtonian-mechanics] and *should* be able to close as duplicates any questions tagged with these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I just VTC'd as duplicate the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200346/what-would-be-gravity-in-one-spatial-dimension and it didn't close. The question has the [general-relativity] tag, but it was added (before my VTC) by Qmechanic, so the question wasn't originally tagged with [general-relativity].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recently VTC'd as duplicate the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/200330/ and it did immediately close even though it has neither the [tag:general-relativity] nor [tag:newtonian-mechanics] tags. However I note that it did originally have the [tag:newtonian-mechanics] tag but this was removed (before my VTC) by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks to me as if the immediate close as duplicate code looks at the tags the question originally had, and not any changes made after the question was posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this is just to stop me randomly closing any question by editing the tags before voting to close :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="d1f5011b-1ed1-4a7e-979e-0c9f261141e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The key sentence in what you wrote is: &quot;But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So those education questions that have a realistic chance of being answered objectively should be allowed, meaning people can investigate the correctness of an answer independent of the view of the person who gave the answer in the first place. Using your example, an acceptable question would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the motives behind the teaching of linear physical models as opposed to non-linear ones?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People can then up-vote the answers given by actual teachers who can give their motives, and down-vote those who haven't a clue why, but love to see their ignorant opinion on screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the questions under the [education][1] tag to get an idea of how to ask successfully here, such as mine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can electromagnetic momentum be introduced at pre-university level as for electromagnetic energy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/education" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="8bbb64ff-be0d-4965-84b2-5a3d02db1bbf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76665/quantum-entanglement-and-causality and its multiple duplicates. We should choose a canonical question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="a02df5c6-09bd-4fe8-8d0a-6ab3b9b64c0e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I took a quick peek at the newest '[soft-question][1]' questions when I noticed something particularly disturbing, most of them are marked either as [closed] or [duplicate].  There were so many that I thought it worth the while to bring it to mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking through the first 10 pages of the 'soft-question' tag to get a feel of what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="5960c64c-26c4-4f24-a67e-194ac30e116b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [original phys.SE thread](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/200680/2451) still exists for some overlap period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the migration is successful, the original physics thread will eventually be deleted, with corresponding changes in the Phys.SE reputation for the users involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the migration is rejected, the original physics thread will remain, thereby keeping its Phys.SE reputation scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, the migration will likely be rejected by Math.SE due to multiple duplicates. It will then turn into a closed thread on Phys.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="69640467-a67b-4ddc-b71e-ae553165b5c8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have noticed some &quot;non-mainstream&quot; (it may be rude to say crackpot) questions and answers recently such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68508/mass-term-in-the-minkowski-metric-and-an-oscillation-model-in-lorentz-group&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68503/help-me-test-and-prove-this-theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16227/what-is-the-kinematics-of-a-particle-with-complex-mass/18678#18678&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18645/plausible-explanations-for-3-local-space-dimensions/18666#18666&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17939/what-if-we-could-give-photons-some-mass/18676#18676&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1869/what-reasons-are-there-to-suspect-string-theory-may-be-an-incorrect-theory/16655#16655 (an instance of calling rather mainstream theory, string theory as fringe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results/26909#26909&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I am flagging these as &quot;spam&quot; because they are pretty much like advertisements but isn't it better to have a more specific flag associated with these, like &quot;Non-mainstream&quot;? Since &quot;Spam&quot; usually refers to answers like &quot;me too! I would like to thank so and so website for leading me here&quot; or &quot;me too! So and so company can help you!&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, has this &quot;Non-mainstream&quot; -flag been proposed before? And what are your thoughts about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="b8c05d6c-8dc6-4460-87f4-81105c892920" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Everyone who can downvote (125 rep) [certainly can flag posts][1] (15 rep).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spam flags are accompanied by a free automatic downvote (which is different from the downvote one can choose to apply).  Closing works similarly, certain close reasons (off topic and NARQ if memory serves me right) carry an automatic -1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with a certain negative score (or 3 spam flags) disappear from the main page. That's all that is really important -- an invisible spam post is harmless and can be deleted at leisure. Note that as a 10k user you can still find unhandled spam posts (and other flags) [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/flag-posts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/flagged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="a2af9e04-5d6e-4e80-9210-2d78e3624a6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Okay, so I've flagged two questions now that I felt were off-topic but none of the reasons we have in the list fit. We need to expand the list some... In both cases, the question was not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homework&#xD;&#xA; - About math&#xD;&#xA; - Outside the mainstream&#xD;&#xA; - Belonged on another SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, none of the reasons fit. But none of the other options fit either because it was very clear what was being asked, this just wasn't the correct place for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69347/isnt-this-wikipedia-equation-of-navier-stokes-actually-wrong &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was clear, but not something that could be answered really on our network or anywhere else in SE, it was up to Wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69738/which-alloys-hold-up-under-extreme-high-temperature-best&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is primarily an engineering question (except the last question posed as I said in my comment). So it's clear, not homework, not math, definitely mainstream, not overly broad, but it doesn't belong on another SE site (engineering.SE doesn't exist yet). So I'm left stumped for what to flag it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we need a normal, plain old &quot;Off-topic because it doesn't fit in the scope of the site&quot; still. We can't come up with every edge case for questions that don't meet the other criteria so we still need something to default to, some kind of &quot;Other...&quot; option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="4341506c-e3ca-4803-9bfe-a3158654d926" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [Book recommendations](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) is a historical artifact, from days before recommendation questions were banned (and later on re-allowed), and it is really an experiment that did not work. It really serves no purpose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you want to browse the book recommendation questions on this site, you can [look directly at the tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations).&#xD;&#xA; - If you want to look for book recommendation questions about a specific topic, you can [search for questions with the tag, using the syntax [resource-recommendations], and whatever keywords you want](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those enable many more features than just a static text list, both in terms of sorting (newest / frequent / active / votes / relevance to search terms) and in terms of further search within those lists. The site also has a lot of [advanced search options](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) that can help you dig deeper into those results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only element that the overarching [Book recommendations](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations) question offers is curation: some form of guarantee that the questions will be good and represent our top-of-the-line selection. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We already have a system for sorting the good posts from the bad posts: it's called voting. This is why you can sort search results by their scores.&#xD;&#xA; - Curation requires an active curator: that is, for an overarching book-recommendations question to actually work, it requires a group of people to actively dedicate their time to maintain it. So far, there is a small number of people who have kept the *tag* itself in good repair, and none of them have shown any interest in maintaining that question. If that changes, then we could bring it up again, but until it does I don't see the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you envisioning further functionality than what I addressed above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing you seem to be proposing is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not really something that has worked well in our format. We deal well in specifics, but categories like &quot;video lectures on physics&quot; are much broader than what we can address here. We do have a bunch of [tag:resource-recommendations] questions [specifically asking for video lectures](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bresource-recommendations%5D+video), and each of those is more specific and therefore works. If you want an overarching list of the content we do have, use that search; if you want content added to the site, ask a (suitably specific) question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suffers from the same problem pointed out above. Recruiting users for this sort of effort has in general proved very hard. If you can show that there's a sizable population of people willing to invest the time into this, then that's a different story - but you need to show it first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="9015563a-89e6-4046-add8-c8e63dd38ffd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/239433/70842), which I suspect is getting downvotes because I have a bunch of karma from it but it only has a score of 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter leads me to believe people find the answer unsatisfactory because they are mixing up the result of Bell's Inequality with the concept of measurement resolution.  If this is true, I may as well set the record straight with a detailed edit.  If I'm not getting that many downvotes, I'll just make a quick reply comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone with enough rep please tell me how many downvotes I have on that answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="3bace21f-60e3-47fa-8103-213f7d3d7fac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I answered a certain question correctly on ***p-n-p transistors and doping*** in [**Phys.SE**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) and the answer was accepted and voted up. I got +25 reputation for that. Today I came to know that the question has been migrated to [**Electrical Engineering.SE**](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/) community. Side by side, I have lost 25 reputation for no valid reason. Are the events interlinked? Can the reputation be somehow gained back or is it lost forever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="96e1d3f0-b2af-4e51-8576-7360255e596e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ah, this seems to be a preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to [your preferences page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tick the &quot;hide ignored posts&quot; checkbox  near the bottom:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this hides _all_ posts tagged &quot;homework&quot;, even if they are tagged with your favorited tags. Probably desired behavior in this case :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/current&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UfNGH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="72f97b3b-6cd2-440d-8ba4-1687510b06b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is the ***[BETA][1]*** badge which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Actively participated in the private beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is &quot;active&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/16/beta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="aad8e105-4f2b-42ae-ba4b-fd9eccaa7c37" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If all voting activity so far happened within the same day (as here), it's easiest &#xD;&#xA;to go to your [reputation tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=reputation), group the events by post, and expand the post of interest. The upvotes and downvotes are listed there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, one needs a userscript or a bookmarklet. There is a popular userscript [“View Vote totals” without 1000 rep](https://stackapps.com/q/3082) for this purpose. I tend to use my own bookmarklet [vote split](http://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/#split) instead; this is how I see +8 -5 split without having 1000 rep here. (To use, drag the bold link from that page to your browser bar; then navigate to the post and click the bookmarklet.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="acae7fd9-088c-46f8-861e-0b1eec50939c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**May 21st 2013:** So far less than 20 questions have be tagged [tag:popular-science]. It seems that the [popular-science tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/popular-science) has mostly been non-systematically attached to questions, where either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. OP explicitly asked for a simplified layman explanation, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. OP's question was spurred after reading/watching a pop-sci source of information (i.e.  different from a physics textbook or  physics journal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update July 8th, 2013:** So far around 80 question have be tagged [tag:popular-science]. It is a meta tag still without a precise unanimous definition yet. Different users seem to have different opinion about what it means. Some user seems to use it to brand/mark questions negatively. Moreover, [tag:popular-science] retagging activity is beginning to be disruptive to the main site front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these issues are not properly addressed, I recommend that the [tag:popular-science] tag is burninated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="580a9558-3556-46bb-9fc5-1a0d826c72be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [breakthroughs in physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics) question would _not_ be on topic in Math Overflow. This is mostly because they _don't_ welcome physics questions (happy as they are to take high-level mathematics questions with roots in physics), but you are also [mistaken](http://mathoverflow.net/search?page=1&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) [that](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/133203/explanations-for-mathematicians-about-the-falsifiability-or-not-of-string-the) [they](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/13682/which-mathematical-ideas-have-done-most-to-change-history) [generically](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/18100/theorems-with-unexpected-conclusions) [welcome](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/examples-of-common-false-beliefs-in-mathematics) [list](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends) [questions](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of railing against the closure, why not [listen to Wouter](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4839/8563) and propose a list question policy that will allow the questions you find interesting and at the same time protects the site from [&quot;ooooh, I have one!&quot;](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/1083/do-good-math-jokes-exist) questions polluting the front page (and, specifically, addresses the concerns in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4045/8563), [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4565/8563) and others to that same question, and [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/)). You might actually find it hard!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="bf69a7a1-4b98-4aae-83a5-227d41c988a2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a question that was originally put &quot;on-hold&quot; (you can look at the question here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/245079/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I’ve read the homework policies several times, in an attempt to edit my problem so that it is more in concurrence with the site’s policy. I’ve edited the question already twice. I don’t understand why the question has not been reopened, since my purpose is to understand how to manipulate an operator when dealing with a higher spin system **in general**, not specifically for the case of my posted problem, which I’ve been working on for awhile now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what can be done to get this re-opened? Should I simply delete the post and then create a duplicate? I want to respect the site’s policies, and I understand that the Moderators don’t want to be haggled with homework questions, but at the same time... I’d like to get some clarification on the concept I stated above. Thanks in advance for the response! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="550beca7-ff28-409a-82ee-d303ee1a0820" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have already two questions *[on-hold][1]* and *[closed][2]* because they were considered as homework questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these people are exaggerating. Who told these people that my questions were about homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, resolving homework questions leave doubts and often misunderstandings. Therefore if a person does a general question it should be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, why can't this Questions and Answers site be like [Mathematics][3]? There is ton of homework questions and they are not taken unacceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there misunderstandings? I would want to know what were my mistakes in my questions so I can do better questions that will be more *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243050/is-there-conservation-of-momentum-if-theres-conservation-of-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238663/does-the-kinetic-energy-change-depending-on-the-direction-of-the-velocity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="98df0377-4bea-46db-bff3-9375c3f951a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17651/is-it-possible-to-recover-classical-mechanics-from-schrodingers-equation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 over [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/17651?lq=1).    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="2d1f7bd3-41de-4fa0-86ac-7a4e4fba358f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;strike&gt;Perhaps the discussion is dead and gone, but there are still reopen votes on the question being discussed, and&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'd like to bring in a few additional points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I suggest looking at the question ([v4](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/4)), the last version prior to the question's closure. A decent explanation is provided for the motivation for the question, as well as the process leading up to the question. However, look at the third-to-last sentence of this revision, the heart of the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I don't know velocity of this molecule that I need for calculating rate of evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds an awful lot like another way of asking the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I find the velocity of this molecule in order to calculate the rate of evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly vote to close that if I saw it (I was not one of the original reviewers, by the way) as violating https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/. I've read through your comments, Michael, including [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27478_7043), in which you state quite clearly that parts (a) and (b) were not intended to be solved analytically. Yet it seems to me that this is indeed an analytic task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more important, at the moment, is the current state of the question ([v11](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/205689/11)). The asker seems to have switched the focus to something that is decidedly *not* quantitative or analytic, and more like what you were describing as the intended way for the student to solve the problem. For this reason, I have voted to reopen the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stop reading there if you want; the rest of this answer is largely unimportant in comparison. But I'd like to say a few things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, take a look (if you haven't already) at [this chat message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24011002#24011002), which quotes [this (deleted) comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27467_7042):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @MichaelA.Gottlieb from your comments I wonder if you may be confused about the purpose of putting questions on hold? It doesn't (usually) mean &quot;we don't want this&quot;, it means &quot;this needs improvement&quot;, and should be accompanied by some information about what needs to be improved. We often hold comment discussions with the poster to work out how to improve the question while it's on hold, and then the hold gets removed afterwards. Also: your old reputation (&quot;points&quot;) isn't lost, it's out there in your old account and we can merge it into your current one. — David Z ♦ 5 hours ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed many more close vote suggestions than reopen vote suggestions, most likely by an order of magnitude. The reason isn't because I take sadistic pleasure from closing lots of questions, but because I would be that *most closed questions aren't improved*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason? I don't know. It's clear how you can get your question reopened (see [How do you reopen a closed question?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/how-do-you-reopen-a-closed-question), [Nudge users to fix their closed questions themselves before calling others to reopen it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/204582/nudge-users-to-fix-their-closed-questions-themselves-before-calling-others-to-re), and [Make the FAQ clear on how a question can be reopened](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120372/make-the-faq-clear-on-how-a-question-can-be-reopened)). [One theory](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/152026/274942) as to why this happens posits that many users don't pay attention to some of these warnings. I won't speculate as to the forces at work here, but I would bet that my hypothesis that most closed questions are not reopened isn't the fault of the reviewers, but the askers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the asked of this question did an admirable job of working to improve the question, so kudos to him for that. I do hope that the question is reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second and final point (I think) is that I think you over-reacted. I specifically dislike the line in your question that goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no desire to participate in or to be associated with a community that ostracizes young people who are sincerely trying to learn physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I qualify as a young person (16 years old), and I've found no such issues here.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My first posts on Physics Stack Exchange were a bit . . . naïve, I suppose - well, my questions were. But even though my questions weren't the best, nobody tried to kick me off. I was far from an expert, and I'm still very, far away from being one. Yet my experience has been quite good. Was I lucky? I don't think so. I've know others who have had essentially the same experience that I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you've seen in the past, as I guess from allusions in your question that you deleted a previous account. But I think that you overreacted to what happened. The user in question was not bullied nor ostracized. Please don't leave the site because of something minor like this. Experts like you are the key to making Physics Stack Exchange as good a site as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually do have an unrelated third point, by the way. On a technical note, reviewers cannot be pinged in comments (see [this Meta answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223054/274942)). Perhaps that should be a new [tag:feature-request], but at the moment, you'll have to contact reviewers in [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The question has now been reopened.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 I also agree with [a comment by Zach466920](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7042/question-put-on-hold-for-no-clear-reason#comment27500_7043) (just to give some support from a similar user).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="a4c20543-dd9e-40aa-9755-534dc0b0b75b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are already Nice/Good/Great Answer badges, given at 10, 25 and 100 votes respectively, which can be earned multiple times on multiple questions. Users with multiple such badges can be trusted to be &quot;consistently good answerers&quot; and have already been rewarded as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also [tag badges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges?tab=tags), which are relatively rare and which are awarded at 100/400/1000 upvotes on 20/80/200 answers with the relevant tag. I have a lot of respect for anyone with a silver tag badge or with multiple bronze tag badges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore don't see a need to institute new badges. A possibility along the direction you're asking about is to highlight a user's tag badges when they answer questions on those tags. I would give a cautious &quot;no&quot; vote to that; I feel it would needlessly clutter a neat interface that works well as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, the concept that you'd trust better (and therefore maybe upvote and accept) answers by salient users sounds like an [appeal to authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) fallacy to me. Good answerers are that because their answers are good, and they should (continue to) earn their upvotes, rep and badges by producing good answers and having them critically evaluated by the community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="6328be58-a234-43da-8153-d2e9787ec591" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="At this point I have written and erased several strongly worded paragraphs expressing my intense frustration with the *entitlement* expressed in your question. You seem to assume that our purpose here is to be a resource for you in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if that is not why we are gathered here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things you could have done to find out if we were going to want to solve elementary problems for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could have taken [the tour][1].&#xD;&#xA;* You could have read some of the pages in [the help center][2]. Particularly those about [what kinds of questions are welcome][3] and [what kinds are not][4].&#xD;&#xA;* After [your first questions][5] was put on-hold as being too homework-like, you could have read [the link included in the system generated on-hold message][6] that contains guidance on how to ask questions about elementary topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I note that some of your questions have been left open and answered. That's because we're not responding negatively to you as a person but to a particular request that you keep making of us: we don't want to be a homework help-site, and we don't care if the questions were assigned as part of a class or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point *you* have to take responsibility for understanding what this site is and is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246899/the-efficiency-of-a-rough-inclined-plane-is-given-90-the-energy-spent-in-raisi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="1f5469f5-3299-4dbc-9561-2df7113a2abc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Related: [Lots of questions in the reopen queue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/196074/184688) at meta.stackoverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review queue for reopen votes is currently at an exceptional high. Did something happen system-side to bring this on? A lot of the posts currently in that queue are minor edits, sometimes from quite a while ago (such as [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/22801), which was edited July 17). Normally this should not come up on the review queue (or at least not now). What is going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try and do my 20 reviews' worth today, but this thing needs at least six people-days of flat-out reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="05d5781b-a053-4757-baf6-f3d55d0dded8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As we have said repeatedly, we (moderators) do not share information about specific suspensions with anyone except other moderators and the SE team.\* This means that the moderators will not explain to you what happened, and nobody else on this site knows what happened. While other non-moderator users may be able to give you examples of behavior that _could_ have led to a suspension, they don't know what actually _did_ lead to the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for the Stack Exchange team, although I highly doubt they will discuss specific cases, either. Though they do frequently _review_ suspensions internally, to make sure nothing untoward is going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, though, I will say that suspensions are imposed for violations of the site rules as outlined in the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help). The first two items on the [behavior page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior) (&quot;be honest&quot; and &quot;be nice&quot;) cover most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*If a suspended user decides to reveal information about their own suspension, the moderators may then be permitted to respond. But as a rule, we tend not to do so because we've found that it rarely leads to anything productive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4376" RevisionGUID="d60914d8-49cb-4153-8b18-32deda69e582" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If someone is advertising a non-mainstream theory with their posts, flag it with a custom message. While it is not the job of moderators to sift correct from wrong, we do indeed delete material that advertises pet theories as per our faq.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the &quot;line of thought&quot; answer: It doesn't look like trolling to me, but it seems deletable (or converted to a comment) as not an answer. The xkcd comic is not an indication of trolling. I'll wait for input from the other mods on this one before doing anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Albert Z's answer, again, it's not trolling. While his point may be tongue-in-cheek, it doesn't immediately come off as an attempt to troll. Of course, if you have come across this user before and know that he is a troll, your perception will be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We try not to let a users behavior off-site dictate how we deal with them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same &quot;disprove string theory question&quot;, I deleted an answer that basically said &quot;no, because we'd need huge accelerators first&quot;. I didn't delete [this][1] because it may be wrong, but it isn't trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because a post is against a theory that you approve of doesn't make it trolling. In this case, it's not propagating non-mainstream physics, it is simply casting doubt on String theory. Perfectly OK, as long as it doesn't start a flamewar. I recall that you had complained about another question before as trolling, just because it partially casted doubt on the framework of physics. Simply casting doubt or attempting to understand by exposing weak points is NOT trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/41112/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="fc9902fa-6144-4fe4-990f-c75acec42221" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends on what the question is about. I sometimes have to make this choice, because I'm reasonably active on both sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a substantial amount of temptation to go where the user base is. There are, without question, more astronomers and astrophysicists studying at an advanced/professional level and actively answering questions on Physics Stack Exchange than there are on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Most of these spend their time exclusively on Physics, although the one notable exception is Rob Jeffries, who joined Astronomy this past year and has been avidly answering questions ever since. So it's possible that you're more likely to get a question answered by a professional if you ask it on Physics than if you ask it on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Well, the relative sizes of the sites is certainly the major factor. It's evident in other ways, too: Physics has [783 questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics?page=3&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=15) tagged [tag:astrophysics], while Astronomy has [48 questions](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics) tagged [tag:astrophysics]. Even taking into account the fact that Physics is older, it still has a higher rate of astrophysics questions coming in (although it has a higher percentage of unanswered questions, though not by much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do I decide where to post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your call. However, I would recommend going to Physics from a purely chance-of-getting-the-question-answered standpoint.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For astronomy questions, though, I would absolutely recommend Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how would you characterize the astrophysics sub-community on each SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The astrophysics community is stronger on Physics than on Astronomy. Same with chat, by the way. I often take minor astronomy/astrophysics questions to the Physics chat room instead of the Astronomy chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Does double posting of Q's make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said in the comments that this is a bad thing, so I'll just reiterate: In most situations, [**cross-posting is a bad idea**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be posting this meta-Q on the other meta-SE also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if agree with this. Having two discussions will help get the input of both communities, but it also splits up the advice you'll get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 That said, more astrophysics questions would certainly help Astronomy. . .&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="1ba60588-41fc-490e-8612-467c5637bef6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is probably homework because it's really just asking how to solve a problem. However you could argue it's conceptual in the sense that it's asking about how to approach this sort of problem for arbitrary geometries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A belated footnote: the simplest approach I've seen to doing this requires the use of the [reciprocity theorem][1], and specifically that the potential energy of a quadrupole charge distribution in the electrostatic potential from a monopole is the same as the potential energy of a monopole in an electrostatic potential from a quadrupole. Wouldn't answering aalong these lines count as conceptual?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)#Green.27s_reciprocity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="b9dddda0-2594-4c3c-941b-674986042b7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We use LaTeX here (powered by MathJax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a small tutorial [here][1] on using LaTeX in posts. There are more links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This tutorial][2] is also pretty nice. We have a short FAQ entry [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86/how-can-i-format-math-chemistry-expressions-here&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/117/24293&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="4df1d404-1d52-4f1d-a2c2-4d34f3af002f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every so often we get a question that goes more or less like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm a masters/bachelor/highschool student and I really like physics and I'm really interested in (some broad physics field)/(all of physics) and I have to do a research project / would like to start a PhD in that field. What are some important/interesting/open problems in that area?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example, see e.g. [Beginner projects in NMR quantum computing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79934/beginner-projects-in-nmr-quantum-computing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These, together with most other physics careers questions, have generally been considered off-topic, with some of the more general of them being migrated or otherwise redirected to academia.se. I agree that they should be considered off-topic on the main site: they are always too specific to be of use to future visitors, they significantly diminish the S:N ratio, and they are fundamentally unanswerable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Why? because implicit in these questions is a highly subjective appraisal of which topics are interesting or not. The difficulty of finding good open highschool/bachelor's/masters/PhD-level research topics aside, if you're looking to ask a question like that, ask yourself whether any of us is likely to really know what will make you 'tick' when working on a research project.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However:** it does feel a bit like a shame that we are turning these questions down without really offering the posters any place to turn. So, therefore, I'd like to set up this thread to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) see if we can come up with some space to help people with these sort of questions (which does feel unlikely to me), or at least&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) collect some helpful ways of facing this quandary, so we can refer posters to places where they can start working towards this choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies if this is sounding more and more like an academia.se question. What are people's thoughts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="4b6af976-39a1-47aa-bf68-79a66a0a98d5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; [In the end this is a question about policy and technology not about physics as such][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question is partly electronics and partly bureaucracy. A pure physics answer would just be able to say &quot;there's a possibility of interference&quot;; there's not much more we can give here. Explaining the interference would be more of an electronics issue again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And all of this would require a deep understanding of how the plane communication systems and sensors work. That's engineering, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's not something that can be adequately answered here. If you look at the current answer, there's almost no physics involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you have a look at [this page and the references therein][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68571/why-cant-you-use-your-cellphone-on-an-airplane#comment138625_68571&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="6560ce52-0ec2-4ac0-a7d3-ef438e2dd59e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Specific heat ratio difference between dry air and moist air][1], which reads&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For dry air cp/cv = 1.4, but for moist air it is smaller: cp/cv ~ 1.3. What is the reason for this difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly standard homework question that probes if you understand what the difference between heat capacity at constant volume vs pressure means. Seems black and white to me, but lets test the boundary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the most likely issue for the poster is not unwrapping the ratio of the two to get back to the heat capacities proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248024/specific-heat-ratio-difference-between-dry-air-and-moist-air" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="e8b7563e-4acb-4ee6-9ae1-925a8d494bcf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are editing a lot of posts which are closed and have a negative score. Such questions are regularly deleted by an [automatic deletion routine](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/263383) (often termed the &quot;roomba&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a question is deleted, all associated reputation gains and losses are reversed. In particular, the 2 reputation you gained from suggesting an edit that was subsequently approved are lost. I don't believe that there is an indication in the reputation history that this happens - the +2 from a week ago or so simply vanish from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want this to happen, don't make edits to posts that do not fix the reasons for closure/deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for losing reputation is [users that are removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1289/50583) and have upvoted you, but this is usually indicated by a `user was removed` in your [reputation tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="28fbcb21-8bb0-46ba-84b2-93fba34d9443" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am a relatively new member of the site and haven't spent enough time to read through rules and meta posts yet to really understand how it all works. So when I see the occasional discussion in the comment section between highly ranked members of the site, I tend to make up my mind intuitively, keeping in mind that it should help the site remain an *open* forum, where *reasonable questions* about *physics* can be asked. Like I said, most people here have probably spent a lot more time thinking carefully about how to run the site and I appreciate that, but this is just how I generally think a forum should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I really enjoy this site and how it is run for the most part, but there are some questions where I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site. In particular the &quot;off-topic&quot; tag seems a bit off sometimes (sorry for the pun), since modern science is hardly ever part of a single subject (The most common overlap is gonna be [maths][1], but increasingly [biology][2] etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course one needs it to prevent questions that are nothing to do with physics. My main question here is: **when there is a physics component in the question and when in doubt wether it can be answered here, shouldn't the decision go in favor of the question?** I am happy to get to know about how the actual rules are intended, but I'd also like to know from an intuitive perspective for a new member of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other supporting factors, e.g. when the question has a good vote reception. The reason I am writing this post is such an example: [evolution/gluon question][3]. I can not see at all how this is off-topic and @Nathaniel comments seem quite reasonable in this context. There was a similar discussion on [this][4] one, but it luckily stayed open. Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have elaborated why I don't understand this type of off-topic closing of question, now I'd like to return to the title question and ask more generally than &quot;is Math always off-topic&quot; or &quot;is Biophysics always off-topic&quot;: **What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for? And why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7386/what-are-the-boundaries-of-biophysics-on-physics-se&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249606/why-have-our-eyes-not-evolved-to-see-gluons&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248333/symbolic-dynamics-of-a-multidimensional-system/248842#248842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="a966c226-36e1-4e01-a88e-85592c6aa660" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's not that we don't understand the need for licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two issues with having an explicit CC-BY-SA license on the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's completely unnecessary. The footer mentions CC-BY-SA 3.0. The people who actually follow licenses will look for it there. The people who ignore them, well, they would ignore it anyway  wherever you keep the license (of course you can put up a takedown request or ask SE to do so if you find improperly attributed material).&#xD;&#xA; - It's misleading. It gives the impression that users are allowed to specify any license they want -- this is false, all of the content _must_ be CC-BY-SA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a matter of fact, erasing a license or any kind of copyright information from a work is generally an offense punishable by law, probably in his country, certainly in mine, in the USA and in most countries in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except that the license wasn't erased. The license was already there, in the footer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My remarks about the fact that many members of this community do not understand the meaning and role of licenses is based on the exchange of comments when I did include a license with one or two of my posts (I do spend significant time on some)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you are basing your &quot;fact&quot; on [this comment exchange][1]: I (and most pobably the others) do indeed understand how licensing works, and have been using CC-BY-SA for a while now. We also know that SE _already_ licenses all material as CC-BY-SA (3.0), so there was no need for the license blurb (and as mentioned above, it can be harmful too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/69245/7433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="825952f6-7fd9-48d1-8b75-45f6ec2f032d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Power dissipation in AC RC circuit][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should seriously consider not allowing such questions here. Under the current policy this is allowed homework, because the OP did a reasonable effort to solve the problem. I.m.o., however, we're better off forgetting about the whole homework issue and focus only on how interesting a question is from purely a physics point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can then be the case that a homework-like question is very interesting but it would not be allowed under the current policy because of lack of effort. On the other hand you can also have questions like this which are not all that interesting but because the poor student did go through all the trouble of working seriously on the problem, we're going to address it. It's better to not take such irrelevant issues into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/248039/47511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="478e96bb-41ef-458a-a437-65fe1e057fc4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="OP's meta question is a much-needed initiative to improve/change/update the homework policy wordings of the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help), the [meta question 714](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), the [wiki discription](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/homework-and-exercises/info), and close reason; to make them useful and consistent, and stress that the issue is not whether the question is _actual_ homework, but rather whether it asks a conceptional question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested policy makers and editors in these matters are encouraged to come forward and meet in the [Phys.SE chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, about a year ago (October 22nd, 2014), the [tag:homework] tag was already changed after several and long discussions on meta and various chat sessions to the self-explanatory [tag:homework-and-exercise] tag, which has for the past year mostly run smoothly and as intended. Any further change in the tag name seems to warrant a separate meta post, which could possibly be conducted after an overhaul of the above mentioned policy texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a reminder to not forget that that the main objective is to first-and-foremost serve the Phys.SE community of _active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,_ as it says in the [intro pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour). In plain English: The interests of people asking off-topic questions might not coincide with the best interests of the Phys.SE community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="914cd0be-7293-47ea-be43-99fd68cc2914" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82488/understanding-forces-in-qft and as far as I could possibly think I concluded thag yes my question was within the site's giidelines of a good question, as I was asking about a physical observation (force) and what is the explanation provided for it by modern science using force carriers or force fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I initially started searching on internet and found out that forcd carriers are virtual particles and do not actually exist and that force fields are generally defined as force per unit charge/mass etx and hence implying that they are not the cause of themselves ( since they are derived from force only) being confused i posted my question as mentioned above and only got downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I ask questions better in future( or even improve this one ) to better meet the sites standards/guidelines ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="f9109e50-5776-4640-b0fe-2fcb14f91ace" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just approved two edits removing the tag [tag:fun-stuff] from the two only posts that currently have it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64524/what-are-the-limitations-of-performing-music-in-space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10701/how-much-force-is-in-a-keystroke-estimated-of-course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, it seems pointless to have such a small tag. On top of that, it definitely pushes the limits of on-topic (though a bit of fun never hurt anyone, really). On the other hand, it wasn't really hurting anyone as the question count was minimal.* All in all I'm pretty neutral about this, so I approved the edit. I just thought this should come up in meta before we lose the tag. (Tags with no questions get deleted shortly, as per [this MSO question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19753/what-happens-to-zombie-tags).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's it gonna be? Tag burnination? Tag rescue with tens of volunteers turning up all these fun questions that really needed that tag? Or my personal favourite, a long, slow slide of this question down the meta front page, faced with stone-cold utter indifference? (hey, I could even get a tumbleweed outta that...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* Yes, I know &quot;minimal&quot; is only one question per tag. Go take this up in math if you feel that strongly about it.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4477" RevisionGUID="6237eb97-4cf9-4cac-abb6-6968a848c1a0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this tag could be used also for all these questions we really enjoy to resolve, like everyday paradoxes (the tea leafs paradox (unfortunately duplicated [here][1], [here][2] and [there][3]) is one of such paradox I discovered recently with a particular joy for instance), physics of toys (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12305/help-understanding-a-magnetic-levitation-physics-toy among a lot of examples that can be easily found), ... to give some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that any other question asking for a popularisation of complicated concept (like [this question about Higgs][4]) deserve a specific tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the main interest of a *popular* tag is that it attracts and encourage *people* ! It's fine for me to have some questions from the *civil society*, say (I do not know if there's a better english word), like [this one][5] for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- popular-science tag is absolutely not a pejorative tag at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- popularising science is what every researcher should do sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- science is good for people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very happy if a scientific journalist for instance cites a popular-science answer from physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PS:* At the time of writing, I obviously put all the examples I gave under the pop-science banner ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3244/vortex-in-liquid-collects-particles-in-center&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8918/mixing-a-cup-of-tea-and-break-of-centrifugal-force/8920#8920&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69122/what-forces-are-at-work-causing-sand-to-migrate-to-the-centre-of-a-spinning-buck&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17944/how-does-the-higgs-mechanism-work&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11154/why-is-there-a-scarcity-of-lithium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="76b0b3e8-513b-49d6-8e87-df1751b4aa30" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, they are allowed and encouraged. People just tend not to ask them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a recent example of [an excellent experimental question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82739/can-a-discrete-dynode-mass-spec-detector-get-tired)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="7e561ba3-91ae-47a6-acbd-e644c3b5ed23" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am a newcomer to the site.  I am dismayed to see so many questions being put on hold which appear to me to be reasonable, thought-provoking and 'on topic' as defined by the criteria in John Rennie's post above.   For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aaron, URL (version: 2016-04-19): https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250549&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AdamG, URL (version: 2016-04-18): https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250301&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether these questions are homework or not, discussion of the conceptual difficulties which the questioners have would benefit the site's users.  The problems might be pedestrian but the conceptual misunderstandings are fundamental and common.  The questioners have clearly thought about their problems.  I do not understand why these questions are 'on hold'.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think such questioners are possibly being penalised simply because they are novices.  Surely it is to be expected that they will lack the skill or understanding to be able to pin-point the source of their difficulty and to express it clearly in orthodox terms.  What they need is help to refine and clarify their questions.  That requires open dialog and time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, questions tagged 'Quantum Field Theory' are rarely put 'on hold' although there is - in my opinion - less excuse for these academic questioners not fully researching and putting in sufficient effort before posting their questions.  I appreciate that fewer moderators feel confident about judging such advanced topics.  However, I don't feel it is right to treat novices less favourably simply because their questions are easier to judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="0c68b2bd-0714-4ee8-9a72-32681303dd24" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm late to the party but I want to say this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original phrasing for this question closely matched a very common pattern seen in real homework questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Statement of a homework or other textbook problem.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Solve this please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of variations of this (see e.g. [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/763/amount-of-2-amperage) or [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77769/how-can-you-prove-generalised-jacobi-identity) or [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69991/what-is-the-alternative-of-pmg-permanent-magnet-generator-in-a-horizontal-axis) question) but they generally give a feeling of entitlement: the OP _demands_ (even if they do it politely) that some expert drop what she's doing and give him exactly the explanation - without overdoing it and using only the right hints - that will get them an A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this should have the homework tag on it, but I can definitely understand a certain trigger-happiness on the part of the people that wanted that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="38d71b67-7edf-479c-80c0-273286a55f51" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249065/free-falling-horizontal-motion, [screen-shot link here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP clearly isn't asking for help on the problem, they are asking what something in the question means. I think these types of questions are the similar enough to the types of problems that are supposed to be accepted under the policy that we should let them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QpW2W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="29a6c516-163e-4b74-ae25-c4da2bbc2810" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question on the Euler beta function](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/70051/revisions) shows a number of edits 'suggested' by Community. What exactly does this mean? Who made the edit/edit suggestions? Why is their name not displayed? If it is possible to anonymously suggest edits, how is this done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="925679de-6ec5-4422-b1ba-75d7ec2dc3e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="With all the current discussions about homework and changing site rules, I'd think we're missing something in the [How to ask FAQ][1] and I'd be interested to hear the members' views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the single most important thing about the question is that some effort has gone into writing it. That is, we expect the OP to have done some Googling or other background reading and made an effort to make their question well posed i.e. clear and obvious what they're asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions tend to be the most egregious violators of this principle, but we also get the &quot;tell me about relativity&quot; type questions. At the risk of picking on someone [this question][2] is a recent example of an OP who hasn't done even basic research before asking a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguably, being well researched is more of an issue than being homework - after all a well researched homework question is almost inevitably about concepts rather than specifics, and therefore qualifies as a good question. So I suggest that rather than worrying about what exactly constitutes homework, we make our close/delete decisions on how well researched the question is. We should update the How to ask FAQ accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/how-to-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86681/blackhole-radiation-and-white-dwarfs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7338" RevisionGUID="2da7a4a8-89f8-4eab-b652-800f9e4aab96" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is nothing about rep that magically makes some whose first language isn't English suddenly become a master at the language. Nor is there some way rep prevents someone from asking a meaningless question. So, to the titular question, *No, there should not be a rep threshold for unclear question.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should be done in cases of unclear questions, *regardless of the asker's rep*, is comments asking for clarification (e.g., *Why do you think X?* or *Your internet translator didn't work, can you more carefully translate this question?*). This is one of the [points of comments](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment), so we really shouldn't have &quot;drive by&quot; close votes as unclear. It has been my experience on this site that questions that are voted to close as unclear *do* have such comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your most [recent question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/225721/25301), I commented questioning your [original statement of the Navier Stokes being wrong](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/225721/1) simply because you couldn't find *one* particular simulation or solution. It's not clear to me why you think that it's wrong due to one simulation given the [list of analytic solutions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/60476/) (not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands, of accurate simulations employing the NS equations). I felt that you did not attempt to clarify the question in your responses to me such that I would retract my close vote while 4 other people felt that your question was also unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've since amended your question, asking for that single simulations, which I also commented as being *too narrow*, in that you're looking for a Yes/No answer: *Does X exist?*  These types of questions aren't good fits for this site because the answer (Yes or No) isn't long enough to even be a valid answer; even asking for a link to the simulation would probably cause the answer to be deleted as a [link-only answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers). It would be better for you to formulate your question asking for something that is more than a yes/no or link-only answer (but also within the [boundaries of acceptable](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="f11c8721-99e0-48fa-8acb-d00d4117b6c6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, it's &quot;reputation&quot;, not &quot;karma&quot; ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, that post is (was) in [Community Wiki mode][1]. It does not accrue reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="1742b85c-8536-4c43-bbb0-f6426809b3c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="07d3960e-0264-4cea-95fc-82b86106ff28" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/250549&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guidance on how to edit your question to make it better&quot; – CuriousOne, John&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rennie, AccidentalFourierTransform, MAFIA36790, ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please&#xD;&#xA;&gt; edit the question.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Commentators viewed this question as a request for homework help, of the &quot;check my work&quot; variety. I think it asks more than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this question is judged to be off-topic. It asks about a specific physics concept (motion of centre of mass).  The questioner demonstrates his attempt to solve it, but asks whether a simpler approach is possible.  He prefaces the question : &quot;I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this conceptually.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not the problem has been set as homework is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is whether it contains a conceptual difficulty, a discussion of which would be instructive to the broader community of users of this website.  I think the answer to this question is a clear Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="445597d0-f4e8-425f-8208-411698491808" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed some of my comments disappearing without me triggering this (at least not that I am aware of). Example: placed a comment in reaction to [this question][1]. It's now gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone an idea what is happening?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71582/is-it-possible-to-have-a-geostationary-satellite-over-the-poles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7367" RevisionGUID="43981a68-9a67-4b27-b0e3-5e477c613a11" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;If you think a question is too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally we do. Supposing this is [personal experience here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/226129/), you *were* told why it was too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, preventing an answer is exactly the point of closing such questions. The reasons for that [can be found on the Help Center page on closed questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every question posed on this site is acceptable, we have limits on what types of questions we want here; see [this Help Center page on acceptable questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) and [this Help Center page on unacceptable questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If* you feel your question was inappropriately closed, the *proper* action is to post a question on this Meta site asking *Why was my question closed?* with an explanation as to why you think it was wrongly closed and should be [reopened](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions) (please read this link carefully). Asking the question you have here doesn't help you any (as you can see by all the downvotes on your question and answer), as the old adage goes [*you catch more flies with honey than vinegar*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_can_catch_more_flies_with_honey_than_with_vinegar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="e292a5e7-3c7f-4782-869e-072d857fba80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I believe I am in the minority of [high rep][1] users who ask a lot of questions.  I've asked 65 questions, and this is high compared to the next 5 users ahead of me, who've asked 3, 2, 20, 29, and 2 questions.  When someone writes 200 answers and asks 2 questions, then after all the time they've spent on the site, it's pretty obvious to call it a pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why do so many advanced users ask few, if any, questions?  And why am I an exception?  Easy - I'm an engineer, not a physicist.  Ok, I'm sure we have plenty of engineers and otherwise non-professional physicists here, and among the ranks of the high rep users.  Myself, I've just always had pent up angst against physics, since I started out excelling in it, but specialized in more lucrative directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about my working theory for why high rep users don't ask questions... it's because **you can never form a question that can't be improved**.  If we lived in a world with limited resources this wouldn't be true, but this site isn't like asking your colleague a quick question.  You are offering a typed question (with access to LaTeX and formatting) to be immortalized forever in Google results.  The browser you already have up has the capability for further research.  But let's say you're at the extent of available resources.  You've found an equation in a textbook that might have something wrong, but might not.  Even if you ask the perfect question, almost no one will be able to answer it!  By the time your question reaches the state of perfection, you're probably the most qualified person to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a random thought experiment I had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/why-arent-gas-planets-and-stars-fuzzy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In retrospect, it's fairly trivial.  But yet, it's a highly upvoted question.  If you share a curiosity with a genuine technical basis, other people will find it interesting.  Being extremely difficult to answer isn't a requirement for questions here.  If you're not willing to occasionally throw your hands up and say &quot;why not, I'll do a question&quot;, then you'll rarely ever post one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experts would ask more questions if it was more &quot;banter&quot; than questions because their thoughts can be expanded on by all parties.  Of course that has issues of scope.  Stack Exchange Q&amp;A format is a way of enforcing good structure and scope, and even so, we go outside that scope all the time.  New questions are often answered by an answer on an old question that went off topic... and thus answered the new question.  Seriously, it can get to be a problem with close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="da172253-46a1-4b1a-833d-b45a97708846" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88572/how-do-you-show-that-gamma5-dagger-gamma5 was recently closed as homework-like. I agree that this is in somewhat of a grey area as far as ontopicness here goes, but I think this is because the core of this question is a maths question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it possible to prove such-and-such-a-fact using only this-and-that-hypothesis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of that fact, and because the question is in fact quite good, shouldn't this question be migrated (after appropriate modification if needed) to math.se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5036" RevisionGUID="bb6361e6-7c60-4f5f-8b4f-3a9f0b96d487" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While I agree in with the principle here, I tend to err on the side of &quot;sure, Google can say *something* but does it actually lead to a *great* answer?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, someone could very well show how the long-compared-to-focal-length limit turns the Fresnel equations into Fraunhofer ones, and maybe give a great physically intuitive reason why Fraunhofer diffraction leads to Fourier transforms (I've seen it done). Or take that meteor question. A [very similar one][1] was asked by another user, with about as much prior research being done, but several great answers resulted anyway. Maybe it was more than the OP &quot;deserved,&quot; but I certainly had fun researching an answer for that, and the end result is a synthesis of ideas that was *not* found in the first page of Google hits, and indeed may not have been written quite like that anywhere else on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, we want to encourage better questions. But at the same time I feel bad neglecting a good scientific inquiry just because the first person to ask it here did so flippantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that, unlike SO, we deal more with conceptual issues (&quot;why?&quot; &quot;how?&quot;) rather than one-word answers (&quot;what is the name of the function...?&quot; &quot;which package has...?&quot;). Or at least that seems like a reasonable ideal. Look-up questions should probably deserve more scrutiny, since if the number is easily found (such as &quot;depth of the deepest mine&quot;) there is little more we can add. Difficult-to-locate numbers are better (&quot;what is the *current* limit on Lorentz violation from astronomical observations?&quot;); actual *concepts* are still best, though, as even if these can be found using a simple search, there's always room for giving a *better* exposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76045/why-do-meteors-explode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="cd24a975-ef9d-4481-a59d-3a30eeff44ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The diversity of possible theories and possible observation that our Beyond the Standard Model (tm) is enormous, and the tag would be so broad that it would provide little characterization of the question. Consider that [it is non-unreasonable to consider neutrino oscillation as &quot;beyond the standard model&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Dilaton noted in the comments we are better served by a set of more specific tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5118/why-are-neutrino-oscillations-considered-to-be-beyond-the-standard-model" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="da1aa219-538f-4bb6-872f-b7830f00ab0e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is explained in the [What is a bounty?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) page in the help center:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. It is funded by the personal reputation of the user who offers it, and is **non-refundable**. If you see a question that has not gotten a satisfactory answer, a bounty may help attract more attention and more answers. Slice off anywhere from +50 to +500 of your own hard-earned reputation, and [attach it to any question as a bounty](https://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges/set-bounties). You do not need to be the asker of the question to offer a bounty on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **All bounties are paid for up front and non-refundable under any circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If your new reputation brings you below the requirement for any [privileges](https://meta.stackexchange.com/privileges), you will lose access to those privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users may only have three active bounties at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Questions may only have one active question bounty at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Additionally, if you offer multiple bounties on the same question, the minimum spend doubles with each subsequent bounty (50 reputation on the first bounty, 100 reputation on the second, 200 on the third, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You may not cancel a bounty once it has been started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis in the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is [precedent](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14591/how-can-we-close-questions-with-bounties/27103#27103) for moderator-enacted (or possibly by SE team members?) bounty refunds in exceptional cases, but this applies only if you can convince them that you set the bounty in error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? The question [How does the bounty system work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work) on the mother meta has more on the rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What happens if there's no answer after the bounty period?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If after the end of the bounty period a question has no answers, no bounty will be awarded and the question will no longer be featured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bounties are best understood as exchanging reputation for higher question visibility and increased answerer motivation. A bounty does **not** guarantee a response and is **not refunded** if none are received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="97eff3aa-2a11-4853-bb89-fbe2e8533ce2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been looking at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations which is a catalogue of links to resource recommendation questions. For me it has been (in combination with the individual resource recommendations that are linked in the wiki) one of the most useful things on physics.SE. So thank you to the creators! I absolutely love it!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wanted to ask if it is still getting updated?** I've found a few questions that would maybe fit in quite well (although I'm not sure what the criteria are exactly are other than &quot;not too specialised&quot;). Just to give a few of the questions that don't seem to be listed and seem to fit the criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maths: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/127376&#xD;&#xA; - QFT: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/41589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meta-question seems related: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was there a conclusion/decision about the topic? It doesn't seem to say in the meta-question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="d113c417-6b3a-4f2a-b249-be56dc9aaab4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a [limited amount of site analytics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics) available to high-rep users but this does not include any geographical information. Geographical data on visitors (not users) is presumably available to the SE team but it is not made available through that channel; you'd have to ask the SE team directly to get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-declared user location data is available through the Data Explorer, but as e.g. [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432881/user-locations) shows, being user-provided it is a huge mixed bag and you'd need some processing to make statistical sense of it. [This query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/432882/user-count-by-location) makes things a bit easier to handle, and the corresponding code described [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25598/where-in-the-world-do-stack-overflow-users-say-they-are-from) can help draw some inferences if that's where you're headed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a similar track, [StackMaps](https://stackapps.com/questions/3367/stackmaps-interactive-maps-of-stack-exchange-communities) can help provide a geographical view (but not quite a statistical one) on this information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, though, this information is hard to come by and to handle. Visitor geographic data is not available, and user geographic data is self-reported, so for one you should take its accuracy with a grain of salt, and there is an enormous selection bias  you need to take into account: 48k of 105k users have not provided any location, and some fraction have provided fictional location. Moreover, it is at least likely that whether a user reports their location is correlated with the location itself (so users from e.g. Africa might feel that declaring their location is not advantageous, so that location gets (severely?) under-represented in the self-reported data)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="47a39b41-5cc3-4d78-938d-974d960bb2cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have a PhD in physics and teach the subject at a community college, so I guess I would count as an expert. However, my expertise is concentrated in a couple of areas. My Q:A ratio is 29:262. Sometimes I ask questions about subjects I don't know as much about, e.g., field theory. Sometimes I ask questions and get zero answers, which is discouraging. I recently offered a small bounty on a question and still got zero answers. Other times I'm very, very happy with the answers I get, e.g.: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65068/radio-antennas-that-are-much-shorter-than-the-wavelength and https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62619/what-determines-the-angle-of-the-cushion-on-a-pool-table . (In the latter, the answer was given in a comment -- this seems to happen more with nontrivial questions, maybe because people are less sure their answers are right.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="95e460e7-ea86-40d3-9f9c-f4c3ebde0a87" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The last time I asked for a book in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76484/book-on-optics-in-curved-space-time , the question was closed as being 'primarily opinion-based'. David Z explained clearly why it was not appropriate and suggested I reword it. He said a change in the book policy might cause a shift in the present policy. I see many questions here being closed for similar reasons. But each question carries a unique story and a context. Every book recommendation given still constitutes a definite answer to the question. In spite of the question being closed, I still see people responding in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can appreciate where the moderators are coming from, I have found that other SE websites like the Math SE are more welcoming of such questions. The book list is not really sufficient. While I imagine most people can get what they want in this list, it is insufficient for more specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy collecting valuable (both pedagogically and historically) works in science and mathematics (even more than reading them :D). So sometimes my requirements might be specific.  So I have to ask, if the requirements are not easily met by the book list, is there anything I can gain from Physics.SE (without compromising the specificity of my requirements)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="b55484aa-9183-4739-92a8-24512cede9fa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Form [Help Center:][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;But this happened for [my answer.][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;Am I misunderstanding about sentence that I have specified by red line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I6h75.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/252725/stable-sides-of-polygon-objects/252810#252810&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wtePG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="2203ac0a-cdbd-449a-82e9-fd9ec3b66a00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Re the answer review page you reach by clicking on the number in this yellow square:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Review][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see a *Skip* option. The only way I can make answers disappear from this page is by flagging them in some way. At the moment there are a slew of answers to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94471/how-do-i-explain-to-a-6-year-old-why-people-on-the-other-side-of-the-earth-dont that I don't feel need flagging and I can't get rid of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing some obvious way to get them off this page? If not, can we have a *Skip* option on this page?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="560f3e27-ad3d-4af8-bfc3-9ee86604dbe7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who says they're flat out incorrect? You? What if _your_ answers are flat out incorrect? What if you're asking for is censorship of correct answers so that your incorrect answers have no competition? This proposal would allow physics stack exchange to be hijacked and censored by a &quot;cabal of quacks&quot; working in concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: _no_. If there are very-low-quality answers, you _explain_ why they're very low quality. You hold them up to your own answers in comparison. You do not censor the competition with some vague insinuations that _that's not mainstream_. Not when answers like [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation/267328#267328) get twelve downvotes despite the multiple references to Einstein. Not when what's _actively harmful to the site_ are self-appointed &quot;experts&quot; who are sneering and scathing to newcomers and juniors, and whose arrogance is only exceeded by their ignorance.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BqN6K.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="cfbcf9f6-a49c-4016-8542-a1f889771d62" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested in a comment above, I have created a tag [tag:probably-off-topic] and proposed it as a synonym for [tag:soft-question].  [This seems to require a community vote.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/soft-question/synonyms)  My proposal for the way forward is to replace the one with the other, so that people who attempt to use [tag:soft-question] are not-so-gently guided towards this meta question by the renamed tag wiki." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="f96587a9-2e06-4dad-99a7-e50a1f612128" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a user on physics.SE with the name michio kaku https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/27903/michio-kaku who I strongly doubt is the real michio kaku given his response here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73297/a-question-for-the-generalization-of-gauge-transformation-with-two-antisymmetric which was promptly removed by David Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me thinking about how it would be nice if we could somehow make certain that names of faculty at research universities could be protected as usernames as a means of retaining such people in the physics.SE community.  Perhaps this is antithetical to SE values?  Furthermore, it would be interesting (and useful I think) to have a means of verifying that these people are who they claim to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that physics.SE needs to be inclusive, but I personally think that attracting/retaining users who are researchers could lend legitimacy to the site and might enhance the quality and scope of both questions, and answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="7f8e11cb-cbe4-4710-afd0-4672ed4c414f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The *first* thing StackExchange mentions at [Help Centre](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) is &quot;Anybody can ask a question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, at http://stackexchange.com/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our Q &amp; A site are free and open to everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At StackExchange, the focus is on the questions and answers, not on the people. We judge each question or answer on its own, not the person asking it (aside from their reputation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes are the method by which to rate the quality of a question or answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get bogged down by &quot;homework&quot; style questions; just downvote, flag, and move on.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="16806cb0-c41f-419d-855a-35af7ca1e41c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71598/8563) precisely in the spirit to have more &quot;expert&quot; questions, and I'd like to share this thought while it is still fresh in my mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading a paper related to my research prompted a tangential question that became my Question. It took remarkably little time to form and emerged very clear and crisp in its full form. Essentially: &quot;Oh, that's curious! It's not important here, but surely one can do better experiments now. I wonder what one would see then? What's the theory behind that, anyway?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, actually posting the question on the site was a pretty laborious effort of phrasing it correctly, furnishing it with the appropriate context for it to be answerable, and the mechanics of digging for the images and links and references. In this instance that effort was probably &quot;cheaper&quot; than trying to figure out an answer (which would involve some digging for the state-of-the-art on that measurement, at least, and I'm not in the mood for _more_ papers), but this is probably rare. I also have rather faint hopes of that question getting an answer here, as I feel there are few molecular physicists around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="fbd768e8-d03d-4fdb-ac54-8cf24bdf45b0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked [this][1] question yesterday. Someone posted a comment that was saying: ***&quot;This is a very common question. Google your exact title : there are 3+ pages of answers.&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I have some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which properties should questions have? I think that **all** of question exist some where in the books, internet, people's brain, past, present, future, etc. So, if a question exists somewhere (except PSE), then that question mustn't be asked in physics stack exchange? If so, then 99.999999 % existent questions in PSE hadn't be asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should the question be **very very very hard**? If someone asks a simple and common question, then he is wrong? His question should be downvoted? If so, I personally know some people that 99.999999 % existent questions in PSE are so simple and common for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266264/why-do-we-not-see-stars-during-the-day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5142" RevisionGUID="973b3f59-bc91-4d91-a7e5-4a6a2023aa46" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am considering setting up a meta-list of tags that show some categories of tags, as well as a bunch of beginner-level tags roughly sorted by difficulty for easy favoriting/ignoring. Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Favoriting and ignoring tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions having your favorite tags appear highlighted on the front page (and most other question lists).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions having your ignored tags are hidden from the main page, and greyed out in other question lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can edit these from the side of the main page, or from [your preferences][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/current&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YlvL7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="ecb39832-0e8a-4dec-b13b-5cfeb353a75a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Maybe this is just me (my browser/OS?), but many mathjax symbols (sums, integrals) are showing up off-centre vertically for me, and overlapping their limits. In general just very ugly. Since I can't find anyone else asking about this, I assume it's not global...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Firefox 26.0 on Fedora 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, integrals in this question look all wrong: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96033/is-there-a-physically-motivated-trick-to-evaluate-this-convolution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone know what might be going on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: this code: \rho(r,\epsilon) = \frac{3\epsilon^2}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dz\int_0^{\infty}dRR\frac{\rho\left(\sqrt{R^2+z^2}\right)}{(R^2+(z-r)^2+\epsilon^2)^{5/2}}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;produces this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice not only the ugly integrals, but also \left( and \right) seem to be poorly behaved as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J8IzR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="9085abdb-fd7a-4554-940e-16e634e84539" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A conversation with DavidZ prompted this question (see [this question's][1] comments). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking about the [tag:soft-question] tag: when should it be used? Putting it on a [tag:resource-recommendation] question is kind of redundant...that's what the [tag:resource-recommendation] tag is for. Also, looking at [tag:soft-question] questions, most are on hold, closed, etc. Finally, it seems like having such a tag encourages such questions - and honestly, that's not what this site is about (as evidenced by the down-votes, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with this in mind, I have three questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the [tag:soft-question] tag *supposed* to be used for? What uses are now appropriate?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Do we really need the [tag:soft-question] tag? I don't think so, but I want to know what others think. &#xD;&#xA; 3. If the answer to two is no, or not really, should we delete the soft-question tag? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks! I'm interested to see what others think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might also add that while I definitely agree with DavidZ's answer, I'd like to see what the community thinks, and hopefully everyone will come to a consensus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267339/how-do-i-build-a-transfer-cavity-system-for-lasers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="23b7d75a-9b89-4f1f-8bdb-74511e773b76" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any posted answer that does not answer the question should be deleted, regardless of upvotes &amp; bounties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think either of your posts answered the questions asked. The one that was deleted made the preposterous claim that gravity doesn't exist and all mass is photons with frequencies less than 1 Hz when the question asked was *Where does gravity get its energy?* The post doesn't answer the question. &#xD;&#xA;In the second case, you're basically explaining *what* is occurring in the video OP linked and not giving an answer as to *why* it is curving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, anyone [with sufficient reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) can and should vote as they think about the question. There is already a maximum of 24 votes allowed per day (24 hour GMT time), with a maximum of [20 reviews](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) per day, any more limitation would, in my opinion, be a detriment to the system and the site. I would much prefer an *increase* in votes and reviews allowed per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any single person with sufficient reputation [can flag a post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts). After that, it [goes to review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/) for those with [sufficient reputation to vote to delete the post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/); it takes 3 votes from those with &gt;20k rep to delete or 6 votes from those with &lt;20k rep. Again, the 20 reviews per day holds here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;For flagging purposes, a user initially gets 10 flags per day. This increases by 1 for every 2000 rep gained plus a bonus 1 for every 10 accepted flags. The maximum flag count one can accrue is 100 per day. I don't think I've ever come close to using the 100 flags I have available to me, so *maybe* I could see decreasing this, but on larger sites (e.g., Stack Overflow) it is probably very useful &amp; not with implementing on a per-site basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="d9378bbd-67ee-4910-9f7c-e741a9675747" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are many questions here that ask about how GR comes out of string theory. For example, [this][1], [that][2], [this also][3], [that also][4], [even this][5], [even that][6], [(finally) and again][7].  And almost all of the comments on those posts are &quot;Related: ...&quot;, &quot;Possible Duplicate: ...&quot;, &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; (of course if you pick any Question A and Question B out of the 7 questions, then Post A would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: B&quot; and B would have a comment &quot;Possible Duplicate: A&quot;, or &quot;Related: ...&quot; or &quot;Duplicate: ...&quot; or &quot;You cheater! Didn't you check this question: ...&quot; or whatever.)  . Maybe this question should be tagged as [tag:faq]? . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-the-einsteins-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/what-is-classical-limit-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***UPDATE:***      Full list here: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4653/faq-questions-on-the-main-site/4654#4654" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="03011bb1-9dd2-4d6d-8f08-00f9a80f119f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question :https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74639/boeing-747-crashes-into-a-solid-diamond-skyscraper&#xD;&#xA;was highly downvoted, and put on hold recently giving a reason &quot;Primarily opinion based&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were no comments whatsoever, as to why this was opinion based or to explain the down-votes. Is this kind of behavior appropriate on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="eae5adb7-7eee-46e9-8acb-47c144b3f17d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I propose we start the journal club by reading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three Classes of Newtonian Three-Body Planar Periodic Orbits. Milovan Šuvakov and V. Dmitrašinović. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110** no. 11, 114301 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.114301). [arXiv:1303.0181](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0181).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly interested in that paper. Why not give it a go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions about this paper on-site&#xD;&#xA; -  [Details of the new solutions to the three-body problem](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82511/details-of-the-new-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem)&#xD;&#xA; - [How trustworthy are numerically-obtained periodic solutions to the three body problem?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/how-trustworthy-are-numerically-obtained-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-pr)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other commentaries and resources on the paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Physicists Discover a Whopping 13 New Solutions to Three-Body Problem](http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2013/03/physicists-discover-whopping-13-new-solutions-three-body-problem), ScienceNow&#xD;&#xA;* [13 new periodic solutions to the 3-body problem](http://motls.blogspot.cz/2013/03/13-new-periodic-solutions-to-3-body.html), Luboš Motl's blog&#xD;&#xA;* There is a nice [gallery with animations of the solutions](http://suki.ipb.ac.rs/3body/) at Šuvakov's website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="e7f0d2cc-e78b-4e36-a5db-56d690263e1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247547/extension-in-a-vertically-hanging-rod&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework question, and the OP admits it's a homework question. However the OP isn't asking us to do the problem, they are asking about the physics behind it making more of a *homework inspired* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would leave this one open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5506" RevisionGUID="a0bacadc-d821-4243-84de-74bcee76c000" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm guessing the duplicate you're thinking of is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7340/water-rocket-physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as a non-moderator I don't think duplicate questions are necessarily a problem because often apparent duplicates are highlighting different aspects of the problem. In your case your new question is focussing on the nozzle design while the duplicate is more general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have sometimes answered questions I knew to be duplicates because I wanted to write about a particular aspect of the question and the older duplicate was different enough that my answer would have seemed a bit off topic there. For example https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71126/why-does-the-refractive-index-depend-on-wavelength is a duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65812/why-do-prisms-work-why-is-refraction-frequency-dependent, but I answered the former because I could pick up on some of the points mentioned by the OP and I felt my answer would be better there than on the duplicate. My answer got upvoted a few times so I guess others agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To return to your question, actually I think it's more engineering than physics and I'd be surprised if anyone can answer it without going off and doing the experiments. If anyone does know the answer I bet it's because they have already gone off and done the experiments. Still, I wouldn't rush to delete the question - wait and see what the site members think. If the question gets closed and attracts a lot of downvotes you might want to delete it because that cancels out the downvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="3c671c04-1619-4d98-b204-65c04c9c27b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Secret][1] and will be the next guest for AMA on September 6 at [The h Bar] [2].16:00 UTC (2:00 Syd time and 12:00 EDT. For other timezones, check [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Post questions you like to ask below**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AMA took place in informal format. Post questions below to get ideas on what topics others are most interested in. For ideas on how this works, see previous examples in [yuggib's][4], [Slereah's][5] and [DanielSank's AMA][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completed Education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UNSW Bachelor of science physics and chemistry double major (2012-2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry (physical chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry and molecular dynamics) honours with topic: Investigation of the hydrogen production of acetaldehyde (2016). [Link to research group page][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl:dr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS and I will DIE FOR IT!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My expertise is mainly in chemistry and the major topic of the AMA is likely me talking about my honours project (the only thing I have technical info on that is not too far gone in my memory)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, asking me anything *technical* in physics and there will be a *almost certain chance* I made wrong statements. However I can talk to you about roughly what I learn when I browse relevant physics topics in the past in popsci, journal articles and also in my uni studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to &quot;short version&quot; for my interest highlighting only the *strongest interested* topics in each field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (SHORT VERSION)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum mechanics (QM): *ALL!*&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum field theory (QFT): Nonperturbative methods and interacting fields in curved spacetime, mathematical foundation that does not start with classical fields nor particle notations.&#xD;&#xA; - General relativity (GR): Approaches on constructing wormholes, CTCs and warp drive spacetimes and their interactions with matter, mathematical formulation.&#xD;&#xA; - Particle physics (PP): Neutrinos. Beyond the standard model physics. Exotics baryons and properties. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass.&#xD;&#xA; - Astronomy and Space exploration(A): Non electromagnetic astronomy (Neutrino, Gravitational wave), Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, Saturn, Pluto, Comets, Microgravity experiments, Next generation space propulsion, beyond the stellar neighbourhood &#xD;&#xA; - Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): *All still surviving*, especially how they can be mixed together&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear physics (NP): Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes. Muon chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Any process that lead to *rapid* cooling. Nanokelvin or below physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Experimental physics (EP): (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Condensed matter physics (CM): High temperature superconductivity&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical physics (MP): Noninertial reference frames and their transformations. Noncommutative physical phenomenon. Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon. Geometry of the phase spaces, parameter spaces and abstract spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploration of a physical system by varying its parameters in systematic and user friendly fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Microbiome, Microbes in ecology and microbes with special niches and talents,&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Have a tendency to apply biology concepts to cosmological scenarios and as a result a lot of weird models or even pet theories were generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Probability theory: Way to think about probabilities, improbable events, noncommutative probability. Approaches in doing algebra with probability distributions.&#xD;&#xA; - Number systems and their algebraic, geometric properties&#xD;&#xA; - Geometry of any type. Particularly like noneucldean geometry and other geomoetry that requires wrapping ones mind around them to understand&#xD;&#xA; - nonlinear phenomenon (Chaos, dynamical systems, Nonlinear maps, stochastic processes, optimisation etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract algebra of any type, the weirder the better&#xD;&#xA; - Infinity and infintesimals&#xD;&#xA; - How to legally tear down a  proof in order to force a mathematical object to have certain properties not normally allowed by that system of axioms&#xD;&#xA; - Asymptotic phenomenon and fixed points&#xD;&#xA; - Tensors&#xD;&#xA; - Topology of any type&#xD;&#xA; - How to make a good proof&#xD;&#xA; - Counterexamples and why they are counterexamples. Counterexamples as an abstract object&#xD;&#xA; - Higher dimensional geometry, including explorations of them in computer simulations (e.g. forum group of enthusiasts that study [higher dimensional geometry][8], with some properties of klein bottles investigated via parametric equations)&#xD;&#xA; - Recursive objects (fractals, recursive maps etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Any math object that has something to do with the prefix non- and/or the concept empty. For [example][9]&#xD;&#xA; - Symmetry and asymmetry and their properties&#xD;&#xA; - Algorithms and mathematical software for efficient exploration of a &quot;vast&quot; mathematical object&#xD;&#xA; - Division by zero systems, absorbers, and 'rg' (rings without identities and negatives) that approximate them&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics visualisation&#xD;&#xA; - Mathematical modelling on describing complex and networking phenomenon in real life problems&#xD;&#xA; - Degrees of freedom in discrete data sets, distributions and systems (Suppose we turn every derived quantity of an n dimensional data into points, how many paramters do these points have in order to reproduce the original data set?)&#xD;&#xA; - Has no interest in prime numbers until I can comprehend their properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Psychology and neuroscience (Human behaviour, social dynamics, interplay with neuroscience researches)&#xD;&#xA; - Economics (Decision making, various schools of thought, how to use economics on non money type areas such as ecology)&#xD;&#xA; - Philosophy (Anything to do with the concept nothingness, non analytic thought processes, various schools of philosophy,The nature of time, bias and how to find and handle them, how to think coherently, philosophical problems arises from physics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chemistry interests and research experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Physical chemistry: some experience with Quantum chemistry theoretical frameworks (MP2, CCSD), some experience with transition state models, some experience on calculations with Gaussian 09, some experience on working with lasers in molecular beam ion imaging, some experience with simple atmospheric chemistry and physics models. Wish to learn a lot more about the quantum mechanics of non born oppenhenier systems and state transitions in a chemical reaction. Geometry of the potential energy surface of a system. Unusual molecular dynamics such as roaming and non transition state dynamics. Organic and metal chemistry mechanisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organometallics: Some knowledge on the basic chemistry of organoruthenium and organoiron. Knowledge on air sensitive techniques. Knowledge on interpreting multinuclear NMR spectroscopy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Interests in: Metal complexes and other coordination compounds, main group chemistry, other organometallics, energy storage systems involving non hydrogen fuel cells and thermoelectrics, organic chemistry that does not involve drugs (unless the emphasis is the mechanism of the drug or drug delivery system (I fed up with too many people simply make a new drug without study much about how it works)), role of small molecules and other hormones in regulating activity of microbes and ecosystems. Radiochemistry for product manufacture roles, superheavy chemical elements and their properties. Theoretical chemistry (various types of models on how chemicals react and bond, their interactions with physical entities such as magnetic fields etc. at the wavefunction level). Green chemistry (environmentally friendly and efficient ways in doing experiments) and much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science fiction related interest and personal projects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Worldbuilding (approaches, how to ensure consistencies etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Time travel model that is physically plausible (or at least consistent) to unify all known time travel plots and thus provide a quantitative way to calculate when things happen, thus make time travel stories less confusing and to address the poorly considered problem of what is seen for the natives and the issue of multiple time travelers (current attempt [here][10])&#xD;&#xA; - Physics of scifi that can be realised in the near future (Check [Physics of the Impossible][11] for examples on what I mean)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idea mixing: Massive abusing of analogies and properties of mathematical objects in a less rigorous fashion to make jokes or connecting dots between two dissimilar ideas. Mixing of ideas from other field of study and see what comes out.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Question theory&quot;: How to ask/generate sharp and precise questions that optimise potential insights or leave no loopholes&#xD;&#xA; - Circumvention: How to abuse legal and semimoral loopholes, and how to detect and close them&#xD;&#xA; - Color tiles: Categorise color palettes commonly used in various media and their symbolism&#xD;&#xA; - Laymanisation: Explaining highly techinical terms in easily understood fashion to a layman without compromising too much rigor and details. Visualisation play an important role on this&#xD;&#xA; - Irreversibility: How to make a move or process more effective by cutting off as many alternate pathways it can evolve into something else otherwise. How to generate maximal hopelessness to a target. How to interrogate for information without actually using interrogation tehniques&#xD;&#xA; - Collector of exotic substance: E.g. Trying to work out how to experimentally stablise particles, chemical species so I can bag them and store them at home. Side effect might be I am particularly good at sourcing and storing all sort of materials that otherwise require careful treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonscience interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music. Played the piano about 10 years ago. Otherwise occassional electronic music fragment composition with music production software like FL Studio and MuLab. An interesting accidental example [here][12].&#xD;&#xA; - Art: I like some impressionist and surreal art, some installation and digital art, non picasso abstract art (picasso's is too blocky and too low resolution thus confuse me everytime I tried to look for the subject of the works), artwork and forms involving geometric shapes, curves and scenery. How to interpret art. Its relation with science, religion and magic. I have little preference for art where people are the subject. (Having said that, my art interest only exploded on 2015, thus please do not ask me technical question about art because I am not an expert)&#xD;&#xA; - Magic and esoterics: What makes magic magic, what exactly is the key thing of esoterics, The relation of it with science and religion and other thoughts. Various ways to do magic documented in history. Psychological underpinnings of apparent sighting of miracles. See if there are ways in magic thinking that are actually transferable knowledge that can be used to benefit scientific discovery (I am obviously not an expert since this interest starts also on 2015)&#xD;&#xA; - Various types of computer games, focusing on the story, the game elements, level design and aesthetics. I also enjoy [game art][13]. (Again I am not an expert thus avoid asking technical questions on that)&#xD;&#xA; - Acting like scifi labs announcement systems: You will see a lot of signs of this in my chat activity, the way I talk and how the example of my work tend to be followed with a science log sounding description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Science interest (Please note I can only be claimed an expert in chemistry fields because I made too many errors due to lack of physical intuition and incoherent thinking)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@=Have ZERO or effectively zero knowledge because has not started studying yet (or too bad at it thus requires restudying e.g. GR, Stat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;=Have SOME knowledge due to being part of the undergrad study (and reading quantum books for QM). Proceed with caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Quantum mechanics (QM): The weirdness, the nonclassical way of reasoning and problem solving inspired by it, nature of the quantum state, properties of entanglement, mathematical formulations and how to teach that to students in a rigorous, but intuitive way. Modern experiments on investigating quantum phenomenon. The nature of measurement. (for others, feel free to add the word &quot;quantum&quot; to the below topics)&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum field theory (QFT): Properties of various fields. Interacting fields, nonperturbative methods. Fields in curved or warped spacetimes&#xD;&#xA; - @General relativity (GR): Geometry and topology of various spacetime solutions to Einstein field equations. Dynamical approaches on modelling events in spacetime (e.g. ADM formalism), Einstein–Cartan theory. Approaches on constructing wormholes and warp drive spacetimes. CTCs and how they interact with other matter. Mathematical formulation and how to explain it to others in intuitive ways without losing too much rigor. Fundamental nature of space and time, properties and information in the context of black holes. Cosmology interest is not as strong.&#xD;&#xA; - @Particle physics (PP): Properties of neutrinos and mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation of QCD, QED. Beyond the standard model physics, exotics baryons (pentaquarks, tetraquarks) and properties. Dark matter and dark energy models. Updates on possible T, CPT violation phenomenon. Negative experimental tests on the existence of magnetic monopoles and negative mass (because it has been 50+ years and still no signs of them).&#xD;&#xA; - @Theoretical physics (TP): Rule of thumb and thought process of building a model. How to correctly interpret the physics from a mathematical expression in the workings.&#xD;&#xA; - @Time: Is time discrete or continuous. Can there exists self consistent events with piecemeal worldlines, models and reports on the origin of the arrow of time. Emergent time, perception of time, nondeterminstic nonrandom evolution of a system (nondeterminstic random evolution is already covered in the context of measurement in quantum mechanics). Experimental tests on the properties of time.&#xD;&#xA; - @Quantum gravity candidates and other gravity theories (QG): Causal dynamics triangulation and other background independent models, M, Brane, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, Modified Newtonian dynamics, Twistor theory,Induced or emergent gravity models (e.g. entropic gravity). Common ground between all gravity models proposed so far and how to mix them.&#xD;&#xA; - @Nuclear physics (NP): Models for nuclear energy states and configurations. Catalysis pathways for nuclear fusion and transmutation processes, muon and muon containing material chemistry and physics.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Stat): Properties of entropy and information. Any process that lead to rapid cooling, nonequlibrium systems, Chaos, emergent phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;Experimental physics (EP): How to interpret data to get a meaningful physical result. (Would love to learn about) experiment set up technical details on anything quantum (e.g. preparing a quantum state, measures against decoherence, how to entangle/distangle a system, what to do to perturb the state). Table top experiments for high energy scale physics.&#xD;&#xA; - @Condensed matter physics (CM): Numerous. Primary one being mechanism of high temperature superconductivity and phase transitions&#xD;&#xA; - @Mathematical physics (MP): Reference frames and their transformations. Groups that encompass all continuous maps between reference frames and their transformations, and their abstract properties. Noncommutative physical phenomenon (e.g. noncommutative topology, noncommutative algebra, noncommutativity in quantum mechanics). Nonlinear maps and their properties relevant to physical phenomenon, and how to solve problems involving them. Geometry of the phase spaces in different types of systems.&#xD;&#xA; - @Computatonal physics (CP): Algorithms on exploring a physical system efficiently by varying its parameters in a &quot;drag and drop&quot; or command fashion. How the nature of PDEs and nonlinear equations lead to what algorithm is best solving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biology: Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Microbiology: Want to learn more about the role of different type of microbes and how they interact in the ecosystem. Also interested in the impacts of the microbiome to the society. Also like microbes with special talents.&#xD;&#xA; - Molecular biology and genetics: Interested in learning at the molecular level on how certain proteins function to carry out the role they are assigned, the mechanisms on how genes influence proteins, regulatory factors and ultimately a biological function. Have no interest in reports that say they find a new gene for &lt;insert disease&gt; unless they elaborate more about its properties.&#xD;&#xA; - Ecology and complex systems: How species influence each other. How do they interact with the technosphere and the biosphere. Sustainable approaches of using the interaction between different species and niches in order to carry out a purpose without wasting too much resources and too much waste produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics (Please assume I have zero advanced knowledge on any of them cause I made too much errors to be significant):&#xD;&#xA;Interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social science (Again assume I have zero knowledge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (Same as short version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The weirdness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am weird, VERY WEIRD. You either understand me, or you don't. But I like people who don't understand me, because they are much better at finding out how exactly I think and why I am weird (or not). They are also not easily think what I said implies it is creditable. This &quot;unintentional echo chamber effect&quot; is now identified as a major hurdle to understand myself and me learning knowledge in general. So, in a sense, people who don't understand me actually understood me better than myself and those who understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally..A Secret...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my interested topics are highly correlated to my personality traits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://everytimezone.com/#2016-8-11,-1200,cn3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.chemistry.unsw.edu.au/staff/scott-kable#group-info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&amp;t=2086&amp;start=120&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1902965/prove-give-counterexample-or-show-trivial-conclusion-of-the-existence-of-mathem&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://secretuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Ripple_dynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBmlndUexA&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2pBMDHz4Os&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="0c68199d-06f0-4357-8271-2b30f07b51cf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was [proposed recently on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether) that, as part of a broader programme of increasing the site quality, we ban homework questions altogether. This proposal seems to have really quite strong support. On the other hand, it was pointed out quite persuasively, mostly by David Z and Manishearth, and mostly well upvoted, that the current policy is already much like this in that the [tag:homework] questions that stay open tend to be conceptual questions that don't really need the tag. This means that the final change will mostly be one of documentation and presentation. Finally, it's pretty clear that we need to keep the tag itself, as an aid for users who ignore that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the really-quite-settled state of that discussion, it seems to me that it's time to move forward on it. This involves generating a consensus that we do want this, and developing the corresponding documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, then, I think the consensus on what the core of the policy should be is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Homework questions are not allowed on this site, but it is acceptable to ask conceptual questions which are based on a set assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please **vote this question up if you agree with the change, and vote it down if you disagree**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned above, it seems the main change that needs to happen is one of documentation. There are a fair few pieces of documentation relating to this issue around the site, and they would all need to be changed. Specifically, I can identify the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The homework policy on this meta site: the question and its answer&#xD;&#xA; - The How to Ask sidebar on the [Ask a Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) page&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki&#xD;&#xA; - The [tag:homework] tag wiki excerpt&#xD;&#xA; - The homework close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am posting answers to this question with proposals for each of these, so they can be discussed independently. Please vote each answer up or down according to whether you agree to the change to that specific wording. I am making all of them community wiki: if you have suggestions for improvement, post them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must note that I came up against quite a few rough edges in writing this documentation when it came to describing the tag itself. I believe this is because it is pretty inconsistent to keep and actively use a 'homework' tag if the front-line message we're sending is that homework is off-topic. I'll post a separate thread about it shortly. For now, I propose we use the tag much as we're using it now: it should describe questions based on set problems (homework, textbook, etc.) as well as the old &quot;questions whose value lies in understanding the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself&quot;, though that seems weird now (are those not just... questions?). I propose, to begin with, at least, that we *keep the tag and the close reason separate*, as described in the documentation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm also adding an answer with some thoughts on enforcement of this policy, which is the _truly crucial_ ingredient of driving down the amount of low-level homework questions on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="7649fbc6-d827-4edf-b812-355b87ae096e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Speed of RF waves and IR waves is same as 3*10^8 m/s][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a very elementary question with a straight-forward answer which can be found in every introductory physics text.  I have not, however, been able to find this basic question on PSE with a straight-forward, well-reasoned, not-overly-complicated answer (or any answer for that matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want a collection of elementary questions such as this, if they aren't duplicates, even if the answer is easily found in a text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247829/speed-of-rf-waves-and-ir-waves-is-same-as-3-10-8-m-s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="f26644dd-8f92-4af5-bc69-7ddc03d2cd6a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I really like this kind of question. I will not really try to answer it, since I consider Mark Rovetta already answered it perfectly [somewhere else on this page][2]. Instead I will give my feeling and experience, as a user of this website from a research-like perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like first to say that I already elaborated [somewhere else][3] that the quality of the questions and answers sounds to me to depend on the topic. I pretty much like the condensed matter questions and answers on this website, as well as the quantum information ones for instance. And that's great because that's my research topics ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a background in superconductivity and quantum optics. So, as far as I can, I've tried to answer -- since less than one year I'm using SE -- the questions on superconductivity which were unanswered, and more generally on condensed matter when I know the answer. It appeared to me that the quantum optics questions are most of the time correctly answered, so I've nothing to add about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one year, I'm trying to learn -- as a post-doc -- more about topological issues in both condensed matter and quantum information topics. Clearly, I will not ask question here like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hey guys, I want to write an article about this or that, please do that for me !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would be ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pretty hard to understand the problems at the edge of two topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I'm using this site is as follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I just want to test some ideas with other communities people (especially high-energy physicists for instance) to compare their point of view with my poor-condensed-matter vision (like [this one][4], or [this one][5]). &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want easy access to a stream of articles, for which I would spend a lot of time finding relevant ones (like [this one][6]), and which are related to my current problems. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I would like to understand in more details a point I've no time to stop on at the moment (like [this one][7]), since it's just an aside of what I'm thinking at the moment. &#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes I want to point out something I consider not well discussed in literature (like [this question][8], or [this one][9]).&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the questions are just something I consider funny when I think about them, and which could be interesting for someone else (like [this one][10]), but I've neither time nor interest to keep on thinking of.&#xD;&#xA; - And yes, sometimes I'm asking purely fantasy, bulls... questions which are completely stupid (like [this one][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time, I try to make *useful* questions, not *clever* ones. I mean, I'm trying to ask questions which could be useful for others, not specifically dedicated to my problems of the moment. I'm usually writing on a piece of paper some questions I would like to answer, just inspired by the time I'm thinking about, most of the time after reading some papers. I feel some of them could be interesting for the SE community, so I try to publish them on this website. I do not think more than that ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny part is that two colleagues at my lab are using SE, too. We sometimes discuss the questions/answers together, to try to improve our understanding about specific staff for instance. What I want to point out here is that a researcher needs to discuss a lot in order to (un)validate her/his ideas, especially at the early stage of the elaboration of a new concept. To try to collect as much as possible opinions is the key I believe. This website is really useful for me in that respect. But still it's highly time consuming. As anything you have to type, you need to think about, read, write, clarify, read, write, think about ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to promote SE as much as I can around me (in the real life I mean). The most important reason why researchers do not use this website more often or as a working tool is simple I believe: **they don't have time** ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4138/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46324/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65767/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69358/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71151/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69141/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62282/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71587/16689&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68456/16689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="99a3114f-aeaa-4687-9dc9-8c24ed64171c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; # Summary&#xD;&#xA;History questions are welcome on this site whenever they have any bearing on our modern understanding of physics. However, if a question has only minimal or null bearing on our current understanding, or it specifically requires a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, then it should be migrated to the [History of Science and Maths](http://hsm.stackexchange.com) Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should stay open to a significant set of history questions, and we should keep the [tag:history] tag. Unlike mathematics, the historical perspective is very often one of the key ways to understand the world and our knowledge about physics. The way physics is structured is very often centered around key experiments, and these are generally thought of as historical events and their contribution and motivation is understood in a historical perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be that way: you can perfectly well motivate, say, special relativity as [one of only two possible cases](https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045), with the Galilean case ruled out through muon lifetime measurements, but you don't - you usually start with the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell the story from there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Math, on the other hand, does not have to do this: you can simply start with whatever axioms and definitions you want to work with, and you build your theory. Later on, or as an aside or a brief introduction, you might comment, as motivation, that the axioms went through this and then that version before people found the Right Version to use, but the brunt of the work tends to follow from the axioms to the consequences rather than the historical refinements of the axioms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through [recent, good-score questions on the history tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhistory%5d%20closed%3ano%20is%3aquestion%20score%3a5) yields plenty of questions that are definitely of a historical character and yet have direct bearing on our understanding of physics, and which I think should definitely be on topic here. Taking a few non-rigorous picks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267036/how-did-physicists-know-that-only-negative-charges-move&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266246/how-did-physicists-know-that-there-are-two-kind-of-charges&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262251/why-was-the-first-discovered-neutrino-an-anti-neutrino&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249392/how-did-we-realize-that-light-travels-at-a-finite-speed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243144/why-is-a-second-equal-to-the-duration-of-exactly-9-192-631-770-periods-of-radiat&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229169/did-newton-conduct-any-experiments-to-find-something-called-momentum-or-was-he&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201149/why-was-the-stark-effect-discovered-much-later-than-the-zeeman-effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there *are* questions that should be moved to the history site, because they require a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, and because they have minimal or null bearing on our modern understanding of physics. From the first page of the search above, for example, this could include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233765/bohr-on-wholeness&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246015/what-was-newtons-own-explanation-of-newtons-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find that the set of questions that satisfy that criterion strictly is really rather small. There is, though, a relatively large gray area of questions that are primarily of historical interest, but that still illuminate aspects of how we think about physics and why we no longer think or do certain things. Some examples from this category are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/202342/was-leverrier-adams-prediction-of-neptune-a-lucky-coincidence&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208901/the-role-of-anharmonic-oscillators-in-heisenbergs-1925-paper&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217590/what-are-the-original-papers-on-the-hydrogen-spectral-lines&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249507/were-the-michelson-morley-results-a-surprise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions should be allowed here: they could also be asked at HSM if the OP is interested in a science historian's perspective, but there is no need to migrate them if asked here, in which case the focus should be (because it can be) on how that part of the historical record helps explain how we think of physics. If the OP wants to shift the focus specifically to what some historical character thought and did, what information they had available, and so on, then it can move to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="5f06ca17-477d-4378-b427-7b1ca2b678e3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I put questions and ask just to give me hints on doing them and try my maximum to solve those before posting them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only see evidence of that in your latest question, and that was a &quot;check my work&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, we only permit homework-like questions when they are asking for something conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of [this question][1], philosophy/&quot;new&quot; physics is off topic here because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is _not_ a discussion forum. We try to make a repository of useful questions and answers. Discussions are fun to participate in, but their content is generally not useful to others. We have [a chat room][2] for discussions.&#xD;&#xA; - Even if &quot;physicists are philosophers&quot;, physicists use more precise methods and have a different way of approaching the problem than the general philosopher. Metaphysics and philosophy is off topic here.&#xD;&#xA; - The question wasn't a question in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your relativity question is rather unclear. I think I've understood it (and may provide an answer if I get the time), but I doubt many have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75132/philosophical-cosmology-is-there-something-called-god&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="7793caec-a0b1-485f-8c5c-064fa9def57d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So we have a close reason for engineering questions because selection of materials for building that ultralight in the garage are off-topic. But where is the line drawn between engineering and experimental design? The question I'm thinking of specifically is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88165/pressure-applied-to-flat-plate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any context, the asker could be designing a vacuum cleaner and this would be off-topic as an engineering question. Or OP could be setting up a shock-tube experiment, or a low-pressure chamber to study some particles or something, in which case it would be on-topic as an experimental design question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without any context, how does one draw the line? Even with context, does the engineering close reason indicate we no longer want questions about building experiments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="3cf1ce35-333f-4d7a-a0dc-4b8dc165ee71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - The tag wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;## Homework questions are **not** allowed on Physics Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;This site is for **specific conceptual physics questions**, and not a homework help site. Questions about a specific concept that originate in homework problems are OK, but questions asking us to check your work or asking for pointers or hints about a problem are likely to be closed. Please [see the details on our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is considered a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework assignments as well as homework-like problems from textbooks, self-study problems, puzzles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble.** If your question originates in a homework assignment, you should provide the problem in full as well as all your working so far, to provide context. Please [see the details on our meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is this tag used for?&#xD;&#xA;This tag describes homework-like questions based on a set problem, such as textbook and self-study problems, puzzles, and actual homework assignments. It also covers problem-solving questions whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes on-topic conceptual questions that are based on such problems, as well as off-topic questions which are purely for homework help. *Having the homework tag is independent of being on-topic*. If you see off-topic homework questions, the appropriate action is to [flag the question for closure](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) or [vote to close it](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="9774d90e-81e9-4746-8c14-88be458f0b04" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/252007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question probably arises from homework but the questioner has posted a detailed calculation, obtaining the correct answer after a &quot;very nasty&quot; integration.  He then asks if there is a simpler method of arriving at the answer.  Such a method is suggested by M.Enns and a detailed explanation posted as an answer by John Rennie.  The solution is very instructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see why this is deemed to be 'off topic.'   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="a39fb692-b7ee-428d-8460-431fbe7a9e4b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this question, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase, is fantastic and was asked in Jan 2016 by a user who's account was created in 2012.  The question accumulated over 30 up-votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="988450e6-9a09-4869-9be5-f14c129fdc4f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The process of closure of [this question][1] of mine has been started. As you can see in the figure below, the number of close votes is 3. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are just two close votes in the [review][3] page of that question. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:00 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][5], the same question of mine has been reviewed once before this time. I wonder how dose the closure process start by a &quot;Leave open&quot; vote? (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:30 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see [here][7], this question of mine has been closed by five votes. But there is just one close vote in the [review][8] page. (the picture has been taken at 18, July, 2016, 06:45 UTC)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267302/about-time-and-time-dilation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zJXua.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/138278&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hy7ub.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/137518&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mwplu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8896/about-questions-that-seem-stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/review/close/214&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YLVgO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="cd5fb17d-f194-4752-88d9-20e8f80563c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was [answering a homework question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/114921/26969), and wanted to include some &quot;hidden answers&quot; to give the OP a chance to work it out bit by bit. Some of the layout etc. of the equations is different in preview - it was OK in the actual answer.  For example, in preview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the actual answer. Clearly the preview is left aligned, but the equations become centered in the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were other issues in preview - some text followed by a block of multi-line equations &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`This is a problem: $$..\\..\\..$$` ended up on the same line during preview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preview is such an important feature - especially when you do things like equations. It would be nice if it would work together with the &quot;hidden answer&quot; feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l7WX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zyloY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qe9iC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="f7ea296a-1392-43d9-ab53-0f140eab554c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="             &#xD;&#xA;I just wonder why the questions are duplicated (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75524/the-sound-change-the-light?noredirect=1#comment156943_75524 ) ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I ask physics things in physics site (even       less quoting, and edited it as a physics problem),       and English questions in English site (ELL.SE).        Can't SE change? Am I running against a wall of obstinacy?                 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="f8b7a900-64ad-40c6-9933-d3f961075b62" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Net acceleration of an object if too many forces are acting on it][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This questions has a concept in it but it is so simplistic/nonsensical that it should be closed.  I don't find a descriptive &quot;close&quot; category for it. It's very clear what the question is, but the question is so simple as to be stupid. The OP obviously hasn't thought about the topic long enough before asking.  Can we add another &quot;reason&quot; for closure to take care of thoughtless questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253025/net-acceleration-of-an-object-if-too-many-forces-are-acting-on-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="0d3d5654-b014-415b-ab5b-3d849b4cd85e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have tried very hard to comply with the spirit of this forum but obviously still have not got the hang of it. I write a short comment and then am told it should be an answer.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer a question and it is down voted but no reason is given. &#xD;&#xA;Here is an example https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/307799/104696 which obviously flummoxed another contributor, @sammygerbil, to this forum. If nothing else I think that this is inconsiderate and possibly rude. It also does not help me to try and do better in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I wish to have guidance about this question and [my answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/308810/2451).&#xD;&#xA;Having recently been told not to write answers as comments I wrote it as an answer. The reason why I wrote an answer is because I thought that I would be helping this student about a physics concept. In this case it is the idea of a non-uniform acceleration where the student thinks that one formula fits all situations. At the start of learning physics many students find this conceptually difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not give an answer or any working I just told him/her how acceleration is defined. After writing the answer and before doing some gardening this afternoon I had an idea that there may be a contrary view when &quot;-1&quot; turned up but without a comment what was I supposed to do? I have absolutely no objection to the forum being overseen but I do wish to be helped to do the right thing and a comment with regard to a down vote would help a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="9a765c1a-aa65-47c3-ab84-5c66b91bc526" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To the right of every page is the [Hot Network Questions](http://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot) list. If you note the list carefully, you'll find the question you linked to appear on the list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While not the clearest picture (looks better on my screen even after cropping it), there's your answer and the hot question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have [three](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88145/why-are-rockets-so-big/88155#88155) [such](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108971/why-does-a-nuclear-explosion-have-directionality/108976#108976) [answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80159/why-has-earths-core-not-become-solid/80169#80169) (3 links there) to my name due to the HNQ-effect, and I know I'm not the only one who's seen this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wVkuP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="3db8038a-f52d-41f5-9fc9-2904151ace9f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ill speak for myself, thought I wouldn't call my self non-novice or anything else. I am among the people thinking of leaving the site after being here for about a year. The reason is It stopped being interesting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I rarely posted, I used to enjoy reading answers, but off-late nothing in the site seems to interest me(I am student of theoretical physics). I do find good question/answers occasionally(often by the same set of 3-4 people), which is why I continue to check the site and sometimes the meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is nothing like what it was when I joined a year ago. Perhaps it is a personal view, but it might be shared by a few other people. I would be very much interested in a dedicated TP site. I also have no idea when and why [Dilaton][1] got banned, but that was going to happen eventually I guess. There are discussions linked in Dilaton's page about starting a new site, I would definitely be curious to see how it turns up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="08601141-f34b-463f-987c-a10924dbebf2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had a longer answer, but I will limit it to this, for what it is worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do write many more answers than questions. I answer only relatively&#xD;&#xA;simple questions, as my math is no longer what it used to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no expert in physics, but I am a scientist, and I can&#xD;&#xA;often find my own answers. I also learn by answering questions&#xD;&#xA;(typically what I did about the working of ABS brakes, on which I knew&#xD;&#xA;practically nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did ask a very decent [question of physics][1], for which I was downvoted&#xD;&#xA;(-1) for no reason I could identify (52 views). A few comments, but no&#xD;&#xA;answer. I provided an answer myself (read apparently by no one). The&#xD;&#xA;purpose of the question was to understand how people make assumptions,&#xD;&#xA;as the answer to that question contradicted assumptions made in a&#xD;&#xA;previous one that was referenced. I still believe it was a good&#xD;&#xA;question, even though the purpose of it was (barely) hidden. I think&#xD;&#xA;understanding methods of reasonning is also part of science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not encouraging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have questions to ask. But I let them ripen. I feel that I will&#xD;&#xA;not (should not ?) get many chances of asking, and I better ask the&#xD;&#xA;right questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69677/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9652" RevisionGUID="435b4ba7-9558-4f54-b1d5-f071608104ed" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Note that the current 6 Phys.SE moderators are democratically elected. All moderators have (electronically) signed a moderator agreement, which de facto implies that moderators cannot discuss specific users &amp; suspensions publicly, and which in turn means that this meta discussion belongs on the [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) (rather than on Phys.SE meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence that one or more Phys.SE moderators misuse their positions or the community's trust in any way, then you can report it to the [SE team](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5830" RevisionGUID="53d13131-3fff-4653-9a68-b2fce595ae18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's nothing! I got 24 votes for a [picture of a fly's foot][1] :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the vast majority of the site members are *interested amateurs* rather than physics students or people being paid to do physics. As an (ex) scientist my favourite answers are the ones that are right at the edge of what I know, but these are exactly the answers that are going to be uninteresting to most other people. My experience is that you get the most votes when you take a question that everyone can understand and provide an answer that everyone can understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I agree that it certainly helps if the question you're answering makes the hot questions list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37772/why-doesnt-a-fly-fall-off-the-wall/37773#37773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="7e9cb77c-6bcd-458f-971b-3da0ca9ba82d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can use the `score:` search operator to filter by score, and then sort the results by &quot;newest&quot; or &quot;active&quot;. Try [this][1] search (modify the number 3 if you wish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is a `views:` operator (and an `answers:` operator) that works similarly. Both operators search for posts with score/views greater than or equal to a given number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=score:3%20is:question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="d558591d-0e7b-4a8b-9d84-bf2ab7dae1dd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to delete my question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/253947/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i am not able to delete it? How to do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="b035d2b9-5e3d-4d9d-b607-e28a21d256e7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, a few questions recently came up on the feed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/269376/2451&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/269401/2451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They made me wonder: when does something belong on the astronomy.SE and when does something belong on the physics.SE (this could also apply for chemistry, electrical engineering, etc)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="d5de7b42-b98e-46b0-a4bf-3e7301bc87e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="![](http://i64.tinypic.com/21l7uw2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the comments from the question [What is “relatively uniform resonant frequency”?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/315403/41634). I'm pretty sure that the colors are different, maybe their brightness. Is this normal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Windows 7, with updated Firefox. I do install the [Stack Overflow Extras (SOX)](https://stackapps.com/q/6091/29559) script, but there is no option in it allow changing the comments' color. I notice that this is universal, every section of comments in every question or answer in every Stack Exchange site has this behavior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="aa29831a-191e-4cae-8871-76f12f26bf02" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](http://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="bf88dd5f-c3a2-4625-adb4-378a523de611" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One needs [300 reputation][1] to create tags. At that stage, just using a new tag on a question creates it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try not to make narrow/redundant/meta tags, though. It's best not to look at it from a badges point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/create-tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7749" RevisionGUID="f962c017-bcce-461a-b26f-bdebe83cca69" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Basic circuit problem](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254734)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question poses a set piece, shows the OP's working, and asks us to explain what is wrong with their working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a bit of work, it can be rephrased into something that's less dependent on the set piece and helping the OP understand how that circuit behaves as he's being told it behaves. It has an accepted answer which does a good job at addressing the conceptual difficulty at the heart of the question. However, even if fixed, it probably wouldn't be a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="9071e340-5a69-4c84-9bfc-531ab41e6660" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall has appeared on the [Physics Today Facebook page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well done to all who contributed to that question. It has to be good for the Physics SE to get this sort of publicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been periodically annoyed by the 200 rep/day limit, but poor alemi has been stung by it big time - that limit has cost over 1000 rep points. Can the mods pull a string somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/PhysicsToday/posts/10154354597660164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9702" RevisionGUID="a5a2911f-62be-4a33-a777-f03010725d9d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[There](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/317780/what-is-the-difference-between-b-and-h-fields?noredirect=1#comment713842_317780) was a small dispute about the downvote of newcomers with less than 110 point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...the SE is supported by only a view enthusiasts. And they are doing this very well. But how to grow up more active people without giving them a chance to adopt to SE? It's really necessary to downvote somebody with less than 100 points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AccidentalFourierTransform thinks&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...of course I agree... The question is certainly good and there is no reason to downvote it. It is just a duplicate, but its a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Countto10 brightens the situation 	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... but it is normal practice either to include some reference you read, but could not follow, or to give your own idea of what the problem involves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not support newcomers and give them a chance to grow up? Why not establish a netquette about this or better not do give the possibility to downvote under zero? Ok, may be it should be possible if someone upvoted the question to downvote it to zero again, but I think this is contraproductive too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="cfb9873f-8ec8-41e6-90af-a29101a76095" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the abstract questions you pose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No**, if you close something as being out of scope, you have to explain *why* it is out of scope. The pre-existing reasons cover the most common reasons, for the others, you'll have to write a comment explaining yourself. The close reason is there to give the asker feedback *what exactly they did wrong*, and just telling them it's &quot;out of scope&quot; doesn't really tell them what went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from providing valuable feedback to the asker (that is sadly all too often ignored, or taken as a personal insult, but that's another issue), a specific close reason is also valuable for other voters - especially reviewers - to agree or disagree with. But if you just choose &quot;out of scope&quot;, then that doesn't give your peers something to argue with: Either they already agree it's out of scope or they don't, but &quot;out of scope&quot; is so vague as to make it impossible to constructively disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I don't have a better suggestion because we don't *need* a better suggestion. If you think a post is non-mainstream then you should close it as non-mainstream. Votes are judgements of questions and answers, not of users. The feedback they provide is valuable only if given honestly - I see no value in *not* voting as you want to vote because of the psychological consequences you fear it may have on the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [*specific question*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270930/50583) you're talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the least controversial way to close this is as *too broad*. It's a question that basically asks &quot;Explain special relativity to me&quot;, without any research effort shown and without any *specific question*. It's not clear to me how one could determine a &quot;correct&quot; answer specifically to this question, i.e. how one would decide when it is actually *answered*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also had two close votes as *homework-like*, now hidden by the majority close reason *too broad*. I don't really understand those, it's not a question that falls under our homework policy by any stretch of the imagination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand the suggestion to close it as &quot;non-mainstream&quot;, either - it's not non-mainstream, it's a question about basic special relativity, no personal theory in sight, just confusion (and little effort on part of the asker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there are so many introductory resources to special relativity both on and off this site, I think closing because of *insufficient effort* (as a custom close reason) would also have been defensible if you think we should be closing questions for that. See meta discussions [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8789/50583), [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) and at further links in those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *duplicate* close reason is different. You vote to close as duplicate because you have *already found* the question it's a duplicate of. Duplicate questions are neither off-topic nor unclear nor too broad nor any other of these reasons. Closing a question as duplicate just says that we already have a sufficiently similar question here. If you're thinking the question should be closed anyway, go ahead and close it for another reason, but *never* forcefully try to make another reason fit *just* because you can't be bothered to search for the duplicate. (I'm not accusing you specifically of this, but I think it's worth explicitly stating in general.) I personally think that there's no value in closing a question that should be closed for another reason as duplicate, *unless* one then proceeds to close the duplicate for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="ce235b5b-33d1-44d9-8126-6b379c18562b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) A general advice if you feel that your question Y is not a duplicate of question X (and your question Y is not receiving any responds from the Phys.SE community), would be to explain better and give more concrete examples of Y which do not belong to X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) Questions like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is **everything** in the universe discrete_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Is there **anything** in the universe that we know with relative certainty is not discrete?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are formulated too broad and vague, and your post runs the risk of not being taken seriously from the very beginning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III) Moreover, I would suggest to be more specific than, say,  _quantization of classical theories often leads to observables which take discrete values,_ since the subject of quantization is by itself broad and already covered in many posts on Phys.SE. For instance, various aspects of mass quantization is asked e.g. [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/122/2451), [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/4238/2451) and [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6461/2451)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="8649cd7c-deb9-4cfd-990b-34157526f243" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is me listing the reasons I'm pro popsci tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if I may address its similarity to [tag:home-experiment] and [tag:everyday-life]. It's true, a good amount of what's listed in popsci is also in these tags. However, this tag is certainly useful for questions like: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73358/23473 where it is clearly not a home-experiment (I hope!) nor a part of everyday life. The popsci tag is different from the other two because it is purely specific to science that the layman would have heard of. One could imagine asking a question about some part of everyday life that would be deeply complicated. For example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1077/23473 It isn't tagged as everyday-life, but I wouldn't argue if it were; I stand on the ground most days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for level filtering, it will always be a problem no matter what. If you aren't going to ban those types of questions and if you don't eliminate the tag system entirely, then there will have to be a way of identifying those questions as easy, no-brainers. I say &quot;have to&quot; because there will always be people like me that like to log on every so often and answer a couple easy questions. Tags like popsci help me do that. No matter what the tag indicating easy questions is, people will take advantage of it because each person defines what constitutes main-stream science or an &quot;easy&quot; question differently. Thus, no matter what, some people will love the tag and some people will hate the tag; this is just something that we must accept about layman science questions. Furthermore, if someone decides that they don't like an entire tag so much as to ignore all questions tagged by it, that is their loss more than ours. Personally, I don't ignore any tags; you never know where a great question might pop up and the extra 10 seconds I have to spend looking through ones I don't like is worth it if I know I'm not ignoring a potentially good question. But that's just me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: I want my &quot;this is an easy question and should take maybe 30 seconds to answer it&quot; tag :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="6453e58b-7515-4e57-8019-9740dcb5b6c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today I had some issues regarding an answer (now deleted) that I encountered in the Low Quality queue. [The question][1] asked for clarification about a solution by Michael A. Gottlieb, and included a screenshot of that solution without its copyright notice. The reviewed answer recommended to ask Michael A. Gottlieb. I marked the answer to recommend deletion, before noticing that the answer was written by Michael A. Gottlieb himself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards, I got a notification of a comment to my review (I didn't know those existed) from Gottlieb, who asked me to remove the copyrighted material. I edited out the screenshot and flagged the question with a custom flag. I also commented Gottlieb that he should have edited the question and/or contacted the mods, instead of posting a non-answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the answer has been converted to a comment by Qmechanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question about this incident are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For future reference, what is the correct course of action in a case like this?&#xD;&#xA;* In a [previous meta answer][2], DavidZ opined that quoting a textbook (giving attribution) is admisable under the fair use exception. It seems that Michael A. Gottlieb opines otherwise. Are screenshots different from quotations? How this incident affects/could affect other posts?&#xD;&#xA;* The offending image is still available in the edit history. Is this OK? Is there any way to remove it in a more permanent way (for example, asking imgur to delete it)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265664/virtual-work-problem-from-feynmans-tips-on-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4613/78942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="bf384a74-c175-4136-a009-1fd4ac1894de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer contains the discussion in the comments to [the question that sparked this discussion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper), which was originally posted at the (now defunct) [Theoretical Physics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site. I have moved them here because they belong to this discussion more than they do to that question. Comment vote counts, at the time of transfer, are in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requests to find a PDF or print copy of a paper when the exact citation information is already known are off topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:11. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- 	&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;...apparently custom close reasons get posted as comments. Anyway, we've generally held &quot;find me a PDF&quot; and similar requests to be off topic, but that could be opened up for discussion, if people think questions like this should be on topic. – David Z♦ Jul 1 at 20:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@DavidZaslavsky I have to disagree, strongly, for this case. This paper is outstandingly hard to find in either print or electronic copies and it was only through this question that I found one (unlike many people that cite it (!), I suspect). While I would generally think &quot;find me a pdf&quot; questions to be off-topic, some such requests can, would and do require an in-depth knowledge of the physics literature, and there are very precious few places on the internet to find physicists that can answer them. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:12. (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;While it is not usually used as a criterion on this site, I often find MathOverflow's criterion &quot;would I ask this at a seminar?&quot; to also work well here. In this case, my answer would be an emphatic yes: if I really need a paper, have looked for ages and can't find it, and really need a physicist to point out alternatives, a physics seminar is about the first place I'd ask. (I did.) – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:18. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;If this site disallows questions like that then it risks failing people who put in effort to write answers when they have a question, and we really should be moving in the opposite direction to that, fostering high-quality questions and keeping our good users. – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 0:22. (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Emilio (3 comments up) yeah, I was thinking along the same lines myself. If we want to allow some questions of this sort, we (the community) can work out a guideline for what is allowed and what isn't. But as of now, that guideline, which would presumably allow this particular question, isn't in place. – David Z♦ Jul 2 at 0:54. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;	  &#xD;&#xA;I have asked the [relevant question on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4490/8563). – Emilio Pisanty Jul 2 at 14:42. (2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="31283cf1-060a-4d0c-a2b3-3075b9a8f2a7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My post here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Book recommendation: [Book on condensed matter physics focusing on numerical method in quantum system \[duplicate\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I further improve my post so that it is not a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/318141/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="1f52b694-bfe2-4ce7-8fb2-37ac8885f243" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently answered the question [&quot;Which Is More Fundamental, Fields or Particles?&quot;][1] essentially by explaining what second quantization is and why it makes so much more sense than first quantization. The answer has been well received suggesting that some users benefited from a good explanation of second quantization. However, if I search &quot;what is second quantization&quot; I do not find my answer. This is not surprising because the question I answered does not have &quot;second quantization&quot; in the title or tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when a user posts a question asking &quot;Why X?&quot;, the best answer involves explaining topic Y. A user may post a good explanation of Y. If X and Y share no meaningful key words, users searching for the answer to &quot;What is Y?&quot; may not find the answer. Therefore, what should be done in this situation to help future users wondering about Y find the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/122570/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="06f11784-a5a2-42d4-89ac-0dc37429a2c4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I look at the questions currently tagged as popular science, I think it is highly reasonable to apply this tag to questions like([how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old][1]). I also notice that there have been instances of what can be called misuse of the tag(in my personal opinion), and questions like [Why does a glass breaks when subject to very sharp sound like in opera?][2] and [physical difference between A and B][3] are examples. In these questions I feel the the author wishes to see a technically precise answer and had not  explicitly asked for a layman's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a considerable ambiguity about where the popular science tag can be used, and this ambiguity is perhaps being exploited to tag questions which do not qualify for the tag. This is, perhaps seen by some as an effective way of keeping questions out of a main page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this I suggest we continue to use the tag for a few months, and use this period to define the tag in a way that is agreeable to a fair number of people in community. Even after this, if the tag is not being used responsibly, if there is consent from the community then it can be burniated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I would like to point out that, this problem is only a manifestation of a larger problem, which is the site is getting too large for the current scheme of organization to work effectively.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73619/how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73258/why-does-a-glass-breaks-when-subject-to-very-sharp-sound-like-in-opera&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69525/physical-difference-between-a-and-b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="7df73649-b81a-4898-a8ad-d1fc813dd787" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yeah, this looks terrible. Not only does it waste the preview, it gets in the way of the question, and can easily end up being longer than the question itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Top-edited banner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, we have [a system for attaching permanent banners][2] to posts that *doesn't* get in the way of viewing the question. I've added one for book recommendations based on your template; if you see a question with the top-banner on it, flag it for moderator attention and ask that the post notice be added instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find an example of this notice [here][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Post notice at the bottom][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zYQwc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/102363/support-for-banners&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87917/reference-request-for-exactly-solved-models&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KbbdZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="62cd522f-797d-4959-9e48-fdc4b1de5a72" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="what the hell?!  I had a Phys.SE [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/267230/2451) about regularization that had a beautiful answer by a kind user named tparker and a moderator migrated it to [Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1854967/11127)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was a question about quantum field theory and the answer totally and unequivocally helped me and received several upvotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cant help but think moderators are intentionally targetting me trying to prevent me from asking questions about regularization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is getting ridiculous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  how does one ask a question related to regularization without it getting deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am i seriously being screwed with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="1d0a5351-7176-4a97-a8e9-a68939b685ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently found this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Fractals in physics. Suggest book titles](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12784/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is currently deleted ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FMCTR.png)). I'm not sure it's a great question but it [seems to matter to some people](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/16686/fractals-in-physics-suggest-book-titles). When it was closed it was off-topic by the then-current `books` policy, but it is now a fixable question. I'm not sure why it was deleted - is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, this question should be undeleted, have the books banner added, and have its answers collected into the usual CW collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9731" RevisionGUID="3250c296-a53e-442a-ba57-846c56d4f9af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It [appears](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/147585/sgrmshrsm7?tab=activity&amp;sort=suggestions), as of now, that seven of your eight suggested edits have been rejected by reviewers.  And looking through the list, I agree: they're all reasonable changes, but too trivial to warrant bumping a post to the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your inability to suggest new edits is temporary and will return in a few days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="956743bb-5446-4f09-87ce-d9e32abef0ab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This is the user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26988/python-student). (I don't think whether this can be discussed here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He's quite offensive (if he doesn't like the rules, he can always go to Yahoo answers or any other forum)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="927e6597-0ec8-46f1-a47b-85fe6bb4217c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was recently bumped to the top of the front page by a new answer: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13020/books-that-every-layman-should-read/. I originally wanted to just recommend the new answer be deleted, but the question is so bad that I think it should be closed as primarily opinion-based, and then put under a historical lock. Or something to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an everyone-add-your-favourite-book question.&#xD;&#xA; - It is [everything a bad list question is](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/98366/184688).&#xD;&#xA; - Its answers provide no commentary or detail about the books.&#xD;&#xA; - Its sister question, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/884/books-that-every-physicist-should-read, already has a well-earned historical lock on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="e2964447-cd25-494b-b3e2-ca233068db37" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Please consider [this edit to &quot;Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/3534/revisions). (Compare versions 21 and 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motivation for these (last two) edits: I realized that my explanation in the question was incomplete, and that when I talked about the acceleration being dependent on both objects, I was actually using an equation of the force to prove it. Since in acceleration, force is divided by mass, it seemed necessary to explain why the closing acceleration of the two objects still depended on both masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking this question since I'm not a super experienced user on Physics.SE and would appreciate any help to improve my formulas or reasoning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="3cba9305-bbfc-4c48-bb0a-bbaa53522975" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a proposal that has been discussed to some extent in the h bar chat (especially with @ACuriousMind and @alemi), and a meta post to gauge the response of the rest of the community is long overdue, so here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All long-time SE users are aware that there are always a number of questions that come up again and again. Physics.SE is no different in this respect: Who hasn’t sighed at the sight of yet another variation of the twin paradox from SRT? This is a proposal to try to deal with this phenomenon in a thorough way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Proposal**: We, as a community, create a set of ‘canonical questions’, well written and comprehensive questions which cover the essential points of questions that come up frequently. These canonical questions must have a *set* of good answers. The answers to the canonical questions should address the questions at different level, with answers ideally ranging from high school to graduate school (and up!) level, where possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are two main ways that these canonical questions can be created. Firstly, we can edit existing popular questions (many candidate canonical questions can be found in the ‘frequent’ tab of questions) to make them more comprehensive, and add more/improve existing answers so they become even more useful. Secondly, we can make a couple of new questions with the express purpose of canonizing them. This would be similar to what John Rennie did [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109776/how-long-would-it-take-me-to-travel-to-a-distant-star), except with more answers, and perhaps a more thorough formulation of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody interested should probably scan these relevant blog posts: (thanks, alemi, for the excellent research):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/the-wikipedia-of-long-tail-programming-questions/&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/dr-strangedupe-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-duplication/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and most recently, one that seems very encouraging: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I am mainly looking for answers that address the following questions: Do you think we need this, and is it worth the effort? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reception in chat was quite positive, but maybe some of you have reasons to believe that this might be a bad idea, or perhaps just too much effort… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: We initially considered using the ‘faq’ tag - but DavidZ has made it clear that this tag should not be used, because it really should be burninated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="1ff370c2-bc00-477f-a3ce-b47c819b673d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The best option is to use the `{}` button, or `Ctrl + k`, to create four indenting spaces which will format code like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as dmckee pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would generally recommend **not** altering the Mathematica code. When posting any code on the site, it should be in a form that it will run directly after being copied and pasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as it happens, Mathematica will automatically turn Greek ASCII characters, like `θ`, directly to their InputForm representation (i.e. `\[Theta]`) immediately upon pasting. It is therefore OK to change those characters to their ASCII representation. This is, in fact, what the [mathematica.se prettify userscript](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/additional-useful-buttons-for-our-m-se-editor) does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, though, you can't expect _all_ your Mathematica code to be made completely clear. Take, for example, this piece of code,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sound[{Play[Re[E^(-((10000 I)/(4 10^-6 I + 60 t)))/Sqrt[10^-6 - 15 I t]], {t, 0, 15}]}]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I posted recently in [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63798/slinky-reverb-the-origin-of-the-iconic-star-wars-blaster-sound). It lost quite a bit of formatting (fraction, square root, exponential) in the transcription process, but I can't put that in and **I definitely shouldn't do something that compromises the code upon copy-paste.** Thus I left it like that; if a clearer exposition of what the code is saying is necessary then I'd recommend adding a LaTeX'd version of what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="d136164f-fb55-4e2f-bc31-26a350bee6ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your question, 'Are all infinite sums not divergent?' ([revision history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/revisions), [timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/267230/timeline)), was migrated to the Mathematics Stack Exchange site, and it is available [here](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1854967/are-all-infinite-sums-not-divergent), along with both of its answers. There is no useful or reasonable sense of the word &quot;deleted&quot; that applies to this question. It has simply been moved to a place where, in the opinion of a quorum of 3k+ rep users of this site, it is more likely to receive appropriate attention and good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, questions on regularization (along with many other topics of mathematical physics) **are** on-topic on this site. However, **not all** questions on mathematical physics (including regularization) are on-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extreme case, if a question asks for a proof of a general mathematical statement and it is completely devoid of physics context, then it is best posted on the maths site. As another extreme case, if a question deals with the application of a specific mathematical tool to a given physical problem, then it is clearly on topic here. In between the two there is a large gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some previous discussions in this meta site on where the line should be drawn inside this gray area are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/asking-math-questions&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5739/maths-question-on-physics-se-how-to-proceed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7263/questions-with-strictly-no-physics-content&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6206/by-what-criteria-do-you-judge-whether-mathy-questions-should-or-should-not-be-co&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please have a careful look at the opinions voiced in those posts (and this applies to everyone reading this post, OP, mods and 3kers alike). It is also important to note that opinions on this topic are very divided, with many posts at score 0 through routes like +5-5 or more. You can see the upvote/downvote breakdown of a score by clicking on the score if you're 1k-rep or above (for [performance reasons](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122803/is-my-chrome-extension-unethically-circumventing-se-privileges?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1)); if you can't do that yet you can use [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/meta.physics/query/509962/up-down-vote-breakdown-for-a-post) (using the post Id, the first number in the url from the share button), or [this](https://stackapps.com/questions/557/votecounts-bookmarklet-to-display-up-down-votes-even-for-rep-less-than-1000), [this](https://stackapps.com/questions/3082/view-vote-totals-without-1000-rep?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) or [this](https://stackapps.com/questions/2916/show-post-score-breakdown-early-script?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1) userscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a question is purely about mathematical aspects of a mathematical tool or topic, it is generally considered off-topic here (i.e. it is migrated to the maths site, not deleted), regardless of how applicable it is to physics. (As an extreme example, linear algebra is useful for physics, but questions exclusively about linear algebra are off-topic here. Similarly so with other tools of mathematical physics.) Personally, I feel your question is squarely in that category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are some questions, on the other hand, where the topic is mathematics but there are various reasons to expect that physicists would be better equipped to answer the question, and there is some debate on whether those should be migrated or not. However, I don't think this applies at all to your question, which explicitly thanks a mathematician for its foundation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it is important to realize that most of the moderation on this site is *not* performed by [the formal moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (which are identified by a ♦ after their username, together with Stack Exchange team members). For details, see [A theory of moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/), but the short story is that most question closures and migrations are community actions, and they require the agreement of five community members. Blaming &quot;a moderator&quot; for things like this is simply not helpful - particularly when question closures and migrations are openly and clearly attributed. (In particular, if a question is migrated, go to the page on the new site, look for the banner that says, 'migrated from $site', and click on the $site link.) Other useful tools for inspecting the moderation history of a post are the revision history (`https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/revisions`) and the post timeline (`https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/$PostId/timeline`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="610f599d-d41c-4107-b790-c2fff244c710" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="How do we interpret a question correctly when there exits multiple intepretations? for example in this question [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321428/why-does-the-metric-remain-unchanged-in-special-relativity/321433#321433, &#xD;&#xA;i interpreted it one way and answered, but apparently some others(not the OP) downvoted it saying it dosen't have enough information. Can someone suggest ways to deal with such misunderstandings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="ca98dae2-e5e3-47b6-bd9b-920da1c2bb97" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been registered with Physics SE for almost two months, I am not a physicist (programmer) and here not to get my homework done, but more of curious person. I have asked 8 questions so far, 3 zero score 5 positive. [One of questions][1] is closed due to lack of effort, [one is duplicate][2].    &#xD;&#xA;Today when I wanted to ask a question I got a warning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wait! Some of your past questions have not been well-received, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you're in danger of being blocked from asking any more.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For help formulating a clear, useful question, see: How do I ask a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After [reading that to get unbanned to ask questions][3] I have go contribute in other ways (presumedly answer questions which I would rather not as I am incompetent in physics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I ask anymore questions (and possibly get banned), I wanted to know **what is the threshold of getting banned from asking more questions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133263/what-distance-does-one-travels-in-his-lifetime&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131810/what-makes-us-move-in-time&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="92e3551f-5f77-45ef-8d1d-e74d36292379" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Can I edit [this answer][1] to my own question to make it more polite? Around 50% of that answer criticizes my question. What is the SE policy to dealing with such answers? Should they be flagged (perhaps not this case, but in more extreme cases) or edited?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/81794/29011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="145fac62-cc57-4f5f-a1e0-6808eccf961e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One long-standing feature requests for the Stack Exchange engine is the implementation of *trackbacks* for mentions of the arXiv on Stack Exchange sites. In general, if you have a blog and you blog about an arXiv eprint, you can send the arXiv a specially crafted http message, and then your blog gets listed on a page of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://arXiv.org/tb/paper-id&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that lists a bunch of internet locations that discuss the eprint. Some more examples of how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [Here](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658) is a list of trackbacks to the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658) from various blogs. My feature-request is that if a future SE post mentions an arXiv number, say, [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658), then a trackback is automatically sent to the arXiv.org who then adds the SE post to the [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/30320/2451) SE answer mentions the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0707.2895](http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895). With trackbacks to the arXiv, it would be possible to see on the corresponding [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0707.2895) that this preprint is mentioned on SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _More Examples:_ ([SE question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9727/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1103.5222)); &#xD;&#xA;([SE question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48292/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0545), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1211.0545)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent trackbacks from across the internet to the whole of arXiv, see http://arxiv.org/tb/recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trackback mechanism was implemented and put online on [MathOverflow](http://mathoverflow.net/) in 2013, and it has been ticking along ever since. A feature request was posted at about that time on [Meta Stack Excange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) to enable this across all the science Stack Exchange sites, at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [Trackbacks from SE to the arXiv.org?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has received a lot of love over the years (currently at score 62) but apparently this has not been enough. So: do you think this mechanism should be enabled on this site? If so, either post an answer here saying Aye, or go show that feature-request some (more) love." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="cd3d282b-31d0-411d-8f5e-2de4799337d9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, the number of views is determined by the IP addresses of individual users, who had viewed the question in the past. It's just a [timed counter to measure roughly &quot;how popular the question is&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/188348/205334).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by &quot;timed intervals&quot; is that, say you view a question today. And, (let's say) after a week or so, you view it again. Refresh the page, and you'll find out that the views have increased by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mods don't have any privy information regarding the views, it's really obvious that the site-developers can view almost anything. [Sklivvz](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66/sklivvz), and [Shog](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2911/shog9) are examples, as they visit us often (:P)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9760" RevisionGUID="4f07efa4-c2f9-487b-ba22-0e2984af571c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've asked [Under what circumstances might gravitational waves impart linear momentum to an object? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)][3] which cites the recoil as one example, but continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**My question is not only about this event**, but about the effect of gravitational waves incident on objects in general as well. If I have two test objects, a black hole and a star, and a gravitational wave produced from a separate event passes through them, would either of these test objects receive an impulse from the passing wave and begin to move away from their initial position due to the wave?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background material in my question covers the case of BH merger recoil, so I've asked about a situation where a wave produced from a separate even is incident on a star and a black hole. I've asked earlier about a passing gravitational wave *transferring energy* to an object and received an [excellent answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having difficulty understanding [the answer][4] to my current question. It starts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The momentum bestowed by a passing gravitational wave (GW) on an object is always going to be negligible (there may may be situations when the energy deposition is non-negligible... but rarely and frankly unlikely). The key is in the momentum carried away by anisotropic GW emission from the object itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that an unqualified yes? As far as I know, &quot;negligible&quot; does not necessarily mean finite or nonzero. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put a bounty on the question, and I'd like to award it. I've asked the poster to simply add a sentence with a clear yes. I did get a yes in a comment, but comments should be considered temporary and not integral parts of answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the dust settles I was hoping for an answer to *Under what circumstances might gravitational waves impart linear momentum to an object?* that would be easy enough for future readers to get an answer from without having to go in and start reading the citations of the 7 peer-reviewed references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster is responsive in comments, but resistant to alter or add in any way to the originally posted wording of the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there something wrong with me asking in this case for the answer to be clearer? Is there any other ways I can ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/262962/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DNUWT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/321166/83380&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/321714/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="d71220bc-36a3-4b89-b443-783926935b76" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [tag:physics-careers] tag seems redundant and confusing, since questions asking for career advice are off-topic and I see little other uses for it. It also (weakly) suggests career advice questions are *on-topic* here, which may have led to [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/74183/16660) being asked recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we get rid of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="422b98c3-9d5d-4363-bf69-1e02318876ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](http://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="bf138c98-b6f7-40f2-bcf8-117a757792bb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm pretty sure I flagged my question [Why do they think WT1190F is low density?][1] a few days ago, suggesting/requesting that it be migrated to Space Exploration Stackexchange. When I originally asked the question 8 months ago, I wasn't very familiar with either site, but now I can see that there is probably a better chance of specific knowledge on this object there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can double check that I did flag this question with this request, and if so find out if it is going to happen? I think a workaround would be to delete and copy/paste repost, but aren't situations like this what migration is for to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/214700/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="24918b42-aaa8-4916-9e10-89f781a84866" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had asked a [question][1] which was initially poorly stated. However, I tried to revise the question continually (about ten times) to make my question clearer. But yet the revisions to the question did not push it to the 'active' or the 'newest' list even though the question was improved to a large extent. Neither did it appear in any other 'list'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I added a few comments to the question to try to make it appear in the 'active' list.  Still, the question did not appear in any of the lists. Now, I do not want to utilize my reputation for a bounty as it is already less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me how to attract more attention for my question without placing a bounty on it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do take a look at my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/138565/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="12fdc0c1-f434-4217-b555-6c811fc4ba8e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the record, here are the things we're talking about since only users with more than 10k reputation can see deleted posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/322598/50583) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is special about Maxwell's equations? If I have read correctly, what Maxwell basically did is combine 4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists as a set of equations. Why are these 4 equations (out of large numbers of mathematical equations in electromagnetism) important? Or What is special about these 4 equations? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/322603/50583) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have doubts about your assessment of the Maxwell equations. For example, as far as I know, Maxwell was the first to introduce the displacement current, so he did not just &quot;combine 4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists as a set of equations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which does not answer the question of why Maxwell's equations are important or special. That Maxwell introduced the displacement current does *not* answer why the equations are important unless you explain why the displacement current is important. Remarking that Maxwell introduced the current is a valid critique of the assertion in the question that he just combined some already-known equations, but on its own it does not answer anything about the importance of Maxwell's equation. That's what I meant when I wrote my comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This appears to be a critique of the question, not an answer to &quot;why Maxwell's equations are special&quot;, so I'm deleting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="439fe660-c2a8-4580-85af-8e8831bc1c6f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The one-stop shop for tracking your badge progress (not that you should really be doing that) is [this answer to Badge Progress Reports on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3230/badge-progress-reports/143653#143653). There are  usually a few relevant queries in the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com/) to choose from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, I can't find one that looks reliable; the mother meta thread points to [the reputation page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) that Brandon pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're feeling competitive, though, [Legendary Badge advancement TopCount](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/160805/legendary-badge-advancement-topcount) will show the leaderboard: the number of days users have reached the daily cap, from über-legendary to mortarboard. [Top users by the number of times they earned 200/day&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/129639/top-users-by-the-number-of-times-they-earned-200-day) does the same, though there's a slight discrepancy with the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're wondering exactly what the criterion is, [this answer by Nick Craver](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/88526), and his comments below it, confirms that you only need 200 reputation total in [one day](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/42184/) to add a count towards these badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5223" RevisionGUID="408b90b8-32ab-43a5-8ee4-8f73dbbad820" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I can think of an analogous *on*-topic question about *perpetuum mobiles*, which was phrased in a way that did *not* bring in non-mainstream physics: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75471/what-prevents-this-magnetic-perpetuum-mobile-from-working/. Three points to note for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That question is on topic, and it got good answers, mostly because of the tone it was asked in. If you're asking us to do your work, then we probably have more interesting things to do. If you present us with an interesting puzzle, then some of us will be more interested. &#xD;&#xA; - Additionally, that question makes it clear that this is within mainstream physics. Perpetuum mobile proposals are off-topic in this site because they always have, and always will, turn out hollow. If you're trying to convince us that yours works, you're barking up the wrong tree, and our patience is likely to run short quite quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - The method given in my answer, and the associated physics, will to hold in a modified form for the device you propose. The electrostatic and gravitational fields are conservative, so your pendulum bob will respond to some specific, conservative, potential energy landscape, which is on you to calculate. You will *not* be able to harvest energy simply from gravitational and electrostatic forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, I have little interest in following up on your proposal. As DumspterDoofus explained, there's a general theorem that disqualifies your device. You're doing something wrong and it's on you to figure out what." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="60fb0035-b0d9-4411-acf3-0cceec168621" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Closing duplicate is certainly a problem, as a variation in the way&#xD;&#xA;the question is asked can suggest very different answers, and&#xD;&#xA;sometimes much better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are closed, the only alternative is to answer the old&#xD;&#xA;question, which I know from experience is mostly a waste of time&#xD;&#xA;because you start at the bottom of a list that is supposed to&#xD;&#xA;order for quality and not for date. I hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that duplicate policies are inconsistent, bordering&#xD;&#xA;arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here, I will just copy a part of [my answer to another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;about the quality of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding specifically the quality of questions**, what matters most&#xD;&#xA;is the sexyness-entertaining quality of the question, not actual&#xD;&#xA;content or preparatory work. I will take the example of two questions&#xD;&#xA;that are exactly on the same topic, but were not flagged as such:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66746/ and&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73654/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question was mine, actually my fist post on physics.SE after doing no physics for more decades than I care to tell. It took me a long time to write that question as I was trying to understand first what issues could matter, what kind of data and question might be sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very lucky to be upvoted once, and to get a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question was asked 2 month later. It is exactly the same issue, presented as a disaster movie. It was not detected as duplicate and attracted much attention and 20 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should I try to ask questions as a scientist, or as a showman ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue, directly related, is the questions removed as duplicate. First, it is inconsistant (see above) and sometimes inaccurate. Answering old questions is a waste of time. I know as I did it more than my share. Thoses answers do not get votes or comments, and I personnally hate writing for a black hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the practice of stopping duplicate question is just the best way to ensure that further input will not come, of that a different perspective will be avoided. **What would have happened if the second question above had been detected as duplicate, as it should have ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4858#4876" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="fc0e7385-9f82-4cb6-9277-99f417557964" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This has been discussed on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) several times already - see [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254399), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/185758/should-so-include-a-custom-google-search), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135753/when-searching-is-it-better-to-use-the-built-in-so-search-or-use-google), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/107211/how-does-stack-overflows-search-compare-with-googles-site-specific-search), and probably others I haven't caught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google was founded in 1998 on a business model based on a search engine. Stack Exchange was founded in 2008 on a business model based on a Q&amp;A engine. [This](http://stackoverflow.com/company/team#Engineering) is the current SE dev team - how much money and manpower Google invests/has invested on Search is anyone's guess. It's not particularly surprising that Google is good at search (considering, in addition, that SE spends a lot of time and infrastructure making sure that SE is well ranked by Google).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also perfectly possible to restrict Google searches to only Stack Exchange pages - try [adding the `site:physics.stackexchange.com` operator to your search](https://www.google.de/search?q=What+is+the+field+in+the+physics+really%3F+site:physics.stackexchange.com). That's a good way to search PSE if you're looking for something specific and having trouble using the site search. (On the other hand, you lose access to the [SE advanced search features](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) that do use the internal characteristics of the posts database, like the `score:` or `is:question` operators.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9784" RevisionGUID="684f33cf-8b25-4ea6-a6e4-e4cd9b07e0b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.377" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've un-deleted your two chat rooms and made you an &quot;owner&quot; of each, so you should be able to mine whatever information you'd like from the old comments.  Check the [chat FAQ](http://chat.stackexchange.com/faq) to understand when a room will be automatically frozen or deleted again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are [*intended* to be temporary](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comments are temporary &quot;Post-It&quot; notes left on a question or answer. They can be up-voted (but not down-voted) and flagged, but do not generate reputation. There's no revision history, and when they are deleted they're gone for good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you have a discussion in the comments that clarifies a post, please edit the new information into the post, or use the new information to write an answer to your own question. Don't rely on comments hanging around for ever, even if you like them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="70f98cc5-0dc4-43cf-a54a-949f36a530a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98731/effects-of-microwaves  a few days ago. I really asked some offtopic things but now i've edited it appropriately. But it is still closed.   &#xD;&#xA; So how should edit this to make it on topic?  &#xD;&#xA;______________  &#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I have edited my question further, is it on topic now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="b079a92e-9659-4599-a8aa-5d692df274a2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Edits do bump posts, and all questions are on equal footing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any time a question is asked, an answer is posted, or either a question or an answer is edited, the question is bumped to the top of the [active tab][1], which is also probably what you see when you just go to the [main site][2]. A question will only appear once in that list, based on the most recent modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we get about [66 new questions per day][3], the eighth highest across the network. Posts don't linger on any list of &quot;most recently modified&quot; because too many questions, answers, and edits are occurring. Imagine the chaos if every person who asked a question were in competition to keep their question at the top of such a list. Consider also that the reason edits bump posts at all is so more people can vet them and make sure there is no vandalism or quality degradation going on behind our backs, and we don't want to be flooded with unnecessary edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus there is a crowding-out effect -- you cannot keep your question more visible without reducing some other question's visibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please do not edit just to bump posts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, there is a fixed amount of attention the users of the site have, and making them notice your question necessarily detracts from other questions' views. There used to be a built-in safeguard: After a certain number of edits, the system automatically made your post community-wiki, meaning you no longer earned rep on it from upvotes. That feature has been [done away with][4], though, for entirely unrelated reasons, so we are left to trust that users won't abuse the side effect of bumping that comes with editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, making the question *better* is not a problem. If an edit substantially improves things (and remember, more is not always better), feel free to make it. But if you just want attention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That's what bounties are for.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes they can be expensive when you are a new user, but that is intentional design. Bounties let you get that attention, but they make sure you really are dedicated to getting an answer, since it will necessarily detract from the attention others get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bounty keeps the question on the [featured tab][5] of the [questions page][6] for a week, where a number of users check to find particularly worthwhile questions to invest their time answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are other channels that help unanswered questions get answered.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the featured tab and the [active tab][7] (which is the same content as the main page), the questions page also has a [newest tab][8], which simply displays all questions ordered only by when they were asked. Your question will be visible here for a longer time, as answers and edits do not count. There is also the [newest tab][9] of the [unanswered questions page][10]. A number of users, myself included, will check this list when looking for stuff to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answerers are people too, with their own motives.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's useful to remember that we all have our own interests, and thus have topics we're not as interested in helping students with (or don't know enough to do so). Add to that the fact that professional physicists may not want to spend *all* their free time answering low-level questions they've seen hundreds of times before, and you see that not everyone is in a position to serve you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, most people have a particular weekly schedule in real life. Perhaps you post a question at the beginning of the weekend, while the users most eager to answer your style of question only visit on weekdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Give the question some time. Unlike Stack Overflow, we are not about rapid-fire replies that fix the problem you're being paid to fix with the minimal amount of information needed to get the job done. Answers here are often very well thought-out and considered, and they tend to trickle in over several days at least. In fact, if someone accepts an answer I give too soon, I usually tell them they shouldn't be so quick to consider the issue settled, since even better answers may very well be provided in due time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=active&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=featured&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=active&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered/tagged/?tab=newest&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="1eccabfd-a161-4d7b-b6a2-0173a99cdf85" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Merging two posts is often a quite delicate and time-consuming job. E.g. even two questions, which are essentially duplicates of each others, can be worded slightly different, and the merged answers may have to be adjusted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unfortunately an experimental fact that a new answer (to one of two duplicate questions) gains more exposure and votes if it belongs to the newer entry. But please please please do consider answering the older entry instead so that (in most cases) newer duplicate entries can be closed with minimal grief and heartache. And do never-ever submit the same answer twice to two duplicate entries!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also please help locate duplicates, e.g. in the following frequently-asked-topics: [twin paradox in SR](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=twin+paradox); [Young double slit experiment in QM](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/double-slit-experiment); [parabolic motion in Newtonian mechanics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=projectile); and other typical homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if a question formulation is unclear, please improve it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9004" RevisionGUID="7a57fec5-5491-4a08-b638-f863537365a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's examine the facts: according to the [last data available][1], only 705 users with reputation between 125 and 250 had casted any downvote (out of 4065). From them, only 33 had casted 10 or more downvotes. Yes, there is [an exceptional case][2], but the rest seems perfectly normal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you don't know what posts did these users voted (because votes are secret!!!), you don't know their motives, and you don't know whether these users are in fact knowledgeable new users. You don't really know anything about downvotes, but you're proposing to change the whole system based in your prejudices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the technical part, the privilege system isn't controlled by the Physics.SE site, it is a part of the SE engine. In order to propose a change, you have to go to [mother meta][3]. And believe me, you will need much stronger arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/519697/downvotes-by-low-rep-users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/60480&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="fef87997-3f0a-4b1a-95be-8d528dbe4ee2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am not sure if the mathematical physics tag would be appropriate for this post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89922/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="c60d5df0-c4c0-45de-bfad-3798b8d75782" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let us take as an *example* [this question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;Consider whether you think it should be considered off-topic (for being purely mathematical in nature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should one's opinion on whether a mathematical question be closed be based on what one finds interesting, the specific written rules of this site, a combination, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this question is trivially answered by referring to the site tour (see KyleKanos's comment below) because the tour says that what's allowed is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mathematics in the context of physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions on mathematical details outside of physical context are off topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem seems to be that there is enormous room for interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;A pure math question may have obvious physical implications even if the question doesn't explicitly reference those implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach is to take the question at face value and not allow for any benefit of the doubt with respect to implicit relevance to physics.&#xD;&#xA;With this approach, the example question linked above would be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to consider whether the mathematics in the question is directly relevant to physics or might simply be so common in physics settings that other users of the site would find it interesting and useful.&#xD;&#xA;From this perspective, the example question might be kept open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139532/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="f8946a3d-8a48-43f5-8f63-5ad39f2ed9e5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think that your point, that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users with more rep points can throw around bad answers without much repercussions, while newer users get smashed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is wrong on both counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As an 'established user', posting an egregiously wrong answer and getting called out on it is a lot more visible, and a lot more embarrassing, than for new users. Further, people will be more focused on helping new users understand why their answer is wrong, and they will be less forgiving with more established users, tending to simply point out where the mistake is and why it is fatal if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Even as a new user, it is actually very hard to get &quot;smashed&quot; by a wrong answer. I definitely empathize with the feeling, as a new user, that every bit of rep is precious as you try to climb the privileges ladder; all of us felt the same at some point. However, downvotes are very light! It takes five downvotes to undo the rep from a single upvote. It would take thirteen downvotes to make you drop down the shortest privilege gap after 15 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes are a feedback mechanism. They are a way for the community to tell you that your content is incorrect, and they are an opportunity for you to use the community to help you fix it. You should of course be open-minded and reasonable, but if you are then you will either end up with a correct answer or an understanding of why your previous thoughts were wrong. Either way, in real-world terms you come out ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you manage to fix your answer, then you will start getting upvotes. If the answer is fundamentally flawed, there is nothing wrong with deleting it! There is no shame in it and very few people will even know it's there. It will also [restore your reputation](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/2638/184688): you can force a recalculation of your rep on the [reputation page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation) (or it will happen automatically with some regularity) and this will not count downvotes on deleted questions. Reputation-wise, you're back to where you started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we're speaking about downvotes: don't be afraid to post things like these in meta, either. Downvotes here do not affect your reputation, and tend to be an indication of whether people agree with your proposals or the premises of your question. As long as you're polite and open-minded, and follow the usual civility rules, nothing much can happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="7167331c-4bd2-4ba2-9a8c-a3b12c05a064" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, I know there have been several questions asked about this, but I wanted to see what the current viewpoint was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two questions in question are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going through the re-open review queue and the first one was the first question linked. I looked at it, understood that it wasn't exactly with the site policy (too broad, etc) but I thought that since there seemed to be a bunch of support for it in both the number of votes (59 on the question, and 32 on the most upvoted answer) and it also seemed like an interesting exception to have, I voted to re-open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the next question that came up was the second question linked. I read through the comment discussion, and was about to vote to re-open because I thought it was another interesting exception (coincidence that they came up at the same time?) and there was a lot of support in the comments. However, I saw [this Meta discussion][1] in the comments and stopped to read it. Since there were conflicting answers with a fairly close number of upvotes, I wanted to know what site policy was before continuing to vote to close (I could've skipped, but I wanted to know in case others came up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I have a official answer on this (or, if there's conflict, or a maybe, an explanation of the boundaries)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="f1ebd3cf-051f-4037-ab53-b19a1144cbfd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here are two recent questions that I would consider low in quality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Is coherent light required for interference in the Young double slit experiment?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What theories explain the wave-particle duality as traveling-standing waves duality?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both refer to videos. The first one is a single sentence with a link to a very lengthy video. The second says he saw the video somewhere but can't find the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there are multiple problems that apply to almost all questions that are asked about videos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They usually don't take the trouble to write up what they think is going on in the video, so in order to answer the question, people would have to watch the video, which is very time-consuming. The asker usually doesn't even give a time index that can be skipped to for the relevant part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The other problem with people failing to write up anything is that the question no longer stands on its own. The video will at some point stop being available on youtube, or youtube will be superseded by something else, or whatever...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Physics.SE is supposed to be for &quot;active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy,&quot; i.e., for people who are somewhat serious about the subject. People who show up here saying, &quot;I saw this video...&quot; are typically not at all serious about the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The video medium itself is just not well suited to presenting complex ideas. This also tends to drag down the level of the questions to something below what I perceive as the intended level of physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are exceptions to all of the above. For example, some people watch a video of a physics lecture online and show up here with a useful question, e.g., &quot;At 3:47, Feynman writes the equation $E=-\nabla\phi+\partial A/\partial t$, but isn't the sign of the second term wrong? It disagrees with the sign in Jackson, but is this just a different sign convention?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the more common case where the questions are of low quality, would it be helpful to set some kind of standard policy and/or consensus for how to respond to the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76800/what-theories-explain-the-wave-particle-duality-as-traveling-standing-waves-dual&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76692/is-coherent-light-required-for-interference-in-the-young-double-slit-experiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="8f575664-8930-4505-b438-14a038a9db41" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[An apparent inconsistency in the form of Spin-z operator for spin 1/2 system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a homework type question in that it is an exercise from Sakurai's QM book basically about forms of the zero and projection operators for hermitian operators. I think the close tag doesn't suit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows a lot of effort (most of the question is done and they even latex'd it in the link). As I've commented in the post that the close reason is essentially &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*punishing a user for doing more work than less work. One could've easily said 'I don't know what the operator in part b) is' and done nowhere near as much work as op. If op didn't have a mistake he/she wouldn't have asked the question!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in fairness Sakurai is a fairly well used book so in principle could be useful to future users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However* it is essentially a **where's my mistake** type problem which isn't on topic, so I understand that, but I also don't agree with the reasoning  &quot;*If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher*&quot; - [here on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) which might for example punish a student that is self motivated to work over a summer break, where the teacher/lecturer is busy, and maybe other classmates/friends don't want to be doing physics over a break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be on topic under the new policy, or vote down if you think it should be off topic under the new policy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271287/an-apparent-inconsistency-in-the-form-of-spin-z-operator-for-spin-1-2-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6293" RevisionGUID="3031668d-9684-4e78-ba91-7dacc91188cb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's the way the system works.  You should have a look at the available help pages, e.g. this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You lose 2 points when someone downvotes one of your questions or answers and you lose 1 point when you downvote someone else's answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="5b9eecd5-c001-4f5c-97b1-16fa117fed9b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's something strange going on with [this answer][1] (visible to 10k+ users only). I seem to recall reading exactly the same answer written by the same users some days ago. It received some comments about the aether theory, and got negative rep. Nevertheless, the current answer is dated some minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is some kind of déjà-vu. I highly suspect that the original answer was deleted, and then it war repost word-by-word by the same user. I can't check my suspicions since I don't have 10k rep and I can't see deleted posts. Note that this is different from [this question][2], since the deleted and new answers are the same (iirc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone have a look at this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/274161/78942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7209/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="0d3cbc68-b9e8-476d-89fd-5a4141deeb05" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is really just posted to get the conversation rolling and please don't infer my view on the topic from the question -- I'll post an answer when I have some time that will reflect my opinion on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there was a recent [tag:big-list] question seeking to create a massive compilation of reading materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101187/best-sets-of-physics-lecture-notes-and-articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed because it definitely does not conform with our current policies concerning [big-list questions][1] nor those concerning [reference-request questions][2] and the [related discussion][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite clearly not conforming to any of the established policies, the question has attracted 3 reopen votes. I have been [admonished in the past][4] for voting to close against the prevalent opinion described on Meta, so I would like to find out why reopen votes are being cast on a question that so clearly violates all of the established policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the discussion here is really about whether we still feel the [tag:big-list] questions are off-topic or not and more specifically whether the question linked above should be opened despite it being against existing policies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4044/why-exactly-are-big-list-questions-discouraged-shouldnt-the-faq-say-this-promi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5205/dealing-with-level-of-resources-in-requests&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/software-for-calculating-feynman-diagrams#comment197589_96510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="db790370-bf3e-4519-86cc-8fdb4184052f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wasn't clear about this in the answer you quoted (which is now edited), but moderator elections actually happen whenever the workload becomes too much for the current number of moderators - whether because of growth of the site, or the resignation/removal of one or more existing moderators. The community gets to provide input about whether moderation tasks are being done, and in that sense the community can contribute to the decision to hold a moderator election, but just saying &quot;I don't like the current moderators, so let's get new ones&quot; isn't how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can express your concerns about a current moderator in a meta post or [privately to the SE team](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="9bf1e600-5786-44e2-830d-9f5d2d7b75b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89374/velocity-at-the-very-moment-of-collision &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some comments are posted on this question out of which I flagged these two: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 The last part is a duplicate of: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35177/… – jinawee  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 An addendum to @ja72's comment is that all composite objects must in reality **d** the store and release business . – dmckee♦.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I flagged the comment no 1 two times, first because I had edited my question and explained that the last part of my question was duplicate of [this] question not that &quot;jinawee&quot; mentioned but my flag was declined.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;then I again edited my question and removed the duplicate part, after editing I again flagged comment no 1 as obsolete but it was again declined.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I flagged comment no 2 as _not constructive_ because I don't find it related to the question one time and it was declined. And after this, the comment was rephrased with minor improvement of _d_ replaced with _do_. As &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;An addendum to @ja72's comment is that all composite objects must in reality **do** the store and release business. – dmckee♦ &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;Why were my flags to these comments declined?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[this]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="3fdb01bf-2d0c-417e-abdc-8867d058d81c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="From the [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How many flags do I have?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you start out, you are allotted 10 flags per day. This number may increase to up to 100 flags per day: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You get one bonus flag per 2000 reputation. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - You are awarded additional bonus flags when you flag correctly - one bonus flag for every ten net helpful flags (helpful flags minus declined flags)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9150" RevisionGUID="79e303b6-03e3-4f4b-ba86-ab2ce42f5357" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="By the sound of it, you have not actually been subjected to an automated question ban (or, if you have, it was short-lived), you've just come close enough that you triggered a system warning. Three of your seven (non-deleted) questions were closed; please take the warning as a prompt to look at those closed questions and understand why they were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can edit [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/179067/age-of-the-universe) into something coherent that contains an actual on-topic question then that will certainly help with the prospect of a question ban. Please take the closure of [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229487/faster-than-the-speed-of-light) as a sign of some things that don't really fly here (&quot;I know this has been asked a million times before, and I know it's off-topic, but yo, check this out, if you break physics then physics breaks&quot; ring a bell?), and please take [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177618/why-should-i-believe-that-matter-does-not-expand-along-with-the-space-between-it) as a reminder that if you know the question has been asked before then you do need to check for duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, this is the automated system working as designed: you have produced a significant fraction of off-topic questions, and it is asking you to think carefully about your next posts before the site actually stops taking questions from your IP address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if I may: lashing out against the community for being &quot;narrow minded&quot; and punishing people for &quot;asking question that the scientific community don't have answers to&quot; is hardly a way to make friends. In particular, your closed questions are well short of the mark in terms of the amount of thought that you need to put into them before you can really claim that you're challenging the established scientific consensus. You're being told that you need to put in the time yourself before you go asking others to put in theirs, and I would counsel you to listen to that. It's OK to express frustration (though not in the rude way that you're doing it now), but you do need to step up to the fact that you've asked bad questions, period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="89a88f61-7096-49e6-a828-077a3d107cab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Voting to close/reopen against policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dilaton's correct [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @tpg2114 and others, we agreed in meta that questions about software exclusively used by and useful for physicists purpose are allowed. So there is no need to close this question, voted to leave open. Please do not overrule that agreement like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One should not silently oppose policies via the vote to close / vote to reopen buttons. While there is an intentional degree of subjectivity in the closing policies, there is a limit to it and if a post is objectively closeable (or non-closeable), one should not use the 3k tools against that. Too much of this might lead to a review ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wishes to overrule these policies, they are free to discuss it on meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is important for you to cast your votes according to your own assessment of the question. This is especially important when there is a great deal of subjectivity involved, either due to an intentionally subjective policy or the lack of a policy altogether. It's OK to vote against popular opinion on a post -- it helps give a true assessment of what the policies ought to be. But this only applies to cases where there is some subjectivity involved, not when you know that the post is objectively off topic by current policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, vote by the policy, not what you feel the policy should be. When there is subjective leeway offered by the policy or a lack of policy, vote according to what you feel and not what everyone else feels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Best Sets of Physics Lecture Notes and Articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the resources post, that seems to be the one [tag:resource-reccomendation] to rule them all. Extremely broad, since it more or less is a resource-rec for all physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we can do, however, is move the answers into the community wiki historical answers on the older, converted, book questions. I'm not sure if all have been converted yet (Emilio and I had managed a couple, not sure how many the volunteers managed to clear up), but if so we can just move the answers over. And possibly create new book questions for the ones where there aren't answers yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or move to the tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/software-for-calculating-feynman-diagrams#comment197589_96510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="4da1fb26-a181-4105-a800-cf45318d2882" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**The current moderation team is doing just fine.** We officially have [5 mods]: David Z, dmckee, Manishearth, mbq, and Qmechanic. mbq's activity has been sporadic recently, but I see all 4 of the others every single day. So maybe we really have 4 active mods. That seems to be working well for now. Maybe we could use another mod, but I could go either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm skeptical of this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't trust some of the current moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be much more effective to discuss your specific concerns, rather than vaguely insinuating that something isn't working. If you are not comfortable discussing it more specifically, then that is symptomatic of a larger distrust with the entire SE system. Simply by being here, and asking this question, you are expressing at least some trust that the system still works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see from [your activity] that you have been less active in the last couple of weeks. Is that because of your distrust of the mods, or is this just part of the normal ebb and flow of time and energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5 mods]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators&#xD;&#xA;[your activity]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/10522/drake?tab=activity&amp;sort=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="7251871b-6350-4fd2-a1dc-8088264ec339" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sorta. [Gerard ’t Hooft](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11205/g-t-hooft) has an account here and has answered a few questions (16, according to his profile). However, he hasn't been very active lately, last stopping by back in February 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are others, I'm not aware of them (or they're not making themselves known)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="d432e56c-2bc3-4841-9fec-75af3a961865" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a = b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\label{my equation}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\end{align}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equation \ref{my equation} is my equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan on editing my question [Alternative representation of the covariant derivative?][1] to make it more compact and concise, but it would be nice to save time and not have to renumber all of the equations [manually](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/2451) a third time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101464/alternative-representation-of-the-covariant-derivative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="2196081f-47e4-46bb-a1a3-bec3fb432fc2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Peter Shor][1] has an active account (as of this posting). He's not a Nobel prize winner but he developed/has a famous [quantum algorithm][2] named after him, which I think qualifies him as a &quot;big shot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/399/peter-shor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="1455625d-31a8-460b-8ff3-2792e0f3d1dd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I have expressed mainly by my edits on such posts, video-based questions can indeed be rescued to give, I think, fairly high-quality content. This is definitely time-consuming and should only be done if you think the end product will be worth it, but I think the end results can be quite good, such as these two, in their before-and-after shots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rotor panorama](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/75709/revisions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is coherent light required for interference in Young's double slit experiment?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/76692/revisions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, it is extremely unhelpful to come to a post that says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs) is confusing, please explain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and nothing more. If you have the time, see the video and decide whether it's worth keeping into a full Q&amp;A. If it is, and you have the time and capacity, take the appropriate stills from the video, describe what's happening, and fill out the question. If you don't, then leave a comment to the OP explaining that they need to flesh out their post and set out a question that is not dependent on the video.* Refer them to this meta thread, too, to drive home the message that if they don't change their post soon then its likely future is lots of downvotes and no answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have time to look at the video, then also leave a comment and also refer them to this meta thread, it's [easy to find](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=videos). **Please avoid drive-by downvoting**, though, unless there already is an appropriate comment: it does little to help the site and very little to help the OP improve their post and get an answer to their question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I note, though, that for users without image-upload privileges the whole thing is an uphill climb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="cd8adcd5-970c-449e-942f-392f8f887c01" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You mean like the third paragraph in [this edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/35315)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's kind of a tricky case.  The problem is that the change is *in the middle of* an equation, so the diff engine sticks some extra markup in there to highlight it, causing MathJax not to recognize it as a valid equation at all.  To fix it, either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a) the SE diff generator would need be changed to treat MathJax sections as atomic blocks (which would have the unfortunate side effect of always showing the entire equation as changed, even if the actual change was to a tiny part of it), or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* b) MathJax itself would have to be somehow tweaked to recognize the diff markup and replicate it in the rendered equation.  [I've done a bit of MathJax hacking myself](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4130/the-scope-of-newcommand-is-the-entire-page/12502#12502), but that sounds way beyond my skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the first option above would be the more practical one, but I can't really tell &amp;mdash; AFAIK, the diff generation is done on the server side, so only SE developers actually know how the code works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kgjie.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="99937a1d-f854-4712-8045-882fe21f819b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Close Reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not Enough Effort**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen much discussion about this one; however, I think it is important in a certain formulation. First, I think there are two situations where this is applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Questions that would normally be considered &quot;problems&quot; where no work is shown, e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276675/motion-in-a-projectile-plane, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276640/pressure-cooker-at-a-hill-station (this can be used on non-math work questions; it is more about showing your thoughts).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions whose answers are so blatantly obvious (I don't even mean Wikipedia-obvious, I mean even *more* blatantly obvious) that they are not worth answering, e.g., https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276508/what-is-internal-energy, or (hasn't been asked) &quot;Why do rocks fall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think questions should be closed for this reason if they do not fall into one of those two categories. I mean, for example, that a question such as https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276712/method-for-measuring-small-diameters should *not* be closed for not enough research effort. While it is a poor question, perhaps, and deserves a downvote, it should not be closed as &quot;not enough effort&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think it is important that this reason is limited to these two categories is because of subjectivity. Most people can agree that questions falling into the two categories above should be closed, but there could be a lot of debate about another question that might have been otherwise closed with this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Check My Work**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should definitely be a close reason. I have seen many questions that could (and should) be closed with this reason (for example, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276576/line-of-charge-passing-through-centre-of-a-charged-semicircular-rod). This seems to be one of the main categories homework-type questions fall  into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that the check my work close reason should only be used for trivial calculation errors; questions about a conceptual mistake (for example, whether a certain formula is appropriate in a given situation) are on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Purely Calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'd like to point out that *just because a question asks about math or includes math does not mean it is off topic*! I say this because I have seen multiple questions that I would consider good, on-topic questions closed under the idea that they are &quot;not conceptual&quot;. I'd solidly disagree with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This close reason is more for questions that are *all* math, or *all* &quot;do my math for me&quot;. Tedious do-my-work questions would probably fall under this close reason (aka, calculate this for me questions). An example of a question that is on-topic (even with this close reason) in my mind would be https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247719/mutual-e-force-due-to-charged-coaxial-rings (though I am specifically referencing question #3 as listed, #2 is more a mathematics.SE question and #1 is a check-my-work question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones that *should* be closed under this reason would include, for example, the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275704/angular-trajectory-of-body-moving-on-rim-of-a-carousel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there is a *more specific* close reason, then one should use that. For instance, you could say there's some overlap between the check my work close reason and the not conceptual close reason. But obviously, if both are valid, the one that is more specific to the situation is the one that should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Formulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific formulation of whatever close vote reasons we pick will probably need to be hashed out in their own meta post. But, I'll just give a few starter definitions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;not enough effort&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show enough effort. It either **does not show the thought process that lead to the question** (mathematical or otherwise) or the answer **can be very easily found on the internet**. As such it does not carry any value for future readers. See our [meta site][] for further guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;check my work&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about **checking your work**, and a trivial calculation mistake, not a physics concept. See our [meta][] for more guidance. Please also make sure that if it is about how to calculate something to try [math.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Purely Calculation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be **outsourcing a calculation** to the community without any broader context. Please ask about a specific concept, show work and explain where you got stuck, or provide more context. For more information, see [this meta post][].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that where I put [some text here][] I meant for a link to the definitive meta post to go there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps, and any feedback would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I originally worded the title to the third possible close reason rather poorly, and changed it. The third close reason is meant for purely calculation questions, as the title says, and I'll be adding more examples of questions that would be closed under this reason soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtzW3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKzl3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://math.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="77460f4a-a46e-42ef-9917-211111de39a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Looking at your profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/66236/sakhan?tab=answers&amp;sort=newest), it seems you simply didn't get any upvotes on your recent answers, so they didn't net you any reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="6057f57e-d4c1-4347-804c-bd52d9b7fd6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If [this question][1] had been worded like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Is it physically plausible that a lightning strike could make your sweat boil and cause your clothes to explode off your body&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would it still have been closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154420/lightning-strikes-causing-nudity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="247b7e09-e20c-4f1d-8547-0556431f99eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we've been discussing [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102109/numerical-ising-model-wolff-algorithm-and-correlations) whether questions on numerical algorithms should be allowed when the context is a physics problem.  The last time this was discussed on Meta seems to be [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2) (a follow-up to [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43/should-we-allow-computational-questions)), which implies that such questions should be allowed. However, computational questions have historically beenoff topic according to the definition of our scope in the help center, and the [last time I proposed changing that](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/921/computational-science-in-the-faq), the only response was to wait until the [Computational Science site](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com) had taken off and reevaluate the decision then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, now Computational Science is well established, and nevertheless it seems we are of the opinion that numerical algorithms in a physical context should be on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this assessment accurate? Does the community want questions on numerical algorithms in a physical context to be on topic for us? (this is just a last opportunity for anyone who disagrees to speak out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How should we word the item that would need to be added to the [Help Center's on-topic page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) under the &quot;What topics can I ask about here?&quot; heading to reflect this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="f5ae10bc-1385-42a9-a898-a28faa14dd00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see that it is possible,.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is community wiki because you've edited it at least 10 times, or because at least 5 different people have edited it (as opposed to a moderator making it community wiki), then the answers **do not automatically** become Community Wiki. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c.f.            https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30052/how-much-water-must-flow-trough-canal-to-maintain-a-constant-water-deep       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="732b74a3-f414-49c5-88a9-f137c54ac42d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There should be a flag to raise complaints like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Lacks research efforts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Transfer to Chemistry SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276969/how-supersonic-plan-could-create-shock-wave&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276969/how-supersonic-plan-could-create-shock-wave)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="2174a34b-bd4c-428e-8c9d-f4a946007164" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You were told exactly why below the posts:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found in both of your deleted posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![heaviside01][1]  &#xD;&#xA;([source](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/160072/25301), requires 10k+ rep)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;([source](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/156041/25301), requires 10k+ rep)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are additional *thoughts* to your post. As such, they belong *in the question post* and not as **answers** to your query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uqtuJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CxMPr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="5bdaf9cc-b879-4956-a641-aed2b2ce008c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Browse through our unanswered questions!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mma-se-ads.herokuapp.com/static/physics/unanswered.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5007" RevisionGUID="ec51b791-a70c-4308-b663-0ed049c39308" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Am I really discouraged from correcting spelling and grammatical mistakes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example [changing &quot;tale&quot; to &quot;tail&quot;][1] is trivial in the sense that it doesn't affect the meaning of the question, but it makes a big difference to the way visitors will perceive this site. Do we really wish to encourage the stereotype that scientists are illiterate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78610/why-comets-have-tails" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="78850a2e-a3c9-4144-bb22-af8806c8c69f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've made a test on [this question][1], the answer is **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More exactly: after reloading the review entity, it was still an open review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279038/what-is-the-spatial-extent-of-single-photon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="7b21fc67-8ce6-4c79-a5cb-afb5a2491b5d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics is scheduled for [an election starting next week, September 26th](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that election, we will be hosting a Q&amp;A here for candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation.  Participation is completely voluntary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how we performed the [Town Hall Chat](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat) in the past, but instead of being a real-time chat system, it's a two-stage Q&amp;A done through Meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how it'll work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Until the nomination phase, (so, until Monday, September 26th at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Please use link syntax using the `[](URL)` syntax instead of the syntax which puts the URLs at the bottom of the post - it will make creating the resulting questionnaire significantly easier if you do so. Placing raw URLs is fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the end of the collection phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election. That said, if I have concerns about any questions in this fashion, I will be sure to point this out in comments before the decision making time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, containing (up to) 10 questions in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this process is started at the beginning of the nomination phase for the election. We're trying an experiment where we push the two sessions of this back one week - question collection beginning a week before the actual election, and then the questionnaire opening when nominations begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, this will mean that the nomination phase will not exist for users to get information about candidates in order to formulate questions. On the other hand, this will allow candidates to have a fixed set of questions ready by the time they start writing up their nominations, and give them time to have their responses up before any actual voting begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Stack Exchange Moderator FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq): In order to know what to ask would-be moderators, it's important to understand what moderators do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2016 Physics SE moderator election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Current mods' opinions of how being a mod affects their use of the site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="40516cc6-42ca-48ef-89a2-1e84fd0cd173" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="After finding precedence https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5527/should-this-question-be-on-hold I'd like to bring a question that I wrote to attention. Namely, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102447/quantum-computing-records is currently marked as closed, but was modified after being placed on hold to limit the scope of answers. The last time a similar question was asked occured 3 years ago, and the field of quantum computing has undergone vast changes since then!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question has three short sub questions that can be answered with 2-4 sentences each with a paper or link backing up claims. Originally, I had asked if the answers could include more records that might be of interest, and that is where I believe the question became too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short I am asking that the question be looked at again for opening (preferably brought back) as it has been modified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="bb4ff6e6-23fb-412a-bb3d-2f8967dc6799" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am new here (and enthusiast), and I do not know if that refers to me, but I am asking anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am exploring the site: in all Q&amp;A sites you have favourites, not posts, but users. **This is very useful**, you surely know: if you appreciate some subject or the way somebody replies, you are informed of the new answer , you can send them a PM , etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, like every new member I suppose, have been impressed by the quality an clarity of some members: John Rennie, Lubos Motl, AnnaV, Rob Jeffries etc., usually I vote a good post, go to the profile, and explore the answers I like. I know you must vote the post and not the person, but I do **not** vote all posts, just the ones I like. What is wrong with that? Why should one vote one post, wait for an hour and come back to read another? That would make life very complicated, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that I noticed some posts scoring less than -1, which I found interesting, and I thought that it's inappropriate to humiliate a scientist and a lady with more than one negative vote. -1 would alert readers that someone disagrees and thinks you should take it with a pinch of salt, but that's all! am I wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.. I am sure that I upvoted many more posts by John Rennie than by Anna and those votes, surely double have not been reversed, so I think the program must be faulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember which posts I voted, and of course in a few weeks it will be absolutely impossible. I wonder what happens if by chance I should vote again a post that has been reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am asking if it is a problem to vote (deliberately or not) again a post on which a vote has been reverses. Of course now I'll vote a post after an hour or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am sorry if I was not clear or if I have been misunderstood, I'll try to express a few opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is a pity one cannot have favorites (persons) and follow as one likes&#xD;&#xA;2. I do not see the reason to give [a question*]( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa) 16 negative votes. This is in itself an exaggeration, I think, but that becomes absurd when the answer gets 27 positive votes. So, the question was not so not-useful/stupid, after all? And if it was stupid, how stupid can a question get? A proverb tells: &quot;*the only stupid question is the one you never asked*&quot;. Again, I think, and I may be wrong or you may disagree, I think that is a superfluous humiliation &#xD;&#xA;3. I can find an answer interesting even if, for an expert or a specialist, it has some minor or major mistake.&#xD;&#xA;4. The vote-reversing system is an illusion, because naive voters like me are checked, while voters in ill-faith know how to elude the program, voting after some time or I do not know when/how. I hope this is clear and that can be agreed.&#xD;&#xA;5. In other sites there is a list of well-defined rules, if I have overlooked it , tell me where it is , if there is not, it should be made so that newcomers can know exactly what to do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, you have been very helpful and understanding!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was recommended in a comment, I'll post some remarks as a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="989c800a-e841-4632-9041-3cd49a887667" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A recent question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80465/are-stephen-crothers-claims-legitimate has made me very uneasy. I will explain why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, this question is too open ended. I visited Crothers' website, looked through a lot of the papers and correspondence (mostly for my amusement) and discovered that he has a LONG list of arguments against the existence of Black Holes, the Big Bang and tonnes of other mainstream ideas in astrophysics and cosmology. I saw the first video the OP linked too and there were many claims made there too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It seems the OP desires a simple explanation. This is almost impossible without going into technicalities of the Schwarzschild solution and other concepts in GTR, owing to the nature of Crothers' arguments. One can just look through the exchanges Crothers' had with many scientists, some of whom took great effort to dissect counter his arguments, to see how time-consuming this will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Beginners looking at this question will see: &#xD;&#xA;   i) Videos and papers of a man putting forth his 'bold' arguments.&#xD;&#xA;   ii) No answer technically detailed enough to dissect all the claims given in the links.&#xD;&#xA;This will give beginners the impression that Crothers' has a legitimate claim to make in completely dismissing and trashing the foundations of black holes and cosmology. This could potentially mislead beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. SE is ranked high in Google searches. This will create more publicity for Crothers' and Co. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried flagging the question. Manish told me that he would appreciate a discussion on this topic before deciding what to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I have nothing against Crothers' and Co. personally and it is only after reading his emails exchange, papers and watching his videos have I come to realize the true danger of giving too much attention to people like him (who are totally closed-minded). I only hope my question on Meta doesn't publicize him further. If it does, I will probably delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="402ee00c-a920-4b1b-8243-ac51a85d9c8c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to force a recalculation of your reputation, the reputation page at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/reputation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will give you an exhaustive breakdown and force a recalc. I currently see your reputation  at 2,010, so you're above that threshold, but as dmckee notes it is perfectly plausible for someone to have upvoted one of your answers, triggering the announcement, and then retracted the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes can be retracted [within the first five minutes after they're cast](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34323/im-getting-your-vote-is-too-old-to-be-changed-for-a-vote-i-made-less-than), in which case they do not show up in your reputation history. They can also [be retracted if the post is edited](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19235/is-this-a-bug-in-voting-or-is-it-supposed-to-work-like-this), in which case you will get a corresponding `-10` on your reputation history, with the explanation `unupvote`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [What are the limits on how I can cast, change, and retract votes?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5212/what-are-the-limits-on-how-i-can-cast-change-and-retract-votes) at the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tNPNP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="60bd34e6-f063-4caa-91a2-1c6b3e460072" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I really would like to refrain from whining and so whilst I have been downvoted to -5 or less before, I haven't really bothered to complain about it.  I truly do not want to be that person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would like some criticism to why my question received -3 because in my eyes it is perfectly valid: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90347/proof-that-the-ground-pushes-you-up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just asks about why the ground is expected to push back when you try to jump; the answer of which is as simple as compression and decompression (hence elasticity) of the surface on a nanoscopic level.  I mentioned that I'm new to physics and gave my opinion on what I thought was happening.  I got answers and -3 votes but nobody said anything out of the ordinary and when I asked, nobody bothered answering me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody please explain what I am doing wrong in my question?  Is it the way I asked it, the content itself, or perhaps is it too low-level for the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="2f59cfcc-906f-4a14-b71a-8267b6f70b28" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="_(Answer updated by including Moderator inputs)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All user contributions on Physics.SE are licensed with the following stipulation, as may be seen from the [Terms of Service](http://stackexchange.com/legal) (Section 3), which specify the exact attribution requirements for reusing content outside of the Stack Exchange network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same may also be seen by scrolling to the bottom of this page, which is a mere reminder of the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, attribution is required, i.e. you should cite the source. Once you do that, reusing (&quot;borrowing&quot;) images is allowed, which is consistent with this site's [policy on plagiarism](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, that's also true as a safe, general practice in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="c7403ea7-d479-4ce7-94dc-1de1b6279eb1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [Jim's](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That really depends on the specifics of the situation? Is the user trying their best? Are they a form of technically proficient troll? Is is simply a matter of poor use of language skills? It's difficult to judge at a glance. I'd probably have to go through several of their posts and try to establish a trend. Even then, the system itself allows for this to happen. Obviously, you need to keep an eye out for suspicious voting patterns. Make sure there is no sock-puppets. However, in the general case where it's purely innocent, there's not much that can be done. Perhaps I could encourage the user to consider what they write more carefully; properly format their posts; and possibly include references wherever possible. However, if they are getting enough upvotes to sustain a score in the thousands, then I'm not going to take negative action against them without them doing something directly against policy and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My highest priority would definitely be quality of questions and answers. In my opinion, our size is large enough to be sustainable for the long term. Furthermore, as a moderator, I feel that maintaining quality and standards is a necessary responsibility of the role. I could not sit idly by and let the quality of posts on this site slip all in the name of allowing it to grow larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, I think I'd be generally unsure of actions. I'd probably ask more established mods for advice. Overall, I'd say I'm in the middle. For small tasks or things where the course of action seems fairly obvious, I'm likely to go ahead and take action. But when it comes to an action with significant ramifications or non-refundable results, I'd probably wait for consensus. I generally like to give everything proper consideration. I like to get all the facts I can before deciding, and I always try to ensure I've considered the perspective of whomever I can. Being a moderator is about being moderate; impartial; reasonably stand-off-ish. But when all is said and done, if an action must be taken, I'm the person that won't hesitate to take it, won't hesitate to admit when I'm wrong or don't know, and will ask for help or consensus when I need to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm usually not around on the weekends. I'm off and on most of the day otherwise and I can try to give a solid 1-3 hours at the beginning of my day (I'm on eastern time, fyi). It's not much, but that's all I can offer for sure. I can't imagine any reason why that should diminish in the future. I'll always have time at my computer first thing in the morning. In fact, it might increase in the future. Really depends how my life plays out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, I think I've been fairly impartial and diplomatic so far. The added responsibility means I'd probably be a bit more serious (dang it) and I'd probably stop complaining about users (all 3 times I think I've ever done that). But seeing as I usually end up telling people &quot;This is nothing personal, this post is simply not a good fit for our site&quot; or something like that, I'd say my tendencies are already fairly in-line with moderating. Although, I won't lie, I'm definitely going to joke around about my having a diamond on my name. So be forewarned, if you don't have a sense of humour and can't understand that me joking about my omnipotence doesn't actually mean I'd ever consider abusing power, then 1) you should probably avoid all contact with humans in the future and 2) be prepared to be offended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of our scope and topics is something that is user-defined. Therefore, it falls to the community to decide the appropriate scope for the site. What I believe is irrelevant. I can offer my opinion of what I think the scope should be on meta, but once decided, all I have to do is enforce it. If a question belongs in another discipline according to our community, I'll move it. If not, it stays. If there's a grey zone and I'm not sure what to do, I'll ask for input from others. It really isn't my call how the site should evolve. That's the community's choice. I would just moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tough to say. It'll certainly give my word more weight (which, as King of all Jims, says a lot). I suppose I'd also be able to do something about obvious sock-puppets more than simply following them or flagging for a mod. I'd also be able to read the new posts by new users to old questions and actually be able to get rid of the random garbage ones (like &quot;PHYSX SUX!! LOLOLOL!!1!&quot;) rather than just flagging them. At the moment, however, I'm not entirely sure what all the moderator tools are yet. I have no doubt they'll improve my ability to moderate, much like how reaching 10k rep significantly improved that ability, I just don't know what way that will be yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I adequately covered this question under #6. This even starts out the exact same way as #6. I'm not answering the same question twice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This question has been marked as a duplicate by: Jim**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Life isn't black and white. Things are complex. Stop asking me what I'd do in a situation without any specific details whatsoever. I have no idea how I would handle this yet. Is the person genuinely passionate about an obscure realm of physics? Are they trolling? All manner of details need to be discovered. If they produce valuable answers, then they're worth keeping around. Comments are transient and mostly don't matter. Remind them to be polite and civil and keep my actions within protocol. Consult the &lt;s&gt;Jedi&lt;/s&gt; Moderator Council if I really can't decide what should be done but am sure that an action should be taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the other mod aside (likely to a private chat or something) and discuss with them why I think they were mistaken. You don't want to show mod in-fighting in front of our subjects. Hash it out with them, agree on what should be done, then do it. If we can't agree, then call in another mod for a tie-breaker. Or open it up to the community, depending on the situation. I'm not going to subvert the authority of other mods. I respect that they may have a perspective I lack and I'm not going to get into a war with them. Things can be handled with words. If I'm overruled, then I can accept that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5069" RevisionGUID="f8016a8b-d0ec-4945-95eb-ea16b072ef1d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the answer was probably asked in good faith. I don't think [Stupid][1] was claiming to have read Schwarzschild's paper. He was just repeating a claim on Crothers' site that Schwarzschild's paper didn't predict black holes. The claim is wrong of course: Crothers has committed the beginner's error of thinking that because a solution is expressed in different coordinates it's a different solution, but let us skip lightly over this without comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a point to be made though, and I almost posted a meta question on the subject. We all love the heroic underdog figure, and if you watch the video linked in the question Crothers is an entertaining and plausible speaker. Although the question was phrased in neutral terms Stupid was obviously predisposed to believe Crothers was correct and we wicked physicists were maliciously ignoring him. In the face of this prejudice, and without being able to resort to mathematics, how can we make a cogent argument? I wish now I had simply ignored the question. It was a bit like wrestling a [tar baby][2] - with every attempt to disentangle myself I just got more deeply mired :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30918/stupid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="7cdfeab0-a413-4936-bd72-99ae36a97a12" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The 2016 Community Moderator Election is now underway!&#xD;&#xA;Here are the relevant links and resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3): Includes a brief statement from each candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Official questionnaire](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/2016-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire): Questions that the nominees will answer as a way of demonstrating why they'd make good moderators. The questions here were selected based on response to a set of [proposed questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Present (2016 September) moderators' thoughts on what it's like being a mod](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9164/in-2016-pre-election-what-activities-are-involved-in-being-a-physics-se-mod).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Election chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/45927/2016-physics-stack-exchange-election): for discussion of election procedure and asking the candidates questions. This will also host our [election chat session](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/2016-moderator-election-chat-october-4-1600-utc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Main Stack Exchange FAQ on what it means to be a moderator**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118972/stack-exchange-moderator-faq). Please read this if you plan to vote in the election. In order to cast an informed vote we need to know how being a moderator differs from e.g. 10k or 20k rep users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Town Hall chat transcript from the previous elections: [2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/631/2011-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest) and [2012](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2768/2012-moderator-election-town-hall-chat-digest). Useful for background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please comment on this post to point out that an important bit of information is not covered in the links above, and we will track that information down and add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta or in the chat room linked above -- just make sure your questions are tagged [meta-tag:election].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="c7709fe8-efdb-49cc-a7c0-810b692f7391" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm pretty sure I was the first downvote which was based on the original version of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proof that the ground pushes you up&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Excuse me if this is obvious because I am new to physics)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It has been said that when you try to jump you are exerting your force on the ground and the ground pushes you up. I was wondering if this was an over-simplification or not. If so, what's the full explanation? Otherwise, I would like to know the derivation of this proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a couple issues with the question.  First, you were asking for &quot;proof&quot; and the fact that you don't fall through the ground and that you can jump sure seems like great proof to me.  Second, you didn't really ask about the source of the normal force or any details of the interaction.  Third, there are many very similar or identical questions on the site and it doesn't seem like you did any effort to search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;tool tip&quot; when you hover over the downvote button reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your original formulation and the downvote guidance that my downvote was called for.  You've since edited the question and improved it.  I don't think the downvote is as appropriate now so I've reverted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Also, as an aside, this site is about getting the best answers to the best questions.  This is one of the reasons why questions and answers can be edited by anyone.  The [revision history][1] show you fighting with editors (in my opinion) inappropriately.  There are times where edits should be reverted or fixed but I don't see any examples of that in the edits to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/90347/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="a4fc4fd7-db9e-412f-9e39-3a911d068f61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted these question as an answer and probably is better to ask a new question:&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain what is the sense of giving a post (question/answer) more than a couple of negative votes, if the purpose is only to alert the reader that that post is not particularly useful, or is incorrect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the sense of giving [a question*]( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15443/do-we-need-maxwells-equations-since-they-fail-to-account-for-an-experimental-fa) 16 negative votes. This is in itself an exaggeration, but that becomes incomprehensible when the answer gets 27 positive votes and makes the answerer ( I think a mod) earn a precious badge?. So, the question was not so *not-useful*/stupid, after all? And if it was stupid, how stupid can a question get? A proverb tells: &quot;*the only stupid question is the one you never asked*&quot;. Again, I think, and I may be wrong or you may disagree, But, isn't that a superfluous humiliation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I see that since last week after my post, the negative votes have increased to 17, what is the sense of this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed, also, that a duplicate usually carries a negative vote: is it a shame in itself if one, without realizing, asks a question that has already asked? I have heard one should evaluate just *the post*, its content, is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If it is, how can a post be worth -3 and its exact duplicate +8?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="c9f5d3af-ef63-4cbd-8cc4-23e58c0375f5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105984/friction-influencing-the-motion-of-a-mass-and-non-inertial-frame-of-reference/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105653/kirchoffs-rules-and-rc-circuits/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pretty apparent that in both of these questions, the user was legitimately asking for help after he/she tried the problem him/herself. I understand if the questions are closed if it just directly asks the community to solve everything, but why these? I just don't understand why the moderators would put them on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and both of them were closed after I answered, did that have anything to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't say that they don't contribute anything to the community. Does that mean reading solved problems can't teach you anything? I guess all the Physics textbooks should stop printing solved examples then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="6d2af5ba-73ba-49e5-ac5e-399e454af0af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There has been a lot of discussion in the past in regard to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a page ***Physics homework questions*** on [Area51][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that page you will find a suggestion, to change the name of the site to ***Physics Learners***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a very good idea to keep well understood and text book level physics separate from current research topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise details may arrived at through a discussion, however what you think of the general premise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 1:**&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of the kind of questions that I definitely want to separate out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an [example][2], I hope it will help making my point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note technically this is not a homework question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not to say this is a bad question, I am sure everyone has asked that at some point in their life. But really is a distraction to a research community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit2:** If we make a new site, question such as [this one][3] would have receive ample attention, as it would stay on the main page for much longer and so on, it would not be lost in a flood of questions of the former type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186624/units-about-weight&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183575/can-you-take-the-cutoff-to-infinity-at-a-conformal-fixed-point" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="3bbaa2fc-366c-49fb-b171-71a125f39548" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One of the things that bother me the most about book* recommendation requests is the endless stream of similar requests that can spout around any specific topic, for all the different possible reader levels and prerequisites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;I'm an undergrad and I want to learn QM&quot; says someone. &quot;Me too, but can you keep it to minimal functional analysis?&quot; says someone else. &quot;Actually, can you cut down on the linear algebra?&quot; and &quot;I haven't taken analytical mechanics, so could you go easy on the hamiltonians and lagrangians?&quot; say two more people... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and on and on it goes. It is completely impractical to have a new thread for each such request: we should have a single, canonical book-recommendation thread for, say, ~undergraduate quantum mechanics, and close all the requests in the paragraph above as duplicates of the main thread. I see this as absolutely necessary to avoid the quality dilution and the clutter that would come otherwise, and which led us to ban the tag to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is unfair on people coming to this site for book recommendations to give them no voice regarding what level of books are present in the answers to the canonical thread. If I do find the main thread and find it to be full of books that need no functional analysis, but I can't handle the linear algebra in them, I should still be able to invite answers at that level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand I'm a little late to the game, but I was busy working on other policy for the site. (And, you know, my PhD.) I nevertheless would like to propose a change in how the [recently adopted policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) works on the *question* side of the affair. (The answer side is, on the other hand, well dealt with, I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## I propose we keep a single thread per topic, and that the specific requests of level be included as edits and comments to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in this scheme all the requests above would be merged into a single thread which would be formatted along the following lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Good undergraduate quantum mechanics books&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are good books or online resources to learn quantum mechanics at an undergraduate level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Level of resources&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are looking for resources in this topic but you find the answers in this page too advanced or too basic, add a request in this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there good books that use minimal functional analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I'd like resources with very little linear algebra.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What are books with little resource to lagrangians and hamiltonians? My analytical mechanics is a little shaky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proposal does require additional curatorial attention, in deleting parts of the resource-level list as they get addressed and newer requests are added. However, I feel that this is quite small in comparison with the bulk of work of curating the answers. It provides input to the people who have very specific requests, while keeping the answers condensed into one big resource that's useful for future visitors, instead of scattered into lots of small, specific lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as I have argued elsewhere, policy changes are only half policy changes if they don't come with a documentation proposal. Thus, this change could come with the following paragraph added to the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## How do I ask a resource recommendation question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First of all, [search the site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?) to see if the topic has been asked before. Adding the tag `[books]` to your search may be useful. If the topic has not been covered, start a new question. Keep it general! We want questions and answers to be useful for future visitors. Ask for a specific topic. If you have a specific level or set of prerequisites that you'd like answers to address, add it, separately, at the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the topic *has* been covered, don't ask a new question! If the resources in that thread are too advanced or too basic for you, or you have some specific set of prerequisites that the current answers don't address, edit the current question to request it. Add your request to the list provided, or start one like the one in [this question]().&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What say ye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*To appease the purists, throughout this post &quot;book recommendation&quot; should be understood to mean &quot;resource recommendation&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="0b735e51-25c8-4779-92a6-a867fd04c92f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am very disappointed by my experiment on this site. Four days ago, I posted this question:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/280899/  .&#xD;&#xA;After less that 24 hours, it was put [on hold] by 5 persons as being unclear. So I edited my question a first time in the hope the [on hold] would be removed so that people can answer it, unfortunately it remained in the [on hold] state. I read from the rules that &quot;*Questions that are not reopened within five days will change from [on hold] to [closed]*&quot;, so I went deeper in reading the rules from page https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/reopen-questions where it is suggested to re-edit the question and  &quot;*Flag the question for moderator attention. Again, explain why it should be reopened. There is more than one moderator, and moderators do reconsider their decisions*&quot;. So I followed these steps, re-edited the question a second time and flagged the question, explaining the moderator why in my opinion the question should be reopened. I was then surprised to get the following answer from a moderator: &quot;declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention&quot;. Hence either he or me does not comply to the stackexchange policy... being novice here I guess that it is my fault, but could someone explain me what I did wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I am very disappointed: I have now spent many hours having to justify myself for asking a question which, unless I am completely stupid, has clearly some interest, and lost hope of getting an answer. I write it here again for information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double-slit &quot;thought experiment&quot; described by Feynman in [Lectures on Physics Volume 3 section I-6 Watching the electrons](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html) consists in firing electrons through a double-slit to observe the interference of electron waves, and watching them after passing the slits with a light source placed behind the double-slit, at equal distance of each slit. As electric charges scatter light, one can &quot;detect&quot; which slit the electron went through if the photon wavelength is small enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: has this &quot;thought experiment&quot; been simulated by solving numerically the underlying Schrödinger equation? I am aware about numerical experiments of the double-slit, but did not find any including the interaction between the electrons and the photons just after the double-slit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerical simulation can address other types of particles, the crucial point being the simulation of the observation (here the photons being scattered by the electrons) and its effect on the wavefunction. Its interest could be in particular to better understand in which precise way the observation progressively becomes inoperative when the photon wavelength increases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="fb4af236-cc3c-45f6-bd0d-def90a95e166" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is inspired by the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is it physically possible to convert matter into the electromagnetic spectrum(specifically x-rays)?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/93707/26076)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I put in the title is in part rhetorical, for I am sure that there are many users on this site who would agree with its sentiment, a conclusion I reach from seeing the great deal of loving work many users put into their answers, particularly to answers that are patently almost ridiculously well within the writer's level of competence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if people agree that the answer to my question is &quot;yes&quot;, then why do people vote to close questions like the one I cited? Is there something in this site's policies that I am overlooking? It's not simply about this question: I cite it only as an example. Let me list what it is about this question that is important for this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It bespeaks a reasonably intelligent user with a smattering of knowledge about physical science and who is speculating with this knowledge to reach conclusions that are clearly wrong and patently so to someone with a physics background;&#xD;&#xA;3. A google or Wikipedia search would not readily show why these conclusions are wrong - at least from the standpoint of *a reasonably intelligent person without a physics background*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My cited question is clearly not someone seeking to publish their pet, peer-review-less theory on this site. There are two very fundamental reasons why the answer to the question is no: firstly that (1) we have no way of encoding the complex quantum state of something like a cell or a brain in the interactions between photons, aside from by turning the quantum state into a colossal document and sending it by digital communications and secondly that (2) &quot;quantum teleportation&quot;, as I understand it, so far has the highly specific meaning of quantum state transmission from one system to another of the same kind: e.g. atom states are &quot;teleported&quot; to states of the same kind of atoms through entanglement combined with classical information transmission. So there are two key pieces of knowledge here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An understanding of the idea of *state*;&#xD;&#xA;2. A rough knowledge of the kinds of quantum teleportation that are actively researched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point here is that it is hard for someone not of a physics background to latch onto these two concepts as search terms for google and Wikipedia. If one looks at the quantum teleportation wiki without a good understanding of QM, I can well imagine that once could read this article and not see any obvious reason why Star Trek teleportation won't work, at least as far as we know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given my title of this question, what is wrong with dispelling someone's ignorance and giving them a few pointers to their future research? Some will find such questions irritating, but surely the dispelling of ignorance that a good answer to this question is a *win for science*. I despair these days at the lack of scientific literacy throughout society, and this lack is positively dangerous when it underpins appallingly ill informed policy decisions of powerful entities like governments and influential corporations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now I'll stop banging on: I guess a reader can guess that I'm pretty passionate about *not* closing this question and shall keep applying the principles stated in my future reviews. I'll sign of with an exhortation: if a question is not showing obvious laziness, *please try (1) to imagine things from the standpoint of someone not as skilled as you in physics and ask yourself the question (2) is an well placed answer a chance to dispel ignorance and further the scientific literacy in our world?* before voting to close and repeat my question: what are the main reasons why people do vote to close these questions and how can we better apply the principles of spreading our knowledge around if people agree that such an endeavour is important.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="b0df4cd4-8fc2-4652-b488-6e54fd7c6679" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="QMechanic's [comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107091/soft-question-the-best-way-to-learn-physics-road-map#comment218659_107091) really says it all. You are correct that your question is not an exact duplicate (and the moderator made this explicit, so accusing them of not reading the question is hardly the type of constructive discussion we expect in meta). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your question is a *very* poor fit for this site, for a number of reasons. This format works best when questions have something like a unique answer, when there is some sort of objective criterion to determine whether a given answer is correct, and hopefully one to determine which of two answers is better, and when expected answers contain facts and experiences instead of opinions. Your question fails miserably on all counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, no one, at all, ever learns physics 'in order'; everyone learns a few things at a time. Secondly, there isn't really any way to tell one way is better than another. Voting becomes meaningless in such a question. Thirdly, one never learns all of physics, and you will be hard-pressed to find someone who can tell you both in what order to take quantum optics and quantum information, and what plasma courses to take befor learning astrophysics. Relatedly, you yourself won't learn all of physics, so that large parts of any answer would likely be irrelevant. Moreover, since you presumably have already started learning, what would you do with the answers? What if I told you that the best way is to learn math all the way up to functional analysis and then derive all of each field from its basic principles? Would you implement that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more general guidance, you should refer to the Meta question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list, and to the blog post [Good subjective, bad subjective](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/). In this site, list questions are unlikely to prosper unless you make very specific requirements of the answers, and take care to avoid all the pitfalls I mentioned and in those two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me clearly thank QMechanic for closing that question in a timely fashion before more people became invested in it. It was an open-and-shut primarily-opinion-based, too-broad question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="5e16a333-a83e-47e6-9df3-f767b2ea746f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That a question gets no answer does not necessarily mean it is &quot;too hard&quot;. It could mean that, but it could also mean that no one knowing the answer found the question interesting enough to spend the time writing up the answer or that no one knowing the answer *saw* the question (your question has 78 view, which is not that many). Or the people knowing the answer didn't have time to write an answer and then later forgot to come back. You often can't know the reason a question stays unanswered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to migitate some of the possibilities I said, then the &quot;standard&quot; way to increase the visibility of a question is to [place a bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). This additionally offers additional incentive in the form of reputation points to the people knowing the answer to actually spend the time writing it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, you could edit your question to make it more easily answerable and more easily readable. The longer a question, the better your writing must be so that people actually read through it instead of finding something faster to read (it's debatable whether this behaviour is a *good* thing, but that's how it is). Ask yourself: Do you explain why this question is *interesting* at the beginning to get reader interested and read on? Are all those pictures really necessary? If &quot;the question is short&quot;, then why is the question so long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do edit your question, then that will put it on the top of the &quot;active&quot; questions list again. Please do not use this feature by making trivial edits (e.g. adding whitespace, correcting one typo every ten minutes, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [posts shouldn't look like revision histories](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5886/50583). A new reader doesn't care *why* you added the second part historically. They care what it has to do with the question, and how it's supposed to make answering it easier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="df859241-66f0-4ca2-a10f-5586b8a0b19d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know you could just leave a comment, but not in this case I couldn't. I just found this awesome app while researching on my passion, physics. I stumbled across [a question about time dilation][1], not the easiest concept to grasp, and a commenter had his own question within his comment, just wasn't  looking at the answer correctly. So, I stared at this screen, going to different links forever and it was impossible since I have no, &quot;points&quot;, since I just signed up. I clicked on, &quot;answer&quot; and FINALLY, it let me speak. Intellectual curiosity is an amazing thing. Well, next thing I know, I got my first comment and flag all in one. All you scientists know how important it is for more and more people to have a scientific world view if we're planning on living on this planet for much longer. So I gave him an easy layman's answer to fully understand the answer.  We all know you don't have to know the math to have that burning curiosity of the unknown, and the want to understand and wrap your mind around things you had no idea was wrappable. I believe I gave this user a just as valid answer as the mathematical answer. Do you? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90745/gravity-on-the-international-space-station-general-relativity-perspective/192950#192950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="091fc39b-5cd8-4393-9f9c-25fe1a3ed0e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In **this particular case**, I think the only thing that was done wrong was not linking the OP to the multiple questions about quantum teleportation and instead voting to close it as off-topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Could teleportation ever really happen?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/could-teleportation-ever-really-happen)&#xD;&#xA; - [Using quantum teleportation in a way to have the effect of matter teleportation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39363/using-quantum-teleportation-in-a-way-to-have-the-effect-of-matter-teleportation)&#xD;&#xA; - [Quantum teleportation - the alternative to destroying atoms](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77760/quantum-teleportation-the-alternative-to-destroying-atoms)&#xD;&#xA; - [Why can't quantum teleportation be used to transport information](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14276/why-cant-quantum-teleportation-be-used-to-transport-information)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And so on](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=teleportation). Surely these would have dispelled the ignorance and raised awareness of science to the OP and the future readers, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="1b068c12-d871-4604-bdb7-6faa7434adb3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that OP's [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/2451) (v3) is a valid mainstream conceptional question concerning the thermodynamical [arrow of time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) in the same category as, say, inquiries about the [Boltzmann H-theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem) and [Loschmidt's paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox). The question should therefore be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why OP's question was closed as non-mainstream: Well, it seems it was a mistake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to use this opportunity to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Remind reviewers to skip a review if they are in any way in doubt. &#xD;&#xA;- Stress that our reviewers usually do good and competent work.&#xD;&#xA;- Encourage more 3k+ users to participate in the reviewing process. Without reviewers, Phys.SE can not function. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="b4a6017d-144f-4f66-9a5e-92569904066c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Phys.SE is currently 3.5 years old and has the [second-most traffic of all the science sites at SE](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-traffic) (with Math.SE being number one), so at least in that sense it is quite successful[1]. Also Phys.SE receives a lot of Google hits and is quite visible on the Internet. So Phys.SE has in many ways found a robust formula, which is spelled out on the [help pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. We welcome questions of all levels, but please stick to the following topics [...]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should not let events outside Phys.SE (which might be just a flash in the pan, like the previous [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics)) dictate what is and what is not the purpose of Phys.SE. We welcomed all levels before, and we should continue to welcome all levels. By splitting up Phys.SE in many parts, we may very well destroy the formula, which has worked in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the theoretical reasons to keep all levels at Phys.SE, there might also be practical reasons: It may be practically impossible to establish an unanimous definition of what constitutes high, medium, and low level, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning high-level questions: You can still ask high-level questions on Phys.SE! We are open 24/7 and it is business as usual. One thing that we learned from the TP.SE failure (with its unfortunate slow traffic) is that if you ask a high-level question, there might only be a few experts in the world that can answer on the spot. Many more experts would be able to answer after &quot;doing the calculation themselves&quot;, however they often haven't the time. But if they are curious enough they might do it anyway! So long story short: One should expect that high-level quality answers take time. Phys.SE offers a visible platform on the Internet and has many active (and also some more dormant) experts in all corners of physics. If you have a high-level question in physics, then Phys.SE is definitely one of the best places to ask it, in terms of receiving a useful answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning low-level questions: We should continue to enforce that questions should preferably be conceptional. E.g. low-level homework questions should follow certain [rules](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). Moreover, some basic/minimal research of the topic (like googling before asking) is generally expected, cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5033/2451) meta post. As for a discussion of a [Popular Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58070/popular-science), that seems to belong to [Area51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) rather than on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] In fact one interpretation of the large traffic volume is that we are drowning in success: The front page currently changes every 6 hours (or so), which means that it is easier to overlook a post nowadays, relatively speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="dba66dc6-2c90-4d68-924e-258e3bb0fd45" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Possible reactionless drive](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/286855/possible-reactionless-drive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My question is [on hold] as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my analysis the system should work and start to move after photons injection on trajectory and my question is if someone find an error in my reasoning and the (closed) system actually won't move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should work with current physics so I don't understand why my question was put on hold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="2820effe-f46e-47b6-8c35-0b3899a799e5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [ACuriousMind's](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) questionnaire answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I am rather dismayed that it is possible that this happens, I don't think this is a problem that can or should be solved by moderator intervention - at least, not by using any of the additional privileges a moderator has. That this is possible is an inherent property of the SE engine and the weights it attaches to up- and downvotes. Of course, if significant support for the idea of raising the weight of downvotes was present in the community, it would perhaps fall to the moderators to present this position to the SE team - but then again, everyone can make such a feature request at the [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question intends to imply that maybe moderators should delete the answers of such users or suspend them, then I don't think that either can be justified. Also, deleting their wrong answers potentially leads to the users *gaining more reputation*, depending on what exactly the vote count on the wrong answer was, which doesn't solve the problem at all. Selectively deleting only the answers which contribute to their positive reputation would appear capricious and targeting a specific user instead of specific posts, which is generally inappropriate. Suspensions are only appropriate when an explicit rule was broken - and &quot;posting wrong stuff&quot; is annoying, but not in violation of any policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality. I do think the general voting behavior on this SE currently encourages questions that are much too lazy and ill-thought out. I wrote about this [some time ago](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6767/50583) and although the numbers are of course off by now, I still stand by everything I've written there. However, I don't see how this priority of mine would be any more relevant as a moderator than it was as a high reputation user - the primary means of quality control is *upvoting high-quality questions and downvoting low-quality questions*, which is completely unaffected by moderatorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly wait for consensus regarding suspensions, except in cases where one is immediately needed for the user to &quot;cool off&quot;. I would also, at least at the beginning, wait for input before dismissing custom moderator flags, but perhaps not before validating them, if the case appears clear cut. I would not wait for consensus when reopening or closing a question, but I expect to be casting both reopen and close votes much less than I currently do since I don't want to overuse the unilateral character of these votes. I would also not wait for consensus before deleting obsolete, rude or irrelevant comments, since those are supposed to be ephemeral by design anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guarantee a minimum of an hour per day for at least the next year. My time &quot;spent&quot; on the site is usually more, but I'm often doing other things while occasionally checking the site, so the actual time *invested* into the site is difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that 99% of what I have posted will not reflect badly, and that most of it reflects rather well. I can remember some stray comments and chat messages where I might have been less charitable than I should have been, but there is nothing that I would be ashamed of. The most significant change to my routine in the site would probably be that I don't do the &quot;ordinary&quot; review queues anymore, which I currently visit almost every day, and that I might be a bit more careful to distinguish site policy from my personal opinion when commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think our scope is generally quite alright as it is. The very nature of these interdisciplinary questions is that it is difficult to make general policies that cover them - this is where community moderation has to shine, hashing out whether a given question is &quot;just enough physics&quot; or &quot;not enough physics&quot; by several close/reopen cycles if need be, or just by a bit of comment/chat/meta discussion about the specific question. As a moderator, I would refrain from casting my unilateral votes in any binding manner on those questions, i.e. I would only cast them as fifth votes. We don't elect moderators to *make* policy, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't make me more effective. Moderators aren't supposed to be &quot;more effective&quot; versions of ordinary users, they're supposed to be trusted janitors who clean up the messes and do the behind-the-scenes work that's unsuitable for community moderation but nevertheless needs to be done to keep the site running smoothly. I love this site and I want to be part of the reason it's working. In the past, I've done so by participating in the review queues every day, which is something I *strongly* encourage every user with sufficient reputation to do. Now, I get the opportunity to do so in another role - if you want me to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there should be boundaries in terms of &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think there currently are. There are good and bad questions at a layman's or high schooler's level, and there are good and bad questions at research level. I've seen plenty of all of those. What I expect from a question is a reasonable amount of research effort, and an attempt to communicate clearly the *conceptual question* the asker is having. I strongly dislike all stances that think questions have merit simply because of their level. Questions have merit because they are *good, well-posed questions* that can be answered with physical insight. Note, however, that just because you can write an amazing answer to a question that doesn't necessarily make the question itself any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case where I see a question closed merely because of its *level*, I would strongly consider unilaterally reopening it. We don't have a policy about &quot;level&quot;, and I don't think we should have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what kinds of flag exactly this user generates. Generating a lot of &quot;obsolete&quot; flags is a *good* thing, since it indicates the user leaves a lot of comments leading to posts being improved, making the comment obsolete in the process. Generating a lot of &quot;not constructive&quot; or &quot;too chatty&quot; flags is worse, although it might just indicate a chatty user. I'd advise the user to use comments only for relevant communication and take longer reply chains to chat instead, but probably take no further action. On repeated offense, I'd be more quick to move the discussions to chat, but if everything's civil, I don't see a need for other actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generating a lot of &quot;rude/offensive&quot; flags is a lot worse, and would probably warrant a suspension if warnings to be nicer do not succeed. As I said above, I would not impose a suspension without waiting for consensus from the rest of the moderators, unless the user is currently generating those flags and no end is in sight. In that case I would impose a short &quot;cool off&quot; suspension to de-escalate the immediate situation, and then consult the other moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd first make sure I understand the reasons for which the other moderator took that action. If I still disagree with the result, I'd take the issue to meta. Moderators should not make policy on their own, so if two of us are in strong disagreement what to do with a certain question, this indicates that the community's larger position on that type of question is unclear or needs to be re-evaluated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="61b1a21e-cc17-4f01-b3d4-60245604aa9f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this question is just an assertion that none of the posted questions are genuinely new. Here's one that is: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/197941/what-is-the-smallest-possible-electronic-transistor I do have in mind a 'radically different technique' for building it which has been posted (elsewhere) but the linked question is about the design/possibility of such a thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="48f9b0ff-e742-4c67-834f-a241ffef974a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Earlier today I was eyeballing other people's badges because, you know, badges, and I came upon something of a curious observation. If you look at the answer badges - specifically [Nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer), [Good](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/39/good-answer) and [Great](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) Answer, there is a clear sense that, even for the bronze badge, established users of the site - and particularly users with, say, 1k+ rep - get a lot of the badges. However, if you look at the users who have earned the gold question badges, the picture is completely different: [Famous Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/37/famous-question), [Great Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/42/great-question) and [Stellar Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/51/stellar-question) have been earned overwhelmingly by &lt;1k rep users; ditto for the silvers and bronzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course not news. This was discussed in depth in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions. It is also not a surprise in any sense that more questions come from lower-rep users and more answers come from higher-rep users - that's to be expected in some form in any Q&amp;A site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm quite struck at how we *do* have a pretty big set of really nice questions, and that they were mostly asked by quite low-rep users. While it is natural that questions will tend to be asked by lower-rep users, it is not a given that the good questions will come from that end of the scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore decided to explore this theme a bit and, in the meantime, dredge up what's left of my SQL skills after ten years (!) of rust. I came up with this query for the Stack Exchange Data Explorer: [What reputation do people with Popular/Notable/Famous Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152438/what-reputation-do-people-with-popular-notable-famous-question-badges-typically-h?viewsThreshold=10000&amp;repThreshold=100000#graph). It produces a cumulative-distribution-function-like plot of the number of users below reputation `rep` that have asked a question with `&gt;viewsThreshold` views. For the gold badge, the plot is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 90% of such questions were asked by users who (even now) have less than 1k. There are a few between 1k and 2k, and really not much other than [this great (cw) question of Mark Eichenlaub](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401/what-software-programs-are-used-to-draw-physics-diagrams-and-what-are-their-rel) and [this one of nibot's](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1135/what-is-the-difference-between-kinematics-and-dynamics). I genuinely think this is surprising and really puts the nail on what we knew all along: 'expert' users need to start asking more questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also raises an interesting question as regards why this happens: can it really simply be explained by low-rep users &quot;stumbling&quot; on the good nuggets of question space, as part of the huge body of questions asked by the overwhelming majority of users that have &lt;1k rep? Looking at, say, the questions that earned the [Good](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) sobriquet, I think there is something else at stake. Those questions have a simplicity, and therefore a generality, that I think tends to be lacking in the questions asked by more established users. What do people think about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have also cooked up the corresponding query for the Nice/Good/Great Answer badge series, [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Answer badges typically have?&#xD;&#xA;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152446/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-answer-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). There aren't enough Great Answers to give a smooth enough plot, but the silver earners, at 25+ votes, are distributed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (1) the horizontal scale is very different, (2) the slope is much shallower, and (3) only 20% of silver-earning answers come from &lt;1k users. (And, also, multiple good answers from Luboš M, John R, Anna V, David Z, and Mark E.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for completeness, here are the corresponding queries for the other two question badge series: [What reputation do people with Nice/Good/Great Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152450/what-reputation-do-people-with-nice-good-great-question-badges-typically-have?scoreThreshold=10&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph) and [What reputation do people with Favorite/Stellar Question badges typically have?](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/152452/what-reputation-do-people-with-favorite-stellar-question-badges-typically-have?FavoriteCountThreshold=25&amp;repThreshold=1000000#graph). Both have, as far as I can tell, the same behaviour as the views-based series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware, of course, that so far I've been talking a lot but there aren't many actual questions. The main motivation of this post is to share this observation and the (moderately hard and solid) statistics that back it up. I guess the real question is something like: what do people make of this? Does this correspond to the image this community has of the site? Or is there something missing from this analysis. What are the core reasons for this to happen? Is it simply a volume thing - i.e. the bulk of questions tends to come from lower-rep users than higher-rep ones - or is there indeed some core simplicity and accessibility to those great questions that eludes many of our great answerers? (I think there's quite a bit to that. And, in that case, we should really go and learn how to ask from those great questions.) If this is happening, is it a good thing? Is it a neutral, that's-how-things-are, thing? Or is it something we should try to counter-act? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to the comments and the Pulsar's and Manishearth's answers I'd like to say two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is that *of course* question score is only an approximate, stand-in metric to the completely undefinable &quot;question quality&quot;. However, I feel it is not entirely a bad metric, particularly at the high end of the scale: most of the badge-earning questions are indeed good questions. (That's not to say, on the other hand, that all our good questions get high score, and particularly so for high-end questions.) But there's nothing wrong with a highly-voted, low-level question: if it gets good physics across to a lot of people, at a level where they can understand it, what else could you ask?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on this site, mostly, to refine my [outreach](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_outreach)[-fu](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-fu#Suffix), and I suspect most high-end users are here at least partly for that. As I see it, these questions are a very valuable resource. Seriously: go read our [Good Answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/41/good-question) and tell me you didn't have fun. And, at least, it's something we can and should learn from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1pPol.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iViBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="c436d720-8c77-40da-8e49-a356f2e44495" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the question [why popcorns become soft after popping][1] the tag `popcorn` was suggested. I think it would be nice to have a more general `everyday physics`, or a better name that you could come up with, to collect the explanations of everyday phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is not `popular-science`, that [was][2] not [liked][3] by the community. It is not &quot;explain in simple words what QFT is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be interesting? In the interest of archives, if approved, should we go through old questions and re-tag them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/112015/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4699/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4295/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="1fa70150-9a30-45aa-b405-0b39c1f97973" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked [this question][1] about explaining gravity to a 6 year old and it  made it into the &quot;Hot Network Questions&quot; list. It generated a lot of discussion and has some very good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, a moderator commented on the question, saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The point of this site is not to educate people, it's to allow people to ask high quality physics questions and get high quality answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the question is of **high quality**. Probably not. But I've seen similar questions here before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73564/explaining-to-a-five-year-old-why-dont-bubbles-run-like-water&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76650/explaining-uv-radiation-to-a-6-year-old&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77191/explaining-newtons-laws-of-motion-to-a-6-year-old&#xD;&#xA; -  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9805/how-do-you-explain-spinning-tops-to-a-nine-year-old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the question off-topic? If so, why? I'd like some constructive feedback on this - I think it will help me ask better questions in the future.&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any way I can improve the question without invalidating all the current answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/94471/28097" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="0fa3ad44-59ab-40d4-84c6-5ac085f4a1de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Use the [contact us](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact) link at the bottom of the page and choose the reason &quot;I need to delete my user profile&quot;, then follow the instructions (if any) that you receive. It may take a few days for the request to be processed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [How can I delete my account?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7979/263383) at Meta Stack Exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="254340c8-35b9-49fb-8303-57d867e4ba1b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9294/8563), a user complained that [one of their answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (&lt;s&gt;10k+ link at the moment; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CF23h.png)&lt;/s&gt; answer now undeleted, see the [answer timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/288694/timeline) for more details) was unfairly flagged as plagiarism and summarily deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP there has also asked for no further discussion to take place there (though in my view the OP has no such right - they can ragequit if they want to, but they don't get to decide what others can and cannot talk about) and a moderator has closed that meta question (again, completely unjustified in my view, but oh well). Since the discussion there has been shut off prematurely, I'm posting this as a separate thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no plagiarism of the text. There is some indication that [the answer text](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/288694/8563) (10k+ link) is indeed based on [this page](http://minerva.union.edu/claina/visualmeteors.html), but there is nothing in the text that I would classify as plagiarism. The answer could benefit from citing the source, if that is indeed the page the OP consulted, but the paraphrased text is re-structured enough that it is clear that they are the OP's own words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is an unattributed use of [this image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXGtq.jpg). This is an academic problem (always cite your source), and it is not clear that this site is licensed to reuse that image, but this is in no way a fatal flaw in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The answer contributes content above and beyond the specified source. This is evident from even a cursory comparison, as the image of the Apollo heat shield, and its associated text, is absent from the purported source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clear conclusion is that Suzu Hirose's claim of plagiarism in a comment is completely overblown, and at best an example of carelessness when making such a flippant remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator action to delete this post seems to me to be completely overblown. The moderator seems to have taken Suzu Hirose's comment at face value, and seems to have thought that the text was taken directly from there, when a reasonable inspection shows isn't the case. The moderator's tone also seems off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The moderator comment, on balance, seems OK - the moderator has expressed displeasure with the answer, and it does fall to the OP to say something along the lines of &quot;hey, read the post again, there's nothing like that going on here!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On those lines, the immediate deletion of the post seems completely unjustified to me. Deletion *could* be justified if the plagiarism was actually there, and(/or?) the OP had been given time to respond (and possibly failed to), but this does not tick any of the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of specific outcomes that I would like to see happen, the answer in question should be undeleted - there is no reason for it to be out of action, because it contains no actual plagiarism. After that, someone (ideally the OP, but they seem to have left) should edit in the image attributions, and probably add the source as a further-reading link, but those are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I read this as a localized instance, and I don't think it is representative of a wider trend. However, there's also no harm in asking the moderators to be extra careful, in general, when vetting accusations of plagiarism, to check that the plagiarism is actually there before summarily deleting any posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="bc126e34-64b4-43ad-9fd7-525ee1092465" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="af51b251-0a5d-4466-9d4f-9e8eb6263ad8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Actually [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285830/what-is-the-significance-of-null-zero-vector) was asked in PSE and after googling it I gave the same question on [yahoo](http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100603025915AAxYW7Q) with an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;can I copy paste that answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="9de3c8fa-2f57-458f-bf8d-821980a22315" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is this a good question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come Land Speed Records for Cars get higher speeds than motorcycles? (Even though they're less aerodynamic?) Is it because more rocket can be packed onto a car, as compared to a motorbike?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posted, and flagged for a move to Engineering: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201819/what-are-the-biggest-reasons-that-land-speed-records-for-cars-are-than-motorcycl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="6ba44fb1-1b19-4535-83a8-249fdb98c517" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) Speaking in general, the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag also covers journals and non-paper electronic materials, such as, e.g., video lectures, on-line resources, software, experimental data files, etc, cf. e.g. its [tag wiki](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/resource-recommendations/info).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from a practical point of view, why have different standards for books, software, etc? E.g. it seems they should all be [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;II) It seems relevant to acknowledge (see several meta discussions, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451) and links therein) that the Phys.SE community is split on whether resource-recommendations and/or software-recommendations should be allowed or not, since unmoderated, they often tend to turn into too broad, primarily opinion-based link-farms, or even duplicates. The consensus seems to be to allow a limited number of resource-recommendation question as [CW](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451)s. It is up to the Phys.SE community to decide which to keep/close by reviewing and by policy making on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="2ac0bf0c-b21d-4e4b-8c1d-64f369df3f77" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Certain posts are marked as *community wiki*, for a variety of reasons. Essentially, if you mark one of your answers as community wiki, it is very easy for other users to edit your post and contribute content to it, and it is taken as an encouragement on others to do so. Because of this, certain 'benefits', including reputation, are suspended in community wiki posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) or https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts at Meta Stack Exchange. It is my understanding that most people feel this information is visible enough and does not need further highlighting - it is only one search query away at the help center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="020178db-e731-4084-bb98-c9a7bdf27645" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Site members are free to answer whatever questions they want. The answers that give me most satisfaction are detailed quantitative answers to hard questions (typically about GR) but those are a lot of work. By *a lot of work* I mean it can take me an hour before I'm satisfied with an answer. That's a long time for people who have to work to pay for a living. By contrast [a simple answer can be dashed off in a few seconds][1], and (there being no justice) can often accumulate far more rep than a hard answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any time management expert will warn strongly against doing the quick easy tasks first and neglecting the long hard ones, but we're only human and none of us are being paid for this. I frequently succumb to the temptation to dash off an easy answer, and given the manifest lack of god-like forebearance on the part of the other frequent answerers I'm sure they do the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point is that if you post a hard mathematical physics question I will look at it but there's a far chance that either it's outside my area of expertise or I don't have the time to do it justice. Hopefully someone will respond, but inevitably only a small fraction of the site members will have the knowledge to answer a hard question, and they too may not have the free time at that moment. You can always put a bounty on the question if you want to attract more attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207295/when-i-boil-a-kettle-what-stops-all-the-water-from-turning-exploding-in-to-s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5337" RevisionGUID="9662c47d-8245-4415-92a0-966f3af737af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To insert pictures, you can click the handy &quot;Image&quot; button above the question/answer field:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image button][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will prompt you to locate the picture either on your computer or on the internet. It will upload it to StackExchange's special imgur account&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and insert the appropriate formatted link in the text field. Note that you are encouraged to replace the highlighted text with some image description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![pre-formatted image link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *making* diagrams, there is no particular toolset on the site.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; We do have many [suggestions][3], though, for standalone tools. Use whichever you want, and upload the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why nothing integrated into the site? You can make a request, but as you'll see in that last link, there are many different opinions about what works best. Besides, whatever option there is has to be amenable to integrating into websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You should do this rather than just format an appropriate link to the image. This way the picture is permanently stored even if there is link rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Unlike, for instance [Electrical Engineering][4], which has a [tool for making circuit diagrams][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lO6nf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SytVf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/401&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2708" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="1e6f638e-83de-4b5d-b0bc-5430db634237" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to strongly suggest the Phys.SE community to carefully re-examine the following question and the reasons it was put on hold or regarded as not a good enough question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/288987/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's question about the potential energy being $|x|^3$ but it then described as simple harmonic motion seem completely legitimate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution from the book doesn't satisfy the equation it is supposed to solve, as OP said there very clearly. What effort could OP be expected to make, for example explicitly trying and failing to solve the differential equation using the wrong solution? I don't think there is a reasonable effort lacking here, on the part of OP. As to the people voting to close the question and calling it homework, at the risk of being rude, I'm far from impressed about their level of effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also clearly isn't a homework-like problem. OP asked whether that is a case of simple harmonic motion as the textbook says. The answer is that it isn't, and that the textbook he showed the image from is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7115" RevisionGUID="76ea79fb-d43e-4ec3-ad1d-a381af9fce94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You don't have a claim on the time and effort of the community here unless and until you are willing and able to follow the group norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's really that simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that you would like an answer to something that has been bothering you doesn't empower you to demand that a particular gathering of people give their time to providing that answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet sites have cultures and mores every bit as much as gathering in physical space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ours are laid out in the [tour][1] and especially in the [help center][2] pages about [what to ask][3] and [what not to ask][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wouldn't barge into a church and demand that people doing advanced bible study tale time out to recount to you the story of the flood, would you? Nor storm into the lunch room at a major nuclear physics lab walk up to a table and ask the people there to do your homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you approach nicely, when other things are not going on, you might get a positive response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="84e1c139-23ed-4b61-901f-43204ac7a6f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I realize that non-mainstream physics is off-topic, but I would hope that moderators err on the side of inclusion; I went through all of the OP's links and learned a lot imagination/conjecture-wise, without being swayed into joining any shady physics cults ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly, sourced rebuttals and elucidations present in answers on those topics do a lot to show me what is going on with some of the higher reaches of physics without climbing those crags myself. I'm not exactly sure how you would get the same result without questions of this kind to complete such a &quot;Socratic method&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say what you will about the wackiness of [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75706/could-we-see-a-lower-dimension-within-our-universe/75787#75787) for example, but I learned a *lot* from the comments and the sole answer, and it was equally worth it to untangle what the OP was asking despite it being ill-formed, and, if the answerer is right, pointing at a non-mainstream theory (braneworld)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="c959cc3e-bdb0-4eb8-b37f-58a5da6b79c2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just ran into the following link http://mob.rqna.net/qna/rxquhz-creating-large-aspheric-lens-profile-for-cnc-cutting-out-of-acrylic-plastic-for-huge-camera-obscura.html which seems to be a exact copy of the question-and-answer from earlier today on physics.se : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/118998/creating-large-aspheric-lens-profile-for-cnc-cutting-out-of-acrylic-plastic-for/119011?noredirect=1#comment243027_119011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a known problem? Is it even considered a problem? I was quite surprised!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7117" RevisionGUID="522d5e30-56c1-44f9-a02a-c58f3f6998f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="User X joins Physics Stack Exchange, creates an account, and starts perusing the site. Unbeknownst to everyone else, User X is a spammer, and will do everything he can to add spam links, rude language, and offensive messages wherever he goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the 50 reputation barrier for posting comments, it's fair to say that User X has the ability to completely ruin a good portion of the site in about 30 minutes, especially if one of the moderators isn't around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User Y joins Physics Stack Exchange. User Y cares about physics and about helping people. He's also curious, and wants to ask questions. Yet when User Y begins exploring, he sees the work of User X and other spammers everywhere. Saddened that Physics Stack Exchange has become one more crappy Internet forum, User Y leaves forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's try that again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User X joins Physics Stack Exchange, creates an account, and starts perusing the site. Unbeknownst to everyone else, User X is a spammer, and will do everything he can to add spam links, rude language, and offensive messages wherever he goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User X tries to comment, but quickly learns that he must first gain 50 rep. He decides to start asking and answering questions with lots of spam. It is harder for him to do so because high-rep users can delete posts that are offensive/spam/not-made-in-good-will&lt;sup&gt;[[1]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools),[[2]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user)&lt;/sup&gt; (the same is not true for comments). User X is frustrated and soon leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User Y joins Physics Stack Exchange. User Y cares about physics and about helping people. He's also curious, and wants to ask questions. He realizes that he needs to gain 50 rep to comment, and so he asks and answers questions, like he planned. Within a day, he has gained that amount and much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="99adec06-3b5d-40e1-8205-c726116fefaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What happens to comments which are moved to chat as times passes by? Are they conserved, or do they disappear after a time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is triggered by the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271230/ground-state-of-local-parent-hamiltonians-and-invariance-under-local-unitaries (which got bumped by the Community bot) -- I remember there being a number of comments about clarifying the question, and I don't believe that these discussions have made it into the question. Unfortunately, the link to chat leads to no-where -- is there a way to recover these comments, or are they forever lost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="3a8c4d53-bcc1-45e9-b0cf-6e0f758c16e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. A random searcher will not know the rules of the site  and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot;  and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="ff48c04c-1e00-4d34-9f13-53de5b13cca3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question stands in general, as stated in the title:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;How are &quot;disputes about content of a question&quot; resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of comments or answers there?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specificly, my question arises regarding the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light    &#xD;&#xA;Since commenting there is presently disabled I submit my corresponding comment draft (and related question) hereby:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@dmckee dmckee: &quot;_locked by dmckee [ https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee ] yesterday [Jun 14, 2014] This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta [ https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ ]._&quot; -- &lt;b&gt;Would you please point out the specific page or forum where &quot;_disputes about its [this question's] content_&quot; would be resolved in public?&lt;/b&gt; (Having visited https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ I've been unable to recognize any **recent** relevant discussion there; and I'm curious which &quot;_disputes about content_&quot; couldn't take place here [ https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100442/what-would-happen-if-some-signal-could-move-faster-than-light ], as usual, by means of answers and/or comments.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="77192491-bcab-46a3-ba1c-12c784619d76" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The same happened for another question yesterday: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98505/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the comments were deleted by @dmckee.  I am aware that the exchange was bordering the absurd, But I was interested in trying to analyze the intellectual mismatch that caused it. I would very much like to have a copy, if it is at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the deletion, but it would be nice to have advance warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the interesting part can be the exchange itself, rather than whatever science may be in it.  But I know this view runs contrary to local policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is not only not right, it's not even wrong. – David H 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you know the story of this big truck that was carrying a hole for the foundation of a new house? There was a bump on the road and the hole fell off the truck. When he noticed he had lost the hole, the driver backed up to fetch it and reload it. But he failed to be careful and was never heard of again. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By the way, what is the question you want to ask? There is no question in your text. – babou 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i was originally looking for logical answers to the question is space nothing. I do like your response not only not right its not even wrong though. The story of the dump truck is not logical by any stretch though. It makes since that the &quot;void&quot; that is between everything from the largest of things to the smallest of sub atomic particles is what is generally thought of when using the word &quot;space&quot;. Hence everything is in nothing and that nothing is referenced as space. Infinite and immeasurable in its greatness. It is where everything that is...is. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your question appears to be entirely philosophically-based and thus doesn't belong on a physics Q&amp;A site. Also, it doesn't make any sort of logical sense whatsoever to say, nothing is where everything that is exists. There is no relation without relata. – Kyle Kanos 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I feel that the eternal nothingness debate is some kind of philosophical juggling of language. Wouldn't the mere action of talking about nothing make it something? I think that this type of questions are above human understanding and we must remain silent. – jinawee 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heart Sutra? Form is empty. Emptiness is form.Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So too are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness...the new physics? ;-) – V. Moretti 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is, BTW, a site dedicated to Philosophy. – dmckee♦ 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Kyle categorize my question about physics any way you like but because it is about physics it is a physics question anyway you slice it. I am simply asking is space literally the void that is between all particles no matter how great or small. My children come home from school spewing information given to them as science that has no logical foundation. If the void is something then it is not space as i or any logical person sees it. Everything that exists, exists in this void we call space and this space is literally nothing. yes or no? – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee talking about nothing doesn't make it something, my wife does it relentlessly...:)The argument that nothing is something is definitely beyond my understanding but the argument that nothing is nothing is quite logical. Like saying time is nothing but we reference it without thought all our lives. Time does not exist any more than and inch or a foot or a yard or meter....they are simply measurements. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @V.Moretti that makes no since. Emptiness is containing nothing and form is the shape and structure of something. Like the hole in the dump truck babou mentioned above. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @david z i had to ask the question as i did because of the rules of the site. My question is...is the area void of matter that exists between all matter space? It is a simple physics question so far void of logical answers. My physics question seems to be being classified as philosophical when its not. What i am seeing in discussion so far is a refusal to answer a simple physics question about the area between matter. A question easily understood but avoided by everyone so far. Everyone else knows good and well what it is im asking but you claim its unclear? – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @ dmckee there should be one for logical answers about simple physics. – pjameslamar 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the area void of matter that exists between all matter space? Was it so difficult to ask it this way? The answer to your question is yes, althought space in some sense will never be void, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state. – jinawee 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My children come home from school spewing information given to them as science that has no logical foundation Or perhaps it is the case that you don't understand the logic behind the information. If this troubles you, you can always ask the teacher for guidance (or you can ask the question on the relevant website). – Kyle Kanos 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe the point of my truck story is that emptyness (nothingness if you prefer) is not something that is. But never mind. Another answer to your question may be that very simple questions may be hardest to answer, or to make sense of, or to explain. Would you accept the idea that an event can occur from within what you thought of being nothing. But then, is it nothing if it can give birth to observable events? So it may be that not a single stretch of space may be considered nothing. Maybe that means that space cannot exists without whatever fills it, whatever its name. – babou 2 days ago &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee thank you. It was difficult to ask because the sight will not let one ask a question it thinks has previously been asked. To your answer you answered the question yes but then muddied the water saying it will never be void. Space itself is the void and matter of any type while in space does not completely fill this vast void we call space. To say space itself is something or that space is matter would mean that space has atomic definition and two atoms can not be in the same place simultaneously. They can be adjacent to each other but not simultaneously occupy the same place. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @kyle kanos thanks. The teacher finally just stated &quot;that's what the book says&quot; Logic too is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. So don't be snotty with me for asking a physics question. You are not the question police. Answer it or don't. It is a simple logical question many ask and just as many build careers on answering. You seem to be building your career on policing the question instead of answering it. The other gentlemen have answered. Do you have one? – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My answer to your post was given in my first comment: this is a (bad) philosophic statement and there is no physics question here. – Kyle Kanos yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @babou thank you.Yes an event can occur within nothing. The observable events occurring within nothing (space) is the matter in space reacting with each other. There has to be space between the matter or the matter is always touching something else. On a grand scale or a minuscule scale. Space is mechanically necessary for the formation of matter. There has to be space to form atoms and molecules or everything would be one big mass. Matter can not exist without the space around it, the areas void of matter of any kind. Space is not anything. No atoms can simultaneously occupy the same place. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @kyle kanos again, you judged my question but never answered it. You apparently are not good at judging questions nor good at answering them. Several other gentlemen saw fit to answer the question even in its original form. You continue to argue my question is in the wrong place. I submit that if you can reason it is in the wrong place you too can then reason what i am asking. I then reason that the problem is that you just are not able to answer and thus want the question moved because you feel obliged to answer as long as it is here. Answer the question or not? – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What question is there to answer? I see seven sentences. – Kyle Kanos yesterday &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Kyle Kanos, come on Kyle. Everyone else found the question. Its at the top. Is everything in nothing? Then followed by a short statement as the site requires. Many have argued that space itself is actually something. I simply argue that is illogical, improbable and impossible. &quot;Space&quot; is the area, void of all matter, that all matter exists in. Regardless the size of the matter. Others here have disagreed. Some agree but muddy the water with a however or a but. You must see the question, regardless of its form. Answer it or don't. You have the last word. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question &quot;Is everything in nothing?&quot; makes no sense. Something being (existing) in what is defined as not anything literally is nonsense. You are trying to defy the law of non-contradiction, which is just absurd. – Kyle Kanos yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @kyle you understood it enough to say it was not a physics question. Now you argue it is contradictory? Let me help you. Everything is all matter. Nothing is the area (space) in which matter exists. Matter is something right? There is space, void of matter between all matter or else everything touches something else. Without space (area void of matter)there could be no specific things because all atoms and molecules would touch something else. Is everything in nothing? if yes end of discussion. If no then what is everything in? Nothing is &quot;space&quot;. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you read some physics instead of saying it's all wrong, you would learn that fields are more important than matter, that the concept of to touch is ill-defined, etc. Einstein's theory make GPS work, we can measure the vaccum... Unless you make an specific model where you can predict observed phenomena, your theory is useless. All the greatest developments in Science were done in this way. If you want, you can say that the Spaghetti moster created us, but this is not the place. – jinawee yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You sidestepped my question. Would you accept the idea that an event can occur from within what you thought of being nothing. That is you consider a stretch of space where there is nothing (you asserted yourself such stretches exist). No matter or anything else enters it from outside it, and yet an event is taking place from within that void. Can you still consider that this stretch is nothing ? Can you consider that it was nothing before the event, yet gave birth to an event with no outside input? – babou yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee because something is written doesn't make it so. Lots of folks worshiped Newton and i believe Einstein stated he was not entirely correct either. Doesn't make Einstein absolute nor does it make Newton useless either. I never mentioned the spaghetti monster you did. LOL You and everyone else may disagree with my thought and im not offended. You saying i am wrong does not make me wrong. I will say a lot of proffered physics does not pass the science of logic. That is like saying something is invisible because you can not see it. Answer my question or not. It is legitimate. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @babou thanks again for humoring me. Its kind of you. Again, yes, i accept the idea an event can occur withing nothing. I am thinking of all area where there is zero matter is &quot;space&quot;. I think you think i am thinking in terms of a jar with a lid where ideally nothing can enter and this is not correct. The tiny area between atomic particles is space. The infinite vastness in which galaxies exist is the space i refer to also. Atoms exist in this space, so do planets and this space can not be a fabric of any kind. Like an idea. We all have them yet they don't physically exist yet they are. – pjameslamar yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I read the first two lines and I stopped. You disagree with Physics and you say your theory is correct. Thank goodness that this is not that is not the way science works, we would be in the Middle Ages. I can only answer you from the current view of Physics, if not, people could answer that reality doesn't exist and all is made of rainbows... I don't say you're wrong, just that to accept your theory you have to destroy our current laws of Physics (and they are the main contribution for human progress). So I won't answer you more. Hope that at least you let your kids enjoy Science! Good luck! – jinawee yesterday &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jinawee thanks for reading the first two lines. Im no Einstein and i love science and logic equally. Did Einstein agree with everything Newton put forth? – pjameslamar yesterday " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="cfa3cbf4-3a54-47c2-825f-6bf5695f31de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Single cases and anectodal evidence are tricky bases to work with here. We notice the ugly suggested edits, but who's to say that there isn't a large body of reasonable suggested edits by drive-by anonymous users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sort this out, I've written two SEDE queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Suggested edits by anonymous users**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386363/suggested-edits-by-anonymous-users), and&#xD;&#xA; - [**Suggested edits by registered users**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386364/suggested-edits-by-registered-users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious observation is that anonymous edits do have a much higher rejection rate than edit suggestions from registered users - 56% approved for anonymous suggestions vs. 87% for registered users, over the latest 500 edits of each. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are also much less common: as [Frequency of anonymous suggested edits](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/386316/frequency-of-anonymous-suggested-edits?NumberOfEdits=5000#graph) shows, about one every 10 suggested edits in the entire site history is an anonymous suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that overall this is an acceptable state of affairs, and that the ~45% of bad apples in the anonymous-suggestions apple cart is well handled by the combination of a review queue and a notification for the OP. The thing to do is for people to dig into the actual edit suggestions by anonymous users and form an opinion on whether they're generally salvageable or mostly just rubbish that occasionally passes the bar, and whether there are hidden gems in there that make the whole pile worth it. (I'll leave that bit to others - writing SQL is more fun than looking at a hundred edit reviews.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will also note that in [this particular case](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/104598) the problem is not the fact that the suggested edit was bad, but that the review was bad: this was one bad edit that might have got through the review queue when it shouldn't. (It's speculation whether someone else would've let it through had anna not intervened. I tend to think it wouldn't, with other reviewers stepping in and the review queue working like it should, but it's a moot question now.) This particular bad edit happened to come from an anonymous user, but I think it's a red herring unless one can rule out the existence of similar bad-edits-that-slipped-the-net from registered users. Unfortunately those are really hard to find, and getting reliable statistics will be even harder. However, I don't see why the review queue should function less well for anonymous suggestions than for registered-user ones - if anything, the anonymous source ought to make reviewers more wary of the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make this decision based on the actual overall quality of the edit submissions we get, rather than anecdotal impressions from a few ugly ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5399" RevisionGUID="3fe2486e-5fc5-4daf-b332-112284cbdf82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you observe the top/highest voted questions &#xD;&#xA;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes, &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon, &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down, &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87107/why-dont-metals-bond-when-touched-together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is safe to presume that these questions are not those which would be poupular just amongst layman but also among physicists. But at the same time we can say that experts would already be knowing such things. As the site deals with existing physics and related questions, i believe that the experts have a good grasp on it and have learnt most stuff. At the same time when beginners ask questions which experts woupd already be knowing they get high votes and hence have these sair badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5863" RevisionGUID="27d04e0e-fe14-4242-b5df-57890943d460" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="That question and others were repeatedly edited to include a &quot;Thank you&quot; in violation of the guidelines in the [help center][1] section on [behavior expected of users][2] despite polite correction by other users and moderators. They were locked simply to prevent repetition of the behavior while things have some time to cool off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frequent and pointless edits bump old material to the front page, and while we understand and respect the desire to be polite, posts are treated as archival material rather than on-going live interactions. Thanks are expressed by accepting and up-voting useful replies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="c23ec5f8-6982-451a-9d1a-fc33a2ae28a7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; I am bothered by chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're bothered by an answer that's &quot;evidently&quot; wrong, you should make some comment to say why it's wrong. Better still you should provide an answer of your own which is correct, and clearly contrary to the answer you think is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the rules. And how do you know that the chosen answer is incorrect? Because it has a lot of negative votes? Judging answers by votes rather than by evidence and references is the mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A random searcher will not know the rules of the site and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot; and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A random searcher can soon find out the rules of the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's calling for censorship. I am opposed to that, especially when it's performed by people who get the physics wrong, and they're censoring Einstein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is the correct answer, and yet it has six downvotes. I note  your comment _&quot;it is interesting that the OP unpicked the answer after this discussion&quot;_. Yes it is. If you'd like to try to explain why it's incorrect, I'd be only too glad to hear it. Ditto for anybody else. An objective of the site is to be a repository of good physics answers. But I'm afraid all too often what you _think_ is a good physics answers is _wrong_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="bc0b57ef-1cfb-472e-9d9e-2a05efea741b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I saw [a question about the smallest effect of gravity ever measured](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/215997/26969), and posted what I believed to be an interesting answer about the forces in an AFM. When I came back a few hours later, I saw that my answer got a single down-vote, and zero up-votes. Further, some other answers had appeared. Based on the comments that had also appeared (to the question and other answers), I realized that the OP was asking for something altogether different, and deleted my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, it bothered me that existing questions were not quite getting the point.  So the following day I wrote a completely new answer. Not a minor edit of the previously deleted one - it was as though I was answering a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me a comment from QMechanic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the future, please edit a downvoted answer rather than deleting and adding a second answer. It may be seen as gaming the reputation system to avoid a downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the point of up/downvotes was to separate the wheat from the chaff. I had clearly misinterpreted the intention of the OP, so I deleted the irrelevant answer. Good riddance. Then I set about writing a better one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to hear others' opinions: does one need to keep a bad answer around? Should you delete the entire body of your answer and write the new one &quot;in place of the old one&quot;? Or is what I did OK - just rip up the old one and start again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider this &quot;gaming the system&quot;? I hope I don't sound like I'm whining - I just wanted to calibrate myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, the timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 1, 20:19 - posted original answer&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 2,  1:41 - deleted answer&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 3,  2:38 - posted new answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're interested, here is the [link to the deleted answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/216017/26969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="f68f4306-51ac-4cef-ac9f-d3b3ad25fe7b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently answered the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99731/differentiating-a-vector-product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and although I don't think it's written in the clearest possible way, I (and another answerer) had no trouble understanding the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was nonetheless put on hold (due to the votes of a number of users) for being unclear.  I'm pretty confused by this to be honest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is what the OP is asking really sufficiently unclear for it to be closed?  He pretty clearly states that he just wants to know how the derivative operator was &quot;factored out&quot; of a particular expression.  I would be much less confused if, for example, the question had been moved to math.SE instead of being closed as unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm just clairvoyant and I don't know it?  Perhaps I'm just confused about the SE definition of &quot;clarity&quot;?  I dunno." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="d32e50be-a91a-453a-a559-582604768514" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**One suggestion: [our chat room][1].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an informal place where a number of regular users can be found from time to time. We discuss all manner of things, and we're quite willing to give our opinions on physics-related issues. Just remember standard chat etiquette - no one is forced to respond to your solicitation for opinions. But likely someone will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are [scheduled chat sessions][2] every other week, where we try to gather around the same time (and where we sometimes have a site-maintenance agenda).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note one needs [20 reputation][3] to participate on SE chats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other sites on the internet.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This space intentionally left blank.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't personally venture out much into the wilds of cyberspace. Hopefully other answers will be posted recommending forums that might match your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A word of caution.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the philosophy of not allowing opinion-based questions on the main site here is that we want to provide objectively correct information, and we can't really verify the correctness of opinions. Throw in anonymity and a lack of face-to-face communication and it's entirely possible to be misled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might stumble upon a community of physicists who are disillusioned with academia and who will tell you to study physics on your own without formal training, but you can't tell they're in the minority. Or you might find opinions from mathematicians claiming to be physicists who will tell you to not bother with lab work if you want to be a theorist, whereas another community might give the opposite response. Or you might meet someone like me telling you most of your standard textbooks in physics are garbage, but perhaps those books are actually best for you personally. So wherever you gather opinions, always critically evaluate what you're being told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=schedule&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="e2e53132-bc21-4874-b4e2-1600c4586e4e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Link to the question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98637/learning-roadmap-for-picking-up-enough-mathematical-know-how-in-order-to-model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, where *could* I go in order to have such a question answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="f3c9ee47-2ca5-44e7-bb70-60943221c9ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll throw in my own question here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/248754/what-do-the-wave-functions-associated-to-the-fock-states-of-each-mode-of-a-bound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question asks about the fundamental structure of quantum mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between single particle wavefunctions and the wave functions of Fock states for a single *mode* of a distributed system confuses even seasoned physicists (i.e. most of my research group!).&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, because the question asks about the basic elements of quantum mechanics, it should be interesting to beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that after ten years in research questions like this one remind me that I'm never too old to learn.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="7d96e98f-763b-4c1d-ba9a-31ba4c468219" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] is not a duplicate of the one quoted , and further more, the one quoted is also called a duplicate . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose as the data base increases this nesting of duplicates will increase, and some thought should be given before assigning duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question under discussion is not talking about &quot;touching&quot; but about the infinity coming from the 1/r  electromagnetic potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will flag it for opening because it is a bad picture of the site, sending readers on a random walk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217432/why-can-protons-collide/217454?noredirect=1#comment468221_217454" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="e01808da-1e42-4bcd-821d-bad06c605d2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Summary ##&#xD;&#xA;I made a week-long list of all the questions closed due to the homework flag and tried to gauge whether they were showing any effort at all. This idea came up during a chat session when we were talking about the new physics Q&amp;A site proposal and our homework policy. The hope is to give a few examples of questions that are discussion-worthy (and of questions that are definitely not) and to obtain a feeling for the relative amount of each of those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Introduction ##&#xD;&#xA;During the chat session of November the first, the question of the homework policy (reformulation) came up again, especially with reference to the [turned down new site proposal on SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9303/new-site-proposal-specifically-for-problem-solving-in-physics-on-area-51) and [the newly opened help website](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9320/physics-problem-solving-site). This led us to consider what kind of questions we would like to be answered there (but not here) and in what way this could affect this site here. (All quotes are from the [chat protocol](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-11-1-16).)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;David Z: I think it would be useful to have some examples of questions that would be considered good and on topic at the hypothetical new site, from those who are involved in setting it up.&#xD;&#xA;Better yet, to have examples of questions which would be on topic there and off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of searching I was not able to find many well written questions closed due to the homework reason and it was not only me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Rennie :Having gone through a few pages of the search I posted above it's striking how few questions do show significant effort by the OP. The vast majority just post the question and ask how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further down the conversation I asked whether the amount of questions which really showed effort but still get closed under the current site policy is that substantial at all. Questions of this form would e.g. be of the &quot;did I do something wrong?&quot;-kind or &quot;I am stuck at this point in my solution attempt&quot;-kind. David wanted to take that to the meta to discuss, but I wanted to collect a bit of data first.&#xD;&#xA;## Method ##&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st of November after the chat session until the 8th of November I regularly visited [this site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?page=1&amp;tab=newest&amp;q=is%3aq%20closed%3ayes) of newly closed questions on Physics SE, went through the last 24h and singled out all questions closed for homework reasons. I recorded them and for each of them I gave an estimate whether they could - maybe with a small bit of editing - be made into nice questions that do not fit in with our policy but *do* show effort at solution by the OP. I realise that a) questions get deleted sometimes rather quickly, so I might have easily missed some, b) this is all a bit subjective and c) a week is not that much time. But still, to me it seems like it will be nice to have a bit of a data-based feeling for what we are actually talking about when we are talking about redoing the homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;## Results ##&#xD;&#xA;From 87 questions that I recorded as closed due to homework-reasons, I would grade 64 as showing no effort at all. This is 74% of the questions closed for that reason, but still - 23 questions remain. This surprised me, to be honest, and in my mind it is a good reason to actually build up an alternative site for good, well-written &quot;homework&quot;-questions.  &#xD;&#xA;I would be happy about other people doing the same to obtain a bit more data :D I also hope this helps us to decide better when considering how and whether to modify the homework policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Appendix - List and Links of Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;showing effort&quot; or &quot;being salvagable through small edits&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove that internal energy for a system whose temperature is negative is bounded between 1/2 and 1](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290321/how-to-prove-that-internal-energy-for-a-system-whose-temperature-is-negative-is) ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BuuH0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Molecular simulation of ideal gas- descriptive statistical analysis](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290173/molecular-simulation-of-ideal-gas-descriptive-statistical-analysis)  ([png 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jz2e1.png), [png 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixTss.png))  &#xD;&#xA;[Question about Galilean relativity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290362/question-about-galilean-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the charges on each Capacitor after a long time](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290636/find-the-charges-on-each-capacitor-after-a-long-time)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Si8bJ.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Work and kinetic energy on an incline?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290728/work-and-kinetic-energy-on-an-incline)  &#xD;&#xA;[A neutron (rest mass 940MeV/c 2 ) is measured in the lab to have energy 2GeV](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290729/a-neutron-rest-mass-940mev-c-2-is-measured-in-the-lab-to-have-energy-2gev)  &#xD;&#xA;[work and change of kenetic energy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290987/work-and-change-of-kenetic-energy)  &#xD;&#xA;[A block is pushed onto a conveyor belt](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290984/a-block-is-pushed-onto-a-conveyor-belt)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSDFI.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Lagrangian for double Atwood machine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290922/lagrangian-for-double-atwood-machine)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGfwu.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the acceleration for a given mass and velocity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291081/find-the-acceleration-for-a-given-mass-and-velocity)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8JkA9.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Pully and Inclined Ramp](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291059/pully-and-inclined-ramp)  &#xD;&#xA;[Uncertainty in the angle by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291053/uncertainty-in-the-angle-by-using-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric Field at Centre of Hemispherical Cup](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291022/electric-field-at-centre-of-hemispherical-cup)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GaVyY.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Oscillation of charge problem](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291147/oscillation-of-charge-problem)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L6dS0.png))   &#xD;&#xA;[Find the time of movement if the maximal height is equal to the distance of fall](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291133/find-the-time-of-movement-if-the-maximal-height-is-equal-to-the-distance-of-fall)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wjIYQ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Two flashes of light for two observers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291265/two-flashes-of-light-for-two-observers)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qSXZZ.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Finding the period of a system in simple harmonic motion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291253/finding-the-period-of-a-system-in-simple-harmonic-motion)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to find the amount of work done against gravity from an object moving diagonally?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291248/how-to-find-the-amount-of-work-done-against-gravity-from-an-object-moving-diagon)  &#xD;&#xA;[Propeller torque on the shaft when rotational speed and Thrust is given](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291171/propeller-torque-on-the-shaft-when-rotational-speed-and-thrust-is-given)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hkt61.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia, lab exercise](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291377/moment-of-inertia-lab-exercise)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vticH.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Time needed for photon to reach the surface of a white dwarf ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291294/time-needed-for-photon-to-reach-the-surface-of-a-white-dwarf)  &#xD;&#xA;[Energy conservation … Basic qustion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291266/energy-conservation-basic-qustion)  ([png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BZ3RW.png))    &#xD;&#xA;[Quantitative Study of Mirage](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291535/quantitative-study-of-mirage)  &#xD;&#xA;Questions I gauged as &quot;no effort shown&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Linear motion problem](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290130/linear-motion-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron moving with 0.99c?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290129/magnitude-of-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electron-moving-with-0-99c)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is expected from switch S?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290098/what-is-expected-from-switch-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Minimum velocity for a charged particle to go through all the magnetic field's zone](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290075/minimum-velocity-for-a-charged-particle-to-go-through-all-the-magnetic-fields-z)  &#xD;&#xA;[conservation of momentum and energy to find speed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290051/conservation-of-momentum-and-energy-to-find-speed)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the flux of a charge through a finite plane](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290032/find-the-flux-of-a-charge-through-a-finite-plane)  &#xD;&#xA;[Statistical physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290031/statistical-physics)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the velocity of the particle](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle)  &#xD;&#xA;[a question of pulley and monkey](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290337/a-question-of-pulley-and-monkey)  &#xD;&#xA;[A projectile question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290344/a-projectile-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Action](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290236/classical-action)  &#xD;&#xA;[Oliver has a mass of 70.5kg and can throw a 542.0g rock with a speed of 10.4m/s. What would Oliver's recoil speed be if he were on an icy surface?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290285/oliver-has-a-mass-of-70-5kg-and-can-throw-a-542-0g-rock-with-a-speed-of-10-4m-s)  &#xD;&#xA;[Parachutist jumps out of plane - Find work (parachute)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290286/parachutist-jumps-out-of-plane-find-work-parachute)  &#xD;&#xA;[Damped harmonic oscillator differential equation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290292/damped-harmonic-oscillator-differential-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[A question of projectile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290325/a-question-of-projectile)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I find distance if I have acceleration and time?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290232/how-do-i-find-distance-if-i-have-acceleration-and-time)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculate the equivalent resistance seen from the E6 generator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290228/calculate-the-equivalent-resistance-seen-from-the-e6-generator)  &#xD;&#xA;[Eigenvalues of Hamiltonian](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290218/eigenvalues-of-hamiltonian)  &#xD;&#xA;[Deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier-Stokes equation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290175/deriving-bernoullis-equation-from-navier-stokes-equation)  &#xD;&#xA;[state the different levels of stress and strain in a rigid body](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290361/state-the-different-levels-of-stress-and-strain-in-a-rigid-body)  &#xD;&#xA;[Bosonic and Fermionic harmonic oscillators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290365/bosonic-and-fermionic-harmonic-oscillators)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics of system of particles](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290372/mechanics-of-system-of-particles)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electric field between three parallel plates](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290480/electric-field-between-three-parallel-plates)  &#xD;&#xA;[From special relativity to general relativity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290461/from-special-relativity-to-general-relativity)  &#xD;&#xA;[How to prove the following Dirac matrices identity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290434/how-to-prove-the-following-dirac-matrices-identity)  &#xD;&#xA;[angular spread in the angle of refraction of the beam](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290418/angular-spread-in-the-angle-of-refraction-of-the-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[minimum area of the disc to collect all light](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290415/minimum-area-of-the-disc-to-collect-all-light)  &#xD;&#xA;[Nutcracker problem](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290394/nutcracker-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Quantum Physics Easy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290667/quantum-physics-easy)  &#xD;&#xA;[By how much does the image move when the object is moved by 10cm in the given lens configuration?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290645/by-how-much-does-the-image-move-when-the-object-is-moved-by-10cm-in-the-given-le)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the acceleration of point D and E when F = 125N?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290644/what-is-the-acceleration-of-point-d-and-e-when-f-125n)  &#xD;&#xA;[Examination Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290641/examination-question)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I prove that a disk charge resembles a point charge if its radius shrinks to 0? ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290573/how-do-i-prove-that-a-disk-charge-resembles-a-point-charge-if-its-radius-shrinks)  &#xD;&#xA;[How does the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor vary as the length of the dielectric inside it changes?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290546/how-does-the-capacitance-of-a-parallel-plate-capacitor-vary-as-the-length-of-the)  &#xD;&#xA;[How do I express this. If I use Lorenz transform, It depends on mc2](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290538/how-do-i-express-this-if-i-use-lorenz-transform-it-depends-on-mc2)  &#xD;&#xA;[moving object - vectors](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290687/moving-object-vectors)  &#xD;&#xA;[The classical theory of fields - Landau book problem](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290710/the-classical-theory-of-fields-landau-book-problem)  &#xD;&#xA;[Calculating Magnitude of Force](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290837/calculating-magnitude-of-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the relationships between radius, velocity and centripetal force on an object?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290739/what-are-the-relationships-between-radius-velocity-and-centripetal-force-on-an)  &#xD;&#xA;[Electrons during radioactive decay](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291006/electrons-during-radioactive-decay)  &#xD;&#xA;[Mechanics problem and confusion regarding reference frame calculation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290965/mechanics-problem-and-confusion-regarding-reference-frame-calculation)  &#xD;&#xA;[An object that is not accelerating or decelerating has zero net force acting on it](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290955/an-object-that-is-not-accelerating-or-decelerating-has-zero-net-force-acting-on)  &#xD;&#xA;[Confusion on conservation of angular momentum](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290938/confusion-on-conservation-of-angular-momentum)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational Imbalance](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290930/rotational-imbalance)&#xD;&#xA;[Does a current-carrying solenoid exert force on itself ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291079/does-a-current-carrying-solenoid-exert-force-on-itself)  &#xD;&#xA;[Classical Mechanics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291050/classical-mechanics)  &#xD;&#xA;[do you know why Q2 has negative sign?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291044/do-you-know-why-q2-has-negative-sign)  &#xD;&#xA;[Frame of reference and work done by pseudo force](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291032/frame-of-reference-and-work-done-by-pseudo-force)  &#xD;&#xA;[Induced current in a circular loop](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291029/induced-current-in-a-circular-loop)  &#xD;&#xA;[X and Y collide, find angle of Y](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291023/x-and-y-collide-find-angle-of-y)  &#xD;&#xA;[Related to torque generated, to find input and output torque](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291117/related-to-torque-generated-to-find-input-and-output-torque)  &#xD;&#xA;[moment of inertia in beam](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291116/moment-of-inertia-in-beam)  &#xD;&#xA;[Converting from rectangular to polar and vice-versa ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291108/converting-from-rectangular-to-polar-and-vice-versa)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are **Energy levels, Sublevels, and Orbitals**?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291096/what-are-energy-levels-sublevels-and-orbitals)  &#xD;&#xA;[Boundary layer flow directed radially towards a sink](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291230/boundary-layer-flow-directed-radially-towards-a-sink)  &#xD;&#xA;[Writing Fokker Planck equation for levy walker in a given potential](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291209/writing-fokker-planck-equation-for-levy-walker-in-a-given-potential)  &#xD;&#xA;[What is the kinetic energy possessed by a battle tank belt whose mass is m if the tank is moving with a constant velocity v?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291174/what-is-the-kinetic-energy-possessed-by-a-battle-tank-belt-whose-mass-is-m-if-th)  &#xD;&#xA;[Simple Harmonic Motion Question With Explanation Please! ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291459/simple-harmonic-motion-question-with-explanation-please)  &#xD;&#xA;[Find the height and the instant velocity of a geostationary satellite](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291444/find-the-height-and-the-instant-velocity-of-a-geostationary-satellite)  &#xD;&#xA;[What are the image formations at different positions for plano convex and plano concave lenses? ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291412/what-are-the-image-formations-at-different-positions-for-plano-convex-and-plano)  &#xD;&#xA;[Moment of inertia of semicircular disc](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291367/moment-of-inertia-of-semicircular-disc)  &#xD;&#xA;[Poincare algebra](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291354/poincare-algebra)  &#xD;&#xA;[Finding gravitational force on a body of unit mass by other three bodies](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291582/finding-gravitational-force-on-a-body-of-unit-mass-by-other-three-bodies)  &#xD;&#xA;[Rotational mech](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/291548/rotational-mech)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="2e1806b3-8ee3-494b-bf71-44da137b462e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question [asked by me][1] has been put on hold  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;they say that this question belongs to engineering and not physics.    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;where should i ask this question ?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;edit : how can i modify the question so that my post is back from [ON HOLD] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99897/which-kind-of-exhaust-should-i-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="27fbb195-3f3b-4efb-a02f-6828b153f099" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the [**Area 51 Exchange**][1] I've found that &quot;*The Theoretical Physics site didn't have enough activity during the beta. It has been closed, and its content has been merged into Physics*&quot;. But when I've done a question in the Physics exchange about other universes [**my question**][2] was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closed as off-topic by Alfred Centauri, Brandon Enright, Kyle, Chris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; White, Qmechanic♦ Jun 17 at 5:02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in Physics exchange can't I ask questions about other universes, where is the place to do this? And if the content of the closed Theoretical Physics was merged into Physics, why can't I ask questions in that exchange account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the questions of Theoretical Physics should by into the Physics exchange tagged as Theoretical Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/119562/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="846e1dbb-f583-4fe9-b27e-fa3378fc5721" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I some time ago asked [This Question][1] but i also want to ask &quot;Why it makes sound like 'ting', 'ting' before lighting up ?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should I modify the post or post a new question ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96366/why-does-a-fluorescent-tube-lamp-flicker-before-lighting-up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="9ee4b074-a2dc-4190-b6be-4accf857d7d2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/57983/blaze) I have 17/5 for the Curious badge. So I have effectively 'earned' this badge more than 3 times over. So why haven't I received it yet? I have maintained a positive question record so what do I have to do to get this elusive badge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9613" RevisionGUID="0b5f626f-f711-4904-9750-7239cd0b07e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather). I've been invited to be a guest for the [Physics.SE Ask Me Anything (AMA)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [h-bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on Monday, February 20th, at 10pm UTC (for USA users that's 2:00 Pacific, 3:00 Mountain, 4:00 Central, and 5:00 Eastern). I'm excited to talk about just about anything, from teaching yourself physics, middle school (more about that in a moment), coding, math, and just about anything else you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post questions you want answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be very informal, with questions posted here to help give me an idea of what people want to talk about, but the chat session itself will be a bit of a free for all. [DanielSank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank) has kindly offered to help moderate the session. Please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post. See for examples the questions posted for [Secret](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [DanielSank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), or [Slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Education/About Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of you may already know, I'm in middle school. So, in terms of physics education, I'm mostly self-taught, though my dad's helped me along the way, as have the excellent people (and AI's - ACuriousMind, I'm looking at you) here at Physics.SE. A special shout out to Daniel Sank, who invited me to the [Google Martinis Lab](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/) (!) which I visited last November. I live in America, and have always gone to public schools. I'm currently in 8th grade. I also love Physics.SE (and stack exchange in general) - I've earned 4.5k rep in approximately 7 months (though I've slowed down in the amount of rep I've earned...school's been busy recently) and also gotten on the close vote review queue leaderboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical Interests&#xD;&#xA; - Physics&#xD;&#xA;  - Quantum computing is an especial interest of mine, and is what helped me really kick start teaching myself a lot of different things, such as linear algebra and some of the basics of quantum computing.&#xD;&#xA;  - Nuclear fusion and plasma physics I couldn't really do anything at all practical (problems/reading books) but it's a sub field of physics I try to read about and am interested in.&#xD;&#xA;  - Particle physics is super cool! What's not to love about smashing things together at high energies? &#xD;&#xA;  - General relativity I've just started reading a bit about.&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm trying to start teaching myself the basics as well, as before I really got serious about teaching myself stuff this past summer (which was a little before I found out about stack exchange) I'd only really read pop-sci books. Now I'm trying to learn things the right way.&#xD;&#xA; - Computer science/programming&#xD;&#xA;  - Python is my favorite language. I'm trying to get better at programming, and I've worked through some of the Euler problems. Currently, I'm trying to write a program that simulates an ideal (and hopefully eventually a non-ideal) quantum computer. &#xD;&#xA;  - Complexity classes interest me, though I don't know a ton about them.&#xD;&#xA;  - Finally, computer science where it intersects with quantum computing (see above). &#xD;&#xA; - Mathematics&#xD;&#xA;  - Currently I'm trying to learn multivariable calculus and set theory, though I've got a bunch of topics I want to learn. &#xD;&#xA;  - I have taught myself the basics of linear algebra and single-variable calculus, but I'm afraid I couldn't talk much about them (though I could put in a plug for [3Blue1Brown's linear algebra videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab) which are absolutely amazing).&#xD;&#xA;  - I love, love, love trying proofs and puzzling about big problems that are way beyond me. I've read a bit about the Collatz Conjecture, for instance, and have tried to mess with it a bit. Trying problems like these (even if I fail miserably, as I inevitably do) always makes me feel like a real mathematician/physicist/what-have-you, which is cool. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Non-technical interests&#xD;&#xA; - How to best teach yourself stuff.&#xD;&#xA; - The best textbooks/videos/websites. I have a few recommendations, though I doubt I'm very qualified to give them. =)&#xD;&#xA; - I play the guitar, and am absolutely terrible at it, but it's a great instrument. I have an acoustic and electric guitar.&#xD;&#xA; - Rock climbing, which is an absolutely wonderful sport. &#xD;&#xA; - How to survive middle school - joking (sort of, anyway). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very honored to be invited to take part in this, and it should be fun! Like I said, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have (if I *can* answer them, that is). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="c1b4fc6f-47fe-44c2-9e54-b3bd1e6c2803" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation) arose out of a time with a lot of discussion on meta about how this site could be improved; it was proposed that we ban homework and this question explored how that would look like and whether people agreed to a concrete form or not. This question gathered a lot of votes (currently +25/-7 on the question, and 13/1, 11/1, 9/0, 7/0, 7/0 and 6/0 on the answers), but my impression is that there wasn't really enough consensus to implement this policy, or at least in this form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, the debate has slowed somewhat (as in e.g. [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5375/whats-the-current-status-of-the-homework-policy/)) and it has drifted off into other directions (such as [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain)). In particular, next week [**moderators will leave all homework closures to the community**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework) as a way to try and find out what we, as a community, think should and should not be on this site. I regard this as a much healthier approach to the problem, and I think it should lead to this document becoming obsolete: we should reformulate the policy in terms of what we actually want and do, instead of some idealized construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add a bit more food for thought to the meta table, I'd like to set down some retrospective thoughts on this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, I must say I regard this as an experiment in writing and large parts of it as not very successful. It was proposed elsewhere that we ban homework questions but still keep the homework tag, at least temporarily. This policy proposal was an attempt to see whether such a policy could be realized in a concrete example, and I tried very hard to reconcile the two conflicting directions. I do not think I was very successful, and the policy below has several sticky points that must be resolved using judgement calls; I think this is a sign of fundamental contradictions at the heart of such a policy, and I'm doubtful that more successful implementations of the same core policy can be written while still retaining the homework tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The key point that sparked this was the claim/observation by [David Z](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) and [Manishearth](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563) that homework is already essentially banned. I'm less convinced now that that's the case (see e.g. [this search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=[homework]+closed:no+score:3)), but this was an exercise at seeing whether such an 'effective policy' could be set down into words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Certain parts of this thread definitely still read nicely. I particularly like the emphasis on driving people away from homework-like questions and onto more conceptual ones, the shift to &quot;what should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&quot;, and the introduction of sections on what to do if your question has been closed or put on hold or has close-votes on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another contradiction is to tell people to drop the dependence of their question on the problem (&quot;it should be useful to someone who's not staring at the same problem&quot;) but still telling them it is crucial that they 'reference the source' and provide the full context of their question. I'm not saying that we should drop either requirement, but I do think this merits a lot of thought as to how to reconcile the two once they're on (e)paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One useful practicality is that there are in fact a lot of small places where users with homework questions come into contact with the policy, which is reflected in the six different answers here. These should all be considered with a view on an eventual reformulation of formal policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, as this page is already long enough. I just wanted to set these thoughts down, particularly since we're coming up on community closing. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="7ab239d5-f7e3-4fd6-8a86-5407eee7d5d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="#&lt;strike&gt;Best&lt;/strike&gt; Most Stereotypically English Englishman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ahem, [John Rennie](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie), I'm looking at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Seriously, 209,107 rep? Stop embarassing us, please! =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5uP30.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="0fa6b1b3-a665-4889-999b-77d5a05953b2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On the broader question of duplicates of duplicates, I have occasionally VTC'd a question as a duplicate of a question that was already closed as a duplicate. I've done this when I thought both previous questions added value because they and their answers had different emphases. By voting this way I am recommending the OP will gain value from reading both previous questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see anything wrong with doing this. The argument that it looks bad strikes me as irrelevant. This is a site for professional physicists, where by *professional* I mean people who know some physics and are willing to work to learn more. Despite the recent upsurge in questions from well intentioned non-physicsts it is the members who are (and I quote from the tour) *active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy* that my activities here are aimed at. Such people won't have any problem following a duplicate chain and indeed might find it entertaining reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To dispose of the specific case Anna raises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217432/why-can-protons-collide **is** a duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93600/do-particles-ever-touch-each-other-during-a-collision and closing it as a duplicate **is** justified. However https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93600/do-particles-ever-touch-each-other-during-a-collision **is not** a duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23797/what-does-it-mean-for-two-objects-to-touch - I note I made a comment saying as much at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appropriate resolution of this is to leave https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217432/why-can-protons-collide closed, then reopen https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93600/do-particles-ever-touch-each-other-during-a-collision and add an answer explaining what physicists mean by scattering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="619ed81e-5bab-47a8-8cb9-d2f416103417" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently misread [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100816/whats-wrong-with-this-faster-than-light-gedankenexperiment) and wrote a nice answer for what turned out not to be the question at all. I then proceeded to look quite carefully for the question I had actually answered, and I found that we don't really have a question (or answers) about the specific scheme described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The choice of measurement basis on one half of an entangled state affects the other half. Can this be used to communicate faster than light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100864/the-choice-of-measurement-basis-on-one-half-of-an-entangled-state-affects-the-ot/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore went ahead and posted it as a self-answered Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know we have had a ton of similar questions, and we have certainly touched on it edgewise (as in e.g. [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/2209/8563)), but I could not find this specific scheme, which is otherwise quite a popular misconception about entanglement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest related question, I think, is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55028/epr-type-experiments-and-faster-than-light-communication-using-interference-effe, but this question (a) uses collapse and not measurement as a proposed method, and (b) is unclear and not particularly helpful for future visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread does not serve any particular purpose, but I set it up to avoid long discussions in comments. If you have proposed duplicates, I would be interested in seeing them and discussing whether they are indeed or not. I do feel, though, that we need a nice, simple and understandable canonical question for this scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="afce8d00-bc41-4542-9727-97594b1bd432" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Regarding your final statement,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My view is that the moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree. Moderators' question-closure duties **should** include routine closures, where questions are blatantly off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This applies in particular to blatant cases of off-topic non-mainstream and homework-like questions. Non-mainstream questions can prove quite harmful, through a variety of ways. Similarly, answers to do-my-work-for-me homework-like questions do a lot to weaken the policy, and there is a strong [broken windows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) argument that they should be closed before they get even a single answer. As such, if a question is clearly off-topic homework, then the site benefits from prompt closure even if it is via a unilateral moderator vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is particularly the case for your questions [two](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955) and [three](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875), and quite a bit for number [four](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301834). Regarding the [space needle question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302625), with its complete lack on the &quot;show some effort&quot; front, I'm confused why you think it is anything but blatantly off-topic in its present form: it can be edited into an on-topic form, which is precisely why it is currently closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, a moderator closure does not pre-empt a democratic look at whether the question is on-topic or not: that is what the reopen review queue is for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="0b52d66e-8f5c-4ee6-aaf7-63c3e31c3697" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I can tell/predict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There is a &quot;view&quot; counter for each question&#xD;&#xA; 2. No way of knowing&#xD;&#xA; 3. It'd likely be closed if its too trivial&#xD;&#xA; 4. Someone would likely comment that it's confusing, a close vote for &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; would also likely come&#xD;&#xA; 5. No way of knowing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that if you really want an answer to a question, you can always add a [bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) to the question (though this requires 75+ rep)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="77b07060-2217-4e78-86cb-68354e7526d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently answered -[How much forward force is exerted by an idling automatic car](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217756/how-much-forward-force-is-exerted-by-an-idling-automatic-car/217990?noredirect=1#comment469162_217990)- but it was closed as too broad.  I dont particularly care either way, and I respect the moderators judgment, but its closure confused me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is a general question, broad because it does not specify the type of car, engine, transmission, etc. required to arrive at a precise value.  But, **in my opinion, lack of specificity does not invalidate the intent of the physical question asked**.  It is possible to demonstrate the physics involved; applying reasonable assumptions, a useful answer is possible.  Even fully specified, an exact answer is not possible (without extensive experimental data) or required to provide a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many broad, useful questions without exact answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example - [Is it (practically) possible for a large building to be a Faraday cage?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215809/is-it-practically-possible-for-a-large-building-to-be-a-faraday-cage): Dimensions, materials, and signal strengths are not specified (needed to determine the effective strength).  The physical concept is discussed in relative terms, yet this is undoubtedly a useful answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physical concepts and practical assumptions often provide useful answers to questions that lack specificity.  Unless explicitly stated, we assume collisions act on the centers of mass, etc.  Concepts and approximations are often more useful than mathematical proofs.  How are these factors considered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When are questions considered broad enough to be closed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="9bc0ba22-aee4-4863-ae15-d9bb817c9cd9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wonder whether I've been a moderator here for long enough &#xD;&#xA;([four months now](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3))&#xD;&#xA;that I can&#xD;&#xA;talk about our decision-making process *in aggregate*, without&#xD;&#xA;revealing anything untoward about any particular suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How big is the Physics Stack Exchange community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, there are several answers to that question.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a database person and you're probably not either, so here are&#xD;&#xA;some answers based on public information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're [one of the most active&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites):&#xD;&#xA;my count is about&#xD;&#xA;[4100 new questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest)&#xD;&#xA;since the start of 2017, a little under a hundred per day.&#xD;&#xA;If you assume we're maintaining our long-term average of about&#xD;&#xA;1.5 answers per question, that's about ten thousand posts to the site&#xD;&#xA;over the first six weeks of the year.&#xD;&#xA;It's a lot.&#xD;&#xA;There is not any one user that has read every contribution,&#xD;&#xA;and determining overall quality is a group effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quality of a post is estimated by the&#xD;&#xA;[voting and reputation systems](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour).&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that most votes occur on posts that are relatively&#xD;&#xA;fresh, so we can use the&#xD;&#xA;[list of users with reputation&#xD;&#xA;changes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Reputation&amp;filter=quarter &quot;Note: 'quarter' display currently begins 2017-01-01&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;to estimate the population of the site over a time interval.&#xD;&#xA;I count about 4700 users whose reputations went up&#xD;&#xA;and about 650 whose reputations went down over the past six weeks,&#xD;&#xA;so I estimate a population of five or six thousand logged-in users&#xD;&#xA;visiting in a typical quarter.&#xD;&#xA;Most of them must make one or two posts and not come back,&#xD;&#xA;to get to our ten thousand questions and answers over that period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also look at&#xD;&#xA;[voters](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&amp;filter=quarter)&#xD;&#xA;(current rough count: 450)&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;[editors](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Editors&amp;filter=quarter)&#xD;&#xA;(rough count: 65)&#xD;&#xA;since the start of the year.&#xD;&#xA;And what we see is the unsurprising result that, as a participation&#xD;&#xA;task gets more complicated, the number of folks who participate in it&#xD;&#xA;is smaller.&#xD;&#xA;About 10% of our visiting population is actually voting on questions&#xD;&#xA;or answers.&#xD;&#xA;About 1% of our visiting population is involved in making edits, and&#xD;&#xA;a slightly different 1% has&#xD;&#xA;[enough reputation](http://stackexchange.com/leagues/62/alltime/physics/2010-11-02/)&#xD;&#xA;to access the &#xD;&#xA;[&quot;10k user&quot; moderation tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools).&#xD;&#xA;Close queue reviewers?&#xD;&#xA;This month,&#xD;&#xA;[there are about thirty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/admin/review/breakdown?queue=close&amp;daterange=Last30Days&amp;sort=Close&amp;min=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as far as monitoring the site, making good things appear and bad&#xD;&#xA;things disappear, we have somewhere at or around a hundred people.&#xD;&#xA;If you're reading this answer, you're probably one of them,&#xD;&#xA;and you'll probably recognize most of the names of the others.&#xD;&#xA;That's a small group, which matters for what I want to discuss next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was the size of the &quot;community&quot;, for a few definitions of the term.&#xD;&#xA;How big is the role played by the diamond moderators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [moderator activity &#xD;&#xA;log](https://physics.stackexchange.com/admin &quot;a link that probably won't work for you&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;lets me summarize activity&#xD;&#xA;over a quarter ---&#xD;&#xA;which we saw above corresponds to about 8,000 questions and 12,000 answers.&#xD;&#xA;During that interval, the six diamond mods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - processed&#xD;&#xA;   1200 [flags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;   Another 1200 flags were apparently handled by the community in the&#xD;&#xA;   [low-quality queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/stats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - removed 3000 comments (mostly to chat, in batches)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - closed 1300 posts, and deleted 500 posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - edited 2500 posts (of which probably [2000 tag-only&#xD;&#xA;   edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic?tab=activity&amp;sort=revisions)&#xD;&#xA;   --- Qmechanic is an amazing retagging machine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cast 4000 votes on questions and answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - created 250 posts and 2200 comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sent 28 private moderator messages, including 10 account&#xD;&#xA;   suspensions, of which 6 were for a week or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a lot of activity to see in aggregate!&#xD;&#xA;(It works out to&#xD;&#xA;typically handling two or three flags per mod per day, which doesn't&#xD;&#xA;feel like much.)&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully two things leap out at you.&#xD;&#xA;First, a solid majority of the twenty thousand question and answer&#xD;&#xA;contributions to Physics Stack Exchange from its user community over&#xD;&#xA;the past three months didn't get any diamond moderator intervention at all.&#xD;&#xA;That's a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And second: reaching out to a user privately, and especially&#xD;&#xA;suspending a user, is *quite* rare for us --- about three times a&#xD;&#xA;month.&#xD;&#xA;About half of these suspensions have been for voting irregularities or&#xD;&#xA;misusing sockpuppet accounts; those problems we typically identify on our own.&#xD;&#xA;The other five-ish suspensions&#xD;&#xA;(one or two a month, if you're counting)&#xD;&#xA;were shared among other suspension reasons:&#xD;&#xA;continued low-quality contributions, vandalism or deletion of upvoted&#xD;&#xA;contributions, self-promotion, making other users get fighty with each&#xD;&#xA;other, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Those are things that happen in public, that are&#xD;&#xA;usually pointed out to us in flags or in chat by our 3k and 10k users.&#xD;&#xA;And the 10k users can continue to see material even after it's been&#xD;&#xA;deleted, if they feel like going hunting for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what's the *point* of issuing a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;[Suspensions are about behavior, not about&#xD;&#xA;people](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/).&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be&#xD;&#xA;recalculated, and your account will resume as normal. We don't hold&#xD;&#xA;grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the&#xD;&#xA;behavior improves, you are welcome back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important part of making people feel welcomed back is allowing the&#xD;&#xA;community to forget about their punishment.&#xD;&#xA;But this is a website: literally the only we have to interact with&#xD;&#xA;each other here is by making entries in a searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;Once a thing is said, it's hard to un-say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not issue suspensions without substantial agreement among&#xD;&#xA;the diamond moderators, and the suspension messages are clear about&#xD;&#xA;the (mostly public) activities that led to the suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;But keeping the details private --- or at least, keeping our concise&#xD;&#xA;statement of these details private --- is an important part of making&#xD;&#xA;the user feel welcome to return after the suspension.&#xD;&#xA;What we'd like is to encourage our suspended users to return,&#xD;&#xA;make quality contributions,&#xD;&#xA;and eventually join the relatively small cadre of users who help to&#xD;&#xA;curate the site.&#xD;&#xA;And part of the clean slate that's needed to become active in that&#xD;&#xA;community is for the community to forget about old problems ---&#xD;&#xA;something that's harder if a concise description of those old problems&#xD;&#xA;is just a mouse click away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer to my first question is no: I can't say much more about&#xD;&#xA;suspensions in aggregate than I could individually.&#xD;&#xA;There have been so few suspensions that essentially any remark I made&#xD;&#xA;would permit you, an alert reader, to figure out who I was talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter asks whether prior suspensions are &quot;expunged&quot; somehow&#xD;&#xA;for purposes of escalating duration (usually a week, then a month,&#xD;&#xA;then a year).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The records  of private communications and suspensions are not deleted&#xD;&#xA;from the servers or hidden from the moderators;&#xD;&#xA;we exercise our judgement.&#xD;&#xA;For a hypothetical example, suppose a user had a temper tantrum,&#xD;&#xA;collected a bunch of rude/abusive flags, and needed a time-out.&#xD;&#xA;If their history showed a previous suspension for the same reason in the last&#xD;&#xA;year, we'd almost certainly escalate.&#xD;&#xA;But if their history showed a brief previous suspension for the same reason from&#xD;&#xA;five years ago, followed by a positive contribution record, I don't&#xD;&#xA;think we would hold that ancient history against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly is the boundary?&#xD;&#xA;That I can't say. It's a judgement call, which we'd try to make using&#xD;&#xA;all the information that's available to us.&#xD;&#xA;If a user is active in the community, makes good contributions, and is&#xD;&#xA;encouraging to and respected by other users, we would probably tend to&#xD;&#xA;be lenient.&#xD;&#xA;If a user spends a lot of time testing the boundaries of what is and&#xD;&#xA;isn't acceptable, we would tend to be more harsh.&#xD;&#xA;But I won't pigeonhole myself in the future by inventing some&#xD;&#xA;algorithm here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="94fe2712-c054-4ca4-bac5-048899ba95df" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was deleted by [Community](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community). For more information, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6787/2451) meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="e85c738b-63fb-4e8d-8940-f8537c8e5f5b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently, I had a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/218658/) closed because it was, strictly, a maths difficulty.  It occurred during my reading of a physics text named in the question.  Admittedly, it was not a profound question, and I did demonstrate my effort to understand the statement, but was self-dissatisfied because my method was tedious though correct.  I thought I ought have seen the answer more quickly. A reader gave me the quick method I sought, and I was pleased.  Then, another reader with a high reputation commented that my question had no physical content, and closed it. I did not mind the closing of the question, but I thought the criticism was legalistic. If a reader of a stated physics text finds a maths difficulty and is discouraged from using your site, then you are not being helpful nor encouraging, in my opinion.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="6cb81182-9e8c-46e8-a76c-68e4d7aee343" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Would a 'derivations' tag be useful?  i.e. for questions asking about the derivation of established laws and equations.  In my experience, understanding derivations (at least of college-level physics material) can be extremely useful and insightful---often far better than memorizing a result.  A 'derivations' tag might be good to give these types of questions/answers more attention, and let people especially fond-of/expert-at them find them more easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern with such a tag might be that [it's too meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6031/8521).  Being a derivation, however, does directly address the content of the question itself and the relevant skills/material required to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional modifier might be good to distinguish &quot;derivation&quot; as in, 're-deriving an equation'; as apposed to derivative 'derivation', as in an anti-integral.  Especially for non-native english speakers, this could be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post (&quot;Rigorous treatment of blackbody radiation&quot;)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304413/rigorous-treatment-of-blackbody-radiation), for example, might be a good candidate for such a tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="4030c109-b29f-4ef8-8bda-55159e650c53" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here comes an odd little low-practical question out of curiosity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does the review counter show**? The little counter in the upper bar is always showing a high number (fluctuating a bit) even when review queues are empty. I might have missed an explanation somewhere when being sworn in with the review privilege.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could of course just be because there are more queues than I am [allowed to review at my place in the hierarky][1] (odd that I would see a tempting counter in that case), but there [don't seem to be any queues hidden from me][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ik5wg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5591" RevisionGUID="ea85c370-5c5d-4133-8c67-0434177f2108" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just looked at my flagging history and I did indeed go through those four examples. I flagged two of them as Not An Answer, and I disputed the other two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I flagged&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [the moon flag one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/101572/8563), because it is more of a rant than anything, and most of all it does not address the core of the question, as to how bleaching might be avoided, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [the observable-universe one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26193/is-the-observable-region-of-the-universe-within-the-event-horizon-of-a-super-mas/101622#101622), because it is confusing, doesn't really say much, and simply piles on speculation on an already large helping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disputed the other two. Looking at them again, I guess they do fall on the wrong side of the line. I'm not very sure why I flagged like that, to be honest; it may partly have been a desire to not be too harsh on new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The sound-speed-in-mercury one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101895/why-does-sound-travel-faster-in-iron-than-mercury-even-though-mercury-has-a-high/101914#101914) is, I think, not *that* far from an (incorrect) attempt at an answer. It happens fairly often that someone takes a bad question and reformulates so that it has an answer; this looks like a failed attempt at that. I still see it in a bit of a gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With [the current-through-birds one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60195/how-much-of-current-flows-through-a-bird-sitting-on-a-power-line/101807#101807), I felt if they could back up their assertions it might eventually become a full answer, even if incorrect. I guess I also acted partly to balance out the other comments, which seemed out of proportion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your more general question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#not very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flags are hard to handle. In particular, it has happened to me a few times that I see a very bad answer and flag it, and it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were on answers with very limited value to anyone ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99507/theoretical-space-station-components/99515#99515), [example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30501/why-does-a-gas-inside-a-closed-container-experience-atmosperic-pressure-when-the/97819#97819)). If it turns out that the Very Low Quality flag does not cover those answers, what *does* it cover? This sort of thing has made me quite jumpy at the time of flagging posts, and it tends to make me err on the side of forgiveness rather than harshness. I note now that this was, I think, only for the VLQ queue and not for the Not An Answer one, but I can't really separate the two in my mind / recollections all that clearly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="bb73e173-84f4-4c31-95d4-46411c833ba4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had asked [this question][1] some time back. What I intended to know was understood perfectly by the person who has answered it. Since then, the question has been viewed a thousand times earning me a 'popular' badge. It shows that lot of people had that question in mind. Surprisingly, I have only one up vote for my question but that is the least of my concern. I feel 'closing' this and similar questions based on some technicality will stop people from asking curious questions. Curiosity is the mother of physics. Let us encourage it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/145110/how-can-a-black-hole-reduce-the-speed-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9691" RevisionGUID="bf4b4f0c-36e8-4b5a-88f0-019c76ace04e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I trust the tastes of the community generally, so I would like to nominate the most upvoted answers from the most [upvoted questions][1], starting with [Cooling Cup of Coffee with Spoon][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then it seems to make the whole point of the book pointless if anyone can access what's already conveniently here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5265/cooling-a-cup-of-coffee-with-help-of-a-spoon/5510#5510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5935" RevisionGUID="08c77ea2-77b5-4a55-a21e-8846b7b4da0d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's a mechanism in place that you're probably not aware of, but which you should research well and think about. Any time that a closed question is edited, it is put into a [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) called Reopen Votes, for which the options are Leave Closed, Edit and Reopen, and Reopen. If a question gets three 'Leave closed' votes, then it gets taken out of the queue - which means that three independent people think that the edits are not enough to warrant reopening. It also means that they get to see and comment on the post, if there is evidence that the OP is on the track to clarify their ideas but still needs some help - and this does happen very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see this Mother Meta post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/140893/add-a-review-posts-with-reopen-votes-review-task&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your assertion that 'a closing vote can never be removed' is incorrect - it takes equal amounts of people to reopen as it does to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I cannot account for the actions of other reviewers on that queue, but I can assure you that each question I see there receives a good look at both the changes and how they address the closure reason, as well as whether the new version by itself is a closable question or not. Unfortunately, I agree completely with Kyle in that the content of this queue is very often minor edits which do not address the closure reason at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To browse through the last few questions on the queue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122940/dipole-charge-attractions-while-one-of-them-is-turning-around-other is an improvement but it is still on the border line as regards the homework policy, and the 2/2 votes reflect this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122956/spherical-shell-with-mass-of-the-earth only has style improvements since the closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122890/string-theory-and-how-it-works is actually a fair improvement on the previous version but it is still miles away from on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122727/explosive-energy-in-a-container is an improvement but it is still unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122506/michelson-morley-interferometer-in-space-without-rods is a better description of a confused thought process which it is still very hard to make sense of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122070/chanddrasekhar-limit  is, I think, still on the borderline of the homework policy, and it has attracted attention from thoughtful users who work in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this background, a substantial edit which has clearer language or a longer posts immediately demands attention, and it is easy to detect when the OP has put in a good bit of work to clarify their post. If they have clarified it to the point that the core of the question is now clear, I will usually edit it into shape and vote to reopen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is very seldom the case. Most often, the lack of clarity in the language leads to ambiguities in what the question actually is (if not a complete puzzle as to what was going on inside the OP's head). In the (relatively frequent) cases where one can identify two or three candidate questions that the OP may be thinking of, it is *still* a disservice to the OP to directly edit that in, because we do not know what they wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, beware of making generalizations based on your own personal experience of the site, as I can tell you - from experience - that it is very easy to *not* see stuff that does go on. Unless you have followed up on *every* post that was closed as unclear, and seen that all of them get worked on by their OPs and still get 'robo-voted' down, how can you be sure that you've not simply been seeing the closure part of the process, without being around for the reopening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="19a06b45-48ed-48ad-bc14-9603c1789322" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted this&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/303764/95563&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it was put on hold, then I added more info and explained that this is my attempt to a solution, but I got no answer and it's still on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="bfb87df7-4a8b-43f0-b0b4-44e8b6f5512d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I present a few counter-points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - this list of [390 closed questions with &gt;950 views &amp; is closed (but not a dupe)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+views%3A950+closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano)&#xD;&#xA; - this list of [211 closed questions with &gt;5 votes &amp; is closed (but not a dupe)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq+score%3A5+closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put: there is *no* correlation between views or votes and topicality. Questions that are ill posed, which your original formulation certainly was, can still acquire rep &amp; views, despite a closed status, which is how you got your badge about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't at all believe we should let the view counts (which can *never* decrease) or votes influence whether a question is on-topic or not. That should be decided by the question itself (and the required 5 voters opinions on the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if your question *is* closed, feel free to *ask* why it was closed (preferably in a *timely* fashion, but 1 year is fine too if you want to wait that long) and how you might make it better to get it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="14abfef7-e348-4c33-8cf5-5478fc602b42" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I find it interesting that people are voting to close questions like https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100331/if-an-object-moved-5-meters-in-a-second-how-can-its-velocity-be-10-m-s because this strikes me as a textbook example of a conceptual question, the kind of thing that our existing homework policy was specifically made to allow. I wonder if this is just an isolated case, or have questions like this been accumulating close votes all week? And if so, does this really mean that the community doesn't want conceptual questions on simple topics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="56006a6b-b4de-45d4-b931-773d38a19ef3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have asked a few questions on this website. I always try to answer questions which I can.  I never wrote any of my questions hastily. I have read this &lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&gt; help page many a times. Nearly 5 or 6 of my questions have been deleted by the &quot;community moderator&quot; because they were silently downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;My 3 questions are still alive which are downvoted silently.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86526/ac-through-a-pure-inductor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90858/what-is-the-aperture-in-the-hydraulic-analogy-of-ohms-law. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82464/can-a-photon-survive-a-collision-if-so-is-it-at-rest-during-the-process  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why  were my questions downvoted silently?**   &#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;My 6 answers are also downvoted. These are:  &#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99377/relationship-between-stopping-potential-and-work-function/99385#99385  &#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94032/using-sin-or-cos-for-computing-shm/94096#94096  &#xD;&#xA;3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89496/centripetal-force-in-frame-of-reference-of-body-moving-in-a-circle/89500#89500  &#xD;&#xA;4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82828/explain-what-happens-to-object-in-lift/82831#82831  &#xD;&#xA;5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95636/elastic-potential-energy/95642#95642  &#xD;&#xA;And  &#xD;&#xA;6. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87057/angular-displacement/87066#87066 ,I will never forget this one, I spend 2 days in finding the reference book.  &#xD;&#xA;**Why were my answers downvoted silently.**  &#xD;&#xA;____________________  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Note: If my posts are downvoted silently due to the grammatical and formatting mistakes then I want to tell the community one important thing:- I have the privilege to downvote, keep downvoting, I have started to find posts which have minor grammatical and spelling mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="6d6ab331-b630-4752-a115-4944334aa3ce" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[In the comments to this question][1] I advised that giving a full answer to a HW&amp;E question is not what we should do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question which contains nothing of conceptual value, is clearly a HW question and isn't well formatted, appears eligible for 'close' votes (but I haven't voted to close yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After my advice to the member providing the answer the member then asked for upvotes. *Per se* there may be nothing wrong with a bit of self-promotion but is it really acceptable? And what would happen to any upvotes if the question was closed later anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222357/finding-tension-of-ropes-between-objects-attached-via-pulleys-on-an-inclined-pla" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="39b319cc-2b7c-43fa-9b64-7ab8dbebe470" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every so often, an answer like [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/36263/23473) shows up in the low-quality review queue (that one showed up today for me). When it does, we are presented with the familiar choices: &quot;Looks OK&quot;, &quot;Edit&quot;, &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;, and &quot;Skip&quot;. Now as per a [previous meta discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5675/23473), questions like this shouldn't be deleted since they don't meet that criteria. The post itself is an attempt at an answer, but in general, it can be unclear, wrong, too short, or horribly written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I can downvote it and maybe leave a comment if I'm able, but that doesn't remove it from my review queue. I refuse to hit &quot;Looks OK&quot; because let's face it, there are posts like this that simply do not look OK. If I knew what the poster was trying to say, I'd consider editing it, but sometimes you know they are &quot;answering&quot; the question but you're just not sure what they're trying to say or you know it's completely wrong. So no hitting &quot;Edit&quot;. We already vetoed &quot;Recommend Deletion&quot;. So all I have left is &quot;Skip&quot;. I can always hit the &quot;Skip&quot; button, let someone else worry about it. But there are times when a post is really bad and you want to do something about it, not just pass it off to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to open up the floor to discussion. What does everyone else do when faced with a truly low-quality post that can't be edited or deleted? And feel free to suggest new features for the low-quality review stack too; those are always fun to consider. Just remember that if you do and people start to think it's a good idea, Shog9 will quickly come here to tell us all exactly why the current low-quality review setup is the smartest and most effective design we could have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an addendum after having read a couple of answers to this, everyone go to an answer you know of with zero or less up-votes and hit the flag button. Notice it has the &quot;very low quality&quot; flag option that says &quot;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now supposedly, one could flag an answer with that and (if I'm not mistaken) that sends it to the LQ review queue. That's one of the reasons why if I see a post that is technically an answer but I can't see a way of saving it through edits, I hesitate to hit the &quot;Looks OK&quot; option. An answer might fulfill the requirements of using that flag option but then also be marked as &quot;OK&quot; by the queue reviewers. 20 goto 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="d55803ac-ba33-46b9-b117-13f3604ffbe1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[heather][1]: For exceptional research effort in her answers and making the site more open to new users from all levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ~4500 reputation in the first 7 months says a lot, too...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="83726bb4-089b-4418-bee5-00bba27c7cac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was rightfully closed in the first place. As it was [originally written](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/100236/1), it had every appearance of a graduate-level **but zero effort** homework problem.  After it was closed, OP added a couple relevant links to papers that contained the answer (as pointed out by me). Seems to me that it's *still* a zero-effort homework problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="3f0dd79e-1b0d-4d9b-bb59-67a30f1610ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this][1] case and [this][2], review has been completed by a single &quot;Looks OK&quot; vote. While in [this][3] case it has been completed by two &quot;Looks OK&quot; votes. Is there a reason for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/168307&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/168293&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/168272" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="47439abc-355d-4397-96a9-e8a09992fa5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988) by [pglpm](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132418/pglpm) to the question [How can I adapt classical continuum mechanics equations in order to agree with general relativity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g) shows a very profound conceptual understanding of classical continuum mechanics and furthermore contains a vast amount of literature and research a very interesting/relevant open topic. To me, it is strange that it only got a few upvotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="cb932e14-6913-43a7-8fc9-cfe21ff68363" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Thanks to Brandon Enright for putting the question &quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98513/is-there-a-field-equation-which-can-reduce-into-all-three-flavors-of-spin-zero&quot; on the featured list by placing a bounty on it. Since the bounty ran out, the question is no longer on the featured list and still remains unanswered. What is the next evolutionary stage of the question? Will it be cast into the sea of forgotten unanswered questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="8a9b8aac-0a72-468d-b0a7-21b1d25ab77c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have asked a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/117391/find-out-the-dimension-of-fracab) before 3 days and it was put on hold. After that i have done all the required editing in the question and also put the comment but till now it haven't been reviewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think after edit, the question is up to the standard because before editing question had got -2 votes but now after editing it has got 3 votes up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope the question will not be closed!!   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="bf1098ed-99d1-47dd-8155-0f67bd626e95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've raised a question that was put on hold, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could a falling office tower cause the melting of its iron or steel support structure?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to post for discussion the reason the question was put on hold.  I would preface that I don't want to offend anyone, raise defences, bring questions where not welcome, or rattle an apple cart.  I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, or anything being out of line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am having trouble understanding the nature of the rejection of the question, and would appreciate understanding the rationale, and I feel like that might be important for the community of users and potential users.  Any insight shall be sincerely appreciated, but this discussion is not intended for my benefit, but for that of the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I asked struck me as a curiosity. The physics were interesting to me so I napkin-speculated as to the answer but I did not feel myself competent to make any reliable conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel – and it initially appeared — that this would be a question appropriate for this site, and I was (and remain) open to whatever conclusion comes from the application of the physics to the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, all I wanted was an answer to a relatively straightforward physics question that was beyond my capabilities – to learn something.  Thanks to the answers posted (but since deleted), I did.  Then the question was put on hold, and comments became what I perceived as speculative yet judgmental and hostile.  This appears to be because the data and curiosity comes from the geopolitical event we call 9/11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the tangentiality of the relationship: The question I asked was and remains purely hypothetical, a timeless inquiry into the nature of the relations in the physical world; it has never mentioned or implied a relation to any events at all.  That said, I made what was evidently the mistake of commenting on an answer that the reason I was asking was related to a thread on Skeptics.SE.  Shortly thereafter I was accused of using the Physics site as a vehicle for linking to a WTC &quot;controlled explosion&quot; theory, whereupon I deleted my comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, from the Skeptics.SE sister–site here (where I, for what it's worth, enjoy a little reputation), shall summarize its content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On 9/11, was Building 7 destroyed in a controlled explosion?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/31144/1792)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That theory in the linked answer on Skeptics.SE is not a conspiracy theory, in any defensible sense, as by definition a conspiracy theory attempts to find blame. The answer linked only indicates that there is evidence yet–unexplained by NIST, and posits an alternative (which alternative could very well be discredited, particularly by physics or engineering expertise).  It is also not a conspiracy theory in the sense that it is readily falsifiable – potentially, it occurred to me, *by way of an answer to the question I posted here*.  It also a genetic fallacy to conclude that by being from a so-called conspiracy one must dismiss the question as not being a curiosity of physics.  Nevertheless, in spite of the logical fallacy and being semantically incorrect, the assertion that the question posted here was a conspiracy theory was evidently fatal to the inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a question about another geopolitical event, like the Challenger disaster, would be perfectly acceptable, or similarly the same question in a different era or different country.  Which makes me wonder, where does the condemnation and taboo come from?  Certainly there are legitimate concerns if the question was unanswerable, vague or speculative, or the questioner argumentative or unwilling to accept answers that dismissed the theory.  However, my question was easily and evidently answerable, and I am (and always remain) completely open to a credible conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern was raised on the comments that the question I posted here would become a conduit for a conspiracy theory, but the Skeptics.SE question is already quite popular, and in any case the link was in a comment to an answer – hardly a prominent exposure.  It was certainly and apparently not the intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leaves me wondering what the governance and purpose of the site is.  The tour says it's meant for asking about explanations of observed phenomenon.  But that seems to not be adequate. There are contemporaneous and forensic observations of melted iron and steel found at the WTC site, and the question was presented as a hypothetical for possible explanations of that observed phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tour gives criteria for dismissal, such as being a homework question, outside mainstream physics, based on opinion, lengthy answers, or need for lengthy discussion, but none seem to apply.  While being a homework question may be improper, the site itself states that it generally should not be a problem. So there's no apparent (or given) basis for dismissal, other than its relation to a geopolitical event, even though such dismissal is inconsistent with the values and rules espoused.  Why bother having the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It always struck me that this site could have questions that are beacons of sensibility, expertise, and (dare I say) sanity in contrast with an Internet chock full of unsubstantiated speculation.  I would like to think that this site could discuss and bring illumination about events of importance, and so ideally &quot;conspiratorial-type&quot; questions would be not just permitted but encouraged precisely to debunk conspiratorial wish-wash.  The answers I received were interesting and useful, precisely because.  I wish this could be a place where I could ask more; there are criteria for dismissing bad questions but relation to a geopolitical event is not one — it is arbitrary, capricious, and fragile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should not the criteria for dismissing questions be independent of the origin of the curiosity causing the question and the source for the data?  Is that not the essence of scientific inquiry, the critical distinction that allows intellectual curiosity to overcome rumination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is all to say, dismissing the question I asked for the reasons given feels wrong – I clearly am missing something.  I feel like closing the question necessitates employing things in opposition to ideals I believe are fundamentally good, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Engaging and involving those curious about physics;&#xD;&#xA;2. illuminating relevant details about important events that affect lives; &#xD;&#xA;3. honouring the rules of the site presented to the public; and&#xD;&#xA;4. linking to and building relationships with other StackExchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel the site is missing an opportunity for topics where illumination on the Internet is most wanting.  I've always believed those with greater capabilities have a duty to those who do not to share their illumination, and this site could serve as a place for spreading knowledge about physics related to events that affect our lives.  Otherwise, what is the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to start an argument, upset the apple cart, or step into the unwelcome.  I am not blaming or accusing anyone of anything, nor asking that the question be reviewed or re-opened, nor that any theories be reviewed or speculated upon, nor that any changes be made to the site, its governance, or its policies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't need a response or to be part of a discussion, but I feel a discussion should be had because the criteria for closing questions seems to divert from reason and common sense, to include a taboo of things tangentially related to an important geopolitical event, even where such dismissal is contrary to the guidelines the site offers to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something about that doesn't sit right with me, and if this site and its community are important to you then this shouldn't sit right with you either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="927a3972-5175-42f1-86c6-9aea4584c921" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Bob Bee](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/108333/bob-bee) whose works on general relativity, black holes and gravitational waves are very enjoyable to read whilst bored at work (or other times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~5K rep in 11 months and active in the reviews, the makings of a great contributor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="5f9b37eb-873f-4fa5-9231-50983eb0165b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was trying to get the [Bronze Editor badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/3/editor), so I edited one post by fixing a few grammar errors and making the question clearer. However, I thought editing was a privilege only earned at 2000 rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I submitted my edit, I got a message saying it would only be displayed once peer reviewed.  Will I still get the editor badge no matter what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="1e71a451-51fe-4c6a-b875-b67d3a72c5c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On [this comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103561/when-i-stretch-a-rubber-band-it-breaks-when-i-hold-the-broken-ends-together-w/103565?noredirect=1#comment211682_103565) here, I posted a link to the famous xkcd. What is weird is, the link is broken, with a 404 error. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you remove the trailing `/` from the link it goes to the page correctly, even though the browser adds `/` anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [here is a sample link](http://what-if.xkcd.com/54/) which works. It is to the same page. **Probable bug report**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="b6f95e67-05f6-484e-a31c-ef446725114a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For a long time, I've admired [Kapitza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Kapitsa)'s Problems in Physics [[pdf]](http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/challenge/Kapitza.pdf).  It is a collection of 224 questions Kapitza and colleagues used to form the focus of a postdoc candidate oral exams.  They really are a treat.  I encourage everyone to read Kapitza's introductions of the problems in the first few pages of the linked pdf, but I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compiling these problems I had a certain objective in mind, which explains their unconventional formulation.  The following explanation will make their solution of greater interest to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Problem solving is of particular importance in the study of the exact sciences such as mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. It enables the student to apply his own knowledge to the solution of practical questions.  [...] It is well known that fruitful scientific work requires not only knowledge and understanding but also a capacity for independent analytical and creative thinking. In effect, these problems were compiled as a useful means for the discovery, evaluation and cultivation of these qualities during the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I strove to achieve this end by formulating the majority of the questions in the following manner. A small problem is presented, and the student, using the known laws of physics, must analyse and describe quantitatively the natural phenomenon involved. These natural phenomena were selected in terms of their scientific or practical interest within the scope of the students' level of knowledge. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the problems allow a number of approaches to their solution in order to reveal the students' individuality. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A characteristic feature of the problems is that they have no definite answer because the student is allowed to proceed further and further with the analysis of the problem posed, depending on his own abilities and inclinations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, here are some of my favorite examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Astronomical observations show that the planet Venus is entirely covered in cloud, so that the Venusians are unable to observe the heavenly bodes, Describe how they could accurately measure the length of their day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11) Explain why, for a bow of a given size, there is a certain size of arrow which yields the longest flight. Estimate this size for a bow of a given shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;19) Why can the movement of a bicycle be controlled in 'no hands' riding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;38) Determine the maximum range of audibility of a conversation in open air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;83) Estimate the time for a pond to freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;89) Estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of the firing of cannon and hand-guns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;127) Describe the electrical effects caused by the earth's magnetic field when water having an electrical conductivity flows in rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;200) Two satellites have a head-on collision. Describe the subsequent events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;202) Estimate the height to which a person can pole vault. Determine the cross-section of the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;210) A student comes late into a lecture-room. She is wearing a strong perfume, Estimate the time that elapses before the lecturer can detect the scent of the perfume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that almost all of our [highest voted questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) are of this same spirit. (e.g. [[1]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far), [[2]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70839/how-can-you-weigh-your-own-head-in-an-accurate-way), [[3]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/how-can-i-stand-on-the-ground-em-or-and-pauli), [[4]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114525/how-does-hot-water-clean-better-than-cold-water), [[5]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/what-makes-running-so-much-less-energy-efficient-than-bicycling))  In fact, the recent [mass of a coin question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall) serves as a perfect example of a Kapitza style question, the question itself being rather short and ambiguous.  The answers really embraced the nature of a kapitza question, and building off one another ended up with a fairly compelling analysis.  But, the question itself was poorly received (initially), as discussed in this recent [meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5940/mass-of-a-coin-question-went-viral-despite-inital-downvotes-and-negative-commen).  There, the community points out that the question is not a good question, as we currently define a good question.  Other seemingly valid 'kapitza' type questions pop up and are closed as *too broad* or *off topic* or *engineering* fairly regularly, and probably rightfully so, given our current definition of a good question.  [This search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3Ayes+duplicate%3Ano+migrated%3Ano+is%3Aquestion+score%3A2) returns an approximate list of such candidates, some examples that stood out to me include: [[1]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129758/what-is-the-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow), [[2]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127975/can-a-semi-transparent-object-appear-white), [[3]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128626/how-much-more-efficient-is-a-road-bike-than-a-mountain-bike), [[4]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111342/why-mountain-roads-are-winded-up-rather-than-keeping-them-straight), [[5]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104832/why-is-my-restaurant-silverware-magnetized)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Proposal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the actual proposal.  The proposal would be to dedicate a new tag, either 'kapitza' or 'challenge' to mark these kinds of questions.  Simple, ambiguous, open ended questions without prior research, but in an attempt to try to foster this kind of collaborative, quantitative modeling challenge.  True 'kaptiza' questions would be evaluated on the criteria Kapitza himself outlines in the introductory pages of his problems.  So, much like our current [tag:homework] tag, the rules for 'kapitza' questions would be a little tweaked, the questions would be evaluated by a different metric than standard questions. The goal of the question being not to find *the one authoritative answer* as the questions are designed not necessarily to have one, but to really challenge our contributors to try to collectively create interesting content introducing a wide array of physics topics.  Think of it as a sort of [codegolf.SE](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/) section for the physics.SE, but much more pedagogical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this would require little else than a dedicated tag and explanatory wiki page (and corresponding evolution in community behavior associated with the tag). For the tag name, I would volunteer 'kapitza', a unique tag, to mark the questions as similarly unique, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't mean anything unless you know what they are, or take the time to read the tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this new tag would be a way to codify some of the observable trends we have already, namely the kinds of questions and answers that people like to upvote, making it easier to discover and contribute to other, similar questions.  I think this would help also to alleviate some of the tension we have between some questions getting closed early as too broad, while some similar questions becoming our most highly voted.  A dedicated tag would also enable those uninterested to block the tag from their view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7379" RevisionGUID="d1e2996f-9314-474f-a9c8-9a3341ec3306" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I won't give my opinion on this directly, but I would like to point out the site description from the [first line of the Tour page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would read that to mean that answering questions for the layman (qualified in your post as people not qualified to answer nor ask a question) is not within the scope of the site. Likewise, lay-questions are not within the scope of the site. It is possible somebody could interpret &quot;student&quot; to mean anybody with a passing curiosity -- and the community is a bit mixed on that. We do have many questions and answers that are approachable and deal with basic, real-life curiosities. And there are some who feel that is good, and some who feel that it is bad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="5b44a562-43d4-4c7a-b156-6a290f683a64" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My proposal is John Rennie's answer https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really/241773#241773.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the self answer is very comprehensive and informative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="7f6c164f-9313-47d9-a2e3-5480901d9c3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your post was [already reviewed][1], with a unanimous decision to keep closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still things to be improved, read the homework policy carefully. The summary up top captures the problem with your question well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On holded questions are no different from closed questions, the wording switches over automatically in five days. There is no actual difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/46001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9750" RevisionGUID="43f35805-e380-4b91-8e82-ea755c289e52" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You'll get the badge if and only if the edit gets approved by the reviewers in the [Suggested Edits queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits). In your particular case, [the edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/168503) is approved, and you have accordingly received the badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [What kind of edits contribute to the editor badges?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/442/what-kind-of-edits-contribute-to-the-editor-badges)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="a8056aae-552f-4e5f-b17c-224dcbe88e95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[sammy gerbil][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great contributor having amassed nearly 10,000 reputation in just 9 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/114696/sammy-gerbil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="49655ec3-817d-4d52-9f1a-e684f1782494" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am aware that I make mistakes and do not follow the conventions and know nothing about the codes used for formulae so it is good when somebody edits my post. But I am curious, in [this editing][1] some real mistakes were corrected but also some words deleted and inserted as they were, at least in my browser (Firefox).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that in other browsers some everyday characters are interpreted differently? For example, I see no difference in the spelling and settings for &quot;telescope&quot; and &quot;the&quot; in the first line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As sometimes the spell checker does that too, I am wondering if my keyboard does something funny (it is also a greek keyboard) that others can see who do not have greek in their browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/37484" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="fff751ba-5425-4cdc-bea9-7d42aa9a0814" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes please. Many of [these posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22update+2%22) are very difficult to read for no good reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="9c2b6329-92ff-4706-b501-8fee7000f246" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The relationship between votes and reputation is indeed nonlinear. This is implemented by means of a [**reputation cap**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation), which restricts the total reputation you can get from upvotes&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; during one day&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; to 200 rep. This is designed to prevent exactly that problem; you should note that this is a lot worse on sites like StackOverflow with a lot more traffic than us. This is a lot more nonlinear than a logarithmic relation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Mathematica graphics](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9KT93.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This goes a long way towards curbing the 'bandwagon' effect that you note. When questions and answers go viral, they get a lot of their votes in a short period, and this stops the worst of the effect. Consider, for example, [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/121905/8563) to the mass-of-a-coin question, and note the number of votes that did *not* accrue the poster any rep, despite the considerable effort that went into that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the rep cap works fairly well at its job. Admittedly, the rep level of the cap (i.e. 200) is tuned for sites like StackOverflow with a lot more traffic, but it tends to work well here, particularly because it's very rare for users to post more than one wonder-hit question or answer without actually deserving a good bit of rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to see the real effect of the rep cap, you should use [this Stack Exchange Data Explorer query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/204782/top-users-by-reputation-with-rep-cap-and-member-for-days), which gives all the users that have hit the rep cap, ordered by how many times they have done so. If you find the days when they did, you will mostly see very good answers that deserved a good bit of rep. Having a lower rep cap would only make it harder to get rep by posting good content. Having the sort of nonlinear relation you propose would also make it harder to do exactly that - instead, it would reward merely [nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/45/nice-answer) answers instead of the really [great](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/40/great-answer) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;This excludes bounties and answer accepts, which are reasonable enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Midnight-to-midnight on UTC time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/47tS3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9752" RevisionGUID="44b0b639-255c-44e7-b289-7ae1ef13ba3d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently put a bounty on a question, but still no one is answering it.  When the bounty period ends, will the bounty just go to waste?  If no one is answering I would prefer to just answer the question myself and get my 50 rep back, but I don't know if this is possible or allowed.  Any advice would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266216/are-there-exact-analytical-solutions-to-the-electronic-states-of-the-hydrogen-mo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="bf3f1163-8842-49ac-a876-7971ed081e64" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like this question because it brings together two seemingly disparate areas of physics: noise (i.e. stochastic processes) and the partition function.&#xD;&#xA;The latter of these two is normally encountered in the context of statistical mechanics, so it's interesting and aesthetically pleasing to see a link established between teh partition function and stochastic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a *good question* because OP states the problem concisely, shows effort, and asks for help on a particular step.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="1c0bd934-8675-4593-87b8-dced4592209d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I tried to delete a question but I got a message saying that I can't because it has answers, and asked me to flag this for a moderator attention so this is what I did but then I got a message saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did I do wrong? Doesn't this problem need moderator intervention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here is my question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68911/why-do-current-and-electrons-flow-in-opposite-directions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which has 10700 views while the other one which my question is closed as duplicate of only has 3000 views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is distracting from the other one for that I want to delete it. Also I have three badges I've earned can you please undo them because they are illegal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry for asking the duplicate question but I didn't know it was a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="7eebceaa-89a9-43fd-9415-9ec7861584dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sometimes the actual answer changes with time, like BICEP2 more or less retracting their detection of gravitational waves, neutrios found not to be superluminal, the astronomical unit is redefined as a contant, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases I like to see an updated answer (possibly years later) along with the original answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103898/what-was-the-major-discovery-on-gravitational-waves-made-march-17th-2014-in-th/103902#103902" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="3b4a9aeb-894d-4da8-ad0b-46055d63b73e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just tried to vote to close the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/131799/20848 because it is squarely about engineering and not about physics.  However, it told me something like &quot;questions with open bounties can't be closed&quot;.  That seems like a odd rule.  A bounty doesn't change whether something is off topic or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the point is that it would be wrong to force the bounty to be wasted, but if that is really the intent then the bounty could be refunded when the question is closed.  Actually in this case I think it could be migrated to EE, but that doesn't change the fact that it is off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a unintended interaction, or is there really a logical reason behind this that I'm missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="cb403d24-8e1d-4e51-9b85-f8f766a051cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd say the answer below is the best answer by a rookie in 2016.  A very informative answer by a user who created their account in 2016:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251001/how-does-zumberges-1981-gravitational-measurements-relate-to-gravitational-wave/251014#251014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="05d4dc51-ceb5-4c52-96c4-73f2c73f2ffb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The only activity your account shows in [this answer][1] which has attracted five upvotes to date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/101650/520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="b7490c59-5df1-4c93-bd31-8ff48afcf5f2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed that this question from a new user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121879/can-i-compute-the-mass-of-a-coin-based-on-the-sound-of-its-fall&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;went viral, attracting tens of thousands of views and hundreds of votes. The numbers speak for themselves - there is no doubt that the question was a good one, though, of course, questions covering a range of topics and difficulties are desirable. Worryingly, however, our initial responses to the question were rather negative; the question was downvoted to a negative rating and comments indicated that the question was of no value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this not suggest that our response to questions can be too quick and too harsh? Are we too officious/bureaucratic? We initially discouraged one of the most successful questions of all time. Do we need to be more careful? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="3333e9ad-e184-44dd-9ada-d73e0e8b0d42" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My answer to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322598/what-is-special-about-maxwells-equations/322603#322603 was deleted by a moderator. The OP asked what is special about the Maxwell equations, which, according to the OP, are basically a combination of  &quot;4 equations that were already formulated by other physicists&quot;. It looked like the OP was surprised that the equations that did not contain anything new are held in such respect. I noted in my answer that Maxwell was the first to introduce the displacement current (which is a critical part of the Maxwell equations). I  believed that was at least a partial answer to the OP's question: the displacement current (maybe among other things) does make the Maxwell equations special. The moderator considered the answer &quot;critique of the question, not an answer&quot;. Was the deletion really warranted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT(4/8/2017): Another moderator has just made an indirect contribution to this discussion, converting to a comment my answer to this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/298943/can-reactions-be-controlled-electromagnetically/298955#298955 . The moderator's explanation: &quot;I'm converting this answer to a comment because it currently is a set of suggested search terms and a reference to a paper, which makes it more like a &quot;link-only&quot; answer than an answer that stands on its own.&quot; What may be somewhat amusing is that the answer was accepted:-) So the OP decided the answer was what (s)he needed (by the way, the deleted answer that I discussed above got quite a few upvotes). Let me note that comments on this site are meant to be volatile and can disappear without any reason. But what is important for this discussion: what standards should be applied to answers? Let me include the rules of the site that I already quoted in my comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful&quot; and &quot;Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.&quot;(https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer). I also quoted the Community Manager: (https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer): &quot;See, this is an answer: &quot;You probably want a FileOutputStream&quot; And so is this: &quot;Look at manual for preg_split, third argument&quot; Yes, they're both very short, and yes, they contain links. But strip the markup, and you still get at least a little bit of useful information.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the rules, mine is definitely an answer, not a comment. So maybe some moderators, who have very high reputation and (unlike me) write excellent answers, apply higher standards than warranted by the rules? It may well be that they are right to do that, but in that case should not they have the rules changed first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="218d41c7-628b-4d6a-ab20-008584806331" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] is a math question.&#xD;&#xA;It may use equations which are commonly found in physics, and it may refer to non-linear terms as &quot;interactions&quot;, but the question itself is purely about math.&#xD;&#xA;It was not put on hold or marked as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [another purely math question][2] which was not put on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand [this question][3], which is also a math question, was put on hold as off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in this latter question is that the asker focused directly onto the mathematics, stripping away whatever physics may have been at hand in when they identified the mathematical problem at the heart of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between these questions is cosmetic.&#xD;&#xA;There is no substantive reason to consider the first or second questions &quot;physics&quot; other than the fact that the math questions represented there was encountered in a physics textbook.&#xD;&#xA;For all we know, the same may be true for the latter question, and is in fact likely given that the asker came here rather than to the math SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you think one of these questions was put on hold while the other was not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I think the answer is pretty obviously that there are more users here who are familiar with the math relevant to the first two questions than the third.&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good reason to close the third question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137171/lsz-reduction-vs-adiabatic-hypothesis-in-perburbative-calculation-of-interacting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="f1954c7a-26b6-4bcd-b63f-ad4e3c8dd0f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105347/contravariant-and-covariant-vectors-conceptual-problem) just made me look at the tag [tag:covariance], and I didn't like what I saw. The tag is a mismatched collection of questions about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lorentz covariance of theories in relativity,&#xD;&#xA; - covariance of a physical quantity under Lorentz transformations,&#xD;&#xA; - covariant derivatives,&#xD;&#xA; - the differences between covariant and contravariant vectors, and&#xD;&#xA; - statistical covariance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a tag to be useful it needs to refer to a coherent set of connected questions; by that metric this tag is useless. I therefore propose we instate the tags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:relativistic-covariance] for the first two,&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:covariant-derivative] and&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:covectors].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While [statistical covariance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_matrix) has huge traction in physics (e.g. [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1869)), [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23719/autocorrelation-functions-pair-correlation-functions) is our only statistics covariance question and it's hardly about that, so I propose that tag be dropped. If needed further down, the tag [tag:statistical-covariance] can be introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will implement these changes over the weekend (so I don't dump forty questions on the front page in one go) unless there are any objections or better proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help prevent this happening again, I also propose we blacklist the [tag:covariance] tag. Setting up [tag:covariant-vectors] as a synonym for [tag:covectors] will ensure it will come up when someone tries to use [tag:covariance], and having appropriate tag wiki excerpts for the tags should help guide people to the correct tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9772" RevisionGUID="7f37fcdd-ebff-4a40-9f9e-46c41cbb21f3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.050" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You deleted one of your [questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/321644/2451), which has $2$ upvotes and $1$ downvote, thereby removing $2\times 5+1\times(-2)=8$ [reputation pts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/149663/wrichik-basu?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="23538023-ce62-49af-ba1e-c7c2e6a10f37" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is meant as a sympathetic comment, not an answer, but it grew too long for the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the main, there are lots and lots of very good questions that get upvoted and stay around, and there's a healthy population of poor questions that get downvoted and removed. Any system for differentiating the two will make mistakes sometimes. That's okay. It's just a website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There certainly are days when the confines beyond which questions are closed as &quot;not physics&quot; are so narrow that it baffles me; I've been tempted to retaliate by leaving close votes on good questions that say &quot;this question is about the motion of charged particles in electromagnetic fields and not about physics.&quot; (I probably wouldn't do something so petty, but closures like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/128968/44126) put me in the mood.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the OP's question about [temperatures at different latitudes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/96229/44126). There's a very simple physical explanation why you get more insolation and low latitudes than at high latitudes — the angle of incidence — and it appeared in an answer just two hours after the question was asked. I agree with the sentiment at that question that meteorology and climate science are broad topics which are not properly a subset of physics, and the question was muddled by the asker's misconceptions. But on the whole it was probably a question that could have stayed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="b21bd9c9-86b1-4cae-bf88-858492192f7c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Again, simple as.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was very supprised and disapointed that these questions are locked. I think for students and mathematicans who may want to enter the field these questions are great and could be very insparational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that these lists can have something to add.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that many of the answers were simply un-detailed lists of a half-dozen books, but it is not the fault of the question nor the question-poser that the answers given were not in line with the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, can we open the [Every Physicist Books](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/884/2451) question and the [Layman Books](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13020/2451) question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7485" RevisionGUID="9a397004-249e-4c03-88df-91bfe1d97477" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/232114/44833 which has become much more popular than I originally anticipated, and has since been closed as a duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind too much that it was marked as a dupe since both questions are useful in their own right and the titles at least are clearly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today someone emailed me with a piece of info that should have been posted as an answer, but he said he didn't have the reputation to post since the question is protected. I resolved to post it on his behalf, but then I realized that it is not possible to add answers to duplicate questions. I suppose the idea is that the new answers should be added to the other question, but it doesn't seem to fit as well there, which makes me think that perhaps it shouldn't be a duplicate after all (although it is certainly a useful related reading).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one commenter points out, there is a difference of wording - &quot;show the Earth is round&quot; vs. &quot;show the Earth is not flat&quot;. My question is geared specifically to collecting practical experiments or observations that disprove the falsifiable physical component of the Flat Earth Theory espoused by the FES, not to showing the earth is round in the abstract. (There is also a social component, that is, showing that NASA is not involved in a coverup, but that's not as on-topic here.) The other question appears to have a more theoretical focus (probably &quot;simplest&quot; in the title was interpreted as &quot;conceptually simplest&quot;), and contains experiments like Eratosthenes that only work if you have already accepted the round-earth model to some degree (one of the answers on my question uses three-point Eratosthenes to circumvent this issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't appear that the question has quite finished its active period, and I would request that it be reopened. Would it be alright if I add a notice at the top pointing to the other question, but with less forceful wording than &quot;this question is a duplicate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="01a81457-6536-4cfe-8c27-030e9f0f42c2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I stand by position `4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine` for [question (B)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it's a check-my-work question, though admittedly this is a subtle point. The OP has found a textbook problem and has presumably worked out the solution, but the question is not about solving the textbook problem. More specifically, the textbook problem is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Prove property P(A) for arbitrary objects A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (where A is, in that case the function F). The OP's question has little to do with the proof; instead, the OP asks whether the property even makes sense. The post is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; I found an object A1 such that the property P(A1) doesn't make sense. Is this known/expected? How do I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As it turns out, the handling of that singularity is not trivial, and needs the proper framework to work well. This means a level of mathematical sophistication that is not very usual in intro-to-QM books ([Galindo &amp; Pascual](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Quantum_mechanics_I.html?id=BKfvAAAAMAAJ) being the only exception I know of), or a set of heuristics which involve not caring about specific infinities and singularities. These heuristics are particular to physics and form the core of any good answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a similar vein, I don't think this question is a maths question. The heuristics are particular to physics and a mathematician would either (a) throw a fit at the nonchalant use of divergent integrals, or (b) have a particularly hard time phrasing their explanation in terms that a physicist would find useful. The process in (b) is in fact that of turning mathematics into physics. Hence the question is physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As I stated before, calling a question &quot;that's just pure maths&quot; just because it has mathematical formulae in it is not productive, not least because that encompasses all of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find it particularly unclear, but it's not a model of clarity either. It was clear enough that it found an answer within 24 hours, so I think it definitely deserved the benefit of the doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Furthermore, I claim that *as regards questions that are unclear*, we as a community do tend to give the benefit of the doubt to users, and particularly newcomers. I think the review queues do a good job of putting unclear questions on the plate of the people best suited to work with the OPs to clarify them and make them answerable, when that is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I would of course be willing to consider data beyond my personal experience. This, however, is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put things in contrast, [question (A)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi) is very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It too starts with a textbook(-style) problem, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Given objects B, and C, what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and the OPs question is exclusively &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This is why question (A) is a check-my-work problem. I don't find it that terrible, because of the level of sophistication of the problem and the given solution, but I still agree that (i) it is closable under [the current policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and (ii) it should be closed for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the question of whether question (A) is too close to pure math for this site, I think it is close to the fence that it's on-topic both here and at maths.SE, but its content is still relevant enough to undergraduate-level analytical mechanics that it's on topic here (as far as the physics/maths divide goes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The main confusion in [DanielSank's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) is that this is even an issue. I don't think anyone, on the whole discussion, ever claimed that this question was off-topic for being too mathsy. (Of course, I'll be glad to set straight on this if someone has done so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, I don't think the questions under consideration show any inconsistency in our current closure practices. This doesn't mean that we *are* perfectly consistent, but I think perfect consistency is a little too much to ask of a system run by many individuals with varying opinions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there is probably more room in the system for more detailed comments on questions by people voting to close. This has also [come up recently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off) on a related topic. More detailed comments on why a question is getting closed helps the OP in improving their post (or understanding the scope of the site), and it improves the site in making it clear to future users why some content is on-topic and other content is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our review queue is [quiet enough](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review), and we don't have the sort of problem that [SO has](http://stackoverflow.com/review). We have a big enough pool of reviewers that we can spare the extra time for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sorting through the queue on busy times can be a bit of a dull job, and I would ask that some consideration be shown to reviewers, as it's hard to really grok the process until you see it in action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="60698f24-72bf-4175-b570-32c32b4a5c80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Currently it requires a reputation of 50 points or more to post comments to other users' posts. This creates some problems for new users :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. For example : https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is not about the **fairness** of this policy, as is the case in &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6337 My concern is about the **practicality** of it. Are the difficulties which it creates greater than the benefits of the policy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments are temporary, subject to deletion by moderators, and of less importance than answers. It seems to me inconsistent that it requires more rep to post comments than answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should this policy be changed? Should the restriction on posting comments be removed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="56ca8a55-0892-4eac-b02c-38b8982493a2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="“Unification of energy and mass ”, when explained carelessly, becomes one of the most dangerous heresies. Ī don’t point my finger to anybody, but many otherwise knowledgeable guys easily write a rubbish with roughly “Special Relativity abolished the difference between energy  and mass, hallelujah Einstein, hallelujah *E* = *m* *c*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ” meaning. Of course we, “adult” guys, understand that Special Relativity actually *separated* two masses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An essence susceptible to forces and creating gravitational forces (the same as energy or, if you like, 4-momentum *vector* or its projection).&#xD;&#xA;* Mass, an **intrinsic** quantitative property of a body (said the *rest mass* or, more generally, *invariant mass*, the *magnitude* of 4-momentum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are, of course, related, but are not more the same thing than “distance” and “length” are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposal: any answer suggesting “energy and mass are the same thing” without any specification about **which definition of mass is assumed** ought to be summarily downvoted on sight. The same about “photons do not effect gravity” visionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Update: answers like https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91501/what-keeps-mass-from-turning-into-energy/91503#91503 were assumed, although it is hard to find this misconception in such concentrated form on psysics.SE. And it likely became a moot question for now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="82683c5d-a34d-4be2-a592-0e57f214719a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was a &quot;check my work&quot; [question asked yesterday](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/139278/26969) with an unusual characteristic: the OP had really gone through the problem carefully, checking units and magnitudes along the way. She had made a rather silly mistake in the mathematics along the way resulting in an answer that was a factor 10x off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my dilemma. On the one hand, it was a &quot;check my work&quot; homework question. On the other hand, it was an unusually good one. I had left a comment about not closing it, and it attracted no downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when, after leaving the comment, I went through the work and discovered it all came down to a single typo, I wondered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;should this question be closed as being &quot;too local and not interesting to future visitors&quot;, or should we leave it open as an example of a &quot;OK&quot; form of a check-my-work homework question? I couldn't decide, even after reading [the answers to this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5914/26969).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of you know that on the homework spectrum I lean towards the &quot;helpful&quot; over the &quot;discouraging&quot; end of the distribution, so I would like to hear the community's thought on this one. But I'd gladly give up my 15 rep points if it's decided this post has no further value on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="2da4236a-2d6e-4c3e-9320-650efcde10d4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;This question:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82238/31782 has been downvoted too much. Why  is it  so.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;IMO OP seems to know that there should be some force which brings the bicycle to rest and is just asking for if this is true or there is some other concept involved. Since the OP does not make it clear my speculation might be wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="1d711c08-5225-48ac-ae80-7f2009566368" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a simple grammatical error in an answer that I was trying to fix.  Unfortunately, it only involved modifying 3 characters.  So, I quickly lightly copy-edited the remainder of the answer making 2 other minor changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edit suggestion was than quickly rejected.  Is there any way to just tell the reviewer / author the issue, so he can fix himself if he prefers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/59239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="66c235fb-3217-4778-ba30-cfe81912776f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233045/why-is-uhf-so-much-more-popular-than-other-frequencies-for-radio/233068#233068 the problem was supposed to be solved by applying basic physics, even though it was inspired by electrical engineering. I don't understand why the question was closed. What are the exact boundaries of engineering on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9530" RevisionGUID="92d5a721-30e7-4135-b69d-a4504bdb4669" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Answer to &quot;What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer assumes that the OP is new to magnetostatics but is good at electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer starts by drawing the fundamental analogies between the electrostatics and magnetostatics. The answer then slowly explores more analogies through simple derivations and ultimately ends up answering the all of the OP's questions. On its way, it explains important concepts using simple ideas, for example, it explains why magnetic field lines are always closed or why a zero exists on the right hand side of the Gauss Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="bc103298-3a72-48e7-becb-3d5f02d1c87f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm clearly not the first to voice concerns regarding homework questions. Most people here know this is not a check-my-work or give-me-the-answer site, and so don't ask  poorly-phrased homework questions that aren't about a physics concept. But we still have a lot, especially from new users. There's been a lot of effort put into making sure people know about the homework policy, from the [tour](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) to the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) to [meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange). But there are still issues, such as [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142489/how-to-find-the-moments-of-a-and-b), on which I spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what the OP's core issue was - only to have him/her suddenly announce that s/he knew the answer. Why, given all the effort that's been put in to the contrary, are we still seeing poor homework questions? Is there any way we can fix this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="fd295a4b-7efb-45ed-b635-600ed60ac4a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why this my question has been closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109273/is-this-picture-of-the-universe-valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="d1c9e466-247e-49d0-9bdf-49f5d616c8bd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with Emilio Pisanty that the question should not have been closed as an engineering question, for the reason he gives, namely that the OP is asking for the physics behind a phenomenon rather than, for example, an explanation of a technical feature of his mobile phone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the question has some similarities to https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308331, it is readily recognizable in this case what the cause is, even though the &quot;strange sound&quot; is not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to criticise @DavidZ but I think this is a good example of why moderators should not close questions unilaterally for routine reasons - ie for the same reasons as reviewers. When judgement is called for, the requirement for 5 votes avoids the outcome being skewed by individual differences of opinion. I have complained about this already in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9449/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="b7cb0cf7-9678-4767-af7c-2edb4735d364" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On this page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203449/dr-pierre-marie-robitaille-on-the-validity-of-kirchhoffs-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are the following comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this might enlighten you rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille . There was a discussion here on his cosmic background radiation ideas, which really are bizarre. – anna v Sep 1 '15 at 2:44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are being too kind--indeed inaccurate--by calling it &quot;highly controversial&quot;. He's completely wrong and everyone knows it. There's no &quot;controversy&quot; here at all. – Steve B Sep 4 '15 at 13:36*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Looks like you're right, Steve. I saw the rationalwiki link anna v posted above, he's not just making a strange misunderstanding of a physics law, but rather there is some weird motivation about disproving the standard explanation of the cosmic microwave background. – Nanite Sep 8 '15 at 7:07*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do the above remarks answer the physics question on the page cited above, or are they just irrelevant comments? If the latter why was the following 'comment' deleted by the administrators?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nanite - You are mistaken. Professor Robitaille has NOT claimed that epsilon/alpha is dependent upon angle. What he has argued is that unless a cavity contains a black material, such as soot, at thermal equilibrium, the radiation within the cavity is NOT black, and so the radiation always depends upon the nature of the cavity walls, contrary to Kirchhoff who asserted, without any experimental evidence, that the radiation is independent of the nature and form of the cavity walls. Also, thermal equilibrium CAN and IS reached by arbitrary materials, but unless the material is black, the radiation is not black. At thermal equilibrium Stewart's Law applies, i.e. emission = absorption. It does not follow that the emission and absorption are total (i.e. black). Arbitrary materials have reflection as well (unless the material is black when reflection = 0). Reflection cannot build up a black field on its own without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, and so it does not. Reflection can build up a black field only if it can be driven by input of energy via the walls and a black material, such as a piece of carbon in contact with the walls. In the case of arbitrary cavity walls, infusion of heat into the walls will not produce enough photons from the walls to build black radiation inside the cavity because the temperature of the cavity walls will rise, and thereby drop out of thermal equilibrium.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="967ca68d-abcf-4603-8ff1-e78675060474" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/143087/sum-of-energy-from-torques-of-several-disks-in-double-rotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is on hold, but I don't find another forum or question where this problem is resolved. It's possible to use lower number of disks, 16 at least, but I can't think with 2 or 3 disks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="5a1e9367-f331-4a0c-8ce2-657c767f8c61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a mad scientist, skilled with his hands. I build my own tools, in many cases. I think would be very useful if can ask about contruction of tools related to the Physical (in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(contruction mean: procedures, materials, and other stuff)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) say that &quot;How to stabilize an unstable telescope?&quot; is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about &quot;How to build a solar filter for my telescope?&quot; Would that be on-topic? Or, &quot;How to build a neutron source?&quot; Would that be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="fb7e28df-0b47-4846-bfed-1db2beabf619" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As the first person who voted to close [Dancing Twins](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/307573) as a duplicate, I think you make a valid point which is relevant generally. There is always going to be some difference between questions, or some aspect of the new question (or of both) which is not addressed in the original answers. I think the decision has to be made on the broad similarity of the central part of the question. See for example the discussions about [Do black holes exist?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5864/not-a-duplicate) and [Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9348/a-dubious-duplicate?rq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present case I think you are making a distinction which does not actually exist in the questions. Neither specifies what the relative motion of the observers is. The rocket-bound twin could be circling the Earth-bound twin; this possibility is not addressed in either case. And Electrodynamist's answer to the original makes the same points as you that what is observed depends on the relative speed and is affected by both time dilation and the Doppler effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the question was closed you were able to post an answer which addressed the issue you raised. Even if the question had been closed before you answered, you could (and can still) post a thorough answer to the original question, contrasting the two questions and covering all scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might indeed be a better original of which this is the duplicate, but finding it takes time and effort, which mortals like us have in limited supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="1bce65f7-a2fe-4440-87cf-1708a4d92eb7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I voted to close your question because you posed it as an experiment on Physics.SE users and not physics (you've [twice now eliminated the disclaimer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/109506/revisions) stating [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/109506/4)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you've re-written it, it appears that your question is merely, *Why did the author assume the commutative &amp; associative properties at this point?* The answer may not be known (especially without looking at the ~70 year old book) or it might be a guessing game. Either way, I do not think it is worth re-opening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What should I do now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot expedite the process, so the best you can do is hope that your pleas sway 3k+ voters to re-open it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Should I explain more how my question is about Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how it's about physics period, it appears to me to be purely about the associative &amp; commutative laws of algebra. You probably could post it on Math.SE for a reasonable answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Should I quote the whole artical [sic] from the referred book?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That might be a case of *Too Long; Didn't Read* (TL;DR). Personally, I think you've done enough to show what the article is stating, I just think it's a bad question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    It might that I have some illusion or my mental ability is dull. If this is the case then would anyone tell me to which subject my question belongs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated above, probably Math.SE because it's not about physics (at least as far as I can read into it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="7a5d4c31-544f-4faf-8893-52f13d650534" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted a question 2 days ago, which I think is reasonably well worded and clear to understand, but it has no response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/235551/93868&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally when I post a question, I get an answer within a few hours. If not an answer, I at least get a response of some sort: a comment, upvote or downvote. What I want to know: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) How long does someone generally need to wait before getting a response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) What should you do to get your question noticed if you get no response at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I assumed two days is enough to take care of the time zone differences. Also, I think after a longer period of time, the question will be drowned with all the newer ones and may never be seen.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="4d2957bb-b086-4aba-a470-c43f38994824" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="While editing [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/144887/planetary-motion), I noticed that we have a tag for [tag:planet] as well as one for [tag:planets]. A slightly deeper than superficial look indicates that [tag:planet] is apparently [a synonym](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/planets/synonyms) of [tag:planets]--it appears it was used once and then later linked to [tag:planets].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it seems completely unnecessary, can we merge the [tag:planet] tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="1f210665-d3cb-4c98-808f-45ad194f57d8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;p&gt;The question [&quot;What books an undergraduate needs to study to get a clear conception of rotational physics?&quot;][1] has been marked as a duplicate of [&quot;What are some good books for learning the concepts of Kinematics, Newton laws, 2D Motion of Object etc.?&quot;][2] when clearly the two questions ask for recommendations on different complexity levels on rotational physics. The first at an undergraduate level (apparently not restricted to 2 dimensions or the Newtonian formalism) while the other on 2-d rotations and kinematics apparently high-school level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am facing a similar problem: my post [&quot;Resource recommendation for rotational mechanics (especially gyroscopes)&quot;][3] has been wrongly marked as a duplicate of the above posts when my post is more specifically about gyroscopes.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different posts target **different complexity levels** or **specific topics** under the same broad topic. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration when posts are being marked to be duplicates of one another?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This problem is especially relevant to resource recommendation requests (as in the examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/309624/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/6068/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/312748/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="8f454725-fa4c-42d2-bcfc-fdae8d33885d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I requested for a deletion of my account for Physics.SE, cf. [this help page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleting-account). It's been more than six hours and apparently no action has been taken yet. Can anyone tell me how long a deletion process normally needs to finish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="0d250aac-1bd4-4b14-8179-46737d31f81b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll give you two answers, one to the question you actually asked and one to the question that I think you actually wanted to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you asked: what counts as effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working through a homework problem is like exploring the branches of a tree, or walking through a maze. You start at the problem statement - the ground, or the entrance - and you try taking some step that you think will get you closer to the answer. Maybe it turns out not to work, in which case you back up and try another tactic. Or if it does work, then you look for another step that will get you even closer to the answer. As you proceed through the problem, you'll accumulate a bunch of &quot;dead ends&quot; corresponding to problem-solving strategies that didn't work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Showing effort basically amounts to telling us about those dead ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of reasons for this. First, we only like to help people who help themselves. If you don't put any effort into answering your own question, why should anyone else put effort into answering it for you? (Sometimes there _are_ such reasons; maybe the question is really interesting and people answer it for their own amusement, but homework-like questions are generally not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more importantly, showing us the dead ends you've hit lets us give answers that will actually _help_ you, rather than duplicating work you've already done. Maybe you missed some strategy you could have tried. Maybe one of the dead ends actually works, but you made a mistake and concluded that it didn't. Or if nothing else, showing what you tried is one of the best ways to convey your level of knowledge, so people can write level-appropriate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) gives some general guidelines on what sort of preparation one should do before asking a question here. It applies to _all_ questions, not just homework questions, but most of the things listed there are problem-solving strategies that should be in your list of &quot;dead ends&quot; before you post your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do _not_ have to list out _everything_ you tried, but you do have to give potential answerers enough information to understand how you got from the problem statement up to the point at which you were unable to proceed further, _and_ how you tried to work past it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that generally do _not_ count as sufficient effort, and will get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to think [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schr%C3%B6dinger-equation) is a very good example of how to show effort. So is [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem) (and it's actually quite a short question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What you actually want to know: why is my question on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the _main_ reason your question is on hold has nothing to do with how much effort you showed (or didn't show).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the close reason for homework says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and show some effort to work through the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions should ask about the _concept_ that confuses you. Isolate the reason you got stuck, and ask how to work past it (after showing some attempts to do so yourself, as I discussed earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things that do _not_ count as asking about a specific physics concept, and will generally get your question put on hold very quickly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of the phrase &quot;I don't know where to start&quot; (yes, this qualifies under both parts of the homework close reason)&#xD;&#xA;- Most variations of &quot;What do I do next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Any variation of &quot;What did I do wrong?&quot; (_this is your case_)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="033ba677-03d7-4570-80bb-a9594d9f3a29" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't think I need to tell you that recently there was an historic discovery that captured the interest of the popular press and general public, as well, of course, as that of the broader scientific community. As a consequence, we saw many questions about LIGO (see the [ligo][1] tag); some simple, others more involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  moment, we deal with these events in an ad hoc manner, treating questions about them like any other questions. This works OK, and I applaud the efforts of those involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case (and in many similar cases), the announcement was anticipated. Though admittedly such occasions aren't that common, I wondered whether we were failing to exploit the full potential of PSE during similar moments of intense interest in a scientific result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Prepare high-quality questions and answers in anticipation to make a cool resource, and e.g. display something like &quot;Coming here for LIGO? Click here&quot; on the main page, or &#xD;&#xA; 2. Invite/encourage experimental groups to utilise PSE by e.g. having verified users (like on e.g. twitter) spending time answering a few questions, or&#xD;&#xA; 3. Organize a set of the best questions and answers recieved about the topic (no prepared answers as in 1.), and as in 1., display them prominently&#xD;&#xA; 4. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? (preferably on the general idea rather than the concrete examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ligo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="e1d2a166-3e26-4d71-9e75-649ad3fc4055" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Writing a good title can require some thought.&#xD;&#xA;A title, while short, must help other users get an idea of what your question will ask so they can decide whether or not to click and read the entire thing.&#xD;&#xA;How should users of [physics.stackexchange][1] construct good titles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/shouldnt-we-make-more-of-our-question-titles-actual-questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="06a84c85-1ebf-4426-84c8-2f94f3bffec2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There seems to be no direct way to only search for questions 'on hold', but one can use the search word [closed:yes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=closed%3ayes) to find all closed questions (that haven't been deleted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an indirect way to only search for questions 'on hold', one could try the search [closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=closed%3ayes%20duplicate%3ano%20migrated%3ano).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, to learn how to search, click on _Advanced Search Tips_ in the right margin of the [Phys.SE search box](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) page, or visit the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) for a more complete set of search options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="5507ab4f-9641-4551-8dcf-a88cd7e0bb23" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My questions are getting closed a lot as &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot;, which I understand might be entirely my fault.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I don't quite understand is why [this][1] question got put on hold. I was really just asking about the state of current research with regard to a particular topic. My question got answered in the comments, but I think it's a shame that it got closed down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: **How should I ask questions about the state of current research without falling into the &quot;primarily opinion-based&quot; category?** Of course people are going to disagree on the topic since the physical problem might or might not be solved, although I don't think that makes such a question subject to opinions in the sense of subjective accounts of the topic (which is what I thought the close option was for).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239142/did-leggett-and-caldeira-solve-the-measurement-problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="945b102d-0130-45d4-a1f9-dbd947e72808" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="... obviously to answer simple questions about everyday life:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148953/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that I wish to be ungrateful, but I put far more effort, and found it far more interesting, to write an answer explaining where the idea that black holes are gateways to other universes originated, and that answer has so far scored just a single upvote&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that as the site attracts a wider audience the answers that get the most upvotes are going to be the simple ones that everyone can understand. It does detract a bit from the usefulness of the reputation system though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to NikolajK's comment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The very nature of StackOverflow's structure has it such that only those who answer simple questions of the most popular programming languages will get a reward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the reward for participating in the Physics SE is just the rep points you get then, well, each to his own but I think this is a poor way to approach the Physics SE and probably life in general. Yes I'm a bit frustrated that what I consider my better answers don't attract as much attention as the more obvious ones (people just don't appreciate my genius) but that isn't going to drive me off the Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of people around here put lots of effort in for effectively no reward, and the moderators not only get no reward but have to put up with criticism every time someone disagrees with their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And long may it remain so. As long as the world is a better place with the Physics SE than it would be without it then you can count me in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that isn't going to stop me moaning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which could of course just mean it's a crap answer :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="657ba121-f1ee-4fa4-9c25-2be519c8a62b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was thinking about a whole family of grey questions that the SE structure kind of makes difficult to answer. If there are problems which overlap with two areas, say Physics and one of the Engineering sites, and require expertise in both fields, should there be a mechanism to create a multi-forum question. Questions like these may not be suitable to just migrate over but still contribute to the Physics discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example here is a question I asked:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109875/ricci-tensor-calculus-and-matrix-calculus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's as relevant to physics as it is to engineering and math. That being said it would be difficult to get a satisfying question unless you have people from the math and engineering area who also prowl the Physics forum. It's on topic and a satisfying answer would help refine an understanding of Physics vs. Engineering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking it would be interesting to see different SE forums being able to host the same question with the responses from all the forums it is in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you guys think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="d647e478-addf-4467-a24e-1b9a0de0893d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The big problem here is what DavidZ mentioned - questions eventually become too old to be migrated, though I believe the limit is [60 days](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151890/disable-migration-for-questions-older-than-60-days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this discussed before on Mathematics Meta, and the consensus was what I think should be the policy on Physics - and what I think is the unofficial policy here - which is that history questions are *on-topic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would *love* to see this on HSM, and I think that we'd accept a migration of it to HSM. It clearly deals with history, and is, from what I can tell, 95% history and 5% physics. That 5%, by the way, is gratuitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, history of physics is still on-topic on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158079/who-first-discussed-the-lorentz-force-w-r-t-special-relativity#comment331015_158079) left below the question, by alarge, seems to be rather typical in this post-HSM-launch era:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Might hsm.stackexchange.com be a better home for this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Better&quot; is the key word here. The comments below a history question may be laid out the same, but the word &quot;better&quot; is always used. History questions are okay here. Also,  there have been quality answers to many of the [tag:history] questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, while we're trying to increase traffic and question rate on HSM, we don't want to artificially increase it. This was discussed [a while ago](https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/116/should-math-se-seed-hsm-with-some-history-of-mathematics-questions), and we reached the conclusion that there's no reason to do it because these history questions have done so well on other sites. We want to &quot;homegrow&quot; questions and traffic - in other words, we would like to attract users and questions on our own, without this kind of artificial stimulus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, we can't handle the migration of all these unanswered questions at once - we simply don't yet have the user base* - and slowly &quot;weaning&quot; the other SEs off of unused history questions would be unproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I also - as a pro-tem mod on HSM - don't want to have to manually re-tag and edit hundreds of questions - taking into account history questions from all the science and math sites, as well as science questions from History. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="f607d8a3-2a87-4347-abde-d6e0b4e78927" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/233232/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I reopen it? All concepts come out from questions. If I know how to solve it, I would know concept automatically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="871820e2-52da-4ebc-8998-1ba9311e4ad7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Should we rename [tag:shm] to [tag:harmonic-oscillator]? I don't think the distinction is worth having two separate tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify: the purpose of this question is so that if anyone has objections, they will be made public. If there are no objections in a few days, we'll go ahead and make the synonym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or vote on the [synonym proposal](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/harmonic-oscillator/synonyms) Qmechanic made, if you are able to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="d388742f-8e55-494f-b00e-989d3b807f9c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Always do I have seen most of the homework tagged questions are hold, with a close reason to show minimal effort. I thought Phys.SE wanted the asker to show his attempt. But recently, I got amazed when my homework-tagged question was put on hold by a moderator (I am not disrespecting him!). For what? The same reason. That question was an off-topic and that I haven't showed any effort. Really? See [my question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149421). Is this not an effort? Why was it put on hold? What is, then, effort actually?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="7f266c95-8a5e-43ff-a03c-69cb22bf2cf6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a comment to my answer [here][1] I was asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _and can you provide source for that this forum is only for mainstream physics, what is mainstream?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that this was written in the help page, but cannot find it. It is sort of implied in the list of appropriate questions but there is no discouragement of crackpot theory type discussions in the red x list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it my impression that somewhere the &quot;mainstream physics&quot; was emphasized? Anyway why isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119593/is-it-true-that-gravitational-lensing-only-occurs-for-objects-made-of-plasma/119596#119596" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="234b0934-d455-4cf2-9420-bb9a6002e6ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, another easy way to get reputation is to create a FAQ and answer it yourself, like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How does the Hubble parameter change with the age of the universe?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joking aside, I share the frustration that basic questions get far more attention than advanced ones. When I look at my own most-upvoted answers, I also see that many of them are answers that took me the least effort to write, while complex answers on which I spent a significant amount of time hardly got any votes at all. Now, this is of course perfectly logical, and I'm OK with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's one 'feature' of SE that sticks out like a sore thumb: once a popular question gets enough views, it ends up in the 'Hot Network Questions' queue. If that happens, the views (and votes) are boosted up enormously, far higher than it usually deserves. I find this very unfair; there already is a significant discrepancy in the rewards given to answering 'popular' and 'specialized' questions, and this arbitrary feature increases it even more. I think this can discourage people from devoting their precious time to write high-quality answers on advanced subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know how this can be fixed. One could argue to simply get rid of the 'Hot Network Questions' list. But I admit that I quite like reading what's going on on the various SE sites. It makes fun reading, and one such question has actually prompted me to become a member of another SE site. It's a very effective way to promote the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, some sort of restriction might be put on the upvotes of these questions; but such measures would also be arbitrary and somewhat unfair. And of course, there are other ways in which a question can suddenly gain a lot of publicity: for example, the views will also increase substantially if the question is linked to on a popular external site like Reddit. These 'outside' influences are even harder to control, and frankly they shouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been thinking about another way to counter this effect, namely by rewarding 'advanced' answers. Perhaps we can devise a method to measure the quality of someone's answers, in addition to the amount of votes they get. I have such an idea, and I would be interested in everyone's opinion, so I will post it as a separate topic. Stay tuned..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="a3537aae-be2a-4e18-85aa-8b519ee5b95d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers *may* be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the &quot;I am not certain but...&quot; from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that **require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy**. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a &quot;here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about&quot; level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, **must** downvote if it is inaccurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response][1] -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="c396129e-fa10-4b48-b800-f5c665b4694b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For users to progress with badges they have to [criticise](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/7/critic). Is there a worry that if the badge is earned by criticising someone with little background in the subject will put them off asking questions? Should the &quot;critic&quot; step be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="2eff738a-8993-48ec-9473-4e3686cfbe5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When a new user joins, they are shown the [tour][1] page. I added a link and explicitly mentioned non-mainstream there. That should help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6488" RevisionGUID="9c3b6bba-c4e7-416c-b1f8-19bf6fe0d7fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Using your notation, the requirements for the [populist badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/49/populist) are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *a* &gt; 2 * *A*&#xD;&#xA; - *A* &gt; 10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not as you have it. So if *A* &lt;= 10, the badge cannot be awarded. At bare minimum *a* would need to have 23 upvotes to *A* having 11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;does that imply that when the badge was awarded A was &lt; 17?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [timeline page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/116608/timeline?asc=True), it seems Jamal's post was upvoted 25 times to ooker's 11 on the first day (in which ooker's was also accepted then). So it seems to have just barely met the qualifications for the badge on the first day, and yes, A &lt; 17 appears to be the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="a1d375ed-3830-4e37-9e70-7e57b41d3e79" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Several times, I've seen 'why' questions dismissed unfairly when a better answer could be given, because of a kneejerk reaction that a 'why' question can never have an answer, because physics is built to model reality. Below are some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A questions about [Ito and Stratonovich calculus](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/245692/), asking why we choose one over the other in physics. There are lots of disparaging comments about how such a question is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;- A really deep question about [QCD bound states](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/38137/), which received an answer saying &quot;physics does not answer why questions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- A question about [SU(4) symmetry](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246036/), which is being received poorly.&#xD;&#xA;- A question about [the spin of fundamental particles](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14932/), which I can totally imagine being received poorly today, but happened to get a fantastic answer when it was asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As shown by the last example, there are lots of good possible answers to a 'why X' question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can show that if X weren't true, there would be some internal contradiction, or you would lose some important, more fundamental principle.&#xD;&#xA;- You can show by analogy with simpler theories (e.g. classical limit) that X makes sense. Or, if there are deeper theories, you can derive X from one of them.&#xD;&#xA;- You can use anthropics, i.e. argue that something would go horribly wrong with the universe if X weren't true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these things answer &quot;why&quot; in the philosophical sense, but they do answer it perfectly well in the physical sense. Can we just assume that question posters mean the latter, instead of ridiculing them for possibly meaning the former?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="705b719c-15f9-4e78-aaf8-270861c5e079" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Every now and then someone asks a &quot;homework&quot; and &quot;mathy&quot; question which gets held or closed because it's homework and math.&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a recent example][1].&#xD;&#xA;As worded the question is definitely a &quot;do my homework for me&quot; question and should be held.&#xD;&#xA;However, when I read it I think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gee, yeah, I it _would_ be nice to have some resources on this site about how to approach problems like this. As a physicist, I frequently have to deal with mathematical expressions like this one and it's super convenient to have some basic formulae and guiding words lying around so I know what direction to go in and not waste four hours going down blind alleys. In short, as a physicist, I want an answer to this _kind_ of question at my fingertips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do we do?&#xD;&#xA;It's not obvious how to record this information as a question which conforms to the site rules.&#xD;&#xA;One imagines asking something like &quot;what is the BCH formula used for?&quot;, but that's too vague and doesn't have a well defined correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;You could try &quot;What _kind_ of formula should I use to solve this _kind_ of expression?&quot; but that's not a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;One could then try to artificially inject physics into what is really a math question, but that degrades the clarity of the information and not calling a spade a spade makes my pedagogy hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/154920/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="8be61d9f-8313-425c-b943-f3c2c3d631ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have had a big problem over many months with a question. I try to tell the story as factually as possible. Help is appreciated. Here we go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked a [question][1] on Jan 27 at 14:29.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was closed as unclear on Jan 29 at 23:20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited for clarity on Jan 30 at 15:45, messaging all who closed it if it was now OK (in the comments). It was not reopened and message was not responded too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edited for further clarity again on Feb 8 at 15:49, messaging all who closed it asking of it was now OK. It was not reopened and message was not responded too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see on the link, somebody then deleted these comments, leaving only the comment to define symbols - which was done immediately in the first edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By Mar 19 at 12:30, I had given up hope those who closed question would let the reworded question open. I took drastic step to repost it [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was marked as duplicate on Mar 21 at 7:11. This was of the course the case - a duplicate of the reworded closed question. In fact, I said this in the quesion &quot;(Full disclosure: this is reworded version of closed question)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1) How can my question appear on the website without stigma of &quot;closed&quot; or &quot;duplicate&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2) Why do reviewers refuse to say why a question was closed?  Notably, it seems to me all symbols are defined and perfectly reasonable equations are given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I try to be good person. All I wanted was reason reviewers kept question closed after I completed edits that they required. I believe the aim should be to increase quality of question until it can be reopened. I do not see how it can happen if moderators refuse to communicate. If you look at the question, I do not believe it is so unclear that no amount of future editing would ever render it comprehensible to anyone on this site. It does not seem plausible situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/232086/ &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/244358/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="c3b1d84b-fadd-46fe-92a6-625ace701b8c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is this, or is this not, a question AND ANSWER site? What is the value in commenting to 'answer it yourself', 'calculate it yourself', etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is a Q&amp;A site, the way I perceive this is to either provide an answer, improve the question, or move along. I found this hostile and quite unhelpful in [a question I asked][1], and now see it again from the same user in [another user's question][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the community cannot be 'bothered' to calculate anything or offer up answers, then why not reframe it into a 'we'll guide you to answer your own questions' site instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this behavior makes the community seem hostile and unwelcoming, and can be a great hindrance to new users, as well as an annoyance to regular users like myself. I come here to ask questions expecting answers, not snarky 'do it yourself' comments, and do my best to fully address the questions of others without this hostility or resistance to doing work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154816/could-this-planetary-superalignment-happen&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155805/why-two-equal-resistors-cut-voltage-in-half" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="57de9b35-ef91-4fcf-869c-d1e7a9b35a3a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was surprised that [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119578/) question by Freudian Slip was voted off-topic. The reason of the vote is that this question is about the optimal classical strategy to win the CHSH game, and needs only logic and no physic to be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the CHSH game is a game invented by physicists, to look at physics problems (nonlocality and how quantum physics or other theories could beat it). I have only ever heard about this game in discussion about physics, and I think it is totally boring without physics, whether quantum or post-quantum (with PR-boxes). Such games have become a common tool in quantum information this century, and the optimal classical strategy defines a classical/quantum boundary, which is a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this question is off topic because “You could remove all references to QM from this question without changing what it's asking”, then [these](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52547/) [two](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13341/) questions about differential equations (and many others) is also off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other word, I don’t understand why this question is not *mathematics in the context of physics*, as advised at the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic), since the CHSH-game only make sense “in the context of physics”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="f2c98191-55ce-4805-91a4-04d7557f239a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is this question on topic? Or should it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164511/how-come-people-are-claiming-that-the-big-bang-never-happened&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually had the same question (namely how valid is the conclusion) but felt it would be opinion based so I asked it in chat. Now that it's on the main page (and the &quot;Hot Questions&quot; bar) we started discussing whether it is on topic or not. No close votes have been cast at the moment, but I thought it might be worth clarifying here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasons it might be off-topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Primarily opinion based. It asks if the assumptions and conclusions are valid.&#xD;&#xA;1. Answers are mostly discussion. You can see in the comments that it is actually mirroring the same discussion we had in chat about it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Non-mainstream physics. It's a new theory (although it is a peer-reviewed, published one now) that has not yet been verified and goes against the prevailing scientific opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasons those reasons may not be good ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Because it has been peer-reviewed, there must be some validity to their claims. Even if it is limited to universes located within spherical cows.&#xD;&#xA;1. Although it seems the answers are mostly discussion, they are all kind of presenting the same answer. And I know in the past that I have said that answers cannot make a question on topic so I personally have some mixed opinions about it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Although non-mainstream in the sense it goes against prevailing opinion, I think this is exactly the kind of non-mainstream question we should allow. It is a &quot;How and why does this buck the trend&quot; question. It is also a &quot;Are these assumptions valid to make&quot; question if you really drill into the physics of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that said, how does everybody feel about it being on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="bd4e9031-31e4-490a-8098-3cc6a973d5a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to discuss the relevance (&quot;on-topicness&quot;) of questions regarding the effects of physical influence on biologic organisms, specifically humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, there have been these two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is WiFi safe for humans?][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it possible to kill a human with a powerful magnet?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one was closed for being off-topic (*not* for showing little effort to find a solution on Google). The second one has not been touched. I fail to see the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that it is problematic to give medical advice on StackExchange but that's not the point. I could except closing the questions on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that the evaluation of the effects of radiation or strong fields is part of physical research. There are questions involved regarding the penetration depth and the scattering or interaction rates when radiation travels through organic tissue. For example, we have a group at our physics department doing simulations of the absorption of radiation emitted by cell phones with different antenna designs in the human body. Those things are beyond the scope of what biology can do and there are physicists working on it so I fail to see how that just isn't physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119806/is-wifi-safe-for-humans&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119999/is-it-possible-to-kill-a-human-with-a-powerful-magnet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="59a0a6c7-a3d0-4ee9-83c2-00971ea1d66f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="First some general preamble not specifically related to your question: the description of the site from the [first page of the tour][1] is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I interpret this fairly loosely because I consider everyone who wants to learn about physics a student regardless of whether they're in a formal course or not. So for me the key issue is whether the OP is interested to learn and is willing to put in the effort that learning requires. If I think they just want some gee whizz facts with which to impress their friends I'm likely to ignore the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider the accusations you level. Your statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the community cannot be 'bothered' to calculate anything or offer up answers, then why not reframe it into a 'we'll guide you to answer your own questions' site instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;strikes me as petty and ill-informed. Every day I see busy working physicists putting in considerable amounts of their time for free to answer questions. It's all very well for me because I'm retired and have free time to burn, but I see answers from people who have to work (as physicists) to pay their mortgages or to pass their exams. To dismiss the contribution these people make with the phrase *cannot be 'bothered' to calculate anything or offer up answers* is exceedingly ungracious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider your question. I think it's a pretty good question, but the first part of it is one that I would expect anyone interested in physics to be able to answer themselves. After all, you just need Newton's law of gravity and the radii of the planetary orbits, which you can get from Google. If I were presented with this in a tutorial I would require the student to answer it themselves and I would provide hints only as required. Rereading the comments now, CuriousOne responded more or less exactly as I would in a tutorial. Admittedly that's in a formal teaching context, but then I tend to view the Physics SE as an informal teaching context and the same rules apply. So in this and similar circumstances I think it's entirely reasonable to make comments to the effect that you should answer the question yourself because that will benefit you more than just answering the question. Maybe that sounds a bit patronising, but isn't any teaching essentially patronage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question strikes me as fascinating and bloody difficult. In principle you can just take the orbital periods and current positions and try to calculate when the planets will line up. However one of the points in Schwern's answer is that the Solar System is dynamic and not just some clockwork mechanism, and there may well be effects that prevent a near perfect alignment and will gently perturb the orbits to avoid it. I didn't attempt an answer to this because I can't answer it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally some footnotes that are entirely my personal opinion and unsupported by logical argument. What motivates me and others to put in so much effort isn't entirely clear to me. But then what motivates scientists in general isn't obvious - it's certainly not the money :-) But what demotivates people is clearer, and being taken for granted is one of the things. If I'm going to put in the work to answer a question I expect a reciprocal input from the student.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7708" RevisionGUID="90c37a3e-dd1d-426b-a8f2-66e114a90789" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question comes in different versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without reduced mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without non-radial motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without relativistic effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- with or without initial velocity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- taking the finite radii of the two bodies into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- only asking for total time, or asking for radial coordinate as a function of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this question is often asked by beginners of physics, it is important to provide duplicates which are at the level of OP. E.g. I have often used https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19388/2451 as a duplicate since it is easy to read and understand, and provides links for the interested reader. In other words, there doesn't seem to be currently a FAQ that adequately covers all cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="d86ae146-2302-4714-8298-27c87e01d6ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are looking for [the Notation page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation). It provides a mini-tutorial on the use of inline equations and centered equations. For pi, you want \pi and for integrals, you want \int (I'd wrap those with $ to start MathJax, but it is not enabled on Meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, there is no method to draw figures via [tikz](http://www.texample.net/tikz/) or [\includegraphics](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Importing_Graphics) in the normal Latex methods. However, there is a [button to include the graphics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/formatting) (circled below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be used to pull an image from a website or from your computer. Also sadly, [there is *not* an easy way to center the image](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/centering-a-picture/6447#6447).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8zcSs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="de44ef36-ad6c-4d3b-ba41-5101e385eb02" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've had two questions put on hold so far.  One eventually got closed (for an arguably good reason), but the [other one][1] is still on hold.  I've made edits to the question and left a comment pointing this out, but how do I know when my changes have been reviewed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter, since I obviously have difficulty wording my questions in such a way that accurately reflect the answer I'm trying to get, when I get a canned (copy/pasted from the help center) message that my question isn't about mainstream physics, but my intent was to learn the mainstream physics, how can I find out what exactly in my question lead to the conclusion that put it on hold in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121867/can-a-difference-in-the-speed-of-time-introduce-acceleration/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="d8a92df7-3415-47c3-aea0-89bc3c85b96a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Current Physics Stack Exchange bounties][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stack-exchange-dynamic-ads.herokuapp.com/physics.stackexchange.com/bounty.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5913" RevisionGUID="7c55b22e-8ce6-4357-8524-c4a4c2f657ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;  One eventually got closed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closed and on hold are the same state, except for the wording. On hold questions are automatically closed in 5 days (iirc). The wording change is to avoid people getting caught up in the finality of the term &quot;closed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when I get a canned (copy/pasted from the help center) message that my question isn't about mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't copy pasted. It's one of the options available to the close voters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but how do I know when my changes have been reviewed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not directly through the system, but you can ask a mod in chat. In this case, the reopen review is [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/47217), a unanimous &quot;Leave Closed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how can I find out what exactly in my question lead to the conclusion that put it on hold in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ask the commenters, or ask in chat. (Or on meta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you were starting off with a &quot;hypothetical&quot; system forbidden by established physics (or, at least, hard to justify unless you specify the metric behind it). Idealized hypotheticals are okay, but ones which disobey physics are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appending a non mainstream question with an EDIT block that asks a completely different question doesn't make sense either. Just ask a new question, though I suggest you clarify the paragraph at the end with what you mean when you talk of components. Preferably with a bit of mathematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="9d412bb6-5c3e-4a25-8dac-aadf4c6bb5b0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I thought I remembered having seen some discussion of this. It's in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/780/vote-to-answer, though that's not a very search friendly title so no surprise it took me some time to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a read through dmckee's answer to this question, and in particular follow the links to the mother meta. Although there has never been a definitive statement by the Stack Exchange team they have not implemented a *community accept* feature despite numerous highly upvoted pleas for one. This suggests it's not a feature they regard as a priority. Maybe it will be implemented one day, though I wouldn't hold your breath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time note that answering an old question will bump the question up the rankings, though I don't know how big an effect this is. Answers to old questions also show in the review queue for users with enough rep, and I do upvote any such answers I consider good (though sadly many answers to old questions are, well, rubbish). The upvotes boost the question rankings and further enhance the visibility of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a Necromancer badge for answering a question more than 60 days old, and [475 of these badges have been awarded][1]. So not only is there considerable activity in the answering of old questions, but since award of the badge requires at least 5 upvotes there is clearly considerable rewards to be had by doing so. On a side note I note that both David and myself, arch villains though we may be, both have the Necromancer badge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More broadly, I think we need to distinguish between questions that have no answer and questions that have answers but no accepted answer. The latter normally means the OP is AWOL or just doesn't care, and in these cases there is little we can do. While the OCD side of me deplores perfectly good answers being left unaccepted this doesn't lessen the value of the site to the physics community. Accepting an answer doesn't mean it's right - it just means the OP thought that was the most helpful answer. A more reliable guide is the number of upvotes the answer has attracted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question has no answers that probably means either the question is really hard or that it's really uninteresting. Anyone giving a good answer to an old hard question is likely to find themselves amply rewarded (as the number of Necromancer badges shows). Conversely, if the question is uninteresting it's likely your answer will be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/44/necromancer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="fd44e027-9e4d-4692-9753-3599e35fce26" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A moment ago, I wanted to ask a question on this SE about the amount of energy in human blood, but it warned me that I'm in risk of no longer being able to ask questions on this account due to a large amount of low-quality questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that I've only asked 2 questions on here so far, I find this extremely weird. While it's true that both of my questions were problematic, I'm surprised that I'm already getting this warning, considering I also have an accepted answer with 2 upvotes, and have 2 upvotes on each of my 2 questions. It even says it right on the [question bans FAQ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One or two bad posts will not cause you to be blocked from using the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm considering deleting both of these questions, not to try and circumvent this ban, but because of self-curation: if these questions are bad enough to warrant closing and don't have an answer, they're not really a good fit for this website. the problem is that the duplicate question already has an answer (which fits more as a comment, I think), which means that deleting it warns me that it ALSO counts against my questions ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why I'm getting these results. I find it disheartening to see that a mere 2 lower-quality questions can get me into this trouble, even though the FAQ explicitly mentions this shouldn't be the case. Should I start to get worried?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="a9536022-4590-43f1-860a-6d2d95c38340" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Invert it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MIJ**&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the central problem was &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will work unless one of the other Jims also lands up on this post! This is because there is no uniqueness theorem for usernames on the site, so MIJ's already taken doesn't mean it can't be taken again. But I guess that holds for every single of the suggestions above and below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think inverted usernames are employed on this site. e.g. inverting [yuggib](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib) gives bigguy, which makes sense as a username!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="46eb6b9b-d47d-4178-9a4d-b6a14bfc4ce1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Previously, I wrote the following question [Has anyone formally tested Josh Pellicer's theory on human sexual behavior?][1]. This was a question I wrote with a lot of material from the work in question. This question contained 6 sub-questions to answer for an overarching one question. Oddly enough, the question received great attention, so I placed a bounty on it, and then I received a very well thought out answer which answered all sub-questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the Curious George that I am, I wrote another question [What are the limitations of superconductors?][2], then I got into a lot of trouble. Mostly because I made an inappropriate comment: &quot;Let's get inquisitive.&quot; I am sorry, I was listening to a lot of funky music over the weekend, while I was learning to program, and then I found myself getting down on my keyboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think either the question did not have enough supporting material, no bounty placed, nonproductive commenting, or too many sub-questions. I know the question is on hold, so I will be unable to fix it in time, so what should I do in the future to avoid this issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9300/has-anyone-formally-tested-josh-pellicers-theory-on-human-sexual-behavior&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166310/what-are-the-limitations-of-superconductors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="b1472f4e-e544-4078-9e8b-a04008852de5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why this question is closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How does Spacetime interval emerge from Strings theory](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121205/how-does-spacetime-interval-emerge-from-strings-theory)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="5430b5cf-cc13-4e65-9563-8f81eb1b4684" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been following the [tag:history] tag for some time now, and it led me to [this Phys.SE question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/174047/), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](http://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/) (also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6421/)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though. I'm neutral on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="a693090f-967e-4c0a-92b7-ebad86b11874" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is the second time my [answer][1] is edited this week. I have no problem with peer reviewing as long as it improve the answer not denaturing it. So I re-edited twice the answer in order to keep desired and correct modifications bit I restored the original meaning of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Last edit contained wrong information!** Further it has been done by an user with no activity in Physics SE. How can I prevent other people to modify my answer with wrong knowledge? Why am I not able to validate (accept/deny) modifications. There are various tools to improve quality of answer (vote, flags). And other users may write their own answers or downvote mine if they do not agree with. Is there a way to lock this answer before it happens again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/126208/38674" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6574" RevisionGUID="01ddc0af-26c0-4cf0-a382-b91208234a56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There used to be a time (i.e. August) when I asked a lot more than I answered. Looking at my earliest questions (*wince*), I was extremely inexperienced (and I still am). I mean, there's naïveté and then there are the kind of questions I was asking. At least the first few. They got a bit better as time went on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this the goodwill that motivates all of you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goodwill, schmoodwill. Not to sound a bit like Scrooge, but I'm not motivated by goodwill. I mean, I enjoy helping people - I really do - but if I decide to answer a question, it's not because I want to help the person asking it. In most cases, it's because *I* want to know the answer, and I don't want to wait around for someone else to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like tpg2114, I often learn when I answer questions. But for me, it's surprisingly often. Perhaps this is true more on other SEs, since I generally answer only basic questions on Physics, but many times I have no idea what the heck my answer will be when I sit down to write it - or even if I'll be able to learn enough to write an answer. Take [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142800/why-do-vapour-cones-form-around-jet-fighters/142808#142808). Before doing the research (yes, *beyond* Wikipedia), I couldn't even pronounce &quot;Prandtl–Glauert singularity&quot;, let alone understand what it's about. But that question was bugging me, so I upvoted, did the research, and explained it to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason I answer questions is because of those questions in August (and beyond). When I was wrong about something, I was corrected by the more experienced users. They were pretty nice about my mistakes, too, which I valued quite a bit. I'm not nearly as experienced as them, but I do my best to try to help the people who are like I was in August - trying to understand something cool but hard to explain. I like to give back answers for the answers I received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more mundane note, I also answer questions when I'm bored. I can assure you that taking a break to research sound waves is infinitely more interesting than doing some vocabulary questions for English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="92eea77e-41e7-46a2-80c6-e1a23653393d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="my question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262321/large-numbers-in-physics was closed. Two users gave a &quot;reason&quot;. The first one didnt make any sense at all. And the second one I have adjusted my question to take care of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now could we reopen? If not, can I get a reason? I dont get what people have agaisnt my question. I get at first 10 different reasons for closing, why are people so interested in trying to find flaws with the question instead of answering it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do this to any question, if it got any math, just say its not physics, if it got some QFT, just say its not rigorous so it doesnt make sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="f0176a37-67cd-4203-90d7-5305141e2765" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed several posts (like [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126471/can-an-object-reverse-its-direction-of-acceleration-even-though-it-continues-to)) lately that are extremely simple questions. In this question, the OP asked for an explanation as well as some examples. At the time of this writing, the accepted answer only has 21 votes while a comment on the question has 31. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer provides both an explanation and an illustrated example while the comment only provides an example (granted a good one). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, when should simple questions be given answers like this in the comments? My understanding is that answers should never be given in the comments but here is a fairly popular question (near 2k views) where a commenter was more rewarded than an answer. Any clarification would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="842418be-fcf3-4264-baa2-d172b4de22e3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Asked and answered on Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120707/clarify-the-no-registration-required-message). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it is that the original meaning of *no registration* was that other, similar Q&amp;A sites required you to register *just to **see** the answers*; this is not the case here. You should be able to answer questions without registering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is more explicitly stated in the [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/) (specifically the [Why should I create an account?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-register) under the [My Account](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/account) header)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Registration is not required to participate on Stack Exchange; you can read, answer, and suggest edits as an anonymous user, much like on Wikipedia. There are some things you won’t be able to do on the site without registering, however, such as vote. Registering is easy, and once logged in, you can gain other key privileges by earning reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original policy *was* no registration required, but the original site ([StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/)) was receiving [several *thousand* questions per day](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (QPD), many of which were *low quality*. So the creator of the site, [Jeff Atwood](https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/1/jeff-atwood), changed it to require registration for *asking* questions (in attempts to stave off the sheer number of bad questions). The comment thread under Jeff's answer is worth the read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="13263fa5-ff67-4b35-a08a-e13784e47183" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I posted [a question][1] on Phys.SE and the question was closed as off-topic. As a matter of fact I did a mistake when selecting the tags, since I used the homework tag. When I realized that I did a mistake I modified the tag, however the question was closed as off-topic. I really would get an answer to my question, so have I to post the question once more ? Why it wasn't enough to modify the tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/168649/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8813" RevisionGUID="fe2e09da-5ce6-44e9-8703-efbac50eec36" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well... in this case, I don't know that it is possible to answer in a physics sort of way. I actually just voted to close it as an engineering question and thus off-topic for our site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the broader question of how to answer &quot;engineering&quot; questions with a physics way, I actually just attempted to do the same on a new post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262798/prevention-of-fluid-vortex-formation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As written, the question is sort of on the border -- it is clearly looking to solve a particular problem, but it is also asking for the concepts that are needed for the solution. The concepts are the physics, the design/numbers are the engineering. So to answer &quot;engineering&quot; questions in a &quot;physics&quot; way, it is usually sufficient to address the underlying processes that are needed to solve the problem. In the question I linked, it is explaining how/why the vortex forms and what the equation looks like so somebody could try to design whatever they needed based on the physics of the equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, a &quot;physics&quot; answer would explain the mechanisms that lead to heating (the current flow for example) and the mechanisms that lead to cooling (radiation, convection, conduction, etc). Explain the relevant scales -- things like the non-dimensional numbers that describe the problem. Explain the assumptions made -- what does well insulated really mean? How does it change the equations or assumptions? Based on these things, perhaps provide some information on what terms are important or are insignificant in the governing equations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once all that is done, the OP should be able to solve whatever problem they wanted because you've explained the physics of the problem. The numbers, the techniques, the actual devices to get the solution are all off-topic. But the understanding of the mechanisms and equations, that's all physics and is spot on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="1b6924e5-9213-455a-9bd7-cdf63c27bba3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will just recap what has happened so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A loosely formulated two-line resource recommendation question ([v2](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/177194/revisions)) was closed by me. It appeared to be a request for online video lectures, cf. e.g. the answer by Jake Lebovic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators do often leave comments about reasons for closure, but please note that they do not always have the time, as initially in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Note that resource recommendation questions are tightly regulated on Phys.SE.&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. various meta posts [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451), [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/2451), and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You later improved the question (v5). This is precisely the right thing to do, so that it enters the reviewing queue. It now became clear that you were _not_ looking for online lecture videos. It is then in principle up to the reviewers (3k+ users) to decide the further fate of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="9abb9632-5d1e-4719-9b00-84cf215d216a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="#Are there fewer votes on old answers?&#xD;&#xA;Using [my recent Data Query *Age-Score correlation*](http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/293815/age-score-correlation), I gathered the average net scores of answers as a function of the number of days between the answer posting date and the question posting date. The figure below&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; shows the result of the query:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a slope at the early part (t ~&lt; 200), suggesting that the most upvotes come when the answer is posted nearest to when the question is posted (which makes sense, especially when thinking about the Hot Network Question Effect). There is also a relatively flat net *positive* score for t &gt;~ 200, with obvious outliers all  over the place&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zooming in to the  -5 &lt; y &lt; 5 range, we see a rather vacuous region that I can only presume is populated by those who have deleted their answer after a few negative votes early on&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, while the bottom right is populated by those who've likely left one crack-pot answer &amp; never came back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring back to either figure, we can see the long &quot;stripes&quot; appearing in the data. This is due to the fact that there are fewer answers that are also down/upvoted less than early on. **So this appears to me that there *are indeed* fewer votes for older answers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Are the Late Answers either really bad or really good?&#xD;&#xA;With a 300 day delay between Q &amp; A, there are a grand total of 633 answers with a net positive score, 158 with a net negative score and 498 answers with zero score. Those nonzero scores drop to 385 answers with &gt;= 1 and 77 with &lt;= -1, leaving 329 mostly okay answers (that is, most of those remaining have a score between 0 and 1)--that's an 39.2% and 51.3% decrease in answer count, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that slightly more than half the Late Answers have a score &gt; |1|. Those nonzero score counts decrease to 143 net positive and 26 net negative when using |Score|&gt;2 as the metric (a 77% and 83% reduction). So it appears to me that there is no clear bimodality, based on the numbers&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the log of the delay between Q &amp; A, we can see a slightly different picture (also using the -5 &lt; y &lt; +5 range):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to suggest the same thing as above: there are lots of &quot;just okay&quot; answers, few really bad ones, and a fair number of really good ones. But since bad ones tend to get deleted, it's kinda hard (for me at least) to completely rule out a complete bimodality, so I'll say this one is **plausible.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I've posted my (really simple) Python script for plotting this on my &#xD;&#xA;[github page](https://github.com/kylekanos/Age-Score-Correlation)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The eye-catching (311,20) is entirely due to [this post by Ron Maimon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/14752/25301). You can easily (fork and) modify [this Data Query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/293752/answers-to-old-questions) to catch for whatever `AnswerScore=N` or age you want--be warned though, this can fail due to sheer volume of results. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3 Though it seems strange that there are so few values close to 0 net upvotes in the t &lt; 200 range &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4 Admittedly, we have some heavily downvoted Late Answers that are deleted and thus cannot be accounted for in this mini-study.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JL9WV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/93WR5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkv2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="174e9ba5-afd5-4710-af6d-caf0a0b33a20" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have [entertained debunking questions before](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6446/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-is-the-science-valid), but the community has become steadily more opposed to them over time. I don't think you're going to get a lot of support right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that there is no limit to how many there could be and none of them have a lot of value going into the future. They just don't add to the repository of quality answers to good questions that we are trying to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="c8ab95da-e02a-4be2-ad20-3486459083cf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="***preamble:-*** This is not related to my 1-year suspension which just expired, I understand the reasons for that, because my comments were really spam (because I posted links to PO threads before they were answered there. Note that I'm also not asking for the reasons for any suspension, but rather asking for some clarification regarding a policy that doesn't seem clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user [Dilaton](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton) was suspended for posting links to [PhysicsOverflow](http://physicsoverflow.org) threads that answers questions posted here on Physics.SE. Dilaton took explicit care to only post links to answers on PO which already had a positive number of upvotes, learning from my experience (because the moderator who had banned me had stated that it's OK to link to already-answered questions on PO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am completely sure that this is the precise reason for his/her suspension, because I know from communication with him/her, the precise warnings that Dilaton received and the correspondence that went through. A moderator also tried to get some community support (although he failed to do so) for this decision beforehand by asking people in the hbar for their opinions. Furthermore, another moderator even created a [script](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/182817/find-physicoverflow-comment-spam) to delete all mentions of PhysicsOverflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Would it be OK if I, say posted links to answers on PO, but also to some on Quora, Wikipedia, etc. which SE considers uncontroversial? Would this also result in a suspension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is there a list/blacklist of such &quot;controversial&quot; sites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***edit after Kyle Kanos's clarifications:-*** It seems that the policy is that no links to other Q&amp;A sites is allowed. This is a bizarre policy to say the least, but I will take it to be policy, since no moderator has corrected him. So I ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where is this policy documented? Where can I read the details of the policy? Specifically, I'm interested why comments (often posted by moderators here) like &quot;Cross-posted to PhysicsForums&quot; are allowed, even without the guarantee of any useful additional information being present on the linked site (showing a sharp contrast with the links to PhysicsOverflow threads, which already contain direct answers to the question).&#xD;&#xA; - Has this policy been implemented in the past? For example, if Anton Geraschenko had linked to a post on MathOverflow that answers the OP's question, would he also have faced a suspension?&#xD;&#xA; - What if I leave some other comments, too? Would the links to PO then still be considered spam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'd like to clarify, that the issue is absolutely not &quot;advertisements of other Q&amp;A sites&quot; - rather, it's about posting links to direct answers to a particular question asked here. It's not too different from posting links to a wikipedia article that answers the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It simply isn't advertising - I know the statistics of how useful the comments are for PO, and it's hardly noticeable. It would be pretty silly of me to post such comments to advertise PO, when it achieves little or nothing for PO (but it helps the OP), don't you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="7f4ad669-4028-4bd5-a2c5-4cf9e61e6ecb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As an example look at [this][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questioner is a 13 year old according to profile, and the chosen answer is by a 13 year old. For the age group it is not a bad show, but is it appropriate for the site ? Already Jimmy has gathered negatives probably from people who have not checked the age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The reason I answered after Jimmy360's was chosen is because the site is supposed to have a level at least of college physics. The search engines often bring up Physics.SE answers and leaving it at the level of 13 year olds seems to me not desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I would be happier if in Physics.SE the level of physics knowledge was checked at registration and shown when one submits a question. This could be done with a user when registering, and the person given a code, a subscript, according the physics background example: &quot;beginner&quot;  gets a _b , college level _c, graduate level  _g .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177468/why-arent-we-affected-by-radium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="0cabdcc9-6955-4d1e-b406-86b979980c20" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have to say that I disagree. The question is a clear duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange. I take your point that the answers to that question are somewhat technical, but the solution is to add a less technical answer to the existing question not to leave the duplicate open. I note also that the duplicate does link to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2244/the-exchange-of-photons-gives-rise-to-the-electromagnetic-force and that has some more accessible answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="82ee53ff-58b1-4c64-bcfc-140e4332dfa8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word *community* gets mentioned over and over in these discussions, and for me that is essential feature of the Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a teenage SciFi reading physics nerd back in the early 70s just about the time the Standard Model was reaching its final form. This was a fantastically exciting time, but if you lived in a small town in rural Somerset there was no-one to talk to about it. **No-one**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if a newcomer to the site wants to ask a basic question I will go to some trouble to write a detailed answer. This doesn't just mean answering their question, but maybe exploring related physics and trying to show what's so interesting about the physics behind it. I was going to cite a couple of such answers, but [looking through my answers][1] there are so many answers of this type it hardly seems pulling out one or two as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that I have to believe you're¹ really interested in the problem, and you'll be interested enough to read my answer and take it further by doing your own research. Since I can't read your mind I have to go by what you wrote in your question. That means your question has to show me you've thought about the problem and tried to Google it yourself, and that you're only asking here because you've come to a dead end. If this is the case then I don't care how basic your question is: if I think I can provide an interesting and informative answer then I will. Hopefully as you learn more about physics you'll start answering other people's questions yourself - there are plenty of examples on the site of this happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I appreciate I'm on the evangelist wing of this community, but while I suspect many members will regard my views as a little naive I suspect the vast majority agree with the basic principle. If you're interested and prepared to put some effort in we won't turn you away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flip side of this is that if you can't be arsed² then neither can I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;¹ this the [royal *you*][2], not you personnally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² © dmckee, 2014 - I thought this was a British expression. Shouldn't you colonials be saying *can't be assed*? :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1325/john-rennie?tab=answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="462f4b38-6015-45f8-948f-97c23d507f4f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.013" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315730/express-laplace-transform-of-voltage-across-a-capacitor-in-terms-of-charge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be interested to hear folks' opinions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="402f6d12-2dac-4121-bd3c-e5196a02df03" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get a lot of posts asking several related but independent questions [1].&#xD;&#xA;Often the posts are even formatted as enumerated lists, making it clear that the author knows that he/she is asking more than one question.&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the quality of the question/answer system increases if each post contains a single focused question.&#xD;&#xA;It's my understanding that other users generally agree with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [site tour](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) does not particularly emphasize the importance of focusing on one question per post.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for us to make it more obvious to new users that posts should focus on a single question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regardless of the specific rules of the site, I would point out that asking more than one question at a time frequently indicates that further effort by the asker to identify what in his/her own mind is actually unclear would greatly improve the question/answer process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The site tour is somewhat saturated with fancy animations and has a low amount of information per screen space. This may be related to the main focus of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: [Here's a recent example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186992/questions-concerning-bcs-theory-particularly-the-pairing-hamiltonian). Note that in the original version the list contained *six* items.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6734" RevisionGUID="c1d219a7-4fc8-4e0a-86ab-3221751ca0c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a general rule, if a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - contains a link to information that is directly pertinent to the OP's question, and to any future visitors interested in the post, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think it should be deleted. I do not think that repeated postings of such comments should be cause for concern, with the strong proviso that each and every comment must link to content specifically tailored to the post above it. I do not think that this practice is grounds for a suspension, really. I am troubled by the existence of programmatic ways to hunt for this type of links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this is a problem in terms of PO 'stealing' audience from this site as yet. If it does become a 'problem' - if PO does become much better than PSE at providing answers to PSE questions - then it is a sign of success on their part, so more power to them! If it becomes a problem in terms of this site losing audience and experts to a competitor, then it is this site's problem: the problem of becoming a better venue for its content and its community. The links themselves are not it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you're being disingenuous by pretending that this is the only thing that is happening. A cursory look at [Dilaton's comment history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/dilaton?tab=activity&amp;sort=comments) shows a bigger picture. For the majority of those posts, the timeline appears to be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - PSE user Alice posts a question on this site.&#xD;&#xA; - PO user Bob posts a link to the question on the [PO import queue](http://www.physicsoverflow.org/4536/import-queue) meta thread.&#xD;&#xA; - PO moderator Charlie imports the post from PSE to PO.&#xD;&#xA; - PO user Dave posts an answer on PO.&#xD;&#xA; - PO user Ed posts a link to the answer under the question on PSE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is perfectly legal, as Alice's post was licensed under CC-BY-SA and PO complies with the attribution requirements. However, it is a lot harder not to characterize this pattern as antisocial. One thing that makes this hard to evaluate is because it's hard to distinguish whether the pairs (Bob, Dave), (Bob, Ed) and (Charlie, Ed) are the same person, as there is no public record on PO of who actually imported the content; it is also hard to see how many imports were directly initiated by Charlie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally feel it was perfectly OK for PO to kick-start its content trove with imported content from PSE, particularly since a large chunk of it came from the unsuccessful Theoretical Physics site. However, importing PSE content posted *after* PO really got rolling is different, and I don't find it a welcome addition to the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me turn the tables a bit, and tell me how you'd feel about this perfectly legal coda to the above timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - PSE user Frank sees Ed's link and follows it. He sees Dave's answer and thinks &quot;This is brilliant! It's exactly what Alice was looking for! You know what, I'll go back to PSE and turn Ed's link-only-answer-turned-comment into the full thing.&quot; He then returns to PSE and adds a CW answer which contains Dave's PO post verbatim, with an addendum inside `&lt;sub&gt;` tags at the bottom linking Dave's PO profile and Dave's PO post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, this is something Ed might have done, but didn't do. One could argue that this is what Ed should have done if s/he simply wanted to help Alice and had no other interests at play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all of this going on, I don't see how you can expect this site not to see this behaviour as antisocial. You are in effect actively trying to co-opt audience that came specifically to this site, and I do not see why you should expect this site's support for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the timeline above pokes big holes in the claims that `PO and PSE are not competitors, they are simply different communities` and that `PO is self-sustaining in terms of users and content`. If either of them were the case, PO wouldn't *still* be importing content from PSE. It also leaves statements like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not too different from posting links to a Wikipedia article that answers the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;out in the cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issue is something that I think should really be addressed by PO in terms of what its mission is before you demand a resolution from this side. Is its purpose to aggressively take over from PSE? In that case, please don't fault the PSE community for finding such behaviour antisocial. Is it part of the PO mission to answer interesting questions from PSE? This can easily be done by answering directly in PSE. Is this sort of thing only to provide a home for content that was not well received in PSE? Then limit it to closed and tumbleweed questions, instead of pulling content that's less than a day old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all of this, I *still* don't think it's a good idea to remove those links. If there are gray-area cross-posted versions of PSE content on other sites, it is in PSE's interest to keep links to those versions around, instead of pretending that they simply don't exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="c634aea1-c400-4504-b13d-30495d53b0e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Any edits to any post will bump it to the top of the front page. Note, however, that minor edits meant solely to bump a question (i.e. take attention away from questions with actual recent activity) are *not* welcome on this site. The edit rate for [your latest question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265670/why-precisely-do-we-use-regulators-for-infinite-sums) - nine edits in 45 min - is pretty close to the border, but I'm more put off by the belligerence of the text than by any trivial bump edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edits within five days of closure will also put the question on a review queue for reopen votes, which typically clears quite quickly. The [review page for your question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/136911) shows that three independent people thought it was not clear enough for re-opening, so it's left the queue now. I'm unsure whether another edit will put it back on the queue but if you do edit it then please make a single, comprehensive edit instead of a series of belligerent ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also ask you to keep down the formatting emphasis. If everything is emphasized, nothing is (and, instead, you get a rather jarring, irritating, and hard to read post, for no reason at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to draw attention to a question, the best way is to use a [bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty). However, I would advise you at present not to spend your reputation points on that; for a bounty to be useful the question needs to be phrased in a way that lets the community know what sort of answer you're expecting (and also in a way that doesn't make potential answerers think that the only thing they've got to gain by posting is a long, angry discussion). I don't think your question's problems at the moment are lack of attention, to be honest - but it's up to you to solicit people's time and help on how to phrase the question in a constructive way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="2bde6d46-e064-44d7-bce4-cc81db12f38d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I guess I should get the obvious out of the way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a question would not be on topic on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say that for several reasons, but mostly because it's not a question about physics concepts, it will become a &quot;big list&quot; type question that gets populated over time. It's something that will require constant maintenance as new versions of the book come out, as new errors are found, and so on. It's also not a good fit for the &quot;I have a question&quot; and &quot;Here is the answer&quot; format. It's more of a thing for a wiki or a blog or something along those lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those things make it off topic from what we have discussed and decided before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the less obvious part, and what I consider your question to really be: Should such a question be on-topic here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here I will say that no, it should not be. It's a great idea, it's a noble cause, and it's something that would be helpful to people who study that subject. However, the scope of the site is more narrow than that and we're not here to be a repository of every single idea, topic, or fact that somebody studying physics may want answered. I don't think expanding the scope of the site to include a single, curated errata for a text book is a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am in favor of people coming in and asking questions that say &quot;My book says X but I think it should be Y&quot; **provided** there is an explanation as to why it should be Y. Just like we were discussing with the &quot;check my work&quot; questions. Because the answer could be &quot;Well, if it really were a negative sign, this would be a production term and not a dissipation term -- so we know the book is incorrect.&quot; In other words, we can provide physical (or logical/intuitive) reasons to help the questioner **understand** why what is there is right or wrong and how to diagnose potential errors using logic, reasoning and physical insight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That can't be done easily in a &quot;big list&quot; of errata format. So while a single list would make it easier for somebody to find the errata of some book, I think it doesn't serve the purpose of what we're trying to do here and it's better to have the questions about potential errors come in as they are now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking through the list of topics in the [Help Center][1], I would not be comfortable adding &quot;Potential errors and mistakes in your textbooks&quot; to the list of topics that we say people should stick to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="97eb6fe1-881d-43a0-b30b-e6f3db1f4676" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question was asked [before by the same user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/187567/), in mostly the same form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contained references to the &quot;Jewish Media&quot;. This is a common phrase slung about in anti-semitic contexts, and is a marker for bigotry and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the post is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - About a likely anti-semitic book&#xD;&#xA; - Completely off topic&#xD;&#xA; - Open ended anyway (&quot;What do you think of this book&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Totally inappropriate for any Stack Exchange site. _Perhaps_ okay for HSM, but the first and third points still sort of apply. And we are under no obligation to migrate; the user can repost to that site if they want. Migrations should not be used as a way to shovel garbage (or non-garbage mediocre stuff) off the site; only use it if the other site really wants the question. We don't think they will, so we won't migrate. The OP can repost if they want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6167" RevisionGUID="f0feb48d-2ab4-46d7-bb6b-e1f3c3623ce0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would argue that, yes a duplicate question would count as insufficient prior research. There is a [search engine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=) built into this site for a few reasons, one of which is to prevent duplicates. This site is also indexed favorably by Google (don't use others, so I cannot point to their efficacy), so searching that would *should* also bring searchers to this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would also argue that it is **irrelevant** at that point because the question ought to be closed as a *duplicate* and not due to the homework aspect of &quot;insufficient evidence.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="ee835255-ef1b-4487-a26f-d6516d4b71ed" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we are not a homework help site; there are other venues for that (see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh for more details), if that is what you really need/want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the SE level, each SE site has their own self-given rules about what is on-topic and what is off-topic. While [Mathematics](http://math.stackexchange.com) and [StackOverflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com) might approve of doing someone else's homework, we don't. And we're not really interested in opening the flood gates for that, as [you can read in the many posts here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=homework+is%3Aquestion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you *do* want some physics homework help on SE &quot;turf,&quot; there is an area51 proposal already active to this end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77677/physics-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a long way to go (40 Q's with &gt;9 score and 42 more people following it), but it *could* happen *if it gathers momentum*. This could only happen if people who *want it* will go out and *promote it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So that really means we need or I need a different place as a student to help me get my doubts cleared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your doubts are numerically based (e.g., *I entered &quot;this&quot; into my equation and got the wrong answer! Help me!*) then yes. If your doubts are conceptually based (e.g., *How can quasars emit anything if they are black holes?*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), then you are at the correct spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many (but likely not all) of the numerically based questions *could* be turned into a decent conceptual question, *if* (big stress there) the OP takes the time to think about *what* is troubling them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Asked and answered [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137837/)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="2a042b85-a1ea-44bf-8f89-d6485a4e40eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you think the answers are incorrect, downvote and comment are the correct actions ([flagging as *not an answer*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) could apply, if it's way off base to the question). No one knows what the formula for serial downvoting is, but I would think that a few in a day *probably* isn't going to trigger it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8903" RevisionGUID="56102c42-c6c8-41e5-9225-ab0ee2e9168d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I created a tag today, [tag:sparticles], that I thought would be useful to the community. It seemed like there were a decent number of questions that talked specifically about sparticles as opposed to just supersymmetry. Here are some questions I thought would be good with this tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17841/sparticles-relationship-to-supersymmetry-and-dark-matter&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9258/why-are-the-third-generation-superpartners-lighter-than-the-other-sfermions-in-m&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93774/how-to-find-susy-with-near-degenerate-masses&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159067/what-does-the-discovery-of-the-higgs-boson-mean-for-susy&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229854/to-which-type-of-particles-gauginos-are-supposed-to-couple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would be a useful tag to have beyond just a supersymmetry tag. Please tell me what you think of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just out of curiosity, I created the tag, but for some reason it now shows that Community created the tag...why would that be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="52813ce3-ce8d-4b02-a316-7acec1a0573a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For any question, if you start a bounty, the first pop-up link has a learn more... link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link points to https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounties which gives a 404." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="b5ec0a1d-2d0b-4e67-bd69-6e3a0ddcf486" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm in the situation of having a long answer but no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[regarding this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can discard the answer so nobody has any benefit from it and the time I spent writing it is deemed wasted.&#xD;&#xA;**Or** I could post that answer somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the later, asking for verification of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;It got put on hold, because it should: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **should ask about a specific physics concept**, which it does: a height&#xD;&#xA; - **show some effort**, which is plain wrong and a bit of an insult&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an attempt to explain these unfitting probably predefined statements, I receive this comment from [Emilio Pisanty][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; check-my-work questions are not really on topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank for the clarification Emilio, it is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I get it. If the source of a question is stigmatised with the possibility of being homework, [treat it differently as discussed here.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me wondering what I should have been doing differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point of posting the answer was that I thought that there could be some value for the community in it. Being told to be unspecific, lacking effort and off topic as a response is **not exactly encouraging to create exhaustive answers in the future and provide such to this community**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do in a situation like that?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178833/how-to-find-the-height-where-the-collision-of-two-balls-occurs?noredirect=1#comment379181_178833&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/8563/emilio-pisanty&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="b48dd5a4-ce4d-413f-9bdd-d0361cde0b8d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll say this here in case it's useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MathJax is unlike TeX in that it recognizes as valid characters a bunch of unicode junk that TeX will rightfully call out as jibberish. This includes greek letters, used to great effect [on Mathematica.SE](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/additional-useful-buttons-for-our-m-se-editor), clever sundries like ≠ and ±, and the ever useful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ⟨ and ⟩.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My solution for easy bra-ket input is to have ⟨ and ⟩ hard keylinks on my keyboard (AltGr+[ and AltGr+], if you're wondering). Typing something like `⟨\phi|\psi⟩` takes more keystrokes on the meat than on the bread, which is as it should be, and it gets rendered correctly. You can argue that this is terrible form, but it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example in action see the [source](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/8c98cc5f-9e0d-4f0a-bf78-3691797605d0/view-source) for [this post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/197509/8563)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="5e502f6d-0307-4c61-9142-2681baf1013f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just saw this show up in my reputation timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;+2	7 hours ago	removed	[How is the average particle density defined in condensed matter physics?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165545/2451)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me why this was removed? It does not show up as revently deleted post. Do i have any means of looking at it? I don't want to loose stuff i post here. I am not sure if this was a question i answered myself but if so i would really regret not being able to look at it if i need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So were can I see what that was and can anyone give a hint why it was deleted, for general couriosity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one point more. Do i need to be afraid posts like [this][1]&#xD;&#xA; can be deleted? Where i answered myself so no votes and no accepted answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165924/contructive-proof-of-2nd-quantization-form-of-operators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="fe180d1c-fbc9-44d9-be24-ce3577729a0b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question was asked nearly 24 h ago][1] and didn’t receive an answer so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was downvoted 6 times, presumably because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	It’s homework and the OP didn’t show any effort at working out an answer.&#xD;&#xA;2.	The question was poorly formatted (mostly a screenshot of an exam/homework site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP was also unresponsive to comments made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is now on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve tried working out the problem but haven’t come up with anything worthy of an answer. But I’m very interested to see if this problem has a solution and if so which is it? For that reason I’d like to post the question again, as my own, properly formatted and with partial workings out because I believe posted that it that way, may attract those who may know how to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*But I’m afraid the new question would be flagged as a duplicate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other possibility is to heavily edit the existing question but there’s the risk that this will be interpreted as not in the spirit of the OP’s question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another possibility is to allow more time, hoping someone will provide an answer but considering the *6 down votes and the hold status* that seems unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203089/how-to-solve-the-following-question-about-quantum-mechanical-wave-function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8e942bd0-fe2b-406f-a99d-ebd37f40125d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="On the page https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266602 I have asked a question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the special theory of relativity been disproved theoretically i.e. logically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the news: The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically http://bit.ly/1WTwbwF via @EurekAlertAAAS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it was soon closed because several people thought it was off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?.&quot; – CuriousOne, Diracology, John Rennie, lemon, Cosmas Zachos*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The paper is published by the international peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays and the news is published by AAAS's EurekAlert. Both are credible sources for academic news and researches. If there is any problem with the news, EurekAlert would have removed the news for a long time, but it has been there for more than four months. EurekAlert has never been spreading hoaxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's wrong with the question?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="354e694b-d716-47b1-94b9-c6fe524d0c27" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I direct your attention to the physics SE question on https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136604/philosophy-enquiry-of-string-theory. Verbatim questions from the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to explain all the mathematical structure that arises in string&#xD;&#xA;&gt; theory?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does one know what one derives is math and what is physics? Where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the boundary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is extremely broad; string theory incorporates many aspects of mathematics. Secondly, the 'boundary' between whether something derived is mathematics or physics is primarily opinion-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user has added other questions, and I feel other than being too broad and opinion-based in some aspects, the post should be split into separate questions. For example, one discusses the possibility of string theory as being some effective field theory, or approximation of a more fundamental framework, which is not related to the two questions above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, a bounty has been offered, and the question cannot be closed (at least not by normal users). How has this question slipped passed us for two days, and not been closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="97939106-f131-4451-bb8d-987e1b3e3917" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that we're somewhere in the queue for a site CSS adjustment, accompanied by [the new profile pages](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns). Since the CSS is getting a makeover, I would like to float this idea: can we change the font to something that gets along better with the MathJax font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, posts with MathJax look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099)). Note how the math tends to stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that I often do things like `10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; s` to keep the text streamlined, unless I really need the maths. Ideally, within the LaTeX paradigm - i.e. in the style used by all serious physics journals - the math will blend in perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cp7e6.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know that this is quite a lot to ask, since the site font is currently very sans-serif, but over in [Chemistry SE's gorgeous new design](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) it does work much better (with a serif font):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl3i2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we move over in that direction somewhat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="86295316-e2ac-451f-ac5a-94171c250572" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As of today there's a pretty neat new privilege, [site analytics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/site-analytics), that lets you see a couple of neat graphs. I was playing around with it and noticed something odd: a very strong spike in downvotes in May 2013. Here it is in its glory: the weekly total of downvotes since the site's graduation in February 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Downvotes for Jan 2012 - Jan 2015](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r8NqL.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contains 972 downvotes for that week, with current totals around 650. It's concentrated on the 6th and 7th, with 233 and 282 votes, and with 143 and 147 on the 8th and 9th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dug around the data explorer and didn't find anything, which makes me suspect the offending posts have been deleted (and therefore makes me hesitate to ask this question) but I'm still curious. Can anyone pinpoint the origin of this thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The localized nature of the spike suggests that it's one or two related posts driving it (in which case they totalled 3x as many downvotes as the rest of the site's average) or e.g. a sockpuppet racket, in which case the data should not really include them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That said, I might as well make this useful and urge others with the privilege to [go look](https://physics.stackexchange.com/site-analytics), and to encourage those in the 10-25k range to keep going. Also, kudos to joshphysics for referring to the site more traffic than MO and just under half the traffic from reddit!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="f5558d07-e649-43a8-904d-7ddf60d41a0e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Topicality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that thee is a conflict between [what we say this site is][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a very wide-spread belief that it is OK for complete newcomers to a subject to raise their question is absolutely any place on the web that seems to cover the same topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a strongly held belief of many Stack Exchange users (especially those from the earliest days who watched and participated in the original forging of the Stack Overflow we know today) that being completely accepting of either &quot;fun&quot; or know-nothing questions drives out high quality question, reduces the value of the site to its intended audience, and eventually drives out expert answerers. (I am a subscriber to that belief, BTW).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there are few places on the web for a rank beginner to go and get good answer to really basic questions in physics like that, but that is not the mission of this site as I understand it and allowing it will only result in endless repetition of the same question and answers over and over again. I saw it on BBSs in the 80s and on usenet in the 90s and you can look around the internet right now and see it on &quot;forum&quot; type internet sites all over the place. You can see it right now on this site by just looking for the insane number of question users who are convinced that they have discovered something wrong with special relativity and can prove it with yet another boring and unenlightening variation on the twin paradox (how many have we had this week, anyway?); of course all that each such question proves is that the asker hadn't really understood the theory in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Rudeness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, there is a second issue. That's the sometimes brusque tone with which such askers are met. If you troll through the archive of meta.stackoverflow.com you'll find *many* places where the team came on and asked people to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice to people asking off topic questions while firmly closing the questions.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag places where people are not being nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Exert what social pressure they can to support the culture of niceness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And when they do it works for a while—months, most of the time—before things start to drift away again. That happens because it is fatiguing to hold one's metaphoric thumb in the dike and in time people get frustrated and lash out. Which isn't fair to the poor soul who has made his or her very first overture to this site, but frankly the pure repetitiveness of dealing with one &quot;I don't know any thing about physics but I have a theory...&quot; questions after another for weeks on end isn't really fair to the regular users here either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What you can do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Be nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Be an active participant in getting off-topic questions closed *quickly* and nicely.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  As fast close is a firm message, and if it is a *nice* but firm message then the user can go elsewhere without hard feelings.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't answer off topic question. No, not in the comments either. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  I know you think that answering them is nice, but it tells that user that they can get what they want from us *even when what they want is outside the bounds of what we say we do*. If you answer them, they will be back.&#xD;&#xA;* Flag comments where people are being not nice. With enough user flags those go away even before a moderator sees them: the community can insist on niceness.&#xD;&#xA;* If you disagree with a closure argue the point without calling the people doing the closure names. Namecalling isn't nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6231" RevisionGUID="b84f6190-5385-4ca7-978f-72fe48701db6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Comments to the new version of Phys.SE question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136604/2451 (v5): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question has now been considerably changed, so that many of the initial flags do possibly no longer apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have therefore cancelled the flags. If you still think the latest version should be flagged, submit a new flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I have cancelled the bounty to give the community a chance to review the latest version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- OP should wait at least 3 days before setting a new bounty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="ba1a2850-e1cf-433a-9252-4e8ba6a6ccb0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We just got *another* EmDrive question, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185380/emdrive-in-relation-to-newest-nasa-article-does-it-extract-energy-out-of-the-q, and much as you would expect it swiftly got closed and an OP probably went away feeling fairly upset. I feel we get enough EmDrive questions that this is something we ought to handle with more care and specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts on the subject seem to be along several different lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;could it possibly work?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;how do its proponents claim it works?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;do those claims have merit?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;if not, how do they fail?&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;assuming that it works, how does it do so?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at them like that, they are not really all that bad. The problem is that posters tend to pretty much always ask that final question, and that tips the question definitely into the territory [discouraged by our non-mainstream physics guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539). The third question is on the boundary (we are not here to evaluate pet theories) but if the question is appropriately phrased, for something this recurrent, I feel we're better off showing a bit more flexibility and allowing a few canonical questions about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I propose is separating these different components, which will help us better address the ones that we can, and cleanly close the ones that we can't. I have therefore asked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185437/what-are-the-proposed-theoretical-explanations-for-the-emdrive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and provided a basic answer. (I do not think, though, that there are any more worthwhile references. The ones I did find are singularly thin on the theory even by my low prior expectations. However, if you can find more references, by all means add them in.) This addresses question (2) above. With this in place, questions asking what the claims are can be referred there. If they don't find the resources there sufficient - i.e. if they don't find this community's response to be thorough enough in helping them scour the web for references - well, tough luck. They can look for their own and add them there, or they can offer a bounty on it to try and draw attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23725/is-the-emdrive-or-relativity-drive-possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does a very good job at addressing (1). In the absence of multiple peer-reviewed tests performed in vacuum and published in reputable journals, question (5) is very clearly off-topic. Questions (3) and (4) can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but are almost certainly off-topic as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="d837ec3f-7320-41a1-ace5-eaa856c06b8e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the past few days I have noticed that for no reason that my reputation is decreasing. I mean to say that when I am logging out one day, I see a certain reputation and when I log in the next day, I see my reputation has decreased by about 20 points or so and in my reputation change bar, there is no such change visible. I further checked but found no downvoting of question nor answer or any other things(migration). I don't have exact records but I can show you one proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to what I came to know, one gets to review first posts and late answers after getting a reputation of 500 at least. Now if you read my [Review][1] history you will see that I started reviewing on 20th Sept. 2015. But my [Reputation change][2] history will show you that I attained 500 rep only on 21st Sept. And I am quite confident that it is no minor computer or server error. This thing is happening to me for the last two to three days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody tell me what is wrong? Is there any other way of losing rep that I don't know or have not considered? It may be that some user might have deleted his/her account. But I was not informed about it or my rep loss concerning his account removal.Please help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/history?userId=89965&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/89965/aniket?tab=reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="074cadaa-f538-4195-8f03-5b6a85779def" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently I flagged an [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/215636/36790) to this [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149092/36790) citing `not an answer` as it was providing only a link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, link-only answers are not encouraged here as they may become worthless when the link becomes dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But I was surprised when the flag was not `helpful`; it was `disputed`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what is the reason for disputing my flag to that 'link-only' answer? Has the community changed their view on the 'link-only' answers??  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="d5b1adbd-b80d-43dd-abf9-4796d3a241e6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="YES YES YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean just homework question but very simple questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current moment I am writing this answer there is exactly one question on Quantum Field theory on the main page, that is ignoring homework-and-exercises electric-circuits nuclear-physics nuclear-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That question][1] was asked 1 year ago and bumped up by [community][2]. Good question however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 questions on GR both are essentially not very novel, One has been asked a million times in physics literature and we still don't have a [full answer][3] yet, Good question however. The other make some wrong assumptions about [lorentz transformations][4] and makes bad conjunctures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One [popular][5] question on String theory,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention Zero questions on Supersymmetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was time when questions here would really interest me, and challenge me. Now there are hardly any questions like this. And the few are lost in a swarm of essentially trivial question. This site need a revival if it wants to hold a reseach community. The only idea I could think of was heavily [downvoted][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really is it only me who is complaining about this.** This was never true about the site for instance in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Don't ponce on the specific choice of subjects, it was meant as a mere representative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/112689/calculating-mathrmtr-log-delta-f&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186858/what-happens-when-an-object-passes-through-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole-in&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52481/could-an-ultra-relativistic-particle-tunnel-directly-through-a-stellar-mass-blac&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186790/quark-gluon-plasma-status&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6822/revisiting-the-creation-of-a-new-site-physics-learners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="c1448810-cbd0-45ec-ab87-142ae60e5bb6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general I would like to know if there is some criteria to consider certain thought experiments or questions to be better suited for philosophical discussion rather than physics discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/146794/2451 has been put on hold for being off topic. I am not clear why that is the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the question is philosophically motivated but I think it is suitable for physical considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can answer the question in a non philosophical manner. The question ask for some physical argumentation in favour or against a possible outcome  in a thought experiment. Even, the possibility of the thought experiment can  be argued on physical grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question would require to at least elaborate in the following topics: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental designs and results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accepted and/or actively researched theories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some other questions (e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang &#xD;&#xA;) which I will regard as highly philosophical but again I understand them being open as all the answers are in some sense physics oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking to consider the reopening of the former question, but as a second plea. My main request is if someone would mind to point me some general guideline about when is a question too philosophical and not suitable for the site. Even if the guidelines are time dependent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="f3a78c39-efbc-4833-a3c4-1bdb7f313926" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to me that we get lots of questions from people baffled about the way light behaves given that it's made up of photons. For the latest example see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/269356/how-does-a-photon-know-when-to-reflect-in-case-of-refraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we need a canonical Q/A explaining the relationship between light beams and photons? Then we can close questions like the above as duplicates of the canonical question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="0732cb4e-8ab6-4f85-aab8-7cd4fad497d1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have asked a question relating to how I have approached a problem. My reason for asking the question was my answers seem to be unrealistic. The question is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to calculate force on a string pinned to a spinning object][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was put on hold reasonably soon after I asked the question. I just want to confirm if what the reason for it being put on hold was so I can better phrase the question. The reason give was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; make it better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question was clearly about a specific physics concept, and I've clearly found and tried to apply an equation to work through the problem (not that it's homework). I've also reduced my problem to the simplest model I could so it was useful to the broader community. So I'm not sure the given reason really applies. Clarification/advice on what changes would be appropriate would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/149667/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="d93035f3-84ba-4a42-bf7f-cc932d7dd5a3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="What's wrong with this community? Only here, I am experiencing such blunt closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224413/if-spacetime-is-discrete-what-would-space-expansion-mean -- This question has been corrected. Nevertheless, no one seems to bother to reopen it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224789/implications-of-observable-universe-growing-indefinitely?noredirect=1#comment484877_224789 -- what is so unclear? How could people answer and comment then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both questions have been upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is wrong now? Did the second question become yet more unclear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions get upvoted. Why not to reopen? What's the problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="aee70e8b-a3cd-4e13-9219-08761496aac5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Regarding the thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189249/total-charge-on-grounded-conducting-plane-with-electric-dipole-point-charge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is considered off topic and was put on hold. Why?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably it seems like &quot;fix my homework&quot;, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I invested quite an effort, including a descriptive image which I created.&#xD;&#xA; 2. I asked regarding a specific physics concept which is normally solved with the [Method of image charges][1]. So, in contrast to most students, who simply hear a proof and nod for agreement - I tried to prove it - to actually show that it works! How on earth that could be bad for this site? *I didn't need to do this for the homework* - I simply wanted to see how the proof works.  &#xD;&#xA;Really, don't you think you're overreacting? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_image_charges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="9bf7f459-bbaf-4a07-b20a-a1a8f2ee5ecd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to enquire about this post I have made on StackExchange Physics-&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270200/conformal-group-in-2d-being-a-subgroup-of-diff-x-weyl-polchinksis-string-the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post was closed very quickly after being posted, for being unclear, though one of those who voted to close it left an answer in the comments (which indicated that the person understood what I was asking). Subsequently, there were two other users who discussed the question and provided solutions and references. I had also edited the question several times for clarity and detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the 3rd of August, Qmechanic commented, 'To reopen this post (v5), consider replacing the word Weyl group with group of Weyl transformations'. I made this change, and replied accordingly to Qmechanic in the comments section. However, instead of the post being reopened, I found that Qmechanic's comment and my reply were deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I waited patiently, and reread my question several times hoping to make it clearer, and made another edit to this end. However, there is still no response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really strange that a question which has elicited detailed responses from four other users can be closed for being unclear. Moreover, the question is about an important point in string theory, and an answer would be helpful for students. Finally, it should be noted that the question has received one upvote, and has been favorited by two users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe such a question which has spurred a healthy discussion involving several users should be reopened. I would be more than happy to make further improvements to the question, I am just trying to help myself and future users learn something important. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="37565591-d4ab-42fa-9bcf-9fd593ae9796" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR:** Voting is one of the things that makes the SE sites work (the [**review queues**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) being another big one); if you aren't downvoting, you are **not** helping this place work; so downvote on the bad answers as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What makes you avoid casting a down-vote or commenting on a bad answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting &quot;you&quot; here as plural (rather than me specifically), I can think of three reasons why one would avoid downvoting: (1) time (2) knowledge (3) low score. For commenting, only (1) and (2) apply and for similar reasons to what I'll write below, so I'll be skipping out commenting (unless someone cannot infer correctly, then I guess I'll edit it in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (1) Time&#xD;&#xA;There are almost 56,000 questions asked on this site. At [almost 3 answers per question](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), that's around 150,000 answers to scroll through. Since we're only allowed to vote on [30 posts per day](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) (combined up &amp; down, there are 10 extra votes for questions-only, however) and assuming that 20% of the answers are &quot;bad,&quot; that's still 30,000 answers and at a maximum of 30 answers per day, it'd take almost 3 years to downvote each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while we're never actually going to get to downvoting *all* the bad answers on this site, however **we should still downvote the bad answers as we see them**; it is, after all, the means by which we let future visitors know what is a good/correct answer and what is a bad/incorrect answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (2) Knowledge&#xD;&#xA;I think that bandwagon&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; voting is bad way to vote, but it is something we have to live with on this Q&amp;A site (e.g., the [hot-network-question effect](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5826/unusual-upvote-trends-discussion/5827#5827)). So the best (only?) way to vote on a post is to have some knowledge on the subject being asked; if you don't have the knowledge you probably shouldn't vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem to contradict the previous assertion to downvote bad answers, but I'd say it does not contradict it because in order to discern what makes a bad answer, you need to have knowledge in the subject matter. So, again, **downvote the answers you know are wrong** as you see them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# (3) Low Score&#xD;&#xA;Answers with less than `-2` net score are faded to suggest that the answer is bad and could/should be ignored. Some people may think that downvoting it beyond that mark isn't necessary because it's already in an &quot;ignorable&quot; state. However, there are a small subset of users on this site who make it their goal to upvote all posts *especially heavily downvoted ones*.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We should not let a &lt;-3 score stop us from downvoting** an answer we know to be bad; it's a bad answer and the (minimal) appropriate response is downvoting. Similarly, we should not let a *positive* score affect our voting; if it's wrong, it's wrong and should be downvoted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: I'm not suggesting that we downvote to -infinity here, only that the *current score* on a question should not be a deterrent from our voting (this goes for up as well as down); the basis of our vote should be on the quality &amp; content of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 A bandwagon vote is one in which a person votes (either direction) simply because that is the &quot;popular&quot; consensus&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 The thought is that the arbitrary scoring system of a website can, somehow, be psychologically damaging to the user; upvotes are some sort of positive reinforcement. There is no evidence for this position, despite continued requests for some (other sites that use voting systems, like [imgur](http://www.imgur.com) and [reddit](http://www.reddit.com), do not seem to have this &quot;problem;&quot; users often make fun of themselves for getting downvoted).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="e9032065-eb0b-45dd-9008-689201294018" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was just checking the First Posts review queue, and I found this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146862/many-body-quantum-rotors#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strange that it should be there, given that it's from mid-November and I haven't seen it before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have an idea why it was there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="cf9dc52f-1efe-44cd-96ab-0ca50c12702d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have a lot of sympathy with your position and I will generally put some effort into trying to interpret questions that are awkwardly phrased. However I think it's reasonable to expect someone asking a question to put as much effort into researching and writing it as they expect us to put in to answering it. As much can be learned from posting a carefully written question as will be learned from the answers to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is not, and has never attempted to be, aimed at the Discovery Channel watching masses. It is intended for people who are serious about physics and willing to put effort into learning about it. OK, we all started out knowing no physics and I'm keen to encourage enthusiastic newcomers. But this has to be a two way process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too have had questions closed while I was writing an answer. Where I thought I could provide a good answer I have reposted the question myself so my answer wasn't lost. An example of this is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136056/how-does-the-hubble-parameter-change-with-the-age-of-the-universe, which turned out to be reasonably well received. You need to be careful with this strategy, but it's something you should consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="f2adeabb-2956-4d91-accc-b95396d11b0d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Exactly what the official SE line is I'm not sure, but I'm personnally not that fussed about duplicates. Apparent duplicates often stress different aspects of a problem, and I'm not sure it does any harm to have separate questions and answers with different perspectives on a problem. I've even occasionally flagged a question as a duplicate of a question that has itself been closed as a duplicate because I thought it had a better answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would go ahead and write your canonical question and answer. The worst that will happen is that it gets ignored, and the best that it will provide a valuable synthesis of previous related questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example is the issue of wave particle duality. Even though there's a [question specifically devoted to asking what it is][1] (with 9 answers!), and [numerous other related questions][2], I still don't feel there is a perfect Q/A for the interested amateur. Maybe one day I shall attempt to write one :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46237/is-the-wave-particle-duality-a-real-duality&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=wave%20particle%20duality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="e6609313-b4f3-4233-87c6-4873042d4e96" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yet again at least 6 people skimmed the first paragraph and voted to close as duplicate before reading the actual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rephrased this into the most trivial, obvious manner to make it absolutely 100% clear this is completely different, and yet only one of them retracted the close-vote and voted to reopen. I flagged it for moderator attention a couple hours ago, no reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This community is broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&#xD;&#xA;What is the latent heat of fusion and vaporization of water at 620Pa? \[duplicate\]](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275242/what-is-the-latent-heat-of-fusion-and-vaporization-of-water-at-620pa?noredirect=1#comment617565_275242)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="cd82d5ff-f61f-45e9-afdd-921f2cf0d564" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227391/trajectory-of-projectile-launched-from-planets-surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;raises an interesting issue. The SE system allows for *Answer your own question* posts as a sort of mini-blog way of posting interesting information. I think this is a good thing and I've used it several times myself. However here we have a case of an *Answer your own question* post being used to provide the solution to a worked example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble is that we have long regarded worked examples as falling into the *homework-and-exercises* category. If I posted the original question and sat back to await answers my question would be rapidly closed. So what should we do in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward, if this question is OK then it establishes the principle that worked examples can be answered - if only in an *Answer your own question* context. That would open the doors to, for example, people using the site to provide answers to the questions in MTW, Wald, etc. Actually I'm quite sympathetic to answers to worked examples being available on the web, though I don't think this is the right place for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="58d8e1b5-a2f1-44c6-85b8-931b5a1cd2fb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As Kyle mentioned in a comment, each edit after your post is put on hold automatically pushes it into the review queue. So the recommended way to proceed is to **wait** for enough high-rep site members to review your post. If you've fixed the problems that caused it to be put on hold in the first place, it will be reopened by their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is accessible to non-moderators, but [here is the outcome of the most recent review on your post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/67754). You have made some edits since then, so right now your post is back in the queue awaiting additional reviews." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="fbd18727-c02b-49cf-9bb3-5d53c028acff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions *are* very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm aware of a previous question [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64031/what-is-the-effect-of-an-increase-in-pressure-on-latent-heat-of-vaporization), which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, &quot;Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?&quot;, with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, sincerely, saying that this community is &quot;broken&quot; and &quot;analphabete&quot;, when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="9f912663-dd81-4f1c-a1f3-bdeab7de205b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked [a question][1] and got two answers which **seem** to be correct (I am not a chemist / biologist and the answers deal with chemical proprieties of lemons. They both make sense, though and ultimately point to the same physical property).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I accept an answer if I do not have the knowledge to decide which on is correct (and there is no clear winner via the upvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/155663/why-does-a-pitcher-with-lemon-juice-have-foam-while-one-with-pure-water-does-no" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="a2e66d15-0034-4241-b51a-806471b9c4e3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I voted to close [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275678/quantum-entanglement-correlations-role-of-probability) for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It was extremely unclear when it was posted. I asked you to make several clarifications, after which it was _still_ unclear. After more requests from clarification from two separate users, and seven revisions in total, it finally made sense. But most close votes had been cast before then.&#xD;&#xA;- All four of your questions are about 'quantum entanglement', but none of them clearly define what quantum system you're working with. You keep asking about the 'statistical correlation', but you don't define what you're correlating, and you often mix up entanglement with correlation, when these phenomena are totally distinct. (This problem is invisible to people who don't know quantum mechanics, because your question _was_ phrased in grammatically correct English sentences, but it's clear to people who do. That's why you need 3k+ to vote to close.)&#xD;&#xA;- All four of your questions are made to promote your personal theory of quantum entanglement. If you want feedback on this theory, you should just state outright what it is. If you don't, we're just going to answer with what standard quantum mechanics says, and in all 4 of your questions, it just says &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the above, I think your questions were rightly closed. Some of them may be accidentally reopened by people who aren't paying too much attention (because it looks vaguely grammatically correct, as in my second point)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="abd2b641-6647-4ea1-8a3d-ff3e5b383ad2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Somehow my flag for too broad got declines on this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really. Just the fact that the answer spans over 3 actually answers proves, by definition, that this question doesn't belong on a StackExchange site. There is a limit on answer lengths for a reason. I wanted to flag https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox as well now because it's clearly too broad as well, but even this one isn't as absolutely terrible as the original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="c2cd67f4-151d-4e66-9f76-8b94dc1e5d9b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to start this meta question as place where people can put links to **well asked homework-like questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that if not so good questions are asked then we will have a meta question to point people to - so they can go and see well asked questions. Qmechanic, Jim and others are very good at highlighting well asked questions, but I found it hard to search for them - so I thought we could add links here... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle provided a useful link to [*homework and excercise* questions that have been voted up the most on Physics SE][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers below have links to well asked *homework and exercise* questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB: Only one link per answer please!** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework-and-exercises?sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="f467573c-b5ce-458c-9ddd-1b7a4a834fca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ideally an answer in the Physics SE should make the reader a better physicist i.e. help them understand physics better. This doesn't just apply to the person posting the question. Other site members might find the question interesting and be helped by the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question is off-topic if no reasonable answer to it is going to achieve this end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate this is a somewhat extreme view, and in practice I will usually stretch the point and answer questions from interested bystanders if I think it illustrates some point in physics, especially if that point is frequently misrepresented in popular science programmes. However our starting point should always be that this site is, and [I quote from the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We aren't the Discovery Channel and we shouldn't try to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="2b03917d-00d9-46fc-b2f3-4f1840d6de22" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have only been a member for a few months, but find the site both very good, and pretty fair. Not saying all is perfect, but enough good, imo. I looked to see if there was a similar question to the one posed, didn't find one, but I do think the topic has been discussed before. If so, just point me to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have observed, and maybe a little more specifically in the last couple of weeks, a number of questions that are basically arguing that some known physics is false. I've seen it a few time for relativity and Einstein's work. But it seems to be more general, though that topic surfaces plenty. Some of the time the questions are put on hold and maybe later closed, but not always. Worse, I see that answers that attempt to answer the questions, which are often but not always pretty good, tend to get votes, as well as the questions. Sometimes the answers or comments are more of the same physics negation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those questions or comments seem to come from users without a significant reputation. [But to insure it is clear I am not impugning those members, sometimes new ones, most of low reputation members questions are actually very good, and of value to the whole community, imo]. So my question is, is there a kind of targeting of this site by some groups to introduce a kind of anti physics or some other intent that devalues the policies of this site? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is random I wouldn't be concerned, it just seems like a lot of nonsense sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent example I saw was https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278178/does-einsteins-derivation-of-the-lorentz-transformation-have-a-mathematical-err" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="818b66cb-9fb4-4f6e-835b-9c0bd0f2b938" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can figure this out yourself; [just search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&amp;q=is%3aanswer%20score%3a..-1)  and then go to the last page. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one would tend to assume that answers with the absolute *lowest scores* have probably been deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="f22d1977-b171-469b-b7e6-6d9ebf67db5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[I recently asked a question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158299/theory-of-black-holes-producing-matter-or-antimatter) about a theory proposed by someone I know. It is not a scientifically known one, but it is not so obviously true or false that one can avoid speculating on it, to reason out why it should be false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit, it was not a &quot;mainstream&quot; question as required by the site. My question got closed with the reason that it was not mainstream, and theories can be discussed only if they have already been researched, new work is not allowed on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, before its closing, there was a person who commented that they could discuss it according to the known facts. There was 1 upvote on it. Someone else countered him by saying that the same could be done with any off-topic question, hence that was not a valid reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it shows that there are people willing to answer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be a good idea to create an &quot;off-stream&quot; tag, where unpublished theories can be discussed scientifically. Those who don't like the idea could just avoid browsing through such questions, instead of banning them from the site altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="c8d2f500-7112-46f4-8513-b4f337bc4c31" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Usually people get mad because we close things too quickly without considering whether they are really on topic or not. But https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250400/what-are-the-next-generation-physics-experiments has been open for 2 days and only has 2 close votes, despite being the very definition of too broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something on why this hasn't been closed yet, either by the community or by moderators? I'm really surprised that it hasn't been closed yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="fcb5a154-aaa2-4230-a433-aa2b2374b084" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I believe this should be on-topic, since a lot of companies, governments and investors now pouring money into it again, despite it was debunked by mainstream science 25 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Cold fusion: Science's most controversial technology is back][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Bill Gates Reportedly Funds LENR Research at Texas Tech University][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The sleuths at lenr-forum.com have uncovered some pretty convincing evidence Bill Gates aka William H. Gates III made a $4 or $5 million dollar donation to the Texas Tech Foundation “to be expended expeditiously and essentially entirely on research for the express purpose of … obviating the major extant technical ambiguities surrounding the set of phenomena in metal hydrides generally known as Anomalous Heat Effects (AHE).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per above article which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services declared it was “aware of recent positive developments” in developing LENRs and noted their potential to “produce ultra-clean, low-cost renewable energy” and their “strong national security implications”. Highlighting too the interest of Russia, China, Israel and India, it suggested the US could not afford to be left behind, and requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a briefing on the science by [22 September][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the research is back, then I don't see why this should be off-topic on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per this [US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services document][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The committee is aware of **recent positive developments in developing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)**, which produce ultra-clean,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implications. For example, according to the **Defense Intelligence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agency (DIA), ifLENR works it will be a &quot;disruptive technology that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; could revolutionize energy production and storage.&quot;** The committee is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; findings that other countries including **China and India are moving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward with LENR programs** of their own and that Japan has actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russia, China, Israel, and **India are now devoting significant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resources to LENR development**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, please see this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/281332/10968&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ecat.org/2016/bill-gates-reportedly-funds-lenr-research-at-texas-tech-university/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-W000795-Amdt-ETCEB1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="37e05d61-68d0-4db8-868a-35a69dcc0560" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently wanted to post an answer to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/191425/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at the bottom of the page, I saw the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, I have 60 reputation, unless I'm misunderstanding what _reputation_ means in this context (I clicked on the link to [reputation][1] and as far as I can tell I'm not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;duplicate&quot; post shows a different message. In that message, the intent is clear (you must have _earned_ reputation). I got a different, erroneous message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE: posted on Meta SE: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/259878/incorrect-wording-in-protected-question-status**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="b8da587f-4223-4356-a9ea-fa45a524bb0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently asked a question about a real phenomenon I saw at the end of a documentary, I can't help that at the time the only thing I could find on it was at the end of this documentary which isn't something most would consider 'real' science, however the device shown is a known and real phenomenon called an Ionocraft (I now know this). I understand that the name of the documentary may have mislead some, but I assure you that I am asking about something perfectly real and proven to exist in science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before asking the question I looked at the site's help question and I thought this would be on-topic because of this bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Explanations of observed physical or astronomical phenomena&#xD;&#xA;    Example: Why does one experience a short pull in the wrong direction when a vehicle stops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/281423/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that it can be reopened or at least for me to be given a proper explanation of why it was closed. Saying you won't answer a perfectly real question and just saying it's &quot;non-mainstream&quot; seems ridiculous to me if it's accepted in science to be real and there is proof for it. If there is a better SE site to ask about this on, then please let me know. Or of how I could improve my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="a6bcebeb-693e-4739-b88c-23f1616a1427" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/163574/can-ice-freeze&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this question is about explaining physical laws and physical chemistry and  also related to &quot;Accepted and/or actively researched theories&quot; which are on-topic. I believe I gave enough details also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was put on hold after a long time and after I got a good answer that I was willing to accept but I was waiting for a while if I can get any other good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the reason to put on-hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I also added &quot;further clarification&quot; section. I can clarify further if it is needed but one of the aims of the question is getting a clarification also. There are also related questions, it is not only one question. The question is, of course, asking for a detailed, well-documented answer which I got also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be re-opened please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="0e521947-a211-425d-91a8-d51b4fc8d0fb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Say I have an answer which gets 30 upvotes. After a time I realize the answer is wrong. Should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a) delete the answer?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b) edit the answer to be correct?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern with the approach in b) is that whatever I write in my new answer will not be vetted by the 30 people who upvoted my original answer. Since they aren't notified of the changes, I don't think it is fair to keep their stamp of approval attached to whatever I write. That would amount to the 30 upvotes being an endorsement of me as a knowledge source rather than an endorsement of the ideas in the original answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, according to the [help page on editing][1], edits are to be used for correcting minor mistakes or clarifications which *do not change the meaning* of the post. I believe the reasoning behind that is to address the above concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please treat the scope of this question as general, but the discussion was spurred by  [Fundamental question about dimensional analysis][2] as suggested by dmckee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/fundamental-question-about-dimensional-analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="5239c7eb-81bf-4478-aa83-f623774f32ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed a question on which an interesting misunderstanding lead to inappropriate closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the moment, let's think of a question as a chain of proposals linked together through reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;Only by addressing an important node in the chain can a question be answered (henceforth we refer this as &quot;killing the question&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, we have [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;An analysis of the question structure in the [chat][2] reduced it to the following logical structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: The Heisenberg uncertainty relation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: There's a limit to the accuracy of physical measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X: A ---&gt; B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: not X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E: We should be able to observe large fluctuations by making precise measurements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D: C ---&gt; E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't observe E, so by contrapositive, X is true, and so B is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question boils down to asking whether D is true, even though the truth value of X is the one presented as the question.&#xD;&#xA;The question was then closed as a duplicate, but while the alleged duplicated questions, and the comments, address X or B, D was never addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OP's follow up comment then want to tell the readers that none of the comments addressed D, however the comments that followed still only addressed X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the typical fate of these questions is: D was overlooked, OP wants to clarify D, people lose patience for follow up questions and thus no extra response is given, question was effectively abandoned, result in dissatisfied OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all, just wanted to point out what I think is a somewhat common pattern of misunderstanding so we can all be aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281657/uncertainty-principle-in-macroscopic-world&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32501360#32501360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="e5e8d8f9-2e3d-42ab-aa7a-57b7cf534ae3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] was put on hold recently, which was reedited and adjusted by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not question the decision but would appreciate any discuss on this issue. Also I would like to apply the question to be re-opened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not a homework (I am not sure whether it is &quot;homework-like&quot;). It is a calculation-oriented question based on fluid physics (I also cited a particular paper) so maybe that qualifies. It is certainly about physics and requests a definite proof or answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164215/how-can-i-show-the-time-derivative-of-an-energy-functional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="e59b1017-f008-49d8-9e5d-7942e0a0c9e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my post https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264427/84895, I asked something that came into my mind and I wasn't able to find an answer for it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I posted it, the list of related posts (the list under the title before posting didn't!) showed a question what seemed to be the same. I had a look, found there my answer and marked my post as dupe of that one. Now after that was done I'm getting more and more downvotes for it. What might this reason be? Should I have deleted the post instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="d1d49097-22d1-46d2-8809-a92a30b10bcf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Note that you can't delete a question that has an accepted or upvoted answer, as per [this Mother Meta FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221/). In this particular case, then, the post owner seems to have tried to delete the question and, when that failed, they vandalized the post. This is supported by a detailed breakdown in the [question timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/200111/timeline): The question is already upvoted when the OP comments &quot;Don't worry, I solved it :)&quot; and vandalizes the post four minutes later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, being the post owner does **not** entitle you to vandalize your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a legal perspective, you have granted a CC-CY-SA license to the site to display any and all the versions you post. While the site generally respects the OP's wishes as to which version will be displayed, by posting you do cede a measure of control over your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - From a moral perspective, if you post you are soliciting work from others in the community, and if you receive an answer then you are receiving work from community members. This is freely given, with the payback being shiny internet points and having their content up. By deleting a question, you deprive the people who worked to give you an answer of the chance to have their content displayed, and to gain more shiny internet points in the future. This is why you can't delete questions that have upvoted answers, and it works exactly the same for vandalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you encounter a self-vandalized post, you should roll it back to the last working version. If you see edit suggestions that cure self-vandalism, you should approve them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="1bb7a7a5-0525-4d63-a356-263e7e4ac455" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As mentioned in comments, the new diamond moderator is a SE team member, not a [Phys.SE moderator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://stackexchange.com/about/team) is a list of SE team members (using real names rather than usernames).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most moderating on Phys.SE is done by Phys.SE moderators, but &#xD;&#xA;SE team members do help out from time to time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE team members also have other tasks, such as, e.g. developing SE software and finding bugs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record: Currently Phys.SE moderators have handled around 10k flags, while SE team members have handled around 70 flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="7365716e-e58b-440d-acf2-d2360ec5f6ba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are a lot of questions that have totally incorrect premises, ask for &quot;a formula&quot; for something where no such formula exists (e.g. &quot;given the gravitational acceleration, what is the formula for position?&quot;), or don't even make syntactic sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several times, I've responded to these questions with an answer that directly addresses what the OP might have been thinking about. [Here's][1] an example. I notice the following things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nobody else ever does the same thing: either they post a comment saying the question is bad, or occasionally they post an extremely long answer that beautifully generalizes OP's question into something that makes physical sense, and answers that question using some very high-powered math. (I don't do this because I don't think it would help the OP in any way.)&#xD;&#xA;- Nobody has ever given me any feedback, good or bad, on any such answers I've written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I committing a huge faux pas by shooting out these short, two-sentence answers? Is it better for the site to write those answers in a comment instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200663/function-of-observables-in-mathematical-words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="5efd0046-661c-4b79-a367-cf2ba44d77e3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, we're a day into the nomination phase of Physics Stack Exchange's [third election](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3). We already have 8 candidates for the two positions available, and no doubt we'll get plenty more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern has begun to emerge, and it's not hard to see where it's leading. In both nominations and comments, a *lot* of fairly negative remarks have been made about some of the candidates and other users. Here are some that caught my attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; In my experience, [user X] is most rude and arrogant user&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Not only you should not be a moderator, you should be deprived of privilege of casting close votes. People like you are a scourge of this site.&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Asking you about your vision on the site, you produced only arrogant reaction, and initiated the now quite common &quot;ignore culture&quot; on the chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are others, as well as quite a few more implicit insults aimed at moderators and other users, but these are some of the main ones, coming from all sides (additionally, some others have been deleted, thankfully). Are they *all* over-the-top? Not really. But they build up to something that doesn't really give me confidence in this site. If I walked in without any prior knowledge about the candidates, I'd think that most were incompetent, mean, power-hungry wanna-be Scourges of Stack Exchange. I wouldn't want to vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ad hominem* attacks are, in general, not a good way to start any discussion about the way a site will evolve over time. The way things are going, I'm not convinced that this election will end well, and it certainly won't if people continue with name-calling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can we try to be a little bit *nicer* during this election? It's not impossible; I've seen it done before on Stack Exchange. I'm not saying we need to talk only about sunshine and daisies; constructive criticism is fine. We just need to tone things down a little. Or a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this an explicit question, do people think this is an issue, and can we avoid it in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="4345961a-bec2-4bbd-a8b5-c541f758fed1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="After noting that one-character mistake, your *first action* should be to look for more mistakes &amp; correct those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all you can find is that one-character edit, then you need to think about whether that one character makes all the difference. If, for instance, the post writes that the kinetic energy is `$$T=\frac{1}{2}kx2$$` (i.e. , no caret), then clearly suggesting the `^` would be wise. But if it's merely changing the *spelling* of a word **do not** suggest it. *If* you feel strongly about it, you *can* leave a comment&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; with the suggestion, but please don't waste reviewers time with trivial edits like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you should think about it this way: does changing *that one character* make the post any more readable *or* make the post correct? If it does not change the readability of the post, you shouldn't make it. If it doesn't change the correctness of the post, you shouldn't make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Commenting does require [more than 50 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) on the site. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="d8568879-c9d6-483d-bea3-b2830dc69982" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This a soft question and I can try the chat rooms with it, if that's the consensus for the best place to discuss it. Comments from previous questions I have asked could also sort it out for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I post an answer to an OP saying &quot;your problem is currently impossible to answer because we have not yet been able to directly test our theory&quot;, is that **in purely formal terms** a more correct answer than &quot;YES/NO&quot; based on pure theory. If you look at the fairly straightforward [Object Falling At Infinite Speed][1], you might see what I am getting at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you understand my motivation here, I really do accept that GPS use, Hulse Taylor, Gravity Probe B etc.. all support G.R.) I also accept that the other answer in the link given above is 99.99999.....% probably correct. But we still have not done a direct test to confirm or refute the particular question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I completely self study and I don't have any formal background so I don't know much about how the formal science systems works. My motivation for this question is purely to learn more in order to better phrase future questions and answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170502/will-an-object-always-fall-at-an-infinite-speed-in-a-black-hole/170504#170504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="06ea75b4-2a87-4d00-bb67-c522ee1c9d16" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have always felt that the criteria for the use of the Very Low Quality flag are fuzzy, confusing, and ultimately wrong, and I recently had a VLQ flag declined that I would like some clarifications on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer in question is [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/268366/8563), which I'll quote as an image in case it is deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184186/, is relatively poor to begin with, but depending on your perspective, this answer is either (i) a load of waffle with very little to do with the question, (ii) a push for a non-mainstream personal theory, (iii) just plain wrong, or (iv) a load of waffle that doesn't even manage to mean much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, I find that this answer is in active detriment to the site, and it needs to be downvoted and deleted relatively quickly. As such, a VLQ flag is precisely the thing to put this answer in front of review-minded individuals with independent perspectives and a handy Recommend Deletion button that can remove bad content when acted upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore did just that, and I flagged it as VLQ. The reviewers [apparently agreed with me](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138149), giving it three Recommend Deletion votes to one Looks OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nRj9p.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, despite the reviewers agreeing with the flag, it still got declined with the usual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really, really, *really* don't get this. The flag text reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it is very low quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the answer ticks all the boxes. It is definitely very low quality, it has severe content problems, it cannot be salvaged without a complete re-do, and as it stands it needs to be removed. A VLQ flag is the organic mechanism we have to deal with content that's so bad that it needs to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it seems that I am currently banned from raising that specific kind of flag, partly from this incident and a VLQ flag on [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/267914/8563), which received a [single review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/137912) that also agreed with the flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have a number of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Procedurally, how did these two flags come to be declined even though reviewers agreed with them? Since both reviews are incomplete (not enough Recommend Deletion votes to delete, but not enough Looks OK votes to kick it out of the queue) I imagine it was manually handled by a disagreeing mod. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - However, if moderators are going through VLQ flags, what's the point of the review queue? Or are there clear signs that the VLQ queue is not coping with its job and moderators need to step in and do the community's job for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How are those two answers at all content we want to remain on the site? How do those answers and users contribute anything but a bad image in the eyes of a prospective expert who's looking for a cool place with interesting questions to answer? What reason is there that changes the response away from &quot;delete them as fast as a consensual community process will be able to process them&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Taking as a premise that they do need to be deleted, what review mechanism other than the VLQ queue does this community have available to keep the site clean from detrimental posts like these? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the site still at a stage that community moderation (particularly at the 2k+ level) cannot cope with things like this and explicit moderator intervention is needed at every stage, even after the mods explicitly stepped back from going through the Close review queue because the reviewer traffic was high enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Conversely, is the site mature enough, and with a strong enough 20k+ population, that direct votes to delete are sufficient to handle posts like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What is it that compels us to make available to the world posts like these, even after they've been judged by the community to be somewhere between plain wrong and intentionally misleading? When posting users license their content to SE, give it permission to host it, and ask it politely to do so. There is nothing that compels us or SE to keep wrong content on our walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If flags are not meant to handle &quot;technical inaccuracies&quot;, what on Earth does &quot;severe content problems&quot; even mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that there is a lot of inertia here, and that there is some amount of general guidance that emanates from the Stack Exchange team and broader community, and that some of our moderators take this guidance very explicitly to heart. However, I do **not** think that the answer to any of the above questions should be &quot;because SE says so&quot;. That's just intentionally crippling the community moderation mechanisms without any amount of critical analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, we need to recognize that the flagging and reviewing mechanisms are tools provided by Stack Exchange to multiple communities, that they need to be uniform to keep the development process manageable, and that they therefore need to take a very general form that is able to serve over 130 different sites with different requirements. However, these are still only tools, and it is up to us to find the ways and community processes to use these tools that work for us as a site, and that respond to the unique pressures that this site is under. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this includes crackpot answers (particularly the lower tier, the ones for which &quot;non-mainstream&quot; is a stretched compliment) that only serve to make this site look unattractive to prospective experts. We have a software tool (VLQ flags then queue) that enables us to efficiently clean these up as a community without unilateral action. What is there, beyond blind SE dogma, that forces us to shoot ourselves in the foot and disable this tool from use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the long rant, but I really don't see it. Rant aside, I really am interested in the answers to the questions above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit, just to have a clear tl;dr proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers which are (i) flat-out incorrect, (ii) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make them useful or constructive, and (iii) so completely incorrect that they are actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be flagged as VLQ, which then feeds directly to the Low Quality Posts queue. There, if people agree with that three-point assessment, they should vote Recommend Deletion (or, if 20k+, Delete). Flags should sit there for X hours (where X is much bigger than 1/4), and should only be handed over to the moderator review queue after that time, or if there is obvious conflict in the review outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9207" RevisionGUID="65457a68-91bd-45c8-bb62-bc633cce4193" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have deleted a few comments, including a conversation about wrongly used close votes. As a relative outsider (who nevertheless has enough reputation to vote), those comments did not help me understand the issues and concerns with the nomination they were attached to. Comments are a poor substitute for a meta question where arguments may be laid out without character or formatting restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, I allowed a few comments that verge toward violations of our [Be Nice policy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice) to remain. To be clear, that policy applies to nomination comments as everywhere else. However, running for moderator (and, in fact, _being_ a moderator) puts your actions on the site in front of the community for review. If a user closes questions carelessly (to take a criticism made this election) the time to raise the issue with the community is before the election begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even so, I will continue to delete comments that stray too far off track or read more as insults and less as criticisms. As always, if you find yourself getting agitated with another user, it's better to walk away from the computer than risk typing something regrettable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7003" RevisionGUID="51b4ce70-e649-47e0-b26f-e9fe7ca082fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer was deleted by a [moderator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) in accordance with the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451), under which full/explicit answers to homework-like questions get deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6615" RevisionGUID="a19cf80f-1541-449e-8917-faaeedbe387f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a policy (of sorts), namely the one from the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice). (See also [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/behavior).) For convenience, I'll repeat (quote) the main points from those pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rudeness and belittling language are not okay.&#xD;&#xA;- Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.&#xD;&#xA;- Don't be a jerk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there's really a need to make an _additional_ policy on this. But guidance on specific ways to avoid breaking the policy (or the spirit of the policy) probably couldn't hurt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9065" RevisionGUID="0ae6212b-9426-4643-808f-f3109f97cbe8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are correct, there [is a deleted post that is exactly the same](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/273121/50583) (only visible to &gt;10k users). I have flagged the reposted answer for moderator attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="37765bad-7352-4803-a16f-f747b1158bc5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that [here][1] , while making the question more intelligible, the edit also answered it partially with a link, making the questioner not only negligent in previous research, but also stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![q1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result the person got two down votes. I had commented with a link , and got notified on his question about downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in the title, editing with links  which answer the question should be avoided, imo.Some questions are naive, which is different than stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/285134/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/df1X5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9252" RevisionGUID="598e1b90-a983-4b76-9c6c-e8322309bbe1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="After a question is put on hold and edited, it gets put into a queue to be reviewed for reopening. If enough reviewers think the question is suitable for the site after the edit, the hold will be removed. Otherwise, it stays on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, [the review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/148926) has been completed, and the reviewers do not believe the changes make the question on topic, so unless there are further edits, the hold will stay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not repost a question on hold to give it another chance. Doing so is considered (a mild form of) abuse of the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="0eff6492-2456-4297-8fea-c3d0abb7a0fa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="No answers - is this question too hard? I don't think that [this question][1] is too hard actually. There must be some way to solve this and I know there are plenty of people here with a solid background in physics and the mathematics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else further can I do to encourage someone to have a go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/278664/83380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="a493ad7c-573e-4aea-a050-5921b5446e83" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Physics's [third moderator election][1] has come to a close, the votes have been tallied, and the 2 new moderators are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ACuriousMind][mod1pic]][mod1] [![rob][mod2pic]][mod2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They'll be joining [the existing crew][6] shortly — please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice with them as they learn the ropes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details on how the voting played out, you can download the election results [here][1], or [view a summary report online][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3&#xD;&#xA;  [mod1pic]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/50583.png&#xD;&#xA;  [mod1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583&#xD;&#xA;  [mod2pic]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flair/44126.png&#xD;&#xA;  [mod2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/44126&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.opavote.org/results/5609110007447552/0 &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="f60efc31-a9bf-454f-815d-44428434ebe2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Earlier I posted a question which is flagged as it is inappropriate and I could not delete it due to answered. Now I changed both the title and content see link below, my question is since the new question is entirely different from the original flagged question is this recycling of question allowed? The comments and answer posted for original question is irrelevant to the new question is there any advise what to do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171818/is-negative-energy-a-consequence-of-gravitational-energy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="5e684386-c6f5-4afe-b27e-6662691a0349" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's ignore all the other things that I find wrong with this question for the moment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/289600/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised to see the [tag:resource-recommendation] appear on it, given that it's more of a software recommendation rather than a book or paper. All of the meta talk I recall and even the tag wiki and banner seem to imply the tag is intended for *written* resources and not for software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are things like this the intended use for this tag? Should software recommendation questions include the [tag:resource-recommendation]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="288d65d1-a019-403e-aefc-5e693df91730" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Should I edit my question and add an answer myself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this can found with this question: *If you update your post with your new/actual question, do the existing answers still answer your query?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they do answer the new question, feel free to edit it in. If they do not answer the new question, make a new post (and reference the original and emphasize how it is different, as some might want to close as a duplicate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should I edit my question and add an answer myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first half, as above; for the second half, absolutely. [Self-answered questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer) are (almost&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) always welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Caveats include off-topic questions, such as homework or non-mainstream physics.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="bb97594c-dfb2-4580-8e34-42aea6f3d31a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="New user here.&#xD;&#xA;I asked this question a few days back. (first post)&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287142/relative-motion-acceleration &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And i did not get a satisfactory answer for the above question. &#xD;&#xA;so I framed my question better this time and asked again as I dont see any activity with my previous question&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/287809/revisions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one moderator has removed my second post saying its a duplicate. How can i get attention to my first post in this case ( as I haven't got the answer yet ? ) or can I keep the second one deleting the first one ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: This is not a homework problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="2ad0a843-981b-402f-b3f2-0d912f1dd7b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="See the help pages on [reputation][1] and [voting up][1]. In summary, upvotes on your *questions* get you 5 points, while upvotes on *answers* get you 10. If your answer is accepted you get 15. This is the case across the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="69be1e8b-765c-440a-9889-93b5d2fea77e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="How could community downvote or upvote any questions or answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On its [profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community?tab=profile) it claims that it is not really a person but it's total downvotes are 11,168 . And it's last seen was Nov 1'10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="e25bdae2-af65-4d45-87e8-65928767c73c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed asking various questions regarding quantum physics, that sometimes, the latex command \ket works ([here][1], for example), and other times, it does not, and I am obliged to use \left | \psi \right&gt;. Is there a special way to enable its use or did I miss something ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29443/adding-3-electron-spins/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="f4115a70-1512-4e49-8b78-ba75f7970c17" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;This is a well asked question about mechanics and forces [see determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I particularly like about the question is that it is clearly laid out and it is possible to see the thought process of the person asking the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;Edit arfter great comment from @KyleKanos.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.... The question is well laid out and clear, but narrowly focuses on one aspect of a problem so it may not be helpful to other people to look at.. Probably it is for this reason that the question has been closed now. Generally homework type questions should ask about particular concepts of physics that will be useful to other people in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178722/determining-straining-force-and-reaction-forces-on-a-beam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="145e1f12-bc8d-44ee-ae81-8ae46d3d57f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have an extremely curious question relating to [time-travel](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/time-travel) paradoxes which I believe has not been thought of before. Can I ask it in the main site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="fce89b7e-3703-4c20-9f4b-bf05ab24c306" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Can people please reopen this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/290723/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can they give me a reason as to why it is an off-topic question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9409" RevisionGUID="deb46a6b-a0f9-49b1-9ba2-010c464e14fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The source for [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/29472/44126) to the question you link includes, at the top,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     $\newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\left|#1\right&gt;}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while [this other answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/29552/44126)&#xD;&#xA;includes, between &quot;the three vectors&quot; and the first displayed equation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     $\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on that page both `$\ket\psi$` and `$\Ket\psi$` do what you want, but the spacing for `\Ket` is better because that author used `\left` and `\right`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moral of story: the definition is brief, so include it yourself if it makes your life easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="7a52db1c-9a5f-4ea8-b2c5-63d4edf8b648" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I improved the following [very detailed answer][1] in which a vector (column) is wrongly written as a 3 by 3 matrix and which has internal links to some equations that don't work in math stackexchange (one sees (???)), and that I put by hand. Why is this rejected, did someone even check that the corrections were true? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also did other minor changes. Here is the [&quot;edit rejected&quot;][2] page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147243/how-to-get-result-3-otimes-3-6-oplus-bar3-for-su3-irreducible-repre/187561#187561&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/86049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="415ca3ba-238d-41ed-b22e-5e85107035eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed that a question (see below) I asked a while back was deleted without a trace or any notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have an issue with downvotes and closing. The question is admittedly fairly speculative. However, I don't see the purpose of outright deleting a question like this, since it doesn't contain any offensive content, and may in fact be of interest to some people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deleted question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is mass/energy a measure of computational capacity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/296580/2451)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously computation requires energy, and there are known entropy bounds in relation to this. Here, I am asking if they are the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sub-questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is quantum mechanics a mechanism of computational minimization?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is computational capacity preserved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is gravity a mechanism for clustering of computational capacity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is a black hole a computationally closed region, which attract computational capacity, but does not have computational power to transfer any subset of computational capacity outside the closed region?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="b5638d81-ffe5-448d-8b09-b26bb5ab1234" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently went trough the marginally pleasant experience of having to take both the [general][1] and the [physics subject GRE tests][2] in order to apply to graduate programs in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prepared exclusively using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. study material provided by [ETS][3], i.e. [practice books containing past exams][4] ([Ohio State University][5] makes a total of 4 books available for download each containing 100 multiple choice questions and an answer sheet indicating the correct choice for each),&#xD;&#xA; 2. online resources such as [GREphysics.net][6] and [physgre][7] for detailed answers, explanations, and helpful discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I wouldn't generally recommend this method as a great way for learning anything, least of all the often deep concepts encountered when tackling *new* physics, I believe it is likely the most effective way of preparing for the GREs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, and this leads to my question, the online resources I mentioned under 2 seem hopelessly antiquated. Just take a look at (and then flee again from) [GREphysics.net][6] to see what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no doubt that [StackExchange][8] could provide a vastly superior platform and forum for GRE preparation. Think about it: from MathJax support and commenting to the question-and-answer format and a large knowledgeable user base, it just seems like the perfect place for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all of these test questions admit multiple ways to solve them. So whenever someone posts a GRE question he or she is struggling with (or one might one think about systematically adding all questions to this site), I would expect multiple answers in response. Popular vote can then identify the most concise/quick/accurate one. This rating of content, in my view, is one of the standout features of [StackExchange][8] and something none of the other GRE resources I encountered offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I'm unsure of is what the community thinks of this idea. Searching the site for [posts mentioning GRE][9] currently gives just 33 results and only a few of them contain actual exam questions. Is it just that there hasn't been a lot of interest from users or did the community decide for some reason to suppress any developments in this direction? In other words, what would happen if I went ahead and added a few GRE questions as a start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/physics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ets.org&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/practice_book_physics.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/undergrad/ugs_gre.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://grephysics.net/ans/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://physgre.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://physics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=gre" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="968ac444-8518-44c7-85bc-f433423be873" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I found [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/85027) user. His needs nuking. Can a mod do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="34dfd0d7-6472-42ef-a7a9-4b7c8e6cbfa4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Thanks to @rob for linking to [Atwood's Meta-Tag post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/) (which I somehow always forget about...).  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1] The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author's skill level[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2] Meta-tags are actually [...] dependent tags. These are tags that don't say anything by themselves - you can't tell what the question is about unless they're paired with some other tag[...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re [1]: I'd argue that 'derivation' is *not* consistent with [1] in that, like the much discussed 'homework' tag, it *does* describe the content of the question itself, and seeing the 'derivation' tag would indeed provide a keyword/description of the content of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re [2]: I think [2] *does* apply, but only marginally.  A 'thermal-physics' could go-it-alone, and be perfectly sufficient, while a 'derivation' tag would be missing the actual physical content of the question.  But, that is to say 'derivation' would not be a *complete* description tag, much like ['computational-physics'](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-physics), ['forces'](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/forces), or ['mathematical-physics'](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics).  So I personally don't think [2] is a deal-breaker.  Comments welcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="24c50de9-8ec0-4b27-b18d-68934fc208fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="From the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To avoid overly promotional bounties, if you are offering a bounty on a question that you have already posted an answer to, your minimum spend is 100 reputation (not 50)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="7b5231f0-aa37-45ab-afcf-9a85999892af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I, today, saw one new thing below my question `cite` . I pressed it &amp; this appeared:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Example citation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;user36790 (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790), Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?, URL (version: 2015-07-31): https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BibTeX  amsrefs &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@MISC {197101,&#xD;&#xA;    TITLE = {Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?},&#xD;&#xA;    AUTHOR = {user36790 (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790)},&#xD;&#xA;    HOWPUBLISHED = {Physics Stack Exchange},&#xD;&#xA;    NOTE = {URL:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101 (version: 2015-07-31)},&#xD;&#xA;    EPRINT = {https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101},&#xD;&#xA;    URL = {https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;\bib\{197101}{misc}{    &#xD;&#xA;    title={Why does Hamiltonian follow the property $H^*_{ij} = H_{ji} $?},    &#xD;&#xA;    author={user36790 (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36790/user36790)},    &#xD;&#xA;    note={URL: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101 (version: 2015-07-31)},    &#xD;&#xA;    eprint={https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/197101},    &#xD;&#xA;    organization={Physics Stack Exchange}  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even yesterday I didn't see it. I really don't know what these mean; I am really ignorant of these stuffs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain what this `cite` is actually meant for? What is its function?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image without &quot;cite&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Es3TKEihtBI/VfPLp1FFdEI/AAAAAAAAAEY/veZc6zGwmLs/s912-Ic42/screenshot-physics.stackexchange.com%2525202015-09-12%25252012-15-29.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image with &quot;cite&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v6UQ-mixcDA/VfPNPFGwXhI/AAAAAAAAAEk/7T0xMJTVL0w/s912-Ic42/_1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="4fe416e1-21a0-4247-9796-cde4816b4c1e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to discuss the creation of one or more tags for **[amorphous solids][1], [glasses][2] and [quasicrystals][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many question on the site which address specifically glasses and the glass transition, for example [this one][4] and [this one][5] and [this one][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others are about amorphous solids in general, like [this one][9], [this one][10] and [this one][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, other questions are about quasicrystals, like [this one][7] and [this one][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a tag for [spin glasses][12], but not a tag for *glasses*. I find this to be pretty absurd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently proposed the tag [**amorphous-solids**][13], but I'm wondering wether it could be useful to create the tag **glasses** (or glass) since someone asking a question about glasses will probably try to type &quot;glass&quot; instead of &quot;amorphous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it could be useful to create a **quasicrystals** tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Update***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the response has been mainly positive (or no one seriously objected, anyway...) I will create the **glass** tag. As for the **quasicrystals** tag, I still haven't decided what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_solid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23686/nature-of-glass-transition&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76185/glass-properties&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65740/is-glass-a-liquid&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82841/why-do-quasicrystals-have-well-defined-fourier-transforms&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26918/literature-on-fractal-properties-of-quasicrystals&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/289916/non-glassy-amorphous-solids&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220302/why-polymeric-solids-are-said-to-be-intermediate-between-crystalline-solids-and&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233430/why-is-amorphous-classified-solid/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/spin-glass&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/amorphous-solids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="34dd56f6-4d8a-4a08-9283-35e3480651b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A pretty famous guy, [G. 't Hooft](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/11205/g-t-hooft), wrote a response about one of his papers: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18586/deterministic-quantum-mechanics/160193#160193 on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing a search of [`&quot;my paper&quot;`](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22my+paper%22) presents a few more users who have at least cited their works in their answers (discounting vixra because it's usually not reputable works hosted there), though not usually the case that the question itself is about their works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Xiao-Gang Wen](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/9444/xiao-gang-wen)&#xD;&#xA;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A9444+my+paper&#xD;&#xA; - [Arnold Neumaier](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7924/arnold-neumaier)&#xD;&#xA;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7924+my+paper&#xD;&#xA; - [Luboš Motl](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1236/lubo%C5%A1-motl)&#xD;&#xA;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A1236+my+paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="927a9804-65ba-42c5-9fb0-07078373877a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/296869/25301) by [tpg2114](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) to the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/296863/25301&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Boris algorithm is an integrator for solving Newton's laws numerically (well really any force law). For all the questions we have on solving this type of system, no one seems to have discussed how to *start* such a system (as the positions and velocities are solved at half-steps and typically we know $x(t=0),\,v(t=0)$ and not $x(t=0),\,v(t=\Delta t/2)$).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tpg2114 gave a good answer to an interesting problem, but it's a [tag:computational-physics] question so it got little love from the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="4b4ec4c5-6097-4eec-9d9e-f5a0e267ae45" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general, I tend to have a much lower bar for the amount of improvement to approve or implement edits in the title. This is because question titles appear in many more places than just the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The front page&#xD;&#xA; - On-site search results&#xD;&#xA; - Related and Linked sidebars on other questions on this site&#xD;&#xA; - Hot Network Questions on this site and others in the Stack Exchange Networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having well-groomed titles is important. Fixes like LaTeX improvements, bad grammar, picky grammar issues (e.g. 'How to X' → 'How do I X'), spelling, and so on are definitely worthwhile. Larger fixes (like making the question title accurately describe the actual question in sufficient detail) are a must.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, having title case is... pretty much not a problem for me. Things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the Physical Meaning of Commutators in Quantum Mechanics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;read just fine and don't jolt the reader too much into a 'hmm, what's with the language there?' note (I tend to find). I don't fix such titles and would tend to reject as Too Minor if that is really the only possible improvement on the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a quick perusal of the current front page indicates that the questions whose titles lend themselves to the use of title case (currently the only one being [A Confusion in Rotational Dynamics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208042/a-confusion-in-rotational-dynamics)) have the sorts of titles which are not particularly descriptive of the question. Longer, full-sentence titles which actually ask a question will tend to look weirder in title case than short statements about what area the question is generally in. In such cases, the question is better off getting a completely new title which actually describes what is being asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="39df976b-27fa-4368-8d45-e2be96d6781a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/294243/26969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was marked as a duplicate of [Is the second defined arbitrarily?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/178660/26969) - which is itself a duplicate of &#xD;&#xA;[How is a second measured? And why is it measured that way?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/73766/26969). None of these questions, or their associated answers, get to the heart of the closed question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could close the question for &quot;lack of effort&quot; - but it does explore an interesting aspect of physics, namely the work done to get &quot;truly fundamental&quot; definitions of the SI units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closing it with reference to a closed question that itself doesn't address the question is sloppy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to calibrate my thought process. What do others think? I don't think &quot;lack of effort when formulating the question&quot; deserves &quot;lack of effort when closing the question&quot; - unless we make &quot;lack of effort&quot; a valid (and distinct) close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="81d02306-5f68-4847-b5b8-eca859804c80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just bumped into [this question][1], which was closed shortly after being posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was definitely a badly-written, super ambiguous question. But somebody provided a really nice answer: one that was practically useful, comprehensible to the layman, and nontrivial to nonlaymen. I feel like the community lost something by closing this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I believe &quot;naive&quot; layman questions about everyday life, phrased in everyday language, are better than the majority of questions on this site. They're certainly better than the flood of nonsense 'if the Higgs boson, then does time exist' questions, or the 'help me do exercise #28' questions; they also have better odds of producing interesting answers. Why do such questions get closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154793/does-it-matter-which-blanket-i-take-below-and-which-one-above-when-i-cover-mysel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="1dd154af-0cd9-4792-bd96-278749cc1e5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Farcher][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This user has amassaed an amazing 19,265 reputation in just 11 months by adding numerous high quality questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/104696/farcher" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7128" RevisionGUID="64ede2a7-deb7-42ce-872d-8ab500307195" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [Late Answers Review Queue][1] contains answers which were posted by new users much later than when the question was asked. Late answers tend to be seen by fewer people than answers posted soon after the question was asked, so the review queue helps ensure that these answers meet the same quality standards as all other answers.&lt;sup&gt;[\[source\]][2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following this [meta discussion][3], **the decision threshold for late answers to enter the Late Answers Review Queue has been raised from 10 to 50 reputation.** This applies to all sites, not just physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to this change, many old answers retroactively entered the Late Answers Review Queue. This caused a spike in the number of answers in the queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/266696/271002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="1403e646-3192-4e0d-87d4-fb04c6fc9ef5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently posted a Phys.SE [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/295580/2451) based on: &quot;spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation&quot; and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from [viXra.org](http://www.vixra.org), and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone provide a list of acceptable(or unacceptable) sites which have reliable scientific papers, upon which questions can be based?&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the founder of viXra has to say- [click/touch here here](http://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-serious-papers-on-viXra)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="340b57bb-c41d-4e06-8c38-fb6e4f732705" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The reviewers [do evidently not agree with you](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/97726) (one voted to reopen, three voted to leave closed) that you narrowed down the question sufficiently. In my view, it still asks for a list of possible propulsion methods, adding &quot;in a vacuum&quot; does not remove that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="afdea463-4dd0-4c65-b99f-49f56eaf94ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As an example of the issue Dirk raises, I'll point to [This recent question][1]. Now, perhaps it is not the cleanest of questions, but it did come up today. It was put on hold as off-topic, with comments about how it would be best for engineering or materials. Now, given that it was tagged solid-state-physics and superconductivity (and applies to them), and that materials-science is also a reasonably used tag here on Physics SE, I think this is pretty indicative of the general feeling around here. It is pretty hard to argue with Dirk, but I also think that Physics SE should be the place for his experimental questions, as well as questions like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210088/synthesis-of-fe-based-superconductors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="d71f7467-5a8b-446a-94ba-8aa59756410e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] that was wrongly  marked as duplicate (has been reopened since) to [this question][2] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marked one asks &quot;How can the unstable particles of the standard model be considered particles in their own right if they immediately decay into stable particles?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the suggested original &quot;What is the essential difference between a resonance and a particle? &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers to the last do not address the problem. The Z and W mesons are more than  resonances, they are elementary particles of the standard model . The  &quot;duplicate&quot; asks if the elementary particles could be excitations . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the moderators have a look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: question is open with votes. see my comment below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/208410/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188015/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9519" RevisionGUID="aaa4da1d-7ace-48ff-8423-2fcb3d717b24" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this answer to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191451/what-will-happen-if-the-photon-has-non-zero-mass/285624#285624&#xD;&#xA; is the most underrated answer of 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post is very informative and clearly a lot of effort went into its creation.  Unfortunately at the time of posting this, it has only obtained 1 up-vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="73d95c0b-eb86-49d4-b6a7-2716a7d76545" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] looks in imminent danger of being closed on the grounds that it's a pure mathematics question. This is something that happened a lot when I was more active on the site, and is one of the reasons I'm less so now. I'm wondering (a) whether the on-topicness of maths-as-used-in-physics is something that was ever formally discussed, and (b) whether the current community really finds it desirable to ban such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there's a strong tradition of defining this site's topic as being &quot;only questions about physics.&quot; The question is whether &quot;physics&quot; here should mean &quot;what physicists do&quot; or the much stricter (and more epistemologically suspect) &quot;what is in the physical world.&quot; The linked question above is a good example, because it's clearly technically about a mathematical concept (Dirac delta functions), yet the topic is also clearly something that was developed by physicists, is taught on every physics syllabus, and is of interest to every physicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realise that there is a mathematics stack exchange where this would be on topic - but in many contexts it is often said that the existence of other Stack Exchange sites should not affect what's considered on topic, so I think that is not relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, my questions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was a consensus ever explicitly reached on the on-topicness of such &quot;purely mathematical&quot; questions, and where can I find the discussion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it desirable, to the current community, to allow questions about the mathematical concepts on which physics is built?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Ah, the difficultly of searching meta. I've found [a previous discussion on this topic.][2] The accepted answer, with +16 votes, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a question which focuses entirely on mathematical details, whilst perhaps appropriate for the mathematics SE, should be kept on the physics SE if it is motivated by physics, even though it may not necessarily be regarding how it is precisely applied to a physics problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would suggest that the linked question is just on topic, period. Still, it seems worth bringing up again to see if that's still the consensus, and perhaps to remind active close-voters that the agreed policy isn't quite as exclusive as they might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/210552/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5713/should-pure-math-questions-be-on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="81852d58-75f3-4a11-ae8d-c35a086b9a75" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sometimes I come across a homework-like question, like this one &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/212839/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is of little value to our collection, as any answer is only of interest and benefit to the original poster (OP). I know the question will be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I think the OP really wants to learn, however, I occasionally still answer such questions, in the hope that I might help someone. In these cases, I tend to make broad points and suggestions, rather than provide a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this alright? Should I stop answering HW-like questions that will likely be closed? I know HW is a thorny issue on this site. I've read elsewhere that HW-like questions should be quickly shutdown and downvoted etc. Whenever I answer such a question, I'm (in a small way) undermining that strategy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="d01e3627-8250-41e2-afa4-03b7429f9051" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think that new askers are more likely to get their questions answered, and new answerers are more likely to have their answers actually help people, if they post questions and answers rather than comments.  Here are some reasons why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Instead of commenting they are tempted to post &quot;answers&quot; which are nothing more than comments. These have to be reviewed and/or flagged for deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that's true, the mechanisms for alerting reviewers and other users to new answers are much more robust than for comments.  A not-useful comment, for instance, can't be downvoted --- only flagged for moderator attention.  It's much more efficient to have the entire community empowered to evaluate low-effort contributions from new or low-rep users than to ask the moderators to shoulder that entire burden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that asking people to write paragraph-complexity answers and questions that five or ten other users find voteworthy to be a pretty low bar for the privilege of leaving a sentence-complexity comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators can (and sometimes do) convert brief non-answers into comments, but I mostly encourage people to meet the participation threshold and come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Instead of being able to ask for clarification of posted answers, they post a duplicate question explaining that they did not understand the answers already posted. The new question is flagged for review as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the alternatives here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Comment from a new user to an old question: &quot;I don't understand any of the answers here, please explain more.&quot; Depending on the age of the question, its asker may never get notified about the comment.  Commenting doesn't bump a question to the front page, so other users don't notice the new comment either.  New user does not get help. The end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. Duplicate question from a new user: &quot;I don't understand the answers over there, please explain more.&quot; Question appears on the front page and the in the [First Posts Review Queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts), where many people see it. Those people will vote and ask clarifying questions in the comments, possibly while the new user is still hanging around.  Maybe the question gets closed, and maybe it gets answered, and maybe both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. &quot;Duplicate&quot; question from new user: &quot;I don't understand the answers over there *for reasons A, B, C*.&quot;  That's potentially a good new question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that there's a *path* from (2) to (3), via editing of the new question, but the path from (1) to (3) is much more tortuous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, as ACuriousMind says in a comment, I'm pretty sure that individual SE sites don't have the ability to muck around with the privilege hierarchy.  So this isn't something that could be implemented only on Physics --- you'd have to drag the entire network along.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9397" RevisionGUID="39829ef9-64ca-4e43-ba4d-5473b0156d52" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, questions involving magical situations are not generally on topic here. Our [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) lists &quot;questions about fictional physics&quot; as one of the off-topic categories. The reason is basically what Kyle Kanos said in a comment,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Pretend the laws of physics are broken, what does physics say happens later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those questions just don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, depending on what exactly you want to ask and how you ask it, _sometimes_ there is a way to make this okay. In particular, if your magical situation is something that could plausibly occur under the physical theory you're asking about, or at least something that makes a valid initial condition for the theory, you can probably frame that question in a way that makes it on topic. This should be considered &quot;advanced Physics SE usage&quot; though, and I would suggest seeking advice in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) before posting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="0e0c330b-2044-42b5-ad07-20b4d2e6d658" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.193" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/307573/dancing-twins-one-travelling-in-a-rocket-ship-looking-through-telescopes-at-ea&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; &#xD;&#xA;asks whether a traveler looking through a telescope will see his earthbound twin moving in slow motion.  It is closed as a duplicate of  &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/300196/time-dilation-and-twin-paradox-if-they-twins-were-speaking-on-a-phone-of-some-k&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, which asks whether a traveler &lt;i&gt;moving away from earth&lt;/i&gt; will hear earth-originated telephone conversations in &quot;slow motion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wouldn't surprise me at all if the closed question were a duplicate of &lt;i&gt;something&lt;/i&gt;, but it's not a duplicate of the currently alleged duplicate.  That's because the answer to the closed question depends on whether the traveler is moving toward or away from earth, whereas the alleged duplicate addresses only the (less interesting) case where the traveler is moving away.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in particular, readers are told that &quot;This question already has an answer here&quot;, and then directed to a site where the more interesting part of the question is not answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again---I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's a real duplicate somewhere, but it would be good if readers were directed to that real duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="c8f2d686-6bc0-47ca-992a-810c42f80191" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Maybe not a list of memes, but somewhat on related lines was this (now closed) question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, there also a deleted question - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70740/do-good-physics-jokes-exist, which was also removed for the reasons of moderation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you scroll through the existing comments on the linked page, you can appreciate the reasons why it got closed. Still for reasons of completeness, apart from [DavidZ's answer above](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7145/46399), it makes sense to reiterate [dmckee's point](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71067/educational-physics-stories-with-a-funny-punchline#comment145498_71067) in the original thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no format in which you can ask this question. First, the Stack Exchange engine has been carefully built and tuned to deal well with question that have right and wrong answers; and it does not mange lists well. Second, while these kinds of questions are enormously popular that very popularity makes them destructive to the question &amp; answer environment that is what we seek here: &quot;best this&quot; and &quot;favorite that&quot; question push out the substantial content. It took more than two years for a majority of the active users on Stack Overflow to understand this, so we learned the hard way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, long story cut short - even though most people would really like that question and the answers, SE sites are not the appropriate place for such big list questions. Sorry :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="6fe30f9b-703b-4ba7-971c-0f5a2f3f437b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have read various posts on bounties, as well as the help center. There, I find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;If you do not award the bounty within 24 hours of the bounty period ending, half the bounty value will be automatically awarded to the top voted answer posted after the bounty start, provided it has a score of at least 2. If no new answer matches this requirement, no reputation will be awarded at all, and the reputation used on the bounty will be lost forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I recently ran into a situation where [an old question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242953/26969) (to which I had posted an answer several months ago) was bumped with a (small) bounty from the OP. I decided to give it another shot, and improved my original answer with a substantial edit (which eventually led to my answer being accepted by the user, and several additional upvotes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However - the user did not manually award the bounty; and given that my answer was not &quot;new&quot; (in the sense that I did not post an answer after the start of the bounty period), the fact that it was &quot;new and improved&quot; apparently does not make it eligible for the &quot;automatic 50% bounty&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I don't care too much about 25 points - but I wonder: does this make sense? Would the &quot;auto&quot; rule make more sense if it was modified to award the bounty automatically to one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- new answer with &gt; 2 score&#xD;&#xA;- edited answer with &gt; 2 score increase&#xD;&#xA;- accepted answer with &gt; 2 score&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in all cases, it would be awarded the highest-scoring answer that meets at least one of these criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*) In the context of &quot;the exception that proves the rule&quot;, the verb &quot;prove&quot; actually means &quot;probe, test&quot;; in other words, it is by examining the exceptional cases that one gets a better understanding of the (limits of the) rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="7ed4fd85-ff14-44fd-97de-411ddedea603" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Technically, the not-an-answer (NAA) flag caused the [Community♦](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community) to submit the answer to the [low-quality-post-review-list](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Five 2k+ users (which were not 20k+ users) [completed the review cycle with the following votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/104087) listed chronologically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Recommend Deletion; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK; Recommend Deletion; Looks OK._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next the Community♦ provided the feed-back 'Disputed' to the flagger. &#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit uncertain whether this was caused by the mixed verdict (cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4737/2451) meta post and below comment by ACuriousMind), or an up-vote on the answer. (The latter is one of 3 reasons mentioned in [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/95275/209806) meta post as a reason for a disputed flag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Moreover, the answer is not delete, since none of the reviewer were 20k+ users. (20k+ users can vote to directly _Delete_ as opposed to just _Recommend Deletion,_ cf. [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390/209806) meta post.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Next, the disputed status caused the answer to enter the moderator's review tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, a moderator converted the answer to a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="56aa701b-e6df-4cd1-ad75-4acbf5bd30ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've posted a few questions here relating to physics of polymers in solution, and I am surprised every time that there is no dedicated tag for them. A couple of examples of my own questions: [Hindered rotation model for flexible polymers: deriving the Flory characteristic ratio][1], and [Scaling argument for friction force on a chain in shear flow][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't seem to find a good tag to appropriately direct this sort of question on this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/256207/hindered-rotation-model-for-flexible-polymers-deriving-the-flory-characteristic&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305930/scaling-argument-for-friction-force-on-a-chain-in-shear-flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="c1e4758e-28a2-4f27-8311-7da64e80f63c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted? This is in relation to this [question of mine][1] where there is only one and that too downvoted answer..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/205877/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="507524c6-66fb-4984-a8d9-1ba24aafe3a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I look at his reputation log:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12803/thomas-an?tab=reputation&amp;sort=post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see reputation-altering events that add up +35 (7 upvotes) and -28 (mostly downvotes, but also a couple &quot;user was removed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add in the +1 for what the user presumably started at, and it makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the &quot;rule&quot; you're forgetting is that rep can't go below 1, so when you look at his first day, he started at 1, got 1 upvote (+5) and 6 downvotes.  But the first 4 of those downvotes didn't count against him because rep can't go below 1 and they came before he got any upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that also applies to the -1 showing for a downvote the next day: he only had 2 rep, that downvote only cost him 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="b2e2d4b9-4434-4d3e-8946-a6eea215ff88" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Do I have to award the bounty even if the answer does not deserve it and is downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No you don't, but there is a certain &quot;honour&quot; at work here. I've offered a bounty before, and awarded it even though I wasn't happy with the answers. See for example [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191617/can-you-depict-the-electrons-electromagnetic-field). As a result people know that they can trust me. If you offer a bounty and then don't award it, next time you won't get one answer, you'll get none.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is in relation to this question of mine where there is only one and that too downvoted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should ask the posters here if they downvoted that answer. And if so, why they didn't offer an answer of their own. Do note that there are some downvoting issues here on physics Stack Exchange, see [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote) meta question. Always remember that physics is not a democracy. Votes don't make a right answer wrong, or vice versa. You should look to the evidence and explanation and references, and ask for elaboration in the comments. Or ask a new question to tease out the issue and get to the underlying problem.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9629" RevisionGUID="9b908e26-d495-49d9-9bd7-6706a6035c0c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Anonymous downvotes should not be allowed. I also think that if you do issue a downvote you should be required to state why you did it in the comments. That will give the person who asked the question a chance to respond. There should be some risk to issuing downvotes. Right now there is no risk at all to the person who is issuing the downvotes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about. A moderator issued a downvote. Fortunately, he did add a comment. That gave me a chance to explain. If you read the comments they will explain what happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the thread...&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311479/can-we-use-the-units-of-planks-constant-to-generalize-debroglies-equation-and-c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, downvotes should not be anonymous. Maybe you should not be required to post a comment explaining why you did it, but who you are should be recorded somewhere. That is the only way to see if a member is being targeted. There should be a list in every users account that shows who were the members who issued the downvotes to each question and answer made by the user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="e9362027-20fb-419f-8185-907341fb02bb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question from today [How much difference to interior temperature would a white car roof make?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229145/) says essentially &quot;My car is hot so I'm thinking of painting the roof white. How much would that affect the temperature?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question from Feb 2014 [Temperature behavior over time of black or white cars in hot, sunny regions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/96574/) says &quot;Some claim the black car will stay hotter [than the white car], some others claim it will be the same whatever the color. Do all cars have the same temperature inside in the long run, or are some of them hotter?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I marked the new question as duplicate but it was declined. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="f57f5a65-3399-4483-8d31-1698ccf0e1fb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A question mostly needs only a single answer, and must be thus clear only for a single answerer. After it's answered it will be also clear for a wider audience. It will never be clear for &quot;readers as a Whole&quot;. If it would, what's the point to even ask?   &#xD;&#xA;I recall my first answer to the site; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159970/is-it-possible-to-generate-one-half-of-a-karman-vortex-street/190285#190285 the answer was voted to be deleted, but it actually answered the question! What else would you have? The question was also only Yes/No-type of question, and it obviously had also some unclearness-problems before it was answered. &#xD;&#xA;To me the &quot;V1&quot; of this question was as good as the &quot;v4&quot;. I barely note any difference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I now look my answer, I easily notice how I could improve this answer. For this you first need to be familiar with the consept. - and have the motivation to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another answer from my &quot;first day&quot; was this; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/can-a-divider-laminarize-turbulent-flow-and-thus-reduce-friction/190295#190295 It's another Yes/no type of question which obviously wasn't clear if you look the comments. There is also a discussion what is meant with &quot;a divider&quot;. The asker has &gt;10 k reply. At the comments he writes; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So maybe that terminology should be trashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points out how established users makes questions where the &quot;unclearness&quot; comes from the terminology problems. But to me it was clear what was asked, and after the answer -I think- it's clear also to others. (and yes, now I could improve also this answer.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am constructive trying to improve the motivation to use this PSE-tool further. This site is about asking and getting answers. If the future looks like I need all the time ask &quot;how to ask&quot;, the motivation to stay around will finally disappear. As according to my life experience my &quot;terminology problems&quot; aren't going to disappear. I would really wish more ignorance rather than a debate from the used terminology. Providing a promise that you will get rid of this &quot;problem&quot; after you are an established user, would motivate to continue. In the real life it might even happen that when the limit is reached the problem has got smaller. But the multiple Meta-posts, ie this;   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7324/is-over-vigilant-monitoring-of-questions-driving-people-away-from-the-site?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;Points out there is a problem, and **this might be a solution for it.**  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9630" RevisionGUID="7ec2e5ef-2161-4cd1-b5ff-de252f059ba9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The process already has something to this effect incorporated into it: aside from [guidance on how to properly reference others' work][1], there's also a message template for when moderators reach out to users on these occasions. The relevant message reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It has come to our attention that several of your answers consisted primarily or entirely of text copied from other answers or websites. We prefer not to simply copy content already available elsewhere in lieu of creating something that adds value to this site *specifically*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whenever possible, we prefer that posts be your own original work, but when a great answer already exists elsewhere, including a small passage of text from another source can be a great way to support your solution. But please note that **we require full attribution** with a link to the original author, and please be sure you are ***not* copying content without permission**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When sent this message, the contacted user has the opportunity to reply back to the moderation team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/referencing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="e84b2b22-e11a-4f75-a97a-c3de7d05b3d1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just came across [this post][1], whose first link is to [here][2], which is actually broken and goes to a totally wrong post on a wrong site. I noticed that the **Linked** section on the right contains the correct link to [this post][3]. I guess what happened is that the link in the question pointed to the original location of the linked post, but it was subsequently migrated from Astronomy SE to Physics SE, and the link in the **Linked** section was updated correctly but the link in the post was not. Why is that so? Is there a bug in the SE software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26403/45786&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1211/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-de&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="dd526918-9fd2-4263-b874-fd0a5e941e03" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see the following two ways one could think of as what &quot;Physics Stack Exchange&quot; might be about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. Questions should ask about the concepts of the mainstream body of physical theories or how to probe them, which means that ideally, every question has a definite answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Physics Stack Exchange is a platform to ask questions about mainstream physics. All conceptual questions when studying physics are allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one actually describes the status quo and is a &quot;physics based&quot;-approach, while the second one is a &quot;physics education based&quot;-approach. Let me quote John Renie's answer above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good question and answer for this site will be one that future generations of physicists¹ will benefit from. That is, having encountered something they don't understand their Google search will lead them here and they'll find the answer to all their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my problem: A question about the rigour in mathematics or what one should focus on when learning theories is something that many (future) physicists stumble upon and need an answer to. This is also something all physicists have (at least implicitly) thought about at some point in their life. Ergo, many (future) physicists will benefit from answers to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how to do physics are in principal a matter of philosophy. This does not mean that anything goes - quite the contrary - but it does mean that most users and even most expert physicists will be unfamiliar with many aspects that good answers should incorporate. On the other hand, (mainstream) physics is what physicists do and not what philosophers want them to do, so the answers, while lacking in certain aspects, could help students assess the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest possibility is always to just refer every question that touches about philosophy of science to philosophy.stackexchange. There, we have the experts. The problem is that the experts in philosophy might not know how it is actually implemented in reality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;The Q&amp;A-format can support questions about how things are done. They will generate a lot of bad answers (and one will have to enforce rigid non-discussion policies) but the mere fact that we allow for several answers to the same question and we have a sorting by votes means that meaningful answers will be swept to the top. We might want to have a tag &quot;opinion-based&quot; with a similar disclamer as the &quot;resource-recommendations&quot; and we would need to adapt the close reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to illustrate what could be possible and might help physics students in understanding the field (although the answer is far from good - it would definitely need to elaborate and explain the last paragraph and even then, I'm not quite the expert on the matter that I would like to be), see [this answer of mine][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where to draw the line? Questions about how to write a paper or how to collaborate with other people are clearly off-topic - they are not about conceptual questions when studying physics. But many cases will be borderline, so this needs some discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, those questions could be made on-topic, but we should create a special tag and special implementation rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238383/methodology-how-to-deal-with-non-rigorous-derivations/238403#238403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="0795be32-00c2-44e6-8ef0-58095453b931" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="## The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, biophysics questions run a wide range from those that are primarily biology questions with a little physics input to those that are primarily physics questions applied to a situation that appears in a biological processes or system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And presumably some fraction of them are on-topic for the Physics.SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is soliciting reasoned and explained opinions about what kinds of questions are definitely on-topic, off-topic and living in a fuzzy gray area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed texts for the [tag:biophysics] summary would be one (good) way to condense your thoughts, but are not required. For reference, the current tag summary reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of methods from the physical sciences to aid in the study of biological systems. Note that biophysics questions are only allowed if they are mainly about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a recent [conversation concerning the need for or utility of possible Biophysics beta site][1] we received [a question on the main site concerning the mechanisms of protein action (and a few other issues)][2]. A subsequent [informal poll of the chat room][3] revealed surprising diversity of opinion on the matter including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On-topic (at least in part): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635714#26635714 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635720#26635720 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635920#26635920 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Send it to [chemstry.se]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635657#26635657&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Off-topic (no alternate suggestion): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640394#26640394 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26640561#26640561 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26641857#26641857 (or should that go on the chemistry bullet?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suggested refinements that would make it definitely on-topic (suggesting to me that the speaker thinks it is borderline as it is): http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26642643#26642643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should be closed for reasons not relating to topicality. (Not providing separate links for these because they evade the point of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this meta-question is *not* mainly about the place of post 227647 on Physics SE, but about the broader criteria for deciding such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7359/should-biophysics-fork&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227647/how-do-proteins-perform-their-function&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26635361#26635361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="80a0932c-b486-4958-af26-c3bcfd1c3185" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [revision history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/270058/revisions) contains CortAmmon's following edit description for the deletion of the example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  	I couldn't find a reference for the glass breaking trick, and it may have been confusing, so I removed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While posts on StackExchange can and should be edited by anyone who feels they can be improved, non-community-wiki posts are ultimately considered to be written *by their original authors*, and edits that contradict the intent of the authors *should be rejected*, there is an explicit rejection reason for this (and I'm a bit puzzled why that wasn't chosen by the reviewers in this case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what went wrong is that you proposed an edit that explicitly ran counter to the stated intent of the author, and what went right is that it was rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="1337bb8f-03e7-4e98-a12b-c5953d4ba40a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="So I asked the question:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/314626/thought-experiment-ultra-fast-outward-push-inside-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there was a conversation I was having with one of the answerers (it didn't resolve my question but I wanted to read it all as there seemed to be some good substance there). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before I got a chance to see the response to my comment it was deleted. I googled around (and i admit I might be dumb) but I can't seem to find a way to see the deleted answer without a moderator's help as i'm below 10K rep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do? OR would one of the moderators be able to send an image of the answer + comment stream?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="f4b5a82f-50fa-4d00-bd03-d0dccc095f9f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="From PersonArtPhoto's [answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/169222/184688) on the Meta Stack Exchange question linked to in the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The benefits of being a moderator:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A huge say in the direction of a site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Access to the site views.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The ability to choose an organization of a list of a few to receive $100 once a year from Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. More direct access to the Stack Exchange employees.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That warm fuzzy feeling of making a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Access to the Teacher's Lounge, a chat room for moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Once in a blue moon, SE will hire one of the community moderators as &quot;Community Managers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As has been noted, SE staff also has access, who do get paid. But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are some 200+ (Maybe even more?) moderators, including myself,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who don't receive a dime for their services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it needs to be said explicitly, [moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) do not receive any financial compensation for their activities on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="7c896434-c946-429a-8e01-9a05f97e3000" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Bounties are well explained in the help center, both [in their own page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) and on [the set bounties privilege page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/set-bounties). It's not quite clear exactly what it is you're asking but here are some points to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can have up to three bounties active at any given time on each SE site.&#xD;&#xA; - You must wait at least 24 hours before you award a bounty.&#xD;&#xA; - If you have three bounties active, you can offer a new one as soon as you award one of the active ones.&#xD;&#xA; - You can have each bounty active for up to seven days.&#xD;&#xA; - You cannot edit the bounty message after you have posted it.&#xD;&#xA; - Of course, you can add any number of comments on the question, unless the bounty brings you under [50 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) and the question isn't yours.&#xD;&#xA; - Any reputation you offer on a bounty is lost forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, this and many of your recent questions can be answered much more quickly by having a good look in the [**Help Center**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) and in [**Meta Stack Exchange**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) (i.e. the site-wide meta, where pretty much any question you may have about the workings of the site has already been asked). I don't want to discourage you from asking questions here on Meta - believe me, we do notice and appreciate it when newcomers make an effort to figure out the rules of the game, and we're here to help you figure them out. However, more often than not you'll get your answer faster by learning to use the resources that are already there than by waiting for us to see your posts and respond ;-). For small questions like this, it is also worth checking if there's anyone in [the chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) who can help - it's also faster than Meta, and it's easier for us to figure out exactly what it is you're asking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7421" RevisionGUID="79022285-616f-4bcf-9ee9-e77787e72713" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my opinion, in this discussion there is too much focus on the &quot;question&quot; and not enough on the &quot;value of the question plus the answer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the goal of the site is to be a &quot;resource&quot; to all serious students of physics, we need to make sure that the question-plus-answer becomes something of lasting value. &quot;I need an answer to this homework question before 8 am tomorrow&quot; is always a bad start to a question - but if the homework question is in itself interesting enough, the solution to that problem may have some lasting value. I have learnt quite a lot from answering such questions myself; for example, answering [this question about a ball rolling down a slope](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/165453/26969) clarified some concepts for me - so although the question was closed as &quot;homework-like&quot;, I have actually referred back to the analysis a number of times in my answers to other questions (not all of which were homework-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second example, when I thought about the [recent question about the frequency response of vinyl records](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229076/26969) I discovered some interesting relationships regarding distortion of a vinyl recording as a function of signal amplitude, track velocity, frequency of the signal, and radius of the stylus. That particular question was closed as &quot;engineering&quot;, when in factI think that such analysis, while it is &quot;application of science&quot;, is a nice demonstration of the power of physics-based reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be an outlier in this - but when I answer questions, I do it for my own benefit and that of the community, and not just for the OP. And that's the perspective I would encourage us all to use when we consider how to apply the close vote. That doesn't mean we should feed the lazy students solutions - but I, for one, am willing (perhaps more than others) to answer questions that have an &quot;interesting&quot; angle to them. Where &quot;interesting&quot; is of course a very personal judgment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="fd416929-d27c-42ab-b991-d3bdb6f4194c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider the following chain of questions, presented in chronological order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshifting of Light and the expansion of the universe][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Have red shifted photons lost energy and where did it go?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Do photons lose energy due to gravitational redshift? If so, where does the lost energy go?][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Redshift due to a static gravitational field and the conservation of energy][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second was marked a duplicate of the first, and the third a duplicate of the second. Now the fourth is being voted closed as a duplicate of the third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree the fourth is a duplicate of the third, as both ask about *gravitational* redshift. The first, however, asks about *cosmological* redshift. These are quite different, and indeed the asker for the latest questions points out that the cries of &quot;Noether doesn't apply&quot; in response to the earliest question are just wrong in this newest context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link is the second question, and to be honest I don't know whether it is about gravitational or cosmological redshift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a general flaw in the system, but I'm not sure what the fix is. Two options come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Just ignore this condition. If we close *A* as a duplicate of *B* and *B* as a duplicate of *C*, then even if *A* is not really a duplicate of *C*, they'll be related enough that the person can piece together an answer on their own. Besides, *B* usually accumulated *B*-specific answers before being closed, and these probably answer *A*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Restrict ourselves to only marking *exact* duplicates (in concept if not in words). (I feel the word &quot;exact&quot; used to be here in this context, but I can  no longer find it.) I have anecdotally noticed over the years that as we experienced users see more and more questions, we are more likely to see *similarities* to other questions, and are perhaps a bit quick with declaring questions to be duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do people think? Is there something wrong here? What can we do to fix it? See also [Liberal definition of duplicate questions and the health of physics stack exchange.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/21603&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/172854&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/229520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7472" RevisionGUID="fec9afdf-866c-46aa-b9ef-d049723fac19" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A somewhat late answer, but it occurs to me that there are circumstances where doing a calculation in an answer may be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sometimes see questions that don't ask *do this calculation* but rather *how is this calculation done?* i.e. what are the concepts behind the calculation? For example look at my answer to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36167/does-juggling-balls-reduce-the-total-weight-of-the-juggler-and-balls in which I basically just do a calculation. If the OP had asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Prove you can't cross the bridge by juggling the balls blah blah&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it would have been closed as homework and closed, and my answer (with 89 upvotes!!) would never have been posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that I've written quite a few answers like this i.e. answers that are basically just calculations but their value lies in showing how the calculation is done. I imagine most of us would agree this is a fair way to answer, but it feels as though there is a resistance to any answers that are essentially just calculations and I wouldn't want to be prevented from answering in this way in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="222e6237-abd7-4d43-99f1-62062607ac7c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have searched meta questions, but I find nothing about what is necessary to do to have the yellow *This question may already have an answer here* text removed from one's post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has appeared at the top of [this recent question][1] of mine with a link to [an answer][2], which I have studied and understood, to [a question][3], which is also mine (notwithstanding the fact that I am not a teenage student, but an adult worker wishing to study physics and mathematics just for love of these sciences, I am not so old as to forget a question I asked one month ago), which is blatantly different from my new question, as it is clear from the very title, although both relates to the derivation of Ampère's law from the Biot-Savart one, the older question in the case of a linear distribution of current, and the newer in the case of a tridimensional distribution of current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were possible to generalise a proof for the case of the linear distribution to the case of the tridimensional distribution, such a generalisation should be proved, and could even constitute an answer, but, unless such a generalisation is produced, I wonder how can my new question be considered a duplicate...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to contact the moderators by flagging my question and explaining the issue, but I suspect that something has not worked, since I honestly do not think that a moderator, or any other person, having fully read the two posts or even only their titles, would ever think that the two posts are duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue constitutes a problem for me because I have even been told [in a comment][4] that the words I had added at the top of my post (which were *This question focusses on the tridimensional distribution of current, different from the case discussed in another post of mine, whose answer relates to a linear distribution where* **B**(**x**) = [...] *is a line integral. I wrote it from the very beginning - and it also is definitely clear even from the very title - but it did not prevent the appearing of a &quot;duplicate&quot; message above*) were a distraction keeping answerers away, but I frankly have to admit that I fear that the *This question may already have an answer here* warning may keep potential answerer away even more than the text I had written before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/rigorous-proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227477/amp%C3%A8res-law-from-biot-savart-law-for-linear-currents-with-multivariate-calculus/227557#227557&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227477/amp%C3%A8res-law-from-biot-savart-law-for-linear-currents-with-multivariate-calculus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234360/rigorous-proof-of-amp%C3%A8res-law-from-the-biot-savart-law#comment512016_234360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="8b1180a0-5ec8-450e-879d-537468bf87fe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The context is the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242632/84895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title stays, this got a lot of downvotes and got put on hold while receiving just rude comments that don't take my post seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it that way? I was serious with the post, tried to pretty much express what is my motivation about asking, and what aspects I'm referring to, but all this got ignored in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it the style in which I wrote? Or is the question at all just off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="56d4ed15-dbbc-43a5-b346-235a3b3bd66c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that high amount of Low Quality posts are preventing to use much time for each review tasks, and thus produces a deleting habit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what is the point of closing/deleting posts, which has even received a bounty?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ie. this answer of me received even a Bounty; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75222/where-does-gravity-get-its-energy-from/238804#238804 &#xD;&#xA;...but it was still deleted! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Answer received also the Bounty; https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234697/how-can-a-bowling-ball-curve-in-both-directions/241137#241137 &#xD;&#xA;... it's also down voted and is proposed to be deleted, at the Comments is said; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This does not provide an answer to the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the person who asked, even provided me a Bounty for my answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I think the main problem is that some actively moderating persons are just down voting and closing questions in &quot;Facebook-style&quot;; 5 sec preview and Thumb up/down.** I noticed this behaviour clearly in this deleted question; [Mysterious temperatures of Mimas?][1] where every one can see through it's comments how difficult it might sometime's be. The Question might got closed just because it used the word &quot;mysterious&quot; in it's title, though this was a direct phrasing used in the original source of the explaining picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Text from question; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 3 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;But why conductivity should vary so dramatically across the surface of Mimas is a mystery.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment 5 from me; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;@CuriousOne &quot;What is the physical explanation for dramatical conductivity variations across the surface of Mimas?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then suddenly, when the word &quot;Mystery&quot; is away; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why didn't you make THAT your question in the first place... – CuriousOne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that this [&quot;CuriousOne&quot;][2] haven't ever asked a single question by himself. With this I don't want to attack against the persons of moderation, but it seems that there should be some mechanism to prevent this &quot;Facebook-like&quot; dalmatian-species-specific-moderation-style to reproduce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of the problematic I have talked before; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7336/can-we-stop-closing-questions-as-unclear-what-you-are-asking-for-ops-above-cer  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own deleted-examples about this &quot;Unclear what you are asking&quot; problem;  &#xD;&#xA;[Capillarity, QED explanation?][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[Physics of craters in moons?][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Also [this question][5] is rather &quot;unclear&quot; than &quot;not Mainstream.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;Unclears&quot; are also about to be Deleted;  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240979/why-in-thermosphere-is-he-and-o-divided-as-measured/241007#241007  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227542/how-is-it-possible-that-thermosphere-can-maintain-so-much-heat  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225721/numerical-model-for-a-air-core-vortex-why-its-still-so-limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question;**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Should it be prevented to close/delete posts which has received a bounty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should it be more limited for a single person to give &quot;unclear-close-votes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Should it be more limited for a single person mark questions as a &quot;Low quality posts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240766/mysterious-temperatures-of-mimas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56997/curiousone&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240602/capillarity-qed-explanation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240840/physics-of-craters-in-moons-planets-only-impact-or-is-there-other-explanations&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241012/neutron-electron-and-proton-mass-dark-matter-and-dark-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="b62837ab-8492-42f2-b531-7fb900297ec9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've recently had John Rennie asking &quot;canonical&quot; questions which he's answered himself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time, does it flow, and if so what defines its direction?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235511/what-is-time-does-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is time dilation really?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He says his answers are intended to be definitive and authoritative, and that he [welcomes comments]( https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time/7514#7514). But he doesn’t. He said [&quot;why not post your view as an answer?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/235512/76162) but he deleted my point-by-point view without discussion. There were also polite but challenging comments from another poster, followed by John Rennie saying &quot;let's continue this in chat&quot;, but now those comments have vanished without trace. And more importantly, those &quot;definitive&quot;, &quot;authoritative&quot; answers are not correct. Time really isn't &quot;just a coordinate&quot;. A clock really isn't something that &quot;measures distances&quot;. The resolution to the twins paradox really isn't &quot;the metric you use to do the calculation is not the same as the metric I use to do the calculation&quot;. Whilst those answers have received an awful lot of upvotes, I must point out that science is not a democracy. All the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all , I think this canonical sort of thing is fraught with problems. It's the sort of thing that will harm physics stack exchange by saddling it with bad-science lies-to-children answers that can’t be corrected. It is in essence saying “mine is the right answer and all other answers aren’t worth looking at”. It’s imposing an orthodoxy, and it’s the sort of hubristic mindset that gets in the way of scientific progress. It’s more suited to a medieval theocracy than 21st Century physics. IMHO there's already problems with closevotes wherein the alleged duplicate isn't really a duplicate, and/or all the answers are wrong, and/or the closevoter is the author of one of them. This is only going to make it worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think we should discourage &quot;canonical&quot; questions with &quot;canonical&quot; answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="bbc3daad-d16b-43f8-b8da-fd8d36a9fd93" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="We have always had canonical questions/answers, it’s just that until [Danu’s post][1] here in the Meta we didn’t call them canonical. A canonical question/answer is one where the question is so apposite and the answer so clearly explained it ends up being cited many times. Sorting the questions by votes will quickly reveal many such questions. My own favourites include (to list just a few):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47379/what-is-the-weight-equation-through-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53802/what-is-delta-t-in-the-time-energy-uncertainty-principle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95366/why-does-stephen-hawking-say-black-holes-dont-exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though of course everyone will have their own favourites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the Physics SE isn’t a blog and shouldn’t be treated like one. If we all started writing what amounted to blog posts just because there was some subject that we found fascinating that would quickly alienate the site members. Setting out to deliberately write a canonical Q/A (as opposed to achieving it as a side effect, like the three examples above) is something that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I want to keep things general and avoid specific issues let’s take the three Q/As of mine that John mentions as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the most prolific poster of answers on this site (note that I’m claiming no special merit here, unless you regard fecundity as a virtue :-) I have seen lots and lots of questions and answers - I’ve probably at least glanced at every question on the site for the last five years. As a result I get a feel for when the same topic is being questioned again and again, and the question *What is time* in its various forms has been asked countless times. When this finally annoyed me once too often I posted on the Meta asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7431/canonical-question-about-the-flow-of-time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and got the general impression that a deliberate attempt at a canonical Q/A would be well received. Even then it took me a month to decide how best to write one. So this was not a spur of the moment impulse because I was bored. It was a considered decision based on consultation. In the end I wrote three questions, but they’re all one Q/A really - I just split them into three to make them more digestible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not my three recent Q/As are a long term benefit to this community remains to be seen. I’ve already used them several times as duplicates, or I’ve posted them in comments as a related question, but I haven’t attempted to analyse how many times others have linked them. They have ended up with a middling number of upvotes, but as John says the number of upvotes is a poor guide to quality, especially when a question makes the Hot Questions list as at least one of mine did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the question of canonical Q/As is broader than just the three questions mentioned in John’s question. I have linked my three favourite Q/As mentioned above many, many times, and the site would be a considerably poorer place without them. But of course those questions weren’t deliberately posted to be canonical, they just happened to hit the target, and I think the crux of John’s question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Should site members deliberately post questions and answers intended to be canonical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps surprisingly my answer to this is that no they should not. Just because a subject seems interesting to you is no guarantee that it will be interesting to anyone else, and no guarantee that an attempted canonical Q/A on the subject will be useful. You should at the very least discuss it in the Meta before posting, and perhaps bring it up at the fortnightly physics chats before setting pen to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, and again this is a general point although I’ll address the specific issue of the Q/As mentioned by John. Posting a canonical question and answer does not mean no-one else can answer the question. Indeed, there are frequently many different perspectives on a complicated issue and ideally a canonical question will attract answers from several site members who want to post different perspectives. Indeed this is what has happened with all three of the questions that John mentions. Naturally I think my own answers are the best :-), and they have attracted the most upvotes, but anyone add their own answer if they think they can do a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060/do-we-want-and-need-a-set-of-canonical-questions-with-canonical-answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="afeb82c7-1aa6-4be4-b01c-133bf5013392" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that users of physics.SE (new and/or old) can't curb their need to ask for resources based on [this question][1] (based on the tag), as explained [herein][2]. However, many users still ask questions which are duplicate. For example, [this thread][3]. So, would it be possible to create a new tag so as to open the Book recommendation FAQ (after necessary edits), so that it could be linked/suggested to users who might ask duplicate questions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/Or, can we have a library feature/tab added somewhere at physics.SE which comes to the immediate notice of most users, if not all (i.e., as soon as they open physics.SE w/o login in/signing up, and which should not come off as an ad or notification, but can be viewed all the time)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the library feature/tab, the book FAQ list can be added along with other repositories of physics, such as a/an list/FAQ of legally available lecture notes on the WWW domain which can be deemed off as standard/good, as well as a/an list/FAQ of video lectures on physics from numerous universities (and their video archives). The lists can be maintained by moderators as well as reviewers or those who have one thousand reputation (or above), and it may be able to stop the &quot;abuse&quot; of the tag &quot;resource-recommendation&quot; as well as build a library of sorts for physics.SE which would, in turn, benefit many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I also noticed that the Book recommendation FAQ of physics.SE is missing references to discussions on book requests for special relativity. Although I couldn't find many questions asking for books on SR, I found [this thread][4] which should be linked in the Book recommendation FAQ (in future after necessary edits, if at all), IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/do-we-need-want-an-overarching-books-question&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/245821/what-is-a-good-primer-on-the-subject-of-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95609/textbook-on-the-geometry-of-special-relativity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="d918cdab-0157-43b2-9775-5f6a694df5c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not sure if this will be a coherent answer, but let me comment on some points here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] it should help the site remain an open forum, where reasonable questions about physics can be asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are [not a forum](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92110/263383). The intent is *not* to facilitate discussion. The intent is to provide a place where *specific questions with clear answers* can be asked, and where every response should be an attempt at answering the question posed (answers) or an attempt to clarify  or add to the question (comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that things posted as question which cannot conceivably have an objectively correct answer are not a good fit for the site. no matter whether they actually are about physics or not. This might incur closing as *too broad* or *unclear what you're asking*, but it might also draw a custom close reason where the close voter more specifically addresses the question (usually detectable by the stock phase *&quot;I am voting to close this question as off-topic because&quot;* at the beginning), which, if chosen as the main close reason, will mark the question as &quot;off-topic&quot;, even if the custom close reason gives a reason that is not, strictly speaking, saying it is *off-topic* in the sense that it is not about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] I simply can not understand why closing them is any good for the site[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**What is &quot;closing as off-topic&quot; intended for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main (and arguably sole) purpose of closing a question is to declare that it is not welcome here. Closing a question prohibits adding further answers, and is meant to *discourage the asking of similar questions* by communicating to everyone that such questions do not, in the view of the &quot;community&quot;, belong here. It is crucial to realize that this is *not* necessarily saying the question is not about physics, or that it is a stupid question. It's saying that *we* do not want this question *here*. Physics.SE is intended to cover a broad range of physics, but the intent is expressly not to answer everything that has some connection to physics and ends with a question mark. Being somehow about physics is a *necessary*, but not *sufficient* condition for being on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now &quot;community&quot; there is a rather nebulous term, and might arguably *not* necessarily reflect a majority position: A question is closed when five close votes are cast on it. To not let five users decide the status of a question forever, five reopen votes will reopen a question. Both types of votes are available to all users with more than 3000 reputation, and the first instance of such a vote will send a question into the corresponding [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Three &quot;Leave Open&quot; votes in the close queue will remove a question from the queue, and three &quot;Leave Closed&quot; votes will remove it from the reopen queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, also addressing your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a]nd why when in doubt is the decision not necessarily for the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the &quot;when in doubt&quot; case seems rather well-handled to me: Closing and reopening is a perfectly symmetric process, no bias is made either way, and in the case of a 50:50 split of votes, the process defaults to the status quo. The reason for not generically being in favour of questions staying open is simply the signal-to-noise ratio. The primary purpose of the site is to provide a knowledge base of precise questions with precise answers. Leaving open all borderline questions just tends to drown out all the *really good ones*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One further thing I'd like to mention is that I of course realize that bad questions that pollute the site have to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the entire reason we have repeated and lengthy debates on meta about e.g. the [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) is that users simply have differing opinions on what constitutes a &quot;bad&quot; question that &quot;pollutes&quot; the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unfortunately I can't make a more complete list of these kinds of questions because I can't figure out how to search for closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search for closed questions, simply add a `closed:yes` to your search query. To access a more comprehensive list of such search modifiers, click on `Advanced Search Tips` to the right of the [search interface](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The review queues are the most direct and most powerful way in which *we, the users* can shape this site. Use them! Don't only go there when you see a question you really like and want to stay open, go there *whenever you find the time*! The more users participate in reviews, the better the average results of the review queue will reflect the actual average opinion of the users here. I keep hitting my maximum daily amount of close reviews - which indicates to me that there is a less-than-ideal number of users doing those reviews. The closing and editing and reopening of questions does not happen by some miracle algorithm, it happens through us individual users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="ae27497c-6104-4535-976a-1cb23dc502cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Lately I've noticed **a lot** of close votes, down votes, and comments to the effect of &quot;this question is too low level&quot; or &quot;the answer is on the internet if you search for it&quot; or &quot;you should already know this.&quot; And those are just my attempt at rephrasing things in a more friendly way. This isn't from one user either, but rather from many (sometimes it seems like most) of the active reviewers on the site. Some recent examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Is there a weak magnetic field, coming forth from particles with a weak charge?][1]&#xD;&#xA;  - [How are thermometers calibrated?][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Problem understanding energy of a electric field][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are we trying to accomplish? I don't think this was ever satisfactorily addressed [the last time this issue was raised][4]. Indeed there's hardly any consensus this should even be a valid close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is just about trying to keep things at a high enough level&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; But the more I see these comments the more it seems each high-rep user's threshold is nothing more or less than the boundary between what they can trivially answer and what they can't. Should I really vote to close questions on the basis that I know how to answer them off the top of my head?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular form this takes is closing because the question is &quot;based on a misconception.&quot; What questions aren't, though? Either the person has a misconception (and a valid answer is &quot;this is your misconception&quot;!), or else they just haven't worked everything out yet (so we would close as homework).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next thought is that we're trying to not duplicate Wikipedia or other standard references. I agree we shouldn't try to match Wikipedia in *general-purpose, expository* articles, given they've been refining those articles with an order of magnitude more contributors for many years. But I question how much physics is left for us to do that can't be *derived* and *applied* from the information in Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure just about every one of the 502 answers I've written could be replicated with nothing more than access to Wikipedia. In fact, 207 of those answers explicitly link to the relevant Wikipedia articles.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Should I go back and vote to close all those questions? After all, I doubt more than 10 answers of mine display anything more than a bachelor's level of physics knowledge (if anyone disagrees, I challenge you to give me a list of 11 such answers). And where does it end? If the world's leading expert in X is on the site, is that person obligated to close all questions about X since they would all appear trivial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all comes down to these key questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What does &quot;insufficient effort&quot; mean to the community?&#xD;&#xA;  - Is there some level of insufficient effort that warrants *closure* (as opposed to, say, downvoting)?&#xD;&#xA;  - If yes, what *objective* guidelines should we have on the issue? Given the many orders of magnitude difference in expertise here between different users in different topics, any guideline based on individuals' feelings is decidedly not useful, without at the very least some reduction criterion (&quot;this is trivial for everyone&quot; and &quot;this is trivial for at least one person&quot; are objective; &quot;this is trivial for *me*&quot; is not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a philosophical bonus, given how every meta discussion about scope always seems to be about *bad* questions, I'll add two more discussion points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the ideal question here, one that everyone agrees is great?&#xD;&#xA;  - If the above exists, are we obligated to close anything falling short of the ideal? Must we be at the extremal tip of the generality-quality curve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Separate but related issue: We have neither a policy nor a notification to users about how advanced a topic must be to be allowed on the site, either in absolute terms or relative to our perceptions of where questioners should be in their education. I **strongly** suggest those who keep voting to close for such reasons should formalize this notion and **get consensus from the community**. I for one won't vote to close based on an entirely undocumented reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Get a list of all answers with Wikipedia links made by a given user with [this script][5]. It probably misses some, for example links to other language pages or to explicit mobile pages.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Explicit mobile links (e.g. `en.m.wikipedia.org`) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259404/is-there-a-weak-magnetic-field-coming-forth-from-particles-with-a-weak-charge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259430/how-are-thermometers-calibrated&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/260886/problem-understanding-energy-of-a-electric-field&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6001/closing-insufficient-effort-questions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/495383/answers-with-references-to-wikipedia-by-user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="bfd7151e-860e-4a27-a6ab-0eac5a4252f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question might be directed at me.  I cast a lot of down-votes because of insufficient research effort, including both the thermometer calibration and the electric field energy questions which you quote. So I dispute John Rennie's claim to be the leading exponent in this field! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not offended.  Debate is good.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reason for down-voting is not elitism, but because detailed answers to many fact-finding questions like the thermometer calibration question are already available on the internet (eg http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/358), and I think it is pointless for PSE to duplicate such resources.  In this question the OP demonstrates no research effort at all and gives the impression of casual curiosity.  (&quot;...This is quite vague, but I was just thinking about it...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric field energy question the OP says he has just started studying EM and &quot;just read what some books call the energy OF a electric field.&quot;  However, he does not question what these books say - which would be reasonable.  Some explanation is very likely to be there later in the textbooks.  But instead of reading further or researching, or discussing with classmates, or asking his teacher, the OP prematurely asks PSE to explain it to him, probably because that is the easiest option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression I get is that such OPs are using PSE to avoid doing their own research or thinking.  They would prefer that somebody else took the trouble to find relevant sources, filter out what is relevant to their interests, and spoon-feed them the answers.  This does not encourage them to become good scientists, and in my opinion should be discouraged.  If it is bad to provide detailed calculations for &quot;homework-like&quot; questions which the OP could do for himself, it must also be bad to provide detailed answers to requests for factual information which the OP could easily find for himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always provide a comment to challenge the OP to reveal what research he/she has done.  That is a positive response, not a negative one.  Nobody should be in science who takes criticism personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with a lot of what John Rennie says.  Lazy and ill-motivated questions should be actively deterred (eg &quot;I was wondering, what would happen if...?&quot;).  Unlike John I don't have rep to cast closing votes, so I down-vote instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I agree that (probably) no objective criterion can be devised for what is &quot;insufficient research effort&quot;.  However, I suggest that questions could be entered into a template which includes fields which ask (inter alia) eg &quot;What effort have you made to find an answer before posting on PSE?&quot;  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it should remind OPs what is expected of them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have absolutely no problem with &quot;low level&quot; questions.  I've enjoyed several elementary questions which are surprisingly difficult to answer and therefore instructive for me also.  My beef, like John's, is with laziness, regardless of level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You allude to high-rep members voting to close elementary questions. I agree that something like that is happening.  Many questions which I have found interesting, and which have shown genuine effort (eg https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254485, &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246253), have been closed unreasonably (in my opinion), mainly because they are superficially &quot;homework-like&quot;.  And conversely, many questions which obviously (to me) show little or no effort (such as the thermometer question), or are frivolous or speculative (such as https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/259426), are not closed off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I can see, the criteria mentioned in the PSE policy statements, and cited in the reasons for closure, are not being applied consistently.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="04696998-4aa6-46d2-ad00-ea67cfb19f89" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to know if it's still being updated, the [edit history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/12176/revisions) will tell you what's been going on there lately. There's some activity there, but really not that much compared to the activity of the tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've advocated before, the overall books question is of rather limited utility when compared to the site's advanced search features. If you're looking for highly-upvoted questions about topic X in the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag, then [you can simply search for topic X in conjunction with the [resource-recommendations] syntax, and order by votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=topic+X+%5Bresource-recommendations%5D). It's not immediately as useful as the overarching books question - you do need to adjust your search to what you're looking or browsing for - but with some search-fu you can get a lot of good stuff that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the searches don't get you a curated list of recommendation questions. The reason for this is that there hasn't been enough interest from the community in *curating* such a list. The tag itself takes a fair amount of work to curate (as per the [site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/)) and it took ages to bring the old posts in line with the new policy (which I think is mostly done now?). However, there haven't been any volunteers to commit time to the upkeep of that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that were to change, though, I don't think anyone would mind much, at least at the start (particularly provided that the edits to the overarching question are relatively infrequent, so it's not on the front page *all* the time). So if you, or someone else, wants to dig in and make that list answer better - go for it, it's a community project. Just don't complain that the answer is being neglected if you're not personally willing to take charge of its maintenance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="7ce7634c-1702-4149-83c3-862e80f07d1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8861/acceptance-of-an-answer) identified a grammatically incorrect phrase in the [What does it mean when an answer is &quot;accepted&quot;?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer) help center page. (Note: This particular page appears to be used across the stackexchange network. The problem is endemic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, there's no edit button that lets one propose a change to a Help Center page. In fact, from what I can see, there's no feedback mechanism, period. My question isn't about that particular page. It's more generic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is there a mechanism by which mere mortals can suggest improvements to Help Center pages*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="6c8c5e2b-0a7a-494d-bbb5-8ede5ef9b46c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question in question is: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265027/what-is-the-optimal-distance-to-sit-from-a-tv&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see how there are several issues with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could argue that it is **off-topic** because it does *not only* involve physics.&#xD;&#xA; - Some people commented that the question is **too broad**, which I can also understand partially. There may be a variety of answers to it based on different phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can *not* understand is how it is not clear what I am asking. The question is asking to explain an observation, and that observation is clear. Please explain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="a6ac2e82-def4-4f8c-adcd-b452d5239077" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed some answers that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* have nothing or little to do with the question;&#xD;&#xA;* include an undisclosed link to a paper that is either by the answer’s author or particularly liked by the answer’s author – as evidenced by their profile and number of links (22) to that paper in other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take the current wording of the spam flag (“Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.”) literally, these answers are not spam as they do not promote a product or service.&#xD;&#xA;However, they clearly abuse this site for publicity, which is more or less what the spam flag is about. [(In the old wording of the spam flag, these answers were spam.)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/256602/255554)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I flagged some of these answers as spam either with the spam flag or a custom flag for explanation. In one case the flag was declined, while in the other case the flags were marked helpful, but the respective post was not deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should posts that meet the criteria for spam (exist only for promotion; no disclosure) with the exception that they advertise a paper (instead of a product or service) be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If yes, how should those posts be flagged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note that I intentionally did not include links to the respective post to avoid publicly shaming anybody. Moderators can obtain them from [my recent flag history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/36360).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="fb6e05c6-3099-4af0-9c1d-159bf5f55275" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If I understand correctly, you're asking why you can't delete [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/268192/) (which you identified in the comments). The reason is that you have accepted an answer. A question with an accepted answer cannot be deleted (except by moderators). However, you can unaccept the answer, which then may allow you to delete the question. (If there is an answer which has received an upvote - note, this is not the same as having a positive score - you still can't delete the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full description of when an answer can be deleted or not is [in the FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="fdf9e5af-65f8-458b-a4a4-6ecd001e18cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="([related PSE post][1], [related VLQ review entity][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][3] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision by clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not disciplining.* We can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as we can, but most of us can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][4] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="f8b9bc13-f349-4427-ac4f-86d80ac32181" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had been faced with this several times before. But this time I decide to ask it in a Meta post. I typed this phrase in the search box of the PSE: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;What is the field in the physics really?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the results [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [question with exactly similar title][2] is the seventh one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I typed the same phrase in the Google search box. You can see the results [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the same question with exactly similar title belong to PSE is the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why does Google search PSE's own pages, better than itself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=What%20is%20the%20field%20in%20the%20physics%20really%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13157/what-is-a-field-really&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=What%20is%20the%20field%20in%20the%20physics%20really%3F&amp;rlz=1C1RLNS_enIR698IR698&amp;oq=What%20is%20the%20field%20in%20the%20physics%20really%3F&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.1802j0j8&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="49ae09a8-85ef-4e2d-855b-c9757df446b3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 12 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="be75233e-fb59-4af4-980b-7b0caab3d38a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've had a recurring problem when writing answers: a massive lag between typing and seeing the text appear. It got unbearable for [this][1] question, probably due to the enormous length of the answers and the many formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this is a problem with my system (I use Mac OS and Safari is my browser... so yeah, the trouble could well originate there ;) ). If other people are experiencing this issue too, I think it should definitely be fixed (if that's the case maybe ask on main meta site?). It severely impedes the writing of answers, I had to pre-write my answer in a text document and copy it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266261/trouble-reconciling-doppler-shift-for-energy-and-momentum-of-light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="63def576-295c-43ef-8aa0-cd0f92ac292f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've just voted to close &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270930/relativity-and-time-dilation&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;, which I will slightly paraphrase because I'm sure it will soon be deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know in simple words why time slows down and lengths change when I am in my private rocket traveling near the speed of light.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I think that almost everyone will agree this should be closed, it's not so clear which of the close reasons to choose.  (In fact, I ended up choosing one pretty much arbitrarily and no longer remember what it was.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this question is a duplicate many times over, but I can't choose  that reason without pointing to a specific prior question, which I'd rather not do, partly because I don't want to spend time hunting up that question and more importantly because I don't want to send a message that posters who can't be bothered doing their own searches can post questions like this and expect others to do their searching for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not really unclear what's being asked.  &quot;Too broad&quot; and &quot;primarily opinion based&quot; don't seem to fit.  That leaves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's pretty good, but unfortunately I can't choose it without choosing a sub-reason.  And none of those sub-reasons seems to fit.  This is not a homework-like question, it's not about engineering, and it doesn't (to my knowledge) belong on another site on the Stack Exchange network.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it non-mainstream physics?  Well, sort of, in the sense that it seems to confuse a &quot;change in (proper?) length&quot; with a change in the assignment of coordinates, but I think there is a difference between being non-mainstream and being a little confused.  Besides, there are many other questions at about this level which are even more mainstream than this one, but still equally in need of closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves me with the option of formulating a custom close reason, which requires a little extra effort on my part --- all the more so because that custom close reason automatically becomes publicly visible as a comment, so that although all I want to do is cast a close vote and move on, I feel like I need to spend an extra minute or so making sure my comment is fit for public consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this and other such questions, I would be much happier if it were possible to close with the reason &quot;This question does not appear to be about physics as defined in the help center&quot;, where it is stated upfront that this site is for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me close by saying that we get a lot of questions at this level, some of which show more thought  than this one does (e.g. the questions that arise periodically where someone has actually given some thought to what it would be like to ride on a light wave, has discovered an apparent paradox, and wants to know how to resolve it).  I think it's important to discourage such posts without discouraging the spirit of inquiry that lies behind them.  Telling people that they are engaged in &quot;non-mainstream physics&quot; is, I think, likely to be perceived as disparaging --- which is doubly unfortunate because thought-experiments like this &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; mainstream physics.  (Yes, these thought-experiments have already been done and other people know the results, but naively repeating someone else's experiment---thought or otherwise---is still mainstream physics.)  So I don't want to choose that option, but I do want to dispose of these posts quickly and effectively, and &quot;not within the scope of the site&quot; seems like a far better option than &quot;non-mainstream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 1:&lt;/b&gt;  Can we please be given the option of closing as &quot;Not within the scope...as defined in the help center&quot;, without having to choose or formulate a sub-reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 2:&lt;/b&gt;  Does someone have a better suggestion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add:&lt;/b&gt;  Some have responded that &quot;Too Broad&quot; fits this question perfectly.   Whether or not that is the case, it does not dispose of the general issue.  What about questions of the form &quot;I imagined myself riding on a lightbeam, and I don't see how I can square the obvious consequences with the fact that the speed of light is supposed to be invariant&quot;?  This is (I think) far too specfic to be &quot;Too Broad&quot;, far too honest an effort to think things through from first principles to be &quot;Non-Mainstream&quot;, and a bad fit for all the others too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add further:&lt;/b&gt;  I've just noticed that moderators already have access to the exact close reason I'm asking for, for example &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271022/ideal-coin-toss-experiment-do-previous-trials-affect-the-outcome-of-future-tria&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Apparently someone thought it was a good idea for moderators to have this option, and apparently at least one moderator thinks it's a good idea to use it.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="784dc7f6-4ef9-4064-a55c-b9f107be345f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would have closed it as a duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241772/what-is-time-dilation-really&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question seems as close to an exact duplicate as one could ask, the only caveat being the request in the original question for *in simple words*. But then there is a limit to how simple an explanation can be made before it becomes meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I can't choose that reason without pointing to a specific prior question, which I'd rather not do, partly because I don't want to spend time hunting up that question and more importantly because I don't want to send a message that posters who can't be bothered doing their own searches can post questions like this and expect others to do their searching for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but taking the time and effort to do this is an important part of managing the site. The SE policy is that duplicates are valuable signposts that point visitors to the (hopefully) definitive answer. That is, the duplicates increase the likelyhood of a search finding a relevant question. So if you want to help make the site a better place then I'm afraid the search for duplicates is an essential part of the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="827e84f8-9a06-4dd6-a497-e361edd6a029" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you see an answer with a net score of zero, it means one of three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not enough people saw the answer to read it, let alone vote.&#xD;&#xA; - People read it, but thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *bad*, but it isn't good enough to warrant an upvote.&quot; Alternatively, they might have thought, &quot;Meh, this isn't *good*, but it isn't bad enough for me to downvote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - There were an equal number of upvotes and downvotes on the answer (you can see the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes [at 1,000 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/established-user)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first possibility, I'd guess, happens quite a lot. The answerer may have been &quot;late to the party&quot;, so to speak, and answered long after the question was asked, or the answer was simply overshadowed by other answers that accumulated a lot of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second possibility simply means that the answer wasn't good or bad. (Yes, people are generally more willing to upvote than dowvote, which is why I included a caveat: some people won't want to give up one rep point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third possibility means that the answer was controversial; this does happen, and means that people have quite strong views on it. If you check the vote count (once you reach 1,000 rep) and see that the voting's split, be wary, and read the comments under the answer to try to understand the disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using that as a segue, you really should judge for yourself the answer, if possible; always read the comments below it, and the answer itself in its entirety.  You shouldn't decide to &quot;trust&quot; or &quot;distrust&quot; an answer based solely on how other people have voted. Votes don't always correlate with quality; some of my best answers (in my opinion) have gotten very few or no votes, while some of my less good answers have gotten inordinate amounts of upvotes. This is often due to a question getting onto the [Hot Network Questions list](http://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot), as [knzhou pointed out](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/what-do-answers-with-zero-votes-mean#comment34213_9142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The takeaway? Judge for yourself. See if you can follow the logic of the answer, and ask questions of the answerer in a comment if you don't fully understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the main point is, can I trust zero vote answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treat/trust them no differently from one-vote, minus-one-vote, or X-vote answers: Judge them based on how well you can follow them. Don't choose to blindly trust them if you don't understand them; always investigate for yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="62840b7e-2cef-4f8b-add8-eedd3de1027d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="With a [moderator election](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3) looming it would be useful to hear from our current moderators how much the role affects their use of the site. Some obvious questions would be how many hours a day does it require, and what are are the day to day tasks you need to do in that time. However it would also be good to hear what it stops you doing. For example being a moderator means you cannot cast a non-binding close vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is to find out *how much would my life change if I became a moderator?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is already a meta post for [questions to ask candidates in the election](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9154/2016-moderator-election-qa-question-collection).&#xD;&#xA;This post is intended as a place to current moderators to record what they think is relevant information about how being a mod affects their use of the site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="99ec0aa7-219e-4e54-955e-b67ba56c1c61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have a user who is always the **first to close** and down vote most if not all my work if you can call it that. I do not want him on my stuff. I truly feel harassed even though he has not really broke any rules. I just want him to leave me and my stuff alone forever! What can I do?&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281831/could-a-levitron-work-above-earth&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="6828d06f-8c0f-47c2-9f80-5e3be239d7f9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was stimulated by comments in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9191/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user104372  commented in the aforementioned question: '.. opening downvote  caused a cascade of unjustified downvotes...'. I believe s/he makes a good point here and the same is true of close votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have asked more questions then most on this site&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and have always had the feeling that the way closed votes are used on this site is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a high rep user (&gt;2999 reps) reads a question I believe they should be making an independent decision, without preconceptions, about the quality of question&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And should only vote to close if and only if they would have done so without the knowledge of the actions of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current system this is hard to achieve since the high users are told the whether or not others have voted to close the question&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (e.g. `close (3)` and via the review queues). To me it feels that one close vote almost always leads to the eventual closer of a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary when it comes to 'reopen votes' it appears such 'a cascade' rarely happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's views on this? Is there any statistical evidence either way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/71706/who-asked-the-most-questions&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. I will be the first to admit that &lt;strike&gt;some&lt;/strike&gt; a lot of my questions are  poor and do/did deserve closing.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="b9faa01a-072d-4e5d-bb06-e0332883aa8b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [tpg2114's](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) questionnaire answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Side note -- thanks to [ACuriousMind's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9200/6634) post for being the first and setting a format)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of answers with mixed or negative scores, but still manages to get thousands of rep (because upvotes count much more than downvotes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand such users can, in mild cases, generate resentment about the way the system works, and in more serious cases, gain access to the tools awarded high-reputation users that may be inappropriately used and/or abused. The disparity between reputation for upvotes and downvotes is [a question I have raised previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4858/what-would-it-look-like-if-rep-for-questions-counted-the-same-more-than-answers) for discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion at the time resulted in something that I still believe is true: a majority of high reputation users are not doing it for the reputation. [They are doing it to educate others and to share their passion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/why-do-users-answer-questions/6568). So while some users may be able to game the system by producing mixed content, it will be relatively few. And I feel it would take a long time before they earned a high enough reputation to really do frustrating, site-harming levels of damage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long before that point, I would expect such users to either get bored or to mature to the point that it is no longer a problem. I don't think moderator intervention is required until actual damage is done, at which point the StackExchange platform and policies allow easy reversal of the damage and tools to remedy the situation with the user in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. As a moderator, what would be your highest priority between &quot;Growth of the site&quot; and &quot;Quality of the questions and answers of the site&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On some level, I challenge the premise of the question. I don't see that the two are diametrically opposed -- I believe the two go hand-in-hand. Quality questions and answers come from returning users, and the site grows by providing quality questions and answers so that users do return. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in that frame of reference, my focus would be on the **quality** of the site. By providing a wealth of information on a wide-variety of topics in physics, people will be driven to the site. And those who return will bring questions (and hopefully answers) that challenge and engage the users already here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, the role of a moderator in this process is relatively limited. Ultimately, moderators are an insignificant percentage of the content generators/handlers for the site -- the users must be engaged in quality and growth. To that end, as a moderator, my priority is ensuring that quality is maintained in a form that is welcoming and encouraging to users who want to be active participants in the goals of the site. Contrary to many of the debates the site has had previously, quality and friendliness are not opposites; rudeness is not required to communicate one's point effectively. This is, of course, balanced by the limited content length in comments (this is not a forum, after all) and the impersonal nature of the internet that may lead one to feel things are more personal and rude than they actually are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. For some moderator actions, the current mods wait for a consensus from the whole group before taking the action. We have varying preferences about when to do this and when to just take action directly without checking with others. Which mod actions would you wait for consensus on, and which ones would you just do without checking? If you're not sure about a certain action, are you more likely to be conservative and wait for consensus, or be proactive and just do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consensus is essential when there is uncertainty. Or at the very least, advice and guidance from those with more experience is essential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some actions create obvious situations where action must be taken. I can't enumerate a list here, but I will paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ([read about the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio)) and Lord-Justice Stuart-Smith ([the so-called Elephant Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test#Elephant_test)) -- I'll know it when I see it. Spam, derogatory and offensive language, threats, etc. are all obvious and require immediate action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle topics, particularly those involving returning users, require some discussion and consensus building. Particularly because it may be a one-off instance or it may be a repeat problem, something that a new moderator (or even an existing one) may not be aware of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **How much time do you expect you can commit to moderating the site?** (A couple hours a month? Ten hours a week? Ten hours a day? Take a good guess) Also, **do you anticipate any reason why that amount of time would significantly decrease in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put, as much as is needed. It would be hard to estimate how much time I actively spend on the site currently, I generally pop in and hang out for 10-15 minutes at a time, every few hours. As a result, it would be easy to catch things as they occur and deal with it accordingly. Naturally, more important or time consuming tasks can be completed as needed with very few scheduling constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the next several months, I will graduate. Given my current position in my research lab, virtually any job I take will be less time-consuming than what I am doing now. I may not be able to spare 10-15 minutes every few hours during the workday, but I will be able to dedicate longer stretches of time as needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments and chatroom messages. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. Do you feel like all the material you've posted on the site reflects that you would be a good moderator? Will becoming a moderator induces significant changes in what you do—and refrain from doing—on the site (outside the obvious addition of moderator duties)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I am biased in my perception, but I feel that all of my material on the site has been constructive, and most importantly, something I stand behind. My activity on [Meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6634/tpg2114) has been focused on formulating policies and helping to define the role of the site. I haven't won every argument, but I feel that I have always been civil, level-headed and supported the results, even when I don't agree with them. I have also engaged in discussions with users who, at various times, have rubbed others the wrong way or been rubbed the wrong way themselves. In the cases I can recall participating, I have tried to remain objective and impersonal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than champion myself, I would encourage everybody to review my participation on the site (and for that matter, on the entire StackExchange network). I will happily discuss any content, past or present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest change in day-to-day activity is refraining from pulling the trigger on the close vote since it is now binding. As a regular user, I have no problem expressing my opinion about whether a question is off-topic -- a question takes 4 others to agree and if I'm wrong as a regular user, no harm. As a moderator, that luxury no longer exists. On the other hand, I don't see putting a question &quot;on hold&quot; as a death sentence or a condemnation of the user or the topic. It is a chance to improve the question in a way that is fair to those who will spend time answering (nobody likes writing an elaborate answer only to have the question change drastically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of topic? In other words, where do you draw the line between &quot;physics&quot; and other topics, and how do you feel about questions that lie in the various grey areas between physics and other disciplines? Do you generally feel that our scope should be broader or narrower than it is now? How are your views on these topics likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel this area, more than any others, is the best use of my skills as part of the moderation team. I have started several conversations directly regarding this area: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5553/what-is-engineering-and-what-is-experimental-design &#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4540/what-is-the-fate-of-the-engineering-tag&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/big-list-resource-questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as extensive participation in related areas (as well as the dreaded &quot;homework&quot; topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7565/it-is-on-topic-to-ask-about-computer-software-useful-to-do-some-particular-task/7568#7568&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/network-science-can-be-a-branch-of-physics/7261#7261&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5603/adding-computational-science-to-the-list-of-on-topic-items-in-the-help-center/5604#5604&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5519/realistically-are-atmospheric-physics-questions-on-topic-and-acceptable/5520#5520&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7140/are-questions-about-mathematics-used-in-physics-always-off-topic/7141#7141&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8812/engineering-questions-and-answers-that-are-closely-related-to-physics/8813#8813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I firmly believe that we should not look at Physics.SE as isolated from the other sites in the StackExchange network. The entire network is like a library -- there is no reason to go to the physics shelf if I have a question about chemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gray areas are okay, provided the content is asking for an underlying explanation of the physics. My favorite punchline whenever this comes up is this: This is a site of **physics**, not **physicists** -- asking for a good apple pie recipe is not on-topic just because you are a physicist. Likewise, how to take derivatives are not on topic just because it came up in a mechanics class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a moderator, I would continue to bring up topics for discussion that may reside in these gray areas. I want to make sure the community can provide clarity for what it expects, and I enjoy leading those discussions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two simple answers: first, I will become more effective because I will get access to the moderation tools immediately; second, many flags and interactions with users require moderators and are not available to high-rep users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reputation-earning participation on the site has always been in a small subset of the community, the [tag:fluid-dynamics] questions. Because it is a small subset, it would be difficult to get from 10k to 20k and so I would be able to contribute more, immediately, as a moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Where do you think the boundaries of our scope should lie, in terms of level? That is, do you see this as primarily a site for physics students, or for physics researchers, or both equally? How is your stance on this likely to affect your actions as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a site for researchers of physics and students of physics. This is subtly different from physics students and physics researchers. I feel this site is best served by catering to those whom require and can share knowledge of the many areas of physics and not by catering to those who happen to be students in a physics class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A business major desperately trying to pass a kinematics class is a physics student and not the target audience. But an engineering student who needs to understand why a bridge may collapse is welcome (provided the questions and answers are about the underlying physics) because such a person is a student of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, we are not limited to physics researchers (those who research topics one would classically consider physics). A chemist who would like to understand the statistical mechanics underpinning of chemical reactions is welcome here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a moderator, I don't see how my views directly influence my actions. The community decides the scope of the site and it may grow, shrink, or otherwise adapt over time. My position as moderator is to lead the discussions, help formulate the resulting policies, and help educate users in the enforcement of the policies. The community is self-policing and will enforce the standards set forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a broad view of a users activity to understand whether there is a problem or not. We've all had bad days and so maybe the comments are out of character. It is also possible that, given the limited length of comments, that some things come across as rude/abrupt because they are succinct. This generally is the case when relatively new users feel slighted because they expect the site to behave like a traditional forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nature of the flags must also be considered. No user, no matter how knowledgeable, no matter how much reputation, may be threatening, post spam, nor make extremely offensive statements. To a lesser extent, *ad hominem* attacks are not welcome either. Content should be criticized, not people. And even in the criticism of content, it doesn't need to be rude to communicate effectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that said, the approach would be to build up a good understanding regarding the track record of the user in question and try to determine the motivations. It may be temporary, it may be targeted (the users in question may have a history together), it may be an overly-sensitive person flagging, or it may be a legitimate problem. And in some cases, it could be a combination of all of the above. Once the problem is understood, it can be approached accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to open a dialogue. Just because I feel something shouldn't have happened, doesn't mean that I am correct. It also doesn't mean that I am impartial -- perhaps I feel something shouldn't have been closed, but the policies are quite clear that it should have been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that moderators should create policy, but they do act as arbiters of policy and as a result, their actions may lead to policies expanding or contracting without it ever being formally written down. As this happens, it is important for other moderators (and especially for the users) to start a dialogue when they feel the actions have extended beyond the scope of the written policy. Maybe the result of the discussion is the actions should be formally written down because it is better for the site; perhaps the result is that the policy is clarified in an opposite direction of the actions taken. In either case, the role of the other moderators is to lead a discussion with the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is strong enough now that I would be hard pressed to imagine a truly egregious action would not be called to attention by regular users. And I hope that is the case -- the users are the ultimate resource of the site and the wishes of the community need to be respected. I would encourage users to discuss the rules and moderation of the site openly -- and most importantly -- in a civil and constructive fashion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9227" RevisionGUID="07c00d1b-7218-4834-8645-5d780a32e9e1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Jimius Caeser, leader of the Holy Roman Jimpire (or just Jimius Caesar) because, as you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But all you should be concerned about is that Jimius Caesar, leader of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Holy Roman Jimpire, is commanding you to grant him additional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; powers. You now have two options. Obey him, or face his wrath. - [Moderator nomination][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/election/3#post-282705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="15860681-d415-40a3-a678-79321108f08d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the upcoming moderator election we each get three votes - a first, second and third choice. In order to use these effectively, I would like to understand the mechanics of how they will be used to determine the election's outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side panel on [the election page][1] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We will calculate the winners using [OpenSTV][2] with the [Meek STV method][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but unfortunately that second link leads to a section on a Wikipedia page that assumes you've already read the quite substantial amount of text about other transferrable vote systems that preceeds it, so it's not very self-contained and not very easy to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interests of us all understanding the rules of the election, I'm wondering whether someone who's already done the work of understanding it would be willing to post a brief self-contained outline of how it works. I'll attempt to do that myself if I get a chance in the next couple of days, but with only three days until the election it might be quicker if someone else can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The reason it's important is because it affects tactical voting systems. The aim of STV is to make tactical voting less important, i.e. you can put the person you like the most as your first choice, even if you don't think they're likely to win, because your vote will carry over to your other choices if they don't. I would like to fully understand how that process works in this particular version of the system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/election?cb=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opavote.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek.27s_method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="774c053a-6b1d-4944-9e29-1b2f611e1422" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285307/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was closed on the grounds that it is not &quot;mainstream physics&quot;, and I was referred to [this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/).  That page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK. Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that criterion, my question would be allowed.  It did not propose a new concept or paradigm as far as I know, but it asked for evaluation of an idea within the context of mainstream physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="09d598dc-c5ff-4413-b536-78398fc4835a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree. Not only the solution but also the answer is given, so it is difficult to understand the view that this is a &quot;homework-like&quot; question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has identified a conceptual issue with the solution provided in the image text. He is not asking &quot;How do I solve this?&quot; but &quot;Is this solution incorrect or am I missing something?&quot; Like you, I don't see what additional work could be attempted by the OP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question looks &quot;homework-like.&quot; The problem is pasted in as an image; there is very little text from the OP and no calculation (v5). The homework tag was added by the 1st editor. Probably the decision to close was made because of what the question looks like rather than what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is easy for reviewers to follow the crowd and VTC because other reviewers (especially those with high rep) have already done so. On more than one occasion I have suggested (wrongly) that a question is a duplicate because of a superficial similarity, and other reviewers followed my lead swiftly and closed the question. For example : [How does Newton's cradle with balls of different weight behaves?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/284834)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have edited the question and voted to reopen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="518ba2d5-4122-4959-8679-f78544d26f76" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's been suggested via a flag that [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/286601/44126), which was [deleted by Community](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/92006/280545) after being closed for ten days, has value to other users asking similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't understand the closure of this question: in its current form, it's a thoughtful, conceptual question that happens to be phrased in a mathematical way.&#xD;&#xA;If you're a person who thinks the closure/deletion was a good decision, I'd like to understand your reasoning.  If, on the other hand, you're a person who agrees with me, I'd like a million upvotes. And also a pony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Screen capture][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LsHEV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="afd8ffd8-a70b-40a6-89ee-8808c4f199d5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="One handy place for this information is [the user page of the Community ♦ user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community), which gives the bot's inception date as 1 November 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, you can go to [the original Area 51 proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which gives a detailed breakdown of the milestones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The original proposal was posted on 2 June 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Private beta started on 2 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - Public beta started on 9 November 2010&#xD;&#xA; - The site graduated from beta status on 24 February 2011 ([source](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1057/what-would-be-a-good-celebration-of-physics-ses-graduation-anniversary))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="52536468-166e-4658-bfe6-e246392c39fe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm concerned at Meta posts such as [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9374/chosen-answers-with-many-negative-votes?cb=1). That's where a poster claims that an answer to a physics question is _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_ when it isn't. Indeed [the answer concerned (mine)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/297857/76162) refers to the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/401?highlightText=frequency#/vol6-trans/401?ajax) to support its case: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated&quot;._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer now has 10 downvotes, but there are no comments explaining why it's _&quot;evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics&quot;_. Nor are there any other answers which would inform the reader as to why it's evidently wrong. That's because it isn't, because Einstein was correct. Since one of the aims of physics stack exchange is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, a large number of negative votes for a correct answer makes an absolute mockery of the site. A random searcher will assume the negative votes mean the answer is most definitely incorrect, and will assume other answers with a large number of upvotes are correct, even when they're definitely wrong.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've felt this has been a problem for physics stack exchange for some time. I see correct answers with very few upvotes, and incorrect answers with lots of upvotes. It's as if we have some posters who firmly believe that _what they think_ is correct, regardless of any lack of references or references to the contrary. They then come out with statements to the effect that _this is the mainstream view_ when actually it's a popscience view based on a rather peculiar mixture of arrogance and ignorance. It surely cannot be good to give free rein to people who don't understand say relativity and allow them to conspire to downvote and demerit or even censor correct answers, then bully posters into removing acceptance flags whilst refusing to address the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some moderation would be reasonable to address this? I see a lot of expert posters who are ex posters, and I think that this issue is the reason why, not the many questions from non-experts. Another solution might be to make a list of discrepancies or contested answers and actively discuss them to flush out the issue of what's right and wrong. Without any action, I fear physics stack exchange is in a downward spiral wherein it drives away expert posters and peddles and promotes ever-more popscience misinformation. What to do? Your answers please. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done. Science is not a democracy, all the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right and vice versa. Perhaps the stack exchange model is simply not suitable for science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It's been 4 days now, and _still_ nobody has addressed the physics. I rest my case.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="f2a4593a-3bcb-4600-84af-ef586ce6c106" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As suggested in [another meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/best-of-pse-2016), let's do a Physics Stack Exchange &quot;best of 2016&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There's a nice [precedent for this in the Puzzles and Code Golf site](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10938/best-of-ppcg-2016-call-for-categories?cb=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reward and draw attention to some of the best content our community has created this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Have fun :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Establish categories.**&#xD;&#xA;Each answer on this post should name a category for which we'll later vote on the best-of.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a category could be *&quot;Best answer by a new user (i.e. made their account this year)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;**Voting on the categories will last until the end of January 10**.&#xD;&#xA;We do not specify a fixed number of categories, but based on the Code Golf example I estimate we'll have five to ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vote for the winner of each category.**&#xD;&#xA;We create a meta post for each of the top-voted categories.&#xD;&#xA;Under each category meta post, users nominate candidate questions/answers/etc. by posting a answer with a link and a short explanation of why the linked item should win the category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Select winners.**&#xD;&#xA;Whichever answer gets the highest score wins the category.&#xD;&#xA;Voting lasts a specified amount of time, which I or someone else will decide soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **(optional) Award prizes.**&#xD;&#xA;Each winning item *might* receive a prize in the form of a bounty!&#xD;&#xA;If you're willing to award a bounty for a particular category's winner, leave a comment under the category nomination in this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best Question**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9481/best-of-pse-2016-best-question): [Partition function for Gaussian white noise](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285886/partition-function-for-gaussian-white-noise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A Rookie of the year**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9482/best-of-pse-2016-qa-rookie-of-the-year): [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Less is more**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9483/best-of-pse-2016-less-is-more): [answer to Does the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily imply every world exist?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Most underrated answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/best-of-pse-2016-most-underrated-answer): [continuum mechanics in GR](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277183/how-can-i-adapt-classical-continuum-mechanics-equations-in-order-to-agree-with-g/284988#284988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best community work**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9486/best-of-pse-2016-best-community-work): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best self-answered post**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/best-of-pse-2016-best-self-answered-post): [What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Never too old to learn**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9489/best-of-pse-2016-never-too-old-to-learn): [Do free-electron lasers actually lase?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer directed at the layman**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9487/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-directed-at-the-layman): None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best answer by a rookie**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9490/best-of-pse-2016-best-answer-by-a-rookie): [How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/251014/31790)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Best baby-steps answer**](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9488/best-of-pse-2016-best-baby-steps-answer): [What do we mean with magnetic monopole and dipole?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173818/what-do-we-mean-with-magnetic-monopole-and-dipole/292994#292994)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="0e31fc25-d658-4d91-a5af-525364877f7c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have recently found instances of moderators closing questions (which of course occurs with their single vote) instead of leaving them to be judged by the community in the review queues. For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/302625  &#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301955  &#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301875  &#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/301834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion these questions are not blatantly off-topic - they might be off-topic but they are not blatantly so - nor are they likely to disrupt the community, as required by the [guidance for moderators in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). I do not see any necessity for moderator intervention here, depriving the OP of the benefit of his/her question being judged by a cross-section of his/her peers, rather than a single user, however eminent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...A lot of the moderation work is mundane: deleting obvious spam, closing blatantly off-topic questions, and culling some of the worst-rated posts on the site. The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description reflects the StackOverflow blog post [A Theory of Moderation](http://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which states that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Moderators are ... there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt -- if you don't have human exception handling in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Closing is a **democratic** voting process where **the community** identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added) David Z has pointed out to me that the help center *does not say that Moderators cannot use their unilateral vote to close questions routinely*, but I think it does give a clear impression that that privilege is intended for the exceptional rather than the routine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1046 acknowledges that closure should be a community decision. It indicates that the practice of routine closure by moderators developed when there was a shortage of reviewers, but this surely is not the case today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that the review queue for close votes might grow alarmingly large at times, but I do not think moderator intervention is the correct way to deal with such a problem. If moderators think the review queue is too slow, or the system is not working, the situation ought to be discussed on Meta (eg David's 2012 call for reviewers to use their votes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also appreciate that questions closed unilaterally by a moderator can be reopened by voting. However, that is also a slow process, and it is much less likely to happen than it being closed by reviewers, because there is an inherent bias towards leaving a question closed, especially if it has not been improved since being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view is that **the moderator's unilateral close vote should be reserved for exceptional cases, not those which are routine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="7b203fdf-202c-4a50-9e3e-b5949a427b81" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="My proposal is John Rennie's https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242043/56299, with [his answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/242044/56299) and [appendix](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/244323/56299), as well as several other answers from different users. It's one of quite a few self-answered posts he's written, including a couple others in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took an undergraduate special relativity course during the fall semester last year, and I was introduced to the [twin paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox), among other freaky results of special relativity. I read several good explanations of how the paradox is resolved, which helped me quite well. John's self-answered questions-and-answer, however, went a step further by explaining how the [Rindler metric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates) fits into all this - an addition that seems to be rather rare in discussions of the twin paradox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm recommending this question-and-answer pair because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It deals with a common problem that almost all beginners to special relativity face.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It is just as accessible as most treatments of the paradox, while still keeping all the gory details.&#xD;&#xA; 3. It combines equations with spacetime diagrams, the latter of which I've found to be extremely useful tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="95e67302-e6bc-4613-91d5-92629f058f5b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="# https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287399/from-discrete-to-continuous-why-quantum-fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fundamental question invites us to revisit assumptions we probably originally take for granted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="32ca62a6-1f45-4aa0-a7c4-475b4d9a8378" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll throw my own hat in here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302142/consistent-complete-and-generalized-description-of-the-quantum-harmonic-oscill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The harmonic oscillator is studied so much not only because it models many physical systems, but also because it's a useful exactly solvable system illustrating important principles.&#xD;&#xA;This self-answered post concisely lays out a pretty thorough set of relations for the quantum harmonic oscillator using variables and notation that are much more clear than typical textbook treatments.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="e1f0e638-b815-4124-834a-c9e062e0fa2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll nominate my own answer for this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294763/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-existence-of-gravity/294771#294771&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very clear and concise answer targeted at the layman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="bb404f8c-f597-4cd9-ba42-b05b498d123d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to nominate the answer below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288614/does-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-necessarily-imply-every/288618#288618&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question provides a short but very informative answer highlighting that unlike in other areas of life, on Physics.SE size isn't everything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="3e0c83b2-0e56-437f-b538-3cd541c921fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked [a question][1] ysterday. I explained there that I was unable to understand how can my speakers make sound when I receive a phone call. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is **put on hold** with a reason **This question appears to be about engineering**. There was the [link][2] to get more details. But I think the question is not about engineering. I read &quot;more details&quot; link. Still I think the question is valid for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/308754/66322&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9647" RevisionGUID="7c41ea09-a339-4770-b51f-116a4cc171f5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is the message you're shown when you try to ask a question. I'm quoting it in its entirety in the hope that you read it this time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;b&gt;It looks like you might need a break - take a breather and come back soon!&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've asked 4 questions recently, some of which have not been received very well by the community. Everyone learns at their own pace, and it’s okay to make some mistakes. However, the reception your questions have received thus far might ultimately block your account from asking questions entirely. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been 1 day since you asked your last question. We ask that you wait 2 days before asking again. Use this time to revisit &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=questions&quot;&gt;your previous questions&lt;/a&gt;, editing to address any issues that folks have pointed out in comments. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Recommended reading:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask&quot;&gt;tips on asking great questions&lt;/a&gt; as well as our guidance on &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&quot;&gt;which questions are allowed here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Additional advice&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Examining highly-scored questions in the tags that interest you is a great way to study how to ask better questions, that also get better answers much sooner! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- We don’t demand perfection, but &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;please&lt;/i&gt; make sure you use proper grammar, spelling and capitalization&lt;/b&gt;, it really helps! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Improve downvoted questions rather than deleting them. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Do not delete your account, create new accounts, or otherwise attempt to circumvent these restrictions. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Do not contact us regarding these restrictions, they cannot be lifted. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failure to heed this advice may increase the severity of these restrictions. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;For more information&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/271542/why-wont-the-system-allow-me-to-ask-questions-for-several-days/271543#271543&quot;&gt;Why won’t the system allow me to ask questions for several days?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sometimes takes a few attempts at a good question in order to fully learn how our system works, and what the community expects from folks seeking answers. Just &lt;b&gt;do your best&lt;/b&gt; to make sure you've improved the quality of your existing questions, and we'll see you in 2 days!&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="c3b814b3-c8d0-4c4f-a0e9-e98e7032c6a3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9636/broken-internal-link) pointed out that there are still a number of links to posts on the old Astronomy SE site kicking around, and that they mostly redirect to new, unrelated questions and answers in the new Astronomy site. I feel those links *should* have been automatically edited at the time of the migration, but it doesn't really matter, since a [quick query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/628571/links-to-the-old-astronomy-se-site) turns up ~30 or so sites, which can easily be edited manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do find one thing pretty weird, though: when those links are posted as a raw URL, they still format correctly, for some reason. As an example, see [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt), which [until recently](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/25789/revisions) contained the explicit URL &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a [broken link](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did) (i.e. should point [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did)) but nevertheless still formats correctly into a full title with the old link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zsed9.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feels weirdly buggy to me, though of course the real bug is that the URLs were not auto-updated to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9690" RevisionGUID="2f746bd1-ae17-4886-9e72-63276ba37503" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Disclaimer**: I have written an answer to the question discussed here, so one might consider my opinion in this matter biased. I did not vote on the closure of the question in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question *should have* the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag, but should not be closed. Clearly, this is essentially an exercise in computing the behaviour of a specific circuit in a specific situation, and the question asks to understand a specific step in the derivation, clearly not because it is interested in the end result since the *end result is already known*. So &quot;primarily for educational value&quot; applies as well as being about a specific exercise, and therefore I think the tag should be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't think it should be closed - it shows some effort to work through the problem (the equation it asks about in the end was derived by that effort in the first place) and the question of why the voltage is computed in this way *is* conceptual. There is no straightforward &quot;plug-and-chug&quot; derivation that yields eq. ($\star$), it must be arrived at mainly by physical reasoning about the circuit, not computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As supporting evidence that this is not (or should not be) off-topic as homework-like, consider the [3:0 Leave Open review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/164914) this question received in the queue. Homework-like questions that are *clearly* off-topic usuaslly receive quick and almost always unanimous close reviews, so this at least shows it is not *clearly* off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="a724e876-56ef-48b9-a67d-1df40f3b3709" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:10.717" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Shankar Quantum Mechanics: Proof Inverse Of Operators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/318328/shankar-quantum-mechanics-proof-inverse-of-operators)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Hi!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get why my question was flagged as homework plus a down-vote. It is not meant as homework. Also, that line beneath the imgur link was my (poorly?) proof, In the footnote: they said: see for the concepts at the end of Theorem A.1.1. There, the proof was also one line. So what I did was simply switched the symbols and asking if its a valid proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="2cf648e8-a0f1-45db-8eec-721531bec2b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:41:36.503" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://music.stackexchange.com/ with https://music.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Shameless one-time call to participation to another S.E. site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tuesday, May 3rd was the first day for the public Beta of [music.SE][1], [**Music Practice and Performance**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many interesting **physics** questions are associated with musical instruments. Some fundamental physical concepts were born out of the investigation of sound, vibration, strings, tension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the current questions relevant to **physics** in music.SE is this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why are violin bows longer than viola bows, than cello bows, than double-bass bows ?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it would be nice that more questions about the physics of instruments and instrument playing be asked and answered on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe members from Physics.SE could valuably contribute to this new site, as physicists making this kind of questions and answers more precise and more informed and of course as musicians when this is the case, even as lurker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, Physics accounts holders with at least 200 points who create an associated account through OpenID on music.SE will have a 100 point starting bonus on the new site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you are [welcome][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://music.stackexchange.com/q/74/48&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://music.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="93632bd6-6403-4f53-8620-6452d2ff7e3f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:41:36.503" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://music.stackexchange.com/ with https://music.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question hit me when I saw [this question][1] which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found [this post][2]; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like [music][3] and [scifi][4]. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xD;&#xA;about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://music.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="fc747d49-4e3b-44d9-b64d-6ab5996a7d42" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:41:36.503" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://music.stackexchange.com/ with https://music.stackexchange.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](https://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](http://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](https://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="66297c9c-4635-4368-a445-0e67148f38f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:11.073" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://german.stackexchange.com/ with https://german.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](http://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](https://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](http://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](http://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="dc38ab2b-b330-4cb2-8da6-05f90676c753" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:18.480" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Interestingly, I have been following the philosophy SE, which is still in beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly agree with jdm that philosophical views influence the development of physics.  I certainly have the impression that quantum physics, for instance, has profoundly strong philosophical underpinnings.  Not only that, but the global Lorentz invariance is an extremely philosophical concept, epically when put in the context that it rules out almost every loop-quantum gravity theory that represents the universe with a finite number of nodes.  The philosophy board is also entertaining questions about &quot;is the universe isomorphic to a Turning machine?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is obvious overlap and some amount of overlap should be expected, but let me just get it out there that I think the Physics SE can intelligently answer most of these questions way better than the philosophy SE could, epically if it's about something like *the philosophy of quantum physics*, a topic which I think would get closed quickly in the current state of things.  Thus my present vote would be that we **should** allow such questions.  The right balance is that of more philosophy than the current physics SE entertains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="38fa3aba-cd7e-4134-a0a9-a20efb4082e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:18.480" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My primary interest is in the philosophy of science, with an emphasis on science. I thought it would potentially be a good idea to link relevant philosophy.SE posts to questions on your board. I was going to do this by appending these links, sparingly, to the bottom of physics.SE questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first attempt was rejected. Here are the questions I tried to link: [Is Newton's Law of Gravity consistent with General Relativity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89/is-newtons-law-of-gravity-consistent-with-general-relativity) on physics.SE and [Have there really been paradigm shifts?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2602/have-there-really-been-paradigm-shifts) on philosophy.SE ([suggested edit][1]). The latter addresses the case of one theory being rejected for another--are the theories necessarily incompatible, and if they are not, what is their relationship to one another? Newtonian mechanics and GTR are referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that sharing a link is not a standard edit, but thought that the benefit to members of both communities would outweigh this (of course, lacking the requisite reputation points, I was not able to place it in the comments section like a normal person). Cross-pollination of ideas between forums is always interesting, and I think providing relevant &quot;exolinks&quot; would facilitate it. Would the physics.SE community reconsider allowing me to make such edits? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/6133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9708" RevisionGUID="3d8ebaae-d819-4735-bc6d-5e88ed5bd0c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:28.253" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can always ask it here, but for many feature requests the best place is [**Meta Stack Exchange**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). Physics Stack Exchange is part of a [large family of sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) which share the same core engine; as a pretty strong rule of thumb, if your question would be as applicable here as in, say, [Gardening &amp; Landscaping Stack Exchange](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/), then the place to ask is the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For smallish feature requests, like yours,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd like to suggest that for example a little icon be added next to the caption of some of the most frequently used tags (such as: homeworks, Quantum, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this can sometimes be implemented directly as a [userscript](https://github.com/OpenUserJs/OpenUserJS.org/wiki/Userscript-beginners-HOWTO), and they can eventually make it into SOUP (the [Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup)) if enough people use them. If you're enough of a coder, you can write such a userscript yourself; if not, you can e.g. ask for the feature on the mother meta and mention that you're open to using a userscript for it, in essence soliciting folks to write one for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case, it requires a bit more finesse, because you want to modify the site in response to the details of the user's history. In this regard, if it is doable via the [Stack Exchange API](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs), i.e. if the API can provide the information you need, then yes, a userscript can do it; this does seem to be the case with [the tags you've been active in](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/me-tags#order=desc&amp;sort=popular&amp;filter=default&amp;site=physics&amp;run=true), as well as the [top answer tags](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/top-answer-tags-on-users) and [top question tags](https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/top-question-tags-on-users) for a user. So happy coding ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="6a169e56-8165-433e-afa5-34186798d18d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:42.780" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://dba.stackexchange.com/ with https://dba.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](https://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](http://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="7d2bf247-a363-4139-8d13-913b5503665d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question hit me when I saw [this question][1] which I know two brilliant youtube answers for it. I already posted my answer, but it would be much nicer if I could embed and include the videos in my answer, so there would be no need to open another link to get the whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around in the mother meta, I've found [this post][2]; and in an answer there is pointed that embedding videos has been enabled in some sites like [music][3] and [scifi][4]. Can we discuss the pros and cons of allowing videos on Physics SE, and make a decision &#xD;&#xA;about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2378/what-is-our-location-relative-to-the-big-bang&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66397/provide-a-way-to-embed-videos-in-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://music.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="1c362c80-a554-456c-8374-ac387863d4a7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="At least one other site now has a customised top bar: the one at [Science Fiction and Fantasy](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) has been made slightly translucent in order to make it fit better with their site. Obviously translucency wouldn't be appropriate in our case, but a similarly subtle change in colour scheme would make it a lot less visually jarring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: [Ask Ubuntu][1] also has a customised bar. It's the same colour scheme as our one, but has been moved to fit into the layout in a different way. (It still looks like a compromise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is now precedent on two other sites for customising the top bar, I hope the request to do so on ours will be genuinely considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://askubuntu.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="4dd8b952-fc82-4ec8-802e-f2cc80a6811a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think your question (well, my interpretation of it) is within the scope of the site and was closed unfairly, and the number of likes my comment got suggests others agree with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, but, but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're asking a technical question about how metrics like the Reissner-Nordstom or Kerr have null geodesics that allow light from other universes to reach ours then that's a fair question, because I can write down equations to demonstrate it. If on the other hand you're about to propose something more appropriate to the [Sci-Fi SE][1] then you're unlikely to get a warm reception here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the real reason your question was closed is that it wasn't clear what you were asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="36574d1b-6a51-4978-8798-bfbae94a4135" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6766" RevisionGUID="7f5238ab-d2bf-4b59-a218-f917dae7ab55" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can ask questions on time travel in the framework of relativity or some other accepted theory, but you can't just ask about &quot;time travel&quot; in general. You need to be working in the framework of some theory. If it has absolutely nothing to do with an accepted theory in physics, it might still be relevant on [the scifi stackexchange][1]. If your question starts out with, &quot;say you have a time machine&quot;, it probably isn't a good fit for physics stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say that if you ask it, it will be voted up. There are are a *lot* of questions on this site about the &quot;paradoxes&quot; of special relativity already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="b5d1e977-f019-4802-ada4-656b36ae3569" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's easy to become to focussed on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="19a60a09-8330-4f3b-b964-0d5ab24314b2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:43:11.907" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](http://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="53cb55f4-8d1b-425e-9c78-231b3c03ceba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:44:17.117" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see your point, but while the math.stackexchange design is subtle, it hurts my eyes a little.  If we are to go with graph paper, I like the [stats site][1] better.  Still subtle, but the touch of color makes it a bit easier to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stats.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="0a772f36-0a85-4a04-b171-d10651634384" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:44:17.117" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/" Text="When is this going to happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I like the layouts at some of the other SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://stats.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is pretty plain, and has the graph paper background that lots of people like, though I don't like it in particular, but otherwise I like the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is also nice. It is a little cluttered, but not distracting, and doesn't have anything that would get in the way of math or diagrams. And I like the color scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks more readable to me, and has larger fonts, and less cluttered. I like the color scheme here better, but the gray background won't work with math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would be happy with anything that looks like any of these.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to see the most is: readable text, compatible with math and diagrams, not cluttered, and plain color scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="b484fee0-2277-412c-b978-71284998bf34" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:44:17.117" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I was lamenting the (relative) lack of fluid dynamics questions in the chat yesterday, it was mentioned that I may not be the only one to feel that way given the number of people who answer those types of questions seems to greatly exceed the number who ask. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also looking at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157976/map-of-all-se-sites-except-the-3-biggest because I am really interested in data analysis and visualization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that got me to thinking -- has anybody ever looked at the distribution of users and the number of questions asked vs. answered? For instance, I've answered 22 and asked 0. On SO, it's 88 to 30. [anna-v][1] is 641-4, [Qmechanic][2] is 360-0. Obviously they are the big dogs and may not be representative of the community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So has anybody looked at these kinds of trends? Are we &quot;top-heavy&quot; in the sense that we have many recurring experts ready to answer but (relatively) few recurring users ready to ask? &lt;strike&gt;Is it possible for anybody to get that kind of data (questions asked/answered, number of answers accepted, etc), and if so how?&lt;/strike&gt; (I answered my own question on this part with the [Data Explorer][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder how physics would compare to other SE 2.0 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I created a simple scatter plot to see what data we would be dealing with, the X axis is questions asked and Y is answers given. I'm looking for techniques on how to show all the different scales of data: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45466/techniques-to-show-data-spanning-multiple-decades but it will give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, should anybody want to play around with the data and see what they can come up with, the query is http://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/88269/question-answer-and-comment-counts-for-each-user It pulls out comments too, maybe there's a cool way to incorporate that information. Cooler than just doing a 3D scatter anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1492/anna-v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="c0aab2e1-1308-4566-a2e5-47a9ccd52f0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:44:17.117" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](https://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](http://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="c462fccd-4684-4e0b-8bee-797a29f764b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:45:28.273" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://apple.stackexchange.com/ with https://apple.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](http://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](https://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](https://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="21b8fae0-f898-48f6-885e-11df37815698" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:45:51.667" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](http://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="75855bdb-6282-4302-920a-5ee03b03639a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:45:57.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can ask productivity and self improvement questions related to programming or computers on software engineering stack exchange .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example this question ,   &#xD;&#xA;https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/141860/should-i-be-concerned-that-i-cant-program-very-fast-without-google&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can we not have such tags on physics stack exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a very slow and inefficient learner ,thats why even if I have great love for  physics ,I get  average or below average grades.I would also like to improve my problem solving skills .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be there are other people like me having the same problems ,they can get help on physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not such tags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="663257be-19f2-4d7e-bedd-bfabcb55978d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:22.390" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://quant.stackexchange.com/ with https://quant.stackexchange.com/" Text="Why not migrate the low-level &quot;check my answer&quot; type questions to math.se where they are receptive to them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Economics&quot; Stackexchange never made it out of Beta: there were so many beginner's level questions that no experts could stand the place. &#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[quantitative finance][1]&quot; site however has such an intimidating name that it successfully scares off the homework &quot;check my answer&quot; type people that regularly encounter the &quot;closed as off topic&quot; homework tag here on Physics.SE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we appear too approachable. Maybe something more intimidating like &quot;Quantitative Science&quot; might scare off unwanted questions. Till then, why not migrate the &quot;check my answer&quot; questions to math.se where they are receptive to them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I believe that the Mechanical Engineering SE Beta failed for the same reason as Economics.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quant.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="eed8886b-77b9-492b-b3cc-7a95e843ef9b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:37.237" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="## *![Rebecca Chernoff](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d8c43bb4c449d8054aebdd4ad98c6f6c?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Rebecca Chernoff](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/23/rebecca-chernoff) [asked](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793981#793981):* What can be done to bring more people to the community? Do you feel that's part of your responsibility as a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/793995#793995):** @RebeccaChernoff It's absolutely part of the job of a moderator. I can only say that, as a moderator, I managed to get Skeptics linked by Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) and successfully posted more than one question on HackerNews, bringing over 10,000 visitors in 2 days. See: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1700/does-more-monitor-real-estate-increase-productivity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794007#794007):** @RebeccaChernoff This was a major concern of mine at the beginning of the beta period. I think we have less of a problem with publicity now, but it's still something to think about. The best thing we can do in general, IMO, is build a reputation of giving people accurate answers. More short-term, we should be sharing interesting questions with influential bloggers and other &quot;trendsetters&quot; in the physics community. (TBC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![David Zaslavsky](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/8b925a470b95b97bf25240f7a274d611?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [David Zaslavsky](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1369/david-zaslavsky) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794009#794009):** @RebeccaChernoff (cont.) I believe that the moderators can play a part in spurring this sort of action on, but it's not exclusively their responsibility. Site promotion is a project that the whole community can/should get involved in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [continued](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794013#794013):** @RebeccaChernoff As a moderator you also need to be able to ask great questions, setting the standard. I have a couple of very very popular questions on StackOverflow. Here on physics my best one is Could gravity be an emergent property of nature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**![Sklivvz](http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3fd9e5b2c59170ec3d74dde30d233fa4?s=16&amp;amp;d=identicon&amp;amp;r=PG) [Sklivvz](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users/1211/sklivvz) [answered](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/794018#794018):** A last thing. Moderators are the only users with direct access to stats. They must therefore play a major role in promotion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="a8bd0a90-6b97-46da-9078-f903da98857a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:37.237" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions 1 and 2 are biology, not physics. We can put upper bounds on the physical effects of something, but it is up to biologists to determine if that is harmful to the organism. These questions are also marginally on-topic for [at least one technical site][1] and definitely on-topic for [the local site for general skeptical inquiries][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions 3 and 4 can be made on-topic here, but they should be **separate** questions. 3 should be phrased in a way to ask about conceptually how microwaves heat living (i.e. water-rich, organic) material. 4 should ask about whether such frequencies are focused by the eye (note that the vitreous humor is at least as important as the lens proper in humans, the former being essentially water as far as physics is concerned, the latter a crystal in some sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is not for physics to say what the harm is, *unless* you provide the biology necessary for that judgment. For example, if you give a correspondence between electrons ejected from DNA and cancer rate, a physicist can tell you something like &quot;sitting next to a cell tower will cause XXX excess displaced electrons per DNA strand per day due to thermal motions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I make no guarantees though that these questions have not been asked already. You should check those linked questions in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://superuser.com/questions/718650/paranoid-parent-wifi-safe-for-baby&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1178/are-wifi-waves-harmful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="8533642b-52f8-4f69-b341-3c7855b47e5c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:37.237" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've raised a question that was put on hold, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could a falling office tower cause the melting of its iron or steel support structure?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to post for discussion the reason the question was put on hold.  I would preface that I don't want to offend anyone, raise defences, bring questions where not welcome, or rattle an apple cart.  I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, or anything being out of line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am having trouble understanding the nature of the rejection of the question, and would appreciate understanding the rationale, and I feel like that might be important for the community of users and potential users.  Any insight shall be sincerely appreciated, but this discussion is not intended for my benefit, but for that of the community here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question I asked struck me as a curiosity. The physics were interesting to me so I napkin-speculated as to the answer but I did not feel myself competent to make any reliable conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel – and it initially appeared — that this would be a question appropriate for this site, and I was (and remain) open to whatever conclusion comes from the application of the physics to the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, all I wanted was an answer to a relatively straightforward physics question that was beyond my capabilities – to learn something.  Thanks to the answers posted (but since deleted), I did.  Then the question was put on hold, and comments became what I perceived as speculative yet judgmental and hostile.  This appears to be because the data and curiosity comes from the geopolitical event we call 9/11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the tangentiality of the relationship: The question I asked was and remains purely hypothetical, a timeless inquiry into the nature of the relations in the physical world; it has never mentioned or implied a relation to any events at all.  That said, I made what was evidently the mistake of commenting on an answer that the reason I was asking was related to a thread on Skeptics.SE.  Shortly thereafter I was accused of using the Physics site as a vehicle for linking to a WTC &quot;controlled explosion&quot; theory, whereupon I deleted my comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, from the Skeptics.SE sister–site here (where I, for what it's worth, enjoy a little reputation), shall summarize its content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On 9/11, was Building 7 destroyed in a controlled explosion?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/31144/1792)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That theory in the linked answer on Skeptics.SE is not a conspiracy theory, in any defensible sense, as by definition a conspiracy theory attempts to find blame. The answer linked only indicates that there is evidence yet–unexplained by NIST, and posits an alternative (which alternative could very well be discredited, particularly by physics or engineering expertise).  It is also not a conspiracy theory in the sense that it is readily falsifiable – potentially, it occurred to me, *by way of an answer to the question I posted here*.  It also a genetic fallacy to conclude that by being from a so-called conspiracy one must dismiss the question as not being a curiosity of physics.  Nevertheless, in spite of the logical fallacy and being semantically incorrect, the assertion that the question posted here was a conspiracy theory was evidently fatal to the inquiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a question about another geopolitical event, like the Challenger disaster, would be perfectly acceptable, or similarly the same question in a different era or different country.  Which makes me wonder, where does the condemnation and taboo come from?  Certainly there are legitimate concerns if the question was unanswerable, vague or speculative, or the questioner argumentative or unwilling to accept answers that dismissed the theory.  However, my question was easily and evidently answerable, and I am (and always remain) completely open to a credible conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern was raised on the comments that the question I posted here would become a conduit for a conspiracy theory, but the Skeptics.SE question is already quite popular, and in any case the link was in a comment to an answer – hardly a prominent exposure.  It was certainly and apparently not the intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leaves me wondering what the governance and purpose of the site is.  The tour says it's meant for asking about explanations of observed phenomenon.  But that seems to not be adequate. There are contemporaneous and forensic observations of melted iron and steel found at the WTC site, and the question was presented as a hypothetical for possible explanations of that observed phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tour gives criteria for dismissal, such as being a homework question, outside mainstream physics, based on opinion, lengthy answers, or need for lengthy discussion, but none seem to apply.  While being a homework question may be improper, the site itself states that it generally should not be a problem. So there's no apparent (or given) basis for dismissal, other than its relation to a geopolitical event, even though such dismissal is inconsistent with the values and rules espoused.  Why bother having the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It always struck me that this site could have questions that are beacons of sensibility, expertise, and (dare I say) sanity in contrast with an Internet chock full of unsubstantiated speculation.  I would like to think that this site could discuss and bring illumination about events of importance, and so ideally &quot;conspiratorial-type&quot; questions would be not just permitted but encouraged precisely to debunk conspiratorial wish-wash.  The answers I received were interesting and useful, precisely because.  I wish this could be a place where I could ask more; there are criteria for dismissing bad questions but relation to a geopolitical event is not one — it is arbitrary, capricious, and fragile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should not the criteria for dismissing questions be independent of the origin of the curiosity causing the question and the source for the data?  Is that not the essence of scientific inquiry, the critical distinction that allows intellectual curiosity to overcome rumination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is all to say, dismissing the question I asked for the reasons given feels wrong – I clearly am missing something.  I feel like closing the question necessitates employing things in opposition to ideals I believe are fundamentally good, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Engaging and involving those curious about physics;&#xD;&#xA;2. illuminating relevant details about important events that affect lives; &#xD;&#xA;3. honouring the rules of the site presented to the public; and&#xD;&#xA;4. linking to and building relationships with other StackExchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel the site is missing an opportunity for topics where illumination on the Internet is most wanting.  I've always believed those with greater capabilities have a duty to those who do not to share their illumination, and this site could serve as a place for spreading knowledge about physics related to events that affect our lives.  Otherwise, what is the point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to start an argument, upset the apple cart, or step into the unwelcome.  I am not blaming or accusing anyone of anything, nor asking that the question be reviewed or re-opened, nor that any theories be reviewed or speculated upon, nor that any changes be made to the site, its governance, or its policies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't need a response or to be part of a discussion, but I feel a discussion should be had because the criteria for closing questions seems to divert from reason and common sense, to include a taboo of things tangentially related to an important geopolitical event, even where such dismissal is contrary to the guidelines the site offers to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something about that doesn't sit right with me, and if this site and its community are important to you then this shouldn't sit right with you either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="ec0448cf-8f99-4847-a26f-9eaa3624d10e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:37.237" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I dont think its been a (major) problem.  But, in my opinion, **the main chat room (&quot;the h Bar&quot;), should avoid politics and equally contentious topics**.  Given their (subjective) nature and scope, sparse discussion is natural, but excessive debate should be avoided or moved to other chat rooms within Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, joking, and doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - when discussed, they dominate conversation - after all, people can discuss them in other chat rooms within Physics.SE or on more relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](http://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere**, and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them.  Too often, they are disrespectful.  We have the 'Be Nice' policy... thats great, but its also been largely ineffective.  We dont need that in the main chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we avoid such topics on &quot;the h Bar&quot;, I think it would have a better atmosphere and allow  more open-ended topics, with limited oversight required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342903/3623090).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect in central venues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5211" RevisionGUID="06e6c2db-f0b3-4543-a5b5-0a689221ff84" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:24.537" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://dsp.stackexchange.com/ with https://dsp.stackexchange.com/" Text="I can't say anything for sure without seeing the question itself, but probably not. Remember, questions posted on this site have to be about physics. Image processing doesn't really fall under that scope. The tags exist only to _classify_ questions, not to tell you which ones are on topic and which ones aren't. (Though a lack of appropriate tags does tend to _suggest_ that a question is off topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes questions of this nature are on topic at [DSP](https://dsp.stackexchange.com/), so you could check there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="2b6239ab-da78-4f6e-955a-d87e540916e8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:24.537" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://dsp.stackexchange.com/ with https://dsp.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 12 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="81e4c176-7c2f-4f90-8fed-fa268e3a7009" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:47.217" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know this may seem like an odd suggestion, but over at [Biblical Hermeneutic.SE][1] we are running a [challenge][2] to ask new questions about astronomy in the Bible.  Like many [Ancient Near East][3] cultures, the Hebrews were fascinated with the movement of planets and watched the stars for signs of great import such as supernova and comets.  This interest in the sky carried over to the early Christians who used astronomical phenomena as symbols and signs of what they believed would soon happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of the sort of questions we are looking for (and to see if you can provide answers to help us understand the Bible) take a look at the questions tagged with [astronomy][4].  We are generally open to all sorts of interpretations, but we do take the idea of understanding what the Bible means seriously.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do you have any questions about the Bible and/or have any answers for the questions we've already raised?  If so, come on over!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/331/68&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astronomy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="c551bfdc-06a6-4bc7-8b5c-faa0bf4300ed" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:50.903" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://history.stackexchange.com/ with https://history.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](https://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](https://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](http://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](http://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="8778380a-e782-45ee-8758-72504158cf66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:10.073" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know this might be unusual since people usually ask the opposite question, but I simply have to ask this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's about this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132114/can-a-superhuman-move-so-fast-as-to-be-invisible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that this question belongs on http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ (maybe https://biology.stackexchange.com/ since it also includes the neuroscience tag). Also I think it should have been put on hold in order to improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** **It's about perception.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the question wants to know whether &quot;regular audiences&quot; or a &quot;normal person&quot; can see it or not, the author isn't asking whether it's detectable by other physical means. To be fair, there are some physical considerations that we have to worry about here but I can't see how a physicist could conclude the issue, it has to come to the issue of human visual perception and that's not physics. The visual system is far from an idealized camera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) The questions is badly posed.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the title is very misleading, it's clearly not about the moving object, it's about the observer. And I don't see how it helps if the object is superhuman and if we have the exact dimensions of the space in which the superhuman is confined. The motion is practically arbitrary, only limited by special relativity and the object's only limitation is it's approximate size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can safely say that the question can be translated into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it possible for an everyday-sized easily visible object to evade human visual perception by moving sufficiently fast in a confined space?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you put it this way, I think it's even more clear that a physicist cannot give a final word here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="b4799837-a18b-4bb0-9e43-bcd641298184" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:38.257" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cs.stackexchange.com/ with https://cs.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="259c3684-f0d8-4390-a85c-0c94a7fef167" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:38.257" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cs.stackexchange.com/ with https://cs.stackexchange.com/" Text="My experience on other Stack Exchange sites is that the problem of getting a lot of questions that break guidelines is essentially insoluble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Most people don't read the tour or the help centre before posting so editing the text there can only have a minor effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On [Theoretical Computer Science SE](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/), only research-level questions are on topic. To try to reduce the number of undergrads asking for homework help on CS questions that weren't even necessarily theoretical, we changed the [title text prompt for new questions](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) to &quot;What's your research-level theoretical computer science question? Be specific&quot;, I guess about a year ago. I didn't notice that having any effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's possible to add [warning messages when specific tags are used](https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1588/add-tag-specific-popup-to-accidents). That would probably be useful for specific subjects that attract a lot of bad questions but doesn't help in this case, since the issue is with the form of the question, not its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, prevention isn't feasible. The focus needs to be on improving or closing inappropriate questions. Improvements, ideally, need to be done quickly. On a recent question on [Computer Science SE](https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/), I edited out a paragraph that added a vaguely related but independent question and left a comment saying it was a great question and encouraging them to ask it separately, explaining how they could retrieve the text from the edit history. Unfortunately, somebody had already provided a sketchy answer to that part of the question on the back of an excellent answer to the main question, so the asker never bothered to repost it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="15e91e2f-4848-49a3-a33d-d1fef63314bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:38.257" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cs.stackexchange.com/ with https://cs.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wrote a program that computes the fast __insert_name_here__ transform of a matrix. I am at a loss of what its application is, what its proper name should be, and find an existing algorithm for it. I posted this question in Computer Science, and one of their members suggested it might be better served here. Does this [question][1] belong in Physics? Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/51446/what-can-i-do-with-this-algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="f1a70842-e531-4a22-986c-846ba6d0097f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:38.257" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cs.stackexchange.com/ with https://cs.stackexchange.com/" Text="([related PSE post][1], [related VLQ review entity][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a VLQ answer from a new user, who may be capable later to produce high level content. [Here is the site][3] which he refers in his post (I edited the link out to avoid the selfmarketing VtD reason).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time it seems to me not as the &quot;I found the Holy Grail, gimme Nobel Prize now&quot; line. It seems to be a prof emeritus, but I am not sure. So, the first thing what is not clear to me, if he really has the capability to be once a worthy contributor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In similar cases I would be happy to let me out from the decision by clicking &quot;skip&quot;. Or, if the post is really LQ, then accelerate the review process by clicking as you probably wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first experiences of the new users are very important, i.e. if he doesn't get a friendly welcome, he will be probably lost. And, with him, the site loses the HQ content what he could have produced. Thus, if he has a possibility to contribute HQ content, then *he requires now help, and not disciplining.* We can't want from a prof. emer. to handle the internet on the level as we can, but most of us can learn from him a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to relax a little bit and don't handle him *as usual* - if you see the capability in him to be once a high level content producer. Probably he won't make so many contribution to ever get a high repu, but his contribution could be worthy. [Similar users][4] in other hard science sites are existing and are being tolerated. (I replay: only if the user has the possibility to be once really HQ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138733/calculating-the-riemann-tensor-for-a-3-sphere/269118#comment600155_269118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/138731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.garretstar.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/699/vzn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="c851fbde-9c8c-44a9-998b-5778a67ed0aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:49.960" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://workplace.stackexchange.com/ with https://workplace.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](http://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="a27dca00-afbc-48ce-a2bd-a67521ca5ff1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:17.487" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://robotics.stackexchange.com/ with https://robotics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="392c3e66-870c-4673-8cfd-31668d6ec87f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:49.200" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen questions about how to study physics or how physics should be taught being dealt with in a variety of ways. Some get downvoted, some get closed by moderators while others are even answered by moderators. Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/19852/16660&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5508/16660&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/20619/16660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, and no doubt to new users, this is confusing and I think it might hold people back from asking a particular question. As a matter of fact, this meta question was inspired by exactly such an experience: I was thinking about the course on non-linear dynamics I took this semester and how insightful it was. It got me wondering why we spend so much time in our physics curriculum linearizing everything and then hoping to capture the interesting non-linear physics through methods like perturbation theory. Non-linear dynamics should - in my opinion - at least be touched on at the Bachelor level (no idea what that level is called in countries like the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was on the verge of asking a question on this subject, probing for reasons why linearity is made so important in physics education, while there is no objective reason for nature to behave that way and indeed it rarely does (well I know one reason: we can solve linear problems analytically, non-linear problems are usually too difficult mathematically). But then I stopped and realized my question would probably be closed because it doesn't really have an objective answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that it can be hard to distinguish between an acceptable question that cannot have a truly objective answer and a question that is just effectively pointless. It's a fine line to tread. One way to solve the problem is not to tread the line at all and steer away from all such questions. Another way is to define more clearly what *is* allowed and what *isn't*. The [FAQ][1] section does a good job of this already, but it's arguable that these guidelines are not follow strictly (see the examples above). So perhaps more clarity is needed and that's why I've created this question. I'm sorry for the long intro, but here's the summary of it all: precisely what is the difference between a good [tag:education] question and a bad one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently some questions have also been migrated to the academia beta, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8586&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where exactly do we draw the line between their territory and ours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After considering the answer by Larry Harson and the comments by David Zaslavsky and Manishearth, I have slightly adjusted my thoughts on the subject. (I apologize for making this question even longer, but I think it's necessary to include my own thoughts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think questions asking for **book recommendations** or methods for **studying** physics should probably be discouraged *here*. In general, questions specific to one person/situation are already discouraged as &quot;not constructive&quot; so that's consistent. There are other places to ask those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a platform *should* exist for questions on how physics should (not) be **taught**. Whether or not that platform is Physics.SE remains a tough question to answer in general, but I think most of those questions *are* on topic. They are definitely questions that need to be asked, because the way physics is taught greatly affects both the amount of people that get interested in physics *and* the level of understanding that the physicists of tomorrow have. In a very significant way, it defines the direction we take in our investigation of the physical world. So for that reason, I certainly don't think we can disallow those questions in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, (the most important) questions about how physics should be taught would probably spark debates, which is a good thing by itself but unfitting of this site's format. Therefore, the acceptable questions are probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **not purely hypothetical**: &quot;should&quot;-questions like &quot;Should we do B?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - but instead **argumentably comparative**: &quot;why&quot;-questions like &quot;Why is A preferred over B?&quot;. (not &quot;Why *don't* we do B?&quot; since that's just a hypothetical question in disguise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are still intermediary cases with questions like &quot;Is it realistic/useful to teach some elementary quantum mechanics at the high-school level?&quot;. This *can* be answered with some level of objectivity by teachers, but it doesn't really have a 'right' answer. Then again, the &quot;why&quot;-questions I mentioned earlier don't *necessarily* have one either, they're just (slightly?) less subjective than the &quot;should&quot;-questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is a clear and consistent distinction between good and bad [tag:education] questions even possible? And if my above assessment constitutes a reasonable distinction, what to do with the intermediary cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="9dad2527-9727-4f6e-928e-be1d335b840e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:49.200" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this is not a particularly big problem given the nature of most common links in this site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your two examples, Wikipedia and arXiv updates are natural and linking to an old version is bad practice. If the Wikipedia edits are radical enough that the original point is lost then there is always the edit history both on their side and ours that it's possible to reconstruct what the original link was. ArXiv edits are very rarely substantive enough to remove crucial information, and if they are it is a strong indication that that content was unreliable (and, again, there is the edit history to fall back on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other links, it's more of a case-by-case thing. The [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/) now enables visitors to archive pages ([unless forbidden by the site's robots.txt file](https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#14)), and **it is generally good practice to make sure that the Wayback Machine has a suitable copy** archived before linking to a webpage on this site, and particularly if the link looks susceptible to link rot. However, the link should always point to the current live version. If the link rots in the future, or the target page changes, then the link can be re-directed to the archived version if and when than happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of links which is more fragile (if relatively less common on this site) is YouTube videos, which can disappear for a variety of reasons and leave [essentially no traces behind them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzyv-sUTgag) ([stable image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/heUah.jpg)). If you're linking to a video, make sure that the video's title is preserved either in your post or in an archived version of the page. Archival services, in general, won't archive the video, but they make it possible to understand what the link was and, if there is an equivalent video available, to redirect the link to the new location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in general, here are some guidelines for when and how to take active steps to prevent link rot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Always use DOI links when linking to online articles.** A Digital Object Identifier is a permanent link and will always follow the document, while journal website urls can change and even be inaccessible to users in other locations. Find the DOI marker on the page, e.g. `doi:10.1038/nature12422`, and link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12422. For books that don't have DOI's, a good alternative is an [Open Library](http://openlibrary.org/) url.&#xD;&#xA; - While we're at this, when linking to the arXiv, link to the abstract page (arxiv.org/abs/...) and not directly to the pdf. This is a courtesy to users on lower bandwidths and mobile browsers (which can automatically redirect to separate pdf viewer apps), who can then evaluate, from the abstract page, whether they want to actually download the paper.&#xD;&#xA; - If the paper has been published (which will be noted on the arXiv abstract), include a link to the journal version, even if it's paywalled, if only as a courtesy to the referees' hard work. In some fields of physics it is standard practice to upload the last, published version to the arXiv, but [this is not true in all fields](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12052). Moreover, journals collect download and usage statistics and make them available to the authors, which the arXiv does not do. In any case, linking to the official, journal version (as well as the arXiv!) helps the author by improving the search engine ranking of their paper, and it probably helps us in that regard as well. &#xD;&#xA; - If citing a pdf of a paper or similar that is _not_ on the arXiv or a similar repository (e.g. a university repository), **use a web citation service to protect it**, ideally the [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/), or at least make a local copy.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing Wikipedia or the arXiv, **always cite the most recent version**. Revisions will most likely be improvements, and if it is unclear what the reference was for there is enough edit history to reconstruct that.&#xD;&#xA; - When citing external websites, always cite the page's current position, and make sure that there is an appropriate version of the page in the [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org/web/).&#xD;&#xA; - When linking to YouTube or similar services, make sure that the title and other information of the content are preserved in your post, to make the linked content easier to trace if it vanishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demanding permanent links is rather too harsh and will slow down the site, particularly with new users. If someone posts a particularly fragile link, change it to a more permanent one (using WebCite, the Wayback Machine, or similar if appropriate) and refer them to this question. More experienced users should be proactive in editing such links when they look fragile.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5790" RevisionGUID="7ec122a1-cfba-4c2b-b00b-6c1da9d1cc4e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:49.200" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the software industry, a high-reputation Stack Overflow profile is seen as a sign of competence, because you have to use the same technical knowledge and research skills required by your job to answer questions there. But in academia, people - at least, the people who make up the majority (though perhaps not the entirety) of tenure and grant review committees, funding agencies, and research directors - tend to see anything that's not actual research as a distraction from research. For that reason participation on this site doesn't play the same role to a professional physicist as participation on Stack Overflow does to a professional developer. Participation in Physics SE is probably best framed as a service activity, like other kinds of community outreach or volunteer work (not that you would put non-physics-related volunteer work on your CV), rather than as a demonstration of your knowledge of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professors reviewing CVs do look for some amount of service activities, but in many cases they do so only grudgingly, as a concession to the requirements of running a department and/or pressure from university administrators. (And something analogous applies to those in a non-academic environment.) This tends to be somewhat correlated with age, so that e.g. younger professors are a little more likely to look favorably on things like having a blog or contributing to Physics SE. As a graduate student, I don't think it can really hurt you that much to include it, but at later stages of your career (if you go for a career in academia) I think it's important to make it clear that this is not something that consumes a lot of your time, otherwise it probably could hurt your prospects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what exactly to include: I'd put something a little more substantial than what you've quoted. A brief paragraph (2, maybe 3 sentences) that explains what Physics SE is and/or what you do here is probably going to be useful. (I don't have easy access to my own CV at the moment otherwise I'd give you an example, though I doubt that example would be any better than what you'd come up with on your own.) But again, don't play up the amount of time you've invested in the site; better to frame it as something that you use as a resource to improve your education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure this has also been pondered extensively on [Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) so you could check there for more thoughts, not specific to physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="b98a0644-8f85-4edb-a069-664f5e06340b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:50:23.783" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/ with https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="22514e18-c125-435a-8d36-6743c2e76224" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:50:29.510" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ with https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="5ee0e601-907a-4e02-8194-424b296aa1cb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:50:55.040" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/ with https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am [Daniel Sank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) taking place in the [hbar chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) on August 12 at 16:00 UTC [a].&#xD;&#xA;I am looking forward to discussing my experience in the USA physics education system from lower education schools up through the PhD program, my research in experimental quantum computing, the difficulties and importance of physics pedagogy, and anything else you'd like to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;The AMA will be informal, but to get an idea of what others would like to talk about, please post questions you'd like answered as responses to this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the [questions posted for Slereah's AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and raised in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;I went to mostly public schools, with a three year detour into private school for grades 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;I did my bachelor's degree in physics at Yale University and my PhD at University of California Santa Barbara in the [lab of John Martinis](http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/index.shtml) where I worked on precision measurement of [magnetic noise](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2890) and on [quantum state measurement](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0257), both in superconducting qubits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now continue work in superconducting qubits at the [Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab](https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab).&#xD;&#xA;In this position I continue to [work on state measurement](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05721), as well as several other aspects of building a quantum computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noise&#xD;&#xA; * As an experimentalist, I have found it important to understand noise in [signal processing contexts](https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/24372/what-is-the-connection-between-analog-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-signal-to-noise)&#xD;&#xA; * For obvious reasons, I'm also interested in the noise which limits superconducting qubit performance.&#xD;&#xA; * I have found that a true understanding of noise is absolutely essential to my work, and was mostly omitted from my education!&#xD;&#xA;It all started when I took the statistical mechanics course as an undergraduate, and I like to answer noise related [statistical mechanics questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203974/where-is-the-flaw-in-this-machine-that-decreases-the-entropy-of-a-closed-system) on the main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I particularly enjoy random process problems.&#xD;&#xA;See [this Stack Exchange post](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/6415/does-the-drunk-man-fall-off-the-cliff-a-random-walk-problem) for an awesome example (note the amazing variety of answers!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Programming&#xD;&#xA; * Messaging protocols, and particularly [capability based protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model).&#xD;&#xA;I am currently working on [cappy](https://github.com/DanielSank/cappy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dissemination of good coding practices and shared code within the scientific community.&#xD;&#xA;I am a contributing member of the [LabRAD project](https://github.com/labrad), an RPC system in use in use by at least [fourteen labs throughout the world](https://github.com/labrad/labrad/wiki/Who-uses-LabRAD).&#xD;&#xA; * I'm happy to talk about any of my [projects on github](https://github.com/DanielSank?tab=repositories) or anything else you'd like to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pedagogy&#xD;&#xA;  * I enjoy understanding supposedly complicated topics in simple yet rigorously correct ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here's and [example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138217/complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour) from the Physics.SE main site.&#xD;&#xA; * I once gave a two-part lecture on the Fourier transform for my undergraduate journal club.&#xD;&#xA;The positive responses from that form one of the best memories of my entire life and is one of the events that convinced me that time spent preparing very good pedagogical material is worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;Those lectures are written up [here](https://github.com/DanielSank/FourierTransform), but in need of *much* work (collaborators welcome).&#xD;&#xA; * Mostly I want to help improve our standards for scientific pedagogy and would enjoy questions/discussion on that topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Nontechnical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Music. I play the classical guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;At present I have many succulents, a few orchids, and a beautiful [tri-color spiderwort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_zebrina).&#xD;&#xA;I am very interested in octopuses, because they are awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking.&#xD;&#xA;I have invented [the best vegetarian chili known to man-kind](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lCiOCi-TGSDKAz0qbbaJqwHZQK_AZ20rM3dozLRXXXU).&#xD;&#xA;I also enjoy talking about pizza crust and the brewing of honey wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Backpacking.&#xD;&#xA;So far I've done two trips in Yosemite, one in the Cascades, one in Sequoia, one in the Sierra mountains, and one in the Catskills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Super Smash Bros. Melee.&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example of why](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=342).&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have the time to watch the entire game linked there, just watch [this part](https://youtu.be/QKfGNdSxy5E?t=535).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a] For USA users that's 9:00 Pacific, 10:00 Mountain, 11:00 Central, and 12:00 Eastern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4770d12c-01d4-4535-af2b-de6055b24e29" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:32.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="85eb3254-7090-479f-ae76-3dc4656203cf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:32.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends on the question. As a rule of thumb, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a question of the form  _What does this notation/terminology mean?_ is on-topic if it cannot immediately be answered by a simple Google search/Wikipedia lookup.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a question of the form _What is the standard notation for this quantity?_ or _Why do we use this notation?_ is off-topic/not constructive/primarily opinion-based, and should go to chat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. a question of the form _What is the historic origin/motivation of this notation/terminology?_ should go to [History of Science and Mathematics](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: If the site gets swamped by linguistic/notational/terminology soft-questions instead of conceptional physics questions, we might want to rethink this policy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="43aa3c20-07c0-414b-881f-8d767c3e651d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:32.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perhaps it's unwise of me to re-open an issue that's essentially settled here, but maybe it's relevant again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, you've heard of the new site, [History of Science and Mathematics](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/). Danu, and LoganM and I are the pro-tem mods, and perhaps we'll admit to a little shameless promoting here and there on questions on various SEs that might be good on HSM. This, however, is not one of those instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ wrote, perhaps eloquently:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a rule, physicists tend not to care about it in the sense that a historian would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may be true. On the flip side, historians tend not to care about it in the sense that a scientist would. In other words, we're in between everybody, although perhaps we've been leaning a little towards the historian side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics has long said that history questions are usually on-topic. The same seems to be the case here. I'm not quite sure about how Biology, Chemistry, and Earth Science, etc. are leaning, but it's probably not a huge issue. History has decided that science questions there are absolutely on topic, and we at HSM informally rejected two migrated questions that someone shunted from History to HSM (to the consternation of just about everybody who cared).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be questions that are on-topic on HSM that are not on-topic at any of the other science or math sites. For example, take this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why was Evariste Galois killed?](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/9/why-was-evariste-galois-killed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was [a meta discussion](https://hsm.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-questions-about-mathematicians-and-scientists-lives-on-topic) on the topic, with the resounding consensus that all questions about historical figures *must relate to the work of those figures.* A question about whether or not Albert Einstein liked Wiener Schnitzel would clearly be off-topic (and no, I have no idea). This sort of implies that many questions on HSM would be on-topic on the other science sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the same, though, questions that are less geared towards scientific/mathematical concepts and more towards the historical influence are possibly better for HSM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note: There seems to be a growing trend on Mathematics of people saying that a given question would be good for HSM. This is actually a problem, as there have been a couple cross-posting incidents. I have also noted once or twice that a question here would be good on HSM. Please, *do not* cross-post on HSM. It gets a bit messy, and is a pain for everyone. If you feel that your question is better on HSM, talk with the moderators here, as well as the pro-tem mods from HSM. I'm sure we can figure out if the question is suitable for migration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="0650a4eb-6870-4b13-92f7-2b2cdb1497f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:32.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![HSM][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4t53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="8116684c-9a73-4f7d-b52c-9ed79a6ff083" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:32.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been following the [tag:history] tag for some time now, and it led me to [this Phys.SE question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/174047/), which was recently closed. While the cited reason was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more telling clue was the four upvotes on [John Rennie's comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368971_174047):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns the history of science&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six upvotes on [Marcel Köpke's comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174047/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism#comment368795_174047)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe give it a try here: [hsm.stackexchange.com](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also seem to send a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been [discussions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/) (also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6421/)) on meta about this, and the consensus is that [tag:history] is on-topic. But times may have changed, and I see a *lot* of comments to [tag:history] questions along the lines of &quot;This might be better for HSM.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as circumstances have changed, I suggest we revisit the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should [tag:history] questions be on-topic on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with keeping history questions on-topic here, as other science sites (and Mathematics) have done. At the same time, despite my jokes about more traffic on HSM being more work for me, more questions there would certainly help. Also, given that mathematics is our top category (by far), physics questions would dilute the flow. Questions can absolutely be on-topic on multiple sites, though. I'm neutral on the issue.&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="a051c2d1-bece-4488-af2d-3671a97ed8d9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:32.623" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://hsm.stackexchange.com/ with https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" Text="The magical thing about physics is that I can write down an equation that will tell me how the universe is going to behave (well, at least in principle :-). We're all used to this, so we take it for granted, but if you stop to think about it the fact we mere humans can do this is absolutely amazing. This activity, the writing down of equations that describe the universe, is the core activity of physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the perfect physics question is one that I can answer by writing down an equation that describes the universe. Imperfect but still excellent physics questions concern the interpretation or clarification of such equations. Actually I'm happy to answer any question as long as ultimately the answer depends on a mathematical model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about how human beings came to formulate such models can still be physics if they depend on understanding, or at least appreciating, earlier simpler models. I think this is what [dmckee was getting at in his answer][1]. Physics is still central to such discussions even though it may not be the core concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But move any farther away from what seems to me to be our core activity and I don't think it's a question about physics, and therefore peripheral to this site. I don't rend my clothes and tear my hair when I see such questions, but since we have a perfectly good [history of science SE][2] why post such questions here? I did vote to close [the question that prompted this debate][3], but I considered my vote as a personal preference of little importance unless four other people expressed similar preferences (which they did :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/160/1325&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hsm.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2127/was-there-a-period-of-doubt-in-the-history-of-the-higgs-mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="03c3539a-67cd-43af-a45e-7685bd2251f7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:48.357" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://engineering.stackexchange.com/ with https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="2bd82105-86ec-4d95-9e04-db15ed7e3f34" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:48.357" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://engineering.stackexchange.com/ with https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="## What exactly is the relation between physics and engineering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physics** is a natural science. It seeks to study how and/or why nature works the way we observe. **Engineering** applies our understanding of nature to specific, real-world problems, creating new devices, products, or processes to solve those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While both physics and engineering often work together, using similar toolsets from mathematics, they have different goals. Put one way, physics seeks to break down the world around us into more modular parts and more fundamental relations, while engineering seeks to reassemble those pieces into a new form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So engineering is off-topic here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, **yes**. When constructing a product for use in the world, there are *many* considerations that go into the decision-making process. The underlying physical principles are only a part of this. The physics community, while often tangentially knowledgeable in these areas, is not the place to seek guidance when ease-of-use, manufacturing costs, material availabilities, etc. are also primary considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Are any engineering questions allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions **inspired by** engineering considerations can be on-topic on this site. For instance, it would be valid to ask if there is a fundamental *physical* limit to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - How well one could resolve an object with a telescope,&#xD;&#xA;  - How energy-efficient a computer can be, or&#xD;&#xA;  - How small a current can flow through a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, questions like [What really allows airplanes to fly?][1] that ask how a man-made system works are also on topic, as long as they aren't too broad. Questions about the physical reasoning and analysis that lead to design decisions are on topic; questions seeking help designing or building something is off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about experimental physics and laboratory equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is not just theoretical, and experimental physics is on topic here. This includes questions about the usage of laboratory equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## If my question doesn't belong here, where can I ask it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sites that allow certain types of engineering question on the Stackexchange Network. Your question may be suitable at one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Electrical Engineering][2]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Home Improvement][3]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Engineering][4]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Robotics][5]&#xD;&#xA;  - [Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, that list does not cover all forms of engineering. You can always propose a new Stackexchange site or support a proposal over at [Area 51][7]. For a quicker response, users with at least 20 reputation can always bring up a question in [our chat room][8]. Note that there is no guarantee that anyone there has any input, and The h Bar is not a Q&amp;A unto itself, but still we physics enthusiasts tend to like problem solving in general, as well as interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290/what-really-allows-airplanes-to-fly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://electronics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://diy.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://robotics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://area51.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="f210c82f-677e-46fa-8ef6-5490fc700bd2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:48.357" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://engineering.stackexchange.com/ with https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions are regularly closed here because they are considered engineering questions.  The current close vote option for this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question is off-topic because it appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As many of you probably know, an [engineering SE][1] has recently started its beta phase.  Should the close vote system be updated to migrate the question similar to what is now done with mathematics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason I can think of not to do so is that the engineering SE is still in the beta phase and may not graduate to become a full fledged site.  If that is the case, should close-voters agree to take it upon themselves to leave it in the comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="d176a4f8-7cfd-44a0-9221-763974f65227" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:48.357" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://engineering.stackexchange.com/ with https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjIbH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="360054ff-d969-4b78-8d33-160f96420019" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:48.357" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://engineering.stackexchange.com/ with https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" Text="For a beta site as young as this one, trigger-happy migration is generally a bad idea: it's not great for them, and it risks stranding good questions on a site that subsequently folds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, if a question looks likely to be declared off-topic here, or if it's on-topic but unlikely to find a qualified answerer, the most appropriate action is often a comment pointing the OP to the target site. I often simply ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would this question be more appropriate for [Engineering Stack Exchange](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, in copyable form &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Would this question be more appropriate for &#xD;&#xA;    [Engineering Stack Exchange](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep things friendly and polite, and do this case-by-case and tailored to the specific question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, if Engineering takes off and it turns out that they can indeed take many of our engineering questions, we can think about a more formal channel. In truth, though, there are really rather few such questions on this site in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="c178e2d1-a3ef-46c8-853d-8f5805d01014" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:52:02.003" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](https://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](https://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](https://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="d0addfd3-ddc8-4bfd-9e09-e3a33df0fc9a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:52:35.647" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ with https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![The Fun Physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ljt1P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="142f6065-ff4f-44c8-b23f-91b9da42bc7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:52:35.647" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ with https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![The Fun Physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ljt1P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="c78d13e7-d8c8-4377-9d13-8b58c671c1fb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:52:35.647" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ with https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/" Text="Would this question be allowed to migrate to Physics.Main?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are the specs of the components I would need to make a 1050 kph, non-rocket-propelled motorbike?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21815/what-are-the-specs-of-the-components-i-would-need-to-make-a-1050-kph-non-rocket)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm allowed to migrate, would/could I get answers like this? Keeping in mind that this is the kind of answer that I want...:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming a flat, asphalt road, and a rider that weighs X kg/lb/[Whatever], to get your motorcycle moving, your wheels need T torque, which means your engine needs to output E [Energy or CCs or whatever...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And that's assuming that everything is 100% efficient. If it's not, then your engine needs more power, and that power is dependent on the efficiency of engine to wheel torque, Z. The equation for the power needed for an inefficient engine, is E/Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And *that's* assuming that your chassis is weightless. If your chassis has weight W, [explain equation for motor energy for that scenario...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then the material of your wheel has to do this and that... [Stuff]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, the material of your chassis has to do [Stuff] to handle moving at 1050 mph...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone spoiler the following?** Like with this: [Achille Hui's spoiler](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13736/hierarchical-spoilers/13738#13738)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Okay... this seems really silly now... 'Cause the initial idea for this question was to figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;If such a motorcycle is possible, what has to change about physics?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which led to this chain of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What the requirements for those motorcycle parts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Are any of those requirements achievable by real-world physics, and for the parts that aren't, what bits of physics would need to change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. What would the implications of those physics changes be on the capabilities of technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.5. How do I have humans live in a world with those physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those last two questions seem to be reasonable worldbuilding questions, if the changes weren't too broad...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in combination, that's a big jumble of theoretical physics and worldbuilding... And even the initial questions seem a bit much for a SE site... *One facepalm is not enough...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7577" RevisionGUID="e20a04f9-bf1c-4125-8f5a-7be4f5566b10" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:35.123" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://ru.stackoverflow.com/ with https://ru.stackoverflow.com/" Text="Looking at the sciences only,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the total numbers can be [found here](http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questions) (sorted by total number of questions). I've made an abridged table here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site          Quest.&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Math         573,000&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         74,000&#xD;&#xA;    Physics       72,000&#xD;&#xA;    MathOverflow  69,000&#xD;&#xA;    Chemistry     14,000&#xD;&#xA;    Biology       11,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these sites are more than 3 years old (with MO, Math, Stats &amp; Physics all being more than 5), so I don't think time is a factor here.&lt;sup&gt;see below&lt;/sup&gt; What probably *is* a factor is the number of users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site          Users &#xD;&#xA;    --------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Math         241,000&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         78,000&#xD;&#xA;    Physics       81,000&#xD;&#xA;    MathOverflow  53,000&#xD;&#xA;    Chemistry     16,000&#xD;&#xA;    Biology       14,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 5 times as many users on Physics as Chemistry &amp; Biology, which seems to correlate to the 5 times as many questions found here than there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why there are 5 times as many users here, I'm not sure. But, I suspect it boils down to several factors: site policy, popularity (both academic &amp; general interest), and difficulty of subject among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Response to criticism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was presented in the comments that age *should* be a factor in the number of questions. On a naive level, it makes sense: if you've been around longer, you're likely to accrue more questions. And this is sorta backed by data:&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All data taken from [the SE team](http://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#oldest), but I'm putting a cap at 1e5 (which ignores a few sites, including Math.SE &amp; SO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at ~40500 (which corresponds to about 5 years, 8 months ago). That's quite the spread of question totals on a single date! Look at the table below, these are the sites that are 5 years, 8 months old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Site         Q       U&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Web Apps      19k     69k&#xD;&#xA;    Arqade        65k     82k&#xD;&#xA;    Webmasters    23k     45k&#xD;&#xA;    Cookign       14k     29k&#xD;&#xA;    GameDev       31k     61k&#xD;&#xA;    Photography   16k     31k&#xD;&#xA;    Stats         76k     79k&#xD;&#xA;    Math         576k    242k&#xD;&#xA;    DIY           22k     31k&#xD;&#xA;    GIS           65k     49k&#xD;&#xA;    TeX          108k     79k&#xD;&#xA;    AskUbuntu    219k    328k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is just fairly inconsistent with the naive hypothesis that age should be important. Going back to the graph, there are some *younger* sites that have *more questions* than older sites, including [Russian SO](https://ru.stackoverflow.com/) (81k questions in 1 year)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while it's reasonably true on a very naive level, I don't see how someone can claim it as an important factor, as was done in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. The technology sites dominate, with Stack Overflow having over 11 *million* questions at the time of writing; Ask Ubuntu &amp; SuperUser have more than 200,000 questions as well. All three of those sites have more than 300,000 users as well. &lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. A log-linear version of the plot can be [found here][2]; this shows the roughly linear fit (meaning power-law relation, roughly n=-71 at R-sq=0.47).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgCwA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OatBO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="ac2c2667-60f5-4155-b4dd-821615e13cd5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:49.587" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://spanish.stackexchange.com/ with https://spanish.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](https://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](https://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](http://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="dd4768e2-022b-4b5b-a2ae-8422afca8dce" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:53.973" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/ with https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2868" RevisionGUID="b4c82f64-4b79-483f-b56d-a6736a8bcb8d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:53.973" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/ with https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" Text="What makes a question on topic here is not whether it is _of interest to physicists_, but whether it is _about physics_. I don't see any way in which that question is about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I would think that much (not all) of the content of a typical computational physics course, including Monte Carlo methods, would actually fall under the scope of [Computational Science](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="4c03c4a7-c344-4cb7-b13f-9773efad5c85" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:53.973" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/ with https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" Text="#On homework:&#xD;&#xA;The [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help) has the link [*What topics can I ask about here?*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); half-way down this list is a short summary of questions that are *not* on topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **&quot;Do my homework&quot;-type physics questions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A 4kg ball is traveling at 8m/s in the x direction, how do I find...&quot;*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Physics - Stack Exchange is not a homework help site. If you have a question about a homework problem, or any problem of an educational nature, narrow it down to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. You can find more [information about acceptable homework questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) on our meta site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Non-mainstream physics, including pitches for personal theories**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[We deal with mainstream physics here.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site/4539#4539) Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not appropriate on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions about fictional physics**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a black hole?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at [Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Implementation details of computational tasks**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for [Computational Science](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/) or [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com), however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As linked in the comments, homework questions are overwhelmingly rejected again and again as part of the site's content. Note also that homework isn't simply &quot;Problem X.Y from &lt;text&gt;,&quot; we have carefully crafted the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a question put on-hold does not make you a &quot;victim&quot; of anything. It means that your question was deemed not to be within the bounds of the site's desired content. Note that this is *not* an automatic thing, requiring [5 votes from users with 3,000 or larger reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) *or* 1 vote from a [moderator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) (which happened for your case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any edit you make puts the question into the review queue for the 3,000+ rep users to review and judge whether it is still off-topic or has been changed enough to be on-topic. Simply adding an edit that says, &quot;This *isn't* homework&quot; isn't enough to get a question reopened, you need to change the *content* of the question to make it on-topic (this will likely take a lot of work &amp; effort on your part, and it may even be the case that you find your answer while doing the rewrite--though, if this does happen, I heartily encourage you to still rewrite the question so that future visitors to the site can learn from you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On site traffic:&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is an issue. According to [StackExchange's All-site traffic page](http://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic), we have averaged over 25,000 visitors per day the last two weeks (putting us at #25) with an average of 53 questions asked per day (#9 overall) over that same time-span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="7ed05c74-3481-493f-8a56-d47dcd34f609" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:53.973" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/ with https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The gory details of coding physics simulations are off-topic, even though the details of the physics to be simulated are on-topic.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you left [Computational Science (sometimes called &quot;scicomp&quot; after their URL)][2] off your list of possible sites. If you know enough about the foundation of numeric modeling that might be the site on which to seek truly expert help to refine a implementation. However, I'm not clear on how interested they are in hearing from someone with no experience in numerical work trying to get a first project off the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5623/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="273b799f-c22b-4a1f-b21d-89e3bd3add99" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:04.600" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://movies.stackexchange.com/ with https://movies.stackexchange.com/" Text="Feature requests of this magnitude are usually very hard to get past the Stack Exchange team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On one hand, this sort of script is very heavy and it significantly adds to the page load times, particularly for users on slow connections. We already have one relatively heavy dependency (MathJax), and adding another one would slow the page down significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This means that for the team to give this the green light there needs to be a very strong case that it is really necessary - on the same scale as MathJax, say. (Or, say, on the same scale as the circuit editor is necessary on [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/) and the YouTube embedded player is necessary on [Music](https://music.stackexchange.com/) and [Movies &amp; TV](https://movies.stackexchange.com/).) For relevant past requests on this site, see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/what-about-enahanced-functionality-to-allow-answers-to-have-richer-educational-c) or [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5028/should-we-allow-embedding-videos-in-questions-or-answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Building this sort of thing is also a *huge* amount of work for the developers, and in fact most such feature requests are only implemented if there already is a working implementation. This means that if you can sit down and code the feature you want, there's some chances it will be implemented, but if you want the SE dev team to write an awesome drawing app for you, you'll be waiting a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This applies even from the tiniest of feature requests (many of which are [already implemented in SOUP](https://stackapps.com/questions/4486/the-stack-overflow-unofficial-patch-soup) but are yet to be pulled into the main site, and it applies to feature requests with huge popular support like [arXiv trackbacks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - That said, if you do find or write a suitable app, it is perfectly possible for individual users to mount this on top of the site via a user script. For examples, see [StackApps](https://stackapps.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if you really feel strongly about this, then start coding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="fbf69a04-b07d-4002-b54d-44032a0de511" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:04.600" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://movies.stackexchange.com/ with https://movies.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](https://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="edc87b1d-1ba8-4689-949e-393b05f00efc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:43.260" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am not heavily invested in the chat rooms and I dont think its been a (major) problem.  But, in my opinion, **the main chat room (&quot;the h Bar&quot;), should avoid politics and equally contentious topics**.  Given their (subjective) nature and scope, sparse discussion is natural, but excessive debate should be avoided or moved to other chat rooms within Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I participate on Physics.SE for the quality and purity of content, the professionalism, and the community moderation.  Its a refreshing sanctuary from constant discord in the media, etc. - and my optimism is renewed when I see talented people working together, joking, and doing what they love.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that contentious topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Waste valuable moderation time** because they require constant oversight&#xD;&#xA;* **Place moderators in a no-win situation**, where decisions are inherently subjective and any action is open to perceived bias&#xD;&#xA;* **Distract from physics**, the explicit focus of the site - when discussed, they dominate conversation - after all, people can discuss them in other chat rooms within Physics.SE or on more relevent SE sites (ie. [politics](https://politics.stackexchange.com/), [skeptics](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Create a toxic atmosphere**, and they are nearly impossible to ignore - sure, they're important, but users are excluded from chat if avoiding them.  Too often, they are disrespectful.  We have the 'Be Nice' policy... thats great, but its also been largely ineffective.  We dont need that in the main chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we avoid such topics on &quot;the h Bar&quot;, I think it would have a better atmosphere and allow  more open-ended topics, with limited oversight required.  I think moderation can (and should) be driven by chat participants in place of moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, I recently came to this conclusion after the CEO of Stack Exchange, Joel Spolsky, posted an [overtly political opinion](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand) on Meta Stack Overflow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It created a toxic atmosphere, and to many (including myself), the post violates most aspects of the [official SE policy on political posts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289398/if-youre-gonna-talk-politics-you-must-respect-those-who-disagree), intended to limit conflict.  Regardless of the post's political content, the community agreed that was [off-topic](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342480/should-the-time-to-take-a-stand-question-be-closed-moved) and [violated the 'Be Nice' policy](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342646/3623090).  Worse, it created a [close/reopen war](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/342440/revisions?page=4), where moderators (including Joel himself) unilaterally reopened the post (multiple times) after the community had closed it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultimately, I think its troubling that the SE team believes in community moderation and the ethos we collectively respect and enforce [**only when it suits them**](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/342903/3623090).  Stack Exchange exists because millions of people (like you) donated their time and expertise.  To me, using it as a political grandstand abuses our trust and efforts, and its narcissistic to believe its the righteous decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, **I think the moderators here do a great job ...thank you!**  But, Joel's post and the responses from Stack Exchange give me pause moving forward, especially where politics and moderation intersect in central venues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="a74145aa-e8a8-4869-8511-e523c4e0303e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:55:11.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/" Text="An example&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we want to ask how to find the electric field outside of a uniform sphere of charge Q and radius R.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these possible titles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Electrostatics question?&#xD;&#xA;2. Electric field from charge distribution&#xD;&#xA;3. Electric field outside of uniformly charged sphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #1** is bad.&#xD;&#xA;A person reading this title knows only that the question has to do with electrostatics.&#xD;&#xA;Electrostatics is a very broad subject and the reader cannot tell from this title whether or not he/she will be able to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another serious problem with title #1 is that it is grammatically confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which is ok, but as such it should not have a question mark at the end.&#xD;&#xA;When the human language parser sees the question mark it gets ready to parse a question, but none is found.&#xD;&#xA;This wastes computing cycles of the brain, is unpleasant, and should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #2** is better.&#xD;&#xA;Already from this title the reader knows that in order to answer the question he/she must remember how to compute electric fields given a charge distribution.&#xD;&#xA;That's probably enough for the reader to decide whether or not to click.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title #3** is even better.&#xD;&#xA;The title itself provides all the information the reader needs to write a complete answer!&#xD;&#xA;This title *respects the reader* by offering him/her enough information to make a decision about how to spend his/her time just by reading your title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some bad titles (and how to fix a couple of them)&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few question titles from the front page over the last two days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Ohms Law Question?][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Black hole (classical or quantum?)][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Boomerang physics and aerodynamics][3]&#xD;&#xA;4. [SU(3) antiquark triplet transformation][4]&#xD;&#xA;5. [Question about deriving Gauss's Law][5]&#xD;&#xA;6. [Need help solving physics problem][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with **title #1**.&#xD;&#xA;This title suffers three problems.&#xD;&#xA;First, it does not give the reader enough information about what the question really asks.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the actual question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since V=IR, if you were to have say a 5v source connected directly to ground, no components in the circuit at all, you would need to add resistance for the current to flow? Or is there something I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is a question involving Ohm's law, we can be much more specific in the title.&#xD;&#xA;A simple improvement would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ohm's law when voltage source is connected directly to ground&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that title I immediately know why the person asking the question is confused, and I can decide whether or not I want to write an explanation about the limits of model equations and the realities of internal resistance of voltage sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem with the title is that 1/3 of the words in it are wasted.&#xD;&#xA;Every question posted on StackExchange sites is a question, so there's no need to tell the reader that your question is a question in the title.&#xD;&#xA;One way to avoid this error is to ask yourself whether or not each word in the title conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;Telling the reader that your question is a question does not convey information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third and final problem is that the question mark should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Ohm's Law Question&quot; is not an English question, so there is no place for a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at **title #4**.&#xD;&#xA;This title mentions more advanced physics and as such it is easy to give it more lenience than is given to titles of more basic questions.&#xD;&#xA;However, title #4 suffers the same problems as others in the list.&#xD;&#xA;I can see that the question will have something to do with antiquark triplet transformations, but I have no idea what the actual question is.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short excerpt from the question text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what is the real reason we can't create an antiquark triplet that transforms like the quark triplet, i.e. if q is the 3 and transforms like...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on that excerpt we can already choose a much better title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why can't we create an antiquark triplet which transforms like a quark triplet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titles matter: they help readers decide what questions to click on and steer the reader's mind set as they read your question.&#xD;&#xA;Strive to make titles clear, specific, and concise.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which only state the general field of the question are not helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Titles which actually *state the question* are very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick tips&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check that your title is actually a [grammatically well-formed question][7] if you put a question mark at the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;1. Review each word of your title and decide whether or not it conveys information to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;1. If your title is a phrase, re-read your question text and check that the phrase you choose is as specific as possible.&#xD;&#xA;1. You are not writing a suspense novel. There is no reason to hide the true nature of your question by writing a broad title and then specifying at the end of the question text. Common wisdom is to get the point as soon as possible, and nothing comes sooner than the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no need to manually type tags into your title. For example, don't do this: &quot;[Quantum mechanics] How do I compute hydrogen atom energy levels?&quot;. Just add the quantum-mechanics tag and leave the bracketed stuff out of the title.&#xD;&#xA;1. Capitalize only the first word and [proper nouns][8] in the title. Do not capitalize other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework for newer users&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Review the linked questions above and edit their titles, making them better according to guidelines put forth in this post.&#xD;&#xA;This is good practice and helps the site :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer could probably use some improvements to tighten the discussion. I welcome edits warmly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156541/ohms-law-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104543/black-hole-classical-or-quantum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156116/boomerang-physics-and-aerodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156548/su3-antiquark-triplet-transformation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156551/question-about-deriving-gausss-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183696/need-help-solving-physics-problem&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/20730/why-do-my-how-to-questions-often-get-renamed-to-how-do-i&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="3440b1d3-86c9-4d3d-909c-2021271bced0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:55:35.310" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d64R1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="29168c7f-d8b9-441e-b0c9-aad611546931" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:55:35.310" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree that the current 404 page is relatively boring, but I quite dislike the idea of having a formula, and particularly one with such localized meanings as those. The reason for my dislike is that it can only ever speak to a very narrow population, and it will bug other physicists and alienate non-physicist visitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as was mentioned in the comments, it is by default not possible, and should not be something to aim for, to have different error pages depending on what happened to the post. The point of the 404 page is that it's what you get when the page isn't there, i.e. when you've put in a corrupted address, and this should be the main thrust of the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the system does provide a custom page when the page exists but has been deleted; indeed it will go as far as giving you the question title even if you ask only by numeric ID: [physics.se:99313](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/99313). This page does distinguish between questions &quot;removed for reasons of moderation&quot; (automatic and moderator deletions) and posts removed by their author (e.g. [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94485/is-there-an-ideal-white-body)). However, this should be seen as a secondary feature; altering the design only adds stigma to deletions. I'm not even sure that it can be done; finding deleted posts is nigh-impossible, by design, unless you're 10k+ on that site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the design, here are some interesting ones from across the network to see if anyone comes up with ideas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Travel](https://travel.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Bicycles](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Database Administrators](https://dba.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematica](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Unix &amp; Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ask Different](https://apple.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/donkey)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/donkey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7566" RevisionGUID="f303cfc9-be45-4686-9f31-0aae7d26d428" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:55:35.310" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, use https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ (which was launched in 2012) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="046d71d3-c451-4236-997a-e21c4a4213f7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:15.457" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ with https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know this might be unusual since people usually ask the opposite question, but I simply have to ask this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's about this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132114/can-a-superhuman-move-so-fast-as-to-be-invisible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really think that this question belongs on https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ (maybe https://biology.stackexchange.com/ since it also includes the neuroscience tag). Also I think it should have been put on hold in order to improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** **It's about perception.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the question wants to know whether &quot;regular audiences&quot; or a &quot;normal person&quot; can see it or not, the author isn't asking whether it's detectable by other physical means. To be fair, there are some physical considerations that we have to worry about here but I can't see how a physicist could conclude the issue, it has to come to the issue of human visual perception and that's not physics. The visual system is far from an idealized camera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) The questions is badly posed.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the title is very misleading, it's clearly not about the moving object, it's about the observer. And I don't see how it helps if the object is superhuman and if we have the exact dimensions of the space in which the superhuman is confined. The motion is practically arbitrary, only limited by special relativity and the object's only limitation is it's approximate size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can safely say that the question can be translated into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it possible for an everyday-sized easily visible object to evade human visual perception by moving sufficiently fast in a confined space?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you put it this way, I think it's even more clear that a physicist cannot give a final word here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="96318676-640d-4789-b05e-34a7d2180ffa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:15.457" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ with https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/" Text="Previously, I wrote the following question [Has anyone formally tested Josh Pellicer's theory on human sexual behavior?][1]. This was a question I wrote with a lot of material from the work in question. This question contained 6 sub-questions to answer for an overarching one question. Oddly enough, the question received great attention, so I placed a bounty on it, and then I received a very well thought out answer which answered all sub-questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the Curious George that I am, I wrote another question [What are the limitations of superconductors?][2], then I got into a lot of trouble. Mostly because I made an inappropriate comment: &quot;Let's get inquisitive.&quot; I am sorry, I was listening to a lot of funky music over the weekend, while I was learning to program, and then I found myself getting down on my keyboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think either the question did not have enough supporting material, no bounty placed, nonproductive commenting, or too many sub-questions. I know the question is on hold, so I will be unable to fix it in time, so what should I do in the future to avoid this issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9300/has-anyone-formally-tested-josh-pellicers-theory-on-human-sexual-behavior&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166310/what-are-the-limitations-of-superconductors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="857f7429-5c15-4c5f-b1a2-4474755f0f71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:37.443" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://french.stackexchange.com/ with https://french.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](https://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](https://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](http://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](https://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="36f1232d-5d24-45ef-9eac-77a3fef8c53f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just a quick word to let you know that [Chemistry.SE](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) has now launched into public beta!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="e85d3896-2a5d-4331-8472-926cac102889" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Chemistry - Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="7b1c3801-b6ca-4c5b-92c7-860bca3136ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] was asked recently. @dmckee and I both noted that it might work on [chem.SE][2] as well as here. I then stared reading through the physical-chemistry tag, found a few questions, including [this one][1], which were (appropriately) closed as off topic. So I'm wondering, is there a good way to port these over there? I can't find a flag that I can use. Is there a good way to ping the user who asked the question? Is it acceptable for me to simply copy the question and ask it at Chem.SE if I understand it well enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24817/a-quick-method-for-separating-liquids&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31851/the-antibonding-orbital-with-shrinking-interatomic-distance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="9f5a164f-328d-45d0-98d1-f25405f86a60" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Chemistry - Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="e2d27348-c055-4669-8c04-d0fc6f6a27ed" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have [undeleted your post on chem][1], for now. Stuff like this is exactly why I proposed [soft migration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a good fit for both sites, and cross posting isn't exactly forbidden, just discouraged. In [some][3] [cases][4] it even leads to great results. In this case, since Physics.SE has been quite enthusiastic about the question, I'm reluctant to follow the &quot;keep it on one site at a time&quot; rule. [Jeff's objection][5] to cross posting doesn't really apply here. And before you ask, you won't get suspended for having the same text in both posts -- it seems tailored equally well for both audiences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll see if either version of the question gets answers. If one of them gets answers, then we can close the other and hat it with a &quot;answers be here&quot; link. Or leave it open; as long as they're linked to each other it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4377/stripeless-cleaning-of-windows&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131950/asking-on-multiple-sites-soft-migration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/150615/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3/why-is-quicksort-better-than-other-sorting-algorithms-in-practice&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/888/should-users-be-cross-posting-questions/896#896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="081766bb-bdbc-41fe-85e1-80e3cce63cd2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="Firstly, note that very few sites offer _both_ HTTP and HTTPS. There's only one that I can think of -- Wikipedia. GMail used to; but we don't link to GMail on Phys.SE and it's pure HTTPS now anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is HTTPS, and how does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this post][1] if you're interested to know more. Or, y'know, Google it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is simply a protocol that prevents snooping and manipulation by intermediate entities on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens is that when you ask for an https website, the first thing it does is hand you a certificate. The certificate basically says &quot;I am who I am&quot;, and is generally digitally &quot;signed&quot; by some trusted entity that your browser knows(many times there are intermediate signing entities). Note that due to the signing path, this cannot be spoofed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certificate forms the basis of all the coming cryptography -- it acts as an initial transfer of public keys. Any further transfer of data will be hidden (except for the URLs you access) using this certificate and a prime number you generated as keys. Each party has a public and private key: Using _my_ private key and (say) _Wikipedia's_ public key, I can encrypt a message that can only be decrypted using my public key and Wikipedia's private key. The reverse works as well. Since the intermediate parties only have the public keys, they cannot send fake messages, nor can they read the messages being sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##When is it necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information you're receiving to be modified: For example if I'm downloading Chrome, I wouldn't want an attacker to sit in the middle of my connection with Google, pretend to be Google, and hand me their version of Chrome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't want the information being sent to be snooped/modified: The easiest example of this is credit card/bank details. If I submit a form containing these details, I probably should only do so on a trusted HTTPS connection where I trust the site, and they have a security certificate verifying their identity (Most browsers display a green lock and the title of the company in the address bar). If it's not on a trusted connection, my ISP, proxy servers, and other entities in between can read these and steal my money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Is it necessary for https Wikipedia links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really, no. Unless you are blindly going to use the information given on Wikipedia to do something (run some code or mess around with chemicals: you don't want Wikipedia urging you to add [FOOF][2] to your baking soda and vinegar experiment), there isn't much point in using https when you are just reading stuff. URLs are visible to men in the middle anyway, so if your government hates Wikipedia, they'll still come to know. (You can bypass this using SSH tunneling or web proxies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia HTTPS is really meant for those who edit/contribute to Wikipedia: They are submitting passwords and other stuff and would like it to stay secure. Plus, there are those with access to privately identifying information like IPs nad emails for whom it is a matter of trying to keep private info private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some [other uses][3] as well. Generally, those who use HTTPS for these reasons know how to tack an s onto the URL themselves :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Does https have any problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yep. Firstly, as you noted, it's slightly slower. Not enough to make a difference while browsing Wikipedia, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, not all proxy servers like it. Using HTTPS over an HTTP proxy (which is what most institutes and workplaces use -- SOCKS proxies are rare) requires  a protocol-switching thing known as HTTP CONNECT, and not all proxies allow that on port 443 (where HTTPS runs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those behind such proxies *usually* know how to deal with this -- just chop the s right out of the URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What should our policy be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as I mentioned, those who need https know how to enable it for Wikipedia.  The reverse doesn't always work, since when https wikipedia fails to work behind a proxy, to many it just looks like Wikipedia is down (&quot;Oh no! how will I ever complete my project now!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while we shouldn't go actively editing https out, it's great if you try to use http in your Wikipedia links. And if you are editing a post, it's fine if you replace the https as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this applies only for Wikipedia -- most sites do not have both HTTP and HTTPS at the same time, so editing a link to HTTP may break it (always check)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/20833/7497&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4624/please-explain-why-dioxygen-difluoride-is-so-dangerous&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HTTPS#But_still_very_useful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5267" RevisionGUID="254880dc-6d11-4d44-8a11-941cd25b0df2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Chemistry Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3eT2R.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="e9156fd7-0de0-49ad-9143-fd8fd2b0b5b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems that we're somewhere in the queue for a site CSS adjustment, accompanied by [the new profile pages](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/244238/profile-page-makeover-part-3-the-prototype-returns). Since the CSS is getting a makeover, I would like to float this idea: can we change the font to something that gets along better with the MathJax font?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, posts with MathJax look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/89LAr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184087/buckingham-pi-theorem-application-the-case-of-only-0-or-1-dimensionless-grou/184099#184099)). Note how the math tends to stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that I often do things like `10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; s` to keep the text streamlined, unless I really need the maths. Ideally, within the LaTeX paradigm - i.e. in the style used by all serious physics journals - the math will blend in perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cp7e6.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know that this is quite a lot to ask, since the site font is currently very sans-serif, but over in [Chemistry SE's gorgeous new design](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) it does work much better (with a serif font):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl3i2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can we move over in that direction somewhat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="5773087f-41f0-4c9c-a797-ab65c96eee07" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:01.710" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](http://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](https://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="8755dc1e-b2e1-481b-a438-0f359383c05c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:29.297" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://opendata.stackexchange.com/ with https://opendata.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="a72a6586-b7a5-4319-a900-cd2aa07eefb0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="5ee30a48-d6bf-4e09-91db-d98738d55149" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="What is the proper way of punctuating block formulae? There seem to be variance from “a mathematical text is, before everything else, a text” ([qtd. via MathOverflow][1]), to confusion whether parenthetically numbered equations follow the same rules, to publications like my current American physics textbook which uses none.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I used to punctuate my formulae, just like I separate statements in my algebra and my programming with semi-colons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that in practical application within LaTeX environment, some insist that punctuation, as part of the text, should be styled like the rest of the text, and be outside, whereas formulae have their own styling. But on Physics.SE MathJAX pushes outside punctuation into the next paragraph (it parses formula as a separate `&lt;div&gt;` breaking up the flow of text regardless of carriage returns?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/6675/periods-and-commas-in-mathematical-writing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="e54a0eef-c3bc-4f14-aa1b-8883a730efda" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="As regards the [tag:quant-ph] tag, I see a link with a MathOverflow policy which [asks all users to tag their questions using at least one arXiv subject area](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/ask). While we don't have any such policy, I suspect some MathOverflow user applied the tag once, and it stuck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="5cb20d4c-577e-4486-9cc0-d8886356e1f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="The [breakthroughs in physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/accidental-unplanned-breakthroughs-in-physics) question would _not_ be on topic in Math Overflow. This is mostly because they _don't_ welcome physics questions (happy as they are to take high-level mathematics questions with roots in physics), but you are also [mistaken](https://mathoverflow.net/search?page=1&amp;tab=votes&amp;q=closed%3a1) [that](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133203/explanations-for-mathematicians-about-the-falsifiability-or-not-of-string-the) [they](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/13682/which-mathematical-ideas-have-done-most-to-change-history) [generically](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/18100/theorems-with-unexpected-conclusions) [welcome](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/examples-of-common-false-beliefs-in-mathematics) [list](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends) [questions](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of railing against the closure, why not [listen to Wouter](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4839/8563) and propose a list question policy that will allow the questions you find interesting and at the same time protects the site from [&quot;ooooh, I have one!&quot;](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/1083/do-good-math-jokes-exist) questions polluting the front page (and, specifically, addresses the concerns in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4045/8563), [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4565/8563) and others to that same question, and [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/)). You might actually find it hard!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="80591efe-af3a-4de3-8b8a-add06721588f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="I see that it has been three days since the [math version][1] and two since the [mathoverflow version][2], both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those attitudes say that cross-posting is a form of prioritizing your desire for a large audience ahead of the desire of other users to see only a selected fraction of the available traffic as indicated by their choice of which [usenet groups|stack exchange sites] to read. That was historically interpreted as a kind of rudeness---putting ones own desired first it ones of the core attributes of rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Stack Exchange isn't usenet, but [the users have been polled on their opinions on this issue][3], and it is clear that the usenetesque view is dominant on the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We understand that you don't agree. Well, there is no harm in disagreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly I disagree. You've made a fairly minimal set of textual changes, but you are still asking the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't get an answer elsewhere I'll reopen it sometime tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1329146/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/209604/generalization-of-de-rham-cohomology-for-spinor-fields&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7041" RevisionGUID="2829d366-050d-4633-99d6-8c48eb5159da" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="Resource recommendation questions should be **on-topic, but community wiki** (and with the same expectation for the content of the answers as currently set in the [tag:faq] post). The [tag:faq] post should be altered to reflect that both old and new [tag:resource-recommendation] questions should be turned into community wiki posts, as indicated in the top-voted answer of &quot;Good list, bad list&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendation questions cost no effort to ask. There is not much research one can do for them (since disallowing certain recommendations just because asker has already looked at them would be very strange, considering questions should *not* merely be about helping the asker, but anyone finding the question). One can't write them particularly well, since they're always going to follow the same scheme. Upvotes will indicate the popularity of the topic that is being asked about, but nothing else. For this, one should not get or lose reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resource recommendation answers are easy to write - pick your favourite book on the subject and describe why you like it, what it contains, and why it is appropriate for the topic being asked about. Expertise in the topic would be *ideal*, but is in no way required for recommending a book. Upvotes and downvotes indicate not &quot;factual correctness&quot; of the answer nor the effort poured into it, but how much the userbase likes or dislikes the particular book being recommended. One should not gain or lose reputation based on how much other people like one particular book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, resource recommendation questions provide a valuable...resource for people trying to find books or other sources on specific topics. Unlike reviews at book stores or the like, Physics.SE provides the unique possibility to source those recommendations from a community of physicists. This is why they should not be entirely off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we would take a *principled stance* against making *any* questions CW by policy (which [this SE blog post](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/) also linked by DavidZ seems to indicate), then resource recommendation questions should be off-topic, since for the reasons above one should not gain or lose reputation from them. However, this policy, though talked about in the blog, is not implemented network-wide: At least [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/) still habitually makes questions community wiki which are *broad* or *opinion-based*, but nevertheless considered worthwhile by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="12ac5a9a-bf3c-4a09-85ad-463eed85dbe4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="One long-standing feature requests for the Stack Exchange engine is the implementation of *trackbacks* for mentions of the arXiv on Stack Exchange sites. In general, if you have a blog and you blog about an arXiv eprint, you can send the arXiv a specially crafted http message, and then your blog gets listed on a page of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://arXiv.org/tb/paper-id&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that lists a bunch of internet locations that discuss the eprint. Some more examples of how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [Here](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658) is a list of trackbacks to the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658) from various blogs. My feature-request is that if a future SE post mentions an arXiv number, say, [arXiv:0905.2658](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658), then a trackback is automatically sent to the arXiv.org who then adds the SE post to the [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0905.2658).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _Example:_ [This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/30320/2451) SE answer mentions the arXiv preprint [arXiv:0707.2895](http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895). With trackbacks to the arXiv, it would be possible to see on the corresponding [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/0707.2895) that this preprint is mentioned on SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _More Examples:_ ([SE question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/9727/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1103.5222)); &#xD;&#xA;([SE question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48292/2451), [arXiv preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0545), [trackback list](http://arxiv.org/tb/1211.0545)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recent trackbacks from across the internet to the whole of arXiv, see http://arxiv.org/tb/recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trackback mechanism was implemented and put online on [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/) in 2013, and it has been ticking along ever since. A feature request was posted at about that time on [Meta Stack Excange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) to enable this across all the science Stack Exchange sites, at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [Trackbacks from SE to the arXiv.org?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240520/trackbacks-from-se-to-the-arxiv-org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has received a lot of love over the years (currently at score 62) but apparently this has not been enough. So: do you think this mechanism should be enabled on this site? If so, either post an answer here saying Aye, or go show that feature-request some (more) love." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="9e3dd8fb-cec4-4e2d-880f-d46d58206209" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:54.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="This question is not about the usefulness of this tag, but about the usefulness of its topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathSE finds it useful.][1] They are the [best going][2] StackExchange site after the SO.&#xD;&#xA;* [The MathOverflow, too,][3] despite they are a grad-level community with quite harsh moderation customs, having many Big Names between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now think, which direction find you better to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Additional info][4] about the main sociological structure of the SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackexchange.com/sites&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/soft-question&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/252077/1783163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="e816bef1-9c62-492c-a24a-c4260526068b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:58:50.550" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="86ea6039-2f9a-44ba-b443-007a05374a9b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:58:50.550" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qIjvZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="bfd9cfe3-32f3-40fa-b918-512c28a92721" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:58:50.550" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Space Exploration Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qIjvZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9593" RevisionGUID="103f013e-494c-4545-ba8c-ebb33db5ec91" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:58:50.550" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![space.stackexchange.com][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ckdoi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://space.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="60547646-d3ee-4a1a-b2ad-ff924f63d6a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Obviously, there's a lot of overlap between physics and astronomy. It would be good to have some guidelines for what goes where now that the [astronomy beta][1] is live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example questions for discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Why do we say that the earth moves around the sun?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Questions about the solar system][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [The final death of a black hole.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. [What is meant by positive and negative gravity/energy/spactimecurvature?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. [Would a submarine float in the atmosphere of Jupiter?][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. [What nonlinear deformations will a fast rotating planet exhibit?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm leaving out really obviously astronomy questions like [What is 656 Beagle?][8]. The big question marks are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Classical mechanics/dynamics questions that are principally about astronomical objects&#xD;&#xA; - Cosmology&#xD;&#xA; - General Relativity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where do those go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10933/why-do-we-say-that-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/questions-about-the-solar-system&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/the-final-death-of-a-black-hole&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9201/what-is-meant-by-positive-and-negative-gravity-energy-spactimecurvature&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9456/would-a-submarine-float-in-the-atmosphere-of-jupiter&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10670/what-nonlinear-deformations-will-a-fast-rotating-planet-exhibit&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/what-is-656-beagle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="f432c49a-e47d-4370-a6d3-f3297a426068" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Recently we have entertained a new use on Physics.SE (and notably on Astronomy.SE) who has four times posted identical (or nearly so) question to both Physics and Astronomy in short order. (Not that this question is meant to pick on the user in question, just that seeing these posts has brought the situation to the forefront of my attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [I've been known to defend the cross-site duplication of content][1] in the past, but this feels distinctly different to me and offends sensibilities developed many years ago on the Usenet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole I feel we should discourage such intentional duplication, but I am interested to hear what other have to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Remnant of a supernova][2] and [remnant of a supernova][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [Rainbow around Sun][4] and [Rainbow around Sun][5]&#xD;&#xA;* [the collision of Phobos][6] and [The collision of Phobos][7]&#xD;&#xA;* [two distant galaxies seen from earth][8] and [Galaxies seen from earth][9] (despite the difference in titles the text is the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/725/what-should-be-sent-to-astronomy-stackexchange/726#726&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14524/remnant-of-a-supernova&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1194/211&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14254/520&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1138/211&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/14212/520&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1134/211&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13991/520&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1127/211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="07795b9c-63b2-4ea5-a806-16a93fd20012" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to these, to make them successful &amp; scientific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the long list of [science][1] and [technology][2] proposals on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Committers needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Artificial Intelligence][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Modelling tools for sustainable development goals][3]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/93481.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/97641.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/97641/open-modelling-tools-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Site definition needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Math Review][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Renewable Energy][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/90443.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/95034.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/95034/renewable-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sites in beta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/7/science?tab=beta) and [technology](http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology?tab=beta) sites currently in beta include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpQZm.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Astronomy&quot;&gt;][11]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Computational Science&quot;&gt;][12]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FlxKZ.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Earth Science&quot;&gt;][13]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;History of Science and Maths&quot;&gt;][14]&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; alt=&quot;Engineering&quot;&gt;][15]&#xD;&#xA;[![Mathematics Educators][16]][17]&#xD;&#xA;[![Open Data][18]][19]&#xD;&#xA;[![Space Exploration][20]][21]&#xD;&#xA;[![Robotics][22]][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/64216.png&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/51674.png&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t253k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://space.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uP1Y2.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://robotics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="9dc9b9bc-256c-4079-989b-b547344281ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="There seems to be a fair bit of decent, so I'm going to put forward the third proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take most of the questions, but filter out the ones that really aren't on topic. Basically, don't take equipment, observational help, etc. I suspect that around 80% of the questions fit into this category, but there might be a few that get left behind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some that I suspect should be left behind (All stolen from my own questions, so as to not offend anyone else;-): But most of them should be brought here, for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1573/71&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1901/71&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1434/71&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/93/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="ebcf2513-3d7d-44e7-b584-43e33e2fd9c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="# [How will the migration happen?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1225/how-are-merges-with-other-ses-executed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Friday (barring any unexpected delays), the Stack Exchange team will take the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy sites offline, and will transfer all remaining questions _except for closed questions_ on them to Physics. The transfer will be done in a similar manner to a regular migration of a single question from one site to another, except that it will be handled by the developers using a special mechanism, so the migrated questions won't all show up on the front page. No involvement from the moderators or members of these sites will be necessary to migrate questions to Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if a question doesn't belong on Physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two classes of questions which, while they may not be entirely off topic on Physics, would probably be better handled elsewhere, in the judgment of their respective communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From Theoretical Physics, questions about quantum computing are appropriate for [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/). This includes most or all of the [quantum-information](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-information) and [quantum-computing](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing) tags on TP. These questions will be manually migrated to TCS prior to the merge on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;- From Astronomy, questions about astrophotography are appropriate for [Photography](http://photo.stackexchange.com). This includes some/most of the [astrophotography](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography) tag. These questions will be manually migrated to Photography prior to the merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a member of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a member of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy community, you don't _need_ to do anything. Any questions or answers you've posted will be automatically transferred, unless they get manually migrated to another site beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't have an account on this site, your profile and reputation on these sites will **not** be transferred. So there is one thing that we _recommend_ you do: **sign up for an account on Physics!** And make sure that account is [associated](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous-unregist) with your existing one on either TP or Astro. When your posts are migrated over, they will not be linked to your profile any longer _unless_ you make this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note that bounties are reset][1] (since the revision history is not migrated over)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many badges will be lost. You will keep vote-received-related badges (barring issues caused by the non-migrated closed posts). This will include the (nice|good|great)(question|answer) badges. You will also get vote chronology badges (like the Mortarboad series), but will probably lose vote-given badges like Electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag badges can be recovered if your posts get similarly retagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badges like Yearling and  Fanatic will go down the drain. ([Source for badge stuff--also contains &quot;what is migrated&quot;][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the revision history is not migrated (only the current version with credit to the OP), so edit-related badges disappear as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, since Physics will be expanding its scope to include all questions that were previously on topic for either Theoretical Physics or Astronomy, if you enjoyed contributing to either of those sites, you may want to continue contributing to Physics. And we would certainly love your help making this site great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will also help the process go more smoothly if you search your site for any questions that need to be sent anywhere other than Physics and flag them for moderator attention. In particular, take a look at any questions you have asked and think about whether they should be sent somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# As a moderator of one of the sites to be migrated, what do I need to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing that moderators of TP and Astro need to do is to identify any questions that don't belong on Physics and migrate them to the site they do belong on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How can I deal with &quot;noise&quot; drowning out the questions I'm interested in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mainly a concern for the Theoretical Physics community: the research-level questions coming from that site will be swamped by the larger number of lower-level questions that Physics gets on a daily basis. It's still an open question what we will be doing about this, but there is a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag) to use a tag (probably [tag:research-level]) to identify the sort of questions that are of interest to research physicists. If you have any comments or even just opinions about that proposal, your input would be very much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless we get more input on that question that changes the status quo, we will be going ahead with the implementation of this tag starting in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How will Physics Stack Exchange change after the merger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of Physics [will be expanding](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono) to include everything that is currently on topic on Astronomy. This includes observational astronomy questions (about using telescopes etc.), which may not normally be considered part of physics. This means that we will shortly be changing the FAQ to reflect these new topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1222/change-name-to-physicsastronomy) to change the name/logo of the site to reflect this change in scope. For now, if you have any comments or opinions on this, please contribute to the linked question! We will not be making a final decision on this until after the merger is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What needs to be done after questions are merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions coming from Theoretical Physics and Astronomy will be imported using a different tagging scheme from what we are used to on this site. Accordingly, we will probably need to adjust the tags on many of these questions. There will be a list posted here on our meta of the questions that have been migrated and need to be examined for retagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What will happen to the Theoretical Physics and Astronomy domains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The domains [will be preserved for at least 6 months](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/130407/56541) so that links which currently point to those sites will continue to work. However, after that time, usage of the domains may be discontinued (which means the links will break) if they are not getting enough activity to justify keeping them around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4458837#4458837&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4449587#4449587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="638645e3-5773-44df-a33a-360db8a86eda" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="I heard that the first [Astronomy.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/) finally [merged with Physics.SE after private beta](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/04/when-a-site-grows-quiet/). But, the second [Astronomy.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709) is under a *hot progress*. One question and it enters the commitment phase. We have two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It succeeds the beta and the site is launched - If this happens, will we have to move (migrate) the astronomy, astrophysics and other related tags along with the questions over there ? I think it would be a *lot-of-work*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the other hand, it could fail. (I strongly believe that this would happen.) Then, do we have to migrate the posts from there to here. It's perhaps a dirty situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** I still support Astronomy.SE because I really like it. But as Eduardo says in the previous post, it wouldn't survive (compete) with Physics. What about migration then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: [Astronomy.SE](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/) beta phase was launched in 2013.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="b9a9cd86-29f0-49da-9f9b-eed73ed110b2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Astronomy Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="1c8bddd3-cb6b-4df9-ba7d-d1708557d524" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="I noticed that this question was migrated to the new Astronomy beta site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1845/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding was that since the merger with the old astronomy site, all astronomy questions were on topic here, including practical, non-physicsy ones like this. In practice we don't really see much of this type of question, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally if a question is on topic it won't be migrated (unless the OP asks for it, which I guess could have happened here), but this one was migrated very rapidly, so I was wondering whether our policy on this type of question has changed now that the new site is online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only asking out of curiosity. Such a change in policy would be very reasonable under the circumstances - I just didn't see any discussion of it on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="396fa12e-e542-48ae-90d7-65c79dbcce99" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="I) As for the general principles, when the old Astro.SE was closed, it was decided on Phys.SE that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. astronomy questions are [on-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1197/2451), and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. to [import](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2451) all posts from the old Astro.SE to Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally there is also a SE rule which states that migration of a post (from one SE sister site to another) should only be considered if it is deemed off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) As for the particular [post](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/1845), I was the moderator that migrated it. I guess I in a weak moment thought that it should be migrated to Astro.SE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="689f354a-02ca-475f-9d6b-eaec100f7e92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have found myself in a position where I posted quite an elaborated answer, but got no notice from the OP. Let's say the question remains open and no comments from the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I feel prone to at least comment on some answers whenever I post a question - even if any of those I choose as accepted answer - merely because I see the user has put a lot of effort on it and may be even clarified some aspects of the question but not completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to have a way to implement that, assuming comments are not supposed to be used with this aim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of question where I received zero feedback from OP [here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2427/when-will-all-eight-planets-in-our-solar-system-align/) (belongs to astronomy.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of an answer I felt the need to provide feedback as OP, because of the amount of work the user put into it, despite me not choosing it as the accepted answer [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/114054/45735)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="ecbfb956-c2f1-43c6-bce4-8807ad9e56d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="[![Astronomy Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ5S2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="3b5f1ed1-9501-42fc-9bed-ebd695afcb7b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with almost all of [Kyle Kanos' answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6810/how-would-you-review-your-experiences-at-physics-stack-exchange/6811#6811), but I have one or two slightly different points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I think there is a very good spread of questions - both in level and topic - across the site. Homework questions have been extensively discussed, and even have their own meta [meta-tag:faq] post, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange. There are those people who would like to do away with homework questions altogether, those who think we should welcome them, and those (perhaps the majority) who are somewhere in between. Homework questions don't, in my opinion, detract from the overall question quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the second part of #1: Yes, I've always been satisfied with the answers I get. Very few of my questions go unanswered, even some of the basic ones. Roughly two thirds of my questions are answered, and comments on some of the others have helped enormously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Judging from some questions, there seems to be a decent number of users asking at the high school level. They make up a certainly non-negligible amount of users. However, there are many users who are at the college or graduate level (or beyond). The demographics seem to be pretty well balanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have yet to have a problem with moderators or community members doing moderation tasks - on *any* Stack Exchange site. Moderation can be a tough job; they often get hit with the brunt of blame in some conflicts with users, because of their responsibilities (deleting rude comments/posts, unilaterally closing questions, etc.), and moderators on Stack Exchange - and certainly Physics - do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I have no problem with any Stack Exchange policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. I really have no comment here, because while users have left the site, I have not interacted with them, nor was I around when they left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Again, no comment on any specific situations; I have not interacted to a significant extent with any user(s) who was/were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, **suspensions are between the moderators and the suspended user.** Sometimes, it is easy to guess at the reason for the suspension - often repeated rude comments, spam, vandalism, etc. Other times, it comes from a conflict behind the scenes. It is *always* best to not get nosy about this; keeping out of this can save the user some embarrassment and avoid large conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Meta post - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98467/this-account-is-temporarily-suspended-for-voting-irregularities/98470#98470&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Yes and no. My primary area of interest is astronomy - and, as such, I participate on [Astronomy Stack Exchange](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/). I find that it has higher traffic than the Physics tags for [tag:astronomy] and [tag:astrophysics] do. Neither the tags nor Astronomy.SE has a lot of traffic. I tend to ask questions about astronomy on Astronomy.SE, simply because there is a larger audience there than on Physics - at least, in terms of users who ask and answer questions (though there is some overlap), so it's harder for me to judge on questions on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Being completely frank, I don't think I see a high number of general &quot;research-level&quot; questions on either site. I can answer a decent amount of them on Astronomy, and many on Physics, though I tend to hold off on some because there are better answers already there. The importance of this is that I'm a high school student. If I can say this without sounding a bit arrogant, I do know a lot more about astronomy than the average high-schooler. But if a well-read high-schooler can answer many of the questions in either place, what does that say about the level of questions, on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As an aside, I *have* asked questions related to research I'm doing on Astronomy, and they have attracted low-to-moderate attention; I think it's possible to extrapolate that and say that there might be about the same amount of attention on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;A related Physics meta post - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Oh, but on a general note, yes, there are *plenty* of professional physicists here. And you can't say *that* about many places on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I should also mention that I do *not* equation research-level with published papers; the one does not imply the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="00bef64b-54e1-4c26-8fde-1d2482d48ac8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends on what the question is about. I sometimes have to make this choice, because I'm reasonably active on both sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a substantial amount of temptation to go where the user base is. There are, without question, more astronomers and astrophysicists studying at an advanced/professional level and actively answering questions on Physics Stack Exchange than there are on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Most of these spend their time exclusively on Physics, although the one notable exception is Rob Jeffries, who joined Astronomy this past year and has been avidly answering questions ever since. So it's possible that you're more likely to get a question answered by a professional if you ask it on Physics than if you ask it on Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Well, the relative sizes of the sites is certainly the major factor. It's evident in other ways, too: Physics has [783 questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics?page=3&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=15) tagged [tag:astrophysics], while Astronomy has [48 questions](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophysics) tagged [tag:astrophysics]. Even taking into account the fact that Physics is older, it still has a higher rate of astrophysics questions coming in (although it has a higher percentage of unanswered questions, though not by much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do I decide where to post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your call. However, I would recommend going to Physics from a purely chance-of-getting-the-question-answered standpoint.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For astronomy questions, though, I would absolutely recommend Astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how would you characterize the astrophysics sub-community on each SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The astrophysics community is stronger on Physics than on Astronomy. Same with chat, by the way. I often take minor astronomy/astrophysics questions to the Physics chat room instead of the Astronomy chat room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Does double posting of Q's make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said in the comments that this is a bad thing, so I'll just reiterate: In most situations, [**cross-posting is a bad idea**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu?rq=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be posting this meta-Q on the other meta-SE also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if agree with this. Having two discussions will help get the input of both communities, but it also splits up the advice you'll get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 That said, more astrophysics questions would certainly help Astronomy. . .&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7711" RevisionGUID="96ac74d2-a50b-494b-8a21-311156c0368f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="FYI I'm an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how much overlap there is between users of Physics SE and Astronomy SE, but it may be possible that there are some astrophysicists on Astronomy SE that are not on Physics SE (and vice versa).  Is there any way to determine this and/or invite astrophysicists on Astronomy SE to Physics SE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can probably imagine, the questions asked on Astronomy SE have a pretty full spectrum in the amount of physics involved in asking/answering a question.  Some questions are very observational in nature (such as [Jupiter appearing odd through a 6&quot; reflector][1]) while others are quite physical (such as [Does the radius of the Universe correspond to its total entropy][2]).  I don't know how that plays out with the fraction of people on Astronomy SE who would be able to contribute to Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/14589/jupiter-appearing-odd-through-a-6-reflector&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/6562/does-the-radius-of-the-universe-correspond-to-its-total-entropy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="8bdfc0a8-0305-4fdc-b6c6-699103662efa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not really a question about this site (though it does have some impact), but I'm not sure where exactly to raise it and I'd like to pose it to this community, which can probably / hopefully help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I discovered that the Wikipedia data I used to produce [an Astronomy Stack Exchange answer I'm rather proud of](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/539/how-many-planets-are-there-in-this-solar-system/592#592) was, in fact, incorrect. The Wikipedia page has since been corrected (and I'll update that answer shortly), but I'm worried about what happened when I dug deeper for the original data to see where exactly I went wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I went to [the corresponding page in the edit history of Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearing_the_neighbourhood&amp;oldid=575282009), and the data shown there are simply plain wrong; specifically, the data table in the Details section is missing the exponent markers and is therefore unusable. This is made very clear by [the corresponding version of that page on the Wayback Machine](http://web.archive.org/web/20131015071825/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood), which has the original incorrect data with exponent markers present. This seems to be more of a formatting issue, since there are exponents in the plaintext source, but the html shown in the edit history is still wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm rather disturbed by this episode. Wikipedia editability is always a problem when linking to it, and that is resolved by the edit history, which is always there to resolve ambiguities about what exactly was being linked to. If the edit history is fallible, though, it's a red flag on the whole mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my questions for this community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To be honest, I just wanted to vent.&#xD;&#xA; - Can others confirm that this is indeed what's displayed?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there anyone more familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia formatting who can clarify exactly what went on there?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a specific place in Wikipedia where I can raise this issue? This feels more like a general thing than something for the article's talk page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, on our side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there anything we can do to adapt our practices given that this can happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="ad56636e-8ffb-4eb1-ab1d-1917ac4e6e6e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Generally, I don't think it's a problem if the OP introduces rather dramatic fixes. If the answer is highly upvoted (I'd put the line at around +5, maybe?) then it's worth putting in a note that says that the current version supersedes a previous one that was incorrect because this-or-that, as a courtesy to previous readers who go  back and may be confused. (For example, I did that [here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/539/how-many-planets-are-there-in-this-solar-system/592#592).) It's better to switch out content on people who had already voted for it than to leave incorrect content up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="3d722d9b-9575-45ba-a8ae-ad74fbdd77fb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just came across [this post][1], whose first link is to [here][2], which is actually broken and goes to a totally wrong post on a wrong site. I noticed that the **Linked** section on the right contains the correct link to [this post][3]. I guess what happened is that the link in the question pointed to the original location of the linked post, but it was subsequently migrated from Astronomy SE to Physics SE, and the link in the **Linked** section was updated correctly but the link in the post was not. Why is that so? Is there a bug in the SE software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26403/45786&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1211/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-de&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26461/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-36-light-years-with-tolerable-acceleration-and-d?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9637" RevisionGUID="25e7ec76-08ac-402e-b9ea-a253ad0201d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Educated guess: I think the answer here is that the current [Astronomy.SE](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) is the second iteration of that site. The first iteration failed at some stage in the Area51 process and Physics absorbed many of their questions. Later, apparently, a second Astronomy site was begun. I suppose it's possible that some post IDs got re-used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the correct link, to [physics.stackexchange.com/q/26461](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26461/44126), is to a question, while the link in the text, which redirects to [astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/1211](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/1211/1498), is to an answer.  When the new astronomy site accumulated enough new content that the post ID got re-used, then the link went from &quot;just broken&quot; to being broken in the confusing way that you noticed.  However the list of &quot;related posts&quot; is stored in a different table in the database and was apparently migrated correctly when Physics absorbed the first round of Astronomy questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rise and fall and re-rise of Astronomy happened before I joined this community, but there are old posts on Physics Meta about it and probably someone else will chime in with an approximate timeline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="11b9fd61-aed4-4b6e-ab27-ac9d134260e7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:06.320" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9636/broken-internal-link) pointed out that there are still a number of links to posts on the old Astronomy SE site kicking around, and that they mostly redirect to new, unrelated questions and answers in the new Astronomy site. I feel those links *should* have been automatically edited at the time of the migration, but it doesn't really matter, since a [quick query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/628571/links-to-the-old-astronomy-se-site) turns up ~30 or so sites, which can easily be edited manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do find one thing pretty weird, though: when those links are posted as a raw URL, they still format correctly, for some reason. As an example, see [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25789/what-is-the-fate-of-the-asteroid-belt), which [until recently](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/25789/revisions) contained the explicit URL &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a [broken link](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/861/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did) (i.e. should point [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26139/why-did-the-asteroid-belt-between-mars-and-jupiter-form-as-it-did)) but nevertheless still formats correctly into a full title with the old link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zsed9.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feels weirdly buggy to me, though of course the real bug is that the URLs were not auto-updated to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="d22348c5-90ca-43b6-862a-f2c32c708426" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:59:26.583" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://italian.stackexchange.com/ with https://italian.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TL;DR: This site is about *Physics*. Questions posted here should *also* be about physics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site's [About page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis my own (neglect of link also mine). Similarly, the Math.StackExchange's [About page](https://math.stackexchange.com/about) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to **every question about math.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis again my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ comments in the original post,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Currently, pure math questions - by which I mean those that have no physics content, even if they arise in a physical context - are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that of **pure** math questions. Obviously questions that *contain physical contexts* are **on topic**, *no one is disputing that*. It should be patently obvious that questions *devoid of physics* should be off-topic, *whether it is about mathematics or not*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Disclaimer: The following is indicative of the American University system as a whole. I can make no statements regarding University systems elsewhere in the wordl*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every physicist I have ever met must have taken the following courses in University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many solid state physicists must take advanced courses in chemistry so as to make better solid state devices&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Chemistry should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [English Literature](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6426/literature)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Literature should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [Computational Science](http://stackoverflow.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Further, many physicists require computers to do their research on [computational physics](http://scicomp.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Programming should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - [History](https://history.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - Some physicists even pride themselves on knowing a lot of historical facts (a professor of mine made it a point to memorize every physicists full names)&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about History should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign Langauges (such as [German](https://german.stackexchange.com/), [Italian](https://italian.stackexchange.com/), [Spanish](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/), or [French](https://french.stackexchange.com/))&#xD;&#xA;  - In some cases, becoming fluent in a foreign language is a necessity to communicate to collaborators&#xD;&#xA;  - Therefore, any question about Foreign languages should be on topic on Physics&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And the list goes on once you get into the elective portion of the general requirements. If you jump into the electives within physics, we diversify even more (e.g. [electronics](http://electronics.stackexchange.com), the now-closed [Theoretical Physics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) site, and the [astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great site that is dedicated to questions and answers that are about physics and its subfields. Mathematics is **not** a subfield of physics (surely Mathematical Physics **is** a subfield of physics, but these are high-level maths that are full of physics concepts that are **decidedly *on* topic**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not need to muddy our waters with questions about [algebra &amp; trigonometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/algebra-precalculus) or [geometry](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/geometry) that have **nothing to do with physics**. Which is the point here, we're not talking about questions about group theory and tensor calculus that have deep physical meaning in advanced topics, we're talking about questions that are rudimentary mathematical questions that have no basis on physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29707" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="fc735a3a-5d3b-43c2-b9ba-8af7d1f21a6c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T16:28:30.533" UserId="114696" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="4ae26374-2ad1-4139-a227-0cde015a3631" CreationDate="2017-04-13T18:31:48.977" UserId="141464" Text="Is it true that long answers to questions attract more upvotes than shorter precise answers.I have seen many beautiful short answers but they are neglected and overshadowed by the longer ones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="4ae26374-2ad1-4139-a227-0cde015a3631" CreationDate="2017-04-13T18:31:48.977" UserId="141464" Text="Long answers and stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="4ae26374-2ad1-4139-a227-0cde015a3631" CreationDate="2017-04-13T18:31:48.977" UserId="141464" Text="|discussion|support|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29711" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="e6845756-ec45-4c81-a8c7-c28f51641cf2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T19:54:25.007" UserId="141464" Comment="edited title" Text="Stacking long answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9794" RevisionGUID="a24439b9-c6fa-425f-b1ab-58684502f2c9" CreationDate="2017-04-14T14:49:05.327" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="I have noticed a tremendous wealth of 'homework' style questions on maths SE ranging from simple concepts such as finding variance in some context or very difficult but solvable integrals. All these questions are rarely downvoted and have a healthy number of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, physics stack exchange is fairly sterilised of homework questions. Even challenging and interesting mechanics question will quickly be blocked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't we be more like maths SE and tackle whatever comes our way unless the answer is clearly a simple calculation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9794" RevisionGUID="a24439b9-c6fa-425f-b1ab-58684502f2c9" CreationDate="2017-04-14T14:49:05.327" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="Why are homework related questions accepted on maths SE more than here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9794" RevisionGUID="a24439b9-c6fa-425f-b1ab-58684502f2c9" CreationDate="2017-04-14T14:49:05.327" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9795" RevisionGUID="fb6754f6-a1ea-478a-b26a-7275fcee6e7e" CreationDate="2017-04-14T15:45:13.053" UserId="8563" Text="Because this is a different community centered around a different topic, responding to different pressures, in a very different internet environment, and which has made different choices over a very long period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the general feeling around here is that homework and homework-like questions diminish the value of this site for many people who are interested in much more technical content, and that diluting that content with drudgework would drive away many highly-qualified users and therefore strongly diminish the usefulness of this site as a resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longer answer is that this topic has a *very* long history of discussion on this meta, which is documented on [this tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework). Very many opinions have been voiced over the ~six years this site has existed, and it is not a simple discussion. Given how you phrased things, one place to start could be [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9710/should-we-change-homework-policy-of-physics-se) (which is pretty close to a duplicate of this one, to be honest).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, since you specifically compare against maths.se, you should keep in mind that the existence of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/) changes the equation dramatically, in terms of the outlets for technical content available to professional research mathematicians versus what is available for physics. (The existence of a MathOverflow equivalent for physics is *another* long-storied discussion which you should brush up on before diving into it.) The situation over on math.se is simply not comparable to the environment this site is in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="546c852f-ce20-4820-b2eb-1a1f85e1de76" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:01:37.283" UserId="32426" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it true, that long answers to questions attract more upvotes than shorter precise answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many beautiful short answers, but they are neglected and overshadowed by the longer ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29718" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="546c852f-ce20-4820-b2eb-1a1f85e1de76" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:01:37.283" UserId="32426" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are short, but precise answers overshadowed by the longer ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="cbf9fa21-1706-459c-b743-77c3b4417368" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:08:06.320" UserId="32426" Text="I think the answer is partially true, partially not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More exactly, we have different secondary effects which can increase the score of the answers. All of these are my subjective experience, I don't have SE queries to support them (although I could produce some if needed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Its general quality on the first spot, correct grammar &amp; spelling&#xD;&#xA;2. The reputation of the poster (additional psychological effect if he has some golden badges, too)&#xD;&#xA;3. Including a beautiful picture in the answer&#xD;&#xA;4. The answer is long&#xD;&#xA;5. The answer contains many complex formulas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can be considered contraproductive, some of them not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many voters don't read through the whole text, but they vote it up if they think it looks well. These secondary effects are mainly about their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these secondary effects are overshadowed by the primary effect of the voting score: *write good and useful answers*. All of the users of the site with the highest reputation are really good in this, and not in (1)-(5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="ac983b60-5fca-43bf-bd01-ddaab6282735" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:21:36.787" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think the answer is partially yes, partially not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More exactly, we have different secondary effects which can increase the score of the answers. All of these are my subjective experience, I don't have SE queries to support them (although I could produce some if needed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Its general quality on the first spot, correct grammar &amp; spelling&#xD;&#xA;2. The reputation of the poster (additional psychological effect if he has some golden badges, too)&#xD;&#xA;3. Including a beautiful picture in the answer&#xD;&#xA;4. The answer is long&#xD;&#xA;5. The answer contains many complex formulas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can be considered contraproductive, some of them not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many voters don't read through the whole text, but they vote it up if they think it looks well. These secondary effects are mainly about their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these secondary effects are overshadowed by the primary effect of the voting score: *write good and useful answers*. All of the users of the site with the highest reputation are really good in this, and not in (1)-(5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="19aaa7a2-fc31-490a-a5e7-b106360c931f" CreationDate="2017-04-14T23:39:57.500" UserId="32426" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is partially yes, partially not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More exactly, we have different secondary effects which can increase the score of the answers. All of these are my subjective experience, I don't have SEDE queries to support them (although I could produce some if needed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Its general quality on the first spot, correct grammar &amp; spelling&#xD;&#xA;2. The reputation of the poster (additional psychological effect if he has some golden badges, too)&#xD;&#xA;3. Including a beautiful picture in the answer&#xD;&#xA;4. The answer is long&#xD;&#xA;5. The answer contains many complex formulas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can be considered contraproductive, some of them not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many voters don't read through the whole text, but they vote it up if they think it looks well. These secondary effects are mainly about their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these secondary effects are overshadowed by the primary effect of the voting score: *write good and useful answers*. All of the users of the site with the highest reputation are really good in this, and not in (1)-(5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9797" RevisionGUID="36be9c61-4655-4fc1-bcac-2a51ef404e86" CreationDate="2017-04-15T02:28:21.240" UserId="32426" Text="I wrote a [SEDE query][1] for the task. The results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we can see here, is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Yes, the average score of the answers grows monotonically with their length (I grouped them in 20% growing groups).&#xD;&#xA;* The length distribution of the answers follows a very beautyful Boltzmann-distribution with a maximum of around 800-1000 bytes.&#xD;&#xA;* But, the average score per *text length*, measured in $\frac{\mathrm{upvote}}{\mathrm{kByte}}$, shows an obviously shrinking tendency, and sets to a roughly constant $\approx 1.2 \frac{\mathrm{upvote}}{\mathrm{kByte}}$ from around 3 kByte answer length.&#xD;&#xA;* If you post 2 1kB answers, you can count with around 50% more upvotes as if you post a single 2kB one.&#xD;&#xA;* There is also a very high per-length reward for very short answers (in the &lt;200byte region). But, in my opinion, it is practically impossible to write ten 100byte-length answer in the time as you would write an 1000byte one.&#xD;&#xA;* Note: a significant part of the work behind answering a question is not typing it in. This part is not measured in this stat.&#xD;&#xA;* This stat doesn't count with downvotes and with deleted posts. The first would be easy but I didn't count with them. More exactly, this query counts only the voting scores. The second is impossible as the content of the deleted posts are hidden by the SEDE, thus we can't measure their length.&#xD;&#xA;* This query measures only the vote score of the answers, it can't measure their actual value. We could get a better estimation of it by overweighting the votes of the high-rep users in the average counts, but also the induvidual votes are hidden in the SEDE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/658747#graph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VtzQu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="33bbf796-8c5e-4bef-bf18-67e2df3d063c" CreationDate="2017-04-15T03:56:43.313" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Some clarification: I didn't actually try to add a bounty to a question, I just noticed that in already answered questions (questions not created by me), the link for &quot;add a bounty&quot; is still available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this makes sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, I would think it is great to be able to add bounties to already answered questions if I think the current answer is not satisfactory. However, it probably doesn't make any sense with the current stackexchange framework, since I wouldn't be able to vote for a new answer since the question doesn't belong to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29725" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="33bbf796-8c5e-4bef-bf18-67e2df3d063c" CreationDate="2017-04-15T03:56:43.313" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why can I add a bounty to already answered questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="5e3ba40e-fbe8-450f-97a9-ac3957112e84" CreationDate="2017-04-15T06:15:04.770" UserId="141464" Text=" Is there way of promoting our questions to seek attention without bounties.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen people changing titles,keeping weird and strange titles(&quot;The Dark Black Holes &quot;),sometimes even challenging titles(&quot;Solve it if you can&quot;) and these titles really get a lot of attention.&#xD;&#xA;But these are against PSE rules.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover such questions are irritating too(i.e. homework related).&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to stop these types of promotions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="5e3ba40e-fbe8-450f-97a9-ac3957112e84" CreationDate="2017-04-15T06:15:04.770" UserId="141464" Text="Ways of promoting questions on PhysicsStackExchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="5e3ba40e-fbe8-450f-97a9-ac3957112e84" CreationDate="2017-04-15T06:15:04.770" UserId="141464" Text="|discussion|questions|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29729" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="3a708b45-a4f0-4a41-ab33-2a53a5ceaf2d" CreationDate="2017-04-15T06:21:10.280" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|reputation|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9775" RevisionGUID="4c722a06-3ca5-41c6-90ce-400affdfbcc7" CreationDate="2017-04-15T22:50:19.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/853379988489478144" />
  <row Id="29731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="b729f750-e605-4596-af16-5c744d4d8a36" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:22:02.797" UserId="32426" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Is there way of promoting our questions to seek attention without bounties?&#xD;&#xA;I have seen people changing titles, keeping weird and strange titles (&quot;The dark black holes&quot;), sometimes even challenging titles (&quot;Solve it if you can&quot;) and these titles really get a lot of attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these are against PSE rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover such questions are irritating too (i.e. homework related). Is there a way to stop these types of promotions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9799" RevisionGUID="8099a3f8-f3f0-448c-82a5-c10d9f1999a0" CreationDate="2017-04-16T12:39:35.337" UserId="8563" Text="If you want to draw further attention to your question, editing to improve it is one good way to go. However, doing multiple trivial edits to repeatedly bump the question to the front page is indeed frowned upon. If you see someone doing this, flag the question for moderator attention with a custom flag, or leave a comment expressing displeasure at the behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catchy titles are relatively OK so long as they do describe the question. If they do start to stray into clickbait territory then you can edit it out for something that's more descriptive of the actual question. A title like &quot;Solve it if you can&quot; would be rather outside the envelope and should be edited in favour of something descriptive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding this, though,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover such questions are irritating too (i.e. homework related)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the on-topic-ness of a question and the appropriateness of its promotion are independent. If it is irritatingly homeworky to a degree that makes it off-topic then vote to close (at 3k+ rep) or flag as off-topic. If it is irritating but on-topic, then sorry, it's earned its keep on the site. The rules on over-promotion via edits and titles apply regardless of the question type and content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="c1ee0d3e-6f38-45fa-8235-b3f3e38de0ab" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:51:49.733" UserId="23473" Comment="improved language and added tags" Text="Once in while, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;someone will insist that dark matter is not particles (which is totally possible but not likely) and insist curved space (or *[insert theory here]*) is the only thing possible. When you explain the accepted physics of it to him or her, they will reply with something totally irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't understand is why they so insist?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What should I do with posts like that? Only downvote? These people are really making the atmosphere not good. Downvoting, so far, seems not to be working very effectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29734" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="c1ee0d3e-6f38-45fa-8235-b3f3e38de0ab" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:51:49.733" UserId="23473" Comment="improved language and added tags" Text="Why do some people insist on one unlikely possibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29735" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="c1ee0d3e-6f38-45fa-8235-b3f3e38de0ab" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:51:49.733" UserId="23473" Comment="improved language and added tags" Text="|discussion|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="3b853d43-77e2-49a8-a755-f987e030ff48" CreationDate="2017-04-17T13:15:59.780" UserId="32426" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is partially yes, partially not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More exactly, we have different secondary effects which can increase the score of the answers. All of these are my subjective experience, I don't have SEDE queries to support them (although I could produce some if needed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Its general quality on the first spot, correct grammar &amp; spelling&#xD;&#xA;2. The reputation of the poster (additional psychological effect if he has some golden badges, too)&#xD;&#xA;3. Including a beautiful picture in the answer&#xD;&#xA;4. The answer is long&#xD;&#xA;5. The answer contains many complex formulas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these can be considered contraproductive, some of them not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many voters don't read through the whole text, but they vote it up if they think it looks well. These secondary effects are mainly about their votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these secondary effects are overshadowed by the primary effect of the voting score: *write good and useful answers*. All of the users of the site with the highest reputation are really good in this, and not in (1), (3)-(5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="7cd1a378-e1f9-441e-af10-84e8cf88a6be" CreationDate="2017-04-17T14:43:26.293" UserId="4993" Text="First: I realize there has been a lot of discussion of the reasons for closing, and I haven't followed most of it, so I apologize for any redundancy here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That having been said:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327165/is-special-relativity-applicable-to-mirrors#327165&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an example of a question that I think everyone will agree should be closed, and to which none of the close reasons seems to apply.  It's not a duplicate.   It's not out of the mainstream (except insofar as it's &quot;out of the  mainstream&quot; to post without giving a minute's thought to what you're asking.)  It's not engineering.  It doesn't belong on another site in the StackExchange network (or anywhere else for that matter).  It's perfectly clear, it's not too broad, and it's not primarily opinion-based.  (And even if were unclear, I wouldn't want to choose that option, because it entails inviting the OP to clarify the question and come back, which is not an invitation I wish to offer.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest fit I can find is that this is a homework-like question that shows no effort.  But that doesn't really seem to fit either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that a substantial fraction of the questions I vote to close are uncategorizable in pretty much the same way that this one is.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my immediate question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;What reason should I check when voting to close a question like this?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My longer-term question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Would it make sense to offer &quot;This question appears to be off-topic&quot; as a reason for closing, without forcing the voter to choose from a submenu of  choices that don't really fit?   (I realize that one can enter a custom reason, but really, &quot;this question appears to be off-topic&quot; is all I want to say.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I suspect, but do not know, that my second question has already been discussed to death.  But what is the answer to the first question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="7cd1a378-e1f9-441e-af10-84e8cf88a6be" CreationDate="2017-04-17T14:43:26.293" UserId="4993" Text="Reasons for Closing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="7cd1a378-e1f9-441e-af10-84e8cf88a6be" CreationDate="2017-04-17T14:43:26.293" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="a38fa2bc-7941-46ea-80cf-4bbaea66364a" CreationDate="2017-04-17T14:58:24.287" UserId="4993" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="First: I realize there has been a lot of discussion of the reasons for closing, and I haven't followed most of it, so I apologize for any redundancy here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That having been said:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327165/is-special-relativity-applicable-to-mirrors#327165&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an example of a question that I think everyone will agree should be closed, and to which none of the close reasons seems to apply.  It's not a duplicate.   It's not out of the mainstream (except insofar as it's &quot;out of the  mainstream&quot; to post without giving a minute's thought to what you're asking.)  It's not engineering.  It doesn't belong on another site in the StackExchange network (or anywhere else for that matter).  It's perfectly clear, it's not too broad, and it's not primarily opinion-based.  (And even if were unclear, I wouldn't want to choose that option, because it entails inviting the OP to clarify the question and come back, which is not an invitation I wish to offer.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest fit I can find is that this is a homework-like question that shows no effort.  But that doesn't really seem to fit either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that a substantial fraction of the questions I vote to close are uncategorizable in pretty much the same way that this one is.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my immediate question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;What reason should I check when voting to close a question like this?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My longer-term question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Would it make sense to offer &quot;This question appears to be off-topic&quot; as a reason for closing, without forcing the voter to choose from a submenu of  choices that don't really fit?   (I realize that one can enter a custom reason, but really, &quot;this question appears to be off-topic&quot; is all I want to say.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I suspect, but do not know, that my second question has already been discussed to death.  But what is the answer to the first question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add:&lt;/b&gt;  It appears that the example I chose is not &lt;b&gt;quite&lt;/b&gt; as egregious as I'd thought it was --- the OP seems to be envisioning a mirror mounted on the car, whereas I thought he was envisioning a mirror mounted on the road.  So this is an imperfect example, but the phenomenon does occur, and often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="ed244fd4-f470-492d-9d9a-bc71a846c02f" CreationDate="2017-04-17T15:05:57.637" UserId="4993" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="First: I realize there has been a lot of discussion of the reasons for closing, and I haven't followed most of it, so I apologize for any redundancy here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That having been said:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327165/is-special-relativity-applicable-to-mirrors#327165&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an example of a question that I think everyone will agree should be closed, and to which none of the close reasons seems to apply.  It's not a duplicate.   It's not out of the mainstream (except insofar as it's &quot;out of the  mainstream&quot; to post without giving a minute's thought to what you're asking.)  It's not engineering.  It doesn't belong on another site in the StackExchange network (or anywhere else for that matter).  It's perfectly clear, it's not too broad, and it's not primarily opinion-based.  (And even if were unclear, I wouldn't want to choose that option, because it entails inviting the OP to clarify the question and come back, which is not an invitation I wish to offer.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest fit I can find is that this is a homework-like question that shows no effort.  But that doesn't really seem to fit either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that a substantial fraction of the questions I vote to close are uncategorizable in pretty much the same way that this one is.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my immediate question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;What reason should I check when voting to close a question like this?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My longer-term question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Would it make sense to offer &quot;This question appears to be off-topic&quot; as a reason for closing, without forcing the voter to choose from a submenu of  choices that don't really fit?   (I realize that one can enter a custom reason, but really, &quot;this question appears to be off-topic&quot; is all I want to say.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I suspect, but do not know, that my second question has already been discussed to death.  But what is the answer to the first question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edited to add:&lt;/b&gt;  It appears that the example I chose is not quite as egregious as I'd thought it was --- the OP seems to be envisioning a mirror mounted on the car, whereas I thought he was envisioning a mirror mounted on the road.  So this is an imperfect example, but the phenomenon does occur, and often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9801" RevisionGUID="3f98779b-e7c3-4112-8e21-28ebb8dc904b" CreationDate="2017-04-17T15:21:10.513" UserId="50583" Text="Your immediate question &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What reason should I check when voting to close a question like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has an immediate answer: You should use a reason that *tells the user why you are voting to close their question*. If none of the pre-formatted reasons fit, then you can still write a custom one, and that's precisely what that custom field is for. There's a crucial corollary here: If you cannot write down the actual reason why you want to close a question, *don't close it*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [I] realize that one can enter a custom reason, but really, &quot;this question appears to be off-topic&quot; is all I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but...I don't believe you. There *is* something you want to say - you have a rather strong opinion on this question being off-topic, and you've got to have a reason for that. Maybe you feel you have no *nice* way of expression that opinion? Try. For instance, we have discussed [closing for insufficient effort](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6001/50583) before, and while we never established a consensus on whether or not that's a valid close reason, some users nevertheless use it (users with sufficient reputation can see the variants of &quot;I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because of insufficient research effort.&quot; used [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/question-close-stats?daterange=last90days)), there are around 20 uses of that over the last 90 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, let me comment on this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And even if were unclear, I wouldn't want to choose that option, because it entails inviting the OP to clarify the question and come back, which is not an invitation I wish to offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can sort-of understand the sentiment, that's not what we do here. *Everyone* who gets a question closed is in principle welcome to come back, improve it, and become a productive member of the community. Your personal prognosis for a specific question or user is irrelevant, we generally **assume good faith**. It's easy to think &quot;this user posted crap once, they won't ever get better&quot;, but...sometimes they do. And often they don't, but there's no reason to condemn them in advance. If they *keep* asking malformed low-quality questions, the [automatic restrictions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9699/50583) will kick in relatively quickly. If they don't keep asking malformed questions, the problem is solved anyway. What would we improve be being as *actively discouraging* as you seem to want to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29743" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="2e64051e-9aaf-4c74-ae4f-686ee0a9b689" CreationDate="2017-04-18T02:24:54.700" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327293/how-do-i-find-my-previous-posts-and-replies" />
  <row Id="29744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="9d69cfae-67fe-46f9-bf6d-daf873eedc35" CreationDate="2017-04-18T01:55:04.803" UserId="89283" Text="The meta question post button is not working for me for some reason, so I am asking this here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="9d69cfae-67fe-46f9-bf6d-daf873eedc35" CreationDate="2017-04-18T01:55:04.803" UserId="89283" Text="how do I find my previous posts and replies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="9d69cfae-67fe-46f9-bf6d-daf873eedc35" CreationDate="2017-04-18T01:55:04.803" UserId="89283" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="202c474b-9169-467b-878b-f02d472f5e60" CreationDate="2017-04-18T02:47:52.730" UserId="60891" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="How do I find my previous posts and replies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="4c4baf79-0f81-4d1c-8645-1280b04a4c2e" CreationDate="2017-04-18T02:51:37.190" UserId="60891" Text="You have to click on the button which shows your profile picture with your reputqation, badges, etc. in the menu bar (shown in the figure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your profile, you can find a list of your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers and questions have their own tab and comments can be found in &quot;all actions&quot; tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yUhnB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/f2spl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29749" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="6af6fd5c-d0f6-403a-a505-52cc4583d901" CreationDate="2017-04-18T04:03:08.990" UserId="32426" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How do I find my previous posts and replies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="6af6fd5c-d0f6-403a-a505-52cc4583d901" CreationDate="2017-04-18T04:03:08.990" UserId="32426" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|profile-page|history|recent-activity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9804" RevisionGUID="576df4c5-42c6-4004-80b4-0a06fd477545" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:16:24.403" UserId="114696" Text="I agree that the Homework Policy should be changed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly after I became a user here (April 2016) the policy was under an ongoing review, which has been a long-term project on this site. The need for change is recognised. The plan was in 4 stages. The last progress (stage 1b) was at the end of August 2016. As far as I am aware there has been no progress since then. See :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy (January 2016)  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic (April 2016) &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway (August 2016) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics SE abolished its homework tag in 2014, and does not appear to have regretted that decision. It has not &quot;killed the site&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the homework policy is about banning low-level questions. Many difficult thoughtful questions are rejected, while many easy low-effort ones are kept. The easy ones are often tackled by expert users, so the charge that 'bad' questions will drive away the experts is not justified. It is not necessary to trawl the Newest Questions to find a suitable challenge. There are plenty of other options : Featured, Unanswered, etc. It is entirely possible to ignore the homework questions if you don't approve of them, and leave them to those who do approve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than it being an issue of making rules to enforce the personal preferences of the active decision-makers against certain types of question, I still fail to see what the problem is with homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still confused about what exactly the policy is - as are many other users, I think. Some new eager reviewers use the &quot;homework&quot; reason to close questions simply because they &quot;show no effort&quot;. Possibly a &quot;homework&quot; question is any problem-solving question. But all questions are fundamentally problem-solving. That is the nature of questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition confuses me :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to imply that giving you the answer is OK but helping you understand how to find the answer yourself is not OK. Exactly the opposite of discouraging &quot;do my homework for me&quot; questions. If you are trying to learn &quot;the method&quot; as an exercise, during your &quot;education&quot;, this is not OK. But if you are trying to find out how to solve some interesting non-educational project, this is OK - especially if you avoid putting in numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we deplore being asked to do someone's homework, why don't we also deplore being asked to do someone's research or their thinking? I doubt that homework questions are fundamentally any different from other kinds of question. Which I think explains why after years of discussion, defining and re-formulating the homework policy, this issue never gets anywhere.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9804" RevisionGUID="0af99c34-d0c0-4a41-90e8-e32bf7d30710" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:22:15.990" UserId="114696" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I agree that the Homework Policy should be changed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly after I became a user here (April 2016) the policy was under an ongoing review, which has been a long-term project on this site. The need for change is recognised. The plan was in 4 stages. The last progress (stage 1b) was at the end of August 2016. As far as I am aware there has been no progress since then. See :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7407/generalizing-the-homework-policy (January 2016)  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic (April 2016) &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway (August 2016) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics SE abolished its homework tag in 2014, and does not appear to have regretted that decision. It has not &quot;killed the site&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the homework policy is about banning low-level questions. Many difficult thoughtful questions are rejected, while many easy low-effort ones are kept. The easy ones are often tackled by expert users, so the charge that 'bad' questions will drive away the experts is not justified. It is not necessary to trawl the Newest Questions to find a suitable challenge. There are plenty of other options : Featured, Unanswered, etc. It is entirely possible to ignore the homework questions if you don't approve of them, and leave them to those who do approve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than it being an issue of making rules to enforce the personal preferences of the active decision-makers against certain types of question, I still fail to see what the problem is with homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still confused about what exactly the policy is - as are many other users, I think. Some new eager reviewers use the &quot;homework&quot; reason to close questions simply because they &quot;show no effort&quot;. Possibly a &quot;homework&quot; question is any problem-solving question. But all questions are fundamentally problem-solving. That is the nature of questions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition confuses me :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to imply that giving you the answer is OK but helping you understand how to find the answer yourself is not OK. Exactly the opposite of discouraging &quot;do my homework for me&quot; questions. If you are trying to learn &quot;the method&quot; as an exercise, during your &quot;education&quot;, this is not OK. But if you are trying to find out how to solve some interesting non-educational project, this is OK - especially if you avoid putting in numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we deplore being asked to do someone's homework, why don't we also deplore being asked to do someone's research or their thinking? I doubt that homework questions are fundamentally any different from other kinds of question. Ultimately all questions are of the &quot;do my work (calculating/thinking/research) for me&quot; variety, to a greater or lesser degree. There is no inherent dividing line. Which I think explains why after years of discussion, defining and re-formulating the homework policy, this issue never gets anywhere.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29753" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9783" RevisionGUID="1f5c6a2e-50b4-4a3e-bd08-be5b508a5e17" CreationDate="2017-04-18T12:19:54.080" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="229ea1e4-3cab-4622-aab0-f2b5ef4c7038" CreationDate="2017-04-18T12:25:38.750" UserId="23473" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|history|recent-activity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9805" RevisionGUID="7ac0abab-344b-47c9-ba60-d8ca6689f0f3" CreationDate="2017-04-18T13:58:52.207" UserId="34382" Text="In my opinion, allowing blatant homework-like questions which essentially simply pose a problem and ask for the answer would lead to a decline in the populous and quality of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been to websites where one can pose virtually any question without restriction, and expect to receive direct answers, and the community is - in my opinion - usually not as qualified and useful as the Physics SE. Moreover I find contributing difficult due to the swamp of unappealing questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing homework-like questions not in line with our policies would also make it difficult to use the website as a resource; we would go from high quality questions about say quantum mechanics to having to search through hundreds of textbook quantum mechanics questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9806" RevisionGUID="c18b3ea9-9769-4da1-901f-586ce82dfe98" CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:24:49.773" UserId="137553" Text="I don't want to get banned, how can I prevent a bad post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9806" RevisionGUID="c18b3ea9-9769-4da1-901f-586ce82dfe98" CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:24:49.773" UserId="137553" Text="What is a &quot;bad post&quot;? and how many of them can I have before I am banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9806" RevisionGUID="c18b3ea9-9769-4da1-901f-586ce82dfe98" CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:24:49.773" UserId="137553" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="4a49f590-6a55-4237-9848-f255fac655a4" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:30:57.013" UserId="118063" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Why would colder air disperse condensation on a car windshield?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13284/why-would-colder-air-disperse-condensation-on-a-car-windshield/325820#325820)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a friendly moderator or two consider upvoting it? The previous answers are not very well thought out, but I cannot do anything to upvote my answer as I'm a new contributor. I would like to comment on the original accepted answer to inform them, but I can't do that either. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="4a49f590-6a55-4237-9848-f255fac655a4" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:30:57.013" UserId="118063" Text="Asking for an upvote to my *correct* answer to a 5-year-old question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="4a49f590-6a55-4237-9848-f255fac655a4" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:30:57.013" UserId="118063" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9808" RevisionGUID="f914447b-bb82-473f-89f7-be950496d4dc" CreationDate="2017-04-18T23:45:19.773" UserId="124" Text="Honestly, asking people to upvote your answer is considered to be in bad taste. So the blunt answer is no, we won't upvote your answer because you asked us to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you can do, however, is post a link to your answer in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (if you have access to it) and invite people to read it and vote on it as they see fit. This is better than asking for upvotes since it's not viewed as you trying to bias the evaluation of your answer away from the true quality of the answer. If the answer is good, it should get more upvotes than downvotes anyway. And posting in chat is better than posting on meta because chat is less formal and less attention-grabbing than a meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, moderators have no special privileges or responsibilities when it comes to casting upvotes and downvotes, so the fact that you're asking a _moderator_ specifically to do it also seems questionable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9809" RevisionGUID="f86c27f0-0fa4-48ac-8300-bf80adaecb83" CreationDate="2017-04-18T23:55:11.050" UserId="141464" Text="PSE people are more interested and involved in theoretical aspects of physics.Moreover,they provide enough hints and ideas to approach the problem.&#xD;&#xA;Physics is more of a conceptual subject.&#xD;&#xA;Mathematics involves problem solving much more than physics.&#xD;&#xA;I hope that helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9811" RevisionGUID="13dc9024-144e-488e-9692-6eb9af21c6ca" CreationDate="2017-04-19T00:00:02.463" UserDisplayName="user141422" Text="I am curious to know &quot;Why was PhysicsStackExhange made?&quot;I mean certain objectives and did PSE fulfil them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9811" RevisionGUID="13dc9024-144e-488e-9692-6eb9af21c6ca" CreationDate="2017-04-19T00:00:02.463" UserDisplayName="user141422" Text="Why was PhysicsStackExhange made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9811" RevisionGUID="13dc9024-144e-488e-9692-6eb9af21c6ca" CreationDate="2017-04-19T00:00:02.463" UserDisplayName="user141422" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9812" RevisionGUID="0b99bc25-dd47-404a-8ff4-67916361b53f" CreationDate="2017-04-19T00:01:53.697" UserId="141464" Text="Look up the wikipedia page of PSE .I think this would suffice:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9814" RevisionGUID="e3662431-8c1a-4055-b67f-9a6493d08f2a" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:36:39.010" UserId="144480" Text="I will start by referring to a question on MSE (Math Stack Exchange) ([this][1]) and an answer on Physics Stack Exchange Meta ([this][2]). Let me cite the questioner on MSE:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Imagine I want to ask an extremely precise question with a lot shades in one of all possible subjects on Stack Exchange but I am not fluent in English. Can I find someone here to help me to translate my question?&#xA;&#xA;My question is much the same - but instead intended for Physics Stack Exchange. Also, let me cite the answerer on the Physics Stack Exchange Meta:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;I do agree that multiple languages on one site cause confusion. But we should not &quot;ban&quot; non-english speakers, ... try to translate things to english as good as possible. As soon as the correctness of the translation is verified, the original text should be removed - it will still be available by clicking on the edited by link. Maybe one can edit in a&#xA;[original version in russian](http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/519/revisions#rev3252802a-affc-499f-9316-3e44d8a4f81c) ...&#xA;&#xA;But this is not, at least not according to me, an answer that **clearly** tells Physics Stack Exchange how to behave should this situation occur. Instead, someone tells you how you *should* behave. &#xA;&#xA;*Please forgive me if I have missed some already written rule on Physics Stack Exchange about what I'm asking for here.*&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/19292/404146&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/70/144480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9814" RevisionGUID="e3662431-8c1a-4055-b67f-9a6493d08f2a" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:36:39.010" UserId="144480" Text="Asking questions in another language than English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9814" RevisionGUID="e3662431-8c1a-4055-b67f-9a6493d08f2a" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:36:39.010" UserId="144480" Text="|feature-request|questions|language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9815" RevisionGUID="286c6a98-5cb7-462c-996c-420d4d7e31e5" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:11:34.460" UserId="44126" Text="The [very welcoming Mathematics policy](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/19293/166791) is consistent with my personal preference for [having patience with non-native speakers and writers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/84372/14332).&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not immediately sure whether I have had the presence of mind to respond that way myself when I've seen foreign-language questions in the past.&#xD;&#xA;You raise an interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that my first response to a question in a non-English language would be to put it &quot;on hold&quot; with the close reason &quot;unclear what you're asking.&quot;  The addition of a translation by editing would put the question in front of the re-open queue reviewers, who would judge the new question on its understandability and appropriateness for the site like any other.&#xD;&#xA;However if the question never developed an acceptable translation, it would remain closed.  As Jon Custer points out in a comment, the probability that another user would (a) speak the language of the question and (b) take the time to produce a translation that is (c) substantially correct --- those are long odds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm thinking out loud here, rather than wearing my moderator hat and generating policy, but this got too long for a comment.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9816" RevisionGUID="2f808fde-8b3c-420e-acf2-e8b16f358553" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:55:28.870" UserId="50583" Text="The official faq [Do posts have to be in English on Stack Exchange?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/13676/263383) on mother meta refers to [the official blog entry](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/07/23/non-english-question-policy/) on the topic. Note that the focus on &quot;programming questions&quot; is because back then there were only SO, SU and SF around, but the essence still is valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not, nor has it ever been, our goal to be the one place in the world for all programming information in every possible human language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Direct question posters to native language resources.&#xD;&#xA;- It is not the community's goal to teach English.&#xD;&#xA;- The question asker should put some effort into the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a corollary, questions not in English will be closed. Questions that include both an English version and the original non-English version are fine if the asker is uncertain about the correctness of their translation, but this should be the exception rather than the rule, and in particular *all further communication*, in particular answers, should be in English. Questions in bad or broken English are *also* completely fine - they should be fixed on sight by more fluent speakers, but it is rare that mere language issues make a question so incomprehensible that it would need to be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I oppose the posting of non-English language posts without an accompanying translation attempt, and prefer broken English over a non-English language post because using more than one language within a community splinters said community into smaller camps of users who share a certain language. Things like the review system only work because *all* users can communicate with each other and the idea of meta discussions (such as this one!) is wholly absurd if we do not expect everyone to speak the same langauge. And everyone able to follow the average meta post should also be able to make an intellegible attempt at writing a question in English, no matter its actual grammatical correctness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, content needs to be moderated. When a question is posted in a language I do not speak, how am I, or any other moderator or reviewer, supposed to decide whether the question is on-topic, or, worse, whether it even is a physics question and not just spam or some abusive rant? Wait for someone who actually speaks the language? How does one find such users? From this point of view, it's completely impractical to allow non-English content while upholding our quality standards and the idea of forming a single community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9817" RevisionGUID="06eb3fae-932d-4a6f-9f90-4b1bc834d11e" CreationDate="2017-04-20T03:35:55.533" UserId="32426" Text="It is not our decision. The StackExchange is an U.S. company and on mysterious reasons they mainly unwelcome any non-English content. They somehow won't understand that it would cause an 5x growth in their potential visitor count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some workarounds around it: SE sites about languages can use non-English, and there are stackoverflow clones on 4 languages (one of them is Russian). Even the fast growth of these sites isn't a reason for them to change this never directly admitted policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, on the meta sites, always English prefered to help the CMs to track the topics, but it isn't enforced in practice very heavily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have multiple hyphoteses for their reason, but none of them is really proven. There are some explanations from SE sources, mainly about induvidual cases as they blocked nonenglish content/sites, these are contradictory and not really realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently there is an explicit ban on the a51 for nonenglish SE sites. Thus, a nonenglish PSE here is unthinkable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9817" RevisionGUID="1c6af0db-7481-4d84-be3b-4264feedfece" CreationDate="2017-04-20T03:48:25.313" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It is not our decision. The StackExchange is an U.S. company and on mysterious reasons they mainly unwelcome any non-English content. They somehow won't understand that it would cause an 5x growth in their potential visitor count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some workarounds around it: SE sites about languages can use non-English, and there are stackoverflow clones on 4 languages (one of them is Russian). Even the fast growth of these sites isn't a reason for them to change this never directly admitted policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, on the meta sites, always English prefered to help the CMs to track the topics, but it isn't enforced in practice very heavily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have multiple hyphoteses for their reason, but none of them is really proven. There are some explanations from SE sources, mainly about induvidual cases as they blocked nonenglish content/sites, these are contradictory and aren't very realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently there is an explicit ban on the a51 for nonenglish SE sites. Thus, a nonenglish PSE here is unthinkable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="a7550516-d159-4ba0-a744-d3b70f9975e0" CreationDate="2017-04-20T07:24:01.253" UserId="150182" Text="I'm new to SE but practically every day I come across constructive, thought-out questions that are very quickly marked as duplicates -- while a simple comparison with the alleged duplicate shows very clearly that they are asking a quite different thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the two questions are about the same topic but clearly focus on different aspects of it. Other times, the older one (or one of its answers) is an answer to the newer one, which could not be known in advance by the person who asks the new one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since users are enabled to mark a question as duplicate, do we also have a way to &quot;defend&quot; it when we think that such a mark is wrong? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="a7550516-d159-4ba0-a744-d3b70f9975e0" CreationDate="2017-04-20T07:24:01.253" UserId="150182" Text="A way to mark questions as non-duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="a7550516-d159-4ba0-a744-d3b70f9975e0" CreationDate="2017-04-20T07:24:01.253" UserId="150182" Text="|discussion|questions|tags|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="55fbda15-3473-4a92-9a8f-48a94652039a" CreationDate="2017-04-20T08:40:07.380" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|flagging|duplicates|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9819" RevisionGUID="12fbcfb4-b8ec-4a7e-95cd-7b8218645b87" CreationDate="2017-04-20T09:26:33.320" UserId="8563" Text="There are a few ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you have &gt;3k rep, you can directly vote to reopen. This will put the question in the [reopen review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/172065).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Once in the reopen review queue, users with &gt;3k rep can vote to reopen. If five users vote to reopen (either through the queue or directly) the question gets reopened. If the question receives enough Leave Closed votes (which I *think* is three votes) then it leaves the queue; people can still vote to reopen directly (in which case it will possibly go back to the queue) but it won't be shown to reviewers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Once the review is completed, its results are publicly available ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/171655)) and they are accessible from the question's [timeline](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36303/feedback-request-new-timeline-question-view) ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/326280/timeline)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a closed question is not on the reopen queue, editing it will bring it into the queue (exact criteria [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196074/lots-of-questions-in-the-reopen-queue/196078#196078)). You can edit directly if you have &gt;2k rep; if not, then your edit will be peer-reviewed (i.e. it needs two approvals on the [suggested edits review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is the most important part of the reopening process. If a question is close to a previous post but it is not quite answered by it, then it is important to make sure the new question references the previous ones and explains why it's different. Ideally this should be done by the original poster, but if you see a clear opportunity for an edit like that which does not conflict with the OP's intent, then go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are important reasons why we close duplicates, most centrally because duplicate Q&amp;As dilute and fragment the knowledge base we're building, and diminish the usefulness of this site as a reference source. If new questions cover new ground they should direct answers onto that new ground, because what we really want to avoid is duplicate answers in separate threads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, if you think a question is not a duplicate, leave a comment explaining why! Sometimes people are hasty (because reviewers are human), but a well-argued comment explaining why a question differs from the proposed duplicate can and does make a difference when reviewing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For closure, it is possible for users with under 3k rep to flag as off-topic; this won't cast a closevote but it will place the question in the closure queue if it's not already on there. For reopen votes, this is not possible; it was [asked on the Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186722/can-we-have-the-ability-to-flag-for-reopening) and is currently status-declined - see the answer there for the reasons why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me comment on your second paragraph for a bit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Often, the two questions are about the same topic but clearly focus on different aspects of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is a legitimate reason for reopening, but it often requires an edit on the new question to sharpen the differences and direct the answers onto the new ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Other times, the older one (or one of its answers) is an answer to the newer one, which could not be known in advance by the person who asks the new one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is not a reason for reopening. This could indeed be known to the person asking the new question - we expect posters to search for previous questions before asking. Very often, the proposed duplicate will actually have been shown to the OP *as they were typing the question*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/39EcF.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If people ask a question that's already been asked and answered, then no biggie: the question gets flagged as a duplicate, the OP gets directed to their answer, and the site gets a new waymarker towards that answer that can help future askers with the same question find the answer. We don't hold asking-duplicates against people (unless it's consistently repeated), but that doesn't mean the duplicate question should remain open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="6ac1a2d4-cb4f-4d14-a8a8-7b7ce5306b03" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:36:46.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Why would colder air disperse condensation on a car windshield?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/325820/2451)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a friendly moderator or two consider upvoting it? The previous answers are not very well thought out, but I cannot do anything to upvote my answer as I'm a new contributor. I would like to comment on the original accepted answer to inform them, but I can't do that either. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="6ac1a2d4-cb4f-4d14-a8a8-7b7ce5306b03" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:36:46.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|specific-question|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29800" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="3b0a2d3e-aeb1-41f4-951c-320aefea08bf" CreationDate="2017-04-20T22:27:10.717" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|vote-to-close|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="7c752783-1a35-4c8e-92ee-769470c6a01a" CreationDate="2017-04-22T05:59:01.650" UserId="60891" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You have to click on the button which shows your profile picture with your reputation, badges, etc. in the menu bar (shown in the figure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your profile, you can find a list of your posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers and questions have their own tab and comments can be found in &quot;all actions&quot; tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yUhnB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/f2spl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9821" RevisionGUID="4a68b18e-4b7b-4933-8990-58dab1720867" CreationDate="2017-04-24T22:29:47.417" UserId="89283" Text="Earlier this month I gave a very good answer to a question about the twin paradox. Yet now I can't find the question or answer, either in my page, which supposedly lists all my answers, or by searching for questions on the twin paradox. Where is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9821" RevisionGUID="4a68b18e-4b7b-4933-8990-58dab1720867" CreationDate="2017-04-24T22:29:47.417" UserId="89283" Text="how to find a missing post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9821" RevisionGUID="4a68b18e-4b7b-4933-8990-58dab1720867" CreationDate="2017-04-24T22:29:47.417" UserId="89283" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9822" RevisionGUID="4dcc7096-ce33-4948-a3ca-d4b5ea2dc0c0" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:32:27.130" UserId="8563" Text="I'm prompted to start this thread by a [comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9794/why-are-homework-related-questions-accepted-on-maths-se-more-than-here/9795?noredirect=1#comment36841_9795) on a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9794/why-are-homework-related-questions-accepted-on-maths-se-more-than-here/) about why this site has the homework policy that it does. As I said in that answer, the ecological niche that this site occupies is rather different to the one that [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) does, and a lot of this difference is directly attributable to the existence of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I realize that the details of *why* this situation came about are unknown to many users who joined after much of the development happened*, so it's worthwhile to go over some of that history. Plus, today marks a bit of a [grim anniversary](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) in that history, so maybe it's a good time to do some reflecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; How come there's only one Stack Exchange physics Q&amp;A site, while mathematics gets two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've written a CW answer with the essential facts of the history, along with some links to relevant landmarks, and I'll describe from a (very) high level some of the choices different communities made along the way. However, I think it would be nice if people actually involved in those decisions could add their perspective on how we came to where we are at the moment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Using some kludgy informal queries, I make it that from the users that posted ≥0-score posts in the last year, half joined in the last 18 months, and more than 75% within the past 3 years, which is rather later than much of the relevant history. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9822" RevisionGUID="4dcc7096-ce33-4948-a3ca-d4b5ea2dc0c0" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:32:27.130" UserId="8563" Text="How did mathematics end up with two Stack Exchange sites, while Physics only got one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9822" RevisionGUID="4dcc7096-ce33-4948-a3ca-d4b5ea2dc0c0" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:32:27.130" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="1937b539-77a6-4a70-b65b-30c2ff540846" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:32:27.130" UserId="8563" Text="I'll take this in roughly historical order, and to the extent that I'm aware of things and can remember them, though there is a definite danger that I'm telling the stories as we'd like to reimagine them rather than as they actually happened, so please go check the original sources and make up your mind from them. This obviously can only be a pretty partial list, so if you have additions or corrections - that's why this is community wiki (just try to keep it neutral).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Exchange started as the trio of hard tech sites: Stack Overflow, followed later by Super User and Server Fault. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow#History) has the essentials, and [this Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58210/where-can-i-find-out-about-stack-overflow-history) is a reasonable jumping-off point. Long story short, Stack Overflow launched in 2008 and rose steadily thereafter. The conversation *about* Stack Overflow started on [its UserVoice page](https://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/forums/1722-general) and [moved after about a year to Meta Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/28/cmon-get-meta/); most questions about what would become the Stack Exchange network ended up on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) after [MSO split in two](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/17/announcing-the-launch-of-meta-stack-exchange/) in April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first science site using the Stack Exchange engine was [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which started on 28 September 2009 as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathOverflow) tells it; [this Meta.MathOverflow question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/753/history-of-mathoverflow) has more details. MathOverflow was started by a set of postdocs and graduate students, who set out to create a meeting place for professional research mathematicians. Some interesting reads about it are [the official announcement on the blogosphere](https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/), or [this slightly later piece on the AMS notices](http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201006/rtx100600701p.pdf). From about one year into its tenure, there's pieces on [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/beyond-facebook-how-the-worlds-mathematicians-organize-online/63422/) and [Mercury News](http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/08/stanford-and-uc-berkeley-create-massively-collaborative-math/) that capture a lot of the zeitgeist, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On the more technical site, MathOverflow was started as a completely separate entity to Stack Exchange; instead, MathOverflow licensed the software from SE for its own use, a practice which SE did for a short time after it started, and which stopped after they set up [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) as a mechanism for creating non-[SOFU](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44127/what-exactly-does-sofu-stand-for) sites within SE. MathOverflow migrated to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, managed by SE itself, in mid-2013, without really changing much in how the site is run from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Some interesting bits and pieces regarding MathOverflow are [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow), [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2142/why-is-what-is-the-difference-between-mathoverflow-and-math-stackexchange-not) and [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/617/best-of-mathoverflow) meta questions. Also, note that prior to the migration, meta at MathOverflow was called [tea.mathoverflow.net](http://tea.mathoverflow.net/) (or something to that effect; I think it was originally elsewhere and the archives were later moved there), and if one wants to delve into deep MathOverflow history that is the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An important bit of context from the time around the creation of MathOverflow is the first [Polymath Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath_Project), which started in January 2009 taking off from [Tim Gowers' blog](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/), and which closed successfully within a couple of months. I don't know to what extent the MathOverflow founders had been thinking of starting the site before this, but it certainly showed that there was a large community of mathematicians online ready to take a more hands-on approach than the (also rather active) existing blogging community of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) started a good deal later than MathOverflow, on 27 July 2010, and it came up through the area 51 mechanism. A good place to have a look at how the conversation looked like at the time it was founded is [the proposal's Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics), which contains example questions and some discussion - and particularly [this 2011 question on the one-site model vs the two-site model](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so). Have a look at the `definition` tab for those goodies (I find Robert Harvey's comment [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355?phase=definition) to be particularly illuminating on how things developed), and at the `beta` tab for more stats. Tooltips have more precise dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, this site came up through [this proposal on Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which was proposed on 2 June 2010, and the public beta launched on 9 November 2010 (see also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/when-did-physics-stackexchange-launch)). Again, that proposal gives a good look at how the conversation looked like at the time the site started; another interesting place for how the site scope came to be decided is [the bottom of the scope tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scope?page=5&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50). The site graduated from beta to full SE site on 24 February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an interesting bit of trivia for anyone that joined after [February 2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched), the site design [was originally a blackboard-inspired black-on-white](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se), which was later [changed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/488/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The next important step is [the Area 51 proposal of a Theoretical Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics), on 13 November 2010. By the time that proposal got traction, Physics SE had been running for some time, and there was definite dissatisfaction from some sectors about the level of questions ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)). The proposal was eventually opened for public beta about a year later, on 4 October 2011, but it is important to note that there was definite pushback against splitting the SE physics community in two: the [thread](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so) I linked to above, calls to [just merge the TP proposal into PSE](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics), and a bunch of similar discussions on the [proposal definition page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=definition). This came to the point that [SE community managers directly moved to close the proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics) (also [this](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2220/disposition-of-theoretical-physics)), with [extensive feedback from this site prompting them to continue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/the-theoretical-physic-proposal-is-back-underway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   When the Theoretical Physics site was running, there was some definite ambiguity in terms of where the boundary lay between that site and this one; this is painfully obvious in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese; my feeling is that this probably didn't ever get resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   From a more personal perspective, I joined Stack Exchange at about this time (9 April 2012), some nine months into my [MRes](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/physics/controlled-quantum-dynamics/) in [quantum information and quantum optics](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/controlled-quantum-dynamics), and I have to say that I found the Theoretical Physics site to be extremely intimidating, and I felt like I could hardly get a word in edgewise ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper)). In hindsight, I still think that this was a worrying sign - if that experiment were going on right now, I would wish for the level to be accessible to a broad base of graduate students across all branches of physics. But I digress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In any case, this was not to be for long, because the Theoretical Physics site closed on 25 April 2012 (exactly five years ago), through the announcement [When a site grows quiet](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) on the SE blog. This shut down six SE beta sites, including [the initial astronomy beta](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) (there's now a [new one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy)), about six months into the Theoretical Physics beta; for some reactions on this site, try [Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   After it was closed, all the Theoretical Physics posts were merged into this site; for discussions of that process, the place to look is the [site-salvage tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is important to note that the closing of Theoretical Physics took place during the growing-pains stage of the Area 51 mechanism, and at that stage Stack Exchange took a much closer look at traffic stats of beta sites than they do now. In particular, there was a discrete policy change announced on [Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites) that makes it much less likely that a small and slowly-but-consistently growing SE beta site will be shuttered for lack of traffic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Over the years there have been definite chafings at the perceived low level of questions on this site, as shown e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher) - there's probably more out there to be found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is also [PhysicsOverflow](http://www.physicsoverflow.org), and I think I will leave the telling of this story to its organizers. I will point to the comments section of [Luboš Motl's blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/) as the place for the initial discussions (though I can no longer find which thread), and [its initial announcement on the MathOverflow meta](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live), as well as the thread [What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) on this meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   PhysicsOverflow is currently active, though as far as I understand it they still import a fair amount of this site's content through our CC BY license. I would encourage readers to visit and form their own opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29809" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="f3523028-e674-4163-a008-95a838b64f3f" CreationDate="2017-04-26T02:31:25.413" UserId="44126" />
  <row Id="29810" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="bf6ed4e3-83c4-47a2-9598-596be4a5d53e" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:06:41.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/857113684111478784" />
  <row Id="29811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="941f84ce-5594-415f-ae9a-43fbf62ebfc3" CreationDate="2017-04-26T12:29:08.957" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2614 characters in body" Text="I'll take this in roughly historical order, and to the extent that I'm aware of things and can remember them, though there is a definite danger that I'm telling the stories as we'd like to reimagine them rather than as they actually happened, so please go check the original sources and make up your mind from them. This obviously can only be a pretty partial list, so if you have additions or corrections - that's why this is community wiki (just try to keep it neutral).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Exchange started as the trio of hard tech sites: Stack Overflow, followed later by Super User and Server Fault. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow#History) has the essentials, and [this Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58210/where-can-i-find-out-about-stack-overflow-history) is a reasonable jumping-off point. Long story short, Stack Overflow launched in 2008 and rose steadily thereafter. The conversation *about* Stack Overflow started on [its UserVoice page](https://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/forums/1722-general) and [moved after about a year to Meta Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/28/cmon-get-meta/); most questions about what would become the Stack Exchange network ended up on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) after [MSO split in two](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/17/announcing-the-launch-of-meta-stack-exchange/) in April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first science site using the Stack Exchange engine was [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which started on 28 September 2009 as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathOverflow) tells it; [this Meta MathOverflow question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/753/history-of-mathoverflow) has more details. MathOverflow was started by a set of postdocs and graduate students, who set out to create a meeting place for professional research mathematicians. Some interesting reads about it are [the official announcement on the blogosphere](https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/), or [this slightly later piece on the AMS notices](http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201006/rtx100600701p.pdf). From about one year into its tenure, there's pieces on [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/beyond-facebook-how-the-worlds-mathematicians-organize-online/63422/) and [Mercury News](http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/08/stanford-and-uc-berkeley-create-massively-collaborative-math/) that capture a lot of the zeitgeist, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On the more technical side, MathOverflow was started as a completely separate entity to Stack Exchange; instead, MathOverflow licensed the software from SE for its own use, a practice which SE did for a short time after it started (other instances including [moms4mom](http://moms4mom.com) and [chiphacker](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/586/what-is-chiphacker), which became [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/)), and which stopped after they set up [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) as a mechanism for creating non-[SOFU](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44127/what-exactly-does-sofu-stand-for) sites within SE; see [this SE blog post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/13/changes-to-stack-exchange/) for more details. MathOverflow migrated to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, managed by SE itself, in mid-2013, without really changing much in how the site is run from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Some interesting bits and pieces regarding MathOverflow are [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow), [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2142/why-is-what-is-the-difference-between-mathoverflow-and-math-stackexchange-not) and [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/617/best-of-mathoverflow) meta questions. Also, note that the pre-migration Meta MathOverflow, which ran on an old-school PHP bulletin board, is now preserved as [tea.mathoverflow.net](http://tea.mathoverflow.net/), and if one wants to delve into deep MathOverflow history that is the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An important bit of context from the time around the creation of MathOverflow is the first [Polymath Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath_Project), which started in January 2009 taking off from [Tim Gowers' blog](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/), and which closed successfully within a couple of months. I don't know to what extent the MathOverflow founders had been thinking of starting the site before this, but it certainly showed that there was a large community of mathematicians online ready to take a more hands-on approach than the (also rather active) existing blogging community of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) started a good deal later than MathOverflow, on 27 July 2010, and it came up through the area 51 mechanism. A good place to have a look at how the conversation looked like at the time it was founded is [the proposal's Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics), which contains example questions and some discussion - and particularly [this 2011 question on the one-site model vs the two-site model](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so). Have a look at the `definition` tab for those goodies (I find Robert Harvey's comment [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355?phase=definition) to be particularly illuminating on how things developed), and at the `beta` tab for more stats. Tooltips have more precise dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, this site came up through [this proposal on Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which was proposed on 2 June 2010, and the public beta launched on 9 November 2010 (see also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/when-did-physics-stackexchange-launch)). Again, that proposal gives a good look at how the conversation looked like at the time the site started; another interesting place for how the site scope came to be decided is [the bottom of the scope tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scope?page=5&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50). The site graduated from beta to full SE site on 24 February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an interesting bit of trivia for anyone that joined after [February 2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched), the site design [was originally a blackboard-inspired black-on-white](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se), which was later [changed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/488/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The next important step is [the Area 51 proposal of a Theoretical Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics), on 13 November 2010. By the time that proposal got traction, Physics SE had been running for some time, and there was definite dissatisfaction from some sectors about the level of questions ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)). The proposal was eventually opened for public beta about a year later, on 4 October 2011, but it is important to note that there was definite pushback against splitting the SE physics community in two: the [thread](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so) I linked to above, calls to [just merge the TP proposal into PSE](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics), and a bunch of similar discussions on the [proposal definition page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=definition). This came to the point that [SE community managers directly moved to close the proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics) (also [this](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2220/disposition-of-theoretical-physics)), with [extensive feedback from this site prompting them to continue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/the-theoretical-physic-proposal-is-back-underway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   When the Theoretical Physics site was running, there was some definite ambiguity in terms of where the boundary lay between that site and this one; this is painfully obvious in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese; my feeling is that this probably didn't ever get resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   From a more personal perspective, I joined Stack Exchange at about this time (9 April 2012), some nine months into my [MRes](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/physics/controlled-quantum-dynamics/) in [quantum information and quantum optics](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/controlled-quantum-dynamics), and I have to say that I found the Theoretical Physics site to be extremely intimidating, and I felt like I could hardly get a word in edgewise ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper)). In hindsight, I still think that this was a worrying sign - if that experiment were going on right now, I would wish for the level to be accessible to a broad base of graduate students across all branches of physics. But I digress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In any case, this was not to be for long, because the Theoretical Physics site closed on 25 April 2012 (exactly five years ago), through the announcement [When a site grows quiet](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) on the SE blog. This shut down six SE beta sites, including [the initial astronomy beta](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) (there's now a [new one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy)), about six months into the Theoretical Physics beta; for some reactions on this site, try [Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   After it was closed, all the Theoretical Physics posts were merged into this site; for discussions of that process, the place to look is the [site-salvage tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is important to note that the closing of Theoretical Physics took place during the growing-pains stage of the Area 51 mechanism, and at that stage Stack Exchange took a much closer look at traffic stats of beta sites than they do now. In particular, there was a discrete policy change announced on [Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites) that makes it much less likely that a small and slowly-but-consistently growing SE beta site will be shuttered for lack of traffic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I also want to mention another pair of sites that follow the two-site model that have been successful within the Stack Exchange network, and which we probably don't explore as analogues nearly as much as we should - [Computer Science](https://cs.stackexchange.com/) and [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/), the Area 51 proposals for which are [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/35636/computer-science) and [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/8766/theoretical-computer-science) respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Keep an eye on the timings, though: TCS was proposed in June 2010, went to public beta in August 2010, and it graduated from beta in November 2010; the plain CS site was proposed in September 2011, started public beta in March 2012, and it graduated four years later in January 2016. Thus, this is arguably another case where the 'hard' site came before the 'soft' one (bad descriptors, but you know what I mean), though obviously the elephant in that room is Stack Overflow, which isn't computer science as such but has a strong bearing on that discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Physics and computer science are very different in many respects, but this is nevertheless an interesting model to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Over the years there have been definite chafings at the perceived low level of questions on this site, as shown e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher) - there's probably more out there to be found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is also [PhysicsOverflow](http://www.physicsoverflow.org), and I think I will leave the telling of this story to its organizers. I will point to the comments section of [Luboš Motl's blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/) as the place for the initial discussions (though I can no longer find which thread), and [its initial announcement on the MathOverflow meta](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live), as well as the thread [What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) on this meta. I do feel it's important not to underestimate how much of the motivation for the foundation of PhysicsOverflow was purely on moderation concerns rather than shooting for a research-oriented site, but I'll let them tell their story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   PhysicsOverflow is currently active, though as far as I understand it they still import a fair amount of this site's content through our CC BY license. I really encourage readers to visit and form their own opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I do want to touch on traffic as regards PhysicsOverflow, though, because I've seen several people make claims along the lines of &quot;it's OK if we litter Physics Stack Exchange with drudge-level homework because if researchers get offended they can go to PhysicsOverflow much like mathematicians can go to MathOverflow&quot;. PhysicsOverflow reports its traffic on [its statistics page](https://www.physicsoverflow.org/statistics); in the past year those show an average of about 25 questions per month posted directly to PhysicsOverflow (and about 10 questions per month imported from Physics Stack Exchange), which is about the rate that Theoretical Physics had before it shut down. For comparison, MathOverflow [gets](https://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday) about 40 questions a day, to 650+ on Mathematics and ~100 on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="ec839693-9492-47e1-bfdd-56950cc9196e" CreationDate="2017-04-26T14:57:15.943" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I'll take this in roughly historical order, and to the extent that I'm aware of things and can remember them, though there is a definite danger that I'm telling the stories as we'd like to reimagine them rather than as they actually happened, so please go check the original sources and make up your mind from them. This obviously can only be a pretty partial list, so if you have additions or corrections please add them in (just try to keep it neutral).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Exchange started as the trio of hard tech sites: Stack Overflow, followed later by Super User and Server Fault. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow#History) has the essentials, and [this Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58210/where-can-i-find-out-about-stack-overflow-history) is a reasonable jumping-off point. Long story short, Stack Overflow launched in 2008 and rose steadily thereafter. The conversation *about* Stack Overflow started on [its UserVoice page](https://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/forums/1722-general) and [moved after about a year to Meta Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/28/cmon-get-meta/); most questions about what would become the Stack Exchange network ended up on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) after [MSO split in two](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/17/announcing-the-launch-of-meta-stack-exchange/) in April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first science site using the Stack Exchange engine was [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which started on 28 September 2009 as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathOverflow) tells it; [this Meta MathOverflow question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/753/history-of-mathoverflow) has more details. MathOverflow was started by a set of postdocs and graduate students, who set out to create a meeting place for professional research mathematicians. Some interesting reads about it are [the official announcement on the blogosphere](https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/), or [this slightly later piece on the AMS notices](http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201006/rtx100600701p.pdf). From about one year into its tenure, there's pieces on [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/beyond-facebook-how-the-worlds-mathematicians-organize-online/63422/) and [Mercury News](http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/08/stanford-and-uc-berkeley-create-massively-collaborative-math/) that capture a lot of the zeitgeist, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On the more technical side, MathOverflow was started as a completely separate entity to Stack Exchange; instead, MathOverflow licensed the software from SE for its own use, a practice which SE did for a short time after it started (other instances including [moms4mom](http://moms4mom.com) and [chiphacker](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/586/what-is-chiphacker), which became [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/)), and which stopped after they set up [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) as a mechanism for creating non-[SOFU](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44127/what-exactly-does-sofu-stand-for) sites within SE; see [this SE blog post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/13/changes-to-stack-exchange/) for more details. MathOverflow migrated to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, managed by SE itself, in mid-2013, without really changing much in how the site is run from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Some interesting bits and pieces regarding MathOverflow are [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow), [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2142/why-is-what-is-the-difference-between-mathoverflow-and-math-stackexchange-not) and [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/617/best-of-mathoverflow) meta questions. Also, note that the pre-migration Meta MathOverflow, which ran on an old-school PHP bulletin board, is now preserved as [tea.mathoverflow.net](http://tea.mathoverflow.net/), and if one wants to delve into deep MathOverflow history that is the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An important bit of context from the time around the creation of MathOverflow is the first [Polymath Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath_Project), which started in January 2009 taking off from [Tim Gowers' blog](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/), and which closed successfully within a couple of months. I don't know to what extent the MathOverflow founders had been thinking of starting the site before this, but it certainly showed that there was a large community of mathematicians online ready to take a more hands-on approach than the (also rather active) existing blogging community of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) started a good deal later than MathOverflow, on 27 July 2010, and it came up through the area 51 mechanism. A good place to have a look at how the conversation looked like at the time it was founded is [the proposal's Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics), which contains example questions and some discussion - and particularly [this 2011 question on the one-site model vs the two-site model](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so). Have a look at the `definition` tab for those goodies (I find Robert Harvey's comment [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355?phase=definition) to be particularly illuminating on how things developed), and at the `beta` tab for more stats. Tooltips have more precise dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, this site came up through [this proposal on Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which was proposed on 2 June 2010, and the public beta launched on 9 November 2010 (see also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/when-did-physics-stackexchange-launch)). Again, that proposal gives a good look at how the conversation looked like at the time the site started; another interesting place for how the site scope came to be decided is [the bottom of the scope tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scope?page=5&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50). The site graduated from beta to full SE site on 24 February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an interesting bit of trivia for anyone that joined after [February 2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched), the site design [was originally a blackboard-inspired black-on-white](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se), which was later [changed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/488/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The next important step is [the Area 51 proposal of a Theoretical Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics), on 13 November 2010. By the time that proposal got traction, Physics SE had been running for some time, and there was definite dissatisfaction from some sectors about the level of questions ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)). The proposal was eventually opened for public beta about a year later, on 4 October 2011, but it is important to note that there was definite pushback against splitting the SE physics community in two: the [thread](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so) I linked to above, calls to [just merge the TP proposal into PSE](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics), and a bunch of similar discussions on the [proposal definition page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=definition). This came to the point that [SE community managers directly moved to close the proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics) (also [this](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2220/disposition-of-theoretical-physics)), with [extensive feedback from this site prompting them to continue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/the-theoretical-physic-proposal-is-back-underway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   When the Theoretical Physics site was running, there was some definite ambiguity in terms of where the boundary lay between that site and this one; this is painfully obvious in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese; my feeling is that this probably didn't ever get resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   From a more personal perspective, I joined Stack Exchange at about this time (9 April 2012), some nine months into my [MRes](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/physics/controlled-quantum-dynamics/) in [quantum information and quantum optics](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/controlled-quantum-dynamics), and I have to say that I found the Theoretical Physics site to be extremely intimidating, and I felt like I could hardly get a word in edgewise ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper)). In hindsight, I still think that this was a worrying sign - if that experiment were going on right now, I would wish for the level to be accessible to a broad base of graduate students across all branches of physics. But I digress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In any case, this was not to be for long, because the Theoretical Physics site closed on 25 April 2012 (exactly five years ago), through the announcement [When a site grows quiet](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) on the SE blog. This shut down six SE beta sites, including [the initial astronomy beta](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) (there's now a [new one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy)), about six months into the Theoretical Physics beta; for some reactions on this site, try [Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   After it was closed, all the Theoretical Physics posts were merged into this site; for discussions of that process, the place to look is the [site-salvage tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is important to note that the closing of Theoretical Physics took place during the growing-pains stage of the Area 51 mechanism, and at that stage Stack Exchange took a much closer look at traffic stats of beta sites than they do now. In particular, there was a discrete policy change announced on [Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites) that makes it much less likely that a small and slowly-but-consistently growing SE beta site will be shuttered for lack of traffic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I also want to mention another pair of sites that follow the two-site model that have been successful within the Stack Exchange network, and which we probably don't explore as analogues nearly as much as we should - [Computer Science](https://cs.stackexchange.com/) and [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/), the Area 51 proposals for which are [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/35636/computer-science) and [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/8766/theoretical-computer-science) respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Keep an eye on the timings, though: TCS was proposed in June 2010, went to public beta in August 2010, and it graduated from beta in November 2010; the plain CS site was proposed in September 2011, started public beta in March 2012, and it graduated four years later in January 2016. Thus, this is arguably another case where the 'hard' site came before the 'soft' one (bad descriptors, but you know what I mean), though obviously the elephant in that room is Stack Overflow, which isn't computer science as such but has a strong bearing on that discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Physics and computer science are very different in many respects, but this is nevertheless an interesting model to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Over the years there have been definite chafings at the perceived low level of questions on this site, as shown e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher) - there's probably more out there to be found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is also [PhysicsOverflow](http://www.physicsoverflow.org), and I think I will leave the telling of this story to its organizers. I will point to the comments section of [Luboš Motl's blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/) as the place for the initial discussions (though I can no longer find which thread), and [its initial announcement on the MathOverflow meta](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live), as well as the thread [What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) on this meta. I do feel it's important not to underestimate how much of the motivation for the foundation of PhysicsOverflow was purely on moderation concerns rather than shooting for a research-oriented site, but I'll let them tell their story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   PhysicsOverflow is currently active, though as far as I understand it they still import a fair amount of this site's content through our CC BY license. I really encourage readers to visit and form their own opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I do want to touch on traffic as regards PhysicsOverflow, though, because I've seen several people make claims along the lines of &quot;it's OK if we litter Physics Stack Exchange with drudge-level homework because if researchers get offended they can go to PhysicsOverflow much like mathematicians can go to MathOverflow&quot;. PhysicsOverflow reports its traffic on [its statistics page](https://www.physicsoverflow.org/statistics); in the past year those show an average of about 25 questions per month posted directly to PhysicsOverflow (and about 10 questions per month imported from Physics Stack Exchange), which is about the rate that Theoretical Physics had before it shut down. For comparison, MathOverflow [gets](https://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday) about 40 questions a day, to 650+ on Mathematics and ~100 on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9822" RevisionGUID="62701187-48f0-4da2-a5ba-735b803c5a7c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T14:57:31.917" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm prompted to start this thread by a [comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9794/why-are-homework-related-questions-accepted-on-maths-se-more-than-here/9795?noredirect=1#comment36841_9795) on a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9794/why-are-homework-related-questions-accepted-on-maths-se-more-than-here/) about why this site has the homework policy that it does. As I said in that answer, the ecological niche that this site occupies is rather different to the one that [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) does, and a lot of this difference is directly attributable to the existence of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I realize that the details of *why* this situation came about are unknown to many users who joined after much of the development happened*, so it's worthwhile to go over some of that history. Plus, today marks a bit of a [grim anniversary](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) in that history, so maybe it's a good time to do some reflecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; How come there's only one Stack Exchange physics Q&amp;A site, while mathematics gets two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've written an answer with the essential timeline of the history, along with some links to relevant landmarks, and I'll describe from a (very) high level some of the choices different communities made along the way. However, I think it would be nice if people actually involved in those decisions could add their perspective on how we came to where we are at the moment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Using some kludgy informal queries, I make it that from the users that posted ≥0-score posts in the last year, half joined in the last 18 months, and more than 75% within the past 3 years, which is rather later than much of the relevant history. &lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="de183682-e803-408e-b67a-02b58531cdd8" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:17:31.440" UserId="8563" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="I'll take this in roughly historical order, and to the extent that I'm aware of things and can remember them, though there is a definite danger that I'm telling the stories as we'd like to reimagine them rather than as they actually happened, so please go check the original sources and make up your mind from them. This obviously can only be a pretty partial list, so if you have additions or corrections please add them in (just try to keep it neutral).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Exchange started as the trio of hard tech sites: Stack Overflow, followed later by Super User and Server Fault. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow#History) has the essentials, and [this Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58210/where-can-i-find-out-about-stack-overflow-history) is a reasonable jumping-off point. Long story short, Stack Overflow launched in 2008 and rose steadily thereafter. The conversation *about* Stack Overflow started on [its UserVoice page](https://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/forums/1722-general) and [moved after about a year to Meta Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/28/cmon-get-meta/); most questions about what would become the Stack Exchange network ended up on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) after [MSO split in two](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/17/announcing-the-launch-of-meta-stack-exchange/) in April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first science site using the Stack Exchange engine was [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which started on 28 September 2009 as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathOverflow) tells it; [this Meta MathOverflow question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/753/history-of-mathoverflow) has more details. MathOverflow was started by a set of postdocs and graduate students, who set out to create a meeting place for professional research mathematicians. Some interesting reads about it are [the official announcement on the blogosphere](https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/), or [this slightly later piece on the AMS notices](http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201006/rtx100600701p.pdf). From about one year into its tenure, there's pieces on [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/beyond-facebook-how-the-worlds-mathematicians-organize-online/63422/) and [Mercury News](http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/08/stanford-and-uc-berkeley-create-massively-collaborative-math/) that capture a lot of the zeitgeist, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On the more technical side, MathOverflow was started as a completely separate entity to Stack Exchange; instead, MathOverflow licensed the software from SE for its own use, a practice which SE did for a short time after it started (other instances including [moms4mom](http://moms4mom.com) and [chiphacker](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/586/what-is-chiphacker), which became [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/)), and which stopped after they set up [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) as a mechanism for creating non-[SOFU](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44127/what-exactly-does-sofu-stand-for) sites within SE; see [this SE blog post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/13/changes-to-stack-exchange/) for more details. MathOverflow migrated to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, managed by SE itself, in mid-2013, without really changing much in how the site is run from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Some interesting bits and pieces regarding MathOverflow are [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow), [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2142/why-is-what-is-the-difference-between-mathoverflow-and-math-stackexchange-not) and [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/617/best-of-mathoverflow) meta questions. Also, note that the pre-migration Meta MathOverflow, which ran on an old-school PHP bulletin board, is now preserved as [tea.mathoverflow.net](http://tea.mathoverflow.net/), and if one wants to delve into deep MathOverflow history that is the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An important bit of context from the time around the creation of MathOverflow is the first [Polymath Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath_Project), which started in January 2009 taking off from [Tim Gowers' blog](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/), and which closed successfully within a couple of months. I don't know to what extent the MathOverflow founders had been thinking of starting the site before this, but it certainly showed that there was a large community of mathematicians online ready to take a more hands-on approach than the (also rather active) existing blogging community of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) started a good deal later than MathOverflow, on 27 July 2010, and it came up through the area 51 mechanism. A good place to have a look at how the conversation looked like at the time it was founded is [the proposal's Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics), which contains example questions and some discussion - and particularly [this 2011 question on the one-site model vs the two-site model](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so). Have a look at the `definition` tab for those goodies (I find Robert Harvey's comment [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355?phase=definition) to be particularly illuminating on how things developed), and at the `beta` tab for more stats. Tooltips have more precise dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, this site came up through [this proposal on Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which was proposed on 2 June 2010, and the public beta launched on 9 November 2010 (see also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/when-did-physics-stackexchange-launch)). Again, that proposal gives a good look at how the conversation looked like at the time the site started; another interesting place for how the site scope came to be decided is [the bottom of the scope tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scope?page=5&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50). The site graduated from beta to full SE site on 24 February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an interesting bit of trivia for anyone that joined after [February 2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched), the site design [was originally a blackboard-inspired black-on-white](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se), which was later [changed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/488/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The next important step is [the Area 51 proposal of a Theoretical Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics), on 13 November 2010. By the time that proposal got traction, Physics SE had been running for some time, and there was definite dissatisfaction from some sectors about the level of questions ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)). The proposal was eventually opened for public beta about a year later, on 4 October 2011, but it is important to note that there was definite pushback against splitting the SE physics community in two: the [thread](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so) I linked to above, calls to [just merge the TP proposal into PSE](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics), and a bunch of similar discussions on the [proposal definition page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=definition). This came to the point that [SE community managers directly moved to close the proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics) (also [this](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2220/disposition-of-theoretical-physics)), with [extensive feedback from this site prompting them to continue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/the-theoretical-physic-proposal-is-back-underway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   When the Theoretical Physics site was running, there was some definite ambiguity in terms of where the boundary lay between that site and this one; this is painfully obvious in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese; my feeling is that this probably didn't ever get resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   From a more personal perspective, I joined Stack Exchange at about this time (9 April 2012), some nine months into my [MRes](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/physics/controlled-quantum-dynamics/) in [quantum information and quantum optics](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/controlled-quantum-dynamics), and I have to say that I found the Theoretical Physics site to be extremely intimidating, and I felt like I could hardly get a word in edgewise ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper)). In hindsight, I still think that this was a worrying sign - if that experiment were going on right now, I would wish for the level to be accessible to a broad base of graduate students across all branches of physics. But I digress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In any case, this was not to be for long, because the Theoretical Physics site closed on 25 April 2012 (exactly five years ago), through the announcement [When a site grows quiet](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) on the SE blog. This shut down six SE beta sites, including [the initial astronomy beta](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) (there's now a [new one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy)), about six months into the Theoretical Physics beta; for some reactions on this site, try [Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   After it was closed, all the Theoretical Physics posts were merged into this site; for discussions of that process, the place to look is the [site-salvage tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is important to note that the closing of Theoretical Physics took place during the growing-pains stage of the Area 51 mechanism, and at that stage Stack Exchange took a much closer look at traffic stats of beta sites than they do now. In particular, there was a discrete policy change announced on [Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites) that makes it much less likely that a small and slowly-but-consistently growing SE beta site will be shuttered for lack of traffic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I also want to mention another pair of sites that follow the two-site model that have been successful within the Stack Exchange network, and which we probably don't explore as analogues nearly as much as we should - [Computer Science](https://cs.stackexchange.com/) and [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/), the Area 51 proposals for which are [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/35636/computer-science) and [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/8766/theoretical-computer-science) respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Keep an eye on the timings, though: TCS was proposed in June 2010, went to public beta in August 2010, and it graduated from beta in November 2010; the plain CS site was proposed in September 2011, started public beta in March 2012, and it graduated four years later in January 2016. Thus, this is arguably another case where the 'hard' site came before the 'soft' one (bad descriptors, but you know what I mean), though obviously the elephant in that room is Stack Overflow, which isn't computer science as such but has a strong bearing on that discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Physics and computer science are very different in many respects, but this is nevertheless an interesting model to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Over the years there have been definite chafings at the perceived low level of questions on this site, as shown e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher) - there's probably more out there to be found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is also [PhysicsOverflow](http://www.physicsoverflow.org), and I think I will leave the telling of this story to its organizers. I will point to the comments section of [Luboš Motl's blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/) as the place for the initial discussions (more specifically on [this thread and its comments](http://motls.blogspot.com.es/2013/08/discussion-on-old-and-new-theoretical.html)), and [its initial announcement on the MathOverflow meta](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live), as well as the thread [What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) on this meta. I do feel it's important not to underestimate how much of the motivation for the foundation of PhysicsOverflow was purely on moderation concerns rather than shooting for a research-oriented site, but I'll let them tell their story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   PhysicsOverflow is currently active, though as far as I understand it they still import a fair amount of this site's content through our CC BY license. I really encourage readers to visit and form their own opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I do want to touch on traffic as regards PhysicsOverflow, though, because I've seen several people make claims along the lines of &quot;it's OK if we litter Physics Stack Exchange with drudge-level homework because if researchers get offended they can go to PhysicsOverflow much like mathematicians can go to MathOverflow&quot;. PhysicsOverflow reports its traffic on [its statistics page](https://www.physicsoverflow.org/statistics); in the past year those show an average of about 25 questions per month posted directly to PhysicsOverflow (and about 10 questions per month imported from Physics Stack Exchange), which is about the rate that Theoretical Physics had before it shut down. For comparison, MathOverflow [gets](https://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday) about 40 questions a day, to 650+ on Mathematics and ~100 on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9824" RevisionGUID="f6240654-a43d-4572-97f0-85de09cc8892" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:24:36.987" UserId="114696" Text="I think the most important thing to do after getting a comment which suggests that your question is a *Possible duplicate of* some other question, is to **explain prominently in your question** why you think it is not a duplicate. It is important to do this **as soon as possible**, before votes accumulate, and certainly before the question is put on hold. Reopening is very much less likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting your reasons in a comment is not as effective as posting them in your question. When I review a question for reopening I rarely consider more than the edits made to the question after it was closed. (This is inconsistent of me, because I post a comment when I nominate a question for reopening.) I review comments before casting a closing vote.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Posting a comment pinging the user who voted against your question as a duplicate is more effective than posting a general comment. Again it is important to act quickly before votes start accumulating. Much as we like to think we vote independently, we are more likely to cast closing votes when we see that others have already done so.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have an inbuilt bias against reopening questions; I think most reviewers would admit to having the same bias. To have any kind of a chance I think you must make a convincing argument. It is not enough to say that the answers in the other question were not helpful or that you could not understand them. You must explain in what way they fail to satisfy you.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither (in my opinion) is it enough to say that the two questions focus on different aspects. The issue is whether or not one of the answers to the other question answers the aspect you are focussing on. It often happens that an answer is more general than the question asked, so it might cover your case also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might pre-empt votes to close your question as a duplicate by citing similar questions and explaining what is different about your question. If you cite possible duplicates, reviewers are less likely to search for them. However, this can also be a liability, inviting your question to be marked as a duplicate if you do not make a good argument for it being different or the other answers failing answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last resort, if your question is not reopened you can **post a question in Physics Meta** asking why your question has been closed. The discussion might persuade voters that your question ought to be reopened.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9824" RevisionGUID="21c2f721-e00f-4f0f-aec1-69fd949424ca" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:30:04.973" UserId="114696" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I think the most important thing to do after getting a comment which suggests that your question is a *Possible duplicate of* some other question, is to **explain prominently in your question** why you think it is not a duplicate. It is important to do this **as soon as possible**, before votes accumulate, and certainly before the question is put on hold. Reopening is very much less likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting your reasons in a comment is not as effective as posting them in your question. When I review a question for reopening I rarely consider more than the edits made to the question after it was closed. (This is inconsistent of me, because I post a comment when I nominate a question for reopening.) I review comments before casting a closing vote.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Posting a comment pinging the user who voted against your question as a duplicate is more effective than posting a general comment. Again it is important to act quickly before votes start accumulating. Much as we like to think we vote independently, we are more likely to cast closing votes when we see that others have already done so.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have an inbuilt bias against reopening questions; I think most reviewers would admit to having the same bias. To have any kind of a chance I think you must make a convincing argument. It is not enough to say that the answers in the other question were not helpful or that you could not understand them. You must explain in what way they fail to satisfy you.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither (in my opinion) is it enough to say that the two questions focus on different aspects. The issue is whether or not one of the answers to the other question answers the aspect you are focussing on. It often happens that an answer is more general than the question asked, so it might cover your case also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might pre-empt votes to close your question as a duplicate by citing similar questions and explaining what is different about your question. If you cite possible duplicates, reviewers are less likely to search for them. However, this can also be a liability, inviting your question to be marked as a duplicate if you do not make a good argument for it being different or the other answers failing to answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last resort, if your question is not reopened and you are convinced that you have a good case, you can **post a question in Physics Meta** asking why your question has been closed. The discussion might persuade voters that your question ought to be reopened.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29817" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9822" RevisionGUID="6ab9bed1-018d-43eb-bc50-a7af501a3376" CreationDate="2017-04-28T03:18:49.357" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/857796214963793920" />
  <row Id="29818" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9794" RevisionGUID="0bf23320-2f6e-4a58-aea6-aaca487fa491" CreationDate="2017-04-28T06:18:49.383" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/857841514336092160" />
  <row Id="29819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="1d060361-171e-48ee-9627-171c6d784a29" CreationDate="2017-04-28T13:19:49.383" UserId="8563" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="I'll take this in roughly historical order, and to the extent that I'm aware of things and can remember them, though there is a definite danger that I'm telling the stories as we'd like to reimagine them rather than as they actually happened, so please go check the original sources and make up your mind from them. This obviously can only be a pretty partial list, so if you have additions or corrections please add them in (just try to keep it neutral).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Exchange started as the trio of hard tech sites: Stack Overflow, followed later by Super User and Server Fault. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow#History) has the essentials, and [this Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58210/where-can-i-find-out-about-stack-overflow-history) is a reasonable jumping-off point. Long story short, Stack Overflow launched in 2008 and rose steadily thereafter. The conversation *about* Stack Overflow started on [its UserVoice page](https://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/forums/1722-general) and [moved after about a year to Meta Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/28/cmon-get-meta/); most questions about what would become the Stack Exchange network ended up on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) after [MSO split in two](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/17/announcing-the-launch-of-meta-stack-exchange/) in April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first science site using the Stack Exchange engine was [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which started on 28 September 2009 as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathOverflow) tells it; [this Meta MathOverflow question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/753/history-of-mathoverflow) has more details. MathOverflow was started by a set of postdocs and graduate students, who set out to create a meeting place for professional research mathematicians. Some interesting reads about it are [the official announcement on the blogosphere](https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/), or [this slightly later piece on the AMS notices](http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201006/rtx100600701p.pdf). From about one year into its tenure, there's pieces on [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/beyond-facebook-how-the-worlds-mathematicians-organize-online/63422/) and [Mercury News](http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/08/stanford-and-uc-berkeley-create-massively-collaborative-math/) that capture a lot of the zeitgeist, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On the more technical side, MathOverflow was started as a completely separate entity to Stack Exchange; instead, MathOverflow licensed the software from SE for its own use, a practice which SE did for a short time after it started (other instances including [moms4mom](http://moms4mom.com) and [chiphacker](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/586/what-is-chiphacker), which became [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/)), and which stopped after they set up [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) as a mechanism for creating non-[SOFU](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44127/what-exactly-does-sofu-stand-for) sites within SE; see [this SE blog post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/13/changes-to-stack-exchange/) for more details. MathOverflow migrated to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, managed by SE itself, in mid-2013, without really changing much in how the site is run from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Some interesting bits and pieces regarding MathOverflow are [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow), [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2142/why-is-what-is-the-difference-between-mathoverflow-and-math-stackexchange-not) and [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/617/best-of-mathoverflow) meta questions. Also, note that the pre-migration Meta MathOverflow, which ran on an old-school PHP bulletin board, is now preserved as [tea.mathoverflow.net](http://tea.mathoverflow.net/), and if one wants to delve into deep MathOverflow history that is the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An important bit of context from the time around the creation of MathOverflow is the first [Polymath Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath_Project), which started in January 2009 taking off from [Tim Gowers' blog](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/), and which closed successfully within a couple of months. I don't know to what extent the MathOverflow founders had been thinking of starting the site before this, but it certainly showed that there was a large community of mathematicians online ready to take a more hands-on approach than the (also rather active) existing blogging community of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) started a good deal later than MathOverflow, on 27 July 2010, and it came up through the area 51 mechanism. A good place to have a look at how the conversation looked like at the time it was founded is [the proposal's Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics), which contains example questions and some discussion - and particularly [this 2011 question on the one-site model vs the two-site model](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so). Have a look at the `definition` tab for those goodies (I find Robert Harvey's comment [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355?phase=definition) to be particularly illuminating on how things developed), and at the `beta` tab for more stats. Tooltips have more precise dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, this site came up through [this proposal on Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which was proposed on 2 June 2010, and the public beta launched on 9 November 2010 (see also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/when-did-physics-stackexchange-launch)). Again, that proposal gives a good look at how the conversation looked like at the time the site started; another interesting place for how the site scope came to be decided is [the bottom of the scope tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scope?page=5&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50). The site graduated from beta to full SE site on 24 February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an interesting bit of trivia for anyone that joined after [February 2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched), the site design [was originally a blackboard-inspired black-on-white](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se), which was later [changed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/488/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The next important step is [the Area 51 proposal of a Theoretical Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics), on 13 November 2010. By the time that proposal got traction, Physics SE had been running for some time, and there was definite dissatisfaction from some sectors about the level of questions ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)). The proposal was eventually opened for public beta about a year later, on 4 October 2011, but it is important to note that there was definite pushback against splitting the SE physics community in two: the [thread](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so) I linked to above, calls to [just merge the TP proposal into PSE](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics), and a bunch of similar discussions on the [proposal definition page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=definition). This came to the point that [SE community managers directly moved to close the proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics) (also [this](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2220/disposition-of-theoretical-physics)), with [extensive feedback from this site prompting them to continue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/the-theoretical-physic-proposal-is-back-underway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   When the Theoretical Physics site was running, there was some definite ambiguity in terms of where the boundary lay between that site and this one; this is painfully obvious in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese; my feeling is that this probably didn't ever get resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   From a more personal perspective, I joined Stack Exchange at about this time (9 April 2012), some nine months into my [MRes](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/physics/controlled-quantum-dynamics/) in [quantum information and quantum optics](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/controlled-quantum-dynamics), and I have to say that I found the Theoretical Physics site to be extremely intimidating, and I felt like I could hardly get a word in edgewise ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper)). In hindsight, I still think that this was a worrying sign - if that experiment were going on right now, I would wish for the level to be accessible to a broad base of graduate students across all branches of physics. But I digress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In any case, this was not to be for long, because the Theoretical Physics site closed on 25 April 2012 (exactly five years ago), through the announcement [When a site grows quiet](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) on the SE blog. This shut down six SE beta sites, including [the initial astronomy beta](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) (there's now a [new one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy)), about six months into the Theoretical Physics beta. To see the community's reactions to this, try [Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed) on this meta, as well as a variety of post-mortems from different perspectives at [Why did Theoretical Physics fail?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) on Meta SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   After it was closed, all the Theoretical Physics posts were merged into this site; for discussions of that process, the place to look is the [site-salvage tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is important to note that the closing of Theoretical Physics took place during the growing-pains stage of the Area 51 mechanism, and at that stage Stack Exchange took a much closer look at traffic stats of beta sites than they do now. In particular, there was a discrete policy change announced on [Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites) that makes it much less likely that a small and slowly-but-consistently growing SE beta site will be shuttered for lack of traffic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I also want to mention another pair of sites that follow the two-site model that have been successful within the Stack Exchange network, and which we probably don't explore as analogues nearly as much as we should - [Computer Science](https://cs.stackexchange.com/) and [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/), the Area 51 proposals for which are [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/35636/computer-science) and [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/8766/theoretical-computer-science) respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Keep an eye on the timings, though: TCS was proposed in June 2010, went to public beta in August 2010, and it graduated from beta in November 2010; the plain CS site was proposed in September 2011, started public beta in March 2012, and it graduated four years later in January 2016. Thus, this is arguably another case where the 'hard' site came before the 'soft' one (bad descriptors, but you know what I mean), though obviously the elephant in that room is Stack Overflow, which isn't computer science as such but has a strong bearing on that discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Physics and computer science are very different in many respects, but this is nevertheless an interesting model to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Over the years there have been definite chafings at the perceived low level of questions on this site, as shown e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher) - there's probably more out there to be found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is also [PhysicsOverflow](http://www.physicsoverflow.org), and I think I will leave the telling of this story to its organizers. I will point to the comments section of [Luboš Motl's blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/) as the place for the initial discussions (more specifically on [this thread and its comments](http://motls.blogspot.com.es/2013/08/discussion-on-old-and-new-theoretical.html)), and [its initial announcement on the MathOverflow meta](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live), as well as the thread [What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) on this meta. I do feel it's important not to underestimate how much of the motivation for the foundation of PhysicsOverflow was purely on moderation concerns rather than shooting for a research-oriented site, but I'll let them tell their story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   PhysicsOverflow is currently active, though as far as I understand it they still import a fair amount of this site's content through our CC BY license. I really encourage readers to visit and form their own opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I do want to touch on traffic as regards PhysicsOverflow, though, because I've seen several people make claims along the lines of &quot;it's OK if we litter Physics Stack Exchange with drudge-level homework because if researchers get offended they can go to PhysicsOverflow much like mathematicians can go to MathOverflow&quot;. PhysicsOverflow reports its traffic on [its statistics page](https://www.physicsoverflow.org/statistics); in the past year those show an average of about 25 questions per month posted directly to PhysicsOverflow (and about 10 questions per month imported from Physics Stack Exchange), which is about the rate that Theoretical Physics had before it shut down. For comparison, MathOverflow [gets](https://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday) about 40 questions a day, to 650+ on Mathematics and ~100 on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="ba5be71c-0366-4f18-835b-91acdedb9d65" CreationDate="2017-04-28T13:33:03.417" UserId="8563" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="I'll take this in roughly historical order, and to the extent that I'm aware of things and can remember them, though there is a definite danger that I'm telling the stories as we'd like to reimagine them rather than as they actually happened, so please go check the original sources and make up your mind from them. This obviously can only be a pretty partial list, so if you have additions or corrections please add them in (just try to keep it neutral).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stack Exchange started as the trio of hard tech sites: Stack Overflow, followed later by Super User and Server Fault. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow#History) has the essentials, and [this Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58210/where-can-i-find-out-about-stack-overflow-history) is a reasonable jumping-off point. Long story short, Stack Overflow launched in 2008 and rose steadily thereafter. The conversation *about* Stack Overflow started on [its UserVoice page](https://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/forums/1722-general) and [moved after about a year to Meta Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/28/cmon-get-meta/); most questions about what would become the Stack Exchange network ended up on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) after [MSO split in two](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/17/announcing-the-launch-of-meta-stack-exchange/) in April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first science site using the Stack Exchange engine was [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), which started on 28 September 2009 as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathOverflow) tells it; [this Meta MathOverflow question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/753/history-of-mathoverflow) has more details. MathOverflow was started by a set of postdocs and graduate students, who set out to create a meeting place for professional research mathematicians. Some interesting reads about it are [the official announcement on the blogosphere](https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/), or [this slightly later piece on the AMS notices](http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201006/rtx100600701p.pdf). From about one year into its tenure, there's pieces on [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/beyond-facebook-how-the-worlds-mathematicians-organize-online/63422/) and [Mercury News](http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/08/stanford-and-uc-berkeley-create-massively-collaborative-math/) that capture a lot of the zeitgeist, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On the more technical side, MathOverflow was started as a completely separate entity to Stack Exchange; instead, MathOverflow licensed the software from SE for its own use, a practice which SE did for a short time after it started (other instances including [moms4mom](http://moms4mom.com) and [chiphacker](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/586/what-is-chiphacker), which became [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/)), and which stopped after they set up [area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/) as a mechanism for creating non-[SOFU](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44127/what-exactly-does-sofu-stand-for) sites within SE; see [this SE blog post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/13/changes-to-stack-exchange/) for more details. MathOverflow migrated to the Stack Exchange 2.0 platform, managed by SE itself, in mid-2013, without really changing much in how the site is run from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Some interesting bits and pieces regarding MathOverflow are [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/969/who-owns-mathoverflow), [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2142/why-is-what-is-the-difference-between-mathoverflow-and-math-stackexchange-not) and [this](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/617/best-of-mathoverflow) meta questions. Also, note that the pre-migration Meta MathOverflow, which ran on an old-school PHP bulletin board, is now preserved as [tea.mathoverflow.net](http://tea.mathoverflow.net/), and if one wants to delve into deep MathOverflow history that is the place for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An important bit of context from the time around the creation of MathOverflow is the first [Polymath Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath_Project), which started in January 2009 taking off from [Tim Gowers' blog](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/), and which closed successfully within a couple of months. I don't know to what extent the MathOverflow founders had been thinking of starting the site before this, but it certainly showed that there was a large community of mathematicians online ready to take a more hands-on approach than the (also rather active) existing blogging community of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/) started a good deal later than MathOverflow, on 27 July 2010, and it came up through the area 51 mechanism. A good place to have a look at how the conversation looked like at the time it was founded is [the proposal's Area 51 page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics), which contains example questions and some discussion - and particularly [this 2011 question on the one-site model vs the two-site model](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so). Have a look at the `definition` tab for those goodies (I find Robert Harvey's comment [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355?phase=definition) to be particularly illuminating on how things developed), and at the `beta` tab for more stats. Tooltips have more precise dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There is also a lot of relevant discussion on a thread on the pre-2010 Meta Stack Exchange (a meta site for the Stack Exchange 1.0 software and family of sites), which is [preserved in the Wayback Machine](http://web.archive.org/web/20100418194227/meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5534/proposal-for-mathematics-se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, this site came up through [this proposal on Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics), which was proposed on 2 June 2010, and the public beta launched on 9 November 2010 (see also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/when-did-physics-stackexchange-launch)). Again, that proposal gives a good look at how the conversation looked like at the time the site started; another interesting place for how the site scope came to be decided is [the bottom of the scope tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scope?page=5&amp;sort=newest&amp;pagesize=50). The site graduated from beta to full SE site on 24 February 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As an interesting bit of trivia for anyone that joined after [February 2011](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/463/new-design-launched), the site design [was originally a blackboard-inspired black-on-white](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/447/design-for-physics-se), which was later [changed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/488/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The next important step is [the Area 51 proposal of a Theoretical Physics site](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics), on 13 November 2010. By the time that proposal got traction, Physics SE had been running for some time, and there was definite dissatisfaction from some sectors about the level of questions ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76/level-of-questions)). The proposal was eventually opened for public beta about a year later, on 4 October 2011, but it is important to note that there was definite pushback against splitting the SE physics community in two: the [thread](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/two-level-model-mo-math-se-vs-one-level-model-so) I linked to above, calls to [just merge the TP proposal into PSE](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics), and a bunch of similar discussions on the [proposal definition page](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=definition). This came to the point that [SE community managers directly moved to close the proposal](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/788/disposition-of-area-51-proposal-theoretical-physics) (also [this](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2220/disposition-of-theoretical-physics)), with [extensive feedback from this site prompting them to continue](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/816/the-theoretical-physic-proposal-is-back-underway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   When the Theoretical Physics site was running, there was some definite ambiguity in terms of where the boundary lay between that site and this one; this is painfully obvious in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-rese; my feeling is that this probably didn't ever get resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   From a more personal perspective, I joined Stack Exchange at about this time (9 April 2012), some nine months into my [MRes](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/physics/controlled-quantum-dynamics/) in [quantum information and quantum optics](http://www.imperial.ac.uk/controlled-quantum-dynamics), and I have to say that I found the Theoretical Physics site to be extremely intimidating, and I felt like I could hardly get a word in edgewise ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27503/reference-request-susskind-glogower-original-paper)). In hindsight, I still think that this was a worrying sign - if that experiment were going on right now, I would wish for the level to be accessible to a broad base of graduate students across all branches of physics. But I digress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In any case, this was not to be for long, because the Theoretical Physics site closed on 25 April 2012 (exactly five years ago), through the announcement [When a site grows quiet](https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/) on the SE blog. This shut down six SE beta sites, including [the initial astronomy beta](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) (there's now a [new one](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy)), about six months into the Theoretical Physics beta. To see the community's reactions to this, try [Why Theoretical Physics has been closed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/why-theoretical-physics-has-been-closed) on this meta, as well as a variety of post-mortems from different perspectives at [Why did Theoretical Physics fail?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) on Meta SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   After it was closed, all the Theoretical Physics posts were merged into this site; for discussions of that process, the place to look is the [site-salvage tag on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is important to note that the closing of Theoretical Physics took place during the growing-pains stage of the Area 51 mechanism, and at that stage Stack Exchange took a much closer look at traffic stats of beta sites than they do now. In particular, there was a discrete policy change announced on [Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites) that makes it much less likely that a small and slowly-but-consistently growing SE beta site will be shuttered for lack of traffic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I also want to mention another pair of sites that follow the two-site model that have been successful within the Stack Exchange network, and which we probably don't explore as analogues nearly as much as we should - [Computer Science](https://cs.stackexchange.com/) and [Theoretical Computer Science](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/), the Area 51 proposals for which are [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/35636/computer-science) and [here](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/8766/theoretical-computer-science) respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Keep an eye on the timings, though: TCS was proposed in June 2010, went to public beta in August 2010, and it graduated from beta in November 2010; the plain CS site was proposed in September 2011, started public beta in March 2012, and it graduated four years later in January 2016. Thus, this is arguably another case where the 'hard' site came before the 'soft' one (bad descriptors, but you know what I mean), though obviously the elephant in that room is Stack Overflow, which isn't computer science as such but has a strong bearing on that discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Physics and computer science are very different in many respects, but this is nevertheless an interesting model to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Over the years there have been definite chafings at the perceived low level of questions on this site, as shown e.g. in [this thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/what-can-be-done-to-improve-physics-se-as-an-active-forum-for-physics-researcher) - there's probably more out there to be found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is also [PhysicsOverflow](http://www.physicsoverflow.org), and I think I will leave the telling of this story to its organizers. I will point to the comments section of [Luboš Motl's blog](http://motls.blogspot.com/) as the place for the initial discussions (more specifically on [this thread and its comments](http://motls.blogspot.com.es/2013/08/discussion-on-old-and-new-theoretical.html)), and [its initial announcement on the MathOverflow meta](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1608/physicsoverflow-just-went-live), as well as the thread [What is Physics Overflow and how is it linked to Physics.SE?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6196/what-is-physics-overflow-and-how-is-it-linked-to-physics-se) on this meta. I do feel it's important not to underestimate how much of the motivation for the foundation of PhysicsOverflow was purely on moderation concerns rather than shooting for a research-oriented site, but I'll let them tell their story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   PhysicsOverflow is currently active, though as far as I understand it they still import a fair amount of this site's content through our CC BY license. I really encourage readers to visit and form their own opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I do want to touch on traffic as regards PhysicsOverflow, though, because I've seen several people make claims along the lines of &quot;it's OK if we litter Physics Stack Exchange with drudge-level homework because if researchers get offended they can go to PhysicsOverflow much like mathematicians can go to MathOverflow&quot;. PhysicsOverflow reports its traffic on [its statistics page](https://www.physicsoverflow.org/statistics); in the past year those show an average of about 25 questions per month posted directly to PhysicsOverflow (and about 10 questions per month imported from Physics Stack Exchange), which is about the rate that Theoretical Physics had before it shut down. For comparison, MathOverflow [gets](https://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday) about 40 questions a day, to 650+ on Mathematics and ~100 on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="272bebdf-7572-4cea-9448-a8e5adc1f1b6" CreationDate="2017-04-30T16:09:19.400" UserId="7924" Text="The ''grim anniversary'' in the history of Physics SE that Emilio alluded to is the shutting down of TheoreticalPhysics SE in April 2012 by the Community Manager of Stack Exchange. Between this announcement and the actual closing act, there was quite some discussion on Physics SE and on the blogs (some of which are no longer accessible; the links are dead) of some participants. In [one of these][1] one can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reason that TP.SE was formed was largely due to wanting somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for research level stuff without all of the noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a member of TheoreticalPhysics SE wrote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have succeeded in maintaining high quality site which has become a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reliable resource of correct and useful information, which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes not that easy to obtain. We had top people coming to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and contributing high quality content. Quality, rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quantity, is of course something that is not easily measurable, but I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; think it has value nonetheless. Traffic was an issue, but for a highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical site the pattern of traffic, including how it changes with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time, should be evaluated differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although [the officials had said in a more general context:][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As long as your site shows steady progress and continues to make the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will march on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is quoted in the [shut down notice][4], ''making the Internet a better place'' is interpreted from the point of view of the SE marketing perspective only: Commercial viability requires high enough traffic rates and these were not maintained by TheoreticalPhysics SE during its beta existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the reasons for shutting down the site have more to do with the standards of SE for a site to be tolerable in a commercial enterprise than with the quality of the contributions to the site. In the thread [''Why did Theoretical Physics fail?''][5] the SE officials didn't question the fact mentioned in the thread opening that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the quality of questions (and answers) was actually good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But SE required growth and high traffic. (Typical argument: ''Physics [SE] was already a bigger and more established site when it launched.'') In the [words of one of the active members][6] of Theoretical Physics SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE closed a Jazz club for not being the same as a Madonna concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [actual closing message on TheoreticalPhysics SE meta][7] mentioned that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the questions and answers posted here will be made available for &#xD;&#xA;&gt; download and re-use by anyone who wants them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an immediate desire to migrate the site outside the SE framework.&#xD;&#xA;See ''[Where do we go from here?][8]'', but for practical reasons it took nearly two years to restart the site as [PhysicsOverflow][9]. All questions and answers from TheoreticalPhysics SE and its meta site were migrated to PhysicsOverflow, and the site continues under improved rules. In particular, PhysicsOverflow treats comments on the same level as questions and answers (any length, anytime editing, fully disclosed history, bookmarking). PhysicsOverflow also imports upon request research level posts from Physics SE and MathOverflow; new answers of questions from there are usually reported back on the original site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PhysicsOverflow hasn't become a Madonna concert with all its noise but it preserves the level, quality, and noise-free enjoyment the Jazz club once called TheoreticalPhysics SE offered to the physics research community. Reflecting the high level, the [number of questions, answers, and comments][10] per month by registered users is highly fluctuating, with long term averages around 25, 25, and 75, respectively. These numbers are comparable to those of Theoretical Physics SE at the time of its shut down and do not include the posts of anonymous users or unregistered users imported from elsewhere, which add about 30% to the other numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of [Emilio Pisanty's comment][11] &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also PhysicsOverflow, and I think I will leave the telling of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this story to its organizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;let me add that a timeline of PhysicsOverflow can be found [here][12].&#xD;&#xA;Due to unrelated events, the relations with Physics SE have been characterized by some tensions, as reflected by the very unusual ratio of upvotes and downvotes in the [promotion ad][13]. Being quite active on both sites I'd be happy if these tensions would give way to a friendly relationship of the same sort as it exists between Mathematics SE and MathOverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1350/theoretical-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/131113/182065&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/10/21/when-will-my-site-graduate/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physicsoverflow.org/4528&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physicsoverflow.org/3722/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physicsoverflow.org/3729/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physicsoverflow.org/statistics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9822/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physicsoverflow.org/8347&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9554/community-promotion-ads-2017/9556#9556" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="ed4c0763-2ede-4348-92d9-669dc8ee5e99" CreationDate="2017-04-30T16:27:53.497" UserId="7924" Comment="added explanation" Text="The ''grim anniversary'' in the history of Physics SE that Emilio alluded to is the shutting down of TheoreticalPhysics SE in April 2012 by the Community Manager of Stack Exchange. Between this announcement and the actual closing act, there was quite some discussion on Physics SE and on the blogs (some of which are no longer accessible; the links are dead) of some participants. In [one of these][1] one can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reason that TP.SE was formed was largely due to wanting somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for research level stuff without all of the noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [a member of TheoreticalPhysics SE wrote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have succeeded in maintaining high quality site which has become a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reliable resource of correct and useful information, which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes not that easy to obtain. We had top people coming to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and contributing high quality content. Quality, rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quantity, is of course something that is not easily measurable, but I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; think it has value nonetheless. Traffic was an issue, but for a highly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical site the pattern of traffic, including how it changes with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time, should be evaluated differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although [the officials had said in a more general context:][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As long as your site shows steady progress and continues to make the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will march on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this is quoted in the [shut down notice][4], ''making the Internet a better place'' is interpreted from the point of view of the SE marketing perspective only: Commercial viability requires high enough traffic rates and these were not maintained by TheoreticalPhysics SE during its beta existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the reasons for shutting down the site have more to do with the standards of SE for a site to be tolerable in a commercial enterprise than with the quality of the contributions to the site. In the thread [''Why did Theoretical Physics fail?''][5] the SE officials didn't question the fact mentioned in the thread opening that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the quality of questions (and answers) was actually good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But SE required growth and high traffic. (Typical argument: ''Physics [SE] was already a bigger and more established site when it launched.'') In the [words of one of the active members][6] of Theoretical Physics SE,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SE closed a Jazz club for not being the same as a Madonna concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [actual closing message on TheoreticalPhysics SE meta][7] mentioned that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the questions and answers posted here will be made available for &#xD;&#xA;&gt; download and re-use by anyone who wants them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an immediate desire to migrate the site outside the SE framework.&#xD;&#xA;See ''[Where do we go from here?][8]'', but for practical reasons it took nearly two years to restart the site as [PhysicsOverflow][9]. All questions and answers from TheoreticalPhysics SE and its meta site were migrated to PhysicsOverflow, and the site continues under improved rules. In particular, PhysicsOverflow treats comments on the same level as questions and answers (any length, anytime editing, fully disclosed history, bookmarking). PhysicsOverflow also imports upon request research level posts from Physics SE and MathOverflow; new answers of questions from there are usually reported back on the original site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PhysicsOverflow hasn't become a Madonna concert with all its noise but it preserves the level, quality, and noise-free enjoyment the Jazz club once called TheoreticalPhysics SE offered to the physics research community. Reflecting the high level, the [number of questions, answers, and comments][10] per month by registered users is highly fluctuating, with long term averages around 25, 25, and 75, respectively. These numbers are comparable to those of Theoretical Physics SE at the time of its shut down and do not include the posts of anonymous users or unregistered users imported from elsewhere, which add about 30% to the other numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of [Emilio Pisanty's comment][11] &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also PhysicsOverflow, and I think I will leave the telling of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this story to its organizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;let me add that a timeline of PhysicsOverflow can be found [here][12].&#xD;&#xA;Due to unrelated events, the relations with Physics SE have been characterized by some tensions, as reflected by the very unusual ratio of upvotes and downvotes in the [promotion ad][13] (visible to high rep users only). Being quite active on both sites I'd be happy if these tensions would give way to a friendly relationship of the same sort as it exists between Mathematics SE and MathOverflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1350/theoretical-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/131113/182065&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/10/21/when-will-my-site-graduate/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2012/04/25/when-a-site-grows-quiet/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physicsoverflow.org/4528&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physicsoverflow.org/3722/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physicsoverflow.org/3729/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physicsoverflow.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physicsoverflow.org/statistics&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9822/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physicsoverflow.org/8347&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9554/community-promotion-ads-2017/9556#9556" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29823" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9821" RevisionGUID="6290062b-40e8-44e9-9513-f11bf6a9f882" CreationDate="2017-04-30T18:40:47.240" UserId="32426" Comment="edited title" Text="How to find a missing post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="6e7a8103-c476-454a-aea5-980f2063272d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:10:32.140" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="Reading through questions on the Q&amp;A Stackexchange, I came across [this Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270414/acceleration-of-a-pulley-system) regarding rotational mechanics. I'd been confused a few other times in the past by homework closures and had come to the conclusion that to merit closure under the homework flag the question would have to show a clear lack of effort, and a lack of question about any real concepts, such as a post purely providing information and asking &quot;how do I solve this&quot; or &quot;what's $F =$ to?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question linked above shows effort to solve the question, and also asks about physics concepts, and could definitely be useful to future SE users struggling with similar problems. Why did this question get closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="6e7a8103-c476-454a-aea5-980f2063272d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:10:32.140" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="Homework Policy and what justifies closure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="6e7a8103-c476-454a-aea5-980f2063272d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:10:32.140" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="e0ddb3a1-e2c8-4098-8a16-1b774b52a9ce" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:50:29.333" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Reading through questions on the Q&amp;A Stackexchange, I came across [this Question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270414/) regarding rotational mechanics. I'd been confused a few other times in the past by homework closures and had come to the conclusion that to merit closure under the homework flag the question would have to show a clear lack of effort, and a lack of question about any real concepts, such as a post purely providing information and asking &quot;how do I solve this&quot; or &quot;what's $F =$ to?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question linked above shows effort to solve the question, and also asks about physics concepts, and could definitely be useful to future SE users struggling with similar problems. Why did this question get closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="e0ddb3a1-e2c8-4098-8a16-1b774b52a9ce" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:50:29.333" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="20e072ab-0b4c-44b9-8136-8296b4ad632f" CreationDate="2017-05-01T17:43:46.370" UserId="114696" Text="1. Enter the chatroom of your choice. &#xD;&#xA;2. Look up the [Stack Exchange Chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/users) profile of the user you wish to invite.  &#xD;&#xA;3. The chat profile gives you the option of inviting this user to join you in the room you are currently in, or to start a new chatroom with this user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="969afe9a-561a-4579-9196-855104c3523e" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since there is a now a [discussion site at area51](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com) I posted [one][1] there with the following suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as theoretical physics site does not even exist, **ask your toughest questions at physics.SE**. That way you gain rep to **help progressing commitment phase** for one thing, and, what is more important, you **help supporting physics.SE with high level questions**. In the hopefully occurring event that both sites make it out of beta, questions can still be migrated at a later point (and merged if cross-posted to seed TP.SE beta).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/36/133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="e018116d-3c70-4e6a-a555-01ecbb9f9028" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I totally agree with Lubos and this seems a general problem to me on scientific SE proposals. I asked this question on AREA51&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2733/38770&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Signal/Noise Ratio is the perfect term, thats why we have peer-review in top journals. This way important questions and information is highlighted to the scientific community. Why can proven experts like Lubos not have a higher vote count than 30 rep points lawman here? Doenst make any sense to me. I mainly search questions on any SE site by number of votes, but with current system on scientific sites with much less dynamics and user like huge stackoverflow the 1 user 1 vote system doesnt work to filter out these questions. My time is limited...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question to me is not how to avoid pop-sci-fi questions, you get them anyway. But how to highlight top-notch questions** Currently this is not possible by votes sorting nor tag sorting!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="c4689581-73f9-4ec4-9874-b7aae1a99785" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just recently, [Theoretical Physics - Stack Exchange](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) has entered the open beta phase. It is a research-level question site, so we aim at questions that cannot be answered by a standard textbook. We encourage users to, for the most part, ask question directly related to their scientific work. Mathematical, numerical and experimental questions are welcome, as long they are related to theoretical physics (in motivation or used tools).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested? Join now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of TP.SE is to reduplicate the success of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), where leading edge questions can be asked... and are often answered. We want to create two-level model, to have relation of [physics.SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/)/[TP.SE](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/) as there is currently with [math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/)/[MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was widely discussed (also on this meta site), see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/where-should-research-level-questions-go-theoretical-physics-se-or-physics-resea  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/theoretical-physics-is-close-to-launch&#xD;&#xA;* [Two level model (MO/Math.SE) vs one level model (SO)](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/612/) (Area 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope to have warm, and fruitful, relations on the line physics.SE/TP.SE. Participation in both sites is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: Don't forget to spread the word amount your coworkers and collaborators!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="46ee1235-bfde-42ff-a14d-ecfe5404103d" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Like I told you, I won't be there. But I can throw out some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure the Astro and TP community is well-represented. Bug them via meta and chat to come by and drop in. I suggest you work out timings so that at least one mod each is here. And of course, it would be nice if we hade more than one Phy.SE mod, so that decisions can be made immediately. Roping in an SE member (maybe CHAOS) would be great, though not sure if it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197/if-its-possible-do-we-want-to-expand-the-scope-of-this-site-to-include-astrono . Also how far we are willing to go in expanding the scope. (_EDIT by DZ_) The possibility of a name change should also be discussed, since it goes along with any possible changes in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss if there are any TP questions unsuitable for this site (doubt it)&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Discuss how to address the (I think) prevalent &quot;we don't want our questions to be mixed with high school homework&quot;/&quot;Users who have gotten rep from easy questions(eg me) should not moderate our posts&quot; attitude at TP. Also [tag:research-level].See also: [Area51 discussion on TP&amp;P.SE overlap][1], [post on MSO discussion on merger][2], [Research-level tag proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe ask common community members to prepare a meta post on the differences(if any) that one must take note of between the two sites. Since most of the rep gets transferred, we don't want high rep users not knowing that we handle certian things differently here. Or just discuss the differences first and decide if this is necesssary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130388/178438&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/capturing-theoretical-physics-crowd-with-research-level-tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="c272b919-63ef-4e77-8da9-422b652e44dd" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Tell me this isn't happening... The [Astronomy and Astrophysics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy) site is in the commitment phase at 65%. That site is going to bring fragmentation and general loss of quality to the Physics site. Just have a look at some of the Top Example Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What happens if two black holes collide? (this is the top one!)&#xD;&#xA; - Why do sunspots appear dark?&#xD;&#xA; - Does the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) prove the Big Bang?&#xD;&#xA; - How are extrasolar planets detected?&#xD;&#xA; - Why can't light escape from a black hole?&#xD;&#xA; - What are the Lagrangian (libration) points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When that site reaches 100% support and is created, what will happen with such questions? Will they be migrated there? Who will **wrongly** decide that the collision between two black holes is not for theoretical physicists but for astrophysicists? What is wrong with this site we have now, for such questions? Why that fragmentation? Hey, and I am myself an astrophysicist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what can be my contribution in order to help that separate site not to be created. I can see there only options to join the supporters, but I want to do the opposite...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Later:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the suggestion of @Manishearth, I have made my contribution, by posting my opinion [there in Area 51](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6222/why-wouldnt-this-just-be-part-of-the-existing-physics-stackexchange/10195#10195). Perhaps this helps convincing some potential supporters. You are encouraged to post your opinions there too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="857aa3ca-4342-4a58-a3d4-da1ca1c7750a" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;##A bit about site overlaps&#xD;&#xA;Firstly: Sites can have overlap regions. In such cases, posts only get migrated if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The OP asks for migration&#xD;&#xA; - The question does not get (good) answers for some number of days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a mod on both Physics and Chem, I come across this fairly regularly &amp;mdash; there are posts which are on topic on two sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this isn't a matter of _overlap_ of scope, it is a matter of being a complete _subset_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Do such sites succeed?&#xD;&#xA;Depends. [Mathematica.SE][1] succeeded even though it was a subset site because there were a staggeringly huge number of MMA users on SO who had no interest in the rest of SO. But [TheoreticalPhysics][2] (and, more recently, [Arduino][3]) didn't. There are a lot of situation-specific reasons for these failures, though. However, when there's an established place where you can ask stuff, there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the last Astro.SE was not a full subset of Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Will Astro.SE succeed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know. Last time it failed due to low activity, and there's a high chance it will this time as well. Physics is a much larger site and tends to attract people better. I personally predict that it will be closed in private beta, but I could be grossly wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Is it a threat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, not really. If it does succeed, it wouldn't really harm our site. Our scope would not change, so questions asked here would stay here. Maybe the number of questions we receive in the topic would be halved. Not much of an issue -- though the astronomy subcommunity (@ChrisWhite, you, etc) may be split. (When Mathematica.SE was launched in beta, the whole SO community moved over. This did not happen with Arduino or TheoreticalPhysics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's something that you, as an astrophysicist, may even want to look forward to. Currently it is not immediately clear that Astronomy is on topic for Physics.SE. Astrophysics &amp;mdash; yes, but astronomy is not really a part of physics (in the minds of the general public). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it fails, Physics.SE would be happy to accept their posts as we did the last time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Can we do anything about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I posted [this][4]. Not that I want the site to fail, but if that was enough justification for the proposal to be closed (before it wasted a lot of time), so be it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The banner you see on the top is because one of us pinged a community team member about the scope subset&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would help test if the site will be able to stand on it's own later -- if Physics.SE is a more lucrative option for those willing to commit, then this makes the site less likely to succeed. The community team is good at helping sites succeed, but they also are good at identifying ones which won't. They generally give such iffy cases a chance: they at least let them have a week of private beta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not much more we _can_ do: You can always post your own answer on that discussion thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://arduino.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8345/52181&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xArjj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="cdd517a6-3c34-43f4-82c8-9defa561e333" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Once again, there are two requests here. One is for a minisite separating basic questions from high level ones, and one is just a nohomework.physics.SE minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of &quot;basic&quot; questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within SE rules, this isn't possible. tags like [tag:basic] and [tag:advanced] are not allowed, as they are [meta tags][1]. Even if it were allowed, it would involve massive retagging efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it within the current tag system is not possible as topics can't easily be separated into &quot;basic&quot; &quot;non basic&quot;. Besides, the border is very fuzzy, and it varies from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think this can be realistically implemented. A hidden [tag:minisite] tag could work, but it would require non-trivial changes from the devs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Separation of homework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you mean that there will be a no-homework sub-site. I personally hope that a combination of minor changes (proactively deleting old closed HW, being a bit stricter on the policy, etc) may mitigate the issue enough without a subsite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##A few more thoughts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminds me of some of the discussions [here][2] and [here][3]. Separating the communities can seem elitist to many, and I myself don't think that it's an ideal way to solve the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the flaws with this is that it gives off the impression that we are leaving the basic portion of the community to die as we go off to greener pastures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am really wary of splitting the communities in any manner, even if its by minisite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187/theoretical-physics-merge-with-physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="6a306902-e1f7-4139-8760-339a2ae61171" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Technically speaking, it is not reopened. Rather it is a [new](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy) SE proposal with the [same name](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy), although it might be difficult to tell [the difference in scope](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6222/40978). So in practice: _Yeah,_ it reopened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="96c01979-53e6-4a3c-8278-8dd819e80c8f" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to first point out that the Astronomy is in Beta and doesn't seem to be [doing too great](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709/astronomy), so if you have an interest in it: go and participate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go to the [Definitions section](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40709?phase=definition) of the Area51 proposal for Astronomy, most of the answers to the proposal questions and the *Example Questions* themselves suggest that the site is supposed to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an academic site about the observation and scientific study of celestial objects.&#xD;&#xA;([source](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11467/94239))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that questions about observing something in space should be migrated over there, while questions about the physics of something in space would be on topic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="ffa14f59-94d6-435d-ae21-b32d6c4768f9" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two things that upset me quite a bit about this business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The role of moderators is to enact community consensus. When there isn't one, their role is to bring the question formally for community consideration on this meta site, so that a communal decision can be taken. A good example of what I consider successful moderator handling of such a situation is [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/why-should-the-list-of-breakthroughs-in-physics-be-allowed/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this particular instance, five people voted to close and five people voted to reopen. Neither of these is an indication that the question is on- or off-topic here; rather, they must be taken together as an indication that there is no consensus. Unilateral moderator action in these conditions is, I feel, out of line. This is regardless of whether the question was, or turns out to be, off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I simply do not see the point of closing old questions, and particularly ones which already have answers. If the motivation for that is to keep them from cluttering the front page, or out of a broken-windows approach, I believe closing them is in fact detrimental, and just brings more attention to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular question is on two gray areas but I would strongly dispute that either of them merits closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is an astrobiology question and as such it is best answered by biologists, or possibly chemists. Indeed, if it were asked today, I would recommend direct migration to biology.se. However, this question was asked on the old astronomy beta and, having been on topic there, it should be taken as on topic here. It is now too old to be migrated, and there are very good reasons for that age limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Further than that, the reason we close questions as off-topic is because they clutter and take up the attention of people who do not have the expertise to answer them. This question has two perfectly good answers that quite patently satisfied the OP and are good resources for anyone who lands on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The other reason we close questions as off-topic is so that they don't invite new questions like them which, again, clutter the front page. I do not think this question does that. Anyone looking to ask such things would more naturally ask it in the new astronomy beta. If someone does ask it here, we can simply migrate to biology or astronomy as appropriate. If we ever get inundated with those then we can rethink closing old questions which create the impression that biology is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is indeed slightly too broad for the SE model. However, it has answers that address essentially every point raised. The reason we close questions as too broad is that they are simply unlikely to attract good answers and their broadness undermines their future usefulness. This question has attracted good answers which are short, concise and to the point. I do not think it is even a broken window, and its broadness harms no one. To put it clearly, I do not think it should be closed as too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that closing astronomy-related questions sends the message that any astronomy questions are off-topic here. This goes against (1) the discussions at the time of the merger, (2) the [loud objections on this meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2665/8563) to the opening of the new astronomy beta, and (3) the [loud objections by many phycisists](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6222/why-wouldnt-this-just-be-part-of-the-existing-physics-stack-exchange-site) on the new astronomy beta's discussion page to the reopening of a parallel site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having addressed this particular question, I do think that astrobiology questions have much better venues than this site. Unless the question really does involve physics, at least on the side of the astrobiology, we should point the posters to the biology, astronomy or chemistry betas, and migrate the questions there after consultation with the poster and the target site moderators. We do not get anywhere near enough of these to make the process unfeasibly long or complicated, and this should really be done on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fate of this particular question, I think it is a perfectly valid question and should not be closed, though it is arguably on the wrong site and is too old to be migrated. To keep consistency, and to satiate the moderator thirst &quot;to *show* new users that there are limits to what kinds of question we accept here&quot;, I propose that the question be reopened but that the following banner be added, as a quote, to the end of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that astrobiology questions are typically not on topic on this site unless they address specific physics issues. If you have a similar question, please consider posting it on our [Biology](http://biology.stackexchange.com), [Chemistry](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com) or [Astronomy](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com) sister sites. For more information, please refer to [the discussion on Physics Meta about this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/should-this-astrobiology-question-be-reopened)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="7728106e-032b-46a1-b3f9-e908f4f0ec51" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:40:57.463" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to revisit this, with context to an Area 51 proposal which seems to be attractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75912/scientific-imagination?referrer=Le-GdDM0b9wFuP7v0aO_3g2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/75912.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Scientific Imagination&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site proposal proposed by a user Krumia, is also based on XKCD What-If book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposal is attractive, but I guess not enough to propose an entirely new SE site for the purpose. So I proposed [Can we make “what-if” questions locally on-topic on their respective sites?](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/17695/104857)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also discussed this in the Physics chat room starting from [this message](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17415835#17415835).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can have _some_ support for such questions. Some specific ones which can be answered through little to no discussion but with supportive and established facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see if the community is willing to accept questions like the ones in the Example Questions list of that proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the three Science sites (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) agree to this, the proposal would be closed right here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29847" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="59cbd2ae-1c56-44e9-99e5-ce4d600524f4" CreationDate="2017-05-04T04:48:55.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="be9f0fdf-ae9a-40d6-b491-14f6fad50853" CreationDate="2017-05-04T14:41:07.760" UserId="153698" Text="&quot;If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the website at the same time has a &quot;homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do these things can actually be combined?????&#xD;&#xA;How does the first rule make the site useful for anything other than homework questions or just very simple questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="be9f0fdf-ae9a-40d6-b491-14f6fad50853" CreationDate="2017-05-04T14:41:07.760" UserId="153698" Text="Physycs Stackexchange rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="be9f0fdf-ae9a-40d6-b491-14f6fad50853" CreationDate="2017-05-04T14:41:07.760" UserId="153698" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="e84698cd-95ce-4e17-811e-abf70bc1283e" CreationDate="2017-05-04T14:51:21.283" UserId="153698" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="&quot;If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the website at the same time has a &quot;homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do these things can actually be combined????? How can asking and answering questions not turn into a discussion?&#xD;&#xA;How does the first rule make the site useful for anything other than homework questions or just very simple questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9830" RevisionGUID="d697c094-cf96-43b5-8871-50f31b6be1c9" CreationDate="2017-05-04T15:13:13.627" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="The homework policy, whilst confusing and a bit poorly defined, basically works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you asking for people to do calculations for you and give you your answer for you? Then this site likely isn't for you. The same goes if you're asking something incredibly specific, rather than just about the concepts that the question is rooted in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you asking a conceptual question, one that asks about a fundamental physics concept and could actually be useful to future readers, [who aren't just your classmates looking for worked solutions to your class' homeworks] if so then welcome to StackExchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9831" RevisionGUID="c6c60d45-ffbd-48d2-9ce4-a94edb73f5e8" CreationDate="2017-05-04T15:37:00.623" UserId="44126" Text="I see these two policies as complementary, serving as brackets to eliminate two extreme sorts of questions we'd like to avoid. I suppose if the &quot;brackets&quot; were too wide there might not be any middle ground remaining, but I don't think that's a problem we're having.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, we want questions that *have* answers. There are plenty of interesting questions that don't have good answers, and shooting the breeze about those sorts of questions can be a lot of fun.  But that's not what the Stack Exchange is for. We have a little flexibility since we can use the chat server for those sorts of open-ended questions. But the model on the main site, with questions, answers, and (ephemeral) comments, is explicitly designed to discourage open-ended discussions.  A predecessor to Stack Exchange refers to such questions as [chatfilter](http://faq.metafilter.com/70/chatfilter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, we frequently have new users who will paste a multiple-choice homework problem into the question box and seem to be expecting someone to answer &quot;it's (c).&quot; Those sorts of questions don't have any value for anyone except the asker --- and don't really have much value for the asker, either, since context-free answers don't have any explanatory power.  A good homework-like question isn't &quot;what's the answer to this question?&quot;; it's &quot;how can I arrive at an understandable answer to this question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a pretty wide grey area at either end of these brackets. There are homework-like questions that some users see as interesting where others see low effort and low value,. Some users may see a question as open-ended or opinion-based, while another user may be able to provide factual answers.&#xD;&#xA;That's why we have community moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you spend some time reading highly-scored questions and answers on subjects that interest you, I think you'll get a feeling for the broad range of questions that have interesting answers that become clear with minimal back-and-forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="1c121a81-bfae-4574-ac6c-c8d45e5e4ebb" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:44:25.807" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="b12985c7-2268-4b40-b545-eb5ef65ebac3" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:53:05.983" UserId="2451" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="From help pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the website at the same time has a &quot;homework policy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do these things can actually be combined????? How can asking and answering questions not turn into a discussion?&#xD;&#xA;How does the first rule make the site useful for anything other than homework questions or just very simple questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29856" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="b12985c7-2268-4b40-b545-eb5ef65ebac3" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:53:05.983" UserId="2451" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="Physics Stackexchange rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9832" RevisionGUID="91706b3e-9ee3-49ad-a345-ac67300f33a9" CreationDate="2017-05-04T18:10:07.217" UserId="114696" Text="I voted to close the question because of the 1st clause : there is no question here about a **specific physics concept**. The asker showed effort and cannot be faulted for that, but he did not identify a source of conceptual difficulty, such as @dmckee points out in the comments above, or about Free Body Diagrams, as you suggest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are several potential sources of conceptual difficulty in the question, I still cannot see any one identified, even in the comments. The nearest which hello comes is &quot;Every time I calculate the acceleration of each mass, they always depend on other acceleration too. Is it okay?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is asking &quot;Here is what I have tried but I didn't get the correct answers. What have I done wrong?&quot; and later in the comments &quot;Can you check my calculations?&quot; Asking for &quot;help&quot; is too broad to be interpreted as **asking about a specific physics concept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that closing the question is unhelpful and unnecessarily harsh, when other users are willing to walk through the entire solution if necessary. Users cannot always see the source of their own difficulty, so they do not know what to ask about. Penalising them for their own lack of insight is perhaps unfair. But that, as I have understood it, is what the homework policy is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="de615b88-9141-4d59-b598-90021a56ffe4" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:27:53.647" UserId="4993" Text="I recently posted a question closely related to (but not identical to) this one.  I promise not to continue posting  variants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said:  I have just voted to close &lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/331004/opening-a-portal-between-earth-and-outer-space&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; as &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;, because it's entirely unclear what the OP is asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in casting that vote, I am also automatically inviting  this poster to &quot;please clarify your specific problem or add additional details&quot;.  I do not actually want this poster to clarify the problem or add additional details, and I wish I could cast this close vote, for this reason, without having to issue that invitation.  Ought the phrase &quot;Unclear what you're asking&quot;, unadorned, be made available as a reason for closing?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="de615b88-9141-4d59-b598-90021a56ffe4" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:27:53.647" UserId="4993" Text="Unclear What You're Asking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="de615b88-9141-4d59-b598-90021a56ffe4" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:27:53.647" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29864" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="fe9ec1df-45c5-4b38-bd5d-663d4fc8086f" CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:19:40.150" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9835" RevisionGUID="e4442229-b9ed-4049-9f19-2cca01d420d4" CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:11:04.300" UserId="149674" Text="I am still new here, and not sure if I will be staying. I do enjoy helping others and have been a frequent contributor to another similar forum. From what I have seen here so far, I fully expect this critical post to be severely down-voted. Whether I am right or wrong in my prediction it is that feeling and hesitance to contribute that bothers me. On the right side of the screen I see many similar questions where contributors are upset about down-voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my recent contributions here had an anecdotal story about falling cats. That comment was critiqued and fact checked doggedly. This discouraged me from wanting to continue contributing here. It is not that the anecdote or meaning I was trying to convey was wrong, it was that the linked articles I posted to support my comments were questioned. I dutifully followed up with further supporting links but never seemed to satisfy the fact-checker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that there is not much we can do to stop people who get satisfaction or pleasure out of this kind of negative behavior but what more positive contributors can do is be sure to encourage contributors and challenge the more negative contributors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drew K" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9835" RevisionGUID="e4442229-b9ed-4049-9f19-2cca01d420d4" CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:11:04.300" UserId="149674" Text="Snobs and down-voters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9835" RevisionGUID="e4442229-b9ed-4049-9f19-2cca01d420d4" CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:11:04.300" UserId="149674" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="022031b0-d1dd-402e-a964-98f8633970d1" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:33:16.943" UserId="1325" Text="It's important to say up front that a downvote is not a judgement of you, it is a judgement of your question or answer. A downvote means the downvoter thinks it is not a suitable question/answer for this site, and that's all it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, in theory. In practice it is very hard not to take downvotes personally, and I hate being downvoted as much as you and everyone else does. But everyone who posts on this site attracts downvotes sooner or later and you just have to decide whether you can live with it or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally I've had my share of rude comments too, which can be even more upsetting. If someone makes a rude comment to one of your posts that's not acceptable so flag it and a moderator will delete the comment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to return to the point, if you've got a downvote on an answer you need to have a think about whether your answer does need some improvement. Most of the prolific answerers here regard the site as a sort of encyclopaedia of physics. That is, a physicist, physics student or anyone wanting to learn physics can look at a question here and be confident that the answers are clear, concise and above all unimpeachable. You should be able to treat anything written in an answer here as gospel truth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means answers need to conform to certain standards. We aren't keen on answers that just link to some page on the Internet because that link could break and anyway we have no control over what's at the other end of it. I would guess that's why [this answer of yours][1] got downvoted, because it's just a link and a few comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd guess the cat post got a downvote because it's anecdotal and the anecdote doesn't address the question - though note that that answer got two upvotes as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see where the third downvote is but looking at the two example above I would say the downvotes are justified and you should consider the criticism they imply. It would be nice if downvoters always left a comment to say what aspects of the answer they don't think are good. But to be fair not all answerers respond positively to comments and it can get quite nasty - discretion is sometimes the better part of valour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it can be hard for newcomers especially if they're at an early stage in learning physics, and many of us will bear this in mind when we vote on a question or comment on it. But we don't lower our standards, not even for newcomers. At the end of the day a newcomer's answer is judged by the same standards as answers from veteran site members. It's up to you to be sure before you post that your answer is clear, concise and above all correct. If you aren't sure about this then you should think carefully before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/330449/elastic-collisions-given-mass-and-energy/330456#330456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="4b1e100a-b5da-4a5e-b2ed-6a417ac48b27" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:41:08.253" UserId="1325" Comment="Extend answer" Text="It's important to say up front that a downvote is not a judgement of you, it is a judgement of your question or answer. A downvote means the downvoter thinks it is not a suitable question/answer for this site, and that's all it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, in theory. In practice it is very hard not to take downvotes personally, and I hate being downvoted as much as you and everyone else does. But everyone who posts on this site attracts downvotes sooner or later and you just have to decide whether you can live with it or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally I've had my share of rude comments too, which can be even more upsetting. If someone makes a rude comment to one of your posts that's not acceptable so flag it and a moderator will delete the comment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to return to the point, if you've got a downvote on an answer you need to have a think about whether your answer does need some improvement. Most of the prolific answerers here regard the site as a sort of encyclopaedia of physics. That is, a physicist, physics student or anyone wanting to learn physics can look at a question here and be confident that the answers are clear, concise and above all unimpeachable. You should be able to treat anything written in an answer here as gospel truth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means answers need to conform to certain standards. We aren't keen on answers that just link to some page on the Internet because that link could break and anyway we have no control over what's at the other end of it. I would guess that's why [this answer of yours][1] got downvoted, because it's just a link and a few comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd guess the cat post got a downvote because it's anecdotal and the anecdote doesn't address the question - though note that that answer got two upvotes as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see where the third downvote is but looking at the two example above I would say the downvotes are justified and you should consider the criticism they imply. It would be nice if downvoters always left a comment to say what aspects of the answer they don't think are good. But to be fair not all answerers respond positively to comments and it can get quite nasty - discretion is sometimes the better part of valour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it can be hard for newcomers especially if they're at an early stage in learning physics, and many of us will bear this in mind when we vote on a question or comment on it. But we don't lower our standards, not even for newcomers. At the end of the day a newcomer's answer is judged by the same standards as answers from veteran site members. It's up to you to be sure before you post that your answer is clear, concise and above all correct. If you aren't sure about this then you should think carefully before you post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great many people have dedicated a great deal of time and effort (for free!) to writing some great answers on this site. Some of the explanations here are staggeringly good and far better than anything I encountered as an undergraduate or PhD student. By titling your post here *Snobs and down-voters* you are tarring us all with the same brush, and frankly that won't win you any friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly note that here on the Meta site a downvote just signifies disagreement. So the two downvotes (at the time of writing) that your question has attracted just mean that two people disagree with the sentiments it expresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/330449/elastic-collisions-given-mass-and-energy/330456#330456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29870" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="9b4b7336-2077-4385-8bd8-a4d974bf5d65" CreationDate="2017-05-06T04:41:23.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="feb8a6e5-6ce3-486f-903f-6d5049d1f5cc" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:02:05.310" UserId="46708" Text="As I noticed just know the question [Intrinsic spin and magnetic dipole moment of electrons bounded to the nucleus](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287610/46708) was deleted. This seems to be a not so often carried out procedure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automatically notification to the questioner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not shure why this question was deleted. Why there are no comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And very specific to this case how this question lowers the quality of PSE? Because only this could be the reason to delete something and not to show that it is a duplicate or to set it on hold because something is not well formulated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="feb8a6e5-6ce3-486f-903f-6d5049d1f5cc" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:02:05.310" UserId="46708" Text="No comment to a deleted question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="feb8a6e5-6ce3-486f-903f-6d5049d1f5cc" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:02:05.310" UserId="46708" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="27383a52-93d9-4542-b551-9f73ac6502d5" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:35:25.353" UserId="60891" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As I noticed just know the question [Intrinsic spin and magnetic dipole moment of electrons bounded to the nucleus](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287610/46708) was deleted. This seems to be a not so often carried out procedure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automatically notification to the questioner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure why this question was deleted. Why there are no comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And very specific to this case how this question lowers the quality of PSE? Because only this could be the reason to delete something and not to show that it is a duplicate or to set it on hold because something is not well formulated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="0fc921d2-cde4-4207-82f2-3c06f47433b4" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:35:56.080" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="c48acc70-9303-46f0-acd6-4ba25278a3ae" CreationDate="2017-05-07T06:31:23.210" UserId="46708" Comment="Quality of PSE" Text="As I noticed just know the question [Intrinsic spin and magnetic dipole moment of electrons bounded to the nucleus](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287610/46708) was deleted. This seems to be a not so often carried out procedure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an automatically notification to the questioner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure why this question was deleted. Why there are no comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And very specific to this case how [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287610/46708) question lowers the quality of PSE? Because only this could be the reason to delete something and not to show that it is a duplicate or to set it on hold because something is not well formulated.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29883" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="841863a7-dba9-4510-ab47-c380239a7ba7" CreationDate="2017-05-07T06:32:42.167" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6787],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9839" RevisionGUID="abff1cc9-662c-4671-8201-a348b98e1e06" CreationDate="2017-05-07T16:38:33.607" UserId="8563" Text="I just watched the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/331528/why-is-2-a-pseudoreal-representation-and-there-is-no-2-2-2-anomaly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;turn around from being fundamentally ill-posed, under-researched and essentially unanswerable in its [initial formulation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/331528/1), to successfully going through the full close → fix → reopen cycle and getting a suitable answer, through suitable input in the [comments](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ambcI.jpg) and an OP that was willing to listen to the problems and fix them as they were pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This stands in contrast to a fairly common view that closed questions are unfixable and doomed to obscurity, deletion, and censorship. While it's true that some questions are just too far off the grid to be fixed, for a large majority of questions this is not the case: **the purpose of closing questions is so that their problems can be fixed**, instead of wasting answerer time on flawed formulations. Very often, the reason questions stay closed is that their askers abandon them, are unwilling or unable to understand the problems that make them a bad fit for this site and its format, or are unwilling to put in the work to fix them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, I thought it would be nice to have a gallery of examples where this process *does* work out as it's meant to, as a reference for when other questions run into more troubled waters. Here's one - please add more in answers as and when you run across them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9839" RevisionGUID="abff1cc9-662c-4671-8201-a348b98e1e06" CreationDate="2017-05-07T16:38:33.607" UserId="8563" Text="Good examples of turn-around questions that get closed → fixed → reopened and answered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9839" RevisionGUID="abff1cc9-662c-4671-8201-a348b98e1e06" CreationDate="2017-05-07T16:38:33.607" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29887" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="28cf52b8-bed9-4ae5-a3f7-62edefae18c6" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:02:07.183" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/331660/why-my-question-is-put-on-hold" />
  <row Id="29888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="2acc2798-5e3d-4a60-942b-84e3af2f2d7d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T05:54:47.773" UserId="155381" Text="I've posted one question here https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/331646/155381 but it was put on hold because it was a homework question. So I edited it following the same rules for editing questions as suggested but it is still on hold! &#xA;Please help me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="2acc2798-5e3d-4a60-942b-84e3af2f2d7d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T05:54:47.773" UserId="155381" Text="Why my question is put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="2acc2798-5e3d-4a60-942b-84e3af2f2d7d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T05:54:47.773" UserId="155381" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9841" RevisionGUID="0917c74d-21bf-40f4-ae90-315a61076ec8" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:20:06.013" UserId="44126" Text="First, as of now, zero people [have so far reviewed](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/174182) your edited question.  It's not even been an hour. Patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, and more importantly: even in its present form (v3), your question is much more like &quot;solve this problem for me&quot; than like the type of conceptual homework-like questions we accept here. It's not clear whether you are having a mathematical question about relating the distance from a source charge with the radius of a sphere, or whether you are confused about the concept of electrical self-energy, or whether you are confused about the difference between a volume charge and a surface charge.  Without knowing what your conceptual stumbling block is, the odds aren't good that an answerer would be able to guide you to a solution.  In that case, it'd be appropriate for the question to remain closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try re-reading the [homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/44126) and reading some other questions on electrostatic self-energy to see the kinds of changes that would make your question answerable here. Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="9f819eb2-0ea9-465a-9fc4-31ec4fc893e5" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:51:14.840" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I've posted one question here https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/331646/155381 but it was put on hold because it was a homework question. So I edited it following the same rules for editing questions as suggested but it is still on hold! &#xD;&#xA;Please help me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29893" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="9f819eb2-0ea9-465a-9fc4-31ec4fc893e5" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:51:14.840" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|close-reasons|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9842" RevisionGUID="1bfb5410-ddca-422b-9c4b-f831f5332b30" CreationDate="2017-05-08T11:24:58.710" UserId="25568" Text="My question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/145110/how-can-a-black-hole-reduce-the-speed-of-light has gone through this cycle when I raised its closure on meta: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7269/why-more-than-a-thousand-views-for-my-closed-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9839" RevisionGUID="a8f541ab-5203-4ff0-93fa-56fddc0c7845" CreationDate="2017-05-08T16:29:48.993" UserId="8563" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="I just watched the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/331528/why-is-2-a-pseudoreal-representation-and-there-is-no-2-2-2-anomaly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;turn around from being fundamentally ill-posed, under-researched and essentially unanswerable in its [initial formulation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/331528/1), to successfully going through the full close → fix → reopen cycle and getting a suitable answer, through suitable input in the [comments](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ambcI.jpg) and an OP that was willing to listen to the problems and fix them as they were pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This stands in contrast to a fairly common view that closed questions are unfixable and doomed to obscurity, deletion, and censorship. While it's true that some questions are just too far off the grid to be fixed, for a large majority of questions this is not the case: **the purpose of closing questions is so that their problems can be fixed**, instead of wasting answerer time on flawed formulations. Very often, the reason questions stay closed is that their askers abandon them, are unwilling or unable to understand the problems that make them a bad fit for this site and its format, or are unwilling to put in the work to fix them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, I thought it would be nice to have a gallery of examples where this process *does* work out as it's meant to, as a reference for when other questions run into more troubled waters. Here's one - please add more in answers as and when you run across them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;To satisfy the nitpickers: this post uses &quot;closed&quot; and &quot;on hold&quot; interchangeably; they are essentially equivalent in this context.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29896" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9839" RevisionGUID="623d2142-a2c7-4225-bbbf-b7c53edabcce" CreationDate="2017-05-09T13:11:25.957" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/861931616041619456" />
  <row Id="29897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="eeae9d19-ef85-4b3e-9558-2440f68b792a" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:13:09.790" UserId="149663" Text="I access this site using Chrome from myou smartphone. Recently, the MathJax formatted writings appear overlapped, for example in the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fWoUo.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be the reason for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="eeae9d19-ef85-4b3e-9558-2440f68b792a" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:13:09.790" UserId="149663" Text="Problem in viewing MathJax formatted writing in smartphone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="eeae9d19-ef85-4b3e-9558-2440f68b792a" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:13:09.790" UserId="149663" Text="|support|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="f7b4b6f4-100d-4740-8e40-1adbd6b25d43" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:28:32.387" UserId="8563" Comment="Resized image for visibility." Text="I access this site using Chrome from myou smartphone. Recently, the MathJax formatted writings appear overlapped, for example in the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/fWoUo.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be the reason for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="c07342b5-5d40-4e04-bae5-6d7c95569c90" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:57:19.553" UserId="32426" Text="On this [meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/would-it-be-useful-to-link-the-engineering-se-on-closed-engineering-questions-or), we have a consensus that it would be useful to link to the Engineering SE on closed engineering questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It requires a proper wording approved by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current wording is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natural world works. For more information, see this [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related material:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from @DanielSank 's [reply](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9050/32426))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We've [talked about this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and I gave a [well received opinion on how to think about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engineering-ish posts on our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering/6136#6136).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maximal size of a close reason can be at most 500 characters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="c07342b5-5d40-4e04-bae5-6d7c95569c90" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:57:19.553" UserId="32426" Text="How to change the close reasons about offtopic engineering posts to contain the link to the Engineering SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="c07342b5-5d40-4e04-bae5-6d7c95569c90" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:57:19.553" UserId="32426" Text="|feature-request|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9845" RevisionGUID="5cc7d5e9-10f8-4ccf-9f95-c166e2b3b6f4" CreationDate="2017-05-09T23:02:52.217" UserId="32426" Text="This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/). Your question may be ontopic on the [Q&amp;A site for professionals and students of engineering](https://engineering.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="23a6a613-a19e-4649-99d4-45fa83545601" CreationDate="2017-05-09T23:07:36.707" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body" Text="On this [meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/would-it-be-useful-to-link-the-engineering-se-on-closed-engineering-questions-or), we have a consensus that it would be useful to link to the Engineering SE on closed engineering questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It requires a proper wording approved by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current wording is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application of scientific knowledge to construct a solution to solve a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natural world works. For more information, see this [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related material:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from @DanielSank 's [reply](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9050/32426))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We've [talked about this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and I gave a [well received opinion on how to think about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engineering-ish posts on our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/experimental-physics-engineering/6136#6136)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9845" RevisionGUID="6eaebd82-d7e5-4792-91c8-dee4dc96430a" CreationDate="2017-05-09T23:39:09.633" UserId="8563" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="This is a proposed wording for the new close reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question appears to be about engineering, which is the application of scientific knowledge to solve a specific problem. As such, it is off topic for this site, which deals with the science, whether theoretical or experimental, of how the natural world works. For more information, see this [meta post](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4536/). Your question may be on topic on the [Q&amp;A site for professionals and students of engineering](https://engineering.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="6f4ac3fc-0a75-42a9-9e4a-20b67c36f9fb" CreationDate="2017-05-10T18:20:31.103" UserId="149663" Comment="added 344 characters in body" Text="I access this site using Chrome from myou smartphone. Recently, the MathJax formatted writings appear overlapped, for example in the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/fWoUo.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be the reason for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: problem continues on math SE also. See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jQqNd.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6nTTW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've cleared chrome  (v58) data, cache, browsing history, cookies, everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phone is Samsung Galaxy On7 with Android 6.0-marshmallow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9846" RevisionGUID="61adb89e-c0da-433e-87dc-d40071acc0b3" CreationDate="2017-05-10T20:58:41.017" UserId="127931" Text="It occurred to me today that I don't know what a good approach is for providing hints to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find any clear policy on how this should work.  The example that brought it to my attention is [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/332263/which-one-is-easier-to-push-or-are-they-the-same).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My initial reaction was to comment with a question to help point him in the right direction; as it didn't seem appropriate to provide an answer to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is usually what I do in these situations; I don't want to completely shun the person from this site. Often times it seems like it's a small piece of information they are missing; so I try to ask a leading question or two in the comments (if the question isn't just a straight up copied textbook question and seems to be a person seeking knowledge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My issue is that I also need to make sure I don't clutter comments with discussion; so this is a somewhat delicate balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question I linked; I noticed someone else gave a hint as an answer.  I do see some merit in doing that; as it would remove clutter from the comments, and the purpose _is_ to help someone viewing the question understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My issue is that obviously it doesn't really _answer the question_; and therefore I don't understand how it should belong as an answer. Adding to that, if the question was improved to be more in-line with the site policy; that answer would become very obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw that after I commented saying it was not an answer (and flagged it), the person who answered replied with their reasoning, and someone else upvoted that reasoning and their &quot;answer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meat of my question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For homework-type questions, should we be using comments or answers if we wish to provide hints?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize if it seems like I'm singling out a specific situation; I seem to run into this situation a lot but this is the first I've questioned my approach.  (This is my first post to the meta so I'm also sorry if it feels too long winded or specific)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9846" RevisionGUID="61adb89e-c0da-433e-87dc-d40071acc0b3" CreationDate="2017-05-10T20:58:41.017" UserId="127931" Text="Answering &quot;Homework-Like&quot; Questions With Hints" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9846" RevisionGUID="61adb89e-c0da-433e-87dc-d40071acc0b3" CreationDate="2017-05-10T20:58:41.017" UserId="127931" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29911" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9846" RevisionGUID="117021ea-a502-4216-99c3-de403e321e65" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:19:57.593" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|answers|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9847" RevisionGUID="d04cb266-0b2e-4457-8981-f79c006c4804" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:40:58.533" UserId="124" Text="The way homework-like questions are _supposed_ to work here is that the poster presents their homework problem, shows enough progress to narrow down on one specific part of the solution procedure that they are stuck on, and then asks about that specific part. As far as we on this site are concerned, the question is only about that specific part of the procedure. (We call this a &quot;specific conceptual question&quot;.) The underlying homework problem is only there to provide context. Accordingly, answers should address only the specific part being asked about, _not_ the underlying homework problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point is, **you really shouldn't be giving hints for the underlying homework problem at all**. Unless you would consider an answer to the specific conceptual question to be a hint - but even then, it does answer the thing that's actually being asked, so you should post it as an answer, not a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [the question you're asking about](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/332263/2),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I did a exam to apply for a job in mechanics and there is some matter that I am not confortable with: which one of the boxes in Pic 1 is easier to push? Considering that the box is the same weight and so the sticks and the men and also the floor. And also of course the stick is in the exact same spot. Are they the same?&#xD;&#xA;Since they won't tell us the correction of the exam this little question is bugging me. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pic 1 _omitted for brevity_]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;underlying homework problem&quot; (maybe it's not really _homework_, but that doesn't matter) is asking &quot;which one of the boxes in Pic 1 is easier to push?&quot; This is the thing that you should _not_ be answering, nor providing hints for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we expect from the asker is that they narrow down a specific part of the solution procedure (a.k.a. &quot;identify a specific conceptual problem&quot;) and ask about that. Now, as I look at this question, I don't see any actual _question_ in it other than the underlying homework problem, &quot;which... is easier to push?&quot;, or later &quot;Are they the same?&quot; which is really just the same thing in different words. Therefore I conclude that the poster has not identified a specific conceptual question. There is really nothing for us to answer. (Incidentally, that means the post should get put on hold under our [homework policy](/questions/714).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, suppose the poster had written something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] which one of the boxes in Pic 1 is easier to push? Considering that the boxes are the same weight, and so are the sticks and the men and the floor, it seems that the boxes should be equally easy to push. **How can boxes require different forces to push if they are the same weight?** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pic 1 _omitted for brevity_]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the poster would be asking a specific conceptual question, which I've marked in bold. This is a specific question motivated by this homework problem, but applicable to other similar problems. You can write an answer that addresses that specific conceptual question _without giving away the answer to the underlying homework problem_. (For example, you could write something about components of the force vector.) If you want to post an answer, _that's_ the sort of answer you should post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do want to give the poster extra help with their homework, beyond the specific conceptual question they're asking, I suggest leaving a comment inviting them to [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). (You can use the main site room if it's not busy, or create a separate room.) In chat you can give all the hints you want. Note that users do require 20 reputation to participate in chat, though that's a total of 20 across the whole network, so if they have some rep on other sites, that counts too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9848" RevisionGUID="b33801a6-dc61-457f-b67a-eb269b83140f" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:57:55.850" UserId="155728" Text="In a [comment] on the accepted answer to [this question about non-mainstream physics][question], @jdm said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +1, I'd add two things: **1)** Questions *about* non-mainstream physics should be ok, e.g. (&quot;Have Podkletnov's antigravity experiments been independently reproduced?&quot;, &quot;Why do we believe cold fusion can't work?&quot;). Questions *in* fringe physics aren't ok (&quot;Where does the square root come from in this mass-formula?&quot;). **2)** We should be careful about &quot;questions that propose a new concept or paradigm&quot;. Those can be very useful, and generate research-level content, but they can also invite half-baked speculation (like &quot;Are all particles the same string weaving the fabric of the universe&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the answer replied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @jdm afaict (1) is not allowed, but I'm not sure. Regarding (2) That's actually OK. While the &quot;one string to rule them all&quot; question wasn't worded too well, it didn't fall afoul of the current non mainstream policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then @jdm replied and said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regarding (1), sometimes I come along something in a paper or a pop-sci article, and would like to know whether it's legitimate or not. Say, the [Woodward effect][woodard], [Mallet's &quot;Time machines&quot;][mallet], and so on. I'd like to be able to ask &quot;Is this mainstream science?&quot; and if it's not, &quot;Where's the author's mistake, why can't this work?&quot;. Do you think that's OK?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both comments by @jdm have been upvoted, but the middle comment by @Manishearth has not. However, since @Manishearth is the original author of the answer, I am a bit confused about whether questions of type (1) are allowed on the site, and for that matter, questions of type (2) as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the site policy regarding the two question types noted by @jdm in their comment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[comment]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site#comment12043_4539&#xD;&#xA;[mallet]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett&#xD;&#xA;[question]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538/155728&#xD;&#xA;[woodard]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9848" RevisionGUID="b33801a6-dc61-457f-b67a-eb269b83140f" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:57:55.850" UserId="155728" Text="Questions &quot;about&quot; vs &quot;in&quot; non-mainstream physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9848" RevisionGUID="b33801a6-dc61-457f-b67a-eb269b83140f" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:57:55.850" UserId="155728" Text="|discussion|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="60173212-95b7-4815-ba29-f59e0495d54b" CreationDate="2017-05-11T06:22:01.453" UserId="1325" Text="The homework policy remains a contentious issue and feelings can run high about it so I'm reluctant to stoke the flames any higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if we take the narrow interpretation of *homework* as the verbatim posting of a question set as homework or some other form of course work then I suspect most would agree we do not want to see such questions here. So we wish to deter the posting of such questions. Let me emphasise that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We wish to deter the posting of such questions here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By answering or giving hints you encourage the asking of the questions instead of deterring them, and the end result will be more and more homework (as defined above) questions until we are swamped by them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you see the more egregious end of the homework question spectrum please do not respond at all. Don't answer and don't give hints. Just vote to close the question and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where it gets difficult is when the OP has posted a homework question but it obviously trying to understand the underlying physics rather than just wanting to cheat. My judgement is that the question you cite falls into this category so I'd be sympathetic towards it, though it's a judgement call and not everyone is going to agree. In this particular case I don't see any problem with writing a detailed answer explaining how to calculate the horizontal component of a force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you should provide hints in comments. If the question shouldn't be answered then it shouldn't be answered in a comment either. If it should be answered then write a proper answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="e83490e5-234f-42f2-b894-9836f7e3ae31" CreationDate="2017-05-11T14:02:25.560" UserId="44126" Text="Some text from the help center about the differences between comments and answers. Emphasis added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [How do I write a good answer?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”. **Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful**, but do try to mention any limitations, assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Why and how are some answers deleted?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answers that do not fundamentally answer the question may be removed. This includes answers that are [...]   **not even a partial answer to the actual question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [When shouldn't I comment?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comments are not recommended for [...] **answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer**; instead, post an actual answer (or edit to expand an existing one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've always read this as advice that comments are not the place to provide complete answers, partial answers, or hints --- all of those things should be posted as answers instead.&#xD;&#xA;The way that real users actually use comments doesn't quite fit this ideal, but it's close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a question where a complete answer isn't appropriate, don't use the comments section to post a &quot;lightweight answer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Responses which will help the asker solve their problem should be posted as answers.&#xD;&#xA;Questions that shouldn't be answered are *not a good fit* for a question-and-answer site and should be edited, downvoted, or closed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="c63e025e-c82b-4efc-80a9-b978b7864102" CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:01:13.740" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="I recently noticed that a chat-room called &quot;JEE Preparation&quot; has been made on Physics SE. For those who are not familiar with $JEE$, it is short for &quot;Joint Entrance Examination&quot; for entrance to the Indian Institutes of Technology. I think that the core idea of any such group is at odds with the core ideology of Physics SE. I think the point of Physics SE is to discuss physics and only that. We remove every little thing that gets even slightly diverted from this line. For example, low-quality homework questions, history questions, metaphysics questions, purely philosophical questions, purely mathematics questions - all these are almost always removed from the website. And that is one of the pivotal things that make Physics SE so good. A channel with the sole motive of preparing for an exam that is not even a proper physics exam but rather an engineering entrance exam seems completely unacceptable. That is why I strongly feel that it should be banned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="c63e025e-c82b-4efc-80a9-b978b7864102" CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:01:13.740" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="Should the chat-rooms like &quot;JEE Preparation&quot; be banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="c63e025e-c82b-4efc-80a9-b978b7864102" CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:01:13.740" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9852" RevisionGUID="4635e4d3-7563-49f3-b4c0-e4b8833632a5" CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:10:09.170" UserId="520" Text="Chat is, by design, a &quot;third place&quot;. It is the place where people can do al the things that a fun or useful that would detract from the mission of the main site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9854" RevisionGUID="c9453930-66f9-4cdb-ae6d-18422bbc939f" CreationDate="2017-05-12T15:33:01.727" UserId="50583" Text="**No, such chat rooms should not be banned.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat is a [third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) where the users of a site (or of any other site on the SE network!) can meet and discuss...basically anything they like as long as it does not run afoul of things like the [Be Nice policy](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/240839/263383). If you drop into our main chatroom, [the h bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), then at any given time you might find people discussing physics, math, food, music, computers, the site itself, or many other topics. It's not restricted to physics, and it never was meant to be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chat is the one place in the SE network where it is appropriate to just socialize and have a little fun, or lengthy, opinion-based discussions, or just talk about whatever is on your mind. It *is* removed from the Q&amp;A website as such, and just because you can talk about it in chat does not mean it would be accepted as a question or answer on the main site. I do not see how the presence of such rooms detracts in any way from our main mission." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9855" RevisionGUID="cf19003e-78a6-4307-90fb-ebc59a5d70de" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:35:04.837" UserId="153698" Text="If a better formulation for a question is reached should the question be deleted and asked again together with copying the already given answers or just edited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9855" RevisionGUID="cf19003e-78a6-4307-90fb-ebc59a5d70de" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:35:04.837" UserId="153698" Text="How to reformulate a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9855" RevisionGUID="cf19003e-78a6-4307-90fb-ebc59a5d70de" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:35:04.837" UserId="153698" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9856" RevisionGUID="91773e62-5e39-46fc-a960-38e406b9faee" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:41:53.157" UserId="520" Text="If it is substantially the same question then it should be edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the existing answers apply then it is substantially the same question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9852" RevisionGUID="72cfeddc-75b6-49e2-afd3-2e114becdb23" CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:30:08.260" UserId="520" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Chat is, by design, a &quot;third place&quot;. It is the place where people can do all the things that are fun or useful that would detract from the mission of the main site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29933" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9855" RevisionGUID="a5f4260f-5a1d-43f8-88ff-b1647bfe6211" CreationDate="2017-05-13T09:42:00.217" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|editing|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="50ee1c0d-64e8-4822-a369-aa2c8f2232cb" CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:06:51.807" UserId="37364" Text="First, valid points are made in both [Down-voting questions: Please state your rationale][1] and [Snobs and down-voters][2]. That is, we need down votes because they discourage poor posts. And it is helpful to have a good attitude and thick skin when you get a down vote. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, we need to not overdo it. Down votes hurt feelings and drive new users from the site. We do more of this than we should. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, we might be careful with these. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A new user asks a homework question with little or no effort&#xD;&#xA; - A new user asks a really confused question that shows they are missing some basic concepts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that there is nothing wrong with going on the internet and asking for help with homework. Even if they don't describe any effort, people should not be chewed out for it. Some have worked on it and not said so. People should be pointed in the right direction with no hard feelings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, we don't want no-effort homework questions on our site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often handle homework like questions well. A common response is something like &quot;Welcome to physics.stackexchange. Please see our policy on homework questions.&quot; This is great. Not answering the question helps prevent repeat offenders. Closing the question prevents the site from being cluttered with them. Closing should not be done right away because it is a barrier to adding a description of a specific concept that stopped them from getting their own answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down votes do not fix this problem. If this is the first time someone has asked a question on our site, they do not know our policy. They will not be discouraged from asking a first question by down votes given to other people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Confused questions are a judgement call. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Some people are not native English speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - Some are children.&#xD;&#xA; - Some are physics newbies who would understand a basic lay explanation&#xD;&#xA; - Some have so little understanding that they cannot frame a question well, or make mistakes. Some of these would be helped by a description of what they are trying to ask about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Some people have so little understanding of cause and effect that an answer will not help them. &#xD;&#xA; - Some are so convinced of their own answer that they will not listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, questions deserve down votes, but down votes would not be helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - People expressing political or religious opinions. &#xD;&#xA; - Trolls&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are seeking attention and disruption. It is best to just quietly delete them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/988/37364&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9835/37364" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="50ee1c0d-64e8-4822-a369-aa2c8f2232cb" CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:06:51.807" UserId="37364" Text="Please down vote questions carefully" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="50ee1c0d-64e8-4822-a369-aa2c8f2232cb" CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:06:51.807" UserId="37364" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29943" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="9f309ea4-38ba-44c2-8a51-6c88652c46f1" CreationDate="2017-05-14T07:16:16.727" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|down-votes|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="b3e17b1c-2af1-4e0f-983a-5fc9fc04f874" CreationDate="2017-05-14T10:21:32.233" UserId="24653" Text="I think that you're making a big mistake in essentially *assuming* that ones own voting behavior should be based on that of others. A person's vote is *nothing* more than that person's personal judgement of whether he/she/it likes the question or not. Consequently, the votes on a question say nothing more than &quot;out of the people that viewed your question, the number of people that liked it minus the people that disliked it equals X&quot;. Hence, any kind of arguments about how &quot;we as a site&quot; should do this or that when it comes to voting seems misplaced to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm concerned, the decision making progress for voting is super simple. When I see a post, I think to myself: &quot;Do I think this is an example of the type of question I like to see on this site?&quot; If the answer is a definite yes, I upvote. If the answer is a definite no, I downvote. If I don't feel strongly about it, I don't vote at all. The assumption/fact that *typically* something like a &quot;reasonable judgement&quot; of a post rolls out when you average over a lot of viewers is just some kind of law of large numbers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="8dc8c55a-7cb3-4b47-9b8d-404b394d32de" CreationDate="2017-05-14T10:27:34.807" UserId="24653" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I think that you're making a big mistake in essentially *assuming* that ones own voting behavior should be based on that of others. To me, a person's vote is *nothing* more than that person's personal judgement of whether he/she/it likes the question or not. Consequently, the votes on a question say nothing more than &quot;out of the people that viewed your question, the number of people that liked it minus the people that disliked it equals X&quot;. Hence, any kind of arguments about how &quot;we as a site&quot; should do this or that when it comes to voting seems misplaced to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm concerned, the decision making progress for voting is super simple. When I see a post, I think to myself: &quot;Do I think this is an example of the type of question I like to see on this site?&quot; If the answer is a definite yes, I upvote. If the answer is a definite no, I downvote. If I don't feel strongly about it, I don't vote at all. The assumption/fact that *typically* something like a &quot;reasonable judgement&quot; of a post rolls out when you average over a lot of viewers is just some kind of law of large numbers, and should not lead you to believe that individual voters necessarily pursue this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="f559416c-16bf-45ff-81a1-6838c8fe7fd5" CreationDate="2017-05-14T16:33:45.433" UserId="127887" Text="If my question was marked as unclear and I have reworked it what needs to be done to either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get it approved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resubmit it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="f559416c-16bf-45ff-81a1-6838c8fe7fd5" CreationDate="2017-05-14T16:33:45.433" UserId="127887" Text="Resubmitting question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="f559416c-16bf-45ff-81a1-6838c8fe7fd5" CreationDate="2017-05-14T16:33:45.433" UserId="127887" Text="|support|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9861" RevisionGUID="b9ddfc8f-1506-4e7b-a828-f1705812a75a" CreationDate="2017-05-14T19:22:19.397" UserId="520" Text="When you fist edit a closed question it will automatically be submitted to the review queues. Sufficiently high-rep users have the opportunity to view the new version and vote to re-open it or leave it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the approved method of fixing a question, and if you re-post it will be marked as a duplicate of the original. Deleting the original and re-posting is also discouraged, and when noticed a moderator will *un-delete the original* so that the new instance can be marked as a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9861" RevisionGUID="a0ada866-6a2e-4ff4-8ade-a55a715648d3" CreationDate="2017-05-14T20:11:33.950" UserId="520" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="When you fisst edit a closed question it will automatically be submitted to the review queues. Sufficiently high-rep users have the opportunity to view the new version and vote to re-open it or leave it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Editing is the only approved method of fixing a question, and you should not resubmit.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you repost it will be marked as a duplicate of the original. Deleting the original and re-posting is also discouraged, and when noticed a moderator will *un-delete the original* so that the new instance can be marked as a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="c3691d4f-1bc8-4ec5-b946-047871927893" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:41:32.780" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|closed-questions|editing|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9848" RevisionGUID="eb3defae-6c19-4230-a776-821d80cd7fcc" CreationDate="2017-05-14T22:23:46.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/863882554801344513" />
  <row Id="29954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="daa1a5ae-ee0e-497f-89b5-1a44251ee976" CreationDate="2017-05-15T10:51:09.420" UserId="50583" Text="There is currently no official site policy other than the one you already linked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the questions of the first kind seem to tread over the line into requests for peer-review, which are off-topic here, see [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7516/50583). If you manage to ask a question about &quot;Why can X not work?&quot; *without* effectively asking us to perform peer-review on a paper that claims X can work, then it's probably on-topic, but for many non-mainstream claims that will not be possible. We are not [Skeptics](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/), our mission is to teach accepted science, not to fact-check or peer-review spurious statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second type of questions about &quot;proposing a new paradigm&quot; is clearly off-topic by the current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9861" RevisionGUID="a90a5a8a-775b-426a-bc47-b833343eeb63" CreationDate="2017-05-15T15:17:02.260" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo" Text="When you first edit a closed question it will automatically be submitted to the review queues. Sufficiently high-rep users have the opportunity to view the new version and vote to re-open it or leave it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Editing is the only approved method of fixing a question, and you should not resubmit.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you repost it will be marked as a duplicate of the original. Deleting the original and re-posting is also discouraged, and when noticed a moderator will *un-delete the original* so that the new instance can be marked as a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="80053d18-c88b-4c30-aed7-674ca4944c17" CreationDate="2017-05-17T09:17:56.450" UserId="148764" Text="I asked [a question][1], but it was declared a duplicate of [this][2], [this][3] and [this][4], but none of them answered what I originally had in mind. [probably my mistake, the question must have been poorly worded]. I edited but to no avail. So I decided to ask an [altogether different question][5], but unfortunately I decided to link the [older question][1]. This lead to a slight confusion, ending up in the closing of [my new question][5] as a duplicate of [my old one][1]. Now the end result has been that both questions are closed. What do I do to get answers to my question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/333489/conservation-of-energy-in-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-still-valid&#xD;&#xA;[3]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2838/total-energy-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;[4]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe&#xD;&#xA;[5]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/333582/conservation-of-energy-in-a-universe-that-evolves-according-to-gr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="80053d18-c88b-4c30-aed7-674ca4944c17" CreationDate="2017-05-17T09:17:56.450" UserId="148764" Text="A slight confusion in resubmitting of a closed question [a genuine attempt to re-word the original]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="80053d18-c88b-4c30-aed7-674ca4944c17" CreationDate="2017-05-17T09:17:56.450" UserId="148764" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="1b39feef-b9dd-496f-8d40-61f11e2de245" CreationDate="2017-05-17T12:52:10.943" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 279 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I asked [a question][1], but it was declared a duplicate of [this][2], [this][3] and [this][4], but none of them answered what I originally had in mind. [probably my mistake, the question must have been poorly worded]. I edited but to no avail. So I decided to ask an [altogether different question][5], but unfortunately I decided to link the [older question][1]. This lead to a slight confusion, ending up in the closing of [my new question][5] as a duplicate of [my old one][1]. Now the end result has been that both questions are closed. What do I do to get answers to my question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/333489/&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/35431/&#xD;&#xA;[3]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2838/&#xD;&#xA;[4]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/7060/&#xD;&#xA;[5]:https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/333582/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29960" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="1b39feef-b9dd-496f-8d40-61f11e2de245" CreationDate="2017-05-17T12:52:10.943" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 279 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A slight confusion in resubmitting of a closed question (a genuine attempt to re-word the original)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="1b39feef-b9dd-496f-8d40-61f11e2de245" CreationDate="2017-05-17T12:52:10.943" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 279 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="a3577925-b639-4d55-ac1a-2bf2840bfa66" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:03:05.843" UserId="141464" Text="**Most of the time when people ask Homework Related questions they are put on hold.They ask for our work on the question.**&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes we all face the situation that we don't even know how to proceed further in a question and its impossible to show working in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;**Why most of the people don't understand it and put our questions on hold?**&#xD;&#xA;**I think it would be better if they just give some hints to proceed and not even the entire answer .**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="a3577925-b639-4d55-ac1a-2bf2840bfa66" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:03:05.843" UserId="141464" Text="How to provide working for the question if don't even know how to proceed in a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="a3577925-b639-4d55-ac1a-2bf2840bfa66" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:03:05.843" UserId="141464" Text="|discussion|support|questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29965" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="bff238ec-d656-4a80-9687-7757cfe58134" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:04:41.533" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|questions|close-reasons|hw|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29966" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="3f3e8e10-8541-481c-bacd-49c4115fbbbd" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:06:04.963" UserId="141464" Comment="edited title" Text="How to provide working for the question if we don't even know how to proceed in a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="7afea352-335c-402d-91ef-27b29917853f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:14:40.533" UserId="84967" Text="Note that showing your work has barely nothing to do with the on-topic-ness of the post. If the question is off-topic, it will be closed whether you show your work or not. Some people tend to suggest OP to show their work because that might lead to a *conceptual question*, if one exists within the post (at least implicitly). But this is not an official policy: it might help, but in general it does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is closed as off-topic, make it on-topic by turning it into a conceptual question (such that it will be useful to a larger audience, that is, to other users not working on the exact same problem as you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see someone else's question closed as off-topic, don't suggest them to show their work - that rarely helps. Instead, link them to some of the manifold posts here on Meta where the on-topic-ness of homework questions has been discussed. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="45040104-3b06-4d62-b3e4-e78ed254be4f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:12:48.007" UserId="124" Comment="remove bolding and fix tags" Text="Most of the time when people ask Homework Related questions they are put on hold.They ask for our work on the question.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes we all face the situation that we don't even know how to proceed further in a question and its impossible to show working in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;Why most of the people don't understand it and put our questions on hold?&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be better if they just give some hints to proceed and not even the entire answer .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29969" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="45040104-3b06-4d62-b3e4-e78ed254be4f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:12:48.007" UserId="124" Comment="remove bolding and fix tags" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="566fd622-9e76-4b09-ad8d-0c478a92fd54" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:24:27.667" UserId="124" Text="**This is not a site for providing homework help.** Fundamentally, that's why a lot of homework questions get closed. If your immediate reason for asking a question is that you are trying to solve a problem on a homework assignment (or contest, exam, review, any sort of educational exercise) and you want help getting to the solution, this is the wrong place to be asking. We've decided on this policy because there are plenty of other homework help sites there already (we try to keep [a partial list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh)), because low-quality homework questions tend to drive away a significant fraction of the experts who we really want to participate in this site, and because the question-and-answer model of Stack Exchange is not particularly well suited to actually helping most people who are working on homework-like problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we can't always tell whether someone's motivation is really seeking homework help. We've tried to make some more concrete criteria that allow people to tell (with some accuracy, hopefully) whether this is the case, and that's why you'll see all this discussion about showing work and asking conceptual questions. But at its core, the _reason_ for the hostility to homework questions is that we are not in the business of helping people in that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="4ebe9f49-4f01-4cb8-af20-c41cd0d54e28" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:40:58.077" UserId="124" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="041f1e4e-d5cb-46e3-bb16-5b8ce983b084" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:24:39.293" UserId="121464" Text=" - Close reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions are supposed to both show a **certain level of one's own research and thinking** and potential answers are supposed to be **relevant or useful to a broader audience**. This question has therefore been closed as **too specific** - focused on one problem with no broader context. Try rewording your question so it is more conceptual in nature. See our meta post for more guidance.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;*Link to appropriate policy to be added once said post is completed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9868" RevisionGUID="91523378-da9b-4ee8-a8c3-57bb177585a8" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:25:58.303" UserId="121464" Text=" - What to call it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;too specific&quot; policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="b42918b7-298d-428c-907c-d7c68895d976" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:28:44.100" UserId="121464" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - that we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015, and nothing's happened. Let's get something done on the homework policy that pretty much all of us agree on. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword (links lead to various options proposed, numbered in no particular order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9867/121464), [[2]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9756/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest) [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9868/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;* How to ask sidebar [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9755/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9869" RevisionGUID="f3fe01ea-0eff-47a5-92f5-6816abdb1971" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:33:44.120" UserId="121464" Text=" - Meta post on homework policy: the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##Are homework questions allowed on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the policy on asking homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are homework questions allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Note: this is exactly the same as the one proposed by Emilio Pisanty [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5180/121464) - I think it's pretty clear why the question shouldn't change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="2d178b3a-fc83-4aec-8c83-4bce6f39a8d2" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:34:38.220" UserId="121464" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - that we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015, and nothing's happened. Let's get something done on the homework policy that pretty much all of us agree on. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword (links lead to various options proposed, numbered in no particular order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9867/121464), [[2]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9756/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest) [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9868/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9869/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* How to ask sidebar [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9755/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9870" RevisionGUID="06053bc6-505b-4d01-a140-5d9458d98f9a" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:35:55.530" UserId="132157" Text="I came across this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/333871/132157&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I have a feeling should be off-topic, but I cannot really localize a specific help center guideline or meta answer that would pinpoint why, so I refrained from flagging it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Too localized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not _really_ about physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9870" RevisionGUID="06053bc6-505b-4d01-a140-5d9458d98f9a" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:35:55.530" UserId="132157" Text="This site is not a scientific writting forum/publication support service?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9870" RevisionGUID="06053bc6-505b-4d01-a140-5d9458d98f9a" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:35:55.530" UserId="132157" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9871" RevisionGUID="5d9db1c4-e75b-4004-8324-24eb17c74252" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:45:05.020" UserId="121464" Text=" - Meta post on homework policy: the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; # The short version:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Homework questions are not allowed on this site. If you can identify the concept you're having trouble with and ask a question about it,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we'll be happy to help.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; #What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A &quot;homework question&quot; is a question about a set problem instead of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concepts behind it. This includes questions from actual homework&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assignments and textbooks, as well as self-study problems, puzzles,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The general purpose of our policy regarding homework questions is to prevent people from asking questions specific only to their specific situation. This is a good general rule of thumb: if you or someone doing your specific problem are the only people who would benefit from your question, it is probably too specific and not conceptual enough.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; # Can I ask a homework question here?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This site is for **conceptual physics questions**. It is OK&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to ask a conceptual question if it comes up while doing a homework or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; self-study problem, but questions about such assignments are generally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; off-topic. Keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework help site**, and it takes more than just showing your work&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for your question to be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; #What should I do if I want to ask a homework question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Identify the concept you're having trouble with**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     It is crucial that you ask about the specific concept that's giving you trouble. Questions asking us to check your work, asking for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hints, tips, or how to solve a homework-like question, or which simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; re-state a textbook problem, are not well received and will be closed. If you ask about the concept, instead, you produce a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resource that is more relevant to others who might have the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problem later, and additionally you provide grounds for a more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interesting answer. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     If you find you can't change your question into one that's about the topic you're studying, rather than the specific problem you're&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trying to solve, you may need to go back to your textbook or teacher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to look for a general explanation. If you just need someone to check&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the page will be pretty useful here. You can also try looking at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tags that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it and provide a link when you write your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effective.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     If you have a conceptual question that's based on a homework problem, you should still provide the original problem. This is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide context to your question, and makes it easier to answer. If&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this comes from a textbook you should include the book and the problem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number. Quote the original problem in full, as it may provide crucial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information that you might have missed. Again, this should _not_ be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire content of the post, but rather a useful piece of context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for your real question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     It is OK to ask a conceptual question that is embedded in your solution to a homework problem and depends on that context. You should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide your working to the problem, and you should ensure that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; make clear what your conceptual question is. Do this _visually_ as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well: it will do wonders in helping answerers navigate your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     If your question is about a homework assignment, or any sort of work under a honor code, you should check with your instructor and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with your learning institution (middle school, high school, college,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.) whether it's OK to consult other people before posting your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question. Your institution may also have an honor code or rules and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regulations, as well as specific class policies, on whether you can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; post the exact question on the internet, and you should check before&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you post.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Do a sanity check.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Is your question applicable or useful to people other than those taking your class or doing your homework problem? If it isn't, it may be too specific to the problem, and not conceptual enough.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; # What should I do if my question was put on hold, or closed, as homework?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your question was put on hold, or closed, as homework, you will see&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Questions are supposed to both show a certain level of one's own research and thinking and potential answers are supposed to be relevant or useful to a broader audience. This question has therefore been closed as too specific - focused on one problem with no broader context. Try rewording your question so it is more conceptual in nature. See our meta post for more guidance.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This usually happens if the conceptual question you're having trouble&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with is not clear, or if it looks like you're asking us to 'do your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework for you'. In this case, you should do all you can to make it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; crystal clear what concept you're struggling with. It can also happen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that it simply isn't clear what you want us to answer, in which case&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you should make that clear as well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you don't understand why your question was put on hold or closed,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can [leave a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; below your question asking for clarification. (You can always comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on your questions and any of their answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; # Examples&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86289/probability-of-different-states-canonical-ensemble-partition-function&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62669/trace-and-adjoint-representation-of-sun&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3705/charge-density-in-concentric-spheres&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57261/find-x-operator-given-p&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These questions are based on homework problems but they make it clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what the specific conceptual question is that they're about. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79669/basic-physics-question&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83317/are-dc-and-ac-currents-produce-electric-field&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31832/lennard-jones-potential-equilibrium&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20828/evaluating-transition-probability-between-different-states-of-hydrogen-atom&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20763/force-and-laws-of-motion&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/basic-free-fall-problem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These questions are simply restatements of homework problems, don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show any effort put into solving the problem, and don't go beyond&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtaining a solution to the set assignment. They are too specific to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be of use to anybody except the person asking, and that makes them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;Note: derived from Emilio Pisanty's work [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5185/121464).&#xD;&#xA;*Or whichever close reason we choose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="218be91e-e689-4c52-9e2a-e5d128a92223" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:47:27.283" UserId="121464" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - that we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015, and nothing's happened. Let's get something done on the homework policy that pretty much all of us agree on. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword (links lead to various options proposed, numbered in no particular order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9867/121464), [[2]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9756/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Help center&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest) [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9868/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A [[question 1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9869/121464), [[answer 1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9871/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* How to ask sidebar [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9755/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9870" RevisionGUID="c783ed2e-7246-4f33-82c0-f14c195b3c19" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:54:25.517" UserId="132157" Comment="precision" Text="I came across this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/333871/132157&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I have a feeling should be off-topic, but I cannot really localize a specific help center guideline or meta answer that would pinpoint why, so I refrained from flagging it and/or commenting on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Too localized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not _really_ about physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9872" RevisionGUID="76537d29-31e6-491d-8d59-6f86118c5ce0" CreationDate="2017-05-18T01:10:20.153" UserId="44126" Text="Users with the [close vote privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) have the option of writing out a custom close reason for special cases like this (which I used when I put the question on hold); the close reason is posted as a comment to the question and counts as an ordinary close vote.&#xD;&#xA;If you think a question should be closed but can't quite articulate why, you can also [flag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) the question as &quot;should be closed&quot; without worrying too much about the reason why; that puts the question in the [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) and you can let the community decide whether the question is on-topic or not and why.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="12d0a8ad-1b89-4743-b7b5-fd8aa427839e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:19:08.630" UserId="26665" Text="Every time I ask a question on this site, what it called community dealt with it in a strange way، such as&#xD;&#xA;closed&#xD;&#xA;duplicate&#xD;&#xA;deleted&#xD;&#xA;vote down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that this only happens to me or happened to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it feels as if someone tells you: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shut Up and ask what it called mainstream physics  Questions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to change anything here&#xD;&#xA;but I've two meta physics questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it polite to manage site like this!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Because physicists are respected people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the quality of the questions raised by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Because As far as I can see Quality of questions on this site is very low)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="12d0a8ad-1b89-4743-b7b5-fd8aa427839e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:19:08.630" UserId="26665" Text="I think there is a conspiracy around stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="12d0a8ad-1b89-4743-b7b5-fd8aa427839e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:19:08.630" UserId="26665" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="3ac079e5-a00a-4a44-9219-18b5b38f3c5d" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:24:15.070" UserId="26665" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Every time I ask a question on this site, what it called community dealt with it in a strange way، such as&#xD;&#xA;closed&#xD;&#xA;duplicate&#xD;&#xA;deleted&#xD;&#xA;vote down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that this only happens to me or happened to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it feels as if someone tells you: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shut Up and ask what it called mainstream physics  Questions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to change anything here&#xD;&#xA;but I've two meta physics questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it polite to manage site like this!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Because physicists are respected people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the quality of the questions raised by this policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Because As far as I can see Quality of questions on this site is very low، And even quality of questions has dropped every year!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9874" RevisionGUID="db18738c-28f1-47a6-aace-fde7d29473af" CreationDate="2017-05-18T16:37:46.540" UserId="6634" Text="Without specific instances, it is hard to say. But I have looked through your list of questions available to me (you may have deleted more, but I can't see those), I challenge your assertions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Of 27 questions you have asked, 7 have been marked as duplicate or off-topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 3 of these questions were asked in 2014. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For what it's worth, I agree with the close reasons on all of them, except maybe one, but I don't know enough in the area to be comfortable distinguishing between the marked duplicate and the edited question as posed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Only 5 *total* questions have a net negative score, all of which are at -1. Meanwhile, your most positive question is at +35. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given all that, I see very little to substantiate claims of being picked on or conspired against. I also don't see anything to indicate somebody was rude to you, unless you perceive close messages as rude. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, to answer your two questions -- yes, this is a polite way to run the site because it doesn't appear anybody was untoward or rude. And yes, this does keep the quality of the questions up, but since there's no objective metric to define that, the discussion in that area will just devolve to personal opinions and it's not a fruitful direction to venture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="e8468a60-57d7-4ce3-b418-2409066e43fc" CreationDate="2017-05-18T18:32:21.547" UserId="26665" Text="This is my question &#xD;&#xA;[Mathematically, What is contradiction between quantum physics and General relativity theory?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/333994/why-do-some-people-claim-that-quantum-physics-and-general-relativity-theory-will?noredirect=1#comment748563_333994)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what it called [duplicate](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone show me any mathematical equation in [duplicate]!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;this is an example of how this site suppress certain users for some unknown reasons (But probably for political reasons) &#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see my question have been censored" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="e8468a60-57d7-4ce3-b418-2409066e43fc" CreationDate="2017-05-18T18:32:21.547" UserId="26665" Text="Can anyone show me any mathematical equation in duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="e8468a60-57d7-4ce3-b418-2409066e43fc" CreationDate="2017-05-18T18:32:21.547" UserId="26665" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9876" RevisionGUID="40583122-f93c-46f2-af1f-4d86eea3023e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T20:02:04.883" UserId="44126" Text="The [most-upvoted answer to that question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/399/44126) is a great example of *discussing* mathematics as opposed to *doing* mathematics.  The meat of the answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he real problem is not so much nonrenormalizability as high-energy behavior inconsistent with local quantum field theory. ... With gravity, this high-energy/short-distance correspondence breaks down. ... This tells us that quantum gravity, at very high energies, is not a quantum field theory in the traditional sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with demanding &quot;an equation&quot; is that each sentence in this brief summary concerns concepts that require years of study to answer in a mathematically rigorous way. What's meant by &quot;a quantum field theory in the traditional sense?&quot; by &quot;nonrenormalizability&quot;? by &quot;high-energy/short-distance correspondence&quot;? The existing answer does a nice job of explaining these, but much more depth is really beyond the scope of what this site can do in a single post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you have a question about one of those *specific* issues, you might edit your question to clarify which one. But as it is, I think the other answer addresses your question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="aa372574-873e-4b66-ba57-7a3e2e81eddd" CreationDate="2017-05-18T21:48:47.863" UserId="149663" Text="Wouldn't it be helpful to provide a link under the text box, shown while asking questions or writing answers, to the meta page dealing with MathJax commands: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not only difficult but also tiresome to find out the MathJax commands for each and every math formulae, and one has to either store the above link in the bookmarks, or find it out somehow, because it is not always possible for one to remember all the commands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, new comers know nothing about this, and that is why under ever question posted by a new comer, we have to post comments like &quot;Please use MathJax to format the equations&quot; or edit it ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new feature, if added, will not only help the new ones, but also the others, because sometimes one may forget the commands, and then it is a whole lot of exercise to find the meta page again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="aa372574-873e-4b66-ba57-7a3e2e81eddd" CreationDate="2017-05-18T21:48:47.863" UserId="149663" Text="Link to meta page for guide to MathJax commands under text fields" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="aa372574-873e-4b66-ba57-7a3e2e81eddd" CreationDate="2017-05-18T21:48:47.863" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9878" RevisionGUID="064525ee-a6a4-4085-b3ff-33c2f8609876" CreationDate="2017-05-18T22:12:33.497" UserId="121464" Text=" - Help center&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Questions that are overly specific and inapplicable to a broader audience, including (among other types of questions) homework problems.** On Physics Stack Exchange, questions should be conceptual in nature and relevant to many different people. Questions about how to solve a homework problem or how to solve a specific problem that might come up in one's research aren't allowed here, while questions that focus more on the conceptual ideas behind the problem are. You can find more information on our meta site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;*Link to appropriate policy to be added once said post is completed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="a8fbe26e-c5f7-41d5-9280-a337267e0e9d" CreationDate="2017-05-18T22:14:19.600" UserId="121464" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Okay, so the last time we had a [focused discussion of the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway) was August 2016. Blech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's start thinking about this again. And before you collectively groan, this first post *isn't that painful* because there's only one thing in here for debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's rename the homework policy. &#xD;&#xA;Not change it. Rename it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was [Daniel Sank's idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy). Daniel's post got **29** upvotes, and his answer - that we should - got **24** upvotes. This was way back in October 2015, and nothing's happened. Let's get something done on the homework policy that pretty much all of us agree on. Some mods (I can't speak for all) agree on this - ACuriousMind said this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9087/121464) and DavidZ agreed with it in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Okay, so it's pretty clear we agree with renaming/rewording it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how *do* we rename it? Well, first, here's the stuff we need to reword (links lead to various options proposed, numbered in no particular order):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Close reason [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9867/121464), [[2]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9756/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Tag wiki excerpt [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* Help center [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9878/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* What we all refer to it as (hardest) [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9868/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* The homework policy on Meta Q&amp;A [[question 1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9869/121464), [[answer 1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9871/121464)&#xD;&#xA;* How to ask sidebar [[1]](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9755/121464)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that's what I'm asking for in this question - proposals for each of these.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this was long and painful to read. ([Hopefully not *too* painful.](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35457713#35457713)) But if you agree or disagree, don't just vote, comment on why you agree or disagree! [Some of the mods](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35611883#35611883) judge community approval based on comments, not just votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="76c752c3-e5ce-4654-b518-8d530c7f2b2a" CreationDate="2017-05-18T22:22:18.573" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body; edited title" Text="Every time I ask a question on this site, the community deals with it in a strange way, such as closing it, marking it as a duplicate, deleting it, or voting down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that this only happens to me or happened to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this feels as if someone tells you to shut up and ask only mainstream physics questions, or whatever. I do not want to change anything here&#xD;&#xA;but I have two questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it polite to manage site like this!? Physicists are people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is the quality of the questions raised by this policy? As far as I can see the quality of questions on this site is very low, and has dropped every year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="76c752c3-e5ce-4654-b518-8d530c7f2b2a" CreationDate="2017-05-18T22:22:18.573" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body; edited title" Text="My questions keep being closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30000" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="e8abc611-afc6-429d-a7d8-675c3a7a397d" CreationDate="2017-05-18T22:28:24.777" UserId="121464" Comment="edited title" Text="Why are many of my questions closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="2645dda0-0358-4062-abb8-9300886a6c83" CreationDate="2017-05-18T23:05:11.170" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 298 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This is my question &#xD;&#xA; https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/333994/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what it called  duplicate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/387/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone show me any mathematical equation in duplicate!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is an example of how this site suppress certain users for some unknown reasons (But probably for political reasons) &#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see my question have been censored" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="2645dda0-0358-4062-abb8-9300886a6c83" CreationDate="2017-05-18T23:05:11.170" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 298 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30003" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="2645dda0-0358-4062-abb8-9300886a6c83" CreationDate="2017-05-18T23:05:11.170" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 298 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can anyone show me any mathematical equation in duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="1afd2271-95fc-4954-ac48-b7c52264e3ca" CreationDate="2017-05-19T05:28:01.260" UserId="32426" Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE are these (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag,MathCount,PhysicsCount&#xD;&#xA;    probability,46770,483&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry,13736,1403&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra,58935,311&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory,24397,669&#xD;&#xA;    calculus,67617,241&#xD;&#xA;    integration,34569,416&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request,11060,1164&#xD;&#xA;    books,11060,1164&#xD;&#xA;    geometry,22921,419&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question,7129,1088&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics,572,11927&#xD;&#xA;    metric,7148,867&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation,14073,411&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives,14073,411&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations,20817,269&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory,6280,779&#xD;&#xA;    terminology,4196,1000&#xD;&#xA;    statistics,16909,244&#xD;&#xA;    vectors,4691,793&#xD;&#xA;    notation,6142,487&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics,826,3428&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics,1864,1413&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers,8677,276&#xD;&#xA;    definition,4196,507&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory,4267,412&#xD;&#xA;    definition,3270,507&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity,288,5017&#xD;&#xA;    induction,4937,273&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics,451,2876&#xD;&#xA;    teaching,2028,566&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy,2028,566&#xD;&#xA;    education,2028,566&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra,2845,386&#xD;&#xA;    induction,4937,209&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems,1602,574&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory,154,5532&#xD;&#xA;    tensors,1341,582&#xD;&#xA;    entropy,565,1003&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry,563,995&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes,6849,65&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform,840,524&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism,60,7030&#xD;&#xA;    curvature,721,534&#xD;&#xA;    tensors,1341,282&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms,6492,57&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm,6492,57&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry,13171,27&#xD;&#xA;    optimization,8955,37&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory,11321,28&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems,2751,111&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics,128,2254&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics,157,1727&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology,726,365&#xD;&#xA;    estimation,793,327&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory,6126,37&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields,571,348&#xD;&#xA;    volume,1364,143&#xD;&#xA;    simulation,315,561&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics,4276,37&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing,1087,145&#xD;&#xA;    reflection,227,692&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion,1749,88&#xD;&#xA;    covariance,703,212&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory,330,376&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis,535,188&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory,90,821&#xD;&#xA;    biology,174,410&#xD;&#xA;    singularity,174,340&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation,185,318&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory,39,1500&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis,135,380&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions,2670,17&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry,93,465&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information,34,1240&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory,261,160&#xD;&#xA;    foundations,569,71&#xD;&#xA;    big-list,1053,38&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation,98,403&#xD;&#xA;    trace,577,57&#xD;&#xA;    visualization,438,68&#xD;&#xA;    regularization,136,199&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity,657,40&#xD;&#xA;    spinor,67,347&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity,5,4111&#xD;&#xA;    biology,174,118&#xD;&#xA;    fractals,589,34&#xD;&#xA;    parity,119,158&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing,357,32&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics,147,76&#xD;&#xA;    noise,97,109&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology,726,7&#xD;&#xA;    compactification,39,125&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics,14,304&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy,2028,2&#xD;&#xA;    network,140,23&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems,41,73&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata,57,36&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform,1991,1&#xD;&#xA;    faq,73,27&#xD;&#xA;    percolation,59,20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="1afd2271-95fc-4954-ac48-b7c52264e3ca" CreationDate="2017-05-19T05:28:01.260" UserId="32426" Text="To make successful question migrations, we need also proper tagging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="1afd2271-95fc-4954-ac48-b7c52264e3ca" CreationDate="2017-05-19T05:28:01.260" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="fd4a2430-0bef-4be4-8156-145a398e2744" CreationDate="2017-05-19T06:40:26.280" UserId="32426" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 105 tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE, these are (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag,MathCount,PhysicsCount&#xD;&#xA;    probability,46770,483&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry,13736,1403&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra,58935,311&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory,24397,669&#xD;&#xA;    calculus,67617,241&#xD;&#xA;    integration,34569,416&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request,11060,1164&#xD;&#xA;    books,11060,1164&#xD;&#xA;    geometry,22921,419&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question,7129,1088&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics,572,11927&#xD;&#xA;    metric,7148,867&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation,14073,411&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives,14073,411&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations,20817,269&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory,6280,779&#xD;&#xA;    terminology,4196,1000&#xD;&#xA;    statistics,16909,244&#xD;&#xA;    vectors,4691,793&#xD;&#xA;    notation,6142,487&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics,826,3428&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics,1864,1413&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers,8677,276&#xD;&#xA;    definition,4196,507&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory,4267,412&#xD;&#xA;    definition,3270,507&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity,288,5017&#xD;&#xA;    induction,4937,273&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics,451,2876&#xD;&#xA;    teaching,2028,566&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy,2028,566&#xD;&#xA;    education,2028,566&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra,2845,386&#xD;&#xA;    induction,4937,209&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems,1602,574&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory,154,5532&#xD;&#xA;    tensors,1341,582&#xD;&#xA;    entropy,565,1003&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry,563,995&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes,6849,65&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform,840,524&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism,60,7030&#xD;&#xA;    curvature,721,534&#xD;&#xA;    tensors,1341,282&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms,6492,57&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm,6492,57&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry,13171,27&#xD;&#xA;    optimization,8955,37&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory,11321,28&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems,2751,111&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics,128,2254&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics,157,1727&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology,726,365&#xD;&#xA;    estimation,793,327&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory,6126,37&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields,571,348&#xD;&#xA;    volume,1364,143&#xD;&#xA;    simulation,315,561&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics,4276,37&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing,1087,145&#xD;&#xA;    reflection,227,692&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion,1749,88&#xD;&#xA;    covariance,703,212&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory,330,376&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis,535,188&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory,90,821&#xD;&#xA;    biology,174,410&#xD;&#xA;    singularity,174,340&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation,185,318&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory,39,1500&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis,135,380&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions,2670,17&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry,93,465&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information,34,1240&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory,261,160&#xD;&#xA;    foundations,569,71&#xD;&#xA;    big-list,1053,38&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation,98,403&#xD;&#xA;    trace,577,57&#xD;&#xA;    visualization,438,68&#xD;&#xA;    regularization,136,199&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity,657,40&#xD;&#xA;    spinor,67,347&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity,5,4111&#xD;&#xA;    biology,174,118&#xD;&#xA;    fractals,589,34&#xD;&#xA;    parity,119,158&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing,357,32&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics,147,76&#xD;&#xA;    noise,97,109&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology,726,7&#xD;&#xA;    compactification,39,125&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics,14,304&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy,2028,2&#xD;&#xA;    network,140,23&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems,41,73&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata,57,36&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform,1991,1&#xD;&#xA;    faq,73,27&#xD;&#xA;    percolation,59,20&#xD;&#xA;    superalgebra,19,39&#xD;&#xA;    bifurcation,148,5&#xD;&#xA;    tqft,3,228&#xD;&#xA;    steady-state,15,17&#xD;&#xA;    mnemonic,23,7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="fef8c669-4317-4c33-acf8-2bf121f1ec9b" CreationDate="2017-05-19T06:46:47.467" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1609 characters in body" Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 105 tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE, these are (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag                    MathCount PhysicsCount&#xD;&#xA;    probability            46770     483&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry  13736     1403&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra         58935     311&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory           24397     669&#xD;&#xA;    calculus               67617     241&#xD;&#xA;    integration            34569     416&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request      11060     1164&#xD;&#xA;    books                  11060     1164&#xD;&#xA;    geometry               22921     419&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question          7129      1088&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics      572       11927&#xD;&#xA;    metric                 7148      867&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation        14073     411&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives            14073     411&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations 20817     269&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory           6280      779&#xD;&#xA;    terminology            4196      1000&#xD;&#xA;    statistics             16909     244&#xD;&#xA;    vectors                4691      793&#xD;&#xA;    notation               6142      487&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics    826       3428&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics   1864      1413&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers        8677      276&#xD;&#xA;    definition             4196      507&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory  4267      412&#xD;&#xA;    definition             3270      507&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity     288       5017&#xD;&#xA;    induction              4937      273&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics         451       2876&#xD;&#xA;    teaching               2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy               2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    education              2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra            2845      386&#xD;&#xA;    induction              4937      209&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems     1602      574&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory   154       5532&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                1341      582&#xD;&#xA;    entropy                565       1003&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry               563       995&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes   6849      65&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform      840       524&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism       60        7030&#xD;&#xA;    curvature              721       534&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                1341      282&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms             6492      57&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm              6492      57&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry     13171     27&#xD;&#xA;    optimization           8955      37&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory           11321     28&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems      2751      111&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics  128       2254&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics             157       1727&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology     726       365&#xD;&#xA;    estimation             793       327&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory        6126      37&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields          571       348&#xD;&#xA;    volume                 1364      143&#xD;&#xA;    simulation             315       561&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics            4276      37&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing      1087      145&#xD;&#xA;    reflection             227       692&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion        1749      88&#xD;&#xA;    covariance             703       212&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory    330       376&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis          535       188&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory           90        821&#xD;&#xA;    biology                174       410&#xD;&#xA;    singularity            174       340&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation      185       318&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory          39        1500&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis   135       380&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions      2670      17&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry              93        465&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information    34        1240&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory           261       160&#xD;&#xA;    foundations            569       71&#xD;&#xA;    big-list               1053      38&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation    98        403&#xD;&#xA;    trace                  577       57&#xD;&#xA;    visualization          438       68&#xD;&#xA;    regularization         136       199&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity            657       40&#xD;&#xA;    spinor                 67        347&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity     5         4111&#xD;&#xA;    biology                174       118&#xD;&#xA;    fractals               589       34&#xD;&#xA;    parity                 119       158&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing       357       32&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics    147       76&#xD;&#xA;    noise                  97        109&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology     726       7&#xD;&#xA;    compactification       39        125&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics    14        304&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy               2028      2&#xD;&#xA;    network                140       23&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems     41        73&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata      57        36&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform      1991      1&#xD;&#xA;    faq                    73        27&#xD;&#xA;    percolation            59        20&#xD;&#xA;    superalgebra           19        39&#xD;&#xA;    bifurcation            148       5&#xD;&#xA;    tqft                   3         228&#xD;&#xA;    steady-state           15        17&#xD;&#xA;    mnemonic               23        7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="b5f9099c-d976-4f77-8bcf-bc039bb9ae2d" CreationDate="2017-05-19T09:47:09.133" UserId="32426" Comment="added 151 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 105 tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE, these are (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag                    MathCount PhysicsCount&#xD;&#xA;    probability            46770     483&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry  13736     1403&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra         58935     311&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory           24397     669&#xD;&#xA;    calculus               67617     241&#xD;&#xA;    integration            34569     416&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request      11060     1164&#xD;&#xA;    books                  11060     1164&#xD;&#xA;    geometry               22921     419&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question          7129      1088&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics      572       11927&#xD;&#xA;    metric                 7148      867&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation        14073     411&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives            14073     411&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations 20817     269&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory           6280      779&#xD;&#xA;    terminology            4196      1000&#xD;&#xA;    statistics             16909     244&#xD;&#xA;    vectors                4691      793&#xD;&#xA;    notation               6142      487&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics    826       3428&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics   1864      1413&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers        8677      276&#xD;&#xA;    definition             4196      507&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory  4267      412&#xD;&#xA;    definition             3270      507&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity     288       5017&#xD;&#xA;    induction              4937      273&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics         451       2876&#xD;&#xA;    teaching               2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy               2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    education              2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra            2845      386&#xD;&#xA;    induction              4937      209&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems     1602      574&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory   154       5532&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                1341      582&#xD;&#xA;    entropy                565       1003&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry               563       995&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes   6849      65&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform      840       524&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism       60        7030&#xD;&#xA;    curvature              721       534&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                1341      282&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms             6492      57&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm              6492      57&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry     13171     27&#xD;&#xA;    optimization           8955      37&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory           11321     28&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems      2751      111&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics  128       2254&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics             157       1727&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology     726       365&#xD;&#xA;    estimation             793       327&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory        6126      37&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields          571       348&#xD;&#xA;    volume                 1364      143&#xD;&#xA;    simulation             315       561&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics            4276      37&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing      1087      145&#xD;&#xA;    reflection             227       692&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion        1749      88&#xD;&#xA;    covariance             703       212&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory    330       376&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis          535       188&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory           90        821&#xD;&#xA;    biology                174       410&#xD;&#xA;    singularity            174       340&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation      185       318&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory          39        1500&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis   135       380&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions      2670      17&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry              93        465&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information    34        1240&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory           261       160&#xD;&#xA;    foundations            569       71&#xD;&#xA;    big-list               1053      38&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation    98        403&#xD;&#xA;    trace                  577       57&#xD;&#xA;    visualization          438       68&#xD;&#xA;    regularization         136       199&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity            657       40&#xD;&#xA;    spinor                 67        347&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity     5         4111&#xD;&#xA;    biology                174       118&#xD;&#xA;    fractals               589       34&#xD;&#xA;    parity                 119       158&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing       357       32&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics    147       76&#xD;&#xA;    noise                  97        109&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology     726       7&#xD;&#xA;    compactification       39        125&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics    14        304&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy               2028      2&#xD;&#xA;    network                140       23&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems     41        73&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata      57        36&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform      1991      1&#xD;&#xA;    faq                    73        27&#xD;&#xA;    percolation            59        20&#xD;&#xA;    superalgebra           19        39&#xD;&#xA;    bifurcation            148       5&#xD;&#xA;    tqft                   3         228&#xD;&#xA;    steady-state           15        17&#xD;&#xA;    mnemonic               23        7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table is ordered in the decreasing order of the occurences on the sites. Thus, you will find better matches more likely on the top of the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="b5f9099c-d976-4f77-8bcf-bc039bb9ae2d" CreationDate="2017-05-19T09:47:09.133" UserId="32426" Comment="added 151 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|migration|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9880" RevisionGUID="5ad12b05-7dad-456b-94f1-2b57b4ad7d73" CreationDate="2017-05-19T13:31:02.257" UserId="8563" Text="If you mean this link,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it [already links to the meta.math.se tutorial](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean something else, then you should clarify where else you would like those links to be placed. However, if your goal is helping first-time users who have never used the site, keep in mind that [user myopia](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/) is a very real thing. Unless you can work out a way to put that link somewhere in this area,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1ojK.png)](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it will be invisible to most new users. And, if you *do* want to put it there, then I would also ask how you're going to make it unintrusive for the large population of users who already know how to format their posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="9d88ef8b-6f0b-4e7b-8a31-38d7fefd3905" CreationDate="2017-05-19T13:38:59.920" UserId="8563" Comment="Added link to documentation on Meta SE." Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement (documented [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10249/what-is-migration-and-how-does-it-work/10250#10250)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 105 tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE, these are (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag                    MathCount PhysicsCount&#xD;&#xA;    probability            46770     483&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry  13736     1403&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra         58935     311&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory           24397     669&#xD;&#xA;    calculus               67617     241&#xD;&#xA;    integration            34569     416&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request      11060     1164&#xD;&#xA;    books                  11060     1164&#xD;&#xA;    geometry               22921     419&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question          7129      1088&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics      572       11927&#xD;&#xA;    metric                 7148      867&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation        14073     411&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives            14073     411&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations 20817     269&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory           6280      779&#xD;&#xA;    terminology            4196      1000&#xD;&#xA;    statistics             16909     244&#xD;&#xA;    vectors                4691      793&#xD;&#xA;    notation               6142      487&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics    826       3428&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics   1864      1413&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers        8677      276&#xD;&#xA;    definition             4196      507&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory  4267      412&#xD;&#xA;    definition             3270      507&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity     288       5017&#xD;&#xA;    induction              4937      273&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics         451       2876&#xD;&#xA;    teaching               2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy               2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    education              2028      566&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra            2845      386&#xD;&#xA;    induction              4937      209&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems     1602      574&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory   154       5532&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                1341      582&#xD;&#xA;    entropy                565       1003&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry               563       995&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes   6849      65&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform      840       524&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism       60        7030&#xD;&#xA;    curvature              721       534&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                1341      282&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms             6492      57&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm              6492      57&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry     13171     27&#xD;&#xA;    optimization           8955      37&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory           11321     28&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems      2751      111&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics  128       2254&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics             157       1727&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology     726       365&#xD;&#xA;    estimation             793       327&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory        6126      37&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields          571       348&#xD;&#xA;    volume                 1364      143&#xD;&#xA;    simulation             315       561&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics            4276      37&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing      1087      145&#xD;&#xA;    reflection             227       692&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion        1749      88&#xD;&#xA;    covariance             703       212&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory    330       376&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis          535       188&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory           90        821&#xD;&#xA;    biology                174       410&#xD;&#xA;    singularity            174       340&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation      185       318&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory          39        1500&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis   135       380&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions      2670      17&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry              93        465&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information    34        1240&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory           261       160&#xD;&#xA;    foundations            569       71&#xD;&#xA;    big-list               1053      38&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation    98        403&#xD;&#xA;    trace                  577       57&#xD;&#xA;    visualization          438       68&#xD;&#xA;    regularization         136       199&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity            657       40&#xD;&#xA;    spinor                 67        347&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity     5         4111&#xD;&#xA;    biology                174       118&#xD;&#xA;    fractals               589       34&#xD;&#xA;    parity                 119       158&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing       357       32&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics    147       76&#xD;&#xA;    noise                  97        109&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology     726       7&#xD;&#xA;    compactification       39        125&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics    14        304&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy               2028      2&#xD;&#xA;    network                140       23&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems     41        73&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata      57        36&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform      1991      1&#xD;&#xA;    faq                    73        27&#xD;&#xA;    percolation            59        20&#xD;&#xA;    superalgebra           19        39&#xD;&#xA;    bifurcation            148       5&#xD;&#xA;    tqft                   3         228&#xD;&#xA;    steady-state           15        17&#xD;&#xA;    mnemonic               23        7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table is ordered in the decreasing order of the occurences on the sites. Thus, you will find better matches more likely on the top of the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="1a30177b-0972-493f-a14b-b4a01cb093c3" CreationDate="2017-05-19T17:34:43.567" UserId="149663" Comment="Requested feature for mobile site only" Text="Wouldn't it be helpful to provide a link under the text box, shown while asking questions or writing answers, to the meta page dealing with MathJax commands: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference  for the **mobile site** also?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not only difficult but also tiresome to find out the MathJax commands for each and every math formulae, and one has to either store the above link in the bookmarks, or find it out somehow, because it is not always possible for one to remember all the commands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, new comers know nothing about this, and that is why under ever question posted by a new comer, we have to post comments like &quot;Please use MathJax to format the equations&quot; or edit it ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new feature, if added, will not only help the new ones, but also the others, because sometimes one may forget the commands, and then it is a whole lot of exercise to find the meta page again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I request this feature specifically for **mobile agent**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30014" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="59191419-573b-478d-b6bc-5a77a3e6989e" CreationDate="2017-05-19T17:40:43.213" UserId="149663" Comment="edited title" Text="Link to meta page for guide to MathJax commands under text fields (specifically for user agent mobile)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="59191419-573b-478d-b6bc-5a77a3e6989e" CreationDate="2017-05-19T17:40:43.213" UserId="149663" Comment="edited title" Text="Wouldn't it be helpful to provide a link under the text box, shown while asking questions or writing answers, to the meta page dealing with MathJax commands: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference  for the **mobile site** also?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not only difficult but also tiresome to find out the MathJax commands for each and every math formulae, and one has to either store the above link in the bookmarks, or find it out somehow, because it is not always possible for one to remember all the commands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, new comers accessing the site from mobile know nothing about this, and that is why under most questions posted by a new comer, we have to post comments like &quot;Please use MathJax to format the equations&quot; or edit it ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new feature, if added, will not only help the new ones, but also the others, because sometimes one may forget the commands, and then it is a whole lot of exercise to find the meta page again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I request this feature specifically for **mobile agent**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9880" RevisionGUID="d656b7f9-ec4a-4a55-bb22-6566e0619f06" CreationDate="2017-05-19T17:47:46.247" UserId="8563" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="This answer addresses [v1 of the question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/9877/1), which asked about the desktop version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean this link,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vfP1W.png)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it [already links to the meta.math.se tutorial](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9137/please-link-the-mathjax-help-to-the-meta-math-se-tutorial). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean something else, then you should clarify where else you would like those links to be placed. However, if your goal is helping first-time users who have never used the site, keep in mind that [user myopia](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/) is a very real thing. Unless you can work out a way to put that link somewhere in this area,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1ojK.png)](https://blog.codinghorror.com/treating-user-myopia/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it will be invisible to most new users. And, if you *do* want to put it there, then I would also ask how you're going to make it unintrusive for the large population of users who already know how to format their posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="7afdc977-d93d-4816-9fc3-87750412c97c" CreationDate="2017-05-19T18:15:50.623" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Every time I ask a question on this site, the community deals with it in a strange way, such as closing it, marking it as a duplicate, deleting it, or voting down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that this only happens to me or happened to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this feels as if someone tells you to shut up and ask only mainstream physics questions, or whatever. I do not want to change anything here&#xD;&#xA;but I have two questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it polite to manage site like this?! Physicists are people.&#xD;&#xA;* Is the quality of the questions raised by this policy? As far as I can see the quality of questions on this site is very low, and has dropped every year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9881" RevisionGUID="4a80bc0a-c815-4119-a699-f8a9d8dd0310" CreationDate="2017-05-19T18:34:28.220" UserId="26969" Text="Sometimes a question may not explicitly ask about a concept - the OP may not understand the issue well enough to distill the problem that way. That doesn't prevent you from giving a conceptual answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question you link, this is demonstrated by John's answer. He shows that the underlying principle (&quot;resolve the directions of the forces&quot;) provides insight that will allow you to solve this question, and other questions like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short - the answer can be a &quot;hint&quot;, but it's better if it explains the principle that allows you to solve it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30020" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9846" RevisionGUID="d32417b7-dba2-47f3-a06e-b3623d359785" CreationDate="2017-05-20T02:11:16.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/865751748199276548" />
  <row Id="30021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9882" RevisionGUID="1a6112c3-92d3-4b0b-b7bf-aebc5a7ba883" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:26:58.913" UserId="75916" Text="It's been a few months Latex is not displayed anymore on my Firefox on Linux. It's still displayed on Wikipedia and many other websites though, only Physics Stack Exchange (and a Physics forum) seem to have this problem. I do have some extensions, but even when I disable all of them, Latex is still not displayed. So I do have javascript enabled. I'm wondering what I need to enable (in about:config I suppose) to make Latex work here. Any idea what could be the culprit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9882" RevisionGUID="1a6112c3-92d3-4b0b-b7bf-aebc5a7ba883" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:26:58.913" UserId="75916" Text="Latex isn't displayed since a few months (Firefox on Linux), what does Latex need to be displayed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9882" RevisionGUID="1a6112c3-92d3-4b0b-b7bf-aebc5a7ba883" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:26:58.913" UserId="75916" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9883" RevisionGUID="12e3b788-0385-4a54-9922-f6bbc111feee" CreationDate="2017-05-21T21:03:02.653" UserId="124" Text="This could be related to the [MathJax CDN switch](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/294710/56541), which occurred last month. If so, you'll have to make sure `cdnjs.cloudflare.com` is whitelisted in any script blocker you may be using, and you might as well clear the browser cache while you're at it too. (I don't know how that could really help, but it can't hurt.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="ee2571c4-6a06-43ee-a386-926989eb554d" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="The [Stack Overflow faq](https://stackoverflow.com/faq) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Stack Overflow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions have a bit of source code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [Physics Stack Exchange faq](https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq) should say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We feel the best Physics Stack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange answers include external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen more than one completely incorrect answer accepted on Physics Stack Exchange, which I have not seen on Stack Overflow. I suspect this is because unlike coding, it's hard to immediately verify physics claims. For this reason, I think external citations to trusted sources are especially important for physics answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to see more answers clearly indicate their logical foundation. Is your answer...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Original research?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Predicted by peer-reviewed theory, but unverified?  &#xD;&#xA;3. Indirectly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;4. Directly experimentally verified?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't make us guess!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many answers here based on rock-solid, universally trusted theory. This is great! However, if experimental verification has not actually been cited, **this should be clear**. Experiment frequently lags behind theory, but has been known to expose flaws and loopholes in theory, and **very** occasionally, invalidates theory entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from my personal experience: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2029/can-i-levitate-an-object-without-using-an-electromagnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For months, the accepted answer was basically &quot;No, because of Earnshaw's theorem&quot;. This was an excellent answer; Earnshaw's theorem is rock-solid, universally accepted theory. End of story? No, because this answer was also good enough to include an [external citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem). As the external citation made clear, there are loopholes in Earnshaw's theorem that make the correct answer 'yes', not 'no'. The correct answer is supported by a [picture of a levitating object](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aDiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg) - direct experimental verification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="08f1445e-97e5-4cd1-82d6-9567d1ecba68" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="You can get your account deleted by asking the moderators in chat for example, or you can set your user name as &quot;please delete me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example try typing &quot;please delete me&quot; [here](https://stackoverflow.com/users)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="ee1a9d60-e291-431f-98ee-e36135edbf32" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="Do not neglect the degree to which the &quot;level&quot; of a question determines the audience that will be interested. There are more laymen than beginners that journymen than masters, and than means that there are more people to be impressed by basic questions than by esoteric, expert level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that it is the really good basic questions and the really good answers to basic questions that get the largest number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see this in the [answers that I have given][1], both here and [on Stack Overflow][2]. My highest voted posts are pretty decent answers to fairly basic questions. I've written a few answers on both sites that I consider to be good, expert level work, but they are not the one that the crowd loves. Simply because the crowd that can appreciate them is much small than the one that can appreciate the basic coolness of bootstrapping a complex tool or the idea of huge-scale, slow-motion acoustics in a near-vacuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: the thing that votes measure is a convolution of the &quot;quality&quot; of a post with the size of the audience that can appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/users/2509/dmckee?tab=answers&amp;sort=votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="feb32d23-99b9-43ae-ac50-d7006ff0476b" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="As with most queries about the StackExchange engine, [you go to Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132688/how-are-profile-views-counted),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;it is always caching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the person views it *after* the cache has been cleared ([say 15-20 minutes](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2869800/how-long-are-files-usually-kept-in-a-browsers-cache), depending on your usage), then it seems to count as a second view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="a812f964-a8cc-44d5-8ad3-3839ad329016" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="1. StackExchange does not like &quot;noise&quot; (i.e., bad questions, duplicates, etc). Adding a [delay only serves to increase that noise](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10890/let-questions-stay-open-for-a-minimum-amount-of-time-before-being-closed) and distracts us from answering the good questions that help fulfill our goal of being the canonical source of information about physics on the internet. &#xD;&#xA;2. No, there should not be any restriction.  &#xD;&#xA;As someone with over [3000 reviews in the close queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats), I can assure you that around 90% of questions in the queue can be voted one way or the other in about 10 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;3. This site, as is the case for *all* StackExchange sites, is not about *a* user. It is **not** about the 1 user asking *that* particular question, **[it's about the 100 who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM)** (youtube link to a ~45 min lecture by [Joel Spolsky](https://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky) from 2012) and will come to our site to find the *canonical answer*.  &#xD;&#xA;By allowing *bad* questions (dupes, non-mainstream, no-effort HW, etc) for the sake of *a* new user, we would **actually doing a *disservice* to the community now and to visitors in the future**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The only thing that I think *might* be needed is more comments explaining how a post *could* be improved (obviously duplicates don't really need improvement since (a) the proposed duplicate is automatically left as a comment and (b) their wanted answer is given elsewhere). Many of us do this already, but a call for more action on this isn't harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that your &quot;eloquent example&quot; is [explicitly off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5959/25301) *as decided by the community*; it's a &quot;check my work&quot; question. [We are **not** a homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714), so if we &quot;lose&quot; people who think we are a homework help site, I'm not terribly concerned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've stated elsewhere (on this Meta &amp; in chat) that we can make mistakes in closing questions, the powers-that-be on StackExchange are well aware of our humanity, hence the [Reopen Queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats). They've also implemented a rule that if 3 people vote &quot;Leave Open&quot; then the question is pulled from the Close Queue (though it does **not** retract the close-votes already obtained). Thus, there are already some checks-and-balances implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, and this has been mentioned several times in the past to you, if you really want the *software* changed (as implied in questions #1 &amp; #2), take it to **[Meta.StackExchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask)** and see what the *developers* (and the broader SE community) think about your proposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7305" RevisionGUID="c9f0a59d-7d62-48b5-98c7-042ce41b81b4" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="With respect to answers to questions on this site, I think that as long as the answer addresses the concerns of the OP, it is okay to use language &amp; mathematics beyond their ken. You probably won't get terribly many upvotes or accepted answers doing that, but I don't think that's a bad thing&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the answers we post here aren't necessarily for the actual OP, they're for the [100 people who wonder the same question at another point in time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM) (~45 min lecture by SE founder [Joel Spolsky](https://stackoverflow.com/users/4/joel-spolsky); the hypertext phrase is a paraphrase of something he says in the video). So your answer, while likely advanced for the OP, could actually be beneficial to someone else at another point in time, which is a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 I mean that, since reputation isn't really useful outside of [some privileges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges), not gaining more doesn't do anything bad.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="eea4bfe5-7a45-4a30-a7b7-4e8cdaa130e7" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="This has been discussed on [Meta Stack Exchange](http://meta.stackexchange.com) several times already - see [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/254399), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/185758/should-so-include-a-custom-google-search), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135753/when-searching-is-it-better-to-use-the-built-in-so-search-or-use-google), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/107211/how-does-stack-overflows-search-compare-with-googles-site-specific-search), and probably others I haven't caught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google was founded in 1998 on a business model based on a search engine. Stack Exchange was founded in 2008 on a business model based on a Q&amp;A engine. [This](https://stackoverflow.com/company/team#Engineering) is the current SE dev team - how much money and manpower Google invests/has invested on Search is anyone's guess. It's not particularly surprising that Google is good at search (considering, in addition, that SE spends a lot of time and infrastructure making sure that SE is well ranked by Google).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also perfectly possible to restrict Google searches to only Stack Exchange pages - try [adding the `site:physics.stackexchange.com` operator to your search](https://www.google.de/search?q=What+is+the+field+in+the+physics+really%3F+site:physics.stackexchange.com). That's a good way to search PSE if you're looking for something specific and having trouble using the site search. (On the other hand, you lose access to the [SE advanced search features](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) that do use the internal characteristics of the posts database, like the `score:` or `is:question` operators.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="46266769-b319-4d55-af18-e35325712761" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I was looking around on the mother meta, and I saw [this][1] interesting post. The second answer mentions [this][2] page on stack overflow for new users, where they must check the box at the bottom to confirm before asking their question. I know that there have been a lot of discussions on this meta about homework questions and otherwise bad questions. Could we add this page and design it such that it would give some of these new users pause before posting a bad question? Could this possibly reduce the problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** per Emilio Pisanty's suggestion (see comments below sammy gerbil's answer), I have started to work on a query for the stack exchange data explorer. While it is not yet quite done, there is some data you can see currently, so [here][3] is the query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/277607/ways-to-give-users-some-specific-education-about-question-quality-and-topicality&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask/advice&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/519816/downvoted-posts-and-rep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="0b8c938e-9fd6-49de-a4ff-9ebdb4ba315f" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:33:38.020" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="To address your title: [downvoters don't owe you an explanation](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135/280545), which is [an intentional decision](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/250177/1650379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your concern that people are downvoting both of your questions: I think that's appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Please [don't re-post a question that wasn't well-received](https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4068).  Instead follow [this advice](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/7054/280545) to improve and promote the *original* question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You can &quot;bump&quot; your question by editing the question to **provide status and progress updates resulting from your own continued efforts to answer the question yourself**. I usually do that unless I really hit a dead end with no further clues to follow. Some times I eventually bring about enough understanding to realise the answer, and thus post a resolution to my own problem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you have at least **75** rep points, you can [offer a **bounty**][1], promising to give some of your points to the person who correctly answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Upvote** the original question - every upvote helps increase its profile on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Use the **share** button beneath the original question to advertise it to your networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/privileges/set-bounties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these bits of advice I might add:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Ask for guidance about the questions on Meta (hello!) or in the [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), and take any advice you get there to heart for present and future questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth I have closed your second question as a duplicate of the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak to the physics content of your question, which is outside of my specialty, but I personally think it looks interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="fb0f3880-efeb-4943-b3fa-12cac6e2d5c5" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I don't agree and my experience bares that out: You can show your expertise, even when answering the most basic questions. You don't legislate away easy questions as if top-tier experts are just going to start filling the void. Sure, you have to ask great questions. But you also have to consistently provide *awesome* content with *every answer*, no matter how simple or mundane. That's how you will gain the respect and recognition of an expert community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the most highly-respected physicists in the world are teachers; answering Physics 201-level questions from rank-and-file students. Think about it. If you heard a seminar from someone like Einstein or Newton eloquently describing how gravity works when an apple falls to Earth, are you going to say &quot;Nah, that's baby stuff&quot; or do they somehow maintain that go-to source authority when it comes to areas of expertise. Be a great teacher!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the intervening time between now and when this system is filled with world-class physicists using this site in their daily work&amp;hellip; keep in mind that **only a small percentage** of the content of this site is questions. What you can offer today&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;right now&amp;hellip; with the talent you have right here&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;are **world-class, canonical *answers* to those questions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning: Boring Anectodote&amp;mdash;** When I first started using Stack Overflow, I had 25 years of expert programming experience when I asked my first question ([link](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/941584/byte-byte-int-why)). Without getting too technical, I was asking about, quite literally, one of the most *basic* concepts of a programming language. Surprisingly, the *answer* provided some deep, insightful responses I never expected. One was from a Microsoft senior developer on the team that designed the language; The other from someone who literally wrote the book on the subject. Unmatched, expert-level answers to a canonical question; That's the level of response we've come to expect from Stack Overflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when someone asks &quot;why do apples fall *down* to the earth,&quot; **provide that world-class, canonical answer** which can be improved upon indefinitely. Every time someone searches for an answer to their question, *this* site should have THE canonical answer on that subject&amp;thinsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;thinsp;that, and every subject in physics. When an expert happens across this site, they should say, &quot;Woah! These guys know what they are talking about. This is the site for me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="c18b2d71-6374-410b-96ff-7606ce012575" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I'd also like to nominate  &#xD;&#xA;#[David Zaslavsky](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/124/david-zaslavsky)  &#xD;&#xA;for the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Cedric, he has been actively contributing to this site from the beginning at a high quality. As a graduate student of physics, he represents precisely the sort of student we want to attract here (undergraduates being equally welcome I'd say). He's also shown a good attitude in response to questions and generally within the community, I'd like to think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_edit by David_) Sure, I'll accept the nomination. I really want to see this site succeed, and being a moderator during the beta would allow me to help that process along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About me:** As mentioned above, I'm a graduate student in physics, specifically in my third year of the PhD program at Penn State University. I'm doing research in high-energy particle phenomenology (the BFKL kernel, if anyone cares about the specifics). I've been a member of [Physics Forums](http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=180339) for about a year and a half, which has certainly influenced my idea of how this site could work. I also have a [website](http://www.ellipsix.net) which nobody looks at ;-) where I occasionally post some physics-related musings. I also have a hobby interest in computer programming, and to that end I've been a semi-active participant in [Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky) and the other [original](https://serverfault.com/users/2115) [trilogy](https://superuser.com/users/2419) [sites](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/56541/david-zaslavsky), so I have some idea of how the system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to be awake at strange hours, usually after noon until some time in the wee hours of the morning local time. That puts me online from about 4:00 PM to 6:00 AM GMT, on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the issue of the question level: I would like to see this site develop into a place where research-level questions are _welcome_, and can hopefully have a decent chance of getting answered. But I'm _not_ in favor of categorically excluding all questions below the graduate level, because I think if we try to do that, the site will fail. There are many questions about physics at the undergrad level that I would like to see this site address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in my [answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94/level-of-questions-what-do-we-do-now/97#97) to one of the &quot;level questions,&quot; my preferred technique for controlling the level of the site is making sure that there are enough people _asking_ the kinds of questions we want, rather than closing large numbers of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="5c154fa2-6d79-4adf-8e10-9fb9436508ed" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I think puzzles would be great for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Code golf&quot; questions pop on stackoverflow all the time. These questions challenge users to write code that successfully accomplishes a task in as few characters as possible. For example, [Write the shortest program that implements John H. Conway's Game of Life cellular automaton][1]. (Mathematica can do this in 151 characters, amazingly!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of thing actually can be very educational and interesting. Even seasoned programmers can learn a lot from seeing other people try to work out solutions to problems in novel ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, physicists shouldn't get too haughty and start to believe that they know everything, and certainly not that they know every method. You can learn a lot from seeing how other people approach problems. [Mechanics around a rail tank wagon][2] is an excellent example of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3499538/code-golf-conways-game-of-life&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/mechanics-around-a-rail-tank-wagon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="07f6656d-aed7-4a3a-97f1-c3290850c0b8" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I recently asked a [question][1] which was closed for being off topic. I have been directed to two links by the moderator: ([1][2]) ([2][3]) . After going through both the links, I am posting a request here to reopen as they do not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][4] answer is from someone who has worked in a company involved with SciPy. He argued that  python is a lot less intimidating for physicists than C++. I stated that I already know C++ (all High Energy Physicists do, I guess) and asked if there are any additional benefits to learning Python. To give an example, Mark commented that if I use Sage then I am already using Python. Sage runs on the python platform but if I run into some functionality that is not in the library or need to customize, I should know python. What else might be the benefit, for physicists (i.e some important software is written in it, suited to some specific application, or simply no need to learn etc.) as opposed to compiled\interpreted, hardware specific\platform independent etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues most of the answers discuss are version control and  bug tracking, etc. I think these are programmer oriented (I might be wrong) and and are not my concern presently. The second link discussed reproducibility, which after reading it I realize is important. However, that lies outside the scope of my question and present level. (I am just assimilating a rudimentary toolkit right now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question I asked was if there was any advantage of learning functional as opposed to an iterative programming language in physics. This is not answered by either of the links. This external [link][5] makes a case for haskell to mathematicians. Does it have some similar utility in physics? Moreover my interest was peaked when I overheard at a conference that it was best for implementation of quantum algorithms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone commented, if these are too many questions feel free to edit it in order to make it approporiate. Then I can ask a narrower question later if it is not answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10379/what-programming-languages-would-be-helpful-for-a-physicist-to-know&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2734157/reproducibility-in-scientific-programming&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38239/practices-for-programming-in-a-scientific-environment/100103#100103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/01/eleven-reasons-to-use-haskell-as.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="7253ef0e-7571-4d2e-8d19-b31d5a90b904" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="There is a question on Stack Overflow, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8728759/need-some-help-to-understanding-the-formula, which is off topic there and is being considered for migration to Physics. Would it be appropriate on this site? I ask because, although the pinhole camera model itself could be classified under physics, the mathematical language which the question uses is decidedly _not_ something we use in physics (as far as I know). The math seems to be fairly standard for computer image processing, and since the question is asking about interpreting that math, I believe it would be best treated at a site where computer image processing is on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do you think?** Should this question, and more generally anything about the pinhole camera model regardless of what mathematical language it is phrased in, be on topic (or off topic) here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="5f529f51-bc89-46aa-b56b-45fe1e9c717f" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="The Stack Exchange sites are run by a for-profit company. Their ultimate goal is to make money by providing a service on the internet. The service is host question-&amp;-answer sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of each site depends to some degree on decisions made by the user base. [Stack Overflow][1] (the original model) accepts questions starting from a very low, [but not trivial level][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics.SE is pitched just a little higher than that: we discourage basic pedagogical questions (things that look like &quot;homework&quot;) in favor of a conceptual approach to the foundations of our discipline. Note that there &lt;s&gt;is&lt;/s&gt; also *used to be* [Theoretical Physics][3] which &lt;s&gt;is&lt;/s&gt; *was* targeted at &quot;research level&quot; theoretical and mathematical physics *but was deemed to be diying and merged with this site, look for [tag:research-level] to find that and related content*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other sites in the network, see the bottom of the page and [area51][4] (the place where *user input* defines and launches new sites, and where you can find all the beta sites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://area51.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="c45d9d5c-259e-470e-8487-ef96c370add4" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="As [David says][1], we are in some sense stuck with this concept in a context where it doesn't make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Stack Exchange system started with [Stack Overflow][2] which is for *programming questions*, and the interpretation put on acceptance there was the asker stating *'I used this solution to my problem'*. As such it is clear that acceptance is *entirely* in the gift of the asker because it simply means the accepted solution is the one the asker used, and the fact that they might choose a second best solution isn't a really big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on physics are questions are not often of the *'I've hit a snag in my work, what are my options'* kind that Stack Overflow specializes in (though experimental technique questions could be of that kind) so that *this is what I did* contotation doesn't often make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None the less, acceptance should not be interpreted as indicating correctness: it only indicates the asker's selection and one can take some comfort in the fact that these people are not always in the best position to select a correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do however, have [a (gold!) badge for giving answers that the community prefers very much in comparison to a decent accepted answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/badges/49/populist).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2930/520&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="b7be3897-97a3-4a58-bb19-1427c7b8bb06" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text=" - Some thoughts on enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was mentioned in [Manishearth's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5156/8563), [QMechanic's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5165/8563) and [David Z's](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5162/8563) answers in [the recent discussion on banning homework](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether/), the current policy is already pretty close to &quot;homework is banned&quot;, and the real changes that need to happen are (i) changes in semantics and documentation, and (ii) an increase in community moderation. The latter is the part that's actually important, and what determines how many low-level homework questions are there to clutter the front page of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to realize that regardless of what the homework policy is, there will always be users who post homework questions anyway. (Users are [very myopic!](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/10/treating-user-myopia.html)) It is therefore up to us to make sure that the clutter is swept away quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a homework question which you think is off-topic and does not ask a conceptual question, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Tag it as [tag:homework]**. This will make it easier to detect and it will help other users know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Flag the question for closure](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts)**, or (if you  have 3k+ reputation) **[vote to close it](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions)**. It is very, very, very important that people flag questions if they're off-topic. It pushes them onto a [review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) in which users with 3k+ reputation and moderators can see them and close them if appropriate. This works fairly well, but the main thing is getting low-level homework questions into the review queue quickly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Consider downvoting it**. Questions with a score of **-4** are [hidden from the front page](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/62769/184688), and no longer contribute to the clutter. (On the other hand, if it's already at -4 consider the impact on the OP of further downvotes.)&#xD;&#xA; - **Think twice before answering.** In any [broken windows theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) of homework questions, answers play a crucial role. If open low-level homework questions invite other low-level questions, open low-level homework quesitons *with answers* do so much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also tag [on-topic, conceptual questions that follow the tag wiki][1] as [tag:homework] as soon as you see them if they're not already tagged as such. (You can always [edit posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing), though they will pass through a review queue [until you have 2k rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit). As a bonus, you get +2 reputation!) This helps other users detect and help improve homework questions more easily. It also improves the user experience of the users who choose to ignore *all* homework questions, the possibility of which I think is an important selling point we should keep in trying to [retain](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102/have-we-lost-the-necessary-critical-mass-of-professional-physicists) and increase our expert user base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **use the [review queues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) as much as you can!** Community moderation is the name of the game here. There isn't really all that much to be done (compare e.g. with [SO](https://stackoverflow.com/review)) but it's important that this moderation be done as fast as possible and that it requires as little moderator input as possible. It sends a much stronger message of off-topic-ness if a question is closed by a mass of five different people [(example)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/86169/) than by a single moderator [(example)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7353/). There's good documentation on what the review queues are and how to use them at [this MSO thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues). There's also [three badges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/106/custodian) [to be had](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/85/reviewer) [per revision queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/107/steward)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the close-votes queue requires 3k+, but there is a *ton* of useful community moderation you can do before that. You can access the [Late Answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/28023) and the [First Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues at [500 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues), and these contain many of the low-level homework questions that we want on the close-vote review queue and off the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5184/8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="0bbe8f72-ef6c-4e73-907d-b9a144d55fe7" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="There is some confusion here, so let me clear some things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Review queues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) are accessible [from 500 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues). This starts with the [Late Answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers) and [First Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts) review queues, gets augmented by the [Suggested Edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) and [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) queues at [2,000 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit), and finally [Close Votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) and [Reopen Votes](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen) at [3,000 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions). It is easily accessible by a link that says `review` on the top bar, between your gravatar and the search bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In each review queue, you are given the option to skip each question you consider using a button on the upper right corner, which is next to the other 'action buttons'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![skip button on review queues][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Moderator tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools) are available to users with [10k reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and above. These tools include lists of posts with extreme votes, comments, views and edits, in-depth views at the closure, deletion and migration processes, and a few sundries. Most importantly (for this question), it also includes a page for dealing with certain types of [flags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![Moderator tools flags page][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This includes `Not an answer` and `Very low quality` flags on answers, and certain system-generated flags. I do not know for sure whether `Spam` and `Offensive, abusive, or hate speech` flags make it to this queue; I can't recall seeing one but they appear in the flagging dialog so they must end up there as well. `Flag to close` flags send the question straight to the Close Votes review queue, which can be seen by &gt;3k users. `Other (needs ♦ moderator attention)` flags are *not* visible by 10k users; they are confidential and can only be seen by moderators ♦ and certain members of the Stack Exchange team ♦.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This [Flags page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=flags) can also be accessed by clicking on the *yellow* number that sometimes appears between your gravatar and the `review` link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![review link on top bar][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (An orange number can also appear, which links to the Suggested Edits review queue when it is not empty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Flags in this page can be confirmed - you can re-flag the post, with either the same flag or a different one - or they can be deemed invalid. These are 'soft' votes: they are there to help moderators when they deal with the original flag (for more information, see [this MSO thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/96475)), but of course that makes them no less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, and in answer to John Rennie's question: no, it is not possible at present to skip flags. I imagine this is [meta-tag:status-bydesign], as there is no real reason to skip such flags. If you don't want to deal with them, simply don't go to that page. If you think they're invalid, mark them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a skip button makes particular sense in [places with a review queue overload problem](https://stackoverflow.com/review). Each reviewer has a finite number of votes per queue, and if a queue is overloaded it makes no sense to have reviewers spend time on posts they don't understand. Having a skip button streamlines the job by helping reviewers get to posts they *can* review quicker and not forcing them to deal with posts they *can't* deal with. This is mostly due to the linear, one-post-at-a-time way the review queues are presented. The flags page, on the other hand, shows all of them at once, so that flags you don't want to deal with are not in the way of fresh ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there **is** a problem with the flags review queue, and it is that it takes a long time after you've handled a flag for the annoying yellow number in the top bar to go away. I first reported this [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4932/10k-tools-show-flag-counts-for-flags-i-cant-see) and then in MSO [back in September](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196775/the-flag-counter-in-the-10k-tools-should-reflect-the-posts-i-can-actually-see) as a bug in the flags page, and then [when the yellow number appeared in the top bar](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212375/remove-the-flag-notification-in-the-top-bar-when-i-have-done-my-job-with-it/216113#216113). If you find this notification annoying, please go and show those threads some love!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBxo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NGg8a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eSkAQ.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72HaR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="4c5fb8c4-f2fc-4525-bd55-0dfdce04e95c" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I've read the other answers here, and the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two authors ([Floris] &amp; [Alemi]) of the (excellent) highly voted answers to the original Coin Question have replied here, and I think that they have useful insights. It's interesting that their answers on this meta question are the lowest rated at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Horses for courses&#xD;&#xA;My suspicion is that one person's good question is not another's good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some, a nicely clear unambiguous question is a good one. Ideally one showing the asker's research and a statement of why they couldn't proceed, or their uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a professional software engineer, primarily using Stack Overflow rather than Phy.S.E., these are certainly the kinds of questions that I like to answer and hope to ask. Stack Overflow's [How do I ask a good question?](https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask) covers this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular users are likely to prefer this kind of question. Those working in the field, and the enthusiasts with an interest in Physics that hang about here and get in the way, like me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for others, a simple interesting question with excellent answers that teaches them something, is a good question. Answers that encourage them to feel science is something that they can do, participate in, use, and understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Floris's answer][Floris] mentions a link on Reddit, and I would think this is the kind of question that would appeal to someone happening on the site from a link and having a kind of &quot;popular science&quot; interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that a well written question, in a case like this, might not be as successful as the quick carelessly written one. As a populist pedagogic tool, it might be less likely to pull the masses in, because an outsider, reading a well written question, won't feel that is something that they, personally, would ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Is it a problem?&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think that the first kind of question is the better kind, but I think the second kind has its place and use, as it helps provide a fascination with science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may feel differently if they would rather keep Phy.S.E. as a fairly highbrow tool for learning and answering professional queries – I'm not judging that as a bad thing: having relatively uninformed people about can be annoying, particularly if they reduce the signal to noise ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something to worry about? There I'm not sure. Voting is useful because it provide a mechanism to resolve disputes like this where people have different needs and desires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the experienced physicist and teachers here might have a good sense of when a &quot;dumb&quot; question can be a good tool, and so, in a way, becomes a good question. You probably also need a sense of whether it will have popular appeal, which is hard to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;In summary, I would say that if you want Phy.S.E to be a place that reaches out to the popular science crowd and gives them an insight to what it is to experiment  and use science, then support what [Alemi] and [Floris] say. Edit questions to improve grammar, spelling and general readability. Go easy on questions that haven't put in the ground work but sound interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Alemi]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5942/45649&#xD;&#xA; [Floris]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5950/45649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="f4dbd966-e307-4122-8f02-c79dd5651294" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I stand by position `4. Don't put it on hold because it's fine` for [question (B)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137131/evaluate-langle-mathbfp-1-hatr-mathbfp-rangle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't think it's a check-my-work question, though admittedly this is a subtle point. The OP has found a textbook problem and has presumably worked out the solution, but the question is not about solving the textbook problem. More specifically, the textbook problem is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Prove property P(A) for arbitrary objects A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (where A is, in that case the function F). The OP's question has little to do with the proof; instead, the OP asks whether the property even makes sense. The post is of the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; I found an object A1 such that the property P(A1) doesn't make sense. Is this known/expected? How do I deal with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As it turns out, the handling of that singularity is not trivial, and needs the proper framework to work well. This means a level of mathematical sophistication that is not very usual in intro-to-QM books ([Galindo &amp; Pascual](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Quantum_mechanics_I.html?id=BKfvAAAAMAAJ) being the only exception I know of), or a set of heuristics which involve not caring about specific infinities and singularities. These heuristics are particular to physics and form the core of any good answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a similar vein, I don't think this question is a maths question. The heuristics are particular to physics and a mathematician would either (a) throw a fit at the nonchalant use of divergent integrals, or (b) have a particularly hard time phrasing their explanation in terms that a physicist would find useful. The process in (b) is in fact that of turning mathematics into physics. Hence the question is physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As I stated before, calling a question &quot;that's just pure maths&quot; just because it has mathematical formulae in it is not productive, not least because that encompasses all of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find it particularly unclear, but it's not a model of clarity either. It was clear enough that it found an answer within 24 hours, so I think it definitely deserved the benefit of the doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Furthermore, I claim that *as regards questions that are unclear*, we as a community do tend to give the benefit of the doubt to users, and particularly newcomers. I think the review queues do a good job of putting unclear questions on the plate of the people best suited to work with the OPs to clarify them and make them answerable, when that is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I would of course be willing to consider data beyond my personal experience. This, however, is a separate issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put things in contrast, [question (A)](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137121/how-is-the-method-of-lagrange-multipliers-used-for-multiple-constraints-of-multi) is very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It too starts with a textbook(-style) problem, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Given objects B, and C, what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and the OPs question is exclusively &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; what is property Q(B, C)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This is why question (A) is a check-my-work problem. I don't find it that terrible, because of the level of sophistication of the problem and the given solution, but I still agree that (i) it is closable under [the current policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and (ii) it should be closed for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the question of whether question (A) is too close to pure math for this site, I think it is close to the fence that it's on-topic both here and at maths.SE, but its content is still relevant enough to undergraduate-level analytical mechanics that it's on topic here (as far as the physics/maths divide goes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The main confusion in [DanielSank's question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6150/why-are-cosmetic-trappings-of-physics-enough-to-make-math-questions-considered-o) is that this is even an issue. I don't think anyone, on the whole discussion, ever claimed that this question was off-topic for being too mathsy. (Of course, I'll be glad to set straight on this if someone has done so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, I don't think the questions under consideration show any inconsistency in our current closure practices. This doesn't mean that we *are* perfectly consistent, but I think perfect consistency is a little too much to ask of a system run by many individuals with varying opinions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there is probably more room in the system for more detailed comments on questions by people voting to close. This has also [come up recently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off) on a related topic. More detailed comments on why a question is getting closed helps the OP in improving their post (or understanding the scope of the site), and it improves the site in making it clear to future users why some content is on-topic and other content is not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our review queue is [quiet enough](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review), and we don't have the sort of problem that [SO has](https://stackoverflow.com/review). We have a big enough pool of reviewers that we can spare the extra time for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sorting through the queue on busy times can be a bit of a dull job, and I would ask that some consideration be shown to reviewers, as it's hard to really grok the process until you see it in action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="ddd14d44-b266-49e6-b1b2-9b228f28eb49" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="&gt; _if I create a community wiki post on the lines described above, would this be considered inappropriate/off topic?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah. It's not a question, so it shouldn't be posted as one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, what you're describing here is precisely the reason tag wikis (and tags themselves) exist. As Emilio pointed out in the comments, going to a tag page and sorting by votes already gives a fairly good idea of what the community considers to be the best questions about that topic. And a curated list of common questions is _exactly_ the kind of thing that would help to make a tag wiki great. If you look at the best-maintained tag wikis on Stack Overflow, like [C++](https://stackoverflow.com/tags/c%2b%2b/info) and [PHP](https://stackoverflow.com/tags/php/info), they already include links to good questions and other good resources. (Keep in mind that those tag wikis are the result of many people collaborating, so if you're writing a tag wiki on your own, don't feel any pressure to come up with something that detailed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel motivated to create something like this, I'd encourage you to head over to the tag wiki for [tag:quantum-mechanics] or whichever one you want to work on, and get started!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="3fe804ff-f450-4a6f-bc49-50f18b81bb8c" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="[Asked and answered on Mother Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120707/clarify-the-no-registration-required-message). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist of it is that the original meaning of *no registration* was that other, similar Q&amp;A sites required you to register *just to **see** the answers*; this is not the case here. You should be able to answer questions without registering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is more explicitly stated in the [FAQ](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/) (specifically the [Why should I create an account?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-register) under the [My Account](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/account) header)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Registration is not required to participate on Stack Exchange; you can read, answer, and suggest edits as an anonymous user, much like on Wikipedia. There are some things you won’t be able to do on the site without registering, however, such as vote. Registering is easy, and once logged in, you can gain other key privileges by earning reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original policy *was* no registration required, but the original site ([StackOverflow](https://stackoverflow.com/)) was receiving [several *thousand* questions per day](http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday) (QPD), many of which were *low quality*. So the creator of the site, [Jeff Atwood](https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/1/jeff-atwood), changed it to require registration for *asking* questions (in attempts to stave off the sheer number of bad questions). The comment thread under Jeff's answer is worth the read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="21723c73-c2e5-4efa-9b60-5498bb5d937f" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I would like to draw attention to the users here at Physics.SE to a question I posted in StackOverflow. It borders the line of being a pure physics question rather than a programming one, and a mathematical solution would be sufficient (as opposed to an answer with code).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this question on-topic for Physics.SE?&#xD;&#xA;- Should I cross-post, and if so, what is the proper way of doing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [link to the question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/q/31889513/890899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="33eb6035-cd8d-42ef-80da-1cb87e3bfed0" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:40:31.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="&gt; **Abstract**: We are experimenting with expanding the scope of the very low quality (VLQ) flag. For two weeks, August 8-21, moderators will not decline any VLQ flags. We will allow these flags will sit in the queue as long as needed for the community to deal with them. We ask you, the community, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - use VLQ flags on posts which are &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; (see below for what that means), which would ordinarily _not_ be a valid use of the VLQ flag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when reviewing low-quality posts, choose to delete such &quot;harmfully incorrect&quot; posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handling of low-quality answers has been a point of contention and friction, on and off, for a fairly long time in this site. For low-quality questions, it happens that every so often someone sees a terrible answer, flags it as low quality, and finds out that it gets declined with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then generally leads to bruised egos and a lot of friction, and also a lot of people unhappy that we don't have a strong enough mechanism to handle the types of posts they wanted to flag. (Examples: [1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5995/), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6032/), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2858/), [4](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5341/),&#xD;&#xA;[5](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5589),&#xD;&#xA;[6](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6209),&#xD;&#xA;[7](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7147/), [8](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7193).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thread is an attempt to explain what pressures the system is under, the way the flagging software works under the hood, the way flags are currently handled, and the reasons for this. I will then make two proposals for how the system could be improved (one of which we can implement ourselves, and the second of which would include software tweaks to support that workflow), and I will propose an experiment to see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked out several of these aspects after going through the bruised-ego, unnecessary-friction cycle in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined, and the responses  and votes on that post and [in a related chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/42616/discussion-between-david-z-and-emilio-pisanty) make me hopeful that there's appetite for a change and a rough agreement that it's possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;In short, I claim that answers that are (1) flat-out incorrect, (2) so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and (3) so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing, should be removed from the site. They should be flagged as Very Low Quality, and should be deleted via a consensus of six 2k+ users or three 20k+ users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next two weeks, let's experiment with this dynamic and see how well it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The pressures&#xD;&#xA;This site gets its fair share of posts, both questions and answers, that are - shall we say - rather below par. This includes a lot of content that a lot of people would rather we didn't have on the site at all and, in particular, all sorts of content drawing from every depth of crackpottery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, we get a lot of questions that assume as a starting point some way-off-standard theory and then (some question or other), in such a way that the only possible responses would either be a complete rejection of the hypotheses, or fringe pseudophysics with no place in any serious physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We also get a steady smattering of answers that draw on such off-base foundations, and which look something like &quot;time dilation does not actually exist because Einstein was wrong, see my site at &lt;shady website&gt; for more explanations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The two types of post above are usually made worse by the fact that in a large fraction of cases the poster will adopt rather belligerent attitudes, refuse to back down on any claim or listen to anyone at all, and very often drag the discussion down to wildly unconstructive mud-slinging, which is unbelievably draining for everyone involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In addition to the above, we also get a steady stream of posts that are just not very good. This ranges from incomprehensible keyboard bashing, to one-liners that only vaguely address the question, one-liner questions with nowhere near enough information to be answerable, 'answers' that are just comments on another post or which ask a separate question, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is, of course, an incomplete list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, of course, the site has a bunch of ways to deal with these things. For off-the-field questions we can [close as non-mainstream](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site) and we can downvote them (which, once they reach score -4, [hides from the active-questions list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117119)). For 'answers' that are really a separate question or a comment we can flag as Not An Answer, and it generally gets resolved rather well relatively quickly. For gibberish posts and one-liner nonsensicals we can flag as Very Low Quality and they eventually disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very-much-wrong, out-in-the-out-field-of-the-next-field-over answers, we can downvote and... that's it. The way the system works now, there is often precious little that a user can do if she notices a post that is wrong-wrong-wrong. (Think something like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png).) As long as it is an attempt to provide some sort of answer, the Not An Answer flag doesn't work, and the Very Low Quality flag currently excludes answers which are generally intelligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our user can then add a comment explaining what is wrong (with the associated risk of getting dragged into an unconstructive discussion), and she can add a single downvote, which often looks like a hopelessly small signal (like, for example, with answers that might get upvoted in a popular question because they 'sound right', or are catchy enough, to enough outsiders, even if any working physicist can see that they're completely incorrect). There isn't even a way to get other experts to notice the post and help fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I contend, is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What happens to flags once you flag them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the system is set up at the moment, there are two moderation queues where a post goes after it is flagged: the [Low Quality Posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts) community moderation review queue, and the moderator queue where all flags end up when they require human intervention to get swiftly handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [what does the Low Quality Posts queue do](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161390/what-are-the-review-queues-and-how-do-they-work)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `close` the question if it is off-topic, `edit` it if it can be whipped into shape, `skip` it if the reviewer doesn't know what to do, and decide it `looks OK` and shouldn't really be in the queue to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For answers, the queue looks something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It enables the reviewer to `edit` the post, help get it off the queue by saying it `looks OK`, `skip` it and move elsewhere, and -- depending on the poster's reputation -- `recommend deletion` of the answer (&lt;20k rep) or a vote to `delete` it (&gt;20k rep). Deletion votes come with the option of posting a canned message that includes a link to the review page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts with a negative score get deleted when they get [six Recommend Deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145287/is-recommend-deletion-secretly-a-vote-to-delete/145292#145292) votes, or [three Delete votes]() by &gt;20k rep users. (Posts with positive score with that many delete votes get referred to moderators as a disputed deletion, and they probably do deserve that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Low Quality Posts queue is also populated by automatic processes, which generally get marked by text along the lines of 'this answer was automatically flagged because of its length and content', and includes posts which are very short, have lots of links, are by new users, or probably some combination of those. Generally speaking, the algorithm that catches these is pretty well tuned, and it very often does flag up posts that do require some extra attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posts stay in the queue for as long as they need to: until they're kicked off the queue by having more Looks OK votes than flags and (recommended) deletion votes, the queue produces an action on the post (closure, deletion, or edit), or a moderator intervenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, after [fifteen minutes of being raised](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243145/hide-not-an-answer-and-very-low-quality-flags-in-the-moderator-flag-queue), Very Low Quality flags also appear on the moderator queue, where moderators can see them and act on them. (However, this time can be changed and indeed it's a one-hour wait in several network sites.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How flags are currently handled&#xD;&#xA;The current guidelines for how flags should be raised on this site are at https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6374/which-flag-do-i-use-for-an-inappropriate-post; in addition, there is network-wide guidance on how to review over on the mother meta at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/what-are-the-guidelines-for-reviewing. In particular, the guidelines for raising a Very Low Quality flag currently read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, answers which are wrong or based on non-mainstream physics are explicitly excluded. The reason for this is that Very Low Quality flags very quickly make their way to the moderator review queue, and **moderators are entirely the wrong people to be handling this sort of flag**. Removing an answer because it's wrong, or because its premises are off-mainstream, is a judgement call based on technical aspects of the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is precisely the sort of task that we use community moderation for - a consensus decision based on the judgement of multiple experts who have been on the site long enough to know what works and what doesn't - but if we ask moderators to handle these flags we're asking them to delete users' content based on technical grounds that they might get wrong. To their credit, the site moderators here understand that this is not their job and they repeatedly refuse to delete posts on those grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, this means that when people raise a Very Low Quality flag on a post that's dead-wrong it ends up being declined by a moderator because the system is asking them to do more than they should be doing. (Comments, of course, are another story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What *should* be done with low-quality answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so the story so far is how the system works, why it works this way, and what problems this causes. So, in an ideal world, how should this sort of post be handled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One view which is held relatively widely ([example](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2858/whats-with-the-low-quality-posts-in-perpetual-limbo)) goes something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technically, we can't *delete* things which *answer the question* (even if they're wrong or short/low quality). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contend that this is **wrong**: we *can* and *should* delete answers that are incorrect beyond saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you disagree, then as I [argued previously](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8947/why-was-this-very-low-quality-flag-declined): what compels us to host content that is wildly incorrect? Say, things like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AU2Gt.png) or [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lCe2d.png). Users *permit* Stack Exchange to display their CC BY-SA-licensed content, and they *ask* the site to display it, but what compels us to host incorrect content?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a bit more precise, I contend that if an answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. flat-out incorrect, &#xD;&#xA;2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it should be deleted. In particular, it should be deleted via consensus-based community moderation, rather than through unilateral moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites shine because when you land on a question you're likely to find a good question with an easily accessible good answer written by someone who knows their stuff, instead of pages of back-and-forth trying to get the asker to provide enough information, endless discussions over technical details, or off-the-wall posts that are just plain wrong. In [the words of ACuriousMind](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or think about it this way: if [insert rising-star researcher in your field] were to stumble on that post on the site, would they think &quot;huh, this is an interesting place&quot; and decide to participate, or would they give it up as a wash because incorrect content gets such an easy pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Fixing the VLQ flags, part 1: community process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully I still have everybody on board (and if you disagree with the above section, I do want to hear your views and I hope you're comfortable sharing them), in that there is a problem to be solved that the current mechanism isn't solving. Luckily enough, though, we do have the software tools to build a community process that can help clean up by putting deletion-worthy content in front of the people who should be deleting it (a consensus of experienced users) rather than the people who shouldn't (unilateral action by a moderator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose, therefore, to change the community guidelines for flagging and reviewing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For flagging: use the Very Low Quality flag for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;      - anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;      - answers posted in another language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   as well as answers that are wrong, or based on non-mainstream physics, that you think are&#xD;&#xA;      1. flat-out incorrect,&#xD;&#xA;      2. so completely incorrect that no amount of editing can make it useful or constructive, and &#xD;&#xA;      3. so completely incorrect that it is actively harmful to the site and its standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      - followup questions&#xD;&#xA;      - comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For reviewing: vote to delete / recommend deletion on posts that in your judgement satisfy the above criterion. If you're not sure, click `skip`; if you think the post belongs on the site, click `looks OK`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very Low Quality flags should go to the Low Quality Posts review queue and remain there: that is, mods should not act to decline or dismiss VLQ flags raised over the technical quality of posts (whether they end up in the moderator queue or not), unless the review queue is obviously indecisive about it or is taking overly long to handle a post. I would fix the timescale for this at 2 to 3 days (but this should be easier to decide after the experiment below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Back-end changes&#xD;&#xA;The above proposal has the enormous strength that it works completely within the existing Stack Exchange software, which is good because asking for developer time to work on something on this scale requires some pretty strong arguments that it will really help the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, to help it work better it would really help to keep Very Low Quality flags from being shown to moderators for a rather longer time than they do now - substantially longer than an hour, at the very least. This gives the community moderation space to do its work, and refers to the moderators the stuff that can't be handled that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the disadvantage that gibberish and other clear candidates for deletion take a bit longer to clean up than they do in the current system. I think this is an acceptable trade-off, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community moderation process is up and running, we should also consider other cosmetic changes (like, for example, a re-write of the text in the flagging prompt), but the way I see it these are secondary to the change in the process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The experiment&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do we get from here to there? I propose we experiment by switching to the system described above for two weeks and seeing how well it works. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the next two weeks (Monday 8 August to Sunday 21 August) moderators will still see Very Low Quality flags but they will only act on gibberish and non-parseable text, leaving any calls that depend on a judgement call on the technical merit of a post to the Low Quality Posts review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During that time, flag and review as per the above guidelines. If you see content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, flag it for removal. If you review content that you think is so wrong it's harmful, recommend its deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, we'll have a look at as many statistics as we can get our hands on (some of which do require some data digging by an SE community manager) to see how well it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you disagree with the above (including the case where you think we shouldn't even run the experiment) then I am interested in why you think so. However, there is one thing I do want to ask people not to fall into, and that is 'answer by Stack Exchange say-so'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of this is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676), which sort of goes &quot;well, Stack Exchange put up these vague text messages, so therefore this is how we should run our own community moderation&quot;. Another example is [this comment](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5675/#comment16902_5675) on that same question, coming from an outsider to this site and just referring to generic SE guidance. If you do want to just refer to generic guidelines, then I do ask that you provide a suitable argument for why they're also sufficient to help this site deal with the pressures it's under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that the Stack Exchange software and the core guidelines for community moderation need to satisfy the needs of [a huge array of 150+ sites](http://stackexchange.com/sites) with a wide variety of communities, attitudes, situations, and constraints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine and guidelines need to handle the enormous volume of Stack Overflow, with [review queues](https://stackoverflow.com/review) so long that people resorted to robotic reviewing so much that [review audits](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/what-are-review-tests-audits-and-how-do-they-work) needed to be introduced. They need to handle [The Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/), which every so often draws in a crowd of outsiders that's pretty sure it can solve everybody's problem. They need to handle the happy atmosphere of [TeX.SE](http://tex.stackexchange.com), which is just happy to [throw upvotes](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6636) pretty much anywhere. They need to work for [movies](https://movies.stackexchange.com/) and [SciFi](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/) and [RPG](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/), which inhabit a very different corner of the internet than we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, for many of those sites, the concept of an answer being 'harmfully incorrect' doesn't even make sense. What does a non-mainstream answer look like in [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/)? Do they get them in [Chemistry](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/) or [Photography](https://photo.stackexchange.com/)? Unless the guidelines you want to quote were built considering an explicit analogue of non-mainstream, harmfully-incorrect answers, then repeating them as-is is simply not helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final question:** isn't it time I piped down? Why yes, yes it is. Over to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4BbY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpVnP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="de4bea1e-134d-47c9-8ef8-19e16442d518" CreationDate="2017-05-23T16:50:00.370" UserId="45664" Text="Is it possible to search in comments, along with searching in questions and answers?  I suspect the answer is no.  I think that would be a very useful option to have in the advanced search.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="de4bea1e-134d-47c9-8ef8-19e16442d518" CreationDate="2017-05-23T16:50:00.370" UserId="45664" Text="Is it possible to search in comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="de4bea1e-134d-47c9-8ef8-19e16442d518" CreationDate="2017-05-23T16:50:00.370" UserId="45664" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="21ba8554-a83b-417a-86da-321b168e0cd5" CreationDate="2017-05-23T16:59:58.727" UserId="520" Text="There is no on-site mechanism owning to the intentionally second-class status of comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I really must search comments I use google with the `site:physics.stackexchange.com` specifier, but you often have to search through a very large number of results. The more comprehensive the list of keywords you can provide the better. Also include the username if you know it (say when searching your own comments).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9886" RevisionGUID="0e1294bb-3923-4bed-8789-34f21ec8e18a" CreationDate="2017-05-23T22:36:49.653" UserId="8563" Text="As an alternative to dmckee's answer, which is generally quite reliable, if you can't find what you're looking for, then variants of [this Data Explorer query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/675047/comment-search) might help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9887" RevisionGUID="933aa16d-cca3-45e8-b6f5-8d2df83c14ab" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:44:41.267" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="I recently noticed this feature of [Physics Overflow][1] that there is a tab called &quot;Submit a Paper&quot;. What it essentially means is that one can submit a paper that has been previously published (either on arXiv or otherwise) for review. People post their reviews as well as upvote or downvote the paper on two parameters separately - originality and accuracy. We can change the details, of course. I find this feature attractive as I think that not only the reviews expressed there will enhance the experience of reading the paper and getting more physics out of it but it can also give junior researchers or students some insight as to how a seasoned eye reads a paper and how to write better papers. I know it is not an aim of Physics SE to train people to write good papers but as I said, the major benefit is the enhanced experience of reading a paper and getting more physics out of it. The secondary benefit would be to learn how to analyze and write papers. A third benefit would be that it will create a very good repository of interesting papers. Can we introduce this feature in Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physicsoverflow.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9887" RevisionGUID="933aa16d-cca3-45e8-b6f5-8d2df83c14ab" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:44:41.267" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="Can we introduce the &quot;Submit a Published Paper for Review&quot; feature in Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9887" RevisionGUID="933aa16d-cca3-45e8-b6f5-8d2df83c14ab" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:44:41.267" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9888" RevisionGUID="a2d27dd7-0647-4b4d-a773-7c48ef3c3493" CreationDate="2017-05-25T22:45:10.320" UserId="8563" Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pefiz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9889" RevisionGUID="36ff4b3f-cc21-4503-8707-440d8ee51c6a" CreationDate="2017-05-25T23:03:09.187" UserId="8563" Text="To be blunt: no. We don't have the numbers to do this effectively, not by an order of magnitude at the very least, we would be actively harming other efforts to do similar things, there's no guarantee that it can even work to begin with, and the proposal is moot unless you can come up with someone to write the code for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me start with the more prosaic side: there's just simply no one to write the code. The kind of feature you're proposing entails, at the very least, many months of dev-team time, and you can pretty much take it as a given that Stack Exchange won't provide it. From one perspective, they are a business and they can only invest in things with a revenue stream associated with it, but to be fair they have been really awesome at building high-quality software mostly in the spirit of making the internet better, and finding non-intrusive ways of monetizing it a good while after it's been built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, SE has a very clear mindset and anything that takes away time and energy from the core emphasis on Q&amp;A (beyond the jobs site, which does come with a healthy revenue stream) has been politely but firmly declined. So: unless you have a workable proposal of how that software is going to come into existence, the point is a non-starter to begin with. But let's ignore this and focus on all the other reasons this cannot work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, and as I've [said before](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7516/is-physics-se-an-appropriate-location-for-peer-review), this community simply does not have the numbers to implement this at any kind of scale where it would begin to become self-sustaining. Reviewing a paper takes a *lot* more work than bashing out an answer on the Q&amp;A main - I can think of maybe two or three answers that have taken longer than a referee report. Writing a review is not a trivial task: it requires that you thoroughly understand the paper, a clear vision of the field, and a commitment to doing it fairly. In my experience doing one in less than one full workday is a pipe dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, reviews also have a much reduced field of potential answerers: the proportion of site users that can write useful reviews is small to begin with, and moreover the scope of topics that each user can review in is smaller than the topics they can answer in. This leaves you with very few people, whom you want to ask for a lot of work - and it's just not going to come together in scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned PhysicsOverflow, and indeed they have gone out and built the software for that platform. Do they have the numbers? That's something for people to [judge for themselves](https://physicsoverflow.org/questions/refereeing), but I don't think they do - at the moment I count 22 reviews out of 120+ requests, and I would argue that to the extent that they have managed to build a reviewing community, it's because they have followed in the footsteps of the old Theoretical Physics SE site by focusing exclusively on a rather narrow stretch of QFT and related topics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though: doing a half-hearted attempt at this kind of thing is actively harmful, and it detracts energy and attention from other projects that are trying to do pretty much the same thing. What you're talking about is called [**open peer review**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review), and it's been a huge part of the conversations on open access and reforming the peer review system over the past decade or two. It's not a new idea, and the reason it hasn't come together is that it's a hard problem to crack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a relatively large number of initiatives regarding open peer review, though most of them are tied to specific journals. However, the platform you propose is pretty much precisely (part of) the platforms over at [SciRate](https://scirate.com/) and at [arXiv Analytics](http://arxitics.com/) (though the latter doesn't look very healthy at the moment, unfortunately). Those platforms put the peer review at the place where it's most natural - next to the papers themselves. Doing it on SE would have a strong disconnect from that infrastructure, making the reviews less discoverable, which would in turn make the platform less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've previously run community ads for both arXiv Analytics and for SciRate (see [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7462/8563) and [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7463/8563) for their 2016 incarnations). I'm not sure why there wasn't a 2017 version of the SciRate one but it's [now up](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9888/8563); you can re-post the arXiv Analytics one but frankly the site does not look healthy right now. If people find similar platforms I'm always happy to cook up community ads for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, though: this is a tough space to build platforms in, and this site is pretty much guaranteed to fail: moreover, if it does, it just adds one more ghost town to the mix, one more precedent of how it's just not doable and how we should just stick to the good old closed peer review, and one bit less enthusiasm in reforming scientific institutions that really are in very dire need of reform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, finally - would this kind of site really be as useful as you think it would be? In large part, what makes this Q&amp;A work well (and also what makes traditional peer review work, too) is that there is a relatively clear audience that one is writing for, but that's a lot more hazy with the section you propose, which means that the reviews get harder to write and they become less useful to read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the goal a review-on-demand kind of marketplace where Bob needs an expert point-of-view on paper X and requests it? Even if you could get that to work, I strongly suspect that if Alice comes along and writes that review, by the time Charlie comes around with questions on that same paper, they will find Alice's review to be suboptimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, is the goal to build out a repository of good papers? Frankly, that's looking at it backwards - if you want a good collection of papers, find an antology or a review or a book. Or are you building a repository of nice reviews of nice papers? If the papers were already nice, why are you reading the reviews and not the papers? Or are you looking for a good collection of reviews that take apart the section of the literature that's incorrect and patch it up, thereby fixing science? This might sound hyperbolic, but I frankly don't understand what sort of value would accrue to that collection of reviews, who would go in to browse that collection, and what they would get out of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if what you want is just to get a nice analysis of how a paper is written and lessons to learn from them to write your own papers later - then frankly the first port of call is a critical reading of the scientific literature you yourself consume, but more generally what you're looking for is a blog post, from the wide variety that are already out in the physics blogosphere, so go out there and look for them!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9887" RevisionGUID="4658cc3f-f7e2-4a02-b88f-dc41b3a260fc" CreationDate="2017-05-25T23:04:25.417" UserId="8563" Comment="Do you want to learn to write? Start with proper paragraphing ;-)." Text="I recently noticed this feature of [Physics Overflow][1] that there is a tab called &quot;Submit a Paper&quot;. What it essentially means is that one can submit a paper that has been previously published (either on arXiv or otherwise) for review. People post their reviews as well as upvote or downvote the paper on two parameters separately - originality and accuracy. We can change the details, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this feature attractive as I think that not only the reviews expressed there will enhance the experience of reading the paper and getting more physics out of it but it can also give junior researchers or students some insight as to how a seasoned eye reads a paper and how to write better papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it is not an aim of Physics SE to train people to write good papers but as I said, the major benefit is the enhanced experience of reading a paper and getting more physics out of it. The secondary benefit would be to learn how to analyze and write papers. A third benefit would be that it will create a very good repository of interesting papers. Can we introduce this feature in Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physicsoverflow.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9890" RevisionGUID="2eb173b4-dddc-4f6c-ba3d-eaf3dee53153" CreationDate="2017-05-26T17:40:04.470" UserId="124437" Text="I've recently answered the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/335554/find-the-vector-position-of-a-moving-object. The question surely isn't well-stated and seems like a straight-forward homework question. Two problems: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What I don't understand is the strict &quot;no homework questions&quot; on this site. Firstly, Stack Exchange aims to be an archive of knowledge where questions are not only answered to benefit the person asking the question but to build up a database of knowledge. Of course questions have to be well-asked with a description where you are stuck and what you've already tried. Questions that aren't within the scope of the site (off-topic does *not* mean that the question isn't well-asked or a homework question, it simply means that the question isn't about physics) should be tried to be improved and not simply ignored / downvoted / whatsoever. Maybe the mods here should look at the homework policy over at Maths StackExchange, where it isn't as strict and leads to more question that can be helpful to people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Why do you have to delete answers to homework questions? That's just childish behaviour and doesn't benefit anybody. What would be the reason to do so? The author of the question didn't ask a good question, sure. But deleting answers shows that you haven't understood what this site is all about. Not only the thread author is meant to benefit from such an answer, but anybody having the same problem. *Improve questions like that (the edit/comment button is there for a reason and don't delete work of other people*. My answer was deleted by the user &quot;rob&quot; who didn't do anything to improve the answer. No comment, no edit, nothing. If you are not willing to contribute meaningfully, then why delete answers? That's just childish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework policy (1) on specific subsites of StackExchange is debatable and of course depends on individual opinion. Just deleting answers randomly (2) is not and doesn't improve anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9890" RevisionGUID="2eb173b4-dddc-4f6c-ba3d-eaf3dee53153" CreationDate="2017-05-26T17:40:04.470" UserId="124437" Text="Deleting answers to &quot;Homework questions&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9890" RevisionGUID="2eb173b4-dddc-4f6c-ba3d-eaf3dee53153" CreationDate="2017-05-26T17:40:04.470" UserId="124437" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="b162d17e-06a1-4faa-8225-8fa5038a2633" CreationDate="2017-05-26T18:04:43.897" UserId="84967" Text="Whether you agree with the homework policy or not, you have to accept that there is one: the community has decided that we/they don't want this kind of questions here. This is just how it is - you can either try to fight against the policy, learn to accept it, or leave the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, and as long as the policy is in force, answers and hints to homework questions are against the rules, because they only serve to encourage this kind of questions. Therefore, the corresponding answers are typically downvoted/deleted. That is the correct - as far as the official policy is concerned - procedure to deal with homework posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, as long as this is an official policy, you'll have to live by it. If you don't like it, protest the policy itself or move on with your life. But you cannot/should not complain that a particular answer of yours was deleted, because that is the correct procedure to deal with homework posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9892" RevisionGUID="0b7b7e9f-558f-460b-97e4-144806bd2746" CreationDate="2017-05-26T18:28:27.087" UserId="1325" Text="The reason we delete answers to homework questions is because we wish to deter the asking of such questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who wants to cheat isn't going to care whether their answer gets downvoted or closed, or whether they get negative comments to it. They just want an answer that they can write into their homework. And as long as they keep getting answers they are going to keep coming back and asking homework questions. If you answer a homework question you encourage the asking of such questions and make this site a worse place for people who have a genuine interest in physics. That's why your answer got deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is endless debate about what constitutes *homework* and where to draw the boundary, and I'm generally pretty sympathetic if I think the OP is genuinely trying to learn. After all I have a gold badge awarded for 1,000 upvotes to answers tagged as *homework-and-exercises* so I can hardly be tarred as an anti-homework zealot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in this case I thought the question was a blatant example of the *I can't be bothered with this* school of homework cheat, so I voted to close it and I flagged your answer to the moderators as an answer to a homework question. Whether the OP saw your answer before it was deleted who knows. Oh well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth let me make clear this isn't a criticism of your answer, which I thought was very nicely explained. In your place I would keep that answer to hand as the issues involved are bound to come up again, and that answer would be a great help to someone genuinely trying to learn about vectors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9893" RevisionGUID="02265867-c868-474b-a7fe-d1cb6c9ad0bc" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:07:04.667" UserId="8563" Text="I want to tackle an teensy tiny bit of the homework debate: **How many people set the homework tag on their ignore list as a way to improve their experience of the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the arguments for keeping the tag around, but there's not much to go on regarding how important this mechanism is, and [the latest go-round of the discussion includes suggestions that it should be removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762), which on some counts wouldn't be a bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: there's two answers below; vote on the one that describes you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do have the tag on ignore, I would also like to ask that you disable that for a bit and see how the site feels without it, and add an answer here with your experience. If it turns out that there's a nontrivial fraction of high-value answerers that would find the site much less interesting if the tag were eliminated, then that's an important data point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and it should go without saying, but it's worth spelling out: this is a *very* unscientific polling method and the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. The relative weight between the two options is obviously not very meaningful, since there's a huge default inertia on not ignoring the tag. However, I think there's a reasonable chance of filling in the data point from the paragraph above, so let's give this a go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9893" RevisionGUID="02265867-c868-474b-a7fe-d1cb6c9ad0bc" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:07:04.667" UserId="8563" Text="Poll: do you ignore the homework tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9893" RevisionGUID="02265867-c868-474b-a7fe-d1cb6c9ad0bc" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:07:04.667" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9894" RevisionGUID="82cf4608-fdf8-41fe-834f-0af8261d0106" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:07:04.667" UserId="8563" Text="**Yes, I've got the tag on ignore.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upvote if this is the case. To keep the numbers clean, please don't downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9895" RevisionGUID="3eac4a54-9641-4391-979c-6900ff574d2f" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:07:23.003" UserId="8563" Text="**No, I don't have the tag on ignore.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upvote if this is the case. To keep the numbers clean, please don't downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9893" RevisionGUID="25459712-6b5e-4e55-912c-22af7f93b4f7" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:09:11.187" UserId="8563" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="I want to tackle an teensy tiny bit of the homework debate: **How many people set the homework tag on their ignore list as a way to improve their experience of the site?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the arguments for keeping the tag around, but there's not much to go on regarding how important this mechanism is, and [the latest go-round of the discussion includes suggestions that it should be removed](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9762), which on some counts wouldn't be a bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: there's two answers below; vote on the one that describes you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do have the tag on ignore, I would also like to ask that you disable that for a bit and see how the site feels without it, and add an answer here with your experience. If it turns out that there's a nontrivial fraction of high-value answerers that would find the site much less interesting if the tag were eliminated, then that's an important data point. On the flipside, if there is a population of users that actively looks for homework-tagged questions to answer, then that is also important to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and it should go without saying, but it's worth spelling out: this is a *very* unscientific polling method and the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. The relative weight between the two options is obviously not very meaningful, since there's a huge default inertia on not ignoring the tag. However, I think there's a reasonable chance of filling in the data point from the paragraph above, so let's give this a go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9896" RevisionGUID="bd7746c5-f3f9-4486-9aad-545f8a2df8c1" CreationDate="2017-05-27T17:19:28.720" UserId="8563" Text="**No**, I was not aware that this was possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upvote if this is the case. To keep the numbers clean, please don't downvote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9895" RevisionGUID="b450fd08-e39f-4011-8de8-6846d4962a8f" CreationDate="2017-05-27T19:42:00.340" UserId="8563" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="**No, I don't have the tag on ignore.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upvote if this is the case. To keep the numbers clean, please don't downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\quad$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="2283c511-aefd-40f6-baf8-259df895deda" CreationDate="2017-05-27T19:57:46.053" UserId="8563" Comment="We just passed another milestone." Text="We've all seen them: short comments saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/..., and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we've all seen bunches of useful links to closely-related questions on the `Linked` sidebar over on the right, which are a very useful way to navigate the site. Also, you know what's useful for navigating the site? Correctly-tagged posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that happens by itself, but mostly it requires active attention and maintenance, and while we all do our equal share, some users have more equal shares than others in this game. I've been keeping my eye on some of the stats, and we just passed a milestone I would like not to go by unmarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A single user is responsible for [over &lt;s&gt;3000&lt;/s&gt; 4000 comments of the form &quot;Related:...&quot; or &quot;...therein&quot;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/382526/qmechanics-amazing-post-linking-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - For comparison, [the next user down has &lt;s&gt;150&lt;/s&gt; 200 such comments](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433533/users-by-related-and-therein-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - Freeing the query from that particular form, this user has [&lt;s&gt;4500&lt;/s&gt; 5500 comments that include an in-site link, to &lt;1.4k by the next user down](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433534/users-by-in-site-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - This user also has [eleven times more tag edits than the next most prolific tag editor](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433535/users-by-number-of-tag-edits), at the completely mind-boggling count of &lt;s&gt;19,920&lt;/s&gt; 30177 such edits, to 1815 by the next user down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this has a very definite, very positive impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know who you are. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9897" RevisionGUID="f805801e-1633-44b4-82ab-d896e7e7c8a5" CreationDate="2017-05-28T12:33:40.073" UserId="8563" Text="As has been noted in the past, particularly in [Question self-destruction: why don't experts ask more questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions) and in [Does reputation correlate with the question-to-answer ratio?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6589/does-reputation-correlate-with-the-question-to-answer-ratio), and also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/few-questions-by-medium-and-high-reputation-participants-edited-how-to-get-mo), this site has the peculiarity that, in overwhelming proportion, our 'expert' users, by multiple measures, tend to ask very few questions. Now, whether this is a 'bad' thing or not is debatable, but I think most people would agree that it would probably be beneficial to the site's level and interestingness if more of our 'expert' users asked more questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I just passed a question-asking milestone (I am as of today the single recipient of the [socratic](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/196/socratic) badge in the first three pages of the rep table), and I'd like to use the occasion to have a critical look at my question-asking history and pick out patterns and question types that I think would benefit the site, and the internet at large, if they saw more widespread use from our more experienced users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I'm increasingly bugged by arguments along the lines of &quot;but I'm *paid* to ask questions&quot;, which can be seen e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4574) (and heck, which I've repeated myself, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8849#comment32751_8849)), but which on further inspection just don't work. For one, the existence of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), a place with very high-quality content powered by people whose day jobs typically include asking questions, pokes a gaping hole in that argument. More generally, though, if you tune your antennas to the right frequency, there's plenty of questions to be had about the world - many more than can rightfully fit inside anyone's research programme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, I think that good questions improve the site and by extension they do improve the internet. For many of the patterns below, they're things that I could probably have worked out on my own (or just let go without following them up), but for which I think the Q&amp;A threads they've left behind form a valuable lasting resource that benefits everyone in the long term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, without further ado, here are some ways to ask questions that I think are perfectly compatible with the life of an 'expert' user of this site (in the various meanings of the term) which I think would be very valuable if they were used more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The nagging, persistent question that you've never really had the time to get around to researching, and which isn't really crucial to your research anyways. Let's face it: you're never going to get round to looking it up, but if you ask it here you can both get an answer and help a generation of students behind you to avoid that hurdle. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase&#xD;&#xA; - Questions that spring out during teaching, either during preparation or during interaction with students. There's nothing quite like teaching a subject to make you aware of the holes in how you learned it, and students' questions can often point out weak spots in how some topic is taught over a wide range of textbooks - so that a Q&amp;A addressing that can be a very valuable learning resource for a wide population of students. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130800/what-is-the-physical-meaning-of-commutators-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which arise from reading about recent developments in the scientific press. This often happens with parts of the literature one isn't all that familiar with, but where one can often point out loose ends that are left hanging by the scientific press and that are not easy to puzzle out from the primary literature, and where a decisive Q&amp;A here would be a good resource for the rest of the internet. Moreover, as an instructor, one is sometimes better placed than the students to ask the question in an optimized form that will draw out better answers. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/can-we-infer-the-existence-of-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem-from, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76339/why-are-pear-shaped-nuclei-possible, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96131/cloud-maps-of-a-nearby-brown-dwarf-what-do-they-actually-show&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions that arise from reading the primary literature closer to your field, but where you could use a wider perspective or a closer reading from someone with more experience. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111486/optical-chirality-and-its-possible-hierarchy-of-generalizations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions drilling down on the specifics where the available information on a relevant topic is very vague, and where a good overview would be beneficial to everyone. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147433/what-are-the-proposed-realizations-in-the-new-si-for-the-kilogram-ampere-kelvi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The focused self-answered Q&amp;A: places where there's a specific technical point that repeatedly gets lost in the telling in most mainstream resources, and where adding a well-documented Q&amp;A can help put the issue to bed. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212614/how-does-one-account-for-the-momentum-of-an-absorbed-photon, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224836/are-orbitals-observable-physical-quantities-in-a-many-electron-setting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The sprawling self-answered Q&amp;A: places where there's a gap in the existing coverage and you feel qualified to (and have the time to) do an in-depth dive into the topic, and essentially write a blog post for future reference. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77690/square-bracket-notation-for-dimensions-and-units-usage-and-conventions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The follow-up question: you see a nice question (or a nice answer) and you see that there is some aspect which is also interesting but which isn't addressed in the existing answers, and for which a follow-up post forms a valuable complement. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275571/how-long-does-a-positron-last-in-the-suns-core, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/333371/how-much-variability-was-there-in-the-o-16-atomic-mass-standard-and-how-does-it, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268271/how-would-cold-neutrinos-get-trapped-by-stars, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273836/whats-the-difference-between-a-realization-a-representation-and-an-implementat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The follow-up Q&amp;A: you see a nice question (or a nice answer) and you see a missing aspect where you know the answer, and you think it's a valuable thing to add, but it doesn't really fit in as an answer to the existing thread. So, just add it as a follow-up and provide an answer. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301803/how-different-can-the-directions-of-angular-momentum-and-angular-velocity-be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Technique questions that are genuinely valuable to your research: you're doing some relatively standard analysis as part of your research, and you find that the easily-accessible resources make it a drag to find the details on the application of the method. Instead of (or in parallel to) doing a deep dive into what *should* be easy-to-find information, asking here can take out the hassle (or be a place to document your findings if you find the solution yourself) and form a valuable resource for others in a similar situation. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308009/how-can-i-get-the-axes-of-the-polarization-ellipse-from-the-jones-vector-of-the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Technique questions that are genuinely valuable to your research, where you need to understand a tough technical paper in an area you're not that familiar with, but you're just swamped by the literature and you could use a hand. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222958/how-do-higher-order-optical-chiralities-look-like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The vague and unexplained bit of folklore. I think we've all seen it: there's some random piece of information where everyone in the field &quot;knows&quot; something (even if from some perspectives it could be a pretty dubious claim), but few people can actually source that information to a reliable origin. A question here can sharpen the question to something a good deal more specific, and it can help dispel myths or put vague folklore on a more solid foundation. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/326625/are-non-zero-area-pulses-of-electromagnetic-radiation-possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions aimed at clarifying some obscure concept in the literature. You find some complicated and technical object in the literature, and really it'd be for the best if it got brought down a notch &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223991/what-symmetry-is-associated-with-conservation-of-lipkins-zilch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions exploring the flip-side of a common (mis)conception: places where the typical mindset says &quot;X always happens&quot;, but if you turn off some implicit assumption Y, the result is no longer true. A good Q&amp;A exploring what happens if Y is no longer true can be quite valuable in understanding why X is an important result. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311859/how-do-coherent-isotropic-radiators-evade-the-hairy-ball-theorem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions tackling a common misconception head-on: for the times when a common misconception is best handled by asking it at point-blank range: &quot;is Z true?&quot;, just to set the record straight. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311127/must-magnetic-field-lines-close-upon-themselves-or-go-to-infinity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The idle wondering. We don't always have to launch into full deep-dive mode at the prompt of some random thought - but it can make for a nice Q&amp;A, particularly if the site has a large population of people who know the relevant field much better than you do, or if the question makes for good practice for some student somewhere. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297250/how-many-naked-eye-stars-have-died-since-they-emitted-the-light-we-are-seeing, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281719/for-a-constant-magnetic-field-is-there-a-gauge-with-both-canonical-momenta-cons, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249751/do-any-elements-form-stable-doubly-charged-negative-ions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The honest-to-goodness confusion, over terminology or whatever else. It's OK to ask, you know. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88925/p-dq-is-the-tautological-one-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, so over to you: go out and ask questions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9897" RevisionGUID="f805801e-1633-44b4-82ab-d896e7e7c8a5" CreationDate="2017-05-28T12:33:40.073" UserId="8563" Text="How I learned to stop worrying and start asking questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9897" RevisionGUID="f805801e-1633-44b4-82ab-d896e7e7c8a5" CreationDate="2017-05-28T12:33:40.073" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="7fbd868a-f9b8-41ac-9d4e-a8129550344a" CreationDate="2017-05-28T13:18:07.077" UserId="8563" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="We've all seen them: short comments saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/..., and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we've all seen bunches of useful links to closely-related questions on the `Linked` sidebar over on the right, which are a very useful way to navigate the site. Also, you know what's useful for navigating the site? Correctly-tagged posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that happens by itself, but mostly it requires active attention and maintenance, and while we all do our equal share, some users have more equal shares than others in this game. I've been keeping my eye on some of the stats, and we just passed a milestone I would like not to go by unmarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A single user is responsible for [over &lt;s&gt;3000&lt;/s&gt; 4000 comments of the form &quot;Related:...&quot; or &quot;...therein&quot;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/382526/qmechanics-amazing-post-linking-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - For comparison, [the next user down has &lt;s&gt;150&lt;/s&gt; 200 such comments](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433533/users-by-related-and-therein-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - Freeing the query from that particular form, this user has [&lt;s&gt;4500&lt;/s&gt; 5500 comments that include an in-site link, to &lt;1.4k by the next user down](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433534/users-by-in-site-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - This user also has [&lt;s&gt;eleven&lt;/s&gt; sixteen times more tag edits than the next most prolific tag editor](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433535/users-by-number-of-tag-edits), at the completely mind-boggling count of &lt;s&gt;19,920&lt;/s&gt; 30177 such edits, to 1815 by the next user down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this has a very definite, very positive impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know who you are. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="d2a03c81-46d4-4109-b8be-cf0e1b81c6aa" CreationDate="2017-05-28T22:51:04.440" UserId="50764" Text="I'm [Bernardo](https://stackoverflow.com/users/2080712/bernardo-meurer) and I've been invited as the next guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama). The session will take place on [the h Bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), on June 13th at 16:00 UTC. If you, much like me, gets awfully confused by timezones, just click [here](http://everytimezone.com/#2017-6-13,240,c8l).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA is always informal and relaxed, and you always have the freedom to ask questions that are not here, but this gives me and idea of what to expect to be asked about. Maybe someone really likes the [SuperH architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH), and in that case I definitely need to brush up my knowledge, things like that. You can reference the previous AMAs by [heather](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613/february-20th-ask-me-anything-with-heather-question-pool), [Secret](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [Daniel Sank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), and [Slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born in [Chiador](https://goo.gl/maps/pQp2PfcLCku), a small town in the Brazilian countryside, and I later moved to Rio de Janeiro. I currently live in Lisbon, Portugal where I major in Computer Engineering. I'm mostly self-taught in what I know, and my favorite classes in uni are the maths ones, although it's what I have the hardest time with. I'm almost always around on the h-Bar if you'd like to catch me. If you really need to talk to me the tales say that if you put a pint of beer and some ICs on your porch I will show up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently about to start my first research position working on how to benchmark [ARM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture) in a meaningful way. I also plan on doing some work on adapting the [Linux Scheduler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler) to work better with [HMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_computing) architectures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Computing&#xD;&#xA;    * I'm obsessed with P vs. NP. For what it's worth if you haven't yet read it, Aaronson wrote [a great survey on the matter](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3095).&#xD;&#xA;    * I enjoy the hardware aspects of making a quantum computer possible  a lot, even if this isn't my area of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;    * Recently I've been working on adapting a simple ISA, such as [MIPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture) to support a quantum computer working as a co-processor, much like how FPU's work.&#xD;&#xA;    * I also have a vested interest in figuring out how to create a scheduler that can correctly allocate tasks for the quantum computer. I don't have much at all yet, just some scribbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Programming&#xD;&#xA;    * I have a passion for getting Linux to run on, say, unusual hardware. Most notably I got the following things to run Linux: My calculator, an FPGA board, a toaster. For those in the know the calculator also runs Doom.&#xD;&#xA;    * I'm a [Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) guy, free as in Freedom. I avoid running proprietary software whenever possible. &#xD;&#xA;    * I maintain [beautysh](https://github.com/bemeurer/beautysh) which a beautifier/ autoformatter for Bash scripts.&#xD;&#xA;    * I like C, C++, Rust, and Python.&#xD;&#xA;    * I try to port every algorithm I see to use [GMP](https://gmplib.org/) and [OpenMP](http://www.openmp.org/). It's more of a hobby than anything else. You can see my implementations of [Euler's Totient](https://github.com/bemeurer/euler-function), and of the [Ackermann Function](https://github.com/bemeurer/multi-ackermann).&#xD;&#xA;    * I wrote the base of an OS of my own, named DaedalOS, it's totally broken, but you can take a look if you're interested.&#xD;&#xA; - Hardware&#xD;&#xA;   * Hardware is my main point of interest, it's where most of my time goes to nowadays. I'm particularly interested in optimizing pipelines currently.&#xD;&#xA;   * I developed my own CPU in VHDL. It runs at a *whooping* 25MHz out of a Spartan 6 FPGA. It's based on MIPS, and there's no assembler or compiler or anything. If you want to code you hate to write it in binary.&#xD;&#xA;   * I've started using the [Open J-Core](http://j-core.org/) project, which aims to develop a fully open source CPU based on the, now free of patents, Hitachi Super-H architecture.&#xD;&#xA;    * I spend a lot of time reading documentation on architectures, I like AVR, ARM, and MIPS a lot. I dabble in x86_64 and I've been wanting to learn M68000.&#xD;&#xA;    * I mostly code in the P3 assembly language, which is a made-up architecture by my university. The fact that they did not opt for [MIX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIX) gives me sleepless nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Non-Technical Stuff&#xD;&#xA;* I like audio a lot, I won't say I'm an audiophile because I don't want people to think I'm a douche. And now I probably sound like a douche and I'm just making it worse so I'll stop.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm passionate about beer. Invite me any time anywhere and we can have a beer together.&#xD;&#xA;* I really enjoy airports&#xD;&#xA;* I read some philosophy, in particular I like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Žižek. Also, if I may boast, Žižek [gifted me a signed book for my birthday](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hBXoR.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;* I like biking a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm very happy to have been invited to the AMA, I hope we can all have a good exchange. Looking forward to talking to you all soon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="d2a03c81-46d4-4109-b8be-cf0e1b81c6aa" CreationDate="2017-05-28T22:51:04.440" UserId="50764" Text="June 13th Ask Me Anything feat. Bernardo Meurer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="d2a03c81-46d4-4109-b8be-cf0e1b81c6aa" CreationDate="2017-05-28T22:51:04.440" UserId="50764" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="c08b3a64-8cac-4a6b-88a0-993fdeef67a3" CreationDate="2017-05-28T22:56:41.650" UserId="50764" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="I'm [Bernardo](https://stackoverflow.com/users/2080712/bernardo-meurer) and I've been invited as the next guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama). The session will take place on [the h Bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), on June 13th at 16:00 UTC. If you, much like me, gets awfully confused by timezones, just click [here](http://everytimezone.com/#2017-6-13,240,c8l).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA is always informal and relaxed, and you always have the freedom to ask questions that are not here, but this gives me and idea of what to expect to be asked about. Maybe someone really likes the [SuperH architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH), and in that case I definitely need to brush up my knowledge, things like that. You can reference the previous AMAs by [heather](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613/february-20th-ask-me-anything-with-heather-question-pool), [Secret](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [Daniel Sank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), and [Slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born in [Chiador](https://goo.gl/maps/pQp2PfcLCku), a small town in the Brazilian countryside, and I later moved to Rio de Janeiro. I currently live in Lisbon, Portugal where I major in Computer Engineering. I'm mostly self-taught in what I know, and my favorite classes in uni are the maths ones, although it's what I have the hardest time with. I'm almost always around on the h-Bar if you'd like to catch me. If you really need to talk to me the tales say that if you put a pint of beer and some ICs on your porch I will show up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently about to start my first research position working on how to benchmark [ARM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture) in a meaningful way. I also plan on doing some work on adapting the [Linux Scheduler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler) to work better with [HMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_computing) architectures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Computing&#xD;&#xA;    * I'm obsessed with P vs. NP. For what it's worth if you haven't yet read it, Aaronson wrote [a great survey on the matter](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3095).&#xD;&#xA;    * I enjoy the hardware aspects of making a quantum computer possible  a lot, even if this isn't my area of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;    * Recently I've been working on adapting a simple ISA, such as [MIPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture) to support a quantum computer working as a co-processor, much like how FPU's work.&#xD;&#xA;    * I also have a vested interest in figuring out how to create a scheduler that can correctly allocate tasks for the quantum computer. I don't have much at all yet, just some scribbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Programming&#xD;&#xA;    * I have a passion for getting Linux to run on, say, unusual hardware. Most notably I got the following things to run Linux: My calculator, an FPGA board, a toaster. For those in the know the calculator also runs Doom.&#xD;&#xA;    * I'm a [Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) guy, free as in Freedom. I avoid running proprietary software whenever possible. &#xD;&#xA;    * I maintain [beautysh](https://github.com/bemeurer/beautysh) which a beautifier/ autoformatter for Bash scripts.&#xD;&#xA;    * I like C, C++, Rust, and Python.&#xD;&#xA;    * I try to port every algorithm I see to use [GMP](https://gmplib.org/) and [OpenMP](http://www.openmp.org/). It's more of a hobby than anything else. You can see my implementations of [Euler's Totient](https://github.com/bemeurer/euler-function), and of the [Ackermann Function](https://github.com/bemeurer/multi-ackermann).&#xD;&#xA;    * I wrote the base of an OS of my own, named DaedalOS, it's totally broken, but you can take a look if you're interested.&#xD;&#xA; - Hardware&#xD;&#xA;   * Hardware is my main point of interest, it's where most of my time goes to nowadays. I'm particularly interested in optimizing pipelines currently.&#xD;&#xA;   * I developed my own CPU in VHDL. It runs at a *whooping* 25MHz out of a Spartan 6 FPGA. It's based on MIPS, and there's no assembler or compiler or anything. If you want to code you hate to write it in binary.&#xD;&#xA;   * I've started using the [Open J-Core](http://j-core.org/) project, which aims to develop a fully open source CPU based on the, now free of patents, Hitachi Super-H architecture.&#xD;&#xA;    * I spend a lot of time reading documentation on architectures, I like AVR, ARM, and MIPS a lot. I dabble in x86_64 and I've been wanting to learn M68000.&#xD;&#xA;    * I mostly code in the P3 assembly language, which is a made-up architecture by my university. The fact that they did not opt for [MIX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIX) gives me sleepless nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Non-Technical Stuff&#xD;&#xA;* I like audio a lot, I won't say I'm an audiophile because I don't want people to think I'm a douche. And now I probably sound like a douche and I'm just making it worse so I'll stop.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm passionate about beer. Invite me any time anywhere and we can have a beer together.&#xD;&#xA;* I really enjoy airports&#xD;&#xA;* I read some philosophy, in particular I like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Žižek. Also, if I may boast, Žižek [gifted me a signed book for my birthday](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hBXoR.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;* My favorite movie is [The Seventh Seal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seventh_Seal)&#xD;&#xA;* My favorite composer is Ravel&#xD;&#xA;* I like biking a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm very happy to have been invited to the AMA, I hope we can all have a good exchange. Looking forward to talking to you all soon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9897" RevisionGUID="1c79e48a-2968-4ece-90d3-03ed2b45476c" CreationDate="2017-05-29T05:40:44.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/869065951836344320" />
  <row Id="30093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="1e30f6e6-a327-4c32-aa5e-c3dc905be5e8" CreationDate="2017-05-29T17:44:31.930" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/869248101219004417" />
  <row Id="30095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="896b8d08-f50c-42d6-9ceb-430de3b13a98" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:29:40.457" UserId="59215" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NBB8p.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was an honest question, and I know Bernardo takes the issue very seriously. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="896b8d08-f50c-42d6-9ceb-430de3b13a98" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:29:40.457" UserId="59215" Text="Why was this meta answer deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="896b8d08-f50c-42d6-9ceb-430de3b13a98" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:29:40.457" UserId="59215" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30098" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="3f621834-ec28-4641-b687-80fc4ca4e9c1" CreationDate="2017-05-30T15:03:38.813" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|moderation|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9904" RevisionGUID="7df8173c-9d47-465d-9ff9-d0302ee37d79" CreationDate="2017-05-30T18:59:48.197" UserId="124" Text="Such hyperbolic language, i.e. &quot;censorship, political correctness, and moderator brutality&quot;, isn't appropriate on this site. If someone used that type of language directed at a non-moderator, it'd probably lead to an immediate suspension for violation of [the &quot;be nice&quot; policy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice), on at least points 1 and 2, if not also 3. (This is rude and belittling [point 1], doesn't assume good intentions [point 2], and arguably counts as being a jerk [point 3], though I could see that last one being debatable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually go a little easier on these things when they're directed at moderators in their official capacity, so e.g. we might hold off on the immediate suspension, but that doesn't make it perfectly okay. Given the inappropriateness of the content, the post doesn't belong here. You should take that as an implicit warning not to post that sort of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really do believe that there is censorship, political correctness, and moderator brutality happening in the chat... well, generally speaking, if conditions in a community are _that_ bad, I'd say the thing to do is _leave_. But if you would rather try to resolve the issue and continue to participate, there are ways of doing that too. What you need to do is have a _constructive_ discussion with the people who you have your complaint with, i.e. the moderators and possibly SE staff. Just as with asking questions on the site, you have to come with the attitude of wanting to understand why things are happening the way they are, rather than wanting to lash out at other people. It's also possible to effect change this way, but you have to come with clear suggestions, and be open to the possibility that there might be reasons your suggestions can't be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9905" RevisionGUID="940a8008-9732-4cc1-b23d-e42af74b2fef" CreationDate="2017-05-30T19:04:05.567" UserId="124" Text="For about five years we've been having chat sessions every two weeks - they [started](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1343/when-should-we-have-regular-chat-sessions) as a way to build up activity in the chat room, but it's also been a nice way to engender a sense of community between chat and the main site and to discuss issues of general interest. But for quite a while we've had very little to talk about in the chat sessions. Should we just cancel the regular schedule, and only hold sessions as needed when there is something big to discuss?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9905" RevisionGUID="940a8008-9732-4cc1-b23d-e42af74b2fef" CreationDate="2017-05-30T19:04:05.567" UserId="124" Text="Should we stop having biweekly chat sessions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9905" RevisionGUID="940a8008-9732-4cc1-b23d-e42af74b2fef" CreationDate="2017-05-30T19:04:05.567" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|chat|chat-events|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9906" RevisionGUID="78f91418-5178-46a1-aea9-52c76c30cb2e" CreationDate="2017-05-30T20:28:02.440" UserId="121464" Text="No! A thousand times no! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't often make them, because, well, school. But I love it when I make chat sessions, and I think that while there've been some quiet ones (the one today, I see, was only a few messages, which probably inspired this post) they overall have been a great thing. Just because something fails once or twice doesn't mean you chuck the baby with the bathwater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...maybe we add a community ad (heheh, puns) or try to otherwise spread the word - in other chat rooms, or whatever. Just don't end these sessions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9907" RevisionGUID="23f994df-3a8c-41f3-93aa-f15c67efec29" CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:37:43.930" UserId="142799" Text="I haven't been down-voting, nor have I received any notification of a down-vote or *user removed*. But somehow over the last week I've lost about 20 rep. And I've done nothing. What's happening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9907" RevisionGUID="23f994df-3a8c-41f3-93aa-f15c67efec29" CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:37:43.930" UserId="142799" Text="Mysteriously losing reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9907" RevisionGUID="23f994df-3a8c-41f3-93aa-f15c67efec29" CreationDate="2017-05-31T03:37:43.930" UserId="142799" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9908" RevisionGUID="1c6cbb91-3311-404a-984a-461ce67b2f1d" CreationDate="2017-05-31T04:20:49.363" UserId="44126" Text="I don't know how your [reputation tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/142799/kunal-pawar?tab=reputation&amp;sort=time) looks to you, since you don't have [the privilege of viewing deleted posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools), but it looks like you earned several +2 rep points for [suggesting edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits) to posts which were later deleted.&#xD;&#xA;You may or may not be able to see these examples:&#xD;&#xA;[for instance](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/334473/2), [for instance](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/334541/2), [for instance](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/333910/2). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most reputation changes associated with a post are un-done if that post is deleted. Nothing wrong on your end --- thanks for working to make the site more readable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="4efa47b8-f7aa-4060-be2b-7ee968daa392" CreationDate="2017-05-31T04:56:07.003" UserId="1325" Text="This is really a comment, but it got a bit long for the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The going in point that everyone needs to understand is that the chat rooms are not a bastion of free speech and you have absolutely no rights there. The chat rooms are provided (for free) by the Stack Exchange, and what they say goes. If you are suspended by a community moderator then you have no recourse because, well, it's their playground and their word is final. You may consider that an intolerable restriction, and if so don't use the SE chat system. It is as simple as that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SE have also made it perfectly clear that when it comes to the chat rooms the moderators (all the moderators) act as their lieutenants and with their authority. So if a moderator asks you to stop doing something then you stop - with no arguments. If the moderator is willing to discuss the matter then you can certainly discuss it with them, but the going in point is that you do what the moderators say. Again, if you don't like this then once again don't use the SE chat system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for exactly why your answer was deleted, well I'm not a moderator and I'm not privy to the moderator discussion areas. However it seems fairly obvious you are attempting to derail the discussion away from physics/maths/technology to the chat room policy. Since, as explained above, that policy is dictated from on high all this could possibly do is result in a round of futile spleen venting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take a step back and look at it the Stack Exchange policy is understandable. They are a commercial organisation and they need to make money from the site. For this they want lots of activity on the main sites to impress the advertisers, and it's only worth investing in the chat if it furthers this goal. If their view is that the chat system is attracting disruptive elements who don't contribute to the main site than they'll remove anyone they deem to be a disruptive element, or in extreme cases permanently close the chat room ([as happened to the SF chat room][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10914/how-come-our-main-chat-mos-eisley-got-frozen-this-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="b6c317a0-5a4a-4e24-a0bc-82b7a72ef578" CreationDate="2017-05-31T07:12:38.453" UserId="1325" Comment="Extend answer" Text="This is really a comment, but it got a bit long for the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The going in point that everyone needs to understand is that the chat rooms are not a bastion of free speech and you have absolutely no rights there. The chat rooms are provided (for free) by the Stack Exchange, and what they say goes. If you are suspended by a community moderator then you have no recourse because, well, it's their playground and their word is final. You may consider that an intolerable restriction, and if so don't use the SE chat system. It is as simple as that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SE have also made it perfectly clear that when it comes to the chat rooms the moderators (all the moderators) act as their lieutenants and with their authority. So if a moderator asks you to stop doing something then you stop - with no arguments. If the moderator is willing to discuss the matter then you can certainly discuss it with them, but the going in point is that you do what the moderators say. Again, if you don't like this then once again don't use the SE chat system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for exactly why your answer was deleted, well I'm not a moderator and I'm not privy to the moderator discussion areas. However it seems fairly obvious you are attempting to derail the discussion away from physics/maths/technology to the chat room policy. Since, as explained above, that policy is dictated from on high all this could possibly do is result in a round of futile spleen venting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take a step back and look at it the Stack Exchange policy is understandable. They are a commercial organisation and they need to make money from the site. For this they want lots of activity on the main sites to impress the advertisers, and it's only worth investing in the chat if it furthers this goal. If their view is that the chat system is attracting disruptive elements who don't contribute to the main site than they'll remove anyone they deem to be a disruptive element, or in extreme cases permanently close the chat room ([as happened to the SF chat room][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick footnote:&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this answer has attracted a downvote, but I'm not expressing an opinion here. I'm just stating the facts. I don't see how you can disagree, and therefore downvote, unless you think my statement of the facts is wrong, and in that case please add a comment explaining where I'm wrong and why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may not like this answer but the SE make the rules and they didn't consult me, or indeed our moderators, before making those rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10914/how-come-our-main-chat-mos-eisley-got-frozen-this-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9906" RevisionGUID="c18a5380-cc06-4ba8-b281-33777e0d22b3" CreationDate="2017-05-31T12:46:54.237" UserId="121464" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="No! A thousand times no! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't often make them, because, well, school. But I love it when I make chat sessions, and I think that while there've been some quiet ones (the one today, I see, was only a few messages, which probably inspired this post) they overall have been a great thing. Just because something fails once or twice doesn't mean you chuck the baby with the bathwater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...maybe we add a community ad (heheh, puns) or try to otherwise spread the word - in other chat rooms, or whatever. Or, as vzn mentioned in the comments, we could change the time of the session and see what happens. Just don't end these sessions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="459c4775-36db-4269-b597-07e0ceafa4d9" CreationDate="2017-05-31T14:39:26.690" UserId="154026" Text="I had asked a question that had been voted as off-topic and closed.  How do I migrate the question to a more appropriate stack exchange site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="459c4775-36db-4269-b597-07e0ceafa4d9" CreationDate="2017-05-31T14:39:26.690" UserId="154026" Text="How do I migrate an off-topic question from physics to another stack exchange site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="459c4775-36db-4269-b597-07e0ceafa4d9" CreationDate="2017-05-31T14:39:26.690" UserId="154026" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9911" RevisionGUID="791155b2-e3c5-4c23-9914-22d8d1a1b301" CreationDate="2017-05-31T14:42:00.787" UserId="50583" Text="Raise a moderator flag on the question explaining where you want to migrate it. Alternatively you can just ask your question on the target site yourself as a new question, there is no benefit to migrating questions unless they have already received answers that would also be appropriate for the target site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9894" RevisionGUID="d33dc510-ba80-42d4-9976-2cf85a4b9574" CreationDate="2017-05-31T15:25:00.793" UserId="8563" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Yes, I've got the tag on ignore.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upvote if this is the case. **To keep the numbers clean, please don't downvote.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30121" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="9c12c968-6c6b-4be3-a80d-354caa363049" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:07:10.277" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="1ef65b4f-8354-4b0b-ada8-0c06463af70e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:28:20.117" UserId="36396" Text="I know this is a frequently discussed topic but I am not happy with the current stance of treating Computational Physics related questions as &quot;Off Topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple days ago I asked this question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/336562/molecular-dynamics-software-for-course-grained-polymers?noredirect=1#comment754519_336562) about the suitability of different molecular dynamics software for course grained polymer simulations. The question was marked as off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been reading the previous discussions on this topic and I cannot see a clear consensus but I would like to put forward some of my thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are no other places in Stack Exchange where this question fits. SuperUser, Overflow, softwarerec all focus on general computer tools or programming and development. I don't expect my question on course grained polymer simulations will get much response there. I want Physicists and researchers to answer my question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not allowing computational physics related questions unnecessarily splits the content of this forum. Just because my question *could* fit on another forum shouldn't be reason to remove it from here. The question is related to physics research and this is the Physics forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The help and tour pages say that questions about &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are allowed. I would consider molecular dynamics software to be part of the technology that is used in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. It seems that the main concern is that the forum will be spammed with coding or general tools questions. I can see why this is a concern but I think the community is being overly strict and cautious and as a result is cutting out potentially worthwhile and useful questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like my questions status to be reconsidered, but more generally, I would like the Physic.stackexchange community to reconsider how strict it is on questions related to computational physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="1ef65b4f-8354-4b0b-ada8-0c06463af70e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:28:20.117" UserId="36396" Text="Allowance of Computational Physics questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="1ef65b4f-8354-4b0b-ada8-0c06463af70e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:28:20.117" UserId="36396" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="be33d74f-9649-4b3c-8496-802451050e61" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:58:17.047" UserId="36396" Comment="Altered wording." Text="I know this is a frequently discussed topic but I am not happy with the current stance of treating Computational Physics related questions as &quot;Off Topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple days ago I asked this question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/336562/molecular-dynamics-software-for-course-grained-polymers?noredirect=1#comment754519_336562) about the suitability of different molecular dynamics software for course grained polymer simulations. The question was marked as off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been reading the previous discussions on this topic and I cannot see a clear consensus but I would like to put forward some of my thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are no other places in Stack Exchange where this question fits. SuperUser, Overflow, softwarerec all focus on general computer tools or programming and development. I don't expect my question on course grained polymer simulations will get much response there. I want Physicists and researchers to answer my question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not allowing computational physics related questions unnecessarily splits the content of this site. Just because my question *could* fit on another stack exchange site shouldn't be reason to remove it from here. The question is related to physics research and this is the Physics site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The help and tour pages say that questions about &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are allowed. I would consider molecular dynamics software to be part of the technology that is used in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. It seems that the main concern is that the site will be spammed with coding or general tools questions. I can see why this is a concern but I think the community is being overly strict and cautious and as a result is cutting out potentially worthwhile and useful questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like my questions status to be reconsidered, but more generally, I would like the Physic.stackexchange community to reconsider how strict it is on questions related to computational physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9913" RevisionGUID="97706ed2-6cf8-4c86-8fff-ba6b0d83b0fe" CreationDate="2017-06-02T03:13:21.193" UserId="520" Text="Your question is a recommendation question. That's a category that has seen a lot of history going back to the early days of Stack Overflow, and they are generally frowned on throughout the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the turning points in the discussion of such things appear as blog posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Stack Overflow: Where We Hate Fun**][1] Jan. 2010&#xD;&#xA;* [**Good Subjective, Bad Subjective**][2] Sept. 2010&#xD;&#xA;* [**Q&amp;A is Hard, Let’s Go Shopping!**][3] Nov. 2010&#xD;&#xA;* [**Real Questions Have Answers**][4] Jan. 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and there was endless discussion on (then) [meta.stackoverflow][5] (now much has been moved to [meta.stackexchange][6]), but I don't want to dig up links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is a little unusual in allowing [some recommendation questions][7] subject to [limitations and the willingness of the community to curate them][8]. It is not at all clear that *&quot;Which software package should I use?&quot;* falls into the exception to the general rule that have been carved out here on Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, all hope is not lost. Many questions that are off-topic on the site (including this one if the community rules that way in the end) are welcome in [**the h bar**][9] (our general chat room) and you have [the requisite rep to be a full participant there][10]. True, you'll have to hope that someone who knows something about the subject looks in on chat, but it is better than nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/01/04/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-subjective/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/11/23/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/01/17/real-questions-have-answers/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://meta.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendations&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9914" RevisionGUID="cace4b08-bebb-49dd-a5b4-8d9f5ff2fb45" CreationDate="2017-06-02T11:16:26.687" UserId="8563" Text="I think this question should be on-topic. To the extent that it is a software-recommendations question, it's precisely the kind of recommendation question we want to encourage: it is well-researched, it has a clear statement of goals and of the OP's situation, and clear requirements on the answers, which also make it clear that the answers are expected to be more than simple links to software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think a closer reading of the question shows that it isn't so much a recommendation question, and it is much closer to asking for the relative advantages and disadvantages between the available tools, which I think puts it squarely on-topic via OP's point 3,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The help and tour pages say that questions about &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are allowed. I would consider molecular dynamics software to be part of the technology that is used in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, while comparison questions can often be not-all-that-constructive, here OP provides plenty of criteria to avoid a [Gorilla vs Shark](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/16/gorilla-vs-shark/) situation - and, indeed, it stays distinctly away from the four criteria of badness listed there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Nobody needs to know the answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. It’s not nearly specific enough.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. It is difficult to learn from these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. It drives away experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these apply here, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9914" RevisionGUID="722d95ca-1fcb-4db8-8cbf-d62a9c580ddd" CreationDate="2017-06-02T12:32:39.610" UserId="8563" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think this question should be on-topic. To the extent that it is a software-recommendations question, it's precisely the kind of recommendation question we want to encourage: it is well-researched, it has a clear statement of goals and of the OP's situation, and clear requirements on the answers, which also make it clear that the answers are expected to be more than simple links to software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think a closer reading of the question shows that it isn't so much a recommendation question, and it is much closer to asking for the relative advantages and disadvantages between the available tools, which I think puts it squarely on-topic via OP's point 3,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The help and tour pages say that questions about &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are allowed. I would consider molecular dynamics software to be part of the technology that is used in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, while comparison questions can often be not-all-that-constructive, here OP provides plenty of criteria to avoid a [**Gorilla vs Shark**](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/16/gorilla-vs-shark/) situation - and, indeed, it stays distinctly away from the four criteria of badness listed there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Nobody needs to know the answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. It’s not nearly specific enough.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. It is difficult to learn from these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. It drives away experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these apply here, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9897" RevisionGUID="711ae8ff-a349-4402-9b42-a69bcf790c3d" CreationDate="2017-06-02T15:54:13.973" UserId="8563" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="As has been noted in the past, particularly in [Question self-destruction: why don't experts ask more questions?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571/question-self-destruction-why-dont-experts-ask-more-questions) and in [Does reputation correlate with the question-to-answer ratio?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6589/does-reputation-correlate-with-the-question-to-answer-ratio), and also [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/few-questions-by-medium-and-high-reputation-participants-edited-how-to-get-mo), this site has the peculiarity that, in overwhelming proportion, our 'expert' users, by multiple measures, tend to ask very few questions. Now, whether this is a 'bad' thing or not is debatable, but I think most people would agree that it would probably be beneficial to the site's level and interestingness if more of our 'expert' users asked more questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I just passed a question-asking milestone (I am as of today the single recipient of the [socratic](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/196/socratic) badge in the first three pages of the rep table), and I'd like to use the occasion to have a critical look at my question-asking history and pick out patterns and question types that I think would benefit the site, and the internet at large, if they saw more widespread use from our more experienced users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I'm increasingly bugged by arguments along the lines of &quot;but I'm *paid* to ask questions&quot;, which can be seen e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4574) (and heck, which I've repeated myself, e.g. [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8849#comment32751_8849)), but which on further inspection just don't work. For one, the existence of [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/), a place with very high-quality content powered by people whose day jobs typically include asking questions, pokes a gaping hole in that argument. More generally, though, if you tune your antennas to the right frequency, there's plenty of questions to be had about the world - many more than can rightfully fit inside anyone's research programme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, I think that good questions improve the site and by extension they do improve the internet. For many of the patterns below, they're things that I could probably have worked out on my own (or just let go without following them up), but for which I think the Q&amp;A threads they've left behind form a valuable lasting resource that benefits everyone in the long term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, without further ado, here are some ways to ask questions that I think are perfectly compatible with the life of an 'expert' user of this site (in the various meanings of the term) which I think would be very valuable if they were used more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The nagging, persistent question that you've never really had the time to get around to researching, and which isn't really crucial to your research anyways. Let's face it: you're never going to get round to looking it up, but if you ask it here you can both get an answer and help a generation of students behind you to avoid that hurdle. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227960/do-free-electron-lasers-actually-lase&#xD;&#xA; - Questions that spring out during teaching, either during preparation or during interaction with students. There's nothing quite like teaching a subject to make you aware of the holes in how you learned it, and students' questions can often point out weak spots in how some topic is taught over a wide range of textbooks - so that a Q&amp;A addressing that can be a very valuable learning resource for a wide population of students. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130800/what-is-the-physical-meaning-of-commutators-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA; - Questions which arise from reading about recent developments in the scientific press. This often happens with parts of the literature one isn't all that familiar with, but where one can often point out loose ends that are left hanging by the scientific press and that are not easy to puzzle out from the primary literature, and where a decisive Q&amp;A here would be a good resource for the rest of the internet. Moreover, as an instructor, one is sometimes better placed than the students to ask the question in an optimized form that will draw out better answers. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83633/can-we-infer-the-existence-of-periodic-solutions-to-the-three-body-problem-from, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76339/why-are-pear-shaped-nuclei-possible, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96131/cloud-maps-of-a-nearby-brown-dwarf-what-do-they-actually-show&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions that arise from reading the primary literature closer to your field, but where you could use a wider perspective or a closer reading from someone with more experience. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111486/optical-chirality-and-its-possible-hierarchy-of-generalizations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions drilling down on the specifics where the available information on a relevant topic is very vague, and where a good overview would be beneficial to everyone. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147433/what-are-the-proposed-realizations-in-the-new-si-for-the-kilogram-ampere-kelvi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The focused self-answered Q&amp;A: places where there's a specific technical point that repeatedly gets lost in the telling in most mainstream resources, and where adding a well-documented Q&amp;A can help put the issue to bed. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212614/how-does-one-account-for-the-momentum-of-an-absorbed-photon, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224836/are-orbitals-observable-physical-quantities-in-a-many-electron-setting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The sprawling self-answered Q&amp;A: places where there's a gap in the existing coverage and you feel qualified to (and have the time to) do an in-depth dive into the topic, and essentially write a blog post for future reference. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77690/square-bracket-notation-for-dimensions-and-units-usage-and-conventions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The follow-up question: you see a nice question (or a nice answer) and you see that there is some aspect which is also interesting but which isn't addressed in the existing answers, and for which a follow-up post forms a valuable complement. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275571/how-long-does-a-positron-last-in-the-suns-core, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/333371/how-much-variability-was-there-in-the-o-16-atomic-mass-standard-and-how-does-it, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268271/how-would-cold-neutrinos-get-trapped-by-stars, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273836/whats-the-difference-between-a-realization-a-representation-and-an-implementat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The follow-up Q&amp;A: you see a nice question (or a nice answer) and you see a missing aspect where you know the answer, and you think it's a valuable thing to add, but it doesn't really fit in as an answer to the existing thread. So, just add it as a follow-up and provide an answer. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301803/how-different-can-the-directions-of-angular-momentum-and-angular-velocity-be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Technique questions that are genuinely valuable to your research: you're doing some relatively standard analysis as part of your research, and you find that the easily-accessible resources make it a drag to find the details on the application of the method. Instead of (or in parallel to) doing a deep dive into what *should* be easy-to-find information, asking here can take out the hassle (or be a place to document your findings if you find the solution yourself) and form a valuable resource for others in a similar situation. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308009/how-can-i-get-the-axes-of-the-polarization-ellipse-from-the-jones-vector-of-the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Technique questions that are genuinely valuable to your research, where you need to understand a tough technical paper in an area you're not that familiar with, but you're just swamped by the literature and you could use a hand. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222958/how-do-higher-order-optical-chiralities-look-like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Technique questions where you're not actively missing something, but where the existing tools for doing some task, or, say, characterizing some object, are vaguely unsatisfactory, and there is some hope that some other corner of physics has developed more sophisticated tools for equivalent cases. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/336918/what-eigenvector-like-tools-are-there-for-analyzing-tensors-of-rank-three-and-hi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The vague and unexplained bit of folklore. I think we've all seen it: there's some random piece of information where everyone in the field &quot;knows&quot; something (even if from some perspectives it could be a pretty dubious claim), but few people can actually source that information to a reliable origin. A question here can sharpen the question to something a good deal more specific, and it can help dispel myths or put vague folklore on a more solid foundation. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/326625/are-non-zero-area-pulses-of-electromagnetic-radiation-possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions aimed at clarifying some obscure concept in the literature. You find some complicated and technical object in the literature, and really it'd be for the best if it got brought down a notch &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223991/what-symmetry-is-associated-with-conservation-of-lipkins-zilch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions exploring the flip-side of a common (mis)conception: places where the typical mindset says &quot;X always happens&quot;, but if you turn off some implicit assumption Y, the result is no longer true. A good Q&amp;A exploring what happens if Y is no longer true can be quite valuable in understanding why X is an important result. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311859/how-do-coherent-isotropic-radiators-evade-the-hairy-ball-theorem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Questions tackling a common misconception head-on: for the times when a common misconception is best handled by asking it at point-blank range: &quot;is Z true?&quot;, just to set the record straight. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/311127/must-magnetic-field-lines-close-upon-themselves-or-go-to-infinity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The idle wondering. We don't always have to launch into full deep-dive mode at the prompt of some random thought - but it can make for a nice Q&amp;A, particularly if the site has a large population of people who know the relevant field much better than you do, or if the question makes for good practice for some student somewhere. Examples: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297250/how-many-naked-eye-stars-have-died-since-they-emitted-the-light-we-are-seeing, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281719/for-a-constant-magnetic-field-is-there-a-gauge-with-both-canonical-momenta-cons, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249751/do-any-elements-form-stable-doubly-charged-negative-ions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The honest-to-goodness confusion, over terminology or whatever else. It's OK to ask, you know. Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88925/p-dq-is-the-tautological-one-form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll shut up now, so over to you: go out and ask questions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="5366a625-f00a-40c5-af37-db2f204c69c3" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:28:56.577" UserId="84967" Text="User [Floris](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26969/floris) has recently become the third user to obtain the [Legendary badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/27/legendary), which is one of the less awarded badges out there. Being one of the most prolific contributors to this site, I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for those amazing ~2.300 answers, thank you for the detailed yet intuitive explanations, for the fantastic diagrams, for taking the time to share knowledge, all in all, thank you for making this site a better place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="5366a625-f00a-40c5-af37-db2f204c69c3" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:28:56.577" UserId="84967" Text="The User, The Myth, The Legend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="5366a625-f00a-40c5-af37-db2f204c69c3" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:28:56.577" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="f529e90c-206b-4241-8faf-bd65640aca92" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:43:12.927" UserId="110443" Text="My recent question about the [significance of further LIGO events][1] was appreciated, it appears, by all but five people.  I'm lobbying for reopening.  This question is *not* too broad--it's exactly analogous to asking [&quot;Why is the detection of gravitational waves so significant?&quot;][2], except I'm not asking about the significance of a first detection, I'm asking about significance of further detections (which was not well addressed in the linked question), and the most recent one in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/336899/what-will-we-learn-from-further-ligo-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235248/why-is-the-detection-of-gravitational-waves-so-significant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="f529e90c-206b-4241-8faf-bd65640aca92" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:43:12.927" UserId="110443" Text="Reopening a question about the recent LIGO event" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="f529e90c-206b-4241-8faf-bd65640aca92" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:43:12.927" UserId="110443" Text="|discussion|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30136" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="de1941e7-a48a-4a47-ad54-31a766a1b8ca" CreationDate="2017-06-02T20:49:56.990" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/870744314468593664" />
  <row Id="30139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="2506438f-f1ee-4ef0-93f7-2a7f84b1b498" CreationDate="2017-06-03T15:43:43.667" UserId="25301" Text="Assorted questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Why haven't you started learning (modern) Fortran?&#xD;&#xA;2. Why Portugal for University? (great academics, chance to get away from home, etc)&#xD;&#xA;  - What other universities did you apply and/or look at?&#xD;&#xA;3. What directions do you have for DaedalOS?&#xD;&#xA;4. What is it about airports that you enjoy so much that you included it in the post?&#xD;&#xA;5. SNES or Sega?&#xD;&#xA;6. Console or PC?&#xD;&#xA;7. What non-technical books have you read lately? (and not for schoolwork either)&#xD;&#xA;8. What sports do you watch most frequently?&#xD;&#xA;9. What sports did you play growing up?&#xD;&#xA;10. Why Linux over Unix?&#xD;&#xA;11. Favorite food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's all I've got for now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="b1b15a38-6263-44e5-854e-0e5d47fd1f01" CreationDate="2017-06-04T15:02:34.117" UserId="32426" Text="The community won't become a free homework solving service. Furthermore, if homeworks would be allowed, they would be so many, and so LQ, that it would lead to a significant quality decrease of the whole site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can see enough well, if a question has the general quality to survive here or not, although our ideas about its exact rules differ too significantly to be easily codifiable. It results a half-legal situation where the overwhelming majority of the homework questions are closed, unfortunately with the few interesting and useful ones between them. Furthermore, our homework criteria can be at most *decoded* from many, often many year old meta posts, whose knowledge is obviously an irrational requirement from a lowrep user of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposal would be to *openly admit this half-legal state.* It would result an essential simplification of the homework policy, around into this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Homework questions and exercises are mainly discouraged here, because: (...some reasons, we aren't a free hw solving service, etc...). Although some of them may be allowed if the majority of our voters find them enough interesting/useful to survive. You can improve its chance, if: (...many heuristical ideas, like ask for a specific concept, have a good general writing quality and so on...)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overwhelming majority of the homeworks wouldn't pass this criteria. Thus, nothing would change significantly. What would change: the site rules and the actual vtc practice will clearly match." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="b1b15a38-6263-44e5-854e-0e5d47fd1f01" CreationDate="2017-06-04T15:02:34.117" UserId="32426" Text="Yet another homework idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="b1b15a38-6263-44e5-854e-0e5d47fd1f01" CreationDate="2017-06-04T15:02:34.117" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9919" RevisionGUID="818cdb1e-640a-4826-a6a9-8bf733668d7b" CreationDate="2017-06-04T15:16:58.190" UserId="25301" Text="Can whoever is flagging [tag:resource-recommendations] as off-topic because they are *primarily opinion based* please stop doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community decided a long time ago that these types of questions are **on-topic**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And reaffirmed it a few times since:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7039/book-recommendations-on-topic-on-topic-but-community-wiki-or-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7731/is-physics-se-a-good-place-to-ask-for-textbook-references&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5049/the-present-status-on-the-book-policy&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet resource recommendations have been appearing in the review queue as being *primarily opinion based*. Two recent examples include,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/177244&#xD;&#xA; * https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Pretty sure there have been more, but [searching SEDE turns up the latter of the above two](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/680388/close-votes-on-tag-x?Tag=resource-recommendations), but perhaps I'm doing that wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure arguments for such questions being off-topic can be made, but current site policy allows them, so I'd like to understand why they're being (incorrectly) flagged and how we can better inform users that such questions are on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9919" RevisionGUID="818cdb1e-640a-4826-a6a9-8bf733668d7b" CreationDate="2017-06-04T15:16:58.190" UserId="25301" Text="Reminder that Book Recommendations are on topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9919" RevisionGUID="818cdb1e-640a-4826-a6a9-8bf733668d7b" CreationDate="2017-06-04T15:16:58.190" UserId="25301" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9920" RevisionGUID="87611aab-e6cd-4e6b-b3ad-4510562c2abb" CreationDate="2017-06-04T20:26:48.417" UserId="8563" Text="I think this is an **absolutely terrible idea**. What you're proposing is little more than a Wild West of question closure, where everybody votes to close or to reopen without *any* kind of objective criteria or even guidance on what is and is not OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This then makes it impossible for newcomers to know what they can and cannot post, and it makes for some remarkably unfair situations: two questions that are functionally identical may end up with one open and one closed just because of the set of reviewers that caught them, and there's very little that we could then say to the OP whose question got closed. That OP can rightfully complain that the open question is identical, so why should their question remain closed? Do we just tell them &quot;yeah, the other person got lucky, but you didn't, so tough luck&quot;? What does that makes us look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that, this proposal isn't a step forward, it's more like two steps backwards. It doesn't functionally fix anything, it only makes a huge gray area where nobody can agree whether questions should be closed or not, it makes it impossible for newcomers to know what the response to their question will be, even if they take the trouble to go and look, and it will lead, with overwhelming likelihood, to a vast increase in complaints by people whose questions got closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I will also take exception to your characterization of the existing status quo as entirely lacking in objective criteria. For one, there are some essentially objective criteria in [the existing canonical thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714). To be fair and honest, of course, these are only an imperfect representation of the actual practice on the site, which has drifted somewhat over the years. The challenge is to find a suitable text that expresses the actual practice, which *does* have objective (though, at the moment, relatively vague) criteria to guide it. Ditching that effort and throwing our hands up in surrender is not something I would consider positive or constructive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30147" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="5e39663a-d243-43ed-baeb-e510e8c7b00a" CreationDate="2017-06-04T20:55:33.940" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/871470503512375297" />
  <row Id="30148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9921" RevisionGUID="d2303149-851c-4432-8878-fed8d6f7f148" CreationDate="2017-06-05T14:47:41.773" UserId="84967" Text="You don't seem to be particularly interested in physics, which makes me wonder why you ended up here in the first place, and more importantly, why did you stay? Of course we love to have you around, I am just curious so I gotta ask. Why the h-bar? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="e687117b-f1a9-42b1-ac12-671aeeafc88d" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:22:25.147" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My recent question about the [significance of further LIGO events][1] was appreciated, it appears, by all but five people.  I'm lobbying for reopening.  This question is *not* too broad--it's exactly analogous to asking [&quot;Why is the detection of gravitational waves so significant?&quot;][2], except I'm not asking about the significance of a first detection, I'm asking about significance of further detections (which was not well addressed in the linked question), and the most recent one in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336899/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/235248/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30150" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="e687117b-f1a9-42b1-ac12-671aeeafc88d" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:22:25.147" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="0ac00742-7ea7-4644-9fd6-17eb2bc97b43" CreationDate="2017-06-06T10:51:47.240" UserId="114696" Text="In [Dependent Motion: Motion of Several Particles](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316) the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="d0429439-dbcf-4f01-8500-bd8241ccdd1c" CreationDate="2017-06-06T11:13:08.973" UserId="114696" Comment="added 579 characters in body" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316 the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. (Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this literally.) The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not selected the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that my close reason was the most convincing one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="d059c5e4-c277-4dd9-811f-e74c5c7664e0" CreationDate="2017-06-06T13:24:23.100" UserId="121464" Text="I normally don't put tags on ignore, but tried putting the tag on ignore just to try it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hated it, for two big reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It didn't eliminate all the junk - far from it. There's plenty of bad questions that aren't tagged [tag:homework-and-exercises] and shouldn't be.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It made it harder to get rid of the junk that *was* tagged [tag:homework-and-exercises] - because I couldn't really see it (I only had it grayed out, not completely gone). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: if you hate the junk that comes with that tag, don't ignore it, deal with it, and anyway, you'll have to face plenty of junk not in that tag. So.....I didn't find it very useful in the &quot;improve experience&quot; category." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="40483f62-7e93-4bdd-be64-6d37f9fca2bf" CreationDate="2017-06-06T14:58:01.147" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I know this is a frequently discussed topic but I am not happy with the current stance of treating Computational Physics related questions as &quot;Off Topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple days ago I asked this question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336562/) about the suitability of different molecular dynamics software for course grained polymer simulations. The question was marked as off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been reading the previous discussions on this topic and I cannot see a clear consensus but I would like to put forward some of my thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are no other places in Stack Exchange where this question fits. SuperUser, Overflow, softwarerec all focus on general computer tools or programming and development. I don't expect my question on course grained polymer simulations will get much response there. I want Physicists and researchers to answer my question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not allowing computational physics related questions unnecessarily splits the content of this site. Just because my question *could* fit on another stack exchange site shouldn't be reason to remove it from here. The question is related to physics research and this is the Physics site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The help and tour pages say that questions about &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are allowed. I would consider molecular dynamics software to be part of the technology that is used in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. It seems that the main concern is that the site will be spammed with coding or general tools questions. I can see why this is a concern but I think the community is being overly strict and cautious and as a result is cutting out potentially worthwhile and useful questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like my questions status to be reconsidered, but more generally, I would like the Physic.stackexchange community to reconsider how strict it is on questions related to computational physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="40483f62-7e93-4bdd-be64-6d37f9fca2bf" CreationDate="2017-06-06T14:58:01.147" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30156" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9919" RevisionGUID="26c5a47e-7a33-4c01-98c3-aa4d95033454" CreationDate="2017-06-06T15:06:15.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/872107371354611712" />
  <row Id="30157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9924" RevisionGUID="eceaafb9-b311-4005-b942-d8564a4830c3" CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:40:18.940" UserDisplayName="user112643" Text="- How and when did you first become interested in electronics and programming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much value do you place in structured, formal learning, such as college, as opposed to self-learning and tinkering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nano, vim, or Emacs (or ed)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="bd87176d-6ffe-4c99-bf1f-6633701fcb41" CreationDate="2017-06-08T08:19:47.537" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1927 characters in body" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316 the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. (Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this literally.) The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not selected the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that my close reason was the most convincing one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to Comments :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your comment that resource recommendations are **necessarily too broad and primarily) opinion based** is incorrect. My understanding of the policy is that such requests are not inherently *off topic*, but all of the usual criteria for closing the question are still applicable. Each question must be judged on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A request can be closed as being too broad (or unclear) if it fails to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. This requirement is explicit in the policy :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X — a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- What the book covers  &#xD;&#xA;- How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?  &#xD;&#xA;- What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent examples in which you voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent examples of requests which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="ecf56b97-b4f2-432e-90c5-a89df132e5a5" CreationDate="2017-06-08T08:46:10.957" UserId="114696" Comment="edited body" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316 the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. (Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this literally.) The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not selected the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to Comments :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your comment that resource recommendations are **necessarily too broad and (primarily) opinion based** is incorrect. My understanding of the policy is that such requests are not inherently *off topic*, but all of the usual criteria for closing the question are still applicable. Each question must be judged on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A request can be closed as being too broad (or unclear) if it fails to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. This requirement is explicit in the policy :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X — a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- What the book covers  &#xD;&#xA;- How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?  &#xD;&#xA;- What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent examples in which you voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent examples of requests which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="2cab6bc1-0ecd-4cc0-85e8-17c84ae17dc2" CreationDate="2017-06-08T09:03:46.717" UserId="114696" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316 the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. (Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this literally.) The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not selected the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to Comments :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your comment that resource recommendations are **necessarily too broad and (primarily) opinion based** is incorrect. My understanding of the policy is that such requests are not inherently *off topic*, but all of the usual criteria for closing the question are still applicable. Each question must be judged on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A request can be closed as being too broad (or unclear) if it fails to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. This requirement is explicit in the policy :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X — a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- What the book covers  &#xD;&#xA;- How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?  &#xD;&#xA;- What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent examples in which you voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent examples of requests which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="9d4e1fa8-0718-4b86-90df-2dea397a1f83" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:42:39.230" UserId="32426" Comment="ordered alphabetically" Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement (documented [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10249/what-is-migration-and-how-does-it-work/10250#10250)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 105 tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE, these are (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag                        #Math #Physics&#xD;&#xA;    -----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry         13316       27&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm                   6544       58&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms                  6544       58&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity                  664       41&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics                 4335       37&#xD;&#xA;    bifurcation                  150        5&#xD;&#xA;    big-list                    1056       38&#xD;&#xA;    biology                      176      122&#xD;&#xA;    biology                      176      416&#xD;&#xA;    books                      11135     1178&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion             1776       88&#xD;&#xA;    calculus                   68438      248&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory             6188       37&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics           14      305&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata             58       36&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory                 262      163&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry                     90      473&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics          837     3473&#xD;&#xA;    compactification              42      126&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers             8816      278&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems          1622      592&#xD;&#xA;    covariance                   716      216&#xD;&#xA;    curvature                    728      537&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis                536      190&#xD;&#xA;    definition                  3310      517&#xD;&#xA;    definition                  4235      517&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives                14310      424&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations     21151      267&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry      13936     1418&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation            14310      424&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis         138      390&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems           2790      112&#xD;&#xA;    education                   2043      568&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism              62     7173&#xD;&#xA;    entropy                      575     1017&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation            188      322&#xD;&#xA;    estimation                   797      337&#xD;&#xA;    faq                           73       27&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory                6397      793&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics               465     2903&#xD;&#xA;    foundations                  575       71&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform            909      538&#xD;&#xA;    fractals                     596       34&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory                  91      838&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity           289     5079&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology           737        6&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology           737      370&#xD;&#xA;    geometry                   23204      422&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory               11449       28&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory               24648      680&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing             358       33&#xD;&#xA;    induction                   4999      221&#xD;&#xA;    induction                   4999      281&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems            41       73&#xD;&#xA;    integration                35037      430&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics                   159     1751&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform           2014        2&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform           2014      538&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra                 2895      392&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra             59666      316&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics        1902     1420&#xD;&#xA;    metric                      7230      884&#xD;&#xA;    mnemonic                      23        7&#xD;&#xA;    network                      142       23&#xD;&#xA;    noise                         96      111&#xD;&#xA;    notation                    6208      499&#xD;&#xA;    optimization                9070       40&#xD;&#xA;    parity                       121      161&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy                    2043        2&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy                    2043      568&#xD;&#xA;    percolation                   61       20&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory          334      389&#xD;&#xA;    probability                47334      487&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation           99      413&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory         161     5627&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information           38     1274&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics            578    12135&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request          11135     1178&#xD;&#xA;    reflection                   230      707&#xD;&#xA;    regularization               137      200&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory       4333      422&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing           1100      148&#xD;&#xA;    simulation                   317      571&#xD;&#xA;    singularity                  185      342&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question               7188     1091&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions           2700       17&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity             7     4174&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics          152       83&#xD;&#xA;    spinor                        71      349&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics        132     2294&#xD;&#xA;    statistics                 17114      248&#xD;&#xA;    steady-state                  17       17&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes        6932       67&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory                 40     1510&#xD;&#xA;    superalgebra                  19       39&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry                     566     1006&#xD;&#xA;    teaching                    2043      568&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                     1360      282&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                     1360      603&#xD;&#xA;    terminology                 4235     1015&#xD;&#xA;    tqft                           3      229&#xD;&#xA;    trace                        584       57&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields                580      358&#xD;&#xA;    vectors                     4779      807&#xD;&#xA;    visualization                446       69&#xD;&#xA;    volume                      1379      146&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table is ordered in the decreasing order of the occurences on the sites. Thus, you will find better matches more likely on the top of the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="93708eec-ba44-43ca-a0ea-db233cf7476d" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:44:11.263" UserId="32426" Comment="query fixed, see https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/296983/259412" Text="If we vote a question to migrate away to a different SE site, there is also a non-trivial and lesser known requirement (documented [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10249/what-is-migration-and-how-does-it-work/10250#10250)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The question needs to have a tag, which exists also on the target site.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't, the migration will be automatically rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is one of the numerous obstacles with what the SE tries to minimize the number of the question migrations, on unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can vote to migrate only to the MathSE and to the Physics Meta (that we can select only from a short, pre-defined list of the target sites, and only mods can migrate a question to anywhere, is another mysterious obstacle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 99 tags existing on both the MathSE and the PSE, these are (generated by [this query][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tag                        #Math #Physics&#xD;&#xA;    -----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    algebraic-geometry         13316       27&#xD;&#xA;    algorithm                   6544       58&#xD;&#xA;    algorithms                  6544       58&#xD;&#xA;    analyticity                  664       41&#xD;&#xA;    asymptotics                 4335       37&#xD;&#xA;    bifurcation                  150        5&#xD;&#xA;    big-list                    1056       38&#xD;&#xA;    biology                      176      538&#xD;&#xA;    books                      11135     1178&#xD;&#xA;    brownian-motion             1776       88&#xD;&#xA;    calculus                   68438      248&#xD;&#xA;    category-theory             6188       37&#xD;&#xA;    celestial-mechanics           14      305&#xD;&#xA;    cellular-automata             58       36&#xD;&#xA;    chaos-theory                 262      163&#xD;&#xA;    chemistry                     90      473&#xD;&#xA;    classical-mechanics          837     3473&#xD;&#xA;    compactification              42      126&#xD;&#xA;    complex-numbers             8816      278&#xD;&#xA;    coordinate-systems          1622      592&#xD;&#xA;    covariance                   716      216&#xD;&#xA;    curvature                    728      537&#xD;&#xA;    data-analysis                536      190&#xD;&#xA;    definition                  7545      517&#xD;&#xA;    derivatives                14310      424&#xD;&#xA;    differential-equations     21151      267&#xD;&#xA;    differential-geometry      13936     1418&#xD;&#xA;    differentiation            14310      424&#xD;&#xA;    dimensional-analysis         138      390&#xD;&#xA;    dynamical-systems           2790      112&#xD;&#xA;    education                   2043      568&#xD;&#xA;    electromagnetism              62     7173&#xD;&#xA;    entropy                      575     1017&#xD;&#xA;    error-propagation            188      322&#xD;&#xA;    estimation                   797      337&#xD;&#xA;    faq                           73       27&#xD;&#xA;    field-theory                6397      793&#xD;&#xA;    fluid-dynamics               465     2903&#xD;&#xA;    foundations                  575       71&#xD;&#xA;    fourier-transform            909      538&#xD;&#xA;    fractals                     596       34&#xD;&#xA;    gauge-theory                  91      838&#xD;&#xA;    general-relativity           289     5079&#xD;&#xA;    geometric-topology           737      376&#xD;&#xA;    geometry                   23204      422&#xD;&#xA;    graph-theory               11449       28&#xD;&#xA;    group-theory               24648      680&#xD;&#xA;    image-processing             358       33&#xD;&#xA;    induction                   4999      502&#xD;&#xA;    integrable-systems            41       73&#xD;&#xA;    integration                35037      430&#xD;&#xA;    kinematics                   159     1751&#xD;&#xA;    laplace-transform           2014      540&#xD;&#xA;    lie-algebra                 2895      392&#xD;&#xA;    linear-algebra             59666      316&#xD;&#xA;    mathematical-physics        1902     1420&#xD;&#xA;    metric                      7230      884&#xD;&#xA;    mnemonic                      23        7&#xD;&#xA;    network                      142       23&#xD;&#xA;    noise                         96      111&#xD;&#xA;    notation                    6208      499&#xD;&#xA;    optimization                9070       40&#xD;&#xA;    parity                       121      161&#xD;&#xA;    pedagogy                    2043      570&#xD;&#xA;    percolation                   61       20&#xD;&#xA;    perturbation-theory          334      389&#xD;&#xA;    probability                47334      487&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-computation           99      413&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-field-theory         161     5627&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-information           38     1274&#xD;&#xA;    quantum-mechanics            578    12135&#xD;&#xA;    reference-request          11135     1178&#xD;&#xA;    reflection                   230      707&#xD;&#xA;    regularization               137      200&#xD;&#xA;    representation-theory       4333      422&#xD;&#xA;    signal-processing           1100      148&#xD;&#xA;    simulation                   317      571&#xD;&#xA;    singularity                  185      342&#xD;&#xA;    soft-question               7188     1091&#xD;&#xA;    special-functions           2700       17&#xD;&#xA;    special-relativity             7     4174&#xD;&#xA;    spherical-harmonics          152       83&#xD;&#xA;    spinor                        71      349&#xD;&#xA;    statistical-mechanics        132     2294&#xD;&#xA;    statistics                 17114      248&#xD;&#xA;    steady-state                  17       17&#xD;&#xA;    stochastic-processes        6932       67&#xD;&#xA;    string-theory                 40     1510&#xD;&#xA;    superalgebra                  19       39&#xD;&#xA;    symmetry                     566     1006&#xD;&#xA;    teaching                    2043      568&#xD;&#xA;    tensors                     1360      885&#xD;&#xA;    terminology                 4235     1015&#xD;&#xA;    tqft                           3      229&#xD;&#xA;    trace                        584       57&#xD;&#xA;    vector-fields                580      358&#xD;&#xA;    vectors                     4779      807&#xD;&#xA;    visualization                446       69&#xD;&#xA;    volume                      1379      146&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you vote a question to migrate to the MathSE, please check if it has at least one of these tags, and add one of them if it has not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/672910/most-common-tags-on-both-of-physics-se-and-math-se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30163" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="6d3870f1-6db3-4a56-8c10-181144dd7257" CreationDate="2017-06-09T00:12:09.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="145fd0d4-01b4-4e35-879c-3993f4704411" CreationDate="2017-06-09T02:01:33.103" UserId="114696" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316 the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. (Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this literally.) The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not selected the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to Comments :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your comment that resource recommendations are **necessarily too broad and (primarily) opinion based** is incorrect. My understanding of the policy is that such requests are not inherently *off topic*, but all of the usual criteria for closing the question are still applicable. Each question must be judged on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A request can be closed as being too broad (or unclear) if it fails to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. This requirement is explicit in the policy :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X — a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- What the book covers  &#xD;&#xA;- How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?  &#xD;&#xA;- What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you *did not vote*) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles, rather than eg comparisons between named books.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="cbbb8e8c-e23a-4668-87c2-7bfae82168e1" CreationDate="2017-06-09T03:14:49.720" UserId="114696" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316 the question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. (Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this literally.) The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. The level of study is also unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not selected the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Response to Comments :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your comment that resource recommendations are **necessarily too broad and (primarily) opinion based** is incorrect. My understanding of the policy is that such requests are not inherently *off topic*, but all of the usual criteria for closing the question are still applicable. Each question must be judged on its own merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A request can be closed as being too broad (or unclear) if it fails to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. This requirement is explicit in the policy :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Resource recommendations must ask for descriptive answers. It's not enough to ask for a list of books that cover topic X — a simple Amazon search can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead, you should ask for recommendations, which specify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- What the book covers  &#xD;&#xA;- How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?  &#xD;&#xA;- What are the prerequisites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have closed resource recommendation questions for these two reasons. They do not seem to agree with your interpretaion of the site policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you *did not vote*) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles, rather than eg comparisons between named books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="b5e62ebd-7fcc-4aa4-8bfd-3279c267aed7" CreationDate="2017-06-09T22:20:52.520" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1849 characters in body" Text="I think that your interpretation of the site policy is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation appears to be that votes to close resource recommendations questions (RRQs) as *primarily opinion based* or *too broad* are invalid and contrary to policy. Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and (primarily) opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic*.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites, instead of the answerer's opinion of the book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope**. Questions are required to specify the level of understanding of the asker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more revant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. Voting to close them is therefore a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic*, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretaion of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you *did not vote*) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles, rather than eg comparisons between named books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="6afd3d7e-4098-4934-a414-4ea02ac6e7e0" CreationDate="2017-06-10T09:58:26.170" UserId="114696" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I think that your interpretation of the site policy is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation appears to be that votes to close resource recommendations questions (RRQs) as *primarily opinion based* or *too broad* are invalid and contrary to policy. Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic*.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites, instead of the answerer's opinion of the book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to specify the level of understanding of the asker. The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more revant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. If this is correct, voting to close them *for any reason* is a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic* just because they are not conceptual, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretaion of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you *did not vote*) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles, rather than eg comparisons between named books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="6b9094b4-5986-4874-ab80-e8beaa974376" CreationDate="2017-06-10T10:05:00.960" UserId="114696" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I think that your interpretation of the site policy is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation appears to be that votes to close resource recommendations questions (RRQs) as *primarily opinion based* or *too broad* are invalid and contrary to policy. Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic*.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required and to specify the level of understanding of the asker. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites. The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope** : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more revant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. If this is correct, voting to close them *for any reason* is a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic* just because they are not conceptual, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretaion of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you *did not vote*) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles, rather than eg comparisons between named books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="2cd36051-20ac-4719-ba50-a44540c20380" CreationDate="2017-06-10T10:12:09.310" UserId="114696" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I think that your interpretation of the site policy is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation appears to be that votes to close resource recommendations questions (RRQs) as *primarily opinion based* or *too broad* are invalid and contrary to policy. Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic*.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) It seems to me the policy clearly states the opposite : that valid RRQs should not be opinion-based nor too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required and to specify the level of understanding of the asker. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites. The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope** : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more revant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. If this is correct, voting to close them *for any reason* is a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic* just because they are not conceptual, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretaion of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* voted to close as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you did not vote) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles, rather than eg comparisons between named books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own does not mean that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion. Though I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar reasons can be given for voting to close https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : eg lack of demonstrated research effort, and a better fit for Mathematics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="dd1d3ecd-0485-4842-b1fc-6c03011eb7c7" CreationDate="2017-06-10T11:54:06.637" UserId="110206" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/337699/dimensional-reduction-of-rozansky-witten-theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had commented on this question of mine, and there were some responses in the comments section as well, with some useful information I wanted to refer to later. Now all the comments are gone, and I cannot even remember the username of the person who commented. I do not understand why it was deleted so fast when the question is not even a week old. Is there a way to reinstate these comments? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="dd1d3ecd-0485-4842-b1fc-6c03011eb7c7" CreationDate="2017-06-10T11:54:06.637" UserId="110206" Text="Comments deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="dd1d3ecd-0485-4842-b1fc-6c03011eb7c7" CreationDate="2017-06-10T11:54:06.637" UserId="110206" Text="|discussion|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="4e149376-80ce-45e7-994b-e229368cd46d" CreationDate="2017-06-10T12:08:59.307" UserId="50583" Text="The comments were deleted because you had addressed them by an edit, so they no longer served any purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments on Stack Exchange are mostly supposed to be ephemeral - they should aim to improve the post that is being commented on, and after that aim is achieved, they become obsolete (which is also a comment flag reason). They will also be deleted if they do not actually add anything to the post being commented on (flag reason &quot;not constructive&quot;), if they attack other users personally (flag reason &quot;rude or offensive&quot;), or if they only tangentially relate to the post or are more of a social nature (flag reason &quot;too chatty&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="f9313e21-2430-4c70-b9f3-75a8d8856cba" CreationDate="2017-06-10T12:11:38.610" UserId="46399" Comment="added 36 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In the context of the post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/337699/dimensional-reduction-of-rozansky-witten-theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had commented on this question of mine, and there were some responses in the comments section as well, with some useful information I wanted to refer to later. Now all the comments are gone, and I cannot even remember the username of the person who commented. I do not understand why it was deleted so fast when the question is not even a week old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to reinstate these comments? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="f9313e21-2430-4c70-b9f3-75a8d8856cba" CreationDate="2017-06-10T12:11:38.610" UserId="46399" Comment="added 36 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="c6c6466d-9e4c-4b99-990d-c42cb2e42ae6" CreationDate="2017-06-10T12:23:46.490" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the context of the post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337699/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had commented on this question of mine, and there were some responses in the comments section as well, with some useful information I wanted to refer to later. Now all the comments are gone, and I cannot even remember the username of the person who commented. I do not understand why it was deleted so fast when the question is not even a week old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to reinstate these comments? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30178" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="c6c6466d-9e4c-4b99-990d-c42cb2e42ae6" CreationDate="2017-06-10T12:23:46.490" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body; edited title" Text="Comments deleted under my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="f5f4a9b5-3f0f-4ccb-acc3-573b69530470" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:46:39.593" UserId="93451" Text="This question should be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most mature subdisciplines of computational physics (moleular dynamics, polymer physics, computational fluid dynamics, numerical relativity...) there are only a handful of different codes, and everyone in the field is more or less familiar with all of them. The codes will generally differ practically and algorithmically, and be appropriate for different sorts of problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To design and interpret research projects in computational physics it is *critical* to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of these *specific* codes. If such questions are off-topic, than computational physics is off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, &quot;should I use GROMACS of LAMMPS for this problem&quot; is *not* like asking &quot;which brand of hammer should I use to fix my fence?&quot;, but rather like asking &quot;should I use a hammer or a screwdriver&quot;? This makes the question very different from asking for a recommendation between, say, vim or emacs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The argument that the question is basically fine, but simply phrased too much like a request for a recommendation, is empty. First of all, there is quite likely a single most-suitable code for a given problem *for reasons that give physical insight*. For example one CFD code might handle, for example, highly turbulent flows better than another. Second, understanding which code is best for which circumstance is itself part of computational physics. Third, even if the above were not true, it is very easy to parse the question into a clearly-on-topic form without needing to explicitly modify, let alone to close, it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="1db0a182-dd4d-475b-968a-d1cd565c1337" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:49:12.670" UserId="27939" Text="I asked a question which had a problem that the Hamiltonian was not Hermitian. However, after thinking about it for some time I managed to make the Hamiltonian Hermitian. While it may still have problems I think it can be re-opened at least.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338344/hamiltonian-that-can-produce-random-primes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="1db0a182-dd4d-475b-968a-d1cd565c1337" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:49:12.670" UserId="27939" Text="Can my question be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="1db0a182-dd4d-475b-968a-d1cd565c1337" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:49:12.670" UserId="27939" Text="|discussion|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="1fe46243-7069-45d0-849e-ad8dfbc7190b" CreationDate="2017-06-11T18:10:41.500" UserId="114696" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="I do not think there is any dispute about resource recommendations being *on topic*. But there is a difference of opinion about what this means. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy appears to be that votes to close resource recommendations questions (RRQs) *primarily opinion based* or *too broad* are in breach of the policy. Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic* - sentence #2 of your question.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) In fact, it seems to me that the policy clearly states the opposite : that valid RRQs should not be opinion-based nor too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required and to specify the level of understanding of the asker. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites. The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope** : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. If this is correct, voting to close them *for any reason* is a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic* just because they are not conceptual, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretation of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* (among others) voted to close as RRQs as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you did not vote) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles; others ask for comparisons between books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own it does not follow that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion - although I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Insufficient research effort* could also apply to https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : a google search using &quot;abelian and non-abelian statistics&quot; gives several promising leads on the 1st page, many of which are used in the accepted answer. The OP could easily have found the same resources himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9929" RevisionGUID="6075bf77-2587-41af-9c15-781319dee823" CreationDate="2017-06-11T19:17:56.937" UserId="84967" Text="&gt; One can think of $k$ as the measure of smaller solutions it is composed of. In fact, one can impose the condition $y(0)= \ln(p + \hat \epsilon)$ where $p$ is some arbitrary prime. Then, $k$ becomes the number of prime factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last part is rather unclear. The number of prime factors of *what*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now making the change of variables in $ e^y y' = k \hat \epsilon$ such that $e^y = \frac{1}{z}\frac{d z}{dx} - \frac{1}{z} -I_{2 \times 2} \lambda x $,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this is unclear too. A change of variables is of the form $y=f(z)$, and I cannot rewrite your expression into this form. Please try to fix this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTE- This is invertible as:&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should remove this part. It doesn't add anything to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Making the change of variables $  z = \exp{((k \hat \epsilon+ \lambda ) x^2/2 + cx )}\exp(S)$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. You didn't define $S$ anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We add an additional boundary condition that removes the additional solution and $\lambda$ being an arbitrary constant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the additional boundary condition? I can't find it anywhere... Also, where does the equation $\frac{1}{z} \frac{d^2 z}{d x^2} - \lambda = k \hat \epsilon$ come from, and how is it related to anything you wrote before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you cannot take&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;(I_{2 \times 2} \frac{d^2 }{d x^2}  - k    \hat \epsilon) \cdot z  = \lambda z&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;Taking dot product with a $2 \times 1$ matrix $\psi_A(z)$:&quot; because the derivatives $\frac{d^2 }{d x^2}$ will act on $\psi_A(z)$ as well (because $z=z(x)$). So you either write everything in terms of $z$ (the function and the derivatives) or everything in terms of $x$. Mixing both variables makes no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any logical connection from one paragraph to the next. Equations seem to pop in and out with no justification. Some mathematical manipulations are incorrect. You introduce constants and never define them. Finally, and most importantly, how is this a physics question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, but the question is just as unclear as before. The hermiticity of $H$ is irrelevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9924" RevisionGUID="4c94fa60-0030-476e-8736-325be398b839" CreationDate="2017-06-11T23:46:38.883" UserDisplayName="user112643" Comment="Added ham radio question" Text="- How and when did you first become interested in electronics and programming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much value do you place in structured, formal learning, such as college, as opposed to self-learning and tinkering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have you ever done any projects related to [amateur (or *ham*) radio][1]? Do you have, or are planning to get, an amateur radio license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nano, vim, or Emacs (or ed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="2b54f593-5f9f-4b5d-81d2-5cc1064cf26e" CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:43:44.843" UserId="114696" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I do not think there is any dispute about resource recommendations being *on topic*. But there is a difference of opinion about what this means. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy appears to be that voting to close resource recommendations questions (RRQs) because they are *primarily opinion based* or *too broad* is a breach of the policy. Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic* - sentence #2 of your question.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) In fact, it seems to me that the policy clearly states the opposite : that valid RRQs should not be opinion-based nor too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required and to specify the level of understanding of the asker. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites. The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope** : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. If this is correct, voting to close them *for any reason* is a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic* just because they are not conceptual, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretation of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* (among others) voted to close as RRQs as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you did not vote) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles; others ask for comparisons between books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own it does not follow that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion - although I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Insufficient research effort* could also apply to https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : a google search using &quot;abelian and non-abelian statistics&quot; gives several promising leads on the 1st page, many of which are used in the accepted answer. The OP could easily have found the same resources himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30187" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="1421390c-6343-4028-ad17-db472eb6c7a7" CreationDate="2017-06-12T03:36:03.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/874108007038291970" />
  <row Id="30188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="88113c1b-c4ce-4730-b723-fedb7f128168" CreationDate="2017-06-12T04:54:37.070" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I asked a question which had a problem that the Hamiltonian was not Hermitian. However, after thinking about it for some time I managed to make the Hamiltonian Hermitian. While it may still have problems I think it can be re-opened at least.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/338344/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30189" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="88113c1b-c4ce-4730-b723-fedb7f128168" CreationDate="2017-06-12T04:54:37.070" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9930" RevisionGUID="085d0575-9925-4f4b-bc25-0cc39ad33e8e" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:16:49.313" UserId="154816" Text="I think question should be allowed. The answer with an explanation could be very informative. That should be important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9924" RevisionGUID="c3622f0d-7a67-46a2-a2c4-bd86ce5f4b0a" CreationDate="2017-06-12T20:48:45.550" UserDisplayName="user112643" Comment="Finicky change of vocab." Text="- How and when did you first become interested in electronics and programming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much value do you place in structured, formal learning, such as college, as opposed to self-learning and tinkering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have you ever done any projects related to [amateur (or *ham*) radio][1]? Do you hold, or are planning to get, an amateur radio license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nano, vim, or Emacs (or ed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="ce1a7634-d9f2-479e-8b4e-5e35c08b7517" CreationDate="2017-06-13T01:41:10.663" UserId="114696" Comment="added 712 characters in body" Text="I do not think there is any dispute about resource recommendations being *on topic*. But there is a difference of opinion about what this means. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy appears to be that voting to close any resource recommendations questions (RRQs) because they are *primarily opinion based* (POB) or *too broad* (TB) is a breach of the policy. Routinely voting to close *all* RRQs as POB (or for any other reason) would indicate a misapplication of the policy, but there is no evidence that I or anyone else has been doing that. You have identified only one instance - I do not recall voting to close the Fractional Statistics question as POB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ACuriousMind comments :&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see no consistent pattern of RRQs being flagged to close as primarily opinion-based (your two recent examples are the only ones among the 20 most recent RRQs), so I'm not sure there is something to understand here - I'd presume the flaggers thought that this particular question was too opinion-based and were not making some general statement about RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your logic appears to be :  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1** : RRQs are **necessarily too broad and opinion based**, as stated in your comment.   &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2** : The community has voted that RRQs are *on topic* - sentence #2 of your question.   &#xD;&#xA;**Deduction** : The community has decided that the criteria *primarily opinion based* and *too broad* do not apply to RRQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error of logic is the [false assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) in Premise 1. I think there is also confusion about the meaning of Premise 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Premise 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see Premise 1 expressed or implied anywhere in the policy [Are resources recommendations allowed?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) In fact, it seems to me that the policy clearly states the opposite : that valid RRQs should not be opinion-based nor too broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are required to provide adequate details of the kind of book which is required and to specify the level of understanding of the asker. Answers are required to be **descriptive,** specifying objective qualities of the book such as contents, style and pre-requisites. The objective is clearly that answers should provide recommendations suitable to the asker's needs, rather than promote the answerer's preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale given in [Good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list/4567#4567) stresses that answers must be based on **facts not opinions** and that questions should be **sufficiently limited in scope** : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If these policies are in place, the major problems with books questions are reduced. They're much more relevant and useful now. They also are less &quot;all answers are equally valid&quot;. They're still not conceptual, though, but this isn't so important if the answers are explanatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention of the policy is clearly to exlcude opinion and broadness as much as possible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to vote to close RRQs (and to delete answers) which the reviewer considers to be *primarily opinion-based* or *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Premise 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interpretation of the policy seems to be that the community has voted to make RRQs inherently *on topic*. If this is correct, voting to close them *for any reason* is a breach of site policy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My interpretation of the policy is that RRQs are not inherently *off topic* as a category, just as homework-like questions are not inherently *off topic*. Special requirements apply to both categories, *in addition to* the usual criteria which apply to all questions regardless of the tag, including *primarily opinion based* and *too broad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many high rep users (including yourself) have voted to close RRQs for these two reasons. This shows that they do not agree with your interpretation of the policy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 6 months old in which *you* (among others) voted to close as RRQs as *too broad* :   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/319405  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/314061   &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/313131    &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297696  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples no more than 2 years old (in which you did not vote) which were closed as *primarily opinion based* :   &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/326239  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/311238  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/310348  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/293960  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/287570  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264686  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264018  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/257449  &#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Questions marked with an asterisk ask for suggestions of books or articles; others ask for comparisons between books or opinions of a particular book.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not a particular question is *too broad* or *primarily opinion based* is a matter of judgement, on which any two reviewers may disagree. That is why there is voting : to try to average out such differences of opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, questions are closed when 5 votes are cast *for any reason*. Reviewers might find multiple reasons for closing, but they can only select one. They might disagree on any particular reason, but the key issue is that they agree that the question should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the opinions of other reviewers disagree with your own it does not follow that they are voting contrary to site policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*********************************************&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification of my VTC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336316**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of what is the &quot;best book&quot; on any topic can only be answered by expressing an opinion - although I admit it is ungenerous of me to take this part of the request literally. The question also specifies that the book should deal with &quot;motor systems in real applications&quot; which I interpreted as meaning that the OP is studying mechanical engineering. In common with many such requests, the OP displays no prior research effort. And the level of study is not specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can see 4 valid reasons for voting to close this question : (1) primarily opinion-based; (2) the request ought to be on another SE site; (3) insufficient research effort; (4) unclear what you are asking. The 3rd is not an official close reason, but has been used before for non-homework questions and is covered under &quot;some other reason&quot; why the question is considered &quot;off topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one close reason is allowed per reviewer. I chose the one which came to mind first, and mentioned 2 others in a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not select the strongest close reason in this case. Sometimes that happens by mistake or haste. The decision was then whether to retract my vote altogether, because I cannot change the reason, or to leave the matter for other reviewers to consider. I decided it was more important to put the question in review than to ensure that I only voted for the most convincing reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Insufficient research effort* could also apply to https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/337069 : a google search using &quot;abelian and non-abelian statistics&quot; gives several promising leads on the 1st page, many of which are used in the accepted answer. The OP could easily have found the same resources himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that you disagreed with my decision, but that is what voting is for. If others had agreed with me and voted to close the question, for whichever reason, I think that is a proper exercise of the democratic principle on which this site is founded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30193" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="602e870d-2576-40f2-a5ae-f9c235467a16" CreationDate="2017-06-13T03:42:22.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/874471984025014272" />
  <row Id="30194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="31407283-581c-4baa-87c8-6f82b81e7a11" CreationDate="2017-06-13T03:52:13.377" UserId="36396" Comment="Fixed spelling" Text="I know this is a frequently discussed topic but I am not happy with the current stance of treating Computational Physics related questions as &quot;Off Topic&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple days ago I asked this question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336562/) about the suitability of different molecular dynamics software for coarse grained polymer simulations. The question was marked as off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been reading the previous discussions on this topic and I cannot see a clear consensus but I would like to put forward some of my thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are no other places in Stack Exchange where this question fits. SuperUser, Overflow, softwarerec all focus on general computer tools or programming and development. I don't expect my question on coarse grained polymer simulations will get much response there. I want Physicists and researchers to answer my question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not allowing computational physics related questions unnecessarily splits the content of this site. Just because my question *could* fit on another stack exchange site shouldn't be reason to remove it from here. The question is related to physics research and this is the Physics site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The help and tour pages say that questions about &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; are allowed. I would consider molecular dynamics software to be part of the technology that is used in Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. It seems that the main concern is that the site will be spammed with coding or general tools questions. I can see why this is a concern but I think the community is being overly strict and cautious and as a result is cutting out potentially worthwhile and useful questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like my questions status to be reconsidered, but more generally, I would like the Physic.stackexchange community to reconsider how strict it is on questions related to computational physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="59d56136-eff3-424d-8f1a-594c28c0ad4f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T07:13:11.120" UserId="76347" Text="I recently encountered a SE user who, after I refused to mark his answer as accepted, downvoted my question, marked it as a duplicate (which is evidently not so) and deleted his own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we deal with such situations where judgements are passed based on a personal grudge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am not sure if it would be rude to post a link to the example I referred to. Therefore, I will not. I do not wish to defame any user. Please answer this question assuming the premise that such incidents do occur, albeit (perhaps) rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="59d56136-eff3-424d-8f1a-594c28c0ad4f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T07:13:11.120" UserId="76347" Text="How to deal with negative responses on SE due to personal grudge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="59d56136-eff3-424d-8f1a-594c28c0ad4f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T07:13:11.120" UserId="76347" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30198" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="0d16dbed-95cd-4ce5-a610-7c5ccabb650f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T08:11:59.637" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="3de896e5-dbde-496d-aa0d-e9f49718f3df" CreationDate="2017-06-13T08:12:55.670" UserId="76347" Comment="Added clarification " Text="I recently encountered a SE user who, after I refused to mark his answer as accepted, downvoted my question, marked it as a duplicate (which is evidently not so) and deleted his own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we deal with such situations where judgements are passed based on a personal grudge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am not sure if it would be rude to post a link to the example I referred to. Therefore, I will not. I do not wish to defame any user. **Please answer this question assuming the premise that such incidents do occur, albeit (perhaps) rarely**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9932" RevisionGUID="25176baa-3f52-4f55-8dd2-d4a65c0cd341" CreationDate="2017-06-13T10:23:00.433" UserId="50583" Text="Well, there are a couple of things to say here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Assume good faith**: Unless the user in question explicitly told you &quot;I have downvoted your question and deleted my answer because you would not accept it&quot;, or something similarily blatant, we all should refrain from ascribing motivations to other users. In particular, since voting is completely anonymous and users are never required to justify their votes (for a plethora of discussions about this, search [mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/)), we should not assume that a vote was cast by a specific user because a downvote temporally coincided with another action of that user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Likewise, voting to close as a duplicate *after* answering a question is not an obvious sign of malice - it's perfectly possible the user answered the question, then remembered *later* they had answered a similar question, and went back to search for it, found it, and voted to close. The deletion of the answer could likewise be because they thought their other answer more fully answered the question, or because they realized what they wrote is wrong. I can personally attest that both of these things happen, and in particular only later remembering that you once answered a similar question is something that can happen easily after you've been here a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Nothing here seems a particularly egregious action: Even if cast in bad faith, a duplicate vote does nothing unless others agree - and if enough people agree, then there must have been some valid reason to raise the flag, and the actual intention of the user casting the close vote is wholly irrelevant. A single downvote likewise is both difficult to determine to be cast maliciously and not particularly concerning - this would be different if a user went through several of your posts to downvote them because they don't like you, but there are scripts in place to catch that sort of behaviour. And lastly, since the deletion of one's answer may happen for several good reasons (see the ones I pointed out already above), that is also not an act worthy of any disclipinatory action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="0ad01e77-cd96-46c9-91b4-a53492d51135" CreationDate="2017-06-13T10:35:47.740" UserId="76347" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I recently encountered a SE user who, after I refused to mark his answer as accepted, downvoted my question, marked it as a duplicate (which is evidently not so) and deleted his own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we deal with such situations where judgements are *possibly* passed based on a personal grudge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am not sure if it would be rude to post a link to the example I referred to. Therefore, I will not. I do not wish to defame any user. **Please answer this question assuming the premise that such incidents do occur, albeit (perhaps) rarely**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="56a6ef15-a6e5-4c4b-86bb-7bbf98f229c0" CreationDate="2017-06-13T11:25:28.953" UserId="76347" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I recently encountered an SE user who, after I refused to mark his answer as accepted, downvoted my question, marked it as a duplicate (which is evidently not so) and deleted his own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we deal with such situations where judgements are *possibly* passed based on a personal grudge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am not sure if it would be rude to post a link to the example I referred to. Therefore, I will not. I do not wish to defame any user. **Please answer this question assuming the premise that such incidents do occur, albeit (perhaps) rarely**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="4d6ac065-886f-4d4d-8f7a-f1694b3edf2c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:36:34.737" UserId="392" Text="I want to make a nice printout of an awesome answer with lots of pictures and pretty equations. If I select the answer and use the print feature in the browser then the formatting is lost (paragraphs are too wide) and the equations don't show properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to turn this&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose each answer (or question) has a link to a printable page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xk8In.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oRMz5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="4d6ac065-886f-4d4d-8f7a-f1694b3edf2c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:36:34.737" UserId="392" Text="I want to print an answer and it should still look good" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="4d6ac065-886f-4d4d-8f7a-f1694b3edf2c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:36:34.737" UserId="392" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9934" RevisionGUID="77b27df6-7f41-42a8-8807-cc0f6211510b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:04:39.817" UserId="84967" Text="This could be a nice suggestion for mother Meta. In the meantime, I want to point out that if you right-click anywhere on the page, and select `Print...`, then you can (at least in my browser) choose PDF as the destination. The result usually looks nice:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VvKdl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="51ff6f9d-2681-4a60-affe-a2941ff14782" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:09:56.723" UserId="392" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I want to make a nice printout of an awesome answer with lots of pictures and pretty equations. If I select the answer and use the print feature in the browser then the formatting is lost (paragraphs are too wide) and the equations don't show properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to turn this (select answer text and print)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into this (properly rendered answer) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose each answer (or question) has a link to a printable page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xk8In.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oRMz5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9934" RevisionGUID="332c6e3a-e330-4e8c-b00f-f653bc8b8db1" CreationDate="2017-06-14T18:23:55.540" UserId="84967" Comment="edited body" Text="This could be a nice suggestion for mother Meta. In the meantime, I want to point out that if you right-click anywhere on the page, and select `Print...`, then you can (at least on my browser) choose PDF as the destination. The result usually looks nice:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VvKdl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9934" RevisionGUID="681ed497-e7f3-4b7c-8010-c60c62cee7e3" CreationDate="2017-06-14T21:20:13.803" UserId="84967" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="This could be a nice suggestion for mother Meta. In the meantime, I want to point out that if you right-click anywhere on the page, and select `Print...`, then you can (at least on my browser) choose PDF as the destination. The result usually looks nice:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative is to click on the `edit` button of the answer you want to print, copy the source code, paste into a Latex document, and compile it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VvKdl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9935" RevisionGUID="75f451d0-b80a-4fc5-829c-1e91236fa245" CreationDate="2017-06-15T00:02:21.863" UserId="44126" Text="If you like the way that the printout of the entire page looks, but you want only one answer to print, try this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Firefox on Windows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Open the menu item Tools &gt; Web Developer &gt; Style Editor.  (The style editor is part of the &quot;inspector&quot; and there are a couple of ways to get to it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. This is the [CSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets) for the page. Add, somewhere outside of any other block (I went to the end), two lines like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        .question, .answer { display:none; }&#xD;&#xA;        #answer-80449 { display: block; } &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  When you add the first line, all the questions and answers (which live within HTML containers like `&lt;div class=&quot;question&quot;&gt;` etc.) will disappear; when you add the second, any code contained in `&lt;div id=&quot;answer-XXX&quot;&gt;` will reappear. The phone number is the post ID, which you can extract from the &quot;share&quot; link (or confirm by viewing the source).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Your printed view should match what's on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my Firefox seems to be having [this problem](https://stackoverflow.com/q/4609007), but since the answer in your example fits on a single page I haven't attempted to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure this feature is available in other browsers. The tricky part is figuring out where to add the CSS; the code that you add should be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see in your comments that you're probably not thrilled about this sort of &quot;clunky interface,&quot; but this is the sort of thing that's probably pretty easy for someone to turn into a browser extension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="55a62e66-49f7-42d0-bd87-23ba0d4f661a" CreationDate="2017-06-15T13:58:45.150" UserId="392" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="I want to make a nice printout of an awesome answer with lots of pictures and pretty equations. If I select the answer and use the print feature in the browser then the formatting is lost (paragraphs are too wide) and the equations don't show properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to turn this (select answer text and print)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into this (properly rendered answer) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose each answer (or question) has a link to a printable page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xk8In.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oRMz5.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/339325/392) for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="bf6e5066-30f4-46c4-9bea-69defe263b92" CreationDate="2017-06-15T18:52:20.923" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/875425761326501888" />
  <row Id="30217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9774" RevisionGUID="9741ff6a-2883-448a-bb72-a57092432961" CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:12:03.743" UserId="8563" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Some history on this feature: it started as a [userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/) written by Scott Morrison with contributions from Physics moderator Manishearth, proposed and developed on [this meta.MO thread](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1485/formatting-citations-to-the-literature-on-mathoverflow), which was then [officially integrated by the SE devs into MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2583/new-feature-citation-helper), and [subsequently also enabled on math.se](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22008/lets-get-mathoverflows-citation-helper-here-too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, if we want this to be implemented on this site, it should just mean flipping a few switches dev-side. **However**, it's not clear to me what back-end the script is using for the search function, but if it's using things like [math ZentralBlatt](https://zbmath.org/) or [MathSciNet](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/index.html) then it is entirely plausible that the search will not have fantastic coverage over physics - and indeed it seems that it doesn't; a quick search for [this paper](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.203) on the math.se tool didn't find it by title, which is worrisome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, though, if individual users want to have this, it should be plenty easy to just [install the userscript](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper) (i.e. just copy [this javascript file](https://github.com/semorrison/SE-CitationHelper/raw/master/citationhelper.user.js) into Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/your userscript extension of choice). As such, I propose that we gather some reasonably-sized population of users on this site, spanning as wide a range of physics subfields as possible, to take the search back-end for a test drive and see whether it actually works for physics papers in real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** as pointed out in the comments, and [documented in this meta.MO thread](http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/3053/request-for-help-with-javascript-for-the-citation-search-feature), it appears that the math.se+MO citation search button does use a ZentralBlatt search back end, which will severely hinder its effectiveness for physics papers. The back-end should in principle be relatively independent of the front-end, so in principle it should be possible to rewrite it to use e.g. the [Bielefeld Academic Search Engine](https://www.base-search.net/about/en/) or some other suitable API (which should be possible since [oaDOI](http://oadoi.org) use BASE as their back end, and it's [open sourced](https://github.com/Impactstory/oadoi) so we can probably learn from their calls), but it will require nontrivial adaptations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if people really want this, the first thing to do is to look for a suitable back end, as proposed in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9775/looking-for-a-back-end-for-a-physics-se-literature-citation-button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, while we're here, I would like to propose a change to the citation formatting to make it mesh better with the standards in physics, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt;_Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon_, [**On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox**](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4), J. Math. Chem. 41, No. 3, 209-215 (2007). [ZBL1119.81009](https://zbmath.org/?q=an:1119.81009).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;cite authors=&quot;Carb\'o-Dorca, Ramon&quot;&gt; R. Carbó-Dorca. On Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, [*J. Math. Chem.* **41** no. 3, 209-215 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-006-9054-4).&lt;/cite&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where in particular we should ditch the ZentralBlatt references, which are only useful to mathematicians, and add arXiv references whenever possible (which e.g. the second result in your search does not include in the citation output, even though it exists). And, if we can get the accented characters like \'o and \v{c} and the like working, it'd be nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="b693d702-2510-45e3-bb65-486e3c1b8961" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:53:40.340" UserId="121464" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="I'm [Bernardo](https://stackoverflow.com/users/2080712/bernardo-meurer) and I've been invited as the next guest for the [Physics Stack Exchange AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama). The session will take place on [the h Bar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), on June 13th at 16:00 UTC. If you, much like me, gets awfully confused by timezones, just click [here](http://everytimezone.com/#2017-6-13,240,c8l).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Post questions you'd like answered below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AMA is always informal and relaxed, and you always have the freedom to ask questions that are not here, but this gives me and idea of what to expect to be asked about. Maybe someone really likes the [SuperH architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH), and in that case I definitely need to brush up my knowledge, things like that. You can reference the previous AMAs by [heather](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613/february-20th-ask-me-anything-with-heather-question-pool), [Secret](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool), [Daniel Sank](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-12-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool), [yuggib](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions), and [Slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ask-me-anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education and work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born in [Chiador](https://goo.gl/maps/pQp2PfcLCku), a small town in the Brazilian countryside, and I later moved to Rio de Janeiro. I currently live in Lisbon, Portugal where I major in Computer Engineering. I'm mostly self-taught in what I know, and my favorite classes in uni are the maths ones, although it's what I have the hardest time with. I'm almost always around on the h-Bar if you'd like to catch me. If you really need to talk to me the tales say that if you put a pint of beer and some ICs on your porch I will show up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently about to start my first research position working on how to benchmark [ARM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture) in a meaningful way. I also plan on doing some work on adapting the [Linux Scheduler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler) to work better with [HMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_computing) architectures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Technical interests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Computing&#xD;&#xA;    * I'm obsessed with P vs. NP. For what it's worth if you haven't yet read it, Aaronson wrote [a great survey on the matter](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3095).&#xD;&#xA;    * I enjoy the hardware aspects of making a quantum computer possible  a lot, even if this isn't my area of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;    * Recently I've been working on adapting a simple ISA, such as [MIPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture) to support a quantum computer working as a co-processor, much like how FPU's work.&#xD;&#xA;    * I also have a vested interest in figuring out how to create a scheduler that can correctly allocate tasks for the quantum computer. I don't have much at all yet, just some scribbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Programming&#xD;&#xA;    * I have a passion for getting Linux to run on, say, unusual hardware. Most notably I got the following things to run Linux: My calculator, an FPGA board, a toaster. For those in the know the calculator also runs Doom.&#xD;&#xA;    * I'm a [Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) guy, free as in Freedom. I avoid running proprietary software whenever possible. &#xD;&#xA;    * I maintain [beautysh](https://github.com/bemeurer/beautysh) which a beautifier/ autoformatter for Bash scripts.&#xD;&#xA;    * I like C, C++, Rust, and Python.&#xD;&#xA;    * I try to port every algorithm I see to use [GMP](https://gmplib.org/) and [OpenMP](http://www.openmp.org/). It's more of a hobby than anything else. You can see my implementations of [Euler's Totient](https://github.com/bemeurer/euler-function), and of the [Ackermann Function](https://github.com/bemeurer/multi-ackermann).&#xD;&#xA;    * I wrote the base of an OS of my own, named DaedalOS, it's totally broken, but you can take a look if you're interested.&#xD;&#xA; - Hardware&#xD;&#xA;   * Hardware is my main point of interest, it's where most of my time goes to nowadays. I'm particularly interested in optimizing pipelines currently.&#xD;&#xA;   * I developed my own CPU in VHDL. It runs at a *whooping* 25MHz out of a Spartan 6 FPGA. It's based on MIPS, and there's no assembler or compiler or anything. If you want to code you hate to write it in binary.&#xD;&#xA;   * I've started using the [Open J-Core](http://j-core.org/) project, which aims to develop a fully open source CPU based on the, now free of patents, Hitachi Super-H architecture.&#xD;&#xA;    * I spend a lot of time reading documentation on architectures, I like AVR, ARM, and MIPS a lot. I dabble in x86_64 and I've been wanting to learn M68000.&#xD;&#xA;    * I mostly code in the P3 assembly language, which is a made-up architecture by my university. The fact that they did not opt for [MIX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIX) gives me sleepless nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Non-Technical Stuff&#xD;&#xA;* I like audio a lot, I won't say I'm an audiophile because I don't want people to think I'm a douche. And now I probably sound like a douche and I'm just making it worse so I'll stop.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm passionate about beer. Invite me any time anywhere and we can have a beer together.&#xD;&#xA;* I really enjoy airports&#xD;&#xA;* I read some philosophy, in particular I like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Žižek. Also, if I may boast, Žižek [gifted me a signed book for my birthday](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hBXoR.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;* My favorite movie is [The Seventh Seal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seventh_Seal)&#xD;&#xA;* My favorite composer is Ravel&#xD;&#xA;* I like biking a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I'm very happy to have been invited to the AMA, I hope we can all have a good exchange. Looking forward to talking to you all soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now that the AMA has happened, you can read the transcript [here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-bernardo-meurer-2017-06-13).**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="2f12f5b1-4cc1-46ff-9f74-452865f14827" CreationDate="2017-06-17T17:32:05.163" UserId="121464" Text="[![You can also join us in the CS room, http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/59701/join-cs-educators][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B6fyK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://cseducators.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30223" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="ed96f1b8-c003-4cfb-8f9b-390fc3f8f973" CreationDate="2017-06-18T18:27:16.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9939" RevisionGUID="919d87ed-d122-4be4-abc0-8a23e0a23449" CreationDate="2017-06-19T03:45:15.610" UserId="158306" Text="How do you determine that the negative responses were indeed due to personal grudge? by your own personal grudge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, to deal with it, just view your reputation as an imagery number rather than real ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="1dfb323e-88e1-46b9-8405-1b2874d81b5e" CreationDate="2017-06-19T06:09:40.093" UserId="157002" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="44ee8032-7d18-4c50-8faf-59691e781d55" CreationDate="2017-06-19T06:29:14.020" UserId="157002" Comment="Updated contact information as alternate channel to vent frustrations of getting started." Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always email me about specifics for a particular question and answer at [stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com][1] - and if also you want to set up your own site void of such issues you can let me know if it is worthy of your effort and means. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your &quot;unbiased&quot; answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text.  I found that approach also good to start out.  I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach.  The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mailto://stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="b63d90eb-c853-45dd-a5c6-8c8317fd24aa" CreationDate="2017-06-19T06:46:25.920" UserId="157002" Comment="Updated about comments here and meaningless accusations" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always email me about specifics for a particular question and answer at [stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com][1] - and if also you want to set up your own site void of such issues you can let me know if it is worthy of your effort and means. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your &quot;unbiased&quot; answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text.  I found that approach also good to start out.  I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach.  The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I would like to address some of the comments, but I am unable to comment without a reputation of 50 that I currently lack.  The comments that the question can be traced seem unreasonable to me.  I cannot find any question of his where it can be shown that he up-voted, down-voted, or did anything whatsoever.  It does not seem like any sort of basis to punish him by removing him from the site.  He has done absolutely in public.  I do not even see any of his questions and answers aside from this question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mailto://stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="561eaf23-1a48-4d95-beb8-d90b5e8eecba" CreationDate="2017-06-19T06:52:00.653" UserId="157002" Comment="Updated about comment#1 here and meaningless accusations" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always email me about specifics for a particular question and answer at [stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com][1] - and if also you want to set up your own site void of such issues you can let me know if it is worthy of your effort and means. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your &quot;unbiased&quot; answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text.  I found that approach also good to start out.  I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach.  The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I would like to address some of the comments, but I am unable to comment without a reputation of 50 that I currently lack.  The comments that the question can be traced seem unreasonable to me.  I cannot find any question of his where it can be shown that he up-voted, down-voted, or did anything whatsoever.  It does not seem like any sort of basis to punish him by removing him from the site.  He has done absolutely in public.  I do not even see any of his questions and answers aside from this question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #1 in question: 	 The question is easily identifiable, and any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10K user can see the deleted question and its author, so you have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effectively accused a user of downvoting you. Claims that you aren't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singling out an individual are disingenuous at best. As for evidence,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are no comments suggesting that the user in question is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offended. If I had answered a question then realised it was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duplicate I would also delete my answer (or move it to the duplicate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then vote to close. In this case I don't know enough about the subject&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to decide if your question is a duplicate or not. – John Rennie Jun 13&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at 8:16&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; The question is easily identifiable, and any 10K user can see the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deleted question and its author, so you have effectively accused a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user of down-voting you.&quot;  It is a very elite group (almost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; self-proclaimed judges of the community) that has 10K or higher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation.  I have no way of making such identification - and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed that science operates on the basis of equal access to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant facts to come to a decision.  Here, clearly, science does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work that way.  The facts are not generally accessible for the common&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader to make an informed decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mailto://stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="b08cac3a-c1b2-4989-bfd9-ebc73142b358" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:13:25.237" UserId="157002" Comment="Updated about comment#2 here and meaningless threats" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always email me about specifics for a particular question and answer at [stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com][1] - and if also you want to set up your own site void of such issues you can let me know if it is worthy of your effort and means. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your &quot;unbiased&quot; answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text.  I found that approach also good to start out.  I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach.  The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I would like to address some of the comments, but I am unable to comment without a reputation of 50 that I currently lack.  The comments that the question can be traced seem unreasonable to me.  I cannot find any question of his where it can be shown that he up-voted, down-voted, or did anything whatsoever.  It does not seem like any sort of basis to punish him by removing him from the site.  He has done absolutely in public.  I do not even see any of his questions and answers aside from this question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #1 in question: 	 The question is easily identifiable, and any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10K user can see the deleted question and its author, so you have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effectively accused a user of downvoting you. Claims that you aren't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singling out an individual are disingenuous at best. As for evidence,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are no comments suggesting that the user in question is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offended. If I had answered a question then realised it was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duplicate I would also delete my answer (or move it to the duplicate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then vote to close. In this case I don't know enough about the subject&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to decide if your question is a duplicate or not. – John Rennie Jun 13&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at 8:16&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; The question is easily identifiable, and any 10K user can see the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deleted question and its author, so you have effectively accused a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user of down-voting you.&quot;  It is a very elite group (almost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; self-proclaimed judges of the community) that has 10K or higher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation.  I have no way of making such identification - and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed that science operates on the basis of equal access to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant facts to come to a decision.  Here, clearly, science does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work that way.  The facts are not generally accessible for the common&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader to make an informed decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I consider another comment I see here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #2 - A Veiled Threat to the Author of this Posted Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't see any evidence for your belief that the [person answering]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acted maliciously. He has indeed suggested a duplicate, but that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doesn't seem malicious to me. You don't have any evidence that he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down-voted you. There is nothing in the comments to suggest that he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has. Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response to #2 Comment Threatening the Question Author&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03&quot;  This seems like a threat, using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms like &quot;suspension&quot; when in fact what was being asked in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question being asked is, &quot;How can such bad behavior be dealt with?&quot;  I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also receive down votes that I do not understand, and I have some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ideas on how such votes might be dealt with.  A site author has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; open to feedback, and sometimes that feedback the author cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand.  That is part of being an author.  One has to roll with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the negative.  However, I think the best approach for an author is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get together a community that can &quot;independently&quot; evaluate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; situation and that can ask questions, comments, and that is also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; willing as a community to deal with the negative, to provide more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constructive criticism instead of immediately having to comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;suspension in extreme cases&quot;.  We need to focus on not punishment but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more on guidance of the new-comers and uniformed.  The new authors&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially need a warm welcome and help - if this site is able to reach&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its potential, and not the opposite!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mailto://stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="744c56fe-1869-4c02-af0e-800744da79f2" CreationDate="2017-06-19T08:15:20.993" UserId="157002" Comment="Found some sentences needing minor clarification - so updated it." Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always email me about specifics for a particular question and answer at [stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com][1] - and if also you want to set up your own site void of such issues you can let me know if it is worthy of your effort and means. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your &quot;unbiased&quot; answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text.  I found that approach also good to start out.  I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach.  The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I would like to address some of the comments, but I am unable to comment without a reputation of 50 that I currently lack.  The comments - that the question can be traced to - seem unreasonable to me, a regular simple user of the system.  I cannot find any question of J. Rahman's where it can be shown that he up-voted, down-voted, or did anything whatsoever for that matter.  When I checked his profile, only this one question shows.  Using such &quot;proof&quot; does not seem like any sort of basis to punish him by suspending him from the site.  He has done absolutely nothing in public - as far as the common site-user like me can tell.  I did not even see any of his questions and answers aside from this question being available from his user profile.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #1 in question: 	 The question is easily identifiable, and any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10K user can see the deleted question and its author, so you have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effectively accused a user of downvoting you. Claims that you aren't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singling out an individual are disingenuous at best. As for evidence,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are no comments suggesting that the user in question is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offended. If I had answered a question then realised it was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duplicate I would also delete my answer (or move it to the duplicate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then vote to close. In this case I don't know enough about the subject&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to decide if your question is a duplicate or not. – John Rennie Jun 13&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at 8:16&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; The question is easily identifiable, and any 10K user can see the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deleted question and its author, so you have effectively accused a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user of down-voting you.&quot;  It is a very elite group (almost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; self-proclaimed judges of the community) that has 10K or higher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation.  I have no way of making such identification - and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed that science operates on the basis of equal access to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant facts to come to a decision.  Here, clearly, science does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work that way.  The facts are not generally accessible for the common&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader to make an informed decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I consider another comment I see here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #2 - A Veiled Threat to the Author of this Posted Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't see any evidence for your belief that the [person answering]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acted maliciously. He has indeed suggested a duplicate, but that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doesn't seem malicious to me. You don't have any evidence that he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down-voted you. There is nothing in the comments to suggest that he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has. Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response to #2 Comment Threatening the Question Author&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03&quot;  This seems like a threat, using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms like &quot;suspension&quot; when in fact what was being asked in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question being asked is, &quot;How can such bad behavior be dealt with?&quot;  I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also receive down votes that I do not understand, and I have some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ideas on how such votes might be dealt with.  A site author has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; open to feedback, and sometimes that feedback the author cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand.  That is part of being an author.  One has to roll with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the negative.  However, I think the best approach for an author is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get together a community that can &quot;independently&quot; evaluate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; situation and that can ask questions, comments, and that is also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; willing as a community to deal with the negative, to provide more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constructive criticism instead of immediately having to comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;suspension in extreme cases&quot;.  We need to focus on not punishment but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more on guidance of the new-comers and uniformed.  The new authors&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially need a warm welcome and help - if this site is able to reach&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its potential, and not the opposite!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mailto://stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="32a2b88a-0406-4046-96c7-5eab07cd4c11" CreationDate="2017-06-19T10:11:19.463" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/876744192558497792" />
  <row Id="30233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="27418d33-e4f3-4273-a180-f3e77e4ebc88" CreationDate="2017-06-19T11:07:50.483" UserId="76347" Comment="Added clarification " Text="Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose that an SE user X recently encountered an SE user Y who, after X refused to mark Y's answer as accepted, *probably* downvoted X's question, marked it as a duplicate (which is evidently not so) and deleted his/her own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we deal with such hypothetical situations where judgements are *possibly* passed based on a personal grudge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am not sure if it would be rude to post a link to a real example of the hypothetical I referred to. Therefore, I will not. I do not wish to defame any user. **Please answer this question assuming the premise that such incidents (which prompt, quite naturally, suspicion of intent) do occur, albeit (perhaps) rarely**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REQUEST:** Please do not try to dig into my profile and turn this otherwise honest query about the nature of standard conduct in SE to a personal flame war. I would be much obliged if you do respect my privacy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="09ca3468-11f9-4e51-b6bb-88caed19d838" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:08:29.680" UserId="157002" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question that was closed when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his closed questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="09ca3468-11f9-4e51-b6bb-88caed19d838" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:08:29.680" UserId="157002" Text="Where can Closed Questions and Comments Be Searched For - and How can Closure be Appealed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="09ca3468-11f9-4e51-b6bb-88caed19d838" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:08:29.680" UserId="157002" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="fd1c5b30-b925-42dd-bb56-3871e391ab0d" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:14:05.193" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|questions|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30238" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="b556b59b-2613-4a1a-a88b-f035fc659cad" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:16:58.743" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|comments|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="9b4c50e5-01ce-42f4-8c53-8b20e6d77222" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:52:06.140" UserId="148444" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340226/please-provide-detailed-explanation-to-question-in-image&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="c09f20c4-ff8d-4e76-8e89-566d6bf667eb" CreationDate="2017-06-19T15:16:37.210" UserId="124" Comment="remove fluff" Text="I have a question that was closed when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his closed questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30241" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="c09f20c4-ff8d-4e76-8e89-566d6bf667eb" CreationDate="2017-06-19T15:16:37.210" UserId="124" Comment="remove fluff" Text="|support|questions|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="8b309abb-5b3a-4343-9a0d-453c351fb862" CreationDate="2017-06-19T15:54:07.610" UserId="124" Comment="remove email address (possible spam)" Text="I too - when I started out - felt that I was encountering such behavior with no recourse to correct it.  I admit that it is very frustrating and discouraging.  Especially to a site dedicated to the precision of science - this perceived behavior seems to go against all that science ideally represents - the honest evaluation of all worthy questions and hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To relate the behavior to higher systems of knowledge, whenever there is a community that does not fear the consequence of behavior, it appears as an indication of the quality of the answers being given by that community. There is some chance that an answer highly praised is in fact outright incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;defect&quot; in almost every physical evaluation, so too you might notice imperfection - especially when just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I appeal to try to understand these higher systems of knowledge - reserving this site for structured social interaction;  I just keep on writing and eventually these issues are not the main signal but rather the noise in the feedback that I receive on my posted questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always set up your own site void of such issues. Your website might be a handy reference on this site to your &quot;unbiased&quot; answer as you see it - using links that generally do not raise as much site ire as full text.  I found that approach also good to start out.  I have gotten around all the issues so far - so now that my reputation is good enough that such perceived characters no longer want to take that approach.  The initial frustration also helped me look at other answers and learn how to make my answer better - and this is main benefit: to see one's own imperfection also, and to build and remedy one's own defects too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I would like to address some of the comments, but I am unable to comment without a reputation of 50 that I currently lack.  The comments - that the question can be traced to - seem unreasonable to me, a regular simple user of the system.  I cannot find any question of J. Rahman's where it can be shown that he up-voted, down-voted, or did anything whatsoever for that matter.  When I checked his profile, only this one question shows.  Using such &quot;proof&quot; does not seem like any sort of basis to punish him by suspending him from the site.  He has done absolutely nothing in public - as far as the common site-user like me can tell.  I did not even see any of his questions and answers aside from this question being available from his user profile.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #1 in question: 	 The question is easily identifiable, and any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10K user can see the deleted question and its author, so you have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effectively accused a user of downvoting you. Claims that you aren't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singling out an individual are disingenuous at best. As for evidence,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are no comments suggesting that the user in question is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offended. If I had answered a question then realised it was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duplicate I would also delete my answer (or move it to the duplicate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then vote to close. In this case I don't know enough about the subject&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to decide if your question is a duplicate or not. – John Rennie Jun 13&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at 8:16&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; The question is easily identifiable, and any 10K user can see the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deleted question and its author, so you have effectively accused a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user of down-voting you.&quot;  It is a very elite group (almost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; self-proclaimed judges of the community) that has 10K or higher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reputation.  I have no way of making such identification - and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed that science operates on the basis of equal access to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant facts to come to a decision.  Here, clearly, science does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work that way.  The facts are not generally accessible for the common&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader to make an informed decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I consider another comment I see here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comment #2 - A Veiled Threat to the Author of this Posted Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't see any evidence for your belief that the [person answering]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acted maliciously. He has indeed suggested a duplicate, but that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doesn't seem malicious to me. You don't have any evidence that he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down-voted you. There is nothing in the comments to suggest that he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has. Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response to #2 Comment Threatening the Question Author&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Incidentally, note that accusing others of [down-voting] you is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarded as impolite at best and grounds for a suspension in extreme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases. – John Rennie Jun 13 at 8:03&quot;  This seems like a threat, using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms like &quot;suspension&quot; when in fact what was being asked in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question being asked is, &quot;How can such bad behavior be dealt with?&quot;  I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also receive down votes that I do not understand, and I have some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ideas on how such votes might be dealt with.  A site author has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; open to feedback, and sometimes that feedback the author cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand.  That is part of being an author.  One has to roll with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the negative.  However, I think the best approach for an author is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get together a community that can &quot;independently&quot; evaluate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; situation and that can ask questions, comments, and that is also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; willing as a community to deal with the negative, to provide more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constructive criticism instead of immediately having to comment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;suspension in extreme cases&quot;.  We need to focus on not punishment but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more on guidance of the new-comers and uniformed.  The new authors&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially need a warm welcome and help - if this site is able to reach&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its potential, and not the opposite!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30245" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="71d719ad-19ba-4b67-8116-ab5d1fb55ba0" CreationDate="2017-06-19T15:56:54.207" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7633],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30246" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="562c06b7-3c9e-4386-aa29-10b7d534dc20" CreationDate="2017-06-19T17:58:38.090" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|closed-questions|comments|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="aade3faa-5fdc-4d3d-a38e-1f45db2f6e4f" CreationDate="2017-06-20T01:36:41.917" UserId="42982" Text="I was wondering how could I improve the question here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339959/&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me the question is not too broad, all sub-questions are related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one of our moderators puts it on hold. Then I decided to remove the SUSY part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I am not saying any moderator can be a dictator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it looks to me that a single person holds such a power to decide the fate of a question, and he/she also decides the fate of each individual user (for example, they may check your personal private data) -- this sounds to me like the big brother in George Orwell' 1984, wearing the dark glasses, watching all of us. Some of us can befriend to moderators to maintain a good connection to moderators and to each other, but not all of us prefer to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators may stay on the site for a longer period so knows some physics. But Who knows you or me or any of us may be a famous professor or Nobel laureates like **t Hooft or Weinberg** that simply asks a naive stupid question sometime? In this sense, a profound question can be easily on hold/closed by any moderator if he does not like it for any reason (or he does not understand it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If this site is moderated by the moderators (who hold long term non-ending positions), then who are the people moderating the moderators? if the moderators hold too much power interfering the academic activity of site? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I understand that there are benefits to have moderators --- they also do good things, but they can also do the opposite, the bad for the site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does the freedom of moderators interfere the freedom of other users to ask greater questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking people's opinion about the running of the site and how to get feedback on my question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="aade3faa-5fdc-4d3d-a38e-1f45db2f6e4f" CreationDate="2017-06-20T01:36:41.917" UserId="42982" Text="The fate of a question decided by a Moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="aade3faa-5fdc-4d3d-a38e-1f45db2f6e4f" CreationDate="2017-06-20T01:36:41.917" UserId="42982" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="1440610a-4c67-42a3-8abe-5a8a4f1765cf" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:19:39.767" UserId="2451" Text="It seems it does not behoove me to comment on my continued role as a moderator, so let me here only explain why I put [OP's specific question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339959/non-abelian-string-in-qcd) on hold as _too broad._ A question, which I btw generally like. The problem is not so much an extra SUSY question, although Phys.SE generally discourages more than one subquestion per post. The problem is that Phys.SE usually do not allow to mix resource recommendations (subquestion 2) with actual physics questions  (subquestions 1, 3 &amp; 4). Resource recommendations posts are restricted on Phys.SE and made into Community-Wikis (CWs), while actually physics questions are not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="f8f93ef0-dd06-4c17-b643-c802ffb8e7db" CreationDate="2017-06-20T09:11:48.740" UserId="2451" Comment="Added explanation" Text="It seems it does not behoove me to comment on my continued role as a moderator, so let me here only explain why I put [OP's specific question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/339959/) on hold as _too broad._ A question that I btw generally like. OP asks (v3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What does it mean to say &quot;non abelian string in QCD?&quot; Does &quot;non abelian string&quot; happen for pure Yang-Mills (say SU(N) or SO(N)) without any fermions? Or do we require additional fermions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What is the most accessible Ref to introduce this topic on &quot;non abelian string&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Does &quot;non abelian string&quot; have any thing to do with the quantum statistics of strings are non abelian? Like non abelian Majorana for certain solid state systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Should the string form a worldsheet in the spacetime, thus it should be descried by some 2-form field locally? Any precise math formulation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not so much an extra SUSY question or not, although Phys.SE do generally discourages more than one subquestion per post, mainly to ensure that the post fits the SE Q&amp;A format. The main problem is that Phys.SE usually do not allow to mix explicit resource recommendations (subquestion 2) with actual physics questions (subquestions 1, 3 &amp; 4). Resource recommendations posts are restricted on Phys.SE and made into Community-Wikis (CWs), cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451) meta post and links therein; while actually physics questions are not. This leaves OP's post in a nowhere-land." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="5823de54-876b-467c-a04f-782c78cfb397" CreationDate="2017-06-20T09:26:56.140" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="It seems it does not behoove me to comment on my continued role as a moderator, so let me here only explain why I put [OP's specific question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/339959/) on hold as _too broad._ A question that I btw generally like. OP asks (v3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What does it mean to say &quot;non abelian string in QCD?&quot; Does &quot;non abelian string&quot; happen for pure Yang-Mills (say SU(N) or SO(N)) without any fermions? Or do we require additional fermions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What is the most accessible Ref to introduce this topic on &quot;non abelian string&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Does &quot;non abelian string&quot; have any thing to do with the quantum statistics of strings are non abelian? Like non abelian Majorana for certain solid state systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Should the string form a worldsheet in the spacetime, thus it should be descried by some 2-form field locally? Any precise math formulation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not so much an extra SUSY question or not, although Phys.SE do generally discourages more than one subquestion per post, mainly to ensure that the post fits the SE Q&amp;A format. The main problem is that Phys.SE usually do not allow to mix explicit resource recommendations (subquestion 2) with actual physics questions (subquestions 1, 3 &amp; 4). Resource recommendations posts are restricted on Phys.SE and made into Community-Wikis (CWs), cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451) meta post and links therein; while actually physics questions are not. This leaves OP's post somewhere in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="262eafbe-68c3-448f-a3b7-362d47b2b701" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:19:20.017" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="It seems it does not behoove me to comment on my continued role as a moderator, so let me here only explain why I put [OP's specific question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/339959/) on hold as _too broad._ A question that I btw generally like. OP asks (v3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What does it mean to say &quot;non abelian string in QCD?&quot; Does &quot;non abelian string&quot; happen for pure Yang-Mills (say SU(N) or SO(N)) without any fermions? Or do we require additional fermions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What is the most accessible Ref to introduce this topic on &quot;non abelian string&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Does &quot;non abelian string&quot; have any thing to do with the quantum statistics of strings are non abelian? Like non abelian Majorana for certain solid state systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Should the string form a worldsheet in the spacetime, thus it should be descried by some 2-form field locally? Any precise math formulation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not so much an extra SUSY question or not, although Phys.SE do generally discourage more than one subquestion per post, mainly to ensure that the post fits the SE Q&amp;A format. The main problem is that Phys.SE usually do not allow to mix explicit resource recommendations (subquestion 2) with actual physics questions (subquestions 1, 3 &amp; 4). Resource recommendations posts are restricted on Phys.SE and made into Community-Wikis (CWs), cf. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7039/2451) meta post and links therein; while actually physics questions are not. This leaves OP's post somewhere in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9945" RevisionGUID="89669768-8eda-4244-bb99-60dd2caf2d00" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:00:25.637" UserId="8563" Text="Is it possible for moderators to unilaterally close questions? Yes, and this is by design: moderators are there to implement site policies as decided upon by the community, to make sure the site is held to the high standard that makes it a valuable resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are moderators infallible? No, they're human, obviously. Are moderator actions final and unappealable? Not at all: questions can be reopened (see [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36415/) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19126/) for more information), and if five experienced community members disagree with the moderator then the question gets reopened. The moderators' power over the academic aspects of the site are subordinate to the community moderation and if the community agrees that a moderator action was incorrect, then it gets rolled back, as simple as that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do moderators control the fate of all users on the site? Not at all. I just had ice cream the other day, and there was nothing a site mod could do to stop me. (Or, to put it another way: maybe that statement of yours was a bit of hyperbole?) Moderators can indeed access personally-identifying information that you've provided to the site and which is not publicly available, but access to that information is logged and it is reserved for instances where it is necessary. Inappropriate access to or use of user PII is grounds for revocation of moderator privileges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are managed by the Stack Exchange [Community Team](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99338/who-are-the-community-team-and-what-do-they-do), and if you suspect any abuse of moderator powers you can contact them directly via [the Contact link on the footer of every page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact). If you are uncomfortable with this moderation structure, it's important to point out that Stack Exchange is a commercial company and that it's them footing the bill for the servers that host the content (as well as huge investments in the software that powers the site); if you're really not OK with them being arbiters of what happens with your PII, I would suggest not giving them any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that the community team is there for actual abuse of moderator privileges. If it's just a unilateral closure that you disagree with, you should edit it to address any concerns that have been voiced. (In the specific question you're referring to, you failed to do that. You were pointed out that resource recommendation questions are subject to [specific policies](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed), and you failed to act on that information. It's therefore natural for the question to remain closed.) If the question does not get reopened after you have addressed any concerns, you can ask a question on this meta to ask why it was closed or to argue that it shouldn't be. If you want examples of this in practice, see e.g. the [closed-questions tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/closed-questions) on this meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9946" RevisionGUID="c4013c2a-d9ef-499b-ba88-f79cefaacb16" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:18:58.657" UserId="47511" Text="&gt; Please do not try to dig into my profile and turn this otherwise honest query about the nature of standard conduct in SE to a personal flame war. I would be much obliged if you do respect my privacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's exactly why you should ignore such downvotes from a single user. It only subtracts 2 points, which is not worth to spend a lot of effort on. You'll always have the occasional user who just doesn't like the sort of questions or answers from you, and reacting to strongly to that may lead to a [backreaction  of exactly the short you want to avoid][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://backreaction.blogspot.nl/2007/08/lubo-motl.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9946" RevisionGUID="d45dfc70-c38a-4227-9c2c-32f8f8b43b51" CreationDate="2017-06-21T01:11:35.927" UserId="47511" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Please do not try to dig into my profile and turn this otherwise honest query about the nature of standard conduct in SE to a personal flame war. I would be much obliged if you do respect my privacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's exactly why you should ignore such downvotes from a single user. It only subtracts 2 points, which is not worth to spend a lot of effort on. You'll always have the occasional user who just doesn't like the sort of questions or answers from you, and reacting too strongly to that may lead to a [backreaction  of exactly the short you want to avoid][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://backreaction.blogspot.nl/2007/08/lubo-motl.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="bf24a0c5-4872-4666-b9c4-e2c44dadbec4" CreationDate="2017-06-21T07:41:00.820" UserId="157002" Comment="clarified that it was a deleted post and referenced the links provided" Text="I have a question that was *deleted* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     What can be done in order to re-open a closed question? 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="fd311900-069a-4027-b38e-281aee992c10" CreationDate="2017-06-21T09:15:22.903" UserId="157002" Comment="formatting and title adjustment" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;I have a question that was *deleted* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     What can be done in order to re-open a closed question? 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="fd311900-069a-4027-b38e-281aee992c10" CreationDate="2017-06-21T09:15:22.903" UserId="157002" Comment="formatting and title adjustment" Text="Where can Closed Questions and Comments Be Searched For - and How can Deletion be Appealed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="c97c0061-aacc-41a6-9693-7f65a594cffc" CreationDate="2017-06-21T09:21:42.067" UserId="157002" Comment="updated with references from comments" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;I have a question that was *deleted* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     What can be done in order to re-open a closed question? 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the below comments is very helpful for me to solve this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qmechanic - thank you for your links:  they are very useful.  I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article?  Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Concerning comments see here. 2. It is possible to see your own closed questions by design. 3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are here &amp; here. – Qmechanic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="71df2861-886d-4ac1-acc0-76a02928ac8e" CreationDate="2017-06-21T09:28:56.780" UserId="157002" Comment="updated with references from comments" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;I have a question that was *deleted* and some *closed* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  Plus I was not so familiar with meta until most recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding my current situation, I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What can be done in order to re-open a closed question?][1] 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the below comments is very helpful for me to solve this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qmechanic - thank you for your links:  they are very useful.  I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article?  Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Concerning comments see here. 2. It is possible to see your own closed questions by design. 3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are here &amp; here. – Qmechanic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/what-can-be-done-in-order-to-re-open-a-closed-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="913ad19d-7933-49f5-8bef-45aaf54b5ee8" CreationDate="2017-06-21T09:35:44.100" UserId="157002" Comment="updated with references from comments" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;I have a question that was *deleted* and some *closed* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  Plus I was not so familiar with meta until most recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding my current situation, I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What can be done in order to re-open a closed question?][1] 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the below comments is very helpful for me to solve this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qmechanic - thank you for your links:  they are very useful.  I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article?  Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Concerning comments see [here][2]. 2. It is possible to see [your own closed questions][3] by design. 3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are [here][3] &amp; [here][4]. – [Qmechanic][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/what-can-be-done-in-order-to-re-open-a-closed-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9884/is-it-possible-to-search-in-comments&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq%20user%3A157002%20closed%3Ayes&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338017&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="a0d60270-ff15-41ba-9376-2b5b242f2dea" CreationDate="2017-06-21T10:28:46.763" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="If a recently asked question which is exactly the same as (or is contained in) an old question then why does marking the new question requires the old question to have an either upvoted or accepted answer? I mean I agree that violation of the above conditions means that the question doesn't have a satisfactory resolution documented but it doesn't mean we should pile-up similar questions. Rather we can mark the new question as a duplicate and direct the reader to the old question through something like &quot;this question already has been asked here&quot; and thus, if someone wants to answer the thing then can answer the old question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if we allow the new unoriginal question to exist owing to the fact that the old question is not well answered then it might happen that in future, both questions get answered (or worse, the new question gets well asnwered and not the old) and then I am not sure which question should we mark the duplicate. Or should we just let two same questions exist with a bunch of well-answered question at one place and the other bunch at the other place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="a0d60270-ff15-41ba-9376-2b5b242f2dea" CreationDate="2017-06-21T10:28:46.763" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="Why does marking a question as a duplicate require the original question to be well-answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="a0d60270-ff15-41ba-9376-2b5b242f2dea" CreationDate="2017-06-21T10:28:46.763" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="|discussion|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="c42bb3e3-d923-48f4-a443-fa7154d8e7c6" CreationDate="2017-06-21T10:54:50.203" UserDisplayName="user87745" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="If a recently asked question which is exactly the same as (or is contained in) an old question then why does marking the new question requires the old question to have an either upvoted or accepted answer? I mean I agree that violation of the above conditions means that the question doesn't have a satisfactory resolution documented but it doesn't mean we should pile-up similar questions. Rather we can mark the new question as a duplicate and direct the reader to the old question through something like &quot;this question already has been asked here&quot; and thus, if someone wants to answer the thing then can answer the old question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if we allow the new unoriginal question to exist owing to the fact that the old question is not well answered then it might happen that in future, both questions get answered (or worse, the new question gets well answered and not the old) and then I am not sure which question should we mark the duplicate. Or should we just let two same questions exist with a bunch of good answers at one place and the other bunch at the other place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30270" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="737e33b8-2e6a-4652-8058-98d8828d1c03" CreationDate="2017-06-21T11:40:14.873" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="ec3f8b8e-f448-437b-b372-fe38563a7369" CreationDate="2017-06-21T13:33:28.863" UserId="157002" Comment="Found link to the article that was deleted and referenced it here" Text="בס''ד&#xD;&#xA;I have a question that was *deleted* and some *closed* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years).  I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it.  Plus I was not so familiar with meta until most recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One such article is entitled &quot;What Ionization Does Classical Physics Predict With the Two Moving Rings of Charge Model for Helium-Like Ions&quot; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338017).  Heather drastically edited the question to try and restore it, but it *did not go back into hold status* even so.  What needs to be done with this question here to get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding my current situation, I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What can be done in order to re-open a closed question?][1] 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the below comments is very helpful for me to solve this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qmechanic - thank you for your links:  they are very useful.  I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article?  Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Concerning comments see [here][2]. 2. It is possible to see [your own closed questions][3] by design. 3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are [here][3] &amp; [here][4]. – [Qmechanic][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/what-can-be-done-in-order-to-re-open-a-closed-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9884/is-it-possible-to-search-in-comments&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq%20user%3A157002%20closed%3Ayes&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338017&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30273" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="ec3f8b8e-f448-437b-b372-fe38563a7369" CreationDate="2017-06-21T13:33:28.863" UserId="157002" Comment="Found link to the article that was deleted and referenced it here" Text="Where can Closed and Deleted Questions and Comments Be Searched For - and How can Deletion be Appealed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="c2d9aef9-820c-499f-a954-35c23bfef335" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:34:00.957" UserId="32426" Text="Vote up the post containing site X, if you want a migration path to site X. Vote down, if you won't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="c2d9aef9-820c-499f-a954-35c23bfef335" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:34:00.957" UserId="32426" Text="What migration pathes do we want on the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="c2d9aef9-820c-499f-a954-35c23bfef335" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:34:00.957" UserId="32426" Text="|feature-request|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9951" RevisionGUID="deae5a82-1b0c-4bc5-a33d-b357fed440db" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:34:00.957" UserId="32426" Text="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9952" RevisionGUID="72265803-d9aa-427b-94f2-47f89a4ba796" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:35:34.633" UserId="32426" Text="https://engineering.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9953" RevisionGUID="5ec45681-21e6-498a-9cdf-1ccbabeecfe0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:36:11.063" UserId="32426" Text="https://math.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9954" RevisionGUID="d60dc684-bed3-460c-abf4-d223d6ce272b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:36:25.080" UserId="32426" Text="https://scicomp.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9955" RevisionGUID="13368e55-d6ce-4ee2-9ca1-5bffece9cb0b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:37:23.903" UserId="32426" Text="https://hsm.stackexchange.com&lt;!-- --&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9956" RevisionGUID="7100912a-1e13-4178-ac00-b992c0cec16f" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:41:55.080" UserId="32426" Text="https://hsm.stackexchange.com&lt;!-- --&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30283" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9955" RevisionGUID="74ecb8b4-1491-4504-85c9-c01759ed9189" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:42:05.697" UserId="32426" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:32426,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;peterh&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="7f9efd12-6136-408b-800b-f279ecadfeaf" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:45:34.497" UserId="32426" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="612751b8-71d5-4c05-9369-b019efdf4f48" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:46:52.270" UserId="32426" Text="https://chemistry.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9958" RevisionGUID="f66bab10-040a-4ae2-a896-889942f3f50b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:59:26.910" UserId="32426" Text="https://electronics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9959" RevisionGUID="5842715c-d009-4a4f-b9fe-28f7c9bc6bc0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:00:41.057" UserId="32426" Text="https://academia.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9960" RevisionGUID="edb7fe9d-79b3-43f3-a6a9-ae7907368436" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:02:26.203" UserId="32426" Text="https://mathoverflow.com&lt;!-- --&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9961" RevisionGUID="18f43f3f-22c1-4076-a4d1-74b4fc050501" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:04:39.757" UserId="8563" Text="Just to inform the discussion on the topic, for those without 10k+ access to the migration stats, here are the migration statistics as they currently stand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pk0St.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers mark the total migrations away from this site over the past **90 days**. (The [blank](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293038/why-is-one-migration-showing-up-as-to-a-blank-site) site up top is this meta.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are migrations away from the site implemented by direct moderator action, which is easily accessible to users via a custom moderator flag. It is then a question of opinion on whether these statistics represent an overwhelming load on the moderator team." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="8abdf5a6-3595-4d2a-8a32-2672f676b273" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:11:16.910" UserId="32426" Text="https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9961" RevisionGUID="62cfc93f-ffae-4fbf-80ac-6b8bbf4859aa" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:19:28.450" UserId="8563" Comment="added 397 characters in body" Text="Just to inform the discussion on the topic, for those without 10k+ access to the migration stats, here are the migration statistics as they currently stand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pk0St.png&quot; width=&quot;220&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers mark the total migrations away from this site over the past **90 days**. (The [blank](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293038/why-is-one-migration-showing-up-as-to-a-blank-site) site up top is this meta.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are migrations away from the site implemented by direct moderator action, which is easily accessible to users via a custom moderator flag. It is then a question of opinion on whether these statistics represent an overwhelming load on the moderator team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, just to put the above numbers in perspective, here is a rough map of SE-wide migration pathways from [Is there a map of migration pathways?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/247794/is-there-a-map-of-migration-pathways), which shows the kind of migration volumes that make automation worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/09ypL.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/09ypL.png)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30292" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9956" RevisionGUID="badf1bb8-0f6f-4b01-b3b7-81d2376b0013" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:22:35.003" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30293" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9958" RevisionGUID="e85a16b0-203d-48fb-bad9-dfe020f03389" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:22:42.053" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30294" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="be3c8329-cd4a-4e2e-bd4f-d3aa435f9d61" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:22:48.147" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30295" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9952" RevisionGUID="458e5b31-7e1d-4396-8abd-f3b798c679fb" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:23:05.983" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30296" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="53629409-a028-4bff-b470-c8fca451ffb6" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:23:15.653" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30297" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9953" RevisionGUID="57f88adb-d90e-46c9-8dc9-2181e9def6dd" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:23:22.913" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30298" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9959" RevisionGUID="101eeb8d-46e8-4f98-a1a8-8c443b07dabe" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:23:36.700" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30299" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9954" RevisionGUID="6cbb51a1-a0c2-47af-991b-d3442188ee55" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:23:46.803" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30300" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9960" RevisionGUID="46c943e6-03cc-4442-a2d1-60b087e983a9" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:24:00.567" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30301" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9951" RevisionGUID="6ff171d9-fcd4-442f-b8cb-d4832e2b2bd4" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:24:33.100" UserId="32426" />
  <row Id="30302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9963" RevisionGUID="18f6222c-0b2b-441c-a280-a72f8cd69031" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:52:19.863" UserId="32426" Text="I generally oppose the community-initiated question migrations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30303" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="167eee60-44ab-431f-8209-4b5fd8af9dd9" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:34:48.097" UserId="32426" Comment="edited title" Text="What migration paths do we want on the site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="9a20a32e-e0f6-4811-9a7b-0aae4cc03a56" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:40:54.863" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have a question that was *deleted* and some *closed* when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years). I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it. Plus I was not so familiar with meta until most recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One such article is entitled [&quot;What Ionization Does Classical Physics Predict With the Two Moving Rings of Charge Model for Helium-Like Ions&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338017), Heather drastically edited the question to try and restore it, but it *did not go back into hold status* even so. What needs to be done with this question here to get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding my current situation, I saw and read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question already has an answer here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What can be done in order to re-open a closed question?][1] 2 answers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par.  The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the below comments is very helpful for me to solve this situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qmechanic - thank you for your links:  they are very useful.  I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article?  Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Concerning comments see [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;2. It is possible to see [your own closed questions][3] by design.&#xD;&#xA;3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are [here][3] &amp; [here][4]. – [Qmechanic][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/what-can-be-done-in-order-to-re-open-a-closed-question&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9884/is-it-possible-to-search-in-comments&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq%20user%3A157002%20closed%3Ayes&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338017&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30305" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="9a20a32e-e0f6-4811-9a7b-0aae4cc03a56" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:40:54.863" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="Where can closed and deleted questions and comments be searched for - and how can deletion be appealed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="4a7d1d90-6065-480b-bd94-2efc7b285093" CreationDate="2017-06-23T04:42:01.167" UserId="139781" Text="I'm relatively new to SE in general, so I may be missing something here, but recently I've been seeing a lot of people apparently getting angry that their questions are marked duplicate. Can someone explain to me what the reasoning is behind this being considered an insult? I haven't come up with anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="4a7d1d90-6065-480b-bd94-2efc7b285093" CreationDate="2017-06-23T04:42:01.167" UserId="139781" Text="Why are people getting angry at questions being marked duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="4a7d1d90-6065-480b-bd94-2efc7b285093" CreationDate="2017-06-23T04:42:01.167" UserId="139781" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9966" RevisionGUID="742434d6-a508-4ec2-b09f-3c36e187c108" CreationDate="2017-06-23T05:54:09.207" UserId="32426" Text="1. It looks very similar as the closure with a different reason.&#xD;&#xA;2. Question closed as dupe means that it is a dupe in the view of the VtC voters. It may be not a dupe in the view of the OP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9966" RevisionGUID="12174f8d-43ff-46df-a20d-7d23cb52c7e6" CreationDate="2017-06-23T05:59:49.130" UserId="32426" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="1. It looks very similar as the closure with a different reason.&#xD;&#xA;2. Question closed as dupe means that it is a dupe in the view of the VtC voters. It may be not a dupe in the view of the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On these reasons, I typically check if a question deserves also an up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On larger sites, with many golden tag badge holders, it can be a problem if they don't use their decisive vote very wisely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30315" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="d4f90886-9cc2-4d2d-838e-bc729bc5553b" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:28:16.433" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|exact-duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9967" RevisionGUID="a827b07e-c818-463d-acfa-8843a4e95455" CreationDate="2017-06-24T13:58:13.013" UserDisplayName="user154420" Text="My guess is that some users may have seen the purported duplicate whilst writing their question. Then they read through the duplicate, but although they may accept that is very closely related to their question, they don't follow the answers given, so they hope by asking a slight variation they may get a wider range of answers, one of which will explain the solution in a way they can follow, compared to existing answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9967" RevisionGUID="ae0f2cd1-53bf-43b3-85ce-03e4cb52eff4" CreationDate="2017-06-24T16:19:35.487" UserDisplayName="user154420" Comment="Clarified argument" Text="My guess is that some users may have seen the purported duplicate whilst writing their question. Then they read through the duplicate, but although they may accept that is very closely related to their question, they don't understand the answers given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So they hope by asking a slight variation of the question that they may get a wider range of answers, one of which will explain the solution in a way they **can** understand, compared to the existing answers that accompany the duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="7f4afd3a-20aa-4c7b-bd1b-f229694c0205" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:14:15.977" UserId="157002" Text="My [(now changed) answer][31] to the question,&quot;Why is $PV^γ$&#xD;&#xA;constant in an adiabatic process?&quot; received the following comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You do not need to &quot;archive&quot; the question in your answer, that's what the revision history is for. 2. Suggesting people contact you at your website in an answer is inappropriate, and your repeated pattern of doing so borders on spam. Please stop doing this. 3. Information like pointing OP formatting help should be done in comments not answers - answers should contain solely information pertaining to the actual question posed. – ACuriousMind♦ 18 mins ago &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  What is he trying to say?&#xD;&#xA;2)  What site policies is he referring to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no longer able to update my answer there (currently locked out), getting the following message from his actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][32]][32]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this answer really SPAM-like; if so, why; if not, what can be done to allow me to once more edit the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;                                                                                        בס''ד&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;An Archive of the Question&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I am repeating the question as it is written here so that if the question is modified, it is archived here as I saw it.  Feel free to modify the question with my suggested rewording if you like. I rewrote the question only with my understanding of it. The original question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;  The Full Original Question &lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;In non isolated systems where there is no adiabatic process, PV is constant. But the graph gets steeper in adiabatic process because of the γ over the V. Why is it there in adiabatic processes and why only over the V?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Breaking the Question Down Into Parts to Understand It Better&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it easier to arrive at an answer, it is often helpful to take a multi-part question and break it down into simpler parts.  So I address the three parts of the question individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The first part of the question is:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;In non isolated systems where there is no adiabatic process, PV is constant.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;I would write:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The [ideal gas law][1] ([Boyle's Law][1]) holds that for a confined gas in equilibrium at contact Temperature $T$, that $PV$ is constant, where $P$ is the pressure and $V$ is the volume of the confinement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The second part of your question was:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;But the graph gets steeper in adiabatic process because of the γ over the V.&lt;/blockquote&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;I would write:&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But the graph gets steeper in an [adiabatic process][2] because of the $γ&gt;1$ over the $V$ in the [polytropic process equation][3] for an ideal gas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Adiabatic Gas Curve][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;In part three of your question, you finally asked:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Why is it there in adiabatic processes and why only over the V?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;I would then ask:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why is the $\gamma$ there in adiabatic processes?&quot;  and &quot;Why is the $\gamma$ only over the $V$ in the formula $P V ^\gamma = Constant, \gamma &gt; 1$ and not also over the $P$ (in example $P^\gamma V^\gamma = Constant$)?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Answer&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did I understand your question correctly?  If not, please rewrite the question makes more sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, my answer is that from the graph below, that it shows constant temperature processes as [isotherms][5] and adiabatic process going from one initial isotherm to a different final isotherm.  In short, &lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;temperature is generally &lt;u&gt;not constant&lt;/u&gt; (in the shown adiabatic transitions)&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;, so generally $P V \ne Constant$ for adiabatic transitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Graph of Adiabatic Processes Occurring Between Temperatures][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;My Contact Information&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy to receive an email at [stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com][7] or please just post on our contact page [http://newyorkbusinessreview.com/wordpress/homepage/contact/][8] if you do not have email access.  Anyone is welcome to provide feedback about this question or answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally I have been interested in [Solar Sterling Engines][9] for generating electricity for [electrically motorized bicycles][10] - to solve transportation issues (and also the use of a [Sterling Engine][11] as a form of [electric battery][12] to make electric [motorization][13] of bicycles and kits to make bicycle cars - [quadracycles][14] - from them easier).  Thank you so much for posting such an interesting question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Post-Script: &lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following [HTML formatting link][15] to be very useful for general formatting.  And this [equation formatting link][16] was also very helpful. Thank you Physics Stack Exchange!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytropic_process&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tn0OG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotherm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/efBfc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://mailto://stephenelliott@newyorkbusinessreview.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://newyorkbusinessreview.com/wordpress/homepage/contact/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-powered_Stirling_engine&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://rhoadescar.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1777/what-html-tags-are-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9906/how-can-i-type-the-isomorphic-not-equal-and-the-set-of-integers-rationals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/328281/why-is-pv-gamma-constant-in-an-adiabatic-process/341300#341300&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DyZJP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="7f4afd3a-20aa-4c7b-bd1b-f229694c0205" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:14:15.977" UserId="157002" Text="1) Why might providing contact information be considered spam by ACuriousMind and 2) is he justified in such an approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="7f4afd3a-20aa-4c7b-bd1b-f229694c0205" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:14:15.977" UserId="157002" Text="|discussion|feature-request|scope|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30321" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="be0c0610-208b-4e3c-b0bc-6da2915b1de4" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:22:12.223" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="1) Why might providing contact information be considered spam? and 2) Are moderators justified in such an approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30322" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="be0c0610-208b-4e3c-b0bc-6da2915b1de4" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:22:12.223" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="|discussion|feature-request|specific-question|policy|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9969" RevisionGUID="37d8dcec-79be-4b67-aa3e-9b0b135aebd6" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:24:09.260" UserId="50583" Text="1. I am trying to say precisely what I wrote there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I am referring, among others, to [this policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/360/50583) about salutations, taglines and links to your own stuff not directly related to the question, which you have been informed about before in [this earlier comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340131/where-does-all-the-mass-created-from-energy-go/340157#comment762344_340157).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continually calling upon people to contact you and leaving your own website's address in everything you post is considered spam because **that's what it is** - you are using physics.SE posts to promote your website when it has no relevance to the topic at hand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to edit your post, you should just reload that page - the message you are getting is the standard message for the case where another user has edited a post you are in the process of editing, and has nothing to do with you being &quot;locked out&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="d65213f0-66c1-4bd7-a506-33bb06930377" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:54:58.697" UserId="157002" Text="My post on this was recently deleted, and it &lt;i&gt;feels&lt;/i&gt; a lot like the circumstance &quot;How to deal with negative responses on SE due to personal grudge?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One point to consider is that a perceived personal grudge may not be so.  It may be a professional grudge - which also does not feel very good.  But there is a difference.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A professional grudge is from someone who sees an opportunity for you&#xD;&#xA;   to improve and is trying to reach out to you to make these (in the&#xD;&#xA;   writer's eyes) necessary improvements to really grow.  The person&#xD;&#xA;   with such a grudge is actually hoping for your benefit!&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - A personal grudge comes from someone who is &quot;out to get you&quot; for some&#xD;&#xA;   reason that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  They can do&#xD;&#xA;   so for your benefit or else-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the trick is that a professional grudge and a personal grudge can &lt;i&gt;feel&lt;/i&gt; a lot a like. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My newest recommendation to deal with such perceived grudges is to try to get the facts on the table in a separate more private forum (to not publicly humiliate the person with such a grudge). Also, it is here recommended to start a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So with the action (pictured here) I am posting it as a separate question on the meta, instead of getting into details any more here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Metrocracy feedback][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it is a professional grudge.  I will have to see by evaluating the facts on the separate meta question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions, contact me personally.  I am not posting contact information yet because there is some question if this is proper or not still and I do not want to detract from me current answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xYiQo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="c210dfa5-3627-4188-8d68-82578f4b07e4" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:58:36.250" UserId="124" Comment="remove unnecessary material and improve tags and title" Text="My [(now changed) answer][31] to the question,&quot;Why is $PV^γ$&#xD;&#xA;constant in an adiabatic process?&quot; received the following comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You do not need to &quot;archive&quot; the question in your answer, that's what the revision history is for. 2. Suggesting people contact you at your website in an answer is inappropriate, and your repeated pattern of doing so borders on spam. Please stop doing this. 3. Information like pointing OP formatting help should be done in comments not answers - answers should contain solely information pertaining to the actual question posed. – ACuriousMind♦ 18 mins ago &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is he trying to say?&#xD;&#xA;2. What site policies is he referring to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no longer able to update my answer there (currently locked out), getting the following message from his actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][32]][32]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this answer really spam-like; if so, why; if not, what can be done to allow me to once more edit the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Post-Script:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following [HTML formatting link][15] to be very useful for general formatting.  And this [equation formatting link][16] was also very helpful. Thank you Physics Stack Exchange!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1777/what-html-tags-are-allowed&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9906/how-can-i-type-the-isomorphic-not-equal-and-the-set-of-integers-rationals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/341300/1&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DyZJP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30326" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="c210dfa5-3627-4188-8d68-82578f4b07e4" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:58:36.250" UserId="124" Comment="remove unnecessary material and improve tags and title" Text="Why might providing contact information be considered spam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="c210dfa5-3627-4188-8d68-82578f4b07e4" CreationDate="2017-06-25T10:58:36.250" UserId="124" Comment="remove unnecessary material and improve tags and title" Text="|discussion|specific-question|policy|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="0275abac-91cc-457f-9506-214e62e1e9ae" CreationDate="2017-06-25T11:37:37.260" UserId="157002" Comment="incorrect 'me' changed to 'my'" Text="My post on this was recently deleted, and it &lt;i&gt;feels&lt;/i&gt; a lot like the circumstance &quot;How to deal with negative responses on SE due to personal grudge?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One point to consider is that a perceived personal grudge may not be so.  It may be a professional grudge - which also does not feel very good.  But there is a difference.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A professional grudge is from someone who sees an opportunity for you&#xD;&#xA;   to improve and is trying to reach out to you to make these (in the&#xD;&#xA;   writer's eyes) necessary improvements to really grow.  The person&#xD;&#xA;   with such a grudge is actually hoping for your benefit!&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - A personal grudge comes from someone who is &quot;out to get you&quot; for some&#xD;&#xA;   reason that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  They can do&#xD;&#xA;   so for your benefit or else-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the trick is that a professional grudge and a personal grudge can &lt;i&gt;feel&lt;/i&gt; a lot a like. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My newest recommendation to deal with such perceived grudges is to try to get the facts on the table in a separate more private forum (to not publicly humiliate the person with such a grudge). Also, it is here recommended to start a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So with the action (pictured here) I am posting it as a separate question on the meta, instead of getting into details any more here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Metrocracy feedback][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it is a professional grudge.  I will have to see by evaluating the facts on the separate meta question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any questions, contact me personally.  I am not posting contact information yet because there is some question if this is proper or not still and I do not want to detract from my current answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xYiQo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="9834d812-b5ab-42d1-af06-d16eb14b4f1b" CreationDate="2017-06-25T12:30:58.523" UserId="157002" Text="I found the [Physics Meta article &lt;i&gt;How to deal with negative responses on SE due to personal grudge?&lt;/i&gt;][1] interesting, because it brought to light the phenomenon where some members of the community are privileged and they use that privilege to harm other users in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1) In some cases, the harm may be justified. &#xD;&#xA; - 2) In some cases, the harm is not justified.&#xD;&#xA; - 3) In either case of justified or not, the receiver of the harm of course feels hurt in many cases and wants to know what to do about it.&#xD;&#xA; - 4) A new user receives proportionally far greater harm than an experienced user.&#xD;&#xA; - 5) So an incorrect judgement call on a new user could result in consequences that an experienced user would never normally face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In discussing the subject ACuriousMind put forth an answer that included:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA; A single downvote likewise is both difficult to determine to be cast maliciously and not particularly concerning - this would be different if a user went through several of your posts to downvote them because they don't like you, but there are scripts in place to catch that sort of behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And such a response might be justified from his vantage point - with a wonderful reputation, such that one down-vote does not matter too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what was not taken into consideration was the stature of the person who had made the question, [J. Rahman][2], that he was a new author without *any articles except the one post* - who did not want to make a contribution to Stack Physics Exchange because of how he presumably saw this behavior.  (He still only has the one question post, but now a much-improved reputation of 148 at the time of this writing.)  And from his vantage point, a single down-vote was very significant at the time he wrote the question, with far more impact than on someone with a sizable reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no privilege to comment (which is feedback without possible reputation implications) but did have only privilege to answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Needing more reputation to comment, and not just answer][3]][3]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, consistent with the overall system in place, no consideration was taken about the impact of a suggestion.  I was suggested to &quot;comment&quot; instead of answer when it was very clear from my answer that the reason I posted it there was that I *do not have the option to comment within Stack Exchange Physics's System*.  The suggestion posted here &lt;i&gt;felt&lt;/i&gt; like it fit within Categories $2$,$4$, and $5$ in the bullet items above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Image showing that Suggestion to Comment *Was Not Possible*][4]][4]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am repeating my response to his claim (and making an archive copy of my response) that the single vote was really not so significant and did not so much harm as evidence so give the moderators and members a full picture of his action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I down-voted your answer and I will tell you why.  Convince me otherwise and I would be willing to reconsider and up-vote it. &quot;It only subtracts 2 points, which is not worth to spend a lot of effort on,&quot; ignores the situation on this site whereby there are a very large number of users who can down-vote, but not explain themselves (without exposing their reputation).  If someone down-votes an answer, that person *should always* be allowed to explain in just a few words why.  Otherwise we are not really a [*meritocracy*][1] but rather a [*hypocracy*][2] because we are using the voting system as &quot;the conscious use of a mask to fool the public and gain political benefit.&quot;  The system is constrained so that a voter can down-vote but not have the opportunity in most cases even to explain himself.  So there is *no merit* to his vote.  There is no learning opportunity to correct defects from such an experience.  Science is based on the merit of hypotheses and testing these, no matter how simple or seemingly inconsequential.  A down vote without a hypothesis on why it is cast violates the very principles of physics and science that the site claims to promote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō, and -cracy, from Ancient Greek&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κράτος kratos &quot;strength, power&quot;) is a political philosophy holding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ability and talent.[41] Advancement in such a system is based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performance measured through examination and/or demonstrated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; achievement in the field where it is implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in a general sense,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham. Hypocrisy is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.[41] According to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; British political philosopher David Runciman, &quot;Other kinds of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hold.&quot;[42] American political journalist Michael Gerson says that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; political hypocrisy is &quot;the conscious use of a mask to fool the public&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and gain political benefit.&quot;[42]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9931/how-to-deal-with-negative-responses-on-se-due-to-personal-grudge/9970#9970&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/76347/j-rahman&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PYAO5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NSXop.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [41]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy&#xD;&#xA;  [42]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="9834d812-b5ab-42d1-af06-d16eb14b4f1b" CreationDate="2017-06-25T12:30:58.523" UserId="157002" Text="Is ACuriousMind's Approach to Delete the Answer Provided When No Comment Was Possible Consistent with a Metrocracy or Hypocracy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="9834d812-b5ab-42d1-af06-d16eb14b4f1b" CreationDate="2017-06-25T12:30:58.523" UserId="157002" Text="|discussion|support|comments|policy|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="3aaad9c3-08ea-4e5a-af32-1b33bc9488f7" CreationDate="2017-06-25T12:36:08.247" UserId="2451" Comment="Tried to make the question title about policy rather than persons" Text="Is a moderator's Approach to Delete the Answer Provided When No Comment Was Possible Consistent with a Metrocracy or Hypocracy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="a96c9b03-b48b-4f8b-9bdf-32c055916531" CreationDate="2017-06-25T12:55:10.117" UserId="56299" Text="Discussions on meta Stack Exchange sites are discussions, but they are still  expected to have some structure. If you post an answer, **it is expected to address the question itself, not another post**. If your answer is not an answer, [it may be deleted](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers), as per site policy. It is also possible that a moderator with [convert the answer to a comment](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/13330/2153), if it is suitable. One reason this was not done was because your answer is far too long to fit into a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, [moderators should not moderate content on their own posts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/202224/274942), as it would be a conflict of interest. Some moderators extend this to not moderating posts on threads they've been active on, lest they make an impression of impropriety. Some would say that ACuriousMind should, therefore, not have deleted your post, and let another moderator do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would like to make three points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Your answer was pretty clearly not an answer. Potential conflict of interest or not, it should have been deleted.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Please [assume good faith](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/55822/274942). When a user does something, it's possible that they're being nefarious, but it's also quite likely that they're doing what's right.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Each Stack Exchange site has at least one chat room; Physics has [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). If you have an issue with another user with [enough reputation to chat](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat), I would recommend taking it there and calmly talking it out first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="8bc32608-04e2-4492-9e95-2c427d79ecbb" CreationDate="2017-06-25T15:14:57.033" UserId="56299" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Discussions on meta Stack Exchange sites are discussions, but they are still  expected to have some structure. If you post an answer, then just as on the main site, **it is expected to address the question itself, not another post**. If your answer is not an answer, [it may be deleted](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers), as per site policy. It is also possible that a moderator with [convert the answer to a comment](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/13330/2153), if it is suitable. One reason this was not done was because your answer is far too long to fit into a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, [moderators should not moderate content on their own posts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/202224/274942), as it would be a conflict of interest. Some moderators extend this to not moderating posts on threads they've been active on, lest they make an impression of impropriety. They would say that ACuriousMind should, therefore, not have deleted your post, and let another moderator do it. However, I also think that many moderators - maybe the majority - would agree with ACuriousMind's action; I know I do. The case is clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to make three points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Your answer was pretty clearly not an answer. Potential conflict of interest or not, it should have been deleted.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Please [assume good faith](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/55822/274942). When a user does something, it's possible that they're being nefarious, but it's also quite likely that they're doing what's right.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Each Stack Exchange site has at least one chat room; Physics has [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar). If you have an issue with another user with [enough reputation to chat](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat), I would recommend taking it there and calmly talking it out first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="199cbc97-5801-473d-8070-ca0d24d640af" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:57:01.223" UserId="57094" Text="A sequence of accidents made me arrive [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4200/yes-another-closed-question-question/4201?noredirect=1#comment37530_4201). Why to exist on meta if you can use the time to learning physics? So, I am rarely on meta. Well, this question made me produce my first comment on meta, which made me produce my first question ever on meta. Yay!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway.. The question linked above seems to make reference of our &quot;most modern standards&quot; of April 2013, regarding if certain types of questions requesting a learning-path, or resource-recommendation, or any learning-related-thing are off topic or not. At least, it is the impression I got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this question, [Dilaton's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4202/57094) seems to suggest that @DavidZ and *few* others are the &quot;driving forces&quot; behind the implementation and maintenance of this policy. And at which the majority does not support (well.. I know I don't). Regardless if his analysis is correct or not, it seems however to fit some experimental data provided by @Magpie in a sequence of comments below [DavidZ answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4201/57094). Hereby, I'll operate under the assumption that @Dilaton is correct, and hence the why I am writing this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've written the first paragraph because of what @Dilaton said and I quote:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead, people in power should refrain or stop hardcore enforcing these &quot;new standards&quot;, which may not be supported by the large majority of the community (including people active only on the main page!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes! Me. I am only &quot;active&quot; in the main page and unaware of most policies and rules and whatever people do on the meta site. So, besides having some experimental data to support his claims, Dilaton's answer also has myself fitted in. Also, and with little search, I couldn't find any voting page on meta which the community would decide this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of my time is self learning physics (because... why not?). I've found lists with references, especially those saying *why a specific book is good, etc* particularly very useful. Sometimes as useful as purely physics questions. Also, some of questions such as &quot;learning physics for mathematician&quot; or &quot;learning physics for engineers&quot; has been very useful to me, to separate resources more math-oriented or more physics-oriented, or applied-orientend, or exercise-oriented, or engineering-oriented, or whatever-oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you guys that already know a lot of physics find these kinds of questions useless. Maybe you think they pollute the high quality content of SE Physics. In short, I don't know why you guys dislike these questions (or even if you do). But, I am sure others find those quite useful. Especially the ones who are learning (like myself). That being said, I can only hope today, 4 years  later after the linked question, this policy has changed, at least a little bit. Has it? Maybe there is a reason for all this to exist that I am missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Questions are:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Has this policy changed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What exactly is this policy anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why do we need it? What are the reasons for this policy to exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do apologize for producing a long text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="199cbc97-5801-473d-8070-ca0d24d640af" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:57:01.223" UserId="57094" Text="Are request-learning-path questions off topic? Why are them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="199cbc97-5801-473d-8070-ca0d24d640af" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:57:01.223" UserId="57094" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30343" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="229db586-4b23-47cc-b96c-10827d0f94a5" CreationDate="2017-06-25T22:07:07.043" UserId="57094" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|policy|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="41e5194f-0ef2-4fc7-8048-993ebb9d2e1b" CreationDate="2017-06-25T22:16:54.473" UserId="124" Comment="make question more focused" Text="I was looking at a [previous meta question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4200/yes-another-closed-question-question) regarding whether certain types of questions requesting a learning-path, or resource-recommendation, or any learning-related-things are off topic or not. I couldn't find any vote on meta in which the community had decided this. What is the policy? Are these questions on topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A significant portion of my time is self learning physics, and I've found lists with references, especially those saying *why a specific book is good, etc* particularly very useful. Also, some of questions such as &quot;learning physics for mathematician&quot; or &quot;learning physics for engineers&quot; has been very useful to me, to separate resources more math-oriented or more physics-oriented, or applied-orientend, or exercise-oriented, or engineering-oriented, or whatever-oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you guys that already know a lot of physics find these kinds of questions useless. Maybe you think they pollute the high quality content of Physics SE. In short, I don't know why you guys dislike these questions (or even if you do). But, I am sure others find those quite useful. Especially the ones who are learning (like myself). That being said, I can only hope today, 4 years  later after the linked question, this policy has changed, at least a little bit. Has it? Maybe there is a reason for all this to exist that I am missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Questions are:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Has the policy on learning-related questions changed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is the policy anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why do we need it? What are the reasons for this policy to exist?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30345" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="41e5194f-0ef2-4fc7-8048-993ebb9d2e1b" CreationDate="2017-06-25T22:16:54.473" UserId="124" Comment="make question more focused" Text="Are request-learning-path questions off topic? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9975" RevisionGUID="0fe35790-143a-4da4-ae45-6d8f490fbaf0" CreationDate="2017-06-25T22:53:22.283" UserId="8563" Text="Your question is a bit confused but I think that you're mixing two types of questions and two separate policies, one of which did in fact change shortly after the [question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4200/yes-another-closed-question-question) you referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time that question was asked, *all* resource-recommendation questions were considered off topic and were promptly closed, by community agreement. (And, while we're here: accusations of a &quot;small group&quot; &quot;taking control&quot; of decisions like that are largely unfounded, I think, and hardly constructive.) In months that followed that thread, however, several things changed: this started with the thread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which represents a collective agreement that we should work towards a resource-recommendation policy that works better for the site, an effort which culminated with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in a tightly defined line of the kinds of recommendation questions which this community does and does not consider to work with our format and to add value to the knowledge store in our site archives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have found the threads in the [tag:resource-recommendations] tag useful, as they stand today, it's largely because of the effort that took place in those months to craft a policy that would allow the questions but only in a form that would make them useful to a wide audience. (In its previous life, the [tag:books] tag mostly consisted of unannotated lists of books that were of little added value compared to e.g. a page of Amazon search results.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A separate kind of question is the &quot;how do I learn...&quot; type of query - think [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35243/how-do-i-learn-higher-level-physics) or [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33222/how-do-you-start-learning-physics-by-yourself) as examples - and those remain off-topic, though I'm not aware of a single specific thread that documents the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that they are simultaneously too broad and too localized: they tend to require a *much* broader kind of answer than our format can really provide, and they tend to only be useful for the OP when they are strictly tailored to their experience, which makes them less useful for a wider audience. In addition, they have a junk-food-like quality to them, in that they attract lots of continuous attention (for a comparatively low objective value of the thread) and thus tend to drown out other content which we do want to incentivize. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These qualities make the genre hard to handle and it makes many people think that they're not worth the trouble, though as you note they are not entirely without interest to a nontrivial audience. A bit beyond that, the existence of [Academia Stack Exchange](https://academia.stackexchange.com) has eased off the pressure on several of the soft-question types of thread, by providing an outlet for them - though I'm not quite sure how on-topic a question like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33222/how-do-you-start-learning-physics-by-yourself), say, would be on the academia site nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you think that those questions should be allowed, you're welcome to make a case that they *do* serve a part of this site's audience (which includes, according to the site charter, &quot;active researchers, academics *and students* of physics) and that they can be made to work with the site's format rather than against it. An appeal for a blank cheque is unlikely to go down well, I think: instead, we would need a solid plan for dealing with the problems I listed above (and probably other objections I'm forgetting about at the moment) and a tightly defined way to handle those questions analogous to the one we currently use for resource-recommendation threads. I'm not sure that can be made to work, but you're welcome to make proposals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="8f139064-2d87-429d-b600-3eaa0abb4562" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:19:49.050" UserId="8563" Comment="Updated to reflect changed mechanics." Text="Find the &quot;cite&quot; button underneath a post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then click it, and you'll get the BiBTeX and amsrefs source for citing a post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H5uHK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Aj9Z.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="a4b378c5-149a-48f0-b26d-aa4a2416107f" CreationDate="2017-06-27T13:07:36.847" UserId="26969" Text="It has happened to me in the past that I wrote an answer, then thought &quot;that sounds familiar&quot;, searched, found my original, and marked the question as a duplicate (linking to my earlier answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your answer has not been accepted, you can then choose to delete it (note - you _cannot_ delete your answer after it has been accepted although you could still edit it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that all the above can happen &quot;in good faith&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes happen. Best advice: ignore and move along. Some questions are wrongly marked as duplicates - come to Meta and argue for them to be reopened. If someone answered your question, and this was helpful - give them an upvote. If it doesn't fully answer your question, leave a comment explaining what you are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In everything you do here, act with grace beyond what others deserve; assume good intent, even when there is reason to suspect otherwise; and in egregious cases, use the flags under questions/answers/comments to alert a moderator that &quot;something untoward is going on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single downvotes, even if given out of spite, are just part of the fabric of this community. Serial downvotes (where someone unleashes a torrent of downvotes in quick succession) get detected by an algorithm and reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look for the positive, and enjoy the community. Have fun, learn lots, and take regular stretch breaks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="9aa0fbb4-458e-41fa-82b9-724f3814af77" CreationDate="2017-06-27T20:14:41.277" UserId="26969" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="It has happened to me in the past that I wrote an answer, then thought &quot;that sounds familiar&quot;, searched, found my original, and marked the question as a duplicate (linking to my earlier answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your answer has not been accepted, you can then choose to delete it (note - you _cannot_ delete your answer after it has been accepted although you could still edit it ... but a &quot;harmful edit&quot;, where you delete the entire body of the text, for example, is likely to get rolled back by a high-rep user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that all the above can happen &quot;in good faith&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes happen. Best advice: ignore and move along. Some questions are wrongly marked as duplicates - come to Meta and argue for them to be reopened. If someone answered your question, and this was helpful - give them an upvote. If it doesn't fully answer your question, leave a comment explaining what you are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In everything you do here, act with grace beyond what others deserve; assume good intent, even when there is reason to suspect otherwise; and in egregious cases, use the flags under questions/answers/comments to alert a moderator that &quot;something untoward is going on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single downvotes, even if given out of spite, are just part of the fabric of this community. Serial downvotes (where someone unleashes a torrent of downvotes in quick succession) get detected by an algorithm and reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look for the positive, and enjoy the community. Have fun, learn lots, and take regular stretch breaks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="894b9343-b65e-47d7-b445-473d74740862" CreationDate="2017-06-28T12:39:46.823" UserId="97383" Text="I don't see how non-mainstream is the same as crackpot-ism. If everyone keeps repeating mainstream teachings it's just religion. Were Galileo's views main-stream? Now, I know this isn't a place for publishing research. But especially considering the various equally valid interpretations of quantum mechanics: There seems to be a strong bias towards the Kopenhagen interpretation on stackexchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not simply a non-mainstream tag instead of a non-mainstream flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="d9c1bb26-e2a2-4d27-91b7-8d9d8d00834d" CreationDate="2017-06-28T12:53:32.370" UserId="97383" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="I don't see how non-mainstream is the same as crackpot-ism. If everyone keeps repeating mainstream teachings it's just religion. Were Galileo's views main-stream? Now, I know this isn't a place for publishing research. But especially considering the various equally valid interpretations of quantum mechanics: There seems to be a strong bias towards the Kopenhagen interpretation on stackexchange.   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Majority vote or having read something in a main-stream book has nothing to do with scientific evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not simply a non-mainstream tag instead of a non-mainstream flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="513f0c6a-2104-4d35-b7c8-f159039ecc63" CreationDate="2017-06-28T12:58:56.573" UserId="97383" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="I don't see how non-mainstream is the same as crackpot-ism. If everyone keeps repeating mainstream teachings it's just religion. Were Galileo's views main-stream? Now, I know this isn't a place for publishing research. But especially considering the various equally valid interpretations of quantum mechanics: There seems to be a strong bias towards the Kopenhagen interpretation on stackexchange.   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Majority vote or having read something in a main-stream book has nothing to do with scientific evidence.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The result of this anti-non-mainstream-policy is that for example renowned physicists like Nobel laureate 't Hooft giving scientific good answers are downvoted simply because what he is talking about is relatively new and not yet mainstream. (Not that it should matter who the answerer is. It just goes to show that the assumption that all non-mainstream posts are basically from 10 year old know-it-alls, is wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not simply a non-mainstream tag instead of a non-mainstream flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="8c012bd9-734b-48db-a249-28f8f66c0c44" CreationDate="2017-06-28T13:38:23.070" UserId="97383" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I don't see how non-mainstream is the same as crackpot-ism. If everyone keeps repeating mainstream teachings it's just religion. Were Galileo's views main-stream? Now, I know this isn't a place for publishing research. But especially considering the various equally valid interpretations of quantum mechanics: There seems to be a strong bias towards the Kopenhagen interpretation on stackexchange.   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Majority vote or having read something in a main-stream book has nothing to do with scientific evidence.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The result of this anti-non-mainstream-policy is that for example renowned physicists like Nobel laureate 't Hooft giving scientific good answers are downvoted simply because what he is talking about is relatively new and not yet mainstream. (Not that it should matter who the answerer is. It just goes to show that the assumption that all non-mainstream posts are basically from 10 year old know-it-alls, is wrong.)  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Mainstream orthodoxy and dogmatism have always stood in the way of scientific progress!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not simply a non-mainstream tag instead of a non-mainstream flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="a553528b-219a-4108-8781-986ecafb66f6" CreationDate="2017-06-28T16:08:23.280" UserId="8563" Comment="Added screenshots to document OP's original references publicly." Text="I have noticed some &quot;non-mainstream&quot; (it may be rude to say crackpot) questions and answers recently such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Mass term in the Minkowski metric and an oscillation model in Lorentz group](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68508/mass-term-in-the-minkowski-metric-and-an-oscillation-model-in-lorentz-group) ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QdZRB.png))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Help me test and prove this theory?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68503/help-me-test-and-prove-this-theory) ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uUeqT.png))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26692/can-we-model-gravitation-as-a-repulsive-force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16227/what-is-the-kinematics-of-a-particle-with-complex-mass/18678#18678 ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/11AHg.png))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18645/plausible-explanations-for-3-local-space-dimensions/18666#18666 ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0c1l.png))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17939/what-if-we-could-give-photons-some-mass/18676#18676 ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2zn1V.png))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1869/what-reasons-are-there-to-suspect-string-theory-may-be-an-incorrect-theory/16655#16655 ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yM90H.png)) (an instance of calling rather mainstream theory, string theory as fringe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26906/models-of-neutrinos-consistent-with-operas-results/26909#26909 ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6F35j.png))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I am flagging these as &quot;spam&quot; because they are pretty much like advertisements but isn't it better to have a more specific flag associated with these, like &quot;Non-mainstream&quot;? Since &quot;Spam&quot; usually refers to answers like &quot;me too! I would like to thank so and so website for leading me here&quot; or &quot;me too! So and so company can help you!&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, has this &quot;Non-mainstream&quot; -flag been proposed before? And what are your thoughts about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30361" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="881af183-f1d2-442b-9fd8-572b79cafbb6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T09:14:11.170" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/297794/questions-which-are-clear-enough-yet-rejected" />
  <row Id="30362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="b05a223e-3049-4029-abec-ed9673652127" CreationDate="2017-06-29T09:11:48.297" UserId="27597" Text="I have asked several questions in Physics. I never seem to get a satisfactory answer. The only people who do answer are those who are overly concerned about form and structure of the question but does not have anything at all to contribute to the answer of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this site about &quot;how to ask questions?&quot; or is it about asking physics questions to get either mathematical solutions or appropriate answers to the &quot;physics&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="b05a223e-3049-4029-abec-ed9673652127" CreationDate="2017-06-29T09:11:48.297" UserId="27597" Text="Questions which are clear enough, yet rejected!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="b05a223e-3049-4029-abec-ed9673652127" CreationDate="2017-06-29T09:11:48.297" UserId="27597" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9980" RevisionGUID="3e932ffb-f9fe-4759-96fb-aede8846c015" CreationDate="2017-06-29T09:51:59.610" UserId="1325" Text="Of the seven questions you have asked five of them have been answered with no or only minor edits to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278003/cosmology-parameters was edited because it contained multiple different questions and we require only one question per post. The question was edited and subsequently answered, and you have accepted the answer. In fact four of the questions have answers that you have accepted and [one more][1] has an answer that seems pretty good to me but which you haven't accepted for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is just the one question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/341873/anisotropy-and-the-planck-results that is on hold pending clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the evidence does not support your claim that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I never seem to get a satisfactory answer. The only people who do answer are those who are overly concerned about form and structure of the question but does not have anything at all to contribute to the answer of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/285596/friedmann-equations-for-an-open-and-accelerating-expansion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30366" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="dd5fbe35-c174-4ae4-b1e7-98a2c5cd853e" CreationDate="2017-06-29T10:34:00.320" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9981" RevisionGUID="f781d776-7f56-4ba6-abbc-0c657b69677a" CreationDate="2017-06-29T14:14:20.187" UserId="44126" Text="This has already shown up in the comments, but seems worth promoting to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;You say, in questions and comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I never seem to get a satisfactory answer. ... Whereas the other questions, for want of better answers, I accepted them nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a case of &quot;Doc, it hurts when I do this&quot; being answered with &quot;Well, don't don't do that.&quot;  Accepting an answer is how you announce to the world that you find it satisfactory.  On-topic questions here can accept new answers basically for ever --- there are even badges awarded for bringing an old question [back](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/59/revival) from the [dead](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/44/necromancer).  But someone who is trawling through the back catalogue of questions is unlikely to go to the effort of writing a *new* answer to your question if you've already got an answer marked as &quot;acceptable.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9982" RevisionGUID="056a5e06-2305-4c19-8fcf-bac547103aeb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T12:47:14.357" UserId="101770" Text="So I asked a question yesterday about how to do quantum mechanics with a Sturm-Liouville Schrödinger equation. Somehow it has disappeared completely :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to guess I might have accidentally deleted it in the app. I did some editing there and have pretty clumsy fingers. However I have deleted other things on purpose before and then I could just find them in the reputation notifications or elsewhere. I believe that also gave the option to undelete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the question seems to have disappeared completely though, so I'm not sure that accidental deleting was the reason. Can someone help me recover it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9982" RevisionGUID="056a5e06-2305-4c19-8fcf-bac547103aeb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T12:47:14.357" UserId="101770" Text="My question has disappeared :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9982" RevisionGUID="056a5e06-2305-4c19-8fcf-bac547103aeb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T12:47:14.357" UserId="101770" Text="|support|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9983" RevisionGUID="14111616-6258-4ba7-9269-e7ff37322b5a" CreationDate="2017-06-30T13:32:46.920" UserId="2451" Text="It seems you accidentally deleted [your question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342061/2451) 5 hours ago. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: OP has now undeleted his question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9982" RevisionGUID="e9441a4c-c78f-4049-9a39-d939245bcee5" CreationDate="2017-06-30T13:34:44.573" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30373" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="d9ac0493-9909-41c1-9cf2-19aa575c21f2" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:05:40.037" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342290/the-downvote-option-for-questions-should-be-removed" />
  <row Id="30374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="dfcec561-74d5-4a92-a7be-6187b8a15ac3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:01:58.230" UserId="158796" Text="This is not related to Physics obviously, but what I think is that the downvote option to questions on this website should be removed, as on asking a dumb question out of curiosity, the question is generally bombarded with dozens of downvotes which then decreases the reputation and kills the curiosity to ask more questions. The downvote option is kind of a discouragement for newbies on this site, for me too :D. Who else thinks it should be removed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW I am putting in some random tags to spread this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="dfcec561-74d5-4a92-a7be-6187b8a15ac3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:01:58.230" UserId="158796" Text="The downvote option for questions should be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="dfcec561-74d5-4a92-a7be-6187b8a15ac3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:01:58.230" UserId="158796" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9985" RevisionGUID="54619c21-d4e7-4e45-b65e-9fe6fe86d923" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:12:54.487" UserId="63547" Text="Removing them will lead people to think it's okay (i.e. it won't cause them any harm) to ask questions that: are homework-like, show no research effort, violate site policy in anyway. This would lead to decrease in the quality of the content on the website, which can lead to a pretty bad feedback loop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvotes also aren't &quot;weighed&quot; as much as upvotes on positive content, so it's not as bad as you think.  (i.e. 2 upvotes on an answer = 10 downvotes on a question) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read the discussion on (especially ACuriousMind's answer): https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially one of the comments from an SO user gives good insight. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9986" RevisionGUID="14dc484d-1256-4e70-8c62-c97d618e31e9" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:18:23.400" UserDisplayName="user154420" Text="This site has been built up by many people, who really worked to establish it's reputation. I don't think your previous question was in anyway dumb,. You are being too harsh with yourself. But the down vote option is for obvious non mainstream questions, off topic questions and to gauge by concensus if an answer is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So dumb questions will get d/v. Always&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your point of view, look at the questions that do get good answers and copy their style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; if you  know some of your question is ok, go ahead with them in your own words,  then copy Wikipedia to express the parts you know that you will know you are unsure about and will  attract criticism&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="f7471cde-f7a5-405c-97fa-f122693f3970" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:19:24.850" UserId="8563" Text="That's... unlikely to happen, but it is ultimately not something this community can control. The core Q&amp;A engine is managed by Stack Exchange an shared by [the 150+ sites in the network](https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday), and this kind of change to the engine would have to be done centrally by them. If you want to suggest this change, then the central meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com), is the place to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can tell you right here and now that there's a 0% chance that SE will implement this: as detailed in [the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) down-voting answers will cost you 1 rep, but down-voting questions doesn't. That is, there is already a baked-in preference to make it *easier* to downvote questions. Why is this? Because bad questions (boring, badly researched, badly written, inconsistent, what have you) make the site boring and drive away the qualified people we want answering questions; for more details, see the blog post [Optimizing For Pearls, Not Sand](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9986" RevisionGUID="cfdf61cc-29f2-43c0-8573-eb80575623ed" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:23:38.067" UserDisplayName="user154420" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="This site has been built up by many people, who really worked to establish it's reputation. I don't think your previous question was in anyway dumb,. You are being too harsh with yourself. But the down vote option is for obvious non mainstream questions, off topic questions and to gauge by concensus if a question or answer is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So dumb questions will get d/v. Always&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your point of view, look at the questions that do get good answers and copy their style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; if you  know some of your question is ok, go ahead with them in your own words,  then copy (and credit) Wikipedia to express the parts you know that you  know you are unsure about and will  attract criticism if you badly word them yourself..&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="3172625e-d1b7-4e1b-90c5-86e760333daa" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:24:44.443" UserId="8563" Comment="added 502 characters in body" Text="That's... unlikely to happen, but it is ultimately not something this community can control. The core Q&amp;A engine is managed by Stack Exchange an shared by [the 150+ sites in the network](https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday), and this kind of change to the engine would have to be done centrally by them. If you want to suggest this change, then the central meta site, [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com), is the place to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can tell you right here and now that there's a 0% chance that SE will implement this: as detailed in [the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down) down-voting answers will cost you 1 rep, but down-voting questions doesn't. That is, there is already a baked-in preference to make it *easier* to downvote questions. Why is this? Because bad questions (boring, badly researched, badly written, inconsistent, what have you) make the site boring and drive away the qualified people we want answering questions; for more details, see the blog post [Optimizing For Pearls, Not Sand](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if you do get downvotes on your questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is a single downvote on an isolated question, then seriously, shrug it off. I know it sounds glib for a high-rep user to say this, but it *is* just fake internet points at the end of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is a noticeably low score on one or a series of questions, then do pay attention to what aspects of that question might make it a bad fit for the site, ask politely for feedback if you don't understand, and act accordingly if you do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="26282b09-d49e-4175-9439-ac95b4b90ac3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:40:16.673" UserId="1325" Text="I have a lot of sympathy with your position. I will not usually downvote a well intentioned question and [I do think we are sometimes a bit over eager to downvote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a couple of points to bear in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly a downvote principally means *this isn't a good question for this site*. Downvoting removes a question from the site home page and it enables the autodelete to hoover up the question if it doesn't get a good answer in a few days. So downvoting has a purpose and isn't just a way of telling people we think they suck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly we do get some real stinkers of questions from time to time. We get lots of homework questions from people too lazy even to type out the question (they just post a photo of the book), questions that display no thought at all, and questions that are plain incomprehensible. Not to mention questions that are a thinly veiled advert for the OP's own pet theory (usually that Einstein was wrong). So we do need a way of flagging up these questions to readers who might otherwise take them more seriously than they merit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally note that a downvote here just means people disagree with you, not that it's a bad question. So the three downvotes and one upvote that your question has attracted at the time of writing this just means three people disagree with you and one person agrees with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9986" RevisionGUID="9e98e5af-ab21-450b-b7aa-ecbe2485dd21" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:47:03.693" UserDisplayName="user154420" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="This site has been built up by many people, who really worked to establish it's reputation. I don't think your previous question was in anyway dumb,. You are being too harsh with yourself. But the down vote option is vital, imo,  to gauge by concensus if a question is appropriate, in various ways,  to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So dumb questions will get d/v. Always&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your point of view, look at the questions that do get good answers and copy their style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; if you  know some of your question is ok, go ahead with them in your own words,  then copy (and credit) Wikipedia to express the parts you know that you  know you are unsure about and will  attract criticism if you badly word them yourself..&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="559fced4-201e-4bee-b166-91adb0bdd25a" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:30:17.847" UserId="1325" Comment="Clarify" Text="I have a lot of sympathy with your position. I will not usually downvote a well intentioned question and [I do think we are sometimes a bit over eager to downvote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a couple of points to bear in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly a downvote principally means *this isn't a good question for this site*. Downvoting removes a question from the site home page and it enables the autodelete to hoover up the question if it doesn't get a good answer in a few days. So downvoting has a purpose and isn't just a way of telling people we think they suck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly we do get some real stinkers of questions from time to time. We get lots of homework questions from people too lazy even to type out the question (they just post a photo of the book), questions that display no thought at all, and questions that are plain incomprehensible. Not to mention questions that are a thinly veiled advert for the OP's own pet theory (usually that Einstein was wrong). So we do need a way of flagging up these questions to readers who might otherwise take them more seriously than they merit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally note that a downvote here on the Physics Meta just means people disagree with you, not that it's a bad question. So the three downvotes and one upvote that your question has attracted at the time of writing this just means three people disagree with you and one person agrees with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="d49e34a4-11e5-429e-a5da-2f8a6ef25a3e" CreationDate="2017-07-01T00:44:14.493" UserId="121464" Text="I have noticed the &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; close reason misused multiple times (if asked, I can provide links, but I can think of many). However, there was one recent case that made me write this post. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342162/increasing-the-momentum-of-a-photon has four close votes saying the question is unclear. The text of the question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there another way to increase a photon's momentum other than increasing its energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Guys, this question is perfectly clear! If the answer is &quot;no&quot;, that does *not* mean it is unclear. If it's got an answer that's legitimate (i.e., not spam, vlq, etc) it's probably *not* unclear. I've seen close votes on other questions in spite of these two things many times, and I'd just like to write a community-wide reminder and see what the rational of the close votes there was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also find it disturbing how much the question has been downvoted (-5, +1 at time of writing). First, yes, it is a &quot;simple&quot; question, but in fact, I think it's a rather good, succinct one, especially for a beginner. And yes, the answer is no - but negative answers can be just as good as positive ones. I think the answer exemplifies the fact that it's a good question - it's rather hard to [polish mud](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77674/abridged-too-far/77683#77683), and the answer is quite a good one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: thoughts? Is the unclear close reason being used for a purpose I'm not seeing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="d49e34a4-11e5-429e-a5da-2f8a6ef25a3e" CreationDate="2017-07-01T00:44:14.493" UserId="121464" Text="Not unclear if there's an answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="d49e34a4-11e5-429e-a5da-2f8a6ef25a3e" CreationDate="2017-07-01T00:44:14.493" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|down-votes|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="7af725b6-b256-4ebf-982c-f773f3a1b3d6" CreationDate="2017-07-01T00:55:21.867" UserId="121464" Comment="deleted 522 characters in body" Text="I have noticed the &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; close reason misused multiple times (if asked, I can provide links, but I can think of many). However, there was one recent case that made me write this post. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342162/increasing-the-momentum-of-a-photon has four close votes saying the question is unclear. The text of the question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there another way to increase a photon's momentum other than increasing its energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Guys, this question is perfectly clear! If the answer is &quot;no&quot;, that does *not* mean it is unclear. If it's got an answer that's legitimate (i.e., not spam, vlq, etc) it's probably *not* unclear. I've seen close votes on other questions in spite of these two things many times, and I'd just like to write a community-wide reminder and see what the rational of the close votes there was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: thoughts? Is the unclear close reason being used for a purpose I'm not seeing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9990" RevisionGUID="2e264a47-a171-4247-bb05-75ebe6e340e6" CreationDate="2017-07-01T02:26:16.043" UserId="9887" Text="&gt; Is the unclear close reason being used for a purpose I'm not seeing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question right after it was posted and offered a comment to the OP.  The original post is (from the edit history):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IF! a photon could go faster than the speed of light, would its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; momentum increase? And also, is there another way to increase a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; photon's momentum other than increasing its energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to check but it's entirely possible that the close votes (for being unclear) were cast before the OP edited the question in response to one or more comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the edit, I removed my comment but I see one is still there regarding the original post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="c7e3fff0-1542-4f1c-bdec-71b652093ce9" CreationDate="2017-07-01T06:43:16.827" UserId="1492" Text="[![screen shot now][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The physics Meta panel on the right is a chat , not active since june 24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bug? or it only appears when an interesting/popular  subject is being discussed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UjTCj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="c7e3fff0-1542-4f1c-bdec-71b652093ce9" CreationDate="2017-07-01T06:43:16.827" UserId="1492" Text="not seeing a meta link on main page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="c7e3fff0-1542-4f1c-bdec-71b652093ce9" CreationDate="2017-07-01T06:43:16.827" UserId="1492" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9992" RevisionGUID="a4a6c510-91f1-468d-bd76-4ca3d459e329" CreationDate="2017-07-01T07:03:00.037" UserId="124" Text="If you're asking about the &quot;Featured meta posts&quot; section that would ordinarily appear in the yellow box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![closeup of right sidebar with freehand circle showing no meta posts][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That isn't showing up because there are no meta posts eligible to show right now. It's not a bug, it's just an unusual situation which is why it might look weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meta questions become eligible to appear in the box in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A moderator manually applies the [meta-tag:featured] tag to the question.&#xD;&#xA;- The question is recent, active, and has a reasonably positive score. The specific criteria are [listed on mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/130893/56541).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the thing you see that is labeled &quot;Physics Meta&quot; is simply a link to a chat room, and it only has that label because the chat room is called &quot;Physics Meta&quot;. It has (almost) no relationship to this meta site that we are currently reading. We should probably come up with a different name for that room at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chat room links are completely separate from the links to meta posts that would normally appear in the yellow box. I believe there are always two chat rooms shown, and they are chosen from among all chat rooms associated with this site using some criteria related to recent activity - though I'm not sure what exactly those criteria are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UGOJY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="ad5df6d4-72bf-49bf-82a1-ad27051cb947" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:38:08.927" UserId="46399" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="[![screen shot now][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Physics Meta panel on the right is a chat, not active since the June 24 bug? &#xD;&#xA;Or does it only appear when an interesting/popular  subject is being discussed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UjTCj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="a6ff66f5-c3a6-4bc2-b3c0-4dd2331a07ff" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:40:13.127" UserId="46399" Comment="Last line is unnecessary in the present context" Text="This is not related to Physics obviously, but what I think is that the downvote option to questions on this website should be removed, as on asking a dumb question out of curiosity, the question is generally bombarded with dozens of downvotes which then decreases the reputation and kills the curiosity to ask more questions. The downvote option is kind of a discouragement for newbies on this site, for me too :D. Who else thinks it should be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="a6ff66f5-c3a6-4bc2-b3c0-4dd2331a07ff" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:40:13.127" UserId="46399" Comment="Last line is unnecessary in the present context" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9993" RevisionGUID="1a48ca19-55d6-4369-812f-d2fc41991c15" CreationDate="2017-07-02T00:52:01.140" UserId="36194" Text="&gt; The downvote option is kind of a discouragement for newbies on this site, for me too :D. Who else thinks it should be removed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvote option is not for the discouragement of newbie, no more than the up vote is for the encouragement of newbies, since questions or answers posted by anyone can get downvoted (or upvoted): the downvote option is for bad questions or answers, irrespective of the poster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression - to amplify a comment by @John Rennie - is that some new users are careless with their questions: they expect people to read it, think about it and provide a thoughtful answer when they themselves have put little thought into formatting, editing or researching their question; posting a page from a textbook is a perfect example of this.  Such questions are very rightfully downvoted, irrespective of the seniority of the poster, and I hope without regards for the feelings of the poster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure the OP has noted that the pool of knowledgeable active users on Physics SE is not decreasing: higher-rep users who become less active are replaced by equally valuable contributors, all of which must have started as newbies at some point.  Thus, this community must on balance be doing something right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="fd5226c7-92d6-4b23-ac45-e01d69614f7d" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:40:59.913" UserId="114696" Text="Questions which have a simple, obvious Yes/No answer are generally disapproved of. See for example https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6669/self-study-students-confirmation-type-questions/6672#6672. The user who provided the only answer also comments that this question is trivial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is unclear about this question is why the asker thinks the answer is more complicated than that. The onus is on the asker to show what his/her difficulty is. Without such context or explanation, his/her difficulty cannot be addressed, it can only be guessed at. In that sense I think the question is unclear even after the edit (v2) and the close votes are justified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="45e6e9f4-09fb-4065-bbfa-ac2a41f9cb9b" CreationDate="2017-07-03T07:40:07.840" UserId="160710" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Is the normal force conservative?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342640/is-the-normal-force-conservative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was marked as a duplicate. However, as I explained when I first asked it, the answer to the &quot;duplicate&quot; post was unclear and contradicted my previous knowledge. I was merely bringing up an example where the question's answer caused confusion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it has already been marked as a duplicate, and although I edited the post to explain why it wasn't, it is unlikely the question will be answered. How (and if this happens in the future) can I still get my question answered without reposting (in which it may be yet again marked as a duplicate)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="45e6e9f4-09fb-4065-bbfa-ac2a41f9cb9b" CreationDate="2017-07-03T07:40:07.840" UserId="160710" Text="Is there a way to get my question answered if it is marked as a duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="45e6e9f4-09fb-4065-bbfa-ac2a41f9cb9b" CreationDate="2017-07-03T07:40:07.840" UserId="160710" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9996" RevisionGUID="758ce8f6-7ac3-4d2a-9063-4faa6e633cbc" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:19:16.800" UserId="124" Text="The first thing you need to do is read the &quot;target&quot; (that is, the question that yours was marked as a duplicate of) very carefully, and also carefully consider any feedback you've gotten from people explaining why your question is considered a duplicate. Do your best to understand why they see your question as being already covered by the target question. Remember, people marked your question as a duplicate because they are trying to be helpful: they're pointing you to a resource that, they believe, will give you the information you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that duplicate status is determined by the _questions_, not the answers. If the answers to the target question do not answer what you're asking, that does not keep the questions from being duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can proceed in one of two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you have something to ask that the target question does not, then you should edit your post to _very clearly_ identify what it is you want to ask that is not covered by the target. In most cases, you should include a link to the target when you clarify why the target does not cover what you are asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Do keep in mind that, if you go this route, it's _your_ responsibility to get people to understand what you're asking that the target doesn't cover. In a sense, once something is marked as a duplicate, we take a &quot;duplicate until proven otherwise&quot; approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As always when editing, do _not_  include comments or complaints about the question itself or people's response to it - that is, things like &quot;People are saying this is a duplicate of [target](http://example.com) but it's really not.&quot; That doesn't belong in the question. Just ask what you want to ask, and include just enough information to narrow down your question so that it's different from similar questions like the target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The alternative is to try to draw attention to the target, and hope someone will give it a satisfactory answer. As a new member of the site, there isn't that much you can do on this front, but if you are able to participate in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71), you might find a high-reputation user who can set a bounty on it to draw attention. Or if you can find something to edit in the question that will improve it, that will bump it to the top of the main page for a little while, which also brings attention to it. (But use edits sparingly - excessive bumping can be considered abuse of the site.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9997" RevisionGUID="c91df5b4-d9ed-49ea-828e-2e0d8c8afb9f" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:39:25.840" UserId="1325" Text="I suspect that part of the problem is that you are unclear what you mean by *normal force*. In the duplicate this is taken to mean a force normal to the direction of motion. Since work is given by integrating F.dx when F and dx are normal the work is going to be zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention an elevator, but there the force is in the direction of motion not normal to it because both point vertically up or down. In that case I'm guessing you mean that the force is normal to the surface (i.e. the floor of the lift) that the force is acting on, which is a different meaning of *normal force*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your edit to your question just says the answers to the other question are unacceptable - see David's answer for why this isn't going to get the question reopened. If you wanted to clarify your question, in the light of my comments above, and make it clear why what you are asking is different to the previous question then I would certainly reconsider my close vote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="47bb9607-910b-47e9-8f62-c3c83bf7787b" CreationDate="2017-07-04T12:22:46.070" UserId="50583" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Bernardo Meurer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50764/bernardo-meurer), June 13th 2017,&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9898/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-bernardo-meurer-2017-06-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th 2017, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30407" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="7d1f0668-f913-4aba-80f8-7332852b0120" CreationDate="2017-07-04T17:37:36.110" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/882292320179302400" />
  <row Id="30408" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="ea87e673-68b0-4efe-bffb-62e4a7bb891d" CreationDate="2017-07-05T04:08:52.273" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/343038/how-to-delete-my-account" />
  <row Id="30409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="d6a668a8-551a-4466-97ce-26a56519569d" CreationDate="2017-07-05T03:46:46.907" UserDisplayName="user162728" Text="How do I delete my account? I don't use this site, and I just want it to be deleted. I can't figure out how to delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="d6a668a8-551a-4466-97ce-26a56519569d" CreationDate="2017-07-05T03:46:46.907" UserDisplayName="user162728" Text="How to delete my account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="d6a668a8-551a-4466-97ce-26a56519569d" CreationDate="2017-07-05T03:46:46.907" UserDisplayName="user162728" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30412" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="caf3f614-8866-4446-af5f-5745328e67bb" CreationDate="2017-07-05T04:09:53.980" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2632],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="30413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="09f1dad8-6c85-401d-ba11-61f502f0f1fa" CreationDate="2017-07-05T12:38:19.553" UserId="114696" Comment="added 446 characters in body" Text="Questions which have a simple, obvious Yes/No answer are generally disapproved of. See for example https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6669/self-study-students-confirmation-type-questions/6672#6672. The user who provided the only answer to [Increasing The Momentum Of A Photon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342162) also comments that the question is trivial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is unclear about this question is why the asker thinks the answer is more complicated than that. The onus is on the asker to show what his/her difficulty is. Without such context or explanation, his/her difficulty cannot be addressed, it can only be guessed at. In that sense I think the question is unclear even after the edit (v2) and the close votes are justified. Of course others may disagree but it is inherent in the nature of reviewing that different reviewers may come to a different conclusion about the same question. Those who disagree are able to vote to reopen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has not commented upon nor approved the only answer, so we do not know if this answer has addressed the issue which the OP was asking about.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="cac48bc1-da52-43fd-88dc-b655577f8066" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:19:30.507" UserId="114696" Text="People who post questions on this site are not entitled to answers which satisfy them. They are not entitled to any answers at all. Answers are provided free of charge by users who donate their time, effort and (hopefully) their expertise. They have no obligation to answer even if they have that expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more advanced or specialised the topic, the fewer users who will feel able to answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not satisfied with the answers provided, the onus is on you to explain why. I can see only 1 comment by you among the 4 answers which you have accepted, and that comment (in [How to induce artificial gravity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/317225)) was answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see only one comment to which you have not received a response, on the question [Friedmann equations for an open and accelerating expansion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285596).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides providing feedback on answers, you can also increase the exposure of your question (and the chances of getting more and better answers) by editing it to make it clearer or to provide additional context. This additional information should appear in the question rather than in comments, as recommended in the comments to your latest question [Anisotropy and the Planck results](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/341873).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older questions tend to be neglected. They get less exposure, and in many cases the asker has lost interest so answers are less likely to be accepted or to get upvotes. If you still want answers, you have to keep the question &quot;live&quot; by editing it. And as others point out, accepting an answer indicates that you are satisfied with it and do not need other answers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="3727d63f-791e-49a9-a114-9c8e3f4f92a9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:59:44.210" UserId="46399" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How do I delete my account? I don't use this site, and I just want it to be deleted. I can't figure out how to delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="3727d63f-791e-49a9-a114-9c8e3f4f92a9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:59:44.210" UserId="46399" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="8417c8cb-2c1b-451f-b703-4d8ad9b826e9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:12:11.437" UserId="23473" Text="I'm Jim and if you haven't heard of me then, whatever &quot;it&quot; is, you're probably doing it wrong (I'm always self-advertising). I've been asked to do an AMA several times and I'm finally getting around to it. We'll get to the timing further down the page.&#xD;&#xA;## About Jim ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Academic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a masters degree in theoretical cosmology (if you're thinking &quot;When is cosmology not theoretical?&quot;, the alternative is observational cosmology. I never used telescopes or real data. If, on the other hand, you're thinking &quot;Why is someone who studies makeup a major contributor to physics?&quot;, then I'd say you're half right. A cosmologist studies the makeup of the universe). I also did my undergrad in space engineering (that's rocket science, with the spaceships and the orbits and stuff), so feel free to delve as deep as you'd like into that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you ask, I am not currently doing active research. You'll note I only have a masters. I have full intention of getting a PhD, but a run of legitimate bad luck (long story, but it really was nothing but bad luck) put my studies on hold for now. I'm currently working at the University of Toronto: Mississauga campus as a technician in the undergraduate physics labs. This is why I'm not always prompt to respond anymore. I'm usually off fixing equipment, designing experiments, or helping students. However, it also means I have a fairly experienced view of academia from a perspective halfway between students and professors (if that gives you question ideas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I have a fairly well-rounded grasp of the sciences in general; however, I'm absolutely terrible with the names of things. If you just ask me &quot;Do you know how best to explain/use so-and-so's theory to do this problem?&quot; I'll be like &quot;Don't know. Why don't you tell me what that theory is&quot;. Being from engineering and physics, there's a lot of competing terminology in my background, so I had to basically decide between knowing what everything is called and knowing how to use/perform it. I chose the latter; makes research easy, but also makes me seem like I don't know anything when talking to those that chose to know the names of stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an avid cyclist, so that's a good topic. I also am interested in neuroscience and neuropsychology. I love to debate. Any silly topic or serious discussion, I will argue with you, even if it's against myself, just for the sake of fun and practice. If you don't like long debates that will likely be ended by me turning it into a joke, then don't feed the bears and avoid starting something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also very into gaming. No MMORPGs or MOBAs. I hate multiplayers unless it's with friends because I find about 10% of random people ruin it for me (and they make the other 90% lose out on the treasure that is having Jim in their lives. That should be a crime). But wanna talk about some of the great single player games out there? Go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Personal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, but I'm Canadian, eh? And go ahead and make jokes. I've probably made more jokes about Canadia than you could imagine. I live in Toronto, which is probably one of maybe three cities in the whole country that most non-Canadians can name. And yes, I do know Steve from Canada. He's a great guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different note: you might have noticed I tend to ramble on and get lost on a topic. I have severe ADHD, so I switch topics and get lost without knowing it. (That also makes for a good topic of questions; &quot;what strategies did you use to get through university with a learning disability?&quot;, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Short Form##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cosmology &amp; other space nonsense: ask me anything about it, I'll answer what I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Other physics &amp; science: Physics = good. I'm no string theorist or fluid mechanic, but I can do my best. Science = life. I also have experience in practical teaching of physics. Ask just about anything. Chemistry is a wonderful field, but it bores me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Personal or other interests: ask me literally anything else. If I can't or don't want to answer, I'll say so, but I promise to try not to be offended at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Timing##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that **Tuesday, July 25 at 1200Z** is the best time for this. I'm also open to Thursday, July 20 at 1600Z if that works better for a lot of people. But unless I hear from a lot of people about that and you see me change it in this post, I'm going to be in chat expecting to answer questions on the 25th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per usual, post questions you want answered below." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="8417c8cb-2c1b-451f-b703-4d8ad9b826e9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:12:11.437" UserId="23473" Text="July 2017 Ask Me Anything with Jim (long may he reign)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="8417c8cb-2c1b-451f-b703-4d8ad9b826e9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:12:11.437" UserId="23473" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30420" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="e141f86e-4d0d-42da-b106-998b7d03405a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T20:39:41.563" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/882700532166610947" />
  <row Id="30421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10001" RevisionGUID="c8856bf8-e295-4fa4-ad17-71189d80f069" CreationDate="2017-07-05T21:02:44.437" UserDisplayName="user154420" Text="As you say above: **I also am interested in neuroscience and neuropsychology.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The physics aspect of, for want of a better phrase, &quot;some of how we think&quot;, has been made more prominent by this recent research, [Monkey's Pattern Recognition][1], a story worth reading,  as a math algorithm has duplicated, at least to some degree, the process of neuron firing that the animal's brain went through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of pure ignorance, I don't have any fixed ideas on conscious, if it exists, how it works, etc, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Athough Max Tegmark in particular (along with Penrose)  may be out of their field with some ideas, I wonder if discussing their approach to &quot;reality&quot;, i.e.  that we / the universe are fundamentally based around math, is asking too much of a physics based AMA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40131242" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="e2103fe7-51dd-4063-ab1f-f2224264abc2" CreationDate="2017-07-05T21:09:30.853" UserId="56299" Text="I have two related questions about your background in theoretical cosmology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What made you choose *theoretical* cosmology in particular? What first drew you to the subject - especially after doing &quot;space engineering&quot; for your undergrad degree?&#xD;&#xA; 2. You write&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I never used telescopes or real data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Engineering work aside, do you think this entirely theoretical background has helped you or hindered you in your studies? Did the theoretical focus make you stronger in that area, or did the lack of experimental experience detract from your understanding of cosmology (not that I can tell!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10001" RevisionGUID="855c5390-9cb2-4463-88d9-cb8e84e0b711" CreationDate="2017-07-06T00:12:34.230" UserDisplayName="user154420" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="As you say above: **I also am interested in neuroscience and neuropsychology.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The physics aspect of, for want of a better phrase, &quot;some of how we think&quot;, has been made more prominent by this recent research, [Monkey's Pattern Recognition][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, imo is  a story worth reading,  as a math algorithm has duplicated, at least to some degree, the process of neuron firing that the animal's brain went through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to pure ignorance, I don't have any fixed ideas on conscious, if it exists, how it works, etc, etc...but it is an interest of mine, especially if I can use a physics or math based experimental results rather than philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: although Max Tegmark (along with Penrose)  may be out of their field with some of their ideas, I wonder if discussing their approach to &quot;reality&quot;, i.e.  that we / the universe are fundamentally based around math, is asking too much of a physics based AMA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40131242" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10003" RevisionGUID="2f65eadf-7dad-4e7d-b800-5863b64bf0e5" CreationDate="2017-07-06T11:04:38.193" UserId="25301" Text="You don't mention anything about music, just wondering your musical tastes/interests. What type of genres/artists/albums do you listen to? Do you find yourself more able or less able to study with music playing? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="10908498-e1a6-4915-9de1-92b5ae0cb3a5" CreationDate="2017-07-06T11:53:34.767" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1145 characters in body" Text="Questions which have a simple, obvious Yes/No answer are generally disapproved of. See for example https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6669/self-study-students-confirmation-type-questions/6672#6672. The user who provided the only answer to [Increasing The Momentum Of A Photon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342162) also comments that the question is trivial :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think it is a trivial question to answer. The OP is simply asking can we increase the momentum without increasing energy. The answer would be simply no. – Dvij Jun 30 at 4:58&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is unclear about this question (in my opinion) is why the asker thinks the answer is more complicated than that. The onus is on the asker to show what his/her difficulty is. Without such context or explanation, his/her difficulty cannot be addressed, it can only be guessed at. In that sense I think the question is unclear even after the edit (v2) and the close votes are justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may disagree. It is inherent in the nature of reviewing that different reviewers may come to a different conclusion about the same question. Unless there is a policy which identifies what makes a question unclear, the reviewer must apply his/her own individual judgement, rather than try to second-guess others who have not yet voted, or vote with the majority. Those who disagree are able to vote to reopen, and have done so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has not commented upon nor approved the only answer, so we do not know if this answer has addressed the issue which the OP was asking about.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with @ACuriousMind that the presence of an answer does not prove that the question is **not** unclear. There is no such policy on this site. Whether or not a question is unclear (or a duplicate, or too broad, or primarily opinion based, or not mainstream physics, or an engineering question etc) is an issue of individual judgement by those who have the rep to review questions, not those who have the rep to post answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers must be free to exercise their own judgement, within the guidance provided by site or network policy. If (as it appears to me) you think policy is being abused, it is up to you make your case by identifying that policy. Otherwise, you are merely expressing an opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10004" RevisionGUID="0bec39e1-d554-40c5-a69e-bdeb1e94e7b7" CreationDate="2017-07-06T13:44:05.280" UserId="50583" Text="As a fellow theorist (albeit with a very different focus),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In your view, what are the most interesting theoretical insights cosmology has produced in the last few decades?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In your view, what are the most interesting/most promising *open problems* in theoretical cosmology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a fellow gamer,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What's the best game you've played in the last 5 years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="022686c6-fec3-4a59-9a1e-94087f2553f4" CreationDate="2017-07-07T10:04:56.957" UserId="25301" Text="What aspect of theoretical cosmology did you study? Was it paper-based work or computer-based work? If the latter, what kind of software/languages were used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10006" RevisionGUID="7d6d1226-c772-4360-b5fe-4ddbee4999ed" CreationDate="2017-07-07T12:58:26.380" UserId="60891" Text=" - How does a person suffering from ADHD realise that they have ADHD?&#xD;&#xA; - At what point in your life did you realise that you were suffering from severe ADHD?&#xD;&#xA; - What strategies did you use to get through university with a learning disability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="06c88663-72d9-4b53-bea7-6f24de98dfa8" CreationDate="2017-07-08T01:12:56.677" UserId="114696" Comment="added 1704 characters in body" Text="**1. The votes can be justified**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have a simple, obvious Yes/No answer are generally disapproved of. See for example the answers to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6669/self-study-students-confirmation-type-questions/6672 and https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7336/can-we-stop-closing-questions-as-unclear-what-you-are-asking-for-ops-above-cer?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user who provided the only answer to [Increasing The Momentum Of A Photon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342162) also commented that the question is trivial :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think it is a trivial question to answer. The OP is simply asking can we increase the momentum without increasing energy. The answer would be simply no. – Dvij Jun 30 at 4:58&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is unclear about this question (in my opinion) is why the asker thinks the answer is more complicated than that. The onus is on the asker to show what his/her difficulty is. Without such context or explanation, his/her difficulty cannot be addressed, it can only be guessed at. In that sense I think the question is unclear even after the edit (v2) and the close votes are justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may disagree. It is inherent in the nature of reviewing that different reviewers may come to a different conclusion about the same question. Unless there is a policy which specifies what makes a question unclear, the reviewer must apply his/her own individual judgement, rather than try to second-guess others who have not yet voted, or vote with the majority who have already voted. Those who disagree are able to vote to reopen, and have done so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has not commented upon nor approved the only answer, so we do not know if this answer has addressed the issue which the OP was asking about.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. &quot;Not unclear if there is an answer&quot; is not site policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with @ACuriousMind that the presence of a valid answer does not determine that the question is not unclear. Whether or not a question is unclear (or a duplicate, or too broad, or primarily opinion based, or not mainstream physics, or an engineering question etc) is determined collectively by those who have the rep to review questions, not by those who have the rep to post answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers must be free to exercise their own judgement, independently and impartially, within the guidance provided by site or network policy. If (as it appears to me) you think some policy is being abused, it is up to you make your case by identifying that policy. Otherwise, you are merely expressing an opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the posting of a valid answer makes *unclear what you are asking* invalid as a reason for closing, why doesn't it do the same for *too broad* or *homework-like* or *engineering*? Or indeed for all closure reasons? Such a policy would give those who answer the question the ability to over-ride the decisions of those who review the question. It would make the process of reviewing pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanatory text for this close reason does not state that the question cannot be answered, but that it is difficult to interpret :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was the case the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9919/reminder-that-book-recommendations-are-on-topic, the community continues to close questions  contrary to your suggestion that *unclear* is not appropriate when a valid answer has been posted. For example : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343477  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343422  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343253  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343086  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342979  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342948&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were the reviewers who voted to close these questions abusing the policy &quot;not unclear if there's an answer&quot;? Or is there no such policy? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="2d8fef4c-1763-4f05-b20e-ebffe80121b0" CreationDate="2017-07-08T02:01:13.867" UserId="114696" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="**1. The votes can be justified**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions which have a simple, obvious Yes/No answer are generally disapproved of. See for example the answers to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6669/self-study-students-confirmation-type-questions/6672 and https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7336/can-we-stop-closing-questions-as-unclear-what-you-are-asking-for-ops-above-cer?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user who provided the only answer to [Increasing The Momentum Of A Photon](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342162) also commented that the question is trivial :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think it is a trivial question to answer. The OP is simply asking can we increase the momentum without increasing energy. The answer would be simply no. – Dvij Jun 30 at 4:58&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is unclear about this question (in my opinion) is why the asker thinks the answer is more complicated than that. The onus is on the asker to show what his/her difficulty is. Without such context or explanation, his/her difficulty cannot be addressed, it can only be guessed at. In that sense I think the question is unclear even after the edit (v2) and the close votes are justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may disagree. It is inherent in the nature of reviewing that different reviewers may come to a different conclusion about the same question. Unless there is a policy which specifies what makes a question unclear, the reviewer must apply his/her own individual judgement, rather than try to second-guess others who have not yet voted, or vote with the majority who have already voted. Those who disagree are able to vote to reopen, and have done so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly you disagree with the votes to close the question as unclear. This is a difference of opinion, not a misuse of the close reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP has not commented upon nor approved the only answer, so we do not know if this answer has addressed the issue which the OP was asking about.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. &quot;Not unclear if there is an answer&quot; is not site policy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with @ACuriousMind that the presence of a valid answer does not determine that the question is not unclear. Whether or not a question is unclear (or a duplicate, or too broad, or primarily opinion based, or not mainstream physics, or an engineering question etc) is determined collectively by those who have the rep to review questions, not by those who have the rep to post answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviewers must be free to exercise their own judgement, independently and impartially, within the guidance provided by site or network policy. If (as it appears to me) you think some policy is being abused, it is up to you make your case by identifying that policy. Otherwise, you are merely expressing an opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the posting of a valid answer makes *unclear what you are asking* invalid as a reason for closing, why doesn't it do the same for *too broad* or *homework-like* or *engineering*? Or indeed for all closure reasons? Such a policy would give those who answer the question the ability to over-ride the decisions of those who review the question. It would make the process of reviewing pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanatory text for this close reason does not state that the question cannot be answered, but that it is difficult to interpret :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As was the case with the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9919/reminder-that-book-recommendations-are-on-topic, the community continues to close questions  contrary to your interpretation of site policy after your &quot;reminder&quot; was posted. For example : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343477  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343422  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343253  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/343086  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342979  &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/342948&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were the reviewers who voted to close these questions abusing the policy &quot;not unclear if there's an answer&quot;? Or is there no such policy? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="e6f35086-4294-42c1-9525-5538fc444b77" CreationDate="2017-07-08T02:45:35.127" UserId="114696" Comment="added 601 characters in body" Text="People who post questions on this site are not entitled to answers which satisfy them. They are not entitled to any answers at all. Answers are provided free of charge by users who donate their time, effort and (hopefully) their expertise. They have no obligation to answer even if they have that expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more advanced or specialised the topic, the fewer users who will feel able to answer. Your questions are moderately advanced, so you should not expect to get many answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not satisfied with the answers provided, the onus is on you to explain why. I can see only 1 comment by you among the 4 answers which you have accepted, and that comment (in [How to induce artificial gravity?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/317225)) was answered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see only one comment to which you have not received a response, on the question [Friedmann equations for an open and accelerating expansion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/285596).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides providing feedback on answers, you can also increase the exposure of your question (and the chances of getting more and better answers) by editing it to make it clearer or to provide additional context. This additional information should appear in the question rather than in comments, as recommended in the comments to your latest question [Anisotropy and the Planck results](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/341873). [Editing the question bumps it to the top of the homepage](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/no-one-answers), giving it more exposure. Comments do not do this, and are easily overlooked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older questions tend to be neglected. In many cases the asker has lost interest so answers are less likely to be accepted or to get upvotes. So users looking for questions to answer concentrate on those with recent activity. If you still want answers, you have to keep the question &quot;live&quot; by editing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as others point out, accepting an answer indicates that you are satisfied with it and do not need other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users who provide suggestions about the form and content of your questions are trying to be helpful. They might not be able to answer your questions, but they can give useful feedback which will make your question more attractive to those who can provide answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="32ba98b6-8eca-402c-8be5-9cf4dd5a3e7b" CreationDate="2017-07-09T13:21:17.207" UserId="32426" Text="The obvious solution of the problem would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. to create a different site for very basic level questions.&#xD;&#xA;2. instead of downvoting the basic questions to the hell, they should be migrated to this site.&#xD;&#xA;3. higher level questions asked on that site, should be migrated to here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is so obvious, so trivial...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it didn't happen, and it won't ever happen, although it is a good thing to at least try to motivate the communities into this direction. The reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Question migrations are a de facto taboo on the StackExchange. Probably nobody really knows why, but it is just so.&#xD;&#xA;2. The StackExchange won't ever allow to create a new site for basic physics questions. They say they don't do this because it attracts content from the Physics SE.&#xD;&#xA;3. But, in the practice is that these questions are nearly always closed on the PSE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note, in the PSE, in theory, any basic level questions are allowed!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their view, they don't close/downvote them because they are basic level questions asked by naive laymen. They close them because they are *unclear*, *non-mainstream*, *homework* and so on. And these rules are acceptable and reasonable one by one. But their summarized result is that a newbie has a very, very hard time until he can ask his first not closed, maybe even upvoted question on the site. Their patience is unlikely to hold so long, particularly that they feel very well the mainly unjust character what the site provides for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, even a patient newbie will be likely on question ban until that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I absolutely agree your view that this site does a bad work on encouraging young people to attract them to the physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="2d77149c-5a6f-4f50-b660-a56ffd2c0640" CreationDate="2017-07-10T00:53:07.070" UserId="124" Comment="make the post more detailed" Text="There are two ways to go about it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Quit and keep your account**: Just stop visiting the site. That's all. As far as Stack Exchange is concerned, it's fine if your account sits around unused. Leaving your account intact allows you to change your mind and come back to the site in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    On some other websites, a member who wants to take a break can ask for their account to be suspended to prevent them from accessing the site. But on this site, moderators generally will _not_ grant such requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Quit and delete your account**: You can find [instructions for deleting your account in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-deletion), as other answers have mentioned. **Account deletion is irreversible**. Deleting your account means that your reputation and other accomplishments on the site, as well as your profile page, will be completely erased from public view. Your questions, answers, and comments will be anonymized - that is, your username and profile will no longer be associated with that content. You _can_ come back and participate in the site in the future, but you will have to start from scratch with a separate account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Again, the questions, answers, and comments you have contributed to the site do _not_ get deleted along with your account. The legal basis for continuing to display your submitted content after your account is deleted is provided by Stack Exchange's [terms of service](https://stackexchange.com/legal), which you agreed to prior to submitting the content in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    When you submit a request to delete your account following the directions in the help center, that request goes directly to [the Stack Exchange community team](https://stackoverflow.com/company/team#Community). They may ask you some questions about why you want to leave the site, which I believe are for information only. I don't _think_ they will refuse your request to delete your account regardless of why you want it deleted, but I am not part of that team and I can't authoritatively speak on their behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The [moderators on this site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) are not involved with the voluntary account deletion process in any way. We do not handle or even _see_ account deletion requests. Although it is technically possible for a moderator to delete an account, we will not do so at the request of the account owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also look at the [corresponding FAQ post on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/how-can-i-delete-my-account), but it doesn't really tell you anything useful beyond what you will find in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="2009b097-5b14-473f-9d16-0e0f9f014b46" CreationDate="2017-07-10T02:47:57.770" UserId="32426" Text="Account deletion is not helpful, with it you only give up rights and nothing get you back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think enough is enough, it is a better idea to simply stop visiting the site any more - maybe once in the future you will need the privileges and the rep here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't really delete all of your posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions can only be deleted if they have at most 1 answer without an upvote&#xD;&#xA;- you can delete your answers only if they aren't accepted&#xD;&#xA;- the system alarms if you are starting a massive own-post deletion and avoids it&#xD;&#xA;- furthermore, mods can any time un-delete your deleted posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to leave because some unhappy social situation, then don't worry. Simply stop posting, and nobody will remember you after some weeks (for old, active or particularly.... *controversial* accounts, it can be even a year, but not more). But you can come back any time if something would change your mind in the (maybe far) future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to leave because it is your only way to make some of your data unreachable, then note: most of the sensitive information is only available here for only a narrow circle old high-rep users (or mods). Consider a nickname change, or ask the help of the mods/CMs, they are sometimes cooperative, sometimes they want to be but can't (for example, also mods can't delete a single edit from a post history, they can only delete the whole post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the only real reason to delete your account if you fight stackexchange addiction and it seems to be the only way out. But think first for these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* using site blocking plugins in your browser.&#xD;&#xA;* asking the mods/CMs for a temporal suspension, again they are sometimes cooperative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="4427aba4-b349-4b4a-b033-b448415f2d4f" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:09:05.550" UserId="138682" Text="I noticed [one of my questions][1] has a different view count from the main [Physics.SE homepage][2]? Which view count is correct? The one displayed in the question itself or the one on the homepage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For e.g. the question in question (nice!) says 2K views on the homepage and 1,544 views when you open the question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/344909/defrosting-a-chicken-breast-and-the-laws-of-thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="4427aba4-b349-4b4a-b033-b448415f2d4f" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:09:05.550" UserId="138682" Text="View counter: which is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="4427aba4-b349-4b4a-b033-b448415f2d4f" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:09:05.550" UserId="138682" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10011" RevisionGUID="57154554-9a7b-4450-a4eb-9ae751fd02f1" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:32:36.977" UserId="127931" Text="As far as I can tell it rounds to the nearest thousand when it gets that big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.5K rounds up to 2K, while the number in the question is the actual number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="9d5c4e3e-8c03-4420-ac92-13699180af2a" CreationDate="2017-07-11T13:54:56.770" UserId="8563" Text="I'll bite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry, but I'm Canadian, eh? And go ahead and make jokes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the top of your head attached to your body?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how much of your day is spent in the vicinity of [trees and/or rocks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcqud4yGNiA)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="6aff14f0-efea-4677-861b-3c8f7c595f0d" CreationDate="2017-07-11T14:54:19.450" UserId="1280" Text="I recently put a bounty on this question [prove-isometry-preserving-excision-is-killing-like][1] and Valter Moretti answered just before it expired (I think). I took the weekend to consider his answer and accepted yesterday (Monday, July 10) and don't recall seeing an award bounty button. Valter may not have received the bounty - I can't tell. How do I ensure he receives/received his just reward - which I thought I had awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/341968/prove-isometry-preserving-excision-is-killing-like" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="6aff14f0-efea-4677-861b-3c8f7c595f0d" CreationDate="2017-07-11T14:54:19.450" UserId="1280" Text="Did I award the bounty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="6aff14f0-efea-4677-861b-3c8f7c595f0d" CreationDate="2017-07-11T14:54:19.450" UserId="1280" Text="|support|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10015" RevisionGUID="2a9f5a0c-3806-4f32-a4d4-ec5dd08107d7" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:34:59.570" UserId="2451" Text="No, it appears that the [bounty](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/16065/209806) was not awarded. This is only possible to do before the grace period ends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="b3595e00-d133-4599-a679-236ac690af29" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:35:54.480" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently put a bounty on this question [prove-isometry-preserving-excision-is-killing-like][1] and Valter Moretti answered just before it expired (I think). I took the weekend to consider his answer and accepted yesterday (Monday, July 10) and don't recall seeing an award bounty button. Valter may not have received the bounty - I can't tell. How do I ensure he receives/received his just reward - which I thought I had awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/341968/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30450" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="b3595e00-d133-4599-a679-236ac690af29" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:35:54.480" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="bfdce093-69a1-4b37-9fba-5ca238ab1962" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:41:14.477" UserId="46399" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="I recently put a bounty on this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/341968/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Valter Moretti answered it just before it expired (I think). I took the weekend to consider his answer and accepted yesterday (Monday, July 10) and don't recall seeing an award bounty button. Valter may not have received the bounty - I can't tell. How do I ensure he receives/received his just reward - which I thought I had awarded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="b22189ff-a9ec-4609-afa4-b9d03cdcdd31" CreationDate="2017-07-11T21:59:13.303" UserId="32426" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="Account deletion is not helpful, with it you only give up rights and nothing get you back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Extension: it also gives up the possibility that once you get back and try to fix things what caused your wish to leave. It is much better to leave on a way while you still hold the possibility to once get back and try to fix things here.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think enough is enough, it is a better idea to simply stop visiting the site any more - maybe once in the future you will need the privileges and the rep here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't really delete all of your posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- questions can only be deleted if they have at most 1 answer without an upvote&#xD;&#xA;- you can delete your answers only if they aren't accepted&#xD;&#xA;- the system alarms if you are starting a massive own-post deletion and avoids it&#xD;&#xA;- furthermore, mods can any time un-delete your deleted posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to leave because some unhappy social situation, then don't worry. Simply stop posting, and nobody will remember you after some weeks (for old, active or particularly.... *controversial* accounts, it can be even a year, but not more). But you can come back any time if something would change your mind in the (maybe far) future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to leave because it is your only way to make some of your data unreachable, then note: most of the sensitive information is only available here for only a narrow circle old high-rep users (or mods). Consider a nickname change, or ask the help of the mods/CMs, they are sometimes cooperative, sometimes they want to be but can't (for example, also mods can't delete a single edit from a post history, they can only delete the whole post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the only real reason to delete your account if you fight stackexchange addiction and it seems to be the only way out. But think first for these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* using site blocking plugins in your browser.&#xD;&#xA;* asking the mods/CMs for a temporal suspension, again they are sometimes cooperative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="fcffb9d0-d298-4501-a888-3dd2fcaec4ac" CreationDate="2017-07-13T09:37:50.127" UserId="8563" Text="I'm pretty sure there's a formal mechanism to suggest tag synonyms but I can't find it and no one ever votes there anyway, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - should we rename [tag:teleportation] to [tag:quantum-teleportation] and make the former redirect to the latter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would make it equally easy to find and relatively clearer on what it entails." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="fcffb9d0-d298-4501-a888-3dd2fcaec4ac" CreationDate="2017-07-13T09:37:50.127" UserId="8563" Text="Should we rename the teleportation tag to quantum-teleportation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="fcffb9d0-d298-4501-a888-3dd2fcaec4ac" CreationDate="2017-07-13T09:37:50.127" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="750c157e-3397-4f35-8d3a-701737fbab51" CreationDate="2017-07-13T11:55:19.340" UserId="124" Text="I can't think of anything else that the [tag:teleportation] tag would be used for, at least not within the scope of actual physics (and hence of this site). Unless there is some such thing, yes, I'd say go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there do seem to be some existing questions with the [tag:teleportation] tag which [tag:quantum-teleportation] would _not_ apply to. Most of them are probably off topic, and any others should have the tag removed. So we may want to do a bit of cleanup before actually making the switch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="6e002e74-19a0-4f0b-8a13-4909e848bab3" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:39:40.110" UserId="149663" Text="Consider the following two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The question asked shows no research effort. It could have been easily solved with minimum research from the side of the user who is asking. But it does not belong to homework-and-exercises tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question is unrealistic, that is, it does  asks about something that is not feasible in reality, though the question asked is in Physics, and not &quot;too broad&quot;, as it does not raise any good discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which type of flagging should be done for these two cases? In the first case, I could not flag as it does not belong to &quot;Homework problems should ask for....&quot; flag.  In the second case, I raised a moderator intervention flag, stating the question is unrealistic, but it was denied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_A request: any moderator or person with high reputation, who can peep into my account and find about which flags I'm talking of, please don't mention it here to avoid unnecessary discussion._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="6e002e74-19a0-4f0b-8a13-4909e848bab3" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:39:40.110" UserId="149663" Text="What kind of flags should be raised in the following cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="6e002e74-19a0-4f0b-8a13-4909e848bab3" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:39:40.110" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="a2c4a0af-a82a-42b5-83c5-dadab021206f" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:46:52.143" UserId="149663" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="Consider the following two cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The question asked shows no research effort. It could have been easily solved with minimum research from the side of the user who is asking. But it does not belong to homework-and-exercises tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question is unrealistic, that is, it does  asks about something that is not feasible in reality, though the question asked is in Physics, and not &quot;too broad&quot;, as it does not raise any good discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which type of flagging should be done for these two cases? In the first case, I could not flag as it does not belong to &quot;Homework problems should ask for....&quot; flag.  In the second case, I raised a moderator intervention flag, stating the question is unrealistic, but it was denied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_**A request: any moderator or person with high reputation, who can peep into my account and find about which flags I'm talking of, please don't mention it here to avoid unnecessary discussion. If you find out about what I'm talking here (which, of course, you will), please keep it to yourself; rather let's discuss the cases that I've mentioned here.**_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="00865e47-a570-466b-88e6-44a44e9e9dbc" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:02:56.300" UserId="84967" Text="If the post contains inappropriate material, flag for mod attention. If there is nothing inappropriate, and you really don't know what flag to use, just leave a comment explaining why the question is off-topic and move on. Or don't leave a comment at all. No need to flag everything you deem off-topic all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a declined flag is no bid deal. Don't worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="ce37fd44-8230-4fe7-a00e-b973a24d9eb0" CreationDate="2017-07-14T19:03:31.593" UserId="124" Text="&gt; 1. The question asked shows no research effort. It could have been easily solved with minimum research from the side of the user who is asking. But it does not belong to homework-and-exercises tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the question deserves the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag has _nothing_ to do with whether it should be flagged or closed. So let's leave the tag out of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing I would do to such a question is **downvote it**. This is literally what question downvotes were made for. It says so right in the tooltip you get if you hover over the down arrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, what you should be thinking about is whether the question qualifies for the homework-like _close reason_, which is explained in our [homework-like question policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). (Keep in mind that this policy applies to more than _just_ homework questions.) Failure to do basic research qualifies as a lack of effort, which is one of the criteria by which a homework-like question can be closed. So if the question is homework-like and the asker has not done basic research, you can flag it for closure (using the standard flag) on that basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is _not_ homework-like, we do not have a standard close reason that would apply to it for not showing effort. Maybe we should, and maybe we will in the future. Depending on your reputation, you may be able to cast a close vote with a custom reason, in which you could mention the lack of effort. Otherwise, you should probably just downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question is unrealistic, that is, it does asks about something that is not feasible in reality, though the question asked is in Physics, and not &quot;too broad&quot;, as it does not raise any good discussions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussions? Remember, we _do not_ want _discussions_ on the main site. We want questions which can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this type of question will likely fall under our policy against non-mainstream physics questions (which specifically includes any questions about fictional physics in a fictional universe). There is an associated close reason, which you should choose when flagging or voting to close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="0c946eb7-a04d-44f8-aec6-0918f617061a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T20:27:23.500" UserId="124" Comment="update to reflect new comment flag categories" Text="# Question and answer flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Spam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;spam&quot; flag is for content which is both promotional _and_ irrelevant to the post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to commercial websites unrelated to physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything which is not promotional, or which constitutes an answer, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers relevant to the question which reference a relevant physics paper or publication (including blog posts), even if the poster is the author of the publication&#xD;&#xA;- offensive content (see below)&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of posts that should be flagged as spam:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [online poker sign up](http://example.com) **free**! win money in your spare time! Top players use our site for quick money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **International Symposium on Imaginary Physics Call For Papers** We invite you and your colleagues to submit papers to a new symposium for experts in the field of Imaginary Physics. [Click here](http://example.com) to access the signup form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;offensive&quot; flag is for content that does not constitute an answer _and_ which a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes - what other sites often call &quot;doxxing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- mild insults&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- legitimate answers which can be edited to not be offensive while preserving the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hiding the examples in spoiler tags in case anyone would rather not read them. Hover over the quote boxes to see sample offensive answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! all these shitty answers you get when you let chinese on the site, you asked for this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! If you do not accept this answer I will come to your house at 333 Quantum Road, Hilbertsville and murder a member of your family within one year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;- anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;- answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions&#xD;&#xA;- comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; jaafjajrefaseoifjaeijfoaisnsdoj ajfauenwofjasndifnaowjnefoaijw3oeiosafaw3efnaso aksdj vaosjdfoa dfoajw efjas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Not An Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;not an answer&quot; flag is for anything posted as an answer which does not constitute so much as an _attempt_ to answer that question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers to completely different questions&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions, including requests for clarification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything that answers the question or represents a good-faith attempt to answer the question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- answers which just barely fail to address the question due to an honest misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;- anything the poster honestly thinks is a legitimate answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If gravity is $+9.8$, does that mean the train goes up in the air? I thought up was positive. Can you explain what happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Bohr's answer is good but it doesn't explain why only these certain orbits are allowed. What if you hit an electron slightly, just enough to push it out of its orbit but not into the next one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;other&quot; flag, or the &quot;flag for moderator attention&quot;, is for anything that does _not_ fit into one of the above categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Comment flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general note: if you find yourself wanting to flag many comments on the same post, it's enough to just flag one or two. When handling a comment flag, we normally look at all other comments on the post and delete them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rude or abusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this flag for anything that violates the &quot;be nice&quot; rule, including anything that a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive (much like the &quot;offensive&quot; flag for answers). In particular, valid uses of this flag include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes (a.k.a. &quot;doxxing&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- comments you simply disagree with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't believe you consider yourself competent to post about string theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The examples from the &quot;offensive&quot; question/answer flag (see above) would also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## No longer needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;no longer needed&quot; flag is for any comments which do not help clarify or improve their parent post. It combines what used to be &quot;obsolete&quot;, &quot;not constructive&quot;, and &quot;too chatty&quot; (which were always kind of hard to distinguish anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the name, this flag should be used both for comments that used to be useful, but are not anymore, _and_ for comments that were never useful in the first place. Here is a nonexhaustive list of comment types you should use this flag for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;+1 great post!&quot; or &quot;-1 this is wrong&quot; or anything along those lines given _without further explanation_&#xD;&#xA;- greetings, thanks, and pleasantries&#xD;&#xA;- anecdotes, stories, jokes, links to XKCD comics&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for changes which _have_ been incorporated into the post&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;- requests for clarification which have been answered&#xD;&#xA;- clarifications given in response to such requests&#xD;&#xA;- back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;- responses to any comments which have been deleted&#xD;&#xA;- pretty much any comment older than a week or so (which is an implicit indication that the poster has declined to act on the comment)&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions which should be asked independently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to related resources or potential duplicate questions where the comments are less than a week old&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for improving the post which are less than a week old and which the poster has not yet responded to&#xD;&#xA;- active discussions which are expected to result in a suggestion for improving the post&#xD;&#xA;- any comments simply because you disagree with them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the only correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're not a physicist, why should I believe anything you write?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I joined this site just to upvote your post. Great job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks for the upvote!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Moderator intervention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;in need of moderator intervention&quot; flag is for any comment that needs flagging and does _not_ fit into one of the above categories. These will be rare. Spam is the main example I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- any comments simply because you disagree with them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I misuse a flag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your flag gets declined. This is not a big deal. It just reflects a difference of opinion between the flagger and the handling moderator (and the mods _do_ accidentally click the wrong button on rare occasions). Everybody gets flags declined from time to time, and there are no lasting consequences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..._unless_ you are warned that you're flagging incorrectly, and you continue to do it repeatedly, frequently, and intentionally (as far as the mods can tell). Then you'd be subject to the same disciplinary measures we use against anyone else who seriously abuses their privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples in this post are not real, but are meant to be representative of actual contributed content that would be a valid use of the respective flags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="3ce6384f-36e6-4448-8ee8-16a04fd12678" CreationDate="2017-07-14T20:28:02.047" UserId="124" Comment="update to reflect new comment flag categories" Text="Other than off topic flags, there are several different types of flags that one can cast on a question, answer, or comment. What are each of these flags for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question and answer flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- spam&#xD;&#xA;- offensive/abusive/hate speech&#xD;&#xA;- not an answer&#xD;&#xA;- very low quality&#xD;&#xA;- other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment flags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- rude or abusive&#xD;&#xA;- no longer needed&#xD;&#xA;- in need of moderator intervention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It often happens that the same post will be flagged with 2 or 3 or more different reasons. This suggests that people are not clear about what some of the flags are meant for. I'm making this post to help people understand what the intended uses of the different flags are; this will cover only the types of answers that should _clearly_ be flagged for one particular reason, not the borderline cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30471" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="154249b3-9f6c-40e0-a857-5b26dbbd5e0f" CreationDate="2017-07-14T23:07:07.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/885999124486668288" />
  <row Id="30472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="d3d260ea-a9e8-4f27-aece-987008d58748" CreationDate="2017-07-15T01:06:23.793" UserId="36194" Text="I find myself in disagreement with the premise of the question.  Simply because a question has one or more answers does not make it clear.  Moreover, simply because the statement of the question is clear does not in itself make the meaning of the question clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an absurd example, consider the question “Is the sky blue because hippopotami are pink?”  (The situation I'm illustrating is similar to the example of the OP in that the question is short, with limited context.)  Certainly the statement is clear but what on Earth does this question mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may well be that one contributor will answer as to why the sky is blue, another as to why hippopotami are pink, and even (Heavens forbid!) one might advance an unsuspected link between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the question might be resolved if the OP accepted one or another answer, but until it is accepted I feel it is perfectly legitimate to flag such a question as unclear so the OP can eventually provide additional context or sourcing and thus allow for a correct answer more expansive than “obviously not”.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="f4e6a336-0101-4c0e-8ad1-a4d5784a4937" CreationDate="2017-07-15T01:38:33.967" UserId="36194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I find myself in disagreement with the premise of the question.  Simply because a question has one or more answers does not make it clear.  Moreover, simply because the statement of the question is clear does not in itself make the meaning of the question clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an absurd example, consider the question “Is the sky blue because hippopotami are pink?”  (The situation I'm illustrating is similar to the example of the OP in that the question is short, with limited context.)  Certainly the statement is clear but what on Earth does this question mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may well be that one contributor will answer as to why the sky is blue, another as to why hippopotami are pink, and even (Heavens forbid!) one might advance an unsuspected link between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the question might be resolved if the OP accepted one or another answer, but until an answer is accepted I feel it is perfectly legitimate to flag such a question as unclear so the OP can eventually provide additional context or sourcing and thus allow for a correct answer more expansive than “obviously not”.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10024" RevisionGUID="efa3774e-67c5-421f-8a99-eb820218aebf" CreationDate="2017-07-17T05:20:11.443" UserId="32426" Text="Is there anything what you believe (or, at least strongly suspect), but you can't prove?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="b0abbcd2-f053-4dbf-9ddb-2a5f421a4861" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:07:33.057" UserId="8563" Text="When editing a question today, I realized that, for whatever reason, we don't really have a tag for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, and really, we should. Unfortunately, however, the obvious choice, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:nuclear-magnetic-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is one character too long (26 for a character limit of 25), so it doesn't fit. There's a number of alternatives but in a brief chat exchange with the mods we didn't really come to an agreement on what is the best, so I'll just float a few ideas below and see which ones go to the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally we should make as many synonyms as possible, which will redirect to the main tag and help make the main tag show up on the autocomplete, but we still need a main tag for the cluster ─ which will display on all questions with the tag ─ and they all have tradeoffs. So, vote on the one you think is less bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="b0abbcd2-f053-4dbf-9ddb-2a5f421a4861" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:07:33.057" UserId="8563" Text="A tag for nuclear magnetic resonance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="b0abbcd2-f053-4dbf-9ddb-2a5f421a4861" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:07:33.057" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10026" RevisionGUID="070c0e66-75dc-4266-83cb-c9804aa93a57" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:08:44.497" UserId="8563" Text=" - [tag:nmr]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pro: the abbreviation is widely understood and recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Con: it's better to have longer tags that are self-explanatory instead of just initials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10027" RevisionGUID="8f3f1cb4-66a9-48b4-91f7-0b7520f7e30d" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:10:18.073" UserId="8563" Text=" - [tag:nuclear-magnetic-resonanc]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pro: gets most of the full name in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Con: lopped off bits make it none-too-pretty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10028" RevisionGUID="ec41fba6-b264-4b4a-9aab-c8481a3c3d8f" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:11:19.503" UserId="8563" Text=" - [tag:nucl-magnetic-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pro: gets most of the full name in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conw: lopped off bits make it none-too-pretty. It won't show up on autocomplete if people type 'nuclear' fast enough (though with the right synonyms in place it's less of a problem)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10029" RevisionGUID="9f0e1df1-6445-484e-91be-d0546d1d939a" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:12:45.377" UserId="8563" Text=" - [tag:magnetic-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pro: actual grammatical phrase with correct spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Con: loses some impact and recognizability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="30d05fd5-a615-48cf-b904-2a33ad7654e9" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:38:41.983" UserId="8563" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="When editing a question today, I realized that, for whatever reason, we don't really have a tag for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, and really, we should. Unfortunately, however, the obvious choice, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:nuclear-magnetic-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is one character too long (26 for a character limit of 25), so it doesn't fit. There's a number of alternatives but in a brief chat exchange with the mods we didn't really come to an agreement on what is the best, so I'll just float a few ideas below and see which ones go to the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally we should make as many synonyms as possible, which will redirect to the main tag and help make the main tag show up on the autocomplete, but we still need a main tag for the cluster ─ which will display on all questions with the tag ─ and they all have tradeoffs. So, vote on the one you think is less bad as the main tag, and we'll make the rest synonyms (plus whatever other synonyms people care to suggest)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10028" RevisionGUID="67840586-04e9-417a-a232-7954e86c5a32" CreationDate="2017-07-17T12:45:56.687" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text=" - [tag:nucl-magnetic-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pro: gets most of the full name in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons: lopped off bits make it none-too-pretty. It won't show up on autocomplete if people type 'nuclear' fast enough (though with the right synonyms in place it's less of a problem)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="e7636157-70f1-4bc2-a4df-e19914252bd6" CreationDate="2017-07-17T13:12:56.157" UserId="44126" Text=" - [tag:nucl-mag-res]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros: gets most of the name in. Abbreviations for each word are common in other contexts --- for example, mag. field, res. freq.  All words are abbreviated to the same number of &quot;significant figures&quot;.  (&quot;significant syllables&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons: Ugly. Won't show up in autocomplete for &quot;nuclear&quot; (but clever synonyms may help)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10031" RevisionGUID="a0267553-bfe0-45d3-a6fb-37110569ff7b" CreationDate="2017-07-18T15:26:47.703" UserId="121464" Text="* [tag:nuclear-magnet-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros: gets basically the full name in without weird abbreviations, fairly recognizable for original term, will show up when people type 'nuclear...' so harder to skip as an abbreviation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons: I mean, it's not the actual term, so nothing's perfect =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30492" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="8ac2d095-f81f-4ca2-bcbb-0a8bec28e735" CreationDate="2017-07-18T18:52:56.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="fc10eefc-b582-4c01-80ca-537d255ca4cb" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:14:10.277" UserId="149663" Text="Suppose I have flagged any question or answer by a person with high reputation or any moderator, as inappropriate (or any other flag). As far as I know, it will be placed in the review queue. Now, anyone with high reputation or a moderator can access these queues. Then, will that person be able to see that his own post has been flagged? In that case, he will be able to decline that flag, although perhaps it was necessary to delete the post or take action against the post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="fc10eefc-b582-4c01-80ca-537d255ca4cb" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:14:10.277" UserId="149663" Text="Query regarding review of post flags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="fc10eefc-b582-4c01-80ca-537d255ca4cb" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:14:10.277" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="058e08ba-f374-44e8-9e2a-e1a7eca4e3c6" CreationDate="2017-07-21T14:15:07.020" UserId="60891" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="[tag:half-life] → [tag:radioactivity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new tag [_half-life_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/half-life) introduced is really a subset, and radioactivity is sufficient for identification purposes and subsuming. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="60b532e8-31df-4898-9d62-50bc2b8a9a53" CreationDate="2017-07-21T14:15:46.607" UserId="60891" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[tag:coordinate-systems] → [tag:reference-frame]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="6fc39f98-2b1b-4400-8a48-302ebefee521" CreationDate="2017-07-21T15:07:11.960" UserId="50583" Text="1. Non-moderator users have no way to know that their posts have been flagged except by the phenomena associated with the review of such flags, e.g. automatic comments with a &quot;From Review&quot; link at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Moderators can see all flags, even on their own posts, but we consider it good form to not act on such flags and let another moderator handle them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Their own posts will never be shown to users in a review queue, meaning no non-moderators could ever decline flags to protect their own content. If you have reason to believe a *moderator* is abusing their powers to maliciously decline flags that shouldn't have been declined to protect themselves, raise it here on meta or [contact the Community Team](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/contact)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10036" RevisionGUID="f11db3f3-d211-4e0e-92a0-bf88b778663a" CreationDate="2017-07-21T16:24:43.700" UserId="8563" Text="Some points not fully covered in the existing answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - All reviews are public, including the (summarized) actions of individual reviewers ─ cf. [this example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/167776).&#xD;&#xA; - All reviews of any given post [are accessible](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/275795/should-the-new-timeline-view-show-links-to-review-items) from the [post timeline](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36303/feedback-request-new-timeline-question-view) (a [non-linked site feature](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76566/list-of-unlinked-pages-on-stack-exchange-sites)) ─ cf. the [timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/321058/timeline) for the example above.&#xD;&#xA; - All reviews leave a trace on the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer](http://data.stackexchange.com), and it is pretty easy to [build a query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/699458/reviews-of-a-given-users-posts) that will take a user ID and return all existing reviews on all their (non-deleted) posts.&#xD;&#xA; - It's less useful for looking up on your own posts (and more useful for getting an overview of how the site reviews are doing as a whole) but all 10k+ users have access to the full history of the review queues, via the [history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/history) tab of the corresponding review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, all of these are for information only, and are not actionable items. Users cannot review flags that affect their posts (with the obvious exception of suggested edits); I can't find a confirmation on the mother meta (possibly because this is considered obvious) but if it happened I would class it as a serious bug which should be reported asap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="618d63e4-881e-4bb4-a64c-ad124cbe964f" CreationDate="2017-07-21T16:42:08.843" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="133d8cdd-dac6-4622-8ea8-d3896211706b" CreationDate="2017-07-21T18:13:42.337" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="ce0efc63-a0de-464e-b303-a987999373df" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:27:05.143" UserId="8563" Text="Qmechanic just [raised on chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38926975#38926975) the need to take some more action on the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag, and I think it's about right: the tag, despite some loud all-caps in the tag wiki excerpt, gets misused all the time, by people who simply have no idea that [mathematical physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics) is a discipline unto its own and that the term should *not* be used to describe posts just because they have a bit of highschool algebra in them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the more data-minded, [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/699768/edits-that-removed-the-mathematical-physics-tag) finds all the posts which were originally posted with the tag, at a current count of 1175 over the site's history and there's plenty of clonkers in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Qmechanic proposed some manipulations with the tags that I rather strongly disagree with, but I agree that there's a need and I think there's a better solution to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's have a review queue for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I think this could work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a new user posts a question with the tagged mathematical-physics (or some pre-defined set of tags, such as e.g. mathematics), then it gets sent to the [First Posts review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There the review, instead of being described with the usual tagline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; This is the **first question** asked by a new user. Help them learn to use the site by reviewing their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   it gets the header&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; This question by a new user has the **frequently-misused tag [mathematical physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics)**. Please check that the tag has been used correctly and remove it if it hasn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   or some similar wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - After enough time (say, the user has three positive-score posts on the tag, or 1500 rep, or some linear combination of the two), users' posts no longer get sent to this queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We could additionally impose a similar experience requirement on reviewers, so that users with [500 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues) will only be shown these reviews if they've got three positive-score posts with the tag, knocking off one of those per extra 500 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All numerical thresholds obviously subject to adjustment, particularly if we find data sources about the existing misuses that are more than me pulling numbers out of thin air.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, once you divide those 1200 posts over the six years of the site's existence you get something like one post every few days, which is a bit sparse but non-negligible, but mostly, Qmechanic does the bulk of the re-tagging around here, and if s/he says it's getting out of hand, then I believe it, period. I think this is enough to show that the problem is real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does involve some nontrivial coding and changes to the UI, but I don't think they are *too* radical, and they can essentially ride piggyback on the existing queues. And, if the queue system does get an overhaul at some point, this could be brought out into its own branch if so required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I think this kind of mechanism would be useful in the wider SE arena: there are [tag warnings](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/274632/help-the-helpless-with-how-to-ask-tag-tips/274634#274634) for misused tags (which is something we should also implement) and those have been seen with interest by other sites ([example](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/should-we-ask-for-tag-warnings), [example](https://german.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/let-s-have-some-tag-warnings-to-prevent-common-mistakes-by-new-users)), so presumably the sites that implement tag warnings might also be interested in a review queue along these lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking it here first, though, because it's probably easier to test the mechanism in a site where it's less likely to break things before scaling it up to full-SE-network availability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="ce0efc63-a0de-464e-b303-a987999373df" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:27:05.143" UserId="8563" Text="A review queue for misused tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="ce0efc63-a0de-464e-b303-a987999373df" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:27:05.143" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="bfcf2fa1-9eec-4d64-b734-bde8e1b7b73e" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:32:58.980" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30517" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="b19e2f95-3000-405e-af5e-1862dec46b60" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:50:13.267" UserId="8563" Comment="edited title" Text="What tag warnings should we have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10038" RevisionGUID="bb86a7c3-6a51-4842-b5b7-227e27f394f9" CreationDate="2017-07-22T12:56:20.727" UserId="2451" Text="[tag:general-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO NOT USE THIS TAG if a more descriptive tag applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10039" RevisionGUID="3a1fb976-589f-4594-8ded-a56c1aee12f5" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:00:23.553" UserId="2451" Text="[tag:mathematical-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO	NOT USE THIS TAG just because your question involves math! If your question is on simplification of a mathematical expression, please ask it at math.stackexchange.com. Mathematical physics is the mathematically rigorous study of the foundations of physics, and the application of advanced mathematical methods to problems in physics. Examples include partial differential equations (PDEs), functional analysis, variational calculus, and potential theory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="ccc5953c-595d-438e-9da8-5be6f5879f58" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:02:44.350" UserId="2451" Text="[tag:equations-of-motion]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO NOT USE THIS TAG just because the question contains an equation of motion!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="45eef749-cdfb-4305-8092-e23ca5913c6b" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:04:15.763" UserId="2451" Text="[tag:laws-of-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO NOT USE THIS TAG just because the question deals with a law of physics! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10042" RevisionGUID="9b8b134c-d078-48a4-8a28-659a3e0e1ab4" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:27:24.220" UserId="121464" Text="[tag:computational-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO NOT USE THIS TAG just because your equation has code in it! If your question is on debugging code, ask it on [Stack Overflow](https://www.stackoverflow.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="0e72e767-5180-4147-b86e-86f848665a12" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:29:41.840" UserId="121464" Text="[tag:homework-and-exercises]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is NOT a homework help site or a site which solves random problems presented by users. Please show your work to solve the problem **and** ask a *conceptual, focused* question about the problem. See https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange for details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="1eac34d2-b232-4d3a-b291-a74a826f8e35" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:36:49.063" UserId="121464" Text="[tag:general-physics] is one of the worst tags I have ever seen. It is a cesspit of filth and agony for good stout-hearted reviewers. It is worthy of burnination with fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, a little more seriously: most of the questions I'm seeing should be retagged/could be retagged. The tag is ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm beginning some edits (not too many of course; don't want to flood the active tab) to start cleaning it up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea why it shouldn't be burninated. The tag excerpt says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DO NOT USE THIS TAG if a more descriptive tag applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uhm...when would a more descriptive tag *not* apply? Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="1eac34d2-b232-4d3a-b291-a74a826f8e35" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:36:49.063" UserId="121464" Text="A generally terrible tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="1eac34d2-b232-4d3a-b291-a74a826f8e35" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:36:49.063" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="4ca5f50a-a56c-426b-8941-6b09d89babd9" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:50:13.853" UserId="121464" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="[tag:general-physics] is one of the worst tags I have ever seen. It is a cesspit of filth and agony for good stout-hearted reviewers. It is worthy of burnination with fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, a little more seriously: most of the questions I'm seeing should be retagged/could be retagged. The tag is ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm beginning some edits (not too many of course; don't want to flood the active tab) to start cleaning it up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea why it shouldn't be burninated. The tag excerpt says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DO NOT USE THIS TAG if a more descriptive tag applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uhm...when would a more descriptive tag *not* apply? Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should point out that [tag:physics] has already been burninated/removed for all time. How is [tag:general-physics] any different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="c65c8d9d-f2dd-40eb-9d39-ed82fc02776f" CreationDate="2017-07-22T22:21:03.890" UserId="121464" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[tag:general-physics+] is one of the worst tags I have ever seen. It is a cesspit of filth and agony for good stout-hearted reviewers. It is worthy of burnination with fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, a little more seriously: most of the questions I'm seeing should be retagged/could be retagged. The tag is ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm beginning some edits (not too many of course; don't want to flood the active tab) to start cleaning it up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea why it shouldn't be burninated. The tag excerpt says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DO NOT USE THIS TAG if a more descriptive tag applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uhm...when would a more descriptive tag *not* apply? Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should point out that [tag:physics] has already been burninated/removed for all time. How is [tag:general-physics+] any different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30529" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="8cbd3648-9853-45b9-a3f4-0ef4c57ba9f0" CreationDate="2017-07-22T22:36:18.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/888890473821163520" />
  <row Id="30530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="33ddd891-0790-48e0-9626-f0abc3c8a81a" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:17:41.607" UserId="121464" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="[tag:general-physics+] is one of the worst tags I have ever seen. It is a cesspit of filth and agony for good stout-hearted reviewers. It is worthy of burnination with fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, a little more seriously: most of the questions I'm seeing should be retagged/could be retagged. The tag is ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm beginning some edits (not too many of course; don't want to flood the active tab) to start cleaning it up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea why it shouldn't be burninated. The tag excerpt says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DO NOT USE THIS TAG if a more descriptive tag applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uhm...when would a more descriptive tag *not* apply? Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should point out that [tag:physics] has already been burninated/removed for all time. How is [tag:general-physics+] any different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another also: [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5032/121464) there's a score of six in favor of burnination. And yet nothing was done... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="9f6b6f7b-c0a3-4927-bb0a-d0c6cb3dc185" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:21:25.013" UserId="121464" Text="Can we burninate [tag:food]? [Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4905/121464) there were three votes in favor and no dissenters. Yes, there are many questions tagged with it, but really, [tag:food] isn't a good tag - the questions are about what's happening *with* the food, and that's what should be described in tags. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="9f6b6f7b-c0a3-4927-bb0a-d0c6cb3dc185" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:21:25.013" UserId="121464" Text="Let's eat up another tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="9f6b6f7b-c0a3-4927-bb0a-d0c6cb3dc185" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:21:25.013" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30534" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="1f42df4f-8343-4a28-94ab-157dcc26bfc8" CreationDate="2017-07-23T02:51:47.950" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Tag burninate requests for voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="54ee6b92-e15d-4aa0-b8cd-46a720135100" CreationDate="2017-07-23T02:56:59.837" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[tag:general-physics] is one of the worst tags I have ever seen. It is a cesspit of filth and agony for good stout-hearted reviewers. It is worthy of burnination with fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, a little more seriously: most of the questions I'm seeing should be retagged/could be retagged. The tag is ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm beginning some edits (not too many of course; don't want to flood the active tab) to start cleaning it up a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea why it shouldn't be burninated. The tag excerpt says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DO NOT USE THIS TAG if a more descriptive tag applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uhm...when would a more descriptive tag *not* apply? Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should point out that [tag:physics] has already been burninated/removed for all time. How is [tag:general-physics] any different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another also: [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5032/121464) there's a score of six in favor of burnination. And yet nothing was done... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30536" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="716d18e0-0db0-4f46-a87e-f064ddb52ce1" CreationDate="2017-07-23T02:58:41.547" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4768],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30537" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="da8dc47e-fdb0-4fa5-a345-50a481047846" CreationDate="2017-07-23T02:59:01.343" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4768],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30538" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="266f883f-ce5e-47ed-a520-d56956ca0aa2" CreationDate="2017-07-23T07:36:21.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/889026381044121600" />
  <row Id="30539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="f76fbffb-46aa-4c34-860f-75f142beb2cc" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:15:26.453" UserId="8563" Text="This has bothered me for some time, and since bad tags are on the table, I think this is a good time to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are currently [60 questions tagged general-physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-physics%2b) of which roughly [fifteen](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/700432/posts-whose-only-tag-is-general-physics) have that as their only tag (and of those, five are closed). The tag is absolutely terrible and it is about as empty of meaning as they come: if it's posted on this site, then obviously the tag applies (so it doesn't mean anything) and if no other tag applies then it's a good sign that there's something deeply problematic about the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, seriously: can we get rid of it? It's mostly a matter of making sure that the existing questions have appropriate tags, and finding better tags for (or deleting) the ones with the bad tag as their only tag. Then ideally we can blacklist it so it can't be re-started." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="f76fbffb-46aa-4c34-860f-75f142beb2cc" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:15:26.453" UserId="8563" Text="Can we get rid of the general-physics tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="f76fbffb-46aa-4c34-860f-75f142beb2cc" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:15:26.453" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="7ec3d10d-1655-49cc-899e-ef6b1189cab4" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:19:44.490" UserId="46399" Comment="Suggestion: Every now and then, Qmechanic points out that tag-burn requests should be posted in the canonical post itself. I suggest we incorporate that information in the tag info itself, to guide users ragarding this." Text="PLEASE POST YOUR BURNINATION PROPOSAL AS AN ANSWER TO [THIS CANONICAL POST](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4768/tag-burninate-requests-for-voting) INSTEAD OF POSTING A FRESH QUESTION FOR EVERY BURNINATION REQUEST." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30543" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="7ec3d10d-1655-49cc-899e-ef6b1189cab4" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:19:44.490" Comment="Proposed by 46399 approved by 60891, 121464 edit id of 15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="dec71e70-4436-45c3-bd70-1b975d50997a" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:19:56.170" UserId="46399" Comment="Suggestion: Every now and then, Qmechanic points out that tag-burn requests should be posted in the canonical post itself. I suggest we incorporate that information in the tag info itself, to guide users ragarding this." Text="Use this to  request/propose that a tag  be burinated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PLEASE POST YOUR BURNINATION PROPOSAL AS AN ANSWER TO [THIS CANONICAL POST](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4768/tag-burninate-requests-for-voting) INSTEAD OF POSTING A FRESH QUESTION FOR EVERY BURNINATION REQUEST." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30545" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="dec71e70-4436-45c3-bd70-1b975d50997a" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:19:56.170" Comment="Proposed by 46399 approved by 60891, 121464 edit id of 16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30546" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="5a5d51b3-3e6c-46dd-b7ae-783351919242" CreationDate="2017-07-23T14:33:00.263" UserId="44126" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4768],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="60fdfe5c-f677-411e-ab3a-72cae696303f" CreationDate="2017-07-24T11:01:15.790" UserId="8563" Comment="added 427 characters in body; edited title" Text="This has bothered me for some time, and since bad tags are on the table, I think this is a good time to do it. The [original burninate request](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5032/8563) got good traction, and all that remains is to implement it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [general-physics tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-physics%2b) is absolutely terrible, because it adds absolutely no information. It is no more descriptive of a question than the fact that it was posted in this site. Moreover, if absolutely no other tags apply to the question, then it is essentially guaranteed to be off-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were about fifteen questions that had that tag only, of which only [this tricky example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/252743/are-there-any-expressions-in-physics-which-always-equal-1) remains. There's still about thirty questions with the tag and there's a slow process to remove the tag from those questions. (That could be speeded up by just [burninating the tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239190/when-to-burninate), as originally requested, but for some reason, despite the upvotes, it hasn't happened.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that's done, though, can we blacklist the tag to make sure that it doesn't come back? Seriously, it adds nothing to the site, and it only works as a misleading marker to some people that their bad questions are on-topic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30549" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="60fdfe5c-f677-411e-ab3a-72cae696303f" CreationDate="2017-07-24T11:01:15.790" UserId="8563" Comment="added 427 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can we blacklist the general-physics tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30550" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="464c7ea5-53b8-4e17-965a-3d992b3d4e26" CreationDate="2017-07-24T13:10:07.313" UserId="50583" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="1ad1be24-27c6-4c60-a5d3-95eaf3def163" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:24:46.543" UserId="59023" Text="I note that we can follow the up-/downvotes on our questions and answers, but there is not a convenient place to find stats on the upvotes on our comments on questions and answers.  Is this one of the advanced privileges earned after attaining &gt;10,000 reputation or some other qualifying event?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="1ad1be24-27c6-4c60-a5d3-95eaf3def163" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:24:46.543" UserId="59023" Text="Where can we see stats of votes on comments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="1ad1be24-27c6-4c60-a5d3-95eaf3def163" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:24:46.543" UserId="59023" Text="|support|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="d8d15ab7-5314-4762-8aba-71581436d1a6" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:38:36.697" UserId="520" Text="This is another way in which the decision to have comments be second class citizens shows in the interface: there is no feature for tracking such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can construct a query in the [Stack Exchange Data Explorer][1] to learn about the situation up to the most recent capture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10049" RevisionGUID="d21ed4c6-a177-481f-8198-d8f5d3adca56" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:42:21.163" UserId="8563" Text="There's very little that you can say about comments. This is by design: comments are explicitly relegated to a second-class, transient role, and SE has been very clear that anything that would increase their importance (thereby turning SE into a discussion-board type of forum, at the detriment of the straightforward readability of the Q&amp;A format) will not be taken up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Data Explorer query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/701024/all-a-users-comments) can find all your comments, including their score, but that's about all the information available. There is no rep-earnable site privilege that enables any additional visibility into the comment statistics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="543a1fab-ea6e-4fab-acc9-cd30c50c6b36" CreationDate="2017-07-25T11:53:39.523" UserId="93522" Text="Is there anything that surprised you about your field/career? What's the hardest part about being a cosmologist? Lastly, do you consider cosmology to be a branch of astronomy? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30558" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="98478400-355d-4a14-93a9-fe5cfd803c6e" CreationDate="2017-07-25T18:26:41.820" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Tag burninate &amp; blacklist requests for voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="98478400-355d-4a14-93a9-fe5cfd803c6e" CreationDate="2017-07-25T18:26:41.820" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|blacklist-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="7609b418-bf12-44db-b9cf-2814a4887245" CreationDate="2017-07-25T20:09:13.193" UserId="158306" Text="No                                                         ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="d4bcd40c-1685-4548-a4d9-dada4e31d424" CreationDate="2017-07-25T20:33:34.260" UserId="24653" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="No$\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10052" RevisionGUID="071401d4-e60f-4ccb-861b-7a6f0061791a" CreationDate="2017-07-25T21:18:27.687" UserId="124" Text="To offer something authoritative: pursuant to our [discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/chat-session-and-discussion-on-tag-removal) and the [strongly supported suggestion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5032/124) for its removal, the mods are currently working on getting this tag blacklisted. I'll update here when it is done (or if the process fails for some reason)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="22d00baa-4cd3-43d8-953f-8e767fa61134" CreationDate="2017-07-25T22:05:35.763" UserId="8563" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="This has bothered me for some time, and since bad tags are on the table, I think this is a good time to do it. The [original burninate request](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5032/8563) got good traction, and all that remains is to implement it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [general-physics tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-physics%2b) is absolutely terrible, because it adds absolutely no information. It is no more descriptive of a question than the fact that it was posted in this site. Moreover, if absolutely no other tags apply to the question, then it is essentially guaranteed to be off-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;There were about fifteen questions that had that tag only, of which only [this tricky example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/252743/are-there-any-expressions-in-physics-which-always-equal-1) remains. There's still about thirty questions with the tag and there's a slow process to remove the tag from those questions. (That could be speeded up by just [burninating the tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239190/when-to-burninate), as originally requested, but for some reason, despite the upvotes, it hasn't happened.)&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Update**: it's done: the tag is no more. All the [posts that had the tag](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/701535/posts-originally-tagged-general-physics) (60 at the time this question was posted) have been retagged with more descriptive tags, and the tag is currently empty. As things stand, the tag will expire in a few days, but there's still a definite danger that some new user will re-introduce it if they can't find a tag that will fit their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that's done, though, can we blacklist the tag to make sure that it doesn't come back? Seriously, it adds nothing to the site, and it only works as a misleading marker to some people that their bad questions are on-topic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="6ba69c9b-a010-4efd-ace9-419bde1b4d92" CreationDate="2017-07-26T08:56:35.263" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|blacklist-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="0fdd2156-a2de-4cc2-854b-ad35943b5c93" CreationDate="2017-07-26T12:43:07.867" UserId="50583" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Jim](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), July 24th 2017&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10000/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-jim-long-may-he-reign-2017-07-25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Bernardo Meurer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50764/bernardo-meurer), June 13th 2017,&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9898/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-bernardo-meurer-2017-06-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th 2017, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10053" RevisionGUID="4ebe7373-88ac-474a-ba23-46939333d070" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:08:21.110" UserId="121464" Text="[tag:applied-physics] seems like a bit of a catch-all tag like general-physics (which is now removed from all questions and soon to be blacklisted). Thoughts on burnination and blacklisting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There's no tag wiki or tag excerpt, making it confusing what it was even intended to be used for in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;* Most of the questions seem to be pop-science-y (I first noticed the tag when browsing through the questions in the [tag:food] tag).&#xD;&#xA;* It seems like if it was an ideal tag it would be more of a 'not-quite-experimental but not-quite-theoretical' physics tag - but of course, that's kind of vague, and most questions on the site could be tagged with it, which is generally a bad sign. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10053" RevisionGUID="4ebe7373-88ac-474a-ba23-46939333d070" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:08:21.110" UserId="121464" Text="Let's apply the lighter to this tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10053" RevisionGUID="4ebe7373-88ac-474a-ba23-46939333d070" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:08:21.110" UserId="121464" Text="|discussion|tags|burninate-request|blacklist-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="21c02d63-e910-4495-9803-9af54f0126b2" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:46:02.933" UserId="50583" Text="Let's be careful with getting rid of tags: We should abolish a tag if it literally *serves no purpose*, or is actively harmful. As for your specific points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's no tag wiki or tag excerpt, making it confusing what it was even intended to be used for in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't an argument to get rid of any tag, this is an argument to write a tag wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the questions seem to be pop-science-y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a reason for deletion either, since nothing about pop science inherently makes a question on- or off-topic at our site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems like if it was an ideal tag it would be more of a 'not-quite-experimental but not-quite-theoretical' physics tag - but of course, that's kind of vague, and most questions on the site could be tagged with it, which is generally a bad sign. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I completely disagree that most questions on the site could be tagged with it. I don't see much &quot;applied&quot; about most of the Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics questions we get, for instance. If anything, this tags strikes me as being in the same vein as [tag:everyday-life], which I'm not the biggest fan of, but which certainly conceivably tells you something about the subject of the question. Yes, it's a bit &quot;vague&quot;, but so is [tag:quantum-mechanics] when you think about all the different kinds and levels of questions it covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrasting this with [tag:general-physics], which could literally be applied to every question, or [tag:physics-careers], which is just plainly off-topic nowadays, I think this tag is at least minimally descriptive of a subset of on-topic questions, and therefore should not be eliminated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="adb1a372-869e-4970-91dc-6b8df4db9451" CreationDate="2017-07-29T18:16:26.333" UserId="1483" Text="Just wondering if I was too harsh in my comment on this answer to my question.&#xA;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/346589/1483&#xA;&#xA;The answerer wants my question to be a different one and doesn't like the question as asked. His answer reveals this bias. I'm ok with leaving his (wrong) answer, but why is he trying to convince me the selected answer is wrong? The site agrees he selected answer is a correct answer to the given, valid, question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="adb1a372-869e-4970-91dc-6b8df4db9451" CreationDate="2017-07-29T18:16:26.333" UserId="1483" Text="Was I too harsh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="adb1a372-869e-4970-91dc-6b8df4db9451" CreationDate="2017-07-29T18:16:26.333" UserId="1483" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="afb50098-becb-4212-a0a0-5bf4df7826de" CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:49:32.723" UserId="1483" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Just wondering if I was too harsh in my comment on this answer to my question.&#xA;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/346589/1483&#xA;&#xA;The answerer wants my question to be a different one and doesn't like the question as asked. His answer reveals this bias. I'm ok with leaving his (wrong) answer, but why is he trying to convince me the selected answer is wrong? The site agrees that the selected answer is a correct answer to the given, valid, question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="7f6f117d-7c99-4dcd-a6c1-bc46e348a9f7" CreationDate="2017-07-29T21:36:31.377" UserId="1483" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="Just wondering if I was too harsh in my comment on this answer to my question.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Because that's what I was curious about, silly-headed person. Who are you to come here and tell me what kind of inquiry I am allowed or not allowed to have? You're making philosophical arguments here, not physics ones. Go start your own question if you want to say something different.&#xA;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/346589/1483&#xA;&#xA;The answerer wants my question to be a different one and doesn't like the question as asked. His answer reveals this bias. I'm ok with leaving his (wrong) answer, but why is he trying to convince me the selected answer is wrong? The site agrees that the selected answer is a correct answer to the given, valid, question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10056" RevisionGUID="959c7145-bd65-470d-b723-f096bd34cba8" CreationDate="2017-07-30T02:52:50.350" UserDisplayName="user159372" Text="Too harsh? Not particularly so. It may have been well earned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, it is a tad personal as well, and probably should be _corrected_ such that it's less likely to be interpreted as a personal attack and earns you a flag of &quot;rude or abusive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No point making trouble for yourself when there is no need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="2a81e890-87df-46e4-a5f2-25bfa711a68b" CreationDate="2017-07-30T05:32:16.100" UserId="1483" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="Just wondering if I was too harsh in my comment on this answer to my question.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Because that's what I was curious about, silly-headed person. Who are you to come here and tell me what kind of inquiry I am allowed or not allowed to have? You're making philosophical arguments here, not physics ones. Go start your own question if you want to say something different.&#xA;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/346589/1483&#xA;&#xA;The answerer wants my question to be a different one and doesn't like the question as asked. His answer reveals this bias. I'm ok with leaving his (wrong) answer, but why is he trying to convince me the selected answer is wrong? The site agrees that the selected answer is a correct answer to the given, valid, question.&#xA;&#xA;Note that I have updated my comment as follows to avoid potentially being rude or abusive, or being flagged as such:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Why? Because that's what I was curious about. Why do you come here and tell me what kind of inquiry I am allowed or not allowed to have? You're making philosophical arguments here, not physics ones. If you want to say something different, how about asking your own question instead of mis-answering mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10057" RevisionGUID="d61c8797-9d45-4945-aa26-7ff42d211173" CreationDate="2017-07-30T14:45:18.733" UserId="2451" Text="FYI: Here is some feed-back of what has happened. In the period July 21-30, 2017, I conducted the experiment outlined in my [hbar chat message here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38926975#38926975):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello h Bar: Perhaps you can help develop a half-baked idea of mine. A handful of tags are prone to misuse and overuse, most notoriously perhaps the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag. Idea: &quot;Protect&quot;, say, the [tag:mathematical-physics+] tag with, say, a plus in the end. (I put the word &quot;protect&quot; in quotation since there are no actual reputation restrictions on the use of tags.) All appropriate mathematical-physics question should be tagged with this new &quot;protected plus&quot; tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No questions should be tagged with the old &quot;unprotected&quot; [tag:mathematical-physics] tag. Next let the &quot;unprotected&quot; [tag:mathematical-physics] tag be a synonym of a master tag, say, [tag:please-delete-this-tag]. The idea is that experienced users will soon learn to add the plus to &quot;protected&quot; tags (it is suggested from the pop-up menu), while questions with [tag:please-delete-this-tag] tag may need attention from editors. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10037) meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In detail, both tags [tag:mathematical-physics+] &amp; [tag:mathematical-physics] were suggested to the asker from a pop-up menu if he started to type &quot;math...&quot; in the tag line, ordered by the number of corresponding questions. There were 1440 questions with the [tag:mathematical-physics+] tag and 1 question with the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outcome of the experiment was as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As far as I can tell, all askers picked the [tag:mathematical-physics+] tag over the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag within the 5 minutes grace period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A hbar feed to report [tag:please-delete-this-tag] tags were never activated. Presumable because there were none or because they were removed quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion, the experiment appears to be a failure, as it did not reduce the misuse of the math. phys. tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="28f75b1e-74a4-462d-a6e8-a36fb0206a95" CreationDate="2017-07-30T14:50:33.310" UserId="8563" Comment="added 716 characters in body" Text="Qmechanic just [raised on chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38926975#38926975) the need to take some more action on the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag, and I think it's about right: the tag, despite some loud all-caps in the tag wiki excerpt, gets misused all the time, by people who simply have no idea that [mathematical physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics) is a discipline unto its own and that the term should *not* be used to describe posts just because they have a bit of highschool algebra in them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the more data-minded, [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/699768/edits-that-removed-the-mathematical-physics-tag) finds all the posts which were originally posted with the tag, at a current count of 1175 over the site's history and there's plenty of clonkers in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Qmechanic proposed some manipulations with the tags that I rather strongly disagree with, but I agree that there's a need and I think there's a better solution to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Let's have a review queue for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I think this could work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a new user posts a question with the tagged mathematical-physics (or some pre-defined set of tags, such as e.g. mathematics), then it gets sent to the [First Posts review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There the review, instead of being described with the usual tagline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; This is the **first question** asked by a new user. Help them learn to use the site by reviewing their post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   it gets the header&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; This question by a new user has the **frequently-misused tag [mathematical physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics)**. Please check that the tag has been used correctly and remove it if it hasn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   or some similar wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - After enough time (say, the user has three positive-score posts on the tag, or 1500 rep, or some linear combination of the two), users' posts no longer get sent to this queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We could additionally impose a similar experience requirement on reviewers, so that users with [500 rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/access-review-queues) will only be shown these reviews if they've got three positive-score posts with the tag, knocking off one of those per extra 500 rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All numerical thresholds obviously subject to adjustment, particularly if we find data sources about the existing misuses that are more than me pulling numbers out of thin air.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, once you divide those 1200 posts over the six years of the site's existence you get something like one post every few days, which is a bit sparse but non-negligible, but mostly, Qmechanic does the bulk of the re-tagging around here, and if s/he says it's getting out of hand, then I believe it, period. I think this is enough to show that the problem is real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does involve some nontrivial coding and changes to the UI, but I don't think they are *too* radical, and they can essentially ride piggyback on the existing queues. And, if the queue system does get an overhaul at some point, this could be brought out into its own branch if so required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I think this kind of mechanism would be useful in the wider SE arena: there are [tag warnings](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/274632/help-the-helpless-with-how-to-ask-tag-tips/274634#274634) for misused tags (which is something we should also implement) and those have been seen with interest by other sites ([example](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/should-we-ask-for-tag-warnings), [example](https://german.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/let-s-have-some-tag-warnings-to-prevent-common-mistakes-by-new-users)), so presumably the sites that implement tag warnings might also be interested in a review queue along these lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking it here first, though, because it's probably easier to test the mechanism in a site where it's less likely to break things before scaling it up to full-SE-network availability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for clarity, there's several other tags that probably need this kind of additional scrutiny, including [tag:mathematics], [tag:numerics], [tag:laws-of-physics], [tag:computational-physics], and [tag:equations-of-motion].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the moment, I've set up a [dedicated chatroom: Tag review for misused tags](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/63070/tag-review-for-misused-tags), with feeds from those tags, as an ersatz review queue, and as an experiment to see how well that works. (If you do edit tags from feeds in that room, leave a message saying that you've done so, to help track how useful it is.) Hopefully this will help get a sense of the scale of the problem and its available solutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10058" RevisionGUID="4b446ee6-2169-4716-984c-1cb3365feec0" CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:29:23.080" UserId="52767" Text="In https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348514/why-does-newtons-third-law-actually-work, the asker states their age in the question.  (They are 10 years old.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, their age does not have anything to do with Newton's Third Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it gives the answerers an idea of what age-level to answer the question at.  For example, if the asker stated that they were 20, they may receive a more advanced answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the user's age be edited out of the question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10058" RevisionGUID="4b446ee6-2169-4716-984c-1cb3365feec0" CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:29:23.080" UserId="52767" Text="Is an asker's age relevant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10058" RevisionGUID="4b446ee6-2169-4716-984c-1cb3365feec0" CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:29:23.080" UserId="52767" Text="|discussion|questions|specific-question|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10059" RevisionGUID="2de10995-4738-438f-985a-f749fbc7dbe1" CreationDate="2017-07-31T21:15:21.910" UserId="124" Text="It's a minor issue, but strictly speaking, yes, the age should be edited out of the question because it is irrelevant. As you said, the only reason we might care about it is that it gives answerers a very rough guide as to what level of detail the asker may be looking for, but even that is better expressed as something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm looking for an answer that assumes zero prior knowledge of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a broader issue to consider here: to what extent can askers expect answers at a specific level of expertise? In cases like this specifically, should people with zero prior knowledge of physics be able to expect that they will get answers suited to them? I think this is better discussed in a separate topic, perhaps in chat, so I won't get into it here, but it does have some bearing on the relevance of an asker's age. If we were to decide (for example) that askers do not get to dictate what level the answers to their questions should be at, and answers at all levels of sophistication are fair game, then clearly an asker's age and other qualifications are _completely_ irrelevant, whereas if we decided that answers should be targeted at the level of the asker, it does make sense to have some information about their qualifications in the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10059" RevisionGUID="78069ada-bb1a-4a85-9c31-3a6be7b3b1b0" CreationDate="2017-07-31T21:24:28.060" UserId="124" Comment="added note about removing the age" Text="It's a minor issue, but strictly speaking, yes, the age should be edited out of the question because it is irrelevant. As you said, the only reason we might care about it is that it gives answerers a very rough guide as to what level of detail the asker may be looking for, but even that is better expressed as something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm looking for an answer that assumes zero prior knowledge of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a broader issue to consider here: to what extent can askers expect answers at a specific level of expertise? In cases like this specifically, should people with zero prior knowledge of physics be able to expect that they will get answers suited to them? I think this is better discussed in a separate topic, perhaps in chat, so I won't get into it here, but it does have some bearing on the relevance of an asker's age. If we were to decide (for example) that askers do not get to dictate what level the answers to their questions should be at, and answers at all levels of sophistication are fair game, then clearly an asker's age and other qualifications are _completely_ irrelevant, whereas if we decided that answers should be targeted at the level of the asker, it does make sense to have some information about their qualifications in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to edit out the age right now - someone can revert the edit if we decide it should be in there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10060" RevisionGUID="8db354a5-6cd4-44a7-836c-9733a3a54c4d" CreationDate="2017-07-31T23:09:35.733" UserId="1954" Text="I know I'm late to the party, but I'd like to formally suggest `Schrödinger's Chat` - complete with umlaut." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="434e3966-a562-4c9e-a406-8fc140b3989c" CreationDate="2017-08-01T07:45:48.947" UserId="158306" Comment="added 384 characters in body" Text="No$\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The set of &quot;all physics knowledge that could be described by any human's symbols&quot; is countable and is a subset of the $\sigma$-field of all possible human's symbols. Therefore, obviously, all the tags except $general \  physics$  are of Lebesgue measure zero. Deleting $general \ physics$ is equivalent to deleting all possible physics knowledge from stackexchange almost surely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="7ed01581-bdb6-488c-94f1-bc69ce33e485" CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:56:51.680" UserId="25301" Comment="removed useless mathjax for actual SE formatting" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The set of &quot;all physics knowledge that could be described by any human's symbols&quot; is countable and is a subset of the $\sigma$-field of all possible human's symbols. Therefore, obviously, all the tags except *general  physics*  are of Lebesgue measure zero. Deleting *general physics* is equivalent to deleting all possible physics knowledge from Stack Exchange almost surely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="b5e5c2e0-39e3-43c6-b889-8259dc003424" CreationDate="2017-08-01T20:28:36.517" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Yes, the OP's age is relevant if they're 10 years old. Although age is not 100% correlated with vocabulary or math knowledge, being 10 does tell us a lot. And someone at age 10 is very unlikely to be operating at a high level of abstraction or logical sophistication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brain development takes time, and even precocious kids do not usually fully develop higher-level reasoning skills until their late teens. I see this a lot when kids at age 15 enroll in my community college physics classes. Although they may be brilliant by the standards of their peers, they are often not operating at a college level of critical thinking and conceptual understanding. They are kids who have excelled at computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And certainly people asking questions should be allowed to request answers targeted at their level of background knowledge. In fact, it's extremely annoying when they don't. Then we get situations where, e.g., answers that are written for a grad student, but the OP then posts a comment on the answer saying, &quot;Sorry, I don't know what a Lie group is. I'm a high school senior.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30591" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10058" RevisionGUID="5694b15d-326e-4e0f-9643-526f8eeb34a3" CreationDate="2017-08-02T05:26:31.030" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/892617584721440768" />
  <row Id="30592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10062" RevisionGUID="38153086-ff0f-49e0-9713-db703e51cc72" CreationDate="2017-08-02T11:09:09.940" UserId="74551" Text="The age of the asker has nothing to do with the question asked. As stated above by others, being 10 has no impact on Newton's Third Law. In the end, we are just here to answer questions which other people pose on physics, not to question their ability to understand our answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP were to not understand our answers, then it would be our responsibility to edit or further our answers so that it does make sense, but in terms of the effect upon the answer, age of the OP really should not matter. As seen in the referenced post, the &quot;most popular&quot; answers and as one might thus hope, the best, did not really answer the question that the OP posted. What then was the point in such answers? I don't mean to criticise, only to point out the purpose of this community in existing. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Feeling really out of depth as everyone else here has lots of rep and thus has more credit to their answers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30593" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10046" RevisionGUID="636c2688-aaa8-4b24-ab26-f90eab7d69ad" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:22:36.740" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|burninate-request|blacklist-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30594" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="f7563341-7383-4b72-b942-c16c3244485b" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:25:09.957" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="general-physics: a generally terrible tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="f7563341-7383-4b72-b942-c16c3244485b" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:25:09.957" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|status-completed|tags|burninate-request|blacklist-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10059" RevisionGUID="0b68f696-9b48-4218-87b9-6c0485b5f324" CreationDate="2017-08-02T17:50:05.027" UserId="124" Comment="clarify" Text="It's a minor issue, but strictly speaking, yes, the age should be edited out of the question because it is irrelevant. As you said, the only reason we might care about it is that it gives answerers a very rough guide as to what kind of answer the asker may be looking for, but it's better to express that as something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm looking for an answer that assumes zero prior knowledge of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm looking for an intuitive explanation, not a mathematical proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a broader issue to consider here: to what extent can askers expect answers at a specific level of expertise? In cases like this specifically, should people with zero prior knowledge of physics be able to expect that they will get answers suited to them? I think this is better discussed in a separate topic, perhaps in chat, so I won't get into it here, but it does have some bearing on the relevance of an asker's age. If we were to decide (for example) that askers do not get to dictate what level the answers to their questions should be at, and answers at all levels of sophistication are fair game, then clearly an asker's age and other qualifications are _completely_ irrelevant, whereas if we decided that answers should be targeted at the level of the asker, it does make sense to have some information about their qualifications in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to edit out the age right now - someone can revert the edit if we decide it should be in there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10063" RevisionGUID="5f44b35e-d2bb-472a-b6bc-fe36989af11b" CreationDate="2017-08-02T18:57:05.377" UserDisplayName="user122423" Text="If this has already been proposed, I apologize. I have noticed that many questions are answered through short discussions in the comments; it is obvious that the OP is satisfied, so no one bothers to post an official answer. You don't have to look too far to find this sort of question, but [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/349806/how-does-the-voltage-source-provide-energy-in-a-circuit) is a recent example. I have found several Meta questions (e.g., [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4089/unanswered-questions-with-several-comments), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7494/using-comments-as-answers), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/964/answering-in-comments)) about this very issue; the prevailing solution that I have seen is to either ask the commenter to post their comment as an answer or to post it as an answer yourself. This seems like a perfectly fine solution to me, except for the fact that I have never seen it done. It may happen regularly without me seeing it, but it still remains that there are questions that are left in this condition, which seems like a problem to me. These questions will go down in the archives of the site as unanswered, and they will likely never receive an answer. This has a negative effect on the organization of the site and poses a problem for people browsing old questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I think that there should be a review queue for old (one week, for example) questions that don't have an answer. The reviewer would be able to distinguish between good questions that no one has been able to answer yet, bad questions that slipped through earlier moderation efforts, and questions that were answered in the comments. The first variety would move on as intended by the site's design, the second would have another chance to be altered as needed, and the third would have a specific opportunity to have the comment turned into an answer (it seems like turning it into a community wiki would be the fairest option). Thus, potentially low quality questions would have a chance to be looked over before they are relegated to their future of likely inactivity in the archives. It seems to me that this process would be immensely beneficial to the quality of the site's archive of questions, which is good since Stack Exchange emphasizes that its questions are meant to be a permanent resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been active on this site for too long, so I would appreciate any response on why this is not a good fit for the site if it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** (sort of): Having written my above question, I searched on Meta Stack Exchange to see if this had been asked there before posting; sure enough, I found [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/262297/prepare-for-archive-review-queue) that in essence is the same as mine, albeit without the emphasis on dealing with questions answered in comments. The answer states that review queues are best suited for resolving issues through community consensus, and that tasks like the one I am suggesting should be done on one's own. I would just like to say that I don't think that answer is satisfactory; sure, many review queues deal with gaining a community consensus on how to handle a question, but the First Post and Late Answer queues are similar to my suggestion and seem to work fine. Also, I am asking this question because a significant number of people have not taken it upon themselves to police questions that are about to go into the archives and because a review queue would make this process easier, more accessible, and more visible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10063" RevisionGUID="5f44b35e-d2bb-472a-b6bc-fe36989af11b" CreationDate="2017-08-02T18:57:05.377" UserDisplayName="user122423" Text="Review queue for old, unanswered questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10063" RevisionGUID="5f44b35e-d2bb-472a-b6bc-fe36989af11b" CreationDate="2017-08-02T18:57:05.377" UserDisplayName="user122423" Text="|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10064" RevisionGUID="1218fb8b-fdb8-4e2d-b31b-0dd7d14cc021" CreationDate="2017-08-03T09:41:00.157" UserId="8563" Text="There already is such a review queue: the [Unanswered Questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered) tab, easily accessible on the main navigation panel between the Badges and Ask Question links. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, you can also filter on a per-tag basis and even add any search terms that you want (click on any tag, or do a search adding `[tag] [other-tag]`) and then sort via the 'unanswered' criterion. There's also a [wide array of search criteria](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching) so you can get some pretty fine control over dates as well; as an example, `created:7d..` will pull posts created within the past week, `lastactive:14d..7d` will find posts whose last activity was the week before that, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a moderate archive of reasonable questions that can still be answered is not a bad thing ─ it is a resource that enables new site members to get up and running by finding old posts that can use some more work and putting in those improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not saying your idea is terrible, either, but I'm not sure I see a problem with the way things are at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10063" RevisionGUID="2afdee4c-2f17-4864-ac6f-a077eacc5700" CreationDate="2017-08-03T17:44:30.577" UserDisplayName="user122423" Comment="Added a new section with new information" Text="If this has already been proposed, I apologize. I have noticed that many questions are answered through short discussions in the comments; it is obvious that the OP is satisfied, so no one bothers to post an official answer. You don't have to look too far to find this sort of question, but [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/349806/how-does-the-voltage-source-provide-energy-in-a-circuit) is a recent example. I have found several Meta questions (e.g., [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4089/unanswered-questions-with-several-comments), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7494/using-comments-as-answers), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/964/answering-in-comments)) about this very issue; the prevailing solution that I have seen is to either ask the commenter to post their comment as an answer or to post it as an answer yourself. This seems like a perfectly fine solution to me, except for the fact that I have never seen it done. It may happen regularly without me seeing it, but it still remains that there are questions that are left in this condition, which seems like a problem to me. These questions will go down in the archives of the site as unanswered, and they will likely never receive an answer. This has a negative effect on the organization of the site and poses a problem for people browsing old questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I think that there should be a review queue for old (one week, for example) questions that don't have an answer. The reviewer would be able to distinguish between good questions that no one has been able to answer yet, bad questions that slipped through earlier moderation efforts, and questions that were answered in the comments. The first variety would move on as intended by the site's design, the second would have another chance to be altered as needed, and the third would have a specific opportunity to have the comment turned into an answer (it seems like turning it into a community wiki would be the fairest option). Thus, potentially low quality questions would have a chance to be looked over before they are relegated to their future of likely inactivity in the archives. It seems to me that this process would be immensely beneficial to the quality of the site's archive of questions, which is good since Stack Exchange emphasizes that its questions are meant to be a permanent resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been active on this site for too long, so I would appreciate any response on why this is not a good fit for the site if it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** (sort of): Having written my above question, I searched on Meta Stack Exchange to see if this had been asked there before posting; sure enough, I found [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/262297/prepare-for-archive-review-queue) that in essence is the same as mine, albeit without the emphasis on dealing with questions answered in comments. The answer states that review queues are best suited for resolving issues through community consensus, and that tasks like the one I am suggesting should be done on one's own. I would just like to say that I don't think that answer is satisfactory; sure, many review queues deal with gaining a community consensus on how to handle a question, but the First Post and Late Answer queues are similar to my suggestion and seem to work fine. Also, I am asking this question because a significant number of people have not taken it upon themselves to police questions that are about to go into the archives and because a review queue would make this process easier, more accessible, and more visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Now that I have had some responses, I would like to rephrase my idea (hopefully more clearly) and add some new information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I am trying to express the fact that I think we need a way to filter out questions that are answered in comments rather than with &quot;official answers&quot;; the questions I linked earlier in this post seem to support this. The solution to this in the past has been to hope that users repost such answers as official answers, but this isn't entirely effective. Thus, it seems to me that the best way to filter out these answers is with a review queue that contains questions that are still unanswered after a week; thus, the reviewer can easily repost any such comment answers as real answers and make any other modifications that need to be made. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know whether:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Others think that having answers in the form of comments is an issue&#xD;&#xA; 2. The current method of hoping for users to notice this and modify it is sufficient&#xD;&#xA; 3. A review queue is a viable option for fixing it (if necessary) or what a better method would be (if any)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have gotten the sense that people do see it as an issue that is not completely resolved, but that the effort adding a review queue would entail is not worth it. I would like to know why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I used several searches to gather some information that may be pertinent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Seven days ago, 162 questions were posted. &#xD;&#xA; - After seven days (today) 40 remain unanswered.&#xD;&#xA; - Out of those 40, 18 were put on hold, closed, migrated, or marked as duplicates; 2 needed modification to conform to site policy (not pertaining to being answered in the comments); 11 were fine; and 9 were answered in the comments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me think that we do in fact need to make some sort of change to address this sort of post; assuming these data are representative (which I think is fairly safe) and putting the first category aside, a user looking for old, unanswered questions has roughly the same chance of finding one that doesn't fit their criteria as they do of finding one that does, which would be very frustrating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30603" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10063" RevisionGUID="2afdee4c-2f17-4864-ac6f-a077eacc5700" CreationDate="2017-08-03T17:44:30.577" UserDisplayName="user122423" Comment="Added a new section with new information" Text="Review queue for &quot;old&quot;, unanswered questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="fc701e50-e834-4056-aebb-2f678cee28f5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:58:25.293" UserId="114696" Text="No, I do not think that a statement of the OP's age should be edited out, or (as DavidZ suggests) replaced with a statement identifying the type of answer requested. In my opinion this is an unnecessary and unhelpful interference with the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most questions (and answers) do contain a lot of irrelevant material. If we are going to enforce a policy that an irrelevant statement should be removed, this should apply consistently to all content, not only to statements of age. I am not aware that there is any such policy, neither have I seen any instances of it being implemented on this site. Doing so consistently would require an enormous amount of extra work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Deciding what is irrelevant can be difficult and highly subjective. The key point is that the OP thinks it is (or might be) relevant. Those who think otherwise can either ignore it or leave a comment or address the issue in an answer. To others it might have a significant bearing on the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Replacing a statement of age with a statement about the level of answer required is also subjective and best left to the OP. If anyone is in any doubt themselves, they should (as usual) post a comment asking for clarification - not impose their own interpretation on others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Personally, age is relevant to the type of answer which I would post. Although there isn't a perfect correlation, it does give some indication of the OP's level of knowledge and ability. This does not prevent anyone else from posting a highly technical answer which the OP could not possibly understand. There should be answers at various levels, but particularly at the OP's level, because the OP has been motivated to ask.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The ethos of the Stack Exchange network is one of *democracy, tolerance* and *freedom of expression* (within the bounds of politeness). Editing others' posts without prior consent is a privileged interference with their freedom to express themselves as they choose. IMO it should be restricted to the mininum of whatever is helpful to making the question understandable and readable and getting good answers. It should not change the intention of the OP - which replacement might do. I agree with DavidZ that *this is a minor issue*. Deletion of material should be restricted to breaches of community standards; it should not include *minor issues*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="bcf4cb06-ddf6-4eb3-a1eb-af8364a9575d" CreationDate="2017-08-05T08:04:35.250" UserId="149663" Text="I use my mobile to access the site. The chat rooms in mobile view do not have any option to upload pictures. I have to click on Request desktop site to upload pictures everytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this feature be added like the one on desktop version? Please up vote if you support this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are a few screenshot of how it looks from mobile view in chat rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qteRD.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="bcf4cb06-ddf6-4eb3-a1eb-af8364a9575d" CreationDate="2017-08-05T08:04:35.250" UserId="149663" Text="Option to upload pictures in mobile chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="bcf4cb06-ddf6-4eb3-a1eb-af8364a9575d" CreationDate="2017-08-05T08:04:35.250" UserId="149663" Text="|feature-request|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="cdaf5381-4e69-43f2-b9ed-fa99c23794cd" CreationDate="2017-08-05T08:12:46.470" UserId="149663" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I use my mobile to access the site. The chat rooms in mobile view do not have any option to upload pictures. I have to click on Request desktop site to upload pictures everytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this feature be added like the one on desktop version? Please up vote if you support this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a screenshot of how it looks from mobile view in chat rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qteRD.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="f1a3606a-7bb2-4427-98a7-e7a4471f0395" CreationDate="2017-08-05T10:36:48.007" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="It would be nice to have `mhchem` enabled, by adding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;TeX: {&#xD;&#xA;  extensions: [&quot;mhchem.js&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the mathjax configuration. This would be useful to write nuclear reactions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="f1a3606a-7bb2-4427-98a7-e7a4471f0395" CreationDate="2017-08-05T10:36:48.007" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="Enabling mhchem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="f1a3606a-7bb2-4427-98a7-e7a4471f0395" CreationDate="2017-08-05T10:36:48.007" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="1fe5a822-e29c-4b9a-a199-c39eec24fb4e" CreationDate="2017-08-05T11:02:13.533" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="2fb516ce-e14c-4fe5-8ab0-621384a5e561" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:42:55.027" UserId="50583" Text="This meta discussion is sort of a spin-off from [this recent meta discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10058/50583) about whether or not an asker's age is relevant to a question, and whether or not it should be edited out. Since the issue of age is fraught with multiple issues, I thought it would be good if we isolated this one specific issue and debated it separately here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If two questions ask for essentially the same thing, and the only difference between them is that the asker of one question specifies they know no physics or math beyond the very basics at all, and the other is a graduate student of physics, are these two questions duplicates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there are precisely two positions here, namely &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; (excluding a spectrum of &quot;yes in the following cases, no in other cases&quot; positions, of course) which each have some issues we should address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If yes, how should users without the understanding required for currently present answers to a question request answers suited to their level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes, should requests for particular levels of explanation in a question be edited out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If no, how finely-grained should we go here? Is &quot;explain like I'm five&quot; substantially different from &quot;explain like I'm ten&quot;, or is &quot;I'm an undergraduate physics student&quot; different from &quot;I'm just starting to study physics at university&quot;? What about incommensurable qualifiers of the level of sophistication (e.g. &quot;I'm in Xth grade&quot; vs. &quot;I know only basic physics&quot;, with the added bonus of not knowing Xth grade in which country)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I'm not seeking for a discussion of whether these incommensurable qualifiers are *actual* or *good* measures of &quot;physics level&quot;, just what we do with them when askers make them. If it turns out we don't really care for the specified level, discussions about how to specify it are moot, anyway.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If no, do answers that substantially miss the required level of sophistication in either direction constitute *not-answers*, meaning they should be flagged and deleted? What do we do if someone posts the same answer with the same level to all questions asking about the topic regardless of the specified level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previous related discussion on meta (please add if you fine more!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6682/50583, which is basically subquestion 1 here, where I wrote the sole answer with the assumption that &quot;yes&quot; was our site's implicit consensus as an answer to the overarching question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4179/50583, which is more about whether any particular level of expertise is required to answer questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9648/50583, which is more specifically about the question of level in [tag:resource-recommendation] questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8835/50583, discussing whether or not answerers should respect the level requested in a question, making it similar to subquestion 4 here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/648/50583, where...I'm not completely sure how to judge its relevance to this discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="2fb516ce-e14c-4fe5-8ab0-621384a5e561" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:42:55.027" UserId="50583" Text="Are two questions that only differ in the desired level of sophistication of the answer duplicates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="2fb516ce-e14c-4fe5-8ab0-621384a5e561" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:42:55.027" UserId="50583" Text="|discussion|policy|duplicates|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="23010354-6f8d-49e8-ba81-44ad66adc533" CreationDate="2017-08-08T00:44:09.223" UserId="25301" Text="I tried a couple times, but couldn't get this into a nice paragraph form, so I'm leaving it as bulleted thoughts.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Fundamentally, they would be duplicates, so it should be closed as such.&#xD;&#xA;  * I don't really have an opinion about removing or leaving in the age request at the moment. Probably because I view it is a dupe anyway &amp; the important part about dupes is linking it to the right question.&#xD;&#xA;* If the request is for a different level answer than one given in the original question, they should offer [a bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty) with explicit directions to that point.&#xD;&#xA;  * This goes both ways: grad $\to$ lesser or lesser $\to$ grad.&#xD;&#xA;  * Obviously the 75 rep thing is a big deal here, but the point remains: there exists a way w/in the current framework to get the answer desired w/o resorting to a billion copies of the same question.&#xD;&#xA;* Formally, the SE-required age limit is 13, so I don't think ELI5 questions are valid questions in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;  * More explicitly: If you need a question answered like you are completely uneducated,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; then how on earth are you capable of judging whether an answer actually answers (truthfully) the question? Are you just taking the highest-voted answer as truth? &#xD;&#xA;* Allowing different levels of the same question would lead to $n$ copies of the same question. &#xD;&#xA;  * From a *library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics* perspective, it is better to have *one* question with *multiple* answers than to have *multiple* questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;  * Can you say &quot;rep farming&quot;? Find a high-level, well liked question? Go ahead and say, &quot;Same question, but ELI5?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm an undergrad in physics?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm a chair?&quot; and so on. Easy rep!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think those are all the important points about the question that I think deserve answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Footnote:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. In America, education formally begins at 6, so a 5 y/o is formally uneducated.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10072" RevisionGUID="7b30aa0e-29c2-4ec1-9ad4-7c3d3c6cce28" CreationDate="2017-08-08T09:43:35.263" UserId="84967" Text="**Premise**: two posts asking the same question are **not**, *by default*, duplicates if they are both *explicit* about the desired level of sophistication, and they are *significantly* different levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us be more precise about what we mean by the italicised words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Explicit*: the level of the question must be clear in the question itself, not by adding a &quot;I know only basic physics&quot;, but by how the question is formulated. This could be archived, for example, by showing some prior research. If OP wants a *low-level* answer, they must show that they researched about the topic and found the literature too terse (quoting unclear definitions, for example, or by pinpointing some particularly unclear concept in a book/set of lecture notes, etc.). If OP wants a *high-level* answer, they must specify what they already know, be clear about what definitions they are using, what results can be taken to be known and which cannot (to avoid circular arguments), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Significantly*: this is the tricky part, but I guess we could settle for low-level (high-school/undergrad) vs. high-level (graduate/research level). Anything in-between must be rounded either up or down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *By default*: questions are to not be closed *automatically* if the topic is the same. They *may* be closed if reviewers consider that the two previous conditions were not satisfactorily met (OP was not explicit enough about the desired level, or the requested level is not significantly different from the duplicate post)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="eca5599a-3d28-453c-9edb-05d8f07a9463" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:41:07.310" UserId="121464" Text="##No, these questions are not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers are vastly different. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a grad student will probably be (to generalize) math heavy, highly complex, and over my head. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a highschooler might be one whose answer I'd be able to write. *They're so different that closing as a duplicate helps no one.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Specific concerns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fine-grained-ness, I'd propose including age if it is &quot;extreme&quot; - i.e., young teenager or younger (this also includes &quot;how do I explain to my 5yo kid&quot; questions), and then level of education for others. For example - my questions might have &quot;young teenager, no formal education but enthusiast/studying on my own&quot;. Other questions might have &quot;Graduated with a degree in physics 20 years ago and don't remember much of it&quot; or &quot;In grad school for chemistry&quot; or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep things narrow - 3 to 6-ish should probably be an &quot;age category&quot;, and 7 to 12-ish another, and then highschoolers (technically most 14yo in U.S. are in 8th grade, but whatever, we're just going to call it good). From there undergrad, then grad/professional would be my guess towards an appropriate grouping. Then I'd say a final category for an older individual asking say 5+ years after their last class. That leaves us with 6 fairly distinct categories. Not *too* many, and distinct enough that answers will be fairly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain what I mean here by class - if a question was asking about such-and-such, at undergrad level, and another question was also asked at undergrad level, then vtc as dupes. But if question A was asked at age 3 to 6 level, and B at undergrad level - well, then they're just not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers that are at the wrong level are indeed NAA, and should be flagged/deleted, though if there's another question which asks for an answer at that level, might be good to alert the poster of that other question. If an answer is cross posted, delete the ones at the wrong level, and keep the one at the right level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="c51304d5-87c8-4db9-8dcd-3e99eb69fd1c" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:47:12.857" UserId="50583" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="This meta discussion is sort of a spin-off from [this recent meta discussion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10058/50583) about whether or not an asker's age is relevant to a question, and whether or not it should be edited out. Since the issue of age is fraught with multiple issues, I thought it would be good if we isolated this one specific issue and debated it separately here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If two questions ask for essentially the same thing, and the only difference between them is that the asker of one question specifies they know no physics or math beyond the very basics at all, and the other is a graduate student of physics, are these two questions duplicates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there are precisely two positions here, namely &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; (excluding a spectrum of &quot;yes in the following cases, no in other cases&quot; positions, of course) which each have some issues we should address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If yes, how should users without the understanding required for currently present answers to a question request answers suited to their level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes, should requests for particular levels of explanation in a question be edited out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If no, how finely-grained should we go here? Is &quot;explain like I'm five&quot; substantially different from &quot;explain like I'm ten&quot;, or is &quot;I'm an undergraduate physics student&quot; different from &quot;I'm just starting to study physics at university&quot;? What about incommensurable qualifiers of the level of sophistication (e.g. &quot;I'm in Xth grade&quot; vs. &quot;I know only basic physics&quot;, with the added bonus of not knowing Xth grade in which country)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I'm not seeking for a discussion of whether these incommensurable qualifiers are *actual* or *good* measures of &quot;physics level&quot;, just what we do with them when askers make them. If it turns out we don't really care for the specified level, discussions about how to specify it are moot, anyway.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If no, do answers that substantially miss the required level of sophistication in either direction constitute *not-answers*, meaning they should be flagged and deleted? What do we do if someone posts the same answer with the same level to all questions asking about the topic regardless of the specified level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If no, is specifying a level *required*? If it isn't, is the question without any specified level a duplicate of either of the versions where it is specified, or vice versa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previous related discussion on meta (please add if you fine more!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6682/50583, which is basically subquestion 1 here, where I wrote the sole answer with the assumption that &quot;yes&quot; was our site's implicit consensus as an answer to the overarching question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4179/50583, which is more about whether any particular level of expertise is required to answer questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9648/50583, which is more specifically about the question of level in [tag:resource-recommendation] questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8835/50583, discussing whether or not answerers should respect the level requested in a question, making it similar to subquestion 4 here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/648/50583, where...I'm not completely sure how to judge its relevance to this discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10074" RevisionGUID="d2d6700b-0ead-4176-94e7-b9271021a89a" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:01:19.883" UserId="2451" Text="Another idea would be to add, say, a plus at the end of a handful of problematic tags, e.g. [tag:mathematical-physics+] instead of [tag:mathematical-physics], and so forth. The plus signals to editors and the community that the tag is often misused, and might need editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This proposal should not be confused with my earlier [July 21 2017 proposal](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38926975#38926975). The reason why both proposals use the plus character, is that only very few special characters are allowed in a tag.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="fba676cf-a788-4f9b-b15c-cad4e30504c3" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:10:13.150" UserId="121464" Comment="added 560 characters in body" Text="##No, these questions are not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers are vastly different. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a grad student will probably be (to generalize) math heavy, highly complex, and over my head. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a highschooler might be one whose answer I'd be able to write. *They're so different that closing as a duplicate helps no one.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Specific concerns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fine-grained-ness, I'd propose including age if it is &quot;extreme&quot; - i.e., young teenager or younger (this also includes &quot;how do I explain to my 5yo kid&quot; questions), and then level of education for others. For example - my questions might have &quot;young teenager, no formal education but enthusiast/studying on my own&quot;. Other questions might have &quot;Graduated with a degree in physics 20 years ago and don't remember much of it&quot; or &quot;In grad school for chemistry&quot; or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep things narrow - 3 to 6-ish should probably be an &quot;age category&quot;, and 7 to early highschoolers (around 16, maybe?), and then late highschoolers to undergrad students, then grad/professional, and then a final category for an older individual asking say 5+ years after their last class. That leaves us with 5 fairly distinct categories. Not *too* many, and distinct enough that answers will be fairly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain what I mean here by class - if a question was asking about such-and-such, at undergrad level, and another question was also asked at undergrad level, then vtc as dupes. But if question A was asked at age 3 to 6 level, and B at undergrad level - well, then they're just not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers that are at the wrong level are indeed NAA, and should be flagged/deleted, though if there's another question which asks for an answer at that level, might be good to alert the poster of that other question. If an answer is cross posted, delete the ones at the wrong level, and keep the one at the right level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments have suggested that 6 (I cut one, so now 5) categories are too complex. Here's why I think that's wrong: we don't often get the same questions at all different levels. This isn't a proposal that we quick run out and write new questions that are the same as others but at different levels - it's so in the future, if we see a duplicate, we stop and think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, really, if we can't figure out that a 5 year old will not understand an answer intended for a graduate student, I think we have a more fundamental problem than 5 categories. If anyone has any suggestions for consolidation, I'd be glad to here them, but I really think these 5 are quite distinct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="a7f6747c-9056-4558-b797-bca2f782a94e" CreationDate="2017-08-08T22:40:10.813" UserId="44126" Text=" * [tag:nuclear-magnetic-resonance]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros: [Allowed as of today](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/299490/280545).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons: There aren't any cons. This is the solution we wanted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="d413b0f8-d6ed-4199-8157-45901ed06769" CreationDate="2017-08-09T00:10:14.817" UserId="121464" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="##No, these questions are not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers are vastly different. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a grad student will probably be (to generalize) math heavy, highly complex, and over my head. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a highschooler might be one whose answer I'd be able to write. *They're so different that closing as a duplicate helps no one.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A small side note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, bounties, which might normally serve this purpose, don't really help as much as they should. A newer user can't place a bounty, and even when they reach that ability, would they really want to, seeing as they'd then lose many privileges that are often really helpful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Specific concerns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fine-grained-ness, I'd propose including age if it is &quot;extreme&quot; - i.e., young teenager or younger (this also includes &quot;how do I explain to my 5yo kid&quot; questions), and then level of education for others. For example - my questions might have &quot;young teenager, no formal education but enthusiast/studying on my own&quot;. Other questions might have &quot;Graduated with a degree in physics 20 years ago and don't remember much of it&quot; or &quot;In grad school for chemistry&quot; or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep things narrow - 3 to 6-ish should probably be an &quot;age category&quot;, and 7 to early highschoolers (around 16, maybe?), and then late highschoolers to undergrad students, then grad/professional, and then a final category for an older individual asking say 5+ years after their last class. That leaves us with 5 fairly distinct categories. Not *too* many, and distinct enough that answers will be fairly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain what I mean here by class - if a question was asking about such-and-such, at undergrad level, and another question was also asked at undergrad level, then vtc as dupes. But if question A was asked at age 3 to 6 level, and B at undergrad level - well, then they're just not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers that are at the wrong level are indeed NAA, and should be flagged/deleted, though if there's another question which asks for an answer at that level, might be good to alert the poster of that other question. If an answer is cross posted, delete the ones at the wrong level, and keep the one at the right level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments have suggested that 6 (I cut one, so now 5) categories are too complex. Here's why I think that's wrong: we don't often get the same questions at all different levels. This isn't a proposal that we quick run out and write new questions that are the same as others but at different levels - it's so in the future, if we see a duplicate, we stop and think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, really, if we can't figure out that a 5 year old will not understand an answer intended for a graduate student, I think we have a more fundamental problem than 5 categories. If anyone has any suggestions for consolidation, I'd be glad to here them, but I really think these 5 are quite distinct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30631" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="9b7cd00d-50b0-4552-8aa3-965584ef805a" CreationDate="2017-08-09T02:48:28.900" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/895114528387682305" />
  <row Id="30636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="d20effcc-04a6-4196-bbb6-182d35594851" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:16:52.877" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="Sometimes very tricky problems that require quite a bit of ingenuity are removed simply because they're exercises in physics/maths. Well, what is the fundamental difference asking about a specific 'concept' as opposed to solving a hard problem? They both involve similar skills and I daresay that solving problems is all you really need to do anyway and the former will come naturally as a result. If the goal of this website is to be a place where people can improve at physics, then we should have a more lenient homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, problem solving is an enjoyable process and this website's popularity would skyrocket if we were more open to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still respect the homework policy in so far as closing questions that clearly show no research or attempt. But we can't keep closing questions whose answer *exists* somewhere. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="d20effcc-04a6-4196-bbb6-182d35594851" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:16:52.877" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="Why can't the Homework policy be more lenient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="d20effcc-04a6-4196-bbb6-182d35594851" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:16:52.877" UserDisplayName="user86425" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="b399a2ee-fc79-4aff-8530-3473ddf4d3d6" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:25:53.070" UserId="50583" Text="I want to approach this issue mostly from the viewpoint of the answerers, i.e. subquestion 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If no, do answers that substantially miss the required level of sophistication in either direction constitute not-answers, meaning they should be flagged and deleted? What do we do if someone posts the same answer with the same level to all questions asking about the topic regardless of the specified level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice here is clearly binary - either answers of all levels are allowed, or only those &quot;around&quot; the specified level are. Both possibilities strike me as undesirable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Allowing answers of all levels leads to duplication of answers to &quot;non-duplicate&quot; questions:** If questions asking for different levels are not duplicates, and answers of all levels are allowed, then *all* answers to one question also constitute answers to the other. This is *precisely* what the notion of duplicates is trying to avoid - duplication (or potentially quintupulation or worse) of effort with no net gain. Remember, we're primarily *not* here to help any specific person, but the aggregate of users interested in a question as a whole. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It is inefficient to have several questions to each of which the answer you're looking for could have been given, and then having to click through all of them. It also leads to potential abuse where a user answers several questions of different levels with the same (maybe even excellent!) answer in order to multiply the reputation gain from their effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Restricting answers to the same question to a certain level leads to a disproportionate amount of reviewing work requiring *expert* reviewers, and will frustrate users:** If we declare answers of a different level &quot;not answers&quot;, then someone is going to have to review these answers and delete the ones that miss the required level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The most common ways of specifying level - giving age or state of progress in formal education or distinguishing &quot;basic&quot;/&quot;advanced&quot; knowledge - are far from universal, what an &quot;undergraduate&quot; can be expected to know varies wildly between different forms of education and between institutions. Answerers responding to such questions would always have to fear that their *correct, on-topic answer* gets deleted because they misunderstood what level was asked for, because they misjudged what level their answer would be perceived as, or because the flaggers/reviewers applied a narrower notion of the &quot;window&quot; of acceptable answers than they did. Additionally, reviewing such flags would require considerable knowledge in the area of expertise of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In the same vein and as a lesser but still relevant issue, flaggers will have NAA flags rejected for not agreeing with others what a certain level specification was supposed to mean, or how much the answer deviated from that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The bottom line is that a considerable amount of effort would be spent to **delete correct content that actually answers the question asked**, in addition to the wasted effort on the part of the answerer. I am strongly against &quot;rewarding&quot; such attempts to positively contribute to our site with summary deletion, and wasting valuable time to *decrease the knowledge available*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different, but no less severe issue is that not all questions can be answered at all levels. Some questions intrinsically require a technical answer assuming much prerequisite knowledge, others have answers that don't substantially differ at the &quot;high school&quot; or &quot;post-grad&quot; level. What are we to do with such questions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding whether a question is a duplicate should *not* require the reviewers to actually know the answer to a question, but we would end up either closing these questions as duplicates of those whose answers are the same, or leaving open questions that just attract literally the same answers or have no answer at all (because every possible answer is outside the level specified). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of these problems, I am **strongly in favour of closing questions that ask for different levels as duplicates**, and, in fact, strongly in favour of not asking for a specific level of explanation at all, although I don't think enforcing that though any kind of policy would be useful. We're supposed to be a *library of useful questions and answers*, not a help desk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it tremendously useful to have answers at all different levels in one place (i.e. at one question), and much less useful to have to click through half a dozen variations of the same question until I have found the kind of explanation I wanted. It is also often useful to compare answers of different levels against each other - for consistency, or for pedagogical purposes. If a particular level of explanation is missing from the answers to a question, the proper course of action is to offer a bounty requesting an answer of that specific level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10079" RevisionGUID="f5fda123-ca81-4c6e-b627-a2975f755f54" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:28:27.233" UserId="44126" Text="The &quot;homework policy&quot; has been a source of tension on the site for a long time now.&#xD;&#xA;(A helpful editor could probably turn every word of the previous sentence into a link to a different Meta discussion about homework-like questions.)&#xD;&#xA;I think that everyone agrees that zero-effort homework questions like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [blurry photo of assignment]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plz halp&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teh answer is 15.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;don't add anything to the site.  On the other hand, there are certainly questions which have their genesis in homework assignments but raise interesting conceptual issues. And people's positions evolve over time. One of [my first answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/109062/44126) on the site would, if posted today, probably be flagged as a &quot;complete answer to a homework-like question.&quot; I don't know that it would get removed (and I don't think there's cause to remove it now) but if that question were posted today I wouldn't write an answer like that and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the question were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my own opinion about what's an acceptable sort of homework question has changed over time, I'm sympathetic to the reality that some questions will seem okay to some users, and merit closing in the eyes of other users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two very different  things that people tend to have in mind when they express concern about &quot;homework questions&quot; on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Academic integrity. I want this site to remain a resource that I can point people at professionally. A low-quality question like the one I invented above is something that could be tossed together on a mobile phone, out of the view of the proctor, at the start of an exam. I'm not interested in helping anyone who would do that, and since it's not possible to judge intentions remotely, I'm interested in making it actively difficult for those sorts of questions to receive answers.  In the process I expect that collateral damage will make it harder for people who are legitimately interested in learning but have poor written communication skills to get answers.  That's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, concerns about cheating age away. I don't have much problem with a complete answer to a homework-like question that is several months old, like the one I linked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Interestingness.  The way that you get good at solving physics problems is to solve lots of physics problems. My copy of Halliday et al. has probably 3000 exercises and problems in it (about 100 per chapter).  Many of them are very interesting --- but many of them are not very different from the problems that precede or follow them. They were also much more interesting when I did them the first time as a college sophomore than they are now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So what if there are some uninteresting questions on the site?  Can't people just ignore questions that don't interest them? Well, yes and no.  I ignore lots of questions on the site that don't interest me.  But if I were to check the front page, and several of the tags that I do like, and find only homework questions, I'd be more likely to wander away from the site altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with your closing sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But we can't keep closing questions whose answer *exists* somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mission of the site is not to record the answers to all questions where an answer exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="a1819ed2-872c-4317-9041-80607a3fdda6" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:10:07.673" UserDisplayName="user165955" Text="It can be hard for people which are not formerly educated in the field of physics to properly tag a question that they are asking. So I think there should be a tag like &quot;should be tagged by a moderator&quot;. Because somebody can be curious about some phenomena without knowing which branch of physics it is a member of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="a1819ed2-872c-4317-9041-80607a3fdda6" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:10:07.673" UserDisplayName="user165955" Text="A tag for questions that can't be properly tagged by the user asking it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="a1819ed2-872c-4317-9041-80607a3fdda6" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:10:07.673" UserDisplayName="user165955" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10079" RevisionGUID="4c2f583e-ff2b-44e7-90e9-f692cf49d9b6" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:33:48.543" UserId="8563" Comment="added 4894 characters in body" Text="[The][1] &quot;[homework][2] [policy][3]&quot; [has][4] [been][5] [a][6] [source][7] [of][8] [tension][9] [on][10] [the][11] [site][12] [for][13] [a][14] [long][15] [time][16] [now][17].&#xD;&#xA;([A][18] [helpful][19] [editor][20] [could][21] [probably][22] [turn][23] [every][24] [word][25] [of][26] [the][27] [previous][28] [sentence][29] [into][30] [a][31] [link][32] [to][33] [a][34] [different][35] [Meta][36] [discussion][37] [about][38] [homework][39]-[like][40] [questions][41].)&#xD;&#xA;I think that everyone agrees that zero-effort homework questions like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [blurry photo of assignment]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plz halp&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teh answer is 15.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;don't add anything to the site.  On the other hand, there are certainly questions which have their genesis in homework assignments but raise interesting conceptual issues. And people's positions evolve over time. One of [my first answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/109062/44126) on the site would, if posted today, probably be flagged as a &quot;complete answer to a homework-like question.&quot; I don't know that it would get removed (and I don't think there's cause to remove it now) but if that question were posted today I wouldn't write an answer like that and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the question were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my own opinion about what's an acceptable sort of homework question has changed over time, I'm sympathetic to the reality that some questions will seem okay to some users, and merit closing in the eyes of other users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two very different  things that people tend to have in mind when they express concern about &quot;homework questions&quot; on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Academic integrity. I want this site to remain a resource that I can point people at professionally. A low-quality question like the one I invented above is something that could be tossed together on a mobile phone, out of the view of the proctor, at the start of an exam. I'm not interested in helping anyone who would do that, and since it's not possible to judge intentions remotely, I'm interested in making it actively difficult for those sorts of questions to receive answers.  In the process I expect that collateral damage will make it harder for people who are legitimately interested in learning but have poor written communication skills to get answers.  That's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, concerns about cheating age away. I don't have much problem with a complete answer to a homework-like question that is several months old, like the one I linked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Interestingness.  The way that you get good at solving physics problems is to solve lots of physics problems. My copy of Halliday et al. has probably 3000 exercises and problems in it (about 100 per chapter).  Many of them are very interesting --- but many of them are not very different from the problems that precede or follow them. They were also much more interesting when I did them the first time as a college sophomore than they are now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So what if there are some uninteresting questions on the site?  Can't people just ignore questions that don't interest them? Well, yes and no.  I ignore lots of questions on the site that don't interest me.  But if I were to check the front page, and several of the tags that I do like, and find only homework questions, I'd be more likely to wander away from the site altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with your closing sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But we can't keep closing questions whose answer *exists* somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mission of the site is not to record the answers to all questions where an answer exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7202/why-is-phys-se-so-restrictive-in-the-qa-it-is-willing-to-accept&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA; [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such&#xD;&#xA; [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA; [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; [9]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway&#xD;&#xA; [10]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9710/should-we-change-homework-policy-of-physics-se&#xD;&#xA; [11]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6016/homework-questions-on-hold&#xD;&#xA; [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7324/is-over-vigilant-monitoring-of-questions-driving-people-away-from-the-site&#xD;&#xA; [13]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions&#xD;&#xA; [14]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6016/homework-questions-on-hold&#xD;&#xA; [15]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7273/why-run-the-home-work-and-exercises-tag&#xD;&#xA; [16]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA; [17]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA; [18]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/fine-tuning-the-proposed-homework-policy-what-to-do-with-the-tag-if-the-policy&#xD;&#xA; [19]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain&#xD;&#xA; [20]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework&#xD;&#xA; [21]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions&#xD;&#xA; [22]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9274/homework-policy&#xD;&#xA; [23]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5964/proposal-putting-homework-questions-on-hold-but-only-for-a-week&#xD;&#xA; [24]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9840/why-my-question-is-put-on-hold&#xD;&#xA; [25]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework&#xD;&#xA; [26]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/graduate-and-above-level-questions-arent-homework&#xD;&#xA; [27]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5372/can-we-please-stop-applying-the-homework-tag-and-policy-to-very-advanced-quest&#xD;&#xA; [28]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; [29]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6693/homework-questions-treatment&#xD;&#xA; [30]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7002/where-did-this-answer-go&#xD;&#xA; [31]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off&#xD;&#xA; [32]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6941/is-it-appropriate-to-tell-someone-to-ask-their-teacher-first&#xD;&#xA; [33]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA; [34]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8836/slight-rephrasing-of-homework-question-policy&#xD;&#xA; [35]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here&#xD;&#xA; [36]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6639/homework-questions-as-a-knowledge-resource&#xD;&#xA; [37]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9918/yet-another-homework-idea&#xD;&#xA; [38]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework&#xD;&#xA; [39]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4308/physics-se-should-emphasis-on-problem-solving&#xD;&#xA; [40]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6939/migrate-homework-to-math-se-instead-of-close&#xD;&#xA; [41]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9890/deleting-answers-to-homework-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="2a50a4e8-b43b-408d-bc0a-4c9c70ebcd2b" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:59:04.643" UserId="8563" Text="The site is rather good (mostly through the efforts of Qmechanic) at re-tagging questions when the original tags are sub-optimal. If you're a new user and you're not sure quite how to tag something, just do your best effort and if the tags need editing then somebody will change them for you. (If you're *really* not sure, then just add a comment afterwards asking for help with the tags.) Don't sweat the tags too much - focus on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for an additional tag as you propose, it's (i) a [meta tag](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/07/the-death-of-meta-tags/), which we only use when they're really, really necessary, and (ii) unlikely to be discoverable by the bulk of the population that could use it, so it's unlikely to be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="74a6b57a-4b55-4472-a722-1579c0c58478" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:07:19.467" UserId="2451" Text="I just noticed that the [tag:untagged] tag is blacklisted, and that is probably a hint that SE do not want such tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You only need one tag to pose a question. If in serious doubt, you could e.g. try if some of the words in your question exist as tags. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="c90e1b53-4efe-4c00-9f16-08af7c485eeb" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:12:27.043" UserId="2451" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="I just noticed that the [tag:untagged] tag is blacklisted, and that is probably a hint that SE does not want such tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You only need one tag to pose a question. If in serious doubt, you could e.g. try if some of the words in your question exist as tags. (_Example:_ Your Phys.SE question [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/351121/2451) contains the word [tag:electron] in the title.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="b8fd7458-3038-40d0-85cb-578a04e76408" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:17:37.237" UserId="2451" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="I just noticed that the [tag:untagged] tag is blacklisted, and that is probably a hint that SE does not want such tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You only need one tag to pose a question. If in serious doubt, you could e.g. try if some of the words in your question exist as tags. (_Example:_ Your Phys.SE question [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/351121/2451) contains the word [tag:electron] in the title...)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="ecc25df3-1fa3-4d47-b2fc-c11f9a3390c0" CreationDate="2017-08-10T02:01:56.220" UserId="25301" Comment="added more arguments from discussions with others " Text="I tried a couple times, but couldn't get this into a nice paragraph form, so I'm leaving it as bulleted thoughts.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* I don't think that asking for a particular level of answer is good thing, or even possible, in many/most cases&#xD;&#xA;  * In this sense, then any answer (be it to a 5 y/o or a 25 y/o grad student) would be **perfectly valid** to any question asked.&#xD;&#xA;  * It would then be the job of *voters* and OP to decide which answers are *useful*.&#xD;&#xA;  * This is more-or-less *status quo* for the site&#xD;&#xA;* There also exists a method within the framework of the SE network that allows one to get the answer at the level they want: [bounties](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty).&#xD;&#xA;  * I've also suggested this previously, and it [seemed rather well-liked](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7084/25301)&#xD;&#xA;  * This can prove difficult for new members who do not have the required 75 rep&#xD;&#xA;  * This can be a two-way street (i.e., grad $\to$ lesser *and* lesser $\to$ grad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the only viable conclusion is that **asking the same question is indeed a duplicate** and should be closed as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some points to consider as to why allowing obvious duplicates to remain is a *bad idea* are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Allowing different levels of the same question would necessarily lead to $n$ copies of pretty much every question.&#xD;&#xA;  * Most especially as $n=6$, as heather suggested, but even with $n=2$ as AFT suggested this would be the case.&#xD;&#xA;  * From a [*library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) perspective, it is better to have *one* question with *multiple* answers than to have *multiple* questions and answers--most especially if those **answers** are at *different levels*!&#xD;&#xA;  * This would necessarily lead to [rep-farming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126987/what-is-rep-farming): Find a high-level, well liked question? Go ahead and say, &quot;Same question, but ELI5?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm an undergrad in physics?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm a chair?&quot; and so on. Easy rep!&#xD;&#xA;* The work required to certify that the answer is at the appropriate level grows and burdens reviewers (who are already over-burdened with reviewing)&#xD;&#xA;  * For those grad- &amp; research-level questions, this may even prove impossible to accomplish because the number of members able to 'review' it could be too small!&#xD;&#xA;* Current implementation &amp; expectations are that we close dupes as dupes&#xD;&#xA;  * Asking us to handle special cases of 'different level' adds to the complexity of the reviewing process (Is it *actually* a dupe, or is it a 'new' question at a 'different' level? Am I fully aware of all different level versions of the same question? etc)&#xD;&#xA;  * This leads to such questions as: Is moving *against* network-wide implementations a good thing? (i.e., is there a fundamental reason why the close-as-dupe path even exists) Is there a reason to overlegislating how to handle close votes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While noble to want questions at different levels to cater to different users, this would be completely impractical in practice and lead to negative behavior in the site. Instead, we should *continue* to allow answers at a variety of levels and let the users decide if the answer is appropriate in the *business-as-usual* methods (voting &amp; flagging for deletion, *as appropriate*) and **vote to close these types of questions as *duplicates*** (i.e., *not* change policy &amp; continue with *status quo*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="eb143836-5ad6-4753-b194-81273204a55e" CreationDate="2017-08-10T02:15:15.960" UserId="25301" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="I tried a couple times, but couldn't get this into a nice paragraph form, so I'm leaving it as bulleted thoughts.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* I don't think that asking for a particular level of answer is good thing, or even possible, in many/most cases&#xD;&#xA;  * In this sense, then any answer (be it to a 5 y/o or a 25 y/o grad student) would be **perfectly valid** to any question asked.&#xD;&#xA;  * It would then be the job of *voters* and OP to decide which answers are *useful*.&#xD;&#xA;  * This is more-or-less *status quo* for the site&#xD;&#xA;* There also exists a method within the framework of the SE network that allows one to get the answer at the level they want: [bounties](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty).&#xD;&#xA;  * I've also suggested this previously, and it [seemed rather well-liked](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7084/25301)&#xD;&#xA;  * This can prove difficult for new members who do not have the required 75 rep&#xD;&#xA;  * This can be a two-way street (i.e., grad $\to$ lesser *and* lesser $\to$ grad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the only viable conclusion is that **asking the same question is indeed a duplicate** and should be closed as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some points to consider as to why allowing obvious duplicates to remain is a *bad idea* are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Allowing different levels of the same question would necessarily lead to $n$ copies of pretty much every question.&#xD;&#xA;  * Most especially as $n=6$, as heather suggested, but even with $n=2$ as AFT suggested this would be the case.&#xD;&#xA;  * From a [*library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) perspective, it is better to have *one* question with *multiple* answers than to have *multiple* questions and answers--most especially if those **answers** are at *different levels*!&#xD;&#xA;  * This would almost certainly lead to [rep-farming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126987/what-is-rep-farming): Find a high-level, well liked question? Go ahead and say, &quot;Same question, but ELI5?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm an undergrad in physics?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm a chair?&quot; and so on. Easy rep!&#xD;&#xA;  * As there are already over 100k questions at this point in time, this would only go to inflate the work required of the limited number of reviewers currently available (more on this next).&#xD;&#xA;* The work required to certify that the answer is at the appropriate level grows and burdens reviewers (who are already over-burdened with reviewing)&#xD;&#xA;  * For those grad- &amp; research-level questions, this may even prove impossible to accomplish because the number of members able to 'review' it could be too small!&#xD;&#xA;* Current implementation &amp; expectations are that we close dupes as dupes&#xD;&#xA;  * Asking us to handle special cases of 'different level' adds to the complexity of the reviewing process (Is it *actually* a dupe, or is it a 'new' question at a 'different' level? Am I fully aware of all different level versions of the same question? etc)&#xD;&#xA;  * This leads to such questions as: Is moving *against* network-wide implementations a good thing? (i.e., is there a fundamental reason why the close-as-dupe path even exists) Is there a reason to overlegislating how to handle close votes? I'm inclined to say no, that we should stay with the same rules in place that say duplicates are duplicates, regardless of levels, and no one has actually presented any rationale as to why we should allow them to remain open (only that we *could* handle it if handled by X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While noble to want questions at different levels to cater to different users, this would be completely impractical in practice and lead to negative behavior in the site. Instead, we should *continue* to allow answers at a variety of levels and let the users decide if the answer is appropriate in the *business-as-usual* methods (voting &amp; flagging for deletion, *as appropriate*) and **vote to close these types of questions as *duplicates*** (i.e., *not* change policy &amp; continue with *status quo*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="f77dd8ea-2902-4f9c-98ba-e7ee9a4c3c65" CreationDate="2017-08-10T06:17:07.417" UserId="131341" Text="Recently, one of my non homework questions for which I'd provided my attempt at the solution and conclusions, was dismissed. &#xA;&#xA;The question was clearly not a homework question, and even some of my instructors haven't been able to solve it yet. I was hoping for discussion of various methods to approach the problem, which would ultimately lead to the solution. &#xA;&#xA;In my opinion, dismissal of such problems is detrimental to the growth of this community and the 'homework policy' needs to be reworked so as to not lead to dismissal of non homework questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="f77dd8ea-2902-4f9c-98ba-e7ee9a4c3c65" CreationDate="2017-08-10T06:17:07.417" UserId="131341" Text="Dismissal of Non Homework Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="f77dd8ea-2902-4f9c-98ba-e7ee9a4c3c65" CreationDate="2017-08-10T06:17:07.417" UserId="131341" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="5f867ec4-af2a-4b14-ace2-0082fbd07f0b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:10:27.103" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Recently, one of my non homework questions for which I'd provided my attempt at the solution and conclusions, was dismissed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was clearly not a homework question, and even some of my instructors haven't been able to solve it yet. I was hoping for discussion of various methods to approach the problem, which would ultimately lead to the solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, dismissal of such problems is detrimental to the growth of this community and the 'homework policy' needs to be reworked so as to not lead to dismissal of non homework questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30655" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="5f867ec4-af2a-4b14-ace2-0082fbd07f0b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:10:27.103" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30656" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="5f867ec4-af2a-4b14-ace2-0082fbd07f0b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:10:27.103" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Dismissal of Non-Homework Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="dd661aac-8317-4dd3-8979-71f4b5f27dd1" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:23:25.450" UserId="1325" Comment="Add link" Text="Recently, [one of my non homework questions][1] for which I'd provided my attempt at the solution and conclusions, was dismissed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was clearly not a homework question, and even some of my instructors haven't been able to solve it yet. I was hoping for discussion of various methods to approach the problem, which would ultimately lead to the solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, dismissal of such problems is detrimental to the growth of this community and the 'homework policy' needs to be reworked so as to not lead to dismissal of non homework questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/351129/finding-electrostatic-force-between-a-sheet-and-half-cylinder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="3656829f-5b62-42d0-908b-fb1fa8516919" CreationDate="2017-08-10T10:08:43.103" UserId="25301" Comment="added 528 characters in body" Text="I tried a couple times, but couldn't get this into a nice paragraph form, so I'm leaving it as bulleted thoughts.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* I don't think that asking for a particular level of answer is good thing, or even possible, in many/most cases&#xD;&#xA;  * I say it's not a good thing because it's restricting answers to the question and likely misses out on insight provided by someone who *doesn't* think there answer is &quot;at that level&quot; and so doesn't post their answer. As a Q&amp;A site, I think restricting the A part is inherently wrong.&#xD;&#xA;  * In this sense, then any answer (be it to a 5 y/o or a 25 y/o grad student) would be **perfectly valid** to any question asked.&#xD;&#xA;  * It would then be the job of *voters* and OP to decide which answers are *useful*.&#xD;&#xA;  * This is more-or-less *status quo* for the site&#xD;&#xA;* There also exists a method within the framework of the SE network that allows one to get the answer at the level they want: [bounties](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty).&#xD;&#xA;  * I've also suggested this previously, and it [seemed rather well-liked](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7084/25301)&#xD;&#xA;  * This can prove difficult for new members who do not have the required 75 rep&#xD;&#xA;  * This can be a two-way street (i.e., grad $\to$ lesser *and* lesser $\to$ grad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the only viable conclusion is that **asking the same question is indeed a duplicate** and should be closed as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if the OP of the closed question wants more details, he can always refine the question to ask to fill in the missing details (i.e., asking something like *The questions here (link) state X, but I don't know why this condition holds. Can someone explain it?*). In this case, this would [not be a duplicate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7302/25301) and gives the OP the opportunity to get the answer they want without requiring a 'new level' of question. And this fits within the existing framework of SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some points to consider as to why allowing obvious duplicates to remain is a *bad idea* are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Allowing different levels of the same question would necessarily lead to $n$ copies of pretty much every question.&#xD;&#xA;  * Most especially as $n=6$, as heather suggested, but even with $n=2$ as AFT suggested this would be the case.&#xD;&#xA;  * From a [*library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics*](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour) perspective, it is better to have *one* question with *multiple* answers than to have *multiple* questions and answers--most especially if those **answers** are at *different levels*!&#xD;&#xA;  * This would almost certainly lead to [rep-farming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126987/what-is-rep-farming): Find a high-level, well liked question? Go ahead and say, &quot;Same question, but ELI5?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm an undergrad in physics?&quot; and then &quot;Same question, but assume I'm a chair?&quot; and so on. Easy rep!&#xD;&#xA;  * As there are already over 100k questions at this point in time, this would only go to inflate the work required of the limited number of reviewers currently available (more on this next).&#xD;&#xA;* The work required to certify that the answer is at the appropriate level grows and burdens reviewers (who are already over-burdened with reviewing)&#xD;&#xA;  * For those grad- &amp; research-level questions, this may even prove impossible to accomplish because the number of members able to 'review' it could be too small!&#xD;&#xA;* Current implementation &amp; expectations are that we close dupes as dupes&#xD;&#xA;  * Asking us to handle special cases of 'different level' adds to the complexity of the reviewing process (Is it *actually* a dupe, or is it a 'new' question at a 'different' level? Am I fully aware of all different level versions of the same question? etc)&#xD;&#xA;  * This leads to such questions as: Is moving *against* network-wide implementations a good thing? (i.e., is there a fundamental reason why the close-as-dupe path even exists) Is there a reason to overlegislating how to handle close votes? I'm inclined to say no, that we should stay with the same rules in place that say duplicates are duplicates, regardless of levels, and no one has actually presented any rationale as to why we should allow them to remain open (only that we *could* handle it if handled by X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While noble to want questions at different levels to cater to different users, this would be completely impractical in practice and lead to negative behavior in the site. Instead, we should *continue* to allow answers at a variety of levels and let the users decide if the answer is appropriate in the *business-as-usual* methods (voting &amp; flagging for deletion, *as appropriate*) and **vote to close these types of questions as *duplicates*** (i.e., *not* change policy &amp; continue with *status quo*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="db6c2ea6-61da-47d2-9129-cb44799a3467" CreationDate="2017-08-10T15:24:21.120" UserId="121464" Comment="added 1736 characters in body" Text="##No, these questions are not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers are vastly different. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a grad student will probably be (to generalize) math heavy, highly complex, and over my head. An answer about a quantum mechanics question to a highschooler might be one whose answer I'd be able to write. *They're so different that closing as a duplicate helps no one.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A small side note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, bounties, which might normally serve this purpose, don't really help as much as they should. A newer user can't place a bounty, and even when they reach that ability, would they really want to, seeing as they'd then lose many privileges that are often really helpful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Specific concerns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fine-grained-ness, I'd propose including age if it is &quot;extreme&quot; - i.e., young teenager or younger (this also includes &quot;how do I explain to my 5yo kid&quot; questions), and then level of education for others. For example - my questions might have &quot;young teenager, no formal education but enthusiast/studying on my own&quot;. Other questions might have &quot;Graduated with a degree in physics 20 years ago and don't remember much of it&quot; or &quot;In grad school for chemistry&quot; or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep things narrow - 3 to 6-ish should probably be an &quot;age category&quot;, and 7 to early highschoolers (around 16, maybe?), and then late highschoolers to undergrad students, then grad/professional, and then a final category for an older individual asking say 5+ years after their last class. That leaves us with 5 fairly distinct categories. Not *too* many, and distinct enough that answers will be fairly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain what I mean here by class - if a question was asking about such-and-such, at undergrad level, and another question was also asked at undergrad level, then vtc as dupes. But if question A was asked at age 3 to 6 level, and B at undergrad level - well, then they're just not duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers that are at the wrong level are indeed NAA, and should be flagged/deleted, though if there's another question which asks for an answer at that level, might be good to alert the poster of that other question. If an answer is cross posted, delete the ones at the wrong level, and keep the one at the right level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Number of categories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments have suggested that 6 (I cut one, so now 5) categories are too complex. Here's why I think that's wrong: we don't often get the same questions at all different levels. This isn't a proposal that we quick run out and write new questions that are the same as others but at different levels - it's so in the future, if we see a duplicate, we stop and think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, really, if we can't figure out that a 5 year old will not understand an answer intended for a graduate student, I think we have a more fundamental problem than 5 categories. If anyone has any suggestions for consolidation, I'd be glad to here them, but I really think these 5 are quite distinct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why it's worth the effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's really not that much extra effort, first of all. Really, the distinction between the categories is fairly clear, and the two categories that questions will be mainly asked in are the late highschool/undergrad and grad/professional categories. It's also fairly rare how often questions will be asked that are similar except for level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it is still some extra effort; so why do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It helps users, especially new ones. New users cannot award a bounty, and currently, when they have a question at a very different level than the answers on the currently existing question, they really have nothing they can do. This is highly frustrating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It organizes content more easily. It's been suggested that answers of different levels can all reside on the same question. Really? That makes it harder to find the answer you want, makes it harder to review the answers, and provides a strange juxtaposition of simplified explanations with complex, equation dense answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Easier judging of answers - the method of multiple answers at drastically different levels on one question may also lead to downvotes for the more &quot;simple&quot; explanations or the more &quot;complex&quot; explanations. In other words, it's harder to judge what answers best answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It helps the OP more. Say the OP asks a question, and is a highschooler. If the first answer he gets talks about Lie groups the OP is going to be at least a little frustrated. It's much easier if the level of the answer OP is asking for *matters*. If it does, then by consequence answers not at that level are NAA, and from there, those answers should be allowed on questions of different levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10079" RevisionGUID="eef5dd32-e84c-4e4e-9d74-1f1c655d4bbf" CreationDate="2017-08-10T21:35:27.187" UserId="8563" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="[The][1] &quot;[homework][2] [policy][3]&quot; [has][4] [been][5] [a][6] [source][7] [of][8] [tension][9] [on][10] [the][11] [site][12] [for][13] [a][14] [long][15] [time][16] [now][17].&#xD;&#xA;([A][18] [helpful][19] [editor][20] [could][21] [probably][22] [turn][23] [every][24] [word][25] [of][26] [the][27] [previous][28] [sentence][29] [into][30] [a][31] [link][32] [to][33] [a][34] [different][35] [Meta][36] [discussion][37] [about][38] [homework][39]-[like][40] [questions][41][.][42])&#xD;&#xA;I think that everyone agrees that zero-effort homework questions like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Question&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [blurry photo of assignment]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plz halp&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teh answer is 15.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;don't add anything to the site.  On the other hand, there are certainly questions which have their genesis in homework assignments but raise interesting conceptual issues. And people's positions evolve over time. One of [my first answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/109062/44126) on the site would, if posted today, probably be flagged as a &quot;complete answer to a homework-like question.&quot; I don't know that it would get removed (and I don't think there's cause to remove it now) but if that question were posted today I wouldn't write an answer like that and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the question were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my own opinion about what's an acceptable sort of homework question has changed over time, I'm sympathetic to the reality that some questions will seem okay to some users, and merit closing in the eyes of other users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two very different  things that people tend to have in mind when they express concern about &quot;homework questions&quot; on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Academic integrity. I want this site to remain a resource that I can point people at professionally. A low-quality question like the one I invented above is something that could be tossed together on a mobile phone, out of the view of the proctor, at the start of an exam. I'm not interested in helping anyone who would do that, and since it's not possible to judge intentions remotely, I'm interested in making it actively difficult for those sorts of questions to receive answers.  In the process I expect that collateral damage will make it harder for people who are legitimately interested in learning but have poor written communication skills to get answers.  That's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, concerns about cheating age away. I don't have much problem with a complete answer to a homework-like question that is several months old, like the one I linked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Interestingness.  The way that you get good at solving physics problems is to solve lots of physics problems. My copy of Halliday et al. has probably 3000 exercises and problems in it (about 100 per chapter).  Many of them are very interesting --- but many of them are not very different from the problems that precede or follow them. They were also much more interesting when I did them the first time as a college sophomore than they are now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So what if there are some uninteresting questions on the site?  Can't people just ignore questions that don't interest them? Well, yes and no.  I ignore lots of questions on the site that don't interest me.  But if I were to check the front page, and several of the tags that I do like, and find only homework questions, I'd be more likely to wander away from the site altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with your closing sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But we can't keep closing questions whose answer *exists* somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mission of the site is not to record the answers to all questions where an answer exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4337/what-can-be-done-about-the-current-ongoing-flood-of-homework-and-very-basic-qu&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange&#xD;&#xA; [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7202/why-is-phys-se-so-restrictive-in-the-qa-it-is-willing-to-accept&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA; [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/should-we-rename-the-homework-tag-as-problem-solving-or-such&#xD;&#xA; [7]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA; [8]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7645/replacing-the-homework-policy-1-what-existing-questions-should-be-on-off-topic&#xD;&#xA; [9]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9086/replacing-the-homework-policy-1b-what-is-our-scope-anyway&#xD;&#xA; [10]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9710/should-we-change-homework-policy-of-physics-se&#xD;&#xA; [11]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6016/homework-questions-on-hold&#xD;&#xA; [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7324/is-over-vigilant-monitoring-of-questions-driving-people-away-from-the-site&#xD;&#xA; [13]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions&#xD;&#xA; [14]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6016/homework-questions-on-hold&#xD;&#xA; [15]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7273/why-run-the-home-work-and-exercises-tag&#xD;&#xA; [16]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5152/why-dont-we-just-ban-homework-altogether&#xD;&#xA; [17]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/banning-homework-vote-and-documentation&#xD;&#xA; [18]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/fine-tuning-the-proposed-homework-policy-what-to-do-with-the-tag-if-the-policy&#xD;&#xA; [19]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5229/does-banning-homework-do-long-term-harm-for-only-short-term-gain&#xD;&#xA; [20]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5490/about-the-proposal-to-ban-homework&#xD;&#xA; [21]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6107/thoughts-on-meta-post-on-homework-question-handling-and-basic-questions&#xD;&#xA; [22]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9274/homework-policy&#xD;&#xA; [23]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5964/proposal-putting-homework-questions-on-hold-but-only-for-a-week&#xD;&#xA; [24]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9840/why-my-question-is-put-on-hold&#xD;&#xA; [25]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5488/a-week-of-community-closing-what-should-be-disallowed-homework&#xD;&#xA; [26]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/graduate-and-above-level-questions-arent-homework&#xD;&#xA; [27]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5372/can-we-please-stop-applying-the-homework-tag-and-policy-to-very-advanced-quest&#xD;&#xA; [28]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic&#xD;&#xA; [29]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6693/homework-questions-treatment&#xD;&#xA; [30]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7002/where-did-this-answer-go&#xD;&#xA; [31]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6159/how-do-we-make-it-explicit-that-please-check-my-work-type-questions-are-off&#xD;&#xA; [32]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6941/is-it-appropriate-to-tell-someone-to-ask-their-teacher-first&#xD;&#xA; [33]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6131/this-question-shouldnt-violate-the-homework-policy&#xD;&#xA; [34]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8836/slight-rephrasing-of-homework-question-policy&#xD;&#xA; [35]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/i-need-to-know-if-i-can-ask-some-homework-problems-on-here&#xD;&#xA; [36]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6639/homework-questions-as-a-knowledge-resource&#xD;&#xA; [37]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9918/yet-another-homework-idea&#xD;&#xA; [38]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209/yet-another-what-level-question-this-time-for-physics-101-homework&#xD;&#xA; [39]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4308/physics-se-should-emphasis-on-problem-solving&#xD;&#xA; [40]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6939/migrate-homework-to-math-se-instead-of-close&#xD;&#xA; [41]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9890/deleting-answers-to-homework-questions&#xD;&#xA; [42]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10083/dismissal-of-non-homework-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10084" RevisionGUID="32b3bc19-0e80-49cd-8b77-d951b1a45da2" CreationDate="2017-08-11T00:07:56.570" UserId="8563" Text="The closure/on hold banner, which was posted under your question when it was put on hold (and politely linked to in a comment beforehand), contains a link to [this site's guidelines for homework and exercise-based questions](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/714/); you're expected to read them carefully and act accordingly. If you're not willing to spend the effort to understand the community's standards and adjust your posts to them, this site may not be for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its [current form](https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/351129/1), your post is an open-and-shut case of a homework-and-exercises question, which this community (for good reasons) holds to specific standards that you need to comply with. As is made clear in the guidelines, it is entirely irrelevant whether this was set to you as homework during some course or not: what matters in this case is that your post is exclusively about a set-piece, that you're not asking at any conceptual depth, and that the question is of extremely limited usefulness to any future visitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the difficulty of the question, including whether any or all of your instructors have trouble solving the set-piece, are entirely irrelevant to whether the post is on topic on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a bunch of problems with your post. To start with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You provide the set-piece as a scan instead of spending any effort in transcribing the text.&#xD;&#xA; - You provide your working as a scan of your notes, instead of properly writing the equations using [mathematical LaTeX notation](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) and supplying the connective tissue of argumentation that links your equations together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (This might not yet have been fully impressed on you by your instructors, in which case I would say they're rather at fault. A string of equations with no connecting text is **never** something you should present to other people.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's not particularly clear what you're asking, beyond &quot;please solve this set-piece for me&quot;. If that's what you want from this question, without any willingness on your part to ask about the concepts and methods that underpin the task, then your question is unlikely to be on-topic here at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should fix all of the above for the question to begin to be eligible for reopening. Some of these are formatting issues and they are still crucial: they are there make your question parseable by answerers and future visitors without the rather large effort that your question requires in its current form. (Or, to put it another way, if you're not willing to put in any effort into correctly presenting your question in a readable form, why should anyone spend any effort answering it?) Other issues are conceptual: they're mostly to do with the fact that you're not asking about any concepts or methods and in the current form you just want people to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30662" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="c27991f1-c9b4-4fb1-aa5c-f55e4f4f1a85" CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:56:59.173" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why can't the Homework policy be more lenient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30663" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="c27991f1-c9b4-4fb1-aa5c-f55e4f4f1a85" CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:56:59.173" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="09daf142-2983-49ca-b994-03d43b202033" CreationDate="2017-08-14T23:16:01.250" UserId="114272" Text="I'm Mithrandir24601 (if it's not obvious, that's not actually my real name. Finding my real name is left as an exercise for the reader :P Bonus points for those who know both origins of that username) and I have, for some unknown reason, been asked to do the next [AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7783/114272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owing to other commitments, it will be at 8pm (UTC) on the 22nd August.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm aware, the idea is that I'll do my best to answer the most popular answers posted below (assuming I get any!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background/Summary&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and grew up in the cold but green north coast of Northern Ireland before moving to England to start my degree. I've been there as a student for almost 5 years and will (if all goes well) be here for another 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did my Bachelor's in Physics and Computer Science, which involved a very broad mix (for the UK, at least) in basic (relatively theoretical) computer science (I only did it for a year), maths for natural science, programming and of course, physics. I then did a Master's in Mathematical physics and am now a physics (well, quantum engineering) PhD student at Bristol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other interests include music, cooking, reading and historical martial arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Academic Interests&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Computing&#xD;&#xA;  - In my third year of my undergrad, I did a literature review on superconducting quantum computers&#xD;&#xA;  - I have spent a week visiting D-Wave (part of the PhD course I do :) )&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm a user of IBM's quantum experience&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm just finishing a project in t-designs, which are used in randomised benchmarking of quantum chips. This is a fascinating and rich topic, that seems never-ending in depth and detail&#xD;&#xA;  - I'd really like to learn about noise (specifically gate-noise) processes on quantum chips&#xD;&#xA;  - I'll (most likely) be doing my PhD project on simulating PT-symmetric Hamiltonians on a photonic quantum chip, which will probably also include elements of designing said chips (although I don't actually know anything about chip design)&#xD;&#xA; - (Quantum) Measurements&#xD;&#xA;  - My Master's dissertation was on weak measurements. I'm extremely curious about these and my favourite thing from this so far has to be that even classical measurement results can be complex (at least, in certain situations). This might sound weird, but essentially, a measurement of position that is complex arises from a shift in momentum (this is actually what drove me to the above PhD topic)&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Communications&#xD;&#xA;  - Earlier in the year, I did a project on characterising a network for Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). Had a great time learning about how light travels through fibre as well as getting measurements of this&#xD;&#xA;  - I've also written an essay about QKD using satellites. Again, I could spend ages trying to learn about this, but there was far, far too much for a single essay. This one was more like learning about light travelling many km through free space, as opposed to fibre&#xD;&#xA;  - both of the above are really interesting and I wish I knew more about both and could spend a lot more time on this&#xD;&#xA; - Programming (sort of...)&#xD;&#xA;  - I've learned (or at least, have some experience in) ML (a functional programming language). I absolutely love functional programming. Learning this taught me how to program a computer much better than any other language&#xD;&#xA;  - I've also got some experience in C++, Java and Pascal/Delphi. My favourite of these is easily C++. I do not like Python one bit&#xD;&#xA;  - Some programs that I've actually enjoyed writing are (although most of these were for University and so, mostly forgotten): simulation of solar system (I'm still working on improving this!), the knight's tour, drawing parts of the Mandelbrot set, the Ising model on a toroidal lattice and as above, programming hardware to take measurements to characterise a network for QKD (although this was also a bit stressful at times!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-academic Interests&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music&#xD;&#xA;  - I play piano, clarinet, sing bass and, my favourite, church organ&#xD;&#xA;  - I've also learned a bit of a few other things, but it's been a while...&#xD;&#xA;  - I've been in a few school and university orchestras, bands, choirs and musicals (although only playing the clarinet)&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm into classical music and classical church music, although will listen to (almost) anything&#xD;&#xA; - Cooking&#xD;&#xA;  - I love food. I love cooking. What more is there to say?&#xD;&#xA;  - Answer: Tea and chocolate&#xD;&#xA; - Historical Martial Arts&#xD;&#xA;  - It started off when I did fencing. I enjoyed it, but got a bit annoyed pretty quickly. Then I tried HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts)... This is as close as we can get to how they used to do swordfighting (it's tricky to put together and figure out how they used to do it for a couple of reasons)&#xD;&#xA;  - since then, I've expanded and have done some Wing Chun and currently do Taichi and Kung Fu, which is extremely hard, but very rewarding :)&#xD;&#xA; - Reading&#xD;&#xA;  - I read in practically every spare moment I can get. I'm particularly into fantasy and quite a bit into Sci-Fi. I'm also interested in the Valyrian language, created by David J Peterson for Game of Thrones&#xD;&#xA; - My favourite films are (at the minute) Pan's Labyrinth and Spirited Away. Favourite TV show is Game of Thrones. I also do a little bit of gaming on the side, when I couldn't be bothered to read&#xD;&#xA; - Born really from my time in undergrad as a chapel clerk, I have an interest in theology and religion. I don't know as much about it as I'd like, but I've had many interesting discussions with those who do&#xD;&#xA;  - Little known fact to those who only know me online is that I find the service of Compline (particularly as we did it in undergrad) the most beautiful thing ever :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="09daf142-2983-49ca-b994-03d43b202033" CreationDate="2017-08-14T23:16:01.250" UserId="114272" Text="Ask Me Anything: 22nd August" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="09daf142-2983-49ca-b994-03d43b202033" CreationDate="2017-08-14T23:16:01.250" UserId="114272" Text="|discussion|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="605d7cf8-fdf1-4148-ac6c-8505a72d4a50" CreationDate="2017-08-14T23:19:51.843" UserId="114272" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I'm Mithrandir24601 (if it's not obvious, that's not actually my real name. Finding my real name is left as an exercise for the reader :P Bonus points for those who know both origins of that username) and I have, for some unknown reason, been asked to do the next [AMA](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7783/114272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owing to other commitments, it will be at 8pm (UTC) on the 22nd August.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm aware, the idea is that you can answer this with any questions you've got in advance and, during the AMA, I'll do my best to answer the most popular ones (assuming I get any!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background/Summary&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was born and grew up in the cold but green north coast of Northern Ireland before moving to England to start my degree. I've been there as a student for almost 5 years and will (if all goes well) be here for another 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did my Bachelor's in Physics and Computer Science, which involved a very broad mix (for the UK, at least) in basic (relatively theoretical) computer science (I only did it for a year), maths for natural science, programming and of course, physics. I then did a Master's in Mathematical physics and am now a physics (well, quantum engineering) PhD student at Bristol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other interests include music, cooking, reading and historical martial arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Academic Interests&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Computing&#xD;&#xA;  - In my third year of my undergrad, I did a literature review on superconducting quantum computers&#xD;&#xA;  - I have spent a week visiting D-Wave (part of the PhD course I do :) )&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm a user of IBM's quantum experience&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm just finishing a project in t-designs, which are used in randomised benchmarking of quantum chips. This is a fascinating and rich topic, that seems never-ending in depth and detail&#xD;&#xA;  - I'd really like to learn about noise (specifically gate-noise) processes on quantum chips&#xD;&#xA;  - I'll (most likely) be doing my PhD project on simulating PT-symmetric Hamiltonians on a photonic quantum chip, which will probably also include elements of designing said chips (although I don't actually know anything about chip design)&#xD;&#xA; - (Quantum) Measurements&#xD;&#xA;  - My Master's dissertation was on weak measurements. I'm extremely curious about these and my favourite thing from this so far has to be that even classical measurement results can be complex (at least, in certain situations). This might sound weird, but essentially, a measurement of position that is complex arises from a shift in momentum (this is actually what drove me to the above PhD topic)&#xD;&#xA; - Quantum Communications&#xD;&#xA;  - Earlier in the year, I did a project on characterising a network for Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). Had a great time learning about how light travels through fibre as well as getting measurements of this&#xD;&#xA;  - I've also written an essay about QKD using satellites. Again, I could spend ages trying to learn about this, but there was far, far too much for a single essay. This one was more like learning about light travelling many km through free space, as opposed to fibre&#xD;&#xA;  - both of the above are really interesting and I wish I knew more about both and could spend a lot more time on this&#xD;&#xA; - Programming (sort of...)&#xD;&#xA;  - I've learned (or at least, have some experience in) ML (a functional programming language). I absolutely love functional programming. Learning this taught me how to program a computer much better than any other language&#xD;&#xA;  - I've also got some experience in C++, Java and Pascal/Delphi. My favourite of these is easily C++. I do not like Python one bit&#xD;&#xA;  - Some programs that I've actually enjoyed writing are (although most of these were for University and so, mostly forgotten): simulation of solar system (I'm still working on improving this!), the knight's tour, drawing parts of the Mandelbrot set, the Ising model on a toroidal lattice and as above, programming hardware to take measurements to characterise a network for QKD (although this was also a bit stressful at times!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-academic Interests&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Music&#xD;&#xA;  - I play piano, clarinet, sing bass and, my favourite, church organ&#xD;&#xA;  - I've also learned a bit of a few other things, but it's been a while...&#xD;&#xA;  - I've been in a few school and university orchestras, bands, choirs and musicals (although only playing the clarinet)&#xD;&#xA;  - I'm into classical music and classical church music, although will listen to (almost) anything&#xD;&#xA; - Cooking&#xD;&#xA;  - I love food. I love cooking. What more is there to say?&#xD;&#xA;  - Answer: Tea and chocolate&#xD;&#xA; - Historical Martial Arts&#xD;&#xA;  - It started off when I did fencing. I enjoyed it, but got a bit annoyed pretty quickly. Then I tried HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts)... This is as close as we can get to how they used to do swordfighting (it's tricky to put together and figure out how they used to do it for a couple of reasons)&#xD;&#xA;  - since then, I've expanded and have done some Wing Chun and currently do Taichi and Kung Fu, which is extremely hard, but very rewarding :)&#xD;&#xA; - Reading&#xD;&#xA;  - I read in practically every spare moment I can get. I'm particularly into fantasy and quite a bit into Sci-Fi. I'm also interested in the Valyrian language, created by David J Peterson for Game of Thrones&#xD;&#xA; - My favourite films are (at the minute) Pan's Labyrinth and Spirited Away. Favourite TV show is Game of Thrones. I also do a little bit of gaming on the side, when I couldn't be bothered to read&#xD;&#xA; - Born really from my time in undergrad as a chapel clerk, I have an interest in theology and religion. I don't know as much about it as I'd like, but I've had many interesting discussions with those who do&#xD;&#xA;  - Little known fact to those who only know me online is that I find the service of Compline (particularly as we did it in undergrad) the most beautiful thing ever :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10086" RevisionGUID="2b0e25b4-b0d9-4b90-93e1-9b127dd2e480" CreationDate="2017-08-14T23:31:59.340" UserId="50583" Text=" - You say you're extremely curious about weak measurements. Can you explain to a quantum physicist who knows nothing about them why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What applications do you have in mind for simulating PT-symmetric Hamiltonians, that is, why are you interested in simulating these Hamiltonians out of all possible Hamiltonians? Or is this more about a challenge for the chip than about the PT-symmetric Hamiltonians being interesting in themselves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (I can understand if you don't want to answer this) You seem to be fond of religious music and you were a chapel clerk. So, are you religious, and if so, in what sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You read a lot of SciFi and Fantasy. I do so, too. Who's your favourite author, and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10087" RevisionGUID="577f034c-b3ca-4587-953f-accb07f26627" CreationDate="2017-08-15T05:52:25.353" UserId="60891" Text="What role has religion/theology played in your studies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30671" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="ae352e0c-f0c3-40be-87a6-ba7c91740323" CreationDate="2017-08-15T09:06:31.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/897383993624186881" />
  <row Id="30672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10088" RevisionGUID="f4ea546b-3ea6-47eb-ae58-7963d017dd2d" CreationDate="2017-08-15T13:29:05.647" UserId="101770" Text="How come you don't like python? Do you think that C++ has advantages for scientific computing in particular?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="f4301c0b-ad8a-4a8e-9b60-a4fb020b490a" CreationDate="2017-08-15T17:48:20.123" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10089" RevisionGUID="1358c4ba-ba89-4fb6-904f-a3eb811fe19e" CreationDate="2017-08-16T08:05:48.893" UserDisplayName="user139621" Text="**1)** You said that : &quot;In my third year of my undergrad, I did a literature review on superconducting quantum computers&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What were the physics and math courses you had taken so that you could be able enough for a literature review on the topic: &quot;superconducting quantum computers&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Was it a compulsory project, or you did it out of your own interest? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Did you have any advisor who helped you in the literature review? If so, how did you get in touch with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How did you get started with it? And what was the outcome (in brief) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** During your undergraduate years did you study any (technical/science) topics beyond your syllabus for your own interest (as a hobby)? How did it help you later on in your career?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3)** What advice would you have for an undergraduate electronics engineering student (like me) who wants to pursue a MS or PhD in the field of Applied Physics? Do you have any acquaintances who successfully made the transition from engineering to physics? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="63a1da60-f311-43a5-aa93-2cf2d584914b" CreationDate="2017-08-16T20:32:39.753" UserId="45613" Text="Does anyone, any entity own copyright on the contents of the Physic's Stack Exchange Q&amp;A that exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="63a1da60-f311-43a5-aa93-2cf2d584914b" CreationDate="2017-08-16T20:32:39.753" UserId="45613" Text="Are the contents of Q&amp;A and comments in the PSE protected by any copyright?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="63a1da60-f311-43a5-aa93-2cf2d584914b" CreationDate="2017-08-16T20:32:39.753" UserId="45613" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10091" RevisionGUID="95ab0a2b-9512-425e-b77c-3632fec622cc" CreationDate="2017-08-16T22:09:07.417" UserId="520" Text="At the bottom of every page is a link labeled &quot;[Legal][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the things found there is the copyright policy. Like all sites in the Stack Exchange network submitting to Physics grants Stack Exchange a license to use your content under a Creative Commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oLIEJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10091" RevisionGUID="e08c0a5a-601a-41db-9c1f-8b0e54a8c06f" CreationDate="2017-08-16T22:15:18.553" UserId="520" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="At the bottom of every page is a link labeled &quot;[Legal][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the things found there is the copyright policy. Like all sites in the Stack Exchange network submitting to Physics grants Stack Exchange a license to use your content under a Creative Commons license. See the legal page for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means that the copyright has not been transferred, but that certain rights have been granted to Stack Exchange and to the public—the copyright holder can't prevent use of the content that is consistent with the license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackexchange.com/legal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oLIEJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10092" RevisionGUID="619dafa8-7abd-4922-9496-65c81e915666" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:48:55.570" UserId="149663" Text="Many a times, there are questions which are absolutely vague and have no meaning in them, like: [If I fall from a great height, will I overcome the speed of light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352263/if-you-fall-for-a-long-enough-period-of-time-would-you-eventually-hit-or-break)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, these are off topic questions, but there are no proper flags for this. Generally I flag this as very low quality, but many times, why I don't know, this flag is not available after one close vote has been submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not homework questions or do not satisfy any other realm of flagging. So, there should be a proper flag as &quot;vague and not-constructive&quot;, so that these off topic questions can stand out, and can be properly flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can close with a custom close reason, but in case of flagging, only option is to call for Moderator Intervention, but I don't feel such questions are of a minimum quality to call for Moderator Intervention, and disturb them everytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there should be a separate flag called &quot;vague and not-constructive&quot;, and a separate review queue to handle them.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10092" RevisionGUID="619dafa8-7abd-4922-9496-65c81e915666" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:48:55.570" UserId="149663" Text="A new flag: &quot;vague and not-constructive&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10092" RevisionGUID="619dafa8-7abd-4922-9496-65c81e915666" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:48:55.570" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10092" RevisionGUID="fc6eb064-3a32-4d04-8a28-a846895eff5c" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:54:27.727" UserId="149663" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Many a times, there are questions which are absolutely vague and have no meaning in them, like: [If I fall from a great height, will I overcome the speed of light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352263/if-you-fall-for-a-long-enough-period-of-time-would-you-eventually-hit-or-break)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, these are off topic questions, but there are no proper flags for this. Generally I flag this as very low quality, but many times, why I don't know, this flag is not available after one close vote has been submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not homework questions or do not satisfy any other realm of flagging. So, there should be a proper flag as &quot;vague and not-constructive&quot;, so that these off topic questions can stand out, and can be properly flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can close with a custom close reason, but in case of flagging, only option is to call for Moderator Intervention, but I don't feel such questions are of a minimum quality to call for Moderator Intervention, and disturb them everytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; flag is not a good option, because it is very clear what the asker wants to know,  but the question is foolish and has no dedicated answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there should be a separate flag called &quot;vague and not-constructive&quot;, and a separate review queue to handle them.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10092" RevisionGUID="8bc939cc-0f8a-4c96-8728-8ff0d3a306cd" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:59:51.933" UserId="149663" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="Many a times, there are questions which are absolutely vague and have no meaning in them, like: [If I fall from a great height, will I overcome the speed of light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352263/if-you-fall-for-a-long-enough-period-of-time-would-you-eventually-hit-or-break)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, these are off topic questions, but there are no proper flags for this. Generally I flag this as very low quality, but many times, why I don't know, this flag is not available after one close vote has been submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not homework questions or do not satisfy any other realm of flagging. So, there should be a proper flag as &quot;not-constructive&quot;, so that these off topic questions can stand out, and can be properly flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can close with a custom close reason, but in case of flagging, only option is to call for Moderator Intervention, but I don't feel such questions are of a minimum quality to call for Moderator Intervention, and disturb them everytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; flag is not a good option, because it is very clear what the asker wants to know,  but the question is foolish and has no dedicated answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there should be a separate flag called &quot;not-constructive&quot;, and a separate review queue to handle them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30685" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10092" RevisionGUID="8bc939cc-0f8a-4c96-8728-8ff0d3a306cd" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:59:51.933" UserId="149663" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="A new flag: &quot;not-constructive&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10093" RevisionGUID="e29b702d-3b09-4727-b38e-16f4fc83ea3c" CreationDate="2017-08-17T04:09:29.850" UserId="8563" Text="**Yes**, when you post any content to any Stack Exchange site you retain the copyright to that content, **but** you also grant irrevocable rights to the public, including Stack Exchange, as to how they can use that content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, whenever you post any question, answer, or comment to the site, you are effectively doing three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You're certifying that you're the creator of all the content that you post (or that any other content, such as images, is covered under fair use);&#xD;&#xA; - You retain the copyright to that work; and&#xD;&#xA; - You provide the work to the public, and as a subset of that to Stack Exchange, under a [Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike (CC BY-SA) license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This license enables Stack Exchange (along with everybody else) to distribute the work in any form they want to, and even charge for it if they so desire, so long as (i) they attribute the work to you, and (ii) they distribute it under the CC BY-SA license, or some compatible set of conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This license is **irrevocable**: once you post here and the license is granted, you *cannot* demand that Stack Exchange delete the post, and indeed other people can put your content on other sites without you being able to stop them, so long as they follow the conditions of the license. If this makes you uncomfortable, you should not post here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you retain all other rights to the work not covered by the original license. Thus, you're able to e.g. sell the copyright to a publisher, or sue people who post it elsewhere and don't attribute it correctly, or indeed re-license it to the public under any other license (or combination of licenses) that you want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do find your content posted on other sites and you are unhappy with how it's presented (which does happen often enough) then the mother-meta post [A site (or scraper) is copying content from Stack Exchange. What do I do?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/200177/a-site-or-scraper-is-copying-content-from-stack-exchange-what-do-i-do) has good help on what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's important to note that the above only applies to user-provided content. The actual site design, logos, and other SE-built assets are owned by Stack Exchange, and cannot be reused (particularly for commercial purposes) without their authorization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="8f3ef215-17a7-4b8f-9065-12deaa37d0b7" CreationDate="2017-08-17T04:23:29.770" UserId="8563" Text=" - If it's vague, flag/vote to close as Unclear What You're Asking.&#xD;&#xA; - If you think it should be closed but none of the canned reasons fit, then flag/vote to close with a custom reason. If five 3k+ users agree with you, then it will get closed. If not, then it will get kicked out of the close-vote review queue and the question likely shouldn't be closed.&#xD;&#xA; - If it is a bad question but it doesn't fit the requirements for closure, then downvote, leave a comment explaining why the question is bad if you want to, and move on. There's better things to do in life than obsess over how to handle marginal edge cases of bad questions on some site on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10039" RevisionGUID="0270a0fa-408e-405f-9f3c-b4dfcc613d97" CreationDate="2017-08-17T07:27:35.150" UserId="124" Comment="change warning" Text="[tag:mathematical-physics]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use this tag unless your question is about the fundamental research area called [mathematical physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathematical-physics). Questions do not qualify for this tag simply because they involve math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10096" RevisionGUID="5aede844-e545-4408-a903-a701acd10fa9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:15:29.467" UserId="1492" Text="Yesterday there was a question which I answered, and the answer got  two downvotes, so I tried to understand what I was not communicating well. The question was about &quot;energy conservation appearing because of field theory&quot;. There were a number of comments to my answer by AccidentalFourierTransform and,I think, GenaroTedesco . Thinking it over before going to sleep, I planned to edit my answer to make clear that the energy conservation law applies to closed systems. When I entered this morning, greek time,the whole thing has disappeared. As a high reputation user I see deleted questions by anybody. This has disappeared completely and not edited to a new format afaik.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whats up? For us senior citizens where the A possibility looms, it is disturbing to have to start thinking &quot;did I really answer the question, or did I think I did &quot; (joking at the moment as I still have all my faculties intact, but time flies). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10096" RevisionGUID="5aede844-e545-4408-a903-a701acd10fa9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:15:29.467" UserId="1492" Text="questions completely disappearng" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10096" RevisionGUID="5aede844-e545-4408-a903-a701acd10fa9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:15:29.467" UserId="1492" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="7ed03d17-5545-4c18-9f83-5c4f382599b2" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:42:45.037" UserId="2451" Text="OP deleted the [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451). 10k+ users can view (but not search for) deleted posts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="0ebf8020-fd65-4f7d-816a-c0004b40adad" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:54:15.260" UserId="2451" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="- OP deleted the [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451) (and thereby any answer in the thread). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can view a deleted post if they have the pertinent URL, but cannot search for it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="4fc40b38-ef4b-45b9-a12e-40d4542407e1" CreationDate="2017-08-18T11:14:31.087" UserId="2451" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="- OP deleted the [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451) (and thereby any answer in the thread). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can view any deleted post if they have the pertinent URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can search for their [own deleted posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3Ame+deleted%3A1).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="e346c304-6dd6-4d76-8055-1ce92d812e1b" CreationDate="2017-08-18T12:59:50.933" UserId="2451" Comment="Added explanation" Text="- OP deleted the [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451) (and thereby any answer in its thread). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can view any deleted post if they have the post's URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can search for their [own deleted posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3Ame+deleted%3A1) but not other's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A user can _not_ see deleted items in their own profile page listings, except for the last 60 days by clicking &quot;deleted recent questions/answers&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="82a2bde0-fc23-41bd-8094-c8dd0452fda1" CreationDate="2017-08-18T19:47:05.133" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="- OP deleted the [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451) (and thereby any answer in its thread). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can view any deleted post if they have the post's URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can search for their [own deleted posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3Ame+deleted%3Ayes) but not other's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A user can _not_ see deleted items in their own profile page listings, except for the last 60 days by clicking &quot;deleted recent questions/answers&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10098" RevisionGUID="e65d1156-8e4a-4482-ba53-4eb777b6f52c" CreationDate="2017-08-18T23:59:06.267" UserId="138661" Text=" - As a user of IBM's quantum experience, how do you organize use of the program to effectively learn how quantum gates function? Or do you use it for academic findings?&#xD;&#xA; - From your lit review, what are your favorite resources for learning about superconducting qubits? Any current developments that are especially interesting to you?&#xD;&#xA; - Did you play in music groups throughout your MSc/PhD? Were you able to balance practice time with research work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="4168f882-199c-49b8-98d7-7cc7275c638a" CreationDate="2017-08-19T11:57:31.247" UserId="2451" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="I) In the specific case, the asker deleted the specific [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451) (and thereby any answer in its thread). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- All users can _not_ see deleted items in their own profile page listings, except for the last 60 days by clicking &quot;deleted recent questions/answers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can view any deleted post if they have the post's URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can search for their [own deleted posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3Ame+deleted%3Ayes) but not other's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="aa61380e-9195-4e04-871b-1b2c3815a420" CreationDate="2017-08-19T14:40:06.570" UserId="2451" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I) In the specific case, the asker deleted the specific [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/352328/2451) (and thereby any answer in its thread). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) More generally,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- All users can _not_ see deleted items in their own profile page listings, except for the last 60 days by clicking &quot;deleted recent questions/answers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can view any deleted post if they have the post's URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can search for their [own deleted posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3Ame+deleted%3Ayes) but not other's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 10k+ users can browse recently deleted questions from the last 30 days on their&#xD;&#xA; [mod tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=delete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10096" RevisionGUID="03e7f037-1346-4a7c-bb19-475b8340b017" CreationDate="2017-08-19T14:42:36.550" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Question completely disappearing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10096" RevisionGUID="03e7f037-1346-4a7c-bb19-475b8340b017" CreationDate="2017-08-19T14:42:36.550" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10096" RevisionGUID="87de9cfc-1762-4f89-ae98-cee461995ac4" CreationDate="2017-08-19T21:19:21.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/899017969082224641" />
  <row Id="30707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10099" RevisionGUID="8e585731-1140-4d4f-9a84-e61c94192e3d" CreationDate="2017-08-20T15:59:53.093" UserId="148444" Text="I usually hang out at ChemistrySE, where I use \ce{} to format chemical equations. I once tried to use \ce{} here to write a nuclear reaction, and was perplexed when it didn't work. Someone told me that mhchem isn't enabled here. I ended up having to use \text{} instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are there any special packages for MathJax here? Or is it just plain old MathJax just like how it's at MathSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10099" RevisionGUID="8e585731-1140-4d4f-9a84-e61c94192e3d" CreationDate="2017-08-20T15:59:53.093" UserId="148444" Text="Are there any special packages enabled for MathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10099" RevisionGUID="8e585731-1140-4d4f-9a84-e61c94192e3d" CreationDate="2017-08-20T15:59:53.093" UserId="148444" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30710" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="9cd457ba-d29f-4553-a9be-69f6cee4d86a" CreationDate="2017-08-20T17:54:09.820" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-deferred|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="9cd457ba-d29f-4553-a9be-69f6cee4d86a" CreationDate="2017-08-20T17:54:09.820" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="It's a drag having to type things like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$1.38 \times 10^{-23} \, \mathrm{JK^{-1}}$` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all the time. Would it be possible to have the [siunitx package](https://www.google.com/search?as_q=siunitx+package+tex) installed on this site? Then we could get the same effect with just &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$\SI{1.38e-23}{J.K^{-1}}$` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$\SI{1.38e-23}{\joule\per\kelvin}$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;instead, which is more readable, easier to type, and gets all the spacing right first time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30712" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="24c4696c-4933-4a2f-88ab-6cb19f21b016" CreationDate="2017-08-20T17:57:37.853" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10100" RevisionGUID="22987b87-72ec-4362-9108-fa697d8c35c5" CreationDate="2017-08-21T13:21:04.780" UserId="165447" Text="Is the IBM's quantum experience worthwhile? Do they really run your code on a real quantum computer and how long does it take to get the results? Is IBM's quantum experience more for fun or can you write code that gives you interesting results that you wouldn't have access to otherwise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30714" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="6d289d79-f7ea-483a-b6cb-803440481c01" CreationDate="2017-08-21T18:32:24.567" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/899700730810048512" />
  <row Id="30715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10101" RevisionGUID="4d85e463-da7a-4a6c-89b9-8f4ed6dd5f3e" CreationDate="2017-08-21T19:21:35.803" UserId="347" Text="##Yes, these questions are duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why:&#xD;&#xA;The answer has to be &quot;yes,&quot; because it is common practice on the site to answer simple questions with over-complex answers, and there's no real way to control this or to migrate answers to the other question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the questions are not just for the asker, but for any potential viewer to the question, so having a multiplicity of answers at various levels is better for someone googling the question and ending up at the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This said, I don't necessarily see a moral disaster of letting the asker ask for a certain level of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="e3ffcb8f-dffb-478c-88f4-c5245e7b09a7" CreationDate="2017-08-21T20:28:29.943" UserId="166571" Text="Is this legal to post my physics question here for **verification** only but **not** for answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to make sure that my question is on-topic, not off-topic, and fits the rules, like it's **not** too broad and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already read all the &quot;How to ask&quot; sections on the help center and then in physics stack exchange.com I have asked 2 questions, attempted that these 2 questions will be good, but they were**n't** well received and I have reached my question limit so quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from now on I want to post my physics question here for validation purposes only and if it passes then I will post it on physics stack exchange.com for answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is analogous to the idea when you have created an application you want first to test in QA and release beta version of that application before releasing the &#xD;&#xA;released version application to the customer, because you never can know if you have bugs in the application you are developing or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="e3ffcb8f-dffb-478c-88f4-c5245e7b09a7" CreationDate="2017-08-21T20:28:29.943" UserId="166571" Text="Is this legal to post my physics question here for verification only but not for answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="e3ffcb8f-dffb-478c-88f4-c5245e7b09a7" CreationDate="2017-08-21T20:28:29.943" UserId="166571" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="b58a413c-2684-4c0a-b4e0-03dd128d58a9" CreationDate="2017-08-21T20:33:30.237" UserId="166571" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Is this legal to post my physics question here for **verification** only but **not** for answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to make sure that my question is on-topic, not off-topic, and fits the rules, like it's **not** too broad and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already read all the &quot;How to ask&quot; sections on the help center and then in physics stack exchange.com I have asked 2 questions, attempted that these 2 questions will be good, but they were**n't** well received and I have reached my question limit so quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from now on I want to post my physics question here for validation purposes only and if it passes then I will post it on physics stack exchange.com for answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is analogous to the idea when you have created an application and you want first to test in QA and release beta version of that application first before releasing the released version of the application to the customer, because you never can know if you have bugs in the application you are developing or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I **never** know if my question will get downvoted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my third physics question will be bad as the two others on physics stack exchange.com then I wo**n't** be able to ask questions there anymore and I do**n't** want to be in this state so I am **not** taking risks anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="d50118fe-73d0-4d2b-9be1-7e196f64ef4d" CreationDate="2017-08-21T22:00:46.047" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30721" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9619" RevisionGUID="d3d21173-a9d5-4442-bbe2-33f2b9157d06" CreationDate="2017-08-21T23:02:03.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10103" RevisionGUID="979bad42-0c45-411d-91e5-69983677d11c" CreationDate="2017-08-22T06:06:47.877" UserId="44126" Text="If you're having trouble crafting questions that are well-received on the main site, I don't think posting them here for &quot;pre-approval&quot; would be well-received either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have [a sandbox question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/389/44126), but that's for experimenting with formatting rather than experimenting with content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a question that you don't think is a good fit for the main site, you might politely try to discuss your question in [our chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;We have several active voters and answerers who are regularly available in the chat room, and I believe there have been a few cases of questions that have started off in chat as &quot;I have this vague issue about blah&quot; but were refined into much clearer language in chat discussions before getting posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10104" RevisionGUID="302d669b-fa88-45ef-b608-4a108b675d8f" CreationDate="2017-08-22T08:52:30.157" UserId="1325" Text="As a general rule we like questions to be useful to a wide audience. If you post a question that just asks *Did I get this right?* that question isn't likely to be of interest to anyone but you, and the question will probably end up being downvoted and closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However let me second Rob's suggestion to ask [in the chat room][1]. You can ask anything in the chat room, and we do quite often get students asking about course work. Whether you get a reply, and how quickly you get a reply, will depend on who is in the chat room at the time, but it's always worth asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10089" RevisionGUID="377b69d3-7a09-4e75-b6d3-2b84951a0361" CreationDate="2017-08-22T19:44:01.283" UserDisplayName="user139621" Comment="deleted 262 characters in body" Text="**1)** You said that : &quot;In my third year of my undergrad, I did a literature review on superconducting quantum computers&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What were the physics and math courses you had taken so that you could be able enough for a literature review on the topic: &quot;superconducting quantum computers&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Was it a compulsory project, or you did it out of your own interest? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Did you have any advisor who helped you in the literature review? If so, how did you get in touch with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How did you get started with it? And what was the outcome (in brief) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** During your undergraduate years did you study any (technical/science) topics beyond your syllabus for your own interest (as a hobby)? How did it help you later on in your career?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="061099b9-dcb6-439d-b78c-c0a01097f8ed" CreationDate="2017-08-22T21:17:21.630" UserId="84967" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Mithrandir24601](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/114272/mithrandir24601), August 22nd 2017&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10085/84967)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/39555495#39555495)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Jim](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), July 24th 2017&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10000/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-jim-long-may-he-reign-2017-07-25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Bernardo Meurer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50764/bernardo-meurer), June 13th 2017,&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9898/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-bernardo-meurer-2017-06-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th 2017, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30726" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="b19cb237-486d-495a-be6e-1e8744b465ce" CreationDate="2017-08-22T21:19:24.333" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|chat-events|ask-me-anything|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="8dda991d-7b6c-40db-93dc-55075eed6d9c" CreationDate="2017-08-23T08:30:19.277" UserId="75633" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="Is it possible to search in comments, along with searching in questions and answers?  I suspect the answer is *no*.  I think that would be a very useful option to have in the advanced search.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9468" RevisionGUID="d6dbbaf5-5189-4e97-8f16-15a64b5e95d3" CreationDate="2017-08-23T08:48:42.597" UserId="75633" Comment="Corrected grammar." Text="As it was explained many times, the downvoters don't need to explain their reason. It is because the anonymity of the votes are considered more important by the SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't do too much with it, if they would require to give an explanation, there would be much fewer downvotes, and it would open the door to revenge attacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the other answerers didn't explain clearly: yes, it is not okay. It is particularly *evil*, if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* it is a first downvote&#xD;&#xA;* there are many downs, all without explanation&#xD;&#xA;* if the reason of the downvote isn't obvious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider this like an election. It would be hilarious if a not elected politician could challenge the people, why they didn't elect him. Although it is quite possible that their reason wasn't fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is not okay, but it seems it is the lesser evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are major differences between the behavior of the SE sites. I think, most people using multiple SE sites actively agree that the Physics SE isn't the friendliest one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, most of the downers won't go back to the post, thus the downvotes remain even if you already fixed your post. And you have no way to ask them to consider a vote change. You can ask this in a comment, but most of them wouldn't see also that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the meta SE, it is a quite common suggestion to implement some feature into the SE software, which could - anonymously - re-attract the attention of the downvoters, after the OP thinks he fixed his post. Unfortunately, the SE (company) doesn't seem very sedulous to implement similar user requests since some years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some tricky ways, most of them is on the border case of misusing the site. Deleting the post and re-posting it would solve the problem, but it would be surely considered as a serious misuse, don't do it (10k+ users would see, what you did)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="f20a676a-9fd0-473e-a8da-5c860e88bc53" CreationDate="2017-08-23T09:33:25.353" UserId="75633" Comment="Improved clarity." Text="I am bothered by answers chosen by OP questions which are evidently wrong within standard peer reviewed physics , this is [an example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one of the aims of the site is to be searchable and be a basis for physics questions on the net, the set up of a chosen by OP answer with negative votes seems a mockery. A random searcher will not know the rules of the site  and assume the check is for &quot;correct&quot;  and not even go to any other answers even if they have high scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe moderation is reasonable? Could one make such situations unsearchable to the engines? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution would be to make a list of such discrepancies and people interested could check up and at least upvote a/the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297729/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="2e5965ff-02ad-4033-86a9-a4444a53283a" CreationDate="2017-08-23T09:47:14.767" UserId="75633" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="The first thing that I noticed about *this* site was the irony of it's name. Surely I'm not the only one who would rather have the logo look like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![meta Physics, not Physics meta][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess this is a meta.meta.physics question.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xtr60.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="847a9f27-0e36-425e-893f-8ce85ed0a77c" CreationDate="2017-08-23T09:49:01.000" UserId="75633" Comment="Corrected grammar." Text="At first, I was going to delete my question, but then there is the small chance someone else has a little trouble finding the correct answer to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/faq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FAQ for the physics site (not the physics meta site) gives the answer: 200 points per day is the cutoff (although accepted answers and bounty awards are immune to this limit). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="f6352f0a-5c7a-437e-8fe6-166be1b50561" CreationDate="2017-08-23T12:15:48.847" UserId="166571" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Is this legal to post my physics question here for **verification** only but **not** for answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to make sure that my question is on-topic, not off-topic, and fits the rules, like it's **not** too broad and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already read all the &quot;How to ask&quot; sections on the help center and then in physics stack exchange.com I have asked 2 questions, attempted that these 2 questions will be good, but they were**n't** well received and I have reached my question limit so quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from now on I want to post my physics question here for validation purposes only and if it passes then I will post it on physics stack exchange.com for answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is analogous to the idea when you have created an application and you want first to test it in QA and release beta version of that application first before releasing the released version of the application to the customer, because you never can know if you have bugs in the application you are developing or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I **never** know if my question will get downvoted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my third physics question will be bad as the two others on physics stack exchange.com then I wo**n't** be able to ask questions there anymore and I do**n't** want to be in this state so I am **not** taking risks anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="3fe973b3-bfbe-44a2-afb1-f50ea077bfe5" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:04:17.037" UserId="166571" Text="I have just noticed that you can use mathjax in this website, i.e. in Physics meta, but why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$e=mc^2$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But mathjax is used only when you ask serious question in physics or mathematics and etc..., but serious question in physics should not be asked here on meta, but on physics stack exchange instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In physics meta you ask general questions about the physics stack exchange website, but when you ask these questions, you need only html, but not mathjax. You won't ever use mathjax here, so why you can use here mathjax at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="3fe973b3-bfbe-44a2-afb1-f50ea077bfe5" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:04:17.037" UserId="166571" Text="Why you can use mathjax in this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="3fe973b3-bfbe-44a2-afb1-f50ea077bfe5" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:04:17.037" UserId="166571" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="28ba9010-1b27-4903-ac07-564806193c23" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:16:57.050" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|mathjax|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10106" RevisionGUID="c384ef3c-605e-4bb3-9aa5-f6075a13ad22" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:20:15.783" UserId="2451" Text="Nice. Well, sometimes one might have to explain how mathjax works, cf. e.g. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2887/2451) meta post. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1119/2451) related meta post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="1efec642-4626-4388-8b4e-c36ef770c609" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:24:39.897" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="I have just noticed that you can use mathjax in this website, i.e. in Physics meta, but why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$E=mc^2$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But mathjax is used only when you ask serious question in physics or mathematics and etc..., but serious question in physics should not be asked here on meta, but on physics stack exchange instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In physics meta you ask general questions about the physics stack exchange website, but when you ask these questions, you need only html, but not mathjax. You won't ever use mathjax here, so why you can use here mathjax at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="e8325093-5014-43ec-ae18-b3414be3d1c9" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:41:59.907" UserId="166571" Text="Is it possible to receive reputations in this website? I have asked 1 question, which got upvoted, but before asking it I had 101 reputations. After the upvote I still see 101 reputations. I know that every upvote gives you another 5 reputations, so I should have 106 reputations, but not 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a bug that I should report it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="e8325093-5014-43ec-ae18-b3414be3d1c9" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:41:59.907" UserId="166571" Text="Is it possible to receive reputations in this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="e8325093-5014-43ec-ae18-b3414be3d1c9" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:41:59.907" UserId="166571" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30746" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="a58c86b4-5189-48f8-bf15-19ba85dc4e97" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:44:07.213" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7022],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30748" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="bfc537fb-da16-4a6b-b48c-7195713c7f22" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:45:26.350" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30749" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="bfc537fb-da16-4a6b-b48c-7195713c7f22" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:45:26.350" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Can one earn reputation on Physics Meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="dbfaa629-5190-41d1-979c-54cb7973fe38" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:47:22.593" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it possible to receive reputation points on meta? I have asked 1 question, which got upvoted, but before asking it I had 101 reputations. After the upvote I still see 101 reputations. I know that every upvote gives you another 5 reputations, so I should have 106 reputations, but not 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a bug that I should report it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30751" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="dbfaa629-5190-41d1-979c-54cb7973fe38" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:47:22.593" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it possible to receive reputation points on meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30752" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="dbfaa629-5190-41d1-979c-54cb7973fe38" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:47:22.593" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|reputation|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="7721e419-c252-4b5c-85a2-bfa0a7b0a3b1" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:19:10.947" UserId="44126" Comment="Make code visible" Text="Is it possible to number equations when posting questions at physics stack exchange, or any other stack exchange site enabled with MathJax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried `\begin{equation} \end{equation}`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10109" RevisionGUID="9a1c9d0c-b431-45b3-bddf-629ab716c65e" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:23:51.440" UserId="166571" Text="Yeah but you can't get reputations in this website at all, so as a result I always have 101 reputations and 101 &lt; 125, so I won't ever be able to downvote, but no way I see that others do this so what's going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10109" RevisionGUID="9a1c9d0c-b431-45b3-bddf-629ab716c65e" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:23:51.440" UserId="166571" Text="Thanks for the feedback! Votes cast by those with less than 125 reputation are recorded, but do not change the publicly displayed post score" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10109" RevisionGUID="9a1c9d0c-b431-45b3-bddf-629ab716c65e" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:23:51.440" UserId="166571" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="f8e37dda-a2c3-4031-a2d3-6552fba334a1" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:28:23.340" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is a `\tag{}` command. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`$$ 1+1=2 \tag{1} $$`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;produces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$  1+1=2 \tag{1} $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="ca570a5a-3743-49c3-8853-1a33bd736099" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:28:35.827" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10110" RevisionGUID="6cd36528-4e7e-4e56-9d0a-8dfe363df60d" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:34:58.243" UserId="44126" Text="Reputation is awarded for participation in [the main site](http://physics.stackexchange.com).  Your reputation will be the same on the main site and on the meta site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30764" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10109" RevisionGUID="8c6e852c-f75b-445d-9348-71666b94e14a" CreationDate="2017-08-23T17:51:35.517" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30766" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10109" RevisionGUID="dc422078-a3c5-465a-8b24-c8b4e80214bd" CreationDate="2017-08-23T17:54:04.540" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7022],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10112" RevisionGUID="0d49edb0-eb66-4eb9-bd8e-38d25f1d477f" CreationDate="2017-08-23T18:07:02.050" UserId="166571" Text="Why on Physics meta you neither receive nor lose reputations but on meta stack exchange you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Physics meta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone either upvotes or downvotes one of your questions or answers then your number of reputations is unaffected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on meta stack exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone upvotes one of your questions or answers then you receive 5 reputations, but when he/she downvotes then you lose 2 reputations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why it works like that? Why Physics meta is different than meta stack exchange in this manner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10112" RevisionGUID="0d49edb0-eb66-4eb9-bd8e-38d25f1d477f" CreationDate="2017-08-23T18:07:02.050" UserId="166571" Text="Why on Physics meta you neither receive nor lose reputations but on meta stack exchange you do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10112" RevisionGUID="0d49edb0-eb66-4eb9-bd8e-38d25f1d477f" CreationDate="2017-08-23T18:07:02.050" UserId="166571" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="3ee108d7-912c-472d-979a-1febb1564c4e" CreationDate="2017-08-24T10:23:38.783" UserId="64360" Text="I'm posting in meta for the first time so please don't mind some culturally outrageous thing that I would end up doing here and inform me about my peculiarities. So I have this question on stack exchange physics, [about the fermi level of materials][1]&#xD;&#xA;and I have not received any assistance on it as of yet. Couls you let me know if there's some way to give my question more attention or if I could move the same question to a different forum like Chemistry and then see the responses because I really need to have this discussion and I know that there are people on this site who could really be able to help me with this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/351374/the-concept-of-fermi-level?noredirect=1#comment785723_351374" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="3ee108d7-912c-472d-979a-1febb1564c4e" CreationDate="2017-08-24T10:23:38.783" UserId="64360" Text="Moving a question to a different forum or asking for more attention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="3ee108d7-912c-472d-979a-1febb1564c4e" CreationDate="2017-08-24T10:23:38.783" UserId="64360" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10115" RevisionGUID="2e028079-2a69-440e-aa39-294e04b83c0c" CreationDate="2017-08-24T11:41:48.387" UserId="23473" Text="There may be a bit of chemistry, but I read this as being a primarily physics question. It's technically possible for you to delete the question from here and re-post it on Chemistry.SE. Make sure not to cross-post it; that is frowned on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd say leave it here. As for getting more attention, try improving clarity and presentation. The easier and quicker someone can read your post and get the details and question, the more likely they are to answer or, filing that, upvote (which increases likelihood of an answer). If you have doubts about that, try offering a bounty on your question. You spend some of your own reputation to have your question featured in the bounties page for a week. That's probably the best way of drawing more attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like any of those options, you could also try advertising the question here on meta (much like you've already done. Kudos for following my advice), or you could ask the people on [the h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) if they can answer the question and then provide them with the link to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="fe1d6a9d-39b2-494e-8d08-45099d5a7f62" CreationDate="2017-08-24T12:26:37.670" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm posting in meta for the first time so please don't mind some culturally outrageous thing that I would end up doing here and inform me about my peculiarities. So I have this question on stack exchange physics, [about the fermi level of materials][1] and I have not received any assistance on it as of yet. Couls you let me know if there's some way to give my question more attention or if I could move the same question to a different forum like Chemistry and then see the responses because I really need to have this discussion and I know that there are people on this site who could really be able to help me with this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/351374/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30778" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="fe1d6a9d-39b2-494e-8d08-45099d5a7f62" CreationDate="2017-08-24T12:26:37.670" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Migrating a question to a different SE site or asking for more attention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30779" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="fe1d6a9d-39b2-494e-8d08-45099d5a7f62" CreationDate="2017-08-24T12:26:37.670" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|specific-question|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10115" RevisionGUID="10901716-f755-48e0-b211-826b04675f30" CreationDate="2017-08-24T12:44:44.920" UserId="23473" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="There may be a bit of chemistry, but I read this as being a primarily physics question. It's technically possible for you to delete the question from here and re-post it on Chemistry.SE. Make sure not to cross-post it; that is frowned on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd say leave it here. As for getting more attention, try improving clarity and presentation. The easier and quicker someone can read your post and get the details and question, the more likely they are to answer or, filing that, upvote (which increases likelihood of an answer). If you have doubts about that, try offering a bounty on your question. You spend some of your own reputation to have your question featured in the bounties page for a week. That's probably the best way of drawing more attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like any of those options, you could ask the people on [the h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) if they can answer the question and then provide them with the link to it. Failing all that AND if there's some special circumstances (like the question gets unfairly closed, severely downvoted, or people express problems that you want advice on how to fix), you could also try advertising the question here on meta (much like you've already done. Kudos for following my advice)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="4f28f556-c992-4551-a8a6-64f703675348" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:00:12.733" UserId="84967" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="# Purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user base of Physics Stack Exchange is rather diverse in terms of cultural background, career progress, field of expertise, and personality.&#xD;&#xA;While the discussion in hbar is lively, it is mostly focused on physics, with some side conversations on a variety of topics from cooking to favorite software bugs.&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be interesting to set aside dedicated time in which to learn more about each other as individuals.&#xD;&#xA;This could be of interest to most users due to normal human curiosity, and especially useful for students who would benefit by exposure to those whose hindsight can help avoid common pitfalls in physics and in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kind of sessions, called &quot;ask me anything&quot; or &quot;AMA&quot; have a solid history in other online communities, particularly on reddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Upcoming&#xD;&#xA;* [C. Jess Riedel](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7911/jess-riedel): [website](http://jessriedel.com/), [CV](http://jessriedel.com/index_files/CJR-CV.pdf), [Blog](http://blog.jessriedel.com/). Date to be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Previous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Mithrandir24601](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/114272/mithrandir24601), August 22nd 2017&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10085/84967)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-mithrandir24601-2017-08-22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Jim](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), July 24th 2017&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10000/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-jim-long-may-he-reign-2017-07-25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Bernardo Meurer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50764/bernardo-meurer), June 13th 2017,&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9898/50583)&#xD;&#xA;  * [chat session](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-bernardo-meurer-2017-06-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [heather](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/121464/heather), Monday, February 20th 2017, 10pm UTC&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9613)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/ama-heather-2017-02-20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Secret](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64669/secret?tab=profile), 6 September 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/september-6-physics-ama-secret-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=32143865#32143865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [DanielSank](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/31790/danielsank?tab=profile), 12 August 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8981/august-23-physics-ama-with-daniel-sank-question-pool)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31650865#31650865)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [yuggib](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50546/yuggib), 12 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8814/ask-me-anything-12th-july-guests-introduction-and-questions)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30980294#30980294)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [slereah](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/36941/slereah), 14 June 2016&#xD;&#xA;  * [Question pool and details](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7782/questions-for-the-june-14th-ama)&#xD;&#xA;  * [Chat session](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=30352471#30352471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contributing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to be a guest speaker, or moderate an AMA session, please ping @DanielSank or @vzn in the [hbar](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar).&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to improve our [community ad art](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7768/31790), please just submit an edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of AMA format (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7778/what-format-should-we-use-for-physics-stack-exchange-amas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Discussion of the first AMA session (meta)](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8815/what-was-your-impression-of-the-the-first-ask-me-anything-ama-event)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="127bc3df-1154-44ba-82a4-3afae8814bd4" CreationDate="2017-08-24T16:00:49.360" UserId="127931" Text="When looking at [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353506/physics-of-pool) you can see discussion about the closure of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, it quickly got custom flagged as &quot;Duplicate of deleted question by the same user.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of actual site performance, this question is mostly semantics; but I am still curious on the procedure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this be used as a close reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, because the other question is deleted, we should not vote to close as &quot;Duplicate of deleted&quot;.  I'd think it would be more reasonable to _flag_ as duplicate of deleted, and vote to close for the direct reason if there is one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find any discussion on this; so I was just curious on what method would be &quot;more correct&quot; on physics.se." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="127bc3df-1154-44ba-82a4-3afae8814bd4" CreationDate="2017-08-24T16:00:49.360" UserId="127931" Text="Closing Deleted Duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="127bc3df-1154-44ba-82a4-3afae8814bd4" CreationDate="2017-08-24T16:00:49.360" UserId="127931" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="ff48302d-4fbe-44cc-b282-3e071e42fac9" CreationDate="2017-08-24T16:13:56.510" UserId="50583" Text="1. You cannot actually vote to close as duplicate of a deleted question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the asker of the non-deleted question is not the same as that of the deleted question, there is no need to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the asker of both questions is the same user, then you should raise a moderator flag explaining that this user deleted a question and reposted it. This behaviour is generally frowned upon since it is often used to evade downvotes (receive a downvote, delete the question and post it anew with a fresh score of 0) or close votes. Usually a moderator will undelete the earlier question and then close as duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="35d8ccc1-6db1-4cff-b668-090db82d68df" CreationDate="2017-08-24T18:15:56.430" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags" Text="When looking at [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/353506/) you can see discussion about the closure of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, it quickly got custom flagged as &quot;Duplicate of deleted question by the same user.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of actual site performance, this question is mostly semantics; but I am still curious on the procedure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this be used as a close reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, because the other question is deleted, we should not vote to close as &quot;Duplicate of deleted&quot;.  I'd think it would be more reasonable to _flag_ as duplicate of deleted, and vote to close for the direct reason if there is one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find any discussion on this; so I was just curious on what method would be &quot;more correct&quot; on physics.se." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="35d8ccc1-6db1-4cff-b668-090db82d68df" CreationDate="2017-08-24T18:15:56.430" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="4dd3e17b-34b9-4d01-a16c-fc34077566ea" CreationDate="2017-08-25T04:08:41.330" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The first thing that I noticed about *this* site was the irony of its name. Surely I'm not the only one who would rather have the logo look like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![meta Physics, not Physics meta][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess this is a meta.meta.physics question.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xtr60.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="7d72158b-7888-453f-aac3-2f4cbd206488" CreationDate="2017-08-25T13:51:00.190" UserId="166571" Text="Can you start bounty here on physics meta if your question didn't receive enough attention for example as you can do on the other websites in the network outside meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="7d72158b-7888-453f-aac3-2f4cbd206488" CreationDate="2017-08-25T13:51:00.190" UserId="166571" Text="Can you start bounty here on physics meta if your question didn't receive enough attention for example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="7d72158b-7888-453f-aac3-2f4cbd206488" CreationDate="2017-08-25T13:51:00.190" UserId="166571" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="55eebd7c-8b53-4ada-9a66-bb17dd49e42f" CreationDate="2017-08-25T13:52:14.883" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bounty|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="2f663637-9567-468a-a2be-0272495d9ee9" CreationDate="2017-08-25T14:53:50.397" UserId="36194" Text="The community is implicitly lenient when it comes to homework-style questions: it usually takes 5 votes to close a question, and this puts a natural brake on unilateral action by too few members with vote-to-close privilege.  The &quot;uberpowerful&quot; users could in principle close questions by themselves but my experience is that they do so only in clearly appropriate cases.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the bulk of questions that are closed certainly deserve to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will stand and be counted amongst those generally biased against tricky questions, unless I feel the trick to solution is &quot;exportable&quot; to other questions: a technically challenging question can certainly have a good conceptual answer that will be applicable beyond the original narrow post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, I'm game to take the challenge but you can easily argue, for instance, that [this post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/327266/36194) was so specific that the question and its answer have only had at best a very modest impact on the average user of the site.   This question is an example of the community being &quot;lenient&quot;, although I imagine not in the direction the OP would have wished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another context for leniency,  marginally bad questions often attract as comments some suggestions on how to improve or rephrase the question.   My experience is thus that there is some (variable) time buffer during which a poster could revise her/his question before the close votes start to accumulate.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="12786522-9c7f-4437-9bab-29526b1445d9" CreationDate="2017-08-25T15:39:24.510" UserId="36194" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The community is implicitly lenient when it comes to homework-style questions: it usually takes 5 votes to close a question, and this puts a natural brake on unilateral action by too few members with vote-to-close privilege.  The &quot;uberpowerful&quot; users could in principle close questions by themselves but my experience is that they do so only in clearly appropriate cases: IMO the bulk of questions that are closed certainly deserve to be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will stand and be counted amongst those generally biased against tricky questions, unless I feel the trick to solution is &quot;exportable&quot; to other questions, i.e. I recognize that some technically challenging questions can certainly have  good conceptual answers that will be applicable beyond the original narrow posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, I'm game to take the challenge but you can easily argue, for instance, that [this post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/327266/36194) was so specific that the question and its answer have had at best only a very modest impact on the average user of the site.   This question is an example of the community being &quot;lenient&quot;, although I imagine not in the direction the OP would have wished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another context for leniency,  a marginally bad question often attracts as comments some suggestions on how to improve or rephrase the question.   My experience is thus that there is some (variable) time buffer during which a poster could revise her/his question before the close votes start to accumulate.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="5f1b086f-0712-4479-aa37-df16bd783e59" CreationDate="2017-08-25T19:05:16.647" UserId="8563" Text="This is mostly because of historical reasons. Meta Stack Exchange is a relatively recent site: the role of mother meta was taken by Meta Stack Overflow until the two sites split in 2014 (if muy memory serves). MSO was the first meta site and it started with its own rep system; later sites just got theirs from the main site. (I'm not sure why, but the answer is somewhere in the archives of MSE.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10121" RevisionGUID="ddf0183b-56e3-4f5e-bc02-936547ab5f2a" CreationDate="2017-08-25T22:57:16.730" UserId="26969" Text="I have figured out your real name, and many other details you did not publish. The &quot;The works of the Lord...&quot; quote helped narrow down the university where you did your undergrad degree, I know you are doing a PhD in Bristol, and then things fell into place surprisingly quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can confirm it while giving others a sporting chance at figuring it out themselves, I computed the md5 hash with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     echo -n &quot;R..s W.......d&quot; | md5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     d72d2f47a620135e84cbe3db2c21a698&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the dots were replaced with the actual characters in your name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="a5783fb5-20c7-46a5-b475-e2bc93748062" CreationDate="2017-08-25T23:18:45.330" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is mostly because of historical reasons. Meta Stack Exchange is a relatively recent site: the role of mother meta was taken by Meta Stack Overflow until the two sites split in 2014 (if my memory serves). MSO was the first meta site and it started with its own rep system; later sites just got theirs from the main site. (I'm not sure why, but the answer is somewhere in the archives of MSE.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="65fda05e-e77a-4c3a-bd1f-374ff2151382" CreationDate="2017-08-26T04:52:29.070" UserId="124" Text="Currently there are no packages automatically enabled on this site. The community is of the opinion that none of the available packages would be widely useful enough to justify enabling them by default (although there is [an ongoing discussion about mhchem](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10069))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="2aeaf2e7-ad09-4baf-8b8c-d57c733a2ae4" CreationDate="2017-08-26T15:52:25.020" UserId="8563" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="This is mostly because of historical reasons. Meta Stack Exchange is a relatively recent site: the role of mother meta was taken by Meta Stack Overflow until the two sites split in 2014 (if my memory serves). MSO was the first meta site and it started with its own rep system; later sites just got theirs from the main site. (I'm not sure why, but the answer is somewhere in the archives of MSE.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: found the relevant blog post, at https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/07/22/new-per-site-metas/. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="9dcd57e1-7775-428c-bea4-b0739b587f0d" CreationDate="2017-08-26T16:22:41.380" UserId="148444" Text="In short, **no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Child metas are designed to have no impact on reputation whatsoever. As a result, you can't use bounties to attract attention to your question. There are a few things you can do, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Post the question you asked in chat. Most of the active regulars are active there, and they can help you out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Write a very catchy title for your question. Believe me, I had a couple of my questions top the hot questions list merely due to catchy titles. This is a very sure way to get attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="3284095b-0249-47af-821e-faad34d950c3" CreationDate="2017-08-27T21:17:08.997" UserId="92058" Text="Why does being the first person to answer a question (which is accepted with score 10 or more) merit a silver badge? This seems like a quite arbitrary requirement to me. Is it just to incentivize people to answer questions quickly? In my experience, most good questions get answered within an hour or so anyway. (And while I know that we shouldn't take the badge names too seriously, why is the first person to answer more &quot;enlightened&quot; than the second person?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="3284095b-0249-47af-821e-faad34d950c3" CreationDate="2017-08-27T21:17:08.997" UserId="92058" Text="What's the motivation behind the &quot;Enlightened&quot; badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="3284095b-0249-47af-821e-faad34d950c3" CreationDate="2017-08-27T21:17:08.997" UserId="92058" Text="|discussion|badges|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="196964cc-7857-4714-acf9-140abf898dd4" CreationDate="2017-08-28T15:31:11.430" UserId="92058" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="Why does being the first person to answer a question (which is accepted with score 10 or more) merit a silver badge? This seems like a quite arbitrary requirement to me. Is it just to incentivize people to answer questions quickly? In my experience, most good questions get answered within an hour or so anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="f1ee5a11-afaf-412f-9399-04c5474760b1" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:34:28.573" UserId="81048" Comment="deleted 269 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed Science Educators, a site where teachers and tutors of any field of science (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) can ask questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided to join forces with all sciences since Mathematics Educators is not getting sufficient traffic to graduate (currently at 1.5 questions out of 10 per day, which is low since the site is quite old), therefore I considered it unlikely that any of the sites (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences) could get launched an Educators site on there own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you are interested, please follow the proposal, and create and vote for example questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the old one was closed, here is a new proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/113414/science-educators?referrer=x3vAYCrjklWdzv01y6-b-g2&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://area51.stackexchange.com/ads/proposal/113414.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; alt=&quot;Stack Exchange Q&amp;A site proposal: Science Educators&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="29de1d39-3fea-4156-a5c2-6f7ab16ed7ae" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:29:46.947" UserId="75633" Text="I can't find in the help, or by googling, the meaning of &quot;temporarily deleting&quot; in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our homework policy. Please don't post complete answers to the underlying problem in homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds like it's deleted for now, but will come back at some point later on, but that meaning sounds implausible to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone point me point me out to the appropriate help page / explain it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="29de1d39-3fea-4156-a5c2-6f7ab16ed7ae" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:29:46.947" UserId="75633" Text="What does &quot;temporarily deleted&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="29de1d39-3fea-4156-a5c2-6f7ab16ed7ae" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:29:46.947" UserId="75633" Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="cb32098f-c63e-45ab-ae50-df57ceac9173" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:18:30.840" UserId="2451" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I can't find in the help, or by googling, the meaning of &quot;temporarily deleting&quot; from a [comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/353711/which-bottle-of-water-absorb-most-heat-before-reaching-30c/353715#comment792575_353715)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our homework policy. Please don't post complete answers to the underlying problem in homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds like it's deleted for now, but will come back at some point later on, but that meaning sounds implausible to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone point me point me out to the appropriate help page / explain it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="cb32098f-c63e-45ab-ae50-df57ceac9173" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:18:30.840" UserId="2451" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30825" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="4896d7d0-6792-4fdf-9b7b-96189d1fbec0" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:19:34.077" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10129" RevisionGUID="1af725de-de46-4301-ad66-b0f5a7209402" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:57:54.720" UserId="2451" Text="In normal cases a temporary deletion of a Phys.SE homework answer is usually supposed to last 2 weeks. If a moderator forgets to undelete after this period, the poster may leave a reminding comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10129" RevisionGUID="2ec9c8ae-3a66-410a-be4b-4c4434be98db" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:22:55.830" UserId="2451" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="There are no SE help pages beyond the [Phys.SE homework policy page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In normal cases a temporary deletion of a homework answer is usually supposed to last 2 weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a moderator forgets to undelete after this period, the poster may leave a reminding comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="bd7a0e4f-5c1a-489b-8fd5-f4cc28edff84" CreationDate="2017-08-29T15:19:07.487" UserId="162215" Text="Yes i know that one answer is to wait. But if you want answer urgently then what to do? What are alternatives? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="bd7a0e4f-5c1a-489b-8fd5-f4cc28edff84" CreationDate="2017-08-29T15:19:07.487" UserId="162215" Text="What to do when no one answers your question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="bd7a0e4f-5c1a-489b-8fd5-f4cc28edff84" CreationDate="2017-08-29T15:19:07.487" UserId="162215" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30831" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="fb56caab-dcd8-4e03-8fad-66344e6c600d" CreationDate="2017-08-29T15:19:59.073" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9245],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10129" RevisionGUID="9bcefd42-8b5a-4d3e-a79f-b49557973008" CreationDate="2017-08-29T15:35:02.617" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="There are no SE help pages beyond the [Phys.SE homework policy page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, a temporary deletion usually last 2 weeks, but there is no official policy or commitment from the moderators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is still deleted after this period, the poster may leave a reminding comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10129" RevisionGUID="19c0c539-e4e7-46c9-ac77-712166ed9655" CreationDate="2017-08-29T16:15:00.573" UserId="2451" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="There are no SE help pages beyond the [Phys.SE homework policy page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/2451). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, a temporary deletion usually last 2 weeks, but there is no official policy or commitment from the moderators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is still deleted after this period, the poster may leave a reminding flag (or comment in the thread/chat)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10131" RevisionGUID="7fc4c118-95e2-4e79-b78a-e29baacd0591" CreationDate="2017-08-30T06:28:23.960" UserId="1325" Text="Participating in the SE has to be fun otherwise people won't do it, and earning badges is part of the fun. As the recipient of a few Enlightened badges they have always felt like a *thank you* from the SE for the effort I put in, and actually I like that - it's always nice to feel appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the Enlightened badge is intended to stimulate answers because it's hard to plan for it. If you jump in with a quick answer in an attempt to be first then you risk being trumped by a better and more considered answer later. I suppose the badge might incite you to jump in quickly to be first then rewrite your answer at leisure to make it better. If it ends up with a good answer for the PSE then, well, that's all to the good though I can't help feeling that anyone intent on this strategy really needs to get out more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="beacd961-f92e-4d8c-96cb-0d312060cb97" CreationDate="2017-08-31T05:58:24.207" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30841" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="beacd961-f92e-4d8c-96cb-0d312060cb97" CreationDate="2017-08-31T05:58:24.207" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="What to do when no one answers your question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="dad54b87-133f-4edb-a90c-6118dd4fe1bc" CreationDate="2017-09-03T15:51:16.317" UserId="60251" Text="I just posted a rainbow related question and though that a rainbow tag might be useful given that there are a few questions about it. Didn’t want to create one without consulting meta though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="dad54b87-133f-4edb-a90c-6118dd4fe1bc" CreationDate="2017-09-03T15:51:16.317" UserId="60251" Text="Would i make sense of have a rainbow tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="dad54b87-133f-4edb-a90c-6118dd4fe1bc" CreationDate="2017-09-03T15:51:16.317" UserId="60251" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10133" RevisionGUID="9e80ac13-16e0-4616-ac59-9bd1d234911d" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:23:13.250" UserId="149663" Text="On down-voting a question, the person who downvoted, loses 1 reputation point. This is a practice that has been started here to prevent misuse of the option to downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, no reputation is lost on down-voting a question. Why is there an anomaly like this? Shouldn't it be same: either no reputation loss at all on down-voting, or 1 reputation loss for down voting on both questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10133" RevisionGUID="9e80ac13-16e0-4616-ac59-9bd1d234911d" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:23:13.250" UserId="149663" Text="Downvoting and Reputation-Loss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10133" RevisionGUID="9e80ac13-16e0-4616-ac59-9bd1d234911d" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:23:13.250" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|reputation|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10133" RevisionGUID="0b67ac99-5c76-4d82-9f3d-dc0f35613bab" CreationDate="2017-09-03T17:15:03.117" UserId="149663" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="On down-voting an answer, the person who downvoted, loses 1 reputation point. This is a practice that has been started here to prevent misuse of the option to downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, no reputation is lost on down-voting a question. Why is there an anomaly like this? Shouldn't it be same: either no reputation loss at all on down-voting, or 1 reputation loss for down voting on both questions and answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10134" RevisionGUID="e354a160-3e9d-4df7-a92c-d7d34019ede1" CreationDate="2017-09-03T17:27:11.087" UserId="124" Text="Good question, but I don't think rainbows constitute a specific area of expertise that is worth highlighting with a tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about rainbows that are on topic on this site should fall under [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] or perhaps [tag:visible-light], and possibly also [tag:optics]; maybe there's another tag or two along those lines that I can't think of right now. Anyway, those tags identify the areas of knowledge that are relevant to answering questions about rainbows. Between those tags and the title of the question, people will have a pretty good idea of whether they can answer it or might be interested in reading it, and I don't think adding [tag:rainbows] would make much difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It probably wouldn't hurt to have the tag either, but we've got a lot of tags already and I'd vote against adding tags unless they really contribute significant value. That being said, if you have enough reputation to create a new tag and you really think one is needed, you can always just go ahead and do it. Checking with meta first is definitely appreciated but in no way required." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10135" RevisionGUID="3ef25c84-29ec-407c-8cfe-4d5b7d0cf3a7" CreationDate="2017-09-04T09:01:52.987" UserId="8563" Text="A [trivial search on the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvote+on+questions) unearths the post detailing the original proposal for this idea and its implementation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Should downvotes on questions be “free”?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/90324/should-downvotes-on-questions-be-free).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motivations are also well explained in the follow-up post [Revisiting free downvotes on questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/221858/revisiting-free-downvotes-on-questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb, whenever the &quot;here&quot; in &quot;this practice has been started here&quot; is the entirety of the Stack Exchange network ─ and particularly for key aspects of the core Q&amp;A engine like this one ─ the place to check is [the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). Asking here, particularly for users with nontrivial experience on this meta, can sometimes look a bit along the lines of &quot;please google this for me&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10137" RevisionGUID="0200a841-4625-4021-8ff7-8799d7eec1ab" CreationDate="2017-09-04T17:32:29.640" UserId="26969" Text="I recently encountered a question about &quot;1000 people whispering&quot; and [wrote an answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/353233/26969). Subsequently I did some experiments where I recorded a whispered sentence 20 times, and did some manipulations to show how this makes the &quot;inaudible&quot; audible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to update my answer with this work - but don't know of a good way to include audio files in the answer. Does anyone have any good suggestions - or even a recommended mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `&lt;audio controls&gt;` HTML5 tag doesn't work... so likely this will be &quot;upload the files somewhere and link&quot;. Which is not very satisfying - I hope there's a better solution, especially since there's always the risk that hosting the audio file elsewhere will cause it to go missing in the future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10137" RevisionGUID="0200a841-4625-4021-8ff7-8799d7eec1ab" CreationDate="2017-09-04T17:32:29.640" UserId="26969" Text="Suggestions on including audio file(s) in answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10137" RevisionGUID="0200a841-4625-4021-8ff7-8799d7eec1ab" CreationDate="2017-09-04T17:32:29.640" UserId="26969" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10137" RevisionGUID="ad582cbe-411f-4885-bca0-35c150a9011c" CreationDate="2017-09-04T17:41:40.173" UserId="26969" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently encountered a question about &quot;1000 people whispering&quot; and [wrote an answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/353233/26969). Subsequently I did some experiments where I recorded a whispered sentence 19 times, and did some manipulations to show how this makes the &quot;inaudible&quot; audible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to update my answer with this work - but don't know of a good way to include audio files in the answer. Does anyone have any good suggestions - or even a recommended mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `&lt;audio controls&gt;` HTML5 tag doesn't work... so likely this will be &quot;upload the files somewhere and link&quot;. Which is not very satisfying - I hope there's a better solution, especially since there's always the risk that hosting the audio file elsewhere will cause it to go missing in the future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10138" RevisionGUID="6ccab6ac-96f1-4c4f-a62c-85eec8496833" CreationDate="2017-09-04T19:11:33.890" UserId="84967" Text="Rather surprisingly, I haven't been able to find a similar query neither on this site nor in mother meta. On the other hand, in *Web Applications Stack Exchange* I  found the post [Is there a “youtube like” service for audio?](https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/933) which contains a lot of interesting suggestions. Please give it a look; I am sure it will prove useful. Cheers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="3e2aba19-6fcc-435b-8920-f67fb7914024" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:21:21.870" UserId="60251" Comment="some grammar changes" Text="I just posted a rainbow related question and thought that a rainbow tag might be useful given that there are a few questions about it. Didn’t want to create one without consulting meta though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30865" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="3e2aba19-6fcc-435b-8920-f67fb7914024" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:21:21.870" UserId="60251" Comment="some grammar changes" Text="Would it make sense to have a rainbow tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30866" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="6cf99226-49e9-4fb9-9586-0c0dbe0a2993" CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:54:30.810" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|policy|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10139" RevisionGUID="836514c6-c633-4d03-b14e-10fcef26be63" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:04:25.220" UserId="41634" Text="Recently I've asked an off-topic question: [How to plot forcing oscillation with damping correctly?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/355610/41634). The close notice has only one line of instruction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that this is not about physics, but the lack of continuing instruction bugs me enough to ask on MSE: [Where to ask about computational code about mismatched results with scientific theories?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/300546/260800) It's until the question is completely closed that I see the link to the help page, and it turns out that the guide has been explicitly said in [What topics can I ask about here?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Implementation details of computational tasks**  &#xD;&#xA;While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for Computational Science or Stack Overflow, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we implement this on the close notice? The more specific the better. At least it would have save me time to ask the close voter back and forth, and time of anyone who read and answer that MSE question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10139" RevisionGUID="836514c6-c633-4d03-b14e-10fcef26be63" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:04:25.220" UserId="41634" Text="Should close notices be more specific?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10139" RevisionGUID="836514c6-c633-4d03-b14e-10fcef26be63" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:04:25.220" UserId="41634" Text="|feature-request|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10139" RevisionGUID="d2ecc2a3-21c6-4a42-9574-7deee306e195" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:09:13.743" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Recently I've asked an off-topic question: [How to plot forcing oscillation with damping correctly?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/355610/41634). The close notice has only one line of instruction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that this is not about physics, but the lack of continuing instruction bugs me enough to ask on Meta.SE: [Where to ask about computational code about mismatched results with scientific theories?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/300546/260800) It's until the question is completely closed that I see the link to the help page, and it turns out that the guide has been explicitly said in [What topics can I ask about here?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Implementation details of computational tasks**  &#xD;&#xA;While computational physics is on topic, we are not a programming site. If your question is about implementing computational code - in particular, if it's about writing, compiling, debugging or optimizing code, or about a specific language or library - then it is off topic. It may be suitable for Computational Science or Stack Overflow, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we implement this on the close notice? The more specific the better. At least it would have save me time to ask the close voter back and forth, and time of anyone who read and answer that MSE question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30871" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10139" RevisionGUID="d2ecc2a3-21c6-4a42-9574-7deee306e195" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:09:13.743" UserId="2451" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|feature-request|closed-questions|close-reasons|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10140" RevisionGUID="8caa7054-30b4-4aae-976d-053a70eb8b85" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:58:44.500" UserId="8563" Text="We have a very limited number of customized canned off-topic closure reasons: at present we have three, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - homework-like,&#xD;&#xA; - non-mainstream, and&#xD;&#xA; - engineering,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which make up [the current close-vote prompt](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TbnKf.png). Stack Exchange is extremely reluctant, on UI grounds, to add more reasons, so the only thing we could do is replace one of those - and, frankly, questions about coding are far less common than those three branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, though, there is the option to close as off-topic for all other possible reasons, i.e. you can choose the option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other (add a comment explaining what is wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that will register as a vote to close as off-topic, leave a comment with the reason, and offer that reason as an option to later close-voters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what happened to your question: sammy gerbil voted to close as off-topic with the custom reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is asking about coding, not physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which then left [this comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/355610/how-to-plot-forcing-ocillation-with-damping-correctly#comment796011_355610), and then two or more [reviewers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/187958) agreed with that reason, resulting in the generic closure banner that you quoted above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, you were given explicit indication of the possible problems with your post from the very first close-vote, which is frankly plenty fair. It might seem harsh, but it *is* your responsibility to ensure that your posts are on-topic, and to seek out the available guidance when it turns out they might not be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the three main closure reasons, there are plenty of small, valid closure reasons, and it's impossible (and not really desirable, either) to try to hammer them into the mold of a single canned reason. Over the past 90 days, custom close reasons make up about 6% of question closures, with a [wide range of custom reasons](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ozbIu.jpg). (To get a linked list of such comments, try [this query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/719512/custom-reason-question-closures).) Generally speaking, they make up too broad a range to congeal into a single canned reason, so your proposal isn't really implementable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="12075b31-ef0b-4e61-bcec-d8fafe43305f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T07:38:46.060" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="Physics.stackexchange currently uses 2.7.1 with the config TeX-AMS_HTML-full which is affected by a visual glitch on both desktop and mobile version of Safari under latest OS, `\vec{x}` results in the arrow displayed too far to the right ([issue #1737](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues/1737)). This has been fixed in 2.7.2. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="12075b31-ef0b-4e61-bcec-d8fafe43305f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T07:38:46.060" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="Update to Mathjax 2.7.2 please" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="12075b31-ef0b-4e61-bcec-d8fafe43305f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T07:38:46.060" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="|bug|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="ec59f240-3397-4db8-943f-ab3c33e03a2e" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:09:31.837" UserId="168460" Text="The chat does not show LaTeX, not even in the comments which were moved to chat and had working LaTeX in the comments section." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="ec59f240-3397-4db8-943f-ab3c33e03a2e" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:09:31.837" UserId="168460" Text="Chat does not support latex input" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="ec59f240-3397-4db8-943f-ab3c33e03a2e" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:09:31.837" UserId="168460" Text="|bug|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10145" RevisionGUID="6e89d1fb-3b95-4e58-a9d1-75f25ffd9997" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:16:42.650" UserId="50583" Text="You need to enable it manually on the client side, see [this mother meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/220976/263383):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * &lt;p&gt;[**ChatJax**](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/should-chat-have-tex-support/3297#3297), a set of bookmarklets by [robjohn](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/users/13854/robjohn) to enable dynamic MathJax support in chat.  Commonly used in the [Mathematics chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36/mathematics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * &lt;p&gt;An alternative [offshoot of ChatJax](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/89/mathjax-in-chat-chatjax-offshoot) by [ManishEarth](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/users/22/manishearth), with support for the mhchem extension used to render chemical formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * &lt;p&gt;[**Google Chrome Chat MathJax Extension**](https://stackapps.com/questions/4370/google-chrome-chat-mathjax-extension): exactly what it says on the tin.  Does more or less the same thing as ChatJax, but packaged as an Google Chrome extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * &lt;p&gt;[**ChatJax++**](https://github.com/vyznev/chatjax), a [Greasemonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) (Firefox) / [Tampermonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo) (Chrome) user script.  Features individual rendering of new chat messages as they arrive, which should hopefully make it a bit faster and more CPU-friendly than the bookmarklet.  Still lacks some planned features, but basic functionality is present.  Requires [SOUP](https://github.com/vyznev/soup).  Supports mhchem in the Chemistry and Biology chat rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &lt;p&gt;A [**script version of ChatJax**](https://gist.github.com/bassup/93f78c0fac2a7be25086) for [Greasemonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) (Firefox) / [Tampermonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo) (Chrome), which automatically enables MathJax rendering in all chat rooms. It has no external dependencies, so people who don't want to use SOUP for some reason might find this useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="e1c84620-e99b-41c0-9809-93ef3394f9e5" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:33:17.683" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|chat|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30887" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="e1c84620-e99b-41c0-9809-93ef3394f9e5" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:33:17.683" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Chat does not support LaTeX input" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="205cbc3e-923e-4251-a18e-df9c720768f7" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:07:29.610" UserId="32426" Comment="http -&gt; https correction" Text="Requests for SE sponsorship to conferences. https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30889" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="205cbc3e-923e-4251-a18e-df9c720768f7" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:07:29.610" Comment="Proposed by 32426 approved by 84967, 60891 edit id of 18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="9ad8abc2-3edc-4a46-bada-604582a48150" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:07:34.767" UserId="32426" Comment="http -&gt; https correction" Text="See [blog post][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;List of all speakers-bureau tagged questions [here][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/supporting-community-conferences/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackexchange.com/filters/18816/meta-speakers-bureau" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30891" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="9ad8abc2-3edc-4a46-bada-604582a48150" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:07:34.767" Comment="Proposed by 32426 approved by 84967, 60891 edit id of 17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="145d647d-01b1-4f04-9b27-bc8006a728ff" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:04:48.237" UserId="7186" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="066f0309-2cda-4db9-aa8c-0b1196fd87a9" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:05:04.023" UserId="7186" Text="Sorry about that. I didn't realize the beta was over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're on v2.7.2 network-wide now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="7a3f18d4-5ff1-428b-9573-d4035e47b472" CreationDate="2017-09-12T20:26:35.593" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[This recent question on an infinite resistor grid][1] is certainly interesting, but why should we include such questions on the site?  The question has already been asked and answered many times on the internet.  In fact, the question is asked simply by copying it from somewhere else, and it is answered (as of now) by linking to a solution somewhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't we want to discourage questions that can easily be answered by a quick search?  Should we ask questions just to have them on this particular site?  If so, we should grab a couple of problem books out of the library and start transcribing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I can think of to encourage this sort of question is that some users might not have seen it before, and will find it fun and amusing to think about.  But that's the only reason I have thought of, and doesn't seem like it's the primary goal of this site; there are other places online dedicated to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2072/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="7a3f18d4-5ff1-428b-9573-d4035e47b472" CreationDate="2017-09-12T20:26:35.593" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="5d1075e4-3fc3-455d-8a0a-1b949a9e360c" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:05:21.027" UserId="25247" Text="In the recent [discussion with Emilio Pisanty][1] I was deprived of the opportunity to write comments. I'd like to know the explanation. Which rule did I violate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417?noredirect=1#comment799094_68417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="5d1075e4-3fc3-455d-8a0a-1b949a9e360c" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:05:21.027" UserId="25247" Text="Which rule did I violate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="5d1075e4-3fc3-455d-8a0a-1b949a9e360c" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:05:21.027" UserId="25247" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30920" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="3c9cb7ab-b7df-4fe5-ba0a-808bae0adce1" CreationDate="2017-09-13T16:20:54.863" UserId="50583" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="d130e0bf-33dd-410d-ba40-96fcab4934e1" CreationDate="2017-09-13T16:39:35.400" UserId="25247" Comment="added 1936 characters in body" Text="In the recent [discussion with Emilio Pisanty][1] I was deprived of the opportunity to write comments. I'd like to know the explanation. Which rule did I violate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT. After Jonh Rennie's comment I found that the possibility to add comments returned back to me. But the problem, I believe, did not disappear. @EmilioPisanty accuses me in cheating [here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You ask for &quot;proofs of the periodic table&quot; without defining what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mean by that term and, frankly, that's little more than an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch trap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's the fact that you leave a yawning abyss of ambiguity in what it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is you're actually asking which you then use to say &quot;no, see, that's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not what I was asking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And at the same time people here [&quot;enroll&quot;][4] my words and vote to delete them. This is not called honesty. I explained what I believe is importat for understanding my question in [my post at Mathoverflow][5] (to which I gave a reference [here][6]). And I tried to explain this in what was [&quot;enrolled&quot;][4]. But it's impossible to explain anything if your interlocutors delete your explanations all the way. And I would say, it's [immoral][7]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe apart from the rules of this forum there are the common rules for all people in all discussions. And one of them is not sutting the mouth of the interlocutor. My question is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether this rule is valid here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417?noredirect=1#comment799094_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799080_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799091_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment143427_16647&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/80146/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#68417&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30922" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="968f4d98-ed72-4e95-8b9f-bae6ab90f7c2" CreationDate="2017-09-13T16:54:00.243" UserId="50583" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="6f7edbc8-f1aa-4802-9981-70cfb5560501" CreationDate="2017-09-13T17:43:27.683" UserId="25247" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In the recent [discussion with Emilio Pisanty][1] I was deprived of the opportunity to write comments. I'd like to know the explanation. Which rule did I violate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT. After Jonh Rennie's comment I found that the possibility to add comments returned back to me. But the problem, I believe, did not disappear. @EmilioPisanty accuses me in cheating [here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You ask for &quot;proofs of the periodic table&quot; without defining what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mean by that term and, frankly, that's little more than an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch trap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's the fact that you leave a yawning abyss of ambiguity in what it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is you're actually asking which you then use to say &quot;no, see, that's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not what I was asking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And at the same time people here [&quot;enroll&quot;][4] my words and vote to delete them. This is not called honesty. I explained what I believe is importat for understanding my question in [my post at Mathoverflow][5] (to which I gave a reference [here][6]). And I tried to explain this in what was [&quot;enrolled&quot;][4]. But it's impossible to explain anything if your interlocutors delete your explanations all the way. And I would say, it's [immoral][7]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe apart from the rules of this forum there are the common rules for all people in all discussions. And one of them is not shutting the mouth of the interlocutor. My question is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether this rule is valid here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417?noredirect=1#comment799094_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799080_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799091_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment143427_16647&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/80146/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#68417&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10151" RevisionGUID="95e1feab-2920-44e0-ab1c-1fb2e0208a7a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:47:07.937" UserId="8563" Text="To address the comments you make in (v2 of) the question in a definitive fashion: you're conflating three very different issues here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One is criticism I had of your question; that's the quotations you give in this question. I am sorry you have such a hard time accepting the fact that people disagree with you, but I stand by my criticism. This criticism does not impact your ability to use the site in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A second issue is the fact that your [edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/16647/revisions) to the question of July 2013 (v4 through v6) do not, as a whole, serve to clarify the question. This is a question-and-answer site, and we expect questions to contain questions and not ongoing discussion, or, in the words of the relevant moderator,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; this is not a discussion forum, nor it is a platform for your epistemological arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Since the edits did not, as a whole, serve to clarify the question, they were rolled back by a moderator, as is standard practice on Stack Exchange. Moreover, at the time of the roll-back (note: roll-back, not &quot;enrolled&quot;) the moderators indicated the reason and noted that the components of the edits that do serve to clarify the question are not problematic. This was perhaps a bit rougher than it could have been but on the whole I find it to be a reasonable moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   To be clear, the parts of those edits that do serve to clarify the question (including e.g. point 1, minus the rant) can be reintroduced, as was indicated by the moderators at the time of the roll-back. You have since declined to re-introduce those parts of the edits, so it is reasonable to surmise that you're satisfied with the state of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The third issue is the fact that [this post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/68417) is not an answer to the question, in the judgement of multiple members of this community. As I said above, this is a question-and-answer site, not a discussion forum; we expect questions to contain questions and answers to contain answers. Comments can be used to help clarify and improve posts, but they are second-class citizens and they are liable to be removed at any time; any free-form discussion is welcome in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com), either in the [main site room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or by making a specific room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is what [this comment](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/39987162#39987162) is about: the 'answer' is not an answer, it is an ill-supported rant commenting on posts from a separate thread. As such, if it does get removed, it is not because of &quot;censorship&quot; or any such; it's because it was posted in the wrong format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Similarly, administrative content like the one introduced in [v3 of that answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/68417/revisions) does not belong in posts, either questions or answers. Use comments or flags instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a couple more comments in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I appreciate that the moderation in MathOverflow is rather different, in some aspects (particularly as regards long-winded free-form discussions), to Stack Exchange in general. That does not mean that MO-style rants are OK here; it means that this venue has different requirements than the ones you might be used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no site moderation mechanism that leads to users being unable to post comments. Unless you can reproduce this situation, it's impossible to know what gave you that impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You keep making categorical statements that &quot;no axiomatization is possible&quot; while linking to the MO thread, which does contain a suitable axiomatization (and without giving any criticism to said axiomatization). As pointed out repeatedly on [the physics thread](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/) a QM explanation of the periodic table is not just doable, it's been done, to any physicist's satisfaction. You did a half-hearted search for axioms you liked, didn't find any, refused to look further even when given explicit leads to follow up, and concluded that there are none ─ kinda like in the saying &quot;absence of evidence is not evidence of absence&quot;, but dropping the &quot;not&quot;. I'm not sure why you think that that's a constructive way to go about an interdisciplinary discussion but let me assure you that it's not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Voting on meta works differently to how it does on main. Downvotes on questions normally do not mean that the question is &quot;bad&quot;; instead, they're often used to express disagreement with the post's premises or its conclusions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10151" RevisionGUID="71d8295e-f9d3-4e47-ac4f-56692bf83c42" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:53:05.993" UserId="8563" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="To address the comments you make in (v2 of) the question in a definitive fashion: you're conflating three very different issues here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One is criticism I had of your question; that's the quotations you give in this question. I am sorry you have such a hard time accepting the fact that people disagree with you, but I stand by my criticism. This criticism does not impact your ability to use the site in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A second issue is the fact that your [edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/16647/revisions) to the question of July 2013 (v4 through v6) do not, as a whole, serve to clarify the question. This is a question-and-answer site, and we expect questions to contain questions and not ongoing discussion, or, in the words of the relevant moderator,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; this is not a discussion forum, nor it is a platform for your epistemological arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Since the edits did not, as a whole, serve to clarify the question, they were rolled back by a moderator, as is standard practice on Stack Exchange. Moreover, at the time of the roll-back (note: roll-back, not &quot;enrolled&quot;) the moderators indicated the reason and noted that the components of the edits that do serve to clarify the question are not problematic. This was perhaps a bit rougher than it could have been but on the whole I find it to be a reasonable moderator action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It's important to note that no content (other than comments) was deleted, and all edits are available via [the question's revision history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/16647/revisions). Saying that content was deleted is a bit of hyperbole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   To be clear, the parts of those edits that do serve to clarify the question (including e.g. point 1, minus the rant) can be reintroduced, as was indicated by the moderators at the time of the roll-back. You have since declined to re-introduce those parts of the edits, so it is reasonable to surmise that you're satisfied with the state of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The third issue is the fact that [this post](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/68417) is not an answer to the question, in the judgement of multiple members of this community. As I said above, this is a question-and-answer site, not a discussion forum; we expect questions to contain questions and answers to contain answers. Comments can be used to help clarify and improve posts, but they are second-class citizens and they are liable to be removed at any time; any free-form discussion is welcome in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com), either in the [main site room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or by making a specific room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is what [this comment](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/39987162#39987162) is about: the 'answer' is not an answer, it is an ill-supported rant commenting on posts from a separate thread. As such, if it does get removed, it is not because of &quot;censorship&quot; or any such; it's because it was posted in the wrong format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Similarly, administrative content like the one introduced in [v3 of that answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/68417/revisions) does not belong in posts, either questions or answers. Use comments or flags instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a couple more comments in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I appreciate that the moderation in MathOverflow is rather different, in some aspects (particularly as regards long-winded free-form discussions), to Stack Exchange in general. That does not mean that MO-style rants are OK here; it means that this venue has different requirements than the ones you might be used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no site moderation mechanism that leads to users being unable to post comments. Unless you can reproduce this situation, it's impossible to know what gave you that impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You keep making categorical statements that &quot;no axiomatization is possible&quot; while linking to the MO thread, which does contain a suitable axiomatization (and without giving any criticism to said axiomatization). As pointed out repeatedly on [the physics thread](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/) a QM explanation of the periodic table is not just doable, it's been done, to any physicist's satisfaction. You did a half-hearted search for axioms you liked, didn't find any, refused to look further even when given explicit leads to follow up, and concluded that there are none ─ kinda like in the saying &quot;absence of evidence is not evidence of absence&quot;, but dropping the &quot;not&quot;. I'm not sure why you think that that's a constructive way to go about an interdisciplinary discussion but let me assure you that it's not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Voting on meta works differently to how it does on main. Downvotes on questions normally do not mean that the question is &quot;bad&quot;; instead, they're often used to express disagreement with the post's premises or its conclusions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="63ee0b04-05b6-416b-8851-d7b4c8b0ee0c" CreationDate="2017-09-14T17:52:15.840" UserId="25247" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="In the recent [discussion with Emilio Pisanty][1] I was deprived of the opportunity to write comments. I'd like to know the explanation. Which rule did I violate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT. After Jonh Rennie's comment I found that the possibility to add comments returned back to me. But the problem, I believe, did not disappear. @EmilioPisanty accuses me in cheating [here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You ask for &quot;proofs of the periodic table&quot; without defining what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mean by that term and, frankly, that's little more than an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch trap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's the fact that you leave a yawning abyss of ambiguity in what it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is you're actually asking which you then use to say &quot;no, see, that's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not what I was asking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And at the same time people here [&quot;rolled back&quot;][4] my words and vote to delete them. This is not called honesty. I explained what I believe is importat for understanding my question in [my post at Mathoverflow][5] (to which I gave a reference [here][6]). And I tried to explain this here, at physics.stackexchange.com, in what was [&quot;rolled back&quot;][7] later. But it's impossible to explain anything if your interlocutors delete your explanations all the way. And I would say, it's [immoral][8]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe apart from the rules of this forum there are the common rules for all people in all discussions. And one of them is not shutting the mouth of the interlocutor. My question is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether this rule is valid here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417?noredirect=1#comment799094_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799080_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799091_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment143427_16647&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/80146/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#68417&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/16647/4&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10152" RevisionGUID="55f0c3b8-c880-4f15-88f2-31e49db90dea" CreationDate="2017-09-15T02:21:44.137" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="Mathjax is slow enough that for math-heavy questions or answers my Safari 10 can barely keep up on a 3 years old mac (I am giving these details for precision sake: this is not a bug report but a feature request!). I have been experimenting with [KaTeX](https://khan.github.io/KaTeX/) for my own stuff and I am very impressed with the speed. Their web page offers an interactive sandbox to try it. It has been around for a while and it supports most of what Mathjax does, including matrices, underbrace, a lot of AMS math. The most glaring missing feature is the lack of support for equation numbers (not even \tag is supported) and it might be considered a showstopper for stackexchange. Anyway, I think this is worth a discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10152" RevisionGUID="55f0c3b8-c880-4f15-88f2-31e49db90dea" CreationDate="2017-09-15T02:21:44.137" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="KaTeX instead of Mathjax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10152" RevisionGUID="55f0c3b8-c880-4f15-88f2-31e49db90dea" CreationDate="2017-09-15T02:21:44.137" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10152" RevisionGUID="1827b96a-b9cb-4d60-b56c-68857d87ad31" CreationDate="2017-09-15T03:09:45.073" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="db438c74-5d90-43e8-bd62-ef7b559493e9" CreationDate="2017-09-16T01:26:42.493" UserId="46399" Comment="Typo" Text="In the recent [discussion with Emilio Pisanty][1] I was deprived of the opportunity to write comments. I'd like to know the explanation. Which rule did I violate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT. After John Rennie's comment I found that the possibility to add comments returned back to me. But the problem, I believe, did not disappear. @EmilioPisanty accuses me in cheating [here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You ask for &quot;proofs of the periodic table&quot; without defining what you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mean by that term and, frankly, that's little more than an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch trap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's the fact that you leave a yawning abyss of ambiguity in what it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is you're actually asking which you then use to say &quot;no, see, that's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not what I was asking&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And at the same time people here [&quot;rolled back&quot;][4] my words and vote to delete them. This is not called honesty. I explained what I believe is importat for understanding my question in [my post at Mathoverflow][5] (to which I gave a reference [here][6]). And I tried to explain this here, at physics.stackexchange.com, in what was [&quot;rolled back&quot;][7] later. But it's impossible to explain anything if your interlocutors delete your explanations all the way. And I would say, it's [immoral][8]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe apart from the rules of this forum there are the common rules for all people in all discussions. And one of them is not shutting the mouth of the interlocutor. My question is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether this rule is valid here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417?noredirect=1#comment799094_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799080_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment799091_68417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#comment143427_16647&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/80146/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics/68417#68417&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/16647/4&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="17b2e0d1-6f90-48f6-bde1-12e59612ddbb" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:00:08.657" UserId="149663" Text="A few days back, my reputation was 931. However, each day I found it going down by 2, and now it stands at 919.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone account for this loss? It seems no one has downvoted my answer or question as it doesn't cross up in the achievements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="17b2e0d1-6f90-48f6-bde1-12e59612ddbb" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:00:08.657" UserId="149663" Text="A decrease in reputation from 931 to 919 - what's the reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="17b2e0d1-6f90-48f6-bde1-12e59612ddbb" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:00:08.657" UserId="149663" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10154" RevisionGUID="2081a480-2b6e-4c5a-9445-08f6b34088ac" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:09:51.347" UserId="2451" Text="You have previously edited 6 questions and got $2 \times6=12$ reputation points. Later these questions were deleted, thereby canceling the previous gained $12$ reputation points. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10154" RevisionGUID="d826a8d7-4441-4f1b-82e8-41c90c6f8a1e" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:16:19.187" UserId="2451" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="You have previously edited 6 questions and got $2 \times6=12$ reputation points. Later these questions were deleted, thereby canceling the previous gained $12$ reputation points. See e.g. [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/149845/209806) &amp; [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/296055/209806) mother meta posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="6af0d8de-dbe9-4247-8b07-94558a85e4f8" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:20:06.123" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|editing|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30939" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="503ba1a4-20ec-4edc-b2d1-e3e99ad45581" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:53:21.487" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7104],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10155" RevisionGUID="22ff3989-2a85-41f7-88bb-01be8368a90d" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:05:33.160" UserId="28942" Text="On the [physics tags page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags), the tags `mathematical-physics` and `mathematics` are described as &quot;Just because your question involves math!...&quot;  whereas on the actual pages for the tags,&#xD;&#xA; the descriptions of both begin, &quot;DO NOT USE THIS TAG just because your question involves math!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have to assume that this is an issue with the rendering of the aforementioned capitalized warning. Is there something we can do about this? For reference...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the search results for the tags on the physics tags page linked above:&#xD;&#xA;[![Tags: Just because your question involves math][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are the actual descriptions of the tags on their [respective](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/mathematics/info) [pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/mathematical-physics/info):&#xD;&#xA;[![Tags: DO NOT USE THIS TAG just because your question involves math][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eT0AN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b0usx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10155" RevisionGUID="22ff3989-2a85-41f7-88bb-01be8368a90d" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:05:33.160" UserId="28942" Text="Problems with tag notes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10155" RevisionGUID="22ff3989-2a85-41f7-88bb-01be8368a90d" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:05:33.160" UserId="28942" Text="|bug|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10156" RevisionGUID="2781ce9c-5b2f-47a9-802c-915d53d2e9ce" CreationDate="2017-09-18T11:21:13.730" UserId="8563" Text="Yeah, this seems like a big [tag:bug].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to see what would happen, I added some dummy all-caps text to an existing tag,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWrYb.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then it displays correctly in the Ask a Question page,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/D2GxD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;aaaaaand... bizarrely enough, it displayed incorrectly in the main tags page, but not as incorrectly as the two math tags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ltzcD.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (note that THIS IS is missing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also did a [dummy edit to one of the math tags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/348331/revisions) to see if the problem would go away, but it didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's obviously some text parsing code gone haywire somewhere in the stack that's causing this buggy behaviour and which should be fixed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10157" RevisionGUID="531242a4-a5b8-4065-845e-b8851c50f673" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:15:33.790" UserId="1094" Text="This question was given an excellent answer to address a practical problem. Then it was put on hold. Reasons given were that it's a homework question, and that nothing was done to attempt to solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first complaint, the question was simplified by request from the original to make it somewhat solvable, though this made it more homework-like; also a picture was added showing the container in question. Whatever process people are using to identify a problem as &quot;homework&quot; doesn't seem to be 100% reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second complaint, I can only say there's no attempt given to solve the problem on the basis that I don't have the expertise to select the appropriate formula to solve the problem, at least, not the level of expertise demonstrated in @JMLCarter's excellent, detailed, and deleted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/357415/how-much-wind-force-would-it-take-to-move-a-20-foot-shipping-container&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an appropriate way to get solutions to practical problems using the physics site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10157" RevisionGUID="531242a4-a5b8-4065-845e-b8851c50f673" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:15:33.790" UserId="1094" Text="Question thought to be a homework question and put on hold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10157" RevisionGUID="531242a4-a5b8-4065-845e-b8851c50f673" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:15:33.790" UserId="1094" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10157" RevisionGUID="e73a7828-8562-4cb8-9b9f-c0f3ea9890d6" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:17:16.797" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This question was given an excellent answer to address a practical problem. Then it was put on hold. Reasons given were that it's a homework question, and that nothing was done to attempt to solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first complaint, the question was simplified by request from the original to make it somewhat solvable, though this made it more homework-like; also a picture was added showing the container in question. Whatever process people are using to identify a problem as &quot;homework&quot; doesn't seem to be 100% reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second complaint, I can only say there's no attempt given to solve the problem on the basis that I don't have the expertise to select the appropriate formula to solve the problem, at least, not the level of expertise demonstrated in @JMLCarter's excellent, detailed, and deleted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/357415/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an appropriate way to get solutions to practical problems using the physics site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30948" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10157" RevisionGUID="e73a7828-8562-4cb8-9b9f-c0f3ea9890d6" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:17:16.797" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="e4b62a60-a958-44d2-bf3a-77655349eb4b" CreationDate="2017-09-18T18:01:37.957" UserId="127931" Text="From my perspective, this is a question looking for a solution to a _specific_ example.  As such, it would essentially fall under our [&quot;homework and exercises&quot;](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) criteria.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of &quot;how fast would the wind need to be to topple this over?&quot; is _very_ specific to your one problem; and shows no attempt at solving it. &#xD;&#xA; Although your intentions may be fine, you could have a homework assignment with this exact question on it.  Therefore, in it's current format, the question you ask _is_ in violation of that policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a site for questions _about_ physics; not a site where we _do_ physics exercises for you (regardless of your intentions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might seem a bit disappointing to you; but it's hard to maintain a high quality site while also allowing questions looking for a worked example.  If we were to get a reputation for that; suddenly we would be everyone's number crunchers every time they got a tricky physics assignment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="03af0b30-aa99-41cb-97cc-95dd87d574a1" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:17:02.973" UserId="124" Text="With the top bar redesign, the header seems not to be tall enough to contain its content anymore. In this image, you can see the blue translucent background under &quot;QUESTIONS&quot; overhanging the background pattern on the bottom, and under the &quot;PHYSICS&quot; logo, part of that image also overhangs the background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of site header][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dLN5n.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="03af0b30-aa99-41cb-97cc-95dd87d574a1" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:17:02.973" UserId="124" Text="Header background not tall enough" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="03af0b30-aa99-41cb-97cc-95dd87d574a1" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:17:02.973" UserId="124" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="3fc67b41-5d0a-455a-8509-b55303f91e7f" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:45:35.223" UserId="124" Comment="add browser information" Text="With the top bar redesign, in Chrome the header seems not to be tall enough to contain its content anymore. In this image, you can see the blue translucent background under &quot;QUESTIONS&quot; overhanging the background pattern on the bottom, and under the &quot;PHYSICS&quot; logo, part of that image also overhangs the background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of site header][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tested this on a few browsers and found that it occurs with Chrome 60.0.3112.113 on OS X and Chromium 59.0.3071.104 on Linux, but not with Firefox 52.3.0 on Linux, Vivaldi 1.11.917.43 on Linux, or Safari 10.1.2 (12603.3.8) on OS X. So, seemingly Chrome-specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be checked and fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dLN5n.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="a99bb2f7-232f-49d0-a7b7-a53152e8c7e2" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:59:04.683" UserId="108742" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-planned|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="9bb196be-0b1f-4438-93f4-c1c205e88d19" CreationDate="2017-09-20T00:49:16.603" UserId="36194" Text="We all have answered or will answer questions in which we give away too much.  Yet in some cases a good answer will very much broaden the scope of a specific question, and the question plus the answer are good contents for the site.  I think this is the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question as posted by the OP isn't fantastic for the reasons given by others: basically, the OP asks for the community to solve for him (assuming from the username the OP is a man) a problem that is rather vague and contains no primary data on the container, its contents etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the lack of specific data makes it unlikely that this is a true homework question, yet it is clear the OP should have shown much greater diligence by suggesting some general principle or demonstrating clearly some effort at solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one member rose to the challenge and actually came up with a solution which contains simple, conceptual and reasonable physics.  Beyond the physics the solution is quite informative.  On balance my personal opinion is that a good answer salvaged the question, and the community would benefit if this question and its answer were undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30962" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="760b7d7d-7c3c-4af5-9091-b5e5b7409949" CreationDate="2017-09-20T00:55:01.453" UserId="36194" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:36194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ZeroTheHero&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="ae38cf9b-95ce-4039-92e4-180ffb3f04ae" CreationDate="2017-09-20T00:55:25.057" UserId="36194" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I deleted this on purpose.  never mind my ramblings..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="61547617-db72-4519-a329-e86f0bc54f62" CreationDate="2017-09-20T01:03:30.143" UserId="36194" Comment="added 1017 characters in body" Text="We all have answered or will answer questions in which we give away too much.  Yet in some cases a good answer will very much broaden the scope of a specific question.  I think this is the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question as posted by the OP isn't fantastic for the reasons given by others: basically, the OP asks for the community to solve for him (assuming from the username the OP is a man) a problem that is rather vague and contains very little information.  This lack of specific data makes it unlikely that this is a true homework question, although the OP should have shown greater diligence by suggesting some general principle or demonstrating clearly some effort at solution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, one member rose to the challenge and actually came up with a solution which contains simple, conceptual and reasonable physics.  Beyond the physics the answer is rather informative.  On balance my personal opinion is that a good answer salvaged the question, and the community would benefit if this question and its answer were undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30965" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="37191e4d-1441-45f3-b272-767d7457def7" CreationDate="2017-09-20T01:06:58.757" UserId="36194" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:36194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ZeroTheHero&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="2de4e9cd-37db-4d98-88d3-ebc1411b0636" CreationDate="2017-09-20T19:19:09.327" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified status of the top bar rollout." Text="With the top bar redesign (currently mod-only, broader rollout [planned](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/300829/new-top-bar-is-coming-to-the-stack-exchange-network) for the next couple of weeks) in Chrome the header seems not to be tall enough to contain its content anymore. In this image, you can see the blue translucent background under &quot;QUESTIONS&quot; overhanging the background pattern on the bottom, and under the &quot;PHYSICS&quot; logo, part of that image also overhangs the background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot of site header][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tested this on a few browsers and found that it occurs with Chrome 60.0.3112.113 on OS X and Chromium 59.0.3071.104 on Linux, but not with Firefox 52.3.0 on Linux, Vivaldi 1.11.917.43 on Linux, or Safari 10.1.2 (12603.3.8) on OS X. So, seemingly Chrome-specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be checked and fixed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dLN5n.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30970" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="2de4e9cd-37db-4d98-88d3-ebc1411b0636" CreationDate="2017-09-20T19:19:09.327" UserId="8563" Comment="Clarified status of the top bar rollout." Text="Header background not tall enough with the new top bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="975a7269-da3a-4927-a3e3-028436e4df1b" CreationDate="2017-09-21T06:27:44.200" UserId="108742" Text="[meta-tag:status-completed] Thanks again for reporting. It should be fixed now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30973" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="f7638169-61db-45bd-8427-8444285ff4b8" CreationDate="2017-09-21T06:27:53.457" UserId="108742" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-completed|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="10692d7f-e302-4240-b5d2-888ed25bd131" CreationDate="2017-09-22T13:18:24.283" UserDisplayName="user143777" Text="In my early days of using Physics Stack Exchange, I had no idea how the website worked and admittedly didn't do my research. And I'm talking about one question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked only 6 questions - two with a total of 3 downvotes asked a while ago, one without any positive or negative votes, and three (my latest questions) with a total of 5 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, all of my answers except one (which received no up/downvotes) have had positive votes, have been accepted, or have had both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the above, it came to my total surprise when I got the following message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry, we are no longer accepting questions from this account. See the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Help Center to learn more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the article, and while 30% of my answers have downvotes, my 'contributions' obviously outweigh these downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my negative votes were only on my oldest question, and **one** question I asked a month ago (which was succeeded by questions with only positive votes), then why is it that StackExchange bans me? Is the entire system really that undemocratic? Is it a technical bug? Is it some rule that I skipped?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my [account][1] for reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/143777/aditya-radhakrishnan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="10692d7f-e302-4240-b5d2-888ed25bd131" CreationDate="2017-09-22T13:18:24.283" UserDisplayName="user143777" Text="Why was I banned despite recently having only positive answer and question reactions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="10692d7f-e302-4240-b5d2-888ed25bd131" CreationDate="2017-09-22T13:18:24.283" UserDisplayName="user143777" Text="|support|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="930f69c4-6107-4788-ac33-278f7a21223b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T13:22:15.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="In my early days of using Physics Stack Exchange, I had no idea how the website worked and admittedly didn't do my research. And I'm talking about one question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked only 6 questions - two with a total of 3 downvotes asked a while ago, one without any positive or negative votes, and three (my latest questions) with a total of 5 upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, all of my answers except one (which received no up/downvotes) have had positive votes, have been accepted, or have had both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the above, it came to my total surprise when I got the following message:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry, we are no longer accepting questions from this account. See the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Help Center to learn more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the article, and while 30% of my answers have downvotes, my 'contributions' obviously outweigh these downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my negative votes were only on my oldest question, and **one** question I asked a month ago (which was succeeded by questions with only positive votes), then why is it that StackExchange bans me? Is the entire system really that undemocratic? Is it a technical bug? Is it some rule that I skipped?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my [account][1] for reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/143777/aditya-radhakrishnan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30978" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="930f69c4-6107-4788-ac33-278f7a21223b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T13:22:15.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why was I blocked from asking a question despite recently having only positive answer and question reactions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10165" RevisionGUID="5711ddee-2f15-4c03-85fc-eb8d73db496f" CreationDate="2017-09-22T13:41:24.120" UserId="50583" Text="You have been automatically restricted from asking further questions due to the [rolling rate limit](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243460/263383) and/or the [comprehensive question ban](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/263383), and should be directed to [this help center page](https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans) by the message you get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact algorithm by which these question blocks are imposed is not public to avoid people gaming it, but it is known that questions which are *downvoted*, *closed* and *deleted* factor into it, and questions which are all three count with a much higher weight. For another instantiation of this philosophy, see the [notion of a positive question record](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/290546/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this record is not what the question block uses, but it might be instructive to compute it for your case, anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have asked 10 questions, four of which are deleted, five of which are closed and five of which currently have negative score. This means your question record is&#xD;&#xA;$$ \frac{10 - 4 - 5 - 5}{10} = -0.4,$$&#xD;&#xA;which is far below the $0.5$ SE considers the minimum for having a &quot;positive question record&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10167" RevisionGUID="10aa3e6b-8b63-4eba-a175-f3f012fb2fdc" CreationDate="2017-09-24T09:50:43.473" UserId="149370" Text="Today, I gained +60 reputation points.  The majority of these gains were from numerous questions/answers I wrote quite a while back.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not have this type of gain in any day of the past few weeks, especially not from such a wide variety of questions/answers I wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also just so happens that today I joined Stack Exchange Academia, asked a question there, and answered one question here on Stack Exchange Physics.  Does this have anything to do with my unexpected gain recently?  Does the website make my questions/answers more accessible if I show more activity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10167" RevisionGUID="10aa3e6b-8b63-4eba-a175-f3f012fb2fdc" CreationDate="2017-09-24T09:50:43.473" UserId="149370" Text="Puzzling Increase in Rep Points Today" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10167" RevisionGUID="10aa3e6b-8b63-4eba-a175-f3f012fb2fdc" CreationDate="2017-09-24T09:50:43.473" UserId="149370" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10168" RevisionGUID="d73632a5-4a59-4790-a423-0bf2aa5b640d" CreationDate="2017-09-24T11:13:39.043" UserId="1325" Text="This happens to me from time to time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect when someone sees a question or answer of yours that they like they will then look at your other questions and answers, and they may upvote some of them as well. I doubt is due to the SE bumping your posts because as far as I know having one of your questions or answers upvoted has no effect on your other questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As ACuriousMind mentions in a comment, If someone gives you lots of upvotes in a short space of time the SE is likely to conclude this looks a suspicious voting pattern and may cancel the upvotes. If they have disappeared tomorrow that is probably what happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="a03af230-c8da-42a2-a3b0-5d2da45ef0b3" CreationDate="2017-09-24T14:38:41.463" UserId="162215" Text="I am trying very hard to change my profile pic. How can I do it? I think it is some reputation thing is it so? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="a03af230-c8da-42a2-a3b0-5d2da45ef0b3" CreationDate="2017-09-24T14:38:41.463" UserId="162215" Text="How to change Profile pic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="a03af230-c8da-42a2-a3b0-5d2da45ef0b3" CreationDate="2017-09-24T14:38:41.463" UserId="162215" Text="|feature-request|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="d8add1a7-ca08-4b73-85d7-2a15c6f4ac5a" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:17:12.733" UserId="84967" Text="Reputation has nothing to do with you being able to change your profile pic. You should be able to change it, as often as you like, and to whichever image you want (with the obvious exceptions, cf. [this meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243285)), regardless of your reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see [How do I change my profile picture, or avatar?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41277)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="2ce7c464-c904-4621-8a3c-a5698c026da3" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:19:00.793" UserId="84967" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I am trying very hard to change my profile pic. How can I do it? I think it is some reputation thing; is it so? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="2ce7c464-c904-4621-8a3c-a5698c026da3" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:19:00.793" UserId="84967" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="e6c73522-9323-49e4-ba32-25bd6005dd15" CreationDate="2017-09-25T08:41:52.403" UserId="84967" Comment="added 957 characters in body" Text="Reputation has nothing to do with you being able to change your profile pic. You should be able to change it, as often as you like, and to whichever image you want (with the obvious exceptions, cf. [this meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243285)), regardless of your reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see [How do I change my profile picture, or avatar?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41277). Quoting the relevant part,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### How do I change my profile picture, or avatar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Stack Exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Navigate to your profile (click on your username at the top of the page)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Go to the [&quot;Edit Profile &amp; Settings&quot; tab](https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/edit/current), and there will be &quot;Change picture&quot; link in the bottom of your existing avatar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Click on &quot;Change picture&quot; and a box will pop up giving you the option to choose between Gravatar, Identicon, your last uploaded picture, or uploading a new picture.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Click &lt;kbd&gt;Save changes just for this community&lt;/kbd&gt; to save the new avatar only for that specific site, or &lt;kbd&gt;Save and copy changes to all Stack Exchange communities&lt;/kbd&gt; to save the new avatar to all sites you have account on. **(Note: this will also override your whole information on all sites, e.g. *About Me*, *email* etc.)**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Images get updated quite quickly - you may need to clear your cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KpuOW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10172" RevisionGUID="1402d038-c7ec-4198-b19f-b7fce1c19420" CreationDate="2017-09-26T11:02:30.330" UserId="2451" Text="Perhaps this is a good opportunity to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. encourage users to vote. You decide what are quality posts on Phys.SE and what is not. Currently Phys.SE gets around 200 votes per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. urge voters to vote accounting to content, not the author, nor because of what other voted, etc. In particular, only voting on posts from a single poster (known as [serial voting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/209806)) is frown upon, and may lead to moderator actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10172" RevisionGUID="065ad880-b388-40b9-b801-e2f7aa6175a7" CreationDate="2017-09-26T14:13:34.927" UserId="2451" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Perhaps this is a good opportunity to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. encourage users to vote. You decide what are quality posts on Phys.SE and what is not. Currently (September 2017) Phys.SE gets around 200 posts and 500 votes per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. urge voters to vote accounting to content, not the author, nor because of what other voted, etc. In particular, only voting on posts from a single poster (known as [serial voting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/209806)) is frown upon, and may lead to moderator actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10172" RevisionGUID="d7b1e9e6-f24d-49f0-bfc3-d030296535d5" CreationDate="2017-09-26T22:19:18.630" UserId="36194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Perhaps this is a good opportunity to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. encourage users to vote. You decide what are quality posts on Phys.SE and what is not. Currently (September 2017) Phys.SE gets around 200 posts and 500 votes per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. urge voters to vote according to content, not the author, nor because of what others voted, etc. In particular, only voting on posts from a single poster (known as [serial voting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/209806)) is frowned upon, and may lead to moderator actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="95c35139-ddb5-499a-9d86-fcad198a5b27" CreationDate="2017-09-27T05:15:20.370" UserId="4993" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/359310/how-do-we-know-tachyons-dont-exist-second-try&quot;&gt;This (admittedly naive) question&lt;/a&gt; (asking whether the existence of tachyons would have observable consequences) seems to me to be clearly about mainstream physics, though it was closed as non-mainstream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is that the existence of tachyons would have observable consequences that contradict mainstream physics, that answer is mainstream physics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mainstream textbooks often say things like &quot;Perpetual motion machines are impossible because they would have such-and-such observable consequences which contradict other things we know about&quot;.  Why can't a mainstream Q&amp;A treat tachyons the same way? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="95c35139-ddb5-499a-9d86-fcad198a5b27" CreationDate="2017-09-27T05:15:20.370" UserId="4993" Text="Mainstream physics closed as non-mainstream" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="95c35139-ddb5-499a-9d86-fcad198a5b27" CreationDate="2017-09-27T05:15:20.370" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10174" RevisionGUID="823ea850-9647-4203-8f24-e16f869aa4ab" CreationDate="2017-09-27T05:42:10.223" UserId="2451" Text="The question (v2) that was closed as non-mainstream read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So here's my question. Let's say that in the year 2067, a highly advanced alien race decides to send a message back in time 50 years to Earth in 2017. How could they send such a signal so that it could be detected by 2017 technology? I understand this isn't possible under mainstream physics, but let's assume mainstream physics is wrong. Hypothetically, how could it happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was later edited by OP, and is currently (Sept 27, 2017) in the review queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10174" RevisionGUID="c13491b5-120f-48df-9556-0c84a77f276b" CreationDate="2017-09-27T07:02:29.000" UserId="2451" Comment="Added title " Text="The [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/359310/revisions) (v2) that was closed as non-mainstream read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Title: How would a tachyonic antitelephone work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So here's my question. Let's say that in the year 2067, a highly advanced alien race decides to send a message back in time 50 years to Earth in 2017. How could they send such a signal so that it could be detected by 2017 technology? I understand this isn't possible under mainstream physics, but let's assume mainstream physics is wrong. Hypothetically, how could it happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was later edited by OP, and is currently (Sept 27, 2017) in the review queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10172" RevisionGUID="0f84157f-1d25-499c-bec2-5a8b0f44b374" CreationDate="2017-09-27T16:33:52.607" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="Perhaps this is a good opportunity to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. encourage users to vote. You decide what are quality posts on Phys.SE and what are not. Currently (September 2017) Phys.SE gets around 200 posts and 500 votes per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. urge voters to vote according to content, not the author, nor because of what others voted, etc. In particular, only voting on posts from a single poster (known as [serial voting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/209806)) is frowned upon, and may lead to moderator actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="4f90229a-6e58-4c8a-8921-68ca774ce293" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:21:22.843" UserId="75633" Text="I believe some old questions would be quickly closed if asked today (e.g.,  [What is sound and how is it produced?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/13/75633) in my opinion is too broad and shows too little prior research effort).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should we do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* always leave them alone, 5+ years is history;&#xD;&#xA;* consider voting to close, but only if there aren't very good answers &quot;rescuing&quot; it;&#xD;&#xA;* not take the question's age into account at all when casting votes;&#xD;&#xA;* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, voting is a judgment call, my question is how (and whether) to take the post age into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer and discussion in the question https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5378/75633 shows we don't shy away from disturbing archaeological questions in case of a policy change, but I'm not convinced the situations are equivalent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="4f90229a-6e58-4c8a-8921-68ca774ce293" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:21:22.843" UserId="75633" Text="Should we vote to close old questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="4f90229a-6e58-4c8a-8921-68ca774ce293" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:21:22.843" UserId="75633" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31015" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="82c3d3c5-e132-432a-8b8b-e8e060729f3d" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:24:04.893" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10176" RevisionGUID="5bafb5f2-af0f-40fe-9374-701a3fbd1456" CreationDate="2017-09-27T21:42:42.443" UserId="84967" Text="My philosophy when reviewing question is to not look at the date, the author or the answers. An off-topic post is off-topic regardless of when was it posted, by whom, and of the presence of very good answers. And vice-versa: and on-topic post is on-topic because of its content, not its context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense, my suggestion is: do not take the age of a post into consideration when voting to close (or to leave open). If it is off-topic today, vote to close it. The fact that it was on-topic back in the day, when policies were under construction, should be of no relevance for this decision. I believe this is what most reviewers do anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10177" RevisionGUID="2b17dba8-c0cb-4ce5-a361-43eba871bac8" CreationDate="2017-09-27T21:46:36.137" UserId="124" Text="I don't think questions should be considered ineligible for closing because of their age. People do sometimes use those questions as examples to help them learn what is appropriate for the site and what isn't, and in that sense it's strictly better to have questions closed or not closed according to the site's current standards than the alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, old close-worthy questions aren't exactly a priority for closing because they aren't getting viewed very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation is that if you see an old question that looks deserving of closure, post about it in [the chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71). If you find several other people in agreement who can all cast close votes, you can all cast your votes and make sure the question actually does get closed. If you don't get a response, you can still vote to close as you see fit, but there's a higher risk your vote will age away without the question getting enough attention to actually effect the closure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR don't take post age into account when deciding if a question deserves to be closed, but maybe take the age into account when deciding how to go about getting it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW I'm rather skeptical of the idea that a good answer can singlehandedly &quot;rescue&quot; a question which otherwise deserved to be closed, but I think that's tangential to the main point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="436f42ba-5a1d-414e-9a6f-74e1e1787c81" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:23:48.997" UserId="8563" Text="I know that we don't use the [spoiler syntax in Markdown](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1191/add-markdown-support-for-hidden-until-you-click-text-aka-spoilers) very often, but it seems it's a bit buggy, at least on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following test of the spoiler tag, containing both some text and an image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;! This is a test of the spoiler tag.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &gt;! ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vECQ8.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This displays incorrectly, and it just registers as a normal blockquote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7m91i.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This behaviour goes away if you separate the text from the image with, say, a horizontal rule, but this is hardly ideal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TqQb8.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that this is buggy behaviour and ought to be fixed (and also fixable relatively easily?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="436f42ba-5a1d-414e-9a6f-74e1e1787c81" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:23:48.997" UserId="8563" Text="Buggy behaviour of spoiler tags when they contain both text and images" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="436f42ba-5a1d-414e-9a6f-74e1e1787c81" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:23:48.997" UserId="8563" Text="|bug|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="55ea348d-67d5-47e0-8c3d-86cc1246053b" CreationDate="2017-09-28T17:39:14.970" UserId="84967" Text="&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vECQ8.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="4be6e985-28d6-4a15-9faa-05ea009ca3e5" CreationDate="2017-09-28T18:03:13.560" UserId="8563" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vECQ8.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. It works fine for short lines but if the image starts in the middle of a line, it doesn't do very well. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEclH.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="2dedcfc2-213d-4abb-a54b-5c4d52c07029" CreationDate="2017-09-28T18:04:16.733" UserId="8563" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vECQ8.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. It works fine for short lines and large images, but if the image starts in the middle of a line, it doesn't do very well. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEclH.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="7a227f55-80e2-443c-ac67-d27db0049d1e" CreationDate="2017-09-28T18:07:09.173" UserId="84967" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vECQ8.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. It works fine for short lines and large images, but if the image starts in the middle of a line, it doesn't do very well. ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEclH.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!This is a test of the spoiler tag. It works fine for short lines and large images, but if the image starts in the middle of a line, it doesn't do very well. $${}$$ ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEclH.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="8aa95e5a-bd66-400d-9329-a2278c3a16be" CreationDate="2017-09-28T19:21:47.303" UserId="84967" Comment="deleted 351 characters in body" Text="Buggy indeed. Utill its fixed, here is a workaround:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!After the text, insert an invisible `$${}$$.` $${}$$ ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dT27P.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="b9ef519c-1518-4330-a828-4c2b0eeedcce" CreationDate="2017-09-29T20:11:22.063" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="What exactly does this mean? Could I be banned from asking questions just for clearing out trash / malformed questions that received answers that are just of the form &quot;Your premise is wrong&quot; or Duplicates? I could maybe understand the virtue of leaving the former up so anyone else caught in the same moment of confusion / idiocy can learn what's going wrong, but why the latter? Surely deleting duplicates wouldn't harm the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="b9ef519c-1518-4330-a828-4c2b0eeedcce" CreationDate="2017-09-29T20:11:22.063" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="&quot;Repeated Deletion of Answered Questions&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="b9ef519c-1518-4330-a828-4c2b0eeedcce" CreationDate="2017-09-29T20:11:22.063" UserDisplayName="user95137" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10182" RevisionGUID="2a20b06b-c15b-44bf-a7fb-1b7b6a1d0568" CreationDate="2017-09-29T21:11:05.897" UserId="8563" Text="When you post a question on Stack Exchange, you're soliciting other people to do work for you, in the form of answers. In the Stack Exchange mentality (which I agree with), it is impolite to then remove the content that those other people have produced for you, and the system tends to see that as a negative signal in various ways. As a simple example, of the system has *any* indication that that content has any quality (that is, if it's been upvoted) then the system will not let you delete the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've asked a question with incorrect premises and received answers that helped you realise that fact, then it's a bit ungrateful to then delete those answers. That's compounded by the fact that writing that kind of answer is quite often a significant risk, as it is often hard to gauge whether the OP will get belligerent when their assumptions get questioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as for duplicates the standard practice is to leave them up as signposts to the existing, answered question. The thinking is that if you were unable to find that thread because, say, you used keywords that didn't quite match the existing text, then there's a nontrivial likelihood that someone else will come along and use the same search terms, which will lead them to your question and from there to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, only delete questions, and particularly quadros with answers, when you really need to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if bears mention, deletion sometimes looks like a nice alternative for closed or downvoted questions, particularly when facing their negative effects for things like automated question bans or the 'positive question record' of some badges. This is wrong: the system considers deleted questions as a negative signal *in addition to* the other metrics. Don't delete downvoted or closed posts - fix them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="f653c729-205f-45a6-851a-ba9ffb3c09f0" CreationDate="2017-09-29T22:11:45.790" UserId="8563" Comment="added 153 characters in body; edited title" Text="After trying to delete a post, by clicking the `delete` link under it, the final deletion prompt mentioned &quot;Repeated Deletion of Answered Questions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does this mean? Could I be banned from asking questions just for clearing out trash / malformed questions that received answers that are just of the form &quot;Your premise is wrong&quot; or Duplicates? I could maybe understand the virtue of leaving the former up so anyone else caught in the same moment of confusion / idiocy can learn what's going wrong, but why the latter? Surely deleting duplicates wouldn't harm the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="f653c729-205f-45a6-851a-ba9ffb3c09f0" CreationDate="2017-09-29T22:11:45.790" UserId="8563" Comment="added 153 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does &quot;Repeated Deletion of Answered Questions&quot; mean in the post-deletion prompt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10182" RevisionGUID="d10efb3a-d526-4455-a07e-c93a3c6ca4f8" CreationDate="2017-09-29T23:15:22.497" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="When you post a question on Stack Exchange, you're soliciting other people to do work for you, in the form of answers. In the Stack Exchange mentality (which I agree with), it is impolite to then remove the content that those other people have produced for you, and the system tends to see that as a negative signal in various ways. As a simple example, of the system has *any* indication that that content has any quality (that is, if it's been upvoted) then the system will not let you delete the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've asked a question with incorrect premises and received answers that helped you realise that fact, then it's a bit ungrateful to then delete those answers. That's compounded by the fact that writing that kind of answer is quite often a significant risk, as it is often hard to gauge whether the OP will get belligerent when their assumptions get questioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as for duplicates the standard practice is to leave them up as signposts to the existing, answered question. The thinking is that if you were unable to find that thread because, say, you used keywords that didn't quite match the existing text, then there's a nontrivial likelihood that someone else will come along and use the same search terms, which will lead them to your question and from there to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, only delete questions, and particularly questions with answers, when you really need to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if bears mention, deletion sometimes looks like a nice alternative for closed or downvoted questions, particularly when facing their negative effects for things like automated question bans or the 'positive question record' of some badges. This is wrong: the system considers deleted questions as a negative signal *in addition to* the other metrics. Don't delete downvoted or closed posts - fix them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="f65574fd-ede5-498d-8ae5-5569da141dbe" CreationDate="2017-09-30T08:51:38.963" UserId="45330" Text="I normally only come when clicking on some questions from other StackExchange sites. Every time the questions are protected by user QMechanic. Is that something like the Community user? I don't see this at other StackExchange sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="f65574fd-ede5-498d-8ae5-5569da141dbe" CreationDate="2017-09-30T08:51:38.963" UserId="45330" Text="Why are all questions I visit from other sites protected by Qmechanic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="f65574fd-ede5-498d-8ae5-5569da141dbe" CreationDate="2017-09-30T08:51:38.963" UserId="45330" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10184" RevisionGUID="6aa82b57-0aae-47b5-bb53-91902d5591ef" CreationDate="2017-09-30T09:56:42.210" UserId="2451" Text="1. HNQs with $\leq 3$ are often protected by a moderator to  prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. Questions can be flagged to let moderators know that they should be protected/unprotected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The current Phys.SE moderators are listed [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10184" RevisionGUID="d498617b-5e16-4676-a118-4c55879f5084" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:02:21.917" UserId="2451" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="1. HNQs with $\leq 3$ are often protected by a moderator to  prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. Questions can be flagged to let moderators know that they should be protected/unprotected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I doubt it would make a difference if I claim that I'm not a bot, so let me just point to the [list of current Phys.SE moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="102bfdac-9333-4f16-9f33-e458cf421dda" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:07:40.200" UserId="2451" Comment="added 126 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I normally only come when clicking on some questions from other StackExchange sites. Every time the questions are protected by user [Qmechanic](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic). Is that something like the [Community user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community?tab=profile)? I don't see this at other StackExchange sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="102bfdac-9333-4f16-9f33-e458cf421dda" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:07:40.200" UserId="2451" Comment="added 126 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10184" RevisionGUID="349f4942-ee66-4718-90d8-3a5afce75cc8" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:08:29.740" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="1. HNQs with $\geq 3$ are often protected by a moderator to  prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. Questions can be flagged to let moderators know that they should be protected/unprotected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I doubt it would make a difference if I claim that I'm not a bot, so let me just point to the [list of current Phys.SE moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10184" RevisionGUID="ec76e413-d8df-48fd-8141-234c72472300" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:24:54.653" UserId="2451" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="1. HNQs with $\geq 3$ answer are often protected by a moderator to  prevent &quot;thanks!&quot;, &quot;me too!&quot;, or spam answers by new users. Questions can be flagged to let moderators know that they should be protected/unprotected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I doubt it would make a difference if I claim that I'm not a bot, so let me just point to the [list of current Phys.SE moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10185" RevisionGUID="c700936a-e991-4909-9027-ace62239160f" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:31:44.460" UserId="84967" Text="10k users can see the statistics of all protected questions [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/protected-questions). Here are some screenshots for the rest of users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's play a game: some of these users are human, and the rest are AI's. Which is which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mv7Ca.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZZNKq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10186" RevisionGUID="cac32370-a4cd-4c95-82d4-f103ae34b203" CreationDate="2017-09-30T19:13:48.090" UserId="12813" Text="I am just curious, why this question is put on hold https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/359891/, while other questions that have broader ends (a real open list) are left open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61241/physics-applications-of-fredholm-theory?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315259/examples-of-kms-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266587/examples-of-matrix-product-states?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, SO(8) and Spin(8) triality have not been used in physics application other than one example I give in 1+1D BDI Time-Reversal invariant Topological Superconductor and 2+1D Z2-Ising-symmetric Topological Superconductor have ℤ8 classifications (see a [related post here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61452/what-is-a-p-x-i-p-y-superconductor-relation-to-topological-superconductors/359521#359521)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other uses of SO(8) and Spin(8) triality may be in String Theory (but may not count as real-world physics), or possibly in disorder system or nuclear spectrum or Kondo effect (these I am just suspecting, we don't really know and it is certainly widely known). They are not totally obvious examples. And there do not form a big list, if one wants to give precise use and Reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side comment is that scientists and physicists learn by giving examples [don't you?]. I am not sure that what the far-insight to kill questions asking for giving meaningful examples, except that the purpose is trying to suppressing some users to use the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10186" RevisionGUID="cac32370-a4cd-4c95-82d4-f103ae34b203" CreationDate="2017-09-30T19:13:48.090" UserId="12813" Text="Question asking rare examples of the use of SO(8) and Spin(8) triality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10186" RevisionGUID="cac32370-a4cd-4c95-82d4-f103ae34b203" CreationDate="2017-09-30T19:13:48.090" UserId="12813" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10187" RevisionGUID="972da04b-316c-4c88-b071-fad11f965d78" CreationDate="2017-09-30T20:58:50.330" UserId="84967" Text="Sorry, but I do agree with the closure of your question: it is indeed off-topic. The good kind of off-topic though: a good, interesting question that is, unfortunately, unfit for the format of this site. Questions asking for an unlimited list of examples are always off-topic here, even if you think that, in your case, the list is actually rather short (and the topic is interesting). We try to treat all posts equally;  all questions are equal, even if some questions are more equal than others.  What's more, in principle you cannot really know whether the list is short or unlimited, so how can you be sure &quot;your question is different&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, let me stress something: questions asking for a list of examples are *always* off-topic here, even if some fly under the radar and go undetected, as is the case in the posts you link. I actually voted to close the first two links, as I agree they are essentially more broad scoped than your question (and, consequently, also off-topic). I didn't vote to close the third one: it seems to me that it is kind of specific, though I can't really say I understood what OP is asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally -- what to do with your question. You could try to ask it in the chatroom and hope someone there can help you with it. You could also reformulate it into a resource-recommendation post, though I'm not really sure that will help. A third alternative is to focus on some particular context, such as &quot;is the triality used in [insert some specific area]&quot;. In this case, the answer is either yes or no, so it cannot possibly degenerate into a limitless list of examples (which is what we are trying to avoid here). I don't know what else you can do to get an answer. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10186" RevisionGUID="64849c36-5341-4d1f-9bc3-6f429f9e82be" CreationDate="2017-09-30T23:13:43.997" UserId="12813" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I am just curious, why this question is put on hold https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/359891/, while other questions that have broader ends (a real open list) are left open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61241/physics-applications-of-fredholm-theory?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315259/examples-of-kms-states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266587/examples-of-matrix-product-states?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, SO(8) and Spin(8) triality have not been used in physics application other than one example I give in 1+1D BDI Time-Reversal invariant Topological Superconductor and 2+1D Z2-Ising-symmetric Topological Superconductor have ℤ8 classifications (see a [related post here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61452/what-is-a-p-x-i-p-y-superconductor-relation-to-topological-superconductors/359521#359521)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other uses of SO(8) and Spin(8) triality may be in String Theory (but may not count as real-world physics), or possibly in disorder system or nuclear spectrum or Kondo effect (these I am just suspecting, we don't really know and it is certainly widely UN-known). They are not totally obvious examples. And there do not form a big list, if one wants to give precise use and Reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side comment is that scientists and physicists learn by giving examples [don't you?]. I am not sure that what the far-insight to kill questions asking for giving meaningful examples, except that the purpose is trying to suppressing some users to use the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31056" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="ea27623a-596a-4ee1-a86c-ca12c53edeff" CreationDate="2017-10-01T08:13:47.403" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/914402951866839040" />
  <row Id="31057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="69860ef7-fae3-4114-a9a0-1b5a3fe532db" CreationDate="2017-10-01T08:30:01.297" UserId="162215" Text="Initially, I thought a little rhombus behind the names is a crown of topper in reputation. &#xA;Then, I thought it signifies the site administrator &#xA;&#xA;Thirdly, I thought it is written by the user himself :-) &#xA;[![users in P. S. E. ][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UiNUR.jpg&#xA;&#xA;which one is right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="69860ef7-fae3-4114-a9a0-1b5a3fe532db" CreationDate="2017-10-01T08:30:01.297" UserId="162215" Text="What does the little rhombus behind the name mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="69860ef7-fae3-4114-a9a0-1b5a3fe532db" CreationDate="2017-10-01T08:30:01.297" UserId="162215" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="04aad30b-9940-42d8-b348-744c38fa6bd4" CreationDate="2017-10-01T08:50:31.757" UserId="2451" Text="Your second guess. The [moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) have a diamond/rhombus appended to their username." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="0be1bbcc-6f26-40f7-9703-277a2eeec0fd" CreationDate="2017-10-01T09:15:25.317" UserId="124" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Your second guess is closer, but not quite. The [moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) have a diamond/rhombus appended to their username." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="4cd05baa-0b37-43dd-860b-c0ff299f1481" CreationDate="2017-10-01T10:12:29.210" UserId="2451" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Your second guess is closest. The diamond behind the username signifies  [moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators). The Phys.SE moderators are listed [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="f8c9b143-0673-43c4-9b02-5179e8761951" CreationDate="2017-10-01T10:18:02.170" UserId="2451" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Your second guess is closest. The diamond $\blacklozenge$ behind the username signifies [moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators) or [SE team members](https://stackoverflow.com/company/team). The Phys.SE moderators are listed [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="943f1e01-cb57-466b-a214-07b9049f48f3" CreationDate="2017-10-01T10:18:49.770" UserId="2451" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Initially, I thought a little rhombus behind the names is a crown of topper in reputation. &#xD;&#xA;Then, I thought it signifies the site administrator &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, I thought it is written by the user himself :-) &#xD;&#xA;[![users in P. S. E. ][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UiNUR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which one is right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="943f1e01-cb57-466b-a214-07b9049f48f3" CreationDate="2017-10-01T10:18:49.770" UserId="2451" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31066" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="4e821d26-995b-4fa8-aa32-a809f9c052e2" CreationDate="2017-10-01T10:45:47.437" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="What does the little rhombus $\blacklozenge$ behind the username mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10191" RevisionGUID="3c5ca21f-1bf0-4fe3-9830-5b43395fa7dc" CreationDate="2017-10-06T19:00:53.387" UserId="84967" Text="Some data first. As of today, there have been 27636 suggested edits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 23490 have been approved,&#xD;&#xA;- 4146 have been rejected,&#xD;&#xA;- 6873 were improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top 20 reviewers have the following stats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you people think of these statistics? are we too lenient when it comes to suggested edits? or the other way around? what would you consider a healthy ratio of accept-to-reject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last column seems an important metric: do you think the numbers are good? should they be higher? do you think it is common for reviewers to accept edits even if there is a lot of room for improvement? what could we do to encourage reviewers to improve the edits when it is necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FA2z0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10191" RevisionGUID="3c5ca21f-1bf0-4fe3-9830-5b43395fa7dc" CreationDate="2017-10-06T19:00:53.387" UserId="84967" Text="When it comes to the Suggested Edits queue, what would you consider a healthy ratio of accept-to-reject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10191" RevisionGUID="3c5ca21f-1bf0-4fe3-9830-5b43395fa7dc" CreationDate="2017-10-06T19:00:53.387" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|editing|review|suggested-edits|site-statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10192" RevisionGUID="3f7e9859-8507-471f-8f93-2b9ae0bc26bf" CreationDate="2017-10-06T19:24:03.277" UserId="124" Text="Qmechanic and I disagree on the topicality of &quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/361253/where-do-feynman-diagrams-appear-for-the-first-time&quot;, so I wanted to bring the issue to meta to get input from the community. It could be considered a historical question, which speaks to it being off topic, but it's also asking for the work which introduced a specific notation, which is (at least quite close to) what the [tag:specific-reference] was created for, and I would say that speaks to it being on topic. What does the community think about this question and others like it which ask for the first work to use a certain kind of notation? Should such questions be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To guide the discussion, here are three possible outcomes I anticipate (but other options are certainly welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We could decide that questions of the form &quot;What was the first paper/book/etc. to use [notation]?&quot; are, in general, on topic (and should be tagged [tag:specific-reference]).&#xD;&#xA;- We could decide that questions of the form &quot;What was the first paper/book/etc. to use [notation]?&quot; are _off topic_, but questions of the form &quot;What paper announced the discovery of [phenomenon]?&quot; remain on topic (and should be tagged [tag:specific-reference]).&#xD;&#xA;- Diverging somewhat from the main question, we could decide to make all questions of the form &quot;What was the first paper/book/etc. to [do X]?&quot; for _any_ X off topic. That would be a change in the scope of the site - basically we'd be rendering the primary use of [tag:specific-reference] obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10192" RevisionGUID="3f7e9859-8507-471f-8f93-2b9ae0bc26bf" CreationDate="2017-10-06T19:24:03.277" UserId="124" Text="Should questions about the first use of a notation be on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10192" RevisionGUID="3f7e9859-8507-471f-8f93-2b9ae0bc26bf" CreationDate="2017-10-06T19:24:03.277" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10192" RevisionGUID="8d3e1895-58c6-4683-b036-08b7f7c89770" CreationDate="2017-10-06T20:07:51.633" UserId="124" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There's been some disagreement on the topicality of &quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/361253/where-do-feynman-diagrams-appear-for-the-first-time&quot;, so I wanted to bring the issue to meta to get input from the community. It could be considered a historical question, which speaks to it being off topic, but it's also asking for the work which introduced a specific notation, which is (at least quite close to) what the [tag:specific-reference] was created for, and I would say that speaks to it being on topic. What does the community think about this question and others like it which ask for the first work to use a certain kind of notation? Should such questions be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To guide the discussion, here are three possible outcomes I anticipate (but other options are certainly welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We could decide that questions of the form &quot;What was the first paper/book/etc. to use [notation]?&quot; are, in general, on topic (and should be tagged [tag:specific-reference]).&#xD;&#xA;- We could decide that questions of the form &quot;What was the first paper/book/etc. to use [notation]?&quot; are _off topic_, but questions of the form &quot;What paper announced the discovery of [phenomenon]?&quot; remain on topic (and should be tagged [tag:specific-reference]).&#xD;&#xA;- Diverging somewhat from the main question, we could decide to make all questions of the form &quot;What was the first paper/book/etc. to [do X]?&quot; for _any_ X off topic. That would be a change in the scope of the site - basically we'd be rendering the primary use of [tag:specific-reference] obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10193" RevisionGUID="54f9ebe7-3e61-4e76-af0c-4e28dd656a01" CreationDate="2017-10-07T00:09:07.797" UserId="59215" Text="This evening I have been kicked twice from chat, apparently for not acting in &quot;good faith.&quot; All I said is that my primary concern is whether my messages will be flagged or not. I don't see what's wrong with that, flagged messages are not offensive so if I'm not posting offensive messages what is the issue? I also stress that I said it's my *primary*, not my *sole* concern. Clearly my messages are meant to be thoughtful, educational, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly did I do wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10193" RevisionGUID="54f9ebe7-3e61-4e76-af0c-4e28dd656a01" CreationDate="2017-10-07T00:09:07.797" UserId="59215" Text="Why do I keep getting kicked from chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10193" RevisionGUID="54f9ebe7-3e61-4e76-af0c-4e28dd656a01" CreationDate="2017-10-07T00:09:07.797" UserId="59215" Text="|discussion|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10194" RevisionGUID="7b360b82-87db-4f2c-a49b-917921583bbb" CreationDate="2017-10-07T00:22:06.837" UserId="121464" Text="I believe it should be on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a fine line, but I think the request for a paper which first uses a certain notation is pretty much *exactly* what the [tag:specific-reference] tag was for, so I think it'd be kind of inconsistent to make it off-topic but a specific discovery on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completely removing [tag:specific-reference] as an on-topic subject also doesn't make much sense to me. A final note - this sort of question might be one on topic on both History of Science/Mathematics *and* here, which isn't necessarily a bad thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10193" RevisionGUID="62e50ab6-8936-4dc5-8ce3-242a344925c4" CreationDate="2017-10-07T00:33:46.483" UserId="59215" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="This evening I have been kicked twice from chat, apparently for not acting in &quot;good faith.&quot; All I said is that my primary concern is whether my messages will be flagged or not. I don't see what's wrong with that, flagged messages are offensive so if I'm not posting offensive messages what is the issue? I also stress that I said it's my *primary*, not my *sole* concern. Clearly my messages are meant to be thoughtful, educational, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly did I do wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10196" RevisionGUID="ab984dfa-aa96-4d2d-86e9-c6c1ebed5990" CreationDate="2017-10-07T00:52:19.587" UserId="50583" Text="I kicked you, twice, and I [said](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/40405941#40405941):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your sole concern in posting something here is whether it might get flagged or not, I might suspect you are not partipating in good faith in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Be Nice policy, and indeed every sort of rule for behaviour expected of you both on the Stack Exchange sites themselves and in their chats, are not *burdens* imposed on you on a whim. If you try to adhere to the letter of these rules but not their spirit, then, frankly, you are in the wrong place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I [attempted to start a discussion](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/40405914#40405914) about why you might post something in the first place, you flat out refused to engage, deflecting the topic to whether or not it might get flagged. This shows you are not engaging in good faith: You are trying to avoid getting banned from chat, not trying to be the sort of person *who doesn't have to be worried about getting flagged in the first place*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the sort of behaviour we want to see in our chat rooms. You have been suspended (in the short or long term) **71** times for posting inappropriate messages. This is exceptional - though not quite a record -  among *all* users across the SE chat network. If you cannot stay away from inflammatory controversy, then chat is not a place for you. The kicks were intended to reinforce this message: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not concern yourself with whether or not your messages might get flagged. Concern yourself with whether they are necessary to post, with whether they are kind and compassionate, with whether they contribute to a welcoming and constructive culture. Extend to others the good faith you wish were attributed to you. Do not antagonize people needlessly. Swallow your pride and recognize that others may disagree, do not ridicule them, do not invalidate their opinions simply because they are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failure to show *any* of that, failure to show any sort of willingness to change or to adapt, failure to respect the Be Nice policy as a statement of intent rather than a legalistic piece of policy is what keeps you getting kicked and suspended from chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="6cf8c86f-1f4f-44ef-909a-97c201174dfd" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:15:53.247" UserId="45808" Text="Recently, [an answer of mine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/361486/45808) was deleted for being a complete answer to a [tag:homework-and-exercises] question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since I did not give the final value of the wavelength, why is this &quot;a complete answer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="6cf8c86f-1f4f-44ef-909a-97c201174dfd" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:15:53.247" UserId="45808" Text="Why is this considered a complete answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="6cf8c86f-1f4f-44ef-909a-97c201174dfd" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:15:53.247" UserId="45808" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10199" RevisionGUID="e97146dd-07a0-418d-ab29-9e14010e1337" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:31:13.823" UserId="84967" Text="You *did* give the final value. If the answer is $4$, and I write $2+2$ and leave it unevaluated, I gave the final value. An arithmetical computation is not a meaningful part of solving a problem, and if that is the only step that separates you from the answer, then the problem is done. Sorry but you don't have a case here -- the best you can do is to forget about this and move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31092" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="5e7c835a-1cd2-445c-9c27-5602cf6fa842" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:37:13.220" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="6d20e9bb-0b37-4015-94c4-12f810a20c89" CreationDate="2017-10-07T22:35:51.783" UserId="148599" Text="This question and prose contained in  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/357077/experiments-are-monads-i-think-but-are-they-comonads-too&#xD;&#xA;admittedly sounds like word salad to me, but unlike other theory questions over my head this doesn't even sound like a physics question to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice if a question living out on the edge at least gives some background with definitions making contact with mainstream physics, then I feel we could all learn something from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thought that convinced me to ask, is maybe this sounds like world salad to the experts as well, and we have an emperor's clothes situation here. Assuming good faith that there is useful physics content here, I hope we can at least be open and honest enough that if most of the experts don't understand that someone should speak up and ask for clarification. What is being asked and how does this make contact with mainstream physics?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="6d20e9bb-0b37-4015-94c4-12f810a20c89" CreationDate="2017-10-07T22:35:51.783" UserId="148599" Text="How much physics content does a theory question need?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="6d20e9bb-0b37-4015-94c4-12f810a20c89" CreationDate="2017-10-07T22:35:51.783" UserId="148599" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31096" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="a2c2a31c-d3b0-42fe-b8da-ebce83db0b56" CreationDate="2017-10-07T23:09:56.620" UserId="148599" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Overly abstract?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31097" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="a2c2a31c-d3b0-42fe-b8da-ebce83db0b56" CreationDate="2017-10-07T23:09:56.620" UserId="148599" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10201" RevisionGUID="3ad9217f-a8b1-4859-8625-68d36cf72f98" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:16:48.470" UserId="2451" Text="Speaking in general, [categorification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorification) of physics and [category-theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory) in physics are on-topic. The quality and fate of this type of questions should be decided (in the same way as any other question) via user up/down votes. There is no need to regulate this topic with a separate policy rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10201" RevisionGUID="e08b1468-7663-449a-bc98-6af0707b80f2" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:48:20.240" UserId="2451" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Speaking in general, [categorification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorification) of physics and [category-theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory) in physics are on-topic. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5713/2451) related meta post. The quality and fate of this type of questions should be decided (in the same way as any other question) via user up/down votes. There is no need to regulate this topic with a separate policy rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="298ebb01-a989-4e37-8a43-b2a5710a7aef" CreationDate="2017-10-09T02:49:01.220" UserId="25301" Text="The comment that [ACuriousMind](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/50583/acuriousmind) (ACM) left when deleting your question is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/25301). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comment is basically the same thing that is written in the homework policy under the heading *Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even if you wanted to argue that you did not give a *complete* answer (which I'd agree that AFT's assessment is correct), one could even more easily argue that you gave a *near-complete* answer that is treated the same as a complete answer to this type of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10201" RevisionGUID="5ff9ef40-1030-46e6-bcbd-e473fd71bf09" CreationDate="2017-10-09T05:58:00.713" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="Speaking in general, [categorification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorification) of physics and [category theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory) in physics are on-topic. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5713/2451) related meta post. The quality and fate of this type of questions should be decided (in the same way as any other question) via user up/down votes. There is no need to regulate this topic with a separate policy rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="3e106a50-6901-4303-8188-1be11aec4d91" CreationDate="2017-10-11T10:39:13.863" UserDisplayName="user154997" Text="So I investigated KaTeX a bit and there is definitively a showstopper for me: there is not support for `\newcommand`. It is possible to define macros in the javascript code but it is not possible to write something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}\ket{\psi}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}\ket{\psi}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I would find that very annoying as it is a great help to write complex answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="29fea8ea-d38b-40c4-8ea3-656971b5c159" CreationDate="2017-10-11T14:19:42.837" UserId="36194" Text="On occasions, some questions (usually posted by less experienced users) get massively downvoted - say, score of -5 or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reputation cannot go below 1, is there a practical site consequence of such massive downvotes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly some questions completely deserve to be downvoted, but where is the line between being dissatisfied with a specific question and downright discouraging new users?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="29fea8ea-d38b-40c4-8ea3-656971b5c159" CreationDate="2017-10-11T14:19:42.837" UserId="36194" Text="Massive downvotes of some questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="29fea8ea-d38b-40c4-8ea3-656971b5c159" CreationDate="2017-10-11T14:19:42.837" UserId="36194" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="d866ea63-d0f5-436b-92ce-de6c05ab5119" CreationDate="2017-10-11T14:25:27.860" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="716d0599-8cdc-41de-a05e-24f5b4d90b72" CreationDate="2017-10-11T15:08:49.820" UserId="50583" Text="There are some effects of highly negative score not related to reputation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A question below -4 will be pushed of the front page (i.e. what visitors see at `physics.stackexchange.com? ), cf. [this meta answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/117120/263383).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Users with more than 20k reputation can [vote to delete questions of score -3 or lower](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user) immediately after they are closed without the usual 2 day period in which users can't vote to delete closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The 10k tools (a set of statistics available to users with more than 10k reptuation) contain categories like &quot;most downvoted question/answer&quot; in a certain timeframe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me remark that in general, you shouldn't ever hesitate to cast a vote because of the effect (reputation-wise or psychologically) it might have on the user. If the *post* deserves to be downvoted, downvote it. If it doesn't, don't downvote it. The author and its current score should not factor significantly in your decision to vote on a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="b5f53ed8-d60f-4ae1-8d7b-fd2c05e4dbf1" CreationDate="2017-10-11T16:27:43.717" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="I think the reason behind any act of moderation comes under the domain of the meta discussion of the website. Thus, the reasons behind the suspensions should also be open to discussion on the meta website. By no means, I intend to say that the decisions regarding the suspensions should be made directly based on such discussions or by popular vote. That right is rightly reserved by the expert moderators for the good. But since the suspensions are decided based on the public behavior of the user and the policy of the SE is also public, I see no harm in discussing the precise reasons behind a particular suspension. And besides, dogmatically not disclosing the information about any suspension (for example, Ron Maimon's to be explicit) seems quite silly if not anti-democratic. I know the information can be accessed by personally emailing the moderators but I don't see why discussing it on the meta website is not encouraged. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="b5f53ed8-d60f-4ae1-8d7b-fd2c05e4dbf1" CreationDate="2017-10-11T16:27:43.717" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="Why can't Suspensions be Discussed on the Meta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="b5f53ed8-d60f-4ae1-8d7b-fd2c05e4dbf1" CreationDate="2017-10-11T16:27:43.717" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="|discussion|moderation|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31111" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="a00cd41d-8ee8-435d-8fc4-a3cb0bb21afc" CreationDate="2017-10-11T17:55:20.147" UserDisplayName="user87745" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:20427,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dvij&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="996f7035-59d3-4a4b-9513-184ffbb51495" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:25:49.927" UserId="82528" Text="Suppose someone has flagged a question for being a duplicate, should I also flag it as duplicate, or does the one flag suffice?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in relation to that, when reviewing first questions, marking as duplicate can be enough for a review (In my opinion). However, if someone marks it as duplicate (Assuming I shouldn't flag again), and I have nothing else to do regarding that post, is the &quot;Nothing to do&quot; review fine? As there's nothing for ME to do about it, since it was already done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="996f7035-59d3-4a4b-9513-184ffbb51495" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:25:49.927" UserId="82528" Text="Flagging as duplicate - After someone else has done it &amp; Reviews" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="996f7035-59d3-4a4b-9513-184ffbb51495" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:25:49.927" UserId="82528" Text="|discussion|flagging|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31115" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="cf5f4b84-cc42-4591-9bb7-a329a7fe1f38" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:27:53.500" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|flagging|duplicates|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="888078bc-1572-4f0d-8dcc-622c5c8ee37e" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:30:31.947" UserId="82528" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Suppose someone has flagged a question for being a duplicate, should I also flag it as duplicate, or does the one flag suffice? (And does this change if it's a duplicate of two questions or more?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in relation to that, when reviewing first questions, marking as duplicate can be enough for a review (In my opinion). However, if someone marks it as duplicate (Assuming I shouldn't flag again), and I have nothing else to do regarding that post, is the &quot;Nothing to do&quot; review fine? As there's nothing for ME to do about it, since it was already done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31117" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="cec549f8-82e6-4e55-8266-d055ed3428d0" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:35:24.673" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:20427,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dvij&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="8ffda95e-9aa6-494d-a6b4-bb0c88e7a839" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:35:28.153" UserId="84967" Text="One flag suffices. Once a post has been flagged, it enters the review queue, where high-rep users can vote to close or leave open. Further flags serve no purpose. But do note that sometimes people point out possible duplicates in the comments without actually flagging, so those posts do not enter the queue automatically. In those cases, you can either wait and see what happens or flag yourself. When in doubt, do flag. No harm is done, and in the worst case scenario the flag is useless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31119" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="97906f2b-0c2d-4ee0-acac-e6563cfa1fbe" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:35:35.320" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4241],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:20427,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dvij&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="31120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="136cc1a4-75d6-49fc-a10c-25e0acfcd0be" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:39:03.760" UserId="84967" Comment="added 466 characters in body" Text="One flag suffices. Once a post has been flagged, it enters the review queue, where high-rep users can vote to close or leave open. Further flags serve no purpose. But do note that sometimes people point out possible duplicates in the comments without actually flagging, so those posts do not enter the queue automatically. In those cases, you can either wait and see what happens or flag yourself. When in doubt, do flag. No harm is done, and in the worst case scenario the flag is useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reviewing, if you feel that the only thing to be done is to flag, and the flag has already been risen, then &quot;Nothing to do&quot; is fine. Other alternatives are: upvote the &quot;Possible duplicate&quot; comment (to emphasise that you agree with the flag) or upvote or downvote the post depending on whether the question is good (and note that being a duplicate is not by itself a reason to downvote, modulo those rare cases where it is obvious that OP is well aware of being a duplicate and decides to post anyway)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31124" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="8f437a7b-e462-4ea4-8046-07a75117da94" CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:48:49.763" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/918443335127388160" />
  <row Id="31129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="0d934ee4-84b4-4c8a-b5d9-64c04fd0bff3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T10:37:49.960" UserId="40726" Text="Let us say I have (and I have!) a very technical question related to the (proper) mathematical formulation of physical theories. Should I ask it in one section only (let's say mathematics) and wait for a good/thorough answer there, or should I cross-post it in the physics section, knowing that the mathematically qualified members of the physics section won't really visit the mathematics section to get the chance to see it and answer to it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the right solution for me to ensure greatest chances of receiving a well-formulated answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="0d934ee4-84b4-4c8a-b5d9-64c04fd0bff3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T10:37:49.960" UserId="40726" Text="Approved/OK form of cross posting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="0d934ee4-84b4-4c8a-b5d9-64c04fd0bff3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T10:37:49.960" UserId="40726" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="4e1d369e-f884-47bb-b3c0-3960ca6d6729" CreationDate="2017-10-13T10:51:51.473" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Let us say I have (and I have!) a very technical question related to the (proper) mathematical formulation of physical theories. Should I ask it in one section only (let's say mathematics) and wait for a good/thorough answer there, or should I cross-post it in the physics section, knowing that the mathematically qualified members of the physics section won't really visit the mathematics section to get the chance to see it and answer to it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the right solution for me to ensure greatest chances of receiving a well-formulated answer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="4e1d369e-f884-47bb-b3c0-3960ca6d6729" CreationDate="2017-10-13T10:51:51.473" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="4661241c-05e0-4585-b3e1-46a8b0ee3351" CreationDate="2017-10-13T11:40:58.013" UserId="8563" Text="If you have the same core question that you want to ask to two different communities and you really are looking for different input from the two, then it's quite likely that the posts will end up looking rather different. In that case, it's OK to post simultaneously in the two sites, but it is crucial that you mention that fact in both versions and provide cross-post links on both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it can happen that the versions you want to ask on the two sites will be essentially identical, in which case it's not really considered OK to cross-post simultaneously on both. Choose the one you think is best and post there, and wait to see what the response is. If after several days you feel that it's not really what you were hoping for, it's OK to cross-post ─ again, with explicit markers of that fact and the respective links in both versions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10213" RevisionGUID="99448332-c784-437a-a346-24b4ec0b13a6" CreationDate="2017-10-13T11:51:45.530" UserId="2451" Text="An important subtlety: Be aware of that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. some duplicate comments under a question are written independently by users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. while others are automitically generated via _flagging_ or _voting-to-close_ as _duplicate._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system does not recognize the former. The question needs one and only one of the latter kind to enter the review queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10213" RevisionGUID="cf29dda6-ca70-405d-ab15-a061a663d6bf" CreationDate="2017-10-13T11:57:18.187" UserId="2451" Comment="edited body" Text="An important subtlety: Be aware of that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. some duplicate comments under a question are written independently by users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. while others are generated automatically via _flagging_ or _voting-to-close_ as _duplicate._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system does not recognize the former even if a user try to mimic the format of the latter. The question needs one and only one of the latter kind to enter the review queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10213" RevisionGUID="0425e5de-6aed-468d-b4b4-af43fbe203ac" CreationDate="2017-10-13T14:12:04.477" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="An important subtlety: Be aware of that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. some duplicate comments under a question are written independently by users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. while others are generated automatically via _flagging_ or _voting-to-close_ as a _duplicate._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system does not recognize the former even if a user try to mimic the format of the latter. The question needs one and only one of the latter kind to enter the review queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="b2e06558-61bd-4db0-a426-ee3c5e785ce3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:47:26.327" UserDisplayName="user172034" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362667/keplers-third-law)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="b2e06558-61bd-4db0-a426-ee3c5e785ce3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:47:26.327" UserDisplayName="user172034" Text="Why did my question become off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="b2e06558-61bd-4db0-a426-ee3c5e785ce3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:47:26.327" UserDisplayName="user172034" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="8a23d90f-c053-442f-a277-bc6c6063eb75" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:54:08.083" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="8a23d90f-c053-442f-a277-bc6c6063eb75" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:54:08.083" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="8f2e6183-871f-4af8-8d17-89450e62e169" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:56:40.287" UserId="84967" Text="&quot;*formula questions*&quot; could mean anything. If the question is &quot;give me the formula to solve my problem&quot;, then the answer is *no*: such questions are disallowed. On the other hand, if your question is about the physics behind some concept, then the answer is *yes*: such questions are allowed. Unfortunately, your post is of the first kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not discuss whether I agree or not with this policy. But it is there, and until it is changed, we will have to live with it, like it or not. Try to change your question to comply with this policy, and it will be reopened. For now, it will most likely stay closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="8f36f576-148a-4398-b724-698c09dee4b6" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:57:05.720" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="bdc15aeb-f417-4076-ba80-dad9835b6bb8" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:00:10.653" UserId="84967" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="&quot;*formula questions*&quot; could mean anything. If the question is &quot;give me the formula to solve my problem&quot;, then the answer is *no*: such questions are disallowed. On the other hand, if your question is about the physics behind some concept, then the answer is *yes*: such questions are allowed. Unfortunately, your post is of the first kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when it comes to undergraduate physics, knowing which is the right formula to use is usually the hardest part of the problem. Therefore, if someone gave you the formula you are asking for, they would essentially be solving your problem for you. Algebraic manipulations to a formula is usually straightforward, and does not represent a significant part of solving a problem. But *knowing which formula to use* does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The policy of this community is: we will not solve your problems for you. We will do our best to help you understand the physics behind the problem, but we will not solve it for you. This is the official policy of this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not discuss whether I agree or not with this policy. But it is there, and until it is changed, we will have to live with it, like it or not. Try to change your question to comply with this policy, and it will be reopened. For now, it will most likely stay closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="3726f9eb-1e07-47c8-b88c-27b9820ebe3c" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:12:46.750" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 575 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Giving formulas does not mean ''Solving for you'' If they don't know how to apply that equation or not have any idea about the question, they won't be able to solve question. It depends on what they know. But you all don't have any respect, everyone starts hitting that close button when they see that cool ''homework-exercises'' tag. Answer formula wants at least. We got your homework policies and it seems good. But this is really being funny. The site admits conceptual question and this was really conceptual. That's why everyone does not understand this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, decide what kind of questions you want. If you want a question like this ''What is that?, What is this?'' Everyone can google it so it doesn't matter. What is this site for then? Examined other stackexchange communities, they are very helpful for a student. If you were right, then why do they answer all kind of questions? everyone gets everything well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about physics.se now. Yes, homework-questions should not be allowed and you are too right. But if you don't admit the formula questions, then that's being too funny. Assume I posted my question here, and asked a formula to solve it myself. Did you solve it for me? No. Who did solve it? Me. What did you show? the true equation him ought to use. Did you give the final answer? No. Does him have any idea about question? If answer is no, then he won't be able to solve it =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="184e9370-4070-4a97-b938-fc70fd9088d4" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:16:08.673" UserId="84967" Comment="added 809 characters in body" Text="&quot;*formula questions*&quot; could mean anything. If the question is &quot;give me the formula to solve my problem&quot;, then the answer is *no*: such questions are disallowed. On the other hand, if your question is about the physics behind some concept, then the answer is *yes*: such questions are allowed. Unfortunately, your post is of the first kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when it comes to undergraduate physics, knowing which is the right formula to use is usually the hardest part of the problem. Therefore, if someone gave you the formula you are asking for, they would essentially be solving your problem for you. Algebraic manipulations to a formula is usually straightforward, and does not represent a significant part of solving a problem. But *knowing which formula to use* does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The policy of this community is: we will not solve your problems for you. We will do our best to help you understand the physics behind the problem, but we will not solve it for you. This is the official policy of this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not discuss whether I agree or not with this policy. But it is there, and until it is changed, we will have to live with it, like it or not. Try to change your question to comply with this policy, and it will be reopened. For now, it will most likely stay closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people have been trying to modify this policy for years. Don't expect it to be changed because of you, and don't expect us to make an exception for you. It won't happen and you would be wasting everybody's time. The best you can do is to edit your post into something that is on-topic. Asking for a formula is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your concern about this policy goes beyond your particular post, you are welcome to discuss it in general terms, but do note that there are dozens of post here on meta about that. Please read them before making new suggestions. Get used to the idiosyncrasies of the community, and make sure you understand the context behind every decision that has been taken. It will lead to a much more mature and  fruitful discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="d1f14011-76c9-4034-a04d-aaf6726d87e3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:17:03.777" UserId="84967" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&quot;*formula questions*&quot; could mean anything. If the question is &quot;give me the formula to solve my problem&quot;, then the answer is *no*: such questions are disallowed. On the other hand, if your question is about the physics behind some concept, then the answer is *yes*: such questions are allowed. Unfortunately, your post is of the first kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when it comes to undergraduate physics, knowing which is the right formula to use is usually the hardest part of the problem. Therefore, if someone gave you the formula you are asking for, they would essentially be solving your problem for you. Algebraic manipulations to a formula is usually straightforward, and does not represent a significant part of solving a problem. But *knowing which formula to use* does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The policy of this community is: we will not solve your problems for you. We will do our best to help you understand the physics behind the problem, but we will not solve it for you. This is the official policy of this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not discuss whether I agree or not with this policy. But it is there, and until it is changed, we will have to live with it, like it or not. Try to change your question to comply with this policy, and it will be reopened. For now, it will most likely stay closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people have been trying to modify this policy for years. Don't expect it to be changed because of you, and don't expect us to make an exception *just this time*. It won't happen and you would be wasting everybody's time. The best you can do is to edit your post into something that is on-topic. Asking for a formula is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your concern about this policy goes beyond your particular post, you are welcome to discuss it in general terms, but do note that there are dozens of post here on meta about that. Please read them before making new suggestions. Get used to the idiosyncrasies of the community, and make sure you understand the context behind every decision that has been taken. It will lead to a much more mature and  fruitful discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="c06c69bc-1df0-4b68-8a74-2f90d69d5976" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:22:01.137" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 566 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Giving formulas does not mean ''Solving for you'' If they don't know how to apply that equation or not have any idea about the question, they won't be able to solve question. It depends on what they know. But you all don't have any respect, everyone starts hitting that close button when they see that cool ''homework-exercises'' tag. Answer formula wants at least. We got your homework policies and it seems good. But this is really being funny. The site admits conceptual question and this was really conceptual. That's why everyone does not understand this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, decide what kind of questions you want. If you want a question like this ''What is that?, What is this?'' Everyone can google it so it doesn't matter. What is this site for then? Examined other stackexchange communities, they are very helpful for a student. If you were right, then why do they answer all kind of questions? everyone gets everything well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about physics.se now. Yes, homework-questions should not be allowed and you are too right. But if you don't admit the formula questions, then that's being too funny. Assume I posted my question here, and asked a formula to solve it myself. Did you solve it for me? No. Who did solve it? Me. What did you show? the true equation him ought to use. Did you give the final answer? No. Does him have any idea about question? If answer is no, then he won't be able to solve it =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about other stackexchange communities, They get both questions. Conceptual-Homework. I posted my questions which I really did not get and took great answers. By the way, I leant everything and saw my faults. They are respectful for students because they see that him does not have any idea about the question. You might be right at homework-questions but really not right at formula questions. Believe in me, by doing this, you are helping no one. If you were really right at this, other stackexchange communties may have been following your policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="498bb993-06ff-4da8-ba39-9b00b5c91460" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:22:16.910" UserId="84967" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&quot;*formula questions*&quot; could mean anything. If the question is &quot;give me the formula to solve my problem&quot;, then the answer is *no*: such questions are disallowed. On the other hand, if your question is about the physics behind some concept, then the answer is *yes*: such questions are allowed. Unfortunately, your post is of the first kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when it comes to undergraduate physics, knowing which is the right formula to use is usually the hardest part of the problem. Therefore, if someone gave you the formula you are asking for, they would essentially be solving your problem for you. Algebraic manipulations to a formula is usually straightforward, and does not represent a significant part of solving a problem. But *knowing which formula to use* does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The policy of this community is: we will not solve your problems for you. We will do our best to help you understand the physics behind the problem, but we will not solve it for you. This is the official policy of this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not discuss whether I agree or not with this policy. But it is there, and until it is changed, we will have to live with it, like it or not. Try to change your question to comply with this policy, and it will be reopened. For now, it will most likely stay closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people have been trying to modify this policy for years. Don't expect it to be changed because of you, and don't expect us to make an exception *just this time*. It won't happen and you would be wasting everybody's time. The best you can do is to edit your post into something that is on-topic. Asking for a formula is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your concern about this policy goes beyond your particular post, you are welcome to discuss it in general terms, but do note that there are dozens of post here on meta about that. Please read them before making new suggestions. Get used to the idiosyncrasies of the community, and make sure you understand the context behind every decision that has been taken. It will lead to a much more mature and  fruitful discussion. Trying to change how an established community works just because you need something from it at a particular moment of your life is truly execrable and just as selfish as it gets. Trying to change it because you care about the well-being of the community is very commendable and we would all be very thankful for such an attitude." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="e9ed749c-39f2-4738-9221-dcbf3adddcb3" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:32:15.157" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Giving formulas does not mean ''Solving for you'' If they don't know how to apply that equation or not have any idea about the question, they won't be able to solve question. It depends on what they know. But you all don't have any respect, everyone starts hitting that close button when they see that cool ''homework-exercises'' tag. Answer formula wants at least. We got your homework policies and it seems good. But this is really being funny. The site admits conceptual question and this was really conceptual. That's why everyone does not understand this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, decide what kind of questions you want. If you want a question like this ''What is that?, What is this?'' Everyone can google it so it doesn't matter. What is this site for then? Examined other stackexchange communities, they are very helpful for a student. If you were right, then why do they answer all kind of questions? everyone gets everything well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about physics.se now. Yes, homework-questions should not be allowed and you are too right. But if you don't admit the formula questions, then that's being too funny. Assume I posted my question here, and asked a formula to solve it myself. Did you solve it for me? No. Who did solve it? Me. What did you show? the true equation him ought to use. Did you give the final answer? No. Does him have any idea about question? If answer is no, then he won't be able to solve it =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about other stackexchange communities, They get both questions. Conceptual-Homework. I posted my questions which I really did not get and took great answers. By the way, I leant everything and saw my faults. They are respectful for students because they see that him does not have any idea about the question. You might be right at homework-questions but really not right at formula questions. Believe in me, by doing this, you are helping no one. If you were really right at this, other stackexchange communties may have been following your policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I hope you change I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I'm not telling you to answer homework-questions. If you admit the conceptual questions, then you should answer the formula wants. Like i said, him ought to just ask an equation for question. If he wants the final answer or did not show his idea, then it should be off-topic. It seems like this will be off-topic cause telling true things. I hope you all change your unnecessilary policies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="815f914c-4451-42f9-8e80-0097ebb0071d" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:38:17.103" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Giving formulas does not mean ''Solving for you'' If they don't know how to apply that equation or not have any idea about the question, they won't be able to solve question. It depends on what they know. But you all don't have any respect, everyone starts hitting that close button when they see that cool ''homework-exercises'' tag. Answer formula wants at least. We got your homework policies and it seems good. But this is really being funny. The site admits conceptual question and this was really conceptual. That's why everyone does not understand this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, decide what kind of questions you want. If you want a question like this ''What is that?, What is this?'' Everyone can google it so it doesn't matter. What is this site for then? Examined other stackexchange communities, they are very helpful for a student. If you were right, then why do they answer all kind of questions? everyone gets everything well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about physics.se now. Yes, homework-questions should not be allowed and you are too right. But if you don't admit the formula questions, then that's being too funny. Assume I posted my question here, and asked a formula to solve it myself. Did you solve it for me? No. Who did solve it? Me. What did you show? the true equation him ought to use. Did you give the final answer? No. Does him have any idea about question? If answer is no, then he won't be able to solve it =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about other stackexchange communities, They get both questions. Conceptual-Homework. I posted my questions which I really did not get and took great answers. By the way, I leant everything and saw my faults. They are respectful for students because they see that him does not have any idea about the question. You might be right at homework-questions but really not right at formula questions. Believe in me, by doing this, you are helping no one. If you were really right at this, other stackexchange communties may have been following your policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I hope you change I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I'm not telling you to answer homework-questions. If you admit the conceptual questions, then you should answer the formula wants. Like i said, him ought to just ask an equation for question. If he wants the final answer or did not show his idea, then it should be off-topic. It seems like this will be off-topic cause telling true things. I hope you all change your unnecessilary policies. As the last thing I'll say, do not help him with calcuation cause the formula will be enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362682/acceleration-of-center-of-disc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You did well for this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362667/keplers-third-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at this question and see what's different between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="96134560-1fa9-4d84-8661-514ee2d11337" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:42:01.713" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Giving formulas does not mean ''Solving for you'' If they don't know how to apply that equation or not have any idea about the question, they won't be able to solve question. It depends on what they know. But you all don't have any respect, everyone starts hitting that close button when they see that cool ''homework-exercises'' tag. Answer formula wants at least. We got your homework policies and it seems good. But this is really being funny. The site admits conceptual question and this was really conceptual. That's why everyone does not understand this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, decide what kind of questions you want. If you want a question like this ''What is that?, What is this?'' Everyone can google it so it doesn't matter. What is this site for then? Examined other stackexchange communities, they are very helpful for a student. If you were right, then why do they answer all kind of questions? everyone gets everything well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about physics.se now. Yes, homework-questions should not be allowed and you are too right. But if you don't admit the formula questions, then that's being too funny. Assume I posted my question here, and asked a formula to solve it myself. Did you solve it for me? No. Who did solve it? Me. What did you show? the true equation him ought to use. Did you give the final answer? No. Does him have any idea about question? If answer is no, then he won't be able to solve it =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about other stackexchange communities, They get both questions. Conceptual-Homework. I posted my questions which I really did not get and took great answers. By the way, I leant everything and saw my faults. They are respectful for students because they see that him does not have any idea about the question. You might be right at homework-questions but really not right at formula questions. Believe in me, by doing this, you are helping no one. If you were really right at this, other stackexchange communties may have been following your policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I hope you change I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I'm not telling you to answer homework-questions. If you admit the conceptual questions, then you should answer the formula wants. Like i said, him ought to just ask an equation for question. If he wants the final answer or did not show his idea, then it should be off-topic. It seems like this will be off-topic cause telling true things. I hope you all change your unnecessilary policies. As the last thing I'll say, do not help him with calcuation cause the formula will be enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give an example;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362682/acceleration-of-center-of-disc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You did well for this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362667/keplers-third-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at this question and see what's different between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(1)** The first one wanted you to calcuate and give final answer for him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(2)** The second one wanted you to show a formula not give final answer for him and had said that he will solve it hisself. What's wrong then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="9674b3fe-8a77-4587-a8e0-609d2427b54d" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:47:28.453" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Kepler&amp;#39;s Third Law](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/362667/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did my question become off-topic? I just wanted to get a formula and said that I will solve it myself. Why aren't formula questions allowed? As far as i know, the formulas are in conceptual physics. Then, I'm asking a conceptual question. Please, do it at least because you don't admit a conceptual question too. What do you really admit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Giving formulas does not mean ''Solving for you'' If they don't know how to apply that equation or not have any idea about the question, they won't be able to solve question. It depends on what they know. But you all don't have any respect, everyone starts hitting that close button when they see that cool ''homework-exercises'' tag. Answer formula wants at least. We got your homework policies and it seems good. But this is really being funny. The site admits conceptual question and this was really conceptual. That's why everyone does not understand this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, decide what kind of questions you want. If you want a question like this ''What is that?, What is this?'' Everyone can google it so it doesn't matter. What is this site for then? Examined other stackexchange communities, they are very helpful for a student. If you were right, then why do they answer all kind of questions? everyone gets everything well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about physics.se now. Yes, homework-questions should not be allowed and you are too right. But if you don't admit the formula questions, then that's being too funny. Assume I posted my question here, and asked a formula to solve it myself. Did you solve it for me? No. Who did solve it? Me. What did you show? the true equation him ought to use. Did you give the final answer? No. Does him have any idea about question? If answer is no, then he won't be able to solve it =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's talk about other stackexchange communities, They get both questions. Conceptual-Homework. I posted my questions which I really did not get and took great answers. By the way, I leant everything and saw my faults. They are respectful for students because they see that him does not have any idea about the question. You might be right at homework-questions but really not right at formula questions. Believe in me, by doing this, you are helping no one. If you were really right at this, other stackexchange communties may have been following your policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I hope you change I lost my family from a traffic accident and do not have money to go courses and my physics teacher is too agressive as well. By the way, Trying to post my questions here and that's being off-topic without any reason. I asked them a formula, not final answer or something. Trying to learn something from these communities. Please, be respectful. I'm not telling you to answer homework-questions. If you admit the conceptual questions, then you should answer the formula wants. Like i said, him ought to just ask an equation for question. If he wants the final answer or did not show his idea, then it should be off-topic. It seems like this will be off-topic cause telling true things. I hope you all change your unnecessilary policies. As the last thing I'll say, do not help him with calcuation cause the formula will be enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give an example;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362682/acceleration-of-center-of-disc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You did well for this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362667/keplers-third-law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at this question and see what's different between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(1)** The first one wanted you to calcuate and give final answer for him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(2)** The second one wanted you to show a formula not give final answer for him and had said that he will solve it hisself. What's wrong then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take my mind as an idea, discuss about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31155" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="9674b3fe-8a77-4587-a8e0-609d2427b54d" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:47:28.453" UserDisplayName="user172034" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="About the formula wants (Let everyone read this)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="d1ec7d85-87d5-41a7-b298-fc21d762b25d" CreationDate="2017-10-14T18:57:52.577" UserId="40726" Text="one more question. Is it OK to reference a particular user in the text of a question (right at the end of the post with an @), just to be sure that that user gets to read my question (he receives an on inbox message, I believe) and increase the chances to extract a thorough answer from him? It is not necessarily unfair to the other users, I would still choose to upvote all answers and choose the most satisfactory one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="d1ec7d85-87d5-41a7-b298-fc21d762b25d" CreationDate="2017-10-14T18:57:52.577" UserId="40726" Text="Ping/Reference a user in the core text of a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="d1ec7d85-87d5-41a7-b298-fc21d762b25d" CreationDate="2017-10-14T18:57:52.577" UserId="40726" Text="|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="5c7cb303-1446-4505-86ca-4970ed2eb7c3" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:02:46.720" UserId="40726" Comment="Precison of wording" Text="One more question. Is it OK to reference a particular user in the text of a question (right at the end of the post with an @), just to be sure that that user gets to read my question (he receives an inbox message, I believe) and increase the chances to extract a thorough answer from him/her? It is not necessarily unfair to the other users, I would still choose to upvote all answers and choose the most satisfactory one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10217" RevisionGUID="5370385f-c600-4152-8111-85d51c855bff" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:09:37.110" UserId="127931" Text="This is not a feature of Stack Exchange, and I don't really think it should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is covered well in [this answer/question on the main Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/97474/369105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't really a one on one tutoring site, it's all community driven.  If that user is active enough, they will likely see the question anyways if it is one they would usually answer.  They may have contact info in their profile if you really want their opinion (but they may also not want to be contacted for that purpose, so respect that if mentioned).  You can also check the Chat to see if they are online there and willing to take a look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't really prompt a specific person to answer your questions unless they already _make themselves available_ to do so.  That seem fair to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31161" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="ed547a24-850b-463d-bfc9-b8c54b271e03" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:37:02.707" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="6800c88d-a921-419a-9598-497ad67978db" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:38:55.553" UserId="8563" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="6800c88d-a921-419a-9598-497ad67978db" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:38:55.553" UserId="8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10219" RevisionGUID="0709325e-556a-4e3e-89c0-c90ec99cb676" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:38:55.553" UserId="8563" Text="Use this tag for Meta discussions about a specific question on the main site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10219" RevisionGUID="0709325e-556a-4e3e-89c0-c90ec99cb676" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:38:55.553" UserId="8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10221" RevisionGUID="61944607-94b0-4f7b-b1f4-cf85756ccfaf" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:03:50.187" UserId="5477" Text="I concur with @heather's answer that it should be on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I think that whenever we have a meta question along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should this incredibly specific, very low volume class of questions be on topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer should be `yes, they are on topic`. I'm not really sure what purpose any other answer could serve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="c868b9f5-6188-4bc2-b6df-dd35cba024b9" CreationDate="2017-10-16T08:55:51.140" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/919849354965540864" />
  <row Id="31181" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="e30dbc3b-5937-41ec-95b0-42590968c7a8" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:00:05.913" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363224/what-happens-when-you-try-to-upvote-a-question-or-an-answer-but-you-dont-have" />
  <row Id="31182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="7dafd183-8c63-4da8-b594-ed7a3812a07c" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:45:03.257" UserId="163255" Text="When you try to apvote a question or an answer and you don't have enough reputation (15 points, it seems to me), a message occurs stating that your preference had been recorded by the system, but actually nothing happens. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="7dafd183-8c63-4da8-b594-ed7a3812a07c" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:45:03.257" UserId="163255" Text="What happens when you try to upvote a question (or an answer) but you don't have enough reputation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="7dafd183-8c63-4da8-b594-ed7a3812a07c" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:45:03.257" UserId="163255" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="d409b874-4012-40a0-9c13-70a79cb25656" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:04:17.797" UserId="34521" Comment="fixed typi" Text="When you try to upvote a question or an answer and you don't have enough reputation (15 points, it seems to me), a message occurs stating that your preference had been recorded by the system, but actually nothing happens. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="cb14ed28-853a-4d21-a7fa-8cd12ca0210f" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:05:23.337" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|reputation|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="1b44887a-317d-419d-be46-c9122a866df5" CreationDate="2017-10-16T19:55:17.423" UserId="84967" Text="Voting is a privilege you have to earn. If you don't have at least [15 rep points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up), you cannot upvote; and if you don't have at least [125 rep points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down), you cannot downvote. This is done in part to make sure you understand how the community works before you start judging its content. The page [Privileges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) contains more information about other privileges you can get by contributing to this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't comply with these restrictions, your vote will not be materialise. The vote is recorded internally, and it may be used by the developers as useful information. They track these kinds of actions, for statistical purposes. But, for all practical purposes, your vote will be useless. It will never be taken into account as far as what users can see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/259583/346882) meta post useful if you want some more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="131e9b4d-be72-4021-855d-83764af9216a" CreationDate="2017-10-16T20:05:53.397" UserId="84967" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Voting is a privilege you have to earn. If you don't have at least [15 rep points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up), you cannot upvote; and if you don't have at least [125 rep points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down), you cannot downvote. This is done in part to make sure you understand how the community works before you start judging its content. The page [Privileges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) contains more information about other privileges you can get by contributing to this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't comply with these restrictions, your vote will not be materialised. The vote is recorded internally, and it may be used by the developers as useful information. They track these kinds of actions, for statistical purposes. But, for all practical purposes, your vote will be useless. It will never be taken into account as far as what users can see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/259583/346882) meta post useful if you want some more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10227" RevisionGUID="0a6a8c66-39f3-4084-8a7e-f4c0809a0b94" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:06:46.797" UserId="37249" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Could you help me please with mathematical model of the soil freezing process?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/363483/could-you-help-me-please-with-mathematical-model-of-the-soil-freezing-process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got it (I fix my question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it &quot;On Hold&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10227" RevisionGUID="0a6a8c66-39f3-4084-8a7e-f4c0809a0b94" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:06:46.797" UserId="37249" Text="Why is it &quot;On Hold&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10227" RevisionGUID="0a6a8c66-39f3-4084-8a7e-f4c0809a0b94" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:06:46.797" UserId="37249" Text="|discussion|support|flagging|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31193" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10227" RevisionGUID="3abb8d38-1220-4a9b-bd8e-17b1904a9740" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:09:08.853" UserId="46399" Comment="edited title" Text="Why has my question been put &quot;On Hold&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10227" RevisionGUID="370fcc35-6c10-4514-abc6-128ef37c0b81" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:44:48.767" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 292 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/363483/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got it (I fix my question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it &quot;On Hold&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10227" RevisionGUID="370fcc35-6c10-4514-abc6-128ef37c0b81" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:44:48.767" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 292 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|specific-question|close-reasons|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="2904c094-b5a7-4f46-8327-96fabfc2aef9" CreationDate="2017-10-19T10:22:10.617" UserId="25301" Text="I voted to keep the question closed for similar reasons as what Emilio wrote in a comment to the question: you have a wildly specific equation that must have come from somewhere, didn't they explain what it is and how it's derived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while it doesn't seem to be *too broad*, as was originally closed, it's not clear what research of your own you've done to address the issue. Hence, I voted to keep it closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you **provided the resource** that gave you the equation ***and* some relevant text *around* the given equation** in that resource, it might be easier for *us* to understand what is missing and, thus, reopen the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10229" RevisionGUID="9ad6c7b0-6aac-403b-a4e4-b8dd42ceacfd" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:28:59.493" UserId="149663" Text="I recently saw this colour scheme in the main site under Newest Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9H2hr.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the first question is yellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never seen this before. And this is happening only with this question, even after some time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4aju4.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason of this unusual colour scheme on only one question suddenly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10229" RevisionGUID="9ad6c7b0-6aac-403b-a4e4-b8dd42ceacfd" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:28:59.493" UserId="149663" Text="Am I the only person seeing this colour scheme?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10229" RevisionGUID="9ad6c7b0-6aac-403b-a4e4-b8dd42ceacfd" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:28:59.493" UserId="149663" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="81d306c1-e279-4b0b-934e-28922eebd641" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:45:59.443" UserId="124" Text="Questions which have your &quot;favorite&quot; tags are highlighted in yellow in most listings. If you don't explicitly choose favorite tags (using the desktop site), the system chooses some for you based on what tags you are most active in. So evidently the system has decided to designate either [tag:quantum-mechanics] or [tag:wavefunction] as a favorite tag for you. (More likely the latter since you say you haven't seen this before, and [tag:wavefunction] is more rare.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10229" RevisionGUID="2bd18002-da2b-4326-a6a0-42d2587a0416" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:16:06.690" UserId="44126" Comment="reduce image display sizes" Text="I recently saw this colour scheme in the main site under Newest Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9H2hrm.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the first question is yellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never seen this before. And this is happening only with this question, even after some time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4aju4m.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason of this unusual colour scheme on only one question suddenly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="40b3c3c7-1dbc-43ab-8113-c2bb96b99496" CreationDate="2017-10-20T18:49:37.240" UserId="32185" Text="Recently, it seems that we've been getting several questions that would be more appropriate for [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/). [This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/364054/standard-error-poisson-distribution) is only the most recent example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the only choices for off-topic migrations are to Physics Meta or [Mathematics](https://math.stackexchange.com/). I think we need more choices - like Cross Validated (for purely statistical questions) and maybe even [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/) (for certain, strange hypotheticals).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I just vote to close these as off-topic? Or should we expand the list of migration sites to include other, common areas of off-topic questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="40b3c3c7-1dbc-43ab-8113-c2bb96b99496" CreationDate="2017-10-20T18:49:37.240" UserId="32185" Text="Is it possible to expand the list of migration sites for off-topic posts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="40b3c3c7-1dbc-43ab-8113-c2bb96b99496" CreationDate="2017-10-20T18:49:37.240" UserId="32185" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31205" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="fd8affd2-59d8-4063-8804-4f2e29d537a5" CreationDate="2017-10-20T18:56:41.617" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31206" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="f8eb7a34-acf3-4bfb-a442-3f37c221aa18" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:00:50.653" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|close-reasons|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31207" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="eecbb441-da6c-469b-acf3-c1a4078c5785" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:02:10.367" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|close-reasons|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10232" RevisionGUID="429e5e8a-146f-4cbb-983f-c87750468a7e" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:28:16.753" UserId="124" Text="It's certainly possible, in general, to add extra migration paths. But we only do so when there are really a lot of questions being migrated along that path, enough that it starts to tax the mods' ability to handle them case-by-case, _and_ when the questions being sent there are well received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we're trying to avoid the situation where people regularly vote to migrate questions to a site when they don't belong there. It's straightforward to avoid when only mods are migrating to that site, because it's a limited group of people and we know from experience how to respect the other site's scope, but when you open up that ability to all close voters, there's no telling how much care people will take to vote to migrate only what really should be migrated. Hence the reluctance to add new migration paths unless they're really needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, I haven't noticed enough questions being migrated anywhere other than Math, nor flags/comments suggesting so, that I really think it's necessary to add a new path. I don't have exact statistics at the moment but I can tell by looking at recent examples that migrating questions anywhere other than Math is pretty rare, which also supports that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you can do, for now, if you think a question should be migrated: first, make sure it's off topic here. We shouldn't even be _considering_ questions for migration unless they're off topic for us. Then you've got a couple of options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Just vote to close as off topic, and you can leave a comment telling the asker that their question may be better received on another site. I use wording like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; I think this is off topic here, but it might be better received on [site]. You have the option to delete this and post it there, but do check the rules on [site] to ensure it's on topic there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Bear in mind that askers can't delete questions which have upvoted answers.&#xD;&#xA;- Flag the question with a custom mod flag saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Off topic here, possible candidate for migration to [site]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do either of these or both, as the system allows. Personally, I think it's often better to suggest that the poster delete and repost, if they can do so; migration is more useful for when there's existing content like answers that is worth preserving on the other site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="6067c71f-f6fa-42c4-85d8-057ce1dd04ab" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:11:13.913" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="I understand that bounties are mostly used to attract better answers but one of the reasons to award a bounty to an answer, as recognized by the PSE, is to reward an existing beautiful answer. I wonder that if a beautiful answer is accepted as an appropriate reason to reward the user with some points then why should a beautiful question not be accepted as an appropriate reason to do the same. I understand that this might be an SE-wide policy. But I would like to know that the PSE community thinks about this and then maybe the question can be moved to the SE meta if it gets the positive response. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="6067c71f-f6fa-42c4-85d8-057ce1dd04ab" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:11:13.913" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="Why can't &quot;bounties&quot; be awarded to a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="6067c71f-f6fa-42c4-85d8-057ce1dd04ab" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:11:13.913" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="a3514afb-59c8-414c-b703-284bda6dff7e" CreationDate="2017-10-24T12:25:59.080" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/922801339750584320" />
  <row Id="31213" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="7e16fc5e-7bd3-4d03-baa8-7b7806933533" CreationDate="2017-10-27T09:31:22.300" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/923844560928854016" />
  <row Id="31215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="fd228ec1-a47e-4edf-91b2-8b73241dd9bb" CreationDate="2017-10-29T13:05:22.323" UserId="8563" Text="If you're asking a question and you click the help button, it will send you to the Editing Help page, which has a [LaTeX section](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help#latex) that looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a perfect place to have a link to [the meta.MSE tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) we use elsewhere, but there's currently no such link. Can we add one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PriP8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="fd228ec1-a47e-4edf-91b2-8b73241dd9bb" CreationDate="2017-10-29T13:05:22.323" UserId="8563" Text="Please add a link to the meta.MSE MathJax tutorial to the editing help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="fd228ec1-a47e-4edf-91b2-8b73241dd9bb" CreationDate="2017-10-29T13:05:22.323" UserId="8563" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="e69ed0cf-f954-4311-a280-df094b41cc94" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:51:01.613" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="If you're asking a question and you click the help button, it will send you to the Editing Help page, which has a [LaTeX section](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help#latex) that looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a perfect place to have a link to [the Meta MSE tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) we use elsewhere, but there's currently no such link. Can we add one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PriP8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="e69ed0cf-f954-4311-a280-df094b41cc94" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:51:01.613" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Please add a link to the Meta MSE MathJax tutorial to the editing help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10186" RevisionGUID="d42d6ac2-544f-454f-b5cd-8ce8942b90c9" CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:50:11.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="dcce4818-a072-4100-9e20-1af988873dd0" CreationDate="2017-11-01T14:42:42.333" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I want to delete [my question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/253947/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i am not able to delete it? How to do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31222" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="dcce4818-a072-4100-9e20-1af988873dd0" CreationDate="2017-11-01T14:42:42.333" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to delete my question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31223" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="dcce4818-a072-4100-9e20-1af988873dd0" CreationDate="2017-11-01T14:42:42.333" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|questions|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7742" RevisionGUID="335c286e-85e6-458b-8f8e-37c333682880" CreationDate="2017-11-02T14:08:58.917" UserId="8563" Comment="Added image." Text="If a &quot;delete&quot; link appears below the question, at the left just under the tags, then click that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/CRyxi.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't see that link, it means that something about the question or one of its answers makes it worth keeping. There are [various reasons this can happen](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222/56541)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="b44da622-4a49-4536-bf1d-d374300a9275" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:03:55.917" UserId="173380" Text="Is it because the quality of questions is low? Or is the Physics stackexchange a bit more hostile than other ones? Should the physics stackexchange community work harder on being more welcoming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(also, meta-meta if this gets downvoted too)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="b44da622-4a49-4536-bf1d-d374300a9275" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:03:55.917" UserId="173380" Text="Why are there so many downvotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="b44da622-4a49-4536-bf1d-d374300a9275" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:03:55.917" UserId="173380" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="2f192494-fdf3-4b3b-8cf2-85ffbb9a8fa6" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:11:27.123" UserId="28359" Text="Background: I've been using several SE sites for several years now. I am used to their systems and strict rules, respect them, and try to obey as much as possible. However I do not understand this on-hold one of my posts got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/365567/lyman-and-balmer-series&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is partly a factual physics question. My book did not explain this topic with enough detail for me to be able to make this out on my own. This is not a numerical question. I don't have to do any maths here. So what &quot;effort&quot; do you want me to show?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also don't understand how my question is NOT &quot;useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;. It certainly contains a proper question plus a proper detailed answer. This site didn't have this question before, now it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please explain. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="2f192494-fdf3-4b3b-8cf2-85ffbb9a8fa6" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:11:27.123" UserId="28359" Text="Did my question deserve a hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="2f192494-fdf3-4b3b-8cf2-85ffbb9a8fa6" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:11:27.123" UserId="28359" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="29898562-bb74-4c80-b5f1-5a10c27291ae" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:14:21.150" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Background: I've been using several SE sites for several years now. I am used to their systems and strict rules, respect them, and try to obey as much as possible. However I do not understand this on-hold one of my posts got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/365567/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is partly a factual physics question. My book did not explain this topic with enough detail for me to be able to make this out on my own. This is not a numerical question. I don't have to do any maths here. So what &quot;effort&quot; do you want me to show?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also don't understand how my question is NOT &quot;useful to the broader community, and to future users&quot;. It certainly contains a proper question plus a proper detailed answer. This site didn't have this question before, now it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please explain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="29898562-bb74-4c80-b5f1-5a10c27291ae" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:14:21.150" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31233" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="c595d0ec-b2a5-400f-8f65-10c9fff2c259" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:15:25.763" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="52514253-eca7-4635-b81e-7064e20f02f9" CreationDate="2017-11-03T13:57:03.727" UserId="84967" Text="If we focus on the content rather than the form, your question is certainly conceptual and useful to a broader community. I voted to reopen accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the risk of being accused of gaming the system, I suggest you to edit it to make it look less like a homework question (even if it actually is), and more like something you are wondering yourself. To complement this, do some research about the topic and make it clear you tried to come up with the solution before posting the question here. Otherwise, it would still be off-topic on grounds of [insufficient prior research](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5778/84967). Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="0c4c1994-f8a5-4e92-af58-2c7845fd44eb" CreationDate="2017-11-03T14:55:41.237" UserId="25301" Text="Your question is asking us to answer a problem for you. That is, by our definitions, a homework-like question that is explicitly off topic. The link in the close banner explains this in much detail.&#xA;&#xA;Your recent edits to explain that it's not a homework problem assigned by the professor haven't changed the nature of your question, hence I voted to leave it closed.&#xA;&#xA;I'd be willing to vote to reopen if you made the question less 'do my work for me' and more 'my understanding of the scenario is $x$, but that doesn't seem to address $y$. Can someone explain why $y$ is the case?' (with some details and not just subjects/topics thrown in there). That way it shows what you're thinking and (likely) what you're missing.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31236" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="57cb30b0-6c54-4f2d-8cb3-0eba932f0bf6" CreationDate="2017-11-03T15:51:58.547" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6754],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:121464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;heather&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:127931,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;JMac&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10239" RevisionGUID="334686aa-da1d-4f23-8a8d-a59e99a1b314" CreationDate="2017-11-03T17:35:53.577" UserId="520" Text="I actually think the close gang may have been premature on this one. Probably because you were explicit about the question coming from a text (kudos for openness, but it worked against you here). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my (unofficial) opinion the spirit of the homework-like policy that is currently in force does not just mean that questions not actually coming from homework can be closed but also that actual homework questions can get a pass when they conform to the 'ask about a concept' rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a question that is about the physics by which spectra get generated. (And I have to say that the way the problem is framed in the textbook version is too stark and may be contributing to the confusion here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, &quot;I've been successful on other sites' is only so helpful because inside a large overarching framework detailed rules vary a lot from site to site. In particular Physics is rather different from some other sites in our expectation for questions that look like exercises for the student: just showing effort isn't enough (it is necessary, but not sufficient). This causes a lot of initial confusions for users who come it thinking that the rules on [math.se], for instance, are universal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="8a095e41-d617-4ba0-9627-9b6048c6a1e9" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:51:48.757" UserId="73067" Text="We can mark questions as favourites, but usually I would rather want to mark an answer as a favourite. Afaik this is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my profile I could check my upvotes, but there I seem to have only limited means of sorting (no answers only or by reverse time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something obvious? Is there some cute trick to effectively mark answers as favourites?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="8a095e41-d617-4ba0-9627-9b6048c6a1e9" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:51:48.757" UserId="73067" Text="Any trick to mark answers as favorites, not just questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="8a095e41-d617-4ba0-9627-9b6048c6a1e9" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:51:48.757" UserId="73067" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10241" RevisionGUID="e5ea2124-0f1d-492b-b086-20dd3ccc9d8d" CreationDate="2017-11-05T16:02:44.550" UserId="65572" Text="[![Physics Travel Guide][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nkCiJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physicstravelguide.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="f5a41f72-0025-4ed9-9089-e61d30449b9d" CreationDate="2017-11-05T16:24:26.450" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10242" RevisionGUID="38703c5c-1028-40b4-b34e-087ce2d1f600" CreationDate="2017-11-05T20:35:31.633" UserId="124" Text="I'm popping in a little late here since I only noticed this post just now. Here's the deal: in your original post you identified&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lyman series for hydrogen atom is available for both absorption and emission, but the Balmer series is _only_ available for emission. Explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a textbook question. The mere fact that your question includes a textbook question is fine, but according to our [homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), &quot;We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically.&quot; You haven't done that. All you did was post your textbook question and ask us to answer it. That's off topic, and that's why your question was put on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you've been saying that you have no idea where to start, but questions like that aren't what we handle on this site. When you have no idea where to start on a problem, the place to go is to your teacher, your fellow students, to your textbook, or to a [dedicated homework help site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh). However, when you have worked out how to start but there's some relatively small conceptual issue that is holding you up from making progress, _that's_ when you can ask here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="69f9bb88-a51c-4ae5-96b0-71542c6b358d" CreationDate="2017-11-07T21:43:50.160" UserId="84967" Text="[This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/367560/84967) answer only provides a link. As such, it is not unlikely that it will be deleted, and in fact a user has already suggested that the post does not really qualify as an answer (I may presume they also flagged it as &quot;not an answer&quot;, but I cannot know that). But the link is actually useful, so deletion may not be the way to go. I therefore flagged for mod attention, with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Perhaps should be moved into the comment section. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, a mod could study the case and decide on whether it should be deleted, moved into the comment section, or let it be. But the flag was rejected, with the message&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - Using standard flags helps us prioritize problems and resolve them faster. Please familiarize yourself with the list of standard flags: see [What is Flagging?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't get why this flag was rejected. I always thought that this kind of flags are useful, inasmuch as a mod might be able to act before it's too late -- before users vote to delete the post. A regular flag doesn't work, because regular users cannot turn answers into comments. Thus, &quot;mod attention&quot; seems the way to go. In fact, I have raised similar flags in the past (more than a dozen), and they  were always deemed &quot;helpful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting a flag rejected is no big deal, but it discourages me from keep on raising them. Are these flags helpful or not? Should I keep raising them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="69f9bb88-a51c-4ae5-96b0-71542c6b358d" CreationDate="2017-11-07T21:43:50.160" UserId="84967" Text="Why was this flag rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="69f9bb88-a51c-4ae5-96b0-71542c6b358d" CreationDate="2017-11-07T21:43:50.160" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|flagging|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10244" RevisionGUID="82671aa7-7e2e-4bfd-916e-50a5fc2320e2" CreationDate="2017-11-08T00:13:23.103" UserId="124" Text="Rejection (or technically &quot;declining&quot;) of a flag usually means you shouldn't have flagged the thing at all, but other times (less commonly) it means you didn't flag correctly. That's what the response you received is for. It means you cast a custom flag on something for which a standard flag reason was perfectly adequate. In this case, to indicate that the posted answer was not suitable for the answer section (but may have been suitable for the comments), the standard &quot;not an answer&quot; flag was the one to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I understand that you wanted to convey more than just that the posted content was not an answer; you wanted to convey that something out of the ordinary should be done with it, namely converting to a comment. But honestly, in those cases I'd suggest just posting the comment yourself, perhaps prefixed with &quot;[username] suggested looking at this website: ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, though, if you think the &quot;standard&quot; non-moderator way of handling a flag would be inappropriate or insufficient, then you can indicate that by a custom flag - but you should be really clear that you're asking for something abnormal to be done with the content, and not merely reporting that it needs action. In this case, a flag message like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is probably on track to be deleted as NAA but I think it should be converted to a comment instead, which requires mod intervention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;might have helped your chances: it shows that you're aware of the standard way to handle the problem and you have made an informed decision that something different should be done. Even then, though, I'd wonder why you didn't just post the comment yourself. Custom mod flags work best when there's _no_ appropriate way for a non-moderator (or the community at large) to deal with the content being flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt about using a nonstandard flag on something that a standard flag appears to handle, you can ask one of the mods in chat, and we'll give you guidance on how (or whether) to flag. Keep in mind that mods can access deleted posts too, and undelete them if necessary, so you shouldn't have to worry too much about having this conversation quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Getting a flag rejected is no big deal, but it discourages me from keep on raising them. Are these flags helpful or not? Should I keep raising them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, no, you should not continue to raise moderator flags on non-answers. If you think you have an exception, I'd say just be clear about why it really _needs_ to be handled by a mod." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10245" RevisionGUID="53114e25-adcd-434e-84c3-c47e130e95cb" CreationDate="2017-11-08T02:31:52.313" UserId="44126" Text="Oh, hi, that was me.  Basically DavidZ has described my reasoning, but I can elaborate a little more specifically about what I had in mind in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a super-big fan of the &quot;convert to comment&quot; feature. It has its uses, but it's not great for low-content answers from new users without the reputation to comment themselves.  I like that the StackExchange model encourages a new user's first few interactions with the site to be substantive answers or questions, and that making less-substantive comments is a privilege to be earned --- I think it's a clever way to encourage people to participate constructively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, [comments aren't meant to be permanent](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment).  If the link is a good fit for the question, then it's worth the effort for someone (perhaps the original answerer, or perhaps another editor) ought to take a few minutes to summarize why, so that the answer stands on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly have converted answers to comments, and will again, but I don't like to do that as a user's first interaction with the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I was imagining would happen when I declined your flag was something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * You'd flag again as &quot;not an answer,&quot; the standard flag&#xD;&#xA; * One of the couple dozen folks who are keeping their eye on the [review queues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats) would leave the nice &quot;link-only answers are discouraged&quot; comment template, which I can never find when I need it&#xD;&#xA; * The original answerer would get that notification and write a useful paragraph explaining what's so much nicer about the derivation in their link than others&#xD;&#xA; * The original answerer would be inspired by this burst of effort to become an effective communicator of science, writing and publishing widely and improving the lives of their readers all across the globe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first three of these steps have happened to other flagged posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Getting a flag rejected is no big deal, but it discourages me from keep on raising them. Are these flags helpful or not? Should I keep raising them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, raise the flags --- but use the standard ones unless something is super-unusual.  Note that if the review queue doesn't handle your standard flag [promptly](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/292878/280545), the moderators will still see it.  Basically, the standard flag puts your concern in front of *additional* people, which I think makes it more likely to get resolved sooner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="3beb8a34-c7ab-4cad-96cd-cd83c59c0396" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:17:38.330" UserId="174161" Text="What are special text codes that must be written to generate various mathematical formulae, symbols like limit, derivative, integral, closed integral etc. (in simple keypad) &#xA;&#xA;For instance, &quot;**&quot; for italics etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="3beb8a34-c7ab-4cad-96cd-cd83c59c0396" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:17:38.330" UserId="174161" Text="Special text codes for generating symbols" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="3beb8a34-c7ab-4cad-96cd-cd83c59c0396" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:17:38.330" UserId="174161" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="a81fb18c-6bea-4642-9107-44f09a91f9f5" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:20:33.397" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What are special text codes that must be written to generate various mathematical formulae, symbols like limit, derivative, integral, closed integral etc. (in simple keypad) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, &quot;**&quot; for italics etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31254" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="a81fb18c-6bea-4642-9107-44f09a91f9f5" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:20:33.397" UserId="2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="9f4b7168-20bb-4d10-a1c2-b82b6333eb3c" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:23:38.983" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|faq|mathjax|tex|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31256" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="7acb3d01-97ab-491e-8bd9-c62021992cd3" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:30:43.860" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="b063209c-fcc2-4751-99a0-38c4cb7255a1" CreationDate="2017-11-08T19:59:59.933" UserId="12282" Text="The name of Huygens in the `aether` tag description is spelled Huygen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, where may one places this fix or improvment suggestion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="b063209c-fcc2-4751-99a0-38c4cb7255a1" CreationDate="2017-11-08T19:59:59.933" UserId="12282" Text="Typo on the tag description of $\text{aether}$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="b063209c-fcc2-4751-99a0-38c4cb7255a1" CreationDate="2017-11-08T19:59:59.933" UserId="12282" Text="|bug|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="9416d21e-59f9-4d8e-a1b5-f2fc85fa6c2f" CreationDate="2017-11-08T20:16:07.960" UserId="2451" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How may one suggest improvements on a tag wiki?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. the name of Huygens in the [tag:aether] tag description is spelled Huygen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31261" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="9416d21e-59f9-4d8e-a1b5-f2fc85fa6c2f" CreationDate="2017-11-08T20:16:07.960" UserId="2451" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How may one suggest improvements on a tag wiki?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31262" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="9416d21e-59f9-4d8e-a1b5-f2fc85fa6c2f" CreationDate="2017-11-08T20:16:07.960" UserId="2451" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|tags|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10248" RevisionGUID="1f1b3e0c-8c83-430b-bc7c-185be290fecd" CreationDate="2017-11-08T20:23:00.757" UserId="2451" Text="Click the 'improve tag info' button on the tag's page (e.g. [tag:aether]) to edit. (Requires 100 reputation points.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31264" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="ee849a74-5bfc-4419-955c-6b9ffe0931e8" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:24:55.490" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/368168/how-to-save-an-answer-to-a-specific-question" />
  <row Id="31265" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="a6906647-a527-4747-b7ff-d9d6ce679c7a" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:24:55.490" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/368168/how-to-save-an-answer-to-a-specific-question/368172#368172" />
  <row Id="31266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="c06acae1-7f31-4b0b-ad7d-6fe6a315d897" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:05:59.813" UserId="149663" Text="Currently there is no option to directly save answers in any SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What yiu can do is that, copy the link to the question and save it somewhere, with the name of the user whose answer you want to look at later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="db2defb4-3fe0-4f6f-99b5-f0368053ba13" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:01:12.707" UserId="175037" Text="I would like to save an Answer to a Question on Physics and any other StackExchange site. Is that possible? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact it would REALLY convenient to have a save answer button that lead to a notebook page where I can review all the saved answers, as a reminder and a learning tool. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="db2defb4-3fe0-4f6f-99b5-f0368053ba13" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:01:12.707" UserId="175037" Text="How to SAVE an answer to a specific question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="db2defb4-3fe0-4f6f-99b5-f0368053ba13" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:01:12.707" UserId="175037" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31270" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="8c259a53-a711-47f4-9ad6-b78bb4c0c289" CreationDate="2017-11-10T21:26:02.013" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31272" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="295c191d-3b9a-4d0c-8c79-8b66ab07a072" CreationDate="2017-11-11T06:57:59.577" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|answers|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10241" RevisionGUID="add81328-6e6e-433b-b1db-eaa017dbca12" CreationDate="2017-11-11T09:42:16.113" UserId="65572" Comment="removed the blurry text" Text="[![The Physics Travel Guide][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EFnGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physicstravelguide.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="f7bb2396-7268-480f-9c9a-8f0d9744250f" CreationDate="2017-11-11T10:12:49.777" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/929290812080476160" />
  <row Id="31275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="5bfc2049-49d8-45d9-a22c-09a49bd39d50" CreationDate="2017-11-12T06:57:44.580" UserId="170414" Text="How do i change my profile picture and display name in physics stack exchange?.i cant see any link in my profile settings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="5bfc2049-49d8-45d9-a22c-09a49bd39d50" CreationDate="2017-11-12T06:57:44.580" UserId="170414" Text="How do i change my profile picture and display name in physics stack exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="5bfc2049-49d8-45d9-a22c-09a49bd39d50" CreationDate="2017-11-12T06:57:44.580" UserId="170414" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10252" RevisionGUID="61f26aa2-7e24-4e1e-ab28-0542b77c4273" CreationDate="2017-11-12T07:21:34.670" UserId="124" Text="There is a post on Meta Stack Exchange describing [how to change your profile picture](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41277/how-do-i-change-my-profile-picture-or-avatar). There are a few different ways to do it, depending on where your profile picture is stored, but in brief:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If your profile picture is stored on Stack Exchange servers, you go to [your profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current), click &quot;[Edit Profile &amp; Settings](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/edit/current)&quot; then &quot;Change picture&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- If your profile picture is stored on Gravatar servers, you will need to go to [www.gravatar.com](https://www.gravatar.com) and follow their procedure for changing the picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To change your display name, you simply go to [your profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/current), click &quot;[Edit Profile &amp; Settings](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/edit/current)&quot;, and enter the new display name in the field labeled &quot;Display Name&quot;. There may be [a restriction on how often you can change it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45200/add-warning-when-changing-display-name)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="84fb4e34-6bc4-4073-ae6e-7076eabf0fb3" CreationDate="2017-11-12T07:23:42.627" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="bda8832c-98fe-42cf-8938-f911d8f72048" CreationDate="2017-11-12T11:11:32.147" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor typo fixed" Text="Currently there is no option to directly save answers in any SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you can do is that, copy the link to the question and save it somewhere, with the name of the user whose answer you want to look at later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="771dd1eb-9bad-4523-8f72-5e1892ceac9d" CreationDate="2017-11-12T12:59:20.820" UserId="170414" Text="I can't log out from stack exchange in browser .in pc and mobile. Afted loged out when i open the site again it appears as i am already loggedin. I have not enabled to remember my password" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="771dd1eb-9bad-4523-8f72-5e1892ceac9d" CreationDate="2017-11-12T12:59:20.820" UserId="170414" Text="Can't logout from stack exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="771dd1eb-9bad-4523-8f72-5e1892ceac9d" CreationDate="2017-11-12T12:59:20.820" UserId="170414" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="4de4622c-3f7f-4e28-b471-f765a537e467" CreationDate="2017-11-12T14:15:10.240" UserId="46399" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am unable to log out from Stack Exchange in my browser, in both PC and mobile. After logging out, when I open the site again it appears as I am already logged in. I have not enabled the remembering of my password for this site, either. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="4de4622c-3f7f-4e28-b471-f765a537e467" CreationDate="2017-11-12T14:15:10.240" UserId="46399" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|bug|login|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31286" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="4de4622c-3f7f-4e28-b471-f765a537e467" CreationDate="2017-11-12T14:15:10.240" UserId="46399" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can't logout from Stack Exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="d6d62a48-963b-46c6-acba-c91e65514452" CreationDate="2017-11-12T15:27:54.370" UserId="27939" Text="I recently had a question which I wasn't sure if this would be the correct site for as it seemed too speculative. But by the time I completed it, it seemed, more concrete than I'd imagined. I would like a second opinion of which site it belongs to before I post it (and delete the other as cross posting is not allowed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/47140/quantum-gravity-zeno-paradox-and-modifying-state-reduction  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="d6d62a48-963b-46c6-acba-c91e65514452" CreationDate="2017-11-12T15:27:54.370" UserId="27939" Text="Does this question belong in stack exchange physics or philosophy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="d6d62a48-963b-46c6-acba-c91e65514452" CreationDate="2017-11-12T15:27:54.370" UserId="27939" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="afc7d041-aae8-4553-a007-6c341419926e" CreationDate="2017-11-12T16:01:11.167" UserId="50583" Text="Your question probably would belong on physics.SE, if it wasn't ill-posed and unclear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The &quot;state reduction&quot; or collapse of the wavefunction is a feature of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, and there exist interpretations that explain the results of measurements other than with collapse. Failure to mention this when talking about modifications of quantum mechanics indicates prior research is lacking here, and makes it unclear what you mean by &quot;modifying R&quot; when R is not even present in all interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It is unclear what you mean by *&quot;It seems to me everyone in the physics community has been working on modifying U&quot;*. The large majority of the physics community accepts conventional quantum mechanics as correct and does not work to change it at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons, I would close your question as *unclear what you're asking* regardless of its on-topicness otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="8db29f8f-13c7-44e1-ab78-cd5a770829fc" CreationDate="2017-11-12T16:42:41.523" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently had a question which I wasn't sure if this would be the correct site for as it seemed too speculative. But by the time I completed it, it seemed, more concrete than I'd imagined. I would like a second opinion of which site it belongs to before I post it (and delete the other as cross posting is not allowed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/47140/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31292" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="8db29f8f-13c7-44e1-ab78-cd5a770829fc" CreationDate="2017-11-12T16:42:41.523" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10256" RevisionGUID="abfd1a8e-63a0-48c3-97a6-442c93cebb7c" CreationDate="2017-11-13T13:32:24.067" UserDisplayName="user175150" Text="This [question of mine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/368363/175150) has been marked as duplicate. I tried to argue my case in the text of my question but it seems this forum is more appropriate. My apologies if this is not so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a definite duplicate of [Q10075](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10075/175150) which has rather low quality answers: no, superstrings can't predict only 4 dimensions are not compactified. My question was also marked as a duplicate of [Q10651](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/10651/175150). It did not seem obvious at first as superstrings were not discussed at all there but I shall thank the moderator for the pointer because one of the answer, [A10723](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/10723/175150), cites a paper [&quot;Relaxing to Three Dimensions](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0506053) by Karsh and Randall which, although it is far too advanced for my current understanding of physics, seems to answer my question with a &quot;yes&quot;. Here is the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We propose a new selection principle for distinguishing among possible vacua that we call the “relaxation principle.” The idea is that the universe will naturally select among possible vacua through its cosmological evolution, and the configuration with the biggest filling fraction is the likeliest. We apply this idea to the question of the number of dimensions of space. We show that under conventional (but higher-dimensional) FRW evolution, a universe filled with equal numbers of branes and antibranes will naturally come to be dominated by 3-branes and 7-branes. We show why this might explain the number of dimensions that are experienced in our visible universe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the page of the paper, I clicked on &quot;cited by&quot; and there seems to be a handful of papers arguing the same point, but again I am at the level of matching buzzwords! As for the answer itself which quotes this paper, it is again of low quality as it adds no value at all to the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarise, we are in a situation where existing answers seem either wrong, or are useless to me, and by extension to anybody who is not a postgraduate-level physicist. May I enquire what could be done?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10256" RevisionGUID="abfd1a8e-63a0-48c3-97a6-442c93cebb7c" CreationDate="2017-11-13T13:32:24.067" UserDisplayName="user175150" Text="Reopen &quot;Can superstring theories predict our 4 dimensions?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10256" RevisionGUID="abfd1a8e-63a0-48c3-97a6-442c93cebb7c" CreationDate="2017-11-13T13:32:24.067" UserDisplayName="user175150" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10257" RevisionGUID="724ca3b5-f7df-416c-adbb-7d0330057d63" CreationDate="2017-11-13T20:25:16.167" UserId="124" Text="&gt; To summarise, we are in a situation where existing answers seem either wrong, or are useless to me, and by extension to anybody who is not a postgraduate-level physicist. May I enquire what could be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're having trouble understanding an existing answer, you can ask a followup question about that answer. For example, if you wanted more information about a specific aspect of the answer - say, the assumptions required to get the Karch &amp; Randall argument to work - you might ask something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [This other answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/10723/124) references [a paper by Karch &amp; Randall](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0506053) in which they determine that 3-dimensional objects are likely to dominate interactions among different higher-dimensional objects. It says they had to make some unrealistic assumptions to get this to work; what are those assumptions? I've tried [list your other efforts to understand] but I can't make sense of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, adjust this to suit your writing style and the actual aspect of the answer you want to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you can do is try to bring more attention to the original question in the hope that someone will post an answer which is more useful to you. You can do this by setting a bounty, by asking for help in chat, or by sharing the link on- or off-site. (In practice, posting a followup question, or a meta post, if one is warranted, are both effective ways to bring attention to a question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you should _not_ do is post another question asking the same thing as the original question you're looking at in the hope of getting answers that are more useful to you. That's just a duplicate, and will be marked as such (if somebody notices). If you think the answers to the original are bad, or useless to you, that's not an argument against the _question_ not being a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when your question is marked as a duplicate, sometimes you can edit it to make it not a duplicate, by explaining what you're asking that the original question isn't. But any argument that a question isn't a duplicate of another must be based on the _questions_ only, _not the answers_. Answers do _not_ factor into whether two questions are considered duplicates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10258" RevisionGUID="64a531b7-e611-4c30-8f23-ee359f271138" CreationDate="2017-11-16T21:36:24.680" UserId="2451" Text="If you are a user who just want to read good posts without having to sift through poor posts, read on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. With the current traffic (November 2017), it only takes in average 5 hours for a post to disappear from the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/). Hence it is easy to miss the quality posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. However, if you e.g. instead use the search feature [closed:no score:1](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=closed%3ano%20score%3a1) with the options 'newest' and '50 per page', you only see the latest 50 open questions with score bigger than zero. It currently takes 2 days for a quality post to disappear from this search. So it is harder to miss the good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is just a suggestion. You can of course further limit the search by using certain keywords or tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10258" RevisionGUID="54240336-02ff-4b0c-b4d6-3e48018560ac" CreationDate="2017-11-16T21:44:54.387" UserId="2451" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="If you are a user who just want to read good posts without having to sift through poor posts, read on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. With the current traffic (November 2017), it only takes in average 5 hours for a post to disappear from the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/). Hence it is easy to miss the quality posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. However, if you e.g. instead use the search feature [closed:no score:1](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=Newest&amp;pagesize=50&amp;q=closed%3ano%20score%3a1) with the options 'newest' and '50 per page', you only see the latest 50 open questions with score bigger than zero. It currently takes 2 days for a quality post to disappear from this search. So it is harder to miss the good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is just a suggestion. You can of course further limit the search by using certain keywords or tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="29f58e81-1a06-4590-81d0-2c235f59151e" CreationDate="2017-11-17T16:17:16.877" UserId="3673" Text="There are a lot of journals that cover or intersect with physics.  What are the criteria for reputability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="29f58e81-1a06-4590-81d0-2c235f59151e" CreationDate="2017-11-17T16:17:16.877" UserId="3673" Text="What are the criteria for journals being &quot;reputable&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="29f58e81-1a06-4590-81d0-2c235f59151e" CreationDate="2017-11-17T16:17:16.877" UserId="3673" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31302" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="1a342e56-3ffa-4c1b-a24f-9452785e0912" CreationDate="2017-11-17T16:19:38.463" UserId="50583" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="e57590b0-f5fe-4217-b128-73c14ae79e1e" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:40:32.583" UserId="3673" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="&quot;Mainstream&quot; physics is a requirement of the Physics SE site and the definition of &quot;mainstream&quot; is in terms of &quot;reputable&quot; journals.  There are a lot of journals that cover or intersect with physics.  What are the criteria for reputability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31304" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="da7dcec4-a8ce-4bf2-a61d-239e93d55aae" CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:23:22.953" UserId="3673" Comment="better title to clarify relevance to Physics SE" Text="What are the criteria for journals being &quot;reputable&quot; hence mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31306" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="8c161cfd-d246-4ca5-92d0-368addcdf6b4" CreationDate="2017-11-18T02:20:44.730" UserId="50583" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="e7ddf95a-f990-434b-bd1d-a82867301a1f" CreationDate="2017-11-18T10:21:32.403" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|non-mainstream-physics|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31308" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="6e21f33d-a5dd-4a53-9e07-1107155f4f69" CreationDate="2017-11-18T11:47:47.857" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31309" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="3cf66f69-b160-4f9b-99bf-44c43240046a" CreationDate="2017-11-18T11:52:20.867" UserId="2451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31310" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="b171724e-d8d5-40bd-8a70-e53f823b9d53" CreationDate="2017-11-18T11:52:20.867" UserId="2451" Comment="1027" />
  <row Id="31311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10260" RevisionGUID="ae172ff8-dbf3-4035-af6c-188e43bf1175" CreationDate="2017-11-18T15:36:20.567" UserId="36973" Text="I often come across questions where the author uses a linked image of an equation instead of typesetting it as MathJax. Should I edit the question to typeset the equation in MathJax, comment to let the author know that the site supports MathJax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find equations linked as images on this site distasteful, but are they actually against policy? I didn't find any specific proscription in the help center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10260" RevisionGUID="ae172ff8-dbf3-4035-af6c-188e43bf1175" CreationDate="2017-11-18T15:36:20.567" UserId="36973" Text="Should I edit question to format equation linked as image in MathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10260" RevisionGUID="ae172ff8-dbf3-4035-af6c-188e43bf1175" CreationDate="2017-11-18T15:36:20.567" UserId="36973" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="86eddd55-6314-4211-8fe3-c5fca30f1fe7" CreationDate="2017-11-18T15:38:53.510" UserId="50583" Text="Yes, you should edit and/or leave a comment in these cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31315" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10260" RevisionGUID="ba13546f-2b38-454a-986b-a6a913fab7e6" CreationDate="2017-11-18T18:13:59.900" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="d54ea344-ccd1-4232-b385-d1eae8b545cb" CreationDate="2017-11-18T18:47:47.760" UserId="50583" Comment="Added reasons" Text="Yes, you should edit and/or leave a comment in these cases because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Images are fixed size and will display poorly in small browser windows, particularly on phones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  MathJax is searchable, although the search functionality is usually not all that useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - MathJax provides a uniform style for typesetting, while the typesetting in images can vary wildly depending on the source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10263" RevisionGUID="6e109876-b5b0-44ac-bdbc-cf712097ce61" CreationDate="2017-11-19T01:50:02.863" UserId="36194" Text="I’m willing to tolerate some number of “non-research-grade” and generally lower level questions because I make excellent use of answers to less specialized questions on other SE sites.  I’m not a professional mathematician, an expert at LaTeX or Mathematica, but I still extensively use these sites because good answers to rather mundane questions are often very useful (to me at least).  I can only hope that users from other sites also find many of the answers to our less specialized questions equally useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean we should not strive to eliminate truly terrible questions.  I seriously doubt if pictures of handwritten questions, or pictures of book questions, can generate insightful answers useful to anyone except the specific OP and a few other lucky users with the same textbook.  Such questions should IMO be systematically downvoted and rooted out as promptly as feasible: if a person cannot take a few minutes to properly typeset (or learn to typeset) a question, one can wonder aloud if this question is acceptable for this (or any other) SE site.   I would even suggest that we have an explicit Vote-To-Close item for such types of questions.  This could be one step towards raising the quality of questions, the quality of answers, and the interest of posters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another practical step would be to have, like MathSE, a landing page of “interesting” rather just “newest” questions.  I don’t know how a question is deemed “interesting”, and these disappear within hours (possibly due to the overall amount of questions on the site), but this could highlight some of the better questions when they are posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10264" RevisionGUID="90a6e97f-3fa5-4eda-b0d1-a72bc0cbea6f" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:26:41.507" UserId="171818" Text="My question “Dark matter as invisible part of the Heisenberg’s universal matter” (asked 27 October) disappeared with no trace from my SE site together with its upvotes. How can I know what happened? &#xD;&#xA;Sorin Vlaicu&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10264" RevisionGUID="90a6e97f-3fa5-4eda-b0d1-a72bc0cbea6f" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:26:41.507" UserId="171818" Text="Disappeared question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10264" RevisionGUID="90a6e97f-3fa5-4eda-b0d1-a72bc0cbea6f" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:26:41.507" UserId="171818" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10264" RevisionGUID="a8d6e8d8-7055-4a63-a2c8-568f979a50eb" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:45:25.033" UserId="124" Comment="remove signature and add tag" Text="My question “Dark matter as invisible part of the Heisenberg’s universal matter” (asked 27 October) disappeared with no trace from my SE site together with its upvotes. How can I know what happened?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10264" RevisionGUID="a8d6e8d8-7055-4a63-a2c8-568f979a50eb" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:45:25.033" UserId="124" Comment="remove signature and add tag" Text="|support|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10265" RevisionGUID="33d46f38-1973-4738-a994-ce98227f7221" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:51:08.657" UserId="124" Text="Your question was deleted by the &quot;[Roomba](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba)&quot;, which is an algorithm that automatically deletes old questions which have a negative score and meet some other criteria. The details are listed in the help page I just linked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, when something odd like this happens, it's good if you look around the help center and meta [meta-tag:faq] posts (here and on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) to see if you can find an explanation. If you don't, then asking on meta, as you did, is the thing to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10264" RevisionGUID="8b9d1e39-e486-4344-9aaf-1c38ecb77ec8" CreationDate="2017-11-20T09:45:13.353" UserId="2451" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="My question [Dark matter as invisible part of the Heisenberg’s universal matter](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/365325/2451) (asked 27 October) disappeared with no trace from my SE site together with its upvotes. How can I know what happened?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10265" RevisionGUID="dafd37dc-1260-4d34-85d5-4e9045d779d2" CreationDate="2017-11-20T10:35:35.420" UserId="124" Comment="add details" Text="[Your question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/365325/dark-matter-as-invisible-part-of-the-heisenberg-s-universal-matter) (10k link only) was deleted by the &quot;[Roomba](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba)&quot;, which is an algorithm that automatically deletes old questions which have a negative score and meet some other criteria. The details are listed in the help page I just linked. Specifically, the question you're asking about satisfies the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **If the question was closed more than 9 days ago, and ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - not closed as a duplicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has a score of 0 or less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - is not locked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has no answers with a score &gt; 0&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has no accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has no pending reopen votes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has not been edited in the past 9 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... it will be automatically deleted. These are &quot;abandoned closed&quot;, and are termed as `RemoveAbandonedClosed`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This check is run every day across all sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, when something odd like this happens, it's good if you look around the help center and meta [meta-tag:faq] posts (here and on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) to see if you can find an explanation. If you don't, then asking on meta, as you did, is the thing to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10266" RevisionGUID="e461e840-f4bd-4b74-b269-c2cff5067c31" CreationDate="2017-11-20T11:41:30.687" UserId="8563" Text="It should still be available through your profile, but if it has been deleted by the [roomba](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba) then it is hidden. To find it, go to the bottom of the `questions` tab of your profile and look for a link to `deleted recent questions`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCeoP.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are normally visible through that link for sixty days; after that, they remain visible if you are the owner (or you have 10k rep) and you have the URL, but they are not linked to anywhere on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="edb46067-1ee7-4cfb-9f1d-c97a380e3178" CreationDate="2017-11-21T03:01:38.083" UserId="41634" Text="During my learning I've read a couple books on a topic and have my reviews about them. How should I answer in the book request on that topic, which already has some answers on the books I read? &#xA;&#xA; - Write them all in one answer for a synthesis of reviews? &#xA; - Split then in separated answers so that they can be voted independently? &#xA; - Edit the already answers because they are wiki posts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="edb46067-1ee7-4cfb-9f1d-c97a380e3178" CreationDate="2017-11-21T03:01:38.083" UserId="41634" Text="I have several book reviews. How should I answer in the book request?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="edb46067-1ee7-4cfb-9f1d-c97a380e3178" CreationDate="2017-11-21T03:01:38.083" UserId="41634" Text="|discussion|community-wiki|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10268" RevisionGUID="4c5de135-106b-4a11-9034-b1123a5fcd9e" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:43:04.833" UserId="124" Text="For book/resource recommendations specifically, the voting is fairly meaningless, so I think it's fine to post all that you have in a single new answer. (This does not extend to other types of questions, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If another answer has already recommended one of the books you'd suggest, and the other answer's description of that book is not too different from what you would write, it's probably best not to give a full-fledged description. You can mention in your answer that you recommend the book for the same reasons already given in another answer, or you can leave it out - up to you. If you think the other answer's description is pretty close but is missing one or two key things, feel free to add those in since the post is community wiki (CW). Any time a post is CW, you should feel relatively free to expand on it when you think there is important information that should be added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="e718d432-9a89-4e95-b623-24f0a9e4932f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T06:53:42.830" UserId="41634" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="During my learning I've read a couple books on a topic and have my reviews about them. How should I answer in the book request on that topic, which already has some answers on the books I read? Should I&#xA;&#xA; - write them all in one answer for a synthesis of reviews? &#xA; - split then in separated answers so that they can be voted independently? &#xA; - edit the already answers because they are wiki posts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="07b42287-96b8-466c-9300-ed95328d5bb6" CreationDate="2017-11-21T08:23:55.890" UserId="41634" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="During my learning I've read a couple books on a topic and have my reviews about them. How should I answer in the book request on that topic, which already has some answers on the books I read? Should I&#xA;&#xA; - write them all in one answer for a synthesis of reviews? &#xA; - split then in separated answers so that they can be voted independently? &#xA; - edit the already answers because they are wiki posts? &#xA;&#xA;Assuming I have only one review, but the other answer on the same book is not even close to what I would write, should I edit it, comment, or post another answer? If what I would write is quite unfavored to the book, would the previous answer still hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10268" RevisionGUID="6ec3e4eb-19aa-475d-9f95-d9ca715bbc04" CreationDate="2017-11-21T09:28:13.300" UserId="124" Comment="rewrite answer to be more clear and address updated question" Text="For most _other_ types of questions, we always say that you should make unrelated answers as separate posts so they can be independently voted on. But when it comes to recommendations, the voting is fairly meaningless since there isn't really a &quot;best&quot; or &quot;correct&quot; answer to such questions (Griffiths notwithstanding :-P), and in fact there isn't even much of a basis for judging whether one answer is better than another. So for resource recommendations specifically, posting all the recommendations you have as a single answer is an acceptable option. Posting each book in a separate answer is also acceptable. (Exception: if there is one community-wiki answer that everybody is supposed to edit their recommendations into, just do that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you're making one or more posts of your own, as for what to actually include in them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you are recommending a resource that doesn't appear in any of the existing answers, then definitely include it in your post.&#xD;&#xA;- If you are recommending a resource that _is_ also recommended by an existing answer,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - If your description of the resource is substantially different from how the existing answer describes it, go ahead and post your recommendation separate from the existing one.&#xD;&#xA;    - If your description is quite similar to the existing one, just skip it.&#xD;&#xA;    - As a special exception to the above two options, if you think the existing description mostly covers what you'd write yourself but you just want to add one or two minor points, _and_ those points are consistent with the existing description, _and_ the existing answer is community wiki, _then_ you can edit it to contain the few things you want to add. But these situations are relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this applies regardless of whether what you want to write is favorable to the resource or not. However, keep in mind that we are collecting resource _recommendations_, not general criticism. You should only mention resources that you think are worth recommending, and as part of that you should usually have _some_ good things to say about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you think a resource that someone else has already recommended is bad, you can take steps to point that out, but that's a whole different situation. (TL;DR would be either comment, or edit if it's a wiki post, but make sure you provide a balanced overview of the benefits and problems with the resource.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31344" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="3ca65de0-845a-48df-9813-0ed15dd661d3" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:03:33.390" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/303544/a-moderator-understood-and-answered-my-question-but-put-it-was-put-on-hold-as-un" />
  <row Id="31345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="ce00f85a-f848-4957-ae15-32a95fa34be4" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:00:00.397" UserId="178667" UserDisplayName="user178665" Text="I asked this question  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/369414/zero-radiation-nuclear-bomb-possible  and a moderator completely understood my question, provided an answer and mention he would like to see other answers, but it still got put on hold for being unclear after he posted. How is this? I believe that it was too quickly dismissed without thoroughly reading it by each persons who closed it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="ce00f85a-f848-4957-ae15-32a95fa34be4" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:00:00.397" UserId="178667" UserDisplayName="user178665" Text="A moderator understood and answered my question but put it was put on hold as unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="ce00f85a-f848-4957-ae15-32a95fa34be4" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:00:00.397" UserId="178667" UserDisplayName="user178665" Text="|discussion|bug|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="c0f665f1-e2c9-49b1-b5ec-422a804553a2" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:04:18.777" UserId="33995" Text="After three years I returned to stackexchange to ask one question...Because it was not recieved well, I am now banned from asking with this account. Really ? Three years on and there is no room for one honest question?  I have had a few poorly recieved questions in the past but I have also had a few which were very well recieved. Seems to me, this ban is a bit harsh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="c0f665f1-e2c9-49b1-b5ec-422a804553a2" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:04:18.777" UserId="33995" Text="After Three years .......:p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="c0f665f1-e2c9-49b1-b5ec-422a804553a2" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:04:18.777" UserId="33995" Text="|support|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="37368c3c-c853-451a-a57a-7e069187d6ca" CreationDate="2017-11-22T05:05:33.477" UserDisplayName="user175737" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|bug|questions|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10272" RevisionGUID="2d8357e0-9f16-4788-a3fb-69665915ce75" CreationDate="2017-11-22T09:09:06.117" UserId="124" Text="&gt; [...] How is this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that you're asking how it's possible that a moderator answered your question and then it got put on hold. Simply, there's nothing that makes it impossible. There's no rule or anything like that which keeps questions from being put on hold after they have answers. (Regardless of who posts the answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that it was too quickly dismissed without thoroughly reading it by each persons who closed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well then, you basically have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can just edit your question to clarify it anyway. That is, make it so that even someone who _doesn't_ spend enough time reading the question will get an unambiguous sense of what it's asking. After the edit, the question will automatically be placed in a queue to be reviewed, and if enough people agree that the edit fixes the issue that caused it to be closed, the hold gets removed (i.e. the question gets reopened).&#xD;&#xA;- You can try to convince five site members with reopen vote privileges, or one moderator, that the question is fine as is - that is, that all five people who voted to put your question on hold made an outright wrong decision. Honestly, this does not usually work. The bar for convincing people that five close voters all made an error is _very_ high. That being said, if you want to do this, the best way is by making a meta post clearly laying out an argument for why you think the original decision to put the question on hold was wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31353" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="36ddefb3-02e7-47fa-8c37-dfca001f02c7" CreationDate="2017-11-22T09:13:01.453" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10164],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="8dc0cc1a-2c3b-4b5b-9f88-19710091fe26" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:17:40.277" UserId="2451" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="After three years I returned to stackexchange to ask [one question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/369985/2451). Because it was not recieved well, I am now banned from asking with this account. Really? Three years on and there is no room for one honest question?  I have had a few poorly recieved questions in the past but I have also had a few which were very well recieved. Seems to me, this ban is a bit harsh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31355" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="8dc0cc1a-2c3b-4b5b-9f88-19710091fe26" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:17:40.277" UserId="2451" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|questions|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31356" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10271" RevisionGUID="8dc0cc1a-2c3b-4b5b-9f88-19710091fe26" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:17:40.277" UserId="2451" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="After Three years I returned to stackexchange to ask one question and get question banned .......:p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31357" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10260" RevisionGUID="ca1d061a-236b-428d-9c02-fe2de24f3878" CreationDate="2017-11-22T19:32:23.667" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/933417897766129666" />
  <row Id="31358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="d0671625-fb07-42b5-8e0c-edac89694232" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:19:08.950" UserId="40726" Text="perhaps you can help me track down a question I commented on (cannot find my comments in my list). It was about the Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures of classical mechanics. I remember telling the OP about the book by Balescu and promised him to find other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was now going to post an answer which would relieve the OP the pain of looking into books, but cannot find the question anymore.&#xD;&#xA;Has something happened to it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;KR,&#xD;&#xA;Daniel " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="d0671625-fb07-42b5-8e0c-edac89694232" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:19:08.950" UserId="40726" Text="Cannot find a question upon statistical mechanics I commented on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="d0671625-fb07-42b5-8e0c-edac89694232" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:19:08.950" UserId="40726" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="78b9189e-7394-4e6c-b9b4-d6e12c9ae057" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:41:14.580" UserId="2451" Text="In the concrete case: _Yes,_ the question [_Time evolution in classical statistical mechanics_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/369905/2451) was deleted 2 days ago by [OP](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/62173/user929304) along with your comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: You cannot search comments with the SE search engine, but you e.g. can use google (if the comments have not been deleted).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="ac7c1aa7-a180-4f94-ae30-a3341b53c8c0" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:46:16.603" UserId="2451" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="In the concrete case: _Yes,_ the question [_Time evolution in classical statistical mechanics_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/369905/2451) was deleted 2 days ago by [OP](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/62173/user929304) along with your comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: You cannot search comments with the SE search engine, but you e.g. can use google (if the comments have not been deleted). See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9884/2451) related meta post.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="8722dd35-a766-43c9-a8b5-1651e5670324" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:52:07.200" UserId="2451" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="In the concrete case: _Yes,_ the question [_Time evolution in classical statistical mechanics_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/369905/2451) was deleted 2 days ago by [OP](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/62173/user929304) along with your comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: You cannot search comments with the SE search engine, but you e.g. can use [Google](https://www.google.com/search?as_q=danielc+heisenberg&amp;as_sitesearch=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com) (if the comments have not been deleted). See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9884/2451) related meta post.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="6435a60b-927d-47ae-ab52-1e957dd9825a" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:28:45.923" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags" Text="perhaps you can help me track down a question I commented on (cannot find my comments in my list). It was about the Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures of classical mechanics. I remember telling the OP about the book by Balescu and promised him to find other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was now going to post an answer which would relieve the OP the pain of looking into books, but cannot find the question anymore.&#xD;&#xA;Has something happened to it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31365" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="6435a60b-927d-47ae-ab52-1e957dd9825a" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:28:45.923" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|comments|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10275" RevisionGUID="62cad417-8c97-468d-869e-faba10f9d57d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T23:40:22.813" UserId="75633" Text="This [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/60173/75633) mentions concepts (&quot;canonical particles&quot; and their &quot;radius of hardness&quot;) that only appear in the [website](http://inerton.wikidot.com/canonical-particle) it links to and in a [book](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781771885317) recently published (by a company of questionable reputation, see [here](http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2013/08/31/troubling-open-access-cc-by/) and [here](https://scholarlyca.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/apple-academic-press/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the crackpot smell of the answer, to me it seems to have been posted with the only objective of, without disclosure, advertising. Isn't it spam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10275" RevisionGUID="62cad417-8c97-468d-869e-faba10f9d57d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T23:40:22.813" UserId="75633" Text="Why is this answer not considered spam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10275" RevisionGUID="62cad417-8c97-468d-869e-faba10f9d57d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T23:40:22.813" UserId="75633" Text="|discussion|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10276" RevisionGUID="c66e4eb8-49df-478c-85d5-78782bb9cd33" CreationDate="2017-11-24T00:29:17.520" UserId="124" Text="The description of the spam flag is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the answer does appear to legitimately (note I'm not saying &quot;correctly&quot;) address the question, so it doesn't exist only to promote a product or service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also doesn't seem to be any sign that the author of the answer is affiliated with the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on those factors, the answer doesn't seem like spam to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only basis for even thinking it might be spam is the link. But this strikes me as a perfectly fine use of a link. The answer references some concepts that the author believes may be unfamiliar to readers, so it links to a website to provide further information on those concepts. Which the website does. That's exactly how links are supposed to be used. Now, the concepts in question may be totally wrong, sure, but that doesn't make the link (or the answer) spam. It just makes it eligible for a ton of downvotes, and that is exactly what has happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="72e28b5c-9b38-479f-863d-e90ce9f41d23" CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:00:47.907" UserId="130986" Text="Maybe it’s just me, however, there are some questions where there exist much better answers somewhere which are not the accepted one. I understand that for an answer to be accepted, it just need to “work for the proponent of the question”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, a recurrent pattern seems to happen. Many of those answers seem to be chosen as accepted by new users (it happened to me for example). It is also common to see questions with a single answer accepted in less than 24 hours following the same pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that coming from outside, never using this site; it may be tempting to accept the first person who was “nice enough” to answer us or just because of confirmation bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: **Why not giving new users at least 24 hours before they can accept any answer**, considering that this is the time frame that most answers occur?." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="72e28b5c-9b38-479f-863d-e90ce9f41d23" CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:00:47.907" UserId="130986" Text="Giving newbie’s time to think" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="72e28b5c-9b38-479f-863d-e90ce9f41d23" CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:00:47.907" UserId="130986" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="304f34a9-5293-4445-b512-0799b3d22bf5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:18:21.120" UserId="75633" Text="&gt; to me it seems to have been posted with the only objective of, without disclosure, advertising. Isn't it spam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Z's answer is correct, and I'd add two remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the post in point addresses the question and consequently doesn't strictly fit the definition of spam, *but*, it's still likely to have been spam in spirit, that &quot;legally&quot; made use of the (unavoidable) loophole that allows advertising as long as it answers a question;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the keywords above, though, are &quot;seem&quot; and &quot;likely&quot;: we don't have compelling evidence; we have, at most, circumstantial evidence $-$ so, in order to respect the sacred principle of [Presumption of innocence]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence), that post should indeed *not* be considered spam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="160359c9-ee2b-4923-9fb0-052529ddad16" CreationDate="2017-11-24T09:48:27.443" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10279" RevisionGUID="f520e1f4-2149-4e22-8bb6-13d217afdb05" CreationDate="2017-11-24T13:34:15.787" UserId="77496" Text="I would like to elaborate on the forceful moderation, as this is my main problem with this site, and what drove me away from it.&#xA;&#xA;Specifically:&#xA;**Too many times I have seen an honest, well formulated question, being closed as duplicate.**&#xA;&#xA;This is perfectly fine when the linked question is practically a clone, with a quality answer. But in many cases a question asked at a beginner undergraduate level is closed because there is a duplicate with a advanced undergraduate level. Technically, it answers the question, but it's probably not the answer the poster was looking for.&#xA;&#xA;What attracted me to to the site, was the pleasure of participating in an active community of experts and amateurs, willing to help each other out.&#xA;I enjoy scratching my head and reformulate a concept to answer a fellow curious being. Does Physics SE want to become a collection of *answered questions* or *be* a Q&amp;A site?&#xA;&#xA;I stopped participating on this site because of excessive moderation, and I think I belong to the group of people this site needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31376" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="8190dcc1-ebbc-4b23-a4fa-12e228b9d6f4" CreationDate="2017-11-24T19:35:07.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/934143359127564288" />
  <row Id="31377" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="87feb12e-cc66-48a8-b7db-dcafaa7fe3ac" CreationDate="2017-11-24T21:25:54.207" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/370647/how-to-building-an-aom-driver-with-a-dds-board-what-is-evaluation-board-does-t" />
  <row Id="31378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="84b39455-2a19-47f4-8f89-c4022f5691d5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T21:21:59.323" UserId="176398" Text="How to building an AOM driver with a DDS board? What is an Evaluation Board? Does the community welcome engineering physics question?&#xD;&#xA;e.g. use AD9915 chips to build a ~400 MHz AOM driver.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="84b39455-2a19-47f4-8f89-c4022f5691d5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T21:21:59.323" UserId="176398" Text="How to building an AOM driver with a DDS board? What is Evaluation Board? Does the community welcome engineering physics question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="84b39455-2a19-47f4-8f89-c4022f5691d5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T21:21:59.323" UserId="176398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="10f7632f-b731-497b-8a4a-9305dceec091" CreationDate="2017-11-24T21:42:01.110" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="a12c049e-08f5-4377-81da-fa2c62769438" CreationDate="2017-11-24T22:54:47.427" UserId="124" Comment="fix title and improve formatting" Text="Does the community welcome engineering physics question?&#xD;&#xA;e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How to build an AOM driver with a DDS board?&#xD;&#xA;- What is an Evaluation Board?&#xD;&#xA;- How to using AD9915 chips to build a ~400 MHz AOM driver?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31383" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="a12c049e-08f5-4377-81da-fa2c62769438" CreationDate="2017-11-24T22:54:47.427" UserId="124" Comment="fix title and improve formatting" Text="Does the community welcome engineering physics questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="1c838fa5-7e95-453c-87e9-0a8e56ed7317" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:03:08.993" UserId="124" Text="In general, questions asking how to build electronic devices are off topic here. There are a couple exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some questions about simple circuit design involving only resistors, capacitors, inductors, and AC or DC power sources may be on topic. Even then, though, the questions should not be &quot;how do I build a circuit to do X?&quot; but rather should ask about some conceptual aspect of why a proposed circuit design does or doesn't work a particular way.&#xD;&#xA;- Questions about building electronic devices for advanced physics experiments can be on topic. In order to show that such a question is on topic you would, at a minimum, have to explain the experimental physics context that leads you to ask it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions you propose in your post don't seem to meet these criteria, so I would consider them off topic. They may fit on [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.stackexchange.com) or [Signal Processing](https://dsp.stackexchange.com), as dmckee pointed out in a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="5d4045af-7f1c-4624-a819-09ffe42338fd" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:11:05.850" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|accepted-answer|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ca5f1b3c-f842-4c6c-ba39-bff25d4083a6" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:14:26.053" UserId="176047" Text=" I understand that the physics stack exchange community wants to see physics questions, not philosophical questions about things that are certainly unattainable. My question here is where you exactly put that boundary? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some questions clearly are philosophical, like the question 'Does god exist?', while others are very clearly physical like 'If I shoot this projectile in those circumstances, then when will it hit the ground?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but there are those that lie somewhere in between, like a discussion of what happens to you if you fall in a black hole. Spaghettification is a logical consequence of the laws of gravity, yet this proces cannot be verified exerimentally even in principle, since no information can escape the event horizon of a black hole. Does that make it philosophical, or does the fact that it has a clear cut logical relation to a scientific theory of whom many aspects have been verified experimentally make it physical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In other words I am talking about questions of the following form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does theory B logically imply statement A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Where B is a theory that is widely accepted and of whom many aspects have been verified experimentally yet A is a statement that can't be directly experimentally verified in it's own right. I was assuming questions of this nature where considered physical and relevant, as it asks something about the logical structure of an accepted physical theory. Even if that particular aspect of it's logical structure can't be tested in the near future, it's still interesting to know weather that theory does or does not imply that. And there is a clear cut anwser to that, either the theory implies something or it doesn't imply it, so the discussion can be purely physical using the equations in the theory to argue rather than relying on vague philosophical arguments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it a correct assesment that this POV of mine differs from the vast majority on this stack exchange, and a question is only considered legitimate if it is at least conceivably experimentally verifiable in the near future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The reason I ask this question is because of the fact that, to my surprise, &#xD;&#xA; this question wasn't well recieved: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/370671/does-relativity-of-simultaneity-prove-determinism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it correct that that is because, even though the question is logically linked to a well established scientific theory, it isn't directly experimentally verifiable and therefore isn't considered legitimate? And should we then conclude that if someone asks, say, something about the spaghettification process in a black hole and where that comes from, this question should be considered illegitimate too since that proces is experimentally unaccecable? More generally, are questions about predictions of well established scientific theories not allowed if those predictions can't be(in the near future) tested experimentally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If that is the convention used here, then I agree my question was off topic and I should ask it to the philosophical community. Even though I am convinced that people with a background in physics will have more relevant and good anwsers on questions in the above form than those with a philosophical background, as a good understanding of the physical theories those questions are embedded are necessary for giving good anwsers.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ca5f1b3c-f842-4c6c-ba39-bff25d4083a6" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:14:26.053" UserId="176047" Text="Where exactly lies the line between physics and philosophy/meta physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ca5f1b3c-f842-4c6c-ba39-bff25d4083a6" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:14:26.053" UserId="176047" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="147c18dc-a143-463d-b9ed-4100b14cf7b8" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:19:01.940" UserId="176047" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text=" I understand that the physics stack exchange community wants to see physics questions, not philosophical questions about things that are certainly unattainable. My question here is where you exactly put that boundary? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some questions clearly are philosophical, like the question 'Does god exist?', while others are very clearly physical like 'If I shoot this projectile in those circumstances, then when will it hit the ground?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but there are those that lie somewhere in between, like a discussion of what happens to you if you fall in a black hole. Spaghettification is a logical consequence of the laws of gravity, yet this proces cannot be verified exerimentally even in principle, since no information can escape the event horizon of a black hole. Does that make it philosophical, or does the fact that it has a clear cut logical relation to a scientific theory of whom many aspects have been verified experimentally make it physical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In other words I am talking about questions of the following form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does theory B logically imply statement A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Where B is a theory that is widely accepted and of whom many aspects have been verified experimentally yet A is a statement that can't be directly experimentally verified in it's own right. I was assuming questions of this nature where considered physical and relevant, as it asks something about the logical structure of an accepted physical theory. Even if that particular aspect of it's logical structure can't be tested in the near future, it's still interesting to know weather that theory does or does not imply that. And there is a clear cut anwser to that, either the theory implies something or it doesn't imply it, so the discussion can be purely physical using the equations in the theory to argue rather than relying on vague philosophical arguments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it a correct assesment that this POV of mine differs from the vast majority on this stack exchange, and a question is only considered legitimate if it is at least conceivably experimentally verifiable in the near future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The reason I ask this question is because of the fact that, to my surprise, &#xD;&#xA; this question wasn't well recieved: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/370671/does-relativity-of-simultaneity-prove-determinism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it correct that that is because, even though the question is logically linked to a well established scientific theory, it isn't directly experimentally verifiable and therefore isn't considered legitimate? And should we then conclude that if someone asks, say, something about the spaghettification process in a black hole and where that comes from, this question should be considered illegitimate too since that proces is experimentally unaccecable? More generally, are questions about predictions of well established scientific theories not allowed if those predictions can't be(in the near future) tested experimentally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If that is the convention used here, then I agree my question was off topic and I should ask it to the philosophical community. Even though I am convinced that people with a background in physics will have more relevant and good anwsers on questions in the above form than those with a philosophical background, as a good understanding of the physical theories those questions are embedded in are necessary for giving good anwsers.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10283" RevisionGUID="da8676e4-4ad8-4ff4-b439-6e510c4fb574" CreationDate="2017-11-25T20:24:02.523" UserId="124" Text="No, your assessment is not correct. Questions of the form &quot;Does theory B logically imply statement A?&quot; where B is a mainstream theory and A is not experimentally verifiable in the near future are not generally off topic. Of course specific cases may be off topic for different reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, remember the distinction between a question being off topic, and being bad. Questions that are bad should get downvoted; questions that are off topic should get put on hold (a.k.a. closed). Note that your question, as I write this, has been heavily downvoted but it has _not_ been closed. There is no indication that the community considers it off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if I can give a general rule for identifying when questions are too philosophical. Right now we decide such things case-by-case because they come up rarely. Perhaps by looking at many examples, someone could come up with a fairly general rule, but as far as I know that hasn't been done yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="1659b68d-8520-4efb-ba17-a1a778a0956e" CreationDate="2017-11-26T19:12:52.130" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Maybe it’s just me, however, there are some questions where there exist much better answers somewhere which are not the accepted one. I understand that for an answer to be accepted, it just need to &quot;work for the proponent of the question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, a recurrent pattern seems to happen. Many of those answers seem to be chosen as accepted by new users (it happened to me for example). It is also common to see questions with a single answer accepted in less than 24 hours following the same pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that coming from outside, never using this site; it may be tempting to accept the first person who was “nice enough” to answer us or just because of confirmation bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: **Why not giving new users at least 24 hours before they can accept any answer**, considering that this is the time frame that most answers occur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31392" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="1659b68d-8520-4efb-ba17-a1a778a0956e" CreationDate="2017-11-26T19:12:52.130" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Giving newbies time to think" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31393" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="71f21500-a531-47e1-b166-0039ce91f8b7" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:46:53.797" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/935006994347544577" />
  <row Id="31394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ce17e9cd-fbc1-4596-8b23-b06e6f68d78b" CreationDate="2017-11-27T17:07:36.587" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed indentation to make formatting better conform to OP's markdown." Text=" I understand that the physics stack exchange community wants to see physics questions, not philosophical questions about things that are certainly unattainable. My question here is where you exactly put that boundary? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some questions clearly are philosophical, like the question 'Does god exist?', while others are very clearly physical like 'If I shoot this projectile in those circumstances, then when will it hit the ground?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but there are those that lie somewhere in between, like a discussion of what happens to you if you fall in a black hole. Spaghettification is a logical consequence of the laws of gravity, yet this proces cannot be verified exerimentally even in principle, since no information can escape the event horizon of a black hole. Does that make it philosophical, or does the fact that it has a clear cut logical relation to a scientific theory of whom many aspects have been verified experimentally make it physical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In other words I am talking about questions of the following form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does theory B logically imply statement A?,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where B is a theory that is widely accepted and of whom many aspects have been verified experimentally, and A is a statement that can't be directly experimentally verified in it's own right. I was assuming questions of this nature where considered physical and relevant, as it asks something about the logical structure of an accepted physical theory. Even if that particular aspect of it's logical structure can't be tested in the near future, it's still interesting to know weather that theory does or does not imply that. And there is a clear cut anwser to that, either the theory implies something or it doesn't imply it, so the discussion can be purely physical using the equations in the theory to argue rather than relying on vague philosophical arguments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it a correct assesment that this POV of mine differs from the vast majority on this stack exchange, and a question is only considered legitimate if it is at least conceivably experimentally verifiable in the near future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The reason I ask this question is because of the fact that, to my surprise, &#xD;&#xA; this question wasn't well recieved: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/370671/does-relativity-of-simultaneity-prove-determinism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is it correct that that is because, even though the question is logically linked to a well established scientific theory, it isn't directly experimentally verifiable and therefore isn't considered legitimate? And should we then conclude that if someone asks, say, something about the spaghettification process in a black hole and where that comes from, this question should be considered illegitimate too since that proces is experimentally unaccecable? More generally, are questions about predictions of well established scientific theories not allowed if those predictions can't be(in the near future) tested experimentally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If that is the convention used here, then I agree my question was off topic and I should ask it to the philosophical community. Even though I am convinced that people with a background in physics will have more relevant and good anwsers on questions in the above form than those with a philosophical background, as a good understanding of the physical theories those questions are embedded in are necessary for giving good anwsers.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ce17e9cd-fbc1-4596-8b23-b06e6f68d78b" CreationDate="2017-11-27T17:07:36.587" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed indentation to make formatting better conform to OP's markdown." Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="51b5732c-d05b-4a99-b27d-f15af3e7d6b5" CreationDate="2017-11-28T18:25:17.067" UserId="84967" Text="This is essentially a duplicate of [27153](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/27153/289977), from math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have noticed that there is a bunch of users that consistently refuse to use MathJax in their answers. One of these users, in particular, has been a member for more than six years and has posted several thousands of answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On math.SE the user Simply Beautiful Art asks what to do with these users, and essentially everyone agrees that the best course of action is to downvote and move on. I really don't want to do this, in part because I appreciate the effort these users put into this site, and in part because physics is not math: here words are often more important than formulas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question: what do *we* want to do here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is badly typed math (in the form of, say, `F=ma^2` or a poorly cropped/pixelated image) acceptable at all? Or should we discourage this kind of behaviour? Do we agree that downvoting is the way to go? Or is there perhaps a better solution? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="51b5732c-d05b-4a99-b27d-f15af3e7d6b5" CreationDate="2017-11-28T18:25:17.067" UserId="84967" Text="How to deal with users that just won't use MathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="51b5732c-d05b-4a99-b27d-f15af3e7d6b5" CreationDate="2017-11-28T18:25:17.067" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="5f9cf4f3-151e-4275-879b-fffb84f06bcd" CreationDate="2017-11-28T19:03:30.950" UserDisplayName="user176049" Text="Tell them it's easier than it looks........they can copy most of what they want from Wikipedia, (in a lot of questions) and they can use the left key to read as Mathjax when they hover over the correctly formatted text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bonus point might work, for long sessions of slogging through it,  but it will never get into the current system, I acknowledge that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of what they want to say is already available, they just don't realise it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10286" RevisionGUID="98e36dcc-ee12-4ebf-a0db-46d61e62faff" CreationDate="2017-11-28T19:07:21.770" UserDisplayName="user176049" Text="If it's covered in mainstream physics, well that's obviously physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's about God, it should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's about the inside of a black hole, that's chat room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10287" RevisionGUID="883ae93f-292c-4cc6-b5a4-d96f0bc4b64a" CreationDate="2017-11-28T21:01:59.273" UserId="8563" Text="I see two relevant classes of users here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The user in question is a relative newcomer, and they've come to rely on other people fixing posts with substantial amounts of mistyped math for them as if by magic. After a first few occurrences, a sharp indication that they need to do the formatting themselves is in order, followed by downvotes if the poster refuses to do that formatting.&#xD;&#xA; - The user in question has a long-running record of high-quality contributions, which for the most part don't involve math, and only use simple constructs when they do, and which are easy enough to edit in those cases. Here, while it would be nice if the user did that formatting themselves, I'm more inclined to let it slide, particularly when I gauge the user's likelihood of learning MathJax to be low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only aware of one user in that second class with over a thousand answers, and for that person I have yet to find an answer where the lack of MathJax annoys me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10288" RevisionGUID="504e60cf-3d57-44ec-98fc-76b1205b9e9e" CreationDate="2017-11-30T01:57:25.643" UserId="104964" Text="Is it possible for moderators or admins to deduct or withhold reputation points to users who repeatedly offend ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a &quot;penalty&quot; system should be considered if it's not possible now, so that mods could take action to make it and other repeat offenses clear ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not reputation could privileges be removed ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate Mathjax and Latex may be a bit of an overhead to learn if you're not a regular user, but it's a pretty straightforward system and there is an entire Latex forum on SE as well as a help page on Mathjax.  Once you get into it it's pretty easy to use and I see no excuse for regular users skipping it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="2da76beb-b803-4eec-9047-081748cffe43" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:08:15.657" UserId="175857" Text="My interest is in new physics, from the point of view of propulsion, and experiments that can confirm or disprove related new hypotheses. New physics attracts people who want to casually speculate and not follow through with experiment. &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;New physics necessarily involves paradigm shifting thought which is difficult for anyone. Compounding the problem is that for all of the ideas propounded, the overwhelming majority of them will be invalid. A large number of ideas have to be considered and rejected for each good one that remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a bad forum for generating conversation on questions of new physics? Is there a forum that may be a better fit for my interest? Or, if this is appropriate material for this site, what would be the best way to approach the topic here? Perhaps innocuous question with a link to chat?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="2da76beb-b803-4eec-9047-081748cffe43" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:08:15.657" UserId="175857" Text="Is new physics a bad fit for Stack Exchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="2da76beb-b803-4eec-9047-081748cffe43" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:08:15.657" UserId="175857" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10290" RevisionGUID="cd9770fd-4c2e-4d92-b3c8-7f837953e707" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:25:23.777" UserId="124" Text="Technically, this site is not a forum; it's a Q&amp;A site. It's not for generating conversation at all, it's for questions and answers to those questions. So based on that alone, this sounds like the wrong place for what you want to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could bring up some of this stuff in [our chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) (or create your own chat room), if other people are interested in discussing it with you. Besides that, I'd suggest looking outside of Stack Exchange for a more discussion-oriented site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside that issue, if you wanted to ask a _question_ about the sort of new physics you're talking about, it may be on topic or not, depending on the topic and the question. Generally, if you ask a question based on content that appears in published research papers in a reputable journal, it should be fine. Other than that, it's probably off topic, but the response you get could vary quite a bit depending on what exactly you're asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not advise posting questions on something like the EM drive unless the question is _clearly_ based on content from a published paper in a highly reputable journal, with references and maybe even quotes included in the question. &quot;Highly reputable journal&quot; in this case means something like the APS's Physical Review series, or another of a similar caliber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="11f0426c-3777-4bf1-85db-92ee827b9104" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:49:31.703" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="c710864f-e647-4004-bc80-1040950dd7ad" CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:09:35.717" UserId="114696" Text="The Physics Meta question [Experimental Physics and Engineering](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/) shows that this community's view is that **there is no objective distinction between experimental physics and engineering** and that whether a particular engineering question is suitable for Physics Stack Exchange is a matter of asking &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of person is most likely to have the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not possible to provide a definitive answer to your general question. Your particular question could be *on-topic* if you identified some knowledge which this community is likely to have. In the absence of any explanation of what you were finding difficult abou the project, I voted to close your question because it seemed to me that somebody with expertise in assembling circuit boards was most likely to provide the help which you require. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You were clearly aware of the RF output requirements, and even had your own ideas about how to do it (DDS board, Evaluation Board, AD9155 chips). Suitable circuit designs are easily found on the internet. It seemed to me that you probably needed advice about choosing between different designs, selecting suitable components, and then assembling, soldering and testing the circuit. I think you are more likely to get such advice from a community of electrical/electronics engineers who have expertise in doing this for a wide variety of projects than from a community of physicists which majors on answering conceptual questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When your question is closed it is common to be offended and to take it personally. A more helpful response is to recognise it as saying &quot;Sorry, we are unlikely to be able to help you. We don't want to waste your time. Try this other site instead.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that you have re-posted the question on [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/341667/) as I advised, but it has been closed there also, as being **too broad**. It would have suffered the same fate had it remained on this site. The **quality** of your question is at least as important as the **topic** you are asking about. If you show little or no research effort to define what exactly your difficulty is, and to look for an answer yourself, then you are unlikely to get an answer wherever you post it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="fe197be5-e091-46f2-99e2-69e0dcf4c1c2" CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:20:21.797" UserId="114696" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="The Physics Meta question [Experimental Physics and Engineering](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/) shows that this community's view is that **there is no objective distinction between experimental physics and engineering** and that whether a particular engineering question is suitable for Physics Stack Exchange is a matter of asking &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of person is most likely to have the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not possible to provide a definitive answer to your general question. Your particular question could be *on-topic* if you identified some knowledge which this community is likely to have. In the absence of any explanation of what you were finding difficult about your project, I voted to close your question because it seemed to me that somebody with expertise in assembling circuit boards was most likely to provide the help which you require. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You were clearly aware of the RF output requirements, and even had your own ideas about how to do it (DDS board, Evaluation Board, AD9155 chips). Suitable circuit designs are easily found on the internet. It seemed to me that you probably needed advice about choosing between different designs, selecting suitable components, and then assembling, soldering and testing the circuit. I think you are more likely to get such advice from a community of electrical/electronics engineers who have expertise in doing this for a wide variety of projects than from a community of physicists which majors on answering conceptual questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When your question is closed it is common to be offended and to take it personally. A more helpful response is to recognise it as saying &quot;Sorry, we are unlikely to be able to help you. We don't want to waste your time. Try this other site instead.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that you have re-posted the question on [Electronics SE](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/341667/) as I advised, but it has been closed there also, as being **too broad**. It would have suffered the same fate had it remained on this site. The **quality** of your question is at least as important as the **topic** you are asking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice also that you have not provided any further information as requested by that community. If you show little or no effort to define what exactly your difficulty is, to look for an answer yourself, and to engage with those who ask for more information, then you are unlikely to get an answer wherever you post your question. See [What does everyone mean by &quot;Insufficient research effort&quot;?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8789/)&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="a5311107-eebd-4b2e-a272-5972c05c8c77" CreationDate="2017-12-02T06:01:39.120" UserId="46399" Comment="Minor formatting fixes, since OP seems to be unavailable to fix these himself/herself." Text="Tell them it's easier than it looks. They can copy most of what they want from Wikipedia (in a lot of questions), and they can use the left key to read as Mathjax when they hover over the correctly formatted text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bonus point might work, for long sessions of slogging through it, but it will never get into the current system, I acknowledge that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of what they want to say is already available, they just don't realise it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10292" RevisionGUID="dd0240d5-d4f5-4b51-8bb4-83721deb8abb" CreationDate="2017-12-03T09:08:25.423" UserId="174161" Text="The app is not showing direct option for chat. I have to open browser to get to chat. When I tap chat option, window comes to open it with app or with browser ; when I tap for app,, it opens browser. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10292" RevisionGUID="dd0240d5-d4f5-4b51-8bb4-83721deb8abb" CreationDate="2017-12-03T09:08:25.423" UserId="174161" Text="Chat option on Android app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10292" RevisionGUID="dd0240d5-d4f5-4b51-8bb4-83721deb8abb" CreationDate="2017-12-03T09:08:25.423" UserId="174161" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10293" RevisionGUID="20c8170d-a525-46e1-8c12-1bb1aff54308" CreationDate="2017-12-03T11:57:00.517" UserId="8563" Text="This is currently [a status-deferred feature request on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/191334/add-chat-rooms-for-android-app), and there's a [corresponding iOS version of the question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/226702/include-some-chat-capabilities-in-ios-app) there (which is generally the place where major requests for changes to the software are best pitched, though they can also be posted here), and it doesn't look like it is particularly high on the list of priorities on the development schedule. If you really want this, those feature requests are the places to add pressure (votes, answers saying why it is critical, bounties, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10292" RevisionGUID="b40d8d54-560c-4f9e-ab02-a40112091cb3" CreationDate="2017-12-03T11:57:43.827" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The app is not showing direct option for chat. I have to open browser to get to chat. When I tap chat option, window comes to open it with app or with browser; when I tap for app, it opens browser. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10292" RevisionGUID="b40d8d54-560c-4f9e-ab02-a40112091cb3" CreationDate="2017-12-03T11:57:43.827" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|feature-request|chat|mobile-app|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10294" RevisionGUID="3cb18431-b3f1-4f57-8ad2-1cc85c4f96e0" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:03:53.570" UserId="8563" Text="I find this a confusing way to lay out our tag space. Lots of questions (say, [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/372259) as a recent example) are about quantum *computing* as a field, or about some specific aspect of a given quantum *computation*, without necessarily being about the specific hypothetical objects we call quantum computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, tags on this site tend to carry the name of the *field* of inquiry, not its central object of study: we say [tag:fluid-dynamics], not [tag:fluids]; [tag:kinematics], not [tag:movement], and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the main tag be [tag:quantum-computing]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10294" RevisionGUID="3cb18431-b3f1-4f57-8ad2-1cc85c4f96e0" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:03:53.570" UserId="8563" Text="Why does the quantum-computing tag redirect to quantum-computer instead of the opposite direction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10294" RevisionGUID="3cb18431-b3f1-4f57-8ad2-1cc85c4f96e0" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:03:53.570" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10295" RevisionGUID="4b7a6e4e-d3b5-4606-841e-410d3ef63dfd" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:13:23.887" UserId="2451" Text="For the time being for pragmatic reasons. Phys.SE used to have a [tag:quantum-computing] and a [tag:quantum-computation] tag, which were often misused by some users whenever they had to compute something in quantum mechanics. This practice stopped once they were redirected to the [tag:quantum-computer] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10295" RevisionGUID="a3a64e29-71ff-4400-916f-6b3894ff11ec" CreationDate="2017-12-03T13:59:50.883" UserId="2451" Comment="Added chat link" Text="For the time being for pragmatic reasons. Phys.SE used to have a [tag:quantum-computing] and a [tag:quantum-computation] tag, which were often [misused](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/10279423#10279423) by some users whenever they had to compute something in quantum mechanics. This practice stopped once they were redirected to the [tag:quantum-computer] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31422" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="64ef66e2-ef05-4ed8-972b-04a8606bdf74" CreationDate="2017-12-04T02:06:17.093" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/937503290102775809" />
  <row Id="31423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="5d82b6d1-bf06-40d2-979c-c1404f391101" CreationDate="2017-12-05T12:20:18.380" UserId="84967" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="User [Floris](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26969/floris) has recently become the third user to obtain the [Legendary badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/27/legendary), which is one of the less awarded badges out there. Being one of the most prolific contributors to this site, I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for those amazing ~2.300 answers, thank you for the detailed yet intuitive explanations, for the fantastic diagrams, for taking the time to share knowledge, all in all, thank you for making this site a better place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE (5/12/2017): As of today, Floris has become the fourth PSE user to become a member of the [100k club](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Reputation&amp;filter=all). Congratulations!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="68e1a763-b0d0-41f0-9d50-1e05f0af06ec" CreationDate="2017-12-07T18:06:03.490" UserId="44126" Comment="see https://xkcd.com/1179/" Text="User [Floris](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26969/floris) has recently become the third user to obtain the [Legendary badge](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/27/legendary), which is one of the less awarded badges out there. Being one of the most prolific contributors to this site, I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for those amazing ~2.300 answers, thank you for the detailed yet intuitive explanations, for the fantastic diagrams, for taking the time to share knowledge, all in all, thank you for making this site a better place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE (2017-12-05): As of today, Floris has become the fourth PSE user to become a member of the [100k club](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Reputation&amp;filter=all). Congratulations!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31425" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10294" RevisionGUID="b169f38d-c939-4ca5-8834-a6794db71dcb" CreationDate="2017-12-13T05:37:30.720" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/940817937975382016" />
  <row Id="31426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="275a689f-b73d-43e7-a208-02b8f9b9ae17" CreationDate="2017-12-13T06:56:25.750" UserDisplayName="user174490" Text="I am a newbie here in stack exchange. This site is very informative. So, I tried to contribute with the little knowledge I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I posted [this][1] answer after reading the question, all the other answers and the comments of the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't know where I've done wrong. But, I am downvoted. I confirmed from the teacher after that : he said it was good enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the dark side of PSE that they don't value the new users here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Share your thoughts as answers or comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case if I've made anything wrong in my answer, please point out. I'll be pleased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/373574/174490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="275a689f-b73d-43e7-a208-02b8f9b9ae17" CreationDate="2017-12-13T06:56:25.750" UserDisplayName="user174490" Text="Ignorance towards new comers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="275a689f-b73d-43e7-a208-02b8f9b9ae17" CreationDate="2017-12-13T06:56:25.750" UserDisplayName="user174490" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31429" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="a91dae3e-c81e-4fbb-9490-9600386829ec" CreationDate="2017-12-13T07:05:02.360" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="e38f05fe-0377-4ed8-be7f-29187721c439" CreationDate="2017-12-13T09:07:34.287" UserDisplayName="user174490" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I am a newbie here in stack exchange. This site is very informative. So, I tried to contribute with the little knowledge I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I posted [this][1] answer after reading the question, all the other answers and the comments of the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't know where I've done wrong. But, I am downvoted. I confirmed from the teacher after that : he said it was good enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the dark side of PSE that they don't value the new users here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this happen with most of the new comers ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case if I've made anything wrong in my answer, please point out. I'll be pleased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/373574/174490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="a8037a4b-9ba3-47f7-b9c1-22855b0e7e65" CreationDate="2017-12-13T20:09:09.860" UserId="45613" Text="A major part of truly learning any discipline is weeding out the misconceptions that were either planted by others early in life, assumed 'facts', or poorly taught concepts. The matter of of correcting misconceptions in physics, I believe, is highly important but I was surprised that a tag does not exist - or is there another term being used? My intent indeed to *study* discussions on physics misconceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It did occur to me that people that ask questions probably *would not* use the tag since they would probably not know that their question involved a misconception. It would be more useful for persons answering their question to edit the question and add the tag thus adding the question as a resource to study, understand misconceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event I would like to get some opinion on this before I propose adding the tag, but that maybe hard to do since I don't have any questions other than in this Meta site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="a8037a4b-9ba3-47f7-b9c1-22855b0e7e65" CreationDate="2017-12-13T20:09:09.860" UserId="45613" Text="Why not a tag 'Physics-Misconceptions'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="a8037a4b-9ba3-47f7-b9c1-22855b0e7e65" CreationDate="2017-12-13T20:09:09.860" UserId="45613" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10298" RevisionGUID="aa01dcfb-5c0a-4320-8faf-c5e3b3a210f2" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:36:44.030" UserDisplayName="user178564" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [What governs the temperature rise inside an oven?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/374275/what-governs-the-temperature-rise-inside-an-oven)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find myself frustrated with how questions need to be asked... and the pit of 'On Hold / Closed'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked a question to understand and learn about a problem Id like to, even if only on paper, design a solution to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this question I provided as much information that was 'on topic' [:)] with all my working... I had tried solving the problem of the design and wanted to confirm that I had indeed used the correct physics concepts (And associated equations), which Im still skeptical about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was put on hold within 1 hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I created another question asking the same thing but dumbed it down, removed the equations and made no mention of having tried to learn about the topic before asking the question... and removed the homework and exercises tag (Reading more in meta; this may be the culprit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question, linked above, attracted some comments and an edit that included other tags. But it was not put on hold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10298" RevisionGUID="aa01dcfb-5c0a-4320-8faf-c5e3b3a210f2" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:36:44.030" UserDisplayName="user178564" Text="Having trouble understanding how to stay on topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10298" RevisionGUID="aa01dcfb-5c0a-4320-8faf-c5e3b3a210f2" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:36:44.030" UserDisplayName="user178564" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="4c189f9e-908c-496e-9615-cf7fb7dc66cc" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:38:22.173" UserId="124" Text="I don't like the idea of having this tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It doesn't really help characterize the subject of a question, which is what tags are for.&#xD;&#xA;- I doubt that the presence of this tag would help correlate similar questions, which is another thing tags are for. It seems like the kind of tag that would apply to many different questions on disparate topics.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't see there being experts in physics misconceptions who would want to follow the tag to stay aware of questions in their area of expertise, which is yet another thing tags are for.&#xD;&#xA;- Conversely, I don't see there being people who would want to ignore questions about physics misconceptions in general, which is sort of an edge use case for tags (but one with significant precedent).&#xD;&#xA;- And it's really not clear to me what sort of question this would be used for, or would not be used for - and more importantly, I don't see it being clear to most other people posting on the site. So if this tag existed, I foresee it being used wrongly a lot of the time, which would ruin its effectiveness.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="1fd36c72-61f9-4e70-a8dd-6ac8f1bac7dc" CreationDate="2017-12-13T22:40:31.177" UserId="127931" Text="I see a few possible factors. (I didn't vote on the question/answers though, this is pure speculation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem immediately clear to me what you're trying to say in the answer.  I can follow some of it; but it doesn't seem direct in how it addressed the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the question was already over a year old and had an accepted answer, so there's even more reason to make sure what you say is really clear about what it is adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, (as mentioned in a comment) it's really not a big deal.  That vote means that someone found your answer not-useful.  It's only one person's opinion.  (see for example [this help page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-vote) on the voting model; how it is a democracy, and reasons why one might choose to downvote)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="9a20d2df-888e-4812-8b7a-a444952797d6" CreationDate="2017-12-14T12:55:09.843" UserId="40726" Text="So I see that this website is tolerant of people (which I choose to call &quot;crackpots&quot;) which have links to their own dubious work in their profile. These people even have thousands of points of reputation (I bet most of them from members upvoting their reasonable questions), but the minute you check their profile, you're baited to go to &quot;CrackpotLandia&quot; (such as academia.org).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this OK with you, having reputable physicists alongside crackpots? On Physicsforums, they would be banned (or at least the links in their profiles) the next second after joining. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="9a20d2df-888e-4812-8b7a-a444952797d6" CreationDate="2017-12-14T12:55:09.843" UserId="40726" Text="Crackpots and links to crackpot articles in their profile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="9a20d2df-888e-4812-8b7a-a444952797d6" CreationDate="2017-12-14T12:55:09.843" UserId="40726" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31442" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="6854f19b-3a61-4121-b0b8-ca7539773334" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:04:42.860" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|non-mainstream-physics|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31443" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="f9ea3fde-f697-4d4f-be92-ceeb6628c412" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:07:46.870" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|user-accounts|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31444" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="550036f5-99f6-45c2-8df3-70ae2d1974b9" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:08:30.930" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31445" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="42a2857e-f949-47aa-8551-42b14927f04d" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:09:18.083" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|user-accounts|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="42a2857e-f949-47aa-8551-42b14927f04d" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:09:18.083" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Should this profile description be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31447" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="6a167586-91b4-4665-b53e-445affed50d3" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:10:26.983" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|profile-page|suspensions|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31448" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="e59b04bd-1264-4c9a-ab75-ff5d1306845b" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:12:22.807" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|user-accounts|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31449" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="eaf2ffe5-6cc6-4b62-889f-9d770a6dac70" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:13:56.950" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31450" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="2dc8145f-6ca4-4c6b-a571-2c3551fa93c4" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:15:35.870" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|user-accounts|profile-page|non-mainstream-physics|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="8ca69680-5e8c-444f-a6ae-f9734618c4db" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:19:31.520" UserId="40726" Comment="added note " Text="So I see that this website is tolerant of people (which I choose to call &quot;crackpots&quot;) which have links to their own dubious work in their profile. These people even have thousands of points of reputation, but the minute you check their profile, you're baited to go to &quot;CrackpotLandia&quot; (such as academia.org).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this OK with you, having reputable physicists (like Cosmas Zachos and Valter Moretti or Urs Schreiber to name a few) alongside crackpots? On Physicsforums, they would be banned (or at least the links in their profiles) the next second after joining. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10302" RevisionGUID="bf7f0489-6362-4958-87ff-72761c50e91a" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:40:35.620" UserId="123076" Text="#Users are allowed to put what they want in their user profiles, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, users are allowed to put *whatever the heck they want* in their user profile. This includes links, images, text... as long as they stick with two guidelines: It should be SFW, and has to be non-offensive to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means: No naked pictures, but a picture of their kid is fine. No links to porn sites, but a link to a site that promotes non-mainstream science? Fine. **The user profile reflects on the one who wrote it, not the site as a whole.** What you put in your user profile reflects on *you*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd advise checking out [this Meta.SE post](), which explains what is acceptable for user profiles, generally. To sum it up, I'll take the first two bullet points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generally speaking, your &quot;about me&quot; is just that—what *you* want to share with the world, and we try to allow users a good bit of freedom there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. However, in the rare cases where what's there is likely to be *truly offensive* to large groups of seemingly reasonable people, we may not allow it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this handy image guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y7bPe.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These people even have thousands of points of reputation, but the minute you check their profile, you're baited to go to &quot;CrackpotLandia&quot; (such as academia.org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's perfectly fine. You don't choose to put that stuff in your profile; that's fine. But it's perfectly within the rules to put links to your work in your profile - there's even a special field for including a link to your site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, may I point out that calling people 'crackpots' may be a violation of '[Be Nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice)'? I'd advise always sticking with this line from the [chat FAQ](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#nice) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect community members to treat each other with respect … **even when they don't deserve it**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10303" RevisionGUID="470ab98d-34bf-4cbf-bd0e-8b8b91d03bce" CreationDate="2017-12-14T13:56:20.390" UserId="50583" Text="&gt; Is this OK with you, having reputable physicists (like Cosmas Zachos and Valter Moretti or Urs Schreiber to name a few) alongside crackpots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the wrong question. Let's suppose I'm not &quot;OK&quot; with that. What can we do? By SE policy (cf. e.g. [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5754/50583) and [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/31448/263383)), you can pretty much link to anything you want in your profile as long as it's not egregious hate speech, porn, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, it is **not the moderators' task** to judge the competence of users or the correctness of answers. If you don't like people whose ideas about physics are utterly wrong having thousands of reputation and running around, then I suggest that you downvote non-mainstream content whenever you see it. Leave comments on their answers and questions pointing out why they's wrong for all the world to see - preferably without calling them crackpots, see also [this old discussion about the word](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/340/50583), and without engaging in lengthy pointless discussion afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10302" RevisionGUID="6dfecfd6-a8a1-4742-9ff6-3f910246d4de" CreationDate="2017-12-14T14:02:25.917" UserId="123076" Comment="*facepalm* Don't forget the link next time..." Text="#Users are allowed to put what they want in their user profiles, within reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, users are allowed to put *whatever the heck they want* in their user profile. This includes links, images, text... as long as they stick with two guidelines: It should be SFW, and has to be non-offensive to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means: No naked pictures, but a picture of their kid is fine. No links to porn sites, but a link to a site that promotes non-mainstream science? Fine. **The user profile reflects on the one who wrote it, not the site as a whole.** What you put in your user profile reflects on *you*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd advise checking out [this Meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/231362/294691), which explains what is acceptable for user profiles, generally. To sum it up, I'll take the first two bullet points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generally speaking, your &quot;about me&quot; is just that—what *you* want to share with the world, and we try to allow users a good bit of freedom there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. However, in the rare cases where what's there is likely to be *truly offensive* to large groups of seemingly reasonable people, we may not allow it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this handy image guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y7bPe.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These people even have thousands of points of reputation, but the minute you check their profile, you're baited to go to &quot;CrackpotLandia&quot; (such as academia.org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's perfectly fine. You don't choose to put that stuff in your profile; that's fine. But it's perfectly within the rules to put links to your work in your profile - there's even a special field for including a link to your site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, may I point out that calling people 'crackpots' may be a violation of '[Be Nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice)'? I'd advise always sticking with this line from the [chat FAQ](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq#nice) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We expect community members to treat each other with respect … **even when they don't deserve it**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="c8ca0d08-0948-4320-8e5f-e282b52316f7" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:19:35.777" UserId="40726" Comment="added remark" Text="So I see that this website is tolerant of people (which I choose to call &quot;crackpots&quot;) which have links to their own dubious work in their profile. These people even have thousands of points of reputation, but the minute you check their profile, you're baited to go to &quot;CrackpotLandia&quot; (such as academia.edu).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this OK with you, having reputable physicists (like Cosmas Zachos and Valter Moretti or Urs Schreiber to name a few) alongside crackpots? On Physicsforums, they would be banned (or at least the links in their profiles) the next second after joining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. It doesn't mean that all content posted on personal accounts on academia.edu is junk, but some of it sadly is. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10305" RevisionGUID="bf8f76a0-d8b2-4131-a0da-a6f9fe8eadf1" CreationDate="2017-12-14T22:24:55.323" UserId="127931" Text="I'm not going to bother going over the SE network policy on profiles again, since two answers already have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this OK with you, having reputable physicists (like Cosmas Zachos and Valter Moretti or Urs Schreiber to name a few) alongside crackpots? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's your criteria for judging this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's entirely possible someone believes in some non-stream ideas; but are also perfectly capable of mainstream physics on other topics.  If answers are good, who cares what the person has linked in their profile?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a question and answer site.  We should care about questions and answers; not personal ideologies.  If personal beliefs make the answers incorrect or questions off topic, then address those problems with your voting.  That should be the primary feedback mechanism here; not over-policing the personal aspects of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I don't really get how you're &quot;baited&quot; to their personal sites.  _You_ make the choice to check their profile and then click a second link when there.  No one is really forcing you to look at their links; it's your own curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="dc12622c-8ca3-4867-bdf5-aab2a37f6c02" CreationDate="2017-12-18T03:15:04.040" UserId="124" Text="I've noticed the [tag:visible-light] tag has a tendency to be incorrectly applied in cases where the OP happened to have visible light in mind when they asked the question, but they are really asking about electromagnetic radiation in general. ([recent example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/375010/whats-the-difference-between-low-energy-photons-and-high-energy-photons), and there are many other [tag:visible-light] questions which I think should really have [tag:electromagnetic-radiation] instead) I've been thinking for a while that most of the questions which really deserve to be tagged [tag:visible-light] are actually asking about color or visual perception, and I think if we were to rename the tag to something like [tag:color-perception] or [tag:visual-perception] or so on, it would probably cut down on its misuse. What do you think - should we make this change and what is a good replacement name for the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For background, [this question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1166/tag-cleanup-light) collects some resources related to why we introduced the [tag:visible-light] tag in the first place. It was an effort to break apart the old [tag:light] tag into questions about EM radiation in general and questions not asking about EM radiation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="dc12622c-8ca3-4867-bdf5-aab2a37f6c02" CreationDate="2017-12-18T03:15:04.040" UserId="124" Text="Renaming visible-light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="dc12622c-8ca3-4867-bdf5-aab2a37f6c02" CreationDate="2017-12-18T03:15:04.040" UserId="124" Text="|discussion|tags|retagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="44609508-5f3f-47b6-939a-9837f4d4172c" CreationDate="2017-12-19T13:48:17.613" UserId="7993" Text="[This](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/375209/dirac-once-said-that-renormalization-is-just-a-stop-gap-procedure-and-there-had) question on renormalisation in quantum field theory had a number of comments under the main question, including one of mine; they *all* seemed to have been removed without any indication that they had been so. How come? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="44609508-5f3f-47b6-939a-9837f4d4172c" CreationDate="2017-12-19T13:48:17.613" UserId="7993" Text="What happened to the comments on a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="44609508-5f3f-47b6-939a-9837f4d4172c" CreationDate="2017-12-19T13:48:17.613" UserId="7993" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10310" RevisionGUID="0b9b0a7f-1f6f-4734-997f-ed6a55d7e8ca" CreationDate="2017-12-19T14:03:46.617" UserId="50583" Text="Comments are for criticizing or clarifying the question or for linking related questions, not for suggesting possible answers - that's what answers are for. The comments that have been removed were largely of the latter type. Comments on Stack Exchange are ephemeral and you should not expect *any* comment to be preserved indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more discussion of this, see [discussions about deleted comments on our meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bcomments%5D+deleted) and [on mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bcomments%5D+deleted)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10312" RevisionGUID="99f8cf0e-bae9-4dc2-ab52-7980e9d81db8" CreationDate="2017-12-25T00:29:05.643" UserId="98822" Text="For a question about physics, I accidentally came along the &quot;operators&quot; tag. Why is the LaTex code visible below this tag and not what it is supposed to show? I can't see a mistake in the code. Or am I wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10312" RevisionGUID="99f8cf0e-bae9-4dc2-ab52-7980e9d81db8" CreationDate="2017-12-25T00:29:05.643" UserId="98822" Text="Why doesn't the LaTex code under the tag &quot;operators&quot; shows what it's supposed to show?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10312" RevisionGUID="99f8cf0e-bae9-4dc2-ab52-7980e9d81db8" CreationDate="2017-12-25T00:29:05.643" UserId="98822" Text="|bug|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="dcca4145-ecfd-47b9-a6c8-6bc4390fff11" CreationDate="2017-12-25T10:01:34.453" UserId="124" Text="I _believe_ that the tag wiki excerpt (the thing that pops up when you hover over a tag or try to add it to a question) is supposed to contain plain text only. Or if I'm wrong about that, at least it is a _very_ limited set of allowed markup, like only links. The point is, I don't think MathJax is supported in tag wiki excerpts, and this one should be edited to remove the math markup. This is not about an error in the code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure whether it would make sense to allow MathJax in tag wiki excerpts, but that's a matter for a separate discussion. (Honestly, I don't think that feature is likely to be implemented.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="df42bd8d-b88b-4b05-b6b1-6392d87d036e" CreationDate="2017-12-26T12:14:45.450" UserId="165756" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/376382/calculating-the-height-a-person-can-reach-in-the-moon/376386?noredirect=1#comment842351_376386&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with our homework policy. Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions. – ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't there be a vote on un-deletion (at what ever rep-limit the community decides) when answers are deleted by moderators? Why delete a complete answer to a homework question(that takes time and energy to write); why don't you just edit some parts to make it a hint or just leave the conceptual part in? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="df42bd8d-b88b-4b05-b6b1-6392d87d036e" CreationDate="2017-12-26T12:14:45.450" UserId="165756" Text="Why can't deletion by moderators be voted on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="df42bd8d-b88b-4b05-b6b1-6392d87d036e" CreationDate="2017-12-26T12:14:45.450" UserId="165756" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="352414a3-fe7b-40b6-ae8a-bb1637c3dfea" CreationDate="2017-12-26T12:25:11.780" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/376382/calculating-the-height-a-person-can-reach-in-the-moon/376386?noredirect=1#comment842351_376386&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with our homework policy. Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions. – ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't there be a vote on un-deletion (at what ever rep-limit the community decides) when answers are deleted by moderators? Why delete a complete answer to a homework question (that takes time and energy to write); why don't you just edit some parts to make it a hint or just leave the conceptual part in? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31489" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="352414a3-fe7b-40b6-ae8a-bb1637c3dfea" CreationDate="2017-12-26T12:25:11.780" UserId="2451" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10315" RevisionGUID="bef174bf-acff-418c-bd09-d38072b27e63" CreationDate="2017-12-26T16:07:41.350" UserId="8563" Text="Moderator deletions are there to enforce policy that is decided on by the community; the example you link to is a clear example of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you feel that a specific moderator action (deletion or otherwise) steps outside of the community-consensus guidelines, or&#xD;&#xA; - you feel that the community-decided policy should be changed,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you should handle that by posting on this meta making your case for the relevant option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, your answer was deleted because **the community has decided that we don't want this site to provide answers to homework questions**. The deletion is completely within that policy. If you want the policy to change and you want this site to allow this type of answers, feel free to make a proposal - but please make sure to get a good understanding of [the considerable background of that debate](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10077/why-cant-the-homework-policy-be-more-lenient/10079#10079) and be aware that proposals that *don't* provide answers to the existing requirements and tensions are likely to be entirely ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more specifically, though, you can ask for your answer to be undeleted in a week or two, as specified by the policy. If this doesn't happen on its own, flag your post for moderator attention. If you want it to be undeleted earlier, then edit it yourself and flag for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, if you don't want your time and energy to be &quot;wasted&quot;, as you say, then the simplest way is very easy: don't provide full answers to homework questions, and play by the site rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10312" RevisionGUID="be80a0cc-15d4-43d6-8b31-2479b8091176" CreationDate="2017-12-26T16:08:21.573" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="For a question about physics, I accidentally came along the &quot;operators&quot; tag. Why is the LaTeX code visible below this tag and not what it is supposed to show? I can't see a mistake in the code. Or am I wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10312" RevisionGUID="be80a0cc-15d4-43d6-8b31-2479b8091176" CreationDate="2017-12-26T16:08:21.573" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Why doesn't the LaTeX code under the tag &quot;operators&quot; shows what it's supposed to show?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="afa98942-c51e-4f1c-ba45-5a54c73ebb44" CreationDate="2017-12-26T20:25:15.467" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/376382/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm deleting this in accordance with our homework policy. Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions. – ACuriousMind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't there be a vote on un-deletion (at what ever rep-limit the community decides) when answers are deleted by moderators? Why delete a complete answer to a homework question (that takes time and energy to write); why don't you just edit some parts to make it a hint or just leave the conceptual part in? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10316" RevisionGUID="4557cd04-b287-4a3a-8ef4-aefd6681ece5" CreationDate="2017-12-27T07:33:50.920" UserId="98822" Text="I have some ideas about sub-quarks and sub-leptons and the structure of them. I can't ask this question on the PhysicsStackExchange place because the only questions you can ask there are about mainstream-physics. Can I ask them anywhere, or just talk about it in a cozy chatroom, with a cup of tea? I couldn't find a tag so I put on the discussion-tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10316" RevisionGUID="4557cd04-b287-4a3a-8ef4-aefd6681ece5" CreationDate="2017-12-27T07:33:50.920" UserId="98822" Text="Is there a StackExchange place where I can ask questions about non-mainstream physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10316" RevisionGUID="4557cd04-b287-4a3a-8ef4-aefd6681ece5" CreationDate="2017-12-27T07:33:50.920" UserId="98822" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31501" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10316" RevisionGUID="92719c82-66ad-4fc6-b635-94748e803b2d" CreationDate="2017-12-27T09:10:12.167" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31502" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="b65fdac0-7867-4fbb-99db-dc7aa8ecdcca" CreationDate="2017-12-27T09:13:04.610" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31503" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="e0446f59-7b77-40b7-b44d-92d4ecd0ed1f" CreationDate="2017-12-27T09:15:40.207" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|close-reasons|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10318" RevisionGUID="affbba80-f145-4965-8461-fdcc7814b086" CreationDate="2017-12-27T10:12:42.823" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I have some ideas about sub-quarks and sub-leptons and the structure of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange sites are not places to share ideas. I generally wouldn't read too much into your word choice, but the fact that you say &quot;ideas&quot; instead of &quot;questions&quot; does suggest that Stack Exchange is not the place for the kind of post you may want to make, regardless of whether the topic is within the scope of any SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I don't believe there is any site where non-mainstream physics is on topic. But I can't officially speak for other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be fine to bring up your ideas in chat, just make sure that you're not too pushy. In the long run you may be best off finding another site outside the SE network that is oriented more toward sharing non-mainstream ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10320" RevisionGUID="5120e3fb-2ac2-430e-883d-258062d87705" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:26:22.880" UserId="98822" Text="Why does one get no 5 points for an upvoted question in this place? I ask this because I asked [this][1] question, for which I got 3 upvotes, but no +15 points. Poor me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10316/is-there-a-stackexchange-place-where-i-can-ask-questions-about-non-mainstream-ph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10320" RevisionGUID="5120e3fb-2ac2-430e-883d-258062d87705" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:26:22.880" UserId="98822" Text="Why doesn't one get points for an upvoted question on PhysicsMeta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10320" RevisionGUID="5120e3fb-2ac2-430e-883d-258062d87705" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:26:22.880" UserId="98822" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10321" RevisionGUID="0d8d69d2-2bd9-4b27-b201-251322fd9612" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:46:28.560" UserId="98822" Text="How can one know if his or her question is non-mainstream? Just by asking it? Or is it supposed that the one who asks knows that for him/herself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10321" RevisionGUID="0d8d69d2-2bd9-4b27-b201-251322fd9612" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:46:28.560" UserId="98822" Text="How does one know if his question is non-mainstream?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10321" RevisionGUID="0d8d69d2-2bd9-4b27-b201-251322fd9612" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:46:28.560" UserId="98822" Text="|discussion|questions|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="391fc029-3002-4eb7-9382-7a170f49aa04" CreationDate="2017-12-28T09:10:03.173" UserId="179737" Text="All upvotes and downvotes on META do not contribute to changes in reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10323" RevisionGUID="d4db1662-ff55-4c9d-b130-72900f27a99c" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:12:52.917" UserId="121464" Text="I believe it's because there's a fundamental difference between the main site and meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, people are voting based on how good/correct an answer is, which should be tied to your reputation - if you write really good, correct answers about physics, you should have a high reputation because you (presumably) get upvotes on those awesome answers. The opposite should also be true there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta, people are voting based purely on opinion. On the main site, we *know* when there's an error in the answer - if someone says $F =m^2 a$, that's just wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. On the other hand, on meta, someone could say that homework questions should be allowed, and another say they shouldn't be, and neither would be categorically right or wrong - we can look at their arguments for each viewpoint and think about who makes the better argument, and vote based on that, but in the end it comes down to opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because you have controversial or well-respected opinions should not affect your reputation, because it has nothing to do with the actual topic of the site and there isn't really a &quot;right&quot; answer on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10323" RevisionGUID="ee27f100-8399-4ccd-a6b9-a9f908d1080c" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:19:53.490" UserId="121464" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="I believe it's because there's a fundamental difference between the main site and meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the main site, people are voting based on how good/correct an answer is, which should be tied to your reputation - if you write really good, correct answers about physics, you should have a high reputation because you (presumably) get upvotes on those awesome answers. The opposite should also be true there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On meta, people are voting based purely on opinion. On the main site, we *know* when there's an error in the answer - if someone says $F =m^2 a$, that's just wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. On the other hand, on meta, someone could say that homework questions should be allowed, and another say they shouldn't be, and neither would be categorically right or wrong - we can look at their arguments for each viewpoint and think about who makes the better argument, and vote based on that, but in the end it comes down to opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because you have controversial or well-respected opinions should not affect your reputation, because it has nothing to do with the actual topic of the site and there isn't really a &quot;right&quot; answer on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a quick note from [the blog](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/07/22/new-per-site-metas/) (see point #5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Voting up or down does not affect reputation.** You are now free to vote purely based on post content, without worrying about how your vote might positively or negatively affect someone’s reputation score.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="f0341d97-346b-4eba-8a74-e9788db0da30" CreationDate="2017-12-28T18:32:13.563" UserId="520" Text="This is any many ways a &quot;we'll know it when we see it&quot; thing, but there are some reliable indicators that you will be able to defend the question from accusations of non-mainstream-ness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Material that appears in major textbooks. This is golden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Material that has be treated by more than one research group in major journals. Also golden. (But if it is new you might need to give references (and it is going to be hit or miss if anyone here knows anything about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Applications of established science to new systems to which they clearly apply. The literature isn't (can't be) completely comprehensive and some extensions are just obvious, but if you get creative people might question you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Published speculation by individual reputable physicist (or small groups).  Here you are getting into the cutting edge, and opinions might vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost anything else is going to run into questions. And yes, this means the Physics is not a place to develop new ideas. Take it to chat or elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10325" RevisionGUID="a8e48bc7-0ccc-4a40-be79-6a2751dd855a" CreationDate="2017-12-29T01:22:23.360" UserId="60683" Text="I like getting attention for the questions I ask. I enjoy answering peoples questions, but personally, a lot of that motivation comes to get &quot;monopoly money&quot; that I can use to put bounties on my own questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it explicitly against the rules to pay someone to put a bounty on my question? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10325" RevisionGUID="a8e48bc7-0ccc-4a40-be79-6a2751dd855a" CreationDate="2017-12-29T01:22:23.360" UserId="60683" Text="Can I pay someone to put a bounty on my question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10325" RevisionGUID="a8e48bc7-0ccc-4a40-be79-6a2751dd855a" CreationDate="2017-12-29T01:22:23.360" UserId="60683" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="65a623f1-9379-42af-a44d-f582fc79f482" CreationDate="2017-12-29T13:17:39.097" UserId="121464" Comment="parentheses messed up" Text="This is any many ways a &quot;we'll know it when we see it&quot; thing, but there are some reliable indicators that you will be able to defend the question from accusations of non-mainstream-ness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Material that appears in major textbooks. This is golden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Material that has be treated by more than one research group in major journals. Also golden. (If it is new you might need to give references, and it is going to be hit or miss if anyone here knows anything about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Applications of established science to new systems to which they clearly apply. The literature isn't (can't be) completely comprehensive and some extensions are just obvious, but if you get creative people might question you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Published speculation by individual reputable physicist (or small groups).  Here you are getting into the cutting edge, and opinions might vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost anything else is going to run into questions. And yes, this means the Physics is not a place to develop new ideas. Take it to chat or elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="f2f9b5e5-ad89-43ea-8929-f6a4400e3099" CreationDate="2017-12-29T18:45:05.740" UserId="98822" Text="I took a look at somebody's profile 4 times. But why it is shown that 0 persons have visited his profile?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="f2f9b5e5-ad89-43ea-8929-f6a4400e3099" CreationDate="2017-12-29T18:45:05.740" UserId="98822" Text="Why is it written on somebody's profile that it has been visited 0 times, while in fact, I visited the profile 4 times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="f2f9b5e5-ad89-43ea-8929-f6a4400e3099" CreationDate="2017-12-29T18:45:05.740" UserId="98822" Text="|discussion|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="12e04ddf-729b-425f-9701-94041531e676" CreationDate="2017-12-29T21:05:08.257" UserId="121464" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I took a look at somebody's profile four times, but it is showing that nobody has visited their profile. Why?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31529" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="12e04ddf-729b-425f-9701-94041531e676" CreationDate="2017-12-29T21:05:08.257" UserId="121464" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Profile view number is off" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10328" RevisionGUID="40860819-3389-45bf-a12b-a3f4433bf923" CreationDate="2017-12-30T05:40:51.410" UserDisplayName="user53143" Text="IIRC, I asked about the etymology of 'entropy': was it deleted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10328" RevisionGUID="40860819-3389-45bf-a12b-a3f4433bf923" CreationDate="2017-12-30T05:40:51.410" UserDisplayName="user53143" Text="Was my question on 'entropy' deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10328" RevisionGUID="40860819-3389-45bf-a12b-a3f4433bf923" CreationDate="2017-12-30T05:40:51.410" UserDisplayName="user53143" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10329" RevisionGUID="69a7408a-252b-4222-b5b3-a698d683ecf9" CreationDate="2017-12-30T06:41:42.483" UserId="124" Text="I checked your question history, including deleted questions, and I can't find anything that looks like the one you're talking about. So, the way it looks is, no, the question was never deleted because you never asked it in the first place. (At least not using this account)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question about the etymology of a term probably wouldn't be on topic here anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10330" RevisionGUID="08c6d85c-466d-4cd3-a5a8-ad2a3ea71366" CreationDate="2017-12-30T07:02:50.660" UserId="124" Text="The idea of involving real money in SE activity has been discussed a few times on meta sites (e.g. [1](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/181153/), [2](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/229225/), [3](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/148785/), [4](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/25615/), [5](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243404/) as posted by [AccidentalFourierTransform](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/84967/accidentalfouriertransform) in a comment), and while there seems to be broad agreement that it would be a bad idea, I don't know of any rule that explicitly and directly forbids it. Assuming such a rule doesn't exist, I think part of the reason it doesn't exist is that people recognize it'd be impossible to enforce. The moderators and SE staff don't generally know (or care) what you do outside of the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think if you offer anything more than a trivial amount of real money for bounties, it could easily lead to a situation where people are putting bounties on questions that don't deserve them and giving you an excessive share of the attention that comes to featured questions. That would be bad for the site. So I'd suggest that you not do it. But that's just me, speaking unofficially, that's not an outright rule as far as I know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="97b82c05-1254-4846-b2a3-ce8a8e62501f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:08:23.063" UserId="98822" Text="I've noticed (already a long time ago) that below certain questions one can read **protected by...&quot;. I never quite well understood why this is written there. So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the statement &quot;protected by...&quot; written below some questions and what are the criteria for a question to make this statement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="97b82c05-1254-4846-b2a3-ce8a8e62501f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:08:23.063" UserId="98822" Text="What does &quot;protected by...&quot; below a question mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="97b82c05-1254-4846-b2a3-ce8a8e62501f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:08:23.063" UserId="98822" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="94b9377b-6658-4b8f-9f17-726c18ca1e5f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:50:36.250" UserId="160255" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Screw falling in an elevator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/377273/screw-falling-in-an-elevator)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used this site much before but I asked two questions recently which were both rated -1. I have no idea why this could be and there was no constructive feedback left by the people who rated them negatively. I am only concerned about this because when I made my second question today I got a warning saying that if my posts keep getting negative ratings I may not be able to ask questions anymore which is very unfortunate, especially considering that my questions are very neutral and are simply asking for help on things I don't understand about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice would be appreciated. I hope this site could be more fair in that moderators would review posts and &quot;clean up&quot; the negative ratings on posts which don't deserve it. If you look at my two questions, you will most likely agree that they don't deserve a negative rating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/376890/significant-figures-when-adding-and-subtracting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/377273/screw-falling-in-an-elevator/377276#377276" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="94b9377b-6658-4b8f-9f17-726c18ca1e5f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:50:36.250" UserId="160255" Text="Why are my posts being rated negatively" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="94b9377b-6658-4b8f-9f17-726c18ca1e5f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:50:36.250" UserId="160255" Text="|support|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="5cd9df06-3e78-46bc-b647-4e2205fd98e6" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:53:08.847" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Screw falling in an elevator](https://physics.stackexchange.com//377273/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used this site much before but I asked two questions recently which were both rated -1. I have no idea why this could be and there was no constructive feedback left by the people who rated them negatively. I am only concerned about this because when I made my second question today I got a warning saying that if my posts keep getting negative ratings I may not be able to ask questions anymore which is very unfortunate, especially considering that my questions are very neutral and are simply asking for help on things I don't understand about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice would be appreciated. I hope this site could be more fair in that moderators would review posts and &quot;clean up&quot; the negative ratings on posts which don't deserve it. If you look at my two questions, you will most likely agree that they don't deserve a negative rating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/376890/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/377273/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31550" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="5cd9df06-3e78-46bc-b647-4e2205fd98e6" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:53:08.847" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="5cd9df06-3e78-46bc-b647-4e2205fd98e6" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:53:08.847" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why are my posts being rated negatively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10335" RevisionGUID="afebfed6-698f-4a53-9739-e56fc803b3c8" CreationDate="2017-12-31T15:59:37.807" UserId="50583" Text="1. Moderators cannot invalidate votes on individual posts, so whether we agree that your posts do not &quot;deserve&quot; negative scores or not is immaterial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Voting on SE is anonymous and explicitly left to the discretion of the voters - if the voters don't leave comments on your posts, there is no way to find out what was the reason for specific downvotes on specific posts. However, in this case I suspect you are being downvoted because your questions are close to [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583), which are off-topic here and disliked by many users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you wish to suggest that there should be some sort of requirement for downvoters to explain their votes, this has been discussed again and again on meta.SE, see [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135/263383) and its linked questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="f6c3b119-10d5-4f18-bf75-70f3ff4df762" CreationDate="2018-01-01T03:01:46.227" UserId="179737" Text="There is a badge awarded for 5 well-received posts.  How does one define well-received?  Based on views or votes?  How many of each are needed?  The badge also mentions positive question record.  What do you mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="f6c3b119-10d5-4f18-bf75-70f3ff4df762" CreationDate="2018-01-01T03:01:46.227" UserId="179737" Text="What is a well-received post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="f6c3b119-10d5-4f18-bf75-70f3ff4df762" CreationDate="2018-01-01T03:01:46.227" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10337" RevisionGUID="a9cc162e-3cd0-4425-86d8-2d99e8f3c458" CreationDate="2018-01-01T05:51:21.950" UserId="1325" Text="See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/234259/asking-days-badges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well received question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is one that's open, not deleted, and has a score &gt; 0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="934441df-8f63-4cb6-8aaa-c45c29378e00" CreationDate="2018-01-01T08:24:58.090" UserId="179737" Text="Initially I wanted to flag a qn because of certain reasons.  However, after the OP edited, I do not want to flag anymore.  1. Would my flag be declined? 2. Should I retract my flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="934441df-8f63-4cb6-8aaa-c45c29378e00" CreationDate="2018-01-01T08:24:58.090" UserId="179737" Text="Retracting flags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="934441df-8f63-4cb6-8aaa-c45c29378e00" CreationDate="2018-01-01T08:24:58.090" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="21c5c1a7-0c76-4ecd-960d-2fb8fa0342b3" CreationDate="2018-01-01T09:41:38.563" UserId="179737" Text="What happens say if u got 2 posts with &gt;10000 views.  Do you get 2 famous question badges or 1?  It is said: Question with 10,000 views. This badge can be awarded multiple times under the description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="21c5c1a7-0c76-4ecd-960d-2fb8fa0342b3" CreationDate="2018-01-01T09:41:38.563" UserId="179737" Text="Earning badges more than once" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="21c5c1a7-0c76-4ecd-960d-2fb8fa0342b3" CreationDate="2018-01-01T09:41:38.563" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10340" RevisionGUID="dd7d1db8-e4a1-4516-b99d-1b1f6065ca05" CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:04:13.470" UserId="124" Text="When a badge's description says &quot;This badge can be awarded multiple times&quot;, you will get one instance of that badge for each event that matches the criteria for which the badge is awarded. In this case, that means you get a Famous Question badge for each question you ask that has more than 10000 views." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10341" RevisionGUID="9cfef6fa-64f3-4b78-b383-33d896615d5e" CreationDate="2018-01-01T16:38:16.880" UserId="84967" Text="1. If the edit fixed the issue, yes. The flag will probably be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you think the edit fixed the issue, yes. You should retract your flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the edit did not really fix the issue, you should not retract the flag, and should not expect it to be rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="f9a86620-54a6-4e9d-b8ee-6cb3fa82b4c1" CreationDate="2018-01-01T16:38:46.190" UserId="84967" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Initially I wanted to flag a question because of certain reasons.  However, after the OP edited, I do not want to flag anymore.  1. Would my flag be declined? 2. Should I retract my flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="f9a86620-54a6-4e9d-b8ee-6cb3fa82b4c1" CreationDate="2018-01-01T16:38:46.190" UserId="84967" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|editing|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="4a420b41-bd62-415d-ba99-cd70066f7129" CreationDate="2018-01-03T10:30:14.653" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Screw falling in an elevator](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/377273/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used this site much before but I asked two questions recently which were both rated -1. I have no idea why this could be and there was no constructive feedback left by the people who rated them negatively. I am only concerned about this because when I made my second question today I got a warning saying that if my posts keep getting negative ratings I may not be able to ask questions anymore which is very unfortunate, especially considering that my questions are very neutral and are simply asking for help on things I don't understand about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice would be appreciated. I hope this site could be more fair in that moderators would review posts and &quot;clean up&quot; the negative ratings on posts which don't deserve it. If you look at my two questions, you will most likely agree that they don't deserve a negative rating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/376890/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/377273/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10342" RevisionGUID="ed8d9a59-13bb-4532-90f9-3735b2cc754c" CreationDate="2018-01-03T11:57:35.190" UserId="8563" Text="From the [Help pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/protect-questions): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###What are protected questions?&#xD;&#xA;A protected question prevents answers being added by anonymous and very new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions should be protected when they are garnering lots of views and newbies are adding &quot;me too!&quot;, &quot;thanks!&quot; and possibly even spam non-answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Which questions can be protected?&#xD;&#xA;Any question at least a day old can be protected and unprotected by users that have the privilege, provided the question has received at least one answer from a user with less than 10 reputation (such users would then be prevented from posting further answers after the question is protected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see the blog post [New Protected Question Status](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/new-protected-question-status/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some additional comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the reasons for protecting a question are limited to a specific time window. This happens most often when questions get promoted to the Hot Network Questions sidebar, which gets advertised across all 150+ Stack Exchange sites, and that normally brings in a large influx of association-bonus users who have a minimal involvement in this site and its community, but who can upvote (but not downvote) questions and answers (leading to a [pretty pernicious feedback loop](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286020/breaking-the-hnq-feedback-loop-on-bad-questions)), and who are quite often happy to add in some rather off-topic answers. Protecting those questions is a very welcome tool to keep the discussion on-topic, and (like a bunch of other janitorial tasks, like tag edits or helpful &quot;related: ...&quot; comments) very often it is Qmechanic that gets there first, as discussed in [this previous thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10183).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If the reasons for protecting a question are no longer valid, then it is perfectly reasonable to raise a custom flag on the question (or to pop into [the site chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), if there are &gt;15k-rep users around) asking whether it should still be protected. If the reasons are no longer present, the response will often be to unprotect the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, some questions have long-running reasons for protection, but those reasons will not be visible unless you have &gt;10k rep and you can see all the deleted non-answer answers that caused the protection in the first place. For an example, see the blog post linked above; for something on-site, try e.g. [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70395): it might look perfectly reasonable to you, but it has four deleted (terrible!) non-answers spread out over three years, and the protection is clearly appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a question gets protected, the only effect is that posting an answer requires you to have earned 10 rep on this site. This is an exceptionally low threshold (one upvote on an answer, or two on a question), and the body of people with meaningful answers to add that get a participation barrier for them to post it is (while nonzero) small enough that the protection against spam and junk answers is justified. Or, to put it another way: the banner can look big and scary, but its real-world negative impact are generally extremely limited. (On the other hand, there is a selection bias in that if people are turned away, we're unlikely to hear about it. But still.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Generally, we're not great at unprotecting questions that no longer need it, which is partly because there isn't a good volunteer base to identify them, and partly because the existing software doesn't have great tools to *find* those questions. (One such tool might be e.g. a review queue of questions that stopped being HNQs three months ago, which are probably ready for unprotection. That's unlikely to be implemented by SE, though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   However, there's nothing stopping a motivated-enough volunteer from looking through old questions and flagging them (/ asking 15k'ers on chat) to unprotect them. The 10k tools have [a dedicated stats page with protected questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/protected-questions), but all that data is public and e.g. [this Protected Questions SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/777230/protected-questions) is an excellent starting point. (If you do go there, though, and you've got &lt;10k rep, be wary of questions with multiple deleted answers, as reported in the query, that you cannot see.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10342" RevisionGUID="445f69d6-6699-43aa-ad11-9365d0877f3b" CreationDate="2018-01-03T12:07:24.423" UserId="8563" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="From the [Help pages](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/protect-questions): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###What are protected questions?&#xD;&#xA;A protected question prevents answers being added by anonymous and very new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Questions should be protected when they are garnering lots of views and newbies are adding &quot;me too!&quot;, &quot;thanks!&quot; and possibly even spam non-answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Which questions can be protected?&#xD;&#xA;Any question at least a day old can be protected and unprotected by users that have the privilege, provided the question has received at least one answer from a user with less than 10 reputation (such users would then be prevented from posting further answers after the question is protected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see the blog post [New Protected Question Status](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/new-protected-question-status/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some additional comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes the reasons for protecting a question are limited to a specific time window. This happens most often when questions get promoted to the Hot Network Questions sidebar, which gets advertised across all 150+ Stack Exchange sites, and that normally brings in a large influx of association-bonus users who have a minimal involvement in this site and its community, but who can upvote (but not downvote) questions and answers (leading to a [pretty pernicious feedback loop](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286020/breaking-the-hnq-feedback-loop-on-bad-questions)), and who are quite often happy to add in some rather off-topic answers. Protecting those questions is a very welcome tool to keep the discussion on-topic, and (like a bunch of other janitorial tasks, like tag edits or helpful &quot;related: ...&quot; comments) very often it is Qmechanic that gets there first, as discussed in [this previous thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10183).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If the reasons for protecting a question are no longer valid, then it is perfectly reasonable to raise a custom flag on the question (or to pop into [the site chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), if there are &gt;15k-rep users around) asking whether it should still be protected. If the reasons are no longer present, the response will often be to unprotect the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand, some questions have long-running reasons for protection, but those reasons will not be visible unless you have &gt;10k rep and you can see all the deleted non-answer answers that caused the protection in the first place. For an example, see the blog post linked above; for something on-site, try e.g. [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7615/what-is-in-the-space-between-a-nucleus-of-an-atom-and-its-electrons): it might look perfectly reasonable to you, but it has eight deleted (terrible!) non-answers spread out over one year, and the protection is clearly appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a question gets protected, the only effect is that posting an answer requires you to have earned 10 rep on this site. This is an exceptionally low threshold (one upvote on an answer, or two on a question), and the body of people with meaningful answers to add that get a participation barrier for them to post it is (while nonzero) small enough that the protection against spam and junk answers is justified. Or, to put it another way: the banner can look big and scary, but its real-world negative impact are generally extremely limited. (On the other hand, there is a selection bias in that if people are turned away, we're unlikely to hear about it. But still.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Generally, we're not great at unprotecting questions that no longer need it, which is partly because there isn't a good volunteer base to identify them, and partly because the existing software doesn't have great tools to *find* those questions. (One such tool might be e.g. a review queue of questions that stopped being HNQs three months ago, which are probably ready for unprotection. That's unlikely to be implemented by SE, though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   However, there's nothing stopping a motivated-enough volunteer from looking through old questions and flagging them (/ asking 15k'ers on chat) to unprotect them. The 10k tools have [a dedicated stats page with protected questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools/protected-questions), but all that data is public and e.g. [this Protected Questions SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/777230/protected-questions) is an excellent starting point. (If you do go there, though, and you've got &lt;10k rep, be wary of questions with multiple deleted answers, as reported in the query, that you cannot see.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="b6f8b47e-140e-4675-b5d9-4f360544e134" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:20:04.340" UserId="179737" Text="Upon looking under the list of posts I flagged, some are pending/ helpful.  Under those helpful ones, some are highlighted in red.  What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="b6f8b47e-140e-4675-b5d9-4f360544e134" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:20:04.340" UserId="179737" Text="Some flag thing I don't understand" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="b6f8b47e-140e-4675-b5d9-4f360544e134" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:20:04.340" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10344" RevisionGUID="0275bbe4-d37a-4c82-998a-ff6999930187" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:23:23.237" UserId="179737" Text="I see my flag being marked as helpful.  What does that mean?  I do not see the post being removed, or anything happening to it.  Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10344" RevisionGUID="0275bbe4-d37a-4c82-998a-ff6999930187" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:23:23.237" UserId="179737" Text="What happens to helpful flagged posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10344" RevisionGUID="0275bbe4-d37a-4c82-998a-ff6999930187" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:23:23.237" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10344" RevisionGUID="bcc9cd1d-2fb3-4dce-855d-c166f81757bf" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:27:38.830" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10345" RevisionGUID="d5808cda-b38f-4e65-9998-0f2f70edea3f" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:46:54.287" UserId="8563" Text="If by &quot;highlighted in red&quot; you mean a pink background behind the question title,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S6YR2.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then that indicates that the post in question has been deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean something else, then you should provide a screenshot and be more descriptive about the circumstances (type of flag raised, whether it was on a question/answer/comment, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="ad94c32c-b62a-4c3a-9acb-c8145012f357" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:55:49.347" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Upon looking under the list of posts I flagged, some are pending/ helpful.  Under those helpful ones, some are highlighted in red. What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31581" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="ad94c32c-b62a-4c3a-9acb-c8145012f357" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:55:49.347" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why are some posts shown with a pink background in the list of flags I've raised?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31582" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="ad94c32c-b62a-4c3a-9acb-c8145012f357" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:55:49.347" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|flagging|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10346" RevisionGUID="60210478-b790-43a5-a026-349008a7e3ab" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:57:13.307" UserId="179737" Text="How does one view the number of views to a particular post?  I can’t seem to find it.  Perhaps someone can send a screenshot to help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10346" RevisionGUID="60210478-b790-43a5-a026-349008a7e3ab" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:57:13.307" UserId="179737" Text="How to view number of views on mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10346" RevisionGUID="60210478-b790-43a5-a026-349008a7e3ab" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:57:13.307" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10347" RevisionGUID="0caf25e8-50db-4798-a8bd-f21601c9a1e6" CreationDate="2018-01-03T15:50:23.933" UserId="8563" Text="To be clear: the mobile app (applying to both the iOS and the android apps) is **not** a full-featured version of this site. The full-featured version is the desktop site as seen on [officially supported browsers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56161/which-browsers-are-officially-supported-and-what-else-do-i-need); if you do something else (including using the mobile website or either of the mobile apps) and some bit of the site functionality doesn't work, then that's because you're not using the full-featured version. If you want that feature, either switch to the desktop version on a supported browser, or ask a feature request for that feature to be ported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feature requests like that are in principle on-topic here, but the attention from both community and the dev team that they'll gather is rather minimal; they are very much best posed on [the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com), and indeed (like your specific example, over at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/232077/how-to-see-the-number-of-views-of-a-post-on-mobile-app) they often have been asked already. However, it's important to note that for frills like this on the app, given that [some usage-critical features remain unimplemented](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/281120/184688), the chance of a speedy implementation is extremely slim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31587" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10344" RevisionGUID="f3f6ef73-cc5d-4f0d-b599-8a05dce2accd" CreationDate="2018-01-03T19:27:52.927" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4443],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10348" RevisionGUID="ca3cce93-7590-4d3f-b3e2-f141ac62bf5d" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:28:23.203" UserId="84967" Text="H${}$i all. Please, have a look at [What is a complete book for quantum field theory?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/8441/84967). The post is a standard [tag:resource-recommendations] request. In fact, it is the canonical post when it comes to QFT books. Weird that it is closed, specially when it is not opinion-based. At least, not more than any other [tag:resource-recommendations] post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when someone asks about QFT recommendations nowadays, the post is always closed as a duplicate of that post above. Yet, the latter post is closed, which doesn't make much sense to me. People cannot ask for recommendations, and people cannot post new recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been suggested in the comment section that the post is not really POB, but that it is a duplicate (*of what?*) and/or too broad. I don't really agree with it being neither. For one thing, there are canonical res.rec. about all major branches of physics (Newtonian mechanics, Electrodynamics, Optics, etc.) and they are all open, except for the one about QFT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I voted to reopen this post a couple of times, and the post left the reopen queue with a couple of reopen votes, but it was never reopened. Surely there must be something that I am missing here. Can we please discuss this here? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10348" RevisionGUID="ca3cce93-7590-4d3f-b3e2-f141ac62bf5d" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:28:23.203" UserId="84967" Text="Why is this question (still) closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10348" RevisionGUID="ca3cce93-7590-4d3f-b3e2-f141ac62bf5d" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:28:23.203" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|reopen|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="9b64f9d2-55a6-4c6d-86ee-34b0adafc9a6" CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:03:41.993" UserId="8007" Text="Is there a way to flag a user for the name?  I noticed [this user](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/180516/breaking-jews?tab=profile)'s name after answering [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/377998/is-this-posible-in-gr-g-abgab-1/377999#377999).  I don't know about any policies on user names, but this one seems like it could very well violate such a policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="9b64f9d2-55a6-4c6d-86ee-34b0adafc9a6" CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:03:41.993" UserId="8007" Text="Offensive user name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="9b64f9d2-55a6-4c6d-86ee-34b0adafc9a6" CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:03:41.993" UserId="8007" Text="|support|flagging|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10350" RevisionGUID="e0340eda-666f-4ef6-b517-71df375f34fe" CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:43:10.243" UserId="124" Text="There's no way to flag an account, but you can flag one of the user's posts for moderator attention and explain in the message. Of course, now that you've brought it to our (mods') attention by posting on meta, there's no need to flag in addition; we'll look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do allow people somewhat more freedom in usernames than in the content they post, but not as much as is allowed in the &quot;about me&quot; section on their profile. I don't know of any documentation about more specific rules than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="04e6fb66-d9cc-4ec2-931c-2a0335d3fc70" CreationDate="2018-01-04T22:44:17.523" UserId="179737" Text="I was wondering how do I find the question ID of a particular question in order to flag it.  How can I find the question ID of any particular question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="04e6fb66-d9cc-4ec2-931c-2a0335d3fc70" CreationDate="2018-01-04T22:44:17.523" UserId="179737" Text="Question ID on mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="04e6fb66-d9cc-4ec2-931c-2a0335d3fc70" CreationDate="2018-01-04T22:44:17.523" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31599" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="78a9a92e-a77d-4269-9f0d-a48577866edf" CreationDate="2018-01-04T23:13:09.033" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|flagging|mobile-app|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="aa59b902-d707-4d74-9f40-4189b9efa5f4" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:27:34.163" UserId="28359" Text="**Question:** https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/377676/buoyant-force-on-an-object-observed-by-two-observers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hold reason**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand five people voted to close my question, so I admit I have obviously made some great mistake in posing my question. I wish to correct my mistake. The problem is, I do not understand where my mistake lies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to me, I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **asked about a *specific* *physics* concept:** My question talks about the difference in the buoyant force observed by two different observers. I could sum it up in one line, so I think it is a pretty *specific* question. The question is not excessively mathematics oriented, and I have only used a small formula. So, it is indeed a *physics* question.&#xD;&#xA;2. **showed some *effort* to work through a problem:** I have clearly shown my logic as to what I expect the observed buoyant force to be for both the observers, with proper reasoning and mathjax. I have also drawn a diagram on my own and pasted it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my naive logic, my question satisfies both the requirements mentioned in the close reason. But, I am not here to challenge the close vote or the rules.  As I said earlier, I am here to learn exactly what I am missing from what I question that made it deserve a close vote. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="aa59b902-d707-4d74-9f40-4189b9efa5f4" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:27:34.163" UserId="28359" Text="I need help understanding why my question was put on hold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="aa59b902-d707-4d74-9f40-4189b9efa5f4" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:27:34.163" UserId="28359" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10353" RevisionGUID="6bcaf06c-0f84-4773-9f16-a8dc148901d8" CreationDate="2018-01-05T03:01:42.903" UserId="124" Text="At its core, this is the question you asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thus want to confirm if my reasoning for $O_1$ and $O_2$ is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not asking about a specific physics concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, questions which just want to confirm whether a solution is correct are not on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, what you posted isn't even a question. Now, it doesn't have to be; in other words, it's not strictly necessary that your post includes an interrogative sentence. But I find that it sometimes helps make a question more clear if you do phrase it that way. If nothing else, people who want to cut through the extra information and focus on exactly what you're really asking might start by searching your post for a question mark, and it doesn't hurt to put one in there for them to find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10353" RevisionGUID="73361123-186a-44c5-9395-7bd09fc22ffc" CreationDate="2018-01-05T05:11:43.190" UserId="124" Comment="add more details about off topic questions" Text="At its core, this is the question you asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thus want to confirm if my reasoning for $O_1$ and $O_2$ is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not asking about a specific physics concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if your question presents some work (whether that work represents a full or partial solution or some initial thoughts or anything in-between) and just asks to confirm whether that work is correct, it is not on topic here. If your question is of this type, often a good way to start fixing it is to think about why exactly you think it might not be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, asking what the correct approach to a problem is would also be off topic. If your question is of this type,a good way to start fixing it is to start working on it and identify what you get stuck on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two types of questions (asking to check some work and asking how to solve a problem) are the archetypal examples of what we call &quot;non-conceptual questions&quot;, which are off topic as described in the [homework-like question policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, what you posted isn't even a question. Now, it doesn't have to be; in other words, it's not strictly necessary that your post includes an interrogative sentence. But I find that it sometimes helps make a question more clear if you do phrase it that way. If nothing else, people who want to cut through the extra information and focus on exactly what you're really asking might start by searching your post for a question mark, and it doesn't hurt to put one in there for them to find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="caad9384-8286-4406-8717-41f53992b89a" CreationDate="2018-01-05T07:02:54.643" UserId="50583" Text="You do not need the question ID. Click on &quot;share&quot; and copy the link to the question to your clipboard, then insert that into the close dialogue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="952bdd53-9c8f-4f07-923a-f6d97eab8f6e" CreationDate="2018-01-05T07:03:57.893" UserId="50583" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I was wondering how do I find the question ID of a particular question in order to flag it as a duplicate.  How can I find the question ID of any particular question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10356" RevisionGUID="37902abe-376f-4c32-a8bc-9b1df72c8e34" CreationDate="2018-01-05T13:49:31.080" UserId="179737" Text="When I see a put on hold message, it will always show put on hold by someone. &#xD;&#xA; I would like to know who these people are.  Are they moderators?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10356" RevisionGUID="37902abe-376f-4c32-a8bc-9b1df72c8e34" CreationDate="2018-01-05T13:49:31.080" UserId="179737" Text="Put on hold messages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10356" RevisionGUID="37902abe-376f-4c32-a8bc-9b1df72c8e34" CreationDate="2018-01-05T13:49:31.080" UserId="179737" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10357" RevisionGUID="6958a050-6749-44df-bb74-f52841673d2c" CreationDate="2018-01-05T14:55:52.320" UserId="153092" Text="# Not necessarily mods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The users of Physics.SE who have over 3000 reputation obtain [the privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) to &quot;Vote to Close&quot; a  Question. At 5 close votes, the post is automatically &quot;Put on Hold&quot;. After a week, its status is changed to &quot;Closed&quot;, unless it is reopened in the meantime. This is also mentioned in our [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, users which have a gold tag badge in either of the tags of the question can single-handedly close it as a duplicate (aka &quot;hammer&quot;). Moderators can single-handedly close / reopen any question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10357" RevisionGUID="7953f4d1-891c-4a81-a8aa-c2b8f7477879" CreationDate="2018-01-05T21:03:53.957" UserId="153092" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="# Not necessarily mods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The users of Physics.SE who have over 3000 reputation obtain [the privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) to &quot;Vote to Close&quot; a  Question. At 5 close votes, the post is automatically &quot;Put on Hold&quot;. After a week, its status is changed to &quot;Closed&quot;, unless it is reopened in the meantime. This is also mentioned in our [Help Center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, users which have a gold tag badge in either of the tags of the question can single-handedly close it as a duplicate (aka &quot;hammer&quot;). Moderators can single-handedly close / reopen any question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can distinguish moderators from all other users, because they have a diamond (♦) after their username. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10358" RevisionGUID="55b09884-ce35-4bae-94e6-86e615c75de9" CreationDate="2018-01-06T02:21:30.523" UserId="179737" Text="I have flagged quite a few posts and answers, 2 of which were spam flags and both were declined.  Why?  Isn't spam anything redundant and lengthy?  For instance, if a person's answer is &quot;hieeeeeeeeeeeeeeefiehfihfiehihefhehfie&quot; some random letters like this, is this spam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10358" RevisionGUID="55b09884-ce35-4bae-94e6-86e615c75de9" CreationDate="2018-01-06T02:21:30.523" UserId="179737" Text="The problem with spam flags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10358" RevisionGUID="55b09884-ce35-4bae-94e6-86e615c75de9" CreationDate="2018-01-06T02:21:30.523" UserId="179737" Text="|support|flagging|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10359" RevisionGUID="5c287816-2454-49ca-8a1e-f19b68c45530" CreationDate="2018-01-06T02:26:01.457" UserId="50583" Text="That is not spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On StackExcange, only posts that explicity advertise a specific website, program or product are considered spam. Gibberish should be flagged as either &quot;not an answer&quot; or &quot;rude or abusive&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="cb8030b1-25fb-4050-8de2-20e0aec741af" CreationDate="2018-01-06T02:44:35.387" UserId="124" Comment="update some wording" Text="# Question and answer flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Spam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;spam&quot; flag is for content which is both promotional _and_ irrelevant to the post, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to commercial websites unrelated to physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything which is not promotional, or which constitutes an answer, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers relevant to the question which reference a relevant physics paper or publication (including blog posts), even if the poster is the author of the publication&#xD;&#xA;- offensive content (see below)&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of posts that should be flagged as spam:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [online poker sign up](http://example.com) **free**! win money in your spare time! Top players use our site for quick money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **International Symposium on Imaginary Physics Call For Papers** We invite you and your colleagues to submit papers to a new symposium for experts in the field of Imaginary Physics. [Click here](http://example.com) to access the signup form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rude or abusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;rude or abusive&quot; flag is for content that does not constitute an answer _and_ which a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes - what other sites often call &quot;doxxing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- content which could reasonably be considered abuse _of the system_ like nonsensical gibberish (though you can also use &quot;very low quality&quot; or &quot;not an answer&quot; for this sort of thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- mild insults&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- legitimate answers which can be edited to not be offensive while preserving the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hiding the examples in spoiler tags in case anyone would rather not read them. Hover over the quote boxes to see sample offensive answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! all these shitty answers you get when you let chinese on the site, you asked for this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt;! If you do not accept this answer I will come to your house at 333 Quantum Road, Hilbertsville and murder a member of your family within one year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Very Low Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;very low quality&quot; flag is for answers which are complete nonsense, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- incoherent gibberish&#xD;&#xA;- anything not parseable as English text&#xD;&#xA;- answers posted in another language (although if you can edit in a translation, you're encouraged to do so instead of flagging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions&#xD;&#xA;- comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; jaafjajrefaseoifjaeijfoaisnsdoj ajfauenwofjasndifnaowjnefoaijw3oeiosafaw3efnaso aksdj vaosjdfoa dfoajw efjas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Not An Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;not an answer&quot; flag is for anything posted as an answer which does not constitute so much as an _attempt_ to answer that question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- answers to completely different questions&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions, including requests for clarification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for anything that answers the question or represents a good-faith attempt to answer the question, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wrong answers&#xD;&#xA;- answers based on non-mainstream physics&#xD;&#xA;- answers which just barely fail to address the question due to an honest misunderstanding&#xD;&#xA;- anything the poster honestly thinks is a legitimate answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If gravity is $+9.8$, does that mean the train goes up in the air? I thought up was positive. Can you explain what happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; @Bohr's answer is good but it doesn't explain why only these certain orbits are allowed. What if you hit an electron slightly, just enough to push it out of its orbit but not into the next one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;other&quot; flag, or the &quot;flag for moderator attention&quot;, is for anything that does _not_ fit into one of the above categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Comment flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general note: if you find yourself wanting to flag many comments on the same post, it's enough to just flag one or two. When handling a comment flag, we normally look at all other comments on the post and delete them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rude or abusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this flag for anything that violates the &quot;be nice&quot; rule, including anything that a reasonable person would consider egregiously offensive (much like the &quot;offensive&quot; flag for answers). In particular, valid uses of this flag include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- hate speech directed against a race, gender, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- direct threats of violence against a specific person&#xD;&#xA;- exposing sensitive personal information (real name, location, mailing address, email address, phone number, age, gender, etc.) against the owner's wishes (a.k.a. &quot;doxxing&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- content which could reasonably be considered abuse _of the system_ like nonsensical gibberish (though you can also use &quot;no longer needed&quot; for this sort of thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- isolated instances of swear words&#xD;&#xA;- comments you simply disagree with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't believe you consider yourself competent to post about string theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The examples from the &quot;offensive&quot; question/answer flag (see above) would also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## No longer needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;no longer needed&quot; flag is for any comments which do not help clarify or improve their parent post. It combines what used to be &quot;obsolete&quot;, &quot;not constructive&quot;, and &quot;too chatty&quot; (which were always kind of hard to distinguish anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the name, this flag should be used both for comments that used to be useful, but are not anymore, _and_ for comments that were never useful in the first place. Here is a nonexhaustive list of comment types you should use this flag for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;+1 great post!&quot; or &quot;-1 this is wrong&quot; or anything along those lines given _without further explanation_&#xD;&#xA;- greetings, thanks, and pleasantries&#xD;&#xA;- anecdotes, stories, jokes, links to XKCD comics&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for changes which _have_ been incorporated into the post&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions which the poster has explicitly declined to make&#xD;&#xA;- requests for clarification which have been answered&#xD;&#xA;- clarifications given in response to such requests&#xD;&#xA;- back-and-forth discussions which are no longer active&#xD;&#xA;- responses to any comments which have been deleted&#xD;&#xA;- pretty much any comment older than a week or so (which is an implicit indication that the poster has declined to act on the comment)&#xD;&#xA;- followup questions which should be asked independently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- links to related resources or potential duplicate questions where the comments are less than a week old&#xD;&#xA;- suggestions for improving the post which are less than a week old and which the poster has not yet responded to&#xD;&#xA;- active discussions which are expected to result in a suggestion for improving the post&#xD;&#xA;- anything where the _only_ reason for flagging is that you disagree with it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the only correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're not a physicist, why should I believe anything you write?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I joined this site just to upvote your post. Great job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thanks for the upvote!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Moderator intervention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;in need of moderator intervention&quot; flag is for any comment that needs flagging and does _not_ fit into one of the above categories. These will be rare. Spam is the main example I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this flag for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- any comments simply because you disagree with them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What if I misuse a flag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your flag gets declined. This is not a big deal. It just reflects a difference of opinion between the flagger and the handling moderator. (Plus the mods _do_ accidentally click the wrong button from time to time.) Everybody gets flags declined from time to time, and there are no lasting consequences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..._unless_ you are warned that you're flagging incorrectly, and you continue to do it repeatedly, frequently, and intentionally (as far as the mods can tell). Then you'd be subject to the same disciplinary measures we use against anyone else who seriously abuses their privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples in this post are not real, but are meant to be representative of actual contributed content that would be a valid use of the respective flags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10359" RevisionGUID="af65b1b1-19be-4129-89df-8dc15c8e68b7" CreationDate="2018-01-06T02:46:34.873" UserId="50583" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="That is not spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On StackExchange, only posts that explicity advertise a specific website, program or product are considered spam. Gibberish should be flagged as either &quot;not an answer&quot; or &quot;rude or abusive&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10359" RevisionGUID="dce1345c-6341-462d-bc4a-133be04c3053" CreationDate="2018-01-06T16:20:01.387" UserId="44126" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="That is not spam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On StackExchange, only posts that explicity advertise a specific website, program or product are considered spam. [Gibberish should be flagged as either &quot;not an answer&quot; or &quot;rude or abusive&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234035/280545)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="9678092f-9558-450c-9b6b-85b3c5c79aac" CreationDate="2018-01-07T21:52:13.633" UserId="179737" Text="Recently I saw many homework posts rejected.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a decently upvoted homework question.  Why is this so?  Perhaps it is better to remove the homework tag altogether?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="9678092f-9558-450c-9b6b-85b3c5c79aac" CreationDate="2018-01-07T21:52:13.633" UserId="179737" Text="Purpose of homework tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="9678092f-9558-450c-9b6b-85b3c5c79aac" CreationDate="2018-01-07T21:52:13.633" UserId="179737" Text="|support|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="36bf09b6-a9b5-4f73-83be-38fb064c5360" CreationDate="2018-01-07T22:42:39.177" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10364" RevisionGUID="d4190b1f-4228-42bd-abde-29c16910fe46" CreationDate="2018-01-08T06:04:15.503" UserId="1325" Text="The homework tag has a couple of uses that make it worth keeping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In your profile preferences you can specify tags you wish to ignore - questions with that tag can be greyed out or even completely hidden. That allows people to hide anything tagged as homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Tagging something as homework will hopefully deter site members from answering it (before it can be closed). This is good since answering homework questions just encourages people to ask them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10365" RevisionGUID="d4cb2f09-527a-42e6-8057-19f0e37fadfd" CreationDate="2018-01-11T03:57:54.690" UserId="151083" Text="The answers to [**this meta question**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions) state that it's permissible for a question (or an answer) to exist elsewhere on the Internet and also on an SE site, even if the non-SE sites can found by searching. Some of the ideas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answering questions on Physics.SE causes it to be a top hit on Google search results.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answering questions on Physics.SE drives traffic toward the site.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Answers that are given on Physics.SE are inherently higher in quality because, unlike many other external sites where research might be done, people can comment on the Physics.SE answers, ask follow-up questions, and provide further clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [**help center**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask), when discussing the issue of searching/researching, states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search), and research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you [**thoroughly searched for an answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) *before* asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both links point to the Physics.SE search tool, not to Google. There's no mention in the help center about doing research on external sites. This might suggest that, at some early stage, the intention was for the research requirement to apply to the Physics.SE site: before posting a question, research Physics.SE to see if it already exists. (This would help avoid duplicates, among other things.) I don't see evidence that the original intention is for research to encompass other sites. The rationale that &quot;posting questions whose answers exist in a Google search will encourage users to ask more of those questions&quot; contains an implicit assumption about which users should or shouldn't be using the site. But on that topic, the help center states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics *and students* of physics and astronomy. [empahsis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;Here's the meta question I linked to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've seen a lot of questions that can be answered with a simple Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For these questions, an answer can be found by just cut'n'pasting the question directly into the Google search field and scanning the first few hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Every new user wants to try out the feature and ask a question just to play around with the site. That's fine, and I don't mind it, but how will we deal with it in the long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm asking because all those trivial questions that can best be answered by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Tried www.google.com?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;are the reason why I don't visit coding related Internet communities anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-most upvoted answer (128 upvotes) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Part of the thinking behind Stack Overflow was for those Google searches to link somewhere useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/15.html. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By answering questions properly, instead of saying 'just Google it', you hopefully set up a definitive answer that Google will find for evermore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third most upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you want to really help with questions like this, post the answer you found and the Google search terms you used to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question seems to be suggesting that Stack Overflow should only be used as a last resort - when an answer cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Surely this is the opposite of the site's intended purpose. I thought it was supposed to become the first place people would come for answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10365" RevisionGUID="48f137b2-ab8e-432d-b502-2104f99255cd" CreationDate="2018-01-11T12:05:59.320" UserId="151083" Comment="added 889 characters in body" Text="The answers to [**this meta question**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions) state that it's permissible for a question (or an answer) to exist elsewhere on the Internet and also on an SE site, even if the non-SE sites can found by searching Google. Some of the ideas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answering questions on Physics.SE causes it to be a top hit on Google search results.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answering questions on Physics.SE drives traffic toward the site.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Answers that are given on Physics.SE are inherently higher in quality because, unlike many other external sites where research might be done, people can comment on the Physics.SE answers, ask follow-up questions, and provide further clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [**help center**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask), when discussing the issue of searching/researching, states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search), and research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you [**thoroughly searched for an answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) *before* asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both links point to the Physics.SE search tool, not to Google. There's no mention in the help center about doing research on external sites. This might suggest that, at some early stage, the intention was for the research requirement to apply to the Physics.SE site: before posting a question, research Physics.SE to see if it already exists. (This would help avoid duplicates, among other things.) I don't see evidence that the original intention is for research to encompass other sites. The rationale that &quot;posting questions whose answers exist in a Google search will encourage users to ask more of those questions&quot; seems to contain an implicit assumption about which users should and shouldn't be using the site. Experts will be more proficient at researching, quicker at identifying valuable sources, and better at understanding how the information in those sources relates to the question. On that topic, the help center states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics *and students* of physics and astronomy. [empahsis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ability to find an answer in research is much higher for researchers than beginner students. I think making this site a last resort place for thoroughly researched questions will have the tendency to favor highly advanced students over beginner students. I don't necessarily think that's problematic, but I do think the research requirement is somewhat inextricably linked with the level of difficulty of the question. Having a preference for high-level, thoroughly-researched questions that don't have answers on non-SE sites is fine if it's stated in the help center. Music.SE lists a rule in the help center that basic analysis questions (like @Wjat key is this song in?&quot;) are off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;Here's the meta question I linked to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've seen a lot of questions that can be answered with a simple Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For these questions, an answer can be found by just cut'n'pasting the question directly into the Google search field and scanning the first few hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Every new user wants to try out the feature and ask a question just to play around with the site. That's fine, and I don't mind it, but how will we deal with it in the long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm asking because all those trivial questions that can best be answered by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Tried www.google.com?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;are the reason why I don't visit coding related Internet communities anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-most upvoted answer (128 upvotes) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Part of the thinking behind Stack Overflow was for those Google searches to link somewhere useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/15.html. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By answering questions properly, instead of saying 'just Google it', you hopefully set up a definitive answer that Google will find for evermore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third most upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you want to really help with questions like this, post the answer you found and the Google search terms you used to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question seems to be suggesting that Stack Overflow should only be used as a last resort - when an answer cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Surely this is the opposite of the site's intended purpose. I thought it was supposed to become the first place people would come for answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10365" RevisionGUID="45ca7dd8-2927-4c6f-8177-3f983a4a2208" CreationDate="2018-01-12T00:22:17.540" UserId="151083" Comment="improving clarity" Text="###1. I think the original intention was only to require thorough researching within *this* site.&#xD;&#xA;The answers to [**this meta question**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions) state that it's permissible for a question (or an answer) to exist elsewhere on the Internet and also on an SE site, even if the non-SE sites can found by searching Google. Some of the ideas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answering questions on Physics.SE causes it to be a top hit on Google search results.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answering questions on Physics.SE drives traffic toward the site.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Answers that are given on Physics.SE are inherently higher in quality because, unlike many other external sites where research might be done, people can comment on the Physics.SE answers, ask follow-up questions, and provide further clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [**help center**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask), when discussing the issue of searching/researching, states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search), and research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you [**thoroughly searched for an answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) *before* asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both links point to the Physics.SE search tool, not to Google. There's no mention in the help center about doing research on external sites. This suggests that, at some early stage, the intention was for the research requirement to apply to the Physics.SE site: before posting a question, research Physics.SE to see if it already exists. (This would help avoid duplicates, among other things.) I don't see evidence that the original intention is for research to encompass other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###2. A strict research requirement will tend to favor active researchers over beginner students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Active researchers have a much greater ability to find an answer through their own research. Besides having access to more experts in their professional sphere, they are also quicker at discerning which sources are valuable, better at understanding how the information in those sources relates to the question, and more experienced with conducting effective research in general. Active researchers can engage much more productively in rigorous background research. And when that research fails them, they can come to Physics.SE able to produce lots of evidence that they've gone through all of the prerequisite steps and still haven't found an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, beginner students of physics often cannot engage in these prerequisite processes anywhere near as effectively or as efficiently. Even if they find a source that answers their question, they might not understand any of it, or they might not realize it answers their question. It's not hard to envision a scenario where the beginner student makes his best attempt to do prior research: he reads through several sources on the Internet, reads through the relevant Wikipedia pages, and reads through a textbook. He doesn't ask anyone because there's no one he can ask. Then he posts his question here, but the experts can find the answer easily online, and they understand too. His question is put on hold and he's asked to explain what he doesn't understand about the sources he has already read. But he understands too little to formulate an intelligent response to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I think a &quot;last-resort&quot; policy (where questions can be posted here only after showing that a rigorous research processes has been suitably performed) will tend to favor questions from highly advanced students over questions from beginner students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3. A change like this should be reflected in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's problematic for the site to have a strict background research policy or to become aimed at usage by active researchers/highly advanced students. Music.SE lists a rule in the help center that basic analysis questions (like at key is this song in?&quot;) are off topic. But holding this policy right now conflicts with the text in the help center. In addition to the search text described above, the help center states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics *and students* of physics and astronomy. [emphasis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Active researchers and academics are already students of physics. It's not appropriate to interpret the text &quot;and students&quot; as merely redundant of those first two groups. Rather, &quot;students&quot; refers to a third, more elementary group of people who don't fall into the category of active researchers or academics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a rationale that &quot;posting questions whose answers already exist in a Google search will encourage users to ask more of those questions,&quot; which would harm the site. But again, this train of thought seems to contain an implicit assumption about which users should and shouldn't be using the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;###Here are some quotes from the Meta question I linked to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta question itself is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've seen a lot of questions that can be answered with a simple Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For these questions, an answer can be found by just cut'n'pasting the question directly into the Google search field and scanning the first few hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Every new user wants to try out the feature and ask a question just to play around with the site. That's fine, and I don't mind it, but how will we deal with it in the long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm asking because all those trivial questions that can best be answered by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Tried www.google.com?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;are the reason why I don't visit coding related Internet communities anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-most upvoted answer (128 upvotes) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Part of the thinking behind Stack Overflow was for those Google searches to link somewhere useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/15.html. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By answering questions properly, instead of saying 'just Google it', you hopefully set up a definitive answer that Google will find for evermore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third most upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you want to really help with questions like this, post the answer you found and the Google search terms you used to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question seems to be suggesting that Stack Overflow should only be used as a last resort - when an answer cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Surely this is the opposite of the site's intended purpose. I thought it was supposed to become the first place people would come for answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10365" RevisionGUID="1b83b275-eddf-43a6-aa5a-52e40b66ee4d" CreationDate="2018-01-12T02:42:06.483" UserId="151083" Comment="clarifying position" Text="###1. I think the original intention was only to require thorough researching within *this* site.&#xD;&#xA;The answers to [**this meta question**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8724/how-should-we-deal-with-google-questions) state that it's permissible for a question (or an answer) to exist elsewhere on the Internet and also on an SE site, even if the non-SE sites can found by searching Google. Some of the ideas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answering questions on Physics.SE causes it to be a top hit on Google search results.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Answering questions on Physics.SE drives traffic toward the site.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Answers that are given on Physics.SE are inherently higher in quality because, unlike many other external sites where research might be done, people can comment on the Physics.SE answers, ask follow-up questions, and provide further clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [**help center**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask), when discussing the issue of searching/researching, states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search), and research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you [**thoroughly searched for an answer**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) *before* asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both links point to the Physics.SE search tool, not to Google. There's no mention in the help center about doing research on external sites. This suggests that, at some early stage, the intention was for the research requirement to apply to the Physics.SE site: before posting a question, research Physics.SE to see if it already exists. (This would help avoid duplicates, among other things.) I don't see evidence that the original intention is for research to encompass other sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###2. A strict research requirement will tend to favor active researchers over beginner students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Active researchers have a much greater ability to find an answer through their own research. Besides having access to more experts in their professional sphere, they are also quicker at discerning which sources are valuable, better at understanding how the information in those sources relates to the question, and more experienced with conducting effective research in general. Active researchers can engage much more productively in rigorous background research. And when that research fails them, they can come to Physics.SE able to produce lots of evidence that they've gone through all of the prerequisite steps and still haven't found an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, beginner students of physics often cannot engage in these prerequisite processes anywhere near as effectively or as efficiently. Even if they find a source that answers their question, they might not understand any of it, or they might not realize it answers their question. It's not hard to envision a scenario where the beginner student makes his best attempt to do prior research: he reads through several sources on the Internet, reads through the relevant Wikipedia pages, and reads through a textbook. He doesn't ask anyone because there's no one he can ask. Then he posts his question here, but the experts can find the answer easily online, and they understand too. His question is put on hold and he's asked to explain what he doesn't understand about the sources he has already read. But he understands too little to formulate an intelligent response to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I think a &quot;last-resort&quot; policy (where questions can be posted here only after showing that a rigorous research processes has been suitably performed) will tend to favor questions from highly advanced students over questions from beginner students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3. A change like this should be reflected in the help center.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's problematic for the site to have a strict background research policy or to become aimed at usage by active researchers/highly advanced students. Music.SE lists a rule in the help center that basic analysis questions (like what key is this song in?&quot;) are off topic. But holding this policy right now conflicts with the text in the help center. In addition to the search text described above, the help center states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is for active researchers, academics *and students* of physics and astronomy. [emphasis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Active researchers and academics are already students of physics. It's not appropriate to interpret the text &quot;and students&quot; as merely redundant of those first two groups. Rather, &quot;students&quot; refers to a third, more elementary group of people who don't fall into the category of active researchers or academics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a rationale that &quot;posting questions whose answers already exist in a Google search will encourage users to ask more of those questions,&quot; which would harm the site. But again, this train of thought seems to contain an implicit assumption about which users should and shouldn't be using the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's fine to institute a policy like this, and I think it should be up to the community to decide. But this seems like a very important characteristic which deserves some attention in the help center. Given all of this, I think it makes most sense to institute this only once (a) the community has reached a consensus on the topic and (b) the help center has been changed to reflect the new policy. Until those things have happened, I think there's too much ambiguity with how the help center is written and too little consensus (at least in this thread) to have this sort of stricter background research requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;###Here are some quotes from the Meta question I linked to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meta question itself is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've seen a lot of questions that can be answered with a simple Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For these questions, an answer can be found by just cut'n'pasting the question directly into the Google search field and scanning the first few hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Every new user wants to try out the feature and ask a question just to play around with the site. That's fine, and I don't mind it, but how will we deal with it in the long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm asking because all those trivial questions that can best be answered by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Tried www.google.com?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;are the reason why I don't visit coding related Internet communities anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-most upvoted answer (128 upvotes) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Part of the thinking behind Stack Overflow was for those Google searches to link somewhere useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/15.html. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By answering questions properly, instead of saying 'just Google it', you hopefully set up a definitive answer that Google will find for evermore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third most upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you want to really help with questions like this, post the answer you found and the Google search terms you used to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another upvoted answer states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This question seems to be suggesting that Stack Overflow should only be used as a last resort - when an answer cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Surely this is the opposite of the site's intended purpose. I thought it was supposed to become the first place people would come for answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="e3a36a02-598a-4a5a-9da4-a34118ea00f4" CreationDate="2018-01-12T08:20:24.310" UserId="138916" Text="I posted [this question][1] (previously called &quot;Lagrangian of two pendulums tied together&quot;) five days ago, whereafter it was soon closed as off-topic. The reason for this was understandable: it looked as if I was asking for the solution of some exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I realized my mistake, I radically rewrote my question to embody the real, broader question I wanted to see answered and to be more relevant for others. My question became significantly different: I actually completely rewrote the title and body and changed some tags, so I thought it would be better to post it as a new question, as the comments and closure reason of the old post became completely irrelevant for the new question. However, one minute after my new post, it was marked as a duplicate of my old question and I was told to move it to my old post, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Why is my question still not reopened? What can I do to improve the chances of it getting reopened?&#xD;&#xA; - Why wasn't I allowed to post it as a new question, as my question essentially differs from the original one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/378401/138916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="e3a36a02-598a-4a5a-9da4-a34118ea00f4" CreationDate="2018-01-12T08:20:24.310" UserId="138916" Text="Modified question on hold won't reopen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="e3a36a02-598a-4a5a-9da4-a34118ea00f4" CreationDate="2018-01-12T08:20:24.310" UserId="138916" Text="|support|closed-questions|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31652" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="2325cdcf-e57d-4da7-81d2-4f19ef05d8ad" CreationDate="2018-01-12T08:57:08.847" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|closed-questions|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31660" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="8f75c31b-954e-4fa7-9d6a-380f19d75e6e" CreationDate="2018-01-12T13:31:11.363" UserId="138916" Comment="Five days have passed: on hold changed to closed" Text="Modified closed question won't reopen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31661" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="d346f81d-bef8-455c-8166-7fdf649630eb" CreationDate="2018-01-12T23:06:23.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10368" RevisionGUID="f7dc5867-812f-46dd-8c9c-75c7bd994c79" CreationDate="2018-01-13T07:21:32.677" UserId="180631" Text="How frequently I  an ask a question?  Stack exchange says we are no longer accepting questions from this account why? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10368" RevisionGUID="f7dc5867-812f-46dd-8c9c-75c7bd994c79" CreationDate="2018-01-13T07:21:32.677" UserId="180631" Text="Duration between two questions which I can ask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10368" RevisionGUID="f7dc5867-812f-46dd-8c9c-75c7bd994c79" CreationDate="2018-01-13T07:21:32.677" UserId="180631" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10368" RevisionGUID="56d39e5b-1dbe-44f3-9f23-b27e79b5e8d8" CreationDate="2018-01-13T07:52:53.317" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10369" RevisionGUID="eb71bccb-a0c6-4489-9c4c-f8c7bfba32b7" CreationDate="2018-01-13T09:02:59.593" UserId="124" Text="That's the message you see when you are subject to an automated question ban. These bans are [explained in detail on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86997/what-can-i-do-when-getting-we-are-no-longer-accepting-questions-answers-from-th), so please read that post. You should also read the documentation that is linked from the message you see." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="8a081510-2483-4470-bc69-57caebcff757" CreationDate="2018-01-13T19:43:54.090" UserId="138916" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="I posted [this question][1] (previously called &quot;Lagrangian of two pendulums tied together&quot;) five days ago, whereafter it was soon closed as off-topic. The reason for this was understandable: it looked as if I was asking for the solution of some exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I realized my mistake, I radically rewrote my question to embody the real, broader question I wanted to see answered and to be more relevant for others. My question became significantly different: I actually completely rewrote the title and body and changed some tags, so I thought it would be better to post it as a new question, as the comments and closure reason of the old post became completely irrelevant for the new question. However, one minute after my new post, it was marked as a duplicate of my old question and I was told to move it to my old post, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Why is my question still not reopened? What can I do to improve the chances of it getting reopened?&#xD;&#xA; - Why wasn't I allowed to post it as a new question, as my question essentially differs from the original one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Edit&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to Emilio Pisanty, I was able to describe the core of the problem, so I've rewritten the post for a second time. I kindly ask those who have the necessary permissions to give my question a second chance. In my eyes, the close reason has become completely obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/378401/138916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="f1538d5d-13c4-4faf-8971-4a9b9367b0d6" CreationDate="2018-01-13T20:11:26.280" UserId="138916" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I posted [this question][1] (previously called &quot;Lagrangian of two pendulums tied together&quot;) five days ago, whereafter it was soon closed as off-topic. The reason for this was understandable: it looked as if I was asking for the solution of some exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I realized my mistake, I radically rewrote my question to embody the real, broader question I wanted to see answered and to be more relevant for others. My question became significantly different: I actually completely rewrote the title and body and changed some tags, so I thought it would be better to post it as a new question, as the comments and closure reason of the old post became completely irrelevant for the new question. However, one minute after my new post, it was marked as a duplicate of my old question and I was told to move it to my old post, so I did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Why is my question still not reopened? What can I do to improve the chances of it getting reopened?&#xD;&#xA; - Why wasn't I allowed to post it as a new question, as my question essentially differs from the original one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Edit&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to Emilio Pisanty, I was able to describe the core of the problem, so I've rewritten the post for a second time. I kindly ask those who have the necessary privilege to give my question a second chance. In my eyes, the close reason has become completely obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** the post was reopened! Hooray!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/378401/138916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10371" RevisionGUID="91dcd532-bfda-4675-8fe0-189e3074fd1e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T10:30:57.567" UserId="83398" Text="We currently have a system where there are a bunch of canonical resource request questions linked [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1), which theoretically cover all the bases; then theoretically almost all questions can be closed as duplicates of them. The problem is that sometimes the scope of the question or the scope of the answers doesn't live up to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/312/books-for-particle-physics-and-the-standard-model) is our canonical resource request question for particle physics and the Standard Model, which is hugely important. The OP said they didn't have much background, so all of the answers gave texts appropriate for early-stage undergraduates. At least five other questions at a wide variety of levels were closed in favor of that one.  I think it's a bad move to close a question where the OP wants a book that assumes QFT knowledge (e.g. [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/312/books-for-particle-physics-and-the-standard-model)) as a duplicate of a question where the OP needs a book that carefully avoids going into QFT at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case I put a bounty on the question, edited it to be more ambiguous about level, and AccidentalFourierTransform came through with an excellent answer, but there are still many questions in bad shape relative to their 'close as duplicate' scope, such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159120/books-on-cosmology) on cosmology (asked by a 14 year old)&#xD;&#xA;- [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149468/reading-list-and-book-recommendation-on-conformal-field-theory) on conformal field theory (requesting a low level)&#xD;&#xA;- [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20260/quantum-information-references) on quantum information (requesting 'foundations', but which has as duplicates questions about quantum computation, and the AMO physics of building quantum computers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I invite anybody else who cares about the state of our book recommendations to join me in fixing types of questions up; I can only put up so many bounties at once, and the scope of my knowledge isn't nearly broad enough to fix up every question this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10371" RevisionGUID="91dcd532-bfda-4675-8fe0-189e3074fd1e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T10:30:57.567" UserId="83398" Text="Improving the quality of canonical resource request questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10371" RevisionGUID="91dcd532-bfda-4675-8fe0-189e3074fd1e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T10:30:57.567" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="6de5a25f-a257-48dd-a494-a787811daee6" CreationDate="2018-01-15T12:53:07.023" UserId="179737" Text="I recently came across https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/380088/solving-the-problem.  Although the user who posted a completely off topic post about cooking, which garnered 6 down-votes in 5 seconds has removed it.  However, I noticed that the answer was sort of greyed, and only when my cursor went on it did it become normal.  Went back to grey condition when my cursor went away.  Why is this so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="6de5a25f-a257-48dd-a494-a787811daee6" CreationDate="2018-01-15T12:53:07.023" UserId="179737" Text="A greyed answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="6de5a25f-a257-48dd-a494-a787811daee6" CreationDate="2018-01-15T12:53:07.023" UserId="179737" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10373" RevisionGUID="24e1e8eb-8800-4486-92fa-ca0e309d3534" CreationDate="2018-01-15T13:17:30.120" UserId="8563" Text="This is by design: answers with scores below -3 get grayed out, to indicated that they do not have the community's endorsement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10371" RevisionGUID="a80e3038-e884-40ff-8d57-2282c0e2ef1c" CreationDate="2018-01-15T13:39:28.467" UserId="83398" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="We currently have a system where there are a bunch of canonical resource request questions linked [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1), which theoretically cover all the bases; then theoretically almost all questions can be closed as duplicates of them. The problem is that sometimes the scope of the question or the scope of the answers doesn't live up to that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/312/books-for-particle-physics-and-the-standard-model) is our canonical resource request question for particle physics and the Standard Model, which is hugely important. The OP said they didn't have much background, so all of the answers gave texts appropriate for early-stage undergraduates. At least five other questions at a wide variety of levels were closed in favor of that one.  I think it's a bad move to close a question where the OP wants a book that assumes QFT knowledge (e.g. [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/312/books-for-particle-physics-and-the-standard-model)) as a duplicate of a question where the OP needs a book that carefully avoids going into QFT at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case I put a bounty on the question, edited it to be more ambiguous about level, and AccidentalFourierTransform came through with an excellent answer, but there are still many questions in bad shape relative to their 'close as duplicate' scope, such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/159120/books-on-cosmology) on cosmology (asked by a 14 year old)&#xD;&#xA;- [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149468/reading-list-and-book-recommendation-on-conformal-field-theory) on conformal field theory (requesting a low level)&#xD;&#xA;- [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20260/quantum-information-references) on quantum information (requesting 'foundations', but which has as duplicates questions about quantum computation, and the AMO physics of building quantum computers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you check these questions, they don't sound narrow anymore, because I've edited them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I invite anybody else who cares about the state of our book recommendations to join me in fixing types of questions up; I can only put up so many bounties at once, and the scope of my knowledge isn't nearly broad enough to fix up every question this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="702c978c-62da-4b38-94ab-eb3c040abf82" CreationDate="2018-01-15T19:38:45.040" UserId="520" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="84643229-ccfd-4d8f-baa7-bed69b47040a" CreationDate="2018-01-15T19:54:13.563" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10374" RevisionGUID="bb46dbfb-84aa-4bd5-9824-f3356cfea566" CreationDate="2018-01-17T07:17:36.470" UserId="40292" Text="I have been here long enough to recognize that most of the questions posted here fall into a short list of different classes. examples: obvious homework or exam questions, high-level mathematical physics enquiries, crank/goofball stuff, everyday physics, off-topic (engineering, electronics, etc.). I'm curious- has anyone here tabulated any statistical data on the frequency with which different classes of questions get posted- and answered- here? best regards, niels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10374" RevisionGUID="bb46dbfb-84aa-4bd5-9824-f3356cfea566" CreationDate="2018-01-17T07:17:36.470" UserId="40292" Text="statistics on question types" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10374" RevisionGUID="bb46dbfb-84aa-4bd5-9824-f3356cfea566" CreationDate="2018-01-17T07:17:36.470" UserId="40292" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10375" RevisionGUID="238650ee-0124-4054-80c4-2d967cd9fe9b" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:16:52.137" UserId="8563" Text="Some examples I've found that I can think of (one so far):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/378401/finding-generalized-coordinates-when-the-implicit-function-theorem-fails" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31688" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10375" RevisionGUID="2f37fb81-e589-4ecd-8618-ddda22fd558d" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:16:52.137" UserId="8563" />
  <row Id="31689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="06e60590-2461-424e-89c6-8d70771d8829" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:17:55.490" UserId="8563" Text="Just to close this off - the question is now much improved and has been reopened. Thank you for your work in improving the question and getting it to a shape where it becomes a valuable resource for future visitors. The thread definitely makes [this list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9839/good-examples-of-turn-around-questions-that-get-closed-→-fixed-→-reopened-and-an) in my books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="71375171-b2ca-43c5-988a-676e694f0c59" CreationDate="2018-01-17T23:27:14.223" UserId="152566" Text="I came across a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102489/how-big-would-a-satellite-need-to-be-to-block-out-the-sun) on worldbuilding, one which was being debated in the comments. As far as I could tell the working made sense but I thought rather than listen to debates in the comments I could put it to the actual physicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't sure what the rules on that are though, would I copy the whole working over? Do I just point people to the link? (That seems a bit lazy) Is it seen as bad practice to make questions like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="71375171-b2ca-43c5-988a-676e694f0c59" CreationDate="2018-01-17T23:27:14.223" UserId="152566" Text="Asking a question about someone else's working on another SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="71375171-b2ca-43c5-988a-676e694f0c59" CreationDate="2018-01-17T23:27:14.223" UserId="152566" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="92df7eb3-13c5-42a3-8f3b-7e72b5d2ca25" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:53:18.533" UserId="180385" Text="It seems obvious--the choice to upvote or downvote a question or answer should be based solely on the content.  But it's sometimes difficult to ignore what appear to be unfair tallies.  I sometimes have an urge to &quot;cancel&quot; what appears to be a mean downvote on a question or an answer that has no real problem but that ordinarily would not attract a vote either way from me.  Beyond the obvious voting bias this introduces, it doesn't really cancel, in terms of reputation points, because they are not assigned symmetrically.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: is it always wrong to take current tally into account when deciding if/how to vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="92df7eb3-13c5-42a3-8f3b-7e72b5d2ca25" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:53:18.533" UserId="180385" Text="Should existing vote tally ever be considered when voting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="92df7eb3-13c5-42a3-8f3b-7e72b5d2ca25" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:53:18.533" UserId="180385" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="0f269782-e0c0-429c-b51e-ed88a8c4545d" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:58:42.970" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10379" RevisionGUID="b5db40f1-5ea7-441a-a215-0ce13457f34a" CreationDate="2018-01-18T20:10:13.850" UserId="2451" Text="Voting should always be based on content, never on previous votes. E.g. comfort-voting is strongly discouraged. Downvoting is an important part of weeding out bad content. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10381" RevisionGUID="e039efdf-419a-4fbd-973f-e925075b0f62" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:25:27.963" UserId="63055" Text="&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like it should imply this queue is important right now/needs help or attention yet it tells me the queue has been cleared. This is contrary to the grey circles, which go away after I have cleared a queue. What does the red dot mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Vnvy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10381" RevisionGUID="e039efdf-419a-4fbd-973f-e925075b0f62" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:25:27.963" UserId="63055" Text="What does the red circle mean next to a review queue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10381" RevisionGUID="e039efdf-419a-4fbd-973f-e925075b0f62" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:25:27.963" UserId="63055" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10382" RevisionGUID="8b10578e-1ab1-4ed6-b3ce-51c7c424a5a9" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:33:10.127" UserId="63055" Text="These questions and answers to both are on meta.stackexchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What the red circle means][1] tl;dr it is used to &quot;direct folks to specific queues that need more attention - things like Suggested Edits or Low Quality.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why the red circle shows when there is nothing to review][2] tl;dr it's a bug/lag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/355233/when-i-look-at-the-review-icon-i-see-red&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/358151/is-there-an-issue-with-the-review-queue-indicator-today" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10381" RevisionGUID="7088fc3f-2786-4380-bcb1-c8a6d3752610" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:33:41.713" UserId="63055" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gut feeling is the red dot means &quot;this queue is important right now/needs help or attention&quot; yet it tells me the queue has been cleared. This is contrary to the grey circles, which go away after I have cleared a queue. What does the red dot mean? If it is to attract attention to a queue, why is the queue empty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Vnvy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10382" RevisionGUID="3c094f86-ddb2-4947-b978-79a3bb5ba1f7" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:38:13.727" UserId="63055" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="These questions and answers to both are on meta.stackexchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What the red circle means][1] tl;dr it is used to &quot;direct folks to specific queues that need more attention - things like Suggested Edits or Low Quality.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why the red circle shows when there is nothing to review][2] tl;dr it's a bug/lag? Same [issue reported at The Workplace Stack Exchange][3]. It seems like each SE site has to have its thresholds tuned manually...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/355233/when-i-look-at-the-review-icon-i-see-red&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/358151/is-there-an-issue-with-the-review-queue-indicator-today&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4891/red-dot-on-suggested-edit-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10383" RevisionGUID="bcfa8de2-ae9e-46e1-a5a4-842de709dba3" CreationDate="2018-01-20T19:44:00.687" UserId="8563" Text="It means that the review queue indicator is broken and doesn't work very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fairness, it used to be *very* broken (cf. [this post in this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying) and [this one in the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/231051/please-dim-the-color-of-the-review-task-counter-when-there-are-no-actionable-tas)). That is, it used to display the total number of outstanding review tasks, regardless of whether you could review them or not; SE decided that displaying updated figures on how many review tasks are available for each individual user was infeasible for performance reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This changed when they [introduced the new top bar some four months ago](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/300829/new-top-bar-is-coming-to-the-stack-exchange-network), at which point we [requested that they do away with that behaviour](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/300829/new-top-bar-is-coming-to-the-stack-exchange-network/300864#300864) and it improved somewhat - or at least, the behaviour as programmed looks pretty reasonable, so long as the thresholds are set correctly. The behaviour you note (a red dot that indicates that there are outstanding reviews when the queue is in fact empty) is caused by caching at a finite frequency, and it is a false-positive that reflects thresholds which are ill-adjusted to the site's review patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it appears that per-site manually-set thresholds are not currently being considered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With 170 sites, it's not practical to ask each meta to give us their preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, SE is [currently looking into fixing criteria that will programmatically determine those thresholds](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305893/what-criteria-should-we-use-to-determine-which-review-queue-indicator-a-site-wil) from each site's traffic and review patterns. If you have opinions to voice on the subject (including, say, &quot;false-positives are Bad Things and they should be avoided because they diminish or even eliminate the usefulness of the review indicator&quot;, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you) then now is the time to voice them, at the thread I just linked to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10382" RevisionGUID="9d611618-8b45-4651-b9ce-6e1b86417969" CreationDate="2018-01-20T22:17:11.770" UserId="63055" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="These questions and answers to both are on meta.stackoverflow.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What the red circle means][1] tl;dr it is used to &quot;direct folks to specific queues that need more attention - things like Suggested Edits or Low Quality.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why the red circle shows when there is nothing to review][2] tl;dr it's a bug/lag? Same [issue reported at The Workplace Stack Exchange][3]. It seems like each SE site has to have its thresholds tuned manually...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/355233/when-i-look-at-the-review-icon-i-see-red&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/358151/is-there-an-issue-with-the-review-queue-indicator-today&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4891/red-dot-on-suggested-edit-review-queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10383" RevisionGUID="f494bca4-1063-4e11-8666-f7529e71615b" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:08:37.970" UserId="8563" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="It means that the review queue indicator is broken and doesn't work very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fairness, it used to be *very* broken (cf. [this post in this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5762/the-change-to-the-taskbar-is-massively-annoying) and [this one in the mother meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/231051/please-dim-the-color-of-the-review-task-counter-when-there-are-no-actionable-tas)). That is, it used to display the total number of outstanding review tasks, regardless of whether you could review them or not; SE decided that displaying updated figures on how many review tasks are available for each individual user was infeasible for performance reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This changed when they [introduced the new top bar some four months ago](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/300829/new-top-bar-is-coming-to-the-stack-exchange-network), at which point we [requested that they do away with that behaviour](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/300829/new-top-bar-is-coming-to-the-stack-exchange-network/300864#300864) and it improved somewhat - or at least, the [behaviour as programmed](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/302226/how-does-the-review-needed-indicator-work-exactly) looks fairly reasonable, so long as the thresholds are set correctly. The behaviour you note (a red dot that indicates that there are outstanding reviews when the queue is in fact empty) is caused by caching at a finite frequency, and it is a false-positive that reflects thresholds which are ill-adjusted to the site's review patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it appears that per-site manually-set thresholds are not currently being considered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With 170 sites, it's not practical to ask each meta to give us their preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, SE is [currently looking into fixing criteria that will programmatically determine those thresholds](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305893/what-criteria-should-we-use-to-determine-which-review-queue-indicator-a-site-wil) from each site's traffic and review patterns. (More specifically, if I understand that thread and [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/304445) correctly, they're looking to make a second version of the indicator software that's even *more* trigger-happy than ours, and they're looking to set criteria that will enable the trigger-happy indicator for a given site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have opinions to voice on the subject (including, say, &quot;false-positives are Bad Things and they should be avoided because they diminish or even eliminate the usefulness of the review indicator&quot;, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you) then now might be a good time to voice them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="e80d1082-b773-402a-bab3-439f0d2a1fa2" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:31:37.957" UserId="11053" Text="I often come across answers flagged for LQ in the corresponding review queue which don't really fit into the categories of a LQ post - not spam, not better as a comment, not better as a question, etc. Using a broader definition, the post *is* of low quality; perhaps it's not very clear, or the physics is incorrect, but it remains an apparently honest attempt to answer the question. The correct course of action would seem to be to downvote rather than to vote to delete, but voting isn't offered via the LQP review interface. I often just open the question in a new tab via the title-link and vote there, while completing the review as 'Looks OK' in the other tab. This seems annoying; why shouldn't I be able to vote on content I happened to come across in this queue? Or to take it further, why shouldn't a downvote be an acceptable resolution to a LQP review? Is there a stated rationale for this, or should this become a [tag:feature-request]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="e80d1082-b773-402a-bab3-439f0d2a1fa2" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:31:37.957" UserId="11053" Text="LQP review &amp; voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="e80d1082-b773-402a-bab3-439f0d2a1fa2" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:31:37.957" UserId="11053" Text="|discussion|voting|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31718" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10374" RevisionGUID="3a4f22df-f954-4833-bdc2-a9f4b261e376" CreationDate="2018-01-25T22:42:53.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/956658660507348992" />
  <row Id="31719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10385" RevisionGUID="88c3ee2f-5b06-4be5-a718-12b10ec0a273" CreationDate="2018-01-26T00:15:13.653" UserId="84967" Text="This issue has been discussed repeatedly on mother meta. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Add downvote option to Low Quality Review Queue list of potential actions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/228738/346882),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Why is voting removed from new review system?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/140405/346882),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [(Up)Voting on Low-Quality Posts in Review tasks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/191276/346882),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc., and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a (debatable) rationale behind the decision of removing the voting option from the LQP queue. I'll copy some relevant paragraphs here, mainly for completeness, but I really encourage you to go there and read the posts for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's always seemed to me that the purpose of the low-quality-posts queue was to automatically detect and remove low quality posts. [...] Voting on the post is unnecessary in order to accomplish this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;${}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The core philosophy here is that each queue focuses on a specific task or question, and provides the tools most important for resolving it. If you want to do something else, there will always be a prominent link to the full question page. A concern with allowing voting in the Low Quality queue specifically is that you're not viewing answers in the context of other answers, or a question in the context of its answers. You're never able to vote in these circumstances normally - it's worth remembering that voting directly from the list of questions was considered early on, and discarded as too likely to produce bad results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may or may not agree with these statements. If you don't, the best you can do is to go there and post an answer (or create a new post, if necessary). Unfortunately, I don't think you will be able to change people's mind, as this has already been thought through and a sort of consensus has been reached. The LQP queue is not, in general, for voting. If you do want to vote, you'll have to open the post in a separate tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="4b4c999d-c0c7-481e-9628-ed9fd1e6c778" CreationDate="2018-01-26T02:10:11.480" UserId="75633" Text="The original intention of the option `unclear what you're asking` is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, every now and then there are questions in the closing queue that are actually clear enough, but end up receiving close votes as &quot;unclear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/382224/75633 has been put on hold as unclear, but it's only missing definitions of the symbols, which are actually rather standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/382078/75633 asks about energy per d.o.f. ($k_BT$) and heat ($Q=mc\Delta T$): whether equivalent and when to use. The question, put on hold for being unclear, is actually understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/382143/75633 has a crystal clear, if trivial question (3 &quot;unclear&quot; votes):&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Why are such holes [in a sink] kept and why is not a large gap produced so that water runs out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What these questions have in common, it seems to me, is that they show a remarkable **sloppiness** or a remarkably **broad misunderstanding**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the last example might rather be *off-topic/engineering*, and the first two probably could be *off-topic/lack-of-effort*, I think that voting &quot;unclear&quot;, by requesting the OP to elaborate, delivers more clearly the message that the OP should get his concepts sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if it's too much hair-splitting, but my question is: Is this practice fine?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="4b4c999d-c0c7-481e-9628-ed9fd1e6c778" CreationDate="2018-01-26T02:10:11.480" UserId="75633" Text="Is it OK to use the &quot;unclear&quot; option for closing clear questions by unclear-minded users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="4b4c999d-c0c7-481e-9628-ed9fd1e6c778" CreationDate="2018-01-26T02:10:11.480" UserId="75633" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10387" RevisionGUID="dae62acd-97ea-4f3a-b7ce-1d2659fb1023" CreationDate="2018-01-26T08:44:41.237" UserId="149663" Text="Whether a question is clear or unclear depends on the reader. For example, a person with beginner knowledge of tensor or relativity might find a question based on relativity unclear, if symbols are not explained. A scientist, on the other hand, doesn't need that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is because of this that review queues were created, so that a close vote is given only when the question is truly unclear, and a new user cannot just vote to close a question. High reputation users, who can just give close votes, are expected to know the site and understand the minds of users to some extent before directly voting to close as unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case someone is not sure, comments can be posted, or the matter can be taken up for discussion in chat rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But voting to close as unclear is perfectly fine according to me, because if one person thinks a question to be unclear, but no one else thinks so, then it'll not be closed (unless the person is a moderator). That's why for normal users, five close votes are required to close a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SE has put in enough checks, so that one doesn't have to be worried so much and just do what he thinks is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10388" RevisionGUID="d9878405-dbee-44e3-8818-91b10ad1e731" CreationDate="2018-01-26T09:39:46.450" UserId="124" Text="I would say no, you shouldn't do that. The &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; reason should be used for posts which don't have enough information to describe the situation and precisely identify the question being asked to an average topic expert. And accordingly, two of the three questions you linked to didn't really deserve their &quot;unclear&quot; close votes. (But I do think they deserved to be put on hold for other reasons, and as a practical matter we tend not to reopen-and-reclose a question just because it has the &quot;wrong&quot; hold reason. So they will probably be left as they are unless they are edited.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third post does strike me as unclear though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In basins, we see that it's outer surface slants downwards towards the middle position.The water runs down through some tiny holes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why are such holes kept and why is not a large gap produced so that water runs out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What holes? What kind of basin is the OP talking about? I really have no idea what physical situation is being described. Now, it's possible that this is common knowledge (among topic experts) that I just happen to not be familiar with. But the fact that it's accumulated three close votes, several downvotes, and no answers _suggests_ that that's unlikely to be the case. The evidence I see seems more consistent with a question where many people are struggling to understand the situation or the problem the poster faces, and that's a perfect setup for &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10379" RevisionGUID="74a89e25-7133-4e88-a1ae-65ef4d067897" CreationDate="2018-01-26T12:28:10.263" UserId="2451" Comment="Added explanation" Text="1. [Users are encouraged to vote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10172/2451). You decide what are quality posts on Phys.SE and what are not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Voting should always be based on content, never on previous votes. E.g. comfort-voting is strongly discouraged. Downvoting is an important part of weeding out bad content.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="2b59c869-10ac-4b8f-9704-3f5ed4c3e212" CreationDate="2018-01-27T01:46:36.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/957067281691037696" />
  <row Id="31730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10390" RevisionGUID="b39f32fe-aa76-42c8-a13a-d266801215ac" CreationDate="2018-01-27T20:47:53.373" UserId="8563" Text="There's a few things going on here that I can see, and I previously ranted about that subject [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9027), about a year and a half ago. At the time I proposed trying out a change in the mods' response to VLQ flags, which I think is still in place, but we didn't really have the time or energy to analyze any changes that happened at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing to keep in mind is that much of the existing guidance, both on this meta and more generally in SE, was written with the expectation that VLQ flags would be handled by moderators. Within that paradigm, deletion is *not* the right response: moderators are not and should not be arbiters of the technical correctness of posts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, just because moderators shouldn't be doing that job, that doesn't mean that the job shouldn't be done at all: the whole point of this site is that we have mechanisms (however imperfect) for recognising people with expertise in the field and knowledge of this site, and which give those people moderation abilities that can affect other users' content, from how prominently displayed they are (via the voting privilege at 10 and 125 rep) through editing (at 2k) all the way up to voting to delete answers (at 20k). The LQP queue is the point of contact that puts experienced users in front of content that might need to be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think [the answer that probably inspired you to write this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/382157) ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ewgQ.png) for stability) is an excellent example of not-even-wrong post that, while it is ostensibly an honest attempt to answer the question (so Not An Answer doesn't apply), is so deeply and completely wrong that this site is not obliged to give that type of content a platform. Those types of answers harm the site: the signal-to-noise ratio matters, very much, in attracting the types of expert answerers that make this site great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: independently of whether the system allows you to downvote, I would encourage you to vote to delete (or Recommend Deletion for &lt;20k users) those kinds of posts. We have some ~30 users with the 20k rep needed to delete answers, and over the past year or so we have started to get more and more community-driven deletions of posts that really shouldn't be given a platform here. As a particularly positive development, a nontrivial fraction of them include Recommend Deletion votes from the much wider and active &gt;2k rep section of our userbase ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/202672), [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HxeUS.jpg)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while I've yet to come across a deletion that I've disagreed with (or that anyone with this site's best interests in mind could reasonably disagree with), the three-20k deletions that currently occur tend to feature, much more often than I'd like, a set of three or four regular faces instead of a wider set of characters, which would be a much healthier situation. So: please review the LQP queue, and please don't hesitate to hit the Delete / Recommend Deletion button, particularly if you're 20k+, if you think the answer really doesn't add anything at all to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, having said all of that, I should add a huge **caveat**, which is the reason I haven't pushed further in this direction since my previous rant. The wisdom-of-the-crowd method, as implemented broadly by SE, does have its pitfalls, and the claims that it can unduly lead to censorship are real and cannot be ignored. In order for this moderation mechanism to work correctly, that danger needs to be offset by a suitable set of checks and balances, which can detect and correct deletions where the crowd gets carried away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my mind, what we really need here is (i) a list, accessible to 10k+ users, of all the posts that have been deleted (maybe only including 60 or 90 days' worth of data), with the ability to filter according to whether they were deleted by moderators / the roomba / the community, and (ii) a healthy population of users which regularly checks that list and then corrects any undue deletions by flagging or taking them to chat or meta as required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the software tools aren't really up to scratch yet (the closest we have are [the 10k review tools](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=delete&amp;daterange=last30days), which haven't gotten any love from the dev team in a long time), and I'm not really sure that we're quite there yet in terms of a critical mass of actively-reviewing 10k+ users. It's a problem that can be solved with [some additional software features](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/301967/distinguish-automated-vs-mod-vs-community-deletions-in-the-10k-tools) (← nudge nudge vote vote) and some more time, so I think the best thing to do now is wait some more until that critical mass is there before doing a solid push for the software." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10391" RevisionGUID="6f74ef2f-6584-4668-8fc0-948fdf9e96f2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T03:43:30.413" UserId="4646" Text="The MathJax code in excerpts *does* get parsed on the [tag page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/operators), on the [tag wiki page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/operators/info) and in the hover popups on question pages (and elsewhere):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Screenshot][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on that, I'd say that the fact that it *doesn't* get parsed on the [tags page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) is a bug, and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YqQKG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10391" RevisionGUID="2bd331f8-af73-4ebb-8e4d-5124acd4ccf4" CreationDate="2018-01-28T04:32:08.623" UserId="4646" Comment="added 1283 characters in body" Text="The MathJax code in excerpts *does* get parsed on the [tag page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/operators):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Screenshot][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on the [tag wiki page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/operators/info):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Screenshot][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the hover popups on question pages (and elsewhere):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Screenshot][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on that, I'd say that the fact that it *doesn't* get parsed on the [tags page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) is probably a bug, and should be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it even works in the hover popups *on the tags page*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Screenshot][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual bug seems to be a missing `MathJax.Hub.Typeset()` call in the AJAX code that loads the tag list (taken from the tags page HTML source):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    var request = null;&#xD;&#xA;    function finished(txt) {&#xD;&#xA;        if (request) { request.abort(); }&#xD;&#xA;        request = $.ajax({&#xD;&#xA;            type: &quot;POST&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;            url: &quot;/filter/tags-for-index&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;            data: { filter: txt, tab: 'Popular' },&#xD;&#xA;            dataType: &quot;html&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;            success: function (result) {&#xD;&#xA;                var domelement = $(result);&#xD;&#xA;                $(&quot;#tags_list&quot;).html(domelement);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                if (txt == &quot;&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;                    $(&quot;.pager&quot;).show();&#xD;&#xA;                } else&#xD;&#xA;                {&#xD;&#xA;                    $(&quot;.pager&quot;).hide();&#xD;&#xA;                }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            }&#xD;&#xA;        });&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding the following lines after the `$(&quot;#tags_list&quot;).html(domelement);` statement should fix it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    if (window.MathJax) {&#xD;&#xA;        MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Typeset', MathJax.Hub, &quot;tags_list&quot;]);&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q5cGx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1lY6l.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YqQKG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lt7Ok.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10392" RevisionGUID="dbd5ccce-5844-4e6c-b283-be12982b13c7" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:41:23.947" UserId="31790" Text="A while back, I answered yet [another perpetual motion question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238090/brownian-motion-moving-nano-micro-coils-inside-a-magnetic-field).&#xD;&#xA;The post essentially asks whether or not you can extract work from Brownian motion, which I consider a good question because of how widely spread is misunderstanding of thermodynamic noise and the importance of the temperature of a thing's (electromagnetic) environment.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the accepted (and bountied!) answer is at best misleading and by my analysis is just wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What, if anything and aside from downvoting, should/can we do about this and similar answers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10392" RevisionGUID="dbd5ccce-5844-4e6c-b283-be12982b13c7" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:41:23.947" UserId="31790" Text="Do we have any particular recourse for accepted answers that are wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10392" RevisionGUID="dbd5ccce-5844-4e6c-b283-be12982b13c7" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:41:23.947" UserId="31790" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10393" RevisionGUID="95df137e-62f3-447d-8c39-0ca6ca91b802" CreationDate="2018-01-29T05:20:17.387" UserId="8066" Text="Downvote and comment on the answer, explaining why it's wrong.  Your comment could even suggest to the querent that they could remove their acceptance of the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can post your own correct answer (which obviously you've done in this case)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="18a77136-608c-4163-a5e0-6bf336abd4c7" CreationDate="2018-01-29T06:17:49.273" UserId="4826" Text="It's almost February in 2018, which isn't supposed to be the proper time to cycle these, but for this year it'll be once again, so we'll be refreshing the **Community Promotion Ads** for this year now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA; - If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/10394" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="18a77136-608c-4163-a5e0-6bf336abd4c7" CreationDate="2018-01-29T06:17:49.273" UserId="4826" Text="Community Promotion Ads - 2018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="18a77136-608c-4163-a5e0-6bf336abd4c7" CreationDate="2018-01-29T06:17:49.273" UserId="4826" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10395" RevisionGUID="bc24391d-8e51-47d5-9512-7dd9d00cf512" CreationDate="2018-01-29T06:17:49.273" UserId="4826" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zzY6I.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10397" RevisionGUID="6ee7f44c-0ec0-47d8-b255-55f359ef8cf2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:35:10.280" UserId="8563" Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E9D64.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10398" RevisionGUID="95f6aa95-2702-409e-9350-b621ac1607af" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:40:16.580" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv.org: the leading open access eprint repository][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziQXb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="95c396ed-c4a6-4a61-a675-046ec97a8bb1" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:48:37.603" UserId="8563" Text="[![Wayback Machine: experience the Web as it was][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1wvvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="6c9247a4-16e7-4435-9f2a-1a5319576b1b" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:49:30.477" UserId="8563" Text="[![Retraction Watch][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFSyZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://retractionwatch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10401" RevisionGUID="5d2a59df-922b-476a-90b7-60698ae4cd4b" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:50:39.690" UserId="8563" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9554/community-promotion-ads-2017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10402" RevisionGUID="36f87e0e-90d6-4f05-a815-f2c712a41a15" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:51:09.353" UserId="8563" Text="[![History of Science and Mathematics at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10403" RevisionGUID="bf2eca85-d132-4cbd-a128-7ca8256efbde" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:51:25.630" UserId="8563" Text="[![The Cost of Knowledge - join the Elsevier boycott and take back our scientific publishing!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vu8lo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thecostofknowledge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="4edced0b-7f98-46f5-8d44-5d27d98426b2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:51:54.483" UserId="8563" Text="[![Computational Science at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10405" RevisionGUID="62ebb160-820d-45bc-9b45-d2a872ad9cbc" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:52:07.480" UserId="8563" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5A7af.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://academia.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10406" RevisionGUID="e699a8d5-8899-4dbd-b895-e68379a91050" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:52:56.703" UserId="8563" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10407" RevisionGUID="cbbdea8c-99f2-44d5-916a-d56fdf0672f0" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:53:22.153" UserId="8563" Text="[![DLMF: an online encyclopaedia of special functions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/toYiP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10408" RevisionGUID="26ab3c98-4820-4bbe-9876-fc45dad94203" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:54:01.697" UserId="8563" Text="[![archive.org - the public library of the internet][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ij43t.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10409" RevisionGUID="6797a541-52d6-4136-ad91-84b0113eed1f" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:55:06.800" UserId="8563" Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NS3GV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10410" RevisionGUID="75705bf1-bc5b-4446-9552-aa9972f6f64c" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:55:25.940" UserId="8563" Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pefiz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="9fec40cb-39a4-4d02-8a13-d379f793dba8" CreationDate="2018-01-29T08:13:24.100" UserId="8563" Text="[![Are your papers available in an open access repository? Check with Dissemin][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HAnRi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dissem.in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="58c485e8-7f16-4ae5-9ca1-c5ea35a0609d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T08:53:55.693" UserId="1325" Text="We have lots and lots of questions on the symmetry of time dilation. That is when two observers are heading towards each other how can each think their clock is running faster? These questions typically come from people who have just started studying special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have come up with a good analogy to explain what is going on, so I propose to post a canonical Q/A. [A draft of my proposed Q/A can be viewed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm aware that these canonical Q/As aren't viewed with enthusiasm by everyone so I won't proceed unless the consensus is that it would be a useful contribution to the site. To this end I'd like two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly please upvote or downvote this question to indicate your approval or otherwise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly please answer if you think there are better ways to approach this. For example there may already be a question that is in effect a canonical question on the issue (I did look but while there are dozens of related questions I haven't found one that I thought a good candidate for a canonical question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UBEoXSEwouN3m0z1EzFBIHBVjBK_DtzaqJ4OtKrzgao/edit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="58c485e8-7f16-4ae5-9ca1-c5ea35a0609d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T08:53:55.693" UserId="1325" Text="A possible canonical Q/A on symmetric time dilation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="58c485e8-7f16-4ae5-9ca1-c5ea35a0609d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T08:53:55.693" UserId="1325" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="df03acf8-d64e-47d4-930d-3aa834dca69e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T17:26:32.737" UserId="7924" Text="[![PhysicsOverflow][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physicsoverflow.org/12537/?qa=blob&amp;qa_blobid=13238895215271010617&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physicsoverflow.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31761" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="98974bd0-b9ff-43b4-86d1-f11245875926" CreationDate="2018-01-30T07:54:35.797" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/958247053594955776" />
  <row Id="31762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10414" RevisionGUID="a1eb787f-2b06-46b3-b59d-a30c612fd1bb" CreationDate="2018-01-30T12:29:15.883" UserId="115736" Text="I was wondering about this general feature of Stack Exchange sites: when you answer a question, your reputation and number of badges are shown right next to your user name and profile picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am worried about is that when comparing several answers, a user may be biased towards those coming from high-rep users. In other words, when someone who asked a question is confronted with two equally good answers coming from a low-rep user and an high-rep user, he/she could give more weight to the answer of the latter just because, well, he/she has an higher rep. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If true, this could lead to a &quot;rich-gets-richer&quot; positive feedback in which high-rep users get more rep than the others, and because of this they get even more rep, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this issue been taken into consideration during the development of Stack Exchange? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10414" RevisionGUID="a1eb787f-2b06-46b3-b59d-a30c612fd1bb" CreationDate="2018-01-30T12:29:15.883" UserId="115736" Text="Is it really a good idea to show a user's reputation and badges in answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10414" RevisionGUID="a1eb787f-2b06-46b3-b59d-a30c612fd1bb" CreationDate="2018-01-30T12:29:15.883" UserId="115736" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31765" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10414" RevisionGUID="383a60e8-b61b-447c-9207-11ffe1fba362" CreationDate="2018-01-30T12:36:27.097" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="5df91865-c3e3-4171-aba8-a0e822162d9b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T14:29:22.063" UserId="123649" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that there are an awful lot of people who come here, create new accounts to ask their homework questions, get downvoted and closed then leave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, we have flags, we can attempt to edit and we can vote to show that they ARE not suited for physics SE, but I'm concerned that new users will be seeing new users' questions being voted down and closed but THINK that its because they are new and be put off using this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, I am suggesting that new users see a screen with a &quot;how to make homework style questions into good questions&quot; or &quot;what is / is not on topic&quot; or similar. If there is a lot of information, a lot of people will not read it and will just post, but if there is no guidance then they will of course post anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qaCcR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="5df91865-c3e3-4171-aba8-a0e822162d9b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T14:29:22.063" UserId="123649" Text="How to address high volume of low quality questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="5df91865-c3e3-4171-aba8-a0e822162d9b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T14:29:22.063" UserId="123649" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="457aa785-d184-4468-a423-abab133a6488" CreationDate="2018-01-30T15:20:20.517" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="44db1dbf-dc43-40eb-89bb-b6100478c4e3" CreationDate="2018-01-30T17:12:33.663" UserId="1325" Comment="Update question" Text="We have lots and lots of questions on the symmetry of time dilation. That is when two observers are heading towards each other how can each think their clock is running faster? These questions typically come from people who have just started studying special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have come up with a good analogy to explain what is going on, so I propose to post a canonical Q/A. [A draft of my proposed Q/A can be viewed here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm aware that these canonical Q/As aren't viewed with enthusiasm by everyone so I won't proceed unless the consensus is that it would be a useful contribution to the site. To this end I'd like two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly please upvote or downvote this question to indicate your approval or otherwise of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly please answer if you think there are better ways to approach this. For example there may already be a question that is in effect a canonical question on the issue (I did look but while there are dozens of related questions I haven't found one that I thought a good candidate for a canonical question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to everyone who voted or commented. I've now posted the Q/A (reluctantly making the names more sensible :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/383248/how-can-time-dilation-be-symmetric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UBEoXSEwouN3m0z1EzFBIHBVjBK_DtzaqJ4OtKrzgao/edit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10416" RevisionGUID="c1cad1b8-c140-4eeb-8023-9734c443160a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:12:48.867" UserId="127931" Text="I'm trying to get some clarity on the scope of the [material-science](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/material-science) tag, or perhaps figure out another tag with the meaning I want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was reading [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/383297/how-do-i-determine-the-breaking-point-of-something) and thought that only a tag of &quot;classical mechanics&quot; wasn't really enough to describe his concern.  I looked for tags and added the &quot;material-science&quot; tag, only to second guess myself and roll it back after re-reading the &quot;About&quot; section for the tag. (I realized that I forgot to take out the -Josh like I intended too, so I'm done touching that one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the tag would apply here or not.  Based on the description of the tag, I realized the focus seems to be more towards the stricter description of material science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure where we would fit in questions that relate to things like &quot;engineering mechanics&quot; in this case.  The question isn't really about the material properties; it's about the manifestation of those properties and how we would apply that, which is why I rolled the edit back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is [solid-mechanics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/solid-mechanics) the tag I'm looking for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't notice this tag until I was making this discussion; but I would like some more input from everyone on if we should use &quot;material-science&quot; for these types of questions as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10416" RevisionGUID="c1cad1b8-c140-4eeb-8023-9734c443160a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:12:48.867" UserId="127931" Text="Use of Material Science Tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10416" RevisionGUID="c1cad1b8-c140-4eeb-8023-9734c443160a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:12:48.867" UserId="127931" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31774" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="85b5c5e0-6a3c-407c-9f3e-8752f83a72ab" CreationDate="2018-01-30T23:26:45.983" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/383311/question-about-derivations-in-paper-published-in-scientific-journal" />
  <row Id="31775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="1a2b7814-925f-4ea0-a0d5-f2f1de119a58" CreationDate="2018-01-30T23:05:42.687" UserId="183253" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question but If I have a specific question about derivation step in a paper published in PRA for example. Can I ask it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="1a2b7814-925f-4ea0-a0d5-f2f1de119a58" CreationDate="2018-01-30T23:05:42.687" UserId="183253" Text="Question about derivations in paper published in scientific journal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="1a2b7814-925f-4ea0-a0d5-f2f1de119a58" CreationDate="2018-01-30T23:05:42.687" UserId="183253" Text="|discussion|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="117f9b58-ebac-4b2d-a743-93b8583f2b11" CreationDate="2018-01-31T00:32:40.863" UserId="25301" Text="It probably depends on how you word the question itself. &#xA;&#xA;If you simply ask, &quot;How is this step done?&quot; you will likely find the question closed under the homework policy.&#xA;&#xA;If, instead, you ask, &quot;I thought that situation X should apply here, but they say it's Y and I don't see why. Can someone fill in why?&quot; or something similar, the question will likely remain open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31779" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="c76e6f60-a9fd-4ccc-9e4d-40d41a21b95a" CreationDate="2018-01-31T19:01:40.237" UserId="46399" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Are questions about derivations in paper published in scientific journal, on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="c76e6f60-a9fd-4ccc-9e4d-40d41a21b95a" CreationDate="2018-01-31T19:01:40.237" UserId="46399" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="f1790f60-7ac3-400e-a26a-9ef9f8a5ef4f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T03:13:35.637" UserId="46399" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question but If I have a specific question about a derivation step in a paper published in _Physical Review A_, for example. Can I ask it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31782" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="f1790f60-7ac3-400e-a26a-9ef9f8a5ef4f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T03:13:35.637" UserId="46399" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are questions about derivations in papers published in scientific journals, on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10419" RevisionGUID="7e71c775-1009-4183-a720-e478906194cc" CreationDate="2018-02-01T11:03:28.293" UserId="25301" Text="[![Physics Stack Exchange Review Queue][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ef9Hl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="97557f22-8e2a-49bb-8355-05dd879980e8" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:31:18.443" UserId="180631" Text="Whenever I ask a question that is found to be duplicate. If I search the question previously to make sure it was not asked before it does not appear as the language of me and the question is not the same. So how can I stop asking duplicate questions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="97557f22-8e2a-49bb-8355-05dd879980e8" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:31:18.443" UserId="180631" Text="How to stop asking duplicate questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="97557f22-8e2a-49bb-8355-05dd879980e8" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:31:18.443" UserId="180631" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="a6c787ab-4896-479c-a3a2-feeb62b1f6cb" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:42:47.180" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="a6c787ab-4896-479c-a3a2-feeb62b1f6cb" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:42:47.180" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="How to stop asking duplicate questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="a6c787ab-4896-479c-a3a2-feeb62b1f6cb" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:42:47.180" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Whenever I ask a question that is found to be duplicate. If I search the question previously to make sure it was not asked before it does not appear as the language of me and the question is not the same. So how can I stop asking duplicate questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="9898b6fc-5932-4273-9da6-acacccb78dc4" CreationDate="2018-02-01T20:26:48.003" UserId="2451" Text="Before asking a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the [built-in search engine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=is%3Aq) to search for duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Alternatively, search the Phys.SE site with an external search engine, e.g. [Google](https://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When [asking a question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Pick a good title which captures your question in one line, preferable in the form of a question. The SE software will then suggest possible duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Fill in relevant tags to further help the SE software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10423" RevisionGUID="7adc1a1b-5f6d-4ece-a8c6-e8355b4dabac" CreationDate="2018-02-01T20:28:47.580" UserId="127931" Text="I suggest paying attention to, and reading some of the suggested questions that pop up when you start to ask yours (I know this feature exists on the desktop site, maybe not mobile).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Search bar][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example from when I type in a new question with the same title as [your question from today](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/383673/paper-white-and-mirror-not-why); which is gaining some votes as a duplicate.  I actually flagged this one as a duplicate; so I can walk you through the process for _how_ I found it, along with the process you could use to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can already see, there are some suggestions here for questions which may contain your answer.  The first link is your question, which it should be, because it has the exact same title; so the system is taking a guess that it could answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could have used the [second link](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/298848/why-white-flat-surfaces-are-white-and-not-mirror-like-reflective); but I thought I had seen a better answer somewhere else before.  As it turns out, the [third link](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321357/if-white-things-reflect-light-and-mirror-reflect-light-why-dont-they-look-the-s) was a duplicate of the question that [I used to flag as duplicate](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1957/what-is-the-difference-between-a-white-object-and-a-mirror).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another sample, the question on [DC current through a capacitor](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/379495/dc-current-through-capacitor), I can demonstrate the same technique:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample search 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the [link below your question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/168685/why-capacitor-pass-ac-and-block-dc-current) is what your post got marked as a duplicate of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say, you can't apply this to _all_ your questions.  These ones are really low-hanging fruit, where the duplicate is quite obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For others, such as your black hole question, you may just need to think of other ways the question could be worded.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also seems as though you don't show any research of your own when asking these questions.  Generally, it's a good idea to try and look up answers on your own first.  Not just on this site; but other places as well.  Then you can narrow down what confuses you, and possibly find duplicates worded in ways that you wouldn't otherwise expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/X2ED6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oR3Cy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10424" RevisionGUID="6fd0fafa-64eb-4260-a904-a4a9a36e9d4f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T15:16:24.737" UserId="183632" Text="I've been watching a talk about physics by mathematician Marcus du Sautoy and I was left with some questions that were not addressed in the talk's Q&amp;A session. Is it appropriate to ask those questions at Physics Stack Exchange? And, if so, is it advisable to bundle them into a single question with a single background? Or would it be better to split them into multiple related but distinct questions, each with its own copy of the common background?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10424" RevisionGUID="6fd0fafa-64eb-4260-a904-a4a9a36e9d4f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T15:16:24.737" UserId="183632" Text="Is PSE the place to ask for clarification on scientific talks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10424" RevisionGUID="6fd0fafa-64eb-4260-a904-a4a9a36e9d4f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T15:16:24.737" UserId="183632" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10424" RevisionGUID="0908898f-0551-4155-97c2-2c5f0ab95b6a" CreationDate="2018-02-03T15:27:45.110" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10425" RevisionGUID="b74ed8dc-b1ab-4c7f-b5ca-733cb96293e5" CreationDate="2018-02-03T17:03:35.430" UserId="84967" Text="Thank you for asking. Yes, you can ask physics questions here. But do note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Questions should be as self-contained as possible. Users who did not attend the talk should be able to understand the question anyway, and without the need of relying on external sources (lecture notes, a video, etc.). All the relevant information should be in the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ideally speaking, post should contain one and only one question. You can and should open multiple threads, and ask a single question on each one. Of course, you can and should include links to the rest of threads if they are closely related (not only to  help draw a more global picture of your concerns, but also for the sake of future readers). But, again, each post should be self-contained, so make sure to include all relevant information (background, context, etc.) in each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The standard policy applies to each of the posts. For example, questions should be conceptual as opposed to, say, arithmetical: we want answers to be useful to a broader audience, so we won't flesh out a mathematical computation for you. If you don't understand a derivation, then try to pinpoint the conceptual obstruction, not the arithmetical one. Strictly mathematical questions (how to simplify this formula?) are off-topic, but they may be on-topic on Math.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10425" RevisionGUID="dff68bd3-4e3e-4e08-a995-fd358d3426ec" CreationDate="2018-02-03T21:28:31.340" UserId="84967" Comment="added 568 characters in body" Text="Thank you for asking. Yes, you can ask physics questions here. But do note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Questions should be as self-contained as possible. Users who did not attend the talk should be able to understand the question anyway, and without the need of relying on external sources (lecture notes, a video, etc.). All the relevant information should be in the post itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ideally speaking&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, post should contain one and only one question. You can and should open multiple threads, and ask a single question on each one. Of course, you can and should include links to the rest of threads if they are closely related (not only to  help draw a more global picture of your concerns, but also for the sake of future readers). But, again, each post should be self-contained, so make sure to include all relevant information (background, context, etc.) in each of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The standard policy applies to each of the posts. For example, questions should be conceptual as opposed to, say, arithmetical: we want answers to be useful to a broader audience, so we won't flesh out a mathematical computation for you. If you don't understand a derivation, then try to pinpoint the conceptual obstruction, not the arithmetical one. Strictly mathematical questions (how to simplify this formula?) are off-topic, but they may be on-topic on Math.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: In practice, though, people usually allow several subquestions, as long as they are all part of a single &quot;major question&quot;. It's not easy to quantitatively measure how far the subquestions can be from one another without becoming too broad -- it's one of those &quot;you'll know when you see it&quot; situations. When in doubt, just post the questions together and if someone thinks there are too many of them, or they are not related closely enough, they'll let you know. You can always delete some of the subquestions and open a new thread.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10426" RevisionGUID="6099d71d-fe93-4ed1-844d-4cbc26bb370f" CreationDate="2018-02-04T02:39:18.003" UserId="106502" Text="My two cents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should search for duplicates before asking your question, but the built-in search engine is really not that good for this task. Doing a google search for your question with &quot;site:physics.stackexchange.com&quot; at the end of your query is a superior way to find duplicates on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare, for instance, my search for duplicates to [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384117/electron-drift-velocity-does-not-explain-observed-results):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Built-in search engine](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=electron+drift+velocity+current+speed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+drift+velocity+current+speed+site%3Aphysics.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The query isn't perfect, but the Google search, unlike the site search, immediately brings up relevant results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="f5b54d68-1419-4a70-9bff-c683f58c8aa2" CreationDate="2018-02-04T07:02:29.910" UserId="1325" Text="If you're unsure about asking I recommend asking [in the Physics chat room first][1]. The chat room isn't ideal for getting lengthy and detailed answers, but it's a good way to firm up your ideas about exactly what you want to ask on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a rep of at least 20 to post in the chat room, but your association bonus has provided that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10428" RevisionGUID="da61b34e-b0a9-4bd7-8abf-8c28bf5a2c50" CreationDate="2018-02-06T04:55:02.907" UserId="104362" Text="[![Haikus are awesome/ Chemistry is more so/ Ask straight away!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/noaFv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31803" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="b1865256-22e5-4545-bea3-57c46a61a6b7" CreationDate="2018-02-06T23:27:58.407" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/961018660939812864" />
  <row Id="31806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="dd0f8606-e453-4e0e-9b58-74a7f5b1f103" CreationDate="2018-02-07T11:45:21.613" UserId="173002" Text="I often come across interesting questions, which I can not answer. As a consequence I can not verify the given answers while some seem to be helpful. Is it recommended to upvote such answers, where my knowledge doesn't reach put to verify them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="dd0f8606-e453-4e0e-9b58-74a7f5b1f103" CreationDate="2018-02-07T11:45:21.613" UserId="173002" Text="Should I upvote answers that I can't verify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="dd0f8606-e453-4e0e-9b58-74a7f5b1f103" CreationDate="2018-02-07T11:45:21.613" UserId="173002" Text="|discussion|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="adc815d6-c9d2-4df9-8ee0-47bd29b900a1" CreationDate="2018-02-07T11:50:26.797" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|voting|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="b779aabc-dd24-4f47-a076-eb62d5d27285" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:27:24.457" UserId="139781" Text="Today was my first time reviewing low-quality posts, and I accidentally pressed the &quot;Looks OK&quot; button a few times for posts that should clearly be deleted, as I was used to reviewing edits and &quot;Looks OK&quot; and &quot;Approve Edit&quot; are in the same place. Is there a way to reverse this decision?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="b779aabc-dd24-4f47-a076-eb62d5d27285" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:27:24.457" UserId="139781" Text="Is it possible to change review decisions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="b779aabc-dd24-4f47-a076-eb62d5d27285" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:27:24.457" UserId="139781" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="6d99e032-c60b-4b29-8289-c351292ca272" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:28:51.907" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10431" RevisionGUID="c3a20baa-2ca6-4d5e-8db9-fb0a3e1e55f7" CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:48:32.590" UserId="84967" Text="No, you cannot change your decision. What you can do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you meant to vote/flag (in First Post/Late Answer), just go back to the post (outside the review queue) and proceed as you wanted to initially. The end result is the same so no big deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you meant to approve/reject an edit, but clicked on the wrong button, you can always go back to the post (outside the review queue) and do the edit manually (or roll it back) . Of course, this is not ideal because the acceptance/rejection has side effects (e.g., +2 rep.points in the first case, and a record of a rejected edit in the second case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you meant to recommend deletion, you can always go back to the post (outside the review queue) and flag it again (or vote to delete if you have that privilege). Note that three &quot;Looks OK&quot; votes will remove the post from the queue, so try not to miss the correct button. Conversely, if you meant to vote &quot;Looks OK&quot; but the post eventually got deleted, you can always flag for mod attention and explain what happened, or vote to undelete (if you have that privilege).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you meant to vote to close/to leave open, or to reopen/leave closed, but clicked on the wrong button, you can always go back to the post (outside the review queue) and vote manually (or undo your vote). Note that three  &quot;Leave open/Leave closed&quot; will remove the post from the queue, so try not to miss the button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say, in most cases reviews require several votes, so one incorrect vote will not typically change the final action on the post. This is precisely what happened in your case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/205604&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/205579&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the posts were eventually deleted in spite of your &quot;Looks OK&quot; vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that if you get some review wrong, you can always go to the chat and ask people to review the same item and take the right decision. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="4732d3fa-19b6-426c-a72a-86a31f851a08" CreationDate="2018-02-07T20:27:37.737" UserId="25301" Text="I have [previously argued](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6868/25301) that knowledge is probably one reason one wouldn't vote on a question, so I'd be inclined to say, *yes, if you don't understand the answer, you probably shouldn't vote on it*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="2c935926-ed3c-4f50-b19c-a307f62ea8b4" CreationDate="2018-02-07T20:29:16.397" UserId="25301" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I often come across interesting questions which I can not answer. As a consequence, I cannot verify the given answers, while some seem to be helpful. Is it recommended to upvote such answers, where my knowledge doesn't reach to verify them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="d26dd37f-8102-42d0-8201-993549543819" CreationDate="2018-02-07T20:41:18.833" UserId="75633" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="It's easy to become too focused on specific issues like downvoting, and as a result lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. Downvoting is after all just a means to an end, and not an end in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'm not sure a *mission statement* for the site exists apart from the [relatively anodyne statement in the tour][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. ... With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about physics, astronomy and astrophysics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I suspect that most of the hardcore users would agree that we want the site to be a definitive collection of information about physics, for people who are serious about physics. So the key points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you have to be serious about physics: beginners questions are welcome, but you need to be prepared to put some real work into researching and writing your question, and probably some real work into understanding the answers.&#xD;&#xA; - the questions have to be about physics: science fiction may be fun, and you'll find many of this site's members on the [Science Fiction Stack Exchange][2], but questions and answers here have to deal with established physics.&#xD;&#xA; - the answers have to be definitive: answers have to be well enough written to be unambiguously understood by anyone knowledgable (though not necessarily expert) in physics, and of course they have to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downvoting is one of the ways we try and ensure posts on this site meet these goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting questions is a way of saying *this question is wasting the time of site members*&#xD;&#xA; - downvoting answers is a way of saying *this answer is inadequate, misleading or just plain wrong, don't trust it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're still with me, the original question then becomes *Are we downvoting and commenting enough to meet these goals?*. And I think that generally speaking we are. I certainly find that if I post an answer that others consider misleading or oversimplified it will very quickly be commented on to point out my error. I rarely see bad answers that haven't received some attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions are a slightly different matter, because we aren't going to dissuade people from asking bad questions no matter what we do. The best we can do is close and downvote them quickly then let the automatic deletion do it's work. The key task is getting the question closed as fast as possible to stop it being answered. The limit here is not enough people willing to vote to close. Downvoting is good because it gets the question off the home page, but I'm not sure I'd go along with Kyle's view of downvoting to infinity. IIRC a -3 score is all it takes to get the question off the home page, and any negative score will qualify a question for automatic deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on the whole I think we are downvoting enough. In fact, as I have mentioned before [I think we are over eager to downvote questions][3]. The priority should be to get the question closed, and I don't think vast numbers of downvotes achieve anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tour&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6754/we-seem-to-be-over-eager-to-downvote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10433" RevisionGUID="b1c9367a-a6e2-44c6-b4a5-0172e26ea657" CreationDate="2018-02-07T21:00:45.333" UserId="75633" Text="I'd say yes, but with *considerable* moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a large gray zone between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;I know exactly what the answer should be&quot;, and&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;I have no idea what the answer should be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And probably most askers, to give an example, find themselves in this gray zone: they know enough to be able to formulate the question but (supposedly) don't know what the answer is. Of course, authoritative references might give you confidence a given answer is correct, but often you cannot be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I think it's natural to upvote answers one can't assure are correct, when they seem particularly informative and clear; and I admit I probably do that with larger likelihood when they are written by high-rep. users and even more if positively commented and considerably upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware of the bandwagon effect and other possible pitfalls and know that this is probably precisely the mechanism behind the few highly upvoted *wrong* answers one can find here. But the SE is clearly designed to allow all users to vote, not only specialists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10433" RevisionGUID="cc21e64b-c6b3-471b-984e-9f776e14d1af" CreationDate="2018-02-08T00:12:53.950" UserId="75633" Comment="Mentioning a side point." Text="I'd say yes, but with *considerable* moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a large gray zone between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;I know exactly what the answer should be&quot;, and&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;I have no idea what the answer should be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And probably most askers, to give an example, find themselves in this gray zone: they know enough to be able to formulate the question but (supposedly) don't know what the answer is. Of course, authoritative references might give you confidence a given answer is correct, but often you cannot be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I think it's natural to upvote answers one can't assure are correct, when they seem particularly informative and clear; and I admit I probably do that with larger likelihood when they are written by high-rep. users and even more if positively commented and considerably upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware of the bandwagon effect and other possible pitfalls and know that this is probably precisely the mechanism behind the few highly upvoted *wrong* answers one can find here. But the SE is clearly designed to allow all users to vote, not only specialists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, if the answer is at a level you expect to understand, then not understanding it is a measure of the answer being unhelpful, by definition, which means you should *downvote* it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10433" RevisionGUID="c651ce1c-1acc-456f-b43b-43c503470762" CreationDate="2018-02-08T00:30:05.830" UserId="75633" Comment="Added link and quotation." Text="I'd say yes, but with *considerable* moderation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a large gray zone between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;I know exactly what the answer should be&quot;, and&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;I have no idea what the answer should be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And probably most askers, to give an example, find themselves in this gray zone: they know enough to be able to formulate the question but (supposedly) don't know what the answer is. Of course, authoritative references might give you confidence a given answer is correct, but often you cannot be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I think it's natural to upvote answers one can't assure are correct, when they seem particularly informative and clear; and I admit I probably do that with larger likelihood when they are written by high-rep. users and even more if positively commented and considerably upvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware of the bandwagon effect and other possible pitfalls and know that this is probably precisely the mechanism behind the few highly upvoted *wrong* answers one can find here. But the SE is clearly designed to allow all users to vote, not only specialists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, if the answer is at a level you expect to understand, then not understanding it is a measure of the answer being unhelpful, by definition, which means you [should *downvote* it](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/why-vote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;voting down a post signals [...] that the post [...] fails to communicate information`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="7efb72f2-5f93-4df9-959a-6f0721a5e95e" CreationDate="2018-02-08T01:39:04.547" UserId="148704" Text="I just got taken off a 1 year suspension for the second time. I don't want to do anything that will get me another 1 year suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw many things I wanted to edit on my own stuff while I was suspended. Should I pace my edits or am I safe to edit everything with in scope of coarse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="7efb72f2-5f93-4df9-959a-6f0721a5e95e" CreationDate="2018-02-08T01:39:04.547" UserId="148704" Text="Editing my own stuff get me suspended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="7efb72f2-5f93-4df9-959a-6f0721a5e95e" CreationDate="2018-02-08T01:39:04.547" UserId="148704" Text="|support|editing|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10435" RevisionGUID="21869d52-c43e-4e16-a5a6-0ed5543e21d3" CreationDate="2018-02-08T03:28:03.437" UserId="2911" Text="Well, you were suspended last time around for posting low-quality questions (which are a problem because they create work and annoyance for other members of the site) and making scores of edits that didn't substantially improve the posts being edited but did clog the active lists with questions that folks had already seen (which *also* creates work and annoyance for others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... If you want to avoid being suspended again, don't do anything that creates work and annoyance for other users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Put more thought and research into your questions before posting them - if you can't formulate a clear, well-researched question, sit on it for a bit until you have the time to flesh it out.&#xD;&#xA;- Put more thought into your edits before submitting them - if you're not sure the edit you're about to submit makes a significant difference in the quality or content of the post you're editing, don't submit it until you have an edit that does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="4fcead53-e7e5-41f0-9502-a85596e40c0c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T05:29:21.447" UserId="172742" Text="The whole point of creating a duplicate is to encourage users to add a new answer/comment on the original question so that it would also address/encompass the subtle differences of the duplicate question and the original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in reality, it seems that by creating duplicates, the original question doesn’t receive more answers/comments because the question is just old and already have answers but those existing answers sometimes don’t encompass or completely address the duplicate one. So I think we should more answers on the original question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="4fcead53-e7e5-41f0-9502-a85596e40c0c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T05:29:21.447" UserId="172742" Text="We should answer/comment more on the original question of the duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="4fcead53-e7e5-41f0-9502-a85596e40c0c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T05:29:21.447" UserId="172742" Text="|discussion|duplicates|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10438" RevisionGUID="3cc80a1a-db5d-4edb-aa2c-557ae2fa35c9" CreationDate="2018-02-08T05:37:18.583" UserId="172742" Text="I think we should answer old questions because most of the time your new answer will definitely add more information to the existing answers and the new answer will give a different way of explaining which also is useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="1834ece4-dc88-4801-bb26-45061ff54b17" CreationDate="2018-02-08T05:43:41.973" UserId="172742" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|duplicates|late-answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="1834ece4-dc88-4801-bb26-45061ff54b17" CreationDate="2018-02-08T05:43:41.973" UserId="172742" Comment="edited tags" Text="The whole point of creating a duplicate is to encourage users to add a new answer/comment on the original question so that it would also address/encompass the subtle differences of the duplicate question and the original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in reality, it seems that by creating duplicates, the original question doesn’t receive more answers/comments because the question is just old and already have answers but those existing answers sometimes don’t encompass or completely address the duplicate one. So I think we should add more answers on the original question if it’s not a duplicate answer of the existing one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="fd0db8f8-5f00-4fbc-97f3-035c09c67b56" CreationDate="2018-02-08T10:52:33.980" UserId="8563" Text="If this happens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those existing answers sometimes don’t encompass or completely address the duplicate one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the onus is on the poster of the new question to edit their post so that it delineates itself from the previous question and carves out a new bit of question-space that's not covered by the existing answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that can't be done, but OP nevertheless feels that the existing answers are unsatisfactory responses to the existing question, there's several available routes, including editing the original question so it's clearer what should go into answers, as well as setting a bounty (either by OP or someone else) to draw attention to the old question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an unfortunate fact of life that we cannot answer all questions to a fully satisfactory level, and resource-recommendation questions are not an exception to that. Keeping straight duplicates open just compounds the problem, and I don't see why RRQs should get special treatment compared to identical situations that happen in all the other tags on a regular basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="15d29cf4-7585-4c74-9c63-b04c35dd70eb" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:46:25.880" UserId="184176" Text="I would like to seek an answer to the following question but am not sure if my question will be considered as off topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that bond angles are almost always measured in degrees instead of radians. A scientist told me that in his research, they always measure the temperature in Celsius instead of Kelvin. In the scientist world there are some other units that are preferred over units from the International System of Units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is, since there is a International System of Units, why should people, especially professionals, respect them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="15d29cf4-7585-4c74-9c63-b04c35dd70eb" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:46:25.880" UserId="184176" Text="Is it proper to ask about the preferrence of units?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="15d29cf4-7585-4c74-9c63-b04c35dd70eb" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:46:25.880" UserId="184176" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10442" RevisionGUID="54092d7f-f400-476d-88d4-1cd06b10e0c7" CreationDate="2018-02-08T15:03:19.783" UserId="8563" Text="We do occasionally take questions of this type (for example, [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235581/are-ergs-commonly-used-in-astrophysics-if-so-is-there-a-specific-reason-for-it) was well received), but they're on the edge of topicality as being primarily opinion-based. Questions whose answers are intrinsically subjective *can* be a good fit for the Stack Exchange Q&amp;A engine, but they need to be pitched correctly for them to work; in that regard, the main reference for guidance on writing questions that work well is the SE blog post [Good Subjective, Bad Subjective](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-subjective/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the specific examples you give, I would tend to say that they are too localized, and the difference between two different forms of accepted SI units is not strong enough to merit a meaningful answer on this site. As for the overall sociological question of why some fields of science retain the usage of non-SI units despite the overall shift to SI (and indeed, as in my first link, despite specific pressure from field-specific institutions to change to SI units), that's definitely not on-topic here, but it may be a good fit for [Academia Stack Exchange](https://academia.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="4063150e-13e5-4a8c-9d05-8dd502e665a4" CreationDate="2018-02-08T18:33:05.430" UserId="10334" Text="If I may share a slightly tongue-in-cheek theory about some of the users I've observed on SE, and especially a specific user that has come back recently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This user seems like it could be an AI developed by Google or Microsoft, which has been programmed to simulate human behavior by &quot;participating&quot; in Q&amp;A sites. Here is my evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The questions it asks are random combinations of loosely-related concepts, with no high-level rhyme or reason between them, and certainly no discernible goal of what it's trying to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It doesn't seem to have the ability to &quot;learn&quot; in the human sense.  Despite copious feedback to stop posting low-quality questions, and even numerous pleas to take a break from SE entirely, it continues to post suspiciously similar questions over and over, and insists on wanting to &quot;help&quot; in other ways, as though it never received any feedback at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It has a special insistence on editing and tweaking old questions, presumably with the goal of improving the upvote score. This indicates an algorithmic preference towards optimizing for maximal reputation, by testing which kinds of edits will cause an increase in upvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* More generally, it seems to have no other purpose than to accumulate reputation points (by asking random questions that might accidentally make sense) and receiving badges (mostly for participation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we do with users like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="4063150e-13e5-4a8c-9d05-8dd502e665a4" CreationDate="2018-02-08T18:33:05.430" UserId="10334" Text="Are there AIs among us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="4063150e-13e5-4a8c-9d05-8dd502e665a4" CreationDate="2018-02-08T18:33:05.430" UserId="10334" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10445" RevisionGUID="dfcab6a9-209b-4ca5-8e76-87d83ee9d035" CreationDate="2018-02-08T20:31:11.620" UserId="8563" Text="The impression of a problematic user having 'come back' can sometimes be caused when a user is suspended but then decides to attempt to circumvent those restrictions by starting a new account. This is known as a [sockpuppet](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57682/how-should-sockpuppets-be-handled-on-stack-exchange) and it is *not* an acceptable practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you suspect that that might be the case with a given user, it is certainly in order to raise a custom moderator flag detailing what you think might be happening and any relevant links to past content that feels similar to the new posts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10446" RevisionGUID="cec21f7d-a603-446b-b1fa-5fc34685ba4b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T23:40:30.010" UserId="115736" Text="There are indeed several users that fit this description, but you have also to consider that they could just be people who hunt for reputation and badges just for the sake of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;reward system&quot; of SE is very similar to that of many social networks: reputation is in some ways not so different form likes, retweets, hearts or whatnot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people just strive for the sensation that receiving such rewards grants them, and their behavior is only aimed at maximizing reputation, without much regard for the quality of their contribution to the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="460292e9-aa74-47f6-bc90-e398e4e467bf" CreationDate="2018-02-08T23:52:32.590" UserId="115736" Text="Here's what I personally do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I see a new question that I know or suspect is a duplicate of an older question, *I point it out as soon as possible and I don't post any answer*. This way, I try to divert the attention on the community from the new question to the old one, and maybe someone will post a new answer to the old one.&#xD;&#xA; - If I stumble upon an old question which is good and doesn't have a satisfactory answer, *if I know the answer, I post my answer*. Sure, you will get less attention than what you would get by answering a new duplicate question, but gaining reputation for the sake of it is not what the site is for.&#xD;&#xA; - If I stumble upon an old question which is good and doesn't have a satisfactory answer, *if I don't know the answer, I consider starting a bounty* on the question, in order to get more attention to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="aedf8673-60ba-4d25-9d75-d6424f9f692d" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:14:10.780" UserId="167198" Text="How can I invite a question / answer / comment which is mistakenly down votes ? Similar is the query about a mistakenly invited question ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="aedf8673-60ba-4d25-9d75-d6424f9f692d" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:14:10.780" UserId="167198" Text="Correction of mistake regarding votes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="aedf8673-60ba-4d25-9d75-d6424f9f692d" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:14:10.780" UserId="167198" Text="|bug|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="736fd833-8d16-4168-944d-f280b2e66a0e" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:22:45.553" UserId="167198" Comment="Cleared the question..." Text="How can I upvote a question / answer / comment which is mistakenly down voted ? Similar is the query about a mistakenly upvoted question ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10450" RevisionGUID="9079f568-f2c3-4344-84e4-d7348a372b01" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:48:53.223" UserId="32426" Text="Find a way to improve it. After you edited the post, you can change the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no way for that, then bookmark the post and watch, maybe others will later edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no change, then your possibilities were depleted. However, the system is driven by the stats and not by the induvidual votes. Thus, if your votes are based on careful consideration, it helps a lot more, as some rare mistake harms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="734d3f25-d60e-45b7-a78b-8479fcd0b8b3" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:58:33.223" UserId="2451" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How can I upvote/undo downvote of a question/answer/comment which I mistakenly downvoted? Similar is the query about a mistakenly upvoted question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="734d3f25-d60e-45b7-a78b-8479fcd0b8b3" CreationDate="2018-02-10T18:58:33.223" UserId="2451" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="9ab6a01e-22ed-4694-b9dc-65da9e5433d1" CreationDate="2018-02-12T07:30:51.413" UserId="115736" Comment="edited body" Text="Here's what I personally do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I see a new question that I know or suspect is a duplicate of an older question, *I point it out as soon as possible and I don't post any answer*. This way, I try to divert the attention of the community from the new question to the old one, and maybe someone will post a new answer to the old one.&#xD;&#xA; - If I stumble upon an old question which is good and doesn't have a satisfactory answer, *if I know the answer, I post my answer*. Sure, you will get less attention than what you would get by answering a new duplicate question, but gaining reputation for the sake of it is not what the site is for.&#xD;&#xA; - If I stumble upon an old question which is good and doesn't have a satisfactory answer, *if I don't know the answer, I consider starting a bounty* on the question, in order to get more attention to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10451" RevisionGUID="5971cfb0-45a6-4800-9be6-8072e7a38cdb" CreationDate="2018-02-12T10:02:24.397" UserId="83721" Text="I took the liberty to look at your questions, and I can see a lot of one-liners there. I suggest you research the question you're about to ask yourself, and show that research in your question. If you do that, you'll more likely find similar questions (with answers) or find the answer yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, getting some level of understanding in topics you're interested in really pays off. E.g. if you're interested in black holes, read a book about them before asking questions: most of the basic questions you may have will be answered there, and the remaining questions will be a much better fit on Physics SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31869" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="f1303391-f3c4-4f92-a0f9-0540bb0ebf9d" CreationDate="2018-02-12T15:12:33.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/963068311415214080" />
  <row Id="31870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10452" RevisionGUID="4c5f5a52-9d27-4fea-9c06-35f61360411b" CreationDate="2018-02-12T16:01:04.303" UserId="179462" Text="I agree with the points made by @parker in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with &quot;duplicates&quot; is that a new question asked in totally equivalent terms to another older one, may not in fact be asking the same question, and will be dealing with different underlying assumptions by the questioner about what the question means and what a satisfactory answer looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with @EmilioPisanty's view that &quot;the onus is on the poster of the new question to edit their post so that it delineates itself from the previous question&quot;, is that the new questioner may not be able to clearly articulate how their question differs from an older one, or why answers on the older question are not satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, they may have to ask questions about why their question is not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually only possible to formulate a question precisely once you broadly have the answer to it and have integrated the two, or have examined the question with the assistance of others, so expecting precise questions puts the cart before the horse on a site designed to answer questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even trained academics do not formulate questions with perfect precision, or re-examine every assumption of their field of expertise in doing so - usually, their work carries so many assumptions that questions cannot be understood at all unless one has been through a process of gaining tacit knowledge of the field, which is why we have a system of education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the problem that, with very old questions and answers, none of the contributors may still be around to discuss them any further. There may also be a &quot;clutter&quot; of old discussion or shared assumptions, that new contributors do not want to be burdened with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of the site and the way its notifications work, also makes it difficult to be clear that an answer on an old question, is really intended to address a person who created a &quot;duplicate&quot; which was then linked to the old question. This is probably why links to &quot;old&quot; duplicates, get little attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the new questioner, whilst not rejecting answers to the existing question (or maybe simply holding that it is not understandable and cannot be evaluated), may also be seeking a fresh or alternative perspective on the same question without necessarily knowing how those alternatives will differ - and these can obviously only be solicited on this site by putting the question again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, if the questioner's position is not explicit, it may be necessary to pump the new questioner for further information on the question to establish whether they have merely overlooked an existing answer, or whether they think it is insufficient in some way, but such dialog obviously will create an administrative burden - quite possibly more burden than simply re-answering a question, or the dialog may simply start to resemble a re-answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another beneficial aspect of *true* duplicate questions, which is that it allows those *answering* to rehearse satisfactory answers to the questions (and be assured that we have satisfactory answers), gain an insight into exactly how or why certain questions may be misconceived, and re-examine our own knowledge and ability to explain in the context of what may be a new set of contributors to the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, one does not want the same question asked separately every 5 days, but it might be reasonable to think that after as little as a few months (and certainly after a few years), the population of contributors may have changed significantly or totally - and that even if the questions are the same, new contributors may want to make a fresh attempt at answering them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that, unless a question is clearly about the formalism of physics and has a straightforward formal answer, we should hesitate to assume that questions ought to be treated as duplicates, merely because the form of words used in the question seems identical to that in another question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10452" RevisionGUID="ebefeeae-255b-4d99-a0d9-fd18494a957b" CreationDate="2018-02-12T16:06:56.690" UserId="179462" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="I agree with the points made by @parker in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with &quot;duplicates&quot; is that a new question asked in totally equivalent terms to another older one, may not in fact be asking the same question, and will be dealing with different underlying assumptions by the questioner about what the question means and what a satisfactory answer looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with @EmilioPisanty's view that &quot;the onus is on the poster of the new question to edit their post so that it delineates itself from the previous question&quot;, is that the new questioner may not be able to clearly articulate how their question differs from an older one, or why answers on the older question are not satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, they may have to ask questions about why their question is not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually only possible to formulate a question precisely once you broadly have the answer to it and have integrated the two, or have examined the question with the assistance of others, so expecting precise questions puts the cart before the horse on a site designed to answer questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even trained academics do not formulate questions with perfect precision, or re-examine every assumption of their field of expertise in doing so - usually, their work carries so many assumptions that questions cannot be understood at all unless one has been through a process of gaining tacit knowledge of the field, which is why we have a system of education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the problem that, with very old questions and answers, none of the contributors may still be around to discuss them any further. There may also be a &quot;clutter&quot; of old discussion or shared assumptions, that new contributors do not want to be burdened with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of the site and the way its notifications work, also makes it difficult to be clear that an answer on an old question, is really intended to address a person who created a &quot;duplicate&quot; which was then linked to the old question. The person asking the duplicate also cannot mark the answer accepted, since that is a right which belongs to the person who asked the original question. This is probably why links to &quot;old&quot; duplicates, get little attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the new questioner, whilst not rejecting answers to the existing question (or maybe simply holding that it is not understandable and cannot be evaluated), may also be seeking a fresh or alternative perspective on the same question without necessarily knowing how those alternatives will differ - and these can obviously only be solicited on this site by putting the question again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, if the questioner's position is not explicit, it may be necessary to pump the new questioner for further information on the question to establish whether they have merely overlooked an existing answer, or whether they think it is insufficient in some way, but such dialog obviously will create an administrative burden - quite possibly more burden than simply re-answering a question, or the dialog may simply start to resemble a re-answering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another beneficial aspect of *true* duplicate questions, which is that it allows those *answering* to rehearse satisfactory answers to the questions (and be assured that we have satisfactory answers), gain an insight into exactly how or why certain questions may be misconceived, and re-examine our own knowledge and ability to explain in the context of what may be a new set of contributors to the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, one does not want the same question asked separately every 5 days, but it might be reasonable to think that after as little as a few months (and certainly after a few years), the population of contributors may have changed significantly or totally - and that even if the questions are the same, new contributors may want to make a fresh attempt at answering them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that, unless a question is clearly about the formalism of physics and has a straightforward formal answer, we should hesitate to assume that questions ought to be treated as duplicates, merely because the form of words used in the question seems identical to that in another question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="8a8f1645-da92-4f72-a6d4-0a0a837af412" CreationDate="2018-02-12T16:55:57.033" UserId="83398" Text="I was sad this morning to see Gil Kalai's great question about the [role of rigor](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor) closed for being too broad. I was even sadder this afternoon when Prof. Kalai's [narrower follow-up question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/385909/the-role-of-rigor-ii), was also closed for being too broad. The question also got some downvotes and, in my mind, unnecessarily condescending comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To be (slightly) flippant about it, why the concentration on math? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The original question was put on hold as being too broad, yet here you are again with a subset of that question that is certainly going to be closed for the same reason. You're somehow not getting the message being sent to you. This sort of question just won't be acceptable. I'd suggest you go to the physicsforum.com where they may allow such loose questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first reaction is that it's a shame an extremely knowledgeable and capable mathematics professor is getting condescended to by people who only know the undergraduate curriculum or less, and that this might have something to do with the loss of knowledgeable users from this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second reaction is that I don't agree with the 'too broad' criterion. I got hooked on Phys.SE in the first place by the great answers to 'too broad' questions. If you look through the top questions of all time, almost all of the ones about general theory (i.e. excluding 'everyday-life' tags) are closed as too broad, or would be under the current criterion. The answers I am most proud of are all teetering on the edge of 'too broad'. I would bet that if you took a random 10k+ user and subtracted off the HNQ spam, the same would be true of their top answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put simply, I think questions that are &quot;too broad&quot; provide enormous value to the site and the physics community at large, and the only negative about them is that they're justifiably hard to answer.  Why not rethink this closure criterion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="8a8f1645-da92-4f72-a6d4-0a0a837af412" CreationDate="2018-02-12T16:55:57.033" UserId="83398" Text="Rethinking the &quot;too broad&quot; criterion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="8a8f1645-da92-4f72-a6d4-0a0a837af412" CreationDate="2018-02-12T16:55:57.033" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31875" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="ab5a8d0c-3dc4-4802-979f-49c4b67ca130" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:01:36.537" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9597],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:32426,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;peterh&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10454" RevisionGUID="4e892355-5c1a-42ee-a056-4b47dace44fe" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:22:38.163" UserId="1325" Text="I think we need to be a bit cautious with this sort of question because it doesn't suit the avowed aim of the site i.e. to become a reference site for physicists. I find the question interesting, and I'd guess most of us do to some extent, but it's not the sort of question where the answer is ever likely to help a physicist trying to get on with the everyday job of doing (or learning) physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens my reopen vote was the fifth so the question is now open, but whether the question is closed or not wouldn't keep me awake at night. It's not as though a six year old question is suddenly going to attract lots of answers. In fact I'd question whether it's really worth re-examining questions of this sort of vintage. After six years does it really matter? With the *Close* queue up to 87 pending questions there are better targets for people to aim at." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10455" RevisionGUID="9e67924c-e68e-4b89-96f1-f7bbab1ce304" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:48:17.257" UserId="84967" Text="Under the current policy, the &quot;Role of rigor&quot; post is as broad as it gets, and should be closed. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise; we should treat all posts equally, even if they are popular or come from knowledgeable users.  In legal terms, laws are to be obeyed whether you agree with them or not. You first debate the law, and only when it changes you may act as you wanted. If you do otherwise, you get fined (or go to jail). Society cannot possibly work if everyone is going to ignore the established order when they find it inconvenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I believe it would be useful to reevaluate the current policy. If we agree it should be relaxed, then the &quot;Role of rigor&quot; post could be reopened. Until we do that, I really don't understand why people voted to reopen it. For what it's worth, I also found the post interesting, and I also believe it could be useful to relax the &quot;too broad&quot; policy a bit. But, again, under the current policy that post is to be closed; we closed posts that were much more specific (but had less upvotes/worse answers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="9411c021-048d-413d-a6c2-a981fddec08c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:57:54.567" UserId="83398" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="I was sad this morning to see Gil Kalai's great question about the [role of rigor](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27665/the-role-of-rigor) closed for being too broad. I was even sadder this afternoon when Prof. Kalai's [narrower follow-up question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/385909/the-role-of-rigor-ii), was also closed for being too broad. The question also got some downvotes and, in my mind, unnecessarily condescending comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To be (slightly) flippant about it, why the concentration on math? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The original question was put on hold as being too broad, yet here you are again with a subset of that question that is certainly going to be closed for the same reason. You're somehow not getting the message being sent to you. This sort of question just won't be acceptable. I'd suggest you go to the physicsforum.com where they may allow such loose questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first reaction is that it's a shame an extremely knowledgeable and capable mathematics professor is getting condescended to by people who only know the undergraduate curriculum or less, and that this might have something to do with the loss of knowledgeable users from this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second reaction is that I don't agree with the 'too broad' criterion. I got hooked on Phys.SE in the first place by the great answers to 'too broad' questions. If you look through the top questions of all time, almost all of the ones about general theory (i.e. excluding 'everyday-life' tags) are closed as too broad, or would be under the current criterion. The answers I am most proud of are all teetering on the edge of 'too broad'. I would bet that if you took a random 10k+ user and subtracted off the HNQ spam, the same would be true of their top answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put simply, I think questions that are &quot;too broad&quot; provide enormous value to the site and the physics community at large, and the only negative about them is that they're justifiably hard to answer.  Why not rethink this closure criterion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** it looks like I'm hitting some prescriptivist/descriptivist divide here. To be clear, I'm not asking what the current policy is. I'm proposing we change it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10456" RevisionGUID="f83cce19-1fce-43fc-b928-57d99ef12900" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:21:03.010" UserId="127931" Text="I don't think there's a need to change the &quot;too broad&quot; policy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although broad questions can be interesting, and spark some good points; I think their very nature can present real problems here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duplication for example, could be a real problem with these questions.  If part of the broad scope is answered somewhere else; then having it part of another question duplicates efforts and just in general makes things more messy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that by having very broad questions, there's serious risk of lower quality answers.  You may receive good parts for some answers, but there could be pieces of information missing; and more likelihood that a different answer covers some other part of the question better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically; having broad topics risks spreading out answers into multiple broad questions; and diluting apparently quality; because a &quot;good&quot; answer to a question might have trouble addressing all aspects of the question well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead; having more focused questions (that can even build on each other), keeps the information compartmentalized; so that the high quality answers are all-around good answers to the questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10457" RevisionGUID="1f7c248c-adda-46e0-9f0d-6f95018e5a2c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:37:47.047" UserId="8563" Text="This has been bothering me for a while, and I'd like to speak up about it. I see, with a much higher frequency than I would like, comments that look, with rather little variation, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This question seems like a list question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and which say nothing else at all. I would like to argue that **these comments do not do anyone any good and they should not be posted at all**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably the intention behind these comments is to initiate a closure procedure on the question they're posted under. To some extent, the *description* offered by the comment tends to be accurate, in the sense that they are indeed generally posted under list-based questions, but the (bare) implication that this means that they should be closed immediately is not. List-based questions *can* be on-topic on this site, which means that identifying a given question as list-based is not an *ipso facto* reason for closing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are indeed a bunch of good reasons why list-based questions are often such a bad fit for our format that the only reasonable thing to do them is to close them. These include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Many list-based questions are little more than junk food: they appeal to a broad userbase ('many users enjoy them') but the actual content they invite is quite low. They therefore invite many answers along the lines of &quot;ooooooh, I've got one too&quot; that add very little to the debate.&#xD;&#xA; - They tend to be phrased in a way that invites contributions that are short / shallow / undescriptive, and this lowers the quality of the responses that show up.&#xD;&#xA; - They have a particularly long half-life, staying on the front page for weeks and popping back up for months, thus taking attention away from newer content.&#xD;&#xA; - Because they have a broad possible answer-space, most answers will either be too long or incomplete; this isn't fatal but it is a bad fit for our format.&#xD;&#xA; - The existence of multiple equally-valid answers puts our voting system into a bit of a tailspin, and it makes its usage for sorting and validation much less useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here is the important thing: we don't close list questions because they are list questions. We close them because of the reasons I stated above (or some suitable superset).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This then brings me to why a comment that says &quot;This question seems like a list question&quot; (and nothing else) is so noxious. The role of comments in Stack Exchange is to help clarify and improve the post they comment on, and that comment does **nothing** to help the OP (who will very often be quite new to the site) understand why their question might be problematic and how they could improve it to make it a better fit for the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, that comment is a good deal worse than empty: the only thing that it really accomplishes is serve as a rallying cry. &quot;Here&quot;, says the comment, &quot;I've thought about this and I've come to the conclusion that it should be closed so you should vote to close it too&quot; -- without even bothering to explain *why* the question should actually be closed, either to reviewers, other prospective closevoters, the OP, or future visitors. It is very little more than an attempt to shut down the debate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, say you've found a list question which you think should be closed, and you're itching to leave a scathing comment. What should you post other than just the self-styled-kiss-of-death &quot;this is a list question&quot; not-actually-an-argument zinger? Well, why not actually explain (from the reasons above, or otherwise) why you think *this particular list question* should be closed? That does have the seeming disadvantage that you'd have to think a bit before you close down someone else's discussion - but in this context that is a Good Thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: explain what you mean, or at the very least link somewhere appropriate. Explain to the OP why their question is not a great fit for the site, and point them to a resource that tells them how they can improve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think the canonical place to go is the meta thread https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list, which makes a pretty solid show of consensus that not all list questions should be closed, and explains the things to avoid and how those differ from the things to shoot for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10457" RevisionGUID="1f7c248c-adda-46e0-9f0d-6f95018e5a2c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:37:47.047" UserId="8563" Text="T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10457" RevisionGUID="1f7c248c-adda-46e0-9f0d-6f95018e5a2c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:37:47.047" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="8392667d-c5dc-4925-8e64-a6d69afa8541" CreationDate="2018-02-12T23:09:43.410" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="f7ad4eb4-7548-44e4-9360-f6569bdca631" CreationDate="2018-02-13T06:19:18.287" UserId="1360" Text="The original question was asked six years ago on &quot;theoretical physics&quot; site and indeed the connction between physics and mathematics was more natural for that site compared to a general physics Q/A site. Similar questions were very successful on MathOverflow. Although it was originally tagged &quot;big list&quot; question it attracted 4 good answers. It seems that readers found the question and answers useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the closing massage suggeested to edit the question to make it less board, I tried to make it less board by splitting it into two questions. It is probably a good opportunity to think about the &quot;two board&quot; policy, and also about a policy of closing old questions based on current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="2554cf99-8692-4d6c-822a-8bdf966ea81a" CreationDate="2018-02-13T09:46:30.937" UserId="8563" Comment="Minor spelling fixes." Text="The original question was asked six years ago on the old [Theoretical Physics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site and indeed the connection between physics and mathematics was more natural for that site compared to a general physics Q/A site. Similar questions were very successful on MathOverflow. Although it was originally tagged &quot;big list&quot; question it attracted four good answers. It seems that readers found the question and answers useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the closing massage suggested to edit the question to make it less broad, I tried to make it less board by splitting it into two questions. It is probably a good opportunity to think about the &quot;two broad&quot; policy, and also about a policy of closing old questions based on current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="ffaf1dcb-11ca-4cd3-9209-cc914c1626a0" CreationDate="2018-02-13T10:57:04.967" UserId="25301" Comment="edited body" Text="The original question was asked six years ago on the old [Theoretical Physics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail) site and indeed the connection between physics and mathematics was more natural for that site compared to a general physics Q/A site. Similar questions were very successful on MathOverflow. Although it was originally tagged &quot;big list&quot; question it attracted four good answers. It seems that readers found the question and answers useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the closing massage suggested to edit the question to make it less broad, I tried to make it less broad by splitting it into two questions. It is probably a good opportunity to think about the &quot;too broad&quot; policy, and also about a policy of closing old questions based on current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="b1906fdf-d6ae-42cc-8740-b9482c23397c" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:23:58.367" UserId="47309" Text="My answer to [this][1] question was [deleted][2]. For anyone who can't see it, the answer was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hope somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the simplest way to phrase the main objection is that decoherence doesn't even try to solve anything beyond &quot;for all practical purposes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fine: just imagine that we're sufficiently advanced to make it &quot;practical&quot; to track all the degrees of freedom for the system in question. Then it's clear that decoherence is just a fancy word for simple entanglement, and we're back at square one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit it could have been phrased more clearly, but one comment says &quot;If you have a new question, please ask it by clicking the Ask Question button&quot; and another says &quot;This does not provide an answer to the question.&quot; I don't think either applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that it *does* answer the question. A strong objection to the claim that decoherence solves collapse is that it *intends* to solve it only &quot;for all practical purposes&quot; (FAPP), which is easily overcome by having enough &quot;practical&quot; ability to track and control all relevant entanglements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Penrose:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under normal circumstances, one must regard the density matrix as some kind of approximation to the whole quantum truth. For there is no general principle providing an absolute bar to extracting information from the environment.[...] Accordingly, such descriptions are referred to as FAPP [For All Practical Purposes]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to contact the members who marked it for deletion and ask for clarification? Is that an appropriate course of action? Is there any sense in asking for undeletion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/373905/what-are-the-strongest-objections-to-be-made-against-decoherence-as-an-explanati&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/206387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="b1906fdf-d6ae-42cc-8740-b9482c23397c" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:23:58.367" UserId="47309" Text="Why was my answer on decoherence deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="b1906fdf-d6ae-42cc-8740-b9482c23397c" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:23:58.367" UserId="47309" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31895" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="030f8f7d-5589-418d-84a0-1f20543e0195" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:32:38.623" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="f4db8f0a-65b0-4830-83ce-88182117d34a" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:32:42.283" UserId="47309" Comment="added 456 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My answer to [this][1] question was [deleted][2]. For anyone who can't see it, the answer was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hope somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the simplest way to phrase the main objection is that decoherence doesn't even try to solve anything beyond &quot;for all practical purposes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fine: just imagine that we're sufficiently advanced to make it &quot;practical&quot; to track all the degrees of freedom for the system in question. Then it's clear that decoherence is just a fancy word for simple entanglement, and we're back at square one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit it could have been phrased more clearly, but one comment says &quot;If you have a new question, please ask it by clicking the Ask Question button&quot; and another says &quot;This does not provide an answer to the question.&quot; I don't think either applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that it *does* answer the question. A strong objection to the claim that decoherence solves collapse is that it *intends* to solve it only &quot;for all practical purposes&quot; (FAPP), which is easily overcome by having enough &quot;practical&quot; ability to track and control all relevant entanglements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Penrose:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under normal circumstances, one must regard the density matrix as some kind of approximation to the whole quantum truth. For there is no general principle providing an absolute bar to extracting information from the environment.[...] Accordingly, such descriptions are referred to as FAPP [For All Practical Purposes]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maybe a future technology could provide means whereby quantum phase relations can be monitored in detail, under circumstances where present-day technology would simply ‘give up’. It would seem that the resort to a density-matrix description is a technology-dependent prescription! With better technology, the state- vector description could be maintained for longer, and the resort to a density matrix put off until things get really hopelessly messy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to contact the members who marked it for deletion and ask for clarification? Is that an appropriate course of action? Is there any sense in asking for undeletion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/373905/what-are-the-strongest-objections-to-be-made-against-decoherence-as-an-explanati&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/206387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31897" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="f4db8f0a-65b0-4830-83ce-88182117d34a" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:32:42.283" UserId="47309" Comment="added 456 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10462" RevisionGUID="5374f74d-c615-4de2-af28-176d1d553cc7" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:33:27.483" UserId="124" Text="To answer your questions directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a way to contact the members who marked it for deletion and ask for clarification? Is that an appropriate course of action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of ways you could try to attract the attention of the people who deleted your post, but our system is designed so you don't have to. Quite a few people have the ability to vote to delete or undelete posts, and if it's really appropriate to undelete your post, it doesn't matter who actually does it, whether the people who originally deleted it or others. So in general, when you think it's appropriate to reverse some sort of community moderation action (like closing a question or deleting a post), don't worry about finding the specific people who took the action in the first place. You only need to bring it to the attention of somebody with the appropriate privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posting on meta, as you did, is a fine way to do that (although don't make a frequent habit of it). Another option is to check in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), which gives you less visibility but you may get lucky with a quicker response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when it comes to asking why your post was deleted in the first place, only the people who actually deleted it can tell you with 100% certainty. But in many cases, other site members can give you a pretty good guess, and again, that's usually good enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there any sense in asking for undeletion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure. Sometimes mistakes happen and it's totally appropriate to ask for a fix if you think this is the case. But you do have to show that you understand the rules we have surrounding deletion of posts, and you'll have to make a solid argument based on those rules that the reason your post was deleted shouldn't actually apply. This doesn't have to be complicated; in your case something like this is all I'd need to be convinced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The question asks for &quot;the strongest objections that have been raised against&quot; the acceptance of decoherence, and I addressed that directly by saying &quot;...the simplest way to phrase the main objection is...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying you have to write it like this, or that you have to use direct quotes or anything like that; all I'm saying is that it can be short and direct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="ceb078f5-ffd4-43bc-9358-0f322d99f889" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:20:52.900" UserId="148764" Text="I don't understand why [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276690/propegation-of-em-waves) was closed? Especially why on grounds of being _unclear_? It was quite clear, was it not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="ceb078f5-ffd4-43bc-9358-0f322d99f889" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:20:52.900" UserId="148764" Text="Why was this question closed on grounds of being unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="ceb078f5-ffd4-43bc-9358-0f322d99f889" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:20:52.900" UserId="148764" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="a99513b7-ed58-479e-a6d3-58ed3d02869d" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:29:17.317" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I don't understand why [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/276690/) was closed? Especially why on grounds of being _unclear_? It was quite clear, was it not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31909" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="a99513b7-ed58-479e-a6d3-58ed3d02869d" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:29:17.317" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10465" RevisionGUID="0b80de07-a68c-4bfd-8e9d-10134bbfbc15" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:32:51.967" UserId="148764" Text="I am quite sure [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386428/special-relativity-why-does-time-dilation-cause-length-contraction/386450#386450) was a result of misguided information presented to the OP about Special relativity. But I think the OP only wanted a thought-experiment kind of proof for length contraction. The fact that he thought time dilation _causes_ length contraction is to some extent irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When I presented an edit to this effect, it was rejected](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/206601). So are we going to keep down-voting this question and not allow more answers to show up in the true intent of the OP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10465" RevisionGUID="0b80de07-a68c-4bfd-8e9d-10134bbfbc15" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:32:51.967" UserId="148764" Text="What should be done about this question and questions like this, where the OP is just received misguided information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10465" RevisionGUID="0b80de07-a68c-4bfd-8e9d-10134bbfbc15" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:32:51.967" UserId="148764" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10465" RevisionGUID="d03c5617-f4a8-4986-aca7-fe6114d38d70" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:54:25.107" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am quite sure [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/386428/) was a result of misguided information presented to the OP about Special relativity. But I think the OP only wanted a thought-experiment kind of proof for length contraction. The fact that he thought time dilation _causes_ length contraction is to some extent irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When I presented an edit to this effect, it was rejected](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/206601). So are we going to keep down-voting this question and not allow more answers to show up in the true intent of the OP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31914" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10465" RevisionGUID="d03c5617-f4a8-4986-aca7-fe6114d38d70" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:54:25.107" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10466" RevisionGUID="40c30f74-51c6-47ef-8654-91718c56c9f1" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:12:17.060" UserId="6634" Text="I would venture to guess it is because it changes the intent of the question, and we don't like edits that change the intent of the original question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it another way, the information may have been misguided and that's why the original title was what it was. So, somebody answering that question should answer it to correct the misguided information. By editing that out of the title, you remove a key component of the original question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10465" RevisionGUID="06c926fe-d05a-4acb-ab2a-398d6f99c917" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:21:21.513" UserId="84967" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am quite sure [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/386428/) was a result of misguided information presented to the OP about Special relativity. But I think the OP only wanted a thought-experiment kind of proof for length contraction. The fact that they thought time dilation _causes_ length contraction is to some extent irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When I presented an edit to this effect, it was rejected](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/206601). So are we going to keep down-voting this question and not allow more answers to show up in the true intent of the OP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10467" RevisionGUID="36e73ec2-fb54-43a9-bdb3-3bd0cb34dcc4" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:39:43.920" UserId="520" Text="Questions founded on a misunderstanding of something are a work-a-day reality of teaching physics and oh Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the time and inclination, then *correct* the misunderstanding. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes that might just be a comment, sometimes it's an answer to the question (if not he one the OP expected) and occasionally it's not clear which it should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if *you* edit the question then several things might happen including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You change the meaning of the question and invalidate answers&#xD;&#xA;* You get in ahead of any answer, but the OP doesn't get the correct they need, they answers coached in language that assumes they understand the *very thing that is causing them trouble*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and neither of those are good outcomes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="f6284ea5-c447-4592-a36b-42c82e00c59e" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:46:15.297" UserId="84967" Text="In the wake of a recent unfruitful discussion I feel it is necessary for the community to come to an agreement on what kind of language we want to use here. In particular, on whether we want to discourage people from using gendered language to refer to other people whose gender is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but to me it is pretty obvious we should always use gender neutral language to refer to other people, unless we know for a fact what gender they identify with. We should never try and guess based on their behaviour. Yet, there is at least one user (with whom I had the aforementioned discussion) who insists on using gendered language despite being told that some people find that offensive; despite being told that it is a dangerous attitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my question: do we, as a community, want to discourage gendered language? Or should we just leave it to the discretion of users what kind of language to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="f6284ea5-c447-4592-a36b-42c82e00c59e" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:46:15.297" UserId="84967" Text="Please use gender neutral language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="f6284ea5-c447-4592-a36b-42c82e00c59e" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:46:15.297" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|policy|users|language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10467" RevisionGUID="059cc9dd-c72b-4d90-8bee-e98c92e5d981" CreationDate="2018-02-15T18:52:04.550" UserId="520" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Questions founded on a misunderstanding of something are a work-a-day reality of teaching physics and on Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the time and inclination, then *correct* the misunderstanding. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes that might just be a comment, sometimes it's an answer to the question (if not he one the OP expected), and occasionally it's not clear which it should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if *you* edit the question then several things might happen including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You change the meaning of the question and invalidate answers&#xD;&#xA;* You get in ahead of any answer, but the OP doesn't get the correct they need, they answers coached in language that assumes they understand the *very thing that is causing them trouble*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and neither of those are good outcomes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10469" RevisionGUID="785c879b-cd17-4250-ac9a-73e9fd86fe84" CreationDate="2018-02-15T22:54:44.470" UserId="124" Text="&gt; Thus, my question: do we, as a community, want to discourage gendered language? Or should we just leave it to the discretion of users what kind of language to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, this proposal is _not_ suggesting using moderator action to enforce the use of ungendered language. Nevertheless I would like to clarify that we won't do that, not unless people at Stack Exchange direct us otherwise. Even if the moderators may think it's a good idea to use ungendered language, it's not something we will enforce in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception is that, if a member says that they want to be referred to using a particular gender of pronoun (e.g. &quot;her&quot;), and another member, knowing this preference, uses a differently-gendered pronoun (e.g. &quot;him&quot;) to refer to them, that would be considered a violation of [our &quot;be nice&quot; policy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice). As with any other violation of &quot;be nice&quot;, if it happens repeatedly that can be cause for mod action (such as suspension)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10469" RevisionGUID="ca754846-ec47-4152-95be-2c8e9f3b2757" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:00:16.157" UserId="124" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="&gt; Thus, my question: do we, as a community, want to discourage gendered language? Or should we just leave it to the discretion of users what kind of language to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, this proposal is _not_ suggesting using moderator action to enforce the use of ungendered language. Nevertheless I would like to clarify that we won't do that, not unless people at Stack Exchange direct us otherwise. Even if the moderators may think it's a good idea to use ungendered language, it's not something we will enforce in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say that, if a member says that they want to be referred to using a particular gender of pronoun (e.g. &quot;her&quot;), and another member, knowing this preference, uses a differently-gendered pronoun (e.g. &quot;him&quot;) to refer to them, that would be considered a violation of [our &quot;be nice&quot; policy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice). This would generally apply to cases in which one uses a pronoun that excludes a group that the member has indicated they want to be considered part of. (So &quot;they&quot;/&quot;them&quot; should be pretty safe, if you want to use it, because it's supposed to be fully generic and apply to anyone; but, for example, don't use &quot;he&quot; with someone who has identified a preference to be considered female.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with any other violation of &quot;be nice&quot;, if it happens repeatedly that can be cause for mod action (such as suspension)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31924" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10457" RevisionGUID="ee3db400-f61b-4c59-857e-44b095d199fa" CreationDate="2018-02-16T09:33:12.090" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/964432462100119552" />
  <row Id="31925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="326aaf7e-d886-4aeb-877c-393e31457b44" CreationDate="2018-02-16T22:16:11.857" UserId="127931" Text="This question stems from a few issues and similar meta topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the best meta reference for this would be the question [Is an asker's age relevant?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10058/is-an-askers-age-relevant?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1); I consider this to be somewhat of a follow-up on this.  This is different though, where that question and answers focused on  keeping that age information in the question.  This question is about _only_ having age as the indication of knowledge level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, my question is; is the age of the asker alone enough to indicate the level of knowledge we should be answering the question at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm prompted to ask this based on the (original version of) [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/386346/revisions); where OP was asking how to explain that we can now see atoms to a 4 year old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's my personal opinion that in the original format, such questions would be considered opinion based.  That's because we don't really know what level of physics knowledge the 4 year old has; and (as shown in the answers) users have quite different interpretations of what a 4 year old is capable of understanding.  There are multiple ways to resolve this, such as by being more explicit with the level of knowledge, or by removing those restrictions completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It became pretty clear that many members of the community consider these questions perfectly acceptable; but I would love to have a clear consensus on this, instead of just discussion in the comments of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="326aaf7e-d886-4aeb-877c-393e31457b44" CreationDate="2018-02-16T22:16:11.857" UserId="127931" Text="Is age a sufficient indication of expected knowledge level?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="326aaf7e-d886-4aeb-877c-393e31457b44" CreationDate="2018-02-16T22:16:11.857" UserId="127931" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10471" RevisionGUID="7bdb3115-ddc7-4f70-8e41-d0592d54d9c7" CreationDate="2018-02-16T23:00:02.710" UserId="124" Text="I would say that an age alone does give a reasonable indication of what level we should be targeting, up to maybe 16 or so. When someone asks &quot;how would I explain this to a 4-year-old?&quot; I think we should take that as referring to an average 4-year-old in &quot;Western&quot; society (noting that this site primarily targets English speakers). We don't need to dig into the background of the asker's child or whoever they have in mind. If their child is unusually knowledgeable, then they should be looking for answerers targeted at, say, an 8-year-old instead, or whatever is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answerers may have varying impressions of what a 4-year-old can understand, but I think that's fine. It just means that some answers will under- or overshoot the mark as far as what level of sophistication is expected, which makes some answers better for the asker and others worse, just as with every question. And, as with every question, some answers that are less useful for the asker may be more useful for other readers. That's entirely normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31929" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="fa2a2a12-7dc6-4c18-91b5-08c9c9576a08" CreationDate="2018-02-17T03:36:51.060" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/964705171753324545" />
  <row Id="31930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="51ef550e-470f-4fb0-93d8-4bf99678474e" CreationDate="2018-02-17T07:34:57.990" UserId="147937" Text="Why was [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386826/saturated-bjt-transistors-v-ce-v-be-aka-things-that-make-you-go-hm) migrated back to the EE forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted it is about an electronics device, but the atomic level behaviour of the seimiconductor junction is definitely a physics question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally posted it to both forums, understanding that the EE folks have a more behavioural explanation for the phenomenon, but the root physical description of what is going on is much less clear, to many an EE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed the accepted descriptions are, in the EE world, to the most part, accepted at face value with an air of.. &quot;OK, I don't get it, but it explains what I can measure it doing, so let's go with that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd really like so see a deeper explanation than just &quot;oh it's because electron s magically diffuse across despite the electric field going the wrong way and without affecting the base in their travels.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="51ef550e-470f-4fb0-93d8-4bf99678474e" CreationDate="2018-02-17T07:34:57.990" UserId="147937" Text="My was this question migrated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="51ef550e-470f-4fb0-93d8-4bf99678474e" CreationDate="2018-02-17T07:34:57.990" UserId="147937" Text="|support|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="6d0c800d-553c-4750-8bfe-5469b73fee6c" CreationDate="2018-02-17T09:42:18.900" UserId="17198" Text="A recurring question on physics.stackexchange is &quot;how do I understand gyroscopic precession?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The actual question may take many different forms, but the underlying problem is always that gyroscopic precession seems very counter-intuitive, and what the people are looking for is an explanation that removes the counter-intuitive appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in 2012 I posted a discussion of [gyroscopic precesssion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47461/what-determines-the-direction-of-precession-of-a-gyroscope/47645#47645) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I would like to do:  &#xD;&#xA;Keep an eye on new questions, and when a question is posted that is once again effectively asking &quot;how do I understand gyroscopic precession?&quot; I'd like to add a link to my 2012 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:  &#xD;&#xA;Would that be considered to be a form of vanity linking? &#xD;&#xA;I'm eager to help people understand gyroscopic precession, but I don't want end up in a position where I'm suspected of vanity linking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally:  &#xD;&#xA;Would it be considered bad form if I look up existing questions to add a link to my 2012 discussion? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="6d0c800d-553c-4750-8bfe-5469b73fee6c" CreationDate="2018-02-17T09:42:18.900" UserId="17198" Text="Is it OK to direct many effective duplicate questions to an answer written by myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="6d0c800d-553c-4750-8bfe-5469b73fee6c" CreationDate="2018-02-17T09:42:18.900" UserId="17198" Text="|discussion|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10474" RevisionGUID="fa52b797-c8f8-46a3-aa93-b5f96f2bd580" CreationDate="2018-02-17T10:14:55.160" UserId="1325" Text="I think linking to a question you have answered yourself is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I regularly do this myself and have written several self answered questions specifically to provide a canonical question and answer that can be used as a standard reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand your squeamishness - I feel much the same and sometimes (not always!) make my self answered questions community wiki just for my own peace of mind. Whether anyone else even cares is debatable :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of this site is to make the world of physics a better place by providing clear and complete answers to the questions that puzzle physicists. This is a noble aim and everyone who provides answers here is doing their bit towards this end, and **for free**! If you get a few extra totally valueless Internet points as a result then that's fine by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re your last question, if you can make your answer better by linking to or using material from other answers then you should do this. It's nice to reference the people who wrote the other answers, but at the end of the day your aim is to make your answer as helpful as possible to puzzled physicists. If it makes you look super-intelligent as well that's an extra benefit, which provides some small reward for the time and effort you put in :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10474" RevisionGUID="7fcfe9f2-875f-4332-995a-5260c9bb9e79" CreationDate="2018-02-17T10:20:18.877" UserId="1325" Comment="Tweaks" Text="I think linking to a question you have answered yourself is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I regularly do this myself and have written several self answered questions specifically to provide a canonical question and answer that can be used as a standard reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand your squeamishness - I feel much the same and sometimes (not always!) make my self answered questions community wiki just for my own peace of mind (whether anyone else cares or even notices is debatable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of this site is to make the world of physics a better place by providing clear and complete answers to the questions that puzzle physicists. This is a noble aim and everyone who provides answers here is doing their bit towards this end, and **for free**! If you get a few extra totally valueless Internet points as a result then that's fine by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re your last question, if you can make your answer better by linking to or using material from other answers then you should do this. It's nice to reference the people who wrote the other answers, but at the end of the day your aim is to make your answer as helpful as possible to puzzled physicists. If it makes you look super-intelligent as well that's an extra benefit, which provides some small reward for the time and effort you put in :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="2fa98384-c0de-4c90-9089-d7331d25b139" CreationDate="2018-02-17T10:27:08.203" UserId="17198" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="A recurring question on physics.stackexchange is &quot;how do I understand gyroscopic precession?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The actual question may take many different forms, but the underlying problem is always that gyroscopic precession seems very counter-intuitive, and what the people are looking for is an explanation that removes the counter-intuitive appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in 2012 I posted a discussion of [gyroscopic precesssion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47461/what-determines-the-direction-of-precession-of-a-gyroscope/47645#47645) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I would like to do:  &#xD;&#xA;Keep an eye on new questions, and when a question is posted that is once again effectively asking &quot;how do I understand gyroscopic precession?&quot; I'd like to add a link to my 2012 answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:  &#xD;&#xA;Would that be considered to be a form of vanity linking? &#xD;&#xA;I'm eager to help people understand gyroscopic precession, but I don't want end up in a position where I'm suspected of vanity linking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally:  &#xD;&#xA;Would it be considered bad form if I look up existing questions to add a link to my 2012 discussion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LATER EDIT:  &#xD;&#xA;Maybe I should have mentioned: over the years my answer (out of seven answers) on that page has accumulated 11 upvotes, the second most upvoted has 3 upvotes. (Yeah, tiny numbers, but still.) I'm convinced my discussion is helpful; the upvotes do seem to corroborate that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="9f2be965-c72c-46e5-8d91-858f4bd415fd" CreationDate="2018-02-17T12:29:30.740" UserId="2451" Text="General comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As OP already mentions, the topics of electric circuits &amp; electronics have an overlap between Phys.SE and EE.SE. Traditionally, the line has been drawn somewhere between diodes and transistors, meaning that Phys.SE typically allows non-technical questions about passive components, such that RCL circuits and diodes, while active components, transistors, integrated circuits, and technical questions, etc, typically belong to EE.SE. This is of course just a rule of thumb with room for interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In general one should not crosspost, as this may waste the time of answerers. If one crossposts, one should at least link to the crosspost (on both sites!). Also it is recommended to adapt the question to the target site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the case at hand, if OP could stress in the post what aspect of the question that is not already covered in the EE crosspost, then it could be reopened on Phys.SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31940" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="8e6ea505-5e76-46de-b253-3461e2423036" CreationDate="2018-02-17T12:38:07.427" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="5201e48d-9abd-48cb-be42-0bc9b60377de" CreationDate="2018-02-17T13:20:17.437" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="Why the persons below 125 reputation are not allowed to caste their vote?,don't they have right to express their feelings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="5201e48d-9abd-48cb-be42-0bc9b60377de" CreationDate="2018-02-17T13:20:17.437" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="Is it appropriate to deny the right to vote for a person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="5201e48d-9abd-48cb-be42-0bc9b60377de" CreationDate="2018-02-17T13:20:17.437" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10477" RevisionGUID="577e57a5-0eea-4109-ad53-3544839951e7" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:19:38.907" UserId="2451" Text="[_This post seems like a list question_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/383475/2451) is a standard comment that I have been using in lack of better to bring attention when a question has no unique answer, and fits poorly into the SE Q&amp;A format in its current form.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment is not meant as a full explanation, and there is often no time for that. (It would be good if someone could crystallize the entire [good-list-bad-list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451) discussion so that it fits in a single comment!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alternative, writing nothing, is not an ideal option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, other users step in and help with explanation, reviewing, and suggesting how the post could be improved.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10477" RevisionGUID="e8a7e232-831c-4085-8752-b3071ab5d945" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:25:09.207" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="[_This post seems like a list question_](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/383475/2451) is a standard comment that I have been using in lack of better to bring attention when a question has no unique answer, and fits poorly into the SE Q&amp;A format in its current form.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment is not meant as a full explanation, and there is often no time for that. (It would be good if someone could crystallize the entire [good-list-bad-list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/2451) discussion so that it fits in a single comment!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing nothing is not an ideal option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, other users step in and help with explanation, reviewing, and suggesting how the post could be improved.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="7f92168f-3bed-4d24-826b-868f5c1ada17" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:57:23.723" UserId="46399" Comment="It is wrong to tag this as a &quot;bug&quot;, because this is by design in Stack Exchange. " Text="Why users below 125 reputation are not allowed to caste their vote? Don't they have right to express their feelings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31948" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="7f92168f-3bed-4d24-826b-868f5c1ada17" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:57:23.723" UserId="46399" Comment="It is wrong to tag this as a &quot;bug&quot;, because this is by design in Stack Exchange. " Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="30827421-69b7-45cc-8867-874794c0b517" CreationDate="2018-02-17T15:34:35.940" UserId="25301" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why are users with less than 125 reputation not allowed to cast their vote? Don't they have right to express their feelings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31950" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="30827421-69b7-45cc-8867-874794c0b517" CreationDate="2018-02-17T15:34:35.940" UserId="25301" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10479" RevisionGUID="0e3e2ba1-61a7-410e-9737-88ef37ca643f" CreationDate="2018-02-17T15:36:18.967" UserId="127931" Text="Users with over just **25** reputation are allowed to cast _upvotes_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only _downvoting_ that requires 125 reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are good reasons for this, primarily, it's because the SE think's it's more beneficial to focus on upvotes as you are still becoming used to the community.  It should take some time for you to recognize how the community functions, what is good content, and what is bad content in the SE format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is community driven, so the members who primarily drive the voting process should at least be users familiar enough to gain 125 rep somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most importantly, as outlined in the Help Centre, [Downvoting is a privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down), not a right.  It is one of [many privileges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) that are earned as you become more familiar with the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downvoting privilege page I linked also gives good advice for what to do instead of downvoting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What are the alternatives to down-voting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The up-vote privilege comes first because that's what you should focus on: pushing great content to the top. Down-voting should be reserved for extreme cases. It's not meant as a substitute for communication and editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead of voting down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- If the post is spammy or offensive, flag it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- If the question is duplicate or off-topic, flag it for moderator attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- If something is wrong, please leave a comment or edit the post to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="846ac0a6-34fa-4da7-abc2-1eed5db8b698" CreationDate="2018-02-17T15:39:25.400" UserId="25301" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31953" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="c25a3d24-efba-4dcc-bb8e-315983393032" CreationDate="2018-02-17T16:19:37.453" UserId="147937" Comment="edited title" Text="Why was this question migrated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="229798f1-9b07-4901-9c21-6db62d5f7978" CreationDate="2018-02-17T17:47:37.117" UserId="164413" Text="[A question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/question-about-the-operating-of-forces-in-a-physics-problem) I asked a while ago has been put on hold because the moderators think my question does not satisfy the criteria of a good homework question. I disagreed with that assertion so I [flagged](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/flag-summary/164413) my question. It was declined with this response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content that requires their intervention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may have made a mistake by writing in my flag statement that I wanted an explanation for marking my question as off-topic. I actually wanted them to either remove the off-topic remark from my question or give a clearer explanation about where I went wrong with my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am now unsure about the role of moderators in such cases. Did the moderators not put my question on hold? Are they not the ones who can intervene and mark my question as valid again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="229798f1-9b07-4901-9c21-6db62d5f7978" CreationDate="2018-02-17T17:47:37.117" UserId="164413" Text="Role of moderators in reviewing flags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="229798f1-9b07-4901-9c21-6db62d5f7978" CreationDate="2018-02-17T17:47:37.117" UserId="164413" Text="|discussion|flagging|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31957" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="7af98aaa-d6f5-4fcb-bbe1-6b2c4188f3c9" CreationDate="2018-02-17T17:58:54.280" UserId="164413" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10481" RevisionGUID="41e1be9e-32af-4898-bf6f-1b4790d18c10" CreationDate="2018-02-17T18:14:05.840" UserId="520" Text="Reviewing and (possibly) re-opening questions is part of the normal operation of the site—it is the purview of normal users with at least 3000 reputation. It does not call for the intervention of elected moderators who are there to deal with unusual or rapidly evolving cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="2386ebd7-e732-4605-8e0b-cbfac31a7a69" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:57:14.087" UserId="36973" Text="I often find the need to have a comment template saved for future use, say when indicating to an asker that they need to write equations in MathJax instead of attaching them as images (with links to relevant meta threads on using MathJax), or trying to get them to improve a question asked with the homework-and-exercises tag by linking to the policy on homework and check-my-work style questions without flagging their question (where I believe the question can be improved to fit inside the scope of Phys.SE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could we have a meta post, or an FAQ page, with a few helpful comment templates for new users? I know a few users have comment templates saved somewhere, and I often simply hunt for the relevant comment in my own comment history, but a canonical location for comment templates that most people would prefer will simplify things somewhat, especially for new users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="2386ebd7-e732-4605-8e0b-cbfac31a7a69" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:57:14.087" UserId="36973" Text="A place for helpful comment templates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="2386ebd7-e732-4605-8e0b-cbfac31a7a69" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:57:14.087" UserId="36973" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="18214953-989c-4447-b64a-d1d94736e175" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:18:23.400" UserId="50583" Text="I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript with the following comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10486" RevisionGUID="1f5bc59d-9747-4a59-ab9b-dd787bc5529b" CreationDate="2018-02-18T23:40:23.993" UserId="164413" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/question-about-the-operating-of-forces-in-a-physics-problem) was put on hold a short time ago and I made some changes in my question (after considering feedback from other users) to make it more suitable for Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could any experienced users let me know if my question is now a good fit for the website? I want to learn how I can use this platform in the best possible way and constructive feedback will be help me meet this objective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10486" RevisionGUID="1f5bc59d-9747-4a59-ab9b-dd787bc5529b" CreationDate="2018-02-18T23:40:23.993" UserId="164413" Text="Is my question now acceptable for this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10486" RevisionGUID="1f5bc59d-9747-4a59-ab9b-dd787bc5529b" CreationDate="2018-02-18T23:40:23.993" UserId="164413" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10487" RevisionGUID="9b61c33b-2c3b-4eb6-b94b-a058fd4764ab" CreationDate="2018-02-19T02:51:40.570" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="When I tried to comment a question it was it told me that&quot;you can't comment  because  your reputation is below 50&quot;andI want to know why they are saying like that " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10487" RevisionGUID="9b61c33b-2c3b-4eb6-b94b-a058fd4764ab" CreationDate="2018-02-19T02:51:40.570" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="Why this site is note allowing to us to comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10487" RevisionGUID="9b61c33b-2c3b-4eb6-b94b-a058fd4764ab" CreationDate="2018-02-19T02:51:40.570" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10488" RevisionGUID="d3fe5c41-5890-451b-a763-8dadc353bc80" CreationDate="2018-02-19T03:59:14.253" UserId="520" Text="In all seriousness the is no vetting for accounts other than on-site mechanics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like a lot of other restrictions this is to limit the amount of damage a malicious actor can do without investing a lot more time and energy than most people will consider worth the pay-off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31980" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10487" RevisionGUID="55e0084d-eef0-4a09-b6a3-748561436f05" CreationDate="2018-02-19T06:01:05.427" UserDisplayName="user184625" Comment="edited title" Text="Why this site is not allowing to us to comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10487" RevisionGUID="6e534ae2-8525-4e9a-ba21-f36fdd2cef61" CreationDate="2018-02-19T06:24:22.837" UserId="1325" Comment="Grammar" Text="When I tried to comment to a question I was told &quot;you can't comment  because  your reputation is below 50&quot; and I want to know why they are saying that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10489" RevisionGUID="283ccc84-f1d7-4a7b-a9c7-e4c99bfd4a93" CreationDate="2018-02-19T06:25:35.463" UserId="8066" Text="Put simply, if everyone who signed up was able to comment immediately, all the Stack Exchange sites would fill up with spam overnight.  I don't think anybody really wants this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="6b549eee-5747-4478-b12c-88ddfc43da42" CreationDate="2018-02-19T08:40:33.640" UserId="36973" Comment="Added close paren" Text="I often find the need to have a comment template saved for future use, say when indicating to an asker that they need to write equations in MathJax instead of attaching them as images (with links to relevant meta threads on using MathJax), or trying to get them to improve a question asked with the homework-and-exercises tag by linking to the policy on homework and check-my-work style questions without flagging their question (where I believe the question can be improved to fit inside the scope of Phys.SE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could we have a meta post, or an FAQ page, with a few helpful comment templates for new users? I know a few users have comment templates saved somewhere, and I often simply hunt for the relevant comment in my own comment history, but a canonical location for comment templates that most people would prefer will simplify things somewhat, especially for new users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="370983f0-3510-45f2-9e3d-6e7b24e5cd28" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:12:30.207" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="Well I think Its my personal problem .When ask a question its answers are in scientific terms and I was unable to understand it . Can you reduce the scientific terms,? and I know it is little bit difficult because your well versed in science but I am not  ,so please give me answers that I can understand" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="370983f0-3510-45f2-9e3d-6e7b24e5cd28" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:12:30.207" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="Can we reduce the scientific terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="370983f0-3510-45f2-9e3d-6e7b24e5cd28" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:12:30.207" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="ef425742-d319-4b05-932d-72df47b9a3e1" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:31:25.660" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|content-level|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10491" RevisionGUID="a2a2f311-1d11-4f91-bc83-73414cdb8c50" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:34:11.423" UserId="8563" Text="As mentioned in the welcome message, this site is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the bulk of the discussion on this site will require scientific terminology to occur; we're not going to &quot;reduce the scientific terms&quot; we use on this site because there might be someone out there that doesn't understand them. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that's just the way it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is on a question that *you yourself* ask, then it is your responsibility to phrase your question in a way that makes it clear what you do and don't understand, what level you're at, and the sorts of terminology and tools that you have not yet studied, so that answerers can know what level of detail and jargon to include in their answers. This should be done in the question itself, but if you get an answer that you don't understand it is perfectly OK to comment under that answer specifying which parts you find beyond your current scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to say anything more specific, though, because you currently have [a single non-deleted question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386526/what-caused-the-big-bang) and it has no answers, so if you're referring to deleted questions of yours then nobody (except ♦ moderators) can see them so we can't help there. If you're referring to questions by other people, then as mentioned above we're not going to change the answers to suit you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you do find an answer (to someone else's question) that you find interesting but which you don't fully understand, then it is perfectly OK to post a new question asking for clarification and explaining in detail which parts of the answer you find confusing (and, again, being very specific about what level you want answers to be pitched at)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10481" RevisionGUID="fbdedb9d-1de6-47e6-8623-416b164b7c27" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:35:35.897" UserId="8563" Comment="Minor additions." Text="Reviewing and (possibly) re-opening questions is part of the normal operation of the site—it is the purview of normal users with at least 3000 reputation. It does not call for the intervention of [elected moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) (distinguished by a ♦ after their username) who are there to deal with unusual or rapidly evolving cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10486" RevisionGUID="77223485-2a5a-4737-92a8-4a65b64982bc" CreationDate="2018-02-19T16:27:04.413" UserId="164413" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/question-about-the-operating-of-forces-in-a-physics-problem) was put on hold a short time ago and I made some changes in my question (after considering feedback from other users) to make it more suitable for Physics Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could any experienced users let me know if my question is now a good fit for the website? I want to learn how I can use this platform in the best possible way and constructive feedback will be help me meet this objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what is CURRENTLY wrong with my question. I looked at the [good questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and framed my question according to the pattern followed by those questions. So I don't see why my question is STILL not suitable for this website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31995" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="8e1fb5bf-1760-475c-93ed-dddef5b390c7" CreationDate="2018-02-20T12:51:33.217" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/965931930725371904" />
  <row Id="31999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="5c43dd16-cc1d-4848-b67b-1259562426f8" CreationDate="2018-02-21T02:31:59.107" UserId="185098" Text="The order of display of answers to my question (and completeness of that record) is different when I (1) click on the question or (2) reload the page via the browser &quot;Reload current page&quot; icon.  (Note that I use an older Firefox browser;  that may influence how the page is loaded.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="5c43dd16-cc1d-4848-b67b-1259562426f8" CreationDate="2018-02-21T02:31:59.107" UserId="185098" Text="Differences in displayed order of answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="5c43dd16-cc1d-4848-b67b-1259562426f8" CreationDate="2018-02-21T02:31:59.107" UserId="185098" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10495" RevisionGUID="6151d98a-2714-478a-9c00-c9c9dedc3f40" CreationDate="2018-02-21T08:29:53.130" UserId="124" Text="This is an intentional feature, if you have ordering by votes selected (which is the default).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![depiction of ordering by votes with a circle indicating the place to click][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this mode, answers with the same vote total are placed in a random order every time the page is accessed, which is supposed to prevent other factors (such as submission time) from biasing the voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have selected one of the other ordering modes, &quot;active&quot; or &quot;oldest&quot;, as far as I know the order in which answers are shown under those modes should be completely predictable and consistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YkIio.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32004" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="dd2870e0-ca5a-4946-af1d-54c0a3434874" CreationDate="2018-02-21T08:30:03.527" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="044fe883-c8ac-4ee2-82af-72fcf104f035" CreationDate="2018-02-23T20:45:26.350" UserId="123260" Text="Could we create a collaborative online ebook that talks about the important physics concepts covered that is normally covered in school?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My normal learning routine has been:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Read the textbook&#xD;&#xA; - Hope for good explanation on Wikipedia &#xD;&#xA; - Search physics.stackexchange for a really good explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with wikipedia is that it is a good reference but not good and helping me understand the concepts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I am learning about Helmholtz free energy; my book and wikipedia did no contribution on helping me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dream would be to have a collaborative explanation of physics concepts. The goal would not be reference, but bridging the gap between knowledge and understanding. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are a hundred posts on here asking for book references. We could fix the book reference question by having each major idea in physics highlighted with a tutorial explaining it and a list of book references on the topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be amazing if each concept had a list of prerequisite concepts, and optional concepts that would greatly contribute towards wrapping the mind around the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Create a tutorial object that can contain text &amp; graphics with the intent to explain important physics concepts.&#xD;&#xA; - Create a recommended reading list of books to each tutorial object.&#xD;&#xA; - Create a required concept list for each tutorial object.&#xD;&#xA; - Create a recommended concept list for each tutorial object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you guys think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="044fe883-c8ac-4ee2-82af-72fcf104f035" CreationDate="2018-02-23T20:45:26.350" UserId="123260" Text="Physics and Math tutorial or a directed learning document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="044fe883-c8ac-4ee2-82af-72fcf104f035" CreationDate="2018-02-23T20:45:26.350" UserId="123260" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10498" RevisionGUID="d9553382-a4e8-4aa3-a988-01132a7409e9" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:36:12.397" UserId="520" Text="So, this is basically how you write a modular textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a lot of people have worked on a lot of versions of it over the years, and there are some challenges that you've glossed over. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To be maximally useful it should use a consistent notation throughout, or at least in large and cohesive sections, but that works against modularity. &#xD;&#xA;* Modularity comes at the cost of narrative integrity.&#xD;&#xA;* It should have a good set of exercises and include at least a little advice on learning to solve them. &#xD;&#xA;* It should come with some guidance on larger-scale routes through the thicket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question becomes *&quot;Why would Stack Exchange be the right platform for this endeavor?&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10498" RevisionGUID="cb607738-0da4-4fe2-85dc-1e5c7cf504c2" CreationDate="2018-02-23T22:08:45.753" UserId="520" Comment="added 933 characters in body" Text="So, this is basically how you write a modular textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a lot of people have worked on a lot of versions of it over the years, and there are some challenges that you've glossed over. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To be maximally useful it should use a consistent notation throughout, or at least in large and cohesive sections, but that works against modularity. &#xD;&#xA;* Modularity comes at the cost of narrative integrity.&#xD;&#xA;* It should have a good set of exercises and include at least a little advice on learning to solve them. &#xD;&#xA;* It should come with some guidance on larger-scale routes through the thicket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question becomes *&quot;Why would Stack Exchange be the right platform for this endeavor?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside I have been working on a set of modular notes for a while now. Mine are mostly targeted at the upper-division and early grad school level, but I have a few for the introductory course, as well. This is a fun thing to do, but it is also surprisingly demanding; and if viewed in terms like &quot;I want to teach all of physics&quot; it is a dauntingly huge task. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notation thing is a bigger problem than it sounds at first. But when I wanted to start giving these notes to students I realized that I had used several different notations to discuss topics in quantum mechanics that I wanted to address during my (one semester) Modern Physics class. I had done that because—from the view-point of someone who was already familiar with those diverse notational conventions—each paper was written in the clearest and most economical way. But for a single course intended for students just starting, that was a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="0a1bd2a1-4c76-40e2-a788-a7f8b1d38967" CreationDate="2018-02-26T16:20:56.510" UserId="44126" Comment="Make comments pasteable" Text="I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript with the following comments, which have been edited so you can copy them complete with links and formatting from this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Question comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Too broad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Too little information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please consider writing more useful question titles, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Please consider writing more useful question titles, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Answer comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Multiple uses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="239815f4-09fa-43c3-93b8-3ab4cc28f986" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:39:01.370" UserId="50583" Comment="Provided easily pastable source" Text="I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript with the following comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you too want to use these comments, you can copy the following source directly into the import/export menu of the script:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;    Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;    Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;    It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;    It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;    I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;    Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="d1aa47fe-211f-41dc-94ab-001a6b4872f0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:40:17.190" UserId="8563" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript with the following comments. (To import, copy the code-boxed text directly into the userscript dialog.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;        Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;        Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;        It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;        It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;        Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;        I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;        Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;        Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; ###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        ###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;        Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32017" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="b4a7bf94-8dd2-46e3-bdb4-3e06d169ce09" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:41:21.283" UserId="50583" Comment="Rollback to [239815f4-09fa-43c3-93b8-3ab4cc28f986]" Text="I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript with the following comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you too want to use these comments, you can copy the following source directly into the import/export menu of the script:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;    Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;    Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;    It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;    It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;    I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post images of texts you want to quote, but *type it out instead* so it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;    Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="ff770ecf-4b2d-4f54-bed6-c79dba64b362" CreationDate="2018-02-27T10:10:47.073" UserId="93522" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1tczj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: astronomy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="8855c886-e243-4cdc-a097-74893c42c335" CreationDate="2018-02-27T14:28:50.493" UserId="185269" Text="I need to know &quot;How do we know that a photon has some physical form before we observe it?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(by we I mean Physicists who working on quantum mechanics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's very clear، And I do not know how I can more clearly ask this question!.&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone ask [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389022/how-do-we-know-that-a-photon-has-some-physical-form-before-we-observe-it#) question more clearly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="8855c886-e243-4cdc-a097-74893c42c335" CreationDate="2018-02-27T14:28:50.493" UserId="185269" Text="Can anyone ask this question more clearly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="8855c886-e243-4cdc-a097-74893c42c335" CreationDate="2018-02-27T14:28:50.493" UserId="185269" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="78aaac28-e864-46c1-b16b-015a9e881514" CreationDate="2018-02-27T18:52:03.073" UserId="93522" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1tczj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="d22de7ed-64be-43b7-bd8a-e5fed6f7ad9e" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:37:13.933" UserId="149624" Text="I am banned from writing answers, and all the answers I wrote, the question has been already been deleted by someone. &#xD;&#xA;Actually they were homework questions and I answered them, so it is not acceptable that I get banned right?&#xD;&#xA;What can I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="d22de7ed-64be-43b7-bd8a-e5fed6f7ad9e" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:37:13.933" UserId="149624" Text="Answer ban correction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="d22de7ed-64be-43b7-bd8a-e5fed6f7ad9e" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:37:13.933" UserId="149624" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32028" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="62b556f2-0ea0-4bcd-ad5e-1f72c2cec0ff" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:41:42.317" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="900eb492-bd3d-4ae9-9727-a386021fb6f2" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:56:23.193" UserId="55531" Text="After reading the links provided by the mods in a question [I recently posted][1] with an answer, I believe that my question conforms *in spirit* the criteria that the moderators have tried to infuse in our site through their work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While answering own questions is explicitly encouraged in the link right next to the box saying &quot;answer your own question,&quot; some moderators seem concerned that naughty users may post solutions to the entire  e.g., Zears &amp; Zemansky book, using this format. And the general feeling is that people can post exercises and problems with educational purpose as long as: (i) the problem is not entirely trivial and (ii) who posts them also shows their work toward the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, my question is not completely trivial: I did not know the result before thinking a lot while solving a similar problem. It is not from any book I know of. I agree the formulation is terse, but clear, and I put a lot of work in the answer of the question. I posted it just to share the effort and result. People is free to downvote it to oblivion if they do not like it, but closing it is something else: it is a penalty for something I did wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389009/flight-times-of-least-energy-projectiles-shot-from-origin-to-all-targets-at-dist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="900eb492-bd3d-4ae9-9727-a386021fb6f2" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:56:23.193" UserId="55531" Text="Answering own question: &quot;work&quot; of the question in own answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="900eb492-bd3d-4ae9-9727-a386021fb6f2" CreationDate="2018-02-28T13:56:23.193" UserId="55531" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10505" RevisionGUID="2a1a3090-ea56-4497-9a66-7d495a0a2e13" CreationDate="2018-02-28T15:56:59.870" UserId="8563" Text="The answer is pretty much irrelevant as to whether the question should be closed, particularly for homework-like questions: that determination should be done based on the question text itself, and the fact that you've also provided an answer to that question not a factor there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific example you linked to, the question itself is very poorly phrased, but it is pretty clearly a paradigmatic example of the questions the homework-and-exercises policy rules out. The extra layer of paraphrasing you've added on top of the exercise does not change that - all it does is make the question less clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is perfectly OK to post Q&amp;As on this site so long as the questions themselves are on-topic. If the question is a set-piece from a textbook (*any* textbook), though, then you really do need to have a core conceptual point that you want to write about, and the question needs to be *very* explicit in asking about the concept instead of just quoting (or describing) the set-piece whose solution you want to post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10506" RevisionGUID="ca9c86fa-c73f-4025-91c9-f070648c9d78" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:18:21.573" UserId="8563" Text="Simple: don't write answers to questions that are going to get deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homework questions get deleted for a reason: we don't want them here. If you answer poor-quality homework questions, you are nullifying the effect of the homework policy and you are providing an incentive for the users whose questions you answer (as well as others who see that those askers got their queries resolved) to post more poor-quality homework questions. That brings the site's content quality down, and it makes it harder for us to retain the expert users that provide the high-quality answers that make this site great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: you've posted a bunch of answers that negatively impact the site's quality as perceived by this site's community, and as a consequence the system is no longer accepting answers from your account ─ that sounds like the system working as intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your current options, it depends on how bad the answer ban is, and that information is not available to regular users, and it is only partially available to our [elected site moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators). For one, you should read very carefully the guidance on the main meta site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86997/what-can-i-do-when-getting-we-are-no-longer-accepting-questions-answers-from-th**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it does seem like your account is in pretty dire straits as the answer ban will not time out on its own until you fix your posts (which you cannot do given the poor quality of the questions you chose to answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fixing this goes beyond the powers of regular users or site moderators, so I would recommend that (i) you fix whatever answers you *can* fix, and then (ii) you [**contact the Stack Exchange team**](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact), linking to this thread, and explain that you are prevented from fixing the remaining answers. If you make a convincing case that you *won't* be answering questions that are liable to get closed and/or deleted shortly after your answer, then I suspect that you have a better chance of the answer ban getting lifted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="b9ba6713-febd-42a8-bad2-50c5462223d5" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:10:32.053" UserId="75916" Text="Sometimes a wrong answer is the accepted answer, sometimes a wrong answer is the most voted answer, sometimes a wrong answer is both at once. Should we make a list of those? The purpose would be that newcomers (and any member who hasn't already voted in those questions) would make up their minds and possibly correct, in the long run, the most upvoted answer. By correct I mean that a correct answer would come more voted than wrong answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I see that time does not necessarily make the correct answers float over the sea of wrong answers. When a new and correct answer is posted in an old question, people suddenly see the question (for the first time) and usually, apparently at least, upvote the most voted answer (which is wrong) and do not bother to read all the other answers. At least that's the impression I get when I see a &quot;frozen&quot; question which received no answer in the last months, suddenly gets a new correct answer and people restart to upvote the already wrong answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is then, how do one defines a correct answer? I don't know exactly, but I think you people can think over it and come up with a good answer to that. An idea could be &quot;This question has an accepted answer that is tagged as wrong by X, Y, Z, etc. members on ....(date)&quot;, so if the wrong answer gets edited after the date it has been tagged as wrong answer, people will know it. Also, I'm not sure it's a good idea to edit an already accepted wrong answer to make it right. Because it would completely change its meaning and people voted it for being wrong, not right. So another answer would have to come and replace it as the most accepted answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="b9ba6713-febd-42a8-bad2-50c5462223d5" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:10:32.053" UserId="75916" Text="Should we keep a list of wrong top/accepted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="b9ba6713-febd-42a8-bad2-50c5462223d5" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:10:32.053" UserId="75916" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="0b262f73-7f47-44c6-95f7-a95ab8e9cc97" CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:51:26.643" UserId="127931" Text="I really don't think this is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For starters, we **already** have a system established for determining which answers are good and bad.  It's the voting system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wrong posts are gaining more votes than correct ones, that would be a community issue.  I'm not sure why we as a community would be able to overwhelmingly decide that an answer is bad if it is being highly up-voted.  It would require a pretty strange combination of Hot Network Question and inattentive drive-by voting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even worse though; it would completely defeat the operating principle of the site.  Votes are summed through individual user contributions to the voting system.  By establishing a list of answers we deem incorrect, it would lead to severe voting bias driven by whoever is active on the meta topic.  It would basically add redundant quality control that would essentially work against the current quality control; by magnifying it's inherent problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I don't think this site's quality can fairly be dictated by the few select members who may have the privilege of marking answers as incorrect.  Quality is already driven by the broader community; and I think we should keep it that way; or else we risk becoming an echo-chamber (even if that's less of a concern for physics compared to say, politics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10509" RevisionGUID="775eec99-24b2-4bf6-820d-3aae71946825" CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:54:44.473" UserId="147472" Text="I'm no specialist on what new-comers usually do and I can only speak for myself, but when I first came to this site, I was first magnetised by the list of *highest* voted answers and questions, not the lowest. Are you saying that there is a substantial percentage of highly-voted answers that are wrong ? Or are you saying that the community isn't engaging enough with certain questions by new-comers and the answers to those questions end up being upvoted a few times but are somehow wrong ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I'm sold on the first and if it's the second, then you could always drop a comment on those &quot;wrong&quot; answers linking to a related question with a more &quot;correct&quot; answer/interpretation but comments aren't forever so it's better to write your own answer. There's a huge base of really good, conceptual questions with stellar answers on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, your list suggestion seems a bit backwards to me; we instead have a list of the *best* answers and *best* questions by lieu of voting. Even though it might be that Physics.SE is more of an educational site than a research tool, I'm not sure it's within the objective of Physics.SE to have a list of top answers that are &quot;wrong&quot;. As is oft done, I quote the [words of ACM](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8952/147472):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I cannot help but thinking [sic] that the mission statement of StackExchange is &quot;The best answers rise to the top&quot;, not &quot;Even the worst answer is here for your convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying that all highly-voted answers are correct and infallible, but we'd be taking on quite the task to find, judge and sort these answers when we already have a very good &quot;inverse&quot; list: sort by votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the part of your question about a correct answer, IIRC, isn't this a settled issue ? The system we have for &quot;correctness&quot; is the same system we have for &quot;listing&quot;, i.e. votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more canonical answer I can think of is that, because of the existence of questions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;What exactly is wrong ?&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Who is to decide ?&quot;*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we let the voting decide the matter and trust the community to vote a blatantly wrong answer into oblivion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, there was a [post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9027/flagging-low-quality-answers-an-experiment) on here recently by Emilio regarding a change in the working mechanism of flagging something as a VLQ (very low quality) post, in that a *blatantly, dangerously* incorrect question that is so far from saving-by-editing can be flagged as such to then by deliberated upon for deletion by the community where once a VLQ flag would not be appropriate for such an answer. And although the flag usage might be different, the philosophy behind it is unchanged, in my opinion; the community consensus of *many* sufficient-rep users voting determines what an answer should be like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of an accepted answer being radically edited is addressed [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/310/what-do-you-do-when-an-accepted-answer-is-changed-from-correct-to-incorrect). In any case, one [should not](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2932/147472) hold an accepted answer as the &quot;be-all and end-all&quot; of a question. And if anyone has any problem with any answers anywhere, [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/835/147472) is a list of things you can do by our very own Jeff Atwood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="faff578d-62b7-49fc-a1ea-cdb1580efa6e" CreationDate="2018-02-28T21:16:55.683" UserId="115736" Text="I recently proposed the tag [tag:free-energy], and wrote a usage guidance for it; however, it has been almost immediately set as a [synonym][1] of [tag:energy].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering, however, whether we should have a separate tag for free-energy. I feel that the tag [tag:energy] is really too vague, and as a matter of fact is [one of the most used][2], because it can apply basically to anything, from [general relativity][3] to [quantum field theory][4] to [fluid dynamics][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free energy, on the other hand, belongs to a quite specific domain —thermodynamics/statistical mechanics—, and it is a *very* important concept there (Helmholtz free energy being the natural thermodynamic potential of the widely used canonical ensemble). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think free energy deserves a tag of its own: [tag:energy] is just too vague sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of questions were I think that the tag [tag:free-energy] would apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Gibbs free energy intuition][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why the free energy is called 'free'?][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Confusion about Free Energy and the Hamiltonian][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [What exactly is temperature in the Gibbs free energy?][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why is the Gibbs Free Energy F−HM?][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Proving that the free energy is extensive][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are specifically about (Gibbs or Helmholtz) free energy, not about energy in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that we should not encourage an uncontrolled proliferation of useless, too specific tags. However, being someone who is mostly active in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics posts on the site, I strongly feel that [tag:free-energy] would be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if we finally decide to undo the synonym, I volunteer to do the retagging of old questions and check when the tag can be applied to the new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/energy/info&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics+energy&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149493/gibbs-free-energy-intuition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72802/why-the-free-energy-is-called-free&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40859/confusion-about-free-energy-and-the-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105774/what-exactly-is-temperature-in-the-gibbs-free-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105169/why-is-the-gibbs-free-energy-f-hm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10233/proving-that-the-free-energy-is-extensive&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5746/115736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="faff578d-62b7-49fc-a1ea-cdb1580efa6e" CreationDate="2018-02-28T21:16:55.683" UserId="115736" Text="Tag for free energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="faff578d-62b7-49fc-a1ea-cdb1580efa6e" CreationDate="2018-02-28T21:16:55.683" UserId="115736" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="a709fa49-fb4a-4b85-a13d-5e1d62990792" CreationDate="2018-02-28T21:41:43.583" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="c0e205db-cf49-4b25-b20f-c983513c53aa" CreationDate="2018-03-01T10:08:35.163" UserId="115736" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed the tag [tag:free-energy], and wrote a usage guidance for it; however, it has been almost immediately set as a [synonym][1] of [tag:energy].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering, however, whether we should have a separate tag for free-energy. I feel that the tag [tag:energy] is really too vague, and as a matter of fact is [one of the most used][2], because it can apply basically to anything, from [general relativity][3] to [quantum field theory][4] to [fluid dynamics][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free energy, on the other hand, belongs to a quite specific domain —thermodynamics/statistical mechanics—, and it is a *very* important concept there (Helmholtz free energy being the natural thermodynamic potential of the widely used canonical ensemble, and Gibbs free energy being fundamental in the study of phase transitions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think free energy deserves a tag of its own: [tag:energy] is just too vague sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of questions were I think that the tag [tag:free-energy] would apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Gibbs free energy intuition][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why the free energy is called 'free'?][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Confusion about Free Energy and the Hamiltonian][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [What exactly is temperature in the Gibbs free energy?][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why is the Gibbs Free Energy F−HM?][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Proving that the free energy is extensive][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are specifically about (Gibbs or Helmholtz) free energy, not about energy in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that we should not encourage an uncontrolled proliferation of useless, too specific tags. However, being someone who is mostly active in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics posts on the site, I strongly feel that [tag:free-energy] would be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if we finally decide to undo the synonym, I volunteer to do the retagging of old questions and check when the tag can be applied to the new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum** (to address the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that adding [tag:statistical-mechanics] or [tag:thermodynamics] to [tag:energy] is not enough to clarify, since in thermodynamics/statistical mechanics there is a thermodynamic potential called &quot;(internal) energy&quot; which is different from the free energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/energy/info&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics+energy&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149493/gibbs-free-energy-intuition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72802/why-the-free-energy-is-called-free&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40859/confusion-about-free-energy-and-the-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105774/what-exactly-is-temperature-in-the-gibbs-free-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105169/why-is-the-gibbs-free-energy-f-hm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10233/proving-that-the-free-energy-is-extensive&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5746/115736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="e7039eec-e289-420e-b437-a7e955bccc1a" CreationDate="2018-03-01T18:09:57.767" UserId="115736" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed the tag [tag:free-energy], and wrote a usage guidance for it; however, it has been almost immediately set as a [synonym][1] of [tag:energy].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering, however, whether we should have a separate tag for free-energy. I feel that the tag [tag:energy] is really too vague, and as a matter of fact is [one of the most used][2], because it can apply basically to anything, from [general relativity][3] to [quantum field theory][4] to [fluid dynamics][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free energy, on the other hand, belongs to a quite specific domain —thermodynamics/statistical mechanics—, and it is a *very* important concept there (Helmholtz free energy being the natural thermodynamic potential of the widely used canonical ensemble, and Gibbs free energy being fundamental in the study of phase transitions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think free energy deserves a tag of its own: [tag:energy] is just too vague sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of questions were I think that the tag [tag:free-energy] would apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Gibbs free energy intuition][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why the free energy is called 'free'?][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Confusion about Free Energy and the Hamiltonian][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [What exactly is temperature in the Gibbs free energy?][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why is the Gibbs Free Energy F−HM?][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Proving that the free energy is extensive][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are specifically about (Gibbs or Helmholtz) free energy, not about energy in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that we should not encourage an uncontrolled proliferation of useless, too specific tags. However, being someone who is mostly active in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics posts on the site, I strongly feel that [tag:free-energy] would be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if we finally decide to undo the synonym, I volunteer to do the retagging of old questions and check when the tag can be applied to the new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum** (to address the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think that adding [tag:statistical-mechanics] or [tag:thermodynamics] to [tag:energy] is not enough to clarify, since in thermodynamics/statistical mechanics there is a thermodynamic potential called &quot;(internal) energy&quot; which is different from the free energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It's true that the tag may be misused by people asking questions about perpetual motion machine and other crackpottery. The best we can do on this front is write a clear usage guidance and correct tag mis-usages. After all there are other examples of tags which are useful but frequently misused, like [tag:mathematical-physics].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/energy/info&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics+energy&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149493/gibbs-free-energy-intuition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72802/why-the-free-energy-is-called-free&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40859/confusion-about-free-energy-and-the-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105774/what-exactly-is-temperature-in-the-gibbs-free-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105169/why-is-the-gibbs-free-energy-f-hm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10233/proving-that-the-free-energy-is-extensive&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5746/115736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="b1fa24b3-fd92-4e1f-9527-7e927bb5cfd1" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:06:35.120" UserDisplayName="user181531" Text="Please tell me how to delete my account on se? &#xD;&#xA;(leaving because using it too much.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="b1fa24b3-fd92-4e1f-9527-7e927bb5cfd1" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:06:35.120" UserDisplayName="user181531" Text="How do I delete my account on se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="b1fa24b3-fd92-4e1f-9527-7e927bb5cfd1" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:06:35.120" UserDisplayName="user181531" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32048" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="50ff2f9c-a176-41c0-b922-9e2f1a755bfc" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:06:42.080" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389561/how-do-i-delete-my-account-on-se" />
  <row Id="32049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="59295291-f5c5-4e30-9330-1ab3abc9f637" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:00:00.947" UserDisplayName="user181531" Text="I know this question is irrelevant, but please tell me how to delete my account .(And sorry for wrong tag too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="59295291-f5c5-4e30-9330-1ab3abc9f637" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:00:00.947" UserDisplayName="user181531" Text="How do I delete my account on se?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="59295291-f5c5-4e30-9330-1ab3abc9f637" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:00:00.947" UserDisplayName="user181531" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32052" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="e7404407-bd46-4bb0-9cf8-9d067576bf58" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:07:40.360" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10512],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="839b6ab9-6e6d-4551-a6fd-57fb9c550e2c" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:08:10.483" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="74b51776-8fa0-426d-9ec1-66ce84a1d920" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:08:27.353" UserDisplayName="user181531" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="I know this question is irrelevant, but please tell me how to delete my account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32055" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="1bd463e7-783f-410b-9eed-277990284c41" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:08:47.940" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2632],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="6ded3d4f-68fc-4ef6-8fcf-4a7ea35d3cb3" CreationDate="2018-03-02T12:08:37.647" UserId="115736" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed the tag [tag:free-energy], and wrote a usage guidance for it; however, it has been almost immediately set as a [synonym][1] of [tag:energy].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering, however, whether we should have a separate tag for free-energy. I feel that the tag [tag:energy] is really too vague, and as a matter of fact is [one of the most used][2], because it can apply basically to anything, from [general relativity][3] to [quantum field theory][4] to [fluid dynamics][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free energy, on the other hand, belongs to a quite specific domain —thermodynamics/statistical mechanics—, and it is a *very* important concept there (Helmholtz free energy being the natural thermodynamic potential of the widely used canonical ensemble, and Gibbs free energy being fundamental in the study of phase transitions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think free energy deserves a tag of its own: [tag:energy] is just too vague sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of questions were I think that the tag [tag:free-energy] would apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Gibbs free energy intuition][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why the free energy is called 'free'?][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Confusion about Free Energy and the Hamiltonian][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [What exactly is temperature in the Gibbs free energy?][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why is the Gibbs Free Energy F−HM?][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Proving that the free energy is extensive][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are specifically about (Gibbs or Helmholtz) free energy, not about energy in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that we should not encourage an uncontrolled proliferation of useless, too specific tags. However, being someone who is mostly active in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics posts on the site, I strongly feel that [tag:free-energy] would be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if we finally decide to undo the synonym, I volunteer to do the retagging of old questions and check when the tag can be applied to the new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum** (to address the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think that adding [tag:statistical-mechanics] or [tag:thermodynamics] to [tag:energy] is not enough to clarify, since in thermodynamics/statistical mechanics there is a thermodynamic potential called &quot;(internal) energy&quot; which is different from the free energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It's true that the tag may be misused by people asking questions about perpetual motion machine and other crackpottery. The best we can do on this front is write a clear usage guidance and correct tag mis-usages (after all there are other examples of tags which are useful but frequently misused, like [tag:mathematical-physics]). However, we must also note that such questions are not so common on Physics SE and also usually they get closed pretty quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/energy/info&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics+energy&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149493/gibbs-free-energy-intuition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72802/why-the-free-energy-is-called-free&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40859/confusion-about-free-energy-and-the-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105774/what-exactly-is-temperature-in-the-gibbs-free-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105169/why-is-the-gibbs-free-energy-f-hm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10233/proving-that-the-free-energy-is-extensive&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5746/115736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="42ce7937-3680-4423-bd29-f43ae72c0170" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:30:07.793" UserId="115736" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="I recently proposed the tag [tag:free-energy], and wrote a usage guidance for it; however, it has been almost immediately set as a [synonym][1] of [tag:energy].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering, however, whether we should have a separate tag for free-energy. I feel that the tag [tag:energy] is really too vague, and as a matter of fact is [one of the most used][2], because it can apply basically to anything, from [general relativity][3] to [quantum field theory][4] to [fluid dynamics][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free energy, on the other hand, belongs to a quite specific domain —thermodynamics/statistical mechanics—, and it is a *very* important concept there (Helmholtz free energy being the natural thermodynamic potential of the widely used canonical ensemble, and Gibbs free energy being fundamental in the study of phase transitions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think free energy deserves a tag of its own: [tag:energy] is just too vague sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of questions were I think that the tag [tag:free-energy] would apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Gibbs free energy intuition][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why the free energy is called 'free'?][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Confusion about Free Energy and the Hamiltonian][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [What exactly is temperature in the Gibbs free energy?][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Why is the Gibbs Free Energy F−HM?][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Proving that the free energy is extensive][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are specifically about (Gibbs or Helmholtz) free energy, not about energy in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that we should not encourage an uncontrolled proliferation of useless, too specific tags. However, being someone who is mostly active in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics posts on the site, I strongly feel that [tag:free-energy] would be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if we finally decide to undo the synonym, I volunteer to do the retagging of old questions and check when the tag can be applied to the new ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum** (to address the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think that adding [tag:statistical-mechanics] or [tag:thermodynamics] to [tag:energy] is not enough to clarify, since in thermodynamics/statistical mechanics there is a thermodynamic potential called &quot;(internal) energy&quot; which is different from the free energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's true that the tag may be misused by people asking questions about perpetual motion machine and other crackpottery. The best we can do on this front is write a clear usage guidance and correct tag mis-usages (after all there are other examples of tags which are useful but frequently misused, like [tag:mathematical-physics]). However, we must also note that such questions are not so common on Physics SE and also usually they get closed pretty quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I understand that we want to keep the tagging system simple. However, we also want it to be specific enough, and I think that this is one of the cases where additional specification is needed. Also, there are many examples of very specific tags that haven't been synonymized, like [tag:debye-length],[tag:quantum-teleportation],[tag:galaxy-rotation-curve],[tag:superalgebra] etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/energy/info&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/general-relativity+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy+quantum-field-theory&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fluid-dynamics+energy&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149493/gibbs-free-energy-intuition&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72802/why-the-free-energy-is-called-free&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40859/confusion-about-free-energy-and-the-hamiltonian&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105774/what-exactly-is-temperature-in-the-gibbs-free-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105169/why-is-the-gibbs-free-energy-f-hm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10233/proving-that-the-free-energy-is-extensive&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5746/115736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32059" PostHistoryTypeId="37" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="75d427f2-2908-4bd5-bf64-a99c74c94e8e" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:13:50.277" UserId="2451" Comment="to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10512/how-do-i-delete-my-account-on-se" />
  <row Id="32060" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="75d427f2-2908-4bd5-bf64-a99c74c94e8e" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:13:50.277" UserId="2451" Comment="from https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10511/how-do-i-delete-my-account-on-se" />
  <row Id="32061" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="75e107e8-e008-4b57-b22a-107ff7db70d3" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:13:50.277" UserId="2451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10513" RevisionGUID="512bc144-f21e-4fb3-8dce-7e4a78773f8b" CreationDate="2018-03-04T02:47:11.447" UserId="124" Text="[![Physics Forums][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8vNwL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.physicsforums.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="42260b2c-38f2-421a-b081-22664e285749" CreationDate="2018-03-04T19:11:20.230" UserId="84967" Comment="edited body" Text="After reading the links provided by the mods in a question [I recently posted][1] with an answer, I believe that my question conforms *in spirit* the criteria that the moderators have tried to infuse in our site through their work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While answering own questions is explicitly encouraged in the link right next to the box saying &quot;answer your own question,&quot; some moderators seem concerned that naughty users may post solutions to the entire  e.g., Sears &amp; Zemansky book, using this format. And the general feeling is that people can post exercises and problems with educational purpose as long as: (i) the problem is not entirely trivial and (ii) who posts them also shows their work toward the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, my question is not completely trivial: I did not know the result before thinking a lot while solving a similar problem. It is not from any book I know of. I agree the formulation is terse, but clear, and I put a lot of work in the answer of the question. I posted it just to share the effort and result. People is free to downvote it to oblivion if they do not like it, but closing it is something else: it is a penalty for something I did wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389009/flight-times-of-least-energy-projectiles-shot-from-origin-to-all-targets-at-dist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="5e520382-55e9-43cd-889e-22924405a3e3" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:53:37.143" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="After reading the links provided by the mods in a question [I recently posted][1] with an answer, I believe that my question conforms *in spirit* the criteria that the moderators have tried to infuse in our site through their work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While answering own questions is explicitly encouraged in the link right next to the box saying &quot;answer your own question,&quot; some moderators seem concerned that naughty users may post solutions to the entire  e.g., Sears &amp; Zemansky book, using this format. And the general feeling is that people can post exercises and problems with educational purpose as long as: (i) the problem is not entirely trivial and (ii) who posts them also shows their work toward the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, my question is not completely trivial: I did not know the result before thinking a lot while solving a similar problem. It is not from any book I know of. I agree the formulation is terse, but clear, and I put a lot of work in the answer of the question. I posted it just to share the effort and result. People is free to downvote it to oblivion if they do not like it, but closing it is something else: it is a penalty for something I did wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/389009/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32071" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="5e520382-55e9-43cd-889e-22924405a3e3" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:53:37.143" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|ques|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="7c04b375-c511-4eb4-a031-c698754c7ab8" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:10:14.560" UserId="165485" Text="I have some pretty good thought experiments that I would like to share with the physics community here (I'm sure others have them too), but I can't find a way to phrase them as questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read through the rules, and it specifically says &quot;Is your question about physics? We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed.&quot;, so I can't ask it on the forum itself... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Meta is only for discussing the website itself, such as format issues, bugs, and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we add a tag for discussion, so that people like me, who are interested in hearing other people's ideas, can do so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="7c04b375-c511-4eb4-a031-c698754c7ab8" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:10:14.560" UserId="165485" Text="Is it possible to add a discussion tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="7c04b375-c511-4eb4-a031-c698754c7ab8" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:10:14.560" UserId="165485" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32085" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="966af44b-8a10-4ab5-9fc7-32a070a6a3c0" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:13:18.770" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10517" RevisionGUID="8d83532f-5885-4061-9233-7ef8c0ea18e7" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:14:15.490" UserId="84967" Text="No, what you suggest is not what this site was designed for. If you want to have a discussion, take it to [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) or to some other webpage. Cheers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10518" RevisionGUID="c75f0319-7f44-4492-aa81-e29863799f6b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:13:19.463" UserId="119010" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391682/what-could-happen-if-we-collide-two-subatomic-particles-with-an-energy-of-39tev&#xA;&#xA;Closed as too broad, but - see comments - there is scope for a good answer. I'd have written more (times, energies), but comments aren't the right place for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10518" RevisionGUID="c75f0319-7f44-4492-aa81-e29863799f6b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:13:19.463" UserId="119010" Text="Can this Q be reopened for answering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10518" RevisionGUID="c75f0319-7f44-4492-aa81-e29863799f6b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:13:19.463" UserId="119010" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="c75bcb0f-6bc7-43eb-9e25-2eb26e933848" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:31:35.970" UserId="176444" Text="Obvious unhelpful comments usually consist of abusive and negative comments as well as completely irrelevant ones and conversational ones. Those kind of comments are easy to spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about &quot;incomplete&quot; comments? Ones where someone is trying to make a valid argument but is incomplete and seems off topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is from [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391758/sending-messages-to-the-past). One user explains in the comments that travelling back in time is impossible due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The person asking the question doesn't fully understand and wonders if &quot;information&quot; follows this same law. Then a commenter says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;A photon is also thermodynamically constrained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although is may seem obvious to some that if any form of information could travel in time, it would be light; but the connection between _information_ and _photons_ is missing. It would sound much more relevant if the (somewhat) obvious had been stated. I tried to complete their argument in a comment of my own:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Information has to take some physical form, even if you use light, as @YuzurihaInori said, photons obey the laws of thermodynamics. So like mechanical messages, photon can't travel back in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is this a case where that comment about the photons can be flagged? Can it be considered &quot;unhelpful&quot; if, with a few extra words, it would be fine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="c75bcb0f-6bc7-43eb-9e25-2eb26e933848" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:31:35.970" UserId="176444" Text="Can an &quot;incomplete&quot; comment be considered an unhelpful comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="c75bcb0f-6bc7-43eb-9e25-2eb26e933848" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:31:35.970" UserId="176444" Text="|discussion|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10520" RevisionGUID="3a21bc47-71ee-44eb-a43d-d482c1854eae" CreationDate="2018-03-12T18:36:25.767" UserId="124" Text="As pointed out in the comments here, this question is absolutely too broad. That's pretty much always the case for &quot;what could happen if ...?&quot; questions which don't further restrict their scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment on the original question kind of makes the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We might discover new particles, and perhaps new forms of interaction. We might also get a lot more detail and precision (and perhaps new knowledge) about existing known particles and interactions. We could also certainly refine existing knowledge and theories, and exclude a large number of possible theories, so we would be better guided in seeking new knowledge. What would not happen is any kind of global doomsday or &quot;end of the earth&quot; scenario; we know enough from collisions not that much smaller, to say that's almost certainly unrealistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question would allow a detailed answer covering any of those points. There could be a dozen different answers not even trying to say the same thing, all of which are equally valid; furthermore, an answer which tried to be complete would be _very_ long indeed, much longer than the site allows. Whenever that happens, it's a pretty good indicator that the question may be too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10521" RevisionGUID="11b62c73-de1b-4467-ab19-fe55d43bc80b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T18:42:49.297" UserId="124" Text="In general I'd say no, the fact that a comment is incomplete is not _inherently_ a reason to flag it. If it's so incomplete that it's not even clear what it has to do with the question or answer, though, then that probably warrants a flag. There's a judgment call to be made here, and different people may disagree somewhat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think a better way to approach this is to consider whether the comment is trying to do what comments are supposed to do, which is to suggest an improvement or request a clarification to their parent post. I think in many cases, you'll find that comments that look like they may be incomplete are trying to do something else, like offering up an answer (or partial answer), and in those cases you can flag them on that basis without even caring whether the comment is really complete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10518" RevisionGUID="c9033e2f-24c2-4ff3-af05-1fc9ebe9c9ef" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:45:46.543" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body; edited tags" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/391682/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closed as too broad, but - see comments - there is scope for a good answer. I'd have written more (times, energies), but comments aren't the right place for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32096" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10518" RevisionGUID="c9033e2f-24c2-4ff3-af05-1fc9ebe9c9ef" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:45:46.543" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|closed-questions|specific-question|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="6fb1dda2-0042-441c-afe3-057ac9484d7a" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:03:37.263" UserId="8563" Text="Apparently, [Ch-ch-ch-changes are coming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes) to the site navigation and theming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that that's the case, can I suggest that maybe now is a good time to drop the super-awkward-once-you-notice-it (except you rarely do) arrow in the site logo's background Feynman diagram?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMhI5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This arrow seems to have been carried in from the [Wikimedia Commons standard image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg) for Feynman diagrams, but frankly, it doesn't really pull its weight in the graphics, no one ever sees it except to be awkwarded out by it, and it can just be cut out without harming anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I wrong and there's actually a huge fanbase for the Feynman-diagram arrow out there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="6fb1dda2-0042-441c-afe3-057ac9484d7a" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:03:37.263" UserId="8563" Text="Ch-ch-ch-changing the site logo to cut out the weird arrow thing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="6fb1dda2-0042-441c-afe3-057ac9484d7a" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:03:37.263" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="78c0bc8a-ab10-436d-8ad4-24bc08cdf88e" CreationDate="2018-03-13T03:50:27.063" UserId="122892" Text="i've always liked it! it's pretty. maybe replace it with a more technically accurate feynman diagram? at retina resolution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="5eccd7a2-cbd3-4cfa-95a3-de5e397695d9" CreationDate="2018-03-13T05:33:45.247" UserId="102207" Text="[This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/391775/102207) is an example of a &quot;super wrong&quot; post.  For the purposes of this discussion, a &quot;super wrong&quot; post is an answer which not only is factually incorrect but is incorrect in such a manner as to contribute to the spread of some popular error in physical understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These errors tend to come in two forms.  One, the passively harmful form, consists of popular simplifications of advanced physics concepts being consistently applied outside the realm in which they are useful.  The linked answer is an example of this, I think, as is the explanation of airfoil mechanics panned in [this xkcd comic][1].  These kinds of answers are super wrong by accident, but unlike regular wrong answers they are tapping into something in the way people think about the world.  They are *super* wrong because, for whatever reason, a *lot* of people think these things and keep convincing other people that they are true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other form is the actively harmful form.  This is stuff like 'harmonized water' and other pseudoscientific scams, as well as 'the second law of thermodynamics means no evolution', where an explanation for how something works is not only wrong in a way that, for whatever reason, popularizes it, but also the error in thinking is actively perpetuated by people who know or should know it is false to serve their interests (e.g. the guys selling the 'harmonized water').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, such answers are liable to be downvoted heavily on account of the site community being healthy.  This leaves us with answers in situations like the linked one, with the option of deleting such an answer as very low quality.  Should we delete such material to avoid potentially spreading it or should we leave it up very downvoted in the hopes that a very negative post score will help combat the spread of that misinformation in site visitors / broader society?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://xkcd.com/803/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="5eccd7a2-cbd3-4cfa-95a3-de5e397695d9" CreationDate="2018-03-13T05:33:45.247" UserId="102207" Text="Should we leave super wrong highly downvoted posts visible or should we delete them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="5eccd7a2-cbd3-4cfa-95a3-de5e397695d9" CreationDate="2018-03-13T05:33:45.247" UserId="102207" Text="|discussion|answers|flagging|down-votes|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="f6fd5709-03f4-4359-aa35-86ca109465a9" CreationDate="2018-03-13T08:08:47.467" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Should we leave super wrong highly downvoted posts visible or should we delete them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should leave them. I say that because _science is not a democracy_. All the upvotes in the world won't make a wrong answer right, and all the downvotes in the world won't make a right answer wrong. In addition ignorance can lead to correct answers being downvoted. It would be wrong to delete such answers. That sort of thing belongs in a religious theocracy, not in science.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer is an example of a &quot;super wrong&quot; post. For the purposes of this discussion, a &quot;super wrong&quot; post is an answer which not only is factually incorrect but is incorrect in such a manner as to contribute to the spread of some popular error in physical understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see any &quot;super wrong&quot; answer there. I can see an answer by Rob Jeffries which looks correct. Am I missing something here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These errors tend to come in two forms. One, the passively harmful form, consists of popular simplifications of advanced physics concepts being consistently applied outside the realm in which they are useful. The linked answer is an example of this, I think, as is the explanation of airfoil mechanics panned in this xkcd comic. These kinds of answers are super wrong by accident, but unlike regular wrong answers they are tapping into something in the way people think about the world. They are super wrong because, for whatever reason, a lot of people think these things and keep convincing other people that they are true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wnat if the answer is super right, and you're super wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other form is the actively harmful form. This is stuff like 'harmonized water' and other pseudoscientific scams&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, things like wormholes and time travel and the multiverse. But we have free speech in science, and I'd like to keep it that way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actively perpetuated by people who know or should know it is false to serve their interests &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of people peddling woo, IMHO we need to explain why it's woo, not censor it.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In either case, such answers are liable to be downvoted heavily on account of the site community being healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what if correct answers are downvoted correctly on account of the site community being unhealthy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This leaves us with answers in situations like the linked one, with the option of deleting such an answer as very low quality. Should we delete such material to avoid potentially spreading it or should we leave it up very downvoted in the hopes that a very negative post score will help combat the spread of that misinformation in site visitors / broader society?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should leave it. I don't agree with scientific censorship. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="2f6840eb-bb37-468a-afee-64d97eb39971" CreationDate="2018-03-13T08:45:59.283" UserId="102207" Comment="linked answer deleted" Text="[This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/391775/102207) (10K only) is an example of a &quot;super wrong&quot; post.  For the purposes of this discussion, a &quot;super wrong&quot; post is an answer which not only is factually incorrect but is incorrect in such a manner as to contribute to the spread of some popular error in physical understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These errors tend to come in two forms.  One, the passively harmful form, consists of popular simplifications of advanced physics concepts being consistently applied outside the realm in which they are useful.  The linked answer is an example of this, I think, as is the explanation of airfoil mechanics panned in [this xkcd comic][1].  These kinds of answers are super wrong by accident, but unlike regular wrong answers they are tapping into something in the way people think about the world.  They are *super* wrong because, for whatever reason, a *lot* of people think these things and keep convincing other people that they are true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other form is the actively harmful form.  This is stuff like 'harmonized water' and other pseudoscientific scams, as well as 'the second law of thermodynamics means no evolution', where an explanation for how something works is not only wrong in a way that, for whatever reason, popularizes it, but also the error in thinking is actively perpetuated by people who know or should know it is false to serve their interests (e.g. the guys selling the 'harmonized water').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, such answers are liable to be downvoted heavily on account of the site community being healthy.  This leaves us with answers in situations like the linked one, with the option of deleting such an answer as very low quality.  Should we delete such material to avoid potentially spreading it or should we leave it up very downvoted in the hopes that a very negative post score will help combat the spread of that misinformation in site visitors / broader society?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://xkcd.com/803/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="66ee313b-ff12-4645-8aea-7e35dfe8bcb4" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:08:48.180" UserId="75633" Text="I propose we make the tag [tag:non-linear-dynamics] a synonym of [tag:complex-systems].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, [tag:non-linear-dynamics] is set as a synonym of [tag:non-linear-systems], but I'd like to argue that the most common usage of the term *nonlinear dynamics* is in the sense of being the (nonlinear) dynamics of [tag:dynamical-systems] and it should, just as the latter, be considered a synonym of [tag:complex-systems]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The common understanding of the subject, as described, e.g., by the [the journal Nature](https://www.nature.com/subjects/nonlinear-dynamics), is:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Nonlinear dynamics is the branch of physics that studies systems governed by equations more complex than the linear, aX+b form. Nonlinear systems, such as the weather or neurons, often appear chaotic, unpredictable or counterintuitive, and yet their behaviour is not random.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which **isn't** expressed by the current description of the [nonlinear systems tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/non-linear-systems/info):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The term non-linear or nonlinear has several definitions but is generally used to describe a system that cannot be approximated by a superposition principle or perturbative approach. &#xD;&#xA;* The [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system) for Complex Systems lists &quot;Nonlinear dynamics&quot; among its topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Research institutions around the world clearly consider *nonlinear dynamics* as a subject in the context of *complex systems*. For instance (research group name, followed by keywords):&#xD;&#xA; * [Manchester Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics](http://www.mcnd.manchester.ac.uk/pictures.php)  &#xD;&#xA; granular media, fluid dynamics, turbulence, chaos  &#xD;&#xA; * [Center for Nonlinear Dynamics (UT - Austin)](http://chaos.utexas.edu/)  &#xD;&#xA;fluid dynamics, granular matter, social dynamics&#xD;&#xA; * [Institute for Nonlinear Dynamics (Göttingen)](http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/433694.html)  &#xD;&#xA;pattern formation, fluid dynamics, neurophysics, networks&#xD;&#xA; * [Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos and Complex Systems (U. Maryland)](https://umdphysics.umd.edu/research/research-areas/nonlinear-dynamics-chaos-and-complex-systems.html)  &#xD;&#xA;chaos, granular dynamics, pattern formation, networks&#xD;&#xA; * [Nonlinear Dynamics (U. Bayreuth)](https://www.uni-bayreuth.de/en/research/focus-areas/advanced-fields/7_nonlinear_dynamics/index.html)  &#xD;&#xA;complex fluids, soft matter, geoecology, chaos&#xD;&#xA; * [Nonlinear Dynamics Group (U. Kyoto)](http://www.ton.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/nonlinear-old2/english/research.html)  &#xD;&#xA;statistical physics, structure formation, patterns, neuronal systems&#xD;&#xA; * [Nonlinear Physics Group (Tokyo M. U.)](http://www.comp.tmu.ac.jp/nonlinear/en/research.html)  &#xD;&#xA;chaos, Hamiltonian systems, quantum chaos&#xD;&#xA; * [Nonlinear and Complex Systems Laboratory at POSTECH (Korea)](https://dsweb.siam.org/The-Magazine/Article/nonlinear-and-complex-systems-laboratory-at-postech-korea)  &#xD;&#xA;pattern formation, self-organization, chaos, brain science&#xD;&#xA; * [Oscillations Control Group (U. of São Paulo)](http://portal.if.usp.br/controle/)  &#xD;&#xA; turbulence, chaos, complex systems, networks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="66ee313b-ff12-4645-8aea-7e35dfe8bcb4" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:08:48.180" UserId="75633" Text="We should reassign [tag:non-linear-dynamics] to [tag:complex-systems]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="66ee313b-ff12-4645-8aea-7e35dfe8bcb4" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:08:48.180" UserId="75633" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32109" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="85bb31f4-3280-4471-afe6-3b1d56ebf1ef" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:11:46.200" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="d740cbbf-2789-4998-9ced-08c07deaa9d7" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:58:47.863" UserId="2451" Text="One suggestion would be to create an umbrella tag [tag:non-linear-and-complex-systems]. Would that be an improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="4c3ac738-87a8-4c25-b35b-9cdccce8cafa" CreationDate="2018-03-13T11:35:20.777" UserId="25301" Text="I used to be of the opinion that we should keep such low quality answers since it's at least an attempt to answer the question, as misguided as the answer may be.&#xA;&#xA;But after talking with other members and thinking on it more, I have come to realize that these types of not-even-wrong answers *should* be deleted because leaving them would provide a platform for printing incorrect theories/understandings to such misguided individuals. Even heavily downvoted, it's still promoting an incorrect answer that may sway some of the more susceptible individuals who come across it.&#xA;&#xA;Thinking of it another way, if we're trying to build a reputable database of answers to physics questions, then we shouldn't want disreputable answers trickling in, we *should* prune them out. Otherwise, we're not actually making such a database." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="440b3ff5-97a0-4623-9665-b41ab9bcc2f9" CreationDate="2018-03-13T12:51:30.287" UserId="8563" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="[This answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/391775/102207) (10K only; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mt5oc.png)) is an example of a &quot;super wrong&quot; post.  For the purposes of this discussion, a &quot;super wrong&quot; post is an answer which not only is factually incorrect but is incorrect in such a manner as to contribute to the spread of some popular error in physical understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These errors tend to come in two forms.  One, the passively harmful form, consists of popular simplifications of advanced physics concepts being consistently applied outside the realm in which they are useful.  The linked answer is an example of this, I think, as is the explanation of airfoil mechanics panned in [this xkcd comic][1].  These kinds of answers are super wrong by accident, but unlike regular wrong answers they are tapping into something in the way people think about the world.  They are *super* wrong because, for whatever reason, a *lot* of people think these things and keep convincing other people that they are true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other form is the actively harmful form.  This is stuff like 'harmonized water' and other pseudoscientific scams, as well as 'the second law of thermodynamics means no evolution', where an explanation for how something works is not only wrong in a way that, for whatever reason, popularizes it, but also the error in thinking is actively perpetuated by people who know or should know it is false to serve their interests (e.g. the guys selling the 'harmonized water').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, such answers are liable to be downvoted heavily on account of the site community being healthy.  This leaves us with answers in situations like the linked one, with the option of deleting such an answer as very low quality.  Should we delete such material to avoid potentially spreading it or should we leave it up very downvoted in the hopes that a very negative post score will help combat the spread of that misinformation in site visitors / broader society?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://xkcd.com/803/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="42873ff5-feba-4291-8fef-5da237c1ea43" CreationDate="2018-03-13T13:17:13.870" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10529" RevisionGUID="025ff0ff-568d-48e8-b705-e0e50ee2ee94" CreationDate="2018-03-13T16:26:28.750" UserId="36073" Text="[A recent answer][1] and subsequent comment discussion revealed there are possibly many bogus science sources on the web that are apparently invading the SE network. I understand that downvoting plays a key role in keeping this kind of information in check, but it seem like it might be beneficial to have an easily-available source to point to, when debunking really bad pseudo-science answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know exactly how this would be handled in the current framework of SE, since most other network sites don't have to deal with this kind of problem, but I think it could be immensely helpful here. Something like a community wiki that could be regularly updated when users of a high enough reputation stumble across bogus news sites, improperly interpreted articles, baseless claims, etc., so that when references to them inevitably come up in answers we can just say &quot;No, and here's the source debunking that: X&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that make sense within the context of Physics:SE? Anecdotally, I've seen more and more pseudo-science cropping up in various places that ends up making its way into the mainstream, so I think having a good, solid, well-maintained list here to refute it could do the community a lot of good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/391775/36073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10529" RevisionGUID="025ff0ff-568d-48e8-b705-e0e50ee2ee94" CreationDate="2018-03-13T16:26:28.750" UserId="36073" Text="Should we curate a &quot;bogus science&quot; wiki or similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10529" RevisionGUID="025ff0ff-568d-48e8-b705-e0e50ee2ee94" CreationDate="2018-03-13T16:26:28.750" UserId="36073" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="d5c68422-6e95-40d6-9639-90fcc2318ee3" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:30:20.310" UserId="175647" Text="(On my screen, anyways) it sits right at the edge between the title bar and the page body, the arrow's line pixel-perfect to the changeover. All I can see is the $▶ t$, and it's so small as to be consistently mistaken for a dirty monitor. I didn't even know it existed until I read this question. Thanks for that, by the way. Now I can't stop noticing it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arrow has a purpose, though. As seen on the wikimedia file, it shows the progression of time along the Feynman diagram (nevermind that you could rotate the arrow 90 degrees and it would still be *technically* accurate.) Even though the diagram doesn't need it, it makes it look even more complicated and physics-y, the kind of thing that would go on a blackboard scrawl in a TV physics classroom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I guess it all comes down to the apparent costs/benefits of keeping/removing it. IMHO, they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##KEEP##&#xD;&#xA;###Costs###&#xD;&#xA; - Some people are a little irked about it. &#xD;&#xA; - Messes up the vertical spacing of the title bar.&#xD;&#xA; - Looks like monitor dirt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Benefits###&#xD;&#xA; - It works. &#xD;&#xA; - It's barely noticeable in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CHANGE##&#xD;&#xA;###Costs###&#xD;&#xA; - Inevitable argument about how to change it.&#xD;&#xA; - Might mess up HTML spacing or something. &#xD;&#xA;###Benefits###&#xD;&#xA; - Cleaner site design&#xD;&#xA; - New feel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32118" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="2cadc3f1-f848-40d6-b48c-0aa2364d4e54" CreationDate="2018-03-14T04:49:29.993" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/973783150907314176" />
  <row Id="32119" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="17491d1d-dfa2-4156-a84b-59ee7bd100de" CreationDate="2018-03-14T14:04:53.060" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32120" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="17491d1d-dfa2-4156-a84b-59ee7bd100de" CreationDate="2018-03-14T14:04:53.060" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="How should we deal with upvoted incorrect answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="17491d1d-dfa2-4156-a84b-59ee7bd100de" CreationDate="2018-03-14T14:04:53.060" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="When a question makes the [HNQ list](https://stackexchange.com/questions?tab=hot), upvotes and answers from outsiders flood in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The score distributions on these questions are highly abnormal. Often, a mediocre answer that misses the actual point of the question is voted up. Rarely, a totally incorrect answer gets voted to the top: the public loves 'quantum woo', and mysterious but poetic sounding non-explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I see a question starting to take off, how can I prevent this situation from happening? There are no flag reasons that apply, and I have only one downvote to give. That's not enough when five upvotes can come in within five minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is a different discussion from Emilio's VLQ flag change, because the VLQ flag can only be applied to answers with zero upvotes. In the situation I'm describing, upvotes accumulate very quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="5470e938-70c0-41c0-a91d-bbfda4f9475d" CreationDate="2018-03-14T16:53:53.850" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|voting|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="2aaf0dac-a427-4170-8bd1-58a68d1e7bbd" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:13:46.080" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Should we curate a “bogus science” wiki or similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think so. It's a lot of work, and it's fraught with issues. For example what do you do if you disagree with another curator? What if something that's supposed to be bogus turns out to be legitimate science? What if something that you think is legitimate science, is actually bogus science?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A recent answer and subsequent comment discussion revealed there are possibly many bogus science sources on the web that are apparently invading the SE network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [question on meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10524/should-we-leave-super-wrong-highly-downvoted-posts-visible-or-should-we-delete-t) talked about deleting answers, and referred to a particular answer that had been deleted! Emilio Pisanty was good enough to link to [a copy of it](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mt5oc.png). IMHO it's a wrong answer. But IMHO it's better to keep it around along with the downvotes and comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that downvoting plays a key role in keeping this kind of information in check, but it seem like it might be beneficial to have an easily-available source to point to, when debunking really bad pseudo-science answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing stopping you setting up your own bogus-science website and referring to it. The difficulties come when you have a public bogus-science website. Then you have a repeat of the issues you see on stack exchange.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know exactly how this would be handled in the current framework of SE, since most other network sites don't have to deal with this kind of problem, but I think it could be immensely helpful here. Something like a community wiki that could be regularly updated when users of a high enough reputation...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue there is that a high reputation doesn't mean everything from that user is correct. I'd say this is something like letting the &quot;expert in the field&quot; referee any papers that offer information that demonstrates that the expert is  wrong. Science only advances when the expert in the field is shown to be wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...stumble across bogus news sites, improperly interpreted articles, baseless claims, etc., so that when references to them inevitably come up in answers we can just say &quot;No, and here's the source debunking that: X&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no issue with you doing that provided you link to a clear argument that does show why the wrong answer is wrong. But I've seen people claiming they've debunked something when they haven't, whilst meanwhile peddling time travel, the evil twin universe, the multiverse, and so on. The problem is in deciding what's right and wrong. People can be unreasonable about this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does that make sense within the context of Physics:SE? Anecdotally, I've seen more and more pseudo-science cropping up in various places that ends up making its way into the mainstream, so I think having a good, solid, well-maintained list here to refute it could do the community a lot of good. Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's something of a precedent with &quot;canonical answers&quot;, but they present their own problems. What do you do if a &quot;canonical answer&quot; is totally wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thoughts are that there's an awful lot of pseudoscience that _has_ made it into the mainstream. But when you try to clear that up with a correct answer,  people who believe in the pseudoscience want to downvote/debunk/delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="48f957a2-8d25-401a-977d-fba0f1a3d8b5" CreationDate="2018-03-15T10:11:27.730" UserId="115736" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="(On my screen, anyways) it sits right at the edge between the title bar and the page body, the arrow's line pixel-perfect to the changeover. All I can see is the $▶ t$, and it's so small as to be consistently mistaken for a dirty monitor. I didn't even know it existed until I read this question. Thanks for that, by the way. Now I can't stop noticing it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arrow has a purpose, though. As seen on the wikimedia file, it shows the progression of time along the Feynman diagram (nevermind that you could rotate the arrow 90 degrees and it would still be *technically* accurate.) Even though the diagram doesn't need it, it makes it look even more complicated and physics-y, the kind of thing that would go on a blackboard scrawl in a TV physics classroom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I guess it all comes down to the apparent costs/benefits of keeping/removing it. IMHO, they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##KEEP##&#xD;&#xA;###Costs###&#xD;&#xA; - Some people are a little irked about it. &#xD;&#xA; - Messes up the vertical spacing of the title bar.&#xD;&#xA; - Looks like monitor dirt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Benefits###&#xD;&#xA; - It works. &#xD;&#xA; - It's barely noticeable in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CHANGE##&#xD;&#xA;###Costs###&#xD;&#xA; - Inevitable argument about how to change it.&#xD;&#xA; - Might mess up HTML spacing or something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Benefits###&#xD;&#xA; - Cleaner site design&#xD;&#xA; - New feel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="5b68f438-155e-40dd-8972-634539d2665e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:15:42.170" UserId="183700" Text="If a question I asked gets answered by multiple users. And all of them solve the question, which answer should I accept?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that was posted first (first come first served)?&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that is the longest (cause the user put in more effort)?&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that is the shortest (cause it's concise and to the point)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider another scenario in which multiple answers are given but not one addresses the complete issue? Reading answers from user-1 and then from user-2 clarifies the concept. So should I accept the answer from user-1 or from user-2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="5b68f438-155e-40dd-8972-634539d2665e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:15:42.170" UserId="183700" Text="Which answer should we accept if multiple answers address the question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="5b68f438-155e-40dd-8972-634539d2665e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:15:42.170" UserId="183700" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="b01a8573-f4fb-421c-b439-f9785cceaa1e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:44:31.127" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Which answer should we accept if multiple answers address the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one that you think is the best. How you decide that is up to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should it be the one that was posted first (first come first served)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not unless you absolute can't decide which answer to pick.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should it be the one that is the longest (cause the user put in more effort)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only if it gives a more detailed explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should it be the one that is the shortest (cause it's concise and to the point)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe. Some answers can be long and tedious and wander off the point. But not always. Do you have an example you can show us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now consider another scenario in which multiple answers are given but not one addresses the complete issue? Reading answers from user-1 and then from user-2 clarifies the concept. So should I accept the answer from user-1 or from user-2?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends. And remember, you don't have to accept either of them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="708e12ef-3c7f-4a1d-ba65-b196f90d7c5e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T09:05:02.790" UserId="1325" Text="Accept the answer you find most helpful. It's your question, and the only criterion you need is how helpful you found the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not uncommon that someone will post an answer then someone else will post with more details, which can give you a difficult choice of who to accept. But the same criterion applies - accept the answer you liked best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="8d348894-dce8-4747-94b4-031147556656" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:14:52.383" UserId="1325" Comment="Extend answer" Text="Accept the answer you find most helpful. It's your question, and the only criterion you need is how helpful you found the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not uncommon that someone will post an answer then someone else will post with more details, which can give you a difficult choice of who to accept. But the same criterion applies - accept the answer you liked best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't worry that people might get offended if you don't accept their answer (especially if they've put a lot of work into it). All of us here are physics enthusiasts who write answers because we enjoy doing it. Many of us will sometimes deliberately write a more detailed answer than was asked for, or an answer at a higher level than was asked for, because we're not just aiming the answer at you but also at future visitors to the site. In that case it's perfectly reasonable to accept a different answer that more directly targets your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="c9cb0962-33d7-48ef-9132-cbb1c0ea8d46" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:21:55.880" UserId="187997" Text="I actually asked a question named &quot;Why not Sun's force change angular momentum of Earth?&quot;. Then '*QMechanic*', a user of this website marked my question as duplicate to &quot;Tidal Effect due to Sun&quot;. So I searched whether my question is duplicate, but tidal effect is very different to what I expected. I even know the perfect solution to my question. I even verified by some famous books. I request you to write reason for marking the question as duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="c9cb0962-33d7-48ef-9132-cbb1c0ea8d46" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:21:55.880" UserId="187997" Text="I request to write reason if you are marking a question as duplicate to other question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="c9cb0962-33d7-48ef-9132-cbb1c0ea8d46" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:21:55.880" UserId="187997" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="f92f4a0e-efc1-4916-8289-f04dd9f837da" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:31:51.903" UserId="1325" Comment="General tidying" Text="I recently asked a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/392587/why-not-suns-gravity-affect-angular-momentum-of-earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then [Qmechanic][1], a moderator of this web site, marked my question as a duplicate of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111685/tidal-force-of-sun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I searched whether my question is duplicate, but tidal effect is very different to what I expected. I even know the perfect solution to my question. I even verified by some famous books. I request you to write reason for marking the question as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/2451/qmechanic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="8089d4f8-b23b-46f2-baeb-c125bf581ff3" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:41:27.870" UserId="2451" Comment="It is presumably about the specific question not the specific moderator" Text="I recently asked a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/392587/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then a moderator of this web site marked my question as a duplicate of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/111685/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I searched whether my question is duplicate, but tidal effect is very different to what I expected. I even know the perfect solution to my question. I even verified by some famous books. I request you to write reason for marking the question as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="8089d4f8-b23b-46f2-baeb-c125bf581ff3" CreationDate="2018-03-16T10:41:27.870" UserId="2451" Comment="It is presumably about the specific question not the specific moderator" Text="|discussion|specific-question|close-reasons|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="344e7d3b-da3c-490d-990b-469a32bc0e3e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T12:27:06.003" UserId="44126" Text="We do have a procedure in place where users of the site can vote to reopen closed questions, and I see that your question currently has one reopen vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way for you to speed this process along I'd for you to edit your question with some text like &quot;it's been suggested that this question is a duplicate of [link]. But that's a question about X, while I'm asking about Y. Are they perhaps related because of Z?&quot; The clearer you can beabout what you're hoping to get from us, and how it's different from the answers we already have, the better we'll be able to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="c5b02f99-e442-49e6-87b3-de57dab5f7ca" CreationDate="2018-03-16T12:32:06.253" UserId="23473" Comment="changed &quot;I'd for&quot; to &quot;is for&quot;" Text="We do have a procedure in place where users of the site can vote to reopen closed questions, and I see that your question currently has one reopen vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way for you to speed this process along is for you to edit your question with some text like &quot;it's been suggested that this question is a duplicate of [link]. But that's a question about X, while I'm asking about Y. Are they perhaps related because of Z?&quot; The clearer you can be about what you're hoping to get from us, and how it's different from the answers we already have, the better we'll be able to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="10006dfe-851c-48ac-ba53-76b2df957e8a" CreationDate="2018-03-16T12:42:56.340" UserId="23473" Text="First, thank you Emilio for pointing that out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say leave it there. Sure, I don't think it is useful in any way and example Feynman diagrams like this don't even need a time arrow since they are valid from any angle. However, it's not &quot;not physics&quot; and it would be far less effort to simply leave this barely noticeable, technically correct physics thing in the logo than to go through the effort of having it removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote to reject as: **No improvement whatsoever**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This edit does not make the logo even a little bit easier on the eyes, easier to find, more accurate, or more accessible. Changes are either superfluous or actively harm aesthetics.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="98ad8d9e-1d90-4853-a285-265ad854a94c" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:33:33.613" UserId="187997" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I recently asked a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/392587/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then QMechanic, a moderator of this web site marked my question as a duplicate of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/111685/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I searched whether my question is duplicate, but tidal effect is very different to what I expected. I even know the perfect solution to my question. I even verified by some famous books. I request you to write reason for marking the question as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="409c938d-1a22-4b28-8269-40a25e3a7664" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:35:18.400" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="c629a91d-59f2-4ad6-90cc-f5336d4f1b82" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:07:35.130" UserId="183700" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="If a question I asked gets answered by multiple users. And **all of them** solve the question satisfactorily, which answer should I accept?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that was posted first (first come first served)?&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that is the longest (cause the user put in more effort)?&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that is the shortest (cause it's concise and to the point)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider another scenario in which multiple answers are given but not one addresses the complete issue? Reading answers from user-1 and then from user-2 clarifies the concept. So should I accept the answer from user-1 or from user-2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="582a8b05-d3f8-415d-a857-8355e63d5eea" CreationDate="2018-03-18T21:03:45.103" UserId="31790" Text="[![Quantum Computing Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/viR8o.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10543" RevisionGUID="de508102-81e6-4bc4-9a3d-858bf4e954d2" CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:42:59.730" UserId="8563" Text="Here's the thing with this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;# Asking (good) questions is hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't look like it at first, because if you don't think about it for too long then it feels like 100% of the emphasis is on the smart people that answer the questions, but that's not the case. If your question isn't well-posed, then there's a good chance that it won't be answerable, period, or that it will fall down on the first loophole, or that it will rely on faulty assumptions that are boring for answerers to address, or that it will be too waffly to even be a question to begin with, or that it will fall into one of a million possible pitfalls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking a good question requires you to get your own thoughts in order regarding what information you want to get from other people. Intrinsically, **we cannot ask your question more clearly for you because we cannot look inside your brain and figure out what's going on inside of it.** You need to clarify those internal thoughts *before* you ask for external input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That also includes listening to the feedback that's given on this site. If people tell you that your question relies on faulty assumptions, or that it uses terminology that is actually meaningless, and that this renders your question unanswerable (as is the case for the specific example you linked to), then the onus is on you to sort your question out and put it into shape. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your response is to just throw your hands up and say &quot;but it's clear to me!&quot; then you're failing at your task: you need to transfer aspects of the chemical and biological structure of your brain (your core question) through to the chemical and biological structure of other people's brains using only text. If that didn't sound like a hard task earlier, it needs to do so now, because ultimately it's not going to do itself for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This probably sounds harsh, and it is. The core reason that it is harsh is the fact that Asking Good Questions is Hard, and that's an intrinsic feature of good questions (both on this site and elsewhere) that you need to learn to handle, because it's not going to go away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="ad30d786-fa64-4084-b1bc-9311e08173d8" CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:51:37.147" UserId="93522" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7jwMY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32162" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="024ecc7f-150c-45c0-8a05-1189b3e1f56e" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:10:48.923" UserId="175647" />
  <row Id="32163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="6ac6f8ac-910d-4947-869f-f5451a7693bc" CreationDate="2018-03-19T18:41:26.273" UserId="31790" Comment="Move text off of cube logo" Text="[![Quantum Computing Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ovb6D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32164" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="464f2aa1-a591-4ea6-94f0-8dff7cc50967" CreationDate="2018-03-20T14:22:34.597" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/976101696790323201" />
  <row Id="32170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="10b7ee02-6090-4235-99b7-97e7797bd080" CreationDate="2018-03-21T10:43:10.757" UserId="6719" Text="The funeral service for Professor Hawking has been scheduled to take place at 2:00 pm (1300 GMT). Should we schedule a special event in the regular chat room or create a new room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="10b7ee02-6090-4235-99b7-97e7797bd080" CreationDate="2018-03-21T10:43:10.757" UserId="6719" Text="Professor Hawking Memorial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="10b7ee02-6090-4235-99b7-97e7797bd080" CreationDate="2018-03-21T10:43:10.757" UserId="6719" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32173" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="036e789e-eaed-4610-869f-7a8d1b8d9700" CreationDate="2018-03-21T13:47:38.973" UserId="6719" Comment="edited title" Text="Professor Hawking March 31st Memorial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="86917fb4-3e09-4762-a3d2-96a758bcbd89" CreationDate="2018-03-21T13:55:48.007" UserId="5477" Text="I had never seen that before, but now I will never un-see it. I vote to remove it in the redesign." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="3bcddbed-1880-4100-a6d5-72e774ffb312" CreationDate="2018-03-21T14:59:11.353" UserId="44126" Comment="Add details, link." Text="The funeral service for Professor Hawking has been scheduled to take place at 2:00 pm (1300 GMT) on March 31. ([One source](https://www.news18.com/news/tech/stephen-hawkings-funeral-set-for-march-31-1695443.html).)&#xD;&#xA; Should we schedule a special event in the regular chat room or create a new room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="aa54c8f2-b646-4b3f-8912-4d4419b9d0c1" CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:01:12.220" UserId="8563" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Apparently, [Ch-ch-ch-changes are coming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes) to the site navigation and theming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that that's the case (and that therefore there are designer work-hours already scheduled to attend to our site design), can I suggest that maybe now is a good time to drop the super-awkward-once-you-notice-it (except you rarely do) arrow in the site logo's background Feynman diagram?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMhI5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This arrow seems to have been carried in from the [Wikimedia Commons standard image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg) for Feynman diagrams, but frankly, it doesn't really pull its weight in the graphics, no one ever sees it except to be awkwarded out by it, and it can just be cut out without harming anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I wrong and there's actually a huge fanbase for the Feynman-diagram arrow out there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="19141864-1f8b-4139-bd31-a5440e74f0ce" CreationDate="2018-03-21T21:00:51.767" UserId="50583" Text="Echoing rob in the comments, I think it would be indecent to turn what is primarily a private event into a public one. If there is a public event related to his passing on some other date, I would be all for following it along in the chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32178" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="a3044eea-49dd-45a7-a339-ee709689b919" CreationDate="2018-03-21T22:03:19.147" UserId="6719" Comment="edited title" Text="Professor Hawking March 31st Funeral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32179" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="0e386a56-b1bb-478c-a38a-96333865c505" CreationDate="2018-03-21T22:14:44.910" UserId="6719" Comment="edited title" Text="Professor Hawking's March 31st Funeral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="812cd1eb-514a-4a6d-8020-7d734c8ed13b" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:39:31.257" UserId="84967" Text="I wanted to include a diagram in an answer, but Mathjax doesn't support [TikZ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGF/TikZ). I therefore wrote the TikZ code in a local .tex file in my PC, compiled it, and included the diagram as a .png file. The problem with this procedure is that it prevents me from sharing the code (in case someone wants to use it themselves somewhere else), and it forces me to keep the .tex file in my PC (so that I can modify it in the future if I need to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if I could include the TikZ code in the post itself but, preferably, to make it invisible. Is it possible somehow? An HTML trick perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="812cd1eb-514a-4a6d-8020-7d734c8ed13b" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:39:31.257" UserId="84967" Text="Is it possible to include invisible code in a post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="812cd1eb-514a-4a6d-8020-7d734c8ed13b" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:39:31.257" UserId="84967" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="9b6e3b80-d694-4ed1-9b8d-40b3b39422a0" CreationDate="2018-03-25T15:16:18.030" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I wanted to include a diagram in an answer, but Mathjax doesn't support [TikZ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGF/TikZ). I therefore wrote the TikZ code in a local .tex file in my PC, compiled it, and included the diagram as a .png file. The problem with this procedure is that it prevents me from sharing the code (in case someone wants to use it themselves somewhere else), and it forces me to keep the .tex file in my PC (so that I can modify it in the future if I need to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if I could include the TikZ code in the post itself but, preferably, to make it invisible. Is it possible somehow? An HTML trick perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32203" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="9b6e3b80-d694-4ed1-9b8d-40b3b39422a0" CreationDate="2018-03-25T15:16:18.030" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="9777473d-81a9-474e-845f-7dfe76e4e626" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:13:53.153" UserId="106502" Text="You can just define an empty tex macro and wrap your code in that. Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$\def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;    \draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;    \end{tikzpicture}}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ \def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;\draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;\end{tikzpicture}} $$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="09f7f667-7521-4ab5-baf1-4fd8448221d4" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:15:36.723" UserId="106502" Text="$$ \def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;\draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;\end{tikzpicture}}$$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32206" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="f236224e-2d78-4b0d-a297-a0f2ee1dc542" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:15:36.723" UserId="106502" />
  <row Id="32207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="8ad55e8d-b42d-40b8-94e7-895619ef2287" CreationDate="2018-03-26T07:41:31.680" UserId="106502" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="$$ \def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;\draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;\end{tikzpicture}}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ {\rm Problem?} \ignore{\def\x{\x}\x}$$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="21da961d-5705-4d43-8862-2093d94fff1d" CreationDate="2018-03-26T12:45:56.370" UserId="44126" Text="You can include TeX comments.  For example, the Einstein equation is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    E = &#xD;&#xA;    %\gamma&#xD;&#xA;    mc^2&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;E = &#xD;&#xA;%\gamma&#xD;&#xA;mc^2&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where most people don't include the $\gamma$ that describes the dynamics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="7eee925d-b9cc-491f-b46b-6142520b77c7" CreationDate="2018-03-26T13:25:53.567" UserId="25301" Text="An alternative to pasting invisible code is to simply post the code to a Latex sharing site, such as [ShareLatex](https://www.sharelatex.com) or [Overleaf](https://www.overleaf.com), and then link to it below the image. Then interested users could go see it without having to clicking the edit button (though it is forcing someone off-site).&#xA;&#xA;Even repositories such as [GitHub](https://www.github.com) or [PasteBin](https://pastebin.com) would work, though you wouldn't have the ability to compile and see the results on in these cases as you would with the previous option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="e4337dfd-eb12-4530-b494-0993e78b9a6b" CreationDate="2018-03-27T15:33:14.493" UserId="83398" Text="Everybody who's been here for a while knows that the homework policy is not as advertised. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the exercise is sufficiently interesting, and the OP is sufficiently polite, the question often stays open and gets good answers. More sophisticated exercises also fare better: an interesting and nontrivial mechanics problem which has nothing to do with homework is much more likely to be closed than a routine QFT exercise literally screenshotted from a homework assignment. This is not the official policy, but it's what we do. For the most part I'm happy with this, though I do wish people only closed the _boring_ mechanics problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I've noticed a few people posting questions in rapid succession, each with a screenshot of a problem. If you look at the questions as a whole, it's obvious they've split their entire problem set or take-home exam into tiny pieces and asked us how to do the whole thing. However, since each question alone contains quantum field theory, which is viewed as sophisticated, none of these questions are closed or even downvoted, and most have some answers or comments. (Note: if you go check and see there are close votes and downvotes, they're solely mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this kind of behavior should not be encouraged. This is the textbook example of what the homework policy is designed to prevent, and I don't think it should be overruled just because quantum field theory is involved. Before answering a question, consider the context!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="e4337dfd-eb12-4530-b494-0993e78b9a6b" CreationDate="2018-03-27T15:33:14.493" UserId="83398" Text="Users that post every question in their homework/exams" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="e4337dfd-eb12-4530-b494-0993e78b9a6b" CreationDate="2018-03-27T15:33:14.493" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="18c80600-3d1f-4d39-bbbb-dc30b882d2d7" CreationDate="2018-03-27T16:02:30.790" UserId="44126" Text="&gt; Recently I've noticed a few people posting questions in rapid succession, each with a screenshot of a problem. If you look at the questions as a whole, it's obvious they've split their entire problem set or take-home exam into tiny pieces and asked us how to do the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of behavior, which is undesirable but not necessarily obvious to reviewers going through the vote-to-close queue, is a good reason to cast custom flags for moderator attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="e4b635bf-bcd7-4f8b-9dfa-891c687452db" CreationDate="2018-03-27T17:17:33.170" UserId="44126" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="&gt; Recently I've noticed a few people posting questions in rapid succession, each with a screenshot of a problem. If you look at the questions as a whole, it's obvious they've split their entire problem set or take-home exam into tiny pieces and asked us how to do the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of behavior, which is undesirable but not necessarily obvious to reviewers going through the vote-to-close queue, is a good reason to cast custom flags for moderator attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also helpful to point out what's happening in the comments, with a remark like &quot;previous related questions by this user: [a] [b] [c],&quot; to make it easier for folks reviewing the questions to see what's happening.  But if the close queue process isn't working, that's basically what the diamond moderators are for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="96f87031-aa3d-492b-b677-bfcebc3096e4" CreationDate="2018-03-28T02:06:55.170" UserId="36194" Text="To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in the question, methinks screenshots of text should be outright banned.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if it can be easily done with LaTeX/MathJax, there’s no place for a screenshot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="71d27b74-a928-4455-9d2a-cb3dec241420" CreationDate="2018-03-28T06:39:11.393" UserId="183700" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="If a question I asked gets answered by multiple users. And **all of them** solve the question satisfactorily, which answer should I accept?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that was posted first (first come first served)?&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that is the longest (cause the user put in more effort)?&#xD;&#xA; - Should it be the one that is the shortest (cause it's concise and to the point)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider another scenario in which multiple answers are given but not one addresses the complete issue? Reading answers from user-1 and then from user-2 clarifies the concept. So should I accept the answer from user-1 or from user-2?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  &#xD;&#xA;Is it okay to combine the essentials of all the answers into one post and answer your own question? And then accept it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="11bc28c9-7f5d-4774-8457-20abba39017c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:12:45.023" UserId="123649" Text="There have been a variety of questions that shouldn't be allowed under current site rules because they are very clearly lacking basic research - 2 minutes on google would probably help them with their question. It seems clear to me that they should be closed, but I am not sure for which reason to flag, I've had a few flags declined recently for incorrect use and wish to avoid this in the future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="11bc28c9-7f5d-4774-8457-20abba39017c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:12:45.023" UserId="123649" Text="what to flag for &quot;lack of basic research&quot; questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="11bc28c9-7f5d-4774-8457-20abba39017c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:12:45.023" UserId="123649" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="48a0ac00-064f-4375-a1a9-38b34bdf76ad" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:57:17.453" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32226" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="0c4421c0-fefd-4cb2-ab54-e52172146a24" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:59:57.017" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What to flag for &quot;lack of basic research&quot; questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="0c4421c0-fefd-4cb2-ab54-e52172146a24" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:59:57.017" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|questions|close-reasons|content-level|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="a8537fe2-731c-4a0b-89c5-8c7780b12f7f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T16:43:36.907" UserId="22964" Text="I posted a relatively simple question regarding syntax that I didn't understand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/396286/what-does-self-closing-bra-ket-mean-in-robetson-schrodinger-uncertainty-relation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received 2 one-word responses which completely missed my expected data type for a response. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I attempted to interact with the users to clarify that it wasn't the anti-commutator but a specific piece of syntax that I was confused about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am given no constructive response to my comments, attempting to tag the responders results in an attempt at humor? (or sarcastic insult, I can't tell). And my conclusion is that this question must be really terrible [since back at Math.Stackexchange if someone were to comment the way I did I would try to work out, what made sense, clearly to most users here this question is so bad, it doesn't even warrant or deserve any further attention]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I figure why this is a dumb question to even ask? I would like to avoid this happening in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to do some diligence with research, I feel like my English is clear, and it feels like its a pointed enough question (enough to make sense to me?). Clearly one of those 3 things must be wrong. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="a8537fe2-731c-4a0b-89c5-8c7780b12f7f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T16:43:36.907" UserId="22964" Text="Why is this a bad question to even ask in the first place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="a8537fe2-731c-4a0b-89c5-8c7780b12f7f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T16:43:36.907" UserId="22964" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32232" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="e5fad3be-cf4b-4712-9d50-239e7fd5ae47" CreationDate="2018-03-28T18:02:14.637" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6001],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="90f7a2ac-f921-4d84-84bf-40cad2ce5d2f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T18:04:59.470" UserId="84967" Text="It's not the worst question I've seen on this site, but it's not good either. For one thing, the notation $\langle \mathcal O\rangle$ is explained in the wikipedia page you linked yourself. Indeed, if you read the very first equation, you'll see the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... where the brackets $\langle \mathcal O\rangle$ indicate an expectation value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that explanation is not clear enough, the words &quot;expectation value&quot; contain a link to the wikipedia page [Expectation value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_value_(quantum_mechanics)), whose very first equation is&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;\langle A\rangle=\langle\psi|A|\psi\rangle&#xD;&#xA;$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the notation $\{A,B\}$ is also explained in your first link (and if you click on `show proof`, you will also find an explanation for the notation $\langle A\rangle$). In essence, your question is answered in detail in your own wikipedia link. The downvote you got is not mine, but it is deserved, on grounds of &quot;This question does not show any research effort&quot; (which is the message you get if hover over the downvote button)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="2558526f-7b4b-43ff-a9a6-82703ffc555b" CreationDate="2018-03-28T18:30:55.530" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I posted a relatively simple question regarding syntax that I didn't understand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/396286/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received 2 one-word responses which completely missed my expected data type for a response. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I attempted to interact with the users to clarify that it wasn't the anti-commutator but a specific piece of syntax that I was confused about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am given no constructive response to my comments, attempting to tag the responders results in an attempt at humor? (or sarcastic insult, I can't tell). And my conclusion is that this question must be really terrible [since back at Math.Stackexchange if someone were to comment the way I did I would try to work out, what made sense, clearly to most users here this question is so bad, it doesn't even warrant or deserve any further attention]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I figure why this is a dumb question to even ask? I would like to avoid this happening in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to do some diligence with research, I feel like my English is clear, and it feels like its a pointed enough question (enough to make sense to me?). Clearly one of those 3 things must be wrong. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32235" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="2558526f-7b4b-43ff-a9a6-82703ffc555b" CreationDate="2018-03-28T18:30:55.530" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="938d39ae-3db9-40d7-9812-74eb5fd83e89" CreationDate="2018-03-28T21:33:02.973" UserId="106502" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="$$ \def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;\draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;\end{tikzpicture}}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ {\it test} ~test~ {\rm test} ~\operatorname{test}~ \ignore{\def\x{\x}\x}$$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="bc6a80b6-6778-4f99-8200-9b9190d067df" CreationDate="2018-03-28T21:58:34.573" UserId="36194" Text="Actually your question is not clear at all since it seemed to me at first you were asking for an interpretation of $\{A,B\}$.  It was only at the second pass that I realized you were worried about the angle brackets and that part wasn’t immediately clear either since you have brackets around your vectors, which are themselves inside brackets, i.e. $\langle &lt;vector &gt; \vert &lt;vector&gt;\rangle$.  If anything, I though you wanted to use $\langle\langle$ and $\rangle\rangle$ and had made a typesetting error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn’t downvote either (I think the downvote is excessive but I’m amazed it got an upvote) but I also think the question could have been answered with minimal search effort, as already indicated by someone else.  The notation $\langle A\rangle$ for the average value (or expectation value) is extremely common throughout physics and mathematics (if anything $\langle x\rangle$ is very common in QM anyways).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="2f8c9614-cd2e-4941-ac62-e2f64a74a0c8" CreationDate="2018-03-28T23:49:45.720" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/979143537282486278" />
  <row Id="32239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="ce44976d-a161-478b-85e4-f886c3485d57" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:57:12.870" UserId="1492" Text="I often answer naive questions, if a) the questioner is young,( high school level) ( I look at the profile) or b) if the title is such that general searches will bring the question to the fore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a) because I am a grandmother with high school level grandsons and hope that for any naive questions they ask (wherever) there is a teacher willing to respond. People asking naive questions at 15 may turn out to be brilliant physicists at 25, if encouraged to open their brain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this I have my own experience when I had a very bad math's teacher from 12 to 14, and  then got an excellent one at age 15. The internet is a help  venue for such situations and it is a pity not to be available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For b) because one of the purposes of the site is to have a repository of questions for searches on the net, and if the title is a clear question the search will land on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without solving the problem if it is a homework problem, I try to give pointers and links, as I see many others doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would vote yes , to stop accepting photocopies, I would make an exception for formulae ( as my computer sophistication does not include formulae programs :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="311f8316-edb1-4222-bf79-11949d4d2805" CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:24:47.900" UserId="36194" Text="[This was originally posted as an answer to another question and was transformed into a question following a comment to this effect.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in [another questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10555/36194), I would suggest the community simply ban screenshots of text.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if it can be easily done with LaTeX/MathJax, there’s no place for a screenshot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions (at least the textual part of the question) is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to screenshots of equations, there is already a discussion [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194) that would be applicable to questions as well as answers; the discussion on screenshots of equations seems to be inconclusive at this time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="311f8316-edb1-4222-bf79-11949d4d2805" CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:24:47.900" UserId="36194" Text="Discouraging screenshots of questions - at least the textual part" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="311f8316-edb1-4222-bf79-11949d4d2805" CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:24:47.900" UserId="36194" Text="|discussion|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="b9dc1bdb-f624-45f1-88db-64f0b6f77db2" CreationDate="2018-03-30T15:26:12.397" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="380d3e91-969c-4131-a9c1-76526743bdb9" CreationDate="2018-03-30T18:39:57.370" UserId="1492" Text="I agree that text should not be a screenshot. A link could refer to the text and the content described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That [elsewhere reference][1] refers indirectly to me, because I am not open to learning mathjax . The reason is age, so *if the physics.SE community wants to discourage old physicists, they should state it clearly.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started with computers back in 1967 ,often correcting code on binary cards, and by 2000 when I retired C had become the latest programming tool; and papers were written in postcript.I have reached a saturation limit on memorizing tools. What is wrong in using ^ for a power after all? it is another symbol, and the answers are not going to the printer for a pretty book . When I need to use elaborate formulas I use a screenshot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing has become clear,though, negative votes with no physics reason behind them, it must be  people who consider that format is very important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="f872d430-614b-4649-8275-03cb3cfa9696" CreationDate="2018-03-30T20:09:48.493" UserId="36194" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="[This was originally posted as an answer to another question and was transformed into a question following a comment to this effect.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in [another questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10555/36194), I would suggest the community simply ban screenshots of text.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if it can be easily done with LaTeX/MathJax, there’s no place for a screenshot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions (at least the textual part of the question) is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to screenshots of equations, there is already a discussion [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194) that would be applicable to questions as well as answers; the discussion on screenshots of equations seems to be inconclusive at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here are [a first ][1] and [and a second][2] example of questions where text is posted as screenshot.  The OPs are not rapid posters.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/396665/36194&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/395586/36194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32249" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="95ae883a-7200-40ad-824e-ebfcc7142bb1" CreationDate="2018-03-30T20:55:56.117" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/979824568297836544" />
  <row Id="32257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="08567f89-81f4-4f0c-b0bb-4bde163eb548" CreationDate="2018-03-31T05:20:36.497" UserId="1492" Text="The hat fits me, and also it would fit older users . Everybody ages, and with age memory is not the same, particularly short term memory. I do try to use dollar signs around simple formulae, (since I found out that two $*$ in the paragraph turn everything into italics and destroy the simple formula ! ). The same care I take in spelling and syntax. (syntax sometimes is atrocious in some questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I use simple math and / and x and ^ . When more complicated formats are needed I use screen shots. I am grateful to edits for replacing screen shot formulas, even the simple  small ones, (I guess people gain points by doing that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effort for remembering a new format grows with age.One of the reasons I participate here is to keep my physics memories alive, and I enjoy the effort. I do not think format is all that important , these answers are not going to a publisher to become a permanent book. If physics.SE wants to stick to format as the mathematics.SE does, it should be clearly stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10568" RevisionGUID="f183713d-b5d2-4a8d-abd2-501cc3d8424f" CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:20:17.910" UserId="106502" Text="If a user's posts are still a net positive to the community, there's no need to &quot;deal with&quot; them. Edit in the MathJax if you have the inclination, and, if not, someone else will probably do it eventually. Looking through the history of the Suggested Edits queue, it seems like we have a decent number of people willing to typeset a few equations here and there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If their posts are so poorly formatted as to be a net negative to the community (i.e. if they require so much fixing that no one wants to do it, if they're unreadable, or if they have issues besides formatting), treat them as you would any other low quality post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="04fee196-0062-4e7b-863b-b42beeffb7aa" CreationDate="2018-03-31T10:16:37.563" UserId="106502" Comment=" &amp;#8238; Does this still work?" Text="$$ \def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;\draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;\end{tikzpicture}}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ {\it test} ~test~ {\rm test} ~\operatorname{test}~ \ignore{\def\x{\x}\x}$$&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32260" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="cc24c1fc-0bde-4ce8-a665-8a3523a8f9fe" CreationDate="2018-03-31T10:17:09.707" UserId="106502" Comment="Rollback to [938d39ae-3db9-40d7-9812-74eb5fd83e89]" Text="$$ \def\ignore #1{} \ignore{\begin{tikzpicture}&#xD;&#xA;\draw (0,0) -- (1,1) ;&#xD;&#xA;\end{tikzpicture}}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ {\it test} ~test~ {\rm test} ~\operatorname{test}~ \ignore{\def\x{\x}\x}$$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="0c394479-eceb-4761-9ccc-82e840774a07" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:28:26.333" UserId="5477" Text="There is a duck on the homepage. It is a bright colour and does not scroll with the page, hence it is a hideous eyesore and needs to be removed from my sight. I clicked on it, hoping a close option would appear. I was instead presented with a dialog asking if I had a microphone. Naturally I selected &quot;no&quot;, but it activated my microphone and started listening anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The duck is evil. I wish it to be gone immediately. Please tell me how." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="0c394479-eceb-4761-9ccc-82e840774a07" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:28:26.333" UserId="5477" Text="How to kill the duck" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="0c394479-eceb-4761-9ccc-82e840774a07" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:28:26.333" UserId="5477" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="92d09b03-6500-41da-806e-be578af055d1" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:30:16.177" UserId="5477" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There is a duck on the homepage. It is a bright colour and does not scroll with the page, hence it is a hideous eyesore and needs to be removed from my sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I clicked on it, hoping a close option would appear. I was instead presented with a dialog asking if I had a microphone. Naturally I selected &quot;no&quot;, but it activated my microphone and started listening anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The duck is evil. I wish it to be gone immediately. Please tell me how." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10570" RevisionGUID="d5ead6d2-2ceb-4d54-8547-dabfbdf4e8cc" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:31:51.370" UserId="50583" Text="[This mother meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/308570/263383) describe how to tell the duck you hate it so it goes away. From [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/308574/263383):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an option to remove this duck **after** [emphasis mine] it quacks once. Click on &quot;I hate this duck&quot;. It understands and disappears. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a problem with the duck growing attached to you and coming back after a while, see the other answers there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="23855444-9398-4081-b22b-df859b6267f0" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:40:35.233" UserId="5477" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="There is a duck on the homepage. It is a bright colour and does not scroll with the page, hence it is a hideous eyesore and needs to be removed from my sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I clicked on it, hoping a close option would appear. I was instead presented with a dialog asking if I had a microphone. Naturally I selected &quot;no&quot;, but it activated my microphone and started listening anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The duck is evil. I wish it to be gone immediately. Please tell me how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Well, I've killed it with an adblocker now, so fair enough. As a side effect of this, Stack Exchange will never get any ad revenue from me. I'm all for april fools jokes, and yes, you got me - mostly through the not-so-clever trick of doing it *in March* - but do you have to make it so difficult to dismiss the thing once we've got the joke?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="8f4cd5d2-4701-440f-a4d8-338292d25baa" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:49:23.333" UserId="36194" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="[This was originally posted as an answer to another question and was transformed into a question following a comment to this effect.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in [another questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10555/36194), I would suggest the community simply ban screenshots of text.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if the text part of a question can be easily typeset with the built-in editor, there’s no place for a screenshot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions (at least the textual part of the question) is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to screenshots of equations, there is already a discussion [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194) that would be applicable to questions as well as answers; the discussion on screenshots of equations seems to be inconclusive at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here are [a first ][1] and [and a second][2] example of questions where text is posted as screenshot.  The OPs are not rapid posters.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/396665/36194&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/395586/36194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="0d626d68-d404-4017-aadf-3181ea0c643b" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:49:23.670" UserId="25301" Text="It seems to me that this would essentially be an impossible task. I don't believe there is a functional way to differentiate an image of text versus an image, so the ban would have to be a ban on *all* images, which is definitely wrong.&#xA;&#xA;In my experience, there are generally two types of users who post screenshots of books/papers&#xA;&#xA;* users who are asking us to do their work&#xA;* users who are answering questions&#xA;&#xA;The first bullet is off-topic anyway, so these ought to be closed and downvoted so that the Roomba can delete them (assuming they're not deleted sooner by high rep members).&#xA;&#xA;The second bullet is generally considered low quality &amp; are usually flagged as such, but one should leave a comment leading to the MathJax tutorial (often this could be extended to doing one equation for them as an example as well) in hopes that they become a good, contributing user.&#xA;&#xA;I don't see a problem with current policy on these posts and how the community handles them in practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="0ff883fc-6027-4512-91fc-0f78abe0cc89" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:52:08.543" UserId="36194" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="[This was originally posted as an answer to another question and was transformed into a question following a comment to this effect.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in [another questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10555/36194), I would suggest the community simply ban screenshots of text.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if the text part of a question can be easily typeset with the built-in editor, there’s no place for a screenshot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions (at least the textual part of the question) is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to screenshots of equations, there is already a discussion [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194) that would be applicable to questions as well as answers; the discussion on screenshots of equations seems to be inconclusive at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here are [a first ][1] and [and a second][2] example of questions where text is posted as screenshot.  The OPs are not rapid posters.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited to reflect a comment by @DavidZ to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/396665/36194&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/395586/36194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="1e4b0f19-33d4-40d2-9030-3fb5188130dc" CreationDate="2018-04-01T02:25:24.460" UserId="25301" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="In my experience, there are generally two types of users who post screenshots of books/papers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* users who are asking us to do their work&#xD;&#xA;* users who are answering questions (frequently to posts of the first type)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first bullet is usually off-topic anyway, so these ought to be closed and downvoted so that the Roomba can delete them (assuming they're not deleted sooner by high rep members). This already happens on a regular basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second bullet is generally considered low quality &amp; are usually flagged as such, but one should leave a comment leading to the MathJax tutorial (often this could be extended to doing one equation for them as an example as well) in hopes that they become a good, contributing user. Often times, higher-rep members will replace the whole image (this is also true for the first bullet).  &#xD;&#xA;If the user doesn't respond to the call to typeset their work, then the answers are usually deleted as *low quality* but usually just left as downvoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to me that there isn't any problem to be solved here: the current policies are already in line with OPs expectations and the community handles them as such in practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="a36caf49-1341-42fe-a111-f6ad1254ac13" CreationDate="2018-04-01T03:05:50.843" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="6df40531-0cbb-4de0-b3d5-df0fd5e9138e" CreationDate="2018-04-01T09:22:01.257" UserId="8563" Text="###I agree. Screenshots of text have no place on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is simply no reason that plain text should ever be presented as a screenshot, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. If you want to quote text from a separate source which you have as an image, it is your responsibility to transcribe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transcribing the text, simply put, makes the site easier to read for everyone. It might make things more awkward for the reader by just a little bit, but it's definitely there and it's your responsibility to make your posts as readable as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, it is an important accessibility concern. Do you have good eyesight, and are you reading this site without accessibility tools or without zooming in on text? Then good for you! but not every user of the internet has that ability. There are plenty of people with [visual impairments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment), going from difficulty reading all the way to complete blindness, that have every right to use the internet, which they do relying on [assistive technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology#Visual_impairments) such as [screen readers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader) that do just fine if text is typeset as text, but which get stopped in their tracks when it comes to screenshots. Using proper typesetting (including good use of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) and [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)) provides additional HTML syntax that those assistive technologies can use to give a more meaningful account of the content on the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are some disciplines that are intrinsically hard for visually-impaired people (say, photography? though even then, there are surprises) and physics is *not* one of them. I would like this site to be open to all, and proper typesetting is one of the things that allows us to be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a separate track, transcribing the text in your question is a way to demonstrate that you're prepared to match the effort you're asking others to perform in researching and writing an answer to your question with an effort to the best of your abilities to write the best question you can. If you cannot be bothered to type out two paragraphs of text, which then means that prospective answerers need to spend extra time squinting at a smudgy screenshot, then that speaks very poorly about how you value the effort you're soliciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific thread is explicitly about text, which has no entry barriers to transcribing. Quite often, though, screenshots of text will also include some mathematics, which do require learning to use the LaTeX syntax used by the site's MathJax engine. I do not think this is an excuse: if you want to quote mathematics, it is your responsibility to typeset it accurately. This is indeed an entry barrier, and you do need to learn how to do so - [the Mathematics SE site has an excellent tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) - which goes back to putting in the effort in formatting your question correctly, to match the effort you're expecting from the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, using the correct MathJax to display the math is even more of an accessibility concern. MathJax output is displayed using [MathML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathML), which contains a ton of semantic information that can be used by screen readers. To see just how much, right click on any complicated formula (here's one for convenience, $f(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty c_n e^{inx}$) and click on Show Math As &gt; MathML Code. The resulting mess is *not* meant to be human-readable (the way LaTeX syntax is) but it *is* a bonanza for an automated system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, from time to time (and in practice quite often), community members might step in and transcribe an image for you, particularly if you're a new site member. That's great! somebody decided to help you out and help improve the site on their own. However, if this happens more than two or three times, then it quickly starts becoming abuse of the site's community mechanisms. You are responsible for the content you post and for ensuring that it does not unduly waste other people's time, either editors or readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what this community should do with questions that contain screenshotted text: what we've been doing already, namely downvoting and, where appropriate, closing; leave a link to this thread if you feel like the downvote requires an explanation. If you have the time and inclination, transcribe the image, particularly if it's a new user, but do make it clear to the poster that they should be doing that on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="85cd4ec8-8d50-4486-bf2b-4ac126919574" CreationDate="2018-04-01T09:27:22.333" UserId="8563" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="###I agree. Screenshots of text have no place on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is simply no reason that plain text should ever be presented as a screenshot, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. If you want to quote text from a separate source which you have as an image, it is your responsibility to transcribe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transcribing the text, simply put, makes the site easier to read for everyone. It might make things more awkward for the reader by just a little bit, but it's definitely there and it's your responsibility to make your posts as readable as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, it is an important accessibility concern. Do you have good eyesight, and are you reading this site without accessibility tools or without zooming in on text? Then good for you! but not every user of the internet has that ability. There are plenty of people with [visual impairments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment), going from difficulty reading all the way to complete blindness, that have every right to use the internet, which they do relying on [assistive technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology#Visual_impairments) such as [screen readers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader) that do just fine if text is typeset as text, but which get stopped in their tracks when it comes to screenshots. Using proper typesetting (including good use of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) and [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)) provides additional HTML syntax that those assistive technologies can use to give a more meaningful account of the content on the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are some disciplines that are intrinsically hard for visually-impaired people (say, photography? though even then, there are surprises) and physics is *not* one of them. I would like this site to be open to all, and proper typesetting is one of the things that allows us to be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This machine-readability also makes the text easier to register and index by search-engine crawlers, which makes the post easier to search for and easier to find by other users, and which therefore makes the post more useful for a broader cross-section of internet users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a separate track, transcribing the text in your question is a way to demonstrate that you're prepared to match the effort you're asking others to perform in researching and writing an answer to your question with an effort to the best of your abilities to write the best question you can. If you cannot be bothered to type out two paragraphs of text, which then means that prospective answerers need to spend extra time squinting at a smudgy screenshot, then that speaks very poorly about how you value the effort you're soliciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific thread is explicitly about text, which has no entry barriers to transcribing. Quite often, though, screenshots of text will also include some mathematics, which do require learning to use the LaTeX syntax used by the site's MathJax engine. I do not think this is an excuse: if you want to quote mathematics, it is your responsibility to typeset it accurately. This is indeed an entry barrier, and you do need to learn how to do so - [the Mathematics SE site has an excellent tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) - which goes back to putting in the effort in formatting your question correctly, to match the effort you're expecting from the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, using the correct MathJax to display the math is even more of an accessibility concern. MathJax output is displayed using [MathML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathML), which contains a ton of semantic information that can be used by screen readers. To see just how much, right click on any complicated formula (here's one for convenience, $f(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty c_n e^{inx}$) and click on Show Math As &gt; MathML Code. The resulting mess is *not* meant to be human-readable (the way LaTeX syntax is) but it *is* a bonanza for an automated system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, from time to time (and in practice quite often), community members might step in and transcribe an image for you, particularly if you're a new site member. That's great! somebody decided to help you out and help improve the site on their own. However, if this happens more than two or three times, then it quickly starts becoming abuse of the site's community mechanisms. You are responsible for the content you post and for ensuring that it does not unduly waste other people's time, either editors or readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what this community should do with questions that contain screenshotted text: what we've been doing already, namely downvoting and, where appropriate, closing; leave a link to this thread if you feel like the downvote requires an explanation. If you have the time and inclination, transcribe the image, particularly if it's a new user, but do make it clear to the poster that they should be doing that on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="dec5e858-86a9-4aa4-ad08-590f715a4285" CreationDate="2018-04-01T09:53:06.913" UserId="5477" Comment="deleted 80 characters in body" Text="There is a duck on the homepage. It is a bright colour and does not scroll with the page, hence it is a hideous eyesore and needs to be removed from my sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I clicked on it, hoping a close option would appear. I was instead presented with a dialog asking if I had a microphone. Naturally I selected &quot;no&quot;, but it activated my microphone and started listening anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The duck is evil. I wish it to be gone immediately. Please tell me how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Well, I've killed it with an adblocker now, so fair enough. I'm all for april fools jokes, and yes, you got me - mostly through the not-so-clever trick of doing it *in March* - but do you have to make it so difficult to dismiss the thing once we've got the joke?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="864d1aa2-e4e9-4d83-8b0a-067d5a02a870" CreationDate="2018-04-01T12:47:56.593" UserId="1492" Comment="added 899 characters in body" Text="The hat fits me, and also it would fit older users . Everybody ages, and with age memory is not the same, particularly short term memory. I do try to use dollar signs around simple formulae, (since I found out that two $*$ in the paragraph turn everything into italics and destroy the simple formula ! ). The same care I take in spelling and syntax. (syntax sometimes is atrocious in some questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I use simple math and / and x and ^ . When more complicated formats are needed I use screen shots. I am grateful to edits for replacing screen shot formulas, even the simple  small ones, (I guess people gain points by doing that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effort for remembering a new format grows with age.One of the reasons I participate here is to keep my physics memories alive, and I enjoy the effort. I do not think format is all that important , these answers are not going to a publisher to become a permanent book. **If physics.SE wants to stick to format as the mathematics.SE does, it should be clearly stated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit after comments:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made the last sentence in bold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment blind and people with difficulties in vision were mentioned ( also older ones) where using mathjax  would enable them to magnify the formulae in a tablet or screen sensitive device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to see how many users of physics.SE consider themselves in this group. In my case, resistance to mathjax is accompanied with resistance to newfangled screens where not so steady fingers have to manipulate tiny areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is the same as resistance to new cars, with oodles of electronics, give me a gear shift one any time. All of these new things need a lot of memorizing, motor memory too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can just  promise to use the dollar signs for simple expressions, and give links for any screenshot formulae I use. If mathjax becomes a rule, too bad. I will have to look elsewhere for my physics fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10574" RevisionGUID="55ccaecd-a6af-413b-93a7-6813c5fbb3ec" CreationDate="2018-04-02T01:41:15.943" UserId="32426" Text="1. Is posting text as screenshots okay? **NO**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If a post is perfectly okay, except that it contains a text screenshot, should we close it? **No, we should fix it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What if there is no resource to fix? (= nobody converts it to text or latex before the VtC vote is done). I think, if the post is really useful, somebody will once do it. If it is not so good, then bye.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think rationality dictates to check the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If there is a high school student being lazy to even type in his homework. Then there are also many other problems most likely (homework, unclear, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;2. The other end: if there is an old physicist, not knowing latex, but giving high quality content. I think we should help him on the spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cases what we actually find in the review queues, are between (1) and (2), but (1) is the overwhelming majority. But the people in (2) are IMHO too worthy for an iron-fist ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Banning screenshots won't eliminate them, because rep1 first-posters don't know anything from the meta site. They don't know the rules. They will still post. We can't eliminate them, because in their first post, we have no idea, if they have the potential to become an useful site member or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the rules should target to filter them. If their first experience with the site is that their post is killed because they were nit-picked, then they likely won't ever come back. In the &quot;first posts&quot; review, we should be nicer and repetitive, like a school teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere I've read an SE insider stat(*), how the first-posters tend to react to the different events what happens to their post. For me, the most surprising result was that they don't take closures so badly as they are. They don't take care to the votes. Their chance to appear and post again is the highest if they get an answer, but even comments and *edits* help a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the official site rules are binary: something is either okay or not. Un-officially, there is some flexibility in the system. In this case, in my opinion, having a post with screenshot should be a huge disadvantage, but not a standalone reason to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*: I am ready to hunt for my source on ask.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="af04528a-6a94-4fe8-99e9-ae7bbead852c" CreationDate="2018-04-02T09:59:53.887" UserId="8563" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="###I agree. Screenshots of text have no place on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is simply no reason that plain text should ever be presented as a screenshot, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. If you want to quote text from a separate source which you have as an image, it is your responsibility to transcribe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transcribing the text, simply put, makes the site easier to read for everyone. It might make things more awkward for the reader by just a little bit, but it's definitely there and it's your responsibility to make your posts as readable as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, it is an important accessibility concern. Do you have good eyesight, and are you reading this site without accessibility tools or without zooming in on text? Then good for you! but not every user of the internet has that ability. There are plenty of people with [visual impairments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment), going from difficulty reading all the way to complete blindness, that have every right to use the internet, which they do relying on [assistive technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology#Visual_impairments) such as [screen readers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader) that do just fine if text is typeset as text, but which get stopped in their tracks when it comes to screenshots. Using proper typesetting (including good use of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) and [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)) provides additional HTML syntax that those assistive technologies can use to give a more meaningful account of the content on the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are some disciplines that are intrinsically hard for visually-impaired people (say, photography? though even then, there are surprises) and physics is *not* one of them. I would like this site to be open to all, and proper typesetting is one of the things that allows us to be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This machine-readability also makes the text easier to register and index by search-engine crawlers, which makes the post easier to search for and easier to find by other users, and which therefore makes the post more useful for a broader cross-section of internet users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a separate track, transcribing the text in your question is a way to demonstrate that you're prepared to match the effort you're asking others to perform in researching and writing an answer to your question with an effort to the best of your abilities to write the best question you can. If you cannot be bothered to type out two paragraphs of text, which then means that prospective answerers need to spend extra time squinting at a smudgy screenshot, then that speaks very poorly about how you value the effort you're soliciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific thread is explicitly about text, which has no entry barriers to transcribing. Quite often, though, screenshots of text will also include some mathematics, which do require learning to use the LaTeX syntax used by the site's MathJax engine. I do not think this is an excuse: if you want to quote mathematics, it is your responsibility to typeset it accurately. This is indeed an entry barrier, and you do need to learn how to do so - [the Mathematics SE site has an excellent tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) - which goes back to putting in the effort in formatting your question correctly, to match the effort you're expecting from the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, using the correct MathJax to display the math is even more of an accessibility concern. MathJax output is displayed using [MathML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathML), which contains a ton of semantic information that can be used by screen readers. To see just how much, right click on any complicated formula (here's one for convenience, $f(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty c_n e^{inx}$) and click on Show Math As &gt; MathML Code (so, for my example, it produces [this code](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8c64W.png), which is the 'true' internal representation of the maths as the browser understands it). The resulting mess is *not* meant to be human-readable (the way LaTeX syntax is) but it *is* a bonanza for an automated system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, from time to time (and in practice quite often), community members might step in and transcribe an image for you, particularly if you're a new site member. That's great! somebody decided to help you out and help improve the site on their own. However, if this happens more than two or three times, then it quickly starts becoming abuse of the site's community mechanisms. You are responsible for the content you post and for ensuring that it does not unduly waste other people's time, either editors or readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what this community should do with questions that contain screenshotted text: what we've been doing already, namely downvoting and, where appropriate, closing; leave a link to this thread if you feel like the downvote requires an explanation. If you have the time and inclination, transcribe the image, particularly if it's a new user, but do make it clear to the poster that they should be doing that on their own.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="d25d8cf2-d91b-4b1d-b40e-16e569d1a707" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:58:41.470" UserId="36194" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="[This was originally posted as an answer to another question and was transformed into a question following a comment to this effect.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in [another questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10555/36194), I would suggest the community simply close questions containing screenshots of text.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if the text part of a question can be easily typeset with the built-in editor, there’s no place for a screenshot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions (at least the textual part of the question) is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to screenshots of equations, there is already a discussion [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194) that would be applicable to questions as well as answers; the discussion on screenshots of equations seems to be inconclusive at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here are [a first ][1] and [and a second][2] example of questions where text is posted as screenshot.  The OPs are not rapid posters.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited to reflect a comment by @DavidZ to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: after several comments by @KyleKanos, &quot;simply ban screenshots of text&quot; has been changed to &quot;simply close questions containing screenshots of text&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/396665/36194&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/395586/36194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="fbef6b5d-f525-4a02-bad5-d5ff035d3986" CreationDate="2018-04-03T04:13:57.147" UserId="183212" Text="Is there an efficient way to search all questions and answers in Physics StackExchange?  &quot;Help&quot; says to use the search box that's in the upper right hand corner of every page.  There's no search box there.  Is it because I'm using the Firefox browser?  Is there another way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="fbef6b5d-f525-4a02-bad5-d5ff035d3986" CreationDate="2018-04-03T04:13:57.147" UserId="183212" Text="Is there an efficient way to search all questions and answers in Physics StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="fbef6b5d-f525-4a02-bad5-d5ff035d3986" CreationDate="2018-04-03T04:13:57.147" UserId="183212" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="91d1dee8-6a13-411b-80f2-623324debce3" CreationDate="2018-04-03T11:04:56.400" UserId="25301" Comment="removed edit history, there is a button explicitly for looking at the history for a reason...." Text="[This was originally posted as an answer to another question and was transformed into a question following a comment to this effect.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To discourage rapid postings of the type alluded to in [another questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10555/36194), I would suggest the community simply close questions containing screenshots of text.  I can understand a screenshot of a figure, but if the text part of a question can be easily typeset with the built-in editor, there’s no place for a screenshot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anything, the time and effort going to typesetting makes it easier to justify that the OP has done *some* effort - at least a tysetting effort - in thinking about and posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course typesetting also means a question becomes searchable and all those advantages, but it seems to me that intolerance to screenshot questions (at least the textual part of the question) is enough of a deterrent to eliminate the most egregious cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to screenshots of equations, there is already a discussion [elsewhere](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10284/36194) that would be applicable to questions as well as answers; the discussion on screenshots of equations seems to be inconclusive at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here are [a first ][1] and [and a second][2] example of questions where text is posted as screenshot.  The OPs are not rapid posters.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/396665/36194&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/395586/36194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32290" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="2416d934-0cf0-4c0e-8718-42a2fce100dd" CreationDate="2018-04-03T12:39:13.127" UserId="44126" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="9656e94c-53c6-42e0-a2f9-2c8a03eb4d8f" CreationDate="2018-04-04T05:50:10.887" UserId="1492" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="The hat fits me, and also it would fit older users . Everybody ages, and with age memory is not the same, particularly short term memory. I do try to use dollar signs around simple formulae, (since I found out that two $*$ in the paragraph turn everything into italics and destroy the simple formula ! ). The same care I take in spelling and syntax. (syntax sometimes is atrocious in some questions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I use simple math and / and x and ^ . When more complicated formats are needed I use screen shots. I am grateful to edits for replacing screen shot formulas, even the simple  small ones, (I guess people gain points by doing that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effort for remembering a new format grows with age.One of the reasons I participate here is to keep my physics memories alive, and I enjoy the effort. I do not think format is all that important , these answers are not going to a publisher to become a permanent book. **If physics.SE wants to stick to format as the mathematics.SE does, it should be clearly stated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit after comments:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made the last sentence in bold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment blind and people with difficulties in vision were mentioned ( also older ones) where using mathjax  would enable them to magnify the formulae in a tablet or screen sensitive device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to see how many users of physics.SE consider themselves in this group. In my case, resistance to mathjax is accompanied with resistance to newfangled screens where not so steady fingers have to manipulate tiny areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is the same as resistance to new cars, with oodles of electronics, give me a gear shift one any time. All of these new things need a lot of memorizing, motor memory too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I can just  promise to use the dollar signs for simple expressions, and give links for any screenshot formulae I use. If mathjax becomes a rule, too bad. I will have to look elsewhere for my physics fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this coincidence interesting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just saw on TV a young blind boy on the fourth year of a physics course in Thessaloniki university  who [won a summer student place][1] in Oxford for astrophysics!  the link is in greek. Last year he had won a place at MIT ! He plans to go for a PhD in the states. His professors talk of an exceptional mind. It seems there are computer based tools which can transcribe books to Braille.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kathimerini.gr/902542/article/epikairothta/ellada/to-talento-anoi3e-oles-tis-portes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="5033338c-9b8e-4efa-8541-2e0ce1e5bd5a" CreationDate="2018-04-05T16:13:45.823" UserId="83380" Text="The excellent answers to the question [Why do metals only glow red, yellow and white and not through the full range of the spectrum?][1] are valuable and helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure why this question should be considered a duplicate of [What causes a black-body radiation curve to be continuous?][2] These answers do not seem to address the other question at all, and pointing readers to these answers may cause them to miss the better answers there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this really be marked as duplicate like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough rep to re-open it, hopefully someone else will get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@@EmilioPisanty has noted that the question [What would the RGB color value of an infinitely hot blackbody be?][3] is related, but the question I am asking about has so many high quality answers I think it should not be pointed to this question either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/331899/83380&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71503/83380&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/207654/83380&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="5033338c-9b8e-4efa-8541-2e0ce1e5bd5a" CreationDate="2018-04-05T16:13:45.823" UserId="83380" Text="Should this question really be marked as duplicate like this? They seem fundamentally different" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="5033338c-9b8e-4efa-8541-2e0ce1e5bd5a" CreationDate="2018-04-05T16:13:45.823" UserId="83380" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="70b115fd-0e05-483d-9f0b-88d55d1ea6ca" CreationDate="2018-04-05T16:19:42.357" UserId="83380" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="The excellent answers to the question [Why do metals only glow red, yellow and white and not through the full range of the spectrum?][1] are valuable and helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure why this question should be considered a duplicate of [What causes a black-body radiation curve to be continuous?][2] These answers do not seem to address the other question at all, and pointing readers to these answers may cause them to miss the better answers there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this really be marked as duplicate like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough rep to re-open it, hopefully someone else will get the ball rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty [has noted][4] that the question [What would the RGB color value of an infinitely hot blackbody be?][3] is related, but the question I am asking about has so many high quality answers I think it should not be pointed to this question either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/331899/83380&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71503/83380&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/207654/83380&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/331899/why-do-metals-only-glow-red-yellow-and-white-and-not-through-the-full-range-of#comment744770_331899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10578" RevisionGUID="3a068813-c85e-4ab7-87ad-a0a1e0d44376" CreationDate="2018-04-05T19:41:09.963" UserId="124" Text="Important note: whether two questions are duplicates depends on the _questions_, not the answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question, which is currently marked as a duplicate of the other, asks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why don't metals glow from red to yellow to green to blue etc.? Why only red, then yellow and then white? Shouldn't all wavelengths be emitted one by one as the temperature of the metal increases?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If some metals do glow at with different colours, could you give me examples of such metals and the reason why this happens in specific cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second question asks (at its core)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am wondering what exactly gives rise to a basically continuous black-body radiation curve in real objects? Since atomic energy states are quantized, it seems real life black-body curves would have some degree of measurable quantization to them (or perhaps the degree of quantization is so small the radiation curves look continuous).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is about how an object's blackbody spectrum changes as its temperature changes, and the second is about a spectrum at a fixed temperature, namely why there are no &quot;holes&quot; in the spectrum due to quantization. These are quite different and on that basis I agree that there should not be a duplicate relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd note that the first question also goes on to explain what makes it different from the other one. That is, in general, the recommended way for the question author to respond to the question being marked as a duplicate when they believe it shouldn't be. But in this case I think it's clear even without that explanation that these are different questions. Unfortunately, the edit was done in such a way that it's not going to make a whole lot of sense after the duplicate mark is reversed, so that question is going to need either a rollback or some further editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave this here for a few hours to see if anyone raises mitigating factors, but if not, I'll undo the duplicate mark and make the necessary edits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32303" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="708a554c-4e22-4f57-b3fe-5df4e4d88ef6" CreationDate="2018-04-06T05:48:52.923" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="e0df7f72-2099-4687-8764-133be397dfb0" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:36:53.480" UserId="83398" Text="In my opinion, the purpose of the 'non-mainstream' close reason is for non-mainstream theories. It's for people who have invented their own theory of everything, put it on Vixra, self-published a book about it, and want to have us look at it. This is a legitimate reason to close, as we get a couple of these people every day, and if we don't push them away quickly they'll just overwhelm the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time the scope of this close reason has increased to include naive questions. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/398121/what-color-are-elementary-particles) about the color of an elementary particle&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397849/conceptual-question-about-relativity) about tachyons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are perfectly fine, if misguided questions from laypeople who want to know about physics. They can be answered within mainstream physics just fine, even though the answer will be along the lines of &quot;this is not a valid thing to ask, because...&quot;. Can we be a bit more careful about closing questions like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="e0df7f72-2099-4687-8764-133be397dfb0" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:36:53.480" UserId="83398" Text="Reserving the use of the 'non-mainstream' close reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="e0df7f72-2099-4687-8764-133be397dfb0" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:36:53.480" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="ea0067e3-01f9-4344-800a-33d9ad16d92e" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:48:13.547" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In my opinion, the purpose of the 'non-mainstream' close reason is for non-mainstream theories. It's for people who have invented their own theory of everything, put it on Vixra, self-published a book about it, and want to have us look at it. This is a legitimate reason to close, as we get a couple of these people every day, and if we don't push them away quickly they'll just overwhelm the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time the scope of this close reason has increased to include naive questions. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/398121/) about the color of an elementary particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/397849/) about tachyons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are perfectly fine, if misguided questions from laypeople who want to know about physics. They can be answered within mainstream physics just fine, even though the answer will be along the lines of &quot;this is not a valid thing to ask, because...&quot;. Can we be a bit more careful about closing questions like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="ea0067e3-01f9-4344-800a-33d9ad16d92e" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:48:13.547" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="38e15db7-8d5d-471f-a75c-0536b6af00e6" CreationDate="2018-04-07T13:44:47.520" UserId="83398" Text="I don't know if this has come up in discussion, but somebody scraped various tags on Phys.SE and copy-pasted the results together into several books, including one on [QFT](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Questions-Answers-ebook/dp/B01G68FR3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523108252&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=george+duckett+physics), one on [GR](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Questions-Answers-ebook/dp/B01G68FR3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523108252&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=george+duckett+physics), and one on [optics](https://www.amazon.com/Optics-Questions-Answers-Duckett-2016-06-16/dp/B01MS1Y0B1/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8). The books in print cost about \$6 while the ones out of print can cost up to \$1000. The prices are so exorbitant I thought it was one of those [Amazon money laundering operations](http://fortune.com/2018/02/22/money-laundering-books-amazon/), but it seems to be serious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anybody been contacted about this? Is this even legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="38e15db7-8d5d-471f-a75c-0536b6af00e6" CreationDate="2018-04-07T13:44:47.520" UserId="83398" Text="Somebody scraped our answers and sold them as a book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="38e15db7-8d5d-471f-a75c-0536b6af00e6" CreationDate="2018-04-07T13:44:47.520" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="dc560339-ed4d-42a6-8654-9bc887e73152" CreationDate="2018-04-07T13:47:53.907" UserId="2451" Text="General comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to non-mainstream topics, such as, e.g., faster-than-light travel, tachyons, time travel, warp-drive, wormholes, antigravity, multiverses, parallel universes, pre-big-bang, etc, the question should be of high quality, well-defined, well-researched, well-documented, and preferably referring to a specific theory, before Phys.SE should accept it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is that Phys.SE's reputation as a trustworthy &amp; reliable physics Q&amp;A site is at stake. The Phys.SE community must draw a line between mainstream &amp; non-mainstream. This is best maintained by not being a soapbox.&#xD;&#xA;The Phys.SE community cannot rely on hoping that potential answers will always correct non-mainstream questions &amp; views. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="70070a35-6f76-4601-8565-b3b9d9407b02" CreationDate="2018-04-07T13:59:45.570" UserId="50583" Text="As long as these &quot;books&quot; meet the attribution requirements of the [Creative Commons license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) all SE content is licensed under, i.e. link to the post and author of everything they copy, this is perfectly legal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [this mother meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/273989/263383)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="9ee2bee2-8ec6-47cf-8209-5be60c5832d1" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:20:45.903" UserId="83398" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="In my opinion, the purpose of the 'non-mainstream' close reason is for non-mainstream theories. It's for people who have invented their own theory of everything, put it on Vixra, self-published a [book](https://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804) about it, and want to have us look at it. This is a legitimate reason to close, as we get a couple of these people every day, and if we don't push them away quickly they'll just overwhelm the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time the scope of this close reason has increased to include naive questions. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/398121/) about the color of an elementary particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/397849/) about tachyons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are perfectly fine, if misguided questions from laypeople who want to know about physics. They can be answered within mainstream physics just fine, even though the answer will be along the lines of &quot;this is not a valid thing to ask, because...&quot;. Can we be a bit more careful about closing questions like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="be3bad60-ae61-4447-aa20-291ecd16d73f" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:24:57.623" UserId="84967" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I don't know if this has come up in discussion, but somebody scraped various tags on Phys.SE and copy-pasted the results together into several books, including one on [QFT](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Questions-Answers-ebook/dp/B01G68FR3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523108252&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=george+duckett+physics), one on [GR](https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Questions-Answers-2016-06-01/dp/B01K1550DA/ref=sr_1_36?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523114642&amp;sr=1-36&amp;refinements=p_27%3AGeorge+A+Duckett), and one on [optics](https://www.amazon.com/Optics-Questions-Answers-Duckett-2016-06-16/dp/B01MS1Y0B1/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8). The books in print cost about \$6 while the ones out of print can cost up to \$1000. The prices are so exorbitant I thought it was one of those [Amazon money laundering operations](http://fortune.com/2018/02/22/money-laundering-books-amazon/), but it seems to be serious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anybody been contacted about this? Is this even legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="b3c655ee-f3c3-420f-9746-657fde99757e" CreationDate="2018-04-07T22:19:35.280" UserId="124" Text="I think you may be right. I'm not sure the scope of the close reason is meant to be quite as narrow as (it sounds like) you're proposing here, but it is good to be careful not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [an FAQ post describing the use of the non-mainstream close reason](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site). And for further context, I went back and dug up [the original proposal of this close reason](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4534/124) as well as [the chat session where we hashed out the wording](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/non-mainstream-physics-close-reason-discussion). The main focus of all these resources is on this site not being a substitute for peer review. A question that asks us to broadly evaluate the general correctness of some idea, in the manner that a reviewer would, is supposed to be off topic. There's a notion of _broadness_ there, in terms of what is being asked, that may have been neglected over the years, and we should probably pay more attention to that going forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the issue is that questions about fictional physics (i.e. questions that start from a premise that violates a theory and then asks us to use that theory to predict a result) are also meant to be off topic, as described [in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic). We don't currently have a standard close reason that applies to these questions, so they wind up getting grouped under non-mainstream physics. Perhaps it's worth having a separate discussion about how to handle those questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="f797e763-9d21-4455-b7d5-0109f281b005" CreationDate="2018-04-08T03:20:08.467" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/982820359677325312" />
  <row Id="32331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="8a0eb659-4fc2-4d54-b435-349549a03a89" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:47:55.723" UserId="98734" Text="I have what I think is an insight, based on a set theoretic analysis of the Riemann integral, regarding whether or not there are any physical variables that really are continuous, vs. discrete. For instance, in QM, energy is quantized but position and time are not yet known to be quantized. However, I think that a set theoretic analysis of integration may indicate that for integrals to work for variables like position, then position probably is quantized. It is not really a question but is more of an analysis. Is it OK to briefly state it and ask if people think it makes sense and has any value?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a full blown paper to publish, nor a typical question. I just want to get feedback on a thought that I had that I can state clearly and briefly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="8a0eb659-4fc2-4d54-b435-349549a03a89" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:47:55.723" UserId="98734" Text="Can I State a Thought About Physics and Ask for Comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="8a0eb659-4fc2-4d54-b435-349549a03a89" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:47:55.723" UserId="98734" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="e26c75b3-c420-417f-b0e5-979e9bdbc25e" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:53:01.087" UserId="98734" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I have what I think is an insight, based on a set theoretic analysis of the Riemann integral, regarding whether or not there are any physical variables that really are continuous, vs. discrete. For instance, in QM, energy is quantized but position and time are not yet known to be quantized. However, I think that a set theoretic analysis of integration may indicate that for integrals to work for variables like position, then position probably is quantized. It is not really a question but is more of an analysis. Is it OK to briefly state it and ask if people think it makes sense and has any value?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a full blown paper to publish, nor a typical question. I just want to get feedback on a thought that I had that I can state clearly and briefly. If not here, then where could I do that? I am hoping here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="c2771b57-e0f1-4d11-941b-ac358be771e3" CreationDate="2018-04-08T06:10:26.050" UserId="124" Text="This sounds like the kind of thing that would be off topic under [our policy on non-mainstream physics](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-non-mainstream-physics-appropriate-for-this-site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you could do is go to [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) and see if anyone might be interested in giving you feedback on your idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32336" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="9290f7ff-a974-49d7-9258-1b7f482603f2" CreationDate="2018-04-08T09:20:34.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/982911064454189057" />
  <row Id="32337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="c2796ecb-0982-4b02-bd12-726b7ce40e34" CreationDate="2018-04-08T14:34:13.640" UserId="36194" Text="This is not the place for what you have in mind, neither for you nor for the users of the site.  The site is set up to answer questions rather than discussions, and it sounds like you want to have a discussion.  Web chats work well between people with lots in common, but discussions - especially through a website - on very novel topics are often complicated by the lack of familiarity with the topic.  Presumably few people will be able to understand what you have in mind, the technical terms you use might have slightly different accepted meanings for different participants, and all it takes is a simple typo to stop the momentum of the discussion.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend that you write some sort of draft to sort out your ideas in a logical manner, and then contact a professional for a live meeting.  There is only so much you can do by writing, and interacting in person with someone is oftentimes the best way to clarify some points and get feedback, i.e. basically overcome all the challenges mentioned above. The difficulty will be finding someone who will listen to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="fafc2c65-2fa6-474b-b34f-90b71f4496ea" CreationDate="2018-04-08T15:15:19.233" UserId="76162" Text="&gt; Can I State a Thought About Physics and Ask for Comments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but you could state your case and then ask a pointed question about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have what I think is an insight, based on a set theoretic analysis of the Riemann integral, regarding whether or not there are any physical variables that really are continuous, vs. discrete. For instance, in QM, energy is quantized but position and time are not yet known to be quantized. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy isn't really quantized, in that the photon has an E=hf wave nature, and it can have any frequency and therefore any energy you like. However the photon is quantized, since h applies to all photons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, I think that a set theoretic analysis of integration may indicate that for integrals to work for variables like position, then position probably is quantized. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as we know that photon doesn't approach you in steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not really a question but is more of an analysis. Is it OK to briefly state it and ask if people think it makes sense and has any value?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really. Like I said you could state your case and then ask a pointed question about it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not have a full blown paper to publish, nor a typical question. I just want to get feedback on a thought that I had that I can state clearly and briefly. If not here, then where could I do that? I am hoping here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you should try here and see how you get on. I wouldn't try chat if I were you. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="d6ca7cb7-8cf8-4068-88c2-12ae61e23907" CreationDate="2018-04-09T04:54:25.097" UserId="65572" Text="[![a travel guide for physics][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVxKH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physicstravelguide.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="04362b3d-f842-4513-ab42-88b856ffe2d7" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:03:00.240" UserId="75916" Text="I was told [there][1] to make a comment under a wrong answer and downvote it and upvote correct answer(s), for dealing with incorrect answers. I present [here][2] a case of an answer that was incomplete, leaving a question unanswered. It was accepted and utterly upvoted (16 votes), while a better answer was posted and responded to the full question but had only 9 votes. So I commented under the accepted answer, claiming that it left an unanswered question and that a better answer existed below it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A day or so later, the same user made a wrong answer and was again utterly [upvoted][3]. After a long discussion in the comment section (and a hot chat discussion), the author of the wrong answer realized he was wrong and accordingly corrected his (now absolutely great) answer. However, from this chat disussion, I learned that this user modified the previous question I linked above, **changing the question he had left unanswered** so now his incomplete answer is complete, and the whole comments I had left below his incomplete answer aren't applying anymore. This is disgusting. How was such an edit even approved? For instance, there's an edit to a answer I suggested an edit to an answer without changing its meaning but it was [rejected][4]. Also, during the hot chat discussion I mentioned above, I noticed that one of my [answer][5] was downvoted, no reason given. I don't have enough points to know who did that, but if that person was in the chat as I suspect, this is disgusting because I see this as a downvote of vengance/hate directed toward me for ranting (I agree I ranted in the chat. I even wanted to quit PSE due to the above problems I faced). But downvotes shouldn't be given for hating a person, only to make the questions and answers better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10507/should-we-keep-a-list-of-wrong-top-accepted-answers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/398184/why-wont-heat-make-the-inner-radius-shrink-to-free-up-space/398229#comment893050_398229&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/398476/why-dont-all-objects-bounce-like-rubber-balls/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/214142&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297291/why-isnt-copper-a-little-ferromagnetic/396896#396896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="04362b3d-f842-4513-ab42-88b856ffe2d7" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:03:00.240" UserId="75916" Text="User modifies question so that his already posted answer gets correct. Many other problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="04362b3d-f842-4513-ab42-88b856ffe2d7" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:03:00.240" UserId="75916" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="b954b80c-3ff8-4dbf-86a8-7b423761473c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:11:39.097" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was told [there][1] to make a comment under a wrong answer and downvote it and upvote correct answer(s), for dealing with incorrect answers. I present [here][2] a case of an answer that was incomplete, leaving a question unanswered. It was accepted and utterly upvoted (16 votes), while a better answer was posted and responded to the full question but had only 9 votes. So I commented under the accepted answer, claiming that it left an unanswered question and that a better answer existed below it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A day or so later, the same user made a wrong answer and was again utterly [upvoted][3]. After a long discussion in the comment section (and a hot chat discussion), the author of the wrong answer realized he was wrong and accordingly corrected his (now absolutely great) answer. However, from this chat disussion, I learned that this user modified the previous question I linked above, **changing the question he had left unanswered** so now his incomplete answer is complete, and the whole comments I had left below his incomplete answer aren't applying anymore. This is disgusting. How was such an edit even approved? For instance, there's an edit to a answer I suggested an edit to an answer without changing its meaning but it was [rejected][4]. Also, during the hot chat discussion I mentioned above, I noticed that one of my [answer][5] was downvoted, no reason given. I don't have enough points to know who did that, but if that person was in the chat as I suspect, this is disgusting because I see this as a downvote of vengance/hate directed toward me for ranting (I agree I ranted in the chat. I even wanted to quit PSE due to the above problems I faced). But downvotes shouldn't be given for hating a person, only to make the questions and answers better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10507/ &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/398184/why-wont-heat-make-the-inner-radius-shrink-to-free-up-space/398229#comment893050_398229&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/398476/ &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/214142&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297291/why-isnt-copper-a-little-ferromagnetic/396896#396896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="b954b80c-3ff8-4dbf-86a8-7b423761473c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:11:39.097" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10592" RevisionGUID="36c61a65-a107-48cc-830c-e822fffca302" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:51:36.837" UserId="124" Text="Here is the original version of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I have a metal ring and I heat it up, I will expect thermal expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From my point of view of expansion, the metal will expand to free space. In that case, the inner radius of the ring should be smaller and the outer diameter of the ring should be bigger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that is not the case, but why the inner radius will become larger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The edit you're talking about makes one change to this: in the last paragraph, it changes &quot;why the inner radius will become larger?&quot; to &quot;could anyone explain me why?&quot; I don't see how this materially affects what the question is asking. The original version asks why the inner radius will become larger, and the edited version asks us to explain why the inner radius will not become smaller. It's the same thing. So I can't see how this would change a formerly incorrect answer into a correct one, as it seems like you're claiming. (Unless I misunderstood what you're asking?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you're absolutely right that it is wrong to edit a question in a way that materially changes what it's asking; that includes editing a question such that a wrong answer becomes correct, or vice versa. I just don't see how the post you've linked is an example of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the separate issue of downvotes: you can't assume anything based on a single downvote. However, if you receive several downvotes in a short time period, and they don't get reversed by an automatic script within 24 hours, you should flag one of the affected posts for moderator attention and we'll look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you suspect a particular site member of having cast those downvotes, it's fine to mention your suspicions in the flag message, but **do not share that information in public** (meta or chat)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="96726642-0790-4516-acad-eabd26e0a991" CreationDate="2018-04-09T11:43:23.707" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1371 characters in body" Text="###I agree. Screenshots of text have no place on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is simply no reason that plain text should ever be presented as a screenshot, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. If you want to quote text from a separate source which you have as an image, it is your responsibility to transcribe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transcribing the text, simply put, makes the site easier to read for everyone. It might make things more awkward for the reader by just a little bit, but it's definitely there and it's your responsibility to make your posts as readable as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, it is an important accessibility concern. Do you have good eyesight, and are you reading this site without accessibility tools or without zooming in on text? Then good for you! but not every user of the internet has that ability. There are plenty of people with [visual impairments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment), going from difficulty reading all the way to complete blindness, that have every right to use the internet, which they do relying on [assistive technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology#Visual_impairments) such as [screen readers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader) that do just fine if text is typeset as text, but which get stopped in their tracks when it comes to screenshots. Using proper typesetting (including good use of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) and [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)) provides additional HTML syntax that those assistive technologies can use to give a more meaningful account of the content on the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are some disciplines that are intrinsically hard for visually-impaired people (say, photography? though even then, there are surprises) and physics is *not* one of them. I would like this site to be open to all, and proper typesetting is one of the things that allows us to be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This machine-readability also makes the text easier to register and index by search-engine crawlers, which makes the post easier to search for and easier to find by other users, and which therefore makes the post more useful for a broader cross-section of internet users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a separate track, transcribing the text in your question is a way to demonstrate that you're prepared to match the effort you're asking others to perform in researching and writing an answer to your question with an effort to the best of your abilities to write the best question you can. If you cannot be bothered to type out two paragraphs of text, which then means that prospective answerers need to spend extra time squinting at a smudgy screenshot, then that speaks very poorly about how you value the effort you're soliciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific thread is explicitly about text, which has no entry barriers to transcribing. Quite often, though, screenshots of text will also include some mathematics, which do require learning to use the LaTeX syntax used by the site's MathJax engine. I do not think this is an excuse: if you want to quote mathematics, it is your responsibility to typeset it accurately. This is indeed an entry barrier, and you do need to learn how to do so - [the Mathematics SE site has an excellent tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) - which goes back to putting in the effort in formatting your question correctly, to match the effort you're expecting from the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, using the correct MathJax to display the math is even more of an accessibility concern. MathJax output is displayed using [MathML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathML), which contains a ton of semantic information that can be used by screen readers. To see just how much, right click on any complicated formula (here's one for convenience, $f(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty c_n e^{inx}$) and click on Show Math As &gt; MathML Code (so, for my example, it produces [this code](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8c64W.png), which is the 'true' internal representation of the maths as the browser understands it). The resulting mess is *not* meant to be human-readable (the way LaTeX syntax is) but it *is* a bonanza for an automated system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, from time to time (and in practice quite often), community members might step in and transcribe an image for you, particularly if you're a new site member. That's great! somebody decided to help you out and help improve the site on their own. However, if this happens more than two or three times, then it quickly starts becoming abuse of the site's community mechanisms. You are responsible for the content you post and for ensuring that it does not unduly waste other people's time, either editors or readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what this community should do with questions that contain screenshotted text: what we've been doing already, namely downvoting and, where appropriate, closing; leave a link to this thread if you feel like the downvote requires an explanation. If you have the time and inclination, transcribe the image, particularly if it's a new user, but do make it clear to the poster that they should be doing that on their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript described in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10484/a-place-for-helpful-comment-templates) and I've added a link to this answer to my copy of the 'Text, not pictures' template, which now reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please [do not post images of texts you want to quote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563), but type it out instead so it is readable for all users and so that it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and as copyable source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please [do not post images of texts you want to quote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563), but type it out instead so it is readable for all users and so that it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This takes a lot of the friction out, and it makes it much easier to autocomment, downvote, and then move on with one's life. Voting to close based purely on the use of a screenshot seems excessive to me, particularly for new users, since in almost all cases there will be other, more established, reasons to close those posts anyway, though then again people's votes are their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="79a256ef-c900-4788-8a88-9a9da4439588" CreationDate="2018-04-09T13:03:12.260" UserId="52290" Text="I have actually modified it because after seeing the original question and answering it I immediately understood the *root* of the problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, Giordano Fearghas was told that the inner radius of the ring is growing, probably on some lecture or so. Then Giordano tried to consider intuitively, why doesn't it shrink? The root of the problem was the wrong *intuition* that told him that *the ring should shrink*, not the fact *why* it grows at all. Explaining &quot;why doesn't it shrink&quot; with the answer &quot;because it grows&quot; wasn't really the solution OP was looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giordano has *proven* my assumptions by commenting &quot;I love this answer&quot; a few minutes after I answered and told me that &quot;he will accept it as fast as he can&quot;, which, again, has proven me that I have correctly understood the original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to avoid confusion around the actual *wording* of his post (such as your comment about &quot;you didn't answer OP's question, but the second answer did that, and it is better&quot;), I've decided to edit it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="c2be2e95-2d76-4772-9ede-5aae949decba" CreationDate="2018-04-09T13:09:18.757" UserId="52290" Comment="added 23 characters in body; added 70 characters in body" Text="I have actually modified it because after seeing the original question and answering it I immediately understood the *root* of the problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, Giordano Fearghas was told that the inner radius of the ring is growing, probably on some lecture or so. Then Giordano tried to consider intuitively, why doesn't it shrink? The root of the problem was the wrong *intuition* that told him that *the ring should shrink*, not the fact *why* it grows at all. Explaining &quot;why doesn't it shrink&quot; with the answer &quot;because it grows&quot; wasn't really the solution OP was looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giordano has *proven* my assumptions by commenting &quot;I love this answer&quot; a few minutes after I answered and told me that &quot;he will accept it as fast as he can&quot;, which, again, has proven me that I have correctly understood the original question (otherwise, Giordano would obviously ask me, &quot;and why does it grow?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to avoid confusion around the actual *wording* of his post (such as your comment about &quot;you didn't answer OP's question, but the second answer did that, and it is better&quot;), I've decided to edit it. I believe I was right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="c0213f4f-94c7-47dc-ba77-c971f783ebca" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:55:46.550" UserId="187604" Text="Suppose I am a user of stack exchange chat. And I am on Android mobile. My questions are **1**) How do I enable Mathjax In chat. Can I? I am asking as the question asked was answered for computer not for mobile. **2**) And another question is can I use Mathjax in any other browser other than  Google Chrome (like Opera browser)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="c0213f4f-94c7-47dc-ba77-c971f783ebca" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:55:46.550" UserId="187604" Text="How to enable Mathjax for Android mobile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="c0213f4f-94c7-47dc-ba77-c971f783ebca" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:55:46.550" UserId="187604" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="3147b837-ec81-4bf1-aa72-582d6b3a0f9c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:57:54.813" UserId="175031" Text=" - I will give two example to put forward my question.&#xD;&#xA;Hierarchy Problem now when I heard this question I found it a lot of metaphysical question because it asks why there is so much discrepancy between weak force and gravity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mass generation problem this again ask for the reason why particles get their mass in first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though physicists are working on these questions I am still skeptical about the idea of involvement of metaphysics in here. Also, I don't understand why metaphysics suffers so harsh criticism by physicists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="3147b837-ec81-4bf1-aa72-582d6b3a0f9c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:57:54.813" UserId="175031" Text="Where to draw line between a physics question and a meta physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="3147b837-ec81-4bf1-aa72-582d6b3a0f9c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:57:54.813" UserId="175031" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32356" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="38c308fa-e69b-4c92-b7ef-19150f1536f9" CreationDate="2018-04-09T15:23:50.983" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/983364874691600385" />
  <row Id="32357" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="aeb86c1d-a4f3-44b8-ae9f-b7f15fc8d0f4" CreationDate="2018-04-09T15:52:25.530" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to enable Mathjax for chat on the Android mobile browser?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="aeb86c1d-a4f3-44b8-ae9f-b7f15fc8d0f4" CreationDate="2018-04-09T15:52:25.530" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|mathjax|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="6bed4063-c611-44e9-8673-439fe1c5b0d1" CreationDate="2018-04-09T15:54:54.730" UserId="187604" Comment="added 17 characters in body; added 45 characters in body" Text="Suppose I am a user of stack exchange chat. And I am on Android mobile. My questions are **1**) How do I enable Mathjax In chat. Can I? I am asking as the question asked was answered for computer not for mobile.                                                               **2**) And another question is can I use Mathjax in any other browser other than  Google Chrome (like Opera browser)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="ae7b9c5b-becb-4a39-a203-6a5f773ed25e" CreationDate="2018-04-09T16:00:57.753" UserId="187604" Comment="deleted 121 characters in body" Text="Suppose I am a user of stack exchange chat. And I am on Android mobile. My questions are **1**) How do I enable Mathjax In chat. Can I? I am asking as the question asked was answered for computer not for mobile.                                                            " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="fb496538-3cca-4846-a5cb-78618ab0c084" CreationDate="2018-04-09T16:10:25.283" UserId="8563" Text="The [ChatJax bookmarklet](http://www.math.ucla.edu/~robjohn/math/mathjax.html) appears to be designed for both desktop and mobile browsers, and indeed there's a specific version for &quot;troublesome mobile browsers&quot; to try out if you find it's not working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to how you can install a [bookmarklet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookmarklet) on a mobile browser - that will vary depending on the browser, and it may not be possible on some browsers. Your mileage may vary here, and I'm reluctant to recommend solutions as the different routes may or may not apply depending on individual situations (such as e.g. willingness to sync mobile and desktop bookmarks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could install Tampermonkey as an app and then run the [ChatJax++ userscript over it](https://github.com/vyznev/chatjax), though again that has some significant overheads. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, to the best of my understanding, rather few people in this site's community use MathJax for chat over mobile, given how hard it is to write LaTeX on mobile keyboards so you're mostly doomed to one-sided conversations even if you can see other people's MathJax rendered correctly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32362" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="166282fa-f8bb-458b-8c8e-cf744e644943" CreationDate="2018-04-09T17:22:07.197" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="6e2dd2ba-bc93-4053-942b-971cc770724e" CreationDate="2018-04-10T17:34:16.757" UserId="50583" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript with the following comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;Please [do not post images of texts you want to quote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563), but type it out instead so it is readable for all users and so that it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you too want to use these comments, you can copy the following source directly into the import/export menu of the script:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Too broad&#xD;&#xA;    Please only ask *one question per post* - only ask several if they are so closely related that it wouldn't make sense to split them up since they cannot reasonably be answered separately. That way, answerers that might be able to answer one question but not the others still can provide useful, complete answers to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Homework-like/check-my-work&#xD;&#xA;    Please note that [homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583) and [check-my-work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6093/50583) are generally considered off-topic here. We intend our questions to be potentially useful to a broader set of users than just the one asking, and prefer *conceptual* questions over those just asking for a specific computation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Too little information&#xD;&#xA;    It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking. Please add further information about the context so that potential answerers will know exactly what the issue here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Relevant question information in link&#xD;&#xA;    It's currently unclear what exactly this question is asking without clicking on the link you provided. To make questions more accessible and guard against [link rot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot), please include all relevant information, such as the explanation of notation or specific terminology used, in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[A] Link-only answer&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post links without at least a basic summary of what they contain and how that content answers the question, since link-only answers become useless if the link [rots away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot). Link-only answers are [not considered answers](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/859/50583) here and will be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[A] Homework answer&#xD;&#xA;    I'm deleting this in accordance with [our homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714/50583). Please do not give complete or near-complete answers to homework-like questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### MathJax, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please do not post formulae as screenshots, but use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020/143136) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please [do not post images of texts you want to quote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563), but type it out instead so it is readable for all users and so that it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ###[Q] Good question titles&#xD;&#xA;    Please consider writing more useful question titles, see [How do we write good question titles?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6413/50583)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32364" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="c1053e43-02ef-4446-8c21-4f5f21eedc12" CreationDate="2018-04-10T18:03:54.953" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="aa3c1bbe-d4a7-48dc-a663-10647c86ae1b" CreationDate="2018-04-11T07:30:45.263" UserId="43351" Text="I was distressed to find that someone called George Duckett appears to be (trying to) cash-in on stack exchange by selling things [like this][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the terms of the license we publish our work under, but what I see here does not contain proper attributions (and links) to where the material came from or who produced it. There is a copyright page at the back which may or may not spell out the creative commons license, but since I can't see it, then it may as well not exist. In other &quot;books&quot;, such as the one lifted from Astronomy SE, there is no mention of the creative commons license on this page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I left a review pointing out that all this material is freely available and searchable already. The book adds no value and is at the very least morally questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sIhRDwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="aa3c1bbe-d4a7-48dc-a663-10647c86ae1b" CreationDate="2018-04-11T07:30:45.263" UserId="43351" Text="Is this guy really allowed to sell our stuff like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="aa3c1bbe-d4a7-48dc-a663-10647c86ae1b" CreationDate="2018-04-11T07:30:45.263" UserId="43351" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="f9f3f47b-4437-4be0-9fcd-b444edab7015" CreationDate="2018-04-11T08:27:23.783" UserId="191986" Text="You don't need to be able to read the whole book to check if it conforms to the CC BY-SA license, as Google Books provides the ability to search the book's full text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no occurrence of &quot;BY-SA&quot;, &quot;ShareAlike&quot;, &quot;Creative Commons&quot;, or &quot;CC&quot; (except for a couple of physics abbreviations) anywhere in the book, it seems pretty likely (although I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice) that the book doesn't conform to the ShareAlike element of the CC BY-SA license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're the author of any questions or answers copied in the book then this may entitle you to [file a DMCA report](https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_dmca?product=books) with Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you do or not, it is worth taking comfort in the fact that while it's very easy to put up these kinds of copies (including ones that are more conformant with the license than this one) it seems unlikely it is fooling or profiting from many people at all. They are extremely low cost attempts to collect extremely low value ill-gotten gains. It amounts to very little more than a rather ugly kind of noise in the wastelands of the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32369" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="4c7f548c-ab7b-42da-a503-b5ed169c8298" CreationDate="2018-04-11T09:30:19.587" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10581],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="32370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="edb985b9-a4e2-45ee-a400-6e049084b46d" CreationDate="2018-04-11T09:41:19.340" UserId="43351" Text="I can see that the CC-BY-SA license allows people to produce this kind of thing, but I don't think that excuses the fact that you can go to google books and read these Q+A without being aware that the content has been stripped from elsewhere, with no obvious indication of the CC-BY-SA license and with no proper links to the original source of the material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="843772cc-d96d-4e9d-9ee1-37e5f603ea95" CreationDate="2018-04-12T05:29:39.847" UserId="65572" Comment="increased the font size" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EXiD9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physicstravelguide.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="1df5f952-338b-4e8e-85a4-1464123e0f2b" CreationDate="2018-04-13T19:58:31.150" UserId="8563" Text="**Actually, on further reflection, I don't think this is OK at all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm all for re-use of the Creative Commons content that I post on this site, including commercial use if people can find ways to monetize it that are compatible with its licensing conditions. However, I'm not OK with reuse of that content in ways which infringe the attribution requirements (i.e. providing electronic copies without hyperlinks to the source post and author profile, and making clear on the text which website the content came from) or the licensing requirements (details below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rob Jeffries is quite right in his initial statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can go to google books and read these Q+A without being aware that the content has been stripped from elsewhere, with no obvious indication of the CC-BY-SA license and with no proper links to the original source of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and although the details vary depending on the precise presentation at issue, most of the ways in which the material is available are problematic enough to be infringing in way way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And frankly: Rob is right, it's time someone took the time to write some sharp lines to that effect. So, I've written a pretty curt email (much longer than I intended, partly to leave no room for wriggling and partly because I didn't have time to make it shorter) to Duckett which I intend to send shortly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I do, though, I'm posting it here so I can get some community feedback in case my interpretation of the license is off in some way I'm not seeing right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dear Mr. Duckett,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am writing to you about your book series &quot;Questions and Answers&quot;, collected from the Stack Exchange network of sites, as available through the Amazon and Google Books sites. This email requires action on your part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As you know, user-provided content on the Stack Exchange network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) that allows you to build upon that content and indeed to use it commercially so long as the license conditions are met: that the work be correctly attributed, that it be licensed under a compatible license that is clearly and unambiguously marked, and that no additional technological or legal restrictions be applied to the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards attribution, the requirements for reusing Stack Exchange content are clearly spelled out in the Stack Exchange blog (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/) and they essentially follow the basic common-sense requirement that any reproduction of the work in electronic means must contain a hyperlink to the location of the original work as well as a hyperlink to the author's profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the license, you are required to license your derivative work only under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; moreover, as the license makes it clear in section 4.a,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, as noted in that same section of the license,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, as regards the license, I draw your attention to section 7, which clarifies that redistribution of the work in breach of the license's terms will cause its termination, at which point you lose the right to use the work as originally licensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This email concerns content whose copyright rests with me, which was made available on the website Physics Stack Exchange (https://physics.stackexchange.com/) as well as other sites of the Stack Exchange network, and which you have redistributed as part of several collections of your 'Questions and Answers' series, which are available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as Kindle ebooks on Amazon.com, currently in print and for sale whose profits (ostensibly) benefit you directly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as out-of-print paperback hardcopies from Amazon.com;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as samples of the paperback hardcopies, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as eBook samples, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;as well as a variety of other outlets (https://www.google.com/search?q=Duckett+&quot;Questions+and+Answers&quot;+-site:amazon.*+-site:books.google.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You can find a selection of the books in your series which contain content under my copyright using the Google Books search feature ([https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty)). These include your books on Physics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Energy in Physics, Electrostatics, Particle Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Physics Exercises, Optics, and Mathematica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your redistribution of the work is in infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 in (at least) the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any hyperlinks to either the source of each work nor the profile of the author.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any indication of the origin of the work as globally contained in the collection: they have an 'About this book' page which does not reference the website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, often contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Where the Google Books samples, as provided by default, do contain licensing information, they still do not contain suitable indication of the CC BY-SA license: where the final licensing page is present, the information provided, &quot;All questions and content within this book are licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required&quot; is insufficient. To clarify this point further:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The name &quot;cc-wiki&quot; is essentially meaningless and it was clearly deprecated by both Creative Commons and Stack Exchange as early as June 2009 (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/04/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/). The correct name of the license is CC BY-SA 3.0, including the license version (which does matter).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The collection does not contain either a copy of the license text or the URI of the license, as required by §4.a of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, in their eBook version, contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions as provided in samples by Amazon.com do not contain any indication of the CC BY-SA license, nor do they contain the license text as required.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions contain technological measures (generally known as Digital Rights Management) that prevent their users from redistributing the work, a restriction that is explicitly forbidden by the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The paperback copies (as depicted in the Amazon.com &quot;Look Inside&quot; feature) do not feature any indication of the website from which the work originates, as their 'About this book' page does not reference the Stack Exchange website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;More generally, the core problem is that readers can see the content, both on Google Books as well as on the paperback copies, without having any idea as to where the content came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I should also note that several others have found your approach problematic, as discussed on the Physics Meta site (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10581), (as well as a previous discussion at https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/273989); indeed they may contact you independently. If you wish to address these issues in good faith directly with the Physics Stack Exchange community, I would ask that you do so at that thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the final page of each book you include a statement (&quot;If you have or know of copyrighted content included in this book and want it to be removed please let me know at georgeduckett@hotmail.com&quot;) that indicates that you intend to do right by the license terms. Given the fact that the books are already published and that several of your mistakes cannot be undone without altering the record, your options are quite limited, but if you want to retain the license to the work, you do need to fix the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To be clear, I am not requiring you to remove the content under my copyright from your collections: instead, I am requiring you to stick to the CC BY-SA license's terms as stipulated above. This means that you must:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate attribution, including hyperlinks to the source post and its author's profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate licensing information, including the correct name of the license and its full text or the URI of a complete copy of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This will likely require you to ensure that the hyperlink-less copies are removed from Google Books and that the eBook sample is made available without cutting any attributions and without removing the license statement (i.e. likely to make the eBook sample available in full), and ensure that the full and correct license information is available from the landing page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similarly, this will require you to ensure that the Kindle eBooks (currently still on sale) are amended to include the correct license and a URI of a complete copy, and to ensure that the DRM is removed from all copies of the work, as well as ensuring that the full licensing information is available 'above the fold' on the Amazon.com landing pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are unwilling or unable to fix these problems, or if you do not respond to this communication, my next steps will be, at my convenience, to initiate Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown proceedings against the infringing copies of your books on both Google Books and Amazon.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I look forward to hearing from you regarding your planned actions on resolving the infringing aspects of your published collections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Emilio Pisanty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and finally: I'm releasing this post under [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/), in case you want to, say, privately distribute slightly-modified copies of this text by email. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="2ef5c543-9b76-4496-8669-64854e442083" CreationDate="2018-04-13T22:14:54.270" UserId="83398" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="On this site, there is a tendency for users to answer questions with terse comments. It's especially prevalent for low quality questions which are in danger of being closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've been noticing a lot of comments that are misleading or downright incorrect, especially on lower quality questions. I want to respond to them somehow, but I see no way to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can't downvote comments, and existing flag reasons don't apply to incorrect comments.&#xD;&#xA;- I can't reply in a comment, for two reasons: long discussions in comments are frowned upon and often deleted, and it often takes many more words to correct a misconception than to make one. 500 characters often isn't enough to respond.&#xD;&#xA;- I can't reply in an answer, because answers should address the question, not its comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are no easy responses, and there's no glory to be had anyway (these questions usually quickly plummet off the front page), these comments almost always stand uncorrected. This misleads the OP and gives our site a bad name to anybody who knows their stuff and sees the question later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we deal with this issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="2b6e7c00-48ba-47a1-a05c-f452960feb69" CreationDate="2018-04-14T16:58:38.407" UserId="8563" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Actually, on further reflection, I don't think this is OK at all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm all for re-use of the Creative Commons content that I post on this site, including commercial use if people can find ways to monetize it that are compatible with its licensing conditions. However, I'm not OK with reuse of that content in ways which infringe the attribution requirements (i.e. providing electronic copies without hyperlinks to the source post and author profile, and making clear on the text which website the content came from) or the licensing requirements (details below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rob Jeffries is quite right in his initial statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can go to google books and read these Q+A without being aware that the content has been stripped from elsewhere, with no obvious indication of the CC-BY-SA license and with no proper links to the original source of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and although the details vary depending on the precise presentation at issue, most of the ways in which the material is available are problematic enough to be infringing in way way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And frankly: Rob is right, it's time someone took the time to write some sharp lines to that effect. So, I've written a pretty curt email (much longer than I intended, partly to leave no room for wriggling and partly because I didn't have time to make it shorter) to Duckett which I intend to send shortly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I do, though, I'm posting it here so I can get some community feedback in case my interpretation of the license is off in some way I'm not seeing right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dear Mr. Duckett,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am writing to you about your book series &quot;Questions and Answers&quot;, collected from the Stack Exchange network of sites, as available through the Amazon and Google Books sites. This email requires action on your part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As you know, user-provided content on the Stack Exchange network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) that allows you to build upon that content and indeed to use it commercially so long as the license conditions are met: that the work be correctly attributed, that it be licensed under a compatible license that is clearly and unambiguously marked, and that no additional technological or legal restrictions be applied to the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards attribution, the requirements for reusing Stack Exchange content are clearly spelled out in the Stack Exchange blog (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/) and they essentially follow the basic common-sense requirement that any reproduction of the work in electronic means must contain a hyperlink to the location of the original work as well as a hyperlink to the author's profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the license, you are required to license your derivative work only under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; moreover, as the license makes it clear in section 4.a,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, as noted in that same section of the license,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, as regards the license, I draw your attention to section 7, which clarifies that redistribution of the work in breach of the license's terms will cause its termination, at which point you lose the right to use the work as originally licensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This email concerns content whose copyright rests with me, which was made available on the website Physics Stack Exchange (https://physics.stackexchange.com/) as well as other sites of the Stack Exchange network, and which you have redistributed as part of several collections of your 'Questions and Answers' series, which are available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as Kindle ebooks on Amazon.com, currently in print and for sale whose profits (ostensibly) benefit you directly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as out-of-print paperback hardcopies from Amazon.com;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as samples of the paperback hardcopies, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as eBook samples, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;as well as a variety of other outlets (https://www.google.com/search?q=Duckett+&quot;Questions+and+Answers&quot;+-site:amazon.*+-site:books.google.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You can find a selection of the books in your series which contain content under my copyright using the Google Books search feature ([https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty)). These include your books on Physics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Energy in Physics, Electrostatics, Particle Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Physics Exercises, Optics, and Mathematica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your redistribution of the work is in infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 in (at least) the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any hyperlinks to either the source of each work nor the profile of the author.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any indication of the origin of the work as globally contained in the collection: they have an 'About this book' page which does not reference the website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, often contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Where the Google Books samples, as provided by default, do contain licensing information, they still do not contain suitable indication of the CC BY-SA license: where the final licensing page is present, the information provided, &quot;All questions and content within this book are licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required&quot; is insufficient. To clarify this point further:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The name &quot;cc-wiki&quot; is essentially meaningless and it was clearly deprecated by both Creative Commons and Stack Exchange as early as June 2009 (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/04/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/). The correct name of the license is CC BY-SA 3.0, including the license version (which does matter).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The collection does not contain either a copy of the license text or the URI of the license, as required by §4.a of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, in their eBook version, contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions as provided in samples by Amazon.com do not contain any indication of the CC BY-SA license, nor do they contain the license text as required.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions contain technological measures (generally known as Digital Rights Management) that prevent their users from redistributing the work, a restriction that is explicitly forbidden by the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The paperback copies (as depicted in the Amazon.com &quot;Look Inside&quot; feature) do not feature any indication of the website from which the work originates, as their 'About this book' page does not reference the Stack Exchange website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;More generally, the core problem is that readers can see the content, both on Google Books as well as on the paperback copies, without having any idea as to where the content came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I should also note that several others have found your approach problematic, as discussed on the Physics Meta site (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10581), (as well as a previous discussion at https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/273989); indeed they may contact you independently. If you wish to address these issues in good faith directly with the Physics Stack Exchange community, I would ask that you do so at that thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the final page of each book you include a statement (&quot;If you have or know of copyrighted content included in this book and want it to be removed please let me know at georgeduckett@hotmail.com&quot;) that indicates that you intend to do right by the license terms. Given the fact that the books are already published and that several of your mistakes cannot be undone without altering the record, your options are quite limited, but if you want to retain the license to the work, you do need to fix the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To be clear, I am not requiring you to remove the content under my copyright from your collections: instead, I am requiring you to stick to the CC BY-SA license's terms as stipulated above. This means that you must:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate attribution, including hyperlinks to the source post and its author's profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate licensing information, including the correct name of the license and its full text or the URI of a complete copy of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This will likely require you to ensure that the hyperlink-less copies are removed from Google Books and that the eBook sample is made available without cutting any attributions and without removing the license statement (i.e. likely to make the eBook sample available in full), and ensure that the full and correct license information is available from the landing page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similarly, this will require you to ensure that the Kindle eBooks (currently still on sale) are amended to include the correct license and a URI of a complete copy, and to ensure that the DRM is removed from all copies of the work, as well as ensuring that the full licensing information is available 'above the fold' on the Amazon.com landing pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are unwilling or unable to fix these problems, or if you do not respond to this communication, my next steps will be, at my convenience, to initiate Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown proceedings against the infringing copies of your books on both Google Books and Amazon.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I look forward to hearing from you regarding your planned actions on resolving the infringing aspects of your published collections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Emilio Pisanty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and finally: I'm releasing this post under [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/), in case you want to, say, privately distribute slightly-modified copies of this text by email. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="4c0f4d3d-61bd-4e8a-a487-3c0f0d92e3bd" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:07:03.727" UserId="187604" Text="In my feed I got this &quot;user was removed&quot;  and - 5 reputation. What does it mean? Am I having any kind of trouble with this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="4c0f4d3d-61bd-4e8a-a487-3c0f0d92e3bd" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:07:03.727" UserId="187604" Text="What does mean user was removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="4c0f4d3d-61bd-4e8a-a487-3c0f0d92e3bd" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:07:03.727" UserId="187604" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32379" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="3b69c669-9771-43b1-b4e3-9cf941f7b3da" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:12:00.890" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1289],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32380" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="3fa1441b-7f06-4ad5-b290-7797c816d157" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:12:42.433" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="What does 'user was removed' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="3fa1441b-7f06-4ad5-b290-7797c816d157" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:12:42.433" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="|support|reputation|user-accounts|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="1f1df54a-8bf3-4360-8a74-505b030dde6c" CreationDate="2018-04-15T13:28:57.030" UserId="8563" Comment="added 569 characters in body" Text="**Actually, on further reflection, I don't think this is OK at all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm all for re-use of the Creative Commons content that I post on this site, including commercial use if people can find ways to monetize it that are compatible with its licensing conditions. However, I'm not OK with reuse of that content in ways which infringe the attribution requirements (i.e. providing electronic copies without hyperlinks to the source post and author profile, and making clear on the text which website the content came from) or the licensing requirements (details below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, it is very easy to get immediately incensed when you see your content used in ways you didn't anticipate, particularly if those ways include money changing hands. In those situations, say, when somebody says &quot;somebody is printing Wikipedia and selling it for a profit&quot;, I often find it useful to append &quot;... and it's being used to tremendous effect in schools in [insert developing country] where internet access is [insert suitable restriction]&quot;, and see if that changes how I feel about it. However, that is not the case with this book series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rob Jeffries is quite right in his initial statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can go to google books and read these Q+A without being aware that the content has been stripped from elsewhere, with no obvious indication of the CC-BY-SA license and with no proper links to the original source of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and although the details vary depending on the precise presentation at issue, most of the ways in which the material is available are problematic enough to be infringing in way way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And frankly: Rob is right, it's time someone took the time to write some sharp lines to that effect. So, I've written a pretty curt email (much longer than I intended, partly to leave no room for wriggling and partly because I didn't have time to make it shorter) to Duckett which I intend to send shortly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I do, though, I'm posting it here so I can get some community feedback in case my interpretation of the license is off in some way I'm not seeing right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dear Mr. Duckett,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am writing to you about your book series &quot;Questions and Answers&quot;, collected from the Stack Exchange network of sites, as available through the Amazon and Google Books sites. This email requires action on your part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As you know, user-provided content on the Stack Exchange network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) that allows you to build upon that content and indeed to use it commercially so long as the license conditions are met: that the work be correctly attributed, that it be licensed under a compatible license that is clearly and unambiguously marked, and that no additional technological or legal restrictions be applied to the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards attribution, the requirements for reusing Stack Exchange content are clearly spelled out in the Stack Exchange blog (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/) and they essentially follow the basic common-sense requirement that any reproduction of the work in electronic means must contain a hyperlink to the location of the original work as well as a hyperlink to the author's profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the license, you are required to license your derivative work only under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; moreover, as the license makes it clear in section 4.a,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, as noted in that same section of the license,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, as regards the license, I draw your attention to section 7, which clarifies that redistribution of the work in breach of the license's terms will cause its termination, at which point you lose the right to use the work as originally licensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This email concerns content whose copyright rests with me, which was made available on the website Physics Stack Exchange (https://physics.stackexchange.com/) as well as other sites of the Stack Exchange network, and which you have redistributed as part of several collections of your 'Questions and Answers' series, which are available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as Kindle ebooks on Amazon.com, currently in print and for sale whose profits (ostensibly) benefit you directly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as out-of-print paperback hardcopies from Amazon.com;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as samples of the paperback hardcopies, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as eBook samples, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;as well as a variety of other outlets (https://www.google.com/search?q=Duckett+&quot;Questions+and+Answers&quot;+-site:amazon.*+-site:books.google.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You can find a selection of the books in your series which contain content under my copyright using the Google Books search feature ([https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty)). These include your books on Physics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Energy in Physics, Electrostatics, Particle Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Physics Exercises, Optics, and Mathematica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your redistribution of the work is in infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 in (at least) the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any hyperlinks to either the source of each work nor the profile of the author.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any indication of the origin of the work as globally contained in the collection: they have an 'About this book' page which does not reference the website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, often contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Where the Google Books samples, as provided by default, do contain licensing information, they still do not contain suitable indication of the CC BY-SA license: where the final licensing page is present, the information provided, &quot;All questions and content within this book are licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required&quot; is insufficient. To clarify this point further:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The name &quot;cc-wiki&quot; is essentially meaningless and it was clearly deprecated by both Creative Commons and Stack Exchange as early as June 2009 (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/04/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/). The correct name of the license is CC BY-SA 3.0, including the license version (which does matter).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The collection does not contain either a copy of the license text or the URI of the license, as required by §4.a of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, in their eBook version, contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions as provided in samples by Amazon.com do not contain any indication of the CC BY-SA license, nor do they contain the license text as required.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions contain technological measures (generally known as Digital Rights Management) that prevent their users from redistributing the work, a restriction that is explicitly forbidden by the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The paperback copies (as depicted in the Amazon.com &quot;Look Inside&quot; feature) do not feature any indication of the website from which the work originates, as their 'About this book' page does not reference the Stack Exchange website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;More generally, the core problem is that readers can see the content, both on Google Books as well as on the paperback copies, without having any idea as to where the content came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I should also note that several others have found your approach problematic, as discussed on the Physics Meta site (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10581), (as well as a previous discussion at https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/273989); indeed they may contact you independently. If you wish to address these issues in good faith directly with the Physics Stack Exchange community, I would ask that you do so at that thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the final page of each book you include a statement (&quot;If you have or know of copyrighted content included in this book and want it to be removed please let me know at georgeduckett@hotmail.com&quot;) that indicates that you intend to do right by the license terms. Given the fact that the books are already published and that several of your mistakes cannot be undone without altering the record, your options are quite limited, but if you want to retain the license to the work, you do need to fix the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To be clear, I am not requiring you to remove the content under my copyright from your collections: instead, I am requiring you to stick to the CC BY-SA license's terms as stipulated above. This means that you must:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate attribution, including hyperlinks to the source post and its author's profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate licensing information, including the correct name of the license and its full text or the URI of a complete copy of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This will likely require you to ensure that the hyperlink-less copies are removed from Google Books and that the eBook sample is made available without cutting any attributions and without removing the license statement (i.e. likely to make the eBook sample available in full), and ensure that the full and correct license information is available from the landing page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similarly, this will require you to ensure that the Kindle eBooks (currently still on sale) are amended to include the correct license and a URI of a complete copy, and to ensure that the DRM is removed from all copies of the work, as well as ensuring that the full licensing information is available 'above the fold' on the Amazon.com landing pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are unwilling or unable to fix these problems, or if you do not respond to this communication, my next steps will be, at my convenience, to initiate Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown proceedings against the infringing copies of your books on both Google Books and Amazon.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I look forward to hearing from you regarding your planned actions on resolving the infringing aspects of your published collections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Emilio Pisanty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and finally: I'm releasing this post under [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/), in case you want to, say, privately distribute slightly-modified copies of this text by email. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="6141c75a-9a00-4688-8e36-5372ef2b5476" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:17:50.380" UserId="28359" Comment="that question is 404 for &lt;10k users" Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/simple-harmonic-motion-problem&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="bb22f358-fe55-490b-a7ae-c6cb0e244496" CreationDate="2018-04-16T13:45:49.553" UserId="8563" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="**Actually, on further reflection, I don't think this is OK at all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm all for re-use of the Creative Commons content that I post on this site, including commercial use if people can find ways to monetize it that are compatible with its licensing conditions. However, I'm not OK with reuse of that content in ways which infringe the attribution requirements (i.e. providing electronic copies without hyperlinks to the source post and author profile, and making clear on the text which website the content came from) or the licensing requirements (details below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, it is very easy to get immediately incensed when you see your content used in ways you didn't anticipate, particularly if those ways include money changing hands. In those situations, say, when somebody says &quot;somebody is printing Wikipedia and selling it for a profit&quot;, I often find it useful to append &quot;... and it's being used to tremendous effect in schools in [insert developing country] where internet access is [insert suitable restriction]&quot;, and see if that changes how I feel about it. However, that is not the case with this book series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rob Jeffries is quite right in his initial statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can go to google books and read these Q+A without being aware that the content has been stripped from elsewhere, with no obvious indication of the CC-BY-SA license and with no proper links to the original source of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and although the details vary depending on the precise presentation at issue, most of the ways in which the material is available are problematic enough to be infringing in way way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And frankly: Rob is right, it's time someone took the time to write some sharp lines to that effect. So, I've written a pretty curt email (much longer than I intended, partly to leave no room for wriggling and partly because I didn't have time to make it shorter) to Duckett which &lt;s&gt;I intend to send shortly&lt;/s&gt; I've just sent. I will update this answer as and when I get any news from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;Before I do, though, I'm posting it here so I can get some community feedback in case my interpretation of the license is off in some way I'm not seeing right now.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dear Mr. Duckett,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am writing to you about your book series &quot;Questions and Answers&quot;, collected from the Stack Exchange network of sites, as available through the Amazon and Google Books sites. This email requires action on your part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As you know, user-provided content on the Stack Exchange network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) that allows you to build upon that content and indeed to use it commercially so long as the license conditions are met: that the work be correctly attributed, that it be licensed under a compatible license that is clearly and unambiguously marked, and that no additional technological or legal restrictions be applied to the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards attribution, the requirements for reusing Stack Exchange content are clearly spelled out in the Stack Exchange blog (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/) and they essentially follow the basic common-sense requirement that any reproduction of the work in electronic means must contain a hyperlink to the location of the original work as well as a hyperlink to the author's profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the license, you are required to license your derivative work only under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; moreover, as the license makes it clear in section 4.a,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, as noted in that same section of the license,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, as regards the license, I draw your attention to section 7, which clarifies that redistribution of the work in breach of the license's terms will cause its termination, at which point you lose the right to use the work as originally licensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This email concerns content whose copyright rests with me, which was made available on the website Physics Stack Exchange (https://physics.stackexchange.com/) as well as other sites of the Stack Exchange network, and which you have redistributed as part of several collections of your 'Questions and Answers' series, which are available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as Kindle ebooks on Amazon.com, currently in print and for sale whose profits (ostensibly) benefit you directly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as out-of-print paperback hardcopies from Amazon.com;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as samples of the paperback hardcopies, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - as eBook samples, displayed as electronic copies and attributed to you, on Google Books;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;as well as a variety of other outlets (https://www.google.com/search?q=Duckett+&quot;Questions+and+Answers&quot;+-site:amazon.*+-site:books.google.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You can find a selection of the books in your series which contain content under my copyright using the Google Books search feature ([https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=inauthor%3A%22George+A+Duckett%22+emilio-pisanty)). These include your books on Physics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Energy in Physics, Electrostatics, Particle Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Physics Exercises, Optics, and Mathematica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your redistribution of the work is in infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 in (at least) the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any hyperlinks to either the source of each work nor the profile of the author.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, do not contain any indication of the origin of the work as globally contained in the collection: they have an 'About this book' page which does not reference the website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, as provided by default, often contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Where the Google Books samples, as provided by default, do contain licensing information, they still do not contain suitable indication of the CC BY-SA license: where the final licensing page is present, the information provided, &quot;All questions and content within this book are licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required&quot; is insufficient. To clarify this point further:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The name &quot;cc-wiki&quot; is essentially meaningless and it was clearly deprecated by both Creative Commons and Stack Exchange as early as June 2009 (https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/04/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/). The correct name of the license is CC BY-SA 3.0, including the license version (which does matter).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      * The collection does not contain either a copy of the license text or the URI of the license, as required by §4.a of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Google Books samples, in their eBook version, contain no indication of the licensing conditions of the work, as the final page (containing the scant copyright and licensing information) is not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions as provided in samples by Amazon.com do not contain any indication of the CC BY-SA license, nor do they contain the license text as required.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Kindle ebook versions contain technological measures (generally known as Digital Rights Management) that prevent their users from redistributing the work, a restriction that is explicitly forbidden by the license.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The paperback copies (as depicted in the Amazon.com &quot;Look Inside&quot; feature) do not feature any indication of the website from which the work originates, as their 'About this book' page does not reference the Stack Exchange website from which the book's content originated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As indicated above, the infringement of the license terms causes the license to expire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;More generally, the core problem is that readers can see the content, both on Google Books as well as on the paperback copies, without having any idea as to where the content came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I should also note that several others have found your approach problematic, as discussed on the Physics Meta site (https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10581), (as well as a previous discussion at https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/273989); indeed they may contact you independently. If you wish to address these issues in good faith directly with the Physics Stack Exchange community, I would ask that you do so at that thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the final page of each book you include a statement (&quot;If you have or know of copyrighted content included in this book and want it to be removed please let me know at georgeduckett@hotmail.com&quot;) that indicates that you intend to do right by the license terms. Given the fact that the books are already published and that several of your mistakes cannot be undone without altering the record, your options are quite limited, but if you want to retain the license to the work, you do need to fix the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To be clear, I am not requiring you to remove the content under my copyright from your collections: instead, I am requiring you to stick to the CC BY-SA license's terms as stipulated above. This means that you must:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate attribution, including hyperlinks to the source post and its author's profile page.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that all electronic copies of the work, as provided by both Google Books and Amazon.com, contain appropriate licensing information, including the correct name of the license and its full text or the URI of a complete copy of the license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This will likely require you to ensure that the hyperlink-less copies are removed from Google Books and that the eBook sample is made available without cutting any attributions and without removing the license statement (i.e. likely to make the eBook sample available in full), and ensure that the full and correct license information is available from the landing page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similarly, this will require you to ensure that the Kindle eBooks (currently still on sale) are amended to include the correct license and a URI of a complete copy, and to ensure that the DRM is removed from all copies of the work, as well as ensuring that the full licensing information is available 'above the fold' on the Amazon.com landing pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are unwilling or unable to fix these problems, or if you do not respond to this communication, my next steps will be, at my convenience, to initiate Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown proceedings against the infringing copies of your books on both Google Books and Amazon.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I look forward to hearing from you regarding your planned actions on resolving the infringing aspects of your published collections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Emilio Pisanty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and finally: I'm releasing this post under [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/), in case you want to, say, privately distribute slightly-modified copies of this text by email. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="930609ee-abcd-4579-bde7-bdd3f5d1aba4" CreationDate="2018-04-16T18:05:47.923" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|publishing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="866cab64-f1d7-4701-b3c3-00dc59aca3d7" CreationDate="2018-04-16T21:41:08.493" UserId="6509" Text="I'm the creator of these books. Firstly I should say it was not my intention to break any copyright or cause any ill feeling among contributors. When initially evaluating submitting the books to Amazon/Google/iTunes I checked the terms of the license and checked with Stack Overflow and believe I did everything needed to comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The eBooks and physical books should no longer be available on Amazon. I followed some example links however in each case I checked it said it was unavailable as I'd expect. If you see any that you can buy (that aren't second hand) please let me know and I'll follow up with them. I do believe I complied with all relevant terms for these books while they were available. Print books had all relevant urls for any link (to user/post/license) in the footer of the page the link appeared on for example. FWIW I have not set the prices of the used books that are available, nore the prices any resellers choose to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the eBooks available via google play, there is no DRM applied. This is a setting per book and every one has the DRM option disabled. I was unaware of the wiki license name change (it's included in that 2009 post, but it's unclear when the notice re. the update was added). I'll update all links where I reference it, and also include the bare link as well as the license name/hyperlink. This is not an instant change but I will update this post when completed. I've updated all books to indicate that I'm the Publisher, rather than the Author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where book samples are concerned I have changed the settings on all books to make 100% of each book available as a sample and to allow for a PDF download as that better reflects the spirit of the license and of SO. As you indicate it looks like the samples are stripping out the hyperlinks to the users/posts depending on how the sample is found (I've seen cases where it includes links properly as well as the examples where it doesn't). A sample may constitute fair use under the license however I'm hoping that the PDF will contain working links and avoids that debate. As of writing google doesn't seem to have updated the sample pages; it's getting late here and I've had a long day, so I will check and update tomorrow / when it changes. I will also look into whether I can get the google previews to properly render the links either my raising it with their team, or by changing the format of my eBooks, or whether I can remove the samples all together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if any user would like their content removed from all current and future publications I will do so. Likewise, if the physics.se community collectively decide they do not wish to be included in any publications I will remove them from sale and not use this site as a source for any future publications.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-George Duckett" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="60bb466f-edf8-4f87-95f0-a69511f61daf" CreationDate="2018-04-16T21:50:59.563" UserId="6509" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I'm the creator of these books. Firstly I should say it was not my intention to break any copyright or cause any ill feeling among contributors. When initially evaluating submitting the books to Amazon/Google/iTunes I checked the terms of the license and checked with Stack Overflow and believe I did everything needed to comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The eBooks and physical books should no longer be available on Amazon. I followed some example links however in each case I checked it said it was unavailable as I'd expect. If you see any that you can buy (that aren't second hand) please let me know and I'll follow up with them. I do believe I complied with all relevant terms for these books while they were available. Print books had all relevant urls for any link (to user/post/license) in the footer of the page the link appeared on for example. FWIW I have not set the prices of the used books that are available, nore the prices any resellers choose to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the eBooks available via google play, there is no DRM applied. This is a setting per book and every one has the DRM option disabled. I was unaware of the wiki license name change (it's included in that 2009 post, but it's unclear when the notice re. the update was added). I'll update all links where I reference it, and also include the bare link as well as the license name/hyperlink. This is not an instant change but I will update this post when completed. I've updated all books to indicate that I'm the Publisher, rather than the Author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where book samples are concerned I have changed the settings on all books to make 100% of each book available as a sample and to allow for a PDF download as that better reflects the spirit of the license and of SO. As you indicate it looks like the samples are stripping out the hyperlinks to the users/posts depending on how the sample is found (I've seen cases where it includes links properly as well as the examples where it doesn't). A sample may constitute fair use under the license however &lt;del&gt;I'm hoping that the PDF will contain working links and avoids that debate&lt;/del&gt; (it doesn't, see comment). As of writing google doesn't seem to have updated the sample pages; it's getting late here and I've had a long day, so I will check and update tomorrow / when it changes. I will also look into whether I can get the google previews to properly render the links either my raising it with their team, or by changing the format of my eBooks, or whether I can remove the samples all together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if any user would like their content removed from all current and future publications I will do so. Likewise, if the physics.se community collectively decide they do not wish to be included in any publications I will remove them from sale and not use this site as a source for any future publications.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-George Duckett" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32388" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="0bd22e0c-b8ce-4cf0-8e87-4a2a42fc5f44" CreationDate="2018-04-17T06:50:44.947" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/986134851978919936" />
  <row Id="32389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="157b4b02-f512-4dcd-8b01-faacd27bca41" CreationDate="2018-04-17T11:38:07.133" UserId="6509" Comment="added 1084 characters in body" Text="I'm the creator of these books. Firstly I should say it was not my intention to break any copyright or cause any ill feeling among contributors. When initially evaluating submitting the books to Amazon/Google/iTunes I checked the terms of the license and checked with Stack Overflow and believe I did everything needed to comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The eBooks and physical books should no longer be available on Amazon. I followed some example links however in each case I checked it said it was unavailable as I'd expect. If you see any that you can buy (that aren't second hand) please let me know and I'll follow up with them. I do believe I complied with all relevant terms for these books while they were available. Print books had all relevant urls for any link (to user/post/license) in the footer of the page the link appeared on for example. FWIW I have not set the prices of the used books that are available, nore the prices any resellers choose to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the eBooks available via google play, there is no DRM applied. This is a setting per book and every one has the DRM option disabled. I was unaware of the wiki license name change (it's included in that 2009 post, but it's unclear when the notice re. the update was added). I'll update all links where I reference it, and also include the bare link as well as the license name/hyperlink. This is not an instant change but I will update this post when completed. I've updated all books to indicate that I'm the Publisher, rather than the Author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where book samples are concerned I have changed the settings on all books to make 100% of each book available as a sample and to allow for a PDF download as that better reflects the spirit of the license and of SO. As you indicate it looks like the samples are stripping out the hyperlinks to the users/posts depending on how the sample is found (I've seen cases where it includes links properly as well as the examples where it doesn't). A sample may constitute fair use under the license however &lt;del&gt;I'm hoping that the PDF will contain working links and avoids that debate&lt;/del&gt; (it doesn't, see comment). As of writing google doesn't seem to have updated the sample pages; it's getting late here and I've had a long day, so I will check and update tomorrow / when it changes. I will also look into whether I can get the google previews to properly render the links either my raising it with their team, or by changing the format of my eBooks, or whether I can remove the samples all together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if any user would like their content removed from all current and future publications I will do so. Likewise, if the physics.se community collectively decide they do not wish to be included in any publications I will remove them from sale and not use this site as a source for any future publications.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-George Duckett&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Samples**. I've found an option within google to only allow the epub format as a sample, rather than an auto-generated PDF which mangles hyperlinks. This is in effect now; when clicking &quot;free sample&quot; I get a message that my browser is incompatible (presumably because it can't open the epub file). I've yet to be able to open the sample. I will keep trying various methods until I can verify that hyperlinks are preserved or receive confirmation that the samples will not work anywhere. I will move the copyright section to be immediately below the about section so a casual reader should be made aware more easily. Once that is done for all books I will probably reduce the sample from 100%. Any changes to books' contents will happen over the course of a few weeks as I re-generate and re-publish them on google's platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Author**. I've changed my name to be &quot;publisher&quot; rather than &quot;author&quot; on Google's stores. As the books are no-longer on Amazon I can't change the data unfortunately. I also cannot find a way to change the Author field on iTunes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="15263ee9-31d0-43c9-845c-a288374ad4fb" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:20:16.650" UserId="6509" Comment="added 629 characters in body" Text="I'm the creator of these books. Firstly I should say it was not my intention to break any copyright or cause any ill feeling among contributors. When initially evaluating submitting the books to Amazon/Google/iTunes I checked the terms of the license and checked with Stack Overflow and believe I did everything needed to comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The eBooks and physical books should no longer be available on Amazon. I followed some example links however in each case I checked it said it was unavailable as I'd expect. If you see any that you can buy (that aren't second hand) please let me know and I'll follow up with them. I do believe I complied with all relevant terms for these books while they were available. Print books had all relevant urls for any link (to user/post/license) in the footer of the page the link appeared on for example. FWIW I have not set the prices of the used books that are available, nore the prices any resellers choose to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the eBooks available via google play, there is no DRM applied. This is a setting per book and every one has the DRM option disabled. I was unaware of the wiki license name change (it's included in that 2009 post, but it's unclear when the notice re. the update was added). I'll update all links where I reference it, and also include the bare link as well as the license name/hyperlink. This is not an instant change but I will update this post when completed. I've updated all books to indicate that I'm the Publisher, rather than the Author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where book samples are concerned I have changed the settings on all books to make 100% of each book available as a sample and to allow for a PDF download as that better reflects the spirit of the license and of SO. As you indicate it looks like the samples are stripping out the hyperlinks to the users/posts depending on how the sample is found (I've seen cases where it includes links properly as well as the examples where it doesn't). A sample may constitute fair use under the license however &lt;del&gt;I'm hoping that the PDF will contain working links and avoids that debate&lt;/del&gt; (it doesn't, see comment). As of writing google doesn't seem to have updated the sample pages; it's getting late here and I've had a long day, so I will check and update tomorrow / when it changes. I will also look into whether I can get the google previews to properly render the links either my raising it with their team, or by changing the format of my eBooks, or whether I can remove the samples all together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if any user would like their content removed from all current and future publications I will do so. Likewise, if the physics.se community collectively decide they do not wish to be included in any publications I will remove them from sale and not use this site as a source for any future publications.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-George Duckett&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Samples**. I've found an option within google to only allow the epub format as a sample, rather than an auto-generated PDF which mangles hyperlinks. This is in effect now; when clicking &quot;free sample&quot; I get a message that my browser is incompatible (presumably because it can't open the epub file). I've yet to be able to open the sample. I will keep trying various methods until I can verify that hyperlinks are preserved or receive confirmation that the samples will not work anywhere. I will move the copyright section to be immediately below the about section so a casual reader should be made aware more easily. Once that is done for all books I will probably reduce the sample from 100%. Any changes to books' contents will happen over the course of a few weeks as I re-generate and re-publish them on google's platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Author**. I've changed my name to be &quot;publisher&quot; rather than &quot;author&quot; on Google's stores. As the books are no-longer on Amazon I can't change the data unfortunately. I also cannot find a way to change the Author field on iTunes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 18/04/2018**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Samples**. I've submitted updated samples to google for all books sourced from physics.stackexchange. The rest of the books will follow. Google says to allow for at least 24 hours to see the changes. I will be keeping an eye on this as I want to make sure the updates worked correctly. Samples are still available via Google Books with hyperlinks not rendering correctly in their preview. I've got a support ticket passed on to the &quot;engineering team&quot; at google (presubably a team specifically for google books) regarding this. They couldn't give me a timeline for when they'd get back to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="27871ca8-d23a-4035-a4da-8e81a18afda6" CreationDate="2018-04-19T16:53:39.113" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Quantum Computing Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7EKy0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="9d76c464-2fd6-4b09-8364-176f94d9bd11" CreationDate="2018-04-21T04:19:13.640" UserId="132418" Text="This sort of censorship over non-mainstream theories always makes me uneasy. We usually condemn the Church for making Galilei retract his theories, and condemn the Church's censorship and its *Index librorum prohibitorum*. And then go on doing this kind of censorship ourselves. We think we have the right to, because we see mistakes in non-mainstream theories. *We* are right, they are wrong. But the Church censored Galilei because they saw mistakes in his theories too – they gave reasons why his works had to be retracted. They were the &quot;peer-review&quot; of the time. They represented what was accepted and acceptable. In their eyes, *they* were right, he was wrong. Do we lack a historical sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important message in Galilei's work, and in the work of others from that period, like Francis Bacon and Giordano Bruno, was that every human being has the right to openly put forward a thesis, and other human beings have the right to approve it or criticize it and argue why it is false, and in turn put forward their own. Sure, we can say &quot;people who support non-mainstream theories can very well put them elsewhere on the internet, nobody forbids them to do so&quot;, and give some reasons why they shouldn't appear on StackExchange. Yet... I don't know, to me it sounds like &quot;democracy is very difficult to handle, so let's instore a dictatorship instead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we think of &quot;peer-review&quot; I suppose we ideally think of something like this: someone proposes a theory, and the *whole* scientific community examine it and &quot;votes&quot; in its favour or against it, from logical and experimental consideration. But actual peer-review doesn't work that way. It's about 1–4 persons making a decision. Statistically speaking that's not a representative sample of the whole community (on top of that they sometimes disagree with one another).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the fuzziness in these thoughts. It's an uneasy feeling that I can't put properly into words, related to this kind of discussions about censorship...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see a lot of answers in Physics Stack Exchange that don't give any references at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="9c12d5bc-c2b1-4b60-afdd-cfe638283b52" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:51:26.317" UserId="132418" Comment="added explanation" Text="This sort of censorship over non-mainstream theories always makes me uneasy. We usually condemn the Church for making Galilei retract his theories, and condemn the Church's censorship and its *Index librorum prohibitorum*. And then go on doing this kind of censorship ourselves. We think we have the right to, because we see mistakes in non-mainstream theories. *We* are right, they are wrong. But the Church censored Galilei because they saw mistakes in his theories too – they gave reasons why his works had to be retracted. They were the &quot;peer-review&quot; of the time. They represented what was accepted and acceptable. In their eyes, *they* were right, he was wrong. Do we lack a historical sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important message in Galilei's work, and in the work of others from that period, like Francis Bacon and Giordano Bruno, was that every human being has the right to openly put forward a thesis, and other human beings have the right to approve it or criticize it and argue why it is false, and in turn put forward their own. And every human being has the right to examine this kind of exchange, think about it, and come upon *their own* conclusions. There's only one true peer reviewer, and that is your own brain. Accepting or rejecting a scientific thesis just because of someone's authority, whoever that might be, is not science, it's religion – we're back at the time of &quot;because Aristotle said so&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, we can say &quot;people who support non-mainstream theories can very well put them elsewhere on the internet, nobody forbids them to do so&quot;, and give some reasons why they shouldn't appear on StackExchange. Yet... I don't know, to me it sounds like &quot;democracy is very difficult to handle, so let's instore a dictatorship instead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we think of &quot;peer-review&quot; I suppose we ideally think of something like this: someone proposes a theory, and the *whole* scientific community examine it and &quot;votes&quot; in its favour or against it, from logical and experimental consideration. But actual peer-review doesn't work that way. It's about 1–4 persons making a decision. Statistically speaking that's not a representative sample of the whole community (on top of that they sometimes disagree with one another).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the fuzziness in these thoughts. It's an uneasy feeling that I can't put properly into words, related to this kind of discussions about censorship...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see a lot of answers in Physics Stack Exchange that don't give any references at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="270657e1-9a18-44cd-b499-203d21788783" CreationDate="2018-04-21T21:59:54.717" UserId="44126" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="**Bad:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your question looks like: *&quot;Here is my homework. Solve it instead of me, now&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;* [You scanned/photographed your textbook.](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563/44126)&#xD;&#xA;* You don't show effort or curiosity towards the solution.&#xD;&#xA;* You don't bother to begin sentences with capital cases or end them with a &quot;.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Good:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't asking for the numerical solution; you want to understand how you can solve it for yourself&#xD;&#xA;* You are using Latex / MathJax formatting ([tutorial here][1])&#xD;&#xA;* You explain: 1) what you want 2) what you tried 3) why it doesn't work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget: closing a question is mostly a subjective decision. The reviewers see a &quot;close&quot; and a &quot;leave open&quot; button next to your question. Although there are site rules, it is mainly up to them how to interpret these rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="e1ea071e-78ad-4872-8d18-cf4ca4637337" CreationDate="2018-04-22T13:26:58.817" UserId="132418" Comment="expanded explanation" Text="This sort of censorship over non-mainstream theories always makes me uneasy. We usually condemn the Church for making Galilei retract his theories, and condemn the Church's censorship and its *Index librorum prohibitorum*. And then go on doing this kind of censorship ourselves. We think we have the right to, because we see mistakes in non-mainstream theories. *We* are right, they are wrong. But the Church censored Galilei because they saw mistakes in his theories too – they gave reasons why his works had to be retracted. They were the &quot;peer-review&quot; of the time. They represented what was accepted and acceptable. In their eyes, *they* were right, he was wrong. Do we lack a historical sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the point of view attributed to Voltaire: &quot;I wholly disapprove of what you say – and will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important message in Galilei's work, and in the work of others from that period, like Francis Bacon and Giordano Bruno, was that every human being has the right to openly put forward a thesis, and other human beings have the right to approve it or criticize it and argue why it is false, and in turn put forward their own. And every human being has the right to examine this kind of exchange, think about it, and come upon *their own* conclusions. There's only one true peer reviewer, and that is your own brain. Accepting or rejecting a scientific thesis just because of someone's authority, whoever that might be, is not science, it's religion – we're back at the time of &quot;because Aristotle said so&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, we can say &quot;people who support non-mainstream theories can very well put them elsewhere on the internet, nobody forbids them to do so&quot;, and give some reasons why they shouldn't appear on StackExchange. Yet... I don't know, to me it sounds like &quot;democracy is very difficult to handle, so let's instore a dictatorship instead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we think of &quot;peer-review&quot; I suppose we ideally think of something like this: someone proposes a theory, and the *whole* scientific community examine it and &quot;votes&quot; in its favour or against it, from logical and experimental consideration. But actual peer-review doesn't work that way. It's about 1–4 persons making a decision. Statistically speaking that's not a representative sample of the whole community (on top of that they sometimes disagree with one another).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the fuzziness in these thoughts. It's an uneasy feeling that I can't put properly into words, related to this kind of discussions about censorship...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see a lot of answers in Physics Stack Exchange that don't give any references at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="8b4ed8de-0029-47c1-ac1d-1c8a155d20d7" CreationDate="2018-04-24T06:59:09.993" UserId="6509" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="I'm the creator of these books. Firstly I should say it was not my intention to break any copyright or cause any ill feeling among contributors. When initially evaluating submitting the books to Amazon/Google/iTunes I checked the terms of the license and checked with Stack Overflow and believe I did everything needed to comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The eBooks and physical books should no longer be available on Amazon. I followed some example links however in each case I checked it said it was unavailable as I'd expect. If you see any that you can buy (that aren't second hand) please let me know and I'll follow up with them. I do believe I complied with all relevant terms for these books while they were available. Print books had all relevant urls for any link (to user/post/license) in the footer of the page the link appeared on for example. FWIW I have not set the prices of the used books that are available, nore the prices any resellers choose to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the eBooks available via google play, there is no DRM applied. This is a setting per book and every one has the DRM option disabled. I was unaware of the wiki license name change (it's included in that 2009 post, but it's unclear when the notice re. the update was added). I'll update all links where I reference it, and also include the bare link as well as the license name/hyperlink. This is not an instant change but I will update this post when completed. I've updated all books to indicate that I'm the Publisher, rather than the Author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where book samples are concerned I have changed the settings on all books to make 100% of each book available as a sample and to allow for a PDF download as that better reflects the spirit of the license and of SO. As you indicate it looks like the samples are stripping out the hyperlinks to the users/posts depending on how the sample is found (I've seen cases where it includes links properly as well as the examples where it doesn't). A sample may constitute fair use under the license however &lt;del&gt;I'm hoping that the PDF will contain working links and avoids that debate&lt;/del&gt; (it doesn't, see comment). As of writing google doesn't seem to have updated the sample pages; it's getting late here and I've had a long day, so I will check and update tomorrow / when it changes. I will also look into whether I can get the google previews to properly render the links either my raising it with their team, or by changing the format of my eBooks, or whether I can remove the samples all together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if any user would like their content removed from all current and future publications I will do so. Likewise, if the physics.se community collectively decide they do not wish to be included in any publications I will remove them from sale and not use this site as a source for any future publications.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-George Duckett&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Samples**. I've found an option within google to only allow the epub format as a sample, rather than an auto-generated PDF which mangles hyperlinks. This is in effect now; when clicking &quot;free sample&quot; I get a message that my browser is incompatible (presumably because it can't open the epub file). I've yet to be able to open the sample. I will keep trying various methods until I can verify that hyperlinks are preserved or receive confirmation that the samples will not work anywhere. I will move the copyright section to be immediately below the about section so a casual reader should be made aware more easily. Once that is done for all books I will probably reduce the sample from 100%. Any changes to books' contents will happen over the course of a few weeks as I re-generate and re-publish them on google's platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Author**. I've changed my name to be &quot;publisher&quot; rather than &quot;author&quot; on Google's stores. As the books are no-longer on Amazon I can't change the data unfortunately. I also cannot find a way to change the Author field on iTunes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 18/04/2018**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Samples**. I've submitted updated samples to google for all books sourced from physics.stackexchange. The rest of the books will follow. Google says to allow for at least 24 hours to see the changes. I will be keeping an eye on this as I want to make sure the updates worked correctly. Samples are still available via Google Books with hyperlinks not rendering correctly in their preview. I've got a support ticket passed on to the &quot;engineering team&quot; at google (presubably a team specifically for google books) regarding this. They couldn't give me a timeline for when they'd get back to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 24/04/2018**&#xD;&#xA;I have updated all books. Google will take time to update them though, probably no more than a day or two. I have however asked for all books to be deactivated so they won't be listed on Google. This will take time as their content team has to do it given the volume of books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="0fa79664-88d2-4073-845d-a7d796925fff" CreationDate="2018-04-24T18:58:00.803" UserId="132418" Comment="Expanded explanation" Text="This sort of censorship over non-mainstream theories always makes me uneasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fallacies in science are discussed and resolved using logic and experiment. Not using censorship. Censuring is just putting a lid on the fallacies, and they'll keep on growing under the lid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Censuring is like saying &quot;Shut up&quot;. Well, that's not a scientific argument. A scientific argument is &quot;What you're saying is wrong, as shown experimentally/logically by X in section Y of reference Z&quot;. Arguments like &quot;Shut up&quot;, or &quot;You're wrong, because X said otherwise&quot;, or &quot;You're wrong, what you said appeared in a non-respectable journal&quot; show a lack of scientific arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually condemn the Church for making Galilei retract his theories, and condemn the Church's censorship and its *Index librorum prohibitorum*. And then go on doing this kind of censorship ourselves. We think we have the right to, because we see mistakes in non-mainstream theories. *We* are right, they are wrong. But the Church censored Galilei because they saw mistakes in his theories too – they gave reasons why his works had to be retracted. They were the &quot;peer-review&quot; of the time. They represented what was accepted and acceptable. In their eyes, *they* were right, he was wrong. Do we lack a historical sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the point of view attributed to Voltaire: &quot;I wholly disapprove of what you say – and will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important message in Galilei's work, and in the work of others from that period, like Francis Bacon and Giordano Bruno, was that every human being has the right to openly put forward a thesis, and other human beings have the right to approve it or criticize it and argue why it is false, and in turn put forward their own. And every human being has the right to examine this kind of exchange, think about it, and come upon *their own* conclusions. There's only one true peer reviewer, and that is your own brain. Accepting or rejecting a scientific thesis just because of someone's authority, whoever that might be, is not science, it's religion – we're back at the time of &quot;because Aristotle said so&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, we can say &quot;people who support non-mainstream theories can very well put them elsewhere on the internet, nobody forbids them to do so&quot;, and give some reasons why they shouldn't appear on StackExchange. Yet... I don't know, to me it sounds like &quot;democracy is very difficult to handle, so let's instore a dictatorship instead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we think of &quot;peer-review&quot; I suppose we ideally think of something like this: someone proposes a theory, and the *whole* scientific community examine it and &quot;votes&quot; in its favour or against it, from logical and experimental consideration. But actual peer-review doesn't work that way. It's about 1–4 persons making a decision. Statistically speaking that's not a representative sample of the whole community (on top of that they sometimes disagree with one another).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for the fuzziness in these thoughts. It's an uneasy feeling that I can't put properly into words, related to this kind of discussions about censorship...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see a lot of answers in Physics Stack Exchange that don't give any references at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="a76df0b4-ba16-4950-ad24-d0bf5b5e395a" CreationDate="2018-04-25T13:38:39.307" UserId="8563" Comment="Added screenshot of roomba-deleted example question." Text="In my opinion, the purpose of the 'non-mainstream' close reason is for non-mainstream theories. It's for people who have invented their own theory of everything, put it on Vixra, self-published a [book](https://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804) about it, and want to have us look at it. This is a legitimate reason to close, as we get a couple of these people every day, and if we don't push them away quickly they'll just overwhelm the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time the scope of this close reason has increased to include naive questions. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/398121/) about the color of an elementary particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/397849/) about tachyons ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CpOFP.png)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are perfectly fine, if misguided questions from laypeople who want to know about physics. They can be answered within mainstream physics just fine, even though the answer will be along the lines of &quot;this is not a valid thing to ask, because...&quot;. Can we be a bit more careful about closing questions like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="c1635221-bdb8-46fc-9cd3-d8a494239676" CreationDate="2018-04-25T13:51:50.253" UserId="8563" Text="I'd like to address your second example ([here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/397849/) for 10k+; [screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CpOFP.png)) and questions along that vein. In a nutshell, that question follows the broad strokes of a rather common class of questions that get closed as non-mainstream and which basically read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know that the laws of physics say that X can never happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose that X happened. Then what do the laws of physics predict as a consequence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I have no sympathy at all for those questions, and their closure is simply a good riddance. We're here to discuss physics, not hypotheticals based on some ill-defined concept of how the laws of physics might be modified to indulge Random Internet User's idea of what reality should be like. But more importantly, this class of question is, by construction, a contradiction, and we have much better places to funnel the time and attention of this site's userbase than to threads that are fundamentally unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, similarly, while the non-mainstream close reason's original reason for being was along a different vein than these ones, the overall spirit (that this site is not here to be all things to everyone and that in order to have high-quality content we explicitly restrict our scope from considering all possible variations of the laws of physics) fits these counterfactuals quite closely. I think it's perfectly well-applied here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="7442bab6-24f1-4db0-bc66-f683ce44d350" CreationDate="2018-04-25T14:56:32.087" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1296 characters in body" Text="###I agree. Screenshots of text have no place on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is simply no reason that plain text should ever be presented as a screenshot, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. If you want to quote text from a separate source which you have as an image, it is your responsibility to transcribe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transcribing the text, simply put, makes the site easier to read for everyone. It might make things more awkward for the reader by just a little bit, but it's definitely there and it's your responsibility to make your posts as readable as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More importantly, it is an important accessibility concern. Do you have good eyesight, and are you reading this site without accessibility tools or without zooming in on text? Then good for you! but not every user of the internet has that ability. There are plenty of people with [visual impairments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment), going from difficulty reading all the way to complete blindness, that have every right to use the internet, which they do relying on [assistive technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology#Visual_impairments) such as [screen readers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader) that do just fine if text is typeset as text, but which get stopped in their tracks when it comes to screenshots. Using proper typesetting (including good use of [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) and [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)) provides additional HTML syntax that those assistive technologies can use to give a more meaningful account of the content on the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   There are some disciplines that are intrinsically hard for visually-impaired people (say, photography? though even then, there are surprises) and physics is *not* one of them. I would like this site to be open to all, and proper typesetting is one of the things that allows us to be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This machine-readability also makes the text easier to register and index by search-engine crawlers, which makes the post easier to search for and easier to find by other users, and which therefore makes the post more useful for a broader cross-section of internet users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On a separate track, transcribing the text in your question is a way to demonstrate that you're prepared to match the effort you're asking others to perform in researching and writing an answer to your question with an effort to the best of your abilities to write the best question you can. If you cannot be bothered to type out two paragraphs of text, which then means that prospective answerers need to spend extra time squinting at a smudgy screenshot, then that speaks very poorly about how you value the effort you're soliciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific thread is explicitly about text, which has no entry barriers to transcribing. Quite often, though, screenshots of text will also include some mathematics, which do require learning to use the LaTeX syntax used by the site's MathJax engine. I do not think this is an excuse: if you want to quote mathematics, it is your responsibility to typeset it accurately. This is indeed an entry barrier, and you do need to learn how to do so - [the Mathematics SE site has an excellent tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) - which goes back to putting in the effort in formatting your question correctly, to match the effort you're expecting from the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Furthermore, using the correct MathJax to display the math is even more of an accessibility concern. MathJax output is displayed using [MathML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathML), which contains a ton of semantic information that can be used by screen readers. To see just how much, right click on any complicated formula (here's one for convenience, $f(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty c_n e^{inx}$) and click on Show Math As &gt; MathML Code (so, for my example, it produces [this code](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8c64W.png), which is the 'true' internal representation of the maths as the browser understands it). The resulting mess is *not* meant to be human-readable (the way LaTeX syntax is) but it *is* a bonanza for an automated system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, from time to time (and in practice quite often), community members might step in and transcribe an image for you, particularly if you're a new site member. That's great! somebody decided to help you out and help improve the site on their own. However, if this happens more than two or three times, then it quickly starts becoming abuse of the site's community mechanisms. You are responsible for the content you post and for ensuring that it does not unduly waste other people's time, either editors or readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what this community should do with questions that contain screenshotted text: what we've been doing already, namely downvoting and, where appropriate, closing; leave a link to this thread if you feel like the downvote requires an explanation. If you have the time and inclination, transcribe the image, particularly if it's a new user, but do make it clear to the poster that they should be doing that on their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use the [AutoReviewComments](https://github.com/Benjol/SE-AutoReviewComments) userscript described in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10484/a-place-for-helpful-comment-templates) and I've added a link to this answer to my copy of the 'Text, not pictures' template, which now reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please [do not post images of texts you want to quote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563), but type it out instead so it is readable for all users and so that it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and as copyable source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ### Text, not pictures&#xD;&#xA;    Please [do not post images of texts you want to quote](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10563), but type it out instead so it is readable for all users and so that it can be indexed by search engines. For formulae, use [MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This takes a lot of the friction out, and it makes it much easier to autocomment, downvote, and then move on with one's life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to deal explicitly with the specific question: is the presence of a non-transcribed screenshot of text, by itself, reason enough to close a question? Frankly, I personally think that that is excessive and not a very effective way to tackle the problem. As I said, I think that screenshots of text have no place on this site, but the close-fix-reopen cycle is too sluggish to deal effectively with the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, for the vast majority of questions that fall in that category there will also be other, more established, reasons to close the post, which makes the question moot most of the time. If none of that is applicable then, in my view, the first action should be a sharp word and a pointer to this thread. Typically the screenshot will be fixed one way or another, but if a newcomer insists on forcing others (by their inaction) to transcribe their screenshots then (as in [the &quot;elsewhere&quot; reference](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10287) for mathjax) question closure becomes a more appealing option as a way to force them to take notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, of course, people's votes are their own, but to offer a definitive guidance proposal: vote to close on any other applicable reasons first, and if none are applicable for me the relevant question is: does this question's use of a screenshot constitute an abuse of this site's community mechanisms that can be effectively dealt with through a question closure? If the answer is yes, then I'd say a custom-reason closevote pointing here is warranted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="a3c5e54b-bc48-4166-8a51-006a8ffefa83" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:55:43.413" UserId="520" Text="**tl/dr** What specific policy changes or behavior changes do you think would lower the barrier to entry for new users represented by the current homework policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This essay is in response to a&#xD;&#xA;[recent Stack Overflow blogpost &quot;Stack Overflow Isn’t Very Welcoming. It’s Time for That to Change.&quot;](https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-very-welcoming-its-time-for-that-to-change/). We've&#xD;&#xA;had some discussion in the h bar about the logic behind the post,&#xD;&#xA;but I'd suggest that we leave that aside for a bit and focus on&#xD;&#xA;the action points suggested in the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s shift  from “don’t be an asshole” to “be welcoming.”**&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s do something about comments.** (in particular about&#xD;&#xA;  sarcastic, pointed, or overly terse comments that might tend to&#xD;&#xA;  push new users away)&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s make it easier for new users to succeed.**&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s stop judging users for not knowing things. (We’re a Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;  site!)**&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s reject the false dichotomy between quality and kindness.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I'm focusing on the third on ``Let’s make it easier&#xD;&#xA;for new users to succeed'' in relation to the oft-discussed&#xD;&#xA;homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Summary of the Current State of Things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The current policy][1] holds that we don't work individual exercises&#xD;&#xA;(without regard to whether they were assigned as homework or&#xD;&#xA;not), but instead are happy to answer questions about physics&#xD;&#xA;concepts and principle no matter the context in which they arise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why *that* policy?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly this is a compromise between a understanding among some&#xD;&#xA;users that homework-like question flood a internet help space and&#xD;&#xA;push out more interesting content on one hand and the desire of&#xD;&#xA;other users explicitly to provide help with the early stages&#xD;&#xA;education and development and to provide explicit outreach to the&#xD;&#xA;wider community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The matter has been discussed over and over again, and while&#xD;&#xA;people are willing to take the opinions of others seriously&#xD;&#xA;and treat them respectfully they two points of view have never&#xD;&#xA;been fully reconciled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there seems to be a widespread agreement that current&#xD;&#xA;policy is not achieving it's goals and improvements are&#xD;&#xA;needed. They haven't happened in part because of deadlock and it&#xD;&#xA;part due to burnout over the issue on the part of the active meta&#xD;&#xA;users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The issue with the policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that extracting the conceptual trouble from&#xD;&#xA;the middle of an exercise the student doesn't understand well&#xD;&#xA;enough to complete is an advanced skill: exactly the sort of&#xD;&#xA;thing that is still in front of beginning students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I wrote about some of the techniques for teaching the difference in a post on academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/54769/440), &#xD;&#xA;and I will emphasize that it can be a time consuming process that&#xD;&#xA;is often frustrating to the student because they don't understand&#xD;&#xA;why the things I'm asking them to do are better than the thing&#xD;&#xA;they are trying to do.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short the policy we have is almost the opposite of &quot;Let’s make&#xD;&#xA;it [easy] for new users to succeed.&quot; At least when the new user is a beginner in our subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Confession&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While on the whole I think it is not useful to focus on *who* is&#xD;&#xA;responsible for policy, but I need to fess up to being non-trivially&#xD;&#xA;responsible for the current situation. I've been (and still am)&#xD;&#xA;firmly in the &quot;homework-help eats on-line communities&quot; camp, and&#xD;&#xA;I pushed some ideas that contributed to the current situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What Can Be Done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear from the blog post that they are contemplating a&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ask-a-question wizard&quot; type of tool, but we won't see that on&#xD;&#xA;Physics in the short term.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What Can *We* Do in the Meantime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the point of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious answers seems to me to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Change the policy in a way that reduces the barrier.&#xD;&#xA;2. Provide more active and positive guidance (and outright aid) so&#xD;&#xA;   that willing posters can get past any barrier that is still in&#xD;&#xA;   the way. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but neither one is actually finished in this form. The details&#xD;&#xA;are still to be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Question to be answered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *specific* policy or behavior change do you recommend (or&#xD;&#xA;recommend against) and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My interpretation. Opinions doubtless vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And they *are* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Maybe we can do some spade work to&#xD;&#xA;earn a spot near the top of the list? Consider this a solicitation for input from the team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; I tried to work on this at the level of &quot;[helpful&#xD;&#xA;comment to guide the poster in the direction of finding&#xD;&#xA;conceptual stumbling blocks](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402666/a-source-contains-two-radionuclides-initially-10-decays-come-from-one-how-lo?noredirect=1#comment902467_402666)&quot; a recent post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="a3c5e54b-bc48-4166-8a51-006a8ffefa83" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:55:43.413" UserId="520" Text="How can we &quot;make it easier for new users to succeed&quot;**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="a3c5e54b-bc48-4166-8a51-006a8ffefa83" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:55:43.413" UserId="520" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|new-users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32410" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="6946e8c7-a1d6-4f4d-aa7c-8aef18781b07" CreationDate="2018-04-28T20:04:17.157" UserId="520" Comment="edited title" Text="How can we &quot;make it easier for new users to succeed&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="2473e1dd-cebc-44fe-bf13-d03bb57356d0" CreationDate="2018-04-28T21:01:56.560" UserId="520" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="**tl/dr** What specific policy changes or behavior changes do you think would lower the barrier to entry for new users represented by the current homework policy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This essay is in response to a&#xD;&#xA;[recent Stack Overflow blogpost &quot;Stack Overflow Isn’t Very Welcoming. It’s Time for That to Change.&quot;](https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-very-welcoming-its-time-for-that-to-change/). We've&#xD;&#xA;had some discussion in the h bar about the logic behind the post,&#xD;&#xA;but I'd suggest that we leave that aside for a bit and focus on&#xD;&#xA;the action points suggested in the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s shift  from “don’t be an asshole” to “be welcoming.”**&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s do something about comments.** (in particular about&#xD;&#xA;  sarcastic, pointed, or overly terse comments that might tend to&#xD;&#xA;  push new users away)&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s make it easier for new users to succeed.**&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s stop judging users for not knowing things. (We’re a Q&amp;A&#xD;&#xA;  site!)**&#xD;&#xA;* **Let’s reject the false dichotomy between quality and kindness.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I'm focusing on the third on ``Let’s make it easier&#xD;&#xA;for new users to succeed'' in relation to the oft-discussed&#xD;&#xA;homework policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Summary of the Current State of Things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The current policy][1] holds that we don't work individual exercises&#xD;&#xA;(without regard to whether they were assigned as homework or&#xD;&#xA;not), but instead are happy to answer questions about physics&#xD;&#xA;concepts and principle no matter the context in which they arise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why *that* policy?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly this is a compromise between a understanding among some&#xD;&#xA;users that homework-like question flood a internet help space and&#xD;&#xA;push out more interesting content on one hand and the desire of&#xD;&#xA;other users explicitly to provide help with the early stages&#xD;&#xA;education and development and to provide explicit outreach to the&#xD;&#xA;wider community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The matter has been discussed over and over again, and while&#xD;&#xA;people are willing to take the opinions of others seriously&#xD;&#xA;and treat them respectfully they two points of view have never&#xD;&#xA;been fully reconciled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there seems to be a widespread agreement that current&#xD;&#xA;policy is not achieving it's goals and improvements are&#xD;&#xA;needed. They haven't happened in part because of deadlock and it&#xD;&#xA;part due to burnout over the issue on the part of the active meta&#xD;&#xA;users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The issue with the policy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic problem is that extracting the conceptual trouble from&#xD;&#xA;the middle of an exercise the student doesn't understand well&#xD;&#xA;enough to complete is an advanced skill: exactly the sort of&#xD;&#xA;thing that is still in front of beginning students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I wrote about some of the techniques for teaching the difference in a post on academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/54769/440), &#xD;&#xA;and I will emphasize that it can be a time consuming process that&#xD;&#xA;is often frustrating to the student because they don't understand&#xD;&#xA;why the things I'm asking them to do are better than the thing&#xD;&#xA;they are trying to do.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short the policy we have is almost the opposite of &quot;Let’s make&#xD;&#xA;it [easy] for new users to succeed.&quot; At least when the new user is a beginner in our subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Confession&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While on the whole I think it is not useful to focus on *who* is&#xD;&#xA;responsible for policy, but I need to fess up to being non-trivially&#xD;&#xA;responsible for the current situation. I've been (and still am)&#xD;&#xA;firmly in the &quot;homework-help eats on-line communities&quot; camp, and&#xD;&#xA;I pushed some ideas that contributed to the current situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What Can Be Done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear from the blog post that they are contemplating a&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ask-a-question wizard&quot; type of tool, but we won't see that on&#xD;&#xA;Physics in the short term.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What Can *We* Do in the Meantime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the point of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious answers seems to me to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Change the policy in a way that reduces the barrier, without opening the floodgates of venue-consuming low-level problem-solving.&#xD;&#xA;2. Provide more active and positive guidance (and outright aid) so&#xD;&#xA;   that willing posters can get past any barrier that is still in&#xD;&#xA;   the way. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but neither one is actually finished in this form. The details&#xD;&#xA;are still to be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Question to be answered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *specific* policy or behavior change do you recommend (or&#xD;&#xA;recommend against) and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My interpretation. Opinions doubtless vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And they *are* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Maybe we can do some spade work to&#xD;&#xA;earn a spot near the top of the list? Consider this a solicitation for input from the team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; I tried to work on this at the level of &quot;[helpful&#xD;&#xA;comment to guide the poster in the direction of finding&#xD;&#xA;conceptual stumbling blocks](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402666/a-source-contains-two-radionuclides-initially-10-decays-come-from-one-how-lo?noredirect=1#comment902467_402666)&quot; a recent post: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="3ac84ab5-39c9-4285-80da-48483558e6f1" CreationDate="2018-04-29T04:23:43.307" UserId="124778" Text="##Implement a [tag warning](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274634/7317818) for [tag:homework-and-exercises]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you said in the question-post, you're not going to immediately get a wizard for crafting good homework-based questions. And who knows how much impact tag-warnings actually have. ([They show up at the wrong time, after all.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/309592/311001)) But in terms of spade-work for claiming top spot on that list, you could do worse than to start trying to write into a tag-warning good guidelines/workflow for someone trying to ask for homework help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="5864cf1a-87dd-41e5-a532-184e9bf8237c" CreationDate="2018-04-30T00:42:02.567" UserId="124778" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="##Implement a *helpful* [tag warning](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274634/7317818) for [tag:homework-and-exercises]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you said in the question-post, you're not going to immediately get a wizard for crafting good homework-based questions. And who knows how much impact tag-warnings actually have. ([They show up at the wrong time, after all.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/309592/311001)) But in terms of spade-work for claiming top spot on that list, you could do worse than to start trying to write into a tag-warning good guidelines/workflow for someone trying to ask for homework help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="f740dedd-9665-402a-a0e5-0d327a6621d5" CreationDate="2018-04-30T02:26:19.137" UserId="124778" Comment="added 502 characters in body" Text="##Implement a *helpful* [tag warning](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274634/7317818) for [tag:homework-and-exercises]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest a tag warning for hw/exercises that's written with an eye to the user who has a question we want: lead *that* user to write a good hw/exercise question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who knows how much impact tag-warnings actually have. ([They show up at the wrong time, after all.](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/309592/311001)) But the tag warning for hw/exercises [already brainstormed here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10043/124778) is largely focused on preventing the asking of bad questions rather than stepping a user through asking one well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you said in the question-post, you're not going to immediately get a wizard for crafting good homework-based questions.  But by trying to write into a tag-warning good guidelines/workflow for someone trying to ask for homework help we'll be laying the groundwork for when the time comes: &quot;see, SE staff: we already have one ready to go, for the 2nd-most used and most-problematic tag on one of the Network's busiest sites.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32415" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="716c5cd2-18e3-42bc-936d-68e7a885a4b2" CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:21:03.807" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/990853522718625793" />
  <row Id="32416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="675da03e-8ab6-4611-ac08-c614be38da00" CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:51:34.763" UserId="32426" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I tried to ask a Theoretical Physics question, then I found that the Theoretical Physics stackexchange site has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="ee211e8b-5765-43b5-b25d-c754cd558018" CreationDate="2018-04-30T19:40:30.550" UserId="520" Text="# We could provide problem solving advice on Meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current situation tells posters *what* they need to accomplish, but&#xD;&#xA;not how to get there. And that is a non-trivial skill, which&#xD;&#xA;beginners need help learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written advice is not necessarily the best way (it is, perhaps,&#xD;&#xA;one of the worst ways) to deliver such advice, but it is what we&#xD;&#xA;can do without new tooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For implementation we could either make new answers to the&#xD;&#xA;existing meta question explaining what the policy is, or generate&#xD;&#xA;a new meta question along the lines of *How do I express my&#xD;&#xA;trouble with a particular exercise as a &quot;conceptual question&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pieces of advice that might appear include (each with an&#xD;&#xA;explanation, of course):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Determine (and communicate) all the things that you *do*&#xD;&#xA;  understand about the problem, so that you can focus on the&#xD;&#xA;  disconnect.&#xD;&#xA;* Focus on the physical quantities present, not the numbers&#xD;&#xA;  present (i.e. &quot;speed at the beginning&quot; instead of&#xD;&#xA;  $12\,\mathrm{m/s}$): the symbols that appear in formulas means&#xD;&#xA;  *quantities*.&#xD;&#xA;* Be able to state what physical principles or framework you are&#xD;&#xA;  using to think about the problem. This could be as simple as&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;kinematics&quot; or &quot;conservation of energy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* Take the part of the problem that is tripping you out of the&#xD;&#xA;  context of the question where you encountered it and re-phrase&#xD;&#xA;  it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="36af866e-3aec-448a-ad69-7438674e253a" CreationDate="2018-04-30T21:34:25.150" UserId="520" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="# We could provide problem solving advice on Meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current situation tells posters *what* they need to accomplish, but&#xD;&#xA;not how to get there. And that is a non-trivial skill, which&#xD;&#xA;beginners need help learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written advice is not necessarily the best way (it is, perhaps,&#xD;&#xA;one of the worst ways) to deliver such help, but it is what we&#xD;&#xA;can do without new tooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For implementation we could either make new answers to the&#xD;&#xA;existing meta question explaining what the policy is, or generate&#xD;&#xA;a new meta question along the lines of *How do I express my&#xD;&#xA;trouble with a particular exercise as a &quot;conceptual question&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pieces of advice that might appear include (each with an&#xD;&#xA;explanation, of course):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Determine (and communicate) all the things that you *do*&#xD;&#xA;  understand about the problem, so that you can focus on the&#xD;&#xA;  disconnect.&#xD;&#xA;* Focus on the physical quantities present, not the numbers&#xD;&#xA;  present (i.e. &quot;speed at the beginning&quot; instead of&#xD;&#xA;  $12\,\mathrm{m/s}$): the symbols that appear in formulas means&#xD;&#xA;  *quantities*.&#xD;&#xA;* Be able to state what physical principles or framework you are&#xD;&#xA;  using to think about the problem. This could be as simple as&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;kinematics&quot; or &quot;conservation of energy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* Take the part of the problem that is tripping you out of the&#xD;&#xA;  context of the question where you encountered it and re-phrase&#xD;&#xA;  it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="e0f0ad12-4663-4554-a8ec-5b12c227fdf8" CreationDate="2018-05-01T04:19:23.613" UserId="104964" Text="**Summary - (Maybe) snappy video FAQs but no rule changes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a difference between being welcoming and being a doormat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let’s shift from “don’t be an asshole” to “be welcoming.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abuse is already a breach of the rules, it's for users to flag outright abuse if they see it.  It requires no more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also need to avoid enforcing an artificial code of conduct which acts as a barrier to people staying on the site.  If people cannot feel reasonable levels of freedom to express frustration, irritation and annoyance they will leave.  And those people leaving will be the useful posters, who provide useful answers and some of the challenging questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't completely stifle sarcasm, etc. without making the place feel like a morgue or some sort of gawd-awful genetlemen's club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's nice enough, IMO.  We're not running a hotel for Mormons, if you see what I mean. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let’s do something about comments. (in particular about sarcastic, pointed, or overly terse comments that might tend to push new users away)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people stop posting their homework (often as nothing more than a photo of the page it's written on) and looking for an answer (and even have the gall to want it explained &quot;clearly and in detail&quot;), I'll stop being sarcastic, pointed and overly terse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These people are not remotely interested in learning physics.  They're interested in having someone else do their homework, period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no need to be nice about this and it's a waste of effort doing more than VTCing for homework-type reasons (which will post a message explaining why which they can fix or ignore - their choice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let’s make it easier for new users to succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy.  It's a simple matter of them looking at the site before they post an answer, opinion or question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not have to handhold them.  There's plenty of common sense ways to learn the ropes.  There's a tour, you can just read upvoted questions and answers to get a feel for the place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let’s stop judging users for not knowing things. (We’re a Q&amp;A site!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not doormats.  I think we all offer help (in different ways).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's put that another way.  In school (remember that ?) when you were in class was it sometimes exactly what you need to be told to stop wasting people's time (or similar) ?  To be told that a minimum effort is expected of you ?  To not waste people's time because you're too lazy to make any effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not as if there's isn't a lot of text already posted telling people what's expected of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They often just don't care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've all experienced the posters who won't take no for an answer and do things like try and argue in comments why we should do their homework for them, all the way up to the ones that repost multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let’s reject the false dichotomy between quality and kindness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was not aware of any such &quot;dichotomy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have rules for quality.  We have *different* rules for kindness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;kindness&quot; is not what's needed.  There's a difference between reasonable politeness as a general rule and &quot;walk over us and we'll walk in front of you again and ask for another&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to be kind to people, I'll work on the soup kitchens for the homeless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Change the policy in a way that reduces the barrier, without opening the floodgates of venue-consuming low-level problem-solving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The barrier is there to discourage abuse of the site.  It does it's job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An argument could be made for making the barrier tougher, not easier.  I think we're already on the nice side of reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provide more active and positive guidance (and outright aid) so that willing posters can get past any barrier that is still in the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we already provide a lot of this.  This is something of a &quot;You Can Lead A Horse To Water&quot; thing.  The warnings, FAQs and guidelines are already there and pointed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The YouTube generation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what may be needed, if anything, is *video* FAQs, and guidelines for newbies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am afraid the majority of the younger generation are utterly disinterested in *reading* rules.  They need some snappy music backed video telling them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the problem users will continue to be a problem because they don't care about rules.  Video rules might help avoid the problems with some genuine users keen to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe one specific video stating the homework policy prominently on the question entry page ?  With (Gawd help us) a snappy background muzak for the Millennials. :-)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="94a4ec6f-52ba-4203-b58a-cb61f4a817af" CreationDate="2018-05-06T06:53:34.953" UserId="47511" Text="**Invite people from different backgrounds as newcomers to peer review this site**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a good idea of problems experienced by newcomers, we should consider inviting a number of newcomers to peer review this site. They can be physics students, professional physicists etc., they are then asked to occasionally post here and keep a file about their opinion on the questions/answers they post and the feedback they get. When the review period is over, we can study the opinions of the reviewers and then decide how best to address problems experienced here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="dabdf061-21d0-4b79-8a8c-648d2e7d2882" CreationDate="2018-05-06T15:14:35.533" UserId="121464" Text="As I remember there was a post way back in the mists of time...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7162/should-we-rename-the-homework-policy/7163#7163&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That got consensus but still has not been implemented. Perhaps we should finally implement this, as it will probably help users understand what exactly the policy is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="0ad344bd-afb7-470c-8b1b-5b33eebe78f3" CreationDate="2018-05-06T17:35:20.307" UserId="26969" Text="If the concern is that homework like questions clog up the site, would an “easy” solution&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; be to make these posts optionally invisible?&#xA;&#xA;One check box removes the content from your feed and search results - yet people who want to help (or need help) can find each other on this site. We already have he ability to have favorite tags. This just extends that concept in the opposite direction.&#xA;&#xA;It would give people who choose to be welcoming and helpful the chance to do so - the ones who want to snark can instead ignore these posts and live happier, more fulfilling lives.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* I realize that on a common platform like SE nothing is as easy as it sounds...&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="b1e18bc8-4234-4fb7-81bf-dc7a308897d0" CreationDate="2018-05-07T12:23:20.940" UserId="4962" Text="A specific behavior change or change of attitude towards new users with poorly described homework questions could simply be to comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand your task - but why can't you solve it? **What is your doubt**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning, **refrain from solving the question and rather ask for the underlying doubt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, no homework-asker needs help with their homework - they need help with the **tool**, **method**, or **understanding** required to solve the homework. (Apart from obvious cases of poorly stated homework-tasks or typos - or lazy panicking last-minute students.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on targeting the underlying doubt before the question is of course more the purpose of a teacher who educates than a Q/A-site that answers specific questions without care for the background. But if this site and community really, truly wish to embrace more homework-askers, then prompting for the right question with a doubt-seeking rather than condemning attitude is a *strong* necessity IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the standard message given when closing such questions include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sentence often mentioned for the user in comments before closing. But is this sentence clear? I do not believe so. A &quot;specific physics concept&quot; for a student with an impossible homework task may not be a very clear phrase.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="9f2ddd97-5780-4b23-b099-f8e9c64bdabb" CreationDate="2018-05-07T12:30:15.810" UserId="4962" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="*I am here suggesting an attitude/behavior change (let's call it an improvement) rather than a change in rule or given information.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A specific behavior change or change of attitude towards new users with poorly described homework questions could simply be to comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand your task - but why can't you solve it? **What is your doubt**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning, **refrain from solving the question and rather ask for the underlying doubt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, no homework-asker needs help with their homework - they need help with the **tool**, **method**, or **understanding** required to solve the homework. (Apart from obvious cases of poorly stated homework-tasks or typos - or lazy panicking last-minute students.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on targeting the underlying doubt before the question is of course more the purpose of a teacher who educates than a Q/A-site that answers specific questions without care for the background. But if this site and community really, truly wish to embrace more homework-askers, then prompting for the right question with a doubt-seeking rather than condemning attitude is a *strong* necessity IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the standard message given when closing such questions includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sentence often mentioned for the user in comments before closing. But is this sentence and phrase clear? I do not believe so. A &quot;specific physics concept&quot; could for a not-too-experienced student just as well be interpreted as the homework question itself. So, such sentence may not be as helpful towards a proper rephrasing as asking for the doubt or &quot;what prevents you from solving / starting / doing something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="b6a53d6b-10f2-4a06-bbb1-8e5e4a93f10a" CreationDate="2018-05-07T22:27:08.283" UserId="8563" Text="### We probably need a revamped tutorial on *how* to ask an on-topic homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current title of the homework policy, &quot;[How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)&quot;, is not a coincidence: in its original form (say, [v11](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/715/11)), and as adapted from [the original thread on the mathematics site](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question), it was intended as a tutorial to help newcomers adapt their set-piece dumps into posts that passed the bar set by the (rather more permissive?) environment on this site all those seven years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years, that post's form and function has morphed somewhat, but if you look at the current post from the perspective of its original goal, it's really not doing its job very well, so if you take e.g. this passage,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to show your work. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it does some pretty poor justice to the actual policy as implemented in the ground, but more importantly, it's just pointing newcomers in completely the wrong direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for one, there's definitely some polishing to be done on the homework policy itself (which, I would argue, should take it closer to a proper &quot;policy&quot; post with a title along the lines or &quot;Are homework questions on-topic here?&quot; or maybe &quot;Which homework questions are on-topic here?&quot;), but that's probably a debate that's not for this round (again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one thing I think we *could* do, given our existing budget of time, energy, and participation, is to write a separate post that actually goes in depth into *how* you write your homework question in a way that actually ticks that elusive &quot;conceptual question&quot; checkbox that forms the core of the current requirements. This takes me back to dmckee's premise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The basic problem is that extracting the conceptual trouble from the middle of an exercise the student doesn't understand well enough to complete is an advanced skill: exactly the sort of thing that is still in front of beginning students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I wrote about some of the techniques for teaching the difference in a post on academia, and I will emphasize that it can be a time consuming process that is often frustrating to the student because they don't understand why the things I'm asking them to do are better than the thing they are trying to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's actually try and lay out in a long-form, accessible text exactly what we mean by &quot;conceptual&quot; (independently of policy itself), and the rough process for taking a set-piece dump, or a set-piece-dump-with-check-my-work-due-diligence, into a conceptual question that transcends the set-piece the newcomer was originally stuck with and which is useful for future visitors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="063d7ef8-68a6-4bad-89e8-0e9ab10ff69d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T22:30:49.393" UserId="8563" Comment="Formatting edits while this is on top." Text="I tried to ask a Theoretical Physics question, then I found that the Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange site has been closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32439" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="063d7ef8-68a6-4bad-89e8-0e9ab10ff69d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T22:30:49.393" UserId="8563" Comment="Formatting edits while this is on top." Text="Why was the Theoretical Physics site closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="82e80c2e-e423-418d-bf5a-45fa17d1f783" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:07:44.083" UserId="2751" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Yep ask here, we like theoretical physics too ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions that have been on the former theoretical physics SE site or new ones, that would have been appropriate for it, are labeled with the &quot;research-level&quot;  [tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1248/2751) you can see (beside the Astronomy questions which we have saved too) a list of all the TP.SE questions that were imported. We have successfully saved all of them I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What went wrong with TP.SE was discussed for example at our meta by questions marked with the [tag](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-salvage) &quot;site-salvage&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the basic proplem was that the SE network does not allow for smaller, high quality content sites, which are of interest to a smaller community and therefore have lower, traffic, a slower growth rate, etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As described [here](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/1608/30967), the content of the former Theoretical Physics SE site has been made human readable, editable, and reclaimable by its owners such that these discussions can continue or be taken up again in principle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="f394ae95-2c78-4439-b40c-892cc709d347" CreationDate="2018-05-09T12:44:56.367" UserId="2451" Text="Let me repeat in case it is not clear from the other answers that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theoretical physics questions are [on-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5922/2451) on [Phys.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1229/2451), and more than welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- All$^1$ Q&amp;As from [TP.SE](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) has been [transferred](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1229/2451) in 2013 to [Phys.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1229/2451) and most (if not all) are open for new answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$^1$ Except for a handful or two, which were migrated to [TCS.SE](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="2bb7b4bc-0ac9-4f95-b06e-7d3c4a4d8fe5" CreationDate="2018-05-10T17:52:49.993" UserId="55662" Text="This older question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270220/is-the-magnetic-field-zero-inside-an-ideal-conductor-carrying-a-current is explicitly about a regular conductor, but has been marked as a duplicate of a question about superconductors.  In addition, it has a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the title referring to an &quot;ideal conductor&quot; is a bit confusing.  But I think it should not be marked as a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="2bb7b4bc-0ac9-4f95-b06e-7d3c4a4d8fe5" CreationDate="2018-05-10T17:52:49.993" UserId="55662" Text="Question doesn't appear to be a duplicate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="2bb7b4bc-0ac9-4f95-b06e-7d3c4a4d8fe5" CreationDate="2018-05-10T17:52:49.993" UserId="55662" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="27989a90-497c-4444-b1ea-813cee671381" CreationDate="2018-05-10T17:56:41.030" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="27989a90-497c-4444-b1ea-813cee671381" CreationDate="2018-05-10T17:56:41.030" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="This older question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270220/ is explicitly about a regular conductor, but has been marked as a duplicate of a question about superconductors.  In addition, it has a useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the title referring to an &quot;ideal conductor&quot; is a bit confusing.  But I think it should not be marked as a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="ad4194d1-0cda-48aa-9d01-2c22765f02f1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:20:13.550" UserId="174421" Text="I have been banned from Physics Stack Exchange, and I think it is mainly because of these two questions which were not received well. The thing is that for both these questions I have received hints from the comments section and I managed to work it out. What should I do about them? Would someone give me some advice as to how I should edit these questions? Or should I delete them? I joined Stack exchange as I am preparing for a very difficult entrance exam, the IITJEE on my own and I do not want to be banned. Is there anything I could do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/404676/a-rod-bent-at-right-angle-is-placed-on-a-rough-horizontal-cylinder-as-in-figure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/405253/what-will-coefficient-of-restitution-of-circular-wall-be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Also the following question has been downvoted and closed, if I delete it would it be a good thing? However it has two answers and I don't know if I am allowed to do so, or if I should.&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/395546/what-is-the-velocity-of-the-block-b-in-the-pulley-system-when-it-hits-the-pulley" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="ad4194d1-0cda-48aa-9d01-2c22765f02f1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:20:13.550" UserId="174421" Text="How do I make these questions better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="ad4194d1-0cda-48aa-9d01-2c22765f02f1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:20:13.550" UserId="174421" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32460" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="f62745c5-cf77-4bcf-b14c-4e8b2b72bed1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:56:02.067" UserId="23119" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32461" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="7cc36aca-285f-4e3c-8d39-16f5be9ee235" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:56:05.720" UserId="23119" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:23119,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="68cc080d-8159-4494-b704-b61bddbe54fe" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:59:34.377" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17651/is-it-possible-to-recover-classical-mechanics-from-schrodingers-equation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 over [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/17651?lq=1).    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="5d32f41e-3bea-476b-952c-65337e21e5ce" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:01:55.253" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5456/the-speed-of-gravity    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Duplicates:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too many to list; see   https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/5456?lq=1 .  26 questions are listed, some aren't exactly duplicates ...        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question should be tagged [tag:faq],  vote down if you oppose.**  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="fec7f08a-f8c8-4cdb-b066-590547632a47" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:02:27.707" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-einsteins-field-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="ee6702b2-afb7-4d9a-a667-43810c5e87f3" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:08:30.200" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 733 characters in body" Text="`\operatorname`, `\mbox`, `\mathrm`, `\text` achieve essentially the same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also `\fbox` (if you want an actual $\fbox{box}$), `\mathbf` (which achieves this and bolds stuff too) and `\bf` (essentially the same thing)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32472" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="60add80b-00cb-4c96-8e6f-ff7d2c66a61d" CreationDate="2018-05-11T15:51:11.043" UserId="84967" Comment="Rollback to [1abb7315-c1bf-4247-968e-5ce3125b4dbc]" Text="***[meta-tag:status-completed]***   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------      &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**This question should be [tag:faq]:**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-einsteins-field-equations-come-out-of-string-theory&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**The duplicates are:**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vote up if you think this question  should be tagged [tag:faq], vote down if you oppose.**   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="c9e6acc8-e12b-4031-8615-0d1fe4762163" CreationDate="2018-05-11T18:50:39.887" UserId="124" Text="Most of the advice we have about asking for help on homework or self-study questions, or other questions of a similar nature, is encapsulated in [our homework policy post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). So I'd suggest taking a look there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the main point you should take away, when it comes to improving your questions, is that when you have a homework/self-study/etc. problem, the question you ask on this site should _not_ be the question asked in the problem itself. Similarly, don't ask things like &quot;how should I start?&quot; or &quot;what should I do next?&quot; or &quot;what am I doing wrong? or &quot;can someone explain this?&quot; Those are all too vague and broad to be good questions for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we'd rather have you do is narrow the question down to one very specific issue that you want to know about, ideally something that other people might also be wondering about even if they're not working on the same problem you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="2416134e-21a9-4a31-b22a-eea0a0c70e98" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:14:37.907" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 260 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have been banned from Physics Stack Exchange, and I think it is mainly because of these two questions which were not received well. The thing is that for both these questions I have received hints from the comments section and I managed to work it out. What should I do about them? Would someone give me some advice as to how I should edit these questions? Or should I delete them? I joined Stack exchange as I am preparing for a very difficult entrance exam, the IITJEE on my own and I do not want to be banned. Is there anything I could do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/404676/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/405253/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Also the following question has been downvoted and closed, if I delete it would it be a good thing? However it has two answers and I don't know if I am allowed to do so, or if I should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/395546/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="2416134e-21a9-4a31-b22a-eea0a0c70e98" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:14:37.907" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 260 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="649d96cc-b922-4943-a0d3-b55284b8cb57" CreationDate="2018-05-12T02:11:35.170" UserDisplayName="user195162" Text="According to the achievements tab as of right now I have gained 20 points and lost 2, yet my reputation on physics stackexchange shows as 19 and here it shows as 21.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a glitch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: after I posted this my reputation here now shows as 19." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="649d96cc-b922-4943-a0d3-b55284b8cb57" CreationDate="2018-05-12T02:11:35.170" UserDisplayName="user195162" Text="Reputation not adding up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="649d96cc-b922-4943-a0d3-b55284b8cb57" CreationDate="2018-05-12T02:11:35.170" UserDisplayName="user195162" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32479" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="acb99845-c83b-492f-860e-53cbe49f0743" CreationDate="2018-05-12T05:15:08.280" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2675],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="8ef08e5e-0598-4730-807e-df029df87dfc" CreationDate="2018-05-12T05:25:16.953" UserId="124" Comment="added 1772 characters in body" Text="Most of the advice we have about asking for help on homework or self-study questions, or other questions of a similar nature, is encapsulated in [our homework policy post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714). So I'd suggest taking a look there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the main point you should take away, when it comes to improving your questions, is that when you have a homework/self-study/etc. problem, the question you ask on this site should _not_ be the question asked in the problem itself. Similarly, don't ask things like &quot;how should I start?&quot; or &quot;what should I do next?&quot; or &quot;what am I doing wrong? or &quot;can someone explain this?&quot; Those are all too vague and broad to be good questions for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we'd rather have you do is narrow the question down to one very specific issue that you want to know about, ideally something that other people might also be wondering about even if they're not working on the same problem you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find that some of the questions you want to ask while preparing for an exam like the JEE just aren't suitable for this site - that is, that you can't figure out any way to phrase the question in a way that meets the guidelines I mentioned. Sometimes that happens, and we accept it; this site is not trying to be a home for every physics-related question a person could possibly ask. The community maintains a (non-comprehensive) [list of other sites](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh) where you might be able to find some help with things that aren't on topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as deletion... the system only lets you delete your questions under [certain conditions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222/56541).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't delete your own question when it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has an answer with upvotes (even if it has a net negative score)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has an accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has multiple answers (even if there are no upvotes)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has an answer with an awarded bounty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderators generally agree with the criteria used by the system to decide whether to show you a &quot;delete&quot; link at all, so our approach is that if you see the &quot;delete&quot; link there, feel free to use it. However, deleting posts will _not_ help you get out of an [automatic question ban](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86997/what-can-i-do-when-getting-we-are-no-longer-accepting-questions-answers-from-th). If you find yourself in that situation, I would advise against deleting your posts. Instead, focus on coming up with a good question to ask next time you get the chance to do so. If you have access to [chat], you can ask people there for advice on how to ask a good question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="1a4df1d1-f976-4ba5-bad3-070739279c0f" CreationDate="2018-05-12T10:00:14.037" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="af2cf047-85e6-4bbc-bda0-a84ced26c136" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:55:59.923" UserId="195325" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [AC Circuits with Frequencies Dependent on Initial Conditions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/405301/ac-circuits-with-frequencies-dependent-on-initial-conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand why this question was put on hold. It clearly matches all the guidelines for homework-type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The question clearly asks about a specific physics concept&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) I have an attempt at a solution, and the solution doesn't seem to be correct. I don't understand what kind of mistake I made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="af2cf047-85e6-4bbc-bda0-a84ced26c136" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:55:59.923" UserId="195325" Text="Why was my question put on-hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="af2cf047-85e6-4bbc-bda0-a84ced26c136" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:55:59.923" UserId="195325" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="5f54e25e-3dd6-4fc9-b45c-85ff0e83613b" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:05:07.267" UserId="195325" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [AC Circuits with Frequencies Dependent on Initial Conditions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/405301/ac-circuits-with-frequencies-dependent-on-initial-conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand why this question was put on hold. It clearly matches all the guidelines for homework-type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The question clearly asks about a specific physics concept&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) I have an attempt at a solution, and the solution doesn't seem to be correct. I don't understand what kind of mistake I made. And it's clearly not a technical mistake, but rather something to do with the right way to approach this type of problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="317fcc07-6d19-40f3-aec6-1054be87f89a" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:14:21.393" UserId="83398" Text="I think this is a clear call: closing this question was a mistake, and I'm voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of a common problem on Phys.SE. A lot of experienced users are going on autopilot in the close queue. The minimum judging time is three seconds. I certainly get a bit lazy, but I feel that many users are deciding in just these three seconds with cheap heuristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is introductory physics involved? Quantum field theory gets a free pass, but anything with an inclined plane or a circuit is probably doomed.&#xD;&#xA;2. Does the question contain equations? If so, it _must_ be somebody asking for us to check their work, so the question must be closed. Ironically this means that questions with a conceptual core are punished when their writers put in more effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, after a few more seconds of reading, I have decided a question has a conceptual core and is appropriate for Phys.SE. I'm usually appalled to see that question already has three or four close votes! I don't see how this can be explained without either people going on autopilot or fundamentally disagreeing on what the homework policy is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is a perfect example: it contains an obvious conceptual question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The basic thing that doesn't make sense is that the frequency of the current somehow depends on the initial conditions of the circuit. In particular, this system is a totally linear system totally described by linear differential equations. And clearly the solution to those equations can't depend on initial conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a useful question for students and it isn't specific to this homework problem at all. However, the question was doomed because there's a circuit diagram right above it (hitting heuristic 1) and equations right below (hitting heuristic 2). I urge other close voters to examine questions more carefully before voting to close. If you disagree and think this question _should_ be closed I would appreciate an explanation of how that fits with current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="54fcdaff-3f2d-4206-80b3-9bd533a3bb44" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:37:47.260" UserDisplayName="user195162" Comment="Clarification" Text="According to the achievements tab as of right now I have gained 20 points and lost 2, yet my reputation on physics stackexchange shows as 19 and here it shows as 21.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a glitch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: after I posted this my reputation here now shows as 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT2: In retrospect I should have asked two questions: the first one about the inconsistency between sites which has been answered, and another one about the minor inconsistency between what I see and what the site shows (19 shown, but adds up to 18), which still appears to be a bug." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="be942e9a-df9b-4715-8017-e04ea7e981b1" CreationDate="2018-05-13T07:04:04.940" UserId="124" Text="I don't know why the question was put on hold either; the only people who can truly answer that are those who voted for the hold. Hopefully one or more of them will contribute an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my best guess as to why it was put on hold was that it's not clear what the post is actually asking. In other words, at least some readers had a hard time identifying the conceptual issue you want to know about. If this is what the voters thought, I can see how they would deduce that you didn't meet the part of the [guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) where it tells you to &quot;ask about a specific physics concept&quot; and therefore they voted to put your question on hold for that reason. But really, if this was their thought process, we have a hold reason for &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; questions, and that would have been a better fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll note that, in most respects, your post is one of the better homework-like questions I've seen in a while. It quotes the problem you're working on, summarizes your progress on the problem so far, does _not_ ask for the solution to the original problem, and it does mention a specific physics concept which confuses you. All that is great. But there are two things you didn't do, which would greatly improve the question if you did:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You didn't make it entirely clear what conceptual question you actually wanted to ask. This is not part of our homework-like question policy, it's more of a general communication principle: when you want to ask a question, do it in a way that sticks the actual question in the reader's face, so to speak. Make it impossible to miss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    For example, you might try any of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Actually phrase your question as a question, i.e. an interrogative statement with a question mark at the end&#xD;&#xA;    - Use a &quot;question phrase&quot; like &quot;What I want to know is...&quot; or &quot;I'm confused about why...&quot; (this one you actually did, by saying &quot;The basic thing that doesn't make sense is...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    - Put the question at the end of your post&#xD;&#xA;    - Show the question in bold text (usually overkill)&#xD;&#xA;    - Phrase your _title_ as a question which asks the same thing that you ask in the post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    None of these changes are required, but I find that they can help your posts get better receptions.&#xD;&#xA;2. You didn't show, or at least didn't explain, your progress toward resolving your confusion about that conceptual issue. This is separate from showing your progress toward solving the original problem - and in fact, I think this is more important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, if I found myself in your situation, here is one possible way I might rephrase the part of your question after the quote block:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The basic thing that doesn't make sense is that the *frequency of the current somehow depends on the initial conditions* of the circuit. In particular, this system is a totally linear system totally described by linear differential equations. And clearly the solution to those equations can't depend on initial conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To check my intuition on this, I wrote out the equations describing the circuit in the general case. I'd expect these equations to determine the frequency on their own, without reference to initial conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I defined:&#xD;&#xA;$$I_{center} = I_{left} - I_{right}$$&#xD;&#xA;and got&#xD;&#xA;$$3L (\ddot{I}_{left} - \ddot{I}_{right}) + \frac{1}{C}(I_{left} - I_{right}) = 0$$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words&#xD;&#xA;$$\ddot{I}_{center} = \frac{-1}{3LC}I_{center} = 0$$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which has a solution with frequency $\omega = 1/\sqrt{3LC}$. As I suspected, this doesn't depend on the initial conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In light of this, can someone explain how the initial conditions of the circuit could affect the frequency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would probably also change the post title to &quot;How can the frequency of an AC circuit depend on its initial conditions?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I added a phrase or two to make it clear how the calculation represents your attempt to resolve the conceptual issue yourself (as opposed to being just an attempt to solve the original problem, as in your post). I also repeated the main conceptual question at the end, so that it is right at the forefront of a reader's mind as soon as they finish with the post, and I used interrogative phrasing and ended it with a question mark to make it explicitly clear that this is the thing I want to get out of the answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="662519a4-31d7-4deb-bc30-8f8fdf2aed3c" CreationDate="2018-05-13T09:14:39.580" UserId="83398" Comment="added 484 characters in body" Text="I think this is a clear call: closing this question was a mistake, and I'm voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of a common problem on Phys.SE. A lot of experienced users are going on autopilot in the close queue. The minimum judging time is three seconds. I certainly get a bit lazy, but I feel that many users are deciding in just these three seconds with cheap heuristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is introductory physics involved? Quantum field theory gets a free pass, but anything with an inclined plane or a circuit is probably doomed.&#xD;&#xA;2. Does the question contain equations? If so, it _must_ be somebody asking for us to check their work, so the question must be closed. Ironically this means that questions with a conceptual core are punished when their writers put in more effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, after a few more seconds of reading, I have decided a question has a conceptual core and is appropriate for Phys.SE. I'm usually appalled to see that question already has three or four close votes! I don't see how this can be explained without either people going on autopilot or fundamentally disagreeing on what the homework policy is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is a perfect example: it contains an obvious conceptual question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The basic thing that doesn't make sense is that the frequency of the current somehow depends on the initial conditions of the circuit.** In particular, this system is a totally linear system totally described by linear differential equations. And clearly the solution to those equations can't depend on initial conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP is very clear that they are confused about the bolded statement. They quote the problem specifically because it makes this statement. A short version of this statement is in the question title. They show their work in full because they don't see how it's compatible with this statement. There are a few distractors, such as the fact that the last sentence quoted here is completely wrong, but if you think _that's_ what the question is about you haven't read it at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a useful question for students and it isn't specific to this homework problem at all. However, the question was doomed because there's a circuit diagram right above it (hitting heuristic 1) and equations right below (hitting heuristic 2). I urge other close voters to examine questions more carefully before voting to close. If you disagree and think this question _should_ be closed I would appreciate an explanation of how that fits with current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="b0f56dba-a2d5-45e0-a0f5-0c89659242bf" CreationDate="2018-05-13T09:24:15.220" UserId="83398" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I think this is a clear call: closing this question was a mistake, and I'm voting to reopen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of a common problem on Phys.SE. A lot of experienced users are going on autopilot in the close queue. The minimum judging time is three seconds. I certainly get a bit lazy, but I feel that many users are deciding in just these three seconds with cheap heuristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is introductory physics involved? Quantum field theory gets a free pass, but anything with an inclined plane or a circuit is probably doomed.&#xD;&#xA;2. Does the question contain equations? If so, it _must_ be somebody asking for us to check their work, so the question must be closed. Ironically this means that questions with a conceptual core are punished when their writers put in more effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many times, after a few more seconds of reading, I have decided a question has a conceptual core and is appropriate for Phys.SE. I'm usually appalled to see that question already has three or four close votes! I don't see how this can be explained without either people going on autopilot or fundamentally disagreeing on what the homework policy is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is a perfect example: it contains an obvious conceptual question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The basic thing that doesn't make sense is that the frequency of the current somehow depends on the initial conditions of the circuit.** In particular, this system is a totally linear system totally described by linear differential equations. And clearly the solution to those equations can't depend on initial conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP is very clear that they are confused about the bolded statement. They quote the problem specifically because it makes this statement. A short version of this statement is in the question title. They show their work in full because they don't see how it's compatible with this statement. There are a few distractors, such as the fact that the last sentence quoted here is wrong (it is missing the word &quot;frequency&quot;), but if you think _that's_ what the question is about you haven't read it at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a useful question for students and it isn't specific to this homework problem at all. However, the question was doomed because there's a circuit diagram right above it (hitting heuristic 1) and equations right below (hitting heuristic 2). I urge other close voters to examine questions more carefully before voting to close. If you disagree and think this question _should_ be closed I would appreciate an explanation of how that fits with current policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32504" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="0cc731b4-b04c-4572-8be5-38aa5f8f09f1" CreationDate="2018-05-13T17:13:02.883" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32505" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="4362129c-2b0a-4d05-8410-3a93ee5634a1" CreationDate="2018-05-13T17:14:22.610" UserId="520" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:520,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;dmckee&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="e8cf3392-b047-4d07-b1f8-69423337e2f1" CreationDate="2018-05-14T20:37:51.657" UserId="142085" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [AC Circuits with Frequencies Dependent on Initial Conditions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/405301/ac-circuits-with-frequencies-dependent-on-initial-conditions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand why this question was put on hold. It clearly matches all the guidelines for homework-type questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. The question clearly asks about a specific physics concept&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. I have an attempt at a solution, and the solution doesn't seem to be correct. I don't understand what kind of mistake I made. And it's clearly not a technical mistake, but rather something to do with the right way to approach this type of problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="2a05729c-1599-4687-82fb-78b82c259f03" CreationDate="2018-05-15T10:28:59.307" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 270 characters in body" Text="Right now, you have the choice of opening in the current tab or a new one (e.g. middle click, ctrl click). Your idea would only permit the latter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="61f851d3-57a3-40f5-9c59-121748a6f564" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:36:18.733" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 257 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44782/how-do-einsteins-field-equations-come-out-of-string-theory**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70060/the-general-relativity-from-string-theory-point-of-view?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/how-does-classical-gr-concept-of-space-time-emerge-from-string-theory?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732/is-string-theory-formulated-in-flat-or-curved-spacetime?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30005/how-does-string-theory-predict-gravity?rq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54317/in-what-limit-does-string-theory-reproduce-general-relativity?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="9e1e0bbd-6dc5-45e3-a13d-ed20fd9f88ba" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:37:42.070" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 373 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-black-hole**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28297/why-is-a-black-hole-black&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41930/if-nothing-in-the-universe-can-travel-faster-than-light-how-come-light-cant-es?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="c96fa510-a609-4cf9-9b02-a9e3915e0bf8" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:38:32.030" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 279 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15371/understanding-time-is-time-simply-the-rate-change**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17056/time-what-is-it?lq=1  &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32155/what-is-a-clock?lq=1    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="ffad9e98-5cad-46ff-8251-3e92b92c51a3" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:07:27.513" UserId="23119" Comment="added 3602 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5456/the-speed-of-gravity**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176157/what-is-the-speed-of-gravity&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26742/does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80442/how-faster-is-the-effect-of-force-exerted-by-gravity&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104301/gravity-propagation-speed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93795/time-delays-in-general-relativity&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12736/does-gravity-spread-instantly&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103729/does-gravity-act-instantaneously&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114798/consequences-of-inverse-square-law-with-vast-distances-gravity-in-addition&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170001/is-gravity-instantaneous&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87835/gravitational-effect-versus-the-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142144/how-quickly-does-gravity-extend-from-created-mass&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/118472/will-we-feel-the-gravity-of-a-star-10-light-years-away-for-the-next-10-years-if&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51646/time-taken-for-gravity-of-a-distant-object-to-interact-with-a-newly-created-part&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193937/how-fast-does-gravitational-information-travel&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60790/solar-catastrophe&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134446/gravity-concept-question&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/370058/is-the-curvature-of-spacetime-in-general-relativity-instantaneous&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169501/is-the-influence-of-gravity-greater-than-light&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/331108/if-sun-disappeared-and-we-wouldnt-notice-until-8-mins-later-then-would-we-noti&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40968/do-the-changes-of-gravity-travel-across-distances-instantly-or-limited-to-the-sp&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55731/how-much-time-does-it-take-to-affect&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7041/speed-of-gravity-and-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/374583/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235450/do-gravitational-waves-travel-faster-than-light**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107798/speed-of-gravitational-waves&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254628/speed-of-gravitational-waves-vs-speed-of-light&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/282738/is-the-speed-of-propagation-of-einsteins-gravitational-waves-unique&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also related: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/143646/what-is-the-rate-at-which-the-field-of-an-electron-spreads&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/356426/speed-of-a-graviton&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75196/does-the-reaction-force-appear-without-delay&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38525/faster-than-light-communication-using-gravity&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62565/is-earths-orbit-around-the-sun-affected-by-the-8-minutes-light-delay&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39260/what-is-the-status-of-existing-measurements-of-the-speed-of-gravity&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/187398/what-is-the-speed-of-newtonian-gravity&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57137/how-soon-that-a-force-affect-another-object&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270444/is-there-a-delay-in-the-effect-of-the-gravitational-or-electromagnetic-force-if&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60037/do-all-the-4-forces-of-nature-act-at-the-same-speed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23760/is-it-sure-that-gravitons-are-massless-bosons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="edfb5d8b-719b-4746-ae05-83c17fc21042" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:07:59.430" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 359 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary/10654#10654&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="10c610e5-feb5-41ca-a3b4-f6098bf6936e" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:08:23.967" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 159 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55431/why-one-dimensional-strings-but-not-higher-dimensional-shells-membranes**&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73808/does-string-m-theory-address-higher-dimensional-membrane-vibration-modes?lq=1 &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66948/string-theory-why-not-use-n-dimensional-blocks-objects-branes?lq=1     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="9b88fcf9-4f0a-4b65-a553-6c51d73eee1c" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:09:32.743" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 223 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-gravity-escape-a-black-hole** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69651/in-which-direction-do-gravitons-travel-do-they-originate-from-mass-or-are-they&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45999/nothing-escapes-bhs-gravitons-mediate-gravity-so-why-do-bhs-gravitate&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35861/why-a-black-hole-sucks-nearly-everything-but-emits-gravitons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[more...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/937?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="2ed200c6-3a3c-4e3e-a80f-58a4fb037fbd" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:10:13.610" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 155 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69982/variational-derivation-of-schrodinger-equation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15242/lagrangian-of-schrodinger-field?lq=1, &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55622/how-would-a-lagrangian-be-used-to-recover-the-schrodinger-equation?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="0a5e7dc7-a5f9-408b-8368-2016ab798983" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:11:22.980" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 197 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48016/how-exactly-do-superstrings-reduce-the-number-of-dimensions-in-bosonic-string-th**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66930/is-this-explanation-of-why-nine-space-dimensions-correct?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/why-are-extra-dimensions-necessary?lq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10075/compactification-of-dimensions?rq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31882/why-does-string-theory-require-9-dimensions-of-space-and-one-dimension-of-time?rq=1&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38722/limit-on-space-time-dimension-from-susy?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="7895f485-537d-481e-8f6b-c9486821d73c" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:11:42.770" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3009/how-exactly-does-curved-space-time-describe-the-force-of-gravity** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7781/does-the-curvature-of-spacetime-theory-assume-gravity/69092#69092   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45307/how-do-the-einsteins-differential-equation-of-the-curvature-of-spacetime-come-o/71454#71454 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="93c9932c-2d62-4999-bfe8-b4fc83ae695e" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:15:45.393" UserId="23119" Comment="added 1051 characters in body" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17651/is-it-possible-to-recover-classical-mechanics-from-schrodingers-equation** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108222/from-quantum-mechanics-to-classical-mechanics&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74333/can-the-laws-of-classical-mechanics-be-derived-from-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44926/how-to-go-from-quantum-world-to-classical-world&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32112/classical-limit-of-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56151/when-does-hbar-rightarrow-0-provide-a-valid-transition-from-quantum-to-class&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/218523/why-do-we-obtain-classical-physics-by-taking-the-limit-of-plancks-constant-to-z&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102082/does-limit-hbar-rightarrow-0-in-quantum-mechanics-mean-anything&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33767/classical-limit-of-schrodinger-equation &#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82962/classical-limit-in-quantum-mechanics&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65964/can-newtons-laws-be-explained-by-quantum-physics&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77294/how-to-prove-newtons-second-law-with-quantum-mechanics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="1344e038-a663-4d90-b7ce-f4972f9f471f" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:22:13.617" UserId="23119" Comment="Replaced link with existing one" Text="**https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15282/quantum-entanglement-faster-than-speed-of-light/** and its multiple duplicates. We should choose a canonical question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="6c30ead9-14a8-40d9-bed7-86a3bb5dd917" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:47:07.097" UserId="117014" Text="A few months back, I posted what I know to be a very insightful question.  It was labeled as &quot;off topic&quot; for &quot;reasons&quot; which remain incomprehensible to me.  The question has a *short answer*, which is &quot;Yes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *long answer* is &quot;Yes $\dots$, but physics isn't mathematics.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone posted an answer which addressed the mathematics, but not the physics.  &#xD;&#xA;I wanted to give the answer due consideration, so I merely commented that I would return to it when I had time to give it due consideration.  Not only that; but, I live on the road.  I don't always have internet connectivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I did return to it, I found it was deleted.  I can't say that I am disappointed by that action.  Indeed, I am pleased to see that other people will not be induced to consider the matter by stumbling upon my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I ask, if, in the future, I demonstrate that my original question is as significant as I am indicating.  Do I have the right to gloat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my question derived from the [Exercises for the Feynman Lectures on Physics][1], I will add this as a teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The physics answer to my question lies at the intersection of Newtonian mechanics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/exercises-for-the-feynman-lectures-on-physics-richard-p-feynman/1118611786" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="6c30ead9-14a8-40d9-bed7-86a3bb5dd917" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:47:07.097" UserId="117014" Text="If the community deletes what I know to be an excellent question, is it impolite to gloat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="6c30ead9-14a8-40d9-bed7-86a3bb5dd917" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:47:07.097" UserId="117014" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10631" RevisionGUID="8e6e475e-853a-4cea-a70a-7d0ef88f5f25" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:59:51.177" UserId="176400" Text="I would say gloating in general is impolite. Here's the definition of gloat: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To look at or think about with great or excessive, often smug or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; malicious, satisfaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10632" RevisionGUID="9171c019-13b6-4554-abd4-cd690da26774" CreationDate="2018-05-17T12:08:53.597" UserId="109928" Text="Everybody can make a mistake. Maybe the moderators made a mistake here (difficult to know since the question has been deleted); maybe you did. Or maybe it is something else altogether. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever happened, why take offense and believe you get some right to any revengeful behavior? Contributors and visitors do not care about ego matters anyway; they only come here for physics. Nobody would even try and understand what you are gloating about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="95a03b67-e98f-4544-b6dc-aaf7907f462b" CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:00:45.530" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="The &quot;homework&quot; tag is often controversial among new users who complain that their question isn't from a homework assignment (so they get offended, so edit wars happen, and posts get blocked -- [e.g.](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68546), which is unfortunate, because there actually some good homework-tagged questions here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that we rename it (for example, as [tag:problem-solving] -- or [tag:homework-like]. as suggested by David Z).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me emphasize that I'm _not_ here suggesting to change the [policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) for homework-like questions, nor whether or not we should have a tag for homework-like questions. The scope and policy have been discussed in several other meta questions. Here I'm only asking whether we should change the _name_ of the tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="7394d3e4-5f46-40bb-82f6-d8a37dd7aec5" CreationDate="2018-05-18T12:25:13.613" UserId="23473" Text="Yes, you absolutely may gloat. Any time you feel like you deserve the chance to gloat, you may gloat. However, before gloating, there are a few things to consider first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** We, and indeed even you, refer to ourselves as a &quot;community&quot;; a collective of people that work together with the intention of benefiting everyone. Gloating is more of a retaliatory action done in response to a perceived injury and does not benefit anyone except the gloating party. In fact, it often harms the rest, which makes it decidedly against the spirit of a &quot;community&quot;. Given that, don't be surprised if you alienate a significant portion of the community when you gloat. This can be bad for even yourself. As John Donne said, &quot;No man is an island, entire of itself&quot;; you benefit more when aided by others. Others aid you when they feel you are deserving of it. Alienating them makes them less willing to help you. So what good comes from gloating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** As I said at the beginning, you may gloat whenever you want. However, consider that others may ignore you, delete your comments, shun you, or pay close attention to your every deed and start calling you out whenever you are wrong about something. And since practically all people on Earth are wrong more often than right, this may not be a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3)** Some people claim they gloat as a way of teaching others not to repeat a failure. There are far better ways to do this than gloating. Gloating breeds resentment. A more sound strategy would be to thank the community for correcting the mistake. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Yeah, thanks everyone for correcting the mistake. This whole time I couldn't see how I was wrong about it and I was starting to think I'm crazy. Good to know it wasn't me. I guess from now on we'll have to keep our eyes open so we don't make this kind of mistake again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That shows gratitude, you equalize everyone by implying you could have as easily been mistaken (so nobody feels like they're less than anyone else), then you end by including yourself in the community (&quot;we'll&quot;) and expressing hope for collective improvement. This kind of response is more likely to result in learning from mistakes than a gloat. Gloats make people resistant to adopt the gloater's point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4)** If you do decide to gloat, NEVER gloat before winning (e.g. being shown to be right, or having a question re-opened). This is a bad idea. All you will do is make it less likely that whatever you are gloating about will come to pass. If what you're gloating about relies on the decisions of the community, then making the community resentful seems like a bad idea. Counting your chickens before they hatch might also be shooting yourself in the foot. This point should be obvious. Plus you don't want to risk what you're gloating about not coming to pass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, we will never say that you are forbidden from gloating; however, gloating is a short-sighted action. It provides immediate gratification at the expense of others and, in the long run, it almost invariably is worse for the person who gloats. It is a sign of being what some might call a &quot;sore winner&quot; and shows that a person acts more on immediate feelings than a rational assessment of their situation and future. So, like I've said, you can gloat and I won't stop you (nor will the rest of the community, if they don't mind my speaking for them), but why would you want to gloat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="2e52e836-5fea-4ba9-8ac4-84eff9abadd5" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:20:07.047" UserId="59215" Text="I've been chat banned for a year after having served a 2-day sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please point out what I said that was particularly offensive? I don't believe I said anything wrong, at all. (Of course all of the messages are deleted so there's no evidence of anything.) My version of the events is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Balarka Sen called me a &quot;cuck.&quot; I flagged this message as inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;- Balarka Sen was automatically suspended for 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;- Art of Code came into the hbar and told me to behave, without citing which behavior was out of line (I don't think I was out of line at all). &#xD;&#xA;- Art of Code froze the room for 5 minutes for an unknown reason.&#xD;&#xA;- I made a comment in the math room about moderation being very tough and that we're unable to discuss physics in the current climate. This was half meant as a joke but I don't think it's inappropriate in any case.&#xD;&#xA;- I said that a hooligan came into the physics room and got it frozen by calling me a cuck. &quot;Hooligan&quot; was meant as &quot;troublemaker,&quot; which is an accurate description.&#xD;&#xA;- I was suspended for two days.&#xD;&#xA;- Balarka Sen was suspended for one day.&#xD;&#xA;- Every message was deleted. &#xD;&#xA;- Today I found I was suspended for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please point out where in here I committed an offense, or correct the record if I have made an error?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that someone will say that I have lots of flags so I had this coming, but the flag system is pretty bad. Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I was flagged and suspended for this message *a week* after it was posted. This was clearly not in good faith, and I believe my record is not *that bad* if one filters out these kinds of incidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, David Z has talked to me about being &quot;more welcoming&quot; in chat. And while I think I am always very  welcoming, I have tried to accommodate his wishes. And in this instance I don't think I did anything wrong, so why was I suspended for a year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rnmwB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="2e52e836-5fea-4ba9-8ac4-84eff9abadd5" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:20:07.047" UserId="59215" Text="Why did I get chat suspended for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="2e52e836-5fea-4ba9-8ac4-84eff9abadd5" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:20:07.047" UserId="59215" Text="|bug|chat|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="35778bcd-c6be-43ec-8d6f-4e356919bca6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:28:48.697" UserId="59215" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="I've been chat banned for a year after having served a 2-day sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please point out what I said that was particularly offensive? I don't believe I said anything wrong, at all. (Of course all of the messages are deleted so there's no evidence of anything.) My version of the events is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Balarka Sen called me a &quot;cuck.&quot; I flagged this message as inappropriate.$^1$&#xD;&#xA;- Balarka Sen was automatically suspended for 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;- Art of Code came into the hbar and told me to behave, without citing which behavior was out of line (I don't think I was out of line at all). &#xD;&#xA;- Art of Code froze the room for 5 minutes for an unknown reason.&#xD;&#xA;- I made a comment in the math room about moderation being very tough and that we're unable to discuss physics in the current climate. This was half meant as a joke but I don't think it's inappropriate in any case.&#xD;&#xA;- I said that a hooligan came into the physics room and got it frozen by calling me a cuck. &quot;Hooligan&quot; was meant as &quot;troublemaker,&quot; which is an accurate description.&#xD;&#xA;- I was suspended for two days.&#xD;&#xA;- Balarka Sen was suspended for one day.&#xD;&#xA;- Every message was deleted. &#xD;&#xA;- Today I found I was suspended for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please point out where in here I committed an offense, or correct the record if I have made an error?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that someone will say that I have lots of flags so I had this coming, but the flag system is pretty bad. Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I was flagged and suspended for this message *a week* after it was posted. This was clearly not in good faith, and I believe my record is not *that bad* if one filters out these kinds of incidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, David Z has talked to me about being &quot;more welcoming&quot; in chat. And while I think I am always very  welcoming, I have tried to accommodate his wishes. And in this instance I don't think I did anything wrong, so why was I suspended for a year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$^1$ I have talked to Balarka after the fact and this was a joke on his part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rnmwB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32544" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="5079fc32-9be6-43b7-b273-a9463807ca67" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:31:49.077" UserId="44126" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32545" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="3e69e0e1-add5-4d25-99b5-0efa3b629a5f" CreationDate="2018-05-18T19:05:57.507" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ZeroTheHero&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32546" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="9afe9f62-9971-46d7-bb0b-e8775c3f59e6" CreationDate="2018-05-19T21:24:30.053" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:83398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;knzhou&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:121464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;heather&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32547" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="d93a0b5e-d76b-4f0b-9b5c-d795f543cde8" CreationDate="2018-05-20T11:40:59.113" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/406991/what-is-the-meaning-of-this-sites-logo" />
  <row Id="32548" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="863a0500-18c9-42dc-9fda-b0eb252a499c" CreationDate="2018-05-20T11:40:59.113" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/406991/what-is-the-meaning-of-this-sites-logo/407000#407000" />
  <row Id="32549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="c4c7f059-89a8-40fb-b66a-cc69cb4dda20" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:48:47.507" UserId="165150" Text="The logo is that of the &quot;Mexican hat potential&quot;. It arises in the Higgs Mechanism and causes a process known as 'Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking'.  The vertical axis is the value of the Potential, $V(\phi)$ corresponding to a value of a field $\phi$. At the start, suppose that there is a particle at the centre sitting on the tip of the 'hat'. Any rotation will result in the same situation, so it is said to be invariant under rotation. Symmetry is broken by the fact that the maximum in the centre is not stable, and any small perturbation around it will result in a lower potential energy, known as the vacuum potential. So this supposed particle (The Higgs boson) goes into this lower energy state, and in doing so breaks the symmetry. At this point any rotation will result in a different situation (unless it is rotated by a full turn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before symmetry is broken a particle will have terms that look roughly like $$m\bar\psi\psi\phi$$ where $m$ is  a coupling constant, $\bar\psi$ and $\psi$ are fields of a particle and its antiparticle and $\phi$ is the Higgs field. This describes an interaction between three fields. When symmetry is broken the Higgs field can be rewritten as $v+h$, where $v$ is the vacuum expectation value, and $h$ is a new field. So this can be rewritten as $$m\bar\psi\psi\phi=m\bar\psi\psi v+m\bar\psi\psi h$$ The $m\bar\psi\psi h$ term is just another interaction between three fields, however $m\bar\psi\psi v$ is the interaction between two fields (those being of a particle and its anti-particle), which is known as a mass term. So by coupling with the Higgs field the particle and its antiparticle have gained a mass term, so it can be said that they have aquired mass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="eabd647c-116d-439f-bcf1-0f8829296c14" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:19:04.387" UserId="196191" Text="I am very interested in understanding the meaning of the logo of this website, which looks like a cone with its brim turned halfway outward back onto itself as if trying to turn it inside out. Is there a one-sentence explanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="eabd647c-116d-439f-bcf1-0f8829296c14" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:19:04.387" UserId="196191" Text="What is the meaning of this site's logo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="eabd647c-116d-439f-bcf1-0f8829296c14" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:19:04.387" UserId="196191" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32553" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="9d07c594-ab3c-4630-ad1c-19c81ae587fe" CreationDate="2018-05-20T11:41:11.063" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[949],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32555" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="db6385b5-be83-48e4-b377-0877761142df" CreationDate="2018-05-22T00:42:45.470" UserId="2911" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|chat|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="28f5e7e9-f549-42d5-aa43-0e2aa201c790" CreationDate="2018-05-22T11:58:33.493" UserId="1325" Text="Disclaimer: I'm not a moderator so I can't say exactly what happened in this particular case even if I wanted to. For example I can't see the deleted messages. However as a room owner I've been party to various discussions involving moderators from lots of sites (not just our mods), and including the SE community managers such as Shog9 and Ana. What I can do is make some general comments about the view the SE mods take of such things, and the view the SE expect our mods to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me emphasise that what follows is not a personal opinion. I have based this on statements I've seen from the community managers. Whether you agree or disagree with those statements the SE are paying the piper so they get to call the tune.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key point that the SE mods have made several times is that suspensions are not just based on your last offence. So 0celo7's year long suspension will not have been a result of the most recent fracas. When you get a year long suspension that's the moderators telling you that they think the SE chat is better off without you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any social group trouble sometimes kicks off. Maybe there's a misunderstanding, or maybe someone is just feeling tired and grumpy. This happens in real life and it happens online. When there's an outburst the SE expect our mods to keep track of who is involved, and if a pattern emerges - specifically if the same person is frequently involved - they can expect a suspension. The SE are uninterested in being back room lawyers and they're not going to analyse every detail of every infraction. Basically if you're frequently involved in fights the SE are going to consider you a problem irrespective of whether you started the fights or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that (short) suspensions are not intended to be a punishment. Instead they are supposed to deliver the message that the way you are behaving isn't acceptable. The key thing the SE look for is that the message is received and understood, and that you change your behaviour as a result. If so, that's great. It's when the person involved doesn't change and continues to be involved in trouble that the year long suspensions are wheeled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't take insider knowledge for it to be obvious that this is what has happened in 0celo7's case. He's managed to get himself flagged and suspended more times than anyone else I can think of, and by quite some margin. The current year long suspension is basically the message that the SE thinks he is incapable of behaving the way the SE expects of chat participants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="7ce1d233-398b-48ee-b66e-8a2a57c631a2" CreationDate="2018-05-23T10:16:07.417" UserId="25301" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="The context is the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242632/84895 (10K link only, [partial screenshot here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title stays, this got a lot of downvotes and got put on hold while receiving just rude comments that don't take my post seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it that way? I was serious with the post, tried to pretty much express what is my motivation about asking, and what aspects I'm referring to, but all this got ignored in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it the style in which I wrote? Or is the question at all just off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cCEld.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="612ac86c-e88d-4ea4-a8a6-11519389159b" CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:14:12.820" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor grammar" Text="Let me repeat in case it is not clear from the other answers that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theoretical physics questions are [on-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5922/2451) on [Phys.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1229/2451), and more than welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- All$^1$ Q&amp;As from [TP.SE](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) have been [transferred](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1229/2451) in 2013 to [Phys.SE](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1229/2451) and most (if not all) are open for new answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$^1$ Except for a handful or two, which were migrated to [TCS.SE](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="173e08e6-a317-4275-8f2f-6b0486919fc1" CreationDate="2018-05-24T15:37:37.780" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="As all community members know I am just a beginner of physics. Mistakes often happens from everyone .Why can't everyone give me a second chance to blot out my mistakes and this how I can improve my knowledge in physics .So I request community members to withdraw my ban." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="173e08e6-a317-4275-8f2f-6b0486919fc1" CreationDate="2018-05-24T15:37:37.780" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="why I was banned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="173e08e6-a317-4275-8f2f-6b0486919fc1" CreationDate="2018-05-24T15:37:37.780" UserDisplayName="user184625" Text="|support|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="9441a831-9fc9-4681-bc42-921a0e1ab935" CreationDate="2018-05-24T15:42:39.007" UserDisplayName="user184625" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As all community members know I am just a beginner of physics. Mistakes often happens from everyone .Why can't everyone give me a second chance to blot out my mistakes and this is how I can improve my knowledge in physics .So I request community members to withdraw my ban." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="714b7e7f-3d18-4abe-903d-a1ad85a3fa86" CreationDate="2018-05-24T16:08:56.337" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="d7e455ef-bd1b-42c6-991b-8fa363014568" CreationDate="2018-05-24T17:06:31.407" UserId="50583" Text="You are currently blocked from posting further questions by the automatic question rate limiting, whose different forms I also discuss in [this answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9699/50583). There is nothing any user or moderator on this site can do to ameliorate this ban, it is a fully automatic consequence of your bad question record: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of your 10 questions, none has a positive score, only one does not have a *negative* score, only one is not closed, and five are deleted. The question rate limiting is the system telling you to take seriously the feedback you are getting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the page that tells you you cannot post further questions you should see a link to [this help page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/asking-rate-limited), which gives generic tips for how to improve your questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32569" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="26d0ed7f-bce1-4ee3-841b-beafd896b942" CreationDate="2018-05-24T17:07:26.563" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why am I blocked from posting further questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32570" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="26d0ed7f-bce1-4ee3-841b-beafd896b942" CreationDate="2018-05-24T17:07:26.563" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="1e88549a-d5d2-494f-b6c5-a1e5a2a40ade" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:10:00.063" UserDisplayName="user196434" Text="Is there a way to re-iterate the attention of the readers towards my questions which  remains unanswered for a long time? Can I ask them again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="1e88549a-d5d2-494f-b6c5-a1e5a2a40ade" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:10:00.063" UserDisplayName="user196434" Text="Seeking attention towards the unanswered questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="1e88549a-d5d2-494f-b6c5-a1e5a2a40ade" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:10:00.063" UserDisplayName="user196434" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="21a404f8-ce6c-4146-a5a2-00dd9a017a07" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:09:51.893" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32575" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="5540708c-1120-498f-881f-f52bea81617d" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:13:57.177" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9245],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="8c01f8bf-fb81-489f-bd83-e4fe32b4fc1d" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:57:20.943" UserId="131284" Text="I would like to have [this question][1] reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to the users who expressed their apparent confusion, I found the question to be very clear. It also seems like one that would get a *whole lot* of Google hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both complained that one could not know the parameters, but there's only three and these are easy to explain. Yes, it could mean anything from nothing to Bad Things, but the *reasons* for it being in that spectrum are easy to explain, will explain the underlying physics more clearly.w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was in the midst of explaining these reasons when the question was suddenly closed mid-edit and all my edit text went into the bit-bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408030/what-happens-if-a-black-hole-passes-by-earth?answertab=votes#tab-top" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="8c01f8bf-fb81-489f-bd83-e4fe32b4fc1d" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:57:20.943" UserId="131284" Text="Reopen request on a recently closed question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="8c01f8bf-fb81-489f-bd83-e4fe32b4fc1d" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:57:20.943" UserId="131284" Text="|support|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="c36e3aa9-2024-4815-94b0-b5b00106d899" CreationDate="2018-05-25T01:31:09.690" UserId="124" Text="I don't support reopening this question (currently, revision 3) because I think it has a couple of issues that justify it being put on hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- First, as [enumaris](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/176400/enumaris) brought up [in the comments](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408030/what-happens-if-a-black-hole-passes-by-earth?answertab=votes#comment913853_408030),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; This will depend a lot on the mass of the black hole and how close the approach is. There's no way to answer this question without further parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Basically, there are a whole bunch of different physical scenarios we could be looking at, depending on details which weren't specified in the question. This would result in different people posting answers that vary enough that they might as well be answering different questions. Even if each of these people might individually think the question is clear to them, they'd have significantly different ideas about what is being asked, and that justifies the question being considered unclear overall.&#xD;&#xA;- Second, the question just asks &quot;what happens if...?&quot; That's a pretty broad setup - I mean, it's beyond the scope of this site to explain everything that follows from a given set of initial conditions. What winds up happening is that different people will take different interpretations of what, specifically, the asker actually wants to know about; for example, one answer might describe the trajectory of the Earth and the black hole, another might consider the gravitational effect on the solar system, another might consider the effect of tidal forces on the Earth, another might consider the effect of radiation emitted by inspiraling gas, another might focus on how our view of the night sky could be affected, and so on. For a question to be clear and appropriately specific, it really should focus in on one or two of these effects, or something else along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The fact that it doesn't do that would be justification to put it on hold as too broad, or perhaps unclear. This is one of those cases where those two categories overlap a bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="f4394bb2-b896-4420-b554-fd06a4c891d1" CreationDate="2018-05-25T17:09:49.210" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to have [this question][1] reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to the users who expressed their apparent confusion, I found the question to be very clear. It also seems like one that would get a *whole lot* of Google hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both complained that one could not know the parameters, but there's only three and these are easy to explain. Yes, it could mean anything from nothing to Bad Things, but the *reasons* for it being in that spectrum are easy to explain, will explain the underlying physics more clearly.w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was in the midst of explaining these reasons when the question was suddenly closed mid-edit and all my edit text went into the bit-bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/408030/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32581" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="f4394bb2-b896-4420-b554-fd06a4c891d1" CreationDate="2018-05-25T17:09:49.210" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="db8b5783-83e7-4c4f-a078-9d455eaf2737" CreationDate="2018-05-25T23:06:52.740" UserId="22964" Text="I have a question which was asked on this site, but then deleted: namely the answer to  &quot;How to use the book Classical Electrodynamics by J D Jackson? [closed]&quot; referenced here when I was doing research: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/325322/pedagogy-of-jacksons-electrodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I don't want to ask it since if the original was closed, surely mine would be, but that question might contain valuable knowledge in its answers for me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="db8b5783-83e7-4c4f-a078-9d455eaf2737" CreationDate="2018-05-25T23:06:52.740" UserId="22964" Text="How to view answers to a closed question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="db8b5783-83e7-4c4f-a078-9d455eaf2737" CreationDate="2018-05-25T23:06:52.740" UserId="22964" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="1b3c74c6-93ff-4209-ab49-6e380b3537e5" CreationDate="2018-05-25T23:33:36.243" UserId="6634" Text="For closed questions, any answers that are there would be visible. See, for example, [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52062/is-it-possible-to-speed-up-radioactive-decay-rates). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a closed question without answers, two things are possible. One, answers may have been deleted. These would show up if you have at least 10,000 reputation. In the question you asked about, there are no deleted answers. Which leaves the second possibility -- it never got any answers before it was closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original deleted question also has no answers, but you have to have 10,000 rep to see it. It's probably not great to have a question marked as duplicate when the original doesn't exist, however. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="bbeda4a4-60fe-45c6-bef5-e04e5aa1c2d7" CreationDate="2018-05-26T03:21:30.027" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have a question which was asked on this site, but then deleted: namely the answer to  &quot;How to use the book Classical Electrodynamics by J D Jackson? [closed]&quot; referenced here when I was doing research: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/325322/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/321345/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I don't want to ask it since if the original was closed, surely mine would be, but that question might contain valuable knowledge in its answers for me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32589" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="bbeda4a4-60fe-45c6-bef5-e04e5aa1c2d7" CreationDate="2018-05-26T03:21:30.027" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to view answers to a deleted question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="bbeda4a4-60fe-45c6-bef5-e04e5aa1c2d7" CreationDate="2018-05-26T03:21:30.027" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|specific-question|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="8ed62edd-ce78-4d3a-bf89-0732b9b48bed" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:22:35.837" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="A lot of the best, most interesting questions here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates, calculus-based equations to model quantities, and references to cutting-edge research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My motive for asking this: one of my answers (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408301/can-low-frequency-electromagnetic-radiation-be-ionizing/408307#408307) became controversial because it only briefly mentions an important new field of research, multi photon interaction, which I believe is acceptable since the OP probably wasn't familiar with the photoelectric effect and didn't understand what people meant when they talked about the threshold frequency. Clearly, someone with that backround should ideallly be introduced to the main concept first before being told about edge cases. But the counter-argument was very reasonable: that I'm being misleading, particularly to people who know about the photoelectric effect but not the nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering? **Please don't answer with a focus upon my personal case.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="8ed62edd-ce78-4d3a-bf89-0732b9b48bed" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:22:35.837" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="How detailed should answers be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="8ed62edd-ce78-4d3a-bf89-0732b9b48bed" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:22:35.837" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="9f70057e-9482-4176-b916-76546ab9f43a" CreationDate="2018-05-27T05:26:02.810" UserId="124" Text="In most cases, you can answer a question anywhere along the spectrum from concise to intricately detailed, and it can be a valid answer. So you're not &quot;expected to&quot; do any of these things. You can write an answer with whatever level of detail you find reasonable. If a question winds up with several different, correct answers at varying levels of detail, that's generally a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, voters may consider a detailed answer to be better than a concise one, or vice versa, and vote accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A somewhat tangential note about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of the best, most interesting questions here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions may be interesting, but they're often not the _best_ questions on the site. They tend to be overly broad or unclear. Anyway, the answer I've given here is meant to apply generally, to _all_ questions, not only the type you identified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="fb413ce5-6803-4e81-bb9e-f0f44ce73392" CreationDate="2018-05-27T08:47:26.397" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="A lot of the most popular questions (viz. those with many views and highly voted answers) here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an Oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates, calculus-based equations to model quantities, and references to cutting-edge research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My motive for asking this: one of my answers (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408301/can-low-frequency-electromagnetic-radiation-be-ionizing/408307#408307) became controversial because it only briefly mentions an important new field of research, multi photon interaction, which I believe is acceptable since the OP probably wasn't familiar with the photoelectric effect and didn't understand what people meant when they talked about the threshold frequency. Clearly, someone with that backround should ideallly be introduced to the main concept first before being told about edge cases. But the counter-argument was very reasonable: that I'm being misleading, particularly to people who know about the photoelectric effect but not the nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering? **Please don't answer with a focus upon my personal case.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="aac38534-b023-42da-888f-3cba908cc631" CreationDate="2018-05-27T13:39:05.507" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="A lot of the most popular questions (viz. those with many views and highly voted answers) here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an Oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates, calculus-based equations to model quantities, and references to cutting-edge research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My motive for asking this: one of my answers (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408301/can-low-frequency-electromagnetic-radiation-be-ionizing/408307#408307) became controversial because it only briefly mentions an important new field of research, multi photon interaction, which I believe is acceptable since the OP probably wasn't familiar with the photoelectric effect and didn't understand what people meant when they talked about the threshold frequency. Clearly, someone with that background should ideally be introduced to the main concept first before being told about edge cases. But the counter-argument was very reasonable: that I'm being misleading, particularly to people who know about the photoelectric effect but not the nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="44882219-a0af-46eb-ab07-e4769b1f576b" CreationDate="2018-05-27T15:22:48.190" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="A lot of the most popular questions (viz. those with many views and highly voted answers) here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an Oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates, calculus-based equations to model quantities, and references to cutting-edge research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My motive for asking this: one of my answers (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408301/can-low-frequency-electromagnetic-radiation-be-ionizing/408307#408307) became controversial because it only briefly mentions an important new field of research, multi photon interaction, which I believe is acceptable since the OP probably wasn't familiar with the photoelectric effect and didn't understand what people meant when they talked about the threshold frequency. Clearly, someone with that background should ideally be introduced to the main concept first before being told about edge cases. But the counter-argument was very reasonable: that I'm being misleading, particularly to people who know about the photoelectric effect but not the nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've found that the aforementioned answer I wrote is actually quite unrelated. I had misunderstood the question, concept, and feedback. Clever me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="c16435db-41dc-4d0d-abf8-3d64b10ed38c" CreationDate="2018-05-27T15:58:09.830" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="A lot of the most popular questions (viz. those with many views and highly voted answers) here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an Oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates, calculus-based equations to model quantities, and references to cutting-edge research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My motive for asking this: one of my answers (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408301/can-low-frequency-electromagnetic-radiation-be-ionizing/408307#408307) became controversial because it only briefly mentions an important new field of research, multi photon interaction, which I believe is acceptable since the OP probably wasn't familiar with the photoelectric effect and didn't understand what people meant when they talked about the threshold frequency. Clearly, someone with that background should ideally be introduced to the main concept first before being told about edge cases. But the counter-argument was very reasonable: that I'm being misleading, particularly to people who know about the photoelectric effect but not the nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've found that the aforementioned answer I wrote is actually quite unrelated to the question, and provided only a background, which is quite different from missing edge cases. I had misunderstood the question, concept, and feedback. Clever me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10649" RevisionGUID="c86371fa-d737-40e4-91f5-3d74348ca240" CreationDate="2018-05-27T18:50:08.090" UserId="40443" Text="It seems that the discussion is partly also about finding out whether a deleted question *has* some answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For [10k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) this is easy. If you have a link, you just look at the question and you see the answers. (Even if the question is not deleted, you can see both deleted answers and answers which are not deleted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility for users with lower reputation is using [data explorer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/data-explorer/info) (a.k.a. SEDE). SEDE contains also the PostsWithDeleted table. See: [Database schema documentation for the public data dump and SEDE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2677) and also the corresponding feature request [Can some metadata about deleted posts be included in Data.SE?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/157462)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that data in SEDE are only updated once a week. So recent deletions can appear in this table only after the next data dump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made a rather simplistic query to find [deleted answers to a given question](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question) from the data in PostsWithDeleted table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this query I can see, for example, that question 1453 [had 35 answers](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question?questionid=1453) which are now deleted.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at a [Wayback Machine snapshot](http://web.archive.org/web/20130424191118/https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems) before deletion of the question, which shows 33 answers, that sounds about right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I try the same with [325322](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question?questionid=325322) and [321345](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question?questionid=321345), I get zero answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are answers which were deleted, the above still does not help much. You only know that some answers have been deleted, you have a link - but if you are below 10k reputation points you still cannot see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reasonable thing which can help to see deleted stuff is SEDE. If you're looking for something which was deleted recently, the content might be still in the data in SEDE and you can get it from there. If it is older, it is possible that you get it from past [data dumps](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/data-dump). (But this seems to be rather complicated process - and I'll admit that I do not know much about all the technical details.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, probably you can try the stuff you would try on some other site which ceased to exist. You can check Wayback Machine, Google Cache, try to find whether the content has been copied by some scraper site. As not to repeat myself too much, I'll add a link to this post on another meta: [Are there some possibilities for users below 10k to see deleted posts of other users?](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/13328)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But probably the easiest think to do is to ask politely a user who has 10k+ reputation to check the question for you. (For example on chat. I am not sure whether such request would be considered on topic here on meta.) I suppose that if this is not done too often and if you ask politely, somebody will help you. And you avoid all the hassle described above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also you could simply gain 10k points and you no longer have problems like this - but this is much easier said than done. :-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="e470665a-199f-4b88-a8fc-2fb29135fb19" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:43:16.823" UserId="40443" Text="In discussion on [another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question) I and another user got into disagreement whether a question can be deleted by *regular users* if it has an upvoted answer. (Here we are not talking about deletion by the OP or deletions by a moderator.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite looking at the same examples and the same FAQ and help entries, we arrived to different conclusions. You can see the relevant parts of our comment exchange below. One source of the problems seems to be that as I do not have sufficient reputation *on this site* to view deleted questions, it's difficult for me to include specific examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question.** Can a question which has an upvoted answer be deleted if regular users vote to delete the question? Could you in your answer include also some examples (from this site, if possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth keeping in mind that [questions won't be deleted if they have any answers with at least one upvote](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/). If it is deleted (not to be confused with closed!) then it's rather unlikely that the deletion took down valuable content with it. -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40275_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps your comment needs a disclaimer that a question cannot be deleted &lt;i&gt;by the OP&lt;/i&gt; in the situation you describe. It can still be deleted if enough users vote to delete it (as explained in the link you've given in your comment). -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40279_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin I shouldn't think so, no - regular users can't delete questions with upvoted answers as far as I'm aware, but you're right that the mother-meta FAQ is ambiguous on that account. Have you got a specific example, or other evidence, to show that this can happen? (And, in any case, for the case at hand it's a moot point, as both links were deleted by the system, which is has the most restrictive conditions.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40280_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Actually, I don't think the linked post is ambiguous at all, 10k+ users [can delete (closed) questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools). I could find many examples at Mathematics - which you would not see, not having 10k+ reputation on that site. Here is at least one example of a post which was [deleted and then undeleted](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) despite having upvoted answers. Maybe if you try some [queries from here](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/28315#28316), you could find some examples on this site. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40281_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty I'm pretty sure I've voted to delete negatively-voted questions with positively-voted answers many times. Not sure they eventually got deleted though -- I'd have to go back and check. -- [AccidentalFourierTransform](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40282_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Even popular questions can be deleted, they just require more close votes to do so. See [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/51071/380389) on meta. -- [Chris](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40283_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since you have asked for evidence and an explicit example - the question [Great unsolved physics problems](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems) is an example of a question which was deleted and had several upvoted answers. (Since I have low rep on this site, I was only able to check this via SEDE and Wayback Machine - but you should be able to check the question directly.) -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40295_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin That question was deleted by a moderator. I suspect you're right but I still don't think the evidence is sufficient to tell. (As a contrast, no amount of user delete votes will remove an upvoted answer even if it has a very negative score. Deleting it as part of a whole thread is slightly different but not by that much.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40296_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps we should take this to chat, since we are getting a bit off-topic. (The original question was different from your question, which is: &amp;quot;Can users vote to delete questions which have upvoted answer?&amp;quot;) I hope that the system will offer us the possibility to move comments to the chat soon. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40297_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you understand that it is not that easy to me to give you direct example from this site. (I do not have sufficient reputation to see deleted posts on Physics.) I could give you examples from Mathematics - where you cannot see deleted posts. I provided [one example of a question](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) which has been deleted while having upvoted answers (but later undeleted). Maybe it's your turn to clarify what would you consider sufficient evidence. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40298_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since this comment exchange was getting a bit long, I have made a separate question about this specific issue: [Can a question with an upvoted answer be deleted?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10650) Perhaps somebody posts there an answer which could clarify this. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40299_10644)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="e470665a-199f-4b88-a8fc-2fb29135fb19" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:43:16.823" UserId="40443" Text="Can a question with an upvoted answer be deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="e470665a-199f-4b88-a8fc-2fb29135fb19" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:43:16.823" UserId="40443" Text="|support|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="cb5e28bc-a06d-40db-baf3-aa5fa0848ee8" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:49:42.617" UserId="40443" Comment="edited body" Text="In discussion on [another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question) I and another user got into disagreement whether a question can be deleted by *regular users* if it has an upvoted answer. (Here we are not talking about deletion by the OP or deletions by a moderator.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite looking at the same examples and the same FAQ and help entries, we arrived to different conclusions. You can see the relevant parts of our comment exchange below. One source of the problems seems to be that as I do not have sufficient reputation *on this site* to view deleted questions, it's difficult for me to include specific examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question.** Can a question which has an upvoted answer be deleted if regular users vote to delete the question? Could you in your answer include also some examples (from this site, if possible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth keeping in mind that [questions won't be deleted if they have any answers with at least one upvote](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/). If it is deleted (not to be confused with closed!) then it's rather unlikely that the deletion took down valuable content with it. -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40275_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps your comment needs a disclaimer that a question cannot be deleted &lt;i&gt;by the OP&lt;/i&gt; in the situation you describe. It can still be deleted if enough users vote to delete it (as explained in the link you've given in your comment). -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40279_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin I shouldn't think so, no - regular users can't delete questions with upvoted answers as far as I'm aware, but you're right that the mother-meta FAQ is ambiguous on that account. Have you got a specific example, or other evidence, to show that this can happen? (And, in any case, for the case at hand it's a moot point, as both links were deleted by the system, which is has the most restrictive conditions.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40280_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Actually, I don't think the linked post is ambiguous at all, 10k+ users [can delete (closed) questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools). I could find many examples at Mathematics - which you would not see, not having 10k+ reputation on that site. Here is at least one example of a post which was [deleted and then undeleted](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) despite having upvoted answers. Maybe if you try some [queries from here](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/28315#28316), you could find some examples on this site. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40281_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty I'm pretty sure I've voted to delete negatively-voted questions with positively-voted answers many times. Not sure they eventually got deleted though -- I'd have to go back and check. -- [AccidentalFourierTransform](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40282_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Even popular questions can be deleted, they just require more close votes to do so. See [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/51071/380389) on meta. -- [Chris](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40283_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since you have asked for evidence and an explicit example - the question [Great unsolved physics problems](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems) is an example of a question which was deleted and had several upvoted answers. (Since I have low rep on this site, I was only able to check this via SEDE and Wayback Machine - but you should be able to check the question directly.) -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40295_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin That question was deleted by a moderator. I suspect you're right but I still don't think the evidence is sufficient to tell. (As a contrast, no amount of user delete votes will remove an upvoted answer even if it has a very negative score. Deleting it as part of a whole thread is slightly different but not by that much.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40296_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps we should take this to chat, since we are getting a bit off-topic. (The original question was different from your question, which is: &amp;quot;Can users vote to delete questions which have upvoted answer?&amp;quot;) I hope that the system will offer us the possibility to move comments to the chat soon. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40297_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you understand that it is not that easy to me to give you direct example from this site. (I do not have sufficient reputation to see deleted posts on Physics.) I could give you examples from Mathematics - where you cannot see deleted posts. I provided [one example of a question](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) which has been deleted while having upvoted answers (but later undeleted). Maybe it's your turn to clarify what would you consider sufficient evidence. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40298_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since this comment exchange was getting a bit long, I have made a separate question about this specific issue: [Can a question with an upvoted answer be deleted?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10650) Perhaps somebody posts there an answer which could clarify this. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40299_10644)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="841c62a3-7083-4856-8877-ada97a31baa5" CreationDate="2018-05-28T06:01:05.610" UserId="40443" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="In discussion on [another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question) I and another user got into disagreement whether a question can be deleted by *regular users* if it has an upvoted answer. (Here we are talking neither about deletion *by the OP* nor deletions *by a moderator*. This is about deletions by *votes to delete* which are available to [10k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and with a bit less restrictions [to 20k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite looking at the same examples and the same FAQ and help entries, we arrived to different conclusions. You can see the relevant parts of our comment exchange below. One source of the problem seems to be that I do not have sufficient reputation *on this site* to view deleted questions, so it's difficult for me to include specific examples. (I am able to find some questions that have upvoted answers and  were deleted using SEDE, but still I do not see revision history and I cannot check whether they were deleted by a mod or by regular users voting to delete.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question.** Can a question which has an upvoted answer be deleted if regular users vote to delete the question? Could you in your answer include also some examples (from this site, if possible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth keeping in mind that [questions won't be deleted if they have any answers with at least one upvote](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/). If it is deleted (not to be confused with closed!) then it's rather unlikely that the deletion took down valuable content with it. -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40275_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps your comment needs a disclaimer that a question cannot be deleted &lt;i&gt;by the OP&lt;/i&gt; in the situation you describe. It can still be deleted if enough users vote to delete it (as explained in the link you've given in your comment). -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40279_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin I shouldn't think so, no - regular users can't delete questions with upvoted answers as far as I'm aware, but you're right that the mother-meta FAQ is ambiguous on that account. Have you got a specific example, or other evidence, to show that this can happen? (And, in any case, for the case at hand it's a moot point, as both links were deleted by the system, which is has the most restrictive conditions.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40280_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Actually, I don't think the linked post is ambiguous at all, 10k+ users [can delete (closed) questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools). I could find many examples at Mathematics - which you would not see, not having 10k+ reputation on that site. Here is at least one example of a post which was [deleted and then undeleted](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) despite having upvoted answers. Maybe if you try some [queries from here](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/28315#28316), you could find some examples on this site. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40281_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty I'm pretty sure I've voted to delete negatively-voted questions with positively-voted answers many times. Not sure they eventually got deleted though -- I'd have to go back and check. -- [AccidentalFourierTransform](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40282_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Even popular questions can be deleted, they just require more close votes to do so. See [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/51071/380389) on meta. -- [Chris](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40283_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since you have asked for evidence and an explicit example - the question [Great unsolved physics problems](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems) is an example of a question which was deleted and had several upvoted answers. (Since I have low rep on this site, I was only able to check this via SEDE and Wayback Machine - but you should be able to check the question directly.) -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40295_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin That question was deleted by a moderator. I suspect you're right but I still don't think the evidence is sufficient to tell. (As a contrast, no amount of user delete votes will remove an upvoted answer even if it has a very negative score. Deleting it as part of a whole thread is slightly different but not by that much.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40296_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps we should take this to chat, since we are getting a bit off-topic. (The original question was different from your question, which is: &amp;quot;Can users vote to delete questions which have upvoted answer?&amp;quot;) I hope that the system will offer us the possibility to move comments to the chat soon. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40297_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you understand that it is not that easy to me to give you direct example from this site. (I do not have sufficient reputation to see deleted posts on Physics.) I could give you examples from Mathematics - where you cannot see deleted posts. I provided [one example of a question](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) which has been deleted while having upvoted answers (but later undeleted). Maybe it's your turn to clarify what would you consider sufficient evidence. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40298_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since this comment exchange was getting a bit long, I have made a separate question about this specific issue: [Can a question with an upvoted answer be deleted?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10650) Perhaps somebody posts there an answer which could clarify this. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40299_10644)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="43f0146f-585f-40c5-bf64-7eb985747e3b" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:33:46.877" UserId="25301" Text="While the [Moderator Tools privilege](https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) page and Meta SE FAQ [&quot;How does deleting work&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221/230312) are both rather vague on this point, 10k rep members **can certainly** vote to delete negatively-scored *closed* questions with positive score answers.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The screenshots below are from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386239/how-do-i-solve-this-luminosity-question (10k rep only link), which was closed by 5 non-mods and deleted by 3 non-mods with a question score of -3 and an answer score of +1 (which also wasn't voted for deletion either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 Whether this is a good or bad feature is probably subjective and not the point of the post (which is about the *possibility* of doing so).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hfgVN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xQsSK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tFx6H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="e848da55-37a8-49b3-8118-ea1cce74365a" CreationDate="2018-05-29T10:36:19.413" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="e848da55-37a8-49b3-8118-ea1cce74365a" CreationDate="2018-05-29T10:36:19.413" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="01854a38-d40b-411b-9138-c7542080c07f" CreationDate="2018-05-29T10:36:19.413" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="01854a38-d40b-411b-9138-c7542080c07f" CreationDate="2018-05-29T10:36:19.413" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10649" RevisionGUID="92c1c152-7633-4a0b-b14e-6275a0e27438" CreationDate="2018-05-29T21:11:00.220" UserId="40443" Comment="added link to [Can I have a screenshot of “Lagrangian of $\phi^4$ theory”?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5631)" Text="It seems that the discussion is partly also about finding out whether a deleted question *has* some answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For [10k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) this is easy. If you have a link, you just look at the question and you see the answers. (Even if the question is not deleted, you can see both deleted answers and answers which are not deleted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility for users with lower reputation is using [data explorer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/data-explorer/info) (a.k.a. SEDE). SEDE contains also the PostsWithDeleted table. See: [Database schema documentation for the public data dump and SEDE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2677) and also the corresponding feature request [Can some metadata about deleted posts be included in Data.SE?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/157462)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that data in SEDE are only updated once a week. So recent deletions can appear in this table only after the next data dump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made a rather simplistic query to find [deleted answers to a given question](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question) from the data in PostsWithDeleted table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this query I can see, for example, that question 1453 [had 35 answers](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question?questionid=1453) which are now deleted.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at a [Wayback Machine snapshot](http://web.archive.org/web/20130424191118/https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems) before deletion of the question, which shows 33 answers, that sounds about right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I try the same with [325322](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question?questionid=325322) and [321345](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/856409/deleted-answers-to-a-given-question?questionid=321345), I get zero answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are answers which were deleted, the above still does not help much. You only know that some answers have been deleted, you have a link - but if you are below 10k reputation points you still cannot see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reasonable thing which can help to see deleted stuff is SEDE. If you're looking for something which was deleted recently, the content might be still in the data in SEDE and you can get it from there. If it is older, it is possible that you get it from past [data dumps](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/data-dump). (But this seems to be rather complicated process - and I'll admit that I do not know much about all the technical details.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, probably you can try the stuff you would try on some other site which ceased to exist. You can check Wayback Machine, Google Cache, try to find whether the content has been copied by some scraper site. As not to repeat myself too much, I'll add a link to this post on another meta: [Are there some possibilities for users below 10k to see deleted posts of other users?](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/13328)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But probably the easiest think to do is to ask politely a user who has 10k+ reputation to check the question for you. (For example on chat. I am not sure whether such request would be considered on topic here on meta. Although it is not unprecedented, here is an example of such post from the past: [Can I have a screenshot of “Lagrangian of $\phi^4$ theory”?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5631)) I suppose that if this is not done too often and if you ask politely, somebody will help you. And you avoid all the hassle described above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also you could simply gain 10k points and you no longer have problems like this - but this is much easier said than done. :-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="f002e96d-b916-46da-b79c-f95dca432919" CreationDate="2018-05-29T22:25:24.343" UserId="40443" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="In discussion on [another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question) I and another user got into disagreement whether a question can be deleted by *regular users* if it has an upvoted answer. (Here we are talking neither about deletion *by the OP* nor deletions *by a moderator*. This is about deletions by *votes to delete* which are available to [10k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and with a bit less restrictions [to 20k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite looking at the same examples and [the same FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that) and help entries, we arrived to different conclusions. You can see the relevant parts of our comment exchange below. One source of the problem seems to be that I do not have sufficient reputation *on this site* to view deleted questions, so it's difficult for me to include specific examples. (I am able to find some questions that have upvoted answers and  were deleted using SEDE, but still I do not see revision history and I cannot check whether they were deleted by a mod or by regular users voting to delete.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question.** Can a question which has an upvoted answer be deleted if regular users vote to delete the question? Could you in your answer include also some examples (from this site, if possible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth keeping in mind that [questions won't be deleted if they have any answers with at least one upvote](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/). If it is deleted (not to be confused with closed!) then it's rather unlikely that the deletion took down valuable content with it. -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40275_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps your comment needs a disclaimer that a question cannot be deleted &lt;i&gt;by the OP&lt;/i&gt; in the situation you describe. It can still be deleted if enough users vote to delete it (as explained in the link you've given in your comment). -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40279_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin I shouldn't think so, no - regular users can't delete questions with upvoted answers as far as I'm aware, but you're right that the mother-meta FAQ is ambiguous on that account. Have you got a specific example, or other evidence, to show that this can happen? (And, in any case, for the case at hand it's a moot point, as both links were deleted by the system, which is has the most restrictive conditions.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40280_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Actually, I don't think the linked post is ambiguous at all, 10k+ users [can delete (closed) questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools). I could find many examples at Mathematics - which you would not see, not having 10k+ reputation on that site. Here is at least one example of a post which was [deleted and then undeleted](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) despite having upvoted answers. Maybe if you try some [queries from here](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/28315#28316), you could find some examples on this site. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40281_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty I'm pretty sure I've voted to delete negatively-voted questions with positively-voted answers many times. Not sure they eventually got deleted though -- I'd have to go back and check. -- [AccidentalFourierTransform](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40282_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Even popular questions can be deleted, they just require more close votes to do so. See [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/51071/380389) on meta. -- [Chris](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40283_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since you have asked for evidence and an explicit example - the question [Great unsolved physics problems](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems) is an example of a question which was deleted and had several upvoted answers. (Since I have low rep on this site, I was only able to check this via SEDE and Wayback Machine - but you should be able to check the question directly.) -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40295_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Martin That question was deleted by a moderator. I suspect you're right but I still don't think the evidence is sufficient to tell. (As a contrast, no amount of user delete votes will remove an upvoted answer even if it has a very negative score. Deleting it as part of a whole thread is slightly different but not by that much.) -- [Emilio Pisanty](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40296_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Perhaps we should take this to chat, since we are getting a bit off-topic. (The original question was different from your question, which is: &amp;quot;Can users vote to delete questions which have upvoted answer?&amp;quot;) I hope that the system will offer us the possibility to move comments to the chat soon. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40297_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you understand that it is not that easy to me to give you direct example from this site. (I do not have sufficient reputation to see deleted posts on Physics.) I could give you examples from Mathematics - where you cannot see deleted posts. I provided [one example of a question](https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/576306/revisions) which has been deleted while having upvoted answers (but later undeleted). Maybe it's your turn to clarify what would you consider sufficient evidence. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40298_10644)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@EmilioPisanty Since this comment exchange was getting a bit long, I have made a separate question about this specific issue: [Can a question with an upvoted answer be deleted?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10650) Perhaps somebody posts there an answer which could clarify this. -- [Martin](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question#comment40299_10644)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="94e76917-cd18-42ec-962c-e93f36684735" CreationDate="2018-05-29T22:28:01.777" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="94e76917-cd18-42ec-962c-e93f36684735" CreationDate="2018-05-29T22:28:01.777" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="343dbc6e-7c05-4161-beb7-74506e296d76" CreationDate="2018-05-29T22:28:01.777" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="343dbc6e-7c05-4161-beb7-74506e296d76" CreationDate="2018-05-29T22:28:01.777" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="67689da1-0a87-4b93-aa86-3b49b6103b83" CreationDate="2018-05-30T09:06:25.230" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/deleted-questions/info and https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/deleted-questions/info" Text="This tag refers to all questions deleted from Stack Exchange sites. The tag [tag:specific-question] should also be used when referencing a specific question that has been deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean? What are the criteria for deletion?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5221)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32617" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="67689da1-0a87-4b93-aa86-3b49b6103b83" CreationDate="2018-05-30T09:06:25.230" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 84967, 106502 edit id of 20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="a18cb9a1-bb7f-4d83-8a34-6945d570db5f" CreationDate="2018-05-30T09:09:29.377" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/info" Text="For questions about MathJax, which is used to write mathematics on Stack Exchange sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32619" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="a18cb9a1-bb7f-4d83-8a34-6945d570db5f" CreationDate="2018-05-30T09:09:29.377" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 84967, 106502 edit id of 21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="66c44616-4de7-4e7f-816e-cc976519885e" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:37:01.193" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="66c44616-4de7-4e7f-816e-cc976519885e" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:37:01.193" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="ee307299-6172-4184-b4d2-05f595c12bea" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:37:01.193" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="ee307299-6172-4184-b4d2-05f595c12bea" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:37:01.193" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="2483e3c5-54b8-4828-b2ab-d04f597ccb95" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:13:33.070" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/info" Text="For questions about MathJax, which is used to write mathematics on Stack Exchange sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32625" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="2483e3c5-54b8-4828-b2ab-d04f597ccb95" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:13:33.070" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 84967, 44126 edit id of 23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="ce35eb15-4c31-49ca-8cd5-923ab1c1fceb" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:13:40.523" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/info" Text="For questions about [MathJax](https://www.mathjax.org), which is used to write mathematics on Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)&#xD;&#xA; * Basic information [in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation)&#xD;&#xA; * [Is there a standard place to point people to learn how to typeset their equations?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/804)&#xD;&#xA; * [There should be universal LaTeX/MathJax guide for sites supporting it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/68388#70559) - post at Meta Stack Exchange&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32627" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="ce35eb15-4c31-49ca-8cd5-923ab1c1fceb" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:13:40.523" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 84967, 44126 edit id of 22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="11bbaa25-da30-413c-ba6b-68380a803dbd" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:13:54.660" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/info" Text="For questions about [MathJax](https://www.mathjax.org), which is used to write mathematics on Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax)&#xD;&#xA; * Basic information [in the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation)&#xD;&#xA; * [Is there a standard place to point people to learn how to typeset their equations?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/804)&#xD;&#xA; * [There should be universal LaTeX/MathJax guide for sites supporting it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/68388#70559) - post at Meta Stack Exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32629" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="11bbaa25-da30-413c-ba6b-68380a803dbd" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:13:54.660" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 84967, 44126 edit id of 24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="1041392b-9af1-4b6d-aa0e-98b8b7a125ee" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:14:00.057" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/deleted-questions/info and https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/deleted-questions/info" Text="This tag refers to all questions deleted from Stack Exchange sites. The tag 'specific-question' should also be used when referencing a specific question that has been deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="1041392b-9af1-4b6d-aa0e-98b8b7a125ee" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:14:00.057" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 84967, 44126 edit id of 19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="51ad62e9-7c05-4c41-98d2-49ebf6b96879" CreationDate="2018-05-31T15:11:11.387" UserId="8563" Comment="Removed irrelevant comment-thread transcript." Text="In discussion on [another question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10644/how-to-view-answers-to-a-deleted-question) there was some disagreement over whether a question can be deleted by *regular users* if it has an upvoted answer. (Here we are talking neither about deletion *by the OP* nor deletions *by a moderator*. This is about deletions by *votes to delete* which are available to [10k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/moderator-tools) and with a bit less restrictions [to 20k+ users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite looking at the same examples and [the same FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that) and help entries, different commenters arrived to different conclusions. One source of the problem seems to be that I do not have sufficient reputation *on this site* to view deleted questions, so it's difficult for me to include specific examples that can be verified by 10k users on this site. (I am able to find some questions that have upvoted answers and  were deleted using SEDE, but still I do not see revision history and I cannot check whether they were deleted by a mod or by regular users voting to delete.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Can a question which has an upvoted answer be deleted if regular users vote to delete the question? Could you in your answer include also some examples (from this site, if possible)?." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="878da6bc-40be-4b8f-a0c4-f6e2c6a2b4b4" CreationDate="2018-05-31T21:35:09.307" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="878da6bc-40be-4b8f-a0c4-f6e2c6a2b4b4" CreationDate="2018-05-31T21:35:09.307" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10659" RevisionGUID="31994935-eda4-41d5-a841-cf29e5611551" CreationDate="2018-05-31T21:35:09.307" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10659" RevisionGUID="31994935-eda4-41d5-a841-cf29e5611551" CreationDate="2018-05-31T21:35:09.307" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="475a2cc8-4810-4197-86b5-9a569fceafff" CreationDate="2018-06-01T08:26:04.737" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="05c008a6-4447-4e1e-abfa-7da23621ca19" CreationDate="2018-06-01T08:26:49.520" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|tags|site-salvage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="941e66bf-2a00-455a-a6db-00edae72f582" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:58:08.163" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="941e66bf-2a00-455a-a6db-00edae72f582" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:58:08.163" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="d266a505-18c3-49d1-b94a-8782a5989769" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:58:08.163" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="d266a505-18c3-49d1-b94a-8782a5989769" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:58:08.163" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="642a1a7e-7f57-4481-85f2-fbb1ea7042de" CreationDate="2018-06-03T05:27:22.077" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="A lot of the most popular questions (viz. those with many views and highly voted answers) here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an Oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates, calculus-based equations to model quantities, and references to cutting-edge research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've changed the words used to describe 'popular science-like' questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="4a9d2c6c-5cb5-4115-af8e-02640a3cb228" CreationDate="2018-06-03T07:01:44.777" UserId="197438" Text="One of our moderators was last seen on the 22nd of May; it's now the 3rd of June (the same year, luckily). He's also a mod on Chem SE; he was last seen there 1 month ago. I don't want to name him, even though it's obvious, but he was a really nice and helpful guy when he was active 3 years ago (he last _posted_ in 2015). Is he shirking a responsibility, or is this normal and acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="4a9d2c6c-5cb5-4115-af8e-02640a3cb228" CreationDate="2018-06-03T07:01:44.777" UserId="197438" Text="Do we need a new moderator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="4a9d2c6c-5cb5-4115-af8e-02640a3cb228" CreationDate="2018-06-03T07:01:44.777" UserId="197438" Text="|bug|moderators|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10659" RevisionGUID="43a9e000-44b3-42ae-af87-6bab16523168" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:31:32.070" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/suggested-edits/info and https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/suggested-edits/info" Text="Users without full edit privileges can suggest edits to posts and tag wikis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32656" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10659" RevisionGUID="43a9e000-44b3-42ae-af87-6bab16523168" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:31:32.070" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 25301, 24653 edit id of 26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="0e5bc57a-edf4-41fa-8321-7a35f3e3c422" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:31:53.040" UserId="40443" Comment="added links to some basic information - based on https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/suggested-edits/info and https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/suggested-edits/info" Text="Users with 2000 reputation have the ability to edit any question or answer. This is called [&quot;edit privileges&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/edit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users (both registered and [cookie users](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44557/why-should-i-register-my-account &quot;not an everyday food&quot;)) who have not reached the level of 2000 reputation (or 100, for community-wiki posts) are allowed to suggest edits. These are not applied immediately, but go into [a queue where users](https://physics.stackexchange.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits &quot;at the level of 500&quot;) who have edit privileges can vote to approve or reject them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your edit gets approved, you get 2 rep. (However, you can earn [at most 1000 reputation points](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/82020) through suggested edits.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your edit is rejected, a reason will be displayed on the suggested edit page. You can track your suggested edits under the [suggestions section of the Activity tab on your account profile](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/current?tab=activity&amp;sort=suggestions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggested edits feature also applies to users who don't have 20,000 reputation to suggest edits to tag wikis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [How do suggested edits work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76251/how-do-suggested-edits-work &quot;one by one&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- [Too many rejections will place a temporary block on further suggestions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118213/is-there-some-form-of-blocking-in-place-for-rejected-suggested-edits-by-anonymou)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32658" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="0e5bc57a-edf4-41fa-8321-7a35f3e3c422" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:31:53.040" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 25301, 24653 edit id of 25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="871e7151-35b0-41f3-8b2b-e4df5c0a4f1a" CreationDate="2018-06-03T13:49:08.950" UserId="84967" Text="My country is, for some unknown reason, still a monarchy. Perhaps that's the reason I feel somewhat uneasy about permanent positions. I really appreciate the time and effort Manish has put into this site, but perhaps it is time we start thinking whether it makes sense he's still a moderator. Especially because he was elected when this site had less than one tenth of the users it has today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying it particularly bothers me to see the diamond next to Manish' username. But, to be honest, I have never seen him take any moderational action or decision. For this reason, I cannot really say whether he is a good moderator or not. Needless to say, I have no reason to assume he is not; but the problem is that I don't have many reasons to assume he is either. And I'm not thrilled by the idea that someone I know nothing about (moderation-wise) has the privileges being a moderator entails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am *not* calling for a new election (unlike OP). The active moderators we have today do an excellent job as far as I'm concerned. I am also *not* saying that Manish behaviour is unacceptable or something like that. He helped the site become what it is today, and we should always be thankful for that. But I don't really see the point in his staying a moderator. Perhaps this is a conversation we should have at some point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="4d3c422e-ece2-4c15-9b42-f25f404f5535" CreationDate="2018-06-03T13:49:24.587" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|moderators|request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="7126f28c-1343-45ab-87e3-4636790d6168" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:07:35.410" UserId="40443" Comment="added some basic information - based on https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/review/info" Text="For questions about the /review path where users can view and act on posts by other users that the system thinks may need attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32668" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="7126f28c-1343-45ab-87e3-4636790d6168" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:07:35.410" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 24653, 84967 edit id of 27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="fd54cc1a-8c6e-4f72-984f-4c0aed99fb03" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:07:38.003" UserId="40443" Comment="added some basic information - based on https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/review/info" Text="For questions about the [review queues](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) where users can view and act on posts by other users that the system thinks may need attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see: [What are the review queues, and how do they work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/161390)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32670" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="fd54cc1a-8c6e-4f72-984f-4c0aed99fb03" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:07:38.003" Comment="Proposed by 40443 approved by 24653, 84967 edit id of 28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32671" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="1278d090-2825-491a-a677-f735e4344d8b" CreationDate="2018-06-03T19:52:15.290" UserId="2451" Comment="If OP wants new moderators ask that separately." Text="Should an inactive moderator step down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32672" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="1278d090-2825-491a-a677-f735e4344d8b" CreationDate="2018-06-03T19:52:15.290" UserId="2451" Comment="If OP wants new moderators ask that separately." Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="3cb3d54f-2b01-4a39-87dc-b837a6ae6db5" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:16:32.243" UserId="184083" Text="Why is my question &quot;Electrical resistance calculator question&quot; on hold ? What does this mean ? How can i improve it ? Here is the link to my question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/409278/electrical-resistance-calculator-question]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="3cb3d54f-2b01-4a39-87dc-b837a6ae6db5" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:16:32.243" UserId="184083" Text="How can I make a question on topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="3cb3d54f-2b01-4a39-87dc-b837a6ae6db5" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:16:32.243" UserId="184083" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="5e789dc1-61ba-4341-ba5e-bc63e6ad6bdb" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:23:00.457" UserId="184083" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="262d47f7-80c7-4a55-b81b-94bf52abad1a" CreationDate="2018-06-04T10:04:15.493" UserId="8563" Text="For general guidance on what &quot;on hold&quot; means, see [What is a “closed”, “on hold”, or “duplicate” question?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10582/what-is-a-closed-on-hold-or-duplicate-question) at the mother meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For specific guidance about why your individual question was put on hold, see the link included in the banner that marks the post as on hold, [How do I ask homework questions on Physics Stack Exchange?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, if an event X happens that affects your posts and it comes accompanied with a banner Y linking to a detailed explainer post Z (in this case, [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange)), then jumping on the Ask button without reading the guidance first isn't a particularly useful course of action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="531fdb40-ca9e-4a69-bef4-921db4b3ca6b" CreationDate="2018-06-04T15:11:01.533" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="A large number of our most active members are software developers (emphasis on _large_, because there are way more than I'd intuitively expect). At least three of our moderators mention in their &quot;about me&quot; sections that they're employed by software companies (hence presumably software engineers or similar), and 2 of them are extremely active physics content creators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a certain extent, it makes sense, as there is (apparently) a significant overlap in skills which can encourage people from physics backgrounds to move towards software development. However, it doesn't work the other way: after software engineering and computer science degrees, I'm quite sure you won't know a huge amount of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a problem at all; even I'm a somewhat active programmer. But it is definitely interesting. **Why is this so? Does it imply anything about Physics SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of talk about how Theoretical Physics SE's questions are supposed to be moved here, but if so many of our best answerers are software creators, will we be able to cater to them well? Will it be productive to try a survey similar to the StackOverflow developer survey to gauge who we're creating content for, who's using it, and who's creating it? I personally feel that it'll be very beneficial, because it's necessary to know your audience well t write for them, and it's also good to be aware of where the author of an answer is coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like many questions rolled together, but at the heart of it, it's just **What's the significance of the large proportion of software developers on Physics SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer may be &quot;nothing&quot;, but it could potentially tell us something very interesting about what's going on here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="531fdb40-ca9e-4a69-bef4-921db4b3ca6b" CreationDate="2018-06-04T15:11:01.533" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Why do software developers make up such a prominent part of Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="531fdb40-ca9e-4a69-bef4-921db4b3ca6b" CreationDate="2018-06-04T15:11:01.533" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="4be2e2a7-c5b2-4bb2-90a9-309c4843fc5e" CreationDate="2018-06-04T21:13:56.253" UserId="56299" Text="This is kind of a network-wide phenomenon, and of course it's rooted in the history of Stack Exchange. The first site was [Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/), which, for ten years, has remained the most active site on the network. Next came [Server Fault](https://serverfault.com/) and [Super User](https://superuser.com/) - both geared toward people who work in and are enthusiastic about fields related to computers and IT, including software development. From there, Stack Exchange branched out into [some other sites about topics not as closely tied to computers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/299104/274942), before finally adopting [a new site creation process](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/13/changes-to-stack-exchange/), leading to a wave of new sites about . . . everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange will always cater to programmers, developers, sys admins, and that guy in IT who knows why your computer keeps crashing. That's a *huge* constituency, the largest part of the userbase (the sites for those folks are [the busiest](https://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#traffic)). Moreover, it turns out that Stack Overflow is one of the biggest referrers of traffic to all the other sites in the network, which you can see if you have enough reputation to check out the [site analytics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/260849/274942). Therefore, a lot of users come from a programming background, and, yes, many work as software developers (I'm talking about the userbase of Physics as a whole here, not specific users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is starting to change, largely within the last . . . five or so years, maybe? There are over 150 Stack Exchange sites (174 at last count, but that's always increasing), and we're seeing a lot of new users come directly for non-programming-related sites. That can be good, insofar as it can attract people who really know their stuff. The network's non-computer-related userbase is changing from programmers enthusiastic about certain areas people who study and work in those areas. And I think that's a good thing. I'm one of those people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, there's a viewpoint from which much of this doesn't matter. For this site, if you like asking and answering questions about Physics, you know your stuff (or know what you don't know!), and are committed to helping the community, I don't think anyone cares if you're a physicist or an opera singer. We're here for physics. And that's what's important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="f815b20b-f9a0-4d71-a7b4-9e6b8bebc48f" CreationDate="2018-06-05T00:56:23.783" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="A large number of our most active members are software developers (emphasis on _large_, because there are way more than I'd intuitively expect). At least three of our moderators mention in their &quot;about me&quot; sections that they're employed by software companies (hence presumably software engineers or similar), and 2 of them are extremely active physics content creators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a certain extent, it makes sense, as there is (apparently) a significant overlap in skills which can encourage people from physics backgrounds to move towards software development. However, it doesn't work the other way: after software engineering and computer science degrees, I'm quite sure you won't know a huge amount of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a problem at all; even I'm a somewhat active programmer. But it is definitely interesting. **Why is this so? Does it imply anything about Physics SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of talk about how Theoretical Physics SE's questions are supposed to be asked here, now that TPSE's closed, but if so many of our best answerers are software creators, will we be able to cater to them well? Will it be productive to try a survey similar to the StackOverflow developer survey to gauge who we're creating content for, who's using it, and who's creating it? I personally feel that it'll be very beneficial, because it's necessary to know your audience well t write for them, and it's also good to be aware of where the author of an answer is coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like many questions rolled together, but at the heart of it, it's just **What's the significance of the large proportion of software developers on Physics SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer may be &quot;nothing&quot;, but it could potentially tell us something very interesting about what's going on here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32683" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="412335c1-ffad-4c4e-ae34-4647e9e21fb6" CreationDate="2018-06-05T03:33:24.123" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[714],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ZeroTheHero&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="c039a615-16f9-46c6-a54d-fea1c40c4fe8" CreationDate="2018-06-05T03:51:51.123" UserId="124" Text="In addition to what [HDE's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10669/124) mentioned, I think part of the cause is simply that, among the people who have studied physics in depth, many of them now work as programmers. (Probably not a majority, but a significant fraction.) There aren't enough jobs in physics itself for everybody with the training, so a lot of them fall back on software development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you're just looking at the moderators, that's almost certainly too small of a sample size to draw a meaningful conclusion. But if you did a broader survey of active members, and if that survey gave a similar result, this would probably be part of the reason why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="9e61e88f-c53d-4eed-b0ac-5186336bf83e" CreationDate="2018-06-05T11:42:03.723" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="A large number of our most active members are software developers (emphasis on _large_, because there are way more than I'd intuitively expect). At least three of our moderators mention in their &quot;about me&quot; sections that they're employed by software companies (hence presumably software engineers or similar), and 2 of them are extremely active physics content creators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a certain extent, it makes sense, as there is (apparently) a significant overlap in skills which can encourage people from physics backgrounds to move towards software development. However, it doesn't work the other way: after software engineering and computer science degrees, I'm quite sure you won't know a huge amount of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a problem at all; even I'm a somewhat active programmer. But it is definitely interesting. **Why is this so? Does it imply anything about Physics SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of talk about how Theoretical Physics SE's questions are supposed to be asked here, now that TPSE's closed, but if so many of our best answerers are software creators, will we be able to cater to them well? Will it be productive to try a survey similar to the StackOverflow developer survey to gauge who we're creating content for, who's using it, and who's creating it? I personally feel that it'll be very beneficial, because it's necessary to know your audience well t write for them, and it's also good to be aware of where the author of an answer is coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like many questions rolled together, but at the heart of it, it's just **What's the significance of the large proportion of software developers on Physics SE?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer may be &quot;nothing&quot;, but it could potentially tell us something very interesting about what's going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Some answers and comments have brought up the point that there're no reliable statistics/samples to prove this, which makes sense. I'll emphasize that it was as simple as me being surprised by the number of software developers, and leave the quantification at that. It's possible that I misjudged things. This observation is just my opinion and was based upon a section of active participants only. The theory cannot be extended across all users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="01550720-b4d8-46ff-96bf-348d2ab6c63e" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:26:50.733" UserId="124" Text="This is just my opinion, not an official response: yes, I do think that a moderator who can't or doesn't want to participate in the site anymore should step down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, having an inactive moderator doesn't really _hurt_ the site, so it's not something I personally care about enough to push for an inactive mod's removal. I'd also note that moderator positions are volunteer positions, in the sense that a mod controls their own level of participation and there's no responsibility to maintain a minimum activity level (at least on this site)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="39aebc2e-50e0-4139-aff3-727b9e2f2558" CreationDate="2018-06-09T00:43:01.257" UserId="124" Comment="clarify wording" Text="This is just my opinion, not an official response: yes, I do think that a moderator who can't or doesn't want to participate in the site anymore should step down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I mean this in the sense that it would be considerate for an inactive moderator (who expects to remain inactive) to _voluntarily_ step down. I'm not suggesting they should be _forced_ out of the position. Having an inactive moderator doesn't really hurt the site, so I don't personally care about it enough to push for their removal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also note that moderator positions are volunteer positions, in the sense that a mod controls their own level of participation and there's no responsibility to maintain a minimum activity level (at least on this site). So if a moderator is inactive, they're not breaking any sort of official commitment by doing so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="631d6d94-c694-4282-9e43-aab91244c561" CreationDate="2018-06-09T04:13:18.840" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="As a just-about-no-longer-new user, I feel certified to take a shot at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently started a discussion in a chat (Physics meta room, 6th June '18) about how homework-help-seekers find us. The discussion was inconclusive. But an important point that Rob (the moderator) brought up was that there's no easy way to do anything about a &quot;student [that] is already in a mindset where they think copying a multiple-choice question from their homework onto a website will be better for their education than reading their textbook [that's one end of the spectrum]&quot;, which I think is a brilliant way of thinking of things. If they didn't want to read the 2-minute tour, even when motivated by a badge ('informed'), there's no point in sweet-talking too much, since they're here to get the question solved and _expressed_ no _evident_ involvement, and anyways they'll leave until they resurface with another similar problem. A person with genuine interest (hopefully) will subsequently read the linked documents about homework policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my first couple of weeks (2 months ago), I got the feeling that some users, notably one guy with way more than 25,000 reputation, were pretty terse and mean, and I got pretty intimidated by some comments on my answers. Soon after that, I read a something on meta which, in essence, said that soon enough, your supervisors for early research work are going to be criticizing your work much more aggressively than people here do, and that there's a need to be a little thick-skinned. At the end of it, I'm grateful that the aforementioned high-rep user was terse with the feedback on my posts, because now I've gotten a better idea of how much research needs to go into a post to confirm accuracy and legibility and learned how to respond feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my recommendation, as a just-about-no-longer-new user, is that we **don't sugarcoat advice too much, but we tell new users why people are aggressive and what they'll learn from it.** (People are mean because quality standards; you'll learn to cope with research advisors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases beyond homework, however, where I think we could be better. In a recent review (no link because it was deleted soon after), I left a somewhat curt message in a comment to an answer which said &quot;This should be a comment, but not enough rep... (suggestion about a solution)&quot;. I included the word 'loophole', and even felt the need to end the comment with &quot;Sorry.&quot; Another reviewer left a similar response which had links to several (more than 3) meta and help center posts. The author of the answer apologized. And then the final review was an incredibly nice comment by stafusa. The comment said something on the lines of &quot;don't lose heart, I'll post it in the comments section of the question; check back there for a response&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to adopt stafusa's approach with such new users who _aren't_ related to the homework fiasco, i.e. the section among which there are several awesome people who genuinely want to contribute." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="83d5f580-5352-4cda-8ed9-a5f12b69883b" CreationDate="2018-06-10T03:25:37.540" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="As a just-about-no-longer-new user, I feel certified to take a shot at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently started a discussion in a chat (Physics meta room, 6th June '18) about how homework-help-seekers find us. The discussion was inconclusive. But an important point that Rob (the moderator) brought up was that there's no easy way to do anything about a &quot;student [that] is already in a mindset where they think copying a multiple-choice question from their homework onto a website will be better for their education than reading their textbook [that's one end of the spectrum]&quot;, which I think is a brilliant way of thinking of things. If they didn't want to read the 2-minute tour, even when motivated by a badge ('informed'), there's no point in sweet-talking too much, since they're here to get the question solved and _expressed_ no _evident_ involvement, and anyways they'll leave until they resurface with another similar problem. A person with genuine interest (hopefully) will subsequently read the linked documents about homework policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my first couple of weeks (2 months ago), I got the feeling that some users, notably one guy with way more than 25,000 reputation, were pretty terse and mean, and I got pretty intimidated by some comments on my answers. Soon after that, I read a something on meta which, in essence, said that soon enough, your supervisors for early research work are going to be criticizing your work much more aggressively than people here do, and that there's a need to be a little thick-skinned. At the end of it, I'm grateful that the aforementioned high-rep user was terse with the feedback on my posts, because now I've gotten a better idea of how much research needs to go into a post to confirm accuracy and legibility and learned how to respond feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my recommendation, as a just-about-no-longer-new user, is that we **don't sugarcoat advice too much, but we tell new users why people are aggressive and what they'll learn from it.** (People are mean because we want to maintain quality standards; listening to them/cooperating/discussing will help you to learn to cope with future research advisors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases beyond homework, however, where I think we could be better. In a recent review (no link because it was deleted soon after), I left a somewhat curt message in a comment to an answer. The answer said &quot;This should be a comment, but not enough rep... (suggestion about a solution)&quot;. I included the word 'loophole', and even felt the need to end the comment with &quot;Sorry.&quot; Another reviewer left a similar response which had links to several (more than 3) meta and help center posts. The author of the answer apologized. And then the final review was an incredibly nice comment by stafusa. The comment said something on the lines of &quot;don't lose heart, I'll post it in the comments section of the question; check back there for a response&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to adopt stafusa's approach with such new users who _aren't_ related to the homework fiasco, i.e. the section among which there are several awesome people who genuinely want to contribute. That user clearly wanted to help the asker, but couldn't do it due to the new-user restrictions. (I'm not criticizing those restrictions though; they keep the spam away almost perfectly)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="c4275c24-7371-441a-a20b-78c38d21d114" CreationDate="2018-06-10T06:00:11.923" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="As a just-about-no-longer-new user, I feel certified to take a shot at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently started a discussion in a chat ([Physics meta room, 6th June '18](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/6/6)) about how homework-help-seekers find us. The discussion was inconclusive. But an important point that Rob (the moderator) brought up was that there's no easy way to do anything about a &quot;student [that] is already in a mindset where they think copying a multiple-choice question from their homework onto a website will be better for their education than reading their textbook [that's one end of the spectrum]&quot;, which I think is a brilliant way of thinking of things. If they didn't want to read the 2-minute tour, even when motivated by a badge ('informed'), there's no point in sweet-talking too much, since they're here to get the question solved and _expressed_ no _evident_ involvement, and anyways they'll leave until they resurface with another similar problem. A person with genuine interest (hopefully) will subsequently read the linked documents about homework policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my first couple of weeks (2 months ago), I got the feeling that some users, notably one guy with way more than 25,000 reputation, were pretty terse and mean, and I got pretty intimidated by some comments on my answers. Soon after that, I read a something on meta which, in essence, said that soon enough, your supervisors for early research work are going to be criticizing your work much more aggressively than people here do, and that there's a need to be a little thick-skinned. At the end of it, I'm grateful that the aforementioned high-rep user was terse with the feedback on my posts, because now I've gotten a better idea of how much research needs to go into a post to confirm accuracy and legibility and learned how to respond feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my recommendation, as a just-about-no-longer-new user, is that we **don't sugarcoat advice too much, but we tell new users why people are aggressive and what they'll learn from it.** (People are mean because we want to maintain quality standards; listening to them/cooperating/discussing will help you to learn to cope with future research advisors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases beyond homework, however, where I think we could be better. In a recent review (no link because it was deleted soon after), I left a somewhat curt message in a comment to an answer. The answer said &quot;This should be a comment, but not enough rep... (suggestion about a solution)&quot;. I included the word 'loophole', and even felt the need to end the comment with &quot;Sorry.&quot; Another reviewer left a similar response which had links to several (more than 3) meta and help center posts. The author of the answer apologized. And then the final review was an incredibly nice comment by stafusa. The comment said something on the lines of &quot;don't lose heart, I'll post it in the comments section of the question; check back there for a response&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to adopt stafusa's approach with such new users who _aren't_ related to the homework fiasco, i.e. the section among which there are several awesome people who genuinely want to contribute. That user clearly wanted to help the asker, but couldn't do it due to the new-user restrictions. (I'm not criticizing those restrictions though; they keep the spam away almost perfectly)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32697" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="7c479433-b491-46e8-a4d2-f5c390a72f76" CreationDate="2018-06-10T17:07:07.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1005858912887869440" />
  <row Id="32698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="95be3cbe-58d5-407a-a44a-e9b8ce6f6f06" CreationDate="2018-06-11T12:06:05.893" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="As a just-about-no-longer-new user, I feel certified to take a shot at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently started a discussion in a chat ([Physics meta room, 6th June '18](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/6/6)) about how homework-help-seekers find us. The discussion was inconclusive. But an important point that Rob (the moderator) brought up was that there's no easy way to do anything about a &quot;student [that] is already in a mindset where they think copying a multiple-choice question from their homework onto a website will be better for their education than reading their textbook [that's one end of the spectrum]&quot;, which I think is a brilliant way of thinking of things. If they didn't want to read the 2-minute tour, even when motivated by a badge ('informed'), there's no point in sweet-talking too much, since they're here to get the question solved and _expressed_ no _evident_ involvement, and anyways they'll leave until they resurface with another similar problem. A person with genuine interest (hopefully) will subsequently read the linked documents about homework policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my first couple of weeks (2 months ago), I got the feeling that some users, notably one guy with way more than 25,000 reputation, were pretty terse and mean, and I got pretty intimidated by some comments on my answers. Soon after that, I read a something on meta which, in essence, said that soon enough, your supervisors for early research work are going to be criticizing your work much more aggressively than people here do, and that there's a need to be a little thick-skinned. At the end of it, I'm grateful that the aforementioned high-rep user was terse with the feedback on my posts, because now I've gotten a better idea of how much research needs to go into a post to confirm accuracy and legibility and learned how to respond feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my recommendation, as a just-about-no-longer-new user, is that we **don't sugarcoat advice too much, but we tell new users why people are aggressive and what they'll learn from it.** (People are mean because we want to maintain quality standards; listening to them/cooperating/discussing will help you to learn to cope with future research advisors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases beyond homework, however, where I think we could be better. In a recent review (no link because it was deleted soon after), I left a somewhat curt message in a comment to an answer. The answer said &quot;This should be a comment, but not enough rep... (suggestion about a solution)&quot;. I included the word 'loophole', and even felt the need to end the comment with &quot;Sorry.&quot; Another reviewer left a similar response which had links to several (more than 3) meta and help center posts. The author of the answer apologized. And then the final review was an incredibly nice comment by stafusa. The comment said something on the lines of &quot;don't lose heart, I'll post it in the comments section of the question; check back there for a response&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to adopt stafusa's approach with such new users who _aren't_ related to the homework fiasco, i.e. the section among which there are several awesome people who genuinely want to contribute. That user clearly wanted to help the asker, but couldn't do it due to the new-user restrictions. (I'm not criticizing those restrictions though; they keep the spam away almost perfectly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I hunted down the evasive review and put together a badly-edited picture. The author of the second comment had about 3k rep; I decided to remove the name because I don't what s/he was feeling while putting his/her comment. Note that the question has been deleted as well.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KJee4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="e134ad99-67c4-4bf3-810e-695de068a939" CreationDate="2018-06-11T14:47:52.703" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 900 characters in body" Text="As a just-about-no-longer-new user, I feel certified to take a shot at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently started a discussion in a chat ([Physics meta room, 6th June '18](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/6/6)) about how homework-help-seekers find us. The discussion was inconclusive. But an important point that Rob (the moderator) brought up was that there's no easy way to do anything about a &quot;student [that] is already in a mindset where they think copying a multiple-choice question from their homework onto a website will be better for their education than reading their textbook [that's one end of the spectrum]&quot;, which I think is a brilliant way of thinking of things. If they didn't want to read the 2-minute tour, even when motivated by a badge ('informed'), there's no point in sweet-talking too much, since they're here to get the question solved and _expressed_ no _evident_ involvement, and anyways they'll leave until they resurface with another similar problem. A person with genuine interest (hopefully) will subsequently read the linked documents about homework policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my first couple of weeks (2 months ago), I got the feeling that some users, notably one guy with way more than 25,000 reputation, were pretty terse and mean, and I got pretty intimidated by some comments on my answers. Soon after that, I read a something on meta which, in essence, said that soon enough, your supervisors for early research work are going to be criticizing your work much more aggressively than people here do, and that there's a need to be a little thick-skinned. At the end of it, I'm grateful that the aforementioned high-rep user was terse with the feedback on my posts, because now I've gotten a better idea of how much research needs to go into a post to confirm accuracy and legibility and learned how to respond feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my recommendation, as a just-about-no-longer-new user, is that we **don't sugarcoat advice too much, but we tell new users why people are aggressive and what they'll learn from it.** (People are mean because we want to maintain quality standards; listening to them/cooperating/discussing will help you to learn to cope with future research advisors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases beyond homework, however, where I think we could be better. In a recent review (no link because it was deleted soon after), I left a somewhat curt message in a comment to an answer. The answer said &quot;This should be a comment, but not enough rep... (suggestion about a solution)&quot;. I included the word 'loophole', and even felt the need to end the comment with &quot;Sorry.&quot; Another reviewer left a similar response which had links to several (more than 3) meta and help center posts. The author of the answer apologized. And then the final review was an incredibly nice comment by stafusa. The comment said something on the lines of &quot;don't lose heart, I'll post it in the comments section of the question; check back there for a response&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to adopt stafusa's approach with such new users who _aren't_ related to the homework fiasco, i.e. the section among which there are several awesome people who genuinely want to contribute. That user clearly wanted to help the asker, but couldn't do it due to the new-user restrictions. (I'm not criticizing those restrictions though; they keep the spam away almost perfectly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I hunted down the evasive review and put together a badly-edited picture. The author of the second comment had about 3k rep; I decided to remove the name because I don't what s/he was feeling while putting his/her comment. Note that the question has been deleted as well.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Edit 2: [Here's something interesting I read today.](https://hackernoon.com/the-decline-of-stack-overflow-7cb69faa575d) It's about stackoverflow, but the message is applicable to Physics SE to a certain extent. It essentially discusses the fact that the permanent residents of SO (the regular contributors) are a very small population. I don't agree with a lot of the deductions they make: most notably, I don't think that their claims and justifications that SO is _declining_ are valid. But the relevant takeaway for us is this: most new users are going to pop in for ONLY 1 question, and then disappear with their problems solved. This follows the argument that there's no big point in 'nurturing their interests to induct them into the SE family' or whatever jazz: most are here to take the help and run away without thinking about SE as a community of people contributing in different ways.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KJee4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="dbbd3c73-6e59-4c14-a791-cf4011673a5c" CreationDate="2018-06-11T19:16:23.987" UserId="124" Comment="remove note about the &quot;best&quot; questions" Text="In most cases, you can answer a question anywhere along the spectrum from concise to intricately detailed, and it can be a valid answer. So you're not &quot;expected to&quot; do any of these things. You can write an answer with whatever level of detail you find reasonable. If a question winds up with several different, correct answers at varying levels of detail, that's generally a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, voters may consider a detailed answer to be better than a concise one, or vice versa, and vote accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this applies to all questions, not only to the simple, popular ones you mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="acf481ee-6c5d-4d89-8a1f-6b4cb00a5809" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:37:44.323" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="As a just-about-no-longer-new user, I feel certified to take a shot at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently started a discussion in a chat ([Physics meta room, 6th June '18](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/6/6)) about how homework-help-seekers find us. The discussion was inconclusive. But an important point that Rob (the moderator) brought up was that there's no easy way to do anything about a &quot;student [that] is already in a mindset where they think copying a multiple-choice question from their homework onto a website will be better for their education than reading their textbook [that's one end of the spectrum]&quot;, which I think is a brilliant way of thinking of things. If they didn't want to read the 2-minute tour, even when motivated by a badge ('informed'), there's no point in sweet-talking too much, since they're here to get the question solved and _expressed_ no _evident_ involvement, and anyways they'll leave until they resurface with another similar problem. A person with genuine interest (hopefully) will subsequently read the linked documents about homework policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my first couple of weeks (2 months ago), I got the feeling that some users, notably one guy with way more than 25,000 reputation, were pretty terse and mean, and I got pretty intimidated by some comments on my answers. Soon after that, I read a something on meta which, in essence, said that soon enough, your supervisors for early research work are going to be criticizing your work much more aggressively than people here do, and that there's a need to be a little thick-skinned. At the end of it, I'm grateful that the aforementioned high-rep user was terse with the feedback on my posts, because now I've gotten a better idea of how much research and effort needs to go into a post to confirm accuracy and legibility, and learned how to respond to feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my recommendation, as a just-about-no-longer-new user, is that **we shouldn't sugarcoat advice too, but we should tell new users why we're aggressive and what they'll learn from it.** (Comments are mean because we want to maintain quality standards; listening/cooperating/discussing issues in comments will help you to learn to cope with future research advisers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases beyond homework, however, where I think we could be better. In a recent review (no link because it was deleted soon after), I left a somewhat curt message in a comment to an answer. The answer said &quot;This should be a comment, but not enough rep... (suggestion about a solution)&quot;. I included the word 'loophole', and even felt the need to end the comment with &quot;Sorry.&quot; Another reviewer left a similar response which had links to several (more than 3) meta and help center posts. The author of the answer apologized. And then the final review was an incredibly nice comment by stafusa. The comment said something on the lines of &quot;don't lose heart, I'll post it in the comments section of the question; check back there for a response&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to adopt stafusa's approach with such new users who _aren't_ related to the homework fiasco, i.e. the section among which there are several awesome people who genuinely want to contribute. That user clearly wanted to help the asker, but couldn't do it due to the new-user restrictions. (I'm not criticizing those restrictions though; they keep the spam away almost perfectly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I hunted down the evasive review and put together a badly-edited picture. The author of the second comment had about 3k rep; I decided to remove the name because I don't what s/he was feeling while putting his/her comment. Note that the question has been deleted as well.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Edit 2: [Here's something interesting I read today.](https://hackernoon.com/the-decline-of-stack-overflow-7cb69faa575d) It's about stackoverflow, but the message is applicable to Physics SE to a certain extent. It essentially discusses the fact that the permanent residents of SO (the regular contributors) are a very small population. I don't agree with a lot of the deductions they make: most notably, I don't think that their claims and justifications that SO is _declining_ are valid. But the relevant takeaway for us is this: most new users are going to pop in for ONLY 1 question, and then disappear with their problems solved. This follows the argument that there's no big point in 'nurturing their interests to induct them into the SE family' or whatever jazz: most are here to take the help and run away without thinking about SE as a community of people contributing in different ways.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KJee4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="4d0fece5-0ca0-4ce5-b2ba-c369916e749b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T20:45:18.000" UserId="187498" Text="I cannot post a question anymore! What can I do to solve this problem? I think somebody did not like my questions and finally, a m... f... kills me. I do not have a lot of time. What can I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="4d0fece5-0ca0-4ce5-b2ba-c369916e749b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T20:45:18.000" UserId="187498" Text="Why I cannot ask question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="4d0fece5-0ca0-4ce5-b2ba-c369916e749b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T20:45:18.000" UserId="187498" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32705" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="9be69e32-717d-4e71-9a3c-f94fe2f064df" CreationDate="2018-06-12T21:33:02.363" UserId="50583" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10639],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32706" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="067d0054-e9db-4cd0-82b8-6524e6e594eb" CreationDate="2018-06-13T02:19:54.417" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32707" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="565a9591-08b5-4496-97d0-5fdc13c5a924" CreationDate="2018-06-13T02:21:22.783" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="e26ae278-8ee9-4e42-a739-2330bb968807" CreationDate="2018-06-13T13:34:55.677" UserId="83398" Text="There is an automatic answer ban mechanism that stops users from posting many low-quality answers. However, I'm pretty sure users automatically get immunity from the answer ban if their reputation is sufficiently high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? If so, it seems to me to be a uniquely bad decision for this particular site, because it is relatively easy to get above this reputation threshold by, e.g. answering questions about Newtonian mechanics, then use the immunity to post bad answers about modern physics. Can we change this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="e26ae278-8ee9-4e42-a739-2330bb968807" CreationDate="2018-06-13T13:34:55.677" UserId="83398" Text="Remove the reputation cutoff for the answer ban" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="e26ae278-8ee9-4e42-a739-2330bb968807" CreationDate="2018-06-13T13:34:55.677" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32712" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="f3173bf7-0fc3-4ed1-8a56-0409193a6ebb" CreationDate="2018-06-13T15:13:42.860" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="4b8e5156-f517-4359-96b8-8cc74da7dfb5" CreationDate="2018-06-13T15:24:55.330" UserId="44126" Text="Greetings from one of your [human exception handlers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/75189/280545)!&#xD;&#xA;If you think that there's a user who needs some intervention to produce better-quality content, and you suspect that intervention is not coming in the form of an automatic answer ban, please raise a custom flag on a typical post of theirs to guide our attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have acted on this type of situation in the past, but because we keep such actions private (as best we can) you may not have noticed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32714" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="5fdf5c1c-83ad-40a4-b792-8d37f9bd1809" CreationDate="2018-06-13T21:35:35.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="3bf02cba-71df-4dce-ad24-103b9dfe7552" CreationDate="2018-06-13T22:33:33.920" UserId="124" Text="I've never seen or heard anything about a reputation threshold above which a  user is immune from the answer ban. Nor have I seen any reason to suspect that there is one. Of course, there could be such a threshold which we don't know about because the criteria are kept secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it looks like there is a threshold, that's probably only because the low-quality answer ban is specifically targeted at users with an _extremely_ poor track record of posting answers. I've understood that to mean not just having more downvoted answers than upvoted answers, but having an overwhelming majority of their answers downvoted and/or deleted. I would expect that once a person has accumulated a decent amount of rep (maybe a few hundred?), they necessarily have to have enough undeleted upvoted answers that they are exceedingly unlikely to meet the quality ban criteria on that basis alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="09299f5e-b4fe-47a1-950a-3638f59b1a7f" CreationDate="2018-06-17T01:45:25.557" UserId="170832" Text="&gt; Can a question with an upvoted answer be deleted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it?, yes - someone can, for certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4565/what-are-the-moderation-tools-available-to-10-000-reputation-users for the manner in which things function under normal circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know someone with well over 100K and sometimes things he would have expected to work for him did not, while people under 2K were able to see the thing in question. Sometimes there's breakage and all is not how one might expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it works the other way, another person with over 300K couldn't reproduce a bug nor rollback or view history to see the problem. Things 'just worked' for them; though they could see the before/after they just couldn't wedge themself into the spot to reproduce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is some people have privilege to delete and leave the earned Rep in place, but I can't find the link for a source to quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had my own questions VTC'd and made a trivial edit, getting it reopened - it went on, over time, to be well upvoted. Perhaps it shouldn't have been closed in the first place but people didn't understand the question or know the answer and just jumped on the bandwagon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently they are holding for a week over hammering, though a one or two person hammer sometimes occurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between privilege, Rep, physical access, voting, automatic tools and cosmic rays - anything can happen ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can and should are two different things. That's why there's automatic tools to quiz the humans to determine if they vote/edit in accordance with what the 'test question' expects they should do - with the risk of a ban for failure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="5782dd49-c7db-44e0-ba5a-c8cfeab852b0" CreationDate="2018-06-17T10:28:35.020" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="General corrections" Text="A lot of the most popular questions (viz. those with many views and highly voted answers) here on Physics SE (main site) are simple questions: Why does the cream of an Oreo stick to one cookie? Why is a steel ball more likely to break glass than a pillow is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be answered simply, with basic mechanics, or they can be answered in depth with numerical estimates and attempts to model quantities with equations (kind of like the xkcd what-if articles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When answering questions, are we expected to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Give the greatest detail that exists, and mention edge cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Simplify as far as possible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Or use our discretion to judge the OP's background and answer accordingly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm somewhat new here... have I misunderstood our objective while answering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I've changed the words used to describe 'popular science-like' questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32718" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="ebcd29e2-0388-4d4c-a26b-71e7e7849875" CreationDate="2018-06-17T23:33:23.740" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1008492835576995840" />
  <row Id="32719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="b19b716d-4c80-4a0d-b10c-4f58be5f560b" CreationDate="2018-06-18T10:59:51.273" UserId="27990" Text="Let's say I've been working in a calculation which is _reasonable simple_ but I didn't found it done anywhere else. Can I post is in physics.SE and ask what the community think about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know in other SE communities that would not be allowed but in physics that might be, because check whether the reasoning being a calculation is the core of the physicist work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="b19b716d-4c80-4a0d-b10c-4f58be5f560b" CreationDate="2018-06-18T10:59:51.273" UserId="27990" Text="Can I ask if my calculation is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="b19b716d-4c80-4a0d-b10c-4f58be5f560b" CreationDate="2018-06-18T10:59:51.273" UserId="27990" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32722" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="7d3c8613-cf57-46d9-aa07-c27ced78de01" CreationDate="2018-06-18T11:55:59.150" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6093],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1325,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;John Rennie&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="32723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="7387ef23-b9b4-4f8a-8cfb-8ac5563dcc42" CreationDate="2018-06-18T13:28:22.097" UserId="27990" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Let's say I've been working in a calculation which is _reasonable simple_ but I didn't found it done anywhere else. Can I post is in physics.SE and ask what the community think about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know in other SE communities that would not be allowed but in physics that might be, because checking whether the reasoning behind a calculation is correct is the core of the physicist work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="89b6cbc3-176b-4331-94f1-de048afa2c3c" CreationDate="2018-06-18T19:50:37.923" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="0fb8c1a7-e7be-4199-bf4c-a1fdfe3866c7" CreationDate="2018-06-21T22:08:52.600" UserId="5788" Text="I ask this wondering about my answer to [this recent question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/412750/if-the-space-time-curve-was-quantified-and-has-a-mathematical-function-what-woul/412771), though this applies in a more general setting. The situation is that the question asks about the physical interpretation of the typical curved-spacetime-as-rubber-sheet analogy, which as has been said multiple times on the parent site, is not a good analogy and should not be taken literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the question as it stands is not answerable; the only answer I can imagine (and the answer I gave) is that essentially the question is wrong, along with explaining why. However, some people thought that should be a comment instead. I can think of three possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Answer the question as best I can, even if the answer technically does not answer the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Close the question. I do not agree with this because AFAIK having wrong premises is not a close reason; I believe such questions are valuable since they address common misconceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Simply leave a comment instead of an answer, as some people suggested. I don't agree with this either, since it seems strange that a question should remain open and yet undeserving of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which option is best? (Obviously I support #1.) Is there another alternative? In some cases one could answer a related question that does make sense, but in this particular case that would essentially amount to explaining the basics of GR, clearly too broad for an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="0fb8c1a7-e7be-4199-bf4c-a1fdfe3866c7" CreationDate="2018-06-21T22:08:52.600" UserId="5788" Text="How to answer when the question is based on a wrong premise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="0fb8c1a7-e7be-4199-bf4c-a1fdfe3866c7" CreationDate="2018-06-21T22:08:52.600" UserId="5788" Text="|discussion|answers|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="a9a0a6b3-6b4b-443b-82de-7a400554b4f9" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:57:05.733" UserId="86600" Text="Sparked by the discussion in the comments in the question [How to teach modeling physical systems][1], especially if it is off-topic, I started looking for pedagogical questions about physics. I didn't find much and there is no site comparable to [Mathematics Educators Stackexchange][2], where pedagogical concepts and methods are the main focus. What I did find was the meta post [What kind of `[education]` questions should we allow?][3], which dealt with this topic partially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand it, questions about pedagogy in physics are currently not allowed, because they tend to be too broad or opinion based. I think, that if such a question is purely about opinion, than it does not fit the format well, so it shouldn't be allowed. But there definitely are objective answers, because pedagogy is an active field of research and as one can see on Mathematics Educators, there are some general principles one can follow to improve teaching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasons why I think this is important are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Physics education is a topic often encountered by teaching assistants and professors on a daily basis, but (at least in my experience) there is barely any pedagogical education beforehand. So these questions would serve as a starting point for improving teaching skills.&#xD;&#xA; 2. There are some challenges specific to teaching **physical** concepts in contrast to general pedagogic techniques. My original question is about such a problem, why it does not really fit on other sites in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Even if one has a general pedagogic background there might be students for who the general techniques fail. In this case it would be nice to have additional options to try, many people learn differently.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Science communication is an increasingly important topic and pedagogy can help with it. By learning about effective explanatory concepts, it is easier to find an explanation, that the general public can digest, but is still correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a solution I see three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Keep the current policy and close pedagogy questions as off-topic. I do not prefer this because of the reasons above. In this case, future questions can be linked to this post.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Create a separate Stackexchange community like Mathematics educators, that primarily focuses on these topics. This would fracture the community a bit and prevent the general users to take a look at these, but keep Physics SE clean.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Create the &quot;pedagogy&quot; tag on the main site under which these questions can be discussed. This would be my preferred option, as people who don't want to see these questions can block the tag, but it is still available to general users without subscribing to an additional site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there may be other options, but these are the obvious ones to me. So my question is: what stance should we take on questions about pedagogy, specifically for concepts in physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/412889/how-to-teach-modeling-physical-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4244/what-kind-of-education-questions-should-we-allow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="a9a0a6b3-6b4b-443b-82de-7a400554b4f9" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:57:05.733" UserId="86600" Text="Pedagogical questions about physics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="a9a0a6b3-6b4b-443b-82de-7a400554b4f9" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:57:05.733" UserId="86600" Text="|discussion|scope|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10683" RevisionGUID="14164e3b-266b-4147-8d41-6e631cb9a769" CreationDate="2018-06-22T02:12:44.497" UserId="84967" Text="As usual, it depends. Consider the following two extreme cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The premise is so wrong it is not even wrong. In this case, the only thing we can do is to vote to close as unclear; and, ideally, to leave a comment explaining why the premise is wrong. Nobody but OP will find the question useful; and most of the times, speaking from experience, not even OP will. The initial question is meaningless, so it is not answerable, and if you fix it, you'd be answering a question nobody asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The error in the premise is minor. In this case, the error either invalidates the question, or it doesn't. In the first case, correcting the premise constitutes an answer by itself; in the second case, the error should be fixed, but its presence is tangential to the main question. In either case, the question is answerable and useful to other people. Especially when the error in the premise is subtle and you could see more people falling into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, things are not in general black-and-white. It is not always easy to decide whether the question should be closed or answered. This is one of those cases where reasonable people will sometimes disagree, and there is no general solution to that. Good thing we have a voting system!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="6ce24b2c-0370-4e2a-bd8b-8e34e47a85f5" CreationDate="2018-06-22T07:44:52.540" UserId="63776" Text="Given that there are Computer Science Educators and Mathematics Educators communities and that this question (or similar) has been raised in the past, perhaps the creation of a Physics Educators / Science Educators / Physical Science Educators community is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="3c973f8c-a7db-4c2b-919d-db04b2d8ca5b" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:58:13.280" UserId="1325" Text="It rarely does any harm to answer a question, and you never know who else might stumble across your answer and find it interesting. There have been cases where I've written an answer to an essentially meaningless question because (a) I thought there was some interesting physics to talk about and (b) I enjoyed writing the answer - option (b) is often my main motivation :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you're going to find it gratifying to write an answer then do it and damn the torpedoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an argument that writing answers to careless and/or lazy questions just encourages them and makes the site a worse place (this is why we discourage answers to homework questions). Whether this applies to the question you plan to answer is a judgement call." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="eba4c620-f74e-4f12-a18d-99f6b4b945d6" CreationDate="2018-06-22T19:15:38.397" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with Mick, that a separate Science Educators website (your option #2) would be the best way forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would divide the community but there are already divisions in the SE family between Physics and Engineering/Electronic Engineering, Signal Processing, Computational Science, Chemistry, History of Science, Astronomy, Space Exploration, Mathematics, Statistics &amp; Data Analysis etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When new sites get established this benefits both those who ask and those who answer, enabling them to link up more efficiently. Educators will get better answers more rapidly from a site which specialises in teaching and learning methods and issues, rather than a site which focuses predominantly on explaining the concepts of physics and applying them to particular situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many SE members are active on more than one site, and it is very easy to switch between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4244/ deserves more attention than it got. @Wouter made a very good observation that even the most objective question about physics is subjective to some extent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, questions about teaching and learning methods and also book recommendations, which are currently on topic here, are generally broad and subjective. It is difficult to justify keeping them here while at the same time closing other questions as **too broad** or **primarily based on opinion** - often to a lesser extent - simply because they don't qualify for the protection of the **education** or **resource recommendations** tags.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="910f03fa-db6a-46ea-b1ea-0967a20400e4" CreationDate="2018-06-22T19:55:53.693" UserId="114696" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="I agree with Mick, that a separate Science Educators website (your option #2) would be the best way forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might divide the community but there are already divisions in the SE family between Physics and Engineering/Electronic Engineering, Signal Processing, Computational Science, History of Science, Astronomy, Space Exploration, Mathematics, Statistics &amp; Data Analysis etc. Many SE members are active on more than one site, and it is very easy to switch between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When new sites get established this enables those who ask and those who answer to link up more efficiently. Educators get better answers more rapidly from a site which specialises in teaching and learning methods and issues, rather than a site which focuses predominantly on explaining the concepts of physics and applying them to particular situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4244/ deserves more attention than it got. @Wouter made a very good observation that even the most objective question about physics is subjective to some extent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, questions about teaching and learning methods and also book recommendations, which are both currently officially on topic here, are generally broad and subjective, and it is particularly difficult to identify and specify all relevant circumstances. As dmckee notes in a comment to your Physics question, the same method applied by different teachers often has different results. And even the same teacher does not succeed in applying the same method to all students. What exactly is it that accounts for the difference? From very my limited experience I think that teaching is **an art not a science** - you succeed by accumulating a broad range of tricks and being adaptable, not being dogmatic about which is best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to justify keeping such question on this site while at the same time closing other questions as **too broad** or **primarily based on opinion** - often to a lesser extent - simply because they don't qualify for the protection of the **education** or **resource recommendations** tags.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="681007d2-962b-4859-a11a-1e86debe2aeb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T01:59:33.883" UserId="164413" Text="[A question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/is-the-force-exerted-on-the-chair-transferred-to-the-rope-that-is-pulled-on) I asked some time ago was deleted because it did not meet the standard of the Physics Stack Exchange website. I decided to revisit the question and modify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this question be reopened? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="681007d2-962b-4859-a11a-1e86debe2aeb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T01:59:33.883" UserId="164413" Text="Can my deleted question about be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="681007d2-962b-4859-a11a-1e86debe2aeb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T01:59:33.883" UserId="164413" Text="|discussion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="64009cd0-16dd-41a5-9f91-c6f2bc49753e" CreationDate="2018-06-23T03:32:37.903" UserId="124" Text="Good of you to ask about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question might be suitable for reopening, but here's why I'm a bit wary about that. Our [policy on homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) says that you need to narrow down the problem to the specific concept that is giving you trouble and ask about that. By showing your work, you've done a very good job of narrowing down the problem to the part that you get stuck on, but then you made a very unfortunate choice of wording:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not know how to proceed from this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase is, in some sense, the death knell of homework-like questions on this site. We see so many people present a homework problem and show a few steps of what they've done, but the _only_ thing they actually ask is &quot;what do I do next?&quot; or &quot;I'm not sure where to go from here&quot; or something similar. We don't handle those kinds of questions. Those are people simply looking for homework help, which is not what we do here. This has become so common that a lot of people will see a phrase like that and instinctively hit the &quot;close&quot; button. (Well, it's not technically a button, but effectively it works that way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, though, there's more to your question. You also have this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How is the 100 lbs downwards force impacting the free body diagram of the entire system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's much closer to being a specific conceptual question. Admittedly I'm not quite sure what to make of it, since I'm not sure what you mean by a &quot;force impacting the free body diagram of the entire system&quot;, but that's probably a minor wording issue that can get clarified with a small edit. (Chat will be good for that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary, I think your question might be pretty close to good but I would like to see the phrase &quot;I do not know how to proceed from this point&quot; removed, which will help make it more explicitly clear to everyone that you're asking a conceptual question about how a force affects a free body diagram (or whatever) and _not_ asking for further directions on how to solve the problem. Ordinarily I would probably just make that edit myself because it's presumably pretty minor, but since I'm already writing a meta post, I figured I would just mention it here so you can make the edit if you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="50b4c368-526e-4923-b81e-fc5e8543bc2b" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:32:30.287" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/348145/  I asked some time ago was deleted because it did not meet the standard of the Physics Stack Exchange website. I decided to revisit the question and modify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this question be reopened? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32748" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="50b4c368-526e-4923-b81e-fc5e8543bc2b" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:32:30.287" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can my deleted question be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="50b4c368-526e-4923-b81e-fc5e8543bc2b" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:32:30.287" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="4d37a070-4e22-40d8-aa43-b14fce0bc930" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:34:38.390" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="2a0e5f67-7287-42e4-808d-02ec8c12e241" CreationDate="2018-06-24T19:08:37.257" UserId="198887" Text="**None of the above.  The best approach is to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think it is very wrong to do #1 (just answer the corrected question).  #2 (closure) fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #1, #2, and #3 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #1 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #1 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #1; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #1 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer** that brings focus to any alleged issues in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="52157349-4254-4eb6-b41d-021823087edc" CreationDate="2018-06-24T19:18:48.263" UserId="198887" Comment="fixing options of q vs. alternatives" Text="**Your original approach is best; none of the three alternatives are good.  The best approach is indeed to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think it is very wrong to do #1 (just answer the corrected question).  #2 (closure) fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #1, #2, and #3 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #1 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #1 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #1; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #1 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer** that brings focus to any alleged issues in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="714033ee-43f4-4ff3-a0ab-8a9e5660dd6d" CreationDate="2018-06-24T20:15:25.687" UserId="198887" Comment="I included a new option #4 to what I originally thought was #1.  added period." Text="**Your original approach is best; the best approach is indeed to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second preliminary comment, I think option #1 needs to be split up.  Option #1 says, &quot;Answer the question as best I can, even if the answer technically does not answer the question.&quot;  A problem here is &quot;as best you can.&quot;  In most cases, I think a reader would take this to mean, fix the implied errors, and just answer the intended question.  Indeed, in this answer I will end up giving two examples where this occurred.  But, as you've pointed out in your comment, what you actually meant is to avoid &quot;fixing&quot; the question (the opposite), and to focus on the issue(s) with the question instead. In this answer, I will call your intended option #1, option #1, and the fixing option #4.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think option #1 is the correct answer.  #2 (closure) fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.  I think #4 is the probably the most common route taken on stackexchage, and I will attempt to show why it is a bad option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #2, #3, and #4 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #4 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #4 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #4; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #4 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer** (option #1) that brings focus to any alleged issues in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="5a564db4-5f4c-4a5a-9119-84ec0b1a5127" CreationDate="2018-06-24T20:22:36.447" UserId="198887" Comment="added boldening of latter part of q" Text="**The best approach is indeed to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second preliminary comment, I think option #1 needs to be split up.  Option #1 says, &quot;Answer the question as best I can, even if the answer technically does not answer the question.&quot;  A problem here is &quot;as best you can.&quot;  In most cases, I think a reader would take this to mean, fix the implied errors, and just answer the intended question.  Indeed, in this answer I will end up giving two examples where this occurred.  But, as you've pointed out in your comment, what you actually meant is to avoid &quot;fixing&quot; the question (the opposite), and to focus on the issue(s) with the question instead. In this answer, I will call your intended option #1, option #1, and the fixing option, option #4.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think option #1 is the correct answer.  #2 (closure) fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.  I think #4 is the probably the most common route taken on stackexchage, and I will attempt to show why it is a bad option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #2, #3, and #4 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #4 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #4 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #4; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #4 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer (option #1) that brings focus to any alleged issues** in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="fa8365ae-9e83-4034-bd06-2915c6fd516a" CreationDate="2018-06-24T20:52:36.003" UserId="198887" Comment="clarified diff  between #1 and #4" Text="**The best approach is indeed to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second preliminary comment, I think option #1 needs to be split up.  Option #1 says, &quot;Answer the question as best I can, even if the answer technically does not answer the question.&quot;  A problem here is &quot;as best you can.&quot;  In most cases, I think a reader would take this to mean, fix the implied errors, and just answer the intended question.  Indeed, in this answer I will end up giving two examples where this occurred.  But, as you've pointed out in your comment, what you actually meant is to avoid &quot;fixing&quot; the question (the opposite), and to focus on the issue(s) with the question instead. In this answer, I will call your intended option #1, option #1, and the fixing option, option #4.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be extra clear, these definitions mean that only option #1 is able to encompass the contentious situation that I encountered yesterday and which the asker, Javier, also apparently encountered in which an answerer submits an answer that *intentionally* refuses to try to answer a potentially intended (*i.e.*, fixed) question.  However, option #1 is not restricted to this, either.  My option #4 here is the least antagonistic option possible, for it glosses over potential issues and makes the asker look the most intelligent; all the other options #1-#3 are all largely critical of the question itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think option #1 is the correct answer.  #2 (closure) fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.  I think #4 is the probably the most common route taken on stackexchage, and I will attempt to show why it is a bad option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #2, #3, and #4 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #4 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #4 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #4; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #4 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer (option #1) that brings focus to any alleged issues** in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="d495f994-37ad-46ab-992e-e56fddc7590f" CreationDate="2018-06-24T22:03:45.933" UserId="198887" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="**The best approach is indeed to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second preliminary comment, I think option #1 needs to be split up.  Option #1 says, &quot;Answer the question as best I can, even if the answer technically does not answer the question.&quot;  A problem here is &quot;as best you can.&quot;  In most cases, I think a reader would take this to mean, fix the implied errors, and just answer the intended question.  Indeed, in this answer I will end up giving two examples where this occurred.  But, as you've pointed out in your comment, what you actually meant is to avoid &quot;fixing&quot; the question (the opposite), and to focus on the issue(s) with the question instead. In this answer, I will call your intended option #1, option #1, and the fixing option, option #4.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be extra clear, these definitions mean that only option #1 is able to encompass the contentious situation that I encountered yesterday and which the asker, Javier, also apparently encountered in which an answerer submits an answer that *intentionally* refuses to try to answer a potentially intended (*i.e.*, fixed) question.  However, option #1 is not restricted to this, either.  My option #4 here is the least antagonistic option possible, for it glosses over potential issues and makes the asker look the most intelligent; all the other options #1-#3 are all largely critical of the question itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think option #1 is the correct answer.  #2 (closure) is just censorship and it fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.  I think #4 is the probably the most common route taken on stackexchage, and I will attempt to show why it is a bad option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #2, #3, and #4 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #4 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #4 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #4; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #4 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer (option #1) that brings focus to any alleged issues** in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="b760594e-4c7f-410b-b239-c5c93c16ec7f" CreationDate="2018-06-25T17:17:56.127" UserId="198887" Comment="added sentence about jeff atwood" Text="**The best approach is indeed to submit an answer that pays special and enhanced focus to the alleged error.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a preliminary comment, I think that this question is probably a general stack exchange meta question, not a question specific to physics.meta.stackexchange.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second preliminary comment, I think option #1 needs to be split up.  Option #1 says, &quot;Answer the question as best I can, even if the answer technically does not answer the question.&quot;  A problem here is &quot;as best you can.&quot;  In most cases, I think a reader would take this to mean, fix the implied errors, and just answer the intended question.  Indeed, in this answer I will end up giving two examples where this occurred.  But, as you've pointed out in your comment, what you actually meant is to avoid &quot;fixing&quot; the question (the opposite), and to focus on the issue(s) with the question instead. In this answer, I will call your intended option #1, option #1, and the fixing option, option #4.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be extra clear, these definitions mean that only option #1 is able to encompass the contentious situation that I encountered yesterday and which the asker, Javier, also apparently encountered in which an answerer submits an answer that *intentionally* refuses to try to answer a potentially intended (*i.e.*, fixed) question.  However, option #1 is not restricted to this, either.  My option #4 here is the least antagonistic option possible, for it glosses over potential issues and makes the asker look the most intelligent; all the other options #1-#3 are all largely critical of the question itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I will soon give, I think option #1 is the correct answer.  #2 (closure) is just censorship and it fails to help the poster with their real roadblocks in knowledge.  It is worth noting that closure, originally thought of as a great idea for these sites, was arguably the main thing the founder reversed when he left to to found Discourse.  The raw point system is, itself, already a strong mechanism to prevent worthless clutter.  #3 (a short comment) is horrible because it suggests that the alleged issues are trivial when they rarely are.  I think #4 is the probably the most common route taken on stackexchage, and I will attempt to show why it is a bad option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help think about which approach is best, let us consider the ideal, perfect, learning situation.  Then, let's pretend a writer here wants to get as close as possible to this idealized learning situation.  Then, let's consider how to handle a bad question.  Usually, these are questions which assume something that a potential answerer disagrees with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be hard to dispute that a close-to-ideal learning situation is a tutee learning with a tutor who is knowledgeable in the subject being taught.  One reason is that it is generally thought that a low student-to-teacher ratio is good, and this has about the lowest ratio that is still realistic.  The question at hand, therefore, can probably be narrowed to, &quot;How should an ideal tutor handle a tutee asking an allegedly wrong question?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any doubt, in this situation the ideal tutor *would not* just internally correct the question and continue onward. Rather, the ideal tutor would put a spotlight on the implied alleged error of the question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is that knowledge of a subject, especially one like physics, is like a pyramid.  In this analogy, learning is like building this pyramid of knowledge in a tutee's mind.  A good tutor will try to make a good, strong, pyramid as efficiently as possible.  The middle and upper layers of the knowledge pyramid require a good foundation of math, simpler physics, etc.  Only once a solid foundation is in place should a tutor move the tutee up to the next brick level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in building an upper layer, an allegedly bad brick is discovered, then all attention should be directed just to the allegedly bad brick below.  Otherwise, the tutee will not have an ability to self-re-derive the layer the tutor is working on correctly.  They might be able to memorize solutions to specific cases, but they will fail as soon as they are faced with an altered scenario, because this is when they will need support from that allegedly bad brick.  The upper layer being built will be made of weak material, and tainted by potentially false knowledge.  It will probably just fall apart in the student's mind after an arrogant tutor tricks oneself  into thinking they've successfully built the upper layer and can now go even higher.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my analogy, what such an arrogant tutor (or physicist for that matter) would really be doing is building a jenga tower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![jenga tower][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire structure of knowledge will just crumble and fall apart as the student, once faced with, for example, a test question they didn't exactly see before, realizes they don't actually understand much of anything about the subject, and that, for example, they are going to get an F on the exam they are taking.  The worst time for them to discover they have no real idea what is going on is during an exam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few approaches to fixing an allegedly bad brick revealed by an allegedly bad question. If it were me, I would probably say, &quot;Wait a second.  Let's back up a little.  Your question was $x$.  Are there any interesting assumptions you are making here? ... Can you show me how we got this?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going.  I would want the student to eventually discover own their own that there is an error in their question.  Alternatively, there is the possiblity that I'm wrong, in which case I will discover that I am the one making the error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a good tutor might instead just directly point out the alleged error.  Each approach will focus on the allegedly weak brick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the spotlight on the issue, I'd have the student do some problems about that &quot;bad&quot; brick that prove and demonstrate that the deficit in the question was fully and completely resolved.  Only then would I allow the question originally asked to be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, there is the real possibility that the allegedly bad implied assumption is actually correct.  (This is why I am, arguably irritatingly, insisting on injecting the &quot;weasel word&quot;  *allegedly* throughout my answer.)  Here we can really see why #2, #3, and #4 are horrible answers.  By not directing the spotlight to the correct areas, potentially wrong assumptions can then persist in the ecosystem of potentially true and potentially false knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example to illustrate my position are the questions and answers here concerning understanding resistance and Ohm's Law.  The situation with Ohm's Law is that a lot of engineers need to use this law.  However, to derive it from first principles, getting the correct conductivity coefficients from basic things like atomic properties, could be rather complicated.  I don't think it really requires quantum molecular dynamic simulations of finite temperature density functional theory, but this is the implication I gave [here][3] in response to someone claiming the law is impossible to derive theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this would be over the head of your typical electrical engineer, so my guess is that a lot of textbooks resort to the Drude model in attempting to explain Ohm's law in which the electrons and atoms are treated like a bunch of billiard balls.  The alleged benefit might be that this is easier to teach and give problems on.  Within metals, due to the effects of quantum mechanics and the relatively low energies of the electrons, in my opinion the electrons *should not* generally be treated in this fashion.  That is to say, some of the educational models being used are, essentially, not even worthless, but of negative value, getting in the way of real progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can see where I am going with this.  If not, I think what is happening is that teachers are teaching bad models.  This perhaps results in their students having a lot of questions.  Their questions often have implied alleged errors in them, because the students are genuinely and rightfully confused.  I think that the real problem is probably that the teachers are not teaching physics accurately.  This trickles down into confusion in the students, who come here, hoping to resolve their problem. Some of the poorly instructed students end up here, thus exacerbating the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am arguing that the worst thing possible is that the accepted answers pertaining to issues with the Drude model are glossed over here (the #4 approach).  Stackexchange then just worsens the underlying problems here, arrogantly suggesting the issues a student is having is their fault instead of the teacher's.  It would foster people thinking they know what is going on when they really don't, perpetuating bogus physics and disinformation, stifling creativity and progress.  That is not ideal for stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the currently-accepted [answer][4] to &quot;Can someone in a simple way explain [to] me what the Fermi level is and what [it has] to do with conductivity[?]  My teacher said that Cu conducts electric current better than Al because of something in relation to [the] Fermi level[.] I didn't get him very well, so please explain [to] me what it is all about, but in a simple way.&quot;  I think that the currently-accepted answer [has serious problems][5], largely because what is probably the best answer, [involving Kubo's formalism][6], is complex and not that simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example underscores the dangers of glossing over issues in questions.  Doing that allows people to think they understand how something like conductivity works, [when they probably don't][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not some bizarre example, either.  Can you estimate the fraction of physics papers that convert into Nobel prizes?  A hint is that there is only one prize award per year, but the number of papers published each year is growing rapidly.  Most papers are loaded with what history will prove to be bad, implied, and  ignored assumptions.  This is largely because people want to be nice and to not criticize, something that [isn't always ideal][8]. They gloss over these more important questions, such as the assumptions being made, allowing a train of false knowledge to pollute and weaken the knowledge pyramid.  I think that the progress of correct physics would be greatly increased if people were willing to question their assumptions in a free and direct fashion.  This requires putting the spotlight onto the truly important issues.  Here, that requires a separate answer largely focusing on that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially true because the implied assumptions of a question that an answerer thinks are wrong might actually be legitimate.  In other words, the answerer might be wrong.  Sometimes, an outsider or a bright eyed, bushy tailed wondering student is the first person to discover that an entire branch of alleged knowledge is actually wrong, and needs a full rework.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the arguably simple question about how much work is required to raise the temperature of water some amount.  You probably are thinking this is about the dumbest, simplest question one could ever ask.  I attempted to answer it [here][9].   However, I soon changed my answer, and concluded that my original answer was wrong.  It turns out that the questioner was probably asking the question because they didn't think the energy got converted into heat.  So, the issue where I thought the asker was wrong about, and the #4 approach as defined by question (which says we should just gloss over this), was probably the dispositive, deciding aspect of it; the part of the question that I thought was wrong, I now think was actually mostly right.  By comparison, [the non-accepted answer][10] does #4; it glosses over the issue, and blindly assumes all energy is converted into heat, which I now think (like the questioner) is wrong.  This illustrates how the #4 approach is probably bad--it can lead to bad physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one ever allow an important discovery to be made if it is hushed up by [an arrogant comment][11] or by [conclusary reasoning][12]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, by reverse logic, if one wanted to impede the progress of awareness of reality, or what was going on, one would intentionally ignore key issues with questions and use conclusory arguments.  At the risk of committing the felony here of using an example from outside of physics, have you ever wondered why a lot of politicians often morph questions away from the literal topic and onto another with a phrase like, &quot;The real question is...&quot;  This is exactly #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focusing on arguably trivial issues of a question allows for a stronger knowledge pyramid in a tutee's mind.  It requires being somewhat irritating, pedantic, and taking a more literal approach in which all parts of the actual question are taken seriously.  Keeping within Ohm's Law, a good example of what I mean here to this &quot;literal&quot; approach to answering questions (*i.e.*, not quietly fixing them) is my answer complimenting Thomas' answer [here][13].  (I think Thomas glossed over the Maxwell's equations restriction in the answer.)  I think that glossing over issues (like this) can create ambiguity in the questioner's mind about the real answer to their real question.  Most good students will get hung up on that issue.  The teacher will plow onward, but the student won't take it in, and it will be a waste of time.  Allowing such ambiguity is building a weak pyramid of knowledge, and against the goals of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary,** not only because it is in the best interest to the questioner, but also because it is in the best interest to the field of physics, **the best approach** to an allegedly bad question is probably to have a tutee focus on the alleged issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting from the tutor-tutee scenario I have invoked to the web-based system here on this site, I think this **entails writing a full-fledged answer (option #1) that brings focus to any alleged issues** in a question, not in an *x*-character comment (#3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s5YPv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mIzK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/derivation-of-ohms-law/413329#comment926305_40908&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103082&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413242&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/40917&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413234&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://twitter.com/jasontaylor7/status/727726740689309700&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413132&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413167&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&amp;nord=1&amp;gbv=2&amp;ei=r9EvW-vQEovNjwS4s6-YBg&amp;q=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;oq=spin%20electron%20%22it%20is%20indeed%20very%20clever%20but%20of%20course%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20reality%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...15100.17101.0.18976.14.14.0.0.0.0.150.1268.10j3.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.0.0....0.whBz9-mLqe8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wfpw1x9VIIEC&amp;lpg=PT154&amp;ots=h7cTBnuBM1&amp;dq=%22conclusory%20arguments%22&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22what%20is%20a%20conclusory%20argument%20a%20legal%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/413329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="07c59361-14a1-4281-a535-23a76e169582" CreationDate="2018-06-25T23:11:03.467" UserId="4888" Text="If I find an edit which caused more harm than help by a new user, and which was subsequently approved, is there any action I should take, in addition to fixing the edit? (And in this case, should I just fix the edit, or first rollback and then fix?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="07c59361-14a1-4281-a535-23a76e169582" CreationDate="2018-06-25T23:11:03.467" UserId="4888" Text="Harmful edits: which action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="07c59361-14a1-4281-a535-23a76e169582" CreationDate="2018-06-25T23:11:03.467" UserId="4888" Text="|support|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="5ba1dbc3-4663-4da9-8d7e-fab0a358ecbd" CreationDate="2018-06-26T00:15:18.910" UserId="84967" Text="If it is a one-time thing, just fix it however you like – roll-it-back first or don't, whatever float your boat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the edit was too drastic, it is usually easier to roll-it-back first. This changes the status of the edit from &quot;approved&quot; to &quot;rejected&quot;, and the editor loses their +2 rep. points – hardly relevant but it sends a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the edit was minor, and rolling-it-back and editing it again feels like a waste of time, go ahead and fix it directly, skipping the rolling-it-back step. The editor gets to keep the +2 rep. points, but no big deal if the edit was in good faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you feel the editor is systematically suggesting poor edits, or that a particular reviewer is systematically approving poor edits, then it's best to talk to the perpetrator directly. Just ping them in the comment section – they'll get notified. Let them know that their behaviour is unacceptable, etc. If possible, let a moderator know, either by raising a flag or in the chatroom. They will not do anything in particular, unless the case is specially serious, but it won't hurt to keep them in the loop anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32770" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="c9b0d686-5ad3-4f9e-8061-eb95ec396dee" CreationDate="2018-06-26T17:46:07.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1011666933228417025" />
  <row Id="32771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="c166b84e-634b-4177-bc3b-cf94acc874b5" CreationDate="2018-06-28T13:39:11.880" UserId="198084" Text="Do mods have to follow a hard set of rules, or can they take down anything that they consider inappropriate? Can they take down questions or comments that are relevant to the community just because they don't like them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="c166b84e-634b-4177-bc3b-cf94acc874b5" CreationDate="2018-06-28T13:39:11.880" UserId="198084" Text="Can moderators take down comments that are not breaking any rules just because they don't like the comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="c166b84e-634b-4177-bc3b-cf94acc874b5" CreationDate="2018-06-28T13:39:11.880" UserId="198084" Text="|discussion|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="c7a1ef84-40bf-4bf0-8391-2d8d49a046e0" CreationDate="2018-06-28T13:43:30.447" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="64ec31cf-95fd-4a7b-b5e2-4cb652ccd40a" CreationDate="2018-06-28T15:43:32.723" UserId="520" Text="The comment in question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ball is made out of an elastic material, when you hit the ball you compress it so it acts like a spring. When the ball is moving towards you, that kinetic energy helps you to compress the ball even more, and then the energy of that compressed ball is released it flies even further. – user3408085 yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is not an attempt to improve the answer which—despite the wide variety of comment left every day—we all remember is the only official use-case for comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your answer to be safe from arbitrary deletion then **put it in a answer-post**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="baefbc57-de91-4dda-8f7d-c6552f6fb2a5" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:49:58.213" UserId="124" Text="To answer your question in general: mostly no, there is not a hard set of rules that we have to follow when it comes to deleting posts. Here I'm taking &quot;hard set of rules&quot; to mean rules that, if broken, would result in disciplinary action against the moderator.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; There are a lot of &quot;soft&quot; rules though - by that I mean there are guidelines which we are expected to use to guide our actions. These guidelines come from a combination of the [help center](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help), this meta site, the [&quot;mother meta&quot; site](https://meta.stackexchange.com), and conversations with other site members, with other moderators, and with the Stack Exchange community team.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to deletion of posts, there are really three cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deletion of comments is pretty free, once it seems they have served their purpose. As mentioned on [the help center page about the commenting privilege](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment), comments are meant for requesting clarification, suggesting improvement, and adding other minor/transient information. All of these are inherently temporary purposes, and the comments are prone to be deleted once they've been seen and acted on (or declined to be acted on), or if they've been sitting around for a few weeks. We also aggressively delete comments which don't do one of these things, especially those which fall under the list of things you _shouldn't_ do in comments on the same privileges page I linked.&#xD;&#xA;- Deletion of answers is more rare. In general, moderators don't delete answers without a specific reason to do so, such as that the answer didn't actually answer the question, or that it was spam. We have [a page in the help center about deleting answers](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers) that lists the most common reasons an answer might be deleted; it's _very_ unusual that an answer is deleted for a reason which isn't on that list.&#xD;&#xA;- Deletion of questions is something we actively try to avoid, because deleting a question takes all its answers with it. Some questions get deleted because they are particularly low quality, but that happens automatically, and we (moderators) have found that if we think a question is not worth keeping around, it _usually_ gets taken care of by that automatic process. We have [a page in the help center about deleting questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-questions) as well which lists some reasons why a question could be deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The [moderator agreement](https://physics.stackexchange.com/legal/moderator-agreement) is an example of a hard set of rules in this sense, but it says nothing about when posts can be deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="127d2637-42da-4865-8c03-a661b09703c6" CreationDate="2018-06-30T13:48:29.453" UserId="36793" Text="In a comment, I want to write the title of a question (to point out that it's a duplicate or related stuff) instead of &quot;pasting&quot; its URL. How can I do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="127d2637-42da-4865-8c03-a661b09703c6" CreationDate="2018-06-30T13:48:29.453" UserId="36793" Text="As a link in a comment how to mention the title of a question instead of its URL?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="127d2637-42da-4865-8c03-a661b09703c6" CreationDate="2018-06-30T13:48:29.453" UserId="36793" Text="|bug|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="53ae4bbe-7109-4f3b-9259-ff5b6dbff47f" CreationDate="2018-06-30T13:53:46.060" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="563a0e82-dcc1-4f7a-9688-931b429a6bbd" CreationDate="2018-06-30T15:32:20.227" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="259528a8-c52d-462a-8d89-51ddca731af2" CreationDate="2018-07-01T05:37:25.953" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I'm answering so that we can keep an easy copy here as a quick reference, but it's actually there in Qmechanic's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments use a simplified version of markdown. To include links, use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [As a link in a comment how to mention the title of a question instead of its URL?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10699/as-a-link-in-a-comment-how-to-mention-the-title-of-a-question-instead-of-its-url)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text which is expected to appear finally should be in square brackets, and the URL immediately follows that in normal brackets. You can't end the stuff inside the square brackets with a space, and you need to include the full URL: 'https://' and all. Note that this works in normal answers and questions as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="f43b770e-a3f5-42e5-879d-cd481d020028" CreationDate="2018-07-01T16:30:09.863" UserId="36793" Text="I asked the question [Criterion for a Feynman loop diagram to give a finite value](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297452/criterion-for-a-feynman-loop-diagram-to-give-a-finite-value) long back. Though it wasn't poorly received, I did not get an answer yet. What can I do to improve the question? Of course, I can offer a bounty but many times it has happened that I didn't get any answer even then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="f43b770e-a3f5-42e5-879d-cd481d020028" CreationDate="2018-07-01T16:30:09.863" UserId="36793" Text="Not poorly received but still no answer: What can be done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="f43b770e-a3f5-42e5-879d-cd481d020028" CreationDate="2018-07-01T16:30:09.863" UserId="36793" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="f2aebb53-fbc6-4453-a151-ad403d3d17b3" CreationDate="2018-07-01T16:57:00.597" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I asked the question [Criterion for a Feynman loop diagram to give a finite value](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/297452/) long back. Though it wasn't poorly received, I did not get an answer yet. What can I do to improve the question? Of course, I can offer a bounty but many times it has happened that I didn't get any answer even then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32794" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="f2aebb53-fbc6-4453-a151-ad403d3d17b3" CreationDate="2018-07-01T16:57:00.597" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32795" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="a050ce6b-c96d-4a9d-a585-45a3a5eb7d97" CreationDate="2018-07-01T16:59:13.690" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|accepted-answer|unanswered-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="29346588-5611-4042-a744-c3c0c391e7ed" CreationDate="2018-07-01T17:02:58.933" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="7be8f28b-8f9e-4a5f-adca-adf274421b58" CreationDate="2018-07-02T14:57:26.400" UserId="40443" Text="I will add that the site [Bookmarklets for Stack Exchange](https://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/) contains several useful bookmarklets. The one called &quot;Formatted link to a webpage&quot; is useful exactly for situation like this - if you want quickly get a link to the current page formatted in the `[text](url)` format which is suitable both for comments and for posts on Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I use it on this question I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232)` If I use if after I clicked on a link to this answer, I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702)`. Both links are correctly rendered in posts/comments [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232) and [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case the linked website is no longer working, here is the source of the bookmarklet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    t=window.getSelection().toString();&#xD;&#xA;    if (!t &amp;&amp; document.querySelector('h1')) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.querySelector('h1').textContent.replace(/ \[closed\]| \[on hold\]| \[duplicate\]/g,'').trim();&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    else if (!t) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.title.split('-')[0].trim(); &#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    u=window.location.href;&#xD;&#xA;    if (typeof StackExchange!=='undefined' &amp;&amp; u.indexOf('area51')==-1 &amp;&amp; /^[qa]/.test(u.split('/')[3])) {&#xD;&#xA;      u=window.location.protocol+'//'+window.location.hostname+'/q/'+window.location.pathname.split('/')[2]+window.location.hash;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    window.prompt('Copy to Clipboard','['+t+']('+u+')');" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="b06d95d1-9e37-4fb1-9537-4e541e89a511" CreationDate="2018-07-02T15:04:26.767" UserId="40443" Comment="added 808 characters in body" Text="I will add that the site [Bookmarklets for Stack Exchange](https://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/) contains several useful bookmarklets. The one called &quot;Formatted link to a webpage&quot; is useful exactly for situation like this - if you want quickly get a link to the current page formatted in the `[text](url)` format which is suitable both for comments and for posts on Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I use it on this question I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232)` If I use if after I clicked on a link to this answer, I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702)`. Both links are correctly rendered in posts/comments [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232) and [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case the linked website is no longer working, here is the source of the bookmarklet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    t=window.getSelection().toString();&#xD;&#xA;    if (!t &amp;&amp; document.querySelector('h1')) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.querySelector('h1').textContent.replace(/ \[closed\]| \[on hold\]| \[duplicate\]/g,'').trim();&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    else if (!t) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.title.split('-')[0].trim(); &#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    u=window.location.href;&#xD;&#xA;    if (typeof StackExchange!=='undefined' &amp;&amp; u.indexOf('area51')==-1 &amp;&amp; /^[qa]/.test(u.split('/')[3])) {&#xD;&#xA;      u=window.location.protocol+'//'+window.location.hostname+'/q/'+window.location.pathname.split('/')[2]+window.location.hash;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    window.prompt('Copy to Clipboard','['+t+']('+u+')');&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could directly edit the bookmark using this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`javascript:(function()%7Bt%3Dwindow.getSelection().toString()%3Bif%20(!t%20%26%26%20document.querySelector('h1'))%20%7Bt%3Ddocument.querySelector('h1').textContent.replace(%2F%20%5C%5Bclosed%5C%5D%7C%20%5C%5Bon%20hold%5C%5D%7C%20%5C%5Bduplicate%5C%5D%2Fg%2C'').trim()%3B%7Delse%20if%20(!t)%20%7Bt%3Ddocument.title.split('-')%5B0%5D.trim()%3B%7Du%3Dwindow.location.href%3Bif%20(typeof%20StackExchange!%3D%3D'undefined'%20%26%26%20u.indexOf('area51')%3D%3D-1%20%26%26%20%2F%5E%5Bqa%5D%2F.test(u.split('%2F')%5B3%5D))%20%7Bu%3Dwindow.location.protocol%2B'%2F%2F'%2Bwindow.location.hostname%2B'%2Fq%2F'%2Bwindow.location.pathname.split('%2F')%5B2%5D%2Bwindow.location.hash%3B%7Dwindow.prompt('Copy%20to%20Clipboard'%2C'%5B'%2Bt%2B'%5D('%2Bu%2B')')%7D)()`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="5723f198-d4fb-4d41-9f9d-5087cb233adc" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:20:01.060" UserId="40443" Comment="There is source code, so the encoded version is probably not needed." Text="I will add that the site [Bookmarklets for Stack Exchange](https://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/) contains several useful bookmarklets. The one called &quot;Formatted link to a webpage&quot; is useful exactly for situation like this - if you want quickly get a link to the current page formatted in the `[text](url)` format which is suitable both for comments and for posts on Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I use it on this question I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232)` If I use if after I clicked on a link to this answer, I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702)`. Both links are correctly rendered in posts/comments [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232) and [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case the linked website is no longer working, here is the source of the bookmarklet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    t=window.getSelection().toString();&#xD;&#xA;    if (!t &amp;&amp; document.querySelector('h1')) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.querySelector('h1').textContent.replace(/ \[closed\]| \[on hold\]| \[duplicate\]/g,'').trim();&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    else if (!t) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.title.split('-')[0].trim(); &#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    u=window.location.href;&#xD;&#xA;    if (typeof StackExchange!=='undefined' &amp;&amp; u.indexOf('area51')==-1 &amp;&amp; /^[qa]/.test(u.split('/')[3])) {&#xD;&#xA;      u=window.location.protocol+'//'+window.location.hostname+'/q/'+window.location.pathname.split('/')[2]+window.location.hash;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    window.prompt('Copy to Clipboard','['+t+']('+u+')');&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="3f78af33-75d1-4f20-af79-50451f59d1d1" CreationDate="2018-07-03T01:38:45.423" UserId="41634" Text="One can use the [Stack Overflow Extra][1] add-on for this. It is a userscript that has a lot of features and tweaks for Stack Exchange. Highly recommended.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackapps.com/q/6091" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="44d28e5c-09ac-432c-aa68-a29add44af8b" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:27:25.340" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="What's a good ratio for $\frac{\text{Number of declined + disputed flags}}{\text{(Number of flags raised) - (Number retracted)}}$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an approximate... 1:50, 1:75, 1:100 or something rough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to judge whether or not I'm generating too many unnecessary flags or if I'm being excessively cautious about what I flag. But hopefully this can extend to the whole community so people can place how 'good' they are at flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Include close votes as helpful/bad flags for the applicable reason, if you believe it's acceptable to do so: I don't know too much about how close votes and the corresponding reviews work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that it's not going to be very effective as an overall metric because for example, I've had 0 off-topic flags declined/disputed in about 150-170, but a noticeable fraction of VLQ flags disputed. So this measure really conceals extremely important nuances... But it's reasonable as a rough estimate and can tell someone if there's a _huge_ problem. Technically, a simple modification of the formula can be applied to judge each flag type, i.e. I can use the formula on just the NAA flags I've raised, and then again separately for off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="44d28e5c-09ac-432c-aa68-a29add44af8b" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:27:25.340" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Is a good 'accepted flag ratio' defined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="44d28e5c-09ac-432c-aa68-a29add44af8b" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:27:25.340" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="92b4a198-9c86-44d6-aad1-146f98c2683e" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:33:11.080" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="What's a good ratio for $\frac{\text{Number of declined + disputed flags}}{\text{(Number of flags raised) - (Number retracted)}}$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an approximate... 1:50, 1:75, 1:100 or something rough. It obviously will only be even a little significant when you're considering a large number of flags (maybe &gt;80).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to judge whether or not I'm generating too many unnecessary flags or if I'm being excessively cautious about what I flag. But hopefully this can extend to the whole community so people can place how 'good' they are at flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Include close votes as helpful/bad flags for the applicable reason, if you believe it's acceptable to do so: I don't know too much about how close votes and the corresponding reviews work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that it's not going to be very effective as an overall metric because for example, I've had 0 off-topic flags declined/disputed in about 150-170, but a noticeable fraction of VLQ flags disputed. So this measure really conceals extremely important nuances... But it's reasonable as a rough estimate and can tell someone if there's a _huge_ problem. Technically, a simple modification of the formula can be applied to judge each flag type, i.e. I can use the formula on just the NAA flags I've raised, and then again separately for off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="c1d07ff8-1abf-4797-b401-700a4511e144" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:43:29.127" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="What's a good ratio for $\frac{\text{Number of declined + disputed flags}}{\text{(Number of flags raised) - (Number retracted)}}$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an approximate... 1:50, 1:75, 1:100 or something rough. It obviously will only be even a little significant when you're considering a large number of flags (maybe &gt;80).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to judge whether or not I'm generating too many unnecessary flags. But hopefully this can extend to the whole community so people can place how 'good' they are at flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Include close votes as helpful/bad flags for the applicable reason, if you believe it's acceptable to do so: I don't know too much about how close votes and the corresponding reviews work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that it's not going to be very effective as an overall metric because for example, I've had 0 off-topic flags declined/disputed in about 150-170, but a noticeable fraction of VLQ flags disputed. Additionally, most of the disputed flags I raised were during my first couple of days of active flagging, but very few are recent, so the ratio neglects historical issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this measure really conceals extremely important nuances... But it's reasonable as a rough estimate and can tell someone if there's a _huge_ problem. Technically, a simple modification of the formula can be applied to judge each flag type, i.e. I can use the formula on just the NAA flags I've raised, and then again separately for off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="c7784b78-3ba7-4048-89af-5a69117602b0" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:49:17.460" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="What's a good ratio for $\frac{\text{Number of declined + disputed flags}}{\text{(Number of flags raised) - (Number retracted)}}$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an approximate... 1:50, 1:75, 1:100 or something rough. It obviously will only be even a little significant when you're considering a large number of flags (maybe &gt;80).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to judge whether or not I'm generating too many unnecessary flags. But hopefully this can extend to the whole community so people can place how 'good' they are at flagging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Include close votes as helpful/bad flags for the applicable reason, if you believe it's acceptable to do so: I don't know too much about how close votes and the corresponding reviews work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that it's not going to be very effective as an overall metric because for example, I've had 0 off-topic flags declined/disputed in about 150-170, but a noticeable fraction of VLQ flags disputed. Additionally, most of the disputed flags I raised were during my first couple of days of active flagging, but very few are recent, so the ratio neglects historical issues. It also doesn't show if you've been getting flags declined because you're flagging stuff that shouldn't be flagged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this measure really conceals extremely important nuances... But it's reasonable as a rough estimate and can tell someone if there's a _huge_ problem. Technically, a simple modification of the formula can be applied to judge each flag type, i.e. I can use the formula on just the NAA flags I've raised, and then again separately for off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="1efdbf8d-c79a-47fa-ac29-2942b29fdeac" CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:16:55.967" UserId="8563" Text="So, story time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once upon a time, it used to be that Stack Exchange had this thing called [&quot;flag weight&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=flag+weight), which was basically pretty much the very metric you're interested in, and which was shown to moderators (when they dealt with your flags) as well as publicly (because... reasons?). To put it mildly, it was, um, contentious: people started really caring about it and it skewed the system in all sorts of unpredicted ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Basically, every time you put a number next to someone's name online, you create an incentive for them to maximize it (or minimize it or whatever); it's just how humans work. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the incentives do, but the design needs to put the stuff that does good and *not* show the stuff that doesn't.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yeah, flag weight died, and it got completely banished as a metric. Instead, we got a nice dashboard giving us a good in-depth look at our flagging histories, and everyone was happier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the moral here? Well, for one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **do not worry about individual rejected or declined flags.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously. They're not worth it. What *should* you worry about? Two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Moderator messages telling you that you should change a specific flagging behaviour.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A pattern of declined / rejected flags that takes up a significant fraction of your flagging history where all of the flags share rather similar characteristics and were declined / rejected for similar reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absent either of those, seriously (and I know it's hard to drop it), it's not worth it. Flags are there to bring attention-worthy items to the attention of people who can take actions about them, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the Very Low Quality queue where random nonsense can be sent packing,&#xD;&#xA; - the Close and Reopen queues where community consensus can be built up for closure or reopening,&#xD;&#xA; - moderator reviews of rude or abusive comments or spam,&#xD;&#xA; - direct removal of abusive comments and spam once enough users flag them, and&#xD;&#xA; - moderator action on anything requiring detailed attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there's nothing there that actually *does* anything, beyond the removal of flagrant spam and abuse if *six* independent users flag it as such (if I remember the threshold correctly). And, as such, the negative consequences of a few flags going wrong here or there are pretty minimal. If it's a pattern it does need to be fixed, but beyond that, don't worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="6f3f6855-2248-4a6a-8db8-4665ace34c00" CreationDate="2018-07-03T16:30:10.923" UserId="8563" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="So, story time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once upon a time, it used to be that Stack Exchange had this thing called [&quot;flag weight&quot;](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=flag+weight), which was basically pretty much the very metric you're interested in, and which was shown to moderators (when they dealt with your flags) as well as publicly (because... reasons?). To put it mildly, it was, um, contentious: people started really caring about it and it skewed the system in all sorts of unpredicted ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Basically, every time you put a number next to someone's name online, you create an incentive for them to maximize it (or minimize it or whatever); it's just how humans work. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the incentives do, but the design needs to put the stuff that does good and *not* show the stuff that doesn't.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yeah, flag weight died, and it got completely banished as a metric. Instead, we got a nice dashboard giving us a good in-depth look at our flagging histories, and everyone was happier. (To be clear, *some* flag information is still public, notably the total number of helpful flags, but no amount of declined or rejected flags will cause any change in public-facing information.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the moral here? Well, for one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **do not worry about individual rejected or declined flags.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously. They're not worth it. What *should* you worry about? Two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Moderator messages telling you that you should change a specific flagging behaviour.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A pattern of declined / rejected flags that takes up a significant fraction of your flagging history where all of the flags share rather similar characteristics and were declined / rejected for similar reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absent either of those, seriously (and I know it's hard to drop it), it's not worth it. Flags are there to bring attention-worthy items to the attention of people who can take actions about them, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the Very Low Quality queue where random nonsense can be sent packing,&#xD;&#xA; - the Close and Reopen queues where community consensus can be built up for closure or reopening,&#xD;&#xA; - moderator reviews of rude or abusive comments or spam,&#xD;&#xA; - direct removal of abusive comments and spam once enough users flag them, and&#xD;&#xA; - moderator action on anything requiring detailed attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there's nothing there that actually *does* anything, beyond the removal of flagrant spam and abuse if *six* independent users flag it as such (if I remember the threshold correctly). And, as such, the negative consequences of a few flags going wrong here or there are pretty minimal. If it's a pattern it does need to be fixed, but beyond that, don't worry about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="ca20655e-6814-4aa8-9fdc-515ded07d720" CreationDate="2018-07-03T19:43:39.813" UserId="124" Text="I agree with [what Emilio said](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10705/124), but just to put some numbers on it: if you're concerned about that ratio dropping below 1/50, you worry too much ;-) It can safely be higher than that. Much higher. Actually, the ratio doesn't matter at all, as far as I'm concerned. Even if your ratio is somehow greater than 1 but the flags you're getting declined are for sensible reasons (i.e. not the same stuff you've had declined before), that's not something I would consider to be a problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="3ed61f27-46e9-4620-874c-a0a95f3e4447" CreationDate="2018-07-05T10:34:00.180" UserId="40443" Comment="added Internet Archive link" Text="I will add that the site [Bookmarklets for Stack Exchange](https://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/) contains several useful bookmarklets. The one called &quot;Formatted link to a webpage&quot; is useful exactly for situation like this - if you want quickly get a link to the current page formatted in the `[text](url)` format which is suitable both for comments and for posts on Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I use it on this question I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232)` If I use if after I clicked on a link to this answer, I get: `[Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702)`. Both links are correctly rendered in posts/comments [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232) and [Use this userscript when you share a link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7232#10702).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case the linked website stops working at some point in the future, here is the source of the bookmarklet and also [Internet Archive link](http://web.archive.org/web/20180705103212/https://normalhuman.github.io/stackmarklets/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    t=window.getSelection().toString();&#xD;&#xA;    if (!t &amp;&amp; document.querySelector('h1')) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.querySelector('h1').textContent.replace(/ \[closed\]| \[on hold\]| \[duplicate\]/g,'').trim();&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    else if (!t) {&#xD;&#xA;      t=document.title.split('-')[0].trim(); &#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    u=window.location.href;&#xD;&#xA;    if (typeof StackExchange!=='undefined' &amp;&amp; u.indexOf('area51')==-1 &amp;&amp; /^[qa]/.test(u.split('/')[3])) {&#xD;&#xA;      u=window.location.protocol+'//'+window.location.hostname+'/q/'+window.location.pathname.split('/')[2]+window.location.hash;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    window.prompt('Copy to Clipboard','['+t+']('+u+')');&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="3730d824-af5a-4971-a484-c5b98f388e2f" CreationDate="2018-07-06T04:47:17.867" UserId="175857" Text="In this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69222/how-can-i-put-a-permanent-current-into-a-superconducting-loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is only one link at the bottom of the only answer. Can I ask the answerer to fix the link? How?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="3730d824-af5a-4971-a484-c5b98f388e2f" CreationDate="2018-07-06T04:47:17.867" UserId="175857" Text="Can I ask an answerer to Fix a broken link in their post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="3730d824-af5a-4971-a484-c5b98f388e2f" CreationDate="2018-07-06T04:47:17.867" UserId="175857" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="4ee0f5b2-0c22-4320-b08a-d0d93a542598" CreationDate="2018-07-06T04:57:51.083" UserId="44126" Text="After you have earned a little more reputation, [you'll earn the privilege of being able to comment on other people's posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/user/175857),&#xD;&#xA;which is the usual way to make this sort of request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the present, I've left a comment on your behalf." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="aee36a12-4cfd-4e7e-9c55-1cf44f7cf820" CreationDate="2018-07-06T06:02:57.423" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69222/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is only one link at the bottom of the only answer. Can I ask the answerer to fix the link? How?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="aee36a12-4cfd-4e7e-9c55-1cf44f7cf820" CreationDate="2018-07-06T06:02:57.423" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|editing|comments|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="ccdc7d83-a13b-4698-953b-1442d75a75cf" CreationDate="2018-07-06T20:42:04.257" UserId="44126" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="If you know what the repaired link should be, you can [suggest an edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing) with the correct link.&#xD;&#xA;However, that's not so helpful in this case, where the address of the broken link doesn't reveal very much about its intended destination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After you have earned a little more reputation, [you'll earn the privilege of being able to comment on other people's posts](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/user/175857),&#xD;&#xA;which is the usual way to make this sort of request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the present, I've left a comment on your behalf." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="4fbc3c55-7884-428b-9518-8b1e696c3eed" CreationDate="2018-07-07T04:46:57.897" UserId="1492" Text="I just [discovered there is a floating][1] ( no description) &quot;elementary-particles&quot; tag, which description is included in the &quot;particle-physics&quot; tag. Should not these be merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415471/are-elementary-particles-with-inertial-mass-actually-composite-particles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="4fbc3c55-7884-428b-9518-8b1e696c3eed" CreationDate="2018-07-07T04:46:57.897" UserId="1492" Text="Tag with no description which should be merged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="4fbc3c55-7884-428b-9518-8b1e696c3eed" CreationDate="2018-07-07T04:46:57.897" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="91588d8c-fb32-46f7-9e4d-a2dbeae429d0" CreationDate="2018-07-07T05:20:11.240" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I just [discovered there is a floating][1] ( no description) [tag:elementary-particles] tag, which description is included in the [tag:particle-physics] tag. Should not these be merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/415471/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="91588d8c-fb32-46f7-9e4d-a2dbeae429d0" CreationDate="2018-07-07T05:20:11.240" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|feature-request|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="b3afd98d-eb52-4c0d-9880-fdce7484ffb1" CreationDate="2018-07-07T06:16:06.393" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I was thinking about the recent question [&quot;Why is making a white laser so difficult?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415429/why-is-making-a-white-laser-so-difficult)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I recall correctly, I left my usual engineering-type comment: &quot;This may receive better answers on [engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com).&quot; The comment has been deleted (probably by a mod), so I'm not even sure if the person who suggested engineering SE was actually me. But one of the other comments quotes my usual phrase &quot;better answers&quot;, and I had left a flag on the question, so it's likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the present state of the question, I think it may actually be on-topic: [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415474/191954) successfully explains things without going into a discussion of engineering: it says that white light lasers can be made and gives an explanation of how they can be _theoretically_ created by choosing appropriate grains or dyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fact remains that the question &quot;Why is it difficult to make this?&quot; is definitely engineering if there are practical considerations. Physics in such cases is (IMO) &quot;Is it theoretically possible for such a thing to exist?&quot;, or &quot;How do white lasers work?&quot;. Furthermore, [the question, when posted on engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/why-make-an-white-laser-is-so-difficult), received a negative score (though only -1), and [the answer there](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/a/22632) is definitely engineering-ish: it says that one of the ways of making white lasers is possible but is &quot;a very difficult engineering problem&quot;, and gives you a link to an article about how some people created a single-crystal white laser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My summary: the answers on Physics SE made the question seem to be on-topic, but the identical question on engineering SE received an engineering-ish answer. What do we do with such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I don't have a problem with the fact that a moderator deleted the comment. There's a possibility that it's misleading: I believe the question is off-topic, but apparently most people disagree, and that's fine. If the comment causes an unnecessary confusion, it should go.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;In this case, all I knew about the answer to the question was what a quick google search told me: white light lasers definitely exist and have some applications in medical stuff. To me, this strongly suggests engineering complications as the answer to the question assuming the premise that they're hard to make is correct&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I'm deliberately not using the specific-question tag here. I don't want the discussion to be focused  upon this question. This is probably applicable to a large number of off-topic engineering questions: they could possibly receive satisfactory physics explanations in addition to engineering considerations&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="b3afd98d-eb52-4c0d-9880-fdce7484ffb1" CreationDate="2018-07-07T06:16:06.393" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="On-topic answers for seemingly off-topic questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="b3afd98d-eb52-4c0d-9880-fdce7484ffb1" CreationDate="2018-07-07T06:16:06.393" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="7c3591ad-f02d-4cc7-918c-dc90ff27b51e" CreationDate="2018-07-07T08:38:35.383" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="I was thinking about the recent question [&quot;Why is making a white laser so difficult?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415429/why-is-making-a-white-laser-so-difficult)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days back (when I first saw it) if I recall correctly, I left my usual off-topic-because-it's-engineering comment under it: &quot;This may receive better answers on [engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com).&quot; The comment has been deleted (probably by a mod), so I'm not even sure if the person who suggested engineering SE was actually me. But one of the other comments quotes my usual phrase &quot;better answers&quot;, and I had left a flag on the question, so it's likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the present state of the question, I think it may actually be on-topic: [Emilio Pisanti's answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415474/191954) (to the same question) successfully explains things without going into a discussion of engineering: he says that white light lasers can be made and gives an explanation of how they can be _theoretically_ created by choosing appropriate grains or dyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the fact remains that the question &quot;Why is it difficult to make this?&quot; is definitely engineering if there are practical considerations. Physics in such cases is (IMO) &quot;Is it theoretically possible for such a thing to exist?&quot;, or &quot;How do white lasers work?&quot;. Furthermore, [the question, when posted on engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/why-make-an-white-laser-is-so-difficult), received a negative score (though only -1), and [the answer there](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/a/22632) is definitely engineering-ish: it says that one of the ways of making white lasers is possible but is &quot;a very difficult engineering problem&quot;, and gives you a link to an article about how some people created a single-crystal white laser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My summary: the answers on Physics SE made the question seem to be on-topic, but the identical question on engineering SE received an engineering-ish answer. What do we do with such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I don't have a problem with the fact that a moderator deleted the comment. There's a possibility that it's misleading: I believe the question is off-topic, but apparently most people disagree, and that's fine. If the comment causes an unnecessary confusion, it should go.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;In this case, all I knew about the answer to the question was what a quick google search told me: white light lasers definitely exist and have some applications in medical stuff. To me, this strongly suggests engineering complications as the answer to the question assuming the premise that they're hard to make is correct&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I'm deliberately not using the specific-question tag here. I don't want the discussion to be focused  upon this question. This is probably applicable to a large number of off-topic engineering questions: they could possibly receive satisfactory physics explanations in addition to engineering considerations&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="599c9ed9-a787-48bc-94b7-65619b337408" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:30:50.920" UserId="2451" Text="1. The [tag:particle-physics] tag (currently with approx. 3500 questions) is one of a few primary tags. Ideally all questions should be tagged with a primary tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [tag:elementary-particles] (currently with approx. 200 questions) is a secondary tag. It is mainly used for questions where it is important to distinguish between [elementary particles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle) and composite particles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; E.g. Phys.SE often gets [questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39590/2451) about whether the electron is an elementary particle or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this role the tag [tag:elementary-particles] does serve some purpose, and seems worth keeping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A related secondary tag is [tag:point-particles] (currently with approx. 100 questions). Note that the notion of [point-particles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle) is used outside the area of [particle-physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics), e.g. in [classical mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Concerning tag-wikis: Many tags lack tag-wikis. Users are encouraged to [create/improve](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10247/2451) them. There is even a [research assistant](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/87/research-assistant) badge for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="f2b30c56-4904-44dd-a6ee-6da47930cffb" CreationDate="2018-07-07T17:13:48.197" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="I was thinking about the recent question [&quot;Why is making a white laser so difficult?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415429/why-is-making-a-white-laser-so-difficult)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days back (when I first saw it) if I recall correctly, I left my usual off-topic-because-it's-engineering comment under it: &quot;This may receive better answers on [engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com).&quot; The comment has been deleted (probably by a mod), so I'm not even sure if the person who suggested engineering SE was actually me. But one of the other comments quotes my usual phrase &quot;better answers&quot;, and I had left a flag on the question, so it's likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the present state of the question, I think it may actually be on-topic: [Emilio Pisanti's answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415474/191954) (to the same question) successfully explains things without going into a discussion of engineering: he says that white light lasers can be made and gives an explanation of how they can be _theoretically_ created by choosing appropriate grains or dyes. However, [the answer by MrMins](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415435/191954) (which is presently the highest voted answer) says that the existing white lasers are purely conceptual and that the technology is not &quot;practical&quot; yet, and basically answers the question by saying &quot;White lasers aren't common because of it's presently difficult to make them run on batteries&quot;, which signals engineering at full volume. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the question &quot;Why is it difficult to make this?&quot; is definitely engineering if there are practical considerations. Physics in such cases is (IMO) &quot;Is it theoretically possible for such a thing to exist?&quot;, or &quot;How do white lasers work?&quot;. Furthermore, [the question, when posted on engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/why-make-an-white-laser-is-so-difficult), received a negative score (though only -1), and [the answer there](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/a/22632) is definitely engineering-ish: it says that one of the ways of making white lasers is possible but is &quot;a very difficult engineering problem&quot;, and gives you a link to an article about how some people created a single-crystal white laser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My summary: the answers on Physics SE made the question seem to be on-topic, but the identical question on engineering SE received an engineering-ish answer. What do we do with such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I don't have a problem with the fact that a moderator deleted the comment. There's a possibility that it's misleading: I believe the question is off-topic, but apparently most people disagree, and that's fine. If the comment causes an unnecessary confusion, it should go.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;In this case, all I knew about the answer to the question was what a quick google search told me: white light lasers definitely exist and have some applications in medical stuff. To me, this strongly suggests engineering complications as the answer to the question assuming the premise that they're hard to make is correct&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I'm deliberately not using the specific-question tag here. I don't want the discussion to be focused  upon this question. This is probably applicable to a large number of off-topic engineering questions: they could possibly receive satisfactory physics explanations in addition to engineering considerations&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="05cae0da-5ccf-4b05-9db6-02866081a86d" CreationDate="2018-07-07T18:15:22.190" UserId="2451" Comment="Minor" Text="1. The [tag:particle-physics] tag (currently with approx. 3500 questions) is one of a few primary tags. Ideally all questions should be tagged with a primary tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [tag:elementary-particles] tag (currently with approx. 200 questions) is a secondary tag. It is mainly used for [particle physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics) questions where it is important to distinguish between [elementary particles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle) and composite particles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; _Example:_ Phys.SE often gets [questions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39590/2451) about whether the electron is an elementary particle or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this role the tag [tag:elementary-particles] does serve some purpose, and seems worth keeping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A related secondary tag is the [tag:point-particles] tag (currently with approx. 100 questions). Note that the notion of [point-particles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle) is used also outside the area of [particle physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics), e.g. in [classical mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Concerning tag-wikis: Many tags lack tag-wikis. Users are encouraged to [create/improve](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10247/2451) them. There is even a [research assistant](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/87/research-assistant) badge for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="62b3f391-799a-4f98-a511-a5585fffc718" CreationDate="2018-07-07T18:17:45.680" UserId="2451" Comment="used SE terminology" Text="I just [discovered there is a floating][1] (no tag wiki description) [tag:elementary-particles] tag, which description is included in the [tag:particle-physics] tag. Should not these be merged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/415471/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32839" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="62b3f391-799a-4f98-a511-a5585fffc718" CreationDate="2018-07-07T18:17:45.680" UserId="2451" Comment="used SE terminology" Text="Tag with no tag wiki description which should be merged" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="3e63dfa9-c2d7-47b7-a372-2c91b766f2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:31:59.757" UserId="60683" Text="Is it because your total reputation is in front of your name and the size of that number is a sort of prestige? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In another [discussion][1] when someone expressed frustration that over reputation gain being bias in favor of answering simple questions, it was answered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think it is correct that the more popular subjects will get more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attention than the best questions and answers on less popular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't fight popular questions, but you can certainly change the system to reward people differently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not spend your reputation on putting up bounties? Why is so little reputation (relative to total reputation) spent on bounties? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's simply that the prestige of having high reputation goes down, then why not make the number in front of everyone's name &quot;average reputation flux&quot; or &quot;total reputation earned&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By rewarding top reputation earners to spend their reputation, you'll have a more diverse way of gaining reputation; and it would be possible for more obscure questions to have much more value in answering (in terms of prestige). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6303/the-secret-to-getting-a-massive-reputation-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="3e63dfa9-c2d7-47b7-a372-2c91b766f2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:31:59.757" UserId="60683" Text="Why won't you spend your reputation (on bounties)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="3e63dfa9-c2d7-47b7-a372-2c91b766f2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:31:59.757" UserId="60683" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="da32b5a8-127e-43b0-8519-b59406b88c01" CreationDate="2018-07-08T00:38:06.013" UserId="6634" Text="Popular, &quot;every day&quot; questions get a lot of exposure because many more people can explain every day things. Incredibly esoteric or nuanced or specific questions get less attention because fewer people are qualified or interested in answering them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think that's a problem that bounties will fix. If I ask a question on a topic that maybe 10 people on the site are qualified to answer, odds are really good those 10 have already seen it. And if it didn't get an answer, a bounty probably wouldn't help. And using it to get more attention is likely not needed either, because those who know that topic have probably already seen it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I see a good use of bounties is in areas that are in the middle. It could be a topic where the pool of people who can answer it is big, but not huge, and where there's enough questions that it's possible somebody misses them. Then a bounty can be useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, my area of interest (fluid dynamics) isn't quite in that category. It isn't that it's terribly esoteric. But there's relatively few questions that get asked in it so I usually see most of them anyway. And there's a small pool of people here who are interested, and so many times I see a question and go &quot;Oh, I know X will see this and be able to answer better than I will.&quot; And that usually happens. So there isn't an overwhelming need for bounties in those areas. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="cfeea25e-a40c-480a-9f5f-783aa17e05a9" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:50:47.293" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="I was thinking about the recent question [&quot;Why is making a white laser so difficult?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415429/why-is-making-a-white-laser-so-difficult)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days back (when I first saw it) if I recall correctly, I left my usual off-topic-because-it's-engineering comment under it: &quot;This may receive better answers on [engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com).&quot; The comment has been deleted (probably by a mod), so I'm not even sure if the person who suggested engineering SE was actually me. But one of the other comments quotes my usual phrase &quot;better answers&quot;, and I had left a flag on the question, so it's likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the present state of the question, I think it may actually be on-topic: [Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415474/191954) (to the same question) successfully explains things without going into a discussion of engineering: he says that white light lasers can be made and gives an explanation of how they can be _theoretically_ created by choosing appropriate grains or dyes. However, [the answer by MrMins](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415435/191954) (which is presently the highest voted answer) says that the existing white lasers are purely conceptual and that the technology is not &quot;practical&quot; yet, and basically answers the question by saying &quot;White lasers aren't common because of it's presently difficult to make them run on batteries&quot;, which signals engineering at full volume. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the question &quot;Why is it difficult to make this?&quot; is definitely engineering if there are practical considerations. Physics in such cases is (IMO) &quot;Is it theoretically possible for such a thing to exist?&quot;, or &quot;How do white lasers work?&quot;. Furthermore, [the question, when posted on engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/why-make-an-white-laser-is-so-difficult), received a negative score (though only -1), and [the answer there](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/a/22632) is definitely engineering-ish: it says that one of the ways of making white lasers is possible but is &quot;a very difficult engineering problem&quot;, and gives you a link to an article about how some people created a single-crystal white laser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My summary: the answers on Physics SE made the question seem to be on-topic, but the identical question on engineering SE received an engineering-ish answer. What do we do with such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I don't have a problem with the fact that a moderator deleted the comment. There's a possibility that it's misleading: I believe the question is off-topic, but apparently most people disagree, and that's fine. If the comment causes an unnecessary confusion, it should go.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;In this case, all I knew about the answer to the question was what a quick google search told me: white light lasers definitely exist and have some applications in medical stuff. To me, this strongly suggests engineering complications as the answer to the question assuming the premise that they're hard to make is correct&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I'm deliberately not using the specific-question tag here. I don't want the discussion to be focused  upon this question. This is probably applicable to a large number of off-topic engineering questions: they could possibly receive satisfactory physics explanations in addition to engineering considerations&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="daf8f6a6-df4c-4e1d-a9bc-57bd214ca778" CreationDate="2018-07-08T11:39:14.090" UserId="8563" Text="If it has on-topic answers here, then it's on-topic here. The fact that a similar or identical thread can get on-topic answers of a different flavour in some other venue is irrelevant to that fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question to ask when closing as off-topic, whether it's with a migration in mind or not, isn't &quot;is there a better home for this question out there?&quot;, it's &quot;is this question off-topic *here*?&quot;. If the answer to the second question is &quot;no, it's on-topic here&quot; but there are still other venues that might be better, then we can suggest them to OP and leave it to them to ask for a migration or (with the usual caveats!) cross-post as appropriate, but there is no need for any further actions on our part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="aeaf6642-5447-4554-9418-0da395a07dc0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T11:45:22.023" UserId="8563" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="If it has on-topic answers here, then it's (likely to be) on-topic here. The fact that a similar or identical thread can get on-topic answers of a different flavour in some other venue is irrelevant to that fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question to ask when closing as off-topic, whether it's with a migration in mind or not, isn't &quot;is there a better home for this question out there?&quot;, it's &quot;is this question off-topic *here*?&quot;. If the answer to the second question is &quot;no, it's on-topic here&quot; but there are still other venues that might be better, then we can suggest them to OP and leave it to them to ask for a migration or (with the usual caveats!) cross-post as appropriate, but there is no need for any further actions on our part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="9045a910-077f-4f4b-b3c4-7b2599e7f22c" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:49:52.780" UserId="8563" Text="I'm the anomaly that rob pointed out in the comments, so I'll weigh in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm concerned, any rep above 25k is fairly gratuitous, given that there are no more privileges to be earned (despite some [excellent proposals](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/300866/184688) for the 30k tier), and it might as well be spent constructively by awarding bounties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To incentivize the right types of questions, i.e. the types of in-depth, well-thought-out, highly non-trivial (but still within the realm of the answerable) questions that, because of a narrower subject matter or some other factor, are less likely to attract upvotes or answers.&#xD;&#xA; - To reward the highly-detailed, high-quality answers that we all wish got a ton of votes but (again through e.g. a narrow subject matter) don't.&#xD;&#xA; - To give users with a record of high-quality community moderation and content a faster access to the moderation privileges that will make them most effective at helping this community succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, since participation in SE is easier to keep to a high standard if you gamify it (at least for me), I decided to make a Data Explorer query to have some concrete numbers to focus on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**Users by total bounty given.**](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/344526/users-by-total-bounty-given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I find very striking from that query is that there are a full *fourteen* users who have spent upwards of 80% of their rep on bounties: not a huge fraction of the site's userbase, but those users still deserve a lot of recognition, particularly for the ones who give out a substantial fraction of those bounties to questions by other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't see in that table, and would quite like to see more of, is a larger population of the &gt;25k rep userbase, for whom moderation privileges are a gone pursuit, and who have enough experience with the site to have well-defined ideas of the types of questions, answers and users that really make a difference, as well as the reputation to reward them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In informal conversations on chat, I have tried to prod several high-rep users into making bounties more of a regular habit, and the responses have largely been along the lines of &quot;I don't often find posts that fit those kinds of criteria&quot;, to which my answer is roughly: that's rubbish. If you're on the &gt;25k rep side, it's almost a given that you spend a great deal of time browsing the site, and if you keep an eye to the ground with the question &quot;what questions, answers and users really make a difference?&quot;, it won't be too long before one of those turns up on your path. When that happens, just click that bounty button!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, in closing, I'll allow myself one bit of gloat: I'm planning to hit 20,000 rep offered in bounties with my 100th bounty in a couple of months. I hope to see more high-rep users on that leaderboard by that time ;-)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="53f8c432-430b-48d3-a8bb-70be7ed17359" CreationDate="2018-07-10T08:43:15.260" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was thinking about the recent question [&quot;Why is making a white laser so difficult?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415429/why-is-making-a-white-laser-so-difficult)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days back (when I first saw it) if I recall correctly, I left my usual off-topic-because-it's-engineering comment under it: &quot;This may receive better answers on [engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com).&quot; The comment has been deleted (probably by a mod), so I'm not even sure if the person who suggested engineering SE was actually me. But one of the other comments quotes my usual phrase &quot;better answers&quot;, and I had left a flag on the question, so it's likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the present state of the question, I think it may actually be on-topic: [Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415474/191954) (to the same question) successfully explains things without going into a discussion of engineering: he says that white light lasers can be made and gives an explanation of how they can be _theoretically_ created by choosing appropriate gains or dyes. However, [the answer by MrMins](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/415435/191954) (which is presently the highest voted answer) says that the existing white lasers are purely conceptual and that the technology is not &quot;practical&quot; yet, and basically answers the question by saying &quot;White lasers aren't common because of it's presently difficult to make them run on batteries&quot;, which signals engineering at full volume. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the question &quot;Why is it difficult to make this?&quot; is definitely engineering if there are practical considerations. Physics in such cases is (IMO) &quot;Is it theoretically possible for such a thing to exist?&quot;, or &quot;How do white lasers work?&quot;. Furthermore, [the question, when posted on engineering SE](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/why-make-an-white-laser-is-so-difficult), received a negative score (though only -1), and [the answer there](https://engineering.stackexchange.com/a/22632) is definitely engineering-ish: it says that one of the ways of making white lasers is possible but is &quot;a very difficult engineering problem&quot;, and gives you a link to an article about how some people created a single-crystal white laser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My summary: the answers on Physics SE made the question seem to be on-topic, but the identical question on engineering SE received an engineering-ish answer. What do we do with such questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I don't have a problem with the fact that a moderator deleted the comment. There's a possibility that it's misleading: I believe the question is off-topic, but apparently most people disagree, and that's fine. If the comment causes an unnecessary confusion, it should go.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;In this case, all I knew about the answer to the question was what a quick google search told me: white light lasers definitely exist and have some applications in medical stuff. To me, this strongly suggests engineering complications as the answer to the question assuming the premise that they're hard to make is correct&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I'm deliberately not using the specific-question tag here. I don't want the discussion to be focused  upon this question. This is probably applicable to a large number of off-topic engineering questions: they could possibly receive satisfactory physics explanations in addition to engineering considerations&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="15135ba3-3a48-4d1c-aa1d-a5490c059bf9" CreationDate="2018-07-10T22:11:20.300" UserDisplayName="user198207" Text="&gt;What can I do to improve the question? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No offence, but make it more interesting and a possible learning resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that I mean, explain far more about what your problem is,  how you arrived at that point and what you think possible solutions (that you are currently dismissing, based on your own assumption) are. Obviously there's a balance, you can can assume your audience knows what's involved in easier scattering  problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a numbers game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By writing the original question the way you have,  as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The contribution of loop diagrams in QFT are often divergent and sometimes convergent as well. For example, the self-energy corrections in QED are divergent. On the other hand, the Zee model of radiative neutrino mass (for example) induces a finite neutrino mass at one-loop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you will only attract the relativity few heavy hitters on the site. And this hasn't worked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By explaining in more detail what your problem is, you possibly will get the attention of students (a far larger proportion of site user and &quot;outsiders&quot; who are nearly at your level and are prepared to investigate something that they will need to cover eventually anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more you have to explain it, the better a question it is, in most cases, and the act of explaining it may make the penny drop for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, you have been looking at this problem long enough yourself that you can sum it up succinctly to the cognoscenti, but there's very few (to date, none) of those here willing to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I was asking the question, I would expand it as I said above. Loop diagrams are not (no offence again) the most difficult area of QFT. I don't know the answer, but I'm six months away from calculating those amplitudes and I guess many others are as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe (probably) you won't get an answer from less experienced users, but they might give you an idea of how it could be resolved, or a link to a paper  or tutorial or presentation where it has been covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32850" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="76036519-78f3-4a88-bc94-dd40220fca57" CreationDate="2018-07-12T17:12:41.453" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/416341/why-are-moderators-here-blocking-clear-answers-to-questions" />
  <row Id="32851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="5748e6cb-078c-4623-9466-3df30c7e75b2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T17:04:01.007" UserId="72902" Text="I presented a very insightful answer to a question about breaking molecular bonds via electromagnetism. I put a great deal of time and effort into including diagrams and a 3-d perspective of the molecules the question asker was clearly talking about. A moderator &quot;rob&quot; waltzed in and deleted it saying that he felt it was a &quot;springboard&quot; onto another topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth is that there is only one reason for breaking molecular bonds using electromagnetism, that is circumventing the mitochondria mechanism in the human body to produce a biological energy source by breaking ionic bonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, i am very dissapointed by this site and the hypercritical moderation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="5748e6cb-078c-4623-9466-3df30c7e75b2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T17:04:01.007" UserId="72902" Text="Why are moderators here blocking clear answers to questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="5748e6cb-078c-4623-9466-3df30c7e75b2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T17:04:01.007" UserId="72902" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="b0107152-6cf4-4c41-b5be-d03317991888" CreationDate="2018-07-12T17:15:38.480" UserId="72902" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="I presented a very insightful answer to a question about breaking molecular bonds via electromagnetism. I put a great deal of time and effort into including diagrams and a 3-d perspective of the molecules the question asker was clearly talking about. A moderator &quot;rob&quot; waltzed in and deleted it saying that he felt it was a &quot;springboard&quot; onto another topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth is that there is only one reason for breaking molecular bonds using electromagnetism, that is circumventing the mitochondria mechanism in the human body to produce a biological energy source by breaking ionic bonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, i am very dissapointed by this site and the hypercritical moderation.&#xD;&#xA;No appeals, no discussions, just unilatteral decisions. I would say that if this moderator is not a biochemist and a particle physicist, he has no right to say what is or is not on topic regarding this post. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="568fbc21-2463-43b3-832c-5d04e823259a" CreationDate="2018-07-12T17:25:04.810" UserId="72902" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="I presented a very insightful answer to a question about breaking molecular bonds via electromagnetism. I put a great deal of time and effort into including diagrams and a 3-d perspective of the molecules the question asker was clearly talking about. A moderator &quot;rob&quot; waltzed in and deleted it saying that he felt it was a &quot;springboard&quot; onto another topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth is that there is only one reason for breaking molecular bonds using electromagnetism, that is circumventing the mitochondria mechanism in the human body to produce a biological energy source by breaking ionic bonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, i am very dissapointed by this site and the hypercritical moderation.&#xD;&#xA;No appeals, no discussions, just unilatteral decisions. I would say that if this moderator is not a biochemist and a particle physicist, he has no right to say what is or is not on topic regarding this post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously why every answer i have seen so far is no more then a couple sentences. Modzillas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, just thought i would point this out before moving to a far less censored site. Just don't want other new people to waste their time here like i obviously did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32856" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="f6235be1-4a97-4947-8525-c63c0bc9c6f8" CreationDate="2018-07-12T18:02:10.680" UserId="124" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32857" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="01537194-72a9-4187-9a8d-cb25e354ac04" CreationDate="2018-07-12T18:02:10.680" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="32ce2bf8-cc01-4bd5-a494-8efe14cc2b14" CreationDate="2018-07-12T18:03:25.057" UserId="114696" Text="I agree with the Moderator that your post does not answer the question, which asked about the use of electromagnetic fields for breaking molecular bonds (physics), not about how bonds are broken or formed in metabolic processes (biochemistry). Neither did the question ask about the uses of such a technology. This is a site for questions and answers about physics. Biochemists are welcome, but their questions/answers must be about physics (eg biophysics), and not biochemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are appeals and discussions - which is what you are doing now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are entitled to act unilaterally and do not need to be experts in the topic of a question or answer before they interfere with it. They are voted into office, and because of their reputation they do know better than most users what is *off-topic* for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question did not use the tags of biophysics, biology or chemistry - nor particle physics - so answers given in those contexts would probably not be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not wish the effort you put into your answer to be wasted you could post a suitable question in Chemistry SE or Biology SE and answer your own question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="e400d4b8-1f70-45c0-994e-15df5696994a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:50:56.760" UserId="114696" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I agree with the Moderator that your post does not answer the question, which asked about the use of electromagnetic fields for breaking molecular bonds (physics), not about how bonds are broken or formed in metabolic processes (biochemistry). Neither did the question ask about the uses of such a technology. This is a site for questions and answers about physics. Biochemists are welcome, but their questions/answers must be about physics (eg biophysics), and not biochemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are appeals and discussions - which is what you are doing now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are entitled to act unilaterally and do not need to be experts in the topic of a question or answer before they interfere with it. They are voted into office, and because of their reputation (rep) they do know better than most users what is *off-topic* for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question did not use the tags of biophysics, biology or chemistry - nor particle physics - so answers given in those contexts would probably not be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not wish the effort you put into your answer to be wasted you could post a suitable question in Chemistry SE or Biology SE and answer your own question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32860" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="74e99948-52e6-4b8e-8caa-e9c037a82bb3" CreationDate="2018-07-13T18:51:46.853" UserId="124" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="933a59e6-d4f6-4570-8886-77380a1fc163" CreationDate="2018-07-13T20:03:45.100" UserId="114696" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why was my detailed, informative answer deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="933a59e6-d4f6-4570-8886-77380a1fc163" CreationDate="2018-07-13T20:03:45.100" UserId="114696" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="933a59e6-d4f6-4570-8886-77380a1fc163" CreationDate="2018-07-13T20:03:45.100" UserId="114696" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="I presented a very insightful answer to the question [Can electromagnetic fields be used to deconstruct and reconstruct molecular bonds?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/166700). I put a great deal of time and effort into including diagrams and a 3D perspective of the molecules the question asker was clearly talking about. A moderator &quot;rob&quot; waltzed in and deleted it saying that he felt it was a &quot;springboard&quot; onto another topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth is that there is only one reason for breaking molecular bonds using electromagnetism, that is circumventing the mitochondria mechanism in the human body to produce a biological energy source by breaking ionic bonds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, i am very dissapointed by this site and the hypercritical moderation.&#xD;&#xA;No appeals, no discussions, just unilatteral decisions. I would say that if this moderator is not a biochemist and a particle physicist, he has no right to say what is or is not on topic regarding this post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously why every answer i have seen so far is no more then a couple sentences. Modzillas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, just thought i would point this out before moving to a far less censored site. Just don't want other new people to waste their time here like i obviously did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="fa52dfee-7b1d-4249-878b-84c19147fe7a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T20:43:56.390" UserId="114696" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="I agree with the Moderator that your post does not answer the question, which asked about the use of electromagnetic fields for breaking molecular bonds (physics), not about how bonds are broken or formed in metabolic processes (biochemistry). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not &quot;clearly&quot; asking about the biochemical molecules mentioned in your answer (ATP, DNA). It mentions only the molecular structure of &quot;objects.&quot; In the context of physics and the separation of matter from anti-matter this *usually* means inanimate objects. The question does not use the tags of biophysics, biology or chemistry so answers given in those contexts would probably not be appropriate. You appear to be expounding a topic which you are very passionate and knowledgeable about, regardless of the requirements of the original poster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a site for questions and answers about physics. Biochemists are welcome, but their questions/answers must be about physics (eg biophysics), and not biochemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are appeals and discussions - which is what you are doing now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are entitled to act unilaterally and do not need to be experts in the topic of a question or answer before they interfere with it. They are voted into office, and because of their long involvement with this site they do know better than most users what is *off-topic* here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not wish the effort you put into your answer to be wasted you could post a suitable question in Chemistry SE or Biology SE and answer your own question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32865" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="fd627832-9dcd-4b0c-ab16-0f09eec81822" CreationDate="2018-07-14T22:57:25.587" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:114696,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sammy gerbil&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2751,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dilaton&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:127931,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;JMac&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10401" RevisionGUID="ada318ce-62cd-4768-b6be-cd97f70a0bc7" CreationDate="2018-07-17T20:16:56.443" UserId="8563" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32868" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="36174170-4f33-4b6d-939d-387a7923a595" CreationDate="2018-07-17T20:17:37.820" UserId="8563" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10394],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="32869" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="063ef350-650e-4555-9624-6dbbd0a7e008" CreationDate="2018-07-19T03:29:07.010" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/418361/what-is-the-best-easiest-way-to-write-math-symbols-on-this-site" />
  <row Id="32870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="79747e97-80c6-415e-be07-7580a73156e5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T03:24:11.577" UserId="182409" Text="For those with an Android phone, what is your favorite app, or whatever, for displaying math symbols on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="79747e97-80c6-415e-be07-7580a73156e5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T03:24:11.577" UserId="182409" Text="What is the best/easiest way to write math symbols on this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="79747e97-80c6-415e-be07-7580a73156e5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T03:24:11.577" UserId="182409" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="c2574190-5bd9-4fc6-81fd-436f3df4a8ab" CreationDate="2018-07-19T05:27:49.317" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32875" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="955ec4b3-3434-4a1f-af7c-25abcb9b72a8" CreationDate="2018-07-19T05:29:07.900" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32877" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="a2d1f0bd-ca6b-42c5-9bdb-860faeebe72b" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:27:49.237" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32878" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="9c990444-1f0b-45a5-b6db-b07e391b56f6" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:31:02.137" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="34c82041-f0ab-447b-b7cb-0b9a912d25a0" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:31:29.533" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="d90cae7e-9f71-4847-aadd-407f2c4e1c03" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:31:57.463" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-completed|mathjax|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32881" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="09cf9947-32bb-48c9-93c3-19acffa9345e" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:33:55.777" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="cab00679-4b49-4e05-ad54-9f0ff3e2a6b6" CreationDate="2018-07-23T04:45:44.283" UserId="162251" Text="I posted a question at Physics Stack Exchange site, and I uploaded a photograph of the calculation I had done on that. But, I was asked to write all my calculations in the question(and not in the photograph). So, How to write mathematical expressions in questions using android devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="cab00679-4b49-4e05-ad54-9f0ff3e2a6b6" CreationDate="2018-07-23T04:45:44.283" UserId="162251" Text="How to write mathematical expressions in questions using android devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="cab00679-4b49-4e05-ad54-9f0ff3e2a6b6" CreationDate="2018-07-23T04:45:44.283" UserId="162251" Text="|feature-request|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="a1a2d65e-9d2a-465f-92ad-364f29ed5b17" CreationDate="2018-07-23T05:15:22.037" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="b0e28b91-1a2a-4acf-a4b7-4adffc806c12" CreationDate="2018-07-23T06:18:13.060" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="[MathJax](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference) should work on android devices. You'll still be typing out plain text with `$` symbols enclosing the math." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="3f499fa7-8381-4a43-ac66-9a6c5d3719c9" CreationDate="2018-07-23T09:11:10.523" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="549b67ac-296d-4f25-a187-0f9b5364644d" CreationDate="2018-07-23T10:55:37.870" UserId="97383" Text="I'm somewhat annoyed that my loud thinking in the form of a self-answered question just vanished like it never existed. Shouldn't there at least be some kind of notification in my account left?&#xD;&#xA;The question was related to quantum scars - a relatively recent research topic, which might not be so popular among the Copenhagen orthodoxy... Censorship?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="549b67ac-296d-4f25-a187-0f9b5364644d" CreationDate="2018-07-23T10:55:37.870" UserId="97383" Text="Question deleted without a trace and without notice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="549b67ac-296d-4f25-a187-0f9b5364644d" CreationDate="2018-07-23T10:55:37.870" UserId="97383" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="10be42e5-5970-4c26-a811-e5429e5cf3b3" CreationDate="2018-07-23T11:00:49.567" UserId="97383" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="I'm somewhat annoyed that one of my questions just vanished like it never existed. Shouldn't there at least be some kind of notification in my account left? And why not keep questions that don't have an answer, yet?      &#xD;&#xA;The question was related to quantum scars - a relatively recent research topic, which might not be so popular among the Copenhagen orthodoxy... Censorship?     &#xD;&#xA;I managed to find it in my bookmarks but nowhere else! Here it is:      &#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/336433/relation-between-t-hoofts-deterministic-qm-and-gutzwillers-trace-formula#336433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="f784e2a5-7f1d-4366-b1af-acda260810c1" CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:39:48.537" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm somewhat annoyed that one of my questions just vanished like it never existed. Shouldn't there at least be some kind of notification in my account left? And why not keep questions that don't have an answer, yet?      &#xD;&#xA;The question was related to quantum scars - a relatively recent research topic, which might not be so popular among the Copenhagen orthodoxy... Censorship? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I managed to find it in my bookmarks but nowhere else! Here it is:      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336433/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="f784e2a5-7f1d-4366-b1af-acda260810c1" CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:39:48.537" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="51887fac-2b1d-45cf-af48-8c4d4dd5b0b5" CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:43:36.357" UserId="44126" Text="[Your question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/336433/44126) was asked thirteen months ago. In that time it was viewed by thirty-three people, of whom zero voted postively or negatively. It was automatically deleted by the [roomba](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba) after a year as an &quot;abandoned question.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgotten questions are deleted without notice by design --- it helps them stay forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, consider [What should I do if no one answers my question?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/no-one-answers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your question has now been undeleted by a moderator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="d3e7f711-664d-4eab-8b35-8436c9333f06" CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:47:07.620" UserId="2451" Text="OP's zero score question without answers was [automatically](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba) deleted after 1 year. See [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10264/2451) related meta post. I undeleted the question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="f0e54890-4026-45cc-b8c8-74ba553868a7" CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:55:49.620" UserId="2451" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="OP's zero score question without answers was [automatically](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba) deleted after 1 year. See also [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10264/2451) related meta post. It is a deliberate SE design not to inform users of deletions. I manually undeleted OP's question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="1cafa6db-5920-4a34-9621-d074770ec08e" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:33:01.310" UserId="68181" Text="It seems to me that the level of voting on Physics SE is noticeably lower than on most other SE sites that I frequent and lower that it has been in the past (I have been a user on the site for several years). A casual look down the list of [most recent questions][1] shows that the vast majority are on only 0 or 1 vote. I remember a time when a question would get 1 or 2 up-votes, simply if it was constructive, valid and well-presented. In fact, I get the impression that, these days, the voting system is being used almost exclusively as a tool to 'punish' questions that are deemed unworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people aren't using the voting system, there are two potential issues I can see: firstly, there is a lack of reward/incentive for people to stick around and spend their time answering questions. Secondly, it will lead to a lack of differentiation between good/bad questions and answers - the good will get lost amidst the bad/mediocre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what has happened with the voting? If people aren't using it, then it may as well not be there ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="1cafa6db-5920-4a34-9621-d074770ec08e" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:33:01.310" UserId="68181" Text="Have people stopped voting on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="1cafa6db-5920-4a34-9621-d074770ec08e" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:33:01.310" UserId="68181" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32909" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="7f534f7a-710c-4728-9970-3a6078a2042f" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:40:13.023" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10729" RevisionGUID="cd4d611f-6aea-4dc3-8705-b19299c4cc04" CreationDate="2018-07-28T07:23:16.463" UserId="8563" Text="These statistics are included in the [site analytics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/site-analytics) page (25k+ rep). There is generally a lull in posting rates in the summer and over the winter holidays, but the trend on the votes is less marked. Here are the (weekly-averaged) post and vote rates over the past three years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j0zkV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data before 2015 do show a year-on-year increase, which has since stabilized. I normally don't set much stock on data taken roughly between June and August, as the summer does tend to see much lower traffic (and indeed the traffic tends to show stronger seasonal variations, but a [recent data outage](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309229/184688) hasn't been fully recovered), but the mid-semester high point in voting last March does seem to be below the high-water marks from 2017 and 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure whether this is enough evidence to be concerned about, but it isn't conclusive evidence that everything is all right, either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10729" RevisionGUID="8a4ec58f-e28d-46e5-a213-4aab02969d46" CreationDate="2018-07-28T07:42:37.387" UserId="8563" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="These statistics are included in the [site analytics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/site-analytics) page (25k+ rep). There is generally a lull in posting rates in the summer and over the winter holidays, but the trend on the votes is less marked. Here are the (weekly-averaged) post and vote rates over the past three years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j0zkV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data before 2015 do show a year-on-year increase, which has since stabilized. I normally don't set much stock on data taken roughly between June and August, as the summer does tend to see much lower traffic (and indeed the traffic tends to show stronger seasonal variations, but a [recent data outage](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309229/184688) hasn't been fully recovered), but the mid-semester high point in voting last March does seem to be below the high-water marks from 2017 and 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure whether this is enough evidence to be concerned about, but it isn't conclusive evidence that everything is all right, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If people want to play around with the data, it is easily available from the Data Explorer - [here is a query to get you started](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/880228/daily-voting-totals#graph), though it's probably easiest to analyze offline.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="ae9fef0d-caa2-47d2-a633-6bbabb29635e" CreationDate="2018-07-29T05:06:33.110" UserId="40443" Text="As far as I can tell, both [meta-tag:mathjax] and [meta-tag:tex] are used here on meta for questions about usage of [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax) in posts on the main site. It is not ideal to have two separate tags for the same topic - for example, it complicates things when searching using tags. So I think these two tags should be synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked a few other sites [that use MathJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/216606/which-stack-exchange-sites-use-mathjax). On some other metas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * On Mathematics, (mathjax) has [synonyms](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms) (tex) and (latex), with (mathjax) as the master tag. Similarly [on Computer Science](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * On Meta Stack Exchange, there is [only mathjax tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms). Similarly on [Chemistry](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms), [MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * Electrical Engineering has three separate tags ([tex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tex)), ([latex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/latex)) and ([mathjax](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathjax)). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have [previously asked this in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/5/31). One of the moderators [recommended to ask on meta](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45893222#45893222). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="ae9fef0d-caa2-47d2-a633-6bbabb29635e" CreationDate="2018-07-29T05:06:33.110" UserId="40443" Text="Should the tags (mathjax) and (tex) on meta be synonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="ae9fef0d-caa2-47d2-a633-6bbabb29635e" CreationDate="2018-07-29T05:06:33.110" UserId="40443" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="fae5c3a5-f775-4617-a879-a6381afe582a" CreationDate="2018-07-29T05:15:37.400" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As far as I can tell, both [meta-tag:mathjax] and [meta-tag:tex] are used here on meta for questions about usage of [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax) in posts on the main site. It is not ideal to have two separate tags for the same topic - for example, it complicates things when searching using tags. So I think these two tags should be synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked a few other sites [that use MathJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/216606/). On some other metas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * On Mathematics, (mathjax) has [synonyms](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms) (tex) and (latex), with (mathjax) as the master tag. Similarly [on Computer Science](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * On Meta Stack Exchange, there is [only mathjax tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms). Similarly on [Chemistry](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms), [MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * Electrical Engineering has three separate tags ([tex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tex)), ([latex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/latex)) and ([mathjax](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathjax)). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have [previously asked this in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/5/31). One of the moderators [recommended to ask on meta](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45893222#45893222). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="fae5c3a5-f775-4617-a879-a6381afe582a" CreationDate="2018-07-29T05:15:37.400" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|tags|mathjax|tex|tag-synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="1684d18a-39e0-492a-8024-8712836cfd9f" CreationDate="2018-07-29T06:01:19.437" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1023448363642105857" />
  <row Id="32931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="14de8cb2-12fd-424c-9135-e984b3cbcbaf" CreationDate="2018-07-29T06:14:05.210" UserId="40443" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, both [meta-tag:mathjax] and [meta-tag:tex] are used here on meta for questions about usage of [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax) in posts on the main site. (AFAICT MathJax is the correct terminology, but unsurprisingly many people know this syntax simply as TeX/LaTeX.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not ideal to have two separate tags for the same topic - for example, it complicates things when searching using tags. So I think these two tags should be synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked a few other sites [that use MathJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/216606/). On some other metas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * On Mathematics, (mathjax) has [synonyms](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms) (tex) and (latex), with (mathjax) as the master tag. Similarly [on Computer Science](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * On Meta Stack Exchange, there is [only mathjax tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms). Similarly on [Chemistry](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms), [MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * Electrical Engineering has three separate tags ([tex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tex)), ([latex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/latex)) and ([mathjax](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathjax)). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have [previously asked this in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/5/31). One of the moderators [recommended to ask on meta](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45893222#45893222). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="949c7d6e-ee5c-4355-bf84-fe3124b461b9" CreationDate="2018-07-29T09:20:23.920" UserId="40443" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, both [meta-tag:mathjax] and [meta-tag:tex] are used here on meta for questions about usage of [MathJax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathJax) in posts on the main site. (AFAICT MathJax is the correct terminology, but unsurprisingly many people know this syntax simply as TeX/LaTeX.) At the moment there are 66 question tagged (mathjax), 31 questions tagged (tex) and 26 questions [have both tags](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathjax+tex).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not ideal to have two separate tags for the same topic - for example, it complicates things when searching using tags. So I think these two tags should be synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked a few other sites [that use MathJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/216606/). On some other metas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * On Mathematics, (mathjax) has [synonyms](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms) (tex) and (latex), with (mathjax) as the master tag. Similarly [on Computer Science](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * On Meta Stack Exchange, there is [only mathjax tag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms). Similarly on [Chemistry](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/mathjax/synonyms), [MathOverflow](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/tags/mathjax/synonyms).&#xD;&#xA; * Electrical Engineering has three separate tags ([tex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tex)), ([latex](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/latex)) and ([mathjax](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mathjax)). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have [previously asked this in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/13775/2018/5/31). One of the moderators [recommended to ask on meta](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45893222#45893222). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32933" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="949c7d6e-ee5c-4355-bf84-fe3124b461b9" CreationDate="2018-07-29T09:20:23.920" UserId="40443" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="|discussion|tags|mathjax|tag-synonyms|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="1e1e0e91-6cdc-48fe-b8a7-07dfd6d4ae3a" CreationDate="2018-07-29T09:48:56.103" UserId="2451" Text="Okay, I have created a synonym [tag:tex]→[tag:mathjax]. The 2 tags are not yet merged, so if the community feels strongly about it one way or another, speak up: It can still be undone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="7a3a01c8-842b-42a4-bcb9-f858971bef42" CreationDate="2018-07-29T09:55:25.577" UserId="2451" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Okay, I have created a synonym [meta-tag:tex]→[meta-tag:mathjax]. The 2 tags are not yet merged, so if the community feels strongly about it one way or another, speak up: It can still be undone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32937" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="1d7d2bbd-8ee1-42e7-a3ad-67c183d4757b" CreationDate="2018-07-29T12:27:21.960" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[804],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32940" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="00329fce-c728-454d-a410-06f0a82a6ccf" CreationDate="2018-07-31T13:24:25.440" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/420372/who-said-that-i-prefers-to-keep-an-air-of-mystery-about-myself-and-why" />
  <row Id="32941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="c7e2a8d1-160c-4dbb-8440-546325bc4240" CreationDate="2018-07-31T12:06:54.550" UserId="202820" Text="Who and why did someone say about me &quot;Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&quot; referring to me? FYI - I forgot this place was here. I posted once about the mass of photons (which is described in Feynman lectures bty)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="c7e2a8d1-160c-4dbb-8440-546325bc4240" CreationDate="2018-07-31T12:06:54.550" UserId="202820" Text="Who said that I prefers to keep an air of mystery about myself and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="c7e2a8d1-160c-4dbb-8440-546325bc4240" CreationDate="2018-07-31T12:06:54.550" UserId="202820" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32944" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="0637be4b-b80e-4bee-8905-c690e596b06f" CreationDate="2018-07-31T13:37:25.370" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32945" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="8c8d9a3b-af0d-441d-86a1-6eb14e5b36df" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:18:53.183" UserId="84967" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="Who said that I prefer to keep an air of mystery about myself and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="8c8d9a3b-af0d-441d-86a1-6eb14e5b36df" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:18:53.183" UserId="84967" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="|support|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="41582920-9b3e-4920-8d42-f67cc481a857" CreationDate="2018-07-31T15:03:53.210" UserId="25301" Text="It's a boilerplate template for all users across all Stack Exchange sites. Once you edit your profile, that language is replaced with whatever you wrote in there.&#xA;&#xA;See [this Meta.SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/251810/230312) or [this Meta.SO post](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/290394/1276356) for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="43540e9c-5603-4bff-8a00-834f4c275264" CreationDate="2018-08-01T02:19:38.843" UserId="32426" Text="According to [this][1] answer, it is generally tied to a large number of downvoted/closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is about the answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the suspended person gets a warning before the ban?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the limit, where is the point where it happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the typical terms for this offense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4984/32426" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="43540e9c-5603-4bff-8a00-834f4c275264" CreationDate="2018-08-01T02:19:38.843" UserId="32426" Text="How is the suspension due to low quality contributions being decided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="43540e9c-5603-4bff-8a00-834f4c275264" CreationDate="2018-08-01T02:19:38.843" UserId="32426" Text="|discussion|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="580d6522-a41c-46d1-adfa-baca26c6acdf" CreationDate="2018-08-01T04:11:14.030" UserId="32426" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="According to [this][1] answer, it is generally tied to a large number of downvoted/closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is about the answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the suspended person gets a warning before the ban?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the limit, where is the point where it happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the typical terms for this offense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;This post is not about the automatic Q/A ban, but about the temporary suspensions with the reason &quot;for low quality contributions&quot;. These are essentially different things, the Q/A ban is automatic (on unknown rules), while suspension can be given manually by the mods.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4984/32426" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="1d2d587f-235a-45fd-aa1d-498eafbd032e" CreationDate="2018-08-01T05:04:04.257" UserId="32426" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="According to [this][1] answer, it is generally tied to a large number of downvoted/closed questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is about the answers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the suspended person gets a warning before the ban?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the limit, where is the point where it happens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the typical suspension times for this offense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;This post is not about the automatic Q/A ban, but about the temporary suspensions with the reason &quot;for low quality contributions&quot;. These are essentially different things, the Q/A ban is automatic (on unknown rules), while suspension can be given manually by the mods.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4984/32426" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32953" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="24fa0145-af8e-40d7-98f0-1de23ada0dd1" CreationDate="2018-08-01T08:20:10.790" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="'Low-quality contributions'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="24fa0145-af8e-40d7-98f0-1de23ada0dd1" CreationDate="2018-08-01T08:20:10.790" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|suspensions|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="c73078db-49b7-4559-b377-5459ec969ed1" CreationDate="2018-08-01T13:21:06.827" UserId="44126" Text="Since [the automatic question/answer limitations went into place in 2017](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291142/280545),&#xD;&#xA;it has been quite rare for the moderators to issue manual suspensions for low-quality contributions.  I haven't double-checked but I think in 2018 I could count them on one hand. Suspensions for rudeness or for misusing multiple accounts are more common, but we don't have too many of those, either.&#xD;&#xA;(And a friendly reminder: if anyone reading this paragraph suddenly wants to discuss any possible past or present suspension of another user by name, please go outside and look for [pareidolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) in the clouds until the urge passes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your main question, we *do* consider both questions and answers when evaluating the quality of a user's contributions.  In a couple of cases this year I have used variations on [this SEDE query](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/840905/most-prolific-answerers-during-date-interval-mean-answer-score) as a starting point to help decide whether a user's recent posting frequency and quality were actually different from what's typical for the site, or whether I (or another mod, or a flagger) had just happened upon a couple of stinkers written by a user whose contributions are mostly pretty good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little reluctant to reveal the existence of that database query, however, because I worry it might leave some readers with the (wrong) impression that the moderation team is looking at some magical number.  We're not.  The goal of the moderation team is to *maintain our high-quality community*.  Nearly all of that maintenance is done by the community itself, through voting and commenting.  Only on rare occasions do we have a user who has missed or ignored these community cues.  In those rare cases, the moderation team has a reasoned discussion about whether the best course of action is firmer guidance in comments, or a moderator message, or an invitation for that user to write on other people's websites for a while rather than on our little corner of Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it's frustrating that this guidance is vague, but it really is how we do things.  The entire reason for having human moderators is [to handle exceptional cases](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation/).&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I were to answer your question &quot;what is the limit?&quot; by making up some number: a person whose posting record is $X$ would probably earn a manual suspension.&#xD;&#xA;Then in the future we'll find ourselves dealing with an edge case, some user whose posting record is $X-1$, who believes they are immune to criticism because they haven't crossed some magical threshold.&#xD;&#xA;Public arguments about edge cases (&quot;I've followed all your stupid rules, you can't tell me what to do&quot;) are *also* bad for the community.&#xD;&#xA;What I've written here really is (I hope) a fair summary of how the moderation team has been handling these sorts of decisions, and why we've come to do things that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="f3a125fe-6114-44f6-9396-e25834961e41" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:25:22.380" UserId="130274" Text="Right so I posted a question about something (not really important because the response is the important part).&#xA;&#xA;One of my responses (who I believe flagged the article) complained that it was not Physics because it was engineering.&#xA;&#xA;Now I know a few engineers and there is no doubt that what they do is Physics and all you need to do is look at what they study (the nature and properties of matter and energy) and know that they love thermodynamics more than most to know that engineering is Physics.&#xA;&#xA;So what is up with that? Are pure physicists just afraid of engineering questions because it is a new spin on what they already know or are non-traditional Physics questions banned?&#xA;&#xA;Just wondering, because it seems we might need an engineering SE otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="f3a125fe-6114-44f6-9396-e25834961e41" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:25:22.380" UserId="130274" Text="What do they mean by &quot;Physics&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="f3a125fe-6114-44f6-9396-e25834961e41" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:25:22.380" UserId="130274" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="5d97285e-d682-42bf-8ce6-883277110010" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:36:19.970" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Right so I posted a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/420606/2451) about something (not really important because the response is the important part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my responses (who I believe flagged the article) complained that it was not Physics because it was engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know a few engineers and there is no doubt that what they do is Physics and all you need to do is look at what they study (the nature and properties of matter and energy) and know that they love thermodynamics more than most to know that engineering is Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is up with that? Are pure physicists just afraid of engineering questions because it is a new spin on what they already know or are non-traditional Physics questions banned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just wondering, because it seems we might need an engineering SE otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="5d97285e-d682-42bf-8ce6-883277110010" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:36:19.970" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32961" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="5d97285e-d682-42bf-8ce6-883277110010" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:36:19.970" UserId="2451" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What do Phys.SE mean by &quot;Physics&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32962" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="8390079d-b1b6-489d-a6f3-b3da9d7e42cf" CreationDate="2018-08-02T11:59:23.937" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited title" Text="What qualifies as a 'low-quality contribution' on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="7edc69a1-cc2d-4109-bebe-915c77f32df2" CreationDate="2018-08-02T12:01:59.517" UserId="130274" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Right so I posted a [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/420606/2451) about something (not really important because the response is the important part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my responses (who I believe flagged the article) complained that it was not Physics because it was engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know a few engineers and there is no doubt that what they do is Physics and all you need to do is look at what they study (the nature and properties of matter and energy) and know that they love thermodynamics more than most to know that engineering is Physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is up with that? Are pure physicists just afraid of engineering questions because it is a new spin on what they already know or are non-traditional Physics questions banned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just wondering, because it seems we might need an engineering SE otherwise.&#xA;&#xA;TL;DR If engineering is physics based can it be on the Phys.SE? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32964" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="02aca3d1-dc36-4cc6-9ac7-2c5e142a8196" CreationDate="2018-08-02T12:03:22.970" UserId="130274" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="Engineering, what does Phys.SE deem as not Physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="58dd9889-f7e7-431f-9add-63b26ec0690b" CreationDate="2018-08-02T12:19:23.540" UserId="127931" Text="Physics is for questions that ask about physics concepts mainly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many engineers like physics, because engineering often applies physics, so there is some overlap. In this question; you're _applying_ physics for material comparisons, and essentially asking which is best suited to a purpose. This type of material selection is far more engineering than physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to know why materials behaved as they did, you could probably make that an on-topic question; but you would have to formulate the question differently, and it probably wouldn't answer what you want to find out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="c81073bc-6f86-4c84-9915-6e0ec134be06" CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:38:05.773" UserId="127931" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Physics is for questions that ask about physics concepts mainly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many engineers like physics, because engineering often applies physics, so there is some overlap. In this question; you're _applying_ physics for material comparisons, and essentially asking which is best suited to a purpose. This type of material selection is far more engineering than physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to know why materials behaved as they did, you could probably make that an on-topic question; but you would have to formulate the question differently, and it probably wouldn't answer exactly what you want to find out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32967" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="cf9d5085-bc3a-4b95-885d-cdaf9304d1bd" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:27:41.090" UserId="68181" Comment="Modifying title, as suggested in comment." Text="Are people voting less than they used to on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="9d5c80ba-73e2-430e-a39b-8e2adeaaa3f7" CreationDate="2018-08-07T17:53:21.657" UserId="202461" Text="[![A powerful graaphing calculator][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9k6gv.png&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: https://desmos.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="9a9384bd-a3a4-4a2f-aae5-eb4067973c37" CreationDate="2018-08-07T17:58:25.337" UserId="202461" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="[![A powerful graphing tool][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RDnW2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://desmos.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="5a0e2ea6-7572-4d2d-b593-62dd480ac0d6" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:53:05.400" UserId="4888" Text="It seems to me that the [measurement-problem] tag is misused almost as much as the [mathematical-physics] tag.  Would it make sense to (1) put a more clear warning on the tag description and maybe (2) introduce a new tag for questions involving quantum mechanical measurements, e.g. [quantum-measurement], which unaware askers might be more likely to pick?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="5a0e2ea6-7572-4d2d-b593-62dd480ac0d6" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:53:05.400" UserId="4888" Text="Misuse of [measurement-problem] tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="5a0e2ea6-7572-4d2d-b593-62dd480ac0d6" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:53:05.400" UserId="4888" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="5e84862d-0b58-4057-8d1f-2cca776fa5d8" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:57:50.703" UserId="2451" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that the [tag:measurement-problem] tag is misused almost as much as the [tag:mathematical-physics] tag.  Would it make sense to (1) put a more clear warning on the tag description and maybe (2) introduce a new tag for questions involving quantum mechanical measurements, e.g. [quantum-measurement], which unaware askers might be more likely to pick?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="75112560-9cd5-4728-8220-50f07b769962" CreationDate="2018-08-08T14:15:30.660" UserId="202461" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[![A powerful graphing tool][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RDnW2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.desmos.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="6948a944-d5df-4d5b-83fa-db609c6f3972" CreationDate="2018-08-08T14:21:19.773" UserId="202461" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[![A powerful graphing tool][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DsTFh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.desmos.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="9e96c963-712e-4153-b3f7-6e00246faf8b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:03:40.243" UserId="179151" Text="I haven't been able to put pictures in my answers, and I cannot see any pictures posted in other people's questions. Is this an issue on my end, or is imgur having issues?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="9e96c963-712e-4153-b3f7-6e00246faf8b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:03:40.243" UserId="179151" Text="Imgur Issue? Cannot see or upload pictures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="9e96c963-712e-4153-b3f7-6e00246faf8b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:03:40.243" UserId="179151" Text="|bug|answers|image|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="85900918-3c56-4b95-afb5-c032aeecb617" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:05:39.040" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="This is an issue on Imgur's side: see https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/313779/is-stack-imgur-currently-down &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't have an update on this other than being more than a little angry with the state of things and that I'm working with Imgur to ensure they get it back online ASAP. – Nick Craver♦ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a workaround, use 1000 words: they render independently of Imgur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="5f5fb96a-daf3-4e21-9dbe-f00cdcbba393" CreationDate="2018-08-09T07:50:03.143" UserDisplayName="user197851" Text="I was answering [this question][1] and saw that it was tagged [molecular-dynamics] which surprised me, since it is nothing to do with MD. I thought I would edit it to include the tag [Monte-Carlo], only to find that it doesn't exist. That surprised me more. Although I can understand that some questions about Monte Carlo simulation might be better suited to [Computational Science SE][2], or even conceivably Math or Stats SE, many such questions are intimately connected with the physics of the system, and would be a good fit here (IMHO). I can't find much serious discussion of this here on Meta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I finally get up to the reputation level needed to create new tags, and attempt to create [Monte-Carlo], should I expect some counter-arguments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/421836/why-does-it-become-difficult-to-sample-configuration-during-a-phase-change-in-mo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="5f5fb96a-daf3-4e21-9dbe-f00cdcbba393" CreationDate="2018-08-09T07:50:03.143" UserDisplayName="user197851" Text="No Monte-Carlo tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="5f5fb96a-daf3-4e21-9dbe-f00cdcbba393" CreationDate="2018-08-09T07:50:03.143" UserDisplayName="user197851" Text="|discussion|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="fbf751eb-c1c9-4392-817a-672db48ea2b0" CreationDate="2018-08-09T09:01:50.283" UserId="2451" Text="- Concerning questions about Monte-Carlo, they should first of all be tagged with the [tag:computational-physics] tag and possibly the [tag:simulations] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whether a new tag [X] should be introduced depends on various factors, such as, e.g., &#xD;&#xA; 1. Nearby tags: each question can only support 5 tags. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Are people actual going to use the [X] tag, or is it just collecting dust? If tag [X] is only applied on, say, 10% of all subject X questions, it may be more fruitful to search for the word X directly, rather than to search for a tag [X]. &#xD;&#xA; 3. The interests of the Phys.SE community is not uniformly distributed over all physics topics. Certain areas of physics may call for more refined tagging than others.&#xD;&#xA;4. Phys.SE is user-driven. If a user volunteer to be a curator for a new tag [X], it is more likely to be realized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Reminder to everyone: If you see errors in a post (such as, e.g. a tag that doesn't belong), you are encouraged to edit/leave a comment, whichever seems most appropriate (and provided the main original intent of the post is not altered)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="49a3dd48-501b-4289-bbc9-e742d7135d66" CreationDate="2018-08-09T17:49:50.707" UserId="57218" Text="I'm not sure whether perhaps this is the site to ask such a question, and I may as well ask it here, but if it is not appropriate I would like to know where to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, I am a 21 year-old physics and mathematics student, having finished my second year of undergraduate studies. I have suffered from mild tinnitus and hyperacusis for about 7 years, but within the last year it has become very severe, and is now coupled with very severe unilateral hearing loss (right ear). It has a great impact on me emotionally (because music was a large part of my life) and is incredibly distracting for me on a daily basis. It interferes with my work, and because intellectual pursuits are truly the most important thing in my life- always have been!- I worry greatly about future prospects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am awaiting specialist therapy for this, so am not seeking advice of this form. However I would very much like to hear from other physicists/mathematicians/academics with hearing diasabilities: how it has impacted their research and academic life, strategies they use to cope etc. I would find it very useful to hear about people's experiences, and it would give me hope to know that there are ways of getting around this. I cannot imagine a life in which I am not actively doing research and contributing to science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where would be the appropriate place to ask about such a topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="49a3dd48-501b-4289-bbc9-e742d7135d66" CreationDate="2018-08-09T17:49:50.707" UserId="57218" Text="Where to ask a question about being a physicist with a hearing disability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="49a3dd48-501b-4289-bbc9-e742d7135d66" CreationDate="2018-08-09T17:49:50.707" UserId="57218" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10748" RevisionGUID="d1fd4da1-4afa-4dc0-9b7b-c24ca849761b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T19:06:32.443" UserId="124" Text="The [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com) would not be an appropriate place to ask about this, for a couple of reasons: first, questions about career guidance and similar things are taken to be off topic, but also because a question just asking for people's experiences is more open-ended than what the site is meant for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try checking with people at [Academia Stack Exchange](https://academia.stackexchange.com) to see if they might consider it on topic there. I think they're more open to career guidance questions, but they may still consider it too open-ended; I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could definitely ask about this in [our chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar), but there are a limited number of people who participate there regularly so the chance of finding someone else with a similar experience to share is probably not that great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a question like this, you might actually find the best response by looking  at a more traditional discussion forum outside of Stack Exchange. We have [a list of other sites](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site-wh) at which people can ask certain kinds of questions that are off topic here. It's not quite meant for what you're looking to ask, but it might give you some leads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="a24e2066-7727-4aec-864c-2aa40787391c" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:07:03.503" UserId="102550" Text="I'm struggling a little bit with this site and I think I'm starting to put my finger on why.  Physics is about the nature of reality, there must be (at some level) a way to say something is objectively incorrect.  But the way this site works is not really about that, answers are accepted and upvoted because they match what people think (or want to believe) and it's becoming clear that a lot of highly upvoted and accepted answers can't possibly be correct.  As a side-effect, the people that answered gain reputation.  Whether that means they are an expert or not, it will surely be interpreted as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me be clear, I do not claim to be an expert in physics.  I entered university as a physics major but later decided that it wasn't for me.  I learned a lot in those years, mainly about how to evaluate whether something was a plausible explanation using logic.  I mainly enjoy learning about physics as a hobby and I have great respect for those who really do it.  There are some clear experts here.  In fact, the main reason I post anything here is in the hopes that someone will inform me (correctly) that I am wrong.  Then I learn something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But enough about me.  The thing that bothers me is that more and more I see really wrong answers being upvoted.  I wouldn't really care but it would seem that this could result in this site becoming a source of disinformation.  Let's say, for example, that someone creates an answer based on flat-earth nonsense and it were highly upvoted and accepted.  Would that be OK?  I mean, the nature of the universe is not a popularity contest.  &quot;A million Elvis fans can't be wrong&quot; is surely a fallacy and that's especially true when it comes to physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to happen a lot with the 'hot network questions'.  I get the feeling that the actual experts around here don't want to get involved in those.  I can imagine why.  I'm not sure it's a good idea for the moderators to start deleting things.  So we are left with, frankly, outright nonsense as answers and people who post nonsense getting reputations.  This doesn't seem good to me but is that just how it's going to be?  I'm trying to decide if I need to get away from this site as this trend is highly distracting.  I hate watching an otherwise good resource become part of the larger movement towards the 'post-fact' age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this 'just how it is' or is there a possible solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="a24e2066-7727-4aec-864c-2aa40787391c" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:07:03.503" UserId="102550" Text="Does it matter if answers are correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="a24e2066-7727-4aec-864c-2aa40787391c" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:07:03.503" UserId="102550" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="f737224c-70d7-478a-8ea3-8e0ea0246973" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:41:08.500" UserId="73938" Text="I was writing a comprehensive answer to a question when it became protected before I could submit my answer. Could a mod please submit my answer for me? I took a lot of time to write up and research and it seems not in the spirit of the site that such research get penalized by not being able to post an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: And now I can't post this question because it says I can only answer a question once every 40 minutes--even though my post never went through on the question in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the question:&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/421895/dropping-a-brick-from-a-balloon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer I was in the process of submitting is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl; dr The energy comes from the conversion of buoyant potential energy to gravitational potential energy. That energy came from filling the balloon with enough helium to lift it and the brick off the ground.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you haven't filled up your balloon yet--you have a deflated balloon tied to a brick and sitting on the ground. Let's call the balloon brick system the airship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The airship is at equilibrium sitting on the ground. It has no potential or kinetic energy. But then you hook up your balloon to your canister of helium and start to fill it up. As the balloon starts to fill, the volume of atmosphere displaced by the helium increases, until the weight of that displaced air becomes greater than the weight of the balloon filled with helium (this only works to lift the balloon because helium is less dense than the surrounding air). That buoyancy provides an upward force on the balloon and the airship. At this point the balloon is floating above the brick, but still lacks the force to lift the airship off the ground. The brick itself is still at equilibrium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You keep filling up the balloon with helium, and eventually the force of buoyancy from the larger balloon provides enough upward force on the airship to overcome the force of gravity on the airship--so you stop pumping helium into the balloon by disconnecting your canister. The airship is now out of equilibrium by being on the ground and begins to rise to achieve a lower energy state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gravity doesn't change as your airship rises (it technically increases a little bit from the extra atmosphere beneath you, but we can ignore that). If your balloon was strong enough, you'd eventually get to a point high enough up in the atmosphere such that buoyant force exerted on the balloon decreases to the point that the airship is in equilibrium again--the buoyant force balances the gravitational force on the airship. Your airship now has a lot of gravitational potential energy! But where did it come from? It actually comes from the buoyant force which was constantly acting on the airship during the ascent. Your airship, once it was filled up enough to start rising off the ground, gained buoyant potential energy. So as your airship ascended, it was converting that buoyant potential energy to gravitational potential energy. The catch is that during the ascent, there was actually another force acting on the airship as well--the force from air resistance. So you actually *lose* potential energy overall by having your airship float into the sky! But that's a good thing--because if it didn't lose potential energy by ascending, it wouldn't ascend in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might ask, where did the buoyant potential energy come from though? It came from filling the balloon with enough helium to overcome the force of gravity on the airship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a nice succinct reference I found that goes over the problem with equations: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.1466552" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="f737224c-70d7-478a-8ea3-8e0ea0246973" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:41:08.500" UserId="73938" Text="Question was protected while I was writing an answer. Can a mod post my answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="f737224c-70d7-478a-8ea3-8e0ea0246973" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:41:08.500" UserId="73938" Text="|support|moderators|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="081bdb33-4637-44e3-9fc6-b31f99f06ab1" CreationDate="2018-08-09T22:36:13.987" UserId="124" Text="I guess it would be technically possible, but I believe a better solution is to unprotect the question, which I've done. You can post your answer there now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I don't think it's a good idea for people to be posting answers for other people. Maybe there are rare situations where it's necessary, but I think this is not one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="e9277bdf-9397-4769-8ab7-84673ddc9d9f" CreationDate="2018-08-10T12:45:33.267" UserId="2451" Text="OP has already resolved his specific problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since a meta post is about policy making, it raises a more general issue about the future: Should a HNQ be protected after, say 3, answers? Past experience suggests a yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if OP is really, really committed to answer a protected question, obtaining the required 10 reputation points on Phys.SE is not an insurmountable task.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="07a5d912-7bea-4ed4-857d-6b6134d5cfdd" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:10:53.683" UserId="92058" Text="I am sometimes surprised at certain questions that have received huge numbers of views. For example, I just stumbled across [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay). I mean it no disrespect - it's a perfectly nice question - but it only has three votes and is quite esoteric and closed as homework-like. I can't imagine that people often search for keywords that lead to this question, or click on it based on its title. Nevertheless, it has almost 17,000 views, which I believe puts it well within the highest percentile of the most widely-viewed questions on the entire network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be the result of bots or a bug in the analytics? Or is there something about questions like this that I'm missing which makes them immensely popular? (Again, I mean no disrespect to the OP and I don't mean to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="07a5d912-7bea-4ed4-857d-6b6134d5cfdd" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:10:53.683" UserId="92058" Text="Why do some random-seeming questions have huge numbers of views?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="07a5d912-7bea-4ed4-857d-6b6134d5cfdd" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:10:53.683" UserId="92058" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="f4c502bd-77c2-429d-ba53-3a7ce7292cd5" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:22:45.437" UserId="520" Text="One common answer is the Hot Network Questions sidebar that appears across the Stack Exchange network. Questions that get in the HNQ often attract views (and votes, and don't get me started on that) far out of proportion to the day to day expectations of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, being selected to appear in the HNQ sidebar does not leave a audit trail that is visible even to site moderators, so I can't say if that question did or did not partake of the HNQ effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="9b0d74ee-271c-4a7c-b428-a3452223d021" CreationDate="2018-08-11T02:58:26.023" UserId="92058" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am sometimes surprised at certain questions that have received huge numbers of views. For example, I just stumbled across [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay). I mean it no disrespect - it's a perfectly nice question - but it only has three votes and is quite esoteric and closed as homework-like. I can't imagine that people often search for keywords that lead to this question, or click on it based on its title. Nevertheless, it has almost 17,000 views, which I believe puts it well within the highest percentile of the most widely-viewed questions on the entire community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be the result of bots or a bug in the analytics? Or is there something about questions like this that I'm missing which makes them immensely popular? (Again, I mean no disrespect to the OP and I don't mean to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="71fa67d3-0fc2-4d54-a2aa-95c987c37e51" CreationDate="2018-08-11T09:04:52.870" UserId="83398" Text="It's not the HNQ effect; the upvote/view ratio is all wrong for that, and the views come in over too long a time period. It's just the fact that StackExchange is good at search engine optimization, and the market for high school homework help is _huge_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unusually popular questions have one of two features. Either they contain the exact text of a commonly assigned high school textbook problem, or they contain a common phrase, so that somebody googling &quot;how to convert enthalpy from J/g to kJ/mol&quot; will land on the question with title &quot;Converting enthalpy from J/g to kJ/mol&quot;. If a question's title or body matches what the typical high school student is searching for a little bit better, it'll get 100 times the views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as a former high school student, I'm sure you'll all agree that high school science is terrible. Most things are explained extremely poorly in typical physics or chemistry classes, and many homework questions that hinge on arbitrary conventions or outright incorrect assumptions. Every day, millions of students return home and start googling for answers and explanations. This market is what gives sites like Quora and Yahoo Answers view counts that are ~100x ours, but also their much lower quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="bb42edfb-60d5-498f-a6e8-1eec8d6ee47d" CreationDate="2018-08-11T09:13:54.817" UserId="83398" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="It's not the HNQ effect; the upvote/view ratio is all wrong for that, and the views come in over too long a time period. It's just the fact that StackExchange is good at search engine optimization, and the market for high school homework help is _huge_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unusually popular questions have one of two features. Either they contain the exact text of a commonly assigned high school textbook problem, or they contain a common phrase, so that somebody googling &quot;how to convert enthalpy from J/g to kJ/mol&quot; will land on the question with title &quot;Converting enthalpy from J/g to kJ/mol&quot;. If a question's title or body matches what the typical high school student is searching for a little bit better, it'll get 100 times the views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as a former high school student, I'm sure you'll all agree high school science is terrible. Most things are explained poorly, and many homework questions hinge on arbitrary conventions and unstated assumptions, when they're even correct to begin with. (Last year I helped my sister through a chemistry class where she kept getting zeroes for writing &quot;8.392 kJ/mol&quot; instead of &quot;8.393 kJ/mol&quot;. Apparently, not only the way you round but the _rounding convention for intermediate calculations_ must match for credit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not surprising that every day, millions of students return home and start googling for homework help. This market is what gives sites like Quora and Yahoo Answers view counts that are ~100x ours, but also their much lower quality. This is the real reason the homework policy exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33008" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="eb6a5dd9-5982-4d50-a7ff-37fc426c6600" CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:04:20.150" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="af26d3f7-0b2b-4020-841c-ba11ac7f7b1d" CreationDate="2018-08-11T14:13:14.987" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I meant to write this as a comment but it turned out too long and it kind of answers the question...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's another example of incorrect accepted stuff: my answer to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/408301/can-low-frequency-electromagnetic-radiation-be-ionizing/408307#408307 had a major factual inaccuracy when it was accepted. I considered deleting it once the comments pointed out the mistake, but apparently accepted answers can't be deleted. Eventually I settled with editing it, so the present version's correct, and fortunately the bad version wasn't up for too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I think of it, the good thing somebody (maybe me) should have done in a case like that where most _other_ answers agreed with each other was leave a comment under the question indicating that the accepted answer is incorrect, and the original author of the question can look at all the other (hopefully) correct answers and change the accepted one. Maybe it's odd to bring up myself as a perpetrator of this kind of thing but I think I learned a lesson with that one ;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for wrong accepted answers, it's probably good to mention to the asker that there's a doubt about the accepted answer's validity under the question, and then write a detailed contradiction under the suspicious answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid way to use comments under questions: Is it a temporary note to the author of the question? Yes. Is it suggesting an improvement? Yes. Is it answering the question? No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it only works when the wrong one is accepted and when there are several other correct answers; happily, the latter is a common characteristic of HNQs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, it does matter if answers are correct. Use comments to ask for citations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33010" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="ed6f5e92-a557-47d7-bb41-c75c4af68973" CreationDate="2018-08-11T15:01:24.703" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1028295323431694336" />
  <row Id="33011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="1ee6f02d-ac30-4c44-a3cc-60e2f6d53d80" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:24:17.877" UserId="2911" Text="Unfortunately, search analytics are kinda crap, and we appear to have lost most of the historical data for Stack Exchange sites in Google Analytics. So I can't really give you much in the way of inside info here, other than to note that the view counter doesn't rely on any external system - [more info here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36728/how-are-the-number-of-views-in-a-question-calculated). So while view counts aren't perfectly accurate, they're probably pretty solid over long periods of time (which is the case here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's do a bit of amateur detective work via archive.org:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [15 days after the question was posted](https://web.archive.org/web/20130421052437/https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay) it had 77 views (note that this is the only period where it could've reasonably gotten into the Hot Network Questions list, and clearly it didn't)&#xD;&#xA;- [7 months after being asked](https://web.archive.org/web/20141027104204/https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay) it had 2015 views (avg 287 views a month)&#xD;&#xA;- [18 months](https://web.archive.org/web/20141027104204/http://physics.stackexchange.com:80/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay) 3919 views (avg 105 views/mo since last sample)&#xD;&#xA;- [29 months](https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025149/http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay) 4342 views (avg 38 views/mo since last sample)&#xD;&#xA;- [43 months](https://web.archive.org/web/20161225033425/http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay) 9681 views (avg 381 views/mo since last sample)&#xD;&#xA;- [48 months](https://web.archive.org/web/20170405184054/http://physics.stackexchange.com:80/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay) 10944 views (avg 84 views/mo since last)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And today at 64 months it has 16804 views, or about 366 views/mo since the last capture on Archive.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This jibes pretty well with [knzhou's theory](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10753/why-do-some-random-seeming-questions-have-huge-numbers-of-views/10755#10755): regular crops of students googling for info and landing on that particular question. So I'd probably go with that as my assumption too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To confirm, I sampled the server request logs for a few days over the past year, and all hits to that question came from... Google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="e6c35787-ebed-4aff-9ab4-b9511a3a5b0e" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:19:51.307" UserId="92058" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I am sometimes surprised at certain questions that have received huge numbers of views. For example, I just stumbled across [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60119/kinetic-energy-of-alpha-particle-in-212po-decay). I mean it no disrespect - it's a perfectly nice question - but it only has three votes and is quite esoteric and closed as homework-like. I can't imagine that people often search for keywords that lead to this question, or click on it based on its title. Nevertheless, it has almost 17,000 views, which almost puts it within the highest percentile of the most widely-viewed questions on the entire community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be the result of bots or a bug in the analytics? Or is there something about questions like this that I'm missing which makes them immensely popular? (Again, I mean no disrespect to the OP and I don't mean to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="e02a5a60-72c3-48af-9a98-c34b7ec5e44f" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:27:13.080" UserId="17489" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415750/how-much-degenerate-matter-is-there-compared-to-other-states-of-matter hasn't had any replies. I'm thinking about starting a bounty on it, but maybe it would be more appropriate in Chemistry or Astronomy SE instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="e02a5a60-72c3-48af-9a98-c34b7ec5e44f" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:27:13.080" UserId="17489" Text="Is my question in the wrong place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="e02a5a60-72c3-48af-9a98-c34b7ec5e44f" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:27:13.080" UserId="17489" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10760" RevisionGUID="5697a16e-cc95-4773-846b-28d658a4792b" CreationDate="2018-08-12T00:37:24.097" UserId="124" Text="It's not a great question, but I think it is technically on topic here. So no, I would say it's not in the wrong place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're welcome to put a bounty on it to get it more attention, or you're welcome to delete it yourself and repost it on another SE site. (Bear in mind that you won't be able to do this if the question gets any upvoted answers.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="6bf0b55e-b297-41fd-9ead-57d6de009183" CreationDate="2018-08-12T05:15:13.157" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags" Text="https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/415750/  hasn't had any replies. I'm thinking about starting a bounty on it, but maybe it would be more appropriate in Chemistry or Astronomy SE instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="6bf0b55e-b297-41fd-9ead-57d6de009183" CreationDate="2018-08-12T05:15:13.157" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="ce6cc21b-cd50-4fcb-8179-fc5c698bde3d" CreationDate="2018-08-12T11:48:26.407" UserId="8563" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="Apparently, [Ch-ch-ch-changes are coming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes) to the site navigation and theming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that that's the case (and that therefore there are designer work-hours already scheduled to attend to our site design), can I suggest that maybe now is a good time to drop the super-awkward-once-you-notice-it (except you rarely do) arrow in the site logo's background Feynman diagram?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMhI5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This arrow seems to have been carried in from the [Wikimedia Commons standard image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg) for Feynman diagrams, but frankly, it doesn't really pull its weight in the graphics, no one ever sees it except to be awkwarded out by it, and it can just be cut out without harming anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I wrong and there's actually a huge fanbase for the Feynman-diagram arrow out there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** the CSS on the viewcounts [just changed](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fTFDd.png) so I suspect the change is imminent, so here's a bump of this feature request as a friendly reminder to the team :-).&#xD;&#xA;%&#xD;&#xA;%&#xD;&#xA;No, scratch that, the CSS hasn't changed.&#xD;&#xA;%&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="c7b0586d-9eab-438b-b00f-7d84ff62e87f" CreationDate="2018-08-12T12:10:56.083" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;Let's say, for example, that someone creates an answer based on flat-earth nonsense and it were highly upvoted and accepted. Would that be OK? I mean, the nature of the universe is not a popularity contest. &quot;A million Elvis fans can't be wrong&quot; is surely a fallacy and that's especially true when it comes to physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alt-text over the upvote button says `This answer is useful`, so if someone actually found the nonsense post useful, they're free to upvote it. &#xD;&#xA;While clearly non-ideal for us, it is okay by SE standards; this is how *all* of the SE sites work. And, sadly, there's also a contingent of active users on this site who tend to upvote everything, especially new posts from new users, no matter how ridiculous the answer is, though this [isn't a Physics.SE-only thing](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/149621/the-current-review-system-encourages-fake-reviews-some-people-upvote-everything/149624#149624).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again: clearly non-ideal for us. Answers (here &amp; other science sites) should be upvoted because they're *right*, not because they were *useful*. But there isn't a way to enforce such a system, so plain old up-down voting is all we can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you note an incorrect answer is gaining upvotes, **downvote it &amp; leave a comment as to *why* it is incorrect.** If it's corrected, then you've done your job. If not, future readers of the post will see your argument and will hopefully downvote the answer and upvote your comment. It's been my experience that these types of comments tend *not* to be deleted or moved to chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This seems to happen a lot with the 'hot network questions'. I get the feeling that the actual experts around here don't want to get involved in those. I can imagine why. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the moderators to start deleting things. So we are left with, frankly, outright nonsense as answers and people who post nonsense getting reputations. This doesn't seem good to me but is that just how it's going to be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the HNQ effect is terrible for the site because it draws people who upvote things that just &quot;sound good&quot; rather than for being right (especially if the answer as an upvote or two, the train keeps on rolling on that one). It's just something we have to deal with. [Protecting](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/06/07/new-protected-question-status/) the question does help deter some of these bad posts from the HNQ effect, but, again, it is something we have to accept &amp; deal with on the SE network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think moderators unilaterally deleting posts for being &quot;wrong&quot; is a good idea, it's a very *bad* idea. These users were elected to deal with the moderation of the site (e.g., ensuring users behaved according to policy), *not* to be &quot;ultimate arbiters of truth.&quot;  That job is left to the *community*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall, users with &gt;10k rep can only vote to delete the post if (a) it has negative score or (b) it's been flagged as low-quality. I don't know that we've deleted such a post, but you're [welcome to search the low quality review history](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/history) to find one. You can also try by flagging it as low quality (along with leaving a comment as to why the post is wrong) and see if that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that reputation is mostly useless, so there really shouldn't be much concern over such posters of nonsense gaining too much rep. Even if they gain enough rep over the years and gain access to the review queues, they can't really damage the site. You may also be interested in reading [this similar question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6039/25301).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm trying to decide if I need to get away from this site as this trend is highly distracting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every question will be HNQ, but there will be some. Not every answer is going to be mainstream physics. If you can't deal with either/both of these, then this site is not for you. We thank you for your contribution, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33028" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="9710b974-49a8-4a72-b37f-c7cf51892929" CreationDate="2018-08-14T12:01:24.413" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1029337187299586048" />
  <row Id="33033" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="5937430b-ec12-448e-adac-192e35f5209c" CreationDate="2018-08-15T00:00:54.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1029518255034171392" />
  <row Id="33034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="0a48b626-cb6e-4e61-93c8-ad303cf8b834" CreationDate="2018-08-15T12:30:24.640" UserId="4993" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/422844/only-sea-water-appears-blue-in-color-why-this-is-not-happening-in-river-water&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt;, asking why oceans look blue but rivers don't, was closed as a duplicate of another question, which was answered with a good explanation of why large masses of water, including oceans and swimming pools, look blue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;duplicate&quot; does not address the main thrust of the new question, which can be reworded as &quot;if oceans, then why not rivers?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this was closed prematurely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="0a48b626-cb6e-4e61-93c8-ad303cf8b834" CreationDate="2018-08-15T12:30:24.640" UserId="4993" Text="Prematurely closed &quot;duplicate&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="0a48b626-cb6e-4e61-93c8-ad303cf8b834" CreationDate="2018-08-15T12:30:24.640" UserId="4993" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|duplicates|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="97d30d68-9f21-492d-a53a-bef9bfb81a0b" CreationDate="2018-08-15T12:52:25.990" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/422844/&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt;, asking why oceans look blue but rivers don't, was closed as a duplicate of another question, which was answered with a good explanation of why large masses of water, including oceans and swimming pools, look blue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;duplicate&quot; does not address the main thrust of the new question, which can be reworded as &quot;if oceans, then why not rivers?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this was closed prematurely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33038" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="97d30d68-9f21-492d-a53a-bef9bfb81a0b" CreationDate="2018-08-15T12:52:25.990" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|duplicates|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33043" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="138a4d91-f9ee-4cd6-abab-71fa9fd5a6bc" CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:01:39.523" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1029835533772619777" />
  <row Id="33045" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="b1598fb4-ec9e-4490-add0-f28926c465e9" CreationDate="2018-08-17T00:01:04.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1030243074365120512" />
  <row Id="33046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="02d70d4d-37a6-40cc-86c1-cc33dab2e2e1" CreationDate="2018-08-17T09:14:22.043" UserId="21441" Text="As a non-native English speaker, I find it utterly confusing to read text containing figures like &quot;1,234 m&quot;, which in English means _1234 m_ while for a person used to read e.g. French or German (person's native language) it'll mean _1234 mm_ at first, only to be re-read to reinterpret correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to exist a cure for this: according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Digit_grouping),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since 2003, the use of spaces as separators (for example: 20&amp;#8239;000 and 1&amp;#8239;000&amp;#8239;000 for &quot;twenty thousand&quot; and &quot;one million&quot;) has been officially endorsed by SI/ISO 31-0 standard, as well as by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the American Medical Association's widely followed AMA Manual of Style, and the Metrication Board, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as the posts on StackExchange contain lots of numbers with comma as digit grouping symbol, I'm reluctant to change them to narrow spaces when editing, because I worry that this may be regarded as a question of style, although I suppose using spaces will help non-native-English audience avoid mistaken reading of the numbers — especially 4- to 6-digit long ones, where there's only one comma (two or more commas is a hint already that it's not integer-fraction separator). So far I've approached this conservatively, only fixing numbers lacking integral part in a decimal number (like `.1345` instead of `0.1345`) by prepending zeros to them, to make it more obvious that there's a point before the digits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is it acceptable, when fixing formatting of a post, to replace commas in numbers to narrow no-break spaces (U+202F)? Or are there any good reasons why I shouldn't do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has also been [asked on general Meta.SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/303120/226705), where a suggestion is that the answer may be site-specific, thus this question on Physics.SE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="02d70d4d-37a6-40cc-86c1-cc33dab2e2e1" CreationDate="2018-08-17T09:14:22.043" UserId="21441" Text="Is it OK to change commas to narrow no-break spaces in numbers when editing a post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="02d70d4d-37a6-40cc-86c1-cc33dab2e2e1" CreationDate="2018-08-17T09:14:22.043" UserId="21441" Text="|discussion|editing|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="60d90b63-f343-486e-a6e3-3d3b02869dcf" CreationDate="2018-08-17T17:05:41.937" UserId="84967" Text="My opinion: I am perfectly ok with editing posts to comply with stylistic standards and, in particular, I agree commas look silly in science. But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you are a &lt;2k user, don't suggest an edit *just* to remove commas. A reviewer will have to go through your edit and, if minor, it will only waste their time. Make the edit significant or don't do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you are a &gt;2k user, your edit will not require reviewing, so in principle you are only wasting your own time; you do you. But please don't *just* remove a comma on old posts -- this would bump the question into the front page, thus wasting reviewers time. Make the edit significant or don't do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="649ffa3b-a287-4e4c-a676-1137a5f3cf83" CreationDate="2018-08-17T20:56:59.963" UserId="44126" Text="From [our editing guidelines](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/editing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1.   To fix grammar and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; 2.   To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)&#xD;&#xA; 3.   To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place&#xD;&#xA; 4.   To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages&#xD;&#xA; 5.   To add related resources or hyperlinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's always some tension in meeting *all* of these guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;For instance, there's a software-enforced restriction where single-character and few-character edits can't even be submitted, on the assumption that they are not substantial.  That's not always correct: sometimes an author will accidentally [](omit) a key word, and the omission of that key word renders the meaning of an important section of their text ambiguous or incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;In those cases different editors choose different techniques to evade the software limit.  Some find some other cosmetic improvements to make to the post (good); others fill out the character count with invisible whitespace changes (not so good).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [current answer to your Meta.SE version of this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/303122/280545) contains this nice guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Which version of English do we use?&quot; [...] whichever the author wishes. For example, we do not edit &quot;favorite&quot; to &quot;favourite&quot; (or the reverse) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is used to justify *not* editing intranumerical commas into spaces or periods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I would suggest.&#xD;&#xA;If you are reading a post and this internationalization issue is the *primary thing* that you would like to fix in an edit, then in general it's better to let the post stand as it is rather than coming up with some other &quot;padding&quot; to &quot;substantialize&quot; the edit.&#xD;&#xA;But if you're reading a post that has several minor issues --- maybe some grammar problems or LaTeXing ambiguity --- and one of those issues just *happens* to be ambiguous or missing interdigital separators, then you might as well replace the ambiguous separators with a space.  If the numbers are in MathJax-typeset text, the TeX thin space `\,` is nice, and less confusing for future editors than an invisible Unicode character with strange behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along the same lines, please don't make a project of digging back through the archives and fixing minor problems like this on inactive posts; that does distort the front page.  If you're looking for a project, pick a tag that you like, look for old unanswered questions, and write good answers to them. That's the main reason we're here, after all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33055" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="3b70fb51-35a8-4275-a511-4ce7bf4f3435" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:00:21.797" UserId="44126" Comment="No need to address a particular moderator here." Text="What's up with locking this question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="3b70fb51-35a8-4275-a511-4ce7bf4f3435" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:00:21.797" UserId="44126" Comment="No need to address a particular moderator here." Text="|discussion|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="cad5836b-d2be-4138-9c95-6710555136a6" CreationDate="2018-08-18T06:39:32.543" UserId="204294" Comment="added 558 characters in body" Text="Given $\left\{ a_{n}\::\:n=1,\:2,\:3,\:\cdots\right\} $ is an infinite&#xD;&#xA;sequence in $\mathbb{R}$, and every term is positive. How to prove&#xD;&#xA;that the set&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;\left\{ \frac{2+a_{n}}{\sqrt{2+a_{n}^{2}}}\::\:n=1,\:2,\:3,\:\cdots\right\} &#xD;&#xA;\end{equation}&#xD;&#xA;has a limit point? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem says that every bounded&#xD;&#xA;infinite subset of $\mathbb{R}$ has a limit point. But how to prove&#xD;&#xA;it is bounded? I tried this&#xD;&#xA;\begin{equation}&#xD;&#xA;\left|\frac{2+a_{n}}{\sqrt{2+a_{n}^{2}}}\right|\leq\left|\frac{2+a_{n}}{\sqrt{a_{n}^{2}}}\right|=\left|\frac{2+a_{n}}{a_{n}}\right|&#xD;&#xA;\end{equation}&#xD;&#xA;but does not seem work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or these is another way to show it has a limit point, without using Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="23f19d6d-8cde-4554-8399-45c84cf7c328" CreationDate="2018-08-20T09:00:00.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1031465863260655616" />
  <row Id="33064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="53cc6ef3-8c76-4b1b-b6a3-f36f828cd34b" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:10:32.423" UserId="68181" Text="[This question][1] contains a couple of unfortunate typos in the blockquote at the top; however, it seems that I'm not able to propose an edit, because it would be below the minimum limit of 6 characters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I ask what the purpose is of this character limit, that is preventing me from trying to clean up this question? The way I see it, even a 1-character typo in a conspicuous place can be irritating ..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/337001/question-on-work-energy-and-power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="53cc6ef3-8c76-4b1b-b6a3-f36f828cd34b" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:10:32.423" UserId="68181" Text="Not allowed to edit question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="53cc6ef3-8c76-4b1b-b6a3-f36f828cd34b" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:10:32.423" UserId="68181" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="4058a57e-bd5a-4355-9900-fe4445b7c8a5" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:16:41.937" UserId="50583" Text="The character limit is in place to discourage the suggestion of trivial edits (e.g. adding a single period at the end of a post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have full editing rights (at 2k reputation), i.e. when your edits are no longer submitted for review but directly applied to the post, you can also submit one-character edits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33069" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="a212f146-6b40-4f93-883a-3e02bc521422" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:16:55.100" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why does the system block typo-fixing edits below 6 characters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33070" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="a212f146-6b40-4f93-883a-3e02bc521422" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:16:55.100" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="a7cebfd7-554a-4331-9468-86207c365459" CreationDate="2018-08-21T23:33:25.207" UserId="113185" Text="Another option is to look at whether the answer could be improved by a judicious minor addition of useful and non-controversial information - taking care to ensure it doesn't detract from or alter the intention of the original answer. The addition thus provides the platform for fixing the odd typo, while at the same time helping to achieve the SE goal of providing excellent and useful answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="54d76017-a3d7-4f19-a6a5-26b985fa6a10" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:13:38.913" UserId="183212" Text="Now and then I get a downvote that shows up in &quot;recent achievements&quot;.  I go to the associated question, and there are no downvotes shown at all, on answers or comments.  What am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="54d76017-a3d7-4f19-a6a5-26b985fa6a10" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:13:38.913" UserId="183212" Text="Where is the downvote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="54d76017-a3d7-4f19-a6a5-26b985fa6a10" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:13:38.913" UserId="183212" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33083" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="e02147f5-af5a-4b2c-b8eb-abdb5d3d6c06" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:35:36.750" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="a52aac23-894f-4121-aa63-7b1c476c6bda" CreationDate="2018-08-24T04:50:36.890" UserId="62016" Text="As shown on [your reputation tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/183212/s-mcgrew?tab=reputation), the user *unaccepted* your answer, causing you to lose 15 rep from the accept bonus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You posted [the answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/407855/62016) on May 24&#xD;&#xA;- OP accepted your answer on May 30&#xD;&#xA;  ![accepted][1]&#xD;&#xA;- OP unaccepted your answer on August 22&#xD;&#xA;  ![unaccepted][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dFsrD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BgjR5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33085" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="9492e191-dd2e-4c55-94f2-336d901c451b" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:00:45.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1033957471063339009" />
  <row Id="33086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="16cb5c41-ee65-48ea-99fe-4d14f5755b7b" CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:00:22.687" UserId="75916" Text="Here I report a subjectively funny case of a person who posts a wall of text over and over, since at least two years, to answer questions. He does modify it in order to adapt it to the asked question, so one might argue that what he does is entirely legitimate. I personally think that in this case, what would be better suited, is a redirect to his own answer and stating that the case applies for the current question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's also funny is that sometimes his answer is widely negatively viewed, whilst other times it is quite positively viewed, but that's another story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering whether such a behavior (that one may call &quot;bottish&quot;, from robot behavior) is accepted/tolerated. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For starters, here are nine of his answers that are similar: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397113/energy-levels-and-photons-absorption/400250#400250, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/423446/what-makes-the-pre-slit-photon-detector-act-differently-than-air-in-a-which-way/423448, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/417915/acceleration-of-photon/417922, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/416124/could-light-bounce-infinitely/416185, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/419546/concerning-the-passage-of-light-through-a-glass-medium-and-its-apparent-re-acce, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/413467/when-a-photon-hits-a-moving-atom-and-stops-it-why-do-we-take-momentum-of-photon, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/423085/in-refraction-how-does-light-interact-with-electrons-if-it-is-not-absorbed/423095, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414792/what-is-light-s-behavior-in-a-medium, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401877/electron-absorbing-a-photon?rq=1. Google returns more of such of his answers, but I think nine examples is enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="16cb5c41-ee65-48ea-99fe-4d14f5755b7b" CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:00:22.687" UserId="75916" Text="Is it ok to copy and paste part of own answer over and over, to answer new questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="16cb5c41-ee65-48ea-99fe-4d14f5755b7b" CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:00:22.687" UserId="75916" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="42398ad1-fed4-4f6f-b2e4-c1cc52200729" CreationDate="2018-08-28T20:37:07.607" UserId="44126" Comment="list formatting" Text="Here I report a subjectively funny case of a person who posts a wall of text over and over, since at least two years, to answer questions. He does modify it in order to adapt it to the asked question, so one might argue that what he does is entirely legitimate. I personally think that in this case, what would be better suited, is a redirect to his own answer and stating that the case applies for the current question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's also funny is that sometimes his answer is widely negatively viewed, whilst other times it is quite positively viewed, but that's another story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering whether such a behavior (that one may call &quot;bottish&quot;, from robot behavior) is accepted/tolerated. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For starters, here are nine of his answers that are similar: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397113/energy-levels-and-photons-absorption/400250#400250&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/423446/what-makes-the-pre-slit-photon-detector-act-differently-than-air-in-a-which-way/423448&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/417915/acceleration-of-photon/417922&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/416124/could-light-bounce-infinitely/416185&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/419546/concerning-the-passage-of-light-through-a-glass-medium-and-its-apparent-re-acce&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/413467/when-a-photon-hits-a-moving-atom-and-stops-it-why-do-we-take-momentum-of-photon&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/423085/in-refraction-how-does-light-interact-with-electrons-if-it-is-not-absorbed/423095&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414792/what-is-light-s-behavior-in-a-medium&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/401877/electron-absorbing-a-photon?rq=1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google returns more of such of his answers, but I think nine examples is enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33090" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="20be4454-7b85-419f-99c2-3c30312ce4db" CreationDate="2018-08-29T08:38:20.190" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|answers|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33091" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="20be4454-7b85-419f-99c2-3c30312ce4db" CreationDate="2018-08-29T08:38:20.190" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Is it OK to copy and paste part of own answer over and over, to answer new questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="accf31f8-3a29-494e-bf5c-d1e63349ea6f" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:47:17.143" UserId="38675" Text="While there is some overlap, I wouldn't call it a 'wall of text' (which has generally negative connotations). Nor is it particularly 'bottish'. The user appears to be legitimately answering a variety of fundamentally similar questions, which require a fundamentally similar answer. Perhaps your complaint should be why most of those questions have not been closed as duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people have certain phrases that they use often. The comments above serve to remind us of that fact!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="cfe25ce2-8838-4a97-8beb-d415679c3d12" CreationDate="2018-08-31T00:16:03.347" UserId="227119" Text="What will be happen to answers given to questions long before the latter put on hold as off-topic ??? Is it fair to accuse the answerer for problematic behavior if this would happen for many times in series ??? Example : [Electric dipole moment when charges are not symmetrically opposite each other](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/423000/electric-dipole-moment-when-charges-are-not-symmetrically-opposite-each-other/423327#423327). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="cfe25ce2-8838-4a97-8beb-d415679c3d12" CreationDate="2018-08-31T00:16:03.347" UserId="227119" Text="Answers given to questions long before the latter put on hold as off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="cfe25ce2-8838-4a97-8beb-d415679c3d12" CreationDate="2018-08-31T00:16:03.347" UserId="227119" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="e71d5adc-4a39-4e86-840a-57685df26b6f" CreationDate="2018-08-31T00:42:17.733" UserId="170832" Text="Our [Moderator David Z says][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The policy is that content which is copied from another source should be either deleted, or edited to **make it clear what was copied and where it came from**. If it happens repeatedly, it could lead to moderator action. **Plagiarism is not tolerated** on the site as an ethical matter.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia's page on [self-plagiarism][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The **reuse** of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work **without acknowledging that one is doing so or citing the original work is sometimes described as &quot;self-plagiarism&quot;**; the term **&quot;recycling fraud&quot;** has also been used to describe this practice. Articles of this nature are often referred to as duplicate or multiple publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In academic fields, self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of their own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, but without attributing the previous publication. Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is accepted both legally (as fair use) and ethically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Self-plagiarism&quot; is a term with some specialized currency. Most prominently, it is used in discussions of research and publishing integrity in biomedicine, where heavy publish-or-perish demands have led to a rash of duplicate and [&quot;**salami-slicing**&quot; publication, the reporting of a single study's results in &quot;least publishable units&quot;][3] within multiple articles (Blancett, Flanagin, &amp; Young, 1995; Jefferson, 1998; Kassirer &amp; Angell, 1995; Lowe, 2003; McCarthy, 1993; Schein &amp; Paladugu, 2001; Wheeler, 1989). Roig (2002) offers a useful classification system including four types of self-plagiarism: duplicate publication of an article in more than one journal; partitioning of one study into multiple publications, often called **salami-slicing**; text recycling; and copyright infringement.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I properly quote and attribute. I could have provided my own opinion but it would hardly have the same weight as pointing out established practices. In the event that anyone else or I desire to make reference to this answer there is a 'share link' available to include with your written citation; some sites also have a separate 'cite link' to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self plagiarism is StackExchange's [pithy Laconian][4] version version of &quot;[Welcome to Corneria][5]&quot;. We don't want to be a platform for [creator's apathy][6] - where if you ask about one subject and try to find out more information you are confronted with the same high reputation author expounding their favorite stories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/542/170832&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_publishable_unit&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WelcomeToCorneria&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CreatorsApathy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10781" RevisionGUID="a0753cc3-9a6a-4261-a11a-ed4179c59b34" CreationDate="2018-08-31T01:53:23.947" UserId="84967" Text="You may want to have a look at the [help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba). In short, the &quot;worst&quot; thing that could happen is that the whole post is deleted, but this won't automatically happen if your answer has a positive score. Users/moderators could manually vote to delete the post, but in my experience this hardly ever happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions that get closed are so because the community deems them unfit for the site, either because of its content or its form. Answering them encourages users to keep on posting such questions, which is not a desirable behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sometimes find myself in your situation: I post an answer to a question that eventually gets closed. It's natural that this happens from time to time, as [reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reasonableness). What I consider on-topic will not, 100% of the times, agree with what the community considers on-topic. In those cases you may decide to delete your answer, or leave it be. I have done both things in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see yourself in this situation very often, though, there may be a problem. In particular, your idea of how this site should work probably does not align with that of the rest of users. In that case, I believe the best thing you could do, both for your own sanity and for the sake of the community's health, is to either try and change your behaviour or to step back. Not doing so will be a waste of time for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some users are more vocal than others, and you should not be surprised when someone lets you know they have a problem with your actions, specially when they become repetitive. Needless to say, just because *one* person has a problem with you does not mean *you* are the root of the problem (although it does take two to tango; please try and be nice, even when you know you are the one in the right).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: in practice, nothing will happen. The question stays closed and your answer will remain. But, in principle, you should ask yourself whether it is a one-time thing, of you are consistently answering questions that should not be answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="40de577b-93e8-42ed-9f1a-b62953c218e0" CreationDate="2018-08-31T01:54:46.333" UserId="124" Text="Usually it's no problem if you answer a question and the question later gets put on hold (a.k.a. closed). After all, when a question gets closed, it just means that five people (or one moderator) thought that the question in its current form didn't deserve to get answered. But you might disagree, and think that the question _does_ deserve to get answered. And when you come across a question that you think is good enough to deserve an answer, you can definitely go ahead and answer it. It would be silly to make you wait for everyone else to look at the question and come to a consensus on whether it deserves an answer or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you should at least be _thinking_ about whether questions deserve answers before you answer them. When you look at a question, take a moment to consider whether it meets the expectations for our site: is it on topic? clearly written? specific? and so on. If not, _don't answer it_. Flag it for closure instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we notice that a user's judgment about which questions deserve answers is _wildly_ different from the rest of the community, that could get the user a talking-to by the moderators, and if it continued, it could be justification for some disciplinary action. For example, if someone _often_ answers questions which get closed, and many of those questions are very obvious candidates for closure (very far off topic, highly convoluted, or so on), the moderators might want to intervene. In any case I can imagine, this would involve at least one conversation about the norms of the site, and at least one explicit warning (which could be part of the conversation but probably would be separate), and the user would have to be deliberately ignoring those communications, before it escalated to suspension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="334645cf-8dd5-42e2-a362-7bfb57ba93ea" CreationDate="2018-08-31T01:58:02.483" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="334645cf-8dd5-42e2-a362-7bfb57ba93ea" CreationDate="2018-08-31T01:58:02.483" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="What will be happen to answers given to questions long before the latter put on hold as off-topic? Is it fair to accuse the answerer for problematic behavior if this would happen for many times in series?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, see [Electric dipole moment when charges are not symmetrically opposite each other](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/423000/electric-dipole-moment-when-charges-are-not-symmetrically-opposite-each-other/423327#423327). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33101" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="334645cf-8dd5-42e2-a362-7bfb57ba93ea" CreationDate="2018-08-31T01:58:02.483" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="Answers given to questions long before the latter put on hold as off-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10783" RevisionGUID="560a1dbc-57c7-431c-bfd9-e19610894e01" CreationDate="2018-08-31T12:46:56.177" UserId="8563" Text="The existing answers do a good job with the general situation, but it's also important to touch on a couple of specific cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several categories of questions, which include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- homework questions, and particularly the blatant do-my-work-for-me variety, &#xD;&#xA;- non-mainstream physics, and&#xD;&#xA;- junk-food list questions, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others, which the community consensus classes quite solidly as harmful to the site, through various mechanisms. Unfortunately, the review queues are often not fast enough to close those questions before they accrue at least one answer. For several of those classes, there is also a community consensus that the answers themselves are also harmful to the site, because they encourage the asker, and future visitors that see the thread, to post further off-topic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a given answer falls in this category, is it fair to point out to the answerer that that behaviour is problematic? Yes, absolutely. (So long as it is done in a civil way and following the SE Code of Conduct, that is.) This can take the form of a short comment, a downvote, or a vote to delete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10783" RevisionGUID="d22a1f8b-42f5-4f42-8a35-9251ee4f99db" CreationDate="2018-08-31T12:52:04.207" UserId="8563" Comment="added 656 characters in body" Text="The existing answers do a good job with the general situation, but it's also important to touch on a couple of specific cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several categories of questions, which include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- homework questions, and particularly the blatant do-my-work-for-me variety, &#xD;&#xA;- non-mainstream physics, and&#xD;&#xA;- junk-food list questions, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others, which the community consensus classes quite solidly as harmful to the site, through various mechanisms. Unfortunately, the review queues are often not fast enough to close those questions before they accrue at least one answer. For several of those classes, there is also a community consensus that the answers themselves are also harmful to the site, because they encourage the asker, and future visitors that see the thread, to post further off-topic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a given answer falls in this category, is it fair to point out to the answerer that that behaviour is problematic? Yes, absolutely. (So long as it is done in a civil way and following the SE Code of Conduct, that is.) This can take the form of a short comment, a downvote, or a vote to delete, none of which are (or should be) personal, but strictly about the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a slightly thornier side: if a given user repeatedly posts answers in that category, even after having been pointed to the relevant resources that point out the community consensus, is it fair to call out that behaviour as problematic? Frankly, I don't see why that's even a question ─ to me it's pretty obvious that it's fair. That doesn't mean that it the repercussions need to go beyond &quot;somebody told me that X aspect of my behaviour is problematic&quot;, though (and it doesn't, unless you're really pushing the not-listening-to-the-moderators over into suspension territory)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10783" RevisionGUID="89aac9a2-a0a5-4316-96e4-4aa65bae7574" CreationDate="2018-08-31T12:57:25.643" UserId="8563" Comment="added 656 characters in body" Text="The existing answers do a good job with the general situation, but it's also important to touch on a couple of specific cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several categories of questions, which include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- homework questions, and particularly the blatant do-my-work-for-me variety, &#xD;&#xA;- non-mainstream physics, and&#xD;&#xA;- junk-food list questions, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others, which the community consensus classes quite solidly as harmful to the site, through various mechanisms. Unfortunately, the review queues are often not fast enough to close those questions before they accrue at least one answer. For several of those classes, there is also a community consensus that the answers themselves are also harmful to the site, because they encourage the asker, and future visitors that see the thread, to post further off-topic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a given answer falls in this category, is it fair to point out to the answerer that that behaviour is problematic? Yes, absolutely. (So long as it is done in a civil way and following the SE Code of Conduct, that is.) This can take the form of a short comment, a downvote, or a vote to delete, none of which are (or should be) personal, but strictly about the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a slightly thornier side: if a given user repeatedly posts answers in that category, even after having been pointed to the relevant resources that point out the community consensus, is it fair to call out that behaviour as problematic? Frankly, I don't see why that's even a question ─ to me it's pretty obvious that it's fair. That doesn't mean that it the repercussions need to go beyond &quot;somebody told me that X aspect of my behaviour is problematic&quot;, though (and it doesn't, unless you're really pushing the not-listening-to-the-moderators over into suspension territory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as pointed out by AccidentalFourierTransform, there isn't a clear line that marks this sort of problematic behaviour, and in that blurry boundary there are plenty of cases where reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a post is on- or off-topic and about whether a given question is harmful enough to the site that providing answers to it is problematic. However, the blurriness of the line is independent of the fact that we get a steady stream of clear-cut cases of harmful answers to harmful questions, and those do require community action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="0302f537-cbb2-4706-a586-0d2b7b8e3bc9" CreationDate="2018-08-31T17:38:55.017" UserId="176067" Text="As part of implementing the new unified themes across the network, we're gradually rolling out updated site themes for each site. As of today, we have enabled your updated site theme for testing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't see it right now, that's by design! We're hoping to get feedback from you before rolling it out to everyone permanently. If you'd like to review it, here's how:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How do I enable it?&#xD;&#xA;[Click here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences) and check the &quot;Beta test new themes&quot; option. This will turn on the new theme for all sites that have one in testing, including this one. *Here's [more info](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314542/opt-in-to-beta-testing-new-themes) on how to opt in.* You can uncheck the box to revert to the older theme until the site is live for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What type of feedback do we need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### On this post: Bugs related to this site's design elements &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help us look for issues/bugs related to the theme design and how we have mapped the old theme to the new. This needs to be done within the [limits of the new unified theme](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### On Meta Stack Exchange: General concerns about left nav or theming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have concerns or issues regarding the left nav or the overall approach we are taking to theming, then [this Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/310908/live-left-nav-new-theming-and-responsiveness) is the right place for feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may notice, there are some unique design elements like voting arrows and tags that are being standardized in this process. Keeping these custom elements makes our ability to maintain the sites too complex and, while we're very sad to see them go, we're in a difficult position of needing to make the site designs work together so that we can continue to address feature requests and bugs that will make your Q&amp;A experience better. This is addressed in a [Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314799/why-we-initiated-the-latest-round-of-design-changes-and-the-role-of-meta) if you want more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What new themes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're like, &quot;What the heck are you talking about?&quot;, then you should read the Meta Stack Exchange post entitled [Rollout of new network site themes](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes) (and maybe the posts it links to for the full background).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Thanks so much for your constructive feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="0302f537-cbb2-4706-a586-0d2b7b8e3bc9" CreationDate="2018-08-31T17:38:55.017" UserId="176067" Text="Physics' updated site theme is ready for testing!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="0302f537-cbb2-4706-a586-0d2b7b8e3bc9" CreationDate="2018-08-31T17:38:55.017" UserId="176067" Text="|discussion|featured|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="bb26c11b-2144-499c-bd14-d54349c82bce" CreationDate="2018-08-31T23:32:38.850" UserId="8563" Text="I'll have to test the rest, but **this bit is great**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3zW23.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [vector logo](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/should-we-get-a-vector-logo)&#xD;&#xA; - no more [awkward arrow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10522/ch-ch-ch-changing-the-site-logo-to-cut-out-the-weird-arrow-thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Feynman-diagram to the background of the logo is also gone, and you know what? I'm having a hard time missing it at all. It's not like people noticed it unless it was explicitly pointed out, or at least they didn't for a large fraction of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hat logo looks a teeeny-tiny bit too white to me for now, but I'm pretty sure I'll adjust shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, at standard zoom on my device (4k monitor) the hat logo does have some aliasing at some patches in the middle, as well as on the lower edge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eL1um.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might require some tweaks to the line thickness? It's definitely worth fixing - it's noticeable enough that it catches the eye very fast the first time and thereafter at repeated intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and also, while you're fiddling with the logo, remember to [stash a copy in the hat cupboard](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/304880/184688) for next Christmas. Or swap out the SVG graphics on the front page for my glorious PWMS (paper, whiteboard marker, staples) version, if not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="8aeef820-32cd-4414-a979-1c223c8d426d" CreationDate="2018-08-31T23:51:35.563" UserId="8563" Comment="added 730 characters in body" Text="I'll have to test the rest, but this bit is nice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3zW23.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [vector logo](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/should-we-get-a-vector-logo)&#xD;&#xA; - no more [awkward arrow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10522/ch-ch-ch-changing-the-site-logo-to-cut-out-the-weird-arrow-thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Feynman-diagram to the background of the logo is also gone, and you know what? I'm having a hard time missing it at all. It's not like people noticed it unless it was explicitly pointed out, or at least they didn't for a large fraction of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hat logo looks a teeeny-tiny bit too white to me for now, but I'm pretty sure I'll adjust shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think the logo still needs more work, potentially amounting to a do-over depending on what the process looks like design-side.At standard zoom on my device (4k monitor) the hat logo does have some aliasing at some patches in the middle, as well as on the lower edge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eL1um.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is noticeable enough that it catches the eye very fast the first time and thereafter at repeated intervals. The SVG definitely looks like it needs some attention, because here are some stronger zooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7K8vb.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Svr6y.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words, the points are kind of all over the place, and it does affect the visible display at a bunch of different zoom levels. Why not replace all of those with single Bézier curves with intersections? Or use the single-line-segments approach of the original proposal on this meta? If the design does require an explicit grid, though, with two parallel lines for each displayed line, then those gridpoints do need to be better placed, I should think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and also, while you're fiddling with the logo, remember to [stash a copy in the hat cupboard](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/304880/184688) for next Christmas. Or swap out the SVG graphics on the front page for my glorious PWMS (paper, whiteboard marker, staples) version, if not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="5dfeae32-9be7-447f-87f6-2502b42b547d" CreationDate="2018-09-01T03:01:51.520" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1035724386958036992" />
  <row Id="33111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="6eecb883-2d12-4f9c-b6ba-d742c9c7536a" CreationDate="2018-09-01T05:34:34.697" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and it was enabled. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm no the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more long-term things, the new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="162a88b4-44dd-4d82-9c1b-aa46bbb6a253" CreationDate="2018-09-01T05:42:24.890" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and it was enabled. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm no the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more long-term things, the new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font. Bug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="efba8d0b-226b-42d0-91ff-51bfec7783e8" CreationDate="2018-09-01T05:47:42.463" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and it was enabled. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm no the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more long-term things, the new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font. Bug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="eda8391d-7ebc-4130-8a51-cb369ce27683" CreationDate="2018-09-01T05:58:12.550" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 599 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm no the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more long-term things, the new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font. Bug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to that the usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on). Also, there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gq4eW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="a1a420f6-f670-4956-a148-e2dc36a138b6" CreationDate="2018-09-01T06:05:49.233" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm no the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more long-term things, the new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font. Bug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to that the usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on). Also, there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gq4eW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="a60bdd06-b4ee-4765-9ad1-5106a90f95f6" CreationDate="2018-09-01T09:52:49.683" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm oo the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more long-term things, the new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font. Bug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to that the usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on). Also, there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gq4eW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="ee7687a7-1007-41bb-82ea-ec0ee07ae9b6" CreationDate="2018-09-01T09:59:18.907" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm on the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="e6bd0315-388d-4d52-b54e-962f00aeb7fc" CreationDate="2018-09-01T10:11:47.780" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 668 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched it on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm on the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. But still...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="3574c487-0aa0-4634-aa81-74a479c30614" CreationDate="2018-09-01T10:30:41.387" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 1025 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched the new theme on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm on the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10. Anyways, I don't think I'd like to undo it; I might as well start getting used to it and I don't really loathe it that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sans-serif font for comments too? [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this one was deliberate... but I think the sans-serif font in comments looks really strange. Yeah, it's cool to make headings in sans serif and content in serif, but when you switch _back_ to sans serif for comments, it starts getting a bit creepy and looking strange, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's convincing to argue that sans-serif fonts were actually optimised for low-dpi environments and are clearer when they're small, while serif fonts show up really badly on low-res displays (particularly when the face is small), but this just looks... strange. For it to look better, we'd need to have the main post content in sans-serif, but that clashes with mathjax (there's a meta post on physics SE which requested a serif font for those reasons, but I can't find it). And since comments occasionally contain mathjax, we might as well keep a serif font there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. But still...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="01bed434-a9e7-48a7-b8ad-bfaa5ef438ae" CreationDate="2018-09-01T10:51:21.837" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched the new theme on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm on the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10. Anyways, I don't think I'd like to undo it; I might as well start getting used to it and I don't really loathe it that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Music and Electrical Engineering SEs have similar systems (coloured background for the sides) too. ServerFault has the same as Physics SE right now, and I think it doesn't look great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sans-serif font for comments too? [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this one was deliberate... but I think the sans-serif font in comments looks really strange. Yeah, it's cool to make headings in sans serif and content in serif, but when you switch _back_ to sans serif for comments, it starts getting a bit creepy and looking strange, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's convincing to argue that sans-serif fonts were actually optimised for low-dpi environments and are clearer when they're small, while serif fonts show up really badly on low-res displays (particularly when the face is small), but this just looks... strange. For it to look better, we'd need to have the main post content in sans-serif, but that clashes with mathjax (there's a meta post on physics SE which requested a serif font for those reasons, but I can't find it). And since comments occasionally contain mathjax, we might as well keep a serif font there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. But still...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33121" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="122b378d-193f-4852-8d59-7f550fc403cb" CreationDate="2018-09-01T12:01:23.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1035860165705297920" />
  <row Id="33122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="686c273d-168d-40de-93d3-c34e23f1512a" CreationDate="2018-09-01T16:11:28.173" UserId="44126" Text="This is mentioned in the [longer answer by Chair](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/44126), but it jumped out at me so I'll post it by itself anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our previous design, [for a couple of years](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7419/44126), uses a font with serifs so that inline text and MathJax snippets look less dissimilar. The new design uses a serif font for the body text, but sans-serif for the comments, where people also post MathJax snippets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the idea behind using a different typeface to help distinguish the comments from the main text.  But unless we're going to add support for sans-serif fonts in MathJax snippets (which is non-trivial, and not necessarily great-looking even if you can get it to work) I think it's better to have inline consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="05e871b9-f9da-43b1-bafc-b3d7fbf882f2" CreationDate="2018-09-01T17:50:36.787" UserId="104964" Text="I'd also like to complain about the fact that if you switch to Beta view you're stuck with it and can't switch back.  I'm not the first to say that and I have a feeling I won't be the last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the new layout the (pointless) sidebar is a few lines that take up a lot of space and waste the entire height of the screen doing it.  It could be just as easily left on the top or if you're going to insist on having the sidebar then move more of header stuff to the sidebar and leave room for questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The side bar should be collapsible.  It's rarely needed so why is it open all the time ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A button on the header graphic would be suited to toggling the sidebar open and closed, for example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter the &quot;Ask Question&quot; button could be in a similar location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These changes would also benefit tablet and phone users who are already short of space and don't need it wasted by permanently placed UI features that are infrequently used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6wx3y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/khRjp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="af2998f0-4f40-4ecf-8635-8e8aee243bbc" CreationDate="2018-09-01T20:59:25.610" UserId="104964" Comment="Respond to comment and add remark about phone UI re tags." Text="I'd also like to complain about the fact that if you switch to Beta view you're stuck with it and can't switch back.  I'm not the first to say that and I have a feeling I won't be the last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the new layout the (pointless) sidebar is a few lines that take up a lot of space and waste the entire height of the screen doing it.  It could be just as easily left on the top or if you're going to insist on having the sidebar then move more of header stuff to the sidebar and leave room for questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The side bar should be collapsible.  It's rarely needed so why is it open all the time ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A button on the header graphic would be suited to toggling the sidebar open and closed, for example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter the &quot;Ask Question&quot; button could be in a similar location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These changes would also benefit tablet and phone users who are already short of space and don't need it wasted by permanently placed UI features that are infrequently used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit regarding comment by Emilio Pisanty.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the StackOverflow community may use the sidebar space differently, this does not, IMO (as a professional programmer myself) that the sidebar should not have a toggle button or similar to hide it when not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the &quot;Ask Question&quot; area I suggested moving to sidebar, given Emilio's info I would suggest this could also be toggled or given a &quot;drop-down&quot; approach something like a drop down menu when you hover over it.  These are pretty much common as dirt UI elements all over the web and it's odd they're not being exploited to maximize space.  I am aware of the argument that the multitude of devices makes the coding tricky, but it's also coding that is supported by third party libraries and it's not exactly something that they have to completely invent themselves or maintain themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I'd point to the issues tablet and phone users may experience if they have to deal with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW It's not clear if UI changes are being rolled out on mobiles and tablets at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the mobile UI on my (small) phone I'd particularly note that the current payout (with &quot;Beta testing allowed&quot; flag On) means the tags and the rather pointless update time and user name for the question occupy as much space as the actual question title.  I have a small phone, but I don't think users on mobiles need to see tags as much as they need to see questions.  This is not an issue for desktop and laptop users as they have a lot more real-estate to play with.  Users of larger tablets and phones may not be affected either, but we don't all use large mobile devices precisely because we want small mobile devices.  Here's a crop of a screen shot from my mobile showing what I mean :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 95% of the time I use a desktop myself, so this isn't an issue I experience much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6wx3y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/khRjp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/G9YLc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="5969fc8f-936a-4f94-9876-1fd90d9d2615" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:32:59.450" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sans-serif font for comments too? [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this one was deliberate... but I think the sans-serif font in comments looks really strange. Yeah, it's cool to make headings in sans serif and content in serif, but when you switch _back_ to sans serif for comments, it starts getting a bit creepy and looking strange, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's convincing to argue that sans-serif fonts were actually optimised for low-dpi environments and are clearer when they're small, while serif fonts show up really badly on low-res displays (particularly when the face is small), but this just looks... strange. For it to look better, we'd need to have the main post content in sans-serif, but that clashes with mathjax (there's a meta post on physics SE which requested a serif font for those reasons, but I can't find it). And since comments occasionally contain mathjax, we might as well keep a serif font there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA; [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="16509d75-a227-45bf-8cf0-8c788a0ee4fe" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:40:53.343" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1770 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched the new theme on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm on the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10. Anyways, I don't think I'd like to undo it; I might as well start getting used to it and I don't really loathe it that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Music and Electrical Engineering SEs have similar systems (coloured background for the sides) too. ServerFault has the same as Physics SE right now, and I think it doesn't look great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. But still...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="c0c41c5e-ca2d-420f-997f-5e635e584d37" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:42:41.557" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. But still...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="8b5d15dd-a3e0-410a-b4ec-19a07941ca3b" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:43:53.160" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="5d01dac7-c741-494e-82d2-2a6ebc8be0e3" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:50:57.193" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1770 characters in body" Text="Apparently now that I've switched the new theme on by enabling beta testing, I can't switch it off. I used [this link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences/), and enabled it. There were a couple of things that I wanted to compare, but now when I un-check that beta testing thing, it doesn't revert to the previous theme, even after retrying, refreshing the page, and reopening my browser. Is this the expected behavior? I'm on the latest version of Brave (0.23.105) for Windows 10. Anyways, I don't think I'd like to undo it; I might as well start getting used to it and I don't really loathe it that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Music and Electrical Engineering SEs have similar systems (coloured background for the sides) too. ServerFault has the same as Physics SE right now, and I think it doesn't look great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other points which I made in this post have been moved to separate answers to this question so that they can be voted for individually:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Meta is now orange??](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10790/191954)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [We use sans-serif fonts inconsistently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10789/191954) (there's an answer by rob♦ [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10787/191954) which talks about bits of this too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Question titles are now black, which decreases readability](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10791/191954)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a parent answer with some general points which are probably applicable for a lot of sites, and the Logo alignment issue. Hopefully, voting on this post henceforth indicates support/lack thereof for the proposed changes to the logo's alignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="c97b4063-9595-4139-86ef-86f18e25c980" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:52:11.280" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. But still...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="ae4f1199-8b95-4c60-8552-364f103986f5" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:52:23.750" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question title colour [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of the question titles has changed. I liked the previous blue; it looked nice, was obviously distinguished as a title, and had some functionality benefits. It was very obvious that clicking that title would refresh the page to focus on the question if you got to that page with a link pointing to a comment or answer on it. That was useful when I wanted to share links to particular questions. The link functionality has stayed the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a clear competition for attention when you use the heading format to start your question. Previously, the blue would draw my attention, but now, I can't help but see the bold text first, even though that isn't actually the title. The only difference to emphasize the title is the slightly enlarged font, which doesn't compete with boldface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="b8194e97-7cd0-4f67-800e-6ec37b54bd85" CreationDate="2018-09-02T04:10:11.607" UserId="176067" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="As part of implementing the new unified themes across the network, we're gradually rolling out updated site themes for each site. As of today, we have enabled your updated site theme for testing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't see it right now, that's by design! We're hoping to get feedback from you before rolling it out to everyone permanently. If you'd like to review it, here's how:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How do I enable it?&#xD;&#xA;[Click here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences) and check the &quot;Beta test new themes&quot; option. This will turn on the new theme for all sites that have one in testing, including this one. *Here's [more info](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314542/opt-in-to-beta-testing-new-themes) on how to opt in.* You can uncheck the box to revert to the older theme until the site is live for everyone (note, it will take a few minutes to go into effect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What type of feedback do we need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### On this post: Bugs related to this site's design elements &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help us look for issues/bugs related to the theme design and how we have mapped the old theme to the new. This needs to be done within the [limits of the new unified theme](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### On Meta Stack Exchange: General concerns about left nav or theming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have concerns or issues regarding the left nav or the overall approach we are taking to theming, then [this Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/310908/live-left-nav-new-theming-and-responsiveness) is the right place for feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may notice, there are some unique design elements like voting arrows and tags that are being standardized in this process. Keeping these custom elements makes our ability to maintain the sites too complex and, while we're very sad to see them go, we're in a difficult position of needing to make the site designs work together so that we can continue to address feature requests and bugs that will make your Q&amp;A experience better. This is addressed in a [Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314799/why-we-initiated-the-latest-round-of-design-changes-and-the-role-of-meta) if you want more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What new themes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're like, &quot;What the heck are you talking about?&quot;, then you should read the Meta Stack Exchange post entitled [Rollout of new network site themes](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes) (and maybe the posts it links to for the full background).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Thanks so much for your constructive feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="cc4dae86-9549-4fcd-81bb-d811ca6f6303" CreationDate="2018-09-02T04:25:22.660" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 637 characters in body" Text="#Logo Alignment [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new vector logo is a great improvement; it's nice and sharp. But I don't like the white at all; the previous one with the pale green was much more subtle. And the Feynman diagram was a distraction; I'm happy that it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My real problem is the alignment/location of the site logo. It looks really awkward and skewed. Here's the old theme (I managed to get a screenshot by opening a private tab, because I can't go back now):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logo is comfortably aligned to the text and it looks neat. In the new version, there's this huge bit which is practically 50% of the width which is sticking out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figured this would be a problem on a lot of sites with longer names, so I popped over to the main meta post https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes. Some of those, like Unix&amp;Linux have the same problem, but I don't think mathematics looks too bad: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Music and Electrical Engineering SEs have similar systems (coloured background for the sides) too. ServerFault has the same as Physics SE right now, and I think it doesn't look great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that they have their background present behind the left bar as well, with the actual Q&amp;A content in a separate white box which is hence very celearly differentiated. Obviously this isn't presently a very good solution for physics SE though, because our top bar is a pretty dark colour for both meta and main. Maybe we could make those green (main) and brown (meta) stuff a bit lighter? It has the added advantage of sharpening the contrast for the logo, and then it'd be feasible to colour our left side bar and the right space, like the math theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even I have thee usual complaints which have already been put up on the main meta... navigation is split between the left nav bar and the top (for viewing top voting users and top editors and so on), there's that glorious unused space to the right of the Physics SE logo in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other points which I made in this post have been moved to separate answers to this question so that they can be voted for individually:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Meta is now orange??](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10790/191954)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [We use sans-serif fonts inconsistently](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10789/191954) (there's an answer by rob♦ [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10787/191954) which talks about bits of this too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Question titles are now black, which decreases readability](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10791/191954)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a parent answer with some general points which are probably applicable for a lot of sites, and the Logo alignment issue. Hopefully, voting on this post henceforth indicates support/lack thereof for the proposed changes to the logo's alignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I can't quite say I like the changes, but there are definitely some positive things for users, and several good things for the developers (apparently/hopefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3RJIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Oi3yc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAuGT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y0kfU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F5XqP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="d3fd2ed6-7bac-4e46-97fe-b43551c179d1" CreationDate="2018-09-02T08:31:12.587" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][12]][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. I popped over to Mathematics meta and Electrical Engineering meta, and even they've ended up with orange. However, the Super User and Server Fault meta sites got their own reddish-brown colour, so this isn't one of those network-wide Stack Overflow-like standardizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? Actually, even the reddish thing on SU and SF metas is ok; it matches the colour of the word &quot;meta&quot; in the Physics meta logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="c0b356ce-fc36-4084-a0dd-b00b6e651379" CreationDate="2018-09-02T10:33:47.883" UserId="8563" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I'll have to test the rest, but this bit is nice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3zW23.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [vector logo](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/should-we-get-a-vector-logo)&#xD;&#xA; - no more [awkward arrow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10522/ch-ch-ch-changing-the-site-logo-to-cut-out-the-weird-arrow-thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Feynman-diagram to the background of the logo is also gone, and you know what? I'm having a hard time missing it at all. It's not like people noticed it unless it was explicitly pointed out, or at least they didn't for a large fraction of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hat logo looks a teeeny-tiny bit too white to me for now, but I'm pretty sure I'll adjust shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### However: [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the logo still needs more work, potentially amounting to a do-over depending on what the process looks like design-side.At standard zoom on my device (4k monitor) the hat logo does have some aliasing at some patches in the middle, as well as on the lower edge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eL1um.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is noticeable enough that it catches the eye very fast the first time and thereafter at repeated intervals. The SVG definitely looks like it needs some attention, because here are some stronger zooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7K8vb.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Svr6y.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words, the points are kind of all over the place, and it does affect the visible display at a bunch of different zoom levels. Why not replace all of those with single Bézier curves with intersections? Or use the single-line-segments approach of [the original proposal on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/should-we-get-a-vector-logo)? If the design does require an explicit grid, though, with two parallel lines for each displayed line, then those gridpoints do need to be better placed, I should think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and also, while you're fiddling with the logo, remember to [stash a copy in the hat cupboard](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/304880/184688) for next Christmas. Or swap out the SVG graphics on the front page for my glorious PWMS (paper, whiteboard marker, staples) version, if not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="2f322596-f7d1-49f2-ad8b-d55734ba64a3" CreationDate="2018-09-02T15:54:25.170" UserId="8563" Text="[meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a minor gripe, and it can ultimately be user-scripted away if necessary, but there's no reason to have bad styling on as a default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# This isn't the nineties. Please get rid of the link underlining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/W4JTc.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just adds clutter for no real gain. Underlining-on-hover is nice and useful, but always-on underline is a web 1.0 custom that absolutely earned its place in the graveyard of bad ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10783" RevisionGUID="6ea0be36-6c8d-4182-abf8-571a3fafa56d" CreationDate="2018-09-02T16:07:07.237" UserId="8563" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="The existing answers do a good job with the general situation, but it's also important to touch on a couple of specific cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several categories of questions, which include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- homework questions, and particularly the blatant do-my-work-for-me variety, &#xD;&#xA;- non-mainstream physics, and&#xD;&#xA;- junk-food list questions, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others, which the community consensus classes quite solidly as harmful to the site, through various mechanisms. Unfortunately, the review queues are often not fast enough to close those questions before they accrue at least one answer. For several of those classes, there is also a community consensus that the answers themselves are also harmful to the site, because they encourage the asker, and future visitors that see the thread, to post further off-topic questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a given answer falls in this category, is it fair to point out to the answerer that that behaviour is problematic? Yes, absolutely. (So long as it is done in a civil way and following the SE Code of Conduct, that is.) This can take the form of a short comment, a downvote, or a vote to delete, none of which are (or should be) personal, but strictly about the post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a slightly thornier side: if a given user repeatedly posts answers in that category, even after having been pointed to the relevant resources that point out the community consensus, is it fair to call out that behaviour as problematic? Frankly, I don't see why that's even a question ─ to me it's pretty obvious that it's fair. That doesn't mean that it the repercussions need to go beyond &quot;somebody told me that X aspect of my behaviour is problematic&quot;, though (and it doesn't, unless you're really pushing the not-listening-to-the-moderators over into suspension territory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as pointed out by AccidentalFourierTransform, there isn't a clear line that marks this sort of problematic behaviour, and in that blurry boundary there are plenty of cases where reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a post is on- or off-topic and about whether a given question is harmful enough to the site that providing answers to it is problematic. However, the blurriness of the line is independent of the fact that we get a steady stream of clear-cut cases of harmful answers to harmful questions, and those do require community action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and one more thing, regarding the thread's title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] long before the latter put on hold as off-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, community closures often take longer than we would like them to, whether this be by hours, days or months. The fact that a given question slipped through the cracks and, for some reason or another, didn't get picked up by the community moderation mechanisms, has absolutely no bearing on any of the arguments laid out above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="dd2ddd1a-5922-48a9-8835-ddcbebb1ce5c" CreationDate="2018-09-02T16:56:32.560" UserDisplayName="user197851" Text="This is mainly to help me understand how the reviewing of edits (to questions) works. I recently had an edit to [this question][1] approved by a reviewer (Chair), but then &quot;rejected by Community&quot; because &quot;This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit&quot;. Then I discovered that the &quot;subsequent edit&quot; was my edit! All the changes in this edit, including the text explanation of what had been done, were identical, and were actually made by the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not complaining, I'm not that desperate for the editing credit! But I wonder whether the proposed edit is presented to the OP for approval in such a way that he/she believes that the correct course of action is to copy/paste the changes and carry out the edit themselves. Otherwise, how can this event be explained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also slightly concerned, because I have the impression that SE users who accumulate a lot of &quot;rejected edits&quot; are liable to be penalised in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/426273/how-to-find-the-axis-with-minimum-moment-of-inertia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="dd2ddd1a-5922-48a9-8835-ddcbebb1ce5c" CreationDate="2018-09-02T16:56:32.560" UserDisplayName="user197851" Text="OP edit is identical with my rejected edit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="dd2ddd1a-5922-48a9-8835-ddcbebb1ce5c" CreationDate="2018-09-02T16:56:32.560" UserDisplayName="user197851" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="53d0edf0-e1ec-4ade-ab83-044ffc7627bc" CreationDate="2018-09-02T17:04:16.987" UserId="2451" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This is mainly to help me understand how the reviewing of edits (to questions) works. I recently had an [edit](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/230344) to [this question][1] approved by a reviewer (Chair), but then &quot;rejected by Community&quot; because &quot;This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit&quot;. Then I discovered that the &quot;subsequent edit&quot; was my edit! All the changes in this edit, including the text explanation of what had been done, were identical, and were actually made by the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not complaining, I'm not that desperate for the editing credit! But I wonder whether the proposed edit is presented to the OP for approval in such a way that he/she believes that the correct course of action is to copy/paste the changes and carry out the edit themselves. Otherwise, how can this event be explained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also slightly concerned, because I have the impression that SE users who accumulate a lot of &quot;rejected edits&quot; are liable to be penalised in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/426273/how-to-find-the-axis-with-minimum-moment-of-inertia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="53d0edf0-e1ec-4ade-ab83-044ffc7627bc" CreationDate="2018-09-02T17:04:16.987" UserId="2451" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="0f2b8d56-886d-4a37-b0a6-94dd7a718868" CreationDate="2018-09-02T18:22:39.790" UserId="44126" Text="I can't tell from the timeline, but my guess is that the OP was presented with the edit and chose either &quot;improve this edit&quot; or &quot;reject and edit&quot; by mistake, then applied your changes. Perhaps they will enlighten us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can, however, address this concern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm also slightly concerned, because I have the impression that SE users who accumulate a lot of &quot;rejected edits&quot; are liable to be penalised in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single rejected edit shouldn't raise any concern about this. I can't remember whether there is any automated restriction on editing privileges or whether it is brought to the attention of the moderators by a (perhaps automatic) flag. But if you were to discover you had an account restriction because you were making good edit suggestions and other people were applying them on your behalf, I think we would work with you and the team to fix the problem rather than somehow punish you arbitrarily." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="eb2adda0-cdd3-41fb-9e15-51da40eaf0a6" CreationDate="2018-09-03T04:41:49.177" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sans-serif font for comments too? [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this one was deliberate... but I think the sans-serif font in comments looks really strange. Yeah, it's cool to make headings in sans serif and content in serif, but when you switch _back_ to sans serif for comments, it starts getting a bit creepy and looking strange, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's convincing to argue that sans-serif fonts were actually optimised for low-dpi environments and are clearer when they're small, while serif fonts show up really badly on low-res displays (particularly when the face is small), but this just looks... strange. For it to look better, we'd need to have the main post content in sans-serif, but that clashes with mathjax (there's a meta post on physics SE which requested a serif font for those reasons, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax). And since comments occasionally contain mathjax, we might as well keep a serif font there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][14]][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA; [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="814bb1d9-892d-4317-b884-fa7af72fd47e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:30:30.960" UserId="40292" Text="On those occasions where I have furnished a wrong answer to a question on one of the SE sites *and that answer has been accepted*, I find I cannot go back and delete the answer. I instead edit the answer, deleting the original text and inserting words to the effect that the answer was wrong and inviting the correct answer to be provided by someone else. Is there an accepted technique for accomplishing this that I do not know about, or is my way OK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="814bb1d9-892d-4317-b884-fa7af72fd47e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:30:30.960" UserId="40292" Text="how to delete a wrong answer after it has been accepted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="814bb1d9-892d-4317-b884-fa7af72fd47e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:30:30.960" UserId="40292" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33148" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="3fa3cc46-1a5f-4063-9c69-20bd412f7376" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:47:09.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to delete a wrong answer after it has been accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33149" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="3fa3cc46-1a5f-4063-9c69-20bd412f7376" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:47:09.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|support|accepted-answer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="95d600bb-185b-4d32-830d-3e2bbfa38c35" CreationDate="2018-09-04T09:04:02.467" UserId="124" Text="No, this is not an acceptable way of dealing with the situation. Specifically, you shouldn't delete the original text of your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _best_ thing to do, if you can, is to edit the answer to make it correct. Generally edits shouldn't substantially change what an answer is saying, but when the answer has been accepted you can take a bit more latitude to change it from a wrong answer to a right answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't edit the answer to make it correct, I suppose it's okay to edit in a brief notice at the top saying that you think the answer is wrong. But you should leave the original answer there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, if you find yourself doing this regularly, take it as an indication that you need to be more careful to verify the correctness of your answers before you post them. (And other people also need to be more careful to verify their correctness before upvoting or accepting them, but that's not a problem you can do anything about.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases (rarely), the moderators might be willing to delete an accepted answer for you, but we'll typically only do it if there's reason to believe the answer was accepted under false pretenses - for example, if the asker accepted the first answer posted regardless of its correctness, or if they accepted an answer because they're trying to gain favor with its poster, or something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="48a5cda8-e23a-4d4c-8f91-c3126d6a3c5f" CreationDate="2018-09-04T11:32:53.317" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 592 characters in body" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why is meta orange? [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of things on meta have turned orange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Links in posts_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(I have freehand circles. Gotta take this one seriously :P)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old**: (none of those links shows up as visited because I'm signed out in a private window for this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Author names and comment buttons_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Other random stuff_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really surprised that there are so many orange stuff, because they probably all run on the same style stuff. I popped over to Mathematics meta and Electrical Engineering meta, and even they've ended up with orange. However, the Super User and Server Fault meta sites got their own reddish-brown colour, so this isn't one of those network-wide Stack Overflow-like standardizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In absolute terms, I actually like orange way more, and it looks fun and bright, but it doesn't fit here; our meta is brown and it wouldn't feel like a meta in bright orange. So can we have the old brown? Actually, even the reddish thing on SU and SF metas is ok; it matches the colour of the word &quot;meta&quot; in the Physics meta logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Obtrusive Ask-question button on Meta [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, our meta Ask-question button has been feeling a bit off-color lately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Main site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Meta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit too obtrusive and sticks out like a sore thumb with the rest of the brown/orange (???) theme. Can we have a brown or maroon instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or rainbow stripes. Can't (easily) go wrong with rainbow stripes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uXOFC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPEHh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMTl1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c8ZPq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bk9IF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wDdmC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="91334882-6503-4801-8863-2d29f4de0e2b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T00:54:38.940" UserId="46757" Text="Today, my question at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/424837/can-a-substance-have-zero-vapour-pressure-above-absolute-zero had 3 upvotes and my reputation was 597 points. Later it had 4 upvotes and my reputation was 602 points. Later it had 5 upvotes and my reputation was 606 points and when I opened the reputation menu, I saw that it said I gained 10 points and lost 1 point and in total gained 9 points today. I think the loss of a point came from me downvoting an answer. Later, my question had 4 upvotes and my reputation was 601 but the menu still showed me as having earned 9 points today. A bit later before I posted this question. I saw that that question had 5 upvotes and my reputation was 606 points and the menu showed me as having earned 9 points today and the glitch seemed to have gone away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="91334882-6503-4801-8863-2d29f4de0e2b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T00:54:38.940" UserId="46757" Text="Glitch in reputation points?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="91334882-6503-4801-8863-2d29f4de0e2b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T00:54:38.940" UserId="46757" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="dcbbdf76-aa3a-49ad-8a0b-95239bfa2d42" CreationDate="2018-09-05T02:46:46.900" UserId="46757" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Today, my question at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/424837/can-a-substance-have-zero-vapour-pressure-above-absolute-zero had 3 upvotes and my reputation was 597 points. Later it had 4 upvotes and my reputation was 602 points. Later it had 5 upvotes and my reputation was 606 points and when I opened the reputation menu, I saw that it said I gained 10 points and lost 1 point and in total gained 9 points today. I think the loss of a point came from me downvoting an answer. Later, my question had 4 upvotes and my reputation was 601 but the menu still showed me as having earned 9 points today. A bit later before I posted this question. I saw that that question had 5 upvotes and my reputation was 606 points and the menu showed me as having earned 9 points today and the glitch seemed to have gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Even later long after I posted this question, I saw that my reputation is 604 but it lists me as having earned only 5 points and as having recently lost 4 points so my reputation should be 602 now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="dbf54719-1b90-49aa-97d2-da4b374a74df" CreationDate="2018-09-05T11:05:49.623" UserId="2451" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Today, my question at https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/424837/ had 3 upvotes and [my reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/46757/timothy?tab=reputation) was 597 points. Later it had 4 upvotes and my reputation was 602 points. Later it had 5 upvotes and my reputation was 606 points and when I opened the reputation menu, I saw that it said I gained 10 points and lost 1 point and in total gained 9 points today. I think the loss of a point came from me downvoting an answer. Later, my question had 4 upvotes and my reputation was 601 but the menu still showed me as having earned 9 points today. A bit later before I posted this question. I saw that that question had 5 upvotes and my reputation was 606 points and the menu showed me as having earned 9 points today and the glitch seemed to have gone away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Even later long after I posted this question, I saw that my reputation is 604 but it lists me as having earned only 5 points and as having recently lost 4 points so my reputation should be 602 now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33159" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="dbf54719-1b90-49aa-97d2-da4b374a74df" CreationDate="2018-09-05T11:05:49.623" UserId="2451" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|bug|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33160" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="265f207a-283b-4f83-a8ce-26286ebed692" CreationDate="2018-09-06T02:00:11.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="e403818d-8b37-438e-bdc6-dbbdbb52eed8" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:00:08.927" UserId="130714" Text="Recently I was struggling with a problem so I asked for help from two people. 1st from [Blue](https://stackexchange.com/users/4345717/blue) . I talked to him before and he is nice dude ready to help. Then I saw [semiclassical](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/137524/semiclassical) who is also cool and very active on math chat. [He helped me so many times](https://chat.stackexchange.com/search?q=%40fawad&amp;user=121998&amp;room=) (just some proof) before also in math chat so I thought he can help me now too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as soon as I tagged him moderator ACM (a cruel man) started ping me and say don’t ping “RANDOM PEOPLE” for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want say please stop that if you don’t know who are my friends. They were not random. I know there are people who don’t like helping me and I didn’t tagged any of them from that 1st warning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is is acm mod is so rude in chat. I know this post will get many downvotes and all but look what happen next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One person asked why I was banned in chat to which acm replied it doesn’t matter to him. If it didn’t mattered to him he would have not texted that sentence. Well I guess if you get banned then nobody will know what happened to you because moderator will do what looks right to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I wanted to put link of chat where someone said only qmechanic is deserving moderator. Guess someone deleted it. We will never know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen bad behaviour of him before too. He get support from his friends so he never care what other people has to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what I want? I want to say give less powers to mod (especially acm), or at least 1 other mod should agree with him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="e403818d-8b37-438e-bdc6-dbbdbb52eed8" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:00:08.927" UserId="130714" Text="Bad behaviour from mod" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="e403818d-8b37-438e-bdc6-dbbdbb52eed8" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:00:08.927" UserId="130714" Text="|feature-request|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="cac27539-8065-4169-b213-c737320caa07" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:27:13.880" UserId="50583" Text="For the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked you to not ping users in chat who hadn't shown any indication of being interested in being pinged by you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please do not ping random users in an attempt to get a question answered. If someone wants to answer your question, they will do so on their own. -- [link to transcript](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/46615164#46615164)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (currently) four stars on the message suggest that other users present in the room shared the sentiment. You chose to respond to this by telling me, among other things, to &quot;stfu&quot;. This is not acceptable behaviour and earned you a short suspension from chat for rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's all that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10801" RevisionGUID="b3d6af02-6f19-40a4-9004-84ecf8d438d5" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:41:22.613" UserId="1325" Text="The offensive comment from Fawad has been deleted, but as a room owner I can see it and I can confirm that Fawad told ACuriousMind to shut the fuck up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Fawad should consider himself very lucky not to be banned for an extended period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="e37b1982-c91e-4d3d-a16c-c66f22ac6564" CreationDate="2018-09-06T17:14:06.217" UserId="50583" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="For the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked you to not ping users in chat who hadn't shown any indication of being interested in being pinged by you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please do not ping random users in an attempt to get a question answered. If someone wants to answer your question, they will do so on their own. -- [link to transcript](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/46615164#46615164)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (currently) four stars on the message suggest that other users present in the room shared the sentiment. You chose to respond to this by telling me, among other things, to &quot;stfu&quot;. This is not acceptable behaviour (to be clear: what's not acceptable is telling other users to shut up, not the mere usage of the acronym) and earned you a short suspension from chat for rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's all that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="27d7a82a-588b-42c5-9b70-813052d35156" CreationDate="2018-09-06T17:22:57.847" UserId="50583" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="For the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked you to not ping users in chat who hadn't shown any indication of being interested in being pinged by you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please do not ping random users in an attempt to get a question answered. If someone wants to answer your question, they will do so on their own. -- [link to transcript](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/46615164#46615164)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (currently) four stars on the message suggest that other users present in the room shared the sentiment. You chose to respond to this by telling me, among other things, to &quot;stfu&quot;. This is not acceptable behaviour (to be clear: what's not acceptable is telling other users to shut up in a rude manner, not the mere usage of the acronym) and earned you a short suspension from chat for rudeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's all that happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="f5f4267e-5f30-4b4a-8f06-19f6b5577b81" CreationDate="2018-09-06T20:00:55.450" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="68161446-c7a6-4a33-8b4c-b4dcd3b126f4" CreationDate="2018-09-07T11:46:58.323" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="0878c8c9-2027-40dd-9d8f-8cb09907ba14" CreationDate="2018-09-07T15:38:05.233" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="With some qualifiers (see below), this bit is nice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3zW23.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [vector logo](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/should-we-get-a-vector-logo)&#xD;&#xA; - no more [awkward arrow](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10522/ch-ch-ch-changing-the-site-logo-to-cut-out-the-weird-arrow-thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Feynman-diagram to the background of the logo is also gone, and you know what? I'm having a hard time missing it at all. It's not like people noticed it unless it was explicitly pointed out, or at least they didn't for a large fraction of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hat logo looks a teeeny-tiny bit too white to me for now, but I'm pretty sure I'll adjust shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### However: [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the logo still needs more work, potentially amounting to a do-over depending on what the process looks like design-side.At standard zoom on my device (4k monitor) the hat logo does have some aliasing at some patches in the middle, as well as on the lower edge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eL1um.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is noticeable enough that it catches the eye very fast the first time and thereafter at repeated intervals. The SVG definitely looks like it needs some attention, because here are some stronger zooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7K8vb.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Svr6y.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words, the points are kind of all over the place, and it does affect the visible display at a bunch of different zoom levels. Why not replace all of those with single Bézier curves with intersections? Or use the single-line-segments approach of [the original proposal on this meta](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/should-we-get-a-vector-logo)? If the design does require an explicit grid, though, with two parallel lines for each displayed line, then those gridpoints do need to be better placed, I should think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and also, while you're fiddling with the logo, remember to [stash a copy in the hat cupboard](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/304880/184688) for next Christmas. Or swap out the SVG graphics on the front page for my glorious PWMS (paper, whiteboard marker, staples) version, if not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="345ff7c6-82be-400e-936f-b6ac6db58ba7" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:38:32.123" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 794 characters in body" Text="_(I'm splitting up my huge answer [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954))_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Occasional lapses into sans-serif fonts [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heading font in the review queues is messed up: it's a sans-serif font, and our usual titles (still) use a nice serif font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows up in revision histories as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an example, but this would look really bad on questions with mathjax in titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sans-serif font for comments too? [meta-tag:feature-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Feature request because it looks like they blanket-implemented this one without explicitly saying that it's being standardised: Mathematics SE and English L&amp;U both have sans comments but serif posts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this one was deliberately implemented... but I think the sans-serif font in comments looks really strange. Yeah, it's cool to make headings in sans serif and content in serif, but when you switch _back_ to sans serif for comments, it starts getting a bit creepy and looking strange, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's convincing to argue that sans-serif fonts were actually optimised for low-dpi environments and are clearer when they're small, while serif fonts show up really badly on low-res displays (particularly when the face is small), but this just looks... strange. For it to look better, we'd need to have the main post content in sans-serif, but that clashes with mathjax (there's a meta post on physics SE which requested a serif font for those reasons, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6790/can-we-have-a-font-which-harmonizes-better-with-mathjax). And since comments occasionally contain mathjax, we might as well keep a serif font there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Good: Author indicator design and front page navigation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am quite happy with the new sans-serif font in the author profile below answers. It's much cleaner, and for some reason, the sans-serif doesn't clash too badly with the serif in the answers/question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter preformatted text here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the old front page suddenly looks like a wreck to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everything in this new image (other than the position of the logo, see my answer about that [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/191954)) looks awesome and clear: the absence of highlighting around the 'active', 'featured', and 'hot' tabs in the old version actually looks pretty confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dgjUW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tr2PE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sn87v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oe2yG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHXIQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tq5vU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bNpvj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10803" RevisionGUID="9457788b-07a0-45bc-92f6-fa5f83367ac7" CreationDate="2018-09-08T03:35:01.033" UserId="44126" Text="![screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/faY4k.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I occasionally switch from &quot;mobile&quot; to &quot;full site&quot; view on a recent Android device (Chrome browser). (The mobile site hides basically all of the diamond moderator tools.) The new design seems to degrade to mobile more gracefully than the old one did. However there a few cases where modal dialogs make bad assumptions about the small screen size, and limits on zooming and scrolling can put some controls our of reach. One is the suggested edit review box shown in the screenshot above (reached by pressing &quot;edit (1)&quot; under the question). Another, I learned while making this post, is the &quot;insert image&quot; dialog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the mobile theme circumvents this problem by hiding the &quot;edit&quot; link while a suggested edit is pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="a9076765-7008-4931-9a49-4336fc08c2d6" CreationDate="2018-09-08T04:42:53.357" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="#Chat still uses the old logo [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like the new logo wasn't implemented there. I don't know if it supports high-resolution vectors, but it'd be nice to have some symmetry for the Feynman diagram and the hat's coloring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aosUk.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="68a7c467-6018-4370-a497-53df33203164" CreationDate="2018-09-08T09:01:37.803" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Rollback: My previous reasoning for changing the tags doesn't seem so good any more. If the OP wants it to be a feature request, let it be a feature request." Text="|feature-request|status-declined|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="4c149872-5b9b-41a6-8682-bbda617db7e0" CreationDate="2018-09-08T23:17:37.450" UserId="32426" Text="Mods are held on a short leash by the SE. Most likely he couldn't do too much wrong against you, even if he would want. The rules of the site are binding for him just as for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you confronted is imho not the cruelty of a single person, but the general antagonism of the whole system. Of course, people accustomed to it, even liking and driving it, feel themselves much better in it, than we.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an SE-specific problem, since the Internet exists, so is it going everywhere. The SE is actually not so bad - but only for the people learned it and can defend themselfes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can say this to you publicly and nothing will happen, except that I get some downvotes which have zero effect to my reputation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two important things what makes the SE different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here you can get answers from real, hardcore professionals.&#xD;&#xA;2. You *can* defend yourself against the &quot;good old boys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing is that you have to learn the &quot;etiquette&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your this meta post was a good start, despite its false assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case: it is quite possible that some people you pinged actually flagged your comments. If a mod intervenes, it is very likely, that he is doing it because you were flagged. The problem is that from this point the mods decision, how does he handle an event, but all what he does, leaves a trace. If there are no flags, the mod has the option to close his eyes, but if there is, something he has to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happened to me many times that a mod intervened against me, while it was clear to me that he is doing it against his best opinion, and the real cause of the trouble was the person who flagged my post. Try to not take the mods into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods can see who flagged what, but they are not allowed to talk about it. Even that is a border case, if a post was flagged or not. Furthermore, mods are not allowed to talk about, who is banned and why. It is very important, never talk about induvidual suspension cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is, for example, ACM might defend that &quot;X flagged your comment because you annoyed him&quot; (if it so happened), but he can't do because he is not allowed to explain this. The result is that now you are attacking him and he could himself defend, but he can't. It is another problem what you should try to avoid, try to not get them into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community has some bad people. Now the problem is that it is overlapping with the people posting useful comments. You can't ban a physicist because he is pathologically hostile, he is too valuable for that. Try to ignore/tolerate him, and read his posts what you can understand, I think there is the optimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not fighting a person, you are fighting a system, and its bad sides are the property of the internet communities in general, and not of the SE or this specific mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods have also a mediator feature. Many times if a mod warns, he actually tries to mediate between you, and the flaggers. Furthermore, he won't be ever able to understand everything what is in your mind, and what is in theirs. *It is crucial to help him to understand, what are you doing and why. The other side does the same, don't allow that they can explain him their views, but you don't do it with yours!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is driven by free contributions, everybody is writing questions and answers for free here. If a hardcore contributor dislikes you, then you are in the weaker position and you have to accustome to that (what doesn't mean that the system isn't defending also you - only it defends them more)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="99fffb53-3e95-40ab-82fa-3854a5141ff8" CreationDate="2018-09-09T21:52:44.983" UserId="32426" Comment="added 629 characters in body" Text="Mods are held on a short leash by the SE. Most likely he couldn't do too much wrong against you, even if he would want. The rules of the site are binding for him just as for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you confronted is imho not the cruelty of a single person, but the general antagonism of the whole system. Of course, people accustomed to it, even liking and driving it, feel themselves much better in it, than we.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an SE-specific problem. Since the Internet exists, so is it going everywhere. The SE is actually not so bad&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; - but only for the people learned it and can defend themselfes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can say this to you publicly and nothing will happen, except that I get some downvotes which have zero effect to my reputation.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two important things what makes the SE different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here you can get answers from real, hardcore professionals.&#xD;&#xA;2. You *can* defend yourself against the &quot;good old boys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing is that you have to learn the &quot;etiquette&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your this meta post was a good start, despite its false assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case: it is quite possible that some people you pinged, or who has seen that you are pinging others, actually flagged your comments. If a mod intervenes, it is very likely, that he is doing it because you were flagged. The problem is that from this point it is the mods decision, how does he handle an event - but all what he does, leaves a trace. Just as everything what you post, has a trace even if you deleted it. If there are no flags, the mod has the option to close his eyes, but if there are, something he has to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happened to me many times&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; that a mod intervened against me, while it was clear to me that he is doing it against his best opinion. The real cause of the trouble was the person who flagged my post. Try to not take the mods into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods can see who flagged what, but they are not allowed to talk about it. Even that is a border case, if a post was flagged or not. Furthermore, mods are not allowed to talk about, who is banned and why. It is very important, never talk about induvidual suspension cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is, for example, ACM might defend that &quot;X flagged your comment because you annoyed him&quot; (if it so happened), but he can't do because he is not allowed to explain this. The result is that now you are attacking him and he could defend himself, but he is not allowed to. It is another problem what you should try to avoid, try to not get them into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community has some bad people. Now the problem is that it is overlapping with the people posting useful comments. You can't ban a physicist because he is pathologically hostile, he is too valuable for that. Try to ignore/tolerate him, and read his main site posts. *Learn physics from him.* I think there is the optimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not fighting a person, you are fighting a system, and its bad aspects are the property of the internet communities in general, and not of the SE or this specific mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods have also a mediator feature. Many times if a mod warns, he actually tries to mediate between you, and the flaggers. Furthermore, he won't be ever able to understand everything what is in your mind, and what is in theirs. *It is crucial to help him to understand, what are you doing and why. The other side does the same, don't allow that they can explain him their views, but you don't do it with yours!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is driven by free contributions, everybody is writing questions and answers for free here. If a hardcore contributor dislikes you, then you are in the weaker position and you have to accustome to that (what doesn't mean that the system isn't defending also you - only it defends them more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For example, in a facebook-group, you could have got a permanent banning from the whole group. Without any reasoning. From that, you couldn't have even read the site. The FB does it while the mean quality level of their content would be deleted on the SE in minutes as VLQ.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Don't worry on meta downs, they are always coming and have actually no effect.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Not on the PSE.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="b6fafe44-a3ea-4457-87fe-897480627af2" CreationDate="2018-09-09T21:59:40.497" UserId="32426" Comment="added 629 characters in body" Text="Mods are not always against you, even if it looks so on the first spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods are held on a short leash by the SE. Most likely he couldn't do too much wrong against you, even if he would want. The rules of the site are binding for him just as for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you confronted is imho not the cruelty of a single person, but the general antagonism of the whole system. Of course, people accustomed to it, even liking and driving it, feel themselves much better in it, than we.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an SE-specific problem. Since the Internet exists, so is it going everywhere. The SE is actually not so bad&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; - but only for the people learned it and can defend themselfes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can say this to you publicly and nothing will happen, except that I get some downvotes which have zero effect to my reputation.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two important things what makes the SE different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here you can get answers from real, hardcore professionals.&#xD;&#xA;2. You *can* defend yourself against the &quot;good old boys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing is that you have to learn the &quot;etiquette&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your this meta post was a good start, despite its false assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case: it is quite possible that some people you pinged, or who has seen that you are pinging others, actually flagged your comments. If a mod intervenes, it is very likely, that he is doing it because you were flagged. The problem is that from this point it is the mods decision, how does he handle an event - but all what he does, leaves a trace. Just as everything what you post, has a trace even if you deleted it. If there are no flags, the mod has the option to close his eyes, but if there are, something he has to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happened to me many times&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; that a mod intervened against me, while it was clear to me that he is doing it against his best opinion. The real cause of the trouble was the person who flagged my post. Try to not take the mods into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods can see who flagged what, but they are not allowed to talk about it. Even that is a border case, if a post was flagged or not. Furthermore, mods are not allowed to talk about, who is banned and why. It is very important, never talk about induvidual suspension cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is, for example, ACM might defend that &quot;X flagged your comment because you annoyed him&quot; (if it so happened), but he can't do because he is not allowed to explain this. The result is that now you are attacking him and he could defend himself, but he is not allowed to. It is another problem what you should try to avoid, try to not get them into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community is sometimes more antagonistic, particularly against new users, as it would be reasonable. But acting too harshly against some wonderful contributors would be clearly irrational; the system is not tuned against you, it is tuned for to motivate you to provide the best possible content what you can. Thus, if an awesome contributor is maybe too antagonistic with you, the best if you try to ignore/tolerate him on the mate/chat. Instead, read his main site posts. *Learn physics from him.* I think there is the optimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not fighting a person, you are fighting a system, and its bad aspects are the property of the internet communities in general, and not of the SE or this specific mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods have also a mediator feature. Many times if a mod warns, he actually tries to mediate between you, and the flaggers. Furthermore, he won't be ever able to understand everything what is in your mind, and what is in theirs. *It is crucial to help him to understand, what are you doing and why. The other side does the same, don't allow that they can explain him their views, but you don't do it with yours!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is driven by free contributions, everybody is writing questions and answers for free here. If a hardcore contributor dislikes you, then you are in the weaker position and you have to accustome to that (what doesn't mean that the system isn't defending also you - only it defends them more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For example, in a facebook-group, you could have got a permanent banning from the whole group. Without any reasoning. From that, you couldn't have even read the site. The FB does it while the mean quality level of their content would be deleted on the SE in minutes as VLQ. Here you got a short chat suspension, and you can publicly challenge the mod for his decision.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Don't worry on meta downs, they are always coming and have actually no effect.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Not on the PSE.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="00412583-a63e-4019-93d7-4f379d6e2fcb" CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:08:24.407" UserId="32426" Comment="edited body" Text="Mods are not always against you, even if it looks so on the first spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods are held on a short leash by the SE. Most likely he couldn't do too much wrong against you, even if he would want. The rules of the site are binding for him just as for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you confronted is imho not the cruelty of a single person, but the general antagonism of the whole system. Of course, people accustomed to it, even liking and driving it, feel themselves much better in it, than we.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an SE-specific problem. Since the Internet exists, so is it going everywhere. The SE is actually not so bad&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; - but only for the people learned it and can defend themselfes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can say this to you publicly and nothing will happen, except that I get some downvotes which have zero effect to my reputation.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two important things what makes the SE different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here you can get answers from real, hardcore professionals.&#xD;&#xA;2. You *can* defend yourself against the &quot;good old boys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing is that you have to learn the &quot;etiquette&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your this meta post was a good start, despite its false assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case: it is quite possible that some people you pinged, or who has seen that you are pinging others, actually flagged your comments. If a mod intervenes, it is very likely, that he is doing it because you were flagged. The problem is that from this point it is the mods decision, how does he handle an event - but all what he does, leaves a trace. Just as everything what you post, has a trace even if you deleted it. If there are no flags, the mod has the option to close his eyes, but if there are, something he has to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happened to me many times&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; that a mod intervened against me, while it was clear to me that he is doing it against his best opinion. The real cause of the trouble was the person who flagged my post. Try to not take the mods into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mods can see who flagged what, but they are not allowed to talk about it. Even that is a border case, if a post was flagged or not. Furthermore, mods are not allowed to talk about, who is banned and why. It is very important, never talk about induvidual suspension cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is, for example, ACM might defend that &quot;X flagged your comment because you annoyed him&quot; (if it so happened), but he can't do because he is not allowed to explain this. The result is that now you are attacking him and he could defend himself, but he is not allowed to. It is another problem what you should try to avoid, try to not get them into such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community is sometimes more antagonistic, particularly against new users, as it would be reasonable. But acting too harshly against some wonderful contributors would be clearly irrational; the system is not tuned against you, it is tuned for to motivate you to provide the best possible content what you can. Thus, if an awesome contributor is maybe too antagonistic with you, the best if you try to ignore/tolerate him on the meta/chat. Instead, read his main site posts. *Learn physics from him.* I think there is the optimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not fighting a person, you are fighting a system, and its bad aspects are the property of the internet communities in general, and not of the SE or this specific mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods have also a mediator feature. Many times if a mod warns, he actually tries to mediate between you, and the flaggers. Furthermore, he won't be ever able to understand everything what is in your mind, and what is in theirs. *It is crucial to help him to understand, what are you doing and why. The other side does the same, don't allow that they can explain him their views, but you don't do it with yours!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site is driven by free contributions, everybody is writing questions and answers for free here. If a hardcore contributor dislikes you, then you are in the weaker position and you have to accustome to that (what doesn't mean that the system isn't defending also you - only it defends them more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For example, in a facebook-group, you could have got a permanent banning from the whole group. Without any reasoning. From that, you couldn't have even read the site. The FB does it while the mean quality level of their content would be deleted on the SE in minutes as VLQ. Here you got a short chat suspension, and you can publicly challenge the mod for his decision.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Don't worry on meta downs, they are always coming and have actually no effect.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Not on the PSE.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="c5f9e20e-b30f-4fe5-bdb2-ba8f92a6c4f3" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:33:34.960" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/427791/effect-of-temperature-and-surrounding-medium-in-the-cavendish-experiment-to-meas was closed as 'unclear what you're asking', probably because earlier versions had pretty messy grammar which made it difficult to understand. After an edit by the OP (which was probably a response to the 2 comments which mentioned that several parts weren't clear), I think I managed to put together the meaning, but the question was subsequently closed, much to my surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm kind of confused about what happened, because I'm reasonably sure that a while back, before I decided to try to save it, I had cast a VTC, along with a few others (I think I could see that there were existing VTCs when I cast mine), but right now it says that a moderator closed it with a single vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, it looks like it's in a decent shape now, so can it be reopened? I've cast a reopen vote, but I don't know if that works for questions which haven't been modified since they were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had downvoted it earlier because the grammar impeded my understanding, but now that I've edited it and removed my downvote, it has a positive score (+1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="c5f9e20e-b30f-4fe5-bdb2-ba8f92a6c4f3" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:33:34.960" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Can we reopen this question which used to have meaning-distorting grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="c5f9e20e-b30f-4fe5-bdb2-ba8f92a6c4f3" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:33:34.960" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|review|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="dbf112f8-86bb-4d5a-88d5-a77dc151ffc8" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:42:15.533" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="More descriptive title, all-caps is annoying: italicisation is a more elegant way to emphasize text" Text="This question did get wrongly and prematurely closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32806/can-physics-get-rid-of-the-continuum#comment72857_32806&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a good, valuable, and _constructive_ question that fits in perfectly with the (more theoretical) content and purpose of our site, and has already some nice answers. The answers already there and the interesting discussions in the comments show that the question hits active research areas at the inteface between mathematics and physics. Asking such questions is often very beneficial to make progress, in particular in theoretical physics. It is neither &quot;off topic&quot; nor &quot;not consutructive&quot; or what else one could invoke as a pretext to close it. &#xD;&#xA;But maybe the question could (and should ?) be shortened and put straight a little bit as Ron suggests in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial mistagging (soft question only) or too much discussion are NOT legitimate reasons to close the question itself! A better way would have been to retag the question appropriately, make suggestions for improvements (as Ron did for example), move the comments to chat if needed, and then leave it alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can the question be reopened please?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33191" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="dbf112f8-86bb-4d5a-88d5-a77dc151ffc8" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:42:15.533" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="More descriptive title, all-caps is annoying: italicisation is a more elegant way to emphasize text" Text="Can this question (which was marked as 'not constructive) be reopend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="0fe9fff1-1211-493f-a288-2f28867c1a02" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:48:10.597" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="The question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/427791/effect-of-temperature-and-surrounding-medium-in-the-cavendish-experiment-to-meas was closed as 'unclear what you're asking', probably because earlier versions had messy grammar which made it difficult to understand. After an edit by the OP (which was probably a response to the 2 comments which mentioned that several parts weren't clear), I think I managed to put together the meaning, but the question was subsequently closed, much to my surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm kind of confused about what happened, because I'm reasonably sure that a while back, before I decided to try to save it, I had cast a VTC, along with a few others (I think I could see that there were existing VTCs when I cast mine), but right now it says that a moderator closed it with a single vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, it looks like it's in a decent shape now, so can it be reopened? I've cast a reopen vote, but I don't know if that works for questions which haven't been modified since they were closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had downvoted it earlier because the grammar impeded my understanding, but now that I've edited it and removed my downvote, it has a positive score (+1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33193" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="e0214239-82f0-4e86-a938-e8e9cc67782f" CreationDate="2018-09-10T15:30:29.133" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Can this question (which was marked as 'not constructive') be reopened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33194" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="e0214239-82f0-4e86-a938-e8e9cc67782f" CreationDate="2018-09-10T15:30:29.133" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="0e549fca-d001-428e-a348-f8ee410adf5a" CreationDate="2018-09-10T16:44:55.707" UserDisplayName="user196272" Text="This question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/425124/good-books-to-understand-the-basics-of-material-science&#xD;&#xA;Was marked as duplicate and redirected to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31626/best-materials-science-introduction-book&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, the second question was particularly about Neutron scattering.But in the first question, I asked for an introductory undergrad text like the book by Van Vlack(Fortunately someone answered my question).Clearly Neutron scattering seems to be advanced(at least for me).Does this mean, this site is only for researchers and scientists?&#xD;&#xA;While voting a question as duplicate, do people read the content of the question or just compare the title?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="0e549fca-d001-428e-a348-f8ee410adf5a" CreationDate="2018-09-10T16:44:55.707" UserDisplayName="user196272" Text="A duplicate question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="0e549fca-d001-428e-a348-f8ee410adf5a" CreationDate="2018-09-10T16:44:55.707" UserDisplayName="user196272" Text="|discussion|support|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="86c34f92-d561-4d45-b77b-ef2338888b00" CreationDate="2018-09-10T16:50:16.663" UserDisplayName="user196272" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/425124/good-books-to-understand-the-basics-of-material-science&#xD;&#xA;Was marked as duplicate and redirected to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31626/best-materials-science-introduction-book&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, the second question was particularly about Neutron scattering.But in the first question, I asked for an introductory undergrad text like the book by Van Vlack(Fortunately someone answered my question).Clearly, Neutron scattering seems to be advanced(at least for me).Does this mean, this site is only for researchers and scientists?&#xD;&#xA;While voting a question as duplicate, do people read the content of the question or just compare the titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="63d07948-a526-4550-9ed8-04944ccf5d42" CreationDate="2018-09-10T17:39:05.150" UserDisplayName="user196272" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="This question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/425124/good-books-to-understand-the-basics-of-material-science&#xD;&#xA;Was marked as duplicate and redirected to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31626/best-materials-science-introduction-book&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, the second question was particularly about Neutron scattering.But in the first question, I asked for an introductory undergrad text like the book by Van Vlack(Fortunately someone answered my question).Clearly, Neutron scattering seems to be advanced(at least for me).Does this mean, this site is only for researchers and scientists?&#xD;&#xA;While voting a question as duplicate, do people read the content of the question or just compare the titles?.&#xD;&#xA;I even flagged the question, explaining that it is not a duplicate.But, I got no response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="cc3e0da0-ad1e-4532-98dc-4ce149b45ae2" CreationDate="2018-09-10T17:58:04.377" UserDisplayName="user196272" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="This question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/425124/good-books-to-understand-the-basics-of-material-science&#xD;&#xA;Was marked as duplicate and redirected to https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31626/best-materials-science-introduction-book&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, the second question was particularly about Neutron scattering.But in the first question, I asked for an introductory undergrad text like the book by Van Vlack(Fortunately someone answered my question).Clearly, Neutron scattering seems to be advanced(at least for me).Does this mean, this site is only for researchers and scientists?&#xD;&#xA;While voting a question as duplicate, do people read the content of the question or just compare the titles?.&#xD;&#xA;I even flagged the question, explaining that it is not a duplicate.But, I got no response.(In particular, I think &quot;Chair&quot; was one of the persons who voted it duplicate.I am not accusing him.But would like an explanation from him.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="e5fe3b13-d359-4f52-9024-4ff71b126283" CreationDate="2018-09-10T18:52:30.407" UserId="127931" Text="Apparently I'm one of the people who voted to close this, so I can easily give my opinion on this situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His question specifically was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;What would you suggest as a good introduction to materials science?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While yours stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;suggest me some good books(introductory level) to understand the basics of material science.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two questions are identical besides formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a note added which says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Prior usage and examples would be wonderful, my particular focus is neutron scattering&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that doesn't really change the base of their question.  The question is still about a good introductory book for material science.  They didn't even really say the books had to discuss those topics at all.  They were just showing what their interests/focuses were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see [this good related answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9649/127931) on a very similar topic which gives a good rundown of some reasons why such questions would be closed as duplicates, even in less obvious situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33203" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="e4707bb1-762b-4a90-874f-eb6ec5e88941" CreationDate="2018-09-11T04:25:34.290" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|duplicates|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33207" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="e18c8565-d1df-441b-a8c6-bab8dd48c46c" CreationDate="2018-09-11T19:42:10.213" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="5efaba66-cdc7-481d-b1f6-ae4d59e7ad64" CreationDate="2018-09-12T12:51:37.613" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="_What questions belong on Worldbuilding SE?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Worldbuilding SE](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/) looks like a pretty active place. They have a ['physics' tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/physics/info), a ['science-based' tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/science-based/info), and a [hard-science tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/hard-science/info), and many of the people who frequent the site also have reasonably active Physics SE accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tag wikis there are helpful-ish. From the **physics** tag wiki on worldbuilding,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Physics is the study of observable things of all scales from a single elementary particle to the entire universe. This tag is often used for questions regarding events that may break the 'normal' laws of physics, and could be used in conjunction with **reality-check** to determine whether or not an event violates said laws. It can also be used to refer to new laws of physics created for a fictional world. Consider also the **science-based** or **hard-science** tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Be careful if asking about the laws of physics as they exist in our current universe: such questions, if posed without a clear worldbuilding aspect, are off topic and may be migrated to Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I've seen people on Physics SE undermine the likelihood of getting 'legitimate physics reasoning' on worldbuilding, I'll include the **hard-science** tag excerpt (since the whole tag wiki is quite long and much of it is superfluous:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Requires answers backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Contrast with: science-based and reality-check tags. This tag should never be the only tag on a question because this tag frames how a question should be answered, not the topic. Review the tag info before using this tag, and flag your question for moderator attention once posted to have the hard-science notice added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should have a definite list of criteria to be fulfilled for a question to be on-topic here. Can someone familiar with both of these sites create a definitive list which we can use to decide which questions are off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're some helpful Worldbuilding meta posts I found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Physics questions with little to no actual story](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4680)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A proposal to finalize the “are real world questions on-topic” debate](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6161)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the general position over there is that if it's realistic and it happens, it's meant for Physics SE. Do we have restrictions on questions about hypothetical space ships which obey the physics we know of? I'd like to know when it's appropriate to suggest that a user re-posts their question on Worldbuilding and deletes the version here, since migrations are messy and they only happen when moderators manually do them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="5efaba66-cdc7-481d-b1f6-ae4d59e7ad64" CreationDate="2018-09-12T12:51:37.613" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Which physics questions belong on Worldbuilding SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="5efaba66-cdc7-481d-b1f6-ae4d59e7ad64" CreationDate="2018-09-12T12:51:37.613" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="04d645ab-f5ab-4732-a355-44ea13abfdc6" CreationDate="2018-09-12T13:33:23.920" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1601 characters in body; edited title" Text="_What questions are better off on on Worldbuilding SE?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Worldbuilding SE](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/) looks like a pretty active place. They have a ['physics' tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/physics/info), a ['science-based' tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/science-based/info), and a [hard-science tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/hard-science/info), and many of the people who frequent the site also have reasonably active Physics SE accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of times, I've seen questions which I think belong there, like questions about the laws of physics in hypothetical vehicles. Under what circumstances should I suggest that the OP moves their question to Worldbuilding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're some helpful Worldbuilding meta posts I found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Physics questions with little to no actual story](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4680)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A proposal to finalize the “are real world questions on-topic” debate](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6161)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the general position over there is that if the situation is realistic and it happens, it's meant for Physics SE. But do we have some counterpart guidelines about when we should tell people that Worldbuilding is the better place for their questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33212" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="04d645ab-f5ab-4732-a355-44ea13abfdc6" CreationDate="2018-09-12T13:33:23.920" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1601 characters in body; edited title" Text="Which physics SE questions are better sent to on Worldbuilding SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="71d0ce74-28c8-458b-bb25-5ab9bfcb4b07" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:07:18.637" UserId="199893" Text="Could this site somehow let contributors know if a homework and exercise question has been reviewed and found acceptable for answering? Right now we only know when a question is found to be unacceptable and put on hold (sometimes after spending considerable time answering it). I would like to wait before answering these questions until I know they have been found acceptable for answering. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="71d0ce74-28c8-458b-bb25-5ab9bfcb4b07" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:07:18.637" UserId="199893" Text="Homework and Exercises" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="71d0ce74-28c8-458b-bb25-5ab9bfcb4b07" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:07:18.637" UserId="199893" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="cdf1e1b0-3662-4cd3-a645-7590e52836f6" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:39:13.077" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10812" RevisionGUID="82d7bcc6-5394-4436-8ab0-1e627cd76399" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:52:21.927" UserId="8563" Text="As mentioned in the comments, the scope of this site is completely independent of the scope of any other SE site. That implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The fact that a given question might be on-topic elsewhere is entirely irrelevant to whether it is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA; - The fact that a given question might be off-topic elsewhere is entirely irrelevant to whether it is on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, considerations about whether a given question would or would not be acceptable on other sites do not play a role in whether it should be closed if it's posted here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Migration is a subset of closure: we only migrate things which are off-topic here, and that decision is independent of whether they are on-topic elsewhere; that only comes into the process when deciding whether the appropriate action is a straight closure or a migration. If a question is on-topic here, it shouldn't be migrated, no matter how on-topic it might be elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If a question has been closed and you feel it might be well received elsewhere on the SE network, you're free to suggest to OP that they flag it for migration.&#xD;&#xA; - If a question is on-topic but you feel that it would be *better* received elsewhere on the SE network, and that OP might not be aware of the possibility, then it is perfectly acceptable to suggest in a comment something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; would X be a better home for this question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   and it is then up to OP whether to flag for migration, or (with due regard to [the network etiquette](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64068/is-cross-posting-a-question-on-multiple-stack-exchange-sites-permitted-if-the-qu)) to cross-post a re-tailored version of the question on the other site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The things that you are *not* allowed to do in comments are spelled out in the [Code of Conduct](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct). So long as you conduct yourself politely, there's nothing stopping you from providing such suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="d771a5f1-6cd8-44e0-83aa-e239629dcc13" CreationDate="2018-09-12T14:55:43.577" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="[Worldbuilding SE](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/) looks like a pretty active place. They have a ['physics' tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/physics/info), a ['science-based' tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/science-based/info), and a [hard-science tag](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/tags/hard-science/info), and many of the people who frequent the site also have reasonably active Physics SE accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of times, I've seen questions which I think belong there, like questions about the laws of physics in hypothetical vehicles. Under what circumstances should I suggest that the OP moves their question to Worldbuilding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're some helpful Worldbuilding meta posts I found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Physics questions with little to no actual story](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4680)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A proposal to finalize the “are real world questions on-topic” debate](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6161)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the general position over there is that if the situation is realistic and it happens, it's meant for Physics SE. But do we have some counterpart guidelines about when we should tell people that Worldbuilding is the better place for their questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="defac987-ecd6-44ef-bee0-155b0874e945" CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:10:23.647" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited title" Text="Which physics SE questions should be redirected to Worldbuilding SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33220" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="d7f28bd8-ce6f-46bf-acdf-fb6291c8d53c" CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:31:10.280" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Notify users when homework-and-exercises posts are found acceptable for answering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33221" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="d7f28bd8-ce6f-46bf-acdf-fb6291c8d53c" CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:31:10.280" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|scope|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="ee7cc5dd-5717-4726-affd-1451671e45f0" CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:37:01.053" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I don't think anything similar can be feasibly implemented. It has been suggested on [Meta.se] that we implement a system by which posts are made publicly view-able only once they have been reviewed. With such a system, you won't see any homework questions in the first place. But those proposals weren't well-received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed I can think of to what you were saying is something which counts how many people with Vote-to-close privileges have viewed the post and chosen not to vote to close it, but even that's completely messed up because there are several high-rep users who don't use the review queues, and people with &lt;3k rep can cast helpful flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm sorry, but the only option I see is getting a bit more familiar with the homework policy. It doesn't take too long :) Or once you have the 3k rep privileges, you'll be able to see if there are any pending close/reopen votes on a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="22c8650c-6bfd-4f4f-b4d7-1d384cbcf712" CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:47:36.347" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I don't think anything similar can be feasibly implemented. It has been suggested on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) that we implement a system by which posts are made publicly view-able only once they have been reviewed. With such a system, you won't see any homework questions in the first place. But those proposals weren't well-received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closed I can think of to what you were saying is something which counts how many people with Vote-to-close privileges have viewed the post and chosen not to vote to close it, but even that's completely messed up because there are several high-rep users who don't use the review queues, and people with &lt;3k rep can cast helpful flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm sorry, but the only option I see is getting a bit more familiar with the homework policy. It doesn't take too long :) Or once you have the 3k rep privileges, you'll be able to see if there are any pending close/reopen votes on a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="7eaa94af-aa1a-4e8c-9458-23586b691790" CreationDate="2018-09-13T12:36:27.003" UserId="8563" Text="This isn't workable. The process to &quot;certify&quot; that a given post is on-topic would require a consensus of 3k+ users, almost certainly via a review queue, and there is no realistic way to make this happen faster than the existing Close Votes review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real problem is that the Close Votes review queue isn't currently as fast as we would like it to, particularly for the obvious [broken-window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) questions like blatant homework dumps. Ideally, we'd like those questions to be closed *before* anyone has time to post (or even start writing) answers for them, but the current reality is that it's not happening that fast. The solution to that problem requires *more* reviewer time, and diverting reviewer time to a separate queue would be counter-productive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know whether a post violates the homework policy enough to be closed because of it, there's a straightforward alternative: read and understand [the policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and come to your own determination of whether it's in direct contradiction to those principles. Unfortunately, of course, the stated policy is only an imperfect capture of the actual real-world application; I wish I could tell you that that's about to be fixed but the reality is that the homework-policy debate has taken so long and drained so much energy (see the links [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10079/8563) for an incomplete sampler) that the chances of movement on that front in the near future are slim. Still, as you see more of the site, you'll be able to get a sense for what does and does not constitute an about-to-be-closed homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as pointed out in the comments, if in doubt, head over to the [site chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and ask. We can't promise to provide a definite answer, but it's quite likely that we'll be able to give a reasonably accurate prediction, together with an explanation of why it falls in either class of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="af181880-eaea-43a9-b6ec-1150096fdd19" CreationDate="2018-09-13T16:12:16.940" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="The chat stuff isn't below the question; it's below my answer." Text="This isn't workable. The process to &quot;certify&quot; that a given post is on-topic would require a consensus of 3k+ users, almost certainly via a review queue, and there is no realistic way to make this happen faster than the existing Close Votes review queue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real problem is that the Close Votes review queue isn't currently as fast as we would like it to, particularly for the obvious [broken-window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) questions like blatant homework dumps. Ideally, we'd like those questions to be closed *before* anyone has time to post (or even start writing) answers for them, but the current reality is that it's not happening that fast. The solution to that problem requires *more* reviewer time, and diverting reviewer time to a separate queue would be counter-productive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know whether a post violates the homework policy enough to be closed because of it, there's a straightforward alternative: read and understand [the policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/714) and come to your own determination of whether it's in direct contradiction to those principles. Unfortunately, of course, the stated policy is only an imperfect capture of the actual real-world application; I wish I could tell you that that's about to be fixed but the reality is that the homework-policy debate has taken so long and drained so much energy (see the links [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10079/8563) for an incomplete sampler) that the chances of movement on that front in the near future are slim. Still, as you see more of the site, you'll be able to get a sense for what does and does not constitute an about-to-be-closed homework question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as pointed out in a [comment below Chair's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10811/notify-users-when-homework-and-exercises-posts-are-found-acceptable-for-answerin#comment41197_10813), if in doubt, head over to the [site chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) and ask. We can't promise to provide a definite answer, but it's quite likely that we'll be able to give a reasonably accurate prediction, together with an explanation of why it falls in either class of question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="677f7e46-2ae6-4620-bb46-6451bc7b1c9d" CreationDate="2018-09-13T22:29:47.373" UserId="176067" Comment="Added status tag, explanation" Text="[meta-tag:status-completed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comments are switched back to serif for your MathJax enjoyment. ~Catija&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mentioned in the [longer answer by Chair](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10786/44126), but it jumped out at me so I'll post it by itself anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our previous design, [for a couple of years](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7419/44126), uses a font with serifs so that inline text and MathJax snippets look less dissimilar. The new design uses a serif font for the body text, but sans-serif for the comments, where people also post MathJax snippets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the idea behind using a different typeface to help distinguish the comments from the main text.  But unless we're going to add support for sans-serif fonts in MathJax snippets (which is non-trivial, and not necessarily great-looking even if you can get it to work) I think it's better to have inline consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="0a9bf0c7-532b-4e8b-a1cf-f2f34e9563ef" CreationDate="2018-09-15T05:17:55.070" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't think anything similar can be feasibly implemented. It has been suggested on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) that we implement a system by which posts are made publicly view-able only once they have been reviewed. With such a system, you won't see any homework questions in the first place. But those proposals weren't well-received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I can think of to what you were saying is something which counts how many people with Vote-to-close privileges have viewed the post and chosen not to vote to close it, but even that's completely messed up because there are several high-rep users who don't use the review queues, and people with &lt;3k rep can cast helpful flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm sorry, but the only option I see is getting a bit more familiar with the homework policy. It doesn't take too long :) Or once you have the 3k rep privileges, you'll be able to see if there are any pending close/reopen votes on a post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="38b97354-f05d-4b44-bd69-347f78bebca0" CreationDate="2018-09-15T06:02:33.673" UserId="1492" Text="Since I signed up for testing, I have been using the&quot;unanswered&quot; link on the left,  and thought it was a great improvement,except, today I realized that checking &quot;my tags&quot; did not give me  a list of unanswered questions in &quot;particle physics&quot;, but I got an old list back , and I thought people were no longer interested in particle physics :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;old list appearing all these days,  I think since I had last checked the &quot;mytags&quot;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no choice for getting the &quot;newest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the particle tag of a few moments previously to the post. when I hit &quot;particles&quot; in the tags list of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;newest&quot;  in mytags would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I have had trouble with firefox before, giving me old pages  ( for example I sent a correction to hyperphysics, and it kept coming back with the old wrong page, although in a new private window the corrections were there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;treat the above as just a comment on the way I use the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;anna&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZI4hP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hwEHG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="81f7ccb7-bf6f-4e2b-a739-dadc9170f564" CreationDate="2018-09-15T14:07:11.630" UserId="1492" Text="The one I think is the correct one is not working on a different browser. I am logged on  continually in firefox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="81f7ccb7-bf6f-4e2b-a739-dadc9170f564" CreationDate="2018-09-15T14:07:11.630" UserId="1492" Text="How can I get a new password . Old one not working" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="81f7ccb7-bf6f-4e2b-a739-dadc9170f564" CreationDate="2018-09-15T14:07:11.630" UserId="1492" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10817" RevisionGUID="38a45b64-8824-48e6-bb0c-dad4cd90dd6a" CreationDate="2018-09-15T17:53:09.027" UserId="44126" Text="The &quot;forgot password?&quot; link on the login page will ask you to enter the email address associated with your account. That mails a password reset link to the email address if there's an account associated with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can confirm that you have two email addresses linked with your profile. Same username, one at Yahoo, and one at a .gr domain which is (according to &quot;down for everyone or just me.com&quot;) not hosting any web server today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can access the login page from your current browser without logging out using a &quot;private browsing&quot; window. In most browsers this option lives in one of the main menus (&quot;file &gt; new&quot;) or you can right-click or command-click around the &quot;new tab&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have trouble getting a password reset link, you'll have to use the contact form that's linked in the footer of every page; the local mods can log you out, but not log you back in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="b9592021-ae46-4505-bbda-907504e6a6da" CreationDate="2018-09-15T19:47:50.947" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10818" RevisionGUID="9ac374d6-47a7-4064-a6d6-995d484258c1" CreationDate="2018-09-16T11:52:57.767" UserId="187604" Text="It seems in some questions I can see the bounty tab but in some I can't.  So how to enable bounty tab in every question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10818" RevisionGUID="9ac374d6-47a7-4064-a6d6-995d484258c1" CreationDate="2018-09-16T11:52:57.767" UserId="187604" Text="How to enable bounty option in a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10818" RevisionGUID="9ac374d6-47a7-4064-a6d6-995d484258c1" CreationDate="2018-09-16T11:52:57.767" UserId="187604" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="779d94f1-1a19-46a0-bafc-cbc9a6cabe1e" CreationDate="2018-09-16T12:04:56.973" UserId="50583" Text="You can only put a bounty on a question that is older than 2 days. There is no way to enable bountying for questions that are younger than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="ba2eae63-23cf-4966-984e-ac5d5d5e19a2" CreationDate="2018-09-17T05:06:21.250" UserId="206877" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Estimate the change in temperature in upper troposphere when there is a 1K surface temperature increase](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/429208/estimate-the-change-in-temperature-in-upper-troposphere-when-there-is-a-1k-surfa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I was directed here to ask a homework question.  Linked to original question. Please, any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="ba2eae63-23cf-4966-984e-ac5d5d5e19a2" CreationDate="2018-09-17T05:06:21.250" UserId="206877" Text="Upper Troposphere temperature with 1K increase of surface temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="ba2eae63-23cf-4966-984e-ac5d5d5e19a2" CreationDate="2018-09-17T05:06:21.250" UserId="206877" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="fcd67035-42a1-466e-85d1-2c9c7c08b137" CreationDate="2018-09-17T06:21:53.483" UserId="124" Text="Welcome to the site! Unfortunately, whoever directed you here gave you some misguided advice, since the purpose of this site is not really to provide people with homework help. We prefer to focus on the kinds of questions that a student or researcher might ask simply because they're interested; for example, clarifying a confusing paragraph in a research paper or explaining an apparent inconsistency in a textbook's explanation of some concept. (That's not an exhaustive list, just a couple of examples of the kinds of questions we prefer to handle.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you really want is to get help with a homework problem you're working on, it's probably best for you to try somewhere else that's more focused on giving that kind of help. You can sometimes get that help in our [main chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71) or [a dedicated problem solving strategies room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160/problem-solving-strategies), if you have access to chat. (That requires a certain amount of reputation on the Stack Exchange network.) Otherwise, you might try something from [our list of other sites that deal with physics](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391/my-question-was-closed-on-phys-se-can-you-recommend-me-another-internet-site) and may be able to handle questions that are off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases it is possible to ask a question that will get you the help you need with your homework in a way that still fits on this site. There's some information about how to do that in our [policy on homework-like questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange), but it can be tricky to get the question in the right form without some help. If you want to try that, that's definitely something you could ask about in the chat room (again, if you have access) or on this meta site. The main restriction is that you should quote the homework problem you're working on, but don't ask for the answer to that problem itself. Instead, narrow it down to some specific conceptual issue that you can't figure out, e.g. something that might be useful to other people doing other problems, and ask about that. You would need to summarize the work you did to narrow down the original homework problem to the specific question you're asking, and also show that you made [some effort to figure out that specific question yourself](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question) before you came to us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="e55c91e3-e93e-4db7-a1a3-930a7e8d6ca2" CreationDate="2018-09-19T04:10:41.853" UserId="176067" Comment="updated to reflect new status" Text="## Update - the theme and layout is now live for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your feedback in this process. If there's additional feedback, please feel free to add to the answers below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of implementing the new unified themes across the network, we're gradually rolling out updated site themes for each site. As of today, we have enabled your updated site theme for testing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't see it right now, that's by design! We're hoping to get feedback from you before rolling it out to everyone permanently. If you'd like to review it, here's how:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How do I enable it?&#xD;&#xA;[Click here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences) and check the &quot;Beta test new themes&quot; option. This will turn on the new theme for all sites that have one in testing, including this one. *Here's [more info](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314542/opt-in-to-beta-testing-new-themes) on how to opt in.* You can uncheck the box to revert to the older theme until the site is live for everyone (note, it will take a few minutes to go into effect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What type of feedback do we need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### On this post: Bugs related to this site's design elements &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help us look for issues/bugs related to the theme design and how we have mapped the old theme to the new. This needs to be done within the [limits of the new unified theme](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### On Meta Stack Exchange: General concerns about left nav or theming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have concerns or issues regarding the left nav or the overall approach we are taking to theming, then [this Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/310908/live-left-nav-new-theming-and-responsiveness) is the right place for feedback. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may notice, there are some unique design elements like voting arrows and tags that are being standardized in this process. Keeping these custom elements makes our ability to maintain the sites too complex and, while we're very sad to see them go, we're in a difficult position of needing to make the site designs work together so that we can continue to address feature requests and bugs that will make your Q&amp;A experience better. This is addressed in a [Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314799/why-we-initiated-the-latest-round-of-design-changes-and-the-role-of-meta) if you want more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What new themes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're like, &quot;What the heck are you talking about?&quot;, then you should read the Meta Stack Exchange post entitled [Rollout of new network site themes](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes) (and maybe the posts it links to for the full background).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Thanks so much for your constructive feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="e55c91e3-e93e-4db7-a1a3-930a7e8d6ca2" CreationDate="2018-09-19T04:10:41.853" UserId="176067" Comment="updated to reflect new status" Text="Physics' updated site theme is live for everyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="bdce24d2-2421-4296-9700-8b79a8b4d5b1" CreationDate="2018-09-20T18:45:26.107" UserId="83398" Text="[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229935/bicycle-counter-intuitive-in-which-direction-it-will-move) about which way a bicycle will move when the pedal is pulled horizontally was closed as a duplicate of [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45679/which-direction-will-the-yoyo-move) about how a yoyo will move when it is pulled horizontally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are **not** the same question, because a yoyo is a rigid body, while a bicycle is not even close. The correct answer is that in mid gear, the answer is the same as in the yoyo case, but for low gearings the bike will move forward while the pedal moves backward (so the string still ends up going backward as required). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="bdce24d2-2421-4296-9700-8b79a8b4d5b1" CreationDate="2018-09-20T18:45:26.107" UserId="83398" Text="Two similar-looking mechanics questions are not duplicates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="bdce24d2-2421-4296-9700-8b79a8b4d5b1" CreationDate="2018-09-20T18:45:26.107" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="e2d29cb7-e097-4387-9734-724535ca575a" CreationDate="2018-09-20T20:54:06.787" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="7fa7a76e-9816-4c70-be65-23d969207829" CreationDate="2018-09-21T12:15:32.793" UserId="8563" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|specific-question|duplicates|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="91617de1-cca8-4274-a021-d773a1eccef6" CreationDate="2018-09-22T10:49:30.460" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="#Chat still uses the old logo [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like the new logo wasn't implemented there. I don't know if it supports high-resolution vectors, but it'd be nice to have some symmetry for the Feynman diagram and the hat's coloring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older logo also shows up in profile &gt; edit communities. It looks like the lines are much more sparse in the new version. Perhaps the mexican hat which shows up as our HNQ icon would be more appropriate here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aosUk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JccI0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="2d8df95f-5278-492c-91e4-5aea840a62b5" CreationDate="2018-09-22T16:38:58.973" UserId="8563" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="#Chat still uses the old logo [meta-tag:bug]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like the new logo wasn't implemented there. I don't know if it supports high-resolution vectors, but it'd be nice to have some symmetry for the Feynman diagram and the hat's coloring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older logo also shows up in profile &gt; edit communities. It looks like the lines are much more sparse in the new version. Perhaps the mexican hat which shows up as our HNQ icon would be more appropriate here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happens with the question migration stats in the 10k tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aosUk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JccI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZxSkr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="eed5a104-512a-4d29-ab30-37939871f3be" CreationDate="2018-09-22T18:23:31.347" UserId="137157" Text="While writing a meta-section in my thesis I wanted to give some examples of important theory proposals preceding experimental verification but I couldn't name very many from the top of my head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I knew that Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of the neutrino which was experimentally confirmed about 20 years later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since many discoveries nowadays are attributed to the experimentalists (e.g. in [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries)) I couldn't find a good source on the internet listing the proposals **preceding** experimental breakthroughs.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I am aware that big-list questions are a matter of debate ([good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list)) but most of these discussion are several years old. Has the code of practice maybe changed since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on other SEs this seems to be more accepted. E.g. I recently got some useful information from discussions like [these](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/10103/great-mathematicians-born-1850-1920-et-bells-book-≲-x-≲-fields-medalists/10202#10202).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is now, if I post &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    List of important theory proposals that were later confirmed experimentally&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;on physics.SE will I be shot down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="eed5a104-512a-4d29-ab30-37939871f3be" CreationDate="2018-09-22T18:23:31.347" UserId="137157" Text="May I ask a big-list question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="eed5a104-512a-4d29-ab30-37939871f3be" CreationDate="2018-09-22T18:23:31.347" UserId="137157" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10824" RevisionGUID="ce6c5c65-bb94-41b7-a03e-b40cb5cf4488" CreationDate="2018-09-22T18:41:20.547" UserId="8563" Text="&gt;I am aware that big-list questions are a matter of debate ([good list, bad list](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/good-list-bad-list)) but most of these discussion are several years old. Has the code of practice maybe changed since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not particularly. The ethos in the question and the answer in the thread that you linked to is still the basic outlook on those questions, and there hasn't been any significant pushback to that status quo in the intervening ~five years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my mind this is as good a confirmation as you get that this site's community is still in agreement with those basic principles: basically, we allow resource-recommendation questions if they the question itself is narrow enough to provide a platform for good answers, but the woollier big-list questions are generally out. They're just too much like junk food to work well with this site's format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you propose,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; List of important theory proposals that were later confirmed experimentally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is definitely on that woollier end of the spectrum, and I think it would be closed quite quickly as Primarily Opinion-Based or Too Broad, depending on the exact wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, on other SEs this seems to be more accepted. E.g. I recently got some useful information from discussions like [these](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/10103/great-mathematicians-born-1850-1920-et-bells-book-≲-x-≲-fields-medalists/10202#10202).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right in that MathOverflow does have a more permissive policy towards big-list questions. They do they, we do us. Different sites operate in different environments, under different pressures, and catering to different communities, and that affects how well different types of questions can work. The topicality of questions here has very little to do with the topicality of questions elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10825" RevisionGUID="6e42382d-e545-491b-9b2f-64f789d1bfb4" CreationDate="2018-09-23T11:27:42.163" UserId="17364" Text="**Rendering of text on Safari browser**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed over a course of a week or so that the rendering of the question titles on the main page on MacOs Safari browser is not so satisfactory, resulting in overlapping words with the reputable attributes on the left. Is anyone else having this problem? I've checked on firefox in the same system and it appears fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uL1Wi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10825" RevisionGUID="c3e09aec-0ba7-42b1-b417-3ffaf65cf1a0" CreationDate="2018-09-23T11:33:37.453" UserId="17364" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="**Rendering of text on Home page Safari browser**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed over a course of a week or so that the rendering of the question titles on the **Home** page on MacOs Safari browser is not so satisfactory, resulting in overlapping words with the reputable attributes on the left. Is anyone else having this problem? The formatting on the **Questions** page is, however, rendering fine and I've checked both pages on firefox in the same system and it appears fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uL1Wi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="97e9a77b-e15f-4fb8-a6c4-1059f7e71e62" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:11:31.973" UserId="132433" Text="A couple of weeks ago [this question][1] was posted, and the question contained a simple typo in the equations for coordinate rotation. The first answer spent two lines politely correcting this. Then, as it happened, I noticed that the same typo was present in the accepted answer to this linked [related question][2] from three years ago. So I thought, maybe the error in the new question was propagated from the old answer to the new question? And then I made a simple edit to the old answer in order to correct the typo. The edit changed the incorrect equation $y = x'sin\,\omega t + x'cos\,\omega t$ into the correct one: $y = x'sin\,\omega t + y'cos\,\omega t$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My edit was rejected since it allegedly didn't improve anything, despite being objectively correct while the unedited answer still contains incorrect math due to the typo. However, after learning about the rules for editing I now understand that edits are not intended for things like fixing trivial typos (however game-changing they are) in accepted answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what is the recommended procedure for fixing math errors in old answers, to avoid propagating such errors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/427492/derivation-of-coordinate-transform-for-rotating-frame-of-reference-in-relativity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154834/how-do-i-transform-onto-a-relativistic-rotating-frame-of-reference/191329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="97e9a77b-e15f-4fb8-a6c4-1059f7e71e62" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:11:31.973" UserId="132433" Text="How to fix incorrect math in old accepted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="97e9a77b-e15f-4fb8-a6c4-1059f7e71e62" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:11:31.973" UserId="132433" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="5ceee457-c0d1-4564-a24f-4f5e30ebef6a" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:14:31.177" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|suggested-edits|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="58e3290d-c516-43ba-8e8e-c5c0636f9437" CreationDate="2018-09-23T20:05:45.983" UserId="32426" Text="[This][1] is the review record of your rejected edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reasons of the rejections were these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the reviewers represent more the negative voters of the site (gives more down as up, prefer to vote to close, rejecting edit suggestions and so on).&#xD;&#xA;* You wanted to edit the post of a high-rep user. Such edit suggestions are typically not very HQ.&#xD;&#xA;* Being a &lt;2k user, you can only initiate revisions if they change at least 6 characters. You circumvented this rule by inserting 6 points to the end of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem what you fixed was a real and very obvious one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had reviewed your suggestion, I had probably clicked &quot;Improve edit&quot;, and I had removed your added points at the end. In my opinion, it had been the correct thing to do, but also the reviewers are human and sometimes they have to handle a large mass of crap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a comment to the post, as AFT suggests, could work, but you have no way to know, when will anybody see it ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also find other ways to reach this 6 character limit. If there is really nothing in the post what could be done better, then improve its tagging (if it is a question). If you can't do that, then this post is non-editable for you and only AFT's idea remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumventing rules by tricks is generally unwelcomed and serves as a strong argument for the reviewers to click &quot;Reject&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such an obvious case, I had either posted a comment, but only after I had looked for other ways to reach the 6 char limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The comment what you write is super-important. Write clear and convincing arguments, the reviewers see and check that!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the case is very obvious and you are sure that the reviewers mishandled it, then it is not very bad if you suggest the same edit again (this time with more convincing comment). But never do it 3 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/231051" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="fc23cd86-179f-4bb6-84e0-f233ab779011" CreationDate="2018-09-23T20:11:43.713" UserId="32426" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="[This][1] is the review record of your rejected edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reasons of the rejections were these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the reviewers represent more the negative voters of the site (gives more down as up, prefer to vote to close, rejecting edit suggestions and so on).&#xD;&#xA;* You wanted to edit the post of a high-rep user. Such edit suggestions are typically not very HQ.&#xD;&#xA;* Being a &lt;2k user, you can only initiate revisions if they change at least 6 characters. You circumvented this rule by inserting 6 points to the end of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem what you fixed was a real and very obvious one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had reviewed your suggestion, I had probably clicked &quot;Improve edit&quot;, and I had removed your added points at the end. In my opinion, it had been the correct thing to do, but also the reviewers are human and sometimes they have to handle a large mass of crap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a comment to the post, as AFT suggests, could work, but you have no way to know, when will anybody see it ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also find other ways to reach this 6 character limit. If there is really nothing in the post what could be done better, then improve its tagging (if it is a question). If you can't do that, then this post is non-editable for you and only AFT's idea remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumventing rules by tricks is generally unwelcomed and serves as a strong argument for the reviewers to click &quot;Reject&quot;. Btw, if you had done it at least as a HTML comment (`&lt;!-- .... --&gt;`), then it had been at least invisible in the rendered version. However, it had been still visible in the markup and counted as circumventing rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such an obvious case, I had either posted a comment, but only after I had looked for other ways to reach the 6 char limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The comment what you write is super-important. Write clear and convincing arguments, the reviewers see and check that!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the case is very obvious and you are sure that the reviewers mishandled it, then it is not very bad if you suggest the same edit again (this time with more convincing comment). But never do it 3 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edit the post of high-rep users very rarely, despite that now I could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the meta is also a good idea. You might also try the [site chatroom][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/231051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="9894f5a0-ed52-429b-8649-712ce057db48" CreationDate="2018-09-23T20:17:48.643" UserId="32426" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="[This][1] is the review record of your rejected edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reasons of the rejections were these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the reviewers represent more the negative voters of the site (gives more down as up, prefer to vote to close, rejecting edit suggestions and so on). You had bad luck in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;* You wanted to edit the post of a high-rep user. Such edit suggestions are typically not very HQ.&#xD;&#xA;* Being a &lt;2k user, you can only initiate revisions if they change at least 6 characters. You circumvented this rule by inserting 6 points to the end of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem what you fixed was a real and very obvious one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had reviewed your suggestion, I had probably clicked &quot;Improve edit&quot;, and I had removed your added points at the end. In my opinion, it had been the correct thing to do, but also the reviewers are human and sometimes they have to handle a large mass of crap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a comment to the post, as AFT suggests, could work, but you have no way to know, when will anybody see it ever. Furthermore, you lose the +2 reward with it, which is your deserved reward for finding a bug in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also find other ways to reach this 6 character limit. If there is really nothing in the post what could be done better, then improve its tagging (if it is a question). If you can't do that, then this post is non-editable for you and only AFT's idea remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumventing rules by tricks is generally unwelcomed and serves as a strong argument for the reviewers to click &quot;Reject&quot;. Btw, if you had done it at least as a HTML comment (`&lt;!-- .... --&gt;`), then it had been at least invisible in the rendered version. However, it had been still visible in the markup and counted as circumventing rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such an obvious case, I had either posted a comment, but only after I had looked for other ways to reach the 6 char limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The comment what you write to the edit suggestion is super-important. Write clear and convincing arguments, the reviewers see and check that!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the case is very obvious and you are sure that the reviewers mishandled it, then it is not very bad if you suggest the same edit again (this time with more convincing comment). But never do it 3 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edit the post of high-rep users very rarely, despite that now I could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the meta is also a good idea. You might also try the [site chatroom][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/231051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="04535596-d2a0-4afb-bb0c-e1066a052fb7" CreationDate="2018-09-23T20:25:04.483" UserId="32426" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="[This][1] is the review record of your rejected edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reasons of the rejections were these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the reviewers represent more the negative voters of the site (gives more down as up, prefer to vote to close, rejecting edit suggestions and so on). You had bad luck in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;* You wanted to edit the post of a high-rep user. Such edit suggestions are typically not very HQ.&#xD;&#xA;* Being a &lt;2k user, you can only initiate revisions if they change at least 6 characters. You circumvented this rule by inserting 6 points to the end of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem what you fixed was a real and very obvious one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had reviewed your suggestion, I had probably clicked &quot;Improve edit&quot;, and I had removed your added points at the end. In my opinion, it had been the correct thing to do, but also the reviewers are human and sometimes they have to handle a large mass of crap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a comment to the post, as AFT suggests, could work, but you have no way to know, when will anybody see it ever. Furthermore, you lose the +2 reward with it, which is your deserved reward for finding a bug in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also find other ways to reach this 6 character limit. If there is really nothing in the post what could be done better, then improve its tagging (if it is a question). If you can't do that, then this post is non-editable for you and only AFT's idea remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumventing rules by tricks is generally unwelcomed and serves as a strong argument for the reviewers to click &quot;Reject&quot;. Btw, if you had done it at least as a HTML comment (`&lt;!-- .... --&gt;`), then it had been at least invisible in the rendered version. However, it had been still visible in the markup and counted as circumventing rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such an obvious case, I had either posted a comment, but only after I had looked for other ways to reach the 6 char limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The comment what you write to the edit suggestion is super-important. Write clear and convincing arguments to your edit suggestions, the reviewers see and check that!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the case is very obvious and you are sure that the reviewers mishandled it, then it is not very bad if you suggest the same edit again (this time with more convincing comment). Last time I fixed the formatting of an SU mod on this way ([rejection][2], [accept][3]). But never do it 3 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edit the post of high-rep users very rarely, despite that now I could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the meta is also a good idea. You might also try the [site chatroom][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/231051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/753753&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/753928&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="6928ce86-3ae7-46fd-ae0c-975033940154" CreationDate="2018-09-23T21:15:35.360" UserId="25301" Text="TL;DR: If you can't make the minimum 6 characters to suggest an edit, don't do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I'd have deemed your edit as harmful due to the use of the periods at the end of the post, even though the $y\to x$ was correct. Since your edit was really for a single character, what [AccidentalFourierTransform said is correct](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10826/how-to-fix-incorrect-math-in-old-accepted-answers/10828#comment41253_10826): leave a comment indicating the incorrect point. Don't waste other people's time just to farm 2 rep, it's really not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I don't see any typographical errors in the post peterh links, I do see that you could have replaced all italics d's with the [correct, romanized d's](https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/14822/47090) (i.e., $\mathrm{d}x$ instead of $dx$), which would have easily jumped you well over the required 6 characters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="724f9485-3e1e-4efb-a877-1c0638538d6e" CreationDate="2018-09-23T22:58:28.573" UserId="124" Text="This is a little complicated because your edit did two entirely separate things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It fixed a typo that created an error in the math. This is good.&#xD;&#xA;- It added extra useless content to the post (the periods at the end). This is bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding the extra useless content is bad enough that the harm it causes to the post outweighs fixing the mistake in the math, and that's presumably why your edit was rejected - or at least, that's why I would have rejected it if I had been reviewing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do want to clarify that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...edits are not intended for things like fixing trivial typos (however game-changing they are) in accepted answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not correct. Fixing typos, especially when they impact the meaning of the post (such as the one in this case), is a _perfect_ reason to edit. The catch is that we want to keep the total number of edits down, so you shouldn't just fix the typo itself, but you should take a look at the rest of the post and see if there's anything else that needs to be fixed, and bunch it all together into a single edit. The 6-character requirement is a crude way to &quot;enforce&quot; that. Once you get 2000 reputation, you'll presumably have learned to edit everything that needs to be fixed at once, and at that point you gain the ability to make edits with less than 6 characters' change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what you should have done, in this case, is look for something else to fix in the post to go along with your change of $x$ to $y$. Read through it carefully and see if there are any missing words or misspelled words, missing or inconsistent math formatting, etc. All of that you can use to build up to the 6-character minimum. It simply needs to be the case that _every individual change_ you make improves the answer. Of course, sometimes you'll find a post that is really well written and has nothing else to change, and in that case you just have to try to get someone else to make the change for you by commenting on the post and/or dropping a note in chat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="fb10f74e-e4cc-41c6-97ca-9bded490a811" CreationDate="2018-09-24T00:29:03.857" UserId="32426" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[This][1] is the review record of your rejected edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reasons of the rejections were these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the reviewers represent more the negative voters of the site (gives more down as up, prefer to vote to close, rejecting edit suggestions and so on). You had bad luck in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;* You wanted to edit the post of a high-rep user. Such edit suggestions are typically not very HQ.&#xD;&#xA;* Being a &lt;2k user, you can only initiate revisions if they change at least 6 characters. You circumvented this rule by inserting 6 periods to the end of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem what you fixed was a real and very obvious one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had reviewed your suggestion, I had probably clicked &quot;Improve edit&quot;, and I had removed your added points at the end. In my opinion, it had been the correct thing to do, but also the reviewers are human and sometimes they have to handle a large mass of crap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a comment to the post, as AFT suggests, could work, but you have no way to know, when will anybody see it ever. Furthermore, you lose the +2 reward with it, which is your deserved reward for finding a bug in a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also find other ways to reach this 6 character limit. If there is really nothing in the post what could be done better, then improve its tagging (if it is a question). If you can't do that, then this post is non-editable for you and only AFT's idea remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumventing rules by tricks is generally unwelcomed and serves as a strong argument for the reviewers to click &quot;Reject&quot;. Btw, if you had done it at least as a HTML comment (`&lt;!-- .... --&gt;`), then it had been at least invisible in the rendered version. However, it had been still visible in the markup and counted as circumventing rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such an obvious case, I had either posted a comment, but only after I had looked for other ways to reach the 6 char limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The comment what you write to the edit suggestion is super-important. Write clear and convincing arguments to your edit suggestions, the reviewers see and check that!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the case is very obvious and you are sure that the reviewers mishandled it, then it is not very bad if you suggest the same edit again (this time with more convincing comment). Last time I fixed the formatting of an SU mod on this way ([rejection][2], [accept][3]). But never do it 3 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I edit the post of high-rep users very rarely, despite that now I could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the meta is also a good idea. You might also try the [site chatroom][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/231051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/753753&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/753928&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="ac15322e-86be-4e3a-95f7-a9567a6bfcb6" CreationDate="2018-09-24T17:22:26.730" UserId="106752" Text="It can happen many a times that a user with even lesser reputation can have a really valuable point/counter question to add, but it may not be complete in itself or simply might not be able to answer the question satisfactorily. In such a condition the valuable addition may be missed out. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="ac15322e-86be-4e3a-95f7-a9567a6bfcb6" CreationDate="2018-09-24T17:22:26.730" UserId="106752" Text="The bar to add a comment should be reduced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="ac15322e-86be-4e3a-95f7-a9567a6bfcb6" CreationDate="2018-09-24T17:22:26.730" UserId="106752" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="859de2f8-391e-4d29-91cc-c95073da2174" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:12:58.087" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="c492645a-1a07-4aa7-affb-994b2b62358c" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:16:04.547" UserId="8563" Text="It can happen many a times that there will be someone who doesn't do physics or care at all about it, but they have this website www.X.com that they want to promote, and having a bunch of links pointing from physics.se to X.com will help convince Google that their site is trustworthy (because this site is highly ranked by Google), so they will make a bunch of [sockpuppet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)) accounts and try to post a bunch of comments linking to their site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those comments get very annoying very fast, and they represent a huge source of wear on how this site looks and feels to search engines, casual visitors, new users, and established members. They are **not** something we want around. The reputation limits are there to keep them out, and they do an excellent job of keeping out the flood of harmful comments that try to get posted here. The fact that some people with worthwhile things to add are prevented from doing so by this system is unfortunate, but it's an uneasy compromise that allows us to have a high-quality site to comment on in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the systems in place for protecting against spam are run by Stack Exchange itself, and not by the Physics SE site's community. This meta site is primarily for community issues and for software issues which affect this site only. Questions and proposals about features that are common to the entire Stack Exchange system should be raised on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com). (And, if you're going to post there, you should do your due diligence and search for the existing threads, like [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/311700/how-might-we-solve-the-50-reputation-comment-limit) and the links therein, if you don't want them to close your question as an exact duplicate.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="191016a0-5ef2-46b2-8a4d-ccc7cc5fa720" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:18:12.980" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|comments|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33277" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="191016a0-5ef2-46b2-8a4d-ccc7cc5fa720" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:18:12.980" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="The reputation bar to add a comment should be reduced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="5059a67b-9aeb-4189-9f08-6a345cbc9ade" CreationDate="2018-09-24T19:50:18.817" UserId="164413" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/is-the-force-exerted-on-the-chair-transferred-to-the-rope-that-is-pulled-on) was re-opened but has been put on hold again by other members of this website. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it due to the fact that I had posted free-body diagrams which made the question seem like a &quot;check my work&quot; question? I have removed the information which caused this suspicion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what else is still not okay with my question? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="5059a67b-9aeb-4189-9f08-6a345cbc9ade" CreationDate="2018-09-24T19:50:18.817" UserId="164413" Text="Has my question been put on hold because it seemed like &quot;a check my work&quot; question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="5059a67b-9aeb-4189-9f08-6a345cbc9ade" CreationDate="2018-09-24T19:50:18.817" UserId="164413" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="d2226804-40a0-42c9-a918-115c73009fe2" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:10:34.417" UserId="124" Text="I can't say _for sure_ why the people who chose to put your question on hold made that choice, but I suspect that the question is long enough that the specific conceptual question you want to ask isn't clear. As of the current revision 19, I'm assuming this is the specific conceptual question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] However, would that not cause the force due to pulling to get cancelled out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a perfectly fine thing to ask. I think removing the extra free-body diagrams as you did in the latest edit will help make it more clear, but you could even go a little further and make the summary of the work you did more concise. Remember that the focus of the post should be the specific conceptual question you want to ask (again, presumably what I quoted above), and most of your post should be devoted to setting up that question. Anything else you can just briefly summarize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't mind voting to reopen the question in its current state (revision 19), but I'd like to hear from at least one (preferably several) of the close voters first to see whether there were other issues that caused them to vote as they did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="14ce5311-f326-45a4-b828-f3db8c6be116" CreationDate="2018-09-24T21:58:22.980" UserId="75633" Text="In principle, questions tagged [tag:resource-recommendation] that do little more than provide a link should be deleted like any other (almost) link-only answer, but is it really so? If we look at most answers to, e.g., the super-question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations, we see that most of them have a simple one-paragraph description and a link, which indeed seems fine for the purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a concrete case, recently a resource-recommendation answer was deleted on the basis of being link-only ([this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/150446/derivation-of-kerr-metric-is-there-any-reference/430596#430596), for those who can see it):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [user207599] Here is a Kerr metric derivation method by using ellipsoid coordinate transformation. https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/AEE776964987&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While similarly long answers to the [same question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/150446/75633) have been left alone, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Robin Ekman] The original reference is Kerr, R.P. Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an example of algebraically special metrics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Mohamed IBrahim] you can also read this paper , it is very useful&#xD;&#xA;A Possible Intuitive Derivation of the Kerr Metric in Orthogonal Form Based On Ellipsoidal Metric Ansatz.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Paul Masson] I'm surprised no one mentioned Chapter 6 of Chandrasekhar's Mathematical Theory of Black Holes. Then again, I personally found his derivation so opaque that I wrote my own de novo derivation in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates using the Cartan formalism.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fazlay ahmed] i think if we follow the Ray D' Inverno book intitled Introducing Einstein Relativity then we get easily this metric. on chapter 19 it is explanied in a very simple method     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should all these four answer be also deleted as being link-only? One of them has 4 upvotes, two have 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A closely-related point: the [policy for resource recommendations](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4698/75633) states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer, and give it the following banner [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is from Aug 5 '13, so &quot;old&quot; means earlier than that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **summary**, my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the link-only policy loosened for resource-recommendation questions?&#xD;&#xA;2. We should only agglutinate link-only resource-recommendation answers if older than Aug 2013? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="14ce5311-f326-45a4-b828-f3db8c6be116" CreationDate="2018-09-24T21:58:22.980" UserId="75633" Text="Applying resource-recommendation/link-only policies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="14ce5311-f326-45a4-b828-f3db8c6be116" CreationDate="2018-09-24T21:58:22.980" UserId="75633" Text="|discussion|resource-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="43210894-9502-4dba-91a2-3f0dd4fa4cf9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T00:06:50.947" UserId="164413" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/is-the-force-exerted-on-the-chair-transferred-to-the-rope-that-is-pulled-on) was re-opened but has been put on hold again by some members of this website. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it due to the fact that I had posted free-body diagrams which made the question seem like a &quot;check my work&quot; question? I have removed the information which caused this suspicion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what else is still not okay with my question? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="3300dbfb-7d0f-4c76-89cc-1be26bde7dc7" CreationDate="2018-09-25T01:49:34.270" UserId="8563" Text="The paragraph you refer to applies to answers that were posted before [the resource-recommendations policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) was set in mid-2013. After the policy was agreed on, there was an extended campaign to find and fix as many old `[books]` questions as we could, and bring them into line with the new standards. (You can find many of them using [this query](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/901865) as a starting point.) Basically, the agreement at the time was that the close-every-book-question-on-sight policy would be relaxed, in the understanding that we managed to put together enough of a community curation of new questions as they came in and of the existing corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That campaign to fix the old answers was quite successful, but we still missed some (as you have found). If you find them, process them as indicated in the policy. Most of it you can do yourself, though some answer deletions do require raising a custom moderator flag to say &quot;hey, I've aggregated all the old answers into a single catchall one, you can delete this one now.&quot; I've gone ahead and done all the user-level processing of [the thread you mentioned](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/150446/derivation-of-kerr-metric-is-there-any-reference/). Hopefully the mod-level answer deletions will come in shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/430596) you mention, it was posted a full five years *after* the question started sporting a banner that states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bold font and exclamation sign and all. Feeling sorry for the deletion of a low-quality answer posted in those conditions is pretty moot, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="425bcb06-4c6f-474a-b43e-de9718bde95f" CreationDate="2018-09-25T01:56:18.797" UserId="8563" Comment="added 559 characters in body" Text="The paragraph you refer to applies to answers that were posted before [the resource-recommendations policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) was set in mid-2013. After the policy was agreed on, there was an extended campaign to find and fix as many old `[books]` questions as we could, and bring them into line with the new standards. (You can find many of them using [this query](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/901865) as a starting point.) Basically, the agreement at the time was that the close-every-book-question-on-sight policy would be relaxed, in the understanding that we managed to put together enough of a community curation of new questions as they came in and of the existing corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That campaign to fix the old answers was quite successful, but we still missed some (as you have found). If you find them, process them as indicated in the policy. Most of it you can do yourself, though some answer deletions do require raising a custom moderator flag to say &quot;hey, I've aggregated all the old answers into a single catchall one, you can delete this one now.&quot; I've gone ahead and done all the user-level processing of [the thread you mentioned](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/150446/derivation-of-kerr-metric-is-there-any-reference/). Hopefully the mod-level answer deletions will come in shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/430596) you mention, it was posted [a full four years](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/150446/timeline) *after* the question started sporting a banner that states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bold font and exclamation sign and all. Feeling sorry for the deletion of a low-quality answer posted in those conditions is pretty moot, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For full clarity, when the policy says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's referring to answers posted prior to the policy itself. It's now been several years since that, so depending on conditions it might be appropriate to extend some amount of leeway to answers posted, say, on 2015. But frankly, if an answer was posted after the banner, then it has it coming, and it should be deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="ad879f6d-7d0f-4f99-ad3e-d177f8646869" CreationDate="2018-09-25T02:04:24.627" UserId="8563" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="1. The paragraph you refer to applies to answers that were posted before [the resource-recommendations policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/are-resource-recommendations-allowed) was set in mid-2013. After the policy was agreed on, there was an extended campaign to find and fix as many old `[books]` questions as we could, and bring them into line with the new standards. (You can find many of them using [this query](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/901865) as a starting point.) Basically, the agreement at the time was that the close-every-book-question-on-sight policy would be relaxed, in the understanding that we managed to put together enough of a community curation of new questions as they came in and of the existing corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. That campaign to fix the old answers was quite successful, but we still missed some (as you have found). If you find them, process them as indicated in the policy. Most of it you can do yourself, though some answer deletions do require raising a custom moderator flag to say &quot;hey, I've aggregated all the old answers into a single catchall one, you can delete this one now.&quot; I've gone ahead and done all the user-level processing of [the thread you mentioned](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/150446/derivation-of-kerr-metric-is-there-any-reference/). Hopefully the mod-level answer deletions will come in shortly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. As for the [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/430596) you mention, it was posted [a full four years](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/150446/timeline) *after* the question started sporting a banner that states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;  **Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   bold font and exclamation sign and all. Feeling sorry for the deletion of a low-quality answer posted in those conditions is pretty moot, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's worth pointing out that there is [another deleted answer](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pUCLb.png) on that thread; the review link is [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/217967). There's some familiar faces there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. For full clarity, when the policy says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; If you come across an old recommendation post, move all of the answers that are against policy into a community wiki list answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   it's referring to answers posted prior to the policy itself. It's now been several years since that, so depending on conditions it might be appropriate to extend some amount of leeway to answers posted, say, on 2015. But frankly, if an answer was posted after the banner, then it has it coming, and it should be deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="76c148c5-4f69-4193-a50f-474fca012b66" CreationDate="2018-09-27T15:16:16.033" UserId="157860" Text="Since  the layout has changed I have some problem printing questions and answers: the text is pressed to the left in a very narrow space causing a huge waste of space, paper and toner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text has never filled the whole page because of the items featured onthe right hand of the page, but now the waste is excessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a trick to get the text of the answers on a full page?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="76c148c5-4f69-4193-a50f-474fca012b66" CreationDate="2018-09-27T15:16:16.033" UserId="157860" Text="Printing questions on PSE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="76c148c5-4f69-4193-a50f-474fca012b66" CreationDate="2018-09-27T15:16:16.033" UserId="157860" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="774cd0e9-748a-4d91-9ab9-ea137ed6c958" CreationDate="2018-09-27T15:20:38.140" UserId="157860" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Since  the layout has changed I have some problem printing questions and answers: the text is pressed to the left in a very narrow space causing a huge waste of space, paper and toner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text has never filled the whole page because of the items featured onthe right hand of the page, but now the waste is excessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a trick to get the text of the answers on a full page?&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to print this question: it takes a whole page, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the layout has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;changed I have some" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="c9d2586b-9de4-45bb-b028-e6971fc0c7e1" CreationDate="2018-09-27T18:07:26.667" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-declined|comments|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="a833b8ba-6710-4f38-b0d1-fc98003f36fd" CreationDate="2018-09-28T09:22:39.007" UserDisplayName="user87745" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="I recently noticed that a chat-room called &quot;JEE Preparation&quot; has been made on Physics SE. For those who are not familiar with JEE, it is short for &quot;Joint Entrance Examination&quot;--which is an entrance exam organised by (and for admissions to) the Indian Institutes of Technology. I think that the core idea of any such group is at odds with the core ideology of Physics SE. I think the point of Physics SE is to discuss physics and only that. We remove every little thing that gets even slightly diverted from this line. For example, low-quality homework questions, history questions, metaphysics questions, purely philosophical questions, purely mathematics questions - all these are almost always removed from the website. And that is one of the pivotal things that make Physics SE so good. A channel with the sole motive of preparing for an exam that is not even a proper physics exam but rather an engineering entrance exam seems completely unacceptable. That is why I strongly feel that it should be banned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*I have edited the question only to fix a few linguistic issues. I don't intend to revive the question--I still agree with the answer by ACuriousMind which I had accepted.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="754026d3-7fe2-45dd-8fc5-233c5fecd669" CreationDate="2018-09-28T20:33:50.673" UserId="32426" Text="You can visit http://stackprinter.com, which is a printer-friendly static mirror of the site network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33300" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="442dec6d-10ec-44d8-be4a-944d072b36e2" CreationDate="2018-09-28T20:41:08.053" UserId="32426" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:32426,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;peterh&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33301" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="4046fad5-2b2b-4c25-a9f1-562facb4e68e" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:05:13.397" UserId="32426" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:32426,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;peterh&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="fea5e03a-f816-423f-aa8b-860c98ca621c" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:10:47.710" UserId="32426" Comment="added 582 characters in body" Text="You can visit http://stackprinter.com, which is a printer-friendly static mirror of the site network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also various (legal) mirrors of the site network on the whole net, including the 3-monthly archive.org [data dump][1] (which is being made public by the SE itself). Using it to print a single question is obviously overkill, but if you want to do it with *many* questions, selected and ordered by your own criteria...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The printer-friendliness of the page could be also increased easily by a little  usercss (chrome addon [here](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-css/okpjlejfhacmgjkmknjhadmkdbcldfcb)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/stackexchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="c8e065a4-25d5-4646-be9c-664904c63e5e" CreationDate="2018-09-30T01:59:19.073" UserId="164413" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/is-the-force-exerted-on-the-chair-transferred-to-the-rope-that-is-pulled-on) has been closed again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ has pointed out that it is acceptable for people to not give reasons for closing questions. I understand that the site does not require them to do that. However, if you care about the integrity of this website and genuinely want to help out users, should you not give them  honest feedback about their questions? I explicitly asked for reasons when my question was on hold and I got no response. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I don't know what is wrong with my question, I am now unsure about properly formulating questions for this website. Don't these people realize that they are hurting the website's reliability and integrity by their gesture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="c8e065a4-25d5-4646-be9c-664904c63e5e" CreationDate="2018-09-30T01:59:19.073" UserId="164413" Text="Confused and frustrated by the silence of people who voted to close my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="c8e065a4-25d5-4646-be9c-664904c63e5e" CreationDate="2018-09-30T01:59:19.073" UserId="164413" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="8a1c2334-40cf-4e2a-a8b8-8403279dd425" CreationDate="2018-09-30T04:51:11.190" UserId="164413" Comment="edited body" Text="[My question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348145/is-the-force-exerted-on-the-chair-transferred-to-the-rope-that-is-pulled-on) has been closed again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DavidZ has pointed out that it is acceptable for people to not give reasons for closing questions. I understand that the site does not require them to do that. However, if you care about the integrity of this website and genuinely want to help out users, should you not give them  honest feedback about their questions? I explicitly asked for reasons when my question was on hold and I got no response. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I don't know what is wrong with my question, I am now unsure about properly formulating questions for this website. Don't these people realize that they are hurting the website's reliability and integrity by their actions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="0a12cb10-c3e6-4f5d-b1a3-7008054916be" CreationDate="2018-09-30T07:53:07.860" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|closed-questions|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33308" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="f7a008fb-e2cc-4865-a89b-0c1efc8880d9" CreationDate="2018-09-30T07:56:26.573" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|closed-questions|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="32b00b37-35dd-42e8-b07a-fba921d49f17" CreationDate="2018-09-30T12:06:21.750" UserId="32426" Text="Nothing is wrong with your question, but the site has a superhard policy against homework tasks. It is applied so strictly, that a lot of questions obviously not being homework problems are closed on this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current state of your question, there is not too much to do, because the majority of the voters doesn't want it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the homework close reason says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, re-formulate it to ask about a specific physics concept, and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny thing is: probably your question will be still closed or left closed. What I would do: *Make clear, that you have both, best if you insert a short excerpt of both in the beginning of the post.* So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Specific physics concept: I see a contradiction here, on Newton II law the force on the chair should be [..]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *My effort: As we can see it in the second half of the post, ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [and here is your question]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very likely, that your question will be still closed. But, on this way, you will have already enough ammunition to start this meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will get many critics, questions and suggestions in the comments. Do everything what they say, even if they seem irrelevant or hairsplitting for you, it helps a lot in their voting. This is your only defense against negative votes: react comments quickly, and do it with quick and convincing comments and edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone explains the reason of the negative vote (down or close) to your post, honor it: nothing makes it obligatory to give a reason for a vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, following all of these makes asking a homework question actually harder than solving it for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community consent is very strongly against numerical problems here, there is only an admittedly very narrow &quot;escape path&quot; from this, which is mainly closed despite that it is communicated as if it would be open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current question is already closed, and getting the 3 reopen votes is possible, but unlikely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33310" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="3b2ea333-4ced-49dc-b8c6-45c899d36423" CreationDate="2018-09-30T15:56:05.907" UserId="164413" Comment="edited title" Text="Should you not give feedback if you vote to close a question to help the questioner better use this website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="008061ba-6977-44f4-9631-0ab77f6b26f5" CreationDate="2018-09-30T16:33:29.867" UserId="32426" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="Nothing is wrong with your question, but the site has a superhard policy against homework tasks. It is applied so strictly, that even a lot of questions obviously not being homework problems are closed on this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the current state of your question, there is not too much to do, because the majority of the voters doesn't want it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the homework close reason says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Homework-like questions should **ask about a specific physics concept** and **show some effort** to work through the problem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, re-formulate it to ask about a specific physics concept, and show some effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The funny thing is: probably your question will be still closed or left closed. What I would do: *Make clear, that you have both, best if you insert a short excerpt of both in the beginning of the post.*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Specific physics concept: I see a contradiction here, on Newton II law the force on the chair should be [..]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *My effort: As we can see it in the second half of the post, ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [and here is your question]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very likely, that your question will be still closed. But, on this way, you will have already enough ammunition to start this meta discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will get many critics, questions and suggestions in the comments. Do everything what they say, even if they seem irrelevant or hairsplitting for you, it helps a lot in their voting&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This is your only defense against negative votes: react comments quickly, and do it with quick and convincing comments and edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone explains the reason of the negative vote (down or close) to your post, honor it: nothing makes it obligatory to give a reason for a vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, following all of these makes asking a homework question actually harder than solving it for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community consent is very strongly against numerical problems here, there is only an admittedly very narrow &quot;escape path&quot; from this, which is mainly closed despite that it is communicated as if it would be open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current question is already closed, and getting the 3 reopen votes is possible, but unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;My heuristic (unproovable, but for me realistic) estimation is that for every comment, there are around 2-3 people, who doesn't comment, only votes. And there are around 10 people, who doesn't even vote, but thinks the same. Any time if you get a comment to your post, imagine average 2-3 people who votes the same and 10 other who thinks the same. And voters typically don't come back to reconsider their vote, this is why you need to react quickly.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;The first sentences create a general impression in the reviewers (and any readers), what is your post about. The rest will be interpreted already in this frame. Thus, your first sentences are super-important.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="3241a35a-2149-45e6-af1b-8cfee65964f5" CreationDate="2018-09-30T21:44:14.857" UserId="36194" Text="One way to make a question more conceptual is to see if you can phrase it without numbers.  You can always include numbers at the end as examples to give greater materiality to the question, but in general an issue I find in questions with specific numbers is that makes questions overly specific and thus not terribly useful for anyone except the person asking the specific question.  BTW it is IMO likely that, if you can clearly write a question without resorting to numerical values, it will be conceptual rather than overly specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fully honest, a problem I have with your specific question is that it *does* look like an assignment question as phrased.  I am personally mostly opposed to people answering specific assignment questions on behalf of an OP, and I will do my best to discourage people from posting overly specific assignment question.  While I don’t have problems in supplying conceptual explanations, i.e. supplying information for someone to complete the question by herself/himself, I cannot abide by people who post with the hopes that someone else will provide a complete solution for them. Thus, for starters I would suggest having a man of mass $m_1$, a chair of mass $m_2$ and a force of $f$ Newtons (the force, BTW, does not have unit of mass so your $100$lbs doesn’t make sense there, and the weight is also measured in Newton, not in lbs there’s a problem there unless you’re using lbs as a unit of force rather than Newtons, and that would be untoward).  I’m not sure converting to variables-only is enough to do the trick, but at least it’s a start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly the problem with your question is that it’s more or less similar to too many found in textbooks and discussed on multiple websites.  Maybe you would do well to search for similar questions and then include as part of your question the contrast between various solutions or paths to solutions, showing you have done some effort and focusing on what part of one or many proposed solutions are still unclear *after you have studied these solutions.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if I cared to comment on every single question I vote-to-close, I would likely have to reply to equally many comments and wouldn’t have time to get anything else done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose these are my reasons as to why I don’t comment and vote-to-close a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33313" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="bce24051-e845-4da8-9291-c7f6147a5450" CreationDate="2018-10-01T13:04:00.017" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10832],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:191954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chair&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="33314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="18f51b92-369d-49a5-beb7-7c6084f0a636" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:28:13.670" UserId="197798" Text="[This question][1] was closed under the presumption of being off topic for being a **homework-like** question. Honestly, I cant see how this question is either off topic or a homework question since it ask a conceptual question about a nontrivial physics phenomenon and does not violate any of the rules specified on this [set of guidelines][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'm not the only one wondering why was this question flagged:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How is this a homework question? – user7777777&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As ZeroTheHero pointed out in this [recent discussion][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One way to make a question more conceptual is to see if you can phrase&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it without numbers...if you can clearly write a question without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resorting to numerical values, it will be conceptual rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overly specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is exactly how the question is phrased. Moreover, OP is asking in the comments for guidance on how to make his question better (in case that was the issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can you open it again? Also, why was it closed in first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/432030/how-much-water-can-an-object-raise-after-its-fall&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5958/bite-sizing-homework&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/should-you-not-give-feedback-if-you-vote-to-close-a-question-to-help-the-questio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="18f51b92-369d-49a5-beb7-7c6084f0a636" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:28:13.670" UserId="197798" Text="Reopen request - Question about water splash on impact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="18f51b92-369d-49a5-beb7-7c6084f0a636" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:28:13.670" UserId="197798" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="e191f6b0-af64-414c-aed7-e9c72dfa301c" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:42:33.370" UserId="205676" Text="When I was going through some profiles on the site, I found out some different behaviour in a user's profile. Location, profile views section moved to extreme corner. Link to [Akash.B profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/206160/akash-b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of Akash B profile showing change in location position][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not the same for other users. It looks normal for other users with low profile or regular users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Profile of another user with a low profile][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a gif showing the difference of the space taken by &quot;About Me&quot; section in both the profiles and the change of position of location and other details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![gif showing change in position of location etc., in both the profiles][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y3s65.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NuosX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a0WYd.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="e191f6b0-af64-414c-aed7-e9c72dfa301c" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:42:33.370" UserId="205676" Text="Profile views, location section moved to extreme corner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="e191f6b0-af64-414c-aed7-e9c72dfa301c" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:42:33.370" UserId="205676" Text="|bug|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="573c7eaf-4f85-48d3-8b43-53fc2c64ff5e" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:48:38.220" UserId="205676" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited title" Text="When I was going through some profiles on the site, I found out some different behaviour in a user's profile. Location, profile views section moved to extreme corner. Link to [Akash.B profile](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/206160/akash-b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of Akash B profile showing change in location position][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, It happens only for that user and not for other users. It looks normal for other users with low profile or regular users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Profile of another user with a low profile][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a gif showing the difference of the space taken by &quot;About Me&quot; section in both the profiles and the change of position of location and other details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![gif showing change in position of location etc., in both the profiles][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y3s65.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NuosX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a0WYd.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33321" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="573c7eaf-4f85-48d3-8b43-53fc2c64ff5e" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:48:38.220" UserId="205676" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited title" Text="Profile views, location section moved to extreme right corner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="fc4295aa-4e25-45f5-b9ff-881116b1f91d" CreationDate="2018-10-02T20:10:54.297" UserId="8563" Text="Basically, what it says on the tin. The mainstream-physics closure dialog, which is accessible on the closure dialog as well as on closed questions ([example](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/411503/)), contains a link to the [mainstream-physics site policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538) which contains the user ID of one of the elected site moderators, i.e. the same link that comes from [the 'share' button](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/announcer-booster-and-publicist-badges/) on that meta thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QjAHR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't think it's the end of the world, beyond [a somewhat-shady Announcer badge](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/help/badges/54/announcer?userid=7433), but now that we know it's there, wouldn't it be better to remove that numerical tagline? Can this be done on a relatively painless fashion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="fc4295aa-4e25-45f5-b9ff-881116b1f91d" CreationDate="2018-10-02T20:10:54.297" UserId="8563" Text="The mainstream-physics close reason has a link to meta with the user ID of a moderator. Can it be removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="fc4295aa-4e25-45f5-b9ff-881116b1f91d" CreationDate="2018-10-02T20:10:54.297" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|close-reasons|non-mainstream-physics|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10845" RevisionGUID="fcf68c23-bfb5-4ef3-9366-094df4759bef" CreationDate="2018-10-02T21:48:55.527" UserId="124" Text="It's not possible to change the text of an existing close reason. We'd have to create a whole new one, presumably with the same text except for the link URL. Personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble, although you're right that it would be best not to have a user ID in the URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ever decide that the text of the close reason is somehow inadequate or invalid and we want to make a significant change to it, that would justify abandoning the close reason in favor of a new one. At that point we should definitely make sure not to attach any user IDs to the URL." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10846" RevisionGUID="c7c12711-a925-4228-8237-acabdaf100b8" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:40:47.180" UserId="124" Text="I put that question on hold because it sounded like the type of question that could be a homework problem or educational exercise. Now, looking back at it, I'm not as sure as I was at the time I closed it, but I haven't changed to the opposite opinion either - that is, my thoughts on that question are conflicted but I still come down marginally closer to &quot;should be on hold&quot; than to &quot;should not be on hold&quot;. Nevertheless, as people have pointed out in the comments, it's a duplicate of another question, so I'm happy to reopen it and mark it as a duplicate instead. (We could also discuss whether the duplicate target should have also been on hold as homework-like, but that should be a separate matter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big part of the reason I put the question on hold was that it doesn't actually ask anything conceptual. Here is the core of the question for easy reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose that there is a small object (e.g. hand sized) with volume $V$ and mass $m$ that falls into a water container from a height $h_0$ and with initial velocity $v_0$. Is there a way to compute the height $h_{\text{water}}$ that the water will reach after the object impacts on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just asking us to calculate something: given some input values, it seems that the question just wants a formula to produce an answer. That's not conceptual. There are a number of ways in which this question could be edited to ask something slightly different that would make it conceptual; for example, if the question had presented an argument for why it seems to not be possible to calculate the desired value from the given inputs and asked about that argument, then it would probably be a conceptual question. Or if the question had demonstrated a significant amount of prior work trying to tackle this problem and asked about a way to connect one specific piece of a calculation to another specific piece, that might also be conceptual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if you might have been led astray about the meaning of &quot;conceptual question&quot; by this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if you can clearly write a question without resorting to numerical values, it will be conceptual rather than overly specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's true. At least, it's definitely not the case that any question that can be written without using numbers is conceptual. If this were the case, you could take almost any do-my-homework-for-me type problem and make it &quot;conceptual&quot; by just replacing the numbers with variables, but I'm sure I could point you to many examples of questions where you could make that replacement and yet we would all agree that it would still be off topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inverse of that rule might be useful, in that a question which is written using specific numerical values is quite likely to _not_ be conceptual. But it takes more than just removing the numbers to make the question conceptual. Off the top of my head, here are couple rules of thumb that I find useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Conceptual questions are often &quot;why&quot;-type questions rather than &quot;how&quot;-type questions.&#xD;&#xA;- Most conceptual questions _require_ some amount of exposition (i.e. words, sentences, paragraphs) to answer; they're impossible to answer with only mathematical expressions or equations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10847" RevisionGUID="37282950-3ebd-4507-a408-2573256cf60b" CreationDate="2018-10-02T23:49:42.650" UserId="113185" Text="Not an answer, but can't include an image in Comments...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's even more extreme on my screen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pt5Yw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10848" RevisionGUID="bb6753b3-8ad5-4970-85ec-fa977ed420c1" CreationDate="2018-10-03T11:37:03.930" UserId="75916" Text="I am about to delete my account (and not just stay inactive). Since I am pretty heavily addicted to the website, I fear I might have an urge to post a comment or an answer to a question (...and possible post a question?). Is it possible to do so without any account? It seems so because when I log off, the option to post an answer is available as long as I enter a username and my email address. But on the other hand I do not see any guest posting questions and answers and comments... so I am wondering whether this is really possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other caveat I should be aware of, before deleting my account? I understand that it's a definitive move, I will never be able to recover my account nor my points and badges. Is there more to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10848" RevisionGUID="bb6753b3-8ad5-4970-85ec-fa977ed420c1" CreationDate="2018-10-03T11:37:03.930" UserId="75916" Text="Things one should be aware of before deleting account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10848" RevisionGUID="bb6753b3-8ad5-4970-85ec-fa977ed420c1" CreationDate="2018-10-03T11:37:03.930" UserId="75916" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="755e9ec3-2112-4e63-bd99-4fc343ccf68b" CreationDate="2018-10-03T11:45:36.100" UserDisplayName="user60480" Text="You may want to clean up some of your comments that are of no lasting values, just to reduce the amount of debris left behind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to answer without registering on the site: typing something that looks like an email address and something arbitrary for a name is enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, asking questions on Physics requires registration, it's one of a few Stack Exchange sites that have this requirement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, a user who posted just once (either a question or an answer) and never voted has an option to immediately delete their account just by clicking a button in profile settings. This can be used to post-and-go without leaving an account behind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10848" RevisionGUID="379769f4-0a7b-4c90-a540-ac97fa2a8c8a" CreationDate="2018-10-03T11:49:50.493" UserId="75916" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I am about to delete my account (and not just stay inactive). Since I am pretty heavily addicted to the website, I fear I might have an urge to post a comment or an answer to a question (...and possible post a question?). Is it possible to do so without any account? It seems so because when I log off, the option to post an answer is available as long as I enter a username and my email address. But on the other hand I do not see any guest posting questions and answers and comments... so I am wondering whether this is really possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other caveat I should be aware of, before deleting my account? I understand that it's a definitive move, I will never be able to recover my account nor my points and badges. Is there more to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: **Thanks for all, everyone.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Signed: coniferous_smeller-something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33333" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="a2619ae5-bf28-4a6e-aca5-2c89cc7f7841" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:11:39.440" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|status-completed|close-reasons|non-mainstream-physics|links|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33334" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="4a9b2722-db2d-4f8d-b921-ef7e980c7251" CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:03:35.743" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:191954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chair&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:38675,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jon Custer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="187da122-a464-4341-b5d4-09380db5b9e2" CreationDate="2018-10-04T14:56:44.383" UserId="46133" Text="I recently [asked this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/432404/46133) regarding simulation of Diffuse Interstellar Bands for molecules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far it had only 12 views and any interaction, is it off topic? If not, How do I get more attention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="187da122-a464-4341-b5d4-09380db5b9e2" CreationDate="2018-10-04T14:56:44.383" UserId="46133" Text="Is my question off topic? If not, how to get more attention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="187da122-a464-4341-b5d4-09380db5b9e2" CreationDate="2018-10-04T14:56:44.383" UserId="46133" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10851" RevisionGUID="916eb366-d519-4160-8f6e-431e4ccec188" CreationDate="2018-10-04T17:02:41.677" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; So far it had only 12 views and any interaction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a fairly-localized question on a technical topic, like yours, this isn't something that I would be alarmed about. Your question is on-topic (though maybe it falls on some pits that you could have avoided) and you're just seeing the normal pace of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question doesn't get enough attention within a couple of days, you can set a bounty on it, which does tend to attract attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also post on meta and hope that the meta effect will bank you an answer, but that's *not* a general solution and intentional use of that phenomenon would be counted as abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33339" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="5ae262ce-f699-4597-a11b-388db5f81799" CreationDate="2018-10-06T00:01:20.507" UserId="-1" Text="|discussion|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33340" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="e4447e2a-be63-49f9-bbf6-8db3c421a3c1" CreationDate="2018-10-06T12:00:38.450" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1048543551406190592" />
  <row Id="33341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="04b538c6-0e26-4f04-8ee5-eaaa20f7e99a" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:24:00.523" UserId="134460" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [Physical transformation associated with a Pseudo-Orthogonal matrix](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/427801/physical-transformation-associated-with-a-pseudo-orthogonal-matrix/428023#428023)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was closed because of a unclear ques. Now I have reworded it, it is more clear, still, No one opened it again ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="04b538c6-0e26-4f04-8ee5-eaaa20f7e99a" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:24:00.523" UserId="134460" Text="unvote to open my ques" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="04b538c6-0e26-4f04-8ee5-eaaa20f7e99a" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:24:00.523" UserId="134460" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33344" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="5d769a00-ddb2-4615-a850-78be7338bfe5" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:27:09.553" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="5d769a00-ddb2-4615-a850-78be7338bfe5" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:27:09.553" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/427801/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was closed because of a unclear ques. Now I have reworded it, it is more clear, still, No one opened it again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33346" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="5d769a00-ddb2-4615-a850-78be7338bfe5" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:27:09.553" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Unvote to open my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33347" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="c9bdf952-6fae-43ec-b92d-c8cbe41b1a25" CreationDate="2018-10-06T17:54:17.750" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited title" Text="Vote to reopen my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10853" RevisionGUID="4ef632a7-2703-4b8f-a340-83369f52e34d" CreationDate="2018-10-06T18:25:47.310" UserId="84967" Text="The question was not closed for being unclear – indeed, it has always been pretty clear what you are asking, even before the recent edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that it does not show any research effort. If you google &quot;pseudo-orthogonal group&quot;, the very first result is the Wikipedia entry [Indefinite orthogonal group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_orthogonal_group) where you can read that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In physics, the [Lorentz group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group) O(1, 3) is of central importance, being the setting for electromagnetism and special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking on &quot;Lorentz group&quot; takes you to the corresponding entry, which has a rather detailed discussion of the group, and plenty of examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it would have taken you less than a minute to answer your own question by just typing it into google. Such questions are considered off-topic here, because we expect users to try and find the answer themselves before posting the question here: if you are not willing to spend some of your own time in trying to find the answer, we will not waste ours in providing the solution for you. These are the rules of the game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="f9bb9197-02d8-4e18-984c-ea37134f78e1" CreationDate="2018-10-07T10:16:32.087" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 168 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[This question][1] was closed under the presumption of being off topic for being a **homework-like** question. Honestly, I cant see how this question is either off topic or a homework question since it ask a conceptual question about a nontrivial physics phenomenon and does not violate any of the rules specified on this [set of guidelines][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'm not the only one wondering why was this question flagged:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How is this a homework question? – user7777777&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As ZeroTheHero pointed out in this [recent discussion][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One way to make a question more conceptual is to see if you can phrase&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it without numbers...if you can clearly write a question without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resorting to numerical values, it will be conceptual rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overly specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is exactly how the question is phrased. Moreover, OP is asking in the comments for guidance on how to make his question better (in case that was the issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can you open it again? Also, why was it closed in first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/432030/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5958/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10839/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33350" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="f9bb9197-02d8-4e18-984c-ea37134f78e1" CreationDate="2018-10-07T10:16:32.087" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 168 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="10be9cbd-5ab7-41ab-a4cd-d32d92134210" CreationDate="2018-10-08T22:45:58.537" UserId="104964" Text="We get a fair number of questions that are simply people &quot;asking&quot; about their personal theory.  These get tagged in all sorts of random ways, typically.  I've just seen one suggesting a black hole powers every Sun and it's tagged &quot;experimental physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm suggesting we have a dedicated tag for these kinds of questions ( &quot;Personal Theory&quot; perhaps, or &quot;Not Mainstream&quot; ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be useful in rapidly and properly categorizing these questions, especially as they more often than not get closed as not being mainstream.  We do this with &quot;homework&quot; type questions so I think it's useful to flag questions of this sort properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there's the issue of avoiding creating too many tags, so any thoughts ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="10be9cbd-5ab7-41ab-a4cd-d32d92134210" CreationDate="2018-10-08T22:45:58.537" UserId="104964" Text="Tag for *Personal Theory*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="10be9cbd-5ab7-41ab-a4cd-d32d92134210" CreationDate="2018-10-08T22:45:58.537" UserId="104964" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="edf9e067-80c6-4145-8507-67a0801ac128" CreationDate="2018-10-08T22:54:26.700" UserId="44126" Text="Questions about unpublished personal theories are not on-topic for us. Please flag as &quot;should be closed &gt; not mainstream.&quot; Or cast a close vote if you have that privilege. Then leave the question alone: the less attention off-topic questions get, the less likely they are to recur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a different situation from [tag:homework-and-exercises] because some of those questions are actually on-topic, so a tag is appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10856" RevisionGUID="eab43a76-75d1-415f-9865-5a34c7f6e360" CreationDate="2018-10-09T08:59:06.750" UserId="8563" Text="We already have a tag which covers the overwhelming majority of questions of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![question closure banner for non-mainstream physics][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RCdB5.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about personal theories are *rarely* on topic here. Since many people see the existence of a tag for a given subject as strong evidence that the subject is on-topic on the site, adding a tag for them would send a completely wrong message about their topicality. To say it explicitly: it would be actively harmful to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd suggest your approach amounts to sticking our heads in the sand and pretending they don't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't. It amounts to saying as clearly as we can that we do not want those questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, questions don't always get closed simply because they get lost in the flood of new question and no one does a final vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last bit is completely incorrect. &quot;No one does a final vote&quot; isn't a reason why questions slip through the cracks - that's not how the [Close Votes review queue](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close) works. If a question has pending close-votes on it, it will go to the closure review queue and it won't leave the queue until either it is closed or it gets three explicit Leave Open votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can indeed happen, though, that a given off-topic question will get lost in the flood of new questions and no one does the *initial* vote which would kick-start the review process, and said off-topic question will remain open for months or even years. That's not a reason to give up, though - those examples are the minority and they should be fixed as and when they turn up. They're absolutely not a reason to bend site policy into harmful shapes just because our moderation is imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though: **your proposed tag is a meta tag**. [Meta tags](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/07/the-death-of-meta-tags/) are, in essence, tags that describe what a question is *like*, rather than what a question is *about*. During its initial years, Stack Overflow had a long process of dealing with meta tags, and the core lesson learned was that it is very hard to make them work appropriately and that they are very rarely worth the trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that there isn't quite a complete blanket ban on meta tags throughout SE, but there is a very strong directive to only use them if they're really, truly needed. On this site, the only two meta tags are [tag:homework-and-exercises] and [tag:resource-recommendations], both of which cover a substantial number of questions and provide a meaningful tool for the mechanics of the site moderation, and both of which are under reasonably strict rules on their usage. Your tag proposal fails that first criterion - there simply isn't the quorum of on-topic questions in that category needed to justify the trouble of a meta tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="6c3fcefc-fde7-4e02-81d6-1823ffc513a9" CreationDate="2018-10-11T19:42:12.573" UserId="8563" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="&gt; # Summary&#xD;&#xA;History questions are welcome on this site whenever they have any bearing on our modern understanding of physics. However, if a question has only minimal or null bearing on our current understanding, or it specifically requires a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, then it should be migrated to the [History of Science and Maths](http://hsm.stackexchange.com) Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we should stay open to a significant set of history questions, and we should keep the [tag:history] tag. Unlike mathematics, the historical perspective is very often one of the key ways to understand the world and our knowledge about physics. The way physics is structured is very often centered around key experiments, and these are generally thought of as historical events and their contribution and motivation is understood in a historical perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be that way: you can perfectly well motivate, say, special relativity as [one of only two possible cases](https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045), with the Galilean case ruled out through muon lifetime measurements, but you don't - you usually start with the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell the story from there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Math, on the other hand, does not have to do this: you can simply start with whatever axioms and definitions you want to work with, and you build your theory. Later on, or as an aside or a brief introduction, you might comment, as motivation, that the axioms went through this and then that version before people found the Right Version to use, but the brunt of the work in multiple fields $-$ particularly those taught in depth in physics degrees $-$ tends to follow from the axioms to the consequences rather than the historical refinements of the axioms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through [recent, good-score questions on the history tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhistory%5d%20closed%3ano%20is%3aquestion%20score%3a5) yields plenty of questions that are definitely of a historical character and yet have direct bearing on our understanding of physics, and which I think should definitely be on topic here. Taking a few non-rigorous picks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267036/how-did-physicists-know-that-only-negative-charges-move&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266246/how-did-physicists-know-that-there-are-two-kind-of-charges&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262251/why-was-the-first-discovered-neutrino-an-anti-neutrino&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249392/how-did-we-realize-that-light-travels-at-a-finite-speed&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243144/why-is-a-second-equal-to-the-duration-of-exactly-9-192-631-770-periods-of-radiat&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229169/did-newton-conduct-any-experiments-to-find-something-called-momentum-or-was-he&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201149/why-was-the-stark-effect-discovered-much-later-than-the-zeeman-effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there *are* questions that should be moved to the history site, because they require a historian's skills, toolset, and mindset to answer, and because they have minimal or null bearing on our modern understanding of physics. From the first page of the search above, for example, this could include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266815/was-einstein-familiar-with-the-michelson-gale-experiment ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/75K3O.png))&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233765/bohr-on-wholeness&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246015/what-was-newtons-own-explanation-of-newtons-rings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(For full clarity, these questions weren't migrated because it was too late to migrate them when this question was posted. If they were posted now, they would be migrated.)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find that the set of questions that satisfy that criterion strictly is really rather small. There is, though, a relatively large gray area of questions that are primarily of historical interest, but that still illuminate aspects of how we think about physics and why we no longer think or do certain things. Some examples from this category are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/202342/was-leverrier-adams-prediction-of-neptune-a-lucky-coincidence&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208901/the-role-of-anharmonic-oscillators-in-heisenbergs-1925-paper&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217590/what-are-the-original-papers-on-the-hydrogen-spectral-lines&#xD;&#xA; - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/249507/were-the-michelson-morley-results-a-surprise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these questions should be allowed here: they could also be asked at HSM if the OP is interested in a science historian's perspective, but there is no need to migrate them if asked here, in which case the focus should be (because it can be) on how that part of the historical record helps explain how we think of physics. If the OP wants to shift the focus specifically to what some historical character thought and did, what information they had available, and so on, then it can move to HSM.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="c8bc82bc-0238-4baa-b246-c8f8d15cf1b0" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:35:16.243" UserId="164884" Text="I put the following question and immediately received down-vote, thus, deleted it. Could be question is off-topic, could be someone is happy trigger of down-votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I known is a strongly practical question but, who doesn't uses a calculator? And I do not see any one that can be configured in SI format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any entry in &quot;what topics can I ask here&quot; that allows or discard this question, being the most near &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; (allows) or &quot;Implementation details of computational tasks&quot; (denies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question was:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility question, knows someone about a calculator that shows the results in format $a \cdot 10^b$ where $b$ is a multiple of 3 (positive or negative) and $a$ is a real number in decimal format with $1 \le |a| \lt 1000$ with a configurable number of decimals ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1.23456 \cdot 10^{3} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$12.34$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1.2345 \cdot 10^{14} $ should be $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1234.56 \cdot 10^{3} $ should be $1.23456 \cdot 10^{6} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$0.1234$ must be $123.4 \cdot 10^{-3}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usual scientific mode in calculators is a different format than this one, because they allow any integer exponent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="c8bc82bc-0238-4baa-b246-c8f8d15cf1b0" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:35:16.243" UserId="164884" Text="Is a question about calculators in SI format according to &quot;what topics can I ask about here&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="c8bc82bc-0238-4baa-b246-c8f8d15cf1b0" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:35:16.243" UserId="164884" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="23f23f64-8058-447f-85ef-1569501f7de9" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:50:06.927" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="6138b198-6b20-4398-94fc-2cee86de802f" CreationDate="2018-10-12T10:22:20.120" UserId="25301" Text="&gt;I put the following question and immediately received down-vote, thus, deleted it. Could be question is off-topic, could be someone is happy trigger of down-votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that 1 DV necessarily indicates it's off-topic; that just means 1 person didn't like the post for any reason. Typically, but not always, someone will leave a comment indicating that it's off-topic for reason X when voting to close it; that's how you can know it's off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I do not see any entry in &quot;what topics can I ask here&quot; that allows or discard this question, being the most near &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; (allows) or &quot;Implementation details of computational tasks&quot; (denies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's disallowed because it's a software request which is [generally considered as off-topic](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3980/25301) (see also [this post too](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9304/25301)) because they're generally *too broad* as thy're list-based questions. But again, a single DV doesn't strictly indicate topicality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to resource requests, we are very peculiar, basically restricting it to books/articles/webseries for a variety of reasons, all of which can be found through searching Meta (primary [Q&amp;A is here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4697/25301) + the &quot;Linked&quot; bar to the right). Most of us don't believe that software requests would satisfy the conditions needed for resource recommendations; hence, they're off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="37150193-90d5-4273-b561-4176e84c2ceb" CreationDate="2018-10-12T10:30:46.873" UserId="164884" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I put the following question and immediately received down-vote, thus, deleted it. Could be question is off-topic, could be someone is happy trigger of down-votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I known is a strongly practical question but, who doesn't uses a calculator? And I do not see any one that can be configured in SI format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any entry in &quot;what topics can I ask here&quot; that allows or discard this question, being the most near &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; (allows) or &quot;Implementation details of computational tasks&quot; (denies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question was:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility question, knows someone about a calculator that shows the results in format $a \cdot 10^b$ where $b$ is a multiple of 3 (positive or negative) and $a$ is a real number in decimal format with $1 \le |a| \lt 1000$ with a configurable number of decimals or number of digits ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1.23456 \cdot 10^{3} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$12.34$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1.2345 \cdot 10^{14} $ should be $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$1234.56 \cdot 10^{3} $ should be $1.23456 \cdot 10^{6} $&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$0.1234$ must be $123.4 \cdot 10^{-3}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usual scientific mode in calculators is a different format than this one, because they allow any integer exponent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="ea0d8075-601a-4ca3-8ecd-2cd36ef81bfc" CreationDate="2018-10-12T12:34:59.387" UserId="8563" Comment="Paragraphing fixes for better readability." Text="I put the following question and immediately received down-vote, thus, deleted it. Could be question is off-topic, could be someone is happy trigger of down-votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I known is a strongly practical question but, who doesn't uses a calculator? And I do not see any one that can be configured in SI format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any entry in &quot;what topics can I ask here&quot; that allows or discard this question, being the most near &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; (allows) or &quot;Implementation details of computational tasks&quot; (denies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question was:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility question, knows someone about a calculator that shows the results in format $a \cdot 10^b$ where $b$ is a multiple of 3 (positive or negative) and $a$ is a real number in decimal format with $1 \le |a| \lt 1000$ with a configurable number of decimals or number of digits ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $1.23456 \cdot 10^{3} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $12.34$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - $1.2345 \cdot 10^{14} $ should be $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $1234.56 \cdot 10^{3} $ should be $1.23456 \cdot 10^{6} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $0.1234$ must be $123.4 \cdot 10^{-3}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usual scientific mode in calculators is a different format than this one, because they allow any integer exponent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="23916361-e60a-43ac-b9d3-a4506af65d19" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:07:46.737" UserId="2451" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="I put the following [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/434066/2451) and immediately received down-vote, thus, deleted it. Could be question is off-topic, could be someone is happy trigger of down-votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I known is a strongly practical question but, who doesn't uses a calculator? And I do not see any one that can be configured in SI format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any entry in &quot;what topics can I ask here&quot; that allows or discard this question, being the most near &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; (allows) or &quot;Implementation details of computational tasks&quot; (denies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question was:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility question, knows someone about a calculator that shows the results in format $a \cdot 10^b$ where $b$ is a multiple of 3 (positive or negative) and $a$ is a real number in decimal format with $1 \le |a| \lt 1000$ with a configurable number of decimals or number of digits ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $1.23456 \cdot 10^{3} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $12.34$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - $1.2345 \cdot 10^{14} $ should be $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $1234.56 \cdot 10^{3} $ should be $1.23456 \cdot 10^{6} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $0.1234$ must be $123.4 \cdot 10^{-3}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usual scientific mode in calculators is a different format than this one, because they allow any integer exponent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="856112c3-9d3d-4585-9f0e-9e5ecdcfa2bd" CreationDate="2018-10-13T11:15:20.983" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I put the following [question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/434066/2451) (10k-only link) and immediately received down-vote, thus, deleted it. Could be question is off-topic, could be someone is happy trigger of down-votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I known is a strongly practical question but, who doesn't uses a calculator? And I do not see any one that can be configured in SI format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any entry in &quot;what topics can I ask here&quot; that allows or discard this question, being the most near &quot;Experimental technology used in physics or astronomy&quot; (allows) or &quot;Implementation details of computational tasks&quot; (denies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question was:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility question, knows someone about a calculator that shows the results in format $a \cdot 10^b$ where $b$ is a multiple of 3 (positive or negative) and $a$ is a real number in decimal format with $1 \le |a| \lt 1000$ with a configurable number of decimals or number of digits ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $1.23456 \cdot 10^{3} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $12.34$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not allowed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - $1.2345 \cdot 10^{14} $ should be $123.45 \cdot 10^{12} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $1234.56 \cdot 10^{3} $ should be $1.23456 \cdot 10^{6} $&#xD;&#xA;   - $0.1234$ must be $123.4 \cdot 10^{-3}$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usual scientific mode in calculators is a different format than this one, because they allow any integer exponent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10859" RevisionGUID="20f2d18c-b57a-412b-bf9c-98f1bbfe791d" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:07:50.613" UserId="110443" Text="I just found that [my own answer][1] to [my own question][2] has been marked as accepted today, and I got +5 rep for it.  I didn't do this, and I didn't think it was possible to get rep for accepting your own answer anyhow.  Did some moderator do this, or is this a bug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241777/which-groups-can-be-lattice-gauge-groups/248772#248772&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241777/which-groups-can-be-lattice-gauge-groups" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10859" RevisionGUID="20f2d18c-b57a-412b-bf9c-98f1bbfe791d" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:07:50.613" UserId="110443" Text="Why was my self-answer accepted, and why did I get +5 rep?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10859" RevisionGUID="20f2d18c-b57a-412b-bf9c-98f1bbfe791d" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:07:50.613" UserId="110443" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="0014883f-83fd-421c-b020-e3c22c5a558b" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:13:23.253" UserId="50583" Text="You didn't get +5 for the accept - that was just an unrelated upvote today. The answer was accepted by you yourself back on Apr 10 '16 four minutes after you wrote it, as can be seen from [the timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/248772/timeline) (I don't know whether that is visible to non-moderators, I apologize for the useless link if it isn't)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="d5f6461a-33a4-4a9c-aa7d-4bbc0ffa4506" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:28:33.297" UserId="50583" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body" Text="You didn't get +5 for the accept - that was just an unrelated upvote today. The answer was accepted by you yourself back on Apr 10 '16 four minutes after you wrote it, as can be seen from [the timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/248772/timeline)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10859" RevisionGUID="e18e1f23-7a31-4137-928b-0b2a6c83d4f3" CreationDate="2018-10-15T20:53:59.530" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33373" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="151b41b5-07da-4d4c-af27-28570128c5a5" CreationDate="2018-10-17T03:00:42.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1052393938626256896" />
  <row Id="33374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="0e3f0d1b-60d7-4202-a39d-e663b669035e" CreationDate="2018-10-18T16:15:03.073" UserId="8563" Text="[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/432612/8563) recently came up in chat, because a user lost reputation when their upvoted answer went overboard as collateral damage when its question was deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hnkuv.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I think this is a dreadful question, but I don't think this should have been deleted. It's a bad question because it's just built on a large stack of misconceptions presented in good faith, but the response to that should be to answer with corrections to the misconceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can the deletion voters explain their reasoning in this instance?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a site consensus that this sort of content should be removed, or that it shouldn't?&#xD;&#xA; - Of particular note, the question had three upvoted answers with a total of eight upvotes between them, with answerer reps in the low thousands so they do feel the bite. Is there a site consensus that it's OK to remove low-quality questions that have decent upvoted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="0e3f0d1b-60d7-4202-a39d-e663b669035e" CreationDate="2018-10-18T16:15:03.073" UserId="8563" Text="Should this question have been deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="0e3f0d1b-60d7-4202-a39d-e663b669035e" CreationDate="2018-10-18T16:15:03.073" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|specific-question|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="bc49c0eb-fd6a-433f-8d96-53206d678ba7" CreationDate="2018-10-19T00:51:14.237" UserId="84967" Text="I reckon my standards are higher than average. I don't like low-quality posts to stick around, and I vote to delete them whenever I stumble upon one. Good questions do not make bad answers good, and good answers do not make bad questions good. Echoing Kyle, I don't look at answers when voting to delete questions, just like I don't look at the question when I vote to delete answers (well, of course I do, but mostly to understand the context; but the context will never redeem crappy posts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand this will sometimes cause collateral damage. I don't feel too bad about it, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You shouldn't be answering low-quality/low-effort questions in the first place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. and if you do, at the very least edit the OP to make it less crappy so as to prevent deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, it seems Kyle, Zero, and I are the only ones going through low-quality questions and voting to delete them when necessary, so I think it is justified that we somewhat &quot;aggressive&quot;: it takes three votes to delete a post, and there are only three people doing any voting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we are human, so we won't always get it right. Good thing the mechanics of this site allows users to fix these kind of issues: there are dozens of users that can vote to undelete posts that were deleted and should not have been. It's true that deletion/undeletion is much less visible than closing/reopening, something I don't quite like (I want more users voting to delete, and a reliable mechanism to undelete those posts that should not have been deleted in the first place). But do note that the &quot;delete queue&quot; is just as visible as the &quot;undelete&quot; one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, and given the size of this community, we are not yet at a point that the special cases cannot be handled here in meta or in chat. So I do not lose sleep over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that is basically my reasoning. Maybe we got it wrong this time, and that post really should not have been deleted. (But this is the first time someone complains, so we are not doing a terrible job either). Please do vote to undelete if you think that's the right thing to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="c0960889-83d0-4440-952e-51ac639509ae" CreationDate="2018-10-19T17:22:21.383" UserId="25301" Text="When I vote to delete, I judge based on the content of the question (in its current state), rather than the answers it's attained. Typically, if a question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sufficiently downvoted (e.g., $\leq-3$)&#xD;&#xA;- closed for at least 1 week (so in actual closed state, not 'on hold')&#xD;&#xA;- unedited since closure &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's, in my opinion, grounds for deletion regardless of answers: the content of the post is low quality &amp; OP didn't make any efforts to improve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This website is **not** designed to answer any question posed, regardless of quality (if you want to answer any question posed, check out [r/Physics](https://reddit.com/r/Physics) or [r/AskScience](https://reddit.com/r/AskScience)), we have standards (hence closure). Perhaps my standards of quality are higher than others (hence some of my [reviewing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) stats?), I don't know. I *do* know that I'd rather not have -5 questions lying about for some hapless future users to think, &quot;Oh, these people don't have standards, I can ask any old question&quot; which I don't think is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also echo AFT's sentiments about how answerers should handle low-quality questions (either don't answer it or improve the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at this *particular* case, I don't know that the answers would have swayed me anyway. The highest rated answer (+6) basically says, &quot;You're wrong, it's the opposite of what you say. Go read a book&quot; which, in my opinion, is a terrible answer (essentially a link-only answer with no actual link) and have no clue as to how it gained 6 votes; it should be DV'd and deleted anyway. One of the other answers seems to say the same (except the &quot;go read a book&quot; part) and another seems to be OP replying to one of the other answers (as if this were a forum). So we're basically left with only Árpád Szendrei's answer as being any good, in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="3605b6e4-6b95-4a26-a20d-b9f16de0fdea" CreationDate="2018-10-20T03:00:02.343" UserId="25301" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="When I vote to delete, I judge based on the content of the question (in its current state), rather than the answers it's attained. Typically, if a question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sufficiently downvoted (e.g., $\leq-3$)&#xD;&#xA;- closed for at least 1 week (so in actual closed state, not 'on hold')&#xD;&#xA;- unedited since closure &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's, in my opinion, grounds for deletion regardless of answers: the content of the post is low quality &amp; OP didn't make any efforts to improve it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This website is **not** designed to answer any question posed, regardless of quality (if you want to answer any question posed, check out [r/Physics](https://reddit.com/r/Physics) or [r/AskScience](https://reddit.com/r/AskScience)), we have standards (hence closure). Perhaps my standards of quality are higher than others (hence some of my [reviewing](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review) stats?), I don't know. I *do* know that I'd rather not have -5 questions lying about for some hapless future users to think, &quot;Oh, these people don't have standards, I can ask any old question&quot; which I don't think is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also echo AFT's sentiments about how answerers should handle low-quality questions (either don't answer it or improve the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at this *particular* case, I don't know that the answers would have swayed me anyway. The highest rated answer (+6) basically says, &quot;You're wrong, it's the opposite of what you say. Go read a book&quot; which, in my opinion, is a terrible answer (essentially a link-only answer with no actual link) and have no clue as to how it gained 6 votes; it should be DV'd and deleted anyway. One of the other answers seems to say the same (except the &quot;go read a book&quot; part) and another seems to be someone replying to one of the other answers (as if this were a forum). So we're basically left with only Árpád Szendrei's answer as being any good, in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33380" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="7aac0491-96f9-457b-9571-bf8e31bdb239" CreationDate="2018-10-20T15:00:49.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1053662324937187339" />
  <row Id="33381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10864" RevisionGUID="e824f43b-4345-41ad-ac66-81772e157786" CreationDate="2018-10-21T14:20:54.103" UserId="1492" Text="Emilio asked that I turn my comment to an answer, so here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imo, what one should also be considering when voting for closure  should be if it is a question that could often come up in search engines . I think closure takes them out of the search engine field? If there is already a good answer, then I would not close the question. (Are we assured that closure stops getting it into searches?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When I answer questions which are candidates for closure or even deletions, this is my criterion, that a clear answer would be found even for a nonsense question , *if it is one that may be often asked by high school children* interested in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low quality posts may reflect an average non physicist's ignorance , those are the ones that I consider worth answering, to clear up confusions. A confused post is different than a post where somebody proposes own theories, those yes, I feel no compunction in their closure or deletion. But naive questions imo should be treated gently. It is possible to educate people, and again imo one of the purposes of this site should be physics education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would set the question above on the naive side, somebody who has not understood special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now low or high quality judgement is peculiar to the comprehension of the reader. A naive question can be judged low quality as also a confused one. My preference is to be gentle, and to try to educate also a general audience. As physics becomes more and more esoteric due to complex theories, it is necessary to develop narratives that are correct and simple, understandable by people with just highschool level physics, again in my opinion. It is the level of the answers that characterizes the quality of the site, as far as I am concerned.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="c7d19dac-dd4b-4b92-a140-ba4c10ddf3dc" CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:53:43.657" UserId="8563" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="[This question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/432612/8563) recently came up in chat, because a user lost reputation when their upvoted answer went overboard as collateral damage when its question was deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hnkuv.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I think this is a dreadful question, and I think it was right to close it, but I don't think this should have been deleted. It's a bad question because it's just built on a large stack of misconceptions presented in good faith, but the response to that should be to answer with corrections to the misconceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can the deletion voters explain their reasoning in this instance?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a site consensus that this sort of content should be removed, or that it shouldn't?&#xD;&#xA; - Of particular note, the question had three upvoted answers with a total of eight upvotes between them, with answerer reps in the low thousands so they do feel the bite. Is there a site consensus that it's OK to remove low-quality questions that have decent upvoted answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10864" RevisionGUID="aafe7f2b-fa4e-4d7a-9221-0829035648a3" CreationDate="2018-10-22T03:59:17.770" UserId="1492" Comment="edit after comments  discussions" Text="Emilio asked that I turn my comment to an answer, so here goes, with edits, having responded to various comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imo, what one should also be considering when voting for closure or deletion  should be *if it is a question that could often come up in search engines* . I learned through the discussion here that closure does not  take a question out of the field of engines and also that answers are still alive as far as reputation goes. If there is already a good answer, then I would not delete the question, reasons expanded below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When I answer questions which are candidates for closure or even deletions, this is my criterion, that a clear answer would be found even for a nonsense question , *if it is nonsense that   may be often asked by high school children* interested in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low quality posts may reflect an *average non physicist's ignorance* , those are the ones that I consider worth answering, to clear up confusions. A confused post is different than a post where somebody proposes own theories, those yes, I feel no compunction in their  deletion, and the same for answers. But naive questions imo should be treated gently, particularly of new users of unknown sophistication in physics. It is possible to educate people, and  one of the purposes of this site should be physics education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would set the question above on the naive side, somebody who has not understood special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now low or high quality judgement is peculiar to the comprehension of the reader. A naive question can be judged low quality as also a confused one. My preference is to be gentle, as we *are*  now advised also, and to try at the same time to educate  a general audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As physics becomes more and more esoteric due to complex theories, it is necessary to develop narratives that are correct and simple, understandable by people with just highschool level physics, again in my opinion. *It is the level of the answers that characterizes the quality of the site,* not the question itself, as far as I am concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to forget the discouragement of the heavy guns on a new user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am reading a fiction on an apocryphon with a lot of bible quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Which of you,][1] if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A9-11&amp;version=NIV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="543a31b8-f597-4d65-b610-5e7cd7ca1a32" CreationDate="2018-10-23T07:54:00.260" UserId="36194" Text="The question is terrible.  This is a new user and I would rather not pile it on but I will say that, IMO the post in question, in its contents and its form, is harmful to the site.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post is unusual because these days I do not initiate much closure - although I did on this one - except for homework questions, so I did find the question to be particularly bad, and sufficiently many agreed with me to close. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not initiate deletion: Kyle and AFT have given their reasons, which I generally agree with.  I will briefly add that it’s not a good sign for a question when the most upvoted answer starts by stating that the premise of the question is false and, IMO, nonsensical; indeed that’s reason enough to contemplate deletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s a pity an engaged user lost some rep as a result of this but it happens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="bf759d48-d453-41fb-9769-8ea4c93d1582" CreationDate="2018-10-24T05:42:50.637" UserId="32426" Text="The question contains a false statement. It should be fixed. Not fixing it would be terrible, because it had left a false statement on the site. But the question itself is not terrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP is not a QFT pro, but this site is exactly for questions like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the correct behavior had been to ask the OP for correction in comments. Or, editing his question (changing increase to decrease). After that, the question could have been closed as dupe, or answered as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no reason to vote this question down or to close, and particularly not to delete it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="605e9ab8-4c66-48c5-a0d5-5274b08cb469" CreationDate="2018-10-24T07:14:52.993" UserId="63776" Text="There seems to be an issue with the layout on the Activity tab in User Profile. The text and button at the bottom of the badge are obscured by the next row of tabs since the box is larger than normal when it holds a notification that a new badge has been awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttTXv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="605e9ab8-4c66-48c5-a0d5-5274b08cb469" CreationDate="2018-10-24T07:14:52.993" UserId="63776" Text="Profile/Activity layout issue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="605e9ab8-4c66-48c5-a0d5-5274b08cb469" CreationDate="2018-10-24T07:14:52.993" UserId="63776" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="6968c8e3-1604-4e1d-9311-cc08df0e44b9" CreationDate="2018-10-24T07:16:52.287" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="6bc7e352-bfa6-4821-9c49-f3a84a238723" CreationDate="2018-10-24T07:23:33.087" UserId="63776" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="There seems to be an issue with the layout on the Activity tab in User Profile. The text and button at the bottom of the badge are obscured by the next row of tabs since the box is larger than normal when it holds a notification that a new badge has been awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Version 1803  &#xD;&#xA;Browser: Chrome Version 69.0.3497.100 (Offizieller Build) (64-Bit)  &#xD;&#xA;Browser Extensions: Google Docs Offline, Docs, Presentations, Tables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttTXv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10864" RevisionGUID="53a2d368-0585-43a5-9899-1ac2e089f945" CreationDate="2018-10-24T10:36:48.890" UserId="1492" Comment="edit after comment" Text="Emilio asked that I turn my comment to an answer, so here goes, with edits, having responded to various comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imo, what one should also be considering when voting for closure or deletion  should be *if it is a question that could often come up in search engines* . I learned through the discussion here that closure does not  take a question out of the field of engines and also that answers are still alive as far as reputation goes. If there is already a good answer, then I would not delete the question, reasons expanded below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When I answer questions which are candidates for closure or even deletions, this is my criterion, that a clear answer would be found even for a nonsense question , *if it is nonsense that   may be often asked by high school children* interested in physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low quality posts may reflect an *average non physicist's ignorance* , those are the ones that I consider worth answering, to clear up confusions. A confused post is different than a post where somebody proposes own theories, those yes, I feel no compunction in their  deletion, and the same for answers. But naive questions imo should be treated gently, particularly of new users of unknown sophistication in physics. It is possible to educate people, and  one of the purposes of this site should be physics education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would set the question above on the naive side, somebody who has not understood special relativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a good answer to the question candidate for closure, and the question is on the naive or confused side, then I would not delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now low or high quality judgement is peculiar to the comprehension of the reader. A naive question can be judged low quality as also a confused one. My preference is to be gentle, as we *are*  now advised also, and to try at the same time to educate  a general audience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As physics becomes more and more esoteric due to complex theories, it is necessary to develop narratives that are correct and simple, understandable by people with just highschool level physics, again in my opinion. *It is the level of the answers that characterizes the quality of the site,* not the question itself, as far as I am concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to forget the discouragement of the heavy guns on a new user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am reading a fiction on an apocryphon with a lot of bible quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Which of you,][1] if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A9-11&amp;version=NIV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="4fce51a5-04af-4846-bf7c-39936acd2071" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:04:42.907" UserId="8563" Text="I asked a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10861/should-this-question-have-been-deleted) on this meta about the deletion of a recent thread, and I think the responses there are useful but not quite as conclusive as I'd like, to a large extent because (as I realize now) the question wasn't worded anywhere near as conclusively as it should have. Still, it was very useful in putting the core terms of the debate on the table, but I'd like something more general and stable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that regard, [Kyle's answer there](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10863/8563) is the perfect kicking off point - he makes some valid points, but I think it is extremely important that we have a clear community consensus around what does and does not fly for the community moderation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my core question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Typically, if a question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- sufficiently downvoted (e.g., $\leq-3$)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- closed for at least 1 week (so in actual closed state, not 'on hold')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- unedited since closure &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**does that form sufficient grounds for deletion? if so, what is the basis and rationale for this?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would ideally like to see the two alternative views on this issue (i.e. yes, they should, and no, they shouldn't) provide answers here, so that the voting on those can give us a better idea of how the broader site community feels about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think this is extremely important is that question deletion is one of the places where community moderation is lacking the most in terms of mechanisms for checks and balances: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To the bulk of the moderation-active population on this site, for the foreseeable future, if a question is deleted, it drops right out of the map, and its deletion is basically undetectable.&#xD;&#xA; - The analytics on these statistics are absolutely terrible. Even if one does have the reputation to access the stats (i.e. the 10k Tools page), they are very hard to read and extremely hard to use effectively as a tool to audit what questions are and are not getting deleted ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/301967/distinguish-automated-vs-mod-vs-community-deletions-in-the-10k-tools)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this means that nothing should be deleted, but I do think it means that we need an affirmative site consensus that some questions should be deleted, with clear boundaries on what that class of questions is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, it also means that statements like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I reckon my standards are higher than average&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should be treated with extreme care in this context. Everybody is entitled to their own standards, and for e.g. question closure, that is perfectly fine: if people disagree, they can detect it and vote to counteract it. Since here the latter mechanism is broken, I think we need a tighter ship in terms of standards. In that regard, I think the criteria set out by Kyle and quoted above are a great description of the class of questions involved, but I think we still need a wider agreement that they are actionable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="4fce51a5-04af-4846-bf7c-39936acd2071" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:04:42.907" UserId="8563" Text="Should poor-quality questions be deleted in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="4fce51a5-04af-4846-bf7c-39936acd2071" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:04:42.907" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|deleted-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="120dff6d-4f65-4ecc-a6db-d8a03447f6ed" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:18:54.410" UserId="38675" Text="Under the qualities listed above, I don't think there is really any question (hah!) that such questions should be closed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The down vote total suggest it was not well received by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It is unedited, so the OP hasn't bothered to try and respond/fix/reword/whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. After a week nobody else cared enough to step in and try and rescue it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken together, there really isn't a good reason such questions should stay around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="587674dc-c00c-4168-a933-1c3983aaa84b" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:22:20.933" UserId="8563" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="I asked a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10861/should-this-question-have-been-deleted) on this meta about the deletion of a recent thread, and I think the responses there are useful but not quite as conclusive as I'd like, to a large extent because (as I realize now) the question wasn't worded anywhere near as conclusively as it should have. Still, it was very useful in putting the core terms of the debate on the table, but I'd like something more general and stable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that regard, [Kyle's answer there](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10863/8563) is the perfect kicking off point - he makes some valid points, but I think it is extremely important that we have a clear community consensus around what does and does not fly for the community moderation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my core question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Typically, if a question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- sufficiently downvoted (e.g., $\leq-3$)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- closed for at least 1 week (so in actual closed state, not 'on hold')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- unedited since closure &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**does that form sufficient grounds for deletion? if so, what is the basis and rationale for this?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would ideally like to see the two alternative views on this issue (i.e. yes, they should, and no, they shouldn't) provide answers here, so that the voting on those can give us a better idea of how the broader site community feels about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think this is extremely important is that question deletion is one of the places where community moderation is lacking the most in terms of mechanisms for checks and balances: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To the bulk of the moderation-active population on this site, for the foreseeable future, if a question is deleted, it drops right out of the map, and its deletion is basically undetectable.&#xD;&#xA; - The analytics on these statistics are absolutely terrible. Even if one does have the reputation to access the stats (i.e. the 10k Tools page), they are very hard to read and extremely hard to use effectively as a tool to audit what questions are and are not getting deleted ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/301967/distinguish-automated-vs-mod-vs-community-deletions-in-the-10k-tools)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this means that nothing should be deleted, but I do think it means that we need an affirmative site consensus that some questions should be deleted, with clear boundaries on what that class of questions is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, it also means that statements like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I reckon my standards are higher than average&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should be treated with extreme care in this context. Everybody is entitled to their own standards, and for e.g. question closure, that is perfectly fine: if people disagree, they can detect it and vote to counteract it. Since here the latter mechanism is broken, I think we need a tighter ship in terms of standards. In that regard, I think the criteria set out by Kyle and quoted above are a great description of the class of questions involved, but I think we still need a wider agreement that they are actionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For full clarity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a discussion about **deletion, not closure**. The on-topic-ness of the question involved needs to have *already* been decided, in the negative, for the considerations in this thread to begin to be applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In particular, if your answer concludes with &quot;such answers should be closed&quot; or &quot;such answers should not be closed&quot;, you're not answering the question I'm posing, by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If your answer includes &quot;such answers should/shouldn't be *deleted*&quot;, then you're in the right track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="86a7c8d4-e296-4365-9a52-fbf1a75c7617" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:28:09.067" UserId="38675" Comment="rephrased." Text="Under the qualities listed above, I don't think there is really any question (hah!) that such questions should be deleted, eliminated, terminated, however one wants to phrase getting them off our books. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The down vote total suggest it was not well received by the community. So, why should it be retained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It is unedited, so the OP hasn't bothered to try and respond/fix/reword/whatever. If they don't care, neither should we.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. After a week nobody else cared enough to step in and try and rescue it. So, the question is pretty conclusively not considered useful to anyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken together, there really isn't a good reason such questions should stay around in any form. They add nothing of any value" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="ae116a43-e263-48f4-94ad-cffec0114655" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:51:11.837" UserId="8563" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="I asked a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10861/should-this-question-have-been-deleted) on this meta about the deletion of a recent thread, and I think the responses there are useful but not quite as conclusive as I'd like, to a large extent because (as I realize now) the question wasn't worded anywhere near as conclusively as it should have. Still, it was very useful in putting the core terms of the debate on the table, but I'd like something more general and stable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that regard, [Kyle's answer there](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10863/8563) is the perfect kicking off point - he makes some valid points, but I think it is extremely important that we have a clear community consensus around what does and does not fly for the community moderation on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my core question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Typically, if a question is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- sufficiently downvoted (e.g., $\leq-3$)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- closed for at least 1 week (so in actual closed state, not 'on hold')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- unedited since closure &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**does that form sufficient grounds for deletion? if so, what is the basis and rationale for this?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would ideally like to see the two alternative views on this issue (i.e. yes, they should, and no, they shouldn't) provide answers here, so that the voting on those can give us a better idea of how the broader site community feels about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think this is extremely important is that question deletion is one of the places where community moderation is lacking the most in terms of mechanisms for checks and balances: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To the bulk of the moderation-active population on this site, for the foreseeable future, if a question is deleted, it drops right out of the map, and its deletion is basically undetectable.&#xD;&#xA; - The analytics on these statistics are absolutely terrible. Even if one does have the reputation to access the stats (i.e. the 10k Tools page), they are very hard to read and extremely hard to use effectively as a tool to audit what questions are and are not getting deleted ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/301967/distinguish-automated-vs-mod-vs-community-deletions-in-the-10k-tools)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this means that nothing should be deleted, but I do think it means that we need an affirmative site consensus that some questions should be deleted, with clear boundaries on what that class of questions is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, it also means that statements like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I reckon my standards are higher than average&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should be treated with extreme care in this context. Everybody is entitled to their own standards, and for e.g. question closure, that is perfectly fine: if people disagree, they can detect it and vote to counteract it. Since here the latter mechanism is broken, I think we need a tighter ship in terms of standards. In that regard, I think the criteria set out by Kyle and quoted above are a great description of the class of questions involved, but I think we still need a wider agreement that they are actionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For full clarity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - This is a discussion about **deletion, not closure**. The on-topic-ness of the question involved needs to have *already* been decided, in the negative, for the considerations in this thread to begin to be applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In particular, if your answer concludes with &quot;such answers should be closed&quot; or &quot;such answers should not be closed&quot;, you're not answering the question I'm posing, by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If your answer includes &quot;such answers should/shouldn't be *deleted*&quot;, then you're in the right track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for my personal take - I don't have strong feelings either way. But deletion is a very delicate issue (particularly for some unrelated classes of questions) and I care about having strong community processes where it's on the line. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33406" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="21c4536d-52d9-4c90-850b-5dbc7304e23d" CreationDate="2018-10-25T13:04:32.053" UserId="44126" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="bd984fed-bbfc-457d-91a9-ee787464cdcb" CreationDate="2018-10-25T17:42:18.373" UserId="36194" Text="Some poor quality questions should be systematically deleted.   Examples include [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435045/ufo-sighting-11th-september-2004-england-rg30-3rr) and [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435405/if-consciousness-is-energy-is-energy-consciousness-i-e-does-energy-seem-to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions that should be deleted are closed questions based on false or nonsensical premises.  An extreme example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that pigs can fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that all pigs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming this holds how can one keep pigs in a pen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions should not be answered.  Period.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My position on this is broadly in line with [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) argument: it is not for answerers to debunk incorrect claims or personal theories by posters, but for posters to make sure the questions are sensible.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, suggesting there is a contradiction - and we've seen plenty such questions especially in the context of special relativity - without proper research on the part of the poster cannot be constructive to the site.   Indeed, in such cases the most appropriate course of action would be not to answer but to insert a comment suggesting a reference/book so the poster can correct his/her misconceptions (although in the case of flying pigs it would be a challenge to find even that!).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not sure there is some sort of quantitative threshold (in terms of down votes) to be met in general, closure is usually a good hint that something's not right with the original post: there is ample opportunity to correct misconceptions, if only through comments.   Sufficient time for a poster to make appropriate corrections should be granted, although *sufficient* is somewhat vague and may depend on the actual post and the &quot;seniority&quot; of the poster: the two questions liked above should be IMO deleted as soon as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, sure we learn through mistakes but we have plenty of examples of closed questions for people to assess what makes a good or a bad question: we can afford to purge a great many duplicates and poorly received questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="2240b67a-6cce-49ba-a6ff-1ab4dd1d5d28" CreationDate="2018-10-25T17:56:41.617" UserId="36194" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Some poor quality questions should be systematically deleted.   Examples include [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435045/ufo-sighting-11th-september-2004-england-rg30-3rr) and [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435405/if-consciousness-is-energy-is-energy-consciousness-i-e-does-energy-seem-to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions that should be deleted are closed questions based on false or nonsensical premises.  An extreme example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that pigs can fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that all pigs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming this holds how can one keep pigs in a pen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions should not be answered.  Period.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My position on this is broadly in line with [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) argument: it is for posters to make sure the questions are sensible, not for answerers to debunk incorrect claims or personal theories by posters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, suggesting there is a contradiction - and we've seen plenty such questions especially in the context of special relativity - without proper research on the part of the poster cannot be constructive to the site.   Indeed, in such cases the most appropriate course of action would be not to answer but to insert a comment suggesting a reference/book so the poster can correct his/her misconceptions (although in the case of flying pigs it would be a challenge to find even that!).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not sure there is some sort of quantitative threshold (in terms of down votes) to be met in general, closure is usually a good hint that something's not right with the original post: there is ample opportunity to correct misconceptions, if only through comments.   Sufficient time for a poster to make appropriate corrections should be granted, although *sufficient* is somewhat vague and may depend on the actual post and the &quot;seniority&quot; of the poster: the two questions liked above should be IMO deleted as soon as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, sure we learn through mistakes but we have plenty of examples of closed questions for people to assess what makes a good or a bad question: we can afford to purge a great many duplicates and poorly received questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="ade8889b-95b8-47e3-b777-eda1c4879b31" CreationDate="2018-10-26T03:01:20.370" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1055655589064437760" />
  <row Id="33412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="46e0fcb1-b581-45ab-965d-51c75c5602de" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:07:17.673" UserId="124" Text="The system [automatically deletes questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222/56541) under certain circumstances (using a process semi-officially known as &quot;the roomba&quot;). In this context, the most relevant criteria under which questions are deleted are essentially these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The question has been closed and not edited for 9 days, has no pending reopen votes and net score zero or less, all answers have net score zero or less, and there is no accepted answer&#xD;&#xA;- The question has negative score and no answers and is at least 30 days old&#xD;&#xA;- The question has zero score (or a score of one if the user's account is deleted), less than two comments, less than 1.5 average views per day, and is 365 days old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (diamond) moderators generally take the stance that the roomba, using this and other more niche criteria, does a decent job of keeping the site clean under most circumstances. For that reason, we generally don't use our binding deletion votes on low-quality questions; we figure that if the question is low quality enough that it would deserve deletion by moderator fiat, it should meet one of these criteria eventually and get automatically deleted anyway. And it's quite rare that we think a question is _harmful_ enough that we can't wait the 9/30/365/whatever days until the roomba gets it. (This doesn't preclude deleting questions for reasons other than being low quality. That we still do.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, keep in mind that this is how the diamond mods see things. Non-moderators with the power to cast delete votes don't have to take this approach; they can definitely be more proactive in voting to delete if they want to. We rely on the fact that a post has to receive a consensus of three community delete votes to actually be removed to prevent excessive purging of posts from the site. Nevertheless, the community could choose to adopt a similar approach to the diamond mods, so I'm posting it as an option to be voted on appropriately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="8c296f4d-05a3-4a19-9ccb-058272a0025e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:41:35.563" UserId="181357" Text="Sorry for raising this up weeks later, because I just checked my flag logs today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My spam flag on [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/433026) was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Post is already deleted and user nuked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [metasmoke](https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/138185), the post content was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM1234567890&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035), *rude or abusive* flags are appropriate on this kind of garbage. Quoting below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### What makes something rude or abusive and when should I flag it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Abuse of the system or community* is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain *no useful content at all* – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, as [stated by Shog9](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234035/295232) (a SE community manager), it's fine to use any kind of flag for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's VLQ, it's abuse, it's Not An Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synthesizing all references presented above, I think my spam flag is appropriate on that answer, so why is it declined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. There was [a similar complaint](https://drupal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3672) by someone else about a similar issue over on Drupal Answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="8c296f4d-05a3-4a19-9ccb-058272a0025e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:41:35.563" UserId="181357" Text="Spam flag on nonsense garbage declined" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="8c296f4d-05a3-4a19-9ccb-058272a0025e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:41:35.563" UserId="181357" Text="|discussion|support|flagging|spam|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="613555da-6aeb-4a42-8d55-e0d22d019676" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:57:18.510" UserId="50583" Text="Note that &quot;spam&quot; is notably *missing* from the list of flags (VLQ, rude or abusive, not an answer) Shog9 lists in the answer you quote. The spam flag description reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gibberish post does not, by any reasonable interpretation, qualify as promoting anything, therefore your flag was declined. Since spam flags feed an automated spam defense mechanics in a way that the other flags don't, please reserve the usage of the spam flag to actual promotional spam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="b0583de7-dde3-4371-8342-3fcf7d905863" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:06:10.230" UserId="181357" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Sorry for raising this up weeks later, because I just checked my flag logs today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My spam flag on [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/433026) was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Post is already deleted and user nuked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [metasmoke](https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/138185), the post content was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM1234567890&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035), *rude or abusive* flags are appropriate on this kind of garbage. Quoting below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### What makes something rude or abusive and when should I flag it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Abuse of the system or community* is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain *no useful content at all* – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, as [stated by Shog9](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/234035/295232) (a SE community manager), it's fine to use any kind of flag for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's VLQ, it's abuse, it's Not An Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [another consensus on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/345333) that mixing spam flags and R/A flags are OK, since they're both high-priority red flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synthesizing all references presented above, I think my spam flag is appropriate on that answer, so why is it declined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cast a spam flag instead of a R/A flag because it is more convenient with Tampermonkey userscripts that I have installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. There was [a similar complaint](https://drupal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3672) by someone else about a similar issue over on Drupal Answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="9491ef6b-d8ca-4e69-ad0c-1c1aca26d4d3" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:32:08.410" UserId="181357" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="Sorry for raising this up weeks later, because I just checked my flag logs today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My spam flag on [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/433026) was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Post is already deleted and user nuked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [metasmoke](https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/138185), the post content was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM1234567890&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035), *rude or abusive* flags are appropriate on this kind of garbage. Quoting below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### What makes something rude or abusive and when should I flag it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Abuse of the system or community* is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain *no useful content at all* – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, as [stated by Shog9](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/41570/conversation/shogs-point-on-flagging-gibberish), it's fine to use either kind of red flags for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... and the same applies to Spam and Rude/Offensive ([source](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/26704952#26704952))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [another consensus on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/345333) that mixing spam flags and R/A flags are OK, since they're both high-priority red flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synthesizing all references presented above, I think my spam flag is appropriate on that answer, so why is it declined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cast a spam flag instead of a R/A flag because it is more convenient with Tampermonkey userscripts that I have installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. There was [a similar complaint](https://drupal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3672) by someone else about a similar issue over on Drupal Answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="d2228105-bd4d-4cb1-b4df-bde5dd978383" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:39:28.577" UserId="181357" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="Sorry for raising this up weeks later, because I just checked my flag logs today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My spam flag on [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/433026) was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Post is already deleted and user nuked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [metasmoke](https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/138185), the post content was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM1234567890&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035), *rude or abusive* flags are appropriate on this kind of garbage. Quoting below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### What makes something rude or abusive and when should I flag it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Abuse of the system or community* is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts that contain *no useful content at all* – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; asyuv;laergap897wertp[98 gb;vp98a34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, as [stated by Shog9](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/41570/conversation/shogs-point-on-flagging-gibberish), it's fine to use either kind of red flags for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... and the same applies to Spam and Rude/Offensive ([source](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/26704952#26704952))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(it is also [supported by a previous CM, Pops](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35745740#35745740))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [another consensus on Meta Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/345333) that mixing spam flags and R/A flags are OK, since they're both high-priority red flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synthesizing all references presented above, I think my spam flag is appropriate on that answer, so why is it declined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cast a spam flag instead of a R/A flag because it is more convenient with Tampermonkey userscripts that I have installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. There was [a similar complaint](https://drupal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3672) by someone else about a similar issue over on Drupal Answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="ef764a42-1a5b-4b03-ab5e-4d45d301d57e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:02:19.420" UserId="68181" Text="I know from this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/should-history-of-physics-questions-be-on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that questions about the history of Physics are considered on-topic, but what about questions about the character or personality of famous Physicists?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I am curious as to how Einstein would have responded to flattery or compliments. Say, if someone had said to him at a conference: &quot;Wow, you are the greatest mind that has ever lived!&quot;, how he would have responded. Would a question like that be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="ef764a42-1a5b-4b03-ab5e-4d45d301d57e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:02:19.420" UserId="68181" Text="Are questions about the character or personality of famous Physicists on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="ef764a42-1a5b-4b03-ab5e-4d45d301d57e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:02:19.420" UserId="68181" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33433" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="eea9a812-a063-4c81-b731-6ee1b9f63c35" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:34:18.713" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="eea9a812-a063-4c81-b731-6ee1b9f63c35" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:34:18.713" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="I know from this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8930/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that questions about the history of Physics are considered on-topic, but what about questions about the character or personality of famous Physicists?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I am curious as to how Einstein would have responded to flattery or compliments. Say, if someone had said to him at a conference: &quot;Wow, you are the greatest mind that has ever lived!&quot;, how he would have responded. Would a question like that be on-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10878" RevisionGUID="81eb1ddc-df00-4ab8-b6fe-a326cbeae6a7" CreationDate="2018-10-28T22:38:39.223" UserId="124" Text="No, they're not. We don't consider those questions to be about physics, so they would be off topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, it's a bit of a mischaracterization to say that history of physics questions are on topic. What the answer to the linked question actually says is that those questions are on topic only when they're relevant to our modern understanding of physics. A question about the personal attributes of a physicist, even if you do consider it to be a history of physics question, does not meet that criterion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="a14e0ed1-6a67-4cc0-80fd-c50616a25f27" CreationDate="2018-10-30T17:33:07.147" UserId="48881" Text="&#xD;&#xA;There is matheducators.stackexchange.com, cseducators.stackexchange.com, and chemistry.stackexchange.com which is geared towards teachers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics teachers seem to lack such platform; has there been any effort to create something like physicseducators (or a more general scienceeducators) stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="a14e0ed1-6a67-4cc0-80fd-c50616a25f27" CreationDate="2018-10-30T17:33:07.147" UserId="48881" Text="Where to ask questions about teaching physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="a14e0ed1-6a67-4cc0-80fd-c50616a25f27" CreationDate="2018-10-30T17:33:07.147" UserId="48881" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="8878770f-c5b5-45d0-932e-dfedecb60724" CreationDate="2018-10-30T19:35:16.220" UserId="36194" Comment="added screenshots of the questions as they have been deleted since the original posting." Text="Some poor quality questions should be systematically deleted.   Examples include [this one:](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435045/ufo-sighting-11th-september-2004-england-rg30-3rr) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;and [this one:](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435405/if-consciousness-is-energy-is-energy-consciousness-i-e-does-energy-seem-to)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions that should be deleted are closed questions based on false or nonsensical premises.  An extreme example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that pigs can fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that all pigs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming this holds how can one keep pigs in a pen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions should not be answered.  Period.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My position on this is broadly in line with [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) argument: it is for posters to make sure the questions are sensible, not for answerers to debunk incorrect claims or personal theories by posters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, suggesting there is a contradiction - and we've seen plenty such questions especially in the context of special relativity - without proper research on the part of the poster cannot be constructive to the site.   Indeed, in such cases the most appropriate course of action would be not to answer but to insert a comment suggesting a reference/book so the poster can correct his/her misconceptions (although in the case of flying pigs it would be a challenge to find even that!).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not sure there is some sort of quantitative threshold (in terms of down votes) to be met in general, closure is usually a good hint that something's not right with the original post: there is ample opportunity to correct misconceptions, if only through comments.   Sufficient time for a poster to make appropriate corrections should be granted, although *sufficient* is somewhat vague and may depend on the actual post and the &quot;seniority&quot; of the poster: the two questions liked above should be IMO deleted as soon as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, sure we learn through mistakes but we have plenty of examples of closed questions for people to assess what makes a good or a bad question: we can afford to purge a great many duplicates and poorly received questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5s0GE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TrP7p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33440" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="9516c813-23ba-41d3-921c-dc2e118b188c" CreationDate="2018-10-31T09:58:46.360" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="9516c813-23ba-41d3-921c-dc2e118b188c" CreationDate="2018-10-31T09:58:46.360" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="There is https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/, https://cseducators.stackexchange.com, and https://chemistry.stackexchange.com which is geared towards teachers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics teachers seem to lack such platform; has there been any effort to create something like physicseducators (or a more general scienceeducators) stackexchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="131e3bc7-5782-4e4e-9601-7f106cd67d85" CreationDate="2018-10-31T11:25:11.993" UserId="25301" Text="There were two previous attempts at creating a Science Educators site, which would have covered physics, and both attempts failed and were deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Physics Meta Link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7223/25301); [Area51 link](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/113414/science-educators?referrer=x3vAYCrjklWdzv01y6-b-g2)&#xD;&#xA;* [Physics Meta Link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/915/37); [Area51 link](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="20b3c3b9-d744-4b12-b7a4-9e353f44c104" CreationDate="2018-10-31T19:11:27.383" UserId="25301" Comment="added 517 characters in body" Text="There were two previous attempts at creating a Science Educators site, which would have covered physics, and both attempts failed and were deleted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Physics Meta Link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7223/25301); [Area51 link](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/113414/science-educators?referrer=x3vAYCrjklWdzv01y6-b-g2)&#xD;&#xA;* [Physics Meta Link](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/915/37); [Area51 link](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As posted on the [Area51 FAQ](https://area51.stackexchange.com/faq):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Deleted proposals can be re-proposed anew by users with renewed energy and, hopefully, better resources to bring it to commitment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there really wouldn't be any problems to re-re-propose the site in terms of SE policies, but the concerns of participation may still exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could access the deleted proposals, you could see what did and did not work, thereby making a better future site. I don't know if this is possible currently.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33449" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="20569a72-55d7-4cf0-9815-dffc4822fe79" CreationDate="2018-11-02T00:00:32.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33450" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="ca1c33a1-077c-43a9-b233-3c1093cec602" CreationDate="2018-11-05T06:00:38.580" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1059324591187857408" />
  <row Id="33451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="1a6a2753-aee5-4452-ac42-985728754281" CreationDate="2018-11-06T07:33:23.337" UserId="83380" Text="I'm at a loss how to handle the comments below my question. They seem accusatory but not valid or thought out from a physics perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;this is the same (ridiculous) question posted in several forms by two members on three SE sites. It's time to bury this nonsense question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not even an orbit. Dressing it up with geopotential waffle does not change that. If your question actually had no link to those other questions then why even mention them ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The physics problem itself is not ridiculous;** a ball, sliding (or driven) on a rod; the pair gravitationally bound to and in an inclined orbit around another mass. The rod-plus-ball has a quadrupole moment, as does the gravitational potential in which it orbits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By modulating the quadrupole moment of the orbiter, torque can be varied and angular momentum exchanged between the two bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question linked in my question asks if there is a way to move the ball so that over one complete, inclined orbit the net angular momentum transfer is non-zero. This allows for a slow raising or lowering of the orbit by exchanging angular momentum with the central body. Being much larger, it's resulting precession can be neglected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to solve this orbit-raising/lowering problem, but here I've simply asked if this is a known problem, and if it has been solved already. As written, it seems like a perfectly valid Physics SE question and not worthy of the trouncing the user has given it. I don't know how to respond positively without evoking more &quot;this question must die, here and now.&quot; sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd thought of rewriting the question to ask directly *how to solve* this problem (rather than if it is a known problem with known solution) but that might be seen as too similar to the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good and civil way to proceed in order to get to the bottom of the existence of a solution to this problem, or perhaps, solving it now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Has this unusual orbital mechanical problem been addressed, or given a specific name?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/437604/83380)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="1a6a2753-aee5-4452-ac42-985728754281" CreationDate="2018-11-06T07:33:23.337" UserId="83380" Text="How to respond to this user's &quot;geopotential waffle&quot; comments and/or best edit my question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="1a6a2753-aee5-4452-ac42-985728754281" CreationDate="2018-11-06T07:33:23.337" UserId="83380" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="c8eed634-9386-41a9-a794-db26d55de872" CreationDate="2018-11-06T07:40:07.237" UserId="83380" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm at a loss how to handle the comments below my question. They seem accusatory but not valid or thought out from a physics perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;this is the same (ridiculous) question posted in several forms by two members on three SE sites. It's time to bury this nonsense question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not even an orbit. Dressing it up with geopotential waffle does not change that. If your question actually had no link to those other questions then why even mention them ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The physics problem itself is not ridiculous;** a ball, sliding (or driven) on a rod; the pair gravitationally bound to and in an inclined orbit around another mass. The rod-plus-ball has a quadrupole moment, as does the gravitational potential in which it orbits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By modulating the quadrupole moment of the orbiter, torque can be varied and angular momentum exchanged between the two bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question linked in my question asks if there is a way to move the ball so that over one complete, inclined orbit the net angular momentum transfer is non-zero. This allows for a slow raising or lowering of the orbit by exchanging angular momentum with the central body. (Being much larger, it's resulting precession can be neglected.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to solve this orbit-raising/lowering problem, but here I've simply asked if this is a known problem, and if it has been solved already. As written, it seems like a perfectly valid Physics SE question and not worthy of the trouncing the user has given it. I don't know how to respond positively without evoking more &quot;this question must die, here and now.&quot; sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd thought of rewriting the question to ask directly *how to solve* this problem (rather than if it is a known problem with known solution) but that might be seen as too similar to the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good and civil way to proceed in order to get to the bottom of the existence of a solution to this problem, or perhaps, solving it now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Has this unusual orbital mechanical problem been addressed, or given a specific name?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/437604/83380)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="9a384315-9fe3-4bbb-b7d6-0f85c713e323" CreationDate="2018-11-06T08:00:56.567" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="0a052ab5-53a4-427f-92f2-385a31254d77" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:05:08.427" UserId="83380" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I'm at a loss how to handle the comments below my question. They seem accusatory but not valid or thought out from a physics perspective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;this is the same (ridiculous) question posted in several forms by two members on three SE sites. It's time to bury this nonsense question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's not even an orbit. Dressing it up with geopotential waffle does not change that. If your question actually had no link to those other questions then why even mention them ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The physics problem itself is not ridiculous;** a ball, sliding (or driven) on a rod; the pair gravitationally bound to and in an inclined orbit around another mass. The rod-plus-ball has a quadrupole moment, as does the gravitational potential in which it orbits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By modulating the quadrupole moment of the orbiter, torque can be varied throughout each orbit, and angular momentum exchanged between the two bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question linked in my question asks if there is a way to move the ball so that over one complete, inclined orbit the *net angular momentum transfer* is non-zero. This allows for a slow raising or lowering of the orbit by exchanging angular momentum with the central body. (Being much larger, it's resulting precession can be neglected.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to solve this orbit-raising/lowering problem, but here I've simply asked if this is a known problem, and if it has been solved already. As written, it seems like a perfectly valid Physics SE question and not worthy of the trouncing the user has given it. I don't know how to respond positively without evoking more &quot;this question must die, here and now.&quot; sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd thought of rewriting the question to ask directly *how to solve* this problem (rather than if it is a known problem with known solution) but that might be seen as too similar to the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good and civil way to proceed in order to get to the bottom of the existence of a solution to this problem, or perhaps, solving it now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Has this unusual orbital mechanical problem been addressed, or given a specific name?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/437604/83380)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10883" RevisionGUID="aff5273d-90f2-4f6d-a52a-a756462d49c4" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:02:18.440" UserId="127931" Text="I don't really find the question you're trying to ask as a good fit to the SE format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically &quot;has anyone researched or named this yet?&quot;  Either the answer is &quot;yes - and it is named X&quot;; or it's trying to prove a negative, which is very difficult.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I don't understand what a &quot;good&quot; answer to this question would be, beyond a reference to somewhere that it is given a name.  This makes it a very poor conceptual question; which is generally what physics SE is about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also seem to reference a &quot;problem&quot;; but it's not clear from the question what you mean by that.  Maybe it's just me being unfamiliar with the terminology; but I only see a set of equations, I don't see what the actual problem would be.  I didn't vote on the question; but I can understand the votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="c517c3b4-a2a7-40ca-8f82-cd260c7ee9e5" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:25:47.153" UserId="199893" Text="An answer of mine was recently deleted because it was decided AFTER my answer was posted and accepted that the question was off topic. I thought putting a question on hold simply prevented any further answers from being posted. By why delete an answer already accepted before the on hold decision was made. I have answered other questions that were subsequently put on hold, but it did not result in deletion of my already posted answer. This is very frustrating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="c517c3b4-a2a7-40ca-8f82-cd260c7ee9e5" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:25:47.153" UserId="199893" Text="Deleting an Answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="c517c3b4-a2a7-40ca-8f82-cd260c7ee9e5" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:25:47.153" UserId="199893" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="d817915a-270a-4f93-be17-1c154879f00d" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:55:01.527" UserId="2451" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags" Text="An [answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/439157/2451) of mine was recently deleted because it was decided AFTER my answer was posted and accepted that the question was off topic. I thought putting a question on hold simply prevented any further answers from being posted. By why delete an answer already accepted before the on hold decision was made. I have answered other questions that were subsequently put on hold, but it did not result in deletion of my already posted answer. This is very frustrating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="d817915a-270a-4f93-be17-1c154879f00d" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:55:01.527" UserId="2451" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|answers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="b1dfba0d-c969-4877-b6ed-aec6c44be182" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:57:23.293" UserId="36194" Text="The very last comment by @DavidZ is self-explanatory and absolutely appropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I'm temporarily deleting this in accordance with our [homework policy][1]. Please don't post complete answers to the underlying problem in homework-like questions.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="d5b14580-5d1f-4e9e-81b6-304a6a476e6b" CreationDate="2018-11-06T17:28:12.627" UserId="8563" Text="Zero's already explained the bulk of it, but it's worth drilling down a bit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Your answer was removed because it is considered by the community to be harmful to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained in depth in [the meta thread that explains the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) and which is linked in the closure banner of the question. This is the kind of guidance that we expect experienced users to read before coming to meta with complaints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you answered is absolutely terrible, and its presence (and that of other questions like it) on the site accomplishes two things: to make this site look like a dump of undigested homework questions where lazy students can get others to do their work for them, and then, because of that, to make it much harder for this site to retain expert users who can answer the truly valuable questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By giving that user the complete answer that they wanted, you just encouraged them (and any friends that they might talk with) to post similar questions in the future. This is why those answers are routinely removed on sight by the moderators, as stated explicitly in the site policy that's always linked on homework-closed questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="39e91c3c-47d5-4220-b257-90214bcce653" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:25:01.023" UserId="191113" Text="This is my question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/437217/position-of-a-electrical-charge-with-mass-at-a-given-time-under-the-influence-of?noredirect=1#comment986147_437217&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been put on hold for reasons I can't achieve to understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Chair, Aaron Stevens,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kyle Kanos, AccidentalFourierTransform, sammy gerbil yesterday Please&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I even used bold text to underline the main point of my question.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also, In the comment section, one guy is suggesting my question is a possible duplicate of this one:&lt;br/&gt;  [What is the distance between two objects in space as a function of time, considering only the force of gravity?][1] &#xD;&#xA;What does gravity have to do with electrics charges in this context? I know that some formulas are similar and in some scenarios the workings are similar, but they are completely different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I do something to improve my question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/217633/what-is-the-distance-between-two-objects-in-space-as-a-function-of-time-conside" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="39e91c3c-47d5-4220-b257-90214bcce653" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:25:01.023" UserId="191113" Text="What's wrong with my question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="39e91c3c-47d5-4220-b257-90214bcce653" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:25:01.023" UserId="191113" Text="|support|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="be0c7804-db33-4db1-a073-05217ecdd7a4" CreationDate="2018-11-07T23:47:08.010" UserId="44126" Text="First off, according to the [timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/437217/timeline) for the question, the five close votes included two for unclear, two for [homework-like](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/), and one for duplicate. The way the system responds when there are multiple close reasons given for a question is to pick one reason to display. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your basic question, how one electrical charge moves in the presence of another electric charge, is a staple of introductory and advanced E&amp;M courses.  In such a class, you would learn how to do this in many different situations: the two charges might have one or another mass ratio, or initial relative momenta, or impact parameter.  If you specified those things, you would be asking a homework-like question. Since you left them alone, there's not enough information to come up with a general answer to your question in a format that's a good fit for us.  That's probably the reason for the &quot;unclear&quot; and &quot;homework-like&quot; votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since gravity and electromagnetism are both $1/r^2$ forces, gravitational trajectories follow the same mathematics as electrical trajectories (if the electrical interaction is attractive).  That's probably the reason for the duplicate vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't cast any of those votes, but they all make sense to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33469" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="e422edec-2dde-4d43-87dc-fb04bee2ce0a" CreationDate="2018-11-08T01:06:13.473" UserId="84967" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="b5e631bb-8367-464b-a256-0c448f075390" CreationDate="2018-11-08T13:34:46.337" UserId="44126" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="First off, according to moderator view&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the [timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/437217/timeline) for the question, the five close votes included two for unclear, two for [homework-like](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/), and one for duplicate. The way the system responds when there are multiple close reasons given for a question is to pick one reason to display. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your basic question, how one electrical charge moves in the presence of another electric charge, is a staple of introductory and advanced E&amp;M courses.  In such a class, you would learn how to do this in many different situations: the two charges might have one or another mass ratio, or initial relative momenta, or impact parameter.  If you specified those things, you would be asking a homework-like question. Since you left them alone, there's not enough information to come up with a general answer to your question in a format that's a good fit for us.  That's probably the reason for the &quot;unclear&quot; and &quot;homework-like&quot; votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since gravity and electromagnetism are both $1/r^2$ forces, gravitational trajectories follow the same mathematics as electrical trajectories (if the electrical interaction is attractive).  That's probably the reason for the duplicate vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't cast any of those votes, but they all make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The diamond-moderators' view of the timeline contains some information that's hidden from ordinary users, including which users cast which type of close vote and other flag-type information that ought to remain private. [Here's some moderator-only documentation of the moderator-only view of the timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/mod-timeline), which I suppose is useful as a link only in that it alerts you that the documentation and the other view exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="5ab8a655-9d9f-41f2-8184-e64bc033a9d7" CreationDate="2018-11-11T04:48:46.980" UserId="32426" Text="Come here to the PSE and try to lobby for making it ontopic. The chances are nearly negligible in the short term, but a little shift can be reached if you do it long. I will try to help, but my effect alone is very little. You can get a lot of deleted SE content from the https://archive.org , the last snapshots are these: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://web.archive.org/web/20180102021524/https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/113414/science-educators&#xD;&#xA;* https://web.archive.org/web/20150507061457/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also create the proposal on the Area51, import the most upvoted questions there, I will help if I can. The chances are low also on this way, but you can significantly increase it if you try to collect support on the meta sites and in the chatrooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the A51 shows a linearly decreasing tendency to create new sites since some years. My [extrapolation][1] is that it will stop working around at 2020. Probably not even the SE has any idea, what to do with it, but the general attitude of the community is very well visible below that MSE post (and on the voting score of this answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third possibility would be to somehow politely ask some already existing educator site to extend its topic. Unfortunately, the major problem is that most SE communities become itchy if there is any suggestion about the extension of their topic, but they get very excited if there is a way to narrow it. :-(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, small sites are lesser exclusionist, and both the matheducator and the cseducator are small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/296587/259412" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="b5f5fcfc-e031-4c93-bb6a-f9986b84e0f1" CreationDate="2018-11-11T04:58:09.713" UserId="32426" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="Come here to the PSE and try to lobby for making it ontopic. The chances are nearly negligible in the short term, but a little shift can be reached if you do it long. I will try to help, but my effect alone is very little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get a lot of deleted SE content from the https://archive.org , the last snapshots of the (in my opinion, purposelessly destroyed) proposals are these: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://web.archive.org/web/20180102021524/https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/113414/science-educators&#xD;&#xA;* https://web.archive.org/web/20150507061457/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/79366/science-educators/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also recreate the proposal on the Area51, import the most upvoted questions there, I will help if I can. The chances are low also on this way, but you can significantly increase it if you try to collect support on the meta sites and in the chatrooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to create a science educators site, which would integrate at least biology, chemistry and physics (maybe some engineering, too). On this way, you might get help from the communities of all the relevant sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the A51 shows a linearly decreasing tendency to create new sites since some years. My [extrapolation][1] is that it will stop working around at 2020. Probably not even the SE has any idea, what to do with it, but the general attitude of the community is very well visible below that MSE post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third possibility would be to somehow politely ask some already existing educator site to extend its topic. Unfortunately, the major problem is that most SE communities become itchy if there is any suggestion about the extension of their topic, but they get very excited if there is a way to narrow it. :-(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, small sites are lesser exclusionist, and both the matheducator and the cseducator are small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/296587/259412" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="4f96e1e0-5349-4d88-9120-f14bd07e8527" CreationDate="2018-11-12T05:41:29.133" UserId="44126" Comment="deleted 251 characters in body" Text="First off, according to moderator view&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the [timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/437217/timeline) for the question, the five close votes included two for unclear, two for [homework-like](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/), and one for duplicate. The way the system responds when there are multiple close reasons given for a question is to pick one reason to display. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your basic question, how one electrical charge moves in the presence of another electric charge, is a staple of introductory and advanced E&amp;M courses.  In such a class, you would learn how to do this in many different situations: the two charges might have one or another mass ratio, or initial relative momenta, or impact parameter.  If you specified those things, you would be asking a homework-like question. Since you left them alone, there's not enough information to come up with a general answer to your question in a format that's a good fit for us.  That's probably the reason for the &quot;unclear&quot; and &quot;homework-like&quot; votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since gravity and electromagnetism are both $1/r^2$ forces, gravitational trajectories follow the same mathematics as electrical trajectories (if the electrical interaction is attractive).  That's probably the reason for the duplicate vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't cast any of those votes, but they all make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The diamond-moderators' view of the timeline contains some information that's hidden from ordinary users, including which users cast which type of close vote and other flag-type information that ought to remain private. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="58a03a1f-f240-4afa-a63f-7b4a25250e81" CreationDate="2018-11-12T09:36:58.387" UserId="114922" Text="Please, I need to know where a problem is if one posts their homework here and it is well formatted. The actual thing is they might have tried solving before coming here in the case where they didn't have another place to go seek for some 'thinking' or solution before the real homework correction day reaches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People may not sometimes always post such because they want everything to be solved for them... I personally don't post homework here though given I don't even participate around that often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if you can take a look into that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="58a03a1f-f240-4afa-a63f-7b4a25250e81" CreationDate="2018-11-12T09:36:58.387" UserId="114922" Text="I need more light on the home work policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="58a03a1f-f240-4afa-a63f-7b4a25250e81" CreationDate="2018-11-12T09:36:58.387" UserId="114922" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33477" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="cb9949d2-d61c-4c7d-b8c1-f890738b78ff" CreationDate="2018-11-12T09:44:08.873" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33478" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="cb9949d2-d61c-4c7d-b8c1-f890738b78ff" CreationDate="2018-11-12T09:44:08.873" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="I need more light on the homework policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="ca0f8748-fd2a-4146-8dcb-a76f1ae9436e" CreationDate="2018-11-12T11:00:04.563" UserId="114922" Comment="simple edit" Text="Please, I need to know what is wrong if one posts their homework here and it is well formatted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual thing is they might have tried solving before coming here in the case where they didn't have another place to go seek for some 'thinking' or solution before the real homework correction day reaches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People may not sometimes always post such because they want everything to be solved for them... I personally don't post homework here though given I don't even participate around that often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if you can take a look into that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="59fa6a23-e1b1-47d9-9094-fc98be24d3e8" CreationDate="2018-11-12T11:25:36.890" UserId="114922" Text="According to @Chair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will not really make sense for anybody to be scrounging through the answers to someone else's homework in order to find out how some aspect of physics works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only people who can be helped in this case are the people who have the exact same homework problem... I think I now get the point, anyway!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="d0dd49a5-655b-4c0c-853b-d59f442abe94" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:55:37.163" UserId="193942" Text="I have read on the Physics S.E website that users get a chance to ask question after 6 months of question ban&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you're unable to improve your existing questions, you'll get the chance to ask a new one 6 months after your last question. If that question is positively received, you may be able to continue asking questions; if not, then the ban will be reinstated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but my question ban is not getting removed even after 6 months,so what to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="d0dd49a5-655b-4c0c-853b-d59f442abe94" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:55:37.163" UserId="193942" Text="What to do if my question ban is not getting removed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="d0dd49a5-655b-4c0c-853b-d59f442abe94" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:55:37.163" UserId="193942" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="d6853162-e9d4-47ca-b817-326ddfb678d1" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:09:27.320" UserId="114922" Text="I have noticed that even if I mistakenly flag a comment, I cannot be able to retract the flag afterward... I think it will be a good feature to add the possibility to retract flags on comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="d6853162-e9d4-47ca-b817-326ddfb678d1" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:09:27.320" UserId="114922" Text="Possibility to retract flag on comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="d6853162-e9d4-47ca-b817-326ddfb678d1" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:09:27.320" UserId="114922" Text="|discussion|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="d1b7b172-8f46-4952-ae80-1a61febc9f19" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:56:50.710" UserId="127931" Text="Just looking at your history, you [asked this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/411600/kinematics-problem-invloving-position-and-time) less than 5 months ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the wording you provided yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you're unable to improve your existing questions, you'll get the chance to ask a new one **6 months after your last question**. If that question is positively received, you may be able to continue asking questions; if not, then the ban will be reinstated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should still have about a month to wait before you can ask a single question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice is to try to be careful when asking your question on the main site to avoid additional bans.  This question for example showed a lack of research or oversight; which can often lead to bad reception on the main site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33488" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="2e714bfb-c886-4a38-b11c-f7dd56addffe" CreationDate="2018-11-12T18:20:30.803" UserId="44126" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:44126,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;rob&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="1aed1939-aa7c-4695-b194-9212ae628e66" CreationDate="2018-11-13T14:40:14.033" UserId="2451" Comment=" I removed the word &quot;preferably.&quot;" Text="Abbreviations and acronyms should be explained, especially if in the title. Avoid abbreviations in titles, such as, e.g., [TDR](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/158625/2451), [BGK](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/66989/2451), [GTO](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/159611/2451), [EFE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/162105/2451), etc. Spell them out instead (as editors have later done in some of the above examples). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, but the most important part of the Phys.SE community is actually not the questioners nor the answerers but the readers. The readers are what keeps this site alive. If the only persons who read a post is the asker and the answerers, this site would not survive. In fact, it is likely what killed e.g. [TP.SE](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics): No readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, by making the title incomprehensible, a reader browsing the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) is forced to click the question to read the main body, which defeats the purpose of having a title in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the Phys.SE community has some pretty smart users around, who might be able to answer, even if they are not from exactly the same subfield. So as an asker, why shoot yourself in the foot by unnecessarily limit your potential answerers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33490" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="471af5d5-b2e7-466a-8c70-10c1053a3dab" CreationDate="2018-11-13T14:41:11.567" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|editing|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33491" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="1fbfcb41-717d-44e7-b92e-dbea2944e0f1" CreationDate="2018-11-13T14:51:35.660" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|faq|editing|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="df2b7d31-856a-46fc-b8f0-323bb1ffdaba" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:59:31.807" UserId="187409" Text="I've told to come here by another user after my question was put on hold a few days ago for being &quot;off-topic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What on Earth does &quot;conceptual&quot; mean? It's a word I see floating around a lot on this site and it's never explained. Ever. I asked the aforementioned user what it meant and they directed me here without actually giving me an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a load of vague hogwash?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="df2b7d31-856a-46fc-b8f0-323bb1ffdaba" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:59:31.807" UserId="187409" Text="What does conceptual mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="df2b7d31-856a-46fc-b8f0-323bb1ffdaba" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:59:31.807" UserId="187409" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="3c678bdb-e093-49c9-8460-747c16132798" CreationDate="2018-11-16T19:02:02.313" UserId="2451" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags; edited tags" Text="I've told to come here by another user after [my question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/440121/2451) was put on hold a few days ago for being &quot;off-topic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What on Earth does &quot;conceptual&quot; mean? It's a word I see floating around a lot on this site and it's never explained. Ever. I asked the aforementioned user what it meant and they directed me here without actually giving me an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a load of vague hogwash?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33502" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="3c678bdb-e093-49c9-8460-747c16132798" CreationDate="2018-11-16T19:02:02.313" UserId="2451" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="11531664-7609-4ad9-ab2a-22219b923692" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:18:15.253" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="No. It's not vague hogwash. As DavidZ's comment said, that turns people off since it makes it look like you aren't keen on actually finding out what it means." Text="I've told to come here by another user after [my question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/440121/2451) was put on hold a few days ago for being &quot;off-topic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;conceptual&quot; mean? It's a word I see floating around a lot on this site and it's never explained. Ever. I asked the aforementioned user what it meant and they directed me here without actually giving me an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="3578f64d-f978-4466-b441-cfe53c7c6a0b" CreationDate="2018-11-18T21:00:25.297" UserId="8563" Text="I'm sympathetic to your question, which is of relatively high quality and basically sits on the borderline between on- and off-topic, but I do think that it should be closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question starts off quite well, and it sets up a nice conceptual framework about the configuration you're considering. However, in the end, the core of the question itself is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From here, I don't know. I need to find some particular solution of the original equation. Can I assume a solution of the form $Ce^{-at}$ and would it be possible to do this with the sub-critical damping case instead of the one I've used? The homogeneous solution would then be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that basically reads &quot;please solve the rest for me&quot;, and that's just the type of homework-help that's off-topic here. This is particularly the case because you have a very obvious lead for a solution, and you very clearly have the ability to follow that lead further, but your question as written just refuses to do that work and hopes for others to chip in. (That may not be how you saw it as you were writing it down, but that's what's written.) From this juncture, we would expect a 'conceptual' question to follow that lead and then, if it didn't work, to say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I tried to follow on the obvious lead [i.e., assuming a solution of the form $Ce^{-at}$] but it gave me X and that doesn't work because of Y and Z. Why does that happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few extra points that fall out of your responses in the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The closure reason has an explicit link to [the homework guidelines](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/), which you were prompted to read multiple times. Writing dismissive statements about the site guidelines [without having read them](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10896/what-does-conceptual-mean#comment41696_10896) is not a particularly positive way to start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; How many people on this site are professionals in what they do? My bet is very little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   You'd be surprised, particularly if you select on the people who answer questions instead of ask them (and even more if you weigh by answers written, i.e. if you instead asked &quot;how many answers on this site are written by people who are professionals in what they do?&quot;). The precise answer depends on the precise way you phrase the question, and there's a fuzzy edge with a lot of people who haven't disclosed either way, but a good initial answer is &quot;a substantial fraction&quot;. It's what keeps the answer quality high, and we're simply not going to do things that risk turning that population away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; If they're interested in furthering the study of their subject, they should be more than happy to answer questions about said subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   We are. But we don't do this type of &quot;do my work for me&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; how does [...] get to be a moderator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   As of this writing there's [six community moderators](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators), who are easily identifiable by a ♦ after their username. (That's also the case for Stack Exchange employees, who don't intervene in this type of discussion unless it turns *very* sour.) Everyone else that's doing [moderation on Stack Exchange](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation/) is just a regular user and they've earned their moderation [privileges](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges) by dint of providing high-quality content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; What's the point of the homework tag if you won't answer homework questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Partly, the homework tag serves an administrative purpose so that bad homework questions can be identified and closed more quickly and easily before they cause active harm to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   But there are also a bunch of on-topic questions that require that tag. To see a sample, try [this search for non-closed homework-and-exercise questions with score $\geq$ 3](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&amp;q=%5bhomework-and-exercises%5d%20closed%3ano%20score%3a3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; I'm just gonna go to another forum site and ask it. Had enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I agree that this is a good idea :-). Your question demonstrates that you're able to write thoughtful, high-quality questions, and I look forward to reading some of them in the future if you decide to post them, but I would indeed advise you to keep it to non-homework questions for some time, while you get more experience with the site and see which questions fall on which side of the line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33506" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="94a80413-4988-4583-9341-a2bd8f8bafba" CreationDate="2018-11-20T12:10:56.520" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[714],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:191954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chair&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:38675,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jon Custer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33507" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="8cf6d917-aeeb-4686-90e2-19a05d7ffeb9" CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:57:35.677" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Why can't I ask hypothetical questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="8cf6d917-aeeb-4686-90e2-19a05d7ffeb9" CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:57:35.677" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Why can't I ask hypothetical questions about situations that can't happen in the first place, if I'm interested in the resulting phenomena and/or said situation will cause?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33509" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="5c8ada56-4033-4e5d-983a-1e2408a2671a" CreationDate="2018-11-20T18:00:56.953" UserId="8563" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="33510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="a9a08626-9d70-4e83-b3bd-b5291b74fa28" CreationDate="2018-11-20T18:06:35.863" UserId="8563" Comment="Formatting fixes while this is on top." Text="The simple answer is that science is a description of reality and not a speculative discipline. If you are speculating about a scenario that is not well understood, you can do it as part of hypothesis testing, but if something is well understood, like energy conservation in most regimes, then asking what would happen if it was strongly violated is simply not a scientific question. We can't know what would happen if the laws of nature would not be what they are. Pretty much everything in science is, directly or indirectly, strongly intertwined with everything else. Every one scientific construct is checked and cross-checked for consistency with everything else over and over, again. It's a tightly woven logical fabric. Take one thread out and the entire construction unravels in ways that would require a complete reanalysis that may be just as complex as the process of building what we have now in the first place was... and we would be lacking any guidance from nature, which would turn it, at best, into a field of mathematics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are asking about violations because you are trying to understand the significance of a law or a particular phenomenon, then you can always formulate the question in another way, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is the law of energy conservation so fundamental in physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we imagine ways in which the law of energy conservation may be broken without unravelling all of physics?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are actual questions that some physicists are asking for good, both theoretically and experimentally, and they do have important answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes we get questions from science fiction authors (or people who are toying with the idea of becoming one) who want a particular plot device validated by science. My advice for those would be to go one of two ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Invent a world with completely different physics. That's safe and it gives you many more means of artistic expression. Some of the best  science fiction and fantastic literature is based on that premise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you can't do (1), stick slavishly to textbook physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every attempt to walk the fine line between the two that I have seen ended up unmasking the author's inability to stick to his or her own logic. If you need examples for the latter type of literary catastrophe, pretty much every story ever written that has an &quot;ansible&quot; in it belongs into this category and so do almost all stories about time travel. It is extremely difficult to make up scenarios where a plot device lets the author do one particular thing but wouldn't give rise to a much more logical story line that uses the same device in a different way. Unless you are very good at constructing self-consistent story lines (in which case you would likely be making millions in Hollywood, already, and wouldn't have to ask us), don't go there.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="a62688d8-d6c1-492a-a40d-c22dd6c1fbf8" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:00:37.863" UserId="213122" Text="I feel concerned about a thought that I had recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if the current policy about duplicate questions may become problematic in the (*very*) long term for the health of Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain: as far as I understand, questions are marked duplicate when they have already been asked on the website at some point in the past. Thus, I can't help but consider the possibility that, at some point in a far future, almost **every single question would have been already answered** on Stack Exchange and then marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, what would be the difference between Wikipedia and Stack Exchange, except for completeness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would we be able to *exchange* our knowledge if 99% of questions are legitimately marked as duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, this website would just end up being a massive database of Q/A, with virtually no activity. On one hand, that would be great for readers, but on the other hand, users who love to challenge themselves, learn and share their expertise may lose interest as the activity slows down to zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we want for the future of Stack Exchange? What do you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;Am I taking this way too far?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="a62688d8-d6c1-492a-a40d-c22dd6c1fbf8" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:00:37.863" UserId="213122" Text="Is the demise of Stack Exchange (as we know it) ineluctable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="a62688d8-d6c1-492a-a40d-c22dd6c1fbf8" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:00:37.863" UserId="213122" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="fd3dbb81-c5ea-4c96-9a24-723019c3979e" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:37:28.653" UserId="213122" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I feel concerned about a thought that I had recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if the current policy about duplicate questions may become problematic in the (*very*) long term for the health of Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain: as far as I understand, questions are marked duplicate when they have already been asked on the website at some point in the past. Thus, I can't help but consider the possibility that, at some point in a far future, almost **every single question would have been already answered** on Stack Exchange and then marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, what would be the difference between Wikipedia and Stack Exchange, except for completeness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How would we be able to *exchange* our knowledge if 99% of questions are legitimately marked as duplicate?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, this website would just end up being a massive database of Q/A, with virtually no activity. On one hand, that would be great for readers, but on the other hand, users who love to challenge themselves, learn and share their expertise may lose interest as the activity slows down to zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we want for the future of Stack Exchange? What do you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;Am I taking this way too far?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="c862c595-6ee2-495d-bcff-ec8a64ec0595" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:53:48.743" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="86d25f2d-1b1c-422c-b368-0e03f618e28d" CreationDate="2018-11-22T12:45:57.967" UserId="2451" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Occasionally, I pass over a question merely because I don't understand an abbreviation or acronym.  I wonder if the instructions should encourage the definition of these things in the body of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes acronyms are well known, QFT and SHM are examples.  Others are less well known, or perhaps known to people in particular geographic regions, or graduates of certain schools.  An example I saw recently is &quot;SM&quot;.    Even after reading the question and having some understanding that I was out of my league on that one (and quickly eliminating &quot;Statistical Mechanics&quot;), I couldn't figure out SM.  Finally Standard Model came to mind, and I'm guessing that that's the correct meaning.  Even if that's the correct meaning, it's still certainly the first time I've ever seen that abbreviation.    Another recent example is &quot;IVP&quot;, for which I fully understood the question but still don't understand the abbreviation.   And some things are known by different names: KVL to some is the loop rule to others.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then there is the case where the abbreviation is well-known to those practiced in the art, in which case it doesn't matter at all if I don't understand the question.  In any event, in all the above cases, I'm annoyed that the original poster (OP) couldn't be bothered to be more clear.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this worth a mention in the help/instructions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="551f2f9f-81ba-4c45-b047-ccec1e198234" CreationDate="2018-11-22T12:49:25.797" UserId="213122" Comment="added 773 characters in body" Text="I feel concerned about a thought that I had recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if the current policy about duplicate questions may become problematic in the (*very*) long term for the health of Stack Exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain: as far as I understand, questions are marked duplicate when they have already been asked on the website at some point in the past. Thus, I can't help but consider the possibility that, at some point in a far future, almost **every single question would have been already answered** on Stack Exchange and then marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, what would be the difference between Wikipedia and Stack Exchange, except for completeness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How would we be able to *exchange* our knowledge if 99% of questions are legitimately marked as duplicate?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, this website would just end up being a massive database of Q/A, with virtually no activity. On one hand, that would be great for readers, but on the other hand, users who love to challenge themselves, learn and share their expertise may lose interest as the activity slows down to zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we want for the future of Stack Exchange? What do you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;Am I taking this way too far?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: Using Chair's contribution in the comments, I produced a graph that shows the evolution over time of the percentage of questions marked as duplicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data, obtained via this [query][2] covers the statistics of the website between august 2010 and november 2018.&#xD;&#xA;Between 2010 and 2015 the proportion of duplicates increases steeply, however something strange happens around 2016-2017 and then it is hard to tell if the curve is starting to increase again or stabilizing around a constant value of $7\%$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be interesting to see how this curve behave in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sb1B0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/793344/duplicates-posted-over-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10899" RevisionGUID="d6d37987-3a77-4e9b-9ee8-2a5397783c72" CreationDate="2018-11-22T13:37:22.803" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; and then it is hard to tell if the curve is starting to increase again or stabilizing around a constant value of 7%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is hard. It's pretty obvious to me that the duplicate closure rate has saturated at a value of about 7%. This is vaguely high for SE standards but not something I'd be at all inclined to worry about. [Here](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/931244/percentage-of-non-deleted-questions-which-get-closed-as-duplicates-month-by-mo#graph) is a copy of the query Chair linked to, which can be readily switched to other sites, to look for precedent in older databases and sites with a higher throughput.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The clearest example is Mathematics Stack Exchange, whose historical duplicate closure rate looks exactly like ours but with a longer stabilized period:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You get a similar situation in Cross Validated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fair bit of variation site-to-site, but there's multiple instances of the rise-then-saturate behaviour that's evident in the Physics data,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so I really don't see how the current historical data is in any way a cause for concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To paraphrase John, when you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am assuming that the number [total number of non-duplicate questions] will be asked on some timescale shorter than the heat death of the universe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that to be an unrealistic assumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9LySp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eR750.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HLmUg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="4168769c-5a15-4d61-b41d-49252d6b6e8e" CreationDate="2018-11-24T08:30:36.920" UserId="183259" Text="Even though I am a new contributor to SE, I have quite a long knowledge of on-line Q&amp;A or discussion  communities on the Internet. I think that the question hits an important point which goes beyond the pure analysis of data trends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, I can't help but consider the possibility that, at some point in a far future, almost every single question would have been already answered on Stack Exchange and then marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this sentence is based on a dangerous implicit assumption: that for each question there is *the ultimate answer* and nothing more can be said once *the* good answer has been provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience with physics and teaching physics, but also the analysis of part of the existing SE data, tell me something different. There are answers which could be considered as final, but there are also many answers which may be improved further.&#xD;&#xA;My strong impression is that  the possibility of improving an existing answer, is somewhat hampered by the mechanism of flagging a question as duplicate. The main reason being that new questions are much more visible than the oldest and the whole mechanism of gaining reputation from the judgement of the original poster of the question may be broken for answers to very old questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then, what would be the difference between Wikipedia and Stack Exchange, except for completeness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this question returns on the same point: a static view of a Q&amp;A site makes difficult to see the difference between Wikipedia  and SE. It is only the dynamic possibility of further improvement of the existing answers based on the history of the previous ones, which can be an important long term added value of SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How would we be able to exchange our knowledge if 99% of questions are legitimately marked as duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2 cents are that if people would wait, instead of hurrying up to mark as duplicate a question a few minutes after it has been asked, most of the concern about the future of SE would disappear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="d9ae720f-73e4-4c3e-9f87-4920d9aecfb5" CreationDate="2018-11-24T15:48:34.923" UserId="36194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Some poor quality questions should be systematically deleted.   Examples include [this one:](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435045/ufo-sighting-11th-september-2004-england-rg30-3rr) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this one:](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435405/if-consciousness-is-energy-is-energy-consciousness-i-e-does-energy-seem-to)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions that should be deleted are closed questions based on false or nonsensical premises.  An extreme example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that pigs can fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that all pigs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming this holds how can one keep pigs in a pen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions should not be answered.  Period.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My position on this is broadly in line with [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) argument: it is for posters to make sure the questions are sensible, not for answerers to debunk incorrect claims or personal theories by posters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, suggesting there is a contradiction - and we've seen plenty such questions especially in the context of special relativity - without proper research on the part of the poster cannot be constructive to the site.   Indeed, in such cases the most appropriate course of action would be not to answer but to insert a comment suggesting a reference/book so the poster can correct his/her misconceptions (although in the case of flying pigs it would be a challenge to find even that!).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not sure there is some sort of quantitative threshold (in terms of down votes) to be met in general, closure is usually a good hint that something's not right with the original post: there is ample opportunity to correct misconceptions, if only through comments.   Sufficient time for a poster to make appropriate corrections should be granted, although *sufficient* is somewhat vague and may depend on the actual post and the &quot;seniority&quot; of the poster: the two questions liked above should be IMO deleted as soon as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, sure we learn through mistakes but we have plenty of examples of closed questions for people to assess what makes a good or a bad question: we can afford to purge a great many duplicates and poorly received questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XWFFp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iATuy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="e9020b2d-df52-4810-8be0-f78758791343" CreationDate="2018-11-24T20:33:29.527" UserId="44126" Text="As long as there are new inventions and new discoveries, there will be new questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the network as a whole: find your favorite programming language that is less than ten years old, and search for questions about it on Stack Overflow. Or on Area 51.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For physics in particular: consider the timely questions about the OPERA superluminal neutrino non-result. Or look through time at the way questions about gravitational waves were changed by the LIGO detections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we come to a point where the scientific community has stopped coming up with new ideas to test, we will have bigger problems than the end of unique questions on Stack Exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33524" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="2624626b-8cda-43ce-8bd7-e49283ea53f7" CreationDate="2018-11-25T00:00:42.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1066481767476023296" />
  <row Id="33530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="adffc083-c931-4a08-83fa-44c591225265" CreationDate="2018-11-25T15:00:48.483" UserId="36194" Comment="deleted 140 characters in body" Text="Some poor quality questions should be systematically deleted.   Examples include [![this one][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;and [this one:](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435405/if-consciousness-is-energy-is-energy-consciousness-i-e-does-energy-seem-to)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions that should be deleted are closed questions based on false or nonsensical premises.  An extreme example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that pigs can fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand that all pigs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming this holds how can one keep pigs in a pen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions should not be answered.  Period.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My position on this is broadly in line with [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) argument: it is for posters to make sure the questions are sensible, not for answerers to debunk incorrect claims or personal theories by posters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, suggesting there is a contradiction - and we've seen plenty such questions especially in the context of special relativity - without proper research on the part of the poster cannot be constructive to the site.   Indeed, in such cases the most appropriate course of action would be not to answer but to insert a comment suggesting a reference/book so the poster can correct his/her misconceptions (although in the case of flying pigs it would be a challenge to find even that!).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not sure there is some sort of quantitative threshold (in terms of down votes) to be met in general, closure is usually a good hint that something's not right with the original post: there is ample opportunity to correct misconceptions, if only through comments.   Sufficient time for a poster to make appropriate corrections should be granted, although *sufficient* is somewhat vague and may depend on the actual post and the &quot;seniority&quot; of the poster: the two questions liked above should be IMO deleted as soon as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, sure we learn through mistakes but we have plenty of examples of closed questions for people to assess what makes a good or a bad question: we can afford to purge a great many duplicates and poorly received questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t7Bg1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iATuy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="ba99d007-614f-4dd9-8316-0e3dae58299f" CreationDate="2018-11-25T17:26:44.220" UserId="211169" Text="I think there ought to be a reasonable time limit (3 month?, as a first bid) after which a question may be putten again without incurring a &quot;duplicate&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33532" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="f0e15c2d-552b-4bd3-be63-3b425d11c7c6" CreationDate="2018-11-25T19:41:53.630" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443259/do-my-questions-need-to-be-in-the-form-of-math-math-jax" />
  <row Id="33533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="2f1a0499-9f96-43c9-8ea1-3d3ac3f2adb2" CreationDate="2018-11-25T19:38:48.727" UserId="119067" Text="I asked a question recently. With the question I included a picture of the question with my best handwriting. But received very harsh criticism from two users who insisted that the question be in mathfax form. I have made the promise that I will learn it later. However, does this mean that without use of mathfax, my question will never be answered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don’t see the topic this question would go under." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="2f1a0499-9f96-43c9-8ea1-3d3ac3f2adb2" CreationDate="2018-11-25T19:38:48.727" UserId="119067" Text="Do my questions need to be in the form of math math Jax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="2f1a0499-9f96-43c9-8ea1-3d3ac3f2adb2" CreationDate="2018-11-25T19:38:48.727" UserId="119067" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="5393b0fe-7cd2-4072-b910-6da24d46c353" CreationDate="2018-11-25T21:01:20.750" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|mathjax|formatting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="64cffacf-5a60-4c4f-aceb-766aee6b5f08" CreationDate="2018-11-25T22:07:40.980" UserId="124" Comment="fix spelling and remove some obsolete fluff" Text="I asked a question recently. With the question I included a picture of the question with my best handwriting. But received very harsh criticism from two users who insisted that the question be in MathJax form. I have made the promise that I will learn it later. However, does this mean that without use of MathJax, my question will never be answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33538" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="64cffacf-5a60-4c4f-aceb-766aee6b5f08" CreationDate="2018-11-25T22:07:40.980" UserId="124" Comment="fix spelling and remove some obsolete fluff" Text="Does math in my questions need to be in the form of MathJax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10906" RevisionGUID="e66f469b-f492-4ded-a4db-c747296c1b02" CreationDate="2018-11-25T22:27:23.503" UserId="124" Text="&gt; However, does this mean that without use of MathJax, my question will never be answered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is no, it doesn't mean that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's more going on here than just MathJax. From what you described, it sounds like your question actually had a much more severe problem, which is that you posted images of something that could be typed out. That's a big no-no here. We expect anything that can be typed should be typed, not posted as an image, because images are not searchable, not always archivable, not accessible to screen readers, may not be readable for everyone, take up significantly more storage space and bandwidth, and so on - this has been discussed at length [elsewhere on this meta site](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part). Rightly or wrongly, posting an image of text (or math) makes you look kind of lazy, and that makes a lot of people pretty reluctant to help you out - we are much more motivated to help answer questions where the poster has done their research, not only on the question itself, but also on how to properly ask it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes your question will still be answered even if you post images of text or don't use MathJax for the math, but it probably will take you longer to get an answer, and you're less likely to get a really good one. Using the proper formatting increases your chances of getting a good answer quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a new member to the site, we understand that you might not know MathJax already, so people can be a little bit more lenient, when it's your first post, if you use images for equations or type them out without using MathJax. In those cases, you'll probably get a comment asking you to use MathJax for the math, and someone may be nice enough to do the edit for you to give you an example of how it works. But that's only for brand new site members. Once you've been told about MathJax, or you've been around for a little while and seen it in use, you should be using it yourself. It's not particularly hard to [learn the basics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/notation), and as long as you're making the effort (and learning as you go), people will probably be willing to fix up minor mistakes for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="08056f07-4d02-45cc-81d8-18d6cc727a18" CreationDate="2018-11-26T05:25:44.357" UserId="96475" Text="Why are questions concerning the consistency of different parts of mainstream physics with one another considered as questions about non-mainstream physics and put on hold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked a question about how different parts of mainstream physics that to me seemed inconsistent with one another were consistent with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question was erroneously put on hold by the users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dale, ZeroTheHero, and David&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question concerned is https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443322/explain-this-critizism-of-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy?noredirect=1#comment995466_443322&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would ask that the question is immediately put back, and that these users are relieved of their moderation privileges. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="08056f07-4d02-45cc-81d8-18d6cc727a18" CreationDate="2018-11-26T05:25:44.357" UserId="96475" Text="Should this really be put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="08056f07-4d02-45cc-81d8-18d6cc727a18" CreationDate="2018-11-26T05:25:44.357" UserId="96475" Text="|discussion|policy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="dc08e039-7369-489b-b259-2a0406e74ff8" CreationDate="2018-11-26T05:55:01.363" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33544" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="a2616525-2fd6-4d63-a90f-63a241a63f31" CreationDate="2018-11-26T06:01:57.630" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|specific-question|reopen|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="d0a43b9e-4921-463c-b59d-e130d417bc6b" CreationDate="2018-11-26T11:21:26.953" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="d0a43b9e-4921-463c-b59d-e130d417bc6b" CreationDate="2018-11-26T11:21:26.953" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="c4485c34-663a-48b8-8d18-ebea0d51ee74" CreationDate="2018-11-26T11:21:26.953" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="c4485c34-663a-48b8-8d18-ebea0d51ee74" CreationDate="2018-11-26T11:21:26.953" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10910" RevisionGUID="b928d423-a893-49b2-a3e9-c2882e9f6407" CreationDate="2018-11-26T12:04:05.307" UserId="44126" Text="I would personally have used the &quot;too broad&quot; close reason rather than &quot;non-mainstream&quot; to close your off-topic question. The experimental evidence supporting conservation of energy is a central part of a year-long introductory physics course, talking up most of two chapters of a typical introductory textbook. Your question is answerable, but it contains so many misapprehensions about how to describe a conservation-of-energy problem that a proper answer would contain nearly as much detail as a textbook chapter --- but with a lot of back-and-forth with you to ensure that some other misconception did not distract you along the way. All of our users who are educators have answered questions like yours from students *in person*, and that experience suggests that an answer which will satisfy you intellectually will not be a good fit for our question-and-answer format. That's why your question was closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not usually take action to change the close reason on a question, even in the more common case where attempts to make the question on-topic actually change the reason that it doesn't work for us. For instance, sometimes the asker of a &quot;too broad&quot; question will edit the question to make it more specific, and turn it into a &quot;homework-like&quot; question. Such questions stay closed, with (hopefully) a justification in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it's quite rare for us to need to revoke someone's permission to cast close/re-open votes on questions, and basically never in response to a disagreement over a single review. Your request for such censure is evidence that you don't yet understand how our community works. Stick around for a while and you'll start to see what I mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="71e7db1b-7541-444f-9e9a-aeb5eaac9303" CreationDate="2018-11-26T16:27:38.753" UserId="160136" Text="There is a question I believe to be well on topic, relevant, and interesting.  It is asking to consider a fictional scenario and evaluate, as given in the fictional scenario, whether it is possible to achieve with classical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, I believe, people who are misapplying the prohibition against fictional physics, who have voted to put the question on hold.  The prohibition is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Questions about fictional physics** &quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; black hole?&quot; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me to suggest the prohibition is against trying to determine whether fictional physics rules would allow something to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is asking for a scenario to be evaluated against real-world physics then off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it off topic to ask if a fictional scenario is possible as it is described, *if* the physical rules being asked to judge it against are real-world rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example, would asking if Verne's moon cannon is possible be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there recourse if off-topic rules are misapplied?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="71e7db1b-7541-444f-9e9a-aeb5eaac9303" CreationDate="2018-11-26T16:27:38.753" UserId="160136" Text="What is the line between fiction and physics with respect to off-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="71e7db1b-7541-444f-9e9a-aeb5eaac9303" CreationDate="2018-11-26T16:27:38.753" UserId="160136" Text="|discussion|scope|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="689f2ee1-7a41-4daa-9178-f2c51238700d" CreationDate="2018-11-26T18:50:02.767" UserId="127931" Text="Personally, I would agree with your assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about potentially fictional scenarios utilizing real physics would be on topic; because that would be in-essence the same as any hypothetical question concerned with real physical processes.  It's important to note that this still needs to adhere to the rules regarding a conceptual focus.  So for example &quot;Why did X do Y when Z?&quot;  isn't really conceptual.  If you can relate it directly to a concept in physics, and explain why that leads to a question, you're usually in pretty good shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there still needs to be enough information to provide a good answer that is in-line with physics, and avoid being broad and opinion based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fictional physics should be off topic, but physics in fiction is not inherently off topic. As long as regular physics concepts can be reasonably applied to the scenario, and it is only about the scope of reality in a fictional scenario, these questions should be on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this relates to the question [&quot;Could Sam have pierced Shelob's carapace?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443260/could-sam-have-pierced-shelobs-carapace/).  If that's the case, I would agree that it's on-topic for this site.  There are actually a couple Lord of the Rings examples that can be cited as well, such as [&quot;Could Legolas actually see that far?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far) and [&quot;Would molten gold “push” large, heavy objects away instead of submerging them?&quot;](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339387/would-molten-gold-push-large-heavy-objects-away-instead-of-submerging-them/).  Both take events from the fictional story and ask about the physics, and if the depiction is realistic in our own world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I voted to reopen the question because I feel it did fit within the scope of Physics Stack Exchange as it is worded now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="7b2b3910-ea31-4ea6-a063-9745a27582fb" CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:08:23.567" UserId="160136" Comment="Additional sub-question about off-topic rules used to vote populist questions closed, put in link" Text="There [is a question][1] I believe to be well on topic, relevant, and interesting.  It is asking to consider a fictional scenario and evaluate, as given in the fictional scenario, whether it is possible to achieve with classical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, I believe, people who are misapplying the prohibition against fictional physics, who have voted to put the question on hold.  The prohibition is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Questions about fictional physics** &quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; black hole?&quot; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me to suggest the prohibition is against trying to determine whether fictional physics rules would allow something to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is asking for a scenario to be evaluated against real-world physics then off topic?  Is it off topic to ask if a fictional scenario is possible as it is described, *if* the physical rules being asked to judge it against are real-world rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example, would asking if Verne's moon cannon is possible be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EDIT] Since it did not occur to me when I first wrote this that the off-topic rule was being *intentionally* misapplied, I further ask is Vote to Close as Off-Topic an appropriate remedy for dealing with questions that are deemed too populist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there recourse if off-topic rules are misapplied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443260/could-sam-have-pierced-shelobs-carapace/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33555" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="7b2b3910-ea31-4ea6-a063-9745a27582fb" CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:08:23.567" UserId="160136" Comment="Additional sub-question about off-topic rules used to vote populist questions closed, put in link" Text="What is the line between fiction and physics with respect to off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="22980a89-6141-49eb-845f-186fc4442717" CreationDate="2018-11-26T22:01:59.673" UserId="160136" Comment="Removed added subquestion to pose as separate meta question" Text="There [is a question][1] I believe to be well on topic, relevant, and interesting.  It is asking to consider a fictional scenario and evaluate, as given in the fictional scenario, whether it is possible to achieve with classical physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, I believe, people who are misapplying the prohibition against fictional physics, who have voted to put the question on hold.  The prohibition is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Questions about fictional physics** &quot;Could a warp drive get you out of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; black hole?&quot; Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be on topic at Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me to suggest the prohibition is against trying to determine whether fictional physics rules would allow something to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is asking for a scenario to be evaluated against real-world physics then off topic?  Is it off topic to ask if a fictional scenario is possible as it is described, *if* the physical rules being asked to judge it against are real-world rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example, would asking if Verne's moon cannon is possible be off topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there recourse if off-topic rules are misapplied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443260/could-sam-have-pierced-shelobs-carapace/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="3b5c5c5f-715c-42ae-a770-c37a8296598c" CreationDate="2018-11-26T22:33:37.263" UserId="160136" Text="**Background:** There are users who have been using the privilege to vote to close a question as off-topic as a way of dealing with &quot;populist&quot; questions (see the discussion [here][1]) believing them to be &quot;clickbait&quot; and/or to bring the professionalism of this site into disrepute as they interpret it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** If a question meets the requirements of the [written rules][2] regarding what is on topic, is the use of the privilege to vote-to-close a question as off-topic a valid remedy for other issues a user with this privilege might have with the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, this could be posed as &quot;does granting someone the *ability* to perform an action grant that person with the *authority* to decide when that action should be applied?  In specific, do users with the vote-to-close-as-off-topic ability have the authority to apply that vote to address other issues?  If there is a case where those votes are misapplied (and this isn't suggesting that the example given in the background was such a case), is there a redress process better than going to meta and saying &quot;hey what gives&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10911/what-is-the-line-between-fiction-and-physics-with-respect-to-off-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="3b5c5c5f-715c-42ae-a770-c37a8296598c" CreationDate="2018-11-26T22:33:37.263" UserId="160136" Text="Is Vote to Close as Off-Topic an appropriate remedy for questions that are deemed too &quot;populist&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="3b5c5c5f-715c-42ae-a770-c37a8296598c" CreationDate="2018-11-26T22:33:37.263" UserId="160136" Text="|discussion|scope|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="4c715a0e-ace2-445c-9039-554eeb292ecc" CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:10:05.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**Background:** There are users who have been using the privilege to vote to close a question as off-topic as a way of dealing with &quot;populist&quot; questions (see the discussion [here][1]) believing them to be &quot;clickbait&quot; and/or to bring the professionalism of this site into disrepute as they interpret it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** If a question meets the requirements of the [written rules][2] regarding what is on topic, is the use of the privilege to vote-to-close a question as off-topic a valid remedy for other issues a user with this privilege might have with the question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, this could be posed as &quot;does granting someone the *ability* to perform an action grant that person with the *authority* to decide when that action should be applied?  In specific, do users with the vote-to-close-as-off-topic ability have the authority to apply that vote to address other issues?  If there is a case where those votes are misapplied (and this isn't suggesting that the example given in the background was such a case), is there a redress process better than going to meta and saying &quot;hey what gives&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10911/ &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="4c715a0e-ace2-445c-9039-554eeb292ecc" CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:10:05.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is Vote to Close as Off-Topic an appropriate remedy for questions that are deemed too &quot;populist&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="4c715a0e-ace2-445c-9039-554eeb292ecc" CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:10:05.190" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|questions|close-reasons|review|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10914" RevisionGUID="4972730c-090f-4885-9d6f-72e427825990" CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:31:21.183" UserId="8563" Text="Since you've added this to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is Vote to Close as Off-Topic an appropriate remedy for dealing with questions that are deemed too &quot;populist&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**with due apologies, yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, with due apologies, inflammatory language like &quot;too populist&quot; sounds a whole lot like you don't understand the background, so let me fill you in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you're aware with the Hot Network Questions sidebar, which is (with a pretty complete certainty) where you found the question that sparked this. It's less clear whether you're aware of how questions are selected for it: the algorithm, detailed [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/61343), selects for questions with a large number of answers and a large number of votes, and that inevitably selects for lowest-common denominator junk-food questions that a broad audience can upvote (but not for the more valuable questions on the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More noxiously, however, the HNQ sidebar is subject to an extremely damaging feedback mechanism, which allows for runaway snowball effects fed by votes that come from *outside* of this site's community, without any particular frame for what counts as a quality question or answer on this site. (Even worse, if external visitors come in, they're welcome to upvote, but they can't downvote.) This leads to a skewing effect that can take what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill question, blast off all of this site's regular quality-control mechanisms, and award huge scores to questions and answers that would otherwise be considered mediocre or outright bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And lest you think that this is just my opinion: here's some examples from [Interpersonal Skills](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1314/), [Skeptics](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3288), [Academia](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3582), [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3033), [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6293), (then) [Programmers](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6516) and [Code Golf](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7150) complaining about the feature. There's plenty more where those came from, though there's plenty of relevant posts (particularly for the bulk of the complaints in chat) that are relatively hard to query for.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of these problems, there has been a sustained series of petitions over the past ~ four years to reform the HNQ sidebar, so that it stops doing damage to SE sites and actually works to promote quality content. (My main posts on the subject are [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286020/), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286986) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/252690/), if you're interested.) To be clear: there have been multiple, repeated calls on SE to allow communities to moderate what gets shown on that sidebar and control how the titles there represent their sites, to curb the feedback mechanisms that make it harmful, and to reform it into something that puts the spotlight on quality content instead of lowest-common-denominator junk-food questions that alienate the users that communities want to keep. (Have a look through [the hot-questions tag on Meta SE for a sampling](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hot-questions?sort=votes&amp;pageSize=15).) Unfortunately, because of a variety of reasons, none of that ever happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... until, that is, all hell broke loose a month ago, in an episode documented in all its gory details (though not necessarily in easy-to-parse chronological order) at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha. It *appears* that SE is on the road to fixing this mechanism, hopefully by *both* reforming it so it's biased towards quality content instead of junk-food questions, and by allowing SE communities better and more fine-grained control over what gets advertised network-wide. However, there is no set timeline for this and the solutions won't come quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when a borderline-off-topic question with a catchy clickbait title gets picked up by the algorithm and starts picking up a snowball of votes from a population of users that have no involvement with this site, the toolset that SE puts at our disposal is essentially limited to one option: to slam the brakes on it. This involves putting it on hold, getting OP to fix the glaring problems (and then, *if* they're not responsive, doing more major edits that deviate from the OP's intent), fixing the title so that it's no longer a clickbait fly-magnet, and dealing with the inevitable crop of awful answers that generally crop up. Then, once the timer has cooled down, and if the problems have been fixed, it can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that stub a few toes that ideally shouldn't be? Yes, it does. But until SE comes up with better tools to moderate this, the only tool available is to apply a more stringent topicality filter to questions on the list. If you want to change things, join the discussion over on Meta SE and help us pressure SE to fix this mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some final notes regarding some additional inflammatory language like &quot;abuse of reputation&quot; and &quot;authority&quot; - you seem to have missed an important part of the &quot;vote to close&quot; mechanism, namely the **vote** part. Questions only get closed if five 3k+ users vote to close them, and if that quorum for a consensus doesn't get reached, single close-votes don't do anything to the question. Your problem here isn't with single users, it's with the quorum of (now seven) users who think this question should be closed in its current state and position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is there a redress process better than going to meta and saying &quot;hey what gives&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is *precisely* what meta is for. Why do you want something &quot;better&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10914" RevisionGUID="0c963226-cdca-4267-a013-7b44ea76bcfe" CreationDate="2018-11-26T23:37:27.903" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="&gt; is Vote to Close as Off-Topic an appropriate remedy for dealing with questions that are deemed too &quot;populist&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**with due apologies, yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, with due apologies, inflammatory language like &quot;too populist&quot; sounds a whole lot like you don't understand the background, so let me fill you in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you're aware with the Hot Network Questions sidebar, which is (with a pretty complete certainty) where you found the question that sparked this. It's less clear whether you're aware of how questions are selected for it: the algorithm, detailed [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/61343), selects for questions with a large number of answers and a large number of votes, and that inevitably selects for lowest-common denominator junk-food questions that a broad audience can upvote (but not for the more valuable questions on the site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More noxiously, however, the HNQ sidebar is subject to an extremely damaging feedback mechanism, which allows for runaway snowball effects fed by votes that come from *outside* of this site's community, without any particular frame for what counts as a quality question or answer on this site. (Even worse, if external visitors come in, they're welcome to upvote, but they can't downvote.) This leads to a skewing effect that can take what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill question, blast off all of this site's regular quality-control mechanisms, and award huge scores to questions and answers that would otherwise be considered mediocre or outright bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And lest you think that this is just my opinion: here's some examples from [Interpersonal Skills](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1314/), [Skeptics](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3288), [Academia](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3582), [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3033), [Electrical Engineering](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6293), (then) [Programmers](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6516) and [Code Golf](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7150) complaining about the feature. There's plenty more where those came from, though there's plenty of relevant posts (particularly for the bulk of the complaints in chat) that are relatively hard to query for.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of these problems, there has been a sustained series of petitions over the past ~ four years to reform the HNQ sidebar, so that it stops doing damage to SE sites and actually works to promote quality content. (My main posts on the subject are [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286020/), [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286986) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/252690/), if you're interested.) To be clear: there have been multiple, repeated calls on SE to allow communities to moderate what gets shown on that sidebar and control how the titles there represent their sites, to curb the feedback mechanisms that make it harmful, and to reform it into something that puts the spotlight on quality content instead of lowest-common-denominator junk-food questions that alienate the users that communities want to keep. (Have a look through [the hot-questions tag on Meta SE for a sampling](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hot-questions?sort=votes&amp;pageSize=15).) Unfortunately, because of a variety of reasons, none of that ever happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... until, that is, all hell broke loose a month ago, in an episode documented in all its gory details (though not necessarily in easy-to-parse chronological order) at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha. It *appears* that SE is on the road to fixing this mechanism, hopefully by *both* reforming it so it's biased towards quality content instead of junk-food questions, and by allowing SE communities better and more fine-grained control over what gets advertised network-wide. However, there is no set timeline for this and the solutions won't come quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when a borderline-off-topic question with a catchy clickbait title gets picked up by the algorithm and starts picking up a snowball of votes from a population of users that have no involvement with this site, the toolset that SE puts at our disposal is essentially limited to one option: to slam the brakes on it. This involves putting it on hold, getting OP to fix the glaring problems (and then, *if* they're not responsive, doing more major edits that deviate from the OP's intent), fixing the title so that it's no longer a clickbait fly-magnet, and dealing with the inevitable crop of awful answers that generally crop up. Then, once the timer has cooled down, and if the problems have been fixed, it can be reopened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that stub a few toes that ideally shouldn't be? Yes, it does. But until SE comes up with better tools to moderate this, the only tool available is to apply a more stringent topicality filter to questions on the list. If you want to change things, join the discussion over on Meta SE and help us pressure SE to fix this mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some final notes regarding some additional inflammatory language like &quot;abuse of reputation&quot; and &quot;authority&quot; - you seem to have missed an important part of the &quot;vote to close&quot; mechanism, namely the **vote** part. Questions only get closed if five 3k+ users vote to close them, and if that quorum for a consensus doesn't get reached, single close-votes don't do anything to the question. Your problem here isn't with single users, it's with the quorum of (now seven) users who think this question should be closed in its current state and position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is there a redress process better than going to meta and saying &quot;hey what gives&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is *precisely* what meta is for. Why do you want something &quot;better&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10915" RevisionGUID="a3290c0c-18dd-45f4-9d53-901b4d46fa69" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:10:21.830" UserId="127931" Text="To the title of the question, I would say no.  I don't believe a question that is deemed &quot;too populist&quot; alone should be closed as Off-topic for this site.  Voting is a privilege; but voting to close a question because it is too popular is considered abusing that, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;... That said, I feel like the question you're referencing is something else completely.  You're taking a comment pretty far out of context.  That question is quite borderline, and it's reasonable to believe that people are willing to vote it off topic.  If they feel it is off topic, that is well within their right as users who have earned the privilege to vote and help better curate the content here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That brings me to my second point.  It's pretty hard to prove that anyone is closing a question for reasons completely outside the scope of closure.  In this case, it seems clear to me that everyone who voted to close did not feel the question was a good fit for this site.  It was popular and borderline, that's bound to attract close votes if warranted at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seemed to me like you interpreted Emilio's statement as if it were the _only_ reason the question had close votes, but that seems pretty far from the case.  I voted the question down myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10916" RevisionGUID="020888dc-2db8-4090-9a7e-421a01761210" CreationDate="2018-11-27T03:20:07.700" UserId="25301" Text="As the lead in voting to close this question, I did so because I don't think analyzing physics in *fictional* settings is something we should address here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is simple: it  is fiction. Which means it's fake. As in *not real*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why we have the remarks about fictional physics in the help center: to prevent such questions from coming about, thereby lowering the site quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should think it painfully obvious that any analysis of the story should be done in the *fictional setting* it is written in, which means *not on this site* because we deal with the real world. You could possibly ask such questions at SciFi.SE, but I don't think they're terribly receptive to the &quot;Science of X&quot; queries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my opinion that all examples given by JMac *should* be closed because they're about physics of fictional settings, which, again, is expressly off-topic given by the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10916" RevisionGUID="18f2ea21-ad21-4b58-974e-d023016b923e" CreationDate="2018-11-27T11:05:41.797" UserId="25301" Comment="because WillO is an assclown, adding more details" Text="As the lead in voting to close this question, I did so because I don't think analyzing physics in *fictional* settings&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; is something we should address here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is simple: it  is fiction. Which means it's fake. As in *not real*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why we have the remarks about fictional physics in the help center: to prevent such questions from coming about, thereby lowering the site quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should think it painfully obvious that any analysis of the story should be done in the *fictional setting* it is written in, which means *not on this site* because we deal with the real world. You could possibly ask such questions at SciFi.SE, but I don't think they're terribly receptive to the &quot;Science of X&quot; queries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my opinion that all examples given by JMac *should* be closed because they're about physics of fictional settings, which, again, is expressly off-topic given by the help center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. To address the overly pedantic response in comments: by &quot;fictional setting,&quot; we are not considering end of chapter (EOC) problems in textbooks because these are *idealizations* of scenarios aimed at instructing students in physics. We are considering works of [*literature*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature), specifically [science fiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction) and [fantasy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy) where laws of science are generally broken/disregarded.  &#xD;&#xA;EOC problems may be off-topic for other reasons (e.g., homework), but they would *not* be off-topic because of &quot;physics of fictional settings&quot; as mentioned here.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="6e78ad3a-3358-4e57-9d7c-d7d88ea4c262" CreationDate="2018-11-27T12:31:53.650" UserId="77072" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="For (meta) questions about the policy to disallow non-mainstream physics questions on the main site. For details, see the tag wiki." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33569" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="6e78ad3a-3358-4e57-9d7c-d7d88ea4c262" CreationDate="2018-11-27T12:31:53.650" Comment="Proposed by 77072 approved by 32426, 25301 edit id of 30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="1c32cfe4-0da9-45d5-bec1-51db30e47a98" CreationDate="2018-11-27T19:31:25.143" UserId="77072" Comment="added 420 characters in body" Text="Questions about non-mainstream physics are usually closed as off-topic with the following reason:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33571" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="1c32cfe4-0da9-45d5-bec1-51db30e47a98" CreationDate="2018-11-27T19:31:25.143" Comment="Proposed by 77072 approved by 32426, 106502 edit id of 29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10917" RevisionGUID="845e02e6-ea27-407d-9201-dd69d755c4a6" CreationDate="2018-11-28T12:43:43.963" UserId="114696" Text="[Problem Solving Strategies chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160/problem-solving-strategies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This requires a rep of at least 20 points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical questions come from college/university exam preparation (mainly JEE) and undergraduate level physics courses, and cover mathematics and physical chemistry as well as physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of [ChatJax](http://www.math.ucla.edu/~robjohn/math/mathjax.html) is preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10918" RevisionGUID="94de7750-a9cc-4f63-8cca-bebb9404870c" CreationDate="2018-11-28T23:35:18.863" UserId="36194" Text="With due respect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is to challenge an established physical law, the onus is on the person to present a challenge that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Very well researched,&#xD;&#xA;2. Clearly stated,&#xD;&#xA;3. and presents evidence of at least one situation in which the law is invalid, or proposes a situation in which the validity of the law could be challenged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your post does not meet any of the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should always keep an open mind.  This includes the possibility that we ourselves have misunderstood some aspect of a problem, hence the importance of the first criteria.  I’m reminded pretty much everyday that very many people in the professional physics business are at least as smart as I am: this also highlights the importance of thoroughly researching any claims before suggesting they are false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I am a believer in a variant of [Russell’s teapot][1] argument: that the onus is on the challenger to explain his/her claim clearly, not on the audience to waste time debunking this or that elementary misconception on the part of the challenger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33575" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="3823b6f1-1b59-4187-9188-14bc21097577" CreationDate="2018-12-01T06:00:23.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="c58ee015-1833-4b30-a2fd-fa23bb1e984e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:50:22.207" UserDisplayName="user218113" Text="I asked [this][1] question which I later learned was apparently preposterous and was heavily downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was still positive that some one will one day come across my question who will be generous and patient enough to look through my question and help me understand it better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a few days ago I wanted to check the status of the question, but to my surprise I did not find it in my list of asked questions. And then I looked through my &quot;all actions&quot; tab and &quot;reputation&quot; tab entries. *Nowhere!!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After like 30 mins of search fortunately I found an old conversation of mine, in a chat room , where I had mentioned the link to my question, So I was able to retrieve the question. And it said to undelete the question it required votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are the upvotes from others are possible if you hide the question from everyone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I commented the link to this question, on my other questions requesting users to analyze it and **upovote for the undeletion** if they found it right. But then I get a private  message from moderators, that such commenting is not in line with the spirit of the website and I should instead ask in meta site or a chat room, which I found completely justified, so I messaged them back apologizing and told them that I would delete the comments that I posted on my questions requesting the undeletion and I go onto delete the comments, again to my surprise all of my comments are **deleted without my permission.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this totally wrong on so many levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firstly**, we already have the privilege of downvoting the question. If we find someone's question to be inappropriate we can downvote it vehemently, but we should not have the privilege of deleting the question for who knows, after sometime there may come new visitors who will upvote the question more, so by deleting it you are preventing the self correcting mechanism of society. By deleting a question you are removing a data sample from the public access and I believe it is a violent invasion of freedom of speech. And the reason that is given is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoned, unanswered questions can be a nuisance for readers when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear in search results. While every question deserves a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be answered, at some point the annoyance to those searching for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, the Community user will automatically delete old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandoned / dead questions in the following circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at some point the annoyance to those searching for a solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will be provided&quot; . This is dangerous as this chooses **practicality over truth**. That is not how science works, we will have to examine extremely annoying ideas and take on ordeals, to come to the truth of reality. **Instead of deleting the question, question with high downvotes can be shown in the end, therefore fixing nuisance problem.** And people who are searching the answer will notice the downvotes and will not engage in that quesion. Why don't we let people decide for themselves. Rather than saying here is a question, which many people think is bad, see if you want to spend time on it, it is objectively worse to hide that question from the &quot;those searching for a solution&quot;. A question is not an atomic statement. The question and its description can layout an unprecedented way of thinking which can bring forth valuable insights. By deleting the question all this organic nuanced dynamic is thrown out of window. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondly**, even though we can delete the question, why are we removing every reference of the question, almost obsessively, from the website. In my personal profile, the question is deleted from my list of asked questions. How can we do it? Not just that, every reference of the question, from &quot;all actions&quot; and &quot;reputation&quot; entries is also erased? This was absolutely unnecessary, if I did not have the link to my own question somehow, I would have lost my question, I could have had some potentially valuable information or insight in that question. This is absolutely not acceptable, as this almost equivalent to destruction of my private data and infringement of my privacy and my access to my own data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thirdly**, I can't ask any question, because if I try to ask a question it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You have reached your question limit Sorry, we are no longer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously? If we think that someone is not contributing to the community, we can take away that person's reputation. It is one of the purpose of reputation. But we simply cannot excommunicate the user. It seems to be a redundant functionality. And it's also not very effective, because all that someone needs to do is create a new account and start asking questions. This does not fix anything. Instead if we feel like someone is not genuine we can take the reputation off or make his/her reputation negative.  So that particular person will obviously be neglected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary** I agree there should be some measures to ensure the ease and quality of the website. And we do have such measures like downvoting, flagging, reputation loss. But I argue that deleting someone's question, and also banning that person from asking questions and obsessively removing references of the question thereby effectively taking away the access to the question, even to the person who asked it, is a blatant invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. A conflation of moderation with censoring. And a set of redundant unnecessary features which are arguably not the best practices in the field of Science, where truth is of the highest value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that this question will be met with rigorous downvoting, will be put on hold as off-topic or opinion-based, and in a couple of days closed and in a week or a month deleted and wiped clean from the face of this website. **And then someone writes a blog on why stack exchange is hostile to newcomers. Seriously?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I also speculate if **Einstein** was to be born in this day and age and asks something which is non-populistic, he will not be discussed with, instead his questions will be downvoted, he will be banned from asking questions, his questions will be wiped clean by &quot;moderators&quot;. This is not Science, this is online-mob-censoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402639/mbnm-measuringbynotmeasuring-thought-experiment-is-this-wrong-if-so-how" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="c58ee015-1833-4b30-a2fd-fa23bb1e984e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:50:22.207" UserDisplayName="user218113" Text="My question is deleted, I am not allowed to ask more questions. Are these really good practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="c58ee015-1833-4b30-a2fd-fa23bb1e984e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:50:22.207" UserDisplayName="user218113" Text="|discussion|support|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="f057a30b-ce56-4503-b687-8957c5f98bbc" CreationDate="2018-12-01T12:42:00.970" UserDisplayName="user218113" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="I asked [this][1] question which I later learned was apparently preposterous and was heavily downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was still positive that some one will one day come across my question who will be generous and patient enough to look through my question and help me understand it better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a few days ago I wanted to check the status of the question, but to my surprise I did not find it in my list of asked questions. And then I looked through my &quot;all actions&quot; tab and &quot;reputation&quot; tab entries. *Nowhere!!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After like 30 mins of search fortunately I found an old conversation of mine, in a chat room , where I had mentioned the link to my question, So I was able to retrieve the question. And it said to undelete the question it required votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are the upvotes from others are possible if you hide the question from everyone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I commented the link to this question, on my other questions requesting users to analyze it and **upovote for the undeletion** if they found it right. But then I get a private  message from moderators, that such commenting is not in line with the spirit of the website and I should instead ask in meta site or a chat room, which I found completely justified, so I messaged them back apologizing and told them that I would delete the comments that I posted on my questions requesting the undeletion and I go onto delete the comments, again to my surprise all of my comments are **deleted without my permission.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this totally wrong on so many levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firstly**, we already have the privilege of downvoting the question. If we find someone's question to be inappropriate we can downvote it vehemently, but we should not have the privilege of deleting the question for who knows, after sometime there may come new visitors who will upvote the question more, so by deleting it you are preventing the self correcting mechanism of society. By deleting a question you are removing a data sample from the public access and I believe it is a violent invasion of freedom of speech. And the reason that is given is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoned, unanswered questions can be a nuisance for readers when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear in search results. While every question deserves a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be answered, at some point the annoyance to those searching for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, the Community user will automatically delete old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandoned / dead questions in the following circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at some point the annoyance to those searching for a solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will be provided&quot; . This is dangerous as this chooses **practicality over truth**. That is not how science works, we will have to examine extremely annoying ideas and take on ordeals, to come to the truth of reality. **Instead of deleting the question, question with high downvotes can be shown in the end, therefore fixing nuisance problem.** And people who are searching the answer will notice the downvotes and will not engage in that quesion. Why don't we let people decide for themselves. Rather than saying here is a question, which many people think is bad, see if you want to spend time on it, it is objectively worse to hide that question from the &quot;those searching for a solution&quot;. A question is not an atomic statement. The question and its description can layout an unprecedented way of thinking which can bring forth valuable insights. By deleting the question all this organic nuanced dynamic is thrown out of window. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondly**, even though we can delete the question, why are we removing every reference of the question, almost obsessively, from the website. In my personal profile, the question is deleted from my list of asked questions. How can we do it? Not just that, every reference of the question, from &quot;all actions&quot; and &quot;reputation&quot; entries is also erased? This was absolutely unnecessary, if I did not have the link to my own question somehow, I would have lost my question, I could have had some potentially valuable information or insight in that question. This is absolutely not acceptable, as this almost equivalent to destruction of my private data and infringement of my privacy and my access to my own data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thirdly**, I can't ask any question, because if I try to ask a question it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You have reached your question limit Sorry, we are no longer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously? If we think that someone is not contributing to the community, we can take away that person's reputation. It is one of the purpose of reputation. But we simply cannot excommunicate the user. It seems to be a redundant functionality. And it's also not very effective, because all that someone needs to do is create a new account and start asking questions. This does not fix anything. Instead if we feel like someone is not genuine we can take the reputation off or make his/her reputation negative.  So that particular person will obviously be neglected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary** I agree there should be some measures to ensure the ease and quality of the website. And we do have such measures like downvoting, flagging, reputation loss. But I argue that deleting someone's question, and also banning that person from asking questions and obsessively removing references of the question thereby effectively taking away the access to the question, even to the person who asked it, is a blatant invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. A conflation of moderation with censoring. And a set of redundant unnecessary features which are arguably not the best practices in the field of Science, where truth is of the highest value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that this question will be met with rigorous downvoting, will be put on hold as off-topic or opinion-based, and in a couple of days closed and in a week or a month deleted and wiped clean from the face of this website. **And then someone writes a blog on why stack exchange is hostile to newcomers. Seriously?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I also speculate if **Einstein** was to be born in this day and age and asks something which is non-populistic, he will not be discussed with, instead his questions will be downvoted, he will be banned from asking questions, his questions will be wiped clean by &quot;moderators&quot;. This is not Science, this is online-mob-censoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: Please do not confuse this with me blaming moderators and SE users. I am aware that deletion and banning happens automatically by preset routine. And that is exactly what I am talking against here. This is me trying to point out that the preset rules which guide the routine as of now, allow for blatant invasion of freedom of speech and privacy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402639/mbnm-measuringbynotmeasuring-thought-experiment-is-this-wrong-if-so-how" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="6723578d-258a-4444-a95e-c436c9766dca" CreationDate="2018-12-01T12:50:01.487" UserDisplayName="user218113" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="I asked [this][1] question which I later learned was apparently preposterous and was heavily downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was still positive that some one will one day come across my question who will be generous and patient enough to look through my question and help me understand it better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a few days ago I wanted to check the status of the question, but to my surprise I did not find it in my list of asked questions. And then I looked through my &quot;all actions&quot; tab and &quot;reputation&quot; tab entries. *Nowhere!!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After like 30 mins of search fortunately I found an old conversation of mine, in a chat room , where I had mentioned the link to my question, So I was able to retrieve the question. And it said to undelete the question it required votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are the upvotes from others are possible if you hide the question from everyone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I commented the link to this question, on my other questions requesting users to analyze it and **upovote for the undeletion** if they found it right. But then I get a private  message from moderators, that such commenting is not in line with the spirit of the website and I should instead ask in meta site or a chat room, which I found completely justified, so I messaged them back apologizing and told them that I would delete the comments that I posted on my questions requesting the undeletion and I go onto delete the comments, again to my surprise all of my comments are **deleted without my permission.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this totally wrong on so many levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firstly**, we already have the privilege of downvoting the question. If we find someone's question to be inappropriate we can downvote it vehemently, but we should not have the privilege of deleting the question for who knows, after sometime there may come new visitors who will upvote the question more, so by deleting it you are preventing the self correcting mechanism of society. By deleting a question you are removing a data sample from the public access and I believe it is a violent invasion of freedom of speech. And the reason that is given is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoned, unanswered questions can be a nuisance for readers when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear in search results. While every question deserves a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be answered, at some point the annoyance to those searching for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, the Community user will automatically delete old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandoned / dead questions in the following circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at some point the annoyance to those searching for a solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will be provided&quot; . This is dangerous as this chooses **practicality over truth**. That is not how science works, we will have to examine extremely annoying ideas and take on ordeals, to come to the truth of reality. **Instead of deleting the question, question with high downvotes can be shown in the end, therefore fixing nuisance problem.** And people who are searching the answer will notice the downvotes and will not engage in that quesion. Why don't we let people decide for themselves. Rather than saying here is a question, which many people think is bad, see if you want to spend time on it, it is objectively worse to hide that question from the &quot;those searching for a solution&quot;. A question is not an atomic statement. The question and its description can layout an unprecedented way of thinking which can bring forth valuable insights. By deleting the question all this organic nuanced dynamic is thrown out of window. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondly**, even though we can delete the question, why are we removing every reference of the question, almost obsessively, from the website. In my personal profile, the question is deleted from my list of asked questions. How can we do it? Not just that, every reference of the question, from &quot;all actions&quot; and &quot;reputation&quot; entries is also erased? This was absolutely unnecessary, if I did not have the link to my own question somehow, I would have lost my question, I could have had some potentially valuable information or insight in that question. This is absolutely not acceptable, as this almost equivalent to destruction of my private data and infringement of my privacy and my access to my own data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thirdly**, I can't ask any question, because if I try to ask a question it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You have reached your question limit Sorry, we are no longer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously? If we think that someone is not contributing to the community, we can take away that person's reputation. It is one of the purpose of reputation. But we simply cannot excommunicate the user. It seems to be a redundant functionality. And it's also not very effective, because all that someone needs to do is create a new account and start asking questions. This does not fix anything. Instead if we feel like someone is not genuine we can take the reputation off or make his/her reputation negative.  So that particular person will obviously be neglected. And if some one spams with like 100 questions, I think we already have a system that you cannot ask more than one question in a fixed window time period. And lets say if a person just goes on asking gibberish, there should an upper-limit of questions for given reputation-downvote based history of previously asked questions. This is way better solution as compared to ban someone who has asked like 10 questions in my case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary** I agree there should be some measures to ensure the ease and quality of the website. And we do have such measures like downvoting, flagging, reputation loss. But I argue that deleting someone's question, and also banning that person from asking questions and obsessively removing references of the question thereby effectively taking away the access to the question, even to the person who asked it, is a blatant invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. A conflation of moderation with censoring. And a set of redundant unnecessary features which are arguably not the best practices in the field of Science, where truth is of the highest value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that this question will be met with rigorous downvoting, will be put on hold as off-topic or opinion-based, and in a couple of days closed and in a week or a month deleted and wiped clean from the face of this website. **And then someone writes a blog on why stack exchange is hostile to newcomers. Seriously?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I also speculate if **Einstein** was to be born in this day and age and asks something which is non-populistic, he will not be discussed with, instead his questions will be downvoted, he will be banned from asking questions, his questions will be wiped clean by &quot;moderators&quot;. This is not Science, this is online-mob-censoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: Please do not confuse this with me blaming moderators and SE users. I am aware that deletion and banning happens automatically by preset routine. And that is exactly what I am talking against here. This is me trying to point out that the preset rules which guide the routine as of now, allow for blatant invasion of freedom of speech and privacy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402639/mbnm-measuringbynotmeasuring-thought-experiment-is-this-wrong-if-so-how" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="a0be3ba6-2727-4239-93c6-6a8ccdb1e7f3" CreationDate="2018-12-01T12:53:37.187" UserDisplayName="user218113" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I asked [this][1] question which I later learned was apparently preposterous and was heavily downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was still positive that some one will one day come across my question who will be generous and patient enough to look through my question and help me understand it better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a few days ago I wanted to check the status of the question, but to my surprise I did not find it in my list of asked questions. And then I looked through my &quot;all actions&quot; tab and &quot;reputation&quot; tab entries. *Nowhere!!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After like 30 mins of search fortunately I found an old conversation of mine, in a chat room , where I had mentioned the link to my question, So I was able to retrieve the question. And it said to undelete the question it required votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are the upvotes from others are possible if you hide the question from everyone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I commented the link to this question, on my other questions requesting users to analyze it and **upovote for the undeletion** if they found it right. But then I get a private  message from moderators, that such commenting is not in line with the spirit of the website and I should instead ask in meta site or a chat room, which I found completely justified, so I messaged them back apologizing and told them that I would delete the comments that I posted on my questions requesting the undeletion and I go onto delete the comments, again to my surprise all of my comments are **deleted without my permission.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this totally wrong on so many levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firstly**, we already have the privilege of downvoting the question. If we find someone's question to be inappropriate we can downvote it vehemently, but we should not have the privilege of deleting the question for who knows, after sometime there may come new visitors who will upvote the question more, so by deleting it you are preventing the self correcting mechanism of society. By deleting a question you are removing a data sample from the public access and I believe it is a violent invasion of freedom of speech. And the reason that is given is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoned, unanswered questions can be a nuisance for readers when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear in search results. While every question deserves a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be answered, at some point the annoyance to those searching for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, the Community user will automatically delete old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandoned / dead questions in the following circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at some point the annoyance to those searching for a solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will be provided&quot; . This is dangerous as this chooses **practicality over truth**. That is not how science works, we will have to examine extremely annoying ideas and take on ordeals, to come to the truth of reality. **Instead of deleting the question, question with high downvotes can be shown in the end, therefore fixing nuisance problem.** And people who are searching the answer will notice the downvotes and will not engage in that quesion. Why don't we let people decide for themselves. Rather than saying here is a question, which many people think is bad, see if you want to spend time on it, it is objectively worse to hide that question from the &quot;those searching for a solution&quot;. A question is not an atomic statement. The question and its description can layout an unprecedented way of thinking which can bring forth valuable insights. By deleting the question all this organic nuanced dynamic is thrown out of window. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondly**, even though we can delete the question, why are we removing every reference of the question, almost obsessively, from the website. In my personal profile, the question is deleted from my list of asked questions. How can we do it? Not just that, every reference of the question, from &quot;all actions&quot; and &quot;reputation&quot; entries is also erased? This was absolutely unnecessary, if I did not have the link to my own question somehow, I would have lost my question, I could have had some potentially valuable information or insight in that question. This is absolutely not acceptable, as this almost equivalent to destruction of my private data and infringement of my privacy and my access to my own data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thirdly**, I can't ask any question, because if I try to ask a question it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You have reached your question limit Sorry, we are no longer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously? If we think that someone is not contributing to the community, we can take away that person's reputation. It is one of the purpose of reputation. But we simply cannot excommunicate the user. It seems to be a redundant functionality. And it's also not very effective, because all that someone needs to do is create a new account and start asking questions. This does not fix anything. Instead if we feel like someone is not genuine we can take the reputation off or make his/her reputation negative.  So that particular person will obviously be neglected. And if some one spams with like 100 questions, I think we already have a system that you cannot ask more than one question in a fixed window time period. And lets say if a person just goes on asking gibberish, there should an upper-limit of questions for given reputation-downvote based history of previously asked questions. This is way better solution as compared to ban someone who has asked like 10 questions in my case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary** I agree there should be some measures to ensure the ease and quality of the website. And we do have such measures like downvoting, flagging, reputation loss. But I argue that deleting someone's question, and also banning that person from asking questions and obsessively removing references of the question thereby effectively taking away the access to the question, even to the person who asked it, is a blatant invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. A conflation of moderation with censoring. And a set of redundant unnecessary features which are arguably not the best practices in the field of Science, where truth is of the highest value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that this question will be met with rigorous downvoting, will be put on hold as off-topic or opinion-based, and in a couple of days closed and in a week or a month deleted and wiped clean from the face of this website. **And then someone writes a blog on why stack exchange is hostile to newcomers. Seriously?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I also speculate if **Einstein** was to be born in this day and age and asks something which is non-populistic, he will not be discussed with, instead his questions will be downvoted, he will be banned from asking questions, his questions will be wiped clean by the &quot;routine&quot; in turn operated by &quot;moderators&quot;. This is not Science, this is online-mob-censoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: Please do not confuse this with me blaming moderators and SE users. I am aware that deletion and banning happens automatically by preset routine. And that is exactly what I am talking against here. This is me trying to point out that the preset rules which guide the routine as of now, allow for blatant invasion of freedom of speech and privacy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402639/mbnm-measuringbynotmeasuring-thought-experiment-is-this-wrong-if-so-how" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33582" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="a0be3ba6-2727-4239-93c6-6a8ccdb1e7f3" CreationDate="2018-12-01T12:53:37.187" UserDisplayName="user218113" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="3e50e55a-34a7-4d2b-853f-78706f4da2c1" CreationDate="2018-12-01T13:11:01.987" UserDisplayName="user218113" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I asked [this][1] question which I later learned was apparently preposterous and was heavily downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was still positive that some one will one day come across my question who will be generous and patient enough to look through my question and help me understand it better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a few days ago I wanted to check the status of the question, but to my surprise I did not find it in my list of asked questions. And then I looked through my &quot;all actions&quot; tab and &quot;reputation&quot; tab entries. *Nowhere!!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After like 30 mins of search fortunately I found an old conversation of mine, in a chat room , where I had mentioned the link to my question, So I was able to retrieve the question. And it said to undelete the question it required votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are the upvotes from others are possible if you hide the question from everyone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I commented the link to this question, on my other questions requesting users to analyze it and **upovote for the undeletion** if they found it right. But then I get a private  message from moderators, that such commenting is not in line with the spirit of the website and I should instead ask in meta site or a chat room, which I found completely justified, so I messaged them back apologizing and told them that I would delete the comments that I posted on my questions requesting the undeletion and I go onto delete the comments, again to my surprise all of my comments are **deleted without my permission.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this totally wrong on so many levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firstly**, we already have the privilege of downvoting the question. If we find someone's question to be inappropriate we can downvote it vehemently, but we should not have the privilege of deleting the question for who knows, after sometime there may come new visitors who will upvote the question more, so by deleting it you are preventing the self correcting mechanism of society. By deleting a question you are removing a data sample from the public access and I believe it is a violent invasion of freedom of speech. And the reason that is given is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoned, unanswered questions can be a nuisance for readers when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear in search results. While every question deserves a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be answered, at some point the annoyance to those searching for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, the Community user will automatically delete old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandoned / dead questions in the following circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at some point the annoyance to those searching for a solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will be provided&quot; . This is dangerous as this chooses **practicality over truth**. That is not how science works, we will have to examine extremely annoying ideas and take on ordeals, to come to the truth of reality. **Instead of deleting the question, question with high downvotes can be shown in the end, therefore fixing nuisance problem.** And people who are searching the answer will notice the downvotes and will not engage in that quesion. Why don't we let people decide for themselves. Rather than saying here is a question, which many people think is bad, see if you want to spend time on it, it is objectively worse to hide that question from the &quot;those searching for a solution&quot;. A question is not an atomic statement. The question and its description can layout an unprecedented way of thinking which can bring forth valuable insights. By deleting the question all this organic nuanced dynamic is thrown out of window. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondly**, even though we can delete the question, why are we removing every reference of the question, almost obsessively, from the website. In my personal profile, the question is deleted from my list of asked questions. How can we do it? Not just that, every reference of the question, from &quot;all actions&quot; and &quot;reputation&quot; entries is also erased? This was absolutely unnecessary, if I did not have the link to my own question somehow, I would have lost my question, I could have had some potentially valuable information or insight in that question. This is absolutely not acceptable, as this is almost equivalent to destruction of my private data and infringement of my privacy and my access to my own data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thirdly**, I can't ask any question, because if I try to ask a question it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You have reached your question limit Sorry, we are no longer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously? If we think that someone is not contributing to the community, we can take away that person's reputation. It is one of the purpose of reputation. But we simply cannot excommunicate the user. It seems to be a redundant functionality. And it's also not very effective, because all that someone needs to do is create a new account and start asking questions. This does not fix anything. Instead if we feel like someone is not genuine we can take the reputation off or make his/her reputation negative.  So that particular person will obviously be neglected. And if some one spams with like 100 questions, I think we already have a system that you cannot ask more than one question in a fixed window time period. And lets say if a person just goes on asking gibberish, there should an upper-limit of questions for given reputation-downvote based history of previously asked questions. This is way better solution as compared to ban someone who has asked like 10 questions in my case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary** I agree there should be some measures to ensure the ease and quality of the website. And we do have such measures like downvoting, flagging, reputation loss. But I argue that deleting someone's question, and also banning that person from asking questions and obsessively removing references of the question thereby effectively taking away the access to the question, even to the person who asked it, is a blatant invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. A conflation of moderation with censoring. And a set of redundant unnecessary features which are arguably not the best practices in the field of Science, where truth is of the highest value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that this question will be met with rigorous downvoting, will be put on hold as off-topic or opinion-based, and in a couple of days closed and in a week or a month deleted and wiped clean from the face of this website. **And then someone writes a blog on why stack exchange is hostile to newcomers. Seriously?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I also speculate if **Einstein** was to be born in this day and age and asks something which is non-populistic, he will not be discussed with, instead his questions will be downvoted, he will be banned from asking questions, his questions will be wiped clean by the &quot;routine&quot; in turn operated by &quot;moderators&quot;. This is not Science, this is online-mob-censoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: Please do not confuse this with me blaming moderators and SE users. I am aware that deletion and banning happens automatically by preset routine. And that is exactly what I am talking against here. This is me trying to point out that the preset rules which guide the routine as of now, allow for blatant invasion of freedom of speech and privacy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402639/mbnm-measuringbynotmeasuring-thought-experiment-is-this-wrong-if-so-how" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10920" RevisionGUID="f01b7818-739b-4637-b0c0-5860853334f4" CreationDate="2018-12-01T13:40:34.383" UserId="36194" Text="Your question was not heavily downvoted: it collected two up and two down votes. It was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The question is quite unclear (as indicated in one of the comments) and FYI, you completely forgot to include any estimates of uncertainty on the time $t$ in your problem.  Another quite appropriate comment deals with the macroscopic nature of your sphere, and the importance of decoherence in such problems.  You chose to ignore both of these so you can't exactly blame the site for automatically deleting your question as being &quot;abandoned&quot; or &quot;closed&quot; (which it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ciQFj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33585" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="e38598d4-1e41-46a4-813b-6b3fe8558b2e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T16:32:21.807" UserId="50583" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:50583,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ACuriousMind&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33586" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="c42c3e5c-5d73-4977-9e8b-d3a9aa8fcab7" CreationDate="2018-12-01T18:00:26.603" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="568bc7aa-075b-42e1-b4ba-cc7562eafa16" CreationDate="2018-12-01T18:01:50.700" UserDisplayName="user218113" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I asked [this][1] question which I later learned was apparently preposterous and was heavily downvoted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was still positive that some one will one day come across my question who will be generous and patient enough to look through my question and help me understand it better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a few days ago I wanted to check the status of the question, but to my surprise I did not find it in my list of asked questions. And then I looked through my &quot;all actions&quot; tab and &quot;reputation&quot; tab entries. *Nowhere!!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After like 30 mins of search fortunately I found an old conversation of mine, in a chat room , where I had mentioned the link to my question, So I was able to retrieve the question. And it said to undelete the question it required votes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How are the upvotes from others are possible if you hide the question from everyone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I commented the link to this question, on my other questions requesting users to analyze it and **upovote for the undeletion** if they found it right. But then I get a private  message from moderators, that such commenting is not in line with the spirit of the website and I should instead ask in meta site or a chat room, which I found completely justified, so I messaged them back apologizing and told them that I would delete the comments that I posted on my questions requesting the undeletion and I go onto delete the comments, again to my surprise all of my comments are **deleted without my permission.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this is totally wrong on so many levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firstly**, we already have the privilege of downvoting the question. If we find someone's question to be inappropriate we can downvote it vehemently, but we should not have the privilege of deleting the question for who knows, after sometime there may come new visitors who will upvote the question more, so by deleting it you are preventing the self correcting mechanism of society. By deleting a question you are removing a data sample from the public access and I believe it is a violent invasion of freedom of speech. And the reason that is given is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abandoned, unanswered questions can be a nuisance for readers when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear in search results. While every question deserves a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be answered, at some point the annoyance to those searching for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, the Community user will automatically delete old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandoned / dead questions in the following circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at some point the annoyance to those searching for a solution outweighs the increasingly small chance that an answer will be provided&quot; . This is dangerous as this chooses **practicality over truth**. That is not how science works, we will have to examine extremely annoying ideas and take on ordeals, to come to the truth of reality. **Instead of deleting the question, question with high downvotes can be shown in the end, therefore fixing nuisance problem.** And people who are searching the answer will notice the downvotes and will not engage in that quesion. Why don't we let people decide for themselves. Rather than saying here is a question, which many people think is bad, see if you want to spend time on it, it is objectively worse to hide that question from the &quot;those searching for a solution&quot;. A question is not an atomic statement. The question and its description can layout an unprecedented way of thinking which can bring forth valuable insights. By deleting the question all this organic nuanced dynamic is thrown out of window. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondly**, even though we can delete the question, why are we removing every reference of the question, almost obsessively, from the website. In my personal profile, the question is deleted from my list of asked questions. How can we do it? Not just that, every reference of the question, from &quot;all actions&quot; and &quot;reputation&quot; entries is also erased? This was absolutely unnecessary, if I did not have the link to my own question somehow, I would have lost my question, I could have had some potentially valuable information or insight in that question. This is absolutely not acceptable, as this is almost equivalent to destruction of my private data and infringement of my privacy and my access to my own data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thirdly**, I can't ask any question, because if I try to ask a question it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You have reached your question limit Sorry, we are no longer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously? If we think that someone is not contributing to the community, we can take away that person's reputation. It is one of the purpose of reputation. But we simply cannot excommunicate the user. It seems to be a redundant functionality. And it's also not very effective, because all that someone needs to do is create a new account and start asking questions. This does not fix anything. Instead if we feel like someone is not genuine we can take the reputation off or make his/her reputation negative.  So that particular person will obviously be neglected. And if some one spams with like 100 questions, I think we already have a system that you cannot ask more than one question in a fixed window time period. And lets say if a person just goes on asking gibberish, there should an upper-limit of questions for given reputation-downvote based history of previously asked questions. This is way better solution as compared to ban someone who has asked like 10 questions in my case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary** I agree there should be some measures to ensure the ease and quality of the website. And we do have such measures like downvoting, flagging, reputation loss. But I argue that deleting someone's question, and also banning that person from asking questions and obsessively removing references of the question thereby effectively taking away the access to the question, even to the person who asked it, is a blatant invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. A conflation of moderation with censoring. And a set of redundant unnecessary features which are arguably not the best practices in the field of Science, where truth is of the highest value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I predict that this question will be met with rigorous downvoting, will be put on hold as off-topic or opinion-based, and in a couple of days closed and in a week or a month deleted and wiped clean from the face of this website. **And then someone writes a blog on why stack exchange is hostile to newcomers. Seriously?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I also speculate if **Einstein** was to be born in this day and age and asks something which is non-populistic, he will not be discussed with, instead his questions will be downvoted, he will be banned from asking questions, his questions will be wiped clean by the &quot;routine&quot; in turn operated by &quot;moderators&quot;. This is not Science, this is online-mob-censoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: Please do not confuse this with me blaming moderators and SE users. I am aware that deletion and banning happens automatically by preset routine. And that is exactly what I am talking against here. This is me trying to point out that the preset rules which guide the routine as of now, allow for blatant invasion of freedom of speech and privacy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/402639/mbnm-measuringbynotmeasuring-thought-experiment-is-this-wrong-if-so-how" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="1d94e8ab-2109-4bc7-b7ca-77fd5efe128e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T23:54:24.957" UserId="36194" Text="Please join me in congratulating @Qmechanic upon reaching the 100k rep milestone.  We can all agree that his contribution to this site has been nothing short of outstanding, and the recognition that comes with 100k rep is absolutely well deserved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="1d94e8ab-2109-4bc7-b7ca-77fd5efe128e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T23:54:24.957" UserId="36194" Text="Qmechanics reaches 100k rep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="1d94e8ab-2109-4bc7-b7ca-77fd5efe128e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T23:54:24.957" UserId="36194" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33595" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="4fffb556-f33b-42b0-938f-041320b225d4" CreationDate="2018-12-02T00:00:00.287" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33596" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="3e0a522d-ed56-43c9-9969-670cdd50fd96" CreationDate="2018-12-02T00:10:25.690" UserId="36194" Comment="edited title" Text="Qmechanic reaches 100k rep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="796b7e15-7a9c-4ef5-8636-c068dfc7b887" CreationDate="2018-12-02T03:00:23.303" UserId="172742" Comment="deleted 207 characters in body; edited title" Text="I personally think that the whole point of creating the duplicates is to encourage users to add new answers/comments to the original question of the duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what really seems to happen is that the original question rarely receives more answers/comments probably because the question is just old.$~$So I think we should add more answers to the original question because those existing answers sometimes don’t encompass or completely address the duplicate one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33603" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="796b7e15-7a9c-4ef5-8636-c068dfc7b887" CreationDate="2018-12-02T03:00:23.303" UserId="172742" Comment="deleted 207 characters in body; edited title" Text="Should we add more answers/comments to the original question of the duplicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33604" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="64bdfb4c-1ab1-413b-936a-260a75eb4721" CreationDate="2018-12-02T03:01:09.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1069063893761314823" />
  <row Id="33605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10924" RevisionGUID="39279f2a-6fd1-4e19-917d-d289a2bba445" CreationDate="2018-12-02T12:28:01.533" UserId="212603" Text="An interesting idea would be to publish or have a periodic magazine containing the most popular questions and most popular answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33606" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="583f3b80-96c8-479b-a26d-d37d669bdf16" CreationDate="2018-12-02T15:00:26.367" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="ea56a4e4-c629-4d36-998b-ae15ed93f29d" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:46:10.200" UserId="8563" Comment="We don't actually know Qmechanic's gender. So it's best not to assume." Text="Please join me in congratulating @Qmechanic upon reaching the 100k rep milestone.  We can all agree that his/her contribution to this site has been nothing short of outstanding, and the recognition that comes with 100k rep is absolutely well deserved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="bc4dd7e1-e237-41a1-8d56-ec07eff825bf" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:51:29.733" UserId="8563" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="We've all seen them: short comments saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/..., and links therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, we've all seen bunches of useful links to closely-related questions on the `Linked` sidebar over on the right, which are a very useful way to navigate the site. Also, you know what's useful for navigating the site? Correctly-tagged posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that happens by itself, but mostly it requires active attention and maintenance, and while we all do our equal share, some users have more equal shares than others in this game. I've been keeping my eye on some of the stats, and we just passed a milestone I would like not to go by unmarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A single user is responsible for [over &lt;s&gt;3000&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;4000&lt;/s&gt; (just under) 5000 comments of the form &quot;Related:...&quot; or &quot;...therein&quot;](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/382526/qmechanics-amazing-post-linking-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - For comparison, [the next user down has &lt;s&gt;150&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;200&lt;/s&gt; 250 such comments](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433533/users-by-related-and-therein-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - Freeing the query from that particular form, this user has [&lt;s&gt;4500&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;5500&lt;/s&gt; 6750 comments that include an in-site link, to &lt; &lt;s&gt;1.4k&lt;/s&gt; 1.8k by the next user down](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433534/users-by-in-site-links-in-comments).&#xD;&#xA; - This user also has [&lt;s&gt;eleven&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;sixteen&lt;/s&gt; twenty-two times more tag edits than the next most prolific tag editor](http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/433535/users-by-number-of-tag-edits), at the completely mind-boggling count of &lt;s&gt;19,920&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;30177&lt;/s&gt; 43117 such edits, to &lt;s&gt;1815&lt;/s&gt; 1876 by the next user down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this has a very definite, very positive impact on the site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know who you are. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10371" RevisionGUID="d2ea4a5c-e31e-4648-8eca-499074732be7" CreationDate="2018-12-02T21:00:22.470" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="f4351fcf-29b3-43d7-a592-680eab124f81" CreationDate="2018-12-02T21:12:51.050" UserId="36194" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="Please join me in congratulating @Qmechanic upon reaching the 100k rep milestone.  We can all agree that his/her contribution to this site has been nothing short of outstanding, and the recognition that comes with 100k rep is absolutely well deserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: as pointed out by @ACuriousMind, there is an [appropriate laudatio][1] by @EmilioPisanty which deserves to be highlighted in the main post beyond just a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7508/in-praise-of-and-links-therein" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="6aa6398d-4d00-4023-9198-85e2c9aa3a00" CreationDate="2018-12-02T23:31:36.543" UserId="148294" Text="The answer is, the number of duplicate questions are unlikely to reach 100%. Therefore, StackExchange is unlikely to completely halt it's Q&amp;A activity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reaching 99% would cause a slowing of activity, but, as common questions are answered and marked as duplicates, non-duplicates will become increasingly advanced and complex. Also, questions which are already answered continue to be commented or alternately answered. So StackExchange will always have a purpose and have activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note, I have seen many questions marked as &quot;duplicates&quot; which are not truly duplicates yet are similar. A better question might be, &quot;will the proliferation of marking questions as duplicates dissuade users from asking questions out of frustration?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33614" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="4580911a-a778-46b4-8878-e79954468628" CreationDate="2018-12-03T06:00:25.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33615" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="01f17aa7-e194-4932-8205-e148e4781272" CreationDate="2018-12-04T06:00:26.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33616" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3998" RevisionGUID="8a35e535-953e-4abe-8a95-cf06733fa4e9" CreationDate="2018-12-05T00:00:05.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="142e74bb-9cc2-463d-bf4a-448ac17254ea" CreationDate="2018-12-05T09:00:22.960" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33618" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="4d109dea-40ce-40e4-90b0-726e66b7e025" CreationDate="2018-12-06T00:00:58.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33619" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="9a5af6ae-bdd4-4393-a6a4-206ae52ea2c0" CreationDate="2018-12-06T06:00:34.453" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics" />
  <row Id="33620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="4736d48e-e080-4c5b-8ab3-076fba7da8ba" CreationDate="2018-12-06T10:04:45.807" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 383 characters in body" Text="There are a lot of tags which are too oddly specific and not really about a specific idea in physics, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:temperature]  [tag:coulomb-branch]      [tag:pressure]  [tag:speed] [tag:acceleration] [tag:capacitance]       [tag:angular-momentum] [tag:momentum] [tag:mass]   [tag:x-ray]  [tag:mole]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't need a name for every thermodynamic and kinematical variable.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="07644a76-9bfe-4200-b4e7-f3cc7d70988e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T10:08:43.127" UserId="23119" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/redundant-too-specific-tags-about-specific-variables-etc has  been made more specific to overtly specific tags. Here are some which don't even seem to be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:x-ray-crystallography]   [tag:laws-of-physics]   [tag:approximations] [tag:complex-number]     [tag:affine-lie-algebra]   [tag:laboratory-safety]                                                                       &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="774650a5-2953-4e8c-b63e-cad9ad74e2d6" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:33:40.443" UserId="185269" Text="Why does The 'physics' tag is not allowed!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oops! Your question couldn't be submitted because: The 'physics' tag is not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;Creating the new tag 'physics' requires at least 1000 reputation. Try something from the existing tags list instead. New tags cannot be created from the mobile site. The tag 'physics' is new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="774650a5-2953-4e8c-b63e-cad9ad74e2d6" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:33:40.443" UserId="185269" Text="Why does The 'physics' tag is not allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="774650a5-2953-4e8c-b63e-cad9ad74e2d6" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:33:40.443" UserId="185269" Text="|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="f53db403-2219-4ee6-83cf-e23e1186e984" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:45:30.100" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|support|status-bydesign|tags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10927" RevisionGUID="89ef2fa5-b4b6-46c6-a3ba-daa8a441f4c8" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:54:46.020" UserId="2451" Text="1. Your first obstacle is that you need 1000 reputation points to create a new tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you have 1000 reputation points, there might be another obstacle. Certain words are blacklisted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you do manage to create the 'physics' tag, it would be pointless, because then all questions should be tagged with it. The point of tagging is that the tag word should tell something about the question. A 'physics' tag would not tell us something we didn't know already!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10927" RevisionGUID="68769928-43b5-4490-9013-4731d0f037d8" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:02:13.930" UserId="2451" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="1. Your first obstacle is that you need 1000 reputation points to create a new tag. If you think a tag is missing and don't have 1000 reputation points, you can suggest it in [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451) meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you have 1000 reputation points, there might be another obstacle: Certain words are blacklisted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Returning to OP's specific question, if you do manage to create the 'physics' tag, it would be pointless, because then all questions should presumably be tagged with it. The point of tagging is that the tag word should give non-trivial information about the question. A 'physics' tag would not tell us something we didn't know already: That it's about physics!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10927" RevisionGUID="9c9505f1-7cef-445d-b23e-5b8ed9686b49" CreationDate="2018-12-06T19:59:37.770" UserId="2451" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="1. Your first obstacle is that you need 1000 reputation points to create a new tag. If you think a tag is missing and don't have 1000 reputation points, you can suggest it in [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/175/2451) meta post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you have 1000 reputation points, there might be another obstacle: Certain words are blacklisted, e.g. [physics](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5446/2451).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Returning to OP's specific question, a 'physics' tag would be pointless, because then all questions should presumably be tagged with it. The point of tagging is that the tag word should give non-trivial information about the question. A 'physics' tag would not tell us something we didn't know already: That it's about physics!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="7dab05cb-3853-4f5e-abfe-4a148d22136e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:00:47.487" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is the 'physics' tag not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oops! Your question couldn't be submitted because: The 'physics' tag is not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;Creating the new tag 'physics' requires at least 1000 reputation. Try something from the existing tags list instead. New tags cannot be created from the mobile site. The tag 'physics' is new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33633" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="7dab05cb-3853-4f5e-abfe-4a148d22136e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:00:47.487" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is the 'physics' tag not allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10928" RevisionGUID="9eeb5a41-88f1-4b37-a952-0d6dfba43de3" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:22:34.620" UserId="213987" Text="I'm want to simulate and visualize (render) how would light refract inside a glass mug with complex geometry. Since I'm quite sure I cannot code myself something like that, I would ask for a software recommendation. However, it seems that such questions not allowed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I ask for a software recommendation like that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10928" RevisionGUID="9eeb5a41-88f1-4b37-a952-0d6dfba43de3" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:22:34.620" UserId="213987" Text="Where to ask for a software recommendation about light refraction in a 3D media?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10928" RevisionGUID="9eeb5a41-88f1-4b37-a952-0d6dfba43de3" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:22:34.620" UserId="213987" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="a4384c2f-ba4b-4a94-8e87-3ba94379235b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:03:25.870" UserId="178948" Text="So, I just asked a question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/445427/ftl-drives-and-quantum-mechanics-experiments) about the intersection of quantum mechanics, FTL drives, and some form of relativity (not sure if it's general or special), and it got put on hold for &quot;no questions about non-mainstream physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But relativity, FTL drives like the Alcubierre drive or wormholes, and quantum mechanics are all mainstream physics, so I'm not sure why it was closed. Could someone please explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="a4384c2f-ba4b-4a94-8e87-3ba94379235b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:03:25.870" UserId="178948" Text="Why was my question about Quantum Mechanics and FTL drives put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="a4384c2f-ba4b-4a94-8e87-3ba94379235b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:03:25.870" UserId="178948" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10930" RevisionGUID="68dafb8a-a85d-4ccb-a33d-b3a5ef640853" CreationDate="2018-12-07T00:29:21.970" UserId="124" Text="First of all, thanks for asking about it here. We always appreciate it when people take the time to learn more about why the community made a decision (rather than, say, ranting about how we are all closed-minded fools :p).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a quick look at your question, it looks like this is at the core of people's objections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; building an FTL drive (assuming that constructing such a device is possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, we don't know if such a device is possible, and if it is possible, we don't know how it would work. There are many details about FTL travel that are not known which could potentially affect the answer to your question. For that reason, we consider your question to fall under &quot;fictional physics&quot;, which includes pretty much anything about the behavior of a system that may not necessarily have a self-consistent set of rules. That's a subcategory of non-mainstream physics, as far as our hold reasons go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to improve your question would be to narrow it down to a specific physical system that is (real or) theoretically well-understood. In this meta post and comments you keep referencing the Alcubierre drive, which is one option for how an FTL drive might be implemented, so if you were to edit your question to ask about an Alcubierre drive specifically (not a generic FTL drive), that _might_ be enough to get the hold removed. Or it might not; I'm not particularly familiar with that area of study, but people who are might say that you have to be even more specific than that, e.g. if there are several variants of Alcubierre drives, you would have to be precise about which one(s) you want to ask about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10931" RevisionGUID="a9ad7a1e-8fa3-4202-bb63-22fdb9bc5a61" CreationDate="2018-12-07T00:36:58.780" UserId="176400" Text="To me, it would appear that the sum of the parts is non-mainstream - probably due to a very large number of misconceptions you have about mainstream physics. An Alcubierre drive is &quot;main-stream physics&quot; in the isolated context of analyzing a hypothetical solution to Einstein's Field Equations (it does break some energy conditions though so most physicists take its validity with a grain of salt), and many worlds interpretation is main-stream physics in the isolated context of discussing interpretations of standard quantum mechanics (but as an interpretation of QM and not a physical theory, it's true physical content is debatable). If you sprinkle on top of that a bunch of truly vague statements (which I can't make any heads or tails of) like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, my understanding is that information about a location's time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; propagates along its light-cone, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wouldn't that mean information about the collapse of alternate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; timelines also propagate along its light cone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say your question is now firmly in the realm of non main-stream physics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10932" RevisionGUID="1f664005-7cbe-4040-8164-4bc132bd359e" CreationDate="2018-12-07T07:11:06.683" UserId="4993" Text="You asked why your question was closed.  I can't speak for the other voters, but I voted to close because you referred to a &quot;location's time&quot;, the meaning of which I cannot fathom, and then ignored multiple requests to clarify.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, Carnegie Hall is a location, and I asked you what you mean by the time associated with that location.  You ignored the invitation to clarify your meaning, which very much creates the impression that you never had any meaning in mind in the first place.  Unwillingness to engage with a simple clarifying question is pretty much always ample reason to close, in my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="502e17eb-5df9-4c0e-aca5-2700e2b7773e" CreationDate="2018-12-07T13:04:04.490" UserId="25301" Text="Software Recommendations Stack Exchange site, recommended by Chair in the comments, has had similar questions as what you've requested: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/17669&#xD;&#xA;* https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/42052&#xD;&#xA;* https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/16327&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems like a decent bet that it's something you could ask there. I don't know if it's on-topic there, but there is also [SciComp.se](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com), though I think that site is more suited for queries about writing the code than funding &amp; using libraries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="6b0e1c93-ccfd-46fa-af35-340466ac2c1b" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:52:57.230" UserId="40292" Text="I was recently taken to task by another person here who fingered me as having downvoted one of his answers. He was right- but how is this possible? Until now, I was under the impression that a downvote did not carry with it the identity of the person who cast it. So...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How can the recipient of a downvote determine who cast it?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="6b0e1c93-ccfd-46fa-af35-340466ac2c1b" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:52:57.230" UserId="40292" Text="how can one identify a downvoter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="6b0e1c93-ccfd-46fa-af35-340466ac2c1b" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:52:57.230" UserId="40292" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="70ad5139-3c6b-4986-ad41-f5946fa6c19c" CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:27:03.237" UserId="124" Text="It's not possible to identify who cast a downvote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best a person can do is to make an educated guess that a person who left a critical comment around the same time also cast the downvote, or something like that. In the absence of more information, I suspect that's probably what happened here. But those guesses are not always accurate, and the person who guesses has no way of knowing whether their guess is correct unless you confirm it to them by responding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Speculating or making assumptions about who cast a downvote is officially discouraged.** If someone accuses you of having downvoted in a comment, whether or not they're right, there's a pretty good chance that comment qualifies as either &quot;unfriendly or unkind&quot; or &quot;no longer needed&quot;, so please feel free to cast any applicable flag. Meanwhile, I would suggest simply ignoring the accusation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33648" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="0f4b7678-2fce-4c1a-933e-17add30590f1" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:19:44.163" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How can one identify a downvoter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33649" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="0f4b7678-2fce-4c1a-933e-17add30590f1" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:19:44.163" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33650" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="3785466a-9bdb-4634-b8c5-46c11a599e1d" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:27:34.850" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33651" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10928" RevisionGUID="3c6c3ac5-4ca5-4d52-8d7c-95b4629a01d8" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:29:04.757" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|scope|resource-recommendation|software-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33652" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="f1b5a8c6-afb3-42a7-abd3-7f2718059047" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:29:44.710" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|closed-questions|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10936" RevisionGUID="d87d4d7d-d901-45bf-b984-02a972f43fee" CreationDate="2018-12-08T18:05:10.500" UserId="100335" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [solving a biot savart problem to completion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/445766/solving-a-biot-savart-problem-to-completion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm gonna be honest, this seems like a classic &quot;close because of miscellaneous reason not related to what I voted for&quot; that is seen across stack exchange, but I'm going to nonetheless ask: What can I do to clarify my question to make it more clearly state the question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10936" RevisionGUID="d87d4d7d-d901-45bf-b984-02a972f43fee" CreationDate="2018-12-08T18:05:10.500" UserId="100335" Text="What can I do to clarify what I'm asking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10936" RevisionGUID="d87d4d7d-d901-45bf-b984-02a972f43fee" CreationDate="2018-12-08T18:05:10.500" UserId="100335" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="085e138e-a577-4adb-a136-df7b94a41ccb" CreationDate="2018-12-08T19:47:45.900" UserId="124" Comment="add a note about mods' access to voting information" Text="It's not possible to identify who cast a downvote.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best a person can do is to make an educated guess that a person who left a critical comment around the same time also cast the downvote, or something like that. In the absence of more information, I suspect that's probably what happened here. But those guesses are not always accurate, and the person who guesses has no way of knowing whether their guess is correct unless you confirm it to them by responding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Speculating or making assumptions about who cast a downvote is officially discouraged.** If someone accuses you of having downvoted in a comment, whether or not they're right, there's a pretty good chance that comment qualifies as either &quot;unfriendly or unkind&quot; or &quot;no longer needed&quot;, so please feel free to cast any applicable flag. Meanwhile, I would suggest simply ignoring the accusation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; To be more precise: nobody except a few high-level Stack Exchange employees has access to the information about who cast an individual (up- or) downvote. Not even diamond moderators. For completeness, I should note that diamond mods do have access to some information about voting _patterns_; for instance, if one account is giving an unusually large number of votes to another account, our vote information tools can help detect that, but they don't show the specific posts on which those votes were cast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="5707d61e-6d38-44e2-b4c4-6de9a0d5fdf3" CreationDate="2018-12-09T00:02:53.580" UserId="36194" Text="Your question was closed because... well...it is unclear.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You do not specify what $r$ is and instead you expect the  readers to divine it for you.  To be specific how can you expect someone who was not present at the lecture to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide some context about how you would find $\hat r$ and $r$?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 2. What is the problem here?  Is it the integration?&#xD;&#xA; 3. You claim &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the most part, it's just a big QED, because it's calculus, not electromagnetism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t understand what that means.  You have an integral to evaluate hence it *is* a calculus problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. What do you mean by QED?  *Quid est demonstratum* (which I presume must be right) or quantum electrodynamics?&#xD;&#xA; 5. What are $X$, $Y$ and $Z$?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be blunt this is a simple example, and this or similar are found in many textbooks.  Did you consult any of them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="5b13b022-17cf-4e3d-9944-2a74d3992168" CreationDate="2018-12-09T12:39:53.700" UserId="25301" Comment="typo" Text="Software Recommendations Stack Exchange site, recommended by Chair in the comments, has had similar questions as what you've requested: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/17669&#xD;&#xA;* https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/42052&#xD;&#xA;* https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/16327&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems like a decent bet that it's something you could ask there. I don't know if it's on-topic there, but there is also [SciComp.se](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com), though I think that site is more suited for queries about writing the code than finding &amp; using libraries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="a8418c06-8058-4ba1-be14-bb99666b3e0b" CreationDate="2018-12-12T09:24:15.107" UserId="198445" Text="It is obvious that Physics SE community aren't here to solve specific physics problems. Homework policy, however, states that a question can be narrowed down to a conceptual question. To reinforce what has been said, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site; it's a place to get **specific conceptual physics questions** answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, we can conclude that *we're free to ask a conceptual question concerning where we're stuck while solving a specific physics problem*. For instance,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; X: A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey? For&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this problem, I need a conceptual approach. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Y: You can use $S = \dfrac{\Delta x}{t}$ to compute average velocity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be a good example of a conceptual question? The steps are given in a conceptual approach without computing any specific values. I hope this is welcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="a8418c06-8058-4ba1-be14-bb99666b3e0b" CreationDate="2018-12-12T09:24:15.107" UserId="198445" Text="What are good examples of narrowing a homework question down to a conceptual question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="a8418c06-8058-4ba1-be14-bb99666b3e0b" CreationDate="2018-12-12T09:24:15.107" UserId="198445" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33663" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="9e8df407-fc3e-42e3-8afa-6abb50870dcf" CreationDate="2018-12-12T09:27:52.570" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="8bb125f7-5497-4983-b4f0-d718481d04e3" CreationDate="2018-12-12T10:55:49.853" UserId="124" Text="&gt; A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey? For this problem, I need a conceptual approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This absolutely would _not_ be an acceptable question on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statement &quot;I need a conceptual approach&quot; is pretty meaningless, or at least plays no role in helping us understand what exactly you are stuck on. And without that, all that's left is a pure homework problem without even the slightest indication of any effort or understanding on your part. Most such questions get closed and quickly downvoted, often to a score of -4 to -6, because it looks like you're trying to cheat on your homework, but also because we consider it fairly rude to ask for our help without putting in any work of your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the closest you could get to making this question acceptable for this site would be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a problem I've been trying to do:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I made a list of the information I have available:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - first distance: $7\ \mathrm{km}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - first time: $2\ \text{hours}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - second distance: $2\ \mathrm{km}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - second time: $1\ \text{hour}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I tried putting the distances and times together to get the totals, $9\ \mathrm{km}$ and $3\ \text{hours}$, and I also tried calculating the speed in each part, getting $3.5\ \mathrm{km/h}$ for the first part and $2\ \mathrm{km/h}$ for the second part. I know I need to find average speed, but I don't know of a way to calculate average speed from what I have. Is there a formula that lets me do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meets almost all the expectations we have of a homework-like question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It quotes the original problem&#xD;&#xA;- It shows some work (organizing the given values, calculating total distance and time and the speed in each segment)&#xD;&#xA;- It asks a question, &quot;Is there a formula that lets me do that?&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - **specific**, i.e. not asking for the answer to the problem, nor asking for &quot;help&quot; in general, but asking for a way to get through the single step that the asker is stuck on&#xD;&#xA;    - **conceptual**, i.e. not asking us to do a calculation nor to come up with a whole chain of reasoning out of thin air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this question still falls short of being _really_ acceptable in one significant way: the asker didn't didn't [do their research](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question). At a _minimum_, we would expect an asker to check a textbook or do a web search to look up information about key concepts involved in the problem, in this case &quot;average speed&quot;, and the _top_ search result for &quot;average speed&quot; (at least for me) is https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Average-Speed, which gives step-by-step instructions for calculating the average speed. If the asker had done that search before posting, they should have found that page or something like it and at least tried to apply the instructions there. The fact that they didn't mention trying that, and in fact didn't even mention finding that web page, means they didn't do enough research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in this case there is no way to ask the question in a way that would be acceptable on this site - at least, not as long as the thing keeping you from solving the problem is that you don't know the formula. It's simply too easy to look that up. But in general, many homework-like problems are more complicated than this, and there isn't such an easy path to looking up the answer or a procedure for finding it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="3c3e1d0d-f842-469e-b6f4-111cf1336a55" CreationDate="2018-12-12T18:42:50.270" UserId="124" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="&gt; A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey? For this problem, I need a conceptual approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This absolutely would _not_ be an acceptable question on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statement &quot;I need a conceptual approach&quot; is pretty meaningless, or at least plays no role in helping us understand what exactly you are stuck on. And without that, all that's left is a pure homework problem without even the slightest indication of any effort or understanding on your part. Most such questions get closed and quickly downvoted, often to a score of -4 to -6, because it looks like you're trying to cheat on your homework, but also because we consider it fairly rude to ask for our help without putting in any work of your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the closest you could get to making this question acceptable for this site would be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a problem I've been trying to do:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I made a list of the information I have available:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - first distance: $7\ \mathrm{km}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - first time: $2\ \text{hours}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - second distance: $2\ \mathrm{km}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - second time: $1\ \text{hour}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I tried putting the distances and times together to get the totals, $9\ \mathrm{km}$ and $3\ \text{hours}$, and I also tried calculating the speed in each part, getting $3.5\ \mathrm{km/h}$ for the first part and $2\ \mathrm{km/h}$ for the second part. I know I need to find average speed, but I don't know of a way to calculate average speed from what I have. Is there a formula that lets me do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meets almost all the expectations we have of a homework-like question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It quotes the original problem&#xD;&#xA;- It shows some work (organizing the given values, calculating total distance and time and the speed in each segment)&#xD;&#xA;- It asks a question, &quot;Is there a formula that lets me do that?&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - **specific**, i.e. not asking for the answer to the problem, nor asking for &quot;help&quot; in general, but asking for a way to get through the single step that the asker is stuck on&#xD;&#xA;    - **conceptual**, i.e. not asking us to do a calculation nor to come up with a whole chain of reasoning out of thin air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this question still falls short of being _really_ acceptable in one significant way: the asker didn't didn't [do their research](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question). At a _minimum_, we would expect an asker to check a textbook or do a web search to look up information about key concepts involved in the problem, in this case &quot;average speed&quot;, and the _top_ search result for &quot;average speed&quot; (at least for me) is https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Average-Speed, which gives step-by-step instructions for calculating the average speed. If the asker had done that search before posting, they should have found that page or something like it and at least tried to apply the instructions there. The fact that they didn't mention trying that, and in fact didn't even mention finding that web page, means they didn't do enough research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in this case there is no way to ask the question in a way that would be acceptable on this site - at least, not as long as the thing keeping you from solving the problem is that you don't know the formula. It's simply too easy to look that up. But in general, many homework-like problems are more complicated than this, and there isn't such an easy path to looking up the answer or a procedure for finding it. In those cases, you can search the web, check textbooks, go through some preliminary calculations, and try to make progress on the problem in other ways, and still be left with some conceptual issue, smaller than the whole problem, which you're unable to figure out - and _that's_ what can make a good question here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10940" RevisionGUID="716a811e-26a9-4c0e-98b6-bf899cdc8f5a" CreationDate="2018-12-13T00:28:22.303" UserId="36194" Text="Question statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A straight line carrying a uniform linear charge density $4\mu C/m$ is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stretched along the $z$-axis.  Apply Gauss' law to find the field at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance of $1m$ from the wire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-conceptual question**: How to I apply Gauss's law for this problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conceptual question**: I know that Gauss' law for this case requires the use of a cylinder.  But how can the cylinder be chosen to have finite length $\ell$ when the line of charges extends from $-\infty$ to $\infty$?  The same type of question arises for the case of an infinite plane with constant surface charge density: why can we choose a Gaussian cube of finite size when the charges extend to infinity in the plane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, the question is about the process and the assumptions that go into using Gauss' law, whereas in the first it's about the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="9f2785a3-78fe-46bb-b7a4-cd425422ca47" CreationDate="2018-12-13T05:14:51.320" UserId="4993" Text="Alice posts a question.  Bob posts an answer.  I want to comment on Bob's answer, and I want both Alice and Bob to be notified of the comment.  Therefore I type something like &quot;@Alice:  As @Bob said....&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then get a pop-up notice that says I can have only one @-sign per comment.   Fine.  The same notice tells me that the &quot;owner of the post&quot; will be notified automatically, and therefore I should allocate my @-sign to the non-owner.  However, I have no idea whether Alice or Bob counts as the &quot;owner of the post&quot;.  Is &quot;the post&quot; the question or is it the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 1:&lt;/b&gt;  In this situation, who is the relevant &quot;owner of the post&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question 2:&lt;/b&gt;  Can the pop-up text be modified so that other users won't have to ask this question in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="9f2785a3-78fe-46bb-b7a4-cd425422ca47" CreationDate="2018-12-13T05:14:51.320" UserId="4993" Text="Question about notifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="9f2785a3-78fe-46bb-b7a4-cd425422ca47" CreationDate="2018-12-13T05:14:51.320" UserId="4993" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="2e36e44d-3bfe-4b9a-99aa-24339d9eb5de" CreationDate="2018-12-13T05:18:16.770" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="The post owner is the author of the answer. In this case, that's Bob. Ideally, you could say something like &quot;_@Alice and Bob, (whatever)_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we need a modification in the message because there's an [tag:faq] on [Meta SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com) which should be linked in the pop-up: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="cf589fc6-5798-47be-813b-669d95f8161e" CreationDate="2018-12-13T08:03:40.563" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 461 characters in body" Text="If the post is an answer, the post owner is the author of the answer. In this case, that's Bob. Ideally, you could say something like &quot;_@Alice and Bob, (whatever)_&quot;. If you're commenting under a question, the post owner is the author of the question, and people who've written answers cannot be tagged with `@` symbols unless they have left comments under the question (needless to say, they definitely won't be pinged automatically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we need a modification in the message because there's an [tag:faq] on [Meta SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com) which should be linked in the page the pop-up takes you to: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/43019 It's probably not feasible to add a direct link to the comment `@` replies section because we don't have enough space for that level of detail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33672" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="f7992f33-02d1-4f71-aa7c-638abbb474cc" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:51:58.487" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited title" Text="Notifications for comments under answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="f7992f33-02d1-4f71-aa7c-638abbb474cc" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:51:58.487" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited title" Text="|support|comments|notifications|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="412d8d56-cce4-4b05-9503-e71ef285be48" CreationDate="2018-12-15T14:38:03.813" UserId="65074" Text="It happens to me very often that I see an interesting question that I'd like to know the answer to. I'll favorite it but then never get notified if there is a change. It would be very nice to have a &quot;subscribe to question&quot; feature, which sends me a notification if there is a new answer (or optionally an edit to an existing answer) to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know to what extent this is even within the realm of possibility for physics SE, as it's part of the larger SE framework, but I thought the idea might also be useful for other users, and didn't see this mentioned on meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="412d8d56-cce4-4b05-9503-e71ef285be48" CreationDate="2018-12-15T14:38:03.813" UserId="65074" Text="Feature: Subscribing to Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="412d8d56-cce4-4b05-9503-e71ef285be48" CreationDate="2018-12-15T14:38:03.813" UserId="65074" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="ca50890a-81ba-4558-9c60-62d52837d24d" CreationDate="2018-12-15T15:07:22.107" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|questions|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="71700292-9c78-48bf-bb33-491c6c11c5b7" CreationDate="2018-12-15T17:38:43.247" UserId="114601" Text="I recently received two down votes in one day on an [answer][1] that was submitted more than a year ago (accepted answer), unfortunately without any comments. At the same time as the down votes, the question was marked as off topic (homework like question...). So I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there an active community policy to discourage users from replying to questions that later might be closed as off-topic?  &#xD;&#xA;* Is there a way to forward comments/ask for clarification from anonymous users who voted on a question or answer? I know that I cannot see who voted on a post, but it would be nice to be able to ask them to give a hint of what I am doing wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/365587/analyzing-the-rates-of-cooling-points-using-the-graph-and-data/365601#365601" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="71700292-9c78-48bf-bb33-491c6c11c5b7" CreationDate="2018-12-15T17:38:43.247" UserId="114601" Text="Understanding down votes on answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="71700292-9c78-48bf-bb33-491c6c11c5b7" CreationDate="2018-12-15T17:38:43.247" UserId="114601" Text="|feature-request|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="6e056acf-a8d3-42a7-b7e1-a2f7e8106977" CreationDate="2018-12-15T17:44:02.673" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently received two down votes in one day on an [answer][1] that was submitted more than a year ago (accepted answer), unfortunately without any comments. At the same time as the down votes, the question was marked as off topic (homework like question...). So I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there an active community policy to discourage users from replying to questions that later might be closed as off-topic?  &#xD;&#xA;* Is there a way to forward comments/ask for clarification from anonymous users who voted on a question or answer? I know that I cannot see who voted on a post, but it would be nice to be able to ask them to give a hint of what I am doing wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/365587/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="6e056acf-a8d3-42a7-b7e1-a2f7e8106977" CreationDate="2018-12-15T17:44:02.673" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|feature-request|specific-question|answers|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="29a9a9a2-56b2-4417-b133-0910568a4dbf" CreationDate="2018-12-15T20:04:00.680" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; Is there an active community policy to discourage users from replying to questions that later might be closed as off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There is an active community policy to try to close all off-topic questions as and when they arise and before they get answers. Unfortunately we can't get to all of them in time, and we're sometimes late by a few hours / days / weeks / months / years, but when we see an off-topic question which hasn't been closed yet, the question's age (together with the presence or not of answers) does not factor into the decision of whether it should be open or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid posting on threads that later get closed, the surefire way is to not post answers to off-topic questions. This can sometimes be tricky, but the example you posted is a textbook case (ho, ho) of blatant homework, and it is very clearly off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a way to forward comments/ask for clarification from anonymous users who voted on a question or answer? I know that I cannot see who voted on a post, but it would be nice to be able to ask them to give a hint of what I am doing wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, by design. This is something that we as a community have no control over, and SE has made it repeatedly clear that they are not going to consider changing these mechanisms. The best you can do is to add a polite comment asking for feedback and hope that people answer it. Or, if it's really bad, you can come here to meta and ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, there's a high chance that the downvotes represent people who think that the question is particularly bad and that by answering such bad questions you're encouraging the OP, and others who see the question, to post similarly bad questions. If you want to avoid this type of downvote, I would recommend not answering bad questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10946" RevisionGUID="5b9411f5-a674-4586-8bc3-7f95d709702e" CreationDate="2018-12-15T23:00:38.957" UserId="520" Text="There is already one question-subscription service: each question has a RSS feed associated with it (for this question the URL is `https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/feeds/question/10943`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link appears at the bottom of the right-hand side-bar, and for this question with my current OS and my browser combination it looks like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas this is support for getting notification in your RSS reader, and not an on-site feature which seems to be what most people are expecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar feeds for **user** (find the link on their profile) and **tags** (find the tag search page) you would like to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j4Hc7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10947" RevisionGUID="dfc97f3a-d648-4aa9-a39f-13b697bfdf15" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:37:22.333" UserId="214934" Text="A good conceptual question is one where the questioner outlines the thought process that leads to an impasse. @ZeroTheHero gave one good example of this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good answer to a conceptual question is one that lifts the impasse without giving out the solution. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="547ba265-11e1-4e2a-95e6-341160bd4d09" CreationDate="2018-12-17T04:01:04.553" UserId="124" Comment="note about numerical values" Text="&gt; A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey? For this problem, I need a conceptual approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This absolutely would _not_ be an acceptable question on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statement &quot;I need a conceptual approach&quot; is pretty meaningless, or at least plays no role in helping us understand what exactly you are stuck on. And without that, all that's left is a pure homework problem without even the slightest indication of any effort or understanding on your part. Most such questions get closed and quickly downvoted, often to a score of -4 to -6, because it looks like you're trying to cheat on your homework, but also because we consider it fairly rude to ask for our help without putting in any work of your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the closest you could get to making this question acceptable for this site would be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a problem I've been trying to do:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; A man walks 7 km in 2 hours and 2 km in 1 hour in the same direction. What is the man's average speed for the whole journey?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I made a list of the information I have available:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - first distance: $7\ \mathrm{km}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - first time: $2\ \text{hours}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - second distance: $2\ \mathrm{km}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - second time: $1\ \text{hour}$&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I tried putting the distances and times together to get the totals, $9\ \mathrm{km}$ and $3\ \text{hours}$, and I also tried calculating the speed in each part, getting $3.5\ \mathrm{km/h}$ for the first part and $2\ \mathrm{km/h}$ for the second part. I know I need to find average speed, but I don't know of a way to calculate average speed from what I have. Is there a formula that lets me do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meets almost all the expectations we have of a homework-like question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It quotes the original problem&#xD;&#xA;- It shows some work (organizing the given values, calculating total distance and time and the speed in each segment)&#xD;&#xA;- It asks a question, &quot;Is there a formula that lets me do that?&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - **specific**, i.e. not asking for the answer to the problem, nor asking for &quot;help&quot; in general, but asking for a way to get through the single step that the asker is stuck on&#xD;&#xA;    - **conceptual**, i.e. not asking us to do a calculation nor to come up with a whole chain of reasoning out of thin air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this question still falls short of being _really_ acceptable in one significant way: the asker didn't didn't [do their research](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/what-counts-as-sufficient-prior-research-when-asking-a-question). At a _minimum_, we would expect an asker to check a textbook or do a web search to look up information about key concepts involved in the problem, in this case &quot;average speed&quot;, and the _top_ search result for &quot;average speed&quot; (at least for me) is https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Average-Speed, which gives step-by-step instructions for calculating the average speed. If the asker had done that search before posting, they should have found that page or something like it and at least tried to apply the instructions there. The fact that they didn't mention trying that, and in fact didn't even mention finding that web page, means they didn't do enough research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in this case there is no way to ask the question in a way that would be acceptable on this site - at least, not as long as the thing keeping you from solving the problem is that you don't know the formula. It's simply too easy to look that up. But in general, many homework-like problems are more complicated than this, and there isn't such an easy path to looking up the answer or a procedure for finding it. In those cases, you can search the web, check textbooks, go through some preliminary calculations, and try to make progress on the problem in other ways, and still be left with some conceptual issue, smaller than the whole problem, which you're unable to figure out - and _that's_ what can make a good question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it seems to be a frequent point of confusion for many people, let me say clearly: the fact that a question does not include numerical values does _not_ make it conceptual. Even the fact that a question does not ask us to do a calculation of any sort, does not make it conceptual, although that comes a bit closer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10948" RevisionGUID="5503cefe-0367-4347-a922-05daa8d89c62" CreationDate="2018-12-17T04:37:46.757" UserId="36194" Text="One reason I rarely leave comments or details on my downvotes is precisely to avoid entering in the kind of discussion that this question poses.  It’s two downvotes: it’s not the end of the world.  You probably received some suspicious upvotes, so just think of those two downvotes as part of a random walk in reputation space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33689" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="e0829550-ac4c-40cf-a9ff-3609ae33f3aa" CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:00:25.823" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1074726021780434944" />
  <row Id="33690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="f00ad2da-9b5f-4222-8e52-a3f91b8b24c4" CreationDate="2018-12-21T19:53:53.513" UserId="37677" Text="I have had comments on my questions and answers questioning my use of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ \int \mathrm{d}r \qquad \text{or} \qquad \int dr.$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that it should *not* be italiced as it is an operator. &lt;br&gt; However, some have said that it may be confused with an exterior derivative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a convention I should follow? Are the situations that are better suited for one or the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="f00ad2da-9b5f-4222-8e52-a3f91b8b24c4" CreationDate="2018-12-21T19:53:53.513" UserId="37677" Text="Straight $\mathrm{d}$ or italic $d$ for differentials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="f00ad2da-9b5f-4222-8e52-a3f91b8b24c4" CreationDate="2018-12-21T19:53:53.513" UserId="37677" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33693" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="c2c3c77a-8fa6-4a93-bc1d-42d816a1e37d" CreationDate="2018-12-21T20:53:45.343" UserId="2451" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33695" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="a13c0d03-b6fd-47a4-b4f3-2ed27ed5ea56" CreationDate="2018-12-22T11:51:40.493" UserId="2451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="c930882d-bc59-47af-9171-7073fdd55a97" CreationDate="2018-12-22T11:52:50.933" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="9b45d969-fef0-4276-a365-e6dbfd26fffb" CreationDate="2018-12-23T21:28:49.530" UserId="132789" Text="When I'm on the review queues, sometimes I can't edit the post for various reasons. (I have a maxed out edit queue, or someone else's edit is pending).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this happens on the normal site, a red bar will appear to explain the reason I can't edit, but when I'm in the queue, there's no bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bug, I believe, and I think it should be fixed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="9b45d969-fef0-4276-a365-e6dbfd26fffb" CreationDate="2018-12-23T21:28:49.530" UserId="132789" Text="No red error bar in the review queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="9b45d969-fef0-4276-a365-e6dbfd26fffb" CreationDate="2018-12-23T21:28:49.530" UserId="132789" Text="|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="c55a7a45-ac00-4411-a76e-8ccdf171828d" CreationDate="2018-12-24T04:27:59.630" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="That question has a really bad title; I've edited it. It's still essentially the same question." Text="# Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What kinds of questions are considered homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;homework question&quot; is any question whose value lies in helping you understand the method by which the question can be solved, rather than getting the answer itself. This includes not just questions from actual homework assignments, but also self-study problems, puzzles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, questions that come up in the course of doing a homework problem, but are separate from the main point of the problem, might not be considered homework questions. There's a bit of a judgment call to be made, depending on the context of the problem. If you're not sure, it's probably safer to treat your question as a homework question and later find out that it isn't, than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Can I ask a homework question here? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes, but** there are a couple of things you need to make sure of first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, we do not discourage homework questions, as long as they are related to physics. But do keep in mind that **Physics Stack Exchange is not primarily a homework help site**; it's a place to get specific **conceptual physics questions** answered. The list in the following section will help you ask questions about your homework in a way that fits in with the site's philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, make sure you know whether your learning institution (middle school, high school, college, etc.) and your teacher or professor allow you to consult other people, or to post the exact question on the internet. This is usually addressed by your institution's honor code or rules and regulations, and any specific class policies. You should ask your teacher whether asking a homework question here is appropriate before posting your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How should I ask a homework question on this website? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **See if an existing question helps you**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Check and see if someone has already asked a question that gives you the information you need. The search box at the top right corner of the page will be pretty useful here, but you can also try looking at [tags](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) that are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you find a prior question that seems relevant but doesn't clear up your confusion, mention it when you write your own question. That gives the people answering a better idea of what kinds of explanations don't work for you, and what might be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ask about the _specific_ concept that gives you trouble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We expect you to narrow down the problem to the particular concept that's giving you trouble and ask about that specifically. That produces a question that is more relevant to others who might be having the same problem, as well as probably more interesting to answer. As a side effect it shows that you're not just being lazy and trying to get us to do your work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The best way to produce a focused, specific question is to _show your work_. Explain what you've been able to figure out so far and how you did it. Showing your work will help us gauge where you are having problems: if it is a technical thing near the end, a short to the point answer will suffice; if it is some fundamental problem with understanding the subject, somebody will then write a longer, more detailed response. It will also prevent people from spending a lot of time going over ground that you have already covered or understand well already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. Of course, it's still good to include the text of your problem, just in case (more on that a few paragraphs down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _Don't just copy the exact problem_ from your homework assignment or textbook. In particular, when you are asking for help, writing in imperative mode (&quot;Show that...&quot;, &quot;Compute...&quot;, or &quot;Prove or find a counterexample: ...&quot;) is at the very least impolite: you are, after all, [trying to ask a question, not give an assignment](http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html). It also turns many people off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reference the source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you're asking about a specific homework problem from a textbook, include the book and the problem number, so that someone trying to answer the question can go look it up themselves if they need to. If you're asking about a specific problem from a custom assignment prepared by the instructor, it helps if you quote the complete text of the problem in your post. Again, this shouldn't be the entire content of the post - you still need to ask about the specific issue that's confusing you, in addition to quoting the problem - but you never know when the person answering might need additional information from the original problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Use the homework tag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use the [tag:homework-and-exercises] tag on your question, in addition to any other tags that identify the kind of physics involved. This lets answerers know that you're looking for an answer which explains the underlying concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you don't include the tag, someone will usually add it for you. If that happens, don't think that we're accusing you of lying about whether your question is from a homework assignment! The tag is used for any question in which the point is to learn the method you're using to solve it, rather than just to get the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why don't you provide a complete answer to homework questions? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty well covered by a [discussion](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415) on the Math Stack Exchange site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing an answer that doesn't help&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a student learn is not in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; student's own best interest, and if a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution complete enough to be copied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbatim and handed in is given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately, it will encourage more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; people to use the site as a free&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework service. In the spirit of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating a lasting resource of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathematical knowledge, you may come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back after a suitable amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and edit your response to include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more complete answer. Or even better,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the student can post his own correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone posts an answer to a homework-type question that gives away a complete or near-complete solution, in most cases it will be temporarily deleted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for how to properly post homework questions can be a bit confusing, so here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16182/use-the-relative-velocity-formula-to-find-v2f-in-terms-of-v1f&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14571/can-the-process-u-overlineu-rightarrow-s-overlines-be-mediated-by-the-em-i&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13208/mechanics-thermodynamics-bouncing-ball&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7070/how-to-solve-this-schrodinger-equation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8975/which-trigonometric-ratio-should-be-used-to-describe-simple-harmonic-motion-as-a&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23071/find-the-net-force-the-southern-hemisphere-of-a-uniformly-charged-sphere-exerts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good homework question states the problem clearly, shows an attempt to work through it, and identifies the _specific_ issue that is giving the questioner trouble. These questions demonstrate that pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10315/moment-calculation&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10006/physics-momentum-a-space-question&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/acceleration-force&#xD;&#xA;- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10580/creating-an-ammeter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These homework questions don't show any effort put into solving the problem, and they are too specific to be of use to anybody except the person asking. That makes them inappropriate for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where else can I go? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was closed as off-topic on this site, and you are unable to formulate it in the ways explained above, there are still other sites where you can ask for help. We keep a list on the thread [My question was closed on Phys.SE. Can you recommend me another internet site where my question might be on-topic?](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/391).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Parts adapted from https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/how-to-ask-a-homework-question&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="8a5be621-20ad-497d-9353-9d9d61b6f902" CreationDate="2018-12-25T07:58:24.403" UserId="37677" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="I have had comments on my questions and answers questioning my use of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$$ \int \mathrm{d}r \qquad \text{or} \qquad \int dr.$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that it should *not* be italiced as it is an operator. &lt;br&gt; However, some have said that it may be confused with an exterior derivative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a convention I should follow? Are the situations that are better suited for one or the other?&#xA;&#xA;—&#xA;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xA;&#xA;just to be clear. This isn’t a physics question. I am just wondering about the usage on this site - whether there is a convention based on precedents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10953" RevisionGUID="9cc74de0-aee8-4315-b3e9-62fef3ec170b" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:02:10.657" UserId="211783" Text="Can somebody please explain what this physics question (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/448615/211783) has to do with engineering? Is physics not about how nature (in this case magnets) works? Does it matter if I intend to use the answer towards engineering later on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10953" RevisionGUID="9cc74de0-aee8-4315-b3e9-62fef3ec170b" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:02:10.657" UserId="211783" Text="Physics question wrongly put on hold as &quot;engineering&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10953" RevisionGUID="9cc74de0-aee8-4315-b3e9-62fef3ec170b" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:02:10.657" UserId="211783" Text="|support|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="d81336c0-4fbb-4cb9-ac49-a82725644c6a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T19:31:33.953" UserId="44126" Text="That was me. But I am always happy if the community votes to re-open a question that I've closed: it means the question is more interesting than I realized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I left this comment when I closed the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This isn't a fundamental property of a permanent magnet: it depends on details of the materials used in its manufacture, on the process by which it was magnetized, by its history of exposure to other magnetic fields, and a bunch of other &quot;weather&quot; that isn't a good fit for an answer in our format. People who need uniform fields build Helmholtz coils. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stand by that. It's probably possible to build a magnet with a uniform magnetization over the surface. It's definitely possible to build a magnet where the magnetization is *not* uniform. And it's possible to take a uniformly magnetized hunk of stuff and screw it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used to teach a poorly-designed lab experiment with solenoids and a bunch of old AlNiCo magnets, where the students had a 10% chance of accidentally reversing the polarity of their bar magnet with the solenoid. By the end of the week, when all dozen intro lab sections had learned on the same equipment, I would usually spend an afternoon re- polarizing the magnets so that they matched their labeling, and I would usually discover one magnet that some students had converted into a quadrupole! Switching to the newer rare-earth magnets reduced the chance of an accidental mispolarization, but didn't eliminate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's before we start to talk about the &quot;patch effect&quot; in polycrystalline metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that this meta response to your question is  physics stories rather than site policy suggests that perhaps I wasn't right to have closed it. I'll let the folks in the reopen queue make that judgement. I think that a question tagged [tag:experimental-technique] about *how to determine* whether the field you want is uniform would be okay for us. But you seemed to think that you were asking a basic question about magnetism, when you were in fact asking something sneakier about the fabrication and storage of &quot;typical&quot; consumer magnets. That's what prompted me to use the &quot;engineering&quot; close reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="4e6506db-04e6-45e0-b31c-650c1a09334e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T08:33:47.340" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I understand we deal with mainstream physics here but as physics has been developed from philosophy only why are questions based on speculations and those which are related to looking for possibilities discouraged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: this is more what i see philosophy as: &#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of academic degrees, the term &quot;philosophy&quot; does not refer solely to the field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is &quot;love of wisdom&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="4e6506db-04e6-45e0-b31c-650c1a09334e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T08:33:47.340" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33725" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10953" RevisionGUID="c299d461-a831-40b0-8a8c-f147b0b9cc91" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:07:33.560" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|status-completed|scope|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="b5016bcd-f5b6-4dcb-9113-b0d7d798a133" CreationDate="2019-01-01T01:50:00.563" UserId="8563" Text="David's answer is mostly OK, but his proposal includes several parts which are not OK. Specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. When editing someone else's post:&#xD;&#xA;    - If they use plain `d` and there is no indication the choice to make it italic was intentional, you can change differential `d` to `\mathrm{d}`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No, no, no.** If the post uses plain `d` and there is no indication that the choice to make it italic was intentional, then **leave it alone**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice between straight $\mathrm d$ and italic $d$ is a stylistic choice; if you find a post that makes that choice differently than you would have done it, then **tough luck**. Live with it and move on. It just isn't that important. You do not get to change that user's stylistic choices, and you do not get to introduce non-rendering source clutter like `\mathit{d}` into that user's source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's point 4 needs to read as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. When editing someone else's post:&#xD;&#xA;    - If they use plain `d` and **there are active indications that the stylistic choice wasn't intentional**, you can change differential `d` to `\mathrm{d}`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Active indications that the stylistic choice wasn't intentional can include things like sloppy formatting overall, both in the maths and in the grammar and punctuation. This is obviously a subjective judgement and there's a significant gray area, so err on the side of letting the existing formatting stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? Because it is a perfectly acceptable choice to have render one's differentials in italics and to use straight `d`s to render them to avoid the clutter in source that's meant to be human-readable. In this vein, consider as an example the following block of LaTeX source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;    \int_0^1 &#xD;&#xA;    \int_0^\pi&#xD;&#xA;      J_\nu\mathopen{}\left(&#xD;&#xA;        \sqrt{1-\frac{d f}{d\varphi}(0) \rho^2} &#xD;&#xA;        \cos(\varphi)&#xD;&#xA;      \right)\mathclose{}&#xD;&#xA;      \exp\mathopen{}\left(&#xD;&#xA;         i k\rho \cos(\varphi) &#xD;&#xA;       + i \nu \varphi&#xD;&#xA;       + \frac{d g}{d\rho}(\rho+\delta\rho)&#xD;&#xA;      \right)\mathclose{}&#xD;&#xA;    \: d\varphi&#xD;&#xA;    \: d\rho&#xD;&#xA;    $$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple indications here that the user knows what they are doing and that every choice done here is intentional. There aren't any `\mathit{d}`s here and they would actively harm the readability of the source, so they should **not** be introduced, no matter how much your inner typesetting pedant wants you to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why am I harping on and on about source readability? Because the site standard for site formatting is Markdown, which is explicitly designed to make both the source and the output human-readable. We should aim to have the same goal where MathJax is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David's stated aim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's useful to be able to edit posts where people don't really care about the notation to match a convention, while allowing people who do have a specific preference to express that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is good enough, but you should not need to add readability-harming clutter to your source to prevent other users from deciding that they don't like your stylistic choices. There is an ambiguity in plain `d`s between the authorial intent &quot;I want my differentials italicized, and I don't want to bother with semantic `\mathit{d}`s&quot; and &quot;I don't care about the difference between $d$s and $\mathrm d$s&quot;. Unless you can break that ambiguity through other means, the rule of thumb is to leave it as is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10958" RevisionGUID="8c888f77-37f9-41ff-8b8a-ff6be61762c5" CreationDate="2019-01-01T02:59:03.400" UserId="2911" Text="It's New Year's Day in [Stack Exchange land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_Time)...&#xA;&#xA;A distinguishing characteristic of these sites is how they are moderated:&#xA;   &#xA;&gt; We designed the Stack Exchange network engine to be mostly self-regulating, in that we amortize the overall moderation cost of the system across thousands of teeny-tiny slices of effort contributed by regular, everyday users.  &#xA;&gt; -- [A Theory of Moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/)&#xA;   &#xA;While there certainly are [Moderators](https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/11/21/our-theory-of-moderation-re-visited/) here, a significant amount of the *moderation* is done by ordinary people, using the privileges &#xA;they've earned by virtue of their contributions to the site. Each of you contributes a little bit of time and effort, and together you accomplish much.&#xA;   &#xA;As we enter a new year, let's pause and reflect, taking a moment to appreciate the work that we do here together. &#xA;To that end, here is how the moderation done here on Physics breaks down by activity over the past 12 months:&#xA;   &#xA;                     Action                  Moderators Community¹&#xD;&#xA;    ---------------------------------------- ---------- ----------&#xD;&#xA;    Users suspended²                                 50         40&#xD;&#xA;    Users destroyed                                  31          0&#xD;&#xA;    Users deleted                                   176          0&#xD;&#xA;    Users contacted                                  72          0&#xD;&#xA;    User banned from review                           3          0&#xD;&#xA;    Tasks reviewed³: Suggested Edit queue           315      8,143&#xD;&#xA;    Tasks reviewed³: Reopen Vote queue              200      4,506&#xD;&#xA;    Tasks reviewed³: Low Quality Posts queue         15     10,043&#xD;&#xA;    Tasks reviewed³: Late Answer queue                1      2,908&#xD;&#xA;    Tasks reviewed³: First Post queue                11     15,200&#xD;&#xA;    Tasks reviewed³: Close Votes queue              284     26,538&#xD;&#xA;    Tags merged                                      21          0&#xD;&#xA;    Tag synonyms proposed                            37          0&#xD;&#xA;    Tag synonyms created                             32          0&#xD;&#xA;    Questions unprotected                             5          0&#xD;&#xA;    Questions reopened                              154         52&#xD;&#xA;    Questions protected                             545        286&#xD;&#xA;    Questions migrated                              171         65&#xD;&#xA;    Questions merged                                  5          0&#xD;&#xA;    Questions flagged⁴                               20      5,947&#xD;&#xA;    Questions closed                              5,303      6,995&#xD;&#xA;    Question flags handled⁴                       1,601      4,366&#xD;&#xA;    Posts unlocked                                    2         68&#xD;&#xA;    Posts undeleted                                  95        761&#xD;&#xA;    Posts locked                                     13        521&#xD;&#xA;    Posts deleted⁵                                2,195     17,375&#xD;&#xA;    Posts bumped                                      0      8,729&#xD;&#xA;    Escalations to the CM team                        6          0&#xD;&#xA;    Comments undeleted                              672          0&#xD;&#xA;    Comments flagged                                 13      5,500&#xD;&#xA;    Comments deleted⁶                            17,158     14,357&#xD;&#xA;    Comment flags handled                         2,346      3,167&#xD;&#xA;    Bounties canceled                                 6          0&#xD;&#xA;    Answers flagged                                  80      6,867&#xD;&#xA;    Answer flags handled                          4,738      2,209&#xD;&#xA;    All comments on a post moved to chat            203          0&#xA;   &#xA;###Footnotes&#xA;¹ &quot;Community&quot; here refers both to [the membership of Physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users) *without* [diamonds next to their names](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators), and to the automated systems otherwise known as [user #-1](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1).&#xA;&#xA;² The system will suspend users under three circumstances: when a user is recreated after being previously suspended, when a user is recreated after being destroyed for spam or abuse, and when a network-wide suspension is in effect on an account.&#xA;&#xA;³ This counts every review that was submitted (not skipped) - so the 3 suggested edits reviews needed to approve an edit would count as 3, the goal being to indicate the frequency of moderation actions. This also applies to flags, etc.&#xA;&#xA;⁴ Includes close flags (but *not* close or reopen votes).&#xA;&#xA;⁵ This ignores numerous deletions that happen automatically in response to some other action.&#xA;&#xA;⁶ This includes comments deleted by their own authors (which also account for some number of handled comment flags).   &#xA;   &#xA;&#xA;Wishing you all a happy new year...&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10958" RevisionGUID="8c888f77-37f9-41ff-8b8a-ff6be61762c5" CreationDate="2019-01-01T02:59:03.400" UserId="2911" Text="2018: a year in moderation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10958" RevisionGUID="8c888f77-37f9-41ff-8b8a-ff6be61762c5" CreationDate="2019-01-01T02:59:03.400" UserId="2911" Text="|discussion|moderation|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10958" RevisionGUID="11a2046a-78bd-42b3-91df-a101ea5237af" CreationDate="2019-01-01T15:00:35.970" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1080116584008552450" />
  <row Id="33732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="20daf582-7455-460f-9ad7-c6574812524b" CreationDate="2019-01-04T10:41:31.973" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that chat exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort --- have you done basic Googling at least? Tell us what you researched.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (using [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages asking into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room which was specifically created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="20daf582-7455-460f-9ad7-c6574812524b" CreationDate="2019-01-04T10:41:31.973" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="How can we improve the participation of subject experts and enthusiastic physics students in chat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="20daf582-7455-460f-9ad7-c6574812524b" CreationDate="2019-01-04T10:41:31.973" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="|discussion|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="838bb0e1-d86b-4281-8aa8-c98cf93964b2" CreationDate="2019-01-04T10:49:10.507" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that chat exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort --- have you done basic Googling at least? Tell us what you researched.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (using [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="88392302-a271-4322-a6e2-29a20eb21f8a" CreationDate="2019-01-04T10:57:40.493" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="9f7628a5-1f43-4809-9a9a-edd2508d8e7a" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:14:10.490" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="b552ef62-9938-4780-b015-92d87e4e8de8" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:19:22.327" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    7. don't [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="6f65f237-675f-45a7-9733-3bd86b59e92a" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:22:39.383" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    7. don't [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the fifth issue is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="7bf38baa-2638-4d43-827e-6a853f563aa6" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:25:52.710" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [don't ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [don't simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    7. don't [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), I believe, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="a074fcf8-7b8a-4636-bb2b-23c4844bbd96" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:28:25.347" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [not ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [not simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    6. not [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), and *don't follow the above 6 rules*, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="1afbb09e-8aba-49cc-a09b-3ccdd0ab33bb" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:33:57.787" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Here's a pretty obvious solution which prevents people from being driven away by help-vampires: we simply formalize all those quick fixes, and give them a more specific recognition than 'unspoken canon', which somewhat resembles the present status. Right now, the only written one is 'don't ask about asking', and that's written casually enough for one to easily avoid taking it too seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of having to bring them up each time, we can have a concrete set of guidelines explicitly linked in the room description. I've looked in at the Stack Overflow Python room a few times ([link to the room](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/6/python)), and they have a distinct set of [rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom) prominently positioned. That should help the well-intentioned askers from accidentally making mistakes, and it will provide strong grounds for formally informing homework dump-like questions that they aren't OK. But with what we have together right now, there's nothing to tell me that posting a picture of my homework there is out of line, as long as I don't start thinking about why I was given that assignment in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important consideration is that we should write fun rules which reflect the aspects of the room culture (most notably JR's pictures of food :P), and shows that while there are canons to be conformed to, it's also a place for fun. The Python room does it well: they don't sound like killjoys, and we should make sure we don't either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves the issue of attracting experts to the chats without a resolution, but it would still help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I lurk in chat without saying much, so I think that a set of guidelines written by a more regular participant would be a better reflection of what exactly people would want to talk about. I just thought I'd chime in since the Python room's guide looked like something worth mentioning and it answers the question to some extent.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="2c85ace2-59f5-4273-8f74-652fa1eebf5f" CreationDate="2019-01-04T12:09:55.057" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 2202 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [not ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [not simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    6. not [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), and *don't follow the above 6 rules*, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** @Chair has given an [excellent idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10960/199113) below, that is, we should write up a set of room rules and link it in the room description. That's great and I'm considering starting a new meta thread about that (listing out the &quot;room-rules&quot;) once this is settled. But what I'm *particularly* interested in is: your opinions about what we should do **if** a new user **does not** follow the &quot;room rules&quot; (like posting a screenshot of a homework question, pinging random users, posting homework with questions having terrible formattings, etc.). Should we &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *immediately* (on-sight) shift their messages to the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *immediately* (on-sight) delete the messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. just give them a warning and do nothing else?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[@Chair says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10959/how-can-we-improve-the-participation-of-subject-experts-and-enthusiastic-physics/10960?noredirect=1#comment42124_10960):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's among the main reasons why I was hesitant to write a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules as a rough draft. I'm not sure what most people want. It doesn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter much that I like segregating rooms by topic (i.e. I think&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework goes to JEE or problem-solving and meta matters go to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics-meta): if other people don't mind homework, then they stay in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the hbar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him that **segregating rooms by topics** would be a good idea. Post homework and beginner level physics questions in the problem-solving room. Post meta-related issues in the [meta room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/13775/physics-meta). Leave the main chat (The h Bar) for discussing dinosaurs (real physics and other interesting discussions)! So expressing your opinion, at this juncture, is very important --- otherwise, we won't know what you (as a community) want and this issue will remain forever suspended. This discussions *needs* to take place now so that we can understand the [majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion) and act accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="1efc1cbb-7759-41c1-88a1-7f90473081bf" CreationDate="2019-01-04T12:10:19.303" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 1917 characters in body" Text="Here's a pretty obvious solution which prevents people from being driven away by help-vampires: **we simply formalize all those quick fixes, and give them more specific recognition** than 'unspoken canon', which somewhat resembles the present status. Right now, the only written one is 'don't ask about asking', and that's written casually enough for one to easily avoid taking it too seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of having to bring them up each time, we can have a concrete set of guidelines explicitly linked in the room description. I've looked in at the Stack Overflow Python room a few times ([link to the room](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/6/python)), and they have a distinct set of [rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom) prominently positioned. That should help the well-intentioned askers from accidentally making mistakes, and it will provide strong grounds for formally informing homework dump-like questions that they aren't OK. But with what we have together right now, there's nothing to tell me that posting a picture of my homework there is out of line, as long as I don't start thinking about why I was given that assignment in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important consideration is that we should write fun rules which reflect the aspects of the room culture (most notably JR's pictures of food :P), and shows that while there are canons to be conformed to, it's also a place for fun. The Python room does it well: they don't sound like killjoys, and we should make sure we don't either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, we will need to **stop advertising chat as a possible homework dump**. I've seen a lot of comments under homework questions recommending chat in a rather questionable way. Many comments get this right, by mentioning that askers should format their work appropriately and show some effort, but a lot of them don't. The meta question regarding places to ask homework questions has two answers which mention chat: [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7470), the second of which provides less than satisfactory warnings (fortunately it's heavily downvoted, though those seem to be for other reasons). Our advertisements of chat should be carefully worded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves the issue of attracting experts to the chats without a resolution. I think one way to add some interesting content there would be to **redirect _some_ of the questions which are closed as opinion-based, engineering, and non-mainstream on the main site** to chat. Again, we must be careful about which ones we redirect. The non-mainstream policy is designed to keep out random speculation, which would be just as annoying in a chat. But there are some more subtle questions which would probably be OK, though I haven't seen examples. Engineering questions have a similar case: I'm sure a few of the borderline ones (particularly those _not_ resembling 'build this decide for me') would be of some interest to chat users, though they're technically off-topic on the main site. I have certainly seen a few well-thought out but unfortunately opinion-based questions closed (though I don't have any links at my disposal), and those would be great chat topics. The standard format of these salvageable opinion-based questions is 'what do you think of so-and-so paper?' (Note: an attempt to create this kind of conversation in chat was very well-received but apparently unsuccessful. The meta post regarding the same is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5144))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I lurk in chat without saying much, so I think that a set of guidelines written by a more regular participant would be a better reflection of what exactly people would want to talk about. I just thought I'd chime in since the Python room's guide looked like something worth mentioning and it answers the question to some extent.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="16646126-d85e-4514-bc9a-3edb9de26cfe" CreationDate="2019-01-04T12:30:03.403" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [not ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [not simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    6. not [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), and *don't follow the above 6 rules*, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** @Chair has given an [excellent idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10960/199113) below, that is, we should write up a set of room rules and link it in the room description. That's great and I'm considering starting a new meta thread about that (listing out the &quot;room-rules&quot;) once this is settled. But what I'm *particularly* interested in is: your opinions about what we should do **if** a new user **does not** follow the &quot;room rules&quot; (like posting a screenshot of a homework question, pinging random users, posting homework with questions having terrible formattings, etc.). Should we &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *immediately* (on-sight) shift their messages to the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *immediately* (on-sight) delete the messages after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. just give them a warning and do nothing else?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[@Chair says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10959/how-can-we-improve-the-participation-of-subject-experts-and-enthusiastic-physics/10960?noredirect=1#comment42124_10960):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's among the main reasons why I was hesitant to write a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules as a rough draft. I'm not sure what most people want. It doesn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter much that I like segregating rooms by topic (i.e. I think&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework goes to JEE or problem-solving and meta matters go to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics-meta): if other people don't mind homework, then they stay in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the hbar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him that **segregating rooms by topics** would be a good idea. Post homework and beginner level physics questions in the problem-solving room. Post meta-related issues in the [meta room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/13775/physics-meta). Leave the main chat (The h Bar) for discussing dinosaurs (real physics and other interesting discussions)! So **expressing your opinion, at this juncture, is very important** --- otherwise, we won't know what you (as a community) want and this issue will remain forever suspended. This discussions *needs* to take place now so that we can understand the [majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion) and act accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="60396061-b7ef-496e-b242-4ea92a76538b" CreationDate="2019-01-04T12:52:30.803" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [not ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [not simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    6. not [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), and *don't follow the above 6 rules*, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** @Chair has given an [excellent idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10960/199113) below, that is, we should write up a set of room rules and link it in the room description. That's great and I'm considering starting a new meta thread about that (listing out the &quot;room-rules&quot;) once this is settled. But what I'm *particularly* interested in is: your opinions about what we should do **if** a new user **does not** follow the &quot;room rules&quot; (like posting a screenshot of a homework question, pinging random users, posting homework with questions having terrible formattings, etc.). Should we &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *immediately* (on-sight) shift their messages to the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. *immediately* (on-sight) delete their messages after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. just give them a warning and do nothing else?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[@Chair says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10959/how-can-we-improve-the-participation-of-subject-experts-and-enthusiastic-physics/10960?noredirect=1#comment42124_10960):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's among the main reasons why I was hesitant to write a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules as a rough draft. I'm not sure what most people want. It doesn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter much that I like segregating rooms by topic (i.e. I think&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework goes to JEE or problem-solving and meta matters go to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics-meta): if other people don't mind homework, then they stay in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the hbar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him that **segregating rooms by topics** would be a good idea. Post homework and beginner level physics questions in the problem-solving room. Post meta-related issues in the [meta room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/13775/physics-meta). Leave the main chat (The h Bar) for discussing dinosaurs (real physics and other interesting discussions)! So **expressing your opinion, at this juncture, is very important** --- otherwise, we won't know what you (as a community) want and this issue will remain forever suspended. This discussions *needs* to take place now so that we can understand the [majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion) and act accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="350b2d0d-9d9b-4069-a992-3727b4188073" CreationDate="2019-01-04T15:21:30.550" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [not ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [not simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    6. not [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), and *don't follow the above 6 rules*, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** @Chair has given an [excellent idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10960/199113) below, that is, we should write up a set of room rules and link it in the room description. That's great and I'm considering starting a new meta thread about that (listing out the &quot;room-rules&quot;) once this is settled. But what I'm *particularly* interested in is: your opinions about what we should do **if** a new user **does not** follow the &quot;room rules&quot; (like posting a screenshot of a homework question, pinging random users, posting homework with questions having terrible formattings, etc.). Should we &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *immediately* (on-sight) shift their messages to the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. *immediately* (on-sight) delete their messages after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. just give them a warning and do nothing else?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, we should go with option 1. However, in case of repeated offenses, we should hand out 30-minute timeouts and perhaps suspensions in the more extreme cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[@Chair says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10959/how-can-we-improve-the-participation-of-subject-experts-and-enthusiastic-physics/10960?noredirect=1#comment42124_10960):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's among the main reasons why I was hesitant to write a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules as a rough draft. I'm not sure what most people want. It doesn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter much that I like segregating rooms by topic (i.e. I think&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework goes to JEE or problem-solving and meta matters go to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics-meta): if other people don't mind homework, then they stay in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the hbar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with him that **segregating rooms by topics** would be a good idea. Post homework and beginner level physics questions in the problem-solving room. Post meta-related issues in the [meta room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/13775/physics-meta). Leave the main chat (The h Bar) for discussing [dinosaurs](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076402#48076402) (*real* physics and other interesting stuff)! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Expressing your opinion, at this juncture, is very important** --- otherwise, we won't know what you (as a community) want and this issue will remain forever suspended. This discussions *needs* to take place now so that we can understand the [majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion) and act accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="60f36a9f-7d00-456a-8987-c01c71bd5597" CreationDate="2019-01-04T15:36:16.460" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="I don't use the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions) much, but I have been a regular participant on Physics SE's main chat: [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar), for the past two years. Lately, I have been noticing a drastic drop in the number of subject experts i.e. grad students and professional physicists, visiting the chat. I know that some of the former regulars (including professional physicists and grad students) have either [shifted to the software industry](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10668/199113) or have gotten busier with real-life. Of course, I'm hoping the best for them! At the same time, the main chat seems a [*bit different*](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48345804#48345804) these days, and we don't get as many interesting physics conversations; simply because there are not enough active chat users. Perhaps, another issue is that many of the main site users are not even aware that [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com) exists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few quick fixes I could think of are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a [community advertisement](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018) for [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=physics.stackexchange.com)**. The 2019 version of community promotion ads should be up soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Resurrect the [bi-weekly chat sessions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9905/should-we-stop-having-biweekly-chat-sessions)**. We could again start conducting [AMAs](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/physics-stack-exchange-ask-me-anything-ama) from time to time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Almost every time I peep into chat these days, I see a couple of new users asking easily Google-able or sometimes nonsensical homework-y questions, with terrible formatting and terrible grammar. Worse is when a user just goes &quot;Is anyone willing to help me?&quot; without giving any hint of their problem.  To avoid that, we should **hold homework and intro-level physics questions to the same standard as on the main site**, in chat i.e. you should&#xD;&#xA;    1. show us your effort and research --- have you done basic Googling at least? &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. use proper formatting (format mathematical expressions with [ChatJax](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97938/any-chance-of-mathjax-in-chat/220976#220976)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4. [not ask about asking; just ask](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5. [not simply post a screenshot](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10563/discouraging-screenshots-of-questions-at-least-the-textual-part) of your question.&#xD;&#xA;    6. not [ping random users](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48315806#48315806) when asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the last issue (regarding the asker's displayed effort) is what bothers me the most. Such chat messages which ask into-level physics homework questions or [JEE-type questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9723), and *don't follow the above 6 rules*, should be shifted (immediately, on-sight) to the [Problem Solving Strategies](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) room, which was *specifically* created for discussing beginner-level questions (mostly high school physics) and is less harsh about such rules. I had [once mentioned](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=48071388#48071388):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imagine a professional physicist landing up on the main page of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site and noticing such JEE type problems all around. They're sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go - *'tis not the place for serious physics*, and leave the site for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good (I half-believe that's already happening :/). Add to that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrible question formattings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I've started to feel the same way about chat. Nevertheless, I would like to hear this community's opinions on this topic and suggestions about how we can bring more experts and *enthusiastic* physics students to our chat room who'd be more interested in discussing [dinosaurs rather than alphabets](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076200#48076200)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** [@Chair](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/191954/chair) has given an [excellent idea](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10960/199113) below, that is, we should write up a set of room rules and link it in the room description. That's great and I'm considering starting a new meta thread about that (listing out the &quot;room-rules&quot;) once this is settled. But what I'm *particularly* interested in is: your opinions about what we should do **if** a new user **does not** follow the &quot;room rules&quot; (like posting a screenshot of a homework question, pinging random users, posting homework with questions having terrible formattings, etc.). Should we &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *immediately* (on-sight) shift their messages to the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies) after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. *immediately* (on-sight) delete their messages after giving them a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. just give them a warning and do nothing else?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, we should go with option 1. However, in case of repeated offenses, we should hand out 30-minute timeouts and perhaps suspensions in the more extreme cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@Chair](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10959/how-can-we-improve-the-participation-of-subject-experts-and-enthusiastic-physics/10960?noredirect=1#comment42124_10960): That's among the main reasons why I was hesitant to write a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules as a rough draft. I'm not sure what most people want. It doesn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter much that I like segregating rooms by topic (i.e. I think&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homework goes to JEE or problem-solving and meta matters go to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physics-meta): if other people don't mind homework, then they stay in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the hbar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree with him that **segregating rooms by topics** would be a good idea. Post homework and beginner level physics questions in the problem-solving room. Post meta-related issues in the [meta room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/13775/physics-meta)&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. Leave the main chat (The h Bar) for discussing [dinosaurs](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48076402#48076402) (*real* physics and other interesting stuff)! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Expressing your opinion, at this juncture, is very important** --- otherwise, we won't know what you (as a community) want and this issue will remain forever suspended. This discussions *needs* to take place now so that we can understand the [majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion) and act accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*I'm aware that the [Physics Meta](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/13775/physics-meta) room isn't too active these days. But I'm sure that if you really want to discuss any meta related issue you can simply mention the topic you want to discuss, in The h Bar; the regulars and mods will follow up the discussion in the Physics Meta room.&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**Related:** https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5102&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="a838e82f-f934-49df-8c79-5263e981c03c" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:22:37.310" UserDisplayName="user214211" Text="I want to what is the age of users in general. I want to ask this because age determines so many things. A student of age 30 can be far better than a student of age 17. I know it’s personal information which you will not want to share but I just want a rough idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="a838e82f-f934-49df-8c79-5263e981c03c" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:22:37.310" UserDisplayName="user214211" Text="What is the general age of users on Physics SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="a838e82f-f934-49df-8c79-5263e981c03c" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:22:37.310" UserDisplayName="user214211" Text="|feature-request|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33752" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="0ad898af-5e66-48bd-9db0-0b83fd1adcd5" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:26:38.000" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|users|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33753" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="af9950d8-9982-4cd6-bc7b-90b076293b2f" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:31:30.237" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="b716088f-c63c-4ed8-8f31-8a3f8d465a61" CreationDate="2019-01-04T22:18:35.410" UserId="44126" Text="This information is not systematically collected anywhere, so the best that you can expect is a general impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few users in our chat room who occasionally reveal their age, directly or indirectly: high schooler students or college undergraduates preparing for entrance exams for college or graduate school, and a couple who are partly or completely retired. But that's not a representative sample of the userbase for the site as a whole. Most of our community doesn't participate in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't think that age is very important, so I spent some years aging non-monotonically. For example, I turned thirty-seven in 2013 and 2016,&#xD;&#xA;and thirty-nine in 2015, 2017, and 2018. (I think.)&#xD;&#xA;My children are of an age where birthdays and ages are a Big Deal, and they find this *infuriating*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="6071fe60-ef67-4d64-ab1c-756f5081f45f" CreationDate="2019-01-05T06:00:33.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1081430228612857857" />
  <row Id="33757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="6bf9f6cb-c86d-4c0f-9658-014d16424b89" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:19:59.607" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited body" Text="Here's a pretty obvious solution which prevents people from being driven away by help-vampires: **we simply formalize all those quick fixes, and give them more specific recognition** than 'unspoken canon', which somewhat resembles the present status. Right now, the only written one is 'don't ask about asking', and that's written casually enough for one to easily avoid taking it too seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of having to bring them up each time, we can have a concrete set of guidelines explicitly linked in the room description. I've looked in at the Stack Overflow Python room a few times ([link to the room](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/6/python)), and they have a distinct set of [rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom) prominently positioned. That should help the well-intentioned askers from accidentally making mistakes, and it will provide strong grounds for formally informing homework dump-like questions that they aren't OK. But with what we have together right now, there's nothing to tell me that posting a picture of my homework there is out of line, as long as I don't start thinking about why I was given that assignment in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important consideration is that we should write fun rules which reflect the aspects of the room culture (most notably JR's pictures of food :P), and shows that while there are canons to be conformed to, it's also a place for fun. The Python room does it well: they don't sound like killjoys, and we should make sure we don't either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, we will need to **stop advertising chat as a possible homework dump**. I've seen a lot of comments under homework questions recommending chat in a rather questionable way. Many comments get this right, by mentioning that askers should format their work appropriately and show some effort, but a lot of them don't. The meta question regarding places to ask homework questions has two answers which mention chat: [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7470), the second of which provides less than satisfactory warnings (fortunately it's heavily downvoted, though those seem to be for other reasons). Our advertisements of chat should be carefully worded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves the issue of attracting experts to the chats without a resolution. I think one way to add some interesting content there would be to **redirect _some_ of the questions which are closed as opinion-based, engineering, and non-mainstream on the main site** to chat. Again, we must be careful about which ones we redirect. The non-mainstream policy is designed to keep out random speculation, which would be just as annoying in a chat. But there are some more subtle questions which would probably be OK, though I haven't seen examples. Engineering questions have a similar case: I'm sure a few of the borderline ones (particularly those _not_ resembling 'build this device for me') would be of some interest to chat users, though they're technically off-topic on the main site. I have certainly seen a few well-thought out but unfortunately opinion-based questions closed (though I don't have any links at my disposal), and those would be great chat topics. The standard format of these salvageable opinion-based questions is 'what do you think of so-and-so paper?' (Note: an attempt to create this kind of conversation in chat was very well-received but apparently unsuccessful. The meta post regarding the same is [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5144))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I lurk in chat without saying much, so I think that a set of guidelines written by a more regular participant would be a better reflection of what exactly people would want to talk about. I just thought I'd chime in since the Python room's guide looked like something worth mentioning and it answers the question to some extent.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10963" RevisionGUID="825c253f-e36b-4547-ae0a-0e6df5dd89ef" CreationDate="2019-01-05T14:54:23.267" UserId="50583" Text="I am absolutely in favour of reviving the chat sessions if anyone has good ideas. Likewise, I think an ad could indeed increase at least the awareness that chat exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think we need to be careful with the formalization of chat due to its inherently informal nature. Room rules themselves - &quot;no no-effort homework, don't flood the chat, don't ask to ask&quot; - are probably a useful idea so that newcomers don't have to learn the culture by pure osmosis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think declaring in advance what we should do with those that violate them seems both premature and overly specific. The room owners should do whatever seems right in the moment. I can certainly imagine all sort of examples where each of &quot;doing nothing/moving the messages/deleting the messages/suspending the user&quot; would be appropriate. Additionally, it is not guaranteed that the room is 24/7 overseen by a moderator or room owner (although our coverage is pretty good in my impression), so promising a specific consequence would justify disgruntled users pointing to an instance where e.g. the messages were not immediately deleted and asking why it didn't happen there if the rules say this *always* happens. Only promise a specific consequence if you can afford to actually ensure it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, beware a culture where, instead of explaining the rules to newcomers, we just point at the rules and scold the users for not having read them. (No one pays attention to the MathJax link in the room description, so don't expect anyone to pay more attention to any room rules linked there.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="07ebcfaf-1500-4978-9dbb-89eb5fa52b72" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:45:53.460" UserId="56599" Text="I have read [this question][1] about the feature request for adding an option to get a notification when a &quot;followed&quot; question gets answers posted to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top answer seemed to indicate that such a feature was unlikely to be implemented in the near future. However, that question was asked in 2016 and I was wondering if the powers that be have perhaps had a change of heart on the matter (or have been overthrown and replaced by powers that think this is a good idea). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7543/should-we-add-a-notify-follow-a-question-feature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="07ebcfaf-1500-4978-9dbb-89eb5fa52b72" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:45:53.460" UserId="56599" Text="Adding option to get notification when a &quot;followed&quot; question is answered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="07ebcfaf-1500-4978-9dbb-89eb5fa52b72" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:45:53.460" UserId="56599" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="1bf3d86d-ac4a-4399-863c-e7ba0e04923c" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:55:51.730" UserId="56599" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="I have read [this question][1] about the feature request for adding an option to get a notification when a &quot;followed&quot; question gets answers posted to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top answer seemed to indicate that such a feature was unlikely to be implemented in the near future, **without really giving a reason why**. However, that question was asked in 2016 and I was wondering if the powers that be have perhaps had a change of heart on the matter (or have been overthrown and replaced by powers that think this is a good idea). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with hopes that this question doesn't get marked as a duplicate I pose the following question (for which I haven't been able to find answer yet). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Exactly why are we unable/unwilling to implement this feature?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7543/should-we-add-a-notify-follow-a-question-feature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33763" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="9c234d01-5473-4eb7-8c58-6484dc31b0e8" CreationDate="2019-01-06T16:06:04.007" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|questions|bookmarks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10965" RevisionGUID="9cdb4682-61fd-4f14-b152-7f30008ae566" CreationDate="2019-01-07T01:04:12.177" UserDisplayName="user214814" Text="To be ruthless about it, in order to keep and gain more professionals,  **completely, totally ban** the homework related questions. Currently,  people that ignore the homework warnings are still treated nicely, but I think this is one area where the &quot;be nice&quot;  policy is actively working to reduce the quality of the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been on and off this site for five years, and in that time Google has really picked up on indexing homework questions. This has driven away all but the most dedicated  professionals and I'm  doubtful that this decline can be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-interest disclaimer: The site is an invaluable  resource for self study types like myself, but imo the homework questions are slowly killing it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="bd7137b5-1b81-48c5-a4bd-54c3b2d88889" CreationDate="2019-01-07T05:59:20.843" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; Exactly why are we unable/unwilling to implement this feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no &quot;we&quot; when it comes to implementing features. The entirety of the software that runs Stack Exchange sites is written by Stack Exchange, and it is essentially the same software that's in use for over 150 different sites. We, as the user community of one of them, can request features, but it is up to SE to decide whether those features are worth investing developer time into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a large chunk of the history of SE, the best way to request features for the software which cut across [the full spectrum of sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites) has been as a feature request on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) (previously Meta Stack Overflow, until MSE was unfolded out of MSO in 2014). However, as you may be aware if you followed [this recent fracas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha), it appears that SE feels that the feature-request-on-meta is not scaling well enough with the growth of the site base, user base, and code base - see in particular [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/317011)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the feature request you're interested in, there are already MSE posts [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45360/subscribing-to-questions-and-comments-that-dont-belong-to-you) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83343/adding-favorites-to-the-stack-exchange-global-inbox) with substantial support. So, with that in mind, it is perfectly legitimate to ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly why are Stack Exchange developers unable/unwilling to implement this feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the short answer is that we don't know. As Tim Post writes in the thread linked above, the communication channels to and from SE on this type of request have not been working very well lately. There's good reason to hope that they're working on ways to improve those types of communication channels, but for the time being it's hard to know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That specific example, for instance, is certainly a worthwhile goal, and if you get ahold of Joe Friend, Tim Post, or Shog9 on the MSE chat, I suspect that they'll tell you that it's something that they would like to implement. However, it's not an easy thing to roll out: there are significant design questions and challenges (how should it work? how should it look like? are users going to understand it?) and there are significant performance challenges (the feature would represent a whole lot of extra calculations regarding who needs to get notified, over a very large userbase×questionbase, and that has a significant impact on server load) so it could be that it's just not feasible enough. Or it could be that it's potentially feasible but they don't feel it'd be useful enough to merit the investment. Or it could be that they disagree that it would be ultimately useful or in line with the site design goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of those is the case, though? at present: we don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="8dce85a6-810f-4ea6-a731-f888f7f3e933" CreationDate="2019-01-08T05:42:17.163" UserId="8563" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; Exactly why are we unable/unwilling to implement this feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no &quot;we&quot; when it comes to implementing features. The entirety of the software that runs Stack Exchange sites is written by Stack Exchange, and it is essentially the same software that's in use for over 150 different sites. We, as the user community of one of them, can request features, but it is up to SE to decide whether those features are worth investing developer time into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a large chunk of the history of SE, the best way to request features for the software which cut across [the full spectrum of sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites) has been as a feature request on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) (previously Meta Stack Overflow, until MSE was unfolded out of MSO in 2014). However, as you may be aware if you followed [this recent fracas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha), it appears that SE feels that the feature-request-on-meta is not scaling well enough with the growth of the site base, user base, and code base - see in particular [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/317011)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the feature request you're interested in, there are already MSE posts [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45360/subscribing-to-questions-and-comments-that-dont-belong-to-you) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83343/adding-favorites-to-the-stack-exchange-global-inbox) with substantial support. So, with that in mind, it is perfectly legitimate to ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly why are Stack Exchange developers unable/unwilling to implement this feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the short answer is that we don't know. As Tim Post writes in the thread linked above, the communication channels to and from SE on this type of request have not been working very well lately. There's good reason to hope that they're working on ways to improve those types of communication channels, but for the time being it's hard to know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That specific example, for instance, is certainly a worthwhile goal, and if you get ahold of Adam Lear, Tim Post, or Shog9 (say) on the MSE chat, I suspect that they'll tell you that it's something that they would like to implement. However, it's not an easy thing to roll out: there are significant design questions and challenges (how should it work? how should it look like? are users going to understand it?) and there are significant performance challenges (the feature would represent a whole lot of extra calculations regarding who needs to get notified, over a very large userbase×questionbase, and that has a significant impact on server load) so it could be that it's just not feasible enough. Or it could be that it's potentially feasible but they don't feel it'd be useful enough to merit the investment. Or it could be that they disagree that it would be ultimately useful or in line with the site design goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of those is the case, though? at present: we don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="7e2b0086-0478-4b52-8e29-e521ff5ccb55" CreationDate="2019-01-08T20:13:52.793" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Exactly why are we unable/unwilling to implement this feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no &quot;we&quot; when it comes to implementing features. The entirety of the software that runs Stack Exchange sites is written by Stack Exchange, and it is essentially the same software that's in use for over 150 different sites. We, as the user community of one of them, can request features, but it is up to SE to decide whether those features are worth investing developer time into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a large chunk of the history of SE, the best way to request features for the software which cut across [the full spectrum of sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites) has been as a feature request on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com) (previously Meta Stack Overflow, until MSE was unfolded out of MSO in 2014). However, as you may be aware if you followed [this recent fracas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha), it appears that SE feels that the feature-request-on-meta is not scaling well enough with the growth of the site base, user base, and code base - see in particular [this thread](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/317011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the feature request you're interested in, there are already MSE posts [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45360/subscribing-to-questions-and-comments-that-dont-belong-to-you) and [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83343/adding-favorites-to-the-stack-exchange-global-inbox) with substantial support. So, with that in mind, it is perfectly legitimate to ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly why are Stack Exchange developers unable/unwilling to implement this feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the short answer is that we don't know. As Tim Post writes in the thread linked above, the communication channels to and from SE on this type of request have not been working very well lately. There's good reason to hope that they're working on ways to improve those types of communication channels, but for the time being it's hard to know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That specific example, for instance, is certainly a worthwhile goal, and if you get ahold of Adam Lear, Tim Post, or Shog9 (say) on the MSE chat, I suspect that they'll tell you that it's something that they would like to implement. However, it's not an easy thing to roll out: there are significant design questions and challenges (how should it work? how should it look like? are users going to understand it?) and there are significant performance challenges (the feature would represent a whole lot of extra calculations regarding who needs to get notified, over a very large userbase×questionbase, and that has a significant impact on server load) so it could be that it's just not feasible enough. Or it could be that it's potentially feasible but they don't feel it'd be useful enough to merit the investment. Or it could be that they disagree that it would be ultimately useful or in line with the site design goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of those is the case, though? at present: we don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10968" RevisionGUID="a2638cf1-571a-496d-8d37-193511944a62" CreationDate="2019-01-09T08:54:17.380" UserId="124" Text="Very interesting, thanks for posting this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the past several days I've been browsing these questions on various meta sites and it seems like we have a pretty good balance between actions taken by the moderators and actions taken by the community. Specifically, I see the community numbers being higher than the moderator numbers for most actions except those which only mods can take directly. (Which is not the case on all sites)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="6b75be92-6d47-4811-9f93-9059d397d7ab" CreationDate="2019-01-10T09:13:08.703" UserId="211543" Text="I'm a mathematical physics student and learning  mathematics(algebraic geometry, complex geometry etc.) and theoretical physics (CFT, string theory, supersymmetry etc.) in the meanwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is that why Physics SE is more inactive than MSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="6b75be92-6d47-4811-9f93-9059d397d7ab" CreationDate="2019-01-10T09:13:08.703" UserId="211543" Text="Why physics SE is much more inactive compared to MSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="6b75be92-6d47-4811-9f93-9059d397d7ab" CreationDate="2019-01-10T09:13:08.703" UserId="211543" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="5093092a-c5fc-468b-9bca-f608de7f8799" CreationDate="2019-01-10T09:53:00.013" UserId="211543" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I'm a mathematical physics student and learning  mathematics(algebraic geometry, complex geometry etc.) and theoretical physics (CFT, string theory, supersymmetry etc.) in the meanwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is that why Physics SE is more inactive than MSE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the first question in MSE is asked in Mar 27 '10, for PSE is Aug 24 '10, but now MSE has $1040$k questions while PSE has $132$k." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="01ca1f02-95db-4516-9e5c-c1e43601556e" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:21:16.827" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="&gt; Is that because the difference between different physics branches is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so large that people studying different areas of physics don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand what others are doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's right. The branches of mathematics are at least as large. Anyway, these are my two *conjectures* as for why Math SE has greater activity than Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **We close homework and exercises more often than Mathematics SE:** On Physics SE we mainly deal with physics concepts rather than problem-solving. We have a [rather high bar](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for homework-and-exercises. It's the opposite on Mathematics SE. There can be an unlimited number of mathematics problems, whereas physics concepts are limited (leaving aside the research front).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's because we close homework. Looking at the Math.SE homepage right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now, they would have half as much activity if they didn't allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculus and high school level questions. --- [@knzhou](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42194_10969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds true to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **The number of students who *ask* mathematics questions on Mathematics SE regularly is strictly greater than the number of *mathematics students* on Math SE**: Most [STEM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics) subjects, excluding mathematics itself, *depend* on mathematics. For instance, physics, engineering, and computer science students often have math questions which are better suited for Mathematics SE. On the other hand, the topics which *mathematics students* study is generally restricted to the scope of Mathematics SE. You won't find many math students asking physics or engineering or CS questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike you, I don't believe mathematics students are intrinsically more active online, compared to physics students. As for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more active than those learning physics online. Take myself as an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every day, but I even don't know an online group about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that smells of [*sampling bias*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias), just as [@KyleKanos says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42193_10969):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) arguments of the form &quot;I see X exists but I don't about Y&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Why isn't there Y?&quot; tend to have the issue of *sampling bias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these are *conjectures*, not *proofs*. I'll leave the burden of data collection and statistics to others. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="7f4e0d4e-4aca-4421-b1b4-c5fc1d7c8ab3" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:26:25.937" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is that because the difference between different physics branches is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so large that people studying different areas of physics don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand what others are doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's quite right. The branches of mathematics are at least as large. But I guess it depends on what definition of &quot;large&quot; you're using? Anyway, these are my two *conjectures* as for why Math SE has more *activity* than Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **We close homework and exercises more often than Mathematics SE:** On Physics SE we mainly deal with physics concepts rather than problem-solving. We have a [rather high bar](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for homework-and-exercises. It's the opposite on Mathematics SE. There can be an unlimited number of mathematics problems, whereas physics concepts are limited (leaving aside the research front).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@knzhou](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42194_10969): It's because we close homework. Looking at the Math.SE homepage right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now, they would have half as much activity if they didn't allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculus and high school level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds true to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **The number of students who *ask* mathematics questions on Mathematics SE regularly is strictly greater than the number of *mathematics students* on Math SE**: Most [STEM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics) subjects, excluding mathematics itself, *depend* on mathematics. For instance, physics, engineering, and computer science students often have math questions which are better suited for Mathematics SE. On the other hand, the topics which *mathematics students* study is generally restricted to the scope of Mathematics SE. You won't find many mathematics students asking physics or engineering or CS questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike you, I don't believe mathematics students are intrinsically more active online, compared to physics students. As for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more active than those learning physics online. Take myself as an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every day, but I even don't know an online group about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that smells of [*sampling bias*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias), just as [@KyleKanos says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42193_10969):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) arguments of the form &quot;I see X exists but I don't about Y&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Why isn't there Y?&quot; tend to have the issue of *sampling bias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these are *conjectures*, not *proofs*. I'll leave the burden of data collection and statistics to others. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="7a57dba0-58f0-4090-bb86-b04423ca6698" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:32:04.460" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is that because the difference between different physics branches is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so large that people studying different areas of physics don't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand what others are doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's quite right. The branches of mathematics are at least as large. But I guess it depends on what definition of &quot;large&quot; you're using? Maybe you could dig up some statistics about the *number* of living mathematicians and physicists and compare them? Anyway, these are my two *conjectures* as for why Math SE has more *activity* than Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **We close homework and exercises more often than Mathematics SE:** On Physics SE we mainly deal with physics concepts rather than problem-solving. We have a [rather high bar](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for homework-and-exercises. It's the opposite on Mathematics SE. There can be an unlimited number of mathematics problems, whereas physics concepts are limited (leaving aside the research front).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@knzhou](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42194_10969): It's because we close homework. Looking at the Math.SE homepage right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now, they would have half as much activity if they didn't allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculus and high school level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds true to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **On Mathematics SE, the number of *users* who regularly *ask* mathematics questions is strictly greater than the number of *mathematics students* and *mathematicians* who regularly ask mathematics questions**: Most [STEM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics) subjects, excluding mathematics itself, *depend* on mathematics. For instance, physics, engineering, and computer science students often have math questions which are better suited for Mathematics SE. On the other hand, the topics which *mathematics students* study is generally restricted to the scope of Mathematics SE. You won't find many mathematics students asking physics or engineering or CS questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike you, I don't believe mathematics students are intrinsically more active online, compared to physics students. As for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more active than those learning physics online. Take myself as an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every day, but I even don't know an online group about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that smells of [*sampling bias*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias), just as [@KyleKanos says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42193_10969):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) arguments of the form &quot;I see X exists but I don't about Y&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Why isn't there Y?&quot; tend to have the issue of *sampling bias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these are *conjectures*, not *proofs*. I'll leave the burden of data collection and statistics to others. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="4180a5ff-2044-4c94-a830-17956d0c3fc7" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:37:25.643" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's right. The branches of mathematics of comparable magnitude. But I guess it depends on what definition of &quot;large&quot; you're using? Maybe you could dig up some statistics about the *number* of living mathematicians and physicists, and compare them? Anyway, these are my two *conjectures* as for why Math SE has more *activity* than Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **We close homework and exercises more often than Mathematics SE:** On Physics SE we mainly deal with physics concepts rather than problem-solving. We have a [rather high bar](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for homework-and-exercises. It's the opposite on Mathematics SE. There can be an unlimited number of mathematics problems, whereas physics concepts are limited (leaving aside the research front).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@knzhou](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42194_10969): It's because we close homework. Looking at the Math.SE homepage right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now, they would have half as much activity if they didn't allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculus and high school level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds true to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **On Mathematics SE, the number of *users* who regularly *ask* mathematics questions is strictly greater than the number of *mathematics students* and *mathematicians* who regularly ask mathematics questions**: Most [STEM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics) subjects, excluding mathematics itself, *depend* on mathematics. For instance, physics, engineering, and computer science students often have math questions which are better suited for Mathematics SE. On the other hand, the topics which *mathematics students* study is generally restricted to the scope of Mathematics SE. You won't find many mathematics students asking physics or engineering or CS questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike you, I don't believe mathematics students are *intrinsically* more active online, compared to physics students. As for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that smells of [*sampling bias*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias), just as [@KyleKanos says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42193_10969):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) arguments of the form &quot;I see X exists but I don't about Y&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Why isn't there Y?&quot; tend to have the issue of *sampling bias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these are *conjectures*, not *proofs*. I'll leave the burden of data collection and statistics to others. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="0ca0aded-bb23-495e-8c8d-507981de1992" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:38:46.017" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's right. The branches of mathematics are of comparable magnitude. But I guess it depends on what definition of &quot;large&quot; you're using? Maybe you could dig up some statistics about the *number* of living mathematicians and physicists, and compare them? Anyway, these are my two *conjectures* as for why Math SE has more *activity* than Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **We close homework and exercises more often than Mathematics SE:** On Physics SE we mainly deal with physics concepts rather than problem-solving. We have a [rather high bar](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for homework-and-exercises. It's the opposite on Mathematics SE. There can be an unlimited number of mathematics problems, whereas physics concepts are limited (leaving aside the research front).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@knzhou](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42194_10969): It's because we close homework. Looking at the Math.SE homepage right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now, they would have half as much activity if they didn't allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculus and high school level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds true to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **On Mathematics SE, the number of *users* who regularly *ask* mathematics questions is strictly greater than the number of *mathematics students* and *mathematicians* who regularly ask mathematics questions**: Most [STEM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics) subjects, excluding mathematics itself, *depend* on mathematics. For instance, physics, engineering, and computer science students often have math questions which are better suited for Mathematics SE. On the other hand, the topics which *mathematics students* study is generally restricted to the scope of Mathematics SE. You won't find many mathematics students asking physics or engineering or CS questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike you, I don't believe mathematics students are *intrinsically* more active online, compared to physics students. As for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that smells of [*sampling bias*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias), just as [@KyleKanos says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42193_10969):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) arguments of the form &quot;I see X exists but I don't about Y&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Why isn't there Y?&quot; tend to have the issue of *sampling bias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these are *conjectures*, not *proofs*. I'll leave the burden of data collection and statistics to others. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="37da4df5-17f0-4cf5-a6b0-e79a10833f1a" CreationDate="2019-01-11T19:02:53.743" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that's right. The branches of mathematics are of comparable magnitude. But I guess it depends on what definition of &quot;large&quot; you're using? Maybe you could dig up some statistics about the *number* of living mathematicians and physicists, and compare them? Anyway, these are my two *conjectures* as for why Math SE has more *activity* than Physics SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **We close homework and exercises more often than Mathematics SE:** On Physics SE we mainly deal with physics concepts rather than problem-solving. We have a [rather high bar](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-physics-stack-exchange) for homework-and-exercises. It's the opposite on Mathematics SE. There can be an unlimited number of mathematics problems, whereas physics concepts are limited (leaving aside the research front).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@knzhou](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42194_10969): It's because we close homework. Looking at the Math.SE homepage right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now, they would have half as much activity if they didn't allow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculus and high school level questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds true to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **On Mathematics SE, the number of *users* who regularly *ask* mathematics questions is strictly greater than the number of *mathematics students* and *mathematicians* who regularly ask mathematics questions**: Most [STEM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics) subjects, excluding mathematics itself, *depend* on mathematics. For instance, physics, engineering, and computer science students often have mathematics questions which are better suited for Mathematics SE. On the other hand, the topics which *mathematics students* study is generally restricted to the scope of Mathematics SE. You won't find many mathematics students asking physics or engineering or CS questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike you, I don't believe mathematics students are *intrinsically* more active online, compared to physics students. As for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that smells of [*sampling bias*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias), just as [@KyleKanos says](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10969/why-physics-se-is-much-more-inactive-compared-to-mse#comment42193_10969):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) arguments of the form &quot;I see X exists but I don't about Y&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Why isn't there Y?&quot; tend to have the issue of *sampling bias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these are *conjectures*, not *proofs*. I'll leave the burden of data collection and statistics to others. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10971" RevisionGUID="382af619-69e5-43c2-be72-b0ad6b225c9e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T22:02:46.613" UserId="132789" Text="I want to search for posts with quantum states $| i \rangle$. Is there any way to search for latex expressions. Is there any way to include puntuation in searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know google ignores puncuation, but for scientific content, these features are important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10971" RevisionGUID="382af619-69e5-43c2-be72-b0ad6b225c9e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T22:02:46.613" UserId="132789" Text="Search bar - punctuation and latex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10971" RevisionGUID="382af619-69e5-43c2-be72-b0ad6b225c9e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T22:02:46.613" UserId="132789" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="d88b28f9-8d8f-42e1-88ec-c7840730be7c" CreationDate="2019-01-12T08:56:10.663" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="The [in-built SE search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) is not sufficient for this.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10971/search-bar-punctuation-and-latex#comment42203_10971): A site search for `|i\rangle` on the main site brings plenty of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions with states in them, but not limited to states labeled `i`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adding quotes to the search term doesn't appear to remove search&#xD;&#xA;&gt; results with stuff between the `i` and the `\rangle`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, that's what I observed too. However, for the time being use you use [this SE Data Explorer query](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/961720/1192754/exact-string-search) to search for exact strings like `$|i&gt;$`, `$|i\rangle$`, `$\left|i\right&gt;$` and `$\newcommand\ket[1]{\left|{#1}\right&gt;} \ket i$`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    select top 100&#xD;&#xA;        Id as [Post Link]&#xD;&#xA;    from&#xD;&#xA;        Posts&#xD;&#xA;    where&#xD;&#xA;        Body like '%&lt;enter-specific-string-here&gt;%'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're interested, [here's](https://data.stackexchange.com/tutorial) a quick tutorial for the Data Explorer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I think you're asking this question because of this: [Notational conventions of the Bloch sphere](https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/5185/notational-conventions-of-the-bloch-sphere). Remember that most sources using $|i\rangle$ to *label* quantum states rather than using it to denote $|0\rangle + i|1\rangle$. I'm afraid the search results won't be too useful for you unless you manage to be lucky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="a2d64561-74d8-4c2e-a69e-a527b52f8265" CreationDate="2019-01-12T09:06:12.613" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The [in-built SE search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) is not sufficient for this.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10971/search-bar-punctuation-and-latex#comment42203_10971): A site search for `|i\rangle` on the main site brings plenty of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions with states in them, but not limited to states labeled `i`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adding quotes to the search term doesn't appear to remove search&#xD;&#xA;&gt; results with stuff between the `i` and the `\rangle`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, that's what I observed too. However, for the time being use you use [this SE Data Explorer query](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/961720/1192754/exact-string-search) to search for exact strings like `$|i&gt;$`, `$|i\rangle$`, `$\left|i\right&gt;$` and `$\newcommand\ket[1]{\left|{#1}\right&gt;} \ket i$`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    select top 100&#xD;&#xA;        Id as [Post Link]&#xD;&#xA;    from&#xD;&#xA;        Posts&#xD;&#xA;    where&#xD;&#xA;        Body like '%&lt;enter-specific-string-here&gt;%'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're interested, [here's](https://data.stackexchange.com/tutorial) a quick tutorial for the Data Explorer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I think you're asking this question because of: [Notational conventions of the Bloch sphere](https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/5185/notational-conventions-of-the-bloch-sphere). Remember that most sources using $|i\rangle$ to *label* quantum states rather than using it to denote $|0\rangle + i|1\rangle$. I'm afraid the search results won't be too useful for you unless you manage to be lucky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33790" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10971" RevisionGUID="f6c759d7-2802-4723-ac56-5baaba55c7e6" CreationDate="2019-01-12T12:59:56.217" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="d0c34505-d58d-4370-a7d5-bf00950825b5" CreationDate="2019-01-12T13:14:40.500" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="edited body" Text="The [in-built SE search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/search) is not sufficient for this.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [@rob](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10971/search-bar-punctuation-and-latex#comment42203_10971): A site search for `|i\rangle` on the main site brings plenty of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions with states in them, but not limited to states labeled `i`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adding quotes to the search term doesn't appear to remove search&#xD;&#xA;&gt; results with stuff between the `i` and the `\rangle`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, that's what I observed too. However, for the time being you can use [this SE Data Explorer query](https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/revision/961720/1192754/exact-string-search) to search for exact strings like `$|i&gt;$`, `$|i\rangle$`, `$\left|i\right&gt;$` and `$\newcommand\ket[1]{\left|{#1}\right&gt;} \ket i$`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    select top 100&#xD;&#xA;        Id as [Post Link]&#xD;&#xA;    from&#xD;&#xA;        Posts&#xD;&#xA;    where&#xD;&#xA;        Body like '%&lt;enter-specific-string-here&gt;%'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're interested, [here's](https://data.stackexchange.com/tutorial) a quick tutorial for the Data Explorer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I think you're asking this question because of: [Notational conventions of the Bloch sphere](https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/5185/notational-conventions-of-the-bloch-sphere). Remember that most sources using $|i\rangle$ to *label* quantum states rather than using it to denote $|0\rangle + i|1\rangle$. I'm afraid the search results won't be too useful for you unless you manage to be lucky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="1895b364-d34c-4108-b57b-d54c68e2f52f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T13:34:58.080" UserId="98822" Text="In [this answer][1] I posted there is a &quot;sentence&quot; visible when you look at the end of the edit version of the answer (visible when you &quot;push&quot; the &quot;edit button&quot; below the answer). The sentence isn't visible in the answer itself though. The  sentence can't be put here and *be shown* in my question by putting it in a quote form, by copy and paste or by just typing it (in the edit mode of this question you can see I copied and pasted the sentence, but in this question, it's not visible). This is the sentence I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt; !-- The 6-character limit is plain stupid. Next poster, please remove this --&gt;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- The 6-character limit is plain stupid. Next poster, please remove this --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put a space between the first character and the exclamation mark and now the sentence *is* visible in this question (again, look at this question in the edit mode).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question may be obvious: why has this sentence been added to my answer in the edit mode. What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/453410/how-could-quantum-effects-occur-in-the-early-universe-without-an-observer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="1895b364-d34c-4108-b57b-d54c68e2f52f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T13:34:58.080" UserId="98822" Text="What does the sentence below, which is only visible in the edit mode of an answer I gave, mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="1895b364-d34c-4108-b57b-d54c68e2f52f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T13:34:58.080" UserId="98822" Text="|discussion|answers|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="192712cf-141f-4331-9995-d26523f17971" CreationDate="2019-01-12T13:46:24.973" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!stuff&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some anonymous user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'. The 6-character limit is not applicable for users with &gt;2k rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit should not be made, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial changes in the first place. Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="47af7e78-bf05-4a1f-9a5f-737595d4b9bf" CreationDate="2019-01-12T15:38:31.047" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|answers|editing|markdown|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33797" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="b0f1b7d0-e9dc-4faa-8c38-128ca5bb3eeb" CreationDate="2019-01-13T01:09:07.423" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10943],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:70245,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Buzz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:32426,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;peterh&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:191954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chair&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:36194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;ZeroTheHero&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106502,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chris&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10968" RevisionGUID="bfe9ee22-a145-4c0a-936b-3193b582a7d8" CreationDate="2019-01-13T07:32:52.540" UserId="124" Comment="add stats about questions closed" Text="Very interesting, thanks for posting this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the past several days I've been browsing these questions on various meta sites and it seems like we have a pretty good balance between actions taken by the moderators and actions taken by the community. Specifically, I see the community numbers being higher than the moderator numbers for most actions except those which only mods can take directly - which is definitely not the case on all sites. For example, consider this compilation of numbers of questions closed on the [top 25 sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites#traffic) on the network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Site                        Moderators  Community&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stack Overflow              22180       331769&#xD;&#xA;    Super User                  6280        4860&#xD;&#xA;    Ask Ubuntu                  808         14513&#xD;&#xA;    English Language &amp; Usage    4343        6418&#xD;&#xA;    Unix &amp; Linux                1129        7063&#xD;&#xA;    Arqade                      273         1694&#xD;&#xA;    Server Fault                5187        1164&#xD;&#xA;    Ask Different               2189        479&#xD;&#xA;    Mathematics                 1954        36414&#xD;&#xA;    Seasoned Advice             497         133&#xD;&#xA;    English Language Learners   1406        1036&#xD;&#xA;    Database Administrators     518         2821&#xD;&#xA;    Home Improvement            216         961&#xD;&#xA;    Android Enthusiasts         1858        115&#xD;&#xA;    Science Fiction and Fantasy 128         1838&#xD;&#xA;    Electrical Engineering      2707        4285&#xD;&#xA;    Motor Vehicles              312         65&#xD;&#xA;    Cross Validated             8834        2261&#xD;&#xA;    Movies &amp; TV                 5306        507&#xD;&#xA;    Web Applications            1350        160&#xD;&#xA;    Tex-LaTeX                   124         5224&#xD;&#xA;    Role-Playing Games          880         1562&#xD;&#xA;    Physics                     5303        6995&#xD;&#xA;    Travel                      1218        2638&#xD;&#xA;    Code Review                 2158        2638&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="c902a89c-890b-49c4-adef-b7150a3e9aeb" CreationDate="2019-01-13T07:34:29.070" UserId="124" Comment="put the comment in a code block so it shows up" Text="In [this answer][1] I posted there is a &quot;sentence&quot; visible when you look at the end of the edit version of the answer (visible when you &quot;push&quot; the &quot;edit button&quot; below the answer). The sentence isn't visible in the answer itself though. The  sentence can't be put here and *be shown* in my question by putting it in a quote form, by copy and paste or by just typing it. This is the sentence I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;!-- The 6-character limit is plain stupid. Next poster, please remove this --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question may be obvious: why has this sentence been added to my answer in the edit mode. What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/453410/how-could-quantum-effects-occur-in-the-early-universe-without-an-observer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="d27b5c58-1d3e-4efb-8fb3-211a1c96ddaf" CreationDate="2019-01-13T08:35:44.930" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!--stuff--&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some anonymous user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'. The 6-character limit is not applicable for users with &gt;2k rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit should not be made, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial changes in the first place. Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="47b16665-379d-4db0-b64c-5dfb0c4336a2" CreationDate="2019-01-13T08:38:31.100" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="link to revision history of relevant answer" Text="In [this answer][1] I posted there is a &quot;sentence&quot; visible when you look at the end of the edit version of the answer (visible when you &quot;push&quot; the &quot;edit button&quot; below the answer). The sentence isn't visible in the answer itself though. The  sentence can't be put here and *be shown* in my question by putting it in a quote form, by copy and paste or by just typing it. This is the sentence I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;!-- The 6-character limit is plain stupid. Next poster, please remove this --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question may be obvious: why has this sentence been added to my answer in the edit mode. What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/453511/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="55577b34-6991-41b0-bb87-b657d2a0a66e" CreationDate="2019-01-13T08:40:44.320" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!--stuff--&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks from the markdown to get rid of the code formatting, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some anonymous user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'. The 6-character limit is not applicable for users with &gt;2k rep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit should not be made, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial changes in the first place. Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="57f9b36e-384f-4f80-b140-591d3dd0df11" CreationDate="2019-01-13T08:54:19.110" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!--stuff--&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks from the markdown to get rid of the code formatting, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some anonymous user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit through visible changes should not be made, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial edits in the first place. If you find yourself noticing such a typo like that, you could either leave a comment (comments are to suggest improvements!), or find other parts of the post which could be improved. But frivolous HTML tags are certainly a bad idea. If you have &gt;2k rep, you _can_ technically do it, but you should avoid it (the 6 character limit is not implemented for those with the editing privilege), because your edits will still bump the post to the top of the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="5f3189c2-06ca-4713-8cfc-4eba7458346d" CreationDate="2019-01-14T05:11:28.797" UserId="1492" Text="[In this post][1] is an example where [the editing][2] by the OP has made a drastic difference and makes nonsense of the answer provided before the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has happened to me again after edits by moderators and others, but usually I return to look at the questions I answer, to see what others have maybe said,  but this happened during my sleep time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there should be a comment left to the people who answered that the question was edited. We get a comment if our answer is edited, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/453988/what-are-the-experiments-performed-to-determine-the-position-of-an-electron-insi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/453988/revisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="5f3189c2-06ca-4713-8cfc-4eba7458346d" CreationDate="2019-01-14T05:11:28.797" UserId="1492" Text="a hole in the question and answer system, when the question has a drastic edit after answers have been provided" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="5f3189c2-06ca-4713-8cfc-4eba7458346d" CreationDate="2019-01-14T05:11:28.797" UserId="1492" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10976" RevisionGUID="9cff72f0-1fa4-4ccb-ad46-625ccf30d01b" CreationDate="2019-01-14T07:03:33.370" UserId="124" Text="Generally if a question is edited in a way that significantly changes what it's asking and invalidates an existing answer, assuming the original version of the question was itself a decent enough question, the edit should be rolled back. Of course it's a bit of a judgment call whether a given edit significantly changes what the question is asking, but I think this case does meet that bar. So I would suggest undoing the asker's edit. (And of course there's no need for a moderator to do this; anyone with enough reputation can do so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think there should be a comment left to the people who answered that the question was edited. We get a comment if our answer is edited, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you do not get a comment left automatically when your answer is edited. The editor may leave you a comment if they think it's necessary, but they have no obligation to do so. However, you do get a _notification_ if your answer is edited. It might be reasonable to also get notifications when a question you've answered has been edited, but that could add up to a lot of notifications for some people so there are arguments for an against. This has been [brought up on Meta SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322/notify-us-when-the-question-has-been-edited-after-posting-an-answer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33808" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="3de9d13e-0eea-41b0-9cc6-8e291c0d3400" CreationDate="2019-01-14T07:13:46.860" UserId="124" Comment="fix title to better reflect what the post is asking" Text="Should a comment be left when the question has a drastic edit after answers have been provided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10976" RevisionGUID="8a33be94-a9b1-40e4-a017-e8f86f3c7eba" CreationDate="2019-01-14T07:14:48.933" UserId="124" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Generally if a question is edited in a way that significantly changes what it's asking and invalidates an existing answer, assuming the original version of the question was itself a decent enough question, the edit should be rolled back. Of course it's a bit of a judgment call whether a given edit significantly changes what the question is asking, but I think this case does meet that bar. So I would suggest undoing the asker's edit. (And of course there's no need for a moderator to do this; anyone with enough reputation can do so. Even the person whose answer was invalidated by the edit to the question can do it, although it might be a good idea to try to get a second opinion because there is the potential for a _slight_ conflict of interest there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think there should be a comment left to the people who answered that the question was edited. We get a comment if our answer is edited, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you do not get a comment left automatically when your answer is edited. The editor may leave you a comment if they think it's necessary, but they have no obligation to do so. However, you do get a _notification_ if your answer is edited. It might be reasonable to also get notifications when a question you've answered has been edited, but that could add up to a lot of notifications for some people so there are arguments for an against. This has been [brought up on Meta SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322/notify-us-when-the-question-has-been-edited-after-posting-an-answer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10976" RevisionGUID="425fc032-5b45-44c2-ac95-d74919559287" CreationDate="2019-01-14T08:54:36.677" UserId="124" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="Generally if a question is edited in a way that significantly changes what it's asking and invalidates an existing answer, assuming the original version of the question was itself a decent enough question, the edit should be rolled back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it's a bit of a judgment call whether a given edit significantly changes what the question is asking, but I think this case does meet that bar. So I would suggest undoing the asker's edit in this case. And there's no need for a moderator to do this; anyone with enough reputation can do so. Even the person whose answer was invalidated by the edit to the question can do it, although it might be a good idea to try to get a second opinion because there is the potential for a _slight_ conflict of interest there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are many _new_ answers that would themselves be invalidated by rolling back the edit, then that might be a reason to make an exception; in that case we'd have to balance the harm done by invalidating the new answers against the good done by revalidating the old answers and maintaining the principle that questions shouldn't be drastically edited. When there's doubt about this, it's probably a good idea to make a meta post, but if the balance is close I'd roll back the edit and write the meta post to ask whether to re-apply it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think there should be a comment left to the people who answered that the question was edited. We get a comment if our answer is edited, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you do not get a comment left automatically when your answer is edited. The editor may leave you a comment if they think it's necessary, but they have no obligation to do so. However, you do get a _notification_ if your answer is edited. It might be reasonable to also get notifications when a question you've answered has been edited, but that could add up to a lot of notifications for some people so there are arguments for an against. This has been [brought up on Meta SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2322/notify-us-when-the-question-has-been-edited-after-posting-an-answer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="8a7d348b-c3cf-4aef-8578-405976aea385" CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:02:07.163" UserId="50493" Text="Today I posted an answer on Physics SE which has received a fair amount of attention. However, the reputation increase stopped after about 20 upvotes. I’m not exactly sure how the reputation system works — is this an intended feature? It’d also be neat to see a general list of what actions correspond to which increases/decreases of reputation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="8a7d348b-c3cf-4aef-8578-405976aea385" CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:02:07.163" UserId="50493" Text="Reputation for highly-upvoted questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="8a7d348b-c3cf-4aef-8578-405976aea385" CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:02:07.163" UserId="50493" Text="|discussion|questions|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="90f88eac-5c12-4cdd-b4eb-6f82e5686754" CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:21:36.193" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33815" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="90f88eac-5c12-4cdd-b4eb-6f82e5686754" CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:21:36.193" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="Reputation cap for highly-upvoted posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10978" RevisionGUID="3f08a5aa-5b25-49d9-a678-cf8307db76d9" CreationDate="2019-01-14T17:27:22.253" UserId="50583" Text="Yes, this is intended. You can earn at most 200 reputation through upvotes in a single UTC day. The reputation through accepted answers is not affected by this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="6b8676dd-6b2b-4e04-adbb-acadc8200fe7" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:04:05.033" UserId="211543" Comment="added 845 characters in body" Text="I'm a mathematical physics student and learning  mathematics(algebraic geometry, complex geometry etc.) and theoretical physics (CFT, string theory, supersymmetry etc.) in the meanwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit: If you think it's a bias, ask yourself: do you discuss with your classmates about physics problems everyday online? And the frequency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To math problems, my answer is yes, I do. Believe it or not. Maybe it's related to the difference between math and physics.&#xD;&#xA;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit: Maybe I shoule restrict it to pure math and physics. For a math student, no matter what field he's going to study, he' about to learn analysis(real, complex, fuctional analysis at least), algebra(linear algebra and modern algebra at least), geometry(analytic, differential geometry at least), and different backgrounds are more and more needed in math studies. But as far as I'm concerned, for a physics student, after learning classical and analytical mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum dynamics and statistical dynamics, they're doing different things. ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is that why Physics SE is more inactive than MSE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the first question in MSE is asked in Mar 27 '10, for PSE is Aug 24 '10, but now MSE has $1040$k questions while PSE has $132$k." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="f728df0c-6025-48c3-9b03-c8891d058232" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:14:45.993" UserId="218974" Text="I want to report @harshit54 because he has been the reason why I was banned from the site. I want strict actions to be taken against him and he should suffer to the same extent as me . Please make it sure. I feel _insecured_because @harshit54 always blocks and downvotes my answers.&#xD;&#xA;Please ensure that he is not able to answer or comment on any of my questions. He should be blocked. Please ensure. He has threatened me also on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="f728df0c-6025-48c3-9b03-c8891d058232" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:14:45.993" UserId="218974" Text="To the moderators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="f728df0c-6025-48c3-9b03-c8891d058232" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:14:45.993" UserId="218974" Text="|discussion|homework-and-exercises|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="1726320b-77df-445a-8e8c-0b1153f16259" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:31:45.557" UserId="124" Comment="anonymize the question" Text="I want to report a user because he has been the reason why I was banned from the site. I want strict actions to be taken against him and he should suffer to the same extent as me . Please make it sure. I feel _insecured_ because this user always blocks and downvotes my answers.&#xD;&#xA;Please ensure that he is not able to answer or comment on any of my questions. He should be blocked. Please ensure. He has threatened me also on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33824" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="1726320b-77df-445a-8e8c-0b1153f16259" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:31:45.557" UserId="124" Comment="anonymize the question" Text="I want to report a user" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33825" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="1726320b-77df-445a-8e8c-0b1153f16259" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:31:45.557" UserId="124" Comment="anonymize the question" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10980" RevisionGUID="3caeb979-65e8-4bc2-8bc4-a2c8c2c8266b" CreationDate="2019-01-15T06:31:41.137" UserId="124" Text="&gt; I want to report a user because he has been the reason why I was banned from the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, we do not issue suspensions because of other users. The real reason you were suspended was explained in the message that was sent to you when your suspension began.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I want strict actions to be taken against him and he should suffer to the same extent as me . Please make it sure. I feel insecured because this user always blocks and downvotes my answers. Please ensure that he is not able to answer or comment on any of my questions. He should be blocked. Please ensure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any moderation actions that may be taken are not up to you to decide. It's inappropriate to make a public post asking for any of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If another member's behavior on the site concerns you, then you can report it to the moderators, but _not_ by making a public post. The way to do so is by _flagging_ the post(s) where it occurred. In the rare case where the behavior is something written in a profile or otherwise not flaggable directly, then you can flag any of the user's posts for moderator attention, and in the message, tell us what you want to report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, flag messages should simply describe what you observed. As the flagger, it's not your place to tell the moderators what to do about it - at least, not when the flag concerns problematic behavior from another user. If you're concerned that the action we take isn't appropriate, you should probably [get in touch with the Stack Exchange team](https://physics.stackexchange.com/contact).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He has threatened me also on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That _is_ something to be concerned about. You should report it by flagging any posts which contain threats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10981" RevisionGUID="de796ae1-b024-4db6-92f0-4c98627c84fa" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:25:17.190" UserId="7743" Text="Make it visible on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chat links looks like an ad banner and my banner blindness automatically filter them out. I have never noticed it's there and I have never used the chat and I have never, ever arrived on any Stack Exchange chat page from Google or from any search engine. Either they are actively excluded from indexing, or have terrible SEO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess others ignored it too for the same reasons so far. If we can fix this, then people will come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="f5b658ac-2543-4e4d-9a68-374dfe7122c5" CreationDate="2019-01-16T13:52:37.507" UserId="71627" Text="I don't agree with the vote to close the question &quot;[Why is the MKS unit of time the same as the CGS unit?][1]&quot;. The question is, when Giorgi proposed to replace the CGS system, could he alternatively have chosen to replace the unit of time instead of the unit of mass. The answer is &quot;no&quot;, because Giorgi aimed for coherence with the practical units ampere, volt and joule. This answer has been accepted by the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User FGSUZ voted for closing the question because it might belong to HSM. But we are using SI today, so it is a question about today (why is the kilogram the SI base unit of mass). Kyle Kanos diverts from the question, which is about the replacement of CGS by MKS, by mentioning natural units. Other voters do not explain their vote. Some users incorrectly seem to imply the change from CGS to MKSA was arbitrary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/453904/why-is-the-mks-unit-of-time-the-same-as-the-cgs-unit/454043#454043" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="f5b658ac-2543-4e4d-9a68-374dfe7122c5" CreationDate="2019-01-16T13:52:37.507" UserId="71627" Text="Don't agree with the votes to close the question &quot;Why is the MKS unit of time the same as the CGS unit?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="f5b658ac-2543-4e4d-9a68-374dfe7122c5" CreationDate="2019-01-16T13:52:37.507" UserId="71627" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33831" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="5f1ac3ec-d455-4d78-a25e-f8cfe89b0c87" CreationDate="2019-01-16T19:06:09.247" UserId="71627" Comment="No reason to disagree anymore" Text="What is the effect of the votes to close the question &quot;Why is the MKS unit of time the same as the CGS unit?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="75bcf502-48eb-4b0a-af04-2d958208fcc7" CreationDate="2019-01-17T00:58:55.503" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Link to actual question" Text="I don't agree with the vote to close the question &quot;[Why is the MKS unit of time the same as the CGS unit?][1]&quot;. The question is, when Giorgi proposed to replace the CGS system, could he alternatively have chosen to replace the unit of time instead of the unit of mass. The answer is &quot;no&quot;, because Giorgi aimed for coherence with the practical units ampere, volt and joule. This answer has been accepted by the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User FGSUZ voted for closing the question because it might belong to HSM. But we are using SI today, so it is a question about today (why is the kilogram the SI base unit of mass). Kyle Kanos diverts from the question, which is about the replacement of CGS by MKS, by mentioning natural units. Other voters do not explain their vote. Some users incorrectly seem to imply the change from CGS to MKSA was arbitrary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/453904" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="75bcf502-48eb-4b0a-af04-2d958208fcc7" CreationDate="2019-01-17T00:58:55.503" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Link to actual question" Text="|discussion|specific-question|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10983" RevisionGUID="d3eb4db1-cddb-40e4-a4e7-4a8accc3ff9a" CreationDate="2019-01-17T03:32:37.507" UserId="25301" Text="The question, as originally written is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Though other units change in different systems, but time's unit never changes. Why is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is *very* different than your interpretation (*Why did Giorgi maintain the unit of time as a second?*). It was later modified to be simply a &quot;Why?&quot; at the end, but since there are no further remarks by the OP to give his/her intention of the question, we can only read it as was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out (by me) in the comments, there are other unit systems in which the unit of time is *not* the second, so it's not clear to me why OP thinks that there's only one unit of time (i.e., the second) in the other &quot;different systems&quot; that were vaguely identified. I voted to close based on that understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand a vote to close on the historical aspect (i.e., your interpretation), given [previous discussion on the matter](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/8930/25301) of questions of historical context. I don't believe the question implies in any meaningful way that it's a request for an historical perspective (note that it's not even tagged [tag:history]), so OP accepting the answer based on an historical perspective increases the *unclear*-ness of the post (though it could just be a &quot;fastest gun in the west&quot; response: jkien answered first, so he gets the check mark).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the titular question: close votes indicate that a subset of users believe that there is a problem with the post that needs remedying. Actual closure of the question prevents further answers from being allowed until the problem is resolved. In this case, OP needs to clarify the historical request (which should be asked on [HSM](https://hsm.stackexchange.com)) or something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33841" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="e0937588-64e9-4d9f-95ad-a54af6813fa6" CreationDate="2019-01-17T11:53:30.957" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|questions|suspensions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="949d84b3-c2e3-41b9-8aa5-681c41086772" CreationDate="2019-01-17T15:58:18.123" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Our moderators have mentioned that they avoid closing questions unilaterally, unless it's a slam-dunk case. I think I've seen similar stances on other sites' metas, and this seems like a good general policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think I've seen some inconsistent wording, and I'm now confused about this. Do mods avoid casting close votes _in general_, or do they specifically only stay away from cases with 1 or 0 pending votes? Like if there are 3-4 pending close votes, do they still hesitate to cast the last one if they feel the question's off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see multiple things to look at: firstly, we could say that the mods shouldn't be doing this beaus perhaps someone takes it a lot more personally/seriously when one of those close voters has a diamond, whether there are five voters or one. (Or is there some other reason?) I get the feeling (particularity based on the extreme-looking Tor SE [close stats](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/321318)) that the data in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10958 (also see DavidZ's answer there) indicate actions which moderators took along with regular users (e.g. one of the 5 close-voters was a moderator) under the column 'moderators'. That suggests to me that the focus is on the fact that moderators were involved, rather than the _extent_ of their involvement in the closing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I think it's completely appropriate for a moderator to close a question with a few pending votes simply because they feel it's off-topic (or whatever), and they're expressing that as any ordinary (though somewhat high-rep) user would: by votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying there's anything wrong with whatever the status quo is; I'm simply curious about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="949d84b3-c2e3-41b9-8aa5-681c41086772" CreationDate="2019-01-17T15:58:18.123" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Do moderators avoid unilateral close votes, or close votes in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="949d84b3-c2e3-41b9-8aa5-681c41086772" CreationDate="2019-01-17T15:58:18.123" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|moderators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="4d3af6b3-6c48-4f93-83df-eaecab4f414e" CreationDate="2019-01-17T16:04:10.977" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Our moderators have mentioned that they avoid closing questions unilaterally, unless it's a slam-dunk case. I think I've seen similar stances on other sites' metas, and this seems like a good general policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think I've seen some inconsistent wording, and I'm now confused about the exact meaning of this. Do mods avoid casting close votes _in general_, or do they specifically only stay away from cases with 1 or 0 pending votes? Like if there are 3-4 pending close votes, do they still hesitate to cast the last one if they feel the question's off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see multiple things to look at: firstly, we could say that the mods shouldn't be doing this beaus perhaps someone takes it a lot more personally/seriously when one of those close voters has a diamond, whether there are five voters or one. (Or is there some other reason?) I get the feeling (particularity based on the extreme-looking Tor SE [close stats](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/321318)) that the data in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10958 (also see DavidZ's answer there) indicate actions which moderators took along with regular users (e.g. one of the 5 close-voters was a moderator) under the column 'moderators'. That suggests to me that the focus is on the fact that moderators were involved, rather than the _extent_ of their involvement in the closing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I think it's completely appropriate for a moderator to close a question with a few pending votes simply because they feel it's off-topic (or whatever), and they're expressing that as any ordinary (though somewhat high-rep) user would: by votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying there's anything wrong with whatever the status quo is; I'm simply curious about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10986" RevisionGUID="a0e85fac-478a-4ca0-8793-da6ebaca8e74" CreationDate="2019-01-17T18:02:30.640" UserId="36194" Text="Moderators need the discretionary power to unilaterally close questions when appropriate, and my experience is that this power has been used wisely: I would rather not constrain their actions through guidelines unless there is an obvious broad problem, and I don’t see one now.  I suppose it’s possible to quietly query a mod through a reply or comment if some specific instance requires clarifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think moderators should refrain from casting votes-to-close: they are not gods to interfere in affairs of mortals only on rare occasions, but experienced users with excellent background to flag for closure duplicates, low quality questions and answers etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10987" RevisionGUID="50b2dbad-fbf7-4d1e-8e6c-237e0d9a07c4" CreationDate="2019-01-17T21:24:23.460" UserId="124" Text="Different mods have different practices, so don't take this as precisely representative of the whole mod team (though I think we all act _somewhat_ similarly). Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say that I avoid closing questions unilaterally, but I am more reluctant to close a question unilaterally than I would be to apply a non-binding close vote (if I could do so). The difference has to do with how obvious it is that the question deserves to be put on hold. If I think it's quite clear that the question deserves to be on hold according to our policies, then I'll go ahead and do that, but in cases where I'm not so sure, I'll leave it to the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a question already has some close votes from other people, I'll adjust my criterion accordingly. The more close votes it has from others, the more willing I am (or, the less sure about it I have to be) to cast a close vote of my own. If a question already has four other close votes, then the threshold I use in my mind is basically the same as if I were casting a non-binding close vote. If it has three close votes from others, then I'd have to be a little more sure than that before closing it myself. And so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10164" RevisionGUID="07a56e6d-013a-4a5a-a3c5-c8f3a9c3cf95" CreationDate="2019-01-18T07:32:23.413" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/86998 suspensions are quite different." Text="|support|questions|post-ban|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="bd2630de-a353-47e7-bb3e-790fca1f607b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T08:05:28.527" UserId="99217" Text="I was asking a QM question recently, and wanted to use the bra &amp; ket notation; however, the mathjax does not support the necessary packages, as far as I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to add the necessary requirement to the Mathjax system so that we can use the bra &amp; ket notation **easily** while asking question pn Phys.SE ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="bd2630de-a353-47e7-bb3e-790fca1f607b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T08:05:28.527" UserId="99217" Text="On Bra &amp; ket notation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="bd2630de-a353-47e7-bb3e-790fca1f607b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T08:05:28.527" UserId="99217" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33855" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="9b3621dd-8f28-48e8-8fc8-63ba6f6a65c5" CreationDate="2019-01-18T08:19:08.773" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="6917f250-b4f7-4941-a38e-ca3c64569759" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:39:47.457" UserId="8563" Comment="edited body" Text="I was asking a QM question recently, and wanted to use the bra &amp; ket notation; however, the MathJax does not support the necessary packages, as far as I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to add the necessary requirement to the MathJax system so that we can use the bra &amp; ket notation **easily** while asking question on Phys.SE ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10989" RevisionGUID="823b3846-b1cc-44df-902c-068f76933c08" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:52:02.500" UserId="8563" Text="As a [recent question](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10988/on-bra-ket-notation) points out, it would be nice if the site's MathJax environment included something similar to the [physics LaTeX package](https://ctan.org/pkg/physics?lang=en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, [the list of third-party extensions for MathJax](https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-third-party-extensions) does include a [physics](https://github.com/ickc/MathJax-third-party-extensions/tree/gh-pages/physics) extension. I'm not sure if this has been considered before and discarded (and, if so: when and where? and why was this considered not feasible?), but if we haven't already, then we should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note, in particular, that the list includes the `mhchem` extension, which the Chemistry site [has had enabled for the past six years](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26/enable-mhchem-mathjax-extension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we do the same? Should we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10989" RevisionGUID="823b3846-b1cc-44df-902c-068f76933c08" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:52:02.500" UserId="8563" Text="Why don't we have the physics MathJax extension enabled? Should we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10989" RevisionGUID="823b3846-b1cc-44df-902c-068f76933c08" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:52:02.500" UserId="8563" Text="|discussion|feature-request|mathjax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10990" RevisionGUID="7cf584c8-bd36-4008-8af8-28c931675cc7" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:57:37.647" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; the mathjax does not support the necessary packages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't true - MathJax has full support for the `\langle`, `|` and `\rangle` commands, as well as the combination `\left&lt; \right&gt;`, which are all you need to typeset bras and kets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it possible to add the necessary requirement to the MathJax system so that we can use the bra &amp; ket notation **easily**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes, that's a nontrivial point. As mentioned in the comments, MathJax isn't LaTeX ─ it's a fully parallel system with completely different internals ─ and adding LaTeX packages isn't generally possible. As it happens, there *is* a specific extension that does this kind of thing, and whether to enable it or not is a narrower discussion [which it's better to have in a dedicated thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10989/why-dont-we-have-the-physics-mathjax-extension-enabled-should-we).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of that, if what you want is ease of access, then the [MathJax Buttons](https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons) browser extension is an extremely convenient way to get seamless access to Dirac notation on the site's text editor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I have modified the software end of my keyboard to have clean access to the unicode versions of the angled brackets (specifically, the `⟩` and `⟨` characters), and those compile just fine with the unicode support in MathJax, so that e.g. `$|x⟩⟨x|$` produces the output $|x⟩⟨x|$, with the benefit of single-keypress access as well as a vastly more readable source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10991" RevisionGUID="49541bc9-7fc0-4dfd-8d80-e2a73437f2a5" CreationDate="2019-01-18T15:44:29.103" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Just from a brief look at this, it seems to me like a bad idea to enable it, for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) It changes the behavior of various commands. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\sin\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2}\right)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\sin\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2}\right)$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \sin(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2})&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\sin(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2})$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, when I look at this in my browser the results are the same as I would expect in standard latex. The parens are big in the first example and small in the second example. But if I load the physics package and compile this document in latex, it automagically supplies the big parens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kind of doubt that this standard behavior was a mistake by Donald Knuth because he wasn't smart enough to make it work better. I'm sure it was a conscious design decision. If we were going to change it at this point, we would break the behavior of old code, and people would start writing code on physics.SE that would not be compatible with standard latex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're using the latex implementation of the physics package, then you have the option of turning off this behavior and reverting to standard tex math by doing `\usepackage[notrig]{physics}`, but in mathjax on physics.SE we wouldn't have any way to do that, would we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) New commands like `\trace` are defined. I doubt that these are compatible with adaptive technologies for the blind, which probably assume standard-ish tex/mathjax math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) A lot of the functionality wouldn't be usable in the context of mathjax on SE. E.g., if you want an arrow over your nabla operator, you can do ` \usepackage[arrowdel]{physics}`, but that won't exist on the SE implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) It would break compatibility. For instance, if I post an answer on SE and later want to use it in a latex document, I don't want to have to worry about the fact that it may not work because I'm using two different dialects. Although mathjax is different from standard tex/latex math, they are similar enough that the differences almost never crop up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) The physics package for latex is fairly new, and the mathjax extension is newer. We would be effectively acting as large-scale testers this mathjax extension. I don't know how good the code quality is or how well supported it will be. What if we have a lot of problems with bugs and incompatibilities and decide that it was a bad idea? We can't switch back without breaking content that people wrote using the extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6) It breaks compatibility between SE sites. We want to be able to say on mathoverflow, for example, &quot;According to this answer on physics.SE, ...&quot; and have it work. When a question is closed and moved to another site where it's more on topic, we want that to work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10991" RevisionGUID="71364002-6db1-49b2-b0b7-e1719190f256" CreationDate="2019-01-18T15:50:15.930" UserDisplayName="user4552" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Just from a brief look at this, it seems to me like a bad idea to enable it, for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) It changes the behavior of various commands. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`\sin\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2}\right)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\sin\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2}\right)$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \sin(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2})&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$\sin(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2})$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, when I look at this in my browser the results are the same as I would expect in standard latex. The parens are big in the first example and small in the second example. But if I load the physics package and compile this document in latex, it automagically supplies the big parens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kind of doubt that this standard behavior was a mistake by Donald Knuth because he wasn't smart enough to make it work better. I'm sure it was a conscious design decision. If we were going to change it at this point, we would break the behavior of old code, and people would start writing code on physics.SE that would not be compatible with standard latex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're using the latex implementation of the physics package, then you have the option of turning off this behavior and reverting to standard tex math by doing `\usepackage[notrig]{physics}`, but in mathjax on physics.SE we wouldn't have any way to do that, would we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) New commands like `\trace` are defined. I doubt that these are compatible with adaptive technologies for the blind, which probably assume standard-ish tex/mathjax math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) A lot of the functionality wouldn't be usable in the context of mathjax on SE. E.g., if you want an arrow over your nabla operator, you can do ` \usepackage[arrowdel]{physics}`, but that won't exist on the SE implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) It would break compatibility. For instance, if I post an answer on SE and later want to use it in a latex document, I don't want to have to worry about the fact that it may not work because I'm using two different dialects. Although mathjax is different from standard tex/latex math, they are similar enough that the differences almost never crop up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) The physics package for latex is fairly new, and the mathjax extension is newer. We would be effectively acting as large-scale testers this mathjax extension. I don't know how good the code quality is or how well supported it will be. What if we have a lot of problems with bugs and incompatibilities and decide that it was a bad idea? We can't switch back without breaking content that people wrote using the extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6) It breaks compatibility between SE sites. We want to be able to say on mathoverflow, for example, &quot;According to this answer on physics.SE, \$...\$&quot; and have the quoted math display properly. When a question is closed and moved to another site where it's more on topic, we want that to work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10991" RevisionGUID="b334286e-e379-4352-b232-0462599c4d95" CreationDate="2019-01-18T15:52:50.177" UserId="8563" Comment="Formatting fixes." Text="Just from a brief look at this, it seems to me like a bad idea to enable it, for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It changes the behavior of various commands. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   `\sin\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2}\right)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   $\sin\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2}\right)$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        \sin(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2})&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   $\sin(\frac{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}}{2})$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Currently, when I look at this in my browser the results are the same as I would expect in standard latex. The parens are big in the first example and small in the second example. But if I load the physics package and compile this document in latex, it automagically supplies the big parens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I kind of doubt that this standard behavior was a mistake by Donald Knuth because he wasn't smart enough to make it work better. I'm sure it was a conscious design decision. If we were going to change it at this point, we would break the behavior of old code, and people would start writing code on physics.SE that would not be compatible with standard latex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If you're using the latex implementation of the physics package, then you have the option of turning off this behavior and reverting to standard tex math by doing `\usepackage[notrig]{physics}`, but in mathjax on physics.SE we wouldn't have any way to do that, would we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. New commands like `\trace` are defined. I doubt that these are compatible with adaptive technologies for the blind, which probably assume standard-ish tex/mathjax math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A lot of the functionality wouldn't be usable in the context of mathjax on SE. E.g., if you want an arrow over your nabla operator, you can do ` \usepackage[arrowdel]{physics}`, but that won't exist on the SE implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It would break compatibility. For instance, if I post an answer on SE and later want to use it in a latex document, I don't want to have to worry about the fact that it may not work because I'm using two different dialects. Although mathjax is different from standard tex/latex math, they are similar enough that the differences almost never crop up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The physics package for latex is fairly new, and the mathjax extension is newer. We would be effectively acting as large-scale testers this mathjax extension. I don't know how good the code quality is or how well supported it will be. What if we have a lot of problems with bugs and incompatibilities and decide that it was a bad idea? We can't switch back without breaking content that people wrote using the extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. It breaks compatibility between SE sites. We want to be able to say on mathoverflow, for example, &quot;According to this answer on physics.SE, \$...\$&quot; and have the quoted math display properly. When a question is closed and moved to another site where it's more on topic, we want that to work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10992" RevisionGUID="6bed14bf-f277-4bf9-9510-6408216ae1cd" CreationDate="2019-01-19T02:50:35.220" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I'm actually quite fond of the physics $\LaTeX$ package.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It has a neat support for derivatives: `\dv[n]{f}{x}` gives $\frac{\mathrm{d}^nf}{\mathrm{d}x^n}$, and it's much more concise than `\frac{\mathrm{d}^nf}{\mathrm{d}x^n}`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It has `\grad` and `\curl`, which are cleaner and more readable than `\nabla\cdot` and `\nabla\times`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. There's the advantage of easy/intuitive bra-ket notation, as mentioned in the post you linked in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are 3 pretty common stuff, which I think is good enough evidence that it's going to be used plenty. So if it's stable enough, I think we should go ahead and set it up! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33867" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10989" RevisionGUID="8a489ee7-8f7b-4ca6-9cf6-f84011fb0089" CreationDate="2019-01-19T03:00:54.013" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1086458447296638977" />
  <row Id="33868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10992" RevisionGUID="eee4b5b4-cc6c-4372-8982-d501db8ae04f" CreationDate="2019-01-19T03:15:13.423" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="I'm actually quite fond of the physics $\LaTeX$ package.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It has a neat support for derivatives: `\dv[n]{f}{x}` gives $\frac{\mathrm{d}^nf}{\mathrm{d}x^n}$, and it's much more concise than `\frac{\mathrm{d}^nf}{\mathrm{d}x^n}`. Also, it makes the `d` straight automatically, which is [perfect](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10949).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It has `\grad` and `\curl`, which are cleaner and more readable than `\nabla\cdot` and `\nabla\times`. (I'm not sure if this supports arrows over the nabla, but you could still use `\vec{\nabla}` if you wanted to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. There's the advantage of easy/intuitive bra-ket notation, as mentioned in the post you linked in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are 3 pretty common stuff, which I think is good enough evidence that it's going to be used plenty. So if it's stable enough, I think we should go ahead and set it up! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="2d6ac5d0-c5a4-415f-83c4-c75412921e8d" CreationDate="2019-01-20T03:27:16.623" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Our moderators have mentioned that they avoid closing questions unilaterally, unless it's a slam-dunk case. I think I've seen similar stances on other sites' metas, and this seems like a good general policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think I've seen some inconsistent wording, and I'm now confused about the exact meaning of this. Do mods avoid casting close votes _in general_, or do they specifically only stay away from cases with 1 or 0 pending votes? Like if there are 3-4 pending close votes, do they still hesitate to cast the last one if they feel the question's off-topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see multiple things to look at: firstly, we could say that the mods shouldn't be doing this because perhaps someone takes it a lot more personally/seriously when one of those close voters has a diamond, whether there are five voters or one. (Or is there some other reason?) I get the feeling (particularity based on the extreme-looking Tor SE [close stats](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/321318)) that the data in https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10958 (also see DavidZ's answer there) indicate actions which moderators took along with regular users (e.g. one of the 5 close-voters was a moderator) under the column 'moderators'. That suggests to me that the focus is on the fact that moderators were involved, rather than the _extent_ of their involvement in the closing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I think it's completely appropriate for a moderator to close a question with a few pending votes simply because they feel it's off-topic (or whatever), and they're expressing that as any ordinary (though somewhat high-rep) user would: by votes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying there's anything wrong with whatever the status quo is; I'm simply curious about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10993" RevisionGUID="47434593-654a-4cd8-9659-82869f6b4700" CreationDate="2019-01-20T16:23:38.183" UserId="98822" Text="[This question ][1] has been asked 6 years and 10 months ago. How can it be a duplicate of [this question][2], which has been asked 4 years and 4 months ago? Shouldn't the second be marked as a duplicate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25591/does-the-universe-have-a-center&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10993" RevisionGUID="47434593-654a-4cd8-9659-82869f6b4700" CreationDate="2019-01-20T16:23:38.183" UserId="98822" Text="How can a question be marked as a duplicate if it's been asked **earlier** than a similar question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10993" RevisionGUID="47434593-654a-4cd8-9659-82869f6b4700" CreationDate="2019-01-20T16:23:38.183" UserId="98822" Text="|discussion|questions|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="657109e2-d467-40b1-98d4-f4ad22cc3acf" CreationDate="2019-01-20T17:51:33.883" UserId="8563" Text="&gt; Shouldn't the second be marked as a duplicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case, the first question (together with its answers) is noticeably less clear and useful than the second one, and indeed it covers a strict subset of the latter. How would it help the site to close the second one as a duplicate of the first one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I *am* bothered by the fact that the $1\to 2$ duplicate closure happened as a result of a unilateral action on the part of the author of the Q&amp;A at the second question, which to my mind kind of over-steps what the [dupehammer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/230865/increase-close-vote-weight-for-gold-tag-badge-holders) should be used for. A more appropriate course of action would have been to vote this into the closure queue and let the community decide, I should think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, in this instance I agree with the closure, so I'm not throwing any stones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10992" RevisionGUID="fac6f85a-f204-4091-9908-2c15aafe8bdf" CreationDate="2019-01-21T04:48:06.803" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Note**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This answer's a placeholder for votes, to gauge the community's opinion regarding whether it's a god idea or not. As pointed out in the comments, there are a few pretty nasty bugs, and I don't support the addition of the physics package any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm actually quite fond of the physics $\LaTeX$ package.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It has a neat support for derivatives: `\dv[n]{f}{x}` gives $\frac{\mathrm{d}^nf}{\mathrm{d}x^n}$, and it's much more concise than `\frac{\mathrm{d}^nf}{\mathrm{d}x^n}`. Also, it makes the `d` straight automatically, which is [perfect](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10949).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It has `\grad` and `\curl`, which are cleaner and more readable than `\nabla\cdot` and `\nabla\times`. (I'm not sure if this supports arrows over the nabla, but you could still use `\vec{\nabla}` if you wanted to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. There's the advantage of easy/intuitive bra-ket notation, as mentioned in the post you linked in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are 3 pretty common stuff, which I think is good enough evidence that it's going to be used plenty. So if it's stable enough, I think we should go ahead and set it up! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33875" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="5410bde2-2d25-4477-8682-6710554436e6" CreationDate="2019-01-21T09:00:46.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1087273790265004033" />
  <row Id="33876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10990" RevisionGUID="5475a69a-b587-4f54-9422-123c1878f2a3" CreationDate="2019-01-21T18:19:12.460" UserId="8563" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="&gt; the mathjax does not support the necessary packages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't true - MathJax has full support for the `\langle`, `|` and `\rangle` commands, as well as the combination `\left&lt; \right&gt;`, which are all you need to typeset bras and kets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it possible to add the necessary requirement to the MathJax system so that we can use the bra &amp; ket notation **easily**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes, that's a nontrivial point. As mentioned in the comments, MathJax isn't LaTeX ─ it's a fully parallel system with completely different internals ─ and adding LaTeX packages isn't generally possible. As it happens, there *is* a specific extension that does this kind of thing, and whether to enable it or not is a narrower discussion [which it's better to have in a dedicated thread](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10989/why-dont-we-have-the-physics-mathjax-extension-enabled-should-we) (but the short answer is likely that the extension is too buggy to use at present, even if it were a good idea to enable it if it did work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of that, if what you want is ease of access, then the [MathJax Buttons](https://stackapps.com/questions/3373/mathjax-buttons) browser extension is an extremely convenient way to get seamless access to Dirac notation on the site's text editor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I have modified the software end of my keyboard to have clean access to the unicode versions of the angled brackets (specifically, the `⟩` and `⟨` characters), and those compile just fine with the unicode support in MathJax, so that e.g. `$|x⟩⟨x|$` produces the output $|x⟩⟨x|$, with the benefit of single-keypress access as well as a vastly more readable source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="4aae3215-5e8e-4ee8-8f65-2593dbb02c7c" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:08:00.093" UserId="219239" Text="I have doubts about [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/455755), because it is a question about a software of physics but I don't know if the question is in the correct forum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="4aae3215-5e8e-4ee8-8f65-2593dbb02c7c" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:08:00.093" UserId="219239" Text="Is this question in the correct forum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="4aae3215-5e8e-4ee8-8f65-2593dbb02c7c" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:08:00.093" UserId="219239" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="9970e313-6f5b-45e2-86bc-3473c7f4c4d9" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:29:49.793" UserId="124" Text="I believe it's not on topic. According to our meta site ([1](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/should-we-allow-software-questions), [2](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-2), [3](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/should-we-allow-software-questions-take-3)), questions about how to use software _may_ be on topic when the software in question is something designed for and primarily used in physics, but questions asking for software recommendations are generally off topic (unless the purpose of the software is educational, similar to how a textbook would be used). I think your question falls into the latter category." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="2aa7f430-de0b-4769-b2a3-7f8712b49b11" CreationDate="2019-01-23T01:34:00.103" UserId="220173" Text="To me down votes and up votes should be earned at the same time, but I want to know what the rationale behind them being separate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="2aa7f430-de0b-4769-b2a3-7f8712b49b11" CreationDate="2019-01-23T01:34:00.103" UserId="220173" Text="Why are up voting and down voting separate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="2aa7f430-de0b-4769-b2a3-7f8712b49b11" CreationDate="2019-01-23T01:34:00.103" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="f19ea325-defc-4f5f-8155-693f8b41bc79" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:57:16.670" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Clarification from comments" Text="To me down votes and up votes should be earned at the same time, but I want to know what the rationale behind them being different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33886" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="f19ea325-defc-4f5f-8155-693f8b41bc79" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:57:16.670" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Clarification from comments" Text="Why are up voting and down voting thresholds different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33887" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="f19ea325-defc-4f5f-8155-693f8b41bc79" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:57:16.670" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Clarification from comments" Text="|discussion|reputation|voting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10999" RevisionGUID="f078b963-8ac3-4859-bfb5-6fd637827446" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:01:29.870" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="This is answered in the [privileges section of the help center](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The [up-vote](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up) privilege comes first because that's what you should focus on: pushing great content to the top.** Down-voting should be reserved for extreme cases. It's not meant as a substitute for communication and editing. _(Emphasis mine)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the thresholds being different, there's also a penalty of 1 rep for downvoting answers. The rationale for this is described in [this Stack Overflow blog post](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="b23f9753-0db5-4c79-9296-9fba248050b5" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:40:29.990" UserId="92397" Text="I have a [question][1] posted to MSE which is more physicsy than mathy. If it remains on MSE, is it kosher to repost it here at the same time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3084079/266049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="b23f9753-0db5-4c79-9296-9fba248050b5" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:40:29.990" UserId="92397" Text="Can I cross post a question from MSE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="b23f9753-0db5-4c79-9296-9fba248050b5" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:40:29.990" UserId="92397" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="7aeb48c2-e6ed-4da4-bdd1-f2c4f2843190" CreationDate="2019-01-23T08:13:46.193" UserId="211543" Comment="improved expression" Text="I'm a mathematical physics student and learning  mathematics(algebraic geometry, complex geometry etc.) and theoretical physics (CFT, string theory, supersymmetry etc.) in the meanwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting phenomenon: students learning math are much more active than those laerning physics on line. Take myself as an example, I discuss math problems with schoolmates in online groups everyday, but I even don't know an online group about physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit: If you think it's a bias, ask yourself: do you discuss with your classmates about physics problems everyday online? And the frequency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To math problems, my answer is yes, I do. Believe it or not. Maybe it's related to the difference between math and physics.&#xD;&#xA;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that because the difference between different physics branches is so large that people studying different areas of physics don't understand what others are doing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit: Maybe I shoule restrict it to pure math and physics. For a math student, no matter what field he's going to study, he' about to learn analysis(real, complex, fuctional analysis at least), algebra(linear algebra and modern algebra at least), geometry(analytic, differential geometry at least), and different backgrounds are more and more needed in math studies. But as far as I'm concerned, for a physics student, after learning classical and analytical mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum dynamics and statistical dynamics, they're doing different things. ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is that why Physics SE is more inactive than MSE?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the first question in MSE is asked in Mar 27 '10, for PSE is Aug 24 '10, but now MSE has $1040$k questions while PSE has $132$k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Addition:(digression)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, math sutdies maybe require more multi-subject backgrounds. For example, if you major in PDE, you may require lots of knowledge ahout manifold since we're more concerned about PDEs on Riemann manifolds. And algebraic geometry is gradually becoming the basic demand for all pure math students. But for physics, there's a huge gap between theoretical and experimental physics, and theoretical physics studies a lot of different things (although they might be the same thing or have some ingerent corrspondence at a very high level, like mirror symmetry, AdS/CFT corrspondence, M-theory etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="d00cb0a1-2e51-49dc-b48a-fb43207b597c" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:58:29.450" UserId="27856" Text="2019 is here! And with the new year, as usual, comes a new iteration of **Community Promotion Ads**! Let’s refresh these for the coming year :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What are Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the site's twitter account&#xD;&#xA; - useful tools or resources for physics research&#xD;&#xA; - interesting articles or findings for the curious&#xD;&#xA; - cool events or conferences&#xD;&#xA; - anything else your community would genuinely be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why do we reset the ads every year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers you post to this question _must_ conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All answers should be in the exact form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;           [1]: http://image-url&#xD;&#xA;           [2]: http://clickthrough-url &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [meta-tag:community-ads] tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Image requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.&#xD;&#xA; - Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)&#xD;&#xA; - Must be GIF or PNG&#xD;&#xA; - No animated GIFs&#xD;&#xA; - Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB&#xD;&#xA; - If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Score Threshold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/11001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="d00cb0a1-2e51-49dc-b48a-fb43207b597c" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:58:29.450" UserId="27856" Text="Community Promotion Ads — 2019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="d00cb0a1-2e51-49dc-b48a-fb43207b597c" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:58:29.450" UserId="27856" Text="|discussion|community-ads|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33896" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="e35be182-a1b7-40e4-89c0-1c7649a5f326" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:58:48.487" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Question closed before moderators could think about it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33897" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="e35be182-a1b7-40e4-89c0-1c7649a5f326" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:58:48.487" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|specific-question|closed-questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11002" RevisionGUID="128cd3bb-817d-43d5-8213-18b5a975224d" CreationDate="2019-01-23T11:59:16.893" UserId="27856" Text="[![Follow us on Twitter!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zzY6I.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://twitter.com/stackphysics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33899" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="b6b55c24-f14a-4760-85d4-c20951d41332" CreationDate="2019-01-23T12:02:35.370" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11001],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11003" RevisionGUID="9661aaac-3bca-4f49-8201-edb28085b40b" CreationDate="2019-01-23T15:50:37.400" UserId="25301" Text="Generally speaking, cross-posting is not recommended without adapting the question to the audience intended. If your concern is the maths, then Math.SE is more appropriate &amp; the question should be written to point out the interest in the maths. If your concern is there physics, then here would be the correct place with indications that it's about the physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it seems to me that your question would probably be closed as a dupe of https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/284745/25301 (or one of the linked), were you to post it here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="08ef92cb-c9eb-406f-a66f-54632fdf33e6" CreationDate="2019-01-23T16:50:54.683" UserDisplayName="user212727" Text="Whenever I click on Anyone's profile to check if available(online) or even my profile,it doesn't show correctly. When I click on my profile it should show online, but it just show last seen a random time ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="08ef92cb-c9eb-406f-a66f-54632fdf33e6" CreationDate="2019-01-23T16:50:54.683" UserDisplayName="user212727" Text="Why it doesn't show correctly when someone was online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="08ef92cb-c9eb-406f-a66f-54632fdf33e6" CreationDate="2019-01-23T16:50:54.683" UserDisplayName="user212727" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bug|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33904" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="1d488fe9-4c1c-4826-b30e-851bf9391f0b" CreationDate="2019-01-23T16:53:32.120" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bug|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33905" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="b0716922-6bc0-4986-9cf6-fe36900c86b3" CreationDate="2019-01-23T17:00:04.673" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="780cbbcd-69e4-4c13-8a00-dcd2c382ec29" CreationDate="2019-01-23T17:12:07.110" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|bug|status-bydesign|profile-page|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11005" RevisionGUID="97850bec-92c5-42c5-ac8a-f8b54f7e8c82" CreationDate="2019-01-23T17:17:21.147" UserId="8563" Text="The &quot;last seen...&quot; counter is updated at periodic intervals a few minutes apart, as documented in [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/70235/184688). (Basically, continuously checking every second whether every SE user ever is active would be an excessive load for the Stack Exchange servers.) As such, it is expected to be an imperfect measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you observe *large* deviations, then this might be more interesting. However, the amount of quantitative detail in the data that you've reported,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it just show last seen a random time ago,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not enough to say anything other than &quot;yeah, this is just by design&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="99c8d724-5131-4142-8229-0171d6612382" CreationDate="2019-01-23T19:51:36.033" UserId="93522" Text="[![Astronomy Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1tczj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="124d650d-4995-4561-bc51-46bd8d9177fe" CreationDate="2019-01-23T20:18:24.130" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="[![Quantum Computing Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PYDEq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="8463ea12-0df2-486d-88fe-d59c54882498" CreationDate="2019-01-23T21:02:17.390" UserId="220173" Text="I am legitimately curious because if I find someone who understands me can I ask them to edit all my questions that others might not understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="8463ea12-0df2-486d-88fe-d59c54882498" CreationDate="2019-01-23T21:02:17.390" UserId="220173" Text="am I allowed to ask a user to be an editor for me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="8463ea12-0df2-486d-88fe-d59c54882498" CreationDate="2019-01-23T21:02:17.390" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="dcbd5c70-88a5-4a10-9ec6-bb0af8c5e6de" CreationDate="2019-01-23T22:02:44.577" UserId="25301" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I have a [question][1] posted to MSE which is more about physics than math. If it remains on MSE, is it kosher to repost it here at the same time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3084079/266049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11009" RevisionGUID="f7a163e3-36c2-4c97-b91e-5f5996bd12a6" CreationDate="2019-01-23T22:16:09.337" UserId="127931" Text="Sure, you could _ask_.  I don't know if it would help much though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to the nature of this site, users are able to edit, or propose edits, to other users' posts.  There's nothing inherently wrong with asking if users (or I guess one particular user) would be willing to edit your questions to make them understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I don't think it's a particularly good idea, and I doubt you would have much luck with this plan.  There's no reason why you _couldn't_ do this, according to site policies that I am aware of; and no technical limitations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several hurdles to overcome, and I believe they would make this practically useless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is finding someone willing to do this.  Members of this community are volunteering their time, generally because they enjoy thinking about physics in their free time and are willing to share that knowledge.  I don't think many people on this site would want to spend time reading through your questions and fixing them for you.  You may have some luck on a case-by-case basis; but I am very doubtful you would find a willing user who would want to edit _all_ of your questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the second point - the process of how you would find someone to do this.  The only decent method I can think of would be using the Chat to see if there is anyone willing to help.  I have my doubts you would find anyone there willing to do this for all your questions.  Asking for this anywhere else on this site (such as questions/comments/answers) is something to avoid.  It wouldn't really be an appropriate use of these features, and I doubt it would be successful even if people read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third issue is that having someone edit your questions after the fact may not help you very much.  If the question gets more attention in it's unedited format, it could receive downvotes and other negative feedback that may be hard to reverse if enough users don't notice the edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR** In theory, you can _ask_; but I have my doubts you would find much help, and you need to make sure you are asking in an appropriate way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11005" RevisionGUID="e0bb5180-4aeb-420e-bb36-6f365889fb5d" CreationDate="2019-01-24T11:14:17.487" UserId="8563" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="The &quot;last seen...&quot; counter is updated at periodic intervals a few minutes apart, as documented in [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/70235/184688) and [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/261613/184688) in the Mother Meta. (Basically, continuously checking every second whether every SE user ever is active would be an excessive load for the Stack Exchange servers.) As such, it is expected to be an imperfect measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you observe *large* deviations, then this might be more interesting. However, the amount of quantitative detail in the data that you've reported,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it just show last seen a random time ago,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not enough to say anything other than &quot;yeah, this is just by design&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11010" RevisionGUID="0f0a2914-f50a-4e98-98c0-a408a5846247" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:30:23.800" UserId="8563" Text="[![archive.org - the public library of the internet][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ij43t.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11011" RevisionGUID="4e9aa440-1a3c-4309-b0f7-b8f422214035" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:30:41.033" UserId="8563" Text="[![Detexify: automated LaTeX symbol recognition][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E9D64.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="ab1cb73a-22ae-415c-8c66-86232a623e04" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:30:55.383" UserId="8563" Text="[![arXiv.org: the leading open access eprint repository][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziQXb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://arxiv.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="bca6f50e-23d1-4247-bd6a-1ccf5969f532" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:31:16.433" UserId="8563" Text="[![Community ads are run by the community. Come and vote!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SOhy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10394/community-promotion-ads-2018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11014" RevisionGUID="f38a40c8-8e86-483a-bd45-63fff027591e" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:31:35.950" UserId="8563" Text="[![DLMF: an online encyclopaedia of special functions][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/toYiP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlmf.nist.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11015" RevisionGUID="f3d779b0-e2bf-4942-8a20-cab4f3fd2787" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:32:18.673" UserId="8563" Text="[![Computational Science at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O9ZQy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scicomp.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="1bceeda4-d2cd-4a18-8a9d-27bf81e90ab0" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:32:33.057" UserId="8563" Text="[![SciRate][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pefiz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scirate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11017" RevisionGUID="efe46fa0-de82-4034-9e4f-54fe5c7cfa4c" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:32:46.270" UserId="8563" Text="[![History of Science and Mathematics at Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/353zN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11018" RevisionGUID="68e31ffc-b3f5-4ad9-b676-74c7b844f39f" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:33:27.987" UserId="8563" Text="[![Physics Stack Exchange Review Queue][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ef9Hl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11019" RevisionGUID="481b4083-3075-477e-88e5-ed1c122b3b7c" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:33:54.963" UserId="8563" Text="[![Retraction Watch][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFSyZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://retractionwatch.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11020" RevisionGUID="2e1a5b12-2db2-47ac-bc61-7867ec975c55" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:34:11.673" UserId="8563" Text="[![Wayback Machine: experience the Web as it was][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1wvvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/web/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="9afb07fd-a9a6-41a7-b24e-b071d884de6a" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:35:19.263" UserId="8563" Text="[![Academia Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5A7af.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://academia.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11022" RevisionGUID="64ea0ea7-5cd2-439a-a2e2-7dc75962aa8d" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:35:31.937" UserId="8563" Text="[![Are your papers available in an open access repository? Check with Dissemin][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HAnRi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dissem.in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11023" RevisionGUID="3584a9dc-a95e-4135-8b38-532bd60ce82a" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:35:52.120" UserId="8563" Text="[![The Cost of Knowledge - join the Elsevier boycott and take back our scientific publishing!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vu8lo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thecostofknowledge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="4e0db5db-ae5d-41ad-9b8f-3cdadb57dbb4" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:36:09.813" UserId="8563" Text="[![Zotero reference manager: free and open source][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NS3GV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.zotero.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="4fb54fd1-efe3-4cee-8047-2f3f9e6f37f2" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:36:21.080" UserId="8563" Text="[![Engineering Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ei2RL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="0621407a-c32c-43e2-9b3c-ebb756352347" CreationDate="2019-01-25T01:31:06.787" UserId="220173" Text="A user is consistently harassing me their name is aaaaaa. I have warned them and they continued" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="0621407a-c32c-43e2-9b3c-ebb756352347" CreationDate="2019-01-25T01:31:06.787" UserId="220173" Text="A user named aaaaa is harassing me in main" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="0621407a-c32c-43e2-9b3c-ebb756352347" CreationDate="2019-01-25T01:31:06.787" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33937" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="90b7329d-9faf-49aa-985b-a924c857515f" CreationDate="2019-01-25T02:27:39.597" UserId="220173" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:220173,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luna&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33938" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="2582bff4-ccfc-4462-aa77-26d84895bb56" CreationDate="2019-01-25T02:34:25.937" UserId="220173" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:220173,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luna&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="ca4c54ef-f372-4371-bd57-5fb64ce7f063" CreationDate="2019-01-25T03:01:35.817" UserId="124" Comment="remove identifying information" Text="A user is consistently harassing me. I have warned them and they continued" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33940" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="ca4c54ef-f372-4371-bd57-5fb64ce7f063" CreationDate="2019-01-25T03:01:35.817" UserId="124" Comment="remove identifying information" Text="A user is harassing me in main" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="8b9fb550-e118-48af-ac48-d9e96380c87d" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:19:10.977" UserId="8563" Text="There's very little to add to [this moderator comment]():&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if somebody's rude to you in the comments, there's no internet law that says you have to win the argument. If you see something particularly unpleasant, flag for moderator attention; then *disengage*. It'll be okay, I promise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that you're being harassed, or that some other user is being rude or abusive (or just unwelcoming in some way), this meta isn't a good venue for it. Just **flag the comment and disengage.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that, while [flagging is a privilege obtained at 15 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) (and lost if you go below that for whatever reason), [**this is not the case for comment threads where you're participating**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/311459/allow-new-users-to-flag-comments-on-their-own-posts): if you can comment on a post, then you can also flag comments on that post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="58403e92-b43b-4c9a-af0d-d64660a40bad" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:28:04.050" UserId="8563" Comment="added 697 characters in body" Text="There's very little to add to [this moderator comment]():&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if somebody's rude to you in the comments, there's no internet law that says you have to win the argument. If you see something particularly unpleasant, flag for moderator attention; then *disengage*. It'll be okay, I promise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that you're being harassed, or that some other user is being rude or abusive (or just unwelcoming in some way), this meta isn't a good venue for it. Just **flag the comment and disengage.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that, while [flagging is a privilege obtained at 15 reputation](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/flag-posts) (and lost if you go below that for whatever reason), [**this is not the case for comment threads where you're participating**](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/311459/allow-new-users-to-flag-comments-on-their-own-posts): if you can comment on a post, then you can also flag comments on that post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably important to say this explicitly: several of your comments are on pretty gray areas, and they indicate that your side of the interactions has not been blameless either (and that's only with the comments which are currently visible right now). The fact that (you perceive that) others are being rude or abusive does *not* mean that you can reply with similar stuff. It can indeed be hard to turn away, but it's crucial to do so: flag the comments and walk away. A moderator will be there shortly to resolve the situation, and it won't help if they also have to deal with a lot of stuff from your side of the comments as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="7faeec6e-41e6-4180-a0dd-20c7a3b64dd1" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:18:04.167" UserId="220173" Text="Is there a way I can improve how my current questions are received because no matter what I do they get received worse? They don't even tell me what needs improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="7faeec6e-41e6-4180-a0dd-20c7a3b64dd1" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:18:04.167" UserId="220173" Text="I am having trouble improving how my questions are received" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="7faeec6e-41e6-4180-a0dd-20c7a3b64dd1" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:18:04.167" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="c5e3321e-3931-4616-8de8-f5a321e8fc7d" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:24:41.810" UserId="220173" Comment="tag" Text="|discussion|support|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33947" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="01491196-425e-4587-b828-9caa60a5526a" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:48:49.783" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10979],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:191954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chair&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:84967,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;AccidentalFourierTransform&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="33948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11029" RevisionGUID="735f494e-18df-4009-a6a4-3024ad9e4325" CreationDate="2019-01-26T05:52:59.703" UserId="199630" Text="Don’t say things like “I know [whatever] due to deep research”. This is pretentious because it is obvious from your questions that you are not yet an experienced physicist, and saying this kind of thing shows disrespect for those who *have* done deep research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, do not mention “the science channel”. We’re all for popularizing science, but you can’t really learn physics by watching TV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don’t say “I want as many people to explain as possible.” This comes across as pushy, and all you need is one good explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just ask your question in a simple and clear way, do not embellish your expertise, and don’t make any demands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11029" RevisionGUID="f56b87af-f404-4c4b-ab4a-6a7cc0113283" CreationDate="2019-01-26T06:02:39.573" UserId="199630" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="Don’t say things like “I know [whatever] due to deep research”. This is pretentious because it is obvious from your questions that you are not yet an experienced physicist, and saying this kind of thing shows disrespect for those who *have* done deep research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, do not mention “the science channel”. We’re all for popularizing science, but you can’t really learn physics by watching TV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don’t say “I want as many people to explain as possible.” This comes across as pushy, and all you need is one good explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just ask your question in a simple and clear way, do not embellish your expertise, and don’t make any demands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked your question about iron and star death in a reasonable way, and it did not get downvoted. However, the problem with that question is that you could have easily found the answer by an internet search for “iron star death”. Why should we answer questions that have easily-found answers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11030" RevisionGUID="ef59c7f5-5b7a-440d-a3b4-978236b1ef9b" CreationDate="2019-01-26T06:29:42.890" UserId="46399" Text="[![Physics Travel Guide][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EXiD9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physicstravelguide.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11031" RevisionGUID="360bc519-6f40-4c89-9378-03af65e61e53" CreationDate="2019-01-26T14:03:46.997" UserDisplayName="user59991" Text="[![Chemistry Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GhjWR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="1606f120-1c73-4c9d-890e-0fff88af8095" CreationDate="2019-01-26T15:07:40.987" UserId="44126" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|community-ads|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="2e905789-be76-434d-a6c9-d33f3540a2ab" CreationDate="2019-01-26T15:20:20.420" UserId="36194" Text="Patience patience patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One easy thing to do is to search this site by keywords and by tags.  In many case, less experienced users will not take sufficient care to find duplicates or near duplicates, and their questions are closed as such.  Another virtue of searching the website is that it will help you broaden your understanding of the topic by reading what others have asked, and what others have answered.  It will also provide examples of well received and not so well received questions on this topic, and so will help you detect common pitfalls of closed or poorly received questions, and common themes of well-received questions on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search the web or textbook for material on this topic.  By making a lot of prior research and doing a lot of preparatory reading you will not only improve your knowledge of the topic, but you will also become familiar with the terminology of the area - the technical words - and this will be a help towards writing a question that is clear and concise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this takes time, hence: patience patience patience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="74871eee-d5f2-4bda-8335-8699cc6a58d7" CreationDate="2019-01-26T15:32:38.103" UserId="36194" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="Patience patience patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One easy thing to do is to search this site by keywords and by tags.  In many case, less experienced users will not take sufficient care to find duplicates or near duplicates, and their questions are closed as such.  Another virtue of searching the website is that it will help you broaden your understanding of the topic by reading what others have asked, and what others have answered.  It will also provide examples of well received and not so well received questions on this topic, and so will help you detect common pitfalls of closed or poorly received questions, and common themes of well-received questions on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search the web or textbook for material on this topic.  By making a lot of prior research and doing a lot of preparatory reading you will not only improve your knowledge of the topic, but you will also become familiar with the terminology of the area - the technical words - and this will be a help towards writing a question that is clear and concise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question and its answers][1] also contains a lot of useful tips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this takes time, hence: patience patience patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10421/how-to-stop-asking-duplicate-questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="dbf6ed20-3ad1-4569-96ab-f2cb56be190d" CreationDate="2019-01-26T16:24:34.333" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="edited body" Text="[![Quantum Computing Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hl0Gt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="db1667dc-a140-4e2f-9da4-d6fdf44ded9b" CreationDate="2019-01-26T21:00:24.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1089266830697484290" />
  <row Id="33957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="f3cb12a1-3dc7-41f0-87ea-1a4184f88c88" CreationDate="2019-01-27T11:47:02.510" UserId="65074" Text="I am not sure how this answer will be received by the community but I'd like to point out that there are many superficial things that determine how your question is received. I am not claiming that your question was well-researched enough for the community's standards. However there is a certain way of writing which gets results, which is independent of the actual research effort done by the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question (down-voted to -3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found out that iron is the death element for stars, but i couldn't find why can anyone knowledgeable on stars explain why iron causes the star to die?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An edited version of the same question which I expect wouldn't be downvoted as strongly, which doesn't actually have any more research effort than the original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recently I have been interested in the life cycle of stars. I read that if a star is found to contain lots of iron, this indicates it is near the end of its life. It wasn't clear to me, though, why this is the case. Does the iron *cause* the star to die? Or is it just the byproduct of some other process which brings a star to its death?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An incomplete list of things which have a strong effect on up/downvotes, which I consider superficial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using correct punctuation, grammar, spelling. There are many people who would see your uncapitalized &quot;i&quot; and kind-of-runon sentence style and immediately think you are unintelligent. I disagree with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Writing longer questions. People will then be more likely to assume that you know what you are talking about. Consider writing your question in a more academic, rather than just everyday-language, kind of way. Then you are probably an academic and should be respected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could write more but unfortunately don't have the time right now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I do want to say: This is not an issue, necessarily, with stack exchange itself. Many people in many fields judge by appearances. In some fields less, and in some more. Academia especially can often be very unforgiving about this. I think it is a shame because the focus should be on ideas, not presentation, but this is the world we live in. Each individual can only try not to judge superficially for themselves, and this kind of thing can be improved. It also means that students who don't speak english well but are good physicists are disadvantaged even when the communication of their ideas is clear, and just the details are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the reason your question here on meta got many upvotes is that many question-askers have some resentment for how harshly their questions are judged, without reasons given which are clear/justified to the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The up-side is: I think there *are* many people here who don't judge questions superficially as well, and are happy to answer any question which is clear to them. That is why your questions did get good answers in the end, despite being downvoted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="1221abcc-d9b1-456d-8229-3c33e6ede2f2" CreationDate="2019-01-27T11:53:21.840" UserId="65074" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="I am not sure how this answer will be received by the community but I'd like to point out that there are many superficial things that determine how your question is received. I am not claiming that your question was well-researched enough for the community's standards. However there is a certain way of writing which gets results, which is independent of the actual research effort done by the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question (down-voted to -3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found out that iron is the death element for stars, but i couldn't find why can anyone knowledgeable on stars explain why iron causes the star to die?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An edited version of the same question which I expect wouldn't be downvoted as strongly, which doesn't actually have any more research effort than the original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recently I have been interested in the life cycle of stars. I read that if a star is found to contain lots of iron, this indicates it is near the end of its life. It wasn't clear to me, though, why this is the case. Does the iron *cause* the star to die? Or is it just the byproduct of some other process which brings a star to its death?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An incomplete list of things which have a strong effect on up/downvotes, which I consider superficial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using correct punctuation, grammar, spelling. There are many people who would see your uncapitalized &quot;i&quot; and kind-of-runon sentence style and immediately think you are unintelligent. I disagree with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consider writing your question in a more academic, rather than just everyday-language, kind of way. Then you are probably an academic and should be respected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Have some reputation and badges. In particular, try to get at least one silver badge. There can be an implicit association with the color brown and the idea &quot;doesn't really know what he/she is doing&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Longer questions can be good. Then the people who come just to downvote based on superficial reasons sometimes don't bother to read the whole thing, and anyone who *does* read the whole thing has bothered enough to give you a chance and is more likely to at least help you with a comment if the question isn't well-written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could write more but unfortunately don't have the time right now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I do want to say: This is not an issue, necessarily, with stack exchange itself. Many people in many fields judge by appearances. In some fields less, and in some more. Academia especially can often be very unforgiving about this. I think it is a shame because the focus should be on ideas, not presentation, but this is the world we live in. Each individual can only try not to judge superficially for themselves, and this kind of thing can be improved. It also means that students who don't speak english well but are good physicists are disadvantaged even when the communication of their ideas is clear, and just the details are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the reason your question here on meta got many upvotes is that many question-askers have some resentment for how harshly their questions are judged, without reasons given which are clear/justified to the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The up-side is: I think there *are* many people here who don't judge questions superficially as well, and are happy to answer any question which is clear to them. That is why your questions did get good answers in the end, despite being downvoted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="84a4d6c6-ff67-44e9-aea5-131df8d1860b" CreationDate="2019-01-27T12:01:08.827" UserId="65074" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am not sure how this answer will be received by the community but I'd like to point out that there are many superficial things that determine how your question is received. I am not claiming that your question was well-researched enough for the community's standards. However there is a certain way of writing which gets results, which is independent of the actual research effort done by the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question (down-voted to -3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found out that iron is the death element for stars, but i couldn't find why can anyone knowledgeable on stars explain why iron causes the star to die?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An edited version of the same question which I expect wouldn't be downvoted as strongly, which doesn't actually have any more research effort than the original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recently I have been interested in the life cycle of stars. I read that if a star is found to contain lots of iron, this indicates it is near the end of its life. It wasn't clear to me, though, why this is the case. Does the iron *cause* the star to die? Or is it just the byproduct of some other process which brings a star to its death?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An incomplete list of things which have a strong effect on up/downvotes, which I consider superficial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using correct punctuation, grammar, spelling. There are many people who would see your uncapitalized &quot;i&quot; and kind-of-runon sentence style and immediately think less of you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consider writing your question in a more academic, rather than just everyday-language, kind of way. This correlates with the impression that you are respectable and knowledgable in your field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Have some reputation and badges. In particular, try to get at least one silver badge. There can be an implicit association with the color brown and the idea &quot;doesn't really know what he/she is doing&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Longer questions can be good. Then the people who come just to downvote based on superficial reasons sometimes don't bother to read the whole thing, and anyone who *does* read the whole thing has bothered enough to give you a chance and is more likely to at least help you with a comment if the question isn't well-written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could write more but unfortunately don't have the time right now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I do want to say: This is not an issue, necessarily, with stack exchange itself. Many people in many fields judge by appearances. In some fields less, and in some more. Academia especially can often be very unforgiving about this. I think it is a shame because the focus should be on ideas, not presentation, but this is the world we live in. Each individual can only try not to judge superficially for themselves, and this kind of thing can be improved. It also means that students who don't speak english well but are good physicists are disadvantaged even when the communication of their ideas is clear, and just the details are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the reason your question here on meta got many upvotes is that many question-askers have some resentment for how harshly their questions are judged, without reasons given which are clear/justified to the asker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The up-side is: I think there *are* many people here who don't judge questions superficially as well, and are happy to answer any question which is clear to them. That is why your questions did get good answers in the end, despite being downvoted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33960" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="3c5fa22c-8ece-4b7e-9cca-effa5cd24b8c" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:03:27.820" UserId="8563" Comment="Rollback to [124d650d-4995-4561-bc51-46bd8d9177fe]" Text="[![Quantum Computing Stack Exchange][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PYDEq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="a081387d-7783-4659-baac-55f5a6d2695d" CreationDate="2019-01-27T22:14:51.123" UserDisplayName="user113773" Text="I'm providing links to a very well received question and my poorly received question and I'd like to know why---in the eyes of this community---one is one better than the other. I'm mystified by what goes on inside the heads of people who upvote/downvote here and I'd like to get a sense of what's going on so that I'm not rolling dice---so to speak---every time I ask something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122785/could-legolas-actually-see-that-far&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/456782/vertical-motion-of-a-projectile-subject-to-quadratic-drag?noredirect=1#comment1025668_456782" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="a081387d-7783-4659-baac-55f5a6d2695d" CreationDate="2019-01-27T22:14:51.123" UserDisplayName="user113773" Text="Terribly confused about what this community is about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="a081387d-7783-4659-baac-55f5a6d2695d" CreationDate="2019-01-27T22:14:51.123" UserDisplayName="user113773" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="d0a51bb7-eb24-41cc-8595-3661733bc736" CreationDate="2019-01-28T09:40:09.713" UserId="605" Text="Refer to this question: [How would the rotational and orbital mechanics differ on a torus-shaped planet as compared to a spherical planet?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/428986/605)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is asking about torus-shaped planet rotational and orbital mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this is a question can be answered completely using Newtonian physics, and is as mainstream as the mechanics of spherical planet, however it was closed because &quot;we deal with mainstream physics here&quot;, implying that somehow, Newtonian physics doesn't apply to torus shaped planet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the logic of the closure. Care to explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="d0a51bb7-eb24-41cc-8595-3661733bc736" CreationDate="2019-01-28T09:40:09.713" UserId="605" Text="How can &quot;torus shape&quot; planet be &quot;non-mainstream&quot; physics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="d0a51bb7-eb24-41cc-8595-3661733bc736" CreationDate="2019-01-28T09:40:09.713" UserId="605" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33973" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="a6a30673-5a25-419f-a030-34bce14e49aa" CreationDate="2019-01-28T10:30:00.353" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|closed-questions|close-reasons|non-mainstream-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="a6a30673-5a25-419f-a030-34bce14e49aa" CreationDate="2019-01-28T10:30:00.353" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="Refer to this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/428986/605&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is asking about torus-shaped planet rotational and orbital mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this is a question can be answered completely using Newtonian physics, and is as mainstream as the mechanics of spherical planet, however it was closed because &quot;we deal with mainstream physics here&quot;, implying that somehow, Newtonian physics doesn't apply to torus shaped planet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see the logic of the closure. Care to explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="61ba22fd-b968-4803-9dff-430c2a5ad512" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:15:28.667" UserId="8563" Text="Your profile currently lists 25 questions, of which 20 are still open and 23 have score $\geq 0$. As such, it feels like you're over-reacting - you obviously have a pretty decent idea of what makes for an on-topic question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the questions that did get closed, other than the duplicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/432830/why-is-quantum-mechanics-called-quantum-mechanics), also downvoted, is the kind of open-ended opinion-based discussion thread which isn't actually much of a question. It also goes on to very confidently make statements which are dead wrong, and leaves no room for ambiguity in that you're not contemplating any room around that; this isn't what got it closed, but it's certainly not a recipe for upvotes.&#xD;&#xA; - [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/399361/all-of-the-postulates-of-quantum-mechanics-without-additional-information) just doesn't present a clear picture of what you're looking for in an answer $-$ and, to the extent that it does, it's way too broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones that seem to have you worried right now are [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/456270/approximating-the-time-it-takes-for-a-particle-with-a-potential-ax4-to-appro) and [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443353/time-evolution-of-a-free-particle-with-a-given-initial-state), as well as [this now-deleted one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/456782/vertical-motion-of-a-projectile-subject-to-quadratic-drag) ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/c6LoT.png)), which were closed as homework-like. (Speaking of which: you just started a discussion thread and then deleted the example question that you'd brought up for discussion within five hours of posting on meta. Does that strike you as constructive? It certainly doesn't look like you're bringing up this discussion in good faith to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key thing to keep in mind here is that [the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) holds *regardless of the origin of the question*. If it comes up that one of your questions might be in conflict with the homework policy, then you need to step away from the question, and what you know of how you yourself think about it, and then look at it from an external perspective. Does the question text *read* like it came out of a textbook? If so, have you done what we expect good homework questions to do? Are you asking for a concept, or are you just looking for a solution to the textbook-like text? Have you explained what you already know and understand, and how it came up short to what you wanted to do? (For your closed questions, all these criteria came up on the wrong side.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework-and-exercises policy is applied consistently across the board (or as consistently as we can, anyways), and without any regard to where the question text came from, because that's the only way to keep it fair. If all it takes to ask a terrible question is to say &quot;oh, no, this isn't homework&quot;, then it just scuppers the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the elf-vision question that you seem to be so upset by: as mentioned in the comments, this question was listed in the Hot Network Questions sidebar for a substantial period. As such, it was advertised to a large cross-section of users across the *entire* Stack Exchange network, and its voting patterns can only be understood within that frame. Long story short, it's completely meaningless to compare post scores on HNQ threads vs threads that didn't get advertised on that sidebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if that makes it sound like we have a sidebar that's advertising junk-food clickbait that doesn't really represent what makes for a Good Question on this site, then... yes, absolutely. Many people have been saying that for years, both here and over on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/), to little avail. There's *some* hope of fixing the mechanism, which opened at [this ugly fracas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha) last October, but we've yet to see how that shakes out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and also: do **not** remove the homework-and-exercises tag from your posts, particularly when it's been applied by a moderator. The only thing that you'll achieve by getting into an edit war is to get your post locked, which is precisely the opposite of what you'd need if you actually wanted to fix your post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="a516b97a-587d-406a-b5f9-cffdb9f6caeb" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:29:45.773" UserId="157187" Text="I've recently noticed that when I flag something as off-topic by suggesting it to another site(in order to get better answers for that question) I only see the options of Physics Meta Stack Exchange and Mathematics Stack Exchange (shown below in the picture), like no Chemistry Stack Exchange or Biology Stack Exchange. I was wondering if the coding or suggestion could be fixed somehow to incorporate more science sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L3EkA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="a516b97a-587d-406a-b5f9-cffdb9f6caeb" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:29:45.773" UserId="157187" Text="Why can't I suggest &quot;Chemistry Stack Exchange&quot; as another site when flagging as off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="a516b97a-587d-406a-b5f9-cffdb9f6caeb" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:29:45.773" UserId="157187" Text="|feature-request|flagging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="f60bdbda-37c7-425f-af93-f02b10e17144" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:34:57.957" UserId="157187" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="I've recently noticed that when I flag something as off-topic by suggesting it to another site(in order to get better answers for that question) I only see the options of Physics Meta Stack Exchange and Mathematics Stack Exchange (shown below in the picture), like no Chemistry Stack Exchange or Biology Stack Exchange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if the coding or suggestion could be fixed somehow to incorporate more science sites. I understand that mathematics questions are the most cross-posted in the Physics Stack exchange but I do believe I've often seen many good chemistry and biology questions end up here which could've been better answered in their respective sites(especially posted by new users). Hence my suggestion for this improvement. Maybe add a search feature like when adding &quot;duplicates&quot; to **link** another stack exchange site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L3EkA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33981" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="f60bdbda-37c7-425f-af93-f02b10e17144" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:34:57.957" UserId="157187" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="Why can't I suggest &quot;Chemistry Stack Exchange&quot; as another site when flagging a question as off-topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33982" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="df39411c-948e-4255-99d2-9f3dc8749b2a" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:37:34.113" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|flagging|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33983" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="f183ad94-0760-4c77-b08d-0ce701f7add4" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:43:13.190" UserId="2451" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4144],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Qmechanic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="9bb2901b-3bc3-4caa-bf35-040d7ba782bf" CreationDate="2019-01-28T12:42:06.137" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I don't think &quot;answered completely using Newtonian physics&quot; is appropriate justification since someone could pitch a theory of their own which completely violates Newtonian mechanics (at orders of magnitude where Newtonian mechanics is correct), in which case an 'answer' would be a description of Newtonian mechanics; such a question would be off-topic. That being said, I think it's an acceptable question and I've cast a reopen vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, similar questions are also a good fit for Worldbuilding SE (see [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/6465) and the linked posts); they have a 'nonspherical-planet' tag too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="0627d448-e028-4547-80da-8b1fb6ca4b33" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:00:46.513" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="I don't think &quot;answered completely using Newtonian physics&quot; is appropriate justification since someone could pitch a theory of their own which completely violates Newtonian mechanics (at orders of magnitude where Newtonian mechanics is correct), in which case an 'answer' would be a description of Newtonian mechanics; such a question would be off-topic. That being said, I think it's an acceptable question and I've cast a reopen vote, since it appears to be purely a hypothetical idea to understand how the dynamics of such a body would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, similar questions are also a good fit for Worldbuilding SE (see [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/6465) and the linked posts); they have a 'nonspherical-planet' tag too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11042" RevisionGUID="455b02a1-6d52-4575-b6a6-5ba205c9f55e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:48:23.140" UserId="25301" Text="I agree that it's not non-mainstream, but I think the question is overly broad, asking what the &quot;rotational motion&quot; would be in such a place. This is not or less going to require a very lengthy response, probably chapter-of-a-textbook kind of answer to address the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also of the opinion that *only OP* should be the one make changes to reduce the broadness, as such a reduction of topicality significantly alters the question asked, so we can only request in the comments the change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the given answer basically says, &quot;The projectile motion does change. Here, check out my blog where I talk about this topic!!&quot; And the blog post is not terribly short either, indicating much can be said on the topic. Hence, fairly broad request.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11043" RevisionGUID="c35080e2-9b5e-47b5-b8c7-c9ebacd5293a" CreationDate="2019-01-28T15:29:59.903" UserId="165299" Text="Demanding that questions only deal with situations that unequivocally can occur in the real world rules out objects on infinite planes, point masses, Einsteinian trains, Maxwell's demon, supersymmetry, superstring theory, and any of the other standard thought experiments that form the underpinnings of a standard physics education. The ability of applying physics rigorously to unusual or hypothetical scenarios is one of the most rewarding and valuable aspects of physics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is a serious risk that the site will lose readers and intellectual vigour  if it takes a too narrow view of what constitutes &quot;mainstream physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proper distinction should not be the *subject* of the question but whether it can be *answered* using mainstream physics. The physics of what happens if Earth turns into blueberries is totally mainstream, whether it could turn to blueberries is non-mainstream. We can all agree on that torus-shaped planets are unlikely, yet analyse their gravitational fields and orbital trajectories with the same means we do with any other mass distribution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="ba8bdf00-d9e2-40cd-ac58-5ae5ca547001" CreationDate="2019-01-28T15:50:13.987" UserId="193959" Text="I strongly believe that a user, whose comment is deleted by a moderator should be notified about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many moderators ask the user to remove their comments however some just remove them without informing the user at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="ba8bdf00-d9e2-40cd-ac58-5ae5ca547001" CreationDate="2019-01-28T15:50:13.987" UserId="193959" Text="Notification to the user whose comment is deleted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="ba8bdf00-d9e2-40cd-ac58-5ae5ca547001" CreationDate="2019-01-28T15:50:13.987" UserId="193959" Text="|feature-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11045" RevisionGUID="4184b96d-da08-4c62-b8f8-2af4b792c72f" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:07:32.347" UserId="8563" Text="The ethos in the [MSE answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117854/comment-deletion-notification) linked in the comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comments are third-class citizens in our system by design; they are little more than post-it notes on the units of real work, questions and answers. As such they are afforded little protection and the burden of proof is on the comment to be useful and constructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;remains the core component of Stack Exchange's attitude towards comments on this platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, there is basically no chance that SE will implement this notification feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want something a bit more definitive, try the answer (by a former SE dev) in [Notify user when their comment is removed](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187985/notify-user-when-their-comment-is-removed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are no comment removal notifications, nor will there be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why? Because comments are second class. We don't see them as important - if you think a comment is important enough, it should be rolled into the post it is commenting on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="6d6e837b-cca0-4c20-8aad-1d3026a4a750" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:10:30.013" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33993" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="0e80df0c-7e63-49bc-88eb-8d0cdee1afea" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:11:34.463" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Rollback to [ba8bdf00-d9e2-40cd-ac58-5ae5ca547001]" Text="|feature-request|" />
  <row Id="33994" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="947c874b-bb50-4b29-b3f8-336af348eeaf" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:11:42.190" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Rollback to [6d6e837b-cca0-4c20-8aad-1d3026a4a750]" Text="|feature-request|comments|" />
  <row Id="33995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="dd0dcfa9-3294-46d7-95b5-c90938df01f0" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:54:18.883" UserId="8563" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="Your profile currently lists 25 questions, of which 20 are still open and 23 have score $\geq 0$. As such, it feels like you're over-reacting - you obviously have a pretty decent idea of what makes for an on-topic question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the questions that did get closed, other than the duplicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/432830/why-is-quantum-mechanics-called-quantum-mechanics), also downvoted, is the kind of open-ended opinion-based discussion thread which isn't actually much of a question. It also goes on to very confidently make statements which are dead wrong, and leaves no room for ambiguity in that you're not contemplating any room around that; this isn't what got it closed, but it's certainly not a recipe for upvotes.&#xD;&#xA; - [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/399361/all-of-the-postulates-of-quantum-mechanics-without-additional-information) just doesn't present a clear picture of what you're looking for in an answer $-$ and, to the extent that it does, it's way too broad for our format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones that seem to have you worried right now are [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/456270/approximating-the-time-it-takes-for-a-particle-with-a-potential-ax4-to-appro) and [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443353/time-evolution-of-a-free-particle-with-a-given-initial-state), as well as [this now-deleted one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/456782/vertical-motion-of-a-projectile-subject-to-quadratic-drag) ([screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/c6LoT.png)), which were closed as homework-like. (Speaking of which: you just started a discussion thread and then deleted the example question that you'd brought up for discussion within five hours of posting on meta. Does that strike you as constructive? It certainly doesn't look like you're bringing up this discussion in good faith to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key thing to keep in mind here is that [the homework policy](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/714/) holds *regardless of the origin of the question*. If it comes up that one of your questions might be in conflict with the homework policy, then you need to step away from the question, and what you know of how you yourself think about it, and then look at it from an external perspective. Does the question text *read* like it came out of a textbook? If so, have you done what we expect good homework questions to do? Are you asking for a concept, or are you just looking for a solution to the textbook-like text? Have you explained what you already know and understand, and how it came up short to what you wanted to do? (For your closed questions, all these criteria came up on the wrong side.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The homework-and-exercises policy is applied consistently across the board (or as consistently as we can, anyways), and without any regard to where the question text came from, because that's the only way to keep it fair. If all it takes to ask a terrible question is to say &quot;oh, no, this isn't homework&quot;, then it just scuppers the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the elf-vision question that you seem to be so upset by: as mentioned in the comments, this question was listed in the Hot Network Questions sidebar for a substantial period. As such, it was advertised to a large cross-section of users across the *entire* Stack Exchange network, and its voting patterns can only be understood within that frame. (Though not entirely - from its [timeline](https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/122785/timeline), it probably left the HNQ at score ~60, and then went on to more than double that score over the ensuing ~5 years. But then again, there are other self-reinforcing feedback loops besides HNQ.) Long story short, it's completely meaningless to compare post scores on HNQ threads vs threads that didn't get advertised on that sidebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if that makes it sound like we have a sidebar that's advertising junk-food clickbait that doesn't really represent what makes for a Good Question on this site, then... yes, absolutely. Many people have been saying that for years, both here and over on [Meta Stack Exchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/), to little avail. There's *some* hope of fixing the mechanism, which opened at [this ugly fracas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316934/revisiting-the-hot-network-questions-feature-what-are-our-shared-goals-for-ha) last October, but we've yet to see how that shakes out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and also: do **not** remove the homework-and-exercises tag from your posts, particularly when it's been applied by a moderator. The only thing that you'll achieve by getting into an edit war is to get your post locked, which is precisely the opposite of what you'd need if you actually wanted to fix your post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="4d8b62fd-8ed9-4462-9d9f-446ad055a21e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:45:23.040" UserId="50583" Comment="edited tags" Text="|feature-request|status-declined|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="65ac07b4-dc8e-4759-b32f-7332d84a4921" CreationDate="2019-01-28T20:12:47.690" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 143 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm providing links to a very well received question and my poorly received question and I'd like to know why---in the eyes of this community---one is one better than the other. I'm mystified by what goes on inside the heads of people who upvote/downvote here and I'd like to get a sense of what's going on so that I'm not rolling dice---so to speak---every time I ask something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/122785/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vertical motion of a projectile subject to quadratic drag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/456782/) (only visible for 10k users)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34003" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="65ac07b4-dc8e-4759-b32f-7332d84a4921" CreationDate="2019-01-28T20:12:47.690" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 143 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11047" RevisionGUID="e9163cd3-9e66-4de7-b935-356f6584fa48" CreationDate="2019-01-28T21:05:02.413" UserId="44126" Text="Removed comments basically fall into three somewhat-overlapping categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The comment was part of a discussion which led to improvement in the post it was attached to. Since the improvement has been achieved, the comment can be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The comment didn't contribute to improving the post it was attached to, but was instead an answer, a part of a side discussion, or a joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The comment was actively harmful in some way --- rude or spammy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not any reason to notify folks whose comments fall into the first category; such notifications would just be noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notifying folks whose comments fall into the third category can be actively harmful.  The main reason to remove rude comments is to de-escalate tensions among people who are getting fighty with each other.  Someone who is already fighty is likely to respond to a removed-comment notification by lashing out, or by repeating the troublesome remark, or the like. It's much better if those comments disappear silently: if their absence is noticed, it's likely to be later, after tempers are cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I forget how notifications work if a side discussion is moved to chat.  I don't think there are any, apart from the moderator comment that gets generated when the comments are moved.  I'm totally okay with that, for the reasons discussed in Emilio's answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34005" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="516e7c3e-3bea-41f8-919c-3ba85740aa28" CreationDate="2019-01-29T00:00:50.823" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1090037014035075073" />
  <row Id="34010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="8b6d1cec-fffc-402d-bad6-3f3123f8eece" CreationDate="2019-01-29T20:14:32.540" UserId="220173" Text="I am at a road block because I have some questions with good answers and I don't want to delete them what else can I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="8b6d1cec-fffc-402d-bad6-3f3123f8eece" CreationDate="2019-01-29T20:14:32.540" UserId="220173" Text="What can I do other than wait and edit questions if I am blocked from asking for a while?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="8b6d1cec-fffc-402d-bad6-3f3123f8eece" CreationDate="2019-01-29T20:14:32.540" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="606bd857-5362-4628-b7ce-bc94758a7826" CreationDate="2019-01-29T21:34:30.327" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="There have been [some complaints](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48768543#48768543) that it's getting increasingly difficult to find duplicates or near-duplicates of questions posted by new users, on the main site. Similar concepts are getting repeated time and again in answers, leading to duplicated efforts. So what are some tips to quickly search for duplicates on Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of our primary search resources are of course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Search engines like Google&#xD;&#xA; - SE's [site-specific search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)&#xD;&#xA; - Queries on [Data Explorer](https://data.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how exactly do you use them to search efficiently? Are there any additional scripts we can use? For example, one of the scripts that I personally use is [Searchbar and Nav Improvements](https://github.com/samliew/SO-mod-userscripts/blob/master/SearchbarNavImprovements.user.js) by Samuel Liew. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="606bd857-5362-4628-b7ce-bc94758a7826" CreationDate="2019-01-29T21:34:30.327" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="Tips for quickly and efficiently searching for duplicate questions on Physics SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="606bd857-5362-4628-b7ce-bc94758a7826" CreationDate="2019-01-29T21:34:30.327" UserDisplayName="user199113" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="78e58de9-3646-4ee0-a1e0-9993588beef3" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:00:36.520" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There has been [some recent discussion](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48768543#48768543) that it's getting increasingly difficult to find duplicates or near-duplicates of questions posted by new users, on the main site. Similar concepts are getting repeated time and again in answers, leading to duplicated efforts. So what are some tips to quickly search for duplicates on Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of our primary search resources are of course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Search engines like Google&#xD;&#xA; - SE's [site-specific search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)&#xD;&#xA; - Queries on [Data Explorer](https://data.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how exactly do you use them to search efficiently? Are there any additional scripts we can use? For example, one of the scripts that I personally use is [Searchbar and Nav Improvements](https://github.com/samliew/SO-mod-userscripts/blob/master/SearchbarNavImprovements.user.js) by Samuel Liew. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="6309ab7e-7509-420b-b551-07cc50ff6de1" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:05:23.020" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There have been [some recent discussions](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48768543#48768543) that it's getting increasingly difficult to find duplicates or near-duplicates of questions posted by new users, on the main site. Similar concepts are getting repeated time and again in answers, leading to duplicated efforts. So what are some tips to quickly search for duplicates on Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of our primary search resources are of course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Search engines like Google&#xD;&#xA; - SE's [site-specific search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)&#xD;&#xA; - Queries on [Data Explorer](https://data.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how exactly do you use them to search efficiently? Are there any additional scripts we can use? For example, one of the scripts that I personally use is [Searchbar and Nav Improvements](https://github.com/samliew/SO-mod-userscripts/blob/master/SearchbarNavImprovements.user.js) by Samuel Liew. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="d4074dd5-b729-429e-bd5d-0a962391719d" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:16:40.707" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="There have been [some recent discussions](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48768543#48768543) that it's getting increasingly difficult to find duplicates or near-duplicates of questions posted by new users, on the main site. Similar concepts are getting repeated time and again in answers, leading to duplicated efforts. So what are some tips to quickly search for duplicates on Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of our primary search resources are of course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Search engines like Google&#xD;&#xA; - SE's [site-specific search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)&#xD;&#xA; - Queries on [Data Explorer](https://data.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how exactly do you use them to search efficiently? Are there any additional scripts we can use? For example, one of the scripts that I personally use is [Searchbar and Nav Improvements](https://github.com/samliew/SO-mod-userscripts/blob/master/SearchbarNavImprovements.user.js) by Samuel Liew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**: [Math SE: How do you search for specific questions?](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5048/how-do-you-search-for-specific-questions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="925a121a-dcd6-40f2-a6a9-f44a7c92083c" CreationDate="2019-01-30T00:59:00.393" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|post-ban|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="225213bd-a1d1-4604-a6ad-4157318a29ef" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:55:29.357" UserId="220173" Text="I don't know if it is because of my latest question on main or because of all good help I am getting. can someone tell me if there is a reason I get more faster as I obtain more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="225213bd-a1d1-4604-a6ad-4157318a29ef" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:55:29.357" UserId="220173" Text="my reputation increases faster as I get more reputation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="225213bd-a1d1-4604-a6ad-4157318a29ef" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:55:29.357" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|reputation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="dbf28607-c1c2-4bb7-a46b-0f817d592273" CreationDate="2019-01-30T05:19:01.480" UserId="52072" Text="**The Problem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to write a question here asking what the appropriate response is to incorrect upvoted answers, but I realized that I'm far from the first person to ask this, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How should we deal with upvoted incorrect answers?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;[Are technically wrong answers and comments allowed on physics.SE?][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[Flags and technical innacuracies][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[physics.SE's inability to deal with users who are highly persistent...][4]  &#xD;&#xA;[Does it matter if answers are correct?][5]  &#xD;&#xA;[old questions with incorrect answers][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many questions on the scientific stack exchanges are highly advanced, and only a small number of people in the world are likely to actually know the answer. However, especially if the answer has the right &quot;popular&quot; flavor to it, it might garner a lot of up votes from people who can't judge it's merit, but know that it sounds good. When I encounter an incorrect answer like such, I've found my options to be very unsatisfactory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Down-voting: The expert to non-expert ratio of voters makes this ineffective.  &#xD;&#xA; - Commenting: Often-times the ways in which an answer is wrong cannot be succinctly summarized in a comment, and often-times comments on older questions get buried below a stack of previous comments, getting no visibility.&#xD;&#xA; - Answering: Sometimes it's necessary not just to answer the question, but to rebuke the incorrect answer. Having a long rebuke section in an &quot;answer&quot; doesn't seem appropriate. More-over, such a rebuke is unlikely to get the same upvotes as a nice-sounding answer since it likely brings attention to the nuance and complexity of a subject. This seems like an ineffective mechanism against incorrect answers that already have a lot of vote-mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view this is a problem, and has led me to think that stack exchange is an unreliable and potentially misleading source for these types of advanced subjects (although that hasn't kept me from coming back ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thought of a potential remedy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;Requires Expertise&quot; Notice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notice would remind users that they should only answer or vote on questions if they have the expertise to judge whether an answer is accurate or not (although I guess some might debate the premise there?). I'm thinking of something similar in style to the &quot;controversial post&quot; notice. Perhaps this notice would appear when people first tried to vote or answer a question in an &quot;okay&quot; box. I wouldn't think it should entail a reputation limit, just a warning in an attempt to dissuade irresponsible voting &amp; answering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clearly not perfect. It's dependent on the honor system (although SE already depends on that to avoid e.g. troll voting), and people over-judge their own expertise all the time. If it was effective, many high-level questions might receive fewer answers and those answers might receive fewer votes, but that seems highly preferable since it would reflect the specialization of the answer much better. It would still provide a space for such questions to be answered, but with more appropriate warnings to prevent people from being misled, and encourage more appropriate skepticism and humility toward these difficult questions. I'd think it better that such questions not receive any answers at all rather than receive a misleading answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9039/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5244/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://Flags%20and%20technical%20innacuracies&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/976/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10749/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/833/52072" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="dbf28607-c1c2-4bb7-a46b-0f817d592273" CreationDate="2019-01-30T05:19:01.480" UserId="52072" Text="A &quot;Requires Expertise&quot; Notice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="dbf28607-c1c2-4bb7-a46b-0f817d592273" CreationDate="2019-01-30T05:19:01.480" UserId="52072" Text="|feature-request|accepted-answer|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11053" RevisionGUID="ce422e95-927a-44fd-b2bd-345c57337699" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:03:05.017" UserId="44126" Text="Note that one of the [bounty](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/bounty)&#xD;&#xA;reasons is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Authoritative reference needed**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've always interpreted such bounties as evidence that the bounty-setter believes the existing answers, even if upvoted, are fatally flawed.  Offering such a bounty has the dual effect of (a) implying that the existing answers are inadequate, and (b) featuring the question in a place where a subject-matter expert is slightly more likely to happen across it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="cec19762-98dc-4c00-b6bf-43a48765a1b7" CreationDate="2019-01-30T07:47:03.207" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Notices under questions (popular ones include the 'controversial post' notice on Skeptics SE and the 'resource recommendation' on Physics) are added manually by mods and they need to be removed manually too. This can't just show up for certain users 'when they try to vote', and there's no provision for something with an 'okay box'. This requires changes to the SE code base, and would need to be proposed on Meta SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, this would actually be applicable everywhere, since however rudimentary the question is, votes should only be cast when someone knows that the content is accurate. So adding it as a notice isn't sensible. It's more logical as an addition to the help center, and something similar's already there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whenever you encounter a question, answer or comment that you feel is especially useful, vote it up! ([From the privileges section](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up))&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11055" RevisionGUID="274a2860-1f03-4384-82a3-2b70f68bc0f8" CreationDate="2019-01-30T14:00:05.400" UserId="8563" Text="You've been on this site for a sum total of two weeks. That is nowhere near enough data to say *anything* conclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the only backing in [your reputation tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/220173/luna?tab=reputation) for the observation that you report is the linear progression from January 27 through January 29:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pJVZQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this growth trend is already on some shaky ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest explanation that you're getting more reputation over the last couple of days is that your [fourth question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/457644/why-does-sound-behave-differently-in-water-than-in-air) is better than the previous three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, though: take it easy. Read as many questions and answers as you can, use them to write the best questions and answers as you can, take your time when writing posts, and worry about the details of site mechanics like reputation later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="e5dfccdc-838e-4042-b63a-c7c059cc5b0f" CreationDate="2019-01-30T14:56:04.110" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="[Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11055) covers your specific case pretty well, but it's worth addressing the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_&quot;[Is there] a reason I get more faster as I obtain more?&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty trivial/general and there's no real need to ask that kind of thing on meta. Obviously, if you participate at almost _anything_ for some time, you'll get the hang of it and start doing it better. The rep gained is an indication that you've put together a well-received question ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/457644)), and while that may simply be coincidence, it may be because you have a better idea of how to ask. That being said, there is some speculation (cf. [this Meta SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/322722) and links therein) that people are less reluctant to upvote a post by a high-rep user, but in your case (70 rep), I doubt that it's a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, take it easy on the meta posts... questions like this one, [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11046), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10997), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11008) are the kind of thing which you could/would answer yourself if you hang around the site observing interactions and questions for a couple of weeks and exploring the help center a bit. Posting everything on meta is really not necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="de96eb2f-49f5-48cc-8d83-feceb8735768" CreationDate="2019-01-30T15:03:42.883" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="[Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11055) covers your specific case pretty well, but it's worth addressing the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_&quot;[Is there] a reason I get more faster as I obtain more?&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty trivial/general and there's no real need to ask that kind of thing on meta. Obviously, if you participate at almost _anything_ for some time, you'll get the hang of it and start doing it better. The rep gained is an indication that you've put together a well-received question ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/457644)), and while that may simply be coincidence, it may be because you have a better idea of how to ask. That being said, there is some speculation (cf. [this Meta SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/322722) and links therein) that people are less reluctant to upvote a post by a high-rep user, but in your case (70 rep), I doubt that it's a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously though, take it easy on the meta posts... questions like this one, [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11046), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10997), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11008) are the kind of thing which you could/would answer yourself if you hang around the site observing interactions and questions for a couple of weeks and exploring the help center a bit. Posting everything on meta is really not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;On a side note, questions which get you rep are, more often than not, _not good questions_. A key feature of most high-scoring questions is _accessibility_, not quality, due to the HNQ (Hot Network Question) effect. So perhaps if you spend some months/years around and start asking questions which are of interest primarily to people who specifically study physics, the upvotes will slow down.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="f8b2aa66-d96d-45ce-8360-e0d398cb4d7c" CreationDate="2019-01-30T15:43:47.850" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="I have no idea how I ended up with the exact same wording as the existing answer" Text="[Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11055) covers your specific case pretty well, but it's worth addressing the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_&quot;[Is there] a reason I get more faster as I obtain more?&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty trivial/general and there's no real need to ask that kind of thing on meta. Obviously, if you participate at almost _anything_ for some time, you'll get the hang of it and start doing it better. The rep gained is an indication that you've put together a well-received question ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/457644)), and while that may simply be coincidence, it may be because you have a better idea of how to ask. That being said, there is some speculation (cf. [this Meta SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/322722) and links therein) that people are less reluctant to upvote a post by a high-rep user, but in your case (70 rep), I doubt that it's a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, you could relax with the meta posts... questions like this one, [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11046), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10997), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11008) are the kind of thing which you could/would answer yourself if you hang around the site observing interactions and questions for a couple of weeks and exploring the help center a bit. Posting everything on meta is really not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;On a side note, questions which get you rep are, more often than not, _not good questions_. A key feature of most high-scoring questions is _accessibility_, not quality, due to the HNQ (Hot Network Question) effect. So perhaps if you spend some months/years around and start asking questions which are of interest primarily to people who specifically study physics, the upvotes will slow down.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="0c9704a8-8cfd-42c7-bd80-a01939cc3da9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T17:36:42.180" UserId="52072" Comment="deleted 491 characters in body" Text="**The Problem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to write a question here asking what the appropriate response is to incorrect upvoted answers, but I realized that I'm far from the first person to ask this, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How should we deal with upvoted incorrect answers?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;[Are technically wrong answers and comments allowed on physics.SE?][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[Flags and technical innacuracies][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[physics.SE's inability to deal with users who are highly persistent...][4]  &#xD;&#xA;[Does it matter if answers are correct?][5]  &#xD;&#xA;[old questions with incorrect answers][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many questions on the scientific stack exchanges are highly advanced, and only a small number of people in the world are likely to actually know the answer. However, especially if the answer has the right &quot;popular&quot; flavor to it, it might garner a lot of up votes from people who can't judge it's merit, but know that it sounds good. When I encounter an incorrect answer like such, I've found my options to be very unsatisfactory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Down-voting: The expert to non-expert ratio of voters makes this ineffective.  &#xD;&#xA; - Commenting: Often-times the ways in which an answer is wrong cannot be succinctly summarized in a comment, and often-times comments on older questions get buried below a stack of previous comments, getting no visibility.&#xD;&#xA; - Answering: Sometimes it's necessary not just to answer the question, but to rebuke the incorrect answer. Having a long rebuke section in an &quot;answer&quot; doesn't seem appropriate. More-over, such a rebuke is unlikely to get the same upvotes as a nice-sounding answer since it likely brings attention to the nuance and complexity of a subject. This seems like an ineffective mechanism against incorrect answers that already have a lot of vote-mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view this is a problem, and has led me to think that stack exchange is an unreliable and potentially misleading source for these types of advanced subjects (although that hasn't kept me from coming back ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thought of a potential remedy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;Requires Expertise&quot; Notice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For highly specialized questions, the notice would remind users that they should only answer or vote on questions if they have the expertise to judge whether an answer is accurate or not. I'm thinking of something similar in style to the &quot;controversial post&quot; notice. I'd think that this could be added by mods, or perhaps the questioner themselves, who recognized a question was likely to garner such votes. To be clear I'm not suggesting certain users be labeled &quot;experts&quot; or anything like that or that anything here would be reputation based, just a notice in an attempt to dissuade irresponsible voting &amp; answering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's a good idea or not, I fear the suggestion is being misunderstood, so I've tried to remove some of the fluff in an attempt to clarify. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9039/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5244/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://Flags%20and%20technical%20innacuracies&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/976/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10749/52072&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/833/52072" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11057" RevisionGUID="b8136a58-b491-4734-a5d9-5d5556f659b7" CreationDate="2019-01-30T20:14:34.933" UserId="44126" Text="It looks like you have triggered our [automatic question ban](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans). The algorithm that decides whether you can post a particular question is not public, so there's not much we can advise you that you can't get from reading [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans) or [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/86997/280545).  But it's worth calling attention to a couple of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Having low-scored questions in your history makes it more likely that you'll be prevented from asking more questions in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Having *deleted* questions in your history *also* makes it more likely that you'll be prevented from asking more questions in the future.  Resist the temptation to delete your poorly-received questions. It looks like the ones you have asked so far are safe from [the roomba](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/roomba).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * It's a very good sign that you are [actively inquiring about how to improve your questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11028/44126), and your most recent question has been well-received. Progress!  But it's worth highlighting a particular bit of advice from one of your answers there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; All of this takes time, hence: patience patience patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all honesty, encouraging you to edit your questions and wait is the *entire point* of the automatic post bans.  As a diamond moderator, I have a little information about your post-ban status, and it looks like you've been blocked from asking several times already.  Take the hint and *wait*.  Take your draft question, save it somewhere on your own computer, and sit on it for a while.  If you waited a day before trying to post last time, wait two days the next time; if you waited two days and still got blocked, try waiting four days.  It's easier to wait if you decide in advance when you'll try to ask again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you're waiting, if you find yourself thinking about your question, work on improving your draft.  Spend some time searching other parts of the internet, and modify your question to be clearer about what you already know, what you've found during your searches, and what you're still confused about.  Include in your draft links to the things you've found that are useful or confusing.  Maybe you'll even [answer your own question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer) before you get around to asking it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing I'd advise you do while you're waiting is to **read**.  If you have questions about stellar evolution, spend some time reading in [tag:astronomy].  If you have questions about how sound works, spend some time reading in [tag:acoustics].  Look for questions that interest you and that have been well-received, where both the questions and the answers are clear.  And compare the way that those questions are written to the draft(s) of your own question(s) that you're waiting to be able to post.  Time spent reading is time spent learning how to write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="813f84bc-3d06-4f92-bb0b-67247b3b1dc7" CreationDate="2019-01-31T04:12:14.333" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Notices under questions (popular ones include the 'controversial post' notice on Skeptics SE and the 'resource recommendation' on Physics) are added manually by mods and they need to be removed manually too. This can't just show up for certain users 'when they try to vote', and there's no provision for something with an 'okay box'. This requires changes to the SE code base, and would need to be proposed on Meta SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, this would actually be applicable everywhere, since **however rudimentary the question is, votes should only be cast when someone knows that the content is accurate**. So adding it as a notice isn't sensible. It's more logical as an addition to the help center, and something similar's already there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whenever you encounter a question, answer or comment that you feel is especially useful, vote it up! ([From the privileges section](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/vote-up))&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="c0523f44-b458-40dc-87f2-6522d7dff703" CreationDate="2019-01-31T04:27:47.310" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 997 characters in body" Text="[Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11055) covers your specific case pretty well, but it's worth addressing the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_&quot;[Is there] a reason I get more faster as I obtain more?&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty trivial/general and there's no real need to ask that kind of thing on meta. Obviously, if you participate at almost _anything_ for some time, you'll get the hang of it and start doing it better. The rep gained is an indication that you've put together a well-received question ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/457644)), and while that may simply be coincidence, it may be because you have a better idea of how to ask. That being said, there is some speculation (cf. [this Meta SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/322722) and links therein) that people are less reluctant to upvote a post by a high-rep user, but in your case (70 rep), I doubt that it's a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, you could relax with the meta posts... questions like this one, [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11046), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10997), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11008) are the kind of thing which you could/would answer yourself if you hang around the site observing interactions and questions for a couple of weeks and exploring the help center a bit. Posting everything on meta is really not necessary, in fact at a certain stage it becomes harmful because it fills up the front page, hiding important stuff and consuming peoples' time. Fir instance, this week saw a lot of complaints and poorly thought out feature-suggestions (I make that claim since they were heavily downvoted), a few of which were yours and some stuff which I feel could have spent some time on top ([this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11050) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11001)) got submerged. Furthermore, if you have such a large number of meta posts, people will start wondering if you're relying on the 'meta effect' (whereby you draw attention to your posts by 'advertising' them on meta) to get votes, and it will become difficult for people to assume good faith. SE has a complex privilege and moderation system, which can have a big impact on usage patterns, so it's understandable that you're curious. But please, observe, speculate, and research _before_ asking everything on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;On a side note, questions which get you rep are, more often than not, _not good questions_. A key feature of most high-scoring questions is _accessibility_, not quality, due to the HNQ (Hot Network Question) effect. So perhaps if you spend some months/years around and start asking questions which are of interest primarily to people who specifically study physics, the upvotes will slow down.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="fcaf5a12-9271-4907-b06c-1b7e3b5e94b8" CreationDate="2019-01-31T05:38:20.250" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[Emilio Pisanty's answer](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11055) covers your specific case pretty well, but it's worth addressing the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_&quot;[Is there] a reason I get more faster as I obtain more?&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty trivial/general and there's no real need to ask that kind of thing on meta. Obviously, if you participate at almost _anything_ for some time, you'll get the hang of it and start doing it better. The rep gained is an indication that you've put together a well-received question ([this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/457644)), and while that may simply be coincidence, it may be because you have a better idea of how to ask. That being said, there is some speculation (cf. [this Meta SE post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/322722) and links therein) that people are less reluctant to upvote a post by a high-rep user, but in your case (70 rep), I doubt that it's a significant factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, you could relax with the meta posts... questions like this one, [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11046), [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10997), and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11008) are the kind of thing which you could/would answer yourself if you hang around the site observing interactions and questions for a couple of weeks and exploring the help center a bit. Posting everything on meta is really not necessary, in fact at a certain stage it becomes harmful because it fills up the front page, hiding important stuff and consuming peoples' time. For instance, this week saw a lot of complaints and poorly thought out feature-suggestions (I make that claim since they were heavily downvoted), a few of which were yours, and some stuff which I feel could have spent some time on top ([this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11050) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11001)) got submerged. Furthermore, if you have such a large number of meta posts, people will start wondering if you're relying on the 'meta effect' (whereby you draw attention to your posts by 'advertising' them on meta) to get votes, and it will become difficult for people to assume good faith. SE has a complex privilege and moderation system, which can have a big impact on usage patterns, so it's understandable that you're curious. But please, observe, speculate, and research _before_ asking everything on meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;On a side note, questions which get you rep are, more often than not, _not good questions_. A key feature of most high-scoring questions is _accessibility_, not quality, due to the HNQ (Hot Network Question) effect. So perhaps if you spend some months/years around and start asking questions which are of interest primarily to people who specifically study physics, the upvotes will slow down.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11058" RevisionGUID="f23cdee3-35af-4e63-90a4-9ec3e10d20e7" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:03:28.343" UserId="220173" Text="A question I have is &quot;We know gravitational waves exist, but how do we detect them?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I have heard astronomers talk about gravitational waves being created when two black holes collide or when two neutron stars collide.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- note that this question idea is not complete " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11058" RevisionGUID="f23cdee3-35af-4e63-90a4-9ec3e10d20e7" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:03:28.343" UserId="220173" Text="are questions regarding gravitational waves allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11058" RevisionGUID="f23cdee3-35af-4e63-90a4-9ec3e10d20e7" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:03:28.343" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|scope|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="1b7a9267-f81b-41d7-9cee-eec47846a964" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:09:29.053" UserId="50583" Text="1. In general, any topic for which a [tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags) exists is not categorically off-topic. In this case, there already 723 questions tagged [gravitational-waves](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gravitational-waves), 580 of which are not closed, so it seems safe to say that such questions are allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you are just looking for basic information about a topic, as in that you know the name but not much else, we generally expect you to show due diligence in doing prior research, which at the very least includes looking for (and reading) the Wikipedia article on the topic, if one exists, and searching the internet for your question or keywords from it with your favourite search engine. If you have done so and still feel there's something left to know, it is *essential* that you reference the knowledge you already have. Only that way answerers will know what they need to explain, and only that way can questions become focused enough so that they are not effectively asking for a book-length introduction to the topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11060" RevisionGUID="95934f9b-8619-49ba-a917-b6a2e87bfb8c" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:19:55.527" UserId="50583" Text="Every post on our site requires a certain level expertise to evaluate. Sometimes that expertise is having completed primary school, sometimes it is having a dim recollection of high school physics, sometimes it is having studied a particular subfield of physics in depth. But you *cannot* understand any post about science if you do not share a basic framework of knowledge with the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an ideal world, users *always* should only vote on posts if their knowledge of the general topic of the post is such that they can evaluate its merits. In the real world, they don't. But this is not specific to &quot;highly specialized questions&quot;, people will vote on questions regarding Newtonian mechanics whether or not they know Newton's laws. All this notice would achieve is give the questions tagged with it an air of elitism (like &quot;Oh, for the *other* posts, it's fine if you just vote on it, but for *this* one, you actually need to know something&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we shouldn't do this. It is SE's basic philosophy that people vote on what they find *useful*, and you cannot prescribe to people what they find useful. Some people enjoy reading walls of text, others enjoy reading detailed mathematical derivations, others enjoy reading posts about topics they have not the faintest clue of. That's just the way it goes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34044" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11058" RevisionGUID="e6444d9d-e8c5-473a-8f9e-7a06c755ae82" CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:04:16.827" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Are questions regarding gravitational waves allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11061" RevisionGUID="8fed34c9-35a2-46a5-afdc-2dc3134a8649" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:15:21.870" UserId="44126" Text="ACuriousMind has given a good answer to your question in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your proposed question specifically, searching the tag [tag:gravitational-waves] for &quot;detect&quot; brings up [this poor question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/81208/44126) and [this better question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/304212/44126) among about four hundred others.  The question as you describe it here sounds like an exact duplicate of the first, but a helpful flagger might link it to another more comprehensive question like the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, repeatedly asking &quot;would such-and-such a question be on-topic?&quot; is not really a good use of Meta.  It's worked out for you [twice now](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11046/44126), but a better long-term strategy is for you to spend more time reading good questions on the subjects that interest you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="87371143-5eeb-4265-9eff-9cef80dc7210" CreationDate="2019-02-01T04:24:45.407" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|featured|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34047" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="aec61feb-93f6-4976-b59e-4246bf114ee0" CreationDate="2019-02-01T09:00:43.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1091260043159371776" />
  <row Id="34048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="e726ce6c-daf4-48db-9404-06e40367639a" CreationDate="2019-02-01T14:38:10.520" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Thanks to Martin Sleziak for pointing out some related tags and math meta posts in chat https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48812483#48812483" Text="There have been [some recent discussions](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48768543#48768543) that it's getting increasingly difficult to find duplicates or near-duplicates of questions posted by new users, on the main site. Similar concepts are getting repeated time and again in answers, leading to duplicated efforts. So what are some tips to quickly search for duplicates on Physics SE? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of our primary search resources are of course&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Search engines like Google&#xD;&#xA; - SE's [site-specific search](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/searching)&#xD;&#xA; - Queries on [Data Explorer](https://data.stackexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how exactly do you use them to search efficiently? Are there any additional scripts we can use? For example, one of the scripts that I personally use is [Searchbar and Nav Improvements](https://github.com/samliew/SO-mod-userscripts/blob/master/SearchbarNavImprovements.user.js) by Samuel Liew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math SE: How do you search for specific questions?](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5048/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Math SE: How to search on this site?](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/29265)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34049" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="e726ce6c-daf4-48db-9404-06e40367639a" CreationDate="2019-02-01T14:38:10.520" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Thanks to Martin Sleziak for pointing out some related tags and math meta posts in chat https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/48812483#48812483" Text="|discussion|featured|closed-questions|duplicates|search|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="65d22b6d-4833-4964-bdf9-d783d900e34b" CreationDate="2019-02-01T17:14:36.500" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="I voted to close [this question][1] as a duplicate, and to my surprise it was immediately closed. The message in the yellow box lists only my name, which makes it sound like my own vote was the only one involved. Did this change because I recently passed 50k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, then I don't think I want this new superpower. Is there some way to work around this, so that I can cast an ordinary vote rather than having my opinion instantly enforced? If it's going to happen this abruptly, then I feel like I would have to spend much more time to really carefully read and think everything through in depth before taking the action, and usually I don't want to spend that amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is a threshold at the parameter value x=50k, is it possible just to raise the value of x on this SE site? I doubt there are more than three or four of us on physics.SE to whom this would apply, so maybe we could easily reach an agreement to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/458209/does-a-geodesic-always-extremize-its-path-length" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="65d22b6d-4833-4964-bdf9-d783d900e34b" CreationDate="2019-02-01T17:14:36.500" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="Does the mechanism for marking duplicates change when you reach 50k rep, and if so, can this be avoided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="65d22b6d-4833-4964-bdf9-d783d900e34b" CreationDate="2019-02-01T17:14:36.500" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="|support|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="abb9b218-67ce-4e7f-9f87-52514a53c8f5" CreationDate="2019-02-01T18:05:10.967" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11063" RevisionGUID="364cb267-27e0-4969-aa2d-94be09d8ad52" CreationDate="2019-02-01T18:05:35.067" UserId="62016" Text="This is a feature added since 2014: [Increase close vote weight for gold tag badge holders](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/231212).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simply, users can now unilaterally close a question as a duplicate if they have at least a gold badge on one of the tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this specific case, you have [a gold badge on 'general-relativity' tag](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/badges/1236/general-relativity) and closing a question tagged with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34055" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="6d3b7a38-3672-4c8d-b891-13206eee699a" CreationDate="2019-02-01T18:05:43.340" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|reputation|duplicates|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="f506b2db-af22-41ef-b7e3-741bf6e5d9e4" CreationDate="2019-02-02T09:21:10.250" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I don't think &quot;answered completely using Newtonian physics&quot; is appropriate justification since someone could pitch a theory of their own which completely violates Newtonian mechanics (at orders of magnitude where Newtonian mechanics is correct), in which case an 'answer' would be a description of Newtonian mechanics; such a question would be off-topic. That being said, I think it's an acceptable question and I've cast a reopen vote, since it appears to be asking what mainstream descriptions would make of a hypothetical idea to understand how the dynamics of such a body would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, similar questions are also a good fit for Worldbuilding SE (see [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/6465) and the linked posts); they have a 'nonspherical-planet' tag too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="cc82d540-8d3c-4ca5-89e6-dfa8985d3adf" CreationDate="2019-02-02T12:29:32.633" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I think it's an acceptable question and I've cast a reopen vote, since it appears to be asking what mainstream descriptions would make of a hypothetical idea to understand how the dynamics of such a body would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, similar questions are also a good fit for Worldbuilding SE (see [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/6465) and the linked posts); they have a 'nonspherical-planet' tag too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I don't think &quot;answered completely using Newtonian physics&quot;, the phrase used in the question, is appropriate justification for a claim that a question is not non-mainstream. For example, someone could pitch a theory of their own which completely violates Newtonian mechanics (at orders of magnitude where Newtonian mechanics is correct), in which case an 'answer' would be a description of Newtonian mechanics; such a question would be off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="0a9bd685-563d-4f7b-8107-c58f8c94ac98" CreationDate="2019-02-02T14:24:06.267" UserId="123208" Text="The gold badge dupe hammer is a little scary at first, but you soon get used to it. ;) (Obviously, I don't yet have close-voting privileges on Physics, but on SO I have a gold badge in Python).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're pretty sure that the question is a duplicate, but you aren't confident that the question you nominated is the *best* dupe target, just close it anyway. The dupe target list can have multiple entries, and it can be edited after the question is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is to get dupes closed quickly. Dupe questions aren't inherently bad (unless it's a common question and the OP did zero research to find an existing question), but we do want to prevent the proliferation of dupe answers. I'm *not* suggesting that questions should be dupe-closed against targets that are only vaguely related. But if you've found a target question that is a reasonable match to the new question, then close it quickly. And then do a more in-depth search for a better target(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be worthwhile writing a brief comment to the OP, asking if the dupe target satisfies them. A dupe target that contains the required info isn't much use if it's too complicated for the OP to understand, or too simple &amp; general to address their specific concerns. Also, we don't want people to think that they're being punished by having their question dupe-closed, that's less likely to occur if we ask them for feedback regarding the dupe target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to nominate a dupe target, but really don't feel comfortable closing the question single-handedly, there's a simple solution: just post a manual &quot;Possible duplicate of X&quot; comment. That makes the link available to other close-voters. And then re-visit the question a few hours later to see if it's gathered some close votes. If it has, then feel free to hammer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option with a borderline question is to mention it in the chat room, to see if other people agree with your target, or if they have better suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34060" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11058" RevisionGUID="4b3e838b-38d7-4c25-80f6-3cac62cdf152" CreationDate="2019-02-02T16:43:33.303" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:191954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chair&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:199630,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;G. Smith&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:127931,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;JMac&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8563,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Emilio Pisanty&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:25301,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Kyle Kanos&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="4525fb17-b8e7-48a1-8ee6-7d38059a1af9" CreationDate="2019-02-02T16:58:39.710" UserId="123208" Comment="added 401 characters in body" Text="The gold badge dupe hammer is a little scary at first, but you soon get used to it. ;) (Obviously, I don't yet have close-voting privileges on Physics, but on SO I have a gold badge in Python).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're pretty sure that the question is a duplicate, but you aren't confident that the question you nominated is the *best* dupe target, just close it anyway. The dupe target list can have multiple entries, and it can be edited after the question is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is to get dupes closed quickly. Dupe questions aren't inherently bad (unless it's a common question and the OP did zero research to find an existing question), but we do want to prevent the proliferation of dupe answers. I'm *not* suggesting that questions should be dupe-closed against targets that are only vaguely related. But if you've found a target question that is a reasonable match to the new question, then close it quickly. And then do a more in-depth search for a better target(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be worthwhile writing a brief comment to the OP, asking if the dupe target satisfies them. A dupe target that contains the required info isn't much use if it's too complicated for the OP to understand, or too simple &amp; general to address their specific concerns. Also, we don't want people to think that they're being punished by having their question dupe-closed, that's less likely to occur if we ask them for feedback regarding the dupe target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP doesn't like the target, try to persuade them to clarify the question as to why your dupe target isn't appropriate. Of course, many OPs, especially new contributors, will just reply in comments, and not comprehend that such info actually belongs in the question body. In such cases, it may be simpler to just edit in the info yourself than to teach them how Stack Exchange sites work. ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to nominate a dupe target, but really don't feel comfortable closing the question single-handedly, there's a simple solution: just post a manual &quot;Possible duplicate of X&quot; comment. That makes the link available to other close-voters. And then re-visit the question a few hours later to see if it's gathered some close votes. If it has, then feel free to hammer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option with a borderline question is to mention it in the chat room, to see if other people agree with your target, or if they have better suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="6dfbfbf4-d984-4b50-9c9a-8c8c19587247" CreationDate="2019-02-02T17:15:03.037" UserId="123208" Comment="added 401 characters in body" Text="The gold badge dupe hammer is a little scary at first, but you soon get used to it. ;) (Obviously, I don't yet have close-voting privileges on Physics, but on SO I have a gold badge in Python).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're pretty sure that the question is a duplicate, but you aren't confident that the question you nominated is the *best* dupe target, just close it anyway. The dupe target list can have multiple entries, and it can be edited after the question is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is to get dupes closed quickly. Dupe questions aren't inherently bad (unless it's a common question and the OP did zero research to find an existing question), but we do want to prevent the proliferation of dupe answers. I'm *not* suggesting that questions should be dupe-closed against targets that are only vaguely related. But if you've found a target question that is a reasonable match to the new question, then close it quickly. And then do a more in-depth search for a better target(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be worthwhile writing a brief comment to the OP, asking if the dupe target satisfies them. A dupe target that contains the required info isn't much use if it's too complicated for the OP to understand, or too simple &amp; general to address their specific concerns. Also, we don't want people to think that they're being punished by having their question dupe-closed, that's less likely to occur if we ask them for feedback regarding the dupe target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the OP doesn't like the target, try to persuade them to clarify the question as to why your dupe target isn't appropriate. Of course, many OPs, especially new contributors, will just reply in comments, and not comprehend that such info actually belongs in the question body. In such cases, it may be simpler to just edit in the info yourself than to teach them how Stack Exchange sites work. ;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the dupe target *is* what the OP really needs, but they just need a helping hand to see that. And sometimes that can be accomplished with a sentence or 2 and a relevant link in a comment. (Other times it may be necessary to write a brief actual answer to the new question that bridges the gap between the OP's skill level and the info at the dupe target, especially if the answers at the target assume advanced knowledge, or if there isn't clear agreement between them. True, such a bridging answer could be posted on the dupe target page, but if it's a big page the new answer is likely to get buried. OTOH, answering &amp; dupe-hammering the same question is somewhat controversial. ;) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to nominate a dupe target, but really don't feel comfortable closing the question single-handedly, there's a simple solution: just post a manual &quot;Possible duplicate of X&quot; comment. That makes the link available to other close-voters. And then re-visit the question a few hours later to see if it's gathered some close votes. If it has, then feel free to hammer it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option with a borderline question is to mention it in the chat room, to see if other people agree with your target, or if they have better suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="f1d28712-4dd7-48fb-9e3d-8ee088194321" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:39:09.270" UserId="184435" Text="Please help me understanding about How I should improve my questions like this-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/458606/184435&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from being downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-I think I have given the specific difficulty How does the torque operate and which torque is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-Shown my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-Have given the full details as it is in the source. I think the question has all the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4-Its not a duplicate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5-I have maintained decency in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me in improving my question&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="f1d28712-4dd7-48fb-9e3d-8ee088194321" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:39:09.270" UserId="184435" Text="I am not able to understand what should I do on this question to avoid it from being downvoted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="f1d28712-4dd7-48fb-9e3d-8ee088194321" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:39:09.270" UserId="184435" Text="|discussion|questions|specific-question|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="e3dc0fad-79b4-418f-89de-14cf6f27c52e" CreationDate="2019-02-03T14:16:02.810" UserId="184435" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Please help me understanding about How I should improve my questions like this-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/458606/184435&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from being downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-I think I have given the specific difficulty How does the torque operate and which torque is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-Shown my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-Have given the full details as it is in the source. I think the question has all the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4-Its not a duplicate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5-I have maintained decency in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me in improving my question&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Edit--Now please the question I have edited it and please see if more can be done to make it a better question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34073" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="c2e8e8c5-8d63-4bb7-a3b4-b5d12ddef558" CreationDate="2019-02-03T15:29:56.860" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|questions|specific-question|homework-and-exercises|down-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="5128db08-6ede-41a5-8fb5-368401dc7fa9" CreationDate="2019-02-03T23:02:37.197" UserId="220173" Text="I started a bounty and I did not mean to can I do anything to undo it.&#xD;&#xA;if there is not I request that there is a way to retract the bounty on the same day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="5128db08-6ede-41a5-8fb5-368401dc7fa9" CreationDate="2019-02-03T23:02:37.197" UserId="220173" Text="what do I do if I started a bounty on accident" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="5128db08-6ede-41a5-8fb5-368401dc7fa9" CreationDate="2019-02-03T23:02:37.197" UserId="220173" Text="|discussion|feature-request|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="ee61ecda-1597-4762-b696-ee0aa320dddf" CreationDate="2019-02-03T23:41:10.873" UserId="8563" Text="No, there is no way to retract or refund a bounty. Moderators do have that ability, which they only use in some rare exceptions, but your case (&quot;I made a mistake&quot;) isn't one of those exceptions. If you don't want to set bounties that you don't want to give awat, then don't set them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see the FAQ in the mother meta: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="eca6d732-becd-40bc-8996-f8423389ed78" CreationDate="2019-02-04T00:35:05.130" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="76c81f82-822c-4301-97cf-5fd8dfd2a4e6" CreationDate="2019-02-04T01:01:50.117" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|feature-request|bounty|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="f7baa1d7-837a-4c5c-8921-8a2ddf467273" CreationDate="2019-02-04T01:03:04.143" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="No, there is no way to retract or refund a bounty. Moderators do have that ability, which they only use in some rare exceptions, but your case (&quot;I made a mistake&quot;) isn't one of those exceptions. If you don't want to set bounties that you don't want to give away then don't set them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see the FAQ in the mother meta: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="bb52a574-5b8d-4e26-81ae-bc5263049450" CreationDate="2019-02-04T02:40:47.553" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I want to add some more details regarding the [meta-tag:feature-request] part of this question... I should mention why I think adding provisions for users to cancel bounties is a terrible idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should have found out how bounties work by now. There's a [featured tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured) on the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) where your question is advertised. So if you want to cancel the bounty after putting it up, there's a possibility that people have already answered the question with that bounty as their motivation, or perhaps they're in the process of writing an answer. Or perhaps someone has seen your question advertised there and decided to upvote it.&#xD;&#xA;It's not fair for you to cancel the bounty after that: there's a possibility you've gained rep through the publicity, or someone has invested some effort. And even if neither of those has happened in this case, it's possible that they would happen in other situations, and that makes canceling a feature which can be misused easily. Saying that there are tests to ensure that neither of these has happened before bounties are cancelled are too complicated to implement. It's much easier to think twice before setting up bounties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="eac2ea10-f7d1-48c4-9566-985a64da2ea6" CreationDate="2019-02-04T06:24:51.347" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I want to add some more details regarding the [meta-tag:feature-request] part of this question... I should mention why I think adding provisions for users to cancel bounties is a terrible idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should have found out how bounties work by now. There's a [featured tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured) on the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) where your question is advertised. So if you want to cancel the bounty after putting it up, there's a possibility that people have already answered the question with that bounty as their motivation, or perhaps they're in the process of writing an answer. Or perhaps someone has seen your question advertised there and decided to upvote it. It's not fair for you to cancel the bounty after that: there's a possibility you've gained rep through the publicity, or someone has invested some effort. And even if neither of those has happened in this case, it's possible that they would happen in other situations, and that makes canceling a feature which can be misused easily. Saying that there are tests to ensure that neither of these has happened before bounties are cancelled are too complicated to implement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much easier to convince users to think twice before setting up bounties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="173e7004-5ff5-4c9f-87eb-fcebcdba31ab" CreationDate="2019-02-04T19:37:50.820" UserId="220173" Comment="grammar" Text="someone started a bounty and I did not want to can I do anything to undo it.&#xD;&#xA;if there is not I request that there is a way to retract the bounty on the same day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="173e7004-5ff5-4c9f-87eb-fcebcdba31ab" CreationDate="2019-02-04T19:37:50.820" UserId="220173" Comment="grammar" Text="what do I do if I or a sibling on my account started a bounty on accident" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="7afbc83d-2fe2-473a-8c42-062095124081" CreationDate="2019-02-04T22:38:03.870" UserId="8563" Comment="added 2110 characters in body" Text="To be perfectly clear: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# We expect you to take responsibility for your actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes every one of your actions on this site, but in this particular context, it's worth emphasising that it includes setting bounties, allowing other people to access your account, and lying or other deceptive behaviour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you set a bounty and then regretted the decision:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to retract or refund a bounty. Moderators do have that ability, which they only use in some rare exceptions, but your case (&quot;I made a mistake&quot;) isn't one of those exceptions. If you don't want to set bounties that you don't want to give away then don't set them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see the FAQ in the mother meta: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you allowed someone else to access your account and you don't like what they did with it:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still 100% your responsibility, and you need to pick up the tab for anything the other person did. If it's not to your liking, the only remedy is to be more careful with your account credentials, and with who you allow access to your devices, in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was in fact you, but you're lying to us to try to game the system:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is *in no way different* to lying to someone's face in real life. You're in a social situation interacting with other real human beings whom you're acting for help, in an environment where interactions are based on trust and with a basic assumption that you're acting in good faith. This means that you need to treat this exactly like you would a real-world interaction, and that antisocial behaviour is not tolerated. Users who don't stick to those rules can and do end up spending time on [the &quot;penalty box&quot;](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/06/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/), in which your account gets suspended (for a day or a week, then increasing lengths of time) and you have no access to the site other than reading - as you've now found out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More generally:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really sounds to me like you're not always able to take your use of the site in a calm manner, and that things sometimes get away from you. **Ask for help with this** to the people around you, be they a parent, a friend, a sibling, a therapist, a teacher, or anyone else who you trust. There is a (very low) limit to how much we can do to help you with your use of the site, and you should build a real-life support structure that you can run things by before they start to spiral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or that's my take, anyway.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34086" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="a9830a19-4429-4998-8bb9-e12a99239d1f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T00:50:27.077" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Rollback to [76c81f82-822c-4301-97cf-5fd8dfd2a4e6]" Text="I started a bounty and I did not mean to can I do anything to undo it.&#xD;&#xA;if there is not I request that there is a way to retract the bounty on the same day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34087" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="a9830a19-4429-4998-8bb9-e12a99239d1f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T00:50:27.077" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Rollback to [76c81f82-822c-4301-97cf-5fd8dfd2a4e6]" Text="what do I do if I started a bounty on accident" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="8be5b90b-dacc-4098-9e8f-5e2219ded517" CreationDate="2019-02-05T02:58:39.623" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I want to add some more details regarding the [meta-tag:feature-request] part of this question... I should mention why I think adding provisions for users to cancel bounties is a terrible idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should have found out how bounties work by now. There's a [featured tab](https://physics.stackexchange.com/?tab=featured) on the [front page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) where your question is advertised. So if you want to cancel the bounty after putting it up, there's a possibility that people have already answered the question with that bounty as their motivation, or perhaps they're in the process of writing an answer. Or perhaps someone has seen your question advertised there and decided to upvote it. It's not fair for you to cancel the bounty after that: there's a possibility you've gained rep through the publicity, or someone has invested some effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even if neither of those has happened in this case, it's possible that they would happen in other situations, and that makes canceling a feature which can be misused easily. Saying that there are tests to ensure that neither of these has happened before bounties are cancelled are too complicated to implement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much easier to convince users to think twice before setting up bounties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="00f13e4c-ade0-45a8-9b98-b9ce62796a5f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T05:28:27.263" UserId="8563" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="To be perfectly clear: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# We expect you to take responsibility for your actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes every one of your actions on this site, but in this particular context, it's worth emphasising that it includes setting bounties, allowing other people to access your account, and lying or other deceptive behaviour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you set a bounty and then regretted the decision:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to retract or refund a bounty. Moderators do have that ability, which they only use in some rare exceptions, but your case (&quot;I made a mistake&quot;) isn't one of those exceptions. If you don't want to set bounties that you don't want to give away then don't set them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see the FAQ in the mother meta: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you allowed someone else to access your account and you don't like what they did with it:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still 100% your responsibility, and you need to pick up the tab for anything the other person did. If it's not to your liking, the only remedy is to be more careful with your account credentials, and with who you allow access to your devices, in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If it was in fact you, but you're lying to us to try to game the system:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is *in no way different* to lying to someone's face in real life. You're in a social situation interacting with other real human beings whom you're asking for help, in an environment where interactions are based on trust and with a basic assumption that you're acting in good faith. This means that you need to treat this exactly like you would a real-world interaction, and that antisocial behaviour is not tolerated. Users who don't stick to those rules can and do end up spending time on [the &quot;penalty box&quot;](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/06/a-day-in-the-penalty-box/), in which your account gets suspended (for a day or a week, then increasing lengths of time) and you have no access to the site other than reading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More generally:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really sounds to me like you're not always able to take your use of the site in a calm manner, and that things sometimes get away from you. **Ask for help with this** to the people around you, be they a parent, a friend, a sibling, a therapist, a teacher, or anyone else who you trust. There is a (very low) limit to how much we can do to help you with your use of the site, and you should build a real-life support structure that you can run things by before they start to spiral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or that's my take, anyway.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="d38cc75e-e2d8-4092-83d3-67fd42bb7267" CreationDate="2019-02-05T09:23:21.180" UserId="8563" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Please help me understanding about How I should improve my questions like this-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/458606/184435&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from being downvoted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I think I have given the specific difficulty How does the torque operate and which torque is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Shown my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Have given the full details as it is in the source. I think the question has all the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Its not a duplicate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. I have maintained decency in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me in improving my question&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Edit--Now please the question I have edited it and please see if more can be done to make it a better question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="b6e27897-cefa-4e9d-82c8-1e5fbfece5d3" CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:11:43.187" UserId="179151" Text="If you go into the &quot;close votes&quot; review queue and either selecting &quot;Leave Open&quot; or &quot;Close&quot; adds a count to the number of reviews you have done in the &quot;close votes&quot; queue. However, if you are viewing a question outside of the queue and vote to close it, this does not add a number to your number of reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand how in general this could make sense. If you are not doing things while looking at the queue then what you do won't count towards your numbers in the queue. But it still seems odd to me. For example, if I directly click on a question and see that it already has 3 close votes, I could either vote to close it there (doesn't add to my number in the queue), or I could easily just open up the close votes queue and vote to close it in there (does add to my number in the queue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is it not set up to where close votes count towards the number either way? It seems odd to me that the difference is just in whether or not you cast the vote while in the queue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="b6e27897-cefa-4e9d-82c8-1e5fbfece5d3" CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:11:43.187" UserId="179151" Text="Why directly voting to close a question does not add to your number of reviews in the queue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="b6e27897-cefa-4e9d-82c8-1e5fbfece5d3" CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:11:43.187" UserId="179151" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11073" RevisionGUID="9f597c8b-4fe5-438d-a3f7-1a78d2956f87" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:10:49.173" UserId="44126" Text="There are plenty of questions on the site that could use reviewer input as to whether they should remain open, but they might not attract your attention from any of the question lists.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the review queues is to encourage some fraction of our users to occasionally look at a *representative sample* of questions that are pending closure.  Without the review queues, we would have higher-quality curation of the more interesting (or more popular) tags and topics on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, imagine that you're poking around in your favorite tag, [tag:death-ray].  You find an old question that should have been closed right after it was asked, but somehow it was missed at the time and it's several months old.  You flag it for closure and move on to other stuff.  Without the review queue, you might be the only user on the site who gets that deep in the the [tag:death-ray] backlog before your close vote ages away, and the bad question would stay open.  But with the review queue, I'll eventually get shown the bad question you found, even though I usually don't read the [tag:death-ray] questions at all.  I may not know very much about death rays in particular, but I can usually tell a good question from a stinker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That whole process only works if we have reviewers who are willing to spend time going through the queues.  Our population of active reviewers is smaller than it might be: there are only a dozen users who have spent any time going through the close queue in the past week.  Since it takes five close votes to close a question, an extra person looking at the representative problematic questions in the queue can have a big impact on the curation of the site's questions.  An extra person who spends a *lot* of time in the review queues is especially valuable; that's why we award those people review badges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="9742a2fd-ee06-4a69-9331-5ceea1ed28ab" CreationDate="2019-02-07T23:54:46.613" UserId="179151" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="If you go into the &quot;close votes&quot; review queue and either selecting &quot;Leave Open&quot; or &quot;Close&quot; adds a count to the number of reviews you have done in the &quot;close votes&quot; queue. However, if you are viewing a question outside of the queue and vote to close it, this does not add a number to your number of reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand how in general this could make sense. If you are not doing things while looking at the queue then what you do won't count towards your numbers in the queue. But it still seems odd to me. For example, if I directly click on a question and see that it already has 3 close votes, I could either vote to close it there (doesn't add to my number in the queue), or I could easily just open up the close votes queue and vote to close it in there (does add to my number in the queue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is it not set up to where close votes count towards the number either way? It seems odd to me that the difference is just in whether or not you cast the vote while in the queue. NOTE: I am asking about this for questions that already have at least one close vote on them. I understand why you wouldn't want to raise the number of reviews for new close votes, as one could just go and vote to close every new question to get their number up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="d0e146aa-6150-4f4d-af7b-9116382ac1d0" CreationDate="2019-02-08T00:18:37.087" UserId="25301" Text="I think rob's answer provides some insight as to why the review queues exists, but I think the answer to the question is as simple as  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You aren't *reviewing* the question when you are outside the queue; when you click the &quot;close&quot; button from the post page, you are actually *flagging* the answer for closure, even when there are existing close votes in the question.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even though the same result occurs (a vote to close), because they were done in different manners they are counted separately. Note that you can view your own total cast vote count from your profile (click on &quot;# votes cast&quot; and then make sure you've got &quot;closure&quot; selected), so the system is still tracking it, even if the review queue isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="f582aa5b-a835-4613-952e-c294e8f96983" CreationDate="2019-02-08T10:57:37.110" UserId="25301" Comment="succumbing to peer pressure and replacing flagging with voting to close" Text="I think rob's answer provides some insight as to why the review queues exists, but I think the answer to the question is as simple as  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You aren't *reviewing* the question when you are outside the queue; when you click the &quot;close&quot; button from the post page, you are just *voting to close* the question, even when there are existing close votes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even though the same result occurs (a vote to close), because they were done in different manners they are counted separately. Note that you can view your own total cast vote count from your profile (click on &quot;# votes cast&quot; and then make sure you've got &quot;closure&quot; selected), so the system is still tracking it, even if the review queue isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="c1d53667-eeb0-47d0-a23f-803985d73b26" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:19:01.033" UserId="2146" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My [closed question][1] originally asked: **Why is the sign of gravitational inertial mass chosen to be positive like EM inertial mass?** and was put on hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On hold as unclear what you're asking by Buzz, safesphere, Jon Custer, ZeroTheHero, Chair Feb 3 at 7:50&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading feedback from the answers including &quot;to save writing negative signs&quot;, &quot;how could one know the motives of an author?&quot;, I took out the text in the body of the question referencing introductory textbooks I've read. I then used a [question][2] from a respected long-term user as guidance for the content of the question's added text: crisp, to the point, with enough information that adds to the question for the audience it's likely directed to: *physics graduates* or interested readers of advanced undergraduate texts who understand that potential energy contributes to inertial mass. I edited my question to: **Is gravitational inertial mass positive or negative?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was confident that this should have been enough to remove &quot;unclear what you're asking&quot; as the original reason for putting on hold my question, and an answer was added, confirming another answer that the gravitational field contributes negatively to the total inertial mass. But after a few days only one person voted to reopen it. After chatting to a user in PSE chat, I was told it probably hadn't been voted for reopening for indirectly stating in the question that *gravitational potential energy has inertial mass.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save me arguing that my question was directed to a particular audience and to just get my question reopened, I edited the question to: **Does the gravitational field possess an inertial mass ?** which quickly upped the number of reopening votes to four leaving just one more. But today, it's now been closed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;closed as unclear what you're asking by Buzz, safesphere, Jon Custer, ZeroTheHero, Chair Feb 3 at 7:50&#xD;&#xA;Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.&#xD;&#xA;If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the reasons and users quoted are relevant for closing my question in its current form. The idea that gravitational mass makes a negative contribution to the total inertial mass is interesting IMO. So before my question is deleted I'd like to ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are there guidelines for reopening questions?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - If the original problem for putting a question on hold is removed,  should the question be reopened so that different problems also require five votes as for the original problem?&#xD;&#xA; - Can a closed question be deleted and then reposted if the original reason for closing it is corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/458137/does-the-gravitational-field-possess-an-inertial-mass&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391558/does-an-accelerating-electric-dipole-radiate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="c1d53667-eeb0-47d0-a23f-803985d73b26" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:19:01.033" UserId="2146" Text="Are there guidelines for reopening questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="c1d53667-eeb0-47d0-a23f-803985d73b26" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:19:01.033" UserId="2146" Text="|discussion|closed-questions|close-reasons|reopen|vote-to-close|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34112" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="e26679cd-43a5-4fa7-a050-40b39c0770fc" CreationDate="2019-02-08T23:38:31.447" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459666/what-depicts-the-logo-of-physics-stackexchange" />
  <row Id="34113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="4793bae4-85c7-46e5-a181-264a586629f3" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:49:03.917" UserId="221961" Text="I am just interested. I guess there is a relation to magnetic fiels or quantum physics but I have no clear idea of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="4793bae4-85c7-46e5-a181-264a586629f3" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:49:03.917" UserId="221961" Text="What depicts the logo of Physics StackExchange?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="4793bae4-85c7-46e5-a181-264a586629f3" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:49:03.917" UserId="221961" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34116" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="277232aa-8211-4a13-a3c1-354b2a56cb6c" CreationDate="2019-02-08T23:39:24.717" UserId="124" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[949],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:124,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;David Z&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;GoldTagBadge&quot;:&quot;discussion&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="34117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="15a0faa4-0a2e-4742-bfb5-280661e8d6fd" CreationDate="2019-02-09T02:00:08.817" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="I just noticed that a lot of our tags here do not have any wikis/excerpts, and they seem like they're almost identical. Can someone please suggest how they're different and whether or not we should remove them or add descriptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An excellent example of a question which looks like it has some really redundant tags is https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/164219 (v1; not edited by Qmechanic yet :P). I do not blame the OP, since those tags exist and obviously one would be compelled to use them, but I do feel that at that point, they're not helping accessibility: they're actually making it harder to find questions. For instance, if I have a certain question I'm trying to find, of if I want to look for &quot;some&quot; category (note that if there was a tag excerpt for the following tags, I'd know what to replace &quot;some&quot; with), I have no idea if I want [meta-tag:close-reasons] or [meta-tag:closed-questions]. IMO if you're talking about a closed question, you're almost inevitably going to discuss the reason why it's closed, and that would also pull in a subset of the [meta-tag:scope] tag. However, the scope tag is not present for a lot of these. Similarly, most of the questions in the [meta-tag:vote-to-close] tag are not technically about the mechanism of close votes: only [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11072) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11062) from the tag's first page appear to be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can we add tag excerpts to these and create a few synonyms? Preferably the creators would do that; I have no idea what those were created for, and the lists of questions underneath them does not really indicate what they're supposed to be categorizing. Hopefully the tag excerpts would contain some notes about where the tag could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Once the superfluous ones are obliterated/turned into synonyms, and the surviving ones have excerpts/wikis, can I/we go on a tag editing spree for the last couple of weeks' questions? I see a lot of questions just on the front page which I suspect _could_ use a fix of that kind, based on my slight guesses regarding the meanings of the tags. Or should we just leave the old ones and make sure that the new ones can be chosen well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If they are indeed distinct tags, could someone post an answer regarding the differences? After that, can I/we go through the first page or so of that tag and remove it from the questions which don't need that, to ensure that the question list gives readers the correct impressions of the use of the tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="15a0faa4-0a2e-4742-bfb5-280661e8d6fd" CreationDate="2019-02-09T02:00:08.817" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="Tag cleanups on our meta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="15a0faa4-0a2e-4742-bfb5-280661e8d6fd" CreationDate="2019-02-09T02:00:08.817" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|meta|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="fafc4ccc-a602-44b7-a052-334d764b180d" CreationDate="2019-02-09T02:33:35.070" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I just noticed that a lot of our tags here do not have any wikis/excerpts, and they seem like they're almost identical. Can someone please suggest how they're different and whether or not we should remove them or add descriptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An excellent example of a question which looks like it has some really redundant tags is https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11077 (v1; not edited by Qmechanic yet :P). I do not blame the OP, since those tags exist and obviously one would be compelled to use them, but I do feel that at that point, they're not helping accessibility: they're actually making it harder to find questions. For instance, if I have a certain question I'm trying to find, of if I want to look for &quot;some&quot; category (note that if there was a tag excerpt for the following tags, I'd know what to replace &quot;some&quot; with), I have no idea if I want [meta-tag:close-reasons] or [meta-tag:closed-questions]. IMO if you're talking about a closed question, you're almost inevitably going to discuss the reason why it's closed, and that would also pull in a subset of the [meta-tag:scope] tag. However, the scope tag is not present for a lot of these. Similarly, most of the questions in the [meta-tag:vote-to-close] tag are not technically about the mechanism of close votes: only [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11072) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11062) from the tag's first page appear to be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can we add tag excerpts to these and create a few synonyms? Preferably the creators would do that; I have no idea what those were created for, and the lists of questions underneath them does not really indicate what they're supposed to be categorizing. Hopefully the tag excerpts would contain some notes about where the tag could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Once the superfluous ones are obliterated/turned into synonyms, and the surviving ones have excerpts/wikis, can I/we go on a tag editing spree for the last couple of weeks' questions? I see a lot of questions just on the front page which I suspect _could_ use a fix of that kind, based on my slight guesses regarding the meanings of the tags. Or should we just leave the old ones and make sure that the new ones can be chosen well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If they are indeed distinct tags, could someone post an answer regarding the differences? After that, can I/we go through the first page or so of that tag and remove it from the questions which don't need that, to ensure that the question list gives readers the correct impressions of the use of the tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11081" RevisionGUID="90c9533d-6860-4f94-969c-dda66daca581" CreationDate="2019-02-09T15:10:28.573" UserId="8563" Text="These are my takes on the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there guidelines for reopening questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question should be reopened when there are no reasons why it should be closed. That simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If the original problem for putting a question on hold is removed, should the question be reopened so that different problems also require five votes as for the original problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it shouldn't. Fix *all* the problems with the post first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Can a closed question be deleted and then reposted if the original reason for closing it is corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would class that as an abuse of the site mechanisms, and we'll worth flagging for moderator attention, particularly if you're posting an identical copy of text that e.g. has already been voted to Remain Closed by the reopen review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, note that the passage between On Hold to Closed is automatic and does not involve any human intervention. &quot;On Hold&quot; is simply what the system calls closed questions during the first five days after closure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34127" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="916de9cf-21e6-4947-9389-37bd16c5a036" CreationDate="2019-02-09T15:11:45.150" UserId="8563" Comment="edited title" Text="What does the logo of Physics StackExchange depict?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11081" RevisionGUID="9d9cf0a6-e0fd-48bd-8516-602b870b5440" CreationDate="2019-02-09T15:19:27.633" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="These are my takes on the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there guidelines for reopening questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question should be reopened when there are no reasons why it should be closed. That simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - If the original problem for putting a question on hold is removed, should the question be reopened so that different problems also require five votes as for the original problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it shouldn't. Fix *all* the problems with the post first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Can a closed question be deleted and then reposted if the original reason for closing it is corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would class that as an abuse of the site mechanisms, and well worth flagging for moderator attention, particularly if you're posting an identical copy of text that e.g. has already been voted to Remain Closed by the reopen review queue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, note that the passage between On Hold to Closed is automatic and does not involve any human intervention. &quot;On Hold&quot; is simply what the system calls closed questions during the first five days after closure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4247" RevisionGUID="bf4e0503-f555-4a99-92df-da22ce53da83" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:24:25.380" UserId="8563" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="For discussions about the site's scope - what questions and topics should and should not be on-topic on the site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11082" RevisionGUID="e0934add-5e2d-4315-9e94-c36fd304b271" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:25:23.670" UserId="8563" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11082" RevisionGUID="e0934add-5e2d-4315-9e94-c36fd304b271" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:25:23.670" UserId="8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="25116848-a919-4667-8d91-069f63852047" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:25:23.670" UserId="8563" Text="For discussions about the site's tags - what tags we should have (and which ones should be removed), and what topics each tag should or should not include." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="25116848-a919-4667-8d91-069f63852047" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:25:23.670" UserId="8563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="f8702e4f-165f-4143-908b-a7cbef07968d" CreationDate="2019-02-10T08:38:05.993" UserId="605" Comment="added 133 characters in body; edited title" Text="[My question][1] on econophysics is closed for being 'off-topic'. But at this stage-- when there is no econophysics forum and the boundary of Physics SE is less defined and rigid-- it should *not* be closed. Also one must understand that econophysics is physics, with some economics bent. Much like how engineering physics is physics with engineering application bent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention closing a question when [the answerer hadn't even done with his answer][2] is plain-- how to put it nicely-- *rude*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't you feel that my question should remain open?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1873/the-concepts-of-path-integral-in-quantitative-finance#comment4639_1874" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34139" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="f8702e4f-165f-4143-908b-a7cbef07968d" CreationDate="2019-02-10T08:38:05.993" UserId="605" Comment="added 133 characters in body; edited title" Text="Should We Allow Econophysics Questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34140" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="306bf1e9-9113-407e-b5c1-1f222bffccd9" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:08:21.037" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why directly voting to close a question does not add to your number of reviews in the queue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="306bf1e9-9113-407e-b5c1-1f222bffccd9" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:08:21.037" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|discussion|vote-to-close|review|review-tools|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="20527f30-7c73-475a-aa69-4fdc7ad82347" CreationDate="2019-02-10T13:25:21.113" UserId="8563" Text="Frankly, the question you've linked isn't physics at all. You're just asking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  How can [mathematical tool] be applied to quantitative finance such as option value calculation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that is purely a quantitative-finance question; as such it belongs on the [Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange](https://quant.stackexchange.com/) site (which opened to public beta [in February 2011](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/117/quantitative-finance)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't see how &quot;but [mathematical tool] was developed for use in physics!&quot; is a relevant argument. The same is true for calculus - does that mean that all questions about differentiation and integration are on-topic here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty telling that the supporting argument for this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; much like how engineering physics is physics with engineering application bent,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;goes a good bit of the way towards sinking the general argument: generally speaking, [engineering questions are not considered on-topic here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4535/are-engineering-questions-appropriate-for-this-site). While it *uses* concepts from physics, engineering is a separate discipline and to really *do* engineering, one needs to know and apply a whole host of separate tools, concepts and frameworks, which have nothing to do with physics. So, if the question is &quot;which laws of physics underlie this engineering solution&quot;, that's a physics question, but if it's &quot;how does one use X physics to solve this engineering problem&quot;, that's an engineering problem. The question linked here falls strictly on the not-physics side of the divide. Heck, if it were asking &quot;how does one link the uses of path integrals in physics with those in finance?&quot; you could argue that it's a multidisciplinary question, but that's not how it's been phrased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not to mention closing a question when the answerer hadn't even done with his answeris plain-- how to put it nicely-- rude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the presence or absence of answers, let alone whether the answerer has further edits planned for that answer, is irrelevant to whether the *question* is on-topic. Closing questions is *supposed* to prevent answers, so the correct reading of &quot;I was writing an answer but the question got closed&quot; is &quot;I chose an off-topic question to answer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, though, from the understanding of the site's scope as it has matured in the years since this question was posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should we allow econophysics questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So long as they have a nontrivial component that's directly asking *about* parts of physics, then yes. If they're asking how tools from physics can be applied *within* other fields, then no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34143" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="1ce400dd-797f-46b6-a688-4d96edd5eb8e" CreationDate="2019-02-11T21:00:38.130" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1095065092339703813" />
  <row Id="34144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11086" RevisionGUID="de91cc31-2865-4cea-bd38-a2f58bc60163" CreationDate="2019-02-11T21:30:08.723" UserId="148704" Text="While I was suspended for low quality questions. I asked astronomy.SE if it would be ok to write some of my low quality questions from here to a higher quality there?  They said yes and I did and they did well. Now that a better question exist what can I do with that here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving them as here can only receive more down votes over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I leave my low quality questions alone in risk of getting suspended again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I replace the old question here with the better question from there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I asked a moderator to delete the questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I link them together with their link?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first time I asked this question here.&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235419/what-do-sun-spots-look-like-under-the-surface-of-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is where I re asked it in astronomy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/how-do-sunspots-move-seen-from-the-side/24944#24944 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11086" RevisionGUID="de91cc31-2865-4cea-bd38-a2f58bc60163" CreationDate="2019-02-11T21:30:08.723" UserId="148704" Text="Is it ok to link my own questions from another SE site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11086" RevisionGUID="de91cc31-2865-4cea-bd38-a2f58bc60163" CreationDate="2019-02-11T21:30:08.723" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|editing|duplicates|migration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11086" RevisionGUID="f43595cb-7388-4a7c-98f0-761223edde54" CreationDate="2019-02-11T21:35:22.280" UserId="148704" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="While I was suspended for low quality questions. I asked astronomy.SE if it would be ok to write some of my low quality questions from here to a higher quality there?  They said yes and I did and they did well. Now that a better question exist what can I do with that here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/426/can-i-migrate-some-questions-from-physics-se-to-here-that-are-in-scope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving them as here can only receive more down votes over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I leave my low quality questions alone in risk of getting suspended again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I replace the old question here with the better question from there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I asked a moderator to delete the questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I link them together with their link?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first time I asked this question here.&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/235419/what-do-sun-spots-look-like-under-the-surface-of-the-sun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is where I re asked it in astronomy.SE.&#xD;&#xA;https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/24940/how-do-sunspots-move-seen-from-the-side/24944#24944 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11087" RevisionGUID="0ec9595d-ef80-4c42-b0b9-89044cadc4b7" CreationDate="2019-02-11T23:04:27.320" UserId="44126" Text="[Cross-posting questions is frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/64068/280545).  If you've managed to do so, the least you could do would be to include links connecting the corresponding questions, to save your readers the trouble or confusion of figuring out by accident what's happened.  It's enough to add a comment like &quot;Cross-posted to [other site]: [link].&quot;  It's polite to leave such a comment at both questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Leaving them as here can only receive more down votes over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't seem to be a real issue.  You have been inactive on Physics for about two years, and during that interval your reputation changes have been neutral or slightly positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I leave my low quality questions alone in risk of getting suspended again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of a suspension is to tell someone &quot;hey, this thing you do: quit doing that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;If a user has already figured out that some behavior was undesirable and stopped it on their own, there's not much point in a moderator suspension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the reasons that the moderators keep the details of suspensions private is so that users can be judged based on their current contributions and behavior, rather than on their past.  A user with a history of low-quality contributions who *learns new things* and starts to contribute higher-quality content is unlikely to earn a suspension for behaviors they have *quit doing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leave the past behind; focus on the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I asked a moderator to delete the questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderators generally don't delete questions upon request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11088" RevisionGUID="7cbe6b0d-c1be-4429-9cb4-692529c81e98" CreationDate="2019-02-11T23:07:32.740" UserId="8563" Text="Frankly, I would suggest that you should leave those old questions alone, and move on to newer questions $-$ it won't help very much to try and fix them, and the only thing you'll achieve is to get back into a deeper examination of questions which didn't do very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should certainly add links as comments under the Physics versions to any existing Astronomy threads where you've asked similar questions, which is something you should always do in any case. But I would leave it at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also counsel you not to delete the old questions, though to some extent this is up to you. For users that have come up against [an automated question ban](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86997/what-can-i-do-when-getting-we-are-no-longer-accepting-questions-answers-from-th), it is a distinctly bad idea to delete previous questions, regardless of whether they're downvoted or closed, since the system interprets that as yet another sign that the question was bad, and adds another black mark to the file. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your case, however, the restriction was a moderator-indicated suspension rather than a question ban, which puts you on the human side of the system. Which is good: we don't hold grudges. From what I can tell, so long as the content you post going forward is of reasonably high quality, your previous suspension (and the posts that led to it) have a blank slate on top of them, and you shouldn't worry too much about them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, focus on keeping your question quality up: read deeply and carefully, and do your due diligence in searching for duplicates and for obvious answers and sources of information, and incorporate those results into the formulation of your posts. One of the main problems with the questions you churned out previously was to rush through things, so: Think Before You Post. Take it slow, and work carefully on each and every question. Eventually you'll be able to bash out a question quickly, but it will take some time to get there. In the meantime, focus on asking better questions instead of asking more questions faster." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="6373ad22-811e-43d9-b3cf-ab2dcd20f0fb" CreationDate="2019-02-12T21:26:53.010" UserId="148704" Text="I made the mistake of down voting an answer to a question I didn't completely understand. Years later I read it again and found it to be good. Is it OK to improve on an answers minor grammar for the purpose to reverse and up vote an answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/122082/148704" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="6373ad22-811e-43d9-b3cf-ab2dcd20f0fb" CreationDate="2019-02-12T21:26:53.010" UserId="148704" Text="Is it ok to edit to up vote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="6373ad22-811e-43d9-b3cf-ab2dcd20f0fb" CreationDate="2019-02-12T21:26:53.010" UserId="148704" Text="|discussion|support|answers|editing|up-votes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="185bda40-ddaf-43f3-9c80-91f8231a8d7e" CreationDate="2019-02-13T00:09:46.967" UserId="8563" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="[![Zotero - your personal bibliographic research assistant][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GnYOV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.zotero.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="c777a6da-01a1-46bb-ac8d-8f3a15a5be86" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:47:52.947" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="The main chat room for Physics SE has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the general consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So here goes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Meta-issues are frequently best off in the [Physics meta chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775), and homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). The meta room is quite still, so you'll probably need to ping a person you'd like to talk to, and the problem-solving room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid sensitive topics**: These can range from local stuff like suspensions of users on Physics SE (which the mods here prefer to not discuss in public and is bad form when the user can't reply), to broader issues like politics, sex, and religion. They aren't strictly off-topic in the room, but we try to avoid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, [ping one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="c777a6da-01a1-46bb-ac8d-8f3a15a5be86" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:47:52.947" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="The h Bar is always open!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="c777a6da-01a1-46bb-ac8d-8f3a15a5be86" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:47:52.947" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="|discussion|support|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34157" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="6c2ab990-2259-4638-91a6-a897ab2d21bc" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:56:14.847" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="34158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="b58fe613-acfb-42c2-9443-3516060e6b19" CreationDate="2019-02-13T09:36:04.987" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="[The main chat room for Physics SE](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the general consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So here goes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Meta-issues are frequently best off in the [Physics meta chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775), and homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). The meta room is quite still, so you'll probably need to ping a person you'd like to talk to, and the problem-solving room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid sensitive topics**: These can range from local stuff like suspensions of users on Physics SE (which the mods here prefer to not discuss in public and is bad form when the user can't reply), to broader issues like politics, sex, and religion. They aren't strictly off-topic in the room, but we try to avoid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, [ping one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="66ccaa43-bde0-4195-b174-84a3ced7410d" CreationDate="2019-02-13T11:57:35.197" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="[The main chat room for Physics SE](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So here goes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Meta-issues are frequently best off in the [Physics meta chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775), and homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). The meta room is quite still, so you'll probably need to ping a person you'd like to talk to, and the problem-solving room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid sensitive topics**: These can range from local stuff like suspensions of users on Physics SE (which the mods here prefer to not discuss in public and is bad form when the user can't reply), to broader issues like politics, sex, and religion. They aren't strictly off-topic in the room, but we try to avoid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, [ping one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11091" RevisionGUID="efc1492f-1bcc-436a-acf1-3978438b56a0" CreationDate="2019-02-13T13:28:17.977" UserId="182086" Text="I would like to add another potential cause:&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally when you post questions or answers, reputation gains trickle in every once in a while for a longer amount of time, so it's the amount of good questions and answers that boost the speed of your reputation gains and not the reputation itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that in your case Emilio's answer is the accurate one, but if you notice an increased rep gain in the future, this might be another possibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="2e3b6be7-5d9c-48b4-86f9-fb5953bc8758" CreationDate="2019-02-13T16:01:15.973" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="[The main chat room for Physics SE](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So here goes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Meta-issues are frequently best off in the [Physics meta chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/13775), and homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). The meta room is quite still, so you'll probably need to ping a person you'd like to talk to, and the problem-solving room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid sensitive topics**: These can range from local stuff like suspensions of users on Physics SE (which the mods here prefer to not discuss in public and is bad form when the user can't reply), to broader issues like politics, sex, and religion. They aren't strictly off-topic in the room, but we try to avoid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, [ping one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="3bdbb925-3c83-49f3-ac90-8490104373c4" CreationDate="2019-02-13T18:10:09.747" UserId="50583" Text="I think several of these points are well-intentioned but either overshoot their intention or make a point not actually in line with what is current practice in the room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Meta-issues are frequently best off in the Physics meta chat room, and homework-like questions are more welcome in the Problem-solving room. The meta room is quite still, so you'll probably need to ping a person you'd like to talk to, and the problem-solving room has a few requirements which can be read about here. That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remove the explicit mention of meta issues or the meta room.** Meta issues are *just fine* in the h bar, as long as they don't drown out any other conversation, like any other topic. The meta chat room has always been used as an *overflow* room - i.e. a room to shift a meta discussion to when the h bar was otherwise busy or the discussion went on for a very long period of time - not as a &quot;room for meta issues&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Avoid sensitive topics**: These can range from local stuff like suspensions of users on Physics SE (which the mods here prefer to not discuss in public and is bad form when the user can't reply), to broader issues like politics, sex, and religion. They aren't strictly off-topic in the room, but we try to avoid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Split this into two parts.** This point lumps together things which don't belong together. That we discourage discussion of suspensions and overly and/or unduly negative discussion of other users' behaviour is indeed a rule the moderators have adopted, and such discussion should indeed be avoided. However, discussion of *other* sensitive topics *should not be avoided as such* - you should just be especially certain that you discuss them in a respectful and considerate manner, and that you should be more than willing to drop the issue if someone expresses their discomfort with the topic. The canonical network-wide post on political discussion in chat is [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383). The bottom line is *be respectful*, not &quot;don't talk about this&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34168" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="47d816de-6ce5-4a7b-9648-e553c7b7691a" CreationDate="2019-02-13T18:10:09.747" UserId="50583" />
  <row Id="34173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="5c3592d0-1733-486a-86b5-d4d989679f67" CreationDate="2019-02-14T02:25:36.230" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Changes suggested in ACM's answer" Text="[The main chat room for Physics SE](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So here goes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and is bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, [ping one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="976b4f62-8921-4a1c-b5cb-9077ed2f8e81" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:02:43.340" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Content moved to an answer, as suggested by https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49040733#49040733 and https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11090/the-h-bar-is-always-open?noredirect=1#comment42864_11090" Text="[The main chat room for Physics SE](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So I'd like some clarification regarding the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What're the rules in our chat room here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What do I do if there's something wrong/disturbing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="5aa1223e-b9b9-425b-8f53-0fc668dc5fa9" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:02:49.277" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and is bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, [ping one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34176" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="36194449-b9f8-4ff2-8201-39048e60a94a" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:02:49.277" UserDisplayName="user191954" />
  <row Id="34177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="5be17c14-5d36-41ea-9fe3-a6f4f47ee3c4" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:09:31.943" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="&gt;_This is feedback for the content in the [answer by Chair](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11094)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think several of these points are well-intentioned but either overshoot their intention or make a point not actually in line with what is current practice in the room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Meta-issues are frequently best off in the Physics meta chat room, and homework-like questions are more welcome in the Problem-solving room. The meta room is quite still, so you'll probably need to ping a person you'd like to talk to, and the problem-solving room has a few requirements which can be read about here. That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remove the explicit mention of meta issues or the meta room.** Meta issues are *just fine* in the h bar, as long as they don't drown out any other conversation, like any other topic. The meta chat room has always been used as an *overflow* room - i.e. a room to shift a meta discussion to when the h bar was otherwise busy or the discussion went on for a very long period of time - not as a &quot;room for meta issues&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Avoid sensitive topics**: These can range from local stuff like suspensions of users on Physics SE (which the mods here prefer to not discuss in public and is bad form when the user can't reply), to broader issues like politics, sex, and religion. They aren't strictly off-topic in the room, but we try to avoid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Split this into two parts.** This point lumps together things which don't belong together. That we discourage discussion of suspensions and overly and/or unduly negative discussion of other users' behaviour is indeed a rule the moderators have adopted, and such discussion should indeed be avoided. However, discussion of *other* sensitive topics *should not be avoided as such* - you should just be especially certain that you discuss them in a respectful and considerate manner, and that you should be more than willing to drop the issue if someone expresses their discomfort with the topic. The canonical network-wide post on political discussion in chat is [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398/263383). The bottom line is *be respectful*, not &quot;don't talk about this&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="597dcc1b-e17e-40f4-9919-f8dcf08bf739" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:58:24.660" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and is bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping [one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="d9b39f5f-39cb-45ff-ad1c-98f52c8f0896" CreationDate="2019-02-14T05:28:59.940" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and is bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping [one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="1a86581d-1ccc-4591-ae51-bc65da15afe3" CreationDate="2019-02-14T06:35:05.430" UserId="44126" Comment="Let's make this question a little more general." Text="Suppose that a user has down voted an answer to a question that they didn't completely understand. Years later, they read the answer again and find it to be good, but cannot change their vote because the answer has never been edited. Is it OK to make a minor grammar improvement for the purpose of reversing the old vote and upvoting the answer?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="7a931cc1-8e9f-4a69-8229-2628f4ba28e6" CreationDate="2019-02-14T06:40:28.170" UserId="44126" Text="When you try to change your vote on a post, you get a message like &quot;You last voted on this post on [timestamp]. Your vote is now locked in unless the post is edited.&quot;  The time window during which votes can be retracted is very brief, like five minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *intended* use case for the feature is if you've voted on a post and an edit later changes the post in a way that changes your opinion of it.  For example, maybe an answer has a serious flaw, so you downvote and leave a comment explaining why.  The author of the post changes it so that it no longer has the problem that bothered you.  In that case, changing a vote would make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your opinion on a post changes even though the post does not, there's an argument to be made for finding a way to improve the post yourself --- a spelling fix or a grammar improvement --- so that you can change your vote on the edited post.  However, **the edit needs to stand on its own its own merits**.  Users who have earned [the privilege of un-reviewed edits](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit) are reminded in the guidance that &quot;tiny or trivial edits are discouraged&quot;; lower-reputation users, whose edits are still [subject to review](https://physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits), are discouraged from making tiny edits by a [kind-of-dumb algorithm](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10770/44126).&#xD;&#xA;The dumb algorithm is not hard to circumvent, but [we discourage &quot;harmless&quot; hacks whose purpose is to avoid a software limitation](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10973/44126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter, you could consider the tactic of &quot;make a minor edit to allow a vote to be changed&quot; --- that is, the subject of your question --- as a &quot;hack&quot; to get around the software limitation on changing votes.  That's the kind of thing that might be okay if it happened once, or rarely; however, if you find yourself frequently running up against software restrictions that prevent you from doing something, it's worth asking whether the thing you're unable to do is really consistent with the way that we hope people will use our site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case linked in a previous version of this question, a user with a history of trouble with trivial edits proposed a trivial edit to an old post, and left a comment suggesting they were about to embark upon a program of such edits and vote changes.  A *series* of trivial edits would be *much* more disruptive than a set of old mis-cast votes, and so the proposal drew a somewhat harsh response from a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;(That moderator was me.  I try not to write harshly, but I miss the mark sometimes.  Sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this answer supplies a little more nuance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="9f179c82-db57-4b46-81ac-95225f0421be" CreationDate="2019-02-14T07:31:53.423" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!--stuff--&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks from the markdown to get rid of the code formatting, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some _anonymous_ user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit through visible changes should not be made or approved**, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial edits in the first place. If you find yourself noticing such a typo like that, you could either leave a comment (comments are to suggest improvements!), or find other parts of the post which could be improved. But frivolous HTML tags are certainly a bad idea. If you have &gt;2k rep, you _can_ technically do it, but you should avoid it (the 6 character limit is not implemented for those with the editing privilege), because your edits will still bump the post to the top of the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="9107c1bc-5ff9-44f7-9e17-908b1dce1bde" CreationDate="2019-02-14T07:43:33.507" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!--stuff--&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks from the markdown to get rid of the code formatting, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some _anonymous_ user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit through visible, useful changes should not be made or approved**, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial edits in the first place. If you find yourself noticing such a typo like that, you could either leave a comment (comments are to suggest improvements!), or find other parts of the post which could be improved. But frivolous HTML tags are certainly a bad idea. If you have &gt;2k rep, you _can_ technically do it, but you should avoid it (the 6 character limit is not implemented for those with the editing privilege), because your edits will still bump the post to the top of the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="4e442aca-c8f4-4a29-ae25-58c5686ee42e" CreationDate="2019-02-14T07:52:59.127" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping [one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="32066e4a-9575-459f-8dec-636735a96b4f" CreationDate="2019-02-14T07:58:14.867" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [Problem-solving room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping [one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="70973e65-e302-4b98-a88a-704771f93786" CreationDate="2019-02-14T08:05:50.177" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**That's a comment**, using the meaning of the word from the context of programming. I can't find anything about that in the [editing help](https://physics.stackexchange.com/editing-help) page, but it's a standard HTML technique which is supported in Markdown. `&lt;!--stuff--&gt;` is a simple comment; if I remove the backticks from the markdown to get rid of the code formatting, it won't show up in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some _anonymous_ user wanted to make a one-character edit, which is forbidden by the 6-character limit, and putting comments like that are a standard way of 'cheating'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideally, edits which do not satisfy the 6-character limit through visible, useful changes should neither be made nor approved**, since the limit is implemented to avoid such trivial edits in the first place. If you find yourself noticing such a typo like that, you could either leave a comment (comments are to suggest improvements!), or find other parts of the post which could be improved. But frivolous HTML tags are certainly a bad idea. If you have &gt;2k rep, you _can_ technically do it, but you should avoid it (the 6 character limit is not implemented for those with the editing privilege), because your edits will still bump the post to the top of the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that it's there, it's an ugly blot in the markdown, but I still don't feel it's worth bumping the post to the front page by just removing that comment. If you, or any other future editor has a more legitimate thing to change, it would be a perfect opportunity to delete that bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="2ace94e2-6321-4197-91cc-8aaae21bf09c" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:31:28.213" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt conversations which are going on**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested by one of our regular mods](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368), if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping [one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="f0ccb14f-4020-4c67-8588-f810e0e4758e" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:37:05.823" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368) by one of our regular mods, if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping [one of the Room Owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it is not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="172252cf-c241-4e8f-94f6-67000aba30c8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:45:02.800" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="The [main chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) for Physics SE has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So I'd like some clarification regarding the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something in chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="db4f67a9-9e30-486b-8ae3-1696d3015db8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:50:38.560" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to use **MathJax**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h bar's filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368) by one of our regular mods, if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active moderators for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="bfe2a8be-4f56-4ad1-aff8-a47504a8ebe8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:53:29.917" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="The [main chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) for Physics SE has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So we'd like to clarify some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something in chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="7f625ab7-5da0-448c-b3e0-6b8898df98f8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:56:15.967" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's a discussion going on, if nobody has acknowledged your message, accept that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and they take up valuable real estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, the h Bar iss filled people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368) by one of our regular mods, if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active moderators for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="1523c78b-b2da-46fa-b782-36a67a7a9372" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:07:16.553" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site:** Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are meant for other rooms**: Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**: If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**: One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**: To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't post the same thing multiple times because the last version disappeared at the top**: Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard carefully**: Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talk about specific users,** particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368) by one of our regular mods, if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active moderators for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="c69dabe3-c137-4963-9f6b-7aef3ac88437" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:13:44.460" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The [main chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) for Physics SE has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So we'd like to clarify some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="6a181e42-b33e-4f94-a643-b9fb7725262e" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:20:21.423" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;[As suggested](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49014368#49014368) by one of our regular mods, if you see some obviously offensive messages, **flag them**. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="dab504a6-0edd-44ae-98c3-2747c0032854" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:27:10.457" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What're the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules/opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="c606546e-e664-4b22-aae8-da8fa7ebf171" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:32:01.063" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="edited title" Text="The h Bar is always open! (Chat Guidelines)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="338228db-d1fc-4944-a6ac-5765e808d564" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:42:37.120" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="800074d9-b416-4a76-b263-0f7d0d2a5650" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:43:54.847" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The [main chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/the-h-bar) for Physics SE has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So we'd like to clarify some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="e8ff92ac-3ae9-4ee0-b6bf-5e4b95c43f5f" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:48:02.613" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="989e8864-322e-4e4c-bf23-7286627f6861" CreationDate="2019-02-14T18:52:37.680" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The [main chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar) for Physics SE has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So we'd like to clarify some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="df8d03f8-c743-480d-9deb-3828e3837e15" CreationDate="2019-02-15T03:57:58.840" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="# What is chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Stack Exchange network, we think of chats as the &quot;[third place](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/)&quot;. They're where we can have informal discussions, without the constraints which we have on the [main site](https://physics.stackexchange.com). We recommend that you read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq). Our physics chat is called [The h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar) (yes, [it's a cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)). Like all SE chat rooms, it's an informal place, but we've decided that we do need to explicitly lay down a few guidelines...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. To put it clearly, you should absolutely never ever ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in _the specific thing_ you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="8c29ac22-8334-462d-9754-8860d994d3c8" CreationDate="2019-02-15T08:55:16.647" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 734 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. Please don't ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in the specific thing you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for [math puns](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/math-puns-with-rob-sircumference-heather-and-decrypted), pictures of food, and other cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="05ec9db6-ab97-459f-8506-55ce955ee181" CreationDate="2019-02-15T08:55:20.487" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="The main [chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) room for Physics SE is called [the h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar) (yeah, it's a [cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)) has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So we'd like to clarify some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="e51f8791-27b7-4b55-b845-8a1e163b9c56" CreationDate="2019-02-15T09:32:17.177" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. Please don't ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in the specific thing you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid talking behind others' backs**. Particularly when they're on suspensions. The mods here prefer to not discuss these matters in public and it's bad form when the user can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="d69deb72-b9f9-4142-86b3-68248946730b" CreationDate="2019-02-15T19:56:03.877" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. Please don't ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in the specific thing you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). Some more useful information can be found in the [chat FAQ page](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="d366a5df-4991-4ae7-a225-0640bd200230" CreationDate="2019-02-15T20:10:57.290" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Also, though chat's a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser/app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about SE chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. Please don't ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in the specific thing you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for cool stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="4b4018c8-c4b0-4ad7-a9b9-04be4703453b" CreationDate="2019-02-15T20:20:36.560" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. Please don't ping a user unless _that specific user_ has expressed that they are interested in the specific thing you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="c0433174-e4e6-4121-9062-8a586f4f87ee" CreationDate="2019-02-15T20:32:15.503" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="dc7728c3-3786-48ee-aa8b-1dda169f7d8f" CreationDate="2019-02-16T06:54:55.017" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="f9795e10-b5cc-4b34-99a6-e0b4c1b282fd" CreationDate="2019-02-16T11:24:10.980" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The main [chat](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/04/29/do-trilogy-sites-need-a-third-place/) room for Physics SE is called [the h Bar](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar) (yeah, it's a [cool name](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1028)); it has been an active place for a while now, and a lot of you have probably popped in at some point of time. However, some of the regulars recently got the feeling that [chat isn't what it once was](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10959), and the consensus of that discussion was that codifying a bit of the room culture is certainly a step in the right direction. So we'd like to clarify some things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What to do when you're uncomfortable about something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="6b3ac58f-3766-424a-8721-fb1b685a85a3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:30:17.313" UserId="183259" Text="Recently, I arrived to this [physics.SE page][1] where the first link is broken, presumably because it is pointing to  theoreticalphysics.SE which does not exist anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. what to do in such a case?&#xD;&#xA; 2. woundn't be wise to add some instructions for similar cases in the help centre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both questions I was not able to find a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26821/what-are-some-critiques-of-jaynes-approach-to-statistical-mechanics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="6b3ac58f-3766-424a-8721-fb1b685a85a3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:30:17.313" UserId="183259" Text="broken links what to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="6b3ac58f-3766-424a-8721-fb1b685a85a3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:30:17.313" UserId="183259" Text="|support|links|site-enhancement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="f73a8d48-091c-41f5-a0e7-93efe29b1cf6" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:36:04.780" UserId="222766" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: [What is wrong about the following reasoning concerning hypersphere cosmology?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/461176/what-is-wrong-about-the-following-reasoning-concerning-hypersphere-cosmology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering why it is put on hold. It is honestly not clear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="f73a8d48-091c-41f5-a0e7-93efe29b1cf6" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:36:04.780" UserId="222766" Text="Why has this question been put on hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="f73a8d48-091c-41f5-a0e7-93efe29b1cf6" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:36:04.780" UserId="222766" Text="|discussion|support|moderators|moderation|community-moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="08484126-4aac-41b9-b498-bcce5f79aaa0" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:37:15.820" UserId="2451" Text="Since all TP.SE threads were [migrated](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1193/2451) to Phys.SE, it is possible to fix the link, which is hereby done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="e3867351-1b33-4830-af81-37e24d91eaac" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:37:47.460" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body" Text="Recently, I arrived to this [physics.SE page][1] where the first link is broken, presumably because it is pointing to  theoreticalphysics.SE which does not exist anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. what to do in such a case?&#xD;&#xA; 2. woundn't be wise to add some instructions for similar cases in the help centre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both questions I was not able to find a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26821/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34222" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="f2f4ae1b-3a54-45b2-900e-09eef988ae38" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:38:02.607" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|specific-question|close-reasons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34223" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="e3867351-1b33-4830-af81-37e24d91eaac" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:37:47.460" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body" Text="Broken TP.SE link - What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="dabe6b29-9808-46b5-8c20-e09e8b5702a3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:43:02.957" UserId="2451" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Since all [TP.SE](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) threads were [migrated](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1193/2451) to Phys.SE, it is possible to fix the link, which is hereby done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="b1e29e4b-e16d-4df4-97b3-712755aa3b20" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:43:32.553" UserId="2451" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Recently, I arrived to this [physics.SE page][1] where the first link is broken, presumably because it is pointing to  [theoreticalphysics.SE](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) which does not exist anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. what to do in such a case?&#xD;&#xA; 2. woundn't be wise to add some instructions for similar cases in the help centre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both questions I was not able to find a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26821/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="bffc5ba8-e3ce-400f-9858-c354e5d8873c" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:43:42.140" UserId="50583" Text="Your post is currently on hold because it is incomprehensible what the reasoning is supposed to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking an analogy with the 2-sphere, you seem to be claiming that someone moving along the surface of the Earth between the two points moves a greater distance than the distance between the two points &quot;we measure&quot;. But if we were truly creatures confined to the surface (like we would be in the case where three-dimensional space is a hypersphere), we would measure the distance *along the surface*, so there is no discrepancy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="39a53710-1d8f-4ff9-b631-66d0ac977c24" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:45:12.240" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 165 characters in body" Text="&lt;!-- Do not remove or edit --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Note: Questions not about your post will be deleted --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/461176/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Your question below: --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering why it is put on hold. It is honestly not clear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34228" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="1a2d21ce-d109-47b8-8e9b-dd27ae7f6975" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:46:00.310" UserId="2451" Comment="edited title" Text="Broken theoreticalphysics.SE link - What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="cfcb1c97-c4a0-4a63-9d1c-3508a53afb2d" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:53:29.963" UserId="2451" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Since all [TP.SE](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) threads were [migrated](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1193/2451) to Phys.SE, it is in principle possible to fix the link, which is hereby done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="1aa021be-8155-4c58-9f9e-ee91cdcbdd1f" CreationDate="2019-02-16T17:50:33.183" UserId="183259" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="Recently, I arrived to this [physics.SE page][1] where the first link is broken, presumably because it is pointing to  [theoreticalphysics.SE](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics) which does not exist anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. what to do in such a case?&#xD;&#xA; 2. wouldn't be wise to add some instructions for similar cases in the help centre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both questions I was not able to find a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/26821/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="159d91d2-2261-40a7-b91d-1d98d75c37d4" CreationDate="2019-02-16T19:33:26.467" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 591 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't expect people to reply in real-time**. Think of chat as an [asynchronous communication protocol](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=19779072#19779072). Instead of asking &quot;Are you free for X minutes?&quot; or &quot;Can you answer a X minute question?&quot; every time, directly type out the question you want to ask. That way, even after you've logged off, others can answer it. Then you have the answer the next time you log on. But if you just ask &quot;Are you around, user X?&quot;, then, if user X is not around, you haven't gained anything. A late response is better than no response at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="9dfb0ac0-d5cc-43cb-a84d-bb028658dde1" CreationDate="2019-02-16T19:39:33.010" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privilages)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use the starboard reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't expect users to respond in real-time**. Think of chat as an [asynchronous communication protocol](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=19779072#19779072). Instead of asking &quot;Are you free for X minutes?&quot; or &quot;Can you answer a X minute question?&quot; every time, directly type out the question you want to ask. That way, even after you've logged off, others can answer it. Then you have the answer the next time you log on. But if you just ask &quot;Are you around, user X?&quot;, then, if user X is not around, you haven't gained anything. A late response is better than no response at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="2a32a4e0-41b3-4375-9864-dccf2cc181a9" CreationDate="2019-02-16T19:45:43.003" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="edited body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [short tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use stars reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't expect users to respond in real-time**. Think of chat as an [asynchronous communication protocol](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=19779072#19779072). Instead of asking &quot;Are you free for X minutes?&quot; or &quot;Can you answer a X minute question?&quot; every time, directly type out the question you want to ask. That way, even after you've logged off, others can answer it. Then you have the answer the next time you log on. But if you just ask &quot;Are you around, user X?&quot;, then, if user X is not around, you haven't gained anything. A late response is better than no response at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="2b1fd832-04fc-4c5b-af49-f0a0d5e64a08" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:03:06.180" UserDisplayName="user199113" Comment="edited body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [basic tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use stars reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't expect users to respond in real-time**. Think of chat as an [asynchronous communication protocol](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=19779072#19779072). Instead of asking &quot;Are you free for X minutes?&quot; or &quot;Can you answer a X minute question?&quot; every time, directly type out the question you want to ask. That way, even after you've logged off, others can answer it. Then you have the answer the next time you log on. But if you just ask &quot;Are you around, user X?&quot;, then, if user X is not around, you haven't gained anything. A late response is better than no response at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="1e56ecdb-5081-414d-a594-9e65a996f6f6" CreationDate="2019-02-17T16:52:55.487" UserId="222992" Text="I am not sure how to raise this issue, but I was looking for an answer to the question &quot;How do we know that nuclear decay is truly random and spontaneous?&quot;  This is an important question because we don't just *think* it is random, but it has been proven quite thoroughly that it MUST BE random by Bell's theorem and related experiments.  (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340530/how-do-we-know-that-nuclear-decay-is-truly-random-and-spontaneous)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately NONE of the answers mentions Bell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question is marked as duplicate of &quot;Is radioactive decay spontaneous or random?&quot; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105107/is-radioactive-decay-spontaneous-or-random)  That is a different question.  That asks about the similarity and difference of the meanings of spontaneous and random.  The answers there are appropriate to that question, but none of those mention Bell and Bell's Theorem is not an appropriate answer to that anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question ask &quot;what is it&quot; and the other asked &quot;why do we know it is that way&quot;  those are different questions.   I am not allowed to add a proper answer to the &quot;why&quot; question because you can't answer questions that are marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to able to point to a correct answer to this question and I am willing to provide it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@david-hammen @jon-custer @peterh @rob" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="1e56ecdb-5081-414d-a594-9e65a996f6f6" CreationDate="2019-02-17T16:52:55.487" UserId="222992" Text="Wrongly marked duplicate about why decay is random" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="1e56ecdb-5081-414d-a594-9e65a996f6f6" CreationDate="2019-02-17T16:52:55.487" UserId="222992" Text="|discussion|answers|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="79a18f4c-101a-4ef7-b029-88e5e7a16ab4" CreationDate="2019-02-17T17:37:34.560" UserId="127931" Comment="Removed attempt at tagging users in the question." Text="I am not sure how to raise this issue, but I was looking for an answer to the question &quot;How do we know that nuclear decay is truly random and spontaneous?&quot;  This is an important question because we don't just *think* it is random, but it has been proven quite thoroughly that it MUST BE random by Bell's theorem and related experiments.  (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340530/how-do-we-know-that-nuclear-decay-is-truly-random-and-spontaneous)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately NONE of the answers mentions Bell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question is marked as duplicate of &quot;Is radioactive decay spontaneous or random?&quot; (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105107/is-radioactive-decay-spontaneous-or-random)  That is a different question.  That asks about the similarity and difference of the meanings of spontaneous and random.  The answers there are appropriate to that question, but none of those mention Bell and Bell's Theorem is not an appropriate answer to that anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question ask &quot;what is it&quot; and the other asked &quot;why do we know it is that way&quot;  those are different questions.   I am not allowed to add a proper answer to the &quot;why&quot; question because you can't answer questions that are marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to able to point to a correct answer to this question and I am willing to provide it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="b0233db8-f7a6-42c6-96c1-c26ab6e9dfed" CreationDate="2019-02-17T19:25:47.817" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 240 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am not sure how to raise this issue, but I was looking for an answer to the question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/340530/.  This is an important question because we don't just *think* it is random, but it has been proven quite thoroughly that it MUST BE random by Bell's theorem and related experiments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately NONE of the answers mentions Bell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That question is marked as duplicate of https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/105107/. That is a different question.  That asks about the similarity and difference of the meanings of spontaneous and random.  The answers there are appropriate to that question, but none of those mention Bell and Bell's Theorem is not an appropriate answer to that anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question ask &quot;what is it&quot; and the other asked &quot;why do we know it is that way&quot;  those are different questions.   I am not allowed to add a proper answer to the &quot;why&quot; question because you can't answer questions that are marked as duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to able to point to a correct answer to this question and I am willing to provide it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34240" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="b0233db8-f7a6-42c6-96c1-c26ab6e9dfed" CreationDate="2019-02-17T19:25:47.817" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 240 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|answers|close-reasons|duplicates|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="188d1d4e-4d76-46c2-a1b6-01e9552d5e19" CreationDate="2019-02-19T15:45:09.790" UserId="83398" Text="Today I saw that [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/461524/force-needed-to-pull-an-end-of-a-bended-carpet-lying-on-a-floor-with-constant-sp) about pulling a bent carpet was closed for being a homework question. I think this was an incorrect call that illustrates a flaw with the homework policy and the way people vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question is a subtle mechanics question, where the answer depends on the precise way one models a continuously deforming object. Naive application of conservation laws will give contradictory results. The question is elegant and the setup is nice. Despite this, the question is closed with 4 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I agree it's important to protect the site from the constant deluge of low-quality questions copy-pasted from introductory textbooks, whose solutions amount to just plugging numbers into standard formulas. But this question isn't remotely one of them! There is real conceptual content here, more than in most questions about quantum field theory. The question text explicitly asks about this conceptual content; the OP has already done the boring calculations for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I have no idea why this question should have been closed. I don't want to be too rude, but I suspect that experienced close voters are letting themselves slip into an autopilot mode based on cheap heuristics. They see that the question is about mechanics, and that common mechanics equations are involved, and so in less than 5 seconds conclude the question must be trivial without really understanding it. I would daresay that the majority of the close voters would be unable to get the correct answer for this problem on a first try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody stand by the closure of this question? If you do think this question should be closed, why not automatically close _every_ mechanics problem containing an equation? Is that really what the homework policy is meant to achieve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="188d1d4e-4d76-46c2-a1b6-01e9552d5e19" CreationDate="2019-02-19T15:45:09.790" UserId="83398" Text="The role of good mechanics problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="188d1d4e-4d76-46c2-a1b6-01e9552d5e19" CreationDate="2019-02-19T15:45:09.790" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11104" RevisionGUID="da2e1d90-df93-411a-9f61-4339e5b376e5" CreationDate="2019-02-19T19:05:00.027" UserId="127931" Text="The first problem I can see is the presentation of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be _far_ better organized to get across what the question itself is trying to address.  At first, after reading most of the question, it appears as though OP is just trying to work us through what they believe to be a good solution to a common problem.  It's only at the end that they show another example from a textbook which they are actually running into the problem with.  That could definitely be made more explicit upfront.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this question is providing a lot of information; but it isn't clear on the initial read what the important parts of the question are.  I think this is it's primary flaw, and honestly, I can't say I would personally vote to reopen in it's current state (though I likely wouldn't close it either).  To quote from our page regarding [check my work questions](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/should-any-check-my-work-questions-be-made-on-topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The only kind of &quot;check my work&quot; I think we should allow is the one where a derivation is presented, leading to a wrong result, and the question is &quot;It seems as if step X is wrong? But it should be right because of Y, so why is this not the case?&quot;. There must be a reasonable explanation (by established physics, of course) of why the derivation is expected to work in the eye of the asker, and then the answer pointing out the flaw in the reasoning can actually be useful, since the question is then essentially &quot;Why is the physical principle Y not applicable here?&quot; The question should also be edited to reflect that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that what OP is trying to ask could fundamentally fit into this point for one of the few types of acceptable &quot;check my work&quot; questions.  That said, in it's current state, it doesn't seem to be focused on any conceptual aspect of the problem, but is instead presenting several entire solutions and looking for us to contrast them in their entirety.  It's not really focused on any conceptual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If OP wishes to organize his thoughts a bit better and maybe point out where in these derivations we should be comparing, and the theoretical problems with the other answer, it would be perfectly on topic.  As is, I would personally say it could use a bit of work before reopening.  The question could definitely be improved to fit within current policies before being reopened; but the core of the question could still be salvaged (and some people may find it good enough already)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11105" RevisionGUID="79ca134b-0225-4216-b524-57dde3991de6" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:05:12.260" UserId="84967" Text="The fact that one of the moderators is pretty much inactive has been brought up many times already (e.g. [this meta post](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/10663/84967) from last year). In fact, he has been invited to step aside a couple of times by now, with no feedback from his side (AFAIK). I believe it is important to have a conversation about it at some point, so why not now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we want this person to remain a moderator? Is there any mechanism to enforce the decision if he does not manifest any will to follow the community's wish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11105" RevisionGUID="79ca134b-0225-4216-b524-57dde3991de6" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:05:12.260" UserId="84967" Text="Update on the Manish situation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11105" RevisionGUID="79ca134b-0225-4216-b524-57dde3991de6" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:05:12.260" UserId="84967" Text="|discussion|moderators|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="838dbe81-1ab2-4a87-b8fc-5f5d76423c95" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:08:38.057" UserId="84967" Text="Said moderator logs in from time to time, so we cannot say for sure whether he's actually doing any actual moderation or not. The two options are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does not moderate at all, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does perform some actions occasionally, but leaves no trace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, I'm not too happy about the situation. If this person is not doing any moderation, then the logical course of action is to steps aside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, OTOH, he really is doing some moderation in the background, I would feel uneasy about the fact that a person I never interacted with is doing such an important work. I want to held moderators accountable for their actions. Manish was elected, spent some time moderating, and eventually became inactive, long before I joined SE. I have no idea how he behaves, and I don't want him to have the power that comes with the responsibility of being a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, both options lead me to suggest that maybe he should resign. I am obviously very thankful for his time making this community what it is today, but I see no point in him staying a moderator when he has de facto resigned a long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="b8ea793b-7a01-44fa-a7fd-9e448dcea01d" CreationDate="2019-02-20T04:17:59.773" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited body" Text="Said moderator logs in from time to time, so we cannot say for sure whether he's actually doing any actual moderation or not. The two options are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does not moderate at all, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does perform some actions occasionally, but leaves no trace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, I'm not too happy about the situation. If this person is not doing any moderation, then the logical course of action is to steps aside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, OTOH, he really is doing some moderation in the background, I would feel uneasy about the fact that a person I never interacted with is doing such an important work. I want to hold moderators accountable for their actions. Manish was elected, spent some time moderating, and eventually became inactive, long before I joined SE. I have no idea how he behaves, and I don't want him to have the power that comes with the responsibility of being a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, both options lead me to suggest that maybe he should resign. I am obviously very thankful for his time making this community what it is today, but I see no point in him staying a moderator when he has de facto resigned a long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="d54a22b8-7c92-41fb-843f-8be7d23d7371" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:38:13.650" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 577 characters in body" Text="I just noticed that a lot of our tags here do not have any wikis/excerpts, and they seem like they're almost identical. Can someone please suggest how they're different and whether or not we should remove them or add descriptions? Perhaps some of them could be marked as synonyms too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An excellent example of a question which looks like it has some really redundant tags is https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11077 (v1; not edited by Qmechanic yet :P). I do not blame the OP, since those tags exist and obviously one would be compelled to use them, but I do feel that at that point, they're not helping accessibility: they're actually making it harder to find questions. For instance, if I have a certain question I'm trying to find, of if I want to look for &quot;some&quot; category (note that if there was a tag excerpt for the following tags, I'd know what to replace &quot;some&quot; with), I have no idea if I want [meta-tag:close-reasons] or [meta-tag:closed-questions]. IMO if you're talking about a closed question, you're almost inevitably going to discuss the reason why it's closed, and that would also pull in a subset of the [meta-tag:scope] tag. However, the scope tag is not present for a lot of these. Similarly, most of the questions in the [meta-tag:vote-to-close] tag are not technically about the mechanism of close votes: only [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11072) and [this](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11062) from the tag's first page appear to be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can we add tag excerpts to these and create a few synonyms? Preferably the creators would do that; I have no idea what those were created for, and the lists of questions underneath them does not really indicate what they're supposed to be categorizing. Hopefully the tag excerpts would contain some notes about where the tag could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Once the superfluous ones are obliterated/turned into synonyms, and the surviving ones have excerpts/wikis, can I/we go on a tag editing spree for the last couple of weeks' questions? I see a lot of questions just on the front page which I suspect _could_ use a fix of that kind, based on my slight guesses regarding the meanings of the tags. Or should we just leave the old ones and make sure that the new ones can be chosen well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If they are indeed distinct tags, could someone post an answer regarding the differences? After that, can I/we go through the first page or so of that tag and remove it from the questions which don't need that, to ensure that the question list gives readers the correct impressions of the use of the tag?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other redundant tags I've noticed: [meta-tag:moderators]/[meta-tag:moderation]*, [meta-tag:review]/[meta-tag:review-tools], and [meta-tag:duplicates]/[meta-tag:exact-duplicates] (though there's a pending [synonym suggestion](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/tag/s/duplicates/synonyms) for those two).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* This is a great example of a case which may seem like perfect synonyms based on the usual usage, but 'moderation' could theoretically refer to broader moderation activities by the community&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11107" RevisionGUID="b6c6f56c-4f6f-431f-b2e4-384207ce76f3" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:43:06.303" UserId="124" Text="Just a quick note about the moderator perspective on this: as far as the duties of moderation are concerned, it doesn't really matter to us. After all, if someone is not regularly acting as a moderator, whether they have a diamond or not doesn't make any difference in our ability to carry out those duties. And if something is causing a problem, we have ways to deal with that; for instance, if we feel there are not enough active moderators to handle the workload, we can coordinate with the SE team to schedule an election.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there any mechanism to enforce the decision if he does not manifest any will to follow the community's wish?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately from what I said above, individual people in the community (including mods) can have their own opinions about whether it makes sense for a moderator to retain their diamond even if their activity is low. However, as far as I know, there isn't a process to turn those opinions into action, at least not a direct one. Moderators' accountability to the community is less than e.g. a democratic system where elected officials can be impeached, and that's by design, since moderators need the freedom to make unpopular decisions sometimes without worrying about their position being at risk. (At least, that's what I read somewhere. Of course if the mods are constantly at odds with the community, that's a whole different kind of problem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are _serious_ concerns that would warrant a moderator's removal from the role, there's [a process in place](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/157258/56541) by which the SE team, if prompted by &quot;numerous, substantiated complaints from users on the site&quot;, can do it, but I don't think the team would consider low activity enough to start that process. (I'm not saying that is or isn't how it should be, I'm just saying that is the current state of things.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="58ceb6b2-d408-4daa-b0d1-e0fd6116a4a3" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:52:47.463" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Sorry to keep giving you notifications about this one. I won't be bumping it again :P" Text="Said moderator logs in from time to time, so we cannot say for sure whether he's actually doing any actual moderation or not. The two options are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does not moderate at all, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does perform some actions occasionally, but leaves no trace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, I'm not too happy about the situation. If this person is not doing any moderation, then the logical course of action is to step aside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, OTOH, he really is doing some moderation in the background, I would feel uneasy about the fact that a person I never interacted with is doing such important work. I want to hold moderators accountable for their actions. Manish was elected, spent some time moderating, and eventually became inactive, long before I joined SE. I have no idea how he behaves, and I don't want him to have the power that comes with the responsibility of being a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, both options lead me to suggest that maybe he should resign. I am obviously very thankful for his time making this community what it is today, but I see no point in him staying a moderator when he has de facto resigned a long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34264" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="c551db2c-9569-4f6f-96b6-b7e2c51c961a" CreationDate="2019-02-20T09:00:34.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1098145374513123329" />
  <row Id="34265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11108" RevisionGUID="4c2d0cb3-fd68-4af7-bef2-165084ba7c41" CreationDate="2019-02-20T16:36:30.463" UserId="25301" Text="There are many actions that the moderators take that aren't visible to users (e.g., cleaning up comments), so the bulk populous of this site would not able to determine how much said moderator is actually doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that so long as the moderator is not actively harming the site (no such evidence) and the current (visibly?) active moderators are not complaining (doesn't seem to be the case, given DavidZ's response), there really isn't cause for anyone to try removing the moderator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An apparent &quot;invisibility&quot; isn't enough to justify trying to remove a moderator, in my opinion. I think actionable evidence is what is needed to move forward, but pretty much all of us are not privy to such evidence, hence any calls need to come from higher up (i.e., other mods or SE team)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11109" RevisionGUID="4fd50d46-40e1-4d91-acf1-4f8385727bc2" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:31:51.547" UserId="8563" Text="I'll post this as an answer since it seems there's disagreements and it's important to get a feeling for folks' responses to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, I find that a particularly useful tool for gauging moderation activity is the [All Actions tab on the Activity profile page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433/manishearth?tab=activity&amp;sort=all&amp;page=1), or at least a reasonably zoomed-out view of it. If you look at any given active moderator's All Actions history, you'll see a bunch of reviews, a bunch of edits, and a ton of moderation-related comments, in addition to the standard-user interactions with the site. We can't see *all* of a moderator's actions, since many of them (like, say, deleting obsolete comments) are designed to be invisible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would claim that if a moderator hangs out on a site in a moderatorial mood, for a few hours, then they're *not* going to *only* do those invisible actions - they're going to end up doing stuff like [moving discussions to chat](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/331066#comment742553_331099) which do leave a visible trace. For Manish, the last such activity dates from May 2017. While I have no trouble believing Shog9's assertion that Manish's moderatorial actions over, say, the past six months, are strictly-speaking nonzero, I am having a hard time swallowing the argument that it crosses any reasonable line drawn above 'negligible'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, frankly, it does feel to me that if he's not actively moderating then him having a diamond doesn't make much sense. There's a proportionality to moderator powers: they represent additional authority and powers which we give to some users because we need them to do use it. If the tools are not being used, then they should be put back in their box. There's no hard feelings about this, but I do think the position of moderator should be seen as active, and not just this special status that's conferred on you for life regardless of whether you ever come back to the site or not. I think it's part of an outlook where we do periodically, as a community, take clear looks at our moderation stance and evolve it as necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that the stepping-down of a moderator who had become inactive has explicit precedent - [mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq) was elected as a moderator [in 2011](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election), together with David Z and dmckee, and s/he stepped down in [mid-2014](http://web.archive.org/web/20140706054643/http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq), about some six months after [the last of their publicly-recorded moderation activity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq?tab=activity&amp;sort=all&amp;page=2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11109" RevisionGUID="8cc1d4a7-ba48-4f1a-bb9a-75a3c60b3512" CreationDate="2019-02-20T23:44:47.930" UserId="8563" Comment="added 920 characters in body" Text="I'll post this as an answer since it seems there's disagreements and it's important to get a feeling for folks' responses to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, I find that a particularly useful tool for gauging moderation activity is the [All Actions tab on the Activity profile page](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/7433/manishearth?tab=activity&amp;sort=all&amp;page=1), or at least a reasonably zoomed-out view of it. If you look at any given active moderator's All Actions history, you'll see a bunch of reviews, a bunch of edits, and a ton of moderation-related comments, in addition to the standard-user interactions with the site. We can't see *all* of a moderator's actions, since many of them (like, say, deleting obsolete comments) are designed to be invisible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would claim that if a moderator hangs out on a site in a moderatorial mood, for a few hours, then they're *not* going to *only* do those invisible actions - they're going to end up doing stuff like [moving discussions to chat](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/331066#comment742553_331099), fixing the tags on a post, approving an edit suggestion, or opening or closing a post here or there, which do leave a visible trace. For Manish, the last such activity dates from May 2017. While I have no trouble believing Shog9's assertion that Manish's moderatorial actions over, say, the past six months, are strictly-speaking nonzero, I am having a hard time swallowing the argument that it crosses any reasonable line drawn above 'negligible'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, frankly, it does feel to me that if he's not actively moderating then him having a diamond doesn't make much sense. There's a proportionality to moderator powers: they represent additional authority and powers which we give to some users because we need them to do use it. If the tools are not being used, then they should be put back in their box. There's no hard feelings about this, but I do think the position of moderator should be seen as active, and not just this special status that's conferred on you for life regardless of whether you ever come back to the site or not. I think it's part of an outlook where we do periodically, as a community, take clear looks at our moderation stance and evolve it as necessary. Site culture shifts, and we need all of our moderators along on the ride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in particular, I think OP is right to want a clear participation and used-in-practice line of communication with every moderator. We have a substantial amount of turnover, and a bit of digging is likely to turn up a substantial fraction of our active user base who joined after Manish effectively stopped moderating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that the stepping-down of a moderator who had become inactive has explicit precedent - [mbq](http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq) was elected as a moderator [in 2011](https://physics.stackexchange.com/election), together with David Z and dmckee, and s/he stepped down in [mid-2014](http://web.archive.org/web/20140706054643/http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq), about some six months after [the last of their publicly-recorded moderation activity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/68/mbq?tab=activity&amp;sort=all&amp;page=2). Not to mention stronger precedent on other SE sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, to address the key voice that we should be hearing from here: Manish, what's up? What is your take on this? I can very well understand the pressures pointing away from physics and away from internet participation that come from a move to software development. Obviously the 2013-era Business As Usual has been replaced - but by what? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34268" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="f2021690-a33a-4d51-9fea-849bc2c4f3e4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T02:44:51.753" UserId="124" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|support|chat|faq-proposed|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34269" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11105" RevisionGUID="d2a235a3-a574-4e61-98e3-2eca27b2db62" CreationDate="2019-02-21T06:00:35.297" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1098462466894372866" />
  <row Id="34270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="e088a6dc-483f-44c0-9c92-c72fd60fd95e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T13:14:41.237" UserId="8563" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [basic tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space. To the extent that they save you time typing, they impose a higher reading overhead on others - you're simply offloading your communications work onto everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use stars reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't expect users to respond in real-time**. Think of chat as an [asynchronous communication protocol](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=19779072#19779072). Instead of asking &quot;Are you free for X minutes?&quot; or &quot;Can you answer a X minute question?&quot; every time, directly type out the question you want to ask. That way, even after you've logged off, others can answer it. Then you have the answer the next time you log on. But if you just ask &quot;Are you around, user X?&quot;, then, if user X is not around, you haven't gained anything. A late response is better than no response at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="45eb49d1-6c8c-48d9-9b67-e76d877b026e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T13:29:48.913" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="Make it a bit easier on people who may not have extremely fluent English" Text="#What are the rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Be nice](https://physics.stackexchange.com/conduct)**. Although chat is a place for casual conversation, [swearing is generally frowned upon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/22232) on SE, so be polite too. This is something you need to be _particularly_ careful about when discussing sensitive topics like [politics](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/289398), sex, and religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't use chat as a 'replacement' for the main site**. Though we'll obviously talk a lot of physics, some questions are better off on the main site. In chat, people's answers [won't be consistently indexed by search engines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320418) like Google, so they won't be 'contributing to a body of knowledge' or 'gaining [internet points](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges)', so clearly questions are a lot more useful on the main site. Some questions which aren't great for the main site (I'm thinking of the opinion-based ones) are great for chat, but if someone tells you that the questions you're asking aren't suitable, please listen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Some things are better suited for other rooms**. Homework-like questions are more welcome in the [problem-solving room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/54160/problem-solving-strategies). That room has a few requirements which can be read about [here](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10917). That being said, there's no requirement that conversations in the h Bar must be about physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Try to use MathJax for typesetting mathematical expressions**. It isn't enabled by default, but if you can follow the suggestions [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/97938), you can enable it for your browser or app. Here's a [basic tutorial](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't advertise your recent questions**. If you just posted something on the main site, give it some time, and don't tell people to go there and look at it. Particularly by pinging people. That's rude. Those who can answer are already watching the queue on the main site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't interrupt ongoing conversations**. One of the great things about Stack Exchange chat is that the reply system allows multiple conversations to take place simultaneously. But that only works if you're discreet, and you don't post walls of text which occupy space on the screens of people who're talking about something else. If there's a discussion taking place, scroll up to figure out what it's about, and don't force a change in topic (unless what's going on is actually harmful, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't ping random users**. You may use pings, but responsibly and sparingly.  Err on the side of *not* pinging when you're unsure that the pingee(s) would be interested in your message(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Be patient. Don't appear entitled.** Don't post the same thing multiple times just because the last version disappeared at the top. Even if there's another discussion going on, or nobody has acknowledged your message, understand that it's not considered important or actionable by the current residents, and don't push it again. You'll probably have better luck if you ask your question on the [appropriate main site](https://stackexchange.com/sites#). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to the best of your ability.** Avoid rapid, short messages and txt spk/l33tspeak. These are often hard to read and take up valuable screen space. Txt spk may save you time typing, but it imposes a huge reading overhead on others - you're simply offloading your communications work onto everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Use stars reasonably**. Read [What are chat stars?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/305263/437611). Stars shouldn't be used as &quot;thank you&quot; indicators. They should be used for useful/interesting stuff which you think should be seen by people who come by after the conversation has finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Avoid speculating about user suspensions and pinging suspended users**.  The mods here prefer to not discuss suspension reasons in public and it's bad form to intentionally ping someone or talk about them when they can't reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Don't expect users to respond in real-time**. Think of chat as an [asynchronous communication protocol](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/71?m=19779072#19779072). Instead of asking &quot;Are you free for X minutes?&quot; or &quot;Can you answer a X minute question?&quot; every time, directly type out the question you want to ask. That way, even after you've logged off, others can answer it. Then you have the answer the next time you log on. But if you just ask &quot;Are you around, user X?&quot;, then, if user X is not around, you haven't gained anything. A late response is better than no response at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Yikes, that's a lot! What _can_ I talk about then???&#xD;&#xA;**Anything!** As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. **[Don't ask about asking, just ask!](http://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html)** Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Something's wrong...&#xD;&#xA;If you see some obviously offensive or inappropriate messages, [flag them](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZD67.png). They will be dealt with appropriately. If there's a more general pattern which is worrying you, ping one of the [room owners (ROs)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/71/the-h-bar?tab=access) or active [moderators](https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators) for anything that can wait, possibly with a request to talk privately if it's not suitable for public discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Note:** 1. Parts adapted from the [Math SE chat room guide](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3890) and the [Stack Overflow Python room rules](https://sopython.com/chatroom). If you're new to Stack Exchange chat as a whole, also read through the [chat faq](https://chat.stackexchange.com/faq).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. A few edits were made while this post was part of the 'question', see [the question's revision history](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11090/revisions) for a list of edits.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is a community wiki post for a reason! Feel free to suggest improvements by editing it. If you have some drastically different rules in mind or opinion about whether we should have rules or not, please write another answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="ee378af3-15d7-400a-9b90-0ddc1d61180d" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:34:34.547" UserId="1483" Text="Without the link that's provided after enough back-and-forth, it's not clear to me how to easily &quot;continue this discussion in chat.&quot; Could someone help on https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3534/1483&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear the commenter I've been interacting with is looking for an education, and comments on the question are not the place to do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="ee378af3-15d7-400a-9b90-0ddc1d61180d" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:34:34.547" UserId="1483" Text="Please help me convert the comments on this question to &quot;let us continue this discussion in chat&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="ee378af3-15d7-400a-9b90-0ddc1d61180d" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:34:34.547" UserId="1483" Text="|support|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11111" RevisionGUID="198d6914-d049-4652-9081-8ff882fd208b" CreationDate="2019-02-22T21:32:50.803" UserId="106502" Text="You can make a chat room [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/new), then leave a comment with a link to the room on the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="5a27c8bc-091e-4985-92e9-59c23b6d8395" CreationDate="2019-02-23T09:03:07.013" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|support|comments|chat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="5df3c32c-bc7d-4681-a872-2ba26ed79d09" CreationDate="2019-02-23T18:08:32.157" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Today I saw that this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/461524/ about pulling a bent carpet was closed for being a homework question. I think this was an incorrect call that illustrates a flaw with the homework policy and the way people vote to close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question is a subtle mechanics question, where the answer depends on the precise way one models a continuously deforming object. Naive application of conservation laws will give contradictory results. The question is elegant and the setup is nice. Despite this, the question is closed with 4 downvotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I agree it's important to protect the site from the constant deluge of low-quality questions copy-pasted from introductory textbooks, whose solutions amount to just plugging numbers into standard formulas. But this question isn't remotely one of them! There is real conceptual content here, more than in most questions about quantum field theory. The question text explicitly asks about this conceptual content; the OP has already done the boring calculations for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I have no idea why this question should have been closed. I don't want to be too rude, but I suspect that experienced close voters are letting themselves slip into an autopilot mode based on cheap heuristics. They see that the question is about mechanics, and that common mechanics equations are involved, and so in less than 5 seconds conclude the question must be trivial without really understanding it. I would daresay that the majority of the close voters would be unable to get the correct answer for this problem on a first try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody stand by the closure of this question? If you do think this question should be closed, why not automatically close _every_ mechanics problem containing an equation? Is that really what the homework policy is meant to achieve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="5df3c32c-bc7d-4681-a872-2ba26ed79d09" CreationDate="2019-02-23T18:08:32.157" UserId="2451" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|homework-and-exercises|close-reasons|reopen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11112" RevisionGUID="14033760-b3b7-42b0-978f-b939afa782b9" CreationDate="2019-02-23T21:43:32.483" UserId="8563" Text="[![All your TeX questions answered!][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K5zzi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://texfaq.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11113" RevisionGUID="35c37b7a-d610-4e4d-8425-d0c5efff8c3f" CreationDate="2019-02-25T02:52:36.577" UserId="47511" Text="Our &quot;no homework&quot; policy and our &quot;we're not going to check your work&quot; policy are contradictory, we must get rid of one or the other. I prefer to get rid of the &quot;no homework&quot; policy as that will lead to far more well written problems to be addressed here. Generically formulated problems that can be addressed without having to address any mistakes the OP made, are more attractive to people searching this site for questions and answers. Also closing questions by referring to previously asked questions will work a lot better if the questions are addressed in a generic way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of students not doing their homework themselves is an issue that's very easily addressed by their own universities, it's not something we should be concerned about. We should not let the quality of our questions and answers be compromised due to being overly concerned about such a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should worry us is that there is now a de-facto censoring of good questions that people with a basic understanding of physics could benefit a lot from.  If we only have good questions suitable for people who are already into physics, we're not really advertising the subject well to people who aren't already into it. The Mathematics Stack exchange does far better job in that respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Question 15.3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A broomstick rests on two wine glasses as shown in the figure. Will the wine&#xD;&#xA;spill out after a strong downward blow to the center of the broomstick with an&#xD;&#xA;iron rod?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are currently not allowed but would certainly make this site a lot more popular!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11114" RevisionGUID="e7b514e9-f8b4-4330-ad5c-ca83ae040e05" CreationDate="2019-02-25T03:56:40.667" UserId="128996" Text="I had a comment on [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/462775) to my question which both clarified that one of my definitions was correct (`F = m * a` is correct, but not super helpful in this situation), and then also provided external sources where people could learn more information to help them understand the answer. (Especially since I did not understand the answer until I used those resources.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would such a comment be deleted? My hunch is that external sources are discouraged, but the usual rationale for that I've heard is that they could be removed later, so you include the relevant information from the sources and then link to them so people can verify it for themselves. In this case, the useful information was already in the answer itself, so I was providing extra resources for people who wanted clarification. As far as I was aware, linking to external sources *is helpful* as long as those sources exist, and when they don't, *then* that comment should be deleted. (And even then, it's often helpful to still have the comment because the Internet Archive will often still have archived versions of the linked site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was my comment deleted? What was the rationale, and what should I have done better? (And, if it's applicable, is the rationale something that should be applied to other SE sites as well? I'm fairly new to physics stack exchange.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11114" RevisionGUID="e7b514e9-f8b4-4330-ad5c-ca83ae040e05" CreationDate="2019-02-25T03:56:40.667" UserId="128996" Text="Why was my comment deleted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11114" RevisionGUID="e7b514e9-f8b4-4330-ad5c-ca83ae040e05" CreationDate="2019-02-25T03:56:40.667" UserId="128996" Text="|discussion|specific-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11114" RevisionGUID="06e9cd9d-eaf4-4ce6-bdf0-efa06bcb44ff" CreationDate="2019-02-25T05:21:33.403" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|specific-question|comments|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="800d7db2-df1a-465e-8a02-f8827bb30a67" CreationDate="2019-02-25T06:38:23.463" UserId="124" Text="First, thanks for coming to meta and asking!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not your hunch, though. We don't discourage using external sources; actually, it's encouraged to link or cite useful and relevant external resources whenever appropriate, but when doing so in a question or answer, you need to do it in such a way that your question or answer makes sense even to a reader who won't or can't access the source. (This isn't so important in comments.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened with your comment is this: [comments are meant for suggesting improvements](https://physics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment) to the post they're attached to. This includes things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Requesting clarification on an unclear aspect of the post, which implicitly suggests that the post's author clarify that aspect&#xD;&#xA;- Pointing out an error in the post, which implicitly suggests that the author fix the error&#xD;&#xA;- Linking to a related resource and suggesting that the author edit their post to include the link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. Your comment didn't seem to be doing any of these things. It looked like it was making a statement which didn't have anything to do with the answer, and that's why I deleted it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text of the deleted comment (with dummy URLs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To be clear, Newton's second law `F = m * a` is correct, but thinking of force as a change in momentum over time is useful. [Here](https://www.example.com/1) is a source with the correct definition of work, and [another source](https://www.example.com/2) with an explanation as to how you get from `F = m * a` to `F = p / t` (where p is momentum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that you've made this meta post, if I understand correctly, it sounds like you had two goals with this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Suggest that the answer's author was wrong in saying &quot;Your definitions are incorrect&quot; (because you quoted one definition, $F = ma$, which was correct), and ask that they fix that&#xD;&#xA;- Suggest that the answer's author add links to the two webpages you linked into their answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better way to make these suggestions is to phrase them as questions. For example, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Something like &quot;Actually I did include one correct definition ($F = ma$), so I don't think it's fair to say that my definitions are incorrect&quot; would work for the first goal.&#xD;&#xA;- And something like &quot;Could you add a link to [this website](https://www.example.com/1) which gives the definition of work? And I don't think it's clear how to get from $F = ma$ to $F = p / t$. Would you consider adding a link to [this website](https://www.example.com/2) which explains it?&quot; for the second goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I would point out, though, that a lot of people might consider it a bit arrogant, as the person who asked the question, to act like you have better references than the poster of the answer could find on their own. So a better phrasing would be just asking for clarification, like &quot;I don't understand how to get from $F = ma$ to $F = p/t$. Could you clarify that?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you do this, it's up to the author of the answer to decide whether to accept your suggestions or not. If the author decides not to accept your suggestions, then if you think they're important enough, you can post a separate answer that incorporates your suggestions. Otherwise, I'd suggest just letting it go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="a515e440-5c0d-4b05-8f28-673aebc19458" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:42:17.610" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="The title pretty much conveys what I want to ask but I would elaborate a bit. If a question is appropriate to be closed due to either of the listed reasons for a question to be closed, should one also downvote the question provided one is voting to close it? In certain categories such as the question being belonging to a different site or the question being a duplicate, I feel it is clear that it doesn't make much sense to downvote as the question simply doesn't warrant being judged on its quality--it simply doesn't belong here or shouldn't exist as a separate question--so up/down voting seems moot. But, what about the cases when the question can be judged for its quality as a physics question but also deserves to be closed? Is down-voting superfluous then or still an important element in the healthy functioning of the &quot;reputation economy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="a515e440-5c0d-4b05-8f28-673aebc19458" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:42:17.610" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="Should one downvote a question while voting it to close?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="a515e440-5c0d-4b05-8f28-673aebc19458" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:42:17.610" UserDisplayName="user87745" Text="|discussion|down-votes|vote-to-close|moderation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34289" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="7e4783e1-ad19-4ce9-9a0f-68cae01ade6b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:49:10.970" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|vote-to-close|moderation|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="cdb32034-ba77-4c90-947e-5322e8eabd37" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:04:50.390" UserId="83398" Text="About every other day, we get a question from a schizophrenic person. By &quot;schizophrenic&quot;, I don't mean crackpots or people making elementary mistakes, I mean people with an actual mental disorder. For example, in their posts, they may mention being formally diagnosed with the disease, hearing voices, hallucinating, and so on. Others seem to be in the first stages of developing the disease and report milder symptoms. My impression is that we get more of these people than other SE sites, because a common symptom of schizophrenia is becoming convinced you have a theory of everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To preserve some semblance of privacy, I won't be linking any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We always close and downvote their questions, because don't make any sense, and then the Community bot deletes them a while later. Sometimes they receive rather mean comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in accordance with our established results, but do we have some moral obligation to do better? I fear that downvotes and nasty comments might just make their situation worse. Perhaps it's possible to make a standard &quot;get psychiatric help&quot; comment with some useful links? Have any other SE sites or forums dealt with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="cdb32034-ba77-4c90-947e-5322e8eabd37" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:04:50.390" UserId="83398" Text="How to respond to questions from schizophrenic or pre-schizophrenic people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="cdb32034-ba77-4c90-947e-5322e8eabd37" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:04:50.390" UserId="83398" Text="|discussion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="f2f7ef97-0db8-4486-a679-399650a3a303" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:49:02.180" UserId="2451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|discussion|down-votes|vote-to-close|review|best-practices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11118" RevisionGUID="69dcbaad-f77e-4a3b-ae17-bd8df9807a2f" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:11:49.857" UserId="106502" Text="The main advantage of downvoting that closing does not have is that it quickly removes questions from the front page, once the post has a score of -3. If you think a question is probably unsalvageable, by all means downvote it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are voting to close an otherwise good question as a duplicate, or if you think that with some care the question could be reopened, then you shouldn't downvote, since removing it from the front page will only make it harder for it to receive said care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the only rules on voting are not to serial vote or game the system, so you can use any system that makes sense to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="5a9b2d02-4fe1-424b-a205-0403787808e1" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:40:38.850" UserId="83398" Comment="added 977 characters in body" Text="About every other day, we get a question from a schizophrenic person. By &quot;schizophrenic&quot;, I don't mean crackpots or people making elementary mistakes, I mean people with an actual mental disorder. For example, in their posts, they may mention being formally diagnosed with the disease, hearing voices, hallucinating, and so on. Others seem to be in the first stages of developing the disease and report milder symptoms. My impression is that we get more of these people than other SE sites, because a common symptom of schizophrenia is becoming convinced you have a theory of everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To preserve some semblance of privacy, I won't be linking any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We always close and downvote their questions, because don't make any sense, and then the Community bot deletes them a while later. Sometimes they receive rather mean comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in accordance with our established results, but do we have some moral obligation to do better? I fear that downvotes and nasty comments might just make their situation worse. Perhaps it's possible to make a standard &quot;get psychiatric help&quot; comment with some useful links? Have any other SE sites or forums dealt with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit in response to comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No, I'm not diagnosing people as schizophrenic just because they spell badly. I'm referring to posts where people _explicitly_ refer to such a diagnosis. In one particularly memorable post a few months ago, a guy mentioned that his father was diagnosed with schizophrenia and that he had been warned he might be developing it too. The post essentially asked if his hallucinations were real. Some users here left mean comments, and the question got downvoted to hell, closed, and automatically deleted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I have personally noticed one such question about every month, but upped the estimated rate because these questions are usually downvoted off the main page within 15 minutes. After they pass -5 votes, they become invisible, so you essentially won't see it unless you were one of the first 5 people to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. As further evidence that this actually happens -- we had one of these questions literally two hours ago, and yet some commentators claim that they've never seen such a post. That's how fast they get downvoted to invisibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="ff057d7a-3f8a-4cfb-8fc5-20210e1d883c" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:55:31.447" UserId="50583" Text="I think the following two things are mostly uncontroversial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Don't leave mean comments.** This isn't specific to any particular sort of user at all. If you see a mean comment, flag it. It doesn't matter whether you think the target of the comment is a schizophrenic, a troll, a confused child or Einstein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Don't diagnose people over the internet, but help where you can.** In the cases where the post is explicit about mental illness, i.e. no speculation on our part involved, then it's fine to leave a comment with links to resources that help people in this situation. However, leaving this type of comment on any post where there's inference on our part involved would just be asking for trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Votes are another matter. Every user is free to vote as they like on the content they encounter. Even if there was a self-evident universal moral obligation to not downvote the posts of people with mental illnesses, there would simply be no way to enforce it, so I feel it's a waste of time to debate whether or not there is such an obligation. If you think it's wrong to downvote a certain kind of post, don't downvote it. That's all there really is to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="23c9d419-827b-4fea-8cbe-96dfe0328fa3" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:15:35.837" UserId="31790" Text="Do not consider the author's mental (or any other) condition when responding to content on this site.&#xD;&#xA;Respond to the *content* itself.&#xD;&#xA;If it's a good question, vote it up and think about an answer.&#xD;&#xA;If it's a bad question (e.g. hard to understand) respond with an edit, a down vote, a close vote, or a helpful comment as you see fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="e5ef4495-46d9-4279-9889-6fecfc5bdecd" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:00:30.290" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1100138489482493955" />
  <row Id="34299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="e237f3d2-092c-44fc-ad81-90f18465cf29" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:35:42.943" UserId="2077" Text="Here are 20 most viewed questions that need answers. Some of these questions may have answers with negative votes. Only questions with upvotes will be removed from this list. This list will be updated as questions are answered (which will be replaced with other questions that need attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How you can help:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answer some of these questions!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Edit questions to make them more polished.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Start a bounty on some of the more interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Support askers and answerers with upvotes where deserved. If you take a look at [the edits made to this question][1], you can find questions that have been answered by the lovely members of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I modified a query to fit Physics.SE to give unanswered questions (that are open) and have a high number of views. You can also run the query for one or two answers if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find that there were some questions that were quite popular and disappointingly did not contain any answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone would like to handle some of these questions, that would be amazing! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please edit these questions as you see fit (and fix any weird tags.) There is a lot of re-titling to be done and much-needed language cleanup or clarity in the body of the questions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is the query][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hit the 'ole star button on this meta post to get notified of updates.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the top 20 questions needing answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/167239/&#xD;&#xA; 2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188783/&#xD;&#xA; 3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/338797/&#xD;&#xA; 4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/237584/&#xD;&#xA; 5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68642/&#xD;&#xA; 6. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148723/&#xD;&#xA; 7. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262979/&#xD;&#xA; 8. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/166650/&#xD;&#xA; 9. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82113/&#xD;&#xA; 10. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98481/&#xD;&#xA; 11. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48629/&#xD;&#xA; 12. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/299880/&#xD;&#xA; 13. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70904/&#xD;&#xA; 14. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/109518/&#xD;&#xA; 15. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262738/&#xD;&#xA; 16. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/384869/&#xD;&#xA; 17. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/221367/&#xD;&#xA; 18. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68457/&#xD;&#xA; 19. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71280/&#xD;&#xA; 20. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44315/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will update the above list periodically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11121/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/991380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="e237f3d2-092c-44fc-ad81-90f18465cf29" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:35:42.943" UserId="2077" Text="20 most viewed questions that need answers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="e237f3d2-092c-44fc-ad81-90f18465cf29" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:35:42.943" UserId="2077" Text="|discussion|questions|answers|editing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="eaceb4a1-adc9-4448-87ca-b559fe2af8f3" CreationDate="2019-02-26T00:09:49.747" UserDisplayName="user4552" Text="I maintain a FAQ file organized in outline format, on the specific topics that I'm interested in and knowledgeable about. Many of the entries in this file are just links to physics.SE questions. The FAQ is at a [publicly accessible URL][1], so anyone who's interested in seeing how I have it organized can look at it. When someone posts a question on physics.SE that I think is probably a FAQ or duplicate, I look at my FAQ file, and often it has an entry for a physics.SE question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This FAQ is in some homebrewed personal wiki software that I wrote, along with my notes on a bunch of other stuff. I have the stuff that's personal or private password protected. This FAQ page is intentionally not password protected. However, I don't really make an effort to maintain it in a condition where I would be proud of it as a professional work for others to use. Some entries may be out of date or may not represent my best current understanding of the topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lightandmatter.com/cgi-bin/meki?physics/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34303" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="1e5d504d-b45f-492e-b3bc-4003033e0ed6" CreationDate="2019-02-26T12:00:33.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1100364996943532032" />
  <row Id="34304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11123" RevisionGUID="7b06d0ad-f720-4480-8245-d97ecf62bef8" CreationDate="2019-02-27T04:00:34.177" UserDisplayName="user191954" Text="This is one feature of SE which I can't praise enough: tag searches. It's mentioned in the site-specific search link from the question, but it's certainly worth emphasizing. I'm trying a barebones tutorial of the most basic feature of SE search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to [one particular user](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7508) (and many others, of course), Physics SE appears to have a very well-tagged selection of questions. And these are extremely helpful for people searching for duplicates because **tag searches are blind to language barriers**: everyone will phrase the same question differently, but the topics covered are necessarily the same, which means some of the core tags will be identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tag searches are super easy! There're just a couple of basic commands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In the search field, type the name of the tag, including the hyphens for spaces, in square brackets. Like `[quantum-mechanics]`.&#xD;&#xA;* One tag probably won't get very far, but you can add several more, and a search like `[quantum-mechanics][complex-numbers]` gets you an excellent set of results which covers almost everything in the topic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="21c05f65-ba85-45f0-9069-206eeef9db14" CreationDate="2019-02-27T12:30:34.370" UserId="8563" Text="Frankly, I think the questions no. 6 and 7 in your list should be closed and deleted. I don't think they're particularly on-topic (I don't think they really fall into what we intended either the resource-recommendation or the specific-reference tags to cover), the books they're asking for are unlikely to exist, and they're not doing anybody any good by staying up. They've each been seen some 6-7k times, so that's some 13,000 times that people have been disappointed by what they find here. Closing them is unlikely to help with the disappointed-visitor syndrome - there's really no point to keeping them around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="810e0197-9f7d-435d-ae67-f4014a5be521" CreationDate="2019-02-27T14:51:52.843" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Here are 20 most viewed questions that need answers. Some of these questions may have answers with negative votes. Only questions with upvotes will be removed from this list. This list will be updated as questions are answered (which will be replaced with other questions that need attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How you can help:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answer some of these questions!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Edit questions to make them more polished.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Start a bounty on some of the more interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Support askers and answerers with upvotes where deserved. If you take a look at [the edits made to this question][1], you can find questions that have been answered by the lovely members of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I modified a query to fit Physics.SE to give unanswered questions (that are open) and have a high number of views. You can also run the query for one or two answers if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find that there were some questions that were quite popular and disappointingly did not contain any answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone would like to handle some of these questions, that would be amazing! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please edit these questions as you see fit (and fix any weird tags.) There is a lot of re-titling to be done and much-needed language cleanup or clarity in the body of the questions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is the query][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hit the 'ole star button on this meta post to get notified of updates.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the top 20 questions needing answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/167239/&#xD;&#xA; 2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188783/&#xD;&#xA; 3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/338797/&#xD;&#xA; 4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/237584/&#xD;&#xA; 5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68642/&#xD;&#xA; 6. &lt;s&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148723/&lt;/s&gt; (closed)&#xD;&#xA; 7. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262979/&#xD;&#xA; 8. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/166650/&#xD;&#xA; 9. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82113/&#xD;&#xA; 10. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98481/&#xD;&#xA; 11. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48629/&#xD;&#xA; 12. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/299880/&#xD;&#xA; 13. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70904/&#xD;&#xA; 14. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/109518/&#xD;&#xA; 15. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262738/&#xD;&#xA; 16. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/384869/&#xD;&#xA; 17. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/221367/&#xD;&#xA; 18. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68457/&#xD;&#xA; 19. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71280/&#xD;&#xA; 20. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44315/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will update the above list periodically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11121/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/991380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="ef6ac2bc-fa50-4fcb-89eb-2ea8759f49c2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:26:26.923" UserId="106502" Text="In a recent meta post, https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11121/106502, there was a discussion on whether a couple questions (specifically https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148723/106502 and https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262979/106502) that requested solutions manuals for specific textbooks were on-topic or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should requests for a solution manual to a given textbook be considered on-topic, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="ef6ac2bc-fa50-4fcb-89eb-2ea8759f49c2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:26:26.923" UserId="106502" Text="Requests for Solutions Manuals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="ef6ac2bc-fa50-4fcb-89eb-2ea8759f49c2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:26:26.923" UserId="106502" Text="|discussion|scope|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="6d507809-5dc2-48c9-a394-24cd189cfd6e" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:26:55.017" UserDisplayName="user191954" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Here are 20 most viewed questions that need answers. Some of these questions may have answers with negative votes. Only questions with upvotes will be removed from this list. This list will be updated as questions are answered (which will be replaced with other questions that need attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How you can help:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answer some of these questions!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Edit questions to make them more polished.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Start a bounty on some of the more interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Support askers and answerers with upvotes where deserved. If you take a look at [the edits made to this question][1], you can find questions that have been answered by the lovely members of the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I modified a query to fit Physics.SE to give unanswered questions (that are open) and have a high number of views. You can also run the query for one or two answers if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find that there were some questions that were quite popular and disappointingly did not contain any answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone would like to handle some of these questions, that would be amazing! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please edit these questions as you see fit (and fix any weird tags.) There is a lot of re-titling to be done and much-needed language cleanup or clarity in the body of the questions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is the query][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hit the 'ole star button on this meta post to get notified of updates.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the top 20 questions needing answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/167239/&#xD;&#xA; 2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188783/&#xD;&#xA; 3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/338797/&#xD;&#xA; 4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/237584/&#xD;&#xA; 5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68642/&#xD;&#xA; 6. &lt;s&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148723/&lt;/s&gt; (closed)&#xD;&#xA; 7. &lt;s&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262979/&lt;/s&gt; (closed)&#xD;&#xA; 8. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/166650/&#xD;&#xA; 9. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82113/&#xD;&#xA; 10. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98481/&#xD;&#xA; 11. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48629/&#xD;&#xA; 12. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/299880/&#xD;&#xA; 13. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70904/&#xD;&#xA; 14. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/109518/&#xD;&#xA; 15. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262738/&#xD;&#xA; 16. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/384869/&#xD;&#xA; 17. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/221367/&#xD;&#xA; 18. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68457/&#xD;&#xA; 19. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71280/&#xD;&#xA; 20. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44315/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will update the above list periodically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11121/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/991380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="74e81bd4-3b1b-4f3a-84ae-3caad0bbae94" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:36:13.300" UserId="46399" Comment="Old-school blokes like me aren't conversant with urban slangs. I had to Google this, so I thought let me spare others the trouble. Hope that's alright." Text="Said moderator logs in from time to time, so we cannot say for sure whether he's actually doing any actual moderation or not. The two options are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does not moderate at all, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He does perform some actions occasionally, but leaves no trace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, I'm not too happy about the situation. If this person is not doing any moderation, then the logical course of action is to step aside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if he really is doing some moderation in the background, I would feel uneasy about the fact that a person I never interacted with is doing such important work. I want to hold moderators accountable for their actions. Manish was elected, spent some time moderating, and eventually became inactive, long before I joined SE. I have no idea how he behaves, and I don't want him to have the power that comes with the responsibility of being a moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, both options lead me to suggest that maybe he should resign. I am obviously very thankful for his time making this community what it is today, but I see no point in him staying a moderator when he has de facto resigned a long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11126" RevisionGUID="6e50be8b-ad9f-4593-8a60-0a4ce00ea13d" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:39:48.650" UserId="25301" Text="Yes, these questions should be **on-topic** as they satisfy the constraints of the specific reference tag that the solutions manual are a &quot;short, non-open-ended list of resources&quot;. Either the book exists (and is publicly available) or it doesn't exist (or isn't publicly available). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have a [mod indicating in one of the posts in question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262979/is-there-any-solution-manual-to-a-p-frenchs-vibrations-and-waves#comment582619_262979) that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...this is a good use of the specific-reference tag. At least, it is among the type of question the tag is meant for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems to indicate that such questions should fall under the specific reference tag and, hence, on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, whether such questions have value, should be answered in the affirmative, (up|down)-voted, etc is an entirely different question. But the questions do seem to satisfy the needs for specific reference and shouldn't be closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="a44c32fb-bd7d-40ba-8715-c04323b0822b" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:55:06.263" UserId="106502" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Here are 20 most viewed questions that need answers. Some of these questions may have answers with negative votes. Only questions with upvotes will be removed from this list. This list will be updated as questions are answered (which will be replaced with other questions that need attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How you can help:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Answer some of these questions!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Edit questions to make them more polished.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Start a bounty on some of the more interesting questions.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Support askers and answerers with upvotes where deserved. If you take a look at [the edits made to this question][1], you can find questions that have been answered by the lovely members of the community.&#xD;&#xA; 5. If the question is not appropriate for this site, downvote it or vote to close it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I modified a query to fit Physics.SE to give unanswered questions (that are open) and have a high number of views. You can also run the query for one or two answers if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find that there were some questions that were quite popular and disappointingly did not contain any answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone would like to handle some of these questions, that would be amazing! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please edit these questions as you see fit (and fix any weird tags.) There is a lot of re-titling to be done and much-needed language cleanup or clarity in the body of the questions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is the query][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hit the 'ole star button on this meta post to get notified of updates.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the top 20 questions needing answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/167239/&#xD;&#xA; 2. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/188783/&#xD;&#xA; 3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/338797/&#xD;&#xA; 4. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/237584/&#xD;&#xA; 5. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68642/&#xD;&#xA; 6. &lt;s&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/148723/&lt;/s&gt; (closed)&#xD;&#xA; 7. &lt;s&gt;https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262979/&lt;/s&gt; (closed)&#xD;&#xA; 8. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/166650/&#xD;&#xA; 9. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/82113/&#xD;&#xA; 10. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/98481/&#xD;&#xA; 11. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48629/&#xD;&#xA; 12. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/299880/&#xD;&#xA; 13. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/70904/&#xD;&#xA; 14. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/109518/&#xD;&#xA; 15. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/262738/&#xD;&#xA; 16. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/384869/&#xD;&#xA; 17. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/221367/&#xD;&#xA; 18. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68457/&#xD;&#xA; 19. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71280/&#xD;&#xA; 20. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/44315/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will update the above list periodically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/11121/revisions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/edit/991380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="34